Thoughts on Non-Violence

Recently Media Mouse published on their site a book review of “How Nonviolence Strengthens the State” by Peter Gelderloos (their review here).

In the book Gerlderloos argues that “nonviolence requires considerable privilege and that this privilege means that most advocates of pacifism are white…. pacifists encourage pacifism for oppressed people of color because pacifists realize that they benefit from the current system and therefore do not want to overthrow the existing system…pacifism fits into the state’s accommodation of dissent, [and] it’s proponents frequently impose their ideology on others [thus ultimately strengthening the state].

Ever since I read the review it has been sticking in the back of my mind, and I've finally written a few thoughts in response to it.

This post probably falls under the category of “Intellectual Masturbation”. Most people are already in my corner on this already, and Gelderloos is in the minority. Furthermore I don’t think too many people read the Media Mouse book review sections, so writing long posts in response is certainly a waste of energy. I've not read Gelderloos’s actual book, only a review of it, so by all rights I’m not qualified to respond. Gelderloos’s book aside, there is over a century of literature on this topic, and I have not made a thorough study of that either. I probably have nothing new to add to the topic that hasn't already been said a hundred times.

And yet in spite of all those reasons, I couldn't hold myself back from writing this. I just kept thinking of all the things I wanted to say in response to the book review. I waited a couple days to see if the urge would blow over, and then just ended up writing this all one night when I couldn't sleep. I don’t know, something about the way I’m wired I guess. My compulsive blogging or the need to insert my two cents into absolutely everything.

All those disclaimers aside, if anyone wants to take the trouble to read this, I would appreciate any feedback or thoughts you might have. I've sent Media Mouse a copy of this as well, but I don't know what they'll do with it. (Update: they posted it here.)

Thoughts on Non-Violence

This is in response to the posted book review: “How Nonviolence Strengthens the State.”

Like the reviewer, I’m somewhat worried by the lack of concrete alternatives being discussed. If, as the reviewer feels, non-violence is defined too narrowly, than it would appear that Gelderloos is defining violence too broadly.

If we are to abandon the moral ground, and discuss violence purely in terms of its tactical merit, than we need to have an idea of what kind of violence is being discussed, and what are the concrete tactical benefits that we hope to achieve by it.

Does the violence Gelderloos advocate refer simply to an expanded definition of non-violence to include acts of vandalism? Does it refer to street fighting with police? Is it symbolic violence with the intent to educate (or “propaganda of the deed”)? Or is the intent to physically disable the state? Are the targets to be carefully chosen, or, as with the Madrid bombings that Gelderloos cites, acts of broad terrorism against civilian populations.

Or is Gelderloos under the impression that it is still 1848, and that with a few strategic barricades and a few days of street fighting the central government can be overthrown?

Allow me to suggest that the time of this revolution has already come and gone. Even if the United States possessed enough class solidarity for this kind of insurrection (which, I don’t need to point out, it doesn't) the force of the entire military industrial complex arrayed against the any possible proletarian insurrection would be overwhelming.

If the United States were to posses sufficient class consciousness for an organized proletarian revolt, the idea of a general strike would be a much more effective weapon. By simple non-participation the entire capitalist machine could be ground to a halt in a single day. The war in Iraq could be stopped tomorrow if there was enough class solidarity to pull off a general strike, without a single act of violence necessary.

Of course this is still a long way away in the United States, but there are plenty of other examples in 20th century history where a general strike was able to facilitate a revolution. Germany in 1919 and many of the former soviet bloc in 1989, to cite but two examples.

One might also look at France in May 1968 for a counter-example. Only when the workers joined the student strike did revolution seem imminent. When the French government was able to co-opt the workers, the remaining street fighting and student barricades did not prove a serious threat to the power of the state.
Until the United States possesses enough class solidarity to organize either a general strike or a general revolution, isolated acts of violence are either worthless or worse than worthless.

Ultimately one comes back to Lenin’s famous dictum: “A terrorist is a liberal with a bomb.” The liberal thinks he can influence bourgeois government by parliamentary pressure tactics or petitioning. The terrorist is of the same mindset, except the terrorist thinks he can substitute violence as the pressure tactic. Neither the terrorist nor the liberal will be able to influence the government in any more than superficial ways, and neither tactic seeks to take control of the state machinery.

Violent tactics must not be seen as a short cut to old-fashioned education and organization. “Propaganda by the deed” can only succeed among those who are sympathetic to the goals of the movement.

An excellent analysis of this can be read in Emma Goldman’s autobiography. In the autobiography Goldman recounts her and Alexander Berkman's attempted assassination of the capitalist Frick as an act of “propaganda by the deed”, as well as the assassination 8 years later of the President of the United States by a nominal anarchist.

The autobiography shows Goldman’s intellectual progression, and her eventual conclusion that these acts hurt the movement more than helped it. Although similar assassinations in Europe appeared to give strength to the anarchist movement, the United States was unique in that the illusion of freedom was so strong that symbolic assassinations failed to bring people to the anarchist cause. In fact, quite the opposite, the assassinations caused much harm to the anarchist movement in the United States, because the necessary work of education had not been done, and people could not understand the anarchist actions. The only concrete accomplishment of these assassinations was a series of repressive government laws against anarchists, with the full support of the general population. In other words, the state was strengthened, not weakened, by these tactics.

A century later, similar conclusions were reached by members of the Weather Underground. Mark Rudd now believes that their actions actually hurt the cause they were fighting for. He claims that the majority of American people have had it ingrained into them that the only legitimate use of violence is by the state, and that this indoctrination is so strong that the response to even acts of symbolic violence is revulsion.

The mistake of the Weather Underground was that they substituted revolutionary bravado for organizing. If one was not already against the Vietnam War, the acts of the Weather Underground did not serve to convince anyone. And as their actions largely did not rise above symbolic violence, one would be hard pressed to say that they inconvenienced the state in any meaningful way.

Even Bill Ayers, who represents the unrepentant wing of the former Weather Underground, writes in his autobiography about participating in a meeting between anti-war activists and Vietcong representatives. The Vietcong were much more interested in how the students were planning to convert their republican parents than about the students’ commitment to die for the cause. Ayers regrets he did not pay more attention to it at the time.

If an equivalent of the Madrid bombing had occurred in the United States, it would not have had the same effect as it did in Spain. Rather it would have been a gift to the pro-war and pro state forces, just as the first terrorist attack was used to justify two wars and new repressive measures by the state. In this respect I think it can be argued that it is in fact violence, not nonviolence, which strengthens the State.

Of course a case can be made for strategic vandalism. And this would fall within the definitions of expanded non-violence. Pete Seeger has a famous story he often tells. During the 1960s he visited a college campus which the students had taken over until the administrators agreed to negotiate wages in good faith with the black janitorial staff. Many of the students had lost their scholarships in this actions, so Seeger inquired why he hadn't heard about this protest before. The students responded that they had informed the local media, but the media neglected to run any stories on it. Instead the media had said, “give us a call if there’s any violence, and we’ll send someone out.” Seeger said that from that day on he always carries a rock in his pocket, in case a window needs to be broken to get media attention.

While I would agree that the violence in Seattle contributed to the media coverage, and helped to bring the anti-globalization movement to the forefront of the mainstream political dialogue, I would ask which violence was responsible. As in Chicago in 1968, Seattle in 1999 was overwhelmingly police violence. The participation of the activists in this violence was largely just to get their heads cracked.

In this respect, the anarchists of Seattle may find themselves closer to King’s philosophy than they realize. King’s philosophy of non-violence was always based on the violent reaction of the police. This is a detail that has frequently been overlooked, but a close reading of civil rights movement in the 1960s reveals that even the non-violent demonstrations were deliberately designed to provoke violent reactions of the police, which was then captured by the media and broadcast to the nation. King himself was frequently criticized by moderate clergy who, rightly, realized that his philosophy of non-violent confrontation was in fact based on violence. This was why King’s demonstrations were a tactical success in the South, but was a failure in Chicago when Mayor Daley went out of his way to be accommodating to King.

The strength of King’s movement was that it was disciplined. The evening news showed the demonstrators as only the recipients of police violence, and produced overwhelming sympathy for the civil rights cause.
In Seattle, and subsequent anti-globalization protests, this formula has been turned on its head. The Police inflict violence on demonstrators, the media captures this but then blames the violence on the demonstrators themselves, and where ever possible footage shows footage of anarchists violently resisting police. Even if one is aware, as the resulting news reports made clear, that the violence was overwhelmingly from the police, the sympathy for the demonstrators is not as strong if a fraction of them can be shown to have participated in the violence themselves.

So, if non-violent confrontation is more effective as an educational tool, the question then becomes, what is the purpose of the violent action? I think one would be hard pressed to make the case that the capitalist state was hurt, or even seriously inconvenienced by the petty vandalism and sporadic street fighting. The recipients of this violence were not the capitalists who had perpetrated the atrocities of the WTO, but rather the police, who are simply another side of the proletariat. Even assuming one accepts the police as legitimate targets, anyone who was been to a protest and seen the police in full riot gear can attest to the fact that when confrontation between activists occurs, the result is always one-sided. There are never a lot of police in the hospital after a protest.

Ultimately I am not against a “diversity of tactics” per se, but the non-violent form of protest needs to be respected. A demonstration cannot be both violent and non-violent at the same time. I have personally seen in Windsor, Quebec, Washington DC, and Philadelphia violent activists using non-violent activists as a shield. In Quebec for example I was participating in a non-violent sit in, when black bloc activists threw Molotov cocktails at the police from behind the rows of sitting peaceful demonstrators, and then ran away, leaving the non-violent activists to deal with the resulting police tear gas and pepper spray (which the media then blamed the activists for).

If one is truly talking about a diversity of tactics, than non-violent tactics need to be preserved as well. Those wishing to participate in other forms of protest should stay far away from activists engaged in non-violent civil disobedience. They should choose a different date or a different location for violent activities. If they cannot do this, talk of “a diversity of tactics” is hollow. It is also undemocratic.

(Another Update: Apparently I'm not the only one who reacted to this review. Here are more thoughts in reaction to the Media Mouse Review from another blogger. )

Link of the Day
In writing this, I was somewhat reminded of Chomsky's 1971 critique of the Student movement, which, ironically was titled "In Defense of the Student Movement". It's not the same thing, and yet I think some of the issues overlap. Here's an excerpt:

"Scientists can organize to refuse cooperation with such projects, and they can also try to organize and to take part in the mass politics that provides the only hope in the long run for countering and ultimately dispelling the nightmare that they are creating. I think that if an organization of scientists to refuse military work develops on any significant scale, then precisely because of the role that this work plays in maintaining the so-called "health" of the society, they may find themselves involved in very serious political action. I wouldn't be surprised if they find themselves involved in what is called an "illegal conspiracy," in a kind of resistance. In general, I think one can expect that effective politics – by that I mean politics that really strikes at entrenched interests, that really tries to bring about significant social change – is very likely to lead to repression, hence to confrontation.

There is a corollary to this Observation: The search for confrontation clearly indicates intellectual bankruptcy. It indicates that one has not developed an effective politics that by virtue of the way it relates to the social realities, calls forth an attempt to defend established interests and perhaps attempts at repression. One who takes his rhetoric at all seriously will work towards serious reforms, perhaps even reforms that have ultimately revolutionary content, and will try to delay confrontations as long as possible, at least until he has some chance of succeeding."

But that excerpt doesn't do it justice. Read the whole thing here.

Related video on Emma Goldman