VIOLENT PROTESTING VS. PEACEFUL PROTESTING

IS PACIFISM FLAWED???

This confuses two very distinct concepts: violence and confrontation. To be nonviolent is not to avoid confrontation but to invite it. And in several cases, that means risking physical harm to oneself. This is what Martin Luther King meant by the "purification" period of nonviolent organizing; before one takes part in a nonviolent protest, one should examine one's motives and readiness to put their life on the line. Is one taking on nonviolence to simply be a coward? Or is one taking it on because it is quite simply the only means available? Understanding that should help one understand how exactly nonviolence is working (or not working).

The difference between the effects of violence and nonviolence is essentially this: violence simply seeks to wipe out the enemy. Nonviolence seeks to keep the enemy intact so that he may come around and become an asset rather than a liability. This is actually one of the main tenets of the Art of War; one who can win a war without one even breaking out is acknowledged as a masterful general.

This is an important distinction, because I would argue that there are certainly times when violence is warranted. One could not confront the Nazis, for instance, with anything other than the violence of sabotage and assassination. Neither could one face down the entire wrath of the Israeli war machine being completely nonviolent. In each of these cases, the question must be asked if the particular situation warrants violent response, with the determining factor being whether violence would end suffering or provoke more of it.

An equally important clarification, I'd say that the argument made by ELF, ALF, as well as the Black Bloc is correct - property damage is an extreme form of nonviolence, NOT a form of violence as it does not harm life but rather property which all too often is the sort of thing that is itself opposed to life. However, I would caution those that have the simplistic philosophy of "Fuck Shit Up"; authorities do not share our view of property, and they will at times needlessly die trying to save it. Moreover, they are willing to kill to save it. I would imagine that all the aforementioned groups carefully consider what the consequences are for property damage.