The ongoing debate about the acceptability of political violence within the left remains unresolved. Advocates of political violence cite historical precedents, challenge categorizations imposed by the state, and argue for the necessity of organized violence in effecting radical change. However, such debates often do not influence decision-making processes in actual political actions. Instead, discussions generally involve groups with pre-established ethical stances on militancy. The complexity of the conversation reflects broader societal acceptance of violence while highlighting the left's hesitance to adopt armed resistance against current fascistic pressures.
Yet it is evidently not something we will settle easily. But what's important is that we are still debating it on terrains in which violence is ubiquitous, structural, and consistently accepted.
We question whether radical change is possible without some forms of organized violence against the ruling class and its interests.
When questions of taking action do come up, it's almost always in the context of groups that have already found broad ethical agreement on acceptable militancy.
My point, though, is that left debates about political violence are rarely in the business of decision-making.
Collection
[
|
...
]