A Discussion with Two Vets
What Way Forward: Violence or Non-Violence?

Editors note: VVAWAI is made up of veterans with a range of different philosophies and beliefs. For many the question of "violence" versus "non-violence" is an important difference. We pose two such positions here in our interview with WWII veteran and author Howard Zinn and with Ian Antius, a Nam era vet and member of VVAWAI.

How did you form your beliefs and who do you draw inspiration from?

Howard Zinn: I think my beliefs were formed by my working class background, working in a shipyard from age 18 to 21. Also doing a lot of reading as a teenager: Upton Singlair, John Steinbeck, Lincoln Steffens and Karl Marx.

Ian Antius: I came of age in the late '60's and was faced with the Vietnam War and the draft. I grew up in a religion that professed "Love thy Neighbor" and "Thou shalt not kill", things I could easily believe in. I found that asking questions in our religion was frowned upon and led to my being considered a troublemaker. Through my experience in the Navy everything came together and clicked. I knew the constitution was no longer something to be defended but something to be torn up and replaced. This put me on the road to revolution.

Is all violence the same? Is there such a thing as just and unjust Violence?

Howard: All violence is not the same, because there are different motivations. The Klan killing Blacks out of race hatred is different than Blacks rebelling in the ghetto out of desperation. Also, violence against property is very different than violence against human beings. I don't really believe in violence, even when the cause is just. We should look for non-violent solutions because violence corrupts. True, sometimes there is no choice - immediate self-defense, where the violence is focused directly against the attacker and not against innocent people.

Ian: Violence is not something inherently good or bad. It is the purpose for which violence is used that gives it its character. Simply put, violence used to oppress and subjugate a people is unjust while violence used to free and defend a people is just. The horrified response to results of violence is often used to move a people behind a course of action resulting in more violence. The current war on terrorism, the "U.S.'s War of Terrorism" as I like to call it, is an example of unjust violence by those who attacked New York being used as justification for more unjust violence by the U.S. against the people of Afghanistan. Being violated does not mean one will automatically respond justly.

Violence has been a part of human society during all of recorded History. Do you think its possible for it to be eliminated? And if so how?

Howard: Yes, a part of human history but not all of it. Violent episodes make the books but think of how many non-violent actions, how many acts of brotherhood, sisterhood, generosity there have always been throughout history. To eliminate it (violence) totally is utopian. But to diminish it considerably is certainly more possible. If we eliminate poverty, desperation, national boundaries, war -- all the factors that bring the worst violence then it will be eliminated piece by piece, as we solve piece by piece our social problems. Don't ask me how long that will take!

Ian: Violence is a part of life on this planet. A volcano erupting and covering a town in ash and lava killing the population is a violent act. But it is also part of life and, though we mourn the loss of life, we go on.

It is violence done by one human upon another that is a concern to societies. Humans are social creatures and must live together to survive. For large portions of our past, we did so without much of the interhuman violence, because it took all our energies to survive. Eventually we had progressed to a point where a surplus of goods could be made and stored, creating new forms of relations between humans, and with it the increased use of violence between humans. For the interhuman violence that has become commonplace to be eliminated, it will take the elimination of the cause of that violence -- the elimination of private ownership and control of socially created goods and surplus. It will take violence on the part of revolutionaries to overthrow the unjust violence of those clinging to their privilege and past.

If a people are being oppressed by violent means, how do they free themselves?

Howard: Well, we have many examples: Black people in the south; Black people in South Africa; people in the Soviet sphere who, when they became a large enough movement, could not be suppressed and the dictatorships fell. Mass movements have toppled dictators like Marcos in the Philippines. Violence becomes a tactic when you have not organized enough people.

Ian: Violence is not the end but sometimes a means to it. To truly free themselves, people have to first free their minds of the chains that bind them to their existing ways. This will allow them to see the need to struggle, even violently, to overthrow the current social relations, replacing them with new ones. It takes active participation for freedom to thrive, not some benevolent government or protector. It is this conscious activity that will truly free a people and keep them free, far better than any gun can.