3 ms·
To add to that, nonviolence only works if the power that is taken on respects that nonviolence and will itself also not resort to violence. Such is the case in
by andrepd 7y ago
To add to that, nonviolence only works if the power that is taken on respects that nonviolence and will itself also not resort to violence. Such is the case in e.g. democratic countries, where you can peacefully remove leaders via legal means and nonviolent demonstrations. Which is also why nonviolent struggle worked in British India: the Britons had lines they did not cross, they did not send tanks or imprison and murder leaders.
But if, on the other hand, the state you are fighting will not flinch before brutally suppressing any dissent and murdering hundreds, thousands, or even millions (such as is the case from the imperialists in South America to the Chinese government in Tiannamen), then no peaceful marching will save you, you need to be ready for physical struggle if you want change)
- pjc50 7y agoLooking back on this it seems almost remarkable that Ghandi's movement worked, and also that the British version of history has encouraged the myth of generosity. > the Britons had lines they did not cross, they did not send tanks or imprison and murder leaders. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre ; Ghandi was arrested repeatedly and spent several years in prison. https://www.mkgandhi.org/arrestofmahatma.htm https://www.mkgandhi.org/arrestofmahatma.htm Possibly the main reason the Empire was abandoned was its physical untenability and expense after the war, along with pressure from the United States.
- srean 7y agoAgree with the comment wholeheartedly. BTW please lets use Gandhi not Ghandi ... Its a very common mistake though.
- JulianMorrison 7y agoThe British in India had relatively few lines they wouldn't cross, for example famously after a "mutiny" (attempt to regain independence) they tied the "mutineers" over the mouths of cannons and fired through them. What they did have was a busted economy after WW2, no access to international credit and a treaty with the Americans that was forcing them to decolonialize. The ongoing independence campaign (mostly paused during the war) put them in the position of "double down or fold" and they chose to fold. I think people overestimate the element of ethical embarrassment.
- tsss 7y agoNo, exactly the opposite is the case: For non-violence to work you have to remain non-violent while your opponent is as violent as possible. The whole point of non-violence like it was practiced by Gandhi is to win the propaganda war. If you take a beating while remaining passive and the media broadcasts it then you can mobilize more people for your cause. You may lose the battle but win the war; That is the idea. "Non-violent protest" as practiced today by "progressive" groups is the most useless form of protest you can do.