> 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.<p>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.
There definitely is an informal and growing consensus on just riot theory.<p>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.<p>I personally hope that the view that violent riots are illegitimate wins out, but I am not planning my life around that hope.<p>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.
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.
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.<p>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]).
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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>Note: I haven't had the chance yet to read the articles linked by Mr Havercroft, but look forward to doing so.
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.
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.<p>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.<p>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.
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.
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.<p>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.
Rumsfeld's contribution to Riot Theory:<p>> "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."<p><a href="https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2003/04/11/Rumsfeld-Looting-is-transition-to-freedom/63821050097983/" rel="nofollow">https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2003/04/11/Rumsfeld-Looting...</a>
If you are interested in hearing an on-the-ground perspective to accompany the theory, you could do worse than watch this. NSFW language.<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb9_qGOa9Go" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb9_qGOa9Go</a>
Shouldn't it be easy thanks to Zuckerberg and Co to profile the Personality Trait distributions of any assembling group?<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>Nothing freaks them out more than when 2 groups that dont get along march together. And thats when they start making compromises.
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.<p>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.