Friday, 13 December 2013

What I believe( Ridiculously long version)

I AM NOT a nationalist, a socialist, a democratic socialist, a Bolshevik , a Trotskyist or a Leninist.
 While I may work with the above in specific contexts I oppose the above political ideas.

At it's most simplistic level the argument goes like this : In a society in which money is given such status and so has the most influence then those with the most money will inevitably have the most power in society (At it's most simple, that's what capitalism is in reality)Because of this influence, government systems will seek favour from and seek the favour of,  the wealthy i.e. democracy will not exist rather there will be a plutocracy(rule by the rich with 'democracy' in name only.)  The wealthy will have the overriding influence on government rather than the poorest in society. This cannot be otherwise while there is capitalism.

Even if the politician had noble intentions and refuses to consciously be swayed by the wealthy, they must bend to the wishes of the rich and the market because government intervenes in the economy and the wealthy demand it does so to their favour. Industry, the economy and technology among other things in present society rely on government intervention to it's favour. . Those who ultimately control society are those with most wealth.

Government bends to their will and protects their interests. The governments interests are overlapping with those of economic elites. The government has no interest in it being otherwise. It merely wishes to keeping the whole thing going with minimal disturbance and will occasionally throw the masses some demanded breadcrumbs back to pacify dissent.   

it's hard to see how it's likely  to be otherwise in  ANY society with money or government or a market economy or consumerism

I only have to look at my local area to see the proof of all that I believe in.

There's a point when the lies, immorality and utter evil lengths governments will go to cannot be excused anymore. The  point is then reached when government is discredited. The point comes  when the evidence of how untrustworthy and self serving governments are , stacks up so high and so consistently that they cannot be believed in AT ALL . A point when the concept of 'good government' or 'democratic government' or 'benevolent government' becomes absurd and utopian. That point was understood to have existed since the dawn of government .Government never has, is and never will be,  good or democratic or benevolent. This we know in theory. But, by now empirically the evidence is so strong it seems bizarre to think otherwise.

Government at all levels including police, law and military have consistently abused their power, covered up all abuses and behaved in unaccountable ways despite claims to be regulated or controlled. Government cannot be controlled. Only destroyed, abolished. No one can ever be trusted with so much power.

Reformism or calls for government transparency or calls for government to regulate itself and for the watchers to watch the watchers look ridiculous. Government cannot act in that way. It is not what government is or exists for. Government exists to protect power. Specifically it exists to protect the power and wealth of the capitalist class and to protect and maintain oppression in all it's forms. Government needs Capitalism and Capitalism needs government. It is a symbiotic relationship. Government is merely the political arm of the capitalist class who are the true ruling class. The bosses, the landlords, the businessmen and corporations collectively taken are the economic side of the capitalist ruling class and ultimately dictate to the political arm.
Reforms do not solve the cause of the problems only the symptoms and are easily done away with by the ruling class when they become inconvenient.
I believe in revolution because no government will let us govern ourselves.
I believe in revolution because power does not give up voluntarily without a bloody vicious fight on all levels(including physical)

No government is democratic. No government can be. No government can solve the environmental crisis, no reform no law passed can solve  or stop it. No government can defeat bosses.  government is itself inequality, oppression, undemocratic. Government only seeks to protect the wealthy and powerful and maintain the existing order. Government will do whatever it takes to destroy those who threaten the existing order in a fundamental way. Government will co-opt criticism of the existing order and change minor details to quell dissent(reformism) to prevent wider deeper rebellion and revolution. The problem is the existing order and the government only tweaks the existing order with the help of naïve willing 'radicals' . It never seeks to change or challenge it's very basis, it's fundamental core or reasoning. And why would it?
 Government is the enemy of freedom, equality and solidarity. Government is the protector of the capitalist class.

    . We do not need government to run our lives for us. We should run our own society together for the good of all
I am not absolutist about  voting and not voting but I do not believe voting is an effective means of social change. I favour multiple tactics under the banner Direct Action.

Capitalism, Patriarchy and all the oppressions wage a never ending war on us, on human dignity and hate us and slap us in jail if we get too angry.

Any political party or politician which departs from capitalist consensus will either be co-opted with reforms etc or marginalized and ignored. Change cannot come from within the system because the system itself is the problem.

No political party can over the right solution. I oppose vanguard parties or groups.

I am against anarchists running for election even with the intention not to stand or to draw publicity. It's a pointless waste of resources.

Vanguardism is only slightly different from believing in representative democracy. Vanguardism is inherently authoritarian and  hierarchical.

'Left wing' political parties favour degrees of state capitalism while the right favour more or less private capitalism. The right is reasonably honest while the left coats it in humanitarianism.

The Labour Party has betrayed the working class numerous times. The distinction between old and new labour is fairly false and only depends on how much they favour state or private capitalism.

The conservative party is explicitly private capitalist and are at least honest about it.

The Lib Dems are not much different from the Labour party.

The Scottish National Party(SNP) are Scottish Capitalists/ Tartan Tories with a 'leftist face'.

The SWP, SSP, CPUK etc if in power would be authoritarian since they are Leninist and it would only end in state capitalism like Cuba, Venezuela, the Soviet Union, China etc. The SSP admire Cuba while the SWP admire the Soviet Union and Venezuela.

The SWP is a parasite, bureaucratic and creepy. They hijack any movement. They're  rape apologists too !

The SSP is irrelevant and has collapsed since Tommy Sheridan. I've had personal dealings with them. They do little and are ignore by almost everyone. Behind their claims, they are really reformist.

The Green Party have some sound ideas but plenty failings. They are reformist not revolutionary downplaying or even excluding anti-capitalism( though they do have an anti-capitalist faction). Their understanding of the environmental crisis lacks a class analysis so they tend to attract the middle class. They have failed to link up with worker struggles, indigenous struggles, feminism etc in a way others have. They are not Intersectional. When in power they betrayed striking binmen despite Caroline Lucas' protestations.  Caroline Lucas has been ignored.

I have a complex relationship to the issue of Scottish Independence. I oppose the Unionist side but do not have an hope in the Independence Side. I totally reject the Yes Campaign group. But also I part from my fellow Travellers in the Radical Independence Campaign(RIC) Unlike RIC, I do not think Scottish Independence will usher in a new era of Scottish democracy or lead to an 'anti-capitalist government' as the Scottish Socialist Party hope. At best it MAY allow for some good reforms but it is the best of a bad set of options and I do not obsess over it or fixate on it. I have seen a number of comrades focus on it to the exclusion of all other criticisms of the system and so become reformist.
I completely expect to protest the Scottish government whatever the result of the referendum. I maintain my call for worldwide revolution- there are no revolutionary states, no good governments....

I am an anarchist.   Anarchism involves the most uncompromising radical deep comprehensive re-thinking of how society is structured and organized. All practices, structures and institutions must be critically examined and if they fail the examination, then they must be abolished.

It is not enough to be 'anti-establishment' in some vague way. At very least if your analysis is not anti-capitalist i.e. understands class struggle then it cannot effectively understand society and cannot produce effective tactics.

Worse is to be a conspiracy theorist. We know enough about the evils of the ruling class to despise them without making up paranoid delusions to protest. I don't deny that there are conspiracies,cover ups, black-ops etc but these are not as out there as conspiracy theorists would have you believe.

I have ABSOLUTELY NO TIME for conspiracy theory related to NWO, Chemtrails, fluoride,  Zionist bankers, Illuminati, Zeitgeist, Freeman of the Land, Free Mason, secret Paedophile rings etc etc. These ideas often combine a mixture of legitimate critique with nonsense and often very rightwing politics.Through the Occupy movement- both what I've heard and my own experiences conspiracy theory offers the ruling class a distraction from the real issues so they have no problem with it. It is not revolutionary or radical. Conspiracy theory seriously derails struggles and is really in truth, counter-revolutionary. I have and will work with them on an issue by issue basis but really their worldview irritates me beyond belief and is so reactionary. They have no concept of the class struggle.

Anarchism is opposition to Archon(rulers) and Archy(rulership). Anarchism does not seek different rulership. It wants to end all forms of rulership, to put an end to positions of ruler, to make rulership cease to exist.I'm always amazed how spontaneously resistance to oppression appears and how in little ways people resistance. Resistance is a much bigger concept than explicit revolution or refusal. Anarchism just wants it out in the open.

Anarchism: Total opposition to all systems of oppression, domination, exploitation and privilege. This means opposition to the state, political parties ,capitalism, Patriarchy, White Supremacy,  bosses, wage labour, landlords, union bureaucrats, abuse of animals and environmental degradation etc . Reforms can only be short term goals but they do not alleviate the fundamental flaws inbuilt into  the existing system.  Reforms but not reformism which opposes or avoids revolution.   We propose revolution as the means to work towards the creation of  alternatives( anarchy) . That revolution can only be carried out by the oppressed themselves and not by claimed representatives whether you call them politicians or the vanguard party or ‘the dictatorship of the proletariat’ as Leninists such as Trotskyists do.

I am opposed to any and all states whether argued for by social democrats, democratic socialists, Old Labour, Leninists, Bolsheviks, Trotskyists etc. These are all State Capitalist by varying degrees.
I am opposed to capitalism- private or state controlled.

"So the State became the national capitalist and the Bolshevik Party the ruthless state boss enforcing a dictatorship over the workers in a frenetic effort of capital accumulation. Not only was Russia in the rigid control of a dictatorship but Lenin and the Bolshevik Party were clearly not opposed to the emergence of a single dictator"

"Many contemporary exponents of Leninism ascribe the awful saga of totalitarian rule that emerged from this sort of thinking to Stalin. Yes, Stalin did head the list of political gangsters that terrorised Russia following the Bolshevik Revolution, but it was the elitist nonsense promoted by Lenin, as evidenced above, and the undemocratic political structures established by the Bolshevik Party that created the pathway to the massive evils of Stalinism."

"No ruling class in history has ever relinquished its power without a struggle and our present rulers are unlikely to be an exception. Power will only be taken from them through the conscious, autonomous action of the vast majority of the people themselves. The building of socialism will require mass understanding and mass participation. By their rigid hierarchical structure, by their ideas and by their activities, both social-democratic and Bolshevik types of organizations discourage this kind of understanding and prevent this kind of participation. The idea that socialism can somehow be achieved by an elite party (however "revolutionary") acting "on behalf of the working class is both absurd and reactionary"-Maurice Brinton.

"Socialism cannot be equated with the "coming of power of parties claiming to represent the working class". Political power is a fraud if working people do not take over and retain power in production. If they achieve such power, the organs exerting it (Workers' Councils) will take and implement all the necessary political decisions. It follows that we don't advocate the formation of "better" or "more revolutionary political parties whose objective would remain the "capture of state power". The Party's power may grow out of the barrel of a gun. The power of the working class grows out of its management of the economy and of society as a whole.
Socialism cannot be equated with such measures as the "nationalization of the means of production". These may help the rulers of various class societies to rationalize their system of exploitation and solve their own problems. We refuse to choose between options defined by our class enemies. It follows that we don't urge nationalization (or anything else for that matter) on governments of either "right" or "left"."-Maurice Brinton.

"As far as authoritarian class society (and the libertarian-socialist alternative) is concerned the trad revs are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Those who subscribe to social-democratic or Bolshevik ideology are themselves either victims of the prevailing mystification (and attempts should be made to demystify them), or they are the conscious exponents and future beneficiaries of a new form of class rule (and should be ruthlessly exposed). In either case it follows that there is nothing "sectarian" in systematically proclaiming opposition to what they stand for. Not to do so would be tantamount to suppressing our critique of half of the prevailing social order. It would mean to participate in the general mystification of traditional politics (where one thinks one thing and says another) and to deny the very basis of our independent political existence."-Maurice Brinton, As We Don't see it.


I am the enemy of the WTO, The IMF, The G8, The World Bank and NAFTA.

Among the most oppressive corporations are Monsanto, Chevron, Shell, Goldman Sachs, EDO, BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin, Halliburton, Blackwater, BP, Nike, Starbucks, ATOS, G4S, A4E, Microsoft, Google,

If anarchism was really as irrelevant a philosophy as some like to claim when why are/have an increasing number of social movements taken up it's principles e.g. of being leaderless , it's tactics e.g. Direct Action and moving towards anarchic type organisation.

I am pro-Situationist.

I try to incorporate into my thinking the best ideas of the Situationists- the most well known being Guy Debord. I try to adapt the best of a modern situationist like Ken Knabb while disagreeing with some of his dismissals of Women's Liberation or the anarchist movement  etc.I think Situationism is useful insofar as it considers the psychological aspects of consumerist capitalism.  I think Situationism has a lot in common with Anarchism.

I am in favour of Detournement which is "turning expressions of the capitalist system against itself" while admitting it's limits.

I agree with the Situationism that art cannot be apolitical ,that art should not be separated from life  as it is under capitalism, and that this can only be achieved by revolution.

I take issue with situationism when it is being overly jargon filled and obscure.

“There is no thing as a single-issue struggle because we do not live single-issue lives.”
Audre Lorde.

"While opposition to the State is crucial to anarchist thought, anarchism cannot be defined as mere anti-statism alone, anarchists oppose all forms of hierarchy and oppression, including (but not limited to): Capitalism, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism and in some cases speciesism"

  • "Anarchism is the abolition of exploitation and oppression of man by man, that is, the abolition of private property and government; Anarchism is the destruction of misery, of superstitions, of hatred. Therefore, every blow given to the institutions of private property and to the government, every exaltation of the conscience of man, every disruption of the present conditions, every lie unmasked, every part of human activity taken away from the control of the authorities, every augmentation of the spirit of solidarity and initiative, is a step towards Anarchism"-Errico Malatesta.

The revolution is a thing of the people, a popular creation; the counter-revolution is a thing of the State. It has always been so, and must always be so, whether in Russia, Spain, or China.
Anarchist Federation of Iberia (FAI), Tierra y Libertad, July 3, 1936.

Occupations are an essential aspect of any revolutionary strategy.


  • "In accordance with this belief, we neither intend nor desire to thrust upon our own or any other people any scheme of social organization taken from books or concocted by ourselves. We are convinced that the masses of the people carry in themselves, in their instincts (more or less developed by history), in their daily necessities, and. in their conscious or unconscious aspirations, all the elements of the future social organization. We seek this ideal in the people themselves. Every state power, every government, by its very nature places itself outside and over the people and inevitably subordinates them to an organization and to aims which are foreign to and opposed to the real needs and aspirations of the people. We declare ourselves the enemies of every government and every state power, and of governmental organization in general. We think that people can be free and happy only when organized from the bottom up in completely free and independent associations, without governmental paternalism though not without the influence of a variety of free individuals and parties."-Mikhail Bakunin.

  • "This fiction of a pseudo-representative government serves to conceal the domination of the masses by a handful of privileged elite; an elite elected by hordes of people who are rounded up and do not know for whom or for what they vote. Upon this artificial and abstract expression of what they falsely imagine to be the will of the people and of which the real living people have not the least idea, they construct both the theory of statism as well as the theory of so-called revolutionary dictatorship.
The differences between revolutionary dictatorship and statism are superficial. Fundamentally they both represent the same principle of minority rule over the majority in the name of the alleged “stupidity” of the latter and the alleged “intelligence” of the former. Therefore they are both equally reactionary since both directly and inevitably must preserve and perpetuate the political and economic privileges of the ruling minority and the political and economic subjugation of the masses of the people.
Now it is clear why the dictatorial revolutionists, who aim to overthrow the existing powers and social structures in order to erect upon their ruins their own dictatorships, never were or will be the enemies of government, but, to the contrary, always will be the most ardent promoters of the government idea. They are the enemies only of contemporary governments, because they wish to replace them. They are the enemies of the present governmental structure, because it excludes the possibility of their dictatorship. At the same time they are the most devoted friends of governmental power. For if the revolution destroyed this power by actually freeing the masses, it would deprive this pseudo-revolutionary minority of any hope to harness the masses in order to make them the beneficiaries of their own government policy."-Bakunin.

  • "If there is a State, there must be domination of one class by another and, as a result, slavery; the State without slavery is unthinkable – and this is why we are the enemies of the State."-Bakunin.

  • "If their state would be really of the people, why eliminate it? And if the State is needed to emancipate the workers, then the workers are not yet free, so why call it a People’s State? By our polemic against them we have brought them to the realization that freedom or anarchism, which means a free organization of the working masses from the bottom up, is the final objective of social development, and that every state, not excepting their People’s State, is a yoke, on the one hand giving rise to despotism and on the other to slavery. They say that such a yoke – dictatorship is a transitional step towards achieving full freedom for the people: anarchism or freedom is the aim, while state and dictatorship is the means, and so, in order to free the masses of people, they have first to be enslaved!"-Bakunin.

  • "Representative democracy, however, harmonizes marvelously with the capitalist economic system. This new statist system, basing itself on the alleged sovereignty of the so-called will of the people, as supposedly expressed by their alleged representatives in mock popular assemblies, incorporates the two principal and necessary conditions for the progress of capitalism: state centralization, and the actual submission of the sovereign people to the intellectual governing minority, who, while claiming to represent the people, unfailingly exploits them.

  • The exploitation of human labor cannot be sugar-coated even by the most democratic form of government ... for the worker it will always be a bitter pill. It follows from this that no government, however paternalistic, however bent on avoiding friction, will tolerate any threat to its exploitative economic institutions or its political hegemony: unable to instill habitual obedience to its authority by cajolery and other peaceful methods, the government will then resort to unceasing coercion, to violence, i.e., to political control, and the ultimate weapon of political control is military power. The modern State is by its very nature a military State; and every military State must of necessity become a conquering. invasive State; to survive it must conquer or be conquered, for the simple reason that accumulated military power will suffocate if it does not find an outlet. Therefore the modern State must strive to be a huge and powerful State: this is the indispensable precondition for its survival."-Bakunin.

  • "... No state, however democratic – not even the reddest republic – can ever give the people what they really want, i.e., the free self-organization and administration of their own affairs from the bottom upward, without any interference or violence from above, because every state, even the pseudo-People’s State concocted by Mr. Marx, is in essence only a machine ruling the masses from above, through a privileged minority of conceited intellectuals, who imagine that they know what the people need and want better than do the people themselves..."-Bakunin,Statism and Anarchy.

  • "there is no Communism in the U.S.S.R. Not a single Communist principle, not a single item of its teaching is being applied by the Communist party there....In short, the entire country and everything in it is the property of the state, as in ancient days it used to be the property of the crown..Such a condition of affairs may be called state capitalism, but it would be fantastic to consider it in any sense Communistic. Bolshevism has not abolished the classes in Russia: it has merely reversed their former relationship. As a matter of fact, it has multiplied the social divisions which existed before the Revolution. Need I emphasize that an economic arrangement based on the wage system cannot be considered as in any way related to Communism? It is its antithesis...All these features are to be found in the present Soviet system. It is unpardonable naivete, or still more unpardonable hypocrisy, to pretend—as the Bolshevik apologists do—that the compulsory labor service in Russia is “the self-organization of the masses for purposes of production....
Soviet Russia, it must now be obvious, is an absolute despotism politically and the crassest form of state capitalism economically"-Emma Goldman,There Is No Communism in Russia.

"That the abolition of the commodity system radically changes the orientation of human interests and activities. Freed from the problems of survival, we will finally have no other care than to learn how to live. "

  • "we anarchists do not want to emancipate the people; we want the people to emancipate themselves. We do not believe in the good that comes from above and imposed by force; we want the new way of life to emerge from the body of the people and correspond to the state of their development and advance as they advance"-Errico Malatesta.

  • "For us, as revolutionaries, meaningful action is whatever increases the confidence, autonomy, initiative, participation, solidarity, egalitarian tendencies and self-activity of the masses, and whatever assists in their demystification. Sterile and harmful action is whatever reinforces the passivity of the masses, their apathy, cynicism, differentiation through hierarchy, alienation, reliance on others to do things for them, and the degree to which they can therefore be manipulated by others, even those acting on their behalf." ( Maurice Brinton, About Ourselves)

I am an Anarcha-Feminist. Anarcha-Feminism:  Feminist taken to it’s fullest extent. Emplicit linkage of Feminism with Anarchism. Anarchist understanding applied to feminism. Revolution not female bosses or politicians.

I see no way you can be a good feminist and be pro-war/pro-militarism/Pro- military.

"When we say we are fighting the patriarchy, it isn't always clear to all of us that that means fighting all hierarchy, all leadership, all government, and the very idea of authority itself. Our impulses toward collective work and small leaderless groups have been anarchistic, but in most cases we haven't called them by that name. And that is important, because an understanding of feminism as anarchism could springboard women out of reformism and stop-gap measures into a revolutionary confrontation with the basic nature of authoritarian politics"-Peggy Kornegger , Anarchism: The Feminist Connection.
"If we want to "bring down the patriarchy", we need to talk about anarchism, to know exactly what it means, and to use that framework to transform ourselves and the structure of our daily lives. Feminism doesn't mean female corporate power or a woman President; it means no corporate power and no Presidents. The Equal Rights Amendment will not transform society; it only gives women the "right" to plug into a hierarchical economy. Challenging sexism means challenging all hierarchy–economic, political, and personal. And that means an anarcha-feminist revolution"-Peggy Kornegger.

"The most treacherous form this power can take is cooptation, which feeds on any short-sighted unanarchistic view of feminism as mere "social change". To think of sexism as an evil which can be eradicated by female participation in the way things are is to insure the continuation of domination and oppression. "Feminist" capitalism is a contradiction in terms. When we establish women's credit unions, restaurants, bookstores, etc., we must be clear that we are doing so for our own survival, for the purpose of creating a counter-system whose processes contradict and challenge competition, profit-making, and all forms of economic oppression. We must be committed to "living on the boundaries"21, to anti-capitalist, non-consumption values. What we want is neither integration nor a coup d'etat which would "transfer power from one set of boys to another set of boys".22 What we ask is nothing less than total revolution, revolution whose forms invent a future untainted by inequity, domination, or disrespect for individual variation - in short, feminist-anarchist revolution"-Peggy Kornegger.
"So, what I'm talking about is a long-term process, a series of actions in which we unlearn passivity and learn to take control over our own lives. I am talking about a "hollowing out" of the present system through the formation of mental and physical (concrete) alternatives to the way things are. The romantic image of a small band of armed guerrillas overthrowing the U.S. government is obsolete (as is all male politics) and basically irrelevant to this conception of revolution. We would be squashed if we tried it. Besides, as the poster says, "What we want is not the overthrow of the government, but a situation in which it gets lost in the shuffle." "-Peggy Kornegger.
Anarcha-feminism is diy, anti-capitalist, anti-racist, anti-sexist, sex-positive, anti-homophobic, trans-positive, queer, anti-ageist, pro-woman, pro-kid, powerful, anti-police, anti-prison, revolutionary, transformative, lots of cake, lots of fun, direct action, confrontational, personal, political, collective, zine-loving, free, grass-roots…
What the Fuck is Anarcha-Feminism Anyway? by London Anarcha-Feminist Kolektiv.

"Queer Liberation is the struggle for liberation of all people who do not fit into mainstream society’s idea of sexuality or gender. From gays and lesbians to trans* and gender variant people; Queer Liberation supports all those who fight against the oppressive patriarchal heteronormative system.
It rejects the false binary of gay/straight or male/female to create a movement that is inclusive of everyone, regardless of how they choose to present themselves. Queer Liberation realises that there is a big difference between your assigned sex, your gender identity, gender expression, gender role and sexual orientation. We are not defined by what is between our legs.
Queer Liberation involves itself in the struggle for greater freedom for those who fall outside society’s rigid definition of gender or orientation. It often rejects the mainstream gay rights call for equal rights with straight people in marriage, right to join the army etc. as it sees these privileges to be inherently oppressive and seeks for the liberation rather than assimilation into mainstream society of all people."
"Violence, oppression, and discrimination based on sexuality as well as gender is also carried out against those who do not fit into the patriarchy’s heterosexist ideals. Queer liberation should clearly be of great concern to feminists in the struggle against patriarchy."
"many anti-speciesist feminists perceive links between the exploitation of non-human animals and human women by the patriarchy. Female animals are abused by humans on a massive scale in order to exploit their reproductive systems. Dairy cows, for example, are kept in a near constant cycle of being forcibly impregnated, giving birth, experiencing the trauma of their child being kidnapped from them, and then having the milk they produced for that child stolen to be consumed by humans, before they are yet again impregnated. Feminism, therefore, is integral to the fight for the liberation of all animals, both non-human and human."

I am an Anarcha-Communist.   Anarcho-Communism: A stateless classless moneyless marketless society based on production and distribution for need instead of profit  with decisionmaking  from the grassroots in democratic structures. Communism is not total state control. Communism is not cuba or the soviet union or south korea. Communism cannot be true to its name if it is run by a government. Communism cannot be imposed. Communism must come from below, from the people themselves.
“The means of production being the collective work of humanity, the product should be the collective property of the race. Individual appropriation is neither just nor serviceable. All belongs to all. All things are for all men, since all men have need of them, since all men have worked in the measure of their strength to produce them, and since it is not possible to evaluate every one's part in the production of the world's wealth.
All things are for all. Here is an immense ...stock of tools and implements; here are all those iron slaves which we call machines, which saw and plane, spin and weave for us, unmaking and remaking, working up raw matter to produce the marvels of our time. But nobody has the right to seize a single one of these machines and say, "This is mine; if you want to use it you must pay me a tax on each of your products," any more than the feudal lord of medieval times had the right to say to the peasant, "This hill, this meadow belong to me, and you must pay me a tax on every sheaf of corn you reap, on every rick you build."
All is for all! If the man and the woman bear their fair share of work, they have a right to their fair share of all that is produced by all, and that share is enough to secure them well-being. No more of such vague formulas as "The Right to work," or "To each the whole result of his labour." What we proclaim is The Right to Well-Being: Well-Being for All!”
Pyotr(Peter) Kropotkin, "The Conquest of Bread"
" I believe, however, that it is not enough to enjoy political liberty alone. In order to be free, in the real sense of the word, one must also be endowed with economic freedom. This kind of freedom, I am convinced, is unattainable without the abolition of private property and the organization of communal production on the basis of “from each according to his ability” and of communal consumption on the principle of “to each according to his needs.” Therefore I am a Communist. "-Grigori Maximov,My Social Credo.

"The means by which capitalism can be overthrown and communism installed and organised is the seizure of production by the producers’ labour unions. Therefore I am a Syndicalist"-Maximov.
"many millions are in no position to satisfy their most elementary needs of food, clothing and shelter, and are unable to put to use their powers and abilities, since unemployment, formerly a recurrent condition, has become a permanent phenomenon."-Maximov.
"The Russian revolution, having set out with liberty and the liquidation of bourgeois society as its starting point, has, owing to its recourse to the aristocratic principle of dictatorship, brought us back via “military communism” to the point of departure, to capitalism or — more correctly — to state capitalism. "-Maximov.
I am a Green Anarchist.  Green Anarchism:   The Application of anarchism  to Environmental thinking and animal rights politics. The idea that environmental degradation especially climate change and animal mistreatment cannot be abolished without the abolition of the state, capitalism and all other forms of oppression. The idea that reforms while helpful do not touch on the fundamental causes and incentives which lead to these problems in the first place. There can be no 'green capitalist' , there can be no 'green government', there can be no 'green consumerism'. This approach rejects the idea ethical consumerism can help us 'grow out of capitalism' or that cap and trade, carbon trading or market based solutions can solve these problems.

  There are a number of currents of Green Anarchism including Anarcho- Primitivism, Social Ecology, Deep Ecology, Vegan Anarchism and Post-Civilization(Post-Civ).   My Green Anarchism rejects Anarcho-Primitivism for it's desire for a back to the woods future , for it's total opposition to science and  technology without nuance and it's tendency towards Misanthropism while accepting that it's adherents are honest well meaning individuals who may do good work and that there's plenty of false claims made about their beliefs.
"There is a school of thought within anarchism, known as Vegan Anarchism (or Veganarchism) which combines the beliefs of animal liberation and Earth liberation with anarchism to create a combined praxis. Vegan Anarchists believe the state to be unnecessary and harmful to animals (human and non-animals) and seek to abolish it in order to achieve total liberation." -  Vegan Queer Feminist Green Anarchism.
"Animals are oppressed by humans because they are of a different species to humans (a form of discrimination known as speciesism) and are therefore viewed as inferior beings. This is a symptom of an anthropocentric (human centered) world view that places human above all other living beings on the planet."
Deep Ecology draws attention to Speciesism( the assignment of lesser worth and lesser value to species' which are non human and so treating non human life with less respect than it is normally considered right to grant to humans) and to anthropocentrism "the belief that human beings are the central or most significant species on the planet (in the sense that they are considered to have a moral status or value higher than that of other animals)" and so focused on their interests to the exclusion of all other life on Earth. Deep Ecology focuses on the philosophical causes of environmental degradation and animal mistreatment.
Social Ecology sees hierarchy as the cause of the environmental crisis.
While there has historically been disputes between the two I believe a synthesis of the best of both and leaving aside the worst of both can benefit Green Anarchism immensely.
The causes of environmental degradation seem to me to both be structural/institutional as social ecology would argue and philosophical/ethical.
I am opposed to treating indigenous peoples lifestyles and communities as perfect or utopia as some green thought does . Yet I am also opposed to denigration of them. We express solidarity with their struggles. We should take the best of their thinking and adapt it to our own understandings. We should go to them humbly to teach us.
We cannot go back to the stone ages as some primitivists desire nor would we want to. We have to move from where we are.

I have a nuanced view of science, Technology and Industry being able to draw on ideas from all of the above currents while not embracing them wholeheartedly without critical thought.

Technology is not neutral.

I am neither Anti-technology nor a Technophile.

I favour a society somewhere between our current crazy capitalist consumerist expansionist industrialism and the anarcho-primitivist back to nature view which opposes all technology and industry.

I understand that the state needs fossil fuels because currently capitalism needs them so the state will violently protect these interests.
I believe we must examine the distribution of goods and control of production before we can consider whether the problem is population. The question is absent of consumerism would we still need a smaller population if those living consumed and produced less and only so much as they needed (1) to survive and (2) to flourish and develop their potential.
The problem right now is that too many consume and produce too much and further that a small percentage of powerful wealthy people consume and produce( and encourage both) more than any other i.e. a class analysis to the problem is vital.
I am opposed to Malthusianism i.e. the idea of forced population reduction for example the one child policy etc. I am opposed to Eco-Fascism.

I favour a Green Communism since I do not think any sort of market economy can defeat the tendency towards consumerism which leads to environmental degradation and animal abuse.
Communism is the economic arrangement which best fits with the requirements of a green society.
I am neither anti-enlightenment as some greens are nor uncritical of it- as Deep Ecology argues.
While none of us could know what a green society would need to be like there is a few things it isn't too difficult to see it would require:
  • It would have to be anarchist i.e. anti-state, anti-capitalist, anti-hierarchy, anti-patriarchy. It must be opposed to all forms of oppression. It must be a grassroots democracy, egalitarian and without private property.
  • more localism.
  • wholescale  reorganization of food, technology, industry, housing, energy, communication, transportation.. essentially all aspects of society. Green Anarchism adds onto the demands of anarchism. It makes considerations more complex.
  • I would argue it must be communist since a market seems to require or encourage consumerism but I'm willing for others to experiment to prove me wrong.
  •  It must involve alternative ways of energy use and production and potentially reduced energy use.
  • Reduction of car usage and production.
  • It must involve grassroots food production and  sustainable organic farming.
  • It must involve most people moving to a vegan diet since meat consumption and production is so environmentally damaging and unethical and must be so given it's potential for profit making under capitalism.
  • Probably use of something like a precautionary principle whereby the consequences of a technologies use or potential abuse would be considered and it might happen that some technology is not developed if it is thought that it could be oppressive.

"This narrow view of veganism as purely a consumer lifestyle choice has created a large demand for “vegan” products. Whole industries have built up around the need for “cruelty-free” goods as capitalists, who would of once been hostile towards the idea of veganism, noticed a gap in the market and sought to make money out of these caring, compassionate individuals.
We are taught to believe that we can end animal suffering if we just stop buying animal products and buy vegan, cruelty-free instead. Veganism has become the be-all and end-all of the animal rights movement and the promotion of this vegan lifestyle is paramount to our struggle’s success.
This bright green future promised to us by the vegan capitalists is a lie, however, for by it’s very nature capitalism is inherently oppressive and exploits animals (both human and non-human). If we are to ever achieve total liberation it will be necessary to abolish capitalism along with all other forms of oppression and hierarchy.
Radical Veganism believes that there is more to being vegan that what you consume. It states that veganism should be a radical shift in the way we view and treat animals in our society, and that humans’ perceived dominance over all other animals and the Earth (anthropcentrism) is what allows animals to be exploited"

"Radical Veganism recognises the links between capitalism and animal exploitation; as well as the link between capitalism and human exploitation. It understands that in order to do away with animal abuse we must change the way humans view animals within our society which would require a social revolution to abolish capitalism and all other systems which perpetuate human supremacy."

"Intersectional politics views all forms of oppression as a dichotomy between two groups: the oppressor and the oppressed. In the case of racism this is whites and non-whites; sexism is men and women; speciesism is humans and animals. These systems of domination interact on multiple and often simultaneous levels, contributing to systematic social inequality.
These differing forms of oppression allow and normalise all other forms of oppression. The oppression of women by men allows for the domination of humans over animals etc. If we are to tackle animal exploitation we need to destroy all systems of oppression in order to achieve total liberation, not just speciesism. We argue that these oppressions cannot exist independently of each other and therefore need to be tackled together.
There is strong evidence to support the links between animal exploitation and other oppressions. From the language used to discriminate against women (“cow”, “bitch” etc.) to the techniques used in the African Slave Industry adopted straight from animal husbandry."

"Under capitalism everything is viewed as a resource from which to generate profit. From trees and oil; to humans and animals. Profit is determined by the amount of money that can be made from selling said resource compared to the amount of money put in to extract that resource (i.e. how much it costs to cut down a forest compared to how much you can sell the timber for). Since profit is the major driving force behind capitalism a lot of emphasis is put into maximizing profit at the cost of the environment, workers and animals.
Because animals are viewed as a resource their welfare comes second to securing the maximum amount of profit available. This leads to poor living conditions, inhumane treatment, industrialized processes (factory farming) and more “efficient” slaughter methods. As the market grows the demand for animal products becomes greater and as such more and more animals are reared and slaughtered in larger and larger complexes. The recent emergence of “super” dairy farms or abattoirs are a direct result of capitalism’s drive for greater and greater profits.
Capitalism relies on infinite growth and an endless supply of resources in order to function. We live on a finite planet and as such the resources which we can extract from it (oil, wood, mineral etc.) are beginning to run out. Recent attempts to create a “sustainable” form of capitalism are aimed merely at maintaining the current system for future generations of capitalists to make profit off of, rather than to protect the Earth, it’s environment or it’s human and animal inhabitants.
Capitalism is one of the main reasons for animal exploitation within our society as it places the pursuit of profit over life. Animals are merely resources to be turned into profit for human capitalists. As such it would be necessary to abolish capitalism in order to achieve animal liberation.
Attempts to reform capitalism in order to benefit animals is counter-productive as past examples have shown that capitalism is very adept at adapting itself according to consumer demands. While small victories in animal welfare have created slightly better living conditions for the animals who are inevitably going to end up being slaughtered; this has led to an increase in animal consumption as it removes some of the guilt people feel from consuming another animal.
Even if we were to end the consumption of animals and create a completely vegan world, capitalism would still exploit animals by placing a value on their life much in the same way that it does to humans.
Capitalism also exploits human animals in much the same way it does animals, albeit with a lot less ferocity. If we are serious about animal liberation then we need to include humans into our critique. As capitalism exploits humans it would not be enough to simply end the consumption of animals within capitalism but to abolish it completely.
By creating a world where production is based on the needs of the community, not profit we would create a world where animals are not needlessly exploited by humans. As long as the demand for profit exists then animals will be exploited in order to generate wealth."

"In recent years fascist groups such as the EDL and NF have started to incorporate animal rights into their ideologies as another weapon to attack Muslims. They specifically target businesses/industries linked to Halal meat claiming to be concerned with the welfare of the animals. This could not be further from the truth. Fascists have a history of appropriating left-wing causes for their own ends. It is important that we, as Animal Liberationists, do not buy into their sick game and refuse to work with anybody who spouts fascist or racist views"

"Being vegan and anti-speciesist, therefore, is not enough to end the exploitation of all non-human animals and the ecosystems in which they live. Capitalism, the patriarchy and anthropocentrism strip animals of the freedom to live unthreatened in their natural homes, as vital parts of intact ecosystems without which they would not survive. We need to cultivate our ecological consciousnesses, understand the importance and complexity of ecosystems and Nature, and consider where we fit in as human animal inhabitants of the Earth."

"Liberation of the Earth and Nature will not occur while humans live in a hierarchical, patriarchal, anthropocentric society"

“The notion that man is destined to dominate nature is by no means a universal feature of human culture. If anything, this notion is almost completely alien to the outlook of so-called primitive or preliterate communities. I cannot emphasize too strongly that the concept emerged very gradually from a broader social development: the increasing domination of human by human.”
- Murray Bookchin

Nature is not a place to visit. It is home.”
― Gary Snyder

“Nature is orderly. That which appears to be chaotic in nature is only a more complex kind of order.”
― Gary Snyder

 elegantly self-disciplined, self-regulating, self-maintained. That's what wilderness is- Gary Snyder.

 for Snyder, nature is “the physical universe and all its properties". The second category is the wild, which is the organic process and essence of nature. The wild is the ongoing process of the evolution of nature. Finally wilderness is that aspect of nature which exists outside of the human world. Wilderness “is simply topos — its areas where the process is dominant.”-Between Social Ecology and Deep Ecology: Gary Snyder’s Ecological Philosophy ,


" Meaningful action, for revolutionaries, is whatever increases the confidence the autonomy, the initiative, the participation, the solidarity, the equalitarian tendencies and the self-activity of the masses and whatever assists in their demystification. Sterile and harmful action is whatever reinforces the passivity of the masses, their apathy, their cynicism, their differentiation through hierarchy, their alienation, their reliance on others to do things for them and the degree to which they can therefore be manipulated by others - even by those allegedly acting on their behalf."-Maurice Brinton, As we see it.


Regarding the Environmental crisis and Climate Change,

"There's no technical solution to this problem and no market solution either"

  • "The revolution is the creation of new living institutions, new groupings, new social relationships; it is the destruction of privileges and monopolies; it is the new spirit of justice, of brotherhood, of freedom which must renew the whole of social life, raise the moral level and the material conditions of the masses by calling on them to provide, through their direct and conscientious action, for their own futures. Revolution is the organization of all public services by those who work in them in their own interest as well as the public’s; Revolution is the destruction of all coercive ties; it is the autonomy of groups, of communes, of regions; Revolution is the free federation brought about by desire for brotherhood, by individual and collective interests, by the needs of production and defense; Revolution is the constitution of innumerable free groupings based on ideas, wishes, and tastes of all kinds that exist among the people; Revolution is the forming and disbanding of thousands of representative, district, communal, regional, national bodies which, without having any legislative power, serve to make known and to coordinate the desires and interests of people near and far and which act through information, advice and example. Revolution is freedom proved in the crucible of facts"-Errico Malatesta.
  • "Anarchists have the job of being the militant custodians of liberty against all aspirants to power and against the possible tyranny of the majority. "-Malatesta.
  • "However, as we must uncompromisingly oppose all restraining and repressing bodies and everything that tends to forcibly hinder the will of the people and the freedom of minorities, so we must take care not to destroy those things and disorganize those useful services that we cannot replace in a better way.
We must remember that violence, unfortunately necessary to resist violence, is no use to build anything good: it is the natural enemy of freedom, the procreator of tyranny, therefore it must be kept within the limits of strict necessity.
Revolution is useful, necessary to tear down the violence of governments and privileged people; however, the establishment of a society of free people can only result from a free evolution.
It is the task of the anarchists to watch over the freedom of evolution, which is always at risk as long as men are thirsty for domination and privileges. "-Malatesta.

  • "We are communist, because we believe that a way of social life based on brotherhood, with no oppressed nor oppressors, can be better accomplished through a freely established solidarity and a free cooperation in the interest of all, aiming at the fullest possible satisfaction of everyone’s needs rather than the right to a higher or lower recompense.
We believe that the distribution of the natural means of production and the determination of the exchange value of things, both necessary in every system except communism, could be hardly be accomplished without struggle and injustice, which might eventually end up in the establishment of new forms of authority and governments. On the other hand, we readily admit the danger involved in trying to apply communism before its desire and awareness be deep-rooted, and to a larger extent than allowed by the objective conditions of production and social relations: a parasitic bureaucracy could arise, which would centralize everything in its hands and become the worst of governments.
Therefore we remain communist in our sentiment and aspiration, but we want to leave freedom of action to the experimentation of all ways of life that can be imagined and desired.
For us, it is necessary and sufficient that everyone have complete freedom, and nobody can monopolize the means of production and live on someone else’s work. "-Malatesta.

  • "We do not want to get in power neither we want anyone else to do so. If we cannot prevent governments from existing and being established, due to our lack of strength, we strive, and always will, to keep or make such governments as weak as possible. Therefore we are always ready to take action when it comes to overthrowing or weakening a government, without worrying too much (I say ‘too much’, not ‘at all’) about what will happen thereafter. "-Malatesta.

  •  "I believe that one must take all that can be taken, whether much or little: do whatever is possible today, while always fighting to make possible what today seems impossible. For instance, if today we cannot get rid of every kind of government, this is not a good reason for taking no interest in defending the few acquired liberties and fighting to gain more of those. If now we cannot completely abolish the capitalist system and the resulting exploitation of the workers, this is no good reason to quit fighting to obtain higher salaries and better working conditions. If we cannot abolish commerce and replace it with the direct exchange among producers, this is no good reason for not seeking the means to escape the exploitation of traders and profiteers as much as possible. If the oppressors’ power and the state of the public opinion prevent now from abolishing the prisons and providing to any defence against wrongdoers with more humane means, not for this we would lose interest in an action for abolishing death penalty, life imprisonment, close confinement and, in general, the most ferocious means of repression by which what is called social justice, but actually amounts to a barbarian revenge, is exercised. If we cannot abolish the police, not for this we would allow, without protesting and resisting, that the policemen beat the prisoners and allow themselves all sorts of excesses, overstepping the limit prescribed to them by the laws in force themselves... "-Malatesta.

  • "  Freedom coupled with experience, is the only way of discovering the truth and what is best; and there can be no freedom if there is a denial of the freedom to err. "-Malatesta.

  • "One may, therefore, prefer communism, or individualism, or collectivism, or any other system, and work by example and propaganda for the achievement of one’s personal preferences, but one must beware, at the risk of certain disaster, of supposing that ones system is the only, and infallible, one, good for all men, everywhere and for all times, and that its success must be assured at all costs, by means other than those which depend on persuasion, which spring from the evidence of facts.” -Malatesta, Communism and Individualism.
 "I'll define anarchism using three major principles (each of which I believe is related to a radical feminist analysis of society - more on that later):
(1) Belief in the abolition of authority, hierarchy, government. Anarchists call for the dissolution (rather than the seizure) of power - of human over human, of state over community. Whereas many socialists call for a working class government and an eventual "withering away of the state", anarchist believe that the means create the ends, that a strong State becomes self-perpetuating. The only way to achieve anarchism (according to anarchist theory) is through the creation of co-operative, anti-authoritarian forms. To separate the process from the goals of revolution is to insure the perpetuation of oppressive structure and style.

(2) Belief in both individuality and collectivity. Individuality is not incompatible with communist thought. A distinction must be made though, between "rugged individualism", which fosters competition and a disregard for the needs of others, and true individuality, which implies freedom without infringement on others' freedom. Specifically, in terms of social and political organization, this meant balancing individual initiative with collective action through the creation of structures which enable decision-making to rest in the hands of all those in a group, community, or factory, not in the hands of "representatives" or "leaders". It means coordination and action via a non-hierarchical network (overlapping circles rather than a pyramid) of small groups or communities. (See descriptions of Spanish anarchist collectives in next section.) Finally, it means that successful revolution involves unmanipulated, autonomous individuals and groups working together to take "direct, unmediated control of society and of their own lives". 3

(3) Belief in both spontaneity and organization. Anarchists have long been accused of advocating chaos. Most people in fact believe that anarchism is a synonym for disorder, contusion, violence. This is a total misrepresentation of what anarchism stands for. Anarchists don't deny the necessity of organization; they only claim that it must come from below, not above, from within rather than from without. Externally imposed structure or rigid rules which foster manipulation and passivity are the most dangerous forms a socialist "revolution" can take. No one can dictate the exact shape of the future. Spontaneous action within the context of a specific situation is necessary if we are going to create a society which responds to the changing needs of individuals and groups. Anarchists believe in fluid forms: small-scale participatory democracy in conjunction with large-scale collective cooperation and coordination (without loss of individual initiative)."- Peggy Kornegger.


"For two decades the supporters of Bolshevism have been hammering it into the masses that dictatorship is a vital necessity for the defense of the so-called proletarian interests against the assaults of the counter-revolution and for paving the way for socialism. Thev have not advanced the cause of Socialism by this propaganda, but have merely smoothed the way for Fascism in Italy, Germany and Austria by causing millions of people to forget that dictatorship, the most extreme form of tyranny, can never lead to social liberation. In Russia the so-called dictatorship of the proletariat has not led to Socialism, but to the domination of a new bureaucracy over the proletariat and the whole people.
If today the agents in Spain of the Russian Stalin-regime are threatening to destroy everything that the workers and peasants have achieved, and are directing their whole energy toward putting all power into the hands of a bourgeois-Communist party dictatorship, they are not doing so to serve the interests of the proletariat, but to further the onslaughts of the counter-revolution and to serve the ends of English and French capitalism.
What the Russian autocrats and their supporters fear most is that the success of libertarian Socialism in Spain might prove to their blind followers that the much vaunted "necessity of a dictatorship" is nothing but one vast fraud which in Russia has led to the despotism of Stalin and is to serve today in Spain to help the counter-revolution to a victory over the revolution of the workers and peasants."-Rudolf Rocker, The Tragedy of Spain.

"The social revolution, therefore, is not an accident, not a sudden happening. There is nothing sudden about it, for ideas don't change suddenly. They grow slowly, gradually, like the plant or flower. Hence the social revolution is a result, a development, which means that it is evolutionary. It develops to the point when considerable numbers of people have embraced the new ideas and are determined to put them into practice. When they attempt to do so and meet with opposition, then the slow, quiet, and peaceful social evolution becomes quick, militant, and violent. Evolution becomes revolution"-Berkman.

" Because revolution is evolution at its boiling point you cannot "make" a real revolution any more than you can hasten the boiling of a tea kettle. It is the fire underneath that makes it boil: how quickly it will come to the boiling point will depend on how strong the fire is."-Alexander Berkman.
Summing up what I have said about revolution, we must come to the conclusion that
1) a social revolution is one that entirely changes
the foundation of society, its political, economic, and social character;
2) such a change must first take place in the ideas
and opinions of the people, in the minds of men;
3) oppression and misery may hasten revolution, but may
thereby also turn it into failure, because lack of evolutionary preparation will make real accomplishment impossible;
4) only that revolution can be fundamental, social and
successful, which will be the expression of a basic change of ideas and opinions.
From this it obviously follows that the social revolution must be prepared. Prepared in the sense of furthering the evolutionary process, of enlightening the people about the evils of present-day society and convincing them of the desirability and possibility, of the justice and practicability of a social life based on liberty; prepared, moreover, by making the masses realize very clearly just what they need and how to bring it about.
Such preparation is not only an absolutely necessary preliminary step. Therein lies also the safety of the revolution, the only guarantee of its accomplishing its objects."-Berkman.

"It makes no difference whether it is the church, the king, or kaiser, a democratic government or a dictatorship, a republic or an autocracy -- those in authority will fight desperately to retain it as long as they can hope for the least chance of success. And the more aid they get from the slower-thinking majority the better the fight they can put up. Hence the fury of revolt and revolution."-Berkman.

"“Reformism” is the doctrine of those who, while saying they are in favor of a social transformation having as it objective establishing society on principles and foundations opposed to that which exist, propose to arrive at this result by a more or less considerable series of more or less important partial reforms realized within the framework of legality."-Sebastien Faure.

  • Total self-management is the form of social organization in which everybody has the right to make the decisions that affect their everyday life, whether individually or collectively in self-managing assemblies.
  • It has been crushed by the combined effect of its own internal weaknesses, hesitancies and confusions, by its isolation, and by the leaders it has made the mistake of creating for itself or of tolerating, leaders who have led it to defeat while pretending to organize and strengthen it. The most instructive examples are the workers councils that appeared in Russia in 1905 (crushed by the Czarist regime), in 1917 (coopted and destroyed by the Bolsheviks), and in 1921 (crushed at Kronstadt by Lenin and Trotsky); in Germany in 1918 (crushed by the socialists); in Italy in 1920 (destroyed by the socialists and the labor unions); in Spain in 1934 (the Asturian revolution, crushed by the republican government) and in 1936-1937 (coopted by the anarchist labor union and crushed by the Stalinists); and in Hungary in 1956 (crushed by the “Soviet” state).
  • No revolution is possible without the revival of the movement for total self-management, which this time must be decisively strengthened and extended internationally. 5. The movement for total self-management develops through the operation of popular assemblies and their coordinating councils.
    6. Total self-management assemblies arise out of class struggles. These struggles are the most direct expression of the proletariat’s will to abolish the bourgeoisie and to abolish itself as a class; of its decision to no longer remain a mere spectator watching its own dispossession and the delusory representations that mask that dispossession; and of its determination to no longer submit to history but to make its own history for itself and for the benefit of everyone.
    7. A total self-management assembly is nothing other than a strike assembly formed by the workers the moment they begin occupying their factories, and which extends as quickly as possible from the workplace to the neighborhood and surrounding region. Far from being abstract or political, its primary aim is to liberate and enrich the daily life of each individual.
    8. Councils of delegates are elected by the assembly for specifically defined purposes. These delegates are constantly monitored by the assembly and may be revoked at any moment.
    9. A council has essentially a coordinating function. It is indissociable from the assembly. It has no members other than delegates who have been elected for very specific purposes; and those delegates have no power of their own, though they are granted whatever creative freedom is necessary to carry out the task they have been assigned. If any separation ever appears between their interests and the interests of the people who elected them, the council will have become a committee which, by acting as an autonomous power, would open the way toward a new State.
    10. Even at their greatest degree of expansion, the total self-management assemblies constantly monitor their delegates by means of appropriate telecommunications technologies, in order to verify how those delegates are carrying out the goals they have been assigned. Revolutionary Rights

A genuine movement for total self-management cannot peacefully coexist with any other form of social power. We want the self-management of freedoms, not the self-management of oppression and lies (which amounts to nothing other than oppression and lies in the name of self-management).

"No one should be condemned for what he was before the revolution. The only determining factor should be a person’s attitude during the current struggle. For example, in the Aragon village of Alcorisa during the uprisings of 1933 the anarchists fired on the village notary, leaving him with a permanent limp. In 1936 the village was collectivized and the notary became part of the collective along with all the other residents. A year later, with the Communist Party’s reinforcement of the bourgeoisie and the Stalinists’ efforts to destroy the collectives, a minority of small farmers wanted to leave the collective and tried to convince others to do the same. The notary opposed their arguments and said: “Before, I owned such-and-such number of acres of land. Now, in the collective, everything belongs to me and I’m much richer.” This notary who had become a revolutionary was shot by the Francoists in 1939 in Barcelona."

"The anarchists are frequently accused of professing the doctrine of “all or nothing.” In this accusation there is some truth, but only some. For it is exact that the Libertarians will not declare themselves satisfied and won’t be so until they will have forever smashed all the social obstacles that oppose themselves to their motto: well-being for each and for all; liberty for all and for each. From this point of view it is perfectly true they will fight until not even one stone remains on another of the authoritarian fortress that must be totally destroyed, so that no vestige remains...But it doesn’t at all follow from this that the anarchists don’t take account of the blows that can be delivered, in the efforts that can be accomplished, in the goal of attacking the fortress that they intend to bring down. And even less does it follow that they don’t appreciate the value of these efforts and blows which have as a goal, and could have as a result, the weakening of the solidity, and the diminution of the force of resistance of this fortress. The anarchists are reasonable people with a practical sense. They want 100 and that’s all. But if they can only have 10 they pocket this down payment and demand the rest. They note that the improvements toward which reforms tend are only agreed to by the capitalist and bourgeois rulers on condition that they don’t fundamentally infringe upon the authority of the rulers and the profits of the capitalists. They know from experience that after having been for a greater or lesser time being backed against a wall — buying time is a maneuver in which the leaders excel — the privileged class ends up by granting that which it is in no condition to refuse. They don’t ignore the fact that when a reform touches upon the very bases of the authoritarian mechanism, the state and capitalism, it runs into the desperate resistance of the established powers, and that resistance can only be smashed by a revolutionary outburst. They only put a price on the means directly employed by the proletariat working for its emancipation, and they are certain that in no case, in no conjuncture, will the latter truly free itself without having recourse to the sole instrument of its liberation: the triumphant Social Revolution... "
— Sébastien Faure

 I am inspired by the IWW, The occupy movement, Democracy Now,  Afed, Solfed,  Proudhon, Bakunin,Kropotkin, Malatesta, Berkman, Goldman, Rudolf Rocker, Chomsky, David Graeber, Ryan Harvey, Lorenzo K. Ervin, Johann Most, Joe Hill, Big Bill Haywood,  Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, Lucy Parsons, Ethel Macdonald, Tom Bell, Uri Gordon, Iain Mckay, Karl Marx, Guy Debord, Ken Knabb, John Pilger,  Ricardo Flores Magón,  Joseph Déjacque, Voltairine De Cleyre,  Colin Ward, Kate Sharpley, Ammon Hennacy, Judi Bari, David Rovics,Eugene V. Debs, Sam Dolgoff, Gary Snyder, Utah Phillips, Lawrence Storione, Peggy Kornegger, Sitting Bull, Red Cloud, Geronimo,
I have lived through the 9/11, Afghanistan war 2001, Iraq war March 2003, Bilston Glen Camp,  Threatened US intervention in Syria in 2013, The Bedroom Tax, SNP government, Tory Government, Tory cuts, Obama Drone Strikes,  Blair government, The Occupy Movement, The Arab Spring, Anti-Monsanto Demos, Chelsea Manning solidarity,  Revolutions in Turkey and Egypt,
I have no time for rubbish like
""The state capitalism, which is one of the principal aspects of the New Economic Policy, is, under Soviet power, a form of capitalism that is deliberately permitted and restricted by the working class. Our state capitalism differs essentially from the state capitalism in countries that have bourgeois governments in that the state with us is represented not by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat, who has succeeded in winning the full confidence of the peasantry.
Unfortunately, the introduction of state capitalism with us is not proceeding as quickly as we would like it. For example, so far we have not had a single important concession, and without foreign capital to help develop our economy, the latter’s quick rehabilitation is inconceivable."
-Lenin,To the Russian Colony in North America,1922.

“We are thus reiterating what was approved two years ago in an official resolution of the All-Russia Central Executive Committee! (…) namely, that Soviet socialist democracy and individual management and dictatorship are in no way contradictory, and that the will of a class may sometimes be carried out by a dictator, who sometimes does more alone and is frequently more necessary.” ( Lenin, 31 March 1920 to the Ninth Congress of the Bolshevik Party
or Trotsky " On the other hand, if the dictatorship of the proletariat means anything at all, then it means that the vanguard of the class is armed with the resources of the state in order to repel dangers, including those emanating from the backward layers of the proletariat itself. All this is elementary."
"The fight against bad language is also a part of a struggle for the purity, clearness, and beauty of Russian speech...To preserve the greatness of the language, all faulty words and expressions must be weeded out of daily speech. Speech is also in need of hygiene. And the working class needs a healthy language not less but rather more than the other classes: for the first time in history it begins to think independently about nature, about life, and its foundations—and to do the thinking it needs the instrument of a clear incisive language"-Trotsky.
Further reading references:- Revolutionary Rights-  Total Self-Management  (Chapter 3 of Raoul Vaneigem’s book
From Wildcat Strike to Total Self-Management
. Detailed post-revolutionary thinking on organisation.
Maurice Brinton As We Don't See It. 1972
Maurice Brinton As We See It  (1967)


Feminism, Class and Anarchism Deirdre Hogan

         Deirdre Hogan , Anarcha-Feminism — Thinking about Anarchism

Articulating a Contemporary Anarcha-Feminism (2009) by Deric Shannon


No comments:

Post a Comment