my position on violence has been the same for a very long time. i will eventually post things from the mid-00s that articulate this view, and i stated it repeatedly over occupy: violent revolution without critical mass is stupid, but once critical mass has been achieved it becomes both necessary and desirable at the first opportunity.

that is, the question of whether the utilization of force is justified or not rests largely on where the balance of power actually lies.

marx would agree with me; jesus wouldn't. you decide which is right-wing and which is left-wing, but i'm on marx' side and not jesus'.

gandhi's argument also relied on critical mass. people tend not to understand what gandhi actually did very well; it wasn't a non-violent march for ethical or religious purposes, but rather a show of superior force. and, gandhi knew that. what he was saying was "this is the size of my army. shall we arm it with the help of, say, the russians, or will you admit your position is hopeless and withdraw without a meaningless fight?". it worked because the british were rational - it would have likely not have worked against a donald trump or even a winston churchill, who would have been obsessed with rebuilding the empire. the point is that it was not non-violent or non-threatening, but even actually a return to the way that the romans and persians would conduct wars in the post-hellenic period, coming out of a shared greek heritage: generals would put their forces down on the table, and everybody would decide the winner in the terms of a board game, because the greeks realized that these constant civil wars were just pointless destruction. the barbarians did that. the greeks were better than that. and, generals would actually abandon cities after admitting defeat on the risk board. gandhi would have launched a brutal, bloody civil war if the british forced him to. but, they didn't.

so, i will tell activists that they need to back down and stop picking physical fights with cops; they will have a better chance at winning a legal argument than winning a confrontation, as they have no army in which to fight. but, i will also tell them to bide their time: if they had the sufficient amount of forces behind them, i'd be the first to join their side. and, we could see that in our life times...