perceive violence as a means only as legitimate as any to get a particular purpose is a position fully consistent with the classical use of violence that humanity has done throughout its history. A left that aspire to a total revolution in human relations is forced to reconsider that position if necessary. It is obvious that if we build a more just and humane from pillars and solidarity is necessary in this analysis introduce new factors such as ethics and morality, apart from the usual political and strategic factors.
Therefore, if we consider that the main result of the violence is the pain and suffering, the choice is obvious: Can a particular political or strategic outcome somehow compensate for the suffering caused by violence? I firmly believe (it is a purely personal belief) that this debate is sterile because it is very difficult to determine whether such compensation exists, exists when and when not, and especially how to calibrate. The answer is so highly subjective, depending on each personal value accorded to different factors in the equation, it is quite possible that any violence could be justified by any political purpose and strategic. What kind of political projects can objectively justify the use of violence? Which are not? What limit is violence, if they had one according to that view?
The most reasonable solution is simply not about taking risks and concluded that Violence can never be justified on strategic or political reasons . Therefore, bearing in mind that violence is not desirable for its harmful effects, it is logical to conclude that one should not make use of it, or at least should be used only as a last resort. The debate is then placed between a moderate pacifism that only accepts the use of violence as a legitimate defense or radical pacifism which excludes any violent acts even in self defense.
Personally I advocate the first option, and although I admire the radical pacifists believe that its position is not only not viable in today's society but is even suicidal. I position, then, for the use of violence only as a last resort if self-defense. Of course, the concept of "self defense" involves a number of basic assumptions:
1. There must be a principle of proportionality : violence has to be exercised against an equally violent attack, and therefore the level of violence in response should not exceed the level of violent offending.
2. violence defense has to be directed against targets directly responsible for the attack: it can not be addressed against targets that have little or nothing to do with it.
3. Finally there should be no other way of nonviolent self-defense (legal, political, etc.) Or it is clearly inadequate.
Such a position, with such basic assumptions, is in a perfect balance between a powerful limits to violence and a preventive effect against any aggression. Of course, this argument can be applied to either individuals or groups, and any situation of aggression imaginable. With respect to a State, a case in point would be that of a police officer violently reduced (of course maintaining the principle of proportionality mentioned in point 1) to an individual who uses violence to attack others.
not difficult to make an assessment of the Basque conflict and the violence of ETA in the light of this position. It is clear that when there are torture, beatings of demonstrators, outlaw forced party, etc. there is a situation of aggression illegitimate state violence could bring about a perfectly legitimate self-defense. However ETA violence is no longer proportional (because the state no longer kills Basque militants or too infrequently) and has extended to groups which have only a very indirect relationship to state violence (Councillors or former Councillors Basques, for example). ETA violence, then, it will only get justification from the point of view of the inability to defend themselves by any other peaceful course of state aggression (mainly due to the impunity enjoyed by the aggressors), but the flagrant violation of other invalidate the premises comply with it.
short, the violence of ETA (at least in its current strategy level) do not think is justifiable. But it does not matter too much if we consider that ETA does not share my view and not even part of the same ethical concepts than me. For ETA, the violence is justified when the state denies collective right (the self-determination of the Basque people) and is a legal means to force the state to the negotiating table. From that point of view any other consideration of moral or ethical passes the background, as is usual for any State, dominion or organization making use of violence to the classic mode, which should give pause to those who are considered to itself "revolutionary."
(Next post: "The violence of ETA (II): a strategy.")
Therefore, if we consider that the main result of the violence is the pain and suffering, the choice is obvious: Can a particular political or strategic outcome somehow compensate for the suffering caused by violence? I firmly believe (it is a purely personal belief) that this debate is sterile because it is very difficult to determine whether such compensation exists, exists when and when not, and especially how to calibrate. The answer is so highly subjective, depending on each personal value accorded to different factors in the equation, it is quite possible that any violence could be justified by any political purpose and strategic. What kind of political projects can objectively justify the use of violence? Which are not? What limit is violence, if they had one according to that view?
The most reasonable solution is simply not about taking risks and concluded that Violence can never be justified on strategic or political reasons . Therefore, bearing in mind that violence is not desirable for its harmful effects, it is logical to conclude that one should not make use of it, or at least should be used only as a last resort. The debate is then placed between a moderate pacifism that only accepts the use of violence as a legitimate defense or radical pacifism which excludes any violent acts even in self defense.
Personally I advocate the first option, and although I admire the radical pacifists believe that its position is not only not viable in today's society but is even suicidal. I position, then, for the use of violence only as a last resort if self-defense. Of course, the concept of "self defense" involves a number of basic assumptions:
1. There must be a principle of proportionality : violence has to be exercised against an equally violent attack, and therefore the level of violence in response should not exceed the level of violent offending.
2. violence defense has to be directed against targets directly responsible for the attack: it can not be addressed against targets that have little or nothing to do with it.
3. Finally there should be no other way of nonviolent self-defense (legal, political, etc.) Or it is clearly inadequate.
Such a position, with such basic assumptions, is in a perfect balance between a powerful limits to violence and a preventive effect against any aggression. Of course, this argument can be applied to either individuals or groups, and any situation of aggression imaginable. With respect to a State, a case in point would be that of a police officer violently reduced (of course maintaining the principle of proportionality mentioned in point 1) to an individual who uses violence to attack others.
not difficult to make an assessment of the Basque conflict and the violence of ETA in the light of this position. It is clear that when there are torture, beatings of demonstrators, outlaw forced party, etc. there is a situation of aggression illegitimate state violence could bring about a perfectly legitimate self-defense. However ETA violence is no longer proportional (because the state no longer kills Basque militants or too infrequently) and has extended to groups which have only a very indirect relationship to state violence (Councillors or former Councillors Basques, for example). ETA violence, then, it will only get justification from the point of view of the inability to defend themselves by any other peaceful course of state aggression (mainly due to the impunity enjoyed by the aggressors), but the flagrant violation of other invalidate the premises comply with it.
short, the violence of ETA (at least in its current strategy level) do not think is justifiable. But it does not matter too much if we consider that ETA does not share my view and not even part of the same ethical concepts than me. For ETA, the violence is justified when the state denies collective right (the self-determination of the Basque people) and is a legal means to force the state to the negotiating table. From that point of view any other consideration of moral or ethical passes the background, as is usual for any State, dominion or organization making use of violence to the classic mode, which should give pause to those who are considered to itself "revolutionary."
(Next post: "The violence of ETA (II): a strategy.")
0 comments:
Post a Comment