The Historical Roots Of Political Violence

Offers the first comprehensive analysis of the wave of revolutionary terrorism in affluent countries.

This book represents a concerted attempt to bring the resources of political theory, political science and history to bear on modern terrorism. It provides the general assumptions about man and society which inspire terrorist activity, focusing on the continuity of violence in human affairs.

Political extremism is one of the most pernicious, destructive, and nihilistic forms of human expression. During the twentieth century, in excess of 100 million people had their lives taken from them as the result of extremist violence. In this wide-ranging book Manus I. Midlarsky suggests that ephemeral gains, together with mortality salience, form basic explanations for the origins of political extremism and constitute a theoretical framework that also explains later mass violence. Midlarsky applies his framework to multiple forms of political extremism, including the rise of Italian, Hungarian and Romanian fascism, Nazism, radical Islamism, and Soviet, Chinese and Cambodian communism. Other applications include a rampaging military (Japan, Pakistan, Indonesia) and extreme nationalism in Serbia, Croatia, the Ottoman Empire and Rwanda. Polish anti-Semitism after World War II and the rise of separatist violence in Sri Lanka are also examined.

The author further proposes that this recourse to political violence, "top-down" nationalism, and the abandonment of urban democratic traditions are all hallmarks of a particular type of nationalism equally unsustainable in Zimbabwe then as it is now."--BOOK JACKET.

Offering deep insight to the lives of human rights activists in a conflict zone, against the backdrop of major historical changes that shaped Latin America in the twentieth century, this book illuminates the critical role of human rights organizations in bringing violence to public attention and analyzing its causes and consequences.

This volume brings together scholars from intellectual history, social sciences, philosophy and theology to evaluate central questions concerning political violence and aggression. This multidisciplinary collection of essays critically investigates forms and modes of justification of political violence from historical and contemporary perspectives, especially within the context of the development of the idea of Europe and modern European identity. What is meant by political violence and aggression? When and under which conditions is it justified? Who has the right to exercise it and against whom? Answers differ depending on various factors such as pre-established ends, available resources and possibilities of action, historical and socio-economic context, the ideological, political, and religious-theological background of the actors. The volume pays special attention to (a) how the above questions have been addressed and answered political, philosophical and theological thought, and (b) what kind of ideological currents and historical events lay at the background of such considerations.

"On January 6 we witnessed what many of us consider a failed insurrection at the US Capitol. But others think this was political violence in service of the preservation of our democracy. When did our political views become extreme? When did guns and violence become a feature of American politics? Nathan Kalmoe and Lily Mason have been researching the increase in radical partisanship in American politics and the associated increasing propensity to support or engage in violence through a series of surveys and survey experiments for several years. Kalmoe and Mason argue that many Americans have become increasingly radical in their identification with their political party and more inclined to view partisans of the other party negatively as people. Their reactions to opposing political views give little room for respect or compromise and make increasing numbers of Americans more likely to either participate in political violence or to view those who do so on behalf of their party favorably. They also find that radical partisans are more apt to be receptive to messages from radical political leaders and less receptive to conflicting information and views. Radical partisanship and political violence are not new to the United States. In most of the 20th century we experienced less radical partisanship, with measures of attitudes towards partisans of other parties that were not as extreme as we see now but this has not been the case throughout much of American history, as witness the fight over slavery that led to the Civil War as well as the violence associated with racism after the fall of reconstruction to the present day"--