Violence versus nonviolence as a tool for mass social movements

Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion

Violence versus nonviolence as a tool for mass social movements

[13 posts] [6 contributors]

Topic Rating:

(Total Ratings: )
Rate this topic:

Started 1 year ago by TomOver
Latest reply from TomOver

Tags:

TomOver
lovecause.org
Login to Send PM

I wanted to talk with this person who goes by name of 9 Tails because I was impressed by his efforts to calm down a fellow activist as Columbus Police made arrests in the lobby of US Bank on Nov 15.

During the arrests which protestors say happened without any prior warning from bank security guards or police, 9 Tails repeatedly said in a booming voice "do not resist" as one of the protestors began shouting to police after they grabbed his girlfriend.

I spoke with 9 Tails shortly after he and six others were released from jail several hours after being held on charges of 4th degree misdemeanor trespassing.

"The reason I had said what I had said (to not resist arrest) is that we need to stay peaceful, no matter what the cause is. What I saw in Oakland sickened me. As long as we keep to a more peaceful manner, we maintain the ability to get our message out."

He said resisting arrest can result in police and judges placing more serious charges against activists, making it harder for them to go about their work by increasing the amount of money for bail, and the amount of time in jail and off the streets.

According to Bob Hart, an attorney who had been working with Occupy Columbus, more serious charges could involve restraining orders curbing activists participation in events.

9 Tails said violence only begets more violence.

"People get scared. Now, some might get riled up, but if you can show the same kind of power without raising a hand, that's a far bigger statement and far stronger. Ghandi did it."

Based on my experience, there is among activists in Columbus and in other cities, a not insignificant number of people who say advocating nonviolence is naive or a sign of a lack of seriousness. Some of them relate to Derrick Jensen's call for "taking down civilization."

9 Tails disagrees.

"If it ever got to that point, we've already lost--we've lost the control. The goal is to not get to that point. But it may go to that end. As long as we don't have to go to that end, then we do what we need to do. We come at them sideways. We come at them in angles they've never seen before. We do things that have never been seen in history...You look at how they expect us to come at them, and then you come at them differently."

He said nonviolent resistance is an option so long as we have a functioning civil society, and that---though corporate power has damaged it--- there is still enough of it remaining for making nonviolent resistance the most viable option.

"What got me thinking nonviolently was I asked myself what it would take to stop a police riot line from hurting demonstrators. The picture that came to mind was hundreds of mothers with their infants strapped to them. You picture that and you will see there is no good in that (violence). There is no good outcome. If that is what we're coming to, I don't want to be a human anymore," 9 Tails said.

Lisa Simeone, one of the organizers for the Stop The Machine occupation in D.C., said the state apparatus is good at repressing violent protest but that it is not good at repressing well organized nonviolence that arouses public sympathy for a cause.

9 Tails said CIRCA ---Clandestine Insurgent Rebel Clown Army---has inspired him.

"I really wish I could meet some of those boys, because they got some very good techniques."

Posted 1 year ago #
TomOver
lovecause.org
Login to Send PM

Here are couple of links on this topic.

The following is a debate between two writers, David Swanson and Ted Rall Violence or nonviolence ?

Here is an essay from sociologist William Domhoff Social Movements and Strategic Nonviolence

Posted 1 year ago #
TomOver
lovecause.org
Login to Send PM

Some advocates of strategic nonviolence criticize other activists who call for a ‘diversity of tactics,’ saying the term is code for condoning violence. They say violence will defeat the purpose of social movements. Chris Hedges recently went so far as to call black bloc a cancer in Occupy

Folk such as Gene Sharp advocate strategic nonviolence from a scholarly perspective.
Waging Non-violent Struggle is one of several books he's written on the subject.

Last year Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan published Why Civil Resistance Works: the Strategic Logic of Non-violent Conflict

In my humble opinion, both books include some good points, but both seem dry and repetitive. Perhaps it's just me but both books seem too organized and too logical in its argumentation, if there is such a thing. Putting their case studies in sections separate from where they make many of their main points seems odd to me. Would make more sense--at least to me--if they were interwoven.

Maybe need to re-read, but their examples of tyranny and injustice involve the usual bad guys depicted in the corporate mass media such as dictators in Eastern Europe or South Asia.

In both books, the authors say little, if anything, about people around the world defending themselves against the exploitation of global capitalism, much of it condoned or promoted by our own government. Am open to other viewpoints about this, but that’s how it seems to me presently. I say that because I want to help make our country better in my own small way, not disparage my home.

As for proponents of strategic nonviolence who are more involved in activism or journalism, see David Swanson among many others.

Not sure if writer and cartoonist Ted Rall is using the term 'diversity of tactics' but based on my in-person talk with him and what others report, he seems to be calling for violence

Last year, Derrick Jensen, Lierre Keith, and Aric McBay published Deep Green Resistance which involves a taxonomy of tactics and strategies not limited to non-violence

As for my suggestions, it seems advocating for strategic nonviolence is generally good, but doesn’t focus sharply enough to bring into view the core issue: love.

Striving toward agape love in many cases is conducive to achieving strategic nonviolence for positive social change. But strategic nonviolence is not the core issue, in and of itself.

If we think it is, then we don’t allow for situations in which refraining from violence necessarily allows or promotes someone else to do it. If we require ourselves to be unconditionally nonviolent, we lose the option of self-defense or coming to the aid of those who are unjustly under attack.

So agape love seems the best ideal or reference point for minimizing--as distinguished from ruling it out--- our engagement in violence and other lapses of empathy.

Striving to love seems the best approach, even though we can’t do it perfectly. In some situations, better managing, if not eliminating our hatred might be the best we can do regarding that.

Posted 10 months ago #
ChrisSunami
King-Lincoln District
Login to Send PM

1) Non-violence is always the better route tactically for any physically weaker force. Once violence has been legitimized as a part of the conflict, the stronger force will have acquired all the justification it needs to use it to eradicate the weaker force.

2) Since the ability to win by violence offers no guarantee of the rightness of the ideology behind it, in any situation where violence determines the winner, it's highly likely that the winning ideology will be unprepared for victory --as in the disastrous aftermath of the various Communist Revolutions.

3) If your movement is ideologically opposed to violence, then using violence as a tactic to achieve its ends represents a critical failure of your ideology from its onset.

Posted 10 months ago #
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM

I agree about (2) and (3). I'm less convinced of (1), at least without further clarification. Were we really the more powerful military force in the Revolutionary War? We had significant home field advantage, but the British Empire was still the world's dominant military power at that time. The physically weaker force can still "win" if it sets appropriate victory conditions and is strong enough to make the physically stronger force consider victory not worth it to prevent the weaker force from achieving those conditions.

For example, if the colonists had decided that they actually wanted to overthrow the crown and not just separate from it, that would have been an entirely different ballgame. We lost in Vietnam and the Soviets lost in Afghanistan for similar reasons. Of course, the Communists were supplying arms to the North Vietnamese, but that doesn't negate the principle--again, if the Soviets had been supplying arms to a military force launching a direct attack on Hawaii or California, our response would have been very different.

That said, I do largely agree with (1) as well.

Posted 10 months ago #
Red Sun Rising

Login to Send PM

This is a GREAT post, Tom! Well done! Very relevant to present day issues, and I love the empowerment and resources within this dialog.

Posted 10 months ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

gramarye said:
I agree about (2) and (3). I'm less convinced of (1), at least without further clarification. Were we really the more powerful military force in the Revolutionary War? We had significant home field advantage, but the British Empire was still the world's dominant military power at that time. The physically weaker force can still "win" if it sets appropriate victory conditions and is strong enough to make the physically stronger force consider victory not worth it to prevent the weaker force from achieving those conditions.

For example, if the colonists had decided that they actually wanted to overthrow the crown and not just separate from it, that would have been an entirely different ballgame. We lost in Vietnam and the Soviets lost in Afghanistan for similar reasons. Of course, the Communists were supplying arms to the North Vietnamese, but that doesn't negate the principle--again, if the Soviets had been supplying arms to a military force launching a direct attack on Hawaii or California, our response would have been very different.

That said, I do largely agree with (1) as well.

Also a lot depends on the nature of the forces in question. Once you get to the suicide bomber / death squad phase you've gone from "social movement" to civil war / insurgency / genocide.

Posted 10 months ago #
ChrisSunami
King-Lincoln District
Login to Send PM

gramarye said:
I agree about (2) and (3). I'm less convinced of (1), at least without further clarification. Were we really the more powerful military force in the Revolutionary War? We had significant home field advantage, but the British Empire was still the world's dominant military power at that time. The physically weaker force can still "win" if it sets appropriate victory conditions and is strong enough to make the physically stronger force consider victory not worth it to prevent the weaker force from achieving those conditions.

For example, if the colonists had decided that they actually wanted to overthrow the crown and not just separate from it, that would have been an entirely different ballgame. We lost in Vietnam and the Soviets lost in Afghanistan for similar reasons. Of course, the Communists were supplying arms to the North Vietnamese, but that doesn't negate the principle--again, if the Soviets had been supplying arms to a military force launching a direct attack on Hawaii or California, our response would have been very different.

That said, I do largely agree with (1) as well.

You're completely correct. I should have either said "non-violence is often the best tactic for a physically weaker force" or "non-violence is nearly always the best tactic for a force that is far out-matched physically".

rus said:
Also a lot depends on the nature of the forces in question. Once you get to the suicide bomber / death squad phase you've gone from "social movement" to civil war / insurgency / genocide.

I'm not convinced the terrorist option is ever the best choice --speaking tactically.

Posted 10 months ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

ChrisSunami said:
I'm not convinced the terrorist option is ever the best choice --speaking tactically.

Just for that, I'd again suggest there's a difference between "social change" and outright insurgency / civil war / genocide. If the goal is ethnic cleansing or resisting same, for instance, non-violence isn't going to work.

Posted 10 months ago #
cheap
Westgate
Login to Send PM

non violence worked out great for the American Indian.

they got casinos,baby

Posted 10 months ago #
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM

cheap said:
non violence worked out great for the American Indian.

they got casinos,baby

Pretty sure a good number of them resisted with violence, too. They were pretty much sunk either way.

Posted 10 months ago #
TomOver
lovecause.org
Login to Send PM

Intend the following declarative statements as suggestions, not rudely delusional commands. From a literary standpoint, have not finished the following. Just abandoned it for the time being.

Talk openly about violent revolution or other forms of violent social change so we can better judge it as foolishness or a wise approach. Am more comfortable with that when it’s part of talking about and acting on a higher form of love.

Love is why any cause, or anything else in the world, matters in the first place. Pardon the metaphor: use love to navigate your maze of contradictions.

The violence vs-nonviolence question misses the key issue : hatred vs a type of love King and others referred to as agape.

Crossed paths with plenty of folk, mostly on the left, famous and not famous, who seem to have the intellectual firepower regarding the issues they care about. But few of them seem to connect with people on a sort of spiritual level in a way that, say, King did.

Right wing extremism in the US seems more likely than left wing. But that's not necessarily a credit to the latter. Moderates and lefties have criticized the Tea Party for promoting hatred, but in the least, Occupy or whatever new name or form it takes, IMHO has yet ---w/ only a few exceptions--- to talk loudly and clearly about agape love.

Occupy and other social movements would be more effective --all else being equal---if the shared message of agape love diminished egotism, personal ambition, jealousy and other states of mind we fall into in our unintentional slide toward hatred of ourselves and others.

It’s not enough to try to not hate. Most of us don’t set out to hate. Instead we sometimes end up there because of various forms of unenlightened self-interest. Striving to love is proactive. Without that, we default into states of mind where we're more likely to end up hating.

Love is a sociological force for constructive change when we use it to defy social barriers that otherwise divide us.

We can strive toward agape love and use violence when we truly believe there is no viable alternative.

Don't relish the thought and would like to think I wouldn't relish the deeds, but I can imagine, in the pursuit of honesty here, harming and killing humans and non-humans without hating them, when I genuinely believe there is no viable alternative. Ideally, no human would ever be in that circumstance.

Posted 10 months ago #
TomOver
lovecause.org
Login to Send PM

gramarye said:
Pretty sure a good number of them resisted with violence, too. They were pretty much sunk either way.

Though perhaps more benign than objectifying Native Americans as devil worshiping savages who were less 'civilized' and perhaps even less human than Europeans, romanticizing them still detracts from an accurate understanding of their humanity.

Suggest they weren't blameless victims, but, in the final analysis, if there can be one, they simply lost in the clash of civilizations. Jarrod Diamond suggests, in the eponymous book, that it was due to "guns, germs, and steel." There may have been other factors beyond what that book's title suggests.

Posted 10 months ago #