Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Marco Masi's avatar

Regardless of one's stance on the use of violence versus nonviolence, their effectiveness and success depend on the support of the masses and their participation in the chosen course of action. Without a critical mass of public support, any action is unlikely to achieve much. The reaction to the killing of a CEO speaks volumes, as it evidently struck a sensitive nerve in society. Clearly, there is widespread dissatisfaction. However, I doubt this reflects genuine collective awareness or a true rebellion against the entrenched system. There haven't been mass rallies against corporations and elites or a civil rights movement calling for a "March on Washington" against an unjust healthcare system. To the contrary, people recently elected, as their commander-in-chief, someone who defends corporations and billionaires, opposes affordable healthcare, resists reforms to address income inequality, and denies climate change. While, those who advocate for change that addresses the shortcomings of a plutocratic system are often branded as 'communist' or 'woke.' Unless these cognitive dissonances are resolved, and the underlying (often quiet and unconscious) support for the status quo persists, neither violence nor nonviolence is likely to bring about meaningful transformation. This has been a universal rule throughout history: A shift in collective consciousness is required to bring about real and lasting change.

Expand full comment
Ben J's avatar

Respect your view but disagree myself. The system is inclined to correct to the status quo, but kicks to a system can change its state permanently. The more kicks, the better, in my view.

I think the identity argument is unhelpful and wrong. Young white men are not the only people who participate in political violence, and you can only come to that conclusion by looking at a pretty restrictive sample (US President Assassinations). Even if it were true, would that be bad? If we allow ourselves to judge actions purely by who does them, I don't see where that gets us.

A version of the above argument is used against Just Stop Oil activists in the UK ("they're all just posh tarquins"). It's wrong, but even if it were correct, would it matter?

Regarding your worry abt social movements becoming "one person". This happens anyway. Sometimes it's useful for this to happen for messaging reasons.

Your piece appears to suggest that political violence is *never* right/necessary "Whether or not Thompson’s murder achieves anything, it is frightening that there are those who take it upon themselves to remake the world as they see fit through violence. It is a mirror of the same violence they claim to decry." Targeted political violence is often used to bring change, I'm not sure where disavowing it gets you. Many decolonial movements use violence. Are they wrong to do so?

Expand full comment
57 more comments...

No posts