Nonviolent revolutionary tactics

[Black Cross]

My question is pretty simple: What role should nonviolent tactics play in a revolutionary praxis in the context of an advanced capitalist/imperialist society?

I have an opinion on the matter, but i'm interested in hearing the thoughts of some of the more experienced members of the board (though I surely don't want this to discourage anyone from giving their thoughts).

[FreeFocus]

What can you do except leafleting, educating, rallies, etc? Undoubtedly, these are important, particularly the educating. Moreover, leftist organizations ought to consider providing some social services.

Anything else, including things such as factory occupations and strikes, runs the risk of violence, if you're serious about defending yourself and your cause.

[ZeroNowhere]

Which advanced capitalist society?

[F9]

What can you do except leafleting, educating, rallies, etc? Undoubtedly, these are important, particularly the educating. Moreover, leftist organizations ought to consider providing some social services.

Anything else, including things such as factory occupations and strikes, runs the risk of violence, if you're serious about defending yourself and your cause.

I consider those mostly pre-revolutionary praxis, but maybe i got OP question wrong?Anw..

What role should nonviolent tactics play in a revolutionary praxis in the context of an advanced capitalist/imperialist society?

During revolution, most nonviolent actions are basically condemned for fail.You should be prepared to fight for your life anytime.Even leafleting could turn to a violent action..

Now if you are talking about pre-revolution praxis, FreeFocus examples are pretty much accurate, and i agree with them, but i would put educating as a number 1 non-violent but even violent action for that period.Educationg the masses, the workers should be our number one goal, and it really is a really important task, that without it, again revolution is condemned for another fail!Most people wont fight for something they have no idea what it is, they wont fight for something they dont know if it will help them, and will surely wont fight, if they adopt medias and state deformed defining of our ideas..
So yeah, if we are after a non violent action on pre-revolution, the educationg the masses in obviously the most important one.

[Black Cross]

Which advanced capitalist society?

You're absolutely right to imply that it would differ in countries given their particular circumstances, but i was trying to be more general.

If you wanna get that particular though (which i don't oppose), say, US.

I consider those mostly pre-revolutionary praxis, but maybe i got OP question wrong?

I don't think "revolutionary praxis" is limited to only those tactics that are used during a period of revolution, since praxis, as i understand it in regards to the left, is something along the lines of a flexible, internally consistent liberatory process. This would then entail what would get us to a revolutionary period as much as what to do when that time comes.

And if my post was construed as practice during a revolution, let me make it clear that i wasn't trying to be so restrictive.

[political_animal]

Even leafleting could turn to a violent action

I now have an image of people smiting each other with sheets of A4

[Pawn Power]

Well, here in the US right now we don't have much other choice than non-violent tactics, unless we want to be completely annihilated. We in no way can compete violently with the power of the state, which specializes in war and destruction.

We can, and need to, use direct action and civil disobedience, including lockdowns, sit ins, occupations etc. These we can use without significant public backlash and without being torn apart by the state.

[Black Cross]

Well, here in the US right now we don't have much other choice than non-violent tactics, unless we want to be completely annihilated. We in no way can compete violently with the power of the state, which specializes in war and destruction.

Certainly i wouldn't suggest going head to head with the police/army or what have you, but do you think we should be completely non-violent? I think this would play directly into the hands of the state. I think, at least to a certain degree, we can cause some disturbance for the people/institutions/companies involved in occupying Palestine, invading Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.

These we can use without significant public backlash...

What do you mean, exactly, when you say public backlash? Alienating people?

and without being torn apart by the state.

If we were to 'confront' the state, it would have to be in a way smarter than a gun fight in the streets; of course in that case we'd get whooped. But if we were to be more flexible and discreet, we could certainly make the cost of employing violence rise for the state.

Sidebar: Thanks to whomever moved this thread. I'm dumb.

[Sasha]

Well, here in the US right now we don't have much other choice than non-violent tactics, unless we want to be completely annihilated. We in no way can compete violently with the power of the state, which specializes in war and destruction.

We can, and need to, use direct action and civil disobedience, including lockdowns, sit ins, occupations etc. These we can use without significant public backlash and without being torn apart by the state.

i think you seriously need to read this book fast:

http://www.akpress.org/2005/items/ho...otectsthestate

http://www.southendpress.org/2007/items/87729

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c...&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

[Comrade Corwin]

I agree that the state currently holds the monopoly on violence, but then again that is the purpose of the state. Though I am not a believer in using violence as the sole tool for regime change, I do believe that we may have to combine the use of both violent and peaceful methods to complete a proper revolution and remove the capitalist parasitic state of the current imperialist United States. I used to be a complete political pacifist and I was picketing the streets along-side my comrades in the Party, but it was then that I realized that the state doesn't only overpower us when it comes to weaponry and manpower, but also in peaceful means. They own the media, they own the political machine and its only two functioning powerhouse twin political parties and they own the minds of the people with their materialistic sensationalism. We, the few workers who not blinded by the ridiculous pyramid scheme we call the market in the United States, have to go against the odds and attack on all fronts of both violent and nonviolent practices or we will achieve nothing.
I think the most important non-violent practice we could take advantage of is to now start providing services that the government has denied the people. Start businesses that defy the others. Find ways to shelter the numerous homeless, offer coverage to the majority that can't afford healthcare and give the jobs to the overwhelmingly growing unemployed! Once we do this and slap the logo of our ideology on the front of our building of business without shame, people will come to us and ask to be educated on what we are about. We must first become the saviors of the working class before they will believe in us. No matter how long we keep shouting our beliefs, people will ignore us and we'll fade unless they see us actually proving ourselves to them.

[Omegared]

Also read Total resistance by Maj. Hans Von Dach

War of the Flea: AClassic Guide to Guerrilla Wafare

And Guerrillas in the Midst.

I'm not advocating going out and wreaking havoc though. Almost all successful revolutions embrace all aspects, political, social, and yes even militant sections. Most on the board say that you will be wiped out immediately, thats why the weak combatants rely on propaganda, hit-and-run guerrilla tactics and far more importantly POPULAR SUPPORT, with out the support of the masses its only a matter of time until the fighters are jailed/killed and your movement crushed.

strike only when your have a very clear advantage but dont stay and us your superior mobility to never get out flanked or surrounded the and the longer u stay the more u risk being pinned down and crushed. Live to fight another day. And then if these tactics did not work this country and many others would not have been formed and or liberated.

[Omegared]

Also read Total resistance by Maj. Hans Von Dach

War of the Flea: AClassic Guide to Guerrilla Wafare

And Guerrillas in the Midst.

I'm not advocating going out and wreaking havoc though. Almost all successful revolutions embrace all aspects, political, social, and yes even militant sections. Most on the board say that you will be wiped out immediately, thats why the weak combatants rely on propaganda, hit-and-run guerrilla tactics and far more importantly POPULAR SUPPORT, with out the support of the masses its only a matter of time until the fighters are jailed/killed and your movement crushed.

strike only when your have a very clear advantage but dont stay and us your superior mobility to never get out flanked or surrounded the and the longer u stay the more u risk being pinned down and crushed. Live to fight another day. And then if these tactics did not work this country and many others would not have been formed and or liberated.

[Pawn Power]

i think you seriously need to read this book fast:

http://www.akpress.org/2005/items/ho...otectsthestate

http://www.southendpress.org/2007/items/87729

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c...&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

I think you need to seriously start organizing in your community.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Dont class tactics as violent and non violent but rather worth doing and not worth doing. The ruling class will not hesitate to murder everyone your kids , your mother , your friends and anyone else you give a fuck about and to piss on there graves without losing a moments sleep or giving it any non strategic afterthought. When the time comes to fight back not to do so with as much force and ruthlessness as is required is quite frankly appalling.

[Pawn Power]

Certainly i wouldn't suggest going head to head with the police/army or what have you, but do you think we should be completely non-violent? I think this would play directly into the hands of the state. I think, at least to a certain degree, we can cause some disturbance for the people/institutions/companies involved in occupying Palestine, invading Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.

Sure we can resist and cause 'disturbance.' I just don't know what role 'violence' would play in that. The only one I could see is one in which some dedicated activist get a lot of time in jail.

***

I think some people are misinterpreting what I am saying. I am not 'morally' apposed to 'violence' per say. I just don't see a positive role it could play in the US right now. Moreover, I see a lot of romanticism around violence that is not even put into context. When is violence being used? Why? What is the circumstance?

We can't simply say, 'non-violence' doesn't work, isn't revolutions, etc. A vast majority of the work we do is non-violent. Organizing, the most important aspect of revolution, is not only not violent but mainly built around trust and solidarity. I can surely image when violence could be justified and even useful but to talk about it in such an abstract way, divorced from the actual work we are doing (that some of us are doing) does not demonstrate is validity in general.

[Black Cross]

Sure we can resist and cause 'disturbance.' I just don't know what role 'violence' would play in that. The only one I could see is one in which some dedicated activist get a lot of time in jail.

I think anything that would disturb these institutions would presuppose violence. Candlelight vigils and protests aren't disturbing.

Dont class tactics as violent and non violent but rather worth doing and not worth doing.

If a violent or nonviolent tactic were to be accepted as revolutionary praxis, this naturally means it's worth doing; likewise, if it's not worth doing, it certainly wouldn't be accepted as such.

[Pawn Power]

I think anything that would disturb these institutions would presuppose violence. Candlelight vigils and protests aren't disturbing.

If you think that vigils and protests are the only tactics that don't include violence then you clearly haven't been involved in serious organizing.

[Comrade Corwin]

Well, I have been involved in serious organizing and I can tell you that without drastic action, possibly involving violent action, you will not wake the people from their daze. It is not that non-violent action can't tweak the heartstrings of the masses, but it has no effect when no one knows you are doing it. The government has control of the mainstream media and will censure protests against it. I remember when I was in D.C. during the March on Washington against the Iraq War. More than 250,000 people were involved, all picketing in the mall for the entire day. Now, after we had started packing up, I went to a restaurant that had a T.V. so my colleagues and me could celebrate the amazing turn out and great impact it made on the people who had witnessed our march. We watched the television and do you know what we saw? 15 seconds of coverage. This was the local D.C. news channel too! A story on how to care for your dog overlapped our story. They basically said, "A large protest took place on the Mall today, blocking traffic to the capital building for over 12 hours. And now onto our segment on..." "Blocking traffic"?! That was our greatest impact?! They didn't even mention what we were protesting. Never again was it mentioned and the only people who witnessed our march first-hand knew there was a protest. Now if we had beaten up a cop, we would have gotten front-page news! Not that I had wished harm on an officer, as they were there as much for our protection as others, but you know what I am talking about.

I am hesitant to condone violence. Violent revolution has many consequences. One of the greatest being that so much hostility is left over, even if the revolution has successfully planted a benevolent regime. For possibly decades later, there is danger of there being counter revolutions and civil war and the necessity to commit horrid purges of protestors to ensure they do not bring about a coup. All this is regrettable, but violence is the waking call of the people. You can protest, have sit-down/lock-downs and boycotts to your hearts content, but the average Joe will go about his day without even giving a thought to your efforts, but you throw one malitov cocktail and the media goes crazy! Given just enough attention and you can say anything you want on T.V. and make a huge impact.

[Steve_j]

My question is pretty simple: What role should nonviolent tactics play in a revolutionary praxis

Are you refering to non interpersonal violence or do you include the physical decommissioning of state apparatus as violence?

[Pawn Power]

Well, I have been involved in serious organizing and I can tell you that without drastic action, possibly involving violent action, you will not wake the people from their daze. It is not that non-violent action can't tweak the heartstrings of the masses, but it has no effect when no one knows you are doing it. The government has control of the mainstream media and will censure protests against it. I remember when I was in D.C. during the March on Washington against the Iraq War. More than 250,000 people were involved, all picketing in the mall for the entire day. Now, after we had started packing up, I went to a restaurant that had a T.V. so my colleagues and me could celebrate the amazing turn out and great impact it made on the people who had witnessed our march. We watched the television and do you know what we saw? 15 seconds of coverage. This was the local D.C. news channel too! A story on how to care for your dog overlapped our story. They basically said, "A large protest took place on the Mall today, blocking traffic to the capital building for over 12 hours. And now onto our segment on..." "Blocking traffic"?! That was our greatest impact?! They didn't even mention what we were protesting. Never again was it mentioned and the only people who witnessed our march first-hand knew there was a protest. Now if we had beaten up a cop, we would have gotten front-page news! Not that I had wished harm on an officer, as they were there as much for our protection as others, but you know what I am talking about.

I am hesitant to condone violence. Violent revolution has many consequences. One of the greatest being that so much hostility is left over, even if the revolution has successfully planted a benevolent regime. For possibly decades later, there is danger of there being counter revolutions and civil war and the necessity to commit horrid purges of protestors to ensure they do not bring about a coup. All this is regrettable, but violence is the waking call of the people. You can protest, have sit-down/lock-downs and boycotts to your hearts content, but the average Joe will go about his day without even giving a thought to your efforts, but you throw one malitov cocktail and the media goes crazy! Given just enough attention and you can say anything you want on T.V. and make a huge impact.

It sound as if your view of the usefulness of "violent" tactics is in relation to how much media coverage it gets.

1.) The mainstream media will never cover our actions in a positive like (if covered at all).

2.) This is not organizing. Period. People arn't usually swayed by this direct action tactics (violent or nonviolent) but by the more mundane day to day organizing that we should be doing.