1. NONVIOLENT STRATEGIES ARE UNABLE TO EFFECTUATE CHANGE
Ward Churchill, Professor of Ethnic Studies and Coordinator of American Indian Studies at University of Colorado, 2001, PACIFISM AS PATHOLOGY, p. 44
Absurdity clearly abounds when suggesting that the state will refrain from using all necessary physical force to protect against undesired forms of change and threats to its safety. Nonviolent tacticians imply (perhaps unwittingly) that the “immoral state” which they seek to transform will somehow exhibit exactly the same sort of superior morality they claim for themselves (i.e., at least a relative degree of nonviolence). The fallacy of such a proposition is best demonstrated by the nazi state’s removal of its “Jewish threat. “ Violent intervention by others divides itself naturally into the two parts represented by Gandhi’s unsolicited “windfall” of massive violence directed against his opponents and King’s rather more conscious and deliberate utilization of incipient antistate violence as a means of advancing his own pacifist agenda. History is replete with variations on these two subthemes, but variations do little to alter the crux of the situation: there simply has never been a revolution, or even a substantial social reorganization, brought into being on the basis of the principles of pacifism. In every instance, violence has been an integral requirement of the process of transforming the state. Pacifist praxis (or, more appropriately, pseudo-praxis), if followed to its logical conclusions, leaves its adherents with but two possible outcomes to their line of action: To render themselves perpetually ineffectual (and consequently unthreatening) in the face of state power, in which case they will likely be largely ignored by the status quo and self-eliminating in terms of revolutionary potential; or, To make themselves a clear and apparent danger to the state, in which case they are subject to physical liquidation by the status quo and are self-eliminating in terms of revolutionary potential. In either event — mere ineffectuality or suicide — the objective conditions leading to the necessity for social revolution remain unlikely to be altered by purely pacifist strategies. As these conditions typically include war, the induced starvation of whole populations and the like, pacifism and its attendant sacrifice of life cannot even be rightly said to have substantially impacted the level of evident societal violence. The mass suffering that revolution is intended to alleviate will continue as the revolution strangles itself on the altar of “nonviolence.”
2. NONVIOLENCE DO NOT CREATE SUSTAINABLE VICTORIES
Brian Martin, Associate Professor in Science, Technology & Society at the University of Wollongong, Australia, NONVIOLENCE VERSUS CAPITALISM, 2001, Accessed May 17, 2002, p. np, http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/01nvc/nvcall.html
It is important to note that not all uses of nonviolent action lead to long-lasting, worthwhile change. Nonviolent action is not guaranteed to succeed either in the short term or long term. The 1989 prodemocracy movement in China, after a short flowering, was crushed in the Beijing massacre. Perhaps more worrying are the dispiriting aftermaths following some short-term successes of nonviolent action. In El Salvador in 1944, the successful nonviolent insurrection against the Martínez dictatorship did not lead to long term improvement for the El Salvadorean people. There was a military coup later in 1944, and continued repression in following decades. The aftermath of the Iranian revolution was equally disastrous. The new Islamic regime led by Ayatollah Khomeini was just as ruthless as its predecessor in stamping out dissent.
3. NONVIOLENCE FAILS IN THE CONTEXT OF MODERN CONFLICTS
Brian Martin, Associate Professor in Science, Technology & Society at the University of Wollongong, Australia, NONVIOLENCE VERSUS CAPITALISM, 2001, Accessed May 17, 2002, p. np, http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/01nvc/nvcall.html
The consent theory of power Gandhi approached nonviolent action as a moral issue and, in practical terms, as a means for persuading opponents to change their minds as a result of their witnessing the commitment and willing sacrifice of nonviolent activists. While this approach explains some aspects of the power of nonviolent action, it is inadequate on its own. Moral persuasion sometimes works in face-to-face encounters, but has little chance when cause and effect are separated. Bomber pilots show little remorse for the agony caused by their weapons detonating far below, while managers of large international banks have little inkling of the suffering caused by their lending policies in foreign countries.