Customer Reviews

Pacifism as Pathology: Reflections on the Role of Armed Struggle in North America

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

This is an extraordinarily important little book that cuts to the heart of why our movements to bring about social and environmental justice always fail. The fundamental question is: is violence ever an acceptable tool to help bring about social change? This is probably the most important question of our time, yet so often discussions around it fall into cliche and magical thinking: that somehow if we are merely good enough and nice enough people the state will stop using its violence to exploit us all. In this book the authors go through all of the arguments used by pacifists, and shoot them down, using tremendous scholarship and logic. Gandhi is often given as an example of a pacifist achieving his goal, but Gandhi's success comes at the end of a hundred year struggle--often violent--for independence by the Indians. How far could Martin Luther King Jr have gone were it not for the African-Americans taking to the streets? The authors don't, of course, argue for blind, unthinking violence, they merely argue against blind, unthinking nonviolence. A desperately important book

One of the previous reviewers sums it up very well: In this book, and pulling no punches, Churchill lays out his case against white progressives-to be precise the liberal/social democratic complacent legions of mostly well-educated midlle and upper middle class activists-who are delusional not only in the ineffectual tactics and strategies they pursue (which the ruling elites are only too happy to accommodate as per a well-scripted minuet), but in the belief that they are actually performing revolutionary acts...So, like it or not, Churchill is correct in pointing out that these liberals will do everything except assume actual risk in opposing the system..and that, being mostly interested in practicing "comfort zone" politics, they will almost invariably indulge in essentially worthless "cathartic" posturizing instead of solid opposition. By the way, the same writer is NOT correct in saying that nonviolence has achieved huge transformations. The Iranian revolution (1979) was far from a nonviolent process: the Shah had been opposed for decades by above ground and underground groups, several of which practiced armed struggle and paid a horrific price for it, while the last month of his rule saw masses of people in most Iranian cities, but especially Tehran, literally storming strong points and tanks in the streets with their bare chests and being mowed down...until more and more soldiers simply gave up and melted away or switched sides. As for the collapse of the USSR (1991), that came about as a result of complex processes that did not involve invested CLASS PRIVILEGES, as we have here and in other corporate-dominated nations. As for South Africa, the end of apartheid did not issue from a nonviolent process. Decades-long protests against the fascist legislation escalated until 1958 when the tragedy of Sharpeville occurred. Soon thereafter the government tried to suppress opposition through the sledgehammer approach of bannings and systematic "targeted repression". The first to be hit were the ANC and the PAC, but such bannings merely caused the organisations to go underground and become even more militant. The "armed struggle" therefore began in earnest in 1958 and by 1970 was beginning to affect the South African economy as greater and greater manpower was required to maintain an ever increasing army. Thus, Mandela's organization, the ANC had both a civil and a military arm, even if the latter developed after all roads to a peaceful elimination of Apartheid had proved futile, and long after the beneficiaries of the status quo had demonstrated through their unrelenting savagery that only armed struggle would move history forward. As for the much revered Arundhati Roy I do not think for a minute that she got it right in her speech in New York, where she argued "that there is no way to defeat the Empire by force and that its component parts must be isolated and paralyzed one by one." Sounds terrific and we only wish it were true, but Ms. Roy is also, like her liberal counterparts, utterly delusional. Furthermore, all the acclamation in the chi-chi salons and media precincts she's accustomed to will not change that simple fact. How does she propose to paralyze these component parts of the most heavily armed, cynical, and ruthless class privilege system in history without some form of REAL confrontation? With 2-hour candlelight vigils and some symbolic arrests which, by the way, may or may not be reported by the corporate-owned media? If THAT was all that was required to get rid of an immoral, deeply rooted capitalist system, a Nazi terror regime, a vicious landowning oligarchy as in Salvador, and so on, humanity would have moved past these filthy horrors decades if not centuries ago. As Churchill points out in his book, Nazi Germany was defeated by the massive application of force; the racist American South was similarly juridically defeated in the 1860s by massive military force, by organized all-out violence, (I say juridically because in practice it took 100 more years of struggle that saw innumerable crimes before African Americans could begin to take their rightful place among their fellow citizens)...There is not a single case in history where a deeply entrenched system of class or racial exploitation was overthrown by moral suasion and symbolic protests...If real change came about it was because force was being applied somewhere else alongside the nonviolent tracks...That's the point that Churchill is making in this book. It's a discomfiting point, but I'm afraid it is a true fact. Social change does not come cheap. Well, I could go on, but if you're a liberal I'm sure that facts will matter far less than attachment to convenient fantasies.

Over the last few years, I have published articles about issues of US Imperialism and the social struggle movement. I came upon Ward Churchill's book "Pacifism and Pathology," as almost last minute. I had never read or taking seriously Ward Churchill's view, though I have affiliated myself as a member of the anarcho-syndicalist movement. But after reading his book, I realized my deep personnel connections with Dr. Churchill's frustrations and agony with the American social struggle movement. For some time, I affiliated myself with a social struggle movement in the University I am attending, and after almost a month I left. My reasons for leaving, where the same reasons Dr. Churchill explained in his book as the growing disorganization of these movements, and also the misunderstanding that state and private tyrannies; which have amassed great ideological confusion towards vast social and economic control, cannot be countered with the basic techniques used by the social struggle movement in the past. Indeed, Dr. Churchill warns the reader that there has been a tremendous misunderstanding with how non-violent resistance was actually used in the past. That it was a actually a mixture of both the practice of violence and non-violence, for which, if the use of non-violence was so much more tantamount, then the rewards of almost a decade and a half of resistance could not have been achieved.
Though I can connect with the social struggle movement on this university campus, it is deeply polarizing. Such polarization; I felt, was the reasons why on a number occasions they were unsuccessful in reaching out to others, and at the same time, form a coherent bases of action and influence on this campus i.e., they're not taking very seriously.
The tactics used by leaders of the social struggle movement in the United States, and even around the world, vary. I agree with Churchill on the realization that non-violent resistance can only work on a marginal basis. Indeed other countries, which implement vast terror and intimidation towards their own population, cannot rely on peaceful means to take down and tear the authoritarian political and economic system, without resorting to actual self-defense through violent means.
As the world witnesses the tearing apart of the Palestinians states, and perhaps even the fall of Palestine itself in the coming months, it is important to realize that the Palestinians; who have long tolerated state and military terror by Israel and the IDF, cannot be heard by the world through the same methodology used by American peace activists. It just does not work, and to do so, would mean the quick destruction of the Palestinian state.
But what I have to say, in a slight disagreement with Dr. Churchill, is that though the methodology of resistance to state and private terror has to change. The US cannot be won by the means of violence. Our cultural and political system is far more advance and ready for change, without the use of arm resistance and violence. Though in the media it may depict the sense of polarization and a deep divide, consensus by national polls indicate quite strikingly that the vast majority of the population is far to the left than the political and intellectual establishment wants to believe.
The means for political and social change in the US--for which, I agree with Churchill, cannot be won by the same tactics that inhibit a pathological tolerance towards the abuses that private and state systems implement on other populations and even their own. Even the possibility that these groups may be motivated for other reasons besides social change; political power, vanguard social party, all these are plausible reasons as to why Americans are stigmatized by the social struggle movement (as is the rise of the Bolshevik Party in the Russian Revolution and the Chinese Communist Party in China).
The goal of the intellectual is the most profound insight that Churchill explains. It has been a realization among many left-wing intellectuals, that the intellectual must be motivated as the tool maker and as the teacher, for which, he could impart the capacity for others to defend themselves and to act accordingly in such self-defense. His leadership is marginal at best, but his capacity to impart to others the lessons of the past and the understanding of the rich knowledge of the praxis of social change; starting with Hegel, then Marx, and many others, can be seen as the best weapon to revitalize the movement in the US. Also to realize the essential need to understand that other nations; other struggling groups, must partake their own way of defending themselves, and thus earn their capacity for a revolutionary change towards freedom and liberty.

Thank you!

Nothing new here....

Start's with the stating the Pacifist ideal, and knocks it down for not being able to realized said ideal. It would be easy to accuse Churchill of knocking down strawmen, except that many dogmatic pacifists *are* that pie in the sky, refusing to do *anything* remotely confrontational.

After having dismissed the classic examples of success by pointing out how they did not live up to the ideal, he proceeds to assert the right to self-defense, which all but the most dogamtic would accept, and then by with a logicaly jump, concludes with a thumping assertion of "armed struggle" (i.e. the Jacobin-Blaquist conspiritorial model of a "revolutionary vanguard").

It's easy to poke holes in a position, particularly one so given to absolutist, sweeping pronouncements as pacifism; it's harder to ask what really works. Non-violent direct action is a means to change the potential of which has yet to be fully realized. *YES* it is not applicable in any and all situations. *YES* people have a legal and moral right to self-defense. *YES* non-violent campaigns are rarely, if ever *perfectly* non-violent. None of this takes away from the efficacy of non-violence in many if not most situations.

The irony is that Churchill's book doesn't mention the most interesting characters and events that severely qualify "non-violent successes" He doesn't mention Robert Williams (NEGROES WITH GUNS) tactical excercise of his 2nd Amendment rights against the KKK in the late 1950's. He doesn't mention Subhas Chandra Bose, Gandhi's most trenchant critic. No real thorough examination of the strengths and limitations of non-violence as a strategy and tactic, just hoary sloganeering of "new left" (turned old) cliches from AIM and the Black Panthers.

While so sweeping in its condemnation of non-violence, Churchill fails to examine the failings of the "vanguardists": the ease with which "central committees" were inflitrated, the factionalism unto fratricide, the lack of any constructive achievements of any kind.

Yeah, there's a lot to criticize in pacifism, but there are people who are working with non-violent strategy and tactics which fully accepting the right of self-defense (e.g. the International Solidarity Movement) and are finding out from *praxis,* not pre-concieved ideological commitments, what works and what doesn't.

Any serious critique should take Gene Sharp, Robert Williams and Brian Martin into account, this doesn't and isn't.

In this book Churchill lays out his case against white progressives, who he feels are oblivious to the ineffectiveness of their efforts. He indicts them for a phony pacifism that seeks not to embrace risk in a confrontation with state power, but rather, to avoid risk entirely in an effort to substitute feel good symbolism for real change. He suggests most white progressives are kidding themselves about favoring revolutionary change. Their simplistic ideas are delusional and their "comfort-zone" politics self-serving.
Churchill's frustration with the rituals of marching in circles, "demanding" change by carrying signs, and lighting candles for peace is certainly understandable. And he is right that such tactics are impotent without force being exercised somewhere else. His prescription for white progressives to become intimately acquainted with this fact through a kind of "revolutionary therapy" strips away many layers of pseudo-pacifist illusion in very short order. Churchill does not call for the abandonment of nonviolent action, merely for the recognition that without force being part of the equation other tactics are doomed to failure. I can't dispute the essence of what he says, but think he overplays the violence angle. While not due to pacifist action per se we do nevertheless have examples of sweeping social change occurring without violent revolution . . . . . the Iranian revolution (1979), the collapse of the USSR (1991), the end of apartheid . . . I think Arundhati Roy got it right in her speech in New York just after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. She said there is no way to defeat the Empire by force and that its component parts must be isolated and paralyzed one by one.

Churchill's little essay, originally written in the mid-80s neither is nor purports to be the be-all/end-all articulation of the position involved.

It IS, however, a near-perfect antidote to the sanctimoniously self-serving gibberish penned by all the reviewers thus far, other than Derrick Jenson.

One can take particular exception to the assertion advanced by "a reader from Boulder" that there have been significant advances in the "nonviolent movement" since the 1960s. All one need do is LOOK AROUND to discern the sheer delusional falsity embodied in this standard "pacifist" rejoinder to Churchill's reflections.

But, then, this sort of delusional behavior adds up to one of Churchill's main points about the sham that parades itself as pacifism in North America, so maybe we all owe the Boulder reader a hearty "thank you" for having provided such a perfect illustration.

In any event, PACIFISM AS PATHOLOGY is well worth the minor amount of time required to give it a read. The fact is that it's a little gem, and the publisher should be commended for having made it generally available.

I loved this book. I think it teaches the reality of our current situation. The "progressive left" in North America are practicing "comfort zone politics". The protests that the progressive left organizes (with permission) hardly cause the state any harm. As mentioned in the essay by Mike Ryan, "They(the protests) reinforce the popular myth of American democracy." You have to wonder how effective these practices of soley using nonviolence really are. In my opinion, I think that you can't have one without the other. Yes, nonviolence can be effective, but so can violence (or rather self-defense). We should never completely throw out the use of violence in our constant struggle for justice. The comfort zone politics of the progressive left have only slowed down the emergence of any real revolution that we hope to achieve. There is a quote in the book by The Last Poets that says, "Don't speak to me of revolution until you're ready to eat rats to survive..." This keeps playing over and over in my head. Stop being so delusional...we will never achieve our goal as long as our movement consists of only pacifist ideologies. That is what I got out of this extremely informative book. It is important to note (which Churchill states in the conclusion) that the purpose of the essay was to critque pacifist thinking and practice, not to give alternatives.

Churchill's little essay, originally written in the mid-80s neither is nor purports to be the be-all/end-all articulation of the position involved.

It IS, however, a near-perfect antidote to the sanctimoniously self-serving gibberish penned by all the reviewers thus far, other than Derrick Jenson.

One can take particular exception to the assertion advanced by "a reader from Boulder" that there have been significant advances in the "nonviolent movement" since the 1960s. All one need do is LOOK AROUND to discern the sheer delusional falsity embodied in this standard "pacifist" rejoinder to Churchill's reflections.

But, then, this sort of delusional behavior adds up to one of Churchill's main points about the sham that parades itself as pacifism in North America, so maybe we all owe the Boulder reader a hearty "thank you" for having provided such a perfect illustration.

In any event, PACIFISM AS PATHOLOGY is well worth the minor amount of time required to give it a read. The fact is that it's a little gem, and the publisher should be commended for having made it generally available.

This little book has changed the way I think about nonviolence as a be all end all strategy for social change. Churchill makes it very clear that the oppressed cannot expect the oppressor to some how take his moral position of nonviolence just because the oppressed practice it as a strategy for social change.

Another important point I picked up from this book is that proponents of nonviolence CANNOT excommunicate those who want to use violence as a strategy to bring about social change. And usually the be all end all strategy of nonviolence is common among a white progressive elite, not among the colonized, the victims of violence and most citizens of third world countries.
As churchill points out, if we truly want social change in the United States, and beyond our borders, we can't expect to get it from a strategy of pacifism only. History has proven him correct.

This book is definately a must read for anyone who wants to bring about social change.

Because I so respect the basic thrust of Derrick Jensen's writing (and he is such a vocal opponent of pacifism and I myself a pacifist) I had to go out and get this book. Frankly, I expected a better intellectual argument against pacifism than what I found.

Part of the problem, or maybe largely the problem, is words have become rather meaningless. They are used all too frequently, not in careful debate and in the search for truth, but rather as a discharge for frustration and emotion or to further one's ideological agenda, or to to simply sell a product or idea.

Pacifism is a poor word, in a way, to reflect the kind of action that is required to prevent war. To prevent war is a very proactive thing, it is anything but passive. And since when did pacifism means not protecting oneself? I consider myself a pacifist and yet if I were attacked or someone else close by me, I would imagine I would do what most others would do, get angry and strike back, attempting to preserve life. Pacifism, to me anyway, is the refusal to participate in any way in organized warfare, or even some sort of stockpiling of guns for self-defense, and training oneself in self-defense. To do so would be to to ignore every sort of social and economic injustice which contributes to crime and violence.

One of the most telling things about this argument by Ward Churchill and Derrick Jensen is that they never really give us an example of the just use of violence. And of course, they can't, for to do so would immediately reveal the futility of violence. What, take out the Board of Directors at Monsanto? Within a week their seats will be filled again, and so, on and on. If one is to accept the logic of violence, the targets that the Islamicists chose on 9/11 were perfect; the "twin towers" of capitalistic evil doing in the world and the Pentagon; how could Ward Churchill and Derrick Jensen say otherwise? So why don't they, why don't they give a precise accounting of the kind of violence that would make sense. Again, they can't because violence never does make sense. Does that mean I think I'm above it. Hardly; anger, violence, fear and rage and self-preservation can be triggered in almost if not all of us.

The other thing that's so interesting about people from the left advocating violence, is the possibility that it is reflecting a bravado of sorts, that what, is attractive to leftist women? The fact is, despite the great clamoring regarding the victimhood of women, there has never been a Lysistrata; and women almost in masse will choose (to mate with) thoughtless mercenaries and capitalists over leftist intellectual "alternative" men who don't want to participate in the "system", who don't want to be automatons of the "culture of make believe". Derrick Jensen states that he believes most liberals are pacifists. The fact is almost none are. And the fact is most women are not pacifists either. To be a true pacifist is to be an anarchist, it is to be an anti-capitalist and to want there to be an end to civilization just like Derrick Jensen; but the fact is there are few liberals and even fewer women who are willing to do anything to make this happen.

The "left" and particularly the anarchistic or radical left (of which I'm a part of) is an extremely frustrated group (in my opinion) because the men and women of that group have an extremely difficult time loving one another. Which is why, in my opinion nothing ever really happens as far as cultural change. It really comes down to money, possessions and position. Visit my website at usurynomore.info