Sitting here on my day off from an toxic and boring job I decided that the best way to feed the typical emotional anemia that I feel so deep in my bones every Sunday, is to study up on the past weeks events on what's happening in Egypt.
For starters, like any good man or woman of conscious, I'm sure, our hearts are broken by what's become of the January 25th revolution, which seems to be nothing short of hell on earth. Mass murders at the hands of police and military being egged on by pedestrians in the streets, with little to no condemnation from those Egyptian liberals who made us believe in their visions for a worthwhile future in their country.
It's only when met with images of the violence that it hits home how real what many predicted would happen happened. That as long as the basic power structure in Egypt stayed in place, an American backed military, Egypt was bound into dissolving into what it's essentially inherently been for the last forty years, a fascist police state. They can wipe the Muslim brotherhood off the map. Even the many adherents who are nothing more than religiously superstitious pawns of a crooked powerhungry (typical) political party, bought in the name of charity organized in a manner no different than Egangilical Christians go about prozeletyzing, but until Egyptians attack the roots causes of their countries problems, they will always be left teetering on the brink of complete and utter fascism.
I came across an article today once again pinning the blame and failures of the social upheavels we had become so accustomed to seeing to a lack of adherence to violence. But what's violence in a country where people are so ideologically divided, where you have to organize human chains to avoid women being assaulted in the streets?
I could say that about anti Putin protests in Russia, or Occupy protests, sure. But it still wouldn't have mattered. People aren't going to protest violently for institutional reform anyway. The thought is absurd to begin with. To say it about the possibility of a genuine expression of rage such as what would happen in a predominantly lower middle class African neighborhood in response to the acquittal of the (peanut headed) murderer of an unarmed African American kid walking home from a candy shop, I get it. But when people say these movements are failed because of "violence no violence," it's ludicrous. They've failed because the movements weren't able to radicalize in ways to which a lack of adherence to violent struggle is a mere sidenote in the deeper psychology that has been bred by living in the age of the modern nation state.
So if a third intifada breaks out in the vain of the first(and only genuine intifada), this point of argument might become relevant. Individual Anarchist actions, sure. In relation to Communist influenced pacifism in the Bay, why not. But in regard to a widespread protest movement (which in itself brings with it a level of pretense that you have to figure out how to transcend and break down) until you can organize in a way so as to make the "violence no violence" argument what it is, just another factor in a much deeper and broader social narrative, please, save this tired ass argument for the communists. If you want to attack liberals where it hurts, attack their hypocrisy and double standards on pacifism. Because it' not pacifism, it's just using someone else because you don't want to get your fastidious hands dirty. Whether in Egypt, or in San Francisco.