okay, it can be argued that anarchism -- or for that matter, terrorism -- can make sense as a long-term strategy. You break windows -- or shoot the Archduke or blow up a pair of financial buildings -- and it brings down the heavy hand of repression, e.g., the Patriot Act. This encourages more and more people to see the State as the enemy. Any wars, etc., that result increase the amount of chaos, which can recruit more to the anarchist tendency (according to "the worse, the better" theory). Eventually, the State falls apart (as in Afghanistan after the USSR pulled out or early Weimar Germany or Iraq currently). This allows the anarchists to move into the power vacuum and to unleash human creativity in a kingdom of freedom.
The problem is that there are also jihadis, freikorps, and Saddamists who might take advantage of the power vacuum. Their support might also rise due to societal chaos and/or the delegitimation of the State. (Among other things, they usually promise to impose Order, something that looks quite attractive to most people in periods of societal chaos. Why do you think a lot of Afghans (critically) supported the Taliban's rise to power?) Back in the early 1990s, when the U.S. State was suffering from a lack of legitimacy, folks like Timothy McVeigh and the militias became quite influential. Though these folks have largely faded from the scene, a bit of their ideology and rhetoric was appropriated, softened, and used by the Bushwhackers. The more mellow, moderate militia members have compromised and have decided to work within the establishment, fighting the Ay-rab Terrorists instead of the U.S. State.
The theory that "the worse, the better" cuts both ways. It can encourage the rise of other social movements besides the anarchists.
On 7/12/05, Bill Bartlett <billbartlett at dodo.com.au> wrote:
> At 6:42 AM -0700 12/7/05, Jim Devine wrote:
>
> > >The public vandalism strategy isn't designed to convert people to the
> >left, but to recruit existing leftists to the anarchist fringe.<
> >
> >and what kind of leftists would be recruited? the ones who think that
> >breaking windows and the like is a "revolutionary" statement, i.e.,
> >those who prefer instant gratification of anger over long-term
> >strategy.
>
> I've just explained how it could well be a cohesive long-term
> strategy, yet you persist in refusing to acknowledge that
> possibility. The leftists who might be recruited are the ones who,
> seeing first-hand how the authorities react to these minor
> provocations with excessive force and brute repression, are drawn to
> the anarchist analysis.
>
> Bill Bartlett
--
Jim Devine
"Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let
people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.