Anachism: Direct Action
'Anarchism is not terrorism. An overwhelming majority of anarchists have always rejected terrorism because they've been intelligent enough to realize that means determine ends, that terrorism is inherently vanguardist, and that even when “successful” it almost always leads to bad results. The anonymous authors of You Can't Blow Up a Social Relationship: The Anarchist Case Against Terrorism put it like this: '
'You can't blow up a social relationship. The total collapse of this society would provide no guarantee about what replaced it. Unless a majority of people their “terrorist” opponents; and because, as history has shown, the chances of success are very low'.
The Anarchist Cookbook
Marshall suggested that different kinds of anarchist groups could help in moving towards this goal through evolutionary stages. For example, Proudhon’s mutualism, which involves regulating various private producers, might lead to Bakunin’s collectivism, where people are paid based on their work. This could eventually evolve into Kropotkin’s communism, where rewards are based on need.
The issue of violence is closely related to the idea of change – how slowly should anarchism move towards a society without a state? Can a society transform gradually? Gradualists such as Godwin argued that it would take a long time for people to be educated enough to accept anarchist systems.
Many anarchists recognise that violence creates a serious conflict between goals and methods. The Russian anarchist and writer Leo Tolstoy rejected all violence, whether from revolutions or governments, asking what the difference was between killing a revolutionary or a policeman. He compared it to preferring one type of waste over another. Influenced by Tolstoy, Gandhi also advocated for strong non-violence. However, some anarchists are open to violence, believing that a perfect society might come from a single, massive uprising. This idea can fuel what Bakunin called the “poetry of destruction ”and ''The urge for destruction is also a creative urge!”
Some anarchists argue that voting may be worse than using violence. If political processes are seen as tied to oppressive systems, then the only choices left might be tyranny or violence.
Anarchists tend to reject representative democracy and direct democracy. Robert Michels coined the term the ‘iron law of oligarchy’. In his 1911 Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy, he argued that democratic movements are tragically fated to produce new hierarchies once they acquire power. As if guided by an iron law, democratic movements first depose ruling elites with claims of popular self-government to subsequently create new elites and concentrate power in their hands. Since democracy is a form of violence and repression this justifies violence by those who wish for a better society.
Violence can also be justified as a means of 'educating' the oppressed masses. After the Paris Commune was defeated in 1871, many anarchists turned to “propaganda by deed,” which led to acts of terror aimed at waking people from their apathy. This echoes radical youth in South Africa in the 1980s, who shouted, “liberation before education,” a sentiment that can be traced back to Garibaldi and Proudhon's followers in the 1870s. The belief that anything not “legal” is justified can lead to violence, framed as a response to injustices, instilling fear in enemies, and exposing the state’s wrongdoings.
Kropotkin supported the views of anarcho-syndicalist Georges Sorel, arguing that violence can awaken “sluggish hearts.”Sorel believed that the victory of the proletariat in class struggle could be achieved only through a general strike.
The Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (CNT) was a Spanish anarchist organization that participated in the Spanish Civil War. The CNT organized confederal militias, and worked with the Iberian Anarchist Federation (FAI) to fight against the Nationalists.
'Workers! Do not vote! The vote is a negation of your personality . . . All the politicians are enemies . . . we need neither state nor government . . . Do not be concerned whether the Right or the Left emerge triumphant from this farce . . . Parliament . . . is a filthy house of prostitution . . . Destroy the ballots! Destroy the ballot boxes . . . hack off the heads of the ballot supervisors as well of the candidates.'
Tierra y Libertad ('Land and Freedom') 1933 Spain
Violence is a problem for anarchists and indeed all those who view the current state of affairs, in whichever age they exist, as repressive. If the oppressive systemic violence does that justify violence to oppose it? or by using violence are the ideals of a better more just society corrupted? While critics view anarchism as inherently violent, despite the pacifist claims of some followers. Understanding anarchist theory requires recognizing the conflict between goals and methods.