here's an article from infoshop discussing the Black Bloc's, anarchism's militant faction, known for being the group of anarchists that are painted as petty looters who damage property and put the general public in harm's way by using ill-informed means of protest that often involves blind violence. while such is a stereotype, and this article works to break down such stereotypes and discuss a need for militant action and not just pacifist reform, i disagree in frank with a few crucial points. here's the article: http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=beyond-black-blocs
now, i would like to address one main point made in this article here and i will leave the rest to discussion. here's a section of the article i would like to address:
"I do not believe ethics is about finding or introducing universal and general rules of conduct. It’s about reflecting upon the socio-ecological consequences of our daily actions, and making concrete moral decisions based on this. So, the question at stake here seems whether there really are any good moral reasons for someone to abstain from smashing a McDonald’s window even though he or she would like to, or to refrain from fighting cops with physical means. And, honestly, I know of no such reasons. In the first case, I mean, common, it’s a window, belonging to a corporation making millions of dollars a day and being insured up the ass. What can really be the problem here? And in the second, I simply understand how the often brutal and in any case uncompromising defense of a destructive global and economic system by quasi-military police units can provoke responses going beyond pacifist means alone. Maybe it’s virtuous to remain non-violent when threatened with water-cannons, tear-gas, or rubber bullets, but that doesn’t necessarily make militant responses less virtuous to me. (Admittedly, once again it’s a case-to-case decision. I do, of course, have a problem with looting cornershops, or endangering others by uncontrolled rioting. But the fact that activists will have to draw their individual lines, doesn’t make symbolic desecration of corporate property, or throwing things at semi-military police units problematic. And that’s my point here.)"
i agree with the first portion of this paragraph where it is discussed that ethics are not about a moral code of conduct. ethics are not in any way concrete and it takes a bit of conservative thinking on the part of the individual to think that there should be a concrete moral code. however, it is not a moral opposition that i have to what follows in this paragraph, and i am not a pacifist by any stretch. my opposition is specifically to the idea of "smashing a McDonald’s window" as a "symbolic desecration of corporate property". what i think the author is failing to consider is what such an act will accomplish. yes, i agree that such an act isn't, out of some natural decree, a morally repugnant action, for morals do not pertain to any natural decree, nor should we place such boundaries on our morals. however, what does such an act do for the movement that warrants it, and moreover, what will be the consequence of such an act? the track record of the United States (and most of it's client states for that matter) speaks for itself; even the smallest such act in which violence and/or property damage is the result, if it can even remotely be tied to a radical group, will be used to paint the entire movement with the same brush which can hurt the movement's credibility even in the eyes of fellow radicals. i personally have been turned off by the Black Bloc movement (though possibly wrongfully so) because of videos i have seen in which such acts as described in this paragraph have been documented. additionally, within the confines of the mass of society lie thousands if not millions of potential radical leaders (note that when i use this term i am referring to emergent voices rather than elected officials) who have yet to be turned on to the ideas of the radicals because they have in their minds the concept of them as crude, violent, disorderly, etc., especially when referring to anarchists. the main reason for this is evident and i do not feel the need to explain it further for this would lead my words into an unnecessary redundancy.
now does this mean that i do not condone violence in any shape, form or fashion? absolutely not. it is as Chomsky stated (and here i will paraphrase), there occasionally arises the need for violent action to achieve a goal; if, for example, it would have been to the benefit of the world for someone to murder Hitler in that we could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that further mass murder would be prevented in the event of his death, i do think that violent means are properly suited for the situation. situations in which violent means are proper, however, are far more limited than most radicals consider and so for this purpose i often disassociate myself with the militaristic factions of radical thought, including the Black Bloc, while i still do recognize their prevalent position in the school of thought that i would consider myself most adherent to (without, of course, being confined, as that would be directly in opposition to that school of thought).
any thoughts on this? comments?
