[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo / 420 ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password(For file deletion.)

Check out our new store at shop.leftypol.org!


File: 1779569164711.gif (37.51 KB, 659x700, Anarchism.gif)

 

Let's be honest here: is there any actual difference between different forms of Anarchism beyond how one expects people to act without the state? It's not like there's policy or a DOTP.

It's just which authors you fanboy for

>>2821039
And which authors you hate.

File: 1779571812182.png (4.81 MB, 1536x2048, F4QL4qtasAAOY3-.png)

>>2821033
There is policy and a DotP, but in different forms. Policy is made by the people in popular assemblies and workers, not a centralized authority.

Individualist anarchism is harmful I believe. It loses its social character. It's probably the result of postmodernism and the New Left.

Useful anarchism: Kropotkin, Makhno, Chomsky, Bookchin, Daniel Guerin, David Greaber.

Ignore anarchists who oppose every form of organization

>>2821048
Bookchin rejected anarchism and had little to no value to anarchism. Chomsky was never an anarchist, he was an academic liberal and defender of bourgeois society. You are a libtard. The AC school of thought begins with the death of Bakunin, with Carlo Cafiero and Ericco Malatesta who take the objective analysis of capitalism brought by Marx, but reject the methodology of the self-proclaimed "marxists" followers of Marx and Marx himself on the thesis of instrumentality of the state instrument of repression.

Anarchism is just Nazism for queers and that’s the beginning and end of it. They literally have identical views and practices, only differing in the precise definition of the herrenvolk

>>2821048
> people in popular assemblies
Soviets, free soviets. Popular assemblies implies populism, that is rule of the majority over the minority not of the righteous and correct approach to resolving problems.

>>2821060
Modern anarchism, you cannot as a marxist distinguish between genuine and ingenuine anarchism because they are all your enemies in methodology and it is easier to clump them as one in a grand narrative to attack rather than take the time to analyze the different factions adhering to the name of "anarchism". But that would be like equating your school of "marxism" to Trotskyism, Stalinism, Maoism, Italian school of Left Communism ("Bordigism") and Dutch-German school while claiming "they're all the same". You are vulgar. YOU ARE VULGAR.

>>2821047
Reactionary subhuman still showing off great man worship when it comes to scum, misanthropy when it comes to everyone else

>>2821033
>different forms of Anarchism
There are different schools of thought, often in contradiction and in conflict with each-other, much like with Marxism. Calling it "forms" implies that they are all in unison in spite of differences, they are not. The same way anyone can brand themselves a "marxist" and espouse neo-nazi rhetoric does not legitimate them.
In fact, some of the biggest opponents of anarchism, identify themselves as "anarchists". It is the task of any remaining genuine principled anarchists, to do away with them first, before anyone else.
Quoting N+1 (Quinterna):
>What Is there a difference between you and other communist groups or parties? One should ask not what difference passes between "us" and "others", but what is communism and what it means to be communists. Unfortunately the existence in the world of thousands of groups and different "communist" parties demonstrates that the real question the most different answers are given, then understanding the explanations on the countless differences depends too much on the predisposition of those listen. In any case, the absence above all distinguishes us, in the our work, of all categories normally found elsewhere, such as the democracy, anti-fascism, parliamentary cretinism, frontism, the moralism about freedom and the person, individualism, trade unionism, centralism democratic, workerism, anarchism etc.

>>2821059
Bookchin was always an anarchist. His Democractic Municipality theory has been adopted by Rojava which is widely regarded as anarchist, although they don't call themselves anarchism due to its bad reputation, again, thanks to the "anarchists" who attacked Bookchin and Chomsky, just like you. Interesting that the only working projects are the result of the people you bash!

Malatesta has some good writings but he opposed organized programs which is one reason anarchism never took off. His letters exchange with Makhno prove this.

You are what is wrong with anarchism. Go back to listening punk and wearing black clothes fgt

>>2821062

Semantics. Free association is just democracy. A group of people willingly acting together, although it might hurt others, is no different from majority rule hurting a minority. Such events take place only in the imagination. We live in a collective, where conflict between parts must be solved trough democratic means. Fuck outta here with that pseudo-philosophy

File: 1779575538741.pdf (776.97 KB, 180x255, Kniga-Georgi-80.pdf)

>>2821033
>It's not like there's policy or a DOTP.
This is also incorrect, most AC disregard the dispute of DOTP as a semantics one over what constitutes an active dictatorship in the structural logistical sense, they disregard the word dictatorship as the active overthrow, liquidation of the bourgeois, self-abolition of the proletariat into class society to them does not mean the creation of a structure that upholds the function of suppression, but it is all done through coordinated efforts in overthrow, analogous to a slave revolt. Malatesta already addressed this over a hundred years ago, it is not your fault for not knowing it, since most self-proclaimed modern "anarchists" will tell you a hundred different things.
>policy
Federations constitute policies, a program, through means of consensus built on rational approach, therefore, everyone participating in the process, must be a materialist, it is not for deluded individuals to determine the fate of societal relations.

>>2821084
>Bookchin was always an anarchist. His Democractic Municipality theory has been adopted by Rojava which is widely regarded as anarchist,
Rojava is not an anarchist-communist project, it was a bourgeois liberal project aimed at creating an "autonomous space", they did not bring an end to the capitalist mode of production or relations characteristic of it, they did not bring an end to market economics, they did not end class, they did not end commodity production, it was akin to a national liberation project, they even upheld divisions on tribal customs. Democracy in all its forms if rule of the majority over the minority.
>, thanks to the "anarchists" who attacked Bookchin and Chomsky, just like you.
It wasn't me, I am an anarchist-communist, the ones who attacked Bookchin were post-left, primitivist reactionaries, Bookchin deserved to be critiqued for his liberalism, not for not adhering to reactionary individualist antisocial tendencies. Chomsky - he was an academic, academia serves the status quo, a reformist, a liberal and to give into character assassination a fucking Epstein associate.
>working projects
Anarchist-communism cannot be implemented in seclusion, to repeat the failures of the Paris commune, that is why Rojava failed even on its own merit of as a liberal project. Anarchist-communism is for internationalism, that does not mean espousing small "autonomous zones" until "internationalism is achieved", it is for the organization of the proletariat until the historically favorable time arrives for them to carry out a world revolution and change the mode of production altogether and with it societal relations. You are an infantile liberal with a false consciousness and a subpar understanding of communism, anarchism. You have no right to talk to me.
>You are what is wrong with anarchism. Go back to listening punk and wearing black clothes fgt
That is you, you fucking cretin liberal vermin, you are the punk, anarchism is punkerism to you, it is an aesthetic, to claim "a commune is more free" when the fundamental mode of production remains the same.
> Free association is just democracy.
Democracy is the rule of the majority over the minority. It is not consensus or rational argumentation.
>pseudo-philosophy
Your understanding of AC is inferior in every way. I am a part of an anarchist federation, you are an individualist LARPer on the internet guaranteed, all your understanding of it comes from the same few sites and video essays, ours comes from rigorous analysis and discourse.

>>2821084
>Malatesta has some good writings but he opposed organized programs which is one reason anarchism never took off. His letters exchange with Makhno prove this.
Malatesta's merit comes from an analytical, not methodological standpoint since methodology only comes from the creation of an active program for organization, i.e. Catechism of the revolutionary from Nechayev.

The lot of you internet "anarchists", especially at this time, it is midnight here, you are definitely in the US, where not a single AF part of IFA exists, worthless bastards, all you can do is defile the name further while engaging in more and more liberal activism. You will not be accepted into IFA even if you made more AFs until you prove to not be a retarded liberal by study and discipline. You may have the upper hand in propaganda, it does not matter, IFA does not concern itself with populist appeal.

>>2821084
I bet all my life savings, you are the type of retard that praised the EZLN for its "anarchist merit" without even realizing LN stands for National Liberation. And even if you understood that part, you would still find a way to justify it in your infantile retarded belief of what constitutes "anarchism" to remain a supporter of national liberations (i.e. "THE SMALLER THE STATE THE BETTER"), a syncretic moronic liberal abomination of "national-anarchism".

To reiterate a previous condemnation:
Some problems with modern "anarchists" :

•They support national liberation movements and/or nations.

•They choose the "lesser evil" from capitalist reactionary positions.

•They are not interested in material analysis or class analysis, only in identity politics (meaningless "cultural analysis" of races, orientations, genders, and similar issues).

•They concern themselves with cultural preservation (disguised conservativism) as opposed to societal development.

•They accept and present, or sympathize with, the most reactionary ideologies (like primitivism, nationalism, fascism, liberalism, monarchism etc.) as legitimate forms of "anarchism" by creating synthetic incoherent abominations.

•They don’t see a problem with participating in the market economy (hiring for wage labor, making profit, running businesses, etc.) and deny the need for a planned economy.

•They don’t see the contradictions between religion and science or deliberately ignore them and avoid criticizing certain religions (such as Islam) while creating contradictory modernizations (i.e. queer feminist anarcha-islam),

•They do not apply or know immanent critique.

•They see no problem in participating in popular fronts built on class collaboration in a battle against a "greater evil," such as fascism/"anti-fascism," in defense of the liberal bourgeois democracy that gave birth to it.

•They ignore contradictions between different positions and/or fall for the false and self-destructive contradictory notion of "left unity" (alliances with Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists, Trotskyists, the left wing of capital).

•They are autonomists, not internationalists, and fail to recognize the need for a world revolution, instead focusing on regionalism, awaiting to be crushed or subverted.

•They are suicidally inclined and believe in adventurism or they support it by encouraging fruitless sacrifices.

•They fail to see the problems with activism, especially the contradiction of rejecting the state while protesting to demand reforms for "better conditions" (softer bourgeois power, to appease the workers - State Socialism was a set of social programs implemented in the German Empire that were initiated by Otto von Bismarck in 1883 as remedial measures to appease the working class and detract support for socialism [sic] )

•They deny, oppose or bastardize anarchist-communism.

•They reject materialism and praise utopianism, as their idea of "anarchism" is purely aesthetic.

•They lack fundamental knowledge and analysis of the capitalist mode of production (often due to rejecting Capital out of unprecedented anger towards Marx, yet no anarchist has written an equilivent of such a book besides Carlos Cafiero who took the time to simplify volume I and received a thanks letter from Marx himself).

•They reject uniformity, a program and/or are simply punks with a false-impression of contrarian thought.

•They glorify failed historical projects (Makhnovschina. Catalonia, Kronstadt) and seek fault in those who destroyed them, rather than analyze and acknowledge the failures in the fact they were unable to defend themselves and were thus unstable as to learn from the mistakes of the past rather than repeating / replicating it.

>>2821118
Insofar, the summary of this condemnation is the largely agreed upon consensus within the International of Anarchist Federations. A formal declaration on these lines will eventually be produced.

IFA as a whole has declared itself, to be against all bourgeois wars, following the last CRIFA congress and prior relations. That is, against lesser-evils. All anarchist federations composing IFA stand in line against all nations, national-liberation struggles. The associated projects of IFA may not hold the same views, although no objections have been made as of now.

File: 1779578516577.png (351.86 KB, 1723x1723, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2821124
IFA Congress 2026 joint statement -AGAINST GLOBAL DICTATORSHIP OF STATE AND CAPITALISM, AGAINST WAR AND FASCISM – FOR ORGANIZATION, INTERNATIONALISM & SOCIAL REVOLUTIOΝ

AGAINST GLOBAL DICTATORSHIP OF STATE AND CAPITALISM, AGAINST WAR AND FASCISM

ORGANIZATION – INTERNATIONALISM – SOCIAL REVOLUTIOΝ

The member federations of IFA are meeting in Athens at a time when the global situation is becoming increasingly critical for the exploited and oppressed classes. The general rearmament and the spread of war policies across various regions of the world, as well as growing authoritarianism and the rise of autocratic and reactionary models of government, is directly affecting the oppressed and is designed to maintain the capitalist and state system amidst a crisis of the dominant order.

Empires in collision

The decay and complete bankruptcy of the world of the state and capitalism marks the limit of its era of global integration, while simultaneously driving the intensification of inter-imperialist contradictions and the consequent rise of the threat of war. The state-capitalist system carries its contradictions within itself. The competition among bourgeois elites for better positioning on the chessboard—for the plunder and division of precious and limited natural resources, for the expansion of their “spheres of influence”—is what makes the sirens of war echo again and again. For as long as societies remain captive to the so-called “national interest”, to private profit, and to capitalist accumulation, war will remain the only path for empires in collision.

This is what is revealed in the most tragic way in the war slaughterhouse in Ukraine following the Russian army’s invasion four years ago, in the genocide of the Palestinian people by the state of Israel and its allies, in the brutal military intervention of the United States in Venezuela, the arming of militias in Sudan, and in the continued strangling of the people of Cuba.

US-Israel attack on Iran

Within this context, on February 28th, the US-Israel military operation against Iran was launched with intense bombardments, with the indirect support of NATO infrastructure, and continues to this day. The people of Iran, having first been drowned in blood—once again, as so many times over the years—by the regime following the popular uprising that erupted in January 2026, now find themselves facing the bombs of Western imperialism, responsible for so many military operations around the world.

The hypocrisy of Western regimes knows no bounds: at the very moment they collaborate seamlessly with all the monarchical, authoritarian, and theocratic regimes of the Middle East—Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain, and others—they instrumentalize the Islamic Republic regime in Iran to cloak their crimes in a supposed “liberating” guise, crowned by the cold-blooded murder of more than 168 children in bombardment of Minab.

Fortress Europe and increasing global repression during continuous crisis

The victims of imperialist, predatory, and neocolonial wars and interventions are always the people themselves, who are butchered in this global slaughterhouse or forced to take the road of migration only to meet death at the land and sea borders of a Fortress-like Europe. The murderous “push back” policies of the EU are reflected in the thousands of dead refugees at land and sea borders, in those trapped in modern concentration camps, and in those imprisoned under a special racist state of exception. The “walls” being raised serve not only to keep “surplus populations” out, but also to lead Western societies toward the consolidation of internal fascism, creating a social condition of fear and hatred.

Today, at a global level, we find ourselves in the midst of a historical phase of continuous reconfigurations, accelerating events, and intensifying rivalries that signal a violent transition toward a new historical period—one in which the preexisting order is in crisis, attempting to preserve its bloodsoaked gains through the intensification of repression, military escalation, and the deepening of exploitation.

Multipolar realignments and the generalization of authoritarian state power

In the dominant discourse of international politics, the “multipolar world” often appears as a more balanced and therefore more just form of global organization and hierarchy of states -a new condition of equilibrium. From the standpoint of the oppressed, and consequently from the standpoint of anarchists, the term does not describe a decentralization of power for the benefit of societies, but rather a realignment of the hierarchy of states and capitalist elites who are on a collision course. A multipolar system means that global power is distributed among multiple poles: the United States, China, Russia, the European Union, Israel, India, Iran, and other regional powers—none of which can any longer impose the rules of the game alone. This is not, therefore, a matter of less power or some retreat of power blocs, nor of a more just distribution of power. It is a matter of competition among more rulers who are vying for their places at the same table of exploitation.

The basic characteristics of such historical periods are multiple poles of power, asymmetric forms of strength, dynamic shifts in balances, and the challenging of traditional notions of sovereignty—all of which take on a different meaning when viewed through the class lens of those below. For movements and peoples, these poles are not neutral centers of influence but mechanisms of imposition and war machines, economic empires, technological surveillance systems, borders, and camps. Each power paradigm promises protection and development, demanding in return discipline, markets, natural resources, and cheap labor.

The present historical conjuncture is characterized by a double and seemingly contradictory movement: on the one hand, the attempt to transition to a multipolar world without a stable hegemonic center; on the other, the generalization of authoritarian, fascist, and totalitarian forms of governance. These two movements do not contradict each other. On the contrary, the second is a condition for stabilizing the first. Multipolarity, as has been said many times, does not give birth to peace but to generalized competition, and this competition requires disciplined, fearful societies ready to accept sacrifice as normality. Fascistization no longer manifests as a mass movement with a unified ideology, but as an everyday administrative practice. Borders that kill, police forces that function as armies of occupation, a state of exception that becomes permanent, the criminalization of poverty, migration, and solidarity. In this context, the concept of necropolitics no longer concerns only zones of violence, but the overall organization of the world. Power no longer merely manages life—it actively organizes death, whether directly or indirectly, through famines, sanctions, economic embargoes, blockades, and perpetual precarity. Death ceases to be considered as a failure of the politics of “the era of development and capitalist prosperity” and becomes its instrument for overcoming crisis conditions.

Western powers would like to force a hegemony which is not expressed simply through the politicalmilitary system. Today’s “unipolarity”, which violently unifies the planet, manifests through global capitalist integration, which expresses across different geographies the same unified logic of capitalist exploitation and state repression, incorporating within it different cultural, religious, and local particularities. While the rival blocs may seek their ideological identity on the basis of these particularities, in opposition to the dominant Western paradigm, this in no way signifies the transcendence or challenging at any level of the unified state-capitalist mechanism of power, exploitation, and oppression.

Anarchist rejection of selective anti-imperialism and opportunism

Today we are living through a period of distortion of meanings and values, and the need is even more urgent for the anarchist movement to construct its political, ethical, and ideological framework—both for the awakening of consciousness among those below and for the defense of its positions against attempts to impose foreign conceptions regarding the anarchist struggle and internationalist solidarity. These attempts are rooted in authoritarian tendencies, primarily of the left-winged politics, and are expressed through support for totalitarian state formations, condemnation of popular uprisings, alignment with power blocs, consciously false binaries, emotional blackmail, slander of militants, and threats—all dressed in the superficial cloak of anti-imperialism.

The logic of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” always leads to the same dead end: silence about the crimes of the new and opportunistic ally, justification of their violence, and dismissal of the struggles they suppress internally. Thus, anti imperialism is transformed into a geopolitical tool, losing all its libertarian content and analytical substance.

From an anarchist perspective, this is unthinkable. There is no imperialism without the state. There is no imperialism without internal repression. The same structures that expand outward also discipline inward, within class-stratified societies. The same mechanisms bomb, imprison, torture, and exterminate—and whoever pretends not to see this is not practicing anti-imperialism but political coverup.

Proletarian internationalism does not choose states, flags, or poles through opportunistic alliances— though this does not mean it will not use the internal contradictions and cracks in the system. It chooses a side in social struggles: it stands with workers, with refugees crushed at the borders, with conscripts and deserters, with prisoners, with the insurgents—with all those who pay the cost of imperialist rivalries, wherever they are. It does not pass through foreign ministries or geopolitical calculations. It passes through internationalist solidarity from below.

In a world where new regional or even central powers are emerging, the challenge is not to choose the “right” or “oppositional” imperialism. It is to reject them all. Not to baptize the realignment of power as liberation. Not to confuse a crack in unipolarity with a rupture with the system. A rupture with the system occurs when we deepen these cracks, make them more profound and insurrectionary.

Our position is clear: against every pole, against every state, against every war of the masters. With those from below, without taking sides or accepting false choices. This is the only anti-imperialism that does not betray itself.

Appeal for internationalism and deeper connections

The dynamic changes and upheavals that the rulers pursue demands the rapid reorganisation of the anarchist current at an international level. The urgent need to expand the network of contacts and communication among anarchists internationally is proven by the facts themselves—with the primary aim of exchanging experiences, sharing information about how the politics of domination are taking shape in each geography, and about the social resistances emerging at every point of the planet. Furthermore, discussion at the international level regarding the war condition and the generalized threat of war is critical, as deepening this discussion—along with the corresponding cooperation of anarchists internationally—are basic prerequisites for strengthening the struggle, that is, the social and class resistances themselves that can protect societies from the threat of war and the intensification of exploitation and repression.

It is literally a matter of life and death—for the movement, for societies, and for the oppressed—to develop and adopt the most coherent possible anarchist stance toward militarism, the threat of war, and resistance to global domination. We believe this can be achieved if comrades all over the world manage to recognize that while there are visible historical, political, social, and even cultural differences among particular societies (and therefore among movements)—which are necessarily formed under the shadow of the nation-state and which must be respected—at the same time, it must be noted that today’s anarchist analysis identifies a unified state and capitalist condition that dominates and oppresses the entire planet.

Against this condition we must stand in unity—whether it is expressed through the warmongering hegemonic Western coalition of the USA-NATO-Israel, through bellicose Russian authoritarianism, through the oppressive obscurantism of Islamic regimes, or through bureaucratic Chinese state totalitarianism.

Solidarity with struggles across the globe

For our part, based on our principles and values as organized anarchists, we intervene and act in the fields of social and class struggle, aiming for class and social emancipation against every form of tyranny—not to serve one or another tyrannical regime, state, or interstate bloc. We stand in solidarity alongside every people fighting for survival, dignity, land, and freedom against the global dictatorship of the state and capitalism, colonialism, and imperialism. We draw inspiration from people struggling across the entire world who, facing the monster of fascism, state and capitalist barbarism, rise up, strike, demonstrate, and fight the brutality of power. These are the elements of struggle we wish to highlight as anarchists: the ability of the conquered to counterattack against the all-powerful conqueror, the capacity of the poor and excluded to revolt under even the most barbaric conditions. We want international solidarity to create ruptures within the attacking rulers, bringing to the forefront our own history—the history of the struggles of those below who, against all times, create the living reality of freedom and solidarity, constituting the only real bulwark against the advance of modern totalitarianism.

Until the total liberation of all people from the chains of the state and capital—until the Social Revolution for a world of equality, solidarity, and freedom.

International of Anarchist Federations (IFA-IAF)

April 3–5 2026 – Athens, Greece

>>2821127

The current members of IFA in 2026 are as follows:

ArgentinaArgentine Libertarian Federation (Federación Libertaria Argentina)FLA
BrazilIniciativa Federalista Anarquista no BrasilIFAb
BritainAnarchist FederationAF / AFed
BulgariaFederation of Anarchist-Communists in Bulgaria (Федерация на Анархо-Комунистите в България)ФАКБ/ FACB
Croatia & SloveniaFederation for Anarchist Organizing (Federacija za anarhistično organiziranje)FAO
Czech Republic & SlovakiaAnarchistická federace (Anarchistická Federácia)AF
French-speaking (France, Belgium, Switzerland)Anarchist Federation (Fédération Anarchiste)FA
German-speaking (Germany and Switzerland)Federation of German speaking Anarchists (Föderation deutschsprachiger AnarchistInnen)FdA
GreeceAnarchist Political Organisation (Αναρχική Πολιτική Οργάνωση)APO / ΑΠΟ
Iberia (Spain & Portugal)Iberian Anarchist Federation (Federación Anarquista Ibérica)FAI
ItalyItalian Anarchist Federation (Federazione Anarchica Italiana)FAI
KurdishKurdush Anarchist Forum (Sekoy Anarkistani Kurdiy-zman, ANARKISTAN Facebook page, Associated Project)KAF
MexicoFederation of Anarchists in Mexico (Federación Anarquista de México)FAM
SicilySicilian Anarchist Federation (Federazione Anarchica Siciliana)FAS

>>2821093
In reference, the notion of direct democracy is often used interchangeably for consensus decision-making forms, out of popular appeal of the term, not its notion of a correct description, it is understandable in informal talk and propaganda, internally it is debated.

>>2821138
In essence, everyone understands what the other means by "direct democracy", no one is certain to die behind the word - NAME of "democracy". In practice it has come that the term has become subjective to different fractions, rather than seeing the difference from the history of the term. It is subject to change. When forms of planning through consensus are established, it will no longer be necessary to use that name. Economic planning has too many proposed forms as of now to determine which is the correct approach, this can only espouse organically by seeing what works via proof of work, not proof of concept. There are numerous forms of planning, numerous forms of consensus, decision-making, the most efficient are to be mended into the future program.

>>2821118
Looking forward to whatever results your larp yields! Sure it’s taking its time, idiot!

National liberation projects are just a step towards communism. Can’t have communism when your resources are extracted by foreign powers

>>2821149
National-anarchist liberal, you are an american larper and are not part of any anarchist federation.

>>2821149
Here are the "results" of your debauchery

I don't care much about what theory will conquer the world but I know that the anarchists I settled with are way, way more equilibrated and sane people compared to every other far left group I got into. Trotskyists/MLs are crazy and locked on a dude that died 80 years ago. Socdems have the insanity of believing in electoral circus.

It's twisted but anarchists are the only thing left of the first international

>>2821149
Workers seizing the mop is not the same as enacting a national bourgeois domestic parasite.

>>2821150
I’m not part of any federation because joining is hard. Not because of stringent requirements but because contacting it is hard. You fgts never go public but live in the shadows playing the cool guys. Truth is you haven’t accomplished anything

>>2821157
Not only that, even the most secluded national bourgeois continue market relations and are subject to the global capitalist mode of production. It is a contradiction to imply a secluded nation "controlling its resources" is a step towards communism, a fascist nation can meet the criteria easily.

>>2821159
>because joining is hard.
Joining is hard because no one will accept you larper. Anarchism is against all rulers - without rulers, anything that legitimizes the nation state is harmful and inherently against anarchism.
>You fgts never go public but live in the shadows playing the cool guys
LOL, say that to APO which have taken over entire cities, which provided an entire building for the last congress Lelas Karayanni 37. Tell that to the italian anarchists who have entire villages and families of anarchists raising anarchists.

>>2821165
Last congress had nearly a thousand delegates from all over the world - DELEGATES (figures sent to represent only, not the entire composite of federations) and yet a national-anarchist larper wants to belittle it saying "you have not accomplished anything larpers you hide in the shadows'. This is why America will not have a federation admitted into IFA anytime soon.

File: 1779580829593-0.png (624.11 KB, 600x600, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1779580829593-1.png (1.08 MB, 1171x878, ClipboardImage.png)

Wheres the hiding when all AF have a place of gathering?
Who is hiding in the shadows here?

File: 1779580875695.png (5.33 MB, 2048x1536, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2821172
LK37 who is hiding?

In bologna there is an event in semptember about anarchist documentation centers. There is no one from africa coming cause there is no anarchist library there. I think some of us should go over there and spread the word, this whole continent of ultra exploited proles is in dire need of theory

>>2821175
The Sicilian Anarchist Federation and Italian Anarchist Federation brought up the matter of having lost access to contacts from Africa needed for the Mediterranean to have an Anti-militarist network. They and others involved in a working group are on the matter of reaching out to anarchist organizations in Africa.

>>2821176
Feels like business speak to me to say nothing will be done. There is zero anarchist groups in africa that matters and it's where the exploitation of workers is the most acute

>>2821193
This includes any potential chapters of IWA-AIT willing to collaborate.

>>2821193
Let's not act like this is just a page someone made up. When I see people like you, so sure of yourself, talk about anarchy, I cringe. You need some reflection on yourself

This thread has been far less entertaining than I thought it would be

>>2821204
Do you read? I wrote inquiry is needed.

>>2821206
I expressed my disgusted feelings toward your formulation. There is no more to say

>>2821211
After looking deeper, it appears to be operated by some Norwegian organization excluded from IFA, which has later continued to cling to the idea of being IFA. Pitiful thing full of schizophrenic texts, for one I cannot find anything regrading the supposed extent of it claimed in the texts - no contact information whatsoever provided for a large presence, it is likely that this "Anarchists Confederation of Africa" was entirely made up.

>>2821236
Hahahahahah what a schizophrenic I dug up, looking for anarchist organizations in Africa, a lone norwegian schizo claiming to be IFA.
Amazing piece of history, the fossil is still going, what a nutcase. I gotta share this with the comrades, such a fossil still exists.

>>2821240 (Me)
I will delete the replies containing the schizo site, since it doesn't deserve to be promoted.

>>2821087
Consensus is worse than democracy. Bookchin already explained this

>>2821048
Chomsky did more damage to anarchism than good imo, sure he made it much more popular and even helped me down the path but with that has come a lot of new anarchists who don't really understand it and his "abolition of all unjust hierarchy" quote is way too vague imo

>>2822210
Democracy is rule of the majority over the minority, it is mob rule, it is unprecedented populist and illogical, consensus requires reasoning and deduction whereas democracy does not, democracy has no principles and Bookchin was a renegade gone complete liberal.
Bourgeois electoral democracy seeks the consultation of the masses, for it knows that the response of the majority will always be favorable to the privileged class and will readily delegate to that class the right to govern and the perpetuate exploitation.

>>2822839
More-so means of consensus hold different forms to provide unique solutions for different situations, certain forms of consensus already hold the mechanism of a quick decision on a majority basis, but they are not used unconditionally, they are used when a decision has to be urgently made without delay, all decisions made have to be conducted through rationale not favoritism.

File: 1779727807266.png (261.34 KB, 443x496, ClipboardImage.png)

Incredible level of retardation

"Google Murray Bookchin" is a perfect example of peak opportunism.

Up until recently anarchists hated Bookchin because he'd denounced anarchism and formed his own ideology.

But as soon as PKK began adopting a bastardized version of Bookchin's ideology and became the big players in Kurdistan anarchists have welcomed Bookchin with open arms.

They've even tried to claim that Bookchin's ideology, one that he specifically developed in response to what he saw as the limitations and flaws of anarchism, is merely a different strain of anarchist thought and that Bookchin was an anarchist all along.

Basically they started liking Bookchin again because his ideas were gaining popularity. Now if that isn't the definition of opportunism, I don't know what is.

>>2822861
As an interesting aside, Janet Biehl, Bookchin's ex-wife and the only other major social ecologist theorist publicly broke with the ideology in 2011 (though she confessed to having been a social democrat since at least 1987).

>>2822857
>There would only be private property to the extent that people elected to engage in private property society
Peak example of Bookchin liberal democratic retardation >>2822210
You are fucking liberals usurping the name and symbolism of AC, you are not in any federation

File: 1779728475704.png (666.91 KB, 698x657, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2822869
Actually existing democratic confederalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonome_Nationalisten

>>2822861


lmfao bookchin is just anarchists going through extra loopholes to be maoists without having to call themselves marxist leninists but really anarchists are confused dictators or confused demostratic socialists. there 2 types of anarchists. the insurrectionary types lean to confused dictator the social liberal type lean toward confused demsoc

File: 1779742918131.png (559.13 KB, 1080x587, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2822958
>. there 2 types of anarchists. the insurrectionary types lean to confused dictator the social liberal type lean toward confused demsoc
There is a third type (ᴉuᴉlossnW) neither reformist nor adventurist, the armchair, but its really hidden.

>>2821048
>Useful anarchism: Kropotkin, Makhno, Chomsky, Bookchin, Daniel Guerin, David Greaber.
Chomsky doesn't write anarchist theory though.
Booklet confirmed.

What's the difference between a communist and an anarcho communist. I know the latter doesn't care about Leninism but surely can't be it

>>2821159
>I’m not part of any federation because joining is hard.
Holy self-report.

>>2823628
The difference is the split of the Ist international, and what book club you belong to.

>>2822861
>But as soon as PKK began adopting a bastardized version of Bookchin's ideology
This is such a dishonest take.
I see it all the times, Ocalan takes some interest from Bookchin and all the american scum like this come out of the wood work to try to pretend to everyone that the PKK is doing bookchinism.
You should take your legalized glock and just shoot yourself, honestly, because this is so boring.

>>2823631
Shoot yourself democratic libtard, you don't even know commodity production has to be abollished

But if we do not for one moment recognize the right of majorities to dominate minorities, we are even more opposed to domination of the majority by a minority. It would be absurd to maintain that one is right because one is in a minority. If at all times there have been advanced and enlightened minorities, so too have there been minorities which were backward and reactionary; if there are human beings who are exceptional, and ahead of their times, there are also psychopaths, and especially are there apathetic individuals who allow themselves to be unconsciously carried on the tide of events.

In any case it is not a question of being right or wrong; it is a question of freedom, freedom for all, freedom for each individual so long as he does not violate the equal freedom of others. No one can judge with certainty who is right and who is wrong, who is closer to the truth and which is the best road to the greatest good for each and everyone. Experience through freedom is the only means to arrive at the truth and the best solutions; and there is no freedom if there is not the freedom to be wrong.

In our opinion, therefore, it is necessary that majority and minority should succeed in living together peacefully and profitably by mutual agreement and compromise, by the intelligent recognition of the practical necessities of communal life and of the usefulness of concessions which circumstances make necessary.

Ericco Malatesta — Majorities and Minorities (1921, 1922, 1924)
This is why we are neither for a majority nor for a minority government; neither for democracy not for dictatorship. We are for the abolition of the gendarme. We are for the freedom of all and for free agreement, which will be there for all when no one has the means to force others, and all are involved in the good running of society. We are for anarchy.

Ericco Malatesta — Neither Dictators, nor Democrats: Anarchists (1926)

It is well known that anarchists do not accept majority government (democracy), any more than they accept government by the few (aristocracy, oligarchy, or dictatorship by one class or party) nor that of one individual (autocracy, monarchy or personal dictatorship).

Ericco Malatesta — A Project of Anarchist Organisation (1927)
We are not democrats for, among other reasons, democracy sooner or later leads to war and dictatorship. Just as we are not supporters of dictatorships, among other things, because dictatorship arouses a desire for democracy, provokes a return to democracy, and thus tends to perpetuate a vicious circle in which human society oscillates between open and brutal tyranny and a lying freedom.

So, we declare war on dictatorship and war on democracy. […]

‘Government of the people’ no, because this presupposes what could never happen – complete unanimity of will of all the individuals that make up the people. It would be closer to the truth to say, ‘government of the majority of the people.’ This implies a minority that must either rebel or submit to the will of others.

But it is never the case that the representatives of the majority of people are all of the same mind on all questions; it is therefore necessary to have recourse again to the majority system and thus we will get closer still to the truth with ‘government of the majority of the elected by the majority of the electors.’

Which is already beginning to bear a strong resemblance to minority government.

And if one then takes into account the way in which elections are held, how the political parties and parliamentary groupings are formed and how laws are drawn up and voted and applied, it is easy to understand what has already been proved by universal historical experience: even in the most democratic of democracies it is always a small minority that rules and imposes its will and interests by force.

Ericco Malatesta — Democracy and Anarchy (1924)

>>2823637
It is becoming understood that majority rule is as defective as any other kind of rule; and humanity searches and finds new channels for resolving the pending questions.

Peter Kropotkin — Process Under Socialism (1887)

It seems to me proved by evidence that, men being neither the angels nor the slaves they are supposed to be by the authoritarian utopians - Anarchist principles are the only ones under which a community has any chances to succeed. In the hundreds of histories of communities which I have had the opportunity to read, I always saw that the introduction of any sort of elected authority has always been, without one single exception, the point which the community stranded upon; while, on the other side, those communities enjoyed a partial and sometimes very substantial success, which accepted no authority besides the unanimous decision of the folkmoot, and preferred, as a couple of hundred of millions of Slavonian peasants do, and as the German Communists in America did, to discuss every matter so long as a unanimous decision of the folkmoot could be arrived at.

Communists, who are bound to live in a narrow circle of a few individuals, in which circle the petty struggles for dominion are the more acutely felt, ought decidedly to abandon the Utopias of elected committees' management and majority rule; they must bend before the reality of practice which is at work for many hundreds of years in hundreds of thousands of village communities - the folkmoot - and they must remember that in these communities, majority rule and elected government have always been synonymous and concomitant with disintegration - never with consolidation.

Peter Kropotkin — Proposed Communist Settlement: A New Colony for Tyneside or Wearside (1895)

After having tried all kinds of government, and endeavored to solve the insoluble problem of having a government "which might compel the individual to obedience, without escaping itself from obedience to collectivity," humanity is trying now to free itself from the bonds of any government whatever, and to respond to its needs of organization by the free understanding between individuals pursuing the same common aims.


Peter Kropotkin — Anarchist Communism: Its Basis and Principles (1927)


Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
What is democracy? The sovereignty of the nation, or, rather, of the national majority… in reality there is no revolution in the government, since the principle remains the same. Now, we have the proof to-day that, with the most perfect democracy, we cannot be free.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon— What is Property? An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government (1840)

Democracy is nothing but the tyranny of majorities, the most execrable tyranny of all; for it rests neither on the authority of a religion, nor on a nobility of race, nor on the prerogatives of talent and fortune: it is based on numbers, and takes for a mask the name of the People.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon — Solution of the Social Problem (1848)

We may conclude without fear that the revolutionary formula cannot be Direct Legislation, nor Direct Government, nor Simplified Government, that it is No Government. Neither monarchy, nor aristocracy, nor even democracy itself, in so far as it may imply any government at all, even though acting in the name of the people, and calling itself the people.

No authority, no government, not even popular, that is the Revolution. Direct legislation, direct government, simplified government, are ancient lies, which they try in vain to rejuvenate. Direct or indirect, simple or complex, governing the people will always be swindling the people. It is always man giving orders to man, the fiction which makes an end to liberty; brute force which cuts questions short, in the place of justice, which alone can answer them; obstinate ambition, which makes a stepping stone of devotion and credulity…

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon — The General Idea of the Revolution in the 19th Century (1851)

Every idea is established or refuted by a series of terms that are, as it were, its organism, the last term of which demonstrates irrevocably its truth or error. If the development, instead of taking place simply in the mind and through theory, is carried out at the same time in institutions and acts, it constitutes history. This is the case with the principle of authority or government.

The first form in which this principle is manifested is that of absolute power. This is the purest, the most rational, the most dynamic, the most straightforward, and, on the whole, the least immoral and the least disagreeable form of government.

But absolutism, in its naïve expression, is odious to reason and to liberty; the conscience of the people is always aroused against it. After the conscience, revolt makes its protest heard. So the principle of authority has been forced to withdraw: it retreats step by step, through a series of concessions, each one more inadequate than the one before, the last of which, pure democracy or direct government, results in the impossible and the absurd. Thus, the first term of the series being ABSOLUTISM, the final, fateful term is anarchy, understood in all its senses.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon — The General Idea of the Revolution in the 19th Century (1851)

Socialists should break completely with democratic ideas.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon — Selections from the Carnets

>>2823631
The PKK and Rojava as a whole is a project made by american scum


But whilst State Socialism is impracticable as a system of real Socialism, it is indeed possible if its advocates had their way, that all matters of general interest and more and more of private interest too would pass under the control of the State; whether it be a little more democratised or not, it does not matter, for we reject Democracy as well as Absolutism. Authority is equally hateful to us whether exercised by many, or by few, or by one.
London Anarchist Communist Alliance — An Anarchist Manifesto (1895)



In short, we reject all legislation, all authority and every privileged, licensed, official, and legal influence, even that arising from universal suffrage, convinced that it can only ever turn to the advantage of a dominant, exploiting minority and against the interests of the immense, subjugated majority. It is in this sense that we are really Anarchists.

Mikhail Bakunin — What is Authority, from the manuscripts of The Knouto-Germanic Empire and the Social Revolution (1870)

>>2821155
Because they have no real power and don't have many people or lasting experiments that they can worship like the Leninists do. Anyway, socialists of all kinds need to unite, whether Marxist or anarchist, because we have far bigger problems right now than which micro-sect "has the correct line". We shouldn't gloss over our differences but we shouldn't let them keep us divided.

I do not distinguish between monarchy and democracy, whether one man or a dozen of men backed by force represent authority; it has the same aim; the results are the same. They exercise their power at all cost and check every independent tendency.

Emma Goldman — Free Speech Suppressed in Barre, Vt., in Free Society (1899)

The State, government with its functions and powers, is now the subject of vital interest to every thinking man. Political developments in all civilized countries have brought the questions home. Shall we have a strong government? Are democracy and parliamentary government to be preferred, or is Fascism of one kind or another, dictatorship — monarchical, bourgeois or proletarian — the solution of the ills and difficulties that beset society today?

In other words, shall we cure the evils of democracy by more democracy, or shall we cut the Gordian knot of popular government with the sword of dictatorship?

My answer is neither the one nor the other. I am against dictatorship and Fascism as I am opposed to parliamentary regimes and so-called political democracy. […]

More pernicious than the power of a dictator is that of a class; the most terrible — the tyranny of a majority.

Emma Goldman — The Individual, Society and the State (1940)

"[M]uch as I loathe Hitler, ᴉuᴉlossnW, Stalin and Franco, I would not support a war against them and for the democracies which, in the last analysis, are only Fascist in disguise."

Emma Goldman

The essence of authority is invasion, the imposition of a superior will — generally superior only in point of physical force. The menace of man-made authority is not in its potential abuse. That may be guarded against. The fundamental evil of authority is its use. The more paternal its character or the more humanistic its symbols and mottoes, the greater its danger. No slavery so deep-rooted and stable than the subtle hypnotism of Democracy's phraseology. It is mesmerizing to watch the girations of a balloon labelled "Liberty." The required optical intensity only too often lulls to forgetfulness even those vaguely conscious that the proudly soaring balloon holds nothing but gas — a child's toy with no substance.

The democratic authority of majority rule is the last pillar of tyranny. The last, but the strongest. It is at the base of this pillar that the Anarchist ax has been hewing.

Alexander Berkman— Apropos, The Mother Earth Bulletin (1917)


Bookchin and the contemporary "anarchist" liberal lot are completely illegitimate bastards who have no connection to the history of AC and in reality are from the socialdemocratic movement rooted in popular frontism, opportunism and a byproduct of reactionism and farcical bourgeois progressivism.

File: 1779803292484.png (916.15 KB, 1024x576, ClipboardImage.png)

The myth of the "Kurdish revolution": who invented a "libertarian" Rojava and why

Translation of the text of “Voice of Anarchists”.

At a time when, against the backdrop of the deteriorating situation in Syria, national-“anarchists” are once again making noise1 about the “struggle to defend the revolution in Rojava”, we would like to touch on the topic of this “revolution” itself.

The fact is that for more than a decade now, the anarchist movement has been spreading stories about a “libertarian” Rojava. David Graeber does this for the American audience, and Dmitry Petrov – for the Russian one. But to what extent do their stories have anything to do with reality? Has there really been any “social revolution” that anarchists could support, at least with reservations?

To begin with, it should be noted that during this “social revolution” the property of the bourgeoisie was not (even partially) expropriated, and now both foreign and Kurdish capitalists are operating in the region, who own millions of dollars, use hired labor, and whose private property is officially protected by Article 43 of the Rojava Constitution. This notorious “system of self-government”… includes the Kurdish bourgeoisie. Here are excerpts from the book of ardent supporters of Rojava (Anya Flach, Erkan Ayboga, Michael Knapp “Kurdistan. Real Democracy during War and Blockade”):

“Civil Society Committee (Sivaki). Civil society committees organize working groups, small trade, cooperatives, and seminars. It is interesting that employers and workers (in enterprises with less than fifteen workers) cooperate within the committees, just like in the Union of Civil Society Associations.” (p. 163)

“In the Economic Association, shops, companies, cooperatives and workshops unite for dialogue in order to ensure social responsibility.” (p. 182)

Is it even necessary to explain that such municipal institutions have nothing to do with workers’ councils in the understanding of Volyn (Vsevolod Volyn? – Russian anarcho-syndicalist, participated in the creation of the first workers’ council in Petersburg — note) or Anton Pannekoek (theorist of soviet communism — note)?

In addition to the bourgeoisie, the social structure of Rojava is also based on feudal-clan relations (ashirets). Ultimately, during the so-called “social revolution”, instead of abolishing these institutions, the Kurdish autonomy followed the path of integrating them into the new political formation.

I will quote the book already cited above:

“About ninety representatives of the ashiret asked for help from the YPG (the “People’s Self-Defense Units” - armed formations of the Supreme Kurdish Council; since 2015 they have been the basis of the Kurdish-Arab opposition alliance Syrian Democratic Forces - note).
In October, after liberating Tel Kocher, the YPG won the sympathy of the locals, who began to join the units en masse. Indeed, many Arabs and Christians joined the YPG and YPJ (the “Women’s Self-Defense Units” - the female branch of the YPG - note). The YPG has many fighters from the two largest Arab tribes - Sharabiya and Zubayd. One of the most important tribes, the Shamar, supports the Kurds. Some Arab and Kurdish ashirets harbor particularly strong distrust of each other, and overcoming this will require a lot of diplomatic work on the part of Tev-Dem.” (p. 75)

We can also cite a simply “beautiful” story from the Telegram channel of an equally ardent Rojava supporter who is now there: after a Kurdish sheikh, the head of a clan who already had three wives, saw his son’s beloved, he ordered her to marry him (the sheikh). The lovers, protesting against such tyranny, decided to run away together. However, on the way, they were caught by the Rojava police (Asayish) and both were handed back to the clan. In the end, in order to take revenge, the sheikh orders the lovers to be killed…

<https://t.me/azatyutun/864>


<https://t.me/azatyutun/865>


The author of this channel also openly writes about centralization and partyism in Rojava, about Kurdish nationalism, and that in this case it is simply incorrect to use the Makhnovist movement as an analogy.2

<https://t.me/azatyutun/252>


Well… the leftists have already invented fantasies about “socialism” in the USSR, “socialism” in Maoist China, “socialism” in Cuba. And now they have invented “libertarian socialism” and “direct democracy” in Rojava in the same way. In many ways, this seems to us to be a consequence of the apathy and worry that anarchists have never been able to achieve anything of a large scale since 1937. In this context, there is a temptation to attribute to “ours” what is simply not ours.

* * *

Further to the topic raised, I would also like to mention the ideology of Rojava, based on the late Murray Bookchin, who:

1) Officially renounced anarchism;

2) Rejected the strategy of class struggle3;

3) Called for participation in municipal elections, hoping to transform local authorities into libertarian communes (needless to say, for us as anarchists this is complete absurdity, since bourgeois municipalities are simply small straights



1 Statement by Têkoşîna Anarşî (“an anarchist auxiliary military unit composed mainly of international volunteers fighting for the Syrian Democratic Forces”) regarding the recent events in the region:
We, the anarchists and internationalists in Rojava, will play our role in these difficult times. We will fight alongside the SDF, defending and spreading the revolutionary project, building a society free from the state, in which the principles of democratic confederalism, pluralism, and the women’s revolution will prevail. We call on all anarchists and other revolutionary forces to stand in defense of Rojava now more than ever! ↩︎

Post by the channel “Woman, Life, Freedom”:
I feel like screaming when I read something like this. I’ll explain in simple terms.

The Kurdish anti-authoritarian movement.
The Kurdish movement in question in Rojava was formed and is controlled by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) (a Marxist–Leninist nationalist organization — note). Despite the shift in the PKK’s ideological paradigm, the structure of the PKK itself and what it is trying to create within the dormant feudalism here presupposes centralization. Do not close your eyes to the obvious. The “movement’s” achievements in Rojava are more the work of the PKK than of a spontaneous grassroots social revolution from below. To underestimate this fact is simply naïve, ignorant, and somewhat disrespectful toward the PKK.

The ideas of democratic confederalism (in theory something like councils), the struggle against patriarchy, and the restoration of Kurdish identity in Northern Syria did not fall from the sky. This is the result of the long and persistent labor of members of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party. Nothing more. Ignoring this fact means closing one’s eyes to how revolutions are actually made. And sorry, but that helps no one. Refusing to acknowledge that no self-organization in Rojava emerged out of nowhere is simply bad for anarchists and other revolutionary forces. Study the experience of all revolutionary organizations, even if it unpleasantly surprises you. My anarchist heart cannot bear the stinging feeling that the revolution in Rojava is the work of a party, rather than a sudden enlightenment among the people of Northern Syria.

2 Analogy with Makhnovshchina.
Before making such analogies, one must carefully study the social, military, and economic sphere of Syria. Dig through the archives on Ukraine and come to firm conclusions that the situation in Makhnovshchina and the one here often have nothing in common.

I will list some facts, and you may compare them with Makhnovshchina.

The economy of Rojava is agricultural. Period. This is confirmed by the main people responsible for the economy, for example in the Jazira canton. There is no production there.

Society is divided. There is significant nationalism, for example between Assyrians and Armenians, Arabs and Kurds. Again, the PKK is trying to deal with this. The Kurdish question does not resemble any canonized historical example. If you need quotes from the commander-in-chief of the KCK (Kurdistan Communities Union? — note), ask and I’ll quote him. Was there a struggle to restore Ukrainian identity in Ukraine during the Makhnovshchina period to the same degree that there is a struggle to restore Kurdish identity in this territory? This is a very important point that calls into question all the other factors signaling progress in Northern Syria.

The military sphere (my favorite topic) is a separate conversation. If you really want, we can talk about it. But first I want to ask you: do you really think that someone who is not an Apoist (not a follower of Abdullah Öcalan — note) can become a commander here?

3 Feminism.
Rojava is an ultra-conservative society. The ideas of jineology (their own feminist ideology — note) fit conveniently into long-standing traditions. The woman with a machine gun is a wonderful image for Western feminists, but behind it lie many other peculiarities that, alas, would blow up your feminist consciousness.

I have been in Rojava for more than a year — I am still here and still want to be here. I am still an anarchist. But I ask everyone to take off their rose-colored glasses, learn from the experiences of various revolutionary organizations, and develop their own theory and practice.

So this is an “anarchist” who realizes that the movement in Rojava is not anarchist, yet still supports it because she looks at the PKK’s “achievements” and thinks their work is very progressive and that they are carrying out a revolution. ↩︎

https://files.libcom.org/files/RemakingSociety.pdf

;
https://www.anarchy.bg/books/mari-bukchin-za-preobrazuvaneto-na-obstestvoto-ili-ekoanarhizam/

>>2823653
Excerpt from 1000s of texts on inter-dialogue between anti-militarists oriented at revolutionary defeatism

Overall conclusion has been that, the propaganda machine is generally too strong to effectively discourage aspiring "anarchists" from being persuaded to the positions promoted by liberal bourgeois society, the only guarantee so far has been that of organizational structures providing sufficient education, the effect of which is still negligible and must be solidified through the existing internationals

It is easy, for scum, to reply and critique wrongfully what is otherwise a correct doctrine, it is not as easy for them to defy organizational structures and programs accepted to bring principles in the broader mileau

File: 1779804442763.png (354.64 KB, 1080x390, ClipboardImage.png)

We are publishing a translation of an article criticizing pseudo-anarchists calling for support of participation in the war on the side of the Ukrainian state. The article was published in the German anarchist antimilitarist newspaper Graswurzelrevolution. — Note by KRAS of IWA-AIT (https://aitrus.info/node/6362

)

Volunteering for war for the nation and democracy? The split among anarchists over the question of war is deepening.

The text circulating online since November,1 clearly shows how deep the divide has become between people, organizations, and media calling themselves “anarchists.” “On the silencing of Eastern European voices at anarchist events in the EU” — reads the title of the complaint drafted by the “Solidarity Collectives” and signed by many groups, collectives, and individuals. The list of signatures under the English-language version is longer and includes, among others, FAU Frankfurt, the French CNTF, and such well-known authors as Peter Gelderloos and Philippe Kellermann.

The text expresses dissatisfaction with the fact that the anarchist milieu accuses those who voluntarily fight in the war with weapons in hand of “supporting the war.” From this the following conclusions are drawn: “In recent years within anarchist circles there have emerged many organizations and groups actively excluding the Solidarity Collectives, ABC Belarus, and many other anarchist and anti-authoritarian organizations from public events or blocking their participation. Furthermore, numerous different ‘statements’ have been published condemning the activities of these groups and support for the Ukrainian resistance against the Russian invasion. At the core of such behavior often lies a distortion of the positions regarding the war held by activists from Eastern Europe. Anarchists are accused of having become militarists, of supporting the war, or of not being critical enough of the Ukrainian state.”

What attracts the most attention is precisely the astonishment that someone could oppose support for Ukrainian nationalism against Russian nationalism. Evidently, in contemporary anarchism there has not been and still is no consensus regarding what states and nations are. The text not only euphemistically speaks of the “Ukrainian resistance against the Russian invasion” (but what is war? One state attacks, the other opposes it with its own military force), but also omits the fact that no later than August 2025 the “Solidarity Collectives” attempted to obstruct an event held by the “Assembly” collective from Kharkiv. In the statement made in connection with this, the “Solidarity Collectives” and their supporters were convincingly described as what they are — “anarcho-militarists” (https://communaut.org/de/von-winnyzja-bis-berlin

).

Are deserters and conscientious objectors (from all warring sides), as well as all those who do not want to die and kill for any side in this war, not “Eastern European voices”? Or is the identity card (sic) only played when it concerns positions fitting their own worldview? Or are their memories so short that nobody can recall how impolitely they treated consistent opponents of the war in Saint-Imier? (https://www.graswurzel.net/gwr/2023/09/ueber-militarisierung-ukrainesolidaritaet-und-luegengebaeude/

)

“We see no support for war or state militarism in any form in the work of the Solidarity Collectives and ABC Belarus,” the text continues. “Furthermore, we strongly condemn any attempts to isolate anarchist collectives from Eastern Europe over the question of resistance to the military expansion of the Russian regime.”

On the one hand this is untrue, and on the other hand it contradicts what is claimed immediately afterward. Anyone who attended the “marches of the [Russian] opposition” in Berlin in November 2024 (https://knack.news/11396

) and December 2025 could see the “anarchist bloc” demanding arms deliveries to Ukraine (https://www.woz.ch/2447/russische-opposition/fuer-ein-ende-des-imperiums/!9X2WQR4WY911

). It is clear that a military victory over Russia requires ever more weapons production, weapons deliveries, and use of weapons. And above all it requires ever more people willing to sacrifice themselves meaninglessly in the struggle between different capitalist states. With anarchist, feminist, socialist, religious, liberal, conservative, or fascist justifications. Ultimately this is irrelevant — what matters is that they are armed, trained, and available for combat.

Anyone striving for military victory over Putin cannot have an interest in comrades from right-wing volunteer formations being killed in battle: that reduces one’s own firepower. Likewise, someone on the Russian side who believes they are fighting “against fascism” also cannot conceive of neutralizing “private military companies” or the “Rusich” group. Wherever national sovereignty is at stake, political camps instantly unite. War is a national affair and the citizens of the state must not place their personal interests or party preferences above it. And you are participating in this.

Perhaps the “anarchists” who go to war as part of the Ukrainian army convince themselves that they are fighting and killing not for the state but for the people. But that does not make things any better. “The people” is a violently constructed community. The Ukrainian people exist because there is a Ukrainian state, not the other way around. The same applies to the Russian, Belarusian, and every other “people,” regardless of what criteria we use to define them — origin, language, culture, or citizenship.

As long as capitalism exists as a world system, there will also be countries like Sudan and Syria, Ukraine and Armenia, Greece and Bolivia. One cannot approach the world everywhere as one does in wealthy states. The way the European Union and NATO, Russia and China treat countries like Ukraine is unambiguous: the local population, the land, and everything growing on it or extractable from it must serve the multiplication of capital’s wealth. Which exact capital — Russian or German, American or Chinese — will become interested in this or conclude that all this can be obtained more cheaply in another sovereign state is unclear. What is clear is that for states with strong economies, territories beyond their own borders are becoming increasingly important for their economic growth. The whole world of sovereign states must provide markets, production sites, and investment spheres for their capital. This is the point where the interests of states coincide. Capitalist growth is inconceivable without violence between states. If we cannot achieve theoretical agreement on this issue, joint practice is impossible and meaningless. Whoever is outraged that Putin uses violence against Ukraine but fails to notice that austerity diktats are also violence has understood nothing about capitalist domination. Whoever believes Russia’s imperial ambitions must be stopped while simultaneously accepting the subordination of the world to the interests of democratically governed capitalist states as normal is no better than someone who sees something “anti-imperialist” in the imperialism of Russia or China. Those ready to “understand Putin” and those advocating arms deliveries are two sides of the same coin. Distinguishing between them is not dogmatism. It is completely obvious that entirely different goals are being pursued here.

Organizations like ABC Belarus take a completely clear position. Armed struggle for the “lesser evil” is viewed as a source of experience, glorified in every possible way, and turned into the main distinction from those who “in practice do nothing.” While the state carries out actions against young men trying to evade military service, we are supposedly supposed to focus our attention on the “heroics” of a small group of anarchists rather than support deserters and draft evaders from all warring sides. They themselves know perfectly well that on their own they are incapable of resisting the invading army.

At the same time, ABC Dresden spares no effort in propaganda: “You can be Sahra Wagenknecht, who is against the war and for the Russian empire. You can be a Russian soldier who with weapon in hand fights against the war in Ukraine, commits genocide, and kills hundreds of innocent people because he believes peace can only be achieved through the complete destruction of the Ukrainian people. You can be a Western leftist intellectual who is against the war because that is what is written in books, but for whom social revolution and war are merely words devoid of any meaning” (https://abcdd.org/2023/10/24/keine-verwendung-fur-solche-leute-weder-in-den-schutzengraben-noch-im-kampf-fur-eine-andere-welt/

) (However, in recent years we have learned that these simple words can be interpreted differently depending on what part of the world or political camp people come from.)

But why is the nation-state suddenly better than the empire? How do you know that Russia seeks the “complete destruction of the Ukrainian people”? To fight and kill on orders from the Ukrainian state, which must be reformed in order to adapt to the world market — what does this have to do with social revolution?

Yes, Alexander Kolchenko, who also signed this appeal, was in a Russian prison. Nobody can criticize him for opposing Putin’s rule. But it is already time to seriously discuss the fact that during the trial he sang the Ukrainian national anthem and shouted “Glory to Ukraine!” “National-anarchism” under the Ukrainian or any other national flag is something different from solidarity with people suffering because of Russia’s policies. If you believe the nation-state is a good response to discrimination, then we should come to an agreement among ourselves about what exactly “domination” means.

There is also no shortage in the public sphere of Eastern European voices calling for continuation of the war at any cost. Including “anarchist” ones. Maksym Butkevych, who as an anarchist became an officer in the Ukrainian army, tours Europe campaigning for arms deliveries (https://www.woz.ch/2506/maxim-butkewitsch/dann-macht-man-sich-mitschuldig/!66MN2JPV7AB2

). Green Party politician Marina Weisband considers herself “an anarchist deep in her heart,” but for her this concretely means insisting on war until total victory (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpg0KUmgRo

).

Enough. Please do not lecture us about “privilege” and “Westsplaining” while deserters are being killed at the Ukrainian border (https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article252528332/Ukrainischer-Deserteur-15-Kilometer-vor-Grenze-erschossen.html

).

Alexander Ametistov

Graswurzelrevolution. 2026. No. 506. February. P. 21.

https://abc-belarus.org/en/2025/11/06/on-silencing-voices-from-eastern-europe-at-anarchist-events-in-eu/

File: 1779804541299.jpg (10.04 KB, 320x255, HI23_w_XoAAL3fW.jpg)


>>2821033
Syndicalism isn't ideological like other forms of anarchism, all that matters is resistant through collective action until wage slavery is abolished, trade unions and workers councils being the natural organs of workers self management. It's about the process not the destination

>>2823671
Unconcerned with the abolition of commodity production, class society as always, a malformed tendency.

>>2823675 to >>2823674
You are illiterate, I know you, you are the same syndicalist bastard that has been dwelling on here trying to legitimize Sorel.

>>2823678
Let it be known the retardation of IWW has gone so far that american delegates have come to cry about democratic decision-making letting in Identity Europa fascists within local IWW chapters. Let it also be known that IWW does not concern itself with the class consciousness of the workers, but instead every worker just comes in to list their complaints and seek legal action.

There has been at least a hundred year old debate within IWW on if organizational matters should be left to democratic decision-making on majority rule - no resolution whatsoever, the IWW has wholly become an organ of the US for reformist matters.

Sex pest cults forming around cooperatives and mafia involvement, the "Red Emma" cafe scandal as one of many examples of the depravity of liberal egalitarianism.

Red Emma's has never been a safe spot. I've been assaulted twice by customers and harassed repeately, no reason given, by one staff member of theirs, a Tiffany DeFoe, who'd later smear me with others and with the BCPD. Moreover, one of their founders, an Andrew Byrne, was sexually coercing everyone he could with the line "If you're a TRUE egalitarian, you'll make out with me"- and making vague, domineering remarks to Baltimore School of the Arts kids about things he "could just tell" about people, when in fact he'd been monitoring the internet use on Red Emma's free internet terminals, educating himself thoroughly on the guests. The rest of the staff, including Kate Khatib, John Duda, Abigail "Iris" Kirsch, Suzie, Lanie Thomas, Kevin Blackistone- all didn't want to know any of this (as if illegal things happened there par for course… which, given their no wages policy, could mean "other ways" of making wages…), or were covering it up with recriminative ad hominem accusations.

There was also the matter of my being stalked, intermittently, for years by the same darkhaired laptop user, unnamed- friend of Iris Kirsch and specialist in "wavetable synthesis"- following me to half the net bistros throughout Baltimore and to DC's Union Station. Also, due to my noting these and investigating it, I was covertly assaulted in Sept. 2010, and further harassed at two different workplaces, on til 2013, when I finally left Maryland.


I'm not sure yet if there's a Mafia connection with the Industrial Workers of the World, or if Red Emma's sold surveillance data to various private security companies. Certainly they wouldn't protect themselves in innocent book sales and vegan cuisine service by cell phone stalking and smearing people with the police; as their implicit threats escalated, I should think they had all the more to conceal. But whereever there's spying, there's sexual abuse, there's smear ops, and there's a blight on genuine innovations in art, intellectualism and culture- a cancer on human evolution, to say nothing of continuing the dysfunctional and toxic ideas that Baltimore has about "justice". No, like any pretentious rich people or touring revival preachers, they dance a fine dance and put on a fine show, but have other things going on behind the scenes. Anyone GENUINELY interested in human rights or justice would have more natural sympathy, and would not reserve it strictly for anyone they could prejudge as a "minority".


BUT, Baltimore's prime feminists, relying on a rapey programmer as founder and support worker from 2004-2012, and getting support from local and federal law enforcement in suppressing it. As if Baltimore hadn't enough hypocrisy.

If they're the best of "Worker-Ownership" in the USA, then- either the USA has it all wrong, or the concept is fundamentally flawed.

Yes, it's been a while; I'd had to prepare, after that assault.

>>2823684
Report from anonymous, the aforementioned IWW affiliated cafe has moved onto bourgeois charity for the Salvation Army christian cult.
One of many such examples.
IWW delegates have come to my organization on the other side of the world asking for advise and feedback, a shitshow largely ignored by the dedicated online supporters, who do not concern themselves with real matters.


>>2823678
>>2823643
>The PKK and Rojava as a whole is a project made by american scum
brainlet take tbh.

>>2823674
Direct confrontation of the "apolitical / against politics" attitude of the anti-communist bourgeois liberal structure of the IWW
The IWW and the failure of revolutionary syndicalism in the USA, part ii
Submitted by International Review on 1 May, 2006 - 22:31

Printer-friendly version
In the first part of this article (published in International Review n°124), we examined the historical context within which the IWW was founded, at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, in the watershed between capitalism’s ascendancy and decadence. Based on its theory of “industrial unionism”, the Industrial Workers of the World tried to find an answer to the problems posed by the increasing inability of “parliamentary cretinism” and the reformist union of Samuel Gompers’ American Federation of Labor (AFL) to confront the evolution of both capitalism and the class struggle. Contrary to the federalist vision of the anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists, the IWW’s founders set out to build a centralised, unified class-struggle organization which would be able to bring together the whole proletariat for the seizure of power, and to offer a framework for the exercise of proletarian power after the revolution.

In this article, we will see how far the IWW’s theory and practice allowed it to live up to its own goals, and to the greatest challenge yet faced by the workers’ movement world wide: the outbreak of history’s first great inter-imperialist conflict in 1914.

For or against “politics”?
The IWW preamble adopted at the founding convention was clear in its commitment to the revolutionary destruction of capitalism. “The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life (…) Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the earth and the machinery of production, and abolish the wage system (…) It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with capitalism.” The organization was not clear, however, on the nature of this revolution or how it would made. It was not even clear whether the revolution would be a political or an economic act. So while the IWW permitted and even welcomed the participation of political organizations and activists within its ranks and its members supported socialist candidates at the poll, even from the outset it harbored considerable confusions on the nature of political action for the proletariat.

In 1905, Socialist Party members present at the founding convention assumed that the IWW would endorse the Socialist Party.[1] Their DeLeonist rivals hoped that the IWW’s allegiance could be won by the Socialist Labor Party. Such naive expectations seriously underestimated the political skepticism that would prevail at the founding convention. Despite their Marxist sympathies, the dominant view amongst the IWW’s founders held that for the workers the political struggle was subordinate to the economic. For example, prior to the convention the Western Federation of Miners (WFM) had written, “Experience has taught us that the economic organization and the political organization must be distinct and apart from each other (…) To our mind it becomes necessary to unite the workers upon the industrial domain, before it is possible to unite them in the political arena.”[2]

Despite the sharply divergent views on politics, in the interests of unity, the convention formulated a convolutedly worded concession to socialists from both parties, by agreeing to the insertion of a political paragraph in the preamble to the IWW constitution, which read as follows: “Between these two classes a struggle must go on until all the toilers come together on the political, as well as the industrial field, and take hold of that which they produce by their labor, through an economic organization of the working class, without affiliation with any political party.” For most delegates this concessionary reference to politics was incomprehensible. One delegate complained, “I cannot afford to have brother DeLeon along with me every time I meet a man to explain what this paragraph means.” [3]

The opposition to politics derived from a theoretical misunderstanding of the nature of the class struggle and the proletarian revolution and of the proletariat’s political tasks. For the IWW, “political” had a very narrow meaning: it meant parliamentarism, the participation in bourgeois elections. According to this perspective political action, i.e., participation in elections, offered only propagandistic value in demonstrating the futility of electoralism, as exemplified in this statement: “The only value that political activity has to the working class is from the standpoint of agitation and education. Its educational merit consists solely in proving to the workers its utter inefficacy to curb the power of the ruling class and therefore forcing the workers to rely on the organization of their class in the industries of the world.

“It is impossible for any one to be a part of the capitalist state and to use the machinery of the state in the interest of the workers. All they can do is to make the attempt, and be impeached – as they will be—and furnish object lessons to the workers, of the class character of the state.” [4]

These statements are rife with confusion. It is ironic that although the anti-politicals detested DeLeon they shared many of his theoretical conceptions, such as:

the primacy of the economic over the political struggle;
the equation of politics with the ballot box;
the rejection of the dictatorship of the proletariat;
the failure to understand that under the conditions of an historically progressive capitalism, it was indeed possible to participate in parliament to wrest reforms from the bourgeoisie;
the failure to differentiate between reforms (like the 8-hour day, restrictions on child labor, etc) won in the course of class struggle from the counter revolutionary doctrine of reformism that held that socialism could be achieved peaceably through the ballot box.
When Wobblies railed against politics because it was impossible to use the capitalist state for working class revolutionary purposes they revealed an ignorance of one fundamental lesson that Marx drew from the experience of the Paris Commune: the recognition that the proletariat must destroy the capitalist state. What could be more political than the destruction of the capitalist state, the seizure of the means of production, and the imposition of the proletarian revolutionary perspective over the whole of society? The proletarian revolution will be the most audacious and thoroughgoing social and political act in all of human history – a revolution in which the exploited and oppressed masses rise up, destroy the state power of the exploiting class, and impose their own revolutionary class dictatorship over society in order to achieve the transition to communism. From the correct realization that the workers could not take hold of the bourgeois state and wield it to advance their revolutionary program, the anti-politicals wrongly concluded that the proletarian revolution was an economic, not a political act. Like the anarchists, the anti-politicals in the IWW ended up by concluding that they could ignore, not just parliament but the power of the bourgeois state itself. They believed this in spite of their own experience in the free speech fights which took place not at the point of production, but in the streets as an act of political confrontation with the state.[5] Nor, despite these bitter clashes in which the ruling class frequently rode roughshod over its own laws, did the IWW have any inkling that the time was fast approaching when the bourgeois parliament and law would be nothing but a mask for the most ruthless exercise of power against the proletarian threat. This was to have catastrophic consequences, as we shall see, and it is a tragedy of historical proportions that so many dedicated and courageous militants were to enter the coming struggles bereft of such fundamental aspects of the Marxist perspective.

The political compromise embodied in the arcane wording of the political paragraph in the 1905 preamble was not sufficient to maintain the unity of the organization. By the 1908 convention, the anti-political perspective triumphed. DeLeon was barred from attending the convention on a credentials technicality, and he and his followers split to form their own IWW based in Detroit that was subordinate to the SLP, and doomed to as inauspicious an existence as the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance before it. Debs, along with many other Socialist Party members, permitted their membership to lapse and withdrew from IWW activities. Even the WFM, which had played such a vital role in the founding of the IWW, withdrew from the organization. Haywood remained in the organization and in 1911 served simultaneously as a leading member of the IWW and a board member of the Socialist Party, until he was removed from the latter after membership in the IWW was deemed incompatible by the Socialists because of the IWW’s stance on sabotage and opposition to political action.

>>2823697

Revolutionary party or unitary organization?
For the IWW the industrial union was an all-in-one organizational form. The union would not simply be a unitary organization that would serve as a mechanism for working class self defense and the form for proletarian rule after the revolution, but would also be an organization of revolutionary militants and agitators. According to its 1908 constitution, the IWW believed that “the army of production must be organized, not only for the every-day struggle with the capitalists, but also to carry on production when capitalism shall have been overthrown. By organizing industrially we are forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old.” As we have pointed out earlier in this series, this syndicalist vision that sees the possibility to form “the structure of the new society within the shell of the old (…) springs from a profound incomprehension of the degree of antagonism between capitalism, the last exploiting society, and the classless society which must replace it. This serious error leads to underestimating the depth of social transformation necessary to carry out the transition between these two social forms, and it also underestimated the resistance of the ruling class to the seizure of power by the working-class.” [6]

Moreover, the conception that the same organization could simultaneously be a revolutionary organization of class conscious workers and agitators and an organization open to all workers in the class struggle within capitalism revealed a double confusion characteristic of revolutionary syndicalism.

The first of these confusions was the failure to distinguish between the two types of organization that have historically been secreted by the working class: revolutionary organizations and unitary organizations. The IWW failed to appreciate that a revolutionary organization regrouping militants on the basis of a shared agreement on, and commitment to, revolutionary principles and a revolutionary program, is in essence a political organization, a class party in fact if not in name. Such an organization can only, by definition, regroup a minority of the working class: its most politically conscious and dedicated members who, in the words of the 1848 Communist Manifesto “are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement”. The failure to appreciate this difference condemned the IWW to an unstable existence. The open door to membership that the organization maintained was literally a revolving door, through which perhaps as many as a million workers entered and just as quickly exited between 1905 and 1917. Newly chartered local union branches were created, only to quickly disappear without a trace as soon as the struggle which had brought them into being came to an end.

The tension resulting from the contradictory conception of being a revolutionary organization and a mass membership organization open to all workers would ultimately contribute to the historic failure of the IWW during the revolutionary wave that followed World War I. The IWW’s view of itself as a mass membership union that regrouped all workers increasingly led union-building concerns to predominate over revolutionary principle.

The second confusion sprang from the IWW’s failure to understand that, as fervently as they sought to defend the interests of their class, the battle waged by the industrial unionists against craft and business unionism was increasingly anachronistic. The historic period changed in the early 20th century with the completion and saturation of the world market, which ushered in the onset of capitalist decadence and brought to an end the period when it was possible to fight for durable reforms. Under these changed conditions, the trade union form of organization itself, whether industrial or craft, became irrelevant to the class struggle and was doomed either to disappear, or to be absorbed into the capitalist state apparatus as a mechanism for controlling the working class. The experience of the mass strike in Russia in 1905 and the discovery of soviets, or workers councils, by the proletariat in that country was an historical watershed for the world proletariat. The lessons of these developments and their impact on class struggle were the focus of theoretical work by Rosa Luxemburg, Leon Trotsky, Anton Pannekoek, and others in the leftwing of the Second International. In the real struggle of the proletariat, as opposed to the theory of revolutionary syndicalism, workers’ councils displaced the trade unions as the unitary organization of the working class. This new type of organization united workers from all industries in a given territorial area for the revolutionary confrontation with the ruling class and constituted the “historically discovered form of the dictatorship of the proletariat” (to use Lenin’s expression). Equally importantly, the experience of 1905 showed that the mass unitary organization of the working class in its struggle for power could not maintain itself as a permanent organization within capitalism once that struggle had been – temporarily – defeated. While the founding IWW convention expressed its solidarity with the 1905 struggle of the Russian proletariat, the theoretical work elaborating the significance of the Russian experience was completely lost on the IWW, which never recognized the significance of the changed period or of the workers councils, and continued to laud “industrial unionism [as] the road to freedom.”[7]

The failure to learn from the real, concrete experience of 1905, or even to take any notice of the theoretical developments taking place within the left wing of the Social Democracy (which would later become the backbone of the Communist International), was only a particularly damaging aspect of the fact that, in general, the theoretical work of the IWW was extremely weak. The theoretical aspects of the propaganda published by the IWW for the most part repeated basic Marxist conceptions pertaining to surplus value, the conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, but failed to take account of the deepening and further elaboration of Marxist theory undertaken by the leftwing of Social-Democracy. On the historic level the IWW added little or nothing to the theory of Marxism or even to the theory of syndicalism. As historian Melvyn Dubofsky has noted, the IWW “offered no genuinely original ideas, no sweeping explanations of social change, no fundamental theories of revolution.”[8] Its critique of capitalism never transcended a visceral hatred of the system’s exploitation and oppression, and never attempted to examine the nuances and intricacies of capitalist development and understand the significance of the consequent changing conditions under which the working class waged its struggles.

One disastrous exception to the avoidance of theoretical elaboration was the IWW’s effort to explain more deeply its conception of “direct action”, which led to a naïve theoretical advocacy and defense of “sabotage” in the class struggle, a term which made it vulnerable to charges of terrorism. The IWW’s definition of sabotage excluded the taking of human life, but it confounded a broad range of activities that could be considered routine tactics in the daily class struggle, such as mass work-to-rule slowdowns or “open mouth sabotage” in which workers make public embarrassing company secrets, with purely individual actions that had more in common with the anarchists’ petty bourgeois notion of “propaganda by the deed” than with working class methods of mass struggle. For example, the IWW defended an incident in a Chicago theatre, in which someone “simply dropped some vile smelling chemicals upon the floor during the performance and then made a quiet and speedy exit.”[9] Some IWW soap box orators demagogically advocated the use of bombs and dynamite. Finding it difficult to reconcile the glorification of sabotage by individual or small groups of workers with its commitment to mass struggle, the IWW resolved the contradiction by declaring it did not exist: “Individual acts of sabotage, performed to the end that class benefit be derived, can in no way militate against solidarity. Rather they promote unity. The saboteur involves no one but himself and is impelled to take the risk by reason of his strong class desires.” [10]

Hesitation in the face of war
Moments of war and revolution are historically determinant for organizations that claim to defend proletarian class interests, a litmus test revealing their true class nature. In this sense, the outbreak of World War I in August 1914 revealed the betrayal of the major parties of the Social Democracy in Europe who rallied to the side of their respective bourgeoisies, supported the global imperialist war, turned their backs on the principles of proletarian internationalism and opposition to imperialist war, participated in the mobilization of the proletariat for the slaughter, and in so doing crossed the class line to the camp of the bourgeoisie.

For its part, the IWW had nothing but contempt for patriotism. In their words, “of all the idiotic and perverted ideas accepted by the workers from that class who live upon their misery, patriotism is the worst.” The Wobblies adhered formally to principles of proletarian internationalism, and opposed the war. In 1914, shortly after war erupted in Europe, the IWW convention adopted a resolution that stated, “…the industrial movement will wipe out all boundaries and establish an international relationship between all races engaged in industry…We, as members of the industrial army, will refuse to fight for any purpose except for the realization of industrial freedom.” In 1916, the 10th Annual Convention adopted a resolution that committed the organization to a program advocating “anti-militarist propaganda in time of peace, thus promoting Class Solidarity among the workers of the entire world, and, in time of war, the General Strike in all industries.”[11]

But when US imperialism entered the war on the side of the Allies in April 1917, the IWW failed miserably to put its internationalism and anti-militarism into practice. Instead the organization lapsed into a centrist hesitancy, characterized by caution and inaction. Unlike the AFL, the IWW never endorsed the war or participated in mobilizing the proletariat for the slaughter. But neither did it take up an active opposition to the war. Unlike the socialists, it never even adopted a resolution denouncing the war. Instead, antiwar pamphlets like The Deadly Parallel were withdrawn from circulation. IWW soapbox speakers stopped agitating against war. Representing the views of a majority of the General Executive Board, Haywood regarded the war as a distraction from the class struggle and the more important work of building the union and feared that active opposition to the war would open the IWW up to repression.[12] Solidarity editor Ben Williams lashed out at what he termed “meaningless” anti-war gestures. “In the case of war,” wrote Williams, “we want the One Big Union (…) to come out of the conflict stronger and with more industrial control than previously. Why should we sacrifice working class interests for the sake of a few noisy and impotent parades or antiwar demonstrations? Let us rather get on with the job of organizing the working class to take over the industries, war or no war, and stop all future capitalist aggression that leads to war and other forms of barbarism.”[13] Here was the fruit of accumulated confusions: the IWW did not understand the significance of the world war, the dawn of the age of war or revolution and the changed conditions of class struggle that accompanied it; nor did the organization understand its tasks as a revolutionary organization (a party in fact) but instead focused on its outdated role as a mass membership union with the perspective of growth in a business as usual framework.

Despite the promise of their 1916 resolution to “extend assurances of both moral and material support to all workers who suffer at the hands of the capitalist class for their adherence to these [anti-war] principles”, individual militants who faced a choice of submitting to conscription into the imperialist war or resisting were told that it was an individual decision, and received no organizational support. Many IWW leaders were correctly opposed to interclassist anti-war demonstrations and organizations and accurately argued that the IWW did not have sufficient influence within the proletariat to organize a successful antiwar general strike. However, they appeared equally unwilling to seek ways in which they could find a way to oppose the imperialist war on the working class terrain. In a letter to Frank Little, a leader of the anti-war faction on the General Executive Board, Haywood counseled, “Keep a cool head; do not talk. A good many feel as you do but the world war is of small importance compared to the great class war (…) .I am at a loss as to definite steps to be taken against the war.”[14] This advice (which represented the majority view in the GEB) expressed a complete underestimation of the significance of the historic period ushered in by the world war and left the IWW totally disarmed in the face of the coming state repression.

>>2823698
James Slovick, secretary of the IWW’s Maritime Transport Union wrote to Haywood in February 1917 before the US entered the war and recommended preparations for a general strike against the coming war, even if it meant risking the destruction of the organization. Presciently, Slovick was convinced that the bourgeoisie would use the war as a pretext for an all out attack on the IWW whether it took action against the war or not. He contended that an antiwar general strike would have historical importance and demonstrate that the IWW was the only workers’ organization in the world to fight to end the butchery, urging that an emergency IWW convention be convened to decide the matter. Haywood deflected the request: “Of course, it is impossible for this office (…) to take action on your individual initiative. However, I place your communication on the file for future reference.” In the face of the bourgeoisie’s preparations for entry into the global imperialist slaughter, a request for an emergency convention of the Continental Congress of the working class to discuss an appropriate proletarian response was filed for future reference! By none other than the firebrand Big Bill Haywood! All because opposing the imperialist butchery would might disrupt the work of building the union!

For his part, Frank Little regarded the imperialist war as capitalism’s gravest crime against the world working class and advocated a campaign against conscription. He argued, “The IWW is opposed to all wars and we must use all our power to prevent the workers from joining the army.” Against those who warned that opposition to conscription would provoke state repression and doom the IWW, Little responded, “Better to go out in a blaze of glory than give in.”[15] Little’s voice in the internal IWW debate was silenced when he was murdered by management thugs during a miners’ strike in Montana in the summer of 1917. But even this view, while it had the merit of a steadfast defense of proletarian internationalism, suffered from political naivety in its fatalistic acceptance of repression.

Instead of attacking the war, and preparing its leadership and militants for clandestine activity, the IWW focused on union building efforts, organizing struggles in industries deemed vulnerable to pressure, apparently determined that if they were to be attacked by the government it would be for something important like fighting for better wages, rather than against the war. In an irony of history, it was the IWW, which consciously chose not to actively fight against the war once the US had entered the conflict, and not the socialist parties that opposed the war, that was targeted for repression. While individual socialists, like Eugene Debs who had spoken openly against conscription, were arrested and imprisoned, only the IWW, as an organization, faced indictment for conspiracy to sabotage the war effort. In this sense the war provided a pretext for the bourgeoisie to take revenge on the IWW for its past activities and for the fear it inspired. Indeed, we can perhaps say that the American bourgeoisie was more aware than the IWW’s leaders themselves of the danger that the organization represented. One hundred and sixty-five IWW leaders were indicted on September 28, 1917 on charges of obstructing the war effort and conscription, and conspiring to sabotage and interfere with the normal contractual economic functioning in society. The government was so intent on exploiting this opportunity to decapitate the IWW, that it even indicted people who were already dead or had left the organization long before the US entered the war. For example, among the indicted Wobblies were:

Frank Little, who had been murdered in August 1917;
Gurley Flynn and Joseph Ettor who had been expelled from the organization in 1916, long before the US entered the war;
Vincent St. John, who had resigned from the organization, left politics, and gone off to prospect in the New Mexico desert in 1914.
At the Great Trial, the Wobbly defendants argued that they had not tried to interfere with the war effort. They pointed out that of the 521 wartime labor strikes, only three were organized by the IWW, the rest by the AFL. In his testimony, Haywood disowned the views of Frank Little, and pointed out that anti-war literature such as Deadly Parallel and the Sabotage pamphlet had been withdrawn from circulation once the US entered the war.

Despite the fact they were innocent of the charges, the Wobblies were convicted after less than an hour of jury deliberation, and the bulk of the IWW’s leadership were sent off to Leavenworth in chains. The organization fell under the control of decentralizing anarcho-syndicalists and went into decline, despite its involvement in general strikes in Winnipeg, Canada and Seattle, and important struggles in Butte Montana, and Toledo, Ohio.
The failure of the IWW
The romanticized image of the Wobbly organizer persists even today in American culture, an image of a rugged, itinerant revolutionary, who hops freight trains and hoboes from town to town, propagandizing and agitating for the One Big Union – a proletarian knight in shining armor. This model of the revolutionary as an exemplary individual figure, so appealing to the anarchist temperament, is of no interest to the proletariat. The class struggle is not waged by isolated, heroic individuals, but by the collective effort of the working class, a class that is both an exploited and a revolutionary class, whose strength is not found in the brilliance of individuals but in the capacity of masses of workers to come to consciousness, to discuss and debate, and to take unified action.

Despite the IWW’s well-founded antagonism to political opportunism and parliamentary cretinism, the theoretical inadequacies characteristic of revolutionary syndicalism left it incapable of understanding the political tasks of the proletariat. The IWW militated in an extremely significant period in the history of the class struggle. It was a period in which world capitalism reached its historic apogee, became a fetter on the further development of the productive forces, and entered its decadent phase. No longer a historically progressive system, capitalism became ripe for revolutionary overthrow and replacement by a new mode of production controlled by the world working class. It was a period in which the proletariat, through its experiences in Russia in 1905, discovered the mass strike as a means to wage its struggle and the workers’ councils as the means to organize its revolutionary class dictatorship and to accomplish the transformation of society. It was a period in which decadent capitalism placed the historic choice of war or revolution before humanity, not as an abstract question, but as an immediate practical issue. These events and struggles gave impetus to a tremendous theoretical undertaking by the leftwing of the Social-Democracy to understand the forces in play, to draw the rapidly emerging lessons of class struggle, and to help shape the way forward. But in the midst of this swirl of historic events and theoretical elaboration, the IWW’s vision of class struggle and revolution remained mired in the framework of the trade unionist debate between craft and industrial unionism that characterized ascendant capitalism and which no longer corresponded to the tasks confronting the proletariat under capitalist decadence.

In the face of the first imperialist world war, the global conflagration that forced those who claimed to defend revolutionary principles and proletarian internationalism to reveal their true class nature, the IWW’s much vaunted internationalism collapsed into hesitancy and centrism. The majority of its leadership, including Haywood regarded the imperialist world war and resistance to that butchery not as a defining moment in the class struggle but rather as a distraction from the “real” work of building the union. In a twist of irony, notwithstanding the IWW’s hesitancy to struggle against World War I, the American ruling class seized the moment as an opportunity to use the organization’s past revolutionary rhetoric against it, and unleashed an unprecedented repressive attack against it, which essentially decapitated it and confined it to the status of an anarcho-syndicalist cult ever after.

Any organization that clings to theoretical conceptions invalidated by history and by concrete experience is condemned either to disappear or to survive as a sect, incapable of understanding, much less of influencing, the class struggle. A vestigial anarchist sect that still calls itself the IWW celebrated its centenary last year but has no capacity whatever to contribute positively to the revolutionary struggle. The best militants in the IWW were lost to state repression at the end of World War I and to the new communist parties after it. The Russian Revolution held a tremendous attraction for the non-anarchists in the IWW, “drawing adherents like flies.”[16] Prominent Wobblies who moved towards the newly founded Communist Party included Harrison George, George Mink, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, John Reed, Harold Harvey, George Hardy, Charles Ashleigh, Ray Brown, and Earl Browder – some of whom later became Stalinists. Big Bill Haywood also moved towards communism, even if he remained in the IWW until he fled to exile in Russia in 1922. “Big Bill Haywood had told Ralph Chaplin, ‘the Russian Revolution is the greatest event in our lives. It represents all that we have been dreaming of and fighting for all our lives. It is the dawn of freedom and industrial democracy’.”[17] Haywood became disillusioned with the Russian Revolution, in part because he was disappointed that the revolution did not take a syndicalist form, but a comment he made to Max Eastman succinctly summed up the failure of the IWW’s revolutionary syndicalism, of which he was such an important architect: “The IWW reached out and grabbed an armful. It tried to grab the whole world and a part of the world has jumped ahead of it.”[18]

There is no doubt that the revolutionary syndicalists of the IWW were profoundly dedicated to their class, but their response to opportunism, reformism and parliamentary cretinism was completely off the mark. Their industrial unionism and revolutionary syndicalism did not correspond to the historic period. The world had “jumped ahead of it” and left it far behind.

The organizational failure to understand what politics really means for the working class and to realize that their role was fundamentally that of a political party led to the great failure of the IWW faced with the imperialist war. First the organization as a whole failed completely to give a political leadership to the proletariat against the war. Second, the utter failure to understand what the war meant on the historic level in the development of capitalism led the leadership to trust in bourgeois democracy and “due process of law” at the Great IWW Trial. As a result the IWW was essentially smashed, its treasury depleted, its leading militants imprisoned or in exile, and this left it incapable of playing its part in throwing the immense weight of the American proletariat into the balance in support of the revolution in Russia.

https://en.internationalism.org/ir/125-iww

>>2823694
You are braindead, no refutation, Rojava has its entire existence dependent on investments by the bourgeois states, it is wholly the result of foreign investments from the US, China, Russia and other entities engaging in a proxy war. The lackeys of capital have become useless and therefore have been liquidated by their successors being the very Syrian "anti-baa-theist" jihadists they collaborated and fought against.

Why is some retard spamming this thread with poorly formatted pasted articles and so on?

>>2823702
>no refutation to the pants-on-head-retarded view that the PKK/Rojava is an american project
Why would anyone entertain your extreme levels of mental retardation?
Even aside that, you come across in general like you have a severe personality or developmental disorder.

THESES ON THE DEGENERACY OF THE INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF THE WORLD AS A GENUINE PROLETARIAN ORGANIZATION
  1. Since its heyday in the early 20th century, the IWW has degenerated into a grotesque shell of its former revolutionary proletarian self. The IWW is now a haven for ragtag leftists, lifestyle evangelists, historical re-enactors, moralist-scold liberals, and labor lusters who would just as soon join the SEIU or an AFL-CIO union if they had open membership. This is not a reflection on workers who get involved with organizing campaigns at their workplace, but rather those who have made the IWW their personal ideological clubhouse.

  2. For much too long, the IWW has fetishized decentralization and autonomy. This has led to small cliques and personal fiefdoms in elected union offices. It is not unusual to see members running for union office unopposed in yearly elections. Members who have held the same office for multiple years with nobody running against them become comfortable and complacent.

  3. This trend toward decentralization has led to a complete mishmash of ideologies and ideas left to infect and fester in the IWW, which has led to the promotion of all sorts of concepts which fly in the face of the preamble. These include, but are not limited to, support for $15 minimum wage, cooperatives, and no coordination at the branch level. Reformist cretinism has no place in a revolutionary union, leave that for parliamentary cretinism.

  4. The union’s newspaper, Industrial Worker, is at this point a waste of money and resources, printing only feel good articles and nothing else. For several years now, an IW website has been promised and has yet to happen, with little sign of it coming down the road. For all intents and purposes, it’s still strictly a print newspaper with a PDF posted onto a third party website for online viewing. This is an embarrassment. At the moment, the paper is only good for lining cat litter trays. The money spent each year on the IW could be better spent elsewhere, such as toward organizing funds or a strike fund (see point 9).

  5. The communication between branches is a complete shambles. Only those most engaged and with the least amount of a social life are able to keep up with events union wide. There is no single news source, no single twitter or facebook account, just a myriad of half updated accounts.

  6. There is a complete and utter incestuous degeneracy of revolutionary praxis (and even syndicalist praxis) with the adoption of activism. This is mostly a means to waste our time, so that people feel like they are doing something rather than trying to integrate with the class at large. With focus on soft and easy targets and an abandonment and lack of understanding that this abandonment has occurred, of a class theory of history, the reason for the existence of the IWW, and the fact that we are a union and need to have workers in it.

  7. The self absorbed navel gazing in regards to organizational approaches and inner orientation as compared to an actual orientation towards the class. The IWW can no longer be a social club for pretend revolutionaries.

  8. The Union pretends to not have an historic position on political economy, forsaking the intellectual heritage of revolutionary class politics that used to be the backbone of the union. Marx’s objective analysis was heavily used to form that backbone and is exactly why we emphasize proletarian politics. The program of the IWW must include investigation into political economy.

  9. As far as any of us are aware, there is no strike fund in the IWW. How can the IWW consider itself a union with no form of emergency fund for IWW workers who are caught in the bad end of an organizing campaign? Your “solidarity” means nothing without this basic material necessity, and a crowdfunding campaign launched at the last minute won’t cut it. Perhaps some of the thousands of dollars which are thrown away on the Industrial Worker each year could go toward a strike fund.

  10. The focus of gender equality, identity politics in the organization over political ability. As a woman, there is a preference over my sex over my ability as someone with an insight into political economy and ideology, which was never taken into account at all. This often results in situations where the political ends of a proposal are never taken into account, just as long as there is “gender balance”.

It would be better if these endless and useless adventures that are daily exhausting the working masses were all channelled, merged and organized into one great, comprehensive upsurge aimed directly at the heart of the enemy bourgeoisie.

>>2823708
Why would any communist care for your liberal project that does not even deny being financed by the bourgeois powers that be?

>>2823703
Apparently because illiteracy is high

File: 1779806231283.gif (2.82 MB, 320x180, goalpost.gif)

>>2823710
>Why would any communist care for your liberal project that does not even deny being financed by the bourgeois powers that be?

File: 1779806352364.png (1.27 MB, 1684x2584, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2823713
This is you yes

>>2823716
<n-n-no u
Ah yes. tried and tested. never fails.

>>2823720
Yes it is you, I disagree with the positions on the picture, you agree wholly with them

>>2823709
I don't agree that this is true anymore (if it ever even was), at least not with the IWW members I interact with.
>>2823674
Syndicalism isn't inherently anarchist. There are Marxist (as you allude to, but don't say, when you mention workers councils) and anarchist variants and adherents. The IWW in the USA were mostly Marxists. "Pure anarchist" syndicalism, though, is pretty much dead, because unions have become mostly co-opted and controlled by the capitalists. If syndicalists were to play a role in a revolution, they would have to be like in Kaiserreich, where you have a cooperation between the Marxist and Anarchist adherents.

>>2823732
>I don't agree that this is true anymore (if it ever even was), at least not with the IWW members I interact with.
Waiting for an annual report from the IWW sympathizers of my organization to come list their newest complaints, it never ends.

>>2823737
IWW is so weak, tiny, and disunited that it's probably a case of an certain groupings just being worse than others. I think it's still too early to write off the modern version, which it remains to be seen if it will even continue to grow into the future.

>>2823737
>>2823742
I remember when my local IWW tried to unionize the canvass of a local collectively-run food share.
Now, of course I support unionist, but as canvassing for this group was one of my first gigs….
We only accepted cash going door-to-door, and had honor system pay ("Just don't take more than 40% of what you received) got high on our way to work, and stopped at a liquor store after finishing the turf everyday. Also got a free all you can eat organic dinner every night.
One of the IWW organizers shoved down a 75+ year old woman who was a collective member. I won't share his name but the last name is the same as a river. Very toxic and violent individual
Like most IWW efforts, this one failed miserably.

>>2821048
No, anarchism does not mean "workers make policy", it means anarchy. Stop the bullshit.


Unique IPs: 21

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo / 420 ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]