Yes and no? I don't disagree with your premise, but I also think that...violence is very, very easy, and reminding yourself that it might be the answer, but even when it IS, it's not a good answer is a worthwhile exercise.
For all of the horrific levels of state and stochastic violence that permeates US society, there actually is astonishingly little violence against the corporate state or state actors. The hand wringing over 'violence is too easy an answer to oppression and injustice' fails to acknowledge this fact.
This is why I said what I said. Violence IS sometimes the answer, but if you reach for it with eagerness, and not reluctance, you're not a champion of justice, you're a violent sociopath.
From rapper No$hu that posted the tweet: “they say that violence ain’t the answer, baby I tend to agree, if we lived in a utopia where everyone was free but since we live in a society controlled by people’s greed what the fuck we supposed to do when we struggling just to eat?” https://x.com/noshu4me/status/1867652264749568090
“That governments do not maintain themselves through such harmonious factors is proven by the terrible array of violence, force, and coercion all governments use in order to live.” - Emma Goldman in “Anarchism: What It Really Stands For” https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/1910s/anarchism.htm
The other problem with it is that historically it obviously does work. It's been a common problem solver since the dawn of man. It may not be the best way to solve a problem, but it definitely works for some problems.
Comments
This is why I said what I said. Violence IS sometimes the answer, but if you reach for it with eagerness, and not reluctance, you're not a champion of justice, you're a violent sociopath.
Violence