Let’s keep reminding people that any separation between a ‘politics of love’ and a ‘politics of hate’ is ridiculous.
Any ‘hate’ we have can as easily be rephrased as a form of love. Our hatred of fascists is motivated by our love of the people fascists would destroy if they ever came to power. Our hatred of cops is motivated by our love of the people they kill. Our hatred of politicians is motivated by our love of the people whose lives they destroy.
And you can’t make a separation between a ‘politics of care’ and a ‘politics of conflict’ either, as I’ve seen people do when all their arguments for non-violence fell short.
If you want to care for people, you have to be prepared to defend them. Punching fascists so they won’t be a dangerous factor on the street is an act of care. Rioting after a police shooting so the city will have a strong incentive to ‘prevent new incidents’ is an act of care.
A lot of the original arguments of non-violence have been analyzed, tested and rejected a thousand times, so instead of starting and losing the debate all over again, non-violent activists adopt a language of emotion, saying theirs is a ‘politics of love’ or a politics of care’. Don’t let them. Their unwillingness to physically fight for justice is not morally superior in the slightest.
QueerAnarchism 