I’ll just say this flat out: non-violence is a luxury of privlege.
You’ll say, “What about Ghandi? What about Martin Luther King?” Ghandi was operating in the context of imperial decline that was already well on its way due to violent resistances in other countries; King in the context of black militance.
I’d love to be a pacifist. Hell, I’m a Buddhist–how can I reconcile violent resistance with the first precept? The truth is, nonviolent movements do not prevent or even decrease violence, they simply displace it onto minority groups and the historically oppressed. Violence is already the reality for those without privilege. And if we can employ violence effectively right now, it can mean less violence overall.
This doesn’t mean we should go nuts. It does mean we need to consider all our options. In a no-win situatuon–like the widescale abduction off dissidents–going out with guns blazing is preferable to naive cooperation. Why? The government is really good at cost-benefit analysis. Enough said.
I’ll leave you with a song.
For more extended arguments against pacifism, see Pacifism As Pathology by Ward Churchill. I was pacifist before I read it.
July 12th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
like when you tried to strangle me with bubble wrap today?
any day now i’ll wake up with a knife in my belly.
jk.
love.
July 13th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
“And if we can employ violence effectively right now, it can mean less violence overall.”
That statement is a circular arguement. Violence now = Violence later. More or less are relative terms and often depend on the point of view of the person or groups receiving the violence. The only way to end violence is to end violence. No violence = No violence. They invented the airplane to make war so horrible it would be unthinkable and peace would rule. As we know the airplane only made war more deadly. They invented the machine gun to make war so horrible it would make war unthinkable and peace would rule. As we know the machine gun only made war more deadly. “A little violence now can mean less in the future?” Where is the proof of that grand generalization. When has this ever happened in known human history. A little violence now just gives justification and rationalization for yet more violence in the future. And not the least, who gets to decide who gets to “employ violence effectively right now.” The police? The mayor? The Preacher the President, the criminal, the abusive husband, the abusive father, you and me? Everyone? This is a common rationalization in abusive relationships. A little violence effectively used right now will make it less necessary to beat my wife/child in the future. Therefore it is a good thing to beat them now. Does this argument work? Is it Moral?
If you are a Buddhist then you know the answers to these questions. It is not easy living non-violently in this world. It is a life of vulnurability. But the spiritual path has never been easy. Violence is the easy answer. Bullying exists because bullying works. People can be scared and intimidated. But becoming the bully can never be the spiritual path. We can live a courageous life without violence. One which takes the justification away from the violent ones and the bullies. Martin Luther King said he believed in “Violent nonviolence.” A life of courageously standing up for your rights. If necessary the laying down of your life for another. Not the taking of someone elses life. If we loose our moral foundation in the struggles then we are just like “them”. It cannot be known now if nonviolence can stop violence in the whole. Humans are imperfect beings. But I believe it is clearly known that violence now will produce more violence later without end.
I believe you know these things. I believe you believe these things. So the question I would ask is, What has happened that you lash out in such anger? Did some thing happen, did you witness something? Has some one hurt you? This is a post which drips with anger and self righteous hate. I am sorry to hear you in that place. My love and my prayers to you. Seek out nature, Our Mother Earth. You are surrounded by vastly more beauty than ugliness.
July 13th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
I have so enjoyed your recent posts on abandonism and what I call “finding the third way”…moving away from polarity. So it was surprising to see this post which seems counter to putting your good energy into life affirming endeavors and making the world anew by creating something wonderfully atttacting. I, too, am wondering what prompted this anomaly of your philosophy. And I know you live nonviolently and I have always respected you for that (among lots and lots of other things!) Keep walking in peace.
July 13th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Let me first clarify so that my statements do not sound too sure of themselves. “And if we CAN employ violence effectively right now, it CAN mean less violence overall.” It is possible. It is not a sure thing. It may not even be likely. But we have to CONSIDER our options.
Now, your analogy about an abusive parent is apt, but backwards, Because we are not the parents beating the children, we are the children being beaten daily. There comes a time in the life of a teenage boy who has suffered enough at the hands of an abuser when he strikes back. If he CAN time it right, if he CAN be powerful enough, he CAN end the abuse.
Secondly, I would love to be a pacifist. Would love to. But looking deeply at the situation, I see that nonviolence only causes further abuse for my underprivileged brothers and sisters. Martin Luther King would have accomplished nothing if he had not emerged alongside a black militant movement. It is NOT that the government wanted to work with King because he was such a nice guy. They were SCARED of the militants, and so they chose to work with King because it became politically apt for them to do so. If not for the militants, they would have ignored him for much, much longer if not altogether. Violence is a terrible reality. But it is reality; and pacifism is false empowerment.
Thirdly, violence is violence. Whether I am defending myself from military police who have come to interrogate me for subversive publications, or being beaten by those police in a detention cell–it is violence. Whether it is a protester throwing a brick at a line of riot police, or those riot police are using chemicals and nightsticks against the protester–it is violence. Whether it is a racist murdering a minority in cold blood or a minority defending his or her life by taking one–it is violence.
Allowing violence to rule over us is the greatest violence.
I have not been hurt or witnessed anything extraordinary. I disagree that my post drips with anger and self-righteous hate. I felt rather dispassionate while writing it. When I read it, it seems dispassionate. It seems logical. Nonviolence is NOT effective, and history backs this. Nonviolence is also NOT nonviolent, because it involves either allowing violence to be wrought upon ourselves, or it displaces that violence onto folks without privilege.
It would seem I am supposed to play a role in this society; I am white, I am educated, I am male–I can be what I want to be. They want me to be an ally, they want me to make money, they want me to vote for them, they want me to do them favors–and when the time comes, they want me to side with them.
For whatever reasons–and I am grateful for them–I have rejected this role. I have chosen to use my intellect, my education, my emotional health and the energy that gives me–to use these things to look seriously at the systems of power that rule over us. And I am constantly revising my thesis on how we ought to respond. Sometimes I react emotionally, but I generally process before I put things into writing.
This post is about reason. Nonviolence is unreasonable. Violence is completely undesirable, and in no way am I saying it should be a first, second, third, or even tenth choice. But we have to consider all options.
Can you honestly tell me you believe those Jews in Germany should have done as most of them did and believed liars who would soon torture them to death? Or should they have died fighting and forced the Nazis to redo their cost-benefit analysis of genocide, likely saving many lives? (Please don’t mistake this as victim blaming, as hindsight is so detached from reality and I do not think any of us would be more prone to resist than they were. As I said in a different post, consecutive decisions can seem rational, but from start to finish it becomes madness.)
I’m talking about self-defense. If I had to kill a man to prevent him from taking my life, I would. If I had to kill a man to prevent him from taking your life, I would. So violence IS an option. And we need to think very seriously about WHEN it is an option.
July 14th, 2008 at 9:08 am
There comes a time in the life of a teenage boy who has suffered enough at the hands of an abuser when he strikes back. If he CAN time it right, if he CAN be powerful enough, he CAN end the abuse.
This statement exposes a lack of understanding of the dynamics of abuse and violence. The Wife/teenage boy who strikes back is not freed from the abuse. Rather it enrages the abuser and escalates the abuse. The violence increases. When a Wife attempts to leave an abusive relationship or strikes back is the most dangerous point in the cycle of violence. The teenage boy who strikes back will be severely beaten and possibly killed. It will not somehow make the abuser stop. If the teenage boy kills his father then he has become his father and will in all likelihood repeate his abuse in his future. This is well documented truth about human nature. “well timed, powerful violence” is not an end to violence. Hitler did well timed powerful violence.
Yes we may be the children. But the cycle of violence is well studied and clearly shown. If we engage in our own violence others will engage in theirs and on it goes. Now the teenager/wife has the option to leave. To do this they need help. They need a safe place to stay, people to talk to to process the violence which has happened to them so they do not simply repeat it in their relationships. They need love. They need community. They need family. They need spiritual healing. This is where the courageous non-violent people live, we live in the tension as healers.
“Martin Luther King would have accomplished nothing if he had not emerged alongside a black militant movement.” This is an opinion stated as a fact for which there is no possible proof. I believe King accomplished a lot in helping a repressed people feel pride and dignity. After King Black people stood up for their rights in millions of small ways every day. Not grand revolutionary social changes. But ordinary people saying they will not be treated as seondary citizens. And I believe if you look back at the “black militant movement” I think you will find that for the most part it itself was non-violent. Sure there were some well publicized shootings by both they and the police. And some did advocate the right of self defense, but for the most part they were raising money to feed the poor and to help people out of poverty. They were not trying to start a shooting revolution. I lived through these times and remember it well.
I would not call myself a pacifist in its pure form. But there is much room between not being a pure pacifist and advocating violence. I believe in the right of self defense. I think stopping Hitler was the right thing to do. (forgetting for the moment that Hitler was created by the same forces that eventually killed him.) I see a huge difference between property damage as protest and intentionally harming people. The challenge to a spiritual life is living in between. Living in the tension. Neither extreem is likely to be sucessful.
But violence as a means of projecting who I am as a spiritual being? Violence as a means of ending violence? The premetated use of violence, by itself, changes who I am.
We often feel powerless. The more isolated one is the more powerless one feels. We need to be together in like minded groups. Your life has been quite isolated this past year. How has this affected your feelings of powerlessness? Violence makes one feel powerful. It is seductive and addictive. It comes from a part of our brain and our evolutionary past which is deep seated and hard wired. We can be better than that. We must.
Peace be with you.
July 14th, 2008 at 11:32 am
We don’t disagree very much, and your response tells me you think that my position is more severe than it is. I can tell that my statements worry you; they need not.
Some of my statements have been poorly worded, and some of them have been poorly considered, but the two most important and the only two you need to consider are: “Allowing violence to rule over us is the greatest violence.” and “I’m talking about self-defense … violence IS an option. And we need to think very seriously about WHEN it is an option.”
Things aren’t so bad yet, but our political structure is as good as a carnival scam, and civilization is ignoring the laws of reality, so it’s only a matter of time. We have a lot of work to do. My theoretical emphasis is on something called the vernacular institution, which I believe can help enable and participate in micosocieties that are equitable and sustainable. This is my focus. But–
If, as we work towards something better, and enemy appears and threatens us with total destruction, what choice will we have but to stop him at all costs? If our actions label us dissidents and they want to put us into extended detention with no evidence–what then?
I’m not saying the answer is violence or that I even have a clue what the answer is. I’m saying, we need to CONSIDER every option, and that includes violence.
July 15th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
I thing this post is intriguing and your arguments are poignant. However, I’m still 90% passive. There was a time in human history were violence solved problems. But I think that as we have evolved physically we have also evolved emotionally. According to American Veterans (association, Group? Something, I forget) 100% of veterans suffer from PTS. Violence and killing eat our hearts, our minds, our souls. It takes decades, years, generations for communities to recover. The memories of violence- of murder, of slashing away our dignity and grace, and stealing life of our enemies- is oppressive. And violence does create more violence, its like a drug. There is ways to empower and to rise above, without violence. And Violence leads to hierarchs, is does not lead to equality. Shall we review the history of the world as an example? Gandhi and King did not simply succeed bc other ppl were violent. Give me an example of when violence worked.
July 15th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Defence however, i do believe in. I will shoot you if you try to shoot me first..
July 15th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
I’m talking about self defense, and I’m talking about community defense. I’m not proposing violence, I’m simply proposing we ask ourselves when it is appropriate.
If you would kill to stop your own murder–and I also would–then there are circumstances when killing is acceptable. We label those circumstances as “self-defense,” but how do we define that?
That’s the discussion I’m trying to encourage.
July 16th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Another angle: Suppose your enemy is coming, and he knows that you’re nonviolent. What’s to stop your enemy? Passionate pleas? Please.
Daniel Quinn described intertribal relations as “Give as good as you get (but don’t be too predictable).” A tribe was willing to go and defend itself against neighbors, because hesitation could indicate weakness and further oppression. To that end, tribes would engage in low level raiding and warfare; not genocide, mind you, but displays of strength and cunning. “Here I am,” they would say, “oppress me if you dare.” They weren’t pacifist, tree-hugging nomads. Nor were they cold-blooded killers.
I wish I had some sources to back me up. Can somebody with an anthropology degree chime in?
July 16th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Hah, exactly.
This country (and the rest of modern civilization) has a history of putting large numbers of people in prisons and camps when they perceive desperate times. Guantanamo is child’s play compared to what they will do if they think they can get away with it. If people board the train with no complaint, they will get away with it, and things will escalate. If we destroy their trains, they will have to reassess the feasibility of their dissident-extraction programs.
July 17th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
How can you possibly claim that “the government is really good at cost-benefit analysis”?
Even granting that ‘benefit’ will always be a subjective term, I don’t think the government is capable of assessing a situation clearly enough to achieve its stated goals. As an example of what I mean, consider the post-invasion Iraq that administration people and conservative bloggers were projecting around 2003. No one had the slightest idea that an insurgency was coming, because ideology, not ‘analysis’, guided their thoughts like a lodestone.
Your Obama post shows that you’ve noticed how few of those who vote really consider their favored politician’s stances on the issues. Government likes to think of itself as an exacting, calculating machine that leaves nothing to chance, but nothing could be further from the truth. It kind of reminds me of our caricature of Nazi Germany as this super-rigorous, scientifically exact regime, when the reality is that it was disorganized and out-of-control at its highest levels. Was Hitler’s decision to fight a 2-front war an example of cost-benefit analysis in action?
July 17th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Hitler was actually just a masochist and got off on the idea of being whipped by a Yank and a Ruskie at the same time.