Vigilante violence doesn’t lead to enduring systematic change.
Normally I agree with most of jacobin’s articles but I don’t agree with this. It’s pretty obvious that things have already changed, even if it’s just temporary. (Speaking as a non American spectator at least tbf)
It’s strange to cite what may be “just temporary” changes when you’re quoting “enduring systematic change”
This is a historically illiterate reply. The French Revolution was enacted by organized political resistance, not random assassinations. As the author points out, such acts never achieve any substantial or lasting change.
The only recent-ish example I can think of that actually applies is Gavrilo Princip, and the consequences were mostly accidental.
I keep telling people here that you usually cannot cure a systemic issue with violence but they refuse to believe it.
Vigilante violence can be distinguished from revolutionary violence because it is carried out without a Party. It’s just random people on their own deciding to do violence i.e. adventurism. It can’t bring enduring change.
No, but it can inspire a populace to rise up and challenge their oppressors.
Did you actually read that link?
The extent to which suffragette militancy contributed to the eventual enfranchisement of women in 1918 has been debated by historians, although the consensus of historical opinion is that the militant campaign was not effective.
In fact:
In May 1913 another attempt had been made to pass a bill in parliament which would introduce women’s suffrage, but the bill actually did worse than previous attempts when it was voted on, something which much of the press blamed on the increasingly violent tactics of the suffragettes.[116] The impact of the WSPU’s violent attacks drove many members of the general public away from supporting the cause, and some members of the WSPU itself were also alienated by the escalation of violence, which led to splits in the organisation and the formation of groups such as the East London Federation of Suffragettes in 1914.
And women didn’t get suffrage in the UK until 1918.
Yes. And I feel the amount by which the ‘terrorists’ made it a public issue was more important than the quoted analysts believe. It may have been so overly strong that it scared some away. But it also showed that it was a real issue to solve NOW. No more putting it off untold decades; and that is what I would hope from militant activism today. May America get Universal Healthcare like the rest of the developed world within 5 years now. And we will know who to thank.
something which much of the press blamed on the increasingly violent tactics of the suffragettes
I’m sure the press of their time was pure and true reporters of fact rather than manufacturers of consent defending the status quo.
That’s an answer to the underlying questions. You think the means can justify the ends, but you aren’t sure because you don’t know the ends yet.
