Between non-violent resistance and armed struggle where do we go? What is effective and the right thing to do?

Question

Between non-violent resistance and armed struggle where do we go? What is effective? What is the right thing to do? Do we need a biodiversity of resistance?

This question was asked at the Dropping Knowledge event on 9th September by Arundhati Roy, New Delhi, India. To find out more about Dropping Knowledge check out our blog:

Dropping Knowledge in the UK: http://uk.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-qT1KKPQoRKdVT4lowpJCljbFokkuIzI8?p=1048

Dropping Knowledge in the US: http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-d8pH0dcoRKeB12yOcnUQp.9VCFos?p=12745

To discuss this subject in more detail follow this link to the official Dropping Knowledge website: http://www.droppingknowledge.org/bin/posts/focus/15052.page

Answer 1

It's a flawed question to begin with because it makes the assumption that either armed resistance or non violent resistance are the only alternatives. This is an absolutist view, that either one extreme or the other are the only alternatives. I can't and don't believe that.

There is a center point between the two. The question fails to recongnize this, and as such only begs for the responses of either chaos and anarchy, or (allegedly) peace and harmony. The world has many instances of black and white, where these are given as the "only" alternatives. Typically this point of view ignores rational thought, and is so rigid as to make it completely baseless as a method of approaching a given problem or conflict.

Answer 2

Non-Violent resistance is where we should go. It is the most effective in the long run, and for many is the right thing to do.

However, I do believe in defending ones self when one is put into danger and also life threatening situations. It is up to each person individually if they will then stay non-violent or become violent. In those situations there is no right or wrong way, and any way will become effective.

When it comes to struggles though, non-violent. Unless they are all caputed and face death, then tehy should exscape by any means nessisary as each one sees fit.
;-)

But there are always non-violent ways for everything, the more non-violent you are and the struggle is shows how much creativity yall have. The less creativity the more likely one will be inclided to violence.
;-)

To stop the cycle of violence you must not only stop it starting with your self, you must show that anything can be accomplished through such means and sustained.
Because we already know violence is a quick fix, but really it creates more problems then what it solves, but some reason since we are in a fast paiced world alot want to see results right away. So if non-violent people are creatve enough I'm pritty sure they can come up with a way to speed up the results of their non-violent actions.
;-)

Violence will always create violence.
If you push the wall, the wall is pushing back.
It's that simple.
Violence is another form of cohercive force, and that means force was exerted to get someone to do something against their will, it is a fake agreement, and all fake agreements will become broken agreements. The more force that is exerted to oppress somenoe the more of a retaliation they can expect back sooner or later. Now weather that retaliation is violent or not, only time will tell if we've learned our lessons on the methods of force.

::: Peace :::

Answer 3

The key word here is weighing the balance between effectiveness and sacrificing peace.
If you look at history, the topple of Napolean, America's war with the British Empire during their struggle for independence and world war II. These were classic examples of armed struggles that were effective, but sacrificed peace. One couldn't imagine them succeeding with non-violent resistance.
In the modern world, we 'popular' view is to condemn armed struggle, and instead sought for a non-violent resistant as means to achieve the goal. The United Nations pushes for this idea, but it is clear that this route is slow and ineffective in many cases. In the mean time, while politicians continue their endless ineffective discussion, the delay results in more suffering and death.

Being so, it is often about weighing effectiveness against the sacrifice humanity has to make to minimise suffering and death. The problem in the modern world is, there is too much talk and not enough action. We need to worry more about the destination, not the journey.

Answer 4

Biodiversity? That has to do with biology not war. How about martial diversity? We have your average protest. Your civil disobedience. Your riots. Your armed revolt. In the struggle for this country's freedom, we did all of the above. There were protests and petitions and political pow wows. Then the Boston tea party. Then all out war.

The civil war killed thousands upon thousands. But that too started with a lot of political debate and progressed from there. Then we had other conflicts too many to mention. Some just jumped straight to war. The key to solving problems is 2 fold. First are you making any progress with the polititians shuttling back and forth? If not go straight to full on war and hit hardest firstest with the mostest. If your going to war at least fight to win. Unlike the united states who for some strange reason is advers to killing the talaban or al qaeda unless they are in a handy place like afganistan. If they flee to pakistan, well then they are safe.

So to answer your question about which is right, I must answer all of the above. Yes a diversity of methods are a good idea. Don't hog tie your self. Hitler ran all out. He was not bound by political correctness. He simply moved forward with his plans. If your going to stand up to evil, don't do it half way.

Answer 5

America was founded upon armed struggle. Americas bloodiest war was a war that saved it. Civil rights were won not only by non-violent resistance. There was armed conflict there, too.

LOOK HERE!!!
If people are willing to work with one another we can all get along. If there is resistance and no giving in, the situation will escalate until the difference is resolved. It may escalate to a woman arrested for drinking from the whites only fountain and resolved in new laws of the land giving some people more equality than they once had and life goes on. But, if it is not resolved it will continue to escalate to full blown war if necessary. This war will continue to escalate as long as the parties involve are willing and can fight. Nukes if necessary, they were used once and will be again.

This is the HUMAN CONDITION. You either live with it or die. Now, there is some real estate between no problem, through non-violent resistance to armed struggle all the way up to mutual assured destruction. If you want to, you may sit down and categorize all the levels of struggle and you have my permission to name it biodiversity of resistance. I will not resist you, in fact it sounds like a good name for it.

Smoke a doobie for me please!
Peace out
Regards
Jon

Answer 6

In a very civilized culture the act of negotiation and non violent challenge occurs and works very effectively.
When the challenge is more bullied like (selfish and self-motivated) , that person or state acknowledges that a non violent method is ineffective, then the bullying will continue until violent action is implemented.
So with this understanding, (the nature of human psychology) using both methods, enables us to be more effective in negotiation and communication resulting in a better outcome for both. This has to be tendered with mutual respect and genuiness. A stagnant or stale situation is not acceptable.

Answer 7

To me, its very simple - If unarmed resistance works than thats
the answer and if it doesnt, then armed resistance has to be
the answer, but only if its important enough and if you can be
reasonably sure that you can win. Sudan is a good illustration -
You hear a lot about genocide in Darfur for the last few years,
but this started many years ago, because the country is controlled by a Muslim government and the christian rebels in
the South didnt want to go along with it, so when passive resistance did not work then they took up arms trying to recede
and form their own country. They are not strong enough by themselves and so the Sudanese government decided to just
wipe them out. Who is going to stop them ? There is not enough for anybody else to gain from it, to sacrifice lives and money.

Answer 8

The dilemma does not confront us anymore after 1948 but the Battle of the Ballot which we have to face every five year as an alternaive to civil war(never mind violent or non violent) is a tougher proposition.And even if you win the battle that is the end of the struggle.You have to scruplously watch the borders to ensure that these are not violated by these 'your own'men sitting in the saddle. You have to fight as the poet says for each inch of the land.Not that whom you trusted to rule you are basically bad men but power corrupts. So ensure that you don't entrust absolute power to them. Pull them up before Peoples' court every now and then so that they stick to the straight and narrow path chalked out for them.

Answer 9

In truth, it depends on the resistance. It takes more will and determination to be non-violent. It is much easier for some to shoot instead of talk, because they are weak-minded and inpatient. Although armed struggle sometimes is necessary, because the issue cannot wait for talks.
In all, it depends on the people. But if possible non-violent is the way to go in order to receive credit in the long run.

Answer 10

There is no such thing as non violent resistance.Resistance allows you all means assuming you fight for a just reason such as your country, your religion , your family and honour.
That Gandhi so called non violence was not resistance. It was a passive attack.
Gandhi had other means of resistance, no weapons, no people behind him to attack A BRITISH EMPIRE.
If Gandhi got the means we would not have heard about such terms.
Nelson Mandela whom I greatly admire for his principals did not fight either. He did have a few talks to his party ANC then was put in prison. There was no resistance in either of these cases.
One goes to battle to win his just objective. Then one must have all possible means to do so. Sadly we live in a world ruled by the gun, the only way to rid the world off that gun is possess a bigger gun.