Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List
southampton.ac.uk
Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List
1–10 of 87 posts
Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List
#2The problem with riots is they often get co-opted by actors whose goals are not in alignment with the goal of the original rioters. Also, there isn't usually a singular person, group, or entity who will take responsibility of the riots and say "We are rioting for XYZ reasons". Contrast this with peaceful protests, where the reasons for and goals of the protests are laid bare by its leaders. They are, in turn, able to promote their cause and have their grievances aired to the public at large. Finally, the destructive nature of riots poison the public perception of the rioters and their reasons, regardless of whatever just causes the rioters might have for their actions.
Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List
#3There definitely is an informal and growing consensus on just riot theory.
I hypothesize that the treatment of riots by liberal (classical sense) scholars has been based on their rationalistic optimism and a belief that domestic political problems can be solved non-violently. If they can't, that throws the entire liberal (classical sense) project into question, and opens exhilarating, dangerous doors on both the left and right.
I personally hope that the view that violent riots are illegitimate wins out, but I am not planning my life around that hope.
Addendum: I should note that, if one were opposed to the liberal (classical sense) project, the encouragement of riots (regardless of them being left or right) would be an excellent strategy.
Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List
#4> Riots are extra-public because crowds riot rather than institutionalized groups such as parties or social movements. Riots are extra-state because they violate the state’s monopoly on violence. Riots are extra-legal because they are a form of unlawful assembly. Riots are extra-Parliamentary because they operate outside of the normal legislative process.
Then, by definition, a riot won’t have a durable justification, since its goals are fluid, it uses extraordinary methods, has no accountable leadership, and doesn’t seek enduring change.
Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List
#5Riots are also non-specific. The violence directed toward the "enemy" of the riot is at best a large fraction of the riot's violence. The rest is directed simply at its surroundings. The stores big and small, nearby homes, anyone who happens to be walking by and fitting the wrong description.
You can't do that and be just. A "just riot" would be an attack directed against a specific entity and people would label it a terrorist attack or mob violence, not a riot.
Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List
#6There definitely is an informal and growing consensus on just riot theory. I hypothesize that the treatment of riots by liberal (classical sense) scholars has been based on their rationalistic optimism and a belief that domestic political problems can be solved non-violently. If they can't, that throws the entire liberal (classical sense) project into question, and opens exhilarating, dangerous doors on both the left…
> If they can't, that throws the entire liberal (classical sense) project into question, and opens exhilarating, dangerous doors on both the left and right.
Only if they _can_ be solved with violence. I'd argue that even if a particular issue can be solved with violence, the net result will generally be worse than the status quo as the violence will rarely be limited to such issues.
I'd think that for an undirected mob, violence that was a net beneficial effect would be even more rare than violence by a well regulated army. E.g. U.S. military violence during WWII was arguably a net benefit. What would be an example of mob violence that led to a net benefit?
Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List
#7There definitely is an informal and growing consensus on just riot theory. I hypothesize that the treatment of riots by liberal (classical sense) scholars has been based on their rationalistic optimism and a belief that domestic political problems can be solved non-violently. If they can't, that throws the entire liberal (classical sense) project into question, and opens exhilarating, dangerous doors on both the left…
> I should note that, if one were opposed to the liberal (classical sense) project, the encouragement of riots (regardless of them being left or right) would be an excellent strategy.
It seems absurd on its face to claim that only classical liberals oppose riots on theory grounds.
Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List
#8> Riots are extra-public because crowds riot rather than institutionalized groups such as parties or social movements. Riots are extra-state because they violate the state’s monopoly on violence. Riots are extra-legal because they are a form of unlawful assembly. Riots are extra-Parliamentary because they operate outside of the normal legislative process. Then, by definition, a riot won’t have a durable justification…
Which I think is pretty fair. There's always bad actors who try to justify riots, but almost everyone agrees that they're bad - the "pro-riot" side of a discussion is usually along the lines of "you know, a violent crackdown just isn't going to work, so we'd better do suchandsuch or they'll keep on being angry".
Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List
#9There definitely is an informal and growing consensus on just riot theory. I hypothesize that the treatment of riots by liberal (classical sense) scholars has been based on their rationalistic optimism and a belief that domestic political problems can be solved non-violently. If they can't, that throws the entire liberal (classical sense) project into question, and opens exhilarating, dangerous doors on both the left…
> If they can't, that throws the entire liberal (classical sense) project into question, and opens exhilarating, dangerous doors on both the left and right. Only if they _can_ be solved with violence. I'd argue that even if a particular issue can be solved with violence, the net result will generally be worse than the status quo as the violence will rarely be limited to such issues. I'd think that for an undirected m…
> I'd think that for an undirected mob, violence that was a net beneficial effect would be even more rare than violence by a well regulated army.
For the mob? I think looting is a pretty easy example.
Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List
#10There definitely is an informal and growing consensus on just riot theory. I hypothesize that the treatment of riots by liberal (classical sense) scholars has been based on their rationalistic optimism and a belief that domestic political problems can be solved non-violently. If they can't, that throws the entire liberal (classical sense) project into question, and opens exhilarating, dangerous doors on both the left…
> I should note that, if one were opposed to the liberal (classical sense) project, the encouragement of riots (regardless of them being left or right) would be an excellent strategy. It seems absurd on its face to claim that only classical liberals oppose riots on theory grounds.
I agree, that would be absurd, which is why I did not make that claim. I, for example, am not a liberal (classical sense) and I oppose riots.
I said only that as a tactical consideration, bringing down a liberal (classical sense) regime with riots would be an excellent strategy.