@ 101,

And I also think that all of this mindless rage directed at the smashy-smashers is blinding people to their obvious success...They successfully broke through the walls of a system that doesn’t work for them and got the whole city engaged in a new dialogue.

You've ignored this before (probably because you can't stand to concede the point), so I'll say it again - the fact that we're having this discussion shows that they FAILED. No one is talking about the fucked up distribution of wealth in America. No one is saying, boy, we better start fixing the system because of these protests. Talking about whether window smashing is "violence" or not changes NOTHING. I don't know why you're satisfied with that, but you're wrong to be.

@ 97. Or does it?

People have brought up both Kristallnacht and the Boston Tea Party in the course of this conversation. (Which is specious, because the latter was directed against the actions of institutions and the former was directed against individuals for the circumstances of their birth. But regardless... )

One was clearly odious, and one is hallowed in grade-school history books as a virtuous act of liberty.

Would you say those acts of destruction are the same, morally speaking?

@103

That is simply not true. I don't know if you've had a chance to speak with people outside of this forum, but there is quite an amazing amount of willingness in Seattle to extend sympathy toward the smashers. I'm obviously biased toward the relatively radical, but I work with many people who don't share that view and they have surprised me with their open mindedness.

One person I spoke with at lunch this afternoon, a special ed teacher by no means known for her radical politics, particularly surprised me. She drew a parallel between the protestors and her usually gentle students who every so often lash out at their teachers with anger. It's not because they are violent or hateful, it's because they get incredibly frustrated at not being able to express themselves, they can't figure out how to use the system to get help, and a temporary lapse in civility is all that remains. Obviously it's just one conversation, but I found it a really interesting example, and a sure sign that the protestors are gaining support.

@104

What basis of moral equivalence do you want us to use?

Here's another example of targetted property destruction: cross burning.

Let's rewrite your footnote thusly:

Though I had been standing mere feet away from all the burning cross, it never even occurred to me to be afraid of the burners. They weren't after people, they were burning crosses, in a clearly planned-out and—if I can use the word here—orderly fashion. I've covered a few tense cross-burnings for newspapers, and have never once feared or been harmed by protesters, even those who are vocally hostile to the press. The only harm I've ever encountered at cross-burnings has been at the hands of national guardsmen.

No, the Smashists are not the same as the Klansmen. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be asking "did anyone feel threatened?" and if so, "was that threat intentional?"

@ 105, I'll have to admit that that's surprising - and kinda cool. If that's indicative of wider popular sentiment (and that's going to take some time to demonstrate), I'll acknowledge that this worked after all.

A protest isn't the time to discuss solutions.

Yes, some people use political tactics for reasons we find odious and some people use the same tactics for reasons we find virtuous. You can peaceably march for hatred, like the Fred Phelps people, but that doesn't mean everyone who uses peaceable marching as a tactic is a hate-filled homophobe.

Likewise, some people destroy property for reasons you might find odious and some destroy property for reasons you might find virtuous.

So, to repeat the question, is there a moral difference between Kristallnacht and the Boston Tea Party? Was one better than the other, by your lights?

Or were they both simple instances of "thugs" breaking things to "intimidate" people, and therefore morally equal?

(I meant my question @ 109 for @ 106—but of course you're all welcome to chime in.)

@109

No, they're not morally the same, for reasons that, as you suggest, have nothing to do with whether or not targeted property destruction is a form of violence. What's your point?

You're still curiously unwilling to discuss the concept of threat, I see. Or even use the word at all.

Oh well, I tried.

@ Brendan, my comment was prompted by your remark which said "I consider why a leftist might break a bank window as a form of economic protest..." It seems to imply that you feel the leftist's politics in and of itself elevates the act from immoral to moral. In and of itself, political motives do no such thing. It's the planning of the act, the weighing of its impact on the political scene, and the consideration shown for those who would be impacted by it, that might accomplish that.

Addressing your remarks @ 103, it may well be a demonstration of how history is written by the victors. Had the Nazis won, Kristallnacht would be getting the same treatment in German schools that the Boston Tea Party is in ours. And should the relatively narrow band of people who smashed up Seattle somehow end up in power in the future, then May 1, 2012 will get some similar nickname and go down in history the same way.

I happen to think that you're making some good points here, but context matters, and you're bringing this up in the context of what transpired two days ago. That makes it a lukewarm endorsement of what transpired. This wasn't the same as ELF torching ski resort construction sites in the middle of the night, even morally. In that instance, the destruction was planned in a way that it could hardly have caused anyone to fear for their safety. (Come to think of it, the same goes for the Boston Tea Party, although I don't believe anyone really subscribed to nonviolence back then - they were concerned with getting away with it.) Some people probably felt afraid anyway, though, and it would be incorrect to say that those ELF perpetrators would have regretted that.

Now, it could come to pass that this event sparks some real changes (see @ 105). If so, this whole event will have to be re-evaluated. But we must not forget that someone threw a brick through the mayor's home window, and THAT definitely is on the same level with Kristallnacht.

Fair enough, all. Thanks for answering.

@104, Antisemitism has a very signification economic component. Much of the hatred of jews is motivated by a perceived class or social divide. Jews control the banking system, jews control the media, jews control education. Jews were portrayed as the masters of an economic system that was fucking over everyone else. This is all complete scapegoating of course, but it was believed. The motivations behind Kristallnacht and these anarchists are quite similar, the anarchists just have a bit better aim.

@85 How is it that when you commit violence against a corporate entity (by smashing Chase's windows for instance) you feel that the occupants are not being threatened (because it's not "their" property) but if a bank takes a home there is violence against the occupants?

What I'm of course implying here is that most home occupants in fact don't own their home. So your implication that if violence is perpetuated against property you occupy but do not own it is acceptable doesn't hold water.

@105 if the folks who are understanding the motivations of the smashers are special Ed teachers I'm not sure if you should be thrilled. Those kids? They get frustrated and lash out because they lack the full capacity for rational discourse. So do many of the smashers.

When my toddler throws a tantrum I don't consider it an act of wisdom in an otherwise unjust world.

I have read all the comments on yours and Eli's posts, and I am swelled with pride at how volatile the Slog community gets at what is more or less a semantic definition. Well played, nerds. Well played.

@117

A semantic quarrel, yes, but when you've got a group running around breaking windows while calling themselves nonviolent, you can't really blame a bunch of blog commenters for taking an interest in how the semantics of that are supposed to work.

@114, it seems to me that Tuesday's mayhem, and the so-called "Reichskristallnacht" have at least a couple of dissimilarities in that the latter was: 1) a deliberate action of the German state, risibly disguised as a spontaneous popular action, and 2) designed, from its inception, to include a substantial component of directed violence against actual Jewish people, as well as their stuff (nearly a hundred were killed outright, many more were savaged, and tens of thousands were arrested, and sent to concentration camps). So at the risk of sounding provocative, I would like to think that, however misguided, the motives of the (neo)smashists might have been at least a little different, than say, Reinhold Heydrich's...

I agree with Brendan. Vandalism does not always imply violence. But as I said yesterday, vandalism and violence are both acts of aggression (http://www.jawjawjaw.com/2012/05/02/vand…).

Along the continuum of aggression, violence is morally worse than vandalism. An act of violence always intends violence as its outcome. An act of vandalism, on the other hand, does not necessarily have this intent.

Nevertheless, the possibility of violence is almost always imbedded within acts of vandalism, and the two have often walked hand in hand throughout human history.

That’s why people commonly lump vandalism and violence together. And that’s why many people believe that the moral distance separating these two categories of action isn’t wide enough to be conceptually meaningful most of the time.

More on this here: http://www.jawjawjaw.com/2012/05/02/vand…

If property damage is violence than taxes should be considered more violent than they are. Oh shit I forgot, we live in a sane reality.

@122 taxes are not property damage. What's your damage?

@43:
Sorry to beat a dead horse, but am I correct in believing that the "fallacy of degree" is believing that there are no degrees, so that all slopes were infinitely slippery? If so, then I don't see how I committed that fallacy in Post #38.

As used in the argument in Post #43, it sounds like "fallacy of degree" were being used to mean 'the proposition that something can become moral once it becomes insufficiently immoral'. Even with that definition, I don't think I'm doing that, as I never stated that I believe (because I do not believe) that smashing a useful and non-dangerous thing were moral---though I can believe that in some circumstances it can be the least immoral of all available actions (or failures to act). Clear (to me) example: if someone needs CPR or The Antidote and they're behind an American Apparel window with not other form of ingress, it were less immoral to smash a window than to save a life. Less clear: anarchist claims that her smashing the window is a definitely and vital part of a series of actions that will lead to lives' being saved or/and improved.

Yes, this _is_ on a slope to saying that any action can be justified by a particularly good result, or by the avoidance of a particularly bad one...but because the fallacy of degree is in fact a fallacy, not all slopes are slippery, and none are infinitely so. I could be guilty of a 'slippery slope' argument because I claimed in #3 that property damage is a few steps away from violence against persons...but I don't think that I am, as I believe the progression from the one to the other to be well-established---still, I might be pushing it.

(1) Brendan K quotes Eli S:
"If I am not secure in my property, then I cannot feel secure in my person. Violence directed at property is an implicit threat of violence directed at a person."

And replies:
"So... are banks that foreclose on homes and farms and repossess property committing acts of violence on American families? I wouldn't say so. But this line of thinking points in that direction."

This line of thinking is in fact the line of the Black Bloc: The crimes of Capital are violence. Private property itself is violence.

Though Eli, both in the Slog and on KUOW this morning, says the BB'ers haven't explained their motivation, there is no reason to doubt it's any different from the motivations some of them outlined in 1999 after the WTO actions. The ACME Collective's statement from then is available at http://www.urban75.com/Action/seattle9.h… among other sites.

Though Knute Berger said on KUOW that BB statements from that time were "incomprehensible" this document is in fact very accessible. To ignore rather than refute what these people have to say seems to me irresponsible and unhelpful.

I should clarify that though I agree with some of what the document says about capitalism and private property, I entirely disagree with their tactics, and was very disappointed that they managed to steal the spotlight and blacken the movement's image in the public's eye.

The gist, from the final section titled "Motivations of the Black Bloc," reads:

"We contend that property destruction is not a violent activity unless it destroys lives or causes pain in the process. By this definition, private property--especially corporate private property--is itself infinitely more violent than any action taken against it.

"Private property should be distinguished from personal property. The latter is based upon use while the former is based upon trade. The premise of personal property is that each of us has what s/he needs. The premise of private property is that each of us has something that someone else needs or wants.

"In a society based on private property rights, those who are able to accrue more of what others need or want have greater power. By extension, they wield greater control over what others perceive as needs and desires, usually in the interest of increasing profit to themselves.

"Advocates of 'free trade' would like to see this process to its logical conclusion: a network of a few industry monopolists with ultimate control over the lives of everyone else. . . .

"When we smash a window, we aim to destroy the thin veneer of legitimacy that surrounds private property rights."

(2) I agree with Eli S. that it is absurd to suggest that the Black Bloc were provocateurs. The SPD is probably just incompetent, but the fact remains that despite their foreknowledge, they let the BBers run rampant, then came out with their usual overkill against peaceful protestors. You can't blame people for wondering whether there's something beyond incompetence at play here.

@126

You've got some good arguments in there, but I'm honestly interested in where you're coming from when you characterize eight (8) arrests, and the confiscation of numerous truncheons, a few incendiary devices, a plastic bag of excrement, and other items as "overkill."

@125: Errata:
'[...] with not other form [....]' --> '[...] with no other form [....]'
'[...] it were less immoral to smash a window than to save a life.'
-->
'[...] it were less immoral to smash a window than to fail to save a life.'

Apologies.

"The only harm I've ever encountered at demonstrations has been at the hands of police officers." That about sums it up for me. Thanks for another excellent blog posting, Brendan. Expertly reasoned and intellectually stimulating.