Recent events and discussions about those events have bought up – again – the question. Is property destruction violence?
While this could be answered with a simple yes or no it’s more likely to be followed by a but.
The corporate media are quick to label situations which involve a bit of smashy smash as violent. Multinational environmental ‘organisation’ (corporation) Greenpeace labels property destruction ‘violent direct action’ and so do many advocates of non violent civil disobedience.
So destroying property is bad according to many people but really it depends on the situation.
While the corporate media labels say the smashing of bank windows violent they often happily report on the controlled demolition of a building which is being destroyed on the name of progress.
For them I think the question of whether an act of property destruction is violence comes down to who owns the property or on owns behalf the property is being destroyed.
If a government or a corporation is destroying property it’s not violent if a member of the public destroys property it is violent.
I don’t think destroying property – inanimate objects – is violent but that’s not to say it’s always a good idea.
Smashing up some ones house can be a bad idea smashing corporate/government property can be a good idea. But it really depends on the circumstances.
I don’t see the Earth – forests, oceans, nature in general as an inanimate object and the dominate culture is committing acts of violence against them constantly.