4 ms·

I've definitely been in the room when people talk about how there'll be a black bloc coming to an event for "direct action", where we all know damn well that bl

I've definitely been in the room when people talk about how there'll be a black bloc coming to an event for "direct action", where we all know damn well that black blocs come to, you know, break stuff and beat up cops and fascists. I take it that the group that's in the room is collectively too scared to kick them out or to stop their violence. That said, I wish that the cops, the state, and opposition parties would all stop pretending that their violence isn't violence It is violence. That's how sovereignty works. The state has the monopoly on violence. The cops are acting on behalf of the state. All others who break it are either illegal instigators, or exercising the right of self defense. Principled non-violent protest is the mark of a true activist. Violence is the mark of those who merely want power for themselves.

thaumasiotes 8y ago
> That's how sovereignty works. The state has the monopoly on violence. A lot of modern states aspire to this. Many don't. It is not a current or historical requirement of "sovereignty".
- geezerjay 8y ago
  Actually it is. Only the state has the right to imprision and prosecute anyone, and the police force has the right to impose public order by force if necessary, and the military has the right to hold weapons and defend the nation's borders. Those are all things the state has the sole right to do, and not a random citizen who just felt like it.
eli_gottlieb 8y ago
>I take it that the group that's in the room is collectively too scared to kick them out or to stop their violence. No, the group that's in the room supports them, but also considers them strategically unreliable and a bit mentally unstable. Yes, your average urban socialist group does sometimes co-organize with Antifa or anarchist black blocs, to some extent. >It is violence. That's how sovereignty works. The state has the monopoly on violence. The cops are acting on behalf of the state. All others who break it are either illegal instigators, or exercising the right of self defense. Which makes it amazing how often the cops downright falsify their reason for hitting or shooting someone!
- stcredzero 8y ago
  No, the group that's in the room supports them, but also considers them strategically unreliable and a bit mentally unstable. Yes, your average urban socialist group does sometimes co-organize with Antifa or anarchist black blocs, to some extent. So then they are fine with crimes and violations of human rights done in their name. That clarifies their true ethical positions and that they are not principled in their "activism." Which makes it amazing how often the cops downright falsify their reason for hitting or shooting someone! The judiciary well knows that there is a temptation to lie when violence has entered the picture. The way to fight this is to be the side that is above lies and deception. Antifa and anarchist black blocs have demonstrated that they aren't above immoral acts, as those who know the history and sometimes co-organize with them.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> The state has the monopoly on violence. It's true that one particularly useful definition of a state is whatever entity exercises a monopoly on legitimate (a key qualifier) violence in a particular territory. But that is not an inherent property of whatever entity calls itself a state, and failures of legitimacy can cause a state to fail and be replaced; that a thing is called (and even moreso that it calls itself) the state has little bearing here. The definition provides a test for whether something actually is the state, not whether it may engage in violence. Clearly, in the eyes of any group deploying violent direct action, the legitimacy of the State has been compromised if not entirely lost. > Principled non-violent protest is the mark of a true activist. It's the mark of an adherent to a particular ideology of activism, whose effectiveness (without some other group deploying or credibly threatening violence against the same target that they oppose) and morality in the face of extreme abuses have both been seriously questioned.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  The definition provides a test for whether something actually is the state Or, in the words of CGP Grey: "Bigger Army Diplomacy." So, the implication, and the content of international law, is that if you have the power to enforce your will in a territory, you have the sovereignty. Someone who advocates for that approach to "activism" is advocating for a violent uprising by force. Someone who advocates for that from within a democratic republic, simply doesn't want to play by the rules anymore. It's the mark of an adherent to a particular ideology of activism, whose effectiveness (without some other group deploying or credibly threatening violence against the same target that they oppose) and morality in the face of extreme abuses have both been seriously questioned. Such was remarked about Ghandi's position that non-violence could oppose Fascism. So sure, if you're making an equivalency between the current US government and Fascism. However, that would be a prime example of false equivalency. There's more equivalency between white hooded KKK members and Antifa black bloc running around vandalizing and intimidating than there is between WWII Italy/Germany and 2018's USA.

thaumasiotes 8y ago

> That's how sovereignty works. The state has the monopoly on violence. A lot of modern states aspire to this. Many don't. It is not a current or historical requirement of "sovereignty".

geezerjay 8y ago
Actually it is. Only the state has the right to imprision and prosecute anyone, and the police force has the right to impose public order by force if necessary, and the military has the right to hold weapons and defend the nation's borders. Those are all things the state has the sole right to do, and not a random citizen who just felt like it.

eli_gottlieb 8y ago

>I take it that the group that's in the room is collectively too scared to kick them out or to stop their violence. No, the group that's in the room supports them, but also considers them strategically unreliable and a bit mentally unstable. Yes, your average urban socialist group does sometimes co-organize with Antifa or anarchist black blocs, to some extent. >It is violence. That's how sovereignty works. The state has the monopoly on violence. The cops are acting on behalf of the state. All others who break it are either illegal instigators, or exercising the right of self defense. Which makes it amazing how often the cops downright falsify their reason for hitting or shooting someone!

stcredzero 8y ago
No, the group that's in the room supports them, but also considers them strategically unreliable and a bit mentally unstable. Yes, your average urban socialist group does sometimes co-organize with Antifa or anarchist black blocs, to some extent. So then they are fine with crimes and violations of human rights done in their name. That clarifies their true ethical positions and that they are not principled in their "activism." Which makes it amazing how often the cops downright falsify their reason for hitting or shooting someone! The judiciary well knows that there is a temptation to lie when violence has entered the picture. The way to fight this is to be the side that is above lies and deception. Antifa and anarchist black blocs have demonstrated that they aren't above immoral acts, as those who know the history and sometimes co-organize with them.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> The state has the monopoly on violence. It's true that one particularly useful definition of a state is whatever entity exercises a monopoly on legitimate (a key qualifier) violence in a particular territory. But that is not an inherent property of whatever entity calls itself a state, and failures of legitimacy can cause a state to fail and be replaced; that a thing is called (and even moreso that it calls itself) the state has little bearing here. The definition provides a test for whether something actually is the state, not whether it may engage in violence. Clearly, in the eyes of any group deploying violent direct action, the legitimacy of the State has been compromised if not entirely lost. > Principled non-violent protest is the mark of a true activist. It's the mark of an adherent to a particular ideology of activism, whose effectiveness (without some other group deploying or credibly threatening violence against the same target that they oppose) and morality in the face of extreme abuses have both been seriously questioned.

stcredzero 8y ago
The definition provides a test for whether something actually is the state Or, in the words of CGP Grey: "Bigger Army Diplomacy." So, the implication, and the content of international law, is that if you have the power to enforce your will in a territory, you have the sovereignty. Someone who advocates for that approach to "activism" is advocating for a violent uprising by force. Someone who advocates for that from within a democratic republic, simply doesn't want to play by the rules anymore. It's the mark of an adherent to a particular ideology of activism, whose effectiveness (without some other group deploying or credibly threatening violence against the same target that they oppose) and morality in the face of extreme abuses have both been seriously questioned. Such was remarked about Ghandi's position that non-violence could oppose Fascism. So sure, if you're making an equivalency between the current US government and Fascism. However, that would be a prime example of false equivalency. There's more equivalency between white hooded KKK members and Antifa black bloc running around vandalizing and intimidating than there is between WWII Italy/Germany and 2018's USA.