Debate with an Insurrectionist
I've taken out the gender argument, because it was kind of irrelevant to what turned into the primary conversation...but yeah, this is a debate between Conrad, an anarchist from Victoria, and myself, an anarchist from Edmonton. Conrad is kind of a primitivist/insurrectionist and I am a syndacalist that believes in diversity of tactics... to an extent. This debate is basically about the place of violence (causing injury/death) in activism.
(The argument started with Conrad defending the action of Ted Kazcynski, otherwise known as the Unabomber, who killed three people and injured over 20 with mailbombs. I said that it crossed a line and alienated the mainstream to the point that it was detrimental to the anarchist movement)
Conrad:
killing people is alienating, but whether we believe in the use of militant action that leads to death or non-violent non action that leads to death both alienate some people, and in both cases people, as well as animals die. We each simply need to decide for ourselves what tactics and strategies are the most appropriate at each given situation. I think this should be a decision directed by those who are most heavily effected by the outcomes as well as a simply strategic one based on our goals.
Me:
Well, you said when arguing with Lex that you disagreed with him saying the Unabomber was alienating to the mainstream. Now you're saying otherwise?
Also, what do you mean by "Non Violent Non action"? Let's just stick to the Unabomber as an example... do you mean him NOT doing what he did, would have also lead to the death and destruction of both animals and people? He wasn't directly affected by the people he injured and killed, he injured and killed regular workers with families to support... he sent bombs to airlines, universities, etc... injuring professors, employees, airline passengers, store owners, students...he killed a computer store manager, an advertising consultant, and a timber industry lobbyist... all of those people were virtually powerless and innocent people. They could have been 90% of societies mom, dad, friend. He wasn't acting out of defense, really, he wasn't acting because he was directly being negatively effected by these specific people, he was angry at society in general and picked random people to take that anger out on...and his stunts could and did easily go wrong, injuring unintended victims.
Sure, you can argue that yes, the professors working in genetics and machinery were advancing technology, the computer store owner as well, and you can argue that that's a defensive action if you think technology is harmful outright....but in this day and age, it's hard NOT to live your life and inflict harm in some way. Any harmful action could be justified as a defense, no matter how obscure it is. Are you advocating the death of everybody like Kaczynski's victims? Because that would be almost everybody... and they would leave behind families and dependents.
As Lex said, it was basically an offensive action, and done in the name of Anarchy, it alienated the mainstream...making people think of anarchists as crazy killers, because it's the extremes that people remember. Before I actually knew what it was, when I heard the word "anarchy", that's basically what I thought of.
I personally think that killing someone is only a good idea in very very very rare circumstances. For the most part, it turns people off, it offends people, and people that could potentially be on your side are no longer interested. How will that progress anarchy? Or do you want it to stay a "subculture"? Some people seem to take a certain amount of pride in that and don't seem to want it to spread to the mainstream...then nothing would ever really change with society as a whole.
If you're going to do something extreme, even something that doesn't lead to the death of anybody, it shouldn't be done in the name of anarchy. I definitely agree with Lex on that. It should be done in the defense of whatever you're defending...animals, the earth, etc. Tying it directly to the word "anarchy" just gives it a negative image and turns people away before you can even get them to consider the intelligent side of Anarchy... I dismissed anarchists for the longest time, because I considered them all crazy, judgmental, and most of all, alienating.
Conrad:
I never claimed that Kazinski did not deserve critique, many of his actions were not super well thought out, and he never did take the steps to insure that only his targets would get harmed, and no one else. there are many flaws in the Unabomers style of action, that to me does not mean violence could not be used, or assassinations, rather that we can learn from his mistakes.
As well I don't believe Kazinski ever called himself an anarchist or mentioned anarchy in his manifesto or letters leading up to his capture.
As well I would definitely not consider a timber lobbyist for example, to be innocent. While I do not fully agree with his choices of targets, thats a decision easy for me to state because I have no involvement.
As for alienating people, well I have learned over the last number of years that while an action may alienate some it will bring in others, kazinski is a great example of this, his actions surely did alienate some people, but they also propagandized to many others. So the argument that violence supposedly alienates people to me is a farce, cause for all the people it alienates, it also brings in others. The same could be said for non-violence. Many people feel alienated by pacifism. yet others are empowered by it. It is a mute point to me cause I think that for every one it alienates it also empowers others, and same with non violence. If anything we should be asking who in particular each strategy alienates.
And yes I am sorta saying that if we do nothing people, and animals, and plants will die. That's what I mean by non-violence non-action. Unless our actions are actively interfering with business as usual, then I would say they are allowing the death cycle to continue, because our way of life is based on violence, and can only exist with the maintained violence, to the earth as well as to animals, both human and non.
I also feel that to say doing violence in the name of anarchism will bring a bad image, is flawed in the way that we already have a bad image, and even if we only did non-violence, that we would still have a bad image because those in power have a vested interest in keeping it that way, and would do whatever they can to keep it that way. I think the way to remedy this is two fold, first to be open about our politics, and honest, and people will have to think about them,and knowing we are good people that are working for our ideals, the more of us they know that are openly anarchist, the harder propaganda against us will be. The second way is by being effective, and actually accomplishing our goals, which I think would do more for our cause, even if we used violence, than anything else. Examples of effective action building a movement can be seen in both militant and non-violent movements all around the world. Goo examples right here would be the bombings happening in BC in the last year, they have not only brought the issues to the media, and been effective in slowing the brogress of the company down, but the police are having trouble investigation cause the public of the area, kinda seams to feel the bombings are justified. Another good canadian example is the wommins fire brigade firebombings in 1982... they were so supported by the people that womyn across canada were claiming to be the wommins fore brigade as a way to fuck with the police, as well even fairly mainstream feminist organizations put out official statements in support of what happened.. The chain also ended up almost shut down, and rape porn has not been sold openly in Canad since, and is now been made illegal. I guess also a major thing we need to do to break those stereotypes is challenge the problems with our movement, such as the racism, sexism, aginsm,ableism, homophobia, transphobia, and various power dynamics that are currently all throughout the activist community. Having a better movement that is not full of prejudice would do a lot as a way to include people.
I don't know if I covered everyy point here, but, I wrote a lot and it is late so I will wait for your reply, if I missed anything feel free to point it out.
Me:
Kaczynski DID call himself an anarchist in at least two of his ransom letters, attracting the support of many primitivist insurrectionist anarchists, including Zerzan, who was one of his primary confidants during his trial.
This is a quote from one letter to the NY Times:
"In our previous letter to you we called ourselves anarchists. Since ''anarchist'' is a vague word that has been applied to a variety of attitudes, further explanation is needed. We call ourselves anarchists because we would like, ideally, to break down all society into very small, completely autonomous units."
I agree that in rare circumstances assassinations can be beneficial, and I would defend myself with deadly force if my life or the life of my comrades were being directly threatened with deadly force. But I think killing CEO's, company presidents, etc is out of line. In the long run, what's it going to do? The person directly below them in the power structure is going to be moved up into their position, and the corporation will continue with business as usual.
If you really feel the need to disrupt a companies business, encourage their closure, cause financial damage, there are plenty of methods that I would still consider violent, that don't result in the injury or death of living beings, human or animal. Members of the ELF/ALF that stick to the "groups" philosophy cause a lot of destruction, paranoia, and have successfully shut down businesses such as labs, breeding farms, etc that directly torture and destroy lives as part of business as usual, without killing or hurting anybody.
In the case of the timber lobbyist... yes, I agree, he is not innocent per say. But nobody really is. And he certainly doesn't deserve to be killed. What happens when he dies? They appoint another lobbyist. Business as usual. A family is left without a father/son/etc. There are ways to disrupt that companies finances, their public image, their ability to run their business, WITHOUT hurting anybody. Do you think anybody that works on the tar sands is also deserving of death? Because although I don't agree with them, I have friends that make a living in one way or another because of them, and I certainly don't want to see them dead.
When I say "Non Violence", I mean that nobody was injured or killed, I don't include firebombing an empty slaughterhouse to be violent. I would still consider it to be a militant action. I agree that there is a place for militant action, and only a very very small and rare place for violence. I think you have a much higher tolerance for violence then I do.
I can say I am not against the pipeline bombings because the communities effected by their development, by the spreading of the tar sands, are being negatively effected to the point of birth defects, ridiculously high cancer rates, destruction of natural hunting/fishing/worship areas, etc. And nobody was hurt, the bombers made it obvious that they don't mean to hurt anybody, and seem to be making an effort to ensure that doesn't happen. They cannot really be compared to the Unabomber. The company is effected financially but nobody was killed. They got their message out, and seemed to get a lot of support from the people in the area. If someone was killed or injured in the bombings, I would bet you anything that that support would be gone completely.
Killing someone and committing violent actions is a hell of a lot more alienating then just destroying property. Of course both are alienating, but even people that support destruction will often draw the line at hurting someone. And in my opinion, appealing to the majority that are against killing people should be of higher priority then appealing to the very small minority that support it. Anything "out of the ordinary" is potentially alienating...me being a vegan makes people feel alienated...I agree with being open about being an anarchist, your goals and ideals, but I think most people that learn you are okay with killing relatively unimportant people that could really be a member of their family, a friend of theirs, to progress your ideals....they might begin to doubt you as a "good person" and feel as if you're taking it a step to far. I have a few friends that are conservatives... who know I am a good person despite my contrasting political beliefs... but I know that if began to support violent actions and started hurting people I considered to be contributing to "the death cycle", they would probably change their mind about me. I have been able to change their opinions on many things, but they would shut me out if I believed in the use of violence, and I wouldn't have been able to change their minds at all.
The "Wimmins Fire Brigade" bombings also can't really be compared to Kaczyinski because nobody (aside from one of the bombers) was injured or killed.
I am not a pacifistic by any means, I would not hesitate to fight if it was necessary, and I don't necessarily disagree with destruction and intimidation, depending on the circumstance. But I draw the line at killing or injuring people, except for a very very very rare exception.
Conrad:
well first I wanna make a distinction more clear, that is that I am not claiming I think the actual actions kazinski did were necessarily good, I am not suggesting that we all start mailing bombs to people we think are our enemies... However I do think there is some merit in his actions, and even more so his theory. I also think Kazinski is a political prisoner, and should be supported. I have always been baffled at how people that claim to be prison abolitionists as many anarchists and radicals do, will totally abandon someone cause they don't support their actions, and take away all support from them. This is exactly what happened to Darren Thursten of the ALF when it came out in the court transcripts that he had co-operated for a lesser sentence. The ABC from Winnipeg and others called for a complete boycott of anyone supporting him, which created huge divisions and isolated many people that were doing good activism. While I don't agree with Thurstens actions, and I would not put any effort in particular to support him I think that isolating any one who does is way beyond not supporting him, and falls into the realm of supporting the state and legal system in their attempts to punish him.
In the case of Kazinski many radicals, especially pacifists, condemned him, even though they claimed not only to be against the same things he was, but also claimed to be against the FBI, the prison system, etc, but their actions in condemning him I feel went to the degree of helping the FBI punish him, by removing any support that he could have had.
I think all prisoners, even non political ones should be supported if we claim to be against prisons. This does not mean that I don't think rapists and pedophiles and such should be just released, but I do think that prison does nothing to help them or us, and does nothing to decrease the amounts of rapes occurring, therefore we need other alternatives, and we need to shut down all prisons. Also I note that the majority of prisoners are not in for murder, rape, mailing bombs, etc.
I also feel it necessary to make the distinction that while I do agree that the timber lobbyist was guilty, I would not have ever stated that he deserved to die, rather I was simply trying to point out that he was not an innocent victim, and that I don't think kazinski was unfair in choosing him as a target. there is a difference between stating that I don't think what kazinsky did was unjustified, and claiming that timber lobbyists deserve to die.
I am however confused about your stance on violence, in your last message you said that there were other forms of violence used by groups like the ALF/ELF, then later said something about the actions non consisting of violence cause people do not get hurt... I am just trying to clarify...
Now as for killing accidentally being alienating, again I think it can be, but is not necessarily... When the FLQ for example bombed the stock exchange people were injured and killed, but they still retained support. Many similar examples can be found with the IRA, and even to a lesser degree in cases of the Weather Underground, or black panthers. However, when the FLQ killed one of the hostages in the kidnapping during the october crisis, they did loose tons of support... Both were violent actions, both ended with people dying, yet in the second one they lost almost all their support. In the case of the IRA from what I read when they were doing bombings and attacks, they gained support, but when they started to become corrupt and were into protection rackets and such they began to loose their support. The Zapatistas still retain a ton of support, they definitely used violence when they rose, and are armed even till this day, and many people died there. Even Hamas who has undoubtedly killed many people, has gained major public support of their own people, so much that they won a democratic election. My point being I think that simply using murder, or other forms of violence are not the only factors to be considered in whether a action will alienate people. If Bush had been assassinated, I don't think that action would have necessarily alienated many people, and may well have galvanized or radicalized people. However it would have been nothing but symbolic anyways.
I am curious about this comment "When I say "Non Violence", I mean that nobody was injured or killed, I don't include firebombing an empty slaughterhouse to be violent."
I have to ask then, what about an action like the bombing of Litton Systems in ontario by Direct Action, where they accidentally injured 2 people, one was paralyzed, largely because of the sloppy actions of the security guards (who was one of the people injured) but even more cause of the fault of the police not turning off their radios when responding to a bomb, ether way 2 people injured, but they had no intention on that when placing the bomb and took many precautions to try and stop injury from happening... Would you consider that to be violent?
Or how about the actions of the Justice Department? they sent a letter years back to some guides that were taking american tourists out to kill bears and wolves in BC. The letters contained poisoned razorblades covered in blood, and said something like I hope you cut yourself and bleed to death you murderous scum... The action stopped the hunting of bears and wolves in BC. Would you say that it was justified? in general what do you think of that type of use of violence?
I think for the most part I would agree with you about use of violence. However I still think people that take these risks should be given support, and at very least should not be isolated by those claiming to have similar politics.
As well, I actually have to say that was a great quote by kazinsky... I didn't know he ever officially called himself an anarchist, but that was a awesome and suitable statement that is fully accurate in my opinion to what many anarchist feel, and that it was also as far as I can see not trying to claim that anarchist believe in violence or not, rather that he (we) can relate to/identify with the anarchist movement because of the goals in mind.
A lot of this reminds me of a comment Wolf made in an interview with ISKRA. where the interviewer asked him about a lyric in the song prisoners of conscience where the lyrics start to name a series of prisoners in the USA and Canadian legal system, mainly AIM and Black Panthers, and in the list also is Kazinsky. Wolf pointed out to the interviewer that kazinsky was a political prisoner because he was in jail for political reasons, and said that the only reason most of the people on the left won't openly support him is because he blew up people not suvs or buildings.
Me:
I don't think there is much merit at all in his actions, but of course there is a bit of truth in his manifesto... just like there is a bit of truth in Zerzan's writings, but in the end he's still a nutter. He may be a political prisoner, but then everybody that justifies their actions with political reasons is a political prisoner... including neo-nazis that have committed murder. Do you support them?
Just because I don't agree with Kaczyinski's actions doesn't mean I support the prison system as it stands. That's an entirely different issue. I don't know much about Thurston and what he did, but if he ratted other people out to save himself, it's a personal decision whether to send him extra support or not. I think it's pretty low of him, and I wouldn't go out of my way to support him either. I also wouldn't send support to any other murderers, unless it fell into that very rare "exception" that it was justified. I think disagreeing with a person's actions is a great reason to not support them.
I agree with some of what Kaczyinskis beliefs as well, but certainly don't support his actions, which is why I don't support HIM. Whether you agree with that or not is meaningless, really.
I completely disagree with your thought that not supporting him was helping the state to imprison him... as I said, a line has to be drawn somewhere, and I've already said why I draw that line at killing and injuring people. He still had a lot of support from insurrectionists, green anarchists, Zerzan and his "followers", and other over zealous angry people. I disagree with his actions just like I disagree with the actions of any other killers, and although I don't support the prison system, I'm not about to support them either just because they're being sent there. If you're going to support one person primarily because they're up against the courts, even if you disagree with their actions, then you should support everyone that's up against the courts no matter what they did. And I wouldn't go out of my way to support some prisoners, because they don't deserve my support. They certainly deserve a system that actually helps them, addresses the root of their crime, humane treatment, etc...I agree that the prison system does more harm then good and creates hardened criminals. But just because I am against the system itself doesn't mean I have to support every person in them, and it doesn't mean that I can't work towards their change/abolition. I don't believe that all prisons should just be shut down tomorrow, there ARE people in there that shouldn't be a part of the general population, and alternatives are not in place to deal with them humanely, or help those that cannot control their harmful actions. I do agree that the vast majority in the prison system could easily be helped in other ways, if society put some effort towards it. Abolition is fine as an ultimate goal, but it would create havoc is done all of a sudden.
But anyways, I digress.
The timber lobbyist was just as guilty as a lot of us, just in a more obvious way. The timber industry and it's lobbyists are certainly deserving of heat, but it WAS certainly unfair of Kazcynski to choose him as a target because he intended to injure or kill him, which is where I draw the line.
There are other forms of destructive actions that some would consider violent because they cause destruction, but for the purpose of this discussion, I'm referring to actions that cause death or injury to be violent, not just actions that cause property damage. If I mixed up the use of the word previously then it was unintentional, and now you know what I meant by it.
Also, when the FLQ bombed the Montreal Stock Exchange, NOBODY died, they injured 27 people. I don't agree with this. If you really want to bomb something, bomb it when it's empty. When the FLQ killed a hostage, obviously, someone died...more people draw the line at killing people then they do injuring them or destroying property, and of COURSE they retained support. They probably retained some support after killing people as well. There are ALWAYS people extreme enough to support such actions.
I don't know much about the IRA but from what I understand, their actions were primarily defensive rather then offensive and their supporters felt directly threatened by those they were fighting with. I do think they went about things in the wrong way, which is the way I feel with all wars. The Zapatista's were also fighting for the majority and committing defensive actions against people that were directly threatening them, and their actions involved the people, they were also a hell of a lot more organized then the average insurrectionist. Again, Hamas was ALSO acting in weak defense against Israel, who has been oppressing and hurting Palestinians for a long time. There is a huge difference between offensive and defensive violence!
The bombing at Litton was sloppy and I do not support it. The bombers drove cross country and committed the action with barely any prior surveillance of the target, making the chances of someone getting injured high. The bomb was far to big. They should have expected it. They didn't plan properly and committed the bombing when the building was full of people. So yeah, I am against that action. That's not to say that I disagree with the destruction of cruise missiles, but I don't think you should go killing or injuring people that are working at the production facilities. Sure, they warned them, they provided a countdown clock, but that was the extent of their attempt to prevent injury/death. Horrible planning. Even they admit that. I believe it is violent, because people were injured.
I don't know where you heard that hunting bears and wolves in BC is illegal, because there are PLENTY of companies that take hunters for guided legal hunts in BC. So obviously that action didn't have much of an effect. Again, there are other ways to intimidate and disrupt without hurting or trying to hurt someone, and I think that sending poisoned razorblades with the idea of them cutting themselves and bleeding to death because they're "murderous scum" just turns you into "murderous scum" as well.
Just because I support someone's politics doesn't mean I have to support them, if they cross the line and do something that I think does more harm then good for a movement I want to see progress. That's not to say I would throw them to the wolves, but I wouldn't go out of my way to support them, no matter how intelligent they make themselves sound.
I'm sure there are a lot of quotes by Kacyzinski that could be considered great, there are a lot of other people I don't support that have said some intelligent things as well, that still doesn't mean I have to support them or that they should be supported by other anarchists.
I would argue that even though Kacyinski CALLS himself an anarchist, he is NOT an anarchist for many reasons.
He acted on passion, decided that he was privileged enough to think he was acting on the the behalf of the majority, that he was privileged enough to essentially act as a judge, jury, and executioner against people HE considered to be deserving of it. That sounds like a form of hierarchy to me. He wasn't against authority, he was just against authority that affected him.
And, although Wolf sounds like an awesome and intelligent guy, that doesn't mean he is right about everything or that he's some sort of anarchist god that should be quoted in an attempt to prove a point. Just because Wolf says it doesn't make it so. And yes, that's exactly why most people don't support him. SUV's aren't living things.
My point is that killing and injuring people in offensive actions is counter-revolutionary and does more harm then good. No matter WHY the person committed the act.
Conrad:
So the first thing then that comes to mind after reading all that is Alexander Berkman. He spent 14 years in prison for the attempted assassination of Henry Finch, and Goldman spent 4 years I think (if I remember correctly). So then would you call that action anti-revolutionary? or is it defensive cause finch was hiring strikebreakers to kill union organizers?
In Kazinsky's case, I don't believe he ever claimed to be acting in the interests of the majority of people in the USA... In fact I am sure he would probably state that the majority's way of life was killing the planet, which is almost undoubtedly true... Is it not? So if the way our society is organized is killing the planet, animals, and plants, and will eventually lead to our own deaths, then wouldn't attacking the system in an attempt to bring it down be a defensive action? See my main problems with kazinsky is that he was sloppy, did not do his research, or choose his targets well, by that I mean not only did he fuck up a lot, but rather his targets were entirely symbolic, not strategic... While I see merit in his desire, in his skills, in his theory and the fact that he was willing to act, to take those risks, however his praxis and theory do not meet up. His choices of targets as I mentioned earlier were entirely symbolic, thus meaning their deaths would only have an emotional effect, nothing moe, and would not lead to the tear down of industrial society. if he had blown up damns, power lines, or cell phone towers that would have more effect that his actions. The only purpose his actions achieved were that of propaganda of the dead. Not saying using mail bombs could not have accomplished anything, but for them to he would have had to choose people that would have been important enough to an industry that a business or research project would simply collapse without them. However we are talking 100% theory here, and it is all from the position of hindsight.
anyways I am really getting off topic here.
However on another level kazinsky, and his ideas were pretty much unknown previous to the bombings, and if he had not done what he did those ideas would not have been spread for critique and consideration. In the end whether you or I agree or disagree with all, or even part of his theory, the fact remains that it was his use of violence that allowed for the propagation of those ideas, which in all reality was his self stated goals, and therefore it seams that he was actually quite successful despite all his major mistakes.
"it's a personal decision whether to send him extra support or not." I really like that line, I feel like you encapsalated a big part of what I was trying to say... However in Thurstens case, as in others, it became a situation where it was no longer possible to support him without loosing all of your support. If you supported thursten openly, then you were to be boycotted. Our anarchist bookfair for example was targeted because we had a speaker the one year who in the past, before it came out that thursten had allegedly ratted, had wrote a statement supporting him, so someone wrote us telling us we should not letter her speak because according to them we would be supporting a rat... As well it was insinuated that she may encourage others to boycott us if we did. This to me seams authoritarian, and definitely makes it easier for the state and prison system to persecute him as it made it impossible for anyone to openly support him.
As for Litton Systems, they actually had done recognizance before the trip to ontario on I think one or two occasions... And when they went they rented a place and lived there, for quite a while, staking out the place every night. They did the bombing at night because there would be less people in the place as it seamed there was never a time when there was no one in the place, thus they came up with the idea of calling in the bomb threat. They also did do more than just call in the bomb threat, like putting the box outside of the van with dynamite attached and large clear writing ststing instructions... as well the point was to make the action more than symbolic so that is why they chose to use so much dynamite. now it is obvious that they made mistakes, and it is also easy to say now, and your right they even admit that... However to say they didn't take precautions makes no sense. As well even though they intended to hurt no one, the simple fact that it was a factory making nuclear guidance systems for cruise missiles to kill thousands of people, seams to me that anyone choosing to work in that place could be called, as Ward Churchill put it "little Eichmann's" as essentially these people were profiting directly off the deaths of all the people the USA might use these missiles on, and they full well knew that. These are not people that did not know what kinda death these missiles might cause...
Another thing I want to hear your thoughts on on the subject of violence... for example lets say that Kazinsky had blown up a damn which in turn killed say 200 people in the area. This is a totally possible consequence of that type of action... However if that damn stayed up it may have caused the deaths of a local wild salmon population, and by taking it down and allowing the stream to return to how it was, those salmon can follow natural migrations and can live... Does the deaths of those people outweigh the deaths of those salmon?
As for Wolf, well I quote him cause I think he made an excellent and accurate point, not cause I worship him. I have had many disagreements with wolf on various subjects. He is a smart man, a academic, who has definitely proven himself as being dedicated, as well as influential to the radical and punk movements, as well as academia. However in the end it is simply that I think he put it as it is, he was right that people only don't support kazinsky cause of the tactics he chose, and he was right that kazinskys actions were political and he is a political prisoner. I have heard many prison abolitionists state that all prisoners are political prisoners cause prisons are an institution of political repression.
Me:
I haven't really made up my mind on how I feel about Berkman's assassination attempt. Although I would say it leans more towards being a defensive action, their object was to commit propaganda of the deed, and depending on the deed (the term is most often used when violent acts are committed, as you know) I believe that that's not a good enough reason. Henry Frick was, in effect, killing comrades of theirs and forcing them to work in horrendous conditions. It was primarily a defensive action, but the fact that Frick's partner would have just taken over, picked up where Frick left off, and probably crack down on the strikers with even more deadly force as a response makes it not sit well with me...Of course, I would have no problem with the strikers using deadly force to defend themselves against the hired killers, as that is obviously a defensive action. Also, remember, Goldman may not have been against the use of violence earlier on in her life, but after witnessing it in Russia she changed her position and taught that we should only use it in self-defense.
As far as Kazcynski goes, no, I don't think it was a defensive action. He probably considered it one. Maybe he didn't think he was acting in the best interest of the mainstream public, but he thought he was acting in the best interest of the planet over all...and society over all... and decided that he had the right to kill and injure these people. There are many theories as to what's wrong with society, what's wrong with the earth...some people think everything's fine...some people think God will sort shit out...nazis think everybody but themselves are the problem...depending on who you are and how you were raised, what you believe, you will have different ideas on just what has to be done and what has to change to achieve your vision of perfection. The people Kazcynski killed were non-combatants, who probably had very different views on just what's wrong with the world today and what needs to change, and he certainly didn't win over their friends, families, and other working class individuals who are just as "guilty" as they were in participating in an industrialized society. And those are the types of people we need to win over, if we want to get anywhere.
The military definitions of 'Offensive' and 'Defensive' action depict the difference between the two the best. Offensive action is an aggressive use of armed force to gain an objective or achieve a strategic, operational or tactical goal. Defensive action is used to prevent an imminent attack or at least minimize the deaths/injuries in the attack. It should be easy to tell whether an action was defensive or offensive by just looking at the circumstances and the definition of the words.
Propaganda of the deed has historically had a variety of definitions, but as you know, it is most commonly used in reference to violent symbolic acts, not just symbolic acts in general...for the purpose of this conversation, when I refer to Propaganda of the deed (POTD), I am only referring to violent deeds. I believe that POTD is more detrimental to the success of our movement then it is beneficial. Increased media attention does not necessarily mean increased public support. Maybe you agree with the Kazcynski bit I quoted, but the vast majority of anarchists I've met do NOT want "very small, completely autonomous units". You've probably noticed, society is pretty heavily populated... in order to break down into small groups like that, the vast majority of the population would have to die off. The only anarchists I've met that advocate that are the primies. Most want to empower society, live cooperatively, encourage mutual aid, reconstruct our social relationships... not kill everyone off and force the survivors to live in little groups in the woods. POTD rarely gains public support, and I personally want anarchy to become mainstream. POTD is pretty much responsible for anarchy's bad image, the first thing most people think of when they think of anarchy is crazy bomb throwing trouble makers. Getting his ideas and theories available to the public is NOT worth killing innocent people. Write a fucking zine or something. The idea that publicity is a good reason to kill someone is appalling.
As far as Thursten goes... you say it became a situation where you couldn't support him without losing all of your support. The example you gave, the Victoria Bookfair, you said that ONE person wrote you to say they will boycott your fair and encourage others to boycott as well? That's ONE person, and you didn't lose all of your support, did you? You still had a book fair, people still came. So your example doesn't even back up your claim. It didn't make it easier for the system to persecute him, he had his sentence lightened because he ratted, he helped the system persecute others. If he didn't want to lose all of his support, maybe he shouldn't have done what he did. Lesson learned!
Litton systems. I agree that the people working there probably aren't people I'd get along with, I agree that the missiles are worthy of destroying, I agree that it could possibly be seen as a defensive action because the missiles would be used to kill others, and that's their only purpose. I'm not sure of what to think of this one, I'll have to mull it over. I can't help but think that they should have figured out something that didn't carry the risk of killing people but caused economic damage to the company. Killing innocent people ,even "little eichmanns", doesn't sit well with me.
Blowing up power plants, dams, or anything else that INNOCENT PEOPLE require to survive is disgusting. I am obviously all for conservation and not doing things that put salmon populations at risk, but killing to achieve that goal is not acceptable. Think of the suffering involved, children, families, people would drown, freeze to death, etc... how can you think of the consequences and say that that's okay? I would probably applaud the destruction of a dam in progress...a dam that isn't already supporting the lives of a population... but to destroy it once it's built? Well, I would applaud the assassination of the "anarchist" planning that action...that would truly be a defensive move.
I don't support Kazcynskis politics OR his tactics, so why would I support him in anyway? I support prison abolition, slowly, as long as the alternatives are in place, but that doesn't mean I have to support all of the prisoners. I can think of a lot of people I'd like to see imprisoned. It might not help them, it might not change them, but it will keep them out of the lives of their victims and their victims families, and that's good enough for me! If there were alternatives available, I'd be all for it...but at the moment, there aren't.
Anyways, I am rambling now. I don't think this debate is destined to go anywhere. I know I won't change your mind, and you certainly haven't changed mine. In fact, I didn't realize just how strongly I believe what I do until I discussed this with you, so thank you for solidifying my beliefs against insurrectionists. If you haven't already read it, I suggest you get a copy of "You can't blow up a social relationship". You can actually read it here: http://libcom.org/library/you-cant-blow-up-social-relationship ; It's a good read, I can gaurantee you won't agree with it.
(The argument started with Conrad defending the action of Ted Kazcynski, otherwise known as the Unabomber, who killed three people and injured over 20 with mailbombs. I said that it crossed a line and alienated the mainstream to the point that it was detrimental to the anarchist movement)
Conrad:
killing people is alienating, but whether we believe in the use of militant action that leads to death or non-violent non action that leads to death both alienate some people, and in both cases people, as well as animals die. We each simply need to decide for ourselves what tactics and strategies are the most appropriate at each given situation. I think this should be a decision directed by those who are most heavily effected by the outcomes as well as a simply strategic one based on our goals.
Me:
Well, you said when arguing with Lex that you disagreed with him saying the Unabomber was alienating to the mainstream. Now you're saying otherwise?
Also, what do you mean by "Non Violent Non action"? Let's just stick to the Unabomber as an example... do you mean him NOT doing what he did, would have also lead to the death and destruction of both animals and people? He wasn't directly affected by the people he injured and killed, he injured and killed regular workers with families to support... he sent bombs to airlines, universities, etc... injuring professors, employees, airline passengers, store owners, students...he killed a computer store manager, an advertising consultant, and a timber industry lobbyist... all of those people were virtually powerless and innocent people. They could have been 90% of societies mom, dad, friend. He wasn't acting out of defense, really, he wasn't acting because he was directly being negatively effected by these specific people, he was angry at society in general and picked random people to take that anger out on...and his stunts could and did easily go wrong, injuring unintended victims.
Sure, you can argue that yes, the professors working in genetics and machinery were advancing technology, the computer store owner as well, and you can argue that that's a defensive action if you think technology is harmful outright....but in this day and age, it's hard NOT to live your life and inflict harm in some way. Any harmful action could be justified as a defense, no matter how obscure it is. Are you advocating the death of everybody like Kaczynski's victims? Because that would be almost everybody... and they would leave behind families and dependents.
As Lex said, it was basically an offensive action, and done in the name of Anarchy, it alienated the mainstream...making people think of anarchists as crazy killers, because it's the extremes that people remember. Before I actually knew what it was, when I heard the word "anarchy", that's basically what I thought of.
I personally think that killing someone is only a good idea in very very very rare circumstances. For the most part, it turns people off, it offends people, and people that could potentially be on your side are no longer interested. How will that progress anarchy? Or do you want it to stay a "subculture"? Some people seem to take a certain amount of pride in that and don't seem to want it to spread to the mainstream...then nothing would ever really change with society as a whole.
If you're going to do something extreme, even something that doesn't lead to the death of anybody, it shouldn't be done in the name of anarchy. I definitely agree with Lex on that. It should be done in the defense of whatever you're defending...animals, the earth, etc. Tying it directly to the word "anarchy" just gives it a negative image and turns people away before you can even get them to consider the intelligent side of Anarchy... I dismissed anarchists for the longest time, because I considered them all crazy, judgmental, and most of all, alienating.
Conrad:
I never claimed that Kazinski did not deserve critique, many of his actions were not super well thought out, and he never did take the steps to insure that only his targets would get harmed, and no one else. there are many flaws in the Unabomers style of action, that to me does not mean violence could not be used, or assassinations, rather that we can learn from his mistakes.
As well I don't believe Kazinski ever called himself an anarchist or mentioned anarchy in his manifesto or letters leading up to his capture.
As well I would definitely not consider a timber lobbyist for example, to be innocent. While I do not fully agree with his choices of targets, thats a decision easy for me to state because I have no involvement.
As for alienating people, well I have learned over the last number of years that while an action may alienate some it will bring in others, kazinski is a great example of this, his actions surely did alienate some people, but they also propagandized to many others. So the argument that violence supposedly alienates people to me is a farce, cause for all the people it alienates, it also brings in others. The same could be said for non-violence. Many people feel alienated by pacifism. yet others are empowered by it. It is a mute point to me cause I think that for every one it alienates it also empowers others, and same with non violence. If anything we should be asking who in particular each strategy alienates.
And yes I am sorta saying that if we do nothing people, and animals, and plants will die. That's what I mean by non-violence non-action. Unless our actions are actively interfering with business as usual, then I would say they are allowing the death cycle to continue, because our way of life is based on violence, and can only exist with the maintained violence, to the earth as well as to animals, both human and non.
I also feel that to say doing violence in the name of anarchism will bring a bad image, is flawed in the way that we already have a bad image, and even if we only did non-violence, that we would still have a bad image because those in power have a vested interest in keeping it that way, and would do whatever they can to keep it that way. I think the way to remedy this is two fold, first to be open about our politics, and honest, and people will have to think about them,and knowing we are good people that are working for our ideals, the more of us they know that are openly anarchist, the harder propaganda against us will be. The second way is by being effective, and actually accomplishing our goals, which I think would do more for our cause, even if we used violence, than anything else. Examples of effective action building a movement can be seen in both militant and non-violent movements all around the world. Goo examples right here would be the bombings happening in BC in the last year, they have not only brought the issues to the media, and been effective in slowing the brogress of the company down, but the police are having trouble investigation cause the public of the area, kinda seams to feel the bombings are justified. Another good canadian example is the wommins fire brigade firebombings in 1982... they were so supported by the people that womyn across canada were claiming to be the wommins fore brigade as a way to fuck with the police, as well even fairly mainstream feminist organizations put out official statements in support of what happened.. The chain also ended up almost shut down, and rape porn has not been sold openly in Canad since, and is now been made illegal. I guess also a major thing we need to do to break those stereotypes is challenge the problems with our movement, such as the racism, sexism, aginsm,ableism, homophobia, transphobia, and various power dynamics that are currently all throughout the activist community. Having a better movement that is not full of prejudice would do a lot as a way to include people.
I don't know if I covered everyy point here, but, I wrote a lot and it is late so I will wait for your reply, if I missed anything feel free to point it out.
Me:
Kaczynski DID call himself an anarchist in at least two of his ransom letters, attracting the support of many primitivist insurrectionist anarchists, including Zerzan, who was one of his primary confidants during his trial.
This is a quote from one letter to the NY Times:
"In our previous letter to you we called ourselves anarchists. Since ''anarchist'' is a vague word that has been applied to a variety of attitudes, further explanation is needed. We call ourselves anarchists because we would like, ideally, to break down all society into very small, completely autonomous units."
I agree that in rare circumstances assassinations can be beneficial, and I would defend myself with deadly force if my life or the life of my comrades were being directly threatened with deadly force. But I think killing CEO's, company presidents, etc is out of line. In the long run, what's it going to do? The person directly below them in the power structure is going to be moved up into their position, and the corporation will continue with business as usual.
If you really feel the need to disrupt a companies business, encourage their closure, cause financial damage, there are plenty of methods that I would still consider violent, that don't result in the injury or death of living beings, human or animal. Members of the ELF/ALF that stick to the "groups" philosophy cause a lot of destruction, paranoia, and have successfully shut down businesses such as labs, breeding farms, etc that directly torture and destroy lives as part of business as usual, without killing or hurting anybody.
In the case of the timber lobbyist... yes, I agree, he is not innocent per say. But nobody really is. And he certainly doesn't deserve to be killed. What happens when he dies? They appoint another lobbyist. Business as usual. A family is left without a father/son/etc. There are ways to disrupt that companies finances, their public image, their ability to run their business, WITHOUT hurting anybody. Do you think anybody that works on the tar sands is also deserving of death? Because although I don't agree with them, I have friends that make a living in one way or another because of them, and I certainly don't want to see them dead.
When I say "Non Violence", I mean that nobody was injured or killed, I don't include firebombing an empty slaughterhouse to be violent. I would still consider it to be a militant action. I agree that there is a place for militant action, and only a very very small and rare place for violence. I think you have a much higher tolerance for violence then I do.
I can say I am not against the pipeline bombings because the communities effected by their development, by the spreading of the tar sands, are being negatively effected to the point of birth defects, ridiculously high cancer rates, destruction of natural hunting/fishing/worship areas, etc. And nobody was hurt, the bombers made it obvious that they don't mean to hurt anybody, and seem to be making an effort to ensure that doesn't happen. They cannot really be compared to the Unabomber. The company is effected financially but nobody was killed. They got their message out, and seemed to get a lot of support from the people in the area. If someone was killed or injured in the bombings, I would bet you anything that that support would be gone completely.
Killing someone and committing violent actions is a hell of a lot more alienating then just destroying property. Of course both are alienating, but even people that support destruction will often draw the line at hurting someone. And in my opinion, appealing to the majority that are against killing people should be of higher priority then appealing to the very small minority that support it. Anything "out of the ordinary" is potentially alienating...me being a vegan makes people feel alienated...I agree with being open about being an anarchist, your goals and ideals, but I think most people that learn you are okay with killing relatively unimportant people that could really be a member of their family, a friend of theirs, to progress your ideals....they might begin to doubt you as a "good person" and feel as if you're taking it a step to far. I have a few friends that are conservatives... who know I am a good person despite my contrasting political beliefs... but I know that if began to support violent actions and started hurting people I considered to be contributing to "the death cycle", they would probably change their mind about me. I have been able to change their opinions on many things, but they would shut me out if I believed in the use of violence, and I wouldn't have been able to change their minds at all.
The "Wimmins Fire Brigade" bombings also can't really be compared to Kaczyinski because nobody (aside from one of the bombers) was injured or killed.
I am not a pacifistic by any means, I would not hesitate to fight if it was necessary, and I don't necessarily disagree with destruction and intimidation, depending on the circumstance. But I draw the line at killing or injuring people, except for a very very very rare exception.
Conrad:
well first I wanna make a distinction more clear, that is that I am not claiming I think the actual actions kazinski did were necessarily good, I am not suggesting that we all start mailing bombs to people we think are our enemies... However I do think there is some merit in his actions, and even more so his theory. I also think Kazinski is a political prisoner, and should be supported. I have always been baffled at how people that claim to be prison abolitionists as many anarchists and radicals do, will totally abandon someone cause they don't support their actions, and take away all support from them. This is exactly what happened to Darren Thursten of the ALF when it came out in the court transcripts that he had co-operated for a lesser sentence. The ABC from Winnipeg and others called for a complete boycott of anyone supporting him, which created huge divisions and isolated many people that were doing good activism. While I don't agree with Thurstens actions, and I would not put any effort in particular to support him I think that isolating any one who does is way beyond not supporting him, and falls into the realm of supporting the state and legal system in their attempts to punish him.
In the case of Kazinski many radicals, especially pacifists, condemned him, even though they claimed not only to be against the same things he was, but also claimed to be against the FBI, the prison system, etc, but their actions in condemning him I feel went to the degree of helping the FBI punish him, by removing any support that he could have had.
I think all prisoners, even non political ones should be supported if we claim to be against prisons. This does not mean that I don't think rapists and pedophiles and such should be just released, but I do think that prison does nothing to help them or us, and does nothing to decrease the amounts of rapes occurring, therefore we need other alternatives, and we need to shut down all prisons. Also I note that the majority of prisoners are not in for murder, rape, mailing bombs, etc.
I also feel it necessary to make the distinction that while I do agree that the timber lobbyist was guilty, I would not have ever stated that he deserved to die, rather I was simply trying to point out that he was not an innocent victim, and that I don't think kazinski was unfair in choosing him as a target. there is a difference between stating that I don't think what kazinsky did was unjustified, and claiming that timber lobbyists deserve to die.
I am however confused about your stance on violence, in your last message you said that there were other forms of violence used by groups like the ALF/ELF, then later said something about the actions non consisting of violence cause people do not get hurt... I am just trying to clarify...
Now as for killing accidentally being alienating, again I think it can be, but is not necessarily... When the FLQ for example bombed the stock exchange people were injured and killed, but they still retained support. Many similar examples can be found with the IRA, and even to a lesser degree in cases of the Weather Underground, or black panthers. However, when the FLQ killed one of the hostages in the kidnapping during the october crisis, they did loose tons of support... Both were violent actions, both ended with people dying, yet in the second one they lost almost all their support. In the case of the IRA from what I read when they were doing bombings and attacks, they gained support, but when they started to become corrupt and were into protection rackets and such they began to loose their support. The Zapatistas still retain a ton of support, they definitely used violence when they rose, and are armed even till this day, and many people died there. Even Hamas who has undoubtedly killed many people, has gained major public support of their own people, so much that they won a democratic election. My point being I think that simply using murder, or other forms of violence are not the only factors to be considered in whether a action will alienate people. If Bush had been assassinated, I don't think that action would have necessarily alienated many people, and may well have galvanized or radicalized people. However it would have been nothing but symbolic anyways.
I am curious about this comment "When I say "Non Violence", I mean that nobody was injured or killed, I don't include firebombing an empty slaughterhouse to be violent."
I have to ask then, what about an action like the bombing of Litton Systems in ontario by Direct Action, where they accidentally injured 2 people, one was paralyzed, largely because of the sloppy actions of the security guards (who was one of the people injured) but even more cause of the fault of the police not turning off their radios when responding to a bomb, ether way 2 people injured, but they had no intention on that when placing the bomb and took many precautions to try and stop injury from happening... Would you consider that to be violent?
Or how about the actions of the Justice Department? they sent a letter years back to some guides that were taking american tourists out to kill bears and wolves in BC. The letters contained poisoned razorblades covered in blood, and said something like I hope you cut yourself and bleed to death you murderous scum... The action stopped the hunting of bears and wolves in BC. Would you say that it was justified? in general what do you think of that type of use of violence?
I think for the most part I would agree with you about use of violence. However I still think people that take these risks should be given support, and at very least should not be isolated by those claiming to have similar politics.
As well, I actually have to say that was a great quote by kazinsky... I didn't know he ever officially called himself an anarchist, but that was a awesome and suitable statement that is fully accurate in my opinion to what many anarchist feel, and that it was also as far as I can see not trying to claim that anarchist believe in violence or not, rather that he (we) can relate to/identify with the anarchist movement because of the goals in mind.
A lot of this reminds me of a comment Wolf made in an interview with ISKRA. where the interviewer asked him about a lyric in the song prisoners of conscience where the lyrics start to name a series of prisoners in the USA and Canadian legal system, mainly AIM and Black Panthers, and in the list also is Kazinsky. Wolf pointed out to the interviewer that kazinsky was a political prisoner because he was in jail for political reasons, and said that the only reason most of the people on the left won't openly support him is because he blew up people not suvs or buildings.
Me:
I don't think there is much merit at all in his actions, but of course there is a bit of truth in his manifesto... just like there is a bit of truth in Zerzan's writings, but in the end he's still a nutter. He may be a political prisoner, but then everybody that justifies their actions with political reasons is a political prisoner... including neo-nazis that have committed murder. Do you support them?
Just because I don't agree with Kaczyinski's actions doesn't mean I support the prison system as it stands. That's an entirely different issue. I don't know much about Thurston and what he did, but if he ratted other people out to save himself, it's a personal decision whether to send him extra support or not. I think it's pretty low of him, and I wouldn't go out of my way to support him either. I also wouldn't send support to any other murderers, unless it fell into that very rare "exception" that it was justified. I think disagreeing with a person's actions is a great reason to not support them.
I agree with some of what Kaczyinskis beliefs as well, but certainly don't support his actions, which is why I don't support HIM. Whether you agree with that or not is meaningless, really.
I completely disagree with your thought that not supporting him was helping the state to imprison him... as I said, a line has to be drawn somewhere, and I've already said why I draw that line at killing and injuring people. He still had a lot of support from insurrectionists, green anarchists, Zerzan and his "followers", and other over zealous angry people. I disagree with his actions just like I disagree with the actions of any other killers, and although I don't support the prison system, I'm not about to support them either just because they're being sent there. If you're going to support one person primarily because they're up against the courts, even if you disagree with their actions, then you should support everyone that's up against the courts no matter what they did. And I wouldn't go out of my way to support some prisoners, because they don't deserve my support. They certainly deserve a system that actually helps them, addresses the root of their crime, humane treatment, etc...I agree that the prison system does more harm then good and creates hardened criminals. But just because I am against the system itself doesn't mean I have to support every person in them, and it doesn't mean that I can't work towards their change/abolition. I don't believe that all prisons should just be shut down tomorrow, there ARE people in there that shouldn't be a part of the general population, and alternatives are not in place to deal with them humanely, or help those that cannot control their harmful actions. I do agree that the vast majority in the prison system could easily be helped in other ways, if society put some effort towards it. Abolition is fine as an ultimate goal, but it would create havoc is done all of a sudden.
But anyways, I digress.
The timber lobbyist was just as guilty as a lot of us, just in a more obvious way. The timber industry and it's lobbyists are certainly deserving of heat, but it WAS certainly unfair of Kazcynski to choose him as a target because he intended to injure or kill him, which is where I draw the line.
There are other forms of destructive actions that some would consider violent because they cause destruction, but for the purpose of this discussion, I'm referring to actions that cause death or injury to be violent, not just actions that cause property damage. If I mixed up the use of the word previously then it was unintentional, and now you know what I meant by it.
Also, when the FLQ bombed the Montreal Stock Exchange, NOBODY died, they injured 27 people. I don't agree with this. If you really want to bomb something, bomb it when it's empty. When the FLQ killed a hostage, obviously, someone died...more people draw the line at killing people then they do injuring them or destroying property, and of COURSE they retained support. They probably retained some support after killing people as well. There are ALWAYS people extreme enough to support such actions.
I don't know much about the IRA but from what I understand, their actions were primarily defensive rather then offensive and their supporters felt directly threatened by those they were fighting with. I do think they went about things in the wrong way, which is the way I feel with all wars. The Zapatista's were also fighting for the majority and committing defensive actions against people that were directly threatening them, and their actions involved the people, they were also a hell of a lot more organized then the average insurrectionist. Again, Hamas was ALSO acting in weak defense against Israel, who has been oppressing and hurting Palestinians for a long time. There is a huge difference between offensive and defensive violence!
The bombing at Litton was sloppy and I do not support it. The bombers drove cross country and committed the action with barely any prior surveillance of the target, making the chances of someone getting injured high. The bomb was far to big. They should have expected it. They didn't plan properly and committed the bombing when the building was full of people. So yeah, I am against that action. That's not to say that I disagree with the destruction of cruise missiles, but I don't think you should go killing or injuring people that are working at the production facilities. Sure, they warned them, they provided a countdown clock, but that was the extent of their attempt to prevent injury/death. Horrible planning. Even they admit that. I believe it is violent, because people were injured.
I don't know where you heard that hunting bears and wolves in BC is illegal, because there are PLENTY of companies that take hunters for guided legal hunts in BC. So obviously that action didn't have much of an effect. Again, there are other ways to intimidate and disrupt without hurting or trying to hurt someone, and I think that sending poisoned razorblades with the idea of them cutting themselves and bleeding to death because they're "murderous scum" just turns you into "murderous scum" as well.
Just because I support someone's politics doesn't mean I have to support them, if they cross the line and do something that I think does more harm then good for a movement I want to see progress. That's not to say I would throw them to the wolves, but I wouldn't go out of my way to support them, no matter how intelligent they make themselves sound.
I'm sure there are a lot of quotes by Kacyzinski that could be considered great, there are a lot of other people I don't support that have said some intelligent things as well, that still doesn't mean I have to support them or that they should be supported by other anarchists.
I would argue that even though Kacyinski CALLS himself an anarchist, he is NOT an anarchist for many reasons.
He acted on passion, decided that he was privileged enough to think he was acting on the the behalf of the majority, that he was privileged enough to essentially act as a judge, jury, and executioner against people HE considered to be deserving of it. That sounds like a form of hierarchy to me. He wasn't against authority, he was just against authority that affected him.
And, although Wolf sounds like an awesome and intelligent guy, that doesn't mean he is right about everything or that he's some sort of anarchist god that should be quoted in an attempt to prove a point. Just because Wolf says it doesn't make it so. And yes, that's exactly why most people don't support him. SUV's aren't living things.
My point is that killing and injuring people in offensive actions is counter-revolutionary and does more harm then good. No matter WHY the person committed the act.
Conrad:
So the first thing then that comes to mind after reading all that is Alexander Berkman. He spent 14 years in prison for the attempted assassination of Henry Finch, and Goldman spent 4 years I think (if I remember correctly). So then would you call that action anti-revolutionary? or is it defensive cause finch was hiring strikebreakers to kill union organizers?
In Kazinsky's case, I don't believe he ever claimed to be acting in the interests of the majority of people in the USA... In fact I am sure he would probably state that the majority's way of life was killing the planet, which is almost undoubtedly true... Is it not? So if the way our society is organized is killing the planet, animals, and plants, and will eventually lead to our own deaths, then wouldn't attacking the system in an attempt to bring it down be a defensive action? See my main problems with kazinsky is that he was sloppy, did not do his research, or choose his targets well, by that I mean not only did he fuck up a lot, but rather his targets were entirely symbolic, not strategic... While I see merit in his desire, in his skills, in his theory and the fact that he was willing to act, to take those risks, however his praxis and theory do not meet up. His choices of targets as I mentioned earlier were entirely symbolic, thus meaning their deaths would only have an emotional effect, nothing moe, and would not lead to the tear down of industrial society. if he had blown up damns, power lines, or cell phone towers that would have more effect that his actions. The only purpose his actions achieved were that of propaganda of the dead. Not saying using mail bombs could not have accomplished anything, but for them to he would have had to choose people that would have been important enough to an industry that a business or research project would simply collapse without them. However we are talking 100% theory here, and it is all from the position of hindsight.
anyways I am really getting off topic here.
However on another level kazinsky, and his ideas were pretty much unknown previous to the bombings, and if he had not done what he did those ideas would not have been spread for critique and consideration. In the end whether you or I agree or disagree with all, or even part of his theory, the fact remains that it was his use of violence that allowed for the propagation of those ideas, which in all reality was his self stated goals, and therefore it seams that he was actually quite successful despite all his major mistakes.
"it's a personal decision whether to send him extra support or not." I really like that line, I feel like you encapsalated a big part of what I was trying to say... However in Thurstens case, as in others, it became a situation where it was no longer possible to support him without loosing all of your support. If you supported thursten openly, then you were to be boycotted. Our anarchist bookfair for example was targeted because we had a speaker the one year who in the past, before it came out that thursten had allegedly ratted, had wrote a statement supporting him, so someone wrote us telling us we should not letter her speak because according to them we would be supporting a rat... As well it was insinuated that she may encourage others to boycott us if we did. This to me seams authoritarian, and definitely makes it easier for the state and prison system to persecute him as it made it impossible for anyone to openly support him.
As for Litton Systems, they actually had done recognizance before the trip to ontario on I think one or two occasions... And when they went they rented a place and lived there, for quite a while, staking out the place every night. They did the bombing at night because there would be less people in the place as it seamed there was never a time when there was no one in the place, thus they came up with the idea of calling in the bomb threat. They also did do more than just call in the bomb threat, like putting the box outside of the van with dynamite attached and large clear writing ststing instructions... as well the point was to make the action more than symbolic so that is why they chose to use so much dynamite. now it is obvious that they made mistakes, and it is also easy to say now, and your right they even admit that... However to say they didn't take precautions makes no sense. As well even though they intended to hurt no one, the simple fact that it was a factory making nuclear guidance systems for cruise missiles to kill thousands of people, seams to me that anyone choosing to work in that place could be called, as Ward Churchill put it "little Eichmann's" as essentially these people were profiting directly off the deaths of all the people the USA might use these missiles on, and they full well knew that. These are not people that did not know what kinda death these missiles might cause...
Another thing I want to hear your thoughts on on the subject of violence... for example lets say that Kazinsky had blown up a damn which in turn killed say 200 people in the area. This is a totally possible consequence of that type of action... However if that damn stayed up it may have caused the deaths of a local wild salmon population, and by taking it down and allowing the stream to return to how it was, those salmon can follow natural migrations and can live... Does the deaths of those people outweigh the deaths of those salmon?
As for Wolf, well I quote him cause I think he made an excellent and accurate point, not cause I worship him. I have had many disagreements with wolf on various subjects. He is a smart man, a academic, who has definitely proven himself as being dedicated, as well as influential to the radical and punk movements, as well as academia. However in the end it is simply that I think he put it as it is, he was right that people only don't support kazinsky cause of the tactics he chose, and he was right that kazinskys actions were political and he is a political prisoner. I have heard many prison abolitionists state that all prisoners are political prisoners cause prisons are an institution of political repression.
Me:
I haven't really made up my mind on how I feel about Berkman's assassination attempt. Although I would say it leans more towards being a defensive action, their object was to commit propaganda of the deed, and depending on the deed (the term is most often used when violent acts are committed, as you know) I believe that that's not a good enough reason. Henry Frick was, in effect, killing comrades of theirs and forcing them to work in horrendous conditions. It was primarily a defensive action, but the fact that Frick's partner would have just taken over, picked up where Frick left off, and probably crack down on the strikers with even more deadly force as a response makes it not sit well with me...Of course, I would have no problem with the strikers using deadly force to defend themselves against the hired killers, as that is obviously a defensive action. Also, remember, Goldman may not have been against the use of violence earlier on in her life, but after witnessing it in Russia she changed her position and taught that we should only use it in self-defense.
As far as Kazcynski goes, no, I don't think it was a defensive action. He probably considered it one. Maybe he didn't think he was acting in the best interest of the mainstream public, but he thought he was acting in the best interest of the planet over all...and society over all... and decided that he had the right to kill and injure these people. There are many theories as to what's wrong with society, what's wrong with the earth...some people think everything's fine...some people think God will sort shit out...nazis think everybody but themselves are the problem...depending on who you are and how you were raised, what you believe, you will have different ideas on just what has to be done and what has to change to achieve your vision of perfection. The people Kazcynski killed were non-combatants, who probably had very different views on just what's wrong with the world today and what needs to change, and he certainly didn't win over their friends, families, and other working class individuals who are just as "guilty" as they were in participating in an industrialized society. And those are the types of people we need to win over, if we want to get anywhere.
The military definitions of 'Offensive' and 'Defensive' action depict the difference between the two the best. Offensive action is an aggressive use of armed force to gain an objective or achieve a strategic, operational or tactical goal. Defensive action is used to prevent an imminent attack or at least minimize the deaths/injuries in the attack. It should be easy to tell whether an action was defensive or offensive by just looking at the circumstances and the definition of the words.
Propaganda of the deed has historically had a variety of definitions, but as you know, it is most commonly used in reference to violent symbolic acts, not just symbolic acts in general...for the purpose of this conversation, when I refer to Propaganda of the deed (POTD), I am only referring to violent deeds. I believe that POTD is more detrimental to the success of our movement then it is beneficial. Increased media attention does not necessarily mean increased public support. Maybe you agree with the Kazcynski bit I quoted, but the vast majority of anarchists I've met do NOT want "very small, completely autonomous units". You've probably noticed, society is pretty heavily populated... in order to break down into small groups like that, the vast majority of the population would have to die off. The only anarchists I've met that advocate that are the primies. Most want to empower society, live cooperatively, encourage mutual aid, reconstruct our social relationships... not kill everyone off and force the survivors to live in little groups in the woods. POTD rarely gains public support, and I personally want anarchy to become mainstream. POTD is pretty much responsible for anarchy's bad image, the first thing most people think of when they think of anarchy is crazy bomb throwing trouble makers. Getting his ideas and theories available to the public is NOT worth killing innocent people. Write a fucking zine or something. The idea that publicity is a good reason to kill someone is appalling.
As far as Thursten goes... you say it became a situation where you couldn't support him without losing all of your support. The example you gave, the Victoria Bookfair, you said that ONE person wrote you to say they will boycott your fair and encourage others to boycott as well? That's ONE person, and you didn't lose all of your support, did you? You still had a book fair, people still came. So your example doesn't even back up your claim. It didn't make it easier for the system to persecute him, he had his sentence lightened because he ratted, he helped the system persecute others. If he didn't want to lose all of his support, maybe he shouldn't have done what he did. Lesson learned!
Litton systems. I agree that the people working there probably aren't people I'd get along with, I agree that the missiles are worthy of destroying, I agree that it could possibly be seen as a defensive action because the missiles would be used to kill others, and that's their only purpose. I'm not sure of what to think of this one, I'll have to mull it over. I can't help but think that they should have figured out something that didn't carry the risk of killing people but caused economic damage to the company. Killing innocent people ,even "little eichmanns", doesn't sit well with me.
Blowing up power plants, dams, or anything else that INNOCENT PEOPLE require to survive is disgusting. I am obviously all for conservation and not doing things that put salmon populations at risk, but killing to achieve that goal is not acceptable. Think of the suffering involved, children, families, people would drown, freeze to death, etc... how can you think of the consequences and say that that's okay? I would probably applaud the destruction of a dam in progress...a dam that isn't already supporting the lives of a population... but to destroy it once it's built? Well, I would applaud the assassination of the "anarchist" planning that action...that would truly be a defensive move.
I don't support Kazcynskis politics OR his tactics, so why would I support him in anyway? I support prison abolition, slowly, as long as the alternatives are in place, but that doesn't mean I have to support all of the prisoners. I can think of a lot of people I'd like to see imprisoned. It might not help them, it might not change them, but it will keep them out of the lives of their victims and their victims families, and that's good enough for me! If there were alternatives available, I'd be all for it...but at the moment, there aren't.
Anyways, I am rambling now. I don't think this debate is destined to go anywhere. I know I won't change your mind, and you certainly haven't changed mine. In fact, I didn't realize just how strongly I believe what I do until I discussed this with you, so thank you for solidifying my beliefs against insurrectionists. If you haven't already read it, I suggest you get a copy of "You can't blow up a social relationship". You can actually read it here: http://libcom.org/library/you-cant-blow-up-social-relationship ; It's a good read, I can gaurantee you won't agree with it.