o_195qg5dto17o4rbc85q1ge61i84a.pdf

strategies for change 153
These two forms of civil disobedience are sometimes confused.
For example, whilst Franks argues that civil disobedience is distinguished
by what he calls its strong consequentialism (i.e. those
engaging in civil disobedience work towards a particular end and
justify the action through its attainment) he runs this idea together
with a fundamental commitment to non-violence. His premise
allows the possibility for violence, but his conclusion is Tolstoyan.
The confusion stems in part from the habit of libertarians – Rand is
one – to equate civil disobedience with non-coercive action, on the
grounds that it is based on an appeal to individual conscience, not
mass protest. Alternatively, activists involved in Peoples’ Global
Action (PGA) suggest that the confusion rests in the concept of
‘non-violence’. This idea, they contend, is ambiguous and interpreted
in culturally specific and sometimes contradictory ways. The
differences are particularly marked in Europe and India. In view of
this confusion, the PGA no longer include a commitment to ‘nonviolence’
in their Hallmarks and activists are instead encouraged to
seek ways of confronting oppression by considering the suitability of
specific actions in the prevailing local conditions. In other cases, the
ambiguity reflects a deliberate attempt to push a policy of nonviolence.
George Woodcock presents the assumption of nonviolence
as a fundamental principle of civil disobedience. Indeed, he
so downplays the differences between Thoreau’s position and that of
the other writers that one could be forgiven for thinking that civil
disobedience was informed by a unified tradition of thought.
For all the confusion, anarchists have interpreted civil disobedience
in both senses. For example, Zerzan’s idea of resistance is
closer to Thoreau’s than Tolstoy’s. Denying that questions of
resistance turn on violence or non-violence, he argues that the
primary consideration informing action is individual conscience.
Consequently, his personal conviction that ‘words are a better
weapon to bring down the system than a gun would be’ carries no
implications for ‘anybody else’s choice of weapon’. 63 His willingness
to defend the Unabomber’s choice is very much in the spirit of
Thoreau’s defence of Captain Brown.
Probably more anarchists have equated civil disobedience
with the Tolstoyan view. The strength of the commitment owes
something to the causes with which the action has been associated.
In the post-war period, civil disobedience was the preferred tactic
of peace activists and campaigners against atomic and nuclear
arms. For many of the anarchists involved in these campaigns, the