4 thoughts on “Destruction does work as a political tool”
This is a very, very thorny philosophical issue. It should be approached with caution. It’s easy to claim that destruction of property works and then point to a thousand examples of where and when it has. On the other hand it’s just as easy to point to a thousand examples of when the backlash against property destruction has caused unnecessary human fatalities. Or when one side or the other didn’t intend to kill someone. Like blowing up a building that was suppose to be unoccupied. Sometimes burning down the only food store in an area creates unintended misery for a large number of people. Purposely causing the death of another human being can never be acceptable. Some would strongly disagree by pointing out that had Hitler been assassinated before he started WWII we would all have been better off. That might be true if you believe that Hitler ‘was’ the power on the throne and not simply the oligarch’s front man. Me, I’m totally opposed to all forms of violence and can find no justification for ever using it. (Self-defense is not considered violence.) “The pen is mightier than the sword.” Peace is the answer. “Make Love not War.” “Why don’t you do it in the road?”
History demonstrates over and over that the only source of change has been and remains direct action.
Agreed Ron. But direct action and violence are two different animals.
The missing example is the LA riots. Absent those the cops who mauled Rodney King get a pass.
This is a very, very thorny philosophical issue. It should be approached with caution. It’s easy to claim that destruction of property works and then point to a thousand examples of where and when it has. On the other hand it’s just as easy to point to a thousand examples of when the backlash against property destruction has caused unnecessary human fatalities. Or when one side or the other didn’t intend to kill someone. Like blowing up a building that was suppose to be unoccupied. Sometimes burning down the only food store in an area creates unintended misery for a large number of people. Purposely causing the death of another human being can never be acceptable. Some would strongly disagree by pointing out that had Hitler been assassinated before he started WWII we would all have been better off. That might be true if you believe that Hitler ‘was’ the power on the throne and not simply the oligarch’s front man. Me, I’m totally opposed to all forms of violence and can find no justification for ever using it. (Self-defense is not considered violence.) “The pen is mightier than the sword.” Peace is the answer. “Make Love not War.” “Why don’t you do it in the road?”
History demonstrates over and over that the only source of change has been and remains direct action.
Agreed Ron. But direct action and violence are two different animals.
The missing example is the LA riots. Absent those the cops who mauled Rodney King get a pass.