To The Firing Squads: On Violence And Ideology
While browsing Twitter, I saw an interesting tweet in regards to political symbolism. It contained the following picture:
While there are some questionable details that could be faulted on class reductionism, it does lend to an interesting questions: why do the left and right gravitate to such symbols? And what does that say about the ideologies of the left and right?
The Noose and Guillotine: A Short History on Symbolism
Before we can diagnose what such symbolism says, we must first ask where these symbols came from to begin with. In understanding their history, we may explain their meaning.
Firstly, the guillotine. An upgrade to the more brutal beheadings done by sword or axe, the device was invented in 1791, during the early revolutionary years in France. It was adopted to be the only legal form of execution, and would become used quite excessively during the Reign of Terror. During the Reign of Terror, many nobleman, including King Louis XVI and his wife Marie Antoinette, would be executed, along with former revolutionary leaders such as Robespierre and Georges Danton.
From the French Revolution came much of the symbolism associated with as, in essence, the great equalizer. It gained widespread recognition of representing such revolutionary ideas as equality under the law, and the destruction of the power of the privileged over the oppressed. Such symbolism spread throughout the political left, becoming synonymous with the will of the people and with the democratic or socialist revolt against the powers that be, the status quo, the bourgeoisie.
Contrary to that, we have the much older method of hanging, usually by noose. Such a form of execution has a much longer history, and likewise contains a greater variety of symbolism. Used by both the ruling powers as a form of corporal punishment, and also used by the opposition as a form of revolt, the noose brings with itself a greater trove of representation.
However, while the noose does have potential as a revolutionary symbol (even being used before the guillotine as a form of “revolutionary justice), its use as upholding the status quo is much more representative of it as a symbol. Such symbolism is twofold: (1) as a punishment for those seen as traitors to the powers inflicting such a punishment, as was common under most nations before, during, and a few decades after the American Civil War; (2) as a form of racial prejudice, in which blacks residing in the US would be lynched by Ku Klux Klansmen and other white supremacy groups, as well as by racist whites in the Southern states, with such lynchings happening often during the Jim Crow Era of segregation in the US.
The noose has become a symbol much aligned with the political right. Some factions use it as an anti-government, yet patriotic, symbol, reminding the ones up top that they have to serve the will of the people, and that if they do not, they are traitors of the nation, and should be treated as such. Others, however, have used it in the more racial sense, broadening such “traitorous” identification to those who would mix with what they determined to be the “inferior race”. The phrase “Day of The Rope” is a prime example of such a use, created by a neo-nazi to describe the day in which every race or ethnicity that doesn’t count as “white”, and any sympathizers to such ethnicities, were hanged from lampposts.(1) Such a term has gained worrying traction in the right, where if one took a random right winger and asked them about it, there’s a good chance they knew the phrase.
The Pathology Behind The Symbols
Now that we understand the main history, we can move on to exploring the deeper meaning. What can such facts tell us about the ideologies clinging to such symbols?
The philosopher Slavoj Žižek, in his review of the Reign of Terror, saw such an event as a sustaining of the revolutionary spirit, a way for the social order to be changed to follow the revolution’s ideals. “The true problem of revolution is not taking power,” he said, “it’s what you do the day after.”(2) He diagnosed such bloodshed as an inherent characteristic of such an ideology; and, in doing so, not only revealed an intrinsic part in revolutionary left politics, but also in the mainstream conception of left and right politics.
The use of violence as a political force is not a strange idea: it is romanticized in our histories of the American Revolution and other wars of that time, and reviled in our more modern conflicts of the Civil War, Vietnam, and the Middle East. Yet we do not see the great power violence holds in our modern political dogmas; in failing to understand the intrinsic importance of violence, we have no way to correct it, to use such a characteristic to our will.
In both the mainstream right and left, violence is needed not only as a revolt against the status quo to change the current system, but also as a way to enforce this new system. With the left, a prime example of such violence taken to an excessive extent is the Soviet Union, in which dissenters to the system, as well as political enemies, were either sent to forced labor, executed, or simple “unpersonned”, or erased from the history of that nation. For the right, we have the example of the Third Reich, where political enemies, as well as “inferior races” and “degenerates”, were sent to concentration camps and persecuted greatly. Violence is inherent to their systems; the only difference comes from how far such violence as taken, either to it’s logical conclusion (as in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia), or to a more “benign” form of our modern systems.
A New Possibility: The Libertarian Option
With such ideas in mind, we may ask another question: where does Libertarianism come into this?
In the examples above, the violence used by both ideologies had to be defensive and offensive: defensive, in regards to the initial act of revolt and revolution against the status quo, as well as defense from acts of counter-revolution; and offensive, in regards to further violence perpetrated to become the status quo, stifling out opposing ideas before such ideas become actions. The defensive portion is inherent in all ideologies. However, that is not the case for the offensive. For the mainstream left and right, they need the offensive violence because their ideologies cannot allow for differing ideas in their new society.
Libertarianism, on the over hand, may not need such offensive forms of violence. The ideology of Libertarianism, based around a respect for individual rights and choice, would not need to force itself onto the populace; its philosophy of “live and let live” allows it to be tolerant of varying opinions and ideas. Its only enemy, in praxis, becomes the actions taken that would infringe on the autonomy and rights of people. With the only enemy being actions, the need for an offensive use of violence becomes null.
This opens up a great possibility for Libertarianism: a viable reason for Libertarian revolution over left or right revolution. It is a promise to the people: they shall not be harmed, they shall be able to live in peace and greater freedom. The elite are overthrown and humbled; the people are left stronger and free. No one is persecuted for thinking differently, for talking against the new shift in ideals. The existing society becomes one based on a higher value of justice and liberty. Instead of the replacing of rulers, and new systems of ruling, the political zeitgeist shifts to which such ideas are negated, and replaced with ideals of individual autonomy and self-rule.
Here, then, must we bring unto our understanding of Libertarianism: if we are to further expound such an ideal, we must understand and practice such ideas, leading not to any bigotry or hate or prejudice, but to a tolerance and acceptance of others, to a using of violence only to defend the life and liberty of every person. Through practice and understanding will we be able to show the people a way to happiness that does not dissolve into the bloodshed and tyrannies of the left or right.
- The Turner Diaries, written by neo-nazi and white supremacist William Pierce. The youtuber Thought Slime made a good review video and understanding of the book
- From Introducing Slavoj Žižek: A Graphic Guide, page 149, written by Christopher Kul-Want and illustrated by Piero
