Anarchist News

Subscribe to Anarchist News feed
Updated: 54 min 35 sec ago

Basel, Switzerland: Sabotage against some profiteers of the prison system

Fri, 02/23/2018 - 20:40

via act for freedom now!

In recent weeks we have been puncturing the vehicle tyres of the following companies:
Two IMPLENIA vehicles
Two ISS vehicles
An ALPIQ vehicle
IMPLENIA and ALPIQ are companies that are not afraid to make money by extending Bässlergut so are prepared to inflict suffering on vast numbers of people. In these times of war and exploitation that are pushing thousands of people on to the roads of exile, the above-mentioned companies are deliberately closing their eyes to the fact that misery prevails everywhere and that their “building contract” will directly affect those suffering it. It is not a swimming pool that is being built there. A prison is a place for locking up and punishing people. A place of violence.

A place that flouts the dignity of humans.
People are being stalked and locked up because of their mere presence and, in the future, some will probably find themselves in Bässlergut’s cells without wanting to, captured by obedient blue-uniformed minions who are nothing but an organized armed gang, representing the interests of the rich and the powerful.
Immoral servants who never refuse to obey an order. Out of fear they are defending an economic system based on misery and exploitation, a system destined to disappear. The future does not belong to them. It is not written. Let’s take note all of us.
Thousands of people are dying on the roads of exile, the Mediterranean Sea is a mass grave, the inscription “We are not all there – The drowned are missing” is a bitter one.
Such an existent requires taking things in one’s own hands and trying not to deprive oneself of acting on reality, even if it is only a knife, a sharp object aimed at a tyre. A fast process, almost silent and easy to perform. It is important to try not to remain indifferent and become isolated in the face of all this misery. And it’s easier to be more than one, to come together, organize in coordinated groups and attack.
There are Implenia vehicles all over Switzerland. Let’s make this company pay the price for its inhuman and reactionary construction projects. Moreover, Implenia is currently building the police and justice centre in Zurich.
The ISS company is also known for its involvement in the prison world, for example in Belgium and it is also an umpteenth company offering “security” in exchange for money. The security of a few to be able to continue to exploit the majority. Our contempt for these companies remains intact – besides, all the repression in Basel will change nothing. We know who is behind the construction of Bässlergut.
Everything continues.

Tags: sabotageanti-prisonswitzerlandImmigrationcategory: Actions
Categories: News

Banner in solidarity with anarchists persecuted by “Op. Érebo” in brazil

Fri, 02/23/2018 - 20:12

via act for freedom now

Almost four months ago, a police operation led by the deputy Jardim
raided private houses and collective spaces in the city of Porto Alegre. Several people and spaces ended up being the target of this operation and some books edited by the Kaos anarchist library were used as evidence to persecute comrades.

We do not intend, in this text, to turn to the way in which the media exposed the case, even though it is worth emphasizing the way which the press manipulates the masses in order to maintain a stammering social peace.

Even with all the efforts police-media made to depoliticize some anarchist proposals — seeking to find some “legitimacy” in pursuing evil “anarchists”,
taking advantage of tactical differences and seeking to create divisions between anarchist tendencies — combative anarchist solidarity rose up, and the fists were closed to the enemies!

As we believe that solidarity is a weapon against repression attempts and oblivion, and that we also know that it needs to be more than words to vibrate in the hearts of the rebels, we send this simple but, we believe, important message.

We hang a banner in solidarity with the persecuted anarchists in Porto Alegre. For all those who are fighting against the storms of loneliness and the inclemency of uncertainty. For all those whose life was /is being disturbed by this repressive wave and that have not lowered neither arms nor head!

For all those who face the difficulties waking up each morning with the conviction of having crossed the point of no return. The powerful can never stop us!

The political-economic context in Brazil and in Latin America is even more repressive against social movements. The political climate has a bitter taste for all those who oppose, in general, the devastating capitalism. A few days ago, 12 indigenous from Brazil’s southern territory were tortured, hit by rubber bullets and real bullets for the simple fact of claiming their lands, which they were promised almost 30 years ago*!

It also has this flavor for the great “minorities” of that sick society, who are being targeted by an ever-increasing “social cleansing” of large enterprises, fruits of “progress” and the”development”. The government kills “legally” by sending
armed forces to “clean” the favelas ** and does it also by organizing “agricultural fairs” in which the money raised is invested in the “security” of farmers and in the killing of indigenous people and peasants who dare to take back with their own hands their invaded lands.

Make no mistake, terrorist is the state and violent is the system that wants
to impose on us a life we never chose.

Debates on the legitimacy of violence are a false debate. We will never stand on the side of those who are pleased to live as a slave…

Those who celebrate past insurrections, today condemn any impulse of liberating violence, this happens under various pretexts such as the fact that we live in a “democracy”. Democracy, technocracy, dictatorships, all political-economic regimes deserve to be attacked, never was and can never be anything other than the expression of power coercion and domination of a few over the rest.

The articulation between centralized power and capitalism is inherent in
globalized modern society and to think that it is possible to destroy
capitalism without, together, destroying the structures of state power is a
illusion that some leftist parties nurture to seduce souls and thus gain a few more votes in the upcoming elections. Whether left or right governs, for them, the
Guarani Kaiowá, will always be worth less than the benefits of the
tons of soybeans.

If Dilma’s presidential government unleashed social cleansing, anti-terrorism law,
towards more and more progress and political persecution against
anarchists, today militants of the Workers Party and the MST (Rural Workers Without Land Movement) and of the entire “radical” left-wing party are also targets of political persecution.

If lately we meet on the streets to fight, let’s not forget the profound ideological and political differences that separate us. Same if we believe that we should rethink strategies and tactics of struggle in this current context, it is interesting that we question the role/place that we play on the regional, national (and internationally) chessboard in order not to end up being one of the pedestrians used to win the match. History has much to teach us about that…

More than answers, we point to the provocations to reflect the panorama
and to imagine strategies and actions that continue to spread the social war.

The repressive waves against those who struggle seek to frighten and paralyze any attempt to oppose the system. It is precisely what we can not let happen. We will look for ways to continue to struggle against a system and way of life that, in addition to not satisfy us as individuals, bases its values on domination
and in the exploitation of a few against the rest.

Oppression, domination and exploitation must be attacked in its roots and in a radical way. There are no ready-made methods for this, only has the combination of historical memory and creative imagination to invent, to think, to try strategies of struggle in this context each more adverse.

May this little message, like a flame of revolt, lighten the heart
of our persecuted comrades…

Strength and combative solidarity with the anarchists pursued by the
“Operation Erebus”!

With Guilherme Irish and Samuel Eggers present in our insurgent memory!

Long live anarchy!

Long live insurrection!

* On February 17, 2018, 12 Kaingang families in Passo Fundo
were beaten by the BOE (Special Forces Police Battalion). They were occupying an area of DNIT claiming the demarcation of their lands:

http://desacato.info/familias-kaingang-sao-espancadas-pela-policia-militar-em-passo-fundo-rs/

https://www.cimi.org.br/2018/02/policia-militar-agride-e-tortura-familias-kaingang-no-rio-grande-do-sul/

**

http://anovademocracia.com.br/noticias/8264-intervencao-no-rio-militares-querem-invadir-arbitrariamente-casas-de-moradores-em-favelas

http://anovademocracia.com.br/noticias/8254-intervencao-no-rio-forcas-armadas-vao-comandar-a-guerra-civil-contra-o-povo

*** On this theme see the movie “Martírio”, it brings information
and interesting links between private security guards on the farm,
politicians and farmers.

tormentasdefogo.

Tags: Operation Éreboanarchist solidaritycategory: International
Categories: News

The Limits of Hegemony: A Review of Hegemony How-To

Fri, 02/23/2018 - 19:58

by Wayne Price, via anarkismo.net

How can we build an effective popular movement to change society? That is the subject of this book, which has been widely praised. In my opinion, it has important and profoundly true things to say, but is politically unbalanced and mistaken in certain ways.

This is an important and interesting book about how to build a movement. From the blurbs it includes, it has been highly praised by many well-known militants and theorists of change. In my opinion, as a libertarian (antiauthoritarian) socialist, it has something profoundly true to say, but it is politically unbalanced.

We live in a time when awful things are happening, politically, economically, socially, militarily, and ecologically—and worse things threaten to happen. Yet, as Jonathan Smucker points out (relying on the polls), “Today in the United States more millennials identify with socialism than with capitalism….On nearly every major issue, relatively progressive positions have come to enjoy a majority of support….The establishment is in crisis. Popular opinion is on our side.” (2017; 252—254) Why then are those committed to social justice so weak, marginalized, and with minimal political impact? What can be done to change that? That is the important topic addressed by this book.

Smucker’s message is essentially this: too much of the Left is inward-looking, comfortable with itself, and self-involved. It is correct, even essential, to have a core group of reliable militants, but leftists must reach out to others, go beyond their comfort zone, and get other people involved, to whatever degree they can be involved. It is not enough to build a club of the like-minded. It is necessary to work out a strategy for winning gains, for influencing others, for achievement, and for exercising power. It is necessary to build a movement, a movement for power. The strategic aim should be to challenge the dominance (the “hegemony”) of the ruling elite over popular consciousness and established institutions—and to ultimately replace its hegemony with that of the Left.

That is the book in a nutshell. He repeats the message over and over, to drive it home, with various elaborations and modifications. This message is true and important but not especially new. For decades, revolutionary Marxist and anarchist organizations have urged their members to go beyond middle class intellectuals and students, to root themselves in the working class—particularly in the most oppressed and discriminated-against sectors of the working class (African-Americans, unskilled workers, women, etc.). This was essential for building an effective revolutionary movement.

For example, in the ‘70s, Hal Draper criticized sects which postured as small mass parties: “The life-principle of a revolutionary mass party is not simply its Full Program, which can be copied with nothing but an activist typewriter and can be expanded or contracted like an accordion. Its life-principle is its integral involvement as a part of the working-class movement, its immersion in the class struggle not by a Central Committee decision but because it lives there.” (quoted in Krul 2011)

Prefiguration vs. Strategy

The problem of the self-enclosed and isolated grouping, then, applies in many forms on the Left. It applies to small revolutionary socialist organizations, built around their dogmas and their newspapers. It applies to co-op stores and bicycle clubs. But Smucker is especially aiming his criticism at anarchists, based on his experience in the Occupy Wall Street encampment in 2011. (Which is also consistent with my own—much more limited—experience with OWS.) He describes the anarchists as focused on building a self-governing collectivity, which would inspire people to go and do likewise. They did not, he claims, think of OWS in strategic terms, about how to use it as a basis for building a broader movement to challenge established politics. They vehemently opposed raising demands on the state, which would have been necessary if the movement was to attract others. He counterposes the anarchist emphasis on “prefigurative” organizing to his focus on “strategic” thinking.

“In contrast to power politics, ‘prefigurative politics’ seeks to demonstrate the ‘better world’ it envisions for the future in the actions it takes today….I argue that even leftist idealists have to strategically engage power politics proper, if they hope to build anything bigger than a radical clubhouse.” (103) Smucker cites major anarchist theorists, “Manuel Castells, Richard J.F. Day, and David Graeber seem to concur with my claim that [prefigurative politics] aims to replace…strategic politics, especially if the later is defined in terms of hegemonic contestation.” (127)

For example, David Graeber has written, “… most successful forms of popular resistance have historically taken the form not of challenging power head on, but of ‘slipping away from its grasp’, whether by means of flight, desertion, or the founding of new communities.” (quoted in Price 2016) Laurence Davis summarizes—favorably—this viewpoint, “For contemporary ‘small-a’ anarchists…these here-and-now alternative institutions…and social relationships …are the essence of anarchism….Many contemporary anarchists insist that ‘the revolution is now’….” (same) Some autonomous Marxists have adopted a similar perspective, calling it “exodus”—somehow escaping from capitalism without confronting it or the state.

I have written several essays critical of this view (Price 2015a; 2015b; 2006). Most of Smucker’s criticism is on the mark. The capitalist class with its institutions of power—especially the state—will not allow the people to gradually and peacefully build alternate institutions which could replace the market, industrial capitalism, and the national state. This was demonstrated (once again) when the police broke up Occupy encampments, after a few months. This was done throughout the country, with coordination by the (Obama-Democratic) national government. The power of the state could not be ignored.

But the opinions he cites are from only one school of anarchism. There is also the tradition of revolutionary class-struggle anarchism (libertarian socialism). (Price 2016; 2009) This aims to build a mass movement which can eventually overthrow the capitalist class and its state, along with all other institutions of oppression—and replace them with self-managed, cooperative, nonprofit, institutions from below. It sees a major role for the working class, with its potential power to stop the means of production. It also has organized other sections of the oppressed and exploited to fight for freedom, in various countries and at various times.

Smucker, who claims to have once been an anarchist, appears to be completely ignorant of this alternate, and mainstream, tendency in anarchism, which goes back to Bakunin and Kropotkin, the anarchist-communists and the anarcho-syndicalists. (A slight example of Smucker’s ignorance of anarchism appears in his discussion of recent biological evidence that human beings, like other animals, are not only competitive and aggressive, but also are highly cooperative and sociable. This is true, but it was demonstrated over a century ago by Peter Kropotkin in his Mutual Aid, a foundational work for anarchism.)

Revolutionary anarchism would not accept this binary counterposition of prefiguration vs. a strategy for power—whether raised, on different sides, by Smucker or by certain anarchists. Even Smucker accepts that a strategic approach may incorporate prefiguration, as a minor aspect. But actually the two depend on each other. We cannot build a participatory democratic society unless we build a participatory democratic movement, and it will be a stronger movement the more that people democratically participate.

This point is made in a book on unions, fittingly titled, Democracy is Power.Internal democracy is key to union power….A union will act in the interests of members only if these members control the union….The power of the union lies in the participation of its members, and it requires democracy to make members want to be involved….A union run by the members is also more likely to exercise its power.” (Parker & Gruelle 1999; 14) This does not mean that specific forms, such as consensus and open membership, are always required. However, strategy and prefiguration should be one and the same.

The Limits of Liberalism

The primary weakness of this book is its one-sided focus on sectarian withdrawal and self-involvement on the Left. What Smucker says against this is true, but it is not the whole truth.

The main problem with the Left in the U.S. (and elsewhere) is not self-involvement but liberalism, reformism, and opportunism. From the ‘30s to today, most of the Left has supported—or at least, accommodated—capitalism, only urging better regulation of business by the state. It has promoted the state as the main remedy for all social evils—if only the state would be somewhat more democratic. It has portrayed the state as a neutral institution, to be used by the corporate rich or by the working people, depending on events. It has urged a focus on elections, to put individuals into office to be “political” for the people. It has channeled mass action into the Democratic Party, the “party of the people,” which has consistently been the swamp in which movements suffocate and die. This has been true not only of liberals but also of most of those calling themselves “socialists” or “communists.”

The liberal approach has led to victories, but none which have remained stable and reliable (especially since the period of renewed stagnation and decline beginning about 1970, following the “long boom”). Unions won the right to organize—but today unions in the private sector only represent about 6 % of the labor force, about where they were before the upsurge of the ‘30s. African-Americans defeated legal segregation, but Black people are still on the bottom of society. Even their right to vote is under attack. Women made gains, which are again under attack, especially the right to legal abortions. The “Vietnam syndrome,” which limited the U.S.’s military interventions abroad, is over; now the U.S. wages war around the world, and threatens nuclear war with North Korea. Advancements in environmental protection have been viciously attacked by the current administration—which has attacked popular gains in every field. (Readers may add to the list as they chose.) Liberalism—reformism—has been a failure overall.

Yet this seems to be Jonathan Smucker’s perspective. While he strongly (and correctly) criticizes self-enclosed, sectarian, anarchists and others, he has barely a few phrases about the danger of being coopted by ruling powers. He hopes to build a broad popular movement, including large numbers of “ordinary people,” workers of all sorts, students, and oppressed people—but also to include powerful people from the rich and governing sectors. He wants to win over “allies within the existing establishment.” (167) Radicals need to know “how to strategically influence a decision-maker….” (250) There is a need for “actively courting influential supporters….” (70) This implies not an alliance against the ruling class but an alliance with sections of the ruling class and the state. (This has traditionally been called a “Popular Front,” as opposed to a broad alliance of organizations, parties, and movements of the working class and oppressed sections, which has been called a “United Front.”) In order to include establishment allies, the movement would have to limit the demands which can be raised and the methods which can be used.

Smucker’s aim is not only for a popular movement to develop counter-power to the ruling class, but to take state power. “The state is no longer an other that we stand in opposition to as total outsiders; instead we become responsible for it—parts of it, at least….” (152) His goal is “to consolidate victories in the state….wresting the helm.” (150) He expresses admiration for “the Chavistas in Venezuela…[who] have succeeded in winning some level—however limited a degree—of state power….” (136) Smucker does not mention more recent developments in Venezuela, which have not gone so well for the regime nor for its working and poor people.

Elections and the Democratic Party

To win “victories in the state”, it will be necessary to run in elections. “Hopefully this moment is helping today’s radicals to reconsider our relationship to electoral campaigns and political parties….” (170) Besides the Chavistas, he makes several glowing references to Bernie Sanders’ campaign. “In 2016 Bernie Sanders picked up the torch that Occupy lit….”
(246) “The Bernie Sanders campaign showed again…the ripe possibility of such an insurgent political alignment.” (217) The Sanders campaign did demonstrate that there was a lot of dissatisfaction which might be mobilized even behind someone who was called a “socialist” and spoke of “revolution.” This was significant.

But what was the strategic result? Sanders channeled this dissatisfaction into the Democratic Party, eventually behind Hillary Clinton, a neoliberal, militarist, establishment politician. Those who organized the Sanders campaign are now trying to keep its momentum in the capitalist party which has historically been the graveyard of movements. They want to turn the militant youth into voting fodder for another pro-imperialist, pro-capitalist, candidate, who has no solution for the economic and ecological disasters which are looming.

Smuckers cites a lot of sociologists and political scientists, but few radicals. He cites no anarchists (except for the non-revolutionary types) and no Marxists (except for the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci--died in 1937). He never considers the nature of the state, apparently treating it as a neutral institution which can be used by either the people or by the corporate rich. He seems to think that competing classes can take over different “parts” of the same state—denying that it is a unitary institution. One thing on which both the revolutionary anarchists and Lenin agreed was that the existing state was an instrument of capitalism, and that it needed to be overthrown and replaced by alternate institutions. The fate of the Occupy encampments was one demonstration of this.

Other examples have appeared more recently in Greece in the fate of the elected Syriza government, in Brazil with the Workers’ Party government, in South Africa with the ANC, and in many other reformist parties over the decades (such as Allende in Chile in 1973 or the rise of fascism in Europe in the 1920s and 30s). Smucker discusses the OWS experience but not any of these. Nor does he examine any of the rich history of revolutions and counterrevolutions, which have been studied by anarchists, Marxists, and bourgeois historians. It is true that we cannot expect a revolution—or even a prerevolutionary period—in the near future. But the goal of a revolution can be used to guide the current struggle for reforms and how that is carried out. A study of the history of previous attempts at revolution could provide lessons even broader than only looking at OWS and the other limited experiences which Smucker has personally gone through.

In fact, limiting ourselves just to struggles for reforms, in the U.S. almost every major victory has been won by non-electoral means. The rights of unions were won through mass strike waves. The destruction of legal Jim Crow and other gains for African-Americans were won through mass civil disobedience as well as urban rebellions (“riots”). The war in Vietnam was opposed through demonstrations, draft resistance, campus strikes, and a virtual mutiny in the armed forces. LGBT rights were fought for through the Stonewall rebellion and ACT-UP’s civil disobedience. The women’s movement was an integral part of these non-electoral struggles. The legal and electoral aspects of these movements were efforts by the establishment to respond to these popular struggles, to get them under control, and finally to kill them. The Democratic Party played a big part in that.

The Hegemony of Gramsci

Smucker relies heavily on the concepts of Antonio Gramsci, such as “hegemony”, “articulation,” and others. Without being a Gramsci enthusiast, I do not criticize Smucker for being willing to learn from a Marxist theorist. (Although it seems a little odd to use an unusual word like “hegemony” in the title of a book addressed to a wide audience.) Gramsci advocated a revolution by the working class, in a broad alliance with all oppressed and exploited people, to overturn capitalism and the existing state. These are concepts with which I agree and which Smucker may not, or at least does not raise here. However, even the best Marxists should be read critically, given the disastrous results whenever Marxists have taken power.

For example, the concept of “hegemony,” as used by Gramsci, indicates that the capitalist class rules through dominating popular culture and ideology—and that the working class and oppressed need to reverse this, so that emancipatory culture and ideology becomes the “common sense” of the popular classes.

However, “hegemony” might also be interpreted with authoritarian implications, implying that a minority which thinks it knows the Truth should seek to dominate popular consciousness. In fact, Gramsci was a Leninist, an advocate of a centralized vanguard party. The party, in his conception, aimed to take power through a new state, presumably in the interests of the working class. In the factional conflicts within the Communist International and the Italian Communist Party, Gramsci took the side of Stalin (Chiaradia 2013).

“Hegemony” may also be interpreted as a reformist strategy. If we focus predominantly on the cultural and ideological power of the ruling class, this may lead to downplaying its economic power (the use of unemployment and insecurity to discipline the working class) and the armed power of its state. The police and military do not usually interfere directly in politics, but they are always in the background, to be used in a crisis (again: as in the destruction of the Occupy encampments). This can lead militants to emphasize political maneuvering and cultural enlightenment, and to ignore hard power, confrontation, and the nature of the state. In fact, after World War II, the Italian Communist Party, as well as later “Eurocommunist” parties, followed reformist strategies while claiming to be inspired by Gramsci.

None of this should prevent people from learning whatever they can from Gramsci’s work. (See Anderson 1977.) But they should view it critically.

Hope for the Future

Jonathan Smucker expects continuing difficulties and crises in society to create openings for popular movements, in various ways and on various issues. “A left hegemonic project will become a realistic possibility in the decades ahead.” (255) “The signs are all around us that such a progressive populist alignment is coming into being.” (247) I think this perspective is likely. I also agree with Smucker that radicals need to prepare for this, to think about how to cope with the growing discontent, and to organize ourselves as part of organizing others. The self-organizing of radicals is part of the self-organizing of popular movements.

However, he ignores some of the dangers involved. Liberals, reformists, and those establishment allies Smucker wants to look for, will aim to keep the “populist” movements within respectable and limited bounds—that is, to keep them ineffective. Revolutionary anarchists and other libertarian socialists need to build a militant, radical, left wing of the movements (especially the labor movement with its potential strategic power). They need to oppose (to seek hegemony over) those who withdraw into self-satisfied isolation, but also to oppose those who are willing to accept the limitations of capitalism and its state.

In the front of this book, his anarchist publishers, the AK Press Collective, have a statement. Probably referring to his electoralism and similar aspects of his strategy, they write, “Smucker’s personal politics sometimes include strategies for social change that AK Press doesn’t advocate, but we think the ideas he presents will be useful to a range of strategic approaches….”

As did AK Press, I find this a useful and interesting book. It raises insightful criticisms of some anarchists and others. It proposes programmatic suggestions, some of which I think are valuable from a revolutionary view— and some of which I think are wrong (reformist) but worth thinking through as he presents them.

References

Anderson, Perry (1977). “The Antinomies of Antonio Gramsci.”
New Left Review.
http://www.praxisphilosophie.de/anderson_gramsci_antino...s.pdf

Chiaradia, John (2013). “Amadeo Bordiga and the Myth of Antonio Gramsci.”
https://libcom.org/library/amadeo-bordiga-myth-antonio-...radia

Krul, Matthijs (2011). “What We Can Learn From Hal Draper.”
http://mccaine.org/2011/04/14/what-we-can-learn-from-ha...aper/

Parker, Mike, & Gruelle, Martha (1999). Democracy is Power; Rebuilding Unions for the Bottom Up. Detroit: A Labor Notes Book.

Price, Wayne (2016). “In Defense of Revolutionary Class-Struggle Anarchism.” Anarkismo.
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/29243?search_text=Dav...aeber

Price, Wayne (2015a). “Response to Crimethinc’s ‘Why We Don’t Make Demands’.” Anarkismo.
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/28353?search_text=Way...Price

Price, Wayne (2015b). “The Reversed Revolutions of David Graeber:
Review of David Graeber, Revolutions in Reverse.” Anarkismo.
http://www.anarkismo.net/article/28134?search_text=Wayn...Price

Price, Wayne (2009). “The Two Main Trends in Anarchism.” Anarkismo
http://www.anarkismo.net/article/13536?search_text=Wayn...Price

Price, Wayne (2006). “Confronting the Question of Power; Should the Oppressed Take Power?” Anarkismo.
http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=2496

Smucker, Jonathan M. (2017). Hegemony How-To: A Roadmap for Radicals. Chico CA: AK Press.

*written for www.Anarkismo.net Tags: hegemonyreformorganizingbook reviewcategory: Essays
Categories: News

Countering Black Metal Bullshit in Olympia

Thu, 02/22/2018 - 22:55

From Puget Sound Anarchists

“When you see misdeeds speak out against them, and give your enemies no peace.”
~Odin

For those unaware black metal has always had a neo-Nazi problem. Extreme music attracted people with an affinity for extreme politics. It being infused with macho bullshit and with the boom of neo-Nazi music outside of Oi around 90s black metal and other dark esoteric scenes became a hot bed for esoteric neo-Nazi activity. With neo-Nazis being forced out of the punk scene they retreated into noise, goth, martial industrial, neo-folk, and black metal scenes. Often the main differences between black metal and other genres like grindcore have to do with instrumentation in a small part, but largely have to do with aesthetics and themes. Another appeal of Nazi imagery is the dangerous aesthetic and since the Nazi project and other fascist projects have been in part the aestheticization of politics it only makes sense that where the aesthetic lives so does the ideology.

Likewise “heathen” pagan circles and esoteric/occult/satanic circles have had a Nazi-sympathizing problem dating back to Julius Evola, Ragnar Redbeard, Aleister Crowley, Charles Manson, and event Anton LaVey. It’s most horrid incarnations being satanist neo-Nazi groups like the Order of the Nine Angels (some of whom are rumoured active in Vancouver BC), Aryan supremacist pagans like PNW local Thorfinn Odinson, and Evolian fash-sympathizing spiritualists who are increasingly common in this era.

Ever since I first moved to Olympia — Occupied Coast Salish, Nisqually, and Squaxin Land — I’ve been wary of the “dark bar” a.k.a. Cryptatropa or the Crypt. Burzum and other racist black metal and goth bands were readily available on the jukebox there, it employed sketchwads affiliated with more esoteric fash-sympathizing, and bands I’ve seen loading up gear there were rocking NSBM(Nazi Black Metal). Like many black metal or goth scenes with sketchy elements it seemed like a bunch of willfully ignorant liberals and some more clever fash-sympathizing elements.

In 2015 tensions seemed to come to a head with the bar and the intersection of liberalism and neo-Nazi apologism seemed to bare some especially bitter fruit. Neo-Nazis were out in bigger numbers in Olympia and a worker at the bar had taken down some antifa fliers while making all sorts of excuses for their Ur-Fascist friends. At one point in time a friend of mine got into an argument with some liberal with a Peste Noire patch who seemed completely unwilling to understand the bands deeply European Supremacist sentiment and totally bought into the “we’re not technically Nazis” smoke screen that bands like Peste Noire often use while actually being very much Fascist and Nazi aligned though of a specifically different incarnation of violent reactionary ideology. A recent Peste Noire interview clears all this right up.

Since then many of the songs have come off the jukebox, the staff have cycled through, and the bar seems less suss than it has been, especially compared the sports bar down the street or the West Side Tavern where Proud Boys and Hells Angels MC meet.

This highlights a trend that is common to Olympia and elsewhere in general: people’s unwillingness to accept things that trouble their relationships with bands and people in their scenes. And the persistence of liberals enabling the more clever Fascist and neo-Nazi organizing and falling for very basic rhetorical traps.

There is a fascist creep in anarchist and anarchist-adjacent milieus, but it’s not just in obscure egoist circles. This creep is exists in the hip DIY music scenes especially in Oly and people’s friendships make it hard for them to see what’s really going on. People who say they are anti-fascist have friends who are in bands that play sketchy festivals and make friends with sketchy people. Esoteric fash or Aryan Asatru are not uncommon in “heathen” music scenes and the overlap between neo-hippie metal punks and “heathen” scenes is substantial. These anti-fascists are thrown off the scent by basic turns of phrase and identity politics or an unwillingness to critically look at themselves and their friendships. They want the easy way out, but things are not so simple. Also, because so much of this is wrapped up in their subversive identity, and thus in their ability to feel comfortable as civilized capitalist subjects, it is hard for some in Olympia to accept the reality of the creeping fascists or reactionary tilts.

At the most recent Wolves in the Throne Room show in Olympia some entry level black metal goth was rocking a “White Power Cross” patch on his battle jacket. Someone who has in the past been an apologist for more esoteric fascist actually took action and removed this ‘neo-Nazi in waiting’ along with his girlfriend. The person taking charge of the removal reasoned that such a patch makes some feel unsafe regardless of what the intention of such a symbol is. This argument is not the most holistically sound or strongest, but it is valid. In reponse to this argument the “White Power Cross” wearer started listing off typical bullshit excuses that neo-Nazis came up with ages ago as they retreated from being able to say their most extreme view. This rhetoric was crafted in attempts to sway people just like this particular white man and his girlfriend. He also said he was being “White Shamed” and how the people who had a problem with his patch were being “intolerant of other ideas” and other side steppings that are really a defense of the use of NeoNazi and other reactionary white nationalist symbols and thus of allowing said groups to spread and organize.

This person was not being shamed for happening to be of European or “White” heritage. We were literally at a show that was venerating all sorts of European heritages. Whiteness itself is the assault on these European heritages assimilating them into White Christiandom and arbitrary nationalisms that break and destroy cultural continuities. Whiteness is a position in a racial socio-economic hierarchy. It is hardly a cultural grouping beyond this. The first solidifications of europeaness was Christiandom and the Crusades as well as the tension between “dark and fair,” and whiteness began to intensify during the colonial period particular on the frontiers of empire such as in the Americas or the Congo. Sure there are such things as Irish culture Italian culture etc as arbitrary and generalizing as those conceptions may be, but whiteness itself is where those lived cultures go to die.

The “White Power Cross,” the “Nazi Salute,” and “wolfsangel” are not accurate celebrations of implicitly european heritages; they are explicit displays of affinities for white supremacist ideologies, narratives, and world views. The Nazi Salute is not an old roman salute or norse salute or anything like that it is a Nazi misinterpretation of a roman salute. The “White Power Cross” although derived from a a Celtic symbol and perhaps in other contexts a valid non-fash cultural print just as the Swastika can be, but in this context there is no denying that it is of the same graphical heritage and used in the same way as those who use it as a White Supremacist dog whistle. As for the wolfsangel it was a symbol that went out of popularity and would have died in relative obscurity if it wasn’t re-imagined and re-drawn by the Nazis and is used as a sort of less recognizable hakenkreuz (the Nazi symbol which is commonly unfortunately called a Swastika because it looks like the South Asian Swastika).

After doing some research it seems this couple were “Proud Nationalists” who were also explicitly white and harped on a great deal of alt-right talking points. Everything they did was a nerfed version of what neo-Nazis were doing both aesthetically and rhetorically. It was very clear they were in the first stages of indoctrination and still pulled on normative appeals to what could be considered liberal ideals, but as we know the shift between neo-Nazi adjacent and neo-Nazi can happen quick.

The idea that people who oppose neo-Nazis and their ilk are “thought police” or trying to get everyone to toe a politically correct party line is bullshit. We are not adverse to unpopular truths, meta-narrative shattering claims, harsh critique, visceral words or images, and we are not trying to enforce a mono-culture or hegemonic ideology. Reactionaries who put forward fascist or violent racist ideas are not just putting forward ideas in some imagined marketplace of ideas, these forces are building to further actualize a violent and oppressive ruling order. If we think that there are ethics worth holding and “anything goes” is not desirable then we also admit there are limits to what we will tolerate.

The reactionaries have retreated into free-speech because they have few good arguments left, but this shows that good critical arguments are not everything. They champion free-speech and supposedly free-thought in a horribly unfree ruling order and as they openly advocate for making the ruling order increasingly unfree. They happily ignore the repression inherent to the foundations of what they are putting forward. They say not just what they believe is true, but rather what needs to be true in order for them to continue being the reactionaries and bigots they are, as well as to justify future violence.

Combating reactionary organizing and existence in general is not about shutting down debate. The purpose of the reactionaries’ arguments, symbols, slogans, etc., are not — on the whole –meant to find some truth through discourse. These arguments are largely used to build and to defend the institutions of bigoted subjugation, whether they be racist or sexist or whatever. These arguments are also used to further the fash and their fellow traveler’s own violent projects such as the repression of rebels and attacks on undesirables like queers and migrants. The violence of national borders is intolerable. Sexual-assault is intolerable. Class-society is intolerable. Queerphobia is intolerable. Transphobia is intolerable. Ableism is intolerable. Colonialism is intolerable. Statecraft is an intolerable imposition. Racism is intolerable. Sexism is intolerable. Racism and sexism like many other intolerable things are not so easily dealt with. We are constantly debating among ourselves what the nature of these undesirable forces are and how they still have a hold of us. This is not to say there should never be debate with people who are implicitly or explicitly sexist or racist, but rather understand that if there is no hope of altering the situation with words then actions must be taken.

Ideas do not exist in a void, especially those pertaining to the value of the autonomy of living beings, especially in a society where said ideas will motivate people to project force to bring the consequences of these ideas to life. It’s not that these things should not be talked about and discussed in depth or detail, but when one idea is given the stage it inherently pushes others aside and there are far more sound and important ideas than those of confused racists or bigots trying make a case for ethnic cleansing. By all means debate with sexists, racists, and homophobes. Some of our dearest comrades were once far more gripped by these things and we too in the present and past are gripped by them. However, if you give them a platform you are tolerating their position and if you tolerate their position you are legitimizing their position and thus legitimizing the existence of their violent projects and trajectories as well as allowing them to recruit for such things.

If we flip the script what is revealed? There are systems of racial and gender subjugation and they target non-whites and non-men. The reactionaries are the ones beating people in the street for burning flags and expressing their ideas. The reactionaries are the ones that are flipping out when someone challenges their uncritically and deeply held narratives surrounding their identities. The reactionaries are the ones who are regurgitating their parents morality albeit sometimes in their own pseudo-rebellious way. Theirs are the ideologies fundamentally in line with and reinforced by the ruling order. The reactionaries are the ones stoking the flames of authoritarian Islam. The anarchists and socialists are effectively combating groups like the so-called Islamic State. The anarchists and socialists are the ones who are helping to forge desirable and autonomous paths for those children of migrants and alienated youth whom have seen the awful visage of “Western” bigotry and apathy who IS recruits from.

There are those on the left that do want to uphold a party line. There are those on the left that do want to shut down debate to control the narrative and suppress critical engagement. There are those that want people to unquestionably obey orders given by people based on identitarian criteria in a way that is extremely problematic. These people are also getting in the way of realizing more desirable life-ways.

Critical thought and engagement is the life blood of desirable ethics. Oppressed groups are not monolithic. There is not one opinion held in common by all of one race or gender or other marginalized identity. Reality is also complex and perspectives can create barriers in discussion that are hard to get through. In order to be more critical we must also be more autonomous and more free. This means liberation struggles are crucial to the struggle for critical and free thought.

What strategies can be used to plant the seeds of critical interrogation of meta-narratives within reactionary people? How can we stop them from growing their toxic projects?

Debating them is not as simple as they would make it seem with their constantly moving goal posts and if certain identifications trigger them to shut down having an actual conversation. Tracing the trajectory of the rhetoric has been helpful in my experience, but it may take years for them to actually get how fallacious their arguments were and who actually benefits from the narratives they push. Like most reactionaries they state what needs to be the case for them to continue to operate in ways they see fit.

We already possess the critiques to destroy all racist and sexist arguments I know of. Most would agree with most of said critiques. Reactionary violence continues to grow. The fash continue to creep. Spaces continue to allow these groups to organize formally and informally albeit less and less explicitly. New rhetorical maneuvers continue to bamboozle would-be allies in the fight against oppression.

The other option is sometimes seen as the classic. Lump them up. Send them packing. Some would say this could make them escalate, but mostly it’ll make those who aren’t already itching for a fight or aren’t true believers stay home and second guess wearing that sketchy patch to make a small point. Now, if you’re dealing with militant armed neo-Nazis increased tit-for-tat violence may be more likely, but with pleb tier black metal reactionaries or Pepe posting alt-right youth who’ve never been in a fight and have been isolated from the violence of their actions and what they support it’s another story entirely. A pampered alientated N.E.E.T., liberal-at-heart posers who just hang around fash to look cool, or some other person caught up in passive-nihilism will likely fall away from the scene or never come out in public to spread their toxic project again if they experience visceral blow-back for the violence of their actions and beliefs.

In France, in the 80s, reds and anti-racists cleaned up the rock scene by forcing largely ignorant rockers to remove their Confederate-flag patches and in doing so open racism diminished along with racist attacks, etc. However, on the larger level this symbolic violence pushed the Fash underground and forced them to get more organized which broke a lot of their popular power, but also did create a violent and specialized reactionary force and with a new wave of reactionaries in France they aren’t making the same mistakes in terms of imagery and blatant Nazi-Sympathizing.

People ask, “How did the alt-right happen?” and one of the answers is GamerGate and the answer to how that happened is that a space was created where people didn’t seriously challenge bullshit and that space was “gaming.” Likewise alt-right and neo-Nazi sentiments have proliferated in black metal because it is not seriously challenged.

It seems like we are entering an era in Olympia and possibly elsewhere where people have to first posit that they are “not fash” or “not pacifists” while being apologists for their sketchy friends or condemning direct action in their backyard. This could be a good thing. It could mean once people are able to get over the personal bs making them more willing to come out in support of future anti-fascism or direct action. It could also mean they will never be more than face-value anti-fascists or direct-actors. It could mean that we are more and more entering a recuperative and crypto era. Recuperative meaning seemingly positive projects used to make subjugating projects more pernicious and crypto meaning obscured or obfuscated true beliefs.

Fascist affinity is not always even very well hidden. Groups like Operation Werewolf (think cross-fit meets neo-Nazi black metal) have easily slid by in mainstream and alternative media let alone in supposedly radical and hip scenes despite being euro-supremacist etc. Eco-extremist knights-of-faith have gained many apologists in anarchist and nihilist circles, and some online egoists have been pulled into a sort of throw-back Nazi-sympathizing and bigoted reaction.

Recently, at a benefit party, a metal dude rocking Thor’s hammer and a battle-jacket with a Burzum back-patch was spotted (and) confronted by comrades about his Burzum patch. He sidestepped valid arguments that Varg Vikerness, the man behind Burzum, is a racist who demeans “mongoloids” etc., complains about arabs, and is a neo-Nazi sympathizer who routinely references Nazi groups etc. After this the Burzum fan began to show his cards and rant about how real diversity means keeping races separate yadda yadda yadda openly saying he was against “race-mixing.” People explained that they too were against assimilation into a mono-culture, but were also for desegregation, free association, and that being against race-mixing is racist because it devalues other races based on fallacious race theory. It was also argued that while cultural autonomy is a valid concern it is not relevant to “whites” as a whole both considering that they are the dominant group and that “whites” are hardly a coherent cultural unit. It was further explained that xenophobia and defense of culture are separate project and that multiculturalism is not about the destruction of autonomous cultural trends, but the proliferation of cultural trends and that “euro” cultural protectionism is a form of culture policing. When people countered with bio-diversity being about cross-pollination and such things, he again changed course and said something about European cultures being on the ropes. This argument was quickly shot down by someone who noted that European-ness is an advent of the solidification of Christian empire, and whiteness itself is the swan-song of autonomous European cultures whom were on a continuum with cultures throughout many continents. He began to make a counter about “the thing about Christianity is…” but this is where he was cut off and people insisted that he leave, but was no doubt going to talk about some sort of anti-semitic conspiracy. He then went outside the venue where heated arguments continued. One person said something along the lines of “I speak to the same gods as you, and they tell me you’re a racist motherfucker.” This continued until the reactionary metal-head’s friend who joined him viciously called someone a “faggot” and the rest is not my story to tell.

The idea that new people moving in, inherently threatens your cultural autonomy seems like a joke to anyone who has actually had to struggle to defend their culture. Our comrades who come from a long line of German Jews, Irish freedom-fighters, and so on are often the first to tell us the need to defend black liberation against the threat of segregation and anti-black racism. They also tell us of the need to welcome refugees drawing from their own histories as examples. Likewise turning a blind-eye to McDonaldsization and the culture-war tactics of picket-fence WASPs seems ridiculous. The reactionaries even act as if beckoning in the authoritarian police state required to enforce cultural norms and borders on the level they desire would not lead to an attack on free thought and free speech let alone the proliferation of freer life-ways.

These forces may not be as powerful as let’s say the state or capitalism, but they can poison our spaces and creating breeding grounds for our more lateral enemies. They can also become participants in statecraft or operate in tandem with the state like the proto-Nazi FreiKorps did or even what cops and neo-Nazis do today.

Also, let’s remember that it’s not just the right whom these ills spawn from; racist Odinism was revived, according to historian Goodrick-Clarke, in the 60s by an anarcho-syndicalist named Else Christensen.

Let us push these conversations and conflicts. Let us take action to not allow authoritarian reactionaries to exist unchecked in our spaces and neutralize them if possible. Let our banner be the blackest. Let our fire be the hottest. Let our blades be the sharpest. Let our wisdom be the deepest. Let our spirit be the wildest. Let our will be the most indomitable. Against the moralism of the reaction and the subjugations of nation-states and race. Against priest-craft and state-craft. Against the fash and their false critics. Let’s not tolerate the subjugating control of authoritarian leftism, the passivity and friendly exploitation of liberalism, nor the oppression and repression of the right. Chaos and Cosmos Solve et Coagula hurrah for anarchy

Stay tuned for a joint report on BMBS in Seattle eventually.

Further Reading Tags: musicolympiacategory: Essays
Categories: News

Reframing The Question Of Gun Control In The Context Of A School Shooting

Thu, 02/22/2018 - 20:47

From The Anarchist Library

by Francesca

2/19/2018

I'm not writing this to outline specific steps you should take next, but instead to reframe the discussion that we have after every school shooting to something more real and directed at mass-murderers as a phenomenon. I want to start by summing up the two official American political party positions on mass-murder and school shootings so that I can then compare them to an anarchist's position on the same thing.

Two Popular Positions

So the two basic ready-made stances, as prepared by most media outlets fall under two opposing ideas:

1. "The constitution grants me rights to a gun to use for sport, defense against barbarians/ foreigners, and/ or defense against a future dystopic tyrannical (liberal?) government."

2. "Nobody should have a lethal weapon in their possession who isn't a trained law enforcer and therefore major gun reform should restrict our access to them."

The first position follows some assumptions about patriotism and a pure American ethic, a few narratives surrounding what is perceived to be the rebellious origins of the United States, and then some more narratives about freedom, heritage, and human nature. The second position also begins with a couple of faith-based assumptions, mainly regarding the good intentions and noble purpose of law enforcement, since they would be exempt from this gun critique. Similar to the conservative position, the liberal position starts by assuming that there is sometimes an unavoidable evil that spontaneously bubbles out of a person, with no traceable source or reason, and turns them into a school shooter. The basic difference between the two camps is the answer to the question "Who gets to shoot bad guys, cops or me?"

So if we follow each position to its conclusion we have two timelines: in a Democrat voter's United States, all school shooters are replaced with kids that wish they were school shooters, if only the government would let them buy the tools, which it won't. Those kids would (and in our current timeline, often do) become cops since cops can still legally use guns, and as we know, legally kill. In a Republican voter's United States, kids who want to become school shooters get to try, and theoretically get shot by a teacher, another student, or also maybe by a cop. Either way, both voters have started by accepting that some kids want to be school shooters and that's an unavoidable part of life.

An Anarchists Position

In any media-constructed false dichotomy like this one, we have to imagine that a third position exists and that it rejects the terms of the question in the first place. I would argue that our position has to be that one, and it can't begin with "Mass murder is an unavoidable spontaneously occurring human desire" or end at "Who gets to shoot the bad guys?" That's because we haven't considered that school shooters aren't born, but instead are grown. School shooters are a product of schools that function like jails, media that functions like church, and nuclear family structures that function like cults.

I can only speak for myself when I say that I'm not a mystic and I don't believe that brains do unexplainable things. So now that that's out of the way, you should know that I reject the idea that an impulse can spontaneously bubble into a person's brain without conditioning. Before a kid decides to do mass murder, either because he hates black people, or Jews, or because women won't fuck him, or because he just has inexplicable hatred directed at everyone around him, he has to be conditioned.

I'm not going to claim that I understand exactly when or where in a classroom, on a news channel, or on a fishing trip with your dad's friends that the seed is planted. And I can't claim to fully understand the thought process that clicks into place that tells a brain what it needs to know about the worth of a human life that would enable a school shooter or any other kind of mass murderer. I will, however, say that all of us know that schools resemble prisons at worst and office buildings at best, in order to prepare kids to accept their shitty futures in one of the two, depending on your tax bracket. I did grow up in a household, like a lot of us did, that had the news on at least one T.V. at all times. I would see how they portrayed poverty-stricken criminals in this country, or people living in a country the US was dropping bombs on, as subhuman. I could go on, you get the idea.

I will say though, that I am interested in sharing an anti-mass-murder stance with both state sanctioned parties. I'm against mass murder via school shootings. I'm against the mass murder of 1,187 people formally murdered by police in 2017. I'm against the softer, less direct murder of 45,000 people (according to a study out of Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance anyway, I'm sure it's higher) a year in this country due to denied access to medicine via poverty. And I'm against the mass murder of between 19 and 30 million people in wars the US has waged in Afghanistan, Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, East Timor, Guatemala, Indonesia, Pakistan, Sudan, during the Korean and Vietnam wars, and between two Iraq wars.

I think it's essential and right to be against mass murder and I'm suspicious of any claimed anti-mass-murder stance that thinks that it’s not a problem when it's done by cops, soldiers, or by artificial scarcity. I think you would have to believe that criminals, non-Americans, and poor people are less human to also believe that legal mass murder is an exception to your anti-mass-murder position. I think the imposed dichotomy between gun laws and no gun laws misses the point of any anti-mass-murder position which has got to first answer the question "Why does a mass-murderer decide to mass murder" and that we have to be genuinely interested in what the answer to that question is if we are going to claim to genuinely want solutions that can change more than just a law.

I believe that schools, as they are, are people-factories that breed the next generation of school shooters, army generals, cops, wife beaters, etc. I think we can create something better than what we now know of as schools, something that eliminates the line that modern schools draw between learning and living, for instance. I believe that nuclear families, as they are, promote isolation and foster some early and basic "us and them" thoughts that are dangerous. I think prisons should be abolished and people should no longer be policed and that our education system and other clunky institutions shouldn't operate with the intent to separate people into criminals and home-owners. I see that positions are taken by people after school shootings that non-coincidentally mirror exactly the positions of major news anchors and non-coincidentally only pose questions that risk keeping things basically the same. And I understand that it's tempting to reject the idea of fundamental change in favor of making some more laws, because that route doesn't require responsibility on our part over our own lives and it really is just an easier path of lesser resistance.

However, the standard response to any larger scale societal critique like this one (which is usually something between "that's not realistic" or charitably “Okay sure but I want to know what I can do NOW?") isn't necessarily a bad impulse. We should look at the situations we're in and mindfully act immediately. I've seen punks turn their music venues and communal houses into "Really Really Free Markets" that brought neighbors together after a workday, instead of splintering quietly off into their separate houses at 5:00 pm. I've seen kids raised with communal help that learn more empathy by 9 years old than I had at 19. I think we have to create different ways of relating to each other that doesn't begin and end with school bells or work schedules, and I think we do that by getting ahold of spaces to congregate in, expanding our families into networks of care and help, and sharing our lives with each other in ways that are truly dangerous to a government, a landlord or a boss. Whether your mass-murderer talking point is an amateur white supremacist, wears a badge, or holds office, I think the desire to become any one of those is planted in the anti-social home, to school, to prison/career pipeline and should be eliminated at the source. As corny as it sounds, I want to build bridges and take down walls because I think gaps and walls are the main ingredients in recipes for mass murder. I think the question of why kids become mass murderers is something that the gun reform framework can't and doesn't intend to answer.

Tags: gunscategory: Essays
Categories: News

What might an anarchist language look like? I created one, inspired by Ursula le Guin

Thu, 02/22/2018 - 20:27

From The Conversation

The Dispossessed is set on two human worlds: the planet Urras, which resembles 1970s Earth; and Anarres, the moon of Urras, home to a unified anarchist collective. Anarres was settled from Urras by people seeking a better, fairer life, and the resulting collective has been largely isolated from Urran cultures for about 150 years.

Anarres is a planet without property, laws or money; but it does have an advisory bureaucracy and some shared conventions, one of which is the language Pravic. This language was devised by the first settlers, to make the everyday casual ownership which pervades human languages almost impossible to articulate.

Anarres is, of course, a utopia; so it slotted well into Utopia 2016, an exhibition at Somerset House for the 500th anniversary of the publication of Thomas More’s Utopia. The event showcased a series of utopian visions presented by a range of artists. Two of these artists, Onkar Kular and Noam Toran, proposed that the utopia of Anarres could be presented as a teaching space which they called Night School on Anarres. The teaching space was designed to showcase the planet and its culture, offering the people of Earth a window into a working anarchistic society.

But the night school was also intended to offer realistic lessons in Pravic, so the project needed a realistic language to teach. This was not going to be easy. Le Guin had described some key features of the language in her book but, apart from a few names, she provided no close detail of how the language worked.

This is where I came in. I teach a module on the BA English Language and Linguistics course at King’s College London in which the students design and describe their own constructed language, or “conlang”. The module is an opportunity for students to show their knowledge of how language works (or could work) in the abstract, but it also gives them a chance to be creative in their reasoning.

Kular and Toran asked me to generate a version of Pravic for the project. It had to be as close as possible to the language described in the book; it had to be easy enough to teach the basics in one hour; and it had to feel like a real human language.

The final design incorporated almost everything le Guin stipulated about Pravic in the book. The designed language makes it difficult to assert ownership: possessive pronouns (“my”, “your”, “their”, etc.) are out, but simple words like “have” and “give” must also be excised.

Expression of self also has to be restricted: people would not “do” things (this creates ownership of the action), things “are done” by people. Consequently, the whole language is expressed in the passive voice.

Another device to reduce selfhood was taken from Malay: the pronouns “I” and “you” were replaced by noun phrases expressing roles, with default roles being “a speaker” and “the listener(s)”. A version of this was used by the Faceless Men in Game of Thrones.




Teaching Pravlish.
© Onkar Kular

In the end, though, an anglicised version of Pravic, Pravlish, was used for the lessons. After being shown a video travelogue and introduced to some simple Pravic conventions (no pronouns, no ownership, the actor in an action is given last, and “People don’t do things, things happen to people”), the students were asked to translate some difficult sentences into Pravlish – for instance, Julius Caesar’s “I came, I saw, I conquered” and Louis XIV’s “It is legal because I wish it”. The solutions offered were ingenious and entertaining.

In The Dispossessed, Ursula le Guin gave us an honest look at how anarchism might work in a real world with real human beings. I like to think that the Night School project did the same for a new audience. Linguistically, the project showed that language is not just a coding tool we use to give and get meaning; rather, it has an active role in producing these meanings. And so the conventions we build into our language affect what meanings are possible.

Tags: ursula k. le guinlanguagecategory: Projects
Categories: News

Greece: Anarchist Prisoner of War Konstantinos Yiagtzoglou Begins Hunger Strike

Thu, 02/22/2018 - 16:43

via insurrection news

Today, 21.02.18, anarchist prisoner Konstantinos Yiagtzoglou commenced a hunger strike to demand his transfer from the prisons of Larissa to the prisons of Korydallos following the rejection of his request by the Central Committee for Transfers. He is currently in Korydallos Prison, where he was sent yesterday for an ongoing court case. A text from the comrade will follow in the coming days.

We call for an emergency open assembly to plan solidarity actions for the comrade’s hunger strike and share information on the case on Thursday, February 22nd at 19:00 at the Polytechnic (Gini building).

Assembly of Solidarity for Konstantinos Yiagtzoglou

(via Athens Indymedia, translated by Insurrection News)

Received on 22.02.18:

A Few Words about the Case of Anarchist Prisoner Konstantinos Yiagtzoglou

Anarchist comrade Konstantinos Yiagtzoglou was arrested on October 28th 2017, while exiting a hideout rented by him under a false identity and while trasferring guns and explosive materials. Dinos is accused of being a member of the Conspiracy of Cells of Fire and for sending parcel bombs to various EU officials including the former prime minister of Greece, Loukas Papadimos. The cops’ accusations are based on a mixed DNA
sample and on the fact that Dinos was visiting a former anarchist prisoner in Korydallos prison in early 2013. The comrade stated that both renting the appartment and transferring the equipment were part of “revolutionary solidarity” and denies all other charges.

The judicial authorities aim to isolate him by assigning him to Larissa prison for his pre-trial detention, in a city 355 kilometres away from Athens where his family, friends and comrades are. Dinos was tranferred to Korydallos prison a few days ago to be tried for an older case (he was arrested in Athens, in 2011 during massive clashes with riot
police). While there, he was informed that his official request to remain in Athens (Korydallos prison) until his new trial was denied by the Central Committee for Prison Transfers. As a response, the comrade decided to go on a hunger strike on 21/02, demanding his permanent transfer to Korydallos prison until the time of his trial.

Tags: GreeceKonstantinos Yiagtzoglouanarchist prisonerscategory: International
Categories: News

Announcing Resistance is Fertile 2018!

Thu, 02/22/2018 - 16:32

via Montreal Counter Info

Anonymous submission to MTL Counter-info

Over the past year, there has been something of a resurgence in anarchist activity in Ottawa, a vibrant community has begun to form, and it feels like the conditions are right for rapid growth in the radical milieu of our city. That is why we say: Resistance is Fertile!

Most visibly, for the first time since the shuttering of Exile Infoshop over 7 years ago, Ottawa now has a anarchist social centre that is not also a punk house. This social centre, known as the Garden Spot (or G-Spot for short) is near Carleton University, and is already serving to bring together radical & leftist students from Carleton, the University of Ottawa, high schools, and the broader community. To build on the current momentum, we decided to hold a series of events of interest to comrades and newcomers alike.

You can find the Facebook event for the week of activities here.

The schedule for the week is as follows:

Monday: DOUBLE WHAMMY

The Truth about Truth and Reconciliation at Faith House

Concerning Violence Movie Screening with Anti Colonial Action at the Garden Spot

Tuesday:

Kurdish Voices on the Rojava Revolution (G-Spot)

Wednesday:

Anarchist Community Organizing (G-Spot)

This event is for people who are currently involved in anarchist projects in Ottawa – please request an invite if you would like to attend.

Thursday:

Closed workshop

Friday:

Daughters of Dust Viewing to celebrate Black History Month (G-Spot)

Saturday: DOUBLE WHAMMY

The Garden Spot is sponsoring a for youth by youth “Alt Art Show”

Canadian Involvement in the Pillaging of Latin America (Faith House)

Sunday:

Black Sheep Supper Club Round #7 (G-Spot)

We have a triple aim with this project: to educate, to inspire, and to provide space in which activists can get to know each other. As always, we will be providing free vegetarian food (with vegan options) at all events. Help procuring, preparing & serving food is always appreciated, as is help cleaning up afterwards.

It is our great pleasure to be able to offer all of these workshops free of charge, although we welcome donations and may pass the hat. 100% of donations will go to the presenters. We are doing all of these events with zero budget.

Since this is for Montreal Counter-Info, we encourage folks to take this info and tuck it into the back of your minds. Abominable shit is always happening in Canada’s capital, and sometimes it makes sense for folks to travel here to express their rage and disgust. At such moments, connections with local organizers become invaluable, and now’s a good time for forward-thinking activists to start building those relationships. Remember, Trump still might come to Ottawa at some point, and if a state visit is announced, there might not be much time to mobilize.

There’s also the massive anti-abortion March For Life, scheduled for May 10th on Parliament Hill, which provides an opportunity to confront the reactionary forces of the patriarchy.

These potential mobilizations aside, it is just a good thing in general to densify the interconnectivity amongst those who want to fight for lives free from the state, capitalism, and oppression, so we encourage folks to travel to Ottawa to build bridges between our communities!

Tags: montrealworkshopsradical reading weekcategory: International
Categories: News

The Hotwire #19: February 21, 2018

Thu, 02/22/2018 - 14:41

From CrimethInc.
Florida School Shooting & Gun Control—Koreatown Against ICE Raids—TN Antifascism

Rate us on iTunes and let us know what you think, or send us an email to podcast@crimethinc.com.

Subscribe to RSSSubscribe in iTunes
Subscribe in OvercastSubscribe in Pocket Casts Listen to the Episode


37
min


Download MP3

18
MB



Download OGG

17.5
MB

Full Episode Transcript

Summary

This episode is packed to the gills with news! There is antifa activity in Tennessee and folks in the Northwest continue to hold it down against the fascist creep. Solidarity for Afrin spreads and an inspiring model to fight ICE raids emerges out of Koreatown, Los Angeles. We offer some analysis about the school shooting in Parkland, FL and interview both an anarchist attending the student led rallies there and an anarchist author who’s written about gun control. There is a short update on the repression Florida prisoners are enduring due to Operation Push. Walter Bond is in need of support and we have some good news about accused confederate statue topplers in Durham, NC. To wrap things up, there are loads of upcoming events, so stay tuned until the end!

Notes and Links Tags: Crimethinc.the hotwirepodcastcategory: Projects
Categories: News

February's issue of Friendly Fire!

Thu, 02/22/2018 - 02:24

via The Friendly Fire collective

happy valentines day // huey p. newton's birthday // aquarius + pisces season

brought to u by friendly fire collective

it's our first issue of friendly fire! 

we have no idea what we're doing with this - but multiple people have asked us to put them on our mailing list or keep them updated on the work of our collective. so here we go!



who are we?



the Friendly Fire Collective is a loose network of anti-fascist, anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist Christians. drawing from Marxist and anarchist political traditions, and grounded in the biblical vision of God’s Kin-dom, we believe we are called to create a new world in the ashes of the old.



what's the purpose of this newsletter?



to keep people updated on the work of our collective, promote projects we love and you'll love too, provide resources for radical Christians, and idk, have fun.



so while you're here...

our comrade and collective member Siang’ani Odera has been building up support the past year for Desirae Glatfelter, a 29-year-old Black woman survivor of domestic violence who is currently incarcerated at Kent County Jail in Michigan. she was convicted of aggravated domestic assault of her former partner who had previously abused and assaulted her. We encourage people to reach out to her and financially support her during this time. as Briana Urela-Ravelo wrote in this article in the Rapidian, “Glatfelter is more than just a survivor. She is a mother to three children, a home health aide, and has interest in going to school for cosmetology. She could use all the love and support she can get from the community.”

For those interested in writing to her:

https://www.accesskent.com/Sheriff/mail_phone.htm

To give to her commissary: https://www.accesscorrections.com/



also...



our comrades at the Street-Based Sex Worker Self Defense Fund in Philly need more pepper spray! they have been buying and distributing pepper spray to women working in Kensington's street economies since a time of increased violence against street-based sex workers. this was made possible with from online fundraisers. more pepper spray is needed, and the funds have run out. consider giving them some money on their youcaring page!

being in love under capitalism ☭



Being in love is good. Amazingly good. Shockingly good. But my partner deserves to be in love in a world where we can hang out for over an hour. Where we can cook together, have time to play Scrabble, even be bored together. I deserve it too. Capitalism frustrates and kills every part of life. And I'm over it, to say the least. I'm over working my ass off to barely pay off loans and rent. I hate feeling guilty for getting Chinese take out when there's not enough time to cook. I miss reading books. My free time is spent in bed. The weight of debt, the weight of bills, it sits on everything. On the best things. I'm tired. Still, I hold on, carried by a grace that makes me believe in a world where people, not held high by privilege, can be in love - with partners, friends, family - without the weight of capitalism. Where people can be fully human. People deserve it. You deserve it.

 

standing up against fascism

fascists are a thing. nazis are a thing. 2017 has taught us that all too well. here at Friendly Fire, we believe if Jesus was alive as a flesh-person on earth today, he'd be as antifa as they come. here are some opportunities to join antifa Jesus in fighting fascism!



FOR THOSE IN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Milo Yiannopoulos (anti-Muslim fascist), Stefan Molyneuz (Mens rights fascist), Mike Cernovich (Mens rights fascist) will be in DC this week! Join DC Antica on February 24th at 5 PM to stand against the normalization of fascism. For more information: facebook/AntifaDC



FOR THOSE IN THE MIDWEST

there is a call for a mass mobilization of organizers and antifascists in East Lansing, Michigan. on March 5th, Richard Spencer will be giving a talk on Michigan State University's campus. hundreds of Nazis will be busing in from an Alt-Right conference in Detroit (which will be occurring March 4th). for more info on the Lansing mobilization: https://www.facebook.com/StopSpencerMSU/



& for more info on protests against the Alt-Right conference in Detroit: https://www.facebook.com/events/211065949470808/

-->

Flyer up your campus or church!



Get the word out that the Christian Left is becoming a thing, and we're getting down and dirty on May 1st! www.friendlyfirecollective.wordpress.com/retreat Make your own flyers - or we can send some your way.



You can email us at friendlyfireinfo@protonmail.com!

xoxo, 



the may day retreat

planning committee


❤☭ ❤☭ ❤☭ ❤

☭ ❤☭ ❤☭ ❤☭



p.s. billy graham was an anti-semite


Tags: friendly firechristian anarchismChristianityantifacategory: Projects
Categories: News

Ursula Le Guin and Utopia

Thu, 02/22/2018 - 01:35

From Anarchist Writers by anarcho

It is with great sadness that I write this for one of my favourite writers, Ursula Le Guin, had died. The New York Times called her “America’s greatest living science fiction writers” in 2016 but that does not really do her work justice: she was one of the world’s greatest writers. It is just that she worked mostly in the Science Fiction and Fantasy genre. And like a few others – Michael Moorcock and Alan Moore spring to mind – also contributed to popularising anarchism outside political circles. Her SF novel The Dispossessed (1974) is still by far the best account of an anarchist society, warts and all!

She was a great writer, one of the best ever. Needless to say, she was my favourite SF writer. Her alien worlds were, well, alien. Her characters, actual people and not cyphers. Her message, humane, egalitarian, libertarian, feminist. She died on January 22, so I hope she saw the women’s marches across the world for as she put it in the 1980s:

“When women speak truly they speak subversively — they can’t help it: if you’re underneath, if you’re kept down, you break out, you subvert. We are volcanoes. When we women offer our experience as our truth, as human truth, all the maps change. There are new mountains. That’s what I want – to hear you erupting. You young Mount St Helenses who don’t know the power in you – I want to hear you.”

Her parents were anthologists, and you can tell. Far too much of SF (and Fantasy) is just middle-class, middle-aged, white, 20th century American male (who has read or watched too many Westerns) projected into space (or into a cod-Middle Ages). The lack of thought about culture is made up for by some fancy hardware and battles against a thinly-veiled stand-in for “communism” (i.e., Stalinism). The “harder” the SF, the more banal it appears to be. Not Le Guin. Her cultures reflect thought, an awareness that the norms of the current patriarchal, racist, class society are not the only ones. Humanity has provided a diverse range of cultures across time and space, if having an imagination is too much hard work. Much of SF – particularly in its so-called “golden era” – is not particularly imaginative. Again, not Le Guin – her works are imaginative in terms of “alien” cultures.

They were also subversive of the typical reader’s assumptions – the hero of the Earthsea series is dark-skinned, the main baddies white (and she publically lamented when the TV adaption turned that around). The Left Hand of Darkness (1969) addressed gender, by means of a world were humans were genderless except for a week every month during which they could become male or female. Her The Word for World is Forest (1976) exposed the horrors of imperialism long before Avatar trod a similar path in 3D: but no white, male saviour for the – short, furry and green – natives in the Hainish universe, they freed themselves.

She wrote so many books, short stories, articles, that it would be impossible to cover everything. So instead I will make a few comments about The Dispossessed for it is that work – and the related short-story The Day Before the Revolution (1974) – that she has a special place in anarchist hearts.

First, I must note something written on the Guardian webpage after her death. It was an article on what you should read if you had not heard of her before:

“But the physicist Shevek, who is working on a method of interstellar communication called the Principle of Simultaneity, is becoming disillusioned with the anarchist philosophy of Anarres and travels to Urras to find more freedom.”

Do people even bother to read the books they summarise? This is a travesty of the book’s plot and point. Shevek was not “disillusioned with the anarchist philosophy,” he was seeking to make Anarres live up to its anarchist philosophy! He spends a lot of his time on Urras advocating anarchism – if I remember correctly, it is even noted that he was surprised that they allowed him to do so at the Urras equivalent of the United Nations (because his speech is not reported in depth in the popular newspapers). He even compares his academic life to his live in Anarres, considering the academic environment the closest to what he is used to back home – discussion between equals.

And he travels to Urras as part of his struggle to help break the crystallised structures on Anarres – which saw the decision to decline communication with anarchists on Urrras! He did not travel to Urras to “fine more freedom” – he was well aware of the hierarchical nature of the system and experienced it first-hand. He even escapes his “freedom” at the university to join a mass anti-war protest… and he goes back to Anarres to continue to apply his anarchism to the crystallised libertarian society he seeks to bring back to its ideal.

Second, an older comment but one which shares the same apparent unwillingness to understand the book and its message. The SF writer Ken MacLeod, who you would think should know better. I was somewhat surprised to read him proclaim the following:

“It is the absence of political debate, as much as the absence of privacy and the relentless presence of morality, that makes the communism of Anarres, in Ursula Le Guin’s anarchist classic The Dispossessed (1974), so oppressive. When her hero Shevek finds himself in conflict with aspects of his society he has no forum in which to express it, no way to find like-minded individuals with whom he might find common ground; instead, his conflicts become conflicts with other individuals. He is as isolated as any dissident in a totalitarian state.” (“Politics and science fiction,” The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003], 230)

I must say that it makes a change for a (ex-?) Marxist to proclaim Anarchism would produce a society which would crush individuality under collective pressure – the usual charge is that we are just extreme liberals whose advocacy of “individualism” would make all forms of organisation and community impossible (Max Stirner is usually invoked, in spite of him having no impact on Anarchism until the 1890s). So it would be tempting to ignore this but the argument that social pressure can be oppressive is stronger and so worth discussing – particularly as many anarchists have argued the same thing and indicated how to combat it.

In terms of “absence of privacy,” The Dispossessed makes clear that people have as much privacy as they like – the environmental limitations of a desert moon pushing towards a more communal set-up. Kropotkin would not have liked the predominant system that much – being on record as opposing hotel-like communes in favour of personal homes – but the possibility of personal/family rooms was there and taken up. As for “the relentless presence of morality,” any society – apart from the most atomised – will have some general set of social standards. On Anarres, these social standards allow quite a range of self-expression – no sexism, homophobia, etc. However, the negative impact of social pressure is one of the book’s concerns – and one which anarchist thinkers have raised.

I’m not sure what MacLeod means in terms “the absence of political debate” as The Dispossessed recounts disagreement on Anarres repeatedly: “in the PDC debates in Abbenay” with its “fierce protests” about supplying Urras with raw materials (83); “Anybody can attend any PDC meeting, and if he’s an interested syndic, he can debate and vote!” (144); Shevek bringing up sending letters to Urras “at the Physics Federation” (137); the discussion on receiving people from, and sending to, Urras. (291-7). In the latter discussion it is noted that radio contact was disapproved being “[a]gainst the recommendation of this council, and the Deference Federative, and a majority vote of the List” as well the “increasing protests from the entire Brotherhood.” (291, 293)

Indeed, much of what MacLeod calls “the relentless presence of morality” is, in fact, political debate – particularly in relation to the “personal is political” and so how best to apply libertarian principles in everyday live. Which includes working with other people in syndicates, communities and federations. He seems to forget that organisations are made up of other individuals – and as the book make clear, Shevek and his comrades (like others) come into conflict with them in institutional settings, in syndicate and federative meetings by means of debates and… votes!

What of no possibility of finding “like minded individuals with whom he might find common ground”? MacLeod seems to have forgotten that Shevek and his colleagues form their own group (“the Syndicate of Initiative”) – as can any Anarres inhabitant – and use the resources of their society – as can any Anarres inhabitant – for their own ends. All of which is an expression of free communism – based as it is on individual initiative, free association and use rights to society’s resources.

So we have “political debate” (both between individuals, within groups and across society), we have “like-minded people” coming together to fight the institutional and societal problems developing within libertarian communism – a far cry from MacLeod’s claims.

How a society described as being so rich in associational life can dismissed as resulting in someone being “as isolated as any dissident in a totalitarian state” is lost on me. To place this in the context of the book, on Urras which is a hierarchical society marked by class and patriarchy, Shevek’s room is bugged while a mass protest meeting he speaks at – after escaping from his surveillance – is fired upon by government troops, killing untold numbers, and afterwards State repression sees protesters being rounded up (imprisoned, if not shot).

Is Anarres perfect? No, that is the point of the book – it has evolved into a quasi-bureaucratic system (due to routine administration) based on majority rule (via societal pressure). Yet Shevek and his comrades are able to rebel against these pressures using the principles the society was formed on – nor are they actually stopped from doing so (the little mob which forms to stop Shevek’s departure to Urras is ineffectual as well as being obviously spontaneously formed). They are subject to social pressure, disapproval by many others, but they are not – unlike on Urras – shot down or imprisoned for their activities after the appropriate “political debate.”

I should also note that Shevek and his comrades’ activities are part and parcel of libertarian communism and not somehow against it. As Le Guin makes clear:

“from the start, the Settlers were aware that that unavoidable centralisation [i.e., a town where most of the headquarters of the federations and syndicates were based] was a lasting threat, to be countered by lasting vigilance.” (86)

The “syndicate of initiative” is part of this process of “lasting vigilance” – the problem being on Anarres that this vigilance has withered away by becoming crystallised (to use Kropotkin’s term). Indeed, in Mutual Aid elsewhere indicated that this was a recurring problem during society’s evolution – and an anarchist society would also face this danger.

All of which makes you wonder what makes Anarres “so oppressive”? Comparing it to actual totalitarian states shows the stupidity of MacLeod’s assertions. The worse example given in the book is of an artist driven insane by social pressure and its ramifications – which is one of the factors which drive the creation of the “syndicate of initiative.” Which must be placed in the context of the high levels of mental illness within hierarchical systems as well as how often people are driven mad as a result of repressive policies decided upon by the “political debates” within Statist systems.

Of course, I am now comparing a work of fiction with actual social systems – but Le Guin’s book makes you do that because it is quite a realistic utopia, populated by people rather than political cyphers. Ultimately, for all its flaws, Shevek still defends Anarres and its principles on Urras and sees its obvious freedoms compared to that hierarchical regime. He returns to Anarres to participate in the growing movement seeking to eliminate the unhealthy developments within libertarian communism. Again, all very much in line with Kropotkin’s comments in the “Conclusion” of Mutual Aid:

“It will probably be remarked that mutual aid, even though it may represent one of the factors of evolution, covers nevertheless one aspect only of human relations; that by the side of this current, powerful though it may be, there is, and always has been, the other current – the self-assertion of the individual, not only in its efforts to attain personal or caste superiority, economical, political, and spiritual, but also in its much more important although less evident function of breaking through the bonds, always prone to become crystallised, which the tribe, the village community, the city, and the State impose upon the individual. In other words, there is the self-assertion of the individual taken as a progressive element.”

So MacLeod’s summary of Le Guin’s work leaves a lot to be desired – indeed, everything he lists as making Shevek “as isolated as any dissident in a totalitarian state” is simply not supported by the book. Can there be conflict between community and individual autonomy? Yes and here MacLeod is on stronger ground but he is simply covering ground raised by others, as he notes:

“Orwell’s interest in, and aptitude for, politics as a practical art were negligible, but his interest in, and imaginative grasp of, the implications of political philosophies were deep. What he said in a sentence about the potentially repressive underside of the anarchist ideal summarizes most of the message of Le Guin’s The Dispossessed.” (231)

Since MacLeod mentions Orwell, I would think it is sufficient to ask the question whether Shevek on Anarres is “as isolated” as Winston Smith in Oceania to show the weakness of MacLeod’s position.

Yet anyone familiar with anarchist thought would be aware that anarchists have also been aware of this danger. Indeed, an awareness of the authoritarian aspects of utopian socialism and their “ideal” communities has always driven anarchism, not to mention the similar – if not totalitarian – possibilities of State socialism.

Proudhon made the same point – against what he termed “Community” and which is usually translated as “Communism.” This was why he stressed that while ownership should be undivided, use had to be divided (see my “Proudhon, Property and Possession,” ASR 66). Although, I should note, Proudhon was addressing libertarian communism by their comments as that did not exist then. Similarly, communist-anarchists like Kropotkin were aware of this danger (indeed, Kropotkin said Proudhon was right to attack what was called communism in his day). More, anarchist-communists recognised the validity of these critiques and created a new, libertarian, communism which addressed these issues as well as building in mechanisms to reduce tendencies towards them in anarcho-communism – for example, Kropotkin discusses its possible impact on individuality in Modern Science and Anarchy, in the second section entitled “Communism and Anarchy” (first published in France in 1913, it is finally out in English translation later this year by AK Press).

So let me be clear what we are talking about – not social pressure and intervention to stop actual anti-social acts (that is, stopping those who do actual harm to others) but rather social pressure against activities some others think of as somehow wrong but which harm no one. The actions of nosy-parkers, busy-bodies, gossips and such like – plus general social disapproval, particularly of those with avant-guard notions and who express them in action.

This can be – has been, in many a small community – a problem. Yes, it can mean no anti-social behaviour but it can also be suffocating. So that is the germ of truth in this objection. However, as section I.5.6 of An Anarchist FAQ argues, it is overblown. Particularly in a society which does not have hierarchical relations in production and elsewhere – where most people spend the bulk of their time and so shapes them most (excluding authoritarian education, which trains children to be bored and follow orders in preparation for their time in work).

But, yes, there is a danger – but as with those who take anarchism and conclude, wrongly, an opposition to organisation as such, the alternative is worse. For while even the best libertarian organisation can become bureaucratic, no organisation at all would make life impossible. Similarly, public pressure does not disappear with laws and authorities – it gets bolstered by them.

Take the racism of the Southern States of America, well, that became a national issue after the decentralised self-organisation and direct action of the oppressed and their allies in those areas and the violent State or State-backed repression against them could no longer be ignored. And it was an example of centralised political power backing oppressive social customs within the former slave States. Needless to say, we would expect external solidarity to happen in a libertarian society if such a development arose (presumably, in areas within which the social revolution had not taken place or been crushed).

This is the case with any societal progress you care to think of – civil rights, feminism, the labour movement. They all start with a minority pushing at what is considered “normal” and increasing freedom by flaunting convention – that is, by direct action. Progress has never been the gift of authority – it has always been won. And the majority finally shift – but adding the State to the mix hardly makes those struggles easier. It only makes rolling those victories back easier – just look at the Trump regime, where State power is being used to do precisely that.

All in all, if oppressive social pressure is an issue in an Anarchy – and it can be – adding political (and/or economic) power does not make it disappear, quite the reverse. Does the customary rather than political nature of the pressure increase the totalitarian tendencies as Orwell suggests? Doubtful…

Anarchist theory recognises the key role minorities play in social change. Kropotkin stressed it (see “Revolutionary Minorities” in Words of a Rebel), as did Emma Goldman (in “Minorities versus Majorities,” in Anarchism and Other Essays) – and it is obvious. Oscar Wilde’s The Soul of Man Under Socialism being a must read in this regard. As Kropotkin put it in Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Ideal:

“Well, then, those who will work to break up these superannuated tactics, those who will know how to rouse the spirit of initiative in individuals and in groups, those who will be able to create in their mutual relations a movement and a life based on the principles of free understanding—those that will understand that variety, conflict even, is life, and that uniformity is death”

Shevek’s odyssey is an example of this, of (to re-quote Mutual Aid) “the self-assertion of the individual taken as a progressive element” against the “the bonds, always prone to become crystallised, which the tribe, the village community, the city, and the State impose upon the individual” – or the self-managed associations of a free society. The “syndicate of initiative” is an expression of this minority within the libertarian communist society of Anarres. Progress will remain a product of the interaction of the few and the many, but without the vested interests associated with various social, economic and political hierarchies – and the coercive forces they can call upon in a non-anarchist society.

So where does this get us? That Anarchy is not perfect, but we knew that. Like any social system it will have its problems, its contradictions, its areas in need of work – but, then, we have usually claimed Anarchy will simply be better than the current system rather than perfect. It will be created by and made up of people, people who will be more rounded and better developed than under hierarchy but still flawed. This awareness is why, unlike Marxists, we have always built into our systems safeguards against irremovable imperfections – safeguards such as federalism, election, mandates, recall, socialisation, etc. In short, there will always be arseholes – anarchists just think giving arseholes power over others is not a wise idea.

Sure, in self-management you may often be in a minority – but to see your ideas always be implemented means to either have no groups at all (an impossibility) or be a dictator (or owner, the terms are synonymous as Proudhon noted in 1840). Ironically, the more abstractly individualist a theory is, the more likely it will produce authoritarian rather than libertarian social relationships – as shown by Lockean ideologies (like propertarianism). So not getting your way all the time, ironically, ensures freedom – both yours and others. More, at least in libertarian socialism (unlike capitalism) you will have the resources available to form new associations if you feel that your current ones are ignoring you and your ideas – as is constantly mentioned in The Dispossessed and “the syndicate of initiative” does.

This is not to deny the negative aspects of social pressure – but anarchists are aware of it and build an awareness of this into their ideas. I’ve quoted Kropotkin already on the need for conflict, for variety. I’ve also quoted him on the need for individual self-assertion against crystallised social institutions. So, yes, Orwell makes a valid point – but exaggerates it. As does MacLeod with his misreading of The Dispossessed – which is full of discussion, disagreement, debate. Both fail to mention that anarchism is aware of the problem and has sought solutions – and Le Guin’s book expresses them!

Ultimately, Shevek remains an anarchist, argues for anarchism on Urras and returns to Anarres – for good reasons, as the book makes clear. I cannot envision Winston Smith doing likewise on Airstrip One – or wishing he faced the Thought Police rather than the disapproval of some of his neighbours…

Le Guin, in short, produced a very astute book on anarchism, one aware of the problems and also aware that anarchists had predicted said problems and shown means of solving them. It is a classic – and I gain something new every time I read it. It deserves better than MacLeod’s summary – particularly as those comments are refuted by the book itself, as I have indicated.

Third, MacLeod was friends with the late, great Iain Banks. I should say a few words about their respective “utopias.” The difference is stark – the culture is, to coin a phrase, a Post-Scarcity Anarchism (another classic you should read) while Anarres is very much a “scarcity” anarchism (although the standard of living is high, it is limited by the ecology of the desert moon the anarchists settled 170 years before). Which makes The Dispossessed a far more realistic work. Banks postulates a level of technology which is, basically, magic and so he magics away all the issues any real anarchist society would face. The Culture manages with super-intelligent computers and hyper-advanced technology – but if your system is dependent upon advanced technology (or impossible assumptions) then it best avoided (an economy needs to work if the computers crash!).

Anarres, however, manages it with the technologies of the 20th century – or slightly advanced versions – which makes it more relevant and appealing, in spite of its desert moon setting and the impact that has on the libertarian communist society depicted. Sure, Le Guin did magic – in her Earthsea books! Anarres presents a society which you could see working today, not hundreds of years in the future.

So it is hardly a utopia in this sense, unlike the Culture. In terms of its social organisation, again it is based on federations of syndicates and communities. Again, hardly utopian. Also, the people are people who seem aware of the need to treat others as they would like to be treated themselves. It hardly staggers belief that people brought up with enough to eat, taught to think rather than repeat, treated as people and not resources, would generalise what is now considered the best of us. Its flaws are equally believable – an informal bureaucracy has started to develop and co-operation has started to become conformity.

Shevek and his comrades see the problem and work on a solution which is straight out of anarchist theory. This is because anarchists are aware that people are imperfect and any society we create will be imperfect. We are well aware that even the best society will have flaws and need work. The struggle for freedom does not end with a successful revolution – things crystallise and it needs active minorities to shatter them in a progressive manner.

Is anarchism utopian? No – for its does not postulate anything unbelievable or impossible about humans or social life. It does not seek perfection, just better (which would not be hard!). The people who are utopian are those who criticise anarchism – incorrectly, as it happens – for believing in the natural goodness of people rather than recognising that people are bad and who then turn around and say that a few of these bad people should be given power over the rest. So people will abuse freedom but not power… such is the position of “realistic” people!

So The Dispossessed does not contradict communist-anarchism nor undermine it. Those who claim otherwise should read more communist-anarchist thinkers. As Le Guin did – and it shows. The book is a classic – of both SF and anarchist thought.

All of which shows the power and importance of Le Guin’s work. Her works are full of people and address real issues, like the best SF work it is about now rather than the future. She will be missed – but her writings will endure.

 

Tags: anarchoursula k. le guincategory: Essays
Categories: News

A Surrounding For Us to Live Within – AudioZine

Wed, 02/21/2018 - 22:12

From Resonance Audio Distro

A Surrounding for Us to Live Within: notes on industrial society and it’s ecology – By a Friend of Ludd – MP3ReadPrintArchive TorrentYouTube

A Surrounding for Us to Live Within came out of the Italian anarchist scene in 2003, is signed by “a friend of Ludd,” and sets out to “bring to light some relationships between the progressive loss of individual and social autonomy, environmental devastation and the sharpening of repression.” This very brief and unexpectedly gorgeous, succinct, and intelligent text starts off from one child’s definition of the environment and touches on everything from the mass hermitude of contemporary city-dwellers to the artful mixing of the pleasures of solitude with the pleasures of meeting, from meditations on the interplay between forest and village to a critique of representation, from the domination of technology to the war in Iraq, nuclear waste, the COP9 summit, the solidarity with Marco Camenisch, globalization, the state’s ecology, the wildcat strike of Milanese streetcar drivers, the struggle against prisons, the Luddite uprising, utopianism, the oil economy.

“In the notes that follow, we will try to bring to light some relationships between the progressive loss of individual and social autonomy, environmental devastation and the sharpening of repression. Not in order to update the endless catalogue of horrors and complaints, but rather in order to reflect on some possibilities. Just this once, we will start from a “for” and not an “against”. What is a “surrounding for us to live within”? I would say a place in which the pleasure of solitude and the pleasure of meeting are artfully intertwined, whereas we know from experience that industrial society destroys both.”

Musical Interludes – This Other Place by Saltland

Tags: audiopodcastcategory: Projects
Categories: News

Beer and Rage - Episode 2 - Civilization

Wed, 02/21/2018 - 13:00

https://youtu.be/gqfOzrA1YnA

In this episode, we try some "badass" beers, and talk about civilization. We explore the different concepts of civilization, and what it means you oppose civilization, and get some enlightened critique from a special guest.

Tags: civilizationBeeranti-civcategory: Projects
Categories: News

Anarchy Radio 02-20-2018

Wed, 02/21/2018 - 04:46

LISTEN HERE: https://archive.org/details/0220201819

Cliff and JZ on latest shooting massacre. CO2 is now 407 parts per million - hello, 350.org? ASMR: pseudo-intimacy. Orangutans face extinction, 13 year-old Gulf of Mexico oil leak, Bering Sea ice disappearing. More Dead Cops. Algorithms in law, health, etc. Jeff Bezos' 10,000 year clock, Elon Musk: we must merge with the Machine. Action briefs, two calls.

Tags: JZ and Karlanarchy radiopodcastcategory: Projects
Categories: News

ATUBES: January 2018, Digest of the Anarchist Tubes

Tue, 02/20/2018 - 18:40

Welcome to volume #4, issue #1 of ATUBES: Digest of the Anarchist Tubes; for the month of January 2018. It took us a little longer than expected to put this all together, but alas here it is.

This month we're taking a closer look at 4 texts published on the website. Enclosed as a PDF, [Letter and A4 compatible,as well as an imposed PDF* of Letter and A4 compatibility] - the January Digest of the Anarchist Tubes.

PDF- https://anarchistnews.org/atubes/atubes_jan_2018.pdf (15 pages!)
Imposed PDF- https://anarchistnews.org/atubes/atubes_jan_2018_imposed.pdf (8 pages!)

ATUBES volume #4, issue #1 January 2018

The four texts included are:

- A Review of Anarchism in Korea by José Antonio Gutiérrez

- Iran: The Working Class Raises Its Head from insurrection news worldwide dot com

- Notes Concerning the Black Clothing Worn by Some Anarchist Men and Muslim Women by Duane Rousselle

- Illegalist Praxis: Notes on a Decade of Crime by Paul Z. Simons

__________________________________________________________________________________

* music while compiling: Pedropiedra - Rayito/Olita (video oficial) - https://youtu.be/TXPCh-MULRc

besitos,
teh editor of ¯\_(ATUBES)_/¯

* Note about printing the imposed PDF: Pages are reordered, in one or more groups (signatures), then folded in half. If you have more signatures, you will have to bound them together like a book. With this option, you may want to decide the size of the signatures. This can be a fixed value (4,8,16, etc.), the whole book in a single signature, or an optimized size to reduce the number of blank pages.

Tags: ATUBESkoreairanpraxiscrimelluviacategory: Projects
Categories: News

Lecce, Italy – Tilt: a place for information and struggle against the TAP ( Trans Adriatic Pipelines)

Tue, 02/20/2018 - 15:37

via act for freedom now

A place and a paper. Tilt is a new project to try to take up a train of thought that has never been abandoned: that of an opposition to the Tap – and not only – without mediations or compromise, a radical opposition whose point of strength and rupture is constant conflictuality; not only against the Tap and all its collaborators but also against the world of politics that has approved it, the economy that supports it and the managers of order who protect it.

A place in which to discuss, meet, exchange information, self-organize, give and receive suggestions. A paper from where to start to criticize what surrounds us, express what we have at heart.

A paper and a place with which to seek unexpected complicities, to take up again the onslaught of our boldest aspirations. A paper and a place that contribute to making protest explode.  For direct actions are needed to stop the Tap, not recourse to the courts or petitions.

A place and a paper that nevertheless won’t be for everyone. They’ll take a side, the other side – the side that believes that the perpetrators of social and ecological disaster cannot be called upon to find a solution.

So inside Tilt, and on the pages of Tilt, there will be no space for parties, unions, committees (no matter how big or small they are), mayors or journalists. For our only chance is in their defeat –  a rapid industrial tilt, an irreversible institutional tilt.

Lecce • Via Orsini Ducas 4

(On foot: from via A. Diaz, station underground passage;

by car:  Via Lequile to the end of the closed road, then left)

Place for info and the struggle against TAP

Opening on Friday 9/2/2018 from 6pm

Permanent exhibition of ideas and practices on the ongoing struggle

All the enemies of TAP and of the technological monstrosities being realized in some way everywhere are invited.

The presence of authorities, parties (big or small), leaders and would-be leaders, men and women in uniform, mayors, priests, journalist, politicians… is not welcome.

[to put in tilt means to stop functioning, stop complying with the specific requests of a certain structure or organization.]

Contacts: tiltap@riseup.net

roundrobin.info

Translated by Act for freedom now!

Tags: TAPTransatlantic pipelineitalycategory: International
Categories: News

A rethink about Labour

Tue, 02/20/2018 - 15:04

via Freedom News

For most of the last 40 years it has been quite simple making anarchist arguments against the political system. There has barely been a cigarette paper’s difference between the main parties as both rushed to embrace the neo-liberal consensus that sees the role of the State as guaranteeing good conditions for business. And always taking the side of capital over labour in any dispute. Even people far removed from any sort of anarchist or communist politics make the same observation.

Jeremy Corbyn’s election as leader of the Labour Party and subsequent reinforcement as leader after the General Election has changed that. I am personally sceptical that he can deliver very much of what he has promised, but I am not alone in finding it refreshing that a now mainstream political figure has addressed issues that I hold dear, such as housing and workers’ rights. To use a phrase from Chomsky, Corbyn has committed to “widening the floor of the cage.” The experience of Syriza in Greece ought to make Corbyn’s cheerleaders take pause, though to their credit, Corbyn and McDonnell do seem to have thought about this quite a lot. Nor is there any getting away from the fact that there is an awful lot wrong with our society.

But none of this is an anarchist response. What do we say now that the easy “they’re all the same” line is not possible? It’s quite tempting to either fall back on the usual refusal to engage with politicians or be swept up in the momentum of a mild, fairly principled socialist leader suddenly being very popular — at least among certain parts of the country. Neither actually help. We need to revisit what is distinct about anarchism: we are opposed to Capital and the State. We should be talking about our problems with power in all its forms — and it will be interesting if Corbyn ever succeeds in his aim of devolving some powers away from Westminster, likely to be anathema to a centralising Labour Party.

Nationalisation is seen as a panacea by the left. While it is a logical step to try and bring some sense to our fragmented railways and cash-cow utilities, the idea that it is somehow a good thing independent of how it is operated is ridiculous. At no point have any of its cheerleaders suggested the idea of nationalisation under workers’ control.

Who will be in charge of a nationalised utility or railway? The government. Who has kept public sector workers’ pay frozen for eight years? The government. The Birmingham refuse strike was about a local council, Labour-run, trying to force through a significant pay cut. It was not alone — teaching assistants in Labour-run Durham have been fighting a long campaign against massive cuts in pay. This sort of thing seemed to get a lot more traffic when it was being done by the Greens in Brighton, I wonder why?

The Left imagines that the State can be captured and used to overturn the policies of the last 40 years, that all it takes is different personnel at the top. This ignores the class nature of the bureaucracy. Once senior managers in public services are in position, they always bring in reorganisations and new ways of working and usually leave shortly after. This does not just fall from the sky — bureaucrats are motivated by career opportunities and nothing burnishes a CV like a successful reorganisation.

Anyone new coming to this, without the experiences that have formed other bureaucrats, will inevitably look to what their colleagues suggest so as to fit in. The “good” people get captured by the system, which would tend to support a classical anarchist view that it is the system itself which is the problem.

Svartfrosk

This article first appeared in the Winter 2017 issue of Freedom Anarchist Journal

Tags: LabourEnglandcategory: International
Categories: News

Founding Conference of New Anarchist Organisation, the Anarchist Communist Group

Tue, 02/20/2018 - 14:30

via libcom

On Saturday 17th February, anarchist communist militants met in Leicester to found a new organisation, the Anarchist Communist Group (ACG). Those present adopted  Aims and Principles and a constitution. The preamble to the Aims and Principles reads:

“We are a revolutionary anarchist communist organisation made up of local groups and individuals who seek a complete transformation of society, and the creation of anarchist communism. This will mean the working class overthrowing capitalism, abolishing the State, getting rid of exploitation, hierarchies and oppressions, and halting the destruction of the environment. To contribute to the building of a revolutionary anarchist movement we believe it is important to be organised. We are committed to building an effective national and international organisation that has a collective identity and works towards the common goal of anarchist communism, whilst at the same time working together with other working class organisations and in grass roots campaigns. We do not see ourselves as the leaders of a revolutionary movement but part of a wider movement for revolutionary change. In addition, we strive to base all our current actions on the principles that will be the basis of the future society: mutual aid, solidarity, collective responsibility, individual freedom and autonomy, free association and federalism.”

The discussion document “Potential Activities Of A New Organisation” was discussed and adopted. Initial emphasis would be on agitational literature and activity around Land Justice, housing, workplace organising and solidarity and the NHS. In addition, there was a commitment to street agitation-stickers and posters.

It was decided that the ACG should focus on the campaign against Universal Credit using the Disabled People Against Cuts slogan “Stop It and Scrap It”. Leicester ACG agreed to make and circulate leaflets and stickers in regards to Universal Credit, capable of being locally adapted.

It was also agreed to hold Annual Day Schools. The first of these will be in early November 2018 in London on the subject of “Advancing The Class Struggle: Problems and Issues for the Anarchist Communists”.

It was agreed to bring out a newspaper that will be primarily agitational. The first issue should appear in April of this year. In addition we will be establishing a new website soon. We will also soon be producing a series of pamphlets.

It was agreed to seek affiliation to the International of Anarchist Federations and to attend the forthcoming international conference in Slovenia.

A motion was passed on Anarchist Communist Unity. It reads:

“Whilst recognising the differences between our organisation and others on the libertarian communist spectrum in Britain – Anarchist Federation, Solidarity Federation, Libertarian Socialist Federation, etc. – we should seek to promote where possible: joint solidarity work with comrades facing repression, imprisonment, bad health, either here or in the rest of the world; joint solidarity work over workplace struggles – joint bulletins where possible, joint fundraising and publicity etc.”

The conference was marked by a spirit of enthusiasm and by a business-like approach. We intend making ourselves known through our activities, propaganda and development of theory.

Enquiries about the ACG, membership, etc. should be sent to communistanarchism@gmail.com

Tags: anarcho-communismEnglandanarchist communist groupcategory: International
Categories: News

FRR Books Podcast Ep. 3: The Trial by Franz Kafka

Mon, 02/19/2018 - 16:58

Listen Here: http://freeradicalradio.net/frr-books-podcast-episode-3-the-trial-by-fra...

The Trial by Franz Kafka displays the life of Joseph K, a bank employee and supposedly good citizen of a society in which there is universal peace. The novel begins abruptly when K is delivered an indictment by three strangers who despite their civilian attire are said to be official warders. Though there is no clarity as to what the charge is, K accepts his proceeding as a personal project or obsession which from then on consumes his reality. His social life becomes a montage of witnesses, corroborators, defendants and testimonies regarding his arrest while authority is an undercurrent driven by everyone and no one. By the essence of its own inertia, K’s world is a banal confinement, a moral prison illuminated by his allegation.

Kafka’s society is a surreal bureaucracy upheld by each person’s commitment to their job and functions as psychological totalitarianism where morality seems to be the only consistent logic between characters. The few stories they share with one another are devoid of direct authenticity. Instead, their interactions and conversations are impersonal and only relate to the Law. Outside of trial affairs there is an unsettling atomization where no one is able to demonstrate emotional intelligence or any sort of skilled communication whatsoever. K’s desires creep dormantly and his interactions are tormented by a deeply frustrated inner monologue that isolates him from shared experiences. Though there is not an evident list of laws, there is a social conduct that the characters manage to abide by. They appear to embody an order in which the foundation has been long lost. It’s as if the timeworn relics of shame and guilt, which once were propagated by rules, are now all that remains. Remnants which become a new genesis for their decrepit choices and actions.

Contained in every attic, behind every closed door, the trial accumulates out of reach from K. The superficial innocence he once upheld as a working citizen, a banker, is instantly tainted in becoming the accused. Though many others who are accused are able to drift in their cases for a long duration, K pleads for an immediate conclusion and his attempts at negotiating seduce his penalty nearer. He exists in a purgatory between the accusation and his defense until he ultimately conforms in death. A sentence that finalizes his erasure from the narrative of the trial, seemingly the only transformative act for someone with such scarce creativity.

This is the slow, dystopian account of K’s adaptation to his surroundings, the demands of the social. Amidst the social there is the Trial, a hideousness which culls subjects to process, writhes and objectifies them, making an example that renews the logic of civility. From my experience, personal ideas or skills that have the potential to benefit my individuality often draw me in toward groups, crowds or “anarchist milieus”, becoming nothing more than the bait which ensnares me to yet another trial. No matter how interesting, stimulating or supportive their company may appear to be on the outside, their establishment merely enables inner tribunals. I leave those scenes with a Kafka line in mind, “The court wants nothing from you. It receives you when you come and dismisses you when you go.”

Is the most common, parasitic compulsion which keeps so many bound to slavery, to society, that of belonging? Living in a fixed place within the bleak conditions of modernity for months, years, a lifetime, makes adaptation especially imperative, inescapable even. When one pulls forth the will to change their surroundings, relocate, start new relationships, is it not only to re-adapt? If adaptation is the modification of individual and social activity in adjustment to cultural surroundings, then here lays the limitation of individual projectuality. By engaging with the social, there are agreements and rules that one is indebted to. This contract defines how one acts just as how language influences the seedling thought which emanates as speech. Therein, The Trial seems to be a parody of K’s inability to have agency within the narrative of a collective story. I too believe with Ibsen that the one who is most alone is the strongest one. To be alone is to demonstrate a rejected adaptation. After reading this book I am left wondering if it is K’s loneliness, sense of obligation, or fated circumstance that entangles him to the collective and initiates his metamorphosis from subject into object? The paper thin line that K straddles between living by his own volition and living by the expectations of others is a question which provokes the relentless search for new ways to navigate, new ways to live, as the Trial continually tries to enmesh us in its web.

Written, Edited, and Produced by Big Cat

Voiced by rydra wrong, Kahar, and Big Cat

Find more audiobooks, podcasts, and writing at freeradicalradio.net

Tags: literatureanarchybureacracyindividualitytrials and the trialcategory: Projects
Categories: News

Urgent call to continue the solidarity campaigning with the repressed Russian anarchists – Actions carried out on February 5-12

Mon, 02/19/2018 - 16:23

via contra info

More arrests: In the Crimea, special services detained a local anarchist and social activist Yevgeny Karakashev (02/02). In Moscow, an anarchist Elena Gorban was arrested (13/02). On the same day, anarchist Alexei Kobaidze was detained and arrested. We are calling upon everybody to continue the solidarity campaign!


USA.


Russia.


Toronto, Canada.

On February 5-12, an international week of solidarity with Russian anarchists took place. 21 actions against repression were joined by 21 Russian cities and a large number of foreign comrades, from Belarus to the US and Canada.

Information materials, leaflets, graffiti and stencils were distributed, banners were posted informing about repressions against anarchists.
Actions were held in Kaliningrad, Altai, Kursk, Novosibirsk, Samara, Kemerovo, Astrakhan, Volgograd, Rostov-on-Don, Izhevsk, Penza, St. Petersburg, Moscow, Nakhodka, Chelyabinsk and Vorkuta.

Pickets informing about the terror of the FSB against anarchists wer held in Yekaterinburg, Kandalaksha, Tomsk, Sochi, Moscow, St. Petersburg, Saratov.

In Samara, an evening of solidarity was organized. Visitors were told about repressions against anarchists and about the basic rules of conspiracy. After that, the film “Sacco and Vanzetti” was shown, the story of these people clearly demonstrates all the inhumanity and uselesness of the state system and the methods that it has used, to this day, to suppress any protests.

In Moscow, an unauthorized march of anarchists against the lawlessness of the FSB also took place. Several dozen people blocked Myasnitskaya – one of the central streets adjacent to the Lubyanka, where the main FSB department is located. They passed along it with the banner “FSB is the main terrorist.”

Solidarity actions were also held in other countries.
In Belarus, anarchists distributed leaflets informing about then persecution of Russian anarchists.

In Lutsk, Ukraine, there were also grafitti in solidarity with Russian anarchists.

Actions of solidarity took place in Warsaw, Gdansk (Poland) and Prague (Czech Republic).

In Prague, Czech Republic, a concert was held in support of repressed Russian anarchists. At the concert information was spread about repressions in Russia and money was raised for the Anarchist Blac Cross, which provides assistance to political prisoners. Also fundraising was carried out in Estonia at concerts of musical groups Ognemöt, Adrestia and Prophets V in Tallinn and Tartu.

Also, an event to inform about repression in Russia and fund-raising was held in Budapest, Hungary.

In France, a solidarity dinner was held, the funds from which were directed to support the Russian anarchists.

Also, many solidarity events took place in the United States. So, in Minneapolis there was an evening of solidarity, in Brooklyn – a film show. Antifascist online store from Portland spread information about repression and raised money to support the repressed anarchists. In Kansas, a street demonstration was held in support of Russian anarchists. In New York, a picket took place at the Russian consulate.
Also, representatives of the Revolutionary Abolitionist movement from New York expressed solidarity.

Solidarity action was held in Toronto, Canada. Anarchists held a picket on the most crowded square in the city, informing passers-by about repressions in Russia.

The week of solidarity was held in solidarity with Russian anarchists, subjected to repression by the FSB. In the fall of 2017, the FSB arrested six anarchists from Penza. The reason for the arrest was that all the six played airsoft, which was regarded by the secret services as a training for the overthrow of state power. Weapons were implanted to the detainees, they were accused of organizing a terrorist community.
For months, the detainees were daily tortured and beaten until they agreed to slander themselves. They were hung upside down, beaten, tortured with electric shockers. In January 2018, several anarchists were kidnapped in St. Petersburg. Two suspects and one witness were seized, all of them were tortured. One of the detainees for this purpose was taken to the forest near the city. Another detainee was tortured for more than a day. Only officially the interrogation lasted a day – from three o’clock in the morning until three o’clock in the morning.
Although one of the suspects and the witness made a statement about the torture, their statements were not checked by the state authorities.

The FSB is announcing plans for arrests on the fabricated case of a terrorist group of two dozen anarchists in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Penza and Belarus.

Also in the Crimea, special services detained a local anarchist and social activist Yevgeny Karakashev. The reason for the detention is the active participation of Eugene in the social struggle of the inhabitants of the peninsula. On the day of the arrest, the Mayor of Evpatoria met with protesters against point-building and made a hint about possible arrests. The reason for the arrest was Yevgeny’s correspondence in a group chat in social networks.

Immediately after the end of the week of actions in support of Russian anarchists, repressions were continued in Moscow. On February 13, early in the morning, an anarchist Elena Gorban was arrested. In violation of all norms, the lawyer was not admitted to Elena for several hours until she agreed to admit guilt in the pogrom of the office of the ruling Russian party, “United Russia”. On the same day, anarchist Alexei Kobaidze was detained and arrested for the same charge. The reason for the arrests was an unauthorized demonstration in Moscow against the FSB terror. Early in the morning, before the appearance of information in the media and the Internet about the arrests of anarchists, the pro-government telegram channels published a video of detention and a message that anarchists taking part in the demonstration had been detained in Moscow. The investigators who questioned Elena also ask her about the demonstration although the detainees were charged with the pogrom of United Russia, and not participation in the demonstration.

After the arrest, actions of solidarity were continued in Russia. In Chelyabinsk, anarchists placed a banner near the FSB building and threw a smoke bomb to its territory. And in the suburbs of Moscow a mobilising raid was held in solidarity with the repressed anarchists.

We are calling upon everybody to continue the solidarity campaign!

More photos and videos: naroborona.info

Tags: anarchist solidarityRussiacategory: Actions
Categories: News

Pages