6 ms·

Gandhi's approach is guaranteed to work for those who turn to it because the core values are, "I don't want to live in a violent world nor inflict violence on o

Gandhi's approach is guaranteed to work for those who turn to it because the core values are, "I don't want to live in a violent world nor inflict violence on others." If it turns out the world is immutably violent, you will probably die at the hands of somebody else, but at least you were consistent with your values - you no longer live in a violent world, and you didn't hurt anyone to get there. Of course it is all predicated on the belief that after enough unarmed protestors have been shot, violence will come to an end, due to a combination of compassion for the victims, guilt over one's actions, and outrage against the aggressors. Whether it would be effective for non-believers (i.e. the people who aren't willing to put their lives on the line) against other regimes is hard to say. I'm not sure it has been tested outside of India or ever will be, since it requires suicidal amounts of willpower to follow through. So, while not advocating suicide-by-aggressor civil disobedience, I also think it's purely speculation as to what would happen if it were tried on a large scale. Closest thing that comes to mind is the Tiananmen square tank man, and that was one guy.

jlgreco 13y ago
Right... Gandhi's approach is 'guaranteed' to work in limited circumstances. It does not work if your numbers are too few, if the opposition has a greater capacity for violence than you anticipate (this isn't about the world being violent, only the subset that oppose you need to be sufficiently violent. Relying on somebody else using violence against your murderers in the outraged aftermath of your slaughter is just shifting the responsibility to those other people.) Gandhi's methods have been tested outside of India, perhaps most famously during the civil rights era in the US (if we write off the influence of those who were not wed to nonviolence and noncompliance). In that case they had the benefit of an interested party that consisted of a double-digit percentage of the population (and a far greater percentage in areas with particularly egregious issues.) The problem with advocating noncompliance and nonviolence is that if you miscalculate the breadth of your support or your oppositions capacity for violence, then not only will you have accomplished nothing but you will have actually damaged your cause by removing yourself from it.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  So like we basically agree from the perspective of outsiders, but that's not really what I meant. If you have been radicalized to the extent of being willing to die for nonviolence, you still win if they kill you because you are dying for your beliefs. As a radicalized person, there cannot even be futile resistance, because if the violent people were to kill all of their enemies, there wouldn't be any violence left to commit. If so, mission accomplished. It's very much a love thine enemy philosophy. When I say that Gandhi's methods haven't been tested outside of India, I'm referring to people passively offering up their lives to the state. Did this really happen during the civil rights movement? Personally I believe that this kind of self-sacrifice is not worth it, even if change is effected.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    I guess you and I have a fundamentally different notion of "win". If you are radicalized, they kill you for it, and then life for everyone else carries on as it was, then for me that is not a win. That is beyond any doubt a loss, and I consider opting to do that rather than sacrifice non-violence for a hope at enacting change that others can appreciate to be a selfish act. Nonviolence is not a goal for me. I consider it a tool with limited application. Failing to build a doghouse with a hammer, instead of successfully building the doghouse with a screwdrivers, is nothing to be proud of. The doghouse is what I am interested in, not the application of hammers. Or to put it in more concrete terms, the world would not be a better place had the French Resistance chosen to adopt nonviolent noncompliance. Their acts of violence were, without any question, justified and "worth it". And yes, people were absolutely putting their lives at risk during the civil rights era. People were being beaten and in many cases, killed.
    - foobarbazqux 13y ago
      You and I have the same idea of win and we share similar beliefs; I was trying to explain things from what I understand to be the mindset of someone who fully buys into Gandhi's belief system. I seem to be doing a bad job... and there is a chance I have got it all wrong anyway.

jlgreco 13y ago

Right... Gandhi's approach is 'guaranteed' to work in limited circumstances. It does not work if your numbers are too few, if the opposition has a greater capacity for violence than you anticipate (this isn't about the world being violent, only the subset that oppose you need to be sufficiently violent. Relying on somebody else using violence against your murderers in the outraged aftermath of your slaughter is just shifting the responsibility to those other people.) Gandhi's methods have been tested outside of India, perhaps most famously during the civil rights era in the US (if we write off the influence of those who were not wed to nonviolence and noncompliance). In that case they had the benefit of an interested party that consisted of a double-digit percentage of the population (and a far greater percentage in areas with particularly egregious issues.) The problem with advocating noncompliance and nonviolence is that if you miscalculate the breadth of your support or your oppositions capacity for violence, then not only will you have accomplished nothing but you will have actually damaged your cause by removing yourself from it.

foobarbazqux 13y ago
So like we basically agree from the perspective of outsiders, but that's not really what I meant. If you have been radicalized to the extent of being willing to die for nonviolence, you still win if they kill you because you are dying for your beliefs. As a radicalized person, there cannot even be futile resistance, because if the violent people were to kill all of their enemies, there wouldn't be any violence left to commit. If so, mission accomplished. It's very much a love thine enemy philosophy. When I say that Gandhi's methods haven't been tested outside of India, I'm referring to people passively offering up their lives to the state. Did this really happen during the civil rights movement? Personally I believe that this kind of self-sacrifice is not worth it, even if change is effected.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  I guess you and I have a fundamentally different notion of "win". If you are radicalized, they kill you for it, and then life for everyone else carries on as it was, then for me that is not a win. That is beyond any doubt a loss, and I consider opting to do that rather than sacrifice non-violence for a hope at enacting change that others can appreciate to be a selfish act. Nonviolence is not a goal for me. I consider it a tool with limited application. Failing to build a doghouse with a hammer, instead of successfully building the doghouse with a screwdrivers, is nothing to be proud of. The doghouse is what I am interested in, not the application of hammers. Or to put it in more concrete terms, the world would not be a better place had the French Resistance chosen to adopt nonviolent noncompliance. Their acts of violence were, without any question, justified and "worth it". And yes, people were absolutely putting their lives at risk during the civil rights era. People were being beaten and in many cases, killed.
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    You and I have the same idea of win and we share similar beliefs; I was trying to explain things from what I understand to be the mindset of someone who fully buys into Gandhi's belief system. I seem to be doing a bad job... and there is a chance I have got it all wrong anyway.