Reading: The Failure of Nonviolence
Chapter: Comments on How Nonviolence Protects the State By: Peter Gelderloos (2016) related tags: #tFoN
How Nonviolence Protects the State is fairly straightforward. It begins by disputing nonviolent histories and claims of victory in the Civil Rights movement, the independence movement in India, the anti-war movement during the US occupation of Vietnam, and the anti-nuclear movement. In all these cases, the pattern is clear: proponents of nonviolence whitewash a heterogeneous, often combative movement to portray it as nonviolent; and they portray a partial victory or an important but limited accomplishment as an ultimate victory, speaking in unison with the State to declare a happy ending to a movement that was in fact still in struggle (and of course hiding the important role of the non-pacifist elements in achieving whatever gains were won).
Even as someone who should ostensibly agree, that whole book (and those sections in particular) are some of the worst analysis I've ever seen that neglect so many social structures.
One reviewer claimed the book advocates terrorism, citing a passage where I argue that an al-Qaida bombing in Madrid did more to end Spain’s involvement in the invasion of Iraq than a million people peacefully protesting, and leaving out the part where I explicitly state that such bombings do not constitute a model for revolutionary action because the calloused condemnation of innocent people is fundamentally authoritarian.
Does anyone want to correct the fact that it wasn't a fucking al-Qaeda bombing and that there was no evidence of it being one? Which I pointed out when I read that fucking book? Which Peter could've corrected here?
For fuck's sake.
One reviewer, writing in Left Turn, objected that I did not define “revolution” the way Che would have, and then went on to make a number of false claims about what I said in the book.
This bit is important for the context of the review.
The reviewer, Dan Horowitz de Garcia, a member of the “cadre organization” Bring the Ruckus, falsely claims that I do not explain why I lump together pacifism and nonviolence, that I do not distinguish between a way of life and a method...
Footnote 117. Garcia's critique isn't something I'm interested in, but he's not wrong here. Peter did not explain why he lumps together pacificism and nonviolence; he just does it, and he does it without regarding anything about anything. Again, he could've taken a little more inspiration from Churchill and just stuck with one. He didn't.
!! INTERLUDE STARTS !!
In fact, Garcia largely spoke positively of Peter's book in concept (because it tries to engage a conversation that is sorely necessary). However, what he did say is: “Gelderloos’s anger is clear, however his analysis isn’t.”
This is true. Peter's analysis is all over the place, both in How Nonviolence Protects the State and here in The Failure of Nonviolence.
Garcia continues:
The problems start in the introduction with his definitions. He defines revolution as “a social upheaval with widespread transformative effects.” World War II was a social upheaval, but I’m thinking Che talked about something different. He makes nonviolence a synonym for pacifism by defining both as, “a way of life or a method of social activism that avoids, transforms, or excludes violence….” There is a difference between a method and a way of life, but Gelderloos ignores this and therefore hamstrings his historical analysis.
This is also largely true. While I don't care what Che would've thought about how to define a revolution, neither of these points are wrong and are things that genuinely cause frustrations while reading the text. (Also, the bit about Che feels like a joke? Rather than him genuinely thinking Peter should've defined it as Che did.)
Footnote 117 continues with:
... that I wrote that the Civil Rights movement did not win anything, that I portrayed that movement as homogeneous, that I only made one reference to the Black Panther Party, in addition to other choice bits of misinformation. He completely skews the entire chapter on patriarchy on the basis of a single willfully misinterpreted sentence while failing to mention the contents of the rest of the chapter, makes the curious distinction that a social phenomenon should not be called a movement if it does not win, and twists other arguments I make.
That's how Peter portrays this part of the review:
Unable to critically examine the history, Gelderloos opts for the paternalistic argument that the civil rights movement didn’t win anything. He doesn’t differentiate between the modern civil rights movement, which demanded equality, and the Black power movement, which demanded liberation. He simply says there was one civil rights movement that demanded equality and liberation, but didn’t win it. He acknowledges the ending of legal segregation (Jim Crow), but de facto segregation exists so that’s a wash.
And honestly, that is the argument that Peter ends up making. Maybe he should've gotten an editor (or a good friend) to read the book or something, but that's the conclusion of his argument in that text. And those are the things that he ignored.
Garcia continues by saying:
He places the blame on the reliance on nonviolence. He doesn’t ask an obvious question, at least obvious to me: If a movement isn’t able to affect any kind of change, let alone reach its goal, should it be called a movement? He doesn’t define movement in the book, so I assume he uses the word not to describe a societal phenomenon, but to lend importance to activity.
And... that's also true. This is a question that Peter should've asked.
Oh, and lastly, this bit of Garcia's review:
The most disappointing, even maddening, section of the book was devoted to patriarchy. I hoped for some interesting observations and questions. Instead, it led to something stupid. Gelderloos actually states that patriarchy can be “gradually overcome by groups that work to destroy it.” A page later, he unintentionally explains that nearly every tactical or strategic discussion he’s participated in was dominated by men. Now it makes sense. He’s surrounded by men who (surprise!) are taking a “gradual” approach to gender liberation.
STRANGELY, THIS IS A THING THAT I KEPT SAYING AS I READ IT, TOO. It's truly bizarre that Peter didn't recognise how obtuse it was.
Peter just doesn't like people being critical of him, claiming the review was a personal attack. Thin skin is so cute!
Back to this fucking book...
!! INTERLUDE CONCLUDES !!
A review on The New Compass faults my book for an “anarchist bias [that] is so overwhelming throughout the entire work that the critique becomes limited in its ability to restart an important debate by seeming to be at times little more than an anarchist intercommunal polemic”. This is another flaw I have tried to improve in the current book.
... An anarchist bias is fine, but I don't think Speitel and I share the same understanding of what an anarchist is. However, if Peter thinks he fixed any of these things, he hasn't. This book is an even worse polemic than the other one, and it includes very little evidence of topics he discusses.
I'm skipping a chunk of this. It's either him picking fights with people who aren't wrong or him fighting people who he presents as obnoxious (Milan Rai). And because I don't know them and don't care, this whole thing is so fucking pointless. It should've been a goddamned blog post or something. He could've been a drama YouTuber.
I think many proponents of nonviolence have a serious problem with colonial, paternalistic attitudes or the victimization of historically oppressed groups, and most of the specific criticisms I was relaying originated with comrades from those groups; however I think it is a long-term problem that needs to be approached with patience, and by applying labels like “racist”, to white people who sincerely, however ineffectively, want to do away with racism, I may have added to a dynamic that discourages critical thinking and encourages one’s own side to ostracize or disqualify and the other side to look for their own insults and disqualifiers to throw back.
If people are being racist, they should know. If they are hurt for being told they're being racist, uh... Guess what.
But that's also not quite what Peter was doing. He was throwing insults, but they were largely unnecessary ones. And telling someone they're being racist isn't an insult.
... And with that, this book is done.