Yes. Even somethings apparently as passive as Walls and Fences are violence, just ask the First Nations. Sometimes the violence is justified, but mostly it's just greed.
So there is my answer on Finkelstein's book about Gandhi, dimly remembered this ;-)
<i>So Lakey's ideology, which gets into the Ruckus Society, which gets into Central America, gets into the Battle of Seattle, the anti-globalization movement. It's full of nonviolence. So imposing your will on other people is nonviolent is violence. Hierarchy is violence. So you construct your movement out of affinity groups, and decision making is done by consensus. There's no hierarchy, there's no leadership, there's diversity of tactics.</i>
I think you are painting with far too wide a brush here. Affinity groups and processes for non-hierarchical decision making (including various forms of consensus) are tactics and social organizations that have been with us literally for millennia. In spite of the kiss of death that was Gene Sharp's attempted co-optation, these ways of organizing will continue to be adapted. People who are using them directly experience just how well they work especially compared to hierarchical organizations that keep most people passive most of the time.
These tactics are part and parcel of the toolboxes of what is sometimes labelled anarchism. Recently our host seems to be drawn to more overtly confrontational forms of anti-imperialist resistance in the course of the AEP... Still, anarchist theory and practice at the very least can help us understand many of the "weapons of the weak" used by indigenous resistance in the face of technological superiority of the colonials.
We could discuss strengths and weaknesses of such tactics compared to e.g. Leninist cadre parties on a theoretical level: leaders can be co-opted or killed, morph into oppressors themselves or at least may keep the rank and file in a state of learned helplessness. Admittedly I myself was never fully swayed by such arguments before experiencing e.g. consensus decision making working beautifully at scale for myself.
Therefore I would strongly recommend delving into David Graeber's early book "Direct Action: An Ethnography". Graeber uses his anthropological training to get us in touch with a direct action network - an affinity group operating on a process of (partial) consensus - in New York through participant observation.
Non?-violent tactics for resisting police repression abound in the book. These come to a head when their group joins the Anti-Globalization action in Montreal in 2001 and encounter the Quebecois working class penchant of lobbing molotov cocktails at police sent in to attack them. I later studied in Ontario and was amazed at what routinely happened next door largely unnoticed ;-)
This is amazing. Thank you!
Justin: “Finkelstein wrote a book about this, he wrote a book called What Ghandi says…
Sina: “Shut up! What a stupid thing to write! Go to hell!” as he’s walking off to go to the bathroom during the podcast 😂
This shit is gold
I'll say it again after reading so it cements in my brain: Hierarchies ARE violence.
Yes. Even somethings apparently as passive as Walls and Fences are violence, just ask the First Nations. Sometimes the violence is justified, but mostly it's just greed.
So there is my answer on Finkelstein's book about Gandhi, dimly remembered this ;-)
<i>So Lakey's ideology, which gets into the Ruckus Society, which gets into Central America, gets into the Battle of Seattle, the anti-globalization movement. It's full of nonviolence. So imposing your will on other people is nonviolent is violence. Hierarchy is violence. So you construct your movement out of affinity groups, and decision making is done by consensus. There's no hierarchy, there's no leadership, there's diversity of tactics.</i>
I think you are painting with far too wide a brush here. Affinity groups and processes for non-hierarchical decision making (including various forms of consensus) are tactics and social organizations that have been with us literally for millennia. In spite of the kiss of death that was Gene Sharp's attempted co-optation, these ways of organizing will continue to be adapted. People who are using them directly experience just how well they work especially compared to hierarchical organizations that keep most people passive most of the time.
These tactics are part and parcel of the toolboxes of what is sometimes labelled anarchism. Recently our host seems to be drawn to more overtly confrontational forms of anti-imperialist resistance in the course of the AEP... Still, anarchist theory and practice at the very least can help us understand many of the "weapons of the weak" used by indigenous resistance in the face of technological superiority of the colonials.
We could discuss strengths and weaknesses of such tactics compared to e.g. Leninist cadre parties on a theoretical level: leaders can be co-opted or killed, morph into oppressors themselves or at least may keep the rank and file in a state of learned helplessness. Admittedly I myself was never fully swayed by such arguments before experiencing e.g. consensus decision making working beautifully at scale for myself.
Therefore I would strongly recommend delving into David Graeber's early book "Direct Action: An Ethnography". Graeber uses his anthropological training to get us in touch with a direct action network - an affinity group operating on a process of (partial) consensus - in New York through participant observation.
Non?-violent tactics for resisting police repression abound in the book. These come to a head when their group joins the Anti-Globalization action in Montreal in 2001 and encounter the Quebecois working class penchant of lobbing molotov cocktails at police sent in to attack them. I later studied in Ontario and was amazed at what routinely happened next door largely unnoticed ;-)
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/david-graeber-direct-action