In our attempts to achieve world wide social revolution there will be violent resistance to our desires. Thus we must face the fact of violence, and retain the option of retaliation, of self defence, of resistance. To think otherwise is to not accept the ramifications of our desire for a different society, which means contesting the power of those who control society now. Of course it is easier to believe that if we all just change our minds...
This does not mean that we desire or glorify violence. It simply means that we resist violence, and continue our activities in the face of violence. our actions then become a question of tactics - when it this action most useful, what is the best way to intervene or respond to a situation?
A belief in pacificism and non-violence is in fact a desire to avoid confrontation (by labeling it violence and rejecting the use of physical force) and a failure to come to terms with fear. Torture in South America for example affects political process in Australia just as much as the jailing of Tim Anderson does. Direct action put your body on the line. To not be afraid of that is suspicious, and to not talk about it is evasion. Non-violence and pacifism are not the same, and non-violence has little to do with being passive, submissive or cowardly. However the equating of violence destruction of property, civil disobedience and non-cooperation is simply to avoid one's own fear. It is a question of practice. There are many who want a different society, one that is anarchist. But to concentrate on all the 'nice' aspects of this future society (co-operation, mutual aid, ecological awareness, a living community) can blind us to the realities of struggle here and now.