Antifascism: Destroying the Liberal Myths

2

3

Free Speech is Not the Issue; Intellectual Power Is

Abstract rights are in the air. They have recently become thesubject of endless obsequious commentary around so-calledfree speech on university campuses. Many conservatives areusing it as a convenient foil to promote reactionary, bigotedpseudo-science,whichisboughtandpaidforbythecorporateelite.Atthesametime,countlessliberalsareindulgingintheirmoral superiorityas theunrivaledpassive subjectsofhistory,who are content to be tolerantofanything as long as theydonot actually have to do something. Even supposed leftists aredefending the institutional promotion of white supremacist,anti-poor, misogynist hacks in the name of purportedlyavoidingfuturecensorshipoftheleft(which,ofcourse,alreadyexists).

This consensual abstract rights discourse has so-calledprogressives belittling those who have taken a committedstance and engaged in direct action against institutions ofhigher learning that willingly function as echo chambers forfascism, racism,misogynyandeconomicoppression. It isasifactivistsdedicatedtodevelopingconcretepoliticalstrategiestofightagainst the institutionalpropagationofreactionary ideasand practices were supposed to simply stand in silent awebefore themoralist intoningof thepatronizing, self-appointedjudges of action, who themselves passively condone theinstitutional organization of fascism and top-down classwarfare.

4

Scientific racismand the innate inferiorityofmajor sectorsofthe world population—women, the indigenous, the poor,subalterns, andmanyothers—wereoncewidely taughtat theuniversity and considered credible discourses. If this haschanged over time, at least in part, it is not due to tolerance.And it is certainly not because scientific racism and otherviolent ideologies were sanctioned and promoted byinstitutionsofhigherlearninginthenameofasupposedrightto freespeech. Itwas throughthedirectactionofpeoplewhorecognizedthatuniversitiesarepowerbrokers inthestruggleto define legitimate discourse, andwho actively defended thepositionthatracistideology—likeothernon-scientificformsofstructural oppression or ingrained cultural bigotry—does notqualify. If anyone, then, is fighting for the concretedefenseofequalityandrightsthatactuallymeansomething,itispreciselythe activists who refuse to have institutions of knowledgeproductionlegitimizeanddisseminatediscoursesrootedintheideaoftheinherentinferiorityofcertainpeople.

Nevertheless, the consensual discourse on abstract rightspersists in defending so-called free speech independently ofcontext, as if rights somehow floated in a pure moral etheraboveandbeyondthesoiledpoliticalstrugglesofthehere-and-now.Itdoesnotrecognize,forinstance,thecruciallyimportantfactthattheconstitutionalrighttoexpressone’sviewsisnottheright to have a university approve of them and provide amegaphone for them. In other words, the right to haveinstitutionsofhigherlearningendorseandmarketyourspeechismostdefinitivelynotaconstitutionalright.

Oneof thereasons for thiswidespreadconfusion is the faultyconceptionof institutions inherent in the traditionofpoliticalliberalism.Thelatter incorrectlyassumesthat institutionslikeuniversitiesareneutralspacesforindividualstofreelyexpresstheir thoughts in an open “marketplace of ideas.” However,everyonefamiliarwiththeinnerworkings,sordidhistoriesand

5

economicfunctionsofeducationalinstitutionsknowsthattheyarefactoriesforcapitalistmodesofsocialreproductionlargelystructured by industry interests and guided by corporateinvestments.

Theirpowertoformatthesocialworld—forbetterorworse—is one of the reasons why the struggle over their ability todefine rigorous, legitimate and meaningful discourse is soimportant and should be taken seriously, instead of passivelyaccepting the promotion of any political agenda whatsoeverunder the thoughtless banner of “free speech.” As we shouldknow from the history of movements like Nazism, if theinstitutions of knowledge production put their stamp ofapproval on discourses such as scientific racism, this has anenormousimpactonthebroaderculturalandpoliticalworld.

Thereactionaries,foralloftheirfaults,areatleastwellawareofthis,anditispreciselyforthisreasonthattheyhaveinvestedinhavingtheirtoadiesspeakatuniversities.Althoughtheyaremore than happy to use the smoke screen of free speech inorder to do this, everyone basically knows that they do notreally care about it as a principle. They have not beenstalwartlydefending,forinstance,therightoftherevolutionaryanti-capitalist left tohaveaprominentuniversityplatformfordefending egalitarian, ecological and anti-colonial politics. Onthe contrary, they only invoke free speech as it pertains to atactical struggle to market their reactionary ideas whilekeeping liberalson theirheels. If itdidnotworkaswell as itdoes, immediately compelling the liberal intelligentsia tohypnotically kneel down and pray to their false god oftolerance, it isimaginablethattheywouldsimplydiscarditasanunnecessaryfoilfortheirnot-so-hiddenagenda.

Theliberals,however,havehadalongstandingloveaffairwithabstract rights. Their hallowed claims to the freedom andequalityof allmen (sic)have servedas the sacred ideological

6

supplement to worldwide capitalist expansion, as DomenicoLosurdo has demonstrated perhaps better than anyone inLiberalism: A Counter-History. By encouraging the masses togazeupintotheskyofabstractideasandrights,theysoughttodistract them from the rapacious project of indigenousgenocide, chattel and wage slavery, colonization andpatriarchaloppression.

Whenthosewhorejectedthisformofcloudgazing—BlackElk,Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth and so many others—pointedouthowthesesupposedrightswereactuallyanchoredin a vast system of structural oppression, such that only aninfinitesimallysmallminorityofthepopulationbenefittedfromthem (primarily white, male, property-owning deists ofEuropean descent), the liberals retorted with their infamousprogressnarrative:althoughoursystemofabstractrightswashistoricallyandmateriallyfoundeduponyourexclusion,ifyouworkhardenoughandfollowourrules,atsomepointwemightincludeyou,at leastformally.Bloodstainedbisonfieldsslowlybecame fenced in gambling dens, plantations morphed intoprisons, colonies were transformed into neo-colonies,multiculturaltokenismmadethecorporatocracymorecolorful,andtherewascertainlyprogress…ofcloudgazing.

Unlike abstract rights, anchored rights are ones that havemeaningandsubstancepreciselybecausetheyareembodiedinspecificmaterialrelations.Theyarerightsthatactuallyexistinthis world, like the right to free speech enshrined by, andoriginally for, the white, male, property-owning, colonialsettlersinAmerica.Rightsarethereforeaboutpower,andwhohas the force to establish, define and defend them. It isprecisely liberalism’srefusal toovertlyrecognizethis thathasperpetuated the falseveneerofneutrality thatactuallyallowsliberalinstitutionsliketheuniversitytoobscureorcoveroverracism, patriarchy, and the ensanguined spread of imperialistoppression.

7

With all of this in mind, anytime individuals or institutionsclaimtheyaredefendersoffreespeechoncampus,weshouldtranslate this abstract assertion into an anchored reality byexamining what this means concretely. For instance, I wasrecentlyinvolvedwithcoordinatingadirectactioncampaignatVillanovaUniversityagainst the institutionalpromotionof thehackbigotryofneo-eugenicistCharlesMurray.Althoughmanyconservativesandliberalsappealedto“freespeech”todefendhis supposed right to have the university broadcast hisinvectives against equality, I sincerely doubt that the sameamountof corporate funding,military-policeenforcementandcampus fanfare would have gone into defending TimMiller’sright to free speech. I will likely never know this, however,becauseVillanova’sinvitationtothisradicalqueeractivistandartist was rescinded. Although each institutional decision issurely the result of a unique configuration of forces, thisjuxtaposition requires that we ask the following concretequestion:is“freespeech”onlydefendedonVillanova’scampusformisogynist,racist,classistpseudo-academicsbankrolledbythecorporateelite?

It is imperative to recognize the tactical uses of free speechdiscourse as amechanism to empoweror disempower voicesoncampus.Universities,farfrombeingneutral,areinthedailybusiness of defining the difference between scientific andunscientificclaims,betweenworthyandunworthydiscourses.We must therefore critically interrogate their choices andactivelyparticipateinthestruggleoverideas.

This means recognizing that the way we think—and trainpeople to think—has real political implications in the world,and that this is precisely why reactionaries want to spreadtheir debunked ideas throughout institutions of higherlearning. The slippery slope of the misguided “free speech”argument plays into their hands andwill lead nowhere otherthan into the thoughtless, relativist abyss of justifying

8

university podiums for Nazi and colonial Holocaust deniers,individuals who think people of color are apes, pedophiliaadvocates, astronomers who believe the world is flat, anddoctorswhoimaginethatdiseasesarespreadbyevilspirits.

Thequestionweshouldbeasking,then,isnottheabstractoneof whether or not an individual or institution is “for” or“against”freespeechingeneral,andthenconfusedlyextendingthistotheuniversitycontext.Therealquestionis:whataretheinstitutionalforcesthatareempoweringcertainideasand—bynecessity—excluding or sidelining others? This requiresexaminingthepowerstructures thatproducethevery fieldofpossibility for thought and organize the purportedly “opendebate” in termsofviable intellectualpositions. It alsomeansanalyzinghowtheintellectualandmoraltorporofa“one-size-fits-all” principle of “free speech” directly contributes todistractingusfromactuallyholdinginstitutionalpowerbrokersaccountable for the types of ideas they are endorsing anddisseminating.

Abstractrightsareintheair,then.Theyarefloatingabovethematerial struggles over ideas and confusing people about thereal issues. It is time toground them.Thismeans recognizingthat there are only anchored rights, and that therighttobeabigotisnottherighttohaveauniversitypromoteyourbigotry.Italso requires acknowledging that institutions of knowledgeproduction are important sites of struggle with real-worldimplications, as we should all know from the history ofscientificracismandotherdebunkedformsofoppressionthathave sought university approval and propagation. The agentsoperative within institutions of higher learning need be takeresponsibility for the power of the ideas that they promote,ratherthanhidingbehindfalsebeliefsinneutralityorcloudedmisconceptions of free speech. If history has taught usanything,itisthatsomeideasareworthfightingfor.

9

10

Who’s Afraid of Direct Action on Campus?

Antifa’s disruption of white supremacists in Charlottesville,Virginia,againraisesthequestionofdirectaction,particularlyoncollegecampuses.The“UnitetheRight”eventbeganwithaparade of torch-wielding racists the night before at theUniversity of Virginia, and Dr. CornelWest has credited anti-fascists with protecting unarmed clergy from the attackingbigotsthatnight.Nonetheless,wearewitnessingtheriseofanever more violent right emboldened by the support of theTrump administration, with neo-fascists like Richard Spenceropenly declaring they are targeting colleges as their bases ofoperation. And yet again—like activists at Berkeley,Middlebury, Villanova and elsewhere—those who use directaction todisrupt race, class, gender and sexual oppression ontheir campuses are vilified. For instance, college studentTakiyahThompsonwasrecentlyarrestedonfelonychargesforhaving attached the rope that toppled a monument to theConfederacy. All of this raises the question: Who’s afraid ofdirectaction?

University campuses have, on numerous occasions, beenhotbeds of radical activism and coordinated direct actionagainst US imperialism, institutionalized racism and a vastarray of other forms of structural domination. However,judgingbytheunitedchorusofconservativesandliberalswhohave been vociferously disgruntled with the 2017 surge indirect actions on university campuses—including strikes andlabormovements at Yale and elsewhere—manyhave decidedthattheeraforsuchactionsshouldbebroughttoaclose.

11

Conservatives, by definition, want to conserve the extantsystems of oppression, even if they sometimes prefer toconveniently ignore the patent fact that they are oppressive.Their resistance to direct action should come as no surprisesince they want those systems to function as seamlessly aspossible.

And yet strangely enough, many liberals, too, who so oftencommemorate direct action in the past—at least in its mostasepticizedforms—rejecttoday’scampusuprisingsaswell.

Structural violence is rendered invisible precisely through its ubiquity, whereas direct action that calls out this violence by interrupting it is immediately seen and condemned as violent.

By burying direct actions in a sanitized past whilesimultaneously celebrating their effects, liberalswould like tohave the best of both worlds: they want to benefit from theboldnessof otherswithouthaving todo anything themselves.This,infact,isoftenacrucialpartoftheirWhighistory,fortheysometimes admit that direct actionwasnecessary in the past(or in far-off lands)but, according to their self-congratulatoryprogress narrative, those were the old days, and times havechanged. Liberal commemoration of direct action is thus bestunderstoodasafuneralprocession.

Directactionisoneofthemostimportantandpotenttoolsfordemonstrating that, contrary to a widespread liberal fantasy,educationdoesnottakeplaceinanivorytowerabovethefrayof systemsof domination andviolence. Itworks tounveil theways in which the educational apparatus is intimatelyentangledwiththosesystems,whilealsopointingoutitsroleinindoctrinating students to fit as seamlessly as possible into aworldofexploitationandoppression.

12

Thepowerofdirectactionhasbeenonfulldisplayoverthelastyearor so asprotestersonvarious campusespulledback theveil on the ways that universities—claiming to be neutralspaces for “free discussion”—give corporate-funded, pseudo-intellectual reactionaries a privileged platform and military-style protection. These uprisings are only the most recentexamplesinalongtraditionofeducationaldirectaction.Inthe1980s, for example, student activists at Columbia Universityoccupied the president’s office as part of a wider movementputting the spotlight on university complicity in apartheid.They were among those praised by Nelson Mandela aspowerfulactorsinthedefeatoftheracistSouthAfricanregime.Direct action has also shown us how universities profit fromtheglobaleconomicimperialismthatgeneratescollegeapparel,and it has highlighteduniversities’ continuing legacy ofwhitesupremacy.

Like sand poured into the gears of the mindless machine of“business as usual,” direct action can grind the conformistsystem to a halt and provide priceless opportunities toscrutinize the innerworkings of thismachine, includingwhatdrivesitandwhatitproduces.Fromadministratorsandstafftoprofessorsandstudents,manywanttopreventthisoutbreakofcriticalthinkingandactive,experientiallearning.

If indirect education cultivates acceptance of the status quo, direct action trains us to think for ourselves.

Theyhavebecomesoaccustomedtothewell-oiledmachineryof the institutions of capitalist social reproduction and classtriagethattheyexperienceanyglitchinitssmoothoperationasanaberrant interruption. In fact, theirmisinformedbelief thatthis machinery operates in ivory towers founded on anintellectual meritocracy frequently triggers the application of

13

thescarletletterof“violence”toanyactthatdoesnotconformtotherulesofbusiness-as-usual.

The world is thereby turned upside-down according to adialectic of violence that serves as one of the major defensemechanisms against critique. The structural violence ofexclusionary and repressive institutions is rendered invisibleprecisely through itsubiquity,whereasdirectaction thatcallsout this violence by interrupting it is immediately seen andcondemned as violent. Like state violence in general,institutionalized violence has a monopoly on invisibility. Itsguarddogsonlyseeviolenceintheactsofanyonewhoseekstoputahalttoit.

Yes, it will likely be uncomfortable for conservatives andliberalswhenactivistschallengeacorporate-sponsoredwhite-supremacistpromoterof eugenics, occupyapresident’s officein thenameofglobal justice,organizeahungerstrikeagainstoppressive laborpractices,and ingeneral,put theirbodiesonthe line in radical acts of protest against institutionalizedviolence.Their inculcatedfeelingsofallegiancetothesystemsthathaveproduced themand fromwhich theybenefit shouldnot,however,beallowedtobeabulwarkagainstthecollectiveeducationalopportunityprovidedbyprogressivedirectaction.They should be recognized for precisely what they are: arefusaltothink.

The criminalization of dissent strives tomask the oppositionbetween two modalities of education. For pedagogical andheuristic purposes, let us call the first education as indirectaction,whichisaformofculturaltrainingandformattingthatis implicit enough so as to not be readily visible to many ofthosewhoaresubjectedto it,andwhoseultimateobjective isthe pacification of themasses. Made to be complicit, indirectactors, the “educated” are those who do not even see theinstitutionalprocessofindoctrinationofwhichtheyareapart,

14

andwhotherebyremainoblivioustothelargerforcesthatareactivelypursuing their agenda through the extant institutionsofeducation.

By contrast,educationasdirectactioniseducationinaction. Ifindirect education cultivates acceptance of the status quo,direct action trains us to think for ourselves. In fact, it isarguablethatitalonecanprovidethekindofeducationthattheEstablishment so often claims to sell. Education, according tothe contemporary administrative buzzwords, should be“active”and“experiential”—ideallythroughsocial“outreach”—sothatitcreates“criticalthinkers”whoquestionfundamentals.

The terror that conservatives and liberals alike feel in the face of direct action is the fear that education will finally make good on its promises.

Andyetthisispreciselywhattraditional, indoctrinatingformsof education cannot provide, andwhat direct action offers inspades.Byoccupyingapresident’soffice,shuttingdownlifeoncampus with mock shantytowns, challenging the attack onpublic education funding and expelling racist ideologues,activists think critically about what so many want to ignore,and so begin to actively transform a world riddled withinequalities. The terror that conservatives and liberals alikefeel in the face of direct action is the fear that educationwillfinallymakegoodonitspromises.

The answer to the question, “Who’s afraid of direct action oncampus?” should now be obvious: those inculcated by theindirect action of institutionalized indoctrination, as well asthosewhoseek—usually throughclandestinemeansanddarkmoney—to use these institutions for their own reactionaryagenda.Theyhavemuchto learn fromthecoming intellectualinsurrectionsandtheintensifyingwavesofmobilizationinthe

15

name of direct action education, which is an essential forceagainst the increasingly aggressive right-wing cooptation ofinstitutions of higher learning (which we have witnessed yetagainattheUniversityofVirginiaandCharlottesville).

AsfoundingmembersoftheRadicalEducationDepartment,wearepartofthenationalandinternationaleffortthatgeneratessuch insurrections. Our aim is to develop and strengthencounter-institutions and forms of radical guerilla educationthat can be a constant force for transforming the systems ofdomination that schools help to reproduce. This project isrootednotonlyinourownactionsatVillanova,butalsointhelong,inspiringandcontinuinghistoryofexperimentsinradicaleducationacrosstheglobe,fromtheAmericanstudentactivismofthe1960stothesocialisteducationalprogramsinCuba,andfrom the massive Canadian student strikes of the newmillenniumto theZapatistaencuentros.Thosewhoareafraidof direct action should be terrified that we could collectivelyand actively educate ourselves through the building of a newpedagogical order capable of transforming the world for thebetter.

Copyright Truthout. May not be reprintedwithoutpermissionfromeditor@truthout.org.

16

17

It’s Time to Get Violence: Breaking Down the

Assault on Antifa

Violence is thegreatobfuscator.When itsname is invokedbythepowerful,restassuredthatitismaskingmuchmorethanitreveals.While it is presented as an objective description of astate of affairs requiring immediate condemnation, itsimultaneouslyservestodiscreditmovementsandideas,denythepoliticalagencyofcertainactors,andcloakbrutalformsofdomination.Itspurportedlyobjectivepresentationis,infact,alegerdemainthatstirsupmoralsentimentsinordertomuddypolitical analysis. Under the guise of indubitable moralrectitude, theworld is turnedupside: thosewho standup forjusticeareoftenmadetoappearassenselesssavages,andthegreatest perpetrators of violence are exonerated, or evenpresentedasvictims.

Oflate,violencehasmadeheadlinesintheU.S.corporatemediaby serving to discredit the work of anti-fascist activists anddistract from the actual threats of fascism and whitesupremacy. One would think that the very expression “anti-fascism”wouldimmediatelyconvokepledgesofallegianceinacountry whose nationalist narratives include the story of itsownrisetopowerastheglobalhegemonthroughthemilitantdefeat of fascism in WWII. Regardless of whether or not wesanction its veracity, the story of the violent fight againstfascism—notwithkicksandpunches,butwithbombers,tanks,heavy artillery and nuclear bombs—is, indeed, one of thefoundingnarrativesofcontemporaryAmerica.

18

However, in the current political climate, innumerable spin-doctors, corporate-fundedpundits, andeven supposed leftistsareintentonmisrepresentinganddiscreditingantifascismwiththeir sweeping and self-congratulatory denunciations of the“violence”ofantifaactivists.Rhetorically,theydothisthrougha series of elisions and obfuscations. For one, they severcontemporary antifa movements from the long history anddeep ideological commitments of anti-fascism. Theyaggressively misrepresent activists mobilized in defense ofequalityandjusticeasnothingmorethansavageprogenitorsofviolence, obfuscating the fundamental political stakes of themovement, aswell as thevast arrayof its activities. It shouldcome as no surprise that this is occurring precisely at themoment when racist, xenophobic, and fascist ideologies aregaining institutionalpowerandseekinggreaternormalizationin U.S. political culture(indeed, the Department of HomelandSecurity has recently classified antifa activities as “domesticterroristviolence”).

To take but one glaring example, the dominant mass mediaimageofantifahasrecentlybeenconsolidatedbyChrisHedges,who has indisputably demonstrated that public figuresassociatedwiththeLeftcansometimesservetheagendaoftheRight better than their own foot soldiers. From a privilegedvantagepointfarremovedfromtheviolenceenactedbywhitesupremacists,Hedgesperemptorilyproclaimedthatantifascistdirect action that openly confronts fascist violence is nothingbut themirror of the latter. In one grandiose and historicallyinaccurate claim after the next, he levels the variegated andheterogeneous social phenomenon of antifa, patronizinglyflattens the political agency of all of the different actorsinvolved,collapsesthecolossaldifferencebetweenfightingforfascism and struggling for freedom and equality, and crushesanentirefieldofpoliticalstruggleinordertomakeitfitneatlywithinhissimplemoralcategories.

19

This rhetorical leveling of antifa by the reckless moralbulldozer of a right-minded leftist, which has been resolutelycriticizedbyJohn-PatrickSchultzandothers,exemplifiesoneofthe key tactics used to discredit dissent in general, whichconsists in smothering its political claims under the scarletletter of “violence.” When people who are oppressed andvulnerable resistdominationandassert theirpolitical agency,it often takes forms that do not follow the protocols socherishedbytheliberalsandconservativesinpower,preciselybecause the system that supports them works to kettle theagencyofthosebelow.Thepowerfulandtheirlackeysusethisas evidence to assert that dissenters are illegitimate, uncivil,and ultimately savage. Out of control and ungovernable, theyneed to be forcefully trained to obey the civilizing moralcompass that only the Right, and right-minded leftists, canprovide.Thisobviouslydoesnotimply,bycontrast,thatweareobliged to indiscriminately condone everyone and everythingaffiliated with antifa. It simply means that we need to trainourselves to see through the numerous tactics employed todiscredititacrosstheboardandignoreitspoliticalstakes.

In the face, then,of thiscontemporaryrestagingof thesavageand the civilized, which is viciously intent on transforming acomplexpoliticalstruggle intoasimplemoralopposition, it isimportanttoremindourselvesofafewbasicthings.Firstofall,astheauthorofAntifa:TheAnti-FascistHandbookhascogentlyexplained in a recent interview, antifa is rooted in a century-longbattleagainstthefascismthatroseandspreadininterwarEurope by using the parliamentary system and many of thevery same protocols defended by so many liberals andconservatives today. It is part of a vast historical powerstruggle over the very meaning of politics, and it stalwartlyresists theassumption that thosewhoareviolentlydedicatedto destroying certain sectors of the population are simplyexpressing an opinion that should be respected or tolerated.Thesearepreciselytheviewsthatwereattherootofsomeof

20

themost ruthless anddestructivepolitical regimesof the lastcentury, including the Nazi Third Reich and the bloodydictatorshipsofFrancoandMussolini.

Oneoftheimportantfrontsofthecurrentanti-fasciststrugglesconcernsthehorizonsofpoliticalacceptability.Empoweredbya state apparatus that has proven time and again that it hastheirbacks, fascists,white supremacistsandneo-Nazisareontheattack(andreceivingamplefundingfromreactionaries,aswell as extensivemedia coverage).Theyare rabidly intentonexpanding the field of political acceptability to include them,perniciouslyattemptingtoco-optandoperationalizeprinciplesof“freespeech,”“civildiscourse,”and“tolerance”fortheirownends. It is precisely in this context, and against a historicalbackdrop in which liberal tolerance and the parliamentarysystem did little or nothing to stop the rise of fascism in theinterwarperiod,thatactivistsareputtingtheirownbodiesonthelinetoexpungefascism’sextremeviolencefromthefieldofpoliticalpossibilitybeforeitsrootsspreadevendeeper.

We should never forget, then, that antifa isastruggleagainstthe violence of fascism. Those militating for white supremacyandNazism,aswellasthosestandingonthesidelineswavingthebanneroftheirownmoralsuperioritywhiletheypromote“non-violent”toleranceoftheopinionofthosewhosekinhavebuiltgaschambersandrunlynchingcampaigns,arefightingforthe right to establish ormilitate for a system founded on themost extreme forms of systemic violence. Rather than peoplewho wear black, hide their faces from the oppressivesurveillance state, or put their own lives at risk to protectothers (such asCornelWest andother threatenedactivists inCharlottesville), why aren’t the fascists—as well as thosedefending their right to push on others the “opinion” thatswaths of the population should be decimated—identified astheviolentones?

21

Onereasonisthatsystemsofdominationdoeverythingintheirpower to render their own violence invisible, in part throughthehyper-visibilizationofanysignificantresistancetoit,whichis preciselywhat is labeled as “violent.” Self-appointedmoralreferees likeHedges falsely presume that the term “violence”simply refers to an objective fact rather than operating as anideologicaltoolusedtodiscreditdissent.Theybelieve,inspiteof all of the evidence to the contrary, that the Right and thecorporate media and state apparatus—with all of their well-paidspecialistsinsmearcampaigns,publiclies,infiltration,andfalse flag operations—would simply respect some ephemeral“moral authority” of the Left if the latter never engaged inactivitiesthattheyidentifyasviolent.

To take but one of themost flagrant examples ofwhy this isutterly incorrect, let us recall the FBI’s position on the mostoutspoken defender of non-violent resistance to whitesupremacyinthe1960s,MartinLutherKing,Jr.TwodaysafterthepeacefulMarchonWashingtonandhisuplifting “IHaveaDream”speech, theheadof thedomestic intelligencedivision,WilliamSullivan,summeduptheFBI’sstanceinamemototopbureau leaders, and laterwrote an anonymous letter to Kingtrying to blackmail him into committing suicide: “We mustmark him now, if we have not done so before, as the mostdangerous Negro of the future in this Nation from thestandpointofcommunism,theNegroandnationalsecurity.”

Thenotionofviolenceoperates,perhapsfirstandforemost,asaninstrumentofperceptionmanagement.Itservestoorganizeapoliticalplaying field in suchaway that certainmovementsand figuresaredelegitimated, andparticular tactics are takenaway from the oppressed, while the repressive strategies ofthose in power are legitimated, naturalized and ideallyrenderedinvisible.Thecorporatestateandtheirpawnsinthemediaandelsewheretherebyseektoestablishandmaintainamonopolyoninvisibleviolence.

22

One crucial question in this regard is why the conversationabout violence that is continually re-staged in the mediaoverwhelmingly focuses on tactics of resistance by theunderclasses.Amongthosewhoarevociferouslyproclaimingapure form of “non-violence” as an unquestionable moralprinciple,whoofthemisarguingthatthisprincipleshouldbeappliedtothecorporatestateandallofitsimperialendeavors?Alongside the countless statements reprimanding anti-capitalist activists for street scuffles, where are the articlescalling for the dismantling of themilitary-industrial complex,thedissolutionofthepoliceforce,ortheabolitionoftheprisonsystem? Why isn’t the debate around non-violence centeredprecisely on those who have all of the power and all of theweapons?Isitbecauseviolencehasactuallyworkedsuccessfullyin these cases to impose a very specific top-down agenda,which includesshuttingoutanyonewhocalls it intoquestion,and diligently managing the perception of their actions? Isviolencesomehowacceptableherebecauseitistheviolenceofthevictors,whoaretheoneswhopresumetohavetheright—and inanycasehave thepower—todefine theverynatureofviolence(asanythingthatthreatensthem)?

Clearly, the fetishization of non-violence is reserved for theactions of the underlings. They are the ones who, again andagain,aretoldthattheymustbecivil(andareneversufficientlyso), and that the best way to attain their objectives is byobeyingthemoraldictatesofthoseabove.Letusrecall,inthislight,JamesBaldwin’spowerfulstatementinthecontextoftheblack liberationmovementof the1960sand1970s:“Theonlytimenon-violenceisadmirediswhentheNegroespracticeit.”

Itistime,then,forustogetviolence.Weneedtofigureouthowitfunctionsandtheworkthatitdoesasapracticalconcepttoorchestrate a field of political possibility, distribute tactics,legitimate or discredit movements, render particular actionsvisible or invisible, and ultimately define the very nature of

23

what is politically acceptable. Thiswill allowus to refuse thehandcuffsoftheoppressivemoralismthatshacklesagentswiththeinchoatequestion:“violenceornon-violence?”Throwingoffthese shackles, and the assumption that there are two purelydelimitedformsofactionbetweenwhichwemustchooseonceandforallregardlessofcircumstances(includingthoseofself-defense),weshouldinsteadbeengagedinamuchbroaderanddeeper inquiry, which the latter question seeks to obfuscate:whatarewetodowiththedeadlywhitesupremacist,capitalistempire at this precise historical moment when it isemboldening itsmost fascist elements, andhowcanwemakesense of the ways in which it operationalizes “violence” tosimultaneously stigmatize resistance and perpetuate itsmonopolyoninvisibleviolence?Wereallyneedtogetviolence.We need to understand it and wrest control of it away fromthosewhomarshalit—undersomanydifferentguisesandwithsuchforce—againstus.

24

PublishedbytheRadicalEducationDepartment(RED)2019radicaleducationdepartment.comradicaleducation@protonmail.comNotes:Manythankstothecomradesinconversationwithwhomtheseideasdeveloped,andtoCounterpunch,whichfirstpublished“FreeSpeechisNottheIssue”and“It’sTimetoGetViolence,”andTruthout,whichfirstpublished"Who'sAfraidofDirectActiononCampus?"