Book: How Nonviolence Protects the State
Chapter: The Alternative: Possibilities for the Revolution Author: Peter Gelderloos Published: 2007 / South End Press personal tags: #HNvPtS
I have made a number of forceful, even vitriolic, arguments against nonviolent activism, and I have not diluted these arguments.
I'm not sure vitriolic arguments are helpful, especially when those arguments are really coming across as “I hate this specific guy, so I wrote this book.” Spruce Houser seems like someone I wouldn't want to spend time with or organise with, but he also doesn't seem like a good reason to write a book where you conflate a lot of shit because your arguments often apply to yourself.
in order to defenestrate the stranglehold pacifism
I'm going to be nitpicky here, but this metaphor sucks shit. You cannot defenestrate a stranglehold. You can block it, you can fight it, you can defenestrate the stranglers, but this is just bad writing. It annoys me.
Would-be revolutionaries need to realize that pacifism is so vapid and counterproductive that an alternative is imperative.
Except you didn't say this because you spent so much time conflating pacificism with nonviolence, and you also kept complaining that “violence” is a nonsensical category (which also means that “nonviolence” is a nonsensical category). You should've either cribbed from Churchill harder and stuck with fucking “pacificism” or actually made proper definitions (instead of waffling about how it's not possible).
My argument is not that all pacifists are apologists and sellouts without redeeming merit or a place in a revolutionary movement. Many pacifists are well-meaning would-be revolutionaries who have simply been unable to move past their cultural conditioning, which programs them instinctively to react to assaults on, the Godlike state as the highest crime and treason.
I'm sure these pacificists would love to read a vitriolic book rather than one that actually and usefully explores these issues. I wonder why this polemic hasn't really changed that many minds (other than the ones he's told me it has).
Now that I have demonstrated the need to replace a nonviolent revolutionary practice...
You haven't because you missed some vital steps.
But rather than say, for instance, “See, the violent Russian Revolution led to another violent and authoritarian government, therefore violence is infectious,” it would help to point out that all the Leninists wanted was an authoritarian, red-painted capitalist state with them at the head, and in their own terms they were quite successful.
File this under: Things that could've been said ages ago to make a more coherent text that addresses critiques rather than waffling for ages.
Also file this under: This is an interesting thing to include in a chapter about “alternative possibilities.” Did you forget you were done doing that?
The common element of all of these authoritarian revolutions is their hierarchical form of organization. The authoritarianism of the USSR or People’s Republic of China was not a mystical carryover from the violence they used, but a direct function of the hierarchies to which they were always wed.
Hey, so... I wonder why it's now that you're talking about this when it could've been synthesised earlier in the text. You know... When you brought up the ineffective strategies fighting against them?
This book is so badly written, and it has gone through two more-or-less proper publishers (aside from Peter's self-publishing outfit). Anarchist material doesn't need to be published ASAP all the time. Books can be read and critiqued and reorganised before you go to print.
Some people have friends who read things for them, too. Someone else I know tosses a post up so that he can edit it as people send him messages or leave comments or whatever. This book is old and doesn't seem to have ever gotten either treatment.
A good article containing thoughts on an anarchist revolutionary process similar to the one I have phrased is Wolfi Landstreicher’s “Autonomous Self-Organization and Anarchist Intervention.”
Part of footnote 230. Can we stop referencing patriarchal anarchists who are abuse apologists (if not abusers)? Hmm.
In all likelihood, though, an anti-authoritarian liberation movement would need to emphasize building an autonomous culture that can resist the mind control of the corporate media and a foundation of social centers, free schools, free clinics, community agriculture, and other structures that can support communities in resistance.
Weird how schools are always in this when they aren't necessarily needed and could be replaced by any other concept at all. Anarchists never seem to deviate from these things that too many of them see as good.
Readers may notice that some of the major initial requirements of a liberation movement do not include “violent” actions. I hope that by now we can abandon the dichotomy between violence and nonviolence altogether.
Which you could've done more about earlier.
I hope that during this process we can build a culture of respect for our enemies (a number of non-Western cultures have shown it is indeed possible to respect a person or animal you must kill), which will help to prevent purges or a new authority when the present state has been defeated.
... What do you mean by “respect?” (And also, there is a vast difference between killing an oppressor and killing a bear. The two are not viewed the same in pretty much any culture, and it's because of the human qualities that we imbue both with. A bear is not my enemy, though it can be dangerous. A human who is dangerous can be my enemy, depending on what sort of danger they bring.)
For example, it could be seen as acceptable to kill a more powerful enemy (for instance, someone who must be targeted clandestinely for fear of state reprisal), unfavorable to kill someone who is equally powerful (such that it would only be seen as justified by one’s peers in pitched circumstances and self-defense), and downright immoral and scornful to kill someone weaker (for instance, someone already defeated).
I have a lot of questions on this because it sounds like it comes from somewhere... very weird.
... At least I'm done reading this awful book. I hope.