Note: This entry was entered by David Kaminsky

HIPJ had a meeting to discuss violence on Sunday November 23rd.

Present were myself (David), Suvrat, Phil, Katie, Hank
Suvrat and I were there the whole time; Phil left and Hank came in halfway through, and Katie was there for most of the beginning.

I came in with a suggested framework for a position statement on violence, which would have four sections:

1. A broad set of criteria for determining justifiability of violence. These would be axioms that could be interpreted in a multitude of ways, but that most people (not just peace activists) would generally identify as perfectly sensible. My suggestion:
a. violence must prevent other violence
b. violence must be directed at those who are making it necessary
c. violence must be no more than necessary
d. preparations for and acts of violence must be done in such a way as to minimize the need for and level of future violence

2. Generally speaking, people who argue to justify wars will appeal (implictly) to the above criteria: here you get the basic arguments about self-defense, lesser-of-two-evils, war-to-end-all-wars and the like. This section would explain why the wars we are protesting do not follow the above criteria. Should be a no-brainer.

3. The third section (or fourth) would be an argument from the pacifist �wing� of HIPJ arguing why the principles of pacifism proceed from the criteria set forth in section one. It would probably argue something along the lines of:
"In the real world, no acts of organized mass violence actually conform to that list of criteria; we have not come close to exhausting the search for peaceful change to the system; violent attempts to change the system cannot remove violence from the system; the means are the ends in the making etc."

4. The fourth section (or third) would be an argument from the revolutionary socialist �wing� of HIPJ, arguing why the principles of revolutionary socialism proceed from the criteria in section one. It would define violence broadly to include impoverishment and denial of human rights, and make something like the following argument:
"The system is violent, and can only be challenged by violence; peaceful attempts to change it will be crushed; revolutionary violence is thus necessary, and acts to prevent systemic violence; peace through justice etc."

The reaction:

Suvrat says he finds suspicious any attempts to making specific arguments based on general axioms outside the world of mathematics. I say that I have found this strategy the most effective way to convince people to change their views on things � by finding the flaws in the logic that bind their axiomatic beliefs to their specific ideological positions. Suvrat says that he finds the best way to convince people of things is to give them facts that they didn�t already know and let them come to their own conclusions; that people are more likely to change their mind based on their experience and position (and ability to empathize) than intellectual argument. Also, he suggests that our primary role in HIPJ is not to convince people, but to organize those already convinced.

There is general concern that the principle laid out in section one can be used to justify things we didn't mean to justify. Phil says that he could come up with a bunch of specific situations that would require us to come up with exceptions. I suggest that the rest of the document is something we can use to come up with more specifics, and that specifically section two is meant to deal with this very problem.

Phil and Suvrat argue about a definition for violence; Suvrat wants a broad definition that includes impoverishment and denial of rights, while Phil insists on what he considers a more conventional narrow definition. Phil and Suvrat also disagree over property rights and some other stuff I forget about.�

Essentially people break down into the following camps:

Hank and Suvrat fall pretty much into a revolutionary socialist camp. They admit that violence is problematic, but argue that those are the rules of the game. They consider the system violent, and argue that it must be met with violence if you want to change it. Hank argues that pacifism as a political ideology is exclusive to the liberal intelligentsia. Suvrat disagrees, but argues that passive resistance movements in India and the US have failed in achieving their aims. He argues that socialist revolutions in China and the USSR have generally achieved their aims, though he admits they bring an entirely new set of problems.

I agree with most everything Suvrat says in terms of what the major problems are, including that the current world system is a violent one. I disagree regarding the use of violent means to change the system; I don�t think you can stop future violence by countering current violence with your own violence. I don�t know for sure that a peaceful solution is possible, but I do know that the violent road to peace has not proven successful thus far, and that we have not tried hard enough for peaceful solutions. I identify myself as a pragmatic pacifist and a social democrat.

Phil says he is not a pacifist; neither does he seem to be a socialist (correct me if I'm wrong here, Phil). He argues for a meritocracy, but does not believe we currently live in one. He believes in property rights, and thinks we should distinguish between active violence and what Suvrat would call systemic violence by using separate terminology. I can�t really speak with confidence about his general outlook.�

I'm not quite sure of Katie's position either.

Obviously much more was said. Please other people who were there add stuff.

David