Polemizando anarcopacifismo

Argumentos em favor do anarcopacifismo em um polêmico debate no site libertário libcom.org.

O debate todo pode ser acessdo aqui: http://libcom.org/forums/general/real-anarchy-real-pacifism-07022011#comment-469416

It's pretty impressive that war-mongering discourses and mentalities can find so much place inside libertarian* circles. Surely socialism and anarchism have a rich history of confrontation, direct resistance against repressive forces and armed uprisings, but there are also important contributions to antimilitarism in society. And by antimilitarism I mean not just the concrete opposition to military organizations such as the police and the army, but the refusal to all forms of militarization of life and society. Which means a refusal to sustain the military-industrial complex, the military hierarchy, military discipline and also military's violence-mongering discourses, including the 'us x them' mentality.

Unfortunately, it's very common the repetition of militaristic and combatant views inside libertarian circles. Which is very comprehensible, given the radical way the frequent experience of violence shape our world's view. In the most extreme forms, that's how different societal or ethnical groups victimized by a civil war tend to see the world - in terms of 'us x them'. But that's not productive. That's not libertarian - although it might inspire revolutionary feelings and initiatives, if we understand revolution as a struggle to change the power dynamics which can be conquered throuugh violent means. In fact, many revolutions in history went that way. But it isn't a guarantee of a libertarian sociability. In fact, armed takeovers frequently turns up into tyrannies. And armed struggles - although with libertarian motives - tend to stigmatize an 'enemy', reinforce military hierarchy and discipline, lead to abuses of force, stimulate disputes of power and leadership and reinforce male and militaristic cultures. Although armed takeovers have possibilitated structural and economic reforms to achieve social justice, it also reproduces important aspects of the dominant culture.

The happy will to coerce people who would think or act in a labeled 'counter-revolutionary' way is one example of jacobinism and authoritarism wich is derived from a violent revolution mentality. And it is usually justified in terms of a greater good or of a concrete or unavoiable necessity. Surely, to justify violence, people don't present it as a choice coming from the heart and mind, but as something that had to be done. We kill because the dead was a menace, and obliged us to do so. Ironically, this mechanism of rhetoric to justify an aggression is hugely employed by those who concentrate power. The 'there's no alternative' discourse is what sustain war enterprises. Or the austerity packages. Or the dictatorship of the proletariat. Or the execution of 'counter-revolutionaries'. And Brecht's 'food first, then morality' is interesting only on an artistic scenario or philosophical inquiry, as a way to visibilize the thoughts and feelings of the dominated classes. It can by no way be a justification of the removal of the ethical inquiry and the freedom of choice rationale from the political arena. Otherwise, it would just be a self-justification of aggression.

And violence is and instrument of domination, just as the whole State apparatus is. As media power is. As the psychiatric power is. It is important to have and understanding of power and dominance that approaches the complexity and malleability of the distribution of power, instead of thinking of power as a monolithic object in the hands of the dominant class. There are much more dimensions of the dominaton phenomena than just the dominant class construct. There can be oppression through violence of a proletarian father against his son, or through slut bashing of a girl non-conformed to gender stereotypes, or through institutional racism on a daily basis, or through the prejudice of the worker class against the lumpen, or through 'manicomial' a and segregative practices over the mentally ill. Oppression has to do with discourses, social practices and culture, and they are too complex to adress through a violent approach. No armed uprising will free the mentally ill, or the abandoned and marginalized drug-addicts, or the maltreated children. Or will take down male chauvisim or structural gender bias. It can only be achived through peaceful processes.

To understand violence and power we must understand class. The Peace and Conflict Studies conceptual framework defines three categories of violence: direct, structural and cultural. Direct violence is the obvious aggresion felt in the bodies. Structural violence is the violence suffered by the individuals through social and ecnomic processes that harms people preenting them to meet basic needs. Institutionalized elitism, ethnocentrism, classism, racism, sexism, adultism, nationalism, heterosexism and ageism are some examples of structural violence as proposed by Johan Galtung. Cultural violence are the discourses, ideology and hate speeches that legitimize the other types of violence. Therefore, a class analysis is an important dimension of a critic of violence, together with a critic of institutionalized violences such as the prison system.

The pacifist framework has the interesting characteristc of approaching something very concrete - violence - although on an abstract way. Ironically, some people seem to use to use the 'class' category the other way round - treating a purely abstract phenomena in a heavily concrete way, as if 'social class' is something permanently imprinted on each individual. We must approach logics, institutions, discourses and practices of domination and oppression. And it needs in-depth analysis. The social injustices aren't incarnated on some individuals or groups, it is operated through culture.

Thinking on culture and promoting libertarian ethics through peaceful processes isn't a privilege of spoiled liberal brats. That's how women - historically underprivileged under the rule of men - have changed things. Recreating a libertarian sociability on a daily basis. The radical cultural changes promoted by the feminist struggles is a great example of how radical changes are achieved through culture. And culture and sociability are free resources available to anyone - lathough nonviolent resistance do need a special discipline. The same can not be said on the violent uprising approach - historically, it is an exclusivity of the privileged fearless able-bodied males with weaponry resources and steel nerves. Not democratic.

I understand the theoretical justifications of the 'diversity of tactics. I understand that, at the heat of the moment, sometimes we seem 'forced' to act in a certain way. I understand that it seems that the government and the police simply doesn't care with the human beings. But it takes much more thought and sociability to create a libertarian community. And anarchopacifism is a successful approach to that.


*I use 'libertarian' not in the meaning of the absolute free-market ideology of libertarianism, but as a synonym of struggles for social freedom, such as anarchism, feminism or 'antimanicomial' struggle, 'cause that is the usual meaning here in Brazil.