Sociology of the Anarchists - Gozips.uakron.edu - The University of ...

demonstrator-violence, but I'm not sure. (date)
Smith (2001), writing in a premiere social movement journal called Mobilization, mars
her otherwise great article by conflating the property destruction and [police] violence in
Seattle: “Anarchist groups... did not use violence first” (p. 13, my emphasis). She would
have been right in saying that anarchists did not act first to provoke the police violence
with property destruction.
It is, unfortunately, not just a failure of liberal scholarship to see the distinction, but of the
activist Left, too. This is born out by the intense debates after “Seattle” amongst those
active in the anti-corporate-globalization movement, and even those at its periphery,
apparently hell-bent on sanitizing and controlling it.
Plainly put, anarchists define violence as harm caused towards people, and—unless glass
windows or brick walls are actually human beings—property destruction is not (in and of
itself) violent. Of course, it can be reckless, indirectly violent, a poor tactic, and so forth.
But, as anarchist Chuck0 states: “ [find Chuck0 quote re: property destruction] “.
Thus, by associating property destruction with violence, property is elevated to the level
of human beings. By such logic, smashing a window would be as violent as smashing
someone's face, or spray painting a wall as violent as etching words into someone's skin
with a razor blade. Proudhon, the first “anarchist”, declared that property itself was theft,
thus claiming that property was in fact also a form of violence, since one can possess it to
the detriment of another.
The ACME Collective (part of the Seattle “N30” black bloc), clarified this difference in a
communique:
Private property should be distinguished from personal
property. The latter is based upon use while the former is
based upon trade. The premise of personal property is that
each of us has what s/he needs. The premise of private
property is that each of us has something that someone else
needs or wants. In a society based on private property
rights, those who are able to accrue more of what others
need or want have greater power. By extension, they wield
greater control over what others perceive as needs and
desires, usually in the interest of increasing profit to
themselves. (ACME Collective 1999)
It is also worth noting, in passing, the failure of liberals (let alone the media) to
understand what the black bloc was (a group? a sect? a tribe from Eugene, Oregon?) and
that it was not a new tactic, but had been used for many years in the US and in Europe.
strong anarchist principles, as indicated in its organizational principles, which include a rejection of
capitalism/imperialism/feudalism and all other forms of domination, a belief in direct action and civil
disobedience, and an organizational philosophy based on decentralization and autonomy. See Routledge
(2003) for more on multi-scalar grassroots globalization networks. Also, see Ford (1999) for a
pre-“Seattle” take on the PGA, contrasted with the NGO “insider” symposium on environment and
sustainable development.
[ Williams 90 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]