Response to : Reasons for Nonviolent Protest

[abbielives!]

Response to : Reasons for Nonviolent Protest

By Dogmeat

Practical Reasons for Nonviolent Protest

* Nonviolence is safer (but not completely safe) – fewer casualties overall- helps keep violence from escalating.
If it creates change, not safety, should be the criteria for judging an action.

*The “authorities” have all the firepower. If they choose to use it, we will almost always loose
This is why we use gurilla tatcis instead of conventional warfare, history demonstrates that a band of determined revolutionaries can succeed against a superior force.

* Nonviolence undercuts authorities rationale for responding to our action with violence.
They are perfectly capable of doing this whether or not we use violence, the reapeated tasering of a student at a peaceful, nonconfrontational protest here in Eugene demonstrates this.

* Nonviolence keeps interaction with authorites on our territory
Huh?

* Nonviolence keeps everyones adrenaline low- we’re less likey to strike or provoke violence
What if we don’t care if violnece occurs or not?

* Nonviolence is brings the best out in the opposition, violence tends to bring out the worst response.
Our goal is not to “bring out the best in them.” Our goal is to win.

Strategic Reasons for Nonviolent Protest

* Nonviolence crystallizes and dramatizes the extent the status quo is mantained by violence and force.
This can be done with violence as well, ie the police overreation to anarchists smashing windows in Seattle during the WTO protests.

* Nonviolence re-defines “power”—demonstates that the power of violent sanctions wielded by elites can be challenged while emphasizing the power of consent and dissent.
Huh? Again.

* Nonviolence is leaves space for the opposition to back down or see the matter in a new light.
Our goal is to overthrow the opposition not to “let them see things in a new light”.

* Nonviolence helps make it safe for the opposition and bystanders to resist in their own ways
Safety is not our goal, victory is. Besides who says that either of these groups will resist or that they could not resist when we use violence?

* Nonviolence keeps our issues in the forground not our behavior
As long as we do not allow them to frame the debate in terms of our behavior this will not matter. Unruly behavior will also draw the media like flies allowing us to spread our message. This statment shows an ignorance of the medias role in promoting apathy by not reporting on issues of substance in the first place.

* Nonviolence focuses attention on the opposition policies and actions and our gevances with them
Which can also be acomplished with violence, so the question then becomes: which works to help us achieve our goals in this particular situation?

* Nonviolence gains respect and understanding from neutral observers and news media
Viewing people causing a visible cange in the pysical landscape can be a very empowering experiance, the newsmedia should be assumed to be hostile, given who owns them. Also if we based our actions on how the media percives us how would we funtion under a totalitarian regieme?

* Nonviolence demonstrates an alternative to current violent society
Violence is not nesisarily a bad thing, destruction is after all part and parcel of creation.



I recently came across this pamphet and found it highly unconvincing, there seems to be a lack of information about why people engage in in violence for political purposes, wheras there is a dirth of propaganda for belivers in nonviolence. I hope this pamhlet can be a part of correcting this and bringing down the religion of non violence.

http://gotosleepthereisnothingtoseehere.blogspot.com/

[cyu]

I prefer a "middle-of-the-road" approach to violence / non-violence: Act as if the policies you want to implement have already been enacted. If anybody attacks you while you're acting this way, then fight back in self-defense. If the attackers get away, arrest them later. Also arrest those who ordered the attack.

[abbielives!]

I prefer a "middle-of-the-road" approach to violence / non-violence: Act as if the policies you want to implement have already been enacted. If anybody attacks you while you're acting this way, then fight back in self-defense. If the attackers get away, arrest them later. Also arrest those who ordered the attack.


except that acting defensively in the face of superior firepower is suicide.

[Cybersomatix]

actually, it's a fairly sound military tactic... what matters is how you apply defensive tactics to superior firepower.

I'm not going to go into it here, but to put it simply... in an armed fight, superior firepower vs. superior strategy is a waste of resources.

[cyu]

except that acting defensively in the face of superior firepower is suicide.
It just depends how many people you have on your side. If you only have 1 or 2 people, you obviously have to do a lot of organizing and recruiting before you attempt anything.

You can't argue that non-violent movements haven't worked in the past - it worked for both Gandhi and King. Isn't it even more suicidal to be non-violent in response to superior firepower?

If you watch the documentary "The Take," you'll see examples of people using just slingshots to fight off police who were trying to retake the factories the employees had taken over... and the police tried and failed many times on many different occasions. Obviously slingshots by themselves aren't very useful against guns, but these employees had massive support from the local community. The more the government is seen to be fighting the community, the less legitimate the government looks.

When you act as if the policies you want have already been implemented (what anarchists call "direct action"), you're basically setting up an alternate / shadow government. Then you just carry on as if your own government is the legitimate one. If you have enough support from the community, then it will become the de facto government.

[Holden Caulfield]

reliance on non-violence as a 'moral' desicion is stupid.

we are not sheepish Christians told to turn the other cheek to opression, if people use violence and intimidation like fascists to they should expect the same back,

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

except that acting defensively in the face of superior firepower is suicide.

And this applies to violent misadventures as well as unprepared for self defense. Violent tactics require immense preparation and a huge amount of public support. Otherwise we just get crushed or get isolated.

[bcbm]

You can't argue that non-violent movements haven't worked in the past - it worked for both Gandhi and King.

To describe these movements as purely nonviolent is a falsehood. Both cases featured a lot of violent resistance, especially in the form of massive riots. "Non-violence" worked in these situations because of the threat of massive violent social upheaval that stood behind them.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

To describe these movements as purely nonviolent is a falsehood. Both cases featured a lot of violent resistance, especially in the form of massive riots. "Non-violence" worked in these situations because of the threat of massive violent social upheaval that stood behind them.


Definitely agree here. Ghandi's nonviolence was complimented by a rather large rural insurgency if I remember correctly. MLK even said that he was effective only because a "the shadow of young black holding a molotov cocktail stands behind me." Martin and Malcolm became the archetypal good cop/bad cop movement duo for a reason.

[abbielives!]

actually, it's a fairly sound military tactic... what matters is how you apply defensive tactics to superior firepower.

I'm not going to go into it here, but to put it simply... in an armed fight, superior firepower vs. superior strategy is a waste of resources.

by defensive I ment trying to hold a particular area or territory, which is suicide if they have artillary or airplane, offense is the best defense.

[abbielives!]

It just depends how many people you have on your side. If you only have 1 or 2 people, you obviously have to do a lot of organizing and recruiting before you attempt anything.

You can't argue that non-violent movements haven't worked in the past - it worked for both Gandhi and King. Isn't it even more suicidal to be non-violent in response to superior firepower?



If you are going to attempt armed struggle you are going to popular support.
non-violence infact did not work since no anarchist society was established.

[Cybersomatix]

by defensive I ment trying to hold a particular area or territory, which is suicide if they have artillary or airplane, offense is the best defense.

I can't even begin to understand that... defense is an offensive tactic... a good defense implies not holing yourself up in a place where you can get flooded out... technically arguing semantics here

If you're running infantry against artillery and air superiority, you're fucked unless you can hit it covertly before its employed or, more simply, not be where they're shooting

[cyu]

non-violence infact did not work since no anarchist society was established.
What are you getting at here? You seem to be connecting non-violence with anarchism. Where did you get that idea? Some anarchists believe in non-violence, some don't.


offense is the best defense
What actions are you actually proposing? Political assassinations? Rounding up people "guilty of thought crimes" and killing them or putting them in concentration camps?

[cyu]

Looks like some people are even alienated by the concept of self-defense. From http://www.ainfos.ca/en/ainfos20968.html

"Spagnuolo characterizes the groups that are splitting with his as liberal Democrats who are largely white and middle-to-upper class and want their party to guide the country out of the war in Iraq. He described Re-create 68 as representing minorities, anarchists, communists, socialists and “radicals” who don’t support Democrats or Republicans.

Both his organization and the Alliance oppose the war, he said, and neither one advocates violence.

However, the statement of nonviolent principles listed on the Re-create 68 website includes the right to self-defense, which has raised questions within the moderate flank of the local activist community."

[abbielives!]

I can't even begin to understand that... defense is an offensive tactic... a good defense implies not holing yourself up in a place where you can get flooded out... technically arguing semantics here

If you're running infantry against artillery and air superiority, you're fucked unless you can hit it covertly before its employed or, more simply, not be where they're shooting

I'm talking about guerilla tactics here.

[abbielives!]

What are you getting at here? You seem to be connecting non-violence with anarchism. Where did you get that idea? Some anarchists believe in non-violence, some don't.


What actions are you actually proposing? Political assassinations? Rounding up people "guilty of thought crimes" and killing them or putting them in concentration camps?

I'm not proposing any action, just saying we should NOT reject violence.

[abbielives!]

Looks like some people are even alienated by the concept of self-defense. From http://www.ainfos.ca/en/ainfos20968.html

"Spagnuolo characterizes the groups that are splitting with his as liberal Democrats who are largely white and middle-to-upper class and want their party to guide the country out of the war in Iraq. He described Re-create 68 as representing minorities, anarchists, communists, socialists and “radicals” who don’t support Democrats or Republicans.

Both his organization and the Alliance oppose the war, he said, and neither one advocates violence.

However, the statement of nonviolent principles listed on the Re-create 68 website includes the right to self-defense, which has raised questions within the moderate flank of the local activist community."

Obviously groups that oppose revolution are going to oppose violent action.
But I don't feel the need to water-down my politics to make moderates feel comfortable.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

reliance on non-violence as a 'moral' desicion is stupid.

we are not sheepish Christians told to turn the other cheek to opression, if people use violence and intimidation like fascists to they should expect the same back,

I agree that total reliance on non-violence is stupid.

I will, however, attempt non-violence before violence as a moral decision.

I am not religious, but one does not have to be religious to have morals and an understanding of ethics.

[cyu]

Obviously groups that oppose revolution are going to oppose violent action.
But I don't feel the need to water-down my politics to make moderates feel comfortable.
From a purely tactical perspective, if you want to radicalize the population and the only "options" people see are either:

1. Do nothing
2. Vote
3. Non-violent protest

...there isn't going to be much radicalization. If instead the options they see are:

1. Non-violent protest
2. Self-defense
3. Pre-emptive strikes

...then option two seems more like a "big-tent compromise" than if neither 2 nor 3 were part of the debate.

I remember the political wing of the Northern Ireland movement for self-determination both condemning the violence that more radical elements of their movement were engaged in, but at the same time, they re-iterated their reasons for wanting self-determination. I think this can be a rather effective tactic in making your own views seem like the "moderate compromise".

[Cybersomatix]

I'm talking about guerilla tactics here.

Yeah... so am I... guerrillas are infantry

[Saorsa]

You can't argue that non-violent movements haven't worked in the past - it worked for both Gandhi and King.

Ghandi's "campaigns" (if they can be called that) had nothing whatsoever to do with the British withdrawal from India. Socialist Alternative in Australia made a great pamphlet that demolishes that falsehood, it can be seen here;

http://www.sa.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1167&Itemid=123

I'll quote the concluding paragraph from it. No point in saying myself what's already been said better!


Mahatma Gandhi made a major contribution to the Indian independence movement in 1919 by turning it to a mass orientation. But his strategy of non-violence soon became a major obstacle to the movement's further development and remained so for the rest of his career.
Gandhi's philosophy of "satyagraha" and his dream of a big happy family of Indian capitalists, land owners and exploited may have appealed to his predominantly middle-class and rich peasant devotees. They certainly suited his upper-class backers who wanted a limited mass mobilisation to win concessions and ultimately independence from the British. But Gandhi's non-violent campaigns rarely ran along the course he had mapped out for them. The oppressed - the workers and poorer peasants - invariably took the cam*paigns much further than Gandhi intended. They moved towards confronting their own Indian exploiters as well as the British.
When the British used force to repress them, they often responded in kind.
Gandhi's pacifism led him to react in an elitist fashion. He would call off the struggle, censuring the masses for failing to come up to his own pious standards. He would then restrict the active role in the next phase of the campaign to an ever-diminishing circle whom he felt he could trust
Gandhi's non-violent strategy did not drive the British out of India. His last important campaign peaked in 1931-16 years before the British left. The British clearly had Gan*dhi's measure, and left for reasons of their own.
Gandhi cannot take credit for the departure of the British, but he probably can take some credit for the wretchedly unequal society that they left behind. For by ruining the popular worker/peasant upsurges of the 1919-1934 period, he guaranteed that the Indian capitalist class would remain intact to receive the reins of power from the British. They continue to wield those reins ruthlessly to this day, invoking Gandhi's name as they go.

[abbielives!]

Yeah... so am I... guerrillas are infantry

which is where the not being where they hitting comes in.

[Justin CF]

Definitely agree here. Ghandi's nonviolence was complimented by a rather large rural insurgency if I remember correctly. MLK even said that he was effective only because a "the shadow of young black holding a molotov cocktail stands behind me." Martin and Malcolm became the archetypal good cop/bad cop movement duo for a reason.I agree that King couldn't have accomplished much without the more violent elements of the civil rights movement, but I'm not so sure about that quote. I've been doing searches for it, but the only quotes from him I've found concerning Molotov cocktails are adamantly opposed to them. I'd love to proven wrong, though!