IS N

ONVIOLE

NT

RESIS

TANCE

AN ELI

TIST

STRATE

GY?

MARXIS

T AND A

NARCHIST

CRITIQ

UES O

F NONVIO

LENCE

Inherently bourgeois and moderate

Nonviolence removes the tool of violence

Violence as necessary for true emancipation

Violent threats written out of history in favour of middle-class leaders

Marx – the essential role of violence in the conquest of political power

All nonviolent movements inherently proletarian

Class divisions obscured by faith in humanity

Double standard of nonviolence

Gelderloos – ‘loyal oppostion’

Nonviolence used to manipulate and orchestrate the working class for bourgeois gain

BUT nonviolence inclusive

Not indicative of cooption by middle class

IS NONVIOLENCE STATIST?

Double Standard?

• Howard Ryan criticises Sharpe’s theory for its ‘standards of civil disobedience are stacked heavily against the protestors.’ Sharpe expects the protestors to abide by the rules of the nonviolence whether the state chooses to do so too, or not. Does it give the initiative to the state, with its subsequent monopoly on violence?

• As Burma exemplifies, if the state does decide to respond with brutal repression, nonviolence can prove ineffective.

• Malcolm X recognized this double standard, himself arguing that if blacks alone were to commit to nonviolence, while others (for example the state, KKK, etc) was willing to do the same, it is inherently unfair.

MONOPOLY ON VIOLENCE

• Peter Gelderloos main criticism of nonviolent resistance is that it puts a state monopoly on violence. The state assumes the role of sole legitimate authority in utilizing violence.

• Pacifism means that dissidents retain the goodwill of the state by signifying that they have not usurped powers that the state exclusively claims (e.g violence, self-defence.)

• By ensuring that radicals remain nonviolent, the state can then utilize other opposition elements to do the violent work for them, while conveniently failing to offer protection. For example the 1979 Greensboro Massacre in North Carolina, in which the police turned a blind eye to KKK and neo-nazis who violently attacked the peaceful, defenceless protestors.

ISSUES WITH DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENTS

• Permitting nonviolent protests helps the image of the state. The dissidents thus play the role of loyal opposition, all of which dramatizes dissent and creates the illusion that a democratic government isn’t elitist or authoritarian.

• Nonviolent movements, often due to their structural reliance on centralization and control,’ preserve the state within the movement’ as well as the hierarchical conditions that assist both state negotiations and state repression.

• Nonviolent advocates often rests on the assumption that a democratic government represents a neutral decision making body that will pretty much always bend to the will of the majority, only using violence as an occasional tool to maintain a grip on the status quo. This assumes a society without class and racial hierarchies, without vested interests and corporate media, and is thus a naive outlook.

CRITICISMS

• The example he uses are very particular, and the same line of thought could not so easily be transferred to say, a third world pro-democracy movement. If anything his argument illustrates the assumption that many nonviolent theorists are now coming to; that the effectiveness of nonviolence as a tool for enacting socio-political change is dependent on the context of the uprising, which encompasses many variables.

•  His argument is mostly concerned with principled nonviolence, rather than pragmatic. He doesn’t address Gene Sharpe’s theory of power.

• Successful armed struggles, such as those in Cuba, Algeria, China and Vietnam have not abolished the state but rather have made it stronger. Militarism within a movement encourages a more hierarchical and authoritarian structure that often translates to the post-revolutionary government.

EXAMPLE 1: MLK

EXAMPLE 2: SOUTH AFRICAN APARTHEID

• The success of grass roots movements and organisations in the South African Anti-Apartheid movement suggests that nonviolence serves the interests of the masses, not just the bourgeoisie.

During the 1970s Black workers went on strike and fought successfully for the right to form their own trade unions.

Soweto Civic Association (1979) – housing, sanitation etcLamontville bus boycott (1982) – Lasted for 18 month & was in response to a

bus fare increase. The bus company was evntually forced to back down.The Port Elizabeth Black Civic Organization (PEBCO)(1979) - helped get rent

hikes canceled, helped people evicted for arrears & won a reprieve for a small township.

EXAMPLE 2: SOUTH AFRICAN APARTHEID

May 1985 – Khusta Jack led PEBCO into a highly effective 18 month boycott of white owned busniesses in Port Elizabeth. Government announced a state of emergency five days after the boycott started. Wite businesses lost 30% of their business. A white member of parliament called the boycott ‘one of the most effective weapons…that blacks have found for some considerable time.’

In township after township, ordinary people were using the most disciplined of nonviolent actions to put pressure on the authorities.