| Popis: |
This chapter analyzes whether collective violence can be justifiable, whether violence might be the answer. To be sure, the adoption of violent tactics invites greater costs. There is a significant likelihood of being killed in an armed battle against the state, and research consistently shows that violent movements generate higher levels of repression than their nonviolent counterparts. However, nonviolence raises its own ethical dilemmas. This begs the question of whether nonviolent resistance is worth the short-term costs of repression, given that protesters have no weapons with which to resist state violence. Moreover, is it worth the potential long-term costs of failure? To unpack this dilemma, the chapter first considers why nonviolent action is presented as both the morally and strategically superior approach to achieve the movement's long-term goals. It then suggests that violence should not be a proactive strategy, but may be a tactic of last resort. |
