Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuts.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuts!orb
From: orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: The use of nonviolence.
Message-ID: <495@whuts.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 21-Jan-86 18:29:09 EST
Article-I.D.: whuts.495
Posted: Tue Jan 21 18:29:09 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 24-Jan-86 22:29:30 EST
References: <566@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 80

> Mr Sevener
> 
>    I agree in the use of civil disobedience.  Two of my heroes happen to be
> Martin Luther King and Gahndi but I have a serious question that I do not know
> the answer. How do you fight a government that does not mind killing people?
> 
> The British for the most part where civilised an where not going to wipe
> out the population or even try to.  The allowed constraints on themselves
> and thus had "weaknesses" that could be used against them.  The same in the US
> with the civil rights movement the violence got bad and some people did die but
> the government did not openly condone it.  The courts also did there best to 
> stop such violence.  
> 
>    What about regimes where that is not true. Germany where they wiped out
> 6 million people.  Stalin's Russia where an estimated 20 million people 
> died. Mao's China where I have read an estimated 30 million people died.
> Lets look at Pol's Pot Regime in Cambodia where 3 million (?) people died.
> These people had no problem with killing any number of people who got in there
> way.  These people did not care about world opinion and would have saw 
> civil disobedience as a weakness and as easy targets to kill. How would you
> have stopped Idi Amin and his gang of thugs these are not easy questions. I 
> don't have the answer and am looking for them.  Could you give me your insight
> into this. Anyone else feel free to also comment as I am sure you will :-).
> 
> I have turned from violence as best I could through my life and continue to
> do so.  I wonder sometimes if it is always the best way.  Until I feel 
> differently I will continue to turn from violence for I see no better
> solution.
> 
> Brian Mahoney
 
In the first place the assumed benevolence of the British in India is
questionable.  In fact, recall that the British openly fired upon
and massacred hundreds of Indian women, children and men at Amritsar.
While General Dyer was tried for this crime a number of the British
in India raised money for his retirement and as encouragement for
proper handling of the uppity Indians.  I do not buy the oft-repeated
argument that the British were somehow a bunch of wimps who allowed
Gandhi to win by nonviolence because they were "nice chaps".  The
British showed in many situations besides Amritsar that they could be
quite brutal in conquering an Empire.  On the other hand, even the
most brutal suffer pangs of conscience in inflicting pain upon those
unwilling to retaliate in kind.  For one thing, one of the psychological
points of violent subjugation, is to somehow "win" or "defeat"
one's opponent and thereby control them.  When a Gandhi or Martin Luther
King refuses to play by those rules by refusing to be controlled
without responding with violence then the rulers have trouble dealing
with it.
 
I am not sure what can be done about widespread mass murder but a 
society can never operate for long on such a basis.  There was no
violence per se that ended Stalin's reign of terror simpy his death
and the final recognition that Soviet society could not continue on
such a basis.  The question that must be considered is: how is it
that high leaders of the Communist party would accept Stalin's terror?
Even when it often threatened themselves?  One must understand
the bases of power and authority to deal with this problem.
We often tend to assume in our individualistic outlook that such
reigns of violence are the product of one man, one demented dictator.
But that is false.  A Hitler, a Pol Pot, a Stalin has no power unless
he is able to give orders to underlings who is willing to obey him.
If those people refused to obey, and if the vast majority of society
simply refuse to obey then all a dictator's power crumbles.
 
The problem is that it is very difficult to get enough people to
have courage to fight such oppression when it is internally generated.  
But in the case of defense
of the nation it would seem that all the advantages are on the
side of the defenders.  They are already united as a nation with
one government, one culture, frequently the same language.  They
know the local terrain, by necessity if it is a large country,
they must continue to run it and do the labor of running it.
These are rather scattered thoughts and I must get going, but your
question is a good one and very much worth pondering.  But surely
as Gandhi and King came up with creative approaches to nonviolent
resistance, there are many avenues as yet unexplored in this area.
We have not explored them because most people are stuck in the rut
of favoring kneejerk violent solutions and not being imaginative
enough to see alternatives.
     tim sevener   whuxn!orb