Tuesday, August 15, 2017

Violence... Non-Violence... What About When It Comes To Nazis?

>




That's American Nazi leader Richard Spencer pretending to be Dave Gahan a couple months ago in front of a crowd of drunken fascists who appear to have left their tiki torches at home that night. As a longtime, devoted Depeche Mode fan, that doesn't give me the right to kill him-- even if I'm going to be haunted for weeks after I watching him mincing around the stage like that. Even punching him in the face is... well, just something to laugh about. I've been a non-violent kind of guy for my whole life (except once).



The video's funny. I wish it went on longer. But I don't mean to advocate violence-- just Depeche Mode's music (mostly). Ryan Clayton is the president of Americans Take Action, a populist network formed to restore free and fair elections in America, create a purpose driven economy, and save the free and open internet-- but not to advocate violent action. Definitely not, in fact. Yesterday, on a provate e-mail listserv, Ryan wrote that since Charlottesville he's been seeing "a radical uptick in the number of people on the left calling for us to reciprocate the violence, the most notable example being a new t-shirt campaign called Punch More Nazis. Here's how the argument generally proceeds: 'Practice love and non-violence, except where Nazis are concerned. You must punch Nazis, as they don't speak any other language than violence. Therefore, we much be violent towards them so they understand we mean serious bizness. Yeah, bruh.'" Tempting, right? Ryan says NO-- and you know he's right.

"Punch More Nazis" = Promotion of Violence.  Period.  Full stop.

The Young Turks showed a video of Ryan being attacked by some neo-Nazis a few months ago. Watch:



Ryan:
Honestly, going into this action, I thought they might get violent, but the most I imagined they may was punch us in the face once or twice-- that was the upper limit of what I considered a room full of conservatives might do. But this is a different breed of political animal, folks, these people are straight up right-wing white nationalist fascists, and they heartily embrace violence as a means to an end. Red hats are the new brown-shirts. "Alt-right" just means new nazis, same as the old nazis. I get it. So later on, when having a conversation with a political ally on the left who's a friend, they asked me what it would take to commit violence? I responded simply, "Nothing." After giving me a few scenarios that evoked the same response, he delivered his final salvo, "Yeah, but what about self-defense. What if you thought someone was going to kill you, what would you do then?" I responded, I've actually been in that situation recently, where I thought people were going to kill me, and I held on to my camera; I didn't strike back. The temptation was there that day to ram the person restraining me into the window and free myself from their grip (it ended up being a woman holding me from behind, imagine the delight that O'Keefe would have in flaunting that violent reaction to the world).  When I was being choked, the temptation was there to use training I've received to free myself from such a choke-hold, but that could have been interpreted as an attempt to strike back and escalated the violence. The temptation was definitely there to fight back as I was being thrown down a stairwell, where the thought crossed my mind in that instant that I could end up paralyzed for life from what was about to happen.

I did not resist, I did not strike back, the only violence in that room was in their hands. I allowed them to monopolize the violence, and I called the police instead... The police have failed to pursue any serious charges (even though it's plain as day on the video), and frankly, the community that should be supportive in punishing O'Keefe and his minions haven't really stepped up to the plate to make them pay for their assault on the two of us, including some of the people who got us into the midst of this fracas in the first place. The compendium of these factors had me revisit the wisdom of nonviolence, I've spent time recently re-litigating the debate over and over again in my mind. I say this to relate to those who are softening in your stance toward a commitment to nonviolence, I understand how you feel, I've been there. You're angry, you feel threatened, you feel responsible, you feel duty bound to do something to protect yourself and others. I get it.

But let me ask you something, do you believe in science? Like, there's science that says the world is warming and the climate is changing, 99% of scientists agree, it's a fact backed up by reams of data. I believe in science, so when a scientist investigates the last 100 years of conflicts on planet Earth and discovers that nonviolent conflicts are 3x more effective than violent conflicts, I listen. When she shows us data demonstrating that violent conflicts are becoming less common and less effective, and opposition movements that gain power through violence usually end up more violent against their own people once in power, I listen. When she shows that violence is effectively a barrier to entry for all but males between the ages of 18-45 who are willing to harm other people, it means a revolution grounded in violence will leave out (most) women, artists, intellectuals, civic servants, religious leaders, young people, etc (i.e. all the people who make a movement). When she says that every movement, violent or nonviolent, that achieved the active and sustained participation of 3.5% of the population has succeeded in the last 100 years, I am filled with great hope (btw, no violent campaign has achieved that percentage of active participation). So listen, the science of nonviolence is here, you can read it, analyze it, and you can even disagree, but your gut feeling that violence is still an effective tool for political conflict is the exact same thing as those people denying the scientific consensus surrounding the reality of global climate change.

Put plainly, violence is not more effective than a movement commitment to nonviolence. It's settled science. There's this great saying I've heard in trainings, "In God we trust, all others bring data." So I've shown you mine, now you show me yours. Also, I'll give you the follow up argument too: "But King had Malcolm. Mandela had the Spear of the Nation. They were armed Indians fighting for what Ghandi wanted too. You need both to win." Yeah, I used to make this argument too, before I read the science surrounding this. Thankfully, even a few of the examples mentioned here are addressed and/or debunked in the book of Why Civil Resistance Works (referenced above). The authors even did a follow up study on this line of argument, since so many bruhs were like, "But c'mon, there must be empirical validation of my gut feeling that violence is useful in some way and it always works better cause that makes me feel so good and manly, bruh." Actually, that's completely wrong, their follow up study showed that nonviolent movements that had simultaneous violent movements were prolonged and less successful over time, and I believe that this is increasingly true in the later half of the century. Their scientific data and analysis trumps your gut feeling, bruh.

Coming back to the topic of the day, my partner in progressive pranks was also in the crowd that got rammed by the car in Charlottesville (while I was on the phone with him). Much of his political involvement prior to me hiring him was doing work with anti-fascists in DC. He still knows some of them and attends rallies/protests occasionally, which is why he was there that day, but since working for me, he has accepted and adhered to a strict code of nonviolence-- part of a requirement for the job, but he's also genuinely come around on the issue. Personally, he will tell you how he now believes that violent responses in the streets are counterproductive and how he's seen how powerful nonviolent actions can be, such as dropping Russian flags with Trumps name on them into CPAC. He has been successfully making the argument in some of those networks that violence is really just a testosterone fueled explosion of emotional release (mostly by men), rather than an actual strategic tactic employed to achieve actual political goals. The main problem I personally have with black bloc violence is that they're usually doing it around the corner from a nonviolent protest. When they break windows on one corner of the street, the police start cracking skulls on the next street over. The violence, once associated with a small group of protesters, can be used to paint all protesters and justify violence against them. It takes a lot of conversations and a lot of listening to bring the younger generation of activists around to seeing the virtue and strategic value of nonviolence, and we all pay a price when protesters are subjected to increasing volumes of violence from police as well as our political opponents, so if you're doing anything that is undermining the former and promoting the latter, then you're doing it wrong.

So, let's bring it all together now... When Donald Trump tweets out that there is violence on many sides, he's watching and waiting for you. He wants you to fuck up the response to this. He didn't mess up his response. He was planting a seed, and you're playing directly into Donald Trump's tiny hands. When someone on the left encourages violence, they can point and make the false equivalence, "See, both sides are doing it. Both sides are guilty. Both sides are violent." Then it's a competition to see who can be more violent to win. And make no mistake, they want a violent conflict-- conservatives believe that violence is a perfectly acceptable way to solve political disputes. They have guns and they want to use them (btw, per capita gun ownership has declined while gun sales have increased, so less and less people are owning more and more guns... and it ain't progressives locking and loading up). You're the key to them changing the terms of the debate from words into violent actions and unlocking all those gun safes to head down to the local protest. They know both sides will lose, but we will lose more-- not as many of us are willing to be violent, our active and passive supporters mostly reject violence, the uncommitted in the middle will throw their hands up because "both sides are doing it" robbing us of any moral high-ground, it will embolden their supporters and swell their ranks with people who believe in violence as a means to an end, it will sap our enthusiasm and our people's will to resist. So, when you say, "Punch More Nazis," you are a recruitment mechanism for alt-right neo-nazi fascists and delivering psychological death blows to the new ranks of the resistance.  You are becoming the handmaiden of the oppressor. So, congratulations, I hope you sell some shirts, because you're going to get us all fucking killed.

Lastly, some will also say, "Yeah, I normally am against violence, but it's okay as a last resort."  Isaac Asimov once said, "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."  If the use of violence is morally justifiable in your book and you reject the science of nonviolence, then you are as Mr. Asimov says.  
The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral,
begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy.
Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it.
Through violence you may murder the liar,
but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth.
Through violence you may murder the hater,
but you do not murder hate.
In fact, violence merely increases hate.
So it goes.
Returning violence for violence multiplies violence,
adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness:
only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.


-Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Labels: , , , , , ,

8 Comments:

At 3:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To a point, yes. But Nazism was defeated in Europe by violence - as a last resort. Gandhi stated that resistance to the Nazis would be non-violent. He was hopelessly naive in terms of that particular situation. Would that the Nazis had been defeated sooner - by violence or any other means - millions of people would not have had to die.

 
At 3:30 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

Anonymous:

Had the winners in 1918 not punished Germany in an act of cultural, economic and political violence, there would have been no "Nazi Germany." Hitler and his crew would likely have been just another bunch of crazy extremists hanging out in beer halls and making big plans that would never come to fruition.

 
At 5:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

with all due respect, EB, but not necessarily so. The anti-Semitism was overt and systemic. The great depression provided the economic "shock" (props to Naomi Klein for the term). The Versaille treaty only magnified these shocks a little.

The defeat in WWI fed scapegoatism (jews) and nationalism. The GD created a horrible economic shock. Versaille may have been the last straw, but I don't think so. The conditions were ripe for a demagogue at the right place at the right time with the right scapegoats. The military, a proud society in and of itself prior to versaille, was only too happy to jump on in order to restore its own dignity.

And let's not forget all the opportunities the world had before Poland to stop it. Thanks to Chamberlain et al, they shrunk at every opportunity which emboldened hitler and his military and people. Before Poland, the French *OR* the English could have ended it before it started. But neither (nor both together) saw the wisdom in challenging a weak, bluffing bully before it became a BIG bully.

Ghandi's way would never work against the kind of hate we've seen resurgent. It works when an oppressor really doesn't have the stomach for genocide. But that is not the case here. The white evil (Nazis, kkk, nationalists, racists, religiophobes, misogynists, homophobes...) will not stop short of genocide. Their god has already sanctified their murder of whomever they and their clergy choose to demonize. They have never experienced any pause at violence and killing. They've done it overseas. They'll do it here as long as they feel impervious to legal retribution from the state. We're getting there pretty quickly.

Their dear leader first didn't condemn them, then did, now he has defended them again. David Duke is pleased. We're getting there.

 
At 5:27 PM, Blogger Ten Bears said...

It's the only language they understand.

 
At 5:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

TTB, correct. But also this particular problem will require violence to solve. Always has.

If the state refuses, we may have to fight the civil war again. And again. Until we eradicate it once and for all. If that's possible.

If we interpret our first amendment to tolerate hate speech, we'll never eradicate this kind of shit.

Look to Germany for lessons here.

 
At 9:33 PM, Blogger Skeptical Partisan said...

Even if violence could resolve right wing extremism, it would be violence against our fellow citizens, friends, family and colleagues. The wounds of the American Civil War have not fully healed and now we are actually considering another civil war. Scary times.

Not to be overly Pollyannish but here's something else to consider: White supremacists are right in the sense that they are victims, just not victims of the people they hold responsible. Like the majority of us, they are victims of an economic system that preys on workers; unlike most, they are also victims of movement recruiters who feed their aggrievement a nasty diet of race blaming. A parallel would be deceitful military recruiters. The leaders of these movements are the real evildoers.

NPR interviewed A Reformed White Nationalist Speaks Out On Charlottesville.

 
At 6:04 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

SP has some good points. But not all of them are victims. The leaders aren't so much victims as they are opportunists to leech off the hapless rubes who can be cajoled into feeling oppressed. Some are. Some are not. It's identical to clergy of religions making a living off the idiots for whom they act as liaison to god.

Because of humankind's peculiar proclivity to delusions of grandeur and also of oppression, this kind of shit won't go away. And because this kind of shit is always sanctified by god (jesus was white; you know it's true), they never shrink from breaking commandments and defeating it always means violence.

Government must commit the violence (arrest, imprisonment, etc) and society must act (as in exposing them with one of those asswipes losing his job... so far) or it will take REAL violence, like another civil war.

 
At 7:57 AM, Blogger Procopius said...

After our Civil War some Southern veterans proclaimed that the Union had overwhelmed them but had not beaten them. After World War I, the German Army proclaimed that the Allies had overwhelmed them but they could still have prevailed except for the socialists in Berlin who stabbed them in the back. The British Navy continued their blockade of food and medicine for two years after the Armistice. Thousands starved and died from lack of medicine in Germany. The provisions of the Versailles Treaty led to the Weimar Republic creating a hyperinflation to wipe out the war debt and reparations imposed on them. It also wiped out the German middle class.When the Great Depression hit, Chancellor Bruening imposed severe austerity, including ending welfare payments. He really was just following orthodox economic advice, like Hoover and Obama, but on top of twenty years of non-stop suffering it allowed the Nazis to get almost a third of Germans to vote for Hitler, and then the big industrialists prevailed on the senile von Hindenburg to appoint Hitler as Chancellor in hopes he would leash his brown shirts and end the street fighting. We can't be sure that Hitler would not have come to power if the Versailles treaty had not been so draconian. There is not way to prove the counterfactual. But one thing I know -- violence finally settled the dispute between Carthage and Rome. Violence finally settled the dispute between the Axis and the Allies. Violence temporarily settled the dispute between the Confederacy and the Union. Maybe what we need is more violence than was used 1860-65. I don't know, but I think it's coming. The Year of the Jackpot.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home