Reddit reviews The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution

Read this and see if you recognize any parallels between the current "our violence is speech, your speech is violence" crowd that have seized control of much of academia.

>And this was the main ideological purpose of the student rebellion's leaders, whoever they were: to condition the country to accept force as the means of settling political controversies.

>...

>To facilitate the acceptance of force, the Berkeley rebels attempted to establish a special distinction between force and violence: force, they claimed explicitly, is a proper for of social action, but violence is not. Their definition of the terms was as follows: coercion by means of a literal physical contact is "violence" and reprehensible; any other way of violating rights is merely "force" and is a legitimate, peaceful method of dealing with opponents.

>For instance, if the rebels occupy the administration building, that is "force"; if policemen drag them out, that is "violence". If Savio seizes a microphone he has no right to use, that is "force"; if a policeman drags him away from it, that is "violence."

>Consider the implications of that distinction as a rule of social conduct: if you come home one evening, find a stranger occupying your house and throw him out bodily, he has merely committed a peaceful act of "force," but you are guilty of violence, and you are to be punished.

>The theoretical purpose of that grotesque absurdity is to establish a moral inversion: to make the initiation of force moral, and resistance to force immoral--and thus to obliterate the right of self-defense.

Her collection of essays on The New Left, written in the 60s, basically has not aged one bit.