By Glenn Greenwald / Rumble Following the recent protests against police in France, the French government has taken steps to implement increasingly repressive measures in the forms of mass surveillance and the rhetoric endorsement of online censorship.
I am not advocating for violence. However, it is not historically acurate to say that violence has no benefit. As a matter of fact, I can think of instances in the 18th, 19th and 20th century where violent protestors obtained rights or the end of some kind of oppression. I am not sure I can think of even one instance where anyone got anything without some kind of violence (or destruction of private property), even in the 20th century (there was violence in the May 1968 protests, or in the 1936 strikes, etc).
The term “sabotage” itself has something to do with workers destroying the workshops by throwing their shoes (called “sabots”) into the machine.
However, it is not historically acurate to say that violence has no benefit.
No doubt, violence was often necessary historically because fundamental human rights and other freedoms simply didn’t exist, so it became nearly like a war to get them. So I agree with you on that point.
But unprovoked, modern day violence seems so inappropriate in the context of a protest, and very often moves the goal further away.
The issue is that who gets to decide if violence is an appropriate response, and where is that line drawn?
Should workers burn down their place of employment because they don’t feel that the rules around bathroom breaks are fair?
Should extreme religious who are protesting any number of things be justified in killing doctors or political leaders over matters that are handled in court?
In the context of violence erupting as a means of self-defence, I can’t argue against that. I don’t like it, but if otherwise peaceful protesters are being shot at, then violence is a balanced response (although, it may not get them to their goal).
But I don’t think I could ever agree to people burning innocent people’s cars, or looting uninvolved shops, or destroying the homes and communities of regular folks.
I am not advocating for violence. However, it is not historically acurate to say that violence has no benefit. As a matter of fact, I can think of instances in the 18th, 19th and 20th century where violent protestors obtained rights or the end of some kind of oppression. I am not sure I can think of even one instance where anyone got anything without some kind of violence (or destruction of private property), even in the 20th century (there was violence in the May 1968 protests, or in the 1936 strikes, etc). The term “sabotage” itself has something to do with workers destroying the workshops by throwing their shoes (called “sabots”) into the machine.
No doubt, violence was often necessary historically because fundamental human rights and other freedoms simply didn’t exist, so it became nearly like a war to get them. So I agree with you on that point.
But unprovoked, modern day violence seems so inappropriate in the context of a protest, and very often moves the goal further away.
The issue is that who gets to decide if violence is an appropriate response, and where is that line drawn?
Should workers burn down their place of employment because they don’t feel that the rules around bathroom breaks are fair?
Should extreme religious who are protesting any number of things be justified in killing doctors or political leaders over matters that are handled in court?
In the context of violence erupting as a means of self-defence, I can’t argue against that. I don’t like it, but if otherwise peaceful protesters are being shot at, then violence is a balanced response (although, it may not get them to their goal).
But I don’t think I could ever agree to people burning innocent people’s cars, or looting uninvolved shops, or destroying the homes and communities of regular folks.