The defeat of non-violence as an ideology

There was a debate a while back on the merits of non-violence. Some maintained that non-violence is the most effective approach for creating social change, and some academics clearly agree.

This might indeed be true. I also agree that non-violence is the ideal approach, so it is both moral and pragmatic to choose non-violence first.

However, some here would go further and suggest that non-violence is the only tenable option. I don't really agree, and I'd say that the history of the ending of slavery shows otherwise. But mostly importantly, I see the ideology of non-violence as posing a problem. And I think I have a good example now. I direct your attention to the end of this article:

Anti-Occupy Mob Trashes Hong Kong Protest Site

It could not be immediately confirmed if the anti-Occupy mob belonged to a specific political group. However, the South China Morning Post reported that they were being directed by a “middle-aged Putonghua-speaking woman wearing a face mask using a loud hailer.”

The attack on the Mong Kok site comes after a day of growing tensions, with the authorities and students at an impasse and protest leaders unsure of how much longer the movement will retain popular support.

The movement has been hampered by the lack of a politically experienced leader, able to unite its disparate elements and woo long-term support from a wider public that is torn between the desire for electoral reform, the social disruption a prolonged campaign could bring, and the fear of invoking Beijing’s displeasure.

Click to expand...

The ongoing protest in Hong Kong has been cited as a very successful and well-organised non-violent protest. Indeed, I have nothing but respect for the protesters. It is no mean feat that no looting has happened, no destruction of property, and, in fact, the protesters have been cleaning up after themselves despite the scale of the demonstrations that would normally make them difficult to control.

But, despite this, I see the article as a demonstration of why a movement like this might fail because of its ideology. And the problem is in making non-violence the central proposition of a movement.

I believe over time, authorities have learned how to quash non-violent protests effectively - not by cracking down on them with violence, which is a losing proposition and the main reason why past movements have succeeded. Instead, all they have to do is instigate incidences of violence on the ground, such that even though the larger movement is still non-violent, these incidences undermine the central proposition of the whole movement, especially when the incidences are heavily propagandised (remember the student protests in London?). Coupled with delaying tactics to wear down the patience of the general public, it becomes easy to paint the protesters as troublemakers.

Even if the authorities do not instigate violence using their agents, mobs are difficult to control by nature. All it takes is a few bad eggs to ruin the show. Subsequently, the violence may simply spread through mass hysteria, and that's when we start to see the mass looting and destruction of property that accompany many mass protests. That's when a movement starts to falter.

In short, I'd say that marching under the ideological banner of non-violence can very often be a losing proposition - when your cause depends on everyone on your side being saints, you can easily be undone by just one example to the contrary. The final paragraph of the article is telling. Parts of the Western media seem to have lost faith in the movement and are starting to look for reasons why the protest might fail, despite the earlier optimism based on its successfully non-violent nature. Lack of effective leadership and unity is touted as the problem. Sounds familiar? That's because that is exactly what the media said regarding just about every other Occupy movements.

Non-violence is a tool in agitating for social change, just like violence could be. Elevating non-violence into the ideology of the movement, however, is a recipe for failure.

Thoughts?

So, you're saying that because non-violence is an ideal that not everyone can follow, or because it could be subverted by the authorities, then no movements should be non-violent?

I think Hong Kong government should just arrest them all. I do not want to visit Hong Kong next time and find a Far East counterpart of maidanized Kiev.

Borachio said:

So, you're saying that because non-violence is an ideal that not everyone can follow, or because it could be subverted by the authorities, then no movements should be non-violent?

Click to expand...

Nope.

OK. I thought you were. I must have misunderstood you.

The thread title misled me, then?

There are cases where non-violence is the only option - I can think of plenty of times where soldiers have won over in disagreements with the chain of command through what would usually be called industrial action, but obviously violence in such a situation is out of the question.

Borachio said:

OK. I thought you were. I must have misunderstood you.

The thread title misled me, then?

Click to expand...

What can I say here that's not already in the OP? There's a difference between a tool and an ideology, in short.

The alternative is usually worse. The legitimization of violence as a political tool tends to cause events to spiral out of control; if anything, it creates the risk of shifting control of the situation to those who embrace violence. This, in turn, can cause a chain reaction of reprisals that escalates.

I'm not fundamentally opposed to any and all violence in all circumstances. But it's a dangerous and unreliable tool that can cause many more problems than it solves. If the HK protesters allowed and encouraged looting and rioting, the Chinese government would crack down harder. If it came to armed violence and killing, the protesters could not possibly win. The government can always outfight protesters and would use any armed resistance as an excuse to further restrict freedoms and defeat the purpose of the protests. If anything, the success of social movements seems to depend on well organized and disciplined protests, the capture and defense of the moral high ground in the eyes of others, and the gradual shifting of attitudes in a culture through admirable actions and arguments. Embracing violence will change the game you're playing to the type that the government excels at.

Those who have power will not hesitate to use violence to retain it if there is any possibility that violence will work (and it usually does), or even if they just have a vain hope that it will work (which even in the rare case where violence won't work is a close to sure thing). Therefore if a non-violent protest ever looks like it will actually produce results it will be violently suppressed. That is why any time anyone wants me to get involved in a non-violent protest I tell them that they will have my full support...from a nearby rooftop, with a rifle. Just in case they are successful.

The problem with things like looting and rioting is that they're senseless violence. There's almost nothing that senseless, undirected violence can accomplish politically.

I do agree that there's no good option in this case. Non-violence is the best bet, and yet once that becomes the defining character of the protest and it is undermined - and it can be undermined easily - the whole cause might be lost. My point is more that I am wary of putting non-violence on a pedestal. And a mixed approach, like the ANC's in ending apartheid, may work better where feasible. The main point is to make it too costly for your opponents not to negotiate and come to a compromise.

Effectiveness=inarguable demonstrated desire for non-violence+clear willingness to meet violence with violence

I concur.

Snorrius said:

I think Hong Kong government should just arrest them all. I do not want to visit Hong Kong next time and find a Far East counterpart of maidanized Kiev.

Click to expand...

Elaborate

Leonel said:

Elaborate

Click to expand...

Every revolution, "spring" etc. leads to degradation of the country where it happens. There are very few exceptions. Now, Hong Kong is in the top-20 countries in Human Development Index, so the point of this insurrection is not clear. Sure, there is no politics in HK, but this is a good thing, and certainly it is not needed when everything is good.

Finally, I was in HK, and I do not want to find second Johannesburg. Well, I do not think it will get this bad, of course, but protesters bring chaos and chaos is bad for such places.

Well, of course. Because Hong Kong will very soon become a Chinese city. No need for violence.

Tolni said:

Well, of course. Because Hong Kong will very soon become a Chinese city. No need for violence.

Click to expand...

It have nowhere to return. Sure the old British rule was better, but Britain of Rotterham, where people of "Asian descent" were and will continue to rape local females and can not be hanged up because of equal respect to other cultures, is not a country to be ruled by.

Snorrius said:

Every revolution, "spring" etc. leads to degradation of the country where it happens. There are very few exceptions. Now, Hong Kong is in the top-20 countries in Human Development Index, so the point of this insurrection is not clear. Sure, there is no politics in HK, but this is a good thing, and certainly it is not needed when everything is good.

Finally, I was in HK, and I do not want to find second Johannesburg. Well, I do not think it will get this bad, of course, but protesters bring chaos and chaos is bad for such places.

Click to expand...

What does a non-egalitarian care about HDI? If states are to be run for the benefit of their people, a government that is answerable to its people will do this better. If so why do you want to criminalize protest for greater democracy which is pretty much akin to criminalizing protest itself.

So either your HDI argument is an insincere one or you're very muddled in your thinking.

Senethro said:

What does a non-egalitarian care about HDI? If states are to be run for the benefit of their people, a government that is answerable to its people will do this better. If so why do you want to criminalize protest for greater democracy which is pretty much akin to criminalizing protest itself.

Click to expand...

Why do they need "greater democracy"? What is practical need? "Greater democracy" in last years mostly leads to more human sufferings and large destruction. For the sake of the people government should arrest this troublemakers, especially considering that those mischief-makers do not even represents "the people" in questions. They are just activists who have too much free time on their hands.

There will always be violence out there waiting to ruin your day, so you've got to have a bit of violence around just in case that happens. The ideal way to fight violence is diplomacy, but if that doesn't work out, you've got to have some violence of your own waiting to go. Otherwise you're screwed.

Non-violence will work from time to time, so it's not entirely flawed, but not everyone should be non-violent. We need to keep some people with guns and stuff around, just in case. You never know, reality is a violent place.

Short of coups and armed revolutions, violence is more often a tool to prevent others from reaching THEIR goals than for reaching your own goals.

Which can be a part of reaching your own goal. If others are trying to prevent you from reaching your goal, then using violence to prevent them in turn may be part of reaching your goal. This can take the form of resisting government oppression, but it can also take the form of the government using force to get past protesters trying to keep black people out of schools.

All that said, making non-violence your banner is silly any which way. Violence, non-violence, confrontation, non-confrontation are tools. Certainly some make for better PR than others and you should prefer them when you can, but making them an ideology is non-workable.