Peter Gelderloos is a well-known anarchist writer and activist whose book How Nonviolence Protects the State challenges mainstream beliefs about pacifism as a tool for social change. In this thought-provoking work, he argues that nonviolence often serves to reinforce the very systems of oppression it seeks to dismantle. His book critiques traditional nonviolent movements and advocates for a more diverse range of tactics in resistance struggles.
The Central Argument of the Book
Gelderloos argues that strict adherence to nonviolence is not only ineffective but also helps maintain the status quo. He suggests that pacifist movements often fail to challenge oppressive structures because they operate within the rules set by those in power. According to him, real change requires a variety of tactics, including direct action, sabotage, and even armed resistance when necessary.
The Myth of Nonviolent Success
One of the key points in the book is the idea that history has been rewritten to portray nonviolence as the only successful strategy for resistance. Gelderloos critiques popular narratives about figures like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., arguing that their successes were not purely due to nonviolent tactics. He points out that these movements operated alongside more militant groups that used different methods, which put additional pressure on the system.
For example:
-
The Civil Rights Movement: While Martin Luther King Jr. promoted nonviolence, the movement also included groups like the Black Panthers, who took a more confrontational approach.
-
India’s Independence: Gandhi’s nonviolent resistance is widely celebrated, but armed rebellions and labor strikes also played a role in pressuring the British government.
Gelderloos argues that crediting only nonviolence for these victories erases the contributions of those who used different forms of resistance.
How Nonviolence Favors the State
According to Gelderloos, nonviolent movements are often tolerated because they do not pose a serious threat to those in power. Governments and corporations may express concern about protests, but as long as they remain peaceful, they rarely disrupt the functioning of the state.
He identifies several ways in which nonviolence benefits the state:
-
It Is Easy to Control
-
Peaceful protests can be ignored, manipulated, or even used to create an illusion of democracy.
-
Governments can allow protests to take place while continuing harmful policies unchanged.
-
-
It Creates Internal Divisions
-
Nonviolent ideology often leads activists to condemn those who use more militant tactics, weakening movements from within.
-
This division prevents unity and allows the state to target radical elements more easily.
-
-
It Shifts Responsibility to the Oppressed
-
Nonviolent activists often emphasize moral purity and discipline, which can discourage people from taking action.
-
The burden is placed on victims of oppression to act peacefully, rather than on the system to stop its violence.
-
The Role of Violence in Resistance
Gelderloos does not advocate violence for its own sake but argues that movements should be free to use whatever tactics are necessary to achieve their goals. He believes that self-defense and direct action are essential tools for resisting oppression.
Some historical examples he cites include:
-
The Spanish Civil War: Anarchists and leftists fought against fascism, using armed resistance.
-
Anti-Colonial Struggles: Many liberation movements, such as those in Algeria and Vietnam, succeeded through armed struggle rather than nonviolence.
-
Modern Protest Movements: Groups like the Zapatistas in Mexico have combined armed resistance with community organizing to protect indigenous rights.
The Limitations of Pacifism
Gelderloos highlights the weaknesses of strict nonviolence, such as:
-
Dependence on Media and Public Sympathy: Nonviolent movements often rely on gaining public attention, but the media is controlled by elites who shape narratives to suit their interests.
-
Lack of Immediate Impact: Peaceful protests can be ignored for years, while direct action forces immediate responses from those in power.
-
Failure to Defend Communities: When oppressed groups face violent repression, nonviolence offers little protection against police brutality, military aggression, or fascist threats.
A Call for Tactical Diversity
Rather than promoting violence as the only solution, Gelderloos encourages movements to embrace tactical diversity. This means using a mix of strategies based on context, rather than committing to nonviolence as an absolute principle.
He suggests that effective resistance should:
-
Be flexible – Different situations require different responses.
-
Recognize the legitimacy of various tactics – Instead of condemning militant actions, movements should understand their strategic value.
-
Build solidarity – Rather than dividing over tactics, activists should support a broad range of resistance methods.
Criticism of Gelderloos’ Ideas
While How Nonviolence Protects the State has gained support from many activists, it has also faced criticism. Some common arguments against his views include:
-
Moral Objections: Many believe that violence only leads to more suffering and should be avoided whenever possible.
-
Risk of Repression: Armed resistance often leads to harsh crackdowns, imprisonment, and even loss of life.
-
Historical Counterexamples: Some argue that peaceful movements, such as South Africa’s anti-apartheid struggle and the fall of communism in Eastern Europe, prove that nonviolence can be effective.
However, Gelderloos counters that these examples are often misrepresented, and that nonviolence alone was not responsible for these victories.
Peter Gelderloos’ How Nonviolence Protects the State is a powerful critique of pacifist ideology. It challenges the mainstream belief that nonviolence is the most effective or ethical form of resistance. By examining historical movements, the role of the state, and the impact of different tactics, Gelderloos makes a compelling case for tactical diversity in the fight for social justice.
While his ideas remain controversial, they open an important discussion about how change happens and whether strict adherence to nonviolence truly serves the interests of oppressed people.