As many of you know, journalist Chris Hedges recently posted his critique of the Black Bloc and Anarchist involvement in the Occupy Wall Street movement in his article titled “The Cancer In Occupy”. Using the examples of Derrick Jensen and John Zerzan as intellectual leaders, Hedges attempts to degrade Anarchists to common stereotypes of violent, unorganized, hyper-masculine criminals, seeking senseless destruction over social change. Hedges goes on to describe how Black Bloc Anarchists are a ‘cancer’ in the OWS movement and how they should no longer have involvement within it.

First off, fuck you Chris hedges. To proclaim Derrick Jensen or John Zerzan to be at the forefront of contemporary Anarchist thought is extremely foolish; it is necessary to note that not all Anarchists focus on civilization’s destruction of the earth, as Jensen and Zerzan do. Anarchists struggle against many forms of oppression and to categorize all Anarchists into one small cell would be almost as alienating as posting an insulting essay calling other anti-capitalists criminals. Although one Anarchist may not support the actions of the Zapatistas due to ideological differences, not all Anarchists are against them; in fact, most Anarchists openly support the Zapitistas in their struggle against modern day colonialism. We are varied, we are individuals, we are agents acting for collectivist social change in our own ways. We are all fighting one common enemy: oppression. Our goals are to dismantle the injustices of the state, of patriarchy, of fascism, and other oppressions, not to dismantle a movement.

Long before the OWS movement came about, Anarchists had been working hard toward the destruction of capitalism and all of its manifestations, with many forms of resistance including but not limited to property destruction. We work to build community as Food Not Bombs groups, we create squats and collective housing units, we organize in the workplace to protect each other from abuse, we offer first aid when protesters deal with the brunt of police brutality, we work on destroying the old world as well as creating a new one. We were in the streets unmasked as evictions came rolling through our cities, and we were there on day one telling you the cops are class-traitors that preserve the wealth of the 1%.

 We have played an integral part of anti-capitalist organizing in Oakland and around the world and we will continue to do so.

We are anti-authoritarian and do not recognize leader’s or journalist’s imposition on our lives or actions, we are not anti-organization. Hedges’ implications that Anarchists are hyper-individualistic in their actions is false. We promote solidarity among each other and protect those participating in the movement whether or not they participate in property destruction. Consensus-based decision making is inherently Anarchistic. For movements to continue effectively we need to get away from the idea that any one form of action is always best. Furthermore Hedges’ sense of entitlement to set up restrictions on how we resist is super fucking alienating to all those that don’t share his experiences as a white, liberal, male. As Hedges attempts to strip the autonomy and anonymity from the Black Bloc, he is destroying individual freedom and recreating power structures that we are all trying to escape and dismantle.

Similar to most progressive movements, hyper-masculinity and patriarchy exist within Anarchism, as our movements reflect culture. However, violence (including property destruction) is not inherently masculine. Due to patriarchy, violence is most often masculine but it is not violence itself that makes this action masculine, rather it is the ideas of domination and aggression that accompany it that determine it’s masculinity. Dominance and resistance are not the same. Responding to violence with violence can be justified. Responding to potential violence with violence can be justified. Windows of those that impede on freedoms will be smashed. Any violent action in which the intention is not to instill your power over another lacks the hyper-masculinity Hedges references. As long as violence is used to empower or destroy the existing power structure it is not an extension of one’s entitlement, or belligerence. Violence is simply a tool; it is used by both oppressors and the oppressed. It can be the outcome of patriarchal attitudes, but it can also be the basis of usurping them.

As I have said before, in a more eloquent manner, fuck the law! The state upholds our oppression. The state not only allows large corporations and private investment groups to take away our freedoms and control our lives, but it also facilitates it. The state is not your friend. To abide by the rules of your oppressors is to surrender your right to exist. As long as the state’s rule is against the will of the people I see no obligation to act in its interest and as long as I can spot oppressive dictating within radical organizing I have no obligation but to break free and destroy the oppressor.