How Nonviolence Protects The State
Neon Black | 27.01.2008 00:30 | Analysis | Culture | Social Struggles | Liverpool
American anarchist Peter Gelderloos visited Liverpool's Next To Nowhere social centre last night, to discuss the limitations of nonviolence as a strategy for achieving social change, and sell a few copies of his book, How Nonviolence Protects The State.
Gelderloos - who is facing what looks like a politically-motivated prosecution on terrorism charges in Spain - spoke with a largeish crowd for a Friday evening, delivering a forty minute presentation, which was followed by a wide-ranging, thought-provoking and often heated discussion.
Peter explained how for him - and for other anarchists - the state itself is violence, both physical and mental, against everyone it governs. If anarchy would mean peace and fluffiness, the most important question is how do we get there? He then took on the 'false histories' and premises of nonviolence one by one.
Advocates of nonviolence often point to Gandhi and Martin Luther King as success stories who achieved their goals through entirely peaceful methods. However, Gandhi claimed that violent methods are better than using nonviolence to hide your passivity, whilst King was often protected by the Black Panthers. Neither had nonviolence brought an end to the war in Vietnam. Instead, a combination of Vietnamese resistance and US soldier mutinies had convinced the authorities that it was time for a tactical retreat. By extension, there was no way that exclusively passive tactics could end the Iraqi bloodbath.
He also examined the elitistist nature of nonviolence, a strategy which has little credence in the majority world (where direct physical repression is an everyday reality), but has many followers in the relatively comfortable imperialist nations. He painted a picture of mainly white protesters looking down on the non-whites for sinking to the level of the authorities. It's a moralising attitide which is powerless in the face of direct confrontation with the police and/or military, because it preserves the state's monopoly on force. The state and white liberals lay down the rules of the game, then reap the rewards. For Gelderloos, exclusive non-violence is controlling and therefore inherently hierarchical, especially when supposed 'activists' report their fellow activists to the authorities. My thoughts turned to Stop The War marches when I have seen orange bibbed Socialist Workers Party stewards point-out people taking direct action to the police.
After a short break, we began our discussion. Tempers quickly became frayed, as is inevitable when long-held beliefs are challenged. It was uncomfortable but fascinating to see people struggling to fight their ways through layers of indoctrination by the state and the media, to find out what they actually thought was the best strategy for change. That's not to say that everyone was convinced by the arguments, because they certainly weren't, but I think everyone gained a deeper understanding of the other's point of view. And the perspectives aren't really opposing, as long as we grasp that whatever our tactics, the real enemy is the capitalist state, and that revolution - an act of taking back what has been stolen from us - cannot be entirely passive.
Peter Gelderloos is at the Edinburgh Quaker Meeting House on Sunday, the Star and Shadow cinema in Newcastle on Tuesday, the Common Place in Leeds on Thursday, and the Cowley Club in Brighton on Friday.
Neon Black
Homepage:
http://dreaming-neon-black.blogspot.com
Additions
Feedback from Bristol meeting 23 January
27.01.2008 22:05
Readers may also care to peruse some ongoing debate on the Bristol Indymedia newswire at http://bristol.indymedia.org/newswire.php?story_id=27274
Hi
Bristol hosted the first night of Peter Gelderloos UK tour 'How non-violence protects the state' last night (23 January). Here's some wee feedback.
We actually headlined it on posters/flyers as 'Tactics for social change' and used a book cover image on the publicity. We kicked off at 7pm with tea/cake/info informally and moved into the meeting at 7.30pm. Peter spoke for about 40 minutes, followed by a 10 min break, followed by about 70minutes discussion. Kebele gave a brief intro and set out some 'house rules', but Peter himself facilitated the discussion.
We had approx 45-50 people (our max capacity for biggest room) in the building which is pretty good. Pete seemed a bit rusty to start with, well it was the first nite! His talk was good & informative. The discussion that followed was mature with no hysterics. The vast majority accepted the 'diversity of tactics', with most discussion on how & when violence was a
useful tactic. Pete gave some excellent responses to 'tricky' questions. Attempts were made to focus discussion on tactics for a real/imagined local campaign - this is worth trying as it moves away from old violence/nonviolence debate into the here and now.
Pete sold 8 of his books, and kebele's Infoshop also sold a fair amount of material. £35 quid was raised towards his fares/expenses.
Overall a successful night. Well worth doing. Hope everyone else's event goes as well as ours.
Best wishes to Pete and especially regards his situation in Spain.
Tim @ Kebele
e-mail:
kebelesocialcentre@riseup.net
Homepage:
http://www.kebelecoop.org
Review of the talk in Cardiff
28.01.2008 10:55
The crowd was mostly anarchist, but included a fair few others, anti-militarists, welsh nationalists and a few politics students
THe debate was remarkable friendly and un-heated, and though some people referred to themselves as 'pacifistic' at the start of the evening, by the time we were on the way home, everybody was talking of the concept of 'non-violence' as both elitist and self defeating.
Recommended.
PADista
Homepage:
http://thepad.wordpress.com
Comments
Hide the following 4 comments
Speak for yourself, Neon Black
28.01.2008 16:58
You failed to describe how most of the "frayed tempers" at the meeting were caused by our Resident Airhead aggressively asserting that children do not need protection from violence. She clearly has a problem with people who think that they do.
I find it a strange contradiction that people -anarchists, mainly - who profess to want to bring about a fairer, more equal world espouse violent methods to bring that about. This espousal of violence inevitably produces in them a callous attitude, or at least a disrespect, towards other human beings. Violence is always a tool for oppression, whoever uses it.
Carol
And didn't a supposed anarchist once say
28.01.2008 21:46
I'll stick with the peaceful methods thank you very much, each to their own as long as they don't hurt me or anyone I love.
peaceful and proud
Airhead???
29.01.2008 01:42
Neon Black
Agreed
29.01.2008 20:11
Carol