opinions-political-theUseOfViolenceAgainstTheSystem

When is individual violence be used against a corrupt system?

One thing that you often see is individuals or small groups using violence because they believe that the system is so evil that violence is justified.

These groups have a variety of motives, from ecological to political to ethnic to religious.

Such groups don't have to be terrorists; some of these groups only target military and government-affiliated targets, not innocent civilians.

However, I think that almost all of the time in modern times, using violence against the system is unwise.

Even if you are convinced that your cause is just, and that you are ethically permitted to use violence, that does not mean that it is the optimal way to achieve your goals.

I think that in the modern world, the use of violence against the system just allows your enemies to use this in propaganda against you. This allows your enemies to convince third parties that you are the unethical one.

Which, I believe, is more important than what is usually gained by violence.

It seems to me that, in looking in the changes in the world in the last few decades that occured due to popular pressure, in most of these times the key to success was not public violence but rather persuasion of third parties. For example, it seems to me that in most states that had revolutions, it was not that the military was defeated by insurgents, but rather than the vast majority of the populace, including elements of the military and the police themselves, were persuaded to side with the insurgents.

So, why do people use violence? I can think of a few reasons.

First, people are gratifying their emotions rather than rationally furthering their interests. Their enemies have behaved unethically and they want to see them burn.

Second, people feel that the system is so entrenched, and so willing to use violence itself, that words alone aren't powerful enough to fight it.

Third, people are using violence as a recruiting tool, to attract other like-minded individuals to their cause.

Here are my answers. To the first: this is a selfish act; if you wish to further your cause, you must sacrifice the chance to gratify yourself with revenge, and look to the longer term. To the second: perhaps words are a weak weapon, but in the modern world, violence is even weaker, for the reasons I put forth above. It seems to me that in recent history, the use of non-violence does eventually work, even though it is slow, while the use of violence does not. To the third: what will you do with all that manpower that you are recruiting, given that violence is counterproductive? What you need to do is to convince third parties who are on the fence between supporting you or your enemy; finding like-minded individuals who crave violence and getting them to support you does not further this goal.

So, I urge anyone who is considering the use of violence against the system to reconsider: if even if you believe violence is ethically justified, does it really serve your goals in the long-term?

I would like to put together a comparison list of recent events in which violence worked and non-violence worked, if anyone can contribue examples. Note that instances in which powerful status-quo groups like the government use violence successfully don't count; I am talking about what is the best strategy for groups seeking to change the status quo.