Sep 12, 2006 5:45:36 AM cite

?Resistance is futile? and struggle reinforces that which is fighted. So both methods are not up to the ?age of (self)knowledge?. What is effective is that individuals know where there stream of consciousness is flowing. Is it flowing into fears or is it flowing into beauty? This is self-knowledge and of course to be able to ?stream? consciously one has to know the own belief systems. This is what is necessary to stop unwanted manifestations: Know Yourself!

by mbl

Sep 12, 2006 5:30:32 AM cite

Each situation is different. The path of non-violent resistance needs to be sought first, while armed stuggle may be needed if grave injustices are being commited. What is effective in one situation may not be effective in another situation; it's up to us to be mindful of what we can do to bring about the best solutions.

by Deannahawk

Sep 9, 2006 1:00:00 PM cite

Antoschka - Ekaterina Moshaeva: For this question Gandhi gives the answer. We can remember. It is the question from India. He gave the right answer for this question. They don’t make a war [and] this is revolution, still a revolution. He make a big big influence on the India became his freedom, his sovereignty while he has a very intelligent leader. He was a wise man, he was clown too, I think. You cannot fight against wrong things. When you are fighting with guns, with arms, you loose yourself because you become exactly so aggressive, looks like your opposite site. We have a very wonderful writer, it is Eugeny Schwarz and he writes [inaudible] [fair] story, its name is “Drache” (“Dragon”). It is one story about who is fighting against Drache. He became (turned to) with arms a dragon himself. This act of kill another people it can never be positive. Some wish to kill is not positive. Of course the people can use their own intellectual potential, their own energy. And I know a lot, thousands and thousands of people who fight but not with arms, with their intellect, it is a fighting in education, it is a fighting for lives of a lot of people, they are fighting for moral health of nations. This thousand people do this and with big big big success. Use, more use wisdom of love, and you are never wrong when you are not doing for other people things you don’t like they do for yourself. Bring the love and you become the love. Bring this patience and you become respect. Bring respect from another people and you become respect. It is all have a communication.

by Antoschka - Ekaterina Moshaeva

Sep 9, 2006 1:00:00 PM cite

Abbas Beydoun: ٍI think that the issue is not optional, so we can not choose between non-violent resistance and armed struggle. Of course we prefer non-violent resistance because armed struggle has very passive results later, because the winners who used armed struggle will become despots after they win. As I said this is not an optional issue, for example, can we stop revolutions? In Middle East countries and in the countries where there are dictators for a long time, can we expect more? If there was a armed struggle movement against dictators, should we refuse it just because we believe in peace? In Europe, people talk always about peace also in Iraq we have been talking for a long time about peace, but I said that there is war against Iraqi people so we can not talk about peace there. Sure we prefer peace, but dictators are not peaceful, so we should not wait 40 years to get rid of them. Can the world help us? That would be good thing.

by Abbas Beydoun

Sep 9, 2006 1:00:00 PM cite

Alvaro Restrepo: I think that pacific resistance is one of the most effective ways to fight. An example of that is India, a country which has provided the humanity with one of the main exponents of the pacific resistance. Eventhough Ghandi was himself a victim of violence when he was murdered, he tought us something very important, which is extremely relevant and helpful to those countries at war or with a high level of violence. I think that the non-violent resistance is effective and it is a good method to defend ourselves from this death instint which is threatening the humankind.

by Alvaro Restrepo

Sep 9, 2006 1:00:00 PM cite

Ana Lucy Bengochea:

by Ana Lucy Bengochea

Sep 9, 2006 1:00:00 PM cite

Andries Botha: Arundhati, hi. You know I’m from South Africa and so it’s such a problematic question to answer because my fundamental - my fundamental self tends to move towards non-violence. Yet I do believe that that’s completely naïve in a world in which we live. You know, the struggle against Aparteid took place finally with a many, many-pronged assault on the aparteid state, some of it violent, some of it economic, strategic. I would – you know, your question basically answers itself. You know I do believe we need a sort of as you call it a biodiverstiy of approaches to bring down what is construed and proven to be illegitimate. So, resistance, yes. You know but on the other - I also do know this for sure. That violence inculcates violence. And sometimes the spiral goes out of control, and, you know, literally that the delicate center or epicenter does fall apart. And it gets out of control. So there’s enormous responsibilities that are attached to the idea of struggle, struggle and violence and the decision to take life because it is justified by a higher moral purpose. My personal perspective? Is that I believe that we should not take life. That armed struggle that costs human life is not sustainable. My logic however tells me that armed struggle has brought about [transition] of power. In South Africa, there’s been a moral shift, a higher order of morality established, but I believe all South Africans are now losers, great losers. I’m not sure. The cost of war, the cost of conflict, directly and indirectly, I’m not sure. You know we really need to find another way. But if - if we can’t agree on the terms, well, then we really are in trouble. Because obviously not everyone is going to agree to reasonableness, so [inaudible].

by Andries Botha

Sep 9, 2006 1:00:00 PM cite

Angaangaq Lyberth: Arundhati, that is one of the most difficult questions ever posed to me. What I think about non-violence I think about homes, millions upon millions of homes where violence occurs every day. And then on top of that we have armed struggles. Then we talk about peace. Did you know that the peace movement on Earth is based to create that peace on Earth? Not peace at home? How can we peace on Earth when we not talk about peace in the home? I feel that the right thing to do is to talk about the peace at home first and foremost before we talk about the peace on Earth. The peace on Earth will never be created in such a way that we all dream on the peace on Earth. And until we have that peace in the home between the mother and the father and the children, then we will never have peace on Earth. So and of course we do need biodiversity. Imagine a garden of beautiful flowers in the circle as we are sitting here today. Then try to imagine it becomes one and the same flower. As powerful and beautiful it will be from in the beginning soon, very soon, you will feel dull with that whole thing. But if everyone is blooming in its own beauty, imagine that, that everyone sitting here in this circle at the table blooming in their own beauty. Yes, Arundhati, we need that biodiversity on Earth in everyone’s language, everyone’s culture, everyone’s spiritual understanding. Remember there’s only one Creator and there’s only one Earth. You know what the great prophet of the Bahai faith said there is only one Earth and mankind is a citizen? And within that Earth the beautiful, beautiful garden, look at it! Look at it, how beautiful it is. That’s what I am aiming at when I talk about peace. Peace at home. And when we have peace at home the peace on Earth will fall into our hands. And the beauty of the diversity of everyone will bloom beauty. That’s what I’m looking at. I’m so happy you asked the question and I’m privileged to give you my answer. Thank you.

by Angaangaq Lyberth

Sep 9, 2006 1:00:00 PM cite

Anthony Arnove: Hey, Roy, I know of course you are watching this in Kashmir right now. The reality is we have no [formals] and we need the diversity of tactics and strategies, and we certainly cannot in any way adopt a principle stance of non-violence in a world, which is so violent, in a world which will inevitably use violence against movements that are non-violent. And so, I can’t endorse the principle of non-violence when it means saying to people who are under the gun, people who are facing the power of states, the power of military, the power of police oppression that they only can fight back, which is non-violent. And so, really, I think we have to ask a question of effectiveness of tactics in specific circumstances and specific struggles and specific situations, and we can learn from the history of social struggles. We can learn from the examples of the dangers and the weaknesses of certain [facets of] societies. In particular, we can look at the way in which violence, when it’s carried out by individuals or isolated groups, can lead to greater oppression, can lead to isolation, can lead to elitism in how one thinks about social change. Believing, for example, that only an enlightened minority can make change, whereas I think what we can learn from history of social struggles is that in reality, it’s when large numbers of people participate in struggles. And inevitably, those struggles will have elements that are violent and non-violent, which will involve the use of force, collective force, the power of the strike, the power to confront those who have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. We find that the most effective methods almost universally tend to be those that involve the greatest numbers of people and involve people engaging not just in civil disobedience, but ultimately in activity, which targets the most powerful institutions of power in the basis that they rely upon, which is the participation, the consent to legitimacy that’s given to them by ordinary people.

by Anthony Arnove

Sep 9, 2006 1:00:00 PM cite

Anuradha Koirala:

by Anuradha Koirala

Sep 9, 2006 1:00:00 PM cite

Anuradha Mittal: Violence begets violence. That’s what I will start and that’s what I believe in, that to save life, we cannot take life of another. Killing a murderer is basically murder, being a murderer yourself. So, given that, yes, resistance can take different forms and we have seen that in our own country India, the way we won independence, resistance came in different forms. But the overall principle is that you cannot fight for justice by being unjust. And as long as we have injustice in the world and we resort to the same ways, we have actually given up hope because we are resorting to the power and giving into the ways of the exploiter. So I feel that when it comes to oppression and the acts of oppression committed by the oppressor, we are trying to be different and our resistance has to be different. We cannot copy the actions of our oppressor and that struggle cannot be justified; and at the same time know that there are going to be different forms of resistance, but violent struggle cannot justify its goal, its aid, and its intentions.

by Anuradha Mittal

Sep 9, 2006 1:00:00 PM cite

Ashok Gangadean: Very interesting question and I really want to think about biodiversity of resistance. Because just to interpret that biodiversity, the idea of biodiversity and diversity in nature is something very healthy, that needs to be respected. And, if you could really understand and respect biodiversity and it speaks of resistance, that's very interesting. But, between non-violent resistance and armed struggle, where do we go? And I think that our great spiritual traditions have given us answers to these questions for millennia. And it’s really clear that armed struggle comes from a mentality of armaments and weaponry and militarization as a way of responding to breakdown and communication and collision of clash of borders of worlds. So the mentality of war and violence and armed conflict is one kind of culture- making and resistance, where non-violence, rightly understood, is not something that happens within the ego-based cultures, but the profound dimensional shift to a higher integral consciousness of connectivity in which we are in harmony of reality and with one another and with ourselves. And that kind of culture is a culture of non-violence. And that's the way to go. And that's the way we must go. And I think that's hopefully the way we will go, as we now awaken these people across this planet and realize the futility and emptiness and the tragedy of war and armed struggle as not really solving the problem. And to understand that the skills of deep dialogue, they’re much more powerful in bringing us into common ground and lifting us to a higher playing field, in which we can find rapport with one another and to live together as one human family in peace. That seems to me the only alternative we have with regard to enter a culture that's sustainable in the 21st century.

by Ashok Gangadean

Sep 9, 2006 1:00:00 PM cite

Audrey Kitagawa: What we need is a commitment to the ways of peace, a commitment to find peace within ourselves, to be living in peace as a society, as a human family. Nonviolence must be a value that we embrace as a way of living together because our world is full of challenges. The challenges grow greater by the day. So we must be able to develop ways as a conscious, evolving, dynamic species to find the ways that we can live together cooperatively in harmony and to make a commitment to peace and the ways of peace whether it's through dialogue, whether it's through community building, whether it's through creating positive partnerships to address these global challenges. So we mustn't create the face of the enemy, the face of the other as a way of thinking that we can resolve differences through armed conflict. So it is a transformation of consciousness that we need within our hearts, our minds, and ourselves as well as a transformation of consciousness within whole communities, societies, countries, and globally, that we must understand that our technologies have brought us to the state where we can potentially annihilate all forms of life on this planet. And therefore the level of aggression that we can put ourselves into that would create the annihilation of every living thing on this planet makes our commitment to peace all the more important. So we must move out of the consciousness of fear to the consciousness of peace as a commitment that we each must make individually and collectively as a way for our survival, a way that we can flourish and grow as a human family.

by Audrey Kitagawa

Sep 9, 2006 1:00:00 PM cite

Avi Primor: I believe the question is when do we really have to resist? When is resistance justified? Do you always have to resist? If you are treated wrongly, treated unfair, does it have to come to resistance immediately? Perhaps you can negotiate? Perhaps you can speak to the other? Perhaps you can seek for international help? An arbitrator? Or the international community in general? Resistance has a large meaning. Resistance against whom? Against what? What for? Why? Today we are using the idea of resistance in a totally open way. Nobody knows anymore what it means. Everyone who is fighting against somebody, believes to be a resistance fighter already. But it isn’t so automatically or generally. So you have to consider every case. There are cases, where it really can help to resist in a peaceful way. There are cases, where it doesn’t help, where you have to fight. Under the rule of the Nazis there wasn’t any other possibility then to resist in a violent way. There weren’t any other possibilities. In other cases it doesn’t always have to come to this. So you have to judge every individual case und there aren’t general guidelines for all cases of resistance or what calls itself case of resistance.

by Avi Primor

Sep 9, 2006 1:00:00 PM cite

Benjamin Fahrer: One, two, three, four. It is four questions, but it’s just one, right? So between non-violent resistance and arm struggle where do we go? And what is effective? What’s the right thing to do? And do we need a biodiversity of resistance? So arm struggle and non-violent resistance, the last sentence, do we need a biodiversity of resistance? Is an arm struggle? Is that resistance? I go to my brothers of the Mayans, at the Zapatista territory in Chiapas, Mexico, who are now arm resistance of non-violence. Their unresistance to the North American free trade agreement that privatizes their land and unlike Hamas, who’s also not a terrorist group, but a group of resistance. They’re standing up in the resistance of what is happening in their world? However, their resistance is one of a proactive might. Earlier last month, a Mayan village in the Highlands of Chiapas was burned, homes burned, people killed. This is the Mexican military coming in and doing this act. 30 families, it’s very small, right? Life’s changed. The Zapatistas, they did not launch bombs. They did not do it the Mexican military wanted them to do, which was to fight back. Because once they fight back, they may have a reason. They have a reason to come in, and really do what they want to do to the movement in which is destroy it because it is a movement, as the other campaign of the indigenous rights in a very politically corrupt nation. They hold their arms as a symbology to protect themselves and that they have power. They have a non-violent resistance, and over the 12 years of resistance, please count on your hand how many people have died from the Mexican military? We need everyone’s hands in this table and in this crowd. The Zapatistas hold up your hands and you can count.

by Benjamin Fahrer

Sep 9, 2006 1:00:00 PM cite

Benson Venegas: In some situations, we have to fight. And those situations when there is a genocide that is happening, the world need to react. You cannot be passive. And I think we have examples around the world where there's conflict that really eliminated entire numbers of population, and everyone is so passive about it. So we need to really change our mentality. We need to really do the right thing. And the right thing would be dependant on what happened on every occasion. Some people mention that in some way or the other there's a classes concept of conflict. Because if you're killing some people of some race, probably you have a stronger reaction of the international community. If it's people from other race, international community would let it go. They don't care. So I think we have to eliminate this perspective. And what we have to bring on the table is that every human lifes in the world is valuable. Every person, every little person in this world. Big person, small person, are important, in terms of entire body that we can call humanity.

by Benson Venegas

Sep 9, 2006 1:00:00 PM cite

Bianca Jagger: Answertext will be available soon.

by Bianca Jagger

Sep 9, 2006 1:00:00 PM cite

Bill Joy: Armed struggle usually has an enormous number of negative consequences, so I have trouble believing that’s very often the recipe for change. We’ve seen in the collapse of the Apartheid system in South Africa and in the collapse of the Soviet block in the peaceful transition to democracy across eastern Europe and even hopefully a sustainable in Russia that if we’re patient this change is possible even without a war. So I think what we need to do is to try to find ways with education and using economics and innovation to make the change in the world that we want to make and to do it in a way that uses armed struggle as little as possible because of all the terrible precedents it sets for those in power to use their power to achieve their needs and their objectives through propaganda and through force. The truth may take longer to win, non-violence may take longer but it seems to me it’s a better non-violent economical ethical way of struggling than to resort to violence.

by Bill Joy

Sep 9, 2006 1:00:00 PM cite

Bora Cosic: I just answered similar question, there I will add following to it. I don’t know what can be efficient in our straggle. If we hold to the above mentioned principles, we will always be barehanded, weak, and sometimes in small numbered. Last year I was in my ex-country Serbia, in the Belgrade a 2 million people city. Big part of them are holding to there pitiful government, big part is cowardly keeping silent and endures the hardship. Only one center called “For The Decontamination Of The Soul" performs: discussions circles, conferences, subjects oriented circles, literal readings, exhibitions, theater plays and so on day to day. This center gathers only some few hundreds of people, but still it is a point beaming with the freedom, intelligence and most important with the hope. Similarly there is an unique Magazine issued in the Croatia in the city Split and called "Feral Tribune", this magazine has tight spin and is being hindered with deferent tricks even though journalisms in the Croatia is free. Still honorable and intelligent people read this magazine as rare delight. So there is always possibility to do something.

by Bora Cosic