In defense of non-violent direct action...

[EricJ]

Before registering, I perused this forum for a few days. I read several past topics which discussed the feasibility of a nonviolent revolution. It seems, that among many of the users of this forum, there is a strong opposition to the idea that a leftist revolution can be achieved by relying solely on nonviolent methods. I would like to bring a few points up, and discuss these points in a clear, logical and mutually respectful manner.

I believe that a nonviolent revolution is more possible and feasible and would be more far-reaching and stable than a violent revolution. Why?

1) People are inherently alienated by violence. On both sides of the political spectrum [with regard to apologists for violence], the claim that "humans are inherently competitive and violent" is regularly tossed around. I think this is out of accord with the facts. People who undergo external or personal violent experiences are often traumatized by their experiences. It's easy to romanticize violence, whenever it is merely an idea or based in an ideology, but the act itself is something different. I think that people who commit or advocate violence feel the need to actively dehumanize the subject of violence. I think this tendency manifests itself in violent revolutionary discourse ("the police/military are pigs" or "members of the military are not human because they represent the state.") It's far easier to shoot a soldier whenever we call him a pig/state appartus, than it is whenever we recognize the statistical probability that this soldier is probably from a poor, working class background who has been deluded by the state.

2) To that end, it is far better to seek to convince members of the military/police (which means dropping threats of violence) than it is to directly attack. Police and soldiers are overwhelmingly working class. To that end, they are members of the proletariat, the very basis of revolutionary activity.

3) Violence is one of the principle aspects of violent Marxism and [violent] revolutionary movements which alienates the very people for whom revolutionary activity takes place.

4) Violent revolutions are inherently unstable. Violence involves a certain amount of coercion, in that you are imposing your ideology through your actions on other beings. Coercion is anathema to any truly free and democratic society. A revolution is not a revolution unless it is based in real, complete solidarity. In our case, that solidarity is based in the interests of the proletariat. We can carry out the actions which seem revolutionary (Molotov cocktails, assassinations, RAF-type activities), but, ultimately, revolution is a drastic and complete change from one collective (and therefore individual) viewpoint to another. The actions are merely manifestations of an ideal. If we have to attack and kill those who have non-leftist viewpoints (including right-wingers in the proletariat, of whom there are many), are we carrying out revolutionary change in mindset or merely [and vainly] trying to eliminate an opposing idea. In order for a nonviolent revolution to be successful, true organization and solidarity is an absolute requirement. Therefore, a society founded on this type of social accord is more stable and more committed to the maintenance of an egalitarian society.

5) Then, of course, there is the "realism" argument. That is, violent revolutions are a more realistic/achievable course of action than nonviolent revolutions. I have a few responses to this. First of all, I would call attention, once again, to the alienating effects of violence. Violent rhetoric alienates the majority of people. It makes leftists seem comparable to fascist movements, which are great perpetrators and advocates of violence. In so much as violence is at the center of revolutionary discourse, we will see continued alienation. Second of all, I would call attention to the fact that people tend to act in ways which preserve their lives. Direct militant agitation on the part of revolutionaries will lead to a violent response from the opposition, a well-organized and well-armed opposition. This brings with it the likelihood of grevious injury and death. If people act in their best interests (and, yes, I believe that desire to preserve life would supersede desire to overthrow economic exploitation), then they are less likely to engage in an initially violent revolution than a nonviolent revolution.

6) Which leads me to the question of the efficacy of nonviolent methods. As I've said, I believe a nonviolent revolution would be stronger because it would require a stronger sense of solidarity, a more majoritarian revolutionary movement (in the sense that more of the proletariat would have to be involved for success) and a stronger devotion to the proletariat (in that we don't engage proletariat members of the militant opposition, recognizing their humanity and condition as a byproduct of economic and political exploitation) than a violent revolution. This fact is directly related to the methods of nonviolent direct action. The practical implication of a revolution carried out by the majority of the proletariat is that direct actions (an international general strike, a refusal of the mass to feed corporate profits, or a mass occupation, for instance) is that the majority of the proletariat would be engaged in this action, which directly cuts at the roots of power and exploitation. Power is derived from obeisance and recognition of the validity of power. In the case of power held over the mass (as in the dependency which capitalism breeds or the laws of a liberal democracy), a direct, majority rejection of these systems of power (accompanied by symbolic direct action and ideological/lifestyle solidarity) would effectively mean that these systems of power are only imagined by those who seek to defend it. With this disruption in power (economic power in the forms of profit/rent/etc. and funding for government in the form of taxation, ideological power through breeding dependency), the outer manifestations of power (wealth, command over proletariat, government resources, titles and high-level positions) would begin to crumble. The few plutocrats who believed they had power (due to taking the outer manifestations of power as actual, inherent power) would be left weak, and the majority could form form their ideal economic and political system. Violence cuts at the outer manifestations of power, but not the roots. The roots can only be cut through true solidarity.

7) Nonviolence breeds a commitment to life, to the welfare of all mankind, which could help those engaged in nonviolent revolution to survive. What do I mean by this? By refusing to buy goods in a capitalist system, revolutionaries would have to resort to directly producing needed goods and sharing. Thus, people, out of necessity, begin to build the egalitarian, need-based society they seek as an act of revolution. This, in itself, cuts the power of the exploiters. It shows them that we are not truly and inherently beholden to them for our survival and prosperity. They directly manifest the values driving revolution. The society is not something which is accomplished after the revolution. Revolutionaries would not be beholden to the distractions of committed violent militancy, by fighting with counterrevolutionaries.



I believe that a belief in the efficacy of violent revolutions is misguided. Violent revolution is based on coercion, and operates as oppression of the oppressors, instead of operating to remove the power which drives oppression. The thing which allows an oppressor to oppress is not his body (the object of violent action), but the system upon which he stands. This system is based on ideas, and ideas cannot be destroyed by destroying those who hold them. Eliminate the system through nonviolent solidarity, singularity of vision and its manifestation through action, and pull the rug out from under the system.



Regards,
Eric

[The Feral Underclass]

1) People are inherently alienated by violence.

What is your evidence for this? How and why are humans "inherently" alienated by violence?

On both sides of the political spectrum [with regard to apologists for violence], the claim that "humans are inherently competitive and violent" is regularly tossed around.

I don't know anyone on the revolutionary left who has that opinion.

I think this is out of accord with the facts. People who undergo external or personal violent experiences are often traumatized by their experiences. It's easy to romanticize violence, whenever it is merely an idea or based in an ideology, but the act itself is something different. I think that people who commit or advocate violence feel the need to actively dehumanize the subject of violence. I think this tendency manifests itself in violent revolutionary discourse ("the police/military are pigs" or "members of the military are not human because they represent the state.") It's far easier to shoot a soldier whenever we call him a pig/state appartus, than it is whenever we recognize the statistical probability that this soldier is probably from a poor, working class background who has been deluded by the state.

If we are to accept your premise, which I don't necessarily have a problem with - I think it's very important not to dehumanise people - what benefit does acknowledging that fact have in the context of revolutionary struggle? OK, so a police officer is a human being, and so is a soldier. I think we can all accept that the police and army are made up of humans; but that doesn't alter the fact that they exist to defend, with violence, the position of capital and the state.

2) To that end, it is far better to seek to convince members of the military/police (which means dropping threats of violence) than it is to directly attack.

What does "convincing" mean?

Let's say for arguments sake that it's possible to "convince" members of the armed forces that they are wrong, in what arena do you think that will be possible? Public meetings? Propaganda? Debates in the streets? The state will just use tactics to undermine that process; spread misinformation or, like in many cases, commit crimes like murders or bombings to blame on 'radicals' to turn people against us. How do you actually expect the process of "convincing" to actually work?

Now assume that you've managed to create an arena in which you can actually "convince" these people, and let's say that you manage to "convince" a proportion of the police and army, what happens with the rest? Or do you honestly believe that you will "convince" every single police officer and soldier? The police are ideologically trained to oppose public order and defend private property. It's not simply a position, it's the basis of their entire societal understanding and you won't convince everyone to revolt against state order and to give up private property. Not everyone is going to be convinced that creating an egalitarian society is the right thing to do. That's just standard statistics, really.

So again, let's assume that this isn't a particularly realistic possibility, how do you then respond to the remaining thousands of police and soldiers who are armed and motivated to prevent what you're trying to create? In order for your method to work, you would have to ensure that no one, anywhere in the world, or at the least the country you live in, disagrees with what you want, and furthermore isn't prepared to use violence against you. In your wildest imagination, do you honestly believe that to be possible?

Police and soldiers are overwhelmingly working class. To that end, they are members of the proletariat, the very basis of revolutionary activity.

But their class interests are fundamentally different, and in any case, it's disputable that they are in fact part of the working class, since their relationship to the means of production is to maintain its existence. The police are trained to ideologically support the concept of private property and in turn the system of exploitation. It's their job to defend class. In that instance, the police force can never be our class allies, since we want to smash and replace that system.

3) Violence is one of the principle aspects of violent Marxism and [violent] revolutionary movements which alienates the very people for whom revolutionary activity takes place.

Yet in times of great social upheaval it's been the working class who have taken up arms against the state? If violence alienates the working class, how do you explain that?

4) Violent revolutions are inherently unstable.

All revolutions are unstable. Revolutions are the culmination of massive social, political an economic upheaval. It is the consequence of instability, where the working class make a conscious decision to defend their gains against capital and the state. It is the process of great change in a society; how can you ever have a "stable" revolution?

Violence involves a certain amount of coercion, in that you are imposing your ideology through your actions on other beings. Coercion is anathema to any truly free and democratic society.

We live in a society where tens of millions of people are dying of starvation; of disease, where people have no basic access to water or sanitation. We live in a society where children are sold into slavery, where people are denied basic opportunities in education, health, welfare and protection from brutality and persecution. This is not to mention the dis-empowerment, the alienation and fear working class people experience as part of a capitalist society; whose dreams and aspirations are denied them in the pursuit of wealth that they create, but never share in. We live in a society where the vast majority of people are forced to sell their labour in order to survive, so that profit can be created for a minority.

We are exploited, oppressed, alienated and brutalised, and all we want is to create a fair, equitable society based on mutual co-operation, where people work to provide for each other and everyone is provided for. We want to end suffering; we want to empower; we want to give people freedom to live their lives without hardship.

That's no coercion. That's self-defence! Unless we force through this change, we will continue to live in this world, and I don't want to do that.

A revolution is not a revolution unless it is based in real, complete solidarity.

The world doesn't work like this. Material conditions are not based on fairy tale ideals, they are based on real, objective processes. The idea that we can achieve a situation where everyone agrees with each other, is just completely ignoring the entire history of humanity. We need to find real, complete solidarity as working class people who can stand up and challenge capital and the state and say "we have a new world in our hearts". After those years of struggle and upheaval; when we have won over some soldiers and some police, when we stand on the barricades and are faced with tanks and soldiers who will not be convinced, what then? What do we do next? Do we sit down and let the tanks role over us? Do we go home?

In a revolutionary situation, when capital and the state is threatened, those in power will not hesitate to use violence: Whole, unwavering and brutal violence to defend their power. It has been witnessed throughout history. The most notable situations are in Mexico, Thailand and Greece right now.

The state has prepared for this. They have trained for this. The state, as we speak, are getting themselves ready for this moment. They have special forces, secret security services, tanks, aeroplanes...Nuclear weapons. They're not stupid. They're not just going to hang around and wait for us to "convince" them. They are going to summon every weapon in their arsenal to crush us and defeat us, and they will be determined and they will be relentless. And those weapons aren't just guns and bombs; they are counter-intelligence; disinformation; political sabotage. They will infiltrate, they will agitate, and they will use every means and method that they can imagine to ensure that we are not successful. To think any differently is stupidly naive.

You're not going to "convince" the CIA or MI5. You're not going to "convince" the hardened, battle weary special forces soldiers. You're not going to "convince" the nefarious, violent militias that do and will exist during a counter-revolution. It's simply not going to happen.

So you need to make a choice. Do we let them crush us. Or do we fight?

First of all, I would call attention, once again, to the alienating effects of violence. Violent rhetoric alienates the majority of people. It makes leftists seem comparable to fascist movements, which are great perpetrators and advocates of violence. In so much as violence is at the center of revolutionary discourse, we will see continued alienation.

Your view of revolutionary violence is that there is a whole movement championing it as the "right" method. I don't like violence. I abhor it. I don't like to see it or be part of it. I certainly don't romanticise it.

Yet, in the course of my revolutionary education, I have come to the sad and unfortunate realisation that capital and the state leave us with no other option but to, at some point, have to rely on violence. I am not "advocating" violence, in so much as I am having to accept it as a necessary tool in achieving a communist society.

Second of all, I would call attention to the fact that people tend to act in ways which preserve their lives. Direct militant agitation on the part of revolutionaries will lead to a violent response from the opposition, a well-organized and well-armed opposition. This brings with it the likelihood of grevious injury and death.

The "well-organized and well-armed opposition" will use violence against us irrespective of our methods. If, for a moment, the state feels threatened, they will smash our organisations, outlaw our ideas, imprison us and kill us.

Every single social upheaval that has fundamentally threatened the existence of capital and the state has been met with brutal force.

6) Which leads me to the question of the efficacy of nonviolent methods. As I've said, I believe a nonviolent revolution would be stronger because it would require a stronger sense of solidarity, a more majoritarian revolutionary movement

But what about that minority? What about that section of society who refuse to accept the changes and use violence to pursue their aims?

By refusing to buy goods in a capitalist system, revolutionaries would have to resort to directly producing needed goods and sharing. Thus, people, out of necessity, begin to build the egalitarian, need-based society they seek as an act of revolution.

But you can never really achieve a separation from capitalist systems. These methods will still rely upon aspects of the capitalist system to exist. Further to that, you cannot expect working class people, who work endless hours to survive, will be able to simply "opt" out of capitalism. What about their families?

This, in itself, cuts the power of the exploiters.

If you want to create an egalitarian, need-based society, you need to get rid of capitalism and the state in their entirety. This kind of dual power, lifestyle politics is completely recuperated by capital. We see it even now, with this whole organic, climate change stuff. Capital has seen that opinion has shifted and has re-marketed itself to accommodate those opinions, thus ensuring continued profit, which ultimately means continued exploitation for working class people.

It shows them that we are not truly and inherently beholden to them for our survival and prosperity.

But you are.

Let's say you create some co-operatives that grow vegetables and are completely self-sustained. Would you make your own oil for the vehicles, or perhaps you'd have horses? Would you make your own tools? Or buy them from a super-market? What about clothes? Make them from wool? Where would you get the sheep? Would you buy them? How would you pay for the houses you live in, or the land you use? Who would you buy that from? Or would you rent it from a landlord? Would you use the internet? What about telephones or laptops? What about peoples different, varying medical and pharmacological requirements?

But in any case, that sounds like a fucking awful life. I certainly wouldn't want to live on this co-op, wearing wool clothes, riding a horse around and shitting in compost toilets. Neither, I can imagine, would the vast majority of working class people. The "opt-out" tactic isn't sustainable, or if it is, it's sustainable in a really primitive way, that I would certainly not want to be part of.

We have to take control of the means in which these things are created, and use them for our own benefits. We don't want to "opt-out", we want to control!

[MarxSchmarx]

Attrition must be a strategy.

The massive apparatus of state violence, particularly the most committed (like the Special Forces, CIA or MI5) can be side-stepped and made irrelevant - to some extent this is the strategy of for example deLeonism. Will they stage coups? Perhaps, but by then you will destroy the legitimacy of the state. They cannot run the state by themselves. For example, they still need people to make sure the transportation is functional, fuel is extracted and delivered, medical staff care for their injured, and that repair parts for their weaponry are produced. Not to mention food to feed their soldiers. All of which requires even more support.

The fact is, these most committed of the hardcore elements of state violence cannot operate by themselves. Even if they are deeply committed to upholding the state and violence, they cannot sustain themselves in isolation. Thus, it is not obvious to me that convincing for example oil workers to strike is inherently less crippling to something like the special forces. Sure they can likely last for a few months.

Further, in defense of EricJ's view, "convincing" can be done at the level of drying up the spigot. In many educational institutions for example a lot of activism revolves around preventing the military or police from recruiting people on campus. Without new blood they cannot sustain themselves. This is also about deligitimizing the mechanisms of oppression, and already in many of the most imperialist countries like America, Australia and Western Europe endless wars have created headaches for recruitment, saved only by the anemic state of private sector employment.

[EricJ]

Hi, Anarchist Tension. Thanks for your response. Last night, I spent about two hours writing a response to your rebuttal, only to lose the entire post due to my own carelessness (not logging in). I will reconstruct that response sometime within the next few days, because I will be away from my computer for the next two days.

MarxSchmarx, thanks for your response too. I have other rebuttals with regard to the supposed impossibility of a successful nonviolent revolution in the face of state violence, but you brought up a point I didn't consider. I also have a different idea about what "convincing" entail, but you [and others] will see that in the following days.


Regards,
Eric