I still have complicated thoughts on the use of political vandalism (destruction of property), but did find this article informative. I definitely do not think it's as simple as a lot would make it out to be, and don't think it should be called "violence."
Property destruction is not violence in any substantive sense. To use the same term for vandalism as direct physical brutality is an Orwellian pollution of language that cheapens real violence and suggests that people are equivalent to things. Obviously destroying people’s inert possessions is usually not ethically justifiable — but the bar is much lower than with real violence. Civil disobedience, like blocking a port, can incur costs in the millions of dollars, while other actions widely accepted as ‘non-violent’ like pouring fake blood over draft cards or mortgage records can amount to incredibly costly direct property destruction. Breaking cheap windows may look scarier to some, but appearing intimidating is hardly an atrocity.
Responses
★ Deb Palmer, Jeffrey Olver
Josh Miller – If my store is broken into and or destroyed its violence. The part I don't understand is that so often it's in the community of the folks protesting.
Tim Seifert – Wow!! This article gives such insight into the mental illness of a segment of society.
Scott H. Wilder – We now live in the age where false equivalence makes everything ok. 'Don't point out the problem of the recent outbreaks of violent assaults by white supremacists when you can't get your looters to stop stealing"
They are not equally bad and shouldn't be treated as such.
Gregor Morrill – I'm not sure I'm understanding your comment correctly, so apologies if this comment isn't necessary.
This article isn't about looting. The author is an anarchist and there are anarchist activists who destroy property not to steal, but as a political message of opposition to systems of power/oppression. This is also typically done against huge corporations that they view as complicit / benefiting from the system of oppression, not mom-n-pop shops.
As I mentioned, I still have complicated feelings on the topic.
Gregor Morrill – I respectfully disagree. Vandalism, yes, but not violence.
John Robert Lee – Truth is over.
Josh Miller – Put yourself in the shoes of the guy who's storefront is busted up and lobby is destroyed. Fine. Don't call it violence. Either way you are going to be pissed and suffer economic loss. And for what? All you were trying to do is make an honest living to take care of your family. The definition doesn't matter. But I still hold that it's violence.
John Robert Lee – It matters to you, me and many others. That much is clear. "The definition doesn't matter." BULL SHIT.
Gregor Morrill – Josh: I get that. I really do. Like I said, I have complicated feelings on it. I'm not advocating for vandalism. I've been a strong "free market, property-rights-first libertarian" for quite a while. This topic is one of the few things that keeps me from fully identifying myself as anarchist. Also, if you haven't seen it, see my reply below to Scott Wilder.
Gregor Morrill – The definition matters to me because humans cannot be replaced, but things can.
tyler.cat – test
Wow that was a really interesting read. " things like measly storefront windows. Their control is dependent in no small part on being seen as in control."