Safnerism

We all know “anarchist” is a dirty word, just like any other in the American political lexicon.  Calling someone “liberal” or “conservative” no longer is an objective classification for one’s ideology as much as it is an attack on their character for being either a “bleeding heart hippie” or an “religious facist.”  But “anarchist” is by far the worst political offender, carrying their black flags and little black bombs.  Nevermind those that advocate anarchism as a viable ethical philosophy.

But this is of course how they are always promoted in the media.  Let’s take a look at the latest example, the G20 summit:

Protests at G20 Meeting Escalate

PITTSBURGH (AP)  – Police fired canisters of pepper spray and smoke at marchers protesting the Group of 20 summit Thursday after anarchists responded to calls to disperse by rolling trash bins and throwing rocks.

The march turned chaotic at just about the time that President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama arrived for a meeting with leaders of the world’s major economies.

The clashes began after hundreds of protesters, many advocating against capitalism, tried to march from an outlying neighborhood toward the convention center where the summit is being held.

The protesters banged on drums and chanted “Ain’t no power like the power of the people, ’cause the power of the people don’t stop.”

The marchers included small groups of self-described anarchists, some wearing dark clothes and bandanas and carrying black flags.  Others wore helmets and safety goggles.

One banner read, “No borders, no banks,” another, “No hope in capitalism.”  A few minutes into the march, protesters unfurled a large banner reading “NO BAILOUT NO CAPITALISM” with an encircled “A,” a recognized sign of anarchists.

The marchers did not have a permit and, after a few blocks, police declared it an unlawful assembly.  They played an announcement over a loudspeaker telling people to leave or face arrest and then police in riot gear moved in to break it up.

Protesters split into smaller groups.  Some rolled large metal trash bins toward police, and a man in a black hooded sweat shirt threw rocks at a police car, breaking the front windshield.  Protesters broke windows in a few businesses, including a bank branch and a Boston Market restaurant.

Officers fired pepper spray and smoke at the protesters.  Some of those exposed to the pepper spray coughed and complained that their eyes were watering and stinging.

It’s articles like this that give all anarchists a bad name.  It has all the elements of the anarchist stereotypes – dressing in black, use of anarchist symbolism, protesting capitalism, and violent tendencies.  However, let’s break this down a little bit more.

Now, of course, there is absolutely nothing wrong with protesting for a cause that you believe in.  It is one of the greatest forms of activism that you can engage in – anarchist or otherwise.  The anarchists maintain the moral high ground so far.  They clamor for power to be given to the people – which there is also nothing wrong with.

Now, myself being an anarchocapitalist, I believe that these “anarchists” are sorely mistaken.  Granted, elements of so called “capitalism” are indeed what caused the crisis, through the intervention of the State, whereas in a truly free market, this never would have happened; but I digress.  I may have disagreements with anarchists as to the merits of capitalism, but then again, historically anarchism has been an anti-capitalist venture, and most anarchists do not recognize “anarchocapitalists” as being “anarchists.”  But that is a minor disagreement over semantics – one which we can ignore – to each their own.  However we all can agree that the political use of violence inherent in the system must be abolished.

And this is exactly where it all goes wrong.  Anarchists believe that the initiation of aggressive violence is wrong.  That is anarchism at its philosophical core.  Many disagree as to just what the root and nature of that violence is (the State?  Capitalism?  Private Property?) but all agree that it is unethical and must be removed in order to obtain a truly free and just society.  So how can you have “anarchists” “[rolling] large metal trash bins towards police,” “[throwing] rocks at a police car, breaking the front windshield,” and “[breaking] windows in a few businesses”?  The anarchists qua anarchists are total hypocrites.  Employing violence to achieve a nonviolent society?  Come on!

I’ll bet these protesters don’t even know what “anarchism” truly means, other than  being a convenient word to act as an outlet to vent their emotions.  If that’s all they are doing, why not just call themselves “emo” or “goth,” or “vamp,” or whatever the hell those kids are called these days?  But being an “anarchist” has some mystical “coolness” about it.  You may think you’re pretty “badass” because you are standing up against “the man” and “the establishment,” and joining a centuries-old movement.  Yet you don’t know what the term means, you have no idea what you would do if you actually succeeded in “smashing the state” or “smashing capitalism.”

And if these protesters truly believe in anarchism, then they are horrible anarchists and they give all of us a bad name collectively.

Which is again why I think we need a better word for those who are truly anarchists – perhaps voluntaryists.

The point is that whatever label you steal to describe your actions–”socially acceptable” or not–if you employ violence to achieve nonviolence, you are a morally-bereft hypocrite.  And the public looks at YOU as the enemy, the ones who are wrong, deranged, and misguided.  It gives them all the more reason to clamor for police protection, to preserve the status quo, and to ostracize all those who protest the injustices of the establishment.  When, in truth, its THIS and THIS we truly ought to be afraid of.