> I don't like what I'm about to say, but: I think it's possible for
> people to become essentially weaponized. It's pretty damn rare--Chuck
> sees it everywhere, I don't--but some people are threats to humanity
> simply by means of their continued existence--Napoleon Bonaparte comes
> to mind.
My comments here about the Bhutto assassination were not meant to imply that I see violence against heads of state as a viable political course of action, although I've been rethinking my position on this in recent years. My opinion about the welcome demise of heads of state (and former ones) is my *honest* take on this subject, one that I know is shared by friends and comrades. I've even gotten several supportive emails this week in response to this thread.
I'm stating an opinion that many leftists, radicals and anarchists don't want to share.
Like the widespread opinion held by radicals that the 9/11 attacks were a positive thing. You all know people who think like this, but who didn't make their comments public. By the way, I happen to disagree with this take on 9/11.
The standard position held by most anarchists is that assassination and political violence against government officials is not something worth supporting as a political strategy. Many anarchists see the "propaganda by the deed" era of anarchism as a big mistake. I won't go into the reasoning behind this position here.
I've long subscribed to this position, but I've been having second thoughts about this position in recent years as I've read more, seen world events, and participated in social change movements. My shift in thinking about this topic has nothing to do with impatience, macho posturing, or anything else that may seem obvious. I think that there may be situations where this strategy is a good idea--we can all rattle off a list of horrible heads of state whose crimes against humanity would have stopped with their untimely demise. There are plenty of clear cases, such as Hitler, Pol Pot and others.
Then there are the more nuanced cases, such as when Berkman tried to kill Frick. The consensus in the ensuing years is that Berkman's attentat was a foolish act, which probably damaged organizing efforts by workers in those factories. I think Berkman was mistaken if he thought that his actions would spark a revolt, but a successful action against Frick may have led to a more favorable situation for the workers, especially if the act inspired similar ones against captains of industry.
Or maybe not.
I also think that we can't put ourselves in the shoes of people like Berkman over a century later. Given Berkman's life and political ideas, killing Frick may have made perfect sense. Maybe he was of the mind of a suicide bomber, willing to give up his life for a bigger cause.
Chuck