Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 14:25:23 -0400
From: Chuck Munson <chuck-AT-tao.ca>
Subject: Re: Anarchy Magazine and Violence


I finally got a copy of Jamal's comments about Anarchy magazine.


> >X-Authentication-Warning: lists.village.virginia.edu: domo set sender to
> owner-anarchy-list-AT-localhost using -f
> >Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 19:17:53 -0400 (EDT)
> >From: Jamal Hannah x342446 <jah-AT-parsons.iww.org>
> >To: anarchy-list-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> >Subject: Anarchy Magazine and Violence
> >Sender: owner-anarchy-list-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> >Reply-To: Jamal Hannah x342446 <jah-AT-parsons.iww.org>
> >
> >I just saw the new issue of Anarchy magazine.  I am very concerned that
> >the magazine takes a pro-violence stance... or at least, the stance that
> >violence of no tactical significance.. even violence that would have
> >harmful consequences for the anarchist movement, has some value or virtue.

It took a pro-violence stance? Am I missing something here? All I saw
was a call to support the Unabomber. That shouldn't be controversial for
anarchists, most of whom are against prisons.

> >There was an interview with a guy from "Green Anarchist" in the UK who
> >said that the anarchists who didnt support the Unabomber were "Scum"...
> >what the heck ever happened to the idea that in anarchism, people are
> >allowed to have differing ideas?  Obviously, some people will like the
> >Unabomber (hopefully few), but people have the right to NOT like him
> >either.

I really liked the Green Anarchist interview and thought it brought up
some important points. I didn't like how they dissed Ramsey and Micah,
but I'm not an expert on the Green Anarchist-Neoist spat. Is it like
that pointless debate we have here in the states on lifestyle anarchism?

> >It also amazes me how people from anarchy magazine who defend the violence
> >of the Unabomber seem to expect someone else to commit violent acts, but
> >they do not seem to want to take responsibility for them themselves.  The
> >reality that violent acts present for anarchists is that if ONE anarchist
> >murders someone.. just one... then ALL of us will suffer, because we will
> >be under heavier survielence and more likely to have our normal lives
> >disrupted by the authorities.

This paragraph is what really tees me off, more than anything else. I
can see the value in disagreeing with Anarchy magazine's stance on the
Unabomber, but to say that printing such an editorial hurts anarchists
and makes us more likely to be victimized by authorities is downright
cowardly. I believe that anarchist ideas are good ones and that we have
something to say about the world. It disgusts me that there are those
who call themselves anarchists who say we can't have an open debate
about issues in our magazines. Should we advocate free speech, yet
censor ourselves?

Anarchism has a long tradition of violence, which we shouldn't try to
hide. I'm not in favor of violence, but I think we can discuss it. If
non-anarchists say something about anarchists being violent, we just
have to show them that anarchists are less violent than the regular
population. We have a much better track record of opposing wars than any
other political or ideological persuasion, save maybe some religious
group.

We shouldn't be defensive on this. We need to show people that the State
and their lackeys are the violent ones. Especially the United States.
This is why I have joined with fellow radical librarians to protest the
upcoming keynote speech by Colin Powell to the ALA national convention.

> >Jason called one anarchist in the letter section of ANARCHY magazine who
> >opposed violence an "anarcho liberal".  Just why is it that not wanting to
> >commit random acts of violence.. bombing, killings, etc makes one a
> >"liberal"?  It seems that Anarchy magazine is just as guilty of
> >namecalling and a doctrinaire adherence to a set of principles as any
> >"left anarchist" group they accuse of the same things.

The anarchist he called an "anarcho liberal" happens to be a good friend
of mine. I agree with Jason's label of Stamm's views, especially the
lame letter where he offered to pay Jason to change the name of his
magazine. This is pathetic. Somebody approached me at the S.F. Book Fair
and suggested that I drop the "Practical" part in my zine's name
(Practical Anarchy). He claimed that my zine was more representative of
what anarchy was about. I didn't say anything, but I would have
disagreed with him. 

These are stupid battles to fight folks. We arguing about how to space
the deck chairs and the whole damn planet is sinking. Folks who are
concerned about these things are just as pathetic as the party leftists
they profess to be different from.

Ed is a middle class liberal who looks at anarchism as a quaint hobby.
He won't even practice what he preaches. He won't even join the IWW
because they angered him more than 10 years ago. I'll bet he even
supports the war in Yugoslavia.

> >If innocent anarchists start getting locked up or assasinated, I can see
> >where some kind of violent actions might be justified.. that is, if the
> >very fundimental freedoms and rights of people were being violeated, then
> >the state would be seen as less legitimate in the eyes of the public.. but
> >this is not the case right now, and I think violence would be a grave
> >mistake for anarchists to support.

In your dreams Jamal. It ain't going to happen, because we're not a
threat. We're too busy worrying about what name a magazine has or how
average people might perceive the content.

Jamal is entitled to his opinions against violence, but his concern
about how we are perceived when we talk about these things is very
unanarchistic.

Chuck0