Jk Real Reaction Post #1

Bobby Orokos

Reaction Post #1

Anarchist Terrorism

The end of the 18th and throughout the 19th centuries, the world was globally affected when the death of world leaders became common as a result of anarchist terrorism.  After hearing about the Propaganda of the Deed and what it stood for, the actions anarchists took in order to achieve their goal of governmental dissolvement can be interpreted as terrorism.  Anarchists hoping to achieve their political goal of disbanding governments resorted to violence instead of using governmental institutions to achieve a political agenda, as it was one of the only options available to inspire change without the help of governmental institutions.

One thing I always think about when analyzing anarchists is that they wanted political change, but did not want to resort to governmental institutions to achieve that change, leaving violence and revolution as one of the only options to take.  In the core of their argument, anarchists wanted change for the working class, so they could not be oppressed by a government anymore.  Filling supports with the mindset that government was an evil entity that needed to be crushed obviously would spark some radicalism, and followers of anarchism would take action into their own hands.  The anarchists had a goal, but the means in which they used to achieve that goal was not the best.  Being that they could not use governmental institutions to implement change, as government would never willingly disband, anarchists reached a dilemma on how change could be implemented.  In my criminological theory class, we learned about how the stress applied when goals cannot be achieved often leads to an increase in the likelihood of criminal activity.  Also in class, we discussed how with both oppression towards the anarchist cause and lack of options, the anarchist rationality accepted violence as a solution and means to achieve their goals.  In this case, anarchists could not achieve their goals through conventional means, and therefore resorted to another way of reaching their agenda: violence and fear.  The manipulation of fear and targeting non-combatant targets justifies the title of “terrorism” when applied to anarchists who are responsible for the deaths of world leaders and the fear instilled in people afterwards.

In “Anarchism and Outrage” by Charlotte M. Wilson, he outlines that anarchists are good in human nature.  He writes, “And in fact, the genuine Anarchist looks with sheer terror upon every destruction, every mutilation of a human being, physical or moral” (Wilson, 1893, p. 4).  However, the only way anarchists saw their goal achievable was through the use of violence.  Despite their optimistic view of human nature in the State of Nature as John Locke describes, it is a violent transition to revert back into the State of Nature.  However, similarly to communism, anarchism sounded like a pretty solid theory, but the implementation of an anarchist society could hold many flaws as the communist regimes did, therefore making anarchism risky in both transition and implementation.

Anarchist terrorists who assassinated world leaders and manipulated public opinion through the tactic of invoking fear and sparking violence around the globe are guilty of using acts of terrorism.  However, anarchist terrorists also did not have many other options when it came to invoking political change, as the use of governmental institutions to inspire change would be hypocritical of their goals of creating a society without governmental structures.  Although difficult to discover, had anarchist theorists and followers found a different way to attempt to create an anarchist society without the use of violence or manipulation of the public’s fears, anarchists most likely would not have received the derogatory label of “terrorists”, but rather a failed governmental ideology.