By Agency
With every wave of mass protests comes the need for anarchists and other critical thinkers to debunk the notion that some forms of protest are good and others are bad. Most often we find ourselves pointing out that property destruction and self-defense against state violence are often wrongly characterized as violence in the first place—on the contrary these acts usually occur in protests in the service of stopping state violence. Mass protests are a manifestation of people’s rage, concerns, hopes, and struggles. These aren’t theater productions.
When individuals or groups attempt to dictate the spirit or form of mass protest it most often marginalizes people—usually those most impacted by injustice. It weakens a movement’s potential and impact. The state and mainstream media often characterize specific events as representative of the entire protest, aiming to suppress resistance and mislead the public. While this is problematic, countering these claims by insisting that “most” protesters are “nonviolent” casts suspicion on those who don’t fit that mold—and reinforces harmful narratives. These five resources are valuable tools for debunking the good protester/bad protester fallacy and resisting attempts to divide movements into “legitimate” and “illegitimate” factions.
A ’good protestor’ is just a ‘bad protestor’ in the misty rearview
By David S. Meyer, June 5, 2020 | The Washington Post
David S. Meyer explores how society often retrospectively sanitizes past protest movements, praising figures like Martin Luther King Jr. who were harshly criticized in their time, while condemning contemporary protesters using similar tactics. Meyer argues that social movements are inherently diverse and messy, involving a range of strategies and participants, and cautions against playing into simplistic characterizations of “good” or “bad” protesters. He emphasizes that judging a movement based on a few actions overlooks the broader struggle for justice and often serves to uphold the status quo, urging a more nuanced understanding of protest and social change.
The Illegitimacy of Violence, the Violence of Legitimacy
By CrimethInc., March 27, 2012 | CrimethInc.com
CrimethInc. critiques the conventional dichotomy between “violent” and “nonviolent” actions within social movements. Labeling certain actions as violent, whatever the issue or the provocation, often serves to delegitimize them, reinforcing societal hierarchies and marginalizing those without institutional power. By emphasizing nonviolence as a standard, movements inadvertently align with state narratives that justify repression against those deemed “illegitimate.” CrimethInc. contends that legitimacy should be rooted in the pursuit of freedom and justice, rather than adherence to imposed norms, advocating for a more inclusive approach that recognizes diverse tactics as part of a unified struggle against oppression.
Don’t Let Them Bad-Mouth Rebellion or Riots: How We Name Movements Matters
By Jenn M. Jackson, June 11, 2020 | Teen Vogue
Jenn M. Jackson examines the impact of language on public perception of protests, particularly those involving Black communities. She argues that terms like “riots” and “looters” are strategically used to delegitimize movements and distract from their core demands. Jackson contrasts this with the framing of white-led uprisings, such as the Boston Tea Party, which are often romanticized as acts of resistance. By highlighting these disparities, she calls for a reevaluation of how we label and understand protests, emphasizing the importance of context and the voices of marginalized communities in shaping narratives.
How Non-Violence Protects the State
By Peter Gelderloos, 2007 | South End Press (2017) and Detritus Books (2021)
“How Nonviolence Protects the State” is a crucial resource for debunking the good protester/bad protester fallacy because it challenges the simplistic moral hierarchy that elevates nonviolent protesters as inherently legitimate while condemning violent or militant tactics as illegitimate or harmful. Gelderloos exposes how this binary framework serves state interests by dividing movements, marginalizing radical voices, and preserving existing power structures. The book argues that insisting on nonviolence as the only acceptable form of resistance restricts the strategic diversity necessary for effective social change and often excludes the most oppressed, who may see militant action as a valid response to systemic violence. By questioning the assumed superiority of nonviolence, Gelderloos encourages a more nuanced understanding of resistance that validates a broader spectrum of tactics and undermines the state’s ability to control and delegitimize dissent.
Pacifism As Pathology
By Ward Churchill, 1986 | Arbeiter Ring Publishing (1998)
“Pacifism as Pathology” critiques the pacifist ideology prevalent in many activist and leftist movements, arguing that it functions as a psychological and political constraint that upholds oppressive systems by dismissing or condemning militant resistance. Churchill contends that labeling protesters as “good” when they adhere to tactics associated with nonviolence dogma and “bad” when they use other tactics creates a false moral binary that limits the effectiveness of social movements. This serves state interests by dividing movements and marginalizing those who resort to more confrontational tactics out of necessity or frustration. By exposing pacifism as a form of ideological control rather than an inherently ethical stance, this essay challenges the good protester/bad protester fallacy and calls for a broader acceptance of diverse tactics in the struggle against oppression.
Five Resources for Debunking the Good Protester/Bad Protester Fallacy
By Agency
With every wave of mass protests comes the need for anarchists and other critical thinkers to debunk the notion that some forms of protest are good and others are bad. Most often we find ourselves pointing out that property destruction and self-defense against state violence are often wrongly characterized as violence in the first place—on the contrary these acts usually occur in protests in the service of stopping state violence. Mass protests are a manifestation of people’s rage, concerns, hopes, and struggles. These aren’t theater productions.
When individuals or groups attempt to dictate the spirit or form of mass protest it most often marginalizes people—usually those most impacted by injustice. It weakens a movement’s potential and impact. The state and mainstream media often characterize specific events as representative of the entire protest, aiming to suppress resistance and mislead the public. While this is problematic, countering these claims by insisting that “most” protesters are “nonviolent” casts suspicion on those who don’t fit that mold—and reinforces harmful narratives. These five resources are valuable tools for debunking the good protester/bad protester fallacy and resisting attempts to divide movements into “legitimate” and “illegitimate” factions.
A ’good protestor’ is just a ‘bad protestor’ in the misty rearview
By David S. Meyer, June 5, 2020 | The Washington Post
David S. Meyer explores how society often retrospectively sanitizes past protest movements, praising figures like Martin Luther King Jr. who were harshly criticized in their time, while condemning contemporary protesters using similar tactics. Meyer argues that social movements are inherently diverse and messy, involving a range of strategies and participants, and cautions against playing into simplistic characterizations of “good” or “bad” protesters. He emphasizes that judging a movement based on a few actions overlooks the broader struggle for justice and often serves to uphold the status quo, urging a more nuanced understanding of protest and social change.
The Illegitimacy of Violence, the Violence of Legitimacy
By CrimethInc., March 27, 2012 | CrimethInc.com
CrimethInc. critiques the conventional dichotomy between “violent” and “nonviolent” actions within social movements. Labeling certain actions as violent, whatever the issue or the provocation, often serves to delegitimize them, reinforcing societal hierarchies and marginalizing those without institutional power. By emphasizing nonviolence as a standard, movements inadvertently align with state narratives that justify repression against those deemed “illegitimate.” CrimethInc. contends that legitimacy should be rooted in the pursuit of freedom and justice, rather than adherence to imposed norms, advocating for a more inclusive approach that recognizes diverse tactics as part of a unified struggle against oppression.
Don’t Let Them Bad-Mouth Rebellion or Riots: How We Name Movements Matters
By Jenn M. Jackson, June 11, 2020 | Teen Vogue
Jenn M. Jackson examines the impact of language on public perception of protests, particularly those involving Black communities. She argues that terms like “riots” and “looters” are strategically used to delegitimize movements and distract from their core demands. Jackson contrasts this with the framing of white-led uprisings, such as the Boston Tea Party, which are often romanticized as acts of resistance. By highlighting these disparities, she calls for a reevaluation of how we label and understand protests, emphasizing the importance of context and the voices of marginalized communities in shaping narratives.
How Non-Violence Protects the State
By Peter Gelderloos, 2007 | South End Press (2017) and Detritus Books (2021)
“How Nonviolence Protects the State” is a crucial resource for debunking the good protester/bad protester fallacy because it challenges the simplistic moral hierarchy that elevates nonviolent protesters as inherently legitimate while condemning violent or militant tactics as illegitimate or harmful. Gelderloos exposes how this binary framework serves state interests by dividing movements, marginalizing radical voices, and preserving existing power structures. The book argues that insisting on nonviolence as the only acceptable form of resistance restricts the strategic diversity necessary for effective social change and often excludes the most oppressed, who may see militant action as a valid response to systemic violence. By questioning the assumed superiority of nonviolence, Gelderloos encourages a more nuanced understanding of resistance that validates a broader spectrum of tactics and undermines the state’s ability to control and delegitimize dissent.
Pacifism As Pathology
By Ward Churchill, 1986 | Arbeiter Ring Publishing (1998)
“Pacifism as Pathology” critiques the pacifist ideology prevalent in many activist and leftist movements, arguing that it functions as a psychological and political constraint that upholds oppressive systems by dismissing or condemning militant resistance. Churchill contends that labeling protesters as “good” when they adhere to tactics associated with nonviolence dogma and “bad” when they use other tactics creates a false moral binary that limits the effectiveness of social movements. This serves state interests by dividing movements and marginalizing those who resort to more confrontational tactics out of necessity or frustration. By exposing pacifism as a form of ideological control rather than an inherently ethical stance, this essay challenges the good protester/bad protester fallacy and calls for a broader acceptance of diverse tactics in the struggle against oppression.
Author
View all posts