Forum Post: "Pacifism is counter-revolutionary, it defends the status quo"
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 4, 2011, 12:58 p.m. EST by precipice
(220)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
"Pacifism, the ideology of nonviolent political resistance, has been the norm among mainstream North American progressive groups for decades. But to what end? Ward Churchill challenges the pacifist movement’s heralded victories—Ghandhi in India, 1960s anti-war activists, even Martin Luther King’s civil rights movement—suggesting that their success was in spite of, rather than because of, their nonviolent tactics. Pacifism as Pathology was written as a response not only to Churchill’s frustration with his own experience, but also to a debate raging in the radical and academic communities. He argues that pacifism is in many ways counter-revolutionary; that it defends the status quo, rather than leading to social change." - Ward Churchill
Something by a sociologist an why non-violence is the only moral and practical way forward for OWS: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/science_nonviolence.html "Studies of social movements in the United States also show that the necessary social disruption has to be created through the principled use of strategic nonviolence. Any form of violence, whether property damage or physical battles with opponents and police, will turn off the great majority of Americans and bring down overwhelming police and military repression."
Big Government, Big Money, Big Business have been stabbing us in the back for years (unfortunately we let them, even handed 'em the knife) But we are striving to be better than that. An eye for an eye only blinds us all. Peace is the only way to rise above, and create real change.
First off, not keeping its nuts in line is the goddamn problem with the right; moderates in America typically outnumber extremists by a lot and if you let the extremists run the show you drive off the moderates. The only time letting extremists run things doesn't immediately carry a penalty in popular support (assuming you're not a Republican) is when nonviolence is for whatever reason categorically impossible. Nonviolence is quite possible right now, and we just got away with a major nonviolent protest in Oakland. Even better would be throwing Occupiers into HoR primaries over the course of this next election so that we can make a greater impact on what's going on on Capitol Hill.
The problem we have with black bloc is not a matter of squeamishness; it's a matter of not getting ourselves attacked and tear gassed (or getting so much popular support when we do that it becomes a Pyrrhic victory for the LEOs). The role and the goal of OWS is to spread awareness of the continuing growth in income inequality and the continuing atrophy of many sectors of our economy due to corporate profit-chasing, and to mobilize voters to work to combat these problems. If we're running around spraypainting things dressed all in black we become scary to the majority of the people and an easy caricature for any who disagree with us, and we thus lose our ability to influence the national dialogue or get voters to listen to us.
You're right that in cases like India and South Africa nonviolence was only part of the equation and acts of vandalism and violence were a major part of the decision to change things. That only worked because you were talking about a military occupation in which popular support or lack thereof was pretty much either going to be there or not be there and the movements had no risk of losing momentum because of such actions. Prove to me that violence and vandalism are more expedient than nonviolence and political activity in this particular situation and then I'll consider listening to you.
Incidentally, vandalism my not be violence per se but it's a big damn mess to clean up. Cleaning up this mess is probably going to fall on the same minimum wage janitor whose rights and income we're here to protect. See a problem there? Besides, it gives the cops and others a great excuse to point to us as a threat to law and in turn has very little impact on what we do. To recap: violence is unnecessary and generally a very bad idea, and vandalism is free PR for our opponents.
This is also one of those lovely times where it really doesn't matter who's acting out. Like I said, I don't care. When people see us either on top of, laying into, or dragging away provocateurs and vandals it will be quite clear to them that OWS does not believe in open lawlessness and that will go a long way with the ordinary guy who doesn't follow us too carefully. If they're black bloc then their first taste of actual violence against them will probably cause them to reconsider their approach. If it's cops, then maybe when the officers come in the next morning looking like they lost a fight with Mike Tyson the station chief will think twice about sending them out there to riot.
Har har. Does this make you a provocateur? After championing disorganization by telling people to "ignore history," now you want violence. It this honest anarchism, or is it just an attempt at manipulation to undermine the movement? I don't think it matters, if the two are indistinguishable.
If you'll forgive the technical term.... B U L L S H I T
If OWS were to turn to violence, it would result in mass slaughter and then, quite likely to CIVIL WAR.
There are an estimated 270 million guns in American homes.
It's easy to start shooting... the hard part is knowing how to STOP.
Violence will instantly turn the public will entirely against you.
Violence isn't a solution when people are claiming to speak for the 99%, it only is one when the 99% are speaking for themselves.