20 ms·

I wrote the Anarchist Cookbook in 1969. Now I see its premise as flawed

281 points by ballard 13y ago

ihsw 13y ago
Off-topic: thank you mods for changing the original submission title, it was quite inflammatory. Terrorism -- or (more to the point) political expression by violence -- is not at all a means to end violence, and it would be foolish to pretend that it can ever be. As a matter of fact that is the point of the submitted article. The original title claimed that the Cookbook's author felt terrorism is "a worthless strategy" but such a title contrasts so strongly with the actual article that it boggles my mind how the original submitter even came to that conclusion. Terrorism is just another form of political expression, and calling it worthless is like calling a hammer worthless where a screwdriver would be more appropriate.
- Crito 13y ago
  Terrorism is such an overloaded word that I think it is next to useless if you want to convey any sort of point clearly. It is better to speak of things more specifically. Topics like assassinations, industrial sabotage, propaganda, and bombing campaigns all deserve individual treatment; talking about "terrorism" has the tendency to lump them together. Some of the things that frequently fall under the umbrella of "terrorism" do have the potential to end violence. Even things that are violent. Because of the fuzzy and subjective nature of the word "terrorism" it is always possible to assert that examples of "terrorism" working are not examples of "true" terrorism, but if we are wary of that loophole by being purposely inclusive, there are examples in history of terrorism ending violence. The show trial and execution of Nicolae Ceaușescu is an example that springs to mind immediately. Allied resistance movements during the Second World War are another (such as Operation Heads, an assassination program run by the Polish resistance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Heads http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Heads).
LukeWalsh 13y ago
> The anger that motivated the writing of the Cookbook blinded me to the illogical notion that violence can be used to prevent violence. I don't see why he asserts this as if it is indisputable fact. This is one of the most debated topics in all of human history. The leaders of almost every major revolution eventually reached precisely the opposite conclusion. The book may in fact do harm in the hands of those who are rash and quick to anger. But I don't think that has anything to do with something that is inherently illogical.
- Crito 13y ago
  Quite. Bloodlust is a dangerous thing, but total pacifism is still a fairly radical idea that I don't think many people actually buy into when the rubber meets the road. Pacifism has claimed few victories, suggesting that historic incidents could have been better solved with pacifism is a good way to make yourself look very silly very quickly. Pacifism is a tool, not a silver bullet. For revolutionaries and reformationists, there is no silver bullet.
  - dionidium 13y ago
    Just to pile on here, you'll usually find that people who claim to be pacifists will say, "oh, well, yeah, of course we had to fight Hitler" when confronted. They don't actually even think of themselves that way, in other words.
    - PhasmaFelis 13y ago
      That's not necessarily hypocritical. You can be a pacifist in most situations and acknowledge that sometimes violence is called for.
      - evanspa 13y ago
        But then you're not a pacifist. By definition (at least my understanding / interpretation), a pacifist considers violence unjustifiable in any and all situations.
        Symmetry 13y ago
        I think you can reasonably claim to be a pacifist if you think that violence is unacceptable in broad categories that most people find it acceptable in, even if you still support it in some situations. For example, wanting to abolish the military but not the police.
        Crito 13y ago
totalrobe 13y ago
Newsflash - young man is rash and inflammatory & old man sees error in his ways.
- dj-wonk 13y ago
  And the reformed, wise old man wants to erase all traces of his former book? Maybe he could gather them up and burn them?
  - BHSPitMonkey 13y ago
    Having read the article, I don't know where you gleaned that. Desiring for new copies not to be printed is not the same as wanting previous copies or "traces" of their existence to be destroyed.
vezzy-fnord 13y ago
It's worth noting that the author recanting his book isn't as of recent. In fact, he dropped his views all the way back in 1976. This editorial review on the Amazon page for the book might offer some more insight: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0974458902 http://www.amazon.com/dp/0974458902 Oh, and might I add, The Anarchist Cookbook isn't flawed so much in that it presents violence as a means to an end, but rather that actually following the recipes will likely get you killed or maimed. Hopefully people reading the book already knew this.
- mcphilip 13y ago
  >Oh, and might I add, The Anarchist Cookbook isn't flawed so much in that it presents violence as a means to an end, but rather that actually following the recipes will likely get you killed or maimed. Hopefully people reading the book already knew this. The Vice's Guide episode where they try out recipes makes this crystal clear. The napalm experiment was probably the most eye opening. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcIMuoUcc1s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcIMuoUcc1s
  - unfunco 13y ago
    The recipes cooked by Vice were not recipes from the book, the were recipes from the electronic version which bears little resemblance to the printed version.
    - tomhschmidt 13y ago
      Could you elaborate on this?
      - sirsar 13y ago
        The Anarchist Cookbook is the title of a dead-tree book, which the article is about. The Anarchist Cookbook is also the title of an unaffiliated text file containing explosives recipes.
        13y ago
grantlmiller 13y ago
wow, what an interesting personification of the entire baby boomer generation's evolution from anti-establishment to the establishment.
- wibkemarianne 13y ago
  If you hope to eventually sell out, first you must have something to sell. This is the motto of the boomer generation. Leverage your anti-authority cult classic into a pro-authority book deal. Cha-ching.
- pessimizer 13y ago
  Yes. It's the personal statement of a very privileged person who (like the rest of the 60s) was probably inspired to empathy with the civil rights movement triggered by the threat of the draft, but has now transferred his empathy to the more exotic minorities populating his new life of international adventure. Now his personal feeling of threat comes more from the revolution than the state, so his opinion of revolution has changed. Hopefully the consolation that no one will be able to download, take out from a library or buy his book without being put on a list by secret intelligence services will make him feel a little better about writing it.
pessimizer 13y ago
So the violence of the ANC didn't end the violence of Apartheid, and the violence of the Allies didn't end the violence of the Axis? edit: I'd submit that it was the violence of their respective systems upon their non-violent protests that is responsible for anything Gandhi and MLK achieved.
- pstuart 13y ago
  There's a place for that but it should be a last resort. The Nixon administration was more afraid of the collective size of the protest movement - not the violence by the radical fringe. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/july-dec11/nixontapes_11-25.html http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/july-dec11/nixont...
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    I think that's because the violence that the Nixon administration would have to visit on a protest movement that couldn't be worked around would cause support for the administration to crumble.
- PhasmaFelis 13y ago
  > I'd submit that it was the violence of their respective systems upon their non-violent protests that is responsible for anything Gandhi and MLK achieved. You say that like it's an argument in favor of violence and against pacifism. In those two cases, the violent side lost specifically because they were violent. I'm not convinced that violence is never called for, but pacifism clearly can work in at least some circumstances.
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    >You say that like it's an argument in favor of violence and against pacifism. I don't mean it to be. I mean to say that the strength of pacifism comes from the violent reaction to it.
- Theodores 13y ago
  Some clarification on where the ANC were coming from, courtesy of Nelson Mandela in The Sacred Warrior (2000): > Gandhi remained committed to nonviolence; I followed the Gandhian strategy for as long as I could, but then there came a point in our struggle when the brute force of the oppressor could no longer be countered through passive resistance alone. We founded Umkhonto we Sizwe and added a military dimension to our struggle. Even then, we chose sabotage because it did not involve the loss of life, and it offered the best hope for future race relations. Militant action became part of the African agenda officially supported by the Organization of African Unity (O.A.U.) following my address to the Pan-African Freedom Movement of East and Central Africa (PAFMECA) in 1962, in which I stated, "Force is the only language the imperialists can hear, and no country became free without some sort of violence."
ececconi 13y ago
> I suspect that these children have taught me a great deal more than I have taught them. Very great statement. I've done volunteer work before and have come to the same realization.
- wibkemarianne 13y ago
  This is an insult to the intelligence of the children. You're claiming that they are so poor at learning, and you are so superior at learning, that all of their learning combined is dwarfed by the learning of a single man--you. Any teacher who learns more than his collective students is a failed teacher. Period. Such a teacher's life has been worthless--this is a mathematical fact. Being proud of gaining more from your volunteer service than did the people you are supposed to be helping is not something to brag about. It is morally reprehensible and brings to mind all of the criticisms of poverty tourism that have so often been levied against your type of exploiter. Usually, the money that wealthy poverty tourists spend on travel would be thousands of times more efficient had they just donated that money. You are gleeful that you profited more from your volunteer work than the supposed recipients did. Your self-reported tale of exploitation is disgusting.
  - dinkumthinkum 13y ago
    You're taking a little kind of cliche platitude and running in a weird direction with it ... really weird ...
    - wibkemarianne 13y ago
      Oh no! Someone on the internet says my highly upvoted analysis is.... "weird"! What a worthless comment.
      - vidarh 13y ago
        You seem to be trying very hard to start off with getting off on the wrong footing on HN given how confrontational you are being. Your "highly upvoted analysis" can't possibly be that highly upvoted given the low karma of your account.
rch 13y ago
As a youth I had a copy of the Improvised Munitions Handbook. Imagine my surprise when it showed up in Toy Story! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TM_31-210_Improvised_Munition_Handbook http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TM_31-210_Improvised_Munition_H...
orionblastar 13y ago
It isn't about using violence against the government. It is about getting the government to reform itself to stop using violence to solve world and domestic problems. We don't need violent protests now that we have the Internet and can leak documents exposing government corruption and write about truths to inform people and allow them to vote in different politicians.
- wibkemarianne 13y ago
  The most violent thing to do is to do nothing to change the status quo because the status quo is upheld by perpetual institutionalized violence. Today, however, the violence of the current regime goes beyond just violence against other humans. Today the current regime is committing violence against the human species, and threatening that species with extinction. Violent acts that may stop the extinction of life on Earth are not only justified... they are morally obligatory. We are in the last hours of humanity. The species won't be saved by squeamish old boomers.
  - JoshuaDavid 13y ago
    >Today, however, the violence of the current regime goes beyond just violence against other humans. Today the current regime is committing violence against the human species, and threatening that species with extinction [Citation needed]. Who is threatening the human species with extinction. I can think of several ways that humanity could go extinct, but none of them would benefit any government. Be specific.
    - wibkemarianne 13y ago
      It's called the climate change apocalypse, and every major government is hurtling our species toward it. Hawaii University just released the best data we have so far: sea level rises are inevitable, mass destruction of coasts worldwide, hundreds of millions of refugees, famine, drought, and extinction of huge proportions of higher life forms across the planet. The only remaining debate is whether we will experience apocalyptic horrors of Biblical degree, whether just humans will go extinct, or whether all life on Earth will go extinct. These are our three possible futures. The Permian mass extinction has oft been cited. You are morally condemned for your ignorance. You are part of the problem. Shame on you.
rexreed 13y ago
"The Cookbook serves no purpose other than a commercial one for the publisher" -- and that's precisely why it won't go out of print. Regardless of the intentions of the writer and the reader, it is a very popular book and therefore something lucrative to sell. If it were to disappear from print, ironically, it would make it even more valuable.
pvnick 13y ago
I was deeply touched while reading this piece - I felt that Powell was speaking almost directly to me. I was one of those children who suffered from a learning challenge. I had a very strong case of ADHD, and I'll tell you what I stuck out like a sore thumb. I was ostracized by both teachers and peers. In my isolation I found a sense of control in software development. During my adolescence I found the anarchist cookbook. I used to read through it, fascinated with its ideology, and sometimes building various explosives and weapons. In high school I experimented with drugs and got very close to flunking out. I got in trouble with the law more times than I'd like to admit. I was very angry and paranoid, and the idiotic policies put in place during the Bush years had a lot to do with that. Nowadays I'm a completely different person. I'm deeply religious, I try and go out of my way to say kind words and help others, and I'm a much happier person. I'm about to graduate with a degree in biochemistry from a great college. I believe the world would be a much better place if people would try harder to understand and love each other and show mercy. Reading this piece by one of my childhood mentors very much evoked a feeling of vindication.
- wil421 13y ago
  > I had a very strong case of ADHD, and I'll tell you what I stuck out like a sore thumb. Yup > During my adolescence I found the anarchist cookbook. I used to read through it, fascinated with its ideology, and sometimes building various explosives and weapons. Yup > I got in trouble with the law more times than I'd like to admit. Yup > I was very angry and paranoid Still fighting the anger I have from no where. I am not paranoid though the Snowden stuff is making me somewhat. > I try and go out of my way to say kind words and help others, and I'm a much happier person. These are things I try to do otherwise I find myself acting ill towards people. I am not sure which hit me more the article or your comment. Glad to see there are others who acted the way I did in my younger days and are striving to become a better person everyday. This past May I finally graduated from a decent regional college with a degree in Information Systems and now have an awesome job doing what I love.
  - pvnick 13y ago
    I am so happy to have read your comment. The Snowden stuff hit me pretty hard as well, and I actually organized my town's rally for the Restore the Fourth demonstrations. If you ever want to talk and get to know each other, my email is in my profile, please feel free to reach out :)
bnolsen 13y ago
I don't know. I went to a county fair recently where the local city police were proudly displaying their DHS funded heavily armored, turreted and gun ported urban assault vehicle. I was frankly utterly appalled that a bunch of local yokels ordered around by some set of corrupt local politicians would be allowed to run around with military grade hardware when there's a national guard armory not far away that should be much more qualified and better trusted with that same piece of equipment. So with rampant stupidity and reports of massive swat team abuse cropping up in the US what tools are available to the citizens to counter this? Seems the anarchist cookbook is probably on that list. A tool is a tool, people really need to be encouraged to use them responsibly and punished if used irresponsibly.
- watty 13y ago
  Why would one use The Anarchist Cookbook to defend themselves against heavily armed cops? I think a gun would be more effective than a tennis ball filled with match heads.
  - DrStalker 13y ago
    I think everyone needs to take a step back here and start by deciding if violent resistance is the correct way to protest the increasing weaponization of the police before we start trying to solve the problem of which tools to be violent with.
- giardini 13y ago
  "a bunch of local yokels ordered around by some set of corrupt local politicians would be allowed to run around with military grade hardware ..." This won't last long. When municipalities find out how much it costs to maintain these "freebies" they'll put them out for bid. You can buy one and park it on your deer-hunting lease.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
grannyg00se 13y ago
"The basic premise behind the Cookbook is profoundly flawed" I didn't think the cookbook had a premise. I enjoyed it because it was full of fun sounding, curious articles that one would never find elsewhere. It gave a sense of adventure and quiet rebellion to the reader and it could be enjoyed in peaceful solitude. It could also be used as a guide for fun projects with friends ("let's try to make thermite!") or just some exciting group discussion.
fsckin 13y ago
Nothing new in this, he's held this opinion for quite some time: http://www.salon.com/2000/09/18/anarchy/ http://www.salon.com/2000/09/18/anarchy/
jqm 13y ago
Dang right it was flawed! Especially the part about being able to smoke banana peels. No buzz and this (then) 16 year old had a sore throat for a week!
Houshalter 13y ago
I agree with the author. Terrorists rarely if ever achieve their stated goals, and just end up hurting innocents. But he is wrong that violence can't be used to prevent violence. >The simple fact is that non-violent means do not work against Evil. Gandhi's non-violent resistance against the British occupiers had some effect because Britain was wrong, but not Evil. The same is true of the success of non-violent civil rights resistance against de jure racism. Most people, including those in power, knew that what was being done was wrong. But Evil is an entirely different beast. Gandhi would have gone to the ovens had he attempted non-violent resistance against the Nazis. When one encounters Evil, the only solution is violence, actual or threatened. That's all Evil understands. -Robert Bruce Thompson
- aluhut 13y ago
  Well they managed to scare the whole world pretty good in the last decade. With the help of our governments of course but in the end everyone says, it's their doing.
  - Houshalter 13y ago
    They cause damage of course, but they never achieve their actual goals: https://web.archive.org/web/20110727223802/http://lesswrong.com/lw/51/terrorism_is_not_about_terror https://web.archive.org/web/20110727223802/http://lesswrong.... http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20about%20Terror http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20about%20Terror >"In a [previous study of mine] assessing terrorism's coercive effectiveness, I found that in a sample of 28 well-known terrorist campaigns, the terrorist organizations accomplished their stated policy goals 0 percent of the time by attacking civilians." >"The seven puzzles...are: 1) terrorist organizations do not achieve their stated political goals by attacking civilians; 2) terrorist organizations never use terrorism as a last resort and seldeom seize opportunities to become productive nonviolent political parties; 3) terrorist organizations reflexively reject compromise proposals offering significant policy concessions by the target government; 4) terrorist organizations have protean political platforms; 5) terrorist organizations generally carry out anonymous attacks, precluding target countries from making policy concessions; 6) terrorist organizations with identical political platforms routinely attack each other more than their mutally professed enemy; and 7) terrorist organizations resist disbanding when they consistently fail to achieve their political platforms or when their stated political grievances have been resolved..."
escherba 13y ago
That seemed like a well-intentioned article, but his story strikes me as paradigmatic though: * Year 1969. Writes the Anarchist Cookbook. * Years 1973-75. Becomes a teacher. Interpret at will.
brettvallis 13y ago
I was an anarchist in high school too. I was an over-achieving individualist who took personal affront to the norms and rules imposed on all school kids, and people in general. I researched anarchy philosophy and policy as it presented itself over the years. It worked for me: I felt that people could be trusted to behave correctly without the imposition of external rules and laws and the violent enforcement thereof. Obviously I was wrong. But I remain basically committed to my original ideals: an ethically motivated individual does not need to be ruled by fear and force. What, however, does that same individual do when confronted by the violent - or even not so violent but still evil - application of the rule of law?
- etherael 13y ago
  Anarchocapitalism has some interesting answers to this question. It's not a utopian variant that believes everyone can simply be trusted not to behave badly.
  - KingMob 13y ago
    Anarchocapitalism, while interesting, has as little to do with historical anarchist thinking as The Anarchist Cookbook does.
m0skit0 13y ago
Because now you're older. Don't worry, the older, the more conservative.
jdimov 13y ago
Violence is the physical expression of fear. When you fight something, you give power to it (while giving away your own power). All fearful things disappear - but only after you've stopped fearing them.
transfire 13y ago
I doubt the publication makes one iota difference to the individual. The person you are worried about is already in that state of mind and there are now an infinite number of other resources (the Internet) for them to draw upon. If you are truly concerned, write a new book entitled something like "If You Want to Read the Anarchist Cookbook, You Should Read This Book Instead!"
squozzer 13y ago
I see another premise. Which is, without knowledge, one has fewer options to resist violence. Now as to the utility of the knowledge provided, who can say?
rurban 13y ago
Yes: > The anger that motivated the writing of the Cookbook blinded me to the illogical notion that violence can be used to prevent violence.

281 points by ballard 13y ago

ihsw 13y ago

Off-topic: thank you mods for changing the original submission title, it was quite inflammatory. Terrorism -- or (more to the point) political expression by violence -- is not at all a means to end violence, and it would be foolish to pretend that it can ever be. As a matter of fact that is the point of the submitted article. The original title claimed that the Cookbook's author felt terrorism is "a worthless strategy" but such a title contrasts so strongly with the actual article that it boggles my mind how the original submitter even came to that conclusion. Terrorism is just another form of political expression, and calling it worthless is like calling a hammer worthless where a screwdriver would be more appropriate.

Crito 13y ago
Terrorism is such an overloaded word that I think it is next to useless if you want to convey any sort of point clearly. It is better to speak of things more specifically. Topics like assassinations, industrial sabotage, propaganda, and bombing campaigns all deserve individual treatment; talking about "terrorism" has the tendency to lump them together. Some of the things that frequently fall under the umbrella of "terrorism" do have the potential to end violence. Even things that are violent. Because of the fuzzy and subjective nature of the word "terrorism" it is always possible to assert that examples of "terrorism" working are not examples of "true" terrorism, but if we are wary of that loophole by being purposely inclusive, there are examples in history of terrorism ending violence. The show trial and execution of Nicolae Ceaușescu is an example that springs to mind immediately. Allied resistance movements during the Second World War are another (such as Operation Heads, an assassination program run by the Polish resistance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Heads http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Heads).

LukeWalsh 13y ago

> The anger that motivated the writing of the Cookbook blinded me to the illogical notion that violence can be used to prevent violence. I don't see why he asserts this as if it is indisputable fact. This is one of the most debated topics in all of human history. The leaders of almost every major revolution eventually reached precisely the opposite conclusion. The book may in fact do harm in the hands of those who are rash and quick to anger. But I don't think that has anything to do with something that is inherently illogical.

Crito 13y ago
Quite. Bloodlust is a dangerous thing, but total pacifism is still a fairly radical idea that I don't think many people actually buy into when the rubber meets the road. Pacifism has claimed few victories, suggesting that historic incidents could have been better solved with pacifism is a good way to make yourself look very silly very quickly. Pacifism is a tool, not a silver bullet. For revolutionaries and reformationists, there is no silver bullet.
- dionidium 13y ago
  Just to pile on here, you'll usually find that people who claim to be pacifists will say, "oh, well, yeah, of course we had to fight Hitler" when confronted. They don't actually even think of themselves that way, in other words.
  - PhasmaFelis 13y ago
    That's not necessarily hypocritical. You can be a pacifist in most situations and acknowledge that sometimes violence is called for.
    - evanspa 13y ago
      But then you're not a pacifist. By definition (at least my understanding / interpretation), a pacifist considers violence unjustifiable in any and all situations.
      - Symmetry 13y ago
        I think you can reasonably claim to be a pacifist if you think that violence is unacceptable in broad categories that most people find it acceptable in, even if you still support it in some situations. For example, wanting to abolish the military but not the police.
        Crito 13y ago

totalrobe 13y ago

Newsflash - young man is rash and inflammatory & old man sees error in his ways.

dj-wonk 13y ago
And the reformed, wise old man wants to erase all traces of his former book? Maybe he could gather them up and burn them?
- BHSPitMonkey 13y ago
  Having read the article, I don't know where you gleaned that. Desiring for new copies not to be printed is not the same as wanting previous copies or "traces" of their existence to be destroyed.

vezzy-fnord 13y ago

It's worth noting that the author recanting his book isn't as of recent. In fact, he dropped his views all the way back in 1976. This editorial review on the Amazon page for the book might offer some more insight: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0974458902 http://www.amazon.com/dp/0974458902 Oh, and might I add, The Anarchist Cookbook isn't flawed so much in that it presents violence as a means to an end, but rather that actually following the recipes will likely get you killed or maimed. Hopefully people reading the book already knew this.

mcphilip 13y ago
>Oh, and might I add, The Anarchist Cookbook isn't flawed so much in that it presents violence as a means to an end, but rather that actually following the recipes will likely get you killed or maimed. Hopefully people reading the book already knew this. The Vice's Guide episode where they try out recipes makes this crystal clear. The napalm experiment was probably the most eye opening. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcIMuoUcc1s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcIMuoUcc1s
- unfunco 13y ago
  The recipes cooked by Vice were not recipes from the book, the were recipes from the electronic version which bears little resemblance to the printed version.
  - tomhschmidt 13y ago
    Could you elaborate on this?
    - sirsar 13y ago
      The Anarchist Cookbook is the title of a dead-tree book, which the article is about. The Anarchist Cookbook is also the title of an unaffiliated text file containing explosives recipes.
      - 13y ago

grantlmiller 13y ago

wow, what an interesting personification of the entire baby boomer generation's evolution from anti-establishment to the establishment.

wibkemarianne 13y ago
If you hope to eventually sell out, first you must have something to sell. This is the motto of the boomer generation. Leverage your anti-authority cult classic into a pro-authority book deal. Cha-ching.
pessimizer 13y ago
Yes. It's the personal statement of a very privileged person who (like the rest of the 60s) was probably inspired to empathy with the civil rights movement triggered by the threat of the draft, but has now transferred his empathy to the more exotic minorities populating his new life of international adventure. Now his personal feeling of threat comes more from the revolution than the state, so his opinion of revolution has changed. Hopefully the consolation that no one will be able to download, take out from a library or buy his book without being put on a list by secret intelligence services will make him feel a little better about writing it.

pessimizer 13y ago

So the violence of the ANC didn't end the violence of Apartheid, and the violence of the Allies didn't end the violence of the Axis? edit: I'd submit that it was the violence of their respective systems upon their non-violent protests that is responsible for anything Gandhi and MLK achieved.

pstuart 13y ago
There's a place for that but it should be a last resort. The Nixon administration was more afraid of the collective size of the protest movement - not the violence by the radical fringe. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/july-dec11/nixontapes_11-25.html http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/july-dec11/nixont...
- pessimizer 13y ago
  I think that's because the violence that the Nixon administration would have to visit on a protest movement that couldn't be worked around would cause support for the administration to crumble.
PhasmaFelis 13y ago
> I'd submit that it was the violence of their respective systems upon their non-violent protests that is responsible for anything Gandhi and MLK achieved. You say that like it's an argument in favor of violence and against pacifism. In those two cases, the violent side lost specifically because they were violent. I'm not convinced that violence is never called for, but pacifism clearly can work in at least some circumstances.
- pessimizer 13y ago
  >You say that like it's an argument in favor of violence and against pacifism. I don't mean it to be. I mean to say that the strength of pacifism comes from the violent reaction to it.
Theodores 13y ago
Some clarification on where the ANC were coming from, courtesy of Nelson Mandela in The Sacred Warrior (2000): > Gandhi remained committed to nonviolence; I followed the Gandhian strategy for as long as I could, but then there came a point in our struggle when the brute force of the oppressor could no longer be countered through passive resistance alone. We founded Umkhonto we Sizwe and added a military dimension to our struggle. Even then, we chose sabotage because it did not involve the loss of life, and it offered the best hope for future race relations. Militant action became part of the African agenda officially supported by the Organization of African Unity (O.A.U.) following my address to the Pan-African Freedom Movement of East and Central Africa (PAFMECA) in 1962, in which I stated, "Force is the only language the imperialists can hear, and no country became free without some sort of violence."

ececconi 13y ago

> I suspect that these children have taught me a great deal more than I have taught them. Very great statement. I've done volunteer work before and have come to the same realization.

wibkemarianne 13y ago
This is an insult to the intelligence of the children. You're claiming that they are so poor at learning, and you are so superior at learning, that all of their learning combined is dwarfed by the learning of a single man--you. Any teacher who learns more than his collective students is a failed teacher. Period. Such a teacher's life has been worthless--this is a mathematical fact. Being proud of gaining more from your volunteer service than did the people you are supposed to be helping is not something to brag about. It is morally reprehensible and brings to mind all of the criticisms of poverty tourism that have so often been levied against your type of exploiter. Usually, the money that wealthy poverty tourists spend on travel would be thousands of times more efficient had they just donated that money. You are gleeful that you profited more from your volunteer work than the supposed recipients did. Your self-reported tale of exploitation is disgusting.
- dinkumthinkum 13y ago
  You're taking a little kind of cliche platitude and running in a weird direction with it ... really weird ...
  - wibkemarianne 13y ago
    Oh no! Someone on the internet says my highly upvoted analysis is.... "weird"! What a worthless comment.
    - vidarh 13y ago
      You seem to be trying very hard to start off with getting off on the wrong footing on HN given how confrontational you are being. Your "highly upvoted analysis" can't possibly be that highly upvoted given the low karma of your account.

rch 13y ago

As a youth I had a copy of the Improvised Munitions Handbook. Imagine my surprise when it showed up in Toy Story! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TM_31-210_Improvised_Munition_Handbook http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TM_31-210_Improvised_Munition_H...

orionblastar 13y ago

It isn't about using violence against the government. It is about getting the government to reform itself to stop using violence to solve world and domestic problems. We don't need violent protests now that we have the Internet and can leak documents exposing government corruption and write about truths to inform people and allow them to vote in different politicians.

wibkemarianne 13y ago
The most violent thing to do is to do nothing to change the status quo because the status quo is upheld by perpetual institutionalized violence. Today, however, the violence of the current regime goes beyond just violence against other humans. Today the current regime is committing violence against the human species, and threatening that species with extinction. Violent acts that may stop the extinction of life on Earth are not only justified... they are morally obligatory. We are in the last hours of humanity. The species won't be saved by squeamish old boomers.
- JoshuaDavid 13y ago
  >Today, however, the violence of the current regime goes beyond just violence against other humans. Today the current regime is committing violence against the human species, and threatening that species with extinction [Citation needed]. Who is threatening the human species with extinction. I can think of several ways that humanity could go extinct, but none of them would benefit any government. Be specific.
  - wibkemarianne 13y ago
    It's called the climate change apocalypse, and every major government is hurtling our species toward it. Hawaii University just released the best data we have so far: sea level rises are inevitable, mass destruction of coasts worldwide, hundreds of millions of refugees, famine, drought, and extinction of huge proportions of higher life forms across the planet. The only remaining debate is whether we will experience apocalyptic horrors of Biblical degree, whether just humans will go extinct, or whether all life on Earth will go extinct. These are our three possible futures. The Permian mass extinction has oft been cited. You are morally condemned for your ignorance. You are part of the problem. Shame on you.

rexreed 13y ago

"The Cookbook serves no purpose other than a commercial one for the publisher" -- and that's precisely why it won't go out of print. Regardless of the intentions of the writer and the reader, it is a very popular book and therefore something lucrative to sell. If it were to disappear from print, ironically, it would make it even more valuable.

pvnick 13y ago

I was deeply touched while reading this piece - I felt that Powell was speaking almost directly to me. I was one of those children who suffered from a learning challenge. I had a very strong case of ADHD, and I'll tell you what I stuck out like a sore thumb. I was ostracized by both teachers and peers. In my isolation I found a sense of control in software development. During my adolescence I found the anarchist cookbook. I used to read through it, fascinated with its ideology, and sometimes building various explosives and weapons. In high school I experimented with drugs and got very close to flunking out. I got in trouble with the law more times than I'd like to admit. I was very angry and paranoid, and the idiotic policies put in place during the Bush years had a lot to do with that. Nowadays I'm a completely different person. I'm deeply religious, I try and go out of my way to say kind words and help others, and I'm a much happier person. I'm about to graduate with a degree in biochemistry from a great college. I believe the world would be a much better place if people would try harder to understand and love each other and show mercy. Reading this piece by one of my childhood mentors very much evoked a feeling of vindication.

wil421 13y ago
> I had a very strong case of ADHD, and I'll tell you what I stuck out like a sore thumb. Yup > During my adolescence I found the anarchist cookbook. I used to read through it, fascinated with its ideology, and sometimes building various explosives and weapons. Yup > I got in trouble with the law more times than I'd like to admit. Yup > I was very angry and paranoid Still fighting the anger I have from no where. I am not paranoid though the Snowden stuff is making me somewhat. > I try and go out of my way to say kind words and help others, and I'm a much happier person. These are things I try to do otherwise I find myself acting ill towards people. I am not sure which hit me more the article or your comment. Glad to see there are others who acted the way I did in my younger days and are striving to become a better person everyday. This past May I finally graduated from a decent regional college with a degree in Information Systems and now have an awesome job doing what I love.
- pvnick 13y ago
  I am so happy to have read your comment. The Snowden stuff hit me pretty hard as well, and I actually organized my town's rally for the Restore the Fourth demonstrations. If you ever want to talk and get to know each other, my email is in my profile, please feel free to reach out :)

bnolsen 13y ago

I don't know. I went to a county fair recently where the local city police were proudly displaying their DHS funded heavily armored, turreted and gun ported urban assault vehicle. I was frankly utterly appalled that a bunch of local yokels ordered around by some set of corrupt local politicians would be allowed to run around with military grade hardware when there's a national guard armory not far away that should be much more qualified and better trusted with that same piece of equipment. So with rampant stupidity and reports of massive swat team abuse cropping up in the US what tools are available to the citizens to counter this? Seems the anarchist cookbook is probably on that list. A tool is a tool, people really need to be encouraged to use them responsibly and punished if used irresponsibly.

watty 13y ago
Why would one use The Anarchist Cookbook to defend themselves against heavily armed cops? I think a gun would be more effective than a tennis ball filled with match heads.
- DrStalker 13y ago
  I think everyone needs to take a step back here and start by deciding if violent resistance is the correct way to protest the increasing weaponization of the police before we start trying to solve the problem of which tools to be violent with.
giardini 13y ago
"a bunch of local yokels ordered around by some set of corrupt local politicians would be allowed to run around with military grade hardware ..." This won't last long. When municipalities find out how much it costs to maintain these "freebies" they'll put them out for bid. You can buy one and park it on your deer-hunting lease.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

grannyg00se 13y ago

"The basic premise behind the Cookbook is profoundly flawed" I didn't think the cookbook had a premise. I enjoyed it because it was full of fun sounding, curious articles that one would never find elsewhere. It gave a sense of adventure and quiet rebellion to the reader and it could be enjoyed in peaceful solitude. It could also be used as a guide for fun projects with friends ("let's try to make thermite!") or just some exciting group discussion.

fsckin 13y ago

Nothing new in this, he's held this opinion for quite some time: http://www.salon.com/2000/09/18/anarchy/ http://www.salon.com/2000/09/18/anarchy/

jqm 13y ago

Dang right it was flawed! Especially the part about being able to smoke banana peels. No buzz and this (then) 16 year old had a sore throat for a week!

Houshalter 13y ago

I agree with the author. Terrorists rarely if ever achieve their stated goals, and just end up hurting innocents. But he is wrong that violence can't be used to prevent violence. >The simple fact is that non-violent means do not work against Evil. Gandhi's non-violent resistance against the British occupiers had some effect because Britain was wrong, but not Evil. The same is true of the success of non-violent civil rights resistance against de jure racism. Most people, including those in power, knew that what was being done was wrong. But Evil is an entirely different beast. Gandhi would have gone to the ovens had he attempted non-violent resistance against the Nazis. When one encounters Evil, the only solution is violence, actual or threatened. That's all Evil understands. -Robert Bruce Thompson

aluhut 13y ago
Well they managed to scare the whole world pretty good in the last decade. With the help of our governments of course but in the end everyone says, it's their doing.
- Houshalter 13y ago
  They cause damage of course, but they never achieve their actual goals: https://web.archive.org/web/20110727223802/http://lesswrong.com/lw/51/terrorism_is_not_about_terror https://web.archive.org/web/20110727223802/http://lesswrong.... http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20about%20Terror http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20about%20Terror >"In a [previous study of mine] assessing terrorism's coercive effectiveness, I found that in a sample of 28 well-known terrorist campaigns, the terrorist organizations accomplished their stated policy goals 0 percent of the time by attacking civilians." >"The seven puzzles...are: 1) terrorist organizations do not achieve their stated political goals by attacking civilians; 2) terrorist organizations never use terrorism as a last resort and seldeom seize opportunities to become productive nonviolent political parties; 3) terrorist organizations reflexively reject compromise proposals offering significant policy concessions by the target government; 4) terrorist organizations have protean political platforms; 5) terrorist organizations generally carry out anonymous attacks, precluding target countries from making policy concessions; 6) terrorist organizations with identical political platforms routinely attack each other more than their mutally professed enemy; and 7) terrorist organizations resist disbanding when they consistently fail to achieve their political platforms or when their stated political grievances have been resolved..."

escherba 13y ago

That seemed like a well-intentioned article, but his story strikes me as paradigmatic though: * Year 1969. Writes the Anarchist Cookbook. * Years 1973-75. Becomes a teacher. Interpret at will.

brettvallis 13y ago

I was an anarchist in high school too. I was an over-achieving individualist who took personal affront to the norms and rules imposed on all school kids, and people in general. I researched anarchy philosophy and policy as it presented itself over the years. It worked for me: I felt that people could be trusted to behave correctly without the imposition of external rules and laws and the violent enforcement thereof. Obviously I was wrong. But I remain basically committed to my original ideals: an ethically motivated individual does not need to be ruled by fear and force. What, however, does that same individual do when confronted by the violent - or even not so violent but still evil - application of the rule of law?

etherael 13y ago
Anarchocapitalism has some interesting answers to this question. It's not a utopian variant that believes everyone can simply be trusted not to behave badly.
- KingMob 13y ago
  Anarchocapitalism, while interesting, has as little to do with historical anarchist thinking as The Anarchist Cookbook does.

m0skit0 13y ago

Because now you're older. Don't worry, the older, the more conservative.

jdimov 13y ago

Violence is the physical expression of fear. When you fight something, you give power to it (while giving away your own power). All fearful things disappear - but only after you've stopped fearing them.

transfire 13y ago

I doubt the publication makes one iota difference to the individual. The person you are worried about is already in that state of mind and there are now an infinite number of other resources (the Internet) for them to draw upon. If you are truly concerned, write a new book entitled something like "If You Want to Read the Anarchist Cookbook, You Should Read This Book Instead!"

squozzer 13y ago

I see another premise. Which is, without knowledge, one has fewer options to resist violence. Now as to the utility of the knowledge provided, who can say?

rurban 13y ago

Yes: > The anger that motivated the writing of the Cookbook blinded me to the illogical notion that violence can be used to prevent violence.