Tayler Moosa

Phil 3303
Pynn
In his book, How Nonviolence Protects the State, Peter Gelderloos argues that a
nonviolent approach to remedy oppression has many flaws and that the state receives the benefit
when the oppressed use nonviolence as their sole tactic Throughout the book, Gelderloos
discusses different ways in which the nonviolent method falls short of the goal to initiate and
sustain a change for the better with regard to oppressed individuals and groups Three specific
flaws, that nonviolence is racist, statist, and deluded, mentioned in the book give Gelderloos the
support for his argument that nonviolence protects the state and that it does not function as an
effective approach to alleviating oppression
Gelderloos states that nonviolence is racist as nonviolence e!ists as a position that
privileged individuals and groups are able to maintain more easily than those who are oppressed
"e states that it is easier to be an advocate of nonviolence if one is currently under the protection
of the oppressive state and not dealing with the oppression as an oppressed party #hether
discussing the issue of e$uality within the %nited &tates right after slavery officially ends or
when discussing this same issue of e$uality within the conte!t of '0(0, the racial lines have been
constantly drawn in the sand #hile the line shifts as time progresses, there has always been a
disadvantage for black individuals, when compared to white individuals, living in the %nited
&tates Gelderloos discusses the )u )lu! )lan*s presence as an oppressive force directly after
slavery was ended and yet the point he makes about the differentiation between black and white
people is still evident, though not to the same e!tent, today Given that this line e!ists, it is
always easier for the group not currently oppressed to tell the oppressed group that nonviolence
is the best method to eventually end the oppression The individual who is not oppressed has no
vested interest in the situation and thus their perspective that re$uires the oppressed to patiently
endure until the oppressors decide to change their views is not congruent with the oppressed
Gelderloos also states that the state uses race in order to further promote the state+
benefiting nonviolent mentality by promoting black leaders who are more reserved than others
who truly threaten the state ,eaders like Martin ,uther )ing -r are seen as less destructive than
Malcolm . and thus, as Gelderloos states, white activists placed Martin ,uther )ing -r in a
leadership position Given the support of these white activists, Martin ,uther )ing -r, and not
Malcolm ., is seen as the figurehead for the civil rights movement while Malcolm . is hardly
remembered by white people as playing any true part with the movement Gelderloos also points
out that, when Martin ,uther )ing -r is referenced, it is scarcely to reference anything other than
his statements on nonviolence and e$uality Gelderloos $uotes /arren Parker, who states, 0The
number of times people $uote )ing is one of the most off+putting things for most black folk
because they know how much his life was focused on the race struggle and when you actually
read )ing, you tend to wonder why the parts critical of white people, which are the ma1ority of
the things he said and wrote, never get $uoted2 3Gelderloos '04 It is easier for white people, who
are not the oppressed, to state that patience and nonviolence, which go hand in hand, is the best
method when dealing with oppression, and it is counter intuitive for a member of the group
currently oppressing to give truly applicable advice to the oppressed 5ven if the intent is honest,
the oppressor has no right to advise the oppressed on how to deal with the oppression as the
member of the oppressor*s party is at a different, specifically higher, level of comfort within the
system
Gelderloos also brings up that nonviolence is statist 6onviolence favors the state in
many ways7 one of which being that nonviolent opposition can only go so far as the militant state
will allow as Gelderloos starts the chapter discussing the statist flaw of nonviolence, 0Put $uite
plainly, nonviolence ensures a state monopoly on violence2 3Gelderloos 334 This is clearly
understood as, if no other party is partaking in violent acts based on principle, the only group not
opposed to acting violently will clearly be the only group acting violently 8s the state states a
need to enforce law with force, it 1ustifies the presence of violence which can then be used in any
way the state deems necessary to maintain order 8s the oppressive state uses force to maintain a
certain level of oppression, it does not see nonviolent acts such as peaceful protests as
threatening Given that the oppressed dislike being oppressed, the state reali9es that there will
either be violent or nonviolent attempts to alter the regime and thus prefers the method that is not
perceived by the state as a threat
The necessity that nonviolent protesters have for state violence further goes to cement the
state*s ability to maintain a forceful presence Gelderloos points out that, 0pacifist organi9ers
e!empt the police from the :nonviolence codes* that are common at protests these days7 they do
not attempt to disarm the police who protect peace protesters from angry, pro+war counter+
demonstrators2 3Gelderloos 3; "e also uses the desegregation of schools as an e!ample of how
nonviolent protest, while initially successful, depended on the 6ational Guard to forcibly
maintain peace The state also uses nonviolence as a way in which it can control the masses of
otherwise volatile, oppressed groups Gelderloos mentions the %nited &tates placing articles in
Ira$i newspapers promoting nonviolence These articles were written as though they were written
by native Ira$ citi9ens and were clearly used in an attempt to $uell militant thought
8nother important aspect to nonviolence being statist is that nonviolent protests actually
better the image of the state The state that allows nonviolent protests to occur has the image of
tolerance while, at the same time, only allows such protests up until the point at which they could
actually have an effect <ree speech is allowed until a certain point in which it is then seen as
dangerous to the current regime and yet, as long as the focus is on the ability for the nonviolent
protesters to gather, the overall image is that of a tolerant state that allows freedom of speech and
e!pression
8nother flaw that nonviolence has is that it is a deluded thought, according to Gelderloos,
with no rational defense =ne delusion mentioned is that people supporting nonviolence believe
that violence is 1ust as ineffective as nonviolence "e states that this is clearly untrue #hile
violence is not always victorious, this fact does not imply that its success rate is similar to
nonviolence 8nother delusion is that violence is claimed to simply be the :easy way out*
Gelderloos retorts that nonviolence is the easier path to take as sitting by does not re$uire any
effort and the individual does not take any action to better the situation Gelderloos also states
that a common delusion claims that revolutionary activism is irrational and based on anger "e
states,
In comparison, the strategic and tactical analysis of nonviolent activism is rather
simplistic, rarely rising above the regurgitation of hackneyed clich>s and moralistic
truisms The amount of studious preparations re$uired to successfully carry out militant
actions, compared with the amount re$uired for nonviolent actions, also contradicts the
perception that revolutionary activism is impulsive 3Gelderloos ;?4
Gelderloos believes that violent resistance to oppression, when carried our effectively, is tactical
and not the irrational action that is perceived by proponents of nonviolence
8nother delusion that Gelderloos mentions is the idea that pacifists fight back, but not in
a violent way "e states, 0&itting down and locking arms is not fighting, it is a recalcitrant
capitulation2 3Gelderloos ;?4 #hile this method is not necessarily a lack of action altogether, it
certainly does not cross the line to be defined as fighting Gelderloos states that another delusion
e!ists stating that a violent revolution would simply lead to another violent state "e disagrees
with this argument because it implies that violent tactics can be switched to nonviolent tactics
before a revolution takes place, but not afterwards "e $uestions why this is believed and thus
the opposite argument is favored, that one can forcibly revolt and then implement a nonviolent
tactic to maintain the new state
I agree that nonviolence is racist, statist, and deluded /espite my own tendency to look
past racial lines, I have to admit that they e!ist and thus nonviolence is undoubtably easier to
believe in when the one promoting nonviolence has less of a need for a change to occur
"owever, while this is true, I do not believe that this is an issue specifically based on race but
rather any group that is not as privileged as the reigning class in a government I believe that
there is a larger gap between economic classes than racial groups 5ven though I see economic
class division as a larger problem, that does not negate the validity of Gelderloos*s point stating
that black people in 8merica are at a disadvantage Given that this disadvantage e!ists,
nonviolence will favor the race with a higher privilege in society
6onviolence is clearly statist as the chapter discussing it as such states and as the title of
the book implies Given that the state is the constant oppressor, a nonviolent group of oppressed
people makes the oppression that much easier to maintain )eeping the people who are
oppressed calm and safe enables an easier control with less resources allocated out to maintain
control 8s Gelderloos brings up, a handful of cops can control a peaceful crowd while it takes
more cops than violent demonstrators to ade$uately subdue and arrest them
I agree that the mentality supporting nonviolence is delusional as well The arguments
brought forth to support the claim that nonviolence is effective simply do not hold and are
e!cuses to either allow oppression to continue because the individual not being oppressed does
not truly care, or to allow some other entity, namely the oppressor, to set the rules for the
individual being oppressed Given that an oppressor accepts the idea of killing people to
maintain control, the nonviolent approach to counter the oppressor*s actions will never be the
best reaction unless the goal of the oppressed is to simply make the oppression more acceptable
#hile I agree with these aforementioned points, I disagree with the implied general
theme that the government is inherently evil to the point that it should be rebuilt from the ground
up or simply done away with 8ll throughout this book, Gelderloos bluntly implies that force
should not be used by the state and gives no merit to the cops who, after being out in a situation,
must defend themselves and must arrest individuals who are clearly breaking the law Gelderloos
seems to hold the belief that the cops that are present in these riots that occur should forfeit their
own safety so that they do not interfere with protestors committing crimes #hile I believe that
nonviolence as sole way to get a result limits the actor, I do not agree that individuals should
possess and e!ercise some inherent right to act violently whenever they so choose with all fault
in the situation falling on those who are upholding the law