He says the weak should just deal with it. And he isn't really coming up with this himself, but pretty much just saying what the New Testament actually reads. His point is that if everyone 'does not resist violence' then the world will be perfect. This seems like a recipe for disaster, but it worked for Gandhi and the other thing Tolstoy advocates is not supporting any entity that does violence. So yeah, thugs could kill good people (as they have and do), but if everyone bought in then that would eventually take away the power of the thugs.
There's a school of thought that argues that it didn't work for Gandhi, or MLK for that matter. That both of those "non-violent" leaders' words and actions were backed by the everpresent threat of violence. These include obvious threats like Malcom X and less obvious ones like the potential for a large group of people to simply devolve into violence when provoked.
Indeed, one could possibly argue that encouraging non-violence is beneficial to the state because it effectivly reduces the threat to the state and makes alternate views easier to ignore.
I personally think it's more complicated than either view, but it's worth considering that in a larger context, non-violence rarely means non-coercive.
'Worked for Gandhi' != 'worked for the weak'. The weak in India have a pretty poor experience.
I also wouldn't use the New Testament as a canonical reference for human psychology. Jesus wasn't above a bit of 'violent' police-work anyway - chasing away shopkeepers from a temple with a whip isn't purist non-violence.
No offense, but don't the 'weak' anywhere have poor experiences? (as in the stronger one would take advantage of the weak) I don't think it applies specifically to India?
Would you rather be an 'untouchable' in India or a 'chav' in the modern UK? They're both weak members of their respective societies, but the latter gets healthcare, shelter, and food supplied by the state if they can't provide for themselves.
Didn't Ghandi have the same plan to deal with the Nazis, should they make it to India? It's highly unlikely that the Nazis would have just backed down, so it was very lucky for him that they didn't get that far.
Non-violent movements needs an audience with influence to succeed. You need an influential gallery to play to. Gandhi had that. Not everyone does, for example Palestinians dont
