💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › zabalaza-the-violence-question.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 15:00:30. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: The Violence Question Author: Zabalaza Date: October 28, 2010 Language: en Topics: violence, armed struggle, terrorism, pacifism, self-defense Source: Retrieved on 15th October 2021 from https://zabalaza.net/2010/10/28/the-violence-question-zacf/
Anarchism is opposed to any interference with your liberty, be it by
force and violence or by any other means … But if someone attacks you,
then it is he who is invading you, he who is employing violence against
you. You have a right [and a duty] to defend yourself…
To achieve its purpose, the revolution must be imbued with and directed
by the anarchist spirit and ideas. The end shapes the means, just as the
tool you use must be fit to do the work you want to accomplish …
Revolutionary defence excludes all acts of coercion, of persecution and
revenge. It is concerned only with repelling attack and depriving the
enemy of the opportunity to invade you…
[The strength of the revolution] consists in the support of the people,
in the devotion of the agricultural and rural masses … Let them believe
in the revolution and they will defend it to the death … The armed
workers and peasants are the only effective defence of the revolution.
By means of their unions and syndicates they must always be on guard
against counter-revolutionary attack … the active interest of the
masses; their autonomy and self-determination are the best guarantee of
success…
Let them [counter-revolutionaries] talk as they like… To suppress speech
and press is … a theoretic blow offence against liberty [and] a direct
blow at the very foundations of the revolution … [While forcible attack
will be actively resisted] the revolution must be big enough to welcome
even the severest criticism, and profit by it if it is justified…
Alexander Berkman,
“Defence of the Revolution”,
in his ABC of Anarchism, various editions
There are three basic positions which can be adopted on the “violence
question”-pacifism, terrorism or defensive violence.[1]
With regret we have to dismiss pacifism as being hopelessly unrealistic.
Restricting a struggle to pacifism or non-violent direct action in a
campaign or strike can in some circumstances seriously undermine that
struggle. We are against the adoption of such tactics as an absolute
principle, although obviously it may be tactically wise to rely on
peaceful methods of protest in certain situations.
Violence will also be an inevitable part of a revolution as the ruling
class will not give up its power or wealth without a bloody struggle. To
refuse to prepare to meet this contingency with counter-violence, or to
rely on pricking the conscience of the oppressor to prevent bloodshed in
such a situation, is a recipe for the massacre of the working-class and
poor.
We reject the tactics of armed struggle and “terrorism”.
This approach relies on the military actions of an armed vanguard to
free the working class and poor (or other oppressed groups, e.g.
national minorities). It is thus substitutionist to the core in that it
substitutes the activity of a small group for the actions of the toiling
masses as a whole. It is clearly therefore elitist and sows the seeds
for a new elite to take power over the heads of the workers and the poor
in the event of the armed struggle succeeding. In fact, this tactic
readily degenerates into authoritarianism even prior to the actual
seizure of power as the armed vanguard is not accountable to the working
people and is instead controlled by a typically unelected central circle
of leaders. In this model the masses are reduced to a passive role ,
acting at most as the providers of logistical support to the guerrillas.
Even if sizeable popular support can be won for the armed struggle, this
fact remains. Such a tactic is clearly at odds with Anarchism which
involves the masses in self-managed action to establish an
anti-authoritarian socialist society.
Generally speaking, the tactic of armed struggle is a relatively
ineffective one. This is particularly true where the armed struggle is
urban based (and thus almost never unable to consolidate “liberated”
territories) , but it also holds in the case of rural ly-focussed
struggles. The murder of individuals in no way weakens the system.
Bosses, police and so on are all easily replaceable. So are powerlines
and other facilities. The military power which clandestine guerrilla
forces can mobilise is typically minimal compared to the full power of
the State. As Anarchists we realise that under capitalism and the State
the strength of the masses lies primarily in their economic power –
their ability to struggle at the point of production- yet the tactic of
armed struggle relegates the workplace struggle to a secondary role (if
any at all). Even in conditions of harsh political repression,
underground activity should prioritise workplace organising over the
formation of a guerrilla army.
Although the intention of those engaging in armed struggle is often to
secure freedom for the oppressed, the actual effect may be quite
different. Typically, armed struggle puts the lives of working people at
risk which provides the State with an excuse (and, often, the popular
support) needed to introduce more repressive measures. We also do not
support the tactic of small groups provoking a violent response from the
State in order to “radicalise” the majority. In fact, this is often used
by the State to victimise activists and intimidate those involved.
This is not to say that we deny the sincerity of those who take up the
gun in an attempt to change society, merely that their method is a wrong
one. However, while we do not advocate armed struggle, we defend those
who participate in it from repression, reactionary attacks and
criticism. we never side with the State against such groups. The real
problem is not the gunmen, the primary responsibility lies with the
system which leads people to resist in such a manner.
Our position is to accept the need for self-defensive violence.
Short of revolution, there are many occasions on which the State uses
violence to break the collective power of the working class and poor.
For example, attacking picket lines and demonstrations, victimising,
arresting and even murdering activists. We always support those who are
victimised and defend them against State repression.
On occasions, demonstrations or strikes can turn to violence. We
recognise that this is an inevitable feature of large-scale resistance
to the bosses and rulers. In such cases where violence is inevitable, we
argue for the creation of self-managed defence squads under democratic
mass control.
Violence sometimes also takes place in smaller situations due to the
necessity of intimidating scabs or due to frustration. In such cases, we
defend those involved from State repression. Where such manifestations
can only damage the struggle, we argue against the use of violent
tactics. In cases where their use is correct we argue for the greatest
possible democratic control of their use and implementation.
We do not glorify or encourage random attacks in members of the ruling
class. Attacks on individuals and their property may well demonstrate an
ineffective expression of legitimate anger but the function of
Anarchists is to argue for collective action by the working class. These
tactics may make individuals in the ruling class uncomfortable but they
do not undermine the ability of this class to rule. Obviously we defend
those who show their anger in this way, but we also argue that such
energy is better directed at mobilising and politicising the working
class.
Revolution should be as bloodless as possible. As we mentioned above,
violence becomes inevitable as the ruling class will not give up its
power and wealth without a bloody struggle. Our violence will be in
defence of the gains of the revolution. We will work to minimise the
violence by winning the State armed forces to the side of the workers
and the peasants. The defence of the revolution will be organised
through an internally democratic workers militia under the control of
the trade unions and other working class and working peasant structures
of self-management. The need for such violence will be almost
universally understood.
[1] Some of these issues are dealt with in greater depth in the pamphlet
You Can’t Blow Up a Social relationship: the Anarchist Case Against
Terrorism. Anonymous Australian comrades. See Zabalaza Books