Scan barcode
mollye1836's review against another edition
4.0
Gelderloos makes a strong case for a “diversity of tactics”, as opposed to ideological non-violence—which is usually rooted in a certain amount of safety from the state, and privilege. His observations are acerbic but usually accurate. Overall, it is a succinct, thought- provoking book, which helpful footnotes for further reading.
I have a few concerns, such as the way he refers to black people, Jewish people, and other groups as “blacks, Jews” etc. I don’t think this use of language is appropriate; I find it dehumanizing when a person’s race or ethnicity becomes the sole noun in lieu of their personhood. It’s not uncommon, even among left-wing thinkers, but I was surprised to see this kind of language in a book published in 2018. His discussion of the Holocaust/Shoah threw me off a bit, as well—he seems to believe that the Jewish people did not fight back against their oppressors “enough” (a very troubling train of thought) while acknowledging the existence of Jewish militant bands such as the group in the forests of Lithuania that hunted Nazis. I’ll have to revisit that section and read it a second time and then come back to this review. And his use of “western civilization”—sometimes he defines this as Europe and North America, but not always. What does this mean? I’m not trying to be pedantic—i think we need to accurately describe this term in order to understand what we oppose about it. Even within Europe and North America, there are a variety of political belief systems (albeit many of them more conservative than other parts of the world), cultures, and hierarchies. While there are many aspects of “the West” to criticize, it is easy to fall into the trap of romanticizing every other area of the world that has not been “corrupted” by “the West”. It’s a slightly different take on Orientalism.
I voice these concerns not because I think it undermines the central argument of the book, but because it is especially important for those of us advocating against oppressive power dynamics to be conscious of the language that we use, and to critically read and process even arguments that we mostly agree with.
I have a few concerns, such as the way he refers to black people, Jewish people, and other groups as “blacks, Jews” etc. I don’t think this use of language is appropriate; I find it dehumanizing when a person’s race or ethnicity becomes the sole noun in lieu of their personhood. It’s not uncommon, even among left-wing thinkers, but I was surprised to see this kind of language in a book published in 2018. His discussion of the Holocaust/Shoah threw me off a bit, as well—he seems to believe that the Jewish people did not fight back against their oppressors “enough” (a very troubling train of thought) while acknowledging the existence of Jewish militant bands such as the group in the forests of Lithuania that hunted Nazis. I’ll have to revisit that section and read it a second time and then come back to this review. And his use of “western civilization”—sometimes he defines this as Europe and North America, but not always. What does this mean? I’m not trying to be pedantic—i think we need to accurately describe this term in order to understand what we oppose about it. Even within Europe and North America, there are a variety of political belief systems (albeit many of them more conservative than other parts of the world), cultures, and hierarchies. While there are many aspects of “the West” to criticize, it is easy to fall into the trap of romanticizing every other area of the world that has not been “corrupted” by “the West”. It’s a slightly different take on Orientalism.
I voice these concerns not because I think it undermines the central argument of the book, but because it is especially important for those of us advocating against oppressive power dynamics to be conscious of the language that we use, and to critically read and process even arguments that we mostly agree with.
juniper1312's review
adventurous
challenging
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
fast-paced
5.0
_pusha_b_'s review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
5.0
moonyreadsbystarlight's review
challenging
informative
3.75
Around 3.5 or 4 ⭐️
This has a lot of really great discussion about the issues that come with a hard-line pacifist stance and utilizes a lot of strong examples. Regardless of your political stance, I think it has a lot of really important points.
It has a lot of interesting things to say about how history is represented, as well as the role of privilege in this position as strict pacifism. Many points are made about the relationship of the state to nonviolence, including how the state treats nonviolence, how some nonviolent groups have complied with or enabled the state, and how so many pacifists overlook or completely misunderstand the state and the very real violence it is enacting. It also discusses strategy (or lack thereof) and the issue of the nebulous nature of even the definition of violence
The last 2 chapters were the weakest. The second to last chapter had important points, but they were not as well framed and integrated into the text as a whole. And did not see the chapter on alternatives as fully fleshed out.
Overall, it was a strong read, very interesting, and it's definitely one I will be thinking about for a while.
This has a lot of really great discussion about the issues that come with a hard-line pacifist stance and utilizes a lot of strong examples. Regardless of your political stance, I think it has a lot of really important points.
It has a lot of interesting things to say about how history is represented, as well as the role of privilege in this position as strict pacifism. Many points are made about the relationship of the state to nonviolence, including how the state treats nonviolence, how some nonviolent groups have complied with or enabled the state, and how so many pacifists overlook or completely misunderstand the state and the very real violence it is enacting. It also discusses strategy (or lack thereof) and the issue of the nebulous nature of even the definition of violence
The last 2 chapters were the weakest. The second to last chapter had important points, but they were not as well framed and integrated into the text as a whole. And did not see the chapter on alternatives as fully fleshed out.
Overall, it was a strong read, very interesting, and it's definitely one I will be thinking about for a while.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Racism and Colonisation
Moderate: Sexual violence
rustypumpkin's review
4.0
if you only show up to actions with police approval or post black squares on instagram, you should probably read this
amydavid's review
5.0
This book challenged all the things I thought I knew about organizing. This is a great counterpoint to Alinsky and others, and should be required reading for everyone who thinks activists should not punch Nazis.
sg94's review
medium-paced
4.75
"Even if they were, who cares if the middle and upper classes are alienated by violence? They already had their violent revolution and we're living in it right now. Further, the whole notion that the middle and upper classes are alienated by violence is completely false... they support violence all the time, whether it is strikebreaking, police brutality, prisons, war, sanctions or capital punishment. What they really oppose is violence directed at dislodging them and their privileges."
If you're on the fence between pacifism and a violent revolution, this is a good book, which makes good arguments, and will make you pick a side. If you're one of the "civil rights were won through peaceful protests" people, this book will (or at least should) make you reconsider that. If you're firmly on the "the revolution can't happen without violence" side, this book is going to at the very least give you ways to back up and articulate your beliefs. It's very solidly and clearly written, the quotes are well chosen and referenced, all in all a pretty good read.
If you're on the fence between pacifism and a violent revolution, this is a good book, which makes good arguments, and will make you pick a side. If you're one of the "civil rights were won through peaceful protests" people, this book will (or at least should) make you reconsider that. If you're firmly on the "the revolution can't happen without violence" side, this book is going to at the very least give you ways to back up and articulate your beliefs. It's very solidly and clearly written, the quotes are well chosen and referenced, all in all a pretty good read.
neoludification's review
3.0
A good refutation of dogmatic nonviolence as the be-all and end-all of radical/revolutionary activism. Could have spent a bit more time on the psychological consequences of certain forms of violence, instead of repeatedly insisting on violence as a "cleansing force" (Fanon).