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.

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.

Kennedy Muise

February 26, 2017

John Brown: A Justified Terrorist

            Nicole Etcheson’s work, “John Brown, Terrorist?” and Brenda Lutz and James Lutz’s work, “John Brown as guerrilla terrorist” both explore how John Brown, a well-known anti-slavery fighter, can be categorized as a terrorist and/or a guerilla fighter. Etcheson describes John Brown as a guerrilla fighter while Lutz and Lutz describe John Brown as a terrorist who ultimately wants to be a guerrilla fighter. Through these descriptions, the line between a guerrilla fighter and a terrorist is extremely blurred and needs to be clarified.

According to the US Department of Defense (DoD), terrorism is “the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological” (1). The DoD also defines insurgency as “an organized resistance movement that uses subversion, sabotage, and armed conflict to achieve its aims” in which guerrilla warfare is categorized as a “subcomponent of insurgencies” (1). Based off the DoD’s definitions, it becomes more clear that John Brown should be categorized more as a terrorist, with a rather justified goal, rather than a guerrilla fighter because of his incitation of fear within the proslavery supporters of society, his intention to cause terror, and his ideological aim to end slavery.

            As Lutz and Lutz describe, John Brown is a terrorist because he targeted specific victims. Unlike Etcheson, Lutz and Lutz contend that terrorism doesn’t have to be indiscriminate; in fact, terrorist attacks often include “a class or category of victims, not individuals, [which] is chosen in some fashion” (1043). For John Brown, this class of people included anyone who was proslavery, even if the victims themselves didn’t directly participate in armed battles. Many often think of terrorists who do not care whether they kill civilians or not. While John Brown did not intend to kill civilians indiscriminately, he did kill civilians, or noncombatants, who supported the proslavery party.

Similarly, John Brown is a terrorist because his intention was to spread terror amongst the proslavery supporters. According to Lutz and Lutz, terrorists target a specific group of people within the population so “the violence will have the desired psychological impact” (1043). Brown ultimately wanted to send the message that “any or all supporters of slavery in Kansas were in danger” (Lutz 1043). Even Etcheson states that “Brown’s intention was revenge against the proslavery party” (34).  In this way, John Brown is a terrorist because he attacked and incited fear within a category of civilians simply because they supported a particular social standard, or proslavery. John Brown wanted to be feared by the proslavery party because if the slaveholders were terrified enough, maybe they would give up on the fight.  

            Lastly, John Brown is a terrorist because he fought for an ideology. It is clear that Brown was fervently fighting to end slavery but, Lutz and Lutz contend that “the underlying issue... was the division of power between the national government and the states and individual rights” (1048). Federalism, even before the Civil War, was one major component to the anti-slavery versus proslavery movements between the Northern and the Southern States. Given this context, Brown fought for a moral, ideological, and political issue to turn the “territorial government in Kansas” into a free state (Lutz 1048-1049).  John Brown wanted to abolish slavery absolutely and he knew that compromise amongst the North and the South, or even amongst the people of Kansas, would not work to achieve that goal, leading him to use other methods, such as violence and terror, that would work.

            While Etcheson describes John Brown as a guerrilla fighter, rather than a terrorist, her description of Brown is incongruent with the definition provided by the DoD. The DoD describes insurgents and their subcomponents, guerrillas, as “an organized resistance movement” (1). Walter Laqueur, a guerrilla warfare and terrorism expert cited in Etcheson’s work, further describes guerillas as fighters who “predominantly attack the military” and who “do not generally seek to kill non-combatants” (Etcheson 32). Based on these elements, John Brown cannot be effectively categorized as a guerilla. First, John Brown was not part of any organized movement to end slavery, such as the free-staters, which was the opposing party to the proslavery party. In fact, Etcheson contends that “Brown’s ties to the free-state movement were loose” and he thought the free-state leaders were weak (33-34). Additionally, John Brown did not attack the military and as described in Lutz and Lutz previously, he attacked those who part of the proslavery movement, noncombatants included.

            While all these points describe how John Brown is not a guerrilla, Etcheson does argue a good point that Brown fought for a virtuous cause, to end slavery, which seems more characteristic to a guerilla rather than a terrorist. While Brown’s fight was noble and promoted a morally-just society, the steps he took to achieve this honorable goal are characteristic to terrorism, not insurgency or guerilla warfare. Therefore, John Brown’s actions show that he is indeed a terrorist but, he is a terrorist who is justified in his fight to abolish slavery.

Works Cited

Etcheson, Nicole. “John Brown, Terrorist?”. American Nineteenth Century History, 10:1, 29-48, 2009. Web. 24 February, 2017.

Lutz, Brenda J. and James M. Lutz. “John Brown as guerrilla terrorist”. Small Wars & Insurgencies, 25:5-6, 1039-1054, 2014. Web. 24 February, 2017.

US Department of Defense. “Insurgents vs. Guerrillas vs. Terrorists”. ProCon.org. Web. 26 February, 2017.

 

 

Piracy Blog

25 February 2017

By: AnFei Neal

Cutting Off Ties and Accountability to End Piracy

Pirates gained wealth due to colonies and were not held accountable for their terror in courts for their use of violent tactics towards non-combatants to strike fear in them to achieve their economic and political.  This terror of piracy needed to end by holding pirates accountable for their actions and cutting off their wealth.  Even before pirates fellow crewmembers were hung they had practiced terror; Pirates “used terror to accomplish their aims: to protect property, to punish, those who resisted its law, to take vengeance against those they considered their enemies, and to instill fear” (Rediker 5).  Through terror, pirates would obtain money, punish anyone who opposed them, took vengeance against their enemies, and instilled fear to all who resisted them no matter if they were merchants, other sailors, or officials (Rediker 5).  In the 1700s piracy continued once the Spanish Succession ended but was no longer in the name of the King (Rediker 6).  Matters soon escalated and pirates began to wreak havoc under no name even though they were no longer employed (Rediker 6).  To stop pirates, England gave pardons, but many pirates did not honor them and took them as jokes and ripped them up.  Extreme measures were taken and violence escalated by both sides as England began to retaliate with violence and hangings.  This vicious cycle needed to cease.  The problem was that “Terror bred counterterror – tit for tat” (Rediker 13). Terror causes a vicious cycle amongst both sides and this cycle needed to end but could only be ended by stopping piracy.

To end the Golden Age of Piracy (1650-1730) several measures needed to be taken such as holding pirates accountability for their actions in courts and gaining direct control over the colonies.  Before the English courts were able to put pirates on trial, pirates would only be tried in the colonial courts.  The problem with this was that the jury members would have an underlying motive of wanting to not holding pirates accountable because they had economic trade ties with them.  As English courts were established pirates were charged more than acquitted like in local colonial courts that had friendly juries (Shirk 14).  This establishment of English courts “reflects a deeper change to control colonial policy toward pirates” (Shirk 14).  Juries began to become more unbiased in favoring those who they did trade with once pirates could be held on trial in English courts instead of colonial courts. With the ability for England to hold pirates on trial the trials became fair in the sense that the juries no longer had an economic tie.  England began to have more control over how the colonies viewed and handled piracy as “Governors were appointed who complied with British policy on piracy, and those who did not were replaced” (Shirk 14).  These governors were to hold pirates accountable, and the control that England had over colonies became more direct (Shirk 15).  This shift allowed England to gain more direct control over piracy and hold pirates accountable for their actions.

The wealth of pirates flourished with the triangular trade, which allowed piracy to grow rapidly.   The triangular trade was between African slaves being shipped to North America to do manual labor of picking sugar and tobacco which would then be shipped to Europe and from there textiles, rum, and other manufactured foods would be returned to Africa. The amount of wealth present within the triangular trade made it a desired area for pirates to loot.  Pirates were only successful due to the wealth they received from the goods to the new world’s colonies and “defeating piracy meant more than applying force and a stern judicial hand.  It meant giving the pirate[s] nowhere to go (Shirk15).  The key to stopping the money pirates gained was to cut off trade routes and ports to the colonies.  These terrorists needed to be punished through the courts and held accountable for their actions as well as losing their wealth from colonies by closing ports for trade to end piracy.

Bibliography

Rediker, Marcus. Villains of all nations: Atlantic pirates in the golden age. Verso, 2004.

Shirk, Mark. "“Bringing the State Back In” to the Empire Turn: Piracy and the Layered

Sovereignty of the Eighteenth Century Atlantic." International Studies Review (2016): viw029.

What Is Terrorism?

Wendy Lucas

February 7, 2017

POL 357 - Global Politics of Terrorism

Terrorism Versus Violent Acts

“U.S. President George W. Bush declared that ‘our war on terror begins with al-Qaida, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated’ (State Department 2002a:i)“ (Tilly 2004), but it is currently 2017, and we, as a nation and global community, have yet to establish a single definition for the word terrorism. It seems that the term has been open to interpretation, and until there is a clear definition of terrorism that is universally confirmed and accepted, it will be difficult to classify violent acts as terrorism. The word is severely overused, and this is because, as previously mentioned, it is a word without a concrete, universal definition. Because it has been overly used, its value has been diminished. We, as a society, have been desensitized to its meaning. According to Lisa Stampnitzky, in her work called Disciplining terror: how experts invented “terrorism”, we have not been able to formulate a universal definition of the word “terrorism”, and in her opinion, we never will be able to do so. Terrorism is in the eye of the beholder, and we need to reflect and take into consideration the perspective in which the person who is identifying the act of terrorism is coming from. This is a crucial part of judging whether or not it is true terrorism.        

Terrorism is clearly something that involves terror. It may seem that it is obvious whether an act is an act of terrorism or not, based on the intention and the circumstances in which the act was committed, but when taking a closer look at the event, the lines become blurrier than anticipated.  But despite the confusion and gray area, educated researchers and writers have been able to produce a definition that strongly represents what terrorism is, from their perspective.

In “Terror, Terrorism, Terrorists”, Charles Tilly categorizes terrorism as a tactic. It is purely a means to an end, and the end is a political, ideological, or religious, goal. If terrorism is simply a violent tactic, and a means to an end, then a terrorist is someone who is using that tactic to accomplish his or her political, ideological, or religious objective. An important factor to remember is that the event must be politically, religiously, or ideologically related or driven. In addition, the purpose of the violent event is usually to implement fear into a larger audience. Even with these specific guidelines, “terrorism” is a difficult term to define.

As Laura Clarke stated in her article, “Why has Defining Terrorism Proved so Difficult?”, “definitions find their use in application”. Therefore, the definition may vary depending on what situation it is being applied to. It is easy to say that terrorism is simply something that someone uses to accomplish a certain political goal. It is equally as easy to say that the purpose is to instill fear in a larger audience of spectators, rather than just the few victims. However, it becomes trickier to define such a term when you dissect each act independently. From the point of view of the victims, the act of 9/11, committed by Al Qaeda, is most definitely a violent act of terrorism. From the opposite point of view, however, this act was simply just a strategy that was used to further the group’s progress towards their religious goal. Al Qaeda “holds the goal of ‘seeking the violent transformation of an irremediably sinful and unjust world’” (Clarke). Osama bin Laden, the former leadership figure within the radical terrorist group, refers to the massacre of Westerners as ‘an individual duty for every Muslim,’[13]. (Clarke).

Using terror as a tactic to reach a certain goal, whether it be political, ideological, economic, or religious, is not a new strategy. If you look back into history, piracy was referred to as “terrorism of the sea”.  Pirates used violent actions to achieve their economic goals, which was to collect booty and riches. Piracy went through phases. It was legal when it was benefitting historical England, but then the law changed, and piracy was suddenly an illegal act. The legality of a violent act is unrelated to whether it should be referred to as terrorism, or as just another act of violence. For example, Kim Jong-Un uses terrorism as a tactic towards civilians, but in his country, he has deemed it legal, however, it is still terrorism. If his tactics were used within the United States, however, it would be viewed as illegal, and still be recognized, by some, as terrorism.

 The nature of the word “terrorism” is troublesome and problematic because it is nearly impossible to produce or invent a clear, and universally agreed-upon definition. To create a mutual understanding of the word is impractical when each terrorist act that occurs has a different set of margins and rules. How do we set guidelines for a word that is an umbrella for so many different and diversely violent acts? There are far too many cases of “terrorism” that are so different from each other and have such different natures, and this makes it impossible for anyone to attach a solid definition or a single identity to the word. If a single definition was created, there would be more specifics. With every new act of terror, exceptions to the rules and definition would come about. There would be more technicalities and specifics to be aware of and to consider.

In conclusion, there are several basic rules and guidelines that are attached to using the term terrorism. It is an obviously an act that immensely involves terror. The purpose of the act is to instill fear in an audience that involves others than just the victims. The act must be simply a tactic to accomplish a goal, and that goal must be economic, political, ideological, or religious. Whether or not the event is an act of terrorism is independent to the legality of the act. The intention of the act is important, but is not enough to classify the act into the category of terrorism. These circumstances and details are crucial to remember, but it is not only limited to those. There will never be exact perimeters of what can and cannot be labeled as terrorism, and therefore, we cannot confidently and wholeheartedly define an event as an act of terrorism.

                                                                      Works Cited

Clarke, Laura. "Why Has Defining Terrorism Proved so Difficult?" E-International Relations.   

            N.p., 14 May 2009. Web. 06 Feb. 2017.

Stampnitzky, Lisa. “Disciplining terror: how experts invented ‘terrorism’” Cambridge

University Press. (2013).

Tilly, Charles. “Terror, Terrorism, Terrorists” Sociological Theory, Vol. 22, No. 1, Theories of       

            Terrorism: A Symposium. (Mar., 2004).