💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › SPUNK › sp000226.txt captured on 2022-03-01 at 16:15:02.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
No Justice, No Peace, No Excuse
BAD Broadside #7
Since late April, much has been written in the left and anarchist
press about the acquittal of the cops who beat Rodney King and the
beatings, killings, and stealing that followed shortly afterwards in
Los Angeles. As could be expected most of the leftist press either
endorsed or apologized for the violence committed by the residents of
LA, while justly condemning that of the LA Police Department. What is
more distressing, but no less surprising, is the fact that some of the
anarchist press, as well, has either supported or been unwilling to
criticize the beatings and killings that took place in LA on April 29
and the following days.
During the "uprising" or "rebellion," as leftists and many
anarchists are fond of calling the events in LA, people of many
different colors were beaten and/or killed, for no reason other than
hatred; hatred sometimes based on racist feelings, sometimes simply
based on viciousness and lack of respect for the lives and property of
others. Few of those attacked were cops and none of them were
politicians, judges, or even jurors in the trial of the cops who beat
King; they were primarily people going about their own business who
were unlucky enough to cross the path of their attackers. The
businesses, homes, and meeting places of many people, again, people of
various colors, were trashed, burned and stolen from, including the
Aquarian bookstore, the oldest black bookstore in the united states,
and the First AME Church, the oldest black congregation in LA. These
were not generally the businesses, homes, or institutions of the
wealthy, but the small shops of neighborhood businesspeople and the
homes of poor people.
Is this what the revolution means to the left in the united
states? Is this the kind of society anarchists wish to build?
From June Jordan in The Progressive, to the editor of The
Libertarian Mutualist, to Barbara Smith and Phill Wilson in Gay
Community News, to the anonymous anarchists who produced LA Today, to
the writers in The Revolutionary Worker, leftists and anarchists have
defended, and "understood," and explained, and excused this hatred and
violence. They blame Reagan and Bush and racism and the courts and
the cops and the firefighters for the destruction and murder in LA.
Not one of them has said beating and killing other people who have not
initiated or planned to initiate violence against another person is
wrong, regardless of what happened in the courts earlier that day. The
writers in LA Today were blunt enough to label the violence in LA as
not only justified, but necessary, while the editor of The Libertarian
Mutualist was moved to "commend the brave perpetrators of random
violence for being right on target." Neither have any of these
writers said burning down other people's homes and shops is wrong.
Ayofemi Folayan, in Sojourner, even implicitly blamed the fire
department for the fires in LA, despite the fact that firefighters
were being attacked when they tried to do their job, instead of
holding those who lit them responsible. They all apologize for
(in the words of Anti-Authoritarians Anonymous) "the excesses
committed by a population enraged beyond measure," as if rage is an
excuse for murder.
When a man, frustrated by his job and life in general, beats his
girlfriend, do these people call on us to understand his rage? When
cops, enraged by the refusal of one of their victims to obey their
orders beat the shit out of him, are we expected to understand their
rage? No, of course not. In such circumstances, we are expected to
hold these violent individuals responsible for their actions and
condemn them accordingly. The events in LA were no different. The
haters there were no more defensible than the cops who bashed Rodney
King.
The reason these writers were willing to defend the perpetrators
of the violence in LA is because they apply a double standard to
people, a racist and class-biased double standard. They seem to
postulate that, because of institutional racism and economic
inequality, black and/or poor people are incapable of making the same
moral choices that non-black and/or non-poor people make, and are
therefore not responsible for the violent acts that some of them
engage in. On the other hand, many of these leftists consider white
people universally responsible for the actions of some people who are
white, and therefore, in their moral system, all white people are fair
targets for the "rage" of the "oppressed." As someone wrote in LA
Today, "We have to realize that the conditions people of color suffer
under in this country fully justify any act of resistance they choose
to take, even if it "takes out" a few of our kind ("our kind" meaning
whites, anti-racists and racists alike). Some of the victims may be
good persons, activists, good friends or lovers, but we must be
careful to lay the blame where it belongs: not on Black[sic] people
but on the racist white capitalist system itself. In the blinding
anger of insurrection people don't stop to ask your class credentials
or your opinions on racism: if you're white you're a target. This is
to be expected Not fun, but expected." Note that they say that racist
murder is "not fun." They never say it is "not good."
Poor and/or black people, despite having fewer options in a number
of areas in their lives, due both to racism and restrictive laws,
still are capable of making choices about their actions, and are
responsible for the consequences of their decisions, just as other
people are. To think otherwise is to infantilize black people and/or
poor people, to consider them less fully human than other people. Such
thinking lays the basis for parentalistic interventions in their lives
by the state, ensuring their continued dependence and poverty. Despite
the fact that leftists blame the state and white people for the
violence and destruction in LA, they turn to the state (run primarily
by white people) to remedy the situation, not by leaving people alone,
but by becoming more involved in people's lives. They support
government housing, government jobs, welfare, government-funded and
regulated child care, government funded drug "treatment," more
black cops, and other government-centered programs and activities. If
racist government is the problem, how can it be depended upon to
change things to the benefit of poor black people? Getting government
out of the way is the only thing that will lead to the changes that
can produce an improvement in the lives of people in LA. One important
first step would be abolition of laws which restrict the entry of poor
and/or black people into various jobs. Taxi regulations which
constrict the transportation market, licensing of hairdressers, nurses
and other occupations which excludes people who can+t afford
government-certified training programs or licensing fees, and zoning
laws which prevent people from working out of their homes or setting
up shops in some areas are all forms of government intervention in our
economic life which keep many black people in poverty. Another area
where state intervention is harming poor people is housing.
Government-protected titles to abandoned property prevent people from
homesteading and developing empty buildings, forcing them to rely on
dirty, dangerous government housing. Additionally, drug laws, which
criminalize a voluntary, private activity, promote the violence and
theft that devastate many neighborhoods where black people live.
Encouraging people to rely on themselves instead of the state can lead
to self-sufficient, independent, and, hopefully, more rebellious
people; people who will rebel against the real evils in society, the
government and its laws, courts, cops, and military, not their
neighbors and other non-coercive people.
The events in LA pushed leftists and anarchists to show where they
stand, and, unfortunately, too many of them are standing on the wrong
side. Leftists have been embracing government, racism, nationalism,
murder, and destruction as the means to a free society at least since
1917. Historically, however, anarchists have talked of the need for
consistency of means and ends, i.e., only moral or ethical means can
yield moral or ethical results. But the anarchists who produced LA
Today and The Libertarian Mutualist and those who share their views,
expect us to believe that murder, assault and theft today will somehow
lead to freedom and anarchy in the future. The experience of the
authoritarian socialist movement has put the lie to such ideas, but
apparently many anarchist are slow to learn. Unless anarchists develop
a critique of the welfare state, abandon their leftist racism, and
encourage people to rely on themselves and assume responsibility for
their lives, there will be little to distinguish them from the rest of
the authoritarian left, their anti-statist posturing notwithstanding.
Only by encouraging libertarian actions in the present can we have any
hope of a libertarian future.
NO COPYRIGHT
Please send two copies of any review or reprint
of all or part of this to:
Boston Anarchist Drinking Brigade
(BAD Brigade)
PO Box 1323
Cambridge, MA 02238
Internet: bbrigade@world.std.com
July, 1992