Questions to Anarchists

[Rosa Provokateur]

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

Cowardice is if I run away. I'm talking about having the ability to fight and simply choosing not to; alternative methods such as doing the un-expected are alot more entertaining anyhow.

[Pogue]

Cowardice is if I run away. I'm talking about having the ability to fight and simply choosing not to; alternative methods such as doing the un-expected are alot more entertaining anyhow.

Entertaining for them perhaps. Clearly, you've never actually been in a fight.

[Pogue]

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.

Can you explain why non violence is required for a succesful and permanent revolution, and your views on how we could use non violence, say, if we were attacked on a picket line, or on a larger scale such as the fascist reaction to developements in Spain, Pinochets suppresion of the people in Chile, etc?

[Rosa Provokateur]

Entertaining for them perhaps. Clearly, you've never actually been in a fight.

Sure I have. The look on my attackers face when I dropped my pants and started praying in Arabic was priceless

[Rosa Provokateur]

Can you explain why non violence is required for a succesful and permanent revolution, and your views on how we could use non violence, say, if we were attacked on a picket line, or on a larger scale such as the fascist reaction to developements in Spain, Pinochets suppresion of the people in Chile, etc?

I believe that for a revolution to succeed, it has to include most everybody and not limit who it aims to liberate; all classes must have liberation and this cant be done if one is out killing the other.

Suppose rebellion does break out and the only thing in the way is fascist opposition. We go out to picket and get assaulted by them and instead of breaking noses and teeth we show them compassion all the way through. They will leave with entirely different ideas about us, they'll question whether they're doing the right thing, and they'll see the good in our cause.

I support militancy but only if it's a militant drive to be compassionate. The State has rarely faced such opposition and wouldnt know how to handle it, what could it possibly do with people that not only dont fear or recognize the State but who also refuse to get riled up into violence?

It couldnt do anything, not with permanent effectiveness anyway. That's how we can win; get in the way, prevent it from working, and create new community in the process.

[Pogue]

[QUOTE=Green Apostle]
I believe that for a revolution to succeed, it has to include most everybody and not limit who it aims to liberate; all classes must have liberation and this cant be done if one is out killing the other.
[/QUOTE]

How will 'all classes' be liberated without classes being destroyed, i.e. class conflict? This is typical 'post leftism', empty, meaningless bullshit which quite simply cannot be translated into anything solid or realistic at all. You talk utter shit, coming fro your priviliged position and your utterly pathetic politics, I'd expect this utter garbage from a Christian anyway. Empty bullshit, you have nothing to offer, just like the hippies.

Suppose rebellion does break out and the only thing in the way is fascist opposition. We go out to picket and get assaulted by them and instead of breaking noses and teeth we show them compassion all the way through. They will leave with entirely different ideas about us, they'll question whether they're doing the right thing, and they'll see the good in our cause.

In Spain during the fascist uprising the facist troops would target union members, especially anarchists, when they were advancing on towns, mainly because they knew the unions were the main bases of resistance to fascism. There were numerous incidents when well known anarcho syndicalists were taken out onto the streets, and the female ones were gang raped by fascist troops, before them and their partners would both be shot. These sorts of things have happened throughout history, especially around periods of revolution. During the miner's strike miner's were killed and beaten. I've been on protests where I've seen people on minute pleading with the police and the next minute been batoned by them.

Now, your seriouslt telling me you think that if we don't go anything, don't fight back, but instead let them beat the shit out of us, rather than fight back, they will go away thinking 'I agree with those people now?'.

So your telling me, when I am say, picketing my workplace, and I could fight back agaisnt the police, I should let them potentially fatally injure me rather than fightback, because if they do injure me, it will make them change their minds? Do you not understand how the minds of psychos work? Have you not heard of serial rapists and murderers? Psychotic nutters who quite simply don't give a shit? Do you think many of the Nazis felt remorse at some point in between the first million they gassed to death and the next few million, maybe pausing for thought before they raped a few more Jewish women before sending their children off to get gassed?

Seriously, do you not fucking think?

I support militancy but only if it's a militant drive to be compassionate. The State has rarely faced such opposition and wouldnt know how to handle it, what could it possibly do with people that not only dont fear or recognize the State but who also refuse to get riled up into violence?

I think it would think 'Fucking yes, we're up against a bunch of pacifists, this will be easy'. Have you ever been on a picket line?

It couldnt do anything, not with permanent effectiveness anyway. That's how we can win; get in the way, prevent it from working, and create new community in the process.

How we win what? Get in the way of what? How? Prevent what from working? Create what new community? How would we do this? What the fuck are you taking about?

[Rosa Provokateur]

How will 'all classes' be liberated without classes being destroyed, i.e. class conflict? This is typical 'post leftism', empty, meaningless bullshit which quite simply cannot be translated into anything solid or realistic at all. You talk utter shit, coming fro your priviliged position and your utterly pathetic politics, I'd expect this utter garbage from a Christian anyway. Empty bullshit, you have nothing to offer, just like the hippies.


Now, your seriouslt telling me you think that if we don't go anything, don't fight back, but instead let them beat the shit out of us, rather than fight back, they will go away thinking 'I agree with those people now?'.

So your telling me, when I am say, picketing my workplace, and I could fight back agaisnt the police, I should let them potentially fatally injure me rather than fightback, because if they do injure me, it will make them change their minds? Do you not understand how the minds of psychos work? Have you not heard of serial rapists and murderers? Psychotic nutters who quite simply don't give a shit? Do you think many of the Nazis felt remorse at some point in between the first million they gassed to death and the next few million, maybe pausing for thought before they raped a few more Jewish women before sending their children off to get gassed?

Seriously, do you not fucking think?





I think it would think 'Fucking yes, we're up against a bunch of pacifists, this will be easy'. Have you ever been on a picket line?



How we win what? Get in the way of what? How? Prevent what from working? Create what new community? How would we do this? What the fuck are you taking about?

You cant liberate someone if you're busy destroying them; that's like when the Nazis committed so-called "mercy killings" against the mentally ill, saying they'd be better off dead. It's not like I oppose taking over factories and using sabotage, I support it but without bloodshed. We've gotta make it clear that we're human-beings fighting FOR the rights of other human-beings and that we will not dehumanize others in the name of class-conflict.

I'm not saying plead with them and just let it happen. Violence depends on reaction: someone shoves you, you shove them back, and the mentality for a fight is on. But what if someone shoved you and you instead started stripping naked and speaking in tounges while masturbating? Not much your attacker can do with that, you've mentaly disarmed him and the need for violence is null. Or if you see someone getting beat, go get in the way and be a shield between the attacker and the victim.

You dont know for a fact that they are psychotic but, if they are, they deserve mercy even more. The murderer and the rapist are only so because they've yet to see their victims as human-beings that feel and think and reason with emotions and asperations for happiness not un-like their own. We've got to find ways to convey this in our actions and we cant by being equally if not more vicious.

I think that most of those men responsible for the killing have come to regret it. I can say this because I once was a neo-Nazi skinhead and since recovering from that kind of life, I have no desire to bring violence back into my way of doing things. Only by experiencing extreme hatred can one truly understand extreme love and extreme love is my platform.

No, I havent and I understand if I sound nieve. I just cannot bring myself to justify violence. It's ethically and morally wrong and I cant concede to think otherwise.

How we win the revolution. We get in the way of the State. Non-violent direct-action. Prevent the State from working. Community is how it's gonna have to work afterward, I see no other way.

[Pogue]

You cant liberate someone if you're busy destroying them; that's like when the Nazis committed so-called "mercy killings" against the mentally ill, saying they'd be better off dead. It's not like I oppose taking over factories and using sabotage, I support it but without bloodshed. We've gotta make it clear that we're human-beings fighting FOR the rights of other human-beings and that we will not dehumanize others in the name of class-conflict.

I'm fighting for the abolition of capitalism. I recognise you don't really get second chances so I'll do what it takes. Revolutions are bloody, people die. Capitalism is bloody, people die. I want to make sure none of the wrong people die, and create a system where no one suffers like they do in capitalism.

I'm not saying plead with them and just let it happen. Violence depends on reaction: someone shoves you, you shove them back, and the mentality for a fight is on. But what if someone shoved you and you instead started stripping naked and speaking in tounges while masturbating? Not much your attacker can do with that, you've mentaly disarmed him and the need for violence is null. Or if you see someone getting beat, go get in the way and be a shield between the attacker and the victim.

Do you seriously expect me to respond to the idea that in a fight, I should take all my clothes off, speak in tongues and masturbate?

In one of the numerous occasions when someone has started atacking of one of my friends, I find a better thing to do rather than 'form a shield' is to give them a solid jab to the head. Works well.

You dont know for a fact that they are psychotic but, if they are, they deserve mercy even more. The murderer and the rapist are only so because they've yet to see their victims as human-beings that feel and think and reason with emotions and asperations for happiness not un-like their own. We've got to find ways to convey this in our actions and we cant by being equally if not more vicious.

Yes, we can, and we have too. You don't win fights by appealing to mr or mrs psycho rapist killers good side. You don't have the time, you don't have the desire. If your going to be raped, the advice from anyone with a clue is to run away, but if thats not feasable, you fight and you fight fucking hard. If someone tried to murder or rape me or anyone I know I would not stop until they could not move. If someone threatened to do it, I would not stop until they could not move.

I think that most of those men responsible for the killing have come to regret it. I can say this because I once was a neo-Nazi skinhead and since recovering from that kind of life, I have no desire to bring violence back into my way of doing things. Only by experiencing extreme hatred can one truly understand extreme love and extreme love is my platform.

It's a ridiculous and unproductive platform, I love those who I love. I don't go on random sprees of violence but I do recognise when its neccesary.

I don't like violence (unless you count boxing) but I recognise its neccesary and useful at times.

How we win the revolution. We get in the way of the State. Non-violent direct-action. Prevent the State from working. Community is how it's gonna have to work afterward, I see no other way.

Okay chum, you get in the way of a bullet and tell me what happens. Your a joke, and as I said before, you offer no answers only empty, pseduo religious bullshit like the rest of your clique.

[x359594]

...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...

As James Clarke has shown, Czolgosz, the killer of McKinley, was seeking revenge for the massacre of 19 Slavic miners in Latimer, Pennsylvania. (When some of the wounded asked for water, deputies replied, "We'll give you hell, not water hunkies!") So it's evident that this particular assasination was not carried out for the purpose of fomenting revolution.

[Misanthrope]

There's a difference also between justice and fairness.

" the quality of being just or fair "

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&t...ition&ct=title

wrong.

[Jack]

As James Clarke has shown, Czolgosz, the killer of McKinley, was seeking revenge for the massacre of 19 Slavic miners in Latimer, Pennsylvania. (When some of the wounded asked for water, deputies replied, "We'll give you hell, not water hunkies!") So it's evident that this particular assasination was not carried out for the purpose of fomenting revolution.

I didn't claim all were for that, I also mentioned it as revenge for attacks on our class, that would be an example.

[kalu]

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.

I agree, really depends on the context. I would argue that against an actively genocidal state, for example, assassination is perfectly acceptable. That said, I would venture to say in most cases it becomes a slippery slope leading from officials, to military, to civilians. War is war, and if government officials are being assassinated, they're going to up the stakes and pretty soon everyone suffers. I'm thinking in particular of the case of Sri Lanka, where the "Tamil New Tigers" went from assassinating the Mayor of Jaffna, to blowing up a convoy of soldiers, which then lead to a riot killing several thousand Tamils, and finally to the horrific Sri Lankan civil war between the government and now merciless LTTE.

Anyways, another point against assassination, besides the complicated and unresolved debate on ethics, is that only a specific person is being killed. The position itself, ie. military general, is not destroyed. "Structure" is made up of people, but people in an abstract sense, in which case only a long-term, mass ideological struggle will truly eliminate the state threat. Assassination in this case lends itself to vanguardism, as Toni Negri put it.

[leninwasarightwingnutcase]

I don't think the Sri Lanka comparison is a good one. Its an ethnic conflict. Theres was an already major hatred between tamils and sinhalis. The tamil rebels weren't fighting on behalf of opressed/exploited sinhalis, so when they killed sinhali soldiers, the backlash was predictable. With struggles fought on behalf of all the opressed/exploited, the dynamics are very different.

Anyways, another point against assassination, besides the complicated and unresolved debate on ethics, is that only a specific person is being killed. The position itself, ie. military general, is not destroyed. "Structure" is made up of people, but people in an abstract sense, in which case only a long-term, mass ideological struggle will truly eliminate the state threat. Assassination in this case lends itself to vanguardism, as Toni Negri put it.

In tsarist russia, assasinations played a major role in facilitating "long-term mass ideological struggle". They made people aware of their power, and the vulnerability of their rulers. Often framed as acts of justice against opressors they did a lot to spread ideas. Its silly to say that the fact assasinations didn't/can't fix everything is a point against them. A single act is never going to change the "structure" of society.

How would you have gone about overthrowing the tsarist empire?

[Kukulofori]

If you're worrying about anarchist PR, then class consciousness is far from strong enough to spark a revolution anyway. The only question is, as it is for any revolutionary action, "does this benefit the protelariat in some tangible way".

[Pogue]

I left all the assasination stuff behind me after I got Alexander II. That was the high point for me, a fitting end to my career.

[Pol Pot]

I support violence against corrupt traitors of people.

My preffered methos is to test them for new medication and other things that might make them useful to humankind for once

[Richard Nixon]

I support violence against corrupt traitors of people.

My preffered methos is to test them for new medication and other things that might make them useful to humankind for once

You seem to be more rational then your namesake.

[kalu]

I don't think the Sri Lanka comparison is a good one. Its an ethnic conflict. Theres was an already major hatred between tamils and sinhalis. The tamil rebels weren't fighting on behalf of opressed/exploited sinhalis, so when they killed sinhali soldiers, the backlash was predictable. With struggles fought on behalf of all the opressed/exploited, the dynamics are very different.

Sri Lanka, like all national liberation struggles, was a political struggle. I don't buy into the Western essentialising claim of "ethnic conflict" when there were clear political strategies, tactics and formations beneath the civil war. The Sinhala "majority" for example was a creation of British colonialism and representative government. Oppressor/oppressed depends on the context, all such universality is "contaminated." Would you call the Algerian war of independence a mere "ethnic conflict" between Algerians and French, because the Algerians weren't fighting for the French working-class? If so, I recommend you (re)read Fanon.

In tsarist russia, assasinations played a major role in facilitating "long-term mass ideological struggle". They made people aware of their power, and the vulnerability of their rulers. Often framed as acts of justice against opressors they did a lot to spread ideas. Its silly to say that the fact assasinations didn't/can't fix everything is a point against them. A single act is never going to change the "structure" of society.

How would you have gone about overthrowing the tsarist empire?

Again, like Toni Negri said, assassination lends itself to vanguardism (see the Red Brigades in Italy). It may "incite" the people, but it doesn't allow them to participate in the act, thus it is not conducive to mass struggle. Assassination may obliquely "make people aware of power," such as propaganda of the deed, but more often than not it simply leads to further oppression and scapegoating rather than allow further illumination and planning towards mass mobilization. It depends on the context, but I stand by my original point that assassination is not a tactic that directly makes itself available to mass participation, and is thus reserved for certain more extreme cases. Personally, your tone is a bit off-putting so I'd rather not continue this discussion.

[Delirium]

Different tactics for different situations. In some circumstances it may be appropriate, in others it may be detrimental to the movement. It would be incredibly hard to pre-determine the reaction to the assassination.

Morally i have no problem with it.

As with any direct action, it will only be effective if all other means are exhausted and the reason for this action is well know by the public and accepted as legitimate.

[leninwasarightwingnutcase]

Personally, your tone is a bit off-putting so I'd rather not continue this discussion.

Whats this supposed to mean? If you dont want to talk to me, why did you write me an elaborate reply?

I don't buy into the Western essentialising claim of "ethnic conflict"

But a lot of Sri Lankans did, and fought the conflict like an ethnic one. These dynamics werent present in Tsarist Russia, making tactical considerations very different.

Would you call the Algerian war of independence a mere "ethnic conflict" between Algerians and French, because the Algerians weren't fighting for the French working-class?

The french working class was in France, not Algeria. The relation of france/the french to algeria/the algerians was extremely different to the relations between the sinhali and tamil communities. Remember this discussion is about the reality of situations as it bears on tactics - not the ethics.

assassination lends itself to vanguardism

Could you clarify what you mean here? Nowadays the term 'vanguardism' is little more than an imprecisely defined insult. In the 19th century anarchist groups commonly called themselves 'vanguards' (see dolgoff on the spanish anarchists). The term was dropped because of its noisy use by lenin, but nowadays, when used as a curse word, it doesn't necessarily imply lenins interperetation. I don't see how assasinations lend themselves to leninist organisation.

It depends on the context, but I stand by my original point that assassination is not a tactic that directly makes itself available to mass participation, and is thus reserved for certain more extreme cases.

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.