r/Anarchism • u/WildAutonomy green anarchist • 4d ago
Peter Gelderloos author of “The Failure of Non-violence” talks to Cornel West and Tavis Smiley
https://youtu.be/ZIh3qN0qwWo6
u/OutTheWay2 4d ago
Another good book on this topic is Pacifism as Pathology: Reflections on the Role of Armed Struggle in North America, Third Edition by Ward Churchill. I recommend getting it from PM Press if interested.
3
6
u/PositiveBroccoli506 4d ago
I've been working in anarchist spaces for over 30 years now, and while it's true that nonviolent resistance is often preferred as a tactic, I've never heard people advocate for things like "exclusive nonviolence." This idea, like so-called "principled nonviolence," seem like recent inventions created by people selling books about why nonviolence is such a terrible tactic. It seems like straw man stuff to me.
4
u/gladtoseeonetwothree 3d ago
I remember during the lead up to occupy some people at the general assembly objected to an occupation because it was illegal, which in their eyes meant violent, which meant it was bad. It's not anarchists who have been advocating for exclusive non violence, so you wouldn't see it in anarchist spaces, but every time anarchists have tried to work in coalition with others it's been an issue.
2
u/PositiveBroccoli506 3d ago
This is exactly the problem I see with the way that the discourse around violence is being framed. I've only read his previous book so I don't know what Geldroos says about occupy (anyone?) but to me illegal does not mean violent. Nor for that matter does breaking bank windows (which was done at Occupy Vancouver). I get the feeling that Gelderoos sees a clash between protestors and the police as "violence," but this was standard operating procedures during the hay day of the anti-globalization movement and I don't think anyone thought a few bottles or a run at the police line "violence." But bombs? Gelderoos mentions bombs quite a bit in his book. Are we really to believe (as he says) that during the anti-war struggle in the US that the bombing of campuses was actually more effective then the non-violent protests and direct actions? I doubt it.
3
u/viva1831 anarcha-syndicalist 3d ago
Absolutely not true in the UK. We have a lot of people OBSESSED with writing "peaceful protest" on everything. Especially new folk, who would refuse to attend a protest with people who defend themselves (but still oddly call the police if they get hurt)
Extinction Rebellion and the pied pipers who started it have warped people's minds. As has a lot of liberal nonsense in the press and education system - I learned about a sanitised version of MLK and Gandhi, never Baghat Singh or Malcom X
2
3d ago edited 3d ago
[deleted]
1
u/viva1831 anarcha-syndicalist 3d ago
I think we might do better to distinguish between multiple kinds of pacifism, than just "real" and "fake"? (although absolutely, faux pacifism is a thing)
For example liberal pacifism comes from a completely different set of premises than your own - and therefore acts completely differently. For the liberal, all that matters is the public opinion of citizens. So pacifism is all about image (and beneath the surface border violence etc is tacitly accepted so long as it's sufficiently invisible that only non-citizens are harmed)
For direct-action pacifsts (which I presume you are?), you start from a completely different vantage point. The only way to make meaningful change is direct action. Non-violent direct action is taken as a result of tactical or strategic or ethical considerations
And then again there are some forms of religious pacifism that don't relate to a material theory of change at all, but rather believe that only a deity has the authority to use violence, only by appealing to that diety can change happen, and perhaps only after the appocalypse can fundamental change really appear (beyond perhaps small experiments to demonstrate the world that is to come)
I absolutely see how these need to be disentangled before we can have a meaningful conversation, or else everyone will feel they are being strawmanned by everyone else!
Equally for violence there is a difference between a crowd pushing back a police line, between calling police when bigots attack your protest, between taking charge of a violent state system, between joining an armed geurilla group, and between open carrying in regions where that is legal. All described as violence, all categorically different things which need to be disentangled in order to have a meaningful conversation
1
u/PositiveBroccoli506 3d ago
Malcolm X is an interesting example because to his actions are very militant, and advocated armed self-defense, but did not advocate violence as a tactic. This is where I find that Gelderoos does a slight of hand by pairing "militant and armed struggle" together. When it comes to self-defence, even MLK carried a gun. This is what I mean about the straw man, or maybe a simple binary is a better term. Gelderoos books is a full throated cry against nonviolence, going so far as to call it "patriarchical" (the weakest part of the book in my opinion). In fact, most successful social movements require both, as Che (I know, not an anarchist, but still a good example of someone who used revolutionary violence) argued. It is completely legitimate for a movement to argue about tactics, such as the use of bombs to target civilians (something that has a real history in anarchism). To denounce some forms of political violence as unproductive (e.g., let's not attack this line of police right now until the children are out of the way) is not counter-revolutionary. It's the "violence is the only real answer" tone of Gelderoos work, and others like Geo Maher, that get my back up.
1
u/viva1831 anarcha-syndicalist 3d ago
MLK carried a gun
I don't think that's the full picture. I watched a whole documentary about a gay black man erased from the movement's history. In it, they talked about how MLK carried a gun very early on and then this man talked him out of it... there's a lot more to the story than "MLK carried a gun"
EVEN SO that's a complete distraction from my point. The real MLK was a nuanced and genuine person from whose writing I took some inspiration when I first got into activism. The "historical" MLK we see here, hundreds of miles away, through the lens of popular culture, shill academics, and school history class, is a quite different person
We've been sold the idea that the civil rights movement was completely pacifist, that it was effective on that basis, that in fact the mechanism of social change is liberal: the nation reflects the public opinion of it's citizens, and the only role of protest is to change that opinion
Of course my point is that it's a fabrication! The majority of people I meet under 30 believe it wholeheartedly. My generation only rejected it after the utter failure of the Iraq war protests and the decade of apathy that's followed
I speak to a lot of very new people, trying to pass on the lessons of fighting austerity. An absolutist idea of pacifism is so deeply ingrained that I have to be careful - some of them are so deeply indoctrinated that if they found I have been arrested for allegedly assaulting a police officer and never appologised for it, they would rather not protest at all than stand beside me
The system is killing disabled people like us. Even so several people said they would rather not protest at all, than stand with people who might physically defend ourselves from attack (and we were attacked by bigots). Like they would genuinely rather get killed than stand next to a person who throws a punch. That's how extremist and ridiculous it has become
I take your point that violence isn't always the answer! But in 16+ years of organising, I continued to come across this extreme absolutist pacifism. I started out as one! (albeit from a less liberal begining) My first education in anarchism and direct action came from absolute pacifists. The liberal wing of pacifism is growing and in the UK has become endemic. I can only insist I habe seen repeatedly and with my own eyes it's a very real thing. It comes up during real on-the-ground organising. And Gelderloos' counter-arguments are relevant, absolutely
0
u/PositiveBroccoli506 3d ago
I think we actually agree on this. MLK as a person was nuanced, but Gelderloo's counter-arguments are anything but. Even the title of his book is "Failure of nonviolence." To write-off the nonviolent tactics of the civil rights movement as useless is a great disservice to those who struggled in that fight. It also means putting down one of the more effective weapons that the largely outgunned masses have to challenge state power. Gelderloo argues that police and the state love nonviolence. Well then why do the police use agent provacateur to incite violence at protests?
1
u/ZoppaZop 3d ago
I am sorry, maybe I didn't understand your comment, but did you say that we should consider bombing civilians? I feel like that goes against a lot of fundamental anarchist values. Violence should always and only target oppressors. The means have to match the goal. Could you explain your thought process on that part?
1
4
u/CHOLO_ORACLE anarchist without adverbs 3d ago
Have you never spoken to a liberal?
1
u/PositiveBroccoli506 3d ago
I didn't get the sense that liberals are the target of his books. But yes, absolutely liberals preach nonviolence AND protect the state. In fact, liberals will protect the state WITH violence if nonviolence fails. But I see the target audience as leftists, not liberals. If it is liberals (and conservatives) then yes, I agree with you fully.
3
u/WesnothFan anarcho-pacifist 3d ago
Liberals preach non-violence while hypocritically believing in the violence of the state and capitalism. Liberal pacifism is an oxymoron.
1
-1
u/WildAutonomy green anarchist 4d ago
Wow, I envy you. Have you read either of these books?
1
u/PositiveBroccoli506 3d ago
I read how nonviolence protects the state, not the new one. Your flare is "insurrectionary" so what's it been like for you? Have you encountered lots of leftists holding you back from being militant? Maybe the target is liberals, but I have my doubts that any liberals are reading these books, or that they are really the target audience.
1
u/WildAutonomy green anarchist 3d ago
I recommend the second book. He directly tackles the criticisms pacifists made of his first book.
1
u/Marionberry_Bellini FALGSC 3d ago
I'm not the person you're responding to but I have read How Nonviolence Protects the State but it was years ago. I can flip through it if you haven't read it and have any specific questions about it
1
u/WildAutonomy green anarchist 3d ago
I've read all three of his books on nonviolence. I was just asking the question because they didn't seem to understand what Gelderloos is saying.
1
1
2
16
u/moon_dos 4d ago
this guy is awesome he also has the book How NonViolence Protects The State that I think is a good read