i'll say that nothing i've read, understood, or practiced about abolition can be reduced to non-violence; which is to say, abolition aint a theory of pacifism. it's a theory and action--a praxis--for addressing harm at a structural level...that doesn't create more structural harm https://twitter.com/Hood_Biologist/status/1276572213131476992

for instance, in the nineteenth century, there were people supported the abolition of chattel slavery who did not believe in using violence to achieve that end. on the other hand, there certainly were abolitionists who knew that the violence was already happening, so used it.

i think there's a really big difference, though, with the fight for the abolition of slavery and the abolition of the PiC: the latter entails battles against state and society. or, to say it differently, we gotta get the cops out the structure AND the culture.

a culture cannot be shot.

the structure of chattel slavery was dismantled, but its culture (i.e., profits over people, White supremacy, heteropatriarchy) was not.

this is all to say, abolition (as *i* have read, understood, and practiced it) neither prescribes nor proscribes particular tactics. it is a praxis that, in its application, aims to embody the restructured relationships that are necessary for a world without policing & prisons.

one thing i worry about is that the liberals will rush to proclaim abolition without understanding its radical lineage; or willfully erasing it. Assata Shakur is one of my favorite abolitionists and there is not a thing about her that can be described as 'non-violent.'

same for Harriet Tubman. she woulda shot a lot of yall...

John Brown. Nat Turner. The Stono Rebellion.