I was just comparing my personal results with actual change in the world I live in...
In the 70's I tended to gravitate toward the peaceful hippy type of folks, sit ins, smoke outs etc...Not much accomplished.
Toward the 80's I found myself running with bikers....No BS just get stuff done...
Now I keep to myself and don't run with anybody, but looking back it was the "in your face" "we have our own code of ethics" attitude that got results, not the peaceful protests...
So I suppose I'm just looking for folks who have lived a different lifestyle and possibly had different results...
I think the hippies won actually, in a weird way. No one thinks weed is life harming stuff anymore, and many, many, many people smoke it. As far as all the commie pacifism, yeah they sort of lost there (thank God). Commie economics is BS, and pacifism can't be used to protect a society (even a free one).
Bikers (if you mean gangs) get stuff done for sure, but so does the mafia...but I think I'd prefer they didn't. If you mean just motorcycle enthusiasts who have real jobs, then yeah they also get stuff done...because they're professionals with brains.
I agree that "in your face/strong code of ethics" can get stuff done...but I'd prefer the "intellectually in your face/well thought out, self defense only, code of ethics" crowd. That would both be controversial and get stuff done. Plus, if anyone throws a punch, they reserve the right to whoop some ass.
My life was running with street gangs as a kid, teen, and early twenties...I also knew a lot of bikers (the bad kind) due to my interactions in selling drugs (and a few parties and bars we'd hang in with them). So I know the stuff you mean when you say bikers "got stuff done"....hell, so do most criminal organizations (or for that matter freelance criminals with balls). I never joined a gang or anything, but I certainly lived with them a lot (literally roomed with them). But I never lived the peaceful life until my late twenties onward. I'm like you now, mostly stay to myself. I didn't require prison or being shot to correct my code of ethics. I started reading and that did it. I've converted many people to my way of thinking, even if just in part. I can tell you, I believe in Civil Disobedience...but I do not believe in pacifism. There is a difference. One can include the other, but doesn't necessarily.
I'm all for nonviolent movements of any type...I think they work longterm. I'm against pacifism if someone attacks you or yours (a personal preference for me)...I think that works short term. The trick is balancing the two...because too much of one undermines the other. Nonviolent pacifist movements work because you're showing the world how victimized you are; it relies on you allowing the "man" to stomp you a good one, and the subsequent outrage that it results in from the public who are then forced to rethink their values. Movements that are nonviolent but not pacifist often make the "man" think twice about lashing out, but results in much less public outrage. One undermines the other.
So the questions are...do you want change sooner, or later? And do you mind losing a little blood (and maybe your life) for the cause? If you want change sooner, lose blood and be a pacifist. If you want change later with less sacrifice, then defend yourself. If you want the movement to totally die, be aggressively violent (as the public will not side with you for sure then).
There is no quick path to change and getting stuff done. Sure, Civil Disobedience via pacifism is a slow way to change, but it's even slower via self defense, and slowest yet via aggression. There is no good fast path. Not unless you want to abandon your principles and be a tyrant...that which you obstensibly want to change.
I won't let anyone beat on me or mine...but between you, me, and the fence post........I'm pretty sure fighting back in self defense is just as, or more, likely to get someone I care about (or myself) killed. I just can't sit there and be hit, or watch it happen. I have a bit of a temper when that happens. That's a flaw in me. It's not a great tactic for quickest change or safety, that's for sure. But then again, the safest way forward is to ask for no change, and just "go along to get along"...so maybe because I won't just put up with the status quo, I'm not so flawed as some.
BUT...everything I just said relates to direct Civil Disobedience. My last post related to mostly indirect forms of Civil Disobedience. Indirect forms (ignoring laws, jury nullification, etc.) are much more effective than any protest, whether pacifist or self defense leaning in nature. If everyone just ignored laws, and cops refused to enforce them, and judges refused to hear the cases, and prosecutors refused to prosecute them, and juries refused to convict, we'd essentially have no problems to protest. In fact, all of that doesn't need to happen...only one of those things need to happen, along with us refusing to follow the laws. It only takes one step in the process to join us, and we have won. This is why I advocate indirect action more than direct action. Afterall, most of us aren't pacifists.
Don't think of Civil Disobedience in the false paradigm of self defense vs. pacifism...think of it as that and also direct action vs. indirect action. The majority of Civil Disobedience is carried out by people who never even heard of the term itself, and who just ignore laws they don't agree with. That's the most effective way.
