I am a proponent of non-violence in nearly all circumstances, because I see violent change as always or almost always leading to more of the same: people who are willing to use violence to get their way ruling over oppressed peoples (Stalin comes immediately to mind as an example of what happens to ordinary people when violent revolution topples the old regime). But I have to wonder:

Does non-violence ever solve anything? Was it Ghandi who freed India, or was it India's willingness to fight on the side of the British in a world war that won them freedom (they were, I believe, promised independence for participating)? Was it Martin Luther King Jr.'s peaceful demonstrations that widened civil rights, or was it the riots after his death that scared people into relenting? We know violence works, if it didn't we wouldn't go to war. But does non-violence work at the national and international level?


Questions for debate:


Can non-violent tactics force unwilling rulers to change their policies?



If so, what tactics work best to make non-violent action effective?



What can defuse an otherwise successful non-violent movement?



Does being non-violent mean refusing to act in self defense if attacked while lawfully protesting (the generally accepted rule)?

Your questions cover too much territory to permit a succinct answer. I claim that non-violence is far more successful than violence in political affairs. If you think solely in terms of black-and-white confrontations, such as led to the Gulf War, then yes, non-violence seems impotent. But the success of non-violent techniques hinges on the degree of political and economic intercourse between the two opposing parties. Fundamentally independent parties have no leverage other than violence. But as parties become more intertwined, non-violent techniques gain effectiveness.

I am not a pacifist, nor am I a huge proponent of violence. I feel that it was the race riots before, during and after King that provoked the Civil Rights Act, not his peaceful protests. But because the two happened in the same time span, it's hard to differentiate. Maybe they were both necessary, because if there had only been riots sweeping the US, it would have been counterproductive and if it had only been peaceful protests, no one would have enacted change.
If there had been no riots during the 60s, people would have just gone on oppressing minorities, there was no incentive to change behavior.

Two extreme examples come to mind. One is Franco, where he was a oppressive and tyrannical, but he stayed in power and there was no violent revolution to overthrow him. In the end he died, and Spain became a democracy without the mass bloodshed that a revolution would have brought.

The other is Rwanda, when the RPF had no choice but to start fighting back against the RGF in order to stop the genocide. I highly doubt that peaceful protest, or civil disobediance would have worked in this case...Or it would have had there been more international support, but since there wasn't, what choice was left? Had they just been nonviolent about it, Rwanda would have no more Tutsi's and perhaps the whole region would be even more unstable than it is today, with the threat of Hutus killing Tutsi's in the surrounding regions.

I feel that violence should be the last resort, but sometimes it needs to happen.

The Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964. Reverend King was assassinated in 1968. This provides us with an demonstration of how forward-looking Congress can be.
Reverend King's speech "I have a Dream" was delivered on August 28th, 1963, and is usually credited with being the most significant single act contributing to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I will also point out that it was perhaps the most powerful political speech I have ever heard. I strongly urge you to take a few moments to listen to a recording of the speech here. It's about 15 minutes long but the ending is absolutely inspiring. Don't just read the text, listen to the speech. The cadences are magnificent!


Again, I think you have the historical sequence off. Most of the riots took place after the passage of the Civil Rights Act.


Yes, certainly in the case of the Rwanda genocide. Let's not extend the Rwanda case to less evil situations.

I also urge readers to re-read Thoreau's Civil Disobedience or Ghandi's writings on civil disobedience. And Reverend King's speech is of course a strong statement of non-violence.

Obviously, non-violence is preferable to violence....BUT paradoxically, the primary and most effective deterent to violence is the threat of greater force. All laws and rights of the individual which we suppose to be so inherent and self-evident, are merely wishes on paper without the force to back them. That is true of local, national, and international law. That is the subtle and absolute logic of violence that is often missed by pacifists, and it's counterproductive, IMO, to ignore it.

Ultimately, the success of non-violent measures seems to depend on the quality of the government or regime the measures are countering. Under the governments of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot pacifism didn’t work very well, and the pacifists who “objected peacefully” were either locked up indefinitely of summarily executed. Under the democratic British and US government pacifist resistance worked well.

I disagree with an aspect of your wording. Instead of "the primary and most effective deterrent to violence", I would argue for "the final deterrent to violence". The word "primary" suggests that violence is the first or best deterrent; obviously, we prefer to resort to violence as our last resort, not our first resort. And we can't call violence the best deterrent because it often leads to more violence. So I prefer "final" in your sentence. Yes, we do need the threat of violence to maintain our laws. But the huge majority of interactions between people are nonviolent because people can see where violence goes. To use a scaled-down example, the great majority of legal disputes are settle out of court, because people realize that litigating (the legal analogue of violence) is costly and seldom produces a clear success. So they compromise and accept something less than they think they deserve. The threat of violence does indeed make non-violence possible -- and we do everything possible to make sure we don't ever have to back up that threat.

Thus, in choosing between non-violence and violence, we must always ask, "have we eliminated every possible non-violent strategy?" Only then can we make recourse to violence.

Rather than being "missed," I'd say that a pacifist philosophy disagrees with that which you see as "subtle and absolute." Absolute according to whom?

Violence tends to beget violence. This much we know. We cannot predict the outcome of violent action. And we know beyond all doubt that violence means suffering.

Without the benefit of hindsight, how can we know if a violent action is just? Are there any "just" wars?

As a pacifist, I have been called all sorts of names, from cowardly, to idealist without any pragmatic sense, etc. However, it seems completely clear to me that the really naive belief is that conflict can somehow be solved by more conflict.

I would like to quote the Dalai Lama here, not as an appeal to authority, but because he states what I believe to be true far more eloquently than I:


Human beings are not naturally violent. We are naturally aggresive to varying extents; as Salvor Hardin, first mayor of the Foundation was fond of saying, "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."


Can non-violent tactics force unwilling rulers to change their policies?

Of course. But it requires a large movement of people. Sure, a violent revolution might change things more quickly, might replace one unwilling ruler for another. Large nonviolent movements are an essential part of our social evolution. It is the only way we will find peace.

If so, what tactics work best to make non-violent action effective?

Gandhi used to emphasize that pacifism didn't mean laying down and dying; it was active. It means civil disobedience. It means unionizing. It means confronting violent power with love and refusal.

The idea that war can solve problems or bring peace is a paradigm which deserves to be shed. We have made so much progress in the last several centuries! We have gone from the idea of slaves to natural rights for all humans (still a ways to go for all of us, but we're getting there). Where once young children were forced to work in horrifying conditions, we now have laws protecting them. Where once companies could pay a man in company scrip, forcing him to buy eveything at the company store, where he could be forced to work hour after hour in dangerous conditions, we have unions and organized labor, which has resulted in laws protecting workers. We have come to accept (again, in varying degrees) the idea that women are more than just baby factories. Yet why do we persist in thinking that killing lots of men, women, and children will somehow bring about peace? I've said it before - because its results are suffering, death, disease, famine, rape, war is criminal. Period. It is not just, even if in hypothetical "what-if" situations it might seem pragmatic or necessary. War is the interests of government, of power. War is not the interests of people.

I will post more (and attempt greater coherency - my kids are running around yelling) later, but for now let me close with a quote from Helen Keller:

I'm in agreement for the most part, Mrs. P. On an individual level, I use to hang around some pretty rough parts of the various cities in which I lived. Being large and strong helped to deter attacks, as did having a down/dirty street attitude. Of course, a better course of action would have been to avoid the rougher parts of the cities, but the income wasn't so good back then.

On an international level, it is starting to look like violence isn't helping anybody. Note that I say "starting to look like," because we, as the world, will not be there until everyone depends upon everyone else. In other words, until it makes no sense to attack a nation due to the target nation having resources already owned by the attacking nation. These could be natural resources, infrastructure resources, or human resources.

One of the reasons for going into Iraq was to build a nation that would be in the world community. That's probably the noblest of the reasons given, at least so it looks now (to me).

What about bringing about political and social change? Does violence work for that? I don't think anyone believes that bombing buildings does anything positive for whatever cause. Killing people doesn't either, so there you go. Or what about the violent revolutions in South America? Any success yet? I don't see it, but then I'm no expert on S.A. politics.

And then there are the Afghanistan and Iraq deals. Time will tell if the violence worked or not, and it depends on what goal is looked at.

War is an exercise in clashing wills that is supposed to lead to the surrender negotiations table. It's in our best interest to get together at the negotiation table before war, but history has shown us how this falls apart, then the war comes.

World development still goes on, with the exception of several nations. I wish we could figure out peaceful ways to bring everyone into the world community voluntarily -- but I'm also aware that human nature isn't that far from the tooth and claw mentality.

Anyway, I'm all for mutual dependencies causing, by nessessity, cooperation and the end to war as a political given. Meanwhile, we'd better be ready to put up a fight. I'm still against looking for a fight though. I avoid the rough parts of cities in my later years. Seems to be the smart thing to do.

I guess martial arts are good examples of being non-violent yet able to fight if necessary.

Sorry to snip your quotes, but I'm trying to make my point by demonstrating how you've answered your own question here a bit. Exactly right, society has progressed and laws protect most people. How do those laws offer protection? Why, and how, have we come to the point at which there is such a respect (relatively) for human rights? Written words aren't protecting those people, it's the threat of force which enforces those laws, which then protects the population. In civil and safe society people tend to to forget this, though it's easy to remember in bad neighborhoods like AM mentioned. The greatest way to ensure less violence is to gather enough strength to ensure that the violence won't work, or will be sufficiently costly to search for an alternative. It's true for all law, from local (policemen) to international (armies). It's why governments were created in the first place. So, by all means, I think we should seek out the peaceful alternatives...but I also think it's perilous to forget the bottom line.

Youre right, I got the order mixed up, however I still stand by my claim. There were riots before the Civil Rights Act and other acts of violence leading up to that point. The threat of violence is why the Civil Rights Act got passed. I'm not saying that King's role in the movement was insignifigant. However, I strongly believe that little would have changed without the threat of violence. Additionally, the Civil Rights Act is not the only thing that happened during that time, and when the violence was happening, other legistlation passed because the Civil Rights Act was not enough (like the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act of '68, Loving v. Virginia [yes I know this isn't new legislation but it is a positive for the Civil Rights Movemen]))


Again, I think you have the historical sequence off. Most of the riots took place after the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

I wasn't suggesting that we do.

It's not that I think you are wrong about this, it's that I am approaching this issue in a more abstract or metaphysical way (and I say that not to make some contrast, that your way of thinking about it is somehow "simplistic" or anything like that). My concern is to change that bottom line, and for the life of me, I know in my heart that the only way it will change is by practicing the goal we seek. It sounds a bit like a hokey self-help motto: "be the change you seek," but don't we hold that to be true?

While our respect for (and legal tolerance of) human rights might be enforced by implied threat, that is not the reason we value human rights. Civil rights are an idea based on compassion and empathy. All beings suffer. If I can identify with my fellowman, I can empathize when he suffers. I act with kindness because everyone knows what it is like to be treated unkindly. I don't treat people well out of fear of violence.

Given this, I further recognize that if we want to rid the world of violence, we must rid ourselves of violence. Because ultimately, there is no division between "myself" and the world at large. They are one and the same.

So, while it may seem pragmatic or even necessary to sometimes resort to violence, and while that violence may even have a short-term benefit to myself or society, the longer view is, it is still wrong, because it contributes to a culture of violence.

If we invade Iraq and kill 100,000 innocent people, while we may be preventing more deaths at the hand of Saddam Hussein (though we don't know for sure), we have killed these innocent people. People as innocent as you or me, our parents, siblings, friends. We have snuffed out those lives. And we are culpable for that crime. How much good does it do our search for peace in the world to mitigate one act of violence by simply substituting some other act of violence for it?

Bush talks about a noble goal, and I share his vision. Where he and I differ, and seemingly fundamentally, is that he thinks about the problem in a very shallow way. Is he listening to his Christ, the one who told us to turn the other cheek? Has he ignored that beautiful line in the Lord's prayer, "Forgive us our tresspasses as we forgive those who trespass against us?"

So it's hokey, but I still come back to the importance of "be the change you seek."

Certainly an excellent statement on the question. As I have mulled this over, I realize that the question is framed badly. It presents the issue in negative terms. "Non-violence" is too vague a concept to admit close examination. Perhaps I should simply start a new topic, but I shall risk a thunderbolt from the Great Topic God and present a re-framing of the question:

Are consensual or negotiated approaches to conflict resolution more effective than the use of violence?

This framing of the question forces us to face up to an issue we've been dancing all around: when is violence justified? Everybody is quick to observe that nonviolence is preferable to violence -- but then some just as quickly assert the necessity of violence. I maintain that Americans are in general too quick to resort to violence, whether it be in the death penalty, the use of police violence against protesters, or in foreign policy. I am not opposed to the use of violence in all cases; I think it was justified in the execution of Timothy McVeigh, in the police violence against the WTO protesters at Seattle, and the Gulf War. But we are too quick to pull the trigger, and when it turns out to be wrong, we shrug our shoulders and say the equivalent of "well, you know, war is hell and these things happen." They shouldn't happen, and they wouldn't if we were more careful.

Are consensual or negotiated approaches to conflict resolution more effective than the use of violence?

Ah, that is also a good question, but I didn't ask it because I was interested in the unequivocal rejection of violence in all situations. This is also a complicated question, because now you start on scenarios. When does it work? When doesn't it? When is it time to switch from one to the other? Now we have a context question instead of a question of an absolute rejection of violence and whether this can be effective if enough people participate. I wonder, if enough Americans managed to form a non-violent resistance to our current crop of rulers, would they go peacefully? And if not, would a violent response destroy the peaceful movement?

However, my own ambiguity to this philosophy was, you may note, tacked on to the end of the first post:

Does being non-violent mean refusing to act in self defense if attacked while lawfully protesting (the generally accepted rule)?


Because the idea of docilely allowing someone to club me over the head like a baby seal for exercising my freedom of speech and assembly doesn't appeal to me.

Sure they would. If they lost an election, they'd obey the law and step down.


In this case you have many better options than fighting back; running away comes to mind. Fighting cops just gets you clobbered even worse.

If they lost an election, huh? I don't know about that!

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'd run if I could. But what if I couldn't run, and was going to get hit? Or hauled off to a liberal concentration camp, ala Michael Savage rant? Not that I think that will happen anytime soon, but I don't see myself being nonviolent about it if it does. I think that is absurd!

Can non-violent tactics force unwilling rulers to change their policies?

Unfortunately, non-violent tactics rarely work in the real world.

Let's suppose we have two sides which disagree. One side is willing to use violence and the other is not. Which side is likely to triumph? Groups who see violence or the threat of violence as a viable tactic are unlikely to be swayed by a non-violent opposition.

Humans have instincts, just as other animals do. We desire food, shelter, and the ability to reproduce, just as other animals do. Most humans are willing to fight to obtain these things if they cannot achieve them peacefully.

The only climate in which non-violent protests work is a climate in which the protestors are protected from violence by outside forces. In India, Ghandi was protected by the rule of law under the British Commonwealth. In the US, Martin Luther King, Jr. was protected (to a certain extent) from violence by the US government and the respect for the rule of law.

When you examine the concepts of law and government, you can discern that they only function when the government has the power to enforce the law. Enforcement inherently includes the use of force. Can we agree that being arrested is a deprival of freedom and therefore a violent act?

Is it realistic to expect a complete eradication of violence in every human being? Can we deny that, as of today, human nature includes a violent streak? That some humans, at least, will use violence to get what they want?

Violence begets violence. But violence also deters violence. There are such things as just wars we must always be prepared to defend ourselves. Non-violence is not a viable without a third party willing to use violence to defend the rights of the non-violent protestors.

Amlord, this is a classic case of using boolean logic to arrive at conclusions that are reliable only when the boolean assumptions are trustworthy. This is unrealistic. In reality, there is not a black-or-white willingness to use violence; there are degrees of propensity to use violence. This ruins your logic. If there are two sides in disagreement, and one has a 51% inclination to use violence, and the other has a 49% inclination to use violence, then the less-violent side is worse off using violence, because their opponents will surely respond with violence, to everyone's detriment. But if the less violent side refrains from using violence, then the more violent side will not be as likely to resort to violence, and the disagreement can more likely be resolved without the damage done by violence.

James Clerk Maxwell said it best: "The actual science of logic is conversant at present only with things either certain, impossible, or entirely doubtful, none of which (fortunately) we have to reason on. Therefore the true logic for this world is the calculus of Probabilities, which takes account of the magnitude of the probability which is, or ought to be, in a reasonable man's mind."

Dec 1835:

The Maori decide to celebrate the holiday season by visiting the Moriori on the Chatham Islands. They announce the Moriori are now their slaves and kill a few who object. The Moriori react by having a council meeting where they decide not to fight back but to offer peace, friendship and division of resources. Before they can make this generous offer the Maori attack kill hundreds of Moriori, many of whom they cook and eat, and enslave the rest.

Moral: Pacifists are an important source of protein in the warrior diet.

The fact is Gandhi and King both had the advantage of having others who were willing to use "any means neccesary" to obtain justice. You may not have to resort to violence but you better have a big stick ready in case someone else does.

I would say that the moral of your story is, if you're dealing with people as prone to violence as the Maori, you will probably need to be ready for violence. Of course, the world we live in has very few people as prone to violence as the Maori of 1835, so the moral is that we don't need to be so ready to use violence as the Moriori needed to be.

Would you qualify someone who has a 1% propensity for violence as "non-violent" for purposes of this thread?

When one party is willing to use violence, my analogy holds: the non-violent will most likely lose in the short term. They may win long term, who knows. Eventually, they will need to rely on themselves or someone else who will stand up to the violence (presumably with violence).

Of course the world is full of gray areas. But after the decision is made violence versus non-violence IS boolean. It is either/or. You either use violence or you do not use violence.

I think that non-violence, as demonstrated by Ghandi can only work in a few isolated instances. Basically, the target of the non violence has to be a moral society, who's mores include the Judeo Christian ethic, the rule of law, and the western concept of "fairness" and "equality".

Outside of that limited example, it's a waste of time. Non-violence in most cases has as much chance as it does in the animal kingdom. None.

If one maintains one's "non-violence" stance in spite of reality of the opposition, it's akin to suicide in my eyes. And that makes it inherently immoral.

The Islamists, for example, would view "non-violence" as a sign of weakness to be exploited. So would the majority of the world. The non-violent approach would work , for example, only on college campuses today in the USA.... and only if tenure (or affirmative action, or military recruiting, or allowing conservative speakers, etc., etc, etc...) was not the issue being fought over.

So, at the end of the day, "non-violence" when confronting an aggressive predator intent on your destruction is a terrible (and immoral) strategy. It only creates more victims.

So, to answer your question, non-violence can only effect rulers with a limited range of moral values.

The tactics that work the best garner public opinion in those very limited (and rare) societies.

What can defuse a non-violent movement? A regime that doesn't share those values and who essentially kills the opposition (i.e, the norm throughout human history).

Self defense and non violence? Yes, being "non violent" means refusing to defend yourself, your family, and your country. Yet another example of the basic immorality of that stance.

Not quite. When one party has already made the decision to use violence, then the other party is likely to lose if they do not use violence. But if the more violent party has not yet made up its mind to use violence, then the less violent party is better off behaving in such a way as to prevent violence from starting in the first place.


Not even then. The policeman is confronting a suspect. Does he politely ask the suspect to accompany him to the police station? Does he handcuff the suspect? Throw him over the hood of the car and search him? Put him in an armlock? Hit him with his nightstick? Shoot him with a taser? Shoot him with his gun? There are always degrees of violence.

Certainly you are entitled to your opinion, though I am sorry to hear that you believe Jesus Christ, the Buddha, Gandhi, and MLK were all actually immoral people. I mean, that sort of turns my ideas of morality upside down.

But, to each their own.

Like most people, I would act in defense of my family; I would attempt to use minimal force, certainly not lethal force if I could help it. However, there is no discernible logic that says we should broaden that idea to society at large.

I read a really good book, written several thousand years ago, in which the hero was a man who did not defend himself, because he saw love and compassion as superior to base aggressive instincts. He was killed for his beliefs, but interestingly, in this book, that is one of the central reasons he was subsequently revered by so many people.

Almost everyone seems to agree that nonviolence is better than violence. Saying that it is idealistic and impractical seems to me a cop out. Nonviolence in our inner lives is the ONLY way we will achieve it in society at large. Nonviolence is not easy. It is by far the more difficult road.

I absolutely reject, as an example, Hugo's not-so-witty tale. What is he implying? Nonviolence is for idiots? Is it better to be kind, loving, yet finally conquered? Or is it better to shed our kindness and compassion, and strike first and hard, win? Which is more ethical? Which is more moral? What kind of peace is achieved through murder (let's call killing what it is)? Perhaps a short 'cessation of war,' but is that really peace?

It is my understanding that peace means peace. It means peace of the inner and the outer world, since there is no difference between the two.

Violence works to achieve specific goals - resources, land, power, compliance. It does not achieve real peace. It only achieves obedience.

The violence of society comes from within us. We are beings full of fear. We reject what we do not understand. We mistake our egos for ourselves, and pander to our fears. We refuse to open ourselves to true empathy, because it is so hard to bear the suffering of others. We refuse to see the difference between concepts and reality. In all these ways, we express ourselves and behave violently. When we are driven by fear and greed, most of us do not look deeper and ask ourselves, what do I fear? Why do I fear it? Why am I greedy? Why do I treat people unkindly? But it is from these inner drives and concepts that war comes. And it is only from inner peace and compassion that peace can come.

Is the US going to be a nonviolent nation? Of course not. Not anytime soon, anyway. I know that. But do we have to be one of the most violent nations on the planet? Because we are. We have become the strongest nation on earth through violence and the threat of violence. Let's not kid ourselves like children and pretend our strength comes through morality or "freedom." We can't change that fact. But we could use that power to lead the world in an entirely new direction - a direction that the vast majority of the world would embrace whole-heartedly. That's the change I strive for. And I know that the goal is not impossible, because I know that it starts right here, with me, today.

John Lennon: There is peace if you want it.

I guess you missed one of the central points of my thesis. Put MLK in Iran and would you ever have heard of him? No. Would he had effected change? Nada.

Jesus? Same story. Ghandi? Please. Without English guilt, that mission would have failed also.

Extrapolating a few isolated, and rare cases to the entire span of human existence isn't really valid.

But, if you want to latch on to a miniscule number of examples and use them to justify unrealistic tactics against people who don't share the values where such tactics have ANY chance.... to each their own.

My point in all of this is that only the aggressor can pursue the path of non-violence. Those who are attacked must first seek to defeat their opponent and then force them to accept the non-violent path.


The Sword of St. Michael



This passage is a nice summary:


Did Jesus himself always preach non-violence? I'd say that he did not. In Matthew 10:34 is says:


I don't recall Jesus universally condemning soldiers as sinners.

The key concept, I think, is not focused around the virtue that non-violence brings the individual. The key concept is what is the appropriate way to respond to the plight of others. In some cases, violence is justified. A non-violent protest against Nazi Germany would simply have been insufficient, both morally and spiritually.

If non-violence were the key principle, the man who sat around and did nothing his entire life would be the moral standard. He clearly is not.

Questions for debate:


Can non-violent tactics force unwilling rulers to change their policies? Only to the extent that the rulers are willing to forgo violence themselves.


If so, what tactics work best to make non-violent action effective? Speak softly, and carry a big stick. As long as you don't have to use the big stick, then you can theoretically argue that you're "non-violent". Of course, backing up every successful "non-violent" movement has been the threat of social chaos. The fact that the N-V protesters aren't calling for social violence does not alter the fact that they usually do call for assaults on the social fabric. If a N-V movement conducts a walkout of power plant operators, resulting in the deaths of dozens in hospitals, are they really "non-violent"?


What can defuse an otherwise successful non-violent movement?Moral failure on the part of the non-violent movement. Non-violence's primary strength is the claim of holding the moral high ground.


Does being non-violent mean refusing to act in self defense if attacked while lawfully protesting (the generally accepted rule)? Yes, any action aside from flight or curling up is a violation of non-violence. BTW, lawfully protesting according to who? What starts as a lawful protest doesn't necessarily remain one, assuming that the gov't even allows protests. Furthermore, true non-violence would also mean refusing to allow proxies to engage in violence on your behalf. This means that the nice Mr. Policeman over there, watching the nasty KKK guys thump on the SPLC protesters would not be permitted to intervene.


War Never Solves Anything

Can non-violent tactics force unwilling rulers to change their policies?
No, at least, not directly. In the case of a democratic government, non-violent protest may influence public opinion, and public opinion may in turn influence government policy. Gandhi's success hinged not on H.M. Government seeing reason, but on the existence of a free press in Britain and sympathy for Gandhi's cause and methods among the British electorate.

Conversely, against an autocratic government, non-violent tactics will have no effect at all. Had the Japanese managed to capture India, Gandhi would most likely have ended tied to a pole and used for bayonet practice. And not to put too fine a point on it, I am far from convinced that Gandhi fully appreciated that the success of his methods were attributable at least in part to the circumstances under which he was operating, and that against a different, more autocratic, opponent he would not have fared as well, as indicated by the following quotes:
"I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as he is depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing and seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed." -- Gandhi, May 1940
"The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs." -- Gandhi, June 1946

Are consensual or negotiated approaches to conflict resolution more effective than the use of violence?
This question leaves out an interim option, namely the threat of violence, even if there is no resort to actual violence. In Erasmussino's example of a police officer detaining a suspect, even the most polite request on the police officer's part is, ultimately, backed up by a wide array of devices permitting varying degrees of physical coercion, and any suspect's accession to the LEO's request, no matter how politely that request is made, cannot be said to be truly "consensual." I'll also assume that, for the purposes of this discussion, issuing an ultimatum (e.g. "stop or I'll shoot" or "cede us Sudetenland or we'll invade") is not considered a "negotiated approach." That said, however, history teaches us that threats of force lose their coercive ability if the party making the threat appears to be unwilling or unable to employ actual force, so the threat alone may prove insufficient.

However, to answer the actual question (albeit with the words "or threat thereof" tacked onto the end), the answer is "it all depends." It all depends on how far either side is willing to go to get its way, and how either side's wider objectives interrelate. If you believe that not getting what you want, in whole or in part, in a given conflict is preferable to the expenditure in money, ammunition and/or blood it would cost you to achieve your goal, then no, resorting to violence is not going to be an "effective" way for you to resolve the conflict. If, on the other hand, you think the objective is worth that expenditure, and your opponent refuses to yield to anything other than the actual and overwhelming use of force, then you will ultimately have to resort to violence.

From my own perspective, an excellent example is the Bosnian war of 1992-1995. Over three years of negotiated approaches failed to stop the conflict simply because the Bosnian Serbs refused to give up what they had won by aggression, and the Bosniaks (rightly, IMO) refused to let the Serbs get away with it. Ultimately, what ended the conflict in the space of a few months was a relentless air campaign by NATO (in practice mostly the US) which pounded the snot out of any exposed Serb heavy weapon, thus allowing the Bosniak/Croat Federation to regain a sufficient amount of territory to agree to a cease-fire. In this particular case, "consensual or negotiated approaches to conflict resolution" proved completely ineffective, whereas "use of violence" (and the continued threat of further violence on NATO's part) was highly effective.

I don't believe in "peace at all costs." As Antonio Cassese, former president of ICTY put it, "it is universally acknowledged that peace without justice is no peace at all," and if the only way to achieve a more just solution is by force, then so be it. I firmly believe that violence is the ultimate tool of conflict resolution, in both senses of the word "ultimate." On the one hand, it should be the method of last resort; on the other hand, the one thing which is ultimately guaranteed to stop your opponent from preventing you from getting what you want is to physically incapacitate him. If you think "violence never solves anything," try talking to the Carthaginians sometime.

Yes, you have presented the one Jesus quote that can be interpreted as endorsing violence (although many theologians interpret it differently). There was also his driving out the money-changers in the temple. Contrast these with the many, many statements Jesus made that demonstrate a strong antipathy to violence. Over and over he made that point, in word and deed. And the very culmination of his life was a display of non-violence in the face of violence. Do not betray the central message of this man's life; it besmirches the essence of Christianity. Christianity is a deeply non-violent religion. Over the centuries theologians have struggled with the idea of "just violence" and have come up with only the most limited of justifications.

There are rational and political justifications for violence, but there are NO Christian justifications.

On a larger note, I am disappointed by the readiness to accept violence. Civilization exists to obviate violence, for violence is inimical to the social fabric. Violence is an attribute of anarchy, not civilization. Doesn't anybody remember that peace is a Good Thing and war is a Bad Thing? Yes, the threat of violence underlies all law -- but if the exercise of that threat is anything other than rare, then society crumbles.

Consider an analogy with finance (I am here reversing von Clausewitz) The ultimate goal of all financial transactions is to obtain items or services of value. It all boils down to "my goodie for your goodie". Yet direct bilateral exchanges are extremely rare. We instead rely on indirect approaches that we know will ultimately result in goodies. And as our financial system has matured, we have grown ever more distant from direct exchange. First we replaced direct exchanges with exchanges using intermediate commodities of known value: this much gold for that cow. Then we substituted coinage for metal: this many coins for that cow. Then we substituted paper backed up by gold: this many dollars for that side of meat. Then we abandoned the gold standard and relied solely on our trust in the government. Then we created variable-demomination paper based on a new standard, the bank account: this check for that steak. Then we substituted a plastic card with an account number: swipe my credit card for the hamburger. At the same time we were developing in all manner of financial transactions that don't involve any goodies: loans, stocks, savings accounts, checking accounts, options, derivatives, mutual funds. At each step we moved further and further away from direct exchange. And this is what we call financial progress. It permits a richer, more flexible, more powerful economy. And it's true that, in the end, it all boils down to direct exchange. But we don't put direct exchange on a pedastal; we recognize that reversion to direct exchange would spell the collapse of our financial system. The fact that it provides a firm foundation for our financial system does not mean that we ever want to fall back on it. We want to minimize its direct use in preference for the more advanced financial instruments that make our financial system so useful.

The same reasoning applies to violence. Yes, it is the foundation of civilized life. But that doesn't mean that we want to rely on it any more than we want to rely on trading chickens for cows. If worse comes to worse, then yes, we have to revert to this more primitive method. But the more civilized we are, the more we want to avoid violence.

Thus, the question as to the efficacy of non-violence seems to me to be of a kind with the question, "do credit cards work?"

Self-defense and defense of the innocents are both Christian justifications.

Oh, and entertainment as well. Here, I'm not referring to throwing Christians (or pagans) to the lions, I'm talking about participating in activities like football, boxing, paintball wars, etc. These are violent activities, and are perfectly acceptable for Christians to undertake.

Finally, whenever one consider the topic of Christian justifications for violence, one must consider the fullness of the Trinity, of how the Lord God Almighty himself endowed Samson with extra strength (for violence), how he aided David, etc. To say that violence as a last resort is a position supportable in Christian theology, to say that violence is never an option is not.

Respectfully submitted, BD

Yes, that's the position taken by most Christian theologians, but remember that they rely heavily on the Old Testament in finding their justifications. Christ himself was, with the two exceptions mentioned earlier, vigorously pacific in word and deed.

I myself agree that there are justifications for violence, but only as a last resort. Can we all agree that violence is justified only as a last resort, and then discuss the precise meaning of "last resort"?

Yes, you had already agreed that there are justifications for violence, "rational and political justifications." Given your sidestepping of the Old Testament, I'm still left wondering whether or not you believe that there are Christian justifications for violence.

That aside, let's examine the "last resort" condition, specifically within the context of Christ. When Jesus drove the moneylenders violently from the Temple, was violence rationally a "last resort"? Was He acting in self-defense, or defense of the innocents, or a fit of enforcing His moral view on others? I only ask because if you're going to use Christ as the model for pacifism, you have to do more than ignore this incident. It becomes even more problematic if you believe that Christ was without sin, which would mean that His actions at the Temple were perfect.

I suppose you happen to be an expert on Islam or something right? In reality I'm betting you are one of those people that believe Islam = Terrorism.

The reality is that Islam is just as valid of a religion as Christianity or anything else. Furthermore, the people that follow islam generally adhere far more closely to their religious teachings than even the most proselytizing Christian. I subscribe to no religion and yet I find your suggestion that the judeo-christian way is the only moral way to be incredibly ignorant.

So what does that mean? Well for one thing, if the clerics and teachers started to publicly come out against the practice of terrorism then guess what, the support for that practice would completely dry up amongst the average person. If you did this in say Palestine, you'd achieve more than the largest military in the world ever could. You would have changed the people, and you would have done it through non-violent means.

It is unfortunate you have such a myopic view of the world, but the fact of the matter is violence never solves anything, it only delays the next inevitable conflict. The Romans had it right when they (paraphrasing history here) destroyed Carthage burning the city, killing everyone and salting the fields so nothing could ever grow again. If you do not completely annihilate your enemy, there will always be a reckoning.

Take the current situation in the middle east. How many of those people fighting us do you think do so because their brother, father, uncle, wife, sister or child died because of some US bomb? I'd say probably quite a few of them.

Or you can re-read what quark wrote:

Boy, do these questions open up a can of worms! Basically, you are walking down a path called "scholasticism", and if you follow it you will end up asking questions such as "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" The basic problem lies in attempting to reconcile faith with reason. Our concepts of rationalism had not penetrated the Graeco-Roman civilization in which the New Testament was written; the Gospels were not written with any concern for logical consistency. Instead, the Gospels have to be taken as a complete whole, and the occasional flat-out contradictions can only be resolved by considering the overall message. The Church Fathers understood this well enough.
Origen wrote, "Christians have been taught not to defend themselves against their enemies, and because they have kept the laws that command gentleness and love of man, they have received from God that which they would not have achieved if they were permitted to make war, though they might have been quite able to do so."
Justin wrote, "We who formerly murdered one another now not only do not make war upon our enemies but, that we may not lie or deceive our judges, we gladly die confessing Christ."
Clement: "“If you enroll as one of God’s people, heaven is your country and God your lawgiver. And what are His laws? You shall not kill, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. To him that strikes you on the one cheek, turn to him the other also."
Hippolytus: "Anyone who has received the power to kill. . . in no case let them kill, even if they have received the order to kill."
Chrysostom: "It is certainly a finer and more wonderful thing to change the mind of enemies and bring them to another way of thinking than to kill them, especially when we recall that [the disciples] were only twelve and the whole world was full of wolves…. We ought then to be ashamed of ourselves, we who act so very differently and rush like wolves upon our foes. So long as we are sheep we have the victory; but if we are like wolves we are beaten, for then the help of the shepherd is withdrawn from us, for he feeds sheep not wolves…. This mystery [of the Eucharist] requires that we should be innocent not only of violence but of all enmity, however slight, for it is the mystery of peace."
However, Ambrose and Augustine introduced the concept of "just war", which continued to be the subject of much debate within the Church for centuries.

Here's a tiny portion of what my own mentor, Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam, has to say on the subject:

"Why do we drag Christ into it [war], when he would be less out of place in a house of ill fame than a war?"
"One commandment Christ called his own -- the commandment of love. What could be more opposed to this than war?"
"Examine the whole of his teaching: you will find nothing anywhere that does not breathe the spirit of peace, which does not savor of love."
"War was permitted to the Jews...but since Christ gave the command to put away the sword, it is not fitting for Christians to fight."

and this one in particular:

"They produce writings of the fathers in which war is apparently mentioned with approval [Augustine]. There are certainly some of these, but they date from a later time, when the fervor of the Gospel was weakening, and they are very few, while there are innumerable writings of authors of unquestionable sanctity which argue against war. Why should these few come into our minds rather than all the rest? Why do we turn our eyes away from Christ to men, and prefer to follow doubtful examples rather than infallible authority?"

Sorry for all the long quotes, but I want to really drive home the point: Christianity is a pacifist religion. You can argue for violence from practical or political points of view, but most certainly NOT from a Christian point of view. True Christians are pacifists.

Ghandi helped to organize and build sympathy for the Indians, but trust me when I say that the Indians themselves didn't give a slashdot about pacifism.

I think that starting fights is generally a bad thing and consider self-defense a necessary evil. The only good reason to employ violence should be to reduce the end quotient of violence or suffering. This is just my opinion, though.

Sometimes, yes.

Bribe them. Combine this with getting enough people behind your cause that the ruler would face higher gains by making compromises. The Chinese could use this method to get their government to open more seats to other parties and independents. It is probably unrealistic to expect the communists to step down entirely, though. I know about Tianenmen Square; however, the protestors were sending confusing messages, and things eventually came to a point at which the Chinese government decided that it would be easier to just clear them out with tanks. I don't like the Chinese government very much, though I'm glad for the Chinese that the country seems to be on the path to improvement. Well, people do happen to live there, you know.

Ask the Chinese government. I think the main problem is that they scare too easily. They're paranoid, it seems. Anytime things start shaking up a bit, they panic and call out the tanks. The proponents for democracy in China need to do some more grassroots drumming.

If the government or media can find images of a civilian slugging a cop, even if the civilian's bleeding from his scalp and the cop is wearing full body armor and holding a blood-smeared baton, the government will use it to justify acting violently against protestors and to portray the protestors and their movement to the public as bloodthirsty reactionaries/radicals.

(In response to some of the discussion above) I think it's better for everyone to be involved in the movement of an idea, not just those who identify with a particular ideology, be they communists, libertarians, utopianists, pacifists, vegans, conservatives, right-wingers, left-wingers, liberals, populists, elitists, men, women, hispanics, or adherents to some religion. I think that minimalism is the better way to maximize support for an idea. Spread the idea itself, not just the rhetorical baggage that appeals to a particular group. Let us unite rather than divide, and ask everybody to hop on board!

I think this debate is interesting. While I agree whole-heartedly with many of the pacifistic thinkers in this thread concerning the absolute merits of non-violent action, I think some moderation in those views needs to be taken. On the other side of the coin, we have people in this thread who believe violence is the solution to all problems, and that pacifism is a sign of weakness. To seriously consider those arguments, it requires the thinker to remove themselves from the belief that life, all human life that is, is with value. This is certainly not something I would ever consider.

I think that defensive and strategic violence is the only solution in many of today's polictical and oppressive climates. Certainly, America would not exist without violent resistence against an oppressive government body. I also believe that there are violent movements in the world today that have effected positive progress for their causes, specifically the Zapatista in the Chiapas. Would the Zapatista be more effective without violence? I'm not sure, but my guess is that their climate and geo-political situation of that area of Mexico requires them to take the actions they have.

In the United States, however, at least since the 20th century, violent resistence has never worked(except in very limited cases), while non-violent resistence has consistently been an effective method of change from the activists in Women's Suffrage to the Civil Rights movement.

Certainly this is testament to the strength of our country that violence is not accepted by activists, nor by the government itself against it's own citizens (although recent cases in NYC, Seattle, and Philadelphia shows a change towards the worse on the latter).

So, for those arguing that pacifism is weak and ineffective, what exactly would you advocate as a vehicle for change within the United States? Ideological Minorities have little choice but to enact the non-violence tactics employed by Gandhi and MLK.

Globally, I agree that Non-Violent tactics would be more successful than Violent tactics in certain situations like Palenstine. It should also be noted that the USSR was convereted to a democracy through diplomatic means, wheras I seriously doubt Russia would be a democracy today if we tried the Big-Stick method on them as we did with Iraq. However, in situations like Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia where an armed and violent majority is wiping out an unarmed minority, violence is clearly warrented.

I would disagree with this conclusion. Being a proponent of violence, or perhaps more acccurately an opponent of pacifism, does not require this removal. In fact, it is the importance of life that could lead one to propose violence, if one believes that violence is the best path to security...ie, preservation of life. So, there aren't necessarily any philosophical differences on the value of life, but rather differences in the appropriate path to preserve it. Consider the Hitler example. Assume that it was pacifism that led to the Holocaust (from both the Jews themselves and also the Allies). Was this then truly the best path for preserving life? It would seem not. Had either the Allies or the Jews known what the outcome would be, either might have risen up and used violence to overthrow Hitler....all done to preserve life. One thing seems quite clear from this example...there are certain situations which non-violent means will have no impact on (ie, nothing short of violence would have prevented the Holocaust). So, there are definitely situations in which the only path to preservation of life will be violence, and therefore pacifism certainly has its own set of costs. What is really being discussed is whether the entire value set of pacifism (with both its value and cost) is better than the value set which does not preclude violence. Would maintaining a non-violent stance be worth death?

I'll stay away from debating religion and stick to the topic which is the effectiveness of "non violence" in solving problems. I will only point out that the definition of "Islamist" is relatively precise and doesn't cover "everyone" who believes in Islam and that you're attributing attitudes to my post that do not exist.

You say violence never solved anything? That position is historically inaccurate.

I'll just point out a few.

1. Slavery: The civil war, which still to this date was the bloodiest war the US ever fought, ended slavery in the United States. Non violence would not have worked in that instance.

2. Nazi Germany: Extreme violence was required to stop this predatory regime which had managed to slaughter millions of innocents and would have continued unabated if they were not stopped through exceptional violence.

3. Imperial Japanese. This expansionist goverment's atrocities in China and SE Asia would have continued if the US had not brought extreme violence to bear on that nation.

And, violence will stop the menace of terrorism. Non violence cannot work with people who have declared war (Jihad) on the west and who are willing to kill themselves for their cause (along with many innocents). Extreme violence against these people is the only chance we have to win that conflict. I'm grateful that Bush (and several other world leaders) see this reality clearly.

I'd love to know what your reasoning behind these beliefs are Lordhelmet, and if there is anything more to them than the general conclusions you have drawn about the people you feel only respond to violence.



If I learned in a Canadian high school history class that slavery and the southern economy were unsustainable (which were the chief causes of the Civil War), then surely you must have come across the same information. The fact is that non-violent means were ENDING slavery in the south... unfortunately they were also upsetting the entire economy of the Southern States, which provoked the Civil War. The North DID pursue non-violent means, and they were working. So you could argue that the only reason there was violence was the intransigence of Southeners, and the violent nature of Americans in general.



Again, the U.S. did not bring extreme violence on Japan. Get your history straight. The U.S. did to Japan what the North did to the South, it imposed an economic environment where Japan could not continue on its current trajectory. Japan was the one who brought violence on the United States. Now, at that point America was probably obliged to respond in kind, but that does not mean that violence is inherently necessary.

We have already demonstrated that non-violent means CAN effect profound social change. So then, if we remove the impetus for resistance to change to take the form of violence, or create an environment whereby violent resistance to change is more difficult. If there had been a functioning Supranational Institution (image a United Nations that world leaders actually respected and used) where Japanese and American (and Chinese) leaders could have met to resolve their concerns, and where the International Community would have been casting a watchful eye, then perhaps Japan would have found it more advantageous to negotiate. As it was, war was on, and there was no such possibilities.

This is a good analogy to consider for this discussion. I'll start by agreeing with the latter part of this statement....this would indeed achieve more than anything possible militarily. The issue gets sticky, though, when you determine whether or not the first part is possible without violence. What would be the likely terrorist response to this? Well, they would start to get rid of all those preaching against them. So, how would you prevent this? The only pacifistic approach possible would be to essentially continue while many died, in the hopes that momentum would swing in your favor. An opposing approach would advocate actively seeking out those plotting such attacks, and getting them before they struck, thereby decreasing their effectiveness, and allowing the clerics and teachers to continue their work. Which of those is really most likely to be effective in this world? How many clerics should die before violence is entertained? Is their martyr value worth it? If not, is it the wrong policy?

The US did not bring extreme violence on Japan?

We killed millions of Japanese during WWII. I'd say that widespread firebombing of their cities and using 2 nuclear weapons was pretty "extreme violence".

And that war would not have ended any other way.

The belief that non violence can stop people who are intent on destroying you is folly.

The world's history proves this beyond a reasonable doubt. The notion that violence never solved anything is just not backed up by the recorded history of the world.

I tend to agree. It's good to tend to agree. It makes people feel all happy inside and interested in listening to you.

I tend to agree, but I think that things can sometimes be a bit too complex to really make a cookie-cutter judgement on.

I tend to agree, but the space between two different extremes is not always the answer.

I tend to agree, though sometimes it will be taken as a sign of weakness. In most cases, however, dogged, cold persistence is good enough.

Oh, while I largely tend to agree, I do value the life of the guy attacking me. I just value my own life a lot more.

I would be more inclined to say that violence may become a part of geopolitical tactic, and the doors should not be closed to it. To any given problem, its best solution. However, I tend to agree.

Oh, America would have existed, but we'd all be eating scones. Besides, the Brits were coming over here to make beef with US, not the other way around, and it's not our fault they came over here with their guns pointed at us. Neither is it our fault that they'd stretched themselves so thin that the only people they could afford to send over were silly incompetents and green recruits. I tend to agree if you were saying that America might not be independent now if it had not come to blows.

I tend to agree, for there are plenty of cases in which unfortunate actions became a necessary evil.

I think they should do whatever it was that those guys up in Canada did, making one fifth of the country Nunavut, but I tend to agree.

I tend to agree, and this is possibly because one of the things about making changes in representative democracies is that there really is such a thing as bad publicity in the world of politics, and being seen as a bad guy is bad for you.

I tend to agree, but I think it's also a proof of the effectiveness of representative democracy. It makes the world a lot safer for politicians, too, so it even makes the leaders happy.