The Difference Between Nonviolence and Pacifism
Nonviolence to me implies a commitment to never, at this juncture of our movement, initiate violence in any situation. I believe in this ideal. However, in a situation where violence is instigated against me, I will respond appropriately to the best of my ability. For example, if someone grabs me on the street to rob or injure me, I will try to defend myself by any and all means available. In contrast, a pacifist might attempt to transcend the ordeal entirely, even if it means sacrificing his or her own life.
There is undoubtedly a place for escalating struggle in the political arena. To overthrow fascism and dictators such as Hitler, Mussolini and Franco, it is totally reasonable to utilize all physical force necessary. Here, in the USA we are not there yet and I sincerely hope that we never arrive.
But our situation has been volatile and ripe for fascism since the onset of the massive economic crisis. This explains the rise of the insidious Tea Party Movement. But in an environment of stress and struggle, many outcomes are possible. The first option is happening right now and it involves a situation where the masses rise up in peaceful unity to prevent a villainous and hateful regime from taking control. Our very lives depend on its success.
If we fail, the second option arises. This occurs when groups of people are systematically scapegoated for existing problems. It relies on deep-seated prejudices and fears to divide and conquer, thereby obliterating the genuine forces of thievery and greed that caused the suffering to begin with. If a large group of people fall for this level of hatred and misinformation, I can only hope the response will be immediate in timing and appropriate in scale.
I agree with the gist of this post. Essentiall, what you’re talking about is the difference between Strategic (or Tactical) nonviolence and Principled (or Philosophical) nonviolence. Based on my experiences in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, I’m a long-time advocate of tactical nonviolence and have written on that subject. See: http://www.crmvet.org/info/nv.ht.
Being attacked by another person is one thing, but for occupy actions, returning violence will work against your efforts. You can’t prevail against their weapons – even if you used weapons – It Won’t Work. It takes more courage to restrain yourself. If the situation becomes violent, withdraw. Don’t get herded with no way out either. There should be sentries to issue commands to the group. This stuff requires training and practice.
The Occupy movement is the first time in recorded history where the people have the opportunity to make widescale change without using violence. Considering this, we are obligated to make our best effort to ensure we don’t escalate into violence.
Personally, I’ve always thought that the first hero of our movement was the woman who got pepper sprayed by Anthony Balogna during the first days at OWS. Rather than showing any aggression, she dropped to her knees and rather theatrically screamed in front of the camera. This video helped make it more difficult for the city to evict the camp. Had she, or anyone there, lunged for the camera things may have to been a very different.
If nonviolent tactics fail, and the public sees that we genuinely tried, people will recognise the injustice and will be more prepared to join us!
we are either non-violent or not non-violent. only by reacting with great discipline and courage can we win. to react with anything other than peaceful nonviolence undermines our efforts and struggle. (only in political situations — personally, i’d f the mofo up) i study gene sharp, as did the croations, tunisians, and malaysians