Response to "How Nonviolence Protects the State by Peter Gelderloos"

This wouldn't fit in the comment box so I'm putting it up as a post...

--This critique is in reference to use of violent protest within the United States. I think that it may serve a very different and more effective role in other parts of the world--

This looks like a very good read. At face value, it seems to me that it makes some fairly strong arguments against the use of nonviolent protest. I would say, though, that a similar book could probably be written about how violent protest protects the state.

Violent protest seems to me to be fairly ineffective. For example, I would actually argue that the Black Panthers actually aided more in ending civil rights than being the unrecognized threat that brought about change. By the way, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed two years before the formation of the Black Panthers in 1966. (I do think the Black Panthers had a lot to do with integration in police departments though)

Violent protest is racist. You don't think all those middle-class white kids wearing black bandanas, destroying property and fighting police (getting beat up by police) are not an exclusive and privileged group of people that perpetuate the systems of racism? There just like those middle-class white kids wearing peace signs, carrying signs and running from police: white, exclusive and privileged. I would say that the ones using violence are exploiting their privileges even more in certain ways. They feel it is their right to destroy the property of others without permission, and yes, it is usually a lot more than just a starbucks or a bank. They fuck up whole sections of cities, including lot's of private property belonging to everyday folk, and then just leave. Not to mention they have the privilege of being white if the time comes to go to court making it much easier to rationalize using violence (but usually they just hold you and let you go when the protests end).

"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?"

How could they tell them to do anything violent? They don't understand the situation because they are white. Spreading the idea that violence is going to solve a situation you don't understand is just as counter-productive. Also, not just white folks preach nonviolence. The Civil Rights movement is an example of how many people of color were able to use "nonviolence" and that it wasn't only white folks preaching it (in fact most of the people involved in "nonviolent" protest were African American).

I would say that violent is statist as well. First, you are using a force that you deem illegitimate for the state to use. By using violence, you are legitimizing it as a tactic, for the state as well. Also, because you use it, they are allowed to respond to it with more violence. Thus, in the news the police are often portrayed as trying to maintain order against the illegitimate users of violence (protestors). Furthermore, it helps create a state of fear that the government and media effectively use to further strengthen their means of control. Not to mention, all those sweet guns, armor, smoke grenades and armored vehicles police departments get in preparation for big protests. It's not like those things are cycled throughout the country. Each department gets its own batch of brand new, dangerous shit.
A slightly different example is 9/11. I would deem it one of the most effective displays of violent protest in history (in terms of being seen). What did it do for the state? Oh, biggest defense budgets ever at the time they were signed, the Patriot Act, two wars, and a huge rise in patriotism and government support in the U.S. On top of that, a surge in world support for the U.S., a brutally oppresive government acting in all parts of the world (fortunately, that came to a quick end with Iraq). Oh, and way more racism against the Middle East as a whole. (i suppose it might be fair to argue about who planned the attacks...)

"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."

I would say that statement is true for violent protest as well. To me, traditional protest (aka on the streets protest) "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." Violence isn't the thing we need to escalate.

I am not trying to say that violence is completely ineffective or that there isn't a place for it. Just that it also bears many of the same implications about aiding the state that "nonviolent" protest does as well. I would say I am pro "diversity of tactics" and a huge part of that is trying to find new forms of protest that are not traditional marches and protests, both violent and nonviolent. I fear the state has a bit too much control over us for these traditions to still be truly effective.

the GADFL(Y)