
Riots and Political Theory: A Reading List - samgilb
https://www.southampton.ac.uk/politics/news/2020/06/11-riots-and-political-theory.page
======
phnofive
> Riots are extra-public because crowds riot rather than institutionalized
> groups such as parties or social movements. Riots are extra-state because
> they violate the state’s monopoly on violence. Riots are extra-legal because
> they are a form of unlawful assembly. Riots are extra-Parliamentary because
> they operate outside of the normal legislative process.

Then, by definition, a riot won’t have a durable justification, since its
goals are fluid, it uses extraordinary methods, has no accountable leadership,
and doesn’t seek enduring change.

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
Which I think is pretty fair. There's always bad actors who try to justify
riots, but almost everyone agrees that they're bad - the "pro-riot" side of a
discussion is usually along the lines of "you know, a violent crackdown just
isn't going to work, so we'd better do suchandsuch or they'll keep on being
angry".

~~~
packetlost
I think you'd be surprised at how many (particularly young) people and
leadership from organizations either refuse to denounce or outright condone
rioting.

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
Refusal to denounce rioting can be problematic, but I'm not comfortable
equating it with support. If people came by demanding that I denounce some
random riot, I wouldn't do it, not because I'm pro-riot but because I reject
the implication that the rioters have anything to do with me.

I've been quite surprised seeing how many people will condone rioting, but I'm
still confident it's a small minority, shrinking to a barely existent minority
for riots which can't plausibly be spun as honest protests.

~~~
packetlost
Refusing to denounce rioting is almost always paired with something along the
lines of "rioting is the language of the unheard" or "our organizations will
not denounce any black person’s display of grief and/or rage", as is the
literal case with one of the organizations from my hometown [0]. I cannot see
that as anything but support. But trying to justify actions, you are, by
definition, supporting those actions.

To be clear, it's the justification, not refusing to denounce.

[0]: [https://madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-
politics/madison-...](https://madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-
politics/madison-protest-organizers-defend-vandalism-as-contributions-to-
liberation/article_2815e2cd-02fa-5413-a2d9-416de5f2d94e.html)

~~~
mcguire
"If you are not with us, you are against us."

~~~
packetlost
I go out of my way to show that's not the mentality I have, nor one I want to
promote.

------
recursivedoubts
There definitely is an informal and growing consensus on just riot theory.

I hypothesize that the treatment of riots by liberal (classical sense)
scholars has been based on their rationalistic optimism and a belief that
domestic political problems can be solved non-violently. If they can't, that
throws the entire liberal (classical sense) project into question, and opens
exhilarating, dangerous doors on both the left and right.

I personally hope that the view that violent riots are illegitimate wins out,
but I am not planning my life around that hope.

Addendum: I should note that, if one were opposed to the liberal (classical
sense) project, the encouragement of riots (regardless of them being left or
right) would be an excellent strategy.

~~~
hirundo
> If they can't, that throws the entire liberal (classical sense) project into
> question, and opens exhilarating, dangerous doors on both the left and
> right.

Only if they _can_ be solved with violence. I'd argue that even if a
particular issue can be solved with violence, the net result will generally be
worse than the status quo as the violence will rarely be limited to such
issues.

I'd think that for an undirected mob, violence that was a net beneficial
effect would be even more rare than violence by a well regulated army. E.g.
U.S. military violence during WWII was arguably a net benefit. What would be
an example of mob violence that led to a net benefit?

~~~
trgn
French revolution started with a riot. While the terror state that came soon
after is condemned, it was the violent spark that realized the Enlighment
ideals in Europe.

1830 was a riotous year globally. Belgian independence started with a riot,
and was successful in a sense, carving out a place for libertarian optimism
and industrial expansion from a war-weary continent.

These are both fairly conventional pop-culture interpretations. But maybe
similar developments would have happened without the flash in the pan of some
undirected mob breaking things.

~~~
hirundo
The French revolution led in fairly short order to the French empire, which is
generally not considered to have been a net social benefit.

I suppose the Boston Massacre could be an example.

~~~
082349872349872
After the fall of the french empire, my country kept the new laws, the new
roads, and the new social structure. We just got rid of the french who had
been running things and put locals in their place.

------
jetzzz
A lot of people in this thread seem to have some false dichotomy in their mind
- either you are peacefully protesting or you are rioting by burning random
cars and destroying uninvolved storefronts. There is another option:
peacefully protest but try to occupy administrative buildings and only use
violence as a response to police violence. This is what happened in many post-
USSR countries in the so called "colour revolutions", Euromaidan, etc. In
particular in Euromaidan there were heavy clashes with police, but no
destruction of private property (at least not deliberately by protesters).
Police cars were burned, paving stone, garbage bins, etc were used for
fighting/barricades, but this doesn't hurt anyone in particular the way
destroyed car or store would. Meanwhile in US/Western Europe riots are for
some reason seem to be directed not at government and police but at uninvolved
car/store owners.

~~~
grasshopperpurp
>Meanwhile in US/Western Europe riots are for some reason seem to be directed
not at government and police but at uninvolved car/store owners.

Makes it seem like those rioters have different - maybe opposite - motivations
than the protesters.

~~~
pydry
This is pretty common:

[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/quebec-police-admit-they-
went...](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/quebec-police-admit-they-went-
undercover-at-montebello-protest-1.656171)

"However, the police force denied allegations its undercover officers were
there on Monday to provoke the crowd and instigate violence."

"Police came under fire Tuesday, when a video surfaced on YouTube that
appeared to show three plainclothes police officers at the protest with
bandanas across their faces. One of the men was carrying a rock."

"In the video, protest organizers in suits order the men to put the rock down,
call them police instigators and try unsuccessfully to unmask them."

These events are not commonly believed when there isn't clear cut video
evidence, though. Property destruction will be, by default, blamed on the
protestors rather than police instigators. In this case the police were easily
identified simply because they were sloppy and forgot to not wear police issue
boots. Had the video not proved that _and_ that they intended to commit
violence, this would have been a wild conspiracy theory.

I don't quite understand why this practice isn't extremely illegal in every
country that has pretenses towards democracy. It's a form of fraud.

~~~
nickff
The government and the police permit themselves to commit fraud, as it is
often a convenient means by which to achieve their objectives (i.e. the police
can lie to you, but you cannot lie to the police).

------
acephal
I'm very very surprised that the number one parallel has yet to ever be
mentioned in these kinds of discussions: the 2005 Paris riots.

French police were held responsible for the deaths of North African teenagers
and riots broke out all over suburban Paris that caused waaay more property
damage than anything we've seen in America this summer. French media framed
the entire issue as brown people showing their true colors by not posing any
'coherent' message to French political establishment, eg. no slogans or
demands. French politics sense has drifted further Rightward, further edifying
the French political ideal that if you wanna live in France you better play by
our rules (same thing in Germany where you have to pass a cultural test to
gain citizenship, imagine such a thing in America! [And no, answering
questions about the constitution, the foundational legal document, is not the
same thing]).

~~~
rayiner
> (same thing in Germany where you have to pass a cultural test to gain
> citizenship, imagine such a thing in America! [And no, answering questions
> about the constitution, the foundational legal document, is not the same
> thing]).

I don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, I kind of like that we're
more liberal than Germany or France on this. I don't like how liberals in the
U.S. fail to appreciate that fact and think the U.S. is super racist and
xenophobic. (I guess if they're comparing against a platonic ideal.)

~~~
nitrogen
Different parts of the US exemplify the full spectrum of tolerance to
xenophobia. Our bests are pretty darn good (not near perfect), but the
variance is high.

~~~
nickff
US law/regulatory policy may be a good measure, and is definitely less
xenophobic than than of many/most European governments. The best example is
what happens with refugees and immigrants, who are treated as interlopers in
France; American policy is 'skeptical' of refugee claimants, but much more
likely to permit them to settle and work if the claim is accepted.

~~~
tptacek
To say nothing of the fact that their children born in America are natural-
born citizens of the United States, unlike almost every other similarly
industrialized/wealthy country (the Maple Leaf State doesn't count!).

------
ke7in
As with any destructive force, rioting is not a sustainable state of being. It
is a blunt object to signal "Things are not okay" from societies whose
frustration boils over in trying to achieve change through more articulate
language.

Rioting rarely affects change in the systems in the direction desired, as its
methods are misaligned with desirable, sustainable values. Thus, it allows
ruling classes to paint a harsh narrative of the rioters - leading in many
cases to greater inequality and worse conditions.

Riot theory seems like an interesting starting point to understand the
socioeconomic climate in America today. A dialogue from which would naturally
lend itself to survey the options that members of a community have in
articulating opinions and criticisms of the systems they live within.

Note: I haven't had the chance yet to read the articles linked by Mr
Havercroft, but look forward to doing so.

------
andonisus
The problem with riots is they often get co-opted by actors whose goals are
not in alignment with the goal of the original rioters. Also, there isn't
usually a singular person, group, or entity who will take responsibility of
the riots and say "We are rioting for XYZ reasons". Contrast this with
peaceful protests, where the reasons for and goals of the protests are laid
bare by its leaders. They are, in turn, able to promote their cause and have
their grievances aired to the public at large. Finally, the destructive nature
of riots poison the public perception of the rioters and their reasons,
regardless of whatever just causes the rioters might have for their actions.

~~~
dredmorbius
I'm in agreement with the co-option risk.

Keep in mind that coption (or corruption) holds true for _all_ tools of power.

Regulation (capture). Legislation, executive, judiciary and bureaucracy
(bribery, lobbying, special interests, nepotism, blackmail, ...). The press.
Police and military. Taxes. Fines. Investigations (surveillance). Treaties.
Emotions (fear, anger, guilt, embarrassment). Attention. Religion. Culture.
Language. Narrative. Buildings, roads, ports, railroads, walls, canals, and
tunnels. Bulldozers. Guns and stilettos. Bread and circuses. War. Peace.

Literally _everything_.

This doesn't make all of these bad, or mean they're never useful. But tools of
power _are_ useful because they _do_ have effect, and can be used for both
good and ill.

The trick is seeing the tools are used for good.

------
devnull255
This is a fantastic article and reading list. I'm disappointed at how so much
of the discussion around the most recent rioting has devolved to being pro-
protest vs anti-rioting. The riots, like the spread of the pandemic are
symptoms of wide-spread, systemic failures in our social, political and
economic institutions.

The psychologist Stephen Pinker, has pointed out that violence itself is a
tool of last resort in the human toolkit. The violence of rioters is mostly
spontaneous and fueled by anger, flamethrowers and sledge hammers directed at
objects belonging to a system they feel has not responded to their needs or
concerns. The fact that violence is not the best tool for the job is
irrelevant by this point.

Cooler, smarter and more sympathetic heads should actually focus more on what
triggered the riots and determine the changes that are necessary to remediate
legitimate grievances and hopefully prevent the recurrence of such failures.
The reading list offers an excellent beginning for that. Discussing the
efficacy and justification for rioting probably doesn't.

~~~
commandlinefan
> determine the changes that are necessary to remediate legitimate grievances

Except that the grievances don't appear to be that legitimate and the changes
that would be necessary don't appear to be too popular with the majority of
the population. Capitulating to a violent mob out of fear of further violence
surrenders control from the democratic process to escalating barbarism.

~~~
devnull255
Well, one particular grievance among them, that a person passing off a
counterfeit 20-dollar bill doesn't deserve death at the hands of police,
probably is legitimate. Choosing to remediate that injustice is not
capitulation to the mob, but fulfillment of the promise of equal protection
under the law that the democratic process was supposed to protect.

------
betaby
In places where information distribution monopolized by ruling class riots are
the only method to signal disagreement to both a) ruling class and b) other
non-ruling people.

~~~
dredmorbius
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution
inevitable."

\-- John Fitzgerald Kennedy

[https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/89101-those-who-make-
peacef...](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/89101-those-who-make-peaceful-
revolution-impossible-will-make-violent-revolution)

------
motohagiography
One reason thinkers usually place riots outside the discourse is because they
are an artificial spectacle, and which are necessarily tolerated by a faction
in the establishment who could easily suppress them with violence, but they
don't because the effect of the riots supports their strategy for change in
their institution.

Situationism, and anarchist ideas like "the propaganda of the deed" covered
rioting from a more earnest perspective, but in watching movements and
protests for a couple of decades, there is always someone within the
establishment in whose interest it is to tolerate rioting. This also explains
the regular use of police provocateurs to break up peaceful protests by
manufacturing riots, and instead of mere explanatory power, you can use it to
predict how long an establishment will tolerate a spate of rioting. It's a
ritualized performance and a spectacle.

------
082349872349872
Rumsfeld's contribution to Riot Theory:

> "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the
> pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression and people who
> have had members of their family killed by that regime, for them to be
> taking their feelings out on that regime, ... I don't think there's anyone
> in any of those pictures ... [who wouldn't] accept it as part of the price
> of getting from a repressed regime to freedom."

[https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2003/04/11/Rumsfeld-
Looting...](https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2003/04/11/Rumsfeld-Looting-is-
transition-to-freedom/63821050097983/)

------
lurker5000
If you are interested in hearing an on-the-ground perspective to accompany the
theory, you could do worse than watch this. NSFW language.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb9_qGOa9Go](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb9_qGOa9Go)

~~~
dredmorbius
Kimberly Jones, "How Can We Win".

Excellent.

------
op03
Shouldn't it be easy thanks to Zuckerberg and Co to profile the Personality
Trait distributions of any assembling group?

I mean given what marketing teams are able to do these days, in real time, I
think any bunch of Violent Trait holders assembling anywhere will be straight
forward to identify.

Anyways alternative reading list for the non-violent crowd - Gandhi
specifically the Champran Agitation, the Rowlatt Act(non-coop movement), and
then the Salt march.

What I liked about it is he didn't react to an issue by just giving speeches,
blaming anyone or mindlessly protesting. He would go to the site of the issue
with qualified people and work the problem. Gain support through those
actions, across all kinds of social, cultural, religious, linguistic
boundaries, no one thought possible. And that would freak out the powers that
be for whom divide and conquer is the default method of clinging to power.

Nothing freaks them out more than when 2 groups that dont get along march
together. And thats when they start making compromises.

------
Causality1
Riots are also non-specific. The violence directed toward the "enemy" of the
riot is at best a large fraction of the riot's violence. The rest is directed
simply at its surroundings. The stores big and small, nearby homes, anyone who
happens to be walking by and fitting the wrong description.

You can't do that and be just. A "just riot" would be an attack directed
against a specific entity and people would label it a terrorist attack or mob
violence, not a riot.

------
staticautomatic
I’d add to this list Riots and Pogroms by Paul Brass and Among the Thugs by
Bill Burford.

------
maedla
Riots helped bring about the American Revolution!

