This is about enforcing norms, and the best way to do it.
A society which has a norm that says political violence is unconscionable is a better society than one which says its acceptable. The way to create that norm is to be rigid in its defence. It may* be true that in such and such a time, under such and such conditions, political violence may be defensible or even necessary but if you lead by opening the door to exceptions what people hear is not “political violence is only ever acceptable when…” but “political violence is… acceptable”.
After all, you can’t precisely enumerate all the circumstances when it might be necessary and you’ll end up essentially saying that it’s a matter for people’s judgement. Which means that somebody is going to make a determination that you would disagree with. And so you have sold the pass before you even start.
Do Benito Mussolini and Nicolae Ceaușescu count? After they were killed both Italy and Yugoslavia (by virtue of breaking up) were set on course to become the modern nations (or multiple nations) we know today.
Yes, this. There are times when violence is acceptable, but those are times when you are not operating under the framework of a functional, civil society. And as bad as things are now, we are still in a functional, civil society. There are people who insist that we aren’t, and haven’t been for a long time; those people are extremely wrong and have no idea what a failed society is actually like, but they’re doing their best to push us all towards finding out.
Those were summary trials and executions after they had already been removed from power. The improvements in those countries would have likely taken place even if they were merely imprisoned or exiled.
Lee Oswald sure set the U.S. on a path towards beneficent change in the 1960s.
Then there’s Gavrilo Princip, who in shooting Franz Ferdinand in 1914 brought wonderful benefits to Europe and led the way towards a more just, peaceful 20th century world.
We wouldn’t have anarchists in power in various countries if it hadn’t been for their assassinations and bombings of the early 20th century.
The toppling of eastern European dictatorships only happened because angry individuals shot leaders.
Israel has assured peace and security by assassinating terrorist leaders, who are never replaced.
I agree but the arc of recent history is towards that failed society. Things are only getting worse and our politicians are not trying to stop it…indeed, they seem to be working to accelerate it.
Then the argument (as such) is where is the line drawn? Where is the tipping point? More importantly for this thread is do you wait to fight when there is no other choice or fight sooner to stop the collapse?
Trump and company are abusing the law so badly it is hard to see how we work in the system to make things better. Trump has given the middle-finger to the system and it’s working. He’s 100% getting away with it. He’s got the US Supreme Court letting him do pretty much anything he wants. How do you oppose that? Where are the check-and-balances on Trump?
I think what some are suspecting is that the Republicans have the pedal to the floor right now, with the Presidency, a compliant congress, and locked-in Supreme Court, to reshape the way the country works. We see some of what is going on, with the whole gerrymandering battles (TX and CA), commandeering of the military for use in American cities, scrubbing of voter rolls, etc., but there is probably a hell of a lot of other shit happening behind the scenes, that we wont find out about until the time is right (ya know, right before election day 2026). They are doing, and will do, everything they can get away with, legal or not, to maintain their grip on power. If the 2026 mid-term comes to pass and the Democrats retake one or both houses of Congress (as is expected), I will worry a bit less.
Tito once said to Stalin:
“Stop sending people to kill me. We have already captured five of them, one of them with a bomb and another with a rifle… If you don’t stop sending killers, I will send one to Moscow, and I won’t have to send another”.
Stalin died under some suspicious circumstances a few years later.
Are you sure? According to Noted Historian Darryl Cooper, the regime he was dealing with were the “Chief Villains of the Second World War”. He couldn’t possibly be lying about that! (/Heavy sarcasm)