Wednesday, January 21, 2015

On Anarcho-Pacifism



Sweet whistling Christ (yes I stole that from Tusk, and for those of you lost souls who didn’t get the reference, venture forth and watch that shit now; close the fucking tab this is on – instead of just typing the new web address in the same tab because you have a peculiar form of OCD like me – go to your preferred pirating site, and watch human disfigurement at its finest) I’m actually writing an essay at eight o’ clock in the morning on my birthday.  Fuck.  Well, I can’t promise any of you this will be finished, or that you’ll see this, but if you do I suppose you can’t say I never kept any of my promises.
Pacifism, is that what we’re doing?  Checks ominous To Do List created by omniscient omnivores.  Yeah, that’s what we’re doing.  Okay.  Pacifism.  I’m in favor of it.  Here’s why. You can’t claim to be an Anarchist and realize the State, Capitalism and religious force is fucked and say that your own political ends justify violent ends.  The Means create the Ends, who fights with the sword dies by the sword and all of that.  The main reason I’m writing this, asides from a lack of alcohol in my system and all the psychological motives you can eschew (eschew?) to why I write, stick my fingers in my ass, and make up sexually obscene examples of things that aren’t at all true – ha ha – is I want to list the main stances one can take to Pacifism, and to tell you guys (and guy whose in a dress write now) what mine is – because of its of ultimate significance not only to your life but the ultimate destiny of our species and our universe.  You know what?  Maybe I’ll write this another time.
Okay. Okay.  The fist kind.  Complete Pacifists who deny even the right (or moral or methodological value) to defend yourself.  Quakers from what I hear are in this category.  This is clearly irrational.  You cannot when if you don’t strike back when stricken upon.  You’ll all be killed before hearts and mind can change which is of course the main point of Civil Disobedience – and looking like an existentially rebellious livin’-life-by-his-own-rules James Dean-esque bad ass.  Martin Luther King Jr. advocating blacks allowing themselves to be arrested in their protests and resisting segregation are a part of this – and it is not productive.  Prison kills the soul and the instinct to revolt; it disconnects the revolutionary from the worker, even more so then they already are separate.  The type of Civil Disobedience to be advocated is Pacifism, but not tolerating direct violence.  This includes the forfeiture of one’s life in-terms of lengthy jail sentences when one has the means of defending one’s self.  However, though one has the natural liberty to do as one pleases, it is unbecoming of the revolutionary and intellectual to do drugs, or perform in other pursuits where one could be placed in jail for long stents of time.
I emphasized direct violence because the State and the Capitalist wage war on the individual in far-more non-immediate and systematized manners.  Profiting off the labor of others, taxes on the poor (taxes on the rich are justified for the rich steal from the poor and any compensation the lower-classes can get in having some standard of living that create the material conditions for better living, enhanced intelligence and increased political activism and demand for change is justified and essential) and various other means are obvious, as well as the less corrupt (lascivious) cultural aspects of Government and Capitalism that are by-products and then factors sustaining the economic conditions.  The Anarchist can never achieve meaningful and lasting Social Revolution by bombing factories or various other things that are under the term Propaganda of the Deed.  Instead, the General Strike and Unionization, more-so the separation of the worker from Capitalist society and Government by banding to have a new society alongside the current one as advocated by Bakunin is the proper course to the degree it can be implemented.
To finish this off as to then move on to quick commentary on related topics the five stances of Pacifism (for the Leftist, though it is overall the same regardless of political position, though the vernacular and framing would be altered) are:
1.  Complete Pacifism, even to violent attack.  Quakers are an example of this.
2.  Pacifism, but will respond to direct violence with violence.  Malcolm X is an embodiment of this.
3.  Loose Pacifism but will respond to the deprivation of freedom and direct violence with violence.  My stance.
4.  Targeted violence – will assault those who have harmed others immediately or generally.  More intelligent and underground resistance groups killing either specific individuals or locations of violence and subjugation upon the people.
5.  Revolt/Revolution in the Marxist sense.  Or “Propaganda of the Deed” as some Anarchists call their methodology; far-more general violence that isn’t very if at-all targeted and instead calls for “open revolution.”
The positions of those who support Parliamentary Politics are in-a-sense somewhere between or within the first two and also in a way in neither.  For Parliamentary Politics is the status-quo of “change” that of course will never bring about radical change and enlightenment in society.  It is the tool of the bourgeois to further subjugate them and have them submit to their ideology.  That does not mean one can use the framework of Liberal Democracy to fight against its main components (Capitalism and the State).  Only that one must form an independent party (not nearly as much of a problem in Western European countries) that isn’t beholden to corporate interests and can instead fight for laws and policies that will aid the working class financially, biologically and most importantly intellectually.  Political parties can be an instrument of change, but must never be seen as the main instrument for change; such would be falling into the trap of Liberalism that is the undoing of the political radical.  In general, Liberals (including Conservatives here) tend to believe loosely in a “live-and-let-live” philosophy, and yet believe in Rule of Law and believe that someone should be punished for breaking an idiotic rule and furthermore should submit to such idiocy as MLK Jr. pronounced.
Just as I’ve expressed varying stances on Pacifism, I would like to express my own positions of tactics regarding the atmosphere and specific political environment one finds themselves in.  I would like to emphasize that though I am a relative Pacifist, I believe in violent struggle when met with violence.  I’ve said this, but this can be generalized to general states of direct violence.  Pacifism is absurd and ineffectual in certain times, and it was rather easy for someone like Gandhi or MLK Jr. to implement Civil Disobedience in a country like America or British controlled India rather than Nazi Germany or certain periods of the USSR.  Sometimes blood must be met with blood:
1.       Liberal Democracy of a more Progressive kind.  Civil Disobedience.
2.       Conservative form of LD.  Civil Disobedience with emphasis of living one’s life and resisting laws that refuses freedom.
3.       Soft theocracy or monarchy.  Selected acts and forms of armed revolt.
4.       Hard tyranny.  More general and hard-hitting acts of violent revolt.
The main difference between one and two and between three and four are only matters of degree relative to the degree of barbarity and un-freedom in society.  America can be described as the second, and therefore I would of course endorse all effective forms of Civil Obedience as well as active resistance of cooperation with laws that betray one’s fundamental freedom such as to find love and sexual fulfillment and to achieve happiness however one may find it, the sole exception being actions violating the Non-Aggression Principle.
A soft theocracy or monarchy (I realize European nations are at-times monarchies on paper, but they largely aren’t in-effect so are excluded despite their continued irrationality) is one where there is no effective parliamentary process of social reform and improvement in any regard.  America would almost fit this category and in some ways does.  The violence that is morally permissible of course includes self-defense but is not limited to it, for one is under a regime of God or King where one has no legal repercussions, and the laws are likely more obstructive of free living and the environment detrimental and unwelcoming to intellectual development.  Though the selected murder or bombings of certain individuals and buildings is morally permissible, it is in the modern age largely ineffective.  Instead, some type of infiltration within the military, and other forms of synthesizing espionage and sabotage are necessary in the twenty-first century where the government’s military can out-weigh the civilian population drastically.  Armed revolt is still an option in certain parts of the world however – to seemingly contradict a previous sentence.
Those strict Anarcho-Pacifists who would disagree with these tactics must remember the American, French and Russian revolutionaries.  Such were those brave men who fought for their freedom and autonomy, and despite many disastrous aspects of all three (particularly the American and Russian, for though there as much savagery after the French, it was rather short-lived compared to the injustice the other two sustained and created in some ways) produced at-least in some regards an at-least temporarily better system than what was previously before it.  Armed revolt can be necessary, but it is never enough.  Without the right culture and philosophy backing it, it can easily fall into a type of Bourgeois Liberalism or violence-endorsing Marxism, which we have seen the disastrous results of.  And more-so than the importance of the four categories in their actuality, is the atmosphere and material possibility that the four typically create in their own right, but can at-times embody aspects of the others.
That’s the gist of what I wanted to say this morning, besides a quick critique of Thoreau.  Though his introduction of many to Civil Disobedience and ascetic living wavers (abdicates) him of his sins to industry and human progress, the sheer stupidity and backwardness of Anarcho-Primitivism (which he and Rousseau are in their own ways pioneers of) must be mentioned.  As material creatures, we are slaves to causality and our own nature.  If we were to remain primitive creatures without industry or advanced science, much medicine and tools that increase our quality of life in innumerable ways would be lost.  Such tools (e.g. Facebook, internet, polluting automobiles and industry etc) can have their detrimental effects as-well, but this is largely due-to both cultural aspects of Capitalism and the weaker elements of human nature that it encourages.  Such attributes would exist regardless, but within an Industrial Anarchist society (such as Bakunin advocates) we truly can have harmonious progress (which is the only stable and authentic kind), the honey without the bee’s sting and live meaningful lives both natural and advanced, both rich and ascetic.

No comments:

Post a Comment