Toronto G20 Protests

So I'm not sure what my personal views are on the "black bloc" protests during the G20 summit. I am not opposed to violence for political or moral ends, but I am also unsure what situations call for it.

The police were numerous, and they were overly aggressive towards peaceful protests and even people simply living in the area. Obviously, some people have good experiences, but that means they are doing their job. The startling number of negative stories is troubling.

Furthermore, it's a technological world an estimated cost of over a billion is associated with the summit. The summit's primary "success" was that world leaders agreed to reduce debt "at a pace they find acceptable." Given the obvious reluctance of of America to do so, I'm skeptical of the free world having the tenacity to actually place the States in a situation where they would be economically vulnerable. It's not a success unless people with credibility are making an agreement. Politicians have little, especially with respect to a struggling economy that "had they been doing their jobs" wouldn't have occurred in the first place.

Now people are confused as to what the anarchists hope to accomplish. Some of them just like smashing things and calling themselves anarchists. Let's be honest, it's no more fair to consider all conservatives racists than it is to claim all anarchists are a bunch of rowdy teens. The anarchists wanted to send a message. Now I don't know what they would've actually done had they succeeded, but I suspect there would be fewer politicians.

People are worried about their safety. Excuse me? Have you read even five minutes worth of material on anarchism? They were smashing the windows of major businesses that exploit workers, the environment, the third world, and just about everything they have the opportunity to exploit.

The idea is to achieve the elimination of government because governments are inherently corrupt. By definition, the anarchists don't accept parading around singing songs as effective protest. You can cite MLK and Gandhi all you want, but there were other people around them using violence. Furthermore, the fact that a few protests succeeded with non-violence means nothing. Why should people subject themselves to violent assault if they can achieve their goals with violence. Better a peaceful and equitable society as the result of the perpetrators getting roughed up than at the expense of those who were the victims in the first place.

People are so politically ignorant it's disturbing. I will respect a thoughtful opinion on anarchist action as I'm not sure, again, whether the violence was necessary. However, I've never see a single insightful point on any forum, news article, news program, social medium, etc. I'm sure there are some out there, but everyone else is just uninformed. "Violence is bad and not needed." The anarchists already thought about the non-violent position and rejected it, by default, as it's a social standard that needs to be actively rejected. Everyone else hasn't given the opposing side real consideration - as is evident by their complete lack of argumentation and appeal to mere sentiment.

I guess this has turned into a complain about propaganda and emotion. I despise how people turn to these things during conflicts and tragedies. The police department and politicians are all shouting slogans and using strong tones. Both sides do it. How about either doing something or arguing reasonably. Like it or not, the police and the anarchists were the only people actually standing up for what they believe. Nobody would've gives a shit about the opinion of people who aren't even willing to stand up to authority. What are you going to do? Vote for another party that will still do the exactly same thing? The system is the problem.

Why Anarcho-Pragmatism?

Since I have variety of writing interests, I wanted to create a blog that allowed me to write about a wide variety of topics. However, I also wanted to narrow my scope enough to establish a specific audience. By using the term "Anarcho-Pragmatism," I am incorporating two of my ideological viewpoints: anarchism, and pragmatism.

Politically, anarchism advocates establishing a communist society through revolutionary means and a decentralized organization structure. Anarchists seek the emancipation of humans from oppressive  structures that exist as a result of mainstream society. As a consequence of this emancipation, individuals will be free to pursue their happiness in an environment where mutual respect is the norm. A sense of "the collective" will emerge that does not seek to eliminate individuality - but to strength it.

Pragmatism, within a philosophical framework, is an ideology that examines the nature of truth. There have been varying forms of pragmatism throughout history, and my beliefs borrow from a variety of thinkers. Ultimately, my sense of "pragmatism" involves believing in values that promote a flourishing utilitarian society. Each person lives the greatest life possible as a result of cooperation with their fellows. If an idea fails to promote utility, it is merely an academic interests. The truth, ultimately, is what "works" and takes priority over the conclusions of methodological systems; whether they be religion, science, or anything else.

We live in a society where the idea of truth enslaves us. Religious fundamentalists seek to spread their ideologies of truth and justice. Scientists want to explain the world around us completely, but they deny the validity of alternative perspectives. When the poet claims the scientist does not understand love, the scientist will provide a biological explanation. That is only one method of understanding, and that method does not provide a means for satisfying the curiosities of all people.

As we encounter new situations, we utilize tools to provide solutions. Now, we utilize methodologies to tell us what the problems are. Among all schools of thought, it is rationally self-evident that utility maximization is a worthwhile pursuit. It is not a mathematical or logical explanation, but it is a feeling explanation. No creature can read their heart and believe happiness is not desirable.

We continue to flourish as logical beings, and we continue to produce creativity in many forms. The intersection of these pursuits, however, is of utmost importance. When we wonder what is "possible" we forget that we are the creators. Political change is only limited by our willingness to act, and society can be changed to anything we envision as possible. This goal, ultimately, should be promoted through an anarchist framework, and the pragmatist ideology can reestablish the importance of utility above other concerns.