#politics #praxis
#violence can be helpful in autocracies, fascism, monarchies and dictatorships. It can be a collective seminal moment when a large number of an oppressed class is abused for far too long and they snap collectively and realize they are strong and let the bullies know they are not weak (Stonewall, Battle of cable street) and end up building a non-violent or purely self-defense based network(Black Panthers). An ongoing level of violence in a democracy or a flawed democracy has never caused any positive change. There is no central authority to attack, the "will of the people" claim is legitimate or semi-legitimate and will be framed as such. Freedom of the press allows for the best PR campaigns to make the violent look the worst and scare casual observers. The banality of evil and long chain of responsibility ensures that there is no one villain but a lot of partial villains and you may be one of those people.
There has to be a clear cut villain (free luigi) that the majority have suffered at the hands of before violence resonates positively with the public, otherwise you are just hurting your cause on a national level.
Mind you, British English classifies self defense as violence, while American English does not, so if you see someone making that case that violence is necessary and effective, ask them where they are from, they might mean something entirely different and may be acting unwittingly as agit-prop promoted by a foreign power because the slight variations in the language.