okay, serious answer, this is a non sequitur on par with "why do you hate the global poor." it's false consciousness that identifies your very existence with the systems destroying you.
In my experience there are some anarchists who have very anti-social, individualist views. I have encountered a number of people over the years who are dismissive or openly contemptuous of this question. Others have simply never considered how to handle large scale, complex problems like drug manufacture or the manufacture of heavy equipment.
"Burn it all down" anarchists whose theory stops at lighting cop cars on fire and breaking things exist, and I have found that people who are not able or willing to consider the role of disabled people or people with specific needs in their revolution do not generally make good comrades.
The most frequent way I have encountered this is during protests and demos where a small group of people will start taking aggressive action beyond what the majority of the group considers appropriate, without regard to the wellbeing of the other people in the group. But it shows up in other contexts, too.
When I bring it up its generally because I want to emphasize that anarchism is hard and demanding work that asks a great deal of people, something which very individually minded anarchists often have trouble with.
but like, that's my question, why is knowledge of medical production salient to the work of breaking things and lighting cop cars on fire? I fully agree with the principle that consideration of disability must be a priority for any revolutionary effort, but I don't know how to read this sort of objection as anything other than "you must lay out your utopian plan in full detail before you lift a finger against the present order." I certainly appreciate the need for strategy over adventurism, but who does it benefit to ingrain this sort of anxiety and self-doubt in the revolution before it even exists?
"How will you make medicine" is a big picture question that stands in for a lot of smaller questions that can cause issues when organizing. Thoughtfulness and consideration are needed at both the macro level and the micro level.
When you're burning cop cars, are you diligently maintaining opsec? If you're captured you may be coerced or tortured to rat on your comrades, so you have a responsibility to do everything in your power to avoid leaving evidence the pigs could use to hunt you down.
Are you acting in accordance with the will of the group? I've seen people who escalate, seemingly confident of their own ability to evade police retaliation, while the group contains elderly people, children, or disabled people who are much more vulnerable.
On a less dire note, are you being considerate of other people's time and resources? Are you making sure to recover equipment and materials whenever possible, and return them to their owners if necessary, to avoid wastage and make efficient use of resources?
Are you showing up to meetings on time and prepared?
Basically, are you holding in your mind that anarchism is not about adventurism or cathartic aggression, but about building community power and mutual aid?
Again, this is only some people, but America is a hyper-individualistic culture where concern for the needs and wellbeing of others is actively, violently discouraged. Not everyone has fully internalized and worked through that, and people who primarily express an interest in street confrontations, aggressive direct actions, or other escalating confrontations often turn out to be liabilities.
To cite a personal example; A few years ago my community went out to confront a MAGA group that was having a barbecue in a prominent public location. We wanted to contest their presence and re-take the space. Things went as well as can be expected; Lots of yelling past the MAGA creeps, lots of staring down the riot cops, some pepper spray but no serious violence. The issue arose when the security team informed us that several busses of additional riot police were on their way to our location. We were already closely hemmed in on three sides by police. Even a few additional police would be able to kettle us and we would have no realistic means of escape. The organizers called for us to withdraw and head back to our assembly area. Most of the group complied and began making their way out of the police encirclement. But a few people were so caught up in yelling at the MAGA that they stayed close to the line even as their comrades were leaving. Leaving people behind when it's not absolutely necessary is unacceptable, so I and some people from security tried to get them moving, explaining the situation and gently nudging them to start moving away. Some resisted for a few minutes before we were able to convince them to move.
They weighed their desire to engage in a cathartic confrontation over both their own safety and the safety of the group. Especially in a potentially violent situation it's vital to stick tight with your people and move as one body whenever possible. We were able to get them moving eventually, but we had to put ourselves at some, albeit small, risk to do so. In this case these comrades were behaving in an individualistic and inconsiderate matter that was tactically inappropriate.
That's just one possible example of comrades who view confrontation and aggressive action as an end unto itself, or a source of personal catharsis or satisfaction. If a persons goal is "burn it all down" they are often a liability rather than an asset.
okay, serious answer, this is a non sequitur on par with "why do you hate the global poor." it's false consciousness that identifies your very existence with the systems destroying you.
In my experience there are some anarchists who have very anti-social, individualist views. I have encountered a number of people over the years who are dismissive or openly contemptuous of this question. Others have simply never considered how to handle large scale, complex problems like drug manufacture or the manufacture of heavy equipment.
"Burn it all down" anarchists whose theory stops at lighting cop cars on fire and breaking things exist, and I have found that people who are not able or willing to consider the role of disabled people or people with specific needs in their revolution do not generally make good comrades.
The most frequent way I have encountered this is during protests and demos where a small group of people will start taking aggressive action beyond what the majority of the group considers appropriate, without regard to the wellbeing of the other people in the group. But it shows up in other contexts, too.
When I bring it up its generally because I want to emphasize that anarchism is hard and demanding work that asks a great deal of people, something which very individually minded anarchists often have trouble with.
but like, that's my question, why is knowledge of medical production salient to the work of breaking things and lighting cop cars on fire? I fully agree with the principle that consideration of disability must be a priority for any revolutionary effort, but I don't know how to read this sort of objection as anything other than "you must lay out your utopian plan in full detail before you lift a finger against the present order." I certainly appreciate the need for strategy over adventurism, but who does it benefit to ingrain this sort of anxiety and self-doubt in the revolution before it even exists?
"How will you make medicine" is a big picture question that stands in for a lot of smaller questions that can cause issues when organizing. Thoughtfulness and consideration are needed at both the macro level and the micro level.
When you're burning cop cars, are you diligently maintaining opsec? If you're captured you may be coerced or tortured to rat on your comrades, so you have a responsibility to do everything in your power to avoid leaving evidence the pigs could use to hunt you down.
Are you acting in accordance with the will of the group? I've seen people who escalate, seemingly confident of their own ability to evade police retaliation, while the group contains elderly people, children, or disabled people who are much more vulnerable.
On a less dire note, are you being considerate of other people's time and resources? Are you making sure to recover equipment and materials whenever possible, and return them to their owners if necessary, to avoid wastage and make efficient use of resources?
Are you showing up to meetings on time and prepared?
Basically, are you holding in your mind that anarchism is not about adventurism or cathartic aggression, but about building community power and mutual aid?
Again, this is only some people, but America is a hyper-individualistic culture where concern for the needs and wellbeing of others is actively, violently discouraged. Not everyone has fully internalized and worked through that, and people who primarily express an interest in street confrontations, aggressive direct actions, or other escalating confrontations often turn out to be liabilities.
To cite a personal example; A few years ago my community went out to confront a MAGA group that was having a barbecue in a prominent public location. We wanted to contest their presence and re-take the space. Things went as well as can be expected; Lots of yelling past the MAGA creeps, lots of staring down the riot cops, some pepper spray but no serious violence. The issue arose when the security team informed us that several busses of additional riot police were on their way to our location. We were already closely hemmed in on three sides by police. Even a few additional police would be able to kettle us and we would have no realistic means of escape. The organizers called for us to withdraw and head back to our assembly area. Most of the group complied and began making their way out of the police encirclement. But a few people were so caught up in yelling at the MAGA that they stayed close to the line even as their comrades were leaving. Leaving people behind when it's not absolutely necessary is unacceptable, so I and some people from security tried to get them moving, explaining the situation and gently nudging them to start moving away. Some resisted for a few minutes before we were able to convince them to move.
They weighed their desire to engage in a cathartic confrontation over both their own safety and the safety of the group. Especially in a potentially violent situation it's vital to stick tight with your people and move as one body whenever possible. We were able to get them moving eventually, but we had to put ourselves at some, albeit small, risk to do so. In this case these comrades were behaving in an individualistic and inconsiderate matter that was tactically inappropriate.
That's just one possible example of comrades who view confrontation and aggressive action as an end unto itself, or a source of personal catharsis or satisfaction. If a persons goal is "burn it all down" they are often a liability rather than an asset.