Mario Dogliani

Resistenza

Introduction

Resistenza. Explore the universalist nature of active resistance and mass civil disobedience, contrasting it with resistance-warfare. Learn why its indivisible goals benefit everyone.

Abstract

Unlike resistance-warfare, active resistance in the form of mass civil disobedience is absolutely universalist. This is because those who engage in it expect nothing but the final result, which is universalist by definition — a great principle such as the end of racial segregation. They do not expect anything for themselves or the political party they belong to because, in the event of victory, the final result is indivisible and belongs to everyone. In the case of resistance-warfare, however, the result is divisible among the various political parties based on the number of combatants, the territories liberated, or the strength of their international allies.

Review

The paper, titled "Resistenza," proposes a compelling distinction between two forms of resistance: active resistance in the form of mass civil disobedience and resistance-warfare. The abstract posits that civil disobedience is inherently universalist, driven by participants' expectation of an indivisible, common good such as the end of racial segregation, with no personal or partisan gain. In stark contrast, resistance-warfare is presented as leading to divisible outcomes, where rewards are apportioned among political parties based on factors like combatant numbers, liberated territories, or international support. This central thesis offers a potentially novel framework for analyzing the motivations and outcomes of various resistance movements. The strength of this work lies in its clear articulation of a fundamental difference in the *nature* of the desired outcome and the *expectations* of participants. By categorizing civil disobedience as universalist and indivisible, the author highlights a crucial aspect often overlooked in discussions of nonviolent action – its inherent potential to transcend narrow self-interest for a broader societal benefit. This conceptual clarity could provide valuable insights into why certain movements garner widespread public support and achieve lasting societal change, while others, despite their sacrifices, struggle with internal divisions or fail to deliver on universal principles. The focus on the "indivisible" nature of the final result for civil disobedience is particularly insightful. However, to fully realize its potential, the paper would benefit from significant elaboration and empirical grounding. The abstract raises several questions that the full manuscript must address: How are "mass civil disobedience" and "resistance-warfare" precisely defined, and what about hybrid forms of resistance? While the abstract provides a compelling theoretical distinction, it needs to engage with existing scholarship on social movements, political violence, and the ethics of resistance to situate its argument. Furthermore, the claim that civil disobedience *always* leads to universalist outcomes and resistance-warfare *always* results in divisible outcomes requires rigorous empirical validation and consideration of potential counter-examples or nuances. Exploring the mechanisms through which participant expectations directly shape these outcomes, beyond mere assertion, would also strengthen the analysis.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.