I am afraid of violence. I don’t particularly relish the
prospect of getting my head kicked in, whether by cops, fascists or people who
happen to support another football team. Violence undoubtedly goes in a vicious
circle, and there is enough suffering in the world as it is. And yet, there is
a thrill in aggressive confrontation, whether in attacking property or in riot
situations. Violence gets the adrenalin going, rather like sex, for some people
… a combination of excitement, nerves and danger.
Personally, I tend to define violence as an act of
aggression against living things. The media brands groups which believe in
direct action, such as the ALF, in the same category as groups, such as the
IRA, which accept killing as part of their strategy of opposition: this is to
discredit the former and discourage others from carrying out similar actions
for fear of being labelled “terrorists”.
The worst violence comes from governments, which despite
moves to global capitalism and ‘democracy’ have the capacity and occasionally
the inclination, as in China, to unleash their power on their own people, as
well as other nations, or just use the fear of violence to maintain order.
However, in western countries more subtle techniques of keeping control are
deemed to be more effective, although the police are an option kept open for
the use of violence on groups / individuals who test the chains holding us too
much.
Within our competitive, materialist society, with apparent
improved standards of living, the majority of violence is inflicted on us by
our fellow citizens in assaults, murder, rape etc. This is as big a physical
oppression, especially for women, as state control within our society.
The question of the use of violence within opposition to the
state is vital. The state admires non-violence in its opponents as it is not
seen as much of a threat to their power and needs fewer resources to counter
it. In the unlikely event of mass non-violent demonstrations in this country,
reform would turn the tide. At best, a choice of government would be offered,
its abolition would not. In Eastern Europe, the revolutions have overthrown
tyranny, only to have the awesome prospect of becoming capitalist satellites.
Most people would agree that the aim of the revolutionary
project would include an end to people hurting each other. Random violence
inflicted by some groups in the name of the people is counter-revolutionary as
it alienates ordinary people even more by using them as pawns in a power game,
and causes more oppressive legislation that affects everyone. Ordinary people
are usually the victims of vanguardist terrorism.
However, in a radical opposition, situations may arise where
the necessity to use violence as self defence against the enemies of the
movement may be unavoidable if there is not to be surrender or annihilation. Attacks
on property associated with capitalism can be a justifiable tactic of class
struggle politics, i.e. economic sabotage, backed by radical propaganda via
texts, posters, pirate radio etc. The need to overcome the fear of direct
action is an immediate necessity; the principles of a Democratic nation are not
worth defending.
Down with capitalist war, Down with capitalist peace!
Against Humans
Hurting Humans by Stefan Szczelkun (December 1989)
In my life I’ve always associated institutionalised and
cultural patterns of violence with a fascist attitude. This is not a question
of ideology but more relates to my early traumatic discovery of the Holocaust.
I now know communists and all political shades can commit unbelievable
atrocities, but, being an anarchist, the early association still sticks.
The use of violent imagery in a casual way in progressive
publications (Smile, AntiClockWise, The Fred etc.) makes me fearful. A cultural
climate in which violent imagery becomes uncritically acceptable seems to lead
to the possibility of the acceptance of explicit violence within society,
within Europe.
However, violence is a lure, it is alluring. People who are
angry are often attractive as they are more alive and in touch with reality –
they haven’t gone under. Clearly there is something going on behind this
resurgence of sadistic imagery and the need to consume it.
What is violence? Or the urge to be violent? At base, it is
an expression of anger, the frustration of our will. Anger needs a target –
“Ohhh … I could kill him!” Anger needs to be discharged accompanied by violent,
but not necessarily damaging, physical movements and shouting. When we are
young, this is called a tantrum. If our tantrums are stopped by adults, the
anger is repressed and builds up in us. This repression leads to confusion and
an often irrational shifting of the target.
If the tantrums are stopped with actual physical or
psychological violence, we have a tendency to replay this violence when we get angry.
Most of us have experienced this cycle of repression as young people.
The replay of this violence as adults makes everyone
involved (victims, relatives, onlookers etc.) very frightened. Fear is
discharged by shaking (most noticeable after a fight or car crash) or laughter.
This process is also taboo and also leads to a cycle of repression and
re-enactment. Direct or indirect experience of violence associated with sex
will be even more confusing. Images of violence may then later trigger off a
sexual thrill or vice versa. All of us have experienced this on some level.
OK, this is, in short, the most plausible explanation of
violence that I can think of. We are not ‘born violent’, nor are men
‘inherently violent’. There is no reason to accept these old reactionary
assumptions when we have overwhelming evidence of how violence derives from our
histories.
I think that these violent images that we desire are part of
an intuitive tendency on our part to resolve the mess of violence, anger and
fear within us, to express it, to have done with it. This necessitates actual
physiological processes to heal the emotional hurt within our bodies. It’s not
just a process of thinking, but of real emotions. It is probably the most
urgent we have if humans are to evolve, rather than disappear down the cosmic
plughole.
In our society, the fear of emotion itself tends to make us
all voyeurs to these basic human functions or do them in secret. This is
especially so for men.
Violent imagery does go so far to make explicit the level of
hurt we all experience from oppression. Society tends to hide its violence
behind a façade of nice and civilised reasonableness. We needs something which
acknowledges what we have experienced and how we feel.
Violent imagery, stories and rants often tread a fine line.
Do they express a reality that is hidden? Do they ridicule our fear of violence
and allow us to laugh? Do they allow us to experience passionate feelings which
would otherwise be locked away within us? Do they ultimately lead to the end of
humans harming humans?
OR do they devalue human life, drive us further into
our shells of fear and institutionalise and glamorise violence?
We are all dying to rid ourselves of our burden of anger and
fear. It’s choked us up for too long. And it may take more courage than it
takes to ‘go to war’.
We need to pull out these roots of fascism before it has the
chance to flower again.
Terrorism (Taken
from Bigger Cages, Longer Chains by
Larry Law)
All governments are based on violence and force – from their
nuclear missiles to the cop on the corner. They are armed to the teeth, some
with enough weaponry to destroy life on earth many times over. When it comes to
the calculated slaughter of innocent people, no-one comes near to the records
set by governments. Yet, at the first sign of retaliation on the part of the
victims, at the first Molotov thrown, at the first bullet fired back, the state
screams “Terrorists”.
“Terrorism” is a word which applies to a particular form of
action. However, it is in the interests of the state to apply this term to any
form of armed resistance and many actions of direct action. With sublime
hypocrisy, governments – the most violent and heavily armed organisations on
earth – always applaud non-violence in their opponents.
Terrorism is the violent disruption of daily life designed
to destabilise society, create panic and bring about a situation where the terrorists
themselves can replace the existing ruling class with themselves. It almost
invariably takes the form of placing bombs in public places, such as railway or
bus stations, bars, airports or busy streets. It is a method employed by
authoritarian groups of the left and right who reveal their contempt for
ordinary people by using these people as pawns in their struggle for power.
Terrorist organisations are would-be governments. Their
bombs come in cars and bags because they don’t have an air force. Like all
governments they claim to act in the interests of the people, at the same time
as they murder them.
Because such terrorism realy does threaten ordinary people
with random death or maiming, the government can readily cast itself in the
role of public protector. Terrorism plays into the hands of the state. Random
bombings in Italy a few years ago led to the rounding up of leftists and
anarchists, and the disruption of the state’s opposition. It later transpired
that the bombs had been planted by fascists. One day the British public may
learn the truth behind the Birmingham pub bombings, which was exactly the kind
of meaningless massacre that would permit the introduction of the draconian
Anti-Terrorism Act on a wave of public anger and confusion.
Terrorism – which is counter-revolutionary – should not be
confused with guerrilla actions which arise from popular resistance movements.
Such actions are not random, but precisely targeted against members of the
ruling class or the physical structure of capitalism. Recent examples include
actions of animal rights activists against animal exploiters, and the arsom
attacks on police and company property during the miners and Wapping strikes.
These groups arise from within the movement itself, they do not seek to become
an elite or vanguard and, after the action, melt back into the movement. They
perform the task of the militant. In any movement not everyone has the same
degree of foresight, inspiration or courage. The militant demonstrates by
example what is possible. Not by creating an elite unit which operates on
behalf of the people, but by saying and doing things that can be done by
everyone. In any situation, the militant works to push the revolutionary
project just one step further. Even when all the ingredients for a riot are
present, it still needs someone to throw the first stone.
We cannot leave this topic without returning to the biggest
terrorists of them all – governments. Governments hold each other’s civilian
populations hostage. With modern long range weapons it is not even necessary to
hold the hostages in physical captivity. But the message of terrorism is the
same everywhere – if you cross us, the innocent will suffer. All states are
terrorists. We are all hostages.
No comments:
Post a Comment