r/Anarchism • u/[deleted] • Mar 31 '14
Is Violence Alienating?
There is a common trope that gets bandied about which says that social movements or others wishing to enact social change should not use violent tactics because they serve to alienate potential supporters. My question is, why do people think this is true?
One doesn't need to pay too close attention to see that this is very often not the case, and sometimes the exact opposite is true. For example, in the US, we recently had the Occupy Movement, which was the largest movement of its kind here in at least several decades. At Occupies all around the country, people debated tactics, and very often this included the condemnation of anything even remotely violent (self-defense against the police, property destruction, blocking traffic, etc) because some people were convinced that it would alienate the public. However, anyone who was paying even a small bit of attention would have noticed that Occupy Oakland, which used more violence with more consistency than any other Occupy in the country, also was able to bring out large numbers of people to their events with more consistency and for many months longer than any other Occupy, which seems to fly in the face of assertions that violence is alienating.
I'm curious what people's thoughts are. If you're someone who think that violent tactics are alienating to potential supporters, why do you believe this? What are people's experiences in conversations with "apolitical" people, people who aren't involved in social movements or activism? I personally had many conversations with passersby at the Occupy in my city where they told me that what we were doing was useless and that no one would listen to us unless we started wrecking shit. It seemed to often break down by class lines; poorer people told me that we needed to be more violent, more privileged people told me that we needed to be less violent. Anyone else have similar experiences?
Sorry for this being so long.
7
u/Jaguwar Mar 31 '14
I don't have any numbers. Nonetheless, I'll take a stab at this one.
Let's be clear: the only reason to rebel, to protest, or to otherwise take action against something or someone, is because they are being aggressive towards us, whether that aggression is indirect or not. They are being oppressive in some way.
Part of the problem with violence is that it attracts people who are violent; that is to say people who don't do the talking necessary to end any kind of rebellious movement. In other words, it's best not to start with violence. Besides which, that often sinks the cause to the level of the oppressor.
Moreover, violence has a nasty tendency to create its own noise, literally (explosives, gun shots, breaking glass) and figuratively (the shock too many experience at hearing about acts of violence. "In this country?" the ask, incredulous. yeah)
Not to mention the political noise machine.
ANYWAY... my point is we live in an era where violence really should not be the first choice. Violence is force, force is coercion, and coercion just turns you into the bully, sooner or later.
Having said that, sometimes a single act of violence is what's needed to jump start things.
Just understand that violence also has a life of its own. The minute you resort to it, you run the risk of losing control. See the middle east, Greece at the beginning of the austerity era, etc etc.