(A)narchists argue pacifist ‘liberals’ are the enemy inasmuch as their non-action, their criticism of violent means or the polemics of violence, emasculates the power of the people to take back what is rightfully theirs from the state and dominant corporations. The interviewee reminds listeners Gandhi and King did not operate in isolation from other groups employing a variety of not so passive tactics. Yet other (A)narchists chillingly assert ‘morality’ is immaterial\/a fiction which interferes with weighing the efficacy of any given tactic–that being the only legitimate revolutionary litmus test. All else, they say, is a ‘liberal’ sop and Gandhi was a collaborator.<\/p>\n
Perhaps, living in the U.S. and being born after Gandhi’s success makes it difficult to argue authoritatively on the point with respect to India. Not so, however, when it comes to the U.S. and the Civil Rights movement. If memory serves, many white ‘liberals’ (at the time) opined Blacks indeed did deserve the inalienable rights they demanded just as Dr. King had so eloquently championed. But, they continued, Blacks should be *patient* and allow a ‘natural’ transition over TIME, not so demanding for change NOW!<\/p>\n
This crisis continued on low boil for many years…more than a decade…while ‘liberals’ wrung their hands in intellectual angst, the Black community suffered and Congress dithered–UNTIL Watts, Detroit, and Newark erupted. After that, during the Johnson administration, civil rights legislation proceeded apace as Congress quickly passed remedial federal laws making racial discrimination illegal heralding a new era in the legal landscape of America ultimately leading to the 2008 election of the first Black U.S. President.<\/p>\n
The following video clip perhaps makes the best argument for this kind of violence, given who the proponents are. Unfortunately, comparisons with such (A)irheads may be damning it with faint praise. e.g. The clip never alludes to other successful non-violent revolutions or how powerful any number of creative but devastating non-violent tactics can be. Still, it’s worth watching and considering, if for no other reason than to be aware of the arguments being advanced today among impressionable youthful idealistic activists.<\/p>\n