Forums of the Libertarian Left

We all complain about politics, but have you ever wondered what makes a person pick up a gun and start violently resisting the government? That was one of the questions I wanted to answer when I started writing The Army of the Republic.

Some of the factors that make fertile ground are already well-known: an elite intent on keeping and expanding its privileges, a State that refuses to incorporate or entertain alternative ideas, an economy where downward mobility has become the new rule. But those factors have existed in many countries without sparking violent resistance. Why, I wondered, did people in one country organize and fight, while others suffered on in silence.

It wasn’t an answer I could find in the United States. In spite of our long, sad history of state violence against minorities, we Americans have tended to work things out relatively peacefully in the last 140 years. Compared to Argentina’s 30,000 disappearances, or the hundreds of thousands killed in El Salvador, Guatemala and Columbia, our record for settling our differences in the last century is pretty good.

So when I decided to set my book about urban guerrillas in the United States, I had to look elsewhere to try to understand why people resort to violent struggle, especially in modern times. I chose Argentina because it was (until recently) a primarily middle-class Western country with a high level of education, similar to the United States. I studied the Montoneros and the ERP (People’s Revolutionary Army), two groups active in Argentina in the first half of the 70’s. I read biographies and autobiographies to get a general feeling for the rise, career and destruction of these groups, and followed it up with interviews of people who had participated on both sides.

The two groups had different reasons for fighting. The ERP began as a tiny Marxist political group trying to organize workers and build their strength with the goal of establishing a Socialist state. They turned to armed struggle in 1969, when the dictatorship had made their political organizing efforts impossible. The Montoneros were a far bigger and broader-based group. Their members initially organized under various banners to bring back the exiled former president of Argentina, Juan Peron. They finally turned to armed struggle as the Montoneros in 1970, and pursued a growing campaign of bombings, kidnappings, robberies and assassinations against the dictatorship and international business interests. Free elections and Peron’s return led the Montoneros briefly becoming a legitimate political party, with 500,000 members and elected officials at the State and National level. To their horror, though, Peron turned savagely on them and they were forced to go underground again in 1974, now embroiled in what they envisioned as a war against the Argentine state. By 1976 they were effectively annihilated by the Argentine government.

There are certainly things that could be added to the following list about what creates an insurgent, but these are some of the which shaped the American insurgents of The Army of the Republic.

1) REVOLUTIONARIES ARE YOUNG
No secret here: that’s the reason why authoritarian regimes often infiltrate, harass or shut down universities. Young people are most willing to take the risks and usually have no dependents. Young people are more apt to be uncompromising in their ideals. The average age of the ERP at its height was 23 years old. Reaching one’s mid-thirties made one a wise old man by revolutionary standards.

2) DEMOCRATIC AVENUES FOR CHANGE ARE CLOSED
In the America portrayed in The Army of the Republic, a psuedo-democratic regime controls the country. Elections are held, but the Party always wins, which leads tiny armed groups of every political stripe to make sporadic attempts that are as much acts of frustration as a coherent strategy.
In Argentina in the 70’s, dictatorships already had a history of coming in and snuffing democratic governments when things went against the ruling class. Both Montoneros and ERP started as political organizations, and turned to violence when they lost hope in achieving their goals politically. Truly extremist groups (such as that surrounding Timothy McVeigh) may act even in a democracy, because the lack of public support guarantees that they will never achieve their aims through organizing and voting.

3) VIOLENCE IS “IN VOGUE”
In the 70’s guerrilla groups existed all over the world. Fidel Castro had triumphed in Cuba after being reduced to 20 men, and the Communists had triumphed in North Vietnam and were winning in South Vietnam. For this reason, the idea of a tiny minority taking over the state through a combination of guerrilla strategy and iron will was widespread in Argentine and many other societies. Also, in the late 60’s and 70’s young people all over the world staged non-violent uprisings, even in wealthy France and the United States. This gave violent resistance an intellectual currency that encouraged people to take up arms. Armed struggle attracts most recruits when it is chic, whether that style is expressed in posters of Che Guevara or the funerary videos of suicide bombers. Once inside, revolutionary groups provide the same sense of teamwork and brotherhood as military forces, probably stronger.

4) REVOLUTION IS A MIDDLE CLASS PHENOMENA
The idea that the poor and the working class rise up against the state is a myth, propagated chiefly by the middle-class intellectuals that actually organize the insurgency. Poor people seldom have the education and organizational skills to coordinate the logistics and indoctrination necessary to create a group and keep it alive. Working-class people are too busy working, unless they are being organized through a labor union. In Argentina in the 70’s, nearly all the founding members of the Montoneros were students or young professionals. The founder of the ERP, Mario Roberto Santucho, was a public accountant. Beyond that, Castro was a lawyer. Mao had been a librarian, Che Guevara was a medical student.

That said, in the book, I do include working-class armed resistance groups. MacFarland, the leader of the Libertarian/Right Wing half of the Army of the Republic, is a mechanic. I based this on the existence of some radical right-wing groups like the Montana Freemen and the cell that pulled off the Oklahoma City bombing. Also, in the United States the difference between working class and middle class is often blurry, and people can be both working class, educated and informed.

5) ARMED RESISTANCE IS A LEFT/LIBERAL PHENOMENA
Some people have criticized the book as being a left-wing fantasy, (these people somehow missed the Right Wing half of the Army of the Republic), but in fact, I emphasized the Left because most armed resistance movements in the West in the last century have come from the Left, or from Liberals. At first I thought this was due to the fact that the dominant revolutionary idea of the 20th Century was Socialism, which is by definition Leftist. However, there was little or no organized Right-wing activity against the Communist dictatorships of Eastern Europe. Even in cases where heinous dictators were oppressing the whole country, such as Somoza in Nicaragua, the Right was usually late to the party in opposing the dictator, when they aren’t actively supporting him.
The Fascist takeovers of Germany and Italy before World War 2 fit the bill for a Right-Wing takeover, and the Secret Army Organization in 1960’s France, but the Right usually seizes power through coups or counter-revolutions, while the Left and Liberals are more apt to organize and wage a guerrilla war when democratic means are not available.

Even the American Revolution, cited by many Right-Wing people in the United States as their icon of violent resistance, was actually organized primarily by educated liberals like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin, who would likely belong to today’s Liberal/Left/Libertarian spectrum.

6) ONCE BEGUN, VIOLENT RESISTANCE HAS A LIFE OF ITS OWN

Once a group gets started, its momentum will keep sometimes keep it going even after it’s clear that the battle is lost or the cause has lost popular support. While both the ERP and the Montoneros groups began during a dictatorship, the ERP kept fighting even after its PRT party only gained a miniscule fraction of the vote in the 1973 elections. The Montoneros were ultimately forced to fight the very government they’d fought to have democratically elected.

Groups fight on for many reasons. One is simple institutional momentum. Another is that when people take up arms against the state, they are beginning such an uneven struggle that statistics or balance of forces no longer have meaning. In the revolutionary narrative, even major setbacks become part of the road toward ultimate victory, and part of the revolutionary ideal is the willingness to sacrifice oneself for a higher good. Another reason militants die rather than give up is that they feel they have to keep fighting to dignify the sacrifices of fallen comrades.

One big reason, though, which I think held true particularly with the ERP, is a refusal to recognize that the People you think you’re fighting for really aren’t on your side. The delusion sets in that some external factor is impeding you: government lies, lack of education among the people. There’s often the belief that just eliminating a given politician or group of people will at last open the floodgates of popular support. Indeed, the attempt to re-capture the public imagination with ever-larger military feats can lead guerrilla groups to devastatingly overreach themselves. The ERP’s last gasp in 1975 was one of their biggest operations, an attack on the Monte Chingolo military barracks that left over a hundred of their militants dead. The Montoneros tried a similarly grandiose attack on a military barracks, hijacking a jet to make their getaway. In both cases, the losses far outweighed the gains.

7) THE REAL BATTLE IS FOR THE STORY
While guerrilla groups are sometimes able to simply shoot their way into power against a weak state, most insurgent groups realize that if they can’t win the battle of narratives, their road will be longer and harder. One of the reasons rural guerrilla groups take and hold territory is to be able to proselytize the peasants and build support for their ideas. But the ERP and Montoneros, being urban guerrillas, couldn’t hold territory. Instead, both had a network of clandestine printing presses where they produced magazines and newspapers that told their side of the story to their own people and to the population at large. These publications explained their politics, gave news about operations or fallen members and made accusations against the regime they were fighting. Losing a printing press or mimeograph machine was a significant blow.

Naturally, though, Big Media always sides with the State. Distribution of a clandestine newspaper might run to tens of thousands at most, while television and radio reach tens of millions, and nearly all of it is unfavorable to the guerrillas. For that reason, the Montoneros and the ERP saw their support drop as reports of their violent actions were broadcast far and wide, while reports of state terrorism were kept quiet.


All in all, taking up arms against the state requires a healthy dose of delusion, anger, hope, and insane bravery, all qualities we might admire in those we agree with, and condemn in those we don’t. The final conclusion I reached, though, and the conclusion which trumps all the others, is that once the road of violent resistance is undertaken, it brings in its wake devastating consequences that no one can control.

Novelist Stuart Archer Cohen [stuart@stuartarchercohen.com] is the author of The Army of the Republic (Picador), a novel about an American insurgency. His previous novels have been translated into 10 languages.

I do not believe that an anarchistic society can be achieved by any violent means whatsoever. Peace is not created by bloodshed. What needs to be done is to advance the tribes of humanity to a high understanding and satisfaction and sense of security in themselves and in others, Go beyond the "I am great and you are not!" mentality and treat others with solidarity and as equals.

I like the idea. I used to think that ignorance was like a fire that you could put out if you could hose it down with enough reason. Lately, I'm losing hope in that point of view. Not advocating violent revolution, just examining it as the furthest end of the spectrum of people vs the state.

The state will be very brutal in its death throes. Violent means will not bring about anarchy, or it would have happened already, but a movement of anarchists that is incapable of sufficient violence is doomed to being crushed in the state's iron grasp.

Personally I like the idea of a "violent" revolution, after counter-economics have been applied to weaken the State's power and reduce the cost (both material and in human lives).

Or we could try methods of weakening the state that weren't dreamt up by middle-class ideologues like workplace and community/municipal organising based on direct democracy as well as mass organisations/federations and the use of traditional trade unions to hold down the fort against capital whilst using wildcat strikes and other militant worker actions to push the trade unions to work against the bosses whilst building new unions capable of throwing off the old society.

Of course you could always stay with the pacifist crap spouted by guys like Caplan and SEKIII and hope that if you ask the bosses real nice they'll release their stranglehold over the workers. Or you could come to the libcom/ansyn side

FACTORY, FACTORY, FACTORY!

Or we could try methods of weakening the state that weren't dreamt up by middle-class ideologues

Even if all these methods were dreamt up my middle class ideologues, so what?

like workplace and community/municipal organising based on direct democracy as well as mass organisations/federations

Im quite sympathetic towards worker and consumer co-ops but I don't see how these strategies would be useful since we disagree about the ends that we should achieve. However even on the ends we do agree on, that people should be involved in the decisions that affect them, I think the mistake your making is to assume direct democracy is the same as participatory democracy and that it would be that much different in practice from representative democracy. I'm sure your aware that rulers today use democracy as legitimisation and in a direct democracy the dividing line between rulers and ruled is even more blurred.

the use of traditional trade unions to hold down the fort against capital whilst using wildcat strikes and other militant worker actions to push the trade unions to work against the bosses whilst building new unions capable of throwing off the old society.

Most trade unions are now run by people who are essentially junior partners with capital and the state. The number of workers in unions has also been in decline for a long time. Unless the way unions work becomes radically different sometime soon I don't see them as particularly relevant to anarchist strategy.

Of course you could always stay with the pacifist crap spouted by guys like Caplan and SEKIII

Neither of these people are pacifists...

and hope that if you ask the bosses real nice they'll release their stranglehold over the workers.

You know that isn't what is being argued

James wrote:Even if all these methods were dreamt up my middle class ideologues, so what?

So, they express the tools of petty-bourgeois counter-revolution!

/vulgar materialist

But seriously, I think there is some truth to the idea that people will act in order to protect their own interests and as a result I'm generally skeptical of the class/race/gender etc of anyone advocating non-violence.

I think the mistake your making is to assume direct democracy is the same as participatory democracy and that it would be that much different in practice from representative democracy. I'm sure your aware that rulers today use democracy as legitimisation and in a direct democracy the dividing line between rulers and ruled is even more blurred.

Er, in what way is direct democracy similar to representative democracy? I think you may be using a different definition to the one I'm using i.e direct participation in decision making instead of having electing representatives to decide for you.

And anyone who champions "democracy" in order to justify their power is kidding themselves:

P. J. Proudhon wrote:...the only way to organize democratic government is to abolish government,

Most trade unions are now run by people who are essentially junior partners with capital and the state. The number of workers in unions has also been in decline for a long time. Unless the way unions work becomes radically different sometime soon I don't see them as particularly relevant to anarchist strategy.

The declining numbers of people in unions probably has something to do with the draconian legislation imposed against unions and collective bargaining.

And your analysis of trade unions is lacking. Trade unions tend to act in a more radical manner when pushed by a radicalise workforce and will even feign antagonism with the bosses up to a point and call strikes. They are also the most immediate organisation that workers can use to defend their rights.

For a good view of unions and their relation to anarchism check out this: http://libcom.org/library/strategy-struggle-anarcho-syndicalism-21st-century

Neither of these people are pacifists...

Yet Caplan writes reems about non-violent resistance and seems intent on disregarding spain as the work of "anarcho-statists". Don't actually know much about SEKIII. Only read the first three chapters of the Agorist Primer and that novel by Schulmann. Seems like he would be though, what with all the counter-economics.

You know that isn't what is being argued

Well that's what it tends to look like from a commie perspective.

But seriously, I think there is some truth to the idea that people will act in order to protect their own interests and as a result I'm generally skeptical of the class/race/gender etc of anyone advocating non-violence.

That's rather praxeological of you
I agree, but i don't think it can stand as an argument by itself. Even if the motivation behind an argument was pure irrational egoism (can't think of a better word but i'm refering to egoism in layman's terms not philosopher terms) it wouldn't change how strong the argument was.

Er, in what way is direct democracy similar to representative democracy? I think you may be using a different definition to the one I'm using i.e direct participation in decision making instead of having electing representatives to decide for you.

In practive it may be similar if used on too large a scale because stuff like delegates will have to start appearing. Also direct participation in decision making is participatory democracy. Direct democracy isn't neccessarily participatory democracy. For example 4 wolves and 1 sheep vote on lunch, no one could argue the sheep is in control of the decisions that affect it but it's still direct democracy.

And anyone who champions "democracy" in order to justify their power is kidding themselves

Yet it happens everyday and people buy it. "We voted for the government".

The declining numbers of people in unions probably has something to do with the draconian legislation imposed against unions and collective bargaining.

And your analysis of trade unions is lacking. Trade unions tend to act in a more radical manner when pushed by a radicalise workforce and will even feign antagonism with the bosses up to a point and call strikes. They are also the most immediate organisation that workers can use to defend their rights.

I didn't say unions were inherently useless I said the way they work today isn't much use. Some unions are quite heavily penalised by the state while others get lots of support in exchange for basically selling out any meaningful labour movement. This is what i'm arguing against, they can be one of the most immediate organisations that the state can use to help capitalists control workers and they can be an easy way for some groups of workers to gain at the expense of workers in general.

Yet Caplan writes reems about non-violent resistance and seems intent on disregarding spain as the work of "anarcho-statists".

I hate to defend Caplan but that doesn't make him a pacifist. He may prefer non violent resistance but he supports self defence. Tolstoy and Lefevre were pacifists because they didn't support any violence.

Don't actually know much about SEKIII. Only read the first three chapters of the Agorist Primer and that novel by Schulmann. Seems like he would be though, what with all the counter-economics.

Yes and part of the counter-economics includes alternative forms of security.

Well that's what it tends to look like from a commie perspective.

Well tbh that doesn't raise my opinion of communists very much. Some communist ideas on strategy tend to look like mass murder to market anarchists but that wouldn't make "commies believe the free society will be established by slaughtering anyone who is a counter revolutionary" an honest argument.
Don't actually know much about SEKIII. Only read the first three chapters of the Agorist Primer and that novel by Schulmann. Seems like he would be though, what with all the counter-economics.

Zanthorus wrote:...dreamt up by middle-class ideologues...

Zanthorus wrote:Of course you could always stay with the pacifist crap spouted by guys like... SEKIII and hope that if you ask the bosses real nice they'll release their stranglehold over the workers. Or you could come to the libcom/ansyn side

Crap? Middle-Class ideologues? Way harsh, and rather ironic, especially considering that Bakunin and Kropotkin were aristocrats. And yet we don't discount the ideas that flow from them.

Although, if you have only read the first few chapters of an Agorist Primer and the novel by Schulman, I can completely understand why, considering Schulman is your stock standard dogmatic Anarcho-Capitalist who has taken steps to 'purge' everyone who wasn't sufficiently AnCap in their views (read, everyone who was a Mutualist or didn't agree with the absolute superiority of Rothbard) from various forums for discussion. Not to mention that as far as literary criticism go, Alongside Night a very, very badly written book. It's only good quality is that it does, in a twisted way, illustrate a process about how a parallel economy can be built to support people through the transfer.

As for Counter Economics itself, I can't understand why you be hating on it. SEKIII didn't invent nothing new, just re-stated the old Anarchist principle of 'building a new society within the shell of the old.' The fact that he re-articulated it in such a way is probably a good thing. Granted, if you have actually read the New Libertarian Manifesto where he lays out how the process may work, you will discover the main criticism of SEKIII that I raise -- he was a sci-fi fan and as a consequence had a very active imagination. In my humble opinion, it may have influenced his writing somewhat.

That he was very much influenced by Rothbard and AnCap theory was true, but, to his credit, SEK did support appropriation of corporate property as part and parcel of the 'homesteading' principle and he made extra effort to foster discussion and welcome people who didn't agree with his views. He may have been Rothbardian, but he wasn't dogmatic, imperialist or fanatical about it. You can ask around for the uptake.

So, as far as Counter Economics goes, it's nothing new. Anarchists, Syndicalists and LibComs have been saying the same thing for decades. Only real difference is that SEKIII re-articulated the idea for a new audience and defined himself by such an approach to achieving a revolution. Counter Economics, itself, does not exclude the possibility of ever-expanding unions that eventually reach critical mass and can achieve the mythical general-strike, bring the state to its knees and bring in Anarchism. It simply says that there needs to be infrastructure, in place, that enables people to safely stop providing material support to a state (taxation, participation in Capitalist economy etc), and to obtain supplies and resources after the revolution to minimize the 'shock' of bringing down the Welfare/Warfare State people have become dependent on. I don't know about you, but the Syndicalist approach certainly fits into this.

Some have even argued that said unions may be considered interchangeable with those 'Private Defence Companies' referred to. Antifa may certainly be considered one.

Not to mention that in the past Kevin Carson has suggested an interesting twist on Counter Economics, that looks to and emphasizes the role that micro-industries will play in providing basic goods and services to people, at lower cost, than it would for them to obtain the same goods from a large-scale commercial bakery.