"can I clarify that the political
philosopy that was called 'Anarchism' did not initially advocate any form of
violence nor
destruction?"
Well, to clarify, anarchism as an active praxis has always respected the
rights of individuals to choose the strategies they find best. Anything else
is a negation of liberty.
Now that's not to say there haven't been some nasty debates over the years.
The debate over violence, over "propaganda by the deed", and over destructive
direct action has always been a lively one within anarchism, but it certainly
would be impossible to exorcise those who have chosen sabotage as a tactic
without at the same time excising clearly revolutionary aspects of the
movement as well.
As far as whether the praxis of the black block cadres represents a clearly
articulated form of anarchism in the 21st century, it most certainly does ;
but again, anarchism respects the freedom of people to make their own
decisions within the guidelines of the general principles of direct action,
collective self-empowerment, solidarity, mutual aid,etc. that most anarchists
agree to. There are a large number of mainly nonviolent anarchists, and a
good number of ideologically nonviolent anarchists as well (Tolstoy-ites,
etc.). Anarchism as a tendency is simply too large to be summed up neatly.
However, yes, there is a tendency within the movement that might be called
"insurrectionary" which seeks to go beyond standard protest protocol and
generate some direct damage to the corporate powers that be. In point of
fact, I think most people are pretty empathetic to this sort of thing, but it
just is usually framed in such a way by the media that people condemn it par
for the course. But the fact is that a large degree of the destruction in
this world right now IS being carried on by very specific corporations who
have very specific people working for them who can be held accountable for
their actions. The actions of the Biotic Baking Brigade and their
pie-throwing sprees are exemplary in this regard. Also noteworthy is the
direct action taken against the CEO of a major oil firm, who found a box with
fake dynamite underneath the seat of his car with a note that said "BANG!
This could have been real! Think about the damage you're doing to indigenous
people."
Sabotage has a long history in people's resistance, with the Luddites being a
noteworthy example. Contrary to popular opinion, the Luddites were not
mindlessly "anti-technology", but were working class people who were taking
actions against specific technologies which were disrupting their
communities, which shows a sophisticated awareness that technologies have
social impacts, something those who mindlessly criticize "luddites" show
almost no awareness of!
Now, again, by identifying these tendencies, I am not suggesting that
everyone needs agree with them. But yes, in fact, there is a GREAT deal of
difference between corporate saboteurs and black block direct action on the
one hand, and terrorism on the other, which has no regard for individual life
; and in addition, I think it's extremely politically important to underline
this distinction in point of fact, because the FBI is doing a great deal to
classify anyone who takes direct action against the powers that be as a
"terrorist", and the American public of course thinks the people being
prosecuted are scum with no regard for life when in fact they may simply be
(and are in a large number of cases) insurgents. If we can't distinguish
between insurgents --- and especially insurgents motivated by a great love
for life, people, and wilderness --- and terrorists, it's a sad day indeed.
I hope that addresses your question.
(un)leash
