anarchists_worldwide wrote

comment from Earth Strike UK that was left on our FB page under our post of the above article...

This is very interesting. We don't actually have any stated policy on non-violence as we think that would go against the St Paul principles that we follow. However, I think for the most part, the view within Earth Strike (particularly in the UK) is somewhat different from the viewpoint in this article but not incompatible. Rather than proclaiming ourselves to be violent or non violent, and separating the legacies and experiences of decades of activism into these binary categories, we would challenge the validity of "violence" and it's use in language. Along the lines of Peter Gelderloos argument in 'How non-violence protects the state' we think it is important to challenge how the use of the term violent is gendered and controlled by the social engineers who wish to defend state and capital by refusing to apply it to ourselves. We identify neither as violent or non-violent because the use of these terms would place us within a social category created specifically to alienate those who try to resist. As for our use of strike action rather than insurrection... 1. cant people do both? 2. The shutting down of production by the workers with a wildcat strike is surely as much an experiment in self liberation as smashing a window? But again, feel free to do both.