This is a dialogue the learned Gentiles club had for general audience perusal on the effectiveness of nonviolent revolution. Enjoy.
Dr. Nick:
From 1920 to 1947, over 50 million Indians took to the streets and participated in acts of civil disobedience, protesting the British rule of India. Largely under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi and his philosophy of satyagraha, or "insistence on truth", an unarmed populace resisted the dominant power structure and eventually won independence.
The scope and importance of this singular event cannot be overstated. Indeed, the 20th century was witness to an event unprecedented in human history: nonviolent revolution.
In the decades that followed, other peoples would follow Gandhi's extraordinary example -- Portugal, the Philippines, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, South Africa. In the year 1989 alone, thirteen nations comprising 1,695,000,000 people experienced nonviolent revolutions that succeeded. According to Professor Walter Wink, over 3.3 billion people -- 65% of humankind -- were touched by major nonviolent action in the 20th century.
The idea of nonviolence strikes at the very heart of the human condition, our very history being traced by countless wars and massacres. The possibility of a future with conflict and resolution but without bloodshed is tantalizing indeed. So much so that in 1998, the UN General Assembly proclaimed the first decade of the 21st century, the years 2001 to 2010, as "The International Decade for the Promotion of a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World".
The Problem
As we approach the halfway mark of this "decade of peace" it is hard to imagine the UN proclamation being more detached from reality. The US is at war. Terrorism is on everyone's mind. Nuclear proliferation threatens the very existence of humanity.
We are living in a world radically different from that of Gandhi's time. A world where oppression is arguably as prevalent now as it was 75 years ago, just less overt. Oppression is packaged and disguised, marketed to us by governments and multinational corporations with insidious skill.
The questions I pose are thusly:
* What is the nature of violence?
* Is nonviolence the only way to achieve true revolution, or is violence sometimes the only option?
* Is there a possibility that we as a species are moving toward nonviolence?
gregorscoff:
First, I'll answer the question, is nonviolence the only way to achieve true revolution, or is violence sometimes the only option?
I believe Violence is sometimes the only choice. Yes, when someone tries to kill you often reason will not suffice. Non-violence worked for Ghandi because he was up against a society that was changing itself from a colonial power to a modern information saturated society. The United Kingdom;s culture is the reason non-violence worked for India. I do not believe for example, that we can reason with or appeal to Islamic facists in today's world. Why do I believe this? Becuase they have said so, many times, that the only result they will accept is the death of the Western world to allow for a fundamental Islamic one.
Is nonviolence even relevant in this era of increasing government surveillance, increasingly harsh crackdowns on nonviolent protests (see Miami FTAA, 2004 RNC), and decreasing freedom of speech?
Yes. I think there will always be a place for non-violent conflict resolution, and we should use it whenever humanly possible. For the record, I think it is P.C. activists who hate the freedom of speech more than any other groups I can think of besides fundamentalist Christians and Muslims.
Is there a possibility that we as a species are moving toward nonviolence?
Yes. I think that we are. As I pointed out last time, I do not think that this is because of a fundamental change in humans, but rather the need to do so to maintain civil society among 6.2 billion people. Obviously we have a long way to go, but like you said, anything is possible. I do not think that individuals who kill will stop. I do think that mass state violence will decrease as we are privy to much better information about that violence. In a society with the free exchange of information such as ours, it is hard to execute the level of atrocity seen in closed societies such as the USSR, Nazi Germany, and North Korea.
Sir Christian-A-Lot:
to the first question, what is the nature of violence? Violence being an assertion of power or control physically over another. Usually violence comes as a reaction to anger. Violence is mostly a bad thing, by most of its definitions, but in certain cases it is not. The main case is self defense, survival. The other is that it is a form of judgment, justice, discipline. Pain motivates.
Things like spanking has proven to discipline, motivate, and condition children not to disobey. This same thing has had negative affects on others, like making them more violent, angry, repressed. But no matter the outcome, pain, violence, does motivate. In one way or the other. Hell, just the threat of violence motivates, it's the U.S.'s greatest weapon, the terrorists as well, that and Violence's brother, FEAR. Look at the Libyans, I believe it was, who saw the U.S do what they did to Iraq and they freely gave up their nuclear programs and secrets. The affect of violence comes from the cause, which is sin and thus the ability to die, which is attached to our human nature, Cain killing Able, which is why we will always have violence in this world, like it or not, leading to the second question:
Is non violence the only way or is violence sometimes necessary? First, yes, violence is sometimes necessary, but non violence should ALWAYS be the first option. Before Gandhi, Christ started a non violent revolution. By taking the beatings and cross, he and the early persecuted Christians began a non violent revolution(what the Catholic church later did is another story). But those who were converted did as the doctor suggested last subject, tended toward goodness. That's what the English eventually did, Americans to black slavery. But this technique will not work with those who tend towards evil and they are plenty. The Christians had no good affect on Nero, it was the others who took them to heart. Gandhi's meeting with Hitler would have gone thusly:
Gandhi:(insert Indian accent here) Would you like a cup of tea before we begin? Please... (*that's when Hitler thrusts a knife into him for being such a scrawny, weak bastard.)
He'd be dead. No arguing here, I want affirmation from both of you, that Hitler could NOT have been stopped any other way than with violence. Pacifism only made the Nazi job easier. That goes for guys like Milosevic, Saddam, Bin Laden, the Hutu militia in Rwanda, to name a few in recent history. The Tutsi tribe would have had no affect through non violent protest on those machetes. evil is evil, only good can be affected by non violence. It's like language. I can't communicate with French people so well, I don't speak French. Those who only know violence, or evil, can only understand force and a violent stand. Same with Al Queda. Hate is blind to loving non violence.
Daniel 9:26 in the Bible says " "War will continue until the end." Let's see if the future proves the Bible right, that these ideals or man made Utopian societies are not in the cards for man. You can pretend there will be a world where societies are working toward non violence and hopefully the majority are, but there will always be a Hitler, and a non violent world will never fully exist. We must live in this truth, in this real world and plan accordingly.
But, in most cases, aside from these few monsters I mentioned, there is a better way. Jesus called it turning the other cheek. It doesn't make the law, justice, or eye for an eye wrong, for it IS Just, but turning the cheek is better, it is a higher level, standing on the back of Love, that although we have every Right to do justice in eye for an eye, forgiveness, love is better.
And it's stronger too, harder to accomplish. It's harder to take a hit when you know you can nail 'em back, but instead it takes strength to withhold judgment. The Bible says that a kind word to your enemy is like dumping heaping coals on him, because it sears his heart and conscience (things I shall bring up in my next topic, foreshadowment). It makes them deal with their cruelty. Let us aim for the better things.
That said, it is good now to reiterate that this method is pure stupidity against the Hitlers, against Satan, because these things are evil, and evil has no love in them to feel our pain, to change their heart. Know thine enemy, and act accordingly.
To Gregorscoff, I have actually seen footage of non violent anti war protesters getting violent towards pro-Iraqi war people and of course, the law, the coppers. This is sad. Other than that I think I agree with your stat.
Also, I just had a random thought, and don't know if this will hold under scrutiny, maybe, but perhaps non violence only works in early stages, capturing hearts and minds. But as for those monsters, Hitler, and in Rwanda, they were embedded in hate, the snowball moving forward, they can only be stopped by force. all others have a chance. Changing hearts and minds is a long process, start now. But with the others, swift dealing would be best, start anew. just a thought. seems obvious as I write it, not as radical a thought as I thought. or maybe it is. hmmm.
Dr. Nick:
Violence is about power as SCaL said. It's an assertion of will over another individual or group. Government is merely organized and sanctioned violence. I wouldn't consider all property damage "violence", but as gregor puts it, inhibiting ones means of survival is violence. But just because we might be able to use the same word for the two actions in some cases, there's a HUGE difference.
For example, the Earth Liberation Front, touts among its direct action repertoire the burning of SUVs in parking lots and the sabotage of construction equipment. Yet they have never physically harmed a single human being. So they're in an interesting situation where they're classified as a terrorist group by the FBI, yet the Department of Defense does not consider them as such, the criteria for inclusion in terrorism being harm to people. And while I do not necessarily sanction the actions of the ELF, I think the distinction is important.
To Sir Christian-A-Lot, I'm glad you brought up Jesus, Gandhi and Hitler. Your depiction of Gandhi meeting Hitler isn't too far from the truth. The following is an excerpt from Gandhi's Non-violence in Peace and War in which he offers his advice to the British on how to deal with the impending Nazi invasion:
"I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions.... If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them".
Let's imagine for a moment, what would happen if miraculously the Nazi soldiers entering Britain (or France or whatever), were faced with, instead of an opposing army, hundreds of thousands of people holding hands forming a human chain around the border? Sure, if Hitler was there himself he might have tried to kill every last one of them, utterly consumed with violence as he was. But the Nazi army was made up of human beings, and it's not impossible to imagine that slaughter on this scale might have caused the advancing army to think twice about their actions.
Of course there would be horrendous loss of life, but what was the result of the armed defense to the Nazis? Over 50 million dead in WWII. The establishment of Stalinist fascist regimes in the postwar era that led to millions more deaths. The buildup of nuclear weapons during the Cold War that continues to this day. Indeed, violence breeds violence.
But surely we couldn't have just let the Nazis come in and invade us. Or could we have? In fact, there are many examples of nonviolent action being effective in the face of Nazi occupation. Norway and Denmark come to mind. In those countries, there was little if any armed resistance to the Nazi invasion. Instead, the people simply refused to cooperate with the new occupiers, largely because of Scandinavia's tradition of peace and neutrality. Yes, many civilians were summarily killed, but the Nazis found Norway and Denmark near impossible to control, and this really aggravated Herr Hitler.
Now, I'm not trying to argue that the US shouldn't have gotten involved in WWII, or that countries shouldn't have defended themselves. I'm merely following Gandhi's train of thought instead of completely dismissing the idea.
Sir Christian-A-Lot:
Doc, you said "my previous post gave two examples of nonviolent resistance to Hitler and its ultimate SUCCESS."
Hmmm, success, huh. Is surrendering success? Did their surrendering end the war? Did Hitler fold under the great Denmark and Norwegian resistance? Resistance known as surrender. It couldn't possibly have been the incompetence and infighting of nazi Vidkun Quisling, the norwegian Hitler put in charge of Norway that led to issues of mishandling, no, according to you it was not D-Day, or the Americans entering the war, or the Russians fighting, Hitler's death by bombings, or the threat of the A-bomb that lent to Germany's surrender, but THE NORWEGIAN surrender and subtle resistance, that was so SUCCESSFUL.
It was their LACK of fighting that made the war go on further, it was the world's LACK of fighting Hitler when he first entered Poland that led to millions of jews in gas chambers. It was being neutral that ALLOWED Hitler to get as far as he did. Yet you point to Norway as success in passive resistance-- of which, Norway does not fit your definition of peaceful resistance, like Ghandi would have done, but that of surrender. Not walls of people joined together to show them their atrocities face to face, but surrender. Simple as that.
SUCCESS of the War as you call it, is pitifully found in the surrender of Norway. You surely can do better than this, Doc. Their peaceful resistance may have saved themselves, and piss off Germany rendering their occupation near useless, but it did nothing to STOP the War. Violence, standing up and fighting did that.
You wanted analysis. here it is. You want to know what would have happened if Norway had joined the FIGHT, instead of staying neutral, what affect that would have had on the war. Here's Hitler's own words: "the occupation of Norway; because I am informed that the English intend to land there, and I want to be there before them."
"The occupation of Norway by the British would be a strategic turning movement which would lead them into the Baltic, where we have neither troops nor coastal fortifications. The success which we have gained in the east and which we are going to win in the west would be annihilated because the enemy would find himself in a position to advance on Berlin and to break the backbone of our two fronts. In the second and third place the conquest of Norway will ensure the liberty of movement of our Fleet in the Bay of Wilhelmshaven, and will protect our imports of Swedish ore".
If we had been in there first, if we would have held these startegic spots, it is probable as Hitler said, that we would have broken the nazi's backs and in the war could have ended sooner, thus LESS people would have died. Their neutrality caused the loss of live, perhaps in the millions So much for the SUCCESS of their little resistance, marred in surrender. First of all, I KNOW you didn't really mean to say Norway was successful in ending the war, I'm being sarcastic and absurdist to point out the absurdity of importance you seem to have placed on norway in WWII to be a shining beacon of the power of peaceful resistance. It's the dimmest beacon I've ever seen.
One more tid bit about Norway I found interesting. If you want to know how the movement went during WWII in Norway ask the people. What did they do as soon as the war ended, when thinking back to what they went through being occupied for five years? In 1949, neutrality was abandoned and Norway became a member of NATO and founding member of the collective security philosophy of the United Nations. The very people who did the "peaceful resistance" saw the error of their ways and said, "F--k it, we're joing forces with NATO and those violent American bastards!" If that don't kill the idea of neutrality I don't know what does, the very people who were neutral abandoned it for collective security, if that don't beat all!
Again, this SUCCESS you spoke of did not stop the executions and mass exterminations that took place their nor did it stop the occupance that went right up until the Germans SURRENDER to US, the violent fighters. So what are some other examples of non violent resistance I can tear a new one too, atleast in regards to dealing with monsters like Hitler and the like? In these cases it just will not work.
gregorscoff:
Now, I do agree that non-violence is a viable and desirable strategy even in the global political arena. I do not agree that it is appropriate in instances of extreme ideology. The Nazis would not have laid down arms if the Frogs had stood in a love circle around Paris. Yes, the Nazi army was made of lots of individual people who love their mommas and bratwurst and what not, but many of them had bought into an ideology and were willing to die for it. Goebel’s wife killed her children near the end of the war because she said that she could not bear the thought of them living in a world that was not National Socialist. The Japanese considered it a great honor to fly suicide missions for the Empire. How could non-violence work against that? What did work? A fucking nuclear bomb. Now the Germans and Japanese are in a political and economic sense some of our best friends in the world.
Again, I think the success of Ghandi's movement has more to do with the advancement of Anglo culture which had colonized India. The great individualist and freedom loving philosophers were all Britons, Scotsman and their American descendents. J.S. Mill, John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Henry David Thoreau. The extent to which non-violent movements such as the Indian and U.S. civil rights movements were successful was a direct result of the changing ideas within Anglo-influenced culture.
Here we are in the 21st century after 300 years of Anglo Enlightenment and have we changed? I think so. Look at our war in Iraq. The U.S. military takes great pains to mitigate the killing of Iraqis. That may sound laughable, but consider what a change it is for militaries to try and not kill people. We have an international crisis when it comes out that we 'embarassed' captured terrorists by stripping them naked and putting bags on their heads. We don't cut off their heads – but they cut off ours.
In order for the U.S. to win a war, we have to continually sell it to our people as something that is not cruel or tyrannical. Do you think that Hitler had to sell the war to his people? Did anyone save the people in charge of them really know what was going on in concentration camps? If the U.S. somehow elected a Hitler into office the only way he could get away with such atrocities would be to totally disband the press. And how could anyone do that now?
I hope I am not off topic, but I think geopolitics are totally germane to the topic. If the U.K. had still been a military monarchy - as opposed to a parliamentary figurehead-monarchy - in the age of Ghandi, none of us would know Ghandi's name. There were probably non-violent resisters to Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao etc. Those resisters are likely in a mass grave today.
I can anticipate that many would criticize this position. To a certain extent Dr. Nick did by saying that ‘violence breeds more violence.’ I agree, it does tend to do so when it is in the name of power rather than freedom. Our use of violence in an affluent and free society should be limited to preserving our affluence and freedom. I think it is. The result of the violence we have committed against Japan, Germany, Russia, Panama, the Sandinistas, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. etc. etc. has been the saving of untold numbers of lives.
In terms of our current geopolitical situation, what good does non-violence do against people who walk into public areas and kill as many innocent bystanders as possible? Weren’t the people on the London subway, the Madrid Metro and the WTC practicing non-violence? Again, I know the response is that they were the ‘little Eichmans’ who facilitate violence passively. But seriously, did I miss something? Is the U.S. military really out there conquering nations and oppressing people at gunpoint? Do we plant the U.S. flag on foreign lands and spread our empire? I absolutely do not believe that. Every move the military makes is on simulcast on cable television. Every military move we make is scrutinized by the whole world. The key is that we are held accountable in our use of violence. Our main motivation is to ensure our peace and prosperity. The best way to do that is to ensure that those things exist in as many nations as possible. When is the last time we seriously considered war with the U.K? I think it was 1812.
In the words of the noble satirist P.J. O’Rourke “Peace Kills.”
Sir Christian-A-Lot:
Gregorscoff is bringing up the relevent new problem of pre-emptive violence when he speaks of Afghanistan and others. Before 9/11 I was upset when I saw Clinton send our troops into Bosnia, into kosovo, bombing Iraq in the midst of the Lewinsky hearings.
I thought we shouldn't play saviour to the world, just take care of ourselves, maybe send weapons and equipment, but not our citizens to die for others. That was BEFORE 9/11. Now I get it.
I get it on two separate levels. This world, especially now, is far from isolated, and what we others around the world do affect us. We can't be passive, we can't sit in a love circle, we have to fight. We have to do what we can to assure our safety, even if that means tampering with other countries who are dangerous, who are against us. Clinton was right to try as he did, where he went wrong and Vietnam went wrong is we "tried" half-assed. We also are all humans and need to help others achieve the same freedoms we have.
Violence is bad. It is a sad effect to the nature of our world and humanity. But this is the only world we live in, not some ideal. And being that the world is getting smaller, and rogue, guerrilla groups mostly in the name of Islamic fascists, are doing all they can to disrupt and eventually destroy the "Free" world. You can't speak to that, have tea and talk it over with these people, and in these circumstances our only viable choice is to defeat them. How, that's another topic, fighting no government, individuals, has never been done on a mass scale, like the war on drugs, it may be futile. Again, another topic.
But where it is on topic, our current dilemma points to the FACT that non-violence cannot win these people over; maybe we can change the hearts of their children and we should try with all our might, but to those who say WE must be destroyed no alternative, well, it's survival time now, us or them, subway bombings or fight back, do we want to become Israel, or do we build that dam against internal violence now? I say we must, and that means violence.
I agree with Gregorscoff, in that the only way to get power from those oppressive types is to, well, KILL them. The best non violent revolutions can take place in societies like ours, though it's still really hard, but here you can change minds, play to people's belief, their love, freely exchange ideas and change hearts. In this case non violence is MUCH more likely to change things. Violence here just makes us unsympathetic to the revolution's ideas, and they are promptly squashed. The Black Panthers didn't change hearts and minds.
Dr. Nick:
To go in another direction for a moment, From my interpretation of the New Testament that Sir Christian holds to, we are not to inflict harm on our fellow man. Justice and Judgment are relegated to God and are not for this world. We are to love one another, including our enemies, turn the other cheek. Simple as that.
So I ask, what would Jesus do against the Nazis?
Sir Christian-A-Lot:
I'm glad you brought up Jesus, but you seem to misunderstand Love. Love isn't allowing someone to do whatever they want with no consequences, like some idiot. You can love someone but still bring justice. If You were addicted to drugs, and Loved according to you, I would just watch you die, not judge, and not act. MY Love would be putting you unhappily in rehab, or locking you in a room to get off cold turkey, your life being a living hell for perhaps weeks. As you know, Love hurts sometimes, thus the song, and it can be painful.
Love loves truth, Justice. The price for sin was death, violence. And someone had to pay that price. That's justice, and Jesus paid that price, took our judgment in Love. But love doesn't cover justice, there are consequences to our actions. Jesus came to "Destroy death and the Devil." That doesn't sound nice, throwing him into the Lake of fire. Hell is judgment. Jesus may well have loved Lucifer, but he will be punished. Love doesn't mean accepting someone's actions, even if they are wrong. I can still love a person and not the action. Though Jesus loved everyone, even enemies, he said of his enemies," I give you power to overcome the power of the enemy." or when he said this " when a strong man, fully armed, guards his house, his possesions are safe." "Do you think I came to bring peace on earth, no I tell you, I come to bring division. I have come to bring fire on the earth." Love isn't about being safe, accepting others, love makes a stand on truth." unless you repent, you too will all perish!", he says. There are consequences to our actions. "God will see that the people get justice" Jesus said.
Jesus doesn't turn the cheek to evil forever. He turns his cheek in a moment, in Crucifixion, but in the end he will bring judgment. The lesson Jesus gives is patience, is servanthood, allowing people to see the error of their ways instead of instant judgment, like Gandhi did to the British, you are right, Doc, that this should be our first mode of action. But there is a POINT, a time when action is necessary. Jesus will judge us all, and we as humans need to be wise, and know when it's time to turn the cheek, and the time to stand up to wrongdoing, to stand up to evil and persecution, to defeat death and the devil. Love cannot stand holding hands with evil. Love cannot exist this way. Love must defeat evil at some point, AFTER showing patience and covering sin with love (turn the cheek). In the end, Only with separation from evil can love then permeate all who take hold of it. This is love.
OUR Conclusion In the discussion titled "(Non)violence and (R)evolution", the following questions were posed by Dr. Nick:
What is the nature of violence? (eg. Does property damage constitute violence?)
Everyone is pretty much agreed that violence is a physical assertion of power over another sentient being. So while property damage is not violence by this definition, it is its kin as the aspects of control and assertion are present in both situations.
Is nonviolence the only way to achieve true revolution, or is violence sometimes the only option?
The general morality of violence in general was first discussed.
Both SCaL and Gregor agreed that nonviolence is preferable and should always be the first option, but that violence is sometimes necessary, namely in the case of self-defense. The example of the Axis powers during WWII was used, whereas it seemed violence was the only solution to end the war, arguing that nonviolent tactics would never be effective against the Nazi army or Japanese kamikaze bombers.
Dr. Nick, for argument's sake, took up the opposing view and argued the issue from the point of view of Gandhi. He pointed to instances during WWII regarding Norway and Denmark, countries which engaged in nonviolent resistant to the Nazis as evidence to the contrary. He argued that if there was no violent resistance to the Nazis and they were allowed to take over the world, the resulting oppression could be fought through nonviolent civil disobedience and noncooperation. The rationale being that violence will always breed more violence (which Gregor agreed with to some extent) and pointing to the creation of Stalinist fascist states and nuclear proliferation as the fruits of the violent so-called success of WWII.
Interestingly, SCaL pointed out that both Norway and Denmark abandoned their tradition of neutrality following WWII by joining NATO.
In the narrower case of nonviolent revolution (as opposed to state-sponsored violence), Gregor's opinion is essentially the same, ie. we should strive for nonviolence and resort to violence only when it is absolutely necessary. SCaL did not weigh in on this particular instance, but it is presumed his position is similar to that above.
For the record, Dr. Nick, in true agnostic fashion, remains unconvinced by either side. He has no moral opposition to violence in the case of self-defense, though has some hesitation accepting it as a valid process for "revolution". Still, he finds Jesus-Gandhi true pacifism intriguing.
Is nonviolence even relevant in this era of increasing government surveillance, increasingly harsh crackdowns on nonviolent protests (see Miami FTAA, 2004 RNC), and decreasing freedom of speech?
This was mostly addressed by the discussion of the previous question. All agree that nonviolence will always be a viable (and preferred) means of conflict resolution.
Is there a possibility that we as a species are moving toward nonviolence?
Gregor and Dr. Nick both agree that mass state-sponsored violence will decrease in the future, largely due to better access to information and the need to maintain civility among an increasingly interconnected world.
SCaL remains highly skeptical, believing that "war will continue until the end" as the Bible says.
