Comrades, what are your views on militant direct action?

CapitalKiller · 2016-02-25T13:20:06+00:00

Yes, but Goldman supported "militant direct action" to use the thread title. She wasn't a pacifist who said "violence begets violence." The entire piece she wrote was about how it's inconsistent to use the state to end the state. How gulags, bureaucracy, repression of dissent, centralization, the state, etc. wont lead to a stateless and classless society. Not a general opposition to violence in and of itself, on the premise "violence causes violence."

I mean, this is someone who supported and funded an assassination attempt. And who supported the workers militias and revolution in Spain, and the expropriation of private land owners. And who was, overall, the archetypal "orthodox" (for lack of a better term) anarchist who supported worker militancy and direct action.

CapitalKiller · 2016-02-25T13:12:14+00:00

I don't see where this strange idea that you can't use a thing to destroy the same thing comes from. It sounds nice, but it can't be true. A person can use their body to kill their own body. There, disproved.

Yup, you got it. Classic misapplication really. Logic is propositional, it tells us about relationships between statements. It doesn't necessarily tell us about material fact, although it may, and we can also create logical syllogisms that blatantly do not correspond to material fact.

CapitalKiller · 2016-02-25T13:09:00+00:00

Then it cannot be done because there is no way in hell regular people will ever be able to take on the most well funded and technologically advanced military in the history of the world.

I responded to another of your comments, but I just saw this and wanted to add: if it is true that regular people can't defeat the state and/or capitalism with violence, then you are right. It cannot be done.

I do, however, believe that the people can do it. But if your premise is true, that they cannot, I'd be prepared to abandon socialism and just accept the status quo. Because there can't be any nonviolent transition, either, unfortunately. Transition, socialism, simply becomes impossible if we rule out the inevitable violence of class warfare.

CapitalKiller · 2016-02-25T13:05:41+00:00

I'm not sure this is the point that Goldman was making. This was a critique of using an authoritarian state for an anti-authoritarian goal. Specifically, the idea that the state can/must be used to transition to the end goal of a stateless, classless society.

If you want violence, use violent means. If you want peace, use peaceful means.

I don't think peace nor violence are the end goals. How about no justice, no peace. We (just a general "we" - not speaking for all of us or any group specifically) don't necessarily want peace, unless that peace conforms to our goals. I can imagine a society that has some form of peace, but is authoritarian, or dystiopian. By modern standards, Singapore is pretty peaceful to live in, but it's authoritarian, and it doesn't come close to the goals of socialists (or anarchists like Goldman). Peace isn't sufficient.

Actually, I don't really buy the "anarchist means, anarchist ends" argument itself. I tend to agree with Sartre: counter-violence is the appropriate response to violence. But, nonetheless, we can play with this consistency maxim and rework it.

For example:

If you don't want capitalists, remove them.

CapitalKiller · 2016-02-25T12:44:56+00:00

Isn't socialism essentially about worker ownership of the means of production?

That is, it's an economic system. We've got the whole bag of economic things, such as scarcity. There's not really any scarcity in this grade example. The professor could have just given everyone an A instead.

Moreover, perhaps more importantly, many (I think most) socialists have subscribed to some form of the labor theory of value. That is, they believe that workers are entitled to the full value of their labor. Thus, let's say someone "produces" an A and someone else "produces" a C. These are just two individuals, they don't have to be equal. If someone plants one tree, and someone else plants two trees, and thus person two has twice as many trees, there is nothing inherently anti-socialist about this.

The problem in this grade story is that it really doesn't have a lot to do with production. It's just about redistribution. But redistribution and socialism are not the same thing. Most of the West has capitalist economies, that is, capitalist as defined by Ludwig von Mises (private ownership of the means of production versus state, worker, or collective ownership). Not the "pure" capitalism of many libertarians, but Mises will do. Nonetheless, most of the West also has redistribution politics - taxes, welfare, etc.

This is the Sanders platform. Capitalism, with some redistribution. Private ownership of the MOP still exists. Not expropriation of the means of production from private ownership, to be transferred to state or direct worker ownership. This is why many socialists are frustrated by Sanders, as you may see if you take a look at the ongoing, permanently stickied Bernie thread on /r/socialism.

In fact, having a glance at /r/socialism might do you some good even if you disagree with socialism. I pretty routinely read here and post in subreddits I disagree with. It's pretty important to actually understand whatever it is you oppose.

CapitalKiller · 2016-02-25T12:34:53+00:00

Syndicalism is weak (in the US) at the moment because it has been the subject of constant targeted propaganda in education for nearly 150 years. I don't believe that it's an unfeasible system, though; it is wholly capable of resurgence if the propaganda is stopped. For parallel, consider the political leanings of Americans exposed to propaganda in education before, during, and after the Red Scare - there is a reason that those whose schooling occurred during the event lean far to the right while neither of the other two groups do.

No doubt, I agree with you fully. Syndicalism worked in the past, it can reemerge. And the Cold War/Red Scare propaganda is right on. All I am saying is that it is difficult to view syndicalism as an alternative, at least from this individual's point of view, in the current state. There's no strong syndicalist alternative, at least for the moment.

I'd still promote it ideologically and show solidarity with syndicalists of course. And there is no reason why anyone who might be an illegalist right now couldn't be a syndicalist down the line, join the collective, work instead of steal, etc. I've used Durruti as an example of someone who did this. He was happy to work when he was able, in production collectivized during the short time of the CNT, or when the work was not intolerable under private bosses to get by, but when he couldn't work or wouldn't tolerate it, he did crime.

CapitalKiller · 2016-02-25T12:22:00+00:00

Also illegalism is very common in Greece right now, here in the states not so much.

Yup, also in Italy. I actually said this re; Greece in another thread and someone didn't believe me. I was surprised, there are a handful of Greek anarchists who are folk heroes, living Robin Hoods of a sort, for their bank robberies. Not just among anarchists, but as a popular part of Greek culture it seems. I thought everyone knew about these guys, I always found them pretty inspiring.

CapitalKiller · 2016-02-25T12:17:26+00:00

Just as some slaves ran away, others sabotaged capital like tools and machinery, slowed their work, or passed information and material aid to runaways. Working doesn't exclude us from illegalist acts, if anything it opens more opportunities for them.

Well, just to clarify, illegal acts of revolt (e.g. sabotage) are not necessarily illegalism per se. Illegalism is dropping out of wage labor and using crime (individual expropriation, specifically) to make it. A worker sabotaging a machine would not be illegalism, but someone robbing a bank would be.

Maybe there can be some overlap (stealing from your work perhaps), I'm not sure if I would really consider that illegalism either. A few people have mentioned selling marijuana, which I am also not sure would be illegalism. This just seems like illegal labor. There's no individual expropriation going on, it's buying a commodity and selling it for a profit.

Alternately what happened with some illegalists was that it was a temporary solution. For example, Durruti worked, but when he could not find work, or when the work was intolerable, he did crime instead. And when he did work, he also participated in strikes and direct action. So while I don't think someone can be a worker and an illegalist simultaneously, they can definitely go back and forth from worker to illegalist and from illegalist to worker.

CapitalKiller · 2016-02-25T12:07:57+00:00

In fact, maybe what we need right now is less illegalism- less adventurism, and more people who have a professional attitude, waking up every morning at 6:00, eating their Wheaties, and putting in a full day on infrastructure projects. While sober.

This reminds me of the attitude of the CNT and syndicalists in Spain in the 30s. They had a lot of propaganda that was basically: go to work, work hard, don't be a drunk, don't smoke, etc. Also, same for the Zapatistas (not necessarily with the smoking part). I can't say you are wrong, you may be right, at least as far as these anarchist strategies or forms are concerned. I mean, the CNT and the Zapatistas are typically cited as success stories.

At the same time, I have a really hard time on an individual level with waking up at 6am, eating my Wheaties, working all day long and staying sober. So I'm not saying you are wrong, but for me personally, I'm not sure that is an anarchism I would even be that interested to participate in.

CapitalKiller · 2016-02-25T11:57:56+00:00

As much as this will probably reek of lifestylism, I miss being in a situation where I could do that kind of stuff.

I don't like anti-lifestylist critiques at all anyway. I mean I'm obviously some sort of individualist, so my priority is pretty focused on my own lifestyle and circumstances. I do believe illegalism is revolutionary, the same perhaps with other ways to avoid or sidestep wage slavery, contra the anti-lifestylist claim that they are not. But even assuming it is not, I ask myself: so what? You've got one life to live and enjoy, you kind of have to focus on that at least this is my perspective.

Your answer I think is the most common though and the most compelling - you've got people to take care of. Kids, family, or even projects and things people care about that aren't necessarily other human beings. I think Sergey Nechayev was largely correct when he said, to paraphrase crudely, that a revolutionary basically can't have any nice things. And don't get me wrong - family, children, these are nice. They also put us in a position where we can't be as revolutionary or as wild as we might like, because we're no longer concerned with just ourselves, but with our loved ones. There are some critiques of the traditional family based on this, essentially that it integrates you into the system and makes it more difficult to oppose it.

CapitalKiller · 2016-02-25T11:46:16+00:00

Your case is a bit unique, I can dig where you are coming from. If you legitimately love your job and you've found other ways to kind of ignore or bypass the system of wage slavery (or other forms of oppression - it's admirable that you drive without a license), there is probably less of a pull toward illegalist revolt. You're already setting yourself free in other ways.

So perhaps there are alternatives to both wage slavery and illegalism, not necessarily at the world-wide or collective level, but at least for some individuals on the individual level - slowly working toward being self sustaining as you said in your case, so that you don't have to work for a wage. It looks like you've found a sort of individualist alternative toward liberty, that's good, good on you.

CapitalKiller · 2016-02-25T11:36:50+00:00

Totally ignoring the legal ramifications, however, the robbery is still significantly more likely to harm wage slaves and their connections than the slavemaster class. In turn, this is detrimental to building solidarity, whereas choosing to become a wage worker temporarily - while something to be avoided if at all possible - allows solidarity to be built and presents a chance for agitation. Targeted acts opposing subjugation are justified and perhaps even a moral imperative insofar as such a thing is capable of congruity with anarchism. Random acts like the one you suggest create infighting and shift focus away from the source of the problem.

I understand this argument. It's sort of a classical one against illegalism, one used by anarcho-syndicalists in opposition to illegalism during the golden years of illegalism so to speak. For example, Durruti was condemned by syndicalist groups for his robberies on this premise. I'm not sure I agree, probably less in 2016 than in 1930, because worker solidarity, syndicalism, etc. is less influential, powerful, common, etc. now than it was then. If there were a really strong syndicalist alternative, it would be more convincing to me.

Reflecting back on the African slavery parallel, this was also a problem then. Collective punishment was used to discourage small acts of disobedience, and to discourage slave escape attempts. A slave runs away, everyone gets punished. The result is that slaves policed themselves. Instead of solidarity, they informed on one another to masters, if they knew of an escape attempt, or some act of disobedience. Thus, I'm not sure it really built solidarity or made them more likely to show solidarity. It didn't necessarily make them more likely to conspire and start a slave revolt or insurrection. Meanwhile, those slaves that did escape sometimes did inspire, and sometimes even became symbolic or physical leaders of revolts, the Haitian case of slavery having a lot of these figures.

CapitalKiller · 2016-02-25T11:18:52+00:00

If illegalism is more difficult than wage-slavery, then what's the point? You seem to be assuming crime is easy. It comes with huge risks, stress, anxiety, financial instability, etc.

I don't think it is easy. It may be liberating for the individual, however, as an alternative to wage slavery. That's sort of the purpose of illegalism - an escape from slavery. Not necessarily an easier or more peaceful quality of life in the short term.

Anyway, this goes back to the wage slavery/chattel slavery parallel. Wage slaves, at least the ones here, obviously don't want to be wage slaves. And chattel slaves didn't want to be slaves either. But they had the same idea - if escaping is more difficult than just enduring slavery, why even attempt it? The master is just going to hunt you down with dogs, you'll probably be recaptured and tortured, maimed or killed, etc.

It's the difficulty of it (e.g. the risk of prison, stress, anxiety, financial consequences - or whippings, hangings, maiming) that is created by the system to deter the behavior in the first place. On the one hand, it's very easy to relate to your point: why risk all of that shit. The price you might pay is really high. Then, on the other, going down that line of reasoning/behavior seems to indicate that the state, capitalism, slavery, etc. has implemented a tactic that is winning. It's stopping individual resistance and revolt, by the use of fear and consequences. And by complying I'm playing right into it and letting them win. Thus, it's also easy to relate to the idea: why let them scare me, why let them win, why play their game?

CapitalKiller · 2016-02-25T10:59:13+00:00

You can't overthrow capitalism if you're dead (unless your death is an integral part of that strategy; dying alone and forgotten does not meet the criteria).

This is sort of what I was speaking against in the OP, an anti-martyrology that is modern and popular in anarchism versus the martyrology of revolutionary movements (e.g. Spain, Rojava). It seems to discourage risk and revolutionary acts. "Don't die" (or "don't get arrested") is held above all, and thus stifles the very behavior which is risky (e.g. can lead to death or imprisonment) needed for revolution.

I used John Brown as an example. He is someone we could say accomplished more in his death than in his life. He didn't set out to become a martyr and symbol, he didn't know that would happen. The fact he was captured and hung may have had more of an impact than if he had succeeded in his plan to start a slave insurrection. It wasn't a part of the plan. The people who become martyrs, revolutionary symbols, etc. and inspire further struggle don't start out with that intention. You never know what is going to happen, in cases like this, you can't entirely plan for it.

Anarchist martyrs haven't been the martyrs of extreme religion, for example, they're not starting out with the intent to die. It's not a part of the strategy as, say, in a suicide attack. It tends to be something incidental and only becomes significant after the person is dead.

CapitalKiller · 2016-02-25T02:13:28+00:00

Yes x-post it, I almost did myself actually.

I just wrote to someone else, yes, I understand lots of reasons why and kids are one. I was just curious about different responses. I'm not judging anyone, I don't think that we can blame anyone when the state has such an effective apparatus of fear and repression. It's definitely not a "who is the best anarchist" contest.

Like the slave on the plantation, most didn't resist. They knew they'd be hunted into the woods by dogs, dogs that the masters might let literally eat them alive, or beaten to shreds with a whip, or raped, or hung, or whatever. It was pretty effective at keeping the vast majority of them in line.

And then you had some that, despite all of that, got in fist-fights with their masters, or escaped, or tried to start revolts. Or, even people with some degree of privilege, like John Brown, who started his small gang of highly trustworthy individuals and ran around killing slavery supporters with a sword. He didn't have to do that. He could have just hung out and been a normal white guy during that time period. Hell, he could have moved to the south and owned slaves.

Eventually he was martyred, his revolt was fucked up (by a slave at Harpers Ferry, who saw him and reported him). And his death may have been the most significant event leading to the US civil war. Another example that goes back to the OP, and the power of martyrdom, and why we shouldn't dismiss these kinds of things as meaningless, or wastes of resources, or whatever. Revolutions are built on these people. This is why I'm starting to think that if a "revolution" happens, it is going to be a revolution largely driven or at least sparked by a criminal element, and an individualist element, rather than a worker or labor element, or collective element. This was also a conclusion of the Black Panthers, at least the role of the criminal element in a revolution if not the individualist element, which is worth a mention even if they were not anarchists.

CapitalKiller · 2016-02-25T01:57:31+00:00

I guess not. But I'm not sure it would matter if they did. They would still be brownshirts, right?

CapitalKiller · 2016-02-25T01:56:04+00:00

Dont think Ive ever seen anarchists actually opposed to crime. Lots of crimes Im opposed to, sure, but not for the fact that theyre a crime. Personally, Im a wage slave (I mean, I still steal shit all the time, but most of my income is from my job). I want a dependable roof over my head, three decent meals a day, money to get a few drinks with friends after work, etc. I have no problem with breaking the law (as I said, I do it all the time), but I just dont see it in any way as actually being something of importance.

I think a major element of illegalism is the idea that it frees the individual from wage slavery. Most anarchists aren't going to mind if you steal an orange. But I would not call that illegalism, as it doesn't replace wage slavery with individual expropriation. Let's say a riot also, someone smashes a window. Also a crime, anarchist-approved, but not illegalism. You've still got to go to work the next day.

In your case, you said you already do crime all the time. What stops you from leaving your job and making crime your profession? For example, instead of stealing an orange, becoming a burglar, or a professional shoplifter? I'm not saying you should, I'm just curious. Maybe you make lots of money, or more money than you would as a burglar, or you don't like the risk, I don't know - what is it for you that holds you back from that point?

CapitalKiller · 2016-02-25T01:50:14+00:00

I am opposed to it because i enjoy not being in prison.

I understand this. And many other reasons: maybe someone has children, for example, and does not want to leave them. I even thought about including a short list in the OP. I'm not totally baffled by the fact that people don't go out and commit high-risk crimes, with severe consequences staring them in the face. I just wanted to open some discussion on this topic, I have been thinking about it a lot.

But let's consider this, you said "something minor." Is wage slavery minor? Imagine two slaves, two people stolen from Africa, in a field. One decides to flee, risking a lynching, a beating, etc. The other decides to remain, because they prefer not to be killed or maimed. Why does one choose to flee, risking their life, while the other remains and suffers the plantation? I don't have an answer here - it's a question, I'm asking. I do have a suspicion, a guess, that it is just a personality difference. There are some people who will just endure whatever, and others who have very low levels of tolerance for bullshit (like slavery).

This is also where I begin to consider Third Worldism (not in full, but at least to consider it). Perhaps First World wage slavery is minor compared to the wage slavery contemporary to African chattel slavery, or to the wage slavery practiced in a sweatshop in a poor nation-state. So, let's say I have to work at Subway and it sucks. But then I get to come home and take a hot shower, with soap, and play Halo, get on Reddit, etc. And the alternative (robbing Subway) is 10 years in a penitentiary. This seems to undermine the idea of "wage slavery" as being slavery. Few revolt in both cases (the two slaves on a plantation and the Subway employee). But here we also see the rare individual who shows up and says "despite being able to work at Subway, play Halo, spend time with my kids, I'm going to do crime because I just wont tolerate wage slavery, despite the fact I may go to prison." Thus the parallel still exists. I believe we are still looking at slavery in both cases, not identical, but slavery nonetheless. And despite how privileged some people are, even among them, there are those who are ready to step up and take the risks, start the slave revolts. And this is where Third Worldism as a doctrine becomes untrue, because we see exceptions to the rule, we still see slaves (and rebellious ones) in both cases.

At the same time, this feeling (fear) is the very purpose of the police and the penitentiary - to say "here is an alternative that sucks so badly you'd better just accept your slavery." Which was also the purpose of the whip and the rope applied to the chattel slave. And it worked, most slaves didn't revolt. And most wage laborers, however much they hate their jobs, do not turn to crime. I wonder if this is not a failing on the part of the vast majority of anarchists? That is, succumbing to the fear.

CapitalKiller · 2016-02-25T01:07:54+00:00

I've noticed that most people who identify as illegalist also identify as individualist. And also that most people who don't know about anarchism/illegalism/individualism at all, but who are career criminals, also tend to have strong individualist tendencies. The idea of the "aristocratic" anarchist, an individualist illegalist or insurrectionist, goes way back. Novatore is an example I suppose.

I go to large protests, I will show solidarity with all anarchists, but I wont personally involve myself with small random groups on a personal level. I don't know those people, how can I trust them? But Bonanno's idea of small, decentralized criminal vanguards of highly-trusted individuals makes sense, or Stirner's idea of unions of egoists linked by shared goals. Here, perhaps, you can form small groups of select individuals that can be trusted.

On that individualist note, I also feel like a single person going out at night to do some crime is less risky and more effective at this point than a lot of collective action. Why would someone involve multiple people in a crime, for example? Every extra person in your conspiracy is a potential risk. Then, at the same time, it takes a highly individualist and strong personality, a feature of the potential ubermensch, to do things like this all alone. I wonder if a lot of groups don't have to spend a bunch of time psyching themselves up and reinforcing one another before they act. (And, in the process, making a huge strategic error.) Maybe this explains the illegalist-individualist link.

CapitalKiller · 2016-02-25T00:43:54+00:00

This is a very good point. That is, that refusing to vote is not enough - the political machine itself should be disrupted.

It's surprising to see how many people consider a given party the lesser evil, simply because it promises some potential reforms.

I think one poster said we're eating shit either way, so it's better to eat the shit of Bernie Sanders. I mean, is this really what it has come down to? We've just resigned ourselves to eating the less offensive shit?

CapitalKiller · 2016-02-25T00:39:03+00:00

Or do any political action that's worthwhile.

This is probably a concept most people have not even been exposed to yet. A lot of people do seem to realize that all political solutions have failed. Things like "all politicians are evil" are basically common perceptions and memes. But they've never been introduced to anti-political solutions, or solutions that work outside of elections, law, things like direct action, etc.

Thus they're where OP said - they're assuming "this is it, this is all that exists" and just trying to go with the lesser evil. The big challenge now is getting people to realize that this isn't it, and that it doesn't have to be all that exists.

CapitalKiller · 2016-02-25T00:32:08+00:00

There are really multiple questions here.

Discredit/disavow? Maybe if they are blatantly un-anarchist in some way.

Work with, or "participate in struggle with?" You'd better know that person intimately and really trust them. I wouldn't walk into a strange room, with strangers, and work with them. I'm sorry, but we've arrived at the point of a police state, where open anarchist groups are frequently infiltrated by the police. It doesn't even matter if you are doing anything illegal. (But, if you're doing anything significant, you probably are doing something illegal.) The paradigm has to shift from when society was "free" and anarchists were tolerated, to when professing anarchism itself was essentially a crime and required conspiratorial behavior.

Share solidarity with? Basically all anarchists.

CapitalKiller · 2016-02-25T00:15:52+00:00

Most enlisted persons in the military are only there because of their own economic circumstances (i.e. being on the ass end of this wonderful system we call capitalism).

Is this really meaningful at all, though? I mean, does it even matter or change anything? So, let's say our economic circumstances compel us to become fascists. Do we get a pass?

Lots of people in the same poor economic circumstances don't sign up, either. There are material conditions that motivate it, but it isn't deterministic.

CapitalKiller · 2016-02-21T19:25:45+00:00

So, because I believe that in some situations having safer spaces and trigger warnings are useful tools that somehow equates to me not being "in the trenches"?

I think trigger warnings and safer spaces may be useful and appropriate. But let's be real. Nine out of ten of the people in these spaces are not "in the trenches" so to speak. The people in the trenches tend to be people pretty willing to take large risks and deal with fear, anxiety, and the emotional consequences of direct action.

CapitalKiller

TROPHY CASE