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
-
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.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
I think that non-violence is *generally* the best way against liberal regimes; I'm more skeptical about its utility against illiberal ones. Hong Kong is an interesting case because it's somewhere in between right now.
-
So, if the goal is removal/regime-change/liberalization on a state-wide scale, I absolutely agree with you. But my impression is that the goal of the HK protests is to get China to leave them alone. And that's why I think Indirect Strategy is the best way of thinking about it.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.