When is political violence justified?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Violence is never necessary, though it's often expedient.  

LOL. Ever been in a combat zone? Violence comes right after a pulse on the necessary list. Disney characters don't NEED violence but they often use it.

If you read the thread title, the context is clearly political.

[Anomalocaris]

military is a subset of the political.  furthermore, what seems to some or to one side to be political in the civil sense can be regarded as military by others or the other side.    the government vs armed insurgency for example.

[Thumpalumpacus]

military is a subset of the political.  furthermore, what seems to some or to one side to be political in the civil sense can be regarded as military by others or the other side.    the government vs armed insurgency for example.

There's a simple difference: military action is predicated on violence. Civil discourse is not, typically. Unless you want to emulate Sudan or Syria.

[FrustratedFool]

Maybe some specifics might help this thread.

Was it consciencable for some suffragettes to throw stones etc at politicians in order to win the vote?

What about the limited use of violence against police by queer people during the stonewall riots?

What about the black panthers?

What about the IRA?

I find it a very messy business indeed. But I tend to draw a big line between limited violence against direct oppressors, like politicians or police, and the bombing of children as a terror tactic, eventhough arguably it was the terrorism of the IRA that led to the Good Friday Agreement.

Many political movements benefit from violence, it seems. Even when the majority of the movement is peaceful, the violence of the minority could be argued to play a deciding factor in expediting change.

[FrustratedFool]

This may be useful for further thought:
https://youtu.be/dh4G1Gjv7bA?si=wmgSQuMzViq4O39n

[tackattack]

I personally find it difficult to ever advocate a need for violence for politically motivated ethical ideals. I am a proponent of violence for personal protections sake or where it impacts my immediate social circle

[Angrboda]

I read a paper in college that argued that women were systematically disenfranchised of rights they were due and participation in governance. As a consequence of which, what was justifiable for them as being the victims of an unjust system was not the same as their fully enfranchised male counterparts.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

LOL. Ever been in a combat zone? Violence comes right after a pulse on the necessary list. Disney characters don't NEED violence but they often use it.

If you read the thread title, the context is clearly political.

Something something through the barrel of a gun...

[Anomalocaris]

military is a subset of the political.  furthermore, what seems to some or to one side to be political in the civil sense can be regarded as military by others or the other side.    the government vs armed insurgency for example.

There's a simple difference: military action is predicated on violence. Civil discourse is not, typically. Unless you want to emulate Sudan or Syria.

 peaceable dialogue and military violence are two points on a continuum of kinetic interactions.   Where on the continuum a party find it suitable to be usually depends on what lower points has been shown to be ineffective for the pursuit of its goals, or have otherwise been close off to it.    Very often the parties to the same interaction perceive themselves to be on different points of the continuum.      Sometimes one party insist the  other party meet it at the point the first party’s choosing knowing that point puts the other party at a disadvantage and thus maximize’s own side’s leverage and chances for success.     So there really is often not any meaningful simple difference.

[The Grand Nudger]

Violence is never necessary, though it's often expedient.  

LOL. Ever been in a combat zone? Violence comes right after a pulse on the necessary list. Disney characters don't NEED violence but they often use it.

Yes. The mission has changed a lot since you were in. Still, I get your point…but I’d categorize that as expedient rather than necessary as well.

If it helps, the distinction I’m making in necessity is that there be literally no other way to get a thing done. If you wanted to keep your pulse, you could stay off the field- for example. Violence isn’t the only way to stay alive…and if you find yourself in a combat zone you e probably already made a hell of alot of counterproductive choices to that end. The tail end of a string of bad choices ( from ourselves and others) that leave no other practical outcome but violence does not make that violence ( or any of those poor choices that lead to it) necessary.