The passing of the crown known as the presidency of the US of A has incited much emotion and reaction spanning the spectrum. On one side there is great jubilation as he is hailed a savior and on the other side there is much protest condemning him as the destroyer of freedom. There were protests and marches this past weekend inspired by the Trump takeover. There was also some violence and destruction of property most reportedly committed by a gang of people flying the flag of anarchy (LOL) further perpetuating the image of violence and chaos that so many have associated with the term anarchy.
Rather than quibble about which brand of anarchy is actually anarchy, let’s peel the onion to the core of what anarchy means, which is simply “no rulers”; the belief that no one has the right to rule others. I say that I am an anarchist because I am vehemently opposed to the idea that people be ruled or that they have rulers imposed on them. I’m also a peaceful person and respect individuals’ property and persons. Many fellow anarchists have denounced the violence done by those other anarchists by saying that is not anarchy. I would agree and disagree with that statement.
Anarchy itself does not advocate violence nor denounce it. Anarchists simply reject the idea of rulers. However, it would seem to make sense that if violence was used it would be against aggressors, rulers, etc. The violence perpetuated by this group was committed against individual property. The property was not the aggressor. In fact, a Muslim immigrant’s limousine was torched in the streets while the driver was simply trying to perform his job and drop off a client. These acts of aggression were done to symbols of wealth and capitalism. The people committing this violence and waving the red and black colors are anti-capitalists more than they are anarchists. They reject the idea of property, capitalism, and corporations. Unfortunately, I have seen some “friends” support the actions of these anti-capitalists. I guess they don’t care that a regular Joe like them will have to clean up the mess they made and will have to pay for the damages incurred.
If there were forces out there who wanted to give anarchy a bad image then having a bunch of guys dressed in dark clothing, masks, waving the flag of anarchy (LOL), and committing violence within the lens of the US media would be a great way to do it.
I question all of these large protests and marches. I know people are paid to protest regardless of their support of the cause. I question pretty much anything the MSM puts in front of my face especially so-called anarchists that look as though they’ve been resurrected from the punk rock heyday.
This is where I’m headed. The media has called this “anarchist violence”. Does the media call the mass murder done via US Govt (military) “US Govt violence”? Do they call aggression via law enforcement “LEO violence”? Does the media ever report violence done by any state agent or agency as “state violence”? So let’s call it what it is. It’s violence, aggression. Individuals have committed aggression against others and their property. The state isn’t a person. The govt isn’t a person. The violence is committed by individuals and those individuals should be held accountable. The uniqueness of govt initiated violence is that it has a legal monopoly on it. It has tried to legitimize its aggression in ways that only its agents are allowed to use. If there aren’t individuals willing to carry out the acts then it’s absolutely useless.
Consider these statements as well when groups of people march and demand that the state commit violence against others to support the things they want (via taxation for state agencies and programs). We have the right to march and protest but when others demand state agents force us to provide a service they believe is a right, it’s no longer a right. Rights cannot be forced by others. They can, however, be violated or protected.
From the Women’s March website: “We follow the principles of Kingian nonviolence”. Except they (whoever “they” are) are willing to use govt as a weapon to enforce the establishments and agencies they deem as rights which further victimize peaceful, productive people.
There is much to be said for the influence one wishes to create versus the image they choose to portray. If the image is not consistent with the message then it’s futile and I have to wonder what the true motivation is because it wouldn’t appear the motivation is to grow the movement.