From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 05 Jan 93 20:43 PST
Subject: Re: GREENS AND NON-VIOLENCE
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1678600036:cdp:1678600037:000:3601
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan  5 20:43:00 1993


From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen>
Subject: GREENS AND NON-VIOLENCE

/* Written  6:47 pm  Jan  1, 1993 by dmcmillen@igc.apc.org in igc:green.general */
/* ---------- "Greens and Non-violence" ---------- */
What do Greens think about the value: Non-Violence?

It seems to me that we are struggling in the dark with different
definitions of non-violence.  This seems to me to be hindering
our ability to set policy and plan issue campaigns.

For example, I think that few are happy with the program statement of
the G/GPUSA on Foreign and Military Policy which currently calls for a
75% reduction in military spending.  However, we can't seem to agree
whether we should have a military which is only designed to protect
our geographic borders (which would be about a 90% reduction in spending
according to Howie Hawkins), or whether we should reject any military
spending because it violates the principle of non-violence.

As another example, what are we to make of Malcom X's oft quoted
comment, "By Any Means Necessary!", especially considering that
we are now trying to find inspiration in his writings (both for
its vision and for its alliance building benefits).

Do we see non-violence as a tactic as in non-violent civil-disobedience?
The logic is that since we could never overcome our opposition (read
the military/industrial state) by violence, we must resort to non-
violence and use our opposition's feelings of guilt to our advantage.
(This is sort what Gandhi meant by 'Satyagraha', I think.  'Satya'
means truth in love and 'Agraha' means firmness or force, therefore
'Satyagraha' means the force which is born of Truth and Love or
Non-Violence.  Page 87, "The Essential Gandhi", Vintage Books, 1962.)

Or, do we see non-violence as philosophical principal about our
relationship to others and nature, which is not necessarily the
way we always act?  Examples might be killing in self-defense or
subsistence hunting (or abortion???).

Or, do we see non-violence as an absolute rule as in Jesus' call
to "turn the other cheek"?

And, is our commitment to non-violence only to other people? Animals?
Plants? The Earth?  What about graffiti sprayed on the Corporate
Headquarters of a nuclear power company that was going to dump
nuclear wastes on an Indian Reservation?  Or, what about using
provocative tactics (a la Sol Alinsky) like placing dead fish in
the safe-deposit box of a bank whose policies you disagreed with.

Clearly, these different definitions of non-violence relate to each
other.  But, without clarity, we seem to be fumbling around when
trying to create policy.

As an aside, I found the film, "The Last Temptation of Christ" very
thought provoking on this point.  Christians have typically scorned
Judas who, by tradition, betrayed Jesus.  They have thought that Judas
was the worst sinner, and that his methods of violent revolution as
promoted by the Zealots, was clearly rejected by Jesus.  However, the
film shows Jesus and Judas to be very close friends from the start with
similar political and spiritual goals.  The film left me wondering how
violence and non-violence are so inter-connected.  However, considering
the extreme savagery that occured during the fall of Jerusalem, circa A.D.
65, it seems clear that violence was the wrong approach, but did they
have any choice?  In fact, I have heard one of the more radical Greens
say that the goal of The Greens is a marxist style revolution, but
with non-violence (and decentralization).

(Sorry to diverge into ancient history and Christian myth, but the
example seemed relevant.)

So, what d'y'all think?

Dale

Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens