More Nonviolence

Gerry is Still troubled... by contradictions within the nonviolence movement.

I think there are people in the nonviolence movement who condone provocation, sabotage, vandalism, and violent retaliation as acceptable methods, either because for them the end justifies the means, or that if they receive violence that they are are entitled to return it. This bothers me hugely. And I don't think the nonviolence movement, as a movement, does enough to clearly distance and disassociate itself from protestors and activists who do advocate and employ these methods. I think there are double standards and it makes me want to withdraw from the movement. ...

From the Wikipedia article on Nonviolence, I think Gerry's concerns can be best expressed as

Also of primary significance is the notion that just means are the most likely to lead to just ends. When Gandhi said that, "the means may be likened to the seed, the end to a tree," he expressed the philosophical kernel of what some refer to as prefigurative politics. Proponents of nonviolence reason that the actions we take in the present inevitably re-shape the social order in like form. They would argue, for instance, that it is fundamentally irrational to use violence to achieve a peaceful society.

Emphasis Mine

In other words, if you see violence as a tool to achieve your ends, then you will use violence to attain and maintain those ends. Nonviolence urges you to think of creative ways of achieving your ends without the use of violence.

In the same Wikipedia article, among the selected criticisms of nonviolence,

Malcolm X also clashed with civil rights leaders over the issue of nonviolence, arguing that violence should not be ruled out where no other option remained:

Concerning nonviolence, it is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks.

I think Gerry is looking for what we Communists call the perfect party programme. There are people who search for the party that has the exact same ideas as themselves. However, the nonviolence movement has no such party programme: it is a collection of groups. There is no central committee deciding policy. As the nonviolence movement is unstructured, one can only influence it by being engaged with it.

Instead of seeking ideological purity, I think a better approach is to know what areas of agreement are and what the areas of disagreement are. The question is then can you live with those areas of disagreement? Earlier in the same Wikipedia article, there is this:

Finally, the notion of Satya, or truth, is central to the Gandhian conception of nonviolence. Gandhi saw truth as something that is multifaceted and unable to be grasped in its entirety by any one individual. We all carry pieces of the truth, he believed, but we need the pieces of others’ truths in order to pursue the greater truth. This led him to a belief in the inherent worth of dialogue with opponents, and a sincere wish to understand their drives and motivations. On a practical level, willingness to listen to another's point of view is largely dependent on reciprocity. In order to be heard by one's opponents, one must also be prepared to listen.

Emphasis Mine

In other words, by going to meetings, attending protests, practising nonviolence, engaging others who disagree with you, can one make some changes in others and in one's self. Change happens through engagement not through withdrawal.

For the record, I restate my position on nonviolence: all political actions should be planned with nonviolence as the guiding principle but I reserve the right to defend myself and innocent people against violent attack.