It is often said that the good must have claws, to fight against the evil, and the better the good is armed, the less are the chances for the evil to proliferate. This view implies a number of strong statements that seem to be entirely wrong.
First, it is assumed that the good and the evil can be distinguished in an absolute way, and it is enough to suppress the evil to automatically increase the quantity of the good. This is obviously wrong, since the distinction of the good and the evil is ideologically saturated, changing from one historical period to another. Consequently, one can easily take the evil for the good and the good for the evil, and hence one can be never sure about what exactly needs to be suppressed. Moreover, the same thing can combine the good and evil aspects, and it is only in further historical development that one of them would dominate. The good and the evil are the two sides of the same, and one cannot eliminate one without eliminating the other.
Second, the very act of suppression of the opposite is already an instance of violence, and the main danger of violence is that it can easily turn against its source. Violence can produce nothing but more violence, unless it is controlled by a much more powerful constructive force. However, such force cannot act in the interests of one group against another group; otherwise it will destroy the very basis of sociality, thus losing its constructive nature.
Struggle for life is not for humans. It calls to people's animal origin and the cruel laws of biological evolution, which have nothing to do with humanism and reason. While you are struggling, you are an animal. Once you stop fighting and start producing universally useful things, you become a conscious being.
Psychologically, the better somebody is armed, the more one is tempted to exercise one's power. Having a gun is dangerous, since the gun will shoot, sooner or later, albeit unintentionally. Learning martial arts makes one feel better protected, which provokes voluntary acts incompatible with reason. Inventing a new weapon makes its owner forget about the interests of those who do not have an adequate defense.
I do not deny any necessity of struggle and defense at all. I only indicate that each instance of fight, however motivated and objectively grounded, is a manifestation of the rudiments of the animal in humans, and it must be under severe conscious control until it can be entirely eliminated. One cannot remain clean living in the dirt, but one can at least try to reduce the overall quantity of dirt and become, if not cleaner, at least less dirty. To be truly conscious, we must establish a global order to eliminate the very need in any struggle; in the imperfect world of today, all the human creativity is to aim at that supreme goal.