• @unfreeradical
    link
    English
    1
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    “Privacy” is not violent, nor implicated in the discussion. Private property of course is mentioned and is pivotal.

    Private property is a social relationship, entrenched as a social construct, and protected by the capacity of the state to inflict violence.

    Without violence, neither the state nor private property would continue to exist, because both represent power imbalances, which would not long be respected by the disempowered, except by the invocation of force by the powerful.


    Community is not bound in violence as an indispensable feature.

    Surely, violence occurs in community, generally as a consequence of conflict that had previously escalated incrementally. Within community, members generally may resolve the root cause of conflict, including by directly addressing imbalances in power. Communities are not characterized by the necessity of violence for them to preserve themselves.

    Healthy communities both seek to resolve conflict before any erupts into violence, and seek to contain violence when it emerges.

    Any community that is not prevented from doing so by outside powers can achieve such a level of health.


    A capitalist society at large cannot prevent violence, because violence is both an inevitable consequence and an indispensable requisite for the overarching conflict within capitalist society, of the irreconcilable and conflicting interests between those who own private property, versus those who must sell their labor to survive.