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.

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.

I personally hope that the view that violent riots are illegitimate wins out, but I am not planning my life around that hope.

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.

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]).

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.

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.

Note: I haven't had the chance yet to read the articles linked by Mr Havercroft, but look forward to doing so.

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.

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.

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.

> "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."

https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2003/04/11/Rumsfeld-Looting...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb9_qGOa9Go

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.

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.

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.

Nothing freaks them out more than when 2 groups that dont get along march together. And thats when they start making compromises.

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.

Only if they _can_ be solved with violence. I'd argue that even if a particular issue can be solved with violence, the net result will generally be worse than the status quo as the violence will rarely be limited to such issues.

I'd think that for an undirected mob, violence that was a net beneficial effect would be even more rare than violence by a well regulated army. E.g. U.S. military violence during WWII was arguably a net benefit. What would be an example of mob violence that led to a net benefit?

A forest isn't a forest if it's always on fire, but the system of the forest is often in equilibrium only when forests are swept with fire every so often. A similar logic might be part of a complete political theory.

It seems absurd on its face to claim that only classical liberals oppose riots on theory grounds.

There are non-violent, non-peaceful protests where protesters are noisy, block traffic, etc. Many of the speakers I've heard have expanded on the phrase "No Justice, No Peace" to describe how they'd like their protests to be remembered not as peaceful, but as non-violent. One speaker I recall saying, "This is a peaceful protest! Wait, no no, it's not that. It's a non-violent protest! We're here because if there is no justice, then there is no peace."

I think this is the key distinction. Protesting against injustice by government is one thing. Perpetrating further injustices is another.

Except that’s only the view of radicals and the normal people protesting and not protesting see a problem in that since they do not believe the whole system is bad, but rather needs some reform.

In more concise terms in the East they were fighting to get capitalism, in the West some fight to defeat capitalism.

Makes it seem like those rioters have different - maybe opposite - motivations than the protesters.

Threatening anything, by compromising the security of something, is not neutral; occupying buildings is not either. Neither is wearing a mask and showing up in large, angry groups: even if you do no harm, you are still threatening. Even if the majority commit no crime, they might provide cover for those who do.

To me, the whole appeal of protest in this form is less about an accurate expression of feeling, opening up and appealing to the out-group, than it is about threatening harm, often is a sloppy, undifferentiated manner (e.g. public stores/car are at risk, messages are mixed).

I don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, I kind of like that we're more liberal than Germany or France on this. I don't like how liberals in the U.S. fail to appreciate that fact and think the U.S. is super racist and xenophobic. (I guess if they're comparing against a platonic ideal.)