Customer Reviews

How Nonviolence Protects the State

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

"Not believing in violence," Leon Trotsky famously said, "is like not believing in gravity." Trotsky's observation could also be the thesis statement of Peter Gelderloos' book, How Non-Violence Protects the State, as well.

If there is one feature of modern radical political thought that seems to transcend all the various radical movements it is that violence is immoral, impractical, and counterproductive in nearly every case, and most certainly in liberal democracies where political activity to effect change, however restricted or rigged in favor of the ruling elites, is possible.

What caused Gelderloos to renounce non-violence in favor of "a diversity of tactics" [page 3] was his experience with the School of the Americas Watch group and his frustration at the group's failure to obtain the closure of this facility as well as his subsequent arrest, trial, and six-month long imprisonment for participation in actions against the the SOA. Gelderloos refers to this continually throughout his book.

Advocates of exclusively non-violent tactics are usually privileged whites, say Gelderloos, who have the temerity to tell those those under assault (i.e., at war with state) to tough it out and try to make do with appeals to the consciences of the immoral and sociopathetic elites who benefit from this condition of war. [page 134] Gelderloos also condemns "reformism" as being too easy for the powers-that-be to crush, co-opt, discredit or repress.[page 96]

Gelderloos uses an example of what he recommends for direct action against the state rather than non-violence. First, Gelderloos condemns a non-violent action by a pacifist nun who infiltrated a missile factory and hit the missiles with a hammer but causing them no damage. Why not use a bomb instead of a hand tool asks Gelderloos?

"A bomb," say Gelderloos, "ensure that a factory will not be able to produce missiles far better than a hammer does, and missiles in the possession of imperialist states kill far more people than bombs (or hammers) in the possession of urban guerrilla groups. But this consideration is so far from minds of pacifists that the nuns to whom I allude based much of their trial defense on the contention that they had not caused any real damage, only symbolic damage, to the missile factory..." [page 124]

I am not entirely sure what he would propose as a effective alternative though; Gelderloos never comprehensively addresses the issue of specific tactics. But isn't going head-to-head with a violent and ruthless state in effect committing suicide? People who have tried what Gelderloos suggests in his book have not really changed conditions for the better and have usually come to a bad end themselves. Ruby Ridge, the Unabomber, Timothy McVeigh, and the Waco Massacre all come to mind here.

However, Gelderloos' scholarship is very credible, his writing style is very easy to absorb and understand, and his views on the failure of the current menu of tactics for societal change are quite refreshing and necessary for militants to read and discuss. I recommend this book.

Do anti-war protests really stop the United States from invading another country? Do pro-choice marches affect legislation on abortion? Did sit-ins during the Civil Rights movement help to end racism? These are the questions that Peter Gelderloos asks in his new book How Nonviolence Protects the State. With a wealth of experience in anti-prison work, prisoner support organizations,and the anti-war and anti-globalization movements, Gelderloos brings his seasoned perspective to these important issues.

Drawing on large historical events, such as the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights movement, Gelderloos shows how pacifists and nonviolent protests have not achieved the same results that active resistance has. At a time when everyone in the world, except for the US government, is realizing that US troops need to leave Iraq now, Gelderloos' book argues how ineffective the current peace movement has been at stopping the war and creating any sort of political change. Before the war broke out over four years ago, "[s]ome groups, like United for Peace and Justice, suggested the protests might avert the war. Of course, they were totally wrong, and the protests totally ineffective. The invasion occurred as planned, despite the millions of people nominally, peacefully, and powerlessly opposed to it." So how do we switch our peace movement from marching in the streets to actually resisting our government and creating change?

It is this question that Gelderloos has a difficult time answering. How Nonviolence Protects the State is not meant to change any minds. Instead, it reads as a reassurance for those who already know the ineffectiveness of peace movements. Gelderloos' language is aggressive at times, as he conflates peace activists with "good sheep." But perhaps this is his point. Maybe if we started to realize that marches and nonviolent protests were ultimately tools of society to make people feel as if they are creating change, then we would actually find a way to resist our government and create the change we want on our own terms. Covering a diverse range of topics, from how nonviolence is racist to how nonviolence is patriarchal, How Nonviolence Protects the State is an important book to read for anyone who recognizes the ineffectiveness of peace activism today. And while the text doesn't provide many answers, it does inspire the reader to reconsider her notions of "activism" and "change."

For my birthday this year, a friend gave me Peter Gelderloos's How Nonviolence Protects the State. I was quite taken aback, and a little hurt, after having become a passionate nonviolent activist during high school and through my years at the University of California at Santa Cruz. Although a bit skeptical, I began reading and, to my surprise, found myself exhilarated. For the three years I have been in the Feminist Studies Department at UCSC, I have had one constant thing pounded into my head: learn to question all voices equally, including one's own - be critically aware, get into the cracks in things, and then keep going. And yet, I had not applied this approach to one of the ideas I hold very dear to me. Gelderloos shook my head, made me re-examine, re-evaluate, re-think.

Revolutionary movements have toiled for generations around a variety of issues. And since the 1999 World Trade Organization demonstrations in Seattle, Washington, where activists using a range of tactics succeeded in thwarting WTO meetings, debates over approach have been central to the dialogue.

In his book, Gelderloos makes a fearless though at points flawed argument against not simply pacifism, but the philosophy of nonviolence in the context of social change. Many are likely to find such a position to be an implicit advocacy of violent action, and thus marginal, at best. But a careful read of the philosophical construct is certain to get you pondering.

Utilizing a constellation of historical references, judicious citations and old-fashioned polemic, the author lays a variety of crimes at the feet of nonviolent philosophy. The blemish to this construct, aside from the rhetoric which Gelderloos acknowledges is a forceful, even vitriolic, criticism of nonviolence, is that it doesn't seem to acknowledge nonviolence's role as one of a diversity of tactics. While some of Gelderloos' claims have merit, some examples and painting of interests engaged in modern politics seem oversimplified to prove a point, rather than stated to dissect the real complexities of human interaction and history. And, though he gives many reasons why the philosophy of nonviolence may be racist or sexist, he doesn't adequately refute longstanding critiques of rambunctious factions being mostly composed of young, white men without a real grasp of gender or racial justice politics either.

this book brought up many aspects of rebellion and culture that i had not considered. it was eye-opening in several ways and i much recommend you read it.

I get a tremendous kick out of this book because it dares to go so far beyond what smart, enlightened people say or (perhaps) even think, even though can empirically observe that something is dreadfully awry with our applied strategies for effecting change in this new and daunting century. It is packed with sharply rendered historical references and facts that leave behind plenty to ponder after you put the book down and observe whatever goings-on are in front of you, wherever you are. (I happen to be in Hawaii, where many would like to toss out the US government, but without hurting anyone ..... ).

By no means does this activist kid from Virginia Peter Gelderloos have all the answers. However, the book stirs up real moral ambivalence, and that's always interesting. It demands that you THINK. Many threads spin off from this little volume, and it's meticulously footnoted. I was particularly interested in the accounts of the Stonewall Riots, the violent 1969 uprising in Greenwich Village that blew the doors open for gay rights. Those pissed off drag queens sure weren't collecting signatures. Where would we be now without them?
It's a plain fact that there are a variety of options, of tactics, to meet our goals, and we may choose to avail ourselves of them, or (perhaps inevitably) not. Right On! Its sheer chutzpah will make you laugh out loud, sometimes at yourself, and hey, if nothing else, what the hell is wrong with that?

Really a must read, even if you conclude that it's rubbish ( and you very well might), it's quite a fascinating and fearless polemic.

With respect, this work is simply a broad and common misunderstanding of Nonviolence. (Read on to see where I agree with him and where his arguments fall short).

Genderloos appeals to the Nonviolence activist to read How Violence Protects the State with an open mind so that an open dialogue will result in finding the most effective social strategies rather than moral positioning. He claims that "pacifists" (what he tends to call all Nonviolence activists) pick and choose their examples of historical nonviolence and overplay and oversimplify their claims of success. Unfortunately, he then goes on to pick and choose his examples or historical violence and overplay and oversimplify the claims of success.

I read this book because I wanted to be challenged by strong arguments against active Nonviolence. But in having now read it, I would be surprised if Genderloos had read let alone studied any serious work explaining Nonviolence theory or the multitude of documented worldwide successes using Nonviolence tactics. I'm reminded that whenever I read or listen to a critic of nonviolence, it seems less the case that they are in fact against Nonviolence and more that they simply don't understand Nonviolence or, as is also true with Genderloos, that they have considered only a limited repertoire of Nonviolent tactics. If I were to limit the toolbox of Nonviolence tactics to protests, marches, symbolic sabotage, and lockdowns as Genderloos does, I also would be frustrated with and skeptical of Nonviolence (on this we agree).

Genderloos seems to be caught up in the culture of violence of which he is a product (as are we all), but he rationalizes this as being exactly the opposite when he says things like, "Many pacifists are well-meaning would-be revolutionaries who have simply been unable to move beyond their cultural conditioning..." (135). He believes that once we've used violence successfully to dismantle the power structures that oppress others, that we will somehow then be able to relinquish violence. He tends to argue for just one more "just war."

His primary argument for the use of violence is that it is faster, more effective, and even that it is necessary. He points to specific instances in the civil rights movement and during India's long struggle against Britain as proof that violence is necessary - that somehow Nonviolence would not have been successful without the violence. But in the same breath he dismisses Nonviolence during times of war as ineffective and irrelevant implying that violence would prevail regardless.

He makes good and agreeable arguments that power must be decentralized, that there is urgency for change, and that we must be willing to put our words into action. And I agree that the kinds of Nonviolent tactics he bemoans are often a waste of time, resources, and creativity when not used in conjunction with creative strategy and aggressive (even militant) Nonviolence (as Cesar Chavez would espouse). But his arguments against Nonviolence fall short of being convincing.

Our challenge as Nonviolence advocates is to make Nonviolence more understandable and pervasive so that the same misunderstandings that Genderloos perpetuates become less appealing to thinking people and activists. I understand the anger and frustration and the deep need to DO something, if he'd study Nonviolence, I honestly believe he'd come to understand it's superiority as a social justice tactic (not simply in morality).

I'd be happy to discuss this with anyone -- you'll find me on forums, etc. at [...]

.. the truth. Written in a language even a norwegian bonehead like me can understand (read and learn, Ward Churchill..)! Brilliant.

This book is simply bad. It's poorly researched.

I even agree with the book's thesis, but am alarmed at his uses of example to prove his point. At one point, he explains that MLK and Gandhi only successful due to violent resistance surrounding them (which is true), but then says that their movements, which are surrounded by violence, are not even successful, because they do not completely realize their objectives.

Much of the book is disjointed and counters itself from paragraph to paragraph. Ultimately, though, the book's biggest hole is the author's inability to show that any other forms of organized or spontaneous resistance are any more effective than nonviolence.

I'd skip this one if I were you.

This book proves that Ward Churchill was right about the white middle class flower child racist "hippies". They know the racist government will not harm them in their protest??? The white non-violent charlatans are collaborators with the ameriKKKan government. The original evil empire "British Empire" who sent out their missionaries to pacify the target the third world non-white-populations before invasion by the British army. The same thing is happening in the US and the "hippionaries" and the domestic army called the police. The white non-violent racist will not use violence to overthrow the oppressive government that kill black people everyday. The "hippies" benefit from it after they graduate college and become "yuppies". The sad thing about the oppression of non-whites is that they believe the garbage of the 1960's civil wrong movement. The "magic negro" Martin Luther Queen ran with the non-violent movement so the limousine liberals could take the baton and keep black people in the promise land ghettos; while the black poverty pimps ran to the suburbs with their white trophy barbie dolls.