دانلود کتاب How Nonviolence Protects the State

With respect, this work is simply a broad and common misunderstanding of Nonviolence. (Read on to see where I agree with him and where his arguments fall short).

Genderloos appeals to the Nonviolence activist to read How Violence Protects the State with an open mind so that an open dialogue will result in finding the most effective social strategies rather than moral positioning. He claims that "pacifists" (what he tends to call all Nonviolence activists) pick and choose their examples of historical nonviolence and overplay and oversimplify their claims of success. Unfortunately, he then goes on to pick and choose his examples or historical violence and overplay and oversimplify the claims of success.

I read this book because I wanted to be challenged by strong arguments against active Nonviolence. But in having now read it, I would be surprised if Genderloos had read let alone studied any serious work explaining Nonviolence theory or the multitude of documented worldwide successes using Nonviolence tactics. I'm reminded that whenever I read or listen to a critic of nonviolence, it seems less the case that they are in fact against Nonviolence and more that they simply don't understand Nonviolence or, as is also true with Genderloos, that they have considered only a limited repertoire of Nonviolent tactics. If I were to limit the toolbox of Nonviolence tactics to protests, marches, symbolic sabotage, and lockdowns as Genderloos does, I also would be frustrated with and skeptical of Nonviolence (on this we agree).

Genderloos seems to be caught up in the culture of violence of which he is a product (as are we all), but he rationalizes this as being exactly the opposite when he says things like, "Many pacifists are well-meaning would-be revolutionaries who have simply been unable to move beyond their cultural conditioning..." (135). He believes that once we've used violence successfully to dismantle the power structures that oppress others, that we will somehow then be able to relinquish violence. He tends to argue for just one more "just war."

His primary argument for the use of violence is that it is faster, more effective, and even that it is necessary. He points to specific instances in the civil rights movement and during India's long struggle against Britain as proof that violence is necessary - that somehow Nonviolence would not have been successful without the violence. But in the same breath he dismisses Nonviolence during times of war as ineffective and irrelevant implying that violence would prevail regardless.

He makes good and agreeable arguments that power must be decentralized, that there is urgency for change, and that we must be willing to put our words into action. And I agree that the kinds of Nonviolent tactics he bemoans are often a waste of time, resources, and creativity when not used in conjunction with creative strategy and aggressive (even militant) Nonviolence (as Cesar Chavez would espouse). But his arguments against Nonviolence fall short of being convincing.

Our challenge as Nonviolence advocates is to make Nonviolence more understandable and pervasive so that the same misunderstandings that Genderloos perpetuates become less appealing to thinking people and activists. I understand the anger and frustration and the deep need to DO something, if he'd study Nonviolence, I honestly believe he'd come to understand it's superiority as a social justice tactic (not simply in morality).

I'd be happy to discuss this with anyone -- you'll find me on forums, etc. at [...]