Easily the most persistent question that arises when we endure another shooting such as the recent one at LAX in which a TSA agent was killed and others injured is “Why?” It appears that the shooter, 23-year-old Paul Anthony Ciancia, had one thing in mind: Killing TSA agents. He did not appear to want to kill civilians, and he allegedly had “anti-government” materials with him at the time of the incident.
Anarchist, of course, note the state’s claim to a monopoly on violence, and observe that TSA agents are known for things such as racial profiling, sexual assault and other forms of aggression. Their very jobs are facilitated through state aggression. It should come as no surprise, then, that someone reacted with retaliatory violence toward the TSA, as Paul Anthony Ciancia apparently did.
But why is it still wrong?
The violence of the state creates ripple effects across our communities at large. From public schools to the war on drugs, we are surrounded by statism. Its violence pervades our social arrangements. I would argue that at the core of violence in our communities is allegiance to the state. That allegiance creates a culture in which it is considered acceptable, nay virtuous, to aggress against others in order to meet our social and economic ends. At least, as long it is the political class doing the aggressing. Yet, when people fight back, they are abhorred. This is not to say that what Ciancia was moral or virtuous; it’s just that statism creates a strong layer of cognitive dissonance. The fact that Ciancia committed an act of violence against the state is not, broadly speaking, wrong. But he failed to take into account that the state, being pervasive, can technically make just about anyone, from a teacher to a fireman, one’s enemy. He joined the state in its game of violence, and not only did he lose, but more than likely the TSA will become more violent and aggressive.
Paul Anthony Ciancia has made things worse.
Note that this is not an argument against violence, per se, but rather to the fundamental flaw of violent revolution: The state is simply better at violence.
What could people like Paul Anthony Ciancia do instead of playing the state’s game? I am no techie, but one idea I have is developing open source, black market methods of air travel. If drug dealers can do it, why can’t other people? Perhaps there are people out there smarter than I who could develop cloaking devices for larger planes. The point is, there are plenty of things the state is bad at, and dealing with decentralized workarounds to its systems is one of the areas where it is the weakest.
Put simply, capitalize on something the political class doesn’t understand: Peace.
Citations to this article:
- Travis Eby, Paul Anthony Ciancia: What He Did Was Wrong, But Not For the Reason You Might Think, Pensacola, Florida Voice, p. 6, 11/14/13
- Travis Eby, Paul Anthony Ciancia: What He Did Was Wrong, But Not For the Reason You Might Think, Before It’s News, 11/05/13
Yes, from a strategic point of view, violence against the state is almost always a waste (and if you ever find yourself in a position in which you can actually overpower the state, you've probably become something worth destroying also).
That doesn't mean it's not justified. Things are going to get worse, one way or the other. There is no way out, and no way up. If some people choose to go down fighting, it's unfair (and frankly cowardly, and collaborationist) of us to blame them for the state's response.
when the state deprives people in our inner cities of the ability and resources to allow them and their families to subsist, I do not blame them for resorting to theft, fraud, extortion, etc. these TSA agents have families they must feed too and are manipulated by the same mass media system that is constantly both whispering and screaming at them "CONSUME! CONSUME! BUY MORE STUFF! DON'T YOU WANT YOUR FAMILY TO BE HAPPY AND PROSPEROUS? THEN CLIMB THE LADDER! OBEY YOUR BOSSES! BUY MORE STUFF!" we all know how dualistic human nature is, and the "good" coexists with the "bad" in everybody. what I'm getting at is that culpability is a tricky and much more complex issue than some of the recent literature on this site has suggested. I don't know if I'm saying these agents were necessarily victims, but I do think that they are working for the TSA because it seemed like a good opportunity for them for a variety of different reasons. instead of borderline condoning terrorism (some here have suggested that this will make state agents fearful of performing their jobs) perhaps we should discuss creative ways we can affect, change, and infiltrate culture so that "opportunities" to work for the state no longer are as lustrous and attractive in comparison to those that exist in the free economy of mutual aid and mutually beneficial exchange.
"But he failed to take into account that the state, being pervasive, can technically make just about anyone, from a teacher to a fireman, one’s enemy."
But Travis, anarchists make the decision to declare that fireman, teacher or TSA Agent their enemy. That is a value judgment, not some law of nature like gravity.
A vanishingly small percentage of people believe that government is inherently immoral. At some point, anarchists have to realize that people aren't buying their main premise. Where does one find anarchists outside the internet or the campus quad anyway?
When one sees things in black and white, one's options become very limited and his list of enemies voluminous. Declaring someone an enemy because they work for an organization that has existed in some form for years and isn't going away is counterproductive. And declaring your end goal, rather than general strategies to reduce suffering, is a tactical error.
Anarchism, like most Western political philosophies, encourages people to avoid or fear reality. Like Christianity, it fetishizes the eternal reward while missing opportunities to improve life in the here and now.
"but one idea I have is developing open source, black market methods of air travel." You forgot the anti-air "defense"
"missing opportunities to improve life in the here and now." So just comply more with the state'sinvasive control of you & allow it to take your life away with impunity.
The state consists of two hangmen, one who ties a noose around your neck and the other guy kicks the chair from under your feet, which one is the murderer?
Many statists & duped peoples just answer that neither is the murderer, meanwhile the murderous duo can just go around & hang more peoples
If the system doesn't fall apart under it's own weight, some degree of violence in a transition is to be expected and something to prepare ourselves for. Single shooters who can easily be dismissed as crazy are not a good way to organize resistance though.
"So just comply more with the state'sinvasive control of you & allow it to take your life away with impunity."
Beautiful straw man! I don't know how you got that from what I said. Improving life in the here and now would seem to be a better way of implementing change than sitting around in anarchist circle jerk sessions and deciding how the commune will be run after the revolution. You don't have to buy into "smash the state" rhetoric in order to advocate radical change. Anarchists did not invent resistance to unjust laws and state aggression. Indeed, they are often the state's best friend.
The rest of your reply is standard ominous sounding anarcho-rhetoric designed to frighten the reader or make him feel as if he is an accessory to some terrible crime for not supporting your view. The overuse of the word "statist" alone in anarchist ranting is enough to make me laugh. If you want to win people over, don't moralize and insult their intelligence like some frothing street corner preacher.