When is political violence justified and when isn't it?

@Demosthenes: “Is it possible to come up with an answer that isn’t hypocritical or doesn’t say “it’s okay when I agree with the cause”?”

Of course. But people don’t understand “hypocrisy” and also seem to think that it’s sufficient to call “hypocrisy” without going into details.

It’s also important to define the terms in the question. For example, “political violence” seems to be doing a lot of work here. I’m not sure this term works for the question. For example, the “violence” that we saw during the BLM demonstrations was largely the state being violent with demonstrators (or fascist counter-protestors shooting demonstrators). But in a discussion like this, you’re bound to have people associate the BLM demonstrations themselves as “violence” and also associate property destruction with “violence”.

Additionally, the people yesterday were able to waltz into the capital because they were essentially allowed to. The shooting of a protestor would clearly be considered violence.

So, I’m not sure “political violence” is an appropriate term to be using here.

That said, we should be able to identify a fascist movement entering a government building with little-to-no- resistance from law enforcement with the intent of overthrowing a democratic election as something altogether different from a people calling on the state to stop murdering them and getting brutalized by state forces when protesting.

For this question, I’ll define “political violence” as violent action directed at government buildings or institutions or politicians (so yes I would include property destruction if I’m trying to use an umbrella term that will cover what happened yesterday and the destruction in Portland and other cities). What I heard from some right-wingers yesterday was that what happened at the Capitol was justified because the country was being “stolen” from them and they were “backed into a corner”.

I think it’s difficult to condone BLM/Antifa’s more destructive actions and be shocked by what happened yesterday. If you condone one form of destructive political action, don’t be surprised when people you disagree with take the same kind of action.

When it works.

@Demosthenes: “I think it’s difficult to condone BLM/Antifa’s more destructive actions and be shocked by what happened yesterday. If you condone one form of destructive political action, don’t be surprised when people you disagree with take the same kind of action.”

I think it’s very easy.

Like I said above….

That said, we should be able to identify a fascist movement entering a government building with little-to-no- resistance from law enforcement with the intent of overthrowing a democratic election as something altogether different from a people calling on the state to stop murdering them and getting brutalized by state forces when protesting.”

Like I said here, I don’t approve of state violence against the public – even if that public is demonstrating what they (incorrectly) feel is a stolen election. But it’s impossible to ignore the state’s reaction to protestors they believe in or support.

What you would refer to as “political violence” is really just “action”. And action is what actually effects change. And if we decide to condemn all action, we are by definition reactionaries and conservatives. We like to believe that change happens because some politicians with good intentions suddenly start legislating it, or public voices make moving speeches. This is contrary to all of history and social movements.

So, in a way, I’ll admit that I’m avoiding answering your question directly because I reject the premise and its framing.

Let’s get one things out of the way first.

The state is violence.

The entire structure of capitalism, suppsed ‘liberal democracy’ and all the institutions that administer the system you largely take for granted is based on and maintained by force and threat of violence. It is a sort of mafia that people have learned to not question, because it’s so established by tradition and longevity.

What is pertinent is that those in power get to define what is and what is not violent. Their own projection of power, enforced by police and military, is deemed a socially acceptable norm, the natural state of affairs. Any challenge to it is “violent”.

In the past, a slave rebellion could have been denounced as “political violence”.

The French Revolution was “political violence”.

The American Revolutionary War was “political violence”.

The Indian Independence movement was “political violence” (ignore the nonsense narratives about Gandhi. It was the likes of Bhagat Singh who won it.)

Palestinians attempting to emancipate themselves from Israeli oppression is “political violence”.

There is a very long history of portraying any protestors that challenge established authority as unjustifiably violent. And that’s before the state’s use of agent provocateurs.

I do not condemn all political violence, because “political violence” is not all the same, and does have different rationales. A lot of what is deemed “political violence” are attempts at emancipation from aspects of state violence and various systems of oppression.

For the Trump supporters who occupied the Capitol, their gripe is that the state wasn’t being violent enough in support of their would-be dictator.

For you, @Demosthenes “political violence” is conveniently limited to violent action directed at government buildings, institutions and politicians. What I’d ask you is is what are people to do when the people in those buildings are the violent ones, and would you even recognise it if they are.

Violence to fight oppression is one thing, violence to reinforce or impose oppression is another.

If you want to play “both sides are bad”, here you are.

@hello and @Demosthenes – As I’ve let almost everyone here know, I HATE POLITICS. But I’ll respond to this question because I feel that after yesterday being silent isn’t an option for anyone rational who values facts.

I don’t believe if we condemn all action we’re “by definition reactionaries or conservaties”. There’s actually a big difference, and it used to matter. But the decay in our political thinking and public discourse has smeared the boundary between extremism and real conservative tradition to the point that neither label identifies anything of value. It leaves a void where anything goes, and blame matters more than accountability.

Is opposing all action really such a bad thing? In present circumstances it could be the only responsible choice. Strictly in terms of morality refusing to be an attack dog for either side is an act of conscience. In fact moderates and independents who’ve jumped off the partisan crazy train are becoming more of a force, and may be the ones driving real reform in the future.

But if you choose action (political or otherwise) where should you start, and where should it end? It’s worth pointing out what one of the rioters told a BBC reporter yesterday : “This country wasn’t created by people who were afraid to break the law.” Maybe, but it wasn’t built by anarchists and fear mongers either. The right to revolution is in fact built into our Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. But real revolution calls for a vision of the future that includes and motivates a true majority. It fails when its only a fringe group out to settle scores over imaginary grievances.

So the bright line for a popular uprising should be a response to real institutional violence that oppresses essential human rights needed to function in society. But reaching that point calls for shared respect and agreement on a basic set of facts. What we saw yesterday was the opposite of all those rules, in almost every way.

@Kropotkin I don’t know how
I manage to forget your reliability for on the money analysis. They will come looking for you.

@JLoon “Is opposing all action really such a bad thing? In present circumstances it could be the only responsible choice. Strictly in terms of morality refusing to be an attack dog for either side is an act of conscience. In fact moderates and independents who’ve jumped off the partisan crazy train are becoming more of a force, and may be the ones driving real reform in the future.”

Yes, great post.

@JLoon I agree that “real institutional violence that oppresses essential human rights” is a justification for violent action. I’m not saying there never any cause to revolt against an oppressive state. I just question whether that’s what’s happening in America right now. Both sides are convinced their “way of life” is threatened and that they need to rise up and defend it. Those of us who aren’t on either extreme seem both sides who are convinced of that causing more damage than anyone else.

@Demosthenes: “Those of us who aren’t on either extreme seem both sides who are convinced of that causing more damage than anyone else.”

Don’t confuse US centrism as “reasonable” or “non-extreme”. It’s a definite ideology, and is very extreme. It has real-word consequences that are often violent and deadly.

@hello ‘Centrism is a political outlook or position that involves acceptance or support of a balance of social equality and a degree of social hierarchy, while opposing political changes which would result in a significant shift of society strongly to either the left or the right.’

I think shifting strongly to either the left or right, is a what most Centrists are concerned about across America.
For me, the real question is what do you feel strongly enough about to leave your home with a weapon, prepared to do violence to your fellow Americans, knowing you will likely be prosecuted for your actions. And that is a question we should all be asking ourselves.

@KNOWITALL I cannot agree with you or the fact that people here are weary of politics. Despite the evil and the partisan divide, the one claim that will not stand is the charge of political indifference or apathy. For whatever reason, the people are up, passionate and INVOLVED. It’s the way Democracy is SUPPOSED to work. Turnout on both sides is at record numbers, and who would believe that a fool who couldn’t tell you the difference between democracy and a tin can turned out responsible for it. What a world.

@stanleybmanly I didn’t say anyone was indifferent or apathetic or weary, dear man.

Just remember, some of these ‘passionate’ people are also violent extremists and wackjobs.

It is never justified. When you get to the point that violence is the answer, there is so much wrong, it isn’t worth fighting over. That goes for BLM/Antifa and what happened at the Capitol and everything in between.