The Pacifism Straw Man
I was torn between calling this post The Pacifism Straw Man and The Purism Straw Man because the two seem to go hand in hand. The audio below is typical of some of the tired old arguments I hear. I am among a group of motivated individuals who constantly repeat the mantra of peaceful activism in place of violence. Watch the video below and try not to get too distracted by disagreements you may have with his view of certain environmental problems. Try to focus on the core of the message in which he tries to sell people on the idea of using violence as a tool for social change. That’s what I intend to address.
At the core of this straw man is an incredible over-simplification of the problem. The speaker gives many analogies of self defense such as mother animals defending their young. Violence in the animal world is simple. Violence in human societies is much more elaborate and contrived. I would feel quite silly telling a woman she shouldn’t use violence against a man actively trying to rape her. When you find yourself in such a situation, you’ll likely revert back to your animal instincts, a crucial tool for your own survival.
So let’s talk about what the problem really is and why violence won’t solve it. It’s not about being a purist. This is another common straw man. I’m not a purist at all. I make concessions all the time for my own survival in an imperfect world. I sometimes carry a gun for self defense. I pay taxes. I register my car. I pull over when a cop flashes his blue lights at me. I pick my battles. However, I avoid violence as a tactic for meaningful change because I know it’s a losing strategy.
Imagine you’re in the middle of a crowd of hundreds of people, people who see themselves as peace-loving individuals. Several armed men come up to you and violently beat you into submission and drag you off. The hundreds of peaceful people do nothing. On the other hand, let’s say you had fought back against these armed thugs. Those hundreds of peaceful people would all report that you were the bad guy. So why did they behave so counter-intuitively? Because the criminals who beat and kidnapped you were in uniforms and badges.
The speaker says those in power claim to own everything and he refuses to let them own violence as well. Sadly, that is exactly what they own that allows them to own everything else. It’s not a simple matter of violence as in the animal world. It’s a matter of institutionalized violence and a powerful illusion of legitimacy. He talks about his goal of confronting and dismantling power, but at the root of all of that power is their monopoly on violence. I wince every time I hear that they have all the guns as if that’s the problem. The masses could easily overpower them but they don’t, and why don’t they? Because it’s not guns that keep them in power. It’s illusions. They have our minds in chains. In chattel slavery, the slave who manages to escape would likely be reported to the masters by another slave.
Those corporations do own violence. The super rich will always own governments and the masses have been convinced to literally grant those governments a monopoly on violence. So long as that idea remains unchallenged, you may win a battle here or there, but you will ultimately lose if you let them pick their weapon of choice. They can put a bullet in your head right in the open and the masses will cheer them on. As long as they’re in our heads, they truly do own violence.
I don’t claim to have a simple answer to such an insidious problem. If I did, I’m sure this would be the most popular site on the Net. I know we have to change hearts and release minds from that control. For starters, I suggest you not play the game the way they want you to play it. I can confidently say they are well prepared for a violent response. They can crush such a rebellion in moments and use the P.R. to enhance their power. Don’t make it so easy for them.
A lot of what you brought up was covered in the essay posted in the description box, which if you want to get more of a clearer insight i’d recommend reading.
“If all they’re saying, by the way, is that oftentimes creativity can make violence unnecessary, i wish they would just say that. I would have no problem with that, so long as we emphasize the word oftentimes.”
“Neither Ward nor I are arguing against people being peaceful. Nor is either one of use arguing against those who choose to personally pursue social change through peaceful means. We need it all. We need people filing lawsuits, and we need people working at battered women’s shelters. We need people working on permaculture. We need educators. We need writers. We need healers. But we also need warriors, those who are willing and ready to fight back. That’s the good thing about everything being so fucked up: no matter where you look there is great work to be done.
There is a difference, however, between being personally peaceful and being a pacifist. The sort of pathological pacifism Ward’s writing about, that “ideology of nonviolent political action” which “has become axiomatic and all but universal among the more progressive elements of contemporary mainstream North America,” is not merely a personal choice or proclivity, but rather an obsession, a monomania, a brittle religion or cult that like other brittle obsessions can brook no heresy. Not only are pacifists of this sort unwilling to fight back – which of course is there prerogative- and not only are they unwilling to consider fighting back- which is still there prerogative- but far more harmfully they cannot allow anyone else to consider fighting back either. All-too-often they do everything in there power to silence anyone who commits blasphemy by fighting back or even speaking of it.”
“Who is it that says we should not use the master’s tools? Often it is Christians, Buddhists, or other adherents of civilized religions. It is routinely people who wish us to vote our way to justice or shop our way to sustainability. But civilized religions are tools used by the master as surely as is violence. So is voting. So is shopping. If we cannot use the tools used by the master, what tools, precisely, can we use? How about writing? No, sorry. Writing has long been a tool used by the master. So I guess we can’t use that. Well, how about discourse in general? Yes, those in power own the means of industrial discourse production, and those in power misuse discourse. Does that mean they own all discourse and we can never us it? Of Course not. they also own the means of industrial religion production, and they misuse religions. Does that mean they own all religion and we can never use it? Of course not. They own the means of industrial violent production, and they misuse violence. Does that mean they own all violence and we can never use it? Of course not.”
“There’s an even bigger problem with the metaphor [that you cannot use the masters tools to dismantle his house because he owns them]. What is perhaps its most fundamental premise. That the house belongs to the master. But there is no master, and there is no master’s house. There are no master’s tools. There is a person who believes himself a master. There is a house he claims is his. There are tool he claims as well. And there are those who still believe he is the master.
But there are others who do not buy into this delusion. There are those of us who see a man, a house, and tools. No more and now less.”
idk, a lot of it really didnt seem like much a response to what he was saying but a rant on an apathetic docile mass (in which case, not all acts of violence and sedition dont need to be commited in front of, like your example, in fact i’d avoid that) And you don’t need a monopoly on violence to combat a monopoly on violence, i mean make it centralized enough to where you and others know what your doing but decentralized enough to where they dont or cant find everyone of you.
I mean the state has already set up the terms of engagement, and everything they say or do is backed by violence when necessary. Its the final frontier, if you cant get over that, match them, then overcome it in one way or another you might as well quit your day job and go join there ranks like they want you to because you wont be able ever do anything they dont want you to do. They’ll always lord the violence over you in the knowledge that thats the line you wont meet them at, and its were ALL ‘progress’ stops.
“Ward Churchill puts it well: “There is not a petition campaign that you can construct that is going to cause the power and the status quo to dissipate. There is not a legal action that you can take; you can’t go into the court of the conqueror and have the conqueror announce the conquest illegitimate and told to be repealed; you cannot vote in an alternative, you cannot hold a prayer vigil, you cannot burn the right scented candle at the prayer vigil, you cannot have the right folk song, you cannot have the right fashion statement, you cannot adopt a different diet, build a better bike path. You have to say it squarely: the fact that this power, this force, this entity, this monstrosity called the state maintains itself by physical force, and can be countered only in terms that it itself dictates and therefore understands.
“It will not be a painless process, but, hey, newsflash: It’s not a process that is painless now. If you feel a relative absence of pain, that is testimony only to your position of privilege within the Statist structure. Those who are on the receiving end , whether they are in Iraq, they are in Palestine, they are in Haiti, they are in American Indian reserves inside the United States, whether they are in the migrant stream or the inner city, those who are ‘othered’ and of color, in particular but poor more generally, known the difference between the painlessness of acquiescence on the one hand and the painfulness of maintaining the existing order on the other. Ultimately, there is no alternative that has found itself in reform there is only an alternative that founds itself – not in that fanciful word of revolution- but in the devolution, that is to say the dismantlement of Empire from the Inside out.”
I agree with you Dale…
Violence will get the opposite of what we want.
I am reading a book about Sitting Bull. The battle of the Little Bighorn, the Indians won the battle and were justified, but it lost them the war.
I can’t think of one example of violent revolt prevailing in the last 50 years. There have been several “Velvet Revolutions” that won.
That’s why I like agorism as a resistance strategy. Then, you force the bad guys to aggressively move against you. Then, your defense is “I’m not hurting anyone! Why are you hurting me?” If necessary, present that argument sui juris (jury nullification defense) in a State court.
As a moral matter, if a bunch of armed thugs come after you, it’s acceptable to defend yourself. As a practical matter, you’re better off surrendering peacefully and hoping to win in a trial. Even better, avoid the armed thugs in the first place.
It’s silly to argue morality when the bad guys have such superior numbers and superior resources.
I think non-violence is the tactical choice right now. But I think if you don’t prepare to defend yourself violently as well then you’re taking an unjustifiable risk.
There is a very good reason why people don’t fight back. Their primary fear is not the men with guns. Their primary fear is their friends and family attacking them for expressing something that is out of the ordinary. It’s a very real fear for a great number of people; even if they don’t realize it.
I am still confused as to a practical application of violence that would support his claims. As I recall the eco-terrorists that decided to destroy bridges and dams really didn’t help things much, and all his justifications were self defense. It is not aggression to stop an individual from harming you. It is your responsibility to limit said self defense to that which is necessary, for example by removing the assailants weapon in any way possible. Nonetheless this in no way correlates to activism…at least as I understand it. Sure someone could attack a police station…all that would result is the rapid expansion of law enforcement budget.
Keith:
How do I have any responsibility to limit self-defense to the minimum necessary? The minimum that I deem necessary, at that moment, maybe.
But realistically, if someone attacks me, he has committed suicide. I may choose to limit the degree to which I assist him in that matter (for example, if he’s wearing certain clothing with shiny badges on it), but I certainly have no moral obligation to do so.
“How do I have any responsibility to limit self-defense to the minimum necessary? The minimum that I deem necessary, at that moment, maybe.”
It’s not so much that you have a responsibility to limit self-defense, but to endure that you don’t cross over into an initiation of force based on a bunk self-defense claim.
You can’t somehow become the initiator, based upon the level of force that you use.
Part of your problem is that people are fooled into overloading the concept inherent in the word violence.
There is violence (uninvited use of force), and there is aggression (initiation of violence). Aggression is always bad. Violence is neutral, depending on whether it is aggressive or defensive.
Pacifism is the stance that all violence is wrong, which is contrary to species survival. Nonaggression is the stance that aggressive violence is wrong, which is a beneficial stance.
If you pre-load your mind with these definitions, and then listen to this fellow’s speech again, you will discover to your horror that he is saying nothing different than you would hear in any concealed carry class.
The argument then moves to whether a particular user of violence is justified, that is, whether the aggression he perceives against him would constitute aggression if seen by a disinterested average person (e.g., a juror). Certainly a victim of attempted rape will be found justified. A victim of a wee-hours home invasion will usually be found justified (unless the invader turns out to be an unidentified cop, a la Cory Mayes, but that’s just wrong).
Now, if this clown decides to use violence against the developer who is developing the wooded parcel next to him, which parcel the developer owns, do you think his justification is going to stand up? Me, neither. Which is why I’d counsel the developer to go armed.
Calpurnia, I don’t deny anything you just said, but I feel you’ve completely missed the point of the post. I’m not talking about when violence is justified. I’m talking about why it’s a horrible tactic, specifically as a tactic against the State. So when anti-statist activists discourage violence so vehemently, even if it may be justified, we have strategic reasons for that choice. Calling us pacifists or purists for that choice is a straw-man.
Hi all,
1st post here. This is a really great discussion. What I keep wondering all these claims that violence is a bad tactic. Is that, do folks that argue this have a line that when crossed by the state actors in aggression, that if crossed would their tactic be thrown aside and they could then feel compelled to defend ones self or other innocents? If they have such a line can they describe where in the escalation of aggression that this line resides? I say that we need to stop them when what they do could in anyway leave permanent scars. Unfortunately that could include any kind of unreasonable incarceration, in that many have not the fortitude to withstand such without scars. What are all of your answers about the line?
I’m not a pacifist, but it makes no sense to bring a gun to a battle of ideas. You can’t shoot the idea of legitimized aggression.
Hi there,
Is there no one that will respond to my questions? About the line over which we will not allow without defending, the agents of the gov. Please I think the is a critical question.
Thanks
Dan
Dan, everyone has a different line.
Of course! Will anyone say?
Will anyone say what? What their personal line (or lines) is (or are)?
That will be different for each respondent, and would take many pages, given the variety of actions that are out there. For example, I consider forced vaccination to be equivalent to forcible rape. Someone else might be annoyed at the notion, but say, “eh, it’s just a shot.” Our responses to the same thing would, therefore, be quite different. There’s no one line that can be drawn for all individuals.
Whoa nelly I guess folks do not want to say. I actually would like some personal definitions so that I could better define my own line. I do understand the reluctance to thinking about the fact that we may be forced into that decision with out the time for the great consideration required to make this momentous determination. So be brave and bring your good minds and conscience to this problem. TIA
Dan
Freedan, my line’s already been crossed and I’m already defending.
Dale,
Sorry another non-answer. I say me too, but the question I’m trying to get folks to talk about is, as the agent of government is obviously assaulting an innocent with actions that would be hard to imagine not doing serious harm, do you act to interfere? Do you stop the cop? Those of us that may be armed have a very serious question to answer. I wish this on no one especially me but given the rate at which the coercers are ramping up there aggression, I expect those of us on the front line to be confronted! I do hope the humanity of those coercers surfaces and we are never confronted with this issue!
Dale
I answered it. You just don’t like my answer. You seem to be digging to get the answer you want. I used to think the way you do, that I needed a nice clear line when I would suddenly decide violence is the path. I just don’t think in such black and white terms anymore. I abhor violence and I believe that a violent “solution” will always cost more in the long run than whatever short-term gain it provides. I believe violence begets violence and my goal is to end violence. Does that mean I will never use violence? Of course not. I may find myself in a situation where either my animal instincts kick in and I fail to respect the long-term costs or I may decide that the high long-term cost is a price worth paying for whatever reason at the time.
So I think you desperately want a black and white situation with a yes or no answer, but the answer is going to remain “maybe… someday”.