Mondays with Murray: Rothbard on Gahndhi, Non-Violence, and Adam Kokesh

I've long been an admirer of Mahatma Gandhi and his successful non-violent revolution against British Imperialism. I've always been vaguely aware that Murray Rothbard had been critical of Gandhi, but only recently did I read his full critique of Gandhism,  The New Menace of Gandhism, first published in 1983.As one might imagine from the title, Rothbard is clear from the get go that he doesn't think much of the Gahndian movement overall:

Part of this new fad undoubtedly stems from seeing the movie Gandhi, which has inspired a lot of this nonsense, and so the fad might well be over when the movie fades at last from the theater screens. But the non-violence fad cuts deeper than that. For one thing, it has been picking off some of the best and most radical Libertarian Party activists, ones which the Party can ill afford to lose if it is to retain its thrust and its principles.

Well, it looks like 'ol Murray's got me pegged. I first became interested in Gandhi after seeing the film by the same name in high school, and decided to further research him. It didn't inspire me to run off to India and become a Yogi, but I've always admired the man's overall message and movement.We must also note here that this is a time where Murray Rothbard was very active in the Libertarian Party, and he was generally critical of those who advocated disengagement from the political process. He groups together the Gahndian movement with the "Voluntaryist" strategy advanced by George H. Smith, which calls for non-violent resistance and other forms of civil disobedience in lieu of politics.On the surface, it seems odd that Rothbard would criticize a movement based on non-violence, considering his advocacy of anarcho-capitalism, which calls for a society that rejects collective violence and is based on voluntary associations.  Rothbard even seems to concede some philosophical ground to the Gahndians and Voluntaryists, stating:

At the heart of the Voluntaryist' strategy is an unquestionably correct syllogism: If the mass of the people were, at one blow, to withhold their obedience from the State, refuse to pay taxes, stop circulating the State's paper money, or refuse to obey unjust laws, then the State would be brought down.

So what was Rothbard's big beef with the Gahndian movement?

The major problem, of course, is the likelihood of the If. 

Rothbard cites the historical record of how non-violent revolutions often turn out much worse even than violent revolutions.

For they are Gandhi's India, which led to Mrs. Gandhi's dictatorship and the horrifying experiment in compulsory sterilization; and the Khomeini revolution in Iran, which brought down the Shah's regime by a series of non-violent actions culminating in a universal general strike. The non-violent Khomeini revolution, of course, has brought forth the monstrous tyranny of Khomeini's Islamic fundamentalism.The comparative record of non-violent revolutions is, then, worse than that of violent ones, for the violence of the American Revolution after all brought forth a pretty good result, while non-violence has accomplished nothing fruitful at all.

It's interesting here that Rothbard seems to take a utilitarian approach - that of "whatever works best." But in this case it's appropriate - after all, the discussion is over strategy, not necessarily ideology. However, this being Murray, he uses his criticism of the non-violence platform to attempt to make a distinction about libertarian principle.

Which leads to a fundamental libertarian point: What's so great about non-violence anyway? Libertarians, after all, are not opposed to violence per se; they are opposed only to violent aggression, to the initiation of violence against another's person or property. With the exception of the LeFevrian aberration, all libertarians, including Konkin and the Smithian Voluntaryists, concede the right to use violence in defense against violent invasion of person and property. So what's so great about non-violence? Why wantonly abandon an important tool of self-defense?

Murray makes a valid point regarding the distinction between non-violence and non-aggression. Violence in response to an act of regression is certainly justified. But this begs the question: where is the line drawn on what constitutes "aggression?" Are all politicians who advocate freedom-restricitng laws committing aggression? Are all those who vote for them? But I digress…a subject to explore another day. Back to Murray:

Why is non-violent resistance a dead end? First, because if we observe the two successful examples of mass resistance, they emerged from a monolithic religious tradition (Shi-ite Islam) or were steeped in the religious culture of the country (Yogi/guru India.) The United States has no monolithic religion or religious culture, and we have no real tradition of coordinated mass non-violence. If anything, Americans, more than most other Western countries, have often been ready to pick up the club or the gun at infractions on their liberty.

Secondly, since there is zero possibility of Smith and his confreres generating a mass movement for civil disobedience, this means that the Voluntaryist movement is destined to take one of two roads, each disastrous in different ways. For when a dozen or so libertarians sit around for a year or two talking about bringing down the State by non-violent resistance, what is likely to happen? Either nothing, in which case everyone gets bored with meta-discussions of revolution, and the movement  falls apart and disappears. Or the couple of dozen revolutionaries decide to put their talk into practice by confronting the State apparatus with their bodies, by throwing themselves into stalling the machinery of the State. And what will happen then is inevitable: They will get smashed.

I can't help but think of Adam Kokesh's planned armed (but peaceful) march on Washington DC, that turned into a YouTube video and a hellish experience for Mr. Kokesh, who is still awaiting official sentencing after a plea deal. While he made an admirable attempt to bring awareness to the freedom-infringing policies of an increasingly totalitarian government, in the end, all that Adam really has to show for it are the memories of his horrible experience in jail and whatever awaits him in the future following his sentence. Meanwhile, one has to ask: was liberty advanced at all along the way?Personally, I feel that non-violent civil disobedience certainly may have it's place in advancing liberty, but it cannot be the basis of the movement. This type of head-on, public resistance to the State will likely only result in liberty activists facing harsh physical and emotional trauma, which will certainly distract them from any sort of philosophical discoveries or teachings they might otherwise undertake. Mass civil disobedience can only be effective if and when society reaches some sort of tipping point, where a majority truly understand the fundamental ideas of liberty. In the meantime, education and yes - even political action, when done in a focused and principled manner - can help to further advance the ideas of liberty in the minds of many more individuals.That of course, is our mission here at Mondays with Murray, and at Lions of Liberty!Note: The rest of Rothbard's article continues to criticize Gahndi for various reasons: his anti-technology and anti-education views, his views on sexual abstinence, and above all his hypocrisy in consistently acting against his own highly-touted principles. There may be some truth to these claims, and by all means I encourage their exploration. For the purposes of this edition of Mondays with Murray, I chose to focus solely on how Rothbard's criticisms relate to the libertarian strategy, and the advancement of the ideas of liberty.Looking to catch up on the past editions of Mondays with Murray? Check out the full archive!Receive access to ALL of our EXCLUSIVE bonus audio content – including “Conspiracy Corner”, “Degenerate Gamblers” and the “League of Liberty Podcast” by joining the Lions of Liberty Pride and supporting us on Patreon!