Marcuse distinguished revolutionary from reactionary violence by historical function

Evidence

In terms of historical function, there is a difference between revolutionary and reactionary violence, between violence practiced by the oppressed and by the oppressors. In terms of ethics, both forms of violence are inhuman and evilbut since when is history made in accordance with ethical standards? To start applying them at the point where the oppressed rebel against the oppressors, the have-nots against the haves is serving the cause of actual violence by weakening the protest against it. — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School, 2589

Categorization

• XREF: This functional distinction between revolutionary and reactionary violence connects to broader debates in Critical Theory and to the revolutionary violence tradition from Fanon through the 1960s. — connects to: Marcuse justified oppressed violence on historical-function not ethical grounds; Revolutionary violence must be contextualized rather than used to dismiss its ideals; For Marcuse, Vietnam symbolized whether fundamental rebellion could defeat modern technical repression — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 2604
• QUESTION: Worth tracing how this distinction was picked up or rejected by later Frankfurt School figures like Habermas.

Broader Connections

• Revolutionary violence must be contextualized rather than used to dismiss its ideals #qualifies (0.85)