How Nonviolence Protects the State by Peter Gelderloos

How Nonviolence Protects the State by Peter Gelderloos
Available here or as a PDF here

Contents:
Introduction
Chapter One: Nonviolence is Ineffective
Chapter Two: Nonviolence is Racist
Chapter Three: Nonviolence is Statist
Chapter Four: Nonviolence is Patriarchal
Chapter Five: Nonviolence is Tactically & Strategically Inferior
Chapter Six: Nonviolence is Deluded
Chapter Seven: The Alternative: Possibilities for Revolutionary Activism

---

First off, I have to say that this is one of the best political books I've read all year (probably tied with The Coming Insurrection). It echoes a lot of what I believe about the ideology of nonviolence-only/pacifism. It also opened my eyes to other aspects of nonviolence that I had not thought about. Moreover, it covered what I tried to get at in my post on the Limits of Peaceful Resistance in a much better and more organized way, while still showing frustration.  When it was handed to me and I looked at the contents, I knew this was a book I would have to read. My friend told me I would love it, but I had no idea how much. I highly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in activism, even from a theoretical standpoint, and in particular to those who tout a pacifist-only ideology.

One of the first things Gelderloos tries to do in this book is dispel the idea that being against pacifism and nonviolent approaches does not mean one is necessarily pro-violence. I would not say I am pro-violence, but rather I support the diversity of tactics, which is what Gelderloos restates throughout the book: we don't need a staunchly pacifist bloc that will never really accomplish the ultimate goal of overthrowing capitalism, we need a diversity of tactics that may necessitate property destruction and armed struggle. He starts his argument with a discussion of how and when nonviolence has succeeded only as a result of armed blocs within a movement: the US Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s had the nonviolent face of Martin Luther King, Jr. who was co-opted by the state AND the militant faction of the Black Panthers who really showed the urgency of the movements; Gandhi was supported by the British and was easily maintained by the colonizers, but what really gave the urgency for the British to pull out of India was the armed uprisings of the Indian people elsewhere; the Hippie movement didn't really do anything to force the US Government to pull out of Vietnam, the fact that the Vietnamese people were relentlessly fighting against the US troops is what ultimately forced them to withdraw.

From there, Gelderloos builds his argument based on the chapter titles above. The main reason he gives for nonviolence being racist is that it often comes from a white person of privilege. How can someone who has never felt the brunt of racism tell someone in Oakland, for instance, who has to deal with racist police, to just turn the other cheek when the cops will not hesitate to shoot and kill even unarmed citizens? As Gelderloos shows, exclusively nonviolent practices are almost always preached by white people who coopt nonviolent figureheads but ignore the other aspects of their struggle, or ignore when they endorse the use of a diversity of tactics among other groups fighting for the same cause.

In the chapter "Nonviolence is Statist" explains how nonviolent protest is easily contained and managed by the state. Pacifists use approaches that are accepted by the state and happen in designated areas, where as militant property destruction can't be co opted and can't be contained. the police are not threatened by protesters who lock arms and sit in a human chain in the designated protest area, they are afraid of the people rioting in the streets, destroying bank windows, unafraid and going beyond what peaceful protest can do. In the chapter "Nonviolence is tactically & strategically inferior", Gelderloos reiterates that nonviolence can only get a movement to a specific point, but to go beyond it and overthrow capitalism and all forms of oppression, they will need to escalate their methods. He says,

[As] long as we continue to tolerate nonviolent leadership, the police will have us right where they want us. But if we refuse to de-escalate and to cooperate with the police, we can organize disruptive protests when they are needed and fight for the interests of our community or our cause without compromise. (103)

The alternative that he proposes is the necessity for the diversity of tactics. Nonviolent protesters need to stop the demonization of "violent" methods (which is even a debatable term since what may be violent to one person may not be considered violent to another), and violent protesters need to recognize that nonviolent methods do have there place. However, a strictly pacifist methodology will get us nowhere, as it will be easily contained, coopted, and put down by the state.

I highly recommend this book to everyone.

If you want to read a review from a nonviolent protester, one is located here.

~the GADFLY