Home › Blogs › Robert Whitlock's blog

Anarchy does not equal Peace

Sun, 07/27/2008 - 4:18pm — Robert Whitlock
Anarchy does not equal peace

Hays Ave NW, Olympia WA

When I first saw this sign from a distance, I thought it was saying "Anarchy does not equal" with an upward pointing arrow, as in: Anarchy does not equal this house going up. But alas, I was mistaken upon initial analysis.

Anarchy does not equal peace. That's probably true. But why the sign? Does it help the Anarchist's cause?

I believe there is hope for peace in Anarchy. The current system, hierarchical as it is, has proven itself a failure in terms of achieving the supposed goals of peace and prosperity. Yes. There is prosperity for those at the top of the ladder - and the illusion of peace. But it is only an illusion. The world is suffering. Environmental degradation, resource and labor exploitation, poverty and disease, these are some of the major problems that we face as a species today.

Humanity is behaving like a parasite.

Anarchy does not equal peace. What does equal peace? Peace equals peace. Peace has no equal. But it is the opinion of this epistemologer that Anarchy, as it might be pursued in an altruistic, respectful, cooperative and community oriented way, holds great promise for peace.

I also believe that an altruistic Anarchical society can be attained via purely nonviolent means. After all, it is the means that create the ends.

Violent means equal violent ends.

Nonviolent means equal nonviolent ends.

But what of it anyway, the joy is in the journey not the destination. Right?

Comments

Sun, 07/27/2008 - 5:20pm — Robert Whitlock

responding to questions

Okay. So I'll respond to my own question!

First, I think it is important to say that the current system of government, corporate capitalism (disguised as representative democracy), does not equal peace.

So who would write a graffiti tag expressing the message that anarchy does not equal peace? It seems to be that it is either an angry anarchist, or perhaps even a corporatist who is trying to discredit anarchism.




—




Mon, 07/28/2008 - 8:41am — This is my Face

Peace is not a principle of (A)

There are some of us who are being oppressed that do not predict the terms of our liberation to be peaceful.

Dead Prez once said, "I'm terrified of peace, because peace means shut-up and suffer."

This I believe, however, I'm not exactly sure what it has to do with Anarchy as a social, political, economic, philosophy.
I think it is strange how the philosophy of anarchy gets mixed up with the theory and practice of revolution.

Right now in our world 1% of the population owns 80% of the wealth and in the united states 1% of the population owns 40% of the nations wealth; clearly this injustice must be corrected. How we get from point A to point B is our revolution; what point B becomes is up to all of us.

I like the idea of peace, but you cannot have peace without justice. In order to live in a peaceful world we must first remove from power all those who perpetuate any form of inequality (economic-inequality, racial-inequality, gender-inequality...ect.) When we have created this newfound justice, with it's roots in equality, we will discover that we do not need to work towards peace for peace will be upon us.

I think that peace and anarchy are compatible ideas, I just think it is going to take a lot of time. Even if we had an anarchist revolution tomorrow, how long would it take us to unlearn the things we have been taught?
How long would it take to unlearn sexism, or homophobia? How long would it take to unlearn racism? Do you think rape would just magically stop?
Can a society ever be called peaceful when rape is a constant reality? Right now in this country 1 in every 6 wimmin has been sexually assulted. Over 2/3 of those rapists are someone the victim knows. So rape isn't something that is being done by a handful of deranged individuals, it is all men, taught to us through this culture. We can get together collectively and cast of our rulers, but how do we resolve our much deeper problems?


maybe the tag should say:

(A)- even after capitalism is gone we're gonna have a lot of shit to fix.
Sun, 07/27/2008 - 8:10pm — DrewHendricks

Anarchy

While anarchy has always (in my own conversations with US anarchists) been defined as society in the absence of coercive authority, it does not equate with peaceful or non-confrontational means of ending the current coercive authorities. I've met many, many revolutionaries who are willing to use violence in the near term to prevent or stop much larger violence in the long term. Some of those revolutionaries were anarchists, though to be precise they would chafe at the term "revolutionary" since it might imply they would slide into the driver's seat of power themselves.

Revolutionary is (for me) simply the term for a person who understands that force will be needed to oppose coercive authorities who support the current regime / system. By that limited definition, most anarchists are revolutionaries (opposed to the current system of authority and generally willing to oppose it by using more than words.) But by that limited definition, even the Bush regime is revolutionary. They used violence against the existing legal order and US citizens to effect changes to the legal system which they thought would serve them better. (10/01 Anthrax attacks, 9/11/01 WTC 1, WTC 2, WTC 7, Shanksville, extraordinary renditions - kidnapping -, torture, warrant-less wiretapping, etc)

Sun, 07/27/2008 - 11:32pm — jlw

Dispossessed

Remember that night you and Diana and I all ended up at QB? Well, you mentioned you were reading Dispossessed, and I was intrigued, and now I am reading it... It's interesting to imagine a nonpropertarian, anarchic planet. I'm really enjoying the book. Thanks!
Tue, 07/29/2008 - 12:48pm — Robert Whitlock

The Dispossessed

Yes, it's a great book. I hope to read more by Ursula K. LeGuin.




—




Mon, 07/28/2008 - 9:38am — a.future.with.n...

I recommend...

I recommend you read the book Pacifism as Pathology by Ward Churchill. Here is a review.

"This extraordinarily important book cuts to the heart of one of the central reasons movements to bring about social and environmental justice always fail. The fundamental question here is: is violence ever an acceptable tool to help bring about social change? This is probably the most important question of our time, yet so often discussions around it fall into cliches and magical thinking: that somehow if we are merely good and nice enough people, the state will stop using its violence to exploit us all. Would that this were true."-Derrick Jensen, author of Endgame, from the introduction. Pacifism, the ideology of nonviolent political resistance, has been the norm among mainstream North American progressive groups for decades. But to what end? Ward Churchill challenges the pacifist movement's heralded victories-Gandhi in India, 1960s antiwar activists, even Martin Luther King's civil rights movement-suggesting that their success was in spite of, rather than because of, their nonviolent tactics. Pacifism as Pathology was written as a response not only to Churchill's frustration with his own activist experience, but also to a debate raging in the activist and academic communities. He argues that pacifism is in many ways counterrevolutionary; that it defends the status quo, and doesn't lead to social change. In these times of upheaval and global protest, this is a vital and extremely relevant book. Ward Churchill is a prolific writer and lecturer, having authored, co-authored, or edited over twenty books. He is a member of the leadership council of Colorado AIM (American Indian Movement). 

Mon, 07/28/2008 - 12:06pm — Keith Hufnagel

Secondary Statement

So here is where I express myself in hopes of neutrality that advocates growth and I would like to express these thoughts. Anarchy is a crystallization of non growth like the deadly web that spiders weave around prey in order to stop the process of change which might precipitate escape. On one end of the spectrum lies South America with the closest thing to anarchy that I can find, and on the other end lies China with large government influence and control in society. There is a stark difference in the standard of living in these two places. Beyond that I am not sure what to think. Maybe somebody can elaborate. Perhaps the graffiti means that Anarcist will not stop the fight until their ideal is realized, or, perhaps, it is a situation where, while attempting to make one statement, the intended statement actuated a more accurate secondary statement.
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 3:55pm — This is my Face

What does this message mean?

"Perhaps the graffiti means that Anarcist will not stop the fight until their ideal is realized." That's it. No justice no peace. And if you want a good example of an anarchist society you should look into Spain during the spanish civil war (1936-1939) There was an Anarchist society there for four years. It was pretty awesome.
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 8:16pm — wilson

I wouldnt worry to much

I wouldnt worry to much about them. They usually go away when real life slaps them in the face.
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 8:20pm — a.future.with.n...

Yup.

Spoken like a true John Wayne.
Tue, 07/29/2008 - 4:35pm — wilson

I like to think of myself as

I like to think of myself as more of a George Bailey than John Wayne. Maybe even a sprinkle of Barney Fife.
Tue, 07/29/2008 - 5:34pm — Real Olympian Hero

I think he's right on.

Whoever did this will be done with college eventually and they'll go away, no doubt to be replaced by another 19 year old eager to earn anarchy points.

Am I wrong? Seriously, am I? Was this the work of a well read, well seasoned social justice activist? If so, I fear the movement may be in trouble.

—

"Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed." You know who you are, thanks for helping me succeed.