Comments on: On using questionable tactics in struggle

By: Authority from your enemies does not justify Authority coming from you. | A Division by Zer0

Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:43:52 +0000

[...] has discussions on if marginalized groups are human[3], to linking to my own post about questionable tactics and claiming that I “defend the rights of [...]

By: Pseudo-Anarchists as Liberal Counter-Revolutionaries | Angry Marxists

Pseudo-Anarchists as Liberal Counter-Revolutionaries | Angry Marxists — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 01:55:41 +0000

[...] I could call on to prove my point, I believe the following get to the heart of the issue. On his own blog, dbzer0 defends the rights of the fascist British Nationalist Party leader David Irving. [...]

By: How would anarchists deal with problems in contemporary society? | A Division by Zer0

Sat, 30 Jan 2010 20:58:53 +0000

[...] create an authoritarian society. Changing the world via violence, will lead to a violent society. Using “bad” tactics, will lead to “bad” society. And as naturally follows, using the right tactics, will lead to the right kind of societal [...]

By: db0

db0 — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:36:01 +0000

The point that I was trying to make is that there are limits to the actions one should take against those they consider their enemies in order to come out on top. Intelligence gathering is not something that we wish to discourage but hacking is. The way I think about it is: Would you be angered tomorrow if you're found that fascists had hacked your inbox and published all your emails (personal or not) in the WWW? I'm guessing you would not say "fair play chum" to such an event happening, and that is because you consider such an act condemnable regardless of who is doing it. Sure, you may expect fascists to take such acts because they are fascist scum but the point is that we're trying to bring about a world that is different from theirs.

It may of course be argued that violating the privacy of others is warranted when they are scum, but the problem about words like "scum" is that they are ambiguous enough that can easily be sticked on anyone else easily. This is what the Bolsheviks found out soon after they got into power and set about purging the positions of power from any "counter-revolutionaries" by any means necessary. Soon enough those accusations were turned against even the most loyal among them.

By: stingray300k

stingray300k — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:36:52 +0000

That's what Gandhi said!

By: SubvrtAParadigm

SubvrtAParadigm — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:37:04 +0000

Right, but then couldn't your perceived enemy do the same to you equally in "good conscience" because they feel what you are doing is wrong? It's circular.

By: Royce Christian

Royce Christian — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:27:00 +0000

I do think though, that there is a tipping point where such methods may be justified. Take Russia or even Athens as an example where fascist groups are prominent and are even willing to murder the opposition. When there is open hostility, assaults and murder/attempted murders, Anarchists can only respond to such actions with violence or perish. Mutual Aid and publishing material that refutes the positions of such groups will work, but intelligence gathering by hacking a fascists inbox and then confronting them wouldn't be an act performed agianst good conscience.

By: Anon73

Anon73 — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:00:33 +0000

"I understand and wholly agree with the sentiment to counter fascist, racist, sexist and all other similar mentalities but I also understand that the means we use to do so will colour the ends we achieve and will affect our chances to achieve them in the first place."

This is why I like your blog. You're the first communist I've ever read who had a conscience. Means always color the ends they are meant to achieve, as many of the initial admirers of Bolshevism discovered. Keep up the great analysis.

By: SubvrtAParadigm

SubvrtAParadigm — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:07:56 +0000

This was great. I've explained this very idea to many people over the years. I don't know if it's gotten through at all, but I like the explanation you've given about how it's difficult to measure the effectiveness of these acts.

Unfortunately, presently it feels as though it's becoming increasingly difficult to adhere to the golden rule in such a "Heads will roll!" environment. : \\