Does nonviolence make one any less revolutionary?

[MustCrushCapitalism]

This is coming from someone who, although I don't necessarily oppose violent struggle, and I do believe that often, it's completely necessary for the greater cause of overthrowing capitalism. However, at the same time, a nonviolent revolution, I believe, could be well worth it.

However, is nonviolence or pacifism counter-revolutionary, in your view?

[Nox]

I don't see how a revolution could be non-violent, unless the government just steps down and dismantles itself, which will never happen.

[Ocean Seal]

Being non-violent in most circumstances is not counter-revolutionary. Advocating non-violence in revolutionary times, is.

[hatzel]

These types of threads always seem to attract people who...aren't particularly well-versed in the finer points of nonviolent resistance, if I may say so. This isn't surprising, though, and I wouldn't expect the majority of people on this forum to have read a great deal on the theoretical basis of nonviolence, as I would hope others wouldn't expect me to have read a great deal about the intricate details of Marxism-Leninism, for example.

However, off the top of my head I can think of at least three people (Gustav Landauer, Bart de Ligt and Émile Armand) who explicitly stated that the more violent the individual, the less revolutionary they are. Of course the sentiment has been echoed by many others in the realm of anarcho-pacifism, but I don't have any more exact quotes in mind at present. I wouldn't be so audacious as to make that claim, though. Take that as you will...

[ВАЛТЕР]

Non-violence is fine, however, advocating non-violence, in times when the only option is violence is counterrevolutionary.

What is the saying?

Either Lead, Follow, or get out of the way.

The non-violent types will either have to quit being non-violent, or get out of the way if the situation warrants violence. Preaching non-violence when the ruling class is ready to stick a boot up your ass is counterrevolutionary, and stupid in my eyes.

So my view is: Non-violence is fine, in fact I prefer it. However, when shit hits the fan, the non-violent types either need to stop being non-violent, or get out of the way.

[PhoenixAsh]

Non-violence is a valid tactic. But tactics needs to be varied. As soon as non-violence is advocated as the only viable tactic and should oppose non-non violence then we would have a problem....and I would say that particular brand of non-violence is liberal, unconstructive and reactionary.

[Azraella]

However, is nonviolence or pacifism counter-revolutionary, in your view?

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Depends on the context. There are always hundreds of ways to promote anti-capitalism without ever harming a human being. Protests, strikes, outreach, mutual aid, and living by your principles(or as close to them as possible) is a great way to do so and never harm an individual. Violence in the case of a revolution or in self defense is fine and if you choose a pacifistic route then there is nothing wrong with aiding the revolutionaries or defending yourself.

[RedGrunt]

Pacifism of dogmatic nonviolence is not revolutionary. I can understand using nonviolent means alongside violent means(or threat of violence) or using nonviolent means in the infant stages of movements. Violent behavior can be used against someone, but when the time comes, violence is indeed the answer.

[Rocky Rococo]

In a revolutionary situation, diversity of tactics is a must. I have to laugh when I hear the dogmatic apostles of non-violence talking about how the Egyptian overthrow of Mubarak was non-violent? If it's an online statement, I just show them the videos of the Tahrir Square occupiers beating the crap out of the horse/camel cavalrymen that attacked.

OTOH, I suspect that premature turns to violence make ever reaching that revolutionary situation doubtful. The building of the movement's base requires a strategic commitment to non-violence in the pre-revolutionary period, otherwise you'll never gain the breadth and depth of support necessary to move into a revolutionary phase. The support of the masses, who for good reason fear the violence of the state and the ruling class, requires taking some beatings in the early going. Blanquism is a historic formula for failure.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

During a revolution I say have a division of tactics: have a portion which engages in non-violent actions while a armed division to fight off the pigs.

During peaceful build up: http://www.amazon.com/Waging-Nonviolent-Struggle-Practice-Potential/dp/0875581625%3FSubscriptionId%3D15HRV3AZSMPK0GXTY102 %26tag%3Damznf-us-tbsearchsea-20%26linkCode%3Dxm2%26camp%3D2025%26creative%3D165 953%26creativeASIN%3D0875581625

[eyeheartlenin]

I think a good approach to the question being discussed is to frame it in terms of self-defense. I believe most people in the US are not dogmatic pacifists; they think that anyone has the right to defend himself and his loved ones. It is not much of a reach to expand that argument to the self-defense that keeps a picket line intact and effective, to take a random example.

When one considers that vigorous self-defense was a necessary tactic to win strikes in the past, for instance, the battle of Deputies Run, where Teamster coal haulers in the Twin Cities chased away boss-supported, strike-breaking cops, then it is reasonable to suppose that a greater amount of organized plebeian force is gonna be needed to overthrow the bosses' state and the bosses' system. In writing that, I am not trying to sound macho; it's just a question of winning rather than losing.

Another example would be the amount of state violence (Oakland!) we have seen being used already against completely non-violent, well-meaning reformist Occupiers. Imagine the level of violence the bosses will employ to preserve their own rule over the rest of us, when the day comes!

Then there is the fact that, in the segregationist US South, where the Deacons for Defense were present, that is, black men who could and would shoot racists, in self-defense, from what I have read, the racist attacks ceased, which seems like an instance where it would have been irresponsible and defeatist to promote non-violence.

[ellipsis]

I think people need to think about the idea of violence more, eg is destruction of property violence? I would argue that violence can only be against living things people animals Gaia etc. Property and corporations are non alive.:p

[GatesofLenin]

If a revolution can be had with non-violence, all the better as it will save lives but if you're left with no choice, you must act violently.

[Sasha]

the short book "how non-violence protects the state" by peter gelderloos is an very worthwhile destruction of the prevailing myths of pacifist activism, not to say that non-violence is always the wrong tactical choice but rejecting the possible necessity of violence outright is indeed counter-revolutionary;

amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Nonviolence-Protects-State-Peter-Gelderloos/dp/0896087727
full text online: http://agamsterdam.wordpress.com/teksten/how-nonviolence-protects-the-state/
print ready pdf: http://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=how%20nonviolence%20protects%20the%20state&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CFgQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fzinelibrary.info%2Ffiles%2FHow%25 20Nonviolence%2520Protects%2520The%2520State.pdf&ei=TUesToHHHoqcOsDitM4P&usg=AFQjCNGDeMyWDxf13vr_f976N7_QC9pdRw&cad=rja
torrent: http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4355288/HOW_NONVIOLENCE_PROTECTS_THE_STATE_-_Peter_Gelderloos

[Spets]

I support nonviolent actions as well, because it doesn't give the other side as much of a chance to say how brutal and/or how they don't regard life as much. I think that nonviolence only shows other that they can take shit, and have the courage not to give shit back. Although, I don't go around looking for fights, if a fight were to come to me, would I fight or flight? I guess it all depends how how the individual is wired. I've never been put in a fight or flight situation, but seeing how I am a pretty small person, I'd probably "flight."

[Искра]

Before we start to discuss violence and non-violence as political action within movement we should concentrate on how does today state define violence. This is very important, because we should always be fully aware that liberal democracies do not depend only on brute force, as regimes before it, but on ideological hegemony. State creates ideological construct in which peoples actions against state and capital which state protects are divided into: violent and non-violent. Non-violent actions are also referred as “civilised methods”, while “violent methods” are all those methods that state do not like or approve and they are often referred as vandalism, hooliganism or terrorism. So, by “violent methods” state referees to all these methods which are not “by rules” and which attack state.

When we are talking about use of violence we should always support only one kind of violence: violence against institututions of present society (state and capital). Attacks on individuals are pointless as other one will just replace them in system.Violence against institutions is after all, less violent that unemployement.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

So there seems to be consensus that complete active pacifism is indeed counter-revolutionary?

[Le Socialiste]

I'm of the belief that nonviolent tactics have their part to play in times of revolutionary upheaval, but that isn't to say it can't take on a reactionary character. Oftentimes, it doesn't contribute much due to its perceived affiliation with liberalism and liberal trains of thought. In fact, liberalism's emphasis on nonviolence in the face of state repression has resulted in many failed movement's nonability to grow and expand. You have a philosophy that has taken the concept of nonviolence and twisted it into what is essentially a toothless form of dissent.

Nonviolence has its place, but it should never be viewed as the sole source of popular dissent; instead, the methods and tactics put forward should be diversified to reflect the situation on the ground. Acts of civil disobedience, such as workplace occupations, strikes, and disruption of state institutions certainly play an integral part. The problem lies in when we pass up increasingly militant tactics in favor of passivity. People have had the idea beaten into them that nonviolence is the way forward, when in reality it does nothing to seriously disrupt the relationship between the oppressed and their oppressors. If anything, it internalizes and cements this relationship even more. In times of revolutionary action, nonviolent methods must be paired with an ever-increasing sense of militancy. This entails pushing back against the organs of state repression and taking an active stance in opposition to any attempts to channel the people back into more state-friendly modes of dissent.

Edit - It should also be noted that a revolution won't be brought about through peaceful means. No ruling class wishes to see its grip on authority and the state forcibly removed; therefore, the state - should its position be seriously threatened - will seek to quell and subdue the people through violent means. In the face of such desperation, the people should respond in kind.

[Iron Felix]

Shall I show flowers to those who oppress my brothers? No, to the gallows.

[Le Socialiste]

Shall I show flowers to those who oppress my brothers? No, to the gallows.

I don't think anyone's suggesting the use of flowers...

[black magick hustla]

dogmatic "violentism" is as counterrevolutionary, or if not more than dogmatic "pacifism". in my experience those who are obsessed with violence as a matter of principle are deeply disturbed people. i want to live in a world where we are softer to each other and chill in an eternal weekend and i think a lot of people obsessed with the aesthetics of violence are not looking for that. i understand the temptations of nihilism better than a lot of people, but one has to understand the complete line of march, not only the destruction aspect.

[GatesofLenin]

To gain support from the majority, you have to act smartly. Marx said that insurrection is an art form. Start non-violent and react as the situation progresses, let the other side show violence first and you win the crowds over to your side.

[Decommissioner]

This is coming from someone who, although I don't necessarily oppose violent struggle, and I do believe that often, it's completely necessary for the greater cause of overthrowing capitalism. However, at the same time, a nonviolent revolution, I believe, could be well worth it.

However, is nonviolence or pacifism counter-revolutionary, in your view?

I don't see how being non-violent from a personal standpoint would be counter-revolutionary. It's not like we're all at once going to rush out and get killed by reactionaries during a violent revolution.

But I would say opposing revolution when it is inevitably going to turn violent would be reactionary. I personally find nothing wrong with promoting non-violent revolution initially, one just has to acknowledge the futility of furthering the non-violent approach after the first stone has been cast.

Revolution, in the sense of the working class taking the means of production into their own hands, is inherently non-violent. It is authoritarian, but not violent, as it does not require guns to strike, organize, set up councils etc etc. It is when the capitalists react do revolutions turn violent, and this is where ones stance towards non-violence comes into play. We are by default non-violent, but when the revolution is jeopardized by violent reaction, it will be necessary to defend the revolution with violence, those who still promote non-violence from this point on find themselves in a defeatist and reactionary position. It would appear most leftists simply like to be prepared, or acknowledge the futility in thinking those in power will so easily relinquish it, which is why you seldom hear people touting the virtues of non-violence.

[MarxSchmarx]

Well, some people might disagree with principled nonviolence as a way to achieve socialism, but this hardly implies that it is "counter-revolutionary" (whatever that means). Grandstanding charges like this do nothing to advance the cause and needlessly obfuscate serious discussion within the left.


So there seems to be consensus that complete active pacifism is indeed counter-revolutionary?

No.

[Commissar Rykov]

I believe non-Violence to be absolutely necessary in the embryonic stages of an organization you do yourself and anyone else involved little favors if you give the State a reason to crush you outright. Violence can do just as much damage to ones movement as it can to the State Apparatuses you target.

[not your usual suspect]

Posting on message boards is counter revolutionary.

[jmlima]

...

However, is nonviolence or pacifism counter-revolutionary, in your view?

Tell that to Ghandi.

[not your usual suspect]

Ghandi may have preached non-violence. But without people willing to use violence his protests would not have been as successful. Non-violence is all well and good. But violence is sometimes required to make concrete change. (Though I would love a non-violent revolution, I can't see it happening in our time just now.) A problem though with violence is that the state has the bigger guns, and the better equipment. I was going to say we must not use violence without just cause. But the mere existence of the state is cause enough. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_movement_for_Indian_independence

[Sasha]

Tell that to Ghandi.

the threat of (often more popular) violent activism is the only reason the colonials where willing to talk to ghandi, and quite successfully one must say, ensuring the dominance of capitalist exploitation by transporting power seaming-less from colonialism into loyal neo-colonilist hands.
again, read the book i brought up every celebrated pacifist victory was a. never completely pacifist and b. the pacifist aspect often enabled the neutralization of the threat to the state/system and actually even strengthening it.

[AmericanCommie421]

A revolution and violence are not necessarily synonymous. A revolution is a movement of change in a society in a simple definition. It comes from the Latin word revolutio, which means to turn around. A violent overthrow of the government and the powers that be is an insurrection. Marx and Engels even believed that in countries with political democracy, revolution could be carried out by peaceful means. Many people get caught up in this romanticized notion of a glorious violent revolution. But anyone serious about revolution in society, regardless of their own political ideology from the right to the left, has to look at how their own society is and how it can be carried out. In my opinion if you want a revolution of whatever kind, you're serious and realistic about the political and social situations in your society and living in a political democracy, peaceful revolution should be your goal as it is the most morally correct, least costly, and most efficient way of carrying out a revolution.

[PhoenixAsh]

Non violence is only reactionary when it goes over into collaborationism. Suppressing violent DA activism in order to ensure the movements non-violent nature.

I have no problem with induviduals personally objecting to violence and not wanting to participate in violent confrontations. But I expect those members in our group to give support to non-nonviolent activists when needed in any form they can.

Non-violence is a valid strategy which has its place and can be extremely useful. But it can never ever be the only way. It simply can not. It will always lead to collaborationism and it will always only be (partially) succesful in the context of violent DA.

Psycho has posted an excellent document on this. Read it.

[PhoenixAsh]

So what is everybodies definition of violence anyway?



I don't think anyone's suggesting the use of flowers...


maybe they are alergic? ;)

[Sputnik_1]

i wish revolution could be non violent, but most likely it won't be that peaceful. power flower unfortunately failed us and any 100% non violence action stinks of reformism.

[Azraella]

i wish revolution could be non violent, but most likely it won't be that peaceful. power flower unfortunately failed us and any 100% non violence action stinks of reformism.

I'm a pacifist and I approve of this message. Diversity of tactics for the win.

[pastradamus]

Violence is only nessecary when all peaceful avenues have been exhausted.

[Buttress]

I don't think non-violence is any less revolutionary, but I think violence is pretty much a guarantee if you're up against the stubborn upper class. That being said, one can have a non-violent attitude and be revolutionary all the same, but there will doubtlessly be times when defence is necessary of some kind.

[Erratus]

This has been a major sticking point. I can't really say that am radical/revolutionary yet as I am not done looking fully into communism, socialism, and anarchy. While I am perfectly happy to admit that violence is sometimes the right answer, I am not sure if the current situation in most of the first world really warrants violence. I would love it if somehow communism came about through democratic means, though I realize that it is highly unlikely.

Part of this is probably just do to my world being too familiar. Many people were cheering on the Libyan rebels understanding that it was violent, but the thought of a violent revolution at home suddenly gets too real for them. Across the seas you don't see the dead bodies pile up from revolution, and on the home front you don't see the dead bodies pile up from pacifism. If I were to support and sort of violent revolution, I would want minimal by-standers to be harmed, personal property damaged, and order to be maintained. For a revolution to be successful you want a plan of how to rebuild before you tear down. This is all if I were to support violent revolution at all. As I said, I am not convinced that the climate warrants it.

[IndependentCitizen]

Violence is only nessecary when all peaceful avenues have been exhausted.
Precisely this.

[NewLeft]

We need to win them over with love! Peace brother! :rolleyes:

And the civil rights movement won because of their non-violence (forget the riots/militant groups..).

[Sasha]

Precisely this.

no, exactly the oposite, only the threat of violence makes the ruling class vulnerable/open to negotiation with non-violent activists, and there for we need to remind the ruling class from time to time that we are capable and willing to use violence when we choose so or when they push us hard enough.
there has never been a 100% non-violent victory, if only because nothing happens in a vaccuum but instead is intrinsically linked in the dynamics of the whole of the struggle between us and those who hold the power.

[IndependentCitizen]

no, exactly the oposite, only the threat of violence makes the ruling class vulnerable/open to negotiation with non-violent activists, and there for we need to remind the ruling class from time to time that we are capable and willing to use violence when we choose so or when they push us hard enough.
there has never been a 100% non-violent victory, if only because nothing happens in a vaccuum but instead is intrinsically linked in the dynamics of the whole of the struggle between us and those who hold the power.

Hmm, I never really looked at it in that way.

[pastradamus]

no, exactly the oposite, only the threat of violence makes the ruling class vulnerable/open to negotiation with non-violent activists, and there for we need to remind the ruling class from time to time that we are capable and willing to use violence when we choose so or when they push us hard enough.
there has never been a 100% non-violent victory, if only because nothing happens in a vaccuum but instead is intrinsically linked in the dynamics of the whole of the struggle between us and those who hold the power.

A good point. For example when one looks at how the British Empire was broken up we clearly see that mass movements were directly responsible for its disintegration, despite the fact it has always presented itself as simply handing these individual states back to the people. But to take a case in point with India - a nation that was the British empires backbone for many years - where the UK not only withdrew its resources and exploited its labour but also ran protectionist tariffs against India in order to become the sole benefactor of these elements and not to the benefit of the people. (Chomsky goes into great detail in his book "hopes and prospects on this issue).

Though the people under Gandhi and others responded in a predominantly peaceful way, it was the presence of large crowds and the THREAT of violence (as you correctly pointed out) that forced the with drawl.

This is what I mean when I quote Guevara in my previous post. I feel its more and issue of presence then direct violence against the ruling class. Other examples have been seen in Egypt and Tunisia.