non-violent resistance

Great Debates
1

I read recently in several threads (mostly “right to bear arms” threads) that citizens need weapons to defend themselves against a potentially oppressive government. I must admit that in my youth I was not averse to violence and used to see revolutionaries like Che Guevara (or urban guerillas as the Red Army Faction or the Red Brigades) as heroes. Now, in my old age, I think that my youthful views were misguided, and that nonviolent resistance is the best solution.

Gandhi was very successful in India and managed to start a movement that gained independence for his country using this method. I have heard the objection made that Gandhi’s method would only work for a benign oppressor and that with a ruthless dictatorship (such as Nazi Germany) non-violence would be foolish. I disagree with that also. If we look at the situation of the jews in Europe, there was not much armed resistance to the Nazis (as far as I know, and I don’t really want to examine the reasons for that in this thread) but I argue that in the end the moral victory was theirs. The views of Adolf Hitler and his followers have now been widely discredited and are shunned all over the world, so much so that the Nazis are the classic example of evil. In addition, the state of Israel was formed (at least this is my impression) in part because of the responsibility felt by the victors to provide a homeland for a people that had suffered so much.

Violent resistance will often lead to excesses after which it becomes difficult to maintain the moral “high ground.” I believe that in the long run, non-violent resistance is the best solution, and can be very successful even in the short run. In addition, I argue that it is the more “moral” response.

Since I live in a mostly Christian society, I will add the famous quote of Jesus Christ:
Matthew 5:39, King James Version
«But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.»

I now await the chorus of “ayes” that will undoubtedly greet my unassailable statement. :smiley:

2

I can only offer a half-hearted “aye”. While I agree with your thesis in principle, it doesn’t always apply in the real world. “Looks good on paper.”
Before I go any further, I’d like to say that I am not generally in favor of guns - read that however you will. I trust the second amendment, but I don’t much like the way some interpret it.
The long run definitely benefits by this moral high ground. But I can’t agree with your statement that the short run is benefited. For example, if someone breaks into my house and threatens my family, I would much rather defend my home and save myself and my family, than passively resist, be killed, and be a hero/martyr for my children. While they may learn a lesson in morals, they certainly wouldn’t benefit by the lack of a father.

3

I agree that the long run may show nonviolence to be the best possible course of action for the largest number of participants. However, as mentioned above, sometimes a short-run decision is forced upon us. Still, there are few images that compare with the one of the lone student in Tianamen Square (probably misspelled) as he stood in front of the tank and just stared at it. Whenever I see that scene I am just awed at the strength of conviction, the courage, and the insane audacity of such an action. I don’t even know that man’s name, but I admire his grit immensely.

4

You can thank that lone Chinese student… but you would have to thank the wind, because after that tank ran him over, they hosed his remains out of the treads, collected them up, and gave them a cremation, for which his surviving relatives were sent a state bill for the cost.

Arnold: the Jews were rescued by outside forces.

If Hitler had been smart and spent a generation consolidating his power (and not declaring war on America in sympathy with Japan), then he could’ve finished his work unmolested, leaving the millions of European Jews as so must dust in the wind.

The police analogy leaps readily to mind: call the police and don’t resist, they’ll come to your rescue.

This is manifestly false. The police are not beholden to the individual citizen, but rather to the community as a whole. America did not come to the rescue of the Jews; they stopped Hitler from becoming a world menace, and resued the Jews (among others) in the process. A subtle distinction, but a definite one.

Thus, you might be waiting a while for the police to show up, while someone is breaking into your home, threatening you or your family, or beginning to commit unspeakable acts of violence upon you or your family.

And you are partially correct in one respect (even of you didn’t quite voice the thought): merely having a means of resistance isn’t enough. The training in how to use resistance (fists, knives, guns), the mindset and nerve to face possibly violent confrontation, and the resolve to do so are the basics of effective resistance.

Remove even one of those elements and you have a recipe for disaster.

As for the morality of violent resistance, this is debateable. Some strict adherents to various religious etos will say that it is better to die than to inflict harm on another, even of it is a criminal bent on doing you harm.

However, the moral right to self-defense against a violent or criminal aggressor has long been recognized in not only the christian bible, but is also derived in common law (except for England, which seems to have lost all recognition of common sense).

Besides, about three dozen Jews held the Warsaw Ghetto against the Wehrmacht for a week, until it was burned down around them.

Just imagine what six million Jews could have accomplished if they hadn’t submitted to Hitler’s draconian gun-control laws in '38 (which, coincidentally, is about 99% congruent with the wording of the Gun Control Act of 1968).

ExTank

5

Well, actually, the theory is that if the citizenry is armed, an oppressive government will never have the opportunity to take hold. Preventive medicine, in essence, which I think everyone would prefer over hundreds of thousands of people dying in gun battles.

But I agree with you, in part… however, part of the reason that Ghandi’s “passive resistance” was so successful was that it stirred up the passions of those who were quite willing to fight. Nonviolent resistance has the advantage of portraying the resistors as the undertrod, which tends to provoke the rest of the world to come to their aid. If everyone were completely pacifistic, those who would be willing to oppress them would have no reason to refrain from doing so.

6

**

I’m 24 and still consider myself to be rather youthful. I agree that nonviolent resistance is ideally the best. I don’t actually enjoy hurting other people and I enjoy being hurt even less. However in real life there are people who wouldn’t mind hurting me for a variety of reasons. And I consider it completely moral to use force against them.

**

There is no moral victory in being slaughtered. No moral high ground can be attained by becoming a victim. The moral victory held by the Jews is also held by everyone else who didn’t do what NAZI Germany did.

**

Yes, the state of Israel, where the phrase “never again” actually holds some meaning. You have a bunch of Jews there now who would fight tooth and nail against anyone who attempted to slaughter them. Are they less moral then the Jews who came before?

**

We maintained the moral high ground during WWII. Would non violent resistence on the part of the United States have helped?

Marc

7

(aside) I just wanted to mention that the lone student that faced the tanks, Wang Weilin, was not crushed by the tank, though his whereabouts today are unknown.

As far as the criminal intent on doing you harm:
a) If a criminal breaks into my house, they may only be intent on stealing something, so I can’t be sure they mean me harm. Violent resistance may in fact provoke him into harming me.
b) Of course if I could restraint someone from doing physical harm to another person, I shoud do so, with the goal of not harming the other individidual.
c) In any case, my post was not specifically concerning individual self-defense, but resisting an oppressive government (which is the crux of many second amendment arguments - and please note I’m not trying to start another second amendment debate! We have enough of those already.)

As for the morality of violent resistance, this is debateable.
Most people will agree that if you can non-violently prevent a person from committing a crime this is preferable than using violent means. I would be surprised if you disagreed ExTank.

Besides, about three dozen Jews held the Warsaw Ghetto against the Wehrmacht for a week, until it was burned down around them. Just imagine what six million Jews could have accomplished (portion about gun laws snipped)

What if instead of using violent means to resist, the Jews had started a massive underground publicity campaign informing their fellow citizens what was happening in concentration camps? I am sure that most germans, pastors and ministers, etc… would have spoken out against the atrocities committed. If we argue that most Jews didn’t know what was happening in the camps, that would remove some of their incentive to fight back.

If everyone were completely pacifistic, those who would be willing to oppress them would have no reason to refrain from doing so.

Except that the oppressors would face a large group of people that would try to prevent them from committing their violent crimes, and they (the oppressors) might eventually have to face the judgment of society. I am not arguing that crimes should be unpunished, but that large-scale non-violent resistance can be successful because the weight of public opinion will be on the side of the non-violent protesters and will eventually condemn those that use violence.

8

Given our opponents, it wasn’t particularly difficult to maintain the moral high ground in the Second World War. That said, we weren’t exactly paragons of morality ourselves…coughinternmentcampscough

9

I had heard that the lone road-block had been run over, but that was deemed to violent to show on American TV.

If not, I stand corrected.

If a non-violent means can be found to effectively combat tyranny (either social injustice or a mere personal aggressor) then that means is certainly preferable in the normal, right-thinking individual.

In the personal sense, it might not always be safely feasible to first ascertain the violator’s intent. The effective mugger gives no warning; as Saddam gave little if any strategic or tactical warning to Kuwait.

If the oppressor or aggressor cares little for your good intentions, then in stopping to ascertain their ultimate objective you may give away any strategic or tactical advantage you may possess; it certainly gives them more time to close upon you or your borders while you try to discern their objective(s).

Stopping a trespasser in your home cold with the verbal threat of imminent violence (as in “One more step and I blow your head off!”) is preferable to a person of conscience than simply pulling the trigger with no warning whatsoever.

In the eyes of most state’s laws, though, it makes little if any difference whether you warn them or not; by being in your home through forcible entry, obviously without your leave, ten they have consigned their right to safety, up to and including their life.

Such as it is with Nations. IF Canada were to invade Washington state, and were told forcibly by our State Dept. to leave and make reparations, and Canada refused, then we (the USA) are as morally justified in forcing them (through combat) to leave as you would be an intruder in your home, or of fending off a mugger or rapist with your fists, a knife, mace, a taser, a stung gun, or a regular gun.

Their is no moral cachet, or personal dignity, in being a victim; either personally, socially or nationally.

Their is only martyrdom and sympathy; which may or may not elicit aid and/or assistance from others.

But I (and most others, actually, IMHO) would rather fend for myself, where able, than to depend upon the largesse and magnanamity of others.

If I can do so without getting the blood of another on my hands, so much the better.

But if not…then I’ll use all means at my disposal to stop the aggressor, assured in and of my moral and legal footing.

If you want, I’ll e-mail you an article entitled “A Nation Of Cowards”; it’s too lengthy to post here, but it sums up nicely the argument for the moral use of force.

ExTank
“Pacifist until provoked.”
“Beware the fury of the patient man.”

10

**

He might just be there for a ham sandwhich. But I can’t read his mind so I’m just going to assume the worst. And if you want to play what if how about this. He sees you and decides that you won’t fight him. So he proceeds to torture you in an attempt to get more valuables out of you.

**

The primary goal should be to stop the aggressive actions of the attacker. I couldn’t tell who you meant by not harming the other individual.

**

German citizens weren’t stupid. I seriously doubt that they didn’t notice people being shipped east only to never be heard from again. And it is fairly tough to mount a publicity campaign when you’re in a death or work camp.

**

But if society is made up of a bunch of pacifist why would I have any reason to fear their judgement? If you’re going to try to prevent someone from comitting a violent crime you’re probably going to be using violence yourself.

And for the sake of arguement let’s say I’m a bad guy. I decide to embark on a campaign of terror against those who speak out against me. I kill their families, destory their property, and generally make their lives as miserable as possible. Popular opinion might still be against me. But if nobody is willing to use violence against me then I’m probably going to get my way.

Marc

11

I’d personally prefer it if non-violent methods were overall more effective, but this doesn’t really seem to be the case. Actaully, I was reading an article on this: Violence and Political Power: The Meek Don’t Make It, by W. Gamson, a sociologist. Out of 53 randomly chosen groups through American history, ranging from the League of American Wheelmen to the American Federation of Teachers to the American Birth Control League, 15 participated in some sort of violent exchange. Eight of them were willing to use violence, whether they initiated the exchange or defended themselves against police or mobs. The other seven did not resist with violence when attacked. The eight who used violence had a higher-than-average success rate, based on whether they won acceptance or advantages for their goals; six of the eight won new advantages, and five of those had their aims accepted by the public. The violent groups that did not attempt to displace the opposition were uniformly successful. None of the non-violent protestors had any success; those who advocated violence but did not follow through were least effective. Those groups that used high-pressure tactics like boycotts, strikes and attempts to humiliate their opposition were twice as likely to succeed as those groups that eschewed such tactics. Incidentally, a bureacratic, centralized organization was most likely to be successful.

The conclusion Gamson drew regarding violence and political protest is that a group’s tendency to use violence comes from confidence in its power and acceptance. The group believes the society will accept its violence, and a willingness to use violent tactics prevents the group from being prematurely crushed by those in authority. So violence is a sign that the group feels the people support it, and that they have the moral right to use it. Successful groups do not use violence as a primary tactic, but it seems that if they are willing and able to fight their goals are much more likely to be achieved. However, complete revolutions–ones that do not work within the government’s current structure-are very likely to fail, even if they condone violence to achieve their ends. I agree that violence often gets out of hand and causes the agiatator to lose the moral high ground, but it seems as if total pacifism is not more effective.

12

I remember watching footage of Wang Weilin’s stand. The lead tank tried to go around him at least twice, but it didn’t get close enough to run him over. Eventually someone else ran out and forcibly dragged him to safety, so he definitely did live to tell about it.

As far as nonviolent resistance goes…huh, I dunno. I won’t offer any simple answers here. I do believe that it worked for Mohandas Gandhi mainly because the British government wasn’t extremely oppressive (much unlike Nazi Germany) and he got a lot of popular support. As far as the use of violence goes, I believe in the martial artists’ credo: Use only as much force as necessary. For the aforementioned mugger case, if he’s unarmed, there’s no reason you can’t shoot him in the leg, sneak up on him and conk him with something heavy, etc., disabling him until the cops arrive. Only if he were actually threatening the life of another would I resort to deadly force.

Remember the case a few years back where a Japanese tourist got lost, walked up to the wrong house, and got immediately shot to death by someone inside who somehow suspected a vicious attacker? I’m sure he thought his action was justified, but that doesn’t take away the innocent blood. There’s something to be said for staying cool and not being trigger-happy.

(I just know I’m gonna offend someone, so I’ll stop here…)

13

As was alluded to earlier, the point of resistance, violent or otherwise, is not to be able to roll over in the grave, point at some other schmo in the grave, and say, “Ha-ha, told you so!” The point is to help yourself or your people in some meaningful, tangible way. No amount of dying through voluntary martyrdom on the part of the Jews in Nazi Germany would have helped them in the least. More onthat in a moment.

For non-violent resistance to be succesful, two things are necessary: (1) a media to spread news of the resistance, and (2) a hypocritical society to recieve said news. Take, for example, the U.S civil rights movement. You had a nation that cherished “liberty and justice for all” on the one hand, and videos on the news every night of police sicing attack dogs on 6 year olds in their church clothes. Ditto for Ghandi, in general. In Nazi Germany, had the Jews made themselves easier and more public targets (which would hardly have been possible in any case), it wouldn’t have a made a bit of difference to any one of the 6 million doomed, and it probably would’ve cost the lives of many more who would otherwise hide. They were not dealing with a hypocritical society, they were dealing with a society that genuinely hated them and saw no reason to afford them basic human rights. By all accounts, the non-Jewish populace knew what was happening (mostly, anyway), and they went along with it (in many cases, the even helped it along). It’s got little to do with an oppressive regime.

14

With the proper media coverage, non-violent resistance might even be more effective today than it was in Gandhi’s day (although I’m sounding a little cynical here, I believe there is truth in this statement).

But as to the moral victory of the Jews, the survivors of the victims might think (or have thought ) it rather hollow.

As much as I would prefer that there be no wars and violence, it seems that power-mad dictators are usually most effectively quashed by greater power.

15

Hey Arnold, get outa town.

Gandhi adopted those particular tactics with the British not because he was a pacifist per se but because he was an astute political leader who understood the best tactics by which to achieve his goals. Gandhi was many, many things (including a UK trained lawyer who understood the British Establishment very well) and one of his greatest qualities was as a salesman – no question of that in my mind. If he was up against Hitler he would have played a very different game.

IMHO, it’s about knowing your strengths and the oppositions weaknesses - how best to engender committed support and fragment the opposition. If the moral high ground gets you there, fine knock up a simplistic agenda, adopt a few catchy slogans, throw a little symbolism on the fire, maybe a martyr or two and bingo, you’ve got yourself a movement the people can relate to.

Morality can only be a weapon if it’s a weakness of the opposition. If you are confronted with evil, you fight it accordingly. The idea is to get rid of the evil, not carry your children into the gas chambers singing “we will overcome”.

16

I agree with the cynics: violence works. People don’t do bad acts out of an abstract dedication to evil, but because it gets them what they want. War’s been popular for thousands of years. If passive resistance were always more effective than burning women, kids, houses and villages, what kind of moron would fight?

By the way, how many pro choice people besides me respect the integrity of civilly disobedient abortion protesters, who are so firm in their belief that abortion is murder that they are willing to go to jail rather than refrain from demonstrating illegally in front of clinics? Sometimes civil disobedience wins admiration and respect; other times it just makes people say, “Jeez, what a bunch of fucking nuts!”

17

**

Detached reflected cannot be expected in the presence of an uplifted knife.

**

In the state of Texas both of your examples would legally be deadly force. Use of a heavy blunt object as a weapon constitutes deadly force. Use of a firearm even if only aiming for the legs counts as deadly force. Oh, and aiming for someones leg with all that adrenelin pumping through you is pretty difficult. Even the police are trained to shoot for the center of mass.

**

This happend in Louisiana and the Japanese exchange student did not immediately get shot to death. The shooter warned the student several times not to approach but apparantly he did not have a good grasp of the english language.

**

Apparantly the state of Louisiana also thought his actions were justified. There’s a little more to the story and if you really want to know I’m sure you can find something about it on the net.

Marc

18

London_Calling: You’re obviously right about Gandhi, only I never looked at him in that perspective before. I’m sitting open-mouthed and asking myself how I could have been so blind.

Which reminds me: There’s a Tom Clancy book (OK, so it’s not classical litterature, sue me) that starts with the Palestinians adopting Gandhi’s methods and succeeding.

Would it work ? Are the Israelis - like the British in India - dependent on their image as the “good guys” even if living up to it is not really to their advantage ?

S. Norman

19

Non-violence works great 99% of the time. For example, yesterday I got a loaf of bread without violence, I got a movie to watch without using violence, I sat at home without being bothered without using violence.

The trouble comes when somebody decides to use violence against me. What should my response to that be? Most of the time I would be non-violent for tactical reasons. If the police unfairly arrested me, I would non-violently allow myself to be arrested rather than engage in a shoot-out, since I know that I have a pretty good chance of defending myself against a baseless charge. But what if the Mongol Hordes tried to arrest me? Well, I’m almost certainly going to be killed by them whether I resist violently or not. In that case, violent resistence is logical.

As others have pointed out, if non-violence always works, then why didn’t the Mongols non-violently pillage China? Non-violence works especially well if your opponents are also non-violent.

20

** Spiny** – I’d like to be an Idealist (was as a younger man) and believe passive civil disobedience could work in a wide range of circumstances but, as time passes, I find it less and less viable as an effective tool of social change.

People cite Gandhi, Martin Luther King and even South Africa as examples of how disobedience can work to the good. I am now not at all sure. Sure, morality has been a component in an oppressive society changing but it’s overall influence is, IMHO, hugely overblown by the media because it has that nice warm human face to it – “Hey look at those guys on tv putting their lives on the line just so they can have what we have” (implication: we don’t know how lucky we are). Nice media story.

I think the wider political dynamics of expediency, economic advantage and (if relevant) re-election considerations are the main instruments of change. Thus we have P.W. Botha (ex South African Prime Minister) stating that the most effective tool of change away from Apartheid was the sports boycott (it’s a sporting mad country) followed by economic sanctions. Morality played no role

Did MLK genuinely effect change ? – He raised the agenda but surely Muhammed Ali did more to change the white perception of black Americans which in turn led to greater sympathy for that cause and made it a vote winner in the liberal 60’s

Gandhi, of course, had timing on his side and the fact that self rule was being sought from a democratic (free press) ruler. He forced the issue and the pace of change but it was, in any event, all in the wind.

You cite Tom Clancy (which I don’t know) but in ‘Exodus’ Leon Uris did a similar thing but about the Jews using the international media to engender moral sympathy against the British in the months before the Mandate expired and Israel was born.- - not co-incidentally, at the same time Gandhi was playing the same game.

As for the Palestinians using it against Israel well, I don’t know. Israel’s first consideration is security of the State. That’s the big political issue. Until it became clear co-existence with the Arabs didn’t mean compromising that security I don’t think any tactic, passive or violent, would have furthered the Palestinian cause.