Anarchists of Steemit, Do You Support the Violence at Trump's Inauguration Protests? How Do These 'Anarchists' Fit in With What Anarchism is to You?
I feel answers to my questions are probably going to tread close to no true Scotsman fallacies but I thought it would be interesting to ask anyways. When I first arrived on Steemit back in July I was taken back by the number of people on the site self identifying as Anarchists. I figured out pretty quickly that what I had preconceived about Anarchists wasn't actually representative of the people I was meeting and interacting with that identified as such. I made a post with a rather sensational headline Dear Anarchists, Why Shouldn't I Cringe When You Tell Me You're an Anarchist and received some really good answers in the comments as well as feedback from people on Steem.chat and Steemspeak.
Today, one of the first articles to come across my news feed in regards to protests at Trump's inauguration was this:
From CBC
Black-clad anarchists smashed windows and clashed with police in Washington, D.C., less than mile from where Donald Trump took the oath of office Friday, smashing store and car windows and fighting with officers in riot gear who responded with pepper spray and stun grenades.
This seems to be the classic narrative of how Anarchists are portrayed in the media and no doubt how I formed a lot of my preconceived notions about Anarchists. This group of people causing violence and rioting does not strike me as being representative of the Anarchists I've come to know on Steemit.
So I ask you Anarchists of Steemit, are these people "true" Anarchists as you see them? I can tell that the non-aggression principal and self defense could be used either way here with the proper mental gymnastics. How would you differentiate these people portrayed and seemingly identifying with the term Anarchist from what you see as Anarchism? Is this where the term Anarchist becomes too much of a big tent and requires sub classes like Anarcho Capitalist? How do you feel being lumped in with rioters?
I look forward to your responses.
Make sure to follow this profile @contentjunkie to stay up to date on more great posts like this one.
How is that again? How did the owner of that specific window they broke aggress against them and how did their actions represent a defensive use of force? I've wasted way too much time in AnCom/AnCap debate groups (that would be anarcho-communist / anarcho-capitalist) to bother with what I see to be truly ridiculous mental gymnastics bordering on contortionism.
I get how AnComs think property is theft and rent/wages lead to slavery, but when I directly engage them on their arguments using specific examples, I find quite a bit of ridiculousness. In a world beyond property and money, I think they have some valid points regarding how communities should care for each other more and how an unrestrained pursuit of profit can lead to short-term thinking, damaging the environment, and lowering the wellbeing of our species. That said, much of their larger views just don't make sense today.
What we see here by the so called "anarchists" are just assholes who want to destroy stuff. Destructive people can take on any label they choose, but that doesn't mean they properly represent the views of that tribe or community. Anarchy is about no rulers. AnComs think property creates another set of rulers, but I think the philosophy of liberty is more intellectually consistent:
From that view, destroying someone's justly acquired property is an act against their person. If these so called "anarchist" could make a valid claim for the specific property they are destroying as being unjustly acquired and what they are doing somehow leads to restitution (are we contorted enough yet?), then maybe I could understand... but none of that holds water. It's ridiculous to think destroying someone's property somehow brings restitution to a supposed victim.
This "anarchists are dangerous and violent!" narrative the media loves to highlight categories all anti-authoritarians with those who will create more violence in the world and disrupt John and Jane's peaceful life in the suburbs. The reality is the opposite. Those who believe in the NAP and see government as an unjustified use of force will more effectively bring about peace than any government program or ruler. Mutually beneficial, voluntary exchange is the bedrock of peace in our modern society. Governments instead use threats of violent force and monopoly creation to control and prevent this from happening. Over time, their attempts will fail (see the failing war on drugs) and voluntaryists will be seen for the peaceful people they are.
Thanks for asking the question and for being open minded enough to question the media narrative.
Thanks for your lengthy reply. Very insightful.
"How is that again? How did the owner of that specific window they broke aggress against them and how did their actions represent a defensive use of force?"
Well if I had to take a crack at defending these violent actions I would probably pick from a list of policies or actions that I disagreed with, maybe a violent event and construe that into the original act of aggression for which this violence is a defense.
The problem with "violent" defense is it's inconsistent with my understanding of "violence" as it relates to the non-aggression principle. Standing guard with a gun isn't a violent act. There's no initiation of force. If someone violently aggresses, that guard might then act, which would be reactive and a direct response to the specific violence. It wouldn't be an initiation.
But even if we could get around that, it's still completely inconsistent. If person A aggresses against person B, then person B is not justified aggressing against person C or the property of person C because of person A. Where is the logic in that? Randomly destroying windows is primitive, tribalistic, mob mentality. It's not anarchist in a philosophical sense. Not that I can see, anyway. There are some early proponents of the "Propagation of the deed" who aligned with early anarchist thought (which was also anticapitalist thought at the time), but I see that as a small minority within what is becoming a larger peaceful, voluntaryist, relational anarchist movement.
I'm not a traditional Anarchist, but an Anarcho-Capitalist (proponent of property rights, opponent of all conscription) and a Cooperative Agorist (Thinks cooperatives and common rules, including ethics, social safety nets etc can be used as a means to replace the state and be opperated in harmony with markets/run on capitalism, without threats)
This post points to the practical reason I'm not a traditional Anarchist, but the differences run much deeper in political theory. Not all traditional Anarchists turn violent.
Traditional Anarchism is a rejection not only of the state as such but also of all currently aquired private property; In extension this means that it's a lot easier to justify smashing a window (or much worse) when you get angry or want to engage in activism.
The term "propaganda of the deed" comes to mind. Its related theories have been used to justify among other things assasination since way back.
I think, specifically with regard to 'self-defense' and 'non-agression', that it is typical that the BBC commented on a image similiar to the one posted above that 'the police are charging the anarchists away with water'. Please. If you want to know who starts the riots look for the ones that come prepared for it.
As far as the ideological and philosopical arguments I would refer to https://hetanarchisme.blogspot.nl/p/documentaires.html which has a bunch of good documentaries about a bunch of issues. Thanks
As an anarchist myself I do not support the actions taken last night. It wasn't about getting rid of illegitimate rulers, it was about disliking the current one and liking another. Even if it was about ending the state, I know there are better methods than what were used last night. If it came down to fighting, I would fight. But that is a last resort and we aren't to that point yet. The violence is just giving the people a reason to look down on us and say "That's why we need a government. To protect us from people like that."
Anarchist without adjective here. That being said, no-one has authority over the use of the term. It is irrelevant what anyone thinks, says, or does. I can call myself whatever the heck I want. And don't even get me started on this whole NAP thing. The silly way in which people refer to it as if it were doctrine is proof enough that every person needs to think and choose for themselves and accept the consequences instead of starting threads about whether agreeing to a duel violates the NAP or not and other ridiculous topics. Humanity and wisdom has existed since before any of these terms were coined. The "NAP" might be exciting in an intellectual desert, but not where people have heard of "common sense."
just as PLENTY OF folks call themselves libertarians or liberty-minded LMFAO they are anything but. Fools can call themselves whatever they want. What's even more silly is when even bigger fools listen to groups like this spout on about no borders, and equate that to ancaps asserting the same thing when they ask for recognition of PRIVATE PROPERTY BOUNDARY BORDERS. lol but who needs distinctions in the statist land of crazy?
some folks are just destined to be sheep!
This post has been ranked within the top 50 most undervalued posts in the second half of Jan 20. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $11.93 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Jan 20 - Part II. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.
good post. You're dead on. I know many true anarchists and they would not identify with hooliganism that calls itself legitimate protest