What do you think?
Rate this book
Street Rebellion: Resistance Beyond Violence and Nonviolence
The complex relationship between violence and nonviolence in social movements.
We are living in a time of uprisings. Across the world and all around us, movements are taking to the streets and challenging established power. These uprisings routinely involve moments of physical confrontation—burning vehicles and barricades, vandalism, projectiles thrown at police, and scuffles between protestors and authorities. Yet the Left has struggled to incorporate rioting into theories of change, remaining stuck in the recurring debates about violence and nonviolence. The idea of "strategic nonviolence" has become mainstream, spreading the notion that riots are counterproductive. But discussing violence and nonviolence as a binary—as distinct, mutually exclusive, and opposite concepts—does not help us understand what is really going on when people riot.
Street Rebellion argues that strategic nonviolence theory and research are misguided. Using data on protests from around the world and in-depth interviews with rioters, Benjamin S. Case pushes through beyond the impasses in arguments over violence and nonviolence, advancing the conversation and bringing new clarity to resistance studies. In a style that bridges the divide between academia and activism, he develops a broader and more accurate understanding of how people struggle for liberation. Street Rebellion will be of equal use in the classroom and on the streets.
We are living in a time of uprisings. Across the world and all around us, movements are taking to the streets and challenging established power. These uprisings routinely involve moments of physical confrontation—burning vehicles and barricades, vandalism, projectiles thrown at police, and scuffles between protestors and authorities. Yet the Left has struggled to incorporate rioting into theories of change, remaining stuck in the recurring debates about violence and nonviolence. The idea of "strategic nonviolence" has become mainstream, spreading the notion that riots are counterproductive. But discussing violence and nonviolence as a binary—as distinct, mutually exclusive, and opposite concepts—does not help us understand what is really going on when people riot.
Street Rebellion argues that strategic nonviolence theory and research are misguided. Using data on protests from around the world and in-depth interviews with rioters, Benjamin S. Case pushes through beyond the impasses in arguments over violence and nonviolence, advancing the conversation and bringing new clarity to resistance studies. In a style that bridges the divide between academia and activism, he develops a broader and more accurate understanding of how people struggle for liberation. Street Rebellion will be of equal use in the classroom and on the streets.
- GenresNonfictionPolitics
280 pages, Paperback
First published December 6, 2022
6 people are currently reading
433 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
July 29, 2025
I feel like I need to get a physical copy of this book so that I can annotate it properly.
RTC.
RTC.
November 19, 2022
Benjamin Case's work is critical for understanding the way that movements for liberation are exploding across the globe, and to counter the misinformation that suggests the only path to change is through strict nonviolence. This is one of the most essential books of the year.
It’s also a great history of the more recent South African student movement and an incredibly in depth look at the role of riots in changing our relationship to our own power.
It’s also a great history of the more recent South African student movement and an incredibly in depth look at the role of riots in changing our relationship to our own power.
January 3, 2023
I did not realize going into Ben Case's Street Rebellion: Resistance Beyond Violence and Nonviolence that I only had one degree of separation from the author. I'm so out of touch with local Pittsburgh organizing these days that I did not know the author personally, but I'm proud that they're from here. This book was one of the more exciting and motivating reads on the topic of movements and tactics. I had all kinds of nostalgia during the experience that made me both miss and NOT miss my rowdy days.
Case tackles many of the sources held up as "evidence" of the success of "purely non-violent" activism in detail. This book does something different than some others in this vein though. Rather than arguing that another form of action is the TRUE way or path to success, he argues that everything from pacifist action to riot is an inevitable consequence of oppression and the fights that exist to combat it. Rather than simply staying "Riots work," Case takes a more nuanced and realistic approach seeking to better understand and inform discussions about movement structure and results.
I honestly never knew the roots of many peoples idea that "non-violent" organizing is the most successful. I keep putting "nonviolence" in quotes because Case makes it clear throughout the book that this is a very poorly defined category, especially by self-professed non-violent organizers and trainers. It turns out many of the sources that people claim are comparing violence and nonviolence are actually comparing revolutionary war efforts including massive human casualty and all other movements. It's more complicated than that but for the sake of a shorter review that's what I'll say. Through the telephone game of life, this data was warped to serve an agenda that states that the only really successful way to challenge oppression is with forms of protest that do not involve any sort of self-defense, property destruction, forms of rioting, and so on. What is possibly the only part of the book that isn't super exciting is a chapter where case does a small analysis of the data around various movement tactics. It's pretty much written like a scholarly article and anyone without a research background is going to struggle with it. But it's necessary because it does something that these other groups claim to have done and shows that there is little basis for what they are saying. Pairing this with his overall analysis was a smart move in my opinion even if it goes over some people's heads because it will prevent detractors from claiming that they have done research and that Case has not.
Pretty much anyone in any form of organizing has met self-professed non-violent activists and/or the peace police. It is widely accepted in many circles that nonviolence, whatever that means, is the most effective means of seeking change. Anyone that diverges from this can be accused of everything from being a fed, being an in outside agitator, co-opting the movement just to have fun breaking things, or just being ignorant of the true nature of justice. Ben Case shows in a myriad of ways that this is not only untrue, but it feeds into the narrative of the state and other authoritarian structures that seek to profit/gain authority from appearing to be allied with resistance to oppression while also being agents of that oppression in very direct ways.
It seems fitting that a Pittsburgher wrote this. I think of very specific examples such as a brief argument I witnessed during the G20 as a black bloc rolled a dumpster into the street. Two women dressed and what looked like a Halloween costume of 60s hippies with flowers painted in their faces started screaming at the A-team, "Non-violent! Nonviolent!" One of the anarchists turned to them and yelled back, "Property destruction isn't violence!" It's an interesting exchange that this book made me think about because it shows a glimpse into how ill fitting this sort of exchange was for a moment when heavily armored police and deputized reactionaries were shooting weapons into the crowd. What those women likely didn't know was that many tactical discussions were had about what kind of things would work in different scenarios. As a result a ton of different kinds of actions from many different groups were planned during the G20. I recall the Pittsburgh principles where many active groups basically agreed not to talk shit on each other's tactics during the movements of that time.
Case also mentioned how former mayor Peduto used the 'outside agitator' myth to make himself appear as if he was allied with anti-racist movements during George Floyd uprisings while simultaneously labeling any action he didn't like as that of a lone invader. He also attempted to lie about police brutality and weaponry to the faces of the victims of it as well as the media. The book doesn't mention (because it's not just about Pittsburgh) that Peduto has a pre-Mayoral history of coming after anarchists, often as a whole, anytime any action was taken that he didn't like. Peduto encourages a parade he can join, not an action that challenges his position or that of his police (who are notoriously corrupt- even for cops- in Pittsburgh, but that's a whole other rant.)
Case also includes interesting conversations that he had with various activists and organized from various generations about their experiences being part of riots. I found this interesting because I see it so little in books about tactics. In these conversations, they talked about how and why people were involved in these things and what function they played. Rather than going through a step-by-step guide of why XYZ tactic is going to work in XYZ situation, there is a much more human aspect to these conversations. And in the end, spontaneous action and even highly pre-organized action is all very very human.
Most of the book takes a confident but gentle approach, walking The reader through each step of cases analysis. When we get to the last section, we really get to feel that passion that the author has for the subject. I think it was smart to leave this to the end carrying the reader along so that they can truly grasp why that passion exists. So, next time you run into somebody who is a non-violent activism trainer or who is telling you that they know for sure that one tactic or a few are the only ones that ever work, hand them this book. I hope more people reading this will lead to better conversations across movement lines about what tactics can work in various situations rather than some sort of argument about what tactics can work at all. I also hope that this book reaches greater audiences to help dispel the extremely successful liberal propaganda about good and bad protesters detailed well in the book.
This was also posted to my blog.
Case tackles many of the sources held up as "evidence" of the success of "purely non-violent" activism in detail. This book does something different than some others in this vein though. Rather than arguing that another form of action is the TRUE way or path to success, he argues that everything from pacifist action to riot is an inevitable consequence of oppression and the fights that exist to combat it. Rather than simply staying "Riots work," Case takes a more nuanced and realistic approach seeking to better understand and inform discussions about movement structure and results.
I honestly never knew the roots of many peoples idea that "non-violent" organizing is the most successful. I keep putting "nonviolence" in quotes because Case makes it clear throughout the book that this is a very poorly defined category, especially by self-professed non-violent organizers and trainers. It turns out many of the sources that people claim are comparing violence and nonviolence are actually comparing revolutionary war efforts including massive human casualty and all other movements. It's more complicated than that but for the sake of a shorter review that's what I'll say. Through the telephone game of life, this data was warped to serve an agenda that states that the only really successful way to challenge oppression is with forms of protest that do not involve any sort of self-defense, property destruction, forms of rioting, and so on. What is possibly the only part of the book that isn't super exciting is a chapter where case does a small analysis of the data around various movement tactics. It's pretty much written like a scholarly article and anyone without a research background is going to struggle with it. But it's necessary because it does something that these other groups claim to have done and shows that there is little basis for what they are saying. Pairing this with his overall analysis was a smart move in my opinion even if it goes over some people's heads because it will prevent detractors from claiming that they have done research and that Case has not.
Pretty much anyone in any form of organizing has met self-professed non-violent activists and/or the peace police. It is widely accepted in many circles that nonviolence, whatever that means, is the most effective means of seeking change. Anyone that diverges from this can be accused of everything from being a fed, being an in outside agitator, co-opting the movement just to have fun breaking things, or just being ignorant of the true nature of justice. Ben Case shows in a myriad of ways that this is not only untrue, but it feeds into the narrative of the state and other authoritarian structures that seek to profit/gain authority from appearing to be allied with resistance to oppression while also being agents of that oppression in very direct ways.
It seems fitting that a Pittsburgher wrote this. I think of very specific examples such as a brief argument I witnessed during the G20 as a black bloc rolled a dumpster into the street. Two women dressed and what looked like a Halloween costume of 60s hippies with flowers painted in their faces started screaming at the A-team, "Non-violent! Nonviolent!" One of the anarchists turned to them and yelled back, "Property destruction isn't violence!" It's an interesting exchange that this book made me think about because it shows a glimpse into how ill fitting this sort of exchange was for a moment when heavily armored police and deputized reactionaries were shooting weapons into the crowd. What those women likely didn't know was that many tactical discussions were had about what kind of things would work in different scenarios. As a result a ton of different kinds of actions from many different groups were planned during the G20. I recall the Pittsburgh principles where many active groups basically agreed not to talk shit on each other's tactics during the movements of that time.
Case also mentioned how former mayor Peduto used the 'outside agitator' myth to make himself appear as if he was allied with anti-racist movements during George Floyd uprisings while simultaneously labeling any action he didn't like as that of a lone invader. He also attempted to lie about police brutality and weaponry to the faces of the victims of it as well as the media. The book doesn't mention (because it's not just about Pittsburgh) that Peduto has a pre-Mayoral history of coming after anarchists, often as a whole, anytime any action was taken that he didn't like. Peduto encourages a parade he can join, not an action that challenges his position or that of his police (who are notoriously corrupt- even for cops- in Pittsburgh, but that's a whole other rant.)
Case also includes interesting conversations that he had with various activists and organized from various generations about their experiences being part of riots. I found this interesting because I see it so little in books about tactics. In these conversations, they talked about how and why people were involved in these things and what function they played. Rather than going through a step-by-step guide of why XYZ tactic is going to work in XYZ situation, there is a much more human aspect to these conversations. And in the end, spontaneous action and even highly pre-organized action is all very very human.
Most of the book takes a confident but gentle approach, walking The reader through each step of cases analysis. When we get to the last section, we really get to feel that passion that the author has for the subject. I think it was smart to leave this to the end carrying the reader along so that they can truly grasp why that passion exists. So, next time you run into somebody who is a non-violent activism trainer or who is telling you that they know for sure that one tactic or a few are the only ones that ever work, hand them this book. I hope more people reading this will lead to better conversations across movement lines about what tactics can work in various situations rather than some sort of argument about what tactics can work at all. I also hope that this book reaches greater audiences to help dispel the extremely successful liberal propaganda about good and bad protesters detailed well in the book.
This was also posted to my blog.
May 2, 2024
What an apt time to have read this.
May 17, 2023
This book is constructive and that's it's best feature. Ward Churchill's "Pacifism as Pathology" and Peter Gelderloos's "How Non-Violence Protests the State" are classics that are arrogant screeds. In this book, the author isn't trying to prove one tactic is "better"—he rejects the idea that you can say that about a tactic abstractly. It's not (necessarily) pro-riot (which feels like a pretty juvenile reaction to this debate), but says that most riots are inherently out of your strategic control and inevitable in awful situations, especially in the case of police and military violence.
It challenges the ideas of tactical nonviolence, not to dismiss it but to put it in perspective. What does it mean to promote a tactic without an ends? Have American pacifists really found the tactical silver bullet that people in other times and places just weren't smart enough to find? I keep using the word 'tactic' because the book is only about effectiveness, not a moral commitment to non-violence ala Ghandi, for which this book offers no criticism.
The big finding of this book is that foundational studies on non-violence are what people think they are. They study guerrilla & civil warfare vs. other forms of regime change (and even there have their issues). They have lumped many violent actions under the umbrella of non-violence for statistical purposes. The clearest case—and I love this argument—is that proponents claim strikes as non-violence. But the vast, vast majority of strikes through history involve sabotage, property destruction, and above all clashes with scab laborers. Without those, strikers' ability to stop production is severely limited.
This is in the top 10% of dissertations-turned-book in terms of writing quality and practical use. That's no east feat. Still, there was a lot of delving into statistical methods that does way beyond what anyone outside of the author's field will be curious about. There's a long primer/study on the black bloc that I didn't really care for either. But when the book talks about riots, it's primarily about unplanned street rebellions—not anarchists.
This brings up a big question for me, one that's already been forming since reading Trampling Out the Vintage. What's the long-term effect of insisting on the tactical superiority of explicit non-violence? Generations of organizations rely on a near-religious belief that it is entirely possible to leverage mass-power without doing anything outside laws beyond symbolic arrest. Non-profits lead organizing and can't or don't violate laws. They insist on adherence to strict codes of conduct and publicly condemn anyone who steps outside of them. Yet we find the images of riots inspirational. Yet it's pretty apparent that the ability of strikes to stop production is hamstrung by legal methods (which, after court injunctions, loose even the moral power of a picket).
The book isn't arguing that more people need to do illegal shit, per say. But it does argue that organizers should ~release~ people's energy rather than try to plan and direct it from retreats and board meetings.
It challenges the ideas of tactical nonviolence, not to dismiss it but to put it in perspective. What does it mean to promote a tactic without an ends? Have American pacifists really found the tactical silver bullet that people in other times and places just weren't smart enough to find? I keep using the word 'tactic' because the book is only about effectiveness, not a moral commitment to non-violence ala Ghandi, for which this book offers no criticism.
The big finding of this book is that foundational studies on non-violence are what people think they are. They study guerrilla & civil warfare vs. other forms of regime change (and even there have their issues). They have lumped many violent actions under the umbrella of non-violence for statistical purposes. The clearest case—and I love this argument—is that proponents claim strikes as non-violence. But the vast, vast majority of strikes through history involve sabotage, property destruction, and above all clashes with scab laborers. Without those, strikers' ability to stop production is severely limited.
This is in the top 10% of dissertations-turned-book in terms of writing quality and practical use. That's no east feat. Still, there was a lot of delving into statistical methods that does way beyond what anyone outside of the author's field will be curious about. There's a long primer/study on the black bloc that I didn't really care for either. But when the book talks about riots, it's primarily about unplanned street rebellions—not anarchists.
This brings up a big question for me, one that's already been forming since reading Trampling Out the Vintage. What's the long-term effect of insisting on the tactical superiority of explicit non-violence? Generations of organizations rely on a near-religious belief that it is entirely possible to leverage mass-power without doing anything outside laws beyond symbolic arrest. Non-profits lead organizing and can't or don't violate laws. They insist on adherence to strict codes of conduct and publicly condemn anyone who steps outside of them. Yet we find the images of riots inspirational. Yet it's pretty apparent that the ability of strikes to stop production is hamstrung by legal methods (which, after court injunctions, loose even the moral power of a picket).
The book isn't arguing that more people need to do illegal shit, per say. But it does argue that organizers should ~release~ people's energy rather than try to plan and direct it from retreats and board meetings.
January 19, 2025
Fascinating critique of the hallowed importance of “strategic nonviolence” through demonstrating how riots have and will always be a component of popular uprisings. “Riots happen; riots are part of uprisings from below; riots can be empowering for rioters; riots send a message to authorities and onlookers about the seriousness of resistance; riots can spark broader rebellion.” Case uses quantitative data to demonstrate these facts and to disprove some common assumptions often bandied about in movement circles that riotous activity is “less effective” than nonviolent protest, that it demobilizes protest movements, or that the absence results in greater numbers for mass movements. Rather than seeing riots alone as able to produce social change any more than protest movements, Case effectively makes the case that riots need to be understood and incorporated into “actionable theories of movement building, leverage, and power.” Case devotes two chapters to the qualitative effects of riots and these I found somewhat narrow (I am unconvinced that the US black bloc is representative of worldwide riotous activity, especially in the global south) and less strong than the rest of the book. His focus on the empowering and transformative experience of taking part in riots is interesting and important to note sociologically but I think there is a transformative element of most kinds of struggle and the fact that it “feels” more impactful to participants doesn’t in the end tell us about how this is connected with the “actionable theory d movement building” that Case gestures toward. To their credit they are aware of this tension and it doesn’t take a way from a book that overall is riveting and deftly handles a very charged topic in a clear, convincing, and powerful manner. To the barricades!
February 18, 2025
In a field filled with polemics (which are also important), Case takes a different path. Rather than condemning or praising riots, he simply examines their place in movements for transformative social change. In doing so, he empirically demonstrates not only the flaws in the data used by proponents of strategic nonviolence, but shows that riots have played an important role in movements that successfully effect change. The second part of the book looks at the qualitative experiences of those who participated in not-nonviolent actions in what are called the U.S. and South Africa.
An important book to read for those involved in social movements, especially those with an attachment to nonviolence. Reality has left the violence/nonviolence debate behind. It's time to catch up.
An important book to read for those involved in social movements, especially those with an attachment to nonviolence. Reality has left the violence/nonviolence debate behind. It's time to catch up.
January 18, 2023
If you're on the fence about whether rioting is a worthwhile endeavor, this is the book for you. As someone who has already been won over to the side of rioting, I didn't find it the most exciting book in the world but it was definitely not a waste of time. The only issue I have, and this probably isn't the author's fault, is that the title is misleading. The first part of the book is tearing apart two books on nonviolence and the second part is breaking down and arguing for riots. I don't really understand where the "beyond violence and nonviolence" comes into play.
November 4, 2025
Starts out so good with a debunking of the data and analysis that Chenoweth and Stephan have been using, but finishes with the (less useful) anecdotal evidence and interviews. It's trying to be two books at once, and sadly less than the sum of its parts. The first few chapters are required reading though and I highly recommend them
November 29, 2024
Absolutely incredible. Insightful, impactful, engaging, and beautifully written. I’ve found myself citing this in every relevant conversation and class discussion I’ve had in the past few months, I’ve even recommended it to my professors. Thank you Professor Case for this profoundly necessary work!
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews