Reading: The Failure of Nonviolence
Chapter: A Diversity of Methods By: Peter Gelderloos (2016) related tags: #tFoN
Rejecting nonviolence does not mean running to the opposite extreme of building a revolutionary practice around the concept of violence.
Literally, this is where the book could've started. And it could've been a fucking essay.
Such a practice could prove to be interesting and valuable, especially if violence were understood as transgression, that which shocks and disturbs by breaking society’s norms at a symbolic and material level.
Sounds almost like the title to César Cruz's poem: To Comfort the Disturbed, and to Disturb the Comfortable. (Also, he was credited with “Art should comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable.”)
But opposites tend to reproduce the same logic; in order to function as opposites they must exist within the same paradigm.
Hey, this is the argument you should've been making from PAGE ONE. Instead, you've spent 70% of this book arguing on their terms rather than setting the ones you claimed to want.
Authoritarian thinking, which is the most immature, both ethically and conceptually, requires the simplification of a complex reality.
Why do we even need a concept of maturity here? What does it mean to be “ethically immature?” There's no reason for this. Just say what you want: Authoritarian thinking requires the oversimplification of a complex reality.
I suspect that this is why proponents of nonviolence like Rebecca Solnit have denounced it as a tool for irresponsible, violent rioters without making any reference to the historical record (Gleneagles, Heiligendamm, St. Paul, Vancouver, Toronto, and so on...): because a functioning diversity of tactics framework undermines nonviolence by disproving its claims to supremacy and allowing peaceful activists to act peacefully in harmony with other very different forms of protest.
Here's a problem: Your arguments with Rebecca Solnit could've functioned as footnotes, and it would've been helpful here. I don't remember anything from that list of people because it was so tedious to get through. Now I'm trying to remember even a glimmer of what he'd said about her, and I'm recalling nothing.
This is a problem of Peter's writing and structure. It assumes you know or remember way more than you otherwise might.
Ridiculous as they may be, these pacifist responses demonstrate the limitations of a diversity of tactics.
WHAT RESPONSES. Also, why can't we pick a term and stick with it? Peter loves Ward Churchill so much, he may as well just copy him directly and stick primarily with pacificists and utilise 'nonviolent' or 'nonviolence' in specific moments (rather than using them for people).
I also don't know what the point of this chapter is because he's just giving subheadings, some blathering, and then moving on. It's analytically lacking and an inept way of writing.
The NAACP presents itself as the organization that represents all black people in the US. Are white people allowed to disagree with its politics without being racist?
While I think there is a necessary conversation to have regarding the weaponisation of race and racism (usually utilised as a silencing tactic to prevent other criticisms—such as Patrice Onwuka's nonsensical op-ed in WaPo about how socialism targets her Black immigrant family and doesn't allow them to participate in the (colonialist) American Dream)... I don't think that Peter's doing a good job here in framing it? Because it comes off sounding like an aggrieved white person who just learned what racism is, and that's not helpful.
That's even with it being followed by:
Where our actions intersect with dynamics of race and the differences between those most affected and those less affected, we have to be sensitive, humble, and open to criticism. But if our framework encourages us to play it safe, and makes it safer to avoid being called racist by doing nothing than by taking action, then we have a serious problem.
Like, yeah. We do need to be sensitive and open to criticism, so I don't inherently disagree... but he needs to find ways to not come off like he's more worried someone'll call him racist.
A related problem is when an issue is closer to some people than to others. At a protest against austerity measures, everyone affected by austerity (which is practically the entire society) can be a protagonist. Because austerity does not affect everyone in the same way, no one should decide how others can participate. At a student protest, students as well as those who are excluded from being students by economic or other factors should be able to take the lead. But, for example, at an indigenous solidarity protest, people who are not indigenous should probably take their cues from those who are rather than imposing their own rhythm or methods.
Again, yeah... But also, consider who is around you when you choose to do what you're doing and whether they're okay with it. Some people affected my austerity are more impacted than others; some students are more impacted than others. It's not an oppression hierarchy, but it is ensuring the safety of those who are more vulnerable than yourself. This doesn't mean don't act but that you act responsibly.
This is something he rarely engages with at all. He can only see it in the above example.
The other aspect to making sure people are okay with what you're doing is your own safety. Narcs will cause problems, so you better have a crowd big enough or security good enough to counteract that.
During the uprising in Turkey in the spring of 2013, I participated in a solidarity demo that had been called for in a small town in the US. A number of Turkish immigrants were among those who convened the protest. A couple of them tried to enforce a unifying discourse, saying that the uprising in Turkey was about democracy and human rights. They also used the Turkish national flag as a symbol for that struggle. They attempted to guide the protest along a much more peaceful path than is the norm in that town, walking on the sidewalk rather than taking the street, for example. A number of anarchists participated. Some of them had friends and comrades from Istanbul who were involved in the Taksim Square occupation from early on. These anarchists gently criticized the use of the Turkish flag as a symbol for the struggle, and chanted slogans critical of capitalism, the police, and all forms of government. It was shocking, though sadly unsurprising, how easily national identity was used to create insiders and outsiders with essentially legitimate or illegitimate ideas. Simply by being born Turkish, one protester could claim to represent a movement he had never participated in, whereas a person of another ethnic identity who has friends who helped make the occupation and resulting struggle a reality can be branded an illegitimate outsider when they are trying to promote the same discourse as their comrades in Istanbul.
This... is frustrating. I get where he's coming from. I participated in a BLM solidarity march where I live now, which is across the Atlantic Ocean. Black people were leading it (which makes sense), but they routinely ignored the most policed demographic if the country in which we live: the Romani. There were zero Romani people participating, there was zero care to include them, and the organisers adamantly refused that we should include Romani people because it was “a solidarity march for Black people.” They also ignored the whole anti-cop aspect of it, and they very much didn't like it when people called them out for their pro-cop stances (e.g., “If you have problems, go talk to the officers behind you”). They also weren't fond of being called out for using it as a way to platform their bands and do nothing politically relevant at all; it was nothing more than a tedious marketing gimmick pretending to be a solidarity march/demonstration.
But it's also a failure in understanding who is the “typical” immigrant in a space and that they will assimilate and also support multiple states.
For example, it would be a little bit odd, disrespectful even, to set a bank on fire in solidarity with the movement for a free Tibet, since that movement has been overwhelmingly pacifist.
... Elaborate? Like, this doesn't make any sense without explanation.
Other complaints arise when combative protesters use a crowd as a form of shelter for starting a riot, or create a conflictive situation in a place where people cannot easily get away, or around small children and others who are more vulnerable to police brutality. However, this concern is a complicated one. There have been occasions where confrontational protesters have opportunistically utilized others with no concern for their wants or well-being, simply because they needed a passive crowd for the realization of their tactic, and this is a breach of solidarity. But just as often, if not more so, there have been cases where protesters have stuck around when rioting started, delighted by the sound of smashing glass and basking in the glow of the fires, but later, after they were arrested, blamed the rioters for endangering them. Although it does happen, it is relatively rare that a riot comes out of nowhere, with no indication that it is about to start and no gradual build-up (especially when so many who riot come prepared, masked up and chanting angrily).
Rolling my eyes. Sorry, but I find part of this to be disingenuous because it all sounds like the biggest strawman. Are we celebrating Guy Faukes night?
Many people believe that there is a need to use cameras as a tool against police brutality or for counterinformation and alternative media. But a camera is far more dangerous to protesters than a molotov cocktail. No one should be using one at a protest without knowing what they are doing. Until Cop Watch collectives, legal aid groups, and Indymedia or other counterinformation activists start organizing workshops on how to film without enabling police surveillance, how to edit images to erase people’s identifying features, when it’s okay to put protesters’ faces on the internet, how to safely store, upload, and delete images, they should not take cameras to a protest. At a protest, they should identify themselves so others know they are not cops or corporate journalists. And everyone else with a camera should be asked to put it away or leave.
... So... we give certain groups power and then we let people do the harass until... Honestly, it's amusing how often he defaults to authoritarian thinking without realising it.
These are all social guidelines that he's now handing over to certain groups of people, without even considering the implications.
... This entire chapter was making my eyes glaze over. He's so repetitive, and it's to the point where it's actively disruptive to reading.