Why is it that violence is so often associated with anarchism? Is it an inherent characteristic of the common goal that we strive to achieve? – No.

In fact, if you’ll allow me to explain, the case appears to be quite the opposite. You cannot call yourself a violent anarchist without contradicting your most fundamental principles or damning your methods of revolution.

Anarchism and pacifism are essentially the same thing – whilst intuitively they may seem entirely different, the implications of the two doctrines end up at exactly the same conclusion. No pacifist could ever support the state in any form, as such an institution can only go only to organize and amplify violence to its greatest extent imaginable. Violence is legalized and enforced as moral, but should not be misinterpreted as justifiable. We see this most blatantly in the wars, which form the pulse of any healthy capitalist society, that states continue to wage, as well as the arms that they deal, police they employ, prisons that they build, foreign soldiers they train, animals that they torture and murder, violent punishments that they enforce and racism that they indoctrinate. No pacifist could execute consistency in paying taxes to the state – such practice is to go as far as sponsoring these most despicable and blatantly violent practices. No pacifist could ever execute consistency without being an anarchist, whether this is mentioned explicitly or not, as is seen in the philosophy of Leo Tolstoy and Mahatma Gandhi – the two most prominent and exciting anarcho-pacifist philosophers, as well as to a slightly lesser extent in the works of Henry Thoreau.

But why is it necessary for anarchists to be non-violent? The first reason, among a few, is that violence undermines the central aspiration of any coherent anarchist doctrine – the desire to eradicate coercion in all possible forms. Coercion, forcing a person to do something which they otherwise would not have done, is practically synonymous with violence. The end of oppression can only be realized once we witness the end of violence. How can freedom ever be expected to exist in a society which allows disputes to be won by a party purely because they wield the greatest amount of brute force? Rather disputes should be solved by discussion and debate – only the option which appears to command the greatest capacity to achieve the greatest good for mankind should be allowed to come to fruition.

Secondly, you would contradict yourself in claiming to attempt to achieve a world of true cooperation and stability whilst being violent at the same time. Any serious anarchist will devote himself to the pursuit of the genuine meaning of order – but how can order be realized in a society without authority, the police, laws and prisons if violence is accepted as a means to an end? – The means are the end. A society established in such a manner would see the strong dominate and exploit the weak even more blatantly and forcefully than we see in the society that we currently live in – this is nothing that I would want a part of. If your intentions are of any value whatsoever this is something that you should not want a part of either. Anarchy is, and can only ever be, the longing to eradicate violence from human relations – without this central desire laying the foundation for your actions; your theory will never be realized in action.

Thirdly, an anarchist revolution could never, in virtue of the meaning of the words, be brought about by violence. If a revolution was not well favoured enough by the people to be brought about peacefully, then it could not be of an anarchic nature – as it would have to be oppressive in character to sustain itself (and also a cause is never going to gain favour amongst the masses if it mentions explicitly, or is allowed to be portrayed as, inherently violent). How can an ideology be of any worth whatsoever to a potential follower if it requires violence to convince them of its validity – or at least to convince them not to resist it? This is not an aspect of anarchism, this is an aspect of fascism – if our ideology is worth so little that we cannot convince people to adopt it out of their own free will then why would we bother believing in it ourselves? History goes to show that any revolution brought about by violence requires even greater violence to maintain itself – I can think of no exceptions to this observation. And so how would you go about maintaining your revolution against those who did not believe in it? By tossing them to rot in the same prisons which once held our fellow dissenters captive and becoming the very meaning of oppression yourself? Violence is a fuse which, once lit, can never be put out – it will continue to burn and expand and become more terrible by the second until it detonates; destroying yourself and everyone you were trying to save.

Comrades, even the best intentions cannot avoid this inevitability – anarchy cannot be achieved through violence.