Readers: unfortunately, I've had to turn the comments section off on my anarchist blog posting. At first, I received some very insightful and thoughtful comments, which I will re-post below. Then some readers spewed hateful language, and this is not
their forum, it is mine, and meant to educate and enlighten.
"Brad" (from the C4SS site) and I had a nice dialogue going. He first noted that "Anarchists have diverse opinions and approaches that they take" which is something to consider. So here are excerpts from our discussion:
Jenni: I do not support the willful lawbreaking and violent acts perpetrated by the anarchists.
Brad: Right. I get that. As I noted above, anarchists don't even always agree with other anarchists. The Black Bloc are simply highly visible in the media environment -- but they're only the tip of the iceberg, most of which is below the waterline. With regard to my own views, depending on the particular acts in question I might 1] support those actions, 2] criticize them as strategically flawed but ethically acceptable or 3] condemn them as ethically wrong or inherently criminal. I don't even always agree with the writers I work with at C4SS. For example, I would have taken a slightly more critical view of the Black Bloc than the writer of this piece we published did.
That said, these kids aren't out there sniping from rooftops or placing IEDs, and it's not as if those options are out of reach. Most of them are quite concerned about the ethical considerations regarding their acts. While I view them as mistaken in some cases, there are compelling reasons to say that they were exercising a greater degree of forebearance than the police were.
Apart from complete pacifists, most people recognize that violence is acceptable in self-defense. It's also rather common to view violence as justifiable in defense of other people suffering unjust attacks. Many extend that view to include defense of property and I'm among them (although I have views of what constitutes a legitimate property claim that don't always agree with the view held by the existing legal system).
Since anarchists view any government as institutionalized violence with no coherent justification, engaged in both ongoing unjustified acts of direct violence and fundamentally criminal coercion, a limited degree of violence in resistance to it is not ethically problematic. My own view is that it's usually a poor strategy, but those who disagree with me would argue that the deck is so stacked against us that we have to accept the condemnation arising from that as the price to be paid in order to reach others with the message that resistance to unjust authority is even possible.
I should add that many anarchists don't consider property destruction "violence", for that matter, because they are opposed to property as a concept. I disagree with them, but their acts may be ethically justifiable from my point of view in cases where the particular property in question was not legitimately obtained.
Jenni: We have laws to keep order in the community. How would you feel if a group that hated you (and there is one that certainly does - a hate group for every race, religion, and sexual preference) came to your home town and wreaked havoc? What if your family member owned a business and their storefront was shattered by that group? Would you then expect that law enforcement should have protected you/them? Or would their violent protest be ok with you?
Brad: The particular vision of a stateless society I advocate is of a lawful society. Like most other anarchists, I consider government itself a criminal gang in terms of inherent human rights determining which acts are "lawful" and which aren't. In this view, taxation is theft, most wars are mass murder, arrest for a victimless crime is kidnapping and so forth.
Now, at this point you're undoubtedly confused because most people don't draw a distinction between law and government. You're undoubtedly wondering how that could be accomplished. My own answer can be summarized as being through consensual mechanisms such as contracts and neutral third-party arbitration of disputes. I can recommend any number of resources on this topic and am about to start teaching an online class in it in a few days.
Reader "b-psycho" had an interesting point: Just because someone is smashing stuff at a protest that has anarchists at it doesn't mean they're an anarchist. They could just be shallow nihilists that think smashing stuff is cool. There's a difference.
Finally, from reader "lounge daddy": There are many many anarchists who arrived at their political ideology primarily because of a strong aversion to violence. (Think Dorothy Day.) They look at people who smash things and act out the same way that pro-life folks look at someone who would bomb an abortion clinic in the name of life.
Bottom line: With any
dialogue, we listen to each other and try to learn. We may not agree, or even "agree to disagree", but dialectic thinking requires pushing out of your comfort zone and acknowledging other points of views. It may be painful and make you angry. You may completely disagree. But understanding opposing points of view is absolutely critical when you develop any plan of action, or else it won't be nearly as effective.
This is what makes our country great - freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom to debate openly in a forum like this!
On this National Holiday, Independence Day, we need to remember all of those who have worn the uniform to defend the freedoms we enjoy in this great country of OURS.
