In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, “propaganda of the deed” — individual acts of violence intended to inspire revolution — became the signature anarchist activity. Among the prominent casualties were French president Sadi Carnot, American president William McKinley and Italian King Umberto I.
Although propaganda of the deed has faded into history as an actuality, it tends to pop up frequently in anti-anarchist demagoguery, and I can’t help but think it’s set to do so once again. Early state and media spin on the killing of Gerardo Hernandez, the first US Transportation Security Administration employee to die “in the line of duty,” already attributes “anti-government views” to his alleged killer, Paul Ciancia.
As an anarchist, I’m not a fan of propaganda by the deed for three reasons:
First, it’s strategically useless. No single act is likely to produce anarchist revolution in an environment not yet primed for such revolution.
Secondly, it’s tactically counter-productive. Anyone with the intelligence and energy to plan such an act could do so much more for the cause in other ways than getting himself killed or imprisoned in this kind of one-off project.
Finally, all such activities carry a heavy risk of “collateral damage” and we anarchists, unlike state actors, actually shoulder true responsibility for our actions instead of seeking excuses for them.
All that said, if Ciancia did what he’s accused of doing, in the manner he’s accused of doing it, whether he intended it as “progaganda of the deed” or not, he deserves the thanks and support of a grateful populace.
Former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, a senior adviser to US president Barack Obama, justified the Obama regime’s cold-blooded murder of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki — a 16-year-old American accused of no crime whatsoever — with the claim that if he didn’t want to be murdered, he should have “had a more responsible father” (his father, Anwar al-Awlaki, was in fact accused of crimes, although the evidence seemed pretty weak).
To riff on Gibbs: If Gerardo Hernandez didn’t want to be gunned down in reprisal for he and his fellow TSA employees’ terrorism, he shouldn’t have accepted employment as a terrorist.
Yes, TSA is a terrorist organization. Its entire purpose is to frighten travelers for political purposes — the very definition of terrorism — by subjecting them to unwanted and unjustifiable searches of their property and persons, sometimes assaulting them sexually or otherwise in the process, sometimes abducting them.
By all accounts, Ciancia was extraordinarily careful in his attack. He asked each person he encountered whether or not they worked for TSA. Those who did not were sent on their way unharmed. He shot terrorists, and ONLY terrorists, with no “collateral damage.”
I don’t have to think that’s smart, or particularly useful to my cause, to admire both the morality of the action and the careful restraint with which it was performed.
The world would be a much nicer place if every government employee dreamed dark dreams of Paul Ciancia and his potential copycats every night, arrived at work every morning with those dreams very much in mind, and aspired only to keep a low, polite profile and cause no offense until such time as he or she could leave the life of crime and find a real job.
Citations to this article:
- Thomas L. Knapp, LAX Shootings: Propaganda of the Deed?, Before It’s News, 11/02/13
Don’t government employees already live in such fear of the civilian others? How else does one explain this real life prison experiment we live in?
No, this act will not lead to any better behavior from TSA agents or any other authorities. Apart from conducting even more security theater, I’m sure they will just get more brazen.
Just a word on "propaganda by the deed." The term specifically referred to acts by indivduals (both violent and not violent) that were intended to move "the people" to rise up. It was often incorrectly used (by individuals other than the ones carrying out the act) for acts that had no such intent. For example, Gaetano Bresci had no illusions that his assassination of King Umberto might spark a revolution. Rather, in Bresci's eyes, an individual had, two years earlier, gotten away with a mass murder of thousands of workers simply because he (King Umberto) was in a privileged position that allowed him to avoid responsibility for such deeds. Bresci decided to make him pay. Sante Caserio may have a had a few more illusions, but for him as well, the matter was not primarily to inspire an uprising, but rather to avenge the deaths of Emile Henry and Auguste Vaillant. Neither of these actions were essentially intended as "propaganda of deed," though others have defined them as such, but acts of individuals who did not want to see those they saw as tyrants getting away with murder.
apio,
Thanks for that interesting historical perspective — while I've read some about the various deeds, it's been mostly the "mainstream" version, e.g. Tuchmann's The Proud Tower and so forth, so I suspect you are right and that I have missed out on some nuance.
Killing TSA employees, when those individuals aren't engaging in bloodshed themselves? That's really okay with you, Mr. Knapp?
@Sean: “To riff on Gibbs…”.
Sean,
Well, it's not something I'll lose any sleep over, as I might if they were innocents rather than terrorists.
I'm sorry, but I just can't respect that attitude or response, Mr. Knapp. I'm not a fan of the TSA, and they may arguably terrorize the public, as you say. Nonetheless, I am not aware of TSA agents either engaging in or directly supporting any sort of bloodshed. As such, I do not believe it is justified to kill TSA agents, simply for their choice in employment.
I understand the parallel you are trying to draw to Gibbs's argument, and I absolutely oppose the cowardly, terroristic drone strikes. But to decide that individual human beings can be justifiably murdered, simply for their employment or association with activities which do not entail bloodshed, is in my eyes a morally callous and anti-humane stance. That's the kind of philosophy that can lead quite easily into bloody Jacobinism.
Sean,
I believe there's an article coming up on C4SS today (by Professor Roderick Long) that also takes issue with my attitude. You may find it interesting.
I'm torn about all this. From a strategic point of view, preaching non-violence while using violence doesn't seem to be prudent. Violence is the domain of the state, and we should leave it there. That being said…
In my mind there's only one crime worse than murder, and that is the crime of enslavement. Murder is a momentary action taken for many reasons (anger, jealousy, drunkenness). Enslavement is continuous and it's motivation is only that of sociopathic greed. State agents are in the business of enslaving us. They make their revenue through violent confiscation. Not one of them is truly blameless. That being said…
Most of them are ignorant, not evil. Again, it's the state that cultivates an us vs. them mentality that divides and conquers. We need to come together and convince people to not work for the mafia, not alienate it's dupes to cling to it even stronger.
Read Boitie's Politics of Obedience. Timeless and profound.
Thanks everyone.
Tom,
Editorials like this only serve reaction. But serving reaction has been an anarchist specialty for years, so why re-invent the wheel, right?
Let me focus on the last part of your commentary: "The world would be a much nicer place if every government employee dreamed dark dreams of Paul Ciancia and his potential copycats every night…". Every government employee? That's a lot of people. My wife works at a state public aid office. Should she live every day in fear that a client will kill her for daring to help people fill out food stamp applications? It seems you have a more brutal mind than almost any government actor I'm aware of.
Anarchists blame any number of villains for their inability to connect with most people. They seldom look in the mirror. This would be a good time for people at C4SS to do that. I'll close with a relevant quote that expands on this theme:
"The masses, more often than not, have seen the anarchist for what he is, an arrogant, albeit sensitive, snob; and they have rewarded him accordingly."
— Isaac Kramnick, 1973
A couple more points:
Reading this makes me glad I distanced myself from libertarian/anarchist circles. You see, Tom, you used to be my editor (a fact C4SS can easily confirm by looking at my email address). I left C4SS on good terms, but my differences w/ anarchist theory made me feel that this just wasn't the right forum for my writing. After reading this piece, I am completely confident that I made the right decision. Please remove my name from the C4SS contributors section, as I don't want to be associated in any way with apologies for domestic terrorism.
And Tom, please get help
"Yes, TSA is a terrorist organization. Its entire purpose is to frighten travelers for political purposes — the very definition of terrorism — by subjecting them to unwanted and unjustifiable searches of their property and persons, sometimes assaulting them sexually or otherwise in the process, sometimes abducting them."
What definition of terrorism are you operating under? The TSA doesn't fit any definition of terrorism I have seen, through my studies of individual/group terrorism and state terrorism in Latin America…
VA,
The working definition of terrorism I've usually seen and considered valid is "attacking civilians for the purpose of terrorizing them, the point being to translate that terror into political influence."
The TSA attacks (assaults, molests, etc.) civilians for the purpose of convincing them that the resurrected corpse of Osama bin Laden is almost certainly hiding underneath their seats, preparing to detonate a bomb in the overhead compartment, so as to keep them clamoring for more government "protection" a la TSA itself.
Outsider-Insider,
OK, so you have differences with anarchist theory. That's OK. Different people have different ideas.
Could I have been gentler in my phrasing in the section you take issue with? Yes, I probably could have.
I have to doubt that if I had been gentler in that phrasing, you would have stopped having differences with anarchist theory, though.
Just as I doubt that if you didn't have differences with anarchist theory, that my un-gentle phrasing would have created such differences.
Nor does your false claim that I wrote any apologetic for domestic terrorism change my mind about anything.
I don't know who you are, and I can't see your email address to find out. If you want to be removed from some section of the web site, you might want to email James Tuttle.
Sorry you didn't like the piece.
Tom,
Having ideological differences is not a problem. But doesn't it give you pause that someone sympathetic to many of your ideas had such a harsh reaction to your piece?
Hoping for more fear and loathing in this country is irresponsible. Officer safety training in US police agencies already encourages antipathy towards citizens. Do you want to exacerbate this trend? Do you also like to poke angry dogs with sticks?
You wrote, "Nor does your false claim that I wrote any apologetic for domestic terrorism change my mind about anything." Well, you can always tell an anarchist…you just can't tell him much. But seriously, If you want to equate airport security screeners with people that set off truck bombs in crowded markets, that's on you.
To paraphrase the Buddha, hatred is a poison. It will eat away at you just as much as your perceived enemies. When you send this hatred out to the world, don't be surprised when it returns to you. So maybe going out into the world looking for enemies is part of the problem.
O-I,
Yes, it always gives me pause when someone sympathetic to my ideas has a harsh reaction to something I write.
On the other hand,
1) It happens about once a week; and
2) Once I've written something, I can't un-write it.
So, having acknowledged the partial validity of one of your criticisms of my piece, all I can really do about it is to try to do better next time.