enders_shadow (enders_shadow) wrote in talk_politics,

Dangerous topic?

So the othernight I was discussed non-violence. I was surprised when there was some disagreement in the group about what NVDA (non-violent direct action) was and was not.

The key question was that of property damage. Does destroying property count as violence or must violence be perpetrated against a person?

So we could all agree that if group X wanted to engage in NVDA against wal-mart, there are many ways they could do it. Picket, protest, boycott are easy example.
Clearly that'd be OK and it'd be NVDA. If they went after the Walton family (or just each stores local manager) with axes, that'd be violent, and NOT okay.

But would destroying their property, say, by slashing the tires on all their trucks, would that be VIOLENT or not?

Personally I feel that such property damage is violent. Be it throwing blood on a fur coat (which also affects the person) or destroying the factory of an evil company (assume the factory is empty) these actions are violent, albeit violence for a good end. That doesn't justify it, but I'm not asking here if you think it's good or bad, just trying to get input from others about what they think of as violent and what they see as non-violent.
Tags: violence
  • Post a new comment


    Comments allowed for members only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded