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

Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List

#31

Post by op03 » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 4:20 PM UTC

Shouldn't it be easy thanks to Zuckerberg and Co to profile the Personality Trait distributions of any assembling group?

I mean given what marketing teams are able to do these days, in real time, I think any bunch of Violent Trait holders assembling anywhere will be straight forward to identify.

Anyways alternative reading list for the non-violent crowd - Gandhi specifically the Champran Agitation, the Rowlatt Act(non-coop movement), and then the Salt march.

What I liked about it is he didn't react to an issue by just giving speeches, blaming anyone or mindlessly protesting. He would go to the site of the issue with qualified people and work the problem. Gain support through those actions, across all kinds of social, cultural, religious, linguistic boundaries, no one thought possible. And that would freak out the powers that be for whom divide and conquer is the default method of clinging to power.

Nothing freaks them out more than when 2 groups that dont get along march together. And thats when they start making compromises.

Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List

#32

Post by ke7in » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 4:38 PM UTC

As with any destructive force, rioting is not a sustainable state of being. It is a blunt object to signal "Things are not okay" from societies whose frustration boils over in trying to achieve change through more articulate language.

Rioting rarely affects change in the systems in the direction desired, as its methods are misaligned with desirable, sustainable values. Thus, it allows ruling classes to paint a harsh narrative of the rioters - leading in many cases to greater inequality and worse conditions.

Riot theory seems like an interesting starting point to understand the socioeconomic climate in America today. A dialogue from which would naturally lend itself to survey the options that members of a community have in articulating opinions and criticisms of the systems they live within.

Note: I haven't had the chance yet to read the articles linked by Mr Havercroft, but look forward to doing so.

Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List

#33

Post by jetzzz » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 4:39 PM UTC

A lot of people in this thread seem to have some false dichotomy in their mind - either you are peacefully protesting or you are rioting by burning random cars and destroying uninvolved storefronts. There is another option: peacefully protest but try to occupy administrative buildings and only use violence as a response to police violence. This is what happened in many post-USSR countries in the so called "colour revolutions", Euromaidan, etc. In particular in Euromaidan there were heavy clashes with police, but no destruction of private property (at least not deliberately by protesters). Police cars were burned, paving stone, garbage bins, etc were used for fighting/barricades, but this doesn't hurt anyone in particular the way destroyed car or store would. Meanwhile in US/Western Europe riots are for some reason seem to be directed not at government and police but at uninvolved car/store owners.

Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List

#34

Post by 082349872349872 » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 4:40 PM UTC

hirundo wrote: post #26

trgn wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

After the fall of the french empire, my country kept the new laws, the new roads, and the new social structure. We just got rid of the french who had been running things and put locals in their place.

Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List

#35

Post by 082349872349872 » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 4:50 PM UTC

Rumsfeld's contribution to Riot Theory:

> "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression and people who have had members of their family killed by that regime, for them to be taking their feelings out on that regime, ... I don't think there's anyone in any of those pictures ... [who wouldn't] accept it as part of the price of getting from a repressed regime to freedom."

https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2003/04/11/Rumsfeld-Looting...

Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List

#36

Post by mc32 » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 4:54 PM UTC

jetzzz wrote: post #33

A lot of people in this thread seem to have some false dichotomy in their mind - either you are peacefully protesting or you are rioting by burning random cars and destroying uninvolved storefronts. There is another option: peacefully protest but try to occupy administrative buildings and only use violence as a response to police violence. This is what happened in many post-USSR countries in the so called "colour rev…

My guess is that in Eastern Europe because private business was rare and was an exception and somewhat counterrevolutionary it was seen as part of them of their estate. In the West people who see business as part of the problem of wealth disparity see business as anathema to their promiseland where the community is everything and private enterprise is a vestige of capitalism so it has to go down for participating.

Except that’s only the view of radicals and the normal people protesting and not protesting see a problem in that since they do not believe the whole system is bad, but rather needs some reform.

In more concise terms in the East they were fighting to get capitalism, in the West some fight to defeat capitalism.

Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List

#37

Post by Pfhreak » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 4:54 PM UTC

jetzzz wrote: post #33

A lot of people in this thread seem to have some false dichotomy in their mind - either you are peacefully protesting or you are rioting by burning random cars and destroying uninvolved storefronts. There is another option: peacefully protest but try to occupy administrative buildings and only use violence as a response to police violence. This is what happened in many post-USSR countries in the so called "colour rev…

There's also a false dichotomy between peaceful and violent.

There are non-violent, non-peaceful protests where protesters are noisy, block traffic, etc. Many of the speakers I've heard have expanded on the phrase "No Justice, No Peace" to describe how they'd like their protests to be remembered not as peaceful, but as non-violent. One speaker I recall saying, "This is a peaceful protest! Wait, no no, it's not that. It's a non-violent protest! We're here because if there is no justice, then there is no peace."

Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List

#38

Post by recursivedoubts » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 4:56 PM UTC

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…

Life is complicated and lines are grey. For example, while I am in general opposed to rioting, I am deeply sympathetic to the miners in the coalfield war:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Coalfield_War

I would argue that the French Revolution was functionally fundamentally, albeit cryptically, illiberal (classical sense) with De Sade as the crux. And to Napoleon as the illiberal tyrant that came out of the chaos of that time.

Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List

#39

Post by recursivedoubts » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 4:59 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…

I agree with you. James Scott has written about how, for the common person, war, revolution and riot is typically a net loss:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_C._Scott

I am not an anarchist, but I enjoy his writings immensely.

Re: Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List

#40

Post by Pfhreak » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 5:04 PM UTC

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.

There are very few clear, unambiguous riots. What is a protest that has a few looters or arsonists operating within it?

I've seen plenty of events here in the Pacific Northwest that police have labelled riots that I would in no way call a riot. I think that the legal definition very much plays into the discussion, because it gives the police the power to tell the media that a riot occurred.