I’m not advocating for political violence. I’m not saying we should go out and start shooting people we sorta (or even vehemently) disagree with.
What I’m asking, without a shred of an angle here, is: Is political violence really never the answer? Especially when living under fascism, tyranny, oppression? Wasn’t our country founded on political violence? What’s the difference between political violence and revolution? Doesn’t there come a point when political violence isthe solution, or at least a reasonable solution?
It feels like constantly repeating “Political violence is never the answer” is something politicians would say because they have the most to lose. And anyone that says it (politician or otherwise) is just protecting the status quo at any cost.
Now, I am not a violent person AT ALL, and I don’t want to see this country torn to shreds though targeted assassinations. But I’m sure there have been millions of people living under tyranny/oppression throughout history who didn’t want to see violence in their streets, people killed, their status quo disrupted either, but at some point…when all else fails, when fair elections aren’t happening, when people aren’t represented properly, when the government is carrying out cruel violence against citizens and violating human rights… when does it become justified? Is there a line? Or is it just NEVER JUSTIFIED?
I’m genuinely curious to hear both sides of this, and everything in between. Over the past 24 hours, I keep hearing the phrase “Political violence is never the answer,” from Dopers to political leaders, and actors, musicians, talking heads, newscasters, progressive clergy, etc. And I’m just wondering if this is just something people say to keep things calm for as long as possible and maintain the status quo, or is this really truly the only thing an honorable, moral, civilized person can believe?
Let’s say that cows turn sentient, issue a peaceful but firm declaration to no longer consume their people.
We hear that message, and decide, “Nah, let’s keep eating them.” I’d put it that the cows are in their right to 1) defend themselves, and 2) seek to gain political power that ensures that both sentient species are being treated fairly.
The problem is that there’s a lot of territory between this sort of “perfect” tale and the real world, and the moment that you start telling people that they’re free to interpret anything and everything as a justification to go out killing…well, some of your fellow citizens were already people who simply needed that one milligram less of pressure to start going out murdering.
Ensuring that you’re a part of a reasonable group, with a rational and laudable agenda, sufficient standing as a victim or supporter of those of sufficiently grievous harm, and empowered through no other means than violence is a very high bar.
Realistically, you’re always wrong unless you’re the winner and you get to write the history books. If the Revolutionaries had failed, they’d have just been a group of terrorists.
But, becoming the winner basically means that you had the numbers behind you. If you can’t get most people off their butt, and there’s a significant body on the sidelines shaking their head, then it’s probably not the moment. Until that time, make an evidence based argument for your views to all who will listen and vote for good people. Don’t vote for bad people, to avoid worse. That’s just a continuing race to the bottom.
The individual is not the end sum of the problem. The individual is symptomatic of a much bigger and deeper problem, so killing the individual cannot solve the problem, it can only exacerbate it.
Assassination turns your perceived enemy into a martyr in the eyes of your enemies and further polarizes them against you.
Political violence is an answer to some questions. The issue is what those questions are, and what is your ultimate goal. Political violence rarely results in or is quickly followed by stability, and in fact the United States almost immediately found itself embroiled in political violence soon after it won independence, and has been subjected to cycles of political violence (at various levels) throughout its entire history. We’ve been fortunate that within living memory the instances of actual political violence have been limited, punctuated by a handful of memorable events, with no critical mass of people really willing to engage upon violent actions or insurrection prior to 6 January 2021 when egged on by a demagogue and would-be autocrat.
I don’t think you want to dig into that philosophical minefield because basically “both sides” of the gun control issue have skewed the meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment to suit their own ends. Suffice to say, it was not created specifically to encourage political violence or uprising against the federal government, which I think should be obvious given the people who voted it into the Bill of Rights.
Although even a cursory examination of history shows that the change that is enacted or effected is generally not positive. More often, we get a French Revolution turning into a quasi-fascist Napoleonic Empire, or the Russian Civil War resulting in the eight decade long totalitarian regime of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, ‘peaceful revolutions’ where would-be strongmen are pushed out of power by popular but mostly peaceful demonstrations are what allowed the Warsaw Pact countries to be embraced and enter into the European community instead of being embroiled in internecine conflict like the former Yugoslavia (which, admittedly had a lot of complex historical issues and ethnic strife that drove the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s).
el donald has been talking about and seems to be getting started on herding the scapegoats into camps. If and when those become death camps, if there are no longer real elections, we will be there.
I think for most people, when they say political violence is never justified, they are excluding the need for all-out war or revolution. When you reach the point where you or your family is threatened, and you have no other option but to fight back violently, the line has been crossed, and violence is justified, at least in their mind.
The question is when is that line crossed, and I think it differs from person to person. Have we reached the point that it’s time to take out politicians or political activists we think are threatening our democracy and permanently harming the country? A few might say yes, but I think the overwhelming majority would say political violence is not justified… yet.
It should also be pointed out that it’s not a clear fence between “politics” and “violence.” I can’t remember if it was Clausewitz or who else who said this, but “Politics is peaceful warfare, and warfare is violent politics.” It’s a spectrum, not an either/or.
At its core, politics boils down to Side X trying to impose its will on Side Y against Side Y’s will. Of course, there are some things that are mutual win-win benefit, but much of the time, it isn’t. You could say ballots are peaceful bullets and bullets are violent ballots. Even a “peaceful” election is still one side trying to stamp its boot on its opponents’ necks; albeit without bloodshed.
I agree but I think it is difficult to be peaceful if the other side is being oppressive and willing to resort to violence. Yes, we have seen it work (e.g. Ghandi in India) but also not (e.g. Tiananmen Square in China).
If the government is willing to massacre the protestors then I am not sure peaceful protest will get any kind of change and likely more oppression.
I don’t think that quote can be attributed to Carl von Clausewitz, but in letters to Friedrich Erhard von Röder (translated and published as Carl von Clausewitz: Two Letters on Strategy) he famously advised, “War is not an independent phenomenon, but the continuation of politics by different means.” He was not, of course, talking about civil insurrection but in keeping the perspective in a strategic campaign of not getting embroiled in military action for its own sake but to a desired political end. He also wrote, in On War, “No one starts a war–or rather, no one in his sense ought to do so–without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by the war and how he intends to conduct it.” Civil wars are rarely stared with clear objectives beyond deposing the current miscreant, and almost never with an understanding of the scope that it may grow to. As a consequence, most successful insurrections and resulting civil wars devolve into multi-party conflicts with internecine fighting where the side that stays out of the fray ends up taking power, e.g. the Spanish Civil War.
Violent action wouldn’t have gotten the Tiananmen Square protesters any further than they did. They weren’t just facing political violence but a long standing and well-consolidated autocratic regime with totalitarian surveillance and control. Those kinds of empires basically have to erode from within or be conquered from without to fall because insurrectionists will never be able to gain enough power to undermine them.
Speaking very carefully to this point, it is worthwhile to remember that “Political violence” is not limited to people protesting authoritarian/fascist supporters. What Trump and other authoritarians are often enacting is itself “Political violence” sanctioned by a party in control of the tools of government. And of course, in Trump’s case, often in direct contravention to the law and court rulings, but with the full support of his political allies.
So, Political violence is a broader term that the most recent sparking event, and is embraced by a substantial (or at least, very vocal) portion of the MAGA base. They can and are using it, whatever the moral argument against it. But as said above, different individuals have different lines in the sand in what they consider unacceptable, and major events of political violence are rarely successful in generating positive long-term beneficial change.
I think it is more a very loud fraction of the base rather than a ‘substantial’ portion. The 6 January 2021 insurrection was quite unpopular even with much of the MAGA faithful, and resulted in numerous people resigning from the administration. There was likely even enough support, had Republican leadership pushed it, to remove Trump in his impeachment trial but in his unbounded wisdom Mitch McConnell nixed it, fearing a backlash similar to what happened with Nixon resigning, and assuming that Trump was truly forked for his incitement. How’d that work out for you, Mitch?
Political violence, and especially insurrections, are generally really unpopular because it destabilizes the system, and unless that system is already fatally compromised most people would rather stick with it and try to at least marginally improve it (as they see fit) than face the bleak and unknown future of complete governmental and social collapse.
