The
Socialist Party is always on the side of the oppressed against the
oppressors. As world socialists, we are repulsed by the needless and
mindless violence going on. We sympathise with our fellow-workers and
we condemn and denounce senseless killing.
Those
in the Socialist Party are not worshippers of violence. Nor are we
pacifists. To call upon men and women to practice tolerance, goodwill
and love as the practioners of Christianity suggest is to express hollow sermons in a world of class conflicts, national
rivalries and hatred where power politics is the normal way of
conducting world affairs. To love one's oppressors would be an
abnormal and inhuman feeling. If people were being oppressed by a
rapacious minority, hate for the oppressors would be a normal. Many
who have listened to Socialist Party speakers will have heard them
repeat the Chartist slog “Peacefully if possible, forcibly if
necessary.” For anyone to advocate non-violence as the only possible answer
to violence would a servile response.
But, above all, the Socialist Party tries to guard against the sporadic,
meaningless and inevitably self-defeating violence that suffering and
resentment are so likely to prompt.
Non-violence
is ineffectual, and dangerously out of touch with the reality of
state violence. Non-violent resistance is a more effective method for
bringing about desirable social change in the modern world than
violence. It is not a moral issue but that non-violence is superior
as an instrument to bring about social change. It isn't about
non-resistance but non-violent resistance.
Terrorism
uses violence, or the threat of violence, to achieve its ends. It is
designed to have far reaching psychological repercussions beyond the
immediate victim or target. That is the bottom-line despite trying to
disguise the fact. For the terrorist the most pressing incentive is
belief in the virtue of their cause. Political movements which rely
on non-violence are more likely to achieve their objectives than are
those movements that resort to force. After all, violence usually
results in retaliation and counter-violence. The Socialist Party
explains that the only one way to achieve lasting peace across this
planet involves forgoing violence as a means of accomplishing goals.
The case for political violence is the case against the possibility
of working class consciousness. Violence and terrorism are not
instruments which can be used in the building of socialism.
What
is to be feared by authoritarian states most is non-violent protest.
Non-violence is neither passive nor a way of avoiding conflict. A
non-violent movement that challenges a well-entrenched dictatorship
must be prepared for a long struggle and numerous casualties. After
all, only one side is committed to non-violence. However, the
alternative entails even larger casualties and holds fewer prospects
of success. Peaceful resistance does not mean no resistance. It does
not mean non-action. As soon as you choose to struggle with violence
you’re choosing to fight against opponents who are on their own
terrain and in possession of the best weapons. The state’s police
and army are better trained in using those weapons. And they control
the infrastructure that allows them to deploy their might. To fight
dictators with violence is to cede to them the choice of battleground
and tactics. Amateurs using violence against experts is the quickest way to
defeat.
But
let us be frank, as we presently stand, there is little that can be
done by the World Socialist Movement in ending the violence taking
place within capitalism and currently on the streets of Hong Kong, except to voice our solidarity and support but more importantly, our constant campaigning for
socialism as the hope of humanity.
No comments:
Post a Comment