Non-Violent Struggle = no violence? Nope

General General Discussion
1

Some thoughts on the topic overlooked by the proponents of non-violent resistance:

The death of Mandela not long ago reminds me of the tactic of non violence to achieve the goals of freedom from some oppressor. People make the mistakes constantly that those well known figures who used non violent resistance did so as a principle vs a tactic.

I heard an interview with Mandela’s biographer who said Mandela was very clear non violence was a tactic, not a principle for him. He felt violent resistance was also an option, and option he was a proponent of during his early experiences and was principle in the armed faction of the ANC.
But what of other well known figures who used non violence? Gandhi, and MLK jr, both, new it was a tactic that might be more effective (or at least lead to far less bloodshed) than violent resistance, but they didn’t reject violent resistance on principle either on the group or personal level.

Gandhi said:

“I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully.”

  • Mahatma Gandhi (Young India, 11-10-1928, p342)

MLK Jr. Said:

“Finally, I contended that the debate over the question of self-defense was unnecessary since few people suggested that Negroes should not defend themselves as individuals when attacked. The question was not whether one should use his gun when his home was attacked, but whether it was tactically wise to use a gun while participating in an organized demonstration.”

“As we have seen, the first public expression of disenchantment with nonviolence arose around the question of ‘self-defense.’ In a sense this is a false issue, for the right to defend one’s home and one’s person when attacked has been guaranteed through the ages by common law.”
From: “Where Do We Go From Here:Chaos or Community?” by MLK Jr.

The only world leader of note I can find who may approach non violent struggle against an oppressor on principle is the Dali Lama, but I don’t know if he’s really discussed that. However, when asked on a personal self defense level he said:

“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” – The Dalai Lama, the “Educating Heart Summit” May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times

When being attacked, the Lama does not advocate non-violence as a response it appears. I’m unclear whether or not his line of thinking would extend to larger issues of oppression for which his own people currently experience.

Historically speaking, non violent civil disobedience has been effective against democratic open societies where the wholesale slaughter of civilians will cause such an outrage by the populace it’s ultimately rejected by the oppressors as a tactic. However, against governments/oppressors from dictatorships and leaders who do not answer to their own people and rule by force, non violent civil disobedience has not historically been effective and only violent resistance has resulted in the freedoms for which they desired as human beings with “inalienable Rights” they have as human beings.

2

I like the Patton doctrine. My job is not to die for my freedoms. My job is to make the other bastard trying to take it, die for his ideals.

3

I may not throw the first punch but I will damn sure throw the last

4

Rule of thumb in the American West well before my time: “Never lay a hand on another person, and demand the same from them”.

However, I have been in situations where I might have been required to take action first - which would have been the only action. Never let your opponent get too close or have the opportunity to get a debilitating or lethal hit prior to your response. Offense is always the best action.

5

“I won’t be wronged, insulted, or laid a hand on. I don’t do these things to other people and require the same from them”

6

J. B. Books

7

My moral dilemma has always been, “When does it stop being murder and start being war?” I’ve always thought that “war” was an objective use of violence to achieve a political end that cannot be achieved peacefully, and “murder” is an emotional act of violence to further a personal end.

The trouble is, most wars start due to emotions. People react with their animal instincts and emotions when confronted with an unacceptable set of circumstances, and let’s not even go to addressing “cold-blooded murder” which also does not necessarily have an emotional component.

So where does “murder” end and “war” begin? That is, when is violence unacceptable and subject to punishment, and when is it an acceptable act of political expression?

Whomever answers that question for me will have my eternal grattitude.

8

:wink:

9

Didn’t you say you were a police for a minute once?

And you don’t know the answer to this question?

If people with more authority and power than you say it is okay, then it isn’t murder.
Seriously.

Removing religious aspects or personal hangups. If a guy in a robe, 12 stupid nobodies, some civil servant in a cheap suit and expensive shoes, or some chick in a polo shirt and 5.11s with a dykey haircut and a severe need for at least a little lipstick say it isn’t murder then it isn’t murder and you should not feel bad because they were going to die at some point anyways.

Life goes on. The sun shall rise and set. I try not to think about it too much.

Per Wars, nobody goes to war over emotions or any of that poetic shit. It’s to shore up support and create a problem that only they can solve. Carrot on a stick. People feel emotions.

Governments and politicians feel greedy.
Even the “last great war” of WWII was a hard sell.

I still maintain it was an overall plot to get Americans used to debt, used to rationing, and used to “the greater good”

If they really saw Germany and Japan as a real threat they could have done what people always do…

Cash them in. The Japanese just wanted Steel. The Germans just wanted not to be beholden to pretty severe treaties.

We can parse atrocities all day and go in a big circle on morality but the US could have simply bought them out.

Same with Civil War. Reduce tarriffs, slavery gors away anyways like in Brazil. I dare say Brazil has healthier race relations because they aren’t ashamed to admit they like sex more. It lasted until 1895 and was merely obsolete and not worth the effort.

These things only become issues because someone cries over it.

There is no real high ground. No real morality. I suppose this is the Zen Nihilist in me creeping out but nobody ever turned down good money, fine ass, or a warm meal over some beau geste display of character.

Tl;dr. It’s only murder if people more important than you say it is. Otherwise it is what is.

FWIW you still might go to Hell though even if you don’t go to jail

10

Maybe I should clarify. When I use the word “war” I’m including revolt, insurgency, terrorism, rioting, and all manner of civilian reactions against political authority.

Here’s an example:

The government passes an all-out gun ban. You have 30 days to turn in your stuff. Trouble is: They passed this law with the Second Amendment still in place. Bottom line: The gun ban is an illegal statute.

Reaction? Surely in this environment political violence would be acceptable, however, who is a legitimate target in this “war?”

Tim McVeigh slaughtered women and children in the Murrah federal building as an act of “war” in his mind to retaliate against what he perceived as jack-booted thugs who slaughtered the people at Waco.

(This scenario has been hotly debated, by the way).

So, McVeigh clearly crossed the line into murder by killing innocents just because they were federal employees.

Still–would there have been legitimate political targets, i.e., not “murder” victims that could be morally engaged with violence as retribution for the slaughter at Waco?

I’m thinking: NO, unless you could locate and engage THE EXACT persons who ordered the deaths of the people at Waco. Then again: It’s the job of the powers that be to prosecute rogue elements for their crimes–not you or me.

But what if the whole government is a rogue element? What if, in our gun ban example, the government mobilizes every alphabet-soup agency to go confiscate people’s guns with extreme prejudice?

Are you a murderer if you fight back?

Are you REALLY fighting for freedom by resisting those people violently, or are you simply doing so in your own mind?

At what point are you objectively committing violence for a legitimate reason, and at what point are you simply committing murder in the mistaken belief that you are doing it for other than personal reasons?

11

MLK Jr. Said:

“Finally, I contended that the debate over the question of self-defense was unnecessary since few people suggested that Negroes should not defend themselves as individuals when attacked. The question was not whether one should use his gun when his home was attacked, but whether it was tactically wise to use a gun while participating in an organized demonstration.”

When I advocate for restraint and non-violence these days I do so out of simple pragmatism i.e. “What are the odds of actual success here?”. What are the odds we won’t just make things worse?
And spoiler alert: our chances of successfully “fighting back” are currently not good.
There’s bravely standing up against the odds, and there’s being pointlessly suicidal. Unless we really get our shit together, any “resistance” movement is going to fall squarely in the latter category.
At the current time in March of 2019, we are not up to the task. If we become up to the task, than that of course changes things, and changes my opinion. But I’m not holding my breath.

On the “moral” side of things, I don’t feel like I’m experiencing any sort of dilemma.

12

Mr Safari,

If you have to navel gaze over whether it is okay to use violence then you probably don’t have to worry about ever using it.

Right now, there is a young man. He feels entitled to what you have. He doesn’t train. He takes what he can get. He roams in a pack. He doesn’t debate calibers only the simple matter of possession and and no point does he ever seriously question his acts of violence and force. He will kill anyone in his way and still not even see how he got there until he is 10 years in or a needle(lol) is getting jabbed into his veins and even STILL won’t fully grasp or accept it.

And you are asking if it is okay to shoot someone coming at you in a bearcat or in force over some bullshit paper crime…

Trust me. You’re fine. You’re good.
This is simply not going to be anything for you
to concern yourself with.

13

Folks, a more refined version of this I have put up on Medium. Thoughts?

https://medium.com/@willbrink/of-non-violent-struggle-and-self-defense-891921d7cef