14 ms·

Why is there no theory of the just riot? (2021)

tryitnow 5y ago
Haven't read this, but I am a little suspicious already - I am pretty sure I have read theories of just riots - but maybe they're just not produced and published in mainstream academia. Such theories will most likely be produced by the sort of anarchists who may very well eschew academic publishing.
djoldman 5y ago
PDF: https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/0FB53D483E24A115BB336DB95A8AC79A/S000712342000085Xa.pdf/div-class-title-the-british-academy-brian-barry-prize-essay-span-class-italic-why-is-there-no-just-riot-theory-span-div.pdf https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/c...
jonathan-adly 5y ago
In the popular culture, people usually say that St. Augustine came up with the "just war" stuff. Anybody who actually read him though, he was a lot more into delegitimizing state power. State power he didn't like (rather than all state power). I would put him square into the "just riot" section. "Without justice, what else is the State but a great band of robbers?" St. Augustine.
- bobthechef 5y ago
HideousKojima 5y ago
That's an easy one, no need to get philosophical or long-winded about it: because most riots target the businesses and homes of random citizens/companies. If anti-police riots solely targeted police stations, city offices, and other related government buildings and infrastructure then a much larger percentage of the populace would see them as just/justified. Samsung TVs on sale at 100% off at your local Target doesn't have the same moral weight to it.
- colpabar 5y ago
  I agree 100%. It was so disappointing to see all the damage done to private businesses during the summer of 2020. Why not go after government buildings? Isn't that who funds all the things that were being protested? How does destroying a target store help anything??
  - ixtli 5y ago
    I agree with you that no one should ever like seeing damage to a community. Two things come to mind in response to your comment: 1. it is important to differentiate between violence done towards individuals and damage caused to private property. i am not accusing you of conflating the two but i just feel it necessary to be explicit in these discussions because people often try to slyly discuss one as if it was the other. 2. I think a compelling argument in defense of the demonstrators in 2020, target isn't a part of the community. It pays minimum wage, makes it difficult for small business owned by the community to compete, and most importantly extracts the wealth and moves it away from the community. I am not saying there weren't better targets. I'm not saying we shouldn't (necessarily) go after government buildings if those are you grievances. I'm just saying that there is reasoning behind this even if its blunt. (Also worth noting i read an interview with a restaurant owner near the target whos restaurant was burned down that effectivly said "yeah this really really sucks, but at the same time i understand the wider context." That's what happens when you're actually a member of the community and get caught up the fallout from these things.)
    - thegrimmest 5y ago
      Many would argue that the destruction of their livelihood does much more long-lasting harm than suffering physical violence. Many a small business owner would rather catch a beating than see their business burnt to the ground.
      - djbusby 5y ago
        Lol. Rather get beaten half to death (and pay for it because America!) than replace a building with insurance money?? Wrong. Plus, it's traumatic for your family to watch you get beat down - more traumatic than watching you cry at a replaceable loss.
ixtli 5y ago
"And I would be the first to say that I am still committed to militant, powerful, massive, non-violence as the most potent weapon in grappling with the problem from a direct action point of view. I'm absolutely convinced that a riot merely intensifies the fears of the white community while relieving the guilt. And I feel that we must always work with an effective, powerful weapon and method that brings about tangible results. But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the negro poor has worsened over the last twelve or fifteen years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity." - Dr. Martin Luthor King Jr, in a speech given at Grosse Pointe High School on March 14, 1968 EDIT: There is some legalism in OPs link which i am not qualified to criticize, however its dotted with claims which appear to be more general and that ignore hundreds of years of political science theory. "Very few people defend rioting as a justified political action." This just isn't true.
- beepbooptheory 5y ago
  Are you aware that this quote is an epigraph at the beginning of this very essay?
  - ixtli 5y ago
    yes! i wanted to past the whole paragraph without elision and i didnt feel like specifically going into how it implies that for some reason Dr. King's speeches dont constitute academic development or that, futher, this ignores the last 200 years of marxist-leninist writing and discussion on the topic. But as i said in my edit, i don't think im qualified to discuss matters of legalism. Its just a little nuts, to my eyes, that someone can look at all of these people who developed their worldview at least partially by study and say "why is no one talking about this!"
vorpalhex 5y ago
The author doesn't really tackle "extra legal" (lawbreaking) so let me try. If you see someone burn down a building or beat someone to death, your first thought is "Huh, that could be my home or me". Thus violent acts tend to turn the population against rioters. Defenders of rioters will usually say something like "but you have nothing to fear unless you are X!" but it's trivial to understand that rioting mobs are not rational, that they attack the wrong targets or the innocent. This is plain. Violence against innocent people can not be just. Riots never act in a limited capacity, they are not controlled. They are like hand grenades which harm everyone around them regardless of allegiance.
- beepbooptheory 5y ago
  Importantly, to even have that thought, you need to own a home in the first place!
  - cafard 5y ago
    Because nobody every burns a rental unit?
    - beepbooptheory 5y ago
      Mostly they'll just burn down because the landlord doesn't maintain them.
      - teakettle42 5y ago
        Mostly they don’t burn down at all. From what you’ve posted throughout this thread, you have a very stark, one-sided, reductive view of the world.
        beepbooptheory 5y ago
        I think you might have me confused with someone else! I do admit that last comment was snarky, but it has just been on my mind since last week when there was, in fact, a fire in a rental apartment building in my city, killing a bunch of people.
hprotagonist 5y ago
There is; read the prophets.
- undershirt 5y ago
  Can you share some verses?
  - hprotagonist 5y ago
    I’d actually recommend Walter Bruggemann’s “The prophetic imagination”, instead; he’s a very thoughtful scholar of this sort of thing.
    - undershirt 5y ago
      Thanks brother
mellosouls 5y ago
Who decides which is just between left and right wing riots? One man's riot is another's righteous rebellion.
- tcmart14 5y ago
  Or another way to word it, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter no matter what way you slice it.
- umvi 5y ago
  > Who decides which is just between left and right wing riots? The media tries to shape public perception of riots/lawlessness. Compare left vs right media on left vs. right protests/riots. Each will paint the other as domestic terrorists and each will attempt to downplay/justify the actions of their own.
- hnuser847 5y ago
  Honestly this is why political discussions are pointless. People can justify literally any behavior if it's for a cause they believe in. Consistent moral principles are only of interest to the philosophers.
- scollet 5y ago
  I am not sure where you're getting the left and right divide from. If you're referring to January 6th, it scores 1/11 for justifiability.
0xbadcafebee 5y ago
A just riot is like saying a just mental breakdown. They happen for all kinds of reasons, typically stressors, but not always injustice. People have rioted because they've feared social change, political change, religious change, they've rioted because they've run out of bread, they've rioted due to systematic abuse and racism, and they've rioted because a black man and a white woman wanted to date. Rioting should never be normative or just. Protest, direct action, striking, sure. But setting a random person's storefront on fire because you're unhappy with something completely unrelated is not just. If rioting has to happen (and I would agree that it does), it should not be seen as normative or just. It should be seen as an extreme and unjust but necessary action to wake society up to a problem which must be dealt with. If it was considered just, that would be rationalizing the abuse of some members of society by others as a way for them to "vent" about their "injustice". Today the riot could be for civil rights, but tomorrow it'd be for white supremacists. This article takes great pains to position its argument as "The Crowd" versus "The State". But it's not the state that is harmed by a riot, it's the people. The state is fine! They have a military and can defend themselves. But the innocent people who are the victims of riots can't defend themselves against either the crowd or the state. Some riots don't involve the state at all. Genocidal riots have happened within social groups without the intervention of the state time and again. Which side of a riot is just? A racist riot and an anti-racist riot are still both riots; how do you tell which one is just? Your own personal morals are not a rational basis for justice, because somebody else's personal morals are going to throw your whole theory out of whack.
NoblePublius 5y ago
It's called the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...."
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  That allows for a just revolution, not a just riot.
- askin4it 5y ago
  it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.... by looting Target? And forget about Life and Liberty if you live in a neighborhood where people riot
boredumb 5y ago
joshuaheard 5y ago
There is no theory for a just riot, because riots are never just. Substitute "terrorism" for "riot" and see where the reasoning takes you. Break it down to an individual level: I need money, so I'm justified in robbing a bank. Just because terrorism and riots result in political gains, it is not a justification. Robbing banks makes me rich, but that is not a justification. The whole point of a democratic system is to redress grievances. Mob violence destroys democracy. We have a system of laws. If you go outside that system, it is criminal and immoral.
- gampleman 5y ago
  From the GP: > "Political theorists have also written normative defenses of terrorism (for example, Held 1991, Nielsen 1981)."
- Loughla 5y ago
  >The whole point of a democratic system is to redress grievances. God, this is the entire point of decades of research, but, what do you do when the system either will not work for you, or is actively structured to ensure that it cannot work for you? What then?
  - echopurity 5y ago
  - krapp 5y ago
    Perhaps the point is that, once you get out the nooses and guillotines and start lining partisans up against the wall, you're no longer participating in a legitimate, democratic process. In the oft-quoted "Tree of liberty" letter written by Thomas Jefferson regarding Shay's Rebellion[0], he condemned the actual violence as being born in ignorance and considered it the result of the failure of government to properly "set them right to facts, pardon and pacify them" - even as he praised the spirit which led to it. Revolution against tyranny is, itself, an act of tyranny (often of a population against itself) and while the ends may be considered justifiable (and always are by the revolutionaries) the means often are not. [0]https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/105.html https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/105.html
beepbooptheory 5y ago
Really urge people to follow the guidelines and comment on the actual thing posted, or not at all. We do not need to rehash every one's armchair moral theory whenever things like this come up. Your fear, or disgust, does not contribute to a possible fruitful discussion of these matters, and it is not the point of analyses like this. Riots are embedded into the history of social order, whether you like it or not. They are symptoms, they do not care about your principles or your personal moral fortitude. You can see them happen and be shocked or whatever, but it doesn't stop the fact that they happen, and at the end of the day it's just simply irrational to believe that this a moral issue first and foremost! I think many of you need to take more literally MLK's point that they are "the language of the unheard."
- cuteboy19 5y ago
  But... This is your armchair moral theory.
enaaem 5y ago
I am reading the book Blueprint for Revolution that advocates non-violent activism. In fact, non-violence has to be a core value of your group and you have to actively enforce it among your members. It's often said that violent protest are needed because change happens too slow. The book argues that violence is counterproductive and will only slow down whatever you want to achieve. Often times, authoritarian regimes actively provoke a violent response or plant infiltrators. Instead of being seen as a reasonable group of people with a just cause, you will be painted as rioters, thieves, and terrorists who are stealing for your own benefit or are bribed by foreign forces.
- Izkata 5y ago
  > The book argues that violence is counterproductive and will only slow down whatever you want to achieve. Example - BLM and the riots in 2020: https://civiqs.com/results/black_lives_matter https://civiqs.com/results/black_lives_matter A lot of people immediately switched from in-between to oppose, and they steadily kept losing support for almost a year and a half, the decline only stopping around this past October. Net support is back to where it was in mid-2018.
  - enaaem 5y ago
    BLM and "Defund the Police" are interesting examples of really ineffective activism. First of all, the demands are too vague. You want to be as concrete as possible with your demands. Get small victories and take baby steps towards your goal. Secondly, you have to paint a better vision of the future. Just campaigning "Down with the dictator!" doesn't work. Most people have a job and a family to feed. Even if life sucks it's kinda stable and they don't want a civil war and chaos. You need to give a plan or vision of how everything can be 10 times better. That's why campaigning Defund the Police doesn't work, because then what? What's the plan? Chaos? All the riots in the background don't help either. An example of a better campaign could be to demand longer police training. US police trains for 6 months, while their European counterparts train for 3 years. I think most people don't even know the extend of how undertrained US police is. It's a campaign everyone can stand behind. Left and right. Who doesn't want better police? Even the police want better police. It's not even explicit anti-racist, but it would save many black lives. It's an easy victory you can take towards a bigger goal.
brobdingnagians 5y ago
If someone specific is oppressing or destroying your property or life, then you have just cause to go to war with them, but not riot and cause collateral damage to your fellow citizens. "Just war" is a targeted, purposeful, organized thing, and it is not to be taken lightly. Rioting is random destruction of fellow citizens' property or life because of generalized hatred.
- tsol 5y ago
  >"Just war" is a targeted, purposeful, organized thing, and it is not to be taken lightly. >Rioting is random destruction of fellow citizens' property or life because of generalized hatred. I'm not saying you're wrong per se, but making an observation; this means the state has a monopoly on violence, including on unjust violence(ex when individuals break the rules during just wars, which can be used as an excuse to allow unjust actions). I think there are some flaws to that argument, and following that logic to the beginning of America's independence leads one to view America as an unjust state
  - brobdingnagians 5y ago
    I see what you mean; I badly worded that. I meant more that any group of individuals could get together to decide to wage war and that the state doesn't have a monopoly on violence per se.
echopurity 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
acc_vector 5y ago
There are some great pieces written on this. The author is just in an academic bubble. If you go to a riotous situation on the ground you will encounter people spreading and handing out plenty of free literature espousing the views the rioters hold about their activities. It is a common topic of discussion and formalization, just not in an academic context generally. One example I saw that was particularly interesting is [0]. [0] http://www.ultra-com.org/project/why-riot/ http://www.ultra-com.org/project/why-riot/
- bakuninsbart 5y ago
  Similarly here: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/william-gillis-you-are-not-the-target-audience https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/william-gillis-you-a... It is very much a topic within far-left circles, the issue is rather that there are very few far-left circles in anglo-saxon academia due to a lack of interest in the subject matter by the people funding the universities there. That said, both of the articles are interesting reads, but assume lots of premises as true without exploring them further. A unified theory doesn't exist as far as I know.
- Mathnerd314 5y ago
  Let's go through the article's table w.r.t. the ultra letter: Freedom preserving, Equality promoting - Indeed, he is overthrowing the elites Voices of the unheard, Conditions of a polity's most disadvantaged - Indeed, according to his economic overview, he is quite poor and marginalized Basic liberal democratic framework (life, liberty, property) - he frames this as not being able to buy a house, and the elites owning everything, so in some sense yes, this is about the distribution of property Inability to seek redress through parliamentary procedures - Yes, the political parties are "fundamentally corrupt" and activism is "rigged". Although, he doesn't mention ever actually calling his representatives. Unjust law - he is contesting capitalism, so in some sense yes Unjust dispersal order - he says the riots are the "excuse" for authorities, so yes, presumably there is some suppression going on Crowd behavior, Legitimate targets, Proportionality - unclear, he talks about riots in general rather than specific riots. But going off of William Gillis's article these are chosen after "careful deliberation", so there is some form of self-policing going on. So the conclusion I get is that Havercroft's article is essentially pro-riot, although there is a lot of waffling.
temp-dude-87844 5y ago
This essay is a thought-provoking read, because it critically analyzes riots by their characteristics and compatibility with classic Western political thought. It comes very close to making the assertion that once a demonstration attains 'crowd' characteristics, while that crowd may attempt to self-police, the crowd lacks the ability to effectively and rapidly restrain and disavow actors in the crowd or nearby who escalate the level of violence. Lacking any ability to distinguish the faction affiliation of orderly protesters vs. rioters at the same event, the public will readily attribute any violence committed in the same spatial and temporal context to the protest's organizers. In my view, this specific risk makes riots an ineffective political tool: once the well-targeted violence begins, it's far too easy for its narrative to be hijacked by hot-blooded people or opportunistic agitators amidst the chaos. If poorly-targeted disorder materializes, the riot loses legitimacy with outgroups, and battle lines are drawn along faction lines. In contrast, riots can be effective tools of terror and/or revolution. After a successful revolution, the victors often expend considerable effort to justify their actions, as the new order must be seen as normal for it to last and not be perceived as an aberration. (New regimes in coup-prone regions don't bother, because there is no expectation that the regime won't be deposed by another coup later.) With these risks, why would anyone organize anything but the most carefully branded peaceful protest? With clear leaders, coordinators, security, video cameras, and sophisticated media relations, and ideally vetting and uniforms. Careless assembly is a recipe for hurting the stated cause, unless the goal is martyrdom or victory through superior force.
slibhb 5y ago
The article is good but I think it makes a simple category error. There is quite a lot of theorizing concerning the justification of extra-legal violence. Riots, though, are characterized by their aimlessnessness. When rioters do discriminate in who they attack and what they destroy we don't call them rioters and we are generally more open to the idea that their actions may be justified. On Violence (Hannah Arendt), which is cited in the article, is a good discussion. In '67 there was an interesting public discussion with Arendt, Chomsky, and others titled "The Legitimacy of Violence as a Political Act?" We tend to think that we're living in tense times but the 60s and 70s were more tense with more politial violence.
m0llusk 5y ago
The basic question is interesting, but much of the discussion about riots has an aggressive political framing. Many riots are triggered by wins or losses at prominent sports contests. Also, Stonewall was a riot with a particularly long lasting effect and different dynamics from many others. People in drag humiliating police was a big part of it and property damage was minimal. Consider this recollection of a riot in 1994: Having just lived through the hockey riots in Vancouver (the worst mob action Western Canada has ever seen), it makes me fear not beer-swilling heteros but the socio-economic system of apartheid they live under. If you think that makes me an armchair socialist, that's your opinion. By the way, just talk to a cute 20-year-old rioter who got cruised by a 26-year-old riot squad cop in the middle of the riot. The cop literally sheltered him with his shield, accompanied him to his car, and gave the kid his phone number! Grace under pressure.
kerneloftruth 5y ago
The Right needs to read up on this and take it into account. People on the right generally do not riot or loot (1/6/21 is an outlier), as it goes against a tendency to uphold law and order, and from a recognition that individuals and businesses (many privately owned, and many of them struggling) are the actual victims. However, if it really is an effective tool for gaining a political advantage, it should be considered in that light. One of the biggest issues with it being adopted by the Right, however, is that the press will cover it very differently than when political violence comes from the Left, due to predominant biases in the media. Perception is reality in terms of public opinion. If a riot is meant to persuade opinion, but is re-framed and re-shaped by media, then it can do more harm than good.
- zepto 5y ago
  It isn’t an effective tool. It has completely undermined the BLM protests.
PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
Wars (just or otherwise) are almost always fought "over there". "Our" military may be involved, but "our" property generally is not (assuming we win). Riots happen "here", and destroy "our" property. Political/philosophical justifications for things generally support the interests of the property owning classes, because that's how the money reaches those who get to spend their time thinking about such things and then distributing their ideas. That's why there is no theory of a just riot.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bitwize 5y ago
Lack of class consciousness.
sleepingadmin 5y ago
>Very few people defend rioting as a justified political action. I'll do it. All political riots are just. The answer is if the rioters will gain anything. The primary thing that government represents is a monopoly on violence. When violence is an option, society doesn't function. Their entire goal is to stop any and all violence. Military is about stopping violence outside the borders. Many levels of 'law enforcement' to stop violence inside the borders. A riot signifies the fall of said government. Their obligation is to stop the riot and violence but failure to do so means they must address. Minneapolis is a great example here. Stores were on fire by rioters. When george floyd died on video, the current government fell. They were unable to stop violence and therefore no longer represented the people. They however said lots of things like defund the police. However, the government in which ends the violence will be the new government. Minneapolis justly is in anarchy right now. The recent election is not real. Aboliting the police didnt even pass. If it did, they wouldn't even have a small chance of ever reforming the government. The justice is that clearly the police force in minneapolis is racist and is very clearly commit police brutality. Said government that allows if not encourages this behaviour must fall. Trust is the police force doesn't exist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Frey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Frey This guy is the mayor just about as much https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Guaid%C3%B3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Guaid%C3%B3 is president of venezuela. He's not. In fact the longer than Jacob Frey pretends to be mayor, the worse it becomes for minneapolis. The irony of it all, the rioters dont understand any of the above. They called for defunding of the police but have achieved nothing. If these rioters understood this and adjusted their worthless tactics of forming their own law enforcement and displace the current government. March all your people up to the capital and take ownership over the municipality. The current police can't do anything at all to prevent this.
- corpdronejuly 5y ago
  This has interesting implications for the events of the past 2 years in general given how little power any of the levels of Government had to prevent protests from interrupting their exercise of power and monopoly on force.
  - sleepingadmin 5y ago
huetius 5y ago
In this thread: people discovering that the idea of the direction of history necessitates the subordination of ethics to politics.
wbsss4412 5y ago
People get upset about riots because they don’t live up to the standards we set for the legal system: orderly, hierarchical, governed by a clear set of rules, ie due process. A “just riot”, if we are to accept there can accept there is such a thing, would be unlikely to take the form of the established legal system, as its source is entirely outside of said system; if there were an avenue for redress within the legal system, how could it be just to riot? Riots only make sense when there is a clear failure within the legal system to deliver justice.
sul_tasto 5y ago
indeed there may: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vindiciae_contra_tyrannos https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vindiciae_contra_tyrannos

Haven't read this, but I am a little suspicious already - I am pretty sure I have read theories of just riots - but maybe they're just not produced and published in mainstream academia. Such theories will most likely be produced by the sort of anarchists who may very well eschew academic publishing.

djoldman 5y ago

PDF: https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/0FB53D483E24A115BB336DB95A8AC79A/S000712342000085Xa.pdf/div-class-title-the-british-academy-brian-barry-prize-essay-span-class-italic-why-is-there-no-just-riot-theory-span-div.pdf https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/c...

jonathan-adly 5y ago

In the popular culture, people usually say that St. Augustine came up with the "just war" stuff. Anybody who actually read him though, he was a lot more into delegitimizing state power. State power he didn't like (rather than all state power). I would put him square into the "just riot" section. "Without justice, what else is the State but a great band of robbers?" St. Augustine.

bobthechef 5y ago

HideousKojima 5y ago

That's an easy one, no need to get philosophical or long-winded about it: because most riots target the businesses and homes of random citizens/companies. If anti-police riots solely targeted police stations, city offices, and other related government buildings and infrastructure then a much larger percentage of the populace would see them as just/justified. Samsung TVs on sale at 100% off at your local Target doesn't have the same moral weight to it.

colpabar 5y ago
I agree 100%. It was so disappointing to see all the damage done to private businesses during the summer of 2020. Why not go after government buildings? Isn't that who funds all the things that were being protested? How does destroying a target store help anything??
- ixtli 5y ago
  I agree with you that no one should ever like seeing damage to a community. Two things come to mind in response to your comment: 1. it is important to differentiate between violence done towards individuals and damage caused to private property. i am not accusing you of conflating the two but i just feel it necessary to be explicit in these discussions because people often try to slyly discuss one as if it was the other. 2. I think a compelling argument in defense of the demonstrators in 2020, target isn't a part of the community. It pays minimum wage, makes it difficult for small business owned by the community to compete, and most importantly extracts the wealth and moves it away from the community. I am not saying there weren't better targets. I'm not saying we shouldn't (necessarily) go after government buildings if those are you grievances. I'm just saying that there is reasoning behind this even if its blunt. (Also worth noting i read an interview with a restaurant owner near the target whos restaurant was burned down that effectivly said "yeah this really really sucks, but at the same time i understand the wider context." That's what happens when you're actually a member of the community and get caught up the fallout from these things.)
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    Many would argue that the destruction of their livelihood does much more long-lasting harm than suffering physical violence. Many a small business owner would rather catch a beating than see their business burnt to the ground.
    - djbusby 5y ago
      Lol. Rather get beaten half to death (and pay for it because America!) than replace a building with insurance money?? Wrong. Plus, it's traumatic for your family to watch you get beat down - more traumatic than watching you cry at a replaceable loss.

ixtli 5y ago

"And I would be the first to say that I am still committed to militant, powerful, massive, non-violence as the most potent weapon in grappling with the problem from a direct action point of view. I'm absolutely convinced that a riot merely intensifies the fears of the white community while relieving the guilt. And I feel that we must always work with an effective, powerful weapon and method that brings about tangible results. But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the negro poor has worsened over the last twelve or fifteen years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity." - Dr. Martin Luthor King Jr, in a speech given at Grosse Pointe High School on March 14, 1968 EDIT: There is some legalism in OPs link which i am not qualified to criticize, however its dotted with claims which appear to be more general and that ignore hundreds of years of political science theory. "Very few people defend rioting as a justified political action." This just isn't true.

beepbooptheory 5y ago
Are you aware that this quote is an epigraph at the beginning of this very essay?
- ixtli 5y ago
  yes! i wanted to past the whole paragraph without elision and i didnt feel like specifically going into how it implies that for some reason Dr. King's speeches dont constitute academic development or that, futher, this ignores the last 200 years of marxist-leninist writing and discussion on the topic. But as i said in my edit, i don't think im qualified to discuss matters of legalism. Its just a little nuts, to my eyes, that someone can look at all of these people who developed their worldview at least partially by study and say "why is no one talking about this!"

vorpalhex 5y ago

The author doesn't really tackle "extra legal" (lawbreaking) so let me try. If you see someone burn down a building or beat someone to death, your first thought is "Huh, that could be my home or me". Thus violent acts tend to turn the population against rioters. Defenders of rioters will usually say something like "but you have nothing to fear unless you are X!" but it's trivial to understand that rioting mobs are not rational, that they attack the wrong targets or the innocent. This is plain. Violence against innocent people can not be just. Riots never act in a limited capacity, they are not controlled. They are like hand grenades which harm everyone around them regardless of allegiance.

beepbooptheory 5y ago
Importantly, to even have that thought, you need to own a home in the first place!
- cafard 5y ago
  Because nobody every burns a rental unit?
  - beepbooptheory 5y ago
    Mostly they'll just burn down because the landlord doesn't maintain them.
    - teakettle42 5y ago
      Mostly they don’t burn down at all. From what you’ve posted throughout this thread, you have a very stark, one-sided, reductive view of the world.
      - beepbooptheory 5y ago
        I think you might have me confused with someone else! I do admit that last comment was snarky, but it has just been on my mind since last week when there was, in fact, a fire in a rental apartment building in my city, killing a bunch of people.

hprotagonist 5y ago

There is; read the prophets.

undershirt 5y ago
Can you share some verses?
- hprotagonist 5y ago
  I’d actually recommend Walter Bruggemann’s “The prophetic imagination”, instead; he’s a very thoughtful scholar of this sort of thing.
  - undershirt 5y ago
    Thanks brother

mellosouls 5y ago

Who decides which is just between left and right wing riots? One man's riot is another's righteous rebellion.

tcmart14 5y ago
Or another way to word it, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter no matter what way you slice it.
umvi 5y ago
> Who decides which is just between left and right wing riots? The media tries to shape public perception of riots/lawlessness. Compare left vs right media on left vs. right protests/riots. Each will paint the other as domestic terrorists and each will attempt to downplay/justify the actions of their own.
hnuser847 5y ago
Honestly this is why political discussions are pointless. People can justify literally any behavior if it's for a cause they believe in. Consistent moral principles are only of interest to the philosophers.
scollet 5y ago
I am not sure where you're getting the left and right divide from. If you're referring to January 6th, it scores 1/11 for justifiability.

0xbadcafebee 5y ago

A just riot is like saying a just mental breakdown. They happen for all kinds of reasons, typically stressors, but not always injustice. People have rioted because they've feared social change, political change, religious change, they've rioted because they've run out of bread, they've rioted due to systematic abuse and racism, and they've rioted because a black man and a white woman wanted to date. Rioting should never be normative or just. Protest, direct action, striking, sure. But setting a random person's storefront on fire because you're unhappy with something completely unrelated is not just. If rioting has to happen (and I would agree that it does), it should not be seen as normative or just. It should be seen as an extreme and unjust but necessary action to wake society up to a problem which must be dealt with. If it was considered just, that would be rationalizing the abuse of some members of society by others as a way for them to "vent" about their "injustice". Today the riot could be for civil rights, but tomorrow it'd be for white supremacists. This article takes great pains to position its argument as "The Crowd" versus "The State". But it's not the state that is harmed by a riot, it's the people. The state is fine! They have a military and can defend themselves. But the innocent people who are the victims of riots can't defend themselves against either the crowd or the state. Some riots don't involve the state at all. Genocidal riots have happened within social groups without the intervention of the state time and again. Which side of a riot is just? A racist riot and an anti-racist riot are still both riots; how do you tell which one is just? Your own personal morals are not a rational basis for justice, because somebody else's personal morals are going to throw your whole theory out of whack.

NoblePublius 5y ago

It's called the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...."

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
That allows for a just revolution, not a just riot.
askin4it 5y ago
it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.... by looting Target? And forget about Life and Liberty if you live in a neighborhood where people riot

boredumb 5y ago

joshuaheard 5y ago

There is no theory for a just riot, because riots are never just. Substitute "terrorism" for "riot" and see where the reasoning takes you. Break it down to an individual level: I need money, so I'm justified in robbing a bank. Just because terrorism and riots result in political gains, it is not a justification. Robbing banks makes me rich, but that is not a justification. The whole point of a democratic system is to redress grievances. Mob violence destroys democracy. We have a system of laws. If you go outside that system, it is criminal and immoral.

gampleman 5y ago
From the GP: > "Political theorists have also written normative defenses of terrorism (for example, Held 1991, Nielsen 1981)."
Loughla 5y ago
>The whole point of a democratic system is to redress grievances. God, this is the entire point of decades of research, but, what do you do when the system either will not work for you, or is actively structured to ensure that it cannot work for you? What then?
- echopurity 5y ago
- krapp 5y ago
  Perhaps the point is that, once you get out the nooses and guillotines and start lining partisans up against the wall, you're no longer participating in a legitimate, democratic process. In the oft-quoted "Tree of liberty" letter written by Thomas Jefferson regarding Shay's Rebellion[0], he condemned the actual violence as being born in ignorance and considered it the result of the failure of government to properly "set them right to facts, pardon and pacify them" - even as he praised the spirit which led to it. Revolution against tyranny is, itself, an act of tyranny (often of a population against itself) and while the ends may be considered justifiable (and always are by the revolutionaries) the means often are not. [0]https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/105.html https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/105.html

beepbooptheory 5y ago

Really urge people to follow the guidelines and comment on the actual thing posted, or not at all. We do not need to rehash every one's armchair moral theory whenever things like this come up. Your fear, or disgust, does not contribute to a possible fruitful discussion of these matters, and it is not the point of analyses like this. Riots are embedded into the history of social order, whether you like it or not. They are symptoms, they do not care about your principles or your personal moral fortitude. You can see them happen and be shocked or whatever, but it doesn't stop the fact that they happen, and at the end of the day it's just simply irrational to believe that this a moral issue first and foremost! I think many of you need to take more literally MLK's point that they are "the language of the unheard."

cuteboy19 5y ago
But... This is your armchair moral theory.

enaaem 5y ago

I am reading the book Blueprint for Revolution that advocates non-violent activism. In fact, non-violence has to be a core value of your group and you have to actively enforce it among your members. It's often said that violent protest are needed because change happens too slow. The book argues that violence is counterproductive and will only slow down whatever you want to achieve. Often times, authoritarian regimes actively provoke a violent response or plant infiltrators. Instead of being seen as a reasonable group of people with a just cause, you will be painted as rioters, thieves, and terrorists who are stealing for your own benefit or are bribed by foreign forces.

Izkata 5y ago
> The book argues that violence is counterproductive and will only slow down whatever you want to achieve. Example - BLM and the riots in 2020: https://civiqs.com/results/black_lives_matter https://civiqs.com/results/black_lives_matter A lot of people immediately switched from in-between to oppose, and they steadily kept losing support for almost a year and a half, the decline only stopping around this past October. Net support is back to where it was in mid-2018.
- enaaem 5y ago
  BLM and "Defund the Police" are interesting examples of really ineffective activism. First of all, the demands are too vague. You want to be as concrete as possible with your demands. Get small victories and take baby steps towards your goal. Secondly, you have to paint a better vision of the future. Just campaigning "Down with the dictator!" doesn't work. Most people have a job and a family to feed. Even if life sucks it's kinda stable and they don't want a civil war and chaos. You need to give a plan or vision of how everything can be 10 times better. That's why campaigning Defund the Police doesn't work, because then what? What's the plan? Chaos? All the riots in the background don't help either. An example of a better campaign could be to demand longer police training. US police trains for 6 months, while their European counterparts train for 3 years. I think most people don't even know the extend of how undertrained US police is. It's a campaign everyone can stand behind. Left and right. Who doesn't want better police? Even the police want better police. It's not even explicit anti-racist, but it would save many black lives. It's an easy victory you can take towards a bigger goal.

brobdingnagians 5y ago

If someone specific is oppressing or destroying your property or life, then you have just cause to go to war with them, but not riot and cause collateral damage to your fellow citizens. "Just war" is a targeted, purposeful, organized thing, and it is not to be taken lightly. Rioting is random destruction of fellow citizens' property or life because of generalized hatred.

tsol 5y ago
>"Just war" is a targeted, purposeful, organized thing, and it is not to be taken lightly. >Rioting is random destruction of fellow citizens' property or life because of generalized hatred. I'm not saying you're wrong per se, but making an observation; this means the state has a monopoly on violence, including on unjust violence(ex when individuals break the rules during just wars, which can be used as an excuse to allow unjust actions). I think there are some flaws to that argument, and following that logic to the beginning of America's independence leads one to view America as an unjust state
- brobdingnagians 5y ago
  I see what you mean; I badly worded that. I meant more that any group of individuals could get together to decide to wage war and that the state doesn't have a monopoly on violence per se.

echopurity 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

acc_vector 5y ago

There are some great pieces written on this. The author is just in an academic bubble. If you go to a riotous situation on the ground you will encounter people spreading and handing out plenty of free literature espousing the views the rioters hold about their activities. It is a common topic of discussion and formalization, just not in an academic context generally. One example I saw that was particularly interesting is [0]. [0] http://www.ultra-com.org/project/why-riot/ http://www.ultra-com.org/project/why-riot/

bakuninsbart 5y ago
Similarly here: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/william-gillis-you-are-not-the-target-audience https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/william-gillis-you-a... It is very much a topic within far-left circles, the issue is rather that there are very few far-left circles in anglo-saxon academia due to a lack of interest in the subject matter by the people funding the universities there. That said, both of the articles are interesting reads, but assume lots of premises as true without exploring them further. A unified theory doesn't exist as far as I know.
Mathnerd314 5y ago
Let's go through the article's table w.r.t. the ultra letter: Freedom preserving, Equality promoting - Indeed, he is overthrowing the elites Voices of the unheard, Conditions of a polity's most disadvantaged - Indeed, according to his economic overview, he is quite poor and marginalized Basic liberal democratic framework (life, liberty, property) - he frames this as not being able to buy a house, and the elites owning everything, so in some sense yes, this is about the distribution of property Inability to seek redress through parliamentary procedures - Yes, the political parties are "fundamentally corrupt" and activism is "rigged". Although, he doesn't mention ever actually calling his representatives. Unjust law - he is contesting capitalism, so in some sense yes Unjust dispersal order - he says the riots are the "excuse" for authorities, so yes, presumably there is some suppression going on Crowd behavior, Legitimate targets, Proportionality - unclear, he talks about riots in general rather than specific riots. But going off of William Gillis's article these are chosen after "careful deliberation", so there is some form of self-policing going on. So the conclusion I get is that Havercroft's article is essentially pro-riot, although there is a lot of waffling.

temp-dude-87844 5y ago

This essay is a thought-provoking read, because it critically analyzes riots by their characteristics and compatibility with classic Western political thought. It comes very close to making the assertion that once a demonstration attains 'crowd' characteristics, while that crowd may attempt to self-police, the crowd lacks the ability to effectively and rapidly restrain and disavow actors in the crowd or nearby who escalate the level of violence. Lacking any ability to distinguish the faction affiliation of orderly protesters vs. rioters at the same event, the public will readily attribute any violence committed in the same spatial and temporal context to the protest's organizers. In my view, this specific risk makes riots an ineffective political tool: once the well-targeted violence begins, it's far too easy for its narrative to be hijacked by hot-blooded people or opportunistic agitators amidst the chaos. If poorly-targeted disorder materializes, the riot loses legitimacy with outgroups, and battle lines are drawn along faction lines. In contrast, riots can be effective tools of terror and/or revolution. After a successful revolution, the victors often expend considerable effort to justify their actions, as the new order must be seen as normal for it to last and not be perceived as an aberration. (New regimes in coup-prone regions don't bother, because there is no expectation that the regime won't be deposed by another coup later.) With these risks, why would anyone organize anything but the most carefully branded peaceful protest? With clear leaders, coordinators, security, video cameras, and sophisticated media relations, and ideally vetting and uniforms. Careless assembly is a recipe for hurting the stated cause, unless the goal is martyrdom or victory through superior force.

slibhb 5y ago

The article is good but I think it makes a simple category error. There is quite a lot of theorizing concerning the justification of extra-legal violence. Riots, though, are characterized by their aimlessnessness. When rioters do discriminate in who they attack and what they destroy we don't call them rioters and we are generally more open to the idea that their actions may be justified. On Violence (Hannah Arendt), which is cited in the article, is a good discussion. In '67 there was an interesting public discussion with Arendt, Chomsky, and others titled "The Legitimacy of Violence as a Political Act?" We tend to think that we're living in tense times but the 60s and 70s were more tense with more politial violence.

m0llusk 5y ago

The basic question is interesting, but much of the discussion about riots has an aggressive political framing. Many riots are triggered by wins or losses at prominent sports contests. Also, Stonewall was a riot with a particularly long lasting effect and different dynamics from many others. People in drag humiliating police was a big part of it and property damage was minimal. Consider this recollection of a riot in 1994: Having just lived through the hockey riots in Vancouver (the worst mob action Western Canada has ever seen), it makes me fear not beer-swilling heteros but the socio-economic system of apartheid they live under. If you think that makes me an armchair socialist, that's your opinion. By the way, just talk to a cute 20-year-old rioter who got cruised by a 26-year-old riot squad cop in the middle of the riot. The cop literally sheltered him with his shield, accompanied him to his car, and gave the kid his phone number! Grace under pressure.

kerneloftruth 5y ago

The Right needs to read up on this and take it into account. People on the right generally do not riot or loot (1/6/21 is an outlier), as it goes against a tendency to uphold law and order, and from a recognition that individuals and businesses (many privately owned, and many of them struggling) are the actual victims. However, if it really is an effective tool for gaining a political advantage, it should be considered in that light. One of the biggest issues with it being adopted by the Right, however, is that the press will cover it very differently than when political violence comes from the Left, due to predominant biases in the media. Perception is reality in terms of public opinion. If a riot is meant to persuade opinion, but is re-framed and re-shaped by media, then it can do more harm than good.

zepto 5y ago
It isn’t an effective tool. It has completely undermined the BLM protests.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

Wars (just or otherwise) are almost always fought "over there". "Our" military may be involved, but "our" property generally is not (assuming we win). Riots happen "here", and destroy "our" property. Political/philosophical justifications for things generally support the interests of the property owning classes, because that's how the money reaches those who get to spend their time thinking about such things and then distributing their ideas. That's why there is no theory of a just riot.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

bitwize 5y ago

Lack of class consciousness.

sleepingadmin 5y ago

>Very few people defend rioting as a justified political action. I'll do it. All political riots are just. The answer is if the rioters will gain anything. The primary thing that government represents is a monopoly on violence. When violence is an option, society doesn't function. Their entire goal is to stop any and all violence. Military is about stopping violence outside the borders. Many levels of 'law enforcement' to stop violence inside the borders. A riot signifies the fall of said government. Their obligation is to stop the riot and violence but failure to do so means they must address. Minneapolis is a great example here. Stores were on fire by rioters. When george floyd died on video, the current government fell. They were unable to stop violence and therefore no longer represented the people. They however said lots of things like defund the police. However, the government in which ends the violence will be the new government. Minneapolis justly is in anarchy right now. The recent election is not real. Aboliting the police didnt even pass. If it did, they wouldn't even have a small chance of ever reforming the government. The justice is that clearly the police force in minneapolis is racist and is very clearly commit police brutality. Said government that allows if not encourages this behaviour must fall. Trust is the police force doesn't exist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Frey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Frey This guy is the mayor just about as much https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Guaid%C3%B3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Guaid%C3%B3 is president of venezuela. He's not. In fact the longer than Jacob Frey pretends to be mayor, the worse it becomes for minneapolis. The irony of it all, the rioters dont understand any of the above. They called for defunding of the police but have achieved nothing. If these rioters understood this and adjusted their worthless tactics of forming their own law enforcement and displace the current government. March all your people up to the capital and take ownership over the municipality. The current police can't do anything at all to prevent this.

corpdronejuly 5y ago
This has interesting implications for the events of the past 2 years in general given how little power any of the levels of Government had to prevent protests from interrupting their exercise of power and monopoly on force.
- sleepingadmin 5y ago

huetius 5y ago

In this thread: people discovering that the idea of the direction of history necessitates the subordination of ethics to politics.

wbsss4412 5y ago

People get upset about riots because they don’t live up to the standards we set for the legal system: orderly, hierarchical, governed by a clear set of rules, ie due process. A “just riot”, if we are to accept there can accept there is such a thing, would be unlikely to take the form of the established legal system, as its source is entirely outside of said system; if there were an avenue for redress within the legal system, how could it be just to riot? Riots only make sense when there is a clear failure within the legal system to deliver justice.

sul_tasto 5y ago

indeed there may: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vindiciae_contra_tyrannos https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vindiciae_contra_tyrannos