Political violence is held to a double standard. Those with power in the existing system are against political violence done unto them, and due to their power they can define only political violence done unto them as "real" political violence, and shape the culture to rally against it.
Those in power are able to do political violence themselves, like denying the necessities of life from people, or funding genocide. These will not be framed as acts of political violence and even be framed as apolitical, even though everything and especially policy is political.
After a healthcare CEO was murdered in 2024, it was decried as political violence, and a CEO safety hotline was setup. This demonstrates the double standard, by not acknowledging the CEO's countless murders of the poor working class, and the event being taken more seriously than even mass shootings. It's only political violence because it's against those in power. What the shooter did was vigilante justice, which is likely the only form of justice that CEO could feasibly receive.
Note
I’m not defending the shooter nor any other acts of political violence, but merely pointing out the hypocrisy in how political violence is judged.
When arguing against the idea that the CEO is responsible for many deaths, people have claimed setting up the company to deny so many claims from those who need it was the CEO's fiduciary responsibility, which is absurd. A hitman could not use that defense, and neither should the CEO.
I think the whole discussion on violent protests serves only to discredit all protests, violent and peaceful alike. Most protests are peaceful, and the ones that turn violent are typically doing so after provocation from the state. If you are at or near a protest, you are far far more likely to be harmed by a cop than a protestor. Jesse Gender has a good video documenting how the LA protests have been peaceful. There was one moment I really liked where there was someone claiming the national guard is "there to protect us" and that the guard should be respected; but a protestor pointed out a very prescient question that went unanswered: Protect us from whom? The answer, obviously, is that the only ones attacking protestors are the cops themselves. The cops are not there "to protect us" at all.
Peaceful protests will be framed as violent by the state (and often made violent by them as well), as it is in their best interests. Therefore I think protests should be uncritically supported, as any qualifications will be used to silence all protests. It goes back to my stance on centrists being de fact supporters of the status quo by routinely attacking the left for fighting the status quo "the wrong way". The status quo is designed to preserve itself, and the "right ways" all designed to be ineffective. I hate arguments about protesting certain ways being "bad optics" because the state will ensure any and all effective protests become "bad optics".
In fact, the “radical flank” effect describes how more radical flanks of a movement end up making the more moderate flanks of the movement more appealing by comparison. Radical flanks have historically helped a movement succeed, not hurt it.
MLK was, at the time, also considered to be protesting the "wrong way" and that even his protests were framed as violent. It has only been after the success of the civil rights movement that he was recast as peaceful, in order to serve the narrative that the political violence today is unnecessary.
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.