Charles Pierce Asks: "How does one reason in the face of brutalized futility?"

[kpete]

Alas, in reality, this leaves us with a paradox best summed up by paraphrasing Jack Nicholson's line from Prizzi's Honor: if Dr. King was so fkin' unifying, how come he's so fking dead?

Non-violent resistance requires a kind of implicit reason on both sides. It requires that both sides see an end to matters, that they acknowledge, even tacitly, that there is a level of violent repression that is unsupportable in a civil society. But how does one reason in the face of brutalized futility? How does one reason in the face of repeated injustices, of unacknowledged crimes, and of injuries blamed not on the perpetrators, but on the victims? The logic of non-violent resistance breaks down in the face of that, when official violence fails to acknowledge any limits at all, when it does not recognize any possible point at which official violence becomes intolerable to the public at large. At that point, there is no telling what comes next.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a34648/the-fires-in-the-morning/

[stone space]

1. No, it doesn't. Non-violent resistence requires reason on the part of nonviolent activists.

Non-violent resistance requires a kind of implicit reason on both sides.

But it is designed and intended as a means of struggle against opponents who may not be so nonviolent, and whose own actions may be quite unreasonable.

[jeff47]

3. It also requires reson among the people backing the other side.

Nonviolent protests in places like Selma had an effect because the people backing the government did not want violence either. The fact that the police unleashed violence upon the protesters was unacceptable to them.

Gray did not receive the first "rough ride". In fact, Baltimore lost a $39M lawsuit for a "rough ride" years ago. Why are "rough rides" still happening? The people backing the police believe violence by the police is acceptable.

When one side believes violence is acceptable, non-violence against them will not work.

[stone space]

5. Nonviolence does not require giving ones opponent a veto over your actions.

It also requires reson among the people backing the other side.

No method of struggle works well when you hand your opponent a veto over your own protests that he can exercise simply by being unreasonable.

Nonviolence allows for reason on the part of your opponent, by removing factors of fear that short circuits reason, but does not compel it.

But in the end, nonviolence is about the exercise of power. It's a form of coercion.

[jeff47]

10. It's only coercive when violence is unacceptable to the people you are trying to overcome.

If your opponents will happily incinerate your non-violent protest, and this will not upset their backers, then your non-violent protest will not work. You will continue non-violence, and they will continue to slaughter you. They have no reason to stop.

[stone space]

12. I guess that I see nonviolence as more useful that you do.

And in a wider variety of circumstances.

[jeff47]

13. No, you dislike violence, so you would prefer non-violence to be effective

But what reason does a violent enemy have to stop their violence upon you?

Typically non-violence works because a violent reaction to it is unacceptable to those backing the "violent" side. Whites outside the South found the violent reaction to Selma unacceptable, and applied political pressure.

But what happens when the violent side never receives that pressure? ISIL is going to keep beheading and committing genocide because their backers find those acceptable. A non-violent protest against them would be completely ineffective, because no one will provide the pressure to stop the violence.

[stone space]

15. OK. Perhaps we should simply give up. We're doomed.

No more protest.

You win.

We'll just accept whatever TPTB throw at us.

[jeff47]

16. Nope, we are not doomed. We just have to realize that a single tool can not fix all problems.

We'll just accept whatever TPTB throw at us.

Yes, quiet acquiescence is what happened in Baltimore yesterday.

[stone space]

17. If you want me to use violence, then I'm out.

Nope, we are not doomed. We just have to realize that a single tool can not fix all problems.

Consider me no longer part of the struggle.

I've been talked out of it.

I will not join you in violence.

You're on your own.

[jeff47]

18. Then enjoy the crumbs that are given to you.

If you want to fix this non-violently, you have to change the social norms that make police violence acceptable.

[stone space]

19. I will not kill for you. (nt)

[jeff47]

20. You don't have to.

I edited while you replied to add more context.

[stone space]

21. Is there an act of violence that I can take that will...

...change the social norms that make police violence acceptable?

If you want to fix this non-violently, you have to change the social norms that make police violence acceptable.

It seems to me that the use of nonviolence has a better shot of that.

The use of violence is more likely to support societal norms in favor of violence, not in making violence unacceptable.

[jeff47]

24. Your path does not have to be 'the' path.

If you want non-violence to work, you have to make violent police unacceptable. Right now, that is not the case.

The means of doing that non-violently is up to you - it's the path you want to walk, so you will have to make a map for yourself.

IMO, it'll only happen due to the threat of violence. Similar to how government turned towards MLK when confronted with what Malcolm X might bring.

[stone space]

26. Who should I threaten with what specific violent action, and how will it help?

IMO, it'll only happen due to the threat of violence.

[TheSarcastinator]

29. what you absolutely fail to understand and acknowledge is that your lifestyle depends upon violence

Our (in the US) privilege and lifestyle depends entirely upon violence by proxy, both currently and historically. For you pretend that you are "nonviolent" because you are not actively looting is an astounding amount of self-deception.

You seem to believe that violence is only morally proper when sanctioned by the state. You do not understand that your entire lifestyle, from the clothes you wear, to the car you fill with fuel and drive, and the very nation you live in, were all founded and supported entirely by force and violence. Your passive resistance is nothing but subtle collaboration with state-sanctioned brutality.

"The civilized have created the wretched, quite coldly and deliberately, and do not intend to change the status quo; are responsible for their slaughter and enslavement; rain down bombs on defenseless children whenever and wherever they decide that their "vital interests" are menaced, and think nothing of torturing a man to death: these people are not to be taken seriously when they speak of the "sanctity" of human life, or the "conscience" of the civilized world." - James Baldwin

[stone space]

30. I see that you are a mind reader.

what you absolutely fail to understand

Where do you get stuff like this?

You seem to believe that violence is only morally proper when sanctioned by the state.

Is this just some stereotype that you have about nonviolent resistance?

Your passive resistance is nothing but subtle collaboration with state-sanctioned brutality.

What violent act do you want me to engage in?

[brush]

39. Well stated, Sarcastinator.

Some posters are all talk and not worth the time but you stated eloquent truths that some won't allow themselves to grasp.

Welcome to DU, by the way.

[brush]

31. You don't have to participate in violence . . .

Last edited Tue Apr 28, 2015, 05:21 PM - Edit history (1)

to remain part of the struggle.

There are many roles to play — videoing with your cell phone, legal help, technical/social media organization, financial, logistics, working the phones, food, water to protestors, etc.

Down opt out because you're opposed to violence. That's the easy thing to do.

Stay involved, no one is asking you specifically to be violent.

If you're against violence, stand up an be counted against police violence.

[stone space]

32. I will not be part of a violent struggle.

There are no roles for me in such a struggle.

I usually just bow out and chose to work on other issues where non-violent action is welcomed.

[brush]

40. Good, opt out . . .

with that attitude you wouldn't be of any help.

[stone space]

44. When you grab for your gunz, I'll be far, far away.

with that attitude you wouldn't be of any help.

No, I won't be much help with that.

You are correct.

You might try the gudgeon, though.

Some of them are really gun-ho over there.

I'm sure that some of them will tag along and help you out.

[brush]

45. I'm not pushing guns at all. I mentioned several roles in the struggle that . . .

people can fulfill that don't involve violence.

How you jumped from that to me gun-humping is quite amazing, and frankly IMO, considering how quickly and how far you jumped to that conclusion (my being one who helps in tech), not a good reflection on your sincerity and commitment to helping.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

28. This is pretty self-evident ...

I'm not sure why you have to explain yourself in this regard, but I'm glad you did.

[mythology]

37. So Bull Connor didn't want violence?

The public gathering lynch mobs didn't want violence?

The protests in Baltimore remained calm for a few days. The Civil Rights movement remained calm for years. The Civil Rights era started in 1954 and went through 1968.

[malaise]

6. That is merely one view

Turns out Malcolm was correct or this non-stop brutality and exploitation of young African-American males would not be spreading like a virus.

Every day carry bucket go a well, one day the bucket bottom will drop out - or put simple FUCK IT/b]!
Enough is enough - you can't be systemically violent and expect me to remain non-violent unless you assume that I welcome my own extermination - FUCK THAT TOO.

[stone space]

9. All of my posts are merely one view.

I'd need another DU account if I wanted to give two views.

[mythology]

38. He also advocated for racial separation for a long period

Also he advocated for racial superiority. Malcolm X's legacy is not a straightforward legacy and in my opinion positive because he moved away from his early views.

It's also not unrelated that he was killed by members of the Nation of Islam who continued to advocate for violence.

[DetlefK]

8. Actually, non-violent protest only works under critical assumptions of the aggressor.

The assumption being that the violent oppressors will stop the violence once they have perpetrated enough violence.
The assumption being that the violent oppressors recognize that their actions are outside of norms.


Tell me: Did reason help the Jews in the Third Reich? Did reason help Blacks avoid getting lynched in the Reconstruction Era? Is reason helping tibetan monks fend off China absorbing their country?

[stone space]

14. We can aways find excuses for not engaging in nonviolent struggle.

Fear of failure is one of them.

It's not hard to come up with excuses.

It's easy to imagine a thousand reasons why the struggle might not succeed.

And the negative expectations are emotionally satisfying if one wants excuses to avoid the struggle in the first place.

[DetlefK]

22. What about the non-violent protestors you have killed personally?

If the aggressor doesn't care about your response to getting hurt, what is the difference between a violent and a non-violent struggle?


Here's a question:
What about all the flys and bugs and spiders and earthworms and mushrooms and plants and bacterias you have killed?
None of them were hurting you.
They were simply trying to coexist with you in peace.
They put up a non-violent protest by tenaciously trying to live a normal life when you stormed into their homes.
And you killed them.
Why?
Why?
Why?
Because. You. Simply. Didn't. Care.

[stone space]

23. I haven't killed any nonviolent protestors.

What about the non-violent protestors you have killed personally?

I'm usually the protestor, not the cop.

[DetlefK]

25. Way to dodge a question.

I see you concede the point.

You killed powerless plants that were engaging in a non-violent protest, because you didn't care about them.

Conclusion:
A non-violent protest only works if the oppressor cares about the protest.

q.e.d.

[stone space]

27. Sorry, but you seem to be arguing for inaction.

A struggle might fail, so we had better avoid struggle.

[brush]

41. Ahhh . . . pot meet kettle?

You seem to be the one avoiding struggle.

I posted above that there are many roles in the struggle that you could remain active without being violent but you stated that there was no role for you (videoing with your cell phone, legal help, technical/social media organization, financial, logistics, working the phones, food, water to protestors, etc.)

Do I smell hypocrisy?

[DetlefK]

42. I dispute that a non-violent struggle works better than a violent struggle. Very different.

As I laid out above, a non-violent struggle only works if the aggressor fits certain criteria.

At the same time, a violent struggle also only works if the aggressor fits certain other criteria.

The solution has to fit to the problem. Non-violence isn't a magic all-purpose-cure.

[libdem4life]

2. I fear we have come to a "Y" in the road...some hard choices are going to have to be made.

Sorry if this is repetitive, but my main answer is Cell Phone Neighborhood Watch. No, not vigilantes...everyday people carrying... cell phones. They have become more powerful than any Review Board or Investigation...at least they shed a much different light on the issue...The Facts.

[longship]

7. Phweeee! Hey MIRT!

[progree]

33. I clicked on one of those links in the now auto-removed message - it was a teenage asian porn site.

[longship]

35. No surprises there.

I hope you did not get a computer virus. You might want to check.

[malaise]

11. Bye bye

in before the ban

[hifiguy]

34. Nonviolence can work when there is still some notion or moral sense

on the side being protested against.

American kkkops lost that sense long ago. So did American big busine$$.

[Egnever]

36. A good question

My answer would be that violence can and does work but not when that violence is directed inward.

These riots in Boston did little to affect any of the powers responsible for the situation and instead focused on businesses that served the community.

For violence to be effective it would need to be targeted correctly.

These riots enforce the idea that more police presence is necessary not less. Not to mention they destroy the meager infrastructure that is in place.

When the Jews were being exterminated in world War two we didn't start bombing our own cities to make them stop.

[Vattel]

43. Best post of the week!