No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Good question! | Good question! | ||
To me the difference between these two has more to do with my personal perception of an armed revolt than theory or history. Terrorism by definition is a "rule of terror", and to me, that is not the purpose of a revolution (or in this case an insurrection, since it is decentralized), and does not benefit it at all. When people are terrified of something they quickly grow hateful of it and react on instinct, without perceiving it ethically or logically. If we want people to understand and support the anarchist cause, they must be treated as part of the revolution, not subjects to it. | To me the difference between these two has more to do with my personal perception of an armed revolt than theory or history. Terrorism by definition is a "rule of terror", and to me, that is not the purpose of a revolution (or in this case an insurrection, since it is decentralized), and does not benefit it at all. When people are terrified of something they quickly grow hateful of it and react on instinct, without perceiving it ethically or logically. If we want people to understand and support the anarchist cause, they must be treated as part of the revolution, not subjects to it. | ||
Latest revision as of 22:42, 30 December 2023
Good question! To me the difference between these two has more to do with my personal perception of an armed revolt than theory or history. Terrorism by definition is a "rule of terror", and to me, that is not the purpose of a revolution (or in this case an insurrection, since it is decentralized), and does not benefit it at all. When people are terrified of something they quickly grow hateful of it and react on instinct, without perceiving it ethically or logically. If we want people to understand and support the anarchist cause, they must be treated as part of the revolution, not subjects to it.