Over the past week, I have watched people who are understandably scared and angry reacting not only to the news, but also to each other. This never goes well. It’s the sort of situation where people who are otherwise inclined to agree on fundamental values start arguing about how to express and defend those values, and because we are facing a wave of state terror, we’re not generally disposed to listening to nuance. And so we have people justifiably defending nonviolence arguing with people justifiably pointing out its weaknesses, and neither can see that they’re both right…sort of. More importantly, they’re not actually arguing around the same definitions.
Today, as we remember whatever selected portions of Dr. King’s legacy seem to support our views, I wanted to take a moment to collect some of the misunderstandings on both sides and clear things up a bit. (For more, see my previous article on this topic.)
Defining Violence
First, let’s get one thing out of the way. When we discuss violence and nonviolence as tactics of either oppression or resistance, we need to be absolutely clear what we mean. So here’s my definition:
Violence is the commission of bodily harm against one or more individuals.
That’s it. Not threats, not inconvenience, not embarrassment, not property damage. There are degrees and differences between other things that are not violence, but they are still not violence. In particular, many voices of the establishment – media, law enforcement, politicians – really want you to believe that property can experience violence. It cannot. Only people can.
Also note that nonviolence does not require an oppressed community to disarm and leave itself exposed to violence. If the goal is the reduction of violence, self-defense is an integral part of that.
Strategy: the Real Axis of Disagreement
There’s a predictable sequence of comments that I keep seeing online. It starts with someone promoting or advocating for nonviolence, and then a skeptic comes in asking something like, “What have the protests actually done?” Then, assuming there’s more to the conversation, the skeptic will then point out historical evidence (typically full militarized revolts) to suggest that only violence can unseat a tyrant.
The problem with this is that the first question is fair, but the proposed solution is not a simple switch from nonviolence to violence. Fundamentally, the skeptic is judging what I call “unfocused nonviolence” and comparing it to what I would call “strategic violence.” If we want to see the differences more clearly, we have to compare similar levels of strategy. Sure, strategic violence is more effective than unfocused nonviolence, but that’s not because of the violence – it’s because of the strategy.
Let’s look at four possibilities for a clearer comparison:
- Unfocused Nonviolence – protests, petitions, donating to causes, election-focused political action. These activities are mostly about “being heard.” Generally safe (until they’re not), but not terribly effective in the face of real oppression.
- Unfocused Violence – individual violent actions with political and ideological motivations. Because these actions are not guided by a particular strategy or organizing principle, they are often characterized and manipulated by different groups for different purposes. Has little effect overall, regardless of the “value” of the target, and makes the environment less safe for everyone.
- Strategic Nonviolence – boycotts, strikes, targeted property destruction or business disruption, sit-ins or similar, political action outside of election cycles. Can be extremely effective, but depends almost entirely on the level of participation. Can decrease safety for participants and their allies.
- Strategic Violence – militia-based or guerrilla-style violent actions coordinated with a clear goal in mind. Effectiveness depends mostly on the training and dedication of the participants, but also on the willingness of the oppressor to commit resources over time. Guaranteed to decrease safety for participants and their allies, as well as many people who are otherwise uninvolved.
When we consider actions over the past year, we can see that whenever people are complaining about effectiveness, the key issue is one of strategy. When the violence-advocating skeptic dismisses the “No Kings” protests, they’re imagining instead a wave of coordinated attacks, but why is that any more likely than the few acts of unfocused violence we’ve already seen? We don’t have any kind of organized violence on the resistance side, nor are we likely to anytime soon.
Strategy, fundamentally, requires an organizing structure. We have some groups and institutions already doing the work, and then we have some trying to tell us that we should listen to them instead. (In this election year, there’s a lot of political campaigning involved in that.) As a rule of thumb, don’t follow anyone who tells you that someone else isn’t resisting “the right way.” Real organizers will work with a variety of groups to support effective action, regardless of minor disagreements.
Impatience and Imperfection
We’re currently deep in the middle of the fight, and one of the unfortunate truths about where we are is that horrible things keep happening. Because of that, it can be far too easy to assume that whatever we’re doing right now (i.e. – nonviolence) isn’t working. There’s a certain amount of the perfectionist fallacy wrapped up in the frustrations about nonviolence.
There are two problems with this – first, as I discussed above, a hypothetical violent approach would require significant organization, and it still wouldn’t be perfect. (It might, in fact, be worse in the short term.) But second, by focusing on these terrible tragedies, we can often miss the fact that nonviolence is already working.
The number of people who have been successfully protected by collective action in Chicago, Portland, LA, Memphis, Charlotte, and the Twin Cities is significant. It’s terrible that we can’t save everyone, but we’re defending many more than we’re losing. And even if we weren’t, the fact that we are saving any is reason enough to keep going. And we’re doing this by being the sand in the gears, the public observers, the literal whistleblowers.
Resistance takes time, no matter what form it follows. Could we be doing more? Sure! Is sending $5 to your local party-approved candidate going to be part of that? Nah. But you can always find something that fits your time and ability. Start by educating yourself on the real work:
Eric the Unabridged 