The Failure of Nonviolence: From the Arab Spring to Occupy

by Peter Gelderloos

From the Arab Spring to the plaza occupation movement in Spain, the student movement in the UK and Occupy in the US, many new social movements have started peacefully, only to adopt a diversity of tactics as they grew in strength and collective experiences. The last ten years have revealed more clearly than ever the role of nonviolence. Propped up by the media, funded by the government, and managed by NGOs, nonviolent campaigns around the world have helped oppressive regimes change their masks, and have helped police to limit the growth of rebellious social movements. Increasingly losing the debates within the movements themselves, proponents of nonviolence have increasingly turned to the mainstream media and to government and institutional funding to drown out critical voices.

The Failure of Nonviolence examines most of the major social upheavals since the end of the Cold War to establish what nonviolence can accomplish, and what a diverse, unruly, non-pacified movement can accomplish. Focusing especially on the Arab Spring, Occupy, and the recent social upheavals in Europe, this book discusses how movements for social change can win ground and open the spaces necessary to plant the seeds of a new world.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, History, Philosophy, Activism, Sociology, Anarchism

306 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2013

About the author

Peter Gelderloos is an American anarchist activist and writer.

Reviews

[* · Rating 3 out of 5]

No longer using this website, but I'm leaving up old reviews. Fuck Jeff Bezos. Find me on LibraryThing: https://www.librarything.com/profile/...

I am sympathetic to Gelderloos' overarching argument and thesis, but I think he shoots himself in the foot with forced, overstated, easy arguments ("it is worth noting that so and so's book does not denounce killing puppies") and peppered meaningless insults (eg: "the authoritarian Muslim Brotherhood" --thanks bro, we don't need your cheap guidance on how to feel about them, especially when you make no effort to explain and the argument is just as forceful without the editorial adjective).

My eventual review of this book (since I am too far behind the reading group to bring up these issues in person to comrades) will basically be a list of dumb shit Gelderloos says. And this despite my total agreement with his overall thesis. Maybe I'll make it into the appendix of the next book, har har har.

[Elliott · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'm sympathetic to anarchism, though I'm a socialist, and I believe that they nearly always offer valuable critiques for and on leftist politics. I figure after all, we're both anti capitalist, and pro worker where's the harm? Gelderloos' book proved trying at times though: he saves barbs for socialists such as myself that I don't agree with while a good part of the middle section itself was devoted to "who are the pacifists?" Which reminded me ironically enough of Stalinist propaganda "who are the Trotskyists?" But, he brings to light an important question: who really benefits from nonviolence?

[Christopher Hudson Jr. · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found myself nodding along constantly, including sections I had disagreements with (refreshing!). Highly recommend to anyone interested in social/political movements/tactics, regardless of your priors.

[Elagabalus · Rating 3 out of 5]

Has a lot of updated and more detailed information, but gets bogged down by repetition and reiterations. It's important in helping inform about many of the particulars about power relations and law, alternatives, and the success rate of diversity of tactics.

Whenever he talks about people unlike himself, it can be a bit awkward. He'll say something like "women, queers, and trans people", which is a frustrating categorization first because "queers" is the collective dehumanization of a group, and "trans people" as if trans women aren't women, and suggesting that cis women must come first, which is related to the ironic recuperation of social hierarchy.

At one point he also says "those raised as men" which follows a "male socialization" narrative put forward by terfs to dehumanize trans women and trans femininity, which enables the transmysoginistic patriarchal and matriarchal violence directed at trans femininity. He makes no criticism to the DGR's terf ideology, which implies he believes it at least partially, while mainly focusing on criticizing the group's hierarchal structure and opposition to anarchism. He makes little to no mention of how the group puts indigenous people and poor people at the vulnerable front line of the DGR movement, and how that enables the enrichment of colonial profits and the prison profits.

He uses a t-slur at one point to describe trans people, which was pretty disgusting and self-entitled, and brought to the clear the above criticisms.

He also criticizes leftists, "the left", and so on, without giving context to why he's stigmatising the political wing which anarchism has been a part of since the beginning. It worries me because it seems eerily like when pro-capitalists and neo-nazis pretend to be anarchist.

Overall, a lot of beneficial information and important strategy ideas and co-operation suggestions, but at times a repetitious slog, and other times a bit worrying how he defines people different from him and separates anarchism from leftism.

[6655321 · Rating 3 out of 5]

When Gelderloos is on he is *really really* on but like, a lot of the time (and i am obviously extremely sympathetic to his project) there is a sort of repetition of the same (ex. his criticisms of various high profile pacifists kinda bleed into each other and to some extent were already covered in previous sections & while i can't help but enjoy anyone laying into Chris Hedges (who is a total shit) it's not like it was a burning necessity). I guess some of my problem with this (and by problem i mean "things i wish were different because ideally in my head authors i like write on the things i want them to rather than what they would like which is probably absurdly selfish") is that How Non-Violence Protects the State was *really really good* and a lot of this is sort of a longer addendum to that? Like, i appreciate an impassioned defense of a diversity of tactics as much as the next gal but a lot of this works better cut into different essays than as a cohesive whole but like *it's still probably an important book* but it probably helps if you aren't already pretty sympathetic to Gelderloos' opinions (because you have basically, in that case, heard this argument and position before although Gelderloos' is a pretty solid writer which is definitely worth something).

[Simon · Rating 1 out of 5]

You know it's bad when the entire first chapter is about how violence itself is an undefinable, individual concept, too vague to actually exist in the first place. While I stand with the idea that self-defense and means of violence is more justifiable than the dogmatic culture of pacifism would want it to be, this book is nothing but incomprehendsible gibberish whose sole point is to argue the anarchist idea that all hierarchies are somehow toxic. Unintentionally hillarious.

Crust punk/burning man-type stereotypes are bad enough, but it's somehow ten times worse when it's presented as a type of "intellectualism", mamma mia

[Edward · Rating 4 out of 5]

This took me over 6 months to complete it was a very difficult read and I have very mixed feelings about it. Many of my friends were criticized in the book but I think there is a value to having these discussions out in the open instead of shutting them down at the point of entry. Our movement should be strong enough to hold many different ideas even those the seemingly challenge our own views. We have to fight before turning ism in all its forms especially with in our own minds

[Romane Pl · Rating 4 out of 5]

À mettre entre les mains de tous les soc-dem de cette planète. Le titre est assez éloquent pour faire frémir ceux qui protègent l'État.

[Ben · Rating 5 out of 5]

There's a printable PDF pamphlet of the introduction at https://archive.org/details/failurepr...

[Jozie · Rating 4 out of 5]

the argument was valid, and the examples were valid. I feel like in books like this people repeat themselves a lot so as to remind people of their main point but its like.... iget it. it is probably my failure as a reader and writer rather than his but i feel like some concepts dont need a lot of elaboration. but yeah this is a good book for owning the libs.

[River · Rating 3 out of 5]

While I was already familiar with many of the arguments Gelderloos makes against nonviolence and was familiar with his previous book on the topic, I still found some interesting points in this book. He does a good job in arguing for the importance of combative/conflictual approaches to social struggles. It's pretty solid and convincing on that front.

That said, this book was unfortunately somewhat tedious. There seemed to be too many examples and at times there was way too much detail and some of the writing was pretty disjointed.

[Jenn · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think this is a well-argued book with interesting examples. I thought it was better than How Nonviolence Protects the State, partly because it's more timely, partly because the arguments are a bit more mature. I also thought the last section of the book on strategy and creating truly diverse tactics is a totally important read for anyone involved in any kind of activism, regardless of their stance on non-violence.

[rosemary · Rating 3 out of 5]

good book, informative, great for persuading liberals. had some pacing issues though, i found the part at the end that discussed tactics far more valuable than some of the middle sections such as a long who's-who of proponents of nonviolence. and the persistent anti-communist comments as well as constantly framing anarchists as the one true proponents of struggle were pretty eyeroll worthy. nonetheless, a v useful book, especially in the parts about tactics and strategy. (wish those parts were longer!)

[Carl Dick · Rating 3 out of 5]

Starts and ends really really strong, but has a middle chapter addressing individual proponents of strict nonviolence that really drags and is way too long. This would have easily been 4 or 5 stars without the "Who Are The Pacifists?" chapter.

[Peter · Rating 5 out of 5]

An easily understood and compelling argument designed to be as controversial as possible. The author really does not pull punches and it’s entertaining to read the clearly meticulously thought out insults.

[Cameron Mackintosh · Rating 5 out of 5]

a follow up to his previous book where he again makes a pretty flawless argument against non-violence