IS ANARCHISM VIOLENCE? conditions of their country. They were known as nihilists and terrorists. They were not Anarchists. In modern times individual acts of political violence have been ev>enmore frequent than in the past. The women suffragettes in England, for example, frequently re~orted to it to propag_ate and carry out their demands for equal rights. In Germany, $Ince the war men of the most conservative political views have u&ed such metbods in the hope of re-establishing the kingdom. It was a monarchist who killed Karl Erzberger, the Prussian Minister of Finance ; and Walter Rathenau, Minister of Foreign Affairs, was also laid low by a man of the same political party. Why, the original cause of, or at least excuse for, the Great War itself was the killing of the Austrian heir to the throne by a Serbian patriot who had nev>erheard of Anarchism. In Germany, Hungary, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and in every other European country men of the most varied political views had resorted to acts of violence, not to speak of the wholesale political terror, practiced by orgahi9ed bod_iessuch as the Fascists in Italy, the Ku Klux Klan in America, or the Catholic Church in Mexico. . You see, then, that Anarchists have no monopoly of politicaf violence. The number of such acts by Anarchists is infinitesimal as compared with those committed by persons of other politicaf persuasions, 1 The truth is that in every country, in every social movement, violence has been a part of the struggle from time immemorial. Even the Nazarene, who came to preach the gospel of peace, resorted to violence to drive the money changers out of the temple. As I have said, Anarchists have no monopoly on violence. On the contrary, the teachings of Anarchism are those of peace and harmony, of non-invasion, of the sacredness of life and liberty. But Anarchists are human, like the rest of mankind, and perhap$ more so., They are move sensitive to wrong and injustice, quicker to resent oppression, and therefore not exempt from occasional1y voicing their protest by an act of violence. But such acts are an expression of individual temperament, not of any particular theory. You might ask whether the holding of revolutionary ideas would not naturally influence a person toward deeds of violence. I do not think so, because we have 9een that violent methods are also employed by people of the most conservative opinions. If persons of directly opposite political views commit similar acts, it is hardly reasonable to say that their ideas are resp~msible for such acts. Like results have a like cause, but that cause is not to be found Biblloteca G.no Bianco 13
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTExMDY2NQ==