Peaceful Resistance, Or Armed Revolt?[/
Mar 25, 2010 7:03:22 GMT -5
Post by NCFREEDOM on Mar 25, 2010 7:03:22 GMT -5
I found this article very interesting, a little heady but well worth the read.
neithercorp.us/npress/?p=271
Peaceful Resistance, Or Armed Revolt?
There is a very common misconception amongst the average citizen when considering the intricacies of rebellion; the misconception that one must “choose” between peaceful and violent revolution, that one ideal must somehow be subservient to the other. Actually, these two methodologies work in tandem, and compliment each other depending on the circumstances of revolt.
One might ask, “How is it possible to support peaceful and violent means of revolution at the same time?”
Actually, the philosophy of the Martial Arts is designed around this very concept, turning what we thought was a confliction, into a symbiotic relationship. A martial artist draws a mental line in the sand. He retains a peaceful, non-aggressive attitude up to this mental line, sometimes allowing jabs at his ego or his beliefs in order to maintain a non-violent dialogue. When this line is crossed though, when no concordance can be found and the enemy becomes life threatening, he neutralizes that threat with corresponding force. Meaning, the martial artist is trained to use both non-violent and violent means to resolve the situation depending on the circumstance.
Peaceful Resistance is a tool. It is the first line of defense in the fight against tyrannical imperative. However, it is only effective as long as the oppressive government finds it necessary to limit its own brutality. In the case of Gandhi’s peaceful rebellion against the British Empire, government brutality worked against British interests because they were required by the atmosphere of the times to appear as though they cared about the Indian people they were trying to subjugate. Public sentiment was important to the elites at that particular moment in history, and so Gandhi’s non-violent method worked to his advantage. However, there is a limit to the peaceful method’s success…
If Gandhi had been born German and Jewish, for instance, and organized non-violent resistance to Nazi aggression, it is likely he would have been murdered within a fortnight along with anyone who followed him. The Nazis (another elitist organization) had absolutely no concern over world opinion, and they certainly had little interest in appearing “just,” thus, their brutality was unlimited. Peaceful revolution requires that a person be willing to sacrifice everything, even their own life, without fighting back, in order to make an undeniable psychological impression on the public and their aggressor. But what if the aggressor has abandoned conscience and morality? What if the rest of the public is not in a position to exert “concern” over your movement’s welfare? What if the government is willing to kill you and your people with indiscriminate impunity because it is likely they will suffer little consequence? In this situation, your peaceful sacrifice becomes empty. It achieves nothing.
Therefore, the manner of a revolution is entirely dependent upon the circumstances of the moment at which it takes shape. If a movement limits itself to non-violence in the face of another fascist-like government, one which seeks global control and the annihilation of any resistance, if they refuse to adapt when necessary, they will fail, they will be written out of the history books, and they will be forgotten. As in the martial arts, a revolution must know when the line has been crossed, and it is time to defend itself.
neithercorp.us/npress/?p=271
Peaceful Resistance, Or Armed Revolt?
There is a very common misconception amongst the average citizen when considering the intricacies of rebellion; the misconception that one must “choose” between peaceful and violent revolution, that one ideal must somehow be subservient to the other. Actually, these two methodologies work in tandem, and compliment each other depending on the circumstances of revolt.
One might ask, “How is it possible to support peaceful and violent means of revolution at the same time?”
Actually, the philosophy of the Martial Arts is designed around this very concept, turning what we thought was a confliction, into a symbiotic relationship. A martial artist draws a mental line in the sand. He retains a peaceful, non-aggressive attitude up to this mental line, sometimes allowing jabs at his ego or his beliefs in order to maintain a non-violent dialogue. When this line is crossed though, when no concordance can be found and the enemy becomes life threatening, he neutralizes that threat with corresponding force. Meaning, the martial artist is trained to use both non-violent and violent means to resolve the situation depending on the circumstance.
Peaceful Resistance is a tool. It is the first line of defense in the fight against tyrannical imperative. However, it is only effective as long as the oppressive government finds it necessary to limit its own brutality. In the case of Gandhi’s peaceful rebellion against the British Empire, government brutality worked against British interests because they were required by the atmosphere of the times to appear as though they cared about the Indian people they were trying to subjugate. Public sentiment was important to the elites at that particular moment in history, and so Gandhi’s non-violent method worked to his advantage. However, there is a limit to the peaceful method’s success…
If Gandhi had been born German and Jewish, for instance, and organized non-violent resistance to Nazi aggression, it is likely he would have been murdered within a fortnight along with anyone who followed him. The Nazis (another elitist organization) had absolutely no concern over world opinion, and they certainly had little interest in appearing “just,” thus, their brutality was unlimited. Peaceful revolution requires that a person be willing to sacrifice everything, even their own life, without fighting back, in order to make an undeniable psychological impression on the public and their aggressor. But what if the aggressor has abandoned conscience and morality? What if the rest of the public is not in a position to exert “concern” over your movement’s welfare? What if the government is willing to kill you and your people with indiscriminate impunity because it is likely they will suffer little consequence? In this situation, your peaceful sacrifice becomes empty. It achieves nothing.
Therefore, the manner of a revolution is entirely dependent upon the circumstances of the moment at which it takes shape. If a movement limits itself to non-violence in the face of another fascist-like government, one which seeks global control and the annihilation of any resistance, if they refuse to adapt when necessary, they will fail, they will be written out of the history books, and they will be forgotten. As in the martial arts, a revolution must know when the line has been crossed, and it is time to defend itself.