I think stating that burning a bunch of cop cars 'will' trigger more repression is kind of suggestive. It might also be that this makes the city think its not worth the price. I think exactly your line of argumentation is what pacifists use against violence; a line of argumentation you say you refute.
I agree however that with it should not become a goal, and that violence is a very complex matter, should not be fetishized and comes great responsibility. Responsibility towards your own goals, towards your comrades, towards society (present and future), in a way even towards your enemies. Revolutionary violence out of political impatience has however never brought closer the revolution. Violence is easy to be used, but the results are far reaching and is only effective in very specific instances, where other means, like slow and painstaking political work, might take a lot lot longer and have very different results (which sometimes might be difficuly to see).
Added should also be that revolutionary violence can only be succesfull if there is a certain backing within society, and even then can also be damaging for a movement. Look for instance at the effects of the Brigada Rossa in Italy. The movement was huge and strong, and these militants, although they also had huge support networkds, didn't last. Eventually they circled around themselves (like also the RAF and many other similar groups).
I think stating that burning
I think stating that burning a bunch of cop cars 'will' trigger more repression is kind of suggestive. It might also be that this makes the city think its not worth the price. I think exactly your line of argumentation is what pacifists use against violence; a line of argumentation you say you refute.
I agree however that with it should not become a goal, and that violence is a very complex matter, should not be fetishized and comes great responsibility. Responsibility towards your own goals, towards your comrades, towards society (present and future), in a way even towards your enemies. Revolutionary violence out of political impatience has however never brought closer the revolution. Violence is easy to be used, but the results are far reaching and is only effective in very specific instances, where other means, like slow and painstaking political work, might take a lot lot longer and have very different results (which sometimes might be difficuly to see).
Added should also be that revolutionary violence can only be succesfull if there is a certain backing within society, and even then can also be damaging for a movement. Look for instance at the effects of the Brigada Rossa in Italy. The movement was huge and strong, and these militants, although they also had huge support networkds, didn't last. Eventually they circled around themselves (like also the RAF and many other similar groups).