> There was a wave of terrorism by labor radicals and anarchists.
Yes. Terrorism gave us the 40 hour workweek, and in my country of Canada, single payer healthcare...
And more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_bombing
I don't think calling bombings in public spaces "terrorism" is really straining the definition of the word. In fact it seems pretty on-the-nose.
And far from driving any sort of positive change, these bombings derived zero concessions from the government. Their only long-term effect was the further marginalization of the political left in the USA, as they became associated with violence. This is a legacy that is still here in the US today, where words like "socialist" are still being used as obvious pejoratives.
It's interesting that you bring up single payer health care in Canada. The first real implementation of public health care in Canada was in Saskatchewan, under premier Tommy Douglas, who was IIRC voted a few years ago as the Greatest Canada Who Ever Lived. Public health care was achieved in Saskatchewan not by hostage-taking, bombing, or shooting anyone, but by persistent demonstration and political participation. Not a shot was fired to win single payer health care in Canada.
Terrorism gave us nothing except fear, violence, and death. In every place it has shown up it has actively worked against the causes it purports to advance (see: OWS and rioting). It is in spite of violent extremists that these causes have succeeded, it should get zero credit.
Usually it's the elite that's quick to justify thousands of death for security, so I'd argue that while deplorable in a moral sense, the acts themselves when taken in context are understandable, as it was war.
This, among many other things, can add a bit of a context of the period: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1918
The State engaged in plenty of mass indiscriminate violence against nonviolent people in the same period. The incidents you mention killed two people (one of whom, as a historical irony, was a working class security officer, and the other was an anarchist himself.)
But when the government comes in and kills dozens if not hundreds of people in various labor incidents (or turned a blind eye to corporations doing the same), it's just establishing "law and order" (read: used violent force to ensure the continued functioning of and economic profits of capital).
There's also the elephant in the room, since we're talking about the 1910s, of some unspecified but very widespread government violence and big explosions in public squares. Though that was more a competition among elites, it was still borne disproportionately by the non-elite.
This is not an issue of unions vs. corporations vs. states; it is the fundamental problem with collectivism, which frequently uses coercion as a means to achieve power or theft.
"It is a fundamental problem with humanity, which frequently uses coercion as a means to achieve power."
Collectivism is a slippery concept and seems to amount to "individuals working together to achieve some aim." So long as you have systems of interacting individuals, organizations will arise to achieve economies of scale, and violence will inherently be part of it because of the components that make up the system.
From the Wikipedia article on Collectivism: "Collectivist orientations stress the importance of cohesion within social groups... and in some cases, the priority of group goals over individual goals"
You can have individualists "working together to achieve the same aim", for example in a firm (or corporation), but they may place no importance on cohesion or group goals (when they are different from individual goals).
The IWW and other mass union labour movements engaged in war with business elite, which was backed/run by the government. The concessions we were given were temporary, but amazing in terms of prosperity.
But they are right. Collections of Working Class people didn't die as heroes who ushered in an era of labour laws and minimum wages, but are rather terrorists who had ZERO effect on the world... /s
Don't try and dismiss entire movements with the acts of but a few extremists. Without the movement, you don't have May Day in 1919: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Red_Scare#May_Day_1919
Also, without context, you're argument seems reasonable, however WITH context, it does not. During class warfare, your poor and disenfranchised are AT WAR with the rich and wealthy. Of course these people have no recourse for representation from the elite, nor do they have police protection. After years of struggles with police and politicians, I find it insulting to claim that any engagements are terrorism, and that all of it is under the pretense of war. Just look at the locations of these events...
> Their only long-term effect was the further marginalization of the political left in the USA, as they became associated with violence.
Actually the labour movements had gotten the most concessions out of government between 1918 and 1940. If you disagree, again, feel free to explain how labour laws inhibit society from being truly free/prosperous.
> Terrorism gave us nothing except fear, violence, and death. In every place it has shown up it has actively worked against the causes it purports to advance (see: OWS and rioting).
OWS are terrorists? Now I know you're a shill. People should really take note of these type of subtle propoganda, and get informed. http://www.iww.org/
You're mistaking my argument for my political stance. I am quite far on the left, thanks. The violent actors that are attracted to just about any cause do not represent the cause, but they are an easy scapegoat to be used by the opposition, and this scapegoating works.
Short of changing human nature, this is the limitation we have to work with. Every violent act in the name of some cause directly works against said cause, even if its perpetrators are themselves a minority. A single violent actor in your midst cancels out the credibility of hundreds, if not thousands, of peaceful participants.
We can whine all day about how unfair this is, but tough, this is the way public perception works. This is why as supporters of whatever cause you believe in, it's of critical importance to root out the violent elements within your group.
> "OWS are terrorists? Now I know you're a shill. People should really take note of these type of subtle propoganda, and get informed."
Jesus, go back to /r/conspiracy already. Look at my posting history, you think I get paid to write this shit? This is what I hate about talking to people like you, I express one thing you find disagreeable, but no, I can't possibly hold that opinion in good faith, I must be paid, I must be a planted agitator.
OWS aren't terrorists, but their protests around the country (outside of NYC itself, which remained relatively peaceful) were mired with rioting, looting, and violence. It made the movement completely toxic to any support from political moderates. Over time it became largely associated with crackpots and extremists, and they never gained the support of the undecided everyman. OWS died because of its violent internal elements.
You think people didn't identify with OWS? Nearly everyone I know identifies with the core complaints of OWS, but very few ever participated in their protests, because they were known to be violent, because nobody wanted to be in the same crowd as black bloc assholes smashing windows. There is a reason why MLK Jr. preached heavily for non-violence, because every window smashed, every store looted, erases the hard work of many, many more people.
> "During class warfare, your poor and disenfranchised are AT WAR with the rich and wealthy. Of course these people have no recourse for representation from the elite, nor do they have police protection."
Really? Really? That's the best you can come up with, after bringing up single-payer health care in Canada? One of the greatest (if not the greatest) achievements in Canadian history? The one that was won without a single bullet or a single bomb? The one that was hard-fought by people in the political process, by shrewd leaders?
You brought that up and now you're saying that there is no recourse other than violence? No recourse for the everyman except to take up arms?
Jesus.
> OWS aren't terrorists, but ... were mired with rioting, looting, and violence. It made the movement completely toxic to any support ... Over time it became largely associated with crackpots and extremists ... they never gained the support of the undecided everyman. OWS died because of its violent internal elements.
You're a sheep. You preach non violence and think that any protest with elements of violence as illegitimate. The main message of OWS was of solidarity, hence the whole complexity of the group. You missed that point entirely, even though you say most people you know identifies with their grievances.
So in summary, you don't believe in protests, as you don't believe in outliers or subverters as being separate from the core grievances of the whole movement. Because of this, you dismiss any movements or protests you or others may find hopeful, because others who share different philosophical underpinnings, are also involved in the narrative.
> Jesus, go back to /r/conspiracy already.
Absolutely. Here's something to mull over while you beg the government to reform itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
It's extremely easy to shout terrorist and praise pacifism and trust your government. The hard thing to do is become outcasted by sheeple like you who think this massively powerful set of institutions has your interests at heart. I'd much rather go to /r/conspiracy then be told me someone like you that terrorism is the biggest problem towards social change and not government central planning of socio-economic development....
Excerpt: "Operation Northwoods proposals included hijackings and bombings followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban government.
Several other proposals were included within Operation Northwoods, including real or simulated actions against various U.S. military and civilian targets. The plan was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, signed by Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer and sent to the Secretary of Defense."
TLRD: You need to seriously rethink your sheepest trust in institutions based from Monarchy, and governed mostly be the elite. You need to stop dismissing theories and actions against oppression as negative and opposed to progress, as that pretty much enforces the belief that the government (US specifically) isn't the one creating/causing/permitting an enormous amount of negative events globally for special interest group gains. The War on Drugs, The War on Minorities (Prison System), The War on the Internet, and The War on Terror, are all legitimized by your sheepest trust in their creators continued success....
Oh Look... : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6771306
Trust them. Be peaceful. People like me are the problem. Definitely not the ones with the money supply and army...
Most leftist terrorism, in Greece for example, was directed and controlled from within the Soviet Union, and had the goal of military conquest behind it. That is very well understood now. It had nothing to do with what Greece's populace wanted.
The irony of the article is that it attempts to use today's terrorist actions and claim them for collectivism. In fact al qaeda started by bombing soviets, because they were collectivist. They got help from the US (because collectivist systems hated religion up to two decades ago. Marx hated religion, as is very well known).
As if that wasn't proof enough you have the "arab spring" and what it was really pushing. That's pretty clear at this point. In Egypt, Lybia, ... and it wasn't collectivism. It wasn't equality. It was the very opposite of that. It was pushing an extreme view of repressive, very capitalist religion. One that espouses a slave-based economy, and a form of society that has a reputation across the planet for being by far the worst society for a slave to live under. A religion that pushes selling humans. A religion that praises trading, pillaging the earth, and all you seem to hate, to a far greater extent than our capitalist system does. 9/11 and related bombings were executed by people associated with this system, not with collectivism of any kind.
Another massive self-deception is that most of these collectivists, at least the ones discussing it in European cafes where I live, are universally part of this "elite". But they themselves are innocent, see, because they "try to help". Not by working, obviously. It "somehow" escapes their attention that most people in the cafe nextdoor, the cafe that used to be filled with car mechanics, drivers and ... and now is filled with call center employees, hate them for this. And they hate them because they can effectively do nothing and discuss collectivism all day.
To me, the article reads like another intellectual looking at society, and seeing exactly what he thought was going on all along. Like with the Egypt "revolution" for democracy. Hah ! In reality US society is fraying in hundred different small ways, mostly due to pressures coming from the outside. But the basic problem is this :
We have 7 billion people on this planet, and we only need ~1 billion or so for the economy. That 1 billion figure is dropping fast, and we've reached the point where the US's 300 million are not isolated from it any more. But you know what ? Historically, that's only strange if you look at the last 100 years. If you look at the last 1000 years, that's merely the status-quo.
"It may well be the most nonviolent movement of its size in American history, and this despite the absence of peace codes, marshals, or official peace police. In the fall, there were at least five hundred occupations, with participants representing remarkably diverse philosophies, from evangelical Christians to revolutionary anarchists, and thousands of marches and actions—and yet the most "violent" acts attributed to protesters were four of five acts of window-breaking, basically less than one might expect in the wake of one not particularly rowdy Canadian hockey game. [...] there was virtually no discussion of the first OWS-associated window-breaking in New York itself, which occurred on March 17 [...] broken by an NYPD officer, using an activist's head."
If you don't feel like reading the book, you can read this article, where Occupy anarchists were more criticized for "all this anarchist nonsense - the consensus, the sparkly fingers..." (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/20111128728...)
(I mean, one must be honest about violence within anarchist history; there exist hawkish people who call themselves anarchists, as no one owns the term. But the image of anarchist bombers is propaganda, made by hyper-violent countries which bomb all the time.)
I'm specifically referencing the events author was alluding to, since tokenizer seems to regard this statement as an unfair coloring, where in fact the specific referenced events were bombings, some of which targeted the public, which makes "terrorism" an apt label.
The media is obviously hypocritical on who they call "terrorists." (That is, they ignore the far greater terrorism on their own side.) But that aside, I clearly didn't read closely. Best to stop posting...
I am very partial to late 19th century anarchists, but 'propaganda by the deed' included both assassinations (which could be ethically justified as part of a larger war) and a small number of random acts of violence against the general public (which I see no serious ethical justification for (x)). While such acts were a fairly small part of 'Propaganda of the Deed', they are an early example of what would be later labeled terrorism (that is, NGOs using indiscriminate violence against civil populations for political ends).
For example: "February 12, 1894 – Émile Henry, intending to avenge Auguste Vaillant, sets off a bomb in Café Terminus (a café near the Gare Saint-Lazare train station in Paris), killing one and injuring twenty. During his trial, when asked why he wanted to harm so many innocent people, he declared, "There is no innocent bourgeois." This act is one of the rare exceptions to the rule that propaganda of the deed targets only specific powerful individuals. Henry is convicted and executed by guillotine on May 21." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_deed
The small number of acts of terror carried out by anarchists likely didn't give us the 40 year work week (xx), anarchists and other radicals organizing did.
x - The fact that these acts of terror were carried out in reprisal for far worse state terror is no excuse. The ends do not justify the means.
xx - The value of assassination is debatable but clearly terrorism was both counter-productive and unethically unjustifiable.
Semantically, terrorism is violence against the state/privileged public, and "the legitimate use of force" is violence by the state, to the individual/disenfranchised public.
Are poor mostly black neighborhoods not under the duress of terror from the "Stop and Frisk" police in NY? What about Operation Northwood? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Also, just because you find certain actions morally reprehensible, doesn't mean they are. I'm sure we're all missing TONS of context. Also, to quote Nietzsche:
"Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
If you can come up with a method for countering oppression that doesn't use force, but DOESN'T involve begging your oppressors, please let me in on the tactic.
Also, revolutionary anarchism is but a branch. You have many forms of anarchism. Most of which advocate peaceful coexistence without the use of force over individuals or communities.
I'd argue that dividing force into subsets of classifications is futile. You have force, you have coercion, and you have power. Anarchists inately believe that force/coercion is corrupting, which gives you a point, but many would agree that, "The war to end all wars is worth it."
So while the end may not justify the mean, The end that justifies all meaning - is something else entirely to look into.
Terrorism is what we call punching up.
Law & order what we call punching down. Stuff like locking workers inside burning buildings, using thugs, cops, and soldiers to crack labor heads, forcibly deporting undesirables.
I'm finally starting to get the hang of this. Now I am learning.
The article makes one great point thought: Many people die, INCLUDING rich people in collapses. They're either extremely confident about this time, or extremely ignorant with how revolutions and power structures usually mix.
I've characterized the New Deal as a) labor gets living wages and in return b) the plutocrats get to keep their heads.
On paper, it's the creation of the middle class in exchange for the chicken hawks profiteering from the forever war.
A small observation,a little off-topic: The author need to study a little bit more about what anarchism really are, to not get confused with terrorism; or equalizing it with the destruction of the current rule order.. this is chaos, not anarchism
Anarchism has to do with individual freedom.. the natural one we all born with, and no force can take that freedom from you.. its the ultimate freedom..
The anarchism is the most advanced form of politics(by not imposing any particular policy by the use of force), but it need a very sophisticated type of human being.. (we can find nowadays but are very few proportionally speaking).. So its not feasible in the current social reality.. (so i dont think is a good idea to try to put it to work right now :))
To get a real taste of anarchism, its imperative the know the works of Bakunin, Proudhon, Thoureau, Nietzsche, Freud and Foucault (I can even dare to say Jesus Christ was one too)
Anyone that says that anarchism is the same as blow up things and mess with "the established order" (as sampled in the Fight Club movie), dont know what they are talking about
Edit: Also the people that do awful things, and call themselves as anarchists (i guess unabomber had this image of himself) are also wrong.. and are making a diservice to the real concept, the same way people misuse the concept of "hacker"..
I just fell the need to also make justice to the concept of anarchism, the same way i would do with the concept of hacker