NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE, NO EXCUSE

                              BAD Broadside #7


Since late April, much has been written in the left and anarchist press
about the acquittal of the cops who beat Rodney King and the beatings,
killings, and stealing that followed shortly afterwards in Los Angeles.  As
could be expected, most of the leftist press either endorsed or apologized
for the violence committed by the residents of L.A. while justly condemning
that of the L.A. Police Department.  What is more distressing, but no less
surprising, is the fact that some of the anarchist press, as well, has
either supported or been unwilling to criticize the beatings and killings
that took place in L.A. on April 29 and the following days.
     During the "uprising" -- or "rebellion", as leftists and many
anarchists are fond of calling the events in L.A. -- people of many
different colours were beaten and/or killed, for no reason other than
hatred; hatred sometimes based on racist feelings, sometimes simply based on
viciousness and lack of respect for the lives and property of others.  Few
of those attacked were cops and none of them were politicians, judges, or
even jurors in the trial of the cops who beat King; they were primarily
people going about their own business who were unlucky enough to cross the
path of their attackers.  The businesses, homes, and meeting places of many
people -- again, people of various colours -- were trashed, burned, and
stolen from, including the Aquarian bookstore, the oldest black bookstore in
the United States, and the First AME Church, the oldest black congregation
in L.A.  These were not generally the businesses, homes, or institutions of
the wealthy, but the small shops of neighbourhood businesspeople and the
homes of poor people.
     Is this what the revolution means to the left in the United States?  Is
this the kind of society anarchists wish to build?
     From June Jordan in THE PROGRESSIVE, to the editor of THE LIBERTARIAN
MUTUALIST, to Barbara Smith and Phill Wilson in GAY COMMUNITY NEWS, to the
anonymous anarchists who produced L.A. TODAY, to the writers in THE
REVOLUTIONARY WORKER, leftists and anarchists have defended and "understood"
and explained and excused this hatred and violence.  They blame Reagan and
Bush and racism and the courts and the cops and the fire-fighters for the
destruction and murder in L.A.  Not one of them has said beating and killing
other people who have not initiated or planned to initiate violence against
another person is wrong, regardless of what happened in the courts earlier
that day.  The writers in L.A. TODAY were blunt enough to label the violence
in L.A. as not only justified, but necessary, while the editor of THE
LIBERTARIAN MUTUALIST was moved to "commend the brave perpetrators of random
violence for being right on target."
     Neither have any of these writers said burning down other people's
homes and shops is wrong.  Ayofemi Folayan, in SOJOURNER, even implicitly
blamed the fire department for the fires in L.A., despite the fact that
fire-fighters were being attacked when they tried to do their job, instead
of holding those who lit them responsible.  They all apologize for (in the
words of Anti-Authoritarians Anonymous) "the excesses committed by a
population enraged beyond measure," as if rage is an excuse for murder.
     When a man, frustrated by his job and life in general, beats his
girlfriend, do these people call on us to understand his rage?  When cops,
enraged by the refusal of one of their victims to obey their orders, beat
the shit out of him, are we expected to understand their rage?  No, of
course not.  In such circumstances, we are expected to hold these violent
individuals responsible for their actions and condemn them accordingly.  The
events in L.A. were no different.  The haters there were no more defensible
than the cops who bashed Rodney King.
     The reason these writers were willing to defend the perpetrators of the
violence in L.A. is because they apply a double standard to people, a racist
and class-biased double standard.  They seem to postulate that, because of
institutional racism and economic inequality, black and/or poor people are
incapable of making the same moral choices that non-black and/or non-poor
people make, and are therefore not responsible for the violent acts that
some of them engage in.
     On the other hand, many of these leftists consider white people
universally responsible for the actions of some people who are white, and
therefore, in their moral system, all white people are fair targets for the
"rage" of the "oppressed".  As someone wrote in L.A. TODAY:  "We have to
realize that the conditions people of colour suffer under in this country
fully justify any act of resistance they choose to take, even if it "takes
out" a few of our kind ["our kind" meaning whites, anti-racists and racists
alike].  Some of the victims may be good persons, activists, good friends or
lovers, but we must be careful to lay the blame where it belongs: not on
Black [sic] people but on the racist white capitalist system itself.  In the
blinding anger of insurrection people don't stop to ask your class
credentials or your opinions on racism: if you're white you're a target. 
This is to be expected.  Not fun, but expected." Note that they say that
racist murder is "not fun".  They never say it is "not good".
     Poor and/or black people, despite having fewer options in a number of
areas in their lives, due both to racism and restrictive laws, still are
capable of making choices about their actions, and are responsible for the
consequences of their decisions, just as other people are.  To think
otherwise is to infantilize black people and/or poor people, to consider
them less fully human than other people.  Such thinking lays the basis for
paternalistic interventions in their lives by the state, ensuring their
continued dependence and poverty.  Despite the fact that leftists blame the
state and white people for the violence and destruction in L.A., they turn
to the state (run primarily by white people) to remedy the situation, not by
leaving people alone, but by becoming more involved in people's lives.  They
support government housing, government jobs, welfare, government-funded and
-regulated child care, government-funded drug "treatment", more black cops,
and other government-centred programs and activities.
     If racist government is the problem, how can it be depended upon to
change things to the benefit of poor black people?  Getting government out
of the way is the only thing that will lead to the changes that can produce
an improvement in the lives of people in L.A.  One important first step
would be abolition of laws which restrict the entry of poor and/or black
people into various jobs.  Taxi regulations which constrict the
transportation market, licensing of hairdressers, nurses, and other
occupations which excludes people who can't afford government-certified
training programs or licensing fees, and zoning laws which prevent people
from working out of their homes or setting up shops in some areas are all
forms of government intervention in our economic life which keep many black
people in poverty.
     Another area where state intervention is harming poor people is
housing.  Government-protected titles to abandoned property prevent people
from homesteading and developing empty buildings, forcing them to rely on
dirty, dangerous government housing.  Additionally, drug laws, which
criminalize a voluntary, private activity, promote the violence and theft
that devastate many neighbourhoods where black people live.  Encouraging
people to rely on themselves instead of the state can lead to
self-sufficient, independent, and, hopefully, more rebellious people; people
who will rebel against the real evils in society, the government and its
laws, courts, cops, and military, not their neighbours and other
non-coercive people.
     The events in L.A. pushed leftists and anarchists to show where they
stand, and, unfortunately, too many of them are standing on the wrong side. 
Leftists have been embracing government, racism, nationalism, murder, and
destruction as the means to a free society at least since 1917. 
Historically, however, anarchists have talked of the need for consistency of
means and ends, i.e. only moral or ethical means can yield moral or ethical
results.  But the anarchists who produced L.A. TODAY and THE LIBERTARIAN
MUTUALIST, and those who share their views, expect us to believe that
murder, assault and theft today will somehow lead to freedom and anarchy in
the future.  The experience of the authoritarian socialist movement has put
the lie to such ideas, but apparently many anarchist are slow to learn.
     Unless anarchists develop a critique of the welfare state, abandon
their leftist racism, and encourage people to rely on themselves and assume
responsibility for their lives, there will be little to distinguish them
from the rest of the authoritarian left, their anti-statist posturing
notwithstanding.  Only by encouraging libertarian actions in the present can
we have any hope of a libertarian future.

                                NO COPYRIGHT

               Please send two copies of any review or reprint
                         of all or part of this to:

                      Boston Anarchist Drinking Brigade
                                (BAD Brigade)
                                 PO Box 1323
                             Cambridge, MA 02238

                      Internet: bbrigade@world.std.com

                                 July, 1992