Does anyone here still call for..

[ContrarianLemming]

call for propaganda of the deed?
I don't think any of us still believe in it, i doubt a movement has every inflicted more self harm on itself then anarchisms propaganda by the deed (we really are the angsty teen of politics)

Thought's on it?

[bcbm]

bring the ruckus

[Outinleftfield]

How about a "propaganda of the [good] deed"? More anarchist charity=more good public relations=more interest in anarchist ideas and then our opponents are more likely to see us as good-hearted but overly idealistic utopians instead of violent bomb throwers. There might also be more participation by people in anarchist organizations/voluntary associations, more grassroots organizing by people who don't even completely buy into anarchism. They might see our ideas as working in the context of a business (cooperative) or a social movement without thinking it could actually work for society as a whole. Then as time goes on and more examples are set with cooperatives and social movements we get to the point where people start to really question that maybe anarchy can work.

[The Douche]

I would not shed any tears for dead politicians/bankers/ceos. But I'm not about to run out an do it myself.

Also, there can be a blurry definition of what constitutes POTD sometimes. If somebody bombs a military recruiter (like happend a few years ago) is that POTD? Or is it a (in)valid tactic to slow the recruitment of the military?

[Demogorgon]

It always amazes me that people think that tactic works. Every time something like that happens, support for whoever did it goes down. It should be pretty obvious by now that it isn't a very good idea.

[Raightning]

Propaganda of the deed sounds good in theory, but it fails to take into account that human beings have a very individual approach to politics in a depoliticised society at least - most will be driven to sympathy for the dead no matter who they are, and that then leads into sympathy with the cause of the dead. There's more argument for it with regards to property damage, but even then it just stereotypes the revolutionary movement as violent and uncaring of the 'common man'.

In a society that lacks a widespread revolutionary feeling already (in which case it could serve as a call to arms of sort; needless to say, we're not at this juncture yet), propaganda of the deed can only hurt. It's not a matter of principle; it's simply one of tactics.

[revolution inaction]

propergander of the deed usually means carrying out assassination,bombing etc in order to inspire the masses to rise up.
so bombing a military recruiter in order to reducer recruitment wouldn't count.
nor would attempting to create examples of anarchist organisation so that people would see it is a good idea.

[ComradeOm]

Propaganda of the deed sounds good in theory...What nonsensical theory is that? Who really sits down and thinks 'well if I kill this prime minister then the masses will rise up and sweep away the existing order'? The whole strategy is, aside from deeply counter-productive from a tactical perspective, completely moronic. It relies entirely on an incredibly romanticised view of society that is absolutely untroubled by any sort of materialist analysis (not to even mention class analysis) or common sense

And to the OP; yes, every so often some idiot does does suggest such an approach. Hopefully they only do so here and don't embarrass/compromise themselves in the real world

[Raightning]

What nonsensical theory is that? Who really sits down and thinks 'well if I kill this prime minister then the masses will rise up and sweep away the existing order'? The whole strategy is, aside from deeply counter-productive from a tactical perspective, completely moronic. It relies entirely on an incredibly romanticised view of society that is absolutely untroubled by any sort of materialist analysis (not to even mention class analysis) or common sense
Bingo.

You're misrepresenting it slightly, though. The idea with propaganda of the deed is that it is capable of spurring on revolution by being a rallying point for a revolutionary mass. It is intended as a catalyst for revolution by essentially spurring on the already pro-revolutionary people into real action by giving them something to congregate around. You assume, for instance, that there will necessarily be revolt anyway with deprivation of materialistic desires; it can be held that there can be an apathy out of deprivation as well as an apathy out of satiation.

In essence, propaganda of the deed envisions a situation in which the masses want change desperately, but have nothing to rally around to bring it about. It sounds good at first until you realise that there needs to be actual organisation and education in socialism and anarchism to bring about a mass revolt anyway; even in theory, it would provide a starting point without a direction to lead it into. And if the masses are educated in leftism anyway, why would you need a bugle call for an united regiment?

[Ravachol]

Propaganda Of the Deed, as espoused by some strains of Insurrectionary Anarchism is rooted in the idea that anonymous acts of 'lashing out against authority' that are easily copied can spread like a social wildfire when social rupture is close enough.

The problem with POTD is that however simple the actions might be operationally, they aren't easily copied in a socio-psychological sense. In order to be able to lash out against authority, one has to have a heightened class conciousness and an understanding of what represses us. Secondly, these actions are usually highly individualist in nature and whilst they might weaken specific institutions of capital in an operational sense (which might be essential in a supportive role during an insurrectionary phase of revolution), they will never conquer class autonomy or do away with capital's logic.

[which doctor]

Propaganda of the deed has a really active history, especially in the late 19th/early 20th century, but as a revolutionary strategy, it's probably done more harm than good. Of course there's a certain element of spontaneity involved in any revolutionary situation, but history shows the most successful movements are not made when people are angry, but when they're educated and have a conscious understanding of history and their role in it.

Interestingly, propaganda of the deed was most common in the period when workers had the most developed class consciousness in all of history. And at this crucial moment, propaganda of the deed is shown to be most harmful to developing an educated and organized working-class. Contemporary propaganda of the deed is only a caricature of what it once was and is more in vogue with the most reactionary elements of society, than progressive ones.

[Cowboy Killer]

I guess it would really depend on the deed. You don't want to make martyrs of your enimies.

[el_chavista]

Was it not propaganda by the dids -a failed coup d'etat in 1992- what increased Chávez's popularity enough to winning the presidential election in 1998?

[danyboy27]

I hate propaganda.

from wiki:
Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Lying_by_omission)) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented


i dont know you, but i think its sick to use the emotion of peoples, no matter how right we could be.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I shouldn't think so. Anarchism does have a past which is said to be connected to propoganda of the deed but in the modern movement you're gonna get laughed at if you mention it.

[revolution inaction]

I hate propaganda.

from wiki:
Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Lying_by_omission)) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented


i dont know you, but i think its sick to use the emotion of peoples, no matter how right we could be.

Thats not the only meaning of propaganda, it's normally used to refer to something intended to convince people of a certain point of view, lieing to or otherwise misleading people is not inherently part of propaganda.

[danyboy27]

Thats not the only meaning of propaganda, it's normally used to refer to something intended to convince people of a certain point of view, lieing to or otherwise misleading people is not inherently part of propaganda.

why do we need to call information spreading propaganda?
Basicly, its not biaised to say that capitalism is exploitation of worker, its just plain fact, even Peoples like warren buffet will aknowledge that.

[ComradeOm]

why do we need to call information spreading propaganda?Because that's the word for it. Has been for centuries in fact. 'Propaganda' did not take on overly negative connotations (in the West, it does not possess these everywhere) until the early 20th C

Not that I see the relevance to the topic at hand