Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List • Hacker News Board

Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List

#11

Post by packetlost » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 3:35 PM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #8

phnofive wrote: post #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…

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".

I think you'd be surprised at how many (particularly young) people and leadership from organizations either refuse to denounce or outright condone rioting.

Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List

#12

Post by moate » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 3:37 PM UTC

hirundo wrote: post #6

recursivedoubts wrote: post #3

There 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…

What about a lynch mob murdering a violent criminal (I'm specifically thinking of a pedophile because culturally that's one of the 'worst') who got off due to a technicality? How is that not a small scale version of state violence? Society has a problem that was unable to be solved through normal, peaceful ways, so violence needed to happen.

Also, just throwing this out there for people in the back who seem to forget: You cannot commit violence on things. You can't murder a building, or a car, or a city. Only the people who may be inside those things at the time. They're objects and in a riot become symbols ("we destroy the rich by destroying what makes them rich") but they're not people. A riot can be destructive without being violent.

Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List

#13

Post by staticautomatic » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 3:37 PM UTC

I’d add to this list Riots and Pogroms by Paul Brass and Among the Thugs by Bill Burford.

Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List

#14

Post by vkou » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 3:38 PM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #8

phnofive wrote: post #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…

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".

The pro-riot side of the discussion also wishes to point out that by the legal definition of a riot, an assembly of three[1] or more people, where one of them engages in graffiti is... A riot.

By that definition, there isn't a single protest, that can't, in thirty seconds, be turned by a drunken idiot, an agent provocateur, or an undercover cop into a riot. (Which immediately justifies the use of flashbangs, firing less-lethal rubber-coated bullets into crowds, and flooding the entire street with tear gas.)

The Hong Kong protests, under American law, would be considered riots. The folks tagging federal CCP buildings would, under American law, have been eligible for up to ten years in federal prison. [2]

Strangely enough, most of people demanding for crackdowns against domestic protests are also endorsing the protests in Hong Kong.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2102

[2] https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2019...

Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List

#15

Post by betaby » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 3:38 PM UTC

In places where information distribution monopolized by ruling class riots are the only method to signal disagreement to both a) ruling class and b) other non-ruling people.

Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List

#16

Post by ultramundane8 » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 3:39 PM UTC

nordsieck wrote: post #9

hirundo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The net beneficial effect mentioned refers to some kind of societal net benefit. The sentence doesn't stand independently from the rest of the post.

Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List

#17

Post by Shivetya » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 3:40 PM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #8

phnofive wrote: post #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…

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".

Now riots and civil disorder are there to be exploited by the ruling class leading up to elections until the desired result is changed; they are in power.

Just like the noise leading into 2008, complete with celebrity moms and widows, to protests and destruction of property, once the political goal was achieved the money behind these people are groups were removed along with any attention directed their way through the press. The press has sufficient numbers who operate strictly at the order of political influences, people vastly underestimate this influence.

Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List

#18

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 3:42 PM UTC

packetlost wrote: post #11

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

I think you'd be surprised at how many (particularly young) people and leadership from organizations either refuse to denounce or outright condone rioting.

Refusal to denounce rioting can be problematic, but I'm not comfortable equating it with support. If people came by demanding that I denounce some random riot, I wouldn't do it, not because I'm pro-riot but because I reject the implication that the rioters have anything to do with me.

I've been quite surprised seeing how many people will condone rioting, but I'm still confident it's a small minority, shrinking to a barely existent minority for riots which can't plausibly be spun as honest protests.

Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List

#19

Post by trgn » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 3:44 PM UTC

hirundo wrote: post #6

recursivedoubts wrote: post #3

There 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…

French revolution started with a riot. While the terror state that came soon after is condemned, it was the violent spark that realized the Enlighment ideals in Europe.

1830 was a riotous year globally. Belgian independence started with a riot, and was successful in a sense, carving out a place for libertarian optimism and industrial expansion from a war-weary continent.

These are both fairly conventional pop-culture interpretations. But maybe similar developments would have happened without the flash in the pan of some undirected mob breaking things.

Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List

#20

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 3:45 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #14

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

The pro-riot side of the discussion also wishes to point out that by the legal definition of a riot, an assembly of three [1] or more people, where one of them engages in graffiti is... A riot. By that definition, there isn't a single protest, that can't, in thirty seconds, be turned by a drunken idiot, an agent provocateur, or an undercover cop into a riot. (Which immediately justifies the use of flashbangs, firing…

I'm referring to clear, unambiguous riots, where people run around looting stores or burning buildings down. Misuse of the American legal definition is a separate issue, and not one I'm interested in discussing.