Crooked Bough News Round-up

— Miguel Brea, miltante de Liza - We Are Anarchists — A Plea Against Political Indefinition

 

at 3/31/25 6:54am

Author: Miguel Brea, miltante de LizaTitle: We Are Anarchists — A Plea Against Political IndefinitionSubtitle: A Plea Against Political IndefinitionDate: 11/01/2024Source: https://www.regeneracionlibertaria.org/2024/01/11/alegato-contra-la-indefinicion-politica/ We Are Anarchists. A Plea Against Political Indefinition. Talking with some comrades from the libertarian movement and sharing the ideas and practices that guide our activism, the question has arisen more than once as to whether it is necessary to define ourselves as anarchists, even though we all are and understand ourselves as such. It is important to start from the premise that anarchism is a very broad movement that encompasses different currents, although some discourses and interested critiques attempt to portray it as a single undifferentiated monster. These currents within the anarchist spectrum stem from specific and distinct theoretical assumptions, analyses, and strategic proposals, placing anarchists from each of these “lines” in separate positions. Although there is broad agreement on principles and values, as well as on emancipatory goals, the interpretations and commitments of each current mean we cannot speak of a single anarchism. The question of whether it is necessary or counterproductive for a collective to define itself openly as anarchist must be addressed from a strategic, not an identity-based, analysis. In other words, making a position and affiliation to a specific current public is a tactical matter that responds to specific analyses and goals within a broader strategy. Let me explain: a very large part of anarchists believe that libertarian militant activity should take place in mass spaces, as broad as possible, to support processes of self-organization and awareness-raising. So far, this aligns with social and organizational anarchism, especially from platformist or especifist organizations, which support this view. The difference arises because some of us believe that such activity is much more effective when it is carried out in an organized manner with those with whom we share a high degree of strategic and ideological agreement. We call this way of organizing dual militancy and argue that it does not involve any ideological contradiction as long as it operates in favor of building social power, awareness, self-organization, and under clear ethical codes. As we can see, we understand that making our political orientation explicit in the environments where we are actively involved is also a libertarian and anti-authoritarian guarantee. What we achieve by not hiding that we are anarchists, that we belong to a specific current and organization, that we carry out specific and public conjunctural analyses, and that we propose a determined (also public) strategic line is to make our objectives explicit in contrast to those hidden vanguards that operate in the shadows and corridors and are capable of undermining spaces they do not control. Although we advocate the dual strategy enunciated by Bakunin, we radically distance ourselves from his proposal to do so clandestinely. Alongside these two benefits of explicit militancy as anarchists—clarity and strength—we find other objectives we can address with an explicit practice: confronting the idea that there is only one anarchism and countering a negative image sometimes associated with anarchists (at times due to the portrayals made by other socialist currents and, in others, due to our own practices). Why Some Libertarian Comrades Do Not Want to Define Themselves as Anarchists It is not that they do not want to define themselves as such. In fact, if you ask them, they have no problem admitting it and feel proud of it. What they consider is that tactically it does not add value; in fact, it can even be a detriment. As we said, they try to dissociate themselves from the prejudices created around the figure of the anarchist, which have been constructed by political rivals and adversaries and, why not say it, in some cases, by some militants who identified as libertarians but whose behavior left much to be desired. Here there is a clear tactical difference: as we believe that anarchism is an ideology that can contribute to the workers’ struggle for emancipation and the overcoming of capitalism, we believe that behaving in accordance with these objectives is a way to combat that negative image that precedes us, whether constructed or deserved. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, we do not share the assumption that the most effective and coherent tactic with anarchist principles and objectives is to dilute ourselves among the workers, the people, or social movements. This position is closely related to how we define the revolutionary subject (the people, the proletariat, the citizenry...) and what it means to be vanguardist. To elaborate briefly: those libertarians who believe the emancipatory subject is an interclassist subject tend to adopt less “traditional” or clear self-definitions, unlike those who believe the struggle depends on the creation of class consciousness. At the same time, those who believe that organizing to intervene in mass movements necessarily involves aggression against the principles of equality and freedom defended by the Idea will participate individually, as affected persons, neighbors, and workers. From our perspective, trying to endow mass movements with the most developed class consciousness possible does not imply falling into authoritarian practices, nor does intervening under political pseudonyms guarantee that your practice lacks directive intentions. ...

[Link to media]

— Liza — Plataforma Anarquista de Madrid - Popular Power and Especifist Anarchism

 

at 3/31/25 6:22am

Author: Liza — Plataforma Anarquista de MadridTitle: Popular Power and Especifist AnarchismDate: 29/05/2024Source: www.regeneracionlibertaria.org Ideas for Creating the Revolution to Come: Popular Power and Specifist Anarchism The objective of this article is to reflect on Popular Power as an emancipatory strategy and examine how it relates (to a greater or lesser extent) with different revolutionary trends and currents, particularly those associated with the libertarian movement and its families. Given constraints of length and the intention to make these reflections useful and accessible, we will not meticulously cover all nuances and variants that could be explored in a more exhaustive approach. This is an introductory text aiming to meet basic yet essential objectives during the current period of anarchism’s reorganization: Introducing the idea of Popular Power Supporting the adherence to this strategy as meaningful and justifiable Examining how various revolutionary trends relate to it Specifically discussing the especifist current, or more precisely, our proposal What is Popular Power? Popular Power refers to the strategic proposition advocating that a socialist revolution can occur through accumulating social strength among the working class and dispossessed. Although this definition may not initially clarify the debate fully, it highlights key elements: Strategy as a deliberate plan to achieve clear objectives Revolution as a certainty that the existing criminal system can and must be overthrown Essential condition of mass social support capable of overcoming capitalist resistance Additionally, Popular Power explicitly includes an essential strategic consideration, both for the revolutionary phase and the possibility of building an alternative society characterized by equality, freedom, and justice. It identifies spaces of struggle and self-organization as arenas where social strength capable of surpassing capitalist resistance accumulates, forming the embryo of popular institutions upon which we will construct our desired society. Following this broad introduction, many comrades sharing our political tradition will likely feel identified. However, concrete strategic developments and theories regarding how capitalism sustains and reproduces itself lead to diverse, sometimes contradictory tendencies. To delve deeper, we will first justify the basis of our revolutionary “belief,” then explain how our analysis of the current social system shapes our proposals. Not a Matter of Faith Although we sometimes discuss revolution almost esoterically, our proposal is based on rigorous analysis. Our prognosis and practice are founded upon two certainties: 1. Capitalism is incapable of preventing severe crises—social, economic, political, ecological, and health crises. 2. Historical evidence shows that increased pressure on the exploited masses fosters revolutionary responses. The Theory of Social Reproduction Behind Each Emancipatory Proposal Every strategic proposal arises from an explicit or implicit conception of how capitalist systemic reproduction occurs. Thus, every political proposal involves understanding: How prevailing power sustains itself Its weaknesses Opportunities for resistance Its future evolution Anarchism has extensively documented capitalism’s mechanisms of repression and reproduction—prisons, police, armies, schools, labor, advertising—all targeted by our criticism. However, libertarian movements lack systematic knowledge integration and strategic reasoning to guide praxis, often operating based on identity and tradition. Returning to our central topic, our proposals depend on theories of capitalist reproduction. If capitalism is deemed insurmountable, proposals focus on escape or resistance. If unpredictability is emphasized, insurrectionist tactics prevail. Each theory guides different strategies, shaping their limitations or possibilities. Insurrectionism and Popular Power Insurrectionist libertarian sectors recognize revolution as possible and necessary but argue unpredictability in social conflicts necessitates intensifying or provoking conflicts spontaneously. This spontaneous approach contrasts with their critiques of other trends for vanguardism and neglects planning post-revolution scenarios, leaving vulnerabilities to reformist interventions or co-option. Revolutionary Syndicalism, Anarcho-Syndicalism, and Popular Power Spain historically exemplifies revolution based on class self-organization. Anarcho-syndicalism combines: Daily struggles Consciousness-building through experience Strength accumulation via self-organization Creation of alternative infrastructures However, contemporary critiques highlight limitations imposed by precarious labor conditions, bureaucratized mainstream unions, and the state’s absorption of previously autonomous social services. Furthermore, syndicalism’s ideological heterogeneity complicates revolutionary orientation, especially in rapidly evolving contexts. Autonomism and Popular Power Libertarian autonomism varies strategically, often proposing building alternative spaces immediately within capitalism’s margins. Municipalist strategies advocate capturing pre-capitalist institutions as preliminary socialist spheres. Others emphasize creating anticipatory spaces for emerging struggles. Limitations emerge repeatedly through state repression, cooperative failures, and ineffective federation-building. ...

[Link to media]

— Regue - The Trap of Horizontalism

 

at 3/31/25 5:24am

Author: RegueTitle: The Trap of HorizontalismDate: 13/02/2024Source: https://www.regeneracionlibertaria.org/2024/02/13/la-trampa-de-la-horizontalidad/ The Trap of Horizontalism, within anarchism, has been a burden for nearly half a century. It’s time now to shed that weight in order to move forward. Experiential and activist anarchism has emphasized personal experience, navigating between the individual and the small community. Experimentation as a means to “live anarchism” here and now. And in doing so, it has neglected collective responsibility—anarchist ideology as a committed and militant way of life. This approach, tending toward individualism, often becomes an end in itself—seeking personal or group well-being in a hostile world. A kind of self-help refuge, full of personal (and collective) deceptions. Since it is disconnected from a revolutionary project, it becomes confined to mere experiences lived within capitalism—or at best, on its margins. But not only that: revolutionary anarchism has been dragged by these tendencies, elevating the lack of organization and direction as an inherent trait of anarchism. Individuals prioritize their personal experiences over collective action and the historical trajectory of previous militant efforts. This trap, as we’ve said, has led anarchism—especially in many places in the Western Global North—to lose its transformative and revolutionary potential. It’s become just another item on the “ideological menu” of social movements and activism. Relegated to a vague ideal, reserved for a future that never arrives, and won’t arrive, as long as it remains hijacked by the tactics exposed here. To overcome this trap, we must move forward and recover a more concise and militant form of anarchism that prioritizes organized, revolutionary social action. This means developing a clear set of objectives and strategies, and working toward planning—both tactical strategies for the present and the development of collective forces capable of managing the complex economy of libertarian socialism in the near future. Economic planning within a framework of federal political organization is essential to building a free society in harmony with the Earth’s metabolism. But this requires a deep understanding of the mechanisms, options, and resources we are likely to have starting now. As revolutionaries, anarchists must work to create the conditions necessary to reach the social system they advocate for, starting from the development of the collective forces available to them in the reality they inhabit. They must analyze the limits and opportunities on the battlefield of life under capitalism. A sweeping critique, no matter how lucid, is useless if it becomes paralyzing—and if we fail to see or go beyond it. Communities, organizations, unions, cooperatives, collectives, bookshops, ateneos, etc.—if they are not embedded in a revolutionary project, in a movement—they remain isolated islands floating in a capitalist sea, with no real potential to transform beyond providing temporary “well-being” and fleeting feelings of “doing something” for their participants. Or worse, they serve to feed egos that need their “safe space” in which to grow. But why are we talking about horizontalism if we’re reviewing issues that go beyond how groups democratize decision-making? Because we want to clarify the concepts that surround this trap and give it a fertile context—trying to understand it fully and deeply. The context of ideas that lead to certain choices. Horizontalism, as we know it, stems from such dynamics. In fact, it originates from the anti-war assemblies of the 1960s–70s (USA vs. Vietnam), heavily influenced by Quaker practices. It was adopted as a democratizing method for decision-making in diverse groups where consensus was prioritized. And consensus is relatively easy to achieve when there’s a clear, limited objective (a campaign, a specific platform, etc.). As in Quaker communities, many groups and collectives operate with a strong informal hierarchy and group cohesion that allows for supposed consensus to be reached easily. Making this strategy the only path to democratizing society—or even a broad organization (political, union, etc.)—is to reproduce a tactical tradition without proper analysis or context. Without considering its limitations. In a complex society, forcing action to fit tools designed for small groups (or activist campaigns) traps our imagination in that same frame. How many times have you heard: “That’s fine, but only for small groups”? Every contemporary anarchist has heard that at least once. This situation is deeply connected to what’s discussed here and raises questions we don’t intend to answer—but want to put on the table. How did we go from an anarchism that sought to study and transform complex society the very next day, to one stuck in a mindset of “keeping it small”? The answer is multifactorial. Here, we’re focusing on a couple of symptoms—signals of that self-inflicted defeat. Like the belief that there’s only one way to democratize political decisions: through assemblies. Assembly-based decision-making—or horizontalism—understood as the only “just” form of decision-making, has significant limitations. These might not be obvious in small or cohesive groups. But if we aim for deep social transformation—a revolution—those limits matter. ...

[Link to media]

— Miguel Brea - Occupy and Resist?

 

at 3/31/25 4:55am

Author: Miguel BreaTitle: Occupy and Resist?Date: 11/04/2024Source: www.regeneracionlibertaria.org On March 13, La Ferroviaria, a self-managed social center (CSO) in Madrid, awoke surrounded by state repressive forces ensuring its eviction, despite the dozens of activists from various currents and organizations gathered at its doors. In Sabadell and Zaragoza, the same scene played out at the social centers L’Obrera and Loira. A week later, the threat loomed over La BanKarrota, where the police did not deploy a sufficient operation to carry out the eviction. This self-managed space in the popular neighborhood of Moratalaz survived only a few more days and was unfortunately evicted, jeopardizing the continuity of many projects it hosted. Fortunately, not all news is bad. On March 10, La Rosa was presented—a reclaimed space in the very center of Madrid, in the heart of the capital. A week later, it held its “constituent” assembly and raised its voice under the slogan “10, 100, 1000 Social Centers.” We know writing a political and strategic reflection on squatting and opening self-managed social centers amid a wave of repression is risky—but we also consider it necessary. In this article, we aim to reflect on the potential and limitations of squatting social centers and the autonomist strategy, not as a critique of our comrades involved in these projects, but as an exercise in self-critique based on our two decades of militant experience within the autonomous and neighborhood movement. An Undeniable Need for Space The power that resides in opening a space for gathering and self-management is undeniable. Anyone resisting this voracious system needs places for meeting and debate, storage and workshops, leisure and education, funding and mutual aid... The capacity of these projects to foster and sustain struggle in hostile environments such as large cities is so clear that opening and offering abandoned spaces—otherwise left to speculation—has become common sense among activists, militants, and libertarians. Their strength lies not only in the synergies created through these encounters or their potential as political schools. They also serve as tools for denouncing and highlighting speculative real estate practices, mobility plans tailored for elites, the plunder of public resources, and extreme inequality. Squatted and self-managed social centers fulfill the role once held by unions, neighborhood associations, and cultural centers (ateneos); and they are direct heirs to practices of expropriation and resource socialization. As operation bases from which to fight—often our trench and banner—their defense becomes unquestionable and central to our political activity. The Limits of the Bubble For those of us who’ve been in the squat movement for years, the issues associated with this practice are no secret. Beyond the legal and financial risks from state repression, there’s the immense workload involved in opening, maintaining, and caring for the space. This means many hours, many hands, and many minds devoted to improving infrastructure, cleaning and maintaining, organizing activities, monitoring and defending the space... These are practical tasks, but no less political. However, they can bury collectives in day-to-day management, limiting our ability to engage in other activities like training, critical reflection, or political projection based on strategic analysis and contextual reading. Many of these issues stem from the difficulty of achieving both quantitative and qualitative growth within a “spatial” project. In practice, this often leads to a range of political participants we might label as tourists, activists, bureaucrats, users… Some projects with greater internal diversity tend to reproduce a kind of division resembling a real “maneuvering base.” That is, while the center’s daily activity supports the project with events, leisure, and parties organized through a management assembly, a different, more politically oriented space and assembly arises to articulate a concrete message. This wouldn’t be problematic if there were a clear, accessible, and explicit connection between both assemblies—but that’s not always the case. To the workload and difficulty of integrating various political actors without generating a damaging divide, we must add at least three more problems: The relationship with the surrounding community The fragility of our position The clear inability to form a combat-ready, effective federation The first issue refers to the difficulty of connecting these social and combative processes with political practices and social agents increasingly distinct from the “autonomous us.” Neighborhood associations, residents, small business owners, institutions... There’s no easy answer that doesn’t involve establishing an explicit political project—nonexistent in many of our spaces and inflexible in others. Why do so few neighbors support us during repressive processes and evictions? How can we build alliances with more institutional political projects like neighborhood associations? These are questions that, when we finally confront them, are often already too late. ...

[Link to media]

— Miguel Brea - From the Outside?

 

at 3/31/25 4:46am

Author: Miguel BreaTitle: From the Outside?Subtitle: A Reading of Fifty Shades on BonannoDate: 18/04/2024Source: www.regeneracionlibertaria.org In March of this year, Miquel Amorós published Reading Fifty Shades of Bonanno with Calumnia—a work of research and critique on the thought of the Italian author who passed away just six months ago. While reading it, we couldn’t help but repeatedly think about two things: first, the striking similarity between Amorós’s dismantling of the anarcho-insurrectionalist tendency and Bonanno’s ideas, and a scene from the infamous movie Billy Madison starring Adam Sandler. From that so-called comedy, a sequence became popular in which the protagonist dominates a group of kids in dodgeball, taking advantage of the physical disparity between an adult and elementary school children. This essentially defines the bulk of the text: Amorós throws punches without mercy at a proposal that lacks analysis, strategy, and self-critique. From this spectacle of “abuse” arises the second question: why now? Insurrectionalism within the libertarian praxis of our immediate environment is perhaps at its most famished state, both practically and theoretically. Even so, Amorós delivers a thorough study and critique while bypassing more urgent debates such as: the recomposition of the far left after the neo-reformist cycle that restored the status quo questioned post-2008 crisis; the importance and form of strategic discussions; the need to produce critical thought in preparation for the coming social and climate crisis; and critical analyses of the hegemonic positions in the libertarian movement over the past decades... All essential to drawing conclusions that could shape the alternatives we build. This essay arrives at least twenty years too late, and frankly, we don’t see a compelling reason for its timing. Without delving further into this dynamic that so surprises us, in this article we want to open a debate with Miquel Amorós’s proposal, which can be summarized in no more than three of the 87 pages. The essay we’re working on is richly documented, reflecting an admirable political commitment. We stress that we’re not reducing his entire argument to a few paragraphs to dismiss his ideas, but because we see them as highly representative of the hegemonic current within the libertarian movement of the past 30 years: libertarian autonomism. We thus hope for a calm yet intense debate, an honest dialogue free from absurd reductions or gatekeeping. To be clear from the start: our analysis is not against insurrectionalism. In fact, we share many of Amorós’s critiques, and would go even further in emphasizing its anti-intellectual tendencies and, above all, its complete irresponsibility—not just regarding repression following their actions, but in the demobilization of struggle due to the inevitable defeats of implementing a reckless and childish non-strategy. This is a debate with Autonomist proposals, consistent with the one we published in dialogue with Pablo Carmona’s strategic line (zonaestrategia.net), which has become hegemonic to the point of being rendered invisible and deeply embedded in anarchist practice, often referred to as Common Sense or Tradition, in the worst sense of those words. What do we mean when we say that the autonomist strategy is hegemonic in the libertarian movement and functions as common sense? In his book Envisioning Real Utopias, Erik Olin Wright lays out three clearly differentiated strategies that emerged from classical socialist movements and persist today: Social Democracy, which has evolved into a reformist path fully integrated into the system; the rupturist or revolutionary path associated with various forms of Marxism that see capitalism as irreformable and advocate its destruction to build an alternative; and lastly, the Interstitial path, commonly known as the autonomist strategy. This last proposal emphasizes building alternative spaces on the margins of capitalism, believing their accumulation will eventually replace the dominant system. Needless to say, all three have evolved and are not homogeneous within themselves. Wright’s link between autonomism and anarchism is painful to us but contains some truth. While anarchism has historically produced radically revolutionary ideas—Bakunin being its main figure—the autonomist current has always been present within it. From Landauer to Bookchin, from grassroots libertarian autonomism to collapse-based proposals, from the legacy of 20th-century anarcho-syndicalism to many insurrectionalist ideas, the notion that liberated spaces can accumulate and serve as the foundation for an alternative to capitalism is nearly a constant. This proposal has often been based on an idealization of pre-capitalist periods and an exoticization of other societies. Perhaps when Landauer, at the beginning of the last century, spoke of building socialism outside capitalism’s grasp, such spaces existed. Later proposals—from anarcho-syndicalist institution-building to Bookchin’s libertarian municipalism—have shown that such bubbles are only feasible during exceptional historical moments (like armed conflicts in Kurdistan, Zapatista Mexico, or the Spanish Revolution). They’ve also revealed their fragility and difficulty in expanding their influence or building federations to broaden impact. ...

[Link to media]

— Benjamin Tucker - Liberty Vol. V. No. 11.

 

at 3/30/25 2:01pm

Author: Benjamin TuckerTitle: Liberty Vol. V. No. 11.Subtitle: Not the Daughter but the Mother of OrderDate: December 31, 1887Notes: Whole No. 115. — Many thanks to www.readliberty.org for the readily-available transcription and www.libertarian-labyrinth.org for the original scans.Source: Retrieved on March 30, 2025 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. My old friend, A. H. Wood, of Lunenburg, refers, in a private letter, to a remark made by the late William Sparrell of Boston to the effect that he could govern himself much cheaper than he could hire it done. I never heard of Mr. Sparrell before, but I am already convinced that he was a rare philosopher. As that phase of the Egoistic discussion which Mr. Babcock and Mr. Yarros have been conducting seems to have reached a point where the disputants are at a deadlock, it is useless to devote more space to it. Readers not already convinced one way or the other are not likely to be affected by further repetitions. Therefore this phase of the controversy is declared closed. That newspaper lying is a commodity furnished in answer to a demand, as “F. F. K.” points out in another column, is a truism among close observers. But how does this excuse the newspapers, or make it less necessary to bring and keep this lamentable fact before the eyes of those who observe less closely? What is the persistent exposure of this among other evils but a constant spreading of the light? Our statutes are manufactured in answer to a demand. Are they less to be denounced on that account? Superstition is supplied in answer to a demand. Is the church to be shielded for that reason from the withering shafts of ridicule? How are we to decrease these demands except by showing the evils of the things demanded? The next meeting of the Anarchists’ Club will be more than usually interesting. Instead of an essay followed by general discussion, there will be a debate between two speakers. The question, in substance if not in form, will be: “Does Henry George’s plan of the taxation of land values offer a scientific, just, and adequate solution of the labor problem?” E. M. White, a prominent member of the Land and Labor Club, will affirm; Victor Yarros will deny. The exact order of proceedings has not been determined, but the speakers will alternate in addresses ranging from half an hour to ten minutes in length. The meeting will be held on Sunday, January 1, at half past two o’clock, in Codman Hall, 176 Tremont Street. Liberty wishes the Club a happy and prosperous New Year. Many persons at a distance have expressed a desire to see the Constitution of the Anarchists’ Club. They may now gratify it by ordering a copy of Victor Yarros’s pamphlet, “Anarchism: Its Aims and Methods,” advertised elsewhere. The Constitution is contained in the pamphlet. Persons who desire to distribute this pamphlet can procure it at the very low rate of three cents a copy, if they will take a hundred copies. At the same terms they can procure Olive Schreiner’s “Three Dreams in a Desert,” which Sarah E. Holmes has published in pamphlet form in response to a demand created by its recent appearance in Liberty. She will also publish shortly, as a four page tract, the keen and brilliant “Socialistic Letter” by Ernest Lessigue which appeared in the last issue of Liberty, giving it the title: “The Two Socialisms: Governmental and Anarchistic.” All these additions to the Anarchistic propaganda will greatly increase its efficacy. Liberty and the Communists. To the Editor of Liberty: I remember a note in one of the earlier numbers of Liberty in which you objected to “La Révolte's” calling you or your paper “comrade.” Now I see in the article, “To the Breach, Comrades,” that you call Parsons, Spies, et als. comrades. This seems the more contrary to your plumb-line, since in the same issue you prove that the Chicago men’s conception of Anarchism was the same as Kropotkine’s. If you disapprove of the aims and methods of the Chicago Anarchists, or Communists, if you please, how was it that you eulogized them and wrote the poem, “They never fail who die in a great cause;. . .and conduct the world at last to freedom”? In fact, the brilliancy of your eulogy on Chicago’s dead Anarchists is dimmed by what you wrote on those men when they were alive. There is another thing to which I like to call the attention of your readers. In the article, “General Walker and the Anarchists,” you stated that the Chicago Anarchists would have the working men’s societies (Communes) “suppress by whatever heroic measures all rebellious individuals who should at any time practically assert their rights to produce and exchange for themselves.” This is not true, and I think you would find it very hard to point to any article written by the Chicago Anarchists which would prove your assertion. But, on the contrary, if your readers will search in the back numbers of Liberty, they will find that Mr. Appleton (X) once put the same question to John Most and that the latter emphatically (with a big “Ja!”) answered that the individual will have the right to produce and exchange according to his taste. As a matter of fact, the main difference between the Chicago and Boston Anarchists seems to be this: The former based their theories on the collectivity, and never cared to say anything about the individual,— in fact, they ignored him,— while the latter, the Boston Anarchists, took the individual as the foundation of their teachings, and practically destroyed the right of the collectivity. “Society has no rights,” said Mr. Tucker in some issue of Liberty. In all the quotations from Kropotkine’s “Expropriation” I fail to find that he advocates expropriation of anything but the means of exploiting human beings. But that does not prove that he would deprive the individual laborer of his tools. M. Franklin. ...

[Link to media]

— Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis - The Police

 

at 3/30/25 8:52am

Author: Ferdinand Domela NieuwenhuisTitle: The PoliceDate: 1904Source: Retrieved on March 30, 2025 from https://sv.anarchistlibraries.net/library/ferdinand-domela-nieuwenhuis-polisen Besides the high lords of justice, who do the fine work, the existing society has at its disposal persons who have been commissioned to do the dirty work. These are called policemen. And it is remarkable that these persons, who themselves are disgusted with their work — which is best proved by the fact that they leave the police service as soon as they get a place with equal pay — do not belong to the possessing class, but to the working class. These, who do not own any property themselves, are the protectors of the sacred right of property — for others. Those, who themselves belong to the class of the robbed, protect the thieves, so that they may enjoy their plunder in peace. Out of service, in the hope of reward and promotion, they often behave in the most ruthless manner towards their brothers and classmates. Police discretion is the supreme law in our existing society, and the bourgeoisie has sunk very low, as it clings to the police force like a straw. The consequence of this has been that the police, whose violent acts win approval in the circles of the rulers, have become increasingly brutal and ruthless. The hero of the bourgeoisie is the helmeted policeman, on whom it relies in the hope that he will be able to keep the people down. The policeman is the brutal suppressor of rebellion and riots, he is the tracking dog, who must track down, discover and bring to justice the poor man who has been driven by hunger to steal a loaf of bread. Just as the poor see the policeman as their enemy, the rich see him as their friend, proof that here we are faced with a class institution, one of the many pillars of the class state. How brutally does the policeman behave towards the worker, how dare he mistreat him, knowing full well that he will not have to give an account for it? And how groveling, how submissive does he show himself towards the well-off? And yet the policeman has little reason to feel satisfied. Is he not paid, like other proletarians, in a manner that borders on the famine line! Are not the policemen recruited from the proletarian class, from the wage slaves, and are they not made to bear the burden of poverty just as well as other workers? But in spite of this, they stand on the side of the rich through thick and thin. The policeman is a henchman in prostitution, he is a mediator in the international trade in women’s flesh, which is carried on in our so-called civilized societies. He is the manufacturer’s faithful support in strikes and wage movements. Without bothering to investigate on whose side the law is, he always stands on the side of the employer against the workers. He is the hope of the rich, and they trustfully entrust him with the protection of their property. In other words: always for the possessors and against the poor. Who acts first against the workers if they have the idea of lightening their heavy burden a little? The police and the military. Who receive the workers with blows of the cane and sabre if they want to break their shackles? Again the police and the military. That they act on higher orders does not change the situation. When we are attacked in the street, we certainly do not ask whether the attackers act on their own initiative or on the orders of others. If you are killed, trampled and beaten and your opponent acts on their own initiative or on the orders of others, you may be quite indifferent. Some object: These people cannot be responsible, since they are only fulfilling their mission. They are, like everyone else, a product of circumstances. It is all well and good that they are a product of circumstances when they attack or kill us, but we are also a product of circumstances when we defend ourselves against attacks. Actually, the murderer who murders on the orders of others and often does not know why he murders is more despicable than the one who murders on his own initiative and can at least give reasons why he does this or that. “There are also decent policemen,” I hear another say. Talk! There are “decent” people even among the robbers. Among the largest robber gangs one meets such as Jay Gould, Vanderbilt, Rothschild, Morgan, etc. People are not decent because they can show off in fine society or be celebrated and praised by it. And for the victim it plays a very subordinate role whether he is beaten and abused by a “decent” bandit or a simpleton. A major newspaper once wrote with complete justice: “Just as there is a priestly spirit or a bourgeois spirit, there is also a police spirit. — Everyone who sets foot in a police station with the intention of seeking employment there is seized by it, even if he has not previously been animated by it.” And what does this police spirit consist of? Its chief characteristic is: Hatred of the poor. The police are evidently established to assure the rich a peaceful sleep. Their chief aim in social life is to protect the possessors from the possible desire of the non-possessors to appropriate something of what belongs to all. Consequently, the police must be the natural enemy of the poor. ...

[Link to media]

— The Catholic Worker - The Beliefs, Values, and Commitments of the L.A. Catholic Worker

 

at 3/30/25 8:47am

Author: The Catholic WorkerTitle: The Beliefs, Values, and Commitments of the L.A. Catholic WorkerDate: 2023Notes: The following statement of beliefs, values, and commitments from the June 2023 Catholic Agitator (newspaper of the L.A. Catholic Worker) offers another take on how different Catholic Worker communities frame what they do.Source: Retrieved on March 30, 2025 from https://catholicworker.org/the-beliefs-values-and-commitments-of-the-l-a-catholic-worker/ Beliefs and Values Eucharistic Spirituality · Mystical Body · Incarnation· Catholicism · Redemptive Suffering · Prayer · Reconciliation · Seamless Garment · Gospel · Beauty · Resistance · Prophetic Witness · Nonviolence · Pacifism · Biblical Anarchism · Radical Discipleship · Community · Celebration · Stewardship · Hospitality · Service · Work · Personalism Community Commitments Simple Living In partnership with each other, the Holy Spirit, and spiritual advisors, we commit to examining our material lifestyle and exploring ways in which we can more freely share our resources, rebel against decadence, and be free to nurture personal, ecological, and societal health and relationships. Resistance We commit to striving to exist in the world in a nurturing and nonviolent way, to examining ourselves and disarming ourselves, to study, relationship building, and preparation. We commit to learning from those directly experiencing injustice. We commit to seeking wisdom and counsel, to being “as wise as snakes and as harmless as doves,” and to naming and confronting accurately, with wisdom, in a spirit of humility, evil and injustice in ourselves and in our world. Community We commit to spending time together, supporting and assisting each other, listening, learning, and growing together. We commit to accountability and conflict resolution, and to offering and accepting forgiveness. We will constantly seek to compost the divisions and categories we develop for each other, and for everyone else we encounter, and to build new relationships that widen our experience and understanding of community. We commit to participating in the weekly and yearly cycle of events and activities within the community, living out our values together, to honoring our past, and being open to the future. Works of Mercy We commit to practicing the Works of Mercy as a core component of our life together. We also commit to discerning and addressing the root causes of injustice. We commit to encouraging each other and supporting each other in this work. Spirituality We commit to studying and understanding the Catholic-inspired spiritual roots of the Catholic Worker movement. We commit to exploring the tension of being a group borne of a particular faith perspective, and striving to be inclusive of those with a different or no faith identity. We commit to growing in understanding of how our spiritualities allow us to understand, critique, communicate, disrupt, and love. We commit to holding our faith traditions and institutions accountable to the values they espouse. We commit to the community value of holding prayer and liturgy together. We commit to our own mystical development, and to studying oppressed people’s theological teaching. Clarification of Thought “Workers should be scholars and scholars should be workers” (Peter Maurin). We commit to preparation, learning, and work, as seamless parts of one way of being. We commit to setting aside time for all of these activities, and seeking to find a balance among them. We commit to being responsible and informed to explain our actions to anyone who asks. We commit to finding creative and consistent ways to educate ourselves, respecting the old and the young. Personalism (Anarchism) We commit to both personal and communal accountability, to “growing a new society in the shell of the old” (Peter Maurin), to the golden rule, to anarchism, and to radical responsibility. We commit to personal and human-scale solutions and to rejecting anything that masks or deflects personal responsibility to help one’s neighbor and live out one’s values. We commit to growing all of our own food in agronomic universities. Accountability We commit to being accountable at the individual and community level to people we meet in our work, to each other, to volunteers, donors, and God. We commit to honesty and transparency, to regular communication, to conflict resolution (Matthew 18:15–17). Nonviolence We commit to resisting physical, verbal, psychological, and emotional violence in all of our relationships, in how we interact with those we try to serve, and with each other. All people have inherent inestimable value, as created by God, and this should be our guide for all of our relationships. We commit to refraining from activities that would result in more violence, and to noncooperation with violent systems, at the same time loving our enemy. We commit to learning if and how we are implicated in systemic violence, and to disarming. We commit to being discipled by the Sermon on the Mount. Celebration We commit to treasuring joy, seeking out beauty, celebrating with each other, sharing in happiness. We commit to honoring the events, abilities and achievements of those we know, celebrating the seasons and community landmarks, paying attention to the people around us and looking for reasons to celebrate, play, and create. Stewardship We commit to managing our resources with wisdom, taking care of the things entrusted to us for upkeep and distribution. We commit to acting in such a way that we are ready to give an account of the stewardship of these resources at any time to God, to those we seek to serve, and to those who gifted the resources.

[Link to media]

— Revoluciana - How to Distribute Radical Shit

 

at 3/30/25 8:43am

Author: RevolucianaTitle: How to Distribute Radical ShitSubtitle: Don’t Trust Your PrinterDate: 28 March 2025Source: Retrieved on 30 March 2025 from revoluciana.net Have you ever wondered why your printer is always out of yellow ink, even when you print only in black and white? There’s a reason why this always happens. Your printer is a homing beacon for law enforcement– even offline. OPSEC and why this matters Look, maybe you’re thinking I’m not best person to be posting on OPSEC (Operational Security). After all, I publicly post on my own website and on social media under the moniker Revoluciana and I don’t take any effort to hide my identity. I even have my picture up. I’m a likely target for other reasons, anyway. C’est la vie. I’m a lost cause. I’m simply trying to post what I can, for as long as I can, while it’s still legal and still possible. whatever That being said, while I won’t call myself an expert on the topic by any means, by the nature of my career history, I do have some experience with OPSEC. That being said, in theory, anything I’ve posted about, or plan to post about, is legal and fair game anyway, under the First Amendment in the US, where I live... in theory. Radical topics are, in theory, legal and fair game to discuss in the US. I may post radical shit, but even if I had specific plans to do crime, which I don’t, obviously I don’t, but if I did, I wouldn’t post about it– and neither should you. In other words, I do take OPSEC seriously, even for myself, and for my own threat-model. A bit of advice: don’t post your plans or intentions, even if they are legal. In theory, in the US, you have a right to talk about radical shit. You have a right to talk about all the things that I attempt to discuss in these posts. You even have a right to cheer for a criminal when they do something illegal. You do not have the right to incite people to a specific crime, such as a riot, for example. in theory In practice, many regimes around the world punish people for their words. In practice, the US is doing this, too. This has long been the case in the US to varying degrees at different times, but lately it’s escalating fast. People are being kidnapped by secret police as they walk down the street and they are being sent to concentration camps in foreign countries to be enslaved under brutal conditions. People are targeted for their words and for who they are as a member of various marginalized, persecuted groups. This is being done not only with the support of the current ruling regime in the US, but as a matter of policy. So. Be careful. However. Despite the risks, you still must do something. You still must resist in ways you can, especially while these avenues are still legal. Your printer is a dirty snitch Since the inception of the printing press, the distribution of radical literature, art, and agitprop, have been fundamental necessities to any resistance movement. Words, ideas, and information must flow. In the age of the internet, that is generally easy, except for the fact that everything you post, share, or message online has your digital fingerprint on it, which can be troublesome for a budding activist or revolutionary. There are things you can use to reduce this risk, but the risk is still there. It may have occurred to you that reverting to paper is a possibility: Posters Newsletters Underground newspapers Pamphlets Zines– are you familiar with zines? This wiki gives a good description, but doesn’t do justice to just how cool zines are, and their effect on 20th, and even 21st, century social and political movements. No worries, I want to discuss zines a bit more in the future. While your gut reaction may be to feel it’s a bit passé to think of paper as a medium for sharing radical art, info, messaging, and radical literature while we bask in the blue light of Al Gore’s information superhighway, you’ll notice that none of the things on this list have actually gone anywhere. You can walk around just about any city and find these things, especially if you know where to look. These are still common ways for underground sharing of info and radical materials. However, my understanding, though possibly flawed with regards to the timeline, is that ever since COINTELPRO, there has been a governmental push to make paper materials easier to trace, especially so that government leakers and whistleblowers are more easily caught. This resulted in a program which ultimately required companies that make printers and copy machines to create processes wherein any printed piece of paper is traceable back to its source, even when the materials are printed offline. How it works Typically, each time you print, your printer creates a series of dots all over your printed paper using only the yellow ink. They’re small and hard to spot with the naked eye, but they’re much easier to see with a black light. Example image, side by side close-up, witha and without black light — on revoluciana.net Every single time you click print, it does this. It’s why you’re always out of yellow ink, and it’s why your printer refuses to work even when you’re only printing in black and white. It’s a requirement for your printer to work. The Electronic Frontier Foundation used to publish a list of printers that they believed didn’t have tracking marker capability, but in 2017 they stopped doing so, believing all color printers actually do have the capability. ...

[Link to media]

— CrimethInc. - Survival

 

at 3/30/25 4:37am

Author: CrimethInc.Title: SurvivalSubtitle: A Story about Anarchists Enduring Mass RaidsDate: 2025-03-25Source: Retrieved on 2025-03-25 from https://crimethinc.com/2025/03/21/survival-a-story-about-anarchists-enduring-mass-raids Introduction In November 1919, United States President Woodrow Wilson launched mass raids against the entire anarchist movement in the United States. Police simultaneously arrested thousands of anarchists in many different parts of the country, shutting down their newspapers, organizations, and meeting halls. If similar raids were to take place today, they would occur in a technological landscape involving mass surveillance and targeted electronic attacks. Those who survive would also have to adopt different tools. Escape When the police battering ram hits his door at 4:11 am, Jake is in his boxers on the floor, playing an emulated sidescroller. The adrenaline hits and within seconds he has jammed his bedroom window open, sliding down into the backyard and off in a run, his socks instantly soaked in the grass. He hears shouting but doesn’t look back to check if there are pigs looking out his window or chasing him from the side of the house, he jumps the back fence more awkwardly than he imagined, getting a splinter deep in his left hand, but he ignores it and dashes over the roof of the neighbor’s shed, trying to remember every detail of the surrounding blocks. In what feels like an instant, he’s two blocks away, hiding behind some bushes as a squad car drives by. His breath sounds to him like the loudest thing in the world and his mind spins as he imagines a neighbor coming out behind him. He’s in nothing but boxers and muddy socks and his hand is dripping blood. Nothing happens. The squad car crawls down another block. Time to move. Vera is almost home from work, listening to music in her earphones, when she comes around a bend and sees the corner of a SWAT van outside her punk house. She pivots immediately down another street, casually continuing her walk while pulling out her phone, she knows she should immediately turn it off but first she texts a group chat “House being raided” and then turns it off. Maybe that warning will help someone. Many phone batteries remain active even when the device is off, she knows; right now, some lazy junior officer could be noticing the GPS or her network connection triangulating her as she moves away. Should she throw it? Should she abruptly stomp on her phone out here on the street? There’s a drainage vent coming up, she could toss it in and keep walking. Vera hesitates. Her phone is “encrypted,” but against everyone’s advice she uses a short password. If they dig it out of the drain… she doesn’t know how to pry out the SD card, stomping on the whole device might draw attention and not even destroy the main memory… time is of the essence, so she makes a hard choice quickly and just tosses the whole thing in the drain. She’s just a normal person on a walk. As she keeps walking away, Vera hears a car rolling up behind her slowly, it takes every ounce of willpower to keep walking normally, not to look back in terror. Maybe she should? Maybe she should just run for it? The car parks behind her and there are sounds of a mom unloading young kids. She’s not being followed. Where to now? Julie and Maggie sit at their dining room table, struggling not to reflect panic at each other. Only one news outlet is even reporting the nationwide raids and there’s almost nothing there. Messages saying “Leave and then delete this group chat” keep popping up for both of them. Little spatters of reports on raids and then silence; a friend who is always too frantic is spamming everyone asking for updates, then suddenly she’s silent. There’s an hour of nothing. They trade terse updates with a friend who lives far away. Someone local suddenly appears online, but only to post a meme in a dead channel and then disappear. The same music plays on the same radio stations. The wind blows through the trees. A cousin asks for advice with a preschool situation, totally oblivious. The local news does a puff piece about a local business. The neighbors get a pizza delivery. “They’re probably not going to come for us. We haven’t done anything.” Their confused dog is whining with shared nerves. Maggie keeps eyeing the go-bag by the door they packed together months ago. That afternoon, Julie had made a show of being a good sport, humoring her need to prep; now all Maggie can think about is everything they’re missing. Julie’s passport has just expired. Can they get across the border? If only they had done a dry run. They take the dog out on a walk, leaving all devices home, whispering potential plans to one another, trying not to draw attention as a jogger passes them by. When they get home, there’s a private message on Instagram from a friend saying they’re putting together a legal defense committee, first meeting will be public, at a public park, they’re inviting some local liberal journalists as shields. Someone at the local alt-weekly says she’s writing a story. There’s a lawyer coming from a big-name liberal thing. The internet keeps being really slow. Signal doesn’t deliver messages and then suddenly delivers three all at once. Loading a lot of websites just returns errors. They’re so sleep-deprived with stress that when they finally crash together on the couch, they sleep right through the defense committee meeting. A friend knocks loudly on their door and they nearly die of heart attacks, assuming it’s the cops. His report back is terse: almost no journalists showed. Most of the folks who went have been grabbed. One was driven down off her bike on her way home. An old liberal lawyer went to the county jail with a court order and the cops just laughed and arrested her. He’s going underground and suggests they do too. ...

[Link to media]

— Lysander Spooner - A Letter to Scientists and Inventors

 

at 3/29/25 10:27am

Author: Lysander SpoonerTitle: A Letter to Scientists and InventorsSubtitle: on the Science of Justice, and their Right of Perpetual Property in their Discoveries and InventionsDate: 1884Notes: First edition printed in July, 1884.Source: Retrieved on March 29, 2023 from https://oll.libertyfund.org I. To Scientists and Inventors: You are the great producers and diffusers of knowledge and wealth. Your scientific discoveries and mechanical inventions are the great, almost the only, instrumentalities by which the world at large is enlightened or enriched. You, Scientists, explore Nature for her facts and laws, which, violated through ignorance or design, bring upon mankind want, disease, misery, and death; but which, known and accepted as guides, bring to them not only great material wealth, but also life, health, and strength of both body and mind. And you, Inventors, devise and explain to us the application of mechanical forces, by which men’s powers of providing for, and satisfying, their wants and desires, are multiplied a thousand, ten thousand, a hundred thousand fold. Your discoveries and inventions, the value of which no man can measure, are not, like our material wealth, consumed, or worn out, by use, nor do they decay by time. They are not, like our material wealth, local and limited in their nature; but each and all of them can be diffused all over the globe, and be utilized by all peoples, not only without conflict, but with mutual and universal benefit. For the want of your discoveries and inventions, mankind, through many thousands of years, have remained savage, barbarous, or, if in any degree civilized, still poverty-stricken, short-lived, feeble, ignorant, superstitious, enslaved in both body and mind. And such is the condition of more than a thousand millions of the world’s people to-day. And such it will remain for thousands of years to come, unless they can have the benefit of such discoveries and inventions as you are making, and offering to them; and such as they would accept and utilize, if their governments did not deprive them of all power to do so. In spite of all the obstacles which these governments have constantly placed in their way, these discoveries and inventions have, of late years, and in some portions of the world, made progress. And nobody knows so well as yourselves, how much greater this progress would be, if all men of scientific and inventive minds, all over the world, had all the inducements and means that they might have, and ought to have, for prosecuting their investigations and experiments. Your own rights and interests, and the rights and interests of mankind at large, are identical in this matter. It is your own right, and for your own interest, that you should have all the inducements and means that you honestly can have, for prosecuting your investigations and experiments, and producing all the discoveries and inventions that you are capable of. It is also the right, and for the interests, of mankind at large, that you should have all those inducements and means, because it is only through the greatest number of discoveries and inventions, that mankind are to be most highly enlightened and enriched. What, then, are these inducements and means, which you need, and have a right to, and which it is the right, and for the interests, of mankind at large, that you should have? They are these: 1. The same right of perpetual property in the products of your brains, that all other men are justly entitled to have in the products of their hands. 2. The same protection, by both civil and criminal law, for the products of your brain labor, that other men are justly entitled to have for the products of their hand labor. 3. The same right of perpetual property in your discoveries and inventions, in all the other countries of the world, as in your own. 4. It is the right, and for the interests, of all past discoverers and inventors, and of their heirs, to recover their natural right of perpetual property in their discoveries and inventions, which has hitherto been denied or withheld by the ignorant and tyrannical governments that have heretofore existed, and now exist, in the world. 5. It is also the right, and for the interests, of mankind at large, that the right of perpetual property, in their discoveries and inventions, should be restored to all past discoverers and inventors, and to their heirs, so far as they can now be ascertained. 6. It is your right to have all the money you need, and honestly can have—that is, all the money that freedom in banking would give you—not only for making your discoveries and inventions, but also for carrying them all over the world, and putting them into actual operation. 7. It is your right, and for your interests, as well as their own, that all mankind, all over the world, should have all the money they need, and honestly can have—that is, all the money that freedom in banking would give them—to enable them to utilize your discoveries and inventions as fast as they are made, and to distribute to consumers all the wealth that your discoveries and inventions will enable them to create. How are all these propositions to be realized? In other words, how are they all to be established as law, in all the different countries of the world? ...

[Link to media]

— Gerrard Winstanley - To all rational and meek-spirited readers, who are men most fit to judge

 

at 3/29/25 7:26am

Author: Gerrard WinstanleyTitle: To all rational and meek-spirited readers, who are men most fit to judgeDate: 1649Source: WINSTANLEY: THE LAW OF FREEDOM AND OTHER WRITINGS, Edited with an Introduction by Christopher Hill (1973) Friends, I do not write this epistle to set up myself, as if there were something more in me than other men; I tell you plain, I have nothing but what I do receive from a free discovery within, therefore I write it to set forth the spirit's honour, and to cast a word of comfort into a broken and empty heart. Sometimes my heart hath been full of deadness and uncomfortableness, wading like a man in the dark and slabby[1] weather; and within a little time I have been filled with such peace, light, life and fulness, that if I had had two pair of hands, I had matter enough revealed to have kept them writing a long time; and such matter as hath been my own experience in by-past or present time, which hath filled my heart with abundance of sweet joy and rest. Then I took the opportunity of the spirit and writ, and the power of self at such over-flowing times was so prevalent in me, that I forsook my ordinary food whole days together; and if my household-friends would persuade me to come to meat, I have been forced with that inward fulness of the power of life to rise up from the table and leave them to God, to write. Thus I have been called in from my ordinary labour, and the society of friends sometimes hath been a burden to me, and best I was when I was alone. I was so filled with that love and delight in the life within that I have sat writing whole winter days from morning till night and the cold never offended me, though when I have risen I was so stark with cold that I was forced to rise by degrees and hold by the table, till strength and heat came into my legs, forced me to rise. The joy of that sweet anointing was so precious and satisfactory within my spirit that I could truly say, O that I had a tabernacle builded here, that I might never know or seek any other frame of spirit! But within some time my heart hath been shut up again, and then I have laid aside my pen, and could not for chillness sit in the cold as I did, if it had been for never so great advantage, so that my flesh was willing to be at ease. And sometimes by reason of the great opposition I have met with in the world, because of the words I have spoke or writ, the fear and trouble within me hath said, I will never write nor speak more in these matters of my inward life; for since I began to write or speak the light that is in me, I am the more hated, therefore I will lie still'; this purpose hath continued a little time. But then hath the power of that overflowing anointing taken hold upon me, and I have been made another man immediately, and my heart hath been opened, as if a man should open a door and carry a light[ed] candle into a dark room; and the power of love, joy, peace and life hath so over-powered me, that I could not forbear, but must speak and go write again. And when I obeyed, I had quiet rest; and when I neglected any opportunity, and did not empty myself either by words or writing but kept the light to myself, I was troubled afterwards for it. And though I have set myself to study to fetch back to mind those things I neglected, it was as difficult for me to do as to carry a steeple upon my back, I was so dead and my spirit so unhandy in the business. But by such experiences I learned to wait upon the spirit, and to deliver that to the creation which he revealed in me; and I have a settled peace by that obedience. And therefore though some have said I had done well if I had left writing when I had finished The Saints' Paradice: surely such men know little of the spirit's inward workings; and truly what I have writ since or before that time, I was carried forth in the work by the same power, delivering it to others as I received it, and I received it not from books nor study. And all that I have writ concerning the matter of digging, I never read it in any book, nor received it from any mouth; though since the light was given me, I have met with divers to whom the same light of truth is revealed; but never heard any speak of it before I saw the light of it rise up within myself: and I was restless in my spirit till I had delivered all abroad that which was declared within me. And now I have peace. Thus I have given you account, where I had what I have writ. I received it not from man, but from the light of life rising up within me: therefore I shall leave my writings in all your hands; read and judge; and give the spirit of righteousness the glory, whom I strive to advance, and cast what dirt you will upon my particular flesh; and so farewell. Decemb. 20th 1649. Resting in peace, being one branch of mankind. Gerrard Winstanley. [1] Slushy.

[Link to media]

— Spencer Beswick - From the Ashes of the Old

 

at 3/28/25 11:50pm

Author: Spencer BeswickTitle: From the Ashes of the OldSubtitle: Anarchism Reborn in a Counterrevolutionary Age (1970s-1990s)Date: 2022Notes: Author website: <emptyhandshistory.com>Source: Anarchist Studies (London), Vol. 30, Iss. 2, (2022): 31–54. ISSN 2633 8270. <doi.org/10.3898/AS.30.2.02> Abstract After almost a century of Marxist predominance, how did anarchism develop from a marginal phenomenon into a force at the centre of the anti-globalisation movement? This article explores how anarchism was reborn in a counterrevolutionary age. Part one investigates how the New Right’s post-1960s counterrevolution defeated the New Left and remade US society, including by recuperating potentially liberatory elements of social movements. Part two examines how a new generation of radicals critiqued the failures of Marxism-Leninism and popularised the anarchist analysis and principles that provided the foundation for the anti-globalisation movement. The article discusses five examples of the development of anarchist theory and practice: Black/New Afrikan Anarchism, anarcha-feminism, eco-anarchism, punk anarchism, and revolutionary social anarchism. Ultimately, the article argues that anarchism was revitalised in the late twentieth century because it provided compelling answers to the new problems posed by the neoliberal counterrevolution and the crisis of state socialism. Keywords: Anarchism, counterrevolution, Marxism, neoliberalism   Anarchism exploded into public view in the 1999 Battle of Seattle. While the media focused on the spectacle of the black bloc smashing windows, they largely overlooked the role of anarchism behind the scenes where activists organised themselves in affinity groups and made decisions by consensus. Although self-identified anarchists remained a minority within it, the anti-globalisation movement became known for its embrace of ‘common sense’ anarchist values and practices.[1] Large segments of the movement operated along anarchist principles: decentralisation, horizontal organisational structures, militant street demonstrations, rejection of the state and capitalism, and advocacy of both individual freedom and worker control of production. After almost a century of Marxist predominance, how did anarchism develop from a marginal phenomenon into a force at the centre of the anti-globalisation movement? This article explores the subterranean development of American anarchism in the late twentieth century. As a reactionary counterrevolution remade society, the New Left was decimated by violent repression, and the Soviet Union collapsed, many on the radical left re-evaluated the politics of the 1960s-1970s. A new generation of radicals – together with many ’60s veterans – critiqued the failures of Marxism-Leninism and grappled with fundamental changes in social, political, and economic life. As the ruling class embraced neoliberalism and repressive law and order politics, much of the left turned away from both party building and an orientation towards capturing state power. Their analysis of social changes and the failures of state socialism led many militants to reject the state, and the late twentieth century was marked by a spread of anarchist politics throughout the radical left. Part one of this article analyses the right-wing counterrevolution that defeated the radical currents of the ‘long 1960s’. Drawing on Corey Robin and Paulo Virno’s theories of conservatism and counterrevolution, I argue that we cannot see the New Right counterrevolution as a simple return to the past, but rather as the creation of a new social order that recuperated warped elements of the radicalism to which it reacted. In the United States, this took the form of neoliberal economics, masculine individualism articulated alongside a moral defence of the nuclear family, recuperation of elements of the feminist and civil rights movements, and a repressive law and order politics that embraced mass incarceration as a ‘fix’ for both the radical left and the economic crisis. In part two, I explore the evolution of the radical left in this period in order to understand the growing shift from Marxist to anarchist common sense. After analysing the defeat of the Marxist-Leninist and national liberation movements of the long 1960s, I discuss five examples of the revitalisation of anarchism and its underground development in a variety of movement spaces: the birth of Black/ New Afrikan Anarchism from imprisoned ex-Black Panthers; the rise of anarcha-feminism in the women’s liberation movement; the growth of eco-anarchism; the role of punk in popularising anarchism; and the foundation of nation-wide revolutionary social anarchist organisations like Love and Rage. Through these five cases – each of which warrants an extended treatment beyond this article’s scope – I analyse a shift in the radical left towards an anarchistic politics which decentres and disavows the state in favour of grassroots dual power, direct self-determination, mutual aid, and non-hierarchical organisation. This reorientation can only be understood by situating it in the context of the broad historical transformations of the post-1960s counterrevolution. I ultimately argue that anarchism was revitalised in the late twentieth century because it provided compelling, non-state-oriented answers to the new problems posed by the counterrevolution and the crisis of state socialism. ...

[Link to media]

— L’Espagne Nouvelle - Durruti on the militarisation decree

 

at 3/28/25 11:16am

Author: L’Espagne NouvelleTitle: Durruti on the militarisation decreeDate: November 1936Notes: Published in L’Espagne Nouvelle. Translated by Chuck Morse.Source: Durruti in the Spanish Revolution by Abel Paz. Forced to choose between submitting to the new law or laying down their arms and leaving the militias, most of the fighters will refuse to do either. They believe that either option would be destructive to the revolution that they intend to carry forward, regardless of the orders received. But it’s a blow to the militiamen’s fighting spirit. The Durruti Column decided to feign ignorance of the new regulations, although it did institute some of their positive aspects and, by doing so, protected itself from charges of indiscipline. This demonstrates Durruti’s personal realism as well as his moral influence on the men in his Column and the country. His peasant slyness is evident in his obstinate and astute responses to our questions: “Is it true that they’re going to reestablish the old army Military Code and hierarchy of command in the militias?” “No! That’s not how things are. Some conscripts have been mobilized and the single command has been instituted. The discipline necessary for street battles wasn’t enough for a long and hard military campaign against a well-equipped, modern army. We had to overcome that deficiency.” “What does the re-enforcement of discipline mean exactly?” “Up to now, we had a large number of units, each with their own leaders and forces (which varied radically from one day to the next), with their own armory, transport, supply, a distinct policy toward rearguard inhabitants, and often a very unique way of seeing the war. That had to stop. Some corrections have been made and surely others will follow.” “But the ranks, military salutes, punishments, and rewards?” “We don’t need any of that. Here we are anarchists.” “Hasn’t a recent decree from Madrid put the old Military Code of Justice into effect?” “Yes, and the government’s decision has had a deplorable effect. They have absolutely no sense of reality. The spirit of that decree totally contradicts the sentiment among the militiamen. We’re very conciliatory, but we know that those two ways of approaching the struggle can’t coexist.” “If the war is prolonged, do you think that militarism could stabilize itself and put the revolution in danger?” “Well, that’s exactly why we have to win the war as soon as possible!” With this reply, comrade Durruti smiles at us and we shake hands.

[Link to media]

— Benjamin Tucker - Liberty Vol. V. No. 10.

 

at 3/28/25 9:20am

Author: Benjamin TuckerTitle: Liberty Vol. V. No. 10.Subtitle: Not the Daughter but the Mother of OrderDate: December 17, 1887Notes: Whole No. 114. — Many thanks to www.readliberty.org for the readily-available transcription and www.libertarian-labyrinth.org for the original scans.Source: Retrieved on March 27, 2023 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’s “Standard” agrees with an opponent that “there can be no natural property value in land not created by labor,” and says: “Therefore we propose to tax away that legal property value in land which is not created by labor.” It would seem more natural, more simple, more direct to do away with this legal value by abolishing the law. That is what the Anarchists propose. At the next meeting of the Anarchists’ Club, to be held in Codman Hall, 176 Tremont Street, Sunday afternoon, December 18, at half past two o’clock, the principal address will be delivered by E. B. McKenzie on “The Sovereignty of the Individual.” The success of the Club continues. Its audiences are larger than those drawn by any other labor organization holding regular public meetings in Boston. It is a common thing to see references, both in the capitalistic and the labor press, to one individual or another as “the arch-Anarchist.” Such a term shows how little the writer knows of the meaning of Anarchy. It never could have occurred to him that the affirmative arch before the hyphen is precisely the same arch to which, after the hyphen, a negative form is given by the privative an. There is no more sense in the term arch-Anarchist than in the term theistic-Atheist. By the kindness of generous friends a special edition of ten thousand copies of this issue of Liberty is printed and will be distributed broadcast over the United States. Two extra copies are mailed to each subscriber, and it is hoped that these will be given to interested truth-seekers. Whoever obtains a copy of the special edition is requested to notice that it is printed on cheap news paper. The regular edition furnished to subscribers is always printed on an excellent quality of book paper. “The little child that is familiar with the Christian Catechism is really more enlightened on truths that should come home to every rational mind than the most profound philosophers of Pagan antiquity, or even of the so-called philosophers of our own times. He has mastered the great problem of life. He knows his origin, his sublime destiny, and the means of attaining it.” This utterance is not from “Puck,” but from an article by that gifted amateur humorist, Cardinal Gibbons, in the “North American Review.” The sermon of Rev. John C. Kimball of Hartford, one of the leading lights of the Unitarian denomination, is so conspicuous and honorable an exception to the fiendish utterances of almost the entire body of his fellow-clergymen of all sects in regard to the hanging of our Chicago comrades that I surrender a very large portion of my space to the publication in this issue of the text as originally delivered. It was nearly all in type before I knew that the author had revised and added to his discourse and published it in pamphlet form, together with an account of the persecution which his bravery has brought upon him (unparalleled since anti-slavery days), his address in his defence, and his triumph over his adversaries. I can best make amends for the inadequacy of this report by recommending every one of the thousands of people in whose hands this issue will be placed to send to Rev. John C. Kimball, Hartford, Conn., for one or more copies of the pamphlet. The price is but ten cents, and the discourse with its history is worth for preservation or for distribution many times that sum. As an exposition of Anarchism the sermon is in many respects far from reliable, but as a rebuke of the prevailing attitude towards new and revolutionary thought in such marked contrast with the treatment that it deserves it has not been surpassed for many a day. Taking his cue from the English Personal Rights Association, which exists to secure the exercise of individual liberty, T. B. Wakeman, in the “Freethinkers’ Magazine,” advocates the formation of a similar society in this country, enumerating among the objects to which it might well devote itself the handing-over of the railroads, telegraphs, and many other things to the State and the passage of liquor laws as stringent as the laws governing the sale of poisons. If the use to which Mr. Wakeman is putting their example were to be brought to the notice of the officers of the English society,— say Auberon Herbert or Peter Taylor or Jacob Bright,— I fancy that the next “personal right” they would set about vindicating would be the right not to be misrepresented. The “Anti-Monopolist,” published at Enterprise, Kansas, declares that, “of the twenty-two prominent anti-monopoly papers in Kansas, twenty sustain the Henry George land value tax, one opposes it slightly, and the other admits it has never studied the question and is not ready to take sides until it has done so.” Does the “Anti-Monopolist” mean to say that “Lucifer” is not prominent, or that there are twenty-two anti-monopoly papers in Kansas more prominent than “Lucifer,” or that “Lucifer” is not an anti-monopoly paper, or that it is not published in Kansas, or that it sustains the land value tax, or that it opposes it slightly, or that it admits it has never studied the question? The “Anti-Monopolist’s” statement seems to necessarily involve some one of these things as a corollary, and yet I had supposed them all to be false. ...

[Link to media]

— E. H. Heywood - The Labor Party

 

at 3/28/25 8:41am

Author: E. H. HeywoodTitle: The Labor PartySubtitle: An address delivered before the Labor Reform League, of Worcester, Mass., at its first public meeting, in Horticultural Hall, Monday evening, Jan. 20, 1868Date: 1868Source: Retrieved on March 28, 2025 from https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/008896519 MR. PRESIDENT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN :— Having met to initiate organized effort in behalf of labor reform, it is proper to explain the reasons which induce our action, and the objects we aim to accomplish. Not intending, therefore, to use the phrase which embodies my speech, so much in a political sense, as a convenient means to fix attention upon the interesting truths which inspire this movement, I shall occupy the hour you kindly loan me, with an address on the labor party, its principles, its members, and its methods.—what we want, whom it concerns, and how to get it. I shall assume, at the outset of the discussion, what no one will deny, that labor is entitled to its earnings; and that it is the duty, both of individuals and society, obeying a divine admonition, to render unto all men and women according to their works. Let us also bear in mind that class rule, the centralizing of political or financial power in the hands of few, to the injury of the many, is wrong; and that law, like religion, should cover with the shield of its protection the whole people, especially defenceless workers. It is the violation of these simple, self-evident truths, which provokes the widespread, profound, and ominous agitation, called the labor movement. To attribute it to the eight-hour impudence of trades unions, or the harangues of vagabond lecturers, is no adequate explanation of the phenomena. As well say that astronomers cause an eclipse, or geologists are responsible for earthquakes. Labor reform does not fall from the sky. or spring out of the ground; it comes out of violated rights and interests, out of an almost universal dissatisfaction, of the producing classes, with the hard lot, which legislation and custom, have assigned them. When service, the chief if not the only virtue which comes out of man, is in such disrepute, that a majority of laborers, in all nations, are poor enough to be ranked as “the lower classes,” while the fortunate possessors of others’ earnings rank as “upper classes” in society, it is Yankee-like, at least to guess, that society is wrong side up, and needs to be turned over. An old fable says that giants are under Vesuvius, who, by turning over, shake the mountain in volcanic action. So these lower classes, the giant underlings, beneath the social volcano, called “good society,” by their tossing and turning startle the upperlings, and forebode eruptions of hot wrath, unless reason is listened to. Some think capitalists came from the head of the Creator and laborers from his feet; that the degradation of the masses is necessary, the result of idleness, incapacity, vice. But who say so? It is dainty “believers,” who in silks and broadcloth, behind a sleek span, ride in gorgeous splendor to church, in the name of Jesus, who went barefoot—it is the congressman who votes himself $5000, for working four hours at Washington, and makes $100,000 yearly by driving his operatives twelve hours a day on stinted wages at home—it is the banker, who, from the midst of accumulated millions he never earned, writes tracts to show that a national debt is a “national blessing”—it is the merchant, who piles high his fortune, while the girls and women who made the fabrics he sells, in factories, in garrets, in cellars, toil ten, twelve, fifteen, eighteen hours a day, to maintain even a wretched existence. Nothing so reveals the impiety of the privileged classes, as that they can rest easy, can behold the injustice of society, without impatience to correct it. In this goodly land, abounding with natural resources, multitudes, anxious to work, are actually suffering for food, fuel and clothing. Surely it is not ordained by the Equal Father of all, who is not willing any should perish, nor approved by human nature, everywhere yearning to better its conditions. It is therefore not a “necessity” to be acquiesced in, but a crime to be denounced. And since there cannot be an effect without a cause, nor a sin without a sinner, be it our duty to track the evil to its source, and arraign the guilty actors and customs at the bar of an aroused public opinion. But the theory of natural idleness is not sustained by facts. Life itself is lively. If you want an example of perpetual motion, look at the activity of a healthy child, so incessantly in striving to do something, that all a mother’s wits cannot direct and control its energies. A dozen boys come to my door to shovel away the snow where I can give one the job. A girl under twelve years often does the work of a whole family, is wife, mother, daughter, sister, all in one, to help a hard-working father. It is a cruel falsehood to say she prefers vice to working for a living. Society asks “where did she get her clothes?” Where did the rose get its sweetness, the lily its beauty, gold its fineness? Think how many times the old dress has been turned, inside out and upside down, before it floats along the street, informed with such exquisite grace that handsome men look ugly in comparison! It is not Miss Hosmer, or Miss Stebbins, or Vina Ream, who has achieved most, among women, in American art; it is the working girl whose skilled labor makes a new dress out of an old one. Idle! she is the only person yet found, who can work for nothing and find herself. ...

[Link to media]

— Pedro Morais, Peter Gelderloos, other participants - ‘The Temple Was Built Before the City’

 

at 3/27/25 5:51am

Author: Pedro Morais, Peter Gelderloos, other participantsTitle: ‘The Temple Was Built Before the City’Date: 2021Notes: This edition to supplement Return Fire vol.6 chap.7 & 8 (winter 2024–2025) PDFs of this & all other Return Fire magazines & supplements can be read, downloaded & printed from returnfire.noblogs.org Note from Return Fire: What follows is a transcription from a recording (contributed to us recently by a correspondent) made in the summer of 2021, in Setúbal, Portugal. The event in question celebrated the release of Contra o Leviatã, Contra a Sua História, the Portuguese edition of Against His-story, Against Leviathan! by Fredy Perlman (translated by Pedro Morais, and put out by Livros Flauta de Luz), first published in 1983. Fredy has been enormously important to the anarchism of the last half-century in many circles. Based on his experience on two continents in the revolutionary upheavals of the year 1968, he – while obviously not he alone – simultaneously beat a path away from the leftism he saw hamstringing revolt, while also rooting the struggle in a legacy reaching much further back than the stated anarchisms of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin or the other (male) figureheads of the 19th Century. But it was from the Left that he came; a reminder, if ever there was one, to not write off grassroots and critical participants in those spaces, where we may yet find comrades willing to betray their leaders and their dreams to capture the helm of the State, which (following English philosopher and State-worshiper of the 17th Century, Thomas Hobbes) Fredy’s book terms Leviathan. While also credited with his part in the rise (or return) of anti-civilisational ideas in the anarchist space – as was another former communist to live through 1968, Jacques Camatte, who Fredy translated and published – Fredy was perhaps alone among those anti-civilisation theorists coming out of (and vocally rejecting) the ideology of Karl Marx, in that Fredy arguably also shed Marx’s historical determinism that still infected anarcho-primitivism for example (including as regards the origin of the State, as mentioned in the talk below). At the event in Setúbal, where it was presented by the translator, Pedro, this subject was later brought into conversation with a contemporary anarchist treatise on State-formation – Worshiping Power, a 2017 book by Peter Gelderloos – with another presentation by that author, promoting while also updating the work laid down by Fredy in a generation past. We are truly grateful to the correspondent who passed this recording on, and to be able to release it now in text form, as Fredy in general and Against His-story, Against Leviathan! in particular were major planks lent on when writing the forthcoming book Instigations which will mark the end of the Return Fire project, and so was Peter, as part of the full range of intellectual inheritors of Fredy’s projects. Without giving too much away before the torturous editing for length is complete, one theme that comes up is the rich metaphorical and allegorical language and literary devices mobilised in Against His-Story, Against Leviathan!, and the ways in which this sometimes must be qualified (as Peter mentions below) in light of research that Fredy didn’t have access to in his day or that arguably occasionally points in different directions than Against His-story, Against Leviathan! suggests at times, while mostly of only tangental importance (although the book’s unfortunate gender essentialism cannot escape mention here). This is a point made (and perhaps over-made) in the hostile thesis of Mark Huba, The Other Shore: On politics and ‘spirit’ in Fredy Perlman’s Against His- story, Against Leviathan ; yet as even that work acknowledges, and oft-overlooked element of Fredy’s book is the way in which it is simultaneously a veiled account of his own life and experiences. Hence, while also ironically faithful to the so-called historical record (bar some inevitable exceptions), the mythology of the book allows Fredy to filter his the experiences of 1968 and Camatte’s critique of the organisation through Christian heretics of the Middle Ages, or the increasing awareness of his day to the industrial despoliation of the planet through Zoroastrian religious dualism, and so on, and must sometimes be read in this unstated light. But this will be elaborated elsewhere; as will the torch left to us by Fredy, to bring that style of mythologising to present struggles in a more explicit way, extending Fredy’s non-deterministic re-enchantment of the past up to today (or at least until 2020, when Instigations was capped). In this light, while we are convinced that Against His- story, Against Leviathan! doesn’t need the more qualified, technical explanation furnished by those like Peter (yet also here in a more conversational and informal format than on his written page) in order to greatly nourish our struggles, it is a brilliant embellishment and extension of it none-the-less, and we were delighted to have this opportunity to compile the two complimentary approaches in one release. The audio used as the source here is not from a sterile conference in an auditorium. Rather the background teems with signs of life; motorbikes revving, children and dogs playing. Hence the transcript is, unavoidably, imperfect. Any discrepancies therefore are our own. We have also removed some repetition and minimally smoothed the flow of some speakers’ contributions for the benefit of English-language readers (to the best of our ability, without changing the tone or sentiment in which they seemed delivered) . Additional material on a theme key to supposed justification for the State’s dominance, sign-posted in the footnotes for its relevance, has been added by us as an appendix, also hostile to those who would monopolise the telling of (his-)stories in our lives. ...

[Link to media]

— Johann Most - On the heretic — trial against Most

 

at 3/26/25 7:41pm

Author: Johann MostTitle: On the heretic — trial against MostDate: 1878Notes: In January 1878, Most was tried for “blasphemy” and “insulting the entire clergy.”Source: Retrieved on March 26, 2025 from https://www.anarchismus.at/anarchistische-klassiker/johann-most/22-zum-ketzer-prozess-wider-most-1878 (Defense speech of the defendant) Gentlemen! If one has read the pompous announcements in the official newspapers of the time when this trial was brought, one will certainly be very astonished today to realize that almost nothing of the expected evidence, after such a fuss, has been produced. And of the little that the prosecutor had in store for me, he had no choice but to drop a large portion without further ado. One can certainly say: The mountains circled, and they gave birth to a tiny and, to top it all, lame little mouse. The prosecutor retreated before the fighting could begin and therefore seems to have considered it advisable to hide behind strange entrenchments. He talked about the “Berliner Freie Presse,” Vera Zassulitsch, assassinations, “Madam President” Stägemann or Hahn, Trepoff, revolvers, and all sorts of things that have absolutely nothing to do with the prosecution. Therefore, it doesn’t even occur to me to criticize these phrases or to bore you further with them. The prosecutor’s comment regarding an omission in the “Berliner Freie Presse” about the 6th and 7th deputations of the local city court seems, incidentally, to have had only the purpose of turning the court against me; but I am convinced that this beginning hasn’t received the slightest attention, and I could now move on to the actual matter, were it not for a statement by the prosecutor, which, although not directly related to the trial, nevertheless cannot be left unanswered, prompted several comments. The Public Prosecutor considered it appropriate to explain that the Socialists had not submitted a motion to discontinue the criminal proceedings in the Reichstag only because such a motion would have clearly had no prospect of being accepted and, given the prevailing “general indignation,” would have led to very unpleasant discussions. This is, after all, a claim made entirely out of the blue. As reported in the newspapers, I in fact only initiated the process of not submitting such a motion because I was and am firmly convinced that this trial would fail, and because I wish this to become clear as soon as possible. Had the Reichstag been requested to discontinue the criminal proceedings, it would not have caused the slightest offense. For whatever one may think of the Reichstag, it must be stated that it is composed of educated men. And educated people judge such heresy trials quite differently than the Public Prosecutor. As for the “general indignation” that is said to have prevailed in the widest circles over my speech regarding leaving the State Church, I must note that I am unaware of any such thing. On the contrary! The liberal press, which otherwise truly has a negative opinion of Social Democracy and me personally, has almost without exception felt compelled to declare the initiation of this process highly miraculous and unnecessary, and to castigate the intellectual authors of my contract, the “court demagogues.” Indeed, even more so! Even snobby newspapers, such as the “Reichsbote” and others, have expressed their astonishment at my persecution. They felt that such procedures could not serve the cause they represent. If any indignation about this affair had taken root anywhere, it was directed, on the one hand, against my persecutors; on the other hand, to the extent that it was truly directed at me, it was found at most in a very small circle of orthodox zealots. Before I move on to the specific points of the accusations made against me, I must, for better or worse, address the genesis of my speech, albeit only very briefly. Several court chaplains in Berlin, in association with some other not particularly well-reputed individuals, formed a Christian-Social Workers’ “Party” and brought Christianity into public assemblies. They declared their intention to take the solution to the social question into their own hands, praised the Christian faith as a universal panacea, and demanded the trust of the workers. In doing so, they exposed Christianity and the clergy to criticism, indeed provoked it. And my incriminating speech and the entire agitation for withdrawal from the State Church constituted the response to this worker entrapment. From this it is already clear that the point of the second part of my speech was directed primarily against the Christian-Social agitators, who as such, even if they were clergymen, were undoubtedly not in the exercise of their profession, and that therefore the Supreme Church Council was not authorized to file a criminal complaint. With regard to the alleged insults against religious communities, I am of the opinion that the testimony has proven my innocence in every respect. The word “disgusting” was an invention of the reporter of the “Reichsboten” and was subsequently retracted by him. All witnesses confirmed that I did not say of religious systems that they were “laughed at” by many, even though they had not yet left the Church, but that I remarked that they were “ignored” by them. And although one of four witnesses claims not to have heard me say that anyone who considers religious systems from the standpoint of common sense is “inspired to skepticism,” whereas he, in line with the prosecution, claims that I had said that religious systems must, under such a premise, “disgust” everyone, I nevertheless believe that on this point, too, the evidence has sufficiently demonstrated the untenability of the latter interpretation. The public prosecutor, however, expressed the opinion that the word “skepticism” could not have appeared in my speech because, apparently, of the approximately 3,000 people present at the meeting in question, not five would have understood such a word. But with this, the prosecutor has only demonstrated that he has highly peculiar ideas about Social Democratic assemblies. Were he to personally observe such gatherings from time to time, he would certainly come to a completely different opinion in this regard, as with regard to Social Democracy in general, than the one he has expressed so far. Social Democratic assemblies are not made up of savages or rude hordes, but are notoriously composed of highly decent people. The socialist worldview has penetrated virtually all social circles, and the labor movement has raised even the simplest proletarians who have joined it to a level of education that is truly no less than that of certain individuals. At that meeting in particular, there were many highly intelligent people present, and the word “skepticism” certainly found acceptance. ...

[Link to media]

— Johann Most - The Vegetarian

 

at 3/26/25 7:33pm

Author: Johann MostTitle: The VegetarianDate: 1875Source: Retrieved on March 26, 2025 from https://www.anarchismus.at/anarchistische-klassiker/johann-most/7272-johann-most-die-vegetarianer A small sect of comical enthusiasts lets its little light shine here and there to show poor, misguided humanity the way that leads to where coolies and Hindus have long since arrived; and to give the matter a learned air, its believers call themselves “vegetarians.” It certainly doesn’t occur to me to try to disabuse these strange boarders of anything, for this is quite impossible, because people who indulge in such unnatural extravagances undoubtedly suffer from an incurable obsession. What I intend is merely preventative in nature, amounting to a warning to all those who have not yet been afflicted by the disease of voluntary asceticism, but are certainly at risk of being infected with it. Some of the plant-eaters pursue this more or less as a game and know how to fill their meatless table with a variety of other inviting delicacies. Anyone familiar with fine gastronomy knows that the number of fine pastries and baked goods is legion, that a number of tasty dishes can be prepared from various local and foreign fruits, and that there are also quite a few nobler vegetables. Furthermore, those who are not exactly orthodox vegetarians do not despise milk and egg dishes. Such vegetarianism would ultimately be acceptable—if one’s sole concern is enjoyment; it’s just a pity that people with limited budgets can’t join in. Other meat-haters, however, take plant-eating very seriously. They also condemn eggs, milk, and fat and only accept plant-based foods cooked in water or served raw. Indeed, one cannot know whether these people will soon adopt the purely root and herbal diet of the mythical forest people. As long as these eccentrics are content with indulging their essentially innocent inclinations, one should not interfere in their private affairs. However, as soon as they formally preach the gospel of roots and herbs or even dare to propose vegetarianism as a means of solving the social question, they must be vigorously opposed. So far, workers have generally steadfastly avoided vegetarianism – unless forced upon them by necessity – but the possibility cannot be ruled out that necessity will ultimately be turned into a virtue and watery soup will become the obligatory food for workers. This is a danger that loses none of its magnitude, however remote it may be, and which must therefore be combated wherever it may appear. And it does appear here and there; Just recently, a worker (who, he believed, was socialist-minded) seriously tried to prove to me that it was the utmost folly to want to consume anything other than plants boiled in water, that one could live quite well on bread and water, and that the consumption of meat dishes, spirits, and the like was just as useless and even harmful as smoking tobacco. What more could one want? To prove the fallacy of such views, I will not engage in lengthy chemical deductions; rather, I consider it sufficient to refer to nature itself. In tropical regions, humans require only a small amount of carbon, thus needing to consume only a few fatty substances, because the climatic conditions there do not require the animal heat generated by carbon to be constantly renewed on a significant scale. For this reason, vegetable food is generally more popular there, although (apart from religious vegetarians) meat dishes are not disdained there either. In the far north, however, fat plays the main role among foods, because body heat must be continually renewed through the supply of carbon if humans are to avoid succumbing to the influences of the cold climate. In the temperate zones, therefore, human diets will have to follow a middle path, and indeed, they have always followed this middle path, without any vegetarians or animalists (meat eaters) or anyone else having paved the way for it. The further south a people lives, the more they adhere to a plant-based diet; the further north they are located, the greater their need for meat dishes. This is not, as vegetarians put it, a matter of an old prejudice or blind faith, but simply of following the laws of nature, which cannot be disobeyed in the long run with impunity. But if one examines the economic side of the vegetarianism question, one encounters quite different things. Suppose the workers one fine day became convinced that all their previous struggle for freedom and equality had been in vain and that only vegetarianism could achieve their goal—how long does the die-hard vegetarian believe this illusion would last? But we don’t want to cause anyone much headaches; instead, we’ll provide the answer quite briefly and bluntly. This illusion could not last longer than until the workers bumped heads against the economic law of wages; and this would have to happen very soon. If the workers can live more cheaply than before, their wages must also fall by exactly the amount of the differential. Anyone who can’t immediately figure this out, despite living in a society with free competition, should let any halfway reasonable worker explain the effect of this competition and, in general, the nature of the economic law by which wages are determined. As long as one isn’t clear about this, one shouldn’t even want to talk about things that touch on the social question. Incidentally, the consequences of a future vegetarianism—fortunately only fictitious—of the workers would be of the most disastrous nature for them for other reasons as well. The economic law of wages would not only apply in a single way, but in two and three ways. ...

[Link to media]

— Anonymous - Why am I not allowed to own a Canadian?

 

at 3/26/25 7:23pm

Author: AnonymousTitle: Why am I not allowed to own a Canadian?Date: 2010sNotes: Laura Schlessinger is a US radio host who gives advice to people who call in to her show. Recently, she stated, as a devout Christian, that homosexuality cannot be condoned under any circumstances, as it is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22. The following text is an open letter from a US citizen to Dr. Laura, which has been circulated online.Source: Retrieved on March 26, 2025 from https://www.anarchismus.at/religionskritik/christliche-religionen/290-warum-darf-ich-keinen-kanadier-besitzen Dear Dr. Laura! Thank you for your selfless efforts to educate people about God’s laws. I’ve learned a lot through your program and try to share this knowledge with as many others as possible. If someone tries to defend their homosexual lifestyle, I simply remind them of Leviticus 18:22, which clearly states that it is an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to follow them. When I offer a bull as a burnt offering at the altar, I know that it produces a pleasing aroma to the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the aroma is not pleasing to them. Should I strike them down? I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as permitted in Exodus 21:7. What do you think would be a fair price for them today? I know I’m not allowed to have contact with any woman while she’s in her menstrual state (Lev. 15:19–24). The problem is, how do I know? I’ve tried asking, but most women are offended. Lev. 25:44 states that I may own slaves, both male and female, if I acquire them from neighboring nations. One of my friends says this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why am I not allowed to own Canadians? I have a neighbor who always works on Saturdays. Exodus 35:2 clearly states that he must be killed. However, am I morally obligated to kill him myself? A friend of mine suggests that although eating shellfish, such as clams or lobster, is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I disagree. Could you clarify? Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach God’s altar if my eyes are affected by disease. I must admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be perfect, or is there some leeway here? Most of my male friends cut their hair, including their temples, even though this is clearly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How are they supposed to die? I know from Lev. 11:16–8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean. But can I still play soccer if I wear gloves? My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field. Furthermore, his wife wears clothes made of two different fabrics (cotton/polyester). He also curses and blasphemes quite often. Is it really necessary for us to go to all the trouble of gathering the entire village to stone her (Lev. 24:10–16)? Isn’t it sufficient if we burn her in a small, family ceremony, like people who sleep with their mothers-in-law? (Lev. 20:14) I know you’ve studied these matters extensively, so I’m confident you can help us. And thank you again for reminding us that God’s Word is eternal and unchanging. Your devoted disciple and admiring fan, Jake

[Link to media]

— Fang - Is the Koran the same as “Mein Kampf”?

 

at 3/26/25 7:16pm

Author: FangTitle: Is the Koran the same as “Mein Kampf”?Subtitle: Mahmud Taha: The example of a libertarian interpretation of the QuranDate: 2001Notes: Published in Graswurzelrevolution Nr. 263, November 2001.Source: Retrieved on March 26, 2025 from https://www.anarchismus.at/religionskritik/islam-und-islamismus/6508-mahmud-taha-beispiel-einer-libertaeren-koran-interpretation War is a teacher, but in a completely different sense than the war supporters hoped for: it divides the ranks within the former left. In times of war, the true self reveals itself: this was the case with Noske, and it still remains today with some anti-Germans, such as the “Bahamas” (ex-Communist League, Group K) or parts of the weekly newspaper “Jungle World”: Germany is waging war alongside the USA, but the “anti-Germans” are for it! This is the bankruptcy of all anti-German ideology. They spit venom and bile at the resurgent peace movement, and yet this very movement is the only force opposing German participation in this war and thus German ambitions for global power. In the old Gulf War fashion, these anti-Germans now need a reincarnation of Hitler; and this time it is the Koran, which they equate with “Mein Kampf” (cf. “Islam as the enemy,” GWR 263, pp. 1 and 8). However, every “holy book” of the book religions differs from “Mein Kampf” in that, unlike Hitler, it is open to multiple interpretations, alternating between brutal, domination-justifying passages and ethical, liberating passages. The comparison is therefore rationally refuted and can be interpreted as outright racism if—as in Judaism (e.g., Martin Buber) and Christianity (e.g., Tolstoy)—interpreters of the Quran can be found who can present a libertarian interpretation of the Quran. There are plenty of such interpreters, especially in Islamic Sufism; one example here is the Sudanese Mahmud Taha, who was executed as a heretic (in Islam, an apostate) in 1985. Mahmud Tahas Quran-Interpretation In his most important work, “The Second Message of Islam” from 1967, Taha distinguishes two phases in the life of the Prophet Muhammad: one for his life in Mecca and one for his time in Medina. According to Taha’s interpretation, only the sermons of the Meccan phase (biographically prior to the Medinan phase, but paradoxically referred to in Taha’s terminology as the “second message”) have universal validity; the sermons in Medina (First Message), on the other hand, are time-specific, having been valid in the 7th century but no longer today. Taha assigns Quranic verses about jihad—the armed struggle against unbelievers—to the Medinan phase, in which Muhammad cooperated with the rulers and prepared for war against Mecca. Taha completely rejects this verse, in contrast to attempts to reinterpret it as nonviolent (e.g., by the Islamic Gandhian Abdul Ghaffar Khan). According to Taha, the Medinan phase also included slavery, capitalism, Sharia law, and the oppression of women. The principles preached in Mecca, when Muhammad was oppressed and an outlaw, were Quranic verses about peaceful persuasion, legal equality between Muslims and non-Muslims, and gender equality (women were equal members of Taha’s organization; veils, polygamy, and gender segregation were rejected). According to Taha, the Meccan sermons also focus on individual freedom in connection with social justice: “The fundamental principle in Islam is that every human being is free. (...) The fundamental principle in Islam is communal property.” (Taha quoted in Övermann) Law—for Taha, as well as in anarchism—equated with violence congealed into power, and according to this interpretation, in the 7th century, it was bound to force people, due to their imperfection and lack of enlightenment, to suppress anti-social impulses. However, according to Taha, the higher the standards of reason in human societies developed, the more likely it was that legal constraints would have to be withdrawn. Sharia is retrospectively justified for the 7th century, but rejected for the 20th century. Yet even modern Western democracy and constitutional law, largely freed from draconian corporal punishment, is, for Taha, merely a transitional stage on the path to a new civilization: Where the exercise of individual freedom leads the individual to harbor “no malice toward anyone, even in their deepest innermost being,” where “ignorance decreases and knowledge increases,” where “concordance of action and consciousness” exists, an individual, according to Taha, is “at the highest level of Islam, where restrictions on the believer through prohibitions, but also through punishments, are obsolete.” (Taha) In contrast, neither Bin Laden nor the “Bahamas” are at any level of Islam, let alone the highest. According to Taha’s interpretation, God values individual freedom so highly “that he never wanted to restrict it through any authorized representative, thus Islam itself goes beyond a parliamentary representative democracy.” Taha as a proponent of enlightened anarchy based on a libertarian interpretation of the Koran. A question for the anti-Germans: is something like this possible, even conceivable, with Hitler’s “Mein Kampf”? Literature Annette Övermann: The “Republican Brothers” in Sudan. An Islamic Reform Movement in the 20th Century, Peter Lang Verlag, Frankfurt 1993. Various articles about Taha in GWR Nos. 132 and 191.

[Link to media]

As of 4/2/25 4:15am. Last new 3/31/25 7:47am.