Violence as the Default

"The gentlest thing in the world overcomes the hardest thing in the world" -Lao-tzu

  A common assertion among many leftists is the need for violent revolution. They praise violent revolution, claiming the inherent violence and oppression caused by the bourgeoisie can only be usurped with a violent counter. Yet, leftists rarely confront the question - should we use violence in the first place?

  It is a question that, when presented, frequently finds itself approached with contempt. "Violence is necessary - else we'll be submitting towards forces working to oppress us!" they say, handwaving away criticism of the usage of violence and the hierarchy it presents. Pacifism is scarcely seen as a valid movement, but rather is "not only unreal and without examples of historical application, but can only serve to destroy within the working class the preparation for insurrection to overthrow the bourgeois regime which, according to Marxists, cannot fall otherwise," as an anonymous writer of Battaglia Communista says. They write of pacifism's "counter-revolutionary" nature, with it counterintuitively working to uphold patriarchal and racist systems - a view especially held by Peter Gelderloos. But yet there is far from any truth in this.

 While greater writing will be done in this in the future, a simple point to address is that anarcho-pacifism and passivism are two distinct philosophies. The former advocates for a nonviolent revolution, aiming to dismantle the systems at work to oppress individuals by attacking the inanimate, while the latter aims to take no action whatsoever. When pacifist views are being berated, these critiques are within the critic's mind.

 An alternative and particularly uncommon view details how, while there may be an intent to treat anarcho-pacifism as a legitimate ideology, it nonetheless chooses to avoid questioning the base assumptions of the individual. This can be best summarized by the idea that they ought to prevent the anarcho-pacifists from viewing the violence, by say 'covering their eyes.' Indeed, such a view infantilizes the anarcho-pacifist view as opposed to giving it a form of legitimacy.

 Many leftists fall prey to the failure of questioning their underlying assumptions, but it is not their individual fault. No, the fault is within capitalism and its inherent violent tendencies. The imposition of the bourgeois's will upon the proletariat, the expropriation of capital and forced refraining from the right to well-being demonstrate precisely how this becomes normalized in society, how violence becomes seen as necessary.

 This, likewise, can be used as the basis to show how capitalism has recuperated the concept of pacifism. Indeed, as Geoffrey Ostergaard writes, the concept of nonviolence and the refrain from killing has been around for millenia - visible from the early days of Christianity and within movements such as the Anabaptists, Dunkers, Inspirationists, and so on. However, such were overshadowed by St. Augustine's 'just war' doctrine, that promoted war only under certain circumstances, along with the Quakers's attempts at 'nonviolent' government. Indeed, the peace movement "has been predominantly moderate and liberal in character."

 So, with capitalism normalizing violence, and the quest for peace often being rooted in liberal anti-war activism but implicit pro-violence, it can only logically follow that anarchists would approach revolution violently. But yet, a question of course remains - what of the view that pacifism is passivism?

 This requires examination of the African American civil rights movement, and the Indian independence movement, along with the intersection of capitalism.

 It can be assumed that most people are likely not scholars on either of these movements - this would of course include the far left. Given this, there's often only a cursory knowledge of what precisely went on in both, which undoubtedly influenced popular opinion, as of course liberals share in the conflation of pacifism and passivism, albeit more favorably. For the former movement, a gander at the most often pictured events showcases this, such as the Montgomery bus boycott, the Little Rock high school, the Greensboro sit-ins, and of course Martin Luther King Jr's prominent speeches. For the latter, Mahatma Gandhi and his nonviolent method of Satyagraha, along with his various protests, fasts, and of course his activism from within prisons is pictured most often.

 Of course, undoubtedly these preconceptions are inaccurate towards the entirety of both movements, or even the individuals and events involved. Nonetheless, the lack of dismantling of any physical structure coupled with the implicit ideas that many merely complied with the force against them, along with the exploitative system of capitalism remaining an end goal, at least in part, towards the idea that pacifism and passivism are one in the same.

 However, while an understanding of why beliefs arose is crucial to approaching them, such does not change the inaccuracy nor hypocrisy of them. Indeed, with anarchism being a philosophy rooted in questioning the authorities of institutions, it undoubtedly threatens the authority of violence's deification.

 Violence is treated as the default. It falls upon the anarcho-pacifist to make their case for nonviolence, to prove its effectiveness and worth. "We need a clarification, then, from the pacifist as to just how far he is and is not willing to go." writes Jan Narveson, in a critique of pacifism.¹ Yet, it never is put onto the shoulders of the advocates against pacifism to demonstrate why we ought to push violent methods.

A fundamental need for change can be found here. Are there any valid reasons that anarcho-pacifism ought to be subject to additional scrutiny? Why instead should we not question our base assumptions, and aim for a truly ideal and just movement?

 If we are to truly represent anarchism, we must stop relying on unjustified assumptions, and start proving our case to each other and to the world.

1. Critiques of Narveson's paper can be found here and here. These and Narvesons original paper will be discussed in depth at a later date.