One of the reasons not to hold up non-violence as the ultimate ideal for protesters is that it prevents an intelligent and moral debate within the movement about the rules of engagement *for* the use of force.
Näytä tämä ketju
-
Perhaps, but I think you also have to grapple with the potential that any use of force would be - to use Andre Beaufre's formulation - a 'false note.' Movements that are liberal and nonviolent by tradition risk altering the zone of freedom of action adversely.
E.g. it may be possible that the impact of any use of force, under any circumstances, to the regime's perceived freedom of action may be such that the circumstances in which the use of force is favorable is 'never.'
-
-
I think Beaufre's thinking on Indirect Strategy is actually a pretty helpful way to think about demonstrations against a liberal regime, because it functions much like a proxy war - one side has effectively infinite force, but lacks the freedom of action (sometimes) to use it.
-
In that kind of space, the "exterior maneuver" (in Beaufre's terms) - the action to manipulate the extent of freedom of action - matters more than the interior maneuver - any action taken within the zone of conflict to directly further this or that aim.
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.