[Previous entry: "PETA Targets KFC"]
Green Consciousness Archive Index
[Next entry: "Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?"]
[Previous entry: "PETA Targets KFC"]
Green Consciousness Archive Index
[Next entry: "Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?"]
Click Here to Sign the Safe Space Petition
01/07/2003
"Tactics - Non Consent"
Non Violence vs Capitalism by Ryan of the Anti-ignorance Network
The leading contemporary theorist of nonviolent action is Gene Sharp, whose book The Politics of Nonviolent Action is a classic in the field. As the theoretical foundation for nonviolent action, Sharp endorses the consent theory of power.[21]
In this model, power is not a monolithic entity held by oppressors, but rather a relation between individuals and groups in which subjects, through consent or acquiescence, give power to rulers. Nonviolent action is a withdrawal of this consent. Noncooperation, for example a refusal to obey, disrupts the power relationship.
Sharp argues that consent is central to all systems of power. This includes the consent of groups such as the police that carry out the orders of rulers. Nonviolent action disrupts the usual pattern of acquiescence and has the potential to win over third parties and members of the oppressing group.
Sharp's theory of power is very empowering for activists. It says that power is always precarious and that people at any level, through their own actions, can challenge and undermine repressive and oppressive systems.
In contrast, theories that conceive of power as something held by rulers, or as built into systems such as social class or bureaucracy, do not have a built-in role for human agency.[22]
The consent theory of power is easiest to apply when oppressors are obvious and distinct, such as dictators, police and occupying troops.
When nonviolent activists confront soldiers, as in Beijing in 1989, it is clear who is exercising violence for the purposes of repression and it is clear that undermining the will of the troops, commanders and government leaders is vital to success of the nonviolent struggle.
However, the consent theory of power doesn't work nearly so well when confronted with systems of oppression where there are no obvious rulers or agents of repression.[23]
Capitalism is one such system. Nearly everyone is implicated in the market, simply by buying and selling goods and services. If markets based on ownership of property are exploitative, then nearly everyone benefits at different points, though some benefit far more than others.
Some systems of collective ownership and use exist in capitalist societies, such as public parks, public transport and libraries, to which everyone has access. But these are islands of collective provision in a system largely based on private ownership, in which many people own land, vehicles and books.
While some capitalists own vast empires built on real estate, factories and copyrights, many others are mini-capitalists, perhaps owning a small parcel of property or a few shares.
Anyone who puts their money in a bank indirectly invests in the various enterprises to which the bank gives loans.
A key element in capitalism is the way people's labor power is turned into a commodity. Employees sell their labor power to employers in exchange for money.
Yet in everyday life many people are employers in a small way, for example when they pay someone to mind their children, transport their belongings or handle their legal affairs.
Lots of people are in a contradictory situation, being both employees and employers in different contexts.
The complexities continue within workplaces, most of which are organized bureaucratically, namely with hierarchy and a division of labor.
Workers in mid ranges of the hierarchy are subordinate to those above but have formal authority over those below. Such workers are both rulers and ruled.
Systems of domination with clear rulers and agents, such as military dictatorships, make it quite clear to opponents who has to be opposed. These are systems based on command, as indeed are military forces.
Withdrawing consent from command systems, though often dangerous, is straightforward.[24]
Capitalism, in contrast, is a system without such clear rulers and agents. It is a system of distributed power, in which nearly everyone is a type of collaborator.
It is far more difficult to challenge such a system by saying to people, "withdraw consent." Does this mean not to obey the boss?
Does it mean not to buy goods from a large corporation? Does it mean not to respect private property?
Read More Here
[Previous entry: "PETA Targets KFC"]
Green Consciousness Archive Index
[Next entry: "Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?"]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
