Why do some anarchists downplay or deny contemporary anarchist violence when arguing with liberals?

Question

On numerous occasions I have watched anarchists make the claim that contemporary anarchists haven't physically attacked, severely injured, and killed people. That smashing windows and property destruction is the extent of anarchist violence. Then bring up all of the social work anarchists are involved with that isn't violent. This is usually in the context of liberals trying to claim that anarchism is a violent ideology (or something to that extent). This just isn't true though. Aside from the various underground groups, there's all sorts of examples: mace-pies, antifa stuff (and the asshole from BANA), suspected sexual predators or snitches, Bash Back!, etc. So why lie about it?

To some extent, anarchism as a personal ethic is violent because it puts the responsibility on the individual to defend themselves in a violent world. Maybe with the help of others but not with the help of the State, not with the help of private security, etc. Anarchists can't hide behind a 'civil' party that can front a non-violent ideology while relying on the violence of 'non-partisan' institutions. So, maybe there's a better way to counter such attacks by liberals and pacifists?

Answer 1

This is a pretty good question.  Or maybe it's not a good question, just a good argument.

I think it's not too hard to understand why some people would downplay anarchist violence - they don't support it or participate in it, and they believe that it's important to focus on what will 'play' well in the press.  Possibly, some of them genuinely don't notice a tremendous amount of anarchist violence going on and/or they tend to re-narrate it as something else (ie "apolitical").  

I like what you say about anarchism being violent since it puts the responsibility on people to defend themselves (and each other!) in a violent world.  I think that's a good way to put it. I would add though that at least in my understanding anarchism proposes to get rid of a lot of forms of systematic violence whereas people of other political persuasions are content to leave these intact.


That said, the examples you mention are mostly not that big of a deal.  I mean, you included a pie-ing! It seems to me that unfortunately US anarchists Don't do that much political violence. We do more than e.g. David Graeber says we do, but we do a heck of a lot less than anarchists in the 1890s did...

Comments

I agree with these motives when it comes to people like Graeber or other, more public figures... but I also see this get a pass in forums. The examples I excluded were mostly because I didn't think I could cite them well... FAI, CCCF, and other 'cells' ...anarchists elsewhere and their fire throwing, etc. Not that any of it amounts to some of the more well known historical examples of assassination attempts, Russian rev., Spanish civil war, etc. But I think it all still falls back on the ethical implications I mentioned in the question. Eliminating forms of systemic violence is a large part of the positive projects, so I omitted what I thought was obvious. Either way, the violence of that self-defense is consequential more than it is normative.

btw - posted the question anon because I was feeling shy, sorry