Reddit reviews Violence: Six Sideways Reflections (Big Ideas/Small Books)
We found 11 Reddit comments about Violence: Six Sideways Reflections (Big Ideas/Small Books). Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Picador USA
What if that behaviour is exploitative and destructive on a gross scale?
Is forcing people to abolish the institution of private property over humans (more commonly known as slavery) wrong? I have no problem forcing an oppressor to cease their oppressive actions and behaviour - I'd almost bet my life that you don't either. There's nothing wrong with attacking an attacker to stop them harming others.
The issue then becomes a disagreement on whether or not Capitalism is an inherently oppressive means of social organisation, whose internal logic leads to misery and exploitation on a grand scale. On that note, neither I, nor anybody else is going to be able to convince you here, through this medium that the subjective violence which arose from the implementation of socialism, pales in comparison to the daily, objective violence that naturally, and necessarily arises from Capitalism. If you are interested in understanding and exploring this idea further, I'd highly recommend reading these two books in this order:
by Garry Leech
Just to give you a feel for what we mean by 'objective violence'. The world's poor are poor for structural reasons, not a lack of boot-strappyness. It is not profitable to help the poor. R&D is funnelled into the most profitable ventures to maximise ROI - in the case of pharmaceuticals, that's going to be anti-depressants and skin care products, not malaria vaccines or cures for communicable diseases which disproportionately affect the global south. Thus, millions upon millions needlessly die every year- not because we don't have the means to prevent this from happening, but simply because it's not profitable to prevent it from happening. Therein lies the violence as a result of the internal logic. Any single pharmaceutical company that takes it upon itself to fix the ills of the world, will be forced out of the industry in a few short years by those who don't. In short, the violence doesn't stem from a subject, but rather is an objective feature of the means of organisation in itself.
This seems like a good place to recommend Violence by Slavoj Žižek.
The basic premise is that violence is more than physical violence. The systemic oppression and discrimination that the government is responsible for (not just right wing governments like this one, but pretty much all of them) is a form of violence.
To put it another way, something like a congress willing to let people die by removing their health care is an act of violence against those people. The methods of violence employed by an authority are different from those employed by the people. We can't wait for them to attack us the same way the black bloc is attacking them, because it will never happen.
The absolute easiest of his books is Demanding the Impossible. It is an extended interview, so it broken up into relatively concise and self-contained sections for each question.
If you're looking for full book that's still on the easy side, I would check out Trouble in Paradise or First as Tragedy, Then as Farce, which are on similar topics. His book Violence is also quite readable, but I think the other three make better introductions to his thought.
You are completely missing the point I just made.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but you should read Zizek's work on this subject.
Accelerationism is pretty stupid, but the Accelerationism Manifesto is a good start for it. Nick Land is the modern, popular, theorists associated with it.
For Zizek, I'd start with the book Violence (pdf version of the book is here). It'll introduce you to his criticism of liberal capitalism and it's relationship with violence. It's also a great introduction to his theories on ideology. Some of the book (when he starts talking about Hegel, for example) aren't necessary and you can skip them.
Zizek writes in an easy to read, borderline rant-like, style that's easy to read, but also allows him to introduce random thoughts (he has a section on a "self love/masterbation" event. There's only a loose theme throughout the book so skipping some sections isn't a big deal.
What about the treatment of his wife? What about his insistence upon faith healing and denying his sick wife penicillin? What about his lewd behavior towards young women? What about his comments, in his biography, that Jews ought to collectively commit suicide by offering themselves up in the spirit of 'civil disobedience'? What about his treatment of blacks? These things aren't simply 'imperfections' or 'blemishes' against someone who would otherwise be a saint. Gandhi has a cult-like following that is completely disillusioned from the violence he perpetrated elsewhere in his life, if not towards the British. What you read implies otherwise, but it doesn't portray the whole story. I'd recommend his autobiography, or a book titled 50 Things You're Not Supposed to Know (vol. 2) by Russ Kick.
Moreover, I'd suggest the book Violence by Slavoj Zizek. Your understanding of violence focuses on individual acts (like hitting or stabbing, etc.) whilst ignoring systemic, objective, symbolic, linguistic, and a myriad of other manifestations of violence--i.e. you are vastly oversimplifying what constitutes 'violence'.
Yeah, as /u/ptcool said, Zizek's Violence is an excellent book to read in order to get a fairly accessible argument about how systemic and institutional "violence" is just as violent as subjective violence (violence which can be readily traced back to a single individual).
In a nutshell, the two main arguments would be that 1) systemic violence has the same practical consequences as subjective violence, and 2) acts of subjective violence are often the result of long-term, historical systemic violence. For instance, one cannot understand the very violent reactions of colonized people against the European powers without also understanding the systemic violence of the colonial project.
I have yet to finish it, so I cannot comment on the over arching themes, but I am currently reading "Violence" by Zizek, and he tries to delve into the nature of political violence, and if it can be justified.
You can find the book [here](https://www.amazon.com/Violence-Sideways-Reflections-Ideas-Small/dp/0312427182)
Salvador Allende is a good example to see the effect America has on other countries.
Understanding Power by Noam Chomsky wonderfully links the domestic struggle with American Imperialism.
Violence by our boy Slavoj Zizek, refracts outbursts of violence into his own unique way of looking at events. Really eye opening.
America has historically exported some of the worst, murderous violence overseas for the pettiest of reasons, its own gain regardless of the consequences to liberators struggle.
I'm glad to hear of someone interested in learning, hope I've helped!
On first reading, that feels insensitive of you to say.
On second reading, this reminds me of the idea of tolerance and the social violence of tolerance (see chap. 4 - Zizek's Violence)
Nonetheless, the ideal idea of "tolerance" I take away is: consideration. Consider: none shall have the experiences you have; all will think differently (to an extent). A personal experience is equivalent to another. It makes sense, in a wide, anonymous community (which is geared to inclusiveness) to make a carefully worded statement as I have - as well as make it apparent I am willing to learn from mistakes I may have made.
>Im not zizek but if you wanna criticize the source you can read him or see the videos were he explains his filosofy
I know who Slavoj Žižek is.
 
I have watched a lot of his Debates and Videos on YouTube. I have watched how he "Debated" the maniacal Transphobic Misogynist Judeo-Christian Fanatic called Jordan B. Peterson.
I have read his books let me Synopsize them for you; Accordingly—
 
 
Slavoj Žižek— is a Capitalist Masquerading as a Communist.
 
He is a Modern Stain on Anarchism and Communism, he believes in a lot of ways - that the Revolution will never happen and because he is Depressed he Actively writes Psuedo-Communist Revisionist Literature to discourage Revolution.
 
Why do you think he is so popular, so free to "Debate" people, why the Media Corporations aren't trying to Damage his reputation? Not trying to deplatform him? It is because the Capitalist-Class, States/Militaries around the world and Religious Figures aren't afraid of him— because in his works he has never wrote directly against nor outright discouraged Capitalism.
He is a hack, and a Disengenueous Revisionist towards the cause and goal of Cummunism- which is Anarchism. Anarchism is the end Goal of Communism, Communism is just Karl-Marx's "How to" Guide to Achieve Anarchism.
 
I've read a lot of Theory on Anarchism and Communism. I'm an Active Anarchist in my part of the World-( Which I will not expose for Safety reasons ) somewhat succeeding in Communal Living.
 
If you want real Scientists and Philosphers' views on Anarchism and Communism read Pëtr Kropotkin's—
 
Albert Einstein's—
 
Read Karl Marx as well— so that you don't fall for bullshit Revisionists of the Modern Times like Slavoj Žižek.
 
 
EDIT:
>And the guys on top dont really wanna control you they just dont want to lose their power
Are you even an Anarchist? I don't think you have any Idea what Power is. You have a very Childish view of Power.
 
How does one protect Power? Maintain it? How do Dictators, Kings, Queens, The Pope - Politicians protect their Power? Hm? Do you know the Dynamics of "Power"?
I don't think you do, going by your— description... if we can even call it that.
Do you know the Definition of Control? Please educate yourself before you try to talk about things you don't really understand.