Image by Mika Baumeister.

With Trump’s designation of the Antifa movement as a terrorist organization, it is an appropriate time for reconsidering what ‘terrorism’ means. While the left often points to instances of state terrorism, the right is increasingly labeling political opponents as terrorists. This is not an argument for redefining the term, but rather a thought experiment: let’s look at whether narrowing the term’s definition might curb its political use.

In a general sense, terrorism is referred to as an individual, group, or organization that commits violence for political ends. Under this definition, the state excludes itself and other states. From a state survival perspective, the term applies only to those who seek to disrupt policy, for at its core the state strives to perpetuate the status quo. If anything, the state will allow piecemeal change, though even this it often fights tooth and nail.

Yet if we veer from the traditional and state-centric definitions of terrorism and expand it to a state which terrorizes people within and beyond its borders, it lays the groundwork for defining acts of war as potential terrorism. Under this rubric, the definition of terrorism could also expand to any party commencing war or engaging in war crimes. This may give many political scientists pause, as this would change the definition so fully that it would lose its original meaning and gravity.

For these purposes, and because of the wide net that Trump has recently cast on........

© CounterPunch