This puts some puzzle pieces in place for me in a startling way. Questions: 1) Do you have favourite sources on this question? 2) How do you feel about this argument? /end
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Darby ran the same rap as Gelderloos re: violence/nonviolence. He eroded organizations with his macho posturing, and was then outed as a rat who entrapped his followers.
That's interesting, and that's a great site, thx. Gelderloos only glosses on machismo. Is your general take that anti-pacificism in anarchist movements has been so corrupted by misogynist power-seeking that it can't provide a solid prefigurative vision?
Gelderloos's book and Darby emerged in the period of peak frustration at GW Bush admin, Iraq, and Katrina. But they didn't address root cause, only (mis)diagnosed superficial tactical problems --and their solution got people charged as terrorists for making molotovs.
The Gelderloos-influenced insurrectionary anarchists of the late 00's early 10's were similar. Outside of OWS, they were men doing self-indulgent macho posturing.
They were also lousy with rapists, which was bad in itself and awful in making the scene paranoid.
Thx this is really helpful. Head is spinning a bit with "anarchists of the late 00's early 10's" as a phrase that seemingly describes old history. How do you feel about the historical analysis wrt proposed laundering of militancy out of change movements?
Nonviolent resistance by non-white people was vital to securing Indian independence, American Civil Rights, and various other victories. It was often based in religious values which motivated and sustained resistance in the face of danger and loss. Many white people were converted by it to the cause
That's the argument I grew up with almost exclusively, mainly because the function of violent resistance is assiduously scrubbed from the record. So at this point I'm interested in the latter.
Functions are a good way to think about it. Malcolm couldn’t agitate without King etc proving a middle road option. King etc gained leverage by having Malcolm out there. It’s a fantasy to imagine a consolidated, militant, and successful Left. Lack of nonviolence reduces options and allies.
"It’s a fantasy to imagine a consolidated, militant, and successful Left. Lack of nonviolence reduces options and allies." You're arguing with yourself. This is not in the OP.
Obviously there is a non-white pacificism, but there's also Cesaire and Fanon, right?
Left writers are usually but not always poor at understanding religious people, and poor at understanding how religion has gained them allies they otherwise would not have had. They imagine that without nonviolence as an ideological option those people would join their own not-nonviolent approach.
There is little evidence to support this fantasy. Without nonviolence in the non-white activists converting significant numbers of white people, it is unlikely the same people would instead take up arms and support those who do. Rather, net fewer supporters of non-white rights is more likely.
Comments
Darby ran the same rap as Gelderloos re: violence/nonviolence. He eroded organizations with his macho posturing, and was then outed as a rat who entrapped his followers.
It was Custerism.
Darby's victims were both white men in their early 20's.
An ELF cell was destroyed by an FBI honeypot who took advantage of a guy too horny to ask why the honeypot had so much money.
They were also lousy with rapists, which was bad in itself and awful in making the scene paranoid.
Obviously there is a non-white pacificism, but there's also Cesaire and Fanon, right?