Is violent protest justifiable?

Is violent protest justifiable?

Other urls found in this thread:

amazon.ca/Robespierre-Revolutionary-Life-Peter-McPhee/dp/0300197241),
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitz_(movement)
youtube.com/watch?v=f7mRG88KPbA
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Anything is justifiable depending on your value system.

pls don't ever post again

Yes. Why shouldn't it be?

Also yes.

Ok. Just saying that "justifiable" is just a word and people conceive of moral systems to "justify" things all the time.

it depends on whether the violent protest is successful at establishing a new moral paradigm (value system if you want to call it that, who cares). in the present day violent protest is called unjustifiable by much of the media and many government representatives because it creates too much suffering for those involved in the crossfire.

obviously there are plenty of cases in history where violence might have been deemed unjustifiable by the ruling class but the ruling class' claim of unjustifiability stops mattering after the protesting party establishes a new normal of what is right. the american revolution comes to mind. plenty of british publications condemned the ever living fuck out of any and all violent actions against the crown, but that doesn't matter. the americans won. we now look back on the american revolution as necessary for the turning of history. it is justifiable with our new value system.

basically, who gives a shit whether violent protest is justifiable by some current paradigm. care about if your side will win. then you can say you were justified after. that's how history works.

If it furthers the proletarian movement to abolish itself and all of capitalism, moves us closer to the proletariat transforming the relations of production and establishing its dictatorship to enable this, then yes.

So why are these guys telling me to not post?

they have some problem with what you said. you triggered them in some way. who knows why. maybe they think moral relativism is a spook, who knows. i can't speak for them.

maybe if you had elaborated a little more it wouldn't have been an issue.

Well, the French Revolution's aim to establish a republic did eventually succeed, and today we all reap the benefits of that revolutionary project.

But just the other day I was reading a biography on Robespierre (amazon.ca/Robespierre-Revolutionary-Life-Peter-McPhee/dp/0300197241), and in it the author referred to public opinion polls in France which showed that most French people viewed Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette more favourably than Robespierre.

I'm mentioning this because the French Revolution did eventually succeed in establishing a "new moral paradigm," yet the succeeding generations do not believe that the Reign of Terror was justified.

So what gives???

yeah, that's a fair point. my guess is that most people see robespierre as a tyrant the same way they do louis xvi and marie antoinette, and for some reason he's worse than those two for most french people. if i had to guess, perhaps its the case that french schooling paints robespierre in an exceptionally bad light relative to louis xvi and marie antoinette. whether that's true or not doesn't matter.

i know that in my high school history class robespierre wasn't stated to be some guy who did everything right. most history books i know of praise the french revolution for establishing modern ideals (and i imagine the french textbooks are especially thankful for its establishment of the liberte, egalite, fraternite beliefs they still hold sacred today) but they can still criticize robespierre for some of his more disdainful actions maybe.

it would be interesting to see the french general opinion of the french revolution broadly, without specific reference to robespierre. i would imagine if you asked the general french populace about the french revolution in a broad sense they would respond more favorably.

I think the better question is if there is any sense in fighting what is basically a collective spook for the white middle class, instead of educating and offering alternatives to autoritarian fetishism, which Trump embodies.

Plus the people that are protesting Trump are essentially liberals so fuck em.

Yeah, fuck those liberals. Let them kill each other.

You've obviously never been to leftypol before if you need to ask this question.

Violence protest is always justified.

The question is whether or not it is the best thing to do strategically.

Yes, but you better be damn sure that it will actually achieve what you want it to achieve. Most violent protest is counterproductive, hence why the pigs love to use undercover agent provocateurs.

Violent protest is usually the only kind of protest that gets anything accomplished. Peaceful protest is too easy to be ignored by those in power.

Look at Blitz movement in Oslo. The elected right-wing government in 2012 wanted to sell Blitz's squat house. Blitz anarchists destroyed the front of the town hall and the sale was abandoned. Now they live in peace, I'm guessing because if there is action against them there will be a violent response.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitz_(movement)

Because this is bait thread.
One of the many that the get suspiciously spammed here recently.All following the same pattern.

And quickly following

I may be paranoid, but I don't remember this happening a while ago.It seems very recent and very sudden.
And no, it happened BEFORE the summer.

always

Anything is justifiable given enough time.
I can justify stabbing a baby because it shit on me, that does not mean i was in the right to do so, that just means i can justify it somehow. It might be a really shitty justification, but i can still do it.

Again, this is Holla Forums, not /liberalpol/.


youtube.com/watch?v=f7mRG88KPbA

It took Chileans 5 years of violent protest to overthrow Pinochet. It took a literal battle in the streets of London to get rid of Mosley and his blackshirts.

Political violence works.