I've only recently been introduced to anarchist ideas and while they have had a dramatic impact on me I am still unsure about the issue of violence within anarchism. I was reading an article on here a few days ago which was mentioning how there had been some property destruction at a recent protest and appeared to regard this as unquestionably a positive thing. I'm not some sort of Tolstoyist opposed to violence in any form and I'm a firm believer that force is justifiable in certain situations. Surely though anarchists have to view their actions in light of how they will directly benefit them. How does small scale property destruction at a protest benefit the cause? As far as I can see it does nothing but to propagate the myth that anarchists are mindless terrorists and turn public opinion further against us. I'd be interested to know what your views are on this.
Feb 28 2011 23:59
Mar 1 2011 12:16
Firstly, I do know of the events in question so fortunately you haven't been wasting your time!
I still think that the property destruction of the type you mention at the treasury building is only harmful to the anarchist cause. Whether or not it was anarchists who were responsible for it, this is the way it is portrayed in the media. I'm not criticising it because I think it's wrong as such (I'm not losing sleep over a few broken windows at the treasury and I agree with you, property isn't sacred, especially that of the governemnt) but we have to face facts and accept that anarchism, or any other movement or group which seeks to challenge power, has had it's image dragged through the dirt in the mainstream media precisely because of this. You may well be correct that the violence caused people to take note of the protests, but how much of that was then focused on the issue of cuts rather than the violence itself? Surely the repeated images of the rockstar's kid serve to illustrate my point? Focus on anything which can place the protests in a bad light and talk as little as possible about the cuts, that seemed to me to be the media's reaction. I just think that property destruction like this doesn't really achieve terribly much at all
Mar 1 2011 12:55
ryuit wrote:
...any... movement or group which seeks to challenge power, has had it's image dragged through the dirt in the mainstream media...
This 'dragging of images of those challenging the powerful' has happened throughout history, whether from the modern media, the medieval pulpit or the ancient temples. And the 'official' 'poor image' of those revolting has never stopped the revolts.
What's behind the challenges is not 'violent troublemakers', even if they are also present, but the real material conditions of those doing the challenging. The 'image' portrayed by journalists, priests or pharaohs matters not at all to those forced by circumstance to rebel.
What will feed the uprisings will be the damaged real lives of those protesting: unemployment, worsening healthcare and pensions, police brutality against peaceful, legal protests, no futures for the young educated. No-one being forced to work until they drop, queueing endlessly at privatised hospitals, working for a pittance in dead-end jobs, or scraping by in poverty while unemployed or retired, will give two fucks about 'media images' of violence.
ryuit wrote:
I just think that property destruction like this doesn't really achieve terribly much at all.
Whereas we think 'people destruction' like this doesn't really achieve terribly much at all - for the vast majority, anyway.
But if you're with the rich minority, and their 'moral media images', then it does achieve much: higher profits, more wealth, subservient workforce.
Violence is inevitable; the real question is: "Whose violence do you support?" Theirs or ours?
The rich won't listen to reason. Try asking nicely for a decent job, pension or education. In the words of their economists, 'There's no effective demand'. That means we can't afford to pay.
And I'm not even an Anarchist.
Mar 1 2011 23:40
It isn't supporting the violence of the state to suggest that alternative tactics should be employed by those seeking to challenge its power. Of course this 'people destruction' is infinitely more damaging than the property destruction we're talking about but that doesn't mean to say that it's the best way to achieve our goals. Whether we want to accept it or not, the mass media has a very strong influence on people of all classes and that includes many of those who are scraping by in poverty, perhaps not an insignificant reason why there has been an upsurge in right wing, nationalist sentiments amongst parts of the working class in the last few decades.
To be honest though I don't think property destruction is a major issue at all for anarchists. I only raised it because I feel there are better ways of taking the fight to the establishment. The real struggle will be fought by organising communities and workplaces in order to resist the challenges being brought against them and you're quite obviously correct that this will be done through the actions of those forced by circumstances to rebel. My point is simply that I don't see what this type of property destruction achieves for that struggle
Mar 2 2011 15:03
Well, honestly I agree with you that the real struggle is in the workplaces and communities. I also agree that the mass media are a dominating influence, and rarely if ever a good one.
However, I aslo agree with LBird. The mass media are unlikely to portray any struggles against the status quo in a positive light, whether they're violent or not, or anything gets damaged or not. There was more bilious hatred poured on striking cabin crew, for instance, than on students (because students don't actually have a current role in the valorisation of capital). The whole issue of damage to property is relatively minor.
Mar 2 2011 20:42
When the mass media picks out 'trouble makers' I conceive it is doing so firstly to evoke criticism within any campaign/movement (after all bourgeois ideas pervade all groups in society and there are always differences on strategy and tactics) and secondly to reaffirm the states monopoly on violence, and that while liberal discourse is all well and good, it must remain within boundaries outlined by the state. Obviously this is pretty anathema to anarchists.
I think that we can criticise property damage along with a plethora of other things, but we should be clear that condemning stuff should never be done lightly. The reason I say this may not seem intuitive to a movement based on means and ends, but on the contrary Brecht rightly says we should discuss morals in its abstract sense when questions pertaining to our existence are solved. There as always been a discourse on the left about not comparing violence of the oppressed to the oppressors, but I think its for the most part lost any meaning because a lot of Marxists have adopted a strategy that took them further into arenas where they aspired to gain support.
All this said, I have no time for black bloc.
Mar 5 2011 14:03
I know its already been said, but I think we need to make a distinction between property destruction and violence against people. What we have seen in Britain recently is hardly a Red brigade is it.
Well, I'm a pessimist, I don't see 'the cause' ever realising itself. All we can hope for is to make sure we go kicking and screaming as capital pulls us through the shit.
If Millbank hadn't have happened, I doubt that March would been on anyones lips. Everybody was talking about that for weeks! It was a great symbolic gesture, the Head Quarters of the government! The media is obviously a problem, saying that they have never had anything positive to say about social unrest. When it comes to measuring violence, in Britain at least, my lesson was learnt in the Anti-War movement. I think it was about 2 million people across Britain were mobilised in stop the war marches. Nothing happened. Nearly ten years later, how many people have died in the middle east? THAT is violence. Peaceful protest is a way for the government to pat itself on the back for hearing (but not listening) to the voice of the people. Well done guys, you marched from A to be B, your democratic rights have been fulfilled, now we are still going to go to war/cut your social state to shreds etc, etc. Protests need to be disruptive. Otherwise they become tokens.
I have been thinking recently. When people say, 'oh the violence ruins the cause' etc, etc. What were people sitting at home condemning the image of property destruction at protests on BBC News at 6 really doing for the cause? I mean yeah, their opinion may be negative, but their opinion in a way doesn't even matter. If we were running a 'support the protest' phone in on X-Factor, I would be be concerned. The worst thing I have seen someone do is write a shitty facebook status about it, something along the lines of 'why don't these people get a job'. Well, great, on your bike as the old addage goes. I think there is going to come a time pretty soon when people on their bikes cycling in their circles for months are going to see there are no jobs to get, there are no job centres to ask for a job. Then maybe things will be different.
saying that, the whole destruction of a McDonalds or a Starbucks at an anti-capitalist demonstration has been totally recuperated and lost any affect it might have once had.
Mar 6 2011 22:14
Quote:
the whole destruction of a McDonalds or a Starbucks at an anti-capitalist demonstration has been totally recuperated and lost any affect it might have once had.
Maybe lost its effect through becoming routine, but how has it been recuperated?
May 2 2011 13:05
Extract from; http://bobipasquale.wordpress.com/2011/05/01/a-response-to-awl/
It's not solely focused on violence/vandalism argument so copied and pasted more relevant paragraphs.
_______________________________________________________
“A riot is the language of the unheard” (Martin Luther King).
Currently ‘direct action’ seems to be used mechanically for any action outside the once standard, ignored, tedious and silent marches (“Why are peaceful demonstrations ineffective? Because they are easier to ignore”). There is an important differentiation between vandalism and violence – neither of which ought necessarily be condemned, but the argument differs slightly.
On the question of direct action – as in occupations, strikes, civil disobedience and yes, sometimes property damage; I find it difficult to comprehend the arguments against this method to stop the cuts that will rocket child poverty, homelessness, unemployment and severely threaten many students’ access to education.
Many, and rightly so, are furious about the coalition’s plans and in actuality – who suffers the greater cost? The multi-billionaire capitalist who needs to replace his window, or the 15 year old who has lost all their EMA and is expected to pay £27,000+ for a degree? Who is the violent perpetrator? The student who refuses to be bullied and stands shoulder to shoulder with everyone fighting for the same cause; or the armoured policeman who clubs children and hospitalises people refusing to accept injustice? Who is the threat? The masked student, or the police; hard hats, shields, batons, cuffs?
Those who retaliate “policemen are just workers in uniform” or “they’re just doing their job”: contemplate this… Ian Tomlinson. Smiley Culture. Jean Charles de Menezes. Kingsley Brown. The police have proven time and time again, they do not protect us. They protect the richest, whitest politicians of the world and breed murderers rarely brought to trial. Do not swallow the lies of the papers declaring the police to be innocently containing a violent mob. If you don’t believe us, join us on a demonstration and when you find yourself nose to nose with a baton; you may stop condemning us.
One need only look closer at those who condemn us; even ‘our leaders’. Careerist, Labour wannabes who slip through the crowds whilst we are hit, and drink tea with MPs and negotiate their futures.
Really though, we can be the threat. Direct actions requires mass participation to be truly effective. Ultimately we are the majority, and working together, we can become ungovernable. We didn’t even vote for this despicable Government; why should we accept these punishments we have done nothing to deserve? When we are imprisoned, beaten and continuously oppressed by a state clearly against us – we must fight back. Direct action is a key way to do this.
Most groups are not focused on smashing windows – in fact, the smashing usually occurs after police provocation or as a result of other methods. For example, Millbank windows were initially smashed as a part of the occupation. Occupations are important as it empowers individuals and groups to reclaim the spaces that belong to us. We should have the control and power over public spaces, lecture theatres etc. Money is the only language capitalists understand; so when we occupy their department stores (Fortnum & Masons, vodaphone etc), we shut down their business, and they lose profit. We also bring solidarity between groups and enable communication and conversation between those to be hit by the cuts. We can provide the safe spaces needed to organise.
May 3 2011 00:51
aaaah only just seen Samotnaf's response, and my own error in my post. I didn't mean recuperated, I meant co-opted, into standard parlance as a typical 'anarchy' thing.
May 4 2011 18:41
Looking back on this feed I think I need to clarify certain issues. I am categorically in favour of direct action such as strikes, occupations and a wider campaign of civil disobedience. With that in mind my choice of title for the feed was an appalling one- perhaps vandalism and anarchism would have been better. To my mind there is a concrete difference between the type of direct action listed above and the smashing of windows at a vodafone shop on the high street for example. It was this latter type of action (although I agree with bobipasquale that not all property destruction can be classed in the same bracket) that I was initially discussing
Can comment on articles and discussions
Well, I'm not an anarchist, but even when I was (and I think this goes for most anarchists) I wasn't in favour of destruction of property for its own sake. On the other hand, there's nothing sacred about property either. I won't call it 'violence', violence is damaging people, not property, and the state manages that much better than all the anarchists and communists put together. If destruction of something is useful, destroy. If destroying something is harmful, don't destroy it.
So it comes down to what's harmful and what's not. Do you really think that all that destruction does is turn public opinion against anarchism? It never, for instance, gives anarchists leverage to get their point across in the media?
No-one from the news channels in Britain was interested in the student protests until some .... foolish and over-enthusiastic person chucked a fire extinguisher off the roof of Millbank Tower. Then, a bunch of 'student leaders' were paraded out to condemn it. Some did, but a great many took the opportunity to instead condemn the cuts and call for wider protests, intelligently and articulately.
As far as I'm aware, the student who chucked the fire extinguisher wasn't an anarchist, so maybe the analogy doesn't hold up. But I contend that those representatives of the student occupations etc did a lot of good for the protest movement.
Sometimes, as in the attack on the Treasury building (I hope you know something about the UK student protest movement otherwise all these examples are going to mean precisely nothing) the destruction (smashed windows, mostly) I would argue served to help people come together. Sure, smashing the windows of a government building while chanting 'give us our money back' isn't going to bring down capitalsim. But it's both a symbolic gesture of rage and a practical example of a group of people spontaneously working together in a common political cause. I loved that when it was on the news, one of my favourite moments of the protests.
Then again, what if mass media aren't necessarily the best way to turn people on to socialism? 'Public opinion' is likely to be against all (pro-)revolutionary politics whatever occurs, 'we' aren't going to rally 'them' until both 'we' and 'them' realise we are all in fact 'we'... the working class as a whole is unlikely to come to socialism as a set of opinions that are gradually adopted by more and more people (like persuading people to buy a different brand of butter).
Going back to the student protests again, people began to organise themselves, radicalised themselves; non-students were also radicalised in the process, with college and uni staff joining protests, parents and grandparents of students supporting them in their actions; this was a microcosm of the class struggle. 'Public opinion' was swinging behind the students which is why very rapidly the 'forces of order' started to hammer the message that the students were (are?) greedy wreakers living it up at the taxpayers' expense. How much coverage was given to that rock star's kid who swung on a flag at the cenotaph? Not a proud moment for the student protests to be sure. But compared to the amazing things that happened over the weeks before, not all that significant I suspect.