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 get it, the people of France are in a bad position, and there is a long history of protests and pushback from the government.
But there is no benefit to adding violence, unless the goal is to hurt the communities you are protesting for. This particular protest literally had no peaceful beginning, it started in violence and only got worse.
It’s the only effective ready to get a response. Stonewall was a riot.
The only thing those in power will listen to is the destruction of property, because what they care about isn’t the life of most of us. It’s money. They care about money.
To scare the living shit out of the oppressors, and ultimately remove them from power one way or another. If they don’t take the hint that is the city burning, chop-chop!
A small business in Paris that’s been vandalized, looted, and burned should be scared of whom? The community they serve and live with?
Perhaps, protestors and rioters need to focus their efforts away from the innocent and towards those who are oppressing them. That would make more sense to me, anyway.
AFAIK, small businesses are not harmed much and the targets are government buildings and such.
And even if they were, insurance will clear it. And even if not, honestly, the only ones who suffer are the business owners, and I have little sympathy for them—small mom’n’pop ops can’t afford renting premises in downtowns, anyway; shops in these locations are luxury boutiques. Nothing of value is lost if a business selling designer handbags or overpriced cuisine ceases to exist.
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 get it, the people of France are in a bad position, and there is a long history of protests and pushback from the government.
But there is no benefit to adding violence, unless the goal is to hurt the communities you are protesting for. This particular protest literally had no peaceful beginning, it started in violence and only got worse.
What’s the end game with such a strategy?
It’s the only effective ready to get a response. Stonewall was a riot.
The only thing those in power will listen to is the destruction of property, because what they care about isn’t the life of most of us. It’s money. They care about money.
To scare the living shit out of the oppressors, and ultimately remove them from power one way or another. If they don’t take the hint that is the city burning, chop-chop!
A small business in Paris that’s been vandalized, looted, and burned should be scared of whom? The community they serve and live with?
Perhaps, protestors and rioters need to focus their efforts away from the innocent and towards those who are oppressing them. That would make more sense to me, anyway.
AFAIK, small businesses are not harmed much and the targets are government buildings and such.
And even if they were, insurance will clear it. And even if not, honestly, the only ones who suffer are the business owners, and I have little sympathy for them—small mom’n’pop ops can’t afford renting premises in downtowns, anyway; shops in these locations are luxury boutiques. Nothing of value is lost if a business selling designer handbags or overpriced cuisine ceases to exist.
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.