A review of: Nonviolence Versus Capitalism by Brian Martin
             London: War Resisters¹ International ©2001


The Virtues of Nonviolent Strategy
by Camy Matthay

"Only a fool would try to remove
an ink spot with more ink;
how can anyone believe that blood stains
can be removed by shedding more blood?²

-Bertha von Suttner, Nobel Peace laureate

Brian Martin's new book Nonviolence Versus Capitalism is a powerful and cogent argument for the value of using nonviolent action as strategy for moving beyond capitalism. Though Martin knows that some people adhere to nonviolent strategy on moral grounds, Martin is saying that even if one lacks these convictions, it is still possible to support a path based on nonviolence for pragmatic reasons alone.

Martin¹s reasoning is based on the grounds that the most prominent alternatives to capitalism that were pursued in the l900s - namely state socialism and social electoralism- were tried and they consistently failed. Furthermore, he points out that since socialist alternatives rely on the power of the state, these strategies differ very little from capitalism in their ultimate dependence on violence for control of society.  Thus, nonviolence ­in a sense, and if only by default- deserves a chance.

What use would it be to achieve a cooperative classless society if political and economic stability was (still) maintained by the threat of state violence?  One form of domination would simply replace a previous form. Under these conditions of social control, would it mean anything then if the commissars of the new order claimed their system was more enlightened?

                *           *           *

To dismantle the capitalist system, Martin stresses that we need to understand the overriding system as clearly as we can.  We need to understand how capitalism keeps itself in business.  And we need to have some grasp ­however tenuous- of where we are going, of what is going to be better; we don¹t sail away from the status quo on analysis or doctrinal purity. Social change has to develop in an open way from real situations. Thus, if the goal is a world with far less suffering, it is imperative that we refine our dreams for a nonviolent future in concrete terms.

In light of this, Martin presents descriptions of four alternative systems that are explicitly constructed on non-violent foundations.  His examples include: 1.) Sarvoydaya, the Gandhian ideal of self-sufficient village democracy (a lifestyle being practiced by over six million people in India and Sri Lanka), 2.) an anarchistic model of decentralized direct collective control over all the affairs of life and relationship, 3.) voluntaryism ­a  spin off of libertarianism that is based on cooperative relationships in a market economy, and 4.) demarchy ­a sociopolitical model that presents a non-coercive and localized solution to the participation dilemma associated with direct democracy.

Martin then evaluates these alternatives against conditions he believes a cooperative, egalitarian, nonviolent society should fulfill. These conditions or principles are:
€ cooperation

€ that priority should be given to serving those in greatest need
€ that people should have satisfying work
€ that the system should be designed and run by the people themselves (not by
authorities or experts)
€ and that the people abide by the practice of nonviolence.

            *            *            *

The most valuable part of Nonviolence Versus Capitalism may be the suggestions Martin offers on how to assess the anti-capitalistic merits of campaigns involved with environmental issues, worker¹s rights, etc.  Though Martin admits that a campaign might be extremely important even though it doesn¹t directly oppose capitalism, his method of assessment, which he condenses into a few sobering questions, is for a specific anti-capitalistic purpose and as such has tremendous value to those who are interested in determining whether or not a strategy merely tweaks the status quo by subtractive and additive reforms, or promotes revolutionary changes that would effectively challenge the underpinnings of capitalism.

A strike for higher pay, for example, can be valuable to exploited workers but it does not challenge the asymmetry of power in the relationship between employers and workers.  A strategy aimed to give workers control over what they produce and what they would charge for their labor, however, is quite different since it challenges, among other things, the legitimacy of hierarchical relations.

In a similar critique of nonviolent strategy, Martin points out how "withdrawal of consent as a nonviolent tactic can be used to change relationships to means of production, but revolutionary change is not just a matter of withdrawing consent from a particular factory owner, but of withdrawing consent from ownership itself."²

Although factory owners, corporate directors, CEOs, etc., may be the master thieves, they are nonetheless not the capitalist machine. We are all both guests and hosts in the Market-Economy Hotel. Expending energy to modify the behavior of those in the penthouse has proven to be generally useless (e.g., see Michael Moore¹s film The Big One¹). Identifying and killing those who dominate and exploit is a 'clear the slate' strategy that presents troubling problems not the least of which is the fact that it attracts extremists who, under some illusion of being in possession of the 'true way', practice a kind of despotic self-righteousness. And bombing the top floors of the Hotel is tantamount to collective suicide.

What is really going to matter in the years ahead is how carefully the hotel is dismantled and if the number of people effectively challenging the legitimacy of capitalism can reach a tipping point. This is no small thing, not only because of the difficulties associated with challenging intricately distributed systems of domination, but because technocratic societies produce a surfeit of disinformation and info-tainment. Desires for wealth and material items for example, which most modern people subjectively feel, are carefully molded by the system to maintain the constant economic growth which capitalism requires.

Beyond the mystifications of consumerism, capitalism is also sustained by belief systems including property, entitlement, individualism, as well as everyday behaviors including status enhancement, the pursuit of autonomy, and selfishness. As desires are homogenized, other ways of organizing economic and social life are extinguished and myopia about the whole commodity system is controlled and sustained.

As Jerry Farber put it: ³Capitalism is institutionalized selfishness, institutionalized blindness, institutionalized theft. The blindness, naturally, we don¹t see.  And the theft is so thoroughly disguised that most of the victims will fight for their right to be robbed.²

            *            *            *

Much understanding is required to challenge a system of domination capable of promoting the most artful deceptions in its own self-interest. What will matter most in the struggle against capitalism, Martin emphasizes, the number of people who are so enchanted with the possibility of a more humane life that they will be true to the task of developing local
initiatives where critical questions can be collectively addressed. This would include questions such as: ³In what kind of society (or non-society) would I really like to live?² ³In what kind of system can individuals live up to themselves?²

True to my own experience, if you can create a context where you can offer people a glimpse of real community, you will awaken in them a longing to forgotten harmonies so powerful that they cannot be ignored.  This dimension of life, so different than the construct of civilization most of us were born to, can be like a contagion in your soul -beautiful and compelling enough to derail you from mainstream agendas.

            *              *            *

Nonviolence is a method of waging conflict. It is not mere passive resistance, far more than a precautionary principal, and no more neutral than a gun.


This is an auspicious time: transitional or terminal, I am still undecided. But Martin¹s book has given me hope, and he has earned my infinite respect, in that his book -the writing itself- models the faith in human rationality that I believe would be a principle feature of a post-capitalistic world, that is, a world that has removed all removable injustices, extended civil associations beyond coercive institutions and states, and accepted the necessity to defend a biocentric ethic that takes Life more seriously than individual gain.

Camy Matthay   copyleft 2002
-----------------------------------------

A Footnote [7/03]: Nonviolent strategy has the great virtue of being self-consistent. In nonviolent strategy, features of the sought-after goal are built into means so that, as Martin wrote, ³if one believes in a cooperative, egalitarian, nonviolent economic future, in which priority is given to serving those in greatest need, then a nonviolent strategy cannot
be too damaging, because it incorporates those features in its methods . . . .its methods are compatible with its goal.²

This is very different from violent strategies where many social ills are not addressed until ³after the revolution² and non-combatants endure great hardships warehoused as internal or international refugees.  Additionally, unlike military or guerrilla tactics that typically place a premium on recruiting or drafting young men, anyone regardless of their age, gender, or fitness can productively participate. Responsibility for the ³movement² is with the people themselves, rather than directed by a cadre of experts.

Furthermore, nonviolent can be effectively used against other systems of domination, such as state repression, racism, bureaucracy, patriarchy, and the domination of nature. And, since more of the population can be mobilized in a participatory fashion than in ³legitimate² violent channels, changes are likely to be more lasting, more encompassing, and more transformative.

As unfashionable as it may be to say so, the proverb that ³the ends justify the means² is perilous and absurd when violent means fracture trust in the expectation of a more stable and less violent future.

-------------
Nonviolence Versus Capitalism by Brian Martin
London: War Resisters’ International ©2001
Available free on the web in html and pdf at
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/01nvc/
In addition, there is a printed paperback version available for barter or purchase (details on the web).