[lbo-talk] Non Violence Against Violence (was, Has the left Gone Mad?)

[Gar Lipow]

On 8/4/06, Dwayne Monroe <idoru345 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> The question is, when your adversary doesn't hesitate
> to use violence – and in the machine age, this has
> reached incredible levels of ferocity – is it
> practical to expect, or even hope, that it's possible
> to create a sufficiently broad movement that won't
> splinter into armed factions, weary of getting shot at
> and otherwise brutally treated and eager to defend
> themselves and exact vengeance?
>

Political situations vary from nation to nation. But in the U.S. I
would think any leftist, whether or not personally pacificist, would
want to encourage any principles consistent pacifist movement that
showed any traction at all in this extremely violent  nation.    I
mean a genuinely Pacificist member of congress, not just one  who
claimed to be Pacifist in their heart of hearts, but consistently
voted against military budgets, military intervention, military aid to
other nations (Including) Israel, who spoke out against violence by
all nations - including the U.S. and Israel. Even if they also
criticized popular movements in other nations who  use  violence in
defence of themselves and their rights - they would constitute an
immense improvement over our current politicians, and a genuinely
progressive voice (assuming they were equally progressive on justice
as well as peace issues). For example if I could replace the truly
dreadful Brian Baird (my Congress Critter) with a sincere and
consistent  F.O.R. member  I'd do it in a heartbeat.