It is often thought that revolutions are bloody, tragic events that kill so many for nothing, in the end. Regimes that have sprung up from these revolutions haven't always played up to the expectations, and that's an understatement! However non-violent revolutions do exist: Poland and Checkoslovakia cracked communism, South Africa made a transition to a fully democratic state, Iran in 2009 made it onto the streets and spread the word across the globe; this word may have been a powerful antecedent to the Egyptian, Omani, Suadi, Syrian, Bahraini and all the other revolutions taking place right now. When non-violence strikes, no-one knows how to respond. The strike isn't dripping in blood but rage, and hope. Martin Luther King was one of those men who could rally thousands for a cause we all think is just now, he harmed no-one. Gandhi too, as well as Mandela, Suu Kyi, the Dalai Lama...
Wheteher a revolution needs a single figure leading the way is arguable, there is no single person in Egypt, the collective is acting as a unity though.
I think one of the reasons the US has attacked Libya is because it is weaker in terms of military prowess and influence than Egypt or Iran are. However it is also because Libya is being torn by war. The fact that there is a war allows foreign troops to come in and restore the situation, save resources and then take care of the people, in that order. If we want a change in society, that the world as a whole cannot oppose, it's through a means that the people will agree with, namely non-violence. A revolution from below isn't a revolution from below unless it is brought about with the direct contribution of the average person. Someone with a gun isn;t an average person; most people are too scared of guns and are too opposed to killing to ever use one and what's more, guns are traditionally and historically carried and used by men. A revolution with a gun would thus likely create a society in which women would have little representation, again patriarchy. The person carrying the gun also has the subsequent ability to enforce obedience and this puts him in a position of authority.
So if we want a new society, without patriarchy, inequality and violence or a constant fear of it, it can only be brought to us through non-violence. Non-violence is the only practical way to achieve a non-violent society.
On the other hand a revolution won through war can only result in either the ruling group being massacred, as in Rwanda, or being made into a minority who live with less rights and under constant fear. This society would thus fail to be egalitarian.
Imagine.
Hi Dan, I disagree with your formula that violent resistance can only begat further violence and thus that non-violence is the only way to a peaceful world. I think that by equating the violence of the oppressor and the violence of the oppressed, it misses something fundamental - the class dynamic to the violence that riddles our society today.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, I think most of the violence we see is absolutely deplorable. It is the violence of a minority, ruling elite seeking to cement and perpetuate their rule. It is the violence of the police, of racism, homophobia, of fighter-bombers and nuclear weapons and it is disgusting. But it perpetuates itself not because it is violent per see, or because of the ideas in the heads of our rulers (or because of the ideas of those they rule over), but it perpetuates itself because it perpetuates the rule of a minority. If you are a part of a minorty ruling class, violence becomes necessary and even sometimes even desirable to put the masses of working people in their place, and prevent them rebelling, rising up and taking what is rightfully theirs.
The violence of masses resisting oppression is rather different. It is the resistance of the masses that can end class-rule. The violence they engage in, whether it be to simply defend their demonstartions (as in Egypt) or offensive violence to smash the state, is part of the struggle for a more equal society (which will be more peaceful). If they abolish class rule altogether, they could even end violence forever.
An illustrative point here is that not one of the pacifist leaders you mentioned (MLK, the Dalai Lama, Gandhi, Suu Kyi) managed to succeed in building a society entirely free from violence - not because of their moral credentials - but because they all had as their goal a society that was divided by class. In doing so, they were unable to address the root cause of violence.
On Lybia, I don't think it was the violence of the rebels that caused the intervention - either directly or by providing the US with an excuse. The cause of the intervention was the interests of western capitalist elites. Insofar as people amongst the rebels support the intervention, it is either because they are would-be rulers of Lybia who beleive they will benefit from Western backing, or they are not yet conscious of the subservient position they will fill as workers in any future Lybian or Pan-Arab nation. Either way, it has more to do with social class than the violent/non-violent tactics they persue.
People who go to war start to resemble their enemy. As shown in Tunisia and Egypt, a shooting war is not necessary to overthrow an established power.
ReplyDeleteViolence does not resolve, it always leads to more violence. If you take power with guns the guns will remain after you are in power, and will, as in every case that I can think of in history, be used to maintain power - effectively creating a new set of elite or rulers. Once you start killing people you just get deeper and deeper without limits.