Today's Topics:
1. FAU-Hamburg: Support to CLARIN workers (Argentina)
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
2. France, Alternative Libertaire AL - Public Meeting / Debate,
Act instead of electing! by AL Montpellier (fr, it, pt) [machine
translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
3. France, Alternative Libertaire - Against the meeting of the
National Front, April 16 in Aubervilliers by AL 94 North, AL
Paris North Eas (fr, it, pt) [machine translation]
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
4. Czech, afed: Existential party on "guardians of order"
[machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
5. anarkismo.net - An Anarchist Perspective: On the Question of
Violence and Nonviolence As a Tactic and Strategy Within the
Social Protest Movement by David Van Deusen - Green Mountain
Anarchist Collective (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
----------------------------------------------------------------------Message: 1
Solidarity with the worker of AGR-Clarin (Argentina)!
After employees of the printing of AGR-Clarin newspaper were layoffed, the workspace is
occupied for more than two month and the employees are on strike. The demand is to revoke
the layoffs. At the moment the employer tries to break the strike by printing the Sunday
edition of the newspaper in Chile. The strike and the occupation found a massive echo and
many unions and syndicates solidarized with the fighting employees. ---- This all happens
while the government of Macri attacks workers' rights as part of an austerity policy and
tries to break the resistant of the unions and syndicates. So the AGR-Clarin strike is one
part of massive struggle for preserve workers' rights.
Free Wokers Union - Hamburg)
------------------------------
Message: 2
As elections come closer, the mirage of change through the ballot boxes is confirmed. Yet
prospects for abolishing capitalism are not lacking. Come to debate it in Montpellier
during a public meeting organized by Alternative Libertaire. ---- The result of the first
is already a catastrophe. It will probably be Macron against the Le Pen or worse,
Fillon-Le Pen. ---- To avoid fascism, we will have to vote en masse for a manure that will
inflict a neo-liberal purge by beating the mouth. ---- The Mélenchon phenomenon is the
only more interesting perspective, but its strategy, based on institutional change is
doomed to failure, like Mitterrand or closer to us in time, Syriza. ---- True change will
not come from elections: it is not possible to abolish capitalism, through the republican
state, an institution created to manage and defend it.
The solution does not come from the delegation of voting, a paper bulletin with little
meaning, but from taking control of our own lives through action.
Let us build assemblies of struggles, strikes, and develop our revolt. We do not want a
sixth republic, but a free federation of communes.
Come and debate with us
April 21 at 7 pm at the Barricade
14 rue Aristide-Ollivier (tramway station)
Montpellier
Find the event on social networks
http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?Agir-au-lieu-d-elire
------------------------------
Message: 3
RDV April 16 at 14h in Aubervilliers, metro Quatre-Chemins and demonstration to Paris 19th
-Stalingrad. ---- To close this nauseating and surreal electoral campaign, the National
Front is holding its Parisian meeting on Monday, April 17th at the Zenith. The FN program
is only an aggravation of what we are already undergoing. It is only a question of
restrictions on the rights and freedoms of each individual: Challenging social rights, the
rights of workers, women and immigrants ; Banalisation and amplification of the state of
emergency, racism and Islamophobia. ---- We therefore call each and every one to join the
demonstration on Sunday April 16, 2 pm, Aubervilliers, Quatre-Chemins metro ---- First
signatories: ---- AFA, La Horde, Siamo, Solidaires-Paris, Sud Education Paris, Solidaires
RATP, DAL, Rights before !!, FTCR. (Tunisian Federation for Citizenship des deux Rives)
Fasti Paris Collectif Paris 20 th Solidarity with all migrants, Collectif 19 March
Paris18, The Voiceless-Paris18, out of colonialism, Alternative Libertaire, CSP 75 /
CISPM, CUAFA Paris 20 E (Antifascist and Antiracist Unity Collective), Integration21 ...
http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?Contre-le-meeting-du-Front-National-le-16-avril-a-Aubervilliers
------------------------------
Message: 4
Invitation to the traditional debate on the occasion of the release of another number
anarchist revue, Existence. ---- April 26, 2017 From 19.00 Info Salé (Orebitská 14, Prague
3 - Žižkov) ---- AF invites publishers to mark the release of the next issue of anarchist
revue, Existence of the news sitting at the information center Salé. ---- In connection
with the main theme "guardians of order" we would like to discuss about it, why would ACAB
password should be included in the canon of folk wisdom? What were the reasons for the
institution of the police? What is its core function and underprivileged why she hates?
And what will be the next topic? ---- Even your opinions, insights, and ideas to help
shape the content, form and distribution of the anarchist magazine, which began as a
quarterly published again in 2010.
New issue of existence , as well as the elderly, will be available on site (also recall
the need for further distribution).
From 18.30 held a joint dinner.
https://www.afed.cz/text/6648/existencni-vecirek-na-tema-ochranci-poradku
------------------------------
Message: 5
Nonviolence can be used in many circumstances as an effective tactic, but it is
irrelevant, irresponsible, and utterly ridiculous to even consider it as a strategy. So
yes, nonviolence should be utilized as a tactic where pertinent, and in turn pacifism, as
an ideology and a strategy, must be purged from our movement. ---- "Let us remember that
every great step forward in history has not come into fruition until it has first been
baptized in blood." ---- - Mikhail Bakunin ---- NOTE: The essay was first published, not
so long after the Battle of Seattle, as a pamphlet by Black Clover Press, Montpelier VT,
2001. It has not previously been available in other formats. ---- Introduction ----
Militancy and direct action are not only necessary tactical tools for the anarchist left,
but, when correctly implemented, they are also the facilitators of inspiration and
motivation for both those involved with the act in question and those who observe the act
in question. It is such activity that helps draw numbers into the movement by creating an
outlet for the venting of frustration and alienation. In short, militancy and direct
action, by challenging the entrenched power of the wealthy ruling class and state, fosters
a sense of empowerment upon those who partake, while also furthering creative aspirations
by hinting at what a revolution toward a non-oppressive society might feel like.
Of course, militancy and direct action do not carry the inherent qualification of being
violent or nonviolent in and of themselves. The slashing of management's car tires during
a labor dispute, as well as erecting of barricades and subsequent rioting against the
forces of the State during a pro-working class demonstration are both clearly militant
actions, but so too is a non-violent workers' factory occupation during a strike as well
as occupying major city intersections and shutting down of financial districts during a
protest against neoliberalism.
Clearly there are many circumstances in which non-violent tactics are not only advisable,
but also the only effective course possible. Furthermore, tactical nonviolence is always
the preferred course of action when its outcome can bring about the desired objective and
subjective results more effectively or as effectively as a violent act. Such practices
should be encouraged and taught throughout the anarchist and leftist movement generally in
order to maintain a moral superiority over the forces of capital and the state, who of
course practices both overt and covert violence with little discrimination on a consistent
basis. This commitment to nonviolence is fundamentally based on pragmatism and
revolutionary ethics, while finding its material existence through the implementation of
tactics. However, nonviolence should, under no circumstances, be understood as a strategy
in and of itself. When nonviolence is used as a strategy it transcends its existence as a
descriptive term and defines itself as an idea, a noun, as "pacifism"; it becomes an ideology.
When nonviolence is used correctly, as a tactic, it is a most useful tool in the popular
struggle. The reason for this is because such a display of resistance is indicative of an
underlying threat of violence. For if people are willing to put themselves on the line for
the sake of liberty, and if these people are willing to risk bodily harm in such an
action, it displays a level of commitment, which, if turned in a violent manner, could
manifest itself in the form of a future insurrection; an insurrection where if critical
mass is attained could threaten the foundation of state power; that of the ruling class
and the underlying anti-culture.
Ironically the victories of the Civil Rights Movement in the South during the 1950's and
‘60's owes a lot to the inherent threat of violence. In this case, the southern
leadership, embodied in Martin Luther King Jr., expounded upon the need for nonviolence to
be utilized as a strategy. However, this movement did not take place in a vacuum. Parallel
to the happenings in the South, a movement for black liberation was being launched in the
North, and elsewhere, as embodied in the Nation of Islam, later in an autonomous Malcolm
X, and then in the Black Panther Party (BPP), and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating
Committee, SNCC, a group which formally rejected strategic nonviolence while under the
leadership of Stokely Carmichael. This aspect of the movement displayed signs of extreme
militancy and was not pacifistic in rhetoric or in character. To the government this
represented the logical alternative to which the movement as a whole would turn if certain
terms were not ceded to the pacifistic element in the South. The much trumpeted success of
the Southern Civil Rights Movement's pacifistic strategy has, despite itself, much to
thank to the threat of violence
In the following essay, I will elaborate on the above theme. First, I will discuss
situations where political violence in not only necessary, but ethically justifiable.
Second, I will discuss the natural disjunction between strategic nonviolence and the poor
and working classes, and finally, I will discuss the contemporary bourgeois roots of
pacifism as an ideology of the status quo.
When Violence is Necessary
The fact is that there are times when the only way to effectively advance a movement is
through the use of violence. Sometimes, this necessity is clearly in reaction to
particular act of state violence, other times it is due to more general circumstances.
Either way, justifiable acts of leftist/working class violence are always fundamentally an
act of self-defense insofar as the very institutions of the capitalist state inherently
constitute continuing physical and psychological violence against the great mass of its
people.
"Once the State moves to consolidate its own power, peace has already been broken."
- Che Guevara
More concretely, violence can be understood as absolutely necessary during certain phases
of popular struggle.
This occurs when:
1. Nonviolent options have been explored yet no ostensible victory has been reached.
In the face of exploitation and oppression, inaction is akin to no action, and hence is
tacit acceptance and support of those evils. In addition, the continued implementation of
proven ineffectual tactics in the face of these evils must be considered akin to inaction,
in that ineffectual tactics translates into the same end result; continued exploitation
and oppression of the poor and working class by the hands of the ruling class, bourgeoisie
and their lackeys. Thus, it would follow that there may arise circumstances, after the
exploration of peaceful options, where the only ethical course available to a movement, or
individual, is of a violent kind.
2. Whenever State oppression becomes violent, to the point where the movement itself or
large segments of the population or the premises on which the people subsist are
threatened with liquidation.
The physical self-defense of a people, a movement, or the premises upon which they
subsist, is a self-evident right, obvious in the natural world. To claim otherwise is to
deny the bravery, justness and dignity of Sitting Bull and the Lakota of the 1870's, the
Jews of Warsaw during the Nazi occupation of the 1940's, the Cuban's defense at the Bay of
Pigs in the early 1960's, the man who vanquishes the would-be murderer of his child, and
the woman who manages to physically fight off a would-be rapist. To allow for otherwise is
nothing but a neurotic self-denying tendency and an unnatural will to suicide.
3. Violence must be understood as a looming fact once the critical mass necessary to
seriously challenge a ruling class and state power is domestically reached.
To believe that the state will voluntarily relinquish its power in the face of a moral
challenge is as childish and absurd as it is dangerous. History, without exception, has
shown that a parent state will react to any legitimate or perceived threat to its domestic
power with a ruthless violent suppression of the threat. If that means the murder of large
sections of its own population, so be it. Pacifism in the face of such repression
translates into no more than the eradication of the insurrectional movement through the
means of murder to the sum of absolute death. Once the state finds itself backed into the
proverbial corner, it can be expected to act by animalistic instinct; in short, it will
fight for its life and will not relinquish until either itself or all of its foes are
dead. Let us not forget the 30,000 fallen heroes of the Paris Commune whose blood will
forever stain the consciousness of modern France.
Some would argue that the above claim is proven false by the historical fact of Mahatma
Gandhi's pacifistic movement; a movement which did succeed in liberating India from direct
British imperial rule. However, such a line of argument does not apply in this case, as
that particular case did not occur inside a primary capitalist nation. Rather it occurred
on the edges of a crumbling empire. The response of the British government would have
differed radically if the movement had occurred inside one of its perceived, primary
domestic provinces, or if it were a general domestic movement against the state apparatus
itself. The former of which is born out in the fact that the present situation in Northern
Ireland has its contemporary roots in the 1960's nonviolent Catholic Civil Rights Movement.
Therefore, if the goal of the anarchists and the left generally is not self-eradication
through a violent counter reaction and the subsequent consolidation of oppressive forces,
it will recognize nonviolence for what it is; a tactic, not a strategy.
Pacifism as Foreign to the Poor and Working Classes
One must also question the ability of a nonviolent movement to generate the critical mass
necessary to substantially challenge the entrenched fundamental power structure of the
nation/state. Since the death of Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968, pacifism has failed to
attract any significant numbers outside of the upper middle and wealthy classes. The
reason for such failure is that pacifism does not commonly attract members of the working
and sub-working class because it bears no resemblance to their experience of reality or
their values and shared history of struggle.
If one's goal is to aid in the building of a serious revolutionary movement, one must be
sure that movement is inclusive to those classes that inherently possess revolutionary
potential. Thus, it is necessary to construct a movement which is empirically relevant to
poor and working class reality. This not only means agitation on their behalf, but also
utilizing a strategy which is consistent with the developing/potential class consciousness
of such a constituency. If a movement fails to do such, it will fail to draw the necessary
critical mass from those classes and in turn will fail to achieve its supposed goals.
Furthermore, such failures are probably indicative of the co-option of that movement by
ideological prejudices imported from the bourgeoisie; most likely in the form of
upper-middle class activists present in the left. Nonviolence, as a strategy is a perfect
example of such counterproductive prejudices.
I have often heard discussions among upper-middle class activists about the need to stay
away from violent confrontations with the state at demonstrations in order to "not turn
people off". The fact is the only people who are likely to be automatically turned off by
legitimate acts of self-defense are upper middle class and wealthy types who will most
likely never be won over to the side of revolution anyway. On the other hand, it is common
that folk from within the poor and working classes are inspired by the direct and
unobstructed confrontations with the forces of the status quo. These communities
appreciate the honesty, dignity, and bravery that popular self-defense demands. These are
the future agents of revolution and they are not as easily turned away by the truth that
real struggle entails. Violent self-defense on behalf of, and through a constituency
emanating from their class, is a more pure expression of their collective frustrations
brought on from alienation and made objective through their continuing poverty or sense of
slavery through accumulated debt.
To further illustrate this all one has to do is look at the various strikes,
demonstrations, protests, riots, etc., of the past two years to see how those from within
the poor and working classes have conducted themselves when confronted with state violence
and restraint. Here we can observe the violent uprising of the poor and working class
black folk within Cincinnati (April 2001), the anti-capitalist riots of the Quebecois
youth A20 (anti-FTAA demo, Quebec City, April 2001), the numerous Black Bloc
anti-capitalist actions throughout North America and Europe (Seattle, 1999, through Genoa,
2001) the armed peasant uprisings from Bolivia to Nepal, the massive militant protests of
the Argentine working class against the neoliberal policies of the capitalist government
(summer, 2001), the violent union strikes within South Korea, as well as countless other
examples of poor and working class resistance the world over.
Compare these developing mass movements composed of persons squarely within the more
oppressed economic classes to the relatively impotent and groundless protests of strictly
nonviolent upper middle class "reformers". Two decades of liberal dominance within the
left, from the late 1970's through the later 1990's, resulted in little or no tangible
victories, and often resulted in isolating left wing politics from its supposed mass
working class base. These liberals, democratic socialists, non-government organizations
(NGO's), etc., failed to deliver a mass movement of an oppressed constituency. All they
did manage to deliver was countless boring protests, which rarely even received media
coverage of any kind, and Walter Mondale, as the losing alternative to Ronald Reagan in
the 1984 U.S. Presidential election.
The basic fact is, the strategy of nonviolence is foreign to the poor and working classes,
and any grouping which places such an ideology ahead of the real desires and inclinations
of the masses of exploited people will inevitably remain marginalized, isolated, and
ineffectual. Here they become no more than the would-be mediators of continuing alienation
and oppression, if only with a dash more of welfare programs and workplace safety boards.
Pacifism is foreign to the social reality of the workers. For example, few of us who grew
up without the privilege of gross excess capital did so without learning the value of
knowing how to fight. Unequivocal nonviolence in grade school would have earned us the
same thing it does in the political arena; further bullying, further oppression. An early
lesson for many of us was the effectiveness of "standing up to the bully." Such an act
always carried with it the threat of violence, if not the implementation of violence. To
take such a stand without such a commitment would have resulted in nothing more than a
black eye. It is from this early age that the more oppressed classes learn the value of
violence as a tool of liberation.
Historically, violence has proven to be politically relevant through union struggles and
neighborhood fights against the exploitation of the poor and working class. The history of
the labor struggle is a history of blood, death, and dignity. From the Pinkertons to the
scabs, to the police, army, and National Guard; from lynching to fire bombings the U.S.
Government, acting as the political ram of the ruling class, more often than not has
forced the working class to defend itself through its only proven weapons; class-conscious
organization and self-defense, when need be, through violence. This is a historical fact
that is apparent in the social underpinnings of working class community, if not always
consciously remembered by its inheritors.
In addition, the more advanced elements of the poor and working class has, for 150 years,
been exposed to and has autonomously developed ideologies of liberations which not only
map the current state of affairs and predict future trends, but also prescribe the
justified use of violence as a necessary element of their own liberation. In turn, these
ideologies, although often greatly flawed, have been a consistent traveler through the
trials and tribulations of these workers since the dawn of the industrial age. When
successes were found, these ideologies were also present. Although it is true that much
leftist ideology is becoming a dinosaur of the past within primary capitalist nations
(i.e. those espousing the various forms of authoritarian communism) it must be recognized
that in and of itself it has been responsible for its own transcendence. It is part of the
common history of struggle and even with its passing it reserves a place of prestige
within the social unconscious of the past and present revolutionary struggle. You tell me
how willing the more self-conscious elements of the poor and working classes are to deny
this history.
Of course, violence should not be canonized. These same communities implement violence
upon themselves in a destructive manner as well. Domestic violence, murder, and armed
robbery of members of their own class is a reality in many poor and working class
neighborhoods. But, these forms of internal violence can be attributed to alienation as
experienced in an oppressive society. Thus, crime rates have historically plummeted in
such neighborhoods during times of class autonomy (i.e. Paris 1871, Petrograd 1917-1921,
Barcelona 1936-39). Of course, we should condemn such negative forms of violence and work
toward their eradication, but we should do so without throwing the baby out with the bath
water.
Violence, both of a positive and negative sort, is an element of poor and working class
culture. Violence is also a proven tool of liberation in poor and working class ghettos,
both in relation to the personal and the political. And finally this reality is further
validated by ongoing world events and historical fact.
Nonviolence as a philosophic universal must be understood as the negation of the existence
of the poor and working classes. And no, I do not solely mean their existence as an
oppressed element; I mean their existence as a class which possesses a self-defined
dignity through their ongoing struggle against alienation and exploitation.
Ideological nonviolence is the negation of their shared history of struggle. It denies
their dreams of freedom by its sheer absurdity and stifles certain forms of their
self-expression through its totalitarian and insanely idealistic demands. In a word,
strategic nonviolence is the negation of class consciousness; it is irrelevant at best and
slavery at worst. In itself, it represents the conscious and/or unconscious attempt of the
more privileged classes to sterilize the revolutionary threat forever posed by a
confident, self-conscious, and truly revolutionary working class.
Once again, it is conceivable that some would argue the contrary by pointing to poor and
working class involvement in the nonviolent movement in Gandhi's India and/or Martin
Luther King Jr.'s Civil Rights Movement. However, the extent to which non-violence was
accepted as a strategy by these classes is born out in the events which followed the
initial successes of these respective movements. In India the same elements that partook
in nonviolent actions quickly, and regrettably, fractioned off into two camps; the Hindu
on the one hand and the Muslim on the other. Not long after, these factions had no qualms
about mobilizing to fight successive wars against one another. Let us remember that both
these factions today possess nuclear weapons, which are aimed at one another. In the
southern U.S. many of the same persons who marched with King also adopted a decidedly
non-pacifistic strategy in the later days of SNCC, the formation of BPP chapters, and the
Black Liberation Army cells throughout the region. In addition, let us not forget the
riots which occurred upon the news of King's assassination, turning the black ghettos
across the U.S. into a virtual war zone. In the final analysis, both of these pacifistic
movements must be recognized as only being such in the minds of their respected
leadership. The masses of poor and working class people, which gave these movements their
strength, never internalized nonviolence as a strategy; rather nonviolence was no more
than a particular tactic to be used as long as its utility bore itself out.
Psychological Roots of Pacifism as a Bourgeois Ideology
So, if pacifism bears no resemblance to poor and working class reality and has no
historical or sound philosophical base, what can its existence, as a strategy, be
attributed to? The answer is: the deformed ideology of the progressive element of the
bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie - in other words that of the classes composing the
higher and lower levels of the wealthy privileged classes.
It is true that many individuals from these classes have become legitimate and outstanding
revolutionaries through the process of becoming radicalized and declassed; Mikhail
Bakunin, Karl Marx and Che Guevara to name but a few. And of course, there are many such
individuals in our movement today. But, it is also true that many bourgeois elements
present in the left still cling to their class privileges and prejudices as if a gilded
crutch. They are oddballs in that they are bourgeois yet are driven by a self-loathing as
facilitated by class guilt. On the one hand they wish to rectify the ills they feel
responsible for, and on the other they are too unimaginative and weak of constitution to
cleave themselves from their class privileges and the relative security that entails.
Hence, they cling to the only political strategy which can, in their minds, both absolve
them from their materials sins and maintain the status quo of their class security; in a
word, they become pacifists. In this move they reject the dialectical materialism of both
anarchism and communism by subjecting themselves to an idea at the expense of concrete
experience.
Pacifism lacks any sound material bases. A quick observation of nature will tell you that
the natural world is not without violence and human beings are not outside the natural
world. Life is violent. Everything from the eruption of a volcano, to the lion's killing
of her prey, to human ingestion of a vegan meal, possesses a degree of violence. Think of
all the weeds that were killed in the production of that tomato, or of all the living
microorganisms that our body necessarily destroys through ingestion, or through the very
act of breathing; that is violence.
Like the eighteenth century French philosopher Rene Descartes, these charlatans reject the
fact of the body for the phantom of the mind. They create the idea of unconditional
nonviolence and enslave themselves to it; instinct, lived experience, historical fact, be
damned. Through their ideology they become the same beasts of dualism that have tethered
the human race from Plato to Catholicism.
Pacifism is fundamentally at odds with anarchism in its view of the state. Pacifism
functions by the maxim that the tacit and active perpetrators of oppression (i.e. the
state through the ruling class) possess an inherent ability to rectify themselves if the
true appalling nature of that oppression is unmasked to them. Hence, it is also assumed
that the ruling class possesses the ability to make such an observation and that it will
display the desire to make such change. Anarchism contends that the very existence of a
state apparatus insures the continuing oppression of the exploited classes. This is due to
the inherent tendency of power to corrupt those who possess it; and those who possess
power seek to consolidate that power. The state apparatus tends to safeguard itself from
such possibilities through the creation of bureaucratic institutions which entail a
codified dogma specifically designed to maintain the status quo. With this development
class oppression becomes an irreversible fact, within the statist paradigm, even in the
unthinkable unlikelihood that large elements of the ruling class were to desire its
radical reforming. In this sense the state is a self-propelling evil that is no more
capable of eradicating class oppression than it is of eradicating itself; Frankenstein's
monster resurrected. Therefore, pacifism is fundamentally at odds with anarchism. Either
the state is potentially a vehicle for liberation, or it is an institution of slavery.
Plain and simple.
Bourgeois pacifists become modern ideologues of a confused status quo. They adhere to
pseudo-rebellion, and in doing so they serve the function of bolstering the state through
the implementation of a strategy that acts as an abstracted semblance of insurrection; a
false, non-threatening insurrection squarely within the parameters of the predominant
anti-culture. And here they defuse the revolutionary potential of any movement they touch
by acting as the unconscious arm of the expanding anti-culture apparatus of false
appearances and mundane stability. For as long as their strategy lacks any real potential
to fundamentally challenge class bias and status quo; as long as such a strategy is devoid
of the true ability to deconstruct the economic and cultural system that allows for the
establishment of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie; as long as this strategy takes on
a language of righteous and pious revolution, these self-loathing activities of a physical
comfort can go to sleep at night both feeling redeemed through their rebellion and secure
in knowing their tacitly oppressive luxury will be there for them again, tomorrow.
What further makes these pacifists oddballs, is the fact that through their
pseudo-revolutionary activity they incur an alienated relationship with the less
analytical elements of their own class, who in their ignorance constitute the class
majority. These elements mistakenly view them as class traitors. This is ironic because
nothing could be further from the truth. These people stand fundamentally in solidarity
with their roots. And, if their activity has any ostensible effect on the larger movement,
it is to prolong the day of insurrection, not to expedite it.
If left to their own delusions they would not deserve such discussion, but they, like
Christian missionaries, seek to spread their neurotic illusion to new populations; in this
case the poor and working classes. And in doing so they have infiltrated the leftists and
anarchist movements and even now threaten to rob it of its pressing relevance by divorcing
it from its learned experience.
The poor and working classes are naturally not drawn to pacifism. If pacifism becomes the
prime mode of operation for leftists and anarchists organizations, these organizations
will cease to have any legitimate tie to their natural constituents. Although it would be
ignorant to contend that such an ideology will fail to gain a certain degree of reluctant
converts among naturally opposing classes. If such irrationalities never occurred in
society, Italian and German fascism would never have manifested themselves with the power
that they did. In short, aspects of the poor and working classes can be expected to adopt
a self-denying ideology if that ideology claims to offer liberation and if that movement
in which it is contained appears to be the most prominent in the field. This is not to say
that the true movement will be abolished through such a scenario, any more so than it
denies the ultimate historical relevance of dialectical materialism, it is only to say
that it will prolong the day of reckoning by robbing the oppressed classes of their truly
revolutionary organizations.
Conclusion
Perhaps the best way to have repelled Franco's fascist invasion of Spain in 1936 would
have been for the C.N.T. and F.A.I. to hold a peaceful sit-in? Maybe Adolph Hitler would
have reversed his genocidal policies and instead made strides towards a free society if
enough Jews and gentiles would have peacefully marched in Berlin. If non-violence was the
strategy of the Devil, he'd probably be ruling heaven right now... no.
In the end analysis, just as there is a place for tactical nonviolence, there is also a
place for violence during certain phases of a popular movement. This can manifest as a
tool of self-defense or as the midwife of state disembodiment. On the other hand,
pacifism, as an ethical system of action, is nothing but an absurd dilution born out of
resentment and fear and projected upon the struggles of the poor and working classes by
oddball elements of the bourgeoisie. As long as such a strategy is allowed to occupy a
prominent role among the ranks of the left, the left will equal the total sum of the
socially inept ruling class.
In summation, nonviolence can be used in many circumstances as an effective tactic, but it
is irrelevant, irresponsible, and utterly ridiculous to even consider it as a strategy. So
yes, nonviolence should be utilized as a tactic where pertinent, and in turn pacifism, as
an ideology and a strategy, must be purged from our movement.
http://www.anarkismo.net/article/30165
------------------------------
Home »
» Anarchic update news all over the world - 19 April 2017