Strategic nonviolence

The Devil is in the details if we want to draw the line where rigorous examination ends and cynicism begins.—– Peter Gelderloos and others have said support for nonviolence stems from socio-economic privilege where its advocates, thru a subconscious stake in the status quo, expect nonviolent resistance (regardless of efficacy) to a system that commits violence based on racism, classism, sexism, imperialism and so on. That is, advocating nonviolent resistance, if taken to an extreme, is an implicit show of support for state, corporate and other organized violence against those who are oppressed ——I don’t agree with everything Gelderloos claims in his writing, but I relate to some of it. To me, nonviolence, per se, is neither the ultimate means nor the ultimate goal. Love is, with the acknowledgement that we, in hopefully rare situations, resort to violence out of love. We can kill or inflict harm and pain without hatred, if we do so as a genuine last resort.—–Strategic nonviolence is important, but there’s the risk, as others have suggested, of fetishizing it, with part of that stemming from unacknowledged socioeconomic privilege.

Some have said ‘love’ is a vague, overused word. But what about ‘nonviolence’ ? I’ve elaborated on ‘love.’ Will you try it with ‘nonviolence’ ? —–Maybe defining ‘ violence ‘ would help. Is violence just a matter of punches, kicks, knives, bullets, bombs….? Or does it also include, as Gandhi suggested, the violence of poverty? ——Are we being ‘nonviolent ‘ when we give implicit consent to state (corporate and government) actions that create or contribute to conditions where humans and nonhumans suffer from deprivation? —–Would it help our inquiry to think in terms of that which causes or allows suffering instead of ‘ violence’ ? I suggest our understanding of the relationship between ‘love’ and ‘nonviolence ‘ changes when we think in terms using our empathy and compassion to minimize suffering and maximize well-being.

Some may dismiss love for the world as a reaction against the broad social obligations it connotes and potentially evokes.