Effective Counter Attack-Part IV; Correcting Common Misconceptions About Nonviolent Action
For Part I see Effective Counter Attack; Consideration or Implosion?
For Part II see Effective Counter Attack-Part II; Pillars of Support and the role of Obedience
For Part III see Effective Counter Attack-Part III; Mechanisms and Methods of Nonviolent Struggle
Intro to Part IV
Why do I continue to promote nonviolent struggle?
I have sincere doubts as to the ability of our currently flawed political system to either inhibit or reverse the current totalitarian trend.
I doubt that our favorite politicians, even if elected, can find the strength to promote the will of the people without the “wind in the sails” that likely can only be provided by a national movement rooted in nonviolent struggle.
This monthly, and now lately, weekly/daily arguing/bickering over hypothetical scenarios that has prevailed at BoomanTribune I do believe is counter productive to increasing the strength of any sort of national movement. And without some sort of national movement, how do we blunt the authoritarian march?
Take one example: The suggestion that we ought to refuse to pay taxes.
In theory, possibly a wonderful idea. In all practicality, the action is likely to accomplish little except assuage an individual’s guilt. (If that’s your well- reasoned goal, well, then I wish you the very best, as I myself cannot afford financially or emotionally the hassles likely to ensue from that action.)
From a nonviolent struggle perspective on any action, those members of past successful movements learned to ask at least these two questions;
- Is the proposed action a part of national movement strategy that can be effectively communicated to a critical mass of people?
- Does the proposed action have any likelihood of succeeding?
The proposal to “refuse to pay taxes” would seem to fail on both.
Actions, proposed and taken that continually, fail do not build confidence in any movement’s abilities. And thus do not strengthen that movement.
Past successful nonviolent activists such as Gandhi developed action plans that bolstered his movement’s strength, not diminished it. His Salt March was an innovative and effective nonviolent action for that time.
So you feel that all the actions of past nonviolent movements will likely not be effective in today’s world.
That may or not be so. But I would suspect that we have individuals capable of coming up with some innovative action plans that are both likely to be accepted by a critical mass of activists, and also likely to succeed.
Do you not think that THIS type of hypothetical brainstorming would be more productive than the recent hypothetical thrashing?
I would hope that the main topic of this diary Correcting Common Misconceptions About Nonviolent Action would increase the level of awareness of both the viability and the presently untapped power inherent in pursuing nonviolent struggle.
more below;
Just to be sure that there’s no confusion; every last word of the text in the following blue boxes comes directly from the source below. This is not my writing. My comments will come between the blue boxes. However, all emphasis is mine.- NDD (Any errors noted in the transcription or elsewhere may be addressed by using my email.)
Correcting Common Misconceptions About Nonviolent Action
Source: Gene Sharp, The Politics of Nonviolent Action [3 Vols.], Boston: Porter Sargent, 1973 (This is a one page pdf download.)
What nonviolent action is
Nonviolent action is a technique of socio-political action for applying power in a conflict, without the use of physical violence. Nonviolent action may involve acts of omission–that is, people may refuse to perform acts that they usually are required by law or regulation to perform;
acts of commission–that is, people may perform acts that they do not usually perform, are not expected by custom to perform, or are forbidden to perform;
or a combination of the two. As a technique, therefore, nonviolent action is not passive. It is not inaction. It is action that is nonviolent.
These acts comprise a multitude of specific methods of action or “nonviolent weapons.” Nearly two hundred have been identified to date, and more will emerge in future conflicts, and without a doubt, scores more already exist or will emerge in future conflicts.
Three broad classes of nonviolent methods exist; nonviolent protest and persuasion, noncooperation, and nonviolent intervention.
Nonviolent action provides a way to wield power in order to achieve objectives and to sanction opponents without the use of physical violence. Overwhelmingly, nonviolent action is a group or mass action. While certain forms of this technique, especially the symbolic methods, may be regarded as efforts to persuade by action, the other forms, especially those of noncooperation, may, if practiced by large numbers, coerce opponents.
Whatever the issue and scale of the conflict, nonviolent action is a technique by which people who reject passivity and submission, and who see struggle as essential, can wage their conflict without violence. Nonviolent action is not an attempt to avoid conflict. It is one response to the problem of how to wield power effectively.
The following 10 points clarifies and attempts to correct many commonly held misconceptions about nonviolent action. I think these misconceptions are a major factor in people’s doubts as to the effectiveness of possible nonviolent movement.
Other than these 10 points I am at a loss to comprehend people’s lack of respect for what a nonviolent struggle might accomplish, other than just a simple lack of knowledge on the whole topic. The links provided in my first three diaries should be of some help to those wishing to increase their awareness.
What nonviolent action isn’t
1] Nonviolent action has nothing to do with passivity, submissiveness, and cowardice; just as in violent action, these must first be rejected and overcome.
I hope this clarifies some of the confusion that some BT members seem to have equated nonviolent action with passivity.
2] Nonviolent action is not to be equated with verbal or purely psychological persuasion, although it may use action to induce psychological pressures for attitude change; nonviolent action, instead of words, is a sanction and a technique of struggle involving the use of social, economic, and political power, and the matching of forces in conflict.
3] Nonviolent action does not depend on the assumption that people are inherently “good”; the potentialities of people for both “good” and “evil” are recognized, including the extremes of cruelty and inhumanity.
4] People using nonviolent action do not have to be pacifists or saints; nonviolent action has been predominately and successfully practiced by “ordinary” people.
5] Success with nonviolent action does not require (thought it may be helped by) shared standards and principles, a high degree of community of interest, or a high degree of psychological closeness between the contending groups; this is because when efforts to produce voluntary change fail, coercive measures may be employed.
I would hope the members of the BT community might keep this in mind as we try to make good on our efforts to “agree to disagree.”
6] Nonviolent action is at least as much of a Western phenomenon as an Eastern one; indeed, it is probably more Western, if one takes into account the widespread use of strikes and boycotts in the labor movement and noncooperation struggles of subordinated nationalities.
7] In nonviolent action there is no assumption that the opponent will refrain from using violence against the nonviolent actionists; the technique is designed to operate against violence when necessary.
8] There is nothing in nonviolent action to prevent it from being used for both “good” and “bad” causes, although the social consequences of its use for a “bad” cause may differ considerably from the consequences of violence used for the same cause.
9] Nonviolent action is not limited to domestic conflicts within a democratic system; it has been widely used against dictatorial regimes, foreign occupations, and even against totalitarian systems.
This is an important point; Nonviolent action can still be effective should the current totalitarian trends in Washington, DC continue.
Even if we are so fortunate as to have significant successes in both the elections of ’06 and ’08, as many have said here we will still be fighting the corporate influence/corporate control of what remains of our “democratic” system.
10] Nonviolent action does not always take longer to produce victory than violent struggle would. In a variety of cases nonviolent struggle has won objectives in a very short time – in as little has a few days.
The time taken to achieve victory depends on diverse factors – primarily on the strength of the nonviolent actionists.
I doubt the current regime will be affected by our actions without a more comprehensive and innovative national (and international) strategy.
Since “victory” depends “primarily on the strength of the nonviolent actionists”; I’say we need to be much more effective at eliminating the wasted energy spent arguing/bickering over hypothetical scenarios and make a more concerted effort to increase the cohesion of the various groups already involved in serious nonviolent struggle activities.
See; Gene Sharp’s 198 Methods of Nonviolent Action listed here
Gene Sharp’s 198 Methods of Nonviolent Action 2 page pdf download here
I appreciate the support of many members here who have both in the past and more recently encouraged my efforts in the promotion of nonviolent action.
