When dealing with the question of how to battle the social order,
                      there is no place for morality. Anyone who desires a world without
                      exploitation and domination does not share the values of the society
                      that spawned them. Thus, it is necessary to avoid getting drawn into
                      its viewpoint-the dominant viewpoint with all that implies.
                      The dominant viewpoint in the present era is that of democratic
                      dialogue. All are to come together to discuss their perspectives,
                      argue over their claims, debate their opinions and negotiate
                      compromises guaranteed to enforce the power of those who claim
                      to represent us and to disappoint all parties (except those in power)
                      equally. Isn't our democratic equality a beautiful thing?
                      Within this viewpoint, revolutionary action ceases to be activity
                      chosen by individuals in terms of their inclinations, capabilities,
                      situation and desires. Instead it must be reified into a dichotomous
                      choice given moral connotations between violence and nonviolence.
                      For anarchists, who-in theory, at least-determine their own actions
                      on their own terms, this should be a false and meaningless
                      The central aim of anarchist activity in the present world is the
                      destruction of the state, of capital and of every other institution of
                      power and authority in order to create the possibility of freedom for
                      every individual to fully realize herself as he sees fit. This is not a
                      moral principle, but simply-by definition-putting anarchy into
                      practice. And it is a violent proposition. No apologies should be
                      made about this. I am talking about the destruction of the entire
                      social order-of civilization, if you will-and such an upheaval is,
                      without question, far more violent than any hurricane or earthquake.
                      But the significant question is how each individual will act, and that,
                      for anarchists, is determined by each individual in terms of their
                      desires, dreams, capabilities and circumstances-in terms of the life
                      they are trying to create for themselves. In this light, it only makes
                      sense that anarchists would reject morality, humanism and any other
                      external value in deciding how to act. Even efficacy would be
                      rejected as an essential determinant, though, of course, one would
                      try to succeed and would put all of oneself into any self-chosen
                      activity in order to make it as strong as possible. But effectiveness is
                      not the primary question-the desire to attack the institutions of
                      domination and exploitation where one can is.
                      In this light it becomes clear that we who call ourselves anarchists
                      have no use for dealing with such questions as: "Is property
                      destruction violence or not?"; "Is this an act of legitimate
                      self-defense?" and so on. We have no reason to try to make such
                      artificial distinctions, since our actions are determined precisely by
                      our desire to attack and destroy power. These distinctions between
                      "violence" and "nonviolence" or between "legitimate self-defense"
                      and the violence of attack are based in the hypocritical morality of
                      power that serves no other purpose than to place weighted chains
                      on our ability to act.
                      Since the demonstrations against the WTO in Seattle,
                      representatives of the mass media have been looking for anarchists
                      to question about violence and property destruction. We will never
                      be able to win over the media or to be presented "fairly" through
                      them. So speaking to them on their terms, using their moral rules as
                      guidelines in determining how we speak about these matters and
                      following their protocol when we speak to them is absurd. The best
                      way to speak to the media on this question is shown by the action of
                      three Italian anarchists-Arturo, Luca and Drew-who beat up a
                      journalist who dared to invade their comrade's funeral.

Back to the Venomous Butterfly Page (on KKA)
                             Back to the Killing King Abacus Page
Hosted by www.Geocities.ws