Nonviolence [video]

[Drosophila]

Here's a YouTube video that some of you should definitely watch:

A3w-jVkkA78


He brings up a great point. The elites in our society only know how to deter violence. There's a reason why riot police are armed with such powerful weapons. Combating violence with nonviolence throws them off.

[Ele'ill]

I'm sorry, no. Showing up and not being able to do anything at all, AT ALL, like not allowed to blow bubbles or sing- inside a steel cage several miles from where those elites are meeting isn't 'success'. That's being dominated and stopped from being able to demonstrate/engage in action successfully. Talk about impotent.

That's doing exactly what they want you to do. You've been successfully controlled.

[Sasha]

He is full of shite, you should read this instead:
"how non-violence protects the state" http://zinelibrary.info/how-nonviolence-protects-state-peter-gelderloos

[Ele'ill]

He is full of shite, you should read this instead:
"how non-violence protects the state" http://zinelibrary.info/how-nonviolence-protects-state-peter-gelderloos


Pacifism As Pathology is another that comes to mind.

[Drosophila]

I'm sorry, no. Showing up and not being able to do anything at all, AT ALL, like not allowed to blow bubbles or sing- inside a steel cage several miles from where those elites are meeting isn't 'success'. That's being dominated and stopped from being able to demonstrate/engage in action successfully. Talk about impotent.

That's doing exactly what they want you to do. You've been successfully controlled.

Woah, when did it ever say that in the video? Actually the pacifist movement is quite opposed to what you're describing. Pre-determined parade routes as protests is bullshit.

[Rafiq]

Tell that to the Bolsheviks, who were the only force powerful enough to bring revolution, and lead the working class behind them.

Yes, it failed smartasses, but only because it didn't spread.

Plus, 99% of the population rioting, I don't think any amount of police will stop that.

Peaceful protest is a Bourgeois-Liberal concept created to fool the proletariat into making the class war easy for them.

Armed insurrection is the only way to a proletarian victory!

[Jimmie Higgins]

Here's a YouTube video that some of you should definitely watch:

A3w-jVkkA78


He brings up a great point. The elites in our society only know how to deter violence. There's a reason why riot police are armed with such powerful weapons. Combating violence with nonviolence throws them off.

This is THE standard liberal argument against all kinds of actions. I wonder how well the Egyptian revolution would had gone if when Mubarak sent armed thugs on horseback to attack the square, protesters had responded with unyielding love? I'd love your take on what people in Egypt should have done when mobs of thugs were sent to attack their peaceful occupation of the square.

Well, there'd be a lot of dead Egyptians, Mubarak would be in power still and there'd be mass-repression just like when all the other pro-democracy protests in Egypt failed.

Violence as a principle is useless for the class struggle, but so is nonviolence on principle. Violence won't help us organize the working class, won't help workers learn how to run society, but can help us defend against attacks from the ruling class.

Yes, he's definitely correct that the ruling class knows how to treat violence... but they also know how to use violence to smash our movements, destroy our organizations and make workers too scared and demoralized to say "peep".

In general, most people don't do violent shit unless they are threatened... why would a worker's movement be any different? It's all tactical and political considerations - not moral ones. Leave the moralizing to people with video blogs and crappy haircuts.

[Jimmie Higgins]

He's called the "punk patriot"? That's about all I need to know right there. Patriotism isn't punk nor is it non-violent.

At about 2:50
V1lxQv9MRac

[Ele'ill]

Woah, when did it ever say that in the video? Actually the pacifist movement is quite opposed to what you're describing. Pre-determined parade routes as protests is bullshit.


I can't watch videos on this laptop *smugface* I was replying to your comment.

[danyboy27]

dont be too rough with him, he is a good guy, he got some misconceptions about what violence is and when to use it.

being violent dosnt necessarly mean breaking shit up for the sake of it, there must be a political reason to be violent and there are various degree of violences.

if the cops start charging a crowd that occupy a street, it would be justified to, lets say respond by resisting and thorwing stuff at them, if they start to use ammunition against the crowd, i dont see why the crowd wouldnt return them the favor.

Back in the day, that how the striker did it, shooting the cops that where shooting them in the first place.

its all about being realistic with the degree of violence that should be used.

[¿Que?]

I love how he's naming peaceful revolutions that worked, but had to name the Philippines twice...how'd that '86 revolution work out then? Not that well apparently.

[Jimmie Higgins]

dont be too rough with him, he is a good guy, he got some misconceptions about what violence is and when to use it.

Right, I take back the part about the haircut:)

[Jimmie Higgins]

I love how he's naming peaceful revolutions that worked, but had to name the Philippines twice...how'd that '86 revolution work out then? Not that well apparently.

He goes on to list that:

Apartheid ended peacefully in 1974?! There was a white's only election that year and the ANC was considered a terrorist organization by the US. Apartheid didn't end until the early 1990s.

That 1968 was a year of non-violence in US civil rights?! It was actually a year of massive rioting! Chicago had riots, D.C., Baltimore, and after MLK jr. was murdered there was rioting in 110 US cities!!!

That India won independence in 1945? Nothing happened in 1945 - British rule ended in 1947 and non-violence meant that the British set the conditions for self-rule which lead to partitioning the country and hundreds of thousands of deaths!

He also cites the Egyptian Revolution as non-violent and yet there were pitched battles in the streets and in Tahrir as protesters held the square by any means necessary against police and paid thugs.

[Sasha]

He goes on to list that:

Apartheid ended peacefully in 1974?! There was a white's only election that year and the ANC was considered a terrorist organization by the US. Apartheid didn't end until the early 1990s.

That 1968 was a year of non-violence in US civil rights?! It was actually a year of massive rioting! Chicago had riots, D.C., Baltimore, and after MLK jr. was murdered there was rioting in 110 US cities!!!

That India won independence in 1945? Nothing happened in 1945 - British rule ended in 1947 and non-violence meant that the British set the conditions for self-rule which lead to partitioning the country and hundreds of thousands of deaths!

He also cites the Egyptian Revolution as non-violent and yet there were pitched battles in the streets and in Tahrir as protesters held the square by any means necessary against police and paid thugs.

and even if he had his basic dates right its still not to mention that all those, still pro-capitalist, reforms where given because of the explicit threats of the armed, radical, factions that where also active.
no need to talk to, and give concessions to ghandi if there was not also a mass, violent, resistance.
same goes for Mandela and MLK.
does one seriously believe that the US state didnt cave in to the reformist/pro-capitalist "peacefull" cilvil rights movement for any other reason than that they where afraid for Malcolm X and likeminds?
seriously, go read the "how non-violence protects the state" booklet in my earlier post, Peter lays it all down excelently.
and like Jimmy Higgins said earlier, rejecting pacifism doesnt mean we have to be violent, all the time, it just means having all the options on the table. what idiot goes on the eve of battle in to an armory and throws out half of the weapons?

[Nehru]

Even if violence is effective, it's only nonviolence that helps in the long run. Even after 500 years, the world will be inspired by Gandhi. How many of them are going to be inspired by, or even care to remember, Mao?

Point is, nonviolence struggles leave an indelible mark in human consciousness, unlike violence which simply stimulates people temporarily.

[Sasha]

i love how clairvoyant you are, but i hardly think so.

yes, jesus is thanks to his relentlessly hardworking PR department still pretty popular but atilla the hun, ghenzis khan and vlad the impailer have pretty sweet name recognition too and that withou a church thats screaming their names on every corner.

and what should we get inspired by by ghandi in the first place? pro-bourgeois, pro-capitalist neo-colonialism? how inspiring...

[Sasha]

In India, the story goes, people under the leadership of Gandhi built up a massive nonviolent movement over decades and engaged in protest, noncooperation, economic boycotts, and exemplary hunger strikes and acts of disobedience to make British imperialism unworkable. They suffered massacres and responded with a couple of riots, but, on the whole, the movement was nonviolent and, after persevering for decades, the Indian people won their independence, providing an undeniable hallmark of pacifist victory. The actual history is more complicated, in that many violent pressures also informed the British decision to withdraw. The British had lost the ability to maintain colonial power after losing millions of troops and a great deal of other resources during two extremely violent world wars, the second of which especially devastated the “mother country.” The armed struggles of Arab and Jewish militants in Palestine from 1945 to 1948 further weakened the British Empire, and presented a clear threat that the Indians might give up civil disobedience and take up arms en masse if ignored for long enough; this cannot be excluded as a factor in the decision of the British to relinquish direct colonial administration.
We realize this threat to be even more direct when we understand that the pacifist history of India’s independence movement is a selective and incomplete picture-nonviolence was not universal in India. Resistance to British colonialism included enough militancy that the Gandhian method can be viewed most accurately as one of several competing forms of popular resistance. As part of a disturbingly universal pattern, pacifists white out those other forms of resistance and help propagate the false history that Gandhi and his disciples were the lone masthead and rudder of Indian resistance. Ignored are important militant leaders such as Chandrasekhar Azad,
” who fought in armed struggle against the British colonizers, and revolutionaries such as Bhagat Singh, who won mass support for bombings and assassinations as part of a struggle to accomplish the “over throw of both foreign and Indian capitalism.”
The pacifist history of India’s struggle cannot make any sense of the fact that Subhas Chandra Bose, the militant candidate, was twice elected president of the Indian National Congress, in 1938 and 1939.6 While Gandhi was perhaps the most singularly influential and popular figure in India’s independence struggle, the leadership position he assumed did not always enjoy the consistent backing of the masses. Gandhi lost so much support from Indians when he “called off the movement” after the 1922 riot that when the British locked him up afterwards, “not a ripple of protest arose in India at his arrest.”
Significantly, history remembers Gandhi above all others not because he represented the unanimous voice of India, but because of all the attention he was given by the British press and the prominence he received from being included in important negotiations with the British colonial government. When we remember that history is written by the victors, another layer of the myth of Indian independence comes unraveled.
The sorriest aspect of pacifists’ claim that the independence of India is a victory for nonviolence is that this claim plays directly into the historical fabrication carried out in the interests of the white-supremacist, imperialist states that colonized the Global South. The liberation movement in India failed. The British were not forced to quit India. Rather, they chose to transfer the territory from direct colonial rule to neocolonial rule,” What kind of victory allows the losing side to dictate the time and manner of the victors’ ascendancy? The British authored the new constitution and turned power over to handpicked successors. They fanned the flames of religious and ethnic separatism so that India would be divided against itself, prevented from gaining peace and prosperity, and dependent on military aid and other support from Euro/American states.” India is still exploited by Euro/ American corporations (though several new Indian corporations, mostly subsidiaries, have joined in the pillaging), and still provides resources and markets for the imperialist states. In many ways the poverty of its people has deepened and the exploitation has become more efficient. Independence from colonial rule has given India more autonomy in a few areas, and it has certainly allowed a handful of Indians to sit in the seats of power, but the exploitation and commodification of the commons have deepened Moreover, India lost a clear opportunity for meaningful liberation from an easily recognizable foreign oppressor. Any liberation movement now would have to go up against the confounding dynamics of nationalism and ethnic/religious rivalry in order to abolish a domestic capitalism and government that are far more developed. On balance, the independence movement proves to have failed.

easy to read online version: http://agamsterdam.wordpress.com/teksten/how-nonviolence-protects-the-state/

[Jimmie Higgins]

Even if violence is effective, it's only nonviolence that helps in the long run. Even after 500 years, the world will be inspired by Gandhi. How many of them are going to be inspired by, or even care to remember, Mao?

Point is, nonviolence struggles leave an indelible mark in human consciousness, unlike violence which simply stimulates people temporarily.It's not a question of stimulation or not - that would be an inherently wrong reason to be either violent or nonviolent. The issue is what, from a socialist/anarchist perspective, will help workers to end their oppression and exploitation and run society in a collective and democratic way. Personally I don't think Mao was wrong just because of his tactics but because that Revolution had little to nothing to do with the working class running society for themselves. I think his tactics were bad because a band of fighters running around in the hills alone can only achieve putting those fighters into power, not the self-emancipation of the working class. Strikes, mass strikes, factory occupations, and urban uprisings on the other hand can help workers organize themselves, learn how to work together, and run society.

Often strikes are met with forceful resistance from police and employers (even more-so in general and mass strikes and workplace occupations) - if workers see fighting back and defending the picket line as the only way they can win, then that violence is justified.

If KKK terrorists are hanging black people for speaking out or lynching unionists and radicals to intimidate us, I think it is a good tactic for people to defend themselves and arm themselves. Even MLK Jr. packed heat and had armed guards at certain points when white terror was a threat.

Gandhi is inspiring to a lot of people because the ruling class is ok with him. He opposed strikes because they were "violent" and his movement played ball with the rulers at some points during the struggle. But is non-violence always the best tactic - as I said above, the non-violence of that movement led to negotiating a deal with the UK and partitioning India which made the entire region weaker and more dependent on the imperialists and also led to 100,000s of deaths when ethnic groups were forced to move into the participated areas. Nonviolence does not mean no bloodshed, often it only saves the blood of our oppressors while guaranteeing that it's our blood which gets spilled.

Do any of us want violence? No, only a small minority of really impatient leftists and desperate workers see this as a tactic on principle. Most workers and most class-oriented radicals would love to minimize violence as much as possible - but not at the expense of our own lives or the ability of the worker's movement to win. A win that would save millions and millions of lives instantly through better and humane food distribution and free healthcare and homes for people. A win that ultimately could save us all from environmental disaster or nuclear war.

[scarletghoul]

The elites in our society only know how to deter violence. There's a reason why riot police are armed with such powerful weapons. Combating violence with nonviolence throws them off.
yeah because the police would never attack someone who didnt attack them :laugh::laugh::laugh:

[scarletghoul]

Even if violence is effective, it's only nonviolence that helps in the long run. Even after 500 years, the world will be inspired by Gandhi. How many of them are going to be inspired by, or even care to remember, Mao? fun fact: vast areas of gandhi's homeland are now controlled by maoists.

99% of the time, peaceful protest is ignored. millions of indians have been on an involuntary hunger strike for years and years, and the authorities have given narry a shit nor fuck. there's a reason they took up arms..

[danyboy27]

any actions that challenge or ignore the actual framework of a state is comitting violence toward that verry structure.

if you stop paying taxes for exemple without using any loophole that are part of the structures, the IRS or the police will come, beccause you challenge the state by flat out ignoring their pre-determined set of rules.

if you are parading in the street without the approval of the police or without a permit you defy the pre-determined set of rules set up by the state, and riot police will beat your ass and arrest you for challenging the rules.

Ghandi wasnt a ''pacifist'', In fact his movement was showing a great deal of hostility toward the state by refusing to comply to the rules laid out by the brittish at the time.

even the 60s peace movement was pretty violent toward the state by promoting refusal of the draft. At a certain point the U.S intelligence services where deeply worried of the low morale and the lack of motivation for the people to join the military, and it had an impact on the capabilites for the us governement to wage war in Vietnam, cambodia and Laos.

[Rafiq]

Even if violence is effective, it's only nonviolence that helps in the long run. Even after 500 years, the world will be inspired by Gandhi. How many of them are going to be inspired by, or even care to remember, Mao?

Point is, nonviolence struggles leave an indelible mark in human consciousness, unlike violence which simply stimulates people temporarily.

What a stupid thing to say.

Non violence never helps, it only softens things out between the slaves and the slave owners.

Violence is necessary, it's our instinct, it's a part of being a primate.

But that doesn't mean we can't control it, and not use it when it isn't necessary.

Every progressive social change in history involved violence in some way or another. To deny it is useless moralism.

Both Mao and Ghandi will be remembered, except Gahndi will be remembered by the Indian people as the man who was responsible for the deaths of many of their 'people', if we want to play the "Look into the magic ball" fortune teller game.

What right do you have judging who people will remember in five hundred years? How the fuck are we even able to predict how the world will look like by then?

[A Revolutionary Tool]

The police don't know how to deal with peaceful activists? How many videos do you think I can find of hippie circles where they all lock arms and sit somewhere they're not supposed to get broken up with cops dragging them away one by one? They know exactly how to deal with peaceful protesters, they make their job easier in fact! It's much harder to arrest somebody when you have ten comrades attacking you.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

Here's a YouTube video that some of you should definitely watch:

A3w-jVkkA78


I about lost it when this chap said "we will pierce the heart of the ruling elite with nonviolence." What heart? The bourgeoisie have hearts now? On a more serious note this idiot doesn't know what he's talking about. The bourgeois most certainly know how to deal with nonviolent expressions of discontent; they will beat you then imprison you, it's that simple and it was seen in the 60s. All those students whom would sit in those diners were beaten and then they were sent to jail; have we not learned from this? Liberals may be biting at the mouth to become martyrs to "the cause," but I however am not. The only way to "pierce the heart of the ruling elite," is to drive a dagger through it.

Violence isn't dehumanizing in the slightest rather it is very human, in fact I would say it's all to human. We're a incredibly violent species and generally speaking, to create real change and push the wheel of progress forward, violence has become a necessary course of action or 'evil.' I think this man using quotations for the enemy aka the bourgeoisie and then citing the Buddha (of all people) is very telling. Moral high ground? Since when did the bourgeoisie give a flying fuck about morals? Seriously, we're talking about the same government who didn't bat so much as an eyelash to soldiers offing 5 innocent Iraqi children; moral high ground indeed. If anything reacting with violence would not only be the moral thing to do but would really consitute as justice.

Further all cited "peaceful revolutions," within the Middle-East and North Africa were anything but "peaceful," I mean, come on. It's this type of petty bourgeois liberal crap that's ineffective and stifles the movement from accomplishing real, objective, qualitive change. Shave your head, grow some bollox, get a gun and stfu. Did any of those "revolutions," mentioned cause any real or qualitive change? Or did they just replace one master for another? I'm going to wager on the latter. When has violent revolution worked? Oh, I don't know, France 1789, American colonies 1776, Russia 1917 (both the Feburary and October revolutions), China 1949, Mexico 1910, etc. etc. the list goes on really, these are just modern examples.

Voting as a revolutionary tactic is absurd. You will not overthrow the bourgeoisie via the ballot box; stop trying, your political messiah will never come. Idealism is dreadfully annoying. The proletariat will never be free until the last capitalist has a bullet in their head, period. Petty bourgeois nonsense.

[Nehru]

Funny thing I noticed about people who comment on Gandhi - most of them can't stand up to their boss at the workplace, and here they are commenting on Gandhi, the man who stood up to an empire!;)

Anyway, the important thing is: whatever is built by violence will be destroyed by violence.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

Anyway, the important thing is: whatever is built by violence will be destroyed by violence.

Says who?

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Funny thing I noticed about people who comment on Gandhi - most of them can't stand up to their boss at the workplace, and here they are commenting on Gandhi, the man who stood up to an empire!;)

Anyway, the important thing is: whatever is built by violence will be destroyed by violence.
So there will never be an end to violence, what's the point of this non-violence crap?

Seriously whenever people use this type of circular reasoning(especially pacifists) it pisses me off to no end. Just think about it for a second, if "violence begets violence" as the person in the video says then, by that logic, violence is going to happen anyways so what is the point of opposing it if it's naturally going to happen?
*head explodes*
Fuck that is annoying as hell.

[CleverTitle]

This guy's a total tool. :lol:

[Rusty Shackleford]

Now for the extreme opposite.

XSIIjcgaZFM

[Nehru]

Says who?
History of nations.

[Nehru]

So there will never be an end to violence, what's the point of this non-violence crap?

Seriously whenever people use this type of circular reasoning(especially pacifists) it pisses me off to no end. Just think about it for a second, if "violence begets violence" as the person in the video says then, by that logic, violence is going to happen anyways so what is the point of opposing it if it's naturally going to happen?
*head explodes*
Fuck that is annoying as hell.

People kept on opposing slavery until one day slavery became unthinkable to any half-decent human being. In the same way, if enough people keep opposing violence with nonviolence, then violence could eventually become a thing of the past. It will take a lot of time, no doubt, but then everything takes time - slavery did not end at once.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

People kept on opposing slavery until one day slavery became unthinkable to any half-decent human being. In the same way, if enough people keep opposing violence with nonviolence, then violence could eventually become a thing of the past. It will take a lot of time, no doubt, but then everything takes time - slavery did not end at once.

Ok what does that have to do with the fact that the whole "violence begets violence" argument is complete crap when you take a second to look at it from a pacifist viewpoint. I feel like you totally missed what I was saying. Nice theory though, we'll all just become sick of violence somewhere in the distant future, is that when we overthrow capitalism?

[Jimmie Higgins]

People kept on opposing slavery until one day slavery became unthinkable to any half-decent human being. In the same way, if enough people keep opposing violence with nonviolence, then violence could eventually become a thing of the past. It will take a lot of time, no doubt, but then everything takes time - slavery did not end at once.The irony here is that slavery was expanding before the Civil War - and of course that in the US it took a hugely violent war to end the system.

Unlike workers who do have various tools to oppose the system and try and gain liberation, for slaves there were really only two viable options: fight or flight. People could run away and try and live in Maroon colonies or join native American communities away from the colonists or plantation owners or they could rebel as in Haiti.

Slaves could not strike, could not petition some authority, could not complain or else they would simply be sold down river or worse. Many ran, but in the US the Southern ruling class created laws that forced non-slave states to allow slave-catchers to come in and compelled northern authorities to round up runaway slaves.

For this reason, many people correctly drew the conclusion that only slave revolution and the destruction of the Southern ruling elite could end slavery. John Brown is a famous example of this and he wanted to arm slaves and move from plantation to plantation building an army of liberation.

I don't support guerrilla war as a primary tactic for worker's revolution because we are far more powerful through our solidarity and ability to shut-down and take over production. Armed fighting in rural or urban areas doesn't teach us how to organize society in our own collective interests like a mass strike and factory occupations do - it only removes some pesants or workers from their class and makes them into soldiers. I also think we have ways in which we can minimize violence against ourselves although I also think that history shows that we will be violently attacked by the ruling class - even just in regular strikes if they become militant and determined enough - and so we need to not strive for violence but be prepared to defend ourselves when it is appropriate. In a march or protest it's easy enough to have a tactical retreat if repression happens - live to fight another day - but if you are in a strike or factory occupation (not to mention on the verge of revolution) a tactical retreat means giving up the struggle. You can't occupy a factory and then come back the next day if thugs or police attack you, you need to hold that ground or you lose.

While workers have relatively more tools to pick from and ways to fight, slaves and peasants did not have these options and so their only effective means for rebellion was through direct forceful confrontation with their oppressors.

[Sasha]

@ guna

nonviolence is ineffective
nonviolence is racist
nonviolence is statist
nonviolence is patriarchal
nonviolence is tactically & strategically inferior
nonviolence is deluded
the alternative: possibilities for revolutionary activism

^ these are the chapters in peter gelderloos his book, i dont want to keep beating this drum but i really hope you are willing to read it as it respectfully but firmly destroys all the dogma's and romanticism around non-violence.
and its not an attack on a personal choice for pacifist activism, although he disagrees with pacifism peter respects that that is up to everybody individually, the booklet is a fierce destruction of the demands of lots of pacifists that everybody else is non-violent too and argues that such a tactical demand is "ineffective, racist, statist, patriarchal, etc etc".
I really hope you are willing to read it, its only a 140 very small pages long and frankly if you are not willing to test your non-violent position against an well written, well sourced booklet as this one then we left politics and entered the realm of religion.
seriously, go read it.

http://agamsterdam.wordpress.com/teksten/how-nonviolence-protects-the-state/
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4355288/HOW_NONVIOLENCE_PROTECTS_THE_STATE_-_Peter_Gelderloos
http://zinelibrary.info/how-nonviolence-protects-state-peter-gelderloos
http://www.amazon.com/Nonviolence-Protects-State-Peter-Gelderloos/dp/0896087727

[PhoenixAsh]

I do not ascribe to non-violence....I never gave the subject much thought or study. I do have some thoughts on it though...

Because the debate is always present in the sidelines. Not only between groups...but also inside groups. I think that debate is valuable in so far that we need both sides in the struggle and we need to be able to continuously review and adapt our tactics to suit our needs and to remain flexible instead of entrenched in a set course or path. Such entrenchment is ultimately self defeating...wether it is a sole focus on self imposed non-violence or sole focus on violence in our protests.

I have no real objections to members of groups to want to remain non-violent. I have no objection to being non-violent in certain situations. Just like I have no real objection to members to want to take a more violent course or that violence is warranted in certain other types of situations. But I do object to overemphasizing one side over the other. It excludes people and makes us as a whole vulnerable to stagnation and targetting.

One can NOT exist, imo, without the other as a viable means to affect the social changes we desire....and I expect mutual aid and cooperation within the groups and within the larger movement. And that is not happening now. And from what I gather...that is denied mostly by the non-violent side who seem to abandon the militant side of the movement at the earliest opportunity.

On more than one occasion have militants been, in my eyes, betrayed by non-violent parts of our movement. We have even been forced to expel a member from our own group for such betrayal....talking to the local burgeoisie press and denouncing the actions and the people involved as mere thugs. That is NOT an acceptable position and it undermines the legitimacy of our goals.

Luckilly not every non-violent protester holds these views. But as a whole,
ultimately, non-violence will settle for a non-violent alternative to prevent militancy when it is necessary and the only way to reach the desired ultimate goal. While an attitude of violence above all will create an often unneccessary polarisation and will alienate elements outside the movement.

IMO neither strategy can exist in a vacuum. While I find it perfectly logical to answer violence with violence...I do see that certain types of protests, certain topics and certain actions require us to be non-violent. I also recognize that violence as a whole makes non-violence forceful. It was about time the non-violent folks learn to accept that. No single non-violent protest has ever been succesful on the basis of non-violence alone when it came to reaching overall goals...

[Nehru]

We, the workers, are the majority, and they are the minority. Nonviolent noncooperation - in the form of mass strikes, walkouts, protests - would be more than enough to bring the system down. I can't believe people can't see that. What's really stopping us from succeeding is lack of unity among workers - workers are too divided along ethnic, national, and religious lines. If workers are united, the numerical strength itself is enough to destroy the system (via nonviolent noncooperation) - no need for violence.

[PhoenixAsh]

We, the workers, are the majority, and they are the minority. Nonviolent noncooperation - in the form of mass strikes, walkouts, protests - would be more than enough to bring the system down. I can't believe people can't see that. What's really stopping us from succeeding is lack of unity among workers - workers are too divided along ethnic, national, and religious lines. If workers are united, the numerical strength itself is enough to destroy the system (via nonviolent noncooperation) - no need for violence.

I can not believe that you do not understand that that never works...ever.

They are more than willing to use violence and kill. There has not been a non-violent succesful movement anywhere in history that was succesful on the basis of non-violence alone or in a vacuuum of non-violence....and even those that claim to be succesful were in fact far from it.

The non-violent movement in fact is more than happy to have huge numbers of people massacred for the sake of non-violence...because they fail to recognize that they are in fact sheep to the slaughter. Burgoisie is NOT going to be civil, they are not going to be non-violent and they sure as hell will appreciate the easy in which they can drive you off the streets and arrest all of you people.

NOT to mention that when you even reach total and massive support, an illusion btw...but lets say everbody is high on LSD, you MAY just be able to effect change in one country...and immediately get attacked by all others...who are more than willing to cause millions of casualties to reach their goals.

I challenge you to name 1 single succesful movement.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Ok, so there's a strike and scabs show up with hired thugs and they say, move aside we're going to take your jobs. Then what? If you let the scabs through, the picket line is worthless and the strike is effectively over and you are out of a job and blackballed in that town or industry.

[danyboy27]

Funny thing I noticed about people who comment on Gandhi - most of them can't stand up to their boss at the workplace, and here they are commenting on Gandhi, the man who stood up to an empire!;)

Anyway, the important thing is: whatever is built by violence will be destroyed by violence.

What ghandi did was actually a form of violence against the state, if he would have been more proactive when the governement forces where attacking and ask to the people to actually defend themselves, a lot of lives could have been spared.

there is a huuge difference between war and the use of violence by a population or a group for self-defense.

[Sasha]

non-violence is white male privilege

and thats because white privileged males are the only ones who can afford to be non-violent

and they can only afford to be non-violent because the system will protect them from violence and will not behave overtly violent towards them

and the reason the system protects these people is because they serve the system rather than attack it

which is because the intrests of the privileged white male are the same of the system so the system employs its violence monopoly to protects the interests of white male privilege

so "non-violence" is inherently violent as it serves, strengthens, and depends on, the violence monopoly of the state

ergo, non-violence protects the state

[Nehru]

non-violence is white male privilege

and thats because white privileged males are the only ones who can afford to be non-violent

and they can only afford to be non-violent because the system will protect them from violence and will not behave overtly violent towards them

and the reason the system protects these people is because they serve the system rather than attack it

which is because the intrests of the privileged white male are the same of the system so the system employs its violence monopoly to protects the interests of white male privilege

so "non-violence" is inherently violent as it serves, strengthens, and depends on, the violence monopoly of the state

ergo, non-violence protects the state

Ok, I kind of get what you're saying. But what is a person supposed to do? Violence, even assuming it's more effective, is practically an invitation for the ruling class to decimate us. Noncooperation, otoh, could frustrate them. And besides, no one can employ violence against lots of people refusing to work (because there would be no specific 'enemy' to target in such cases).

[Nehru]

Ok, so there's a strike and scabs show up with hired thugs and they say, move aside we're going to take your jobs. Then what? If you let the scabs through, the picket line is worthless and the strike is effectively over and you are out of a job and blackballed in that town or industry.

Will violence work in your example?

[danyboy27]

Will violence work in your example?

It was succesfull in the past, when scabs tried to get to the workplace they where prevented of doing it by the worker, when the industries hired the pinkerton, and those folks started shooting at the strikers, the strikers shot them back.

at a certain point the buisnessman had no choice but to finally negociate or ask the governement to do their dirty work, something they really didnt liked to do beccause it mean being in debt toward the governement.

buisnessman: About that road you wanted to build, cant we agree on a higher price?
representative: Well you know, we could, but i couldnt guarantee your security, remember last year when i called the national guard? you owe me one.

[Sasha]

Ok, I kind of get what you're saying. But what is a person supposed to do? Violence, even assuming it's more effective, is practically an invitation for the ruling class to decimate us. Noncooperation, otoh, could frustrate them. And besides, no one can employ violence against lots of people refusing to work (because there would be no specific 'enemy' to target in such cases).

In the topics i am active in, housing, antifascism, workerstruggles, al the consession done by the system always have been won by the implicit or explicit (threat of) violence.
and where we seize to be a threat (at this moment in the Netherlands on all these topics, either because we lost our mass or we gave up the possibility of violence) the system takes those consessions away again.
Also don't forget that if you are involved in topicbased or gradual revolutionary activism an violent conflict with the state doesn't mean you have to win, it just means you shouldn't loose.
Only for an all out revolution you need to win an clear victory, on all other moments you just need to not loose enough that the system chooses to rather give in to your demands than have the possibility you might win in the future.

If this sounds as rambling you should envision our struggle with a very long series of chess games against a chessmaster.
We aim to win all matches, we will settle for more wins and remise than defeats, sometimes we tacticaly decided not to strike against our opponents pieces, and sometimes we even have to sacrifice a pawn but the worst thing we could do is refuse to take ever, any of the opponents pieces. because that is a tactic that guarantees we loose for sure.
And that's what dogmatic non-violence is, playing chess while refusing to strike against a opponent who has no qualms about striking against us.

[Rusty Shackleford]

here

“…whoever heard of a sociological explosion that was done intelligently and politely? And this is what you’re trying to make the Black man do. You’re trying to drive him into a ghetto and make him the victim of every kind of unjust condition imaginable. Then when he explodes, you want him to explode politely! [Laughter] You want him to explode according to somebody’s ground rules.” Malcolm X

[scarletghoul]

People kept on opposing slavery until one day slavery became unthinkable to any half-decent human being. In the same way, if enough people keep opposing violence with nonviolence, then violence could eventually become a thing of the past. It will take a lot of time, no doubt, but then everything takes time - slavery did not end at once.
way to shit on the grave of every hero who sacrificed themselves to end slavery.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Will violence work in your example?If they try and break through the picket line, then the strike has lost its teeth and has no real effect. If they try and break through the picket line and workers hold that line, pushing back, if necessary, then the strike can go on.

This example is a smaller version of what happened in Tahrir square. People occupied the main square, the governmnet sent thugs in to beat them up and scare them away - the protesters defended the square and themselves from the thugs and the protesters won. This is seen as the turning point in the uprising and is among the reasons that Mubarak is on trial today rather than thousands of Egyptian unionists and protesters.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Ok I gotta chime in on this. "Privilege theory" is to me what "dialectics" was to Rosa.

non-violence is white male privilegeI never knew Gandhi and MLK Jr. were white.


and thats because white privileged males are the only ones who can afford to be non-violentI'd say that non-violence as a principle comes more out of a desire to collaborate with certain elements of a ruling class. MLK's strategy was effective when he was able to win over the urban capitalists through challenging the system of the old southern agrarian elites. The non-violent aspects of the civil-rights movement worked because they kept challenging the rascist system to the point that the reation was so severe that the liberal bourgeois couldn't tolerate this antiquated agrarain class any more. The segregationists became a liability because they began shutting down public schools to stop integration, their violent attacks erroded US credibility as leader of the "free world" right at the same time that post-colonial countries were allying with the US or Russia.


and they can only afford to be non-violent because the system will protect them from violence and will not behave overtly violent towards themThe kernel of truth here is that some groups are treated with much more severity by the system, but the system does not protect white strikers, white anti-racist protesters, white people challenging the system.


and the reason the system protects these people is because they serve the system rather than attack itThis is confusing... how is this priviledge and not just the system not attacking people who are accommodationist. If you fight the system you are no longer a white male? If you are a accomodationist black or female figure, you have white male privilege?


which is because the intrests of the privileged white male are the same of the system so the system employs its violence monopoly to protects the interests of white male privilege Wow. This is just against all tradditional marxist and anarchist conceptions of class society. White male workers have an interest in their own exploitation? This is like a 3rd worldist position.


so "non-violence" is inherently violent as it serves, strengthens, and depends on, the violence monopoly of the state

ergo, non-violence protects the statePersonally I think Malcolm X's formulation (such as in Rusty's quote) is much clearer.

[#FF0000]

People kept on opposing slavery until one day slavery became unthinkable to any half-decent human being. In the same way, if enough people keep opposing violence with nonviolence, then violence could eventually become a thing of the past. It will take a lot of time, no doubt, but then everything takes time - slavery did not end at once.

That is not what happened at all. Abolitionism was still very widely unpopular when the 13th amendment was signed. People did not just wake up one day and say "oh slavery is bad".

[Sasha]

I never knew Gandhi and MLK Jr. were white.

their actions ultimately served the continuation of white male privilege, and the 99.9% white privileged "non-violent" movement white washed both the fact that neither gandhi nor MLK existed in an non-violent vacuum and that at least MLK was at times very ambivalent about non-violence.



I'd say that non-violence as a principle comes more out of a desire to collaborate with certain elements of a ruling class. MLK's strategy was effective when he was able to win over the urban capitalists through challenging the system of the old southern agrarian elites. The non-violent aspects of the civil-rights movement worked because they kept challenging the rascist system to the point that the reation was so severe that the liberal bourgeois couldn't tolerate this antiquated agrarain class any more. The segregationists became a liability because they began shutting down public schools to stop integration, their violent attacks erroded US credibility as leader of the "free world" right at the same time that post-colonial countries were allying with the US or Russia.agreed, this ties in with my point about not needing to win but that its for us sometimes enough to not loose completely or make the victory to costly for the system


The kernel of truth here is that some groups are treated with much more severity by the system, but the system does not protect white strikers, white anti-racist protesters, white people challenging the system.it does as long as they remain non-violent, even the weather underground got treated with kid gloves until they joined the BLA.
while black, native or hispanic activists got shot for not much more than jaywalking.
non-violent white activists are useful windowdressing to show the systems compassionate and reasonable facade to at times.



Wow. This is just against all tradditional marxist and anarchist conceptions of class society. White male workers have an interest in their own exploitation? This is like a 3rd worldist position.no no no, non-violence as a tactic serves the state, thus the state apparatus will employ its weapons (police, lawsystem, media/pr etc etc) to support non-violent groups and destroy/alienate "violent" groups.
its an tactical decision of the state, non-violent activists (and violene accepting activists BTW) are in general blisfully unaware of the underlying tactics of the state's approach of activist groups

but peter gelderloos explains it a lot better than i do, read the book, see if you disagree with what he writes

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

History of nations.

:rolleyes:


People kept on opposing slavery until one day slavery became unthinkable to any half-decent human being. In the same way, if enough people keep opposing violence with nonviolence, then violence could eventually become a thing of the past. It will take a lot of time, no doubt, but then everything takes time - slavery did not end at once.

Slavery has not been entirely abolished the world over; it's not dead further part of the reason slavery died out was due to the fact that through industrialization and economic progress it became an inefficient means of economic production. It did not end simply some liberals got some slaves to the North and the bourgeoisie found it in their little black hearts to free them; in fact I do believe there was a huge and incredibly bloody civil war fought over the issue before it finally became officially abolished. I have more respect for John Brown than I do any of the soft petty bourgeois idealists who never took any real action and relegated the idea of freedom to a nice "idea."

Nonviolent protest and expressions of discontent kind of remind me of the part in Dicken's Oliver Twist where Oliver ask the Orphanage personel "please sir, may I have some more?" To quote Malcolm X, "no Negroe leaders have fought for civil rights they have begged for civil rights, they have begged the white man for civil rights, they have begged the white man for freedom. Anytime you beg another man to set you free, you will never be free, freedom is something that you have do for yourself; the price of freedom is death." It's really absurd to me to think that by sitting around and doing nothing that you will accomplish anything simply by virtue of refusal; the term sitting ducks come to mind. It's even more absurd that the same people advocating this are the same people who 2.5 seconds ago would describe the class enemy in terms that give the impression that they are supernatural boogeymen.

[PhoenixAsh]

Ok, I kind of get what you're saying. But what is a person supposed to do? Violence, even assuming it's more effective, is practically an invitation for the ruling class to decimate us. Noncooperation, otoh, could frustrate them. And besides, no one can employ violence against lots of people refusing to work (because there would be no specific 'enemy' to target in such cases).

Well..yes they will. The burgeoisie has already proven it does not shrink back from massive violence. And as long as there are no burgeoisie or petit-burgeoisie kids involved there will be little to no political backlash.

They will target as much people as possible...to deter and to scare off. They will arrest popular leaders. They will direct violence at organisers and they will suddenly allow counter protests and demonstations to slip through.

Not to mention the absolute willingness to fire if needed.

[Drosophila]

This is THE standard liberal argument against all kinds of actions. I wonder how well the Egyptian revolution would had gone if when Mubarak sent armed thugs on horseback to attack the square, protesters had responded with unyielding love? I'd love your take on what people in Egypt should have done when mobs of thugs were sent to attack their peaceful occupation of the square.

Well, there'd be a lot of dead Egyptians, Mubarak would be in power still and there'd be mass-repression just like when all the other pro-democracy protests in Egypt failed.



And the rest of the world would react and he would be out of power within a few days. Also, the rest of the protest movement would immediately react.


Plus, 99% of the population rioting, I don't think any amount of police will stop that.
You say 99% of the working class engaged in a violent protest, but what about 99% of the working class engaged in a non-violent protest? Do you really expect the elite to just kill that much of the population? To just destroy everything that makes what they do possible?

At the end of a massive riot you have bodies everywhere, complete and total chaos, and nothing is accomplished. Now you are branded as a terrorist and the United States is going to get its entire military-police to hunt you down. That sound good for your movement? It sure doesn't to me.



The point:

Violence gives military/police an excuse to kill. When a group is engaged in nonviolent protest, and military/police shoot and kill people, then that makes THEM look terrible in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Consider this: A group of over 100,000 leftists begin to perform real protests. Police are sent to keep them under control. The police then decide it's a good idea to scare the protesters off, so they shoot and kill some of them. Do you think anyone is going to have sympathy for them at that point? Of course not. The vast majority is going to side with the nonviolent protesters. Now that's a major advantage for the PROTESTERS rather than the elite.

Now consider this: A group of over 100,000 leftists start rioting and promoting acts of violence to promote their cause. Police are sent to keep them under control. The protesters immediately act violently toward the police, so they are shot, and many are killed. Who do you think the public is going to side with? The protesters for trying to kill people? Or the police for defending themselves? Now you look like a bunch of assholes, and hardly anyone is on your side.

[#FF0000]

You say 99% of the working class engaged in a violent protest, but what about 99% of the working class engaged in a non-violent protest? Do you really expect the elite to just kill that much of the population? To just destroy everything that makes what they do possible?

Well that's the thing -- for a lot of people, non-violence isn't viable. Non-violence is theater. It relies on an audience to have any effect. That being what it is, you can't really say that the poorest people living out in the woods in India should just sit there while their village is getting burned down, right?

No one's saying we should resort to violence all of the time. Violence and non-violence are both tactics that have their place in struggle. Saying we have to stick to one or the other is just foolish.

ESPECIALLY when you can easily make a moral justification for the use of violence anyway (since that seems to be the "pacifists" main concern)

[PhoenixAsh]

And the rest of the world would react and he would be out of power within a few days. Also, the rest of the protest movement would immediately react.

No...they wouldn't. They wanted him to stay. They actually perpetuated his stay in power. And when they had a chance the rest of the world went for as smooth a transition as possible.

Now...that was totally different in Quattar...where the government indiscriminately shot at people.



You say 99% of the working class engaged in a violent protest, but what about 99% of the working class engaged in a non-violent protest? Do you really expect the elite to just kill that much of the population? To just destroy everything that makes what they do possible?[/qoute]

The point is...you do not need to kill that many. You need to kill, arrest and terrorize enough so that the rest will cave in...


[quote]At the end of a massive riot you have bodies everywhere, complete and total chaos, and nothing is accomplished. Now you are branded as a terrorist and the United States is going to get it's entire military to hunt you down. That sound good for your movement? It sure doesn't to me.


And no...the US will not hunt you down if you just prevented a left wing radical revolution. They will probably award you most favorable nation status and grant you foreign aid to help rebuild....in fact...it wouldn't surprise me if they would even lend military support.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Psycho, thanks for the thoughdul response - we'll have to agree to disagree or start a new thread on this subject. I have no disagreement with the fact that the establishment is happy to support a very mechanical view of principled nonviolence - as Malcolm X consistently pointed out, the US always demands "Justice" through all available means (even nuclear war) to "defend" itself, but then when we try to defend ourselves, these same people moralize about how we need to be peaceful.

When it comes down to it the capitalists NEVER "privilege" anyone without being forced to. Historically in the US, racism has been used to allow the ruling class to get away with partial concessions: when pushed, the US will grant the right to unionize... but not to farm-labor; the US will provide X reform but then exclude black people. When the US is forced to allow gay rights, but then excludes transgender people... is that "Lesbian and gay privilege"? When Muslims are targeted by repressive "anti-terrorism" laws, is that non-muslim privilege... if so why did white FSRO people get spied on, why did a group of young black kids get entrapped by the FBI?

The ruling class targets groups for special oppression, but never privileges a group willingly. This argument about privilege is useless at best for fighting oppression, at worse it worries more about white people not being oppressed than the daily oppression of many many people and/or is divisive and discourages actual movements against oppression. It almost agrees with the fomulation put forward by supremacists and bigots in many ways while morally disagreeing with the conclusions of the bigots. Bigots argue that women's rights, degrade men's status, that gay-marraige reforms degrade heterosexual-marriage... privilege theory seems to agree while I think the liberation view is that while women and LGBT people are subjects to more attacks and special forms of oppression, ultimately the attacks on LGBT people and women and arabs and blacks and so on hurt the entire non-ruling class population. Rather than get non-oppressed groups to "check their privilege" I think we need to argue for people from non-oppressed groups to recognize OPPRESSION and systemic racism/sexism/homophobia... and to also recognize that trying to end these oppressions will actually make us stronger in all our struggles.


And the rest of the world would react and he would be out of power within a few days. Also, the rest of the protest movement would immediately react.But the "world" had 30 years of evidence of Mubarak's undemocratic regime and brutal repression of labor and pro-democracy activists. In fact these things are part of the reason the US supported him! The tear-gas canisters and weapons and tanks used against the protests were PROVIDED by the US!


You say 99% of the working class engaged in a violent protest, but what about 99% of the working class engaged in a non-violent protest? Do you really expect the elite to just kill that much of the population? To just destroy everything that makes what they do possible?I grew up and there was still the cold war - hell yeah the ruling class is gambling with our lives.


At the end of a massive riot you have bodies everywhere, complete and total chaos, and nothing is accomplished. Now you are branded as a terrorist and the United States is going to get its entire military-police to hunt you down. That sound good for your movement? It sure doesn't to me.This is a strawman. As I have stated many times in this thread I do not think violence as a goal is correct and outside of a some insurrectionists and maoists, I don't think many people do argue for this. I am only in favor of tactics that will help our chances to win and minimize violence against us. If workers want to take over their workplace, there are things we need to do to prepare that can help our chances of wining and minimize the chance of violence being used successfully by the state to smash our movement, but taking action like that will cause some kind of action by the state and so we need to also prepare for that possibility and be ready to defend ourselves or hold a picket line, hold that building occupation, etc. If the workers involved are not prepared to do this, then simply we are not ready for a militant strike that will shut down production, or for a factory occupation etc. I believe in revolution from below which means that there is no way nor should there be for militants to "order" workers against their will to risk having to use violence to defend themselves. But history shows over and over again, there are sort of points of no return in the class struggle and workers organically debate these questions and have often used force to defend their portests or movements. It's true of the civil rights movement, it's true of the labor movement here in the US.

I'd recommend checking out the documentary "Harlan County USA" for a relatively contemporary example of how these issues and questions come up in class struggle in an organic way - also how the capitalists, even now, are willing to shoot people and use armed thugs to break a peaceful strike.

[Drosophila]

Well that's the thing -- for a lot of people, non-violence isn't viable. Non-violence is theater. It relies on an audience to have any effect. That being what it is, you can't really say that the poorest people living out in the woods in India should just sit there while their village is getting burned down, right?

No one's saying we should resort to violence all of the time. Violence and non-violence are both tactics that have their place in struggle. Saying we have to stick to one or the other is just foolish.

ESPECIALLY when you can easily make a moral justification for the use of violence anyway (since that seems to be the "pacifists" main concern)

If you don't expect there to be an "audience" then you really are living in a dream world. There's no way anyone is going to rally the entire world to their cause. It is difficult enough to rally a nation of millions of people, let alone six billion.

[#FF0000]

If you don't expect there to be an "audience" then you really are living in a dream world. There's no way anyone is going to rally the entire world to their cause. It is difficult enough to rally a nation of millions of people, let alone six billion.

i have no idea what you're talking about

[Drosophila]

i have no idea what you're talking about

My point is that the "audience" is important. Whether you like it or not, your public image has a massive effect on your movement.

[PhoenixAsh]

My point is that the "audience" is important. Whether you like it or not, your public image has a massive effect on your movement.

you mean....when the audience was really shocked by the iraq and afghan war and amassed the largest demonstrations worldwide ever...non violent offcourse...and then those countries spend ten years waging war killing hundreds of thousands ???

well...the audience is going to be shocked and outraged. They are going to have some peaceful demonstrations. Then they will go home. Then perhaps...they will demonstrate again. And in the mean time they will elect the one war government after the other....and in effect will do the exact same thing year after year untill they get fed up.

[#FF0000]

My point is that the "audience" is important. Whether you like it or not, your public image has a massive effect on your movement.

Uh, sure I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that without an audience, no one will give a shit if, for example, a bunch of palestinians get cleansed with white phosphorous.

[Magón]

Haven't we had a discussion on this guy before? The video/guy seems like something we've had a discussion on before?

[Decommissioner]

Funny thing I noticed about people who comment on Gandhi - most of them can't stand up to their boss at the workplace, and here they are commenting on Gandhi, the man who stood up to an empire!;)

Anyway, the important thing is: whatever is built by violence will be destroyed by violence.

Why would it be beneficial for workers as individuals to "stand up" to their boss when they need employment to survive?

You must be very privileged to not worry about repercussions after such an action.

Now standing up to the bourgeoisie as a class, that is something worth embracing. Last I checked this best achieved through strikes and open revolt, not peaceful protests where the goals of said protests are ambiguous at best.

[#FF0000]

I also want to point out that it's p. strange that the guy in the video we're discussing is all about non-violence, considering how punchable his face is.

[scarletghoul]

That is actually a very good point.

[bcbm]

Even if violence is effective, it's only nonviolence that helps in the long run. Even after 500 years, the world will be inspired by Gandhi. How many of them are going to be inspired by, or even care to remember, Mao?

Point is, nonviolence struggles leave an indelible mark in human consciousness, unlike violence which simply stimulates people temporarily.

http://www.mrdowling.com/images/702spartacus.jpg


Anyway, the important thing is: whatever is built by violence will be destroyed by violence.

capitalism is built by violence, ergo...


People kept on opposing slavery until one day slavery became unthinkable to any half-decent human being.

nat turner, john brown, bob ferebee, long island 1708, new york 1712, slono rebellion, guadeloupe, grenada, jamaica, surinam, san domingue (haiti), venezuela, windward island, maroon villages, richmond 1800, louisiana 1811, barbados 1816, charleston 1822, demerara 1823, southampton county 1831, etc

oh and slavery still exists.


Violence, even assuming it's more effective, is practically an invitation for the ruling class to decimate us.

success of any kind is an invitation for the ruling class to decimate us.


Noncooperation, otoh, could frustrate them. And besides, no one can employ violence against lots of people refusing to work (because there would be no specific 'enemy' to target in such cases).

algerian general strike 1957. the bosses have never been hesitant to use violence against people refusing to work, indeed, it is par the course.