Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 22:44:08 -0400 Subject: Re: Against Political Violence (Was Re: First Black Bloc RecruitingPoster Ready for the Street!) From: Chuck0 <chuck-AT-dojo.tao.ca> Jamal Hannah wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Mike Flugennock wrote: > > > Chuck's pretty much nailed my attitude on "sanctimonious pacifism"; this, combined with the escalation of state terror aginst political protesters, helped spawn the "Gandhi is dead" image in my mind. What troubled me a bit was going to meetings and reading newsgroups and such, and hearing lots and lots of "Ya Basta" and "Viva EZLN" and "Che Vive", but if someone were to mention the rapidly deteriorating social/economic situation in the USA, and mention the possibility of actual armed rebellion in the USA, you'd think they just let their cat piss on the carpet. The vibe I get from certain quarters is that it's OK to cheer for revolution in Mexico or Nicaragua or Cuba or Peru, but it's a big no-no here...and what really worries me that the current escalation of state/corporate tyranny may not leave us much choice very soon. > > First of all, I want to know why it is ok to insult and dismiss people who > oppose bombings, assasination, and stupid racist posters as > "sanctimonious".. but the people who are pro-violence cant be > touched.. maybe it is the pro-violence people who are "sanctimonious"? Jamal, I suggest you read Mike's paragraph again. He's making a crucial point about activists who prefer their revolution to be elsewhere, be it on another country or safely esconced in some history book. Jamal, you weren't being dismissed as sanctimonious. When I wrote that, I was thinking of a local pacifist who is on some kind of crusade to smear those of us who tolerate a little rock-throwing in response to severe police repression. You are seeing this in black and white, almost like our favorite sanctimonious pacifist Carol Moore. I'm not advocating violence, nor is Mike. We're certainly not supporting armed struggle in the U.S., or terrorism or bombings. Sometimes, I just don't get it. Why is it that anarchists that I've known for some time suddenly fgo into denial about anarchist history. Last time I checked Jamal, your website had links to websites about the Spanish Revolution and other anarchist revolutions. Anarchists took up arms in those revolutions. They killed plenty of people, mostly fascists. Still, I'm sure that many of them would have said that they favored nonviolence, but that the circumstances warranted armed struggle. The situation in the U.S. is certainly nowhere near that of 1930s Spain, but we're getting awfully close. Mike said that he favors nonviolence. I do too. I prefer it. I'm not a violent person myself, but I know that I'd throw a rock at the cops in certain circumstances. I know that because I've yelled at cops before and got arrested for it once. But most of the time I'm nonviolent. Personally, I've done a lot of thinking about this in the past year (even before Seattle) and concluded that I cannot toe a strict line of nonviolence for political reasons. Like Mike, I'm a veteran activist who has gotten tired of activists who spout nonviolence and civil disobedience but don't practice it. I have a lot of respect for nonviolent activists liek the Berrigans and the Plowshares folks who actually practice what they preach. For too long, for many activists, nonviolent CD has meant rallies and marches which kowtow to police orders and never, ever push the boundaries. > We can see that the vangaurdist bombings done in the early 70's were > completely useless and a total disaster.. they served only to fuel an > adolescent rage and desire for destruction.. Yes, they were pretty stupid. They were carried out by activists in their 20s, though. I don't think they can be considered to be adolescents. In the big scheme of things, the anti-war movement was pretty ineffective. Violence wouldn't have made it more effective, but perhaps a more sustained campaign would have accomplished something. > it has nothing to do with a > movement that represents working people, a movement where the working > class has a part in saying what should or shouldn't be done to fight the > system. A movement shouldn't *represent* working people, it should be *composed of* working people. We see the latter in the current post-Seattle movement. The movement that claims to *represent* working people held its rally on Sunday. > Actions people take like bombings where there is no real > _organized movement_ of millions of people are just petty vangaurdism. Umm, who's bombing who again? Even if this was happening now, it is done for reasons that are quite different from vanguardism. > Those of us who have invested our time organizing the anarchist movement > will really be pissed when we all get thrown in jail on the flimsiest of > premises because some assholes set off some bombs or murdered people in > the name of "Anarchy" so the population looks the other way when sweeping > sedition laws are enforced. Nobody has thrown bombs yet. And if you look at history you know that the cops will do it to make us look bad. Face it, it's out of our control. The police will crack down on us if they want to, they don't need a pretext. What is important for us as anarchists is that we keep our eye on the prize and develop a practical strategy to accomplish that. Most of the time, this is going to involve work that doesn't take place in the streets. If this needs to be conveyed to new anarchists, so be it. Those that speculate that anarchists throwing rocks are going to slip into armed violence are devaluing the righteous anger that many of these people have. > If you actualy go back and read about the collapse of Students for a > Democratic Society, there were many, many intelligent, creative people > saying that it was not the time for violence, or terrorism, > or any of that crap... they were scoffed at as "liberals". If I remember correctly, the SDS broke up because the Maoists attempted to take it over for their own ends. > People had not sat down and done the hard work of organizing the > large sectors of the population who were open to their ideas, if only they > were broadcast to them in a way they could grasp and accept. You can't broadcast those messages to the people unless you can get their attention. If it weren't for those broken windows in Seattle, I wouldn't be getting calls from dozens of journalists wanting to know what anarchists are thinking. > This takes hard work, imagination, and patience... something people > prone to sporatic violence do not have. I agree with you, but you are passing judgement on people you haven't met. Sometimes, those who are prone to sporadic violence are also the ones who do much of the hard work and are usually patient. I know from experience. > It would be a tragedy if impatent people started setting off bombs or > killing people now just when the anarchist movement has started gaining > steam. Denouncing Gandhi is a bad sign of possible things to come... it is > also rather frightening that pacifists are being slandered and bigoted > against... called "liberals" and other shit. It's amazing that people who > _dont_ want to hurt anyone are being called some kind of statists. That's always a possibility, but I think it is a remote one at this point. You really should give these anarchists some credit. You've got this stuff about pacifists turned around. I can send you dozens of emails from Carol Moore in which she has slandered me and told incredible lies about anarchists. Those of us who living here in D.C. who interact with her have been AWFULLY tolerant of her crap. > Finaly, in the USA we currently have a decent amount of freedom compared > to other countries. It depends on who you ask. You can start with the 2 million in jail. > We also have a strong economy. Uhh, the rich have a strong economy. Most of might be doing a bit better than 5 years ago, but if a recession hits most of us will be jobless. > The US government and > state forces are being very careful to have the "moral high ground" in > much of what they do... you can see it on TV all the time. This is why, > right now, its not hip to talk about armed struggle in America. Who's talking about armed struggle? If they are, they would be out of touch with reality. If people > like Noam Chomsky were being murdered, strikers were being gunned down, or > a right-wing maniac like Pat Buchanan were president, it would be a > different story. In other countries, like Mexico, people live in abject > poverty and have few rights since they arn't rich. In America, > middle-class white kids can leave home and live on the street and feel > "free", because life isnt so bad for them. This is the situation we are > in, and why the old vangaurdist call for "armed revolt" in a time when > most of the working class are not organized some how is really a big > mistake. Are you saying that some of the kids in the black blocs are middle class suburban kids who want to play revolutionaries? Lighten up Jamal. Things are going well for us right now. << Chuck0 >> This was the year *everything* changed. -- Commander Ivanova, 2261 Mid-Atlantic Infoshop -> http://www.infoshop.org/ Alternative Press Review -> http://www.altpr.org/ Practical Anarchy Online -> http://www.practicalanarchy.org/ Homepage -> http://flag.blackened.net/chuck0/home/ "A society is a healthy society only to the degree that it exhibits anarchistic traits." - Jens Bjørneboe
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005