Anarchists are often speaking to outsiders in defense of why we accept, in fact why we need, violence, property damage, illegality and riots.
When we need to constantly defend something, it becomes difficult to question parts of it sincerely within our own ranks. So people who are too stuck in this conversation are probably gonna give me some flack for questioning violence at all. But here’s the thing:
When we talk about how violence is necessary, we need to not forget to question ourselves on whether it is our best option in a given situation and whether we are getting any closer to our goals. To ask ourselves not just whether we have the right but also whether we are achieving change.
Otherwise we’re just smashing McDonalds windows for fun, and it that’s your thing you have my blessing, but personally I’m here for changing shit and I’d rather not waste my time, energy and safety for something that isn’t changing the world.
Really
Natasha Lennard says it best here:
We don’t necessarily achieve more with property damage than a larger, more subdued rally achieves. In every case, the standard of achievement depends on the aims of the action, and all of us are far from creating the rupture we want to see in the world. One broken window, or a hundred, is not victory. But nor is over half a million people rallying on the National Mall. Both gain potency only if they are perceived as a threat by those in and around power. And neither action will appear threatening unless followed up again and again with unrelenting force, in a multitude of directions.
In a situation where we are constantly defending violence to outsiders, we need to learn to switch from defence mode to analysis mode and to analyse the effectiveness our own methods as critically as we analyse other movements, and to question with every plan we make: is this the plan that works best towards forcing the change we want to see in the world?
And, you know, to not dismiss anarchists who ask those questions.
QueerAnarchism 