Showing posts with label pacifism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pacifism. Show all posts

Thursday 23 February 2017

Anarchy Is For Lovers.

 
          For every anarchist in a black balaclava, there are at least forty aiming in the same direction, but taking a different route, anarchism is a multi-stranded fabric. Anarchism is the destination, the battles, tactics, struggles and strategies are how we deal with the obstacles that litter our path. It is a path that will require all our imagination, initiatives, determination and solidarity, for our opponents, apart from having a massive propaganda apparatus in their armoury, they have power, savagery, brutality and massive weaponry in their arsenal. However we should never forget, our means shape our ends, how we shape the foundation will determine the structure of our building. In spite of the image portrayed by our babbling brook of bullshit, the mainstream media, of anarchism as a violent creed, anarchism is a philosophy of love. It is not hate that drives us to fight injustice, it is love of justice, it is not hate that drives us to struggle against oppression, it is love of freedom. No matter the shape and colour of our battles, it is love of humanity that dives us forward, a desire that all our people must be free from oppression and exploitation.
 
          Potentially at least, anarchism and pacifism are, as Garrison and Tolstoy saw, bound together conceptually; it’s plausible to argue that government could not operate at all without physical force, coercion, incarceration, and other forms of violence, so that pacifism entails the rejection of state power. Mott said that people “should have no participation in a government based upon the life-taking principle—upon retaliation and the sword.” On the other hand, anarchism does not entail pacifism, and many anarchists have considered themselves insurrectionists and violent revolutionaries.
           This debate has extended throughout the history of anarchism. In DC and London in the 1980s, for example, the political punk movement split between militant anti-fascists and “peace punks.” The two strands continue among anarchists now, though the more war-like party is the more visible.
Read the full article HERE:
Visit ann arky's home at www.radicalglasgow.me.uk



Tuesday 16 July 2013

Has The State A Monopoly On Violence?


      In our desire to change the world to a better place for all, is non-violence ineffective and statist? Is self-defence violence? This question of violence is expanded in detail in Peter Gelderloos's book, "How Non-Violence Protects The State".
The following is a short extract:

Non-violence is Statist

     Put quite plainly, nonviolence ensures a state monopoly on violence. States — the centralized bureaucracies that protect capitalism; preserve a white supremacist, patriarchal order; and implement imperialist expansion — survive by assuming the role of the sole legitimate purveyor of violent force within their territory. Any struggle against oppression necessitates a conflict with the state. Pacifists do the state’s work by pacifying the opposition in advance.[88] States, for their part, discourage militancy within the opposition, and encourage passivity.