How Non-Violence Protects The State -Recording and Interview

Last Hours | 09.09.2008 09:21 | Repression | Social Struggles | London

http://www.lasthours.org.uk/archive/interviews/peter-gelderloos/

Peter Gelderloos is a radical community organiser from the USA. He has written a number of books including Consensus: A new handbook for grassroots political, social and environmental groups and How Non-violence helps the State as well as being a member of a number of campaigns including local Food Not Bombs, Copwatch and Anarchist Black Cross chapters.

The recording is of the talk that he gave in the RampART social centre on February 2nd, whilst the interview was done the following day in London. (Follow the link above!)

Last Hours
Homepage: http://www.lasthours.org.uk

Additions

Video of talk in Edinburgh

09.09.2008 10:30

Peter Gelderloos's talk in Edinburgh was recorded by AnarchoTV and is available from their website or podcast feed.

Rord Leith
Homepage: http://atvarchive.blogspot.com/2008/04/does-non-violence-protect-state.html

Comments

Hide the following 11 comments

Organised & in defence its good, the keep it spikey campaign in last

09.09.2008 10:48

few decades often helped the state with brew & various other people in dumb stages of their lives provocateuring& or often hitting activists on back of head& sometimes seriously,seriously injuring them with bottles, metal,bricks. Also journalists who set up imc were attacked by young spikey idiots under some"anarchist"propaganda saying all journalist on demo'sm are evil & potentially needed a kicking.
This did not help us at all, I saw people seriously injured often & riots started when not started deliberately by agent provacatuers, sometimes they infiltrate the police or us, or sometimes police just following really stupid orders.
Sod strict pacifism, Ive defended myself from police when necessary & shielded police who obviously arent riot cops or nazis when they are targeted by angry people on our side.
What they want is chaos,riots as an excuse for ze order YA, fuck that if we have to be defensive it must be very ordered & as consensual+ delegated as possible with good comms with for mediation to stop this happening. Violence&lies protect the state!, we need to defend ourselves definetely, but to change the world we need far better communication!!!

red,green,black,pink& silver bloc

tell Ghandi that

09.09.2008 12:27

As soon as you you sink to their depraved level they've got you bang to rights, in jail mate. Still, it takes all sorts to make this world.

Tony Gosling

Read some Gandhi!

09.09.2008 14:08

typical shallow understanding of Mahatma!

"where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence.'"

Hindu activist

Violence

09.09.2008 15:37

I believe Ghandi and his movement suffered far greater provocation then we do and mostly managed to resist the use of violence. I strongly believe in using force if neccessary to defend my principals and ideals but to be honest I don't think Ghandi would agree.

Snoopy

Violence has it's place

09.09.2008 16:02

To say never use violence is silly. Gandhi considered having body guards as 'violence' and look what happened to him. Remember the liberation movement in India wasn't all non violent. Violence should be a last resort but a resort nontheless.

Ruby

Ahimsa, Non-violence and Hinduism

09.09.2008 16:31

Ahimsa (Devanagari: अहिंसा; IAST ahiṃsā) is a Sanskrit term meaning non-violence (literally: the avoidance of violence - himsa). It is an important tenet of the religions that originated in ancient India (Hinduism, Buddhism and especially Jainism).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa

swastik

so swas...

09.09.2008 22:04

...what you're saying is it's mystic bollocks and not sound emancipatory politics?

Thought so!

;o)

johnpaulgeorgeandringothetankengine

Gandhi is no role model

09.09.2008 22:26

> I believe Ghandi and his movement suffered far greater provocation then
> we do and mostly managed to resist the use of violence.

Yeah, by giving up instead - Gandhi called off all his campaigns of civil disobedience whenever he felt they were getting out of his control, he condemned those who struggled along class lines, and so he never got to be in charge as he wanted therefore, on his terms, he lost.

Remember, it's not the brick that scares the state, but the willingness to throw it.

Subhas Chandra Bose

Cowardice, violence and non-violence

10.09.2008 00:26

"where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence."

...and where there is a choice between violence and active non-violent resistance (including destruction of property where necessary and proportionate)? Whoever said that non-violence had anything to do with cowardice? Weapons are for cowards, non-violent resistance takes courage.

dreamer

violence vs non violence

10.09.2008 06:37

while it is true that non violence is not a threat to the state, it is also true that violence is not a threat to the state. i mean, realistically, smashing a mcdonalds window, fighting the cops or whatever is kind of cool, but it is also rather impotent.it is not real political power. also, if the state chooses violence against protestors, does anyone think that protestors could win? if the state starts arresting or shooting people, what can the anarchist do? nothing. i have no answer, but i do not think this guy does either. also, if we talk of violence, then of what kind and to what degree? what is possible in palestine is not possible in the UK, the conditions are so different. what gandhi did in india is not possible in the uk, europe, or US either.

realist