There are several ways to communicate, but the best ways aren't obvious.Violence MAY have been the best way to communicate, but that has changed,because of mass communication technology. Today, information travels at the speed of light, so communication reigns supreme.

There are some people who think, "desperate times call for desperate measures." I won't argue whether violence is justified or not, but violence turns people against you, and in this age of mass communications, the bad publicity outweighs anything that you may have hoped to achieve with violence. The only issues that: the shooting at the Capitol, the Unibomber attacks, the bombing in Oklahoma City brought up to the American people, was the need for more security, if anything, violence obscured to Americans that greater violence is perpetrated by the government.

Violence looks good because the other OBVIOUS alternative "Working within the system" can be ineffective and lead to lots of frustration: for example, it's hard to stop advertising cigarettes to kids, because so many Congressmen made it to the Congress with large contributions from tobbacco interests. There's another problem, to win an election you need 51% of the vote. If you get 49%, you lose. If you had 70% and got your program approved, and then get 49%, then you lose all the progress and usually any good ideas you had, if you move in a purely political arena.

So if violence and "working within the system" doesn't work, whats left? Non-violent "working around the system". You can create a group of people with your interests. Start a bicycling club to promote ecology, and you won't need 51% of the vote to change things. Set up an "green" energy buisness, and you won't have to convince the fossils in Washington to give up fossil fuels. Think kids don't get enough adult role models? Set up a childcare service.

There are other ways of getting around the formal system non-violently: non-violent civil disobedience or effecive communications. Two examples when Abby Hoffman threw dollar bills in the New York Stock Exchange, or Martin Luther King's "I Have A Dream" speech. You might find you learn alot by studying great speakers. Notice how both required creativity and style to get their point across.

Ghandhi's style was to portray him and his people as the real victims. British propaganda was saying that what they were doing was "white man's burden",that they were colonizing countries to bring civilization to the poor,ignorant savages out of the goodness of their hearts. Ghandhi was able to show how badly the Indians were being victimized, by his hunger strikes. So another aspect of effective communication is showing how people have been hurt by the perpetrators, and showing it well enough to get it past their propaganda. Contrast this with violence, where a bomber will give the establishment a chance to portray itself as the protector of the people, and it becomes more apparent why this non-violent tactic works. Home | Index Everything for activists!