|
by andy snyder Let’s define the left as those people, groups, and institutions who are struggling to radically transform society in the directions of economic equality, deep democracy, ecological sanity, universal human rights, and a sense of a person as being something more creative than just an order-taker, god-fearer, mall-shopper, and tv-watcher. How? How do we radically transform society? Violently or non-violently? In the debate between these two possible answers there’s a lot of weird talk, some of which is nicely critiqued by the essay, "Decoding Non-Violent Rhetoric". The essay points out that: vandalism is not the same thing as violence our society is blatantly violent in all sorts of ways the government represses movements for change violently non-violent methods ensure neither success nor safety the mass media will distort our actions to fit its own agenda This information is not new but the points are certainly worth repeating - given that there are individuals who speak as proponents of non-violence who seem not to understand the world very well.
But this critique of a certain naive rhetoric within non-violence doesn’t do much to help us evaluate a non-violent philosophy of social change. In order to do THAT, we’d have to seriously consider non-violent philosophy and strategy. As a contribution to that consideration, here are some comments on seven ideas that I think are central to non-violent movements. I’m defining an action as "non-violent" if it doesn’t involve causing or threatening physical harm to any people and I’m leaving aside for now the controversy over the non-violent enhancement of physical structures. 1. Non-violent philosophy recognizes that the people have the power. Instead of thinking "Hey those guys over there have the power, let’s shoot them" non-violent activists realize that without the consent and cooperation of an overwhelming majority of the people, those guys over there don’t have nothing. This means that the struggle needs to be about raising consciousness and empowering the people rather than violence towards the elite (or, usually, the hirelings of the elite). 2. Non-violent strategy creates the seeds of a better society. A left that has been trained in non-violence can apply these ideas and tools in infinite ways in the permanent struggle for a good society. What skills have the Sandinistas taught Nicaragua that will help against the World Bank? 3. Non-violent activism hopes for the best. For lots of stories about the bad guys turning into ok guys read any of the below listed authors. Or read the novel, "The Free". Or think about your own moral development. 4. Non-violent activism builds the movement. The overwhelming majority in our society do not believe that violent social change efforts are legitimate. Take a poll if you have any doubts about this. Almost every moral person prefers not to harm other people. Given this, the only chance for truly popular struggle is through committed non-violence. Our attempts to build a significantly large movement will be more successful the more morally clear they are, the more admirable they are, and the more we are able to constrain the mass media’s attempts to villify them. On all three counts non-violence wins over violence. 5. Non-violent strategies make it harder (but certainly not impossible) for the government to successfully repress the movement. For an example compare the number of people murdered or still in prison between SNCC and the Black Panthers. When was the last time an agent provacateur incited civil disobedience? 6. Non-violent action engages our strength (morally persuasive actions leading potentially to the solidarity of the overwhelming majority of people) against their weakness (the elites’ need for massive obedience and cooperation). Violent struggle, on the other hand, engages our weakness (a revolutionary group isolated from the overwhelming majority) against their strength (the full repressive apparatus along with the spin of the mass media). Think about the image of Palestinian teenage boys throwing rocks at the Israeli occupying army. Does it look promising? Imagine armed struggle or even armed resistance in the US against government tanks, helicopters, and bombs. 7. During and after the non-violent struggle opposing left factions don’t shoot each other. "How does the left form firing squads? In circles." These are some of the main reasons I am committed to non-violent struggle. These are reasons that the most significant US social revolution of the 20th century, the mass mobilization of hundreds of thousands of primarily black and not-rich ordinary folks for racial equality, achieved its incredible successes. And these are among the reasons why the global movement against US dominated global capitalism should be a non-violent one. Resources Some good resources for researching serious non-violent strategies for social change are by and/or about: George Lakey, Gene Sharp, Ella Baker, Bayard Rustin, Dorothy Day, Mohandas Gandhi, Howard Zinn, the War Resister’s League, Women’s Peace Encampments, and the early German Greens movement. I also like the film Matewan. Two Questions for Further Thought What do we do about the blackblock folks if we are convinced that their efforts are harming ours? Should we support the lovable Subcommandante (and the quasi-armed indigenous movement that employs him)? |
Chris' Response to Andy
by chris
I would like to reply to Andy Snyder’s message because it both interested and disturbed me. Since he presents a point-by-point analysis, I will comment on each point, although it may make me feel like I am on a bad talk radio show.
Before I begin to do this, however, I would like to address a few fundamental points I think were missed by Mr. Snyder. As the title and second paragraph indicate, the commentary is already structured by delineating a clear “Violent Versus Non-Violent” definition and framework. I cannot blame Mr. Snyder for defining his terms, as he does quite well. However, the initial article that inspired the reply (Dean Spade’s “decoding non-violent rhetoric”) does not necessarily seem to advocate so-called “violent” methods of social change. Rather, it aims to elucidate the manner in which so-called “non-violent” actions and so-called “violent” actions are given meaning, both inside and outside of Mr. Snyder’s loosely defined “left.” Mr. Snyder puts forth an argument as if Dean Spade had made a case for protests aiming to inflict physical violence, which is not the case. It seems to me that Mr. Snyder summarizes some of Mr. Spade’s points quite well, but ends before summarizing one of the main points: actions, protests, and groups that identify as “non-violent” exercise methods of resistance which can be unaccountable in terms of race, privilege, class, gender, and so on.
Living in Seattle, I was in the midst of the WTO resistance in Seattle, and took part in “non-violent” protests. For this reason and as a result of actions I witnessed during this time, Mr. Spade’s analysis seems very incisive. I saw “non-violent” protesters engage in and even lead protests and actions with little or no critical analysis of the implications of such actions. Specifically, I heard white protesters (mostly men) wonder aloud where the people of color were. Explanations (given by white people) included “they just don’t like to do direct action.” In some of the civil disobedience actions, there was little consciousness about the different implications of a white person going to jail and a person of color going to jail (or a tranny, or an undocumented resident). The racism (etc.) implicit in this sliding over of difference is immensely disturbing. Even more disturbing, however, is the response on the part of convergence organizers when some individuals expressed and interest in doing a racism training. “Why would we need that? We are radicals.” “We are not racist.” Paternalism, racism, colonialism, and the rest of the embarrassingly long “isms” list don’t die when they hit the left, they just go underground. Which makes them all the more terrifying and difficult to address. In a critically engaged and accountable left, however, these issues can be addressed.
The only physical violence I saw inflicted upon anyone during the WTO resistance was on the part of the police (this was the most widespread and damaging) and to a lesser extent on the part of so-called “non-violent protesters” on “violent protesters” (read: protesters who were spray painting, breaking glass, and/or involved in other acts of property destruction). Like Mr. Spade, my intent isn’t to say that the protesters engaged in property destruction were “correct” per se. In fact, I think there are a number of implications of enactment of privilege, racism, sexism, cultural appropriation, and so on in advocating either property destruction or taking up arms. But that is a different story. Any method of social change must be accountable to be productive. The point is that in the context of these recent “convergences” (Seattle, Philadelphia, Los Washington D.C., etc.) and the general rhetoric of “non-violence” popular in all of them, there was a blatant unaccountability in terms of racism, sexism, white privilege, class privilege, etc.
Let’s define the left as those people, groups, and institutions who are struggling to radically transform society in the directions of economic equality, deep democracy, ecological sanity, universal human rights, and a sense of a person as being something more creative than just an order-taker, god-fearer, mall-shopper, and tv-watcher. How? How do we radically transform society? Violently or non-violently? The question of “how do we radically transform society” is a vital one. It is the question that follows that disturbs me immensely. “Violently or non-violently.” First, this adopts the vocabulary of the police, the corporate media, and other groups which “we the left” (I use that in quotation marks because we are not a cohesive group and we don’t all share the same goals, but we do find ourselves linked by some of the common interests listed above by Mr. Snyder) oppose. When, where, to what end, with what effect, and by whom or what the term “violence” is applied is of immense importance. Before we can address the question of “how do we radically transform society?” we need not ask the question “violently or non-violently,” but rather “what counts as violence and why?” “Violent or Non-Violent?” sounds to me to be a question similar to “Boy or Girl?” “Fact or Fiction?” “Nature or Nurture?”-and all of these are damaging in their exclusion of any other possible answer, or even more deeply damaging in the way they render these categories real (since it MUST be one or the other). I prefer questions to one-word answers.
In the debate between these two possible answers there’s a lot of weird talk, some of which is nicely critiqued by the essay, "Decoding Non-Violent Rhetoric". The essay points out that: vandalism is not the same thing as violence our society is blatantly violent in all sorts of ways the government represses movements for change violently non-violent methods ensure neither success nor safety the mass media will distort our actions to fit its own agenda This information is not new but the points are certainly worth repeating - given that there are individuals who speak as proponents of non-violence who seem not to understand the world very well. These are all true, and I would say some of them are very much new. Much newer, in any case, than the “violence/non-violence” debate. Many people (even some “leftists” as Mr. Snyder defines the left) would disagree with all or most of the above points.
But this critique of a certain naive rhetoric within non-violence doesn’t do much to help us evaluate a non-violent philosophy of social change. In order to do THAT, we’d have to seriously consider non-violent philosophy and strategy. As a contribution to that consideration, here are some comments on seven ideas that I think are central to non-violent movements. I’m defining an action as "non-violent" if it doesn’t involve causing or threatening physical harm to any people and I’m leaving aside for now the controversy over the non-violent enhancement of physical structures. Actually, I think Mr. Spade has done quite a bit to “help us evaluate a non-violent philosophy” and/or rhetoric of social change. He addresses the unaccountability, paternalism, and condescension which pervades such a rhetoric in its assumption of its own correctness and the incorrectness of any other mode of action. Considering the strategy is important, and many people have taken part in and continue to take part in this dialogue. In fact, it is a much more popular dialogue than the one that considers the shortcomings and implicit problems of “non-violent” rhetoric.
It is an interesting decision to leave aside the “controversy over the non-violent enhancement” of physical structures, since Mr. Snyder employs the same terms as the corporate media did and does in distinguishing property-destructors from non-property-destructors. This allows for a certain sliding between the terms as he defines them and the terms as defined by the corporate media.
1. Non-violent philosophy recognizes that the people have the power. Instead of thinking "Hey those guys over there have the power, let’s shoot them" non-violent activists realize that without the consent and cooperation of an overwhelming majority of the people, those guys over there don’t have nothing. This means that the struggle needs to be about raising consciousness and empowering the people rather than violence towards the elite (or, usually, the hirelings of the elite). “Raising consciousness and empowering the people” is a well-entrenched and oft-repeated doctrine of the “non-violent” rhetoric. And it sounds quite promising. However, this is where we find a frightening tendency towards paternalism and condescension. So long as we can get everyone “on our side,” as soon as they realize “what is right and correct,” we will have the masses and therefore the power. This is the sentiment, correct? However, what is right and correct for one individual or group may very well not be right for another. Rather than the “solidarity” and “power in the masses” model that Mr. Snyder suggest, I would like to suggest a different model: different points or modes of resistance. This allows for taking a multitude of approaches to countering and resisting “the powerful elite” but does not make any claims of the “correctness” or “validity” of one mode of resistance over another. Perhaps these modes contradict or even come into conflict with one another, but they both provide resistance from different sites-and they don’t allow for the paternalistic and colonialistic implications of a unilateral “mass” of people taking power from the elite. Could so-called “violent” tactics and so-called “non-violent” tactics (as well as the many, many forms of resistance that don’t fall quite so neatly in those two categories) co-exist in such a model? I think it is possible.
2. Non-violent strategy creates the seeds of a better society. A left that has been trained in non-violence can apply these ideas and tools in infinite ways in the permanent struggle for a good society. What skills have the Sandinistas taught Nicaragua that will help against the World Bank? What are the “seeds of a better society?” Another characteristic I have noticed in self-identified “non-violent” groups in an inclination towards vague references to the results of political action. “The masses will take power.” “We are working towards a better society.” “We are freeing ourselves from oppression.” The broadness of these comments not only allows for an uncritical engagement with actions that leads to a dangerous unaccountability, but it also renders these goals and aims so vague as for them to be almost meaningless. The Sandinistas have done quite a bit to help Nicaraguans counter the aims of the World Bank, though some of these lessons were taught through their mistakes and failures and some were taught quite inadvertently. However, Sandinistas have learned that the U.S. is very sneaky and is not to be trusted (many leftists haven’t even learned that one yet, amazingly enough). They have learned that it is possible to overturn a powerful dictatorship (and that isn’t to say that the way that was accomplished was without many serious problems). Many have learned (particularly Nicaraguan feminists), in the course of the hard-line Marxism of the Sandinistas (i.e. “everything [sexism, racism, classism, etc.] will be solved when we solve the class problem”) that this approach does not work. That in order to create social change which will take into account racism, sexism, homophobia, classism (continue list of isms), accountability must be built into the resistance. It looks in the end that we as leftists and/or radicals can learn something from the Nicaraguans who have learned this. And in particular, U.S. “non-violent” groups can take an example from this lesson.
3. Non-violent activism hopes for the best. For lots of stories about the bad guys turning into ok guys read any of the below listed authors. Or read the novel, "The Free". Or think about your own moral development. See my reply to #4.
4. Non-violent activism builds the movement. The overwhelming majority in our society do not believe that violent social change efforts are legitimate. Take a poll if you have any doubts about this. Almost every moral person prefers not to harm other people. Given this, the only chance for truly popular struggle is through committed non-violence. Our attempts to build a significantly large movement will be more successful the more morally clear they are, the more admirable they are, and the more we are able to constrain the mass media’s attempts to villify them. On all three counts non-violence wins over violence. Firstly, this again presumes that the only way to “radically transform society” is to “gain solidarity” and get everyone on “our side.” I do not agree at all, in fact I think that this has the effect of making it seem that stakes are the same for all involved and that there is a “common experience” that unites us. Rather, many different things bring us into activism, and relationships of power differ immensely from person to person (depanding on race, gender, national origin, sexuality, class, etc.); this difference has an effect on how we want to choose to enact our activism.
Secondly, “taking a poll” is hardly something I wish to do when it comes to ideas of resistance; in my experience, any time something in put to a “democratic” vote, it is the privileged position that always wins.
Thirdly, the term “moral” and “moral person” are again vague. Furthermore, the concept of “morality” has repeatedly been used (and rather effectively, I might add) by the right and the far right to undermine those who attempt to radically change society. This is not to say that people do not prefer to harm other people-I think you are correct, and I am relieved that is the case. But to invoke the concept of “morality” is dangerous, it implicitly buttresses the claims of the Far Right on “moral uprightness” and implies a “right” and a “wrong” that again, is paternalistic and condescending.
5. Non-violent strategies make it harder (but certainly not impossible) for the government to successfully repress the movement. For an example compare the number of people murdered or still in prison between SNCC and the Black Panthers. When was the last time an agent provacateur incited civil disobedience? I think the point that arises from this comment and question is not so much “violence is more likely repressed by the government than in non-violence,” but rather “why is it that people involved in radical movements that have been killed or imprisoned are almost always people of color, regardless of tactics and strategy?” This question aside, I think agent provocateurs will go to many lengths to incriminate anyone they think is “dangerous,” regardless of strategy. In addition, I think it is difficult to make comparisons unproblematically between the largely (though certainly not completely) white, middle-class, privileged group of “non-violent protesters” as Dean Spade discusses and SNCC and the Black Panthers. The context of the racist U.S. in the 60’s and 70’s (during which violence inflicted on a person of color for no reason other than race was very common) is very different from the context of white middle-class people resisting globalization. Another troubling aspect of “non-violent” rhetoric is the tendency to fail to evaluate various movements and their successes/failures in “violent” or “non-violent” strategies in a way that is not at all context-specific.
6. Non-violent action engages our strength (morally persuasive actions leading potentially to the solidarity of the overwhelming majority of people) against their weakness (the elites’ need for massive obedience and cooperation). Violent struggle, on the other hand, engages our weakness (a revolutionary group isolated from the overwhelming majority) against their strength (the full repressive apparatus along with the spin of the mass media). Think about the image of Palestinian teenage boys throwing rocks at the Israeli occupying army. Does it look promising? Imagine armed struggle or even armed resistance in the US against government tanks, helicopters, and bombs. What would it look like to have a “promising” image of Palestinian resistance? Is Mr. Snyder suggesting that the Israeli occupying army would not be present or would not fire bullets if it were not for the rock-throwing boys? The tanks, helicopters, and bombs are not specific to armed resistance. While as I mentioned before, there is a whole set of problems associated with “armed resistance,” and while I am not arguing in favor of “violence,” I think it is still important to state that it is problematic to delineate such a tidy equation of “non-violent action” = strong and moral, “armed resistance” = weak and immoral.
7. During and after the non-violent struggle opposing left factions don’t shoot each other. "How does the left form firing squads? In circles." I fail to understand the first sentence, but I get the joke that follows. Interestingly, I think Mr. Snyder’s argument itself illustrates “the left forming a firing squad in a circle” better than do the actions of those termed “violent protesters.” By this I mean Mr. Snyder seems to wish to eliminate certain forms of political action, activism, and resistance rather than coexist, work with, effectively critique, critically engage and interact with them.
These are some of the main reasons I am committed to non-violent struggle. These are reasons that the most significant US social revolution of the 20th century, the mass mobilization of hundreds of thousands of primarily black and not-rich ordinary folks for racial equality, achieved its incredible successes. And these are among the reasons why the global movement against US dominated global capitalism should be a non-violent one. Self-identified “non-violent” movements have had in immense and positive effect on social change. And it is a very useful strategy, but only when it is critically engaged and accountable, and only when it understands that no particular practice or philosophy holds true across all given contexts and situations.
Resources Some good resources for researching serious non-violent strategies for social change are by and/or about: George Lakey, Gene Sharp, Ella Baker, Bayard Rustin, Dorothy Day, Mohandas Gandhi, Howard Zinn, the War Resister’s League, Women’s Peace Encampments, and the early German Greens movement. I also like the film Matewan. Good resources for reading about the nature of power and resistance:
Michel Foucault, Sofia Montenegro, Gayatri Spivak, Judith Butler, Donna Haraway, Edward Said, Margaret Randall. Many of these authors are rather inaccessible. But despite convoluted language, their ideas are rather clear and have a surprising degree of application to political action and activism.
Two Questions for Further Thought What do we do about the blackblock folks if we are convinced that their efforts are harming ours? Should we support the lovable Subcommandante (and the quasi-armed indigenous movement that employs him)? Is this part extra credit?
The question about the Black Bloc is an interesting one. I heard this often during the WTO resistance. I have to say that in my experience, I think that the Black Bloc working alongside, with, (and against) the “non-violent” factions of the protests was extremely productive; it ended up representing the immense range of people involved in resisting globalization. How are their efforts “harmful” if one already knows, as stated above, that “the mass media will distort our actions to fit its own agenda”? Are the actions of the Black Bloc harmful in any way other than representation? Is there a way for Black Blockers and non-Black Blockers to coexist and continue to enact their preferred method of resistance? The Black Bloc question deserves a longer analysis, as I think it enacts a certain degree of privilege and erasure of difference as do “non-violent” groups. Regardless, I find it interesting that “non-violent” groups are consistently concerned about the efforts of other groups “harming” their efforts. And is it never the reverse? Which group gets the opportunity to claim “rightness,” and does this have an effect of who gets defined as the “harmed” and who gets defined as the “harmer?” In addition, though Mr. Snyder’s argument defined “violent” protests as those inflicting or intending to inflict harm on a person or people, Black Blockers rarely engage in any form of “violence” as such. Does Mr. Snyder then define Black Bloc actions as “non-violent,” since he seems to agree that “vandalism is not the same thing as violence” and “violence” is to be defined as the act of inflicting harm upon a person or intending to do so?
Who is “we” in the question should “we” support the “lovable Subcommandante?” The question of who is “we” also applies to the first question. “We” the left? “We” the non-violent? “We” the U.S.? “We” is a sneaky word. I would hope that “we” (the radical, the leftists, the feminists, the queers, the U.S., etc.) can and should support the Subcommandante and the Zapatistas. I also think “we” should consider what the implications are of being “quasi-armed” and critically engage the question of militarism in radical movements and the problems which arise from a “macho martyr” concept of a hero and leader. These question do not have to undermine support, just as critically interrogating all methods of resistance do not indicate in any way that they are useless or ineffective. That is the short answer.