Paperback, 182 pages
Langue : English
Publié 24 janvier 2006 par South End Press.
Since the civil rights era, the doctrine of nonviolence has enjoyed near-universal acceptance by the US Left. Today protest is often shaped by cooperation with state authorities—even organizers of rallies against police brutality apply for police permits, and anti-imperialists usually stop short of supporting self-defense and armed resistance. How Nonviolence Protects the State challenges the belief that nonviolence is the only way to fight for a better world. In a call bound to stir controversy and lively debate, Peter Gelderloos invites activists to consider diverse tactics, passionately arguing that exclusive nonviolence often acts to reinforce the same structures of oppression that activists seek to overthrow.
Contemporary movements for social change face plenty of difficult questions, but sometimes matters of strategy and tactics receive low priority. Many North American activists fail to scrutinize the role of nonviolence, never posing essential questions:
• Is nonviolence effective at ending systems of oppression?
• …
Since the civil rights era, the doctrine of nonviolence has enjoyed near-universal acceptance by the US Left. Today protest is often shaped by cooperation with state authorities—even organizers of rallies against police brutality apply for police permits, and anti-imperialists usually stop short of supporting self-defense and armed resistance. How Nonviolence Protects the State challenges the belief that nonviolence is the only way to fight for a better world. In a call bound to stir controversy and lively debate, Peter Gelderloos invites activists to consider diverse tactics, passionately arguing that exclusive nonviolence often acts to reinforce the same structures of oppression that activists seek to overthrow.
Contemporary movements for social change face plenty of difficult questions, but sometimes matters of strategy and tactics receive low priority. Many North American activists fail to scrutinize the role of nonviolence, never posing essential questions:
• Is nonviolence effective at ending systems of oppression?
• Does nonviolence intersect with white privilege and the dominance of North over South?
• How does pacifism reinforce the same power dynamic as patriarchy?
• Ultimately, does nonviolence protect the state?
Peter Gelderloos is a radical community organizer. He is the author of Consensus: A New Handbook for Grassroots Political, Social, and Environmental Groups and a contributor to Letters From Young Activists. He is the co-facilitator of a workshop on the prison system, and is also involved in independent media, copwatching, anti-oppression work, and anarchist organizing.
"La guerra é continua e si intensificherà e, per quanto mi riguarda, preferirei essere in prigione o nella tomba piuttosto che fare qualsiasi cosa che non sia combattere l'oppressione del mio popolo."
(Kuwasi Balagoon)
Questo libro é stato la mia introduzione all'attivismo rivoluzionario.
I would not recommend this book to people who want to understand the split between advocates for “nonviolence” and advocates for diversity of tactics, because the author sometimes disingenuously puts things in people's mouths. It is however helpful as a reference in arguments, since it contains a lot of recent-historical (USA-centric) examples.
In the first chapters the author attacks, often polemically, “nonviolent” tactics. Some of the convictions he presents as coming from advocates of “nonviolence” are obviously constructed.¹ In the last chapter the author advocates for organizing in small groups and forming temporary alliances and outlines his views on how violence could be used effectively.
In the examples, the definitions of violence of the discussed movements are used (but not always stated), so the definition is constantly changing, which did confuse me at times. Most discussed movements seem to define property destruction as violence. I don't know if he hand-picked …
I would not recommend this book to people who want to understand the split between advocates for “nonviolence” and advocates for diversity of tactics, because the author sometimes disingenuously puts things in people's mouths. It is however helpful as a reference in arguments, since it contains a lot of recent-historical (USA-centric) examples.
In the first chapters the author attacks, often polemically, “nonviolent” tactics. Some of the convictions he presents as coming from advocates of “nonviolence” are obviously constructed.¹ In the last chapter the author advocates for organizing in small groups and forming temporary alliances and outlines his views on how violence could be used effectively.
In the examples, the definitions of violence of the discussed movements are used (but not always stated), so the definition is constantly changing, which did confuse me at times. Most discussed movements seem to define property destruction as violence. I don't know if he hand-picked them because they're easier targets or if it really is the prevalent opinion among these movements in the USA.
All in all an interesting read, but I wish the author had approached the matter a bit more objectively.
¹ For example, he expect us to believe that pacifists argue that it is possible to live a life without ever harming anyone (look, these pacifists still drive cars and eat food!).
