Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List

southampton.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 87 posts

Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List

#21

Post by teataster »

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…

It's not uncommon where I am from for plain clothes police to start riots. That delegitemizes the protestors and legitemizes violent action by the state. Pretty anti-liberal (classical sense :)

That's not exactly an undirected mob, but police and edgy teens seem to have an aligned interest.

Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List

#23

Post by motohagiography »

One reason thinkers usually place riots outside the discourse is because they are an artificial spectacle, and which are necessarily tolerated by a faction in the establishment who could easily suppress them with violence, but they don't because the effect of the riots supports their strategy for change in their institution.

Situationism, and anarchist ideas like "the propaganda of the deed" covered rioting from a more earnest perspective, but in watching movements and protests for a couple of decades, there is always someone within the establishment in whose interest it is to tolerate rioting. This also explains the regular use of police provocateurs to break up peaceful protests by manufacturing riots, and instead of mere explanatory power, you can use it to predict how long an establishment will tolerate a spate of rioting. It's a ritualized performance and a spectacle.

Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List

#24

Post by dodobirdlord »

moate wrote: post #12
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…

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…

This is a weird take. Is an armed robbery not violence if the victim gives up their money and doesn’t actually get shot? A riot is violent because it caries the threat of violence for anyone who tries to stop it, in the same way that a stick-up is violent because the alternative to losing your money is getting shot. If you limit someone’s choices via force, that is violence.

Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List

#25

Post by jhardy54 »

Shivetya wrote: post #17
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".

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 t…

Smells like ideology to me.

Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List

#26

Post by hirundo »

trgn wrote: post #19
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…

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…

The French revolution led in fairly short order to the French empire, which is generally not considered to have been a net social benefit.

I suppose the Boston Massacre could be an example.

Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List

#27

Post by vkou »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #20
vkou wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think that the legal definition of a riot is incredibly relevant to this conversation.

It's one that's applied in practice, as justification for police violence, over and over again.

In practice, a lot of the time, peaceful protests turn into 'clear, unambiguous riots' after police violence starts. Generally speaking, protesters try to police themselves - but when you're half-blind, stumbling away from clouds of teargas, you aren't going to do anything to stop the idiots who took advantage of the chaos to start throwing bricks at store windows.

Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List

#28

Post by packetlost »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #18
packetlost wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

Refusing to denounce rioting is almost always paired with something along the lines of "rioting is the language of the unheard" or "our organizations will not denounce any black person’s display of grief and/or rage", as is the literal case with one of the organizations from my hometown [0]. I cannot see that as anything but support. But trying to justify actions, you are, by definition, supporting those actions.

To be clear, it's the justification, not refusing to denounce.

[0]: https://madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/madison-...

Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List

#29

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

packetlost wrote: post #28
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

Refusing to denounce rioting is almost always paired with something along the lines of "rioting is the language of the unheard" or "our organizations will not denounce any black person’s display of grief and/or rage", as is the literal case with one of the organizations from my hometown [0]. I cannot see that as anything but support. But trying to justify actions, you are, by definition, supporting those actions. To…

Again, there are always some bad actors. I agree this statement sounds a lot closer to support than measured opposition.

Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List

#30

Post by zigzaggy »

moate wrote: post #12
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…

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…

So in your opinion, someone can only commit violence against people? So outside of personal injury behavior cannot be violent? I'm sorry to say I disagree with you. (To be clear, this is not an endorsement for or against either "side" in the current culture war in the US.)

I hate to be that guy that quotes the dictionary, but let's start with dictionary.com[0]: Violence (noun): - swift and intense force: the violence of a storm. - rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence. - an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence.

Now, Wikipedia [1]: Violence is "the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy". Less conventional definitions are also used, such as the World Health Organization's definition of violence as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation."

What about domestic abuse violence that doesn't even involve physical abuse? From WebMD [2]: Domestic abuse is more than just hitting, shoving, and other physical attacks. It’s a pattern of controlling behaviors. The goal always is to get and keep power over an intimate partner.

To be clear, I'm not comparing these riots to domestic violence. What I'm trying to do is debunk this argument that somehow because these rioters aren't hurting anyone that they're not committing acts of violence. These acts of destruction are very much acts of violence. Words are important and the truth matters. Let's call this what it is, violence and destruction. Just because people might not be being targeted doesn't mean that they aren't getting hurt and traumatized. And yes, this is violence.

0. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/violence?s=t 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence 2. https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/mental-whatis-domestic-a...

(Edit: forgot my references, and changed "Webster's" to "Dictionary.com"

Post reply on HN