# is non-violence more effective than violent means?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-non-violence-more-effective-than-violent-means/102780>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [April 10, 2002, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-non-violence-more-effective-than-violent-means/102780 "2002-04-10T03:24:27Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Grim\_Beaker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/46a35a/32.png) [@Grim\_Beaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Beaker)\
**Post date:** [April 11, 2002, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-non-violence-more-effective-than-violent-means/102780/21 "2002-04-11T20:01:58Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> Bertold Brecht has a great fable that mirrors this point. It goes something like this. (sorry for the bastardization) :  
> A man was sitting in his home. All of a sudden he heard a knock on his door. It was a dictator. He said, “Submit to me.” The man said nothing and let him in. The man served the dictator for years, until the dictator died from food poisoning. The man picked up the dictator, threw him out the door, and said, “NO.”

Rather than serving for years against my will I’d rather kick his ass, throw him out the door, and say “NO” immediately. YMMV.

Grim

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\
**Post date:** [April 11, 2002, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-non-violence-more-effective-than-violent-means/102780/22 "2002-04-11T20:36:32Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Colinito67 \*  
> \*\*  
> Civil Rights movement: firebombing churches, attacking buses filled with protesters…some of the southern whites did not give a rat’s ass about the human rights of black people… in fact, their insistence that everyone should have equal rights _infuriated_ many of those people.

\*\*

Yeah, **some** southern whites did not give a rat’s ass. It wasn’t the policy of the government, or the state governments, of the United States to murder black people. If that was the policy of the government, or most people, then non-violent protest wouldn’t have amounted to dick.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> As for the USSR, China, and Cambodia- depends on how active they were, how willing they were, what tactics they used. Non-violence has to be active, it has to be well planned and suitable for the situation.

\*\*  
And I’m not convinced that non-violence is suitable for every situation.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> no, but many people were not willing to listen to that righteousness. if they took up arms it would only make matters worse in that respect.

\*\*

You don’t have to sell me on the merits of non-violent protest. What I want to know is why people seem to think that it is the best way all the time.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> And I’m glad you can throw something like “Without violence Germany would have won.” You must have a ‘hypothetical situation machine’ at your disposal. Can you not atleast _imagine_ another outcome.

\*\*

I can imagine all sorts of things. Of course I can keep my imagination in check.  
Marc

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-non-violence-more-effective-than-violent-means/102780.md?page=1)