Anarchism vs Violence

Anarchism vs Violence

Anarchism, in the 1800s, was a political movement to abolish all sorts of government, and although violence did occur within the movement, does this mean that violence and anarchism indefinitely go hand in hand? At the time, this was the mindset of the common person. When people heard the word “anarchism”, they associated it with violence and terror. According to the reading “Anarchism and Outrage”, however, anarchism is independent to violence and terror. This piece of reading was anonymously written by an anarchist, and the opinion of the anarchist, himself, is that violence is not necessary to anarchism. The piece of writing argues that the violence and terror often happen because of “half desperate men”. Sheer desperation is what brings forth violence, not just in anarchism, but in an infinite amount of situations.

            According to the anarchist, anarchism, itself, is a peaceful movement. It does not require or promote violent acts. In fact, the theory of anarchism loathes violent things, including war, prison, execution, etc. Its main belief is that authority is unnatural to man, and that the concept of man over man is an evil one. The anarchist believes that the blame for violence should not be put on the anarchist movement, but instead on the government and society.

            I agree that the theory of anarchism is peaceful, and does not promote or condone violence, however, when put into practice, violence evidently sprouts. In theory, and on paper, anarchism’s goal and mission seems peaceful and productive, but history has proven over and over that whether it be intentional or not, violence and anarchism are intertwined and coexist intensely. Part of the reason for this, I believe, is that it is simply too late to uproot the kind of society that has taken humans centuries upon centuries to build. It is impossible to get everyone on board the idea that getting rid of such a prominent system, like government, is a beneficial strategy.

In addition, I think the killing of innocent civilians was unnecessary, and proves that violence does go along with anarchism. I understand that in the eyes of an anarchist, the common person was contributing to government, and therefore was against the anarchist movement, but it is irrational to kill masses of people, while not knowing where their political views stand. I do see the other side of this, however. For example, imagine you are someone who cares about the planet immensely. When possible, you recycle everything and anything that is able to be recycled.  Imagine you go to the Hill and see a peer of yours throw away a “to-go” container. In your mind you may judge them and pin them as someone who is destroying the planet. At the same time, however, you do not know where they stand on the issue. Although I can see the point of view of the anarchist, I still believe it is completely irrational because killing lives is obviously far more serious than throwing away a to-go container.

Overall, I agree with the anonymous anarchist that anarchism, itself, is not pro-violence, but I do believe that when put into practice, anarchism leaves a lot of room for the violent people to strike.