Top Leaderboard, Site wide
August 31, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


Committed Carbon Emissions Are Rising Fast






Truthdig Bazaar
Dateline Havana

Dateline Havana

By Reese Erlich
$17.90

Reality Hunger: A Manifesto

Reality Hunger: A Manifesto

By David Shields
$8.34

more items

 
Report

How Empires Fall: An Interview With Jonathan Schell

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Mar 3, 2012
Håkan Dahlström (CC-BY)

“Non Violence,” a sculpture by Swedish artist Carl Fredrik Reuterswärd, sits in a number of cities around the world, including New York, Berlin and Stockholm.

By Andy Kroll, TomDispatch

(Page 3)

AK: You point to four key moments in history—the French, American, Glorious, and Bolshevik revolutions—and describe how the real revolution, the nonviolent one, took place in the hearts and minds of the people in those countries. And that the bloody fighting that, in some cases, ensued was not the true revolution, but an extension of it. It’s a revelatory part of the book. Did you already have this idea when you began Unconquerable World, or was it an Aha! moment along the way?

JS: It was really the latter. Gandhi’s movement landed the most powerful blow against the entire British Empire, and the Solidarity movement and the revolution in Czechoslovakia and other popular activities in those places were in my opinion the real undoing of the Soviet Union. That’s not the small change of history. Those were arguably the two greatest empires of their time. So, having seen that there was such power in nonviolence, I began to wonder: How did things work in other revolutions?

I was startled to discover that even in revolutions which, in the end, turned out to be supremely violent, the revolutionaries—some of whom, like the Bolsheviks, didn’t even believe at all in nonviolence—nonetheless proceeded largely without violence.  Somebody quipped that more people were killed in the filming of Sergey Eisenstein’s storming of the Winter Palace [in his Ten Days That Shook the World] than were killed in the actual storming. That was true because the Bolsheviks were really unopposed.

How could that be? Well, because they had won over the garrison of Saint Petersburg; they had, that is, won the “hearts and minds” of the military and the police.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
AK: The Bastille was like that as well.

JS: The Bastille was absolutely like that. In that first stage of the French Revolution there was almost no violence at all. Some people were beheaded in the aftermath of the action, but the victory was not won through violence, but through the defection of the government’s minions. It didn’t mean the revolutionaries loved nonviolence.  On the contrary, what followed was the Terror, in the case of the French, and the Red Terror in the case of the Bolsheviks, who went on to shed far more blood as rulers than they had shed on their way to power.

Usually the cliché is that the stage of overthrow is the violent part, and the stage of consolidation or of setting up a new government is post-violent or nonviolent. I discovered it to be just the other way around.

AK: On this subject, as your book makes clear, some re-teaching is in order.  We’re so conditioned to think of overthrow as a physical act: knocking down the gates, storming the castle, killing the king, declaring the country yours.

JS: In a certain sense, overthrow is the wrong word. If you overthrow something, you pick it up and smash it down. In these cases, however, the government has lost legitimacy with the people and is spontaneously disintegrating from within.

AK: As you note, the Hungarian writer György Konrád used the image of an iceberg melting from the inside to describe the process.

JS: He and actually the whole Solidarity movement had already noticed how Franco’s cryptofascist regime in Spain sort of melted away from within and finally handed over power in a formal process to democratic forces. That was one of their models.

AK: Reading The Unconquerable World feels like swimming against the tide of conventional wisdom, of conventional history. Why do you think antiquated ideas about power and its uses still grip us so tightly?

JS: There is a conventional assumption that superior violence is always decisive. In other words, whatever you do, at the end of the day whoever has the biggest army is going to win. They’re going to cross the border, impose their ideology or religion, they’re going to kill the women and children, they’re going to get the oil.

And honestly, you have to say that, through most of history, there was overwhelming evidence for the accuracy of that observation. I very much see the birth of nonviolence as something that, although not exactly missing from the pages of history previously, was fundamentally new in 1906. I think of it as a discovery, an invention.


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By ReadingJones, March 7, 2012 at 11:30 pm Link to this comment

Re: The Handwriting on the Wall
There is a website known as WordOrigins.Org founded by
Dave Wilton. It has a number of very scholarly
regulars. If you request information about a word or
phrase they will sort it out with citations

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, March 7, 2012 at 11:20 pm Link to this comment

anarc: The common use of the term ‘writing on the wall’ as a portent of doom refers not to any old graffiti but to the feast of Belshazzar as recounted in the Book of Daniel.

Bullsh*t.

When people freaked out with their leaders, they did not go shouting it out about the town. The put it on the walls, which portended upheaval. Or “doom”.

It was long after that the notion was scripted into the tale described in the WikiP article.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, March 7, 2012 at 1:15 pm Link to this comment

Lafayette—I’m well aware of graffiti.  The common use of the term ‘writing on the wall’ as a portent of doom refers not to any old graffiti but to the feast of Belshazzar as recounted in the Book of Daniel.

Although next time I hear someone fulminating about graffiti I’m going to remind them that graffitists have a rather imposing predecessor.

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, March 7, 2012 at 11:08 am Link to this comment

Lafayette, Are you trying to tell us that the Super Bowl is our version of the gladiatorial bouts ?

In a word, yes!

Our modern world is different ... and yet very much the same.

More importantly, cultures fail for base human reasons. With Rome, it came about from its sense of invincibility.

Ours will fail because of hubris. We think God has predestined America for greatness ... and somehow has a watchful eye on us.

Which is puerile nonsense.

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, March 7, 2012 at 9:07 am Link to this comment

For anarc. - Graffiti.

Report this

By Ed Romano, March 6, 2012 at 2:26 pm Link to this comment

Lafayette, Are you trying to tell us that the Super Bowl is our version of the gladiatorial bouts ? Are you saying that Disneyland is is our Roman Circus ? Are you saying that we’re so dense that the amusements proided by the masters of the asylum are a necessary part of the program to keep us befuddled ? Is that what you’re saying. Shame on you. The next thing you’ll be saying is that they are contantly waving the flag at us to make sure we stay hypnotized.

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, March 6, 2012 at 2:23 am Link to this comment

THE HANDWRITING ON THE WALL

The above phrase above goes back to the beginning of time. In ancient Greece or Rome, if someone wanted to out a scoundrel, they just painted their complaint on the wall for the rest of the town to see. Which was, of course, quickly white-washed by the person concerned; so one had to write the complaint all over town. It became a public nuisance and so, there were parts of towns where the walls were reserved for letting off steam.

It is obvious to anyone in this forum, that we have simply made that very human trait of complaining a bit more sophisticated. But, isn’t it also more than that?

Even in times past, it was a smart leader who kept appraised of “the handwriting on the wall”, which is why that phrase still has common usage. It was a pulse of public opinion. Roman Emperors knew well that they must provide the grain for the Roman porridge that was a staple dinner.

And the games of course in the town arenas. So, food and entertainment were base necessities throughout Roman times, as the arena ruins attest today. And if Caesar went to meet Cleopatra, it was for Egypt’s abundant grain reserves, and not only her well-known female charms.

MY POINT?

Fast forward 2000 years. What has fundamentally changed in mankind ?

Not all that much ...

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, March 6, 2012 at 1:58 am Link to this comment

KNOW THY FELLOW MAN

He (Shell) admits to being as surprised as anyone about the wave of nonviolent action that swept the world in 2011

Which is about the average running-speed for most Americans who know more about Israel than Arab countries.

I was peddling goods into the North African Arab countries and got to know the people rather well. Away from the office, when discussing politics, they would ask me a great many questions about America’s system of governance – a sort of infatuation with this thing called democracy. When I asked them about their present situation, they mostly shrugged and said, “Well, what can you do?”

The autocracies were an integral part of their common existence since the Ottoman Empire of the 14th century. That’s 600 years …

The Arab Spring took a little spark in a small town in Tunisia to inflame the house of cards of political colossus across the Arabic nations. The work (in Syria) is ongoing.

MY POINT?

We need to make as much of an effort to understand these people as we did to understand Europeans who are closer to us in cultural attributes.  Let’s not condemn them for a handful of fanatics who did us grave damage in 9/11. Besides, the author of that act, bin Laden, is sleeping with the fish where he belongs.

Report this

By Ed Romano, March 5, 2012 at 7:29 pm Link to this comment

Reading Jones, Thanks, but I rememered the title of the book…Containment and Change. As I remember it vaguely…. Ogelesby’s analysis was critical, but Schell’s was predictable liberal propaganda….My involvement in the anti war movement was somewhat to the left inasmuch as I didn’t criticize the military so much as I did the capitalists who were behind the whole imperialist adventure.

Report this

By ReadingJones, March 5, 2012 at 6:07 pm Link to this comment

Ed Romano

I think so. Try Amazon for “Ravens in the Storm” and
have a look inside.

BTW I am proud to say that I made a speech against
our involvement in Vietnam in September 1963. My
argument was that the decision makers in our military
forces (say Lt. Colonel and up) were basically
incompetent to run a war. Many of my classmates were
outraged especially the pretty girl whose father was
a Major stationed in Vietnam.

Report this

By Ed Romano, March 5, 2012 at 3:48 pm Link to this comment

Does anyone know if this is the same Johnathon Schell who co wrote a book with Carl Ogelsby on American imperialism during the Vietnam War ?

Report this

By gerard, March 5, 2012 at 9:29 am Link to this comment

Anarchissie:  In all fairness, you should send your critique to Schell, maybe in the form of pointed questions.  His answers would be enlightening, and he seems to care enough to respond, especially if you respond with your name and address.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, March 5, 2012 at 7:52 am Link to this comment

The Internet has made it possible for what is normally marginalized to be widely published.  This novel condition will probably have some effect on day-to-day politics and culture.  However, there was a time when the printing press had a similar effect, yet eventually the print media were brought under control, as later were radio and television.  Today, there is a similar struggle to control the Internet.  The outcome is not determined.

I guess we are done with Schell?  I was trying to figure out whether he was ignorant, dishonest, or merely sloppy.

Report this
vector56's avatar

By vector56, March 5, 2012 at 7:11 am Link to this comment

Surfboy’s has got a point; I have noticed that the so-called lefty blogs (Daily Kos, Crooks & Liars…) are starting to look and sound a lot like the MSNBC, Current TV fake corporate progressives.

About 85% of their space is consumed with the Mitt, Newt and Santorum “dog and pony show”; before that it was Herman Cain, Sarah Palin…

What we have is a kind of “Orwellian” homogenization:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/22/1038964/-Homogenization?via=blog_744899

Report this

By gerard, March 4, 2012 at 4:27 pm Link to this comment

Opinions solicited:  I’d like to hear what people commenting here think is the relationship of new information technology (the Internet etc.) to the rise of nonviolent movements and their growth and continuance—if any.

Report this
EmileZ's avatar

By EmileZ, March 4, 2012 at 12:55 pm Link to this comment

@ litlpeep

“criminally ignorant” might be considered a criminally ignorant accusation to toss around.

Ever think of that Mr. Smarty-Pants???

Report this

By litlpeep, March 4, 2012 at 11:37 am Link to this comment

I very much appreciate reading Jonathan Schell.  He is one of our most cogent and poignant thinders.

But I flinch when I read things like this
“The Einstein of Nonviolence

AK: You pinpoint the birth of this force at a single event on September 11, 1906.

JS: Precisely, a peaceful protest led by Mohandas Gandhi at the Empire Theater in Johannesburg, South Africa, on September 11, 1906. It’s rare that you can date a social invention to a particular day and meeting, but I think you can in this case.”

These poorly educated fellows think and write as if they have never heard of Henry David Thoreau, the American born author of “On Civil Disobedience.”  Gandhi had, and read him.  He even cited Thoreau as one of the greatest influences in his life.

It is a terribly common oversight, and also a terribly costly one.  For having no grasp of Thoreau’s writing costs the left access a great American spiritual forebear and strategic as well as tactical democratic thinker.  Of course, the essay is readily available, but who reads things more than a century and a half old?

This is but one example of how our common ignorance of our American Heritage allows the preposterous reactionaries to get away with their criminally ignorant political nonsense.

Report this

By gerard, March 4, 2012 at 10:51 am Link to this comment

Anarchissie:  I think Schell is referring to “ahimsa”, the word Gandhi chose to embody the techniques he was practicing and attempting to teach. He was leaning in part on some ancient Buddhist teachings on nonviolence which I doubt were widely practiced throughout the long and troubled political history of India. If I remember right, “ahimsa” is translated into English as “harmlessness.” One more point:  How “severity” translates into “terror” is a huge question.
  My intense interest in nonviolence is in its inevitability.  Evidence indicates that war has “warred itself out” and that fact raises the question “if not war, then what?”  We are also beginning to see (in prisons, on the streets of large cities, in cases like the “drug wars” etc.) that much of violence seems to be counterproductive.
So again, “if not violence, then what?”
  Once the question is asked, the answer will be anticipated, envisioned, attempted.  When attempted it will have some success. It will become a movement—in fact may be becoming a movement now.
It will either be encouraged or discouraged—violently or nonviolently or something ambiguous in between. We ourselves are making history—for better or for worse. Machiavelli is long dead. Hitler proved a point or two. The CIA obviously doesn’t know what time it is.

Report this
EmileZ's avatar

By EmileZ, March 4, 2012 at 10:45 am Link to this comment

@ Anarcisse

As to the bombing and invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, I don’t know where you were hunkered down, but in spite of the widespread protests, they were pretty overwhelmingly popular here in the states, I would say at least 80% either supported or were too uninformed and generally not interested in forming some kind of opinion about the whole thing. When asked, they went along with the flag-wavers and the mushroom-cloud smoking gun baloney.

As to the Soviet Union, there is some truth in both yours and Schell’s version. On the whole however, I think Schell was on the right track as far as people in the USSR trying to adapt to the inevitable trend that was very difficult to ignore once the satelites began to slip away like melting butter, smooth and creamy, well maybe not creamy but too hot to handle.

It became tedious when you observed that Schell evidently hadn’t read Machiavelli. I don’t know anything about Machiavelli, that is as good a reason as any for my probably true accusation.

How any of this might apply to the US is pretty unknown, and considering the kind of global climate and resource catastrophe that may be coming, I see very little hope of the “iceberg melting from within” phenomena happening all by itself.

However, one thing is for damn sure. The best hope we’ve got is in non-violent social movements that address our major problems BEFORE the shit really hits the fan.

Report this

By gerard, March 4, 2012 at 10:29 am Link to this comment

vector56:  “extreme” social pressures sounds fairly clean—but what does it really mean? This “muscle behind the oppression” consists of millions of people who are either “just making a living” or dominated by irrational fears, or both.  Even if they all died off of natural causes, there would be others to take their place in six months—unless nonviolence somehow became a “way of life”.
  This is the true depth of the change that is needed, and will evolve if human beings remain to occupy the earth. We have to fall out of love with the belief in the efficacy of the “extreme social pressure” of killing each other. Next question:  What do you think information technology is all about?

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, March 4, 2012 at 10:02 am Link to this comment

I am amazed at the omissions of this review. 

First of all, they managed to discuss the fate of empires without mentioning Paul Kennedy and his work. 

Schell says nonviolence, a technique prominent in the ancient world (perhaps someone has heard of primitive Christianity?) was invented by Gandhi in 1906. 

He says that the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were popular when they started.  They were not, among those who had any knowledge and interest in the situation.  Half a million people demonstrated against them in New York City in 2003. 

The Soviet Union did not collapse because of a revolt among its people or its satellites; as anyone who followed the news knows, the Soviet ruling class split between people who thought they could do better as outright capitalists (Yeltsin and company), people who wanted to transform the state into a social democracy (Gorbachev) and strict conservatives (the Putschists).  The first set won, and accordingly split up the S.U. in order to accomplish their purposes. 

Schell says that usually it is thought that the overthrow of a government in violent, the aftermath non- or post-violent.  He has evidently not read Machiavelli, who observed that a revolutionary government must exert ‘severity’, that is, terror, because it is not supported by habit and legitimacy. 

I could go on, but it will become tedious.  But I am amazed.  I have often wondered why I can’t get a job in a nice airy office two blocks from Union Square confabulating with interviewers, and now I know the answer: I was made to take History 101.

Report this

By balkas, March 4, 2012 at 8:29 am Link to this comment

i am much less interested why empires rise and fall and much more
interested about how/why the world 1% had arisen and never fallen.
empires do evanesce but the power of the ONEPERCENT seems to rise
and rise and rise…
thanks

Report this
vector56's avatar

By vector56, March 4, 2012 at 6:42 am Link to this comment

ReadingJones,

I too an a SiFi fan; more of a Harry Turtledove, alternate reality kinda guy.

The 1% may have to one day look over their shoulders, and the “meek may inherit the earth”, but in what condition?

Report this
vector56's avatar

By vector56, March 4, 2012 at 6:27 am Link to this comment

“what’s your alternative look like? You referred to it previously in such a jolly way.”

gerard; well for starters I would put “extreme” social pressure on the foot soldiers of the elite. Local Cops, FBI, CIA, NSA and the Military as a whole are the muscle behind our oppression.

If non-violence worked as well, Armies would be composed of mostly Social Workers.

Report this

By ReadingJones, March 3, 2012 at 8:03 pm Link to this comment

Isaac Asimov wrote extensively on the subject of
Empires in novel form. So did many other science
fiction authors notably including the partnership of
Frederik Pohl and C.M.Kornbluth. They taught me to
not think of ruling elites as monoliths. Most of the
1% are not part of the ruling class at all. I
estimate that the 1% is only somewhere around 400
people and the the membership of that group is
continually changing. Further any ruling class must
be worried about “quis custodias, custodiet”

Please pardon my PFA statistics and poor use of
Latin.

This treatise on non-violence is very valuable and
should terrify the likes of the Koch brothers and the
toadies that work for them. The trolls that are
employed to corrupt the media would do well to
research the fate of previous worms who had their
sort of job.

Report this

By gerard, March 3, 2012 at 6:24 pm Link to this comment

Vector, what’s your alternative look like? You referred to it previously in such a jolly way.

And by the way, why do you suppose the “governments of the world” feel they need to “maintain standing armies”?

Report this
vector56's avatar

By vector56, March 3, 2012 at 5:06 pm Link to this comment

“Give it time. It’s only been around a few years.”

Who are you kidding gerard: the CIA has ready hijacked the so-called Arab Spring and turned it into a template for the re-colonization of the Middle East.

In Yemen, the vice president of the thug Saleh was just “elected”. That fact that he was the only person on the ticket seems to make very little difference to the West?

Yes, give it some time???

Report this

By gerard, March 3, 2012 at 4:39 pm Link to this comment

Give it time. It’s only been around a few years.

Report this
vector56's avatar

By vector56, March 3, 2012 at 4:28 pm Link to this comment

All of the countries of the so-called “Arab Spring” are still controlled by “replacement thugs”. Egypt is now run by the same army that backed Mubarak for 30 years:

Mubarak and what army:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/29/1040726/-Mubarak-and-What-Army-?via=blog_744899

It saddens me deeply to admit that non-violence never trumps opening a good old “can of whoop-ass”.

Notice that the governments of the world maintain standing armies.

Report this
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.