Nonviolent resistance vs violent resistance

There is a natural assumption that pacifist tactics in the face of tyranny is not only superior but essentially effective. Now as I can agree with the former I am not sure if I believe in the assumption attached to the latter. Is it reasonable to assume that non-violence is only a tactic and not a way of life and that if it fails to work violent resistance is required?

Doesn't the insistence that non-violent resistance is desirable in all circumstances assume that peace is natural and perpetual peace attainable? How many believe that we can live in a peaceful earth where violence does not come into play and that renouncing violence can lead to victory against tyranny?

Someone said that violence begets violence does it follow that peaceful actions begets peace?

When, if ever, should a group or an individual use violence against tyranny? Is violence as self-defence against brutality always the wrong call? I'm trying to figure out if organizations and groups should always prescribe to pacifist actions no matter the circumstances which is really what pacifists seem to believe.

How many would agree with the assumptions in this post:

For thousands of years violent conflicts has also been used to establish unjust regimes and maintain socio/political horrors. It’s a chicken-and-egg situation—violence perpetuates violence. There are ways to organize, cooperate and work for more justice without killing people or inviting murder by government police. To do so requires resistance, but not violent resistence. To do so requires the courage to be willing to risk being killed, but to also have the courage (and the common sense) not to kill in retaliation. Nonviolent resistance, as well as being a morally superior strategy and tactic, requires even more courage than violence. Violent opposition fears nonviolence because violent force knows how cowardly it looks when it oppresses and abuses nonviolent people. Violent opposition against nonviolence inevitably loses its moral credibility. And its creative ability, its ability to think of new and better solutions. It deals in death, not life."

Is it really superior to sit and allow oneself to get beaten instead of fighting back? As a tactic I can't help but think that violent revolutions, though not desirable, worked fine in places like France as well as the United States.:shrug:

Violence can backfire against a group fighting for specific aims but I can't help wondering what would have happened during the rise of Nazism if Jews had organized and actively fought being sent into ghettos.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here is an excerpt from an opinion piece that plays devil's advocate in the interest of violent resistance as an option:


When the good are persuaded to never ever be violent, in thought, word, or deed, then the evil are free to do whatever violence they choose, whenever they wish, to whomever they chose to do it to, with total impunity — no fear of punishment.

http://chenangogreens.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=492&Itemid=1

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Depends upon the situation. If you knew that by fighting back you would be killed then I'd think you shouldn't fight back at that point in time. Instead wait for an opportunity to strike back when you have a better chance of winning or the odds are more in your favor.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So for example if you were say a muslim in Sarajevo when it was falling apart and there was a chance you could be shuffled off to a concentration camp run by Bosnian's or Serbs you wouldn't use violent resistance just in case you would get killed in the process? My question mostly pertains to democracy movements, self-determination movements and things of that nature.

 

Non violence should always be used to try and achieve ones goals. but when those responsible for blocking your goals ignore you, have used violence against you, and have made a peaceful solution impossible than depending on the goal violent resistence is a valid option. when one's natural rights have been infringed and peaceful resolution made impossible it is ok to beat plowshares to swords and beat the drums of war.

 

Ideally, if you are taking the higher moral ground and if you don't object to being a martyr to the cause and if you have the guts to be beaten without fighting back

This is something which people do not understand about Gandhi. He was not opposed to fighting back, but he did consider not retaliating as superior to violence. Given a choice between violence and running away, he recommended violence.

"Where choice is set between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence... I prefer to use arms in defense of honor rather than remain the vile witness of dishonor ..."

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest ... if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity."

 

"Given a choice between violence and running away he recommended violence"

Well you see that was what I was wondering about. So many people who call themselves pacifists seem to declare that there is only one option...nonviolence. I never call myself a pacifist mostly because I believe there are times when one has to fight. I think of pacifist tactics as just that, tactics. Where does that come from? This idea that one should always be nonviolent. I think it is only in the West where there is little need for violent uprising (at least so far

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) that they believe this to be the only option. When the situation becomes critical and tyranny begins to lose patience with the demands of the oppressed they will never hesitate to use violence. Why is violence only the privilege of the State and never of the oppressed? Or rather it is frowned upon if used by the oppressed.

 

Personally I understand the concept of self defense. I understand how oppression can cause people to hit back with a desire to share the pain. But I am also convinced that violence does not resolve any issues, because it creates a vicious cycle that traps the people in it. Issues are only resolved when at least one of the party steps back and says enough. So why go so many rounds of violence before saying enough? It is very hard to fight someone who will not fight back.


Have you read "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross?
"Its thesis, as discussed in the Author's Note - A Warning and Disclaimer in the beginning of the book, is that enough bullying by what is widely perceived as a hostile occupation government will inevitably end in revolt if the occupied area is large enough and has a culture that is significantly different from the occupying state, and that this revolt will be undefeatable if the rebels use very low-tech "leaderless resistance.""

 

Thanks I will look for the book.

Well a perfect illustration of violence creating more violence is in the situation between the Israeli's and Palestinians. But what happens in situations where one group does say stop and the other group continues to use aggression? What would you suggest then? I mean its also easy to destroy someone who doesn't fight back.

 

When resistence meets resistence it is no longer peacefull. one side must be passive or their is war and one will become the new law maker.

Violent resistence is fighting oppression, and is a battle no longer a protest.


peace.

 

Good point.

 

Yes of course. Which is where the moral ground + martyr comes in. Which is why after 40 years of nonviolent resistance, the Palestinians turned into "terrorists". It took an entire generation to grow up under occupation for the backlash to become violent. Obviously, nonviolent resistance presumes an ethical enemy. You cannot persist in a higher moral ground is there is no moral ground to compare with

 

I was just reading in Eagleton's Meaning of life last night, and he makes the point there that there just are situations we cannot get out of without making our hands dirty.

On topic -

One source for this idea of always being non-violent is trying to take pride in one's morality. Many people wish to appear pure, innocent - which, granted, are not so outlandish ideals either.

(Of course, we must hasten to add that people do need to have a sense that their moral system is (at least on principle) right, it would lead to insanity to believe otherwise.)

Another source is our desire for consistency. For the sake of consistency, people can do all kinds of crazy things (and when it gets really bad, it's called OCD).
Everyone is more or less challenged when it comes to flexibility and dealing with variety.

Thirdly, I can think of only two kinds of societies where non-violence is highly praised: the modern Western, and some traditional Jain/Buddhist.
The appearance of non-violence in these two are strikingly different.
The traditional Jain/Buddhist have an elaborate philosophical basis for their endorsement of non-violence, and they also don't seem to suffer much from their non-violence.
The modern pacifist Westerner has a tendency toward the anxious and neurotic (I yet have to meet a happy Western pacifist), toward being a martyr. They lack a consistent philosophical basis for their non-violence.

But there is a lot of subtle violence in the West. Starting with political correctness.
Sometimes, it would hurt less to be slapped in the face than deal with a pc diatribe.

Because the "state" is defined as such - as having the right and duty to use physical force in order to ensure peace.

Because according to the definition of what a "state" is, that constitutes "crime" or "attempt to usurp power".

 

And by the logic of non-violence, if one is ethical, there would be no enmity to begin with.

The non-violent presume that the other is ethical. But if the other would be ethical they would not be an enemy to anyone. So the non-violent, by presuming the other to be ethical, are denying that enmity is in fact taking place. So the non-violent see no need for any resistance (non-violent or otherwise).

As such, the stance of non-violent resistance (at least the Western variety) in internally inconsistent.


Perhaps non-violence is not so much about not using violence, but much more about not resisting, passivity (and then dressed up as "non-violence").

IOW, some people are just too lazy/too insecure/too focused on the secondary gains of passivity to fight back.
Fighting back (in one way or another, using force or not) requires that one take a firm stance.
But what we see in many of those who espouse non-violence is that they refuse to take a stance, they wish to remain relativistic, undecided.

 

I'm not sure what you think nonviolent resistance means, because it is most certainly extremely proactive, not passive at all.

Also resistance can be to an opposing ideology, ideologies are not necessarily syncretic even if they can mutually coexist. e.g. the British desire to take advantage of Indian resources for themselves is self interest. It does not mean that the British were entirely devoid of all morals, merely that they put self interest before Indian interests. However, after 150 years of occupation, much of it violent and oppressive, it was finally the civil disobedience movement which made it impossible for them to stay in India. The nonviolent noncooperation movement was not at all passive. It was highly demonstrative for one thing, with British goods being boycotted or burned in the square. With people standing in queue after queue before British police or army refusing to move aside so that the British were forced to knock them down. It must have been a very novel experience for British soldiers to be confronted with an unending line of protestors all waiting their turn to be beaten by lathis to protest the occupation.

But it must have been beyond novel for the Indians to stand there watching people bleeding, unconscious, with head wounds and fractures before them, as they waited for their turn to protest. It required a lot of courage to take that step when you knew you were going to be next especially when you had already taken the decision to literally turn the other cheek. Its very emotional for us to watch instances of such resistance knowing that people stepped out for our freedom, for the country. When I read today about Wael Ghonim's reaction to the dead in Medan Tahrir, I could completely identify with what he was going through

 

Each situation must be delt with by those who are involved. Remember when China took over Tibet? The Tibeten people didn't struggle much did they and they were sent away to be "re educated" in mainland China. No other nation tried to help the Tibeten people to save their country or even try to stop China from taking over Tibet. So the monks all went away and we don't know what became of them do we? Where's the news about them today? But I digress.

A NATO bombing campaign began in August, 1995, against the Army of Republika Srpska, after the Srebrenica massacre. That helped the people being killed but they couldn't help themselves for they were outmanned and outgunned. They did fight back with what they had but were utterly defeated. So even they weren't going to win without help from NATO.

 

My point in the post you quoted and that yours seems to address was that what is called or seems like "non-violent resistance" may be non-violent, but needn't be resistance at all.

Take the example of a bullied student: The student may be indeed non-violent, and may appear not to be giving in to the bullies, but he could simply be apathetic, not resistant.
Externally, apathy and non-violent resistance may look the same.

I think the term "non-violent resistance" is sometimes abused, and used to describe situations where the person is apathetic, not resistant.


I have always been puzzled by the proponents of non-violence. Eventually, it has become to dawn on me that some of them are equating violence and resistance - and what they really want to teach us is not only not to be violent, but not to resist to begin with.

 

oh dear
who let the missus out of the kitchen?

 

Well actually the Palestinians were not nonviolent for 40 years. We say violence begets violence is also to assume that nonviolent action would produce nonviolence and it doesn't. Nonviolent resistance does not presume an ethical enemy. Do you believe African-American's and Martin Luther King believed their enemy was ethical? After years of lynching and segregation and murder they knew that the racists were anything but ethical. If you have an ethical enemy then there is no reason to engage in anything but negotiation.

Palestinians are not historically known as a group that engages in 'nonviolence' anymore than the Israeli's. If one group has less military or brute strength than another group and cannot retaliate on an equal footing so use other means such as throwing stones for example you cannot call it nonviolence in action. Nonviolence in action is a state of mind, its a conscious tactic where the rules of engagement require complete distance from aggression and provocation.

 

Wow Signal i have never thought about political correctness as a form of violence but you may be on to something there. Sure thought policing and political correctness are similar to gagging someones thought and speech. Interesting.

If the State is sanctioned to use violence in order to attain peace then why do they have to have a monopoly on it? I mean if violence is a means of attaining justice in principle then in principle you cannot hold it as a value away from ordinary people who also want to attain peace. Who is defining this? i believe that the only reason why states hold a monopoly on violence is because they use it not always to attain peace but to intimidate. If the people thought they had a right to the use of violence under extraordinary circumstances then it could be turned on the state. This is why when the state uses violence its deemed as justified but when its used by groups or individuals for political aims its deemed as criminal or insanity. Why should the oppressed be classified as criminal when for wanting to usurp power by any means necessary? If nonviolence were really a guiding principle of higher moral value and efficacy wouldn't the state also use it as a means for attaining the better good?

You wrote: I have always been puzzled by the proponents of non-violence. Eventually, it has become to dawn on me that some of them are equating violence and resistance - and what they really want to teach us is not only not to be violent, but not to resist to begin with.

This is something I am beginning to believe myself.