MUST WE CHOOSE BETWEEN VIOLENCE AND IRRELEVANCE?

by Jay Edson

In her essay “Listening to Grasshoppers...” (see the current article in “What’s New”), Arundhati Roy describes the genocidal attack on the Moslems in Gujarat in 2002, and expresses her concern that the stage may be being set for further genocidal acts against Muslims in India. Is it is reasonable, she asks, to worry whether India, which “is poised on the threshold of ‘progress’ is also poised on the threshold of genocide?” Over and above this specific worry, she expresses her concern for the ease with which societies resort to genocide to solve real or perceived problems, and the regularity with which they deny to themselves and others that the acts have taken place, or if they have, that they were in fact genocidal. She observes that “hundreds of thousands have broken faith with the institutions of India’s democracy,” and have turned to Mao for inspiration for ways to make themselves safer.We are talking here about

the possibility of an armed revolution. Such a reaction is, of course, understandable. Yet, as I read her, Roy goes a step further than acknowledging that it is understandable. She seems to endorse it as the only path left for Muslims and the poor in India. “Are they [the Indian Maoists] Idealists fighting for a Better World? Well... anything is better than annihilation.”

I believe that we are face to face with genocidal policies not only in India but in the world as a whole. In fact, it seems to me that the current policies of the neo-liberal establishment can only lead to genocidal outcomes unless a way is found to alter its course. We do, in fact, need a revolution. I respect Roy’s cogent analysis of this and many other situations, and believe that her deepest commitments are fully compatible with the policies of the Politics of Health page. But in this editorial I would like to question whether the progressive revolution that is needed can best be accomplished by arms and violence.

Perhaps in these days of rampant language abuse, when “peace” can mean war, “freedom” can mean slavery, “democracy” can mean rule by an oligarchy of the wealthy, and “fighting terrorism” can mean the systematic use of deceit, spying, torture, maiming, threats, bombing, poisoning, and terror of all kinds to accomplish the political agenda of the very rich, it might be a good idea to begin with the definition of a few key terms.

By the term “progressive revolution” I refer to any efforts to alter the fundamental structures of current society in such a manner that an increase in the equitable distribution of rights, health and welfare resources, and decision making is effected.

A couple of examples might clarify the point. The presidential elections that are held in the United States every four years are not revolutions and as a rule provide little opportunity for the advancement of progressive goals. They simply determine who among the oligarchy of wealthy rulers in the country will get to wear the crown for the next four years. Rhetoric changes, and personalities differ, but most often whoever wins the election will simply carry on with business as usual. The activities of an organization like Mad Pride, on the other hand are both progressive and revolutionary. The changes that are sought by this organization are fundamental – they aim at a profound transformation in how people think about themselves. They would also change how “madness” is thought about and talked about, and would attack the legislative mandates that permit a group of people to be harassed, controlled, medicated against their will, demeaned, and incarcerated even when they have broken no law.

Another key term is “violence.” By violence, in this editorial, I mean any action that has the purpose of maiming, injuring or killing another human being. I am not including efforts aimed at property damage, or the disruption of social systems. Also I am not including actions that produce only psychological or emotional pain.

Finally the term “genocide” merits some definition. No definition is perfect, but the one by the UN that Roy cites in her article seem good:

Any of the following Acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [or] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

However, in addition to “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction” we need to add ” deliberately ignoring or not responding to genocidal conditions when one knows they are occurring when one has the capacity to intervene.” This, for example, has been the situation in Darfur for years. In this case we might speak of “passive genocide.” (See the “genocide” section of the Human Rights topic on this page..

That Western civilization in general, and specifically the United States, is committed to policies that can only be called genocidal appears to be the case. The wealthy elite of the world are faced with a dilemma. If the lifestyle they enjoy were to be shared with the majority of people on the earth, the ecology of the earth could not endure the demands that would be placed on it. Logically there are only two possible solutions to this difficulty. Those in power can protect their lifestyles at all costs, or they can join with the rest of the citizens of this planet and work toward creating a world in which everybody can enjoy an adequate level of health and welfare. To move in this later direction it would have to be agreed that no single person or group would be able to consume hugely disproportionate amounts of the world’s resources.

The reluctance of the wealthy to radically modify their life style is understandable. Nobody likes to surrender advantages they are accustomed to enjoy. But the alternative is very costly. It means holding the mass of humanity in a condition of abject poverty from which only a token few will ever escape, and either hoping that these billions of people will die off or actively exterminating them. This disinherited mass of humanity will prove to be increasingly troublesome. The walls, fences and gated communities created to keep them separate from the privileged will not suffice to keep them harmless forever. The “protect one’s lifestyle at all costs” choice must ultimately lead to genocide, either passive or active – or to a revolution that will eliminate the ruling class. This is not a wise direction in which to move.

Already we are seeing genocidal solutions being implemented. Thus far, if one includes the deaths causes by our destruction of Iraq’s infrastructure, (note that this is a form of genocide by the UN definition) we have killed about a million of them. We have blocked the kinds of cheap medicines that are needed to treat the AIDS epidemic in Africa. We are converting lands needed to produce food into land used to produce fuel for our RVs. We have ignored the ongoing genocide in Darfur. We have put no breaks on an economic system that continues to widen the gap between the rich and the poor. All these policies kill people. They are all, to one degree are another, genocidal.

Western civilization is ecocidal as well. We are destroying the ecology that is our only home on the gamble that there will be a last minute bailout – a new and miraculous technological fix. It is hubris to think we will be able to create an ecology from scratch after destroying the existing one. For all our expertise we cannot create a single living cell from scratch.

It has been pointed out that unrestrained capitalism has proven itself capable of creating wealth. Never mind that it produces such an inequitable distribution of goods. It is argued that “a rising tide lifts all boats.” The answer according to this kind of thinking, is simply to let the multinationals do their thing without undue restraint and some of the wealth will trickle down. In this way, by measures of absolute rather than relative wealth, everybody benefits.

It is not necessary to go into the knotty problems of whether the neo-liberal establishment is a meritocracy and therefore just because it rewards the fittest. Whatever one thinks about the social Darwinist perspective that justifies the exploitation of the disadvantaged by the wealthy elite, the fact is that the planet is simply not big enough for this philosophy to produce anything but disaster. Even assuming that increasing amounts of wealth will trickle down, before the poor will gain the minimum level of clean water, adequate sanitation, health care, and tolerable working conditions necessary for a viable life, the world will be inundated. There really are only two possible solutions: the equitable distribution of resources, decision making and rights, or active and passive genocide. It would seem to be a no-brainer.

Ultimately western civilization seems to be suicidal. So, yes, we must agree with Arundhati Roy’s basic premise. Western civilization is profoundly violent – genocidal even. People need some means of defending themselves from this violence. Revolutionary changes are needed to alter the path we are on if we wish to survive as a species.

Neo-liberals claim to be committed to democracy. So far so good. But who isn’t for democracy? At any rate who is not committed to the term and to the appearance of democracy. I have struggled for some time with two questions that puzzled me. Why do working people keep voting for candidates who clearly do not have their interests at heart – candidates that will outsource their jobs, destroy their unions, imprison their kids in highly regimented soul-killing schools, deny them access to adequate health care, and allow their natural resources to be devastated, their water to be polluted, and their air to be poisoned? The second question is why does the wealthy elite tolerate, and in some cases even encourage, political democracies when all the other institutions they are interested in creating in society are totalitarian in nature? Clearly the ruling elite does not permit real participation in decision making in the workplace, nor do they want to see it in churches, schools, homes or governmental bureaucracies. It was not until I read Edward Bernays’ “Propaganda” that this matter was clarified for me.

In his book “Propaganda,” Edward Bernays wrote in 1928: “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.” I suppose that the free marketplace of ideas is another one of those quaint notions – like the idea that it is wrong to torture people – that must be set aside in the name of progress. Whatever one thinks of Bernay’s advocacy of propaganda, two of the most basic points he makes in his book are certainly accurate. The first point is that no government can ultimately maintain its control if it consistently violates the deepest sensibilities of the majority of it’s people. Therefore what the public believes is important. The second point is that a group of professionals, skilled in manipulating the opinions of the “masses,” constitutes the real government. As he put it “propaganda is the executive arm of the invisible government.”

The answer to both my puzzling questions is the same. The ruling elite has become incredibly skilled in manipulating the minds of its citizens. It can get a critical mass of them to think, feel, believe and do damn near anything it wants them to. Citizens vote for these people because they have lost the capacity to make connections between things for themselves, and therefore they cannot see what is in their interest. Given this capacity for mind-control, the elite has nothing to fear from the machinery of “democracy” as it presently exists. It provides the appearance but not the substance of participation in decision making. Very few people who are committed to the sort of progressive revolutionary change that we need will ever be elected as governors or congresspeople. But the appearance of participation is valuable. It deflects dissent and it gives progressives who could be troublesome rather harmless activities to spend their energies on. I was told a couple of years ago, for example, how important it was to get democrats into congress. Most progressives worked diligently toward this end. Well, they are there now. But where are the big changes?

Consider the choices that are being lined up for the fall election. Both the Democratic and the Republican parties are dominated by the genocidal elite. In point of fact, we are offered no real choice in the candidates that are presented to us. Which of the candidates is speaking of the need to bring to an end the shameful, arrogant and incredibly violent system of Empire that the US has imposed on the world? Which candidate is speaking about the radical and profound changes that are necessary with regard to global warming? Which of them is talking about implementing a universal health care system paid for by a graduated income tax that requires the rich to pay their share? Which of them is talking about empowering the impoverished workers of the world?

Seeing the futility of hoping to effect progressive revolutionary change through the present forms of democracy, is it time that progressives turn to more violent forms of political action? Must we choose between advocating violence and being irrelevant? Must we fight fire with fire – meet violence with greater violence? I think not.

Before we look into this difficult question, perhaps a distinction needs to be made – one that will give the question a narrower and perhaps more manageable focus. What we are concerned about in this editorial is revolution – not just power struggles between factions – between individuals, corporations, and states. Also, I am not asking in this editorial whether nation states have a right to defend themselves from invasions and from occupying armies, as for example, Iraq and Palestine are attempting to do. Nation states always have tried to defend themselves from attack and have always experienced an occupying army on their soil as a cause for profound humiliation. Probably that will not change, whatever we do. America, for example, would almost certainly put up some resistance if a foreign power were to attempt to occupy it (presumably for its own good), take control of its natural resources, and claim the right to establish a permanent military base on its soil. Perhaps even with regard to the issue of nation states defending themselves, the question of violent vs. non-violent means should be debated. But in this editorial I am only concerned with the use of violence as a technique for achieving revolutionary change – which is to say fundamental changes with regard to the social, economic and political norms and practices that determine how life is conducted within a society.

It is commonly assumed that real change is possible only with the use of violence. Those who would pursue revolutionary means are naive do-gooders who are unwilling to do what is necessary to effect real change. I hope to suggest in this editorial that the opposite is true.

Before presenting the next part of my argument, a couple of caveats are in order. I am not a historian and I will be speaking about time spans and events that are very large and subject to many interpretations. Faced with the daunting task of saying anything that is meaningful at all, I confess that I was tempted to simply leave this part of my editorial out. Yet we must try to learn from the past, and the fact is that some of my conclusions are based on my reading of history. The points that I make here are modest. My primary aim is simply to suggest that the results of violent revolutions tend to be mixed at best, and that it is possible for them to produce outcomes that are worse than the conditions that they set out to correct. I offer my observations with the conviction that, given the high cost of violent revolutions, the burden of proof is with those who advocate for their use. Those who would lead us into a path of violence need to provide substantial evidence that violent revolution does with some reasonable degree of reliability produce its intended results.

The other caveat is that it is not my aim to judge those who have participated in violent revolutions – especially when they did so with the intention of escaping from rather intolerable conditions of social inequity.

Large events in history typically have a variety of consequences – some good and some not so good. We do know that violent revolutions produce huge amounts of suffering for many people – as much so as do conventional wars. If it can be shown that the outcome of violent revolutions is generally ambiguous at best – that they tend to produce as many evils as they correct, that would argue very strongly that those who are interested in revolutionary changes in society should avoid the use of violence as one of their techniques. If it can further be shown that non-violent methods for achieving revolutionary changes have been successfully employed in relation to a significant number of issues, then it would seem to be almost and open and shut case. I think that the history of the last century provides sufficient evidence to demonstrate both the generally poor outcome associated with violent revolution as well as the existence of viable alternatives.

The three largest armed revolutionary upheavals of the twentieth century were the Mexican revolution, the Russian revolution and the Chinese revolution. The Russian revolution led to the dictatorship established and maintained by Joseph Stalin. Minimally one can say that this was a totalitarian regime in which civil rights were almost completely absent. Some gains may have been made made with regard to assuring that most people had their minimal needs for food and shelter provided for. But this has to be weighed against the suffering caused by the execution or incarceration in gulags of millions of “dissonants” (real or imagined) during the Soviet Union’s various purges. Was the average unskilled laborer under Stalin’s regime better off than the average peasant in Czarist Russia? I don’t know. Given the overwhelmingly bleak picture of what was established, I am not sure whether it really matters. If “socialism” means sharing the means of production then the outcome of this revolution was not socialism. If owning the means of production does not entail having a say in how things are done, then what does it mean? In the rigid top-down system of control established in Russia under Stalin the average worker had no more say in how things were run that did the average serf in Czarist Russia. I find it difficult to be enthusiastic about such an outcome. The fact that the imposition of a regime like Stalins was probably not in the minds of those who initiated the revolution does not contradict what I am saying. Rather, it is one of the points I am making.

It appears to me that the outcome of the Chinese revolution was hardly better. It also ended in a dictatorship with a very rigid top-down system of control. As is the case when any one individual is awarded almost god-like status in a country, Mao’s quirks and idiosyncrasies failed to be corrected by open dialog and debate. This can, and in fact, did lead to policies that were unrealistic in the extreme. Among others things it led to what may have been the greatest famine in human history. With regard to human rights Mao was equally erratic. The Hundred Flowers period in which free expression was briefly encouraged was followed by a crackdown during which at least a million people were executed. In addition perhaps another million and a half were sent to oppressive mind-control schools. On the positive side, both life expectancy and literacy improved dramatically during Mao’s rule. Whether this could have been achieved without his autocratic and harsh approach to governing the country can be debated. Again, if the core of socialist ideology has to do with the sharing of decision making, it is hard to claim that China was ever a socialist state. Certainly what has evolved at this point, whatever it’s strengths and weaknesses, is neither communism nor socialism. Does the balance between the desirable and the undesirable consequences that resulted from the Chinese revolution lean more toward the positive than the negative? It’s it’s more than I can weigh with any confidence, but I’m inclined to think not. In any case, such an ambiguous and mixed result would not inspire me to participate in a similar kind of brutal and bloody struggle.

From this distance it is not at all clear that the huge amount of suffering created by the violent struggles either in the Russian or the Chinese revolutions was justified by the outcome.

The Mexican revolution is harder to assess. The constitution of 1917 was in many ways an admirable and progressive document. After a significant period of chaos, the order of things established under the leadership of Lazaro Cardenas was progressive and in many ways admirable. At the same time Mexico has shown itself to be prone to political violence to a degree that has been seriously compromised its ability to create tolerable living conditions for many of its people. Perhaps the violence of the revolution left people too inclined to resort to violent solutions to their ongoing conflicts. Violence does tend to beget violence. In all fairness to Mexico, it also needs to be said that developing a stable and progressive pattern of life for its people has certainly been impeded by its violent, intrusive and reactionary neighbor to the north.

Obviously the above brief sketch of the three biggest revolutions of the last century does not represent an assessment of all the significant revolutionary efforts of that century. Let me just suggest in passing that an appraisal of the revolutionary efforts associated with the Spanish Civil War or with the Cuban revolution would lead to a similar conclusion. They produced equivocal results. Cuba may in some ways be the most impressive accomplishment of violent revolutions in the last century. Certainly we have a lot to learn from its health care system, and some of its ecological efforts. On the other hand the regime has been justifiably criticized for its suppression of free speech. This lack of support for basic civil liberties has been an all too common outcome of violent revolutions. Nor have regimes that are the outcome of armed revolutions tended to share much decision making power with the people they set out to liberate. A revolution that establishes a more equitable distribution of medical services and material resources, but which fails to involve people in participatory forms of decision making is, at best, an incomplete revolution.

It cannot be claimed that nothing of value has ever been accomplished by armed revolution. On the other hand it can be demonstrated that very often violent revolutions obtain results that are far from progressive, and in some cases establish conditions that are as bad or worse than those they set out to correct. This is in addition to the extreme suffering that is created by the violence of the revolution itself. Given the equivocal results suggested by history, I think it is safe to say the violent revolution is not a dependable means for accomplishing progressive agendas.

It is important to keep in mind our definition of “progressive revolution.” It pertains to “any efforts to alter the fundamental structures of current society in such a manner that an increase in the equitable distribution of rights, health and welfare resources, and decision making is effected.” A movement need not commit itself to the a total overhaul of the entire system in one decisive battle in order to be a significant piece of the needed progressive revolution. It is only necessary that its members advocate for at least one change in our social arrangements that is fundamental, and that they pursue a reasonable strategy for its accomplishment.

Below I have developed a list of a variety of movements that advocate for fundamental social changes using non-violent techniques. To discuss each of them would be far beyond the scope of this editorial. In each case I have limited myself to providing a link to a site where the matter can be explored in greater detail. The list is not meant to be exhaustive, and no claim is made that the given link is the only or even the best source for additional information. My aim is simply to suggest that we are not helplessly entrapped in an intolerable status quo. These groups have found ways to change things. The degree of success that they have had varies, but I think it can be said that all of them have effected significant changes.

The woman’s liberation movement – National Organization For Women

The gay liberation movement – Gay Liberation Front

The civil rights movement Leadership Conference on Civil Rights

The anti war movement World Peace Movement

The movement for sexual liberation Uncommon Sense

“Normalization” for the mentally retarded The Association For Retarded Citizens

The “green” or pro-ecology movement GreenPeace

Worker owned businesses National Cooperative Business Association

The labor movement International Labor Movement

The struggle of debt relief for poor countries Jubilee 2000

Health rights advocacy Peoples Health Movement

Universal Health Care Health Care Action Network

Self-determination for the psychiatrically labeled Mind Freedom

Rights for the physically disabled World Association of People With Disabilities

Counterculture European Protest Movements

The struggle for election reform Common Cause

Many of the social change efforts cited above were successful to an astonishing degree. Our society is a very different place now because of them. Furthermore the changes they effected were for the most part those that they set out to accomplish. While one can not claim that violence was never a part of some of the processes that were initiated, none of above movements used or advocated for the use of arms as a primary technique. Also it should be emphasized that it was possible to achieve significant changes in the economic sphere by non-violent means. The welfare state in the Scandinavian countries was ushered in without a violent revolution and managed to achieve a very high level of well-being for its citizens for many years without suppressing civil rights. Socialized health care systems have been initiated in every industrialized country in the world with the exception of the United States – all without the use of violence.

Alternative Story telling:

The United States, an innocent and peace-loving democracy, whose power was achieved because of its moral superiority to the rest of the world, was attacked for no better reason than the enemy hated its freedom and prosperity. Iraq was in large part responsible for the 9-11 attack and was an immediate threat to the US because it was a central base for al Qaeda and had huge stockpiles of “weapons of mass destruction.” There is no need to go into more detail. You know the story, and you undoubtedly know that none of it was based on facts. But it was this story then drew the American people into yet another war of aggression conducted to protect its “interests” (our “interests” being primarily our oil, which by some fluke of nature was deposited under Iraq’s soil). This story – false to the point of being bizarre – was what made it possible for the US to invade.

Propaganda is always presented in a narrative form. It consists of telling false stories which are deliberately created to make people think, feel and act in ways that further the hidden political and economic aims of the propagandist. Telling an emotionally compelling story is powerful. It causes real things to happen in the observable world. There is perhaps only one thing that is more powerful than a well designed and frequently repeated fable – and that is a truthful story – one that is told with emotional honesty, and that sticks to the facts. “The Jungle,” by Upton Sinclair, “The Autobiography of Malcolm X,” and Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States” would be examples of narrative writing that has made real changes in the world. I mention these in passing simply to illustrate the point. Probably any story that is told in a truthful manner has a political dimension to it, and contains a world-transformative potential to one degree or another. The power of truthful story telling should not be underestimated.

Grassroots organizing:

In her article Roy points out that a major part of the success of the RSS “lies in the fact that it has put in decades of hard work and has created a network of organizations at every level of society, something that no other organization can claim.” Something similar can be said of the political strategy used by the Religious Right in this country. A good deal of the work of their organizing was done for them. A network of evangelical churches already existed. But the Religious Right organized these churches into a powerful political force, created new organizational structures and encouraged organized action on all levels. Soon they were found pushing their agendas everywhere from local school boards to prayer groups in the Pentagon. The policies advocated by these churches are for the most part appalling, and their willingness to advocate for extreme forms of violence in the name of their gentle founder is shocking. But the transformative power they achieved with regard to the social climate of the United States was accomplished without violence. Progressives need to learn from them.

Teaching people how to think for themselves:

Teaching people how to see for themselves the connections between their suffering and various political, social and ecological facts can be a powerful revolutionary tool. Basing his approach on the work of Paulo Freire who wrote “Pedagogy of the Oppressed,” David Werner frequently conducts workshops in which he teaches the participants to make a community assessment in which people learn how to ask the relevant “but why” questions. In this way they become clear about the links between their health problems and the political, social and ecological problems around them. For a more complete description of one of these workshops, see . The revolutionary potential of such teaching cannot be underestimated. It is this kind of grassroots action that builds a base upon which new ways of organizing our common lives can be built.

Strikes:

The use of strikes was a very effective tool used by unions as they organized for worker’s wages, rights and benefits. The union movement was not totally free of violence, but the primary focus of the strike was simply the refusal to work. This technique produced real changes. Wages were raised and working conditions improved.

Consciousness raising groups:

I think the outstanding example of the effective use of this technique was the use of consciousness raising groups to help women to no longer internalize the limiting and oppressive definition of their identity as it was thrust on them by the larger society. The resulting shift in the way women perceived themselves ultimately produced profound changes in the way women were perceived by others, and in the norms governing how they were treated in society. This pervasive shift in social patterns was achieved virtually without any violence.

Refusal to preform one’s social role as demanded:

One never knows what the consequences might be from simply refusing to carry out a social role based on oppression. Of course there is always real danger in doing so. But the possibility of beginning a world transformative chain of events is also there. On December 1st, 1955 Rosa Parks refused to surrender her seat to a white woman on a bus in Montgomery Alabama. That led to a bus boycott that threatened someone’s pocketbook, and this country has never been the same since. There is no claim here that racism has been totally eradicated in this country, but it is a mistake to underestimate the accomplishments of the Civil Rights Movement. It has been a long time since I have seen a lunch counter or a water fountain or a swimming pool that is reserved for whites only.

The above examples are intended simply to remind the reader of a few of the techniques that have already been developed, and some of the better known situations in which they have been used to effect political changes. These changes were real – they altered the structure of existing power relations, they established rights where rights had not existed before, and they altered the way in which goods and services were distributed. They accomplished these ends by first finding a non-violent way of putting a stick in the spokes of the established order. They interrupted “business as usual.”

Without some sort of disruption of the system, the new stories will probably not be heard, the new consciousness will not develop, and new social forms and practices will not be established. But the stick in the wheels need not be a violent act against anyone. Real change – both in the general consciousness of the population and in the physical and economic arrangements of society – by non-violent means is possible.

We can no longer support our present way of doing things. It is violent and ultimately genocidal. When genocide is business as usual we must find a new way of doing business.

It is simply not true that fundamental or radical social change requires the use of violence. Effecting change requires risk, energy, sacrifice, intelligence, imagination, determination and perhaps a great deal of educating, grass root organizing, and hard work. But it does not require guns, poisons, bombs, deceit, or any of the other horrors that go with armed conflict. We have evolved to a point where we, as a species, are very skilled and powerful with regard to technology. This technology will be our undoing as a species unless we begin to grow up spiritually as well. Perhaps one of the most important choices we need to make at this point in our evolution is to put behind us forever the use of war and armed revolution as normal and accepted means of effecting political change and resolving social conflicts.

I do not underestimate the threat that the US determination to maintain a global empire creates for the world. It is equally evident that the continuing gap between the rich and the poor that is being created by the neo-liberal establishment is dangerous in the extreme. There will be no easy way to bell this cat. But there are inner contradictions in the system that will cause it to self-destruct. We already see this beginning to happen in the world economic recession that we are entering. Things will get much worse. It is unclear when, or even if, the world economy will recover. The coming ecological and economic malfunctions will create great hardship for a lot of people. But the same malfunctions will provide us with a window of opportunity. Perhaps as more people find out that they have to choose between getting medical care for their children or feeding them they will become less malleable to the propaganda they read in their daily newspaper and soak up from their TVs. Perhaps when they and their families are hungry because global warming has produced drought conditions they will ask why they have been lied to, and begin to think about what needs to be changed. Even the seemingly impregnable power of the multi-nationals can be successfully challenged.

Can we be sure that we will be able to turn things around? Not at all. Perhaps the tipping point has already passed, and the earth will become uninhabitable by human beings. We know almost for certain that we will experience a significant degree of suffering from the collapse of the economy, from an escalating social-class conflict on a world scale, and from ecological damage. Perhaps the inevitable catastrophes will be limited and we will be able to recover from them with a more equitable and sustainable way of doing business. Perhaps the catastrophes will be colossal, but a remnant will remain to try again. I don’t think anybody knows for sure. In the absence of any certainty, I would like to suggest a working hypothesis. I would suggest that we act on the assumption that we have not yet reached the tipping point, and that non-violent means can be found for turning things around. I think that this hypothesis will offer us the best chance of creating an inhabitable, sustainable, and perhaps even beautiful world. The competing hypotheses – that it is already too late, or that we must add our bit of violence to a world that already reeks of violence – are, I believe, dead ends.