Civil Resistance & Power

G

goinghome

Guest
"One of the first people who understood how power could be produced by civil resistance was the great African-American abolitionist, Frederick Douglass. In the years of his work before the American Civil War, which was an age of universal, brutalizing racism, even white abolitionists were dismissed as dreamers. But Douglass was no dreamer. He operated with cold, furious logic. The power of oppressors “concedes nothing and it never will,” he said. You can find the “exact measure” of injustice that will be imposed on people, he explained, by measuring how much they will submit to. And the injustice will go on until it is resisted. “The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress,” he declared.

Douglass saw that if submission were replaced by civil resistance, the people could pierce the shroud of oppression, shifting power in a way that few in the world would have comprehended. A half-century later, in the course of enjoining Russians to resist military conscription, Leo Tolstoy came to the conclusion that “public opinion” would, in the future, “change the whole structure of life” and make violence “superfluous.” In other words, what people believed and what they did to act on those beliefs could change the conditions they faced, and therefore violent intervention on behalf of change would be unnecessary...

http://www.opendemocracy.net/jack-d...democracy+(openDemocracy)&utm_content=Twitter
 
wcower7.gif


Never gets old.
 
Well, history proved Douglass wrong. Slavery wasn't abolished through civil disobedience from those afflicted by it, but by the spread of moral argument in the segments of society who had political power. As well as by the Civil War, of course. Civil disobedience doesn't have a great record in general either, when it comes to achieving things - at least not on its own.

cheers
 
You are right, but also wrong, Qvist. One deep thread running through African American protest literature is the effects of living in a racist, oppressive society on the oppressor. Racism isn't harmful only to the oppressed, it destroys the oppressor as well. America was a deeply morally ill place. The abolitionist movement really got up and running when white suffragist women took up the cause, correctly recognizing that the oppression was equally wrong and grew from the same ill logic in both cases.

It took the activity of white abolitionists to achieve the end of slavery, but they worked closely with exceptionally brave and talented and lucky people (like Douglass) who had resisted oppression. Once they digested the stories of the former slaves, they realized that slavery crippled our morality and sickened all of us. So their agitation was also resistance--though of a kind somewhat less dangerous than that of the Americans who were enslaved.

Douglass was an amazing writer--so calm, logical, calculated. You can contrast his original Narrative with later revisions and further stories published after the War, and see how restrained he was. Like Olaudah Equiano, he realized that only the calmest retelling of his experiences would have any power to change public opinion. Any embellishment would veer too far into the sentimental, but the stark facts would move mountains.
 
You are right, but also wrong, Qvist. One deep thread running through African American protest literature is the effects of living in a racist, oppressive society on the oppressor. Racism isn't harmful only to the oppressed, it destroys the oppressor as well. America was a deeply morally ill place. The abolitionist movement really got up and running when white suffragist women took up the cause, correctly recognizing that the oppression was equally wrong and grew from the same ill logic in both cases.

It took the activity of white abolitionists to achieve the end of slavery, but they worked closely with exceptionally brave and talented and lucky people (like Douglass) who had resisted oppression. Once they digested the stories of the former slaves, they realized that slavery crippled our morality and sickened all of us. So their agitation was also resistance--though of a kind somewhat less dangerous than that of the Americans who were enslaved.

Douglass was an amazing writer--so calm, logical, calculated. You can contrast his original Narrative with later revisions and further stories published after the War, and see how restrained he was. Like Olaudah Equiano, he realized that only the calmest retelling of his experiences would have any power to change public opinion. Any embellishment would veer too far into the sentimental, but the stark facts would move mountains.

The point is that abolition did not have anything to do with a change in the willingness of the oppressed to accept oppression, which is Douglass' basic point. Slavery was not abolished because slaves ceased to accept their status, stood up for themselves and began to act differently towards their oppressors. On the contrary, it was a result of the ability of the oppressive society, broadly understood, to reform itself - through the abolitionist movement, its wider political influence and the civil war. This is in effect the exact opposite of Douglass' analysis. Slavery was not ended by slaves, it was ended by non-slaves who were opposed to slavery. Which, according to Douglass, is exactly what never happens.

cheers
 
The point is that abolition did not have anything to do with a change in the willingness of the oppressed to accept oppression, which is Douglass' basic point. Slavery was not abolished because slaves ceased to accept their status, stood up for themselves and began to act differently towards their oppressors. On the contrary, it was a result of the ability of the oppressive society, broadly understood, to reform itself - through the abolitionist movement, its wider political influence and the civil war. This is in effect the exact opposite of Douglass' analysis. Slavery was not ended by slaves, it was ended by non-slaves who were opposed to slavery. Which, according to Douglass, is exactly what never happens.

cheers

Is it really fully correct to say that slavery in America was ended by non-slaves who were opposed to slavery? Wasn't it rather the result of some sort of "accident" of the history? What I mean is that the reason for the civil war wasn't the issue of the slavery, rather the different outlook between the north and the south about what kind of economic politics the United States should be governed by, i.e. the north wanted a protectionist economic politic so that the industry in the north could be protected against the cheap industrial products from Great Britain whereas the south who hardly had any industry wanted free trade so that they could sell their cotton without restrictions to Great Britain. The abolition of slavery was then just an accidental outcome since there were no place for them in a modern capitalistic society consisting of free workers.
 
Is it really fully correct to say that slavery in America was ended by non-slaves who were opposed to slavery? Wasn't it rather the result of some sort of "accident" of the history? What I mean is that the reason for the civil war wasn't the issue of the slavery, rather the different outlook between the north and the south about what kind of economic politics the United States should be governed by, i.e. the north wanted a protectionist economic politic so that the industry in the north could be protected against the cheap industrial products from Great Britain whereas the south who hardly had any industry wanted free trade so that they could sell their cotton without restrictions to Great Britain. The abolition of slavery was then just an accidental outcome since there were no place for them in a modern capitalistic society consisting of free workers.

Pretty much. There was no deep-rooted moralist motivation there. But to be fair, slavery was an issue that was on the table for many American presidencies, yet it was continually swept under the rug. But the slavery gave way to modern capitalism and wage slavery.
 
The point is that abolition did not have anything to do with a change in the willingness of the oppressed to accept oppression, which is Douglass' basic point. Slavery was not abolished because slaves ceased to accept their status, stood up for themselves and began to act differently towards their oppressors. On the contrary, it was a result of the ability of the oppressive society, broadly understood, to reform itself - through the abolitionist movement, its wider political influence and the civil war. This is in effect the exact opposite of Douglass' analysis. Slavery was not ended by slaves, it was ended by non-slaves who were opposed to slavery. Which, according to Douglass, is exactly what never happens.

cheers

Is it really fully correct to say that slavery in America was ended by non-slaves who were opposed to slavery? Wasn't it rather the result of some sort of "accident" of the history? What I mean is that the reason for the civil war wasn't the issue of the slavery, rather the different outlook between the north and the south about what kind of economic politics the United States should be governed by, i.e. the north wanted a protectionist economic politic so that the industry in the north could be protected against the cheap industrial products from Great Britain whereas the south who hardly had any industry wanted free trade so that they could sell their cotton without restrictions to Great Britain. The abolition of slavery was then just an accidental outcome since there were no place for them in a modern capitalistic society consisting of free workers.

Eeh... yeah. This, too. Until a fiduciary case was made for the abolition of slavery, it wasn't going to happen. But it was a combined effort of a handful of extraordinarily brave pre-citizens, who spurred the actions of other pre-citizens, who stirred their husbands to get the ball rolling... so yes, and no. Abolition was logically inevitable, but slaves in name were quickly replaced by wage slaves. America is an ugly place; I cannot defend my homeland.
 
In Haiti on the other hand, the slaves really did free themselves though one can hardly say that it came about in a non-violent way.
 
Pretty much. There was no deep-rooted moralist motivation there. But to be fair, slavery was an issue that was on the table for many American presidencies, yet it was continually swept under the rug. But the slavery gave way to modern capitalism and wage slavery.

Eeh... yeah. This, too. Until a fiduciary case was made for the abolition of slavery, it wasn't going to happen. But it was a combined effort of a handful of extraordinarily brave pre-citizens, who spurred the actions of other pre-citizens, who stirred their husbands to get the ball rolling... so yes, and no. Abolition was logically inevitable, but slaves in name were quickly replaced by wage slaves. America is an ugly place; I cannot defend my homeland.

Let's try to stay focussed here. None of this matters to the point at hand. Fiduciary power, coincidence, white wives, hand of god - you can take your pick, but in any event what did NOT get rid of slavery is the thing that Douglass argues represents the only possibility, namely concerted civil resistance by those who were repressed.

All I'm asking is to recognise the basic causalities that experience suggest. If you want to embrace civil disobedience as a political tool, then that should include a sober analysis of what civil disobedience has accomplished and not accomplished under different circumstances. Otherwise you risk ending up falling in love with methods rather than aims or results - or worse, advocating methods because they are in reality aims. Like Marxist movements and their glorification of broadly based guerilla warfare, a mode of waging conflicts that invariably entails a horrifying price and is generally not particularly effective, but which has the key incidental advantage that it creates ideal conditions for marxist movements to take control over the effort and emerge on top if it is successful. Which was, f.e., the only real result achieved by four years of large scale guerilla warfare in Yugoslavia against a determined and ruthless occupier during WWII, which cost more than 1 million lives. It hardly speeded up th liberation of Yugoslavia by as much as a week, and had no meaningful impact on the German war effort but it ensured that Tito would wield post-war power.

CDO of course holds the attraction that it is a form of political action ideally suited to provide a leading role to the sort of people who are enamoured of CDO - students and NGO activists. :) And by all means, I'm not putting it down, it can be both important and effective in certain settings, but temptations like that should be acknowledged and counterbalanced - and the best cure is a sober acknowledgement of historical causalities.

cheers
 
Last edited:
Let's try to stay focussed here. None of this matters to the point at hand. Fiduciary power, coincidence, white wives, hand of god - you can take your pick, but in any event what did NOT get rid of slavery is the thing that Douglass argues represents the only possibility, namely concerted civil resistance by those who were repressed.

All I'm asking is to recognise the basic causalities that experience suggest. If you want to embrace civil disobedience as a political tool, then that should include a sober analysis of what civil disobedience has accomplished and not accomplished under different circumstances. Otherwise you risk ending up falling in love with methods rather than aims or results - or worse, advocating methods because they are in reality aims. Like Marxist movements and their glorification of broadly based guerilla warfare, a mode of waging conflicts that invariably entails a horrifying price and is generally not particularly effective, but which has the key incidental advantage that it creates ideal conditions for marxist movements to take control over the effort and emerge on top if it is successful. Which was, f.e., the only real result achieved by four years of large scale guerilla warfare in Yugoslavia against a determined and ruthless occupier during WWII, which cost more than 1 million lives. It hardly speeded up th liberation of Yugoslavia by as much as a week, and had no meaningful impact on the German war effort but it ensured that Tito would wield post-war power.

CDO of course holds the attraction that it is a form of political action ideally suited to provide a leading role to the sort of people who are enamoured of CDO - students and NGO activists. :) And by all means, I'm not putting it down, it can be both important and effective in certain settings, but temptations like that should be acknowledged and counterbalanced - and the best cure is a sober acknowledgement of historical causalities.

cheers

I agree. Not much was completed by in-your-face confrontation; marches even peaceful marches, did not universally change the attitudes of whites in the face of segregation. And certainly no enslaved person could march during the Antebellum South, that would be suicide. Change is evolutionary and not revolutionary, though the morality of civil disobedience is attractive. But please consider that in those times, anyone who considered the "slaves" to be truly human, and deserving of equal treatment, where considered to be dissenters. So civil disobedience was not equated to the Marxist notion of politically inspired guerrilla warfare then. It was a reasonable reaction towards the irrational basis of prejudice and blind nationalism.
 
- Has anybody read that Nazis are gonna march in New Jersey, you know?

- We should go there, get some guys together. Get some bricks and baseball bats and explain things to 'em.

- There was this devastating satirical piece on that in the Times.

- Well, a satirical piece in the Times is one thing, but bricks get right to the point.

- But biting satire is better that physical force.

- No, physical force is better with Nazis. It's hard to satirise a guy with shiny boots.

Manhattan, Woody Allen


Leo Tolstoy came to the conclusion that “public opinion” would, in the future, “change the whole structure of life” and make violence “superfluous.”

Tolstoy didn't foresee the Internet.
 
Like Marxist movements and their glorification of broadly based guerilla warfare, a mode of waging conflicts that invariably entails a horrifying price and is generally not particularly effective, but which has the key incidental advantage that it creates ideal conditions for marxist movements to take control over the effort and emerge on top if it is successful. Which was, f.e., the only real result achieved by four years of large scale guerilla warfare in Yugoslavia against a determined and ruthless occupier during WWII, which cost more than 1 million lives. It hardly speeded up th liberation of Yugoslavia by as much as a week, and had no meaningful impact on the German war effort but it ensured that Tito would wield post-war power.

You're right. Marxists are so much less efficient at murdering people than our capitalist democracies. One more thing private enterprise and Big Business do better! :rolleyes:
 
You're right. Marxists are so much less efficient at murdering people than our capitalist democracies. One more thing private enterprise and Big Business do better! :rolleyes:

I don't think you get what he's saying. Either that or your being unfairly dismissive and sarcastic.
 
- Has anybody read that Nazis are gonna march in New Jersey, you know?

- We should go there, get some guys together. Get some bricks and baseball bats and explain things to 'em.

- There was this devastating satirical piece on that in the Times.

- Well, a satirical piece in the Times is one thing, but bricks get right to the point.

- But biting satire is better that physical force.

- No, physical force is better with Nazis. It's hard to satirise a guy with shiny boots.

Manhattan, Woody Allen




Tolstoy didn't foresee the Internet.

Hehe. Allen was wrong though. The battle against the (actual German) nazis could not be won on the streets with fists and bats, and it wasn't for lack of trying. All that achieved was a kind of politics that the nazis profited from - one dominated by street violence and fear that perpetually underlined the breakdown of the legal order and liberal standards of political behavior that constituted the chief bulwark against the nazis. Once that was gone, it was their game being played. But try explaining that to the sort of people who enjoy setting fire to Seattle and are convinced only their nunchako can save mankind. :rolleyes:

You're right. Marxists are so much less efficient at murdering people than our capitalist democracies. One more thing private enterprise and Big Business do better!

That wasn't the point, and I don't think anyone match Marxists in that regard. But broad popular guerilla warfare (marxist or not) is by definition the weak man's option. For one thing, it presupposes being already occupied. But what it does is draw the whole population into the struggle, and feed on the resulting polarisation.
But please consider that in those times, anyone who considered the "slaves" to be truly human, and deserving of equal treatment, where considered to be dissenters.

Yes, but they were not the oppressed respodning to their oppression, which is waht Douglass is talking about.

So civil disobedience was not equated to the Marxist notion of politically inspired guerrilla warfare then. It was a reasonable reaction towards the irrational basis of prejudice and blind nationalism.

'It was not my point that they were equated. I simply mentioned the marxist fondness for popular guerilla warfare as another case of an unhealthy obsession with method - or for favoring it for vicarious reasons.

cheers
 
It was not my point that they were equated. I simply mentioned the Marxist fondness for popular guerrilla warfare as another case of an unhealthy obsession with method - or for favoring it for vicarious reasons.

cheers
Understood.
 
Back
Top Bottom