Loading...
Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

How far would you go from civil disobedience to become millitant

Discussion in 'Anarchism and radical activism' started by Rebellious twit, Apr 29, 2013.

  1. THEBLACKNOVA

    THEBLACKNOVAExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    965

    0

    0

    Aug 11, 2011
     Mexico
    Ok lets get back to the topic, there are many groups throughout the world that are militant and are part of a new wave of neo-nihilism, one that comes to mine is The Conspiracy Cells Of Fire...

    There are many debates within anarchist groups and internal debates within many anarchists as to how far or what one should attack and when...

    So i post these two communiques of a example of the on going dialogues...

    Communiqué for Anarchist Actions in Barcelona and Response to the Nihilist Comrades

    With this communiqué, we wish to claim the following actions, as part of a struggle for the destruction of the State, Capital, patriarchy, and any system of domination, a struggle for the free creation of voluntary and solidaristic relations at the global and local level; in other words, a struggle for anarchy.

    May 5, at night, we told a child the story of the maquis and the anarchist struggle against Franco and against democracy.
    May 13, we cooked a healthy meal for a comrade who has a chronic illness.
    May 17, we wrote a letter to a comrade imprisoned for participating in a riot.
    June 12, we took care of the infant of some friends who suffer economic precarity and the imposed obligation of wage labor.
    June 16, we spoke publically with our neighbors about the need to burn the banks and attack the police in order to realize our dreams.
    June 19, we told some leftist activists that the masked-ones were not police infiltrators but ourselves, and that it was necessary and good to mask up and take the streets with force.
    June 20, we gifted vegetables from our garden to friends and neighbors, without money or exchange.

    Why do we claim these actions? In the last months, we have also barricaded roads with dumpsters, burned banks, injured journalists, smashed shop windows, and attacked cops.

    For us, the attacks against the system are essential to our struggle. But we've fooled ourselves. A struggle does not consist only in attacks. The attacks are NOT more important than the need to care for ourselves, to preserve and spread our collective history, to create relations based in the gift, solidarity, and reciprocity, to imagine new worlds and new struggles, to confront our isolation and establish subversive and honest relationships with people outside of the categoric and political ghetto in which the Spectacle hides us.

    With a long memory, it becomes apparent that we have lost several times in the past, and that the hardest of all is the historical fracturing and the loss of our own memory of struggle; it's having to start from scratch. Hyperalienation, against which nihilism is a logical response, is nothing more than the result of defeat in past struggles. We find ourselves in a totality which must be destroyed in its entirety, only because nothing remains of what we built up in the past. So as not to lose everything every single time we rise up, we have to sustain ourselves, not as isolated individuals but as a commune, a collective and multigenerational struggle. And this cannot be accomplished with a singular prioritization of the attacks.

    The hierarchy of tactics belonging to the Left was minimally transformed within nihilism: they took the head of the spear, the actions that were supposedly more important, as the only ones that mattered, and forgot about all the rest.

    It is a patriarchal and counterproductive vision. It is the forgetting of all the actions—first disappeared by the patriarchy, then by capitalism, and then by the supposedly anticapitalist Left—that are necessary for life and for struggle as well. The most aggressive tactics only make sense and can be sustained and repeated in a complex of actions of all types, as long as they are libertarian and direct.

    By not understanding that struggle means carrying with us a new world that is waiting to be born in the ashes of the dominant system, we transform ourselves into mere weapons against capitalism, in tools dedicated to destroy, without the other things that human beings need to live and fight. It is capitalism that wishes to treat us as tools We should not do the same.

    The truth is that we are overjoyed to learn of the attacks of the nihilists and other comrades. We know very well that bravery and rage are two of the most important things in order to rebel. Specifically in Barcelona, it seemed an error to us that in the last year fewer illegal attacks were realized as more opportunities to participate in broad spaces appeared. Naturally, the rise in attacks—carried out by nihilists and by more “social” comrades—pleased us. And at the global level, we laughed to find out about the kneecapping of the director of Ansaldo Nuclear in Italy, and we were inspired to read the letters of comrades (nihilist and other) imprisoned in Greece who have not submitted to fear.

    But too many times we've seen comrades who, departing from desperation, impatience, and alienation, threw themselves recklessly into the war against the State that all of us live daily. They always ended up dead or in prison, and often after less than a year. And then what happened? The others, the comrades who survived, did everything we could to support each other and to support the prisoners, to not forget the slain, to not let the repression win, to not lose all our strength and not allow a historical fracture, so that we don't lose our collective memory of struggle.

    But little by little this memory is lost, and every three or four years a new group appears that neglects all the other tasks of the struggle to dedicate themselves solely to the destruction of our common enemy. And when we support them but also criticize, or sometimes without even that provocation, they call us cowards for dedicating ourselves to other tasks (even though we also are in the riots or the nighttime actions), for differing with them ideologically and not glorifying their group or informal federation.

    They don't know how many times they have already lost because one task they neglect is the transmission of memory. [1] Instead of a memory that is profound, alive, and strategic, they only have their martyrologies. And then we have to watch as our friends and comrades are turned into symbols—and ultimately weapons—of ideology. Some of the dead comrades were nihilists. But in the nihilist martyrology comrades who belonged neither to one side nor the other, or who were clearly from the other side in this stupid division between “socials” and “antisocials” (like Lambras Foundas) are also recuperated, and their names and images are used to encourage attacks, total destruction, without stopping to reflect on their errors or the actual projects and desires of these comrades when they were alive.

    It's clear that we have to fight and this includes the possibility of death or prison. But this does not mean having to celebrate death or prison. Suicide is also a form of resistance, but it is not revolutionary.

    It's clear that we have to remember our dead and our prisoners, but this does not mean converting them into martyrs and heroes.

    In conclusion, we want to criticize the current state of anarchist literature, disproportionately based as it is on superficial communiqués with no context, analysis, or reflection, that only value the attacks and not the other tasks that we have to carry out in order to remain alive and powerful.

    Obviously, it's helpful to find out about clandestine actions done by other comrades. It gives us strength and joy to read that some symbol of power has been smashed or burned. But it is much more useful to think (and write) about strategies of conflictivity, according to each moment and place, instead of encouraging a quantitative vision of struggle. We refuse to convert our rebellion into a mathematical equation to measure our rage: the more blows and fires we produce, the stronger we are; the greater the economic damage, the more powerful the action. This is the thinking of an economist, a general, or a simpleton

    For all these reasons, we decided to write this communiqué to claim a series of actions we consider just as important in the current situation as the attacks. They are actions we do every week, normally without thinking twice or announcing it on the internet. We publish them now to visibilize a personal worry and a weakness generalized throughout the anarchist space.

    AGAINST COMMUNIQUÉS!
    FOR ANARCHY AND ALL THE TASKS OF THE STRUGGLE!


    [footnote 1: For example, “neither do we remember the past, because we hate it... we destroy the present.” from the communiqué of “Anarquistas Nihilistas” of Barcelona, April 25, 2012]

    This communique first appeared in spanish on Barcelona Indymedia: http://barcelona.indymedia.org/newswire ... /index.php

    The Nihilist Recuperation

    In criticizing nihilism[1], we do not wish to scorn this philosophical and revolutionary current nor all the people who identify with it. Rather, we want to signal a role it often plays. It is not a characteristic intrinsic to nihilism, but it is a historical and frequently repeated characteristic. First, we want to affirm that we are inspired by the powerful blows struck by nihilist comrades, from the Conspiracy of Cells of Fire and their contemporaries to historical groups like Narodnaya Volna. We consider ourselves part of the same struggle and we make this criticism from a point of solidarity.

    Of all the radical anticapitalist currents, nihilism may be the only one that was denominated and to a certain extent created by the Spectacle itself.[2] The term “nihilist” originates in a book by the Russian writer Turgenev (an interesting writer, but in the end a progressive and not a radical), who uses it to describe the new revolutionary anarchists and socialists who were appearing then in Russia. They were the people who believed in nothing—“nihil”.

    Adopting this name as an ideological identity would be like, if in a hundred years, radicals around the world called themselves koukouloforists or blackblockists[3]. In other words, in its origins, nihilism is a term applied by the press to ridicule or generate fear around a political current.

    One characteristic of the original nihilism was its absolute rejection of Christianity and any superstition or nonrational belief, and, as such, a strong adherence to rationalism. In this matter, far from being radical, they were embarrassingly out of date. At the time, Christianity was already being replaced as state religion by science itself, by the very rationalism the nihilists fetishized.

    To put it another way, their desire to seem very radical surpassed their capability to arrive, through critical thought, at a truly radical analysis that could identify the roots of the system they hated.

    Today, one notices the same pattern. The nihilists hate (and with plenty of justification) the Left and anything that resembles—even just a little—the Left or its practices.[4] But they have not noticed that for decades already, the Left is expiring. Currently, it is the Spectacle that holds much greater importance in carrying out the function of recuperating struggle. Ironically, but faithful to their origins, current nihilism is the most spectacular of anticapitalist struggles.

    Its greatest impact is in virtual space: on the internet and in the media.

    After a wave of attacks in Barcelona claimed on the internet by the group “Anarquistas Nihilistas”, many anarchist comrades asked themselves if this impressive series of actions actually happened or if it was a fabrication. Not because we do not believe there are nihilist comrades in Barcelona who are brave and prepared to attack—we know there are—but because many of the claimed attacks occurred in our own neighborhoods and we would not have noticed if not for the Indymedia article. One must assume that in an alienated city, it is normal that you do not learn about the happenings from one street to the next, so it might just be coincidence that the greatest repercussions of these actions played out on the internet. But we know that attacks we have committed within social struggles had a greater repercussion: they were spoken about in the streets and served as a referent—negative or positive, we don't care—for other people outside our own circles.

    Subsequently, the same group began to post videos with their communiques, proving that the actions were real. But this did not increase their direct repercussion in the struggles, only demonstrated more clearly their spectacularity.

    We agree with the nihilists that we should not wait until there are social movements to attack the system, but we do not agree that we must reject these movements and the people who comprise them. For us, it is important to get to know these others and learn whether they are grassroots politicians or real people, and as such, possible accomplices.

    We remember when we were 15 or 12 years old, the happiness, the sensation of dangerous emotion, that we received to learn of heavy attacks against the system. Also for this reason we carry out attacks in the most visible moments: to create signals for other people, lost and troubled like ourselves.

    It is clear that the nihilists do not attack simply for personal motives, for the pure joy or necessity of attacking—a motivation we would totally support—because they communicate their attacks on Indymedia with the intent that they be extended. Thus, there is a strategic element to their actions. But strategically, it cannot be justified for a truly radical struggle to adopt and maintain the most spectacular forms and remain above all in virtual space.

    When people who were already carrying out incendiary attacks against the system began to use the initials of the Informal Anarchist Federation (FAI), they intentionally chose a form that would give them a virtual force and assured that the press would take notice of their existence. When the people who would initiate the Conspiracy of Cells of Fire departed from the well established practice within the non-leftist (or insurrectionary) anarchist space in Greece, and instead of having a temporary existence and signing every communiqué with a new name (or not write any communiqué at all), they formed themselves into a permanent group with a symbolic existence and a protagonism, and they assured their success in the media.

    We only have to look at the struggles of the '60s and '70s to confirm that the press—and as such, the State—don't like to be confronted with a decentralized and chaotic struggle without a well defined enemy. That's why they fund the academics: to always define their enemy. In each case, when an armed leftist group arose that considered itself the head of the spear and wanted to lead the entire heterogeneous struggle, the press responded immediately, converting the group into a symbol of the whole struggle, fixing them up with a central protagonism and a strong mediatic presence. Put another way, there was a strong confluence between the strategies of the press and those of these groups. Groups like the FAI or the CCF, while they act like the most radical, are really returning to a form of struggle that belongs to the revolutionary Left, and relying on the media to give them their repercussive force.[5]

    Some of them also share another characteristic with the Left: like marxists, they seek the revolutionary subject who is the only one capable of rebelling, and the only one worthy of respect. For Anarquistas Nihilistas of Barcelona, it is “the young criminals” on whom they impose their ideas.[6] From a very heterogeneous group such as “criminal youth”, they imagine a wide and consciously revolutionary conspiracy, even though these nihilists without a doubt know very few youth that match the description. And even though they affirm that “We want to join with all the elements of the struggle,” they leave it very clear that they reject the form of struggle, with supreme arrogance, of all the people who are not nihilists or in affinity with them.

    Another curious aspect of these groups: often, their communiqués, pregnant with the tone of the most revolutionaries, are directed to the enemy. They are written to a “you” which includes the State, the rich, leaders, and reformists. The preferred audience of many nihilists, in practice, is that which must be destroyed. But negation is not possible where there is dialogue, of any type. Despite this, sometimes nihilists celebrate their transparency or legibility to the State. For example, “this affinity and complicity [...] is found and recognized through the common desire for the attack here and now, through smoke signals understood sometimes only by ourselves and our enemies.”[7]

    It must be said that, even though this so coherent way of living the social war is admirable and inspiring, it is a conception of war very similar to the conception held by the State itself: a conflict between two antagonists that is solved through armed actions by the destruction of the infrastructure, personnel, and organizational capacity of one of them. The fundamental difference with the State is that the nihilist motivation is the desire for liberty and not the desire for power. The nihilist motivation is based in bravery and the ideal, as such it has no limits, whereas the authoritarian motivation is limited by the calculated possibilities of winning. The nihilists will go to war even when they know they cannot win, and that is admirable. The difference with maoist guerrillas is that the nihilist scheme does not include the eventual incorporation of the masses into the political-military organization of the guerrillas. That's another point in favor of nihilism. But despite these two minimally libertarian elements, the nihilist conception of social war leads to the militarization of the conflict (the development of the conflict according to a statist logic) and as such the increased power of the State to “read,” understand, encircle, and repress the enemy. To clarify the critique, unlike maoism or any other revolutionary but authoritarian current, we do not believe nihilism is capable nor disposed to reproduce a State, but it does take the struggle to a statist terrain.

    One cannot propose the creation of a new world without the destruction of the current one. And we cannot plan the form of the new world because currently we cannot imagine future conditions. Moreso, planning the form of the world—or planning the form of any collectivity greater than our circle of acquaintances—is an authoritarian exercise. But the State does not only exist in its material forces, rather also in the social relations it reproduces, and a relation cannot be destroyed without simultaneously creating a new relation. A building can be destroyed without constructing a new one, but a relationship of alienation cannot be ended without the creation of another type of relationship. There is always a relation between the beings and bodies in the same space.Without speaking of the creation of new social relations, we cannot speak honestly about the destruction of the State. To put it another way, we have come upon a bifurcation between the proposal to attack the State and the proposal to destroy the State. The proposal that speaks most of destruction, the nihilist one, may be unable to realize it because it dedicates itself only to the attack. It would be a very sad vision of “permanent revolt”: forever attacking the symbols of the State without ever being able to touch the base of its power.

    Because it is a practice of attack and not of destruction (which would also require a creative aspect which the nihilists do not propose[8]), it easily takes aboard the concept of violence. The discourse on violence of many (and not all) nihilists is a dialogue of opposites with the pacifist discourse of the citizen. It is a dialogue between angel and devil, but a dialogue nonetheless. Instead of rejecting the Spectacle's dichotomy regarding violence, they take the opposite pole from pacifism within the same paradigm created by it. The oldest trick of democracy is to control the terms of debate so that the two shown options, the good and the bad, reproduce the logic of power and the State. It is not possible to arrive at a radical vision within the statist paradigm. Despite this, nihilism from its origins has been the pole of the devil, the evil option defined and signaled by the Spectacle itself. The transcendental conflict of nihilism is this: choose the posture of the bad one that performs all the roles that give meaning to the pacifist and citizen opposition; or choose the project of radical negation of the foundations of the system and as such the negation of the patriarchal hierarchy of tactics, the categorization and fetishization of violence, and the alienated and spectacularized forms of communication.

    The nihilist recuperation is a recuperation of symbolic moments of heterogeneous struggles within a discourse of violence, which is the same task the press performs in regards to these struggles, even though the press does it to generate fear and nihilism does it to generate a simplified and virtualized illusion of its own strength, within a heroic narrative of combat between Authority and the Rebel.

    This narrative and the previously mentioned spectacularism are also nourished by the selection of targets for attack: they are often personalities or symbols of the protagonism of the State (like politicians or the façades of ministries) instead of the gears of the State. This focus of struggle is another thing nihilist groups like CCF or Narodnaya Volna of a century ago share with leftist groups like Brigate Rosse and the RAF. We love the thought that the bastards who govern us feel fear or—even better—the bitter kisses of bullet or knife, but we think it is neither intelligent nor libertarian to direct a large part of our attacks against the masks power wears, and in such a professionalized manner that it is almost impossible for such attacks to be generalized.[9]

    Given that many of them have opted for a patriarchal hierarchy of tactics, for a vision of themselves as the protagonists in a heroic combat against the State, and they are conditioned by a total rejection of the Left (with which we mean to say, they do not differentiate between the Left as an institutional force and the movements or people the Left seeks to institutionalize), it is practically inevitable that they confront other anti-authoritarians who are not of the same line with an exaggerated arrogance and they confuse them for enemies.

    The emissaries and martyrs of armed struggle, even though they may represent very distinct lines, such as Lambros Foundas of Greece or Marcelo Villarroel of Chile, they agglomerate and accept as comrades, as the only ones who struggle, and they speak of all the rest of us as though we were pacifists and reformists.

    We know that it's not the case. We know of the many fires we lit ourselves, and of many other equally important things we have done. When they respond to our criticisms as though we were sell-outs, we know they are just afraid of the debate. It's possible that some of them have all their blood in the heart and none in the brain. But we're tired of them breaking solidarity. They have to learn to criticize other lines of struggle without adopting the arrogance and elitism that belongs to a vanguard.

    We are anarchists who are critical of the part of our tradition that comes from the Left but we are also thankful for all the errors of this tradition because they are opportunities to learn. We believe in the total negation of all the foundations of the current system. By this we also understand the negation of its spectacularization, its alienation and isolation, its conquest and annihilation of the imagination, its dichotomy between violence and nonviolence, and its concept of militarization that has also influenced our own struggles.

    We'll close with a solidaristic greeting to the comrades of Anarquistas Nihilistas, Lobos Negros and all the people who carry out attacks in the streets of Barcelona. We hope your actions and criticisms continue, but also that the channels of communication and solidarity that join us are improved.

    Regarding certain anarchist websites

    Previously we published a companion article to this one (“Comunicado por acciones anarquistas en Barcelona y respuesta a los compañeros nihilistas” http://anarchistnews.org/content/commun ... ns-barce... ). It is with curiosity that we note that websites such as Liberación Total and War on Society refused to publish it. It was a communiqué for direct actions accompanied by a text critical of certain concepts of struggle in the anarchist scene. Both websites publish almost exclusively texts of this sort. We would ask them, in what moment did you debate and decide that actions of care, of the transmission of the collective memory of our struggle, of the creation of communal relations of mutual aid, do not constitute important actions? In what text or discussion have you argued why only the attacks matter? And at what point did you analyze and conclude that this does not constitute a patriarchal hierarchy of tactics, or that the patriarchy does not constitute a system of power indispensable to the evolution of the State and capitalism? Can you even articulate your own vision of the roots of the State and capitalism that do not pass through patriarchy? The truth is, we doubt that there was any such process of debate, critical thought or historical analysis. And the question no one can answer: how much damage, how many strategic defeats, will your lack of critical thought provoke, and who will be there, supporting and picking up the pieces when you fuck it up again, like so many other times that have already been forgotten?

    But what really disgusts us is how other times you have published our texts, but this time you prefer we remain silent. We struggle side by side with you in the streets, but when we criticize the vision of struggle some of you have, you lump us in with reformists, leftists, citizens, and pacifists. And the most disgusting thing is that if we die in this struggle, a possibility for us as well as for you, you will convert us into the new symbols of your partial vision of the struggle.

    Please, a little more self-criticism, comrades!

    Footnotes

    [1] By nihilism, we understand a current of struggle that is not well defined but can be recognized through a certain affinity in the following questions. 1) A rejection of capitalism, the State, the Left, society (understood as the complex of forces that organize daily life), and any form of domination or pacification of conflict. 2) A practice that centers exclusively on physical and heavy attacks against the social peace, the buildings or agents of the system, and secondarily on the organization of propaganda and communication about these attacks with the purpose of encouraging their reproduction in other places (one finds a clear vision of the second priority in the communiqué of the CCF prisoners in Greece, “Letter from the CCF in solidarity with the comrades repressed in Italy” published April 5, 2012). 3) A belief in the total negation of the system, in such a way that the formulation of proposals or visions regarding self-organization or the creation of a libertarian world or community are also rejected. 4) A pessimism regarding revolution that might abnegate the possibility of “winning” and even the concept of revolution, but in any case bases the motivation for fighting not in the possibilities of realizing a revolution but rather in the personal necessity to attack and to not live like a slave.

    [2] The “indignados” might also qualify, except that to become radicals and anticapitalists, participants in this movement first had to get over their very identity of being indignified citizens.

    [3] Translator's note: The original version uses the word “encapuchistas,” modifying the Spanish word for “masked ones,” used by the press to describe anarchists or masked rioters. “Black bloc” is an imprecise translation, as it is a term that originates not in the press but in the struggle; however in the English-language press there is no equivalent to “masked ones”.

    [4] In their communiqués of April and May, 2012, Anarquistas Nihilistas sharply criticize the Left. The November 1, 2012 communiqué of “Coordinadora Nihilista II”, claims, together with “Lobos Negros” the smashing of about 130 cash machines in the prior three months. The text does not specifically name the Left, but talks about an “activist attitude” and the various labor unions. The authors reserve their greatest criticism for the anarcho-reformist CGT labor union. The criticism centers on an incident in a march the day before, when the CGT peace police attacked a young person who threw some eggs. The critique of CGT pacification is right on: this oft-demonstrated tendency of theirs is a danger many anarchists sometimes forget, lulled by the red and black flag. Coordinadora Nihilista point out the hypocrisy with which the crowd accepted this action, when if it had been the police that had punched the youth, everyone would have been crying about democracy. It is a good point, although their indignation with the CGT use of violence is problematic because a labor union can pacify a crowd with much less visible means.

    [5] For example, one notes a certain worry and disappointment, in the third communiqué of the CCF-FAI of Mexico, that the state Procurator [trans: like a prosecutor] like the media “also joins the silence and the minimization hiding our struggle”.

    [6] Or in another paragraph, “savage, problematic, uprooted youths, those youths of ethnic minorities and low social classes, who in a nihilist-revolutionary cry begin to open our eyes” [trans: in the original, this phrase is written simultaneously from a distance (“esos jóvenes”, those youths) and from first person (“empezamos”, we begin) suggesting an unintended confusion as to whether the authors of the communiqué really consider themselves part of their revolutionary subject group]. It could be that some—although not all—of the authors of this communiqué belong to the mentioned demographic, but, on one hand, only a small part of the rest of the criminal youth are familiar with revolutionary nihilism or in agreement with it, and on the other hand, demography is a task of the State, of marxism, or of identity politicians. The quote is extracted from the communiqué by “Anarquistas Nihilistas” of Barcelona, dated April 25, 2012. In their May 9, 2012 communiqúe, they make it clear that they are talking about “those kids” as people apart and they indicate that “We struggle for all of them because they are the only ones who—whether unconsciously or not—rebel against capitalist society, who suffer the aggresions of fascists and police.” It can be demonstrated that it is not true that “the kid who has to maintain his family by himself, who passes his days in the street looking for food or in the rubbish heaps” is not the only one who rebels against capitalist society, but he is the one Anarquistas Nihilistas have decided to single out as the revolutionary subject and at the same time a victim for whom others must fight. Since they struggle in the name of the only true rebel, all the rest of us are not true rebels if we differ with the nihilist comrades about how to fight.
    Unlike the communiqué from May (“La ciudad de las bombas volverá a arder”), the one from April (“Nueva ola de ataques incendiarios y sabotajes...”) is really beautiful. “For us, our comrades are the ones that that instead of occupying their schools and spouting reformist proclamations, decide to destroy the classrooms/cages [the make the pun “(j)aulas” that does not translate in English] and burn the books.” Finally someone said it!
    But they persist in their manipulative contradiction, one the one hand calling for broad solidarity [“We want to join with all the elements of the struggle” and “The actions are dedicated to everyone who was shot with rubber bullets, arrested, jailed, judged, and beaten in the March 29 strike.”] and on the other hand not recognizing struggles distinct from their own. For example, many people beaten or arrested in the strike they mention were progressives or leftists. So, are they comrades or not? Do they only deserve solidarity when they become martyrs?

    [7] Introductory text to the Spanish edition of the book about the CCF, Reventando lo existente, reflexiones del combate minoritario, 2011, p.6.

    [8] “Anarquistas Nihilistas” of Barcelona don't consider themselves incapacitated for their lack of dreams, but rather more “dangerous”.

    [9] Translator's note: in past debates in English-language forums, I have noticed an embarrassing confusion between the concept of generalization and the much simpler, less impressive phenomenon of spreading. What happened throughout Greece in December of 2008 was the generalization of several forms of attack. When FAI initials and methods are picked up in a couple towns in the UK, Germany, Mexico, and Indonesia, what has occurred is not a generalization. Rather, those who were already specializing in highly illegal attacks or complex arsons gave a new name to their actions and perhaps stepped them up a notch.

    From Barcelona Indymedia (Translated from Spanish): http://barcelona.indymedia.org/newswire ... /index.php
     
  2. SmokeyJoe

    SmokeyJoeExperienced Member Experienced member


    54

    0

    0

    Jan 17, 2016
     
    Well, I've already expressed my views on violence and anarchism elsewhere on this forum. To sum up: I find the two concepts fundamentally incompatible.

    As to "how far would I go?" That's a question I spend a lot of time asking myself. I'm not some starry-eyed hippy. I spent my formative years on the receiving end of both personal and institutional violence, and I know better than to expect pacifism to protect me from someone who is committed to doing me harm. Because of that background I spent a lot of time studying self-defense, and I know that the most effective way to defend yourself is to incapacitate your attacker by the quickest and most efficient means at your disposal.

    You could certainly argue that the oppression and tyranny of the state is a form of violence, and that any violent action taken against the state is an act of self defense. The problem is, I've seen the same kind of logic used to justify everything from preemptive wars to gunning down unarmed kids in the street. It's too easy to convince yourself that someone is a threat and that you're merely protecting yourself by attacking them, and way too hard to judge just how much force is actually warranted to balance keeping yourself safe against becoming a brutal fascist.

    Add in the fact that the state can dish out a lot more violence than I can, and it's just too dangerous to risk resorting to violence--both in terms of getting my head kicked in or my block burned down, and in terms of becoming exactly the kind of violent totalitarian pig I would be fighting against.
     
  3. Sti

    StiExperienced Member Experienced member


    67

    0

    0

    Dec 26, 2011
     
    You can fight and you can not fight but the rebellion is energy and that energy will always move in waves. Peaceful protest is to take a step back away from the enemy. And look at them again. It is far more radical than the violent protest yes it is indeed!!! I mean do you have concern? And is concern too much to ask? It is not. Therefore you need to open that door because nothing is for not. I know this.
     
  4. JolleyPunk

    JolleyPunkActive Member Forum Member


    49

    8

    0

    Aug 5, 2015
     United States
    In concept, pacifism should be the best option. Its an act of resistance with no actual pain being inflicted upon anyone, but then you have to assume that the opposing side is willing to perform or comply with your pacifist stance. In most cases, as show by the many many many instances in the news, our opposition will not be peaceful. They will hit, arrest, beat, shoot, and kill to get there end. And that's just what they do with their police puppets. You can also take into consideration their passive aggressive approach with money; kicking out renters, driving up prices of essential items, giving out bail-outs to big business with tax money, buying up housing areas in poor neighborhoods to build malls, destroying forests and wildlife habitats. To this we have the most chance of being heard through violence. Activism, speaking out, tagging and putting up posters, rioting, protesting, anything and everything to get your message heard.

    I also believe that peaceful interactions should be had when your recipient is intent of being peaceful with you. So we can say that a member of the Black Panther party and an anarchist would be peaceful together, we have a common enemy and are looking to find the same goal, be it by different means. So yeah, being militant is an effective form of activism.
     
  5. SmokeyJoe

    SmokeyJoeExperienced Member Experienced member


    54

    0

    0

    Jan 17, 2016
     
    There's something to be said for avoidance, too. Just because someone uses force against you, or would if they got the chance, doesn't mean your only options are to sit there and take it or use violence in response.

    In martial arts you hear a lot about considering an attacker's 'range'--that is, the distance at which they can hit you effectively. Usually the talk is about geting inside an opponent's range--close in where you can lock them down with holds or knee/elbow strikes and they can't punch or kick effectively. But if your goal is to keep yourself safe, rather than win a match, you're better off staying outside their range if you can--or better yet, avoiding the fight altogether.

    Of course, the state has a pretty big range. Cops have guns, and the military's got missiles and drones and ICBMs and fricking seal teams that can find you and kill you wherever you happen to be--but they don't bring that stuff out for everybody. Logistically, they can't. So maybe don't be that guy they bring the heavy stuff out for. Be the guy they don't notice. Instead of trying to take the government in a stand up fight simply turn your back on them and quietly walk away. Go off the grid and avoid contact with the state and it's agents (cops, corporations, banks, the IRS, etc.) as much as you can. Instead of protesting and agitating for change--which is essentially getting up in the goverment's face and telling it to go kill itself--try to educate people and convince them to slip the noose as well. Don't draw attention to yourself--setting up a compound and declaring your intentions is a good way to get bombed by the FBI or the ATF, or some other three letter agency. Just treat the government like a rabid bear: Something dumb, diseased, and dangerous that you're better off staying away from and being careful to avoid attracting the attention of. Teach others to do the same, and with every person that refuses to participate in the system you bleed that system a little more. Given enough time the government might find itself without anybody left to rule, or to enforce it's decrees. It's not as fast or as fun as kicking the system's teeth in, but it's a damn sight more likely to work.

    Violence is an inherantly statist act. You're using force to make someone else do what you want, even if what you want is just for them to stop hitting you. Resorting to violence just legitimizes it as a way to acheive your goals. Hell, the U.S. won it's independence from Britan through violent revolution, while shouting a lot of stuff about 'freedom from tyranny' and 'inalienable rights', and look where that got us. We won't end the violence of the state by using it ourselves, we'll just end up replacing it with a new one. Instead, we have to convince people to abandon the system of violent dominance and power-based hierarchies.

    Or as Bruce Lee would say, we need to practice "The Art of Fighting Without Fighting." ;)
     
  6. traqn dimitrov

    traqn dimitrovActive Member Forum Member


    32

    0

    0

    Mar 7, 2013
     
    personaly I like the idea of revolutionary terror but if you are a pacifist consider this you see a cop in the midle of a demonstration and he is beating someone who is in no position to defend themselfs what should you do. If you don't interfiere some of your anarchistic principals go to shit but if you do something (and doing something almost always includes violence) your pacifistic principals go down the drain. My opinion is that there should not be mercy for those who used violence to oppress for so long. Also keep in mind that no one in this capitalist world is gonna give you anything if you don't fight for it cheers
     
  7. SmokeyJoe

    SmokeyJoeExperienced Member Experienced member


    54

    0

    0

    Jan 17, 2016
     
    Violence is oppression, mate. If you attack the cop all you're doing is acting like a cop yourself--trying to 'police the police' with violence the same way they try to police you. Trying to make other people do what you want through force and intimidation is not anarchy, it's fascism.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads - far civil disobedienceForumDate
The Fartz - Because This Fuckin' World Stinks...Ep - 1981 (U$A)Anarcho-Punk music albums downloadsSep 15, 2013
Rudimentary Peni - 1982 - Farce (Ep) [APN]Anarcho-Punk music albums downloadsJul 10, 2013
New farm, Anarchist Conference anyone?Anarchism and radical activismJun 16, 2013
Lawyer with ties to far-right gets a court order for the destruction of Spanish revolution monumentAnarchism and radical activismJun 6, 2013
Anarchists on welfareAnarchism and radical activismJan 1, 2013