Against Terrorism

It’s the business of reporters to report on events like the Boston bombings, and the business of commentators to explain them. But since we don’t have enough evidence, yet, about who did what, all commentators can do is speculate . . .

And that’s not very illuminating. Anyone can speculate.

Instead, let’s take a step back.

“Terrorism” is old. Anarchists at the end of the 19th century began their “propaganda by the deed” campaigns, eliciting from the U.S. government a vast repressive effort against anarchists (even peaceful, non-terrorist anarchists) and syndicalist unionism.

Striking out and terrifying a populace tends to unite that populace, making people more supportive of their government and its policies, not less. This has been observed from time immemorial. So anarchist terrorism was probably the dumbest terrorism in history.

An earlier bout of terrorism was the mob of “democrats” in France, during the late French Revolution. The furor to kill and dispossess got so out of hand that the French were prepared for a tyrant, Napoleon.

Not very effective there, either.

The most common form of terrorism in the last century was state terrorism, where governments brutalized their citizens, the better to solidify power. These regimes seem to succeed, sometimes for long periods. But people eventually turn on such tormenters, preferring peaceful life under a rule of law.

As Bostonians reel from the bizarre bombing, we should remember: the rule of law is better than terrorism. It’s plodding, yes. It is never ideally just, since it is run by human beings. But refusing to resort to indiscriminate violence to “obtain justice” or “make a point” or “get/maintain power” is the basic idea of civilization.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

3 Comments so far ↓

  1. Apr
    17
    9:30
    AM
    JFB

    As usual, two wrongs will never make a right. All such actions are counterproductive. If I were the oppressor I could not have a better ally than the terrorist.
    There is a reason we remember and laud Gandi, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, they actually caused good and correct things to happen. That cannot be said for any organization or individual practicing this stupid, cowardly, criminal and short-sighted activity.

  2. Apr
    17
    11:23
    AM
    Paul Jacob

    Well said, JFB.

  3. Apr
    17
    4:09
    PM
    Erne Lewis

    Paul
    This is the first time I have ever disagreed with you over more years than I can recall.
    Recently we have seen mobs rioting and destroying private property and loss of life under the anarchist banner. But they were not anarchist they were socialists. They wanted government to give them back their jobs and the regular monthly payments. Perhaps they called themselves anarchists because they hated their government even though it was socialist. Most socialists are too dumb to understand the philosophical difference. They think with their emotions. Most of the other anarchist groups you named were also socialists. They simply wanted government to give them wealth they had not earned.
    Libertarian anarchists simply want a society organized by the marketplace and not by thugs using force (which is where it invariably ends up under government).

Spruce up your comments with
<a href="" title=""><abbr title=""><acronym title=""><b><blockquote cite=""><cite><code><del datetime=""><em><i><q cite=""><strike><strong>
New comments are moderated before being shown * = required field Be sure to answer the simple math problem below to help demonstrate that you are a human rather than a spambot.

Leave a Comment






4 × = twelve