Absolute Power: Violence
 

Being a humble creature of this island Earth, I have thought about it extensively and propose that violence is the root of all power on this here rock.

Any facet of it: actual violence, the threat of violence, the ability to do violence, fear of violence, the proliferation and research into the advancement of, those who manufacture the preferred tools of, those who seek to control and limit it, etc.

I propose that violence governs all, is responsible for all of society's constructs, etc.

Any thoughts?

I'd say that violence ultimately just proliferates until whatever power gained from it becomes unmanageable. It's one way to gain power, but it's an unstable source.

Power is not violence but rather lack of it. Most of us are violent but few are powerful.

Power is an illusion. It only exists through the consent of the controlled.

Those who attain power through violence will see violence as the root of power.

Those who attain power through fear will see fear as the root of power.

In other words, whichever method is used to attain power will be seen as the root of power by the group that used that particular method.

Their beliefs are mistaken because, as I've already mentioned, power exists by consent only. The root of power is consent.

Bingo.

One definition of power is: the ability to produce results without force.

Only the powerless need to resort to force or violence to produce results. The truly powerful NEVER do.

Somebody inform countries with primitive military technology who get their asses kicked.

Somebody inform kids who get beat up at school for being physically smaller, weaker.

Somebody inform the White House. They play the violence card all day.

Somebody inform the feeling you get when the police pull you over for a traffic violation.

...

We've already established that life is an illusion, too.

I remember a few lectures by my political theory professor on something termed the economy of violence it sounded similar to what you're trying to say. As I recall he made some very interesting points, however, that class was over two years ago and I'm not a political science major so I won't try to recreate them. Maybe someone who knows more about it will chime in. I did manage to find this tidbit of info:


from http://www.wiu.edu/users/mfcjh/wiu/e...n/machpol2.htm.

Nobody said that violence and threat were illusions.

The illusion is the connection between those things and power.

I don't think violence is the root of power. Violence is an action, a manifestation, if you will.

The root of power exists in the individual mind. How you interpret the world, decide on your course of actions, and then follow through will determine your source of power.

Mastery over others is being strong; mastery over oneself is the greatest power.

first off despite the fact that you might use the same word---power---to designate a relation or pattern in any number of situations, power is not really one thing. you could say that power is a type of dominance that relies on assymetry of force that in some abstract sense can be linked back to the potential for violence--but it is not obvious that this says much simply because i am not sure that it is so easy peasy to separate "power" from the modes through which it is exercised. violence then becomes a subset of the term power, and what it means is a function. power is linked to the routines of its exercise and the framework (legal or convention or otherwise) that legitimates it/outlines it on the one hand, and the systems of institutions that are developed--and both these general characteristics are, taken together, basic to political power--as is the legal or political framework that orients these institutions and legitimates the apparatus as a whole. so power and legitimation are tied every bit as closely as power and violence. all these seem to me to be mutually defining terms.

for example: modern state power is often understood as *routinized* violence. the routinization---via bureaucracy say, or more obviously through law---is a sublimation of violence.

depending on the legal and political context, you can easily imagine situations in which the breakdown of this routinization leads to direct use of violence leads to a breakdown of legitimacy of the state itself. a simple example: the photograph of the kent state student shot by the national guard in 1969 (i think)...you know the photograph, i expect:

http://www.uiowa.edu/policult/assets.../KentState.jpg

so if you use this photo to think about the question posed in the op---in this instance, the state exercised violence--and not its police function (say)--because the act itself violated the rules--and so was delegitimating of the state. it is possible that, from a different political viewpoint, there was no violence at kent state, only the legitimate actions of the national guard. so the notion of violence floats in and out of your interpretation of the photograph.

==============
the idea that violence stands above the routines that shape it does seem to come from machiavelli---but it is strange that this would be the case, if you think about it.

you could say that just as machiavelli's work instituted the notion of the political itself (rather "the prince" is the text around which the instituted notion of the political as a category took shape), it follows that the notion of the political duplicates the logic of various readings of "the prince"--many of which use it to effectively detach the notion of violence from having and holding power from any particular routine of exercising power.

but if you think about this, i think it's clear that the scenario of conquest (which is the basic scenario addressed in that book) is itself a situation. so the prince doesn't describe the basis for ALL situations--rather it is about the fundamental role played by situation itself. so you cant move from the prince to a general theory of violence and its relation to power---you move from violence to the problem of stabilization and the development of routines as the basis for power. getting power is one set of question: exercising it another.

what the "the prince" is mostly directly about is not violence, but the notion of situation itself: the situation of conquest or invasion and how a prince would go about managing its particular complexities--so you could say the same thing about it--violence is not the same as power, but its crude precondition *in the situations that machiavelli addresses*

power is implied by the way it is exercised--so it is situational or frame-contingent--so in the prince, the situation of having-conquered another community places, you, mister prince, by definition outside the routines----and your problem, really, is establishing legitimacy long enough to be able to set up new routines based around a different center. which of course is you.

sometimes i think people are so fascinated by the prince because while they are reading it, they are addressed as if they *are* the prince and there is something flattering in that, isnt there?


anyway in *that situation* power is violence but its exercise is about stabilization. but the next step is obvious: without successful routinization, there is no power. there is only the after-image of violence. that is not power.

and this is a situation amongst a host of them, and is not a meta-situation (one that outlines the logic of others).

you could say that political power, then, is both the potential for violence and the routines that channel it/transform it--and that one only has meaning in terms of the other.

so let's see---violence can only be deployed as power through its routinization.

routinized violence is a way of seeing the ways in which state power is exercised--but its sources lay in the routine itself and the legitimacy of the institutions that enact it and the framework that orients the political system as a whole.

so i dont see how you can detach violence from its routinization and questions of legitimacy if you are thinking about political power.

at this point, the post dovetails with what the other rb and jj posted above.

this is written through my 3rd cup of morning coffee, so any logic lapses are early morning products yes.

All of those things you mentioned happen because those who are victims of that violence don't act to stop or prevent it. It has nothing to do with the perpetrators being powerful.

What you describe as power is bully mentality. Bully mentality is not power, it's insecurity. Weak and insecure people are quite capable of violent and horrific acts.

I think it more interesting to ask why some people are so interested in attaining power.

And the "life is an illusion" cliche isjust that, a cliche. It has nothing to do with this discussion. I'm not sure why you brought it up.

Violence is a currency.

It is the most powerful currency our species has, its how we are wired as great apes.

The funny thing is while we claim to abhor violence it is perhaps the very reason we have civilization in the first place. A clan, becomes a tribe, becomes a nation, for power and protection. To do violence unto others while protecting itself from others.

To deny its importance is to deny our heritage, and even trying to change it may well be folly as those who don't change will have the currency the pacifists lack.

I would argue that cellular respiration is the root of all power in this here rock, but that would only apply to the efforts of animals. Perhaps the physical laws of the universe are a more apt basis.

I don't know why you'd stop at violence, as far as finding the roots of power goes; there are plenty of other sources of power that don't involve violence at all - unless you like really broad definitions of the word.

If you think that all coercion is backed by a promise of violence, you are mistaken.

But such are the minor currencies.

I don't know about that. I think that a member of any number of successful nonviolent movements would tend to disagree.

Unless you equate many different types of things that aren't traditionally considered violence (poverty, etc) with violence, which some folks like to do, the two aren't necessarily linked at all. It all depends on how broadly you want to go.

Look at how much power international banking institutions have. As far as i can tell, they don't have their own armies, and would have a difficult time convincing somebody else to provide an army to force developing countries to pay off their debts. So, with no means to commit violence, how do they manage to hold countries to their debts?

Mmm.

Maybe - but respectfully I'm going to try to throw spanners and see if anything sticks.

How does this explain

- sexual attraction.... of men to women
- power of a child, over a parent
- Ghandi's non-violent protest movement
- mass religious movements such as cults
- the effectiveness of modern advertising

And don't let me unravel the discussion w/simple semantics, but I think others have already touched on it...Both power and violence are merely points of view...Different sides of the same coin so to speak...

Whether we are talking violent in the sense of an action taken, even then it can be debated...Violence as the root of power, as in conflict or lack thereof, almost always depends on the end more so than the means...

I don't know, bro. That might be involuntary! :)

If I had a choice to breathe or not... I might just stop!

Rumor has it too much breathing causes lung cancer!

Hey, this is what I was trying to say.

Thanks, chief.

Totally sardonic comment. A lame retort to the "power is an illusion" cliche, chief... like my choice of underwear, not to be taken seriously.

Silly side point:

Sure, power/force is an illusion in society. It is based on an action timeline. Illusion? Definitely. Damned if it doesn't just "illusion" some people to death!

See "World War 2" for references to the illusion of power killing people.

...

Just screwin' around. I love your brains.

Mmm, let's be really vague:

- Sexual chemical reaction reward mechanism... I only want sex because my brain chems are screaming for it
- Parental chemical reaction reward mechanism... I only protect my child because I get a high from it or prevent a low
- Dunno, but I'd still fight him
- The cult stereotype typically involves fanatics and violence... we talking Charlie Manson or Catholic church? Both killed a lot of people.
- I don't own a television, but magazines seem to play on #1 and #2

There you go right there. You might fight him--and you might win the fight--but you'd lose the battle in the process.

Ghandi was one of the most powerful people of our time precisely because he produced extraordinary results (the independence of India, the cultural unification of Hindus and Muslims) without force.

Dr. King same story. Powerful man. Altered the world. Zero force.

Okay, I'll bite:

In theory, if I'd won... he'd have been dead. And thus, not being non-violent anymore... or alive, for that matter. Dead heroes (violent or non-violent) don't create anymore flashy ideas, and their perpetuation-oh-so-shiny charm power (or is that force? :) ) generally goes with them to the grave. Sheeple carry the ideals on, but they often lose their potency.

Abe Lincoln could have probably kicked my ass, though! :thumbsup:

I can agree with you that violence has killed a lot of people. I think we're arguing over semantics, which would be silly.

I see violence as very real; I see power as very real. I just believe that seeing power as an absolute is wrong. It's like the value of our money. Once we went off the gold standard, our money became literally worthless, not worth more than the paper it's printed on. It's our belief in it's value that gives it value. Power is the same for me. There is no real power, only the belief in power that gives it.

And don't worry. I love this type of debate.

I concur. And I endorse this message:

Violence, like gold, is tangible. You can even do violence WITH gold! Hot.

"Power" / "Force", like the tired American greenback, might be the "illusion" of which we speak.

Somehow that isn't enough for me, though. I still feel like power is tangible somehow.

I'll work on it.

...

UsTwo, that smart cookie, used the saying I was craving.

Currency. A medium. A from-me-to-you thing.

(Crompsin gives UsTwo a gold star)

...

Hah, and I always break up fights in real life.

I'll ignore the fact that by using the word "sheeple", you just failed this conversation...

Gandhi's power came from the power of his ideas, the passion with which he spoke them, and how far he was willing to sacrifice personally in pursuit of them. When someone that powerful is creating a future, at some point his physical existence is no longer required. In other words, you could kill Gandhi (and he'd have let you), but after some point in career, even his own death couldn't have stopped the future he was creating. THAT'S power.

The other thing to point out is that non-violent power results in creative results--things that unify people and create new outcomes. Violence only ever creates destructive results. Given that, I choose to be powerful, rather than forceful.

Okay, I've thought about it. I agree that violence is a currency. It is a currency of power. But so are other things--knowledge, for example. And by that, I don't necessarily mean "the knowledge of truth." What I mean by this is "the knowledge of perceived truth." This "knowledge" is determined by those in power to those and disseminated to their subjects. Any behaviour that is aberrant to this "knowledge" would be subject to the discipline and punishments issued by those in power. This may or may not include violence, but in many cases it does.

Other currencies of power include: incarceration, deprivation, and abjection (or exemptions thereof). Violence, I would say, is amongst the most primal and powerful of currencies, but our evolution of the mind has set power up as a complex state unprecedented in any other species. Power is within us all to some extent, as we often have power over children and pets--violence sometimes being a way of upholding that power. One of the most powerful entities is the state. It is the most enriched by the currencies of power, violence being entrenched in police services and militaries.

Basically, those with the most power are those who control "knowledge" and have the capability of upholding it by means of discipline and punishment (or by other means), which can be carried out by such currencies as violence. There are, however, certain entities of power that don't require such a currency. The corporation, is an example. Gandhi's movement is another. These types of non-violent (or nearly) entities use other currencies to disseminate "knowledge" and uphold it. Some of these include: non-violent punishment, monetary rewards, dissent, and disobedience.

a currency is simply a medium of exchange.
it is invested with power/value by social consent.
it has no meaning outside what a society decides it is.
so it begs the question here.

We're all bits of skin...
 

I resemble that remark! Aaah... failure, my dear friend. How art thou?

Wait an eon! Life is suddenly no longer analogous to a cosmic totem pole? Clans and tribes, clans and tribes and nations, oh-my! Oh, it applies here.

Absolutely fine as long as we realize we do indeed include ourselves in such fabulous pop culture titles. I know I do. I "Baa!" with the best of them... and why? Because people in "power" used "force" to establish "peace" in this world.

Very truly I tell you: To my tiny brain it seems men are equal only in chemical composition and (ideally, perhaps) protections under the law.

Everything else? Crabs in a barrel / kids at the mall.

roachboy, within a system of government, haven't all forms of violence been accounted for? Wouldn't it exist as a currency within that context? Violence has a value inasmuch it has consequences and privileged use depending on the circumstances. And also consider that there are forms of violence that have no currency within social systems--there is a lot within the animal kingdom that would be on the outside.

If you take away government... violence still has value to the individual.

Violence always has value to people.

While I understand the idea you are trying to point out, this is just wrong. Sometimes violence is the best answer. Even if you don't agree with that, surely you can at least say some "truly powerful people" have used power to great success to whatever goals they were trying to achieve.

I think one of the reasons violence is chosen as a course of action is to remove the choice from the person involved (do it or I shoot you/your kid, etc), or to make the choice so lopsided that they go along (do it or you will lose your job, etc). Obviously there are problems maintaining this situation, but as long as you can...

People react more strongly to threats to take something away than they do to rewards.

I'm glad this thread was made. I think people don't realize how much violence plays a part in every interaction humans make. I think a whole bunch of things can be broken down to that point. We are just expressing it in different and more subtle ways now... unless shit hits the fan enough for the gloves to come off. Then we can show we really are just humans.

It is important to understand the physical means by which the world is governed... whether active or in reserve... they are there.

They have always been there, are there now... will always be there.

The tools and the names change, but the crunchy innards are the same.

Law of the jungle, people... law of the jungle.

When you're in the trees... you gotta swing.

this is an interesting thread.
i dont buy the conclusion crompsin arrived at before it started, however.

this is obviously too simple--most of the posts to the thread are one way or another about this problem.

to condense the range of objections into two or three points:

--the idea of violence is relational
--the relation of violence to power is much more complicated than the op makes it out to be.
from which follows the claims, variously made, that the exercise of power (from either the side of the governing apparatus or resistance movements) often works best to the exclusion of violence.

somewhere along the way, the discussion began drifting toward a strange category: "absolute violence.."
i dont know what that is.
but it seems linked to a consistency in crompsin, us2 and maybe one or two other posters' positions: the claim that violence is not relational, that there is some kind of essence to violence that enables you to think about it in isolation.
from this it follows that crompsin would say: "Violence always has value to people."

i dont buy it.

first violence is a category that denotes a range of actions, not the actions themselves. these actions "are" violence because we call them violence. that this term operates in relation to other terms is obvious. from this it would follow that "absolute violence" is meaningless, except as a thought experiment that uses the possibilities opened up by the noun "violence" to shape speculative games.

another way: the thread is about the word violence, the category violence, and not about the actions its groups together. given that, all the problems of usage/meaning that you can run out with reference to any noun obtain here.

in the context of the relation of violence to "social constructs"---power and its exercise being a convenient example---it is also obvious that what constitutes violence changes and changes quite often. it is a waste of time to indulge trans-historical claims, shifting arbitrarily back and forth from system to system. this is a consequence, unfortunate or not, of the claim that violence--like any other noun--is relational. it means that its meanings are particular. you strip away situation and you strip away meaning.

another version of the same problem: in the context of modern states (products brough to you by 19th century capitalism) violence is most often (it seems) used to designate actions that are excluded or sanctioned, as over against forms of "legitimate" violence, which are called something else and so which are, in a sense, something else.

to counter it, there is max weber's definition of the state, which is that entity that "holds the monopoly on legitimate violence"---this means that behind all state actions is coercion and behind that violence or the threat of it.
you could argue from here, but that argument would be entirely different from this:

imagining that this kind of statement implies the critique of modern state and its mode of power is like saying that standing on a street corner for 4 hours implies that you have been to a baseball game. you did some of the same things (not a hell of a lot for a specific duration)--but you did not do the same thing.

another line of argument here has concerned the use of non-violence in political actions.

so there are a number of different arguments, most of which have been dodged in favor of a line that prefers to imagine that a category and what it designates are somehow essentially linked.
there is no way to justify that move, and so the claims built on its basis dont work.

Werewolves, Zombies, Fistfights
 

Wait a second... Who the hell used the term "absolute violence"? I never attempted to coin that kinda silly combination.

...

Oh, let's assume that "violence" ad "force" are the same concept.

My "horseshit" aside, let's also suggest that violence means, "I AM TRYING TO KILL YOU AND I WILL KILL YOU IF I SUCCEED."

Yeah, it's pretty obvious I didn't wanna dig too deep into Merriam-Webster or a sociology text when I started this thread.

Shows what I get for screwin' around. Can of worms? Opened!

I'm really happy with the comments. You guys are really some genius-pants.

Reason! Logic! Passion!

...

Of course the total moron answer to your eloquent monologue would have been:

*PUNCHES YOU IN THE FACE*

But it would have been pretty effective.

In real life, anyway.

...

GI Joe says: Never attempt fight an incoming fist with reason.

i'm doing other stuff at the moment, but can maybe come back later to say more...but:

so what you are proposing is to push the notion of violence back onto one of intent?
that's what this looks like to me:

what does that change?

you are also narrowing the notion considerably when you do this.
do you mean that violence is now restricted to intent toward exercising lethal force?

i anticipated the "punch you in the face" response. i was going to write something about it above, but it was already too long. but think about what that would actually demonstrate. maybe explain it to me. for example, i might conclude that you are a sociopath from that response and nothing whatsoever about the "intent" you impute to the action.
so it would perhaps have been effective in the sense of ending the debate, but as a demonstration of anything...i dont see it.

things get curiouser and curiouser as you head down the rabbithole.
just saying.

But maybe there's more to life than incoming fists.

Maybe those who expect to see incoming fists everywhere see incoming fists everywhere. Maybe such people end up fighting a lot in life. Maybe such people end up formulating theories about violence as the fundamental currency of humanity.

Maybe there are other kinds of people, who don't see all interaction as combat. Maybe such people see whole other possibilities.

To the "sees incoming fists" person, that second kind of person seems like a deluded weakling who won't fight for their survival when it inevitably comes down to it.

To the "doesn't see incoming fists" person, that first kind of person seems hopelessly limited and borderline psychotic.

So far nothing in this thread has transcended this fundamental interaction of views.

Confused.

Why should it transcend anything?

I was trying to elaborate on a simple muse.

Examining, with what little intellect I have, a tiny slice of humanity... the issue of physical force.

Human violence is a human problem, a human device.

And sadly... we're all still humans.

It doesn't seem to be decreasing much over time, it just changes forms, changes names.

How do we transcend that, again?

...

What I'm NOT saying is that violence is the do-all-be-all; no-no... obviously there are many other facets to humanity. I'm suggesting that physical force always seems to come into play somewhere regardless of how well mannered people are, regardless of how the government works, etc.

I'm thinking that it is always there under the surface or up in your face. It is an option that never ghosts itself on the human life menu.

Maybe violence / force is "the cheese"... whether you eat it or not is a personal choice and often changes on a long enough time line.

"Reasonable" people doing "unreasonable" things.

Happens all the time, apparently.

...

And now I'm a "sociopath" because I make bar room jokes.

Name calling! (j/k)

And they both died for it by violence.

Also you might want to think about that cultural unification of the Hindus and Muslims line of yours, its not correct, nor was it ever correct in my opinion. It was a best a unification vrs a common enemy, and those unifications are always temporary and shallow.

Plus what ALLOWS non-violent methods to succeed is only that Western Civilization is powerful enough to restrain its own violence. Only our cultural sensibilities allow it to succeed, a very slight change in those and its back to slavery and subjugations which is what the bulk of human history accepted as normal.

You say that as if you're making a point. I'm not sure you read my post--the fact that they died meant NOTHING in terms of what they were out to cause. King's death didn't end the Civil Rights movement. It kept on going--in some ways it's still going to this day--without Dr. King at the helm. All without any violence on King's part. If that's not power, what do you call it?

The other thing that Gandhi and King (and others like them) have in common is that they're interested in something bigger than themselves, such that the sacrifice of their physical person is a trivial price to pay. Indeed, Gandhi was quite willing to die rather than see India tear itself in half, and the threat of his death was what ultimately unified it. It wasn't "united against a common enemy", Ustwo; your timeline is wrong. Gandhi's hunger strike was years after Indian independence.

So did the violent people. Remind me, how did Alexander the Great die? Poison. How did Attila the Hun die? Wife. Genghis Khan? In battle. Hitler? Suicide.

I suspect that simply bringing about change is what draws the violent end, though there may never be a sure way to know.
So Eastern Civilization can't restrain their violence? Did I miss something? Did Japan already destroy NK?

Because the alternative is to tread the same patch of carpet until it's worn through. The first step of the way out of a paradigm is to identify the paradigm. The paradigm in this thread is: some people see violence everywhere, and to them, those who don't are pitiful naifs. Others don't see violence everywhere, and to them, those who do are pathetic cro-magnons. We can do another 39 posts walking that piece of carpet, or we can identify that as the paradigm of the conversation, and start asking real questions about that.

Strategic thinking, violence wouldn't have worked when the money, power, and population as a whole (in the case of segregation) would be against you. Guilt works well, but no amount of protesting would have gotten rid of fascism. Its again, our current structure that allows it, and democracy is not eternal. It could be overthrown by violence here like other places where it has been.

Non-violence only works were the side who has the power is willing to change in the first place. If white America didn't want civil rights, we wouldn't have it period despite what Dr. King did.

Yes but if you asked them I'd guess both wouldn't have shown up to get shot. The problem with non-violence is that its HARDER to do than violence, plus it only works if the people who control the violence agree to give in. By harder I mean its one thing to die fighting, thats part of human nature to risk your life like that, its part of what we have been doing since before the neolithic. Its another thing to fight for your cause by LETTING them beat the crap out of you/kill you. They call it the fight or flight reflex, not the sit there and take it reflex for a reason.

Gandhi advised the Congress to reject the proposals the British Cabinet Mission offered in 1946, as he was deeply suspicious of the grouping proposed for Muslim-majority states—Gandhi viewed this as a precursor to partition. However, this became one of the few times the Congress broke from Gandhi's advice (though not his leadership), as Nehru and Patel knew that if the Congress did not approve the plan, the control of government would pass to the Muslim League. Between 1946 and 1948 , over 5,000 people were killed in violence. Gandhi was vehemently opposed to any plan that partitioned India into two separate countries. An overwhelming majority of Muslims living in India, side by side with Hindus and Sikhs, were in favour of Partition. Additionally Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the leader of the Muslim League, commanded widespread support in West Punjab, Sindh, NWFP and East Bengal. The partition plan was approved by the Congress leadership as the only way to prevent a wide-scale Hindu–Muslim civil war. Congress leaders knew that Gandhi would viscerally oppose partition, and it was impossible for the Congress to go ahead without his agreement, for Gandhi's support in the party and throughout India was strong. Gandhi's closest colleagues had accepted partition as the best way out, and Sardar Patel endeavoured to convince Gandhi that it was the only way to avoid civil war. A devastated Gandhi gave his assent.

Ummmm my timeline is wrong?

Plus even today, ask an Indian Hindu how well they get along with the Muslims.

Interestingly here is another Gandhi quote..

"Gandhi guarded against attracting to his satyagraha movement those who feared to take up arms or felt themselves incapable of resistance. 'I do believe,' he wrote, 'that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence.'"

and another...

"At every meeting I repeated the warning that unless they felt that in non-violence they had come into possession of a force infinitely superior to the one they had and in the use of which they were adept, they should have nothing to do with non-violence and resume the arms they possessed before. It must never be said of the Khudai Khidmatgars that once so brave, they had become or been made cowards under Badshah Khan's influence. Their bravery consisted not in being good marksmen but in defying death and being ever ready to bare their breasts to the bullets."

His movement may have been non-violent but he seemed to have no problem with those who employed violence to fight for what they believed in. He used non-violence because it was the best way to fight for independence under the existing power structures. He also had some interesting things to say about the Jews in Germany prior to the Holocaust which are quite interesting but may stray to far from the current topic to matter.

Yoo Gunna Eetz Yo Cornbread?!
 

Hey, no problem. Funny thing about that real question concept:

The real question, as requested, was the last two words of the OP.

...

I suppose that was my question.

...

I come here to learn. This is fun.

personally, i think scarcity of resources is much more powerful than violence.

A major issue.

Wouldn't that eventually lead to violence ala Soylent Green and Mad Max?

Yes, and perhaps it would imply that scarce resources, i.e. economic issues, are the driving force for humanity.

It makes sense; violence rarely occurs for its own sake. It happens because somebody wants what somebody else has.

Bingo we have a winner. Violence in itself is never a driving force or a reason for anything. You have to look deeper, for the reasons behind things. The driving force for humanity is survival.

Just because something leads to violence, doesn't make violence the driving force or reason behind the action itself. Nobody or nothing in the universe as we know it voluntarily chooses to do something violent just for the sake of violence in my opinion.

While I don't know what everything is thinking it's not often I see a shark just attack a fish for example, kill it and leave it there for the sake of violence. As humans we can deduce sharks attack other living things for a source of food. Just as every other intelligent life form is violent for some underlying reason. Any intelligent life form chooses to do something based on instinct or choice. Using logic and reasoning we can come to the conclusion, this instinct perpetuating violence furthers there ability to survive. In the latter, there are many other vast reasons why, but they too all have reasons behind them.Likewise, psychopaths don't kill people or hurt people randomly for the sake of hurting people randomly there is a reason behind it, they choose to do so for whatever agenda they have.

Violence in itself doesn't drive it is simply a vehichle used for other purposes. Much like a knife, the knife doesn't propel itself without something acting upon it. I haven't heard the old, "my knife is the thing that ended his life I may have thrust it into his chest, but i'm innocent" argument hold up in court. So yes violence is an effective tool for achieving ones desires but in no way is it the driving force.

I question this statement. Take a trip to your nearest elementary school playground and observe the violence children are capable of. Even very young children - toddlers - exhibit violent behavior: they spontaneously crush and destroy things, fling their toys, spoons and bottles, throw their food, grab and pull hair, scream and rage. Most toddlers are notoriously violent, regardless of their family life. One could say that it is society itself which civilizes and pacifies what is intrinsically a violent species.

You probably didn't understand what I was saying. I would argue they're exhibiting violent behaviors because they perhaps enjoy it, they're bored, maybe they're angry. My whole point is there's a reason behind all violence, they're not randomly doing it, if they were they wouldn't be an intelligent form of life.

This is my point...it is spontaneous violence. There is no outside stimulus that would explain toddler violence. Well-rested and recently fed infants can show signs of violence. I (and many child psychologists) argue that violence and aggression in humans - displayed raw and unfiltered in toddlers - is innate. Otherwise called the Death Instinct.

Maybe they want their mommy?

Maybe...or maybe they just want to crush, kill, destroy...something/anything.
Remember as a kid having the urge to knock down your best friend's sand castle, and not being able to understand why?

Well I come to conclusions based on logic and reason. Violence for the sake of violence not involving any other outside factor is illogical, so I cannot really answer you here.

I would think a natural explanation for toddler acting out would be that they are just trying to exert control over something at an age where they are starting to realize just how little control they actually have.

In any case, not all kids are prone to random violence - if it were human nature one might expect them all to be.

Interesting points. 2 things.
1: Why is it important for a very young child to feel the need to control something - anything?
2: If what you postulate is true, why does the need to control ever manifest itself in aggressive behavior?
Don't feel obligated to answer, I just enjoy child psychology.

Illogical, you say. Very well.

Because feeling like you're in control of something is the exact opposite of feeling helpless, and as far as i can tell, helplessness is one feeling most people try to avoid.

I don't know if you remember being a kid, but i do. Children are constantly being told what to do, and with good reason. They lack the awareness required to not inadvertently seriously hurt themselves or someone else. Regardless, constantly being bossed around can be stressful, and being physically active is one way of relieving stress. One of the few things that a kid at that age does have a lot of control over (in a sense they don't have that much control) is his/her body.

It could be for a lot of different reasons. Maybe the kid is trying to get in trouble because they want some attention from their caregiver. Maybe the kid is just mimicking behavior that they've seen elsewhere. Maybe the kid is just experimenting with different kinds of behavior.

Well, i wouldn't be all formal with it. This is just me talking out of my ass. And i wouldn't say that there aren't any kids who are prone to anti-social violence, i just think that there is generally a more satisfying explanation for it than simply chalking it up to human nature.

Yeah, violence doesn't have to occur for its own sake, though.

Every person has violence in their human toolbox. It never goes away.

Regardless of philosophy... violence is always an available option.

It is the first option for some, the last option for others.

So is baking cupcakes, i don't see your point.

Wow... deep. Like safety scissors.

(puts you on a desert island with another starving person)

Which one of you is lunch?

Good point. I suppose what fascinates me is the spontaneous destructiveness of the late infant/toddler, regardless of race, creed, color, socio-economic background, etc. I am referring to a period of human experience where social constraints haven't entered the picture. The amount of biting, scratching, tearing, poking and general mayhem emanating from such a small and inexperienced creature is not only impressive, but serves as a telling commentary on the adult of the species as well, at least to my way of thinking. It seems once past this period of expressive instinctual violence, we are henceforth in a struggle to curb our appetite for destruction.

Totally.

Take a group of infants and have them survive to adulthood without society's notions.

See how civilized they are... see how physical force runs the show.

Lord of the Flies'd!

Whomever dies first.

You ever shot your way into a loving marriage? Punched a complete stranger into being your friend? Stabbed your way through a job interview and gotten the job? How many body slams does it take to read a book?

Without discretion, violence is nothing, it's less than useless. There are a whole lot of things that coercion just can't get for you.

I don't think that there is necessarily anything profound about always having the option to hit somebody. What is interesting is that that option taken so little, that so many people seem to see the value in avoiding violence altogether.

That doesn't even make sense. Infants are completely helpless. In order to "have them survive into adulthood" there would have to be some sort of intervention i.e. socialization. Even if you were able to somehow raise them without impressing on them any socialization at all, their actions would still be governed more by economics than violence. Animals, despite being completely uncivilized, generally only use violence as a means of defending their resources or playing.

You're putting the cart before the horse here.

It also took considerable intelligence (some might use another word) not only to create gunpowder, but to engineer a device capable of leveraging its explosive properties.

Yay, technology. Things that would have been developed eventually anyways.

Put enough humans on a planet and leave them alone for enough years and you'll just about always end up with something that acts like the AK47.

Our species is especially talented at turning metals into implements with which to destroy each other.

...

I'm not talking about intellect, I'm talking history. I'm talking about a young society without the experience of an extensive set-up history to consult, without legal statutes, without common law, without uniforms, perhaps without a language.

By late infant/toddler, social constraints are already there. Socialization begins at day one, some people might argue it begins before the baby is even born. I don't know anything about your experience with infants, but my experience with them has been completely different from what you describe. It's not like kids that age are too young to have motivations for their behaviors. For you to ascribe to them some sort of innate tendency towards violence completely ignores the fact that they are already individuals, absorbing information from their surroundings constantly, with their own personal tendencies and temperaments.

I also can't relate to the idea that i am in a constant struggle to curb my appetite for destruction. It doesn't make sense to me. If animals are innately violent, then how come the wild ones aren't all on constant rampages? As far as i can tell, most of them live almost completely peaceful lives, and only resort to violence when they feel threatened or need to eat. They aren't socialized at all. What's their excuse for being able to overcome in their constant struggle with their appetite for destruction? If socialization is the root of humanity's ability to set aside it's blood lust, what qualities do animals possess that allow them to set aside their blood lust without the benefit of socialization, and do these qualities, by virtue of their innateness, actually mean that animals are naturally more discrete than humanity in their use of violence? Does this mean that animals are actually more civilized than humans?

Well said sir, I completely agree.

Alot here to chew on, thanks. While I agree with you that learned behavior is a factor later on in life (and to varying degrees) I disagree that there no instinctual acts of aggression in early childhood, ie., that from birth there is only Nurture over Nature. For example, I would characterize acts of self-preservation as aggressive behavior, such as biting due to physical discomfort, or screaming for food. Would you agree?

Not quite sure I follow. Which animals are you referring to? I don't think I said that all animals are as innately aggressive as Man. There are certain african fish (cichlids) that are extraordinaily aggressive and territorial (I used to collect them), but they don't "hunt for pleasure" in the wild as far as I know. There have been occurences of tigers in India killing humans for reasons other than eating them, but tigers are solitary. As for animals being more 'civilized' than humans, good question - although I've never seen a gorilla play the piano. :P

But seriously, yes I think it's safe to say that man is more aggressive towards his fellow man than any other animal towards its own, if that is what you meant.

power is simply having control over others. The ability to bend people to your will. Whether that power is obtained through persuasion or coercion is irrelevant. MLK jr and Hitler were both powerful men. One used words to obtain and use that power, while the other one used violence and force.

That was our point, there is a reason. You were saying there was no reason for this "violent" or "aggressive" behavior.

Yes this is correct. I think this is due to our intelligence. Most animals on this planet aren't intelligent enough to have any other goal than survival. But we humans have so many more wants in life, some of which aren't the most noble of aspirations. We created religions which killed millions. Our intelligence has lead us astray really from what we should be doing because we really have no idea what we are doing. So many people have just these insane agendas based upon insane beliefs and this comes from our ability to comprehend so many various concepts, ideas, ideals who is to say what is right and wrong? So therin lies our problem unlike more simple minded creatures, we don't just have to worry about survival and things of that nature anymore, so many other various really trivial things weigh upon our minds. All of these trivial things just mold our lives and take over our lives...our intelligence which is our greatest asset seems to also be our greatest downfall, I dunno.

Aaah, the source of evil thought.

I think you guys are approaching it from the wrong angle. Ustwo alluded to the following earlier.

Force (violence is a loaded term) is universal. Any creature on the planet will at some point use force to defend itself. Society has grown up to protect us from the indiscriminate use of force, the "State of Nature" if you will, which benefitted the strong and ruthless. Now the strong and ruthless hold positions of power, (which as stated before is backed with the threat of force) rather than just big clubs. "Violence" is just under the surface, and it is the reason for society itself, nevermind societies constructs.

And if you don't agree with this, I will kill you.

I am inclined to agree with this in part. I would, however, suggest that "violence" isn't the only reason for society. Even without (or with minimal) outside threats, there are other benefits of social cohesiveness, the best of which are related to the many aspects of adaptation to the conditions of existence and desired prosperity. Think of food security and the division of labour.

Force is universal, so much so that it is mundane. The fact that at some point a person might be required to use certain specific forms of it to defend themselves does not make those specific forms of force the be-all end-all of forces. In fact, as far as forces go, the role the force of violence plays in anybody's life ever is minuscule compared to other, more fundamental forces. That doesn't mean that we're ever going to have a thread about the profundity of electromagnetism, or that all decisions occur under the implied threat of gravitational acceleration.

All you're doing is taking hobbes a step further. It's a particularly cynical viewpoint and completely speculative. Nobody knows what the "state of nature" is. I don't. It's like speculating about the culture of dinosaurs- none of them took the time to write it down, so now all we have are bones.

Nobody knows what humanity was like before culture or social structure, because none of the folks who were around for it left any kind of substantial clue about how things were, beyond the rare artifact. A person's opinion on humanity's state of nature is more reflective of the person than the state of nature. It's useless as support for the idea that all human behavior has roots in violence or the avoidance thereof.

My point is that violence isn't the sole motivator because there are a whole lot of other reasons to do or not do things. My motivation for going to school right now is not that deep down i know that if i don't violence will befall me.

Now, maybe you're thinking, "But if someone shot you to death, you wouldn't be going to school anymore." So what? There is probably an infinite number of different things that could happen that would result in me not going to school anymore. Singling violence out and creaming your jeans over its awesome power is something i don't really feel justified in doing. Though it is certainly a possibility that someone might shoot me, i tend to think that a more likely reason for me to drop out of school would be the fact that there are only 24 hours in a day- that's just playing the odds though. This gets back to the subject of scarcity, which i still think is much more important than violence when it comes to controlling the behavior of humans.

I would also argue that civilization can only come about when a good portion of its potential members realize that violence is often completely useless and counterproductive, but again, that's just how i see it.

Baraka: I would never suggest that there are no other benefits to society, but I would suggest that most, if not all, of the other benefits are possible because there is not the constant struggle for the most base neccessities against the stronger. Both of the examples you cite are motivated, indirectly, by the threat(and therefore the employment) of force.

Filtherton: I was saying that the ability for you to go to school is because our society puts a buffer betwixt you and the "state of nature". There is no different state for humans, it is what it is.

If it were not for the "societal buffer", we would not be typing this, because someone stronger than you would have come and taken your stuff, or you would be out taking someone elses, as a means to survive and prosper. We (most of us) have overcome this, to a point. It is a good thing. I would not enjoy living a nasty, brutish, and short life.

No fear means violence has no power.
We see all these things at TV that say :"Look it's normal to be scared, to have fear, those who scare us are the evil ones".
No it is not "normal", those who say we should be afraid instead of trying to overcome fear are the evil ones

I've had my shit stolen, and we all know that people get killed and assaulted every day. Society is a shitty buffer.

I see what you're saying and i don't necessarily disagree with it in principle, though i think that it's incomplete. The fact that i am who i am at this point in time, much less the fact that i am able to go to school, owes credit to many things that can be generally be considered to be completely separate from the influence of society: i haven't yet come down with a debilitating or fatal disease; i wasn't born with any noticeable (so far, at least) physical or mental handicaps of a nature that would preclude my survival; i haven't been seriously injured or killed in some sort of "act of god"-ey type thing; i have been able to gain access to resources essential to my survival; etc. Out of all the things i have just listed, human on human violence only really comes into play in the last one, and even then only as one of a multitude of ways in which to gain or procure resources. The "state of nature" of humanity, as i see it, is one of constant uncertainty, where that great fudge factor luck has more to do with survival than any one specific nonrandom thing.

I also think that a "state of nature" as we are using it here is nothing more than a label for arbitrary axioms about the nature of something, humanity in this case. It actually says nothing about humanity in its natural state, unless it takes into account the fact that humanity is always in its natural state. We are living in the "state of nature" right now. Humans are social animals, and as such, society is a state of our nature, always has been, always will be.

We are governed by the same things right now that we have always been governed by, the same things that currently govern every other form of life.

But, after writing all this, i think that all you're really trying to say is that the guy who is willing to resort to violence will always have the advantage over the guy who isn't, in which case i think it depends on the situation.

The sun is quite violent.
PHOTOSYNTHESIS requires it, and is the basis of most of our power, not to mention our existence. Upon what hubris this thread goes on!

I love it.

Please don't come and kill me.
That would suck.

I learned a lot from this thread.

Start with random speculation.

Get a lot of educated opinions.

Really gave me a boner.

I am not afraid
But I definitely fear.
Oh, society!

reason and force

This is what I was looking for earlier when I said that power comes from violence AND/OR persuasion.

The yellow revolution in the Philippines, the orange revolution in Ukraine, the purple revolution in Georgia....just a few examples of how persuasion and civil disobedience can force change without guns .

and i'm not trying to say that ONLY violence can make changes. It simply is a matter of there being only two ways to make change, force or persuasion.

Would it bother you if I said you are beautiful?

Peace is far more powerful than violence.

The strongest show of peace will win every time.

When a peaceful person lays dead at the hands of a violent person... the violent person has controlled nothing. In fact, they have lost control. They have proven that violence is not absolute power... it is the ultimate display of impotence, compensated for by aggression.

I'd rather be incompetently alive having lost control than powerfully dead and in control.

Sounds nice though.

HAHAHAHAH!

Wanna test this theory about people feeling bad about killing others?

I bet you wouldn't say that silliness if you saw the brain-splattered insides of the Afghani trucks we rolled up on outside Waza Kwa. Looked like a horror movie... except for the smell and flies buzzing in my ears.

Tell me again about how noble peace is, how peace changes all.

"Only the dead have seen the end of war."

Life could be that war.

While not necessarily directly related: Would you rather be evil and alive, or good but dead?

Nobody has proven the afterlife is all that awesome and features an endless supply of animal crackers.

I'll take being evil and alive over dead and righteous any day.

How far would you be willing to take this?




Baraka_Guru vs. Crompsin!

Moral faceoff!

GO!

I'm actually a GI Joe kinda guy at my core... ya know, beneath all the bullshit.
I've risked my ass for a lot of low-quality human beings in my day.
I only did said things because I thought they was honorable.
My choices didn't even make sense half the time.
My life is based on a weird sense of honor.
Without said honor? My life is pointless.

...

The mantra rings:

"I am the reactor that glows in my chest, I am the rust that corrodes my will. I am my worst enemy, I am my best friend."

The control: Damn... I have to live with me and what I've done.

There is a brilliant thesis out there on this. Maybe entitled "Mobile Conscience" or something similar.

...

You win.

Matching brains with you would require me to have something other than an Ocean Spray craisin (TM) attached to the top of my spine, bro.

I didn't say anything about people feeling bad about killing.

If you kill a person in peaceful protest, you haven't won anything. You've just proven that you're only able to feel victorious by killing your opposition.

I also didn't say peace "changes all". I simply said it's more powerful.

Way to much for me to read in one sitting, but feel the need to throw in my 2 cents. Will is the source of power, not violence. Violence is just one means of expressing that will. A very effective one, at that. But it only works against those that don't have the will to stand up against it. Power, in it's usage here, would be best described as control of another person or group. How you gain that control does not matter. That is just an expression of your will. If you can show, through violence or any other means, that your will is stronger, then you have the power. Violence is just a means to an end. I can't help but think of a Robert Hienlein quote. "you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him"

Yeah, generalizations suck... but I have to put branches on the tree to climb it, no?

I got a small brain that lacks a lot of nooks and crannies. This is what I figure:

Without emotions there would be minimal conflict on this planet. Some feeling is always involved. Especially in this "peaceful protest" you refer to here. Group A "feels" like Group B should stop doing Activity C. Group B beats the crap outta Group A and probably continues doing Activity C.

As westerners... we give pop culture virtues a lot of weight in a very violent world. We're not surrounded by Peter Frampton fans... not everybody wants to feel like we do.

Peace is more civilized, more creative, more productive... clearly the more balanced path... but I would suggest it is less powerful than the focused force of violence.

Thermodynamics might say peace is potential energy, that violence is kinetic energy. The first law of thermodynamics applies.

Meh. Just a thought.

Evil as in eating kittens while drinking the blood of children while making their parents watch evil?

There is a fine line between evil and surviving. I don't feel evil but my very existence is built on a pile of dead, but tasty, animals. My being in this country is based on some people being mean and kicking other people living here out. My genetic line is undoubtedly been perpetuated by violence, exploitation and even cannibalism at some point.

Its the old, is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family question.

Violence: It's what makes dinner.

Hi-ho, Crompsin!

The ability to do violence leads to its use.

We have alternatives, don't we
(?)

We are as equipped to love as we are to kill.

(I love you, though.)

Not really. If you had starving children and no other alternative, stealing food, though unlawful, wouldn't be evil. There are many choices one might make for self-preservation. Certainly in some cases it would be better to die than to perform certain acts to save your hide.

But the concept of honor varies from culture to culture.

Retreat was a viable option to US soldiers during WWII.

Retreat was worse than death to Japanese soldiers.

Saving your life is irrelevant if your culture doesn't approve of how you did it.

I will not drag this into goofiness - I hope.

Those violent see its utility and those peaceful see its lack. Philosophical differences make all the differences, until violence kills and "wins" until the next go-round, when it'll probably "win" again - if not morally, at least in reality, for a little while.

IT IS JUST US HERE, PEOPLE!

I hope it's okay to cry.

Kudos on this thread, my hero!

Blegch. No kudos should be awarded for this poo-poo. Just a random muse. I simply went with a notion and kept pushing until it was mostly exhausted. Sometimes a debate is more fun when you tout for the side in which you don't actually believe.

I suppose it would be a footnote of minor consequence now... but this thread doesn't apply to my personal life philosophy in the over-the-top extreme it is represented here by speculation / conjecture.

Despite my former occupation and hobbies, I am not at all a violent person.

Sure, crying is okay. "Everybody hurts."

...

The awesome people of this forum have helped me learn quite a bit about both the world around me and myself.