Until nonviolence becomes an integral part of Socialism--and I mean a top priority--I am not signing up. The only effective and long-lasting revolution is nonviolent revolution. Using patriarchal (dominating) means to overthrow patriarchy (domination) makes no sense. The Dalai Lama said that the problem with Communism is it lacks compassion; clearly the same can be said for Socialism in general.

I read the Communist Manifesto a few years ago, and I liked most of what it said. The point at which Karl Marx totally lost me is when he dismissively comments on pacifists taking their time with nonviolence, and he claims that nonviolence takes too long. Since then, I’ve met members of Radical Women, the feminist branch of the Freedom Socialist Party, and at least one of them agrees with Karl Marx on this point (and I rather think that real feminists are invariably pacifists). I attended the Econvergence, a progressive (and free!) conference, and the last panel I attended was “Socialism: What is it and why do we need it?” The panelist and some Socialists in the audience confirmed it: they don’t hold nonviolence as a high priority and think it takes too long.

Some of the Socialists in the room used the deaths of nonviolent activists participating in Gandhi’s movement as an excuse to claim that it’s not effective, and yet Gandhi clearly stated that you have to be willing to die for nonviolence. Soldiers die while participating in unnecessary violence, that of war. Dying for nonviolent revolution makes infinitely more sense than dying while practicing violence in the name of a power-tripping government or while practicing violent revolution.

It’s ironic that Socialists reject patience and claim that nonviolence takes too long, when in fact they aren’t exactly in the midst of their violent revolution right now. So what makes this violent revolution they want any faster than a nonviolent revolution? It’s subtle and gradual, but the nonviolent revolution, I do believe, is taking place; otherwise we wouldn’t have nonviolent communication classes and practice groups, and we wouldn’t read of alternative schools that are bringing compassion into the curriculum. We wouldn’t see books like The Chalice and the Blade and books by the Dalai Lama selling in America in recent decades. The nonviolent revolution may not be easy to see (especially if you don’t want to see it) but it’s here and it’s taking place. The violent and therefore ineffective, barbaric, and hypocritical revolution that these Socialists condone has not begun…and hopefully won’t.

I left the discussion during Econvergence feeling disgusted and disillusioned with Socialists and having a sense that they’re fanatics with no grasp of compassion, like the Dalai Lama said. I heartily approve of the ends that Socialists wish to reach: no longer having the few oppressing the many, and thereby eliminating bigotry such as racism, misogyny, and homophobia. These are essentially the same goals as radical feminism. However, I am utterly disgusted with their acceptance of violent revolution and dismissiveness of nonviolence. It makes no sense to believe that using violence can overthrow violence and that activists who lack compassion can transform this into a compassionate and tolerant society.

Revolution needs to be nonviolent and spiritual. Focusing entirely on ideology without valuing nonviolence and without regard for such deep things as people’s emotions and needs isn’t an effective way to carry out a revolution. We need to use education as revolution: nonviolent communication, compassion, and kindness need to be taught from a very early age and need to be required learning from at least kindergarten through twelfth grade, with as much emphasis as reading, writing, and math.

Nonviolent communication as taught by Marshall Rosenberg is about identifying your emotions and the needs behind those emotions. Everyone has the same needs, and each of us is responsible for his or her own needs. This is in keeping with the Buddhist and Pagan concept of interconnectedness. I thought Socialism was about interconnectedness also, since it is about distributing wealth and eliminating oppression, and yet the speaker, Camille White-Avian (organizer of the International Socialist Organization’s Portland branch) spoke using us-and-them language, displaying as much an “us and them” mentality as any republican.

I think all Socialists need to take nonviolence seriously, study up on it, and practice it. They need to read books such as The Chalice and the Blade by Rianne Eisler, Autobiography by M. K. Gandhi, Beyond Power by Marylyn French, and other books from a nonviolent and therefore sane perspective. I rather get the impression that they’ve read The Communist Manifesto and accepted all of it uncritically.