Crooked Bough News Round-up

— James F. Morton Jr. - The Curse of Race Prejudice

 

at 4/25/25 1:09pm

Author: James F. Morton Jr.Title: The Curse of Race PrejudiceDate: 1906Source: Retrieved on April 25, 2025, from https://www.louisecrowleylibrary.org/the-curse-of-race-prejudice INTRODUCTORY. “Of the word I have spoken, I except none; red, white, black, all are deific; In each house is the ovum; it comes forth after a thousand years.” Walt Whitman: Faces. The present pamphlet, while largely based on a lecture delivered under the same title in the Alhambra Theater in New York City, will be found to differ from it in some material respects. The special aim of that address, while keeping in view the fundamental principles as herein set forth, was to voice an earnest protest against the anti-Semitic outrages in Russia, and to point out the fact that these horrors, which have caused the whole civilized world to stand aghast, are but the logical result of the cultivation of racial antipathies. In this argument, most of the illustrations are drawn from nearer home, and especially from the manifestations of Negrophobia which are the peculiar disgrace of our own country. This is not because the Negro is a race apart, demanding special consideration. The writer has no extraordinary predilection for this particular race, and is in no way fanatical on the subject. A protest against Negrophobia is by no means a eulogy of Negromania. These pages are simply the result of a deeply rooted conviction, founded on no small degree of study, investigation, experience and close intermingling with members of almost every conceivable race, under manifold conditions, that the spirit of racial separateness, merging swiftly into race arrogance and race hatred, is not merely indefensible in the extremest degree in its cruel injustice to weaker or less developed races, but a blighting curse to the dominant race itself; and that a highly advanced civilization is maintainable only on condition of weeding out from the minds of its constituent members every trace of this debasing mental poison. To all fair-minded people, the arguments in support of this thesis are respectfully commended. It is a poor cause that dares not face the light. No matter how positive our convictions, the wisest of us falls many degrees short of infallibility ; and new light from any source is always to be welcomed by the honest searcher for truth—to whom alone these pages are dedicated. An attempt will be made to rest the contention entirely on the basis of reason, avoiding mere appeals to passion, and restraining within as narrow limits as possible, even the expression of legitimate indignation at recorded outrages on human rights. The reader is urged to take nothing for granted, and to reject any assertions that are not abundantly confirmed by fact and logic. Let us reason together, with an eye single to the discovery of truth. Among the purposes of this treatise, especial attention may be called to the effort which will be made to examine the essential characteristics of the human frailty known as race prejudice, and to trace it at least roughly to its origin; to indicate its influence in the decay of nations, and its deteriorating effect on individuals: to exhibit its fruits, as betraying the character of the tree whence they spring; to appeal to common sense against the bogey-worship which manifests itself in puerile fears and acts of worse than childish folly; to face squarely all the current attempts to defend or palliate this great evil, and to meet every ostensible argument in behalf of race prejudice by an overwhelming refutation; and to establish the fundamental conditions of human progress, and point out their irreconcilability with an indulgence in so demoralizing a superstition. All this is undertaken with the best of good will toward those who hold an opposite point of view, and in the hope that some, at least, of them may prove open to conviction. The writer has no animosity toward the South, in spite of the necessity of pointing out some unpleasant consequences of its prevailing sentiment, which is created by the nature of the argument. The question is not one of sections, but of principles. To the honor of the South, many of her noblest and most thoughtful sons and daughters, in spite of the difficulty of resisting the pressure of an adverse public opinion, are rapidly becoming emancipated from the crude prejudices of an earlier epoch, and are coming to recognize the broader claims of humanity. The Vardamans, Tillmans and Watsons [1] are rapidly becoming repudiated by those who know them best; and to assume that such as these represent the new South, or, a fortiori, to brand the South of the future with the record of these dishonored names, were a gratuitous and wanton insult. No such injustice will here be inflicted on the honorable men and women who are gradually lifting the whole of the fair South into a progressive civilization worthy of the manifold blessings with which nature has so lavishly endowed her. But it is the truest friendship to point out the destruction which lies at the end of the path of error, and to utter an earnest warning against the disastrous consequences of honest delusion. Frankness is not hostility; and the flatterer of a people’s vices is not its best friend. The Vardamans and the murderous lynching mobs do not stand as effects without a cause. If the disease is to he cured, it must be carefully studied, even though some painful probing of an old sore may thereby become necessary. To the dishonor of the North, she cannot escape responsibility; nor has she ground for proudly drawing her skirts about her, and exclaiming: “I am holier than thou.” Race riots and lynchings of the most fiendish type have of late years been portentously frequent north of Mason and Dixon’s line. The shameful Chinophohia of the Pacific slope is too well known to be disputed; while an anti-Semitism, less virulent in its manifestations, but no less irrational and contemptible in its essence, is disgracefully common in our northern cities. The issue is not between South and North, or between Russia and the rest of the world. It is between decay and progress in social life. The person whose opinions are based solely on the current sentiment of his birthplace or domicile is but a poor specimen of humanity. There is not one truth for Massachusetts and another for South Carolina. The people of Georgia are subject to the same arithmetical rules as those of Ohio; nor is astronomy one thing in New York and a very different science in Virginia. Similarly, sociological and ethical principles are not determinable along geographical lines; and only the shallowest and most servile of reasoners can imagine that “loyalty” to their native state or section requires that they shut their eyes to universal truth, and accept blindly any prejudices or superstitions which may be prevalent in the particular locality. To such only as combine intelligence and independence of thought with honesty of purpose, can the following pages be expected to appeal. ...

[Link to media]

— Jeff Shantz, Anarcho-Syndicalist Review - The Salish Sea Anarcha Network

 

at 4/25/25 10:49am

Author: Jeff Shantz, Anarcho-Syndicalist ReviewTitle: The Salish Sea Anarcha NetworkDate: 2024Source: https://liberteouvriere.com/2025/04/17/the-salish-sea-anarcha-network-jeff-shantz-canada-2024/ (Anarcho-Syndicalist Review #90) Over the past year there has been something of a revival of anarcho-syndicalist theory and practice in so-called Canada. This is reflected in organizing and publishing projects coming out of Montreal (Liberté Ouvrière and the Anarchist Union Journal) that have already made significant contributions to innovative anarcho-syndicalist thinking on issues such as land back movements, anti-imperialism and class-wide solidarity. Closer to home, for me, has been the formation of the Salish Sea Anarcha Network (SSAN), which has brought together syndicalists across unceded territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh (which make up the city of Vancouver); Katzie, Kwantlen and Semiahma (Surrey); and the Kwikwetlem Nations (Coquitlam) — which together make up so-called Metro Vancouver — with connections on Vancouver Island. I have participated in the SSAN from the start and have been involved in organizing the network and its various public events over the course of the last year. ln what follows I offer an overview of some early work and interviews with SSAN participants. We go over a range of issues such as the relevance and need of anarcho-syndicalism today, goals and challenges, shortcomings in local anarchist organizing, and aims for ongoing organizing work. Along the way they provide analysis of important contemporary issues like relationships with the land, centering Indigenous solidarity, and developing green syndicalist practice — all in a context where active anarcho-syndicalist organizing has largely been absent for a long time. « Get to Know Us »: Initial Events The first event was a general introduction to anarcho-syndicalism which was perhaps surprisingly well attended with several dozen people filling the local infoshop Spartacus Books. Discussion ranged over issues including green syndicalism, working class solidarity with Indigenous resistance, class struggle strategies and tactics, dock workers’ struggles and Palestine solidarity. There was particular interest in syndicalist squads and organizing we can do here and now to support and advance working class struggles locally, including solidarity with unemployed and unhoused working-class people. The second event, similarly well attended, was a film screening and discussion of the documentary « Defenders of the Land. » The documentary focused on the Gustafsen Lake struggle of 1995 in Secwepemc people practicing their Sun Dance were to a mass police raid by the RCMP acting on behalf of an American cattle rancher. The police assault saw the RCMP lay incendiary devices on a road, blowing up a pickup truck driven by Indigenous people trying to get supplies. Over 70,000 rounds were fired by the RCMP into the Sun Dance camp. The film was unique in having been granted access for direct interviews with the land defenders. Discussion focused on ongoing and contemporary state violence against Indigenous land defenders, extractive capital on unceded Indigenous territories in so-called British Columbia, and practices of solidarity. Connections were made between the Gustafsen Lake struggle and current land struggles on Wet’suwet’en territory against the Coastal Gaz link fracked gas pipeline and on Secwepemc territory against the Trans-Mountain tar sands pipeline. In addition to venues for necessary discussions on a range of important matters, the events were organized as friendly opportunities for folks to get to know members of the network. The discussions were held in a conversational style with short introductions rather than full, formal, panel presentations. Why This, Why Now? I had a chat with some SSAN participants to get their thoughts on organizing a contemporary anarcho-syndicalist network, and key challenges, aims and aspirations. SSAN members come from different working-class backgrounds. Some are members of unions. A couple are members of the Industrial Workers of the World. Some work in larger workplaces, at least one does personal care work. Ages range over decades apart. Some are longtime anarchists while others are more recent to anarchist politics. Those in the conversation included Skyler, a younger anarchist, PJ, a longtime anarchist organizer and IWW member, and Chris, an electrical worker and member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. The first question was, straightforwardly, « Why is the network necessary? Especially in this area? » For Skyler: « It’s necessary to have this network as no other group is really like it around here. Closest is the IWW, however it’s not anarchist even it has a bunch of them in it, and currently I feel is on the path to bureaucratic reformism due to it not having any political leaning making it vulnerable to such things. PJ is more optimistic about the IWW. In her view, « The IWW has lots of good ideas, and 100 years of fairly decent organizing efforts around Turtle Island, attempted internationally. Their OT101 (Organizer Training 101) is exceptionally useful to anyone wanting to end their isolation and get organizing in their workplace, but these tried-and-true methods can also handily be applied in tenant organizing too. » ...

[Link to media]

— Alexandre Christoyannopoulos - A Christian Anarchist Critique of Violence

 

at 4/25/25 10:36am

Author: Alexandre ChristoyannopoulosTitle: A Christian Anarchist Critique of ViolenceSubtitle: From Turning the Other Cheek to a Rejection of the StateDate: 2010Notes: Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount is seen by many Christians as a moving summary of his message to the community of Christian disciples. For Christian anarchist thinkers like Tolstoy, Ellul, Elliott, and Andrews among others, it also contains Jesus’ most poignant statement on violence – his call to turn the other cheek – a statement which, they argue, cannot but ultimately imply a condemnation of the state for its theoretical and practical monopoly over the allegedly legitimate use of violence. This paper offers an overview of this radical political exegesis, thus showing why, for Christian anarchists, the very core of Christianity cannot but imply a form of (non-violent) anarchism.Source: Retrieved on April 25, 2025 from https://repository.lboro.ac.uk/articles/chapter/A_Christian_anarchist_critique_of_violence_From_turning_the_other_cheek_to_a_rejection_of_the_state/9469943/1?file=17094155 1. Introduction ‘What a fine place this world would be,’ a Christian anarchist quipped decades ago, ‘if Fundamentalist Protestants tried to exemplify the Sermon on the Mount.’[1] There are, however, divergent interpretations of this Sermon – including perhaps its most famous passage, where Jesus speaks of love and non-resistance. The purpose of this paper is to introduce the anarchist interpretation of Christianity by summarising the scattered comments Christian anarchists have made on this particular passage. Space restrictions prevent a more detailed analysis of these comments here, but precisely such a detailed analysis, along with that of other passages (including Romans 13 and ‘render unto Caesar’) as well as more in depth exposition and discussion of Christian anarchism more generally, can be found in Christian Anarchism: A Political Commentary on the Gospel. The passage in question here is where Jesus says: Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.[2] 2. Jesus’ Three Illustrations In the first illustration, both Wink and Elliott suggest, Jesus is depicting a situation which his followers would immediately recognise as humiliating, and which, in that society, would consequently call for an appropriate, equally forceful and humiliating response to uphold one’s dignity. The response Jesus recommends, however, goes against these local expectations. For Elliott, Jesus is saying: ‘do what your attacker least expects: behave in the opposite way.’[3] This, Elliott contends, confuses the attacker, who now ‘is no longer in control of the process he initiated. He is, in a very real sense, disarmed!’[4] Similarly, Wink claims that turning the other cheek ‘robs the oppressor of the power to humiliate.’[5] Both Elliott and Wink therefore agree that Jesus’ surprising response in this first illustration disempowers the attacker and forces him to regard the victim in a different light. Elliott and Wink develop a similar analysis from the other two responses illustrated by Jesus. The second, they argue, would unmask and put the blame on the social and legal system which brought this about, such that Jesus’ recommendation would again be ‘a practical, strategic measure for empowering the oppressed.’[6] As to the third, they agree that Jesus’ suggested response is ‘a way of subverting authority’ in that ‘the victim is claiming the power to determine for himself the lengths to which he is prepared to go.’[7] Jesus’ illustrations of non-resistance imply a critique of the expectations of his contemporary society and seek to empower the victim through a counter-intuitive response. 3. A Purposeful Reaction At the same time, Jesus’ non-resistance is not just a completely inactive, uncaring acceptance of evil, but rather a very specific, strategic response. However, views diverge among Christian anarchists as to exactly what kind of action is allowed and what kind of resistance is forbidden: resistance to certain types of evil, resistance by evil, or any resistance at all. These important disagreements are discussed in detail elsewhere.[8] Wink, for instance, maintains that a ‘proper translation’ of the Greek word for ‘resist’ shows that Jesus was rejecting passive ‘flight’ or violent ‘fight’ and recommending ‘militant nonviolence.’ Ballou, similarly, argues that while Jesus is proscribing violent resistance, evil should still be resisted – just never with evil means. Tolstoy, however, sometimes appears to disagree – but his own position is unclear. At times, he interprets Jesus’ recommended reply as not admitting any form of resistance at all, yet sometimes Tolstoy seems to imply that only violent resistance is being forbidden. Either way, the point to note here is that although there may be disagreement among Christian anarchists and pacifists about exactly what form of reaction is allowed by these verses, they all (Tolstoy included) insist that the Christian response is a very real and radical (non-violent) reaction – a form of action, a genuine, purposeful, tactical reaction. 4. Beyond Lex Talionis This radical response implies a disapproval of something about his political context, namely: the cycle of violence inherent in lex talionis, the law of retaliation enshrined in the Old Testament. First, however, it is worth noting that lex talionis is not a licence for unlimited violence. Rather, the idea behind it is justifiable or fair retaliation. Equally important, however, is how this ‘fair’ and ‘just’ level of retaliation can be used as a basis for reaching an alternative solution: a ‘fair’ and ‘just’ level of compensation. Lex talionis therefore provides the basis for either retributive (punitive) orrestorative (compensatory) justice – principles which also permeate contemporary civil and criminal law. ...

[Link to media]

— Larry Gambone - Cosmic Dialectics

 

at 4/25/25 12:42am

Author: Larry GamboneTitle: Cosmic DialecticsSubtitle: The Libertarian Philosophy of Joseph DietzgenDate: 2010Source: Extracted from "The Nature of Human Brain Work: An Introduction to Dialectics" by Joseph Dietzgen, PM Press 2010 Thinking About Thinking Dietzgen began by asking the question, “What happens when we think?” He observed that the basic thinking process was essentially the same whether done by the greatest scientist or a common person. For “the simplest conception, or any idea for that matter, is of the same general nature as the most perfect understanding . . . Thought is work.” [1] By showing the common basis of thought, Dietzgen democratized science and philosophy. The belief that every person’s opinion must be valued and that thinking must not be especially reserved for an intellectual elite puts him at variance with both academia and Marxist specialists in revolution. “The knowledge and study of this theory cannot be left to any particular guild . . . general thought is a public matter which everyone should be required to attend to himself.” [2] But what happens when we think? What is the innate process that underlies thought, whether thinking about plowing a fi eld, contemplating the cosmos or just plain day-dreaming? Thought requires the formation of concepts about the world, a process which involves two differing aspects: By means of thought we become aware of all things in a twofold manner, outside in reality and inside in thought . . . Our brain does not assimilate the things themselves, but only their images. The imagined tree is only a general tree. The real tree is different from any other. And although I may have the picture of some special tree in my head, yet the real tree is still different from its conception as the specific is different from the general. [3] One must not make the mistake of confusing one’s mental pictures of the world with reality itself. The real, existing thing is not exactly like the generalization which is formed in the mind. “What abstract thing, being, existence, generality is there that is not manifold in its sense manifestations, and individually different from all other things? There are no two drops of water alike.” [4] Thought is a process of forming generalizations out of specific incidences or specific things. Th inking involves the specific and individual things of the world and our generalizations about them. Thought involves generalization. The common feature of all separate thought processes consists in their seeking the general character or unity which is common to all objects experienced in their manifold variety. [5] But generalization isn’t all we do when we think, nor is it without inherent problems. If we take our generalizations to an extreme, we can easily get lost in what are essentially our own mental constructions. We trap ourselves by thinking our productions are reality. This is what happens to people who get caught up in extreme religious or political cults. To bring ourselves back down to reality, it is necessary to never forget the individual and specific aspects of things. Mere generalization is one-sided and leads to fantastical dreams. By this method one can transform anything into everything. It is necessary to supplement generalization by specialization . . . the general must be conceived in its relation to its specific forms, and these forms in their universal interconnection. [6] Contradiction Inherent in Thought Thought is a process which involves a relationship between two opposing aspects: the aspect of generalization and the aspect of specialization. To think means to always be engaged in a contradictory process. For consciousness generalizes differences and differentiates generalities. Contradiction is innate in consciousness and its nature is so contradictory that it is at the same time a differentiating, a generalizing and an understanding nature. Consciousness . . . recognizes that all nature, all being, lives in contradictions, that everything is what it is only in co-operating with its opposite. [7] As with generalization, here is a trap we must avoid. One can get so caught up in the contradictions confronting us that it becomes impossible to make decisions. However, it is possible to achieve some sort of balance or synthesis between opposite views and the contradictions can, at least in part, be overcome. Reason develops its understanding out of contradictions. It is in the nature of mind to perceive . . . the nature of things by their semblance, and their semblance by their nature . . . or in other words to compare the contrasts of the world with one and other, to harmonize them. [8] The Limitations of Our Knowledge It should be obvious by now, that this contradictory process of generalization or concept formation gives us only a limited understanding of the world. That ten people witnessing a traffic accident might have ten different versions of what happened is perfectly understandable. What we are doing is forming our concepts about the world through our thinking processes, resulting in a viewpoint which approximates reality, but is not reality itself. Hence, and this should be engraved on stone in letters two feet high, there is no perfect knowledge or truth. ...

[Link to media]

— Arnold Schroder - Do Not Worship the Deities That Came Before the Fire

 

at 4/24/25 4:06pm

Author: Arnold SchroderTitle: Do Not Worship the Deities That Came Before the FireDate: 29th April, 2019Source: Retrieved on 25th April, 2025 from https://dark-mountain.net/do-not-worship-the-deities-that-came-before-the-fire/ When civil rights icon and former presidential candidate Jesse Jackson rode a spotted horse toward the burning barricades on North Dakota State Highway 1806, I finally started coming to terms with the end of the world. Naturally, I already knew that epochal transformation was underway from, say, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, the extinction rate, or a cursory assessment of human behaviour. But the end of the world is inherently mythological, as is the human mind. We are creatures as hopelessly bound to our narratives as we are bound to our sexuality and our fear of snakes. Jesse Jackson, the burning tires and burning sage, the tear gas and acoustic weapons and rocket launchers, the drumming and the war songs – the moment only seemed plausible if one imagined it had been described in prophecy, and the prophecy subsequently forgotten. It was a sufficiently mythological stimulus to provoke a conclusion which can be concisely characterised as: We are living in the story of the end of the world. This was somehow more palpable and psychologically meaningful than: We are living at the end of the world, or the more understated and strictly accurate: We are witnessing a cataclysm without precedent. The fires people set that day, 26th October, 2016, in an effort to stop construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, were extinguished by the next night. Dreamlike encounters with celebrity were fairly common at Standing Rock – the Green Party presidential candidate arrives to spray paint bulldozers people are locked to, the guy who plays the Incredible Hulk in the movies wanders past your camp – and, leaving the barricades as he approached, I didn’t even see Jesse Jackson. I just knew he was mounted on a horse a mile down the road, preparing to approach, and the mental image of it, in that warlike context, immediately took on a quality roughly akin to a many-armed deity wielding skulls and weapons, crowned by fire. It produced a decisive rupture from whatever semblance of the former world I was still clinging to. Less concisely than: We are living in the story of the end of the world, the moment said: The world we live in now will exist in relation to the old one as a dream to waking, as an unhinged hallucination to everyday consciousness, and whoever clings to the prosaic forms and conventions of the former world will be devoured by the new gods and monsters that are being birthed in its flames. Two years later, the impression seems justified. Clinging to the prosaic forms and conventions of the former world, people with respectable opinions occupied themselves, during the time we battled the pipeline, with dismissing a reality television star as irrelevant – until that night, 12 nights after police extinguished the fires, when he was elected president of the United States. It is not a trivial detail that this decisive, bodily sense of global change occurred in the presence of fire. Scientists and environmentalists have been refining their language of unprecedented suffering and intergenerational catastrophe for decades, and every instance of such communication – if the criterion for success is that one could walk down a street somewhere and it would feel like a social response of any kind was occurring, even one of mere acknowledgment – has failed. Some of the reasons for this are very immediate, rooted in the vicissitudes of current and recent politics and culture, but some of the reasons are fundamental, rooted in the human minds’ intrinsic barriers to comprehending and functionally integrating the reality of collapse. Witnessing the fiery transformation of the highway into a battleground between what felt like mythical forces that day, I realised that on some level, despite years of avid engagement in climate science and having given up on any semblance of a normal life to fight the fossil fuel industry full-time, I too was subject to these intrinsic psychological barriers to comprehending something so vast; I was in denial about climate change. The political, strategic form of climate denial, rejecting that it’s happening at all, has somewhat monopolised the term denial, so that we can no longer talk about it in a more common psychological sense, in the sense that we simply don’t process information that is too challenging. This can be observed in the ability of the human mind to completely suppress recollections of traumatic events, and it can be observed in non-human minds, in the dazed look that sometimes comes over prey animals’ eyes when they stop fighting with a predator and mentally depart from the experience of dying. My fiery revelation convinced me that, for most people most of the time, whatever our worldviews, global collapse is simply beyond our emotional and psychological scope, if it is presented in non-mythic terms. The moment of psychological integration I experienced didn’t occur because I was explicitly processing anguish over a doomed food system or an ocean populated only by plastic. I’d been doing those things for years. It occurred because I had a religious experience; and I didn’t have a religious experience because I was seeking one, but because of fire. ...

[Link to media]

— Julian Langer - The Hands of Shorleigh Woods

 

at 4/24/25 3:01am

Author: Julian LangerTitle: The Hands of Shorleigh WoodsDate: 24/4/2025Source: https://ecorevoltblog.wordpress.com/2025/04/24/the-hands-of-shorleigh-woods/ Part 1 What could be said of the annihilation of the woods called Shorleigh Woods, situated in the North Devon countryside a short distance from the Tor River, could do little to articulate the horror and the grief of its murder. To those who had loved the woods that had been home to many animals of the ground and air, as well as habitat for bluebells, garlic, oak, redwoods, and had held within its body a glorious ancient badger sett, was the carnage of a war zone, genocidal in its oblivion. Barren absence filled the space where there had been living presence. Where there’d been an orchestra of wild song, silence was what could be heard. The devastation was truly unspeakable, with all words failing to convey the horror. The felling of trees in the woods had happened with locals believing that this was limited to those ash trees that had the disease dieback, and those other ash trees close to them, to lessen the spread of illness — a sad but understandable situation. But this is not what had happened. The felling had not been limited in this way. The felling had not been done to attend to that disease. The annihilation had been totalising. A haunted terrain left where it stood, terrible to behold. The ghosts of the woods and all those a part of it, with the coldness of death, clung to the space. Folks who walked or drove along the road that used to be darkened by the tree cover now bore witness to the devastation. Those who walked through the woods or lived there now carried a wound, agonising and terrible. Part 2 In a field that was close to where the edge of Shorleigh Woods and the ancient and active badger sett had been, a crow landed and looked at the strange scene that was happening before their eyes. From the air they had watched a young deer approaching the area where the ancient badger sett had been and put their nose close to the ground. Curiosity had inspired the crow to land for a closer look. But no sooner than when they landed the fawn ran off, as if someone had startled them. At first the crow was confused as to what had alarmed the youngster. It could not have been the crow that had scared them, as the fawn was not so young as to still be frightened by birds who they could easily chase away. There had been no loud noises or any other animals that the crow had seen. But moments later they saw the monstrous and grotesque sight that had inspired the fawn to run away. From where the badger sett had been, all manner of hands emerging from the ruined ground. At first these dirt covered hands appeared to be those of buried humans, for they were of the look of human hands, with all the fingers and thumbs that are the norm for humans. But it didn’t take long for it to be plain that this was not the case and that these were not human hands. The hands that emerged from the earth before the crow’s eyes were not attached to any human body, moving independently in a manner akin to that of spiders. They crawled out from the ground as a sickeningly foul sight, like vile witchcraft. As more and more arose, the crow became more and more horrified by their presence, and took flight to keep away from the hands. From the air, the crow watched them continue to emerge from the ground, like spiders or ants, with fingers moving like legs and the hands clambering over each other in their desperation to move. When the crow had landed on one of the few remaining trees in the area, they spotted that the hands were moving in all directions and not just one way, suggesting that there was not one single purpose for their arrival. Where they were going or what they would do when they got there was mysteries that the crow could not say with certainty. Instinct suggested to the crow that there was a definite connection to the annihilation of the woods and the arrival of these revolting hands. Perhaps they went to seek out revenge for the decimation that lay before them, or to wait in other woods close by and attack anyone who would do harm, or something else entirely, cruel and terrible. All things were possible and no answers could be given. It was impossible to ask them, as hands have no mouths to speak answers to the question “what is it that you are doing?”. So the crow watched. After a long period, so long that the evening had turned to night and shadows were now cast by the cool dark light of the moon and stars, long after the first hands had pulled themselves out from the ground, covered in dirt and filth, the last hand crawled off towards an unknowable destination. Those hands born of a wretched birth out of the earth, from the unspeakable catastrophic annihilation, were now so far spread out and out of sight that the crow had no way of telling where they were — and it was not long before this final hand disappeared from sight and into the shadows. After a brief moment of investigation, the crow went off from this scene in flight, crying out for days for all to hear what they had seen emerge from the ground. Part 3 Many days later, in woods a short distance away from where the hands had crawled out from and from where Shorleigh woods had been, the crow spotted someone walking through the trees. This person, who had been seen walking through Shorleigh woods by those who lived there on a great many occasions, came up to where there was a moss covered tree trunk that had fallen in the wind, a couple of metres away from the stream that ran between the trees, and began to write. Now writing held no value for the crow and seemed a most stupid of activities to engage in. More than this though, a terrible fear surged through the crow, longing to be expressed, for one or any number of those hands might have made their way to these woods, and might try to strangle this writer, or enact a great many other possible violent acts. The crow, having no desire to see this writer killed by those revolting creatures, cried out for the writer to stand up and walk on, cawing and cawing repeatedly to no avail, unable to see if any hands were waiting to strike. They could be anywhere, but the writer did not seem listen to the crow, who feared attempting to chase them away, as it might anger the hands. On and on the cawing continued, with the crow desperately trying to warn the stupid writer, who only paused their ridiculous activity to look around at the ferns, mosses, trees and flowers. ...

[Link to media]

— Sheldon Richman - In Praise of “Thick” Libertarianism

 

at 4/23/25 7:04pm

Author: Sheldon RichmanTitle: In Praise of “Thick” LibertarianismDate: April 4th, 2014Source: Retrieved 04/23/2025 from c4ss.org I continue to have trouble believing that the libertarian philosophy is concerned only with the proper and improper uses of force. According to this view, the philosophy sets out a prohibition on the initiation of force and otherwise has nothing to say about anything else. (Fraud is conceived as an indirect form of force because, say, a deceptive seller obtains money from a buyer on terms other than those to which the buyer agreed.) How can libertarianism be concerned with nothing but force? This view has been dubbed “thin libertarianism” by Charles W. Johnson, and it strikes me as very thin indeed. (Jeffrey Tucker calls it “libertarian brutalism”; his article explains this perhaps startling term.) As I see it, the libertarian view is necessarily associated with certain underlying values, and this association seems entirely natural. I can kick a rock, but not a person. What is it about persons that makes it improper for me to kick them (unless it’s in self-defense)? Frankly, I don’t see how to answer that question without reference to some fundamental ideas. Different libertarians will have different answers, but each will appeal to some underlying value. Let’s get specific. Are there distinctly libertarian grounds for disapproving of racist conduct that does not involve the use of force? Some libertarians say no. They might hasten to add that while libertarians, as human beings, ought to disapprove of racism, they cannot do so as libertarians, because their political philosophy only speaks to the proper and improper uses of force. On the other hand, libertarians often quote Ayn Rand on the issue, even if they wouldn’t quote her on much else: Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage — the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors. The freedom philosophy is intimately related to ethical, political, and methodological individualism. Therefore, the philosophy should be expected to detest any kind of collectivism — and particularly its “lowest, most crudely primitive form” — even in its nonviolent manifestations. To put it more concretely, if a libertarian observed a growing propensity to embrace (nonviolent) racism, that person, qua libertarian, ought to be concerned. Why? Because that attitude and resulting conduct can be expected to eat away at the values conducive to libertarianism. It’s the same sort of reason that a libertarian would be concerned by, say, a growing acceptance of Keynesian ideas, even though merely holding and advocating those ideas does not require the use of force. It is true that carrying out Keynesian ideas requires the use of force (taxation, monopoly central banking, and state “socialization of investment”), while one can imagine a racist society in which no force is used. But although a society of racist pacifists is not a logical impossibility, it strikes me as highly unlikely. In its denial of dignity to individuals merely by virtue of their membership in a racial group, there is a potential for violence implicit in racism that is too strong for libertarians to ignore. As I’ve written elsewhere, A libertarian who holds his or her philosophy out of a conviction that all men and women are (or should be) equal in authority and thus none may subordinate another against his or her will (the most common justification) — that libertarian would naturally object to even nonviolent forms of subordination. Racism is just such a form (though not the only one), since existentially it entails at least an obligatory humiliating deference by members of one racial group to members of the dominant racial group. (The obligatory deference need not always be enforced by physical coercion.) Seeing fellow human beings locked into a servile role — even if that role is not explicitly maintained by force — properly, reflexively summons in libertarians an urge to object. (I’m reminded of what H. L. Mencken said when asked what he thought of slavery: “I don’t like slavery because I don’t like slaves.”) But it doesn’t end there. I can think of another reason for libertarians to be concerned about racism, namely, it all too easily metamorphoses from subtle intimidation into outright violence. Even in a culture where racial “places” have long been established by custom and require no coercive enforcement, members of a rising generation will sooner or later defiantly reject their assigned place and demand equality of authority. What happens then? It takes little imagination to envision members of the dominant race — even if they have professed a “thin” libertarianism to that point — turning to physical force to protect their “way of life.” So I’m puzzled by the pushback whenever someone explicitly associates the libertarian philosophy with values like tolerance and inclusion. We don’t care only about force and its improper uses. We care about individual persons. So we properly have concerns about any preferences that tend to erode the principle that initiating force is wrong. ...

[Link to media]

— Jeffrey A. Tucker - Against Libertarian Brutalism

 

at 4/23/25 7:04pm

Author: Jeffrey A. TuckerTitle: Against Libertarian BrutalismSource: Retrieved 04/23/2025 from web.archive.org Why should we favor human liberty over a social order ruled by power? In providing the answer, I would suggest that libertarians can generally be divided into two camps: humanitarians and brutalists. The humanitarians are drawn to reasons such as the following. Liberty allows peaceful human cooperation. It inspires the creative service of others. It keeps violence at bay. It allows for capital formation and prosperity. It protects human rights of all against invasion. It allows human associations of all sorts to flourish on their own terms. It socializes people with rewards toward getting along rather than tearing each other apart, and leads to a world in which people are valued as ends in themselves rather than fodder in the central plan. We know all of this from history and experience. These are all great reasons to love liberty. But they are not the only reasons that people support liberty. There is a segment of the population of self-described libertarians—described here as brutalists—who find all the above rather boring, broad, and excessively humanitarian. To them, what’s impressive about liberty is that it allows people to assert their individual preferences, to form homogeneous tribes, to work out their biases in action, to ostracize people based on “politically incorrect” standards, to hate to their heart’s content so long as no violence is used as a means, to shout down people based on their demographics or political opinions, to be openly racist and sexist, to exclude and isolate and be generally malcontented with modernity, and to reject civil standards of values and etiquette in favor of antisocial norms. These two impulses are radically different. The first values the social peace that emerges from freedom, while the second values the freedom to reject cooperation in favor of gut-level prejudice. The first wants to reduce the role of power and privilege in the world, while the second wants the freedom to assert power and privilege within the strict confines of private property rights and the freedom to disassociate. To be sure, liberty does allow both the humanitarian and the brutalist perspective, as implausible as that might seem. Liberty is large and expansive and asserts no particular social end as the one and only way. Within the framework of liberty, there is the freedom to love and to hate. At the same time, they constitute very different ways of looking at the world—one liberal in the classical sense and one illiberal in every sense—and it is good to consider that before you, as a libertarian, find yourself allied with people who are missing the main point of the liberal idea. Humanitarianism we understand. It seeks the well-being of the human person and the flourishing of society in all its complexity. Libertarian humanitarianism sees the best means to achieve this as the self-ordering social system itself, unimpeded by external controls through the violent means of the State. The goal here is essentially benevolent, and the means by which it is achieved put a premium on social peace, free association, mutually beneficial exchange, the organic development of institutions, and the beauty of life itself. What is brutalism? The term is mostly associated with an architectural style of the 1950s through the 1970s, one that emphasized large concrete structures unrefined by concerns over style and grace. Inelegance is its main thrust and its primary source of pride. Brutalism heralded the lack of pretense and the raw practicality of the building’s use. The building was supposed to be strong not pretty, aggressive not fussy, imposing and not subtle. Brutalism in architecture was an affectation, one that emerged from a theory robbed of context. It was a style adopted with conscious precision. It believed it was forcing us to look at unadorned realities, an apparatus barren of distractions, in order to make a didactic point. This point was not only aesthetic but also ethical: It rejected beauty on principle. To beautify is to compromise, distract, and ruin the purity of the cause. It follows that brutalism rejected the need for commercial appeal and discarded issues of presentation and marketing; these issues, in the brutalist framework, shield our eyes from the radical core. Brutalism asserted that a building should be no more and no less than what it is supposed to be in order to fulfill its function. It asserted the right to be ugly, which is precisely why the style was most popular among governments around the world, and why brutalist forms are today seen as eyesores all over the world. We look back and wonder where these monstrosities came from, and we are amazed to discover that they were born of a theory that rejected beauty, presentation, and adornment as a matter of principle. The architects imagined that they were showing us something we would otherwise be reluctant to face. You can only really appreciate the results of brutalism, however, if you have already bought into the theory and believe in it. Otherwise, absent the extremist and fundamentalist ideology, the building comes across as terrifying and threatening. ...

[Link to media]

— Charles Johnson - Libertarianism Through Thick and Thin

 

at 4/23/25 6:39pm

Author: Charles JohnsonTitle: Libertarianism Through Thick and ThinDate: July 1st, 2008Source: Retrieved 04/23/2025 from c4ss.org To what extent should libertarians concern themselves with social commitments, practices, projects, or movements that seek social outcomes beyond, or other than, the standard libertarian commitment to expanding the scope of freedom from government coercion? Clearly, a consistent and principled libertarian cannot support efforts or beliefs that are contrary to libertarian principles — such as efforts to engineer social outcomes by means of government intervention. But if coercive laws have been taken off the table, then what should libertarians say about other religious, philosophical, social, or cultural commitments that pursue their ends through noncoercive means, such as targeted moral agitation, mass education, artistic or literary propaganda, charity, mutual aid, public praise, ridicule, social ostracism, targeted boycotts, social investing, slowdowns and strikes in a particular shop, general strikes, or other forms of solidarity and coordinated action? Which social movements should they oppose, which should they support, and toward which should they counsel indifference? And how do we tell the difference? In other words, should libertarianism be seen as a “thin” commitment, which can be happily joined to absolutely any set of values and projects, “so long as it is peaceful,” or is it better to treat it as one strand among others in a “thick” bundle of intertwined social commitments? Such disputes are often intimately connected with other disputes concerning the specifics of libertarian rights theory or class analysis and the mechanisms of social power. To grasp what’s at stake, it will be necessary to make the question more precise and to tease out the distinctions among some of the different possible relationships between libertarianism and “thicker” bundles of social, cultural, religious, or philosophical commitments, which might recommend integrating the two on some level or another. The forms of “thickness” I am about to discuss should not be confused with two other kinds of commitments, one tightly and one loosely connected to libertarianism: those logically entailed by the philosophy itself (what I call “thickness in entailment”), such as opposition to private aggression, and those that relate simply to being a good person (“thickness in conjunction”), such as being a loving parent. As an example of the first category, it might be argued that libertarians ought to actively oppose certain traditional cultural practices that involve the systematic use of violence against peaceful people — such as East African customs of forcing clitoridectomy on unwilling girls or the American and European custom of judges and juries ignoring the facts and the law to acquit or reduce the sentence for men who murdered unfaithful wives or their lovers. Principled libertarianism logically entails criticism of these social and cultural practices for the same reason that it entails criticism of government intervention: because the nonaggression principle condemns any violence against individual rights to life, liberty, and property, regardless of who commits it, and not just forms that are officially practiced by government. Between the tightest and the loosest possible connections, at least four other kinds of connections might exist between libertarianism and further social commitments, offering a number of important, but subtly distinct, avenues for thick libertarian analysis and criticism. Thickness for Application First, there might be some commitments that a libertarian can reject without formally contradicting the nonaggression principle, but which she cannot reject without in fact interfering with its proper application. Principles beyond libertarianism alone may be necessary for determining where my rights end and yours begin, or for stripping away conceptual blinders that prevent certain violations of liberty from being recognized as such. Consider the way in which garden-variety political collectivism prevents many nonlibertarians from even recognizing taxation or legislation by a democratic government as being forms of coercion in the first place. (After all, didn’t “we” consent to it?) Or, perhaps more controversially, think of the feminist criticism of the traditional division between the “private” and the “political” sphere, and of those who divide the spheres in such a way that pervasive, systemic violence and coercion within families turn out to be justified, or excused, or simply ignored as something “private” and therefore less than a serious form of violent oppression. If feminists are right about the way in which sexist political theories protect or excuse systematic violence against women, there is an important sense in which libertarians, because they are libertarians, should also be feminists. Importantly, the commitments that libertarians need to have here aren’t just applications of general libertarian principle to a special case; the argument calls in resources other than the nonaggression principle to determine just where and how the principle is properly applied. Thus the thickness called for is thicker than logical entailment, but the cash value of the thick commitments is the direct contribution they make toward the complete application of the nonaggression principle. ...

[Link to media]

— Séamus Malekafzali - Israel's Exports of Violence

 

at 4/23/25 2:22pm

Author: Séamus MalekafzaliTitle: Israel's Exports of ViolenceSubtitle: Israel's genocidal war in Gaza does not affect Gaza alone. If oppressive states all over the world see unity in their cause, those who oppose them should see unity in their own cause as well.Date: April 23rd, 2025Source: https://www.seamus-malekafzali.com/p/on-israels-exports-of-violence These remarks have been adapted from a talk with the Palestine Working Group at Columbia University on April 15. I don’t mean to speak as if I am ancient, but when I was in college, there was a perception that left-wingers, socialists, and communists, were mixing together all these different causes, foreign and domestic, economic and social, that ultimately meant nothing to each other. At worst, they were spouting off incoherent nonsense about an “omnicause”, if that phrase was in common parlance then. How can it be that this issue of tuition is in any way related to Native Americans in the student body, how can you seriously argue that such-and-such donation box shows the administration’s blindness to Western interventions abroad, and so on and so on and so on? Newspaper opinion pages love this sort of thing, college presidents enjoy using it as a cudgel against student protestors, and when strategy is being discussed on campus, it may be difficult and thorny to navigate these debates and to decide where priorities should lie. When it comes to the issue of something as present and severe as what is happening to the Gaza Strip, the lines that are being drawn by those in the streets between Palestine and other nations suffering under the heel of oppression and conflict are not far apart at all, not in the slightest. Students are not just demanding these issues be brought to the forefront, they are being forced to by governments and their own university administrations who seek to make an example of them. The Israelis who are pushing for these crackdowns and celebrating as students here are arrested, imprisoned, and deported despite their legal status and their rights, are not solely seeking control over the narrative in the United States, or the temperature of the rhetoric in the United Kingdom. Israel is seeking to place its thumbs on the scale of governments, societies, and most critically conflicts, all around the world, to make its influence undeniable, and to make avoiding interaction with it, as many Arab states tried to do in decades past, impossible. The bombs that rain down in Shuja’iyya, and the ethnic cleansing that is occurring right now in Rafah, have consequences that stretch beyond its borders, both to the benefit and the chagrin of the Israeli politicians and arms dealers who are responsible. Inevitably, whenever we discuss Gaza and the war being waged against it, we are confronted with the argument: “What does this have to do with me? It’s on the other side of the world, two countries duking it out. It’s none of my business.” To begin with, on a basic level, how could this not be your business? We, as Americans, pay our taxes to a state that then uses that money to send arms to the country that is enacting this catastrophe. It is by definition something you are related to. Your dollars went to funding this venture, one way or another. You have the ability to pressure your representatives to speak up about it because they retain the power to halt that funding. You have the ability to vote in other leaders because they hold the executive authority to tell Israel to stop its ventures. The United States holds powers that very few, if any, countries in the world have, which is that Israel listens to the White House and almost always the White House alone. When even the late leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, says that it is a myth that Israel controls America, that in fact America controls Israel, you understand how accepted this notion is among those who are intimately involved. If you are aware of what is happening, and you know that America is supporting it, and you still consider it to be none of your business, or even none of the business of those who oppose it, then you are abandoning the very idea of cause and effect. In discussing most Israeli actions during this war, that abandonment seems to be increasingly invoked by its defenders. If we manage to break past that argument of having nothing to do with it, then the appeals to sanity start to come in. “Okay, I acknowledge we have something to do with Israel, but why are you putting Mexico and Palestine in the same category? What does ICE and the border wall have to do with Gaza, why are you calling for walls to be torn down everywhere?” Are there not similarities between how the threat of illegal immigration is expressed by American conservatives and how the threat of Palestinians is expressed in Israel? How migrants in so many countries around the world are fear mongered about? That all they want to do is to rape, is to pillage, that they take over communities, that the sight of their laborers is to be feared, that the sight of their families means they’re about to subsume you as a race? Technology from Israel’s Elbit Systems, the defense contractor, is building surveillance towers on the border with Mexico, just as mortars from that same contractor are being used by Israeli soldiers to bombard Palestinian towns in Gaza. CECOT, the Salvadoran mega-prison where innocents are being deported to right now, was constructed under the guise of holding “terrorists” indefinitely, borrowing language from the War on Terror, with President Bukele publicly making the comparison that Hamas was just like MS-13. ...

[Link to media]

— Benjamin Tucker - Liberty Vol. V. No. 20.

 

at 4/23/25 11:05am

Author: Benjamin TuckerTitle: Liberty Vol. V. No. 20.Subtitle: Not the Daughter but the Mother of OrderDate: May 12, 1888Notes: Whole No. 124. — Many thanks to www.readliberty.org for the readily-available transcription and www.libertarian-labyrinth.org for the original scans.Source: Retrieved on April 23, 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. G. Bernard Shaw describes Liberty as “a lively paper, in which the usual proportions of a halfpenny worth of discussion to an intolerable deal of balderdash are reversed.” I bespeak attention for Victor’s article on “The Woman Question” in this issue. Despite his invitation of criticism, I shall venture the hope that the believers in woman’s independence, of whom I am one, will not be moved by this assault to all speak at once, but will wait at least till the appearance of the next number, which will contain a long article by Zelm, submitting to thorough examination the position that Victor, rather vehemently reenforced at some points by Sarah M. Chipman, occupies. I print the extract from Herbert Courtney (to be found in another column) chiefly because it aptly puts the case for the Egoists and shows that agnostics who talk of duty as against self-interest cut their own throats and bring their ethics into conflict with their religious views. I am not, of course, to be construed as concurring in the opinion that conduct should be regulated in accordance with the principle of the greatest happiness of the majority. Such a conclusion is neither rational nor logical. Mr. Courtney’s position is inconsistent with it, but, like all governmentalists, he ignores the inconvenient fact that the “welfare of all” and the happiness of the majority are not one and the same thing. In Mrs. Annie Besant’s magazine, “Our Corner,” G. Bernard Shaw has published the first of a series of two articles in reply to my paper on “State Socialism and Anarchism.” After the buffoonery of the “Workmen’s Advocate” and the superficiality of “Der Sozialist,” it is pleasant to be criticised by a man of brains and wit. The first article is intended as a refutation of Anarchism; the second (to appear this month) will be a defence of State Socialism. I await the appearance of the second before replying to either. From the fact that so much space is devoted in her magazine to an examination of my arguments, I infer that Mrs. Besant, who but a year ago “could support Mr. Benjamin Tucker’s strictures with perfect equanimity,” has discovered that equanimity alone is scarcely adequate to the task. The London “Anarchist” and the Chicago “Alarm” have suspended publication. The former will appear again on July 1; the fate of the latter is uncertain. That the “Alarm” has not been better sustained is much to be regretted. Its treatment of Liberty has been such that it is scarcely in human nature that I personally should feel very friendly to it, but perhaps my testimony to its high degree of excellence as an Anarchistic organ is all the more valuable because somewhat unwilling. It has done good service for Anarchism, and I wish that it might live to do more. I rejoiced at its revival, I shall mourn its death, if unhappily that fate awaits it. The fact that it is having such a hard struggle for existence must be a dampener to those who have fondly imagined that a large amount of earnest intelligence regarding economic questions was suddenly generated by the throwing of that bomb. Will Hubbard-Kernan, the eccentric editor of the prairies, in connection with S. F. Wilson, George Francis Train’s lecture agent, has come to the surface with another journal, “The Free-Lance.” Written in the editor’s cyclonic rhetoric and set up in accordance with his typographical idiosyncrasies, it is needless to say that it is bold, entertaining, and sham-piercing. It is filled with opportunities for laughter, but the most amusing of all to the lover of absurdities in logic is to be found in the prospectus. After announcing itself as “the only paper that will spit, and trample on the old isms and ideas of Sanctuary, Society, and State, whenever those isms and ideas conflict with the Self-Sovereignty of man,” it follows this Anarchistic generalization with the following assortment of specifications: “The only paper that will fight the hell-system which suffers men and women of unsound mind, body, or morals to marry; The only paper that will denounce the damnable custom of permitting the poor to procreate fresh tramps, paupers, and lazzaroni; The only paper that will defend the right of a man to drink rum or water as suits him best; The only paper that will favor sending every inmate of a house of ill-fame to the penitentiary, and every patron of such a place to the chain-gang.” It would appear from this that Mr. Kernan thinks, it consistent with the self-sovereignty of man to drink rum, but not to patronize a house of ill-fame. Now, it is a little queer that Brick Pomeroy, who also thinks himself a champion of the self-sovereignty of man, admits sexual liberty, but denies the liberty to drink. How few is the number of men who can allow complete liberty in face of their own prejudices! Pomeroy is afflicted with Baechophobia and Kernan with Phallophobia, and a man who has a phobia is almost sure, within its range, to be regardless of the rights of others. The “Free-Lance” is published weekly at $2.00 a year. Subscriptions may be sent to the Free Lance Publishing Co., Box 297, Kansas City, Mo. ...

[Link to media]

— L’Ouvrier Communiste - Dictatorship of the Proletariat, Permanent Revolution and Revolutionary War

 

at 4/22/25 11:29pm

Author: L’Ouvrier CommunisteTitle: Dictatorship of the Proletariat, Permanent Revolution and Revolutionary WarDate: 1930Source: https://libcom.org/article/dictatorship-proletariat-permanent-revolution-and-revolutionary-war (L’Ouvrier Communiste, No. 12, Octobre 1930) What must the proletariat do to break its chains, to conquer its freedom once and for all, to transform capitalist society, based on the profit of a minority, that is, of the bourgeoisie and its state apparatus, into a communist society, a society in which production can develop freely to satisfy the needs of the entire great working community? It is certain that it will have to destroy, sweep away, the parasitic state apparatus which represents an immense bureaucratic, police and military octopus, which holds tight in its tentacles the whole of society and all its activities. This fact is necessary to the extent that we know that the present state is a formidable weapon in the hands of powerfully concentrated capitalism, a weapon of domination, corruption, repression and sometimes terror. When the working class has destroyed this colossal apparatus, certainly after a fierce and violent struggle, problems of extreme gravity will appear. How will the proletariat be able to wage and continue its struggle against the bourgeois remnants, against the individualist infection which will remain alive for a certain time in certain petty-bourgeois social strata, whether in the city or in the countryside? And finally, what will the working class be able to do if it finds itself isolated in a single country to lead the revolution? These problems are of tremendous importance insofar as, if they are not solved, it will be impossible for the proletariat to triumph definitively; and they are therefore the subject of heated polemics in the workers’ camp. Given the way in which the bourgeois state and its parasitic tendencies are developing today, the theory of universal democracy, which sees in the state an ever-widening manifestation of the collective consciousness, an ever-more authentic expression of the thought of the majority, appears inconceivable. Universal suffrage, which in the hands of capitalist magnates represents a soft ground in which they can inscribe their will by means of moral and material corruption, of the weapon of publicity which takes charge of forming public opinion, is certainly not such a brilliant demonstration of the correctness of this theory. The gradual passage from the State to the non-State, that is to say its progressive absorption in the social organization, is resoundingly denied by the facts. Rather, the opposite is true: the absorption of all economic and social activities by this apparatus, the consequent crushing of all collective energies, of all new initiatives, by this enormous apparatus of parasites who, producing nothing, collaborate with capital in limiting productive development. All legal forms of association end up being absorbed by this apparatus: unions, cooperatives and the rest,are annexed to the state by the formation of a bureaucratic state above them. Bureaucracy thus presents itself as the typical aspect of the present bourgeois state, it is, we would say, almost its very essence. We cannot therefore speak today of free associations developing as Kropotkin spoke of them in his time, we cannot speak of communities which, on peaceful terrain, develop their activities, which will gradually influence the social context. Legal activity always ends up being transformed into activity in favor of the bourgeois state and capitalism. All theories of peaceful revolution fail and fascism, which is the classic reaction of the contemporary era, clearly proves that, when the influence of the state weakens, when its bases seem to be undermined, capitalism ensures, with extra-legal formations, to strengthen it and even to increase its prerogatives. The gigantic development of the state is general, and there is no exception even in a single country. The traditional democracy of America and England, for which Marx seemed to have sympathy, has been transformed, as Lenin’s analysis in State and the revolution, in a bureaucratic State which has totally absorbed trade unionism into its apparatus. Classically, it has been proven that the state — the monarchical state, the republican state, the democratic state, the social-democratic state, the Bolshevik state — has an inexorable tendency to develop. An incursion into the terrain of history would demonstrate the truth of this assertion. Bakunin’s assertions in this regard are highly perceptive. It seems that, when he speaks of the replacement of the modern state by another state, a revolutionary state or a workers’ state, he is foreshadowing, with a profound and prophetic eye, the formation of a new state. On the other hand, it seems to us that a careful examination of Marxist theory should lead us to consider the proletarian dictatorship not as a state, but as a form of organization that is no longer the state. It’s true that this expression is still used by Marx himself, but it’s also true that he sees this state as the class, as the proletariat in its unity. And of course, his concept no longer refers to the classical, bureaucratic state, etc., but to a special organization of the class that participates as a whole in social and economic activities. This Marxist formulation clearly exposes the lie of those scholastic theorists who, starting from the premise that the state is the product of class conflict, consequently speak of a bourgeois state and a proletarian state, bringing the two forms together in their interpretation, and regarding them as almost identical. Trotsky arrived at precisely this pedantic and erroneous interpretation of Marxism or, more accurately, of Marx’s method. Many anarchist workers dislike what they call the authoritarian side of Marxist doctrine precisely because social-democratic scholasticism has given it a pedantic and false interpretation. Lenin himself authentically embodies this scholasticism, since it leads him to see the proletarian dictatorship as a bureaucratic apparatus which, like the old bourgeois apparatus, will have repressive functions. ...

[Link to media]

— Tomás Ibáñez - Neo-fascism, new totalitarianism and the illusion of the ballot box

 

at 4/22/25 4:46pm

Author: Tomás IbáñezTitle: Neo-fascism, new totalitarianism and the illusion of the ballot boxDate: April 20th, 2025Notes: Original text in Spanish: https://redeslibertarias.com/2025/03/17/el-neofascismo-el-totalitarismo-de-nuevo-cuno-y-el-espejismo-de-las-urnas/Source: https://autonomies.org/2025/04/tomas-ibanez-neo-fascism-novel-totalitarianism-and-the-illusion-of-the-ballot-box/ We share below a recent talk given by Tomás Ibáñez at the Ateneo Libertario La Idea, Madrid, on the 27th of February. The importance and urgency of its subject matter requires no introduction. I shall begin with a note that is merely conceptual, or perhaps simply terminological. I – Fascism and Neo-fascism It is well known that fascism proper, classical fascism, is a historically situated phenomenon which, despite their differences, usually encompasses both Mussolini’s fascism and Hitler’s National Socialism. We also know that this term has been extrapolated to designate both regimes that bear a certain resemblance to those that prevailed in the 1920s and 1930s, and to qualify political positions and movements that claim to be based on the ideologies of those regimes, with a few minor updates, if any. Although it is historically dated, I believe that the extrapolation of this term retains a certain usefulness because fascist ideology continues to be claimed today by different groups, and continues to permeate certain behaviours, both individual and collective. Therefore, I would not dream of denying that fascism is still present in our societies and that it is not limited to being a mere object of the past, confined to the museum of history. We must therefore continue to fight it radically and with all our might. However, alongside this fascism, which, incidentally, I am not going to discuss here, a new phenomenon is developing on a macro-social level, which is just as execrable as the fascism of the last century, and which could even raise that barbarity to still greater heights. It is about this phenomenon that I intend to speak today and I believe that describing it as fascism, as is so often the case, does not help us to understand its nature, but rather contributes to distorting our understanding of it. Well, I prefer to use the term neo-fascism to describe the current extreme right-wing movements and policies that are proliferating all over the world, even though I know that, like fascism, it is also a historically dated word because it was used to describe the extreme right-wing political formations that took over from classical fascism in the 1950s and 1960s, particularly in Italy. If I nevertheless resort to the term neo-fascism, it is because it evokes the unmistakable family resemblance that today’s extreme right shares with classical fascism, but at the same time it also points to a certain difference. As far as similarities are concerned, I believe that the aforementioned family resemblance between the two phenomena is beyond doubt. For example, we find in neo-fascism, as in fascism, both racism and xenophobia, as well as the exaltation of force and the cult of authority, and contempt for human rights. And, of course, one could add many more commonalities between the two. Turning now to the differences, I will mention just a couple of them. For example, neo-fascism no longer needs to promote practices of snitching and mutual surveillance among neighbours, or co-workers, or even family members, in order to create a climate of distrust and fear that someone will report us to the authorities. Practices which, by the way, also abounded, as we well know, in other equally ultra-authoritarian regimes such as those that prevailed in the Soviet Union and its satellites. If neo-fascism can calmly dispense with such practices, it is simply because, through digital technologies, surveillance, information and denunciation are, so to speak, built into contemporary society by default. Nor is it essential to prohibit and repress the publication of subversive writings, because the impact of any alternative media is reduced to the strictest insignificance in the face of the enormous volume of comments disseminated by social networks; and when, moreover, these networks are fed by those who control the large digital platforms, they already fulfil the task of disinformation and neutralisation of subversive discourse, without it being necessary to impose, as in the past, strict limitations on freedom of expression. However, beyond the similarities and differences between classical fascism and neo-fascism, what is clear is that the latter is experiencing an extraordinary upsurge in various parts of the world. So much so that one might think that the neo-fascists have finally read and assimilated Gramsci‘s work and have launched themselves into the global conquest of ideological and cultural hegemony. But in reality, it matters little whether they have read it or not, because the rise of neo-fascism is the result of factors that are not primarily the result of ideological and cultural action, even if this also plays an important role. II – The Causes In fact, among the different causes of such growth, which is really what I want to discuss here today, there are two main sets of causal elements. The first set includes factors which are, I don’t quite know what to call them, but let’s say they are psychosocial effects resulting from certain socio-structural characteristics. I will explain this in a moment. ...

[Link to media]

— Jon Hatch - Confessions of an Irish Catholic anarchist…

 

at 4/22/25 3:51pm

Author: Jon HatchTitle: Confessions of an Irish Catholic anarchist…Date: 2016Notes: Jon Hatch is a theologian, educator, and activist who received his M.Phil in Reconciliation Studies and his Ph.D in Theology from Trinity College Dublin. He has 13 years’ experience working in the fields of peace, reconciliation, and social justice in Ireland and Northern Ireland with Corrymeela, Irish Peace Centres and other locally-based projects. He divides his time between Ireland and Northwest Montana.Source: Retrieved on April 22, 2025 from https://sluggerotoole.com/2016/02/07/confessions-of-an-irish-catholic-anarchist/ With election time on the horizon, the descriptive terms in the title start coming up in conversation more and more frequently. And yes, it is all correct; I’m an Irish citizen, a devout Catholic and a committed anarchist. To the average person, that might seem incongruous- certainly the last two- even absurd. But it is all correct. Needless to say, questions come thick and fast: How I can remain in the hierarchical Catholic Church- which prizes devotion and obedience above just about everything- and embrace a political outlook that rejects hierarchies and embraces liberty and free thought? Doesn’t anarchism reject organization altogether in favour of chaotic rebellion? Can you really be part of a hierarchical church- a very often reactionary and intolerant one- and still maintain your own liberty and autonomy, both of which sacrosanct to anarchists? ‘No Gods, No Masters’ and ‘I believe in God the Father Almighty’… Can you actually hold on to both? My personal answer comes from years of lived experience, thousands of pages, dozens of interactions, and much contemplation. It comes from discovery and investigation of the rich seam of radical thought within Christian teaching and history- the worker priests of France; the Catholic Worker movement of Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin; the theology of Jacques Ellul and Nicolai Berdyaev; the philosophy of Leo Tolstoy… So the thoughts I’ll give here are relatively brief, but there’s plenty to explore… … In the words of one Jewish carpenter, ‘seek and you shall find’… First of all, we need to establish, what is anarchism? Briefly, anarchism is a system of social thought that holds that the natural state of humanity is freedom and that any form of authoritarianism, coercion, oppression, or slavery is violence and murder. Anarchism aims to bring about the maximum of human freedom possible and therefore–obviously- envisions fundamental changes to how we think about and manage our society. Contrary to the common assumption, anarchists are not opposed to management or organization; on the contrary, anarchism is a method of organization first and foremost. At its root, anarchism is a critique of centralized power, and one specific form of centralized power in particular- the ‘State’. That’s a complicated opinion to hold, as the centralized ‘State’ is the only form of social organization that any of us has ever known and it’s extremely difficult to contemplate life without it. Nevertheless, anarchists maintain that the centralized, bureaucratic, militarized ‘State’ commodifies, coerces, and curtails human freedom to such an extent- right up to killing us if it sees fit- that any supposed ‘benefits’ it allegedly provides are moot. While anarchists are opposed to centralized power, they do draw distinctions between ‘power’ and ‘authority’. ‘Power’ is the ability to do or act, usually through force of will or concerted might. ‘Authority’, on the other hand, flows from expertise or knowledge. I invite a plumber into my home because he or she is an authority on water and heating systems. The toilet gets fixed and the plumber leaves. If, however, the toilet gets fixed and the plumber decides to move into my house, ‘authority’ would have morphed into abusive power, and would need to be actively resisted. So, while other political expressions talk about seizing power, consolidating power, or wielding power, anarchists focus on diffusing it, distributing it, getting it into as many hands as possible. Power, reason the anarchists, is like manure: spread it around and it helps things to grow; put it all in one place and it’s a big pile of, well, manure. And anarchists like the idea of growth. Most of the political spectrum tends to see society as a structure-something built or constructed, and into which humans must be fitted and conditioned; anarchists tend to see society as an organism- growing, moving, flowing- in which humans need to live in balance, equally, and equitably, ‘from each according to ability, to each according to need.’ This is all crucial me as a Catholic. At the heart of my tradition is the person of Jesus as we see him presented in the biblical text. In the Gospels, Jesus appears not as an emperor, a general, or even a religious scholar, but as a poor man, a worker in a small town, later an itinerant teacher. Anarchists don’t think that was by chance; God was modeling something… something utterly transformative. In the Gospels, Jesus appears constantly at odds with the powers that be. He was a friend of sinners, almost always to be found with those with no influence or perceived social or political importance. In the Gospels, Jesus appears utterly indifferent to influence or power. Far from assuming, seizing, or even desiring power, Jesus empties himself of power and takes the form of a servant of all, making clear to his followers that they should do likewise. In the Gospels, the God of whom Jesus constantly speaks- the God he calls ‘Father’ and teaches his followers to call ‘Father’- is never presented as a Master who imposes his will on us or who regards us as inferiors. Indeed, Jesus is clear that ‘I and the Father are one; if you have seen me, you have seen the Father;’ (St. John 10:30; 14:9). ...

[Link to media]

— L.S. - A Conspiracy of Dunces

 

at 4/22/25 3:25pm

Author: L.S.Title: A Conspiracy of DuncesDate: April 15th, 2025Source: https://lakeeffect.noblogs.org/post/2025/04/15/a-conspiracy-of-dunces/ [W]e have a conscious opponent, but one subject to a range of contradictions and resulting political limits—although not absolute ones. – Don Hamerquist, “Three Tendencies on Repression” After decades of defeat, the revolutionary left’s ability to provide prompt assessments of ruling-class composition and strategy has atrophied. The reader can be forgiven for being impressed that Fanon’s colonized subject, for example, could keep pace with their far more eventful times: “They live in a doomsday atmosphere and nothing must elude them. This is why they fully understand Phouma and Phoumi, Lumumba and Tschombe, Ahidjo and Moumie, Kenyatta and those introduced from time to time to replace him.” Our response to our own tin-pot dictator, by contrast, has been mostly outrage and uncertainty. A recent conclusion to the series of articles chronicling the movement against Cop City offers an impressive benchmark for analyses of ongoing struggles, but many of our descriptions of the ruling bloc still presume that it is a unified, wholly self-conscious force, whose true motives are unknown to us. As an attempt to think in the opposite direction, this essay inventories the Trump administration’s coalition of bourgeois class forces, along with the competitive projects and motives that animate them. POLITICS IN THE PROPHETIC TENSE A recent article by Daniel Grave asks a crucial question which it then bars itself from answering: “recognizing that we are experiencing shock as a part of a wider strategy isn’t really enough. We have to ask what that strategy is. What goals might this shock and confusion be trying to further?” Grave goes on to “present a theory that seems to click a lot of things into place.” He calls it a “conspiracy theory,” and that is exactly what it is: an attempt to “attribute a number of apparently disconnected events to the not-so-secret plans of a few powerful people.” Because those people are in and adjacent to the federal government, the conspiracy takes on a national and even transnational character; a few characters are taken to serve as narrative leads as everything else falls into place around their open machinations. Such a conspiracy is not “normal fare in the real world.” The powerful conspire, but under conditions which they do not choose; their plans often conflict with one another in aim and execution. The strategies of various members of the ruling bloc do not add up, without some degree of pruning and violence, to a single strategy. But Grave presses on. The narrating voice of this conspiracy is Curtis Yarvin, a small-time internet blogger previously known by his username, Mencius Moldbug. Yarvin’s writing took shape in a milieu graced by other internet personalities driven by their own manic ambitions; the coterie of ‘neoreactionaries’ from which he comes boasts names like Nick Land and congregated mostly on sites like Lesswrong, where a kind of circumscribed ‘rationalism’ took on the old mantle of the early-2000s new atheists. After a decade of cult stardom, more with liberal news outlets than with the tech-right that he was said to effectively command, he has switched from an old blog to a new Substack, where his articles balance free musings with prescriptive advice offered for a monthly fee. (Take one recent article: “after the paywall, I’ll explain what to do about the Cathedral instead.”) If one were to believe Yarvin himself, or the various media reports of his influential reach, Mencius Moldbug was an ideological North Star for a steeled core of Trump-administration figures, most importantly Peter Thiel, who groomed JD Vance for his current position as Vice President. The connection between the two latter individuals is fairly clear; the portability of Yarvin’s teachings to Thiel’s own thinking, and from Thiel to Vance, is more tenuous, bound up in gossip more than action. Before Yarvin was attributed responsibility for the rise of the Silicon Valley secessionist movement or an empowered Trumpian right, he was counseling “the steel rule of passivism”: an “absolute renunciation of official power” intended to “vaccinate” the neoreactionary project against capture by political elites. If his assessment of the value of political participation wavered with attention from the Silicon Valley elite or the emergence of the Trump movement, it is hardly because he is the secret mastermind of either – he is a ‘gray mirror’ in which any willing patrons in the ruling bloc can recognize themselves, whatever their aspirations. Unfortunately for Yarvin, he gets little in return: whatever the year, none of the forms of government one might find espoused on his blogs – ‘neocameralism,’ ‘patchwork’ localism, the total dissolution of the federal government, etc. – are reflected, as yet, in Trump administration policy. At any rate: liberal outlets were quick to pick up a 2022 essay that Yarvin wrote outlining his ideal iteration of a right-wing seizure of power. As Grave notes, it’s full of winks and nods, but this shouldn’t paper over their function, which is to absolve Yarvin of having to commit to his own outline. His profile of Trump in the essay need not be discarded too quickly, because the fact that Trump isn’t “selling his hotels” – that he’s not “all in”, as Yarvin puts it – is just as important as any political daisy-chain we could construct. ...

[Link to media]

— Anonymous, L.S. - A Conspiracy of Dunces

 

at 4/22/25 3:25pm

Author: Anonymous, L.S.Title: A Conspiracy of DuncesDate: April 15th, 2025Source: https://lakeeffect.noblogs.org/post/2025/04/15/a-conspiracy-of-dunces/ [W]e have a conscious opponent, but one subject to a range of contradictions and resulting political limits—although not absolute ones. – Don Hamerquist, “Three Tendencies on Repression” After decades of defeat, the revolutionary left’s ability to provide prompt assessments of ruling-class composition and strategy has atrophied. The reader can be forgiven for being impressed that Fanon’s colonized subject, for example, could keep pace with their far more eventful times: “They live in a doomsday atmosphere and nothing must elude them. This is why they fully understand Phouma and Phoumi, Lumumba and Tschombe, Ahidjo and Moumie, Kenyatta and those introduced from time to time to replace him.” Our response to our own tin-pot dictator, by contrast, has been mostly outrage and uncertainty. A recent conclusion to the series of articles chronicling the movement against Cop City offers an impressive benchmark for analyses of ongoing struggles, but many of our descriptions of the ruling bloc still presume that it is a unified, wholly self-conscious force, whose true motives are unknown to us. As an attempt to think in the opposite direction, this essay inventories the Trump administration’s coalition of bourgeois class forces, along with the competitive projects and motives that animate them. POLITICS IN THE PROPHETIC TENSE A recent article by Daniel Grave asks a crucial question which it then bars itself from answering: “recognizing that we are experiencing shock as a part of a wider strategy isn’t really enough. We have to ask what that strategy is. What goals might this shock and confusion be trying to further?” Grave goes on to “present a theory that seems to click a lot of things into place.” He calls it a “conspiracy theory,” and that is exactly what it is: an attempt to “attribute a number of apparently disconnected events to the not-so-secret plans of a few powerful people.” Because those people are in and adjacent to the federal government, the conspiracy takes on a national and even transnational character; a few characters are taken to serve as narrative leads as everything else falls into place around their open machinations. Such a conspiracy is not “normal fare in the real world.” The powerful conspire, but under conditions which they do not choose; their plans often conflict with one another in aim and execution. The strategies of various members of the ruling bloc do not add up, without some degree of pruning and violence, to a single strategy. But Grave presses on. The narrating voice of this conspiracy is Curtis Yarvin, a small-time internet blogger previously known by his username, Mencius Moldbug. Yarvin’s writing took shape in a milieu graced by other internet personalities driven by their own manic ambitions; the coterie of ‘neoreactionaries’ from which he comes boasts names like Nick Land and congregated mostly on sites like Lesswrong, where a kind of circumscribed ‘rationalism’ took on the old mantle of the early-2000s new atheists. After a decade of cult stardom, more with liberal news outlets than with the tech-right that he was said to effectively command, he has switched from an old blog to a new Substack, where his articles balance free musings with prescriptive advice offered for a monthly fee. (Take one recent article: “after the paywall, I’ll explain what to do about the Cathedral instead.”) If one were to believe Yarvin himself, or the various media reports of his influential reach, Mencius Moldbug was an ideological North Star for a steeled core of Trump-administration figures, most importantly Peter Thiel, who groomed JD Vance for his current position as Vice President. The connection between the two latter individuals is fairly clear; the portability of Yarvin’s teachings to Thiel’s own thinking, and from Thiel to Vance, is more tenuous, bound up in gossip more than action. Before Yarvin was attributed responsibility for the rise of the Silicon Valley secessionist movement or an empowered Trumpian right, he was counseling “the steel rule of passivism”: an “absolute renunciation of official power” intended to “vaccinate” the neoreactionary project against capture by political elites. If his assessment of the value of political participation wavered with attention from the Silicon Valley elite or the emergence of the Trump movement, it is hardly because he is the secret mastermind of either – he is a ‘gray mirror’ in which any willing patrons in the ruling bloc can recognize themselves, whatever their aspirations. Unfortunately for Yarvin, he gets little in return: whatever the year, none of the forms of government one might find espoused on his blogs – ‘neocameralism,’ ‘patchwork’ localism, the total dissolution of the federal government, etc. – are reflected, as yet, in Trump administration policy. At any rate: liberal outlets were quick to pick up a 2022 essay that Yarvin wrote outlining his ideal iteration of a right-wing seizure of power. As Grave notes, it’s full of winks and nods, but this shouldn’t paper over their function, which is to absolve Yarvin of having to commit to his own outline. His profile of Trump in the essay need not be discarded too quickly, because the fact that Trump isn’t “selling his hotels” – that he’s not “all in”, as Yarvin puts it – is just as important as any political daisy-chain we could construct. ...

[Link to media]

— Leo Tolstoy - Resurrection

 

at 4/21/25 11:44pm

Author: Leo TolstoyTitle: ResurrectionDate: 1899Source: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1938 TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE Opinions about Tolstoy and his work differ, but on one point there surely might be unanimity. A writer of world-wide reputation should be at least allowed to know how to spell his own name. Why should any one insist on spelling it “Tolstoi” (with one, two or three dots over the “i”), when he himself writes it “Tolstoy”? The only reason I have ever heard suggested is, that in England and America such outlandish views are attributed to him, that an outlandish spelling is desirable to match those views. This novel, written in the rough by Tolstoy some years ago and founded upon an actual occurrence, was completely rewritten by him during the last year and a half, and all the proceeds have been devoted by him to aiding the Doukhobors, a sect who were persecuted in the Caucasus (especially from 1895 to 1898) for refusing to learn war. About seven thousand three hundred of them are settled in Canada, and about a hundred of the leaders are exiled to the remote parts of Siberia. Anything I may receive for my work in translating the book will go to the same cause. “Prevention is better than cure,” and I would rather help people to abstain from killing and wounding each other than devote the money to patch up their wounds after the battle. LOUISE MAUDE BOOK I. CHAPTER I. MASLOVA IN PRISON. Though hundreds of thousands had done their very best to disfigure the small piece of land on which they were crowded together, by paving the ground with stones, scraping away every vestige of vegetation, cutting down the trees, turning away birds and beasts, and filling the air with the smoke of naphtha and coal, still spring was spring, even in the town. The sun shone warm, the air was balmy; everywhere, where it did not get scraped away, the grass revived and sprang up between the paving-stones as well as on the narrow strips of lawn on the boulevards. The birches, the poplars, and the wild cherry unfolded their gummy and fragrant leaves, the limes were expanding their opening buds; crows, sparrows, and pigeons, filled with the joy of spring, were getting their nests ready; the flies were buzzing along the walls, warmed by the sunshine. All were glad, the plants, the birds, the insects, and the children. But men, grown-up men and women, did not leave off cheating and tormenting themselves and each other. It was not this spring morning men thought sacred and worthy of consideration not the beauty of God’s world, given for a joy to all creatures, this beauty which inclines the heart to peace, to harmony, and to love, but only their own devices for enslaving one another. Thus, in the prison office of the Government town, it was not the fact that men and animals had received the grace and gladness of spring that was considered sacred and important, but that a notice, numbered and with a superscription, had come the day before, ordering that on this 28th day of April, at 9 a.m., three prisoners at present detained in the prison, a man and two women (one of these women, as the chief criminal, to be conducted separately), had to appear at Court. So now, on the 28th of April, at 8 o’clock, a jailer and soon after him a woman warder with curly grey hair, dressed in a jacket with sleeves trimmed with gold, with a blue-edged belt round her waist, and having a look of suffering on her face, came into the corridor. “You want Maslova?” she asked, coming up to the cell with the jailer who was on duty. The jailer, rattling the iron padlock, opened the door of the cell, from which there came a whiff of air fouler even than that in the corridor, and called out, “Maslova! to the Court,” and closed the door again. Even into the prison yard the breeze had brought the fresh vivifying air from the fields. But in the corridor the air was laden with the germs of typhoid, the smell of sewage, putrefaction, and tar; every newcomer felt sad and dejected in it. The woman warder felt this, though she was used to bad air. She had just come in from outside, and entering the corridor, she at once became sleepy. From inside the cell came the sound of bustle and women’s voices, and the patter of bare feet on the floor. “Now, then, hurry up, Maslova, I say!” called out the jailer, and in a minute or two a small young woman with a very full bust came briskly out of the door and went up to the jailer. She had on a grey cloak over a white jacket and petticoat. On her feet she wore linen stockings and prison shoes, and round her head was tied a white kerchief, from under which a few locks of black hair were brushed over the forehead with evident intent. The face of the woman was of that whiteness peculiar to people who have lived long in confinement, and which puts one in mind of shoots of potatoes that spring up in a cellar. Her small broad hands and full neck, which showed from under the broad collar of her cloak, were of the same hue. Her black, sparkling eyes, one with a slight squint, appeared in striking contrast to the dull pallor of her face. ...

[Link to media]

— Alexandre Christoyannopoulos - It’s Only Shorthand for a Cluster of Ideas and Practices

 

at 4/21/25 3:20pm

Author: Alexandre ChristoyannopoulosTitle: It’s Only Shorthand for a Cluster of Ideas and PracticesSubtitle: (or: it’s one of many inspirations for present and future)Date: 2012Source: Retrieved on April 21, 2025 from https://www.jesusradicals.com/blog-archives-2005---2017/its-only-shorthand-for-a-cluster-of-ideas-and-practices ‘Christian anarchism’ is a label sometimes used in Jesus Radicals circles. In a December 2011 call and response between Amaryah Armstrong and Nekeisha Alexis-Baker, Amaryah asked Nekeisha whether she had to ‘be an anarchist’. She argued that the term ‘does not sit well’ with her because of the ‘irony of Christian anarchy being anti-domination and yet being predicated on domination by White men’, and went on to make her case. Nekeisha replied that ‘it depends on how we define “anarchist”’, and responded to several of Amaryah’s points. Their thought-provoking dialogue touches on the common difficulty of how to define ideological labels in political thought. I’d like to offer some thoughts on this from my perspective – that is, some thoughts on ‘Christian anarchism’ as a label, on why I like it, on problems associated with it, and perhaps on how we can decide whether and when to use it – and this, from the perspective of a white man from an international European background spending unhealthy amounts of time in academic settings. ‘Christian anarchism’ as a cluster of ideas Political scientists use ideological labels to describe collections of ideas valued and practiced by many, and to classify different types of political ideals. These political ideologies evolve over time, take different flavours in different contexts, interact with one another and generate further sub-categories. They also inevitably have fringe groups or ideological clusters that only share some core beliefs whilst disagreeing on others. ‘Anarchism’, for instance, typically captures a blend of anti-statism, anti-capitalism, anti-clericalism (if not militant atheism), and bottom-up activism and organising. However, even this particular blend of ideas might be disputed by some. Anarchism has evolved from Goldman to Graeber, takes different nuances in France or South Korea, and can come in queer, green, syndicalist or many other varieties – some of which, such as Christian anarchism, are not welcomed by all. I use ‘Christian anarchism’ as a label to describe works by a number of different authors and activists – such as Tolstoy, Ellul, Eller, Andrews, Clairborne, Catholic Workers such as Day, Maurin and Hennacy, others at the ‘fringes’ like Yoder, Cavanaugh, and Myers, and many more. These are, it’s true, mostly white males, which admittedly demonstrates Amaryah’s point about their historical dominance. At the same time, this unrepresentative dominance need not continue or prevent a broadening of the Christian anarchist ‘church’[1], and there may even be room for revisionist historiography to question this apparently established dominance. What earns them the shared ‘Christian anarchism’ label is that (in their writings at least) they derive ‘anarchist’ conclusions from ‘Christian’ premises. ‘Christian’ here can mean anything from a strict Tolstoyan emphasis on the moral teaching of Jesus to embracing Christian liturgy or local church activities, while ‘anarchism’ can mean anything from passionate criticism of armies and prisons to the prefigurative embodiment of non-hierarchical collective life. The point is that they all derive political views and practices usually associated with ‘anarchism’ from their take on ‘Christianity’. Beyond this main commonality of deriving ‘anarchism’ from ‘Christianity’, if we zoom in a bit on their common ideas, we notice that these Christian anarchists tend to a pacifist critique of violence and commitment to non-violent methods; a preference for love and forgiveness; a denunciation of the state’s enforcement of economic inequality, and indeed of the state itself as idolatry; some criticism of institutional churches; and a vision of the ideal church as ‘a new society in the shell of the old’. These shared views, emanating from their political reading of Jesus’ mission, brings Christian anarchists close to similar anarchist or anarcho-pacifist ideologies. All that and much more is supposed to be captured by the ideological label or category of political thought referred to as ‘Christian anarchism’. Adam Clark, a British Christian anarchist, recently said to me: ‘The reason I like the term Christian anarchism is that it seems to have a history of individuals I greatly admire. It also reflects a political element with Jesus as the nonviolent revolutionary.’ I agree. What I like about the label is that it points to a specific group of people who despite holding a variety of very different and interesting views also share a number of core ideas. The label also provides an excuse to take seriously the radical political implications of Jesus’ moral teaching. The many activists and authors who today adopt the label often do so precisely to associate themselves with these people and their ideas, with the revolutionary reading of Jesus, and with contemporary fellow travellers who share the same perspective. Using labels: context and intentions As with any ideological label, however, you inevitably hit difficulties. Mark Van Steenwyk’s brilliant primer on Christian anarchism does a good job of showing how tricky it is to even define either ‘anarchism’ or ‘Christianity’ – let alone ‘Christian anarchism’ or its place within the other two traditions. As Mark notes, the matter isn’t helped by the lack of ‘a successive chain of radical Christianity’ which we could call ‘Christian anarchist’. The ‘Christian anarchism’ label refers not so much to a continuous stream or school of thought than to a list of Christians with anarchist impulses cropping up in different contexts. ...

[Link to media]

— Andy Lewis - Anarcho-Primitivism vs. Peace Justice and the Christian Left

 

at 4/21/25 2:52pm

Author: Andy LewisTitle: Anarcho-Primitivism vs. Peace Justice and the Christian LeftDate: 2010Source: Retrieved on April 21, 2025 from https://www.jesusradicals.com/blog-archives-2005---2017/anarcho-primitivism-vs-peace-justice-and-the-christian-left?__cf_chl_tk=EwBSsXgdzQ9scNLRDoGk1WgzWazZMuTKbQgIDCoCHeA-1743201528-1.0.1.1-IEwRwHtBIcQRKvo1OaYZ2xkLkV In recent years the connections between an anarcho-primitivist critique and the Christian faith have been the focus of numerous gatherings, conferences and discussions. Jesus Radicals has been the on-line center for discussion regarding these connections for nearly six years now, and while the forums were never totally focused on an anarcho-primitivist critique, discussion relating to these ideas has fallen off quite noticeably since the merger with Jesus Manifesto. With few exceptions, the front page essays have been almost entirely devoid of any explicitly anarchist critique. This reflects a disappointing tendency amongst “radical” Christians to constantly refer back to the principles of the peace and justice movement which have effectively created a homogeneous “Christian Left” devoid of any anarchist analysis. Don’t get me wrong–I’m not looking for a more radical Christian Left, I’m looking for a real break from the Left and all its inherent values such as production and development especially in the scientific and technological fields. The ever-present focus on poverty never seems to go deeper than a Leftist insistence on guilt and reformist measures such as “hospitality.” Sure, hospitality is radical in the right context (the 1930s for example), but when it’s so thoroughly institutionalized as it is in so many Catholic Worker Houses I fail to see how promoting such a response does much more than perpetuate reliance on institutional models for living out the Christian faith. The same could be said for plowshares actions. Maybe the first 100 times you poured blood on the nuke it was really something novel and creative but now, it’s a catholic worker form of institutionalized “resistance.” For many Christians the peace and justice movement is an easy way to refute the right wing morality and nationalism associated with fundamentalist Christianity. Unfortunately peace and justice Christianity is mired with many of its own faults. Just as the Christian Right has created a theology of personal morality and national allegiance, the Christian Left has created a theology of social morality under the banner of peace and justice. While there have certainly been peace and justice Christians who have attempted to bring anarchism into the discussion, these attempts have been half-assed at best and downright lame in most cases (i.e. Tripp York). Part of the problem seems to lie in the complete lack of familiarity that most peace and justice Christians have with anarchism, especially the contemporary brands such as anarcho-primitivism. The structural dynamics of technology, for example, go virtually uncommented upon by most peace and justice Christians who prefer to emphasize more “practical” enemies such as coal companies, the military, and republicans. While this reformist stance is to be expected from unrepentant liberals such as Jim Wallace, it’s altogether astonishing that so many Christians who identify as “anarchist” or even “radical” would keep such staunch attachments to the peace and justice movement. Tom Cornell’s “In Defense of Catholic Worker Anarchism” is perhaps the best example of the terminal lameness associated with peace and justice versions of anarchism and Christianity. Jacques Ellul came closest to opening up a true exploration of the connections between anarchism and Christianity with his devastating insight into the ever expanding realm of technique. His works draw out the hidden dimensions of technique with a characteristically iconoclastic fervor that made him the enemy of both the Left and Right. In stark contrast, contemporary pseudo-critic of technology Wendell Berry has attained celebrity status in the peace and justice movement while offering nothing more than reformist calls for small-scale agriculture, similar to Michael Pollan. The post-modern trinity of race, class and gender has been the focus of peace and justice Christianity, not to mention academia, for decades now. Class has always been the favorite of this triad. In its dealings with these issues the Marxist values of peace and justice Christianity reveal themselves. Borrowing much from various Marxist theologians, peace and justice Christianity has emphasized class and economics as the fulcrum around which the Biblical theme of liberation moves. Early church accounts in Acts become rallying cry’s for the redistribution of wealth instead of a more radical move towards the destruction of all economic systems. Similarly, Sabbath economics has become a mantra for peace and justice Christians such as Ched Myers. While there are certainly radical implications inherent in any emphasis on economics/class, the conclusions peace and justice Christianity draws from it are quite reformist and generally right in line with the standard Leftist values of economic reform. The more radical implications of Sabbath point to more than a “just” economic system. If we’re ever going to move beyond the Leftist pitfalls of peace and justice Christianity, a serious critique of origins is in order. ...

[Link to media]

— Anonymous - Many Gods, No Masters

 

at 4/21/25 5:12am

Author: AnonymousTitle: Many Gods, No MastersSubtitle: Reflections on the intersection of anarchism and spiritualitySource: https://linktr.ee/anarchistspirituality We dedicate this zine to all Palestinians, including those who are fighting and resisting with the help of their God. Note on how we came to write this zine : In 2023, a small town in the Swiss mountains was taken over by thousands of anarchists to learn, have fun and conspire together. It was the 150th year anniversary of the founding of the “anti-authoritarian international” in Saint Imier, which was an important marker in the anarchist movement. The gathering was a big, beautiful and disappointing mess. Grandmothers stopped to chat with punks on the streets, asking them what “anarchism” was, expressing gratitude for the new liveliness in the village. French insurrectionists tagged “Fuck the orga” when they were asked not to walk on the train tracks to spare the organizational team thousands of euros in fines. Anarcho-communists and neighborhood organizers dreamt up the next steps of our movement. There were workshops about Rojava, disability politics, security culture, and anything anarchist. People got confused about who the fuck was erasing their tags for Palestine, not having met the Germans yet. People got drunk, created kids’ corners, made spontaneous parties and night-marches. Queers tried to fuck in a church, got evicted, fucked in the back rooms of an icehockey rink instead. There were lovely moments. But it was fucking weird. Almost everyone was white. There was no broader collective strategizing. Everyone felt lost, learning about diverse subjects without actually addressing what we needed most to be talking about: what the fuck are we actually doing as anarchists today? In the end, important conversations did happen, and many people ended up finding their little corner where they would connect with new comrades, conspiring about what steps they might take when they left this strange town. Some of us found our little corner on a hill talking about spirituality and anarchism. We were ten to fifteen people who shared frustrations and sorrow about the hostility we’ve experienced towards all things religious in our movement, about the lost potential of the ways spirituality could empower our anarchist practice. We slowly and cautiously revealed our diverse spiritual traditions. We sang songs about God and revolution and found solace in each other. It’s been one year since we sat on that hill, and we are finally publishing a zine which was inspired by the conversations we had in Saint Imier. We thank each one of our comrades we met there for the inspiration to write this zine. Reflections from the Saint-Imier anarchist gathering of 2023 I. At the Anarchist Book Fair in Ljubljana, Slovenia, in July 2023, there was a banner at least 3 meters long and wide that read: “Religion is stupid”. As a teenager, with my typical French atheist upbringing, I might have thought the same thing. Today, I look at this banner with my comrades and say: “This banner is stupid”. More than stupid, it invisibilizes my comrades and I for whom the anarchist vision and their spiritual practice are inseparable. How did I get here? When I was five years old I stood with a small green leaf in my hand, contemplating its existence. The slow movement of its life was invisible to my eyes but I know I experienced a sacred presence. I clearly had a relationship with some kind of God. My parents called me from afar to join them as I was far behind in the forest. I spent the rest of my life unlearning that faith, disenchanting my relationship to the world. My white family, fervent believers in the all-powerful science to explain our world, laughed at and caricatured people who believed “like sheep” in a God. So I also learned to associate religion with naivety, credulity and passivity. I told myself that it was a way for religious people to reassure themselves, but that the truth lies with those who could see that the world was material and material only. This was the tradition of my family, and we didn’t see that we were the ignorant ones. And we were believers too. We believed in something else, something that was strongly supported by the 21st century western paradigm of the bourgeoisie. We laughed at those who believe in a white guy in the sky who tells them what to do. We ignored the very definition (or definitions) of God by so many other spiritual practitioners, as the force of life and nature that transcends the material world and therefore cannot be explained by it. God as the word for what we have no words for — for some a personal God, for others a vague but definitive sense of the divine. We criticized people who told sacred stories. Now I know that these stories are myths that try to convey meaning about our world and the divine, rather than historical stories to be taken literally. We believed we had proof that there was no sacred presence. Now I know that it can never be proven, only experienced. These days, I remind myself of the small leaf and its lesson : everything is alive, connected and generally a mystery to us. Today, I’m relearning to make space for mysticism in my life, as “a state of experience that attenuates or blurs and interweaves and undoes (or in a word, dissociates) the boundary between the self and the other, the world, God, nothingness, grace, love” (Johanna Hedva). I wake up every morning in wonder that things are, and that they could not have been. I wake up every morning remembering I don’t know why things are, but I am thankful for them. Or at least I try to be. ...

[Link to media]

— David Graeber - Beyond Power/Knowledge

 

at 4/20/25 10:52pm

Author: David GraeberTitle: Beyond Power/KnowledgeSubtitle: An Exploration of power, ignorance and stupidityDate: 25th May 2006Notes: See also: David Graeber Institute https://davidgraeber.institute/ & https://davidgraeber.org/Source: Retrieved on 4th September 2020 from https://libcom.org/library/beyond-powerknowledge-exploration-power-ignorance-stupidity Let me begin with a brief story about bureaucracy. Over the last year my mother had a series of strokes. It soon became obvious that she would eventually be incapable of living at home without assistance; since her insurance would not cover home care, a series of social workers advised us to put in for Medicaid. To qualify for Medicaid however, one’s total worth can only amount to six thousand dollars. We arranged to transfer her savings—this was, I suppose, technically a scam, though it’s a peculiar sort of scam since the government employs thousands of social workers whose main work seems to be telling citizens how to do it—but shortly thereafter, she had another, very serious stroke, and found herself in a nursing home undergoing long-term rehabilitation. When she emerged from there she would definitely need home care, but there was a problem: her social security check was being deposited directly, she was barely able to sign her name, so unless I acquired power of attorney over her account and was thus able to pay her monthly rent bills for her, the money would immediately build up and disqualify her, even after I filled out the enormous raft of Medicaid documents I needed to file to qualify her for pending status. I went to her bank, picked up the requisite forms, and brought them to the nursing home. The documents needed to be notarized. The nurse on the floor informed me there was an in-house notary, but I needed to make an appointment; she picked up the phone and put me through to a disembodied voice, who then transferred me to the notary. The notary proceeded to inform me I first had to get authorization from the head of social work, and hung up. So I acquired his name and room number and duly took the elevator downstairs, appeared at his office—only to discover he was, in fact, the disembodied voice on the phone. The head of social work picked up the phone, said “Marjorie, that was me, you’re driving this man crazy with this nonsense and you’re driving me crazy too”, and proceeded to secure me an appointment for early the next week. The next week the notary duly appeared, accompanied me upstairs, made sure I’d filled out my side of the form (as had been repeatedly emphasized to me), and then, in my mother’s presence, proceeded to fill out her own. I was a little puzzled that she didn’t ask my mother to sign anything, only me, but I figured she must know what she was doing. The next day I took it to the bank, where the woman at the desk took one look, asked why my mother hadn’t signed it, and showed it to her manager, who told me to take it back and do it right. Apparently the notary had no idea what she was doing. So I got new forms, filled out my side of each, and made a new appointment. On the appointed day the notary duly appeared, and after some awkward remarks about the difficulties caused by each bank having its own, completely different power of attorney form, we proceeded upstairs. I signed, my mother signed—with some difficulty—and the next day I returned to the bank. Another woman at a different desk examined the forms and asked why I had signed the line where it said to write my name and printed my name on the line where it said to sign. “I did? Well, I just did exactly what the notary told me to do.” “But it says clearly ‘signature’ here.” “Oh, yes, it does, doesn’t it? I guess she told me wrong. Again. Well… all the information is still there, isn’t it? It’s just those two bits that are reversed. So is it really a problem? It’s kind of pressing and I’d really rather not have to wait to make another appointment.” “Well, normally we don’t even accept these forms without all the signatories being here in person.” “My mother had a stroke. She’s bedridden. That’s why I need power of attorney in the first place.” She said she’d check with the manager, and after ten minutes returned, saying the bank could not accept the forms in their present state, and in addition, even if they were filled out correctly, I would still need a letter from my mother’s doctor certifying that she was mentally competent to sign such a document. I pointed out that no one had mentioned any such letter previously. “What?” asked the manager, who was listening in. “Who gave you those forms and didn’t tell you about the letter?” Since the apparent culprit was actually one of the nicer bank employees, I changed the subject, noting that in the bankbook it was printed, quite clearly, “in trust for David Graeber”. He of course replied that would only matter if she was dead. As it happened, the whole problem soon became academic: my mother did indeed die a few weeks later. At the time, I found this experience extremely disconcerting. Having led an existence comparatively insulated from this sort of thing, I found myself continually asking my friends: is this what ordinary life, for most people, is really like? Most were inclined to suspect it was. Obviously, the notary was unusually incompetent. Still, I had to spend over a month not long after dealing with the consequences of some anonymous clerk in the New York Department of Motor Vehicles who decided my given name was ...

[Link to media]

— Benjamin Tucker - Liberty Vol. V. No. 19.

 

at 4/20/25 10:48pm

Author: Benjamin TuckerTitle: Liberty Vol. V. No. 19.Subtitle: Not the Daughter but the Mother of OrderDate: April 28, 1888Notes: Whole No. 123. — Many thanks to www.readliberty.org for the readily-available transcription and www.libertarian-labyrinth.org for the original scans.Source: Retrieved on April 21, 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. London “Freedom” brings the report that “Jus” is likely to be revived as an Individualist Anarchist paper. If the movement to this end proves successful, it will be the most cheering event to Anarchists chronicled in these columns for a long time. “Jus,” freed from the restraints by which it was always hampered, would be a power in England. There is no better soil for Anarchistic seed. At the end of a protest against the addition of the higher branches of education to the curriculum of the public schools, the Winsted “Press” says: “The common district school thoroughly well conducted is good enough for common folks. Let the uncommon folks have uncommon schools and pay for them.” True enough; but, if common folks should not be made to pay for uncommon schools, why should uncommon folks be made to pay for common schools? Judging from indications, “Honesty” will not much longer enjoy the distinction of being the only Anarchistic journal in Australia. The “Australian Radical,” published in Hamilton and edited by W. R. Winspear, which, if I mistake not, has heretofore leaned strongly toward State Socialism, gives unquestionable signs of a reversal of its attitude. In its first number of the enlarged and improved form recently adopted it squarely favors the Anarchistic solution of the land question, antagonizing both the State Socialists and Henry George, and it would seem that the editor must soon follow the logic of liberty to the end. In the “Standard” of April 14 Henry George says: “The real reason why I got sixty-eight thousand votes for mayor of New York in 1886 and only thirty-seven thousand votes in the same city in 1887 was that in the one case, owing to the pledge of votes with which I entered the contest, it was believed that I might be elected, and that in the other case not even the most sanguine could pretend that I had the slightest chance.” [Italics mine.] Then you lied, did you, Henry George, when all through your last campaign you persistently told the voters that you stood a good fighting chance of election, and at any rate would poll a vote dangerously near a plurality? From San Francisco comes the first number of a paper called the “Commonwealth,” published in the interest of the Kaweah Cooperative Colony. The moving spirit in this colonial enterprise and the editor of the paper seems to be Burnette G. Haskell. Knowledge of this fact is all that is necessary to keep persons who know Haskell, and who value their lives, possessions, and reputations, aloof from the colony. Other persons should be informed that Haskell is a consummate scoundrel, with whom it is highly dangerous to have any dealings, as he will stop at the commission of no crime, provided he can reap the advantages and make others take the risk. The “American Idea” is surprised that I describe it as Anarchistic, but does not reject the name. It simply restates its political views, and says that, if these views are Anarchistic, then it stands on an Anarchistic platform. These views, briefly summarized, are that there should be no government save over those who either cannot or will not govern themselves; in other words, that the only function of government is to restrain insane persons and criminals. Not discussing here whether government is the proper name for this function, I will ask the “American Idea” a single question: Should the cost of such restraint be met by compulsory taxation or voluntary contribution? The answer to this question will decide whether I was justified in claiming my Missouri contemporary as “a new Anarchistic ally.” Observant readers of “Lucifer” for the last few months have not failed to notice that E. C. Walker, though nominally connected with the paper, has practically disappeared from its columns as a writer. Those who have also noticed the championship of reactionary and superficial measures to which the senior editor, Mr. Harman, has given himself have not been at a loss to account for Mr. Walker’s conduct. They must also have regretted its necessity, for Mr. Walker’s writings have always been the paper’s chief attraction. Now they will be surprised and glad to learn that he is about to publish a paper of his own. On May 12 will appear the first number of “Fair Play,” which he will issue fortnightly from Valley Falls, Kansas. It will have eight pages, something more than half the size of Liberty, and the subscription price will be fifty cents per year. Let it have a generous send-off. Those who criticise the Anarchists’ Club for appointing a chairman from whose decisions there shall be no appeal on the ground that such a course is inconsistent with the teachings of Josiah Warren show thereby that they understand as little as a babe unborn what that philosopher really taught. No point was insisted on more strenuously both by Warren and by Stephen Pearl Andrews (whom one of these critics describes as Warren’s “formulator”) than that, in all undertakings requiring the cooperation of two or more individuals, an essential of efficient work is an individual leader from whose decisions no appeal can be taken save by secession. Appeal by secession is recognized in the constitution of the Anarchists’ Club. Far from acting in violation of Warren’s teachings, those who formed the Club acted directly in obedience thereto. The critics who charge them with inconsistency on this score are for the most part men whose determination to criticise puts them under the necessity of finding something upon which to exercise that determination. ...

[Link to media]

As of 4/25/25 9:20pm. Last new 4/25/25 9:20pm.