HUMOUR:

LOOK WHO'S TALKING:

ANARCHIST TACTICS:

DESTRUCTIVE TACTICS:

The following is from another Winnipeg blog 'The Plan'. it's all about the so-called 'black bloc' tactics that manage to make their way to pretty well all of the major demonstrations in North America. Despite having never been able to present a single person who has been won to radical politics let alone anarchism in almost 20 years the defenders of this sort of thing soldier on. I don't count those who already were anarchists or leftists. I mean it...not one single demonstrable success in terms of only one person who did not agree with the ideology to begin with in the better part of two decades. Or at least there has never been any such testimonial. This sort of thing has to stand as one of the true monuments to irrationality. Maybe it's time to rethink such things. That is what the following suggests.

@@@@@@@@
Destructive Tactics
The debate over the use of Black Bloc tactics has been happening for years, but was recently thrust into the spotlight by the events of the Toronto G20 Summit. Although I haven't participated in a full-scale discussion on the topic of Black Bloc tactics with my fellow anarchists and socialists, it appears that many people on the radical left are “in solidarity” with the Black Bloc and favour a “diversity of tactics”. On the other side, you have moderate leftists who, for the most part, condemn the Black Bloc. Some even go as far as to blame the Black Bloc for the crackdown that resulted in the arrest and detention of hundreds of “peaceful” protesters. I don't have much use for empty platitudes such as “in solidarity,” and I reserve my condemnation for my ideological enemies. Therefore, I wouldn't classify my position on this matter as typically radical or typically mainstream. Instead, I hope that I've formulated an opinion that achieves pragmatism and avoids the pitfalls of orthodoxy.

Before we proceed any further, let us abandon the euphemistic phrase “Black Bloc tactics” and call a spade a spade. We're talking about property destruction. Whether you believe that “property” is a legitimate concept and whether the property is private or public, we should all be able to agree that what is at issue in the Black-Bloc-at-the-Toronto-G20 debate is property destruction. Whatever else one wishes to place under the umbrella of “Black Bloc tactics” should not be germane to this discussion.

Before engaging in any political act, it is of the utmost importance to first determine the intended goal of the act. In almost every case, the goal of the highest import is to affect change; often, this is impossible or implausible to achieve directly. Therefore, one must frequently resort to to affecting change indirectly; often by winning ideological converts.

Did the property destruction that took place at the G20 affect change directly? The answer is an emphatic no. The corporations that own those damaged storefronts collected their insurance money and continued with business as usual. The agenda of the summit proceeded exactly as planned. The heads of state who participated in the summit were not inconvenienced in the slightest. The headless zombie that is capitalism continues to plod forward with as much cold brutality as ever before.

Did the property destruction affect change indirectly? Again, an emphatic no. Instead of winning converts, the images of burning police cars and broken windows served to alienate a great many potential allies. Those very same images allowed the federal and provincial governments to justify (in the eyes of the public) the billion dollar security budget and the audacious crackdown on protesters. The police didn't need the anarchists to justify the security budget, but it definitely helped. Without the property destruction, that sort of expenditure in the midst of an economic recession would have been much harder to justify and the crackdown may very well have not taken place. If the crackdown had still taken place, a greater number of people would be persuaded to see it as an overreaction.

Another indirect result of the property destruction was that the important messages about human rights, the environment, globalization, etc. that were being expressed by the protesters were lost in the din and more easily ignored by the mainstream media and the public.

There is some good that can be salvaged from the the events of Toronto. We now have a perfect opportunity to openly dialogue about tactics and how protests should look going forward. Also, through a concerted effort we can draw the public's attention to the fact that the vast majority of those who were brutalized by the police were completely innocent of anything remotely resembling a crime. With the right message, this can be used as an opportunity to win converts to the side of anti-statism, anti-capitalism, or at the very least, anti-Conservative-ism.

I long to engage in this debate with my friends on the left. Do tactics matter? If so, how should they be guided? Should we do what feels good or should we do what works? What does “works” mean in the context of protests? What are the goals we are seeking to achieve? I contend that if we are hoping to achieve radical change, then tactics are foundational to that pursuit. The way to achieve radical change is to gain popular support from a wide swath of society. This doesn't mean watering down ideology to make it palatable to the masses, but it does mean that we need to communicate our ideas in such a way that people will be able to hear, understand and consider them.

Some activists and commentators are saying that the property destruction that occurred in Toronto paled in comparison to the violence perpetrated by the police. Of course this is true. But that doesn't make property destruction a good idea or the actions of the Black Bloc justified in any way. Why not endeavour to draw an even greater distinction between the radical left and the fascist corporate foot soldiers that make up the police force? When oppression is blatant and heavy-handed, the response to that oppression can be equally primitive and be successful. In modern Western nations where oppression is subtle and sophisticated, our response needs to be equally nuanced.

Smashing windows and responding to police force with force is primitive. These acts only communicates rage and randomness to the average person. We must ensure that our actions communicate messages that are obvious and unambiguous.

Actions that are illegal are not a problem in themselves. Actions that provoke the police are not problematic in themselves. Breaking laws that can be demonstrated to be illegitimate or bringing about a police response that can be demonstrated to be illegitimate are effective strategies. Instead of burning police cars, let's cover them in flowers or colourful paint. Instead of smashing windows, let's cover them in slogans that will raise the consciousness of the populace. Let's render their security expenditures absurd by appearing completely nonthreatening to the general public. Let's do the opposite of what the police and government expect and want by creating iconic images of non-violent civil disobedience that will resonate long after we're gone.

I hope this can be the start of a productive dialogue. Please post a comment below and let me know what you think.

LOCAL EVENTS WINNIPEG:

GRANDMOTHERS AGAINST VIOLENCE:

After yesterday's March Against Violence in Winnipeg's West End another event is coming hard on its heels. Winnipeg has long held first place amongst Canada's cities over half a million as the "gang capital of Canada". Last week this became national news as two different shootings (only one death) occurred. The victims in one case were two young girls who mercifully survived. In response people in one neighbourhood most affected- the West End- have organized to try and put an end to this violence. Here is the report of an event coming up tomorrow, organized by native elder women. It should be noted that their intent to "go into the jails" is "direct action" in the truest sense of the word.

WWWWWWWWWW
Grandmothers Protecting our Children Council Pray for Peace
Date: Thursday, June 3, 2010
Time: 12:00pm - 2:00pm
Location: Directly across 542 Victor St. (the location of one of the shootings-Molly )

Description.WINNIPEG — The Kookum Gaa Na Dam Ma Waad Abinoojiig (Grandmothers Protecting our Children Council) — together with Grandmothers Protecting our Children Council Pray for Peace Ka Ni Kanichihk, Southern Chiefs’ Organization and Onashowewin, are calling upon ALL community to gather on Thursday June 3rd, 2010 at
12 noon directly across from 542 Victor Street.


The Grandmothers Protecting our Children Council is calling upon all Sacred Pipe Carriers to bring their pipes to pray for healing and peace in the community.

The Grandmothers Protecting our Children Council will speak to the hearts and spirits of those individuals who have experienced the most recent violence directly or indirectly, and, to those individuals contributing to the violence in the community.


The Grandmothers Protecting our Children Council will promote a message of peace, safety and urgent need to identify real and transformational solutions rooted in human rights, justice, cultural reclamation and self determination.

The Grandmothers Protecting our Children Council will also be going into the Province’s correctional institutions to meet with those individuals involved in gangs and ask that they support the work the Grandmothers are undertaking and work together toward identifying solutions leading to a decrease in violence.

The Grandmothers Protecting our Children Council will be calling upon Premier Greg Selinger and Minister of Justice Andrew Swan to convene an emergency Stakeholders Summit, which includes, and must be lead by, Aboriginal community leadership, to work in confirming a comprehensive, community based strategy that would begin to acknowledge and change the conditions in which gangs and its violent manifestations emerge and flourish.

“Going into the jails has not been done before,” Velma Orvis, a Grandmother Council member asserts. “We cannot keep doing the same things over and over again and expect different results.”


As Ka Ni Kanichihk Executive Director, Leslie Spillett, affirms “we will asking our Grandmothers to also speak to those who hold power and resources in the Province to bring all stakeholders to the table to address this most critical issue, especially Aboriginal community groups who work with little or dwindling resources on this issue.”

Grand Chief Morris Swan Shannacappo maintains, “The violence has to stop, and we all have a responsibility in ensuring the safety and well being of the community, and I support the Grandmothers’ call for the Government of Manitoba to bring all stakeholders in Summit to address this critical issue.”

-please forward this event to your contacts-

MOUVEMENT ANARCHISTE DU CANADA/CANADIAN ANARCHIST MOVEMENT- QUÉBEC:

DÉBAT SUR VIOLENCE/NON-VIOLENCE:
@@@@@@@@@@
Les mardis de la Anarchie est un groupe de discussion régulier tenue à L'AgitéE au Québec tous les mardis. Voici le sujet de cette semaine. /// Anarchist Tuesdays is a regular discussion group held every Tuesday at L'AgitéE in Québec City. Here`s this week`s subject.

13 avril: Le fameux débat violence vs non-violence


Que ce soit aux mardis de l'anarchie, dans des réunions d'organisation de manifestation politique ou sur des blogues qui commentent les actions des mouvements sociaux, tôt ou tard, surgit toujours un malaise entourant la question de la violence. Cela révèle qu'un débat non résolu persiste: le fameux débat « violence » vs « non-violence ». Souvent évité ou contourné pour limiter les retraits de solidarité, ce débat est le plus souvent tenu à mots couverts et traité comme insoluble. En caricaturant à peine, on s'imagine que chez les activistes, il y a deux camps qui n'arriveront jamais à se comprendre. D'un côté les Blacks Bloc et les insurectionnistes qui n'hésitent pas à détruire ou endommager de la propriété privée pendant ou en dehors des manifestations, voir à s'en prendre aux flics ou même à prôner le sabotage, l'attentat à la bombe ou l'assassinat politique, se réclamant d'une tradition anarchiste violente lointaine ou contemporaine. De l'autre, les activistes non violents qui multiplient des tactiques qui peuvent être légales et illégales selon le contexte politique (marches, pétitions, tractage, sit-in, théâtre de rue...) s'inspirant beaucoup des mouvements sociaux des années 60 et 70. Non seulement la réalité n'est pas si tranchée, mais le caractère redondant de la question dans plusieurs discussions collectives démontre qu'il vaudrait peut-être la peine d'en parler autrement qu'en se campant dans une position et en la défendant.

C'est ce qui est proposé cette semaine aux mardis de l'anarchie. Inspirée par un chapitre du livre Anarchy Alive, une discussion sera animée autour des questions suivantes: qu'est-ce que la violence? Quelles sont les limites des différentes définitions qu'on peut en donner? Quels critères ou quels arguments nous permettent de juger si la violence peut être justifiée? Quelles sont les limites de ces arguments? Est-ce que l'expérience de la violence peut être en elle-même libératrice ou radicalisante? Quoi penser de la violence en contexte de révolution ou d'insurrection armée?

Lectures suggérées
CHURCHILL, Ward (1998), Pacifism as Pathology, Arbeiter Ring Publishing

GELDERLOOS, Peter (2007), How non-violence protect the State, South End Press.

GORDON, Uri (2008). « Peace, Love and Petrol Bombs », Anarchy Alive. Anti-Authoritarian Politics from Practice to Theory, Chapter 4, London: Pluto Press, pp. 78-108.

1.6_-_Violence.pdf

KURLANSKY, Mark (2008) Non-violence: The History of a Dangerous Idea, Random House, 203 pages.

LAKEY, George (2001), Nonviolent Action as the Sword that Heals
@@@@@@@@@@
April 13: The famous debate violence vs. nonviolence


Whether it's anarchist Tuesdays organizational meetings for political demonstrations or on blogs that comment on the actions of social movements, sooner or later there always arises an uneasyness surrounding the issue of violence. This shows that the unresolved debate persists: the famous debate of "violence" vs. "non-violence". Often avoided or bypassed to limit withdrawals of solidarity, this debate is most often kept veiled and treated as insoluble. As a caricature one can imagine that among activists there are two camps who will never understand each other. On one side the Black Bloc and insurectionnists who do not hesitate to destroy or damage private property during or outside of events, to be seen to take on the cops or even advocate sabotage, bombings or political assassinations, claiming a distant or contemporary violent anarchist tradition . On the other, nonviolent activists use multiple tactics that can be legal or illegal given the political context (marches, petitions, leafleting, sit-ins, street theater ...) very much inspired by the social movements of the 60s and 70s. Not only is reality not so clear cut, but the redundant character of the issue in many collective discussions shows that it might perhaps be worthwhile taking about it other than planting oneself in a position and defending it.

That's what is proposed for this week's anarchist Tuesday. Inspired by a chapter of the book Anarchy Alive, a discussion will be moderated by the following questions: What is violence? What are the limits of the various definitions we can give? What criteria or arguments we can judge if the violence can be justified? What are the limits of these arguments? Can the experience of violence perhaps be liberating in itself or radicalizing? What to think of violence in the context of revolution or armed insurrection?

Suggested Reading
Churchill, Ward (1998), Pacifism as Pathology, Arbeiter Ring Publishing

Gelderloos, Peter (2007), How Nonviolence Protect the State, South End Press.

GORDON, Uri (2008). "Peace, Love and Petrol Bombs" Anarchy Alive. Anti-Authoritarian Politics from Practice to Theory, Chapter 4, London: Pluto Press, pp. 78-108.

1.6_-_Violence.pdf

Kurlansky, Mark (2008) Nonviolence: The History of a Dangerous Idea, Random House, 203 pages.

LAKEY, George (2001), Nonviolent Action as the Sword That Heals

CURRENT EVENTS:

THE POPE AND THE SEX SCANDALS:

"The big Vatican summit wrapped up, closing ceremonies were Harry Connick Jr. The Vatican is taking a tough stand now, three strikes and you're transferred"

-David Letterman

You know when a story is developing fast when Wikipedia can't keep up with it. Wikipedia entries such as 'Catholic Sex Abuse Cases' and 'Roman Catholic Sex Abuse Cases By Country' become outdated by the day. Allegations of clerical sex abuse which have been simmering for some time in Europe and Latin America have, in the last few days, reached the same level of public scandal that they have long had in North America and Ireland. Hundreds of victims are coming forward. This is not surprising as it would beggar the imagination to think that the problem was restricted to only a few countries.

A few things should be noted. One is that this is hardly "news". It was common knowledge and a standing joke when I was a kid. According to my dearly departed father it was the subject of jokes when he was young. My father, by the way, was born in 1895. The difference was that it was never published in those days. Trying to do so would have meant serious consequences. I have little doubt that the problem extends as far back as there have been celibate priests. Blame the "reforms" of the Middle Ages that got rid of the priestly "housekeepers".

Another thing is that the problem is hardly restricted to the Catholic clergy, as defenders of same have noted-over and over and over and over. It existed and exists in other religious denominations and in any work situation where adults are given excessive power over children. In actual fact I suspect that the greatest incidence of such things, when all the furore has died down and all the prosecutions have been completed, will be found to have been not just in the Church "orphanages" but also in state run "kid jails". There have certainly been such cases in Canada,a nd there will be others. All this doesn't excuse the Catholic Church, but it does put the scandal in its proper perspective ie where adults have excessive control of children. Beware the "helping professions" and what they help themselves to.

The final thing to note is that the obsession with sexual abuse tends to deflect attention from the much more prevalent problem of physical violence. Trust me, I grew up Catholic, leaving the Church at age 15. Sometimes the violence was indeed associated with sex of the sadistic bent, but I suspect that the will to power rather than the will to pecker had a lot more to do with it. There are lots of personal anecdotes that I could relate such as actually outlasting the sadistic vice principal of the Catholic high school that I attended, as he whipped my hands until they were covered with blood from the deep cuts. To my credit I never flinched and looked at him with hatred the whole time. His hard on faded (yes he was a sexual sadist) and it became a simple power struggle. I won, at the cost of the wounds as he gave up first. The priest who sent me to the office because I was an asshole was all over himself with apologies because he knew damn well what his "brother" was. he thought that I was going to meet the intelligent fascist Principal. Ooops. Father Daniel later left the Jesuits and married the nun who used to meet him in the dead of night in the field between the boys and girls school for decent sex. One of the few decent priests I ever met. There were other incidents, but rather than be personal any more I'll merely note that some of the "techniques" that they used on us were things I later read about as military torture methods.

What has to be noted here is that I was a "white boy" with parents with which I lived and leftist parents at that. Here in Canada there is controversy about how many Indian children were actually "murdered" via the physical abuse that they suffered. So...you can perhaps see why the fixation on "sex" makes me a bit uneasy. Speaking of the Natives (and probably kids in Newfoundland) I think that murder is a greater crime than buggery.

Back to the present. As the revelations, late coming as they may be, sweep across Europe the present Pope Benedict is feeling the heat. His own brother has been linked to at least one abuse case. In his own term as Archbishop of Munich (1977-1981) Ratzinger was himself involved in at least one case of transferring rather than either reporting or disciplining a molester priest. His aide at the time, Gerhard Gruber, "took the rap" for him, claiming that Ratzinger was unaware of the case in question.

That's all fair and good. Maybe true. Maybe not true. What is incontestable is that Ratzinger, before he became Pope, was for many years the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (old name the 'Holy Inquisition'). In that capacity pretty well every case of clerical sexual abuse would pass into his notice as the administrator of Canon Law. His response was pretty plain. In 2001 he sent a circular admonishing the Catholic bishops to "observe Papal secrecy" in relation to sexual abuse allegations against Catholic clergy. This was backed up by the treat of "ecclesiastical sanctions" should the bishops report the cases to civil authorities or make them public in any way. Nothing could be plainer. If there was one person who was most responsible for the cover up it was Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict.

Here's what dissident Catholic theologian Hans Kung has to say about Ratzinger's responsibility:

"Arens’s criticism echoes an attack on the church leadership by dissident Swiss theologian Hans Küng.

In an interview published in Germany’s Süddeutsche Zeitung on Wednesday, Küng said the pope should apologise personally, as "no other person within the church had seen so many cases of abuse pass through their office”.

Joseph Ratzinger [the pope] was prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for 24 years – an office that has authority over church doctrine and jurisdiction for various matters including sexual misconduct of clergy.

“Protecting their priests seems to have counted more for the bishops than protecting children,” said Küng.

After the scandals in Ireland last month, more reports have emerged over recent months of abuse at church-run schools and institutions in Germany, including one linked to the Regensburg choir run by the pope’s brother, Georg Ratzinger, from 1964 to 1994. Some 300 victims have come forward since January.

Could anything be plainer ? By the way, go over to our sister site Molly's Polls to express your opinion about whether ratzinger will be "caught" in the court of public opinion on this matter and how much it will affact his Papacy.

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR/FEMINISM:

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IS A UNION ISSUE:

Today, November 25, was the UN International Day on the Elimination of Violence Against Women. Here is the statement from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) about why this issue is very much a labour issue. many thanks to the online labour solidarity site Labour Start for pointing Molly in the direction of this statement. The only quibble I might have with the following is in the title. "Governments" are unlikely to be very effective in stopping such violence, and they are often the root cause of it.

►►►►►►►►►

Stop Violence Against Women Day:

Governments to Take Decisive Action to End Violence Against Women:
Brussels, 25 November 2009: On the occasion of the UN International Day on the Elimination of Violence against Women, the ITUC and affiliates in a range of countries are organizing activities to say “no to violence against women and girls” and to mobilize against the impunity of that violence around the world. These activities are taking place in the context of the UN Secretary-General’s campaign ‘UNiTE to End Violence against Women’ and the Global Unions Campaign ‘Decent Work, Decent Life for Women’.

“Violence against women at work is a serious problem, just as it is in society generally. Trade unions are campaigning on both fronts, to get rid of it in the workplace and in the community,” said ITUC General Secretary Guy Ryder, “Inequality and pervasive discrimination against women and girls are at the core of the problem, providing an environment where violence is tolerated or even encouraged.”

One-third of women are subjected to violent attack at some point in their lives, with the majority of cases involving rape or attempted rape. Women aged 15 - 44 are more at risk of death and disability through domestic violence than through cancer, motor accidents, war and malaria, and each year some two million girls between aged five and 15 are subjected to commercial sexual exploitation.

Women in many different economic sectors also experience violence in their working life, including domestic work, manufacturing sweatshops, agriculture and the hospitality industry, while sexual harassment remains a serious problem across the spectrum of employment and in every part of the world.

The First ITUC World Women’s Conference (19-21 October 2009) adopted a resolution on “Violence against women” which aims to further intensify trade union action. The Conference launched an appeal to the international community, and in particular to the governments of the countries concerned, to take decisive action to bring an end to the violence perpetrated against women, based on their status as women or as trade unionists, especially in armed conflicts and in situations where violence against women – including rape – is used systematically as a weapon of war.
To see the Women’s Conference webpage
The ITUC is also working with Global Union Federations in their respective industrial sector, including the campaign by Union Network International

”Stop the violence against women: Break the circle!“
To see the special ITUC webapge on violence against women
To see the spotlight interview with Rosane Sasse (UGT-Brazil)

http://www.ituc-csi.org/spip.php?article4640

ANARCHIST THEORY:

GRADUALISM AND REVOLUTION:

The previous post brought one of my major themes to mind. The degenerate state of Cuba today is not, in my opinion, just because the change in government was the accession of a new managerial ruling class to power- as Marxist "revolutions" always are. The fact is that the managers have come to power through most of the world by "peaceful" (let's leave their wars aside) means. They rule in western/developed countries today under social democratic and corporate forms, and their rule is much more benign than that of the rulers of Cuba. Why the difference ? Can I suggest that the role of 'revolution" naturally leads to a repressive regime if it succeeds ? Can I also suggest that such a path to anarchism would lead to a similar regime, no matter how the defenders of anarchism might like to deny it ? The history of the Spanish Revolution is instructive in this matter, though the Spanish anarchists never degenerated to the level of the average(every?) communist. But degenerate they did, and they carried the seeds of managerial rule in their syndicates.

So why do I propose a gradual approach to anarchism ? One of the main reasons is the historical record of 'revolutions". The recruitment of 'revolutionaries" in the historical record is actually quite "cleaner" than what many modern-day anarchists propose, being as it basically consists of a core of "failed intellectuals" who think they should have the power to direct the people that they look down upon. The horrifying thing about the pseudo-revolutionaries who often affect the anarchist name-particularly in the USA- is that they abandon even this mendacious goal. They go directly to the so-called "heart of the matter" in their Bakunist illusion that what has traditionally been called the "lumpen-proletariat" is some sort of "revolutionary constituency' or-worse- some bizarre sort of "revolutionary leadership". The whole idea that criminals that undergo a "jail house conversion" to anarchism in the hope of getting letters and donations is exactly as absurd as the far more common jail house conversion to Jesus in hope of getting parole(there is no more solid concentration of "born again Christians" than in maximum security). The intellectual level of the average convicted criminal is slightly below that of a newt, and it is indeed possible that some of these slugs may be under the delusion that there will be an anarchist "revolution" in the next few years that will free them to be predators once more. Can my anarchist comrades wake up ? Not likely !

What can I say about "revolution" ? One of the main things that I can say is that the sort of -people that are necessary to carry a revolution to success (something quite different than what my deluded comrades think today, aside from the fact that more intelligent people would send the "jail-house intellectuals" on as many suicide missions as they could to get rid of them as fast as they could), are not exactly the most desirable people to build a libertarian society- or to live with period. The success of "revolution" depends upon a cadre of hardened psychopaths who will put the ideological goal beyond any mere personal feelings such as "mercy". THAT is what revolution means. THAT is its reality beneath the romance. I personally want no part of it.

The end result of the regime that follows a 'revolution" depends very much upon the ability to kill the revolutionaries. Without such an extermination the regime that would result would be horrific for the population. Who would you trust to carry out such a purge ? The Spanish anarchists did indeed get control of their nuts with only a few executions- yes they happened, no matter how much some might like to deny it; the Spaniards had our own problem in a minor way-.Personally I prefer no executions. Quite frankly I have met no leftist, anarchist or otherwise, in my over 40 years of this game that I would trust to have any better judgement than myself of how to solve this problem. Give me the power of life and death and I'd make some very good choices-I have none of the average leftist illusions-, but eventually I'd be corrupted as well and would have to be killed as well, after I'd made a very good job of cleaning the slate. Call me Robespierre. I'd be totally ruthless in defense of the revolution. I've met non-political people in my life who would be better judges, but I am sure that they would not sign up for such a dirty,filthy,brutal job.

Well, I have a better and more obvious solution.No "revolution". A gradual evolution towards anarchism whereby ordinary, people gradually collectively take control of their lives and eat away at statism and the corporate economy. THIS is Molly's anarchism !

ILLEGALISM: A FALSE OPTION FOR TODAY'S WORLD:

Molly has commented on this matter before on this blog in relation to why her anarchism is "reformist". What Molly has to say here is predicated on the fact that anarchism, outside of the Peoples' Republic of China, is a force only in countries that have at least the appearance of "parliamentary democracy" and a restricted concept of "human rights". Molly simply argues realism here in that if there are 2,000 ways that you can spread the "anarchist message" in a "legal way" that DON'T result in any "adverse consequences" such as anarchists being portrayed as "thugs"; then you should fore swear the 50 ways of "propaganda" that have such unfortunate consequences. Neither the 2,000 nor the 50 are automatic "game winners". Perhaps it would be rational to choose the tactics that have less "cost" in terms of public perception. It would also be rational to choose the tactics that give the least opportunity for undesirable people to gain power within a so-called "oppositional movement". May I suggest that an ideology of "militant confrontation" is exactly the sort of field where the weeds of primitive authoritarianism can grow. This is quite different from a movement that accepts the usual moral restraints of "Non-violent civil disobedience" because the "leaders" in such movements are both required to prove !!! their truth by action (ie being arrested or brutalized by the forces of "order") while the ersatz "leaders of violent confrontation" "prove" their worthiness by not being caught. The leaders of the confrontations with the police at any number of demonstrations make it a point of pride not to get caught. Only their foot soldiers suffer. Sometimes (usually!!!!! in the case of the ideologues) they simply are not there to be arrested.

All that is fine and dandy, and young people who come to anarchism today should be aware that there are a lot of middle aged people (and a few old farts such as Molly, though time wipes out the exploiters by natural selection) who see nothing wrong with sacrificing people's lives to an ideology. The basic truth test that you should apply is obvious: the greater the degree of "apparent radicalism" and the greater the degree of "commitment to violence" that the person requires the more likely that that person is somebody who is cultish and not a real anarchist. No "real anarchist" would ask you to sacrifice all of your future life for a symbolic "action". Unless, of course, you had fully understood the moral implications. Something that would guarantee that violent action was off the board of "things to do".

Watch out and beware. The exploiters in our own ranks are a much more serious threat to a rising movement, as anarchism is today, than the state is-even when the state deliberately infiltrates and promotes violence. We have more "internal nuts" than the state could ever plant,people who don't give a flying fuck about the eventual success of anarchism and only care about their own satisfaction. They can only do this in a "liberal culture" that makes excuses for counterproductive actions because of the psychology of the perpetrators. When anarchism, in a majoritarian way no matter what its internal ideological divides, is quick in condemning violent actions that are counterproductive and slow in producing "justifications" for such actions, then and only then will we know that we have a mature anarchist movement that can move on from its present successes.