3 ms·

But at the time she pulled the trigger, he was neither a dictator or genocidal. Perhaps violence is the right way to address all people who have politics we do

But at the time she pulled the trigger, he was neither a dictator or genocidal. Perhaps violence is the right way to address all people who have politics we don’t agree with? Thomas Mair agrees with you.

toyg 6y ago
> at the time she pulled the trigger, he was neither a dictator or genocidal Historians typically mark the official beginning of Mussolini’s dictatorship in 1924, when, following the assassination of socialist MP Giacomo Matteotti by fascists and the subsequent clamour, he went to Parliament and basically told MPs to “shut up or else”. And let’s not forget that he had been appointed Prime Minister with a de-facto coup in 1922. As for “genocidal”, I’m not sure what parameters could be used. The infamous invasion of Ethiopia with chemical weapons had not happened yet, and obviously the Racial Laws were a long way away, but he had already begun the “pacification” of Libya (war started in 1923). Also, political violence against the opposition was already large-scale, as shown with Matteotti. By 1926 it was pretty clear he wasn’t a simple political leader for sure, and he had already spoken at length against representative democracy. Whether that deserved an assassination attempt, is debatable; but there is little question that by 1926 he could be defined as a violent dictator.
sudosysgen 6y ago
Whether political violence is warranted rests upon three factors. Firstly, one must consider if you are initiating political violence or simply reacting - which sadly is necessary. Mussolini obviously had instigated political violence much before. Then, one must consider efficacy - if it's going to be useless then why bother? Finally, one must consider the presence of altermatives. If you can at all avoid it, then political violence is not really justifiable. In this case, the three elements converged, and it's in those cases that political violence can be warranted if done for good. This isn't even controversial, people defend the violence of the US Founding Fathers which engaged in much more violence for much, much, much less.
- filmfact 6y ago
  I fundamentally disagree. On such a basis a white supremisist could justify murder against the ‘violent’ state in the absence of the possibilty of being elected. Presumably on that basis you see the killing of Jo Cox as justified?

toyg 6y ago

> at the time she pulled the trigger, he was neither a dictator or genocidal Historians typically mark the official beginning of Mussolini’s dictatorship in 1924, when, following the assassination of socialist MP Giacomo Matteotti by fascists and the subsequent clamour, he went to Parliament and basically told MPs to “shut up or else”. And let’s not forget that he had been appointed Prime Minister with a de-facto coup in 1922. As for “genocidal”, I’m not sure what parameters could be used. The infamous invasion of Ethiopia with chemical weapons had not happened yet, and obviously the Racial Laws were a long way away, but he had already begun the “pacification” of Libya (war started in 1923). Also, political violence against the opposition was already large-scale, as shown with Matteotti. By 1926 it was pretty clear he wasn’t a simple political leader for sure, and he had already spoken at length against representative democracy. Whether that deserved an assassination attempt, is debatable; but there is little question that by 1926 he could be defined as a violent dictator.

sudosysgen 6y ago

Whether political violence is warranted rests upon three factors. Firstly, one must consider if you are initiating political violence or simply reacting - which sadly is necessary. Mussolini obviously had instigated political violence much before. Then, one must consider efficacy - if it's going to be useless then why bother? Finally, one must consider the presence of altermatives. If you can at all avoid it, then political violence is not really justifiable. In this case, the three elements converged, and it's in those cases that political violence can be warranted if done for good. This isn't even controversial, people defend the violence of the US Founding Fathers which engaged in much more violence for much, much, much less.

filmfact 6y ago
I fundamentally disagree. On such a basis a white supremisist could justify murder against the ‘violent’ state in the absence of the possibilty of being elected. Presumably on that basis you see the killing of Jo Cox as justified?