Questions to Anarchists

[Richard Nixon]

Do you support efforts such as those by Leon Czolgosz to assassinate members of government in order to bring on revolutions?

[Jazzratt]

Not really. The only way to change the system of government is through the mass movement of the working class, killing leaders doesn't really achieve this. It might help spark resistance or help become a symbol of it but on its own it will mean nothing. Every member of the government can be replaced quite easily - do you just keep killing? When do you stop?

[Misanthrope]

It would do more harm to the movement than good.

[Havet]

EDIT

no, theyre likely to not achieve anything except propagate the idea that anarchists are crazy people who just like to throw bombs and create chaos, murder and destruction.

[Jack]

All of those killed had made attacks against our movement and the working class in general.

King Umberto of Italy ordered for a massacre of a peaceful protest in 1898 that left hundreds dead, including the sister of Gaetano Bresci. Bresci assasinated him in 1901.

McKinley made America a part of the 8 country alliance that sent troops to crush the Boxer Rebellion in China. Lets not forget the Spanish-American war and Bannana Wars, McKinley was an imperialist.

Alexander II established a police state that repressed socialist and anarchist organizations, and maintained the poverty of the peasants.

General Nikolai Mezentsov was killed in response to the execution of Ivan Kovalsky, and was head of the Tsar's secret police.

Henry Clay Frick hired Pinkerton to kill striking workers.

The killing of Sadi Carnot was a response to the exection by the French state of Emile Henry and Auguste Valiente (who threw a bomb into the French assembly in response to the killing of Ravachol).

All judges killed or attempted to be killed had persecuted anarchists.

Petlura led progroms against Jews in Ukraine (little surprise he was killed by a Jewish anarchist).

The attempt on Hoover (in Argentina) was justified, hell he was the worst president the US has had.

I could go into more too.

[Durruti's Ghost]

I see all the assassinations listed as justified acts of defense on behalf of the working class. However, I do not support them, because I see them as counter-productive.

EDIT: Counter-productive except in tsarist Russia and other societies where the favored method of control is massive violence against the people, that is.

[EvigLidelse]

No, since of my dedication to the non-aggression principle.

[yuon]

I find no problem with those in power being killed by those not in power, as a political statement. I refuse to condemn such killings, regardless if it is tactically and strategically bad for the "movement".

If a person can no longer take the shit any more, and they snap, I can't condemn them for refusing to bow any longer.

Of course, as part of an organised movement, I guess it depends on the circumstances. Of course, generally, if you kill off one boss, another just comes along to take over. It is true that, in the vast number of cases, one person alone does not rule. However, it is also true, that one person can have more influence than others. And if you kill off a "bad" king (for example), his daughter might be a "better" monarch, and that might be a tactical decision worth taking.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I answered "maybe" to mean, it depends. If you assassinated every government official consistently, I'm unsure if I'd support it.

The assassination of the occasional government official can serve to be beneficial in countries where violence is more common. In the West, we seem to be so dogmatic that violence (at least against us) is the worst crime imaginable. For instance, I thought briefly that the assassination of Bush would've been beneficial. Then I thought, people are really dogmatic about their opposition to violence toward their nation. Assassinating Bush would've driven government approval ratings through the roof. From the perspective of the Middle East, it might've been a good thing, but I also doubt that. Increased government authority would probably harm them as well.

As for Leon, I don't know a lot about American history, sadly. I couldn't make a judgment. I'm against violence, by default, unless I know the reasoning behind it.

[Dervish]

I think that acts of 'propaganda of the deed', historically, were a failure.
However I don't completely reject such acts -- I believe that they may have their use -- but in order for them to be productive they must stand on the foothold of a serious anarchist movement which enjoys popular support. Our war is the class war -- if such an act does not inspire the proletariat, and raise in them class consciousness -- it is inappropriate.

[Jack]

It spread ideas, didn't it?

[JimmyJazz]

Yes, it spread the idea that anarchists needed to be deported by the boatload.

[More Fire for the People]

I'm not an anarchist but I still oppose terrorism. Terrorism as distinct from armed people's struggle. Terrorists hope to install fear in a group by propaganda of the deed. Armed revolutionaries would only use assassination as a last resort and only against those who have taken physical violence against the proletariat.

[leninwasarightwingnutcase]

I would imagine that just about everyones answer to this (not just anarchists) would be 'depends which government officials'. I bet even the OP thinks the world would have been a better place had Stauffenberg succeded.

Several people have said they oppose assasinations for tactical reasons. Its worth pointing out that the tactical sense of assasinations varies massively depending on the government in question. The main target of anarchist assasinations was tsarist russia. Here anarchists and other socialists were hunted by a secret police force, facing prison torture and death if caught. Peaceful organising was out of the question.

90% of the population was peasants. There was little effort by the ruling class to influence what they thought. The governments attitude was 'let them hate us so long as they fear us'. Arbitrary violence was the favoured method of control - mass killings were common, entire villages, including children and the elderly, would be publically flogged as an example to others.

In this context political assasinations were adopted as a key tactic. If a judge, police chief etc became famous for his brutality he would be made to fear for his life. In a society where power came from terror and violence, this showed the people that they could wield it too. That their rulers could be defeated. As little effort was made to control what the peasants thought, the effects of 'bad press' on the movement were minimal. It was an effective tactic and did a lot to build the revolutionary movement.

Transplanting this tactic to western societies (as a few did), where the favoured methods of control are ideological, where most people read newspapers expressing the views of the rulling class, wasnt so clever, as here the damage to the movement caused by the bad press was huge. It is worth remembering where this tactic was developed and primarily focused.

[9]

If the circumstances are such that a critical mass within the working class has achieved revolutionary consciousness and such an act would not be counterproductive (as it often is), then yes, I'd support it. I do, however, realize how harmful similar actions have been to the movement in the past, which is why my support for such an act would be contingent upon strict stipulations. And a situation arising in which committing such an act would be beneficial to the movement is improbable but I certainly won't rule it out as impossible.

[Jack]

Yes, it spread the idea that anarchists needed to be deported by the boatload.

That seemed to start the Korean anarchist movement.

[Rosa Provokateur]

No, to do so is not only counter-productive but wrong. The State is based on one defining principle: coercion. Coercion at it's most extreme is violence and the State cant be abolished by imitating it's habits; the opposite, non-violence, is required for successful and permanent revolution to be acheived.

[Misanthrope]

No, to do so is not only counter-productive but wrong. The State is based on one defining principle: coercion. Coercion at it's most extreme is violence and the State cant be abolished by imitating it's habits; the opposite, non-violence, is required for successful and permanent revolution to be acheived.

There is a difference between justified violence and unjustified violence, a huge difference. Defending yourself from a mugger is justified violence, mugging someone is unjustified violence. Get the example?

[Rosa Provokateur]

There is a difference between justified violence and unjustified violence, a huge difference. Defending yourself from a mugger is justified violence, mugging someone is unjustified violence. Get the example?

There's a difference also between justice and fairness.

When someone assaults you and you defend yourself by fighting back, that's fair.

When someone assaults you and you turn the other cheek because you value them as a fellow human-being, that's justice.

[9]

When someone assaults you and you turn the other cheek because you value them as a fellow human-being, that's justice.

Really? Because, where I'm from, the term for that is 'cowardice'.