Introduction to Non-Violence

ns of violence had been available to them. In those cases there was no question but that the choice rested upon the expediency of the moment rather than upon principle. In the cases of non-violen

purposes. They might rely upon persuasion and education of their opponents through emotional or intellectual appeals; but such action would have no coercive element in it, so we shall consider it in a later section. Or they might atte

r inter-group cooperation in the maintenance of our modern social, economic, and political systems. Under modern conditions the group against whom the resistance is directed must have the cooperation of the resisting group in order to continue

to the conflict can best or longest dispense with the services of the other. If the resisters are less able to hold out than the defenders, or if the costs of continued resi

ht give support or opposition to one side or the other depending upon which could enlist their sympathies. Because of the deep-seated dislike of

onlookers. The spectacle of men suffering for a principle and not hitting back is a moving one. It obliges the power holders to condescend to explai

on for an increase of five cents an hour in wages, to that of a whole people demanding political independe

ctors involved their purposes could best be served by avoiding violence. These factors would include the likelihood of counter-violence, an estimate of the relative physical strength of the two parties to the conflict, and the attitude of the public toward the party that first used violence. In practice the action of those who avoid violence because they regard it as wrong is very little different from that

rn society. This type of action is used constantly in our own communities, and the histories of western peoples present us with a large number of ex

TNO

lin (Ed.), Beyond Dilemmas (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1937), 130-137;

tely coercive as violence itself, in which case, while it has the advantage of not in

uction" to Case, No

abor

he is fighting for no principle during such a strike, so that he is apt to calculate his monetary loss from it against the advantages he would have to surrender in order to reach an agreement. When he concludes that it would be cheaper to give in, it is possible for the management and the strikers to arrive at a settlement. If the employer does

continued refusal to cooperate against the gains that they might hope for by continued resistance, and when the cost becomes greater than the prospective gain they are receptive to suggestions for compromise. They too may be contending for the principle of the right of organization and control

hat in order to defend them they will resort to violence against the strikebreaker. At this point, the public, which is apt to be somewhat sympathetic toward their demands for fair wages or better working conditions, turns against them and supports the employer, greatly adding to his moral standing and weakening that of the strikers, until the strikers, feeling that the forces against them are too great, are apt to give way. The employer will find the same negative r

n the theory that the worker had a property right to his job, just as the employer did to his capital equipment. Such strikes were for a time more successful than the older variety, because strike-breaking was virtually impossible. However, it was not long before public opinion forced the abandonment of the technique. It was revolutionary in character, since it threatened the old concept of private property. The fear of small property holders that their own possessions would be jeopardized by the success of such a movement, ma

TNO

ce in an Aggressive World (N

Violence: An Essay on War and Revolutio

Bo

ish Land League, insisting that the land of Ireland should belong to its people, used this method of opposition in the years that followed. Its members refused to deal with peasants or tradesmen who sided with the government, but they used acts of violence and intimidation as well as economic pressure. The government employed 15,000 military police and 40,000 soldiers

ganized labor in America used the boycott against the goods of manufacturers who refused to deal with unions, and

regarded decisions of the League, is essentially similar to the boycott. In fact much of the thinking of the pacifist movement between the two

TNO

olence and intimidation. The fact that it is coercive does not place it beyond the moral pale,

A Political and Cultural History of Modern

Ligt,

rcion by the Am

r 1763, the colonists answered with protests and refusals to cooperate. Against both the Stamp Act of 1765 and the Townshend Duties of 1767, they adopted non-importation agreements whereby they refused to import British goods. To be sure, the more radical colonists did not eschew violence on the basis of principle, and the direct action by which they forced colonial merchants to respect the terms of the non

use of their economic weapon, and began to gather arms for a violent rebellion. The attempt of the British to destroy these weapons led to Lexington and Concord.[45] What had been non-violent opposition to British policy had become armed revolt and civil war. It was a war which would probably have ended in the defeat of the colonists if they had not been able to fish

TNO

k the British merchants at a time when trade was bad." The Roots of American Civilization (New York: Crofts, 1938), 632. Later he says, "The colonial

John C. Miller, Origins of the American Revolutio

ller, 3

n-Violent Coe

on to Great Br

Act of 1914 was not put into operation because of the war, Sinn Fein gained ground. In the elections of 1918, three fourths of the successful Irish candidates were members of the party, so they met at Dublin as an Irish parliament rather than proceeding to Westminster. In 1921, after a new Home Rule Act had resulted only in additional opposition, the British government negotiated a settlement with the representative

TNO

hod and the Peace Method: An Historical Contrast (New York: Revell,

th Politic

in Russia, and thus forced Britain to cease her intervention.[48] In 1926, the general strike in Britain had revolutionary implications which the Government and the public recognized only too

in the Kapp Putsch. In 1924, when the French Army invaded the Ruhr, the non-violent refusal of the German workers to mine coal for France had the support o

TNO

eace, 633-634; Huxley,

Communist Anar

's "Preface" to Shridharani,

in Internat

nize the American position, actually were more costly to American shippers than were the depredations of the French and the British, so they forced a reversal of American policy. The war against England that followed did not have the support of the shipping interests, whose trade it was supposedly trying to protect. It was more an adventure in American imperialism than it was

nations who made a gesture toward using them actually did not want to hinder Italian expansion, or did not

tion of the resisters, (3) solidarity among a large enough number of resisters, and (4) in most cases, the favorable reaction of the public not involved in the conflict. When all or most of these factors have been present, non-violent coercion ha

TNO

Durham, N. C.: Duke University, 1927); Julius W. Pra

e De Ligt, 81-82, 162-163; Horace G. Alexander, "Great Possessions" in Gerald Heard, et. al., The New Pacif