In war and violence, should the weaker party simply accept its fate and be destroyed?

[obligatoryshackles]

Draw whatever conclusions you would like about what the title is about, but please consider the question itself.

 

[IBM0000]

I just feel like you're asking something that I am really sure about. First of all, what would be destroyed? If the weaker party being destroyed by a stronger party being a democratic resistance movement by a military supported by global capitalists, as is usually the case, never. Even now, in "deveolped" nations this "weaker" party will never stop, not until true freedom is granted. It's an endless war between the capitalists (the rich) and the people they exploit. So, it all depends.

 

[obligatoryshackles]

I just feel like you're asking something that I am really sure about. First of all, what would be destroyed? If the weaker party being destroyed by a stronger party being a democratic resistance movement by a military supported by global capitalists, as is usually the case, never. Even now, in "deveolped" nations this "weaker" party will never stop, not until true freedom is granted. It's an endless war between the capitalists (the rich) and the people they exploit. So, it all depends.

Well it's more broad than that, I suppose. Should any oppressed entity ever not struggle against its oppression? Even if that struggle entails, necessarily, selling one's soul to the devil, committing atrocities, if there is no other way to resist? If the only power offering you salvation is yet another repressive government, though it at least shares your interests, should it be rejected, even if that means destruction?

It's mostly food for thought. I'm legitimately not sure what the answer should be in all situations. If the way to survival and freedom must involve horrific acts, if the only one who would lend you any strength is the figurative devil, should one still fight? Sure, one could say that the true evil lies in the oppressor's actions, but there is still the matter of what the oppressed should do. Perhaps if it was only for one's own sake, it would be right to give up life to adhere to one's principles, but what if those dearest to you are at stake?

I'm being vague about it, but you can probably guess what inspired this train of thought.

 

[IBM0000]

As of now, all I can see is that only we, the people, are being oppressed. So although commiting heinous acts against the regime's civilians is truly unfortunate, the status quo is something that'll mostly justify it because it's the people being violently oppressed, their voices silenced and much, much more unseen violence being commitied BY the state agents under the guise of "fighting terror" or "upholding the law". On top of the everday violence that in reality upholds poverty, homelessness, hunger, racism, corporate profiteering and so much more. Albeit, it may seem that the oppressed are being hypocritical and terrorizing people and so they are on equally as bad as the oppressors, the reality is, the oppressed are the ones who have been terrorized for so long and their resistance labelled extremism or terrorism in efforts by the state. For example, if the elite of a country and its militia were ousted by a democratic movement for the people, by the people. And have become themselves the "oppressed", it'll be supported by many of today's nations which claim they're for "freedom" or "democracy" while oppressing their own people and the people of the world. So these types of "oppressed" should never be allowed to grow in the first place, let alone fight the now oppressors.

 

[Left]

I think human self-preservation makes this an impossibility. I don't think anyone would ever simply accept the complete destruction of themselves or their people, in times of violence or war. Also, deciphering which party is "weaker" is often ambiguous in war. For example, most people would conclude the United States is/was vastly stronger than the Taliban and the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army, yet the Taliban remains in power in Afghanistan and Saigon fell. The U.S. may have been much stronger militarily, possessing perhaps the strongest military in world history, but they were weaker in will and were more restrained.

 

[obligatoryshackles]

I think human self-preservation makes this an impossibility. I don't think anyone would ever simply accept the complete destruction of themselves or their people, in times of violence or war. Also, deciphering which party is "weaker" is often ambiguous in war. For example, most people would conclude the United States is/was vastly stronger than the Taliban and the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army, yet the Taliban remains in power in Afghanistan and Saigon fell. The U.S. may have been much stronger militarily, possessing perhaps the strongest military in world history, but they were weaker in will and were more restrained.

It's not a matter of "would" but one of "should". The question stands because we seem to have it in our minds that resisting without being "polite" is somehow immoral. When we see an oppressed group commit horrific acts on their oppressor state, we tend to completely lose sympathy even though, as you say, this act of self-preservation is inevitable. This can also be applied to smaller scale conflicts, such as protests within a state. The moment the protest becomes "non-peaceful" there is suddenly an excuse to invalidate the protest, as if their violence somehow nullifies whatever state sanctioned violence they're protesting.

Also, I do not believe there is ambiguity in strength, especially in those situations you describe. The difference is that if Vietnam or Afghanistan lose that war, it is an existential threat to them, whereas when the US loses the war their homeland was basically never under any real threat. The power dynamic is not determined by the result of the battle field itself, but the position of the two parties involved. This can similarly be applied to any imperialistic relationship - sure, the local group may resist the imperialistic force successfully, but they will never have a chance to place the imperial homeland in any significant danger. Not to mention, even though Vietnam and Afghanistan won the conflict, there was untold damage to their land and civilians, whereas the US only suffered military casualties. How is that not obvious?

Also, "Weaker in will and more restrained"? No shit, dude, Vietnam and Afghanistan were fighting to fucking preserve their existence and agency. The US fought to make imperialistic gains and geopolitical stature, at no real benefit to the soldiers fighting on the ground. The moment the Vietnam war was about to cost something substantial to the US as a state they pulled out because they can do whatever they want. You think Vietnam could have just pulled out of that conflict? I just don't understand how that power dynamic is "ambiguous".

Sorry for being angry.

 

[R_N]

"In order to survive, all living things in this world fight desperately and devour those they defeat... Must one kill other living things in order to survive? Must one destroy another world in order to allow one's own world to continue? The wounded in turn wound and torment those weaker than they themselves are... There are only the killers and the killed... The sinners who are judged, and the victims that do the judging. What meaning is there to such a world?"

Quote from a game I loved since I was a kid.

 

[Left]

It's not a matter of "would" but one of "should". The question stands because we seem to have it in our minds that resisting without being "polite" is somehow immoral. When we see an oppressed group commit horrific acts on their oppressor state, we tend to completely lose sympathy even though, as you say, this act of self-preservation is inevitable. This can also be applied to smaller scale conflicts, such as protests within a state. The moment the protest becomes "non-peaceful" there is suddenly an excuse to invalidate the protest, as if their violence somehow nullifies whatever state sanctioned violence they're protesting.

Also, I do not believe there is ambiguity in strength, especially in those situations you describe. The difference is that if Vietnam or Afghanistan lose that war, it is an existential threat to them, whereas when the US loses the war their homeland was basically never under any real threat. The power dynamic is not determined by the result of the battle field itself, but the position of the two parties involved. This can similarly be applied to any imperialistic relationship - sure, the local group may resist the imperialistic force successfully, but they will never have a chance to place the imperial homeland in any significant danger. Not to mention, even though Vietnam and Afghanistan won the conflict, there was untold damage to their land and civilians, whereas the US only suffered military casualties. How is that not obvious?

Also, "Weaker in will and more restrained"? No shit, dude, Vietnam and Afghanistan were fighting to fucking preserve their existence and agency. The US fought to make imperialistic gains and geopolitical stature, at no real benefit to the soldiers fighting on the ground. The moment the Vietnam war was about to cost something substantial to the US as a state they pulled out because they can do whatever they want. You think Vietnam could have just pulled out of that conflict? I just don't understand how that power dynamic is "ambiguous".

Sorry for being angry.

The question you asked is "In war and violence, should the weaker party simply accept its fate and be destroyed?" and I provided examples where the weaker parties were not destroyed so clearly their fate wasn't destruction. Clearly the United States could've completely destroyed these countries but the U.S. didn't; it's as easy as dropping the entire nuclear arsenal. There is doubt that Palestine, Ukraine, or Taiwan will ever be completely destroyed even though they easily could, due to the geopolitical chess match occurring in international politics. Also, international power dynamics shift where weaker parties become predator states, such as China which was a very weak state just a century ago during the late Qing Dynasty, Republic of China, and early PRC. I know this entire thread was inspired by the Israeli-Gaza War and I stand by my "ambiguity" comments. Israel is much stronger than Palestine but I still doubt Israel will never be able to completely destroy Palestine because doing so would probably escalate into nuclear war and result in the extinction of Israel as well as the global north. In a way, outside of military capability, Palestine has leverage over Israel. This is why Israel is constantly forced into negotiating with Palestine rather than just invading the territory and exterminating everyone.

 

[cosifantutti]

As of now, all I can see is that only we, the people, are being oppressed. So although commiting heinous acts against the regime's civilians is truly unfortunate, the status quo is something that'll mostly justify it because it's the people being violently oppressed, their voices silenced and much, much more unseen violence being commitied BY the state agents under the guise of "fighting terror" or "upholding the law". On top of the everday violence that in reality upholds poverty, homelessness, hunger, racism, corporate profiteering and so much more. Albeit, it may seem that the oppressed are being hypocritical and terrorizing people and so they are on equally as bad as the oppressors, the reality is, the oppressed are the ones who have been terrorized for so long and their resistance labelled extremism or terrorism in efforts by the state. For example, if the elite of a country and its militia were ousted by a democratic movement for the people, by the people. And have become themselves the "oppressed", it'll be supported by many of today's nations which claim they're for "freedom" or "democracy" while oppressing their own people and the people of the world. So these types of "oppressed" should never be allowed to grow in the first place, let alone fight the now oppressors.

I'm not totally sure where you are in this.

In my 20s I was a revolutionary socialist. I was a member for about 4 years. I left for a few reasons but one of them was the heartless attitude towards a member who was ill and couldn't do things the party expected of him.

Being a member of this party and also witnessing the events in the world (I'm 63 so I've seen plenty) puts me in a left wing democratic (not democrat as in the US) position.

I live in Scotland. I really rate Jeremy Corbyn. If you're in the US I rate your chap Bernie Sanders. I don't actually know other politicians (other than the main ones) and I don't rate them.

I tend to be on the side of the oppressed. What Hamas did was evil but what Israel has done to the Palestinians is evil too.
The tsarist regime in Russia was evil.
The Bolsheviks came with wonderful ideals but in practice they were evil too.

Power corrupts.

 

[IBM0000]

I'm not totally sure where you are in this.

In my 20s I was a revolutionary socialist. I was a member for about 4 years. I left for a few reasons but one of them was the heartless attitude towards a member who was ill and couldn't do things the party expected of him.

Being a member of this party and also witnessing the events in the world (I'm 63 so I've seen plenty) puts me in a left wing democratic (not democrat as in the US) position.

I live in Scotland. I really rate Jeremy Corbyn. If you're in the US I rate your chap Bernie Sanders. I don't actually know other politicians (other than the main ones) and I don't rate them.

I tend to be on the side of the oppressed. What Hamas did was evil but what Israel has done to the Palestinians is evil too.
The tsarist regime in Russia was evil.
The Bolsheviks came with wonderful ideals but in practice they were evil too.

Power corrupts.

The Bolsheviks weren't as evil as the US or Israel or the Tsarist regime. Placing them on an equal level is probably because you've watched too much CNN or BBC or whatever western media outlet.

 

[obligatoryshackles]

The question you asked is "In war and violence, should the weaker party simply accept its fate and be destroyed?" and I provided examples where the weaker parties were not destroyed so clearly their fate wasn't destruction. Clearly the United States could've completely destroyed these countries but the U.S. didn't; it's as easy as dropping the entire nuclear arsenal. There is doubt that Palestine, Ukraine, or Taiwan will ever be completely destroyed even though they easily could, due to the geopolitical chess match occurring in international politics. Also, international power dynamics shift where weaker parties become predator states, such as China which was a very weak state just a century ago during the late Qing Dynasty, Republic of China, and early PRC. I know this entire thread was inspired by the Israeli-Gaza War and I stand by my "ambiguity" comments. Israel is much stronger than Palestine but I still doubt Israel will never be able to completely destroy Palestine because doing so would probably escalate into nuclear war and result in the extinction of Israel as well as the global north. In a way, outside of military capability, Palestine has leverage over Israel. This is why Israel is constantly forced into negotiating with Palestine rather than just invading the territory and exterminating everyone.

None of what you just said has to do with my initial post.

You've totally misinterpreted the statement, which may be because you're too focused on the word fate being used? That could be my fault. I didn't mean to imply that the weaker party will always be destroyed, rather that if they fight back, it will inevitably cause further tragedy. This isn't about the actions and choices of anyone but the "weaker party" itself.

What I'm trying to get at should be in agreement with your initial post. The oppressed group will inevitably fight back. No one will accept their own destruction, there is no real choice there. But what if doing so necessitates taking an evil action? What if doing so only causes more suffering? Is it still alright to make that "choice"? Clearly, the general public seems to think otherwise, since we turned against Palestine instantly.

If you need me to be explicit, I'm saying that I'm not sure it's right to to fault Palestine and vilify them for lashing out, even if the result of that action is obviously horrific to the civilians in Israel. They made a bargain with the devil in order to fight against their oppressor, obviously resulting in horrible things happening. Obviously, you say that the position that Palestine should simply continue to accept its apartheid state and be crushed over time is untenable, so why, then, do we say that Palestine is evil for its actions against Israel? They clearly had no choice in the matter. I mean, who else would help them? Certainly not the US or Europe, right? But even then, is it acceptable for them to take such drastic action which only causes more suffering?

That's the actual question:

"Is it evil to do what Palestine did, or was it inevitable based on the circumstances created by forces beyond their control?"

 

[sserafim]

I think that it depends on the country and its pride. Nationalistic countries will always want to put up a fight, even if they're overpowered by their opponent and have absolutely no chance of winning. This is mainly done to preserve national pride. In my opinion, this is like a lost cause. Fighting until the bitter end isn't always the smart thing to do, it's good to know when to cede. I heard a saying like "it's noble to give up when you can't fight anymore".

 

[Pessimist]

Be destroyed? No. Put down their weapons? Yes.

 

[DarkRange55]

Not my personal opinion but some famous quotes:

"Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster…"

• Nietzsche

"I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees."

• Emperor Constantine

"He who fights and runs away

May live to fight another day;

But he who is battle slain

Can never rise to fight again."

• Oliver Goldsmith