If it were possible to achieve an equitable society in which the individual was able to act autonomously, engaged in voluntary mutual co-operation without any sort of coercion, without the use of violence, who would oppose this idea?
In an ideal world, a principled struggle that was entirely non-violent would be highly desirable. We are aghast at the thought of harm inflicted against other human beings, the deaths of individuals especially those whose actions are entirely neutral. However, this is happening all around us – this is not an ideal world.
The historical record illustrates over and over how a diversity of tactics have been required to bring about systemic change. Die hard pacifists will point to the examples of the movements led by Gandhi against British colonialism in India, and the African-American Civil Rights Movement with Martin Luther King as its figurehead as examples of successful struggles against an unjust state of affairs. However, in each case this is an oversimplification. To an extent we are in accord with the sentiments of Orwell, who surmised that the tactics and strategy employed by Gandhi were effective against a regime that perceived itself in the fashion that the British Empire did, but would not work against a brutal totalitarian state. It is often forgot just how much of the British exit from India was not solely the product of non-violent civil disobedience. Behind Gandhi and his followers, many other Indians adopted far more militant methods to expel the British from the country.
Regarding the fight to achieve civil rights in America, it is pertinent to consider how the non-violent approach taken by Martin Luther King and the SCLC would have fared had it not been backed by the militant doctrine espoused by the likes of Malcolm X. Given the choice of negotiating with more or less militant factions, it is natural that the establishment will gravitate towards those who are more ‘reasonable’. However, would they even decide to negotiate in the first place without the serious threat unrest mushrooming to the point that the economic livelihood of capitalism is threatened with serious disruption?
By asserting one facet of a struggle over the other, and attempting to frame it according to moralistic discourse, one fails to perceive how each feeds into the other, and change emerges holistically through an intertwined set of processes. The object of this stratagy is to create divisions that emerge within a resistance that ultimately leads to its failure.
If one is attacking by forces that are determined to maintain inequality and the status quo, what does it achieve to project a front of dignified acceptance. Surely self-defence must be considered as noble endeavour, that safeguards the wellbeing of one’s comrades against the enemy. We would not go along with Gandhian principles to the extent that we agree with absorbing the blows of the oppressor in the hope that the sheer nobility of one’s actions will lead the oppressor to see the wrongs in his own behavior (eventually). For us this appears a very naïve take upon the human condition, especially as it manifests itself today.
Great things can be achieved through peaceful action. But to relegate oneself to it, to deny the capacity for self-defence, this has its limits. There are times we must fight for our ideals, when no other alternative is available to us. In these circumstances we must act.