[temp-dude-87844]

This essay is a thought-provoking read, because it critically analyzes riots by their characteristics and compatibility with classic Western political thought.

It comes very close to making the assertion that once a demonstration attains 'crowd' characteristics, while that crowd may attempt to self-police, the crowd lacks the ability to effectively and rapidly restrain and disavow actors in the crowd or nearby who escalate the level of violence. Lacking any ability to distinguish the faction affiliation of orderly protesters vs. rioters at the same event, the public will readily attribute any violence committed in the same spatial and temporal context to the protest's organizers.

In my view, this specific risk makes riots an ineffective political tool: once the well-targeted violence begins, it's far too easy for its narrative to be hijacked by hot-blooded people or opportunistic agitators amidst the chaos. If poorly-targeted disorder materializes, the riot loses legitimacy with outgroups, and battle lines are drawn along faction lines.

In contrast, riots can be effective tools of terror and/or revolution. After a successful revolution, the victors often expend considerable effort to justify their actions, as the new order must be seen as normal for it to last and not be perceived as an aberration. (New regimes in coup-prone regions don't bother, because there is no expectation that the regime won't be deposed by another coup later.)

With these risks, why would anyone organize anything but the most carefully branded peaceful protest? With clear leaders, coordinators, security, video cameras, and sophisticated media relations, and ideally vetting and uniforms. Careless assembly is a recipe for hurting the stated cause, unless the goal is martyrdom or victory through superior force.