The discourse has shifted a lot in a very short period of time. Violence is suddenly on people's minds. Many seem to be looking for justifications to start normalizing political violence.
We have got a lot of bloodthirsty revolutionaries out there who want to head to Home Depot and start fashioning guillotines.
I get it man. The vengeance of it. Eat the rich. It feels like justice.
Even Karl Marx said that violent revolution was a necessary part of capitalism's defeat. But I gotta say - I think non-violence is even more effective.
I was on vacation last week and picked up this book Non-Violence, The History of a Dangerous Idea by Mark Kurlansky. Total coincidence. I was planning on making this post even before the attempt on Trump last weekend. But life has suddenly made this even more relevant.
Non-violence is a more effective way to get change than violence.
John Lennon put his finger right on it when he said,
"When it gets down to having to use violence, then you are playing the system's game. The establishment will irritate you -- pull your beard, flick your face -- to make you fight. Because once they've got you violent, then they know how to handle you. The only thing they don't know how to handle is nonviolence and humor."
It's so true.
As Kurlansky points out, wars of aggression are almost always considered immoral. But if someone else attacks you first, that makes it a war of self-defense which is almost always considered justified... and there always seems to be some way to create a case that this war or that is self-defensive. Which can lead down a slippery slope to convenient pretexts that make wars of aggression appear defensive. The justification is always - "but they started it!"
It is for this reason that the US has become a master of provocation. The US military will put missiles right outside another country's border and dare them to fight us.
Classic bullying behavior. A bully will dare you to fight him if he thinks he can beat you.
It's pure dominance play, the law of the jungle, where the biggest, ugliest lion in the jungle makes all the rules and does whatever he wants.
A bully usually knows how to fight. Strength and size are usually a bully's main advantage. The bully wants to provoke a fight he thinks he can win.
But it's not like you can't beat a bully.
You can outsmart a bully.
Imagine if you got a group together and threaten to use your superior numbers to ovewhelm the bully. Suddenly he doesn't feel so much like fighting anymore. Because he knows he'll lose.
You don't have to fight a bully physically to win. Collective action - collective non-violent action - is the key. Because if you give the bully a chance to resort to violence, you're playing to his advantage.
If you give in to your anger and resentment and decide to lash out violently against our government the response will be violent and swift. This is part of the reason why every participant who could be identified in the January 6th riot has been made an example of.
The state protects its power through violence. Like Max Weber said, the state has a monopoly on the use of force. Once that Rubicon is crossed the government is justified in using violence as a response (as self-defense remember) in order to capture and imprison you for a long, long time. You will be branded a terrorist. Your cause will be associated with terrorism.
Use of violence is an area of strength for the state. Once a person uses violence against the state they can be crushed.
So what if you did not allow the state to provoke you into violence?
Some of history's most important and influential figures preached non-violence: Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed... in more recent times Ghandi, Dr. Martin Luther King. People who preach non-violence scare the establishment the most.
Because if you take away the bully's option to crush you with violence, you disarm him of his most potent weapon.
That's powerful.
That's non-violence.
Let’s make them pay.
Why Nonviolence Scares the Establishment Way More Than Violence