"How non-violence protects the state" - UK tour

Me | 07.01.2008 11:48

A speaking tour of UK autononmous social centres by Peter Gelderloos.

"Gandhi said it's better to resist violently than to use nonviolence to hide your passivity. Meanwhile, Bono, the Burmese military, and 9 out of 10 humanitarian NGOs agree, peaceful resistance is the best!"

Violence never solves anything. Violence begets violence. The government is strong when it comes to violence, we need to attack them where they are weak!

Everyone working for social change is familiar with the cliches of pacifism. And to many people it seems that using more radical, illegal, or violent tactics is naturally isolating.

But what if it's actually our supposed allies, or our own revolutionary practices, that are isolating us? What if violence is something diverse, undefinable, a hopelessly broad category that encompasses institutions that perpetuate oppression and actions that can empower and liberate us?

What if we are all cogs in a violent system, and what if pacifists are tools of a violent system?

People working for social change face plenty of difficult questions, but sometimes matters of strategy and tactics receive low priority. Among many activists, the role of nonviolence as the default mode of struggle bears little scrutiny.

Even as it pretends to contain moral strength, nonviolence is a major obstacle in global movements for social change.

Nonviolence is based on a number of historical falsifications that enforce an inaccurate understanding of revolution, it protects white privilege and the privilege of the Global North, it can reinforce patriarchal dynamics, and it makes anti-authoritarians complicit with the authorities, preserving the State monopoly of force.

Ultimately, nonviolence is created and encouraged by the State, and antithetical to anarchist revolution.

See "Arms and the Movement: pacifism equals pacified" - an extract from "How Nonviolence Protects the State" (2007), by Peter Gelderloos

Tour dates
Wednesday 23rd Jan @ Kebele Social Centre (Bristol) starts 7pm
14 Robertson Road, Easton, Bristol, BS5 6JY
Tel: 0117 9399469
Web: www.kebelecoop.org

Thursday 24th Jan @ PAD (Cardiff) starts 7.30pm
118 Clifton Street, Adamsdown, Cardiff, CF24 1LW
Web: thepad.wordpress.com

Friday 25th Jan @ Next to Nowhere (Liverpool) starts 7pm
96 Bold Street, Liverpool, L1 4HY
Tel: 0151 703 6806
Web: www.liverpoolsocialcentre.org

Thursday 31st Jan @ Common Place (Leeds) starts 7pm
23 - 25 Wharf Street, Leeds, LS2 7EQ
Tel: 0845 345 7334
Web: www.thecommonplace.org.uk

Friday 1st Feb @ Cowley Club (Brighton) starts 6pm
12 London Road, Brighton BN1 4JA
Tel: 01273 696104
Web: www.cowleyclub.org.uk

Saturday 2nd Feb @ Ramparts* (tbc) starts 7pm
15 -17 Rampart Street, London E1 2LA (near Whitechapel, off Commercial Rd)
Tel: 07050 618445
Web: therampart.wordpress.com

Extra Dates
Glasgow // Saturday 26th Jan (tbc)
Edinburgh // Monday 28th Jan (tbc)

* Ramparts is under eviction, please keep checking Indymedia for updates.

For more info on the tour see this web site soon.

Comments

Hide the following 15 comments

Piffle

07.01.2008 12:55

If you use violence to solve a problem then that immediately gives your opposition an excuse to use violence against you and hence it goes around in circles. Violence is what George Bush and Tony Blair use. Don't sink to their level. To win against violence you need intelligence, willpower and cunning. Not He-Man bravado.

Mumraah

So?

07.01.2008 14:53

Unless this guy is suggesting targetting people who have elected to be the focus of violence (the police and the armed services) then he is suggesting attacking civilians?

In which case 'violence' is code for terrorism. At best he's suggestion oppression as a form of coercion. Does it get any more authoritarian than violence as a means of persuasion.

Can anyone clarify this guy's standpoint as I can't find an interpretation that isn't bonkers?

Rank Hovis

To Mumraah

07.01.2008 17:07

Right ... those attributes are obviously in very short supply in the peace movements and activist circles generally, otherwise by now we would have wrestled control away from the state and the elite war mongers. But since symbolic protests are simply that - symbolic - and are "legitimised" by the state (for a variety of reasons, such as giving the appearance of 'democracy' and dissent, but mainly because the state knows they are ineffectual anyway, so it is no risk to allow them), which really reduces the efficacy of a protest anyway. In fact, this arrangement is plainly absurd.

Maybe violence has been the missing piece of the puzzle, used tactically and in conjunction with less confrontational forms of protest and direct action. Moreover, smashing property is not violence - it may be vandalism, etc., but really stretches the concept of violence beyond all meaning to be considered as such. Finally, since 9/11, the monopolisation of violence by the state has completely changed: now violence (warfare and the war on alleged terror) is pre-emptive and concerned with regime change. Violence is no longer defensive, and cloaked in the mantle of security, the boundaries between application of violence to external threats and policing to domestic control has shifted completely. Now, under the guise of "security", the policing and the military functions are blurred and coterminous: we, the common people who dissent, are as much an enemy of the state as those the state has deemed to be a "terrorist" (which also includes ALF and ELF, amongst many others!). For us to play nicely is a luxury neither we nor the planet can afford, and doing so has shown itself time and again to be ineffective, and any changes that might be attributed are largely cosmetic to the extent that anything changed anyway.

So, in short, I conclude that your well-intentioned notions of clinging to some kind of pacifist ideals are well-intentioned piffle. We have to learn to do something differently when what we have been doing for the last 38 years has resulted in diddley-squat!

Hot head

Piffle indeed

07.01.2008 17:12

Going round in circles? Isn't that what that activist groups have been doing for years? Not agreeing with this is a better reason to go than agreeing with it. This is a debate to some degree so come and bring the other side of the argument.

Violence is not what George Bush and Tony Blair use, that is surly naive. Violence is surly inherent to capitalism however what matters is which way along the hierarchy the violence flows.

I can also assure you that the oppressive forces in this world can summon much more intelligence and cunning than we can achieve.

This issue needs more discussion than it currently gets.

Further reading on the topic:
Endgame vol 1+2 - Derrick Jensen
Pacifism As Pathology - Ward Churchill

what the book its trying to say

07.01.2008 17:59

No - I don't think the book is advocating attacking citizens - and yes, violence must obviously be targeted against those who suppress us and others with voilence/coesrion. A major poin, and an important one is this - Ganhdi was aided by guerilla movements who used weaponry, killed oppressors and blew up targets relating to the British colonial infrastructure. Martin Luther King was aided by the black panthers, who formed an uncompromising presence on Civil rights marches and dettered police from attacking protestors on numerous occasions. Both of these men, and their movements were heroic, but why do we ignore the major contribution of confrontational/violent action avocating groups in their struggles. It seems to me that the government probably wants us to remember and celebrate the peaceful aspects of those campaigns as they know that on their own, they are innefectual. By the way, I also happen to believe that voilence on its own is innefectual. A diversity of tactics is the way forward, and in certain situations, i agree with the use of both violent and non violent tactics - it just always seems to be the pacifists who go to great lengths to shit on the 'violent' without forwarding and sensible arguments other than 'it makes us look bad' blah blah'. Im not asking pacifists to punch cops, just to accept that some people who are fighting for the same things as you find it appropriate to do so. I get a strong feeling from many pacifists i know personally that they would rather fail while maintaining the 'moral high ground' than suceed by embracing a diversity of tactics.
Also, in response to the first post - tony blair and george bush don't need an excuse to be violent - they are tyranical butchers, and would have their henchmen act with brutality towards us wether we were peacefully blocking a road or lobbing bricks at them.

And plese - no more comments denouncing me as 'macho' etc. I have already stated I see validity in both arguments, and would sooner not fight than fight, but think that sometimes it is a necessity, and a central component to 99% of succesful liberation struggles througout history.

(A) Sab x

A Guess

07.01.2008 18:05

I think he's using the old "if we start using violence then so will they" argument. In this case, the "and then innocent people will get hurt and it'll be technically our fault" variation, rather than the somewhat more pragmatic "and then we'll get our arses kicked" approach.

Newsflash, 'they' already are using violence. Innocent people are already being hurt and killed, in vast numbers, on a daily basis. The idea that resistance might cause the state to START using violence is ludicrous.

Innocent Dave
mail e-mail: Gitboy@Action4Peace.org

link

07.01.2008 18:41

http://endgamethebook.org/Excerpts/25%20-%20Pacifism%20I.html

I would like to add that I am not arguing for violence over non violence only diversity in tactics. No real social change has happened through purely non violent means. It is my belief that violent and non violent tactics compliment each other well.

also worth a listen

http://endgamethebook.org/downloads.html

Welcome to the UK, please expect but ignore drivel comments as above!

07.01.2008 19:03

Welcome to the UK, please expect but ignore drivel comments as above, its what the British are best at!

@narchist

Stop the Piffle

08.01.2008 00:05

"What if we are all cogs in a violent system, and what if pacifists are tools of a violent system?"

A lot of ifs do not make any proof that violence is necessary.

What if we are not cogs in a violent system, and what if 'pacifists' are not tools of a violent system.

What if you all stop being a cog in a violent system - then there is no need to be violent. Be a peaceful COG.

Brian B

response to Brian B

08.01.2008 11:48

'A lot of ifs do not make any proof that violence is necessary'.
I included in my comment substantial historical evidence to make an argument that voilent protest works hand in hand with non-violent. This is the exact response i have come to expect from die-hard pacifists. The facts are ther in your face - but you choose to ignore them. You posted that there is no evidence to back violence on a thread packed with reasons. As i suspected - you just wanna bury your head and feel sanctimonious about your peaceful lifestyle while ignoring and slagging important aspects of our movement, and vital components of our success. Pacifism on its own is lifestylism and little else. It is interesting to note that the only violent actions i have seen from pacifists have been towards fellow activists who adopt more confrontational tactics.

Please someone, prove me wrong - I want a factual and historically backed explanation of why pacifism alone is an credible way of changing society. I would like to see some sensible arguments from the pacifists, when all i have seen so far is sanctimonious 'moral' whitterings!

(A) Sab x

anarchists stay at home

08.01.2008 14:11

How many "anarchists" are there who dont bother turning up to symbolic, A-Z marches for the reasons expressed above but are also unwilling to put their theories into action and make a meaningful sacrifice for social change, instead devoting much of their energy to criticising the actions of Stop the War and other groups without taking any alternative actions - I, who am also an annarchist, know far too many. Their excuses are either that the marches are purely symbolic and ineffectual or we will all just get kettled in because there are so few of us and will also be ineffectual.
I have nothing but admiration for those few anarchists who do turn up for the big demos and form a block and take autonomous actions risking assault from the police and stewards. That said at least these stewards bother to get up in the morning and turn up unolike your stay-at-home anarchist, saving his energy for the free party later in the day.
As stated above both types of action are necessary and deserve to be supported - the moral-high ground clinging by BOTH direct action and pacifist activists is undesirable although an unfortunate and perhaps inevitable side-effect of activism. The visceral dislike of some anarchists for other socialists and pacifists as if they were the ones killing or making and dropping bombs onyl divides the left and plays into the houses of power. Such self-righteousness can easily be cured by looking at the examples of those throughout history like the panthers who made real sacrifices, or those today like the Brazilian bishop and Animal Rights activists.
Defending ones actions from the criticism of those whose support should be counted on is a different matter, just dont devote too much time to attacking those working towards the same goals or you risk becoming a divisive figure like Tony Greenstein.

twinkletoes

...

08.01.2008 15:43

The only people I see here attacking any ones ideas are pacifists. All the posts above that argue for violence are for diversity of tactics not out right violence.

There is an interesting chapter in the newest crimethinc book 'Expect Resistance' about harmony not unity in movements. Well worth a read. I agree that arguing amongst ourselves is ruinous however there are issues that need to be opened up for debate. This is surly healthy and a positive move towards a stronger movement. The problem may be on what platform this debate happens. But surly talks like this are a start.

I myself try to attend as many demos as geographically and economically possible. I'm sure there is an issue of non-attendance from anarchists on STW marches. I would like to see the STWC allow some constructive criticism on this topic and invite critique from the anarchist perspective as to why this may be. This of course would only be possible with respect for others ideas but not necessarily agreement.

Not much clearer

08.01.2008 16:27

Even if I were to agree to violent direct action, the first problem would be who would be setting the ethics of who should be targeted. Without a public mandate that quickly becomes very dubious and straight away authoritarian.

The EZLN work to a mandate and that has been largely successful in perspective. Without a mandate I can't see what would make it any better than terrorism.

And let's face it, until football and lager are banned there isn't going to be much public support for anything political. The general public already associates anarchists with the brick throwing (state planted?) louts of the 80's and 90's as it is.

Then we have a problem with extrajudical "justice". The state system of justice is already teeming with miscarriages. And extrajudicial system would increase the harm to innocents even more.

Having found myself in the middle of a few riots, I can safely say that when the shit hits the fan any plan goes out the window. And bystanders seem to bear the brunt in all the confusion.

So basically what seems to be suggested is undemocratic (unmandated), extrajudicial retribution.

And that is better than the State how?

Or have I missed something obvious, because I still can't understand any other scenario.

Rank Hovis

cycles of violence

09.01.2008 06:35

I think a non-violent society is fairly synonymous with an anarchist society. On the other hand, our society is profoundly violent on every level. How do we get from one to the other?

Certainly not by rushing towards violent actions. Violent actions create cycles of violence. Here in the Basque country, the violence of ETA has merely become another means of justifying the violence of the state - and ETA, lest we forget, is merely trying to carve out another, smaller state with which to oppress. In fact, ETA has become a very useful tool for the state. I maintain that if the majority of pro-independence Basques were to engage in civil disobedience against the state, it would be a much shorter road to independence. But people are lazy, and as a friend says, violence costs nothing, or why would there be so much of it about?

I've read Derrick Jensen describe the state as an abusive parent, and I agree. But it doesn't follow that the way to deal with an abusive parent is to turn round and smack them in the mouth. There may be other ways - throw away the whisky, maybe? On the other hand, when people who are clearly forced to do so turn and use a minimum of violence to make the point that they aren't prepared to be victims any more (eg the Zapatista rebellion - though it's always easy to verbally support struggles that are far away!), we should be overjoyed, not mobilize our inner policemen like some so-called pacifists.

The family is not just a metaphor, either. It's actually where our deeply rooted attitudes to society and the world are created. Anyone who's tried to raise kids in a genuinely non-violent way knows how hard this is in a society in which hierarchical relationships are ingrained and kids are always at the bottom. Yet this is necessary work if we want to make a non-violent society. Everything springs from there.

emigre

link

09.01.2008 11:04

the article link missing from the post is

http://www.wombles.org.uk/article2007071122.php

Tim