Poll question: Who is more correct on violence, Malcolm or Mahatma?

[Robb]

Malcolm X: "I am for violence if non-violence means we continue postponing a solution to the American black man's problem just to avoid violence."

Mahatma Ghandi: "Non-violence is not a garment to be put on and off at will. Its seat is in the heart, and it must be an inseparable part of our being."

Is nonviolence situationally appropriate, or universally?

11 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Time expired
	Situationally Appropriate (Malcolm)
	7 (64%)
	Universally Appropriate (Mahatma)
	4 (36%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[UnrepentantLiberal]

1. Push poll.

"If the white people realize what the alternative is, perhaps they will be more willing to hear Dr. King” - Malcolm X

[Robb]

2. I thought about adding Cesar Chavez, but it's a little nuanced for most.

Edited to add: great book here, BTW: http://forusa.org/cesar-chavez-common-sense-nonviolence

[UnrepentantLiberal]

10. Your implication is that OWS is trying to achieve something

through violence. They are not.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Non-violence usually works. But not always.

For example, the Axis powers in WWII would have laughed at non-violence and kept up the slaughter.

[Robb]

4. LOL. Then they laugh at you, then they fight you, eh?

[boxman15]

5. Obviously, extreme situations like the rise of Nazi Germany call for violence, but

most movements that are successful are nonviolent in nature and begin to falter when violence comes into play. The Civil Rights Movement was successful because of the nonviolent nature of everything. It only began to die out when violence, provoked by hate groups and the FBI, became more mainstream in the movement. It's always important to be nonviolent except in self-defense.

[KamaAina]

6. More Malcolm:

"We are nonviolent with those who are nonviolent with us."

[KamaAina]

7. Where's the dingbat option?

[Arctic Dave]

8. Both are equal.

If it stops injustice I'm for either one.

[4th law of robotics]

9. The correct approach is always the one that wins

at least retrospectively.

If Ghandi had failed he'd have been remembered as a fool (although perhaps a nice one).

[UnrepentantLiberal]

12. "The correct approach is always the one that wins."

Yep.

[Johnny Rico]

20. Ghandi vs. the Nazis: "The Last Article" by Harry Turtledove

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Article

The Last Article (1988), is an alternate history short story by Harry Turtledove. The story describes a Nazi invasion of India and the reaction of the Germans to the nonviolent resistance and pacifism of Gandhi and his followers.

Plot summary

Germany's success in World War II has led to their invasion of the British Raj, and rather than struggling for independence from the Crown, Gandhi and Nehru find themselves in the position of resisting Nazi occupation using the techniques that were successfully employed against the British. Although Nehru has a general concept of the inherent immoral nature of Nazism, Gandhi thinks they still can be persuaded, not heeding the warning from a Jew named Wiesenthal, who was able to flee Poland to India.

The Nazis, however, led by Field Marshal Walther Model, are completely unmoved by Gandhi's strategy. They view themselves as a master race and have no moral qualms about killing those who resist non-violently (or even those who do not resist at all, if they are of a certain race). In the end the movement collapses as it proves unable to deal with the savagery of Nazism.

[4th law of robotics]

24. A good short story

came across as entirely plausible.

As nasty as the british were in India they could have been far worse (also they were democratic, had a free press and while they were hardly pro-diversity they didn't necessarily view non-brits as fuel for the ovens).

[The Magistrate]

11. Faulty Premise, Sir

The popular view that Ghandi expelled the English from India by non-violent resistance to their rule is very far from the facts.

The tension is always between a peaceful leadership and latent or simmering violence in the same cause; this creates an incentive for a dominant authority to cede something to the peaceable faction, if it feels for some reason or other incapable of crushing the actually or potentially violent elements.

[socialist_n_TN]

25. And there you go Your Honor......

The only way the nonviolent win is when there is a less palatable alternative for the owners. Usually that involves potential violence.

Malcolm believed in self defense. So do I, for myself and my class.

[Major Hogwash]

13. This is why we vote.

The anarchists of the '80s learned the hard way, their bullshit antics didn't do anything to improve the situation in America.
In fact, it made have made it worse.
The anarchists of the '90s learned that lesson as well.
As did the anarchists of the first decade of the 21st century.

The kids that are advocating violence today and throwing rocks at cops will learn that lesson also.
Their bullshit riots add up to naught. Nothing. Zip. Zero.

Less than zero.

If people think the American system is so harsh to live with, they should visit foreign countries like Iran, or Syria to understand what living under a dictator is like.

[sabrina 1]

14. OWS is based on Ghandi's philosophy and they have adhered to those principles.

Their huge success worldwide so far, leads me to believe they are correct. It's unfortunate however that the police bring violence to every protest. But the majority of people, in polls in NYC eg, over 80% condemned police violence, even when they did not support the movement as it was obvious to them that the protesters were peaceful.

Despite media efforts to conflate police violence with the protesters, the NYT eg, was caught editing reports, one perfect example where the initial headline was correct in reporting police actions, was changed online even as people watched to 'Protesters and Police Clash'. Lol, people understand this kind of propaganda now so it's not as effective as it used to be.

So I would say that they should continue to be peaceful regardless of provocation, which they do emphasize at every GA before the protests.

When protesters have become violent throughout history, it is usually to protect themselves from harm.

So the best way to keep this movement peaceful would be for our elected officials to step in, as requested by the UN Human Rights Rappateur, and instruct their police departments to refrain from the violence that has become so prevalent now. If that were to happen, there would be little chance that this movement, so committed to non-violence, would ever become violent.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

15. The thing they've stressed before every protest

I've been involved with is to not provoke the police. And when violence erupted they'd chant "shame, shame, shame". Hardly a movement driven by violent anarchists. (But I'm sure the people in this forum who critique them from their armchairs know more than I do.)

[sabrina 1]

18. I think they are not familiar with the movement, that is what I have

noticed about those who conflate police violence with the protesters. Maybe they don't want to be familiar with it, which is fine. But they should not expect not to be corrected when they produce false information. Fortunately today it is difficult for the police, eg, and they know it, to lie too much. The initial organizers prepared for this by advising everyone to carry cameras and by having their own media.

Those plans were proven to be effective last week in the first two OWS cases brought to court when the cops blatantly lied under oath, only to be outed by the video and photographs provided by the citizen journalists. Both cases were dismissed.

Which is why the cops tried to get laws passed making it illegal to photograph them. They failed, so far thankfully. We owe a lot to the lawyers from the NLG and from other Civil Liberties groups who keep fighting the lies. And to those who got the NDAA amendment declared unconstitutional last week. I often wonder what condition this country would be in if it were not for such people, and for the protesters themselves.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

19. I was represented by the National Lawyers Guild

when I was arrested on the Brooklyn Bridge. I can't tell you how much respect I have for them.

[sabrina 1]

23. They are real heroes. I am glad you were represented by them. And the fact that they were available

from the beginning, shows how well thought out this movement was from the beginning. I hope you have no more legal problems stemming from those insane arrests. I am truly impressed with the work of these lawyers, and thrilled to see the defeat of the cops last week in the first cases brought to court.

[Go Vols]

16. .

Shays' Rebellion — a sometimes-violent uprising of farmers angry over conditions in Massachusetts in 1786 — prompted Thomas Jefferson to express the view that "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing" for America. Unlike other leaders of The Republic, Jefferson felt that the people had a right to express their grievances against the government, even if those grievances might take the form of violent action.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

17. Shays was a well known anarchist.

[TheKentuckian]

21. I'll side with Malcolm since his quote doesn't play the "magic bullet" game.

Nothing always works.

[provis99]

22. they both had their crusades finished off by violence.

I would say that pretty much demonstrates the effectiveness of violence.

[RZM]

26. Yes, but wouldn't it be nice if they hadn't

And let's remember that both were killed by extremists on their own side who felt they were too sympathetic to the enemy.

Same thing with Michael Collins, Yitzhak Rabin, and Anwar Sadat. All of these men were killed by their internal enemies and not their external ones. It was the violence of their own side that brought them all down.

[RobertEarl]

27. All things being equal: non-violent wins

WW2: The winners were the parties that were non-violent in the beginning.

True I'd say with most every conflict.