Bang, bang, you're dead

Kelley kwalker2 at gte.net
Thu Mar 7 15:37:46 PST 2002


At 02:16 PM 3/7/02 -0800, Ian Murray wrote:
>==================
>
>Fair enough. Are those who do not suffer an antipathy towards
>violence in achieving their aims prepared to deal with nukes,
>chem-bio-weapons and the sheer mounds of dead
>flesh...............? Who, after the battle[s], will 'volunteer'
>for burial 'duty'?
>
>Ian

well, as i've said before, when the state was pointing guns at us at a demo, i was quite ready to arm the revo if it came down to them moving a radioactive waste dump into my community. we owned a gun shop, and i could very easily have started stock piling. :)

i know you've been there, too, at least i assume as much--feeling the terror of state thugs ready to blow you away if you didn't submit. i assume you haven't felt that anger and rage. maybe you're just a far better person than i am. what can i say? i think part of it was that i had a two year old at the time, and protective mama bear growled that day and for awhile afterward.

all in all, i guess it is probably highly contextual for me. That's why i can't reject violence, in principle. it also means that i don't embrace violence, as an absolute. for instance, my truck with _some_ anarchists is the propensity to think that violence is the main answer lately. at meetings here in florida, i find this tendency toward violent tactics (and what I experience as an unbridled anger) to be very alienating because it's like they have a hammer and everything they see is a nail. i think we need more nuance, creativity than that.

kelley



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list