hey, i gave the "defund the police" lumpen props when they burned down the cop shop. it was smashing up pizza shops that struck me as counterproductive. i think you'll note i've been consistent.

i'm not in the chorus of people arguing that the introduction of physical force into the political discourse is some kind of horrendous act, as though the existence of armed guards and riot police at every public protest against every economic injustice isn't itself a use of force. no, what the pundit class is horrified about is the idea that some non-state actor may attempt to influence events by utilizing threats of force, as that upsets the monopoly on the use of force by the state. and, they are, of course, all obediently trained seal pups when it comes to the primacy and sanctity of the state.

in truth, the greatest victories for the left in the 20th century and all of the centuries before that came from brandishing the implication of the use of force, if not actually brandishing force itself. when gandhi told the british officers to observe the size of the army he could raise, that was leverage, and that leverage was violent. further, you don't have to be cynical to understand the role that the fear of black militantism played in the civil rights movement, you can read direct statements by all kinds of democratic leaders, including both jfk and lbj. they granted people these basic rights out of the fear that they'd rise up if they didn't, not due to some kind of moral persuasion or something. to cast these movements as nonviolent is to misunderstand them entirely, which is perhaps why it's taught in that manner so universally, and stressed so frequently by politicians and talking heads. they don't want you to understand the role that implied violence played in these negotiations, as you might wise up as to how to turn that knowledge into a tactic.

so, if the horror and revulsion of the event is rooted in the fear that the masses may exert some influence over the running of events, i might actually suggest that a little bit of fear of that sort is healthy, and maybe something that's been missing from the political spectrum over the neo-liberal period. re-establishing that fear is a necessary condition for the introduction of any sort of serious re-distributive reforms. so, some good may come out of this.

but, i mean, clearly they had no chance at success, and the whole thing was just utterly foolish, regardless of what i may think of their politics.