PRO "POWER OF LOVE" ARGUMENT: Social change
come about if w e understand the power of love,
not be seen as sentimental, or effective only am
prevents
eve
of fear and anger.
wawa
people as the
focus of
injustice, etc., as the "opponent."
is not the
PRO FORCE AND AGGRESSION,
cannot
just
need power and aggression as an active force to c
:ani After all it's
t
towards o
we
to

takesforvw

2. PRINCIPLE VS. TE are Pacifism on
PRO PRINCIPLE Wen
carrying
see nonviolence as a
principle. Using nonviolent action as a
weakens w
opponent escalates their principles.
ea of principled nonviolence activists
e and initiating strikes
been responsible for staying in the
innovations in nonviolent action, when en "technical" supporters
continue the struggle e Witness the
see
o of
movement when the Indochina
PRO 'TECHNIQUE: Nonviolent action is an effective
method of
change, not to convert
main
people believe
violence.
convert everyone is not
en
Nonviolent action works because of its own
Nonviolent action is a
power
destroying the
power rem
of
case

•

allied.
PRO OPENNESS: Secrecy ermine
Secrecy is defensive, prey
nftritation, Inc CS fear
among ies and opponents. Most important, a policy of
velops two classes of people; those who know the
plans and those who do not know. There are
en resistance in dictatorships; 9uatemala,
o y are
les. And, tectin Jews,
a moral and
or exnp e,
World War II may have
necessary imperative, but essentially it was not nviolent
because it relied heavily on secrecy.
•
•
6. UNIVERSAL AiPLICAiI6N OF NON IO
ACTION: YES OR NO
PRO UNIVERSAL APPLICATION: Nanviolent lotion is
applicable in all conflict situations whether or not we are
taking about an intensely repressive regime. This analysis is
based on the principle that governments derive their power
from the consent of the people. If people noncooperate with
that power, then the regime ultimatelylls,he
fa
deciding
force is people's awareness of their own power and capacity
to organize themselves. It maybe next to impossible to
create a successful nonviolent revolution. But an armed
strategy may have no greater chance of success. The use of
nonviolence is not a guarantee of success.

B. PROPERTY D RUCTION AND SABOTAGE: YES
, OR NO
PRO YES: Sabotage destroys property, not people. Property
•
is not important in a revolution iintending to at"humane
social values. Therefore, it is OK to use sabolage. It is
ate as a means of or
a
no one is hurt, so it is nonviolent Some property should not
exist, such as some corporation files or some forms of
military equipment. Therefore,-we are ju if ed in destroying
them.
PRO NO: Property' destruction estalates the struggle in such
a way that allows .actiiists-to have lass control over the
struggle than if property had not been distroyect PrOperty
destruction gives clear justiacationfOrgreater oppression by
the oppoSitipn. It. frightens potential allies and creates a bad
image of the campaign for the uncomMitted. Becau.4e
planning is done in secrecy, property destruction creates two
claSses of people those who know and those who do not
know-. Property destruction is easy to, spill over to a
destruction ,of people. There is always the problem of
accidents. Finally, property destruction creates a climate of
violOnco, counter-productive in a struggle.
9. PERSONAL CHANGE VS. POLITICAL CHANGE

CON UNIVERSAL APPLICATION: Third worldpeople
have tried nonviolent action and found it does not work in
their situation. Third world people see nonviolent action as a
weak idea which middle class Westerners just talk about We
cannot really know what third world people, really face. So
we should not judge them if they choose a military campaign
as a means for liberation, Besides, Gandhi himself said that
if you have to choose between a violent struggle or no
struggle at all, it is imperative to carry on a violent struggle.:
7. ANGER AS BASIS OF A CAMPAIGN:
YES OR NO
PRO ANGER: Anger is a sound basis for
campaign. When people are outraged at injustices,
corruption; etc., they are ready and willing to act.
;els
of all forms of action campaigns, military or nonviolent,
recognize that apathy and fear are the biggest obstacles to
action. Anger is more conducive to action than fear is. We
need to encourage anger and use it as a basis for a social
change campaign.
CON ANGER: An is not a sound basis for organizing a
campaign. When people are angry, they do not think
carefully about goalk strategy and tactics (steps) off
campaign. Anger spends so much emotional energy that it
leads to burn-out People cannot hold a pitch of "righteous
indignatiimi" for very long. In= addition, people are too easily
swayed by emotional ups and downs of apparent short term
victories or defeats. What successful campaigns really need
are careful planning, thinking, and analysis.

PRO PERSONAL CHANGE: We must start with ourselves;
we must begin .at home. gianging the world is hypocritical if
our actions are not refected in our lives. We cannot have a .
new society without also having new people. •
PRO POLITICAL CHANGE: Changing life styles does
nothing to confront governments or corporations which hold
the real power. The revolution is a, change of institutions --it means cultural changes. We can mess around with our
lives after the revotution.. Anyway, we are not able to lead
pure lives because of the nature of the system. Life styles are
irrelevant to.political straggle. We need-to put all our energy
into organizing, not to cooking soybeans, meditating, and so
on, which are just self-indulgint