Forums of the Libertarian Left

[Mao Tse Tung]

Right-Libertarianism is bottom rung hierarchy.

Assuming both are true, will you become Maoists when the time comes? As in, when Adolf der Fuhrer part 2 reveals himself.

[Rorshak (1313)]

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here.

[Darian]

[AlaskanAnarchist]

Hahaha no.

[lordmetroid]

You do not make sense, why would people following the most peaceful philosophies turn the other way and start killing millions after millions?

[Zanthorus]

Why would people following the most peaceful philosophies turn the other way and start killing millions after millions?

Here take this (Image is clickable):

[lordmetroid]

I would have read that but ohh so tiresome, could you please if you have read it summarise...

[Zanthorus]

I would have read that but ohh so tiresome, could you please if you have read it summarise...

Basically:

• Nonviolence has never historically worked. The success of the liberation movement in india was due in no small part to militants like Baghat Singh as well as British losses from the first and second world war and when the negotiations finally started it was the british who controlled the terms and ensured india was still as rigidly heirarchical and economically weak as they had left it. The Civil rights movement established de jure equality but it didn't establish de facto equality which later militants such as the Black panthers actually made headway in achieving although even now Blacks tend to live in worse conditions that white. The civil rights movement at times co-opted the actual struggle for equality and held back significant changes.
  
• Nonviolence is patriarchal i.e someone who is opposed to violence will by logical extension be forced to deny rape victims the right to use force and/or deadly violence against their attacker and victims of domestic abuse the right to fight back. This also has historical precedent as MLKJ'S SCLC was patriarchal in nature and King treated one of the groups female founders like his secretary. In contrast the militant black panther movement often had women in positions of highest authority and some femal panthers described it as a women's movement. There have also been several other example's of violent activism by women such as Mujeras Creando in Bolivia.
  
• Nonviolence is authoritarian because it denies fellow activists the right to use the tactics they see fit in bringing down the state and attempts to oppose uniform nonviolence on radical movements through top-down structures and even by utilising the police at protests.
  
• Nonviolence is statist because it allows the state to maintain it's monopoly on the use of force.
  
• Nonviolence is unjust to revolutionaries fighting for basic freedoms and food/clean water etc in poorer countries and most pacifist theorists have been white middle class males living in general comfort. This is generally covered up by the throwing around of a few token people of colour who genuinely suffered often forgetting for example MLK's support for the southern vietnamese shortly before his assasination.
  
• Nonviolence is deluded. The ruling classes are painfully aware of their class interest and will not merely give way once they've been given significant education. Furthermore education is insignificant as a strategy since the corporate media have managed to hypnotise people through the propaganda model laid bare by Noam Chomsky. Even with the rise of the internet Chomsky notes that the propaganda model has become so ingrained in most people's psyches that they will still generally tune out voices of dissent.
  
• The debate between advocates of 'violence' and 'nonviolence' is a false dichotomy anyway. The term 'violence' is first of all loaded with connotations and would be better replaced by 'revolutionary activism'. And people who support revolutionary activism need not confine themselves soley to those ends and are free to utilise nonviolent means when necessary however people who restrict themselves to nonviolence do not have these freedoms. The debate is actually between those who want to confine themselves to nonviolence and those who support a diversity of tactics.
  
• Violence is so badly defined that it's hard to take a principled stand against it anyway. Would for example the sabotaging of factory machinery during a strike to prevent the owners hiring in scab workers count as violence? What about destruction of military weaponry through use of explosives that doesn't actually cause any deaths or injuries?

That's all the points I can remember for the moment.

[ProstheticConscience]

I read it a few years ago, found it only superficially appealing. Basically, the problem with that book from my perspective is that the failures of nonviolent peace and liberation movements have mainly been strategic, not tactical. Advocating a "diversity of tactics" doesn't really address the real problem.

Nonviolence theorist Parke Burgess has a review of How Nonviolence Protects the State. I don't agree with it entirely, but it does point out various weaknesses of Gelderloos's argument.

[Zanthorus]

That review was pretty terrible actually. At least I thought so. Gelderloos addresses most of the points in his book.

Let's say I need $10,000 in a real hurry. I can go into any gun store, buy a gun and some ammo, head to the nearest bank, put the loaded and cocked gun to the teller's temple and say, "Give me $10,000!" Then I can walk out of the bank, maybe shoot a few cops who have come screeching to the scene, and disappear into the night. Presto! Violence works!

Now, I did expose myself to a lot of risk in the short-term for those $10,000. I might have been captured or killed. But, I got a little lucky and got away with the money. For now. There remains a significant risk, however. At any moment, the FBI could knock down my door and haul me away, probably to serve decades in prison. But even if they never do, I still have to deal with the fact that they might.

That's a pretty bad example IMO. We aren't talking about stealing anything we're talking about strategies to overthrow a territorial oppressor, i.e if we actually achieve our goals then there won't be any FBI to come knocking at the door.

What's more, he hasn't even begun to make the case that nonviolence CANNOT work. In fact, Gelderloos never completes any argument to defend the title of his chapter--that nonviolence is "ineffective." He has only shown that it was not as effective as some would like to believe in these several instances.

Well since those are really the only examples of nonviolence in practice and they weren't actually the result of nonviolence it certainly weakens the opposing case significantly.

But in no case has such a victory moved the world fundamentally away from violence and oppression. It just doesn't work that way.

Catalonia, Ukraine etc

It is not the elite that is persuaded by nonviolent direct action, but the multitude.

Nonviolence can actually be pretty alienating to anyone truly interested in the cause.

An effective nonviolent action is one that arouses the complacent masses to join in the movement and reinvent the distribution of power in society. The elite becomes persuaded, if it ever does, only by the impending collapse of the multitude's complicity in the existing hierarchy of power.

Gelderloos cites several examples where nonviolence reached the legendary 'critical mass' and the only thing that happened was that power changed hands from capitalist to capitalist and protests died down because they had nothing left to them.

What's more, it's exactly the kind of mobilization most feared by the state. States are expert at fighting violence with violence. "Bring it on!" they might say. But nonviolence informed by moral rectitude threatens the very basis of state power.

If states fear nonviolent protest so much then why are they always so eager to suppress violent protest and yet allow nonviolent protest?

Also -

For maximum effectiveness of the Counter Intelligence Program, and to prevent wasted effort, long-range goals are being set.

1. Prevent the coalition of militant black nationalist groups. In unity there is strength; a truism that is no less valid for all its triteness. An effective coalition of black nationalist groups might be the first step towards a real “Mau Mau” in America, the beginning of a true Black revolution.

2. Prevent the rise of a “messiah” who could unify and electrify the militant black nationalist movement. Malcolm X might have been such a messiah; he is the martyr of the movement today. Martin Luther King, Stokely Carmichael, Elijah Muhammad all aspire to this position. Elijah Muhammad is less of a threat because of his age. King could be a very real contender for this position should he abandon his supposed “obedience” to “white liberal doctrine”(non-violence) and embrace black nationalism. Carmichael has the necessary charisma to be a real threat in this way.

[lordmetroid]

He seems to believe the enemy is the police, the politicians, the bureaucrats.
I do not, I believe the enemy is all in our heads, people trembles in fear and those who do not worship the state as a religion. According to my predictions based on historical revolutions, killing people will not improve anything it will most probably just put an even greater and slier thug than what previously was in charge.

[Zanthorus]

1. I don't advocate killing anyone, by 'violence' I mean sabotage of machinery, property damage etc and maybe physical violence to defend against police and military brutality

2. Historical predictions based on previous events? Because that has worked so well in previous radical theories..... *cough* Marxism *cough*

I think you're kidding yourselves if you think totally non-violent strategies will ever work to defeat the state. Ironic really when Market anarchists are always the first to criticise anarcho-commmunists and collectivists for hypocrisy concerning welfare, healthcare etc yet when someone brings up the prospect of a revolution they turn into apologists for the state.

Don't get me wrong. If you can make your nonviolent revolution work then all power to you. I however remain skeptical.

[RoyceChristian]

If states fear nonviolent protest so much then why are they always so eager to suppress violent protest and yet allow nonviolent protest?

Strictly speaking, they don't even 'allow' non-violent protest, except in circumstances where that non-violent protest is so impotent as to achieve nothing -- I'm talking teachers strikes when they gather in front of parliament or marches against wars when the government has already decided to commit us. The latter happened at the start of the Iraq war in Australia, massive marches were organised in all the major cities across the country with millions of people participating meanwhile the media lied, claiming that only a few thousand took part in each, and the Ausralian government ignored them as Howard had already decided to follow the US to war. Otherwise, Governments love to restrict and shutdown any non-violent protest that shows the potential for any kind of real change. Licenses, permits, 'crowd control' and the 'pre-emptive' raids on people who coordinate these efforts pretty much show that dissent is not tolerated, no matter what form it takes. Then there's also the necessary propaganda that an MP will use to get at members of the movement.

[lordmetroid]

Who said protesting was something I advocated, I strongly advocate against protesting or as I see it, grovelling in the mud and lick the boots of ye master giving him ego power trips from your behaviour.
I advocate non-violent revolutionary actions and showing people that there real enemy is there fears of the masters and you should stop being controlled by your fears.

[ProstheticConscience]

1. I don't advocate killing anyone, by 'violence' I mean sabotage of machinery, property damage etc and maybe physical violence to defend against police and military brutality.

See, if that's all Gelderloos was advocating, I'd more or less be on board. I don't consider destruction of capitalist property to be violence (though I'd rather said property be appropriated than destroyed), and I consider immediately-defensive interpersonal violence to be legitimate when truly necessary. (I reject, however, Malatesta's argument that all violence on the part of the oppressed is inherently defensive.)

I think HNPtS is a worthwhile and challenging book, especially the chapter on goals, strategy, and tactics. However, I think where his argument is successful, it is only successful against a degenerate form of nonviolent activism -- that practiced by contemporary antiwar groups like United for Peace and Justice. It's true that the big nonviolent protest marches organized by such groups are no threat to the state, and that those groups self-police so the state doesn't have to. But UFPJ and similar groups have much bigger problems than nonviolent tactics, the biggest being that 1) they are liberal organizations, not radical ones, and 2) they have no coherent strategy (partly because they have no coherent goals, partly because no one in those organizations studies strategy). The nonviolent activist community needs much more radicalism, and much more education on strategic theory, as well as on a wider variety of nonviolent tactics than they are actually currently using. I think I'm particularly in agreement with RoyceChristian here.

The biggest problem with his position is that it is essentially vanguardist: he seems to believe that a society can be liberated without the support and understanding of a majority of the population. That you can violently overthrow the elites and somehow then find yourself in a nonviolent liberated society, despite the fact that the bulk of the population is fine with the political use of coercion, and despite the fact that no alternative structure to society has been built for people to live in. That was tried by the Leninists, and failed. It would fail if it were tried by well-meaning anarchists, who would find themselves forced to either cede power to warlords or a reactionary state, or to take up the mantle of the state themselves to defend the revolution (as did the Leninists). In this, I am completely in agreement with Lord Metroid. The new society must be built before the shell of the old can be fully dismantled.

I do think that truly self-defensive violence would probably be necessary in the final stages of a nonviolent revolution, as the state tries to assert control over a population, society, and economy that have long since passed out of its control. I think Kevin Carson has made this point, IIRC in "A 'political' program for anarchists". But even violence that could reasonably considered legitimate (e.g. shooting cops who bust into your house in a no-knock raid) can only be part of a doomed strategy before this point.

One side note that I couldn't think of anywhere else to put, I think Gelderloos inadequately distinguishes between violence in self-defense, and violence as a tactic in a political strategy. This is especially true in his argument that violence is patriarchal. I regretfully accept the occasional necessity for the former, and reject the latter categorically. This closely ties in to the discussion of ends and means which Gelderloos does address, but not as strongly as I think he ought.

[neverfox]

That's pretty much my take on it, PC. Good summary.

[Ardvark]

The biggest problem with his position is that it is essentially vanguardist: he seems to believe that a society can be liberated without the support and understanding of a majority of the population. That you can violently overthrow the elites and somehow then find yourself in a nonviolent liberated society, despite the fact that the bulk of the population is fine with the political use of coercion, and despite the fact that no alternative structure to society has been built for people to live in. That was tried by the Leninists, and failed. It would fail if it were tried by well-meaning anarchists, who would find themselves forced to either cede power to warlords or a reactionary state, or to take up the mantle of the state themselves to defend the revolution (as did the Leninists). In this, I am completely in agreement with Lord Metroid. The new society must be built before the shell of the old can be fully dismantled.

This qft.

[SocialPrincipal]

Another Review. It argues that Gelderloos criticizes non-violent struggle with standards that no violent struggle has managed to live up to.

[ProstheticConscience]

Another Review. It argues that Gelderloos criticizes non-violent struggle with standards that no violent struggle has managed to live up to.

Thanks for the link, SocialPrincipal. That review is really a lot better than the one I linked to before, in that it specifically contrasts nonviolent action with conventional political action, focuses on the pragmatic nonviolent tradition, and discusses the importance of strategy.

[Marja]

I have yet to read Gelderloos' book, although I have read the second review. I have definitely noticed that opponents of nonviolence use the term much more restrictively than supporters of nonviolence within the anarchist milieu; however, they do not seem to use the term much more restrictively than radical supporters of nonviolence outside the anarchist milieu.

There is always the question of whose nonviolence any discussion refers to.

For example, various reformists accuse anarchists as anarchists of violence. I point out the violence involved in voting, in policing, in courts, and so on. Working within the system is not an alternative to violence; wars and prisons are far more violent than any murderer. I tend to downplay the differences between anarchist, or primarily anarchist, nonviolence and pacifist, or primarily pacifist, politics in these contexts.

The pacifist approach tends to extend nonviolence into the rejection of property destruction, of noncooperation, of even insults, in favor of civil disobedience and "speaking truth to power."

The point is to smash power, not to persuade it.

Most anarchist approaches begin with strategic nonviolence. Mine included.

In my view, violence is extremely dangerous. It empowers centralized states against decentralized networks; unity of command is important in war. It grants social power to killing-power, where the general strike and most economic approaches merge social power into labor-power, and where exploitation requires one side with disproportionate social power to exploit another side with disproportionate labor-power. It undermines ethical considerations. It can lead to cycles of escalation, and to massacres by both sides. Keep in mind that opposing self-defense forces may clash and this may escalate.

To rely on force of arms is to march towards Eichenfeld.

In my view, violence in an anarchist society, including any by community militias or private police, is at least as problematic as violence in its creation.

[Vichy]

I would agree that non-violence (ala Tolstoy or Thorough) is essentially ineffective. I would also say that revolutionary violence has absolutely zero positives on its record. I would say what is more effective to the destruction of an empire is ideological indifference and self-interested disobedience. A State's rule is essentially predicated upon ideological submission; for people to choose to do as it ordains because they believe in its 'perfect right' to do this and that; or at least to do things 'in principle' if not in particular. A State with no formal recognition or material support has no power, and a state with no power will be replaced (not overthrown, nor taken over) by one that does have formal and material power.

There is no 'right' which is not also might, and no might which is not also a 'right'.