some (not-so-well-organized) thoughts on violence
(Disclaimer: I am not writing a well-organized, carefully researched essay– these are just thoughts, and I want input.)
Lately I have been doing a lot of thinking about the Left (specifically in the U.S.) and our use of violent/nonviolent tactics in fighting capitalism, imperialism, oppression, etc. I am certainly no expert when it comes to arguments for or against the use of violence, but I think I have a decent understanding of the mechanics of the most basic arguments for and against. And this is where I find myself torn a little bit. I am a proponent of nonviolence– nonviolent direct action, etc. I am largely opposed to the destruction of property, unless it has some great strategic value in advancing the aims of the egalitarian Left.
This is my fear, though. I am certain that I do not want to live in a society, post-capitalism, that has been brought about through the use of mainly violent tactics. But I worry that the machines of imperialism, capitalism, oppression, etc. cannot be brought down through the use of largely nonviolent means in a timely fashion. (Do I think that, in time, the Left could win the hearts and minds of the millions of people necessary to bring down the our oppressors? Absolutely. Do I believe that we have enough time to do so– before it is too late to save our planet, to save each other? I’m not as certain.)
So this is my worry, and I’m writing this because I want to know what other people think. Can we on the Left achieve our aims without the use of violence? Do we want to achieve our aims without the use of violence? Thoughts?
The best argument I’ve read for nonviolence is “The General Strike,” a 1933 pamphlet by the Wobbly Ralph Chaplin. I am not a pacifist, but I do believe that the abolition of capitalism, imperialism and oppression must, in large part, take place through revolutionary (generally) nonviolent mass action, but must be defended with violent, armed revolutionary war. The Spanish revolution isn’t a bad example of this. The gains of the democratic socialist republic were defended by the armed militias of the CNT and FAI, among others, while the seizure of the industries by the CNT was a generally nonviolent act. So the transformation of power can be nonviolent, but said transformation must be a launching platform for the employment of popular force in defense of the revolution. The Spanish revolutionary left lost sight of this reality, and turned away from it in favor of a conventional civil war, driven by capitalist rather than libertarian socialist machinery, waged by a disciplined regular army rather than popular democratic militias, with bourgeois democratic aspirations rather than revolutionary libertarian anti-imperialist aspirations.
The new book “Black Flame” discusses, as an example of anti-imperialism in that scenario, the question of national liberation for Spanish Morocco, which was the backbone of Franco’s military force. The International Workers Association, of which the CNT was/is affiliated, urged the fomenting of a rebellion in Morocco, but was ignored by the Spanish Left in large part because they were becoming increasingly concerned with how the civil war was perceived by the capitalist powers, in the hope that it would yield greater military aid as a counter-weight to Germany and Italy’s support of Franco. The rest is history.
To reference another aspect of that revolution, however, there was absolutely violent revolutionary repression of the Catholic Church in Spain, something I entirely defend because of the Church’s instrumental role in Franco’s insurgency. Churches were burned or occupied, clergy were executed, and even graves with Christian imagery were desecrated. But despite the obvious excesses there, violent counter-revolutionary cultural institutions should be suppressed sooner rather than later when there’s no reasonable expectation of a power struggle within the institution; a hypothetical in that scenario could be a progressive/radical faction of the clergy trying to take over the Church from within. In the US, mainstream cultural institutions in a future revolutionary situation that would need to be suppressed could include (some) evangelical churches, as the most obvious example. There is, however, currently a great deal of dissent amongst young protestants and evangelicals, with whom radicals ought to be building ties with right now. I’ve tried to do my small part.
“The General Strike”:
HTML format: http://www.iww.org/culture/official/strike
Printable pamphlet format: http://zinelibrary.info/general-strike-ralph-chaplin
<3
Matt
I think Matt hits on an important point here, often ignored from this discussion: that the question is really about power – institutional and cultural power. During a time of revolutionary upheaval will we have done the necessary work of building new institutions, and dismantling the old, in order to minimise violence? will we have done the work of spreading new culture and ideology, and countering the old, so that the vast majority of people side with the revolutionary movement?
Great point too Matt about young protestants and evangelicals. A great deal of them are breaking with their parents and taking up social justice concerns around poverty, global warming, and other important issues of human concern. See Bob Moser’s “Who Would Jesus Vote For?” (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080324/moser) or his book “Blue Dixie: Awakening the South’s Democratic Majority”. Its easy to read past his party affiliation (as he’s a progressive) and take the lessons for progressive organizing. He has great articles on building progressive power in the South (http://www.thenation.com/directory/bios/bob_moser ). We’d be foolish to ignore these demographic shifts in this population, as these people, and their children, are who are going to be alive during any revolution in this country.