Skip to main content

View Diary: We Are a Vision of the Future, On the Black Bloc: Part I (343 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Okay, taking your clarification into account (0+ / 0-)

    are you aware that the principle you cite is actually recognized in US legal jurisprudence? As such it can hardly be considered a standard for determining what is anarchism, unless you think a legal principle can be anarchist.

    •  I think it can be self-contradicting, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joe wobblie

      meaning it is not based on any concrete principles- sooner or later such a system will pile on so many internal contradictions that it will fall to pieces like an old quilt.

      •  law is contradictory by design (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Geekesque

        since it partakes of both precedent  and contingency. Contingent circumstances can allow for departures from precedent as well as providing justification for violations of existing law. The fact remains that as a matter of law, US citizens aren't required to defer to state authority in every circumstance.

        •  From the top (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          joe wobblie

          Geekesque declared that those who engage in or advocate criminal activity should be ostracized.  But now you're saying that the list of criminal acts is not static.  How can that list be altered if no one engages in or advocates listed activities?  Similarly, how can items ever be added to the list, if there are not deeper principles?

          Anarchism means orienting to those deeper principles, rather than anything more superficial.

          •  Not all criminal activity. (0+ / 0-)

            Criminal violence.

            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

            by Geekesque on Fri May 04, 2012 at 02:15:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Civil Disobedience (0+ / 0-)

            is an accepted form of agitation. Thoreau's treatise on Civil Disobedience is a classic. The plant occupations of the thirties and the civil rights revolution of the sixties are inconceivable without CD. The violation of unjust laws for socio-political ends are a well established feature of US political history and culture. I'm fairly sure that Geekesque would recognize this if it was pointed out.

            The parting of the ways is when we come to grips with the question of which laws should be violated and in what context. There is a world of difference between the mass refusal to obey Jim Crow laws, draft resistance or sit down strikes and individual acts of vandalism or running street battles with the cops, particularly when the latter endanger people who have not consented to the actions.

            As for how you change the laws violated, that is why so much CD stresses submitting to arrest, either to allow for legal challenges (see the plowshares defendants/Berrigan Bros.) or in order to overload the system and render the law moot (see the wobbly free speech fights, SOA Watch and, again, the struggle against Jim Crow.)

            The important thing to recognize is that there is no theoretical or tactical "magic bullet" that can be applied to every situation. The belief in such is a dangerous illusion. The end doesn't justify the means but the end must dictate the means.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site