How Nonviolence Protects the State
Since the civil rights era, the doctrine of nonviolence has enjoyed near-universal acceptance by the US Left. Today protest is often shaped by cooperation with state authorities-even organizers of rallies against police brutality apply for police permits, and anti-imperialists usually stop short of supporting self-defense and armed resistance. How Nonviolence Protects the...more
A blatant and unreadable plagiarism of Churchill's highly recommended Pacism as Pathology. Boycott Peter Gelderloos.
as a marxist, i found the authors arguments childish. like at one point i had to ask myself if the author was just pro violence fo ...more
this was an eye opening, occasionally shocking, and frustrating read. i read it for SAL’s book bingo, and ultimately it DID challenge my worldview, but not really in the way i would have liked.
the sections about nonviolence being a privileged, white-dominate ...more
Thoreau suggested and embodied his anti-government revolt with boycott, i.e., he did not pay taxes, he never got married, nor did he consume alcohol and/or tobacco. While he, in fact, employed a variety of nonviolent tactics, he did not separate protest into violence and nonviolence. It is certainly true that (admittedly a generalization) nonvio ...more
In his book, Gelderloos makes a fearless though at points flawed argument against not simply pacifism, but the philosophy of nonviolence in the context of social change. Many are likely to find such a po ...more
The argumentation deployed by the author approaches the idea of nonviolence from every possible angle, then deconstructs it point by point: Pacifism, we find, channels ...more
like a lot of [white or passing poc] activists i know, i was raised to view "nonviolence" as the only morally acceptable way forward. i had a sort of naive faith that somehow, enough symbolic acts of non-violent civil disobedience could convince oppressive institutions to change for the better.
back then, i would have been very reluctant to hear what Gelderloos had to say. but he raises the important question: which tactics are effective for causing true, las ...more
The book didn't totally blow my mind because it's not like I was a committed pacifist who needed to have my mind changed - while I don't know if I necessarily would be down to commit violent acts, I respect diver ...more
I think it's an interesting premise, and some parts of this book are fascinating and well-argued. (Why Nonviolence is Racist, in particular.) The most convincing part is that all movements require a variety of tactics in order to succeed, and more radical violent groups often enable the success of more mainstream ideologies by forcing the state to deal with them. That's totally fair, and seems inarguably correct.
However, I think Gelderloos of ...more
How Nonviolence Protects the State is not a book against nonviolent activism. What it aggressively ...more
Gelderloos had some great points, but fluctuating definitions, occasional self-invalidation, and lack of counter research (save for anecdotal evidence or historical references without context) were his achilles heel. His supporting evidence was strong, but he left huge gaps in his answer to arguments FOR pacifism, which left me feeling like he doesn't ...more
The tone of the book is very argumentative. It's essentially a manifesto of a position, so this isn't surprising, but it was a little exhausting so I found myself reading a chapter at a time. One chapter also read like the author just go a new thesaurus and was really trying to spice up hi ...more
That being said, despite his appeal to use a "wide variety of tactics" the author seems most keen about "armed struggle".
It is a book that shouldn't be ignored, but definitely should be debated and critiqued.
|Anarchist & Radic...: [Jan/Feb 2013] Gelderloos - How Nonviolence Protects the State||11||83||Jul 18, 2013 01:24AM|