Violence and Nonviolence
I would like to talk about nonviolence today. I’ve been thinking about it recently, and I’m swaying on the line between nonviolence and violence. It all goes back to Gandhi, of course, and his method of nonviolence. Gandhi’s goal was to make the English realize their own cruelty, which would make them leave on their own. However, lucky for Gandhi, he was doing this in the early part of the 20th century and dealing with the people of the UK, who are, on the whole, a bit more intelligent and compassionate than Americans.
Today in America, I hardly see the fruits of nonviolence. Is it because the government and grown more calloused and resistant to these acts, or is it because there are not enough people participating? It’s hard to say, after seeing and hearing one scandal after another out of the Bush administration every day, I’d say it’s the government that simply doesn’t care about what the people say anymore. Certainly the Bush administration doesn’t care, by the way they see things, it’s their way or the highway, and public opinion doesn’t matter. The public, and right now it is obvious, is far more in favor of social spending and domestic issues than it is of meddling in foreign adventures and wars. But this goes against the desires of the elite ruling class, thus the public is marginalized and ignored. When we, the public, are ignored to such an extent nonviolence is a much duller blade. Compare the protests and acts of nonviolence today with those of the 60’s, and you might be inclined to agree that today there are simply not enough people committed to the cause of direct democracy. The United States is not a democracy and anyone who thinks otherwise is sorely mistaken. There is and always has been a complete divorce from the general population and the ruling class.
The most recent examples of nonviolence I can think of are the Buddhist Monks of Burma and Tibet. In Burma, thousands of monks recently took to the streets in a show of solidarity against the military government. Days later all dissenting media was shut down, and monks were hunted. While I greatly admire the adherence to the philosophy of nonviolence by the Dalai Lama and native Tibetans, it has not helped to get the Chinese army out of their homeland. China wants Tibet for its natural resources, and these new empire-states like the US and China simply do not care who or how many must die along the way. While the dedication to a philosophy of nonviolence is admirable, it has not earned the people of Tibet or Burma freedom.
Should we resort to violence? If we did, it would be a very bloody civil war. Although the armed forces are busy abroad, the police state has grown so massive that it has become an army of itself whose number-one objective is always to keep people from stirring anything up. One need only to look at the last bloody battle between the public and the police state: the Seattle WTO protests. I don’t recall anyone being killed, but there were certainly many injuries. Now imagine how much worse the same protest would be today, with police forces stronger with more equipment purchased with Homeland Security funds. It would be the public against the police-state, possibly the military, and then the state itself.
Nonviolence is the obvious moral choice, but I often question whether it is enough to affect massive social change. With propaganda so thorough, and a police state so large and intrusive, will violent revolution eventually take over the public of the United States?
