[*] [-] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 8/18/22 8:14pm
Author: Howard ZinnTitle: Empire or Humanity?Subtitle: What the Classroom Didn't Teach Me About the American EmpireDate: April 2, 2008Source: Retrieved on August 14, 2022 from commondreams.org With an occupying army waging war in Iraq and Afghanistan, with military bases and corporate bullying in every part of the world, there is hardly a question any more of the existence of an American Empire. Indeed, the once fervent denials have turned into a boastful, unashamed embrace of the idea. However, the very idea that the United States was an empire did not occur to me until after I finished my work as a bombardier with the Eighth Air Force in the Second World War, and came home. Even as I began to have second thoughts about the purity of the "Good War," even after being horrified by Hiroshima and Nagasaki, even after rethinking my own bombing of towns in Europe, I still did not put all that together in the context of an American "Empire." I was conscious, like everyone, of the British Empire and the other imperial powers of Europe, but the United States was not seen in the same way. When, after the war, I went to college under the G.I. Bill of Rights and took courses in U.S. history, I usually found a chapter in the history texts called "The Age of Imperialism." It invariably referred to the Spanish-American War of 1898 and the conquest of the Philippines that followed. It seemed that American imperialism lasted only a relatively few years. There was no overarching view of U.S. expansion that might lead to the idea of a more far-ranging empire -- or period of "imperialism." I recall the classroom map (labeled "Western Expansion") which presented the march across the continent as a natural, almost biological phenomenon. That huge acquisition of land called "The Louisiana Purchase" hinted at nothing but vacant land acquired. There was no sense that this territory had been occupied by hundreds of Indian tribes which would have to be annihilated or forced from their homes -- what we now call "ethnic cleansing" -- so that whites could settle the land, and later railroads could crisscross it, presaging "civilization" and its brutal discontents. Neither the discussions of "Jacksonian democracy" in history courses, nor the popular book by Arthur Schlesinger Jr., The Age of Jackson, told me about the "Trail of Tears," the deadly forced march of "the five civilized tribes" westward from Georgia and Alabama across the Mississippi, leaving 4,000 dead in their wake. No treatment of the Civil War mentioned the Sand Creek massacre of hundreds of Indian villagers in Colorado just as "emancipation" was proclaimed for black people by Lincoln's administration. That classroom map also had a section to the south and west labeled "Mexican Cession." This was a handy euphemism for the aggressive war against Mexico in 1846 in which the United States seized half of that country's land, giving us California and the great Southwest. The term "Manifest Destiny," used at that time, soon of course became more universal. On the eve of the Spanish-American War in 1898, the Washington Post saw beyond Cuba: "We are face to face with a strange destiny. The taste of Empire is in the mouth of the people even as the taste of blood in the jungle." The violent march across the continent, and even the invasion of Cuba, appeared to be within a natural sphere of U.S. interest. After all, hadn't the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 declared the Western Hemisphere to be under our protection? But with hardly a pause after Cuba came the invasion of the Philippines, halfway around the world. The word "imperialism" now seemed a fitting one for U.S. actions. Indeed, that long, cruel war -- treated quickly and superficially in the history books -- gave rise to an Anti-Imperialist League, in which William James and Mark Twain were leading figures. But this was not something I learned in university either. The "Sole Superpower" Comes into View Reading outside the classroom, however, I began to fit the pieces of history into a larger mosaic. What at first had seemed like a purely passive foreign policy in the decade leading up to the First World War now appeared as a succession of violent interventions: the seizure of the Panama Canal zone from Colombia, a naval bombardment of the Mexican coast, the dispatch of the Marines to almost every country in Central America, occupying armies sent to Haiti and the Dominican Republic. As the much-decorated General Smedley Butler, who participated in many of those interventions, wrote later: "I was an errand boy for Wall Street." At the very time I was learning this history -- the years after World War II -- the United States was becoming not just another imperial power, but the world's leading superpower. Determined to maintain and expand its monopoly on nuclear weapons, it was taking over remote islands in the Pacific, forcing the inhabitants to leave, and turning the islands into deadly playgrounds for more atomic tests. In his memoir, No Place to Hide, Dr. David Bradley, who monitored radiation in those tests, described what was left behind as the testing teams went home: "[R]adioactivity, contamination, the wrecked island of Bikini and its sad-eyed patient exiles." The tests in the Pacific were followed, over the years, by more tests in the deserts of Utah and Nevada, more than a thousand tests in all. ...

[Link to media]

[*] [-] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 8/18/22 10:57am
Author: David GraeberTitle: The “Yellow Vests” Show How Much the Ground Moves Under Our FeetDate: December 11th, 2018Source: Retrieved on August 18, 2022 from https://braveneweurope.com It strikes me that the profound confusion, even incredulity, displayed by the French commentariat—and even more, the world commentariat—in the face of each successive “Acte” of the Gilets Jaunes drama, now rapidly approaching its insurrectionary climax, is a result of a near total inability to take account of the ways that power, labour, and the movements ranged against power, have changed over the last 50 years, and particularly, since 2008. Intellectuals have for the most part done an extremely poor job understanding these changes. Let me begin by offering two suggestions as to the source of some of the confusion: 1. in a financialised economy, only those closest to the means of money-creation (essentially, investors and the professional-managerial classes) are in a position to employ the language of universalism. As a result, any political claims as based in particular needs and interests, tended to be treated as manifestation of identity politics, and in the case of the social base of the GJ, therefore, cannot be imagined it as anything but proto-fascist. 2. since 2011, there has been a worldwide transformation of common sense assumptions about what participating in a mass democratic movement should mean—at least among those most likely to do so. Older “vertical” or vanguardist models of organization have rapidly given way to an ethos of horizontality one where (democratic, egalitarian) practice and ideology are ultimately two aspects of the same thing. Inability to understand this gives the false impression movements like GJ are anti-ideological, even nihilistic. Let me provide some background for these assertions. Since the US jettisoning of the gold standard in 1971, we have seen a profound shift in the nature of capitalism. Most corporate profits are now no longer derived from producing or even marketing anything, but in the manipulation of credit, debt, and “regulated rents.” As government and financial bureaucracies become so intimately intertwined it’s increasingly difficult to tell one from the other, wealth and power—particularly, the power to create money (that is, credit)—also become effectively the same thing. (This was what we were drawing attention to in Occupy Wall Street when we talked about the “1%’—those with the ability to turn their wealth into political influence, and political influence back into wealth.) Despite this, politicians and media commentators systematically refuse to recognize the new realities, for instance, in public discourse one must still speak of tax policy as if it is primarily a way of government raising revenue to fund its operations, whereas in fact it is increasingly simply a way of (1) ensuring the means of credit-creation can never be democratized (as only officially approved credit is acceptable in payment of taxes), and (2) redistributing economic power from one social sector to another. Since 2008 governments have been pumping new money into the system, which, owing to the notorious Cantillon effect, has tended to accrue overwhelmingly to those who already hold financial assets, and their technocratic allies in the professional managerial classes. In France of course these are precisely the Macronists. Members of these classes feel that they are the embodiments of any possible universalism, their conceptions of the universal being firmly rooted in the market, or increasingly, that atrocious fusion of bureaucracy and market which is the reigning ideology of what’s called the “political center.” Working people in this new centrist reality are increasingly denied any possibility of universalism, since they literally cannot afford it. The ability to act out of concern for the planet, for instance, rather than the exigencies of sheer survival, is now a direct side-effect of forms of money creation and managerial distribution of rents; anyone who is forced to think only of their own or their family’s immediate material needs is seen as asserting a particular identity; and while certain identities might be (condescendingly) indulged, that of “the white working class” can only be a form of racism. One saw the same thing in the US, where liberal commentators managed to argue that if Appalachian coal miners voted for Bernie Sanders, a Jewish socialist, it must nonetheless somehow be an expression of racism, as with the strange insistence that the Giles Jaunes must be fascists, even if they haven’t realized it. These are profoundly anti-democratic instincts. To understand the appeal of the movement—that is, of the sudden emergence and wildfire spread of real democratic, even insurrectionary politics—I think there are two largely unnoticed factors to be taken into consideration. The first is that financialized capitalism involves a new alignment of class forces, above all ranging the techno-managerials (more and more them employed in pure make-work “bullshit jobs,” as part of the neoliberal redistribution system) against a working class that is now better seen as the “caring classes”—as those who nurture, tend, maintain, sustain, more than old-fashioned “producers.” One paradoxical effect of digitization is that while it has made industrial production infinitely more efficient, it has rendered health, education, and other caring sector work less so, this combined with diversion of resources to the administrative classes under neoliberalism (and attendant cuts to the welfare state) has meant that, practically everywhere, it has been teachers, nurses, nursing-home workers, paramedics, and other members of the caring classes that have been at the forefront of labor militancy. Clashes between ambulance workers and police in Paris last week might be taken as a vivid symbol of the new array of forces. Again, public discourse has not caught up with the new realities, but over time, we will start having to ask ourselves entirely new questions: not what forms of work can be automated, for instance, but which we would actually want to be, and which we would not; how long we are willing to maintain a system where the more one’s work immediately helps or benefits other human beings, the less you are likely to be paid for it. ...

[Link to media]

[*] [-] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 8/18/22 12:23am
Author: Jeff ShantzTitle: An Anarchy of Everyday LifeDate: 2012Source: Retrieved on August 18, 2022 from https://philosophersforchange.org Contemporary anarchism offers a mid-range movement organized somewhere between the levels of everyday life, to which it is closest, and insurrection. Rooted in the former they seek to move towards the latter. Anarchists look to the aspects of people’s daily lives that both suggest life without rule by external authorities and which might provide a foundation for anarchist social relations more broadly. This commitment forms a strong and persistent current within diverse anarchist theories. This perspective expresses what might be called a constructive anarchy or an anarchy of everyday life, at once conserving and revolutionary. Colin Ward suggests that anarchism, “far from being a speculative vision of a future society…is a description of a mode of human organization, rooted in the experience of everyday life, which operates side by side with, and in spite of, the dominant authoritarian trends of our society” (Ward, 1973: 11). As Graeber (2004) suggests, the examples of viable anarchism are almost endless. These could include almost any form of organization, from a volunteer fire brigade to the postal service, as long as it is not hierarchically imposed by some external authority (Graeber, 2004). Even more, as many recent anarchist writings suggest, the potential for resistance might be found anywhere in everyday life. If power is exercised everywhere, it might give rise to resistance everywhere. Present-day anarchists like to suggest that a glance across the landscape of contemporary society reveals many groupings which are anarchist in practice if not in ideology. Examples include the leaderless small groups developed by radical feminists, coops, clinics, learning networks, media collectives, direct action organizations; the spontaneous groupings that occur in response to disasters, strikes, revolutions and emergencies; community-controlled day-care centers; neighborhood groups; tenant and workplace organizing; and so on (Ehrlich, Ehrlich, DeLeon and Morris 18). While these are obviously not strictly anarchist groups, they often operate to provide examples of mutual aid and non-hierarchical and non-authoritarian modes of living which carry the memory of anarchy within them. Often the practices are essential for people’s day-to-day survival under the crisis states of capitalism. Ward notes that “the only thing that makes life possible for millions in the United States are its non-capitalist elements….Huge areas of life in the United States, and everywhere else, are built around voluntary and mutual aid organisations” (Ward and Goodway, 2003: 105). Kropotkin (1972: 132) notes that the state, the formalized rule of dominant minorities over subordinate majorities, is “but one of the forms of social life.” For anarchists, people are quite capable of developing forms of order to meet specific needs and desires. As Ward (1973: 28) suggests, “given a common need, a collection of people will…by improvisation and experiment, evolve order out of the situation — this order being more durable and more closely related to their needs than any kind of order external authority could provide.” Order, thus arrived at, is also preferable for anarchists since it is not ossified and extended, often by force, to situations and contexts different than those from which it emerged, and for which it may not be suited. This order, on the contrary is flexible and evolving, where necessary giving way to other agreements and forms of order depending on peoples’ needs and the circumstances confronting them. Living examples of the anarchist perspectives on order emerging “spontaneously” out of social circumstances are perhaps most readily or regularly observed under conditions of immediate need or emergency as in times of natural disaster and/or economic crisis, during periods of revolutionary upheaval or during mass events such as festivals. Anarchists try to extend mutual aid relations until they make up the bulk of social life. Constructive anarchy is about developing ways in which people enable themselves to take control of their lives and participate meaningfully in the decision-making processes that affect them, whether education, housing, work or food. Anarchists note that changes in the structure of work, notably so-called lean production, flexibalization and the institutionalization of precarious labour, have stolen people’s time away from the family along with the time that might otherwise be devoted to activities in the community (Ward and Goodway, 2003: 107). In response people must find ways to escape the capitalist law of value, to pursue their own values rather than to produce value for capital. This is the real significance of anarchist do-it-ourselves activity and the reason that I would suggest such activities have radical, if overlooked, implications for anti-capitalist struggles. For Paul Goodman, an American anarchist whose writings influenced the 1960s New Left and counterculture, anarchist futures-present serve as necessary acts of “drawing the line” against the authoritarian and oppressive forces in society. Anarchism, in Goodman’s view, was never oriented only towards some glorious future; it involved also the preservation of past freedoms and previous libertarian traditions of social interaction. “A free society cannot be the substitution of a ‘new order’ for the old order; it is the extension of spheres of free action until they make up most of the social life” (Marshall, 1993: 598). Utopian thinking will always be important, Goodman argued, in order to open the imagination to new social possibilities, but the contemporary anarchist would also need to be a conservator of society’s benevolent tendencies. ...

[Link to media]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 8/15/22 4:50pm
Author: Benjamin TuckerTitle: Liberty Vol. IV. No. 15.Subtitle: Not the Daughter but the Mother of OrderDate: February 12, 1887Notes: Whole No. 93. — Many thanks to www.readliberty.org for the readily-available transcription and to www.libertarian-labyrinth.org for the original scans.Source: Retrieved on August 16, 2022 from http://www.readliberty.org “For always in thine eyes, O Liberty! Shines that high light whereby the world is saved; And though thou slay us, we will trust in thee.” John Hay. On Picket Duty. Henry George has another priestly ally, Rev. Hugh O. Pentecost. In a sermon preached at Newark lately in defence of George, he declared incidentally: “A book is not an Anarchist’s argument.” Will Parson Pentecost have the kindness to inform me why I am publishing the “Proudhon Library”? The New York “Sun” is publishing some sensational London letters regarding Ruskin, in which it is claimed that he is about to join the Roman Catholic Church. With all his wonderful intellectual power, Ruskin is freaky and contradictory, and nothing that he might do need surprise any one; but, until the “Sun’s” correspondent substantiates his assertion by better evidence than sundry appreciative references to Catholicism in Ruskin’s writings and the Catholic faith of some of his intimate friends, I shall satisfy my desire to disbelieve it. Joe Cook opened his annual exhibition of his growing idiocy in Tremont Temple, Boston, last Monday. Between his prelude and his lecture it is his custom to answer, ex cathedra, questions that have been submitted to him. On this occasion he had time to answer but one question: “Ought the Chicago Anarchists to be hanged?” His answer was: “May God have mercy on the son’s of the Anarchists, and may the courts not have mercy on their bodies!” This justification of murderous revenge upon earth by the hypocritical pretence of pardon in heaven had been prefaced by the lecturer’s fierce attack upon the modern Andover heresy of “probation after death,” in the light of which the bovine bellower’s appeal for celestial mercy in behalf of the doomed victims of his capitalistic supporters was seen to be a hollow mockery upon his lying lips. Sneering at the idea that liberty would remedy the coal monopoly, the “Workmen’s Advocate” desires to know if any one ever heard of a “corner in postage stamps.” Why, yes; for years, in the matter of postage stamps, I’ve heard of nothing else. Uncle Sam long ago collared and cornered the privilege of issuing postage stamps, and no one else is allowed to issue any without paying a tax which is virtually prohibitory. Consequently we have to pay this monopolist, Uncle Sam, two cents for carrying our letters, though others, if allowed, would carry them for us for one cent. I expect to see the money order branch of the postal service made a monopoly soon. For here is the American Express Company, one of those awful corporations, furnishing money orders at decidedly less than Uncle Sam’s rates, payable at nearly seven thousand places in the United States, Mexico, and Canada,— payable, too, without any fuss, feathers, or red tape, and yet under conditions equally secure. But this is Anarchistic! Yes, it is Anarchistic. The Naugatuck “Agitator,” in backing up the “Workmen’s Advocate’s” demand for State railroads on the ground that the State manages the post-office department so well, confidently asks: “Is postage ever higher for short than for long distances?” Certainly it is. It costs me one cent to deliver a copy of Liberty through the post-office at a street and number in Boston, but for about one-sixteenth of a cent I can send a copy through the post-office from Boston to San Francisco and have it delivered there at a street and number. I’ll venture the assertion that no such percentage of discrimination in rates can be found on the schedules or in the contracts of any railroad in this country. Moreover, there is no valid reason for it, while oftentimes, in the transportation of freight, there is excellent reason for charging more proportionately for a short haul than for a long haul. The one-cent rate for the delivery of Liberty in Boston is not much, if any, too high, but the rate of its delivery in other parts of the country is ridiculously low; and it is because books, newspapers, and merchandise are carried at such low rates that the people have to pay two cents instead of one to get their letters carried. The utter disregard of the principle of proportion shown in the postage rates fixed by the State, and its recognition in the freight and passenger rates fixed by the railroads, instead of furnishing an argument against private enterprise, furnish an argument in its favor. Pen-Pictures of the Prisoners. Dyer D. Lum kindly permits me to publish the following letter, although it was originally written as a private communication: My dear Mr. Tucker: As my brief description of the prisoners seemed to interest you, I will give you a fuller account. I have secured a pass from the sheriff, and occasionally go in out of regular hours, where I can have the privilege of shaking hands through the bars, the visitors being barred by a wire cage through which only one finger can be put. Let us take them in order as they come, on the first corridor (Murderers' Row). Cell 36 is occupied by Neebe. He was the “hustler” of the I. W. P. A. He “organized,” called meetings, issued circulars, and did the “heavy work” toward making the meeting a success. Ho was also prominent in organizing trades into unions. To ask him the difference between Trade-Unionism and Anarchy would be a conundrum. I presume you have seen their pictures. Like the rest, he had seen the folly of the ballot, and had no use for it. He was on bail before trial, and not having a knowledge of the future — remained! ...

[Link to media]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 8/15/22 1:00am
Author: Kurihara YasushiTitle: If You Feel Sympathetic, Intoxicate YourselfSubtitle: We Don’t Need PrisonsDate: July 2022Notes: Translated by the Abolitionist Collective. The translator wishes to thank Manuel Yang for his excellent proofreading in translating the rhythm of the author’s style into this English version. Original title: Dojo surunara masui shiro: Kangoku wa iranai (同情するなら魔酔しろー監獄はいらない). This essay was partly inspired by an event entitled Imagine a world without prisons: A gathering on the day of anarchist prisoner solidarity 2022 hold in Tokyo.Source: Anarchism, No. 28, July 1, 2022. The other day a friend invited me to check out an anarchist event, something I hadn’t done in a while. The theme was abolitionism. Prison abolition. It was fantastic. Its content, to be sure, but its density especially. The soundproof basement was packed, packed, packed to the brim with nearly 30 anarchists. And so started the 4½-hour event. Break Through, Amplify! Gradually I start to feel the heat of the collective. The radiating heat, heat, heat – that heat is coiling up and the oxygen gets increasingly thinner. I can’t breathe. Huffing and puffing, huffing and puffing, I’m in agony. But as the agony peaks and my consciousness goes beyond it and zones out, I start to feel better by and by. The self melts away and disappears. Zero. Then a photograph of a prison in Indonesia. Dozens of people are crammed into a single cell, packed tightly together. My body starts shaking with anger. I can’t tell the dividing line between myself and the other person. How dare you put human beings in a fucking cage! It’s terrible, I’m pissed, I want to break out of prison. We’re all prisoners. We resonate with each other. A strange fever puts me in a delirium and my head is blowing up. The mind explodes. It breaks through the cage of my individual self and splatters outward. It resonates with others. Step out of all enclosures. Amplify. Oh, how many years has it been since I felt like this, with so many of us densely packed together as the air was thinning out? My friend mutters after the event and his eyes are shining. Seeking to be smashed into pieces, we willingly jump into the opening gap. All masochists. The Power of Intoxication Well, sometime afterwards, I suddenly remembered Kotoku Shusui’s remarks on writing. Shusui was famous not only as an anarchist but also as one of the finest literary stylists of his day. Shusui once wielded his pen to define what a great writing style is. Why don’t I quote from it: “The purpose of writing is not merely to convince the readers but to inspire them; it’s not sufficient to make them sympathize but rather must intoxicate them; it’s not sufficient to elicit praise from them but rather must finally assimilate them” (“The Three Requirements of Writing”). Good writing doesn’t mean the author arguing down the reader. If so, that’s just a person in power giving orders from above. Nor is it about gaining popularity and sympathy by getting a lot of likes. If so, that’s just putting the reader into voluntary submission. Either way, the reader is made to submit to the order of the narrative constructed from the outset by the author. That’s domination. How can we leap over such narratives and give birth to imagination unintended even by the author? The author and the reader. They become one as they forget the distinction between the self and the other. While reading the text, you forget yourself and directly connect with the author. Of course, the two are different and can’t be perfectly one. But as the reader possesses the author and dashes to the limits of the author’s thoughts, eventually the reader starts speaking the kind of things neither the self nor the other would say. You can’t tell who is speaking anymore. Body of zero. Although there is no subject, the mouth doesn’t stop moving. You have no idea why because there is no subject. Somebody starts thinking with dead certainty things nobody can make sense of. You want to get even more out of control. There’s no free will at work. You don’t have any choice. Things start moving naturally on their own. Shusui’s role model as a literary stylist was his teacher Nakae Chomin so he must have had in mind the militants of the Freedom and People’s Rights movement who spontaneously rose up after listening to Chomin’s words. Take the case of Miyazaki Hachiro who dreamed of building a commune and lost his life, although Chomin didn’t go so far as to say that. You’re going to die if you commit armed insurrection now. But even if you know, you can’t stop it. You accelerate the power of life as if possessed and, before you know it, you bypass death. Shusui called that “intoxication.” I want to run faster. Prison Break But what was Shusui fighting with such power? Earlier Shusui criticized imperialism. I’m running out of my word limit so let’s just look at the etymology of “imperialism,” which is “imperial.” “Im-” means “within” and “-perial” means “to set something in order.” A collective that is deemed the enemy or evil is subdued by force and enclosed within one’s order. Then they are subjected to a hierarchy that is set in order. You are immature, lazy criminals. Be grateful you’re even allowed to live. Work even if you die like a slave. Is that any different from police power today? Thrown in jail, you are slave labor, robbed of human rights as a criminal. It’s the prison industrial complex. Or you’re told you can’t live without earning money and are enclosed by your company and family, forced to serve your master like a slave. The entire society is a prison. The city is a jail whose name is freedom. ...

[Link to media]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 8/15/22 12:13am
Author: AnonymousTitle: Dispatches from Sri LankaDate: August 11th, 2022Source: Retrieved on 2022-08-15 from illwill.com/dispatches-from-sri-lanka On July 9, hundreds of thousands of Sri Lankans stormed and occupied a number of key government buildings, forcing President Gotabaya to flee the country and resign. This was the climax of a months-long uprising triggered by the worst economic crisis the country has seen since Independence. At the center of the protests is a sprawling occupation in the heart of Colombo, the island country’s capital. When the dust settled, then-Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, a close ally of the Rajapaksa family, was elected president by Parliament on July 20. The following night, the last occupied government building was cleared out by soldiers, along with a part of the main protest camp. In the weeks since a wave of repression has been unleashed, with numerous activists either in jail or in hiding. As we publish this, the police are threatening to evict the occupation. In the aftermath of the July 22nd raid, Ill Will conducted two interviews with anarchists in Sri Lanka about their views of the uprising: its limits, its horizons, and what the next phase might look like. The first interview was conducted via correspondence with an anarchist and journalist based in Kandy, Sri Lanka’s second largest city. The second was taken in a coffee shop in the suburbs of Colombo with J. and Z., two anarchists involved in a mutual aid distribution tent at the occupation and who have been on the front lines of the protests from early on. Kandy Ill Will: Can you share your thoughts on the current situation? Even after Gota’s resignation, Sri Lanka is stuck with the same bunch of politicians. The new President, Ranil Wickremesinghe, finagled his way into power on the back of this public coup and has reinstalled the same cabinet. Millions of Sri Lankans are disappointed with this turn of events after months of protests. Some are even accusing the protest movement of being some sort of fifth column for Wickremesinghe and his Western-backers. Meanwhile, Wickremesinghe is exercising the full might of the state by declaring emergency regulations, giving the military and police powers to crack down on dissenters. Protesters say they are going to fight on, but nobody is quite sure how, given Wickremesinghe’s extraordinary talents as a cunning politician and his fierce reputation of brutally neutralizing leftists and activists during the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna[1] (JVP) insurrection in the late 1980s.[2] Can you tell us a bit about yourselves and your background? Prior to Occupy Colombo, I was involved in the local environmental scene. Many people in the environmental groups were social activists. We often had conversations about far-left and radical politics. So before the Gota Go Home protests we had affinity with like-minded people, but we did not have a “group” per se. How were you first exposed to anarchist politics? In 2016, I entered the workforce and quickly grew disgruntled with my job. This pushed me towards leftist Facebook groups. I started reading communist literature and during that time the whole right-wing populist wave, with Trump, Bolsanaro, Duterte and Le Penn, unfolded. As I got more into leftism, I eventually started reading Kropotkin and the works of other anarchist writers. I also discovered websites such as Crimethinc and Adbusters, which gave me insight into left-libertarianism. The more I researched the rich history of Anarchism, such as the Spanish Civil war and the EZLN movement in Southern Mexico, the more I was convinced that another world was possible. Is there an anarchist tradition or scene in Sri Lanka? Are there other groups that you are in touch with? There is no anarchist movement in Sri Lanka, but it does have a lot of leftist history. There were two Maoist-inspired insurrections launched by the JVP in the early 1970s and the late 1980s. Most political parties in Sri Lanka are progressive and leftist in name only, and were formed as a reaction against Western imperialism and the country’s colonial past. However, just like socialist regimes in South America, these so-called progressive governments and parties have always been reactionary and statist to the core and do not care about the actual working class. But there are anarchist tendencies in Sri Lankan society. These tendencies came out in the open as a result of this year’s financial crisis and protest movement. But no faction, party, or group openly subscribes to anarchism or holds anarchist views in Sri Lanka. We are not in touch with anarchist groups abroad because we are not properly organized ourselves and only follow individual activists on social media. What has your involvement in the protests and at the occupation looked like? I joined small street demonstrations in the lead-up to the uprising in Mirihana, but I was not personally there at the moment it kicked off.[3] I helped out the activists and protestors at the GotaGoGama occupation when it was first formed. The first few weeks were phenomenal — it was probably the first time that Sri Lankans witnessed a mass occupation protest. There were supply tents distributing free food to protesters, occupiers, and visitors; it was a good example of mutual aid and solidarity. The protests were generally peaceful with just a few confrontations with riot police. ...

[Link to media]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 8/14/22 11:24pm
Author: Flower BombTitle: Egoist Vegan: Some Thoughts on an Individualist Animal LiberationDate: 2021Source: https://warzonedistro.noblogs.org/files/2022/07/Egoist-Vegan_Some-Thoughts-on-an-Individualist-Animal-Liberation.pdf For any readers who may not already know, “egoism” or egoist anarchism or anarcho-egoism, is a school of thought originally found in the writings of 19th-century existentialist philosopher Max Stirner. Stirner’s egoist philosophy suggests that identities used to uphold social hierarchies in society are ‘spooks’ in the mind rather than fixed, universal truths. The personal acceptance of these spooks as irrefutable truths ultimately plays into the normalization and maintenance of industrial society. Rather than personal surrender to these spooks — including the very notion of Society itself — Stirner’s egoism suggests an individualist rejection of any and all social constructs used to preserve hierarchical control and domination. “To affirm the individual is to destroy the species. I find myself experiencing bio/eco-centrism as ego-centrism. From this, I have found a union of egoists that includes all living beings, where anti-speciesism is a living encounter, not a dead-moralistic revolutionary Cause.” -Julian Langer from An Eco-Egoist Destruction of Species-Being and Speciesism In the quote above, Langer beautifully summarizes individual as ungovernable by species, recognizing an anti-speciesist union with all other living beings. Human supremacy is one of many worldviews that attempts to transform complex life into identity-based groupings. My egoist critique of‘Human’ as an identity and concept is no more sophisticated than my critique of race and gender; I reject any socialized binary worldview that pre-supposes categorical divisions based on hierarchy. Regardless of the noble efforts by those who are bound and determined to reform and re-define what it means to be human, humanism, in my opinion, will always bean enemy of the wild – of those who adapt badly to the civilized life of caged conformity. The identity and ideology of humanism is loaded with assumptions of superiority used to justify control and domination over non-human animals. As an egoist, I too recognize anti-speciesism as a living encounter. As an anti-authoritarian I reject all supremacist ideologies including those that privilege my comfort and existence above the lives of others. So as an anti-speciesist I reject any species-based privilege or intrinsic morality that entitles me to control and dominate another animal. For eons, human supremacist has enjoyed an ever-expanding, moralist entitlement to those animals categorized as ‘non-human’, as well as the wild landscapes upon which they inhabit. My refusal to consume the flesh and secretions of other animals is an anti-speciesist assertion of individualist revolt against humanist conformity. Speciesism is a narrowed view of other animals guided by the authority of anthropocentric morality. To view other animals as food is to surrender one’s primal instincts to the ideology of human supremacy. My egoism is a rejection of the socially constructed spooks of human, humanism, and the same ‘humanity’ that slaughterhouses and hunters speak of when attempting to justify their ‘humane’ domination. As an individualist I recognize and respect the individuality of every animal. Each and every animal is unique, possessing a complex personality developed in relationship to a complex surrounding. But similar to the homogenizing effect of other forms of oppression, speciesist oppression limits this understanding in order to tranquilize potential empathy shared between human and non-human animals. This ultimately creates a dominant, one-sided narrative which is used to portray non-human animals as merely objects rather than individually unique, complex living beings. For example, when placed in labs under stress and tortured with human-made devices, non-human animals are viewed as mere test subjects instrumental to the‘greater good’ of human scientific progress. Non-human animals are not only reduced to products for dietary consumption; they have all become a categorical monolith. And in order to enforce this view and treatment of non-human animals, human supremacy must be collectively reproduced on an individual level. Just as any other socio-political doctrine of supremacist ideology, human supremacy demands nothing less than participant conformity in order to uphold its power and values. Humanity celebrates its victorious dominion with holidays, culture, and familial traditions. Its separation from the wild resembles an insular prison built by the confines of industrial society. And within this prison - at every family gathering - the charred corpses of those deemed inferior are cut up and served for consumption. The bodies and bodily secretions of these dead animals are fortified with nutritional value to justify filtering nutrients through their consumption. Each glass of cows’ milk represents a product of labor stolen from both the cow and calf for which nature intended. Due to the same regurgitated, patriarchal, and anthropocentric analysis (based largely on various historical misconceptions and domesticated interpretations of ‘wildness’), pro-hunter primitivists justify their authoritarianism with claims to resurrect ideas of 'respect' and 'spiritual connectedness' toward animals. All of this serves as social conformity toward the view and treatment of non-human animals as mere objects for exploitation and consumption. ...

[Link to media]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 8/14/22 8:02pm
Author: Wolfi LandstreicherTitle: An Open Letter Concerning a Witch-HuntDate: 2017-07-17Source: Retrieved 08/10/2022 from archive.org Yesterday morning (Sunday, July 16, 2017), I received two emails from two different sources with a link to a diatribe on a web site called The Conjure House denouncing me because of the publishing house that published my translation of Stirner’s The Unique. Had I not received these emails, I would have known nothing of this, because I choose to have a minimal relationship with the internet. The internet originated in military research. Its functioning makes it an ideal tool for police work: gathering, extracting, combining, twisting and inventing “information” that may have some relations to actual existence or not, but that can cast the appearance of “guilt” on whatever target one chooses. I assume from the start that everything that goes on the internet gets into the hands of cops of one sort or another, so when I do use the internet, I do it with care. After all, I do not want to accidentally incriminate myself, nor to accidentally snitch on someone else, whether to state cops or to the wannabe cops of political correctitude in anarchist circles (both self-incrimination and accidental snitching seem to be frequent occurrences in internet interactions). That is why in this statement, which I am writing so that others who choose to can post or republish this, the only names you will see are Kevin Slaughter, Underworld Amusements, Loompanics (because they are no longer in business), Dr. Bones and my own (at the end of this statement). No other names are relevant to what I have to say and these have already been made public in this situation. I’ll start be putting forth the facts from my perspective: I began working on my translation of Stirner’s The Unique and Its Property shortly after finishing my translations of Stirner’s Critics and The Philosophical Reactionaries. After some positive responses to these translations, I felt confident in my ability to do it. I had ideas about who I would like to publish The Unique, but made no agreement until it was pretty much finished. The person through whom I would most have liked to publish it had been having trouble getting money together to do his own projects, and there didn’t seem to be any sign of an end to this lack of funds in sight, so I assumed that was not a possibility. If I didn’t say this directly to him, my apologies to him for my lack of communication. Another anarchist publisher offered, and I considered it seriously (despite whatever differences we may have on certain things, I consider these people friends, and anyone saying otherwise is wrong and doesn’t understand how I relate to people – and besides, it’s the sort of thing NOT to say in public forums – so tales of “bad blood” are tall tales). But I had seen some of their books come out with major problems in layout and the like, and I didn’t want that for this book. Apparently they had planned to have someone else do the layout and printing for this, but I somehow missed that (or forgot it) and that is my fault, and to them I also offer apologies for my unawareness/forgetfulness. But the concern about quality was what made me look for another publisher, even if it was a mistaken concern. I wanted to find a small anarchist press (not either of the bigger anarchist publishers who, in any case, weren’t likely to be willing to print anything I was involved with) with the means to do a book of this size, but I wasn’t aware of any others who had that capacity at that time (much later, I did learn of one other). And had I not missed the fact that the publishers mentioned above had planned to have it put together by on outside printer, I most likely would have gone with them. While pondering over where to publish, a friend of mine – whom I have known since the late 1980s, who had been active in the anarchist zine culture when I met him – gave me a suggestion. He had had a couple of egoist-related books published by Underworld Amusements (UA) and had made me gifts of those books. So I knew that they were well put-together, well-edited and well-printed. At that time, I went to the UA website. What I found that UA published itself were egoist, satanist, pessimist and vintage pornographic books. Their distribution also included anarchist books and some of what I can only call “in-your-face-outsider” books. I did not see a single book in the UA distro that was fascist, white supremacist or any such thing. In fact, their distro reminded me of the theoretical part of the Loompanics distro, a bit darker and more pessimistic, but parallel in many ways. For those unfamiliar with Loompanics, it was a publishing and distribution project started by a market anarchist in 1975 that continued until around 2006. During the 1980s and well into the 1990s, Loompanics helped facilitate a lot of the lively intense debates going on in the anarchist zine scene between different anarchist ideas. The similarity I saw between these projects and the number of anarchist titles UA carried led me to assume I was dealing with someone like the founder of Loompanics, and so I was willing to turn to UA, even though it wasn’t my ideal. My friend connected me with Kevin Slaughter (hereafter, KS) through email. It is true that KS offered some monetary royalties (i.e., a percentage if books sold). Due to circumstances in my life (that are no one else’s business) I cannot get paid in any official, trackable way for anything I do. I informed KS of this. I took KS’s intention as to a desire to have the publishing relationship on a basis of mutuality, so I recommended that he give me books instead. He offered another alternative that would include some money, but this should make it obvious that money was not my motivating factor. People who know me well already know this, because they know that I have been putting out publications for decades funded out of my very low income, and that I give most of them away, operating, to the extent that it actually works out, on mutuality (this is why I never ask my friends to pay for anything: their existence in my life is already a generous gift). UA’s process of preparing the book was well on its way (layout, copy-editing, etc.) when I first heard from someone that KS might have connections with racist, right-wing, etc. movements. The way this message was worded, it seemed like a rumor. I know in the world of the internet and the tendency toward using police methods that the internet encourages, actually directly communicating with an individual about such rumors is considered old-fashioned. But that is what I did. I wrote KS a letter directly asking him about this and making it clear that I did not want to publish with a white supremacist, a white (or any other sort of) nationalist or any sort of bigot. His response was very clear and straightforward, and he said that he was not a white supremacist, a fascist or anything of that sort. Of course, I knew then and I know now that it was possible that he was lying. But someone I have known for nearly 30 years, and who has never been anything but contemptuous of bigots of all sorts, seemed to trust him. His distro, which, I would assume reflects the sorts of ideas he considers worth sharing with others, as I said, did not seem to include any fascist or racist material (I missed it due to relative ignorance, since, unlike antifa militants, I don’t focus my life around fascism or racism or anything else that disgusts me). In fact, the only thing I had really expected to get much flack for was the vintage pornography on his site which was bound to offend some politically correct puritans. So that is my description of what went on with my decision about who to publish with. I offer my apologies to friends that I did not adequately communicate with about things relating to this, all of that is on me. ...

[Link to media]

[*] [-] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 8/14/22 7:02pm
Author: Hakim BeyTitle: The Old Calendrist pts. 1-3Date: 2014Notes: Originally published as part of a series of 10 pamphlets authored by Peter Lamborn Wilson among others. Now compiled and published by ENEMY COMBATANT PUBLICATIONS and available from them, Viscera Print Goods and Ephemera, Little Black Cart, and othersSource: https://viscerapvd.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/calendarimp.pdf 1. Our case: abolition of the world’s present “Gregorian” calendar system and reversion to the Old Julian calendar. Gregory was a Pope. His system was designed as a monotheistic mind trap. But the Julian system is based on Julius Caesar’s revelation in Egypt, where Cleopatra’s Court Astrologer explained to him the Sothic Year (based on the star Sirius). The Alexandrian (probably neoplatonic) philosopher Sosigenes later advised Caesar on the reform. We call this system pagan time. The very word “Julian” also evokes for us our hero Emperor Julian “the Apostate,” a renegade from Xtianity, the last pagan philosopher to rule the Roman Empire (d. 362 AD). In 1582 AD the Vatican under Pope Gregory XIII imposed a new calendar on Counter-Reformation Europe. The Orthodox East and the Protestant West both refused it and remained loyal (for a while anyway) to the Julian Year. Eighteen years later in 1600 the Vatican burned Giordano Bruno, the Hermetic martyr, at the stake in Rome. Whose side are you on? The Calendar is the oldest of all ideological constructs, as Alexander Marshack points out (in The Roots of Civilization) apropos of Paleolithic lunar calendrics. In the Neolithic, the calendar and its rituals already “regulate” the sacred year. See Frazer’s Golden Bough or Theodore Gaster’s great Thespis for elaborations of the calendrical ideologies of the emergent STATE and urban civilization in the ancient Near East. Here, the unstriated common organic time of the Stone Age became the structured encrusted time of power and work. Of course we’d love to abolish all calendars except the world itself (“anarchist time”) but since this seems impossible or at least unlikely, we’ll settle for pagan time over monotheistic CAPITALIST TIME. Restore the sacred year of Greco-Egyptian Hermetic chronosophy, and by its influence a pagan mentality will begin to re-infuse human consciousness. We call this process the re-paganization of monotheism. At present the last European hold-outs of Julian calendrism constitute a schismatic minority within the Greek Orthodox Church of Constantinople (including the monks of Mt. Athos) who are known as Palaiomerologitai or “Old Calendrists.” We’ve adopted this name in their honor. After all, we’re not anti-Xtian. Like the pagan practitioners of Voudoun and Santeria, we love all the saints and miracles of old-fashioned Xtianity--it’s just the dogma and morals we reject. We’re not against the modern calendar because it’s Xtian but because it has become the mechanistic clock time of Capitalism, the last world ideology--the rule of pure money. England and America held out against the Gregorian miasma until 1752, when a bill to abolish the Julian Year passed in Parliament. The Church of England had given up its anti-Papist objections and the reform was touted as beneficial to the spread of trade and Empire, not to the enlargement of the human soul. According to the scientists, the Julian Year had “drifted” eleven days from the “true” astronomical date since Caesar’s reform. Accordingly it was decreed that September 2 to 13 would simply vanish from the year 1752. Riots broke out. As one contemporary writer noted, great “difficulty was... found in appeasing the clamour of the people against the supposed profaneness, of changing the saints’ days in the Calendar, and altering the time of all the immovable feasts.” [1] In London and elsewhere mobs chanted “Gives us back our eleven days!” In Bristol a few people were killed in these Time Riots. The famous Glastonbury Thorn, said to blossom only and always on Christmas Day, “contemptuously ignored the new style” and bloomed on 5th January (new style)--which is of course December 25th old style. Another unpopular reform was the shift of New Year’s Day from March 25 (the Old Spring Equinox) to January 1st. In England and America, Spring feels like the re-birth of the year, an aesthetic perception shared by Zoroastrians and modern Persians who still celebrate New Year on the Vernal Equinox. Nevertheless, we accept January 1st as New Year because it’s the Saturnalian Old Winter Solstice (re-birth of the Sun--a Roman holiday in honor of the uncanny two-face Time god Janus the Doorkeeper of the Year)--even though this date has “drifted” eleven days from the “true” astronomical solstice; and according to the Xtian calendar it’s merely the Feast of the Circumcision--the arbitrary cutting off of the year. (See Ovid, Fasti, I, and Macrobius, Saturnalia, I.) What do we want? We want those golden days of September stolen from us by the idolaters of science and rationalist utilitarianism. We hope that the restoration of sacred pagan time will induce a new wide-spread consciousness open to a radical critique of technology as alienation. Stage by stage we’d like to regress toward the status quo ante 1752. Abolish the Industrial Revolution and the post-Industrial reign of time as money. Abolish not only electricity and infernal combustion but also the steam engine. Bring back agrarian green artisanal social time. Abandon the Capitalist Hell Realm. And by the way, let’s also get rid of Daylight Saving Time. Down with all Time Lords. Free Time. ...

[Link to media]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 8/13/22 11:29pm
Author: Howard ZinnTitle: Rebels Against TyrannySubtitle: An Interview with Howard Zinn on AnarchismDate: 2008Notes: Ziga Vodovnik is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, where his teaching and research is focused on anarchist theory/praxis and social movements in the Americas.Source: Retrieved on August 14, 2022 from howardzinn.org/collection/rebels-against-tyranny/ Howard Zinn, 85, is a Professor Emeritus of political science at Boston University. He was born in Brooklyn, NY, in 1922 to a poor immigrant family. He realized early in his youth that the promise of the “American Dream“, that will come true to all hard-working and diligent people, is just that – a promise and a dream. During World War II he joined US Air Force and served as a bombardier in the “European Theatre”. This proved to be a formative experience that only strengthened his convictions that there is no such thing as a just war. It also revealed, once again, the real face of the socio-economic order, where the suffering and sacrifice of the ordinary people is always used only to higher the profits of the privileged few. Although Zinn spent his youthful years helping his parents support the family by working in the shipyards, he started with studies at Columbia University after WWII, where he successfully defended his doctoral dissertation in 1958. Later he was appointed as a chairman of the department of history and social sciences at Spelman College, an all-black women’s college in Atlanta, GA, where he actively participated in the Civil Rights Movement. From the onset of the Vietnam War he was active within the emerging anti-war movement, and in the following years only stepped up his involvement in movements aspiring towards another, better world. Zinn is the author of more than 20 books, including A People’s History of the United Statesthat is “a brilliant and moving history of the American people from the point of view of those who have been exploited politically and economically and whose plight has been largely omitted from most histories…” (Library Journal) Zinn’s most recent book is entitled A Power Governments Cannot Suppress, and is a fascinating collection of essays that Zinn wrote in the last couple of years. Beloved radical historian is still lecturing across the US and around the world, and is, with active participation and support of various progressive social movements continuing his struggle for free and just society. Ziga Vodovnik: From the 1980s onwards we are witnessing the process of economic globalization getting stronger day after day. Many on the Left are now caught between a “dilemma” – either to work to reinforce the sovereignty of nation-states as a defensive barrier against the control of foreign and global capital; or to strive towards a non-national alternative to the present form of globalization and that is equally global. What’s your opinion about this? I am an anarchist, and according to anarchist principles nation states become obstacles to a true humanistic globalization. In a certain sense the movement towards globalization where capitalists are trying to leap over nation state barriers, creates a kind of opportunity for movement to ignore national barriers, and to bring people together globally, across national lines in opposition to globalization of capital, to create globalization of people, opposed to traditional notion of globalization. In other words to use globalization – it is nothing wrong with idea of globalization – in a way that bypasses national boundaries and of course that there is not involved corporate control of the economic decisions that are made about people all over the world. ZV: Pierre-Joseph Proudhon once wrote that: “Freedom is the mother, not the daughter of order.” Where do you see life after or beyond (nation) states? Beyond the nation states? (laughter) I think what lies beyond the nation states is a world without national boundaries, but also with people organized. But not organized as nations, but people organized as groups, as collectives, without national and any kind of boundaries. Without any kind of borders, passports, visas. None of that! Of collectives of different sizes, depending on the function of the collective, having contacts with one another. You cannot have self-sufficient little collectives, because these collectives have different resources available to them. This is something anarchist theory has not worked out and maybe cannot possibly work out in advance, because it would have to work itself out in practice. ZV: Do you think that a change can be achieved through institutionalized party politics, or only through alternative means – with disobedience, building parallel frameworks, establishing alternative media, etc. If you work through the existing structures you are going to be corrupted. By working through political system that poisons the atmosphere, even the progressive organizations, you can see it even now in the US, where people on the “Left” are all caught in the electoral campaign and get into fierce arguments about should we support this third party candidate or that third party candidate. This is a sort of little piece of evidence that suggests that when you get into working through electoral politics you begin to corrupt your ideals. So I think a way to behave is to think not in terms of representative government, not in terms of voting, not in terms of electoral politics, but thinking in terms of organizing social movements, organizing in the work place, organizing in the neighborhood, organizing collectives that can become strong enough to eventually take over – first to become strong enough to resist what has been done to them by authority, and second, later, to become strong enough to actually take over the institutions. ...

[Link to media]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 8/13/22 6:00pm
Author: Paul CudenecTitle: Li and the Organic Freedom of AnarchyDate: 2013Source: network23.org It may only consist of two letters in our alphabet, but the Chinese term li strikes me as being particularly important for anarchism. Alan Watts says as much, in fact, in his book Tao: The Watercourse Way, when he describes the concept around li as “analagous to Kropotkin’s anarchy”. Li is all about natural order, an innate and organic pattern to life that emerges without external control or direction. Watts explains: “Though the Tao is wu-tse (nonlaw), it has an order or pattern which can be recognized clearly… This kind of order is the principle of li, a word which has the original sense of such patterns as the markings in jade or the grain in wood. “Li may therefore be understood as organic order, as distinct from mechanical or legal order, both of which go by the book. Li is the asymmetrical, nonrepetitive and unregimented order which we find in the patterns of moving water, the forms of trees and clouds, of frost crystals on the window, or the scattering of pebbles on beach sand.” He adds: “If each thing follows its own li it will harmonize with all other things following theirs, not by reason of rule imposed from above but by their mutual resonance (ying) and interdependence.” This concept of organic order is an essential part of the anarchist vision. This is why anarchists don’t accept that we need a state or other form of top-down control to regulate human society – we believe our society can regulate itself, from within and from below, in the same way as other parts of the natural world. It is also the reason why anarchists don’t generally provide a detailed blueprint for the society we would like to see replace the current industrial-capitalist nightmare. It is no more for us to say what this would be like, than it is for anyone else. If we really believe in anarchy, in organic democracy, then we can do little more than talk about the kind of way we would imagine people living without the yoke of authority. There certainly can be no question of planning, let alone compulsion. In order to be comfortable with this position, we need to have complete faith in humanity, we need to believe that, while there will always be problems and conflicts within communities, a critical mass of people are sociable, well-meaning, caring, inventive, courageous or diligent individuals who will naturally come together to form a coherent and healthy society. Our ying, our mutual resonance and interdependence, will ensure that this happens. The task before us, therefore, is to clear the blockage created by modern civilization and its mindset and thus allow us to rediscover our natural freedom in the invisible and indescribable li.

[Link to media]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 8/13/22 8:06am
Author: Paul PetardTitle: Review: "Anarchy in Action"Subtitle: WARD IN ACTIONDate: 2008, FallNotes: This review of the latest edition of Colin Ward's "Anarchy in Action" apeared in The Whinger number 7, Fall 2008.Source: Retrieved on August 13, 2022 from https://libcom.org/article/review-anarchy-action-colin-ward-paul-petard Review: Anarchy In Action, Colin Ward, Freedom Press (84b Whitechapel High St, London, E1 7QX, U.K.) New Edition 2008, ISBN 978-0-900384-20-2 Although it is an old anarchist favourite read by thousands, and has been an important influence to many anarcho-activists from the 70s onwards, I have never actually read Colin Ward's "Anarchy In Action" before. So I am reading and reviewing this new 2008 edition, conscious of the world as it is today, without being influenced by previous memories of having read it in the 70s or 80s. As a result I can discover for the first time how relevant Colin Ward's message might still be to our world right now. Colin Ward argues that there are two basic historical approaches that lead to Anarchism as a conscious set of political ideas: "Anarchism as a political and social ideology has two separate origins. It can be seen as an ultimate derivative of liberalism or as a final end for socialism". I think it would be fair to say Colin Ward himself comes a bit more from the "liberal" approach to anarchism. He was for many years involved with Freedom Press and the anarchist paper Freedom, which was often dismissed in the past by the more militant and class-struggle orientated Black Flag as "liberal". I remember, particularly in the 1980s, the cold war rivalry that sometimes went on between Freedom and Black Flag. But the two claimed approaches to Anarchism, "liberalism" and "socialism", are in fact closely related. Modern ideas of socialism were very much a product of the evolving contradictions and developments of classical liberal ideas and the conditions that went with them. So we shouldn't just dismiss what Colin Ward has to say in his book. Ward makes clear that "Anarchy In Action" is not about strategies for revolution and it is not about speculation on the way a future anarchist society would function. It concerns itself more with continual social struggles for self-organisation by ordinary people that sort of go on all the time. The book, as he puts it, "is simply an extended, updating footnote to Kropotkin's book Mutual Aid". The core argument of "Anarchy In Action" is that an anarchist society, a society which organizes itself without authority is always in fact already in existence, although half hidden and buried under the weight of state and bureaucracy and capital. The book attempts in a readable way to bridge the gap between present realities and anarchist aspirations. Ward uses a wide-ranging analysis drawing on many sources and examples. With chapters on a range of subject areas including education, urban planning, welfare, housing, the workplace, the family, and the environment, he demonstrates that the roots of anarchist practise lie very much in the way that people have always tended to organize themselves when left alone to do so. Ward talks from a 70s perspective, there is a significant emphasis as one might expect, on sociology, and he talks primarily but not exclusively from a british perspective. He wrote the book very much in the context of the wave of radical ferment and revolutionary optimism that followed on from the late 60s. The events of 1968, the general strike and student uprising in France, the Prague Spring, protests, riots and revolts in Mexico City, Rome, London, U.S. cities, and many other places all being an inspiration. Looking back from today's perspective, it seems like Ward was almost still writing in an age of "innocence". His subsequent introduction to the book's second edition, 1982, only brings us up to the early days of the Thatcher regime. Colin Ward talks a significant amount about workers' self-organisation, workers' control, and sometimes about class struggle. He touches briefly on some of the great workers' struggles in history. But he is not particularly concerned with class stereotypes and reductionist class positions, and he doesn't walk around wearing the ideological label of "class-struggle anarchist". The first chapter, "Anarchy and State", gives a straightforward restatement of the classical anarchist criticism of government and the state, and then it outlines the historic division between anarchism and marxism. Marx, as Bakunin pointed out, wanted to achieve socialism through centralization and a despotic provisional government , with the state as sole owner of land and capital. Bakunin argued instead for the reconstruction of society from below upwards, by the free federation of all kinds of workers' associations liberated from the state. Ward describes how by 1918 in Britain the Labour Party had already committed itself to a "socialism" based on the unlimited increase of the state's power in the form of the giant managerially-controlled public corporation. Elsewhere, when state socialism achieved power it created monopoly state capitalism with a veneer of social welfare. Ward argues that the criticism of the state made by the 19th century anarchists increased in validity in the 20th century, the century of total war and the total state. Today, in the 21st century, we see state corporations openly operating hand in hand with private multinational corporations, imposed "privatization" and state power go together. ...

[Link to media]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 8/12/22 9:10am
Author: Nika Dubrovsky and David GraeberTitle: The tragedy and the insectsSource: https://www.academia.edu/42243377/The_tragedy_and_the_insects Film critics appear to be unanimous that Bong Joon-Ho’s 2019 film Parasite is a brilliant meditation on social inequality. They’re wrong. It is not a movie about social inequality. Or, it is, but this is almost secondary. It is a theological movie, even if based in a religion the director has basically made up, about a God who abandoned us. In the film, God’s place is filled by an architect who designed the house where a rich family live. The house is perfect, spacious, bright, divine. While we only see the architect’s own face once, very briefly, on an old black-and-white photograph, his presence is felt throughout the movie. The film develops in two architectural levels, between which the characters move along endless stairs. The poor are almost exclusively seen descending, the rich going up. The ambiguity of the title is established from the start. At the very beginning of the film, after we meet what seems a cute comical poor family living in a “semibasement” whose wireless has just been cut of; at some point, a literal parasite, some kind of bug, appears. Before long, an exterminator appears to fumigate the streets of the tawdry neighborhood they live in, and the father instructs his son not to close the window — they can take advantage to kill their own bugs for free. As a result, the entire family ends up choking on the gas. In other words, the father doesn’t yet realize that he and his family are the real parasites. He doesn’t understand they already live in hell. As the film goes on, this the fact that they do becomes increasingly impossible to avoid. One could proceed from here, as many have done, to analyze Parasite as a social critique of capitalist society, which explains how terrible — but potentially reversible — economic conditions can divide people into what seem like two biological classes, forcing some to become cockroaches and others (such those who live in the architect’s heavenly creation) to live as gods. But again, this would not be quite accurate. The movie does more than suggest an analogy: it treats the characters as if they actually have become gods and insects, though unusually contemptible insects, and decidedly pathetic gods. The initial parasite is referred to as a “stink beetle.” Throughout the movie, whenever the theme of smell recurs, it’s always rich people sniffing something on the poor ones that they can’t help but find disruptive, unpleasant, and weird: much later, it is precisely when the rich father pauses in the middle of a massacre to sniff in disgust at the poor family that the poor father finally loses his composure and murders him. Much of the actual plot is ostensibly about the scheming manipulations of the poor family, who insinuate their way into jobs as servants in the wealthy household. But this plot unfolds in a larger context where the rich are constantly sitting in judgement over the poor in their midst, “forced” by circumstances to make decisions on who gets to enter heaven, and who is forcibly expelled. They seem gods. From the perspective of those below they certainly are. But that divinity is entirely dependent on a complete inability to perceive almost anything going on around them: most dramatically, perhaps, the fact that for years now, their lights have been blinking in morse code. While all this has the superficial appearance of social criticism, and the director doesn’t seem particularly happy with the social arrangements he presents us with, it’s hard to describe the result as exactly “critical”. Criticism, after all, implies the possibility that things might be organized otherwise. That in turn means that the present order is in some sense a mistake. Otherwise you might as well be criticizing an insect. A film that naturalizes a state of affairs this completely can only end up sending a reactionary message; and this is precisely what this movie does. There is no hope. The poor regularly betray each other to win the favors of the rich. Appeals to solidarity amongst the oppressed are invariably rejected. Brief flickers of humanity are either mocked, rejected, or come to nothing — or they are punished with brutal violence. One might even say this is not really a film about human beings at all, or anyway, not creatures that can be judged by human standards. (Again, one does not sit in moral judgment on a cockroach, or even, really, a ghost.) It’s ultimately a movie about architecture: both the architecture of its plot, and the physical structures in which the inhabitants move. These structures are displayed not as a set of competing objects — a beautiful house of the rich and decrepit slums of the poor — but as a single maze, inside which people are programmed to move in certain ways: up and down, in light and in dark. This a complicated universe teeming with transitions, windows, smells, levels — so that the relation between spaces has all the intimacy of relations between people. Human relations do not have such intimacy; but the characters do have a similar intimacy with spaces. One of the themes of the movie appears to be how space, materiality (one of the main characters of the story is literally a stone) defines human destinies, to the point of suggesting no one, certainly not the characters, probably not any of us, are able to avoid the roles that have been built inside of us by inhabiting a certain organization of space, one which also places some in hell, and others, in paradise. ...

[Link to media]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 8/12/22 6:10am
Author: Alex TrotterTitle: Late Victorian HolocaustsSubtitle: Book ReviewDate: 2004, Spring/SummerNotes: Scanned from original.Source: from Anarchy: a journal of desire armed #57, Spring/Summer 2004 a review of Late Victorian Holocausts: El Niño Famines and the Making of the Third World by Mike Davis (Verso, New York, 2001) 464 pp., $27.00 hardcover/$20.00 paper. In the last quarter of the nineteenth century a series of devastating droughts and famines occurred in the monsoon tropics and northern China. The extreme climatic conditions that brought about these famines were associated with weather patterns known as El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO). The worst of these events happened in India, China, and Brazil. The loss of life was staggering, between 30 million and 60 million victims of starvation and epidemics in three separate but related global famines in 1877-1878, 1888-1891, and 1896-1902. Not since the Black Death of 500 years earlier had there been a disaster of such magnitude. The mortality rates in some countries were as great as if a nuclear holocaust had occurred. In telling the story of these forgotten disasters, Mike Davis shows that it wasn't bad weather alone that killed so many people, and details how the relationship between global climate changes associated with El Niño and imperialist policies pursued by European capitalist regimes resulted in a dramatic division of humanity into have and have-not regions of the world. Davis, who calls himself a "Marxist-Environmentalist," sets out in this work to analyze the convergence of failed economic and political systems with "ecological poverty," defined as the loss or depletion of the natural resource base of traditional agriculture. In precolonial times, the peasants in India and China had been protected from famine-associated subsistence crises by a kind of bureaucratic or despotic welfare system practiced by the Mogul and Qing states, which maintained irrigation systems and stockpiled and distributed food in times of hardship caused by natural disasters. As the traditional social and economic systems were undermined by the global laissez-faire economy centered in London, the peasants were left in the lurch when epochal drought conditions and crop failures struck, and they perished in the millions. The British authorities were extremely parsimonious in their aid, which came with absurd conditions when it came at all. In 120 years of British rule, there were four times as many famines as there had been in the previous millennium. The Radical journalist William Digby, describing the 1876 Madras famine, said, "When the part played by the British Empire in the 19th century is regarded by the historian 50 years hence, the unnecessary deaths of millions of Indians would be its principal and most notorious monument." But who remembers it now? Lords Lytton, Elgin II, and Curzon, the British viceroys of India during this period, presided over an empire of suffering. Starving Indians begged the police to arrest them, because at least in jail they would have something to eat. Stockpiles of food existed, as did transportation networks to deliver it, but people could not afford to buy it. In an echo of the Irish famine, grain was exported from India to Britain while people starved. British relief measures required applicants to travel to dormitory camps and perform hard labor to "earn" their rations. Desperation even led some people to cannibalism. Lytton, whom Davis calls "India's Nero," lavished money on Queen Victoria's investiture as Empress of India and on military skirmishes with the Russians on the Afghan frontier in preference to relief efforts for the famine victims. In China there was drought followed by floods of the Yellow River during a time when the country was being overrun by foreign armies, Christian proselytizers, and cheap goods imported from British India that wrecked local handicrafts. The weakened Qing dynasty could no longer effectively fulfill its "mandate of heaven" to control the floods through hydraulic engineering and provide food relief. As in India, millions fell and horrors abounded: living skeletons fought over the flesh of their dead neighbors, children were sold for food, and sick or dying people were often attacked and devoured by wild animals. Disease epidemics finished off those weakened by starvation. In the Sertno region in the north of Brazil, Britain had no direct political or military control, but the power of London banks still called the shots. The Conservative sugar planter-aristocracy of Brazil, where slavery was abolished only in 1888, followed the reactionary Roman Catholic church hierarchy, while the Liberal bourgeoisie was deeply influenced by British utilitarianism and social Darwinism. The Brazilian elites followed the British example from India of giving relief to afflicted peasants only in exchange for labor. When starving sertanejos made an exodus out of drought-stricken areas, looting on the way, they were forcibly deported into the Amazonian interior. Racism also played a role in public policy; the elites concentrated on developing the southern part of Brazil and encouraging immigration from European countries into that region while neglecting the north, where most of the population was black. ...

[Link to media]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 8/12/22 6:06am
Author: Elisha Moon WilliamsTitle: Queers With GunsSubtitle: A Model For Queering American Gun CultureDate: February 7th, 2022 Introduction There's a lot of discussion nowadays in relation to both the rights of marginalized people and gun reform due to the consistent problem with mass shootings in America and the rest of the world, as well as the many intersecting problems made clearly evident in the shooting of Amir Locke by the police. Many of the victims of mass shootings as well as police shootings, especially by white supremacists, have been those most marginalized within society. Civilian shootings had dropped off almost entirely because of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent lockdowns. They seem to be coming back in full swing, however the Biden administration is taking a pre-emptive strike against "rising gun violence" in preparation for the rise in gun crimes that is occurring due to the country opening back up. Of course, these actions mean more funding for police. This will undo much of the work that activists have done over the past 2 years to defund the police and put their power closer to being accountable to their communities. Meanwhile, there is a rising tide of fascism within the United States that has no signs of disintegrating on its own after the ousting of Trump from the presidency by the right-wing Democrat Joe Biden. He has proven to either maintain trump-era policies on the down-low, or openly break what little promises he did make on the campaign trail. There is a rise in hate crimes still happening within the US, with black people and now Asians being the most at risk during this time, among many others. What is there to do with these many crises happening all at once? What should we do in the face of the state establishment flopping on itself in the face of greater autocracy? This essay seeks to partially answer that question, mainly within the purview of guns, violence, police, what could replace said police (along with many other things) and how we might do so from a queer anarchist perspective. This essay's purpose is to convince the reader, whom may or may not be queer or otherwise marginalized, that we cannot trust the US government (especially the police and military, but not exclusively) to protect us against the rising tide of fascism and vigilante hatred within American society from an intersectional queer perspective. I also seek to supply possible alternative(s) to the current model of community defense that the police fill across this country, so that we as queer people don’t just deconstruct the current system, but also build the foundations for something to replace it as we do so. Batons and Bullets: A Brief History of American Policing There have been very few LGBT+ activists in America who have actively defended the many racist police murders of black people that have caused the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020. Many liberal queer people stood side by side with black activists in holding those officers accountable for what they did. This stance against police brutality, however is not deep enough as to support police abolition within largely liberal LGBT+ circles and groups. This opens them to criticism for believing and mainly pushing for reform of the police rather than complete abolition like many within the black community are still fighting for. This section will catalogue a brief history of the police and the US government's role in the lives of its subjects. The modern police force came into being in a multitude of ways across the United States, like many institutions in this country. Many of the first constabularies within the American colonies and then the United States were formed to mainly subjugate indigenous people in the defense of European and American colonialism, as well as slave patrols that sought to capture self-freed slaves and punish them before heading back to their master. Once slavery was reformed through the 13th Amendment, the formations of the modern police force made vagrancy and loitering laws that disproportionately targeted black people who had just gotten out of slavery with no reconciliation. These impoverished and often homeless people were forced to perform slave labor at the hands of the states that owned those bodies as part of their imprisonment. This trend has exploded with the rise of mass incarceration that especially hits the black community. In the north, state troopers in Philadelphia were actively modeled on the white supremacy and colonialism of the American Constabulary in the Philippines, actively seeking to keep workers (especially immigrants) from organizing within the mines of Philadelphia[1]. We can see that the very origins of modern policing, and policing in general, stem from white supremacy, settler colonialism, imperialism, and enforcing the interests of the owning class over that of collective bargaining by the working class. These institutions are also known for overpolicing working class neighborhoods in general, which disproportionately affect black and other colonized working class people due to things like redlining and banking discrimination. These institutions were never meant to be in the common interest, but mainly serve to protect the interests of those who own property and are at the top of these social hierarchies. ...

[Link to media]

[*] [-] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 8/12/22 6:03am
Author: Victor YarrosTitle: Benjamin R. TuckerSubtitle: The ManDate: 1950, November.Notes: The Critic and Guide, 4 no. 11 (November, 1950).Source: Retrieved on August 12, 2022 from https://www.libertarian-labyrinth.org/from-the-archives/victor-yarros-benjamin-r-tucker-the-man/ Of Benjamin R. Tucker, the founder and leading exponent of individualist. philosophical Anarchism, I have written elsewhere. Of Tucker the man, little has been written by anyone, and I propose to record here impressions and recollections of him based on many years close association with him, personal as well as intellectual and ideological. For two or three years I was associate editor of Liberty. For several years I was his next-door neighbor at Crescent Beach, Mass., and a fellow-boarder of his. We had several open clashes in the pages of Liberty and we did not hesitate to use harsh words about each other’s views on issues not directly connected with essential Anarchism. But our friendly relations were not for a moment marred or interrupted by these avowed and published divergencies. Tucker wanted and welcomed my contributions till the end of his American career as editor and publisher, and in 1893 and 94 he insisted on paying me for my work for Liberty, which he valued highly, though I did not need the money and never expected a cent from Tucker. I first met Tucker at a meeting in New Haven, Conn., where he, at the invitation of a small group interested in his theories and reading his paper and his pamphlets, read a paper on Anarchism and Socialism. The meeting had been advertised in a labor weekly, The Advocate, and was well attended. The discussion that followed the paper was lively and interesting. I do not now recall what my remarks were on that occasion, but they attracted Tucker’s attention., In the evening, after a little dinner we gave in his honor and some informal talk, Tucker called me aside and asked what I was doing for a living and whether I had any plans for the future. He also wanted to know what sort of education I had received in Russia and what, if anything, I had done for or in the revolutionary movement. I answered his questions briefly and frankly. To my surprise, he that I give up-my job, move to Crescent Beach and work for him as printer, proofreader, copy editor and regular contributor. He said he had no doubt I should learn these vocations readily and speedily, and shortly earn enough to live comfortably. He spoke of Boston, only 29 miles east of Crescent Beach, and its facilities and advantages—a good library, a fine stock-company, concerts, recitals and opera season, interesting discussion groups, friends and acquaintances of his who would welcome me. As I had saved over $700, I could take time to acquire new skills and get along with secant earnings. I accepted his tempting offer then and there. My ambitions were modest and my requirements simple. Journalism was the profession I had chosen in Russia. I had written for a revolutionary journal, and my articles had been praised by mature and educated revolutionists. Here, unexpectedly, was my chance! A week or two later, I boarded a train for Boston and Tucker met me at the railroad station. We walked a few blocks to a suburban Station and took a train for Crescent Beach. There I was introduced to Sarah E. Holmes, Tucker’s intimate companion, who had agreed to give me room and board for $5 a week: The room was comfortable, fairly large and quite bare, But it had light and air, a cot, a desk and a few chairs; what more did I need or care to possess? In the evening we dined with Miss Holmes. The food was good and well cooked. The meal was frugal but satisfying. After dinner we talked for an hour and then returned to our respective rooms. Tucker had rented two, cottages, one for himself and his books and printing shop, the other for Miss Holmes. Each cottage was, primitive but new, clean and spacious. Tucker slept on a bed sans mattress—newspapers plus one pillow served his needs. I worked all day and many evening in Tucker’s cottage. He left at 8 in the morning and returned at about 5 in the afternoon. He worked on the Boston Globe as copy editor till all matter for the final evening edition had been sent up. He told me his salary was $35 a week; which, he said was more than enough to live on. Liberty had a small circulation and Tucker practically met all the deficits out of his own pocket, except that he not infrequently received contributions from well-to-do readers and disciples. Tucker was an exceptionally hard worker. He had no secretary He often sat at his desk till mid night, writing reading contributions, answering personal and business letters, wrapping and addressing booklets, pamphlets and sample copies. Until I relieved him of proofreading and the making up of the pages of the journal, continued to do these jobs himself. He was a good sleeper, fortunately, and in the morning usually seemed rested and fresh. I soon realized that he had few intimate friends. He was cold and reserved. He was no mixer and no conversationalist. He seldom attended meetings and hardly ever spoke impromptu. He commanded respect and, in some circles, admiration. He had little time and less inclination for social intercourse. The publication of Liberty was irregular, and Tucker needed and wanted money to insure its future and to build up an anarchistic library. He was full of plans and schemes with that end in view, but he was in no sense a businessman. He believed that a good idea somehow made its way without costly publicity. This was a.strange misconception. He reckoned without the inertia and indifference of the reading public. He never had enough capital to give his intrinsically sound idea a chance. He couldn’t wait. ...

[Link to media]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 8/11/22 1:34pm
Author: Henry SeymourTitle: The Fallacy of Marx's Theory of Surplus-valueDate: 1897Notes: London: Murdoch & Co., 26, Paternoster Sq., B.C. 1897.Source: Retrieved on August 11, 2022 from https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001887835 To the Memory ofPierre Joseph Proudhon,These lines are Dedicated. “While many admit the abstract probability that a falsity has usually a nucleus of reality, few bear this abstract probability in mind, when passing judgment on the opinions of others.”—Herbert Spencer. Introduction. The disciples of Karl Marx claim that their master’s greatest achievement was to bring to light the important “generalisation” of surplus-value. This pretended generalisation, which is set forth with a great flourish of “scientific” demonstration in the pages of Das Kapital, is in reality the economic cornerstone of State Socialism. It is the pretext which is put forward by the Social Democrats as a reason d’être, as a sort of moral justification, for the establishment of that reactionary measure which has been euphemistically described as the collective ownership of the means of production, exchange, and distribution. In passing, we have abundant proof, from a study of comparative Ethnology, that this idea of collective proprietorship has prevailed amongst all primitive peoples, and of historic data there is ample to warrant the conclusion that it is only since the idea has grown into comparative desuetude, that industrial and economic progress has been possible. Moreover, it is easy to trace the root cause of present economic inequality and its manifold evils to so much of the same idea as still survives, by which means the State is permitted to interfere with the industrial activities of the people and prevent the freest access to natural opportunities of wealth-production and consumption. Are we therefore not justified in the interference that the revival of “collectivism” at the present day is nothing more than a manifestation of social atavism? Marx claims that his theory of surplus-value furnishes the key to the inequitable distribution of wealth. The object of this treatise is to expose the extravagance of such a claim, and to point out—I believe for the first time—that this theory of surplus-value is based upon two antithetical hypotheses, upon two ideas which are mutually exclusive. I shall shew that Marx’s theory of surplus-value is a complete contradiction of his theory of value, of which it is pretended to be a logical corollary; for the theory of value involves that the use-value of a commodity does not enter into the exchange-value thereof, whereas the theory of surplus-value rests entirely upon the contrary assumption that it is the alienation of the use-value by the laborer of his “commodity”, labor-power, that enables the capitalist to increase its exchange-value, and thereby acquire a surplus-value. Furthermore, to include labor-power, as Marx does, in the category of commodities, is a complete begging of the question. In this again he is in contradiction with himself. For in the very beginning of his book he tells us in plain and unmistakable language that a commodity is an object upon which labor-power has been expended. He elsewhere declares that a commodity is essentially a value-bearer, and that “human labor-power in motion, or human labor, creates value, but is not itself value. It becomes value only in its congealed state, when embodied in the form of some object.” If value is not anterior to the product of labor, how it can become a quality of mere labor-power passes all comprehension. We shall furthermore discover that the “value” of labor-power is but a figurative expression. As Proudhon said: “When, by a sort of ellipsis, we say the value of labor, we make an enjambement, which is not at all contrary to the rules of language, but which theorists ought to guard against mistaking for a reality. Labor, like liberty, love, ambition, genius, is a thing vague and indeterminate in its nature, but qualitatively defaced by its object,—that is, it becomes a reality through its product. When, therefore, we say, This man’s labor is worth five francs per day, it is as if we should say, The daily product of this man is worth five francs.” When Marx includes labor-power in the list of commodities, he simply confounds cause and effect. To maintain the extraordinary proposition that labor-power is a commodity, and that its value is governed by the same law that governs that of other commodities, Marx was at a loss to supply a single fact or argument. He simply took for granted the antiquated theory of wages put forward by M. Turgot, in his “Reflections on the Production and Distribution of Wealth”, and afterwards defended by Ricardo,[1] a theory to which Lassalle gave the metaphorical designation of the “iron law”. It is very certain that this theory of wages has no foundation in fact. Is it not axiomatic that the natural price of labor is the total product thereof? Is this not a law which theoretically admits of no exception? And if the laborer’s needs of subsistence fixed the price of labor as a matter of fact, should we not expect to find at all times and places a uniform scale of wages? For are not the needs of all laborers virtually the same? But we certainly find no such thing. As Adam Smith says, “in almost every part of Great Britain, there is a distinction, even in the lowest species of labor, between summer and winter wages. Summer wages are always highest. But on account of the extraordinary expense of fuel, the maintenance of a family is most expensive in winter.” And how can it be reconciled with this “iron law”, that in England and America, where the economic evolution is most advanced, and values are more generally fixed, wages are higher, nominally and really, than in those countries, such as China, Russia, Spain, and Italy, which lag far behind in the economic march? According to the theory, wages in the former should be lower than in the latter countries, whereas the facts indicate that the exact opposite is the case. Again, it will be conceded that wheat is the staple food of the laborer. Well, let us glance at the following figures. According to Tooke, the price of wheat in 1812 was 118s. the quarter, while according to Mulhall, the average weekly wage of the artisan was 20s. In 1852 wheat had fallen to 41s. the quarter, and yet wages remained stationary. If the “iron law” were true, wages would have fallen pari passu, the more so as the shrinkage in prices was more or less general. ...

[Link to media]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 8/11/22 4:53am
Author: Benjamin TuckerTitle: Liberty Vol. IV. No. 14.Subtitle: Not the Daughter but the Mother of OrderDate: January 22, 1887Notes: Whole No. 92. — Many thanks to www.readliberty.org for the readily-available transcription and to www.libertarian-labyrinth.org for the original scans.Source: Retrieved on August 11, 2022 from http://www.readliberty.org “For always in thine eyes, O Liberty! Shines that high light whereby the world is saved; And though thou slay us, we will trust in thee.” John Hay. On Picket Duty. John Swinton convicts me of doing him an injustice in a paragraph in the last number of Liberty,— an injustice, however, which is more formal than real. Still, if is an injustice, and should be righted. In the next number I shall find space to right it. See the advertisement of John F. Kelly’s “Taxation or Free Trade?” on another page. This sixteen-page pamphlet, which I sell at three dollars per hundred copies, is the best document in existence for distribution among Henry George’s followers. The New Bedford “Standard” thinks it very doubtful whether I will “succeed in materializing Proudhon’s ideas in this country,” and indeed, when I saw it announced in the same paragraph that the “Proudhon Library” begins with the “System of Ecumenical Contradictions,” I began to share its despairing view. The Greek Socialistic paper, “Arden,” is noticed elsewhere by one of the finest Hellenists in New England. Will the editor of the “Workmen’s Advocate,” who, writing in the shadow of Yale, translates the name of the journal by the word Labor, note the translation given in Liberty,— “utterly,” “unreservedly”? He and C. S. Griffin probably studied Greek together. Perhaps it is Yale’s shadow that causes the total darkness prevailing in this editor’s mind, regarding not Greek alone, but many other matters. The “Workmen’s Advocate” sees no field for the “Proudhon Library,” for the reason that, “since Marx and the vigorous Socialist agitation, it is hard to grovel among the dry bones of exploded theories and fanciful notions clothed in the threadbare garments of a worn-out philosophy.” The theory upon which Marx’s fame rests is that of “surplus value”; now, this theory Proudhon propounded and proved, long before Marx advanced it and, if it is one of the “exploded theories” referred to, Marx has been exploded with it. If it is not one of them, perhaps it would be well to specify some of them. I would suggest to the Socialists that they translate Marx’s answer to Proudhon’s “Economical Contradictions” and publish it when that work finished in the “Proudhon Library.” Then we shall where the explosion will take effect. In these days of sore trial to Rev. Dr. Edward McGlynn, late of St. Stephen’s, who of all men should have been expected to stand by his side, speaking words of cheer for him and chastisement for his foes? Who, indeed, but Patrick Ford? Yet the “Irish World,” though printing, to be sure, a great deal that other papers say, is as dumb as an oyster editorially. Where is the lash that ought at this moment to be descending upon the shoulders of His Arrogance Corrigan? Up Patrick Ford’s coat-sleeve, and he dares not draw it out. That he can ply the lash with terrific effect when he chooses and has the bravery to do so, he has amply proven in the past. But he has felt the lash as well as plied it. He stands in awe and dread of the lashing voice of Rome. Once or twice already in his life he has heard it hiss past his ear and felt it cut his hide, and he has cringed and crawled, as he cringes and crawls now. I am glad to see strong indications that Dr. McGlynn is made of sterner stuff. Mr. Pinney, editor of an exceedingly bright paper, the Winsted “Press,” recently combatted prohibition in the name of liberty. Thereupon I showed him that his argument was equally good against his own advocacy of a tariff on imports and an exclusive government currency. Carefully avoiding any allusion to the analogy, Mr. Pinney now rejoins: “In brief, we are despotic because we believe it is our right to defend ourselves from foreign invaders on the one side and wild-eat swindlers on the other.” Yes, just as despotic as the prohibitionists who believe it is their right to defend themselves from drunkards and rumsellers. In another column of the same issue of the “Press,” I find a reference to a “logical Procrustean bed” kept, in Liberty’s office to which I fit my friends and foes by stretching out and lopping off their limbs. It is a subject on which the dismembered Mr. Pinney speaks feelingly. I congratulate Henry George upon his manly stand in his new paper against the warfare of the Church of Rome upon Dr. McGlynn, and I cannot regard as anything but folly John Swinton’s protest against it as a distraction that may prove fatal to the unity of organized labor. In so far as Mr. Swinton aims at the destruction of all sources of usurious income, his attitude in economics is far superior in scope and consistency to the narrow and childish policy of Henry George, who aims to destroy but one form of usurious income and proposes no effective method of doing even that. But Mr. Swinton falls below Henry George when he lays supreme stress upon the union of labor’s forces, regardless of the only conditions upon which permanent union is possible, chief among which is Liberty. To be sure, Mr. George, as John F. Kelly has well shown, is no friend of Liberty in principle, but in this Dr. McGlynn matter he is certainly on Liberty’s side, and, instead of thwarting the labor movement by the attitude he has taken, he is doing it a splendid service. ...

[Link to media]

[*] [-] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 8/10/22 2:50pm
Author: William Batchelder GreeneTitle: Communism versus MutualismDate: 1874Notes: Originally appeared in The Word in 1874. Published in the book Socialistic, Communistic, Mutualistic and Financial Fragments (1875).Source: Retrieved 08/10/2022 from libertarian-labyrinth.org COMMUNISM is the form which human association naturally assumes at its origin. It implies the absolute supremacy of the chief, the utter subordination of the associates, and has for its maxim the fraternal rule,—each is to work according to his ability, and each is to receive according to his needs. In human communistic societies, as in the societies of wild horses, cattle, or sheep, all individuality is concentrated in the chief, who is instinctively obeyed by the associates as something extra-natural, and ruling by a mysterious, inscrutable right. The individualities of the associates are, among communistic men, as among sheep, numerical only. Each individual is just like all the others, and does just what the others do. The first very marked step in human progress results from the division of labor. It is the characteristic of the division of labor, and of the economic distribution of tasks, that each individual tends to do precisely what the others don’t do. As soon as labor is divided, communism necessarily ceases, and MUTUALISM, the negation of communism, and the reciprocal correlation of each to every other, and of every other to each, for a common purpose, commences. The march of social progress is out of communism into mutualism. Communism sacrifices the individual to secure the unity of the whole. Mutualism has unlimited individualism as the essential and necessary prior condition of its own existence, and co-ordinates individuals without any sacrifice of individuality, into one collective whole, by spontaneous confederation, or solidarity. Communism is the ideal of the past; mutualism, of the future. The garden of Eden is before us, as something, to be achieved and attained; not behind US, as something that was lost when labor was divided, tasks were distributed, individualities were encouraged, and communism, or the mere animal and instinctive social order, had the sentence pronounced against it, “Dying, thou shalt surely die.” Mutual insurance has shown, by practical exemplification, a little of what the nature, bearings, and workings of the mutualistic principle are. When the currency shall have become mutualized by mutual banks, and the rate of interest on money loaned shall have been brought down to zero per cent per annum, it will become possible to generalize mutual insurance, applying it to all the contingencies of life, so that men, instead of being, as now, antagonistic to each other, shall be so federated with each other, that an accidental loss falling on any one individual shall be a loss to be compensated by all other individuals, while a gain accidentally accruing to any one individual shall fall to the community, and be shared by all. Under the mutual system, each individual will receive the just and exact pay for his work; services equivalent in cost being exchangeable for services equivalent in cost, without profit or discount; and so much as the individual laborer will then get over and above what he has earned will come to him as his share in the general prosperity of the community of which he is an individual member. The principle of mutuality in social economy is identical with the principle of federation in politics. Make a note of this last fact. Individual sovereignty is the John the Baptist, without whose coming the mutualistic idea remains void. There is no mutualism without reciprocal consent; and none but individuals can enter into voluntary mutual relations. Mutualism is the synthesis of liberty and order. [In order to more fully explain the doctrine of mutualism, we take the liberty to print the following correspondence, sent to us for our perusal. Since we have omitted all of a private or personal nature, we trust the authors will pardon our making public their valuable thoughts.—Editorial.] NORTH ABINGTON, MASS., Sept. 28. 1874. COL. WILLIAM B. GREENE. Dear Sir,—When I made up the essays on interest into a tract, I did so at a venture, i.e., I felt it to be so strong, that it ought to be so used, and I trusted that the means would be provided in due time. Well, now that it is made up, and you are pleased with it, it has occurred to me that you would be willing to share in the cost. It would be practicable, through a few labor reformers who are in the city, to sow a few hundred of these tracts, or, indeed, some thousands, if they were provided; and would not something of the kind be worth your while? The pamphlets you sent have been received. Thanks. There are some striking remarks about God as being alive, in that on the divinity of Jesus. As to banking—is not what men want, the willingness to work together, instead of to lend to each other? Does “The Equity” (newspaper) commend itself to you as of the right temper and strength, so that it ought to live? Respectfully, JESSE H. JONES. BOSTON, MASS., Sept. 29, 1874. REV. JESSE H. JONES. Dear Sir,—Your letter of yesterday, to me, has been duly received. Contents noted. Please find enclosed a check for the money called for. You say, “As to banking, is not what men want, the willingness to work together, instead of to lend to each other?” I reply, that, so far as my experience goes, the willingness of John to help Thomas and Peter in their work usually takes the form of a willingness to lend money to them to help them along. The application to me for help in any work, almost always, perhaps always, assumes the shape of a request for a loan, or, perhaps, a gift, of money. So long as services are estimated in money values, the man who lends money lends aid and service. Money honestly acquired is the representative of services performed, for which the community is still in debt; and the transfer of money from Peter to John is the transfer of claim for wages due, and not yet paid in kind. I don’t believe in the Christian communism you advocate. I repudiate it. I believe in work and wages. The apostles tried Christian communism, and failed. We to-day are no better, to say the least, than the apostles were, and no more competent to command success. ...

[Link to media]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 8/9/22 1:52am
Author: EepaTitle: Building International SolidaritySubtitle: Human Relations for Global StruggleDate: May 31, 2021Source: Retrieved on 9th August 2022 from iaf-fai.org We have entered a new age of communications over the past 30 years. Our anarchic forbearers could have only dreamed of our ability to rapidly communicate with like minded anarchic people across the world but it is important to remember that effective and historically important international networks of solidarity and communication have existed as long as anarchic organizing has. When the Haymarket Martyrs were killed, the working people of the world spoke out in anger as news spread through communications networks. When Ricardo Flores Magon languished in a prison cell in the Yuma Territorial Prison, it was people like Mother Jones and Emma Goldman who used their networks to speak out and advocate for his release. Communications is a force multiplier for radical struggle. It enables us to join efforts and create more trouble for those in power than we could do as isolated groups of people. Despite the advances in technology, radical communications has not kept pace. Sure, many anarchics are aware of other struggles through communiques, news reports, or social media posts, but there is a deep rift between these casual interactions and meaningful relation building needed for resilient, effective, and meaningful struggle. In this brief article, I hope to outline some basic organizational networks, communications methods, and essential skills needed to build deeper relations with fellow anarchic people in struggle against colonialism, capitalism, and domination. Remember, this is only the suggestions of one person. Building relations is a deeply complex and often personal affair (when done well). The only way you will learn how to do this is by trying. Regional, Continental, International Networks 1. Home Region Home region communications should be the most regular form of communications. This involves people of a mutually agreed region coming together with regularity to share upcoming events, discuss regional issues, strategize on ways to combine efforts when appropriate, and to socialize as people to build bonds. These can follow strict rules for security, with only member selected representatives forming sub-groups discussing sensitive items when needed. There are guides out there discussing methods of organizing sensitive conversations to minimize the risk of damage from leaks or informants. Broader social events should minimize the sensitivity of the topics to be discussed and should work towards building relationships through shared activities (some might want a regional skype reading group, some might want to organize field trips, some might want to go bar hopping, etc.). 2. Continental & Archipelagic Organizing Continental and Archipelagic organizing really takes place between regional/island based networks of cells, collectives, crews, and organizations, with continental/archipelagic organizations acting to facilitate these regional networks communications into a broader continental/archipelagic context. Regions can either select a delegation from the region at large or a delegation of representatives from each organization to participate in this continental/archipelagic communications network. This is used to call for material aid (especially when a certain region is undergoing unrest or catastrophe), to call for advice, to call for reinforcement, or to announce new projects of continental interest. Continental networks also act to ensure that the many varied regions, cultures, and political situations have a fast and effective means of reaching every other group on the continent, without relying on word-of-mouth, algorithms, or news releases. Physical meetings and movements of material aid in a continental setting will naturally be easier due to the connectedness of roads, rail, and land borders. Archipelagic meetings and movements of material aid will be much more difficult, due to compounding struggles to provide affordable ocean-going or aviation based transportation, evading state naval/marine patrols, port costs, customs, etc., and making the time for these more effort and temporal intensive efforts. One of the most important tasks is to build strong communications infrastructure and robust networks or relations. These human relationships can be developed and nurtured, all while we start to figure out how to bring back the vital oceangoing networks of our ancestors. 3. International Solidarity and Action International networks are really vital for ensuring that our politics do not become blind to the tremendously important political developments in other continents. So much can be learned from our Indigenous comrades all over the colonized world. Too often we let our vision of political thought and our ancestral experience in struggle be limited by the horizon. Over the horizon is a world of Indigenous people who have been struggling, learning, philosophizing, creating, and fighting. To not be connected to them is to allow us all to make the same mistakes over and over again. It can not be understated how much we can avoid stumbling blocks by learning from those who have been there and done that. International networks are also keenly important for ensuring that the relative wealth of even poorer comrades in the industrialized regions of the global north, gets shared with comrades in dire struggle with access to almost no monetary/material resources. We must find ways to ensure that we are getting funds and materials to the most dire struggles. This can only be done when we have developed resilient relationships with comrades across the globe. ...

[Link to media]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 8/8/22 5:28pm
Author: Hippolyte HavelTitle: BakuninDate: 1914Source: Retrieved 08/08/2022 from archive.org No man can emancipate himself, except by emancipating with him all the men around him. My liberty is the liberty of everyone, for I am not truly free, free not only in thought but in deed, except when my liberty and my rights find their confirmation, their sanction, in the liberty and the rights of all men, my equals.—BAKUNIN. THE LIFE OF BAKUNIN MIKHAIL ALEXANDROVITCH BAKUNIN was descended from an old aristocratic family, which according to tradition had emigrated to Russia from Transylvania. He was born on his father’s estate at Pryamukhino, district of Torshok, in the province of Tver, on the 8th of May in year 1814. Bakunin’s father was a former diplomat who at the age of forty-five married a young girl of the poor but aristocratic family of Muraviev. One of her uncles was the infamous General Muraviev, who drowned the Polish Revolution in blood and gained the name “the hangman, of Warsaw.” . Bakunin was the oldest of eleven children. In a fragmentary autobiography, “La Histoire de ma vie,” Bakunin describes his father as a man of intellect and culture, a true philanthropist, possessed of a broad mind and generous sympathies. He belonged to a revolutionary society which tried to undermine the autocratic despotism which oppressed Russia, but changed his mind after the unsuccessful conspiracy of the Decabrists in 1825. Prom then on he tried with all his might to make of his children true servants and good subjects of the. Czar. Bakunin’s father was very rich. He was the owner of a thousand “souls.” Including women and children he was the unrestricted ruler of three thousand human beings. Bakunin spent his early youth at Pryamukhino, where he received instruction in languages, history and arithmetic from his father and one of his uncles. Religious instruction was almost entirely overlooked, as the father was a free-thinker. His moral education suffered through the knowledge that his entire material and intellectual existence was founded on injustice, on the system of serfdom. The youth possessed an instinctive feeling of hatred for all injustice: the sense for truth and right was strongly developed in him. At the age of 14 Bakunin entered the Artillery School at St. Petersburg. He graduated in 18.32 and was sent as an officer to a regiment in the province of Minsk. Here he spent two years, witnessing the oppression of the Polish inhabitants after the suppression of the insurrection of 1830. The vocation of a soldier soon became repulsive to him and he quit the army in 1834, in his twentieth year. The next six years he spent either in Moscow or St. Petersburg with friends or with his family at his father’s estate. During these years he devoted himself passionately to the study of philosophy, and came in contact with the most progressive and sympathetic representatives of the universities of Moscow and St. Petersburg. This generation lived in a purely intellectual atmosphere and had little interest in the practical aspects of life. The German philosopher Hegel had nowhere such enthusiastic disciples as in Russia; his philosophic system played regular havoc among the Russian intellectuals of that period. Bakunin, who had already studied the French encyclopedists and had in 1836 translated Fichte’s “Einige Vorlesungen neber die Bestimmung des Gelehrten,” became in 1837 a thorough Hegelian. He wrote a preface to a translation of Hegel’s lectures, and published shortly after an article “On Philosophy.” In the fall of 1839 Bakunin and his friends Stankevitch and Bjelinski became acquainted with Alexander Herzen and his followers, who had returned from their exile in the provinces to Moscow. Fierce discussions were the result. The Moscow Hegelians represented the most reactionary standpoint, while the circle of Herzen propagated the ideas of Western republicanism and French socialism. In 1840 Bakunin went to Berlin and entered the University. Soon he developed from a conservative to a revolutionary Hegelian. Ludwig Feuerbach, the great critic of Christianity, was the cause of this transformation. In a pamphlet entitled “Schelling and the Book of Revelations” Bakunin for the first time shows his revolutionary view of life. From 1840 till 1843 Bakunin spent his time in Germany, first in Berlin, where for a time he lived with Turgenjev, and later in Dresden. He was in close contact with the most progressive Germans; with Arnold Ruge and his friends; with Adolph Reichel, who proved to be a true friend through his whole life; with Georg Herwegh, and other free spirits of that time. Bakunin’s next literary work, an essay called “The Reaction in Germany; a fragment by a Frenchman,” published in Ruge’s “Deutsche Jahrbuecher” under the pseudonym Jules Elvsard, was an attack upon all compromise in the revolutionary ranks. This work, known principally because of the last sentence, “The zeal for destruction is at the same time a producing zeal,” called the attention of the police to Bakunin’s activity. The result was that he no longer felt secure in Saxony. He left Leipzig with Herwegh in January, 1843, and they travelled to Zurich by way of Strassburg. In Zurich Bakunin became acquainted with the German radicals Julius Froebel, August Follen, and their friends; later he came to know the Communist Wilhelm Weitling and his followers. He published several articles on Communism in Froebel’s “Schweizerischer Republikaner.” Weitling was presently arrested and among his papers the police found Bakunin’s name. The Russian ambassador asked for information concerning him, and Bakunin was obliged to leave Zurich as quickly as possible. He went to Geneva and later to Berne. Here in February, 1844, the Russian ambassador informed him that his government insisted upon his immediate return to Russia. Bakunin decided otherwise; he went to Brussels, where he met Lelewel, the Polish historian and revolutionist, and many other Polish and Russian exiles. From Brussels he went to Paris, where he met and became friendly with the Anarchist philosopher Pierre Joseph Proud-hon, the novelist George Sand, and many prominent Frenchmen. Herzen, Reichel, Bjelinski, and the naturalist Karl Vogt, all personal friends of Bakunin, lived at this time in France. ...

[Link to media]

[*] [-] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 6/26/22 1:38pm
Welcome to the Anarchist Library! Want to get started? Try browsing the Popular Texts. September 2021 New library announcement

[Link to media]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 1/9/22 9:39am
E-mail: library@angrylists.com Live chat: See /special/webchat Wiki: https://bookshelf.theanarchistlibrary.org theanarchistlibrary.org is (despite its name) an archive focusing on anarchism and anarchist texts. Within the scope of our use of the term “anarchism” we have been quite broad, but broad does not mean infinite, and basically shrinks down to a set of ideas against the State and capital. This immediately rules out the so-called “anarcho-capitalism”, “anarcho-nationalism” and similar crap. What is so special about this site? The library provides a high quality online web browser version of the text along with various other formats, like PDFs, plain text, HTML, EPUB, and XeLaTeX. We actively encourage the DIY printing and the distribution of the texts, so there is no need to ask us for permission to use the texts. The site provides a way for distributors and friends to change the layout of the PDFs and to create collections of an arbitrary number of texts (1 or more). See the bookbuilder page. The site also provides an advanced search engine. All these features come with some responsibility for the people who want to contribute to the library. We ask that uploaders contribute a logical representation of the text, with headings, emphasis, quotation blocks, etc. marked up appropriately. The site provides some tools (inside the web interface) to make this process easy, but some attention and some care is still required. Please be sure to read the manual if you plan to join the project for the mid- to long-term. I have a text I’d like to see in the library. May I submit it? Yes, you may! You don’t need an account. Just click Add to Library and read the instructions. I uploaded something, but you censored me! When we choose not to publish something, it is usually because the content is not anarchist. There are also a few other reasons why your text may not have been published, including but not limited to, it being in an incorrect format like an image of PDF file, original work for an unknown previously unpublished author (the library is not a self-publishing website), and finally a common reason is due to the poor text formatting submitted by the user. Please take due diligence to fix your footnotes, headers, and spacing. Consult the manual for AMUSE markup. When submitting a text, you are welcome to leave an email address for contact, but it is not necessary. It is recommended to leave a contact if the content and formatting of the text are in question, so that librarians can email with any questions or recommendations for formatting changes. You can also contact the library project over Internet Relay Chat (IRC) if you would like to say hello and make a case for the publishing of a particular text. On the IRC, if you ask a question, please be patient as people are not always around. What about my zine? If you want to publish your zine here, keep in mind that we can’t accept PDFs or raw scans. The texts here are processed to produce various formats, including but not limited to PDF. Even if inserting images in the text is fully supported, this archive may not be the best solution for graphically heavy texts. If you think your text only makes sense alongside specific layout (like cut and paste zine), it is best to publish it elsewhere. What about my scans? Texts that have been scanned are welcome, but you have to use optical character recognition (OCR) and then follow the library markup to format them. Broken, unreadable texts are rejected. We prefer quality over quantity and are happy to help guide you in formatting your work. Hey, you started without me. Can I join you? Sure, you can join the crew. We have a mailing list (library@angrylists.com) and a IRC channel. What about support for other languages? It’s a reality. There are already projects in: anarhisticka-biblioteka.net, Spanish, French, Dutch, Danish, Russian, Italian, Macedonian, German, Swedish, Polish, Finnish, Turkish, Korean, Greek, South East Asia, Esperanto, Portuguese, and Chinese. If you are interested in creating a new language project, please read this documentation first, and then please contact us. Of note, at the bottom of the translation documentation we have listed another project anarchistlibraries.net which can also help host your project if you so choose. You can check out their project at the website: anarchistlibraries.net Tell us about your technology. All the various components use free software and the code is freely available at https://amusewiki.org. Why don’t you do X Perhaps because we haven’t got around to it. Perhaps we have other reasons for not doing X. If you want X to happen at the Anarchist Library, feel free to log onto the IRC channel and talk to us about how X will rock our world, and how to make X happen. We are probably open to do it.

[Link to media]

[*] [-] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 12/23/21 6:11am
Matrix Matrix channel: https://matrix.to/#/#theanarchistlibrary:riot.anarchyplanet.org (it's bridged with the IRC channel) IRC (Internet Relay Chat) webchat: https://irc.anarchyplanet.org/#library or point your preferred IRC client towards the server and port listed below (regular, SSL, and via Tor): server: irc.anarchyplanet.org channel: #library port: 6667 (for regular), 6697 (for SSL), (for Tor both ports work) Tor: i2b23rgkhpfcwyi5v7yyaeyhcarbqxxdm76ommzpno6245aufja5arqd.onion

[Link to media]

[*] [-] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 9/6/21 10:38pm
You can access The Anarchist Library over Tor through this link: libraryqxxiqakubqv3dc2bend2koqsndbwox2johfywcatxie26bsad.onion Depending on the level of security of your Tor browser, some buttons and menus may not work. Downgrading the security from Safest to Safer seems to get most elements to work again when using the Tor browser.

[Link to media]

As of 8/19/22 2:24pm. Last new 8/19/22 8:55am.

Next feed in category: William Bowles