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

Section Chief of the FBI stated that the “ALF/ELF is at the top of my list as far as
domestic terrorism issues to address, and I can ensure the members here that this issue
will be addressed” (Jarboe 2002, p. 49). Just prior to Jarboe's comments to the
Congressional committee, Craig Rosebaugh, former press officer of the ELF was
questioned. Rosebaugh not only had been subpoenaed, but also took the 5 th amendment
and refused to answer questions 54 times, not answering a single question directed at him
regarding the ELF. It was a performance in true anarchist fashion—refusing to
acknowledge the ability of the State to gather intelligence from or on “its” citizens.
To their credit, later in the FBI's report (1999), they bring up the core question: is this
“vandalism or terrorism” (p. 21)? But, since these “special interest” organizations
(curiously not described as “left-wing”) holds such a prominent place in the report, I will
let the reader guess how the FBI answers its own rhetorical question. The report goes on
to state: “Anarchists and extremist socialist groups—many of which have an international
presence—also represent a latent but potential terrorist threat in the United States” (FBI
1999, p. 19). In another report, Reclaim the Streets and Carnival Against Capitalism are
deemed “terrorist” organizations (CITE??). This demonstrates the inherent flexibility in
the US definition for “terrorism”—or as Noam Chomsky puts it, “it's terrorism if they do
it to us, but not if we do it to them” (GET EXACT QUOTE AND CITE).
US foreign policy and US military power is by far the most violent force operating in the
world today. The skeptical (or the naïve), would benefit from reading Blum's startling and
well-researched tome (1995) on the subject of US military and CIA interventions since
WWII. By Blum's analysis, the US “intervened” militarily roughly 168 times prior to
WWII (Blum 1995, pp. 444-452). Churchill (2003) also puts together a dizzying
collection of US military actions (domestic and foreign) in his chapter entitled “That
'Most Peace-Loving of Nations'” (Churchill 2003, pp. 43-79). The quantity of episodes is
shocking and the methods are shameful, particularly when done by a supposedly
“democracy-loving” country. Anarchists, of course, argue that states (of any size) cannot
be democracy-loving, since they embody the consolidation of political power in the hands
of the few and obscure the rest in tides of bureaucracy. Thus, states are by their very
nature violent institutions, and the romanticization of their behavior is little but selfdelusion.
Thus, anarchists universally oppose militarism. (See Goldman's “Patriotism”) But not
have always been opposed; Kropotkin is a key example (and one of the few) of an
anarchist supporting WWI, much to the chagrin of many of his anarchist comrades
(Glassgold 2001), which most termed as a war amongst imperialist powers.
Anarchists also strongly believe in self-defense, and thus supported the anarchists in the
Spanish Civil War against the fascists and Stalinists. Many also vocally support the
Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional (EZLN). Anarchist people of color (APOC)
have argued the benefits of some kinds of nationalism for self-liberation, and see this as a
form of self-defense. As such, anarchists have historically defended (despite
philosophical or applied short-comings) the actions of self-defense by recent liberation
movements within the US, such as the American Indian Movement (AIM), the Black
Panther Party (BPP), and the Puerto Rican independence movement (the Puertoriquenos
[ Williams 93 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]