11 Likes
Oh, now that is a shame, because that means that you won’t have read this anarchist’s manifesto
Yes, the War and Peace guy was also an anarchist who got excommunicated from the Russian Orthodox church because of his beliefs, he wrote letters to Gandhi discussing non-violent resistance, and was an influence on Martin Luther King and Bayard Rustin.
The Anarchists are right in everything; in the negation of the existing order and in the assertion that, without Authority there could not be worse violence than that of Authority under existing conditions. They are mistaken only in thinking that anarchy can be instituted by a violent revolution . But it will be instituted only by there being more and more people who do not require the protection of governmental power and by there being more and more people who will be ashamed of applying this power.
Leo Tolstoy - On Anarchy
I may not entirely believe in Tolstoy’s Anarcho-Pacifism but I do respect it, because we work towards a similar end point.
But is it non-violent resistance you believe in, or just non-violence? There is a difference. Non-violent resistance is about going to a better world, non-violence is about maintaining the status quo and not upsetting anyone.
10 Likes
How so?
The cops didn’t want to prove they’re not a violent gang. They wanted to prove that they have the power to get their way.
And they did.
6 Likes
privilege is when you think you win an argument by indicating that someone else is beneath you
7 Likes
That’s a weird assumption.
Granted, it has been a number of years since I last read The Kingdom of God is Within You, but I still have my weathered copy sitting on my bookshelf. Though, it’s nice to know there’s a version online, so thanks for link!
Mine’s the 1894 translation edition by Constance Garnett; the version in the link appears to be 1905 Leo Wiener’s (edited?) version. Be interesting to see how the two versions compare/differ.
I think this book is an absolutely fascinating read and should be read by more people. A complete advocacy to non-violent resistance.
I was assuming (maybe incorrectly?) that you linked to How Nonviolece Protects the State in order to back-up your position within this thread, but then you bring up Tolstoy, whose work is diametrically opposed to that of Gelderloos, and so now I admit to being completely confused about what ideas you’re trying to convey.
Abso-tutely-lutely!
I appreciate that you asked this question. I am personally a pacifist, but I’m also a pragmatist; non-violent resistance is my ideal, but I understand that there is a role – and in some cases a need – for violence and/or the threat of violence in our world. I may not like it, but I get it.
I’m fairly certain I understand the distinction you’re trying to make between non-violent resistance as a primary ideology and methodology for an uprising or campaign and non-violence as a kind of instrument that can be wielded, so to speak. I can definitely see it being able to used as a tool of certain types of oppression or repressive de-escalation, especially by authoritarian styled (or minded) systems of military and law enforcement. I do, however, highly disagree with Gelderloos’ claims of the extent and means to which non-violence is used as a widespread tool of oppression; especially since his arguments are hugely flawed bouts of conflation, misrepresentation, and massive leaps in logic and to conclusions, seemingly able to go from point A to point L, but somehow never passing through points B through K. Also, there’s the whole global corporate cabal conspiracy theory that controls and manipulates all the uprisings aspect of his argument that just really feels like a tough claim to back-up there.
Prior to hearing about NAVCO and Chenoweth & Stephan’s work I would have absolutely believed that campaigns that used violent resistance as their primary methodology would have been more successful, especially given that most of the uprisings, revolutions, and such we’ve been taught in school and culturally have been military full-on violence driven campaigns. After hearing interviews, though, and reading some of their stuff, they make a solidly argued case for their findings as the opposite. They do admit that their work has giant asterisks next to it, but they explain how they’ve approached the research, data, and how to classify it all. They’ve gone through all kinds of the very same questions and complications everyone here is bringing up. While their work isn’t likely “100”, it’s still been approached with a lot of consideration, thought, reason, and also consultation from dozens of experts outside of NAVCO. Criticize as wanted or needed, but at the very least they’ve put in the work.
In response to the Will Ferrell gif: What is wrong with me is that I read this book. It would be generous to call it problematic. It is more apt to call it an inscrutable mess; deluded, inane, and bordering on sociopathic.
Did you read it? If so, then I can’t imagine how you managed to get past the part wherein Gelderloos claims that all non-violent uprisings by people of color across the globe are secretly orchestrated and manipulated by a global white corporate conspiracy who install leaders of color like MLK, Mandela, and Gandhi as puppetheads; not to help inspire and guide the people to their freedoms, but to actually subdue the people and sway them into a passive state so they can be more easily “herded.” Or where Gelderloos suggests that India, Albania, and the like never truly gained any real liberation or independence because they didn’t completely kill all of their opposition.
While I imagine it’s not his intent, Gelderloos’ argument in the book reduces the agency of people of color, (inadvertently?) insinuating that they are gullible, easily swayed, and lack not just the means, but also the capability of securing there own rights and freedoms without the help of white people. He purports that middle-class white people are being manipulated to oppress people of color by espousing upon people of color the virtues of non-violent resistance because privilege makes middle-class white people pacifists (because Gelderloos says so); and people of color always comply with what middle-class white people counsel them to do. If only middle-class white people could see their stance on non-violence was actually hurting people of color – who are the victims of violence and somehow by being a pacifist it means that one also becomes oblivious to any acts of violence happening around them (?) --, then the middle-class white people would surely choose to renounce pacifism and take up a position of violence and in doing so would be able fight for liberation on behalf of the oppressed people of color (who, again, are not capable of fighting for themselves).
After spending the majority of the book demonizing and condemning any and all forms of non-violence, he dedicates the rest of the book to lauding, praising, and glorifying the “virtues” of violence – which, conveniently, is not allowed to be criticzed or examined under the same criteria that he applied to non-violence. He claims that while non-violence alienates most everyone, violence never alienates anyone ever (except authoritarian leaders, but only when it poses a threat to them losing power), and that deep down we all love violence and should therefore embrace it. He argues that a successful resistance isn’t simply removing or toppling the government, but also requires killing them all off even after they’ve been removed. He doesn’t just advocate violence, but the most extremists levels of violence, and true victory and liberation can only be achieved with the most bloodshed.
The rhetoric in this book is exactly the type that would be used as fodder by Tucker Carlson and the more extremist right-wing of Fox News and OANN as proof that progressives are all actually AntiFa terrorists. Gelderloos even posits that, yes, violent videogames and movies do indeed make us violent (but a “good” type of violence, of course).
It’s the exact type of book that parents and administrators at schools just like Muncie would hold up as examples that prove that, in their minds:
“all those Black Lives Matter posters the kids created are all socialist propaganda meant to indoctrinate our kids into radical left-wing insurrection; and the police are the real targets and victims of the BLM ‘terrorists’, so the cops are fully right to tear those posters down!”
So, yes, I read it. Insipid. One star.
You misrepresented yourself (didn’t read it – did read it), misrepresented OUR stance (violence or nothing), and leapt into adversarial and condescending attacks on folks here.
Somehow I don’t believe you are arguing in good faith. 
7 Likes
Subtopic: Human history repeating itself.
In the USA, it’s rare for anyone to know the backstory of ‘V For Vendetta’, Guy Fawkes and his attempt to blow up the British Parliament. Therefore, some useful links:
1 Like
This has actually been a learning experience, and you have managed to answer the question I had posted previously that was removed of whether my comments were being interpreted as sincere or insincere; with the answer being the latter. For this, I do apologize. I need to work on my writing and tone to better avoid this in the future.
I was not aware I was misrepresenting myself, nor was I aware I was misrepresenting anyone else when I was crafting my responses; I based my responses upon the words people had written and tones that I infered or felt were apparent to me. However, I don’t deny your assessment, I can only imagine it again leads to me requiring further examination and awareness in how to better read other people’s comments and craft my responses more appropriately in these discussions.
And that’s exactly the problem. Belief in the geniune or the disingenuous of those whom we are all interacting with on the internet. Perhaps a kind of Dunning-Krueger that effects all of us?
If I may add this idiom; I do hope this reads as observational and not otherwise:
Are we are all just Target kettles calling Walmart pots cheap?
5 Likes
5 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
