How Nonviolence Protects the State
How Nonviolence Protects the State is the title of a 2007 book by Peter Gelderloos. It can be downloaded free at http://zinelibrary.info/files/How%20Nonviolence%20Protects%20The%20State.pdf
As a long time activist, I have always been troubled by the militant nonviolent perspective that dominates the progressive movement in the US. In some circles, the taboo is so absolute that activists are systematically demonized for raising the subject. I tend to get suspicious whenever I see the politically correct thought police swing into action – especially when they embrace views that are clearly counterproductive to successful organizing (the US left, in contrast to other countries, is a shambles). An arbitrary taboo against specific topics is often a sign that your movement has been infiltrated, either by Cointelpro or left gatekeeper agents.
The systematic misrepresentation of Gandhi’s and Martin Luther King’s views on violence also puzzles me. Neither were militant pacifists. Gandhi clearly articulated situations in which he would advocate violence as a strategy. Whereas as Mark Kurlansky describes in 1968, King employed violence strategically in some of his marches (in which female protestors slapped cops to provoke a violent overreaction) to maximize media attention.
Likewise I have never understood the failure to distinguish between property destruction and interpersonal violence. If anything progressive organizers come down harder on activists who break shop windows (because of its greater harm to corporate interests?) than those who get into scuffles with cops or counter protestors.
Alienating the Working Class
As an organizer, however, what bothers me most is that militant nonviolence is totally alien to working class culture and creates a major stumbling block in drawing blue collar workers into the movement for change. We try to recruit working class activists by appealing to their deep resentment over the unfairness of wage exploitation and privilege. Then we outlaw their natural reaction – to level that privilege by destroying property and looting (to reclaim what they believe is rightfully theirs) or bashing a cop or security guard who is manhandling them or standing between them and food for their kids. I have repeatedly seen blue collar activists marginalized and demonized in these debates. And yet people wonder why they are drawn to the Tea Party movement (which isn’t bound by politically correct niceties) rather than the left.
Reviving the Debate
Obviously I’m extremely pleased to see Gelderloos, American Indian Movement activist Ward Churchill, environmental activist Derrick Jensen and even the culture jamming group Adbusters revive the debate. In 2008 Churchill released the second edition of Pacifism as Pathology: Reflections on the Role of Armed Struggle in North America. This can also be downloaded free at http://www.cambridgeaction.net/images/c/c7/Pacifism_As_Pathology.pdf
Moreover I am unsurprised to learn that the taboo against violent protest isn’t a spontaneous development in the American progressive movement. As in the case of alternate media outlets that refuse to report on 911 or the JFK assassination, there is increasing evidence that government-backed left gatekeeping foundations have carefully inserted themselves into roles where they dominate the dialogue around the issue of violence.
The Government Role in Promoting Nonviolence
Australian journalist and researcher Michael Barker is one of the most prolific writers about the role of CIA, Pentagon and State Department linked foundations in the nonviolent movement. The ones he has followed most closely are the National Endowment for Democracy, the US Institute for Peace, the Albert Einstein Institute, the Arlington Institute, Freedom House, the NED-funded Human Rights Watch, the International Republican Institute, and the International Center for Nonviolent Conflict (http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/38214).
Most of the research into these foundations focuses on their work overseas, particularly their active role in creating “color” revolutions in Eastern Europe and elsewhere. However as Barker points out, the ICNC also has major influence, via its workshops, literature and documentaries, on progressive organizing in the US.
To be continued
7 Comments
This entry is filed under Attacks on the Working Class, Things That Aren't What They Seem and tagged with cointelpro, gandhi, left gatekeeping foundations, martin luther king, michael barker, nonviolence, tea party, ward churchill, working class.
You can also follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Or perhaps you're just looking for the trackback and/or the permalink.
WOW
What an excellent posting!
Nice downloads!
More good stuff for us eggheads to digest
(((3)))
There is a whole basket of PC attitudes that really are difficult to categorise by motive or moral. Are they a sign of left-gatekeeper activity, as you suggest, or are they cowardice by those who, for personal psychological reasons like to talk radical but do not feel robust enough to physically face an adversary. Some may genuinely believe violence is counter-productive within a given circumstance, but this ought to be viewed strategically, and might change as circumstances chance. A few may take a genuine religious or moral view that violence is always unacceptable.
Some things become very ingrained within left-liberal thinking. Here in New Zealand we have the treaty, which is a gift from the heavens to the political / business class as a diversion from dealing with many issues on a real basis. The Maori are told by Honi and Tiriana they will never do any good with the pakeha on their back. The pakeha resent the uber-status of Tangata Whenua. The Wellington political, civil service and NGO worthies wear their “treaty consciousness” as a badge of smug moral superiority over the great unwashed. I digress…..
Kevin, I have just finished reading Pacifism as Pathology and How Nonviolence Protects the State, and I think the PC attitudes derive from a combination of factors. I tend to agree with Ward Churchill that the non-violence movement (in the US at least) is made up of privileged upper middle class whites. I agree with his view the the main reason they embrace non-violence so strongly is because they are conflicted about whether they really want to dismantle capitalism – and give up their position of privilege. The role of the left gatekeepers in this (the Nation magazine is an excellent example) is that they are the enforcers. They make sure that any working class person who even mentions violence is systematically demonized and condemned. In my post today I wrote about the International Center for Nonviolent Conflict and the other “democracy manipulating” foundations that promote nonviolence so aggressively around the world.
Call me crazy, but I don’t remember seeing any Tea Party activists attacking police, burning cars, or rioting and stealing property. Given the high percentage of little old men and ladies on hoover-rounds, that’s not terribly surprising. But still…
The problem at hand is that violence begets violence. The more violent the movement becomes, the more the state is allowed to use force to subdue it. And since the state has superior firepower, in a physical confrontation they will very often win if only by attrition.
Non-violence is not for the benefit of the state but for the protesters themselves. A doctrine of established non-violence makes state excuses for violence on their end less credible. It challenges the conscience of individual cops/security guards. And it gives the protesters themselves a degree of security, knowing that they aren’t walking into a riot from the outset. This increases participation.
The goal of the OWS movement is to affect policy changes. You’re not going to change policy with a fist or a rock or a flaming bottle. We’re playing the long game, and we’re going after hearts and minds. The goal of the OWS movement is to grow until it becomes an indisputable political force. Non-violence creates the environment for that kind of growth.
Zifnab, have you read Gelderloos book? People make the mistaken assumption that “violent” resistance involves attacking the police, burning cars and rioting. It might be a good idea to have a clearer idea of what Gelderloos is advocating before you attack it.
The point I am making concerns the right to violent self-defense. Tea Party never instructed their followers that they had to passively submit if the police clubbed or pepper sprayed them (which never happened since the majority of cops support the Tea Party) or if they were attacked by counter demonstrators. On the few occasions this happened, as I recall the Tea Partiers used violence to defend themselves.
I skimmed it. And from what I read, I largely disagreed.
This isn’t about “rights”. I have the right to speech, but that doesn’t mean I need to run my mouth at every opportunity. And I have the right to bare arms, but that doesn’t mean it is necessarily wise to cart around an assault rifle in my luggage.
Yes, you may be technically correct in asserting your right to violent self-defense. And you may even be successful in scaring off your attacker. But what then? Did you assemble on the UC Davis law to punch cops? Or did you assemble to win sympathy and support from your fellow students?
While Gelderloos argues that a great many historical figures and events were bolstered by violence or the threat of violence, he seems to neglect why violence has grown increasingly unpopular. While blacks under MLK and Indians under Ghandi embraced peaceful protest, their oppressors were happy to engage in militant tactics – lynchings, beatings, massacres, burnings. And while you can make the argument that blacks are still oppressed, or Indians still serve white economic interests, its hard arguing that these racial groups are less free.
Meanwhile, consider the KKK or the CIA/MI5. What happened to them? One was branded a terrorist group by the government and virtually expunged by the FBI. The other is persona non-grata in pretty much every African and Asiatic country you could name. It is the boogie man employed by every penny-ante third world dictator to scare its people into submission and tar dissenters as unpatriotic.
Compare them to the Conservative Citizens Council and the UK/US State Departments. These organizations used political authority to get their way without actively engaging in dead-of-night violence. The CCC is active to this day, and produces some of the most respected politicians in the South. The ambassadors from US/UK can go into pretty much any nation on earth without fear of molestation, thanks to dozens of peacefully forged contracts and diplomatic immunity.
Peace won out, even among the most powerful organizations on earth. Why should the simple protester not follow the same example?
Zinfab, I still think you miss the point Gelderloos is making. He is arguing against the total taboo against any discussion in “official” progressive circles regarding the use violence (even in self-defense) among a range of other tactics. I can see a lot of arguments against strategies employing violence. I, like Gelderloos, fail to see why it’s wrong to even discuss it.
If you want to know why “violence” has become so unpopular among social change circles, you need to check out the vast amount of CIA-foundation funding that has gone into the organizations and groups (Otpar, CANVAS, Albert Einstein Institution among others) that instigated the “color” revolutions in Eastern Europe and Egypt:
http://www.voltairenet.org/The-Albert-Einstein-Institution
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/11/how-to-start-wall-street-backed.html
http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/38214)
The Al Jazeera documentary on Egypt’s revolution: “Seeds of Change”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrNz0dZgqN8