articulation of a sociopolitical viewpoint is rare.
repression of the QUESTION OF VIOLENCE has given us a class of “progressives” who STAND WITH WAR; not every war, like raytheon does, only the “GOOD ONES”. just as in the world of sex, repression leads to perversion. and not only perversion, but shame, secrecy, and unchecked behaviors.
recently i had a discussion with a totally random person on a park bench by the hudson river.
we began with small talk/commiseration about nyc; prices, and the recent overturning of roe v wade. the person i was speaking to, i ascertained, was in the editorial department of a large, well-known art institution. my assumption, given this person’s presentation, was that they were a “progressive intellectual” type. i mean.. that is what they were.
somehow i made what i considered to be a pretty innocuous comment about it being crazy that the US can send almost $100B to an active war zone but claim there’s no money for stuff here. i was referring, of course, to ukraine.
i believe what follows illustrates the breakdown of logic, and indeed of ETHICS within what people call “the left”. and the repressed center of this breakdown is the SO-CALLED QUESTION of violence.
my friends.. let me skip to the end right now and state clearly: there is no question of violence in a successful remedy, nor, in my opinion CAN there be.
when progressives falter on this issue, when no one even utters the words “non-violence”, the whole left loses its credibility.
my conversation with the person on the park bench went something like this:
me: crazy how we have all this money to send to an active war zone but we’re still cutting public schools.
them: well what’s happening in ukraine is horrible, but people are under an imperialist attack.
me: but do you believe the solution then is to send weapons?
them: well we’re also sending aid.
me: yeah but we’re also sending weapons.
them: well do you think we should just stand by and let them be bombed?
me: again, how will sending weapons help?
them: people are defending their home. how can they resist an armed assault without arms?
me: ok so tell me… if we send rifles to ukraine how will that help them resist bombs?
them: i just think the people of ukraine should decide how they resist. it’s a struggle for self-determination.
me: so you believe that armed resistance is sometimes called for?
them: i think there’s a big difference between a war of aggression and a resistance struggle.
me: i guess i just believe that violence is never the solution.
them: well i don’t think it’s for you to decide.
me: but hasn’t history decided? weren’t the two most successful political struggles of the whole 20th century waged by gandhi and martin luther king… under an explicit banner of non-violence?
them: gandhi was a nationalist and believed in the caste system. the caste system is very violent.
me: ok i’m not sure but didn’t he lead a non-violent revolution against a huge colonial power and win?
them: yes, but he supported a violent caste system at home.
me: ok but what about martin luther king then?
them: people idolize martin luther king but it wasn’t just him. he had a lot of other people around him who were just as important, and without them he could not have succeeded.
me: but.. regardless, didn’t those people lead a successful non-violent movement?
them: but it wasn’t non-violent. look at the panthers.
me: ok, the black panthers carried guns, but actually i would argue that they too were non-violent.
them: how can you say that? they carried guns and called for armed resistance.
me: but show me where they were violent. calling for people to defend their lives is not the same as bombing a building. the real panthers never killed anyone. it was even in their name: “party for self-defense”.
them: they used the language of violence and symbols of violence. i don’t think most people would consider them non-violent.
me: well then i think most people would be wrong. there’s a big difference between language and symbols of violence and actual violence.
them: language CAN be violence.
me: i don’t agree with that. if you call me a name it’s not violent but if you punch me in the face.. ask me after which one is violence.
them: they’re both violent.
me: ok well i disagree but…
them: so you don’t think people have a right to defend themselves?
me: i do, but let me ask you this: when you imagine defending yourself what do you imagine? defending yourself against an army, or the police? you can’t win that fight.
them: what about a woman who’s about to be raped? you don’t think she has the right to kill her attacker?
me: but that’s like.. exactly the example of self-defense where yes, do whatever you have to do, up to and including violence.. but how does that compare to an armed insurgency?
them: frankly, i think this conversation has gone too far.
me: wow well i’m sorry you are getting mad..
them: and i’m leaving.
AND THEY GOT RIGHT UP AND LEFT.
dear reader, perhaps you recognize yourself in one or the other of these conversants. perhaps, at times, both.
my purpose in trying to faithfully recreate this conversation is to accurately illustrate the barriers we face in INSISTING on an explicit program of NON-VIOLENCE.
with no THOUGHT LEADERS leading us with concepts and tactics of non-violence, from where will this discourse emerge? when the activist class and “progressives” TEAR DOWN any leader who dares to embrace that role anyway, who will stand up and say the thing which needs to be said, that the surest path to political victory is sustained non-violent civil disobedience ?
leaving VIOLENCE to a “question” is a cause for INACTION, and DISCREDITS our movements AS THEY ARISE. 😐
Share
