Skip to content

Muntjac Magazine

4th world Anarchists for a magazine as a community resource by us, for us.

  • Recent Posts
  • Articles
  • Magazine
  • Submissions
  • Zines
  • FAQ
  • Stockists
  • Fellow Travelers
  • Anarchism In Sudan Archive
  • Merch
  • PGP
  • About Muntjac
  • In The Wild

Recent Posts

Anon – Selections From Disquietude Laboratory (2023) 

Posted on 02/05/2025 - 05/05/2025 by muntjac

Part of Muntjac Issue 2: Insurgency & Counter Insurgency 

Translated from ‘Disquietude Laboratory’ (‘Laboratorium Kegundahan’) poetry collection published by Der Einzege, 2023.

 

MARHABAN

Botol kaca, bahan bakar

Kacamata, sarung tangan.

Ku keluarkan semuanya

Kau perhatikan percikannya.

Kita kan bermain

Aku dimensi yang lain.

 

GREETINGS

Glass bottle, fuel

Goggles, gloves.

I take them out

You watch the sparks.

We shall play

I am another dimension.

 

—

 

MAINTEXT

Bagiku kolektif hanyalah kesadaran anarkis

pada titik paling berandal.

 

MAINTEXT

To me the collective is anarchist consciousness

at its most rebellious.

 

—

 

KONTRA ARKAIS

Mula-mula mempersenjatai kita

Dengan taktik, granat, tanpa harap.

Kemudian semua melupa

Pada gejala tiap amarah yang dipunya.

Diri lepas dari semuanya.

 

COUNTER-ARCHAIC

First arming us

With tactics, grenades, without hope.

Then we forget

at first symptom of anger.

The self lets go of all.

 

Translated by Mar, you can download/read the entire zine in Indonesian here: 

archive.org/details/stensil-der-einzige-folder

You can follow it’s creators here: instagram.com/__dereinzige & linktr.ee/dereinzige 

Anon – Selections from Kompilasi Puizine

Posted on 02/05/2025 - 05/05/2025 by muntjac

Part of Muntjac Issue 2: Insurgency & Counter Insurgency 

INSUREKSI ADALAH PUISI!

 

Puisi saja takkan cukup, anarkisme juga takkan cukup. Kita perlu keduanya, serangan-serangan indah, bahasa-bahasa yang tak dimengerti: berada di luar logika kekuasaan. Kita perlu banyak penyair yang siap melempar batu dan peledak. Kita juga perlu anarkis-anarkis yang memiliki puisi di dalam dirinya! Ketidaklogisan puisi, senjata yang masuk akal untuk menghancurkan dominasi!

 

Hidup kita penuh akan penderitaan, maka jalan satu-satunya adalah pemberontakan yang takkan pernah usai. Sampai semua bebas, sampai negara dan seisinya luluhlantak rata dengan tanah. Pertarungan kita tidak berhenti di sini, tidak berhenti di setiap puisi yang kita tulis. Pertarungan kita melampaui setiap tanggal, melampaui masyarakat, melampaui negara dan kapitalisme. Pertarungan kita berpencar ke segala Arah!

 

Puisi-puisi kita tidak berhenti di setiap lembaran kertas, di beranda sosial media, di setiap komunitas sastra serta di museum kesenian yang dijaga satpam-satpam kesenian yang tua, banyak omong dan menjengkelkan. Puisi-puisi kita jelek, kurus, onar dan tak bisa diatur. Keindahan-keindahan puisi kita adalah teror: molotov, bom rakitan, petasan dan batu yang

menyerang titik-titik vital negara dan kapitalisme. Puisi-puisi kita adalah api, menjalar serentak membakar matahari!

 

PUISI ADALAH INSUREKSI!

 

INSURRECTION IS POETRY!

 

Poetry alone is not enough, anarchism is not enough either. We need both, beautiful attacks, languages ​​that are not understood: beyond the logic of power. We need many poets who are ready to throw stones and explosives. We also need anarchists who have poetry in them! The illogicality of poetry, a reasonable weapon to destroy domination!

 

Our lives are full of suffering, so the only way is a rebellion that will never end.

Until all are free, until the country and everything in it is destroyed to the ground. Our fight does not stop here, it does not stop in every poem we write. Our fight goes beyond every date, beyond society, beyond the state and capitalism. Our fight spreads in all directions!

 

Our poems do not stop on every sheet of paper, on social media homepages, in every literary community and in art museums guarded by old, talkative and annoying art guards. Our poems are ugly, thin, troublemaking and unruly. The beauties of our poems are terror: molotov cocktails, homemade bombs, firecrackers and stones that attack vital points of the state and capitalism. Our poems are fire, spreading and burning the sun!

 

POETRY IS INSURRECTION!

 

–

 

SIALNYA, ORANG TUAKU POLISI

Oleh G Kribo, anak dari penjual motor antik dan buruh setrika, bukan anak polisi

 

Papa Mama bolehkah aku durhaka

Saban hari serupa neraka

Aku anggap malapetaka

Aku percaya hidup ini

hanya menjalankan takdir

Tapi aku percaya ditakdirkan untuk melawan tirani

Karena negara tak pernah beri hidup kita sebuah arti

Kita hanya mencari diksi dan berjuang lalu mati

Tapi kobaran api tak pernah berhenti

Tuhan, jika kau ada, kaulah yang pertama kubunuh

Terlahir dari rahim mesin pembunuh

Aku muak diasuh oleh penyembah peluru

 

UNFORTUNATELY, MY PARENTS ARE POLICE

By G Kribo, son of an antique motorbike seller and an ironing worker, not the son of a policeman

 

Papa Mama, can I be disobedient

Every day is like hell

I consider it a disaster

I believe this life is

only carrying out destiny

But I believe I am destined to fight tyranny

Because the state never gives our lives a meaning

We only seek diction and fight then die

But the flames never stop

God, if you exist, you are the first I will kill

Born from the womb of a killing machine

I am sick of being raised by a bullet worshiper

 

–

 

BERINGAS

Oleh R A

 

Ruai takdir begitu jalang

sama muka kita terpendam dengan pelik

nyata terang habis dibakar—dilupakan

apa yang kau ambil dari semua siasat busuk itu?

Jiwa dan hati manusia dihapuskan

dengan nyata kulihat tipu daya ini benar adanya

rentang waktu bergulir menuju akhir

semakin jelas kudengar tawa lepasmu sialan!

Tiap-tiap makna dilucuti

memperkosa ruang pikir

agar semua orang berkata

ini benar dan aku adalah aku!

Rayakanlah kemenanganmu

ambil dan kulai tiap makna yang kau berangus

tapi nyalaku akan selalu menerjang

membakar tiap mimpi buruk yang kau wujudkan

 

VIOLENT

By R A

 

Ruai fate is so bitchy

with our faces buried with complicated

clearly clear burned out—forgotten

what did you take from all those rotten tricks?

The soul and heart of man are erased

I clearly see this trickery is true

the span of time rolls towards the end

I hear your damn free laughter more clearly!

Every meaning is stripped away

raping the space of thought

so that everyone says

this is true and I am me!

Celebrate your victory

take and conquer every meaning that you have destroyed

but my flame will always strike

burn every nightmare that you have made come true

 

–

 

BOTOL

Oleh A N

 

Hari ke hari

Pekan ke pekan

Kondisi negara

Makin gak karuan.

 

Pelan-pelan

Kita harus

Nyiapin bekal

Buat ngehantam

Aparat sialan.

 

“Puter dulu botolnya

kawan”

 

Orang kecil

Kayak kita

Juga bisa

Kalo cuman

Ngebakar gedung

Tempat ngumpulnya

Aparat bajingan.

 

“Tuang bensinnya kawan”

 

Jangan kebelah

Apalagi ngebuka

Celah.

 

Paling penting

Jaga kanan-kiri

Biar gak gampang

Diprovokasi.

Karena

Musuh kita

Sebenernya cuman

Satu.

 

Yaitu, negara

Beserta

Kroni-kroninya.

 

“Nyalakan dan lempar kawan”

 

BOTTLE

By A N

 

Day by day

Week by week

The condition of the country

Is getting worse.

 

Slowly

We have to

Prepare supplies

To hit

The damn authorities.

 

“Spin the bottle first comrade”

 

Little people

Like us

Can also

If it’s just

Burning down buildings

Where the bastard authorities gather.

 

“Pour the gasoline, friend”

 

Don’t split

Let alone open

Gaps.

Most importantly

Guard the right and left

So that you won’t be easily

Provoked.

Because

Our enemy

Is actually only

One.

Namely, the state

Along with

its cronies.

 

“Light it up and throw it, friend”

 

Taken from a pair of zines published in Indonesia in 2025. Machine translated, you can download both zines here: ananarchistcalledmutt.noblogs.org/post/2025/04/07/kompilasi-puizine

you can follow the publishers work at instagram.com/sengisengzine & linktr.ee/talaspress

08 – Revolution or Reification?: A Critique of FRSO’s Political Program

Posted on 02/05/2025 - 02/05/2025 by muntjac

A Marxist Party of a New (Old) Type

In the current evolution of the so-called radical left in the so-called United States, one concerning trend is the growing popularity of Marxist-Leninist organizations, particularly among newly-activated young people. One organization that has been a major beneficiary of such a surge has been the Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO), which, though around for decades, has become more visible and active on the ground and online in recent years. FRSO’s article on their 2022 congress states that “[r]eflecting the rapid growth of FRSO over the last four years, this was the first congress for most attendees. While some of the participants were veterans of the communist movement with many decades of experience, the overwhelming majority were under 35 years old.” [1] This trend has continued.

 

FRSO’s program presents their goals and principles in an easily digestible format, divided into six sections. It is a quite basic Marxist-Leninist program and, as such, contains the flaws inherent to this organizational model, making for an uninspiring document outdated in its ideas and of little use. Fundamentally, it is stuck in a fetishized statist framework that conflates socialism with a planned state-capitalist economy, reinforces the colonial foundations on which the so-called United States is built, and spreads false information about its populations. We should criticize this anti-revolutionary program and challenge its growing influence.

 

At the root of the falsehoods that FRSO presents as objective truths is a bourgeois positivization of science and a twisting of Marx’s understanding of scientific inquiry. The introduction to their program claims that it is “a product of FRSO’s collective efforts at applying the science of revolution, Marxism-Leninism, to the day-to-day struggles we build and lead.” [2] The idea that Marxism-Leninism is an immortal science is a belief upheld by such organizations, but as John Holloway reminds us in his Change the World Without Taking Power:

 

For Marx, science is negative. The truth of science is the negation of the untruth of false appearances. In the post Marx Marxist tradition, however, the concept of science is turned from a negative into a positive concept. The category of fetishism, so central for Marx, is almost entirely forgotten by the mainstream Marxist tradition. From being the struggle against the untruth of fetishism, science comes to be understood as knowledge of reality. With the positivisation of science, power-over penetrates into revolutionary theory and undermines it… [emphasis added][3]

 

By turning Marx’s demystification of fetishisms on its head and presenting Marxism-Leninism as a prescriptive “science,” FRSO is able to paint any narrative but theirs as based in a misunderstanding of reality. This positivization is the source of their dogmatic chauvinism and why their political program should not be taken seriously.

 

If revolution is the opposite of reification—a process of negating oppressive social relations rather than of externalizing and taking them for granted—then the fetishism by organizations like FRSO only serves to obfuscate the reality that the political and economic complexes of the United States are but two aspects of the same social web. The state cannot and will not save us; as much as groups like FRSO like to believe that “political power—our collective ability to dictate what is and will be—lets us effectively attack every kind of injustice and inequality” [2], the reality is that the very existence of the state is an injustice that breeds inequality. The modern state came into being side by side with capitalism; this isn’t to say that they are one and the same, nor that contradictions can’t exist between them, only that they are so deeply bonded that one cannot be abolished in isolation from the other. In the context of the United States, we must extend this analysis of social relations further to include the structures of colonialism. The state, capitalism, and colonialism are threads twisted and tied together in a convoluted knot of violence and exploitation, a Gordian knot that cannot be untangled, only destroyed.

 

Building an Edifice on Weak Foundations

The introductory section of the FRSO program displays a blatant confusion as to what capitalism is and a misreading of how oppressive institutions developed within the so-called United States. FRSO’s prescription to resolve the problems brought on by capitalism is an alternative they call “socialism,” despite it being but state-capitalism. Rather than strengthening the struggle against labor, FRSO leans into a struggle of labor wholly grounded in the capitalist system. Like all Leninists, FRSO also has a tendency to erroneously subsume all forms of oppression into a totalizing class struggle. If a political program begins by misidentifying the nature of the problems it seeks to respond to, it’s impossible for what follows to be truly helpful.

 

According to the analysis under the subsection “Capitalism must go!”:

 

Capitalism is a shortsighted, unplanned system that has one aim: the achievement of the highest rate of profit, which in turn concentrates wealth into fewer and fewer hands. Systematic and ever-present inequality is a built-in feature of capitalism. The oppression of women, the inequality faced by oppressed nationalities, and class exploitation, extend into the foundations of capitalism. Nothing about this society is just or fair.

 

This isn’t the worst place to start; yet this analysis leads them to the conclusion that “our class needs to take power by revolutionary means. We need socialism, where the commanding heights of society are occupied by the working class, placing all political and economic power in our hands” [emphasis added]. In other words, rather than suggesting that, as originally claimed, “Capitalism must go!”, FRSO instead thinks that it should instead simply be placed in the hands of “the working class,” and things will figure themselves out. We find very similar language in Chapter 30, “What is Neo-colonialism?” from J. Sykes’ The Revolutionary Science of Marxism-Leninism (a book published by FRSO consisting of articles from their “Red Theory” series, whose content builds upon their program). Sykes claims that:

 

In the case of Cuba, Vietnam, China, Laos, and the DPRK… the working class controls the commanding heights of the socialist economies of these countries and operates them in a planned way to benefit the people first and foremost [emphasis added], they have been able to develop their productive forces, expand their economies and improve the conditions of their people. [4]

 

So, to Sykes and FRSO, “socialism” is but a synonym of a planned state-capitalist economy; they look to nation-states like “Cuba, Vietnam, China, Laos, and the DPRK” as models and inspirations of what can and should be implemented within the United States. Setting aside this idea until the analysis of the program’s section titled “Socialism,” it is clear that any goals whose baselines are the achievements of currently existing self-proclaimed socialist nations cannot be truly revolutionary. This is not genuine socialism, only a fetishized and uncreative illusion of it where rule by a Marxist-Leninist party is equated with social revolution. Likewise, FRSO’s conception of the working class is a fetishized one, one that assumes the relations between capital and labor to be pre-constituted. Returning to Holloway, this conception of the working class fails to see that “[w]e do not struggle as working class, we struggle against being working class, against being classified. Our struggle is not the struggle of labour: it is the struggle against labour.” Furthermore, “in this sense working class identity is not something ‘good’ to be treasured [or “proud of” [2]], but something ‘bad’… to be fought against… Or rather, working-class identity should be seen as a non-identity: the communion of struggle to be not working class.” [3] By turning “working class” into just another fetishized identifier, the core of what revolutionary social relations could be is removed as an option; possibilities are once more caged within the currently existing relations of capitalist society. We will return to this idea of self-limiting identities later on.

 

The subsection that follows, titled “Proud history, bright future,” draws a chronological history of the so-called United States. The very first sentence states that “[t]he history of the U.S. is a history of class struggle,” setting the stage for an analysis that subordinates all to the hegemonic “class struggle.” It goes on to say that according to Lenin, “the American Revolution of 1776 was a ‘great war of liberation’ that was part of the era’s wave of progressive democratic struggles against the landholding autocracy and feudal reaction that dominated Europe.” No following analysis that might acknowledge the realities of colonialism within the so-called United States can undo or outweigh honestly believing that there was anything liberatory about the “American Revolution.” It is only a reductive linear narrative about some sort of progressive march of history that can lead one to subscribe to such an outlook; it again guarantees that the solutions proposed and the future envisioned fail to look beyond existing social relations and simply mean to reform the systems that exist within them. It does not matter what Lenin, Marx, or anybody else might have to say about the “American Revolution” when a more nuanced understanding can better inform us and our goals.

 

Despite saying that from “its onset, capitalism in the U.S. was based on genocide, directed against the Native peoples, and fueled by slavery,” the struggles against statism, capitalism, colonialism, etc. are reduced to a history in which “[t]here were constant attempts by working people, in the cities and on the farms, to fight for their own interests” [emphasis added]. This flattening of diverse struggles to the singular economic-class struggle ignores the existence of a more complex history, particularly the way “working people” with a stake in the colonial project of the United States have been historically motivated to perpetuate oppressive social relations rather than advance a revolutionary cause seeking to abolish them. [5,6] “Their own interests” has meant very different things to different people. There is also an attempt to draw a contrast between the “rise [of] one [of] the world’s first trade union movements” and “the genocidal westward expansion” when these were both the result of the same capitalist social relations. It is not helpful to ignore material conditions for the sake of trying to force history to align with dogma.

 

It is also this introductory section of the program that first mentions the ideas of a so-called “Chicano nation” of “Aztlán” and the “African American nation in the Black Belt South,” but we will set these aside for now; we’ll first take a look at FRSO’s analysis of “monopoly capitalism,” their identified enemy, and their proposed economic model, what they call “socialism.”

 

Real Problems and False Solutions

The second and third sections of the FRSO program, titled “The Enemy: Monopoly Capitalism” and “Socialism,” serve to paint a picture of the existing present and an ideal future, according to FRSO. Instead of looking beyond capitalist production and towards liberated forms of living, FRSO relies on the precedent set by so-called socialist states in their imagining of a “revolutionary” alternative. The concentration on class struggle leads FRSO to fail to contend with the U.S.’s colonial and slave heritage and thus to refuse to abolish all that comes with it. They also offer a reductive analysis of oppressed groups, which limits our ability to move beyond the reproduction of legalistic and patronizing models.

 

The program states: “Exploitation, inequality, and oppression are not things that ‘just happen.’ Everything that is wrong with this country is the product of a system: monopoly capitalism.” Remaining consistent, FRSO’s flattened approach identifies monopoly capitalism (which they call the highest and final stage of capitalism) as the source of all oppression and so the enemy that must be fought through class struggle. This is the basis for FRSO’s analysis wherein contemporary capitalism is defined as a system “characterized by an incredible concentration and centralization of wealth, where big banks become intertwined with industry, creating a financial oligarchy”; thus equating capitalism generally with private corporate capitalism specifically. This allows them to call their alternative to capitalism socialism, which in truth is but state capitalism (if we are to define capitalism as a set of relations of production in which individuals sell their labor to employers in exchange for wages within an economy based on commodity production).

 

As mentioned earlier, capitalism did not materialize in the United States in a vacuum and henceforth shaped all social relations through the vector of production; it was settler colonialism and the slave trade that set the stage and then contributed to the growth of capitalism here. As Gerald Horne states when analyzing how the British became the reigning global superpower over the course of what he calls the long 16th century, “any explanation that elides slavery, colonialism, and the shards of an emerging capitalism, along with their handmaiden—white supremacy—is deficient in explanatory power.” The course of history later led the British to pass “the baton to its revolting spawn, the United States, which has carried global dominance into the present century.” [7] Though this does not contradict what is stated in the program’s introduction, it highlights the rupture in logic evident within it. Contemporary capitalism is so deeply imbued with that inherited from slavery and settler colonialism that it cannot be redirected from the top into a system that will “open the road to freedom for working and oppressed people… [create] endless possibilities for humanity to work collectively to solve the great challenges of the economy, health, science, culture, war, and the environment” and empower us to “have lives with purpose in a healthy, productive society that benefits all people.” [2] To sincerely believe this is to be satisfied with appropriating a megamachine built off the backs of enslaved Africans and Natives that continues to commit genocide (and ecocide) today. It is choosing to reform white supremacy rather than rejecting it.

 

The subsection titled “Socialism in the U.S.” claims that:

 

We will end the anarchy of production and replace it with a rational, planned economy, where working people come first… Work itself will be transformed. With the working class in charge of society, workers will have a real say in how our workplaces are run [emphasis added]. Under capitalism, we face the despotism of foremen and supervisors who make us toil for exploiters. Socialism means we will have a real interest in the goods and services we produce.

 

In revisiting FRSO’s judgment of contemporary nation-states as examples of real existing socialism, these claims ring hollow. Describing these identified model-nations as ones that put working people first is to dismiss the diverse struggles within them. FRSO conflates the idea of a working class with the Marxist-Leninist party in power that claims to represent it; their revolution is in no way socially revolutionary; it does not mean to destroy existing oppressive social relations and create new libertarian ones but simply to reform the inner workings of the current system. To take the example of China, by far the most populous nominally socialist nation in history, either the largest or second largest economy in the world (if measured by PPP GDP or nominal GDP, respectively), and to many the bulwark of socialism in the 21st century, calling it a place where working people come first and despotic workplaces have been transformed into ones where laborers are free from foremen and supervisors would be laughable if the reality weren’t so tragic. Honest accounts expose the lie in this. [8-11] Ivan Franceschini and Christian Sorace in the introductory essay to the collection Proletarian China: A Century of Chinese Labor unambiguously write:

 

This century has seen what is now one of the largest and most powerful political parties on earth transform from a revolutionary organisation whose foundations were built on the promise of the emancipation of the working class and pursuit of an alternative to capitalist modernity, into a capitalist machine decorated with socialist ornamentation that violently crushes any expression of labour organisation and working-class solidarity. [8]

 

This is an accurate representation of the current conditions in the People’s Republic of China, a reality nothing like the imaginary one that FRSO seems to inhabit. Not to mention the history of “China” and the fact that it only encompasses the territory it does today after centuries of displacement, ethnic cleansing, and ongoing settler-colonialism [12-17]; nor that China’s economic accomplishments can only be seen as a success in isolation from the reality of uneven development and overproduction. [18] Perhaps FRSO’s ignorance of a foreign country shouldn’t be surprising given their analysis of the one they live in.

 

The “Monopoly Capitalism” section of the program describes the destruction wrought upon the world by American capitalism: on women, [2S]LGBTQ+ individuals, foreign nations, and the planet itself; and the ways that the American state serves the wealthy and their corporations while also creating laws that target marginalized groups. [2] Only intense cognitive dissonance could lead one to ignore the important similarities between the American Empire and the Chinese—or the Soviet one before it—that place them firmly within the category of anti-revolutionary.

 

Though this is not the place for a more detailed analysis of the political and economic terrains of current “socialist” nations, suffice it to say that taking a stance like that of FRSO exposes one as not only historically illiterate but also unfathomably chauvinistic—it is an injustice to those within these nation-states who yearn for genuine liberty and self-determination. It is often easier to be reductive than to learn and understand history. Why bother when you’re a disciple of the revolutionary science?

 

Stuck at Bird’s-Eye:

 

In general, the “Socialism” section exposes a naive and simplistic understanding of how societies reproduce themselves. There is a tendency to be restricted to a top-down view, thus missing many nuances. As a result, FRSO fails to grasp that liberated communities can never spawn from simple legal reforms and good intentions.

 

In implementing FRSO’s suggested policies for the self-determination of “oppressed nations” and sovereignty for Indigenous peoples, not only is the existence of a ward-guardian relationship with Indigenous peoples maintained, but their supposedly sovereign territories overlap with that of the Chicano and African-American nations. Graciously granting liberty to oppressed peoples and independence to colonies (while seemingly maintaining colonial borders, both national and between US states) are not the revolutionary actions that FRSO believes them to be. It is also noteworthy that the Hawaiian Islands are recognized as an internally oppressed nation and not a colony, seemingly because of their current status as one of the fifty states as opposed to a territory. The concepts of Indigenous peoples “sovereignty,” the “African American nation” in the Black Belt South, and the “Chicano Nation” in the Southwest will be revisited further on.

 

FRSO claims that their model of socialism would open the door to “a more harmonious relationship with nature… [allowing] us to systematically raise our standard of living, while getting rid of all that is wasteful and irrational [emphasis added],” yet their suggestion of an industrial state-capitalist economy cannot lead to this, only to continued ecocide. Then again, states do tend to set their own standards and bend the meaning of words to their convenience. Nevertheless, less vicious and destructive capitalism is still capitalism, an inherently vicious and destructive system.

 

The suggestion that “for socialism to advance, the oppression of women needs to be pulled up by its roots” is correct, but the solution of “attacking inequality in the economic base… the realization of democratic rights, including reproductive rights, and developing ways for women to be able to participate fully in all aspects of political and social life” is not pulling up the roots of patriarchy; it is pruning. In a world where liberties exist for women, it would not be necessary for any political entity to grant them as legal rights—which, if given, can always be taken back away, as exemplified by the right to abortion in the USSR and later the US—they certainly cannot exist within the colonial and capitalist social relations that FRSO is so keen on maintaining. The same can be said about the full liberation of 2SLGBTQ+ individuals: liberation does not mean replacing old laws with new ones; it means ridding the land of colonial laws at a minimum.

 

I believe it is worth noting that there is no mention of freedom for children and teenagers in the FRSO program, when the liberation of minors from oppression would undoubtedly be an important element of a true social revolution. This is yet another example of allowing currently existing oppressive social relations to make one blind to possibilities.

 

The proclaimed goals of “a foreign policy that promotes peace and relates to other countries with the aim of achieving mutual respect and common benefit… [built on] working class internationalism” as well as that of “[aiding] other revolutionaries who are struggling against monopoly capitalism and oppression” seem incompatible with not only the maintenance of colonial structures but also the proclaimed alignment with nations like the PRC, a state that has historically maintained ties with feudal monarchs and military dictators [19] and whose economy depends on the continued oppression of laborers internationally. [18, 20] Conflicts of the 20th century, like the Sino-Soviet split and the Sino-Vietnamese war, also show how even relations between Marxist-Leninist states have the potential to turn sour.

 

Blinded by fetishisms, FRSO believes that they will “continue the class struggle until there are no more classes,” yet deny even the possibility of dismantling the statist-colonial-capitalist supercomplex. Suggesting that Marxism-Leninism is necessary to liberate the so-called United States can be called nothing other than chauvinism. The goal of a classless society can never and will never come as a result of Leninist (counter)revolution; this is especially true here. Ironically, this part of the program ends with the following paragraph:

 

When people change the world, they themselves are also changed. To change the world positively, then, in pursuit of justice for the majority of humankind, is to change humankind itself. Only through the struggle for socialism can this bright future be ours. The present is the battlefield where control over the future is fought for and won. There’s no better time to join that fight than right now.

 

This is a beautiful message, one I wholeheartedly agree with, though an important nuance is left unspoken—means must always match ends. Humans (societies) reproduce themselves, and thus a world healed from injustices cannot be born from dictatorship. To change the world, we must engage with it in ways that change us to our core, digging beneath and uprooting the ingrained fetishisms of a corrupted world. It will always be true that even more important than what we achieve is how we achieve it.

 

Class Divisions and the “National Question” Question

The three final sections of the program, “Class in the U.S. and our Strategy for Revolution,” “Immediate Demands of Labor,” and “Immediate Demands for U.S. Colonies, Indigenous Peoples, and Oppressed Nationalities,” present FRSO’s analyses of class-based and national identities in the United States and their proposals stemming from these analyses. Regarding class, FRSO takes the standard Marxist approach of deducing class from relations of production strictly, rather than relations of power more holistically. The primacy that they place on this economic class struggle leads them to treat what FRSO members like Sykes refer to as the “National Question” as but an appendage of the larger class struggle. [4] The very framing of national liberation as but a corollary “question” that must be answered for the sake of class struggle highlights a tendency to reduce real living struggles to theoretical points. As for their supposed demands, those related to labor amount to a more “progressive” and benign capitalism, while those related to “U.S. Colonies, Indigenous Peoples, and Oppressed Nationalities” are ill-informed and high-handed, ultimately reinforcing colonial-capitalist social relations.

 

For FRSO’s plan of revolution to become a reality, “[w]orking and oppressed peoples need political power.” To them, this “power is the means to reorganize society in our own interests and dictate our terms to all who stand in the way,” thus their basic strategy is to build “a united front against the monopoly capitalist class, under the leadership of the working class and its political party, with a strategic alliance between the multinational working class and the oppressed nationalities at the core.” [2] As noted before, the so-called “leadership of the working class and its political party” should be read as the leadership of a communist party, a party that seeks to take power and afterwards, as they say, “dictate [their] terms to all who stand in the way.”

 

We will eschew a more detailed evaluation of FRSO’s list of restrictively defined class categories for the single reason that such reductive and specific identifiers largely serve as another reason for self-described revolutionaries to treat social change as if it were an algebraic equation. As for their labor demands, I will only say that for an organization that claims not to be a party but is rather making efforts to build a new (future) Communist Party, their list reads much like a political party’s electoral platform; there is also a tendency of turning to economism. We will shift our focus to their demands for Indigenous Peoples and Oppressed Nationalities.

 

Fetishized Indigenous Sovereignty:

 

When it comes to the so-called “United States,” the primary struggle, or if one prefers to borrow terminology from Mao Zedong Thought, the primary contradiction, is colonialism. To begin to imagine a possible future where communism can exist anywhere within this territory, decolonization is a requirement. Since the institutions of settler and resource colonialism have developed from the moment Europeans first landed in what is now the so-called United States, the resolving of this contradiction would mean the absolute and total destruction of the United States as an entity. Nothing can change this reality. This is not a matter of debate or compromise; turning the United States into a supposed worker-led “socialist state” (if one can even seriously imagine such a scenario) would not undo the structures of colonialism. A refusal to accept this reality is likely the most blatant failure of the FRSO program.

 

Klee Benally, author of No Spiritual Surrender, brilliantly critiques the methods and ideology of Marxist parties from an Indigenous perspective. It is helpful to quote this at length:

Marxism’s theoretical inadequacy as a strategy for Indigenous autonomy and liberation lies in its commitment to an industrialized worker-run State as the vehicle for revolutionary transformation towards a stateless society. Forced industrialization has ravaged the Earth and the people of the Earth. To solely focus on an economic system rather than indict the consolidation of power as an expression of modernity has resulted in the predictions of anarchist critics (like Bakunin) to come true; the ideological doctrine of socialists tends towards bureaucracy, intelligentsia, and ultimately totalitarianism.

….

To be required to assume a role in a society that is premised on colonial political and economic ideology towards the overthrow of that system to achieve communalization is to require political assimilation and uniformity as a condition for, and of, revolution. Marxist and Maoist positions demand it which means they demand Indigenous People to reconfigure that which makes them Indigenous to become weapons of class struggle. The process inherently alienates diverse and complex Indigenous social compositions by compelling them to act as subjects of a revolutionary framework based on class and production. Indigenous collectives exist in ways that leftist political ideologies refuse to imagine, as to do so would conflict with the primary architecture of “enlightenment” and “modernity” that their “civilized” world is built on.

This is why we reject the overture to shed our cultural “bondage” and join the proletarian dictatorship. We reject the gestures to own the means of production with our expectant assimilated role of industrial or cultural worker. Any social arrangement based on industrialization is a dead end for the Earth and the peoples of the Earth. Class war on stolen lands could abolish economic exploitation while retaining settler-colonialism. We have no use for any politics that calculates its conclusion within the context of these kinds of power relations. [all emphasis added][21]

Beyond the fetishization of the state that Marxist-Leninist organizations are all prone to, to suggest that a “dictatorship of the proletariat” is the appropriate solution in a settler-colony like the United States is to map colonial political geography onto Indigenous social relations; it is authoritarian temporality locking possibilities within a modern framework.

 

As Benally likewise speaks about, the very idea of Indigenous sovereignty is colonial in its origin—before the arrival of Europeans, Indigenous peoples did not need any state to grant them sovereignty, the same way they surely wouldn’t in the aftermath of a genuine social revolution. FRSO says that such sovereignty would include “upholding past treaties and abolishing the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the exercise of local political power.” [2] What legitimacy is there in treaties signed under coercion? What is the meaning of local political power still within the settler-colonial structure of the United States? To make it worse, what they call the “right to national development” means “gaming and especially the return of indigenous peoples’ land and natural resources to make their sovereign areas economically viable” [emphasis added]. This doesn’t sound much different from existing dynamics where recognized tribes are legally considered domestic dependent nations, have centralized tribal governments unlike social structures that existed before colonialism, with some created specifically for the intention of extraction through the signing over of access to natural resources. [21] The term “economically viable” implies a continuing exploitation of Native peoples and lands for the sake of industrial production, which, as Benally says, is a dead end for the Earth and all of us who live through her.

 

FRSO’s plan for Indigenous sovereignty is chauvinistic and colonial in nature. It is only by destroying the settler-colonial state that Indigenous peoples can begin to reclaim liberty. What hope can come from an organization that praises powerful men and power itself?

 

The 12/4/24 Article:

 

During the process of writing this essay, J. Sykes of FRSO published an article on fightbacknews.org titled “Marxism-Leninism and the theory of settler-colonialism in the United States,” the stated purpose of which was to “challenge and correct theoretical errors,” specifically the “tendency from some on the left to argue that the United States should be understood today as a settler-colonial state.” [22] He summarizes this tendency as one that believes that

 

The United States remains today a settler-colonial state. People of European descent, regardless of their actual class position, are settlers, and are seen as continuing to benefit from and perpetuate a colonial system. In other words, the people of the United States are divided into two camps, with the colonized in one camp, and the settlers in the other. Some even go so far as to say that this makes up the principal contradiction in the U.S. This is furthermore viewed as a fundamentally antagonistic contradiction.

 

He contrasts this with “the Marxist-Leninist view, which recognizes the United States as an advanced imperialist country” and also views it as divided “into two camps”: the capitalists being one and an alliance of the working-class and oppressed nationalities the other. Sykes goes on to acknowledge that if the United States continues to be a settler colony today, then FRSO’s thesis has “no basis whatsoever upon which to build a multinational working class communist party in this country.” This is ultimately what it comes down to—an arrogant obsession with state power, being unable to see past fetishisms, and thus clinging onto existing anti-revolutionary social relations.

 

Sykes says that while the United States might have begun as a settler colony, to suggest it remains so is “metaphysical thinking.” According to his application of dialectical materialism, settler colonialism was but a transitional period in the development of capitalism. As mentioned earlier, in truth, settler colonialism and slavery built the skeleton of American capitalism that allows it to continue standing. To Sykes, settler colonialism was but a limited period that led to competitive capitalism, which then led to monopoly capitalism, the primary contradiction today and the enemy of the working class. This strange line of thinking exposes the inconsistency of FRSO’s rhetoric, who, though able to recognize Israel as a settler-colony, deny the United States’ status as one. Are we to then assume there are scenarios in which, through the simple passing of time, Israel can one day cease to be a settler-colony?

 

Sykes’ article lists the Hawaiian, Chicano, and African American nations as the three oppressed nations within the United States, explicitly differentiating them from colonies; thus, doubling down on Hawaii not being a colony and the seeming importance of maintaining the integrity of the United States’ borders.

 

He goes on to say that “[s]elf-determination is a democratic demand. It means that the oppressed nation ought to democratically determine its own destiny. Historically imposed obstacles to genuine political power must be systematically dismantled [emphasis added].” The irony is extraordinary; his dedication to this narrative is one that itself excludes the possibility of self-determination for Indigenous peoples, which would require an (anti)politics that first of all recognizes that the United States is a settler colony that must die for Indigenous peoples and cultures to live.

 

Like the FRSO program, Sykes’ article states that “in the era of imperialism, the national question is bound up with proletarian socialist revolution,” the supposedly correct position, which he contrasts to the “theory of U.S. settler-colonialism” that originated among “petty bourgeois radicals [who] pride themselves on taking the most outwardly revolutionary position, regardless of whether or not it holds up to scientific analysis.” It would do Sykes good to reevaluate his framework that singles out relations of production as the source of all oppression, as would it for him to reassess Marx’s category of fetishism and negative conception of science.

 

According to Benally, “[t]he colonial logic of futurity is only concerned with the reproduction of settler society.” A refusal to reject a stagist understanding of history and its narrative of progression means to stand for this violent settler reproduction. It seems to me that FRSO’s denial of the reality of ongoing settler-colonialism is largely rooted in settler anxiety, an anxiety about their own status and potential role in a decolonized space. On the topic of what decolonization means and looks like, Benally states:

 

Since settler identity only can exist without consent, it would follow that re-connecting through non-dominating means, or establishing interrelationality, would be the response. But the preconditions for agreement demand destruction of the settler self, all that it represents, and all that it upholds. The proposal of auto-settler destruction, which is another way of saying social war, is not a civil war or a revolution [violent insurrection], but boundless social rupture. In other words, power with colonizers has reasonable prerequisites. [emphasis added][21]

In my own experience, many non-Native people have a strong and reflexively antagonistic response to the thought of decolonization. Without much (or often any) consideration of actual Indigenous perspectives, there is a fear that decolonization means a sort of mass deportation or even race war. Social rupture means to destroy the settler as a subject and everything that upholds it. Decolonization doesn’t mean the violent extermination of settlers as individuals; yet for the descendants of settlers to exist on decolonized lands requires a wholesale buying into the idea of auto-settler destruction. Benally’s concept of interrelationality is fundamental to this, this being a solidarity “predicated on building and tearing down direct spatial and temporal relationships.” [21] Interrelationality recognizes that pivotal to advancing decolonization is breaking those cycles of power-over (other humans, non-humans, the Earth, existence, time itself…) which both those who advocate for reform and revolution rarely reject. Moving beyond colonial arrangements of domination can only happen through interrelation, a form of creative destruction.

 

I find it appropriate to insert here the following quote by Fanon, keeping in mind his attention to decolonization:

 

To educate the masses politically does not mean, cannot mean, making a political speech. What it means is to try, relentlessly and passionately, to teach the masses that everything depends on them… that there is no famous man who will take the responsibility for everything, but that the demiurge is the people themselves and the magic hands are finally only the hands of the people. In order to put all this into practice, in order really to incarnate the people, we repeat that there must be decentralization in the extreme [emphasis added]. [23]

It is only decentralized, self-determined, and consciously decolonial praxes that present any hope for us in the so-called US. Though Fanon goes on to say that the “movement from the top to the bottom and from the bottom to the top should be a fixed principle,” I believe it is better to picture decentralization not as an alternative form of hierarchy but rather as an approach grounded in networks of solidarity; in other words, grounded in relationality as described by Benally. This framing goes further in establishing deep solidarity between heterogeneous groups than either strictly top-down or bottom-up approaches.

 

More than anything, we must realize that it will not be—cannot be—Sykes, FRSO, or any other self-identified vanguard party that will teach the masses what revolutionary change means. In the end, Sykes’ article does nothing to strengthen FRSO’s thesis but rather exposes the chauvinism inherent to it. FRSO’s program is not one that can be improved through internal advocacy from members; it is rotten to its core.

 

Mapping an African-American Nation:

 

Similar to FRSO’s idea of Indigenous sovereignty, that of the “African-American nation of the Black-Belt South” fails to move beyond the existing social relations of capitalism-colonialism. Instead, the logic of statism & settler-colonialism is mapped onto the Black population of the United States. I find it essential to consult the analyses of Black anarchists and abolitionists to expose the flaws in FRSO’s line of thinking and show why Black liberation can only exist outside of statist models.

 

FRSO’s demands for the “African-American nation” include:

 

  • Reparations for the descendants of African slaves in the United States
  • Political power through regional and local autonomy for communities of African Americans outside of the African American nation. End gerrymandering of political districts that reduce African American political representation.
  • An end to the war on drugs targeting the African American community, police brutality, killer cops, and all-white juries.
  • Expansion of affirmative action programs and an end to discriminatory testing and entrance requirements for colleges.
  • Increase funding for schools in African American communities
  • Political asylum for African and Caribbean people fleeing repressive governments [2]

 

This set of demands also reads much like a party’s electoral platform, a “progressive” one to be sure, but one that is reformist and not revolutionary. It is unclear how such reforms would eventually lead to breaking the reification spiral of white supremacist institutions. Similar to the impossibility of Indigenous self-determination within the settler-colonial United States, the Black population of the United States cannot be truly free without the abolition of this country—one built on African slavery that continues to benefit from this legacy every day that goes by.

 

Reforms like “an end to the war on drugs [legalisation?], police brutality, killer cops, and all-white juries” are nothing more than empty words. These systems cannot somehow be made just through decrees; they must simply cease to exist. It does not matter how enlightened reforms sound when they’re reforms within a system that has never recognized Black people as equal citizens.

 

As Zoé Samudzi and William C. Anderson point out in As Black as Resistance:

 

Because Africans were forcibly removed from the continent and trafficked to the United States and did not largely participate in the European process of domination (with, of course, notable exception made for the so-called Buffalo Soldiers…), Black people cannot be considered as settlers in the United States. Though we may participate in ongoing settler processes and ultimately benefit from the elimination of Indigenous people and the expropriation of their land, we are not settlers. [24] 

 

Yet despite this historical exclusion from the settler-colonial project, FRSO’s suggestion of “the creation of a Black majoritarian nation-state, where the fate of Indigenous people is ambiguous at best, is an idea rooted in settler logic [emphasis added].” In critiquing the confounding of self-determination with the adoption of settler logic, Samudzi and Anderson ask, “Is settler adjacency what a truly intersectional framework and multifaceted approach to Black liberation entails?” The only reasonable answer to this is a thundering no.

 

According to the example of Israel, the opportunity to become a colonizer is “the ultimate reparation for historical violence.” Because

 

Although popularly positioned as a kind of reparation for… the German Holocaust, the creation of Israel was as an act of European antisemitism in the eyes of some… The establishment of a Jewish homeland meant that antagonistic Western governments—states such as the United States and Allied Powers that were aware of the genocidal violence of Adolf Hitler’s Final Solution but stood idly by and even sought to appease the Nazi government—would not have to receive as many Jewish refugees. Mirroring this in the United States, white supremacists have historically supported the separatist politics of the Nation of Islam. They have seen Black separatism as analogous to the white nationalist “self determining politic” of the white majoritarian United States. Of course, these logics of racial self-determination do not operate the same in reverse.

 

Advocating for an African-American nation in the American South does not actually uproot white supremacy, and in a scenario where the United States is not fully dismantled, it is guaranteed that white supremacy’s roots will remain deep in the cultural soil.

 

It is vital to understand that “[i]f land-based reparations were to be actualized for Black people in the United States, models for land-based liberation that are not both mindful and critical of settler colonialism would perpetuate the expropriation of land from Indigenous communities…” [emphasis added]. A recognition that revolutionary “land politics cannot simply be built on top of centuries-old exterminatory settler logic of Indigenous removal and genocide” points to the need for a total rupture with existing society. The liberation of both Black people in the so-called U.S. and of the land “can only come about through dialogue and co-conspiratorial work with Native communities and a shared understanding of land use outside of capitalistic models of ownership [emphasis added].” [24] It is irrelevant what intentions might motivate FRSO when their proposals are premised on genocidal settler logic.

 

Simply put, it is not and can never be up to the government of the United States to actualize Black liberation; to believe so is both ignorant and racist. FRSO’s fetishism of the state does not allow them to understand such a blatantly obvious truth, despite (or perhaps because of) their claims of strictly following the revolutionary science of Marxism-Leninism.

 

Anti-Blackness is a global scourge, and envisioning a nation whose borders reflect those of the slave-holding American South creates an unnecessary split in the African diaspora. This fact cannot be reconciled by promises to offer asylum to refugees and local autonomy to those outside the borders of the “African American Nation.” [2] As Anderson states in his aptly titled The Nation on No Map:

The people being forced to leave their homes around the world that are a part of the African diaspora pay the price of empire and state violence. People leave the African continent and experience terrifying voyages by boat and otherwise, trying to reach Europe, a region that has, through extraction and plunder, created the intolerable conditions they are fleeing. While the meddling exploitation of states destabilizes, people die in great numbers just trying to survive inside and outside of borders. This forced movement, all of these deaths in the mountains, oceans, seas, and deserts, are not simply news stories that don’t concern us. We are connected to them not just because we’re Black people but also because our respective pasts and oppressed existences share commonalities. These shared understandings of how we’re being exploited are what we need to build from in order to create a global push for a revolutionary uprising. Our continual, global displacement forces our movement in this sense as well [emphasis added]. [25]

 

It is only Black people themselves and those they recognize as accomplices that can create revolutionary change to secure their liberty everywhere. Anderson goes on to soberly explain in the concluding section of this work why it is that genuine Black liberation is inherently antithetical to state power and how it is only possible by looking beyond its fetishisms:

 

Understanding the need to confront the white supremacist state and understand our position as Black people within its confines does not mean we seek out nationality or nationhood. We don’t need to know our exact ancestral origins to know we’re Africans. We don’t have to centralize anything or homogenize ourselves to confront the tragedy that we know as the United States. Be wary of any one-size-fits all rhetoric that glosses over the unfathomable diversity of Black people. Absolutist approaches destroy possibility. Europe drew the map of the world as we know it—a ranked array of nation-states—using the tools of white supremacy and capitalism. We don’t have to use nationhood or nationalism to try to find ourselves on their map. The map, the nation, and the state must go. We did not draw them, and they do not serve us. They never did. To exist on their map in any way can only diminish us and undermine everything that we’re capable of.

The U.S. state isn’t killing us simply because it’s white supremacist: killing is part of the power granted to states, it’s what states do. It’s what they are built for. It’s what their police do, what their militaries do, what their borders do, and what their political parties do. All these things are structured according to the ideas of hierarchical organization and leadership and governance. There is a deadly potential buried in all of them that we must reject. To try to make use of them for “revolutionary” purposes means running toward goals that have nothing to do with true liberation. We must not remain trapped on this map; we must try to draw new lines to sketch out a life for ourselves that their borders, their states, and their map cannot hold.

Our task is to shape a new society, a world we want to live in. In order to do so, we have to do away with the old one. The state will never end state violence, nor will any politics that relies on it. 

…

There’s no avoiding it, the fight that’s all around us. This is a time that requires us to choose freedom from all oppressive formations. The new, liberated future we hope to grasp comes closer to us through the willingness to first hold the truth of where we are now and where we have already been. [all emphasis added]

 

When it comes to the question of Black liberation, the FRSO program isn’t just useless; it’s anti-revolutionary. By mapping a defined African-American nation, possibly well-intentioned but naive self-proclaimed radicals only preserve the social relations built on slavery and settler-colonialism. It’s clear that abolition is the only revolutionary option there is.

 

A Critique of Aztlán & Chicano Nationalism:

 

An essential part of FRSO’s program and its demands for what they call oppressed nations is the recognition of a so-called Chicano homeland in the Southwest, also known as Aztlán. To subscribe to this narrative and suggest that this territory (roughly comprising that which so-called Mexico lost with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo) should be considered a Chicano nation is to spread ideas that are detrimental to the struggle for Indigenous peoples’ self-determination all under the guise of decolonial solidarity. As an anti-nationalist Chicano, I believe it is important to critique the narrative of Aztlán more broadly.

 

The so-called United States and so-called Mexico are both products of genocidal settler-colonialism. Any project whose basis hinges on the borders, current and/or previous, of settler colonial states restricts itself to the framework and the social relations of the systems that bred them. Many Chicanos cling to their mixed heritage as a biologistic representation of their indigeneity, failing to see that such a heritage in no way legitimizes claims to land in the Southwest. For us Chicanos, it is important that we not only understand our history but are also able to place it within a larger context; to deny Aztlán nationalism is not to deny one’s indigenous ancestry outright but to reject the maintenance of social relations that deny self-determination for Indigenous peoples today.

 

FRSO’s adoption of the Aztlán narrative speaks to the fact that much contemporary Chicano cultural production has focused on the topic of decolonization, taking as a starting pointh the belief that we as Chicanos are a colonized people. Sanchez and Pita remind us that though it is true that we are the product of colonial projects, these discourses forget (extremely ironically so) the role that our ancestors played as colonizers. It is a historical fact that

 

Whether the colonizers in what is now the US Southwest were Spaniards, criollos, mestizos, or even Indigenous peoples like the Tlaxcaltecas, they all came from the interior of New Spain (now Mexico) in the name and in the service of the Spanish crown… to dispossess the natives of what would become the US Southwest. [26]

 

Even if we have eventually found ourselves on the receiving end of subsequent dispossessions, “we have developed a selective amnesia for our role in the colonization of the native people of the Southwest; our own role in the subjugation and exploitation of Indigenous peoples and, in some cases, [their] massacre.” Though it is true that the three successive settler-colonial projects in this region (the Spanish, Mexican, and American) each have their own particularities, we cannot ignore the basic commonality of their motivations—exploitation and dispossession—simply because we find ourselves being victimized by the contemporary American colonial project.

 

Maria Eugenia Cotera and Maria Josefina Saldaña-Portillo’s essay “Indigenous But Not Indian? Chicana/os and the Politics of Indigeneity” recounts how

In the Fall of 2005 the University of New Mexico hosted an international symposium, ‘Indigenous Peoples of the Americas: Conflict, Resistance, & Peace Making”… to find solutions to the ‘problems faced by Indigenous Peoples in areas such as culture, education, health, human rights, environment and socio-economic development’… [Some] local Native peoples, led by the Tricentennial Truth Alliance (TTA), called for a boycott… A statement, read by Mairis Chino (Acoma Pueblo)… drew boundaries of demarcation between legitimate indigenous subjects and those who sought to claim Indigeneity to further their own political claims for state and international recognition… While the TTA statement acknowledged that ‘there were honorable indigenous Brothers and Sisters’ participating… it also questioned the inclusion of Chicanos… who, the statement claimed, were ‘opportunistically’ deploying ‘a false representation of Indigenous values and issues’ in order to ‘promote their personal political self interests to the detriment of Indian land, culture, and communities. [27]

 

The TTA went on to state that to them,

 

Indigenous means the original inhabitants of North, Central and South America who continue to exist as a tribal community with a land base. Existing as a tribal community includes language, tribal government, and recognition as Indigenous People by other indigenous people and non-indigenous people. By these terms the Indo-Hispano, Chicano, Mestizo do not have identity as Indigenous People [emphasis added].

 

Though in the context of the UNM symposium these remarks were powerful and likely necessary, it is also true that this definition of indigenous outright opposes the notion that Chicanos can claim any relationship with indigeneity. As Cotero and Saldaña-Portillo recognize, “[t]his formulation of the non-indigenous ‘ethnic’ Chicana/o subject relie[s] on an implicit acceptance of the borders of the nation-state, effectively ignoring the complex lived realities of indigenous communities whose nations have historically crossed the U.S./Mexico border.” By naming the existence of a tribal government (and thus official recognition by the US federal government) as one of the qualifiers of being a tribal community, this framework is one that not only incorporates settler-colonial structures but also recognizes their ultimate authority. Furthermore, the authors state that these “standards do not necessarily concord with understandings of indigeneity in Quito, Huehuetenango, or Oaxaca,” where “the assimilative directives of colonial regimes and, later, national projects, have resulted in very different formulations.” Chicanos are not a case of outright inventing a historical connection to indigeneity but rather the product of a long history of racial mixing resulting in genetically indigenous subjects who came to identify with the Mexican nation-state instead of with any particular indigenous community.

 

And yet, Mexican mestizos maintained real existing connections with Indigenous communities; self-identification with post-Independence Mexico did not in itself “preclude a psychic and cultural connection to indigeneity.” Cotero and Saldaña-Portillo conclude that Chicanos occupy “a complex position between ‘settlers’ and ‘Indians,’ or, perhaps… a position as both indigenous and settler.” This reality of existing at both ends of the settler/indigenous binary is a result of the history of not only so-called Mexico generally but also what now constitutes the space claimed as Aztlán more specifically.

 

By the time of the US-Mexico War, mestizos in the northern borderlands would have identified with their Indigenous neighbors, to whom they were related to through “familial, economic, political, and now by national” ties. [27] This can largely be traced back to the fact that

 

unlike their British counterparts… Spanish colonizers invariably settled adjacent to indigenous villages and towns, grafting their own forms of government atop indigenous governments, their own economies atop indigenous economies, and seeking out close associations with indigenous peoples.

 

Mestizaje was not only the invariable outcome of this mode of colonial space-making along the northern frontier; it was also the condition of possibility for its conquest. Mestizos and afromestizos from Mexico’s interior participated in the conquest of the entire northern frontier in great numbers, making up between 10 and 40 percent of most of the conquesting population. They correctly perceived the outposts as a space where the casta system [the racial and social hierarchy of the Spanish Empire] would not be so rigidly observed… [27]

 

Robert Archibald points out that

 

Despite seemingly arbitrary ethnic classifications and an economic hierarchy which roughly followed ethnic lines, colonial New Mexico [where most inhabitants of the region lived] was not a closed society. Marriage and economic success were certain roads to improved status. The transitory stature of Indian and genizaro [detribalized Native] classifications indicate a highly effective means of Hispanicizing, Christianizing and ultimately incorporating native peoples into New Mexican society. [28]

 

This reality of ties to indigeneity and their place within society in the northern borderlands was incompatible with the American white supremacist understanding of citizenship. To the Americans annexing this territory, “Mexicans could not be Indians and Indians could not be Mexicans.” [27] It was this rupture that later produced a condition that Cotero and Saldaña-Portillo call “mestizo mourning,” the mourning of the loss of a historical relationship with Indigenous people. Mexican-American mestizos in the United States mourn this ancestry “foreclosed to them–not by biological relationship… but by U.S. statecraft and racial nationalism.” And so when Chicanos claim to have an indigenous heritage, they do so “not merely as an appropriative gesture of Native tribal identity, but rather as a psychic restoration of an indigenous past denied to them by exigencies of U.S. colonial history and law.”

 

Due to these experiences, it is not surprising that Chicanos would turn to a historical relationship with indigeneity in an effort to address the reality of being a product of multiple settler colonial projects. Cotero and Saldaña-Portillo go on to point out that “Chicana/o indigenism cannot be reduced to a settler fantasy” given its original impulse of mestizo mourning.

 

This is where it is important to stress that though many, perhaps even most, Chicanos are indeed partly Indigenous by blood, heritage does not imply a connection and therefore a legitimate claim to land. This is true even if one can trace their own family back to the Southwest pre-annexation (though most Chicanos today descend from people who migrated north of the current borderline beginning in the early 20th century, anyway).

 

It is also of chief importance to understand the place of mestizaje and indigenismo [an ideology emphasizing the relationship between Indigenous peoples and the nation-state] as concepts within the Mexican nationalist project of the 20th century and trace this to its contemporary implications.

 

As Saldaña-Portillo points out in her article “Who’s the Indian in Aztlan?,” in the context of a developing post-revolutionary Mexican identity, “the ‘black’ and ‘yellow’ aspects of the cosmic race [a theorized race resulting from the agglomeration of all others] were systematically forgotten as mestizo identity was reduced to a Spanish and Indian binary,” an identity that “remains disturbingly hierarchical.” Within the mestizo identity, “it is always Indian cultural traits that are negative [and] must be eliminated or subsumed to the ‘national’ culture of mestizaje.” [30] According to Lourdes Alberto, indigenismo and the mestizaje it laid the groundwork for “ultimately ensured the disappearance of contemporary indigenous populations, as they were no longer seen as a part of Mexico’s present and future; rather, they were frozen in an ancient past symbolizing Mexico’s raw ethnic roots.” [29] In other words, “the current ideology of mestizaje incorporates the historical figure of the Indian only to, in effect, exclude contemporary Indians from modernization.” [30] This critique necessitates that we “reconsider first the national deployment of mestizaje as a trope for citizenship, and second, the transnational deployment of mestizaje as the presumed intersection between Mexican indigenous identity and Chicana/o identity.” This mapping of mestizaje exposes the major contradictions that exist between contemporary Indigenous peoples and Chicanos, highlighting the need to move beyond a deeply problematic Chicano nationalism.

 

Within the United States, the Chicano movement in the early 70s appropriated the discourse of mestizaje at the same time that Aztlán was claimed as an indigenous nation that existed prior to the founding of the United States. In that period, Aztlán was a place from which to critique the discrimination against Chicanos within American society. This new nationalism

 

functioned as succor for Chicanos within a U.S. ethnoracial framework that had enacted a long history of violence against Mexican Americans, including mass deportation, lynching, quotidian racism, land dispossession, language elimination, nativism, and police abuse. While Chicano nationalist discourses resulted from strategies of empowerment, nationalism gathered its rhetorical legitimacy from indigenist practices. [29] 

 

This movement was formulated under the specter of indigenismo’s complex history; thus, by adopting the tropes of mestizaje and indigenismo, Chicanos continued to operate within the logic to which these belong. As a result, Chicanos have often prioritized recuperating their own indigenous past instead of supporting Indigenous peoples struggling in the present; a fetishized indigeneity means that Chicano nationalists place their own biological lineage above existing cultural ones. As Alberto says, it is “[p]recisely because the apparatus of indigenism remains a threat to indigenous culture, indigenous history, indigenous epistemologies, and indigenous self-determination [that] by adopting indigenist poetics, Chicanos’ and Chicanas’ uses of indigeneity [are] viewed as an extension of a colonial practice.”

 

As Chicanos, we must realize that

 

In mestizaje, we are reduced to searching for signs of our indigenous past and, more significantly, for a collective political future in some inherent tie to the land… To recognize this process is not to deny our indigenous ancestry; rather, to recognize this is to refuse to reduce indigenous subjectivity, and indeed Mexican mestizo identity, to biologistic representation that, in discursive and political terms, always already places the Indian under erasure [emphasis added]. [30]

 

Thus, looking beyond an identity that temporally restricts us to a modern framework of colonial borders and an overemphasizing of biological heritage, we as Chicanos must extend solidarity to Indigenous peoples across the Americas who practice and maintain (continually evolving) cultural traditions that date to a time before European property relations.

 

Noche succinctly states in “Contra Aztlán” that though “Chicanxs are the historical product of colonialism, racism, capitalism, slavery, genocide and cultural erasure,” and that “[p]art of the struggle to liberate Chicanxs (and all people) would inevitably incorporate the reclaiming of lost ancient ways,” our own struggle for liberation “cannot overtake the struggle of Native peoples who have managed to maintain a direct connection to their deep past & present.” Fundamentally, we must recognize that “Indigeneity is more than genetic heritage, it is a real cultural link [emphasis added].” [31]

 

Ultimately, Aztlán nationalism is not a movement for liberation; it is just another obstacle in the way of ridding ourselves of oppressive social relations. It is an excuse for Chicanos to adopt colonial narratives and seek to “decolonize” them, ignoring that to decolonize colonialism is an oxymoron.

 

The Chicano-nationalist obsession with the “Chicano homeland” of Aztlán is one that denies the primacy of the struggle for decolonization and Indigenous peoples’ obviously central role within it. As for FRSO, promoting an unfounded narrative like that of Aztlán is just another example of buying into the fetishisms rooted in our society rather than working to eliminate them. The (once again) growing popularity of the Aztlán narrative and its pseudo-revolutionary rhetoric is one we must actively push back against in order to advance the decolonial struggle.

 

A Revolutionary Alternative

As stated at the beginning of this essay, the FRSO program does not challenge but instead perpetuates colonial structures, conflates socialism with state-capitalism, and generally promotes flawed anti-revolutionary narratives. The resurgence of Marxist-Leninist organizations like FRSO forces us to contend with the influence they might hold and the implications of the dogma they preach. That FRSO members continue to espouse the deficient analyses from their program in the face of more nuanced ones speaks to the danger of deluding oneself with an illusory “scientific” reasoning. The building of a better world cannot be achieved by advocating for models and practices rooted in the current one. We must look beyond the promises of counter-hegemony, let go of fetishized identities, and look to the future as the source of our poetry; to once and for all move beyond positivist-vanguard fantasies that cannot help us construct alternative and liberating communities. Only in negation may we find our liberation.

 

Negating the Hegemony of Hegemony with an Affinity for Affinity:

 

FRSO’s definitions and analyses of “Socialism” and “Monopoly Capitalism” lead them to believe that a so-called dictatorship of the proletariat is the only possible solution, the scientific solution, to global oppression. The danger in this is that such an argument amounts to seeking to replace one form of hegemony with another. To do so is to perpetuate what Richard J. F. Day calls the “hegemony of hegemony… the assumption that effective social change can only be achieved simultaneously and en masse, across an entire national or supranational space” [32]. This assumption places a hard limit on how truly revolutionary FRSO’s program can be.

 

Gramsci describes hegemony as a process that “manifests itself in two ways, as ‘domination’ and as ‘intellectual and moral leadership.’ A social group dominates antagonistic groups, which it tends to ‘liquidate,’ or to subjugate perhaps even by armed force; it leads kindred and allied groups.” [33] This certainly describes the goal of any statist model, including the Leninist one—proletarian dictatorship being a synonym for proletarian (party) hegemony. Leninism posits replacing capitalist hegemony with its own as both desirable and revolutionary.

 

According to Day, the only way to break out of the trap of hegemony is to operate non-hegemonically as opposed to counter-hegemonically. [32] In contrast to approaches that describe a revolutionary future community in monolithic fashion, we should “think instead of the coming communities, in the plural, but not in the form of liberal pluralism”; as such, “we need to guide our relations with other communities according to interlocking ethico-political commitments of groundless solidarity and infinite responsibility.” Upholding the hegemony of hegemony cannot lead to the death of capitalism and the creation of better alternatives; only self-determined social relations can. Day calls this negation of hegemony an affinity for affinity: a championing of “non-universalizing, non-hierarchical, non-coercive relationships based [on] mutual aid and shared ethical commitments.” A logic of affinity stresses building solidarity between struggles without making any one subservient to another—without creating a hierarchy of hierarchies.

 

The fundamental flaw of FRSO’s program is its presentation of a supposedly revolutionary goal under the guise of objective scientific analysis, which is at its core based in the fetishisms of existing social relations and a logic of hegemony. If one truly wishes to “change humanity itself” [2], one must think non-hegemonically, or alternatively, as Jason Adams says, post-hegemonically. [34] We seek to change forms, not just content.

 

Marquis Bey says that if we are to operate in the vein of Marx’s call for a “ruthless criticism of all that exists,” then our “critical praxis and its theoretical heft [must be] a ruthless interrogation of the established and institutionalized.” [35] In this way, “[c]ritical praxis becomes a radical invitation to not only do but to be done by the undercommon insurgency that makes its own demands [emphasis added].” Fundamentally, such a praxis must suspend the presumption of an end goal. In aiming to create self-determined communities, we cannot restrict ourselves to replacing one hegemon with another:

Because we cannot, and must not assume that the logics and rubrics we have when moving within the maelstrom of the hegemonic—radically altered as they may be—can operate to our benefit… We will need new rubrics and metrics, unrubrics and unmetrics, because a radically other-world requires radically other means to love it, to caress it, to be all the way in it [emphasis added].

The unrubrics and unmetrics of non-hegemony, an affinity of affinity—these are the means to the end of revolutionary possibilities. Only through them can we shed the traditions of dead generations that weigh like a nightmare on the brains of the living and find a new source for our revolutionary poetry.

 

Identity and Dignity, or Taking our Poetry from the Future:

 

Marx states in his 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte that:

 

The social revolution of the nineteenth century cannot take its poetry from the past but only from the future. It cannot begin with itself before it has stripped away all superstition about the past. The former revolutions required recollections of past world history in order to smother their own content. The revolution of the nineteenth century must let the dead bury their dead in order to arrive at its own content. There the phrase went beyond the content—here the content goes beyond the phrase. [36]

 

All one needs to change is the century, and this quote remains as relevant today as it was then. Our revolutionary poetry cannot limit itself to that which stems from existing relations—it must be found in social rupture, which seeks to move, as Holloway says, against-and-beyond them.

 

For Holloway, the key to this is understanding the difference between the abstract labor (or simply “labor”) that capitalism is built upon and concrete labor (or “doing”) and why we must free the latter from the former. Though both are forms of doing, they differ immensely in their substance:

One form of doing, labour, creates capital, the basis of the society that is destroying us. Another form of doing, what [Holloway calls] simply ‘doing’, pushes against the creation of capital and towards the creation of a different society. In both cases, our doing [human creation] is at the centre. By focusing on doing, we put our own power at the centre of our understanding of society: our power-to-do (and therefore, our power not to do, and our power to do differently)… [This argument] is not for ‘more democracy’ but for a radical reorganisation of our daily activity, without which the call for ‘more democracy’ means nothing at all. [37]

 

While it is true that the deprivation of self-determined doing is what we struggle against, this process can be attributed to an even more fundamental dichotomy than that of abstract labor and concrete labor, one of dispossessed doing and self-determined doing. Misogyny, heterosexism, and enslavement are only some examples of dispossession that long predate the capitalist abstraction of labor and its current function as social mediator. Put simply, dispossession is the negation of self-determination—the creation of hierarchy. Holloway’s description above accurately describes the dynamic of the capitalist economy and our compulsion to labor within it, but he goes on to claim that it is this abstraction of labor that is the source of all other identities as we know them. Though contemporary identities all bear the scars of centuries of forced integration into the capitalist system, and it is only within this context that we have all experienced identification, it is to the more general process of dispossession that we can credit their origin. Being rooted in non-hegemony doesn’t mean rejecting or diminishing the need for class struggle, but recognizing that while it is an essential axis of struggle today, it is not the central axis—there is no such thing. What Holloway calls doing isn’t limited in its scope to pushing back against the abstraction of labor but more broadly against the reified hierarchies that all negate self-determined doing.

 

Understanding that identification is a process of negation allows us to consider how this negation might itself be negated, beginning the restoration of our dignity. What is significant about our identities is not the way that they define what we are, but how they, above all, define what we are not (and cannot do). The ability of hierarchies to endure demands that this be the case. And so in aiming to negate these, we should “start not from the stillness of identity but from the moving of non- or, better, anti-identity. We start dialectically, but not with a dialectic understood as interaction but rather as the negative restlessness of misfitting, of insufficiency.” [37] The large focus in this essay on critiquing FRSO’s ideas regarding those identified as workers, Black, Indigenous, Chicano, etc. does not originate in a want to make these connected yet distinct struggles the be-all-end-all of our politics, but rather in seeing these (anti-)identities as springboards for building a new and better world—a world with dignity, a world where we can choose what we do. As Day points out,

 

a politics of affinity… is not about abandoning identification as such; it is about abandoning the fantasy that fixed, stable identities are possible and desirable, that one identity is better than another, that superior identities deserve more of the good and less of the bad that a social order has to offer, and that the state form should act as the arbiter of who gets what [emphasis added]. [32]

 

It might be helpful to consider here the difference between what Max Stirner calls qualities, which are the “property” of the self, owned and defined by us (beings that are ever in flux), and essences, “something alien” that “exists above and behind things,” an externalized regulative power. [38] Though while Stirner seems to suggest that the individual is the source of unique qualities, it might be better to think of qualities as continually (re)cultivated through self-determined doing and interaction. Where essentialist identities prescribed onto us by a “normalized world of self-referentiality” tend towards staticity and negate our ability to self-determine, owned qualities, on the other hand, are “continually reinvented and restated so that they do not become hardened and frozen into a recuperable shape.” [3] An affinity for affinity in conjunction with a framework of anti-identity allows us to move beyond a politics of demand, one that seeks to improve our lived experiences “by appealing to the benevolence of hegemonic forces and/or by altering the relations between these forces” [32], and towards communities that empower us to choose. This also avoids the class-centrism of organizations like FRSO, which precludes the conditions necessary for a groundless solidarity.

 

We can extend Day’s politics of affinity both in breadth and depth by considering Benally’s previously mentioned interrelationality, through which “our solidarity is projected out from our relationship with the Earth.” This way “[o]ur solidarity focuses on more than just intersections” with each other, going beyond the anthropocentricity of intersectionality and also considering our relations with “non-human beings, spirits, and Mother Earth.” [21] Dissolving those parts of our identities that prevent us from relating enables us to build communities that draw strength not just from each other but existence more broadly, expanding possibilities far beyond our imaginations and existing models rooted in domination.

 

When we accept ourselves as truly and totally bound by the identities that capitalist society has branded us with, we remain unable to move beyond their limits. Holloway posits “dignity” in contrast to reified identification, calling it “a leaping, gliding, swinging, dancing, never a marching: and that, for capital, is hard to follow and absorb.” [37]

 

Capitán Insurgente Marcos (formerly known as Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos) once said in a speech that in the wake of centuries of capitalist domination “we are being left with nothing. Except rage. And dignity… [These] are our bridges, our languages” [emphasis added]. [39] If rage and dignity are bridges, then programs based in fetishisms are broken tracks leading nowhere. This does not mean

 

that there is some trans-historical quality of dignity: dignity is nothing other than the struggle against and beyond its own negation… [It] does not mean that we hope one day to arrive at a pre-existing dignity, but that dignity is itself an exploration, a shifting process of creating social relations against-and-beyond capital. [37]

 

In demanding dignity, we demand self-determined doing. Taking dignity and interrelation as the bases of our anticapitalist movement(s) means to take our poetry from the future. We must not cling to a world which leaves no room for true agency, because quite simply, as Marcos says, “[i]f this world doesn’t have a place for us, then another world must be made.” [39]

 

In their calls for the building of a new movement that plainly asserts the goal of preserving fetishized identities and of subordinating all to the hegemonizing class-struggle, FRSO ignorantly promotes goals that entrap that movement within the existing logic of capital and, by implication, perpetuate

 

the reification of social relations, the reproduction of the hierarchy between men and women and the dimorphisation of sexuality, the objectification of nature, the acceptance of the capitalist concept, and above all, the orientation towards the state and the idea of influencing the state or taking state power. [37]

 

In FRSO’s praxis, not only do these go fundamentally unchallenged, but in a way they are strengthened by their ability to attract self-proclaimed radicals to their banners, convincing them that maintaining their own (and more importantly others’) oppression is in some way revolutionary.

 

It is not a matter of denying the centrality of oppressed groups/identities in anticapitalist struggles, but rather about what perspective one approaches struggle with. This is why the necessity of action based in negation must be stressed. Simply put, “The difference is between an identification that stops there and an identification that negates itself in the process of identifying.” Just as Stirner claims: “I am really Man and the un-man in one; for I am a man and at the same time more than a man,” [38] we should strive to continually break down all normative logic embedded in our identities.

 

Thus: “To say ‘we are indigenous’ in a society that systematically denies the dignity of the indigenous is a way of asserting dignity, of negating the negation of dignity, of saying ‘we are indigenous and more than that’.” [3] Taking this a step further:

 

The drive of anti-identity is a constant movement beyond the concept [the content going beyond the phrase, in Marx’s words], it constantly goes beyond our conscious knowledge… [Revolution] cannot be thought of in terms of the bringing of consciousness to people… The politics of bringing consciousness is part of the world of character masks, the world of identities [and the world of hegemonic power]… It is much more a question of drawing out that which is already present in repressed and contradictory form… This implies a politics not of talking, but of listening, or, better, of talking-listening … This is a dialogical politics rather than the monological talking-politics of the traditional revolutionary movement. [37]

 

Describing what a revolutionary future looks like is not simply unproductive; it is in no way able to inform us on the subject. In the world we have grown up in, it is impossible to even fathom what we as individuals and as collectives might be capable of. It is certain that no enlightened minority can simply lay this out for us in a political program.

 

Self-liberation is just that, a liberation of the self, an internal process. Critiquing our fetishized identities is not about denying the way we have been shaped by our lived experiences within capitalism, but about taking this power away from it. As Marx says, we live in a “topsy-turvy world,” one in which our subjectivity is concealed by reified relations. Our goals must be informed by those practices that can lead us from fetishized identity to a dignified existence outside any hegemonic system.

 

Against His-story, Against Positivisation:

 

According to Werner Bonefeld,

 

The difficulty in conceiving of the society of the free and equal has to do with its very idea. In distinction to the pursuit of abstract wealth, of value in process, money in process and as such capital, and in distinction to seizure of the state, pursuit and preservation of political power, economic value and factor efficiency, and in distinction to the idea of labour as the natural necessity of social wealth and conception of the economic as an economy of labour, it follows a completely different entelechy of human development – it seeks the society of human purposes, universal human emancipation [emphasis added]. [40]

Reflecting this contradistinction: “The wealth of the communist individuals and the wealth of capitalist society belong to two different realities. For the society of the free and equal social wealth is free time” [emphasis added]. Whether we call this source of social wealth “time for enjoyment” as Marx does or “freely disposable time” like Adorno, the wealth of communist society is above all characterized by self-determined doing and the satisfaction of human beings. It is because of this key difference that “[t]he society of human purposes stands in opposition to all hitherto history. Its achievement entails that the progress of this history comes to a standstill so that society can be found anew” [emphasis added]. No matter the language chosen to describe it, such a condition can undoubtedly only exist outside of history as we know it. The problem with “revolutionary” perspectives rooted in positivization is that they are inherently incapable of halting such an ostensibly progressive march of history. In absolute contradiction to their proclaimed purpose, they cannot manifest a society that hinges on human needs—on dignity. These perspectives perpetuate the false promise that proper economic planning and development will liberate us from the dispossession of our doing. Critical theory and praxis is only critical as far as it “resists this falseness, refusing to be taken in by a philosophy of progress that in its entirety is tied to existing social relations”; it cannot enable and legitimize things to continue as they are. Above all, our critical theory’s conception of society must be entirely negative.

 

According to Adorno, “to negate a negation does not bring about its reversal… What is negated is negative until it has passed.” [41] Negation is not a method to be applied to existing relations in hopes of reforming them: the negation of negation does not lead to positivity; negation must mean to move against-and-beyond. For us, this means that capitalist relations and identities, bounded as they are by what we are not (able to do), cannot be transformed into positive and liberatory ones. As such, “[t]here is no vantage point [within existing relations] from which to launch the society of human purposes [emphasis added]. The society of human purposes is not the hidden secret of the capitalist social relations. Rather, its hidden secret is the force of the law-making violence of expropriation that divorced the mass of the population from the means of subsistence.” [40] FRSO’s vanguardism cannot lead to a dignified life; their perspective too represents this expropriative violence that deprives us of self-determined doing. We must turn to a critical praxis that

rejects the idea of revolution as a revolution for the freedom of labour as regressive, denies that bourgeois society contains within itself the necessity of human emancipation, opposes the notion of historical progress for the benefit of the working class as a ‘conformist rebellion’… that… instead of ending slavery, seeks a new deal for slaves. 

Capitalist society does not find its positive resolution “in better-paid and fully employed producers” but only in the dissolution of property and alienating means of production in themselves. Critical theory is not a “theoretical expression of the soul of the social forces” but instead “aims at these forces themselves” in order not to positivize but to abolish them.

 

In contrast to this, FRSO’s historical materialism leads “practice [to become] nonconceptual… a piece of the politics it was supposed to lead out of; it [becomes] the prey of power.” We cannot appropriate the tools of oppression and expect them to lead us somewhere beyond it; such is a logic based on non sequiturs. We aim for revolution, not reification.

 

Bonefeld says that “[o]nly a reified consciousness” can claim to have the proper knowledge to solve the crises wrought by capitalism and further to do so on behalf of those deprived of self-determined doing. In truth, this reified consciousness’ “grasp of reality is entirely abstract and its assertion to know what to do is groundless.” Vanguardism is but another deprivation of the self-determination that we seek. A reified consciousness abandons the possibility of revolutionary change and with it the insight that oppressive hierarchies can never be negated “by means of state.” Resulting from this failure to reject reified consciousness, FRSO’s program suggests that statist intervention in the economy will somehow lead to a society of human purpose, despite the reality that within any commodity economy, human needs are never the fulcrum upon which resolutions rest. We cannot have faith in political parties, in historical progress, or in any revolution defined by programs; to do so is to once again set ourselves up for dissapointment. We must only follow the call of our resounding “No!”—our rejection of reification, our demand for an end to progress and modernity as we have known it.

 

In painting a picture of the pitfalls of historical continuity, I find it helpful to quote at length from Bonefeld’s conclusion to his exploration Critical Theory and the Critique of Political Economy:

History does not unfold. It takes no side…. The purpose of capitalism is the profitable accumulation of abstract wealth for its own sake. The commune of human purpose is not an existing human purpose. Its reality is entirely negative. History appears as a linear sequence of events… This appearance is real but by itself, devoid of meaning. What does it really mean to say that history is a sequence of events? Events of what, and what was so eventful? History appears as a transcendent force of progress only when one abstracts from it, leading to its description as a sequence of events, for which the terms ‘historicity’ provides the name. Historicity comprises the idea of history without history. That is to say, in order to comprehend history, one needs to ‘crack’ the appearance of history as a sequence of events.

One needs thus to think out of history, out of the battles for freedom, slave insurrections, peasant revolts, the struggles of Les Enragés, working class strikes, riots, insurrections and revolutions, to appreciate the traditions of the oppressed, recognize the smell of danger and the stench of death, gain a sense of the courage and cunning of struggle, grasp the spirit of sacrifice, comprehend however fleetingly the density of a time at which the progress of the muck of ages almost came to a standstill. History does not lead anywhere; it has no telos, no objectives, no purpose and it does not take sides. At its worst, it continues on the path of victorious progress under darkened clouds and smoke-filled skies. At best, its progress will be stopped. Such history has not been made yet, though it has often been attempted. [40]

 

If we dare attempt to stop this progress, we must acknowledge that the oppressed don’t “struggle for the progress of oppression—this really is the business of the ‘overlords’ of history.” If our cardinal goal is to replace one hegemon with another, then the continuum of history will never be broken. Within the recipes of domination, we will never find a “secret reality that points beyond the existing social relations… The resolution to the dialectical context of immanence is that context itself.” As Bonefeld plainly states, “‘The whole is false.’ The whole has to go” [emphasis added]. Only with the absolute negation of oppressive relations can we build something truly new and liberating.

 

Notably, Bonefeld himself claims that “the proletariat is the name of the oppressed class of our time” and that the end of “progress” can only come once this class ceases to exist, as “[f]or Marx, the struggle against oppression is the struggle of the last oppressed class.” While I agree that “the whole [of society] must go,” Bonefeld’s proletarian class-centrism too finds itself ensnared within a hegemonic logic that exists within this whole, despite its negative formulation. Letting go of Marxism’s limited conception of oppression-as-class is also a prerequisite for liberation and the negation of all forms of disposession. As Benally says in a previously quoted section, to focus on the economic is to fail to “indict the consolidation of power as an expression of modernity” [21] more broadly.

 

FRSO claims their chief aspiration to be “a society without classes—communism,” this “classless society [being] a long-term project” [2]; yet it is clear that however long this term might be, their purported goal is located somewhere along the continued progression of history. Though Sykes denies believing that “every society should proceed everywhere in the same linear way, through the same set of metaphysically distinct, predetermined stages,” at a higher level of abstraction, FRSO still holds it to be true that “socialism has to be understood as developing through stages [emphasis added],” [4] an inherently linear framing. We must reject this narrative that embraces the progress of civilization, one whose history has proven that, in all its forms,

 

Civilization has no relatives, only captives… It fashions its years and seconds into an anemic prison. It has shaped time into the most exquisite of weapons, obliterating memories, killing cycles. Its essence is time. The temporal and spacial imposition of awareness is the oblivion that is modernity and linear, or one-way time. [21]

 

To reach a world beyond existing social relations, we must manifest a rupture with them. Like Benally says, our choice today is between “either liv[ing] as translucent characters in colonial fantasies, or outside of the temporal constraints of settler time, where we are most whole.” It is not a matter of transcending to a higher stage but of rejecting a formula of stages outright. We fight for a life worth living, not more efficient productive forces. If we hope to ever see a world not defined by the destructive logic of statist-colonial-capitalism, it is necessary to look beyond vanguardism and positivism, towards a world of unknowable possibilities.

 

Beyond Vanguardism:

 

FRSO’s program shows us that more than a century on from the October Revolution, many Marxists have yet to learn basic lessons. Lenin, in a 1913 article, stated:

 

We are constantly making the mistake in Russia of judging the slogans and tactics of a certain party or group, of judging its general trend, by the intentions or motives that the group claims for itself. Such judgement is worthless. The road to hell—as was said long ago—is paved with good intentions.

It is not a matter of intentions, motives or words but of the objective situation, independent of them, that determines the fate and significance of slogans, of tactics or, in general, of the trend of a given party or group [emphasis added]. [42]

 

Clearly this is not an issue specific to early 20th-century Russia. Lenin was correct in his assessment, somewhat ironically, given the course of Soviet history and its judgment by most Leninists. It matters little that FRSO claims their program is a product of applying a “revolutionary science”; the slogans, tactics, and general theses of the organization do not serve to advance a revolutionary cause. The FRSO program is one (un)grounded in fetishism, blind to its obvious flaws; as such, it is a dead end.

 

Nitzan & Bichler propose in Capital as Power that we should reframe our understanding of capitalism as being a mode of power rather than simply a mode of production. [43] They say that hierarchical social orders are better understood this way, that “[e]very mode of power, whether based on slavery, feudalism or capitalization, has its own particular configuration,” and though it is true that each of these “depends on production… production as such is merely part of the story of power.” In this analysis, “The capitalist mega-machine defines the capitalist mode of power; and a mode of power… constitutes the ‘state’ of society.” Capitalism has thus penetrated, altered, and become the state, what they call “the state of capital.”

 

Contrasted with the typical definition of the state, their notion

 

is broader and more flexible… [and] transcends the analytical distinction between economics and politics… [which] may be valid when viewed from below and at lower levels of abstraction… [but can] be very misleading when considered from above and in relation to the overall architecture of power.” 

 

Thus there is no sharp distinction “between ‘economic power’ and ‘political power’, between ‘exploitation’ and ‘oppression’, or between the ‘power of the market’ versus the ‘power of the state’.” And although the forms of power can vary, all hierarchical power structures ultimately constitute “a single nomos of power.” Crucially, this “nomos of power is not fixed. It changes as the social order evolves…” The state should not be thought of as an abstract “eternal Newtonian space” whose actors are simply replaced over time. Rather, it is a “historically constituted Leibnitzian space,” a structure of power that itself constantly evolves and is shaped by the “concrete entities and relationships that comprise it.” The state is far from just “a special organization of force” as Lenin claimed [44]; it is not a thing to be wielded but a condition to be overcome.

 

According to Bonefeld, the modern capitalist state “is charged with depoliticizing” the relationships between oppressors and oppressed by “concentrating the political character of bourgeois society.” [40] Essentially, the “state is no independent being… [but] the political form of the bourgeois relationships of coined freedom… The political state is the state of social depoliticization.” In recognition of this reality, Marx argues in his Critique of the Gotha Program that the idea of “equal rights” can in truth only be “a right of inequality” in a society of unequal individuals. [45] This bourgeois conception of equal rights is in no way eliminated with the replacement of private (individual) property with state property but is strengthened by its illusion of having moved beyond capitalist relations and achieved true proletarian equality through the so-called socialist state. Nationalization in the USSR and the Soviet Constitution of 1936’s inclusion of a supposed “[e]quality of rights of citizens… irrespective of their nationality or race, in all spheres of economic, state, cultural, social and political life” [46] did little to abolish oppressive (bourgeois) social relations.

 

Marx and Engels themselves say in The German Ideology that:

the proletarians, if they are to assert themselves as individuals, will have to abolish the very condition of their existence hitherto (which has, moreover, been that of all society up to the present), namely, labour. Thus they find themselves directly opposed to the form in which, hitherto, the individuals, of which society consists, have given themselves collective expression, that is, the State. In order, therefore, to assert themselves as individuals, they must overthrow the State [emphasis addded]. [47]

 

In destroying the conditions of our oppression and reclaiming self-determined doing, there is no statist path. In contrast to the Marxist view, however, we must reject the Hegelian assumption of a universalized historic progression. Instead, an affinity for affinity grounded in interrelationality and a rejection of so-called progress should guide our critical praxis.

 

If we take up Nitzan and Bichler’s framing and apply it to the United States, it becomes clear that this megamachine has adapted and evolved in ways that have moved beyond previous fetters limiting its growth. From the seeds of slavery and colonialism, it has continually warped and evolved into the ultimate form of Leviathan. Its universal, ever-expanding, and absorptive qualities make it the most flexible power structure in history. This is our enemy.

 

For a future of liberated living in harmony with each other and existence more broadly to be possible, we must slay this monster. We cannot simply remove capitalism from the equation and maintain the modern state; at this point it is the state. There can be no co-opting of an apparatus that feeds on the living; to attempt to do so is to be co-opted and corrupted oneself.

 

“Apocalypse is the self-fulfilling prophecy of the civilized” [21], says Benally. We look around and see that statist-colonial-capitalism is spiraling wildly towards devastation and mass extinction; it is death; only through its abolition do we stand a chance of preserving life. If there is such a thing as a “transition period,” then we are living in it. We must unlearn and let go of rotten social relations. This means to forgo class war for social war—our goal being total social rupture. Though negation is not an end in itself, it is the impetus for creating something outside the options already mapped out, options that inescapably lead to genocide and ecocide. Social rupture itself does not imply a utopian “clean break” of sorts but an aspiration that orients our critical praxis towards self-determined doing and the negation of that which negates it. It is through this struggle against power-over that we build power-with (and thus power-to-do). Only this (anti)power can actualize revolutionary change. We will not find solutions within the architecture of our prison—we must dismantle it brick by brick and escape its grasp, or we will perish within it.

 

References

 

[1] N.A (2022, June 5). 9th Congress of Freedom Road Socialist Organization: Seize the time, the future is bright! – Freedom Road. Freedom Road Socialist Organization | FRSO. https://frso.org/congress/9th-congress-of-freedom-road-socialist-organization-seize-the-time-the-future-is-bright/

 

[2] N.A, N.D Freedom Road Socialist Organization. Program. https://frso.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/frso-program.pdf, pp. 1-3, 6-17, 19, 29, 31

 

[3] Holloway, J. (2010). Change the World Without Taking Power: The Meaning of Revolution Today. Pluto Press (UK), pp. 118, 144

 

[4] Sykes, J. (2023). The revolutionary science of Marxism-Leninism. FRSO, Ch. 29-30

 

[5] Sakai, J. (2014). Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat from Mayflower to Modern. Kersplebedeb.

 

[6] Schuhrke, J. (2024). Blue-Collar Empire: The Untold Story of US Labor’s Global Anticommunist Crusade. Verso Books.

 

[7] Horne, G. (2018). The Apocalypse of Settler Colonialism: The Roots of Slavery, White Supremacy, and Capitalism in 17th Century North America and the Caribbean. NYU Press, p. 7

 

[8] Franceschini, I., Lin, K., Sorace, C., & Loubere, N. (2022). Proletarian China: A Century of Chinese Labour. Verso Books, p. 2

 

[9] Elfstrom, M. (2021). Workers and Change in China: Resistance, Repression, Responsiveness. Cambridge University Press.

 

[10] Loyalka, M. (2013). Eating Bitterness: Stories from the Front Lines of China’s Great Urban Migration. Univ of California Press.

 

[11] Byler, D., Franceschini, I., & Loubere, N. (2022). Xinjiang Year Zero. ANU Press.

 

[12] Fischer, A. M. (2013). The Disempowered Development of Tibet in China: A Study in the Economics of Marginalization. Lexington Books.

 

[13] Byler, D. (2021). In the Camps: China’s High-Tech Penal Colony. Columbia Global Reports.

 

[14] Leibold, J. (2024, November 13). The Tibet-Aid Project and Settler Colonialism in China’s Borderlands. Made in China Journal. https://madeinchinajournal.com/2024/11/12/the-tibet-aid-project-and-settler-colonialism-in-chinas-borderlands/

 

[15] Xiaocuo, Y. (2020, August 27). Recruiting Loyal Stabilisers: On the Banality of Carceral Colonialism in Xinjiang. Made in China Journal. https://madeinchinajournal.com/2019/10/25/recruiting-loyal-stabilisers-on-the-banality-of-carceral-colonialism-in-xinjiang/

 

[16] Hostetler, L. (2001). Qing Colonial Enterprise: Ethnography and Cartography in Early Modern China. University of Chicago Press.

 

[17] Setzekorn, E. (2015). Chinese Imperialism, Ethnic Cleansing, and Military History, 1850-1877. Journal of Chinese Military History, 4(1), 80–100. https://doi.org/10.1163/22127453-12341278

 

[18] Hart-Landsberg, M., & Burkett, P. (2005). China and Socialism: Market Reforms and Class Struggle. Monthly Review Press, pp.87-114

 

[19] Meisner, M. (1999). Mao’s China and After: A History of the People’s Republic, Third Edition. Simon and Schuster, p. 388

 

[20] Central Committee, Communist Party of India (Maoist). (n.d.). China – a new Social-Imperialist power! (First Edition: July 2017, Second (Amended) Edition: 2021 January). https://bannedthought.org/India/CPI-Maoist-Docs/Books/China-Social-Imperialism-CPI-Maoist-2021-Eng-view.pdf

 

[21] Benally, K. (2023). No Spiritual Surrender: Indigenous Anarchy in Defense of the Sacred. Detritus Books, pp. 233-234, 306, 351, 356

 

[22] J. Sykes (2024, December 4). Marxism-Leninism and the theory of settler-colonialism in the United States — Fight Back! News. https://fightbacknews.org/articles/marxism-leninism-and-the-theory-of-settler-colonialism-in-the-united-states

 

[23] Fanon, F. (2004). The Wretched of the Earth. Grove Press, p.138

 

[24] Anderson, W. C., Samudzi, Z. (2018). As Black as Resistance: Finding the Conditions for Liberation https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/zoe-samudzi-and-william-c-anderson-as-black-as-resistance.pdf, pp. 16-17

 

[25] Anderson, W. C. (2021). The Nation on No Map: Black Anarchism and Abolition. AK Press, pp. 104, 183-185

 

[26] Sánchez, R., and Pita, B. (2020). Spatial and Discursive Violence in the US Southwest. Duke University Press, p.15

 

[27] Cotera, M. E., & Saldaña-Portillo, M. J. (2014). “Indigenous but not Indian? Chicana/os and the politics of indigeneity.” The World of Indigenous North America. Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203122280-42, (pp. 549-550, 552-557, 561-563)

 

[28] Archibald, R. (1978). “Acculturation and Assimilation in Colonial New Mexico.” New Mexico Historical Review 53, 3. https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nmhr/vol53/iss3/2, p. 214

 

[29] Alberto, L. “Nations, Nationalisms, and Indígenas: The ‘Indian’ in the Chicano Revolutionary Imaginary.” Critical Ethnic Studies, vol. 2, no. 1, Jan. 2016, (pp. 107-127), doi:10.5749/jcritethnstud.2.1.0107,

 

[30] Saldaña-Portillo, J. (2001). Who’s the Indian in Aztlán? Re-Writing Mestizaje, Indianism, and Chicanismo from the Lacandón. In Duke University Press eBooks (pp. 402–423). https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822380771-020

 

[31] EDICIONES INÉDITAS. (n.d.). Contra Aztlán: A Critique of Chicano Nationalism. https://ia904709.us.archive.org/1/items/ediciones_ineditas_2020_contra/ediciones_ineditas_2020_contra.pdf

 

[32] Day, R. J. F. (2015) Gramsci Is Dead. doi:10.2307/j.ctt18fs4xw. (pp. 8, 9, 17, 80, 188)

 

[33] Gramsci, A., et al. (2015) Selections From the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA03625916. (p. 57)

 

[34] Adams, J. “The Constellation of Opposition.” Post-Anarchism: A Reader. (2011) Rousselle, D., & Evren, S.  Pluto Press. (p. 109)

 

[35] Bey, M. (2020). Anarcho-Blackess: Notes Toward a Black Anarchism. AK Press. (pp. 14-15)

 

[36] Marx, K. (1869) The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Edited by Engels, Translated by Saul K. Padover, Uploaded by Zodiac et al. www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/18th-Brumaire.pdf. (p. 6)

 

[37] Holloway, J. (2010) Crack Capitalism. Pluto Press. (pp. 43, 76, 85, 159, 225)

 

[38] Stirner, M. (1995). The ego and its own. Cambridge University Press. (pp. 97, 117)

 

[39] Marcos, Subcomandante Insurgente. (2018) The Zapatistas’ Dignified Rage: The Last Public Speeches of Subcommander Marcos. AK Press. (pp. 20-21)

 

[40] Bonefeld, W. (2014). Critical Theory and the critique of political economy: On Subversion and Negative Reason. A&C Black. (pp. 222-225)

 

[41] Adorno, T. (2003). Negative dialectics. Routledge. (p. 160)

 

[42] Lenin, V.I., Lenin Internet Archive (marxists.org). (1913, July 16). Lenin: Word and Deed. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/jul/16.htm

 

[43] Nitzan, J., & Bichler, S. (2009). Capital as Power: A Study of Order and Creorder. Routledge. (pp. 17, 280, 281

 

[44] Lenin, V. I., Lenin Internet Archive (marxists.org). (1917). The State and Revolution. https://www.marxists.org/ebooks/lenin/state-and-revolution.pdf

 

[45] Marx, K. (n.d.). Critique of the Gotha programme. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/

 

[46] Stalin. (1936, December 5). Constitution (Fundamental law) of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/12/05.htm

 

[47] Marx/Engels Internet Archive, Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1932). The German ideology. In T. Delaney & B. Schwartz (Trans.), Marx/Engels Internet Archive [Book].f https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_The_German_Ideology.pdf

Simoun Magsalin – Rebel Peripheries

Posted on 02/05/2025 - 03/05/2025 by muntjac

Available as a bonus zine for issue 2 of Muntjac magazine.

Dedicated to the anarchists and abolitionists in the Philippines that we’ve met along the way, including those who have moved on or fallen out of touch

 

When anarchism (or any other idea for that matter) is brought into new contexts, it necessarily enters into dialogue with the histories and traditions of that new context. When Mao Zedong Thought was all the rage during the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos Sr., this new idea was re-contextualized in the context of the history of revolutionary nationalism of the Katipunan, Andres Bonifacio, and the resistance to the American colonial State. Anarchism in the Philippines necessarily indigenizes itself into the Philippine context, something I’ve written about in the past on various libertarian elements in the Philippines.1 My purpose here isn’t to restate what I’ve already written on previously but to expand the re-contextualization of the potentiality of anarchism in rebel peripheries to a distinctly anti-anarchist project: that of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP). As a Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad says “Seek knowledge even in China,” China being the furthest and most remote place in the ancient Arab imagination, urging that we ought to seek knowledge even from the most remote—or in this case, the strangest—of places.

 

The CPP, its armed wing the New People’s Army (NPA), and its front the National Democratic Front (NDF) have been waging Maoist armed struggle in the Philippines since 1969. In doing so, it has created a number of rebel peripheries in the countryside that exist outside the control of the Philippine State—in the anarchy of the peripheries. However, the longstanding second communist rebellion in the Philippines has to be placed in the historical context of anarchic and rebel peripheries in the archipelago. Once we move past and sublate the experiences of the Maoists for the revolutionary project of anarchism, we can then move on understanding the insurrectionary project of mamundok-in-place.

 

To build up to this thesis of mamundok-in-place, I first start with a discussion of the anarchy of the peripheries, a condition by which State power cannot cohere and territorialize in the internal peripheries of a country. I touch here on the question of why Marxist guerrillas, rather than anarchists, are often found in anarchic peripheries. These anarchic peripheries act as refugia for political projects. Then I move to the second section on desertion and marronage which sees peoples and rebels move to peripheries out of the politics of escape and how this can transform into the politics of rebellion, as with the case of the maroons. I also discuss the notions of dragons and hydras in terms of organizational form as developed by Russell Maroon Shoatz. In the third section, I situate concepts of the politics of escape and the politics of rebellion in the Philippines with concepts such as remontar and mamundok. It is in this tradition that I contextualize the New Peoples Army and the communist insurgency. I move on to the fourth section to return to Shoatz’s dragon and hydra analogies to apply these to the Philippine experience. This is necessary to make an anarchist appraisal of the second communist insurgency which feeds onto a broader political project of appraising Maoism and its use of rebel peripheries. I extend this discussion of Maoism in the fifth section to critique the Marxist project using Shoatz’s analysis. Through this, I develop a notion of “post-Maoism” that learns from the mistakes and defeats in the Marxist and Maoist projects. I return to rebel peripheries in the sixth section in order to problematize rebel peripheries in the context of the revolutionary and insurrectionary project. Rebel peripheries are ultimately projects that suffer from problems of isolation and marginalization. This isolation clashes with the revolutionary project of wanting the whole world. In the seventh section and building upon these problems in the previous section, I unpack rebel peripheries to make sense of what aspects of rebel peripheries are pertinent for anarchists and revolutionaries today. It is here that we can begin to see the contours for the development of autonomous projects in the Twenty-First Century that learns from the deficiencies of rebel peripheries while also affirming the politics of care forwarded by the Black radical tradition. It is here that mamundok-in-place begins to make sense. In the penultimate section, I return again to the Philippines and the rebel peripheries of the Maoists to make sense of what is being subverted. The contours of mamundok-in-place are outlined in precisely what is not being subverted and what could be subverted in its place: organized abandonment and proletarianization. In the final section, I further sketch the contours of what mamundok-in-place could be, understanding that lines of desertion are found everywhere and that the insurrectionary project can find its reality when we see the whole world is our mountain.

 

The Anarchy of the Peripheries

The “anarchy of the peripheries” is what I term as the condition of internal peripheries within countries, especially within the former Third World, where State power cannot fully cohere and territorialize.2 I term “anarchic peripheries” as the internal peripheries that exhibit this condition. These anarchic peripheries are usually situated in boondocks, mountainous formations, and other difficult terrain. The people who live there have historically defied civilizational imposition and all that entails—corvée, taxes, slavery, colonialism, proletarianization, and all. The anarchy of the peripheries also exist as refugia by which those in the colony or civilization could desert to in avoiding civilizational imposition. “Refugium” (plural: “refugia”) here refers to places of refuge that is isolated from changes outside it.

 

The specific anarchy that exists in the periphery are conditioned by geography and political power. State power coheres where it can territorialize its power over a population. This territorialization is geographic in the sense that States need accessibility and a settled population. Thus, where it is easy to settle, we also find States. As such, States usually cohere and territorialize in or by geographic features like plains, rivers, and valleys where historical settled populations are found. Where the State can travel and deploy its agents, there we can also find the State. The Andes mountains in Columbia and Ecuador are a clear exception because much of the population density of these countries are in the mountains where much of the population lives due to the favorable climate. In this sense, the favorable climate adheres to the general rule of accessibility of settlement—the exception that proves the rule.

 

Outside the core areas where State power is cohered and territorialized is the anarchic peripheries. These areas are conditioned by the anarchy of the peripheries, by their remoteness to State power as boondocks. The geography of these areas are mountainous and heavily forested. The difficulty to traverse these areas also makes it difficult for States to project their power these peripheries. Hence, the result is that these peripheries tend to be anarchic in character. The anarchy of peripheries usually exist in the former Third World, especially in regions where State power only cohered in core geographic features like lowlands and rivers.

 

In this sense, the anarchy of the peripheries is a condition, not a political project. Indeed, many peoples in the peripheries of States throughout history have their own polities that some may describe as hierarchical or proto-statist. These peripheries are anarchic in relation to State-administered core areas. Whatever statist institutions are built here simply cannot be compared to the coherence of State power in the urban, suburban, and immediate environs.3

 

The anarchy of the peripheries are also the refugia where guerrilla movements, especially those claiming to be Marxist-Leninist, are able to establish bulwarks and strongholds. Where rebels take hold in anarchic peripheries, I term these as “rebel peripheries.” Ironically, these Marxist-Leninist rebel peripheries are marked by a “heretical thesis” that suggests that Marxist guerrillas survive and thrive precisely because of the condition of the anarchy of the peripheries, and that it is the Marxist-Leninists—not the anarchists—who are able to fully take advantage of this condition of anarchy. Guerrilla Marxists owe their existence to anarchy, yet in places where State power is weakest, anarchists are not to be found. That is to say, in the anarchy of the peripheries where there are armed guerrillas with statist projects (i.e. to take State power), we do not find intentional projects for anarchy. This double irony is what characterizes the vast majority of left-wing guerrilla movements, with the Zapatistas (EZLN) and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) being the clear exceptions. And even if we look at those exceptions, both the Zapatistas and the PKK started out as Marxist guerrilla movements, with both eventually developing libertarian programs at varying points in their life. With the Zapatistas, their libertarian turn was quite early, before their first insurrection, while the PKK only adopted libertarian elements after Abdullah Öcalan’s own libertarian turn.

 

Why anarchists are not found in the anarchic peripheries is likely because anarchist armed struggle is largely urban in character under non-revolutionary conditions or widespread across vast distances in conditions of revolution and civil war. Marxist guerrillas move to peripheries in order to build Statist projects that prefigure a future socialist State. The anarchy of the periphery allows them to build proto-States and shadow governments. The State is, as Gustav Landauer reminds us, a social relationship, a way of relating to one another that can only be smashed through enacting different social relations.4 These Marxists bring the State with them and build new ones in the anarchic peripheries, while anarchists are not wont to do the same.

 

But despite this, there may still be potential for anarchy as a project within the context of the anarchy of peripheries, especially when it comes to desertion.

 

Desertion and Marronage

The anarchy of the peripheries are the refugia of those deserting or rebelling against the State. These anarchic peripheries become rebel peripheries when they are politicized, as in open rebellion against the State. Desertion of civilization is infrapolitical. James C. Scott coined “infrapolitics” as invisible politics, much like infrared is invisible to the naked eye.5 For Scott, desertion from the military is infrapolitical compared to open mutiny.

 

In Southeast Asia, the most famous anarchic periphery is Zomia, a large highland in mainland Southeast Asia that spans several countries from Myanmar to China to Thailand. Zomia and its people are outlined in an “anarchist history” in James C. Scott’s book, The Art of Not Being Governed.6 In this vast periphery, vast disparate peoples evaded State power for generations, thus also escaping and resisting corvée, taxes, and colonialism. In this case, archaeology uses “pericolonialism” to refer to what I call as the anarchy of the periphery. It literally abbreviates the “periphery of colonialism.” Pericolonialism is the effect of colonialism on the peripheries of the colonial project, showing how pericolonial peoples are also affected by colonialism (though not directly colonized), and can even react or resist colonialism.

 

We may think of rebel peripheries as the political act of deserting and rebelling against the State to form de facto autonomous communities, the visibly political form of the infrapolitical desertion. Without this politics of rebellion, desertion remains as the politics of escape. Indeed, this is how I conceptualize the term to think of Zapatista Chiapas or other Marxist guerrilla strongholds, but a more classical historical example would be that maroon communities across the Americas.

 

“Maroons” were those who escaped slavery (or their descendants) who built autonomous communities in the peripheries of colonial slavocracies. “Marronage” is their act of escaping slavery and building maroon communities autonomous from slavery and colonialism. This concept of marronage is something specific to the Black experience and the Black radical tradition. Marronage is the denial of the enslavement of Black people and its resulting fugitivity. The specific act of desertion in marronage is not merely that of deserting the colony, but of also escaping the diktats of commodification of the body through enslavement. Marronage is not merely desertion, but the “stealing oneself from bondage,” an act of open rebellion just by daring to escape the plantation.7 However, marronage and the politics of escape can often leave captivity for others in place.8 This problem was well-recognized by maroons such as those in San Domingo (known today as Haiti), which did set up lines of desertion and escalated to the politics of rebellion through armed struggle against slavery.9 During the Haitian revolution and after independence, the self-abolition of the enslaved resulted in the development of a class of free peasant maroons who lived largely free and autonomous from the machinations of the Haitian State. They formed maroon communities in the mountains of Haiti, where the plantation system (albeit without slavery) could not be reimposed by Haiti’s new leaders.10

 

The Black revolutionary Russell Maroon Shoatz wrote a Black Marxist history of maroons and marronage in his seminal work “The Dragon and the Hydra.”11 In that work, Shoatz showed how various acts of marronage and maroon communities not only escaped slavery, but resisted and attacked slavery from the peripheries. In San Domingo, as documented by CLR James, maroons attacked slavery by liberating people from bondage and instigating slave rebellions.12 Shoatz contrasted two organizational forms: dragon and hydra, or “centralized and decentralized forces of change.” Dragon-type organizations are large centralized apparatuses of resistance with a clear leader, while hydra-type organizations are several decentralized groups without overall leaders and largely operated under self-directed militancy.13 As Shoatz suggests, rebel dragons can easily be slayed by much larger imperial dragons, either be literally destroyed or be co-opted to betray their rebel gains as in Haiti. However, rebel hydras are persistent and resilient. While some heads of the hydra can be encouraged by colonizers to be co-opted (in what he calls as “treaty maroons”) or defeated, there are still many other hydra heads that resist co-optation or colonization. True enough, many of these maroon communities still survive today across the Americas, outlasting slavery and empires.

 

In this sense, we can think of rebel peripheries as a more general term to which marronage is specific to the Black experience. It is the evasion and desertion of the State where they become sites of not only de facto autonomy from States, but also sites from which States and their machinations can be assaulted from.

 

Remontar and Mamundok

The Philippines has a long history of pericolonialism and rebel peripheries. Desertion from the colony was termed as “remontar” in the Philippines. “Remontar” is Spanish for “re-mounted,” as in “mountain,” where “remontar” is an action of going up a slope, all calling to mind a return to the mountain.14 In this sense, remontar is similar to marronage, albeit specific to the Philippine experience and with the notable absence of chattel slavery.

 

Indigenous peoples in the Philippines have long practiced remontar by leaving easily colonizable lowlands for uplands like in the Cordilleras and in the interior of islands like Mindoro, Panay, and Mindanao. This is the politics of escape.

 

Stephen Acabado’s work on pericolonial archaeology of Ifugao sites argues that the ancestors of the Ifugao consciously chose to move to the interior highlands of the Cordilleras to escape colonialism.15 The Ifugao also adopted wet-rice agriculture as a way of intensifying economic activity to support a large pericolonial population. One of the Ifugao people’s achievements was the creation of a vast mountainous wet-rice terrace system—the Ifugao Rice Terraces—that was constructed without State power. The Ifugao also attacked the colonial system, not merely through raids that brought them into conflict with the colonial State, but also through economic warfare. The colonial State harshly enforced a tobacco monopoly in the country, but the Ifugao people subverted this monopoly by growing their own tobacco and selling it to lowlanders. In this way, we see how pericolonial people not only resisted colonization, but also subvert it economically. Notably, this subversion was coordinated without a polity we would recognize as an Ifugao State. Likely, their resistance to Spanish rule was largely self-directed, as the Ifugao did not have a stratified class society like in the colonial lowlands.

 

Some Indigenous groups in the Philippines are given the exonym “Remontado.” Remontados were those who did remontar, who “fled from the bells” (of the town church) to live a life outside Spanish rule in the mountains, rejecting the colonial State and Christianization.16 An American-era anthropologist noted that some “civilized” Filipinos like the Pangasinense had a tendency to flee to the mountains, to remontar, to escape the colony, given the proximity of Pangasinan to the mountains of Benguet. He also noted that the Guardia Civil periodically launched expeditions against the Remontados.17 In the Commonwealth era of the American colonial period, Remontados in Rizal province were noted have been inclined to semi-nomadic life, but was forced to create permanent settlements to avoid their land from being grabbed by lowlander creoles.18 One Remontado group, the Dumagat-Remontados, are found inland, despite their name implying some connection to the sea (root word “dagat”), suggesting a past of remontar where they left lowlands near the sea to go up to the mountains. (The Dumagat-Remontados are still threatened by the State today through the disastrous Kaliwa Dam plan. No to Kaliwa Dam!)

 

I suspect the vast majority of remontar in the Philippines will not have an explicit historical record as remontar in these cases are inherently infrapolitical and self-directed. Instead of small rebellions that leave their mark as footnote to history, why not simply just go up the mountain as the Remontados do to avoid those nasty Kastila colonizers? In this sense, remontar is infrapolitics and the politics of escape in the silent way people desert the lowland colonial zone for the freedom of the mountains. Contrary to Murray Bookchin who ruminated on the phrase “the city air makes one free,”19 it seems to be more the case in the Philippines that the mountain air makes one free. This irony is made stronger where according to one anthropological report published in 1937 (during the American colonial period), the Remontados of Rizal province were inclined towards democratic politics where they elect barrio presidents, vice presidents, councilors, secretaries, chief of police, and members of their police.20 (Though perhaps Bookchin ought to be credited for recognizing that there is something liberating about mountain air that generates liberatory politics when he noted that the mountains of Greece provided fertile ground for early democratic politics or how the Green Mountains of Vermont informed democratic assemblies in his native Vermont.21 Though, unfortunately, Bookchin never explored this insight in depth before he died.)

 

Elsewhere in the Philippines, various revolts against the Spanish colonial State built spaces of autonomy as more recognizable and intentional rebel peripheries, moving to the politics of rebellion. One notable event on the island of Bohol called the Dagohoy rebellion founded several barrios in the interior boondocks of the island to live autonomous of the colonial State for 85 years, conquered and co-opted only in 1829. With their base in the mountains of Inabangan and Talibon, Dagohoy and his followers lived full lives free from colonial burdens.22 Their rebel periphery prefigured much of the Maoist strategy between “red areas” controlled by the Maoists and “white areas” still nominally under control by the State. During the rebellion, Inabangan and Talibon prefigured the red areas which acted as safe zones for subterfuge and occasional raids elsewhere on the island of Bohol, much like white areas today.

 

During the late Spanish period and the American colonial period, millenarian and apocalyptic movements went to the mountains where they could practice their faith and found utopian communities in peace, some of which were violently repressed by the Spanish colonial State like that of the Aritao Commune of Hermano Pule.23 Many of these millenarian movements still exist today in the peripheries of the Philippines, their mountains functioning as their holy places and as refugia for indigenous religious practices.

 

During the Philippine Revolution, the mountains and boondocks offered safe havens for Katipunero guerrillas. Remontados gave support for Bonifacio’s Katipunan.24 The anarchic peripheries are then transformed into rebel peripheries. During the latter stages of the Philippine Revolution after the American invasion forces conquered Manila, the military government of the dictator Emilio Aguinaldo relocated to the mountains where General Antonio Luna planned a long-term guerrilla war using the mountains as their bulwark.25 After the defeat of the nascent republic, Miguel Malvar continued a guerrilla war from the peripheries, striking at the American colonial State in his home province.26 Later on, Macario Sakay proclaimed a rebel republic in Mt. San Cristobal and later Morong province (now Rizal province) where Remontados gave him support and refuge.

 

Quite notably in the Second World War, guerrillas of all strips created uncountable liberated barrios across the nation, free from the landlords, the State, and the Japanese Empire. Some of these rebel peripheries persisted in the post-war period during the Huk rebellion (the first communist insurgency).

 

In this sense, the red areas of the Communist Party of the Philippines today is best situated within this long history of remontar and rebel peripheries in the archipelago, from the Spanish colonial period to today. A common euphemism for joining the communist armed struggle is mamundok or going to the mountain, again, an act of remontar, of deserting the State for the liberty of the periphery. While, of course, the purpose of these Maoist rebel peripheries is the protracted people’s war (PPW), the effect is a spiritual successor to previous traditions of remontar in the country. Indeed, mamundok is a modernization, politicization, and continuation of remontar. In this sense, mamundok is the political form of the infrapolitical remontar.

 

Furthermore, some anecdotal evidence suggests that Indigenous peoples and peasant creoles already living on the periphery often join the NPA either as full guerrillas or as “part-timers.”27 This suggests that these people living on peripheries are conscious of preserving the autonomy of their peripheries and see the CPP-NPA as a means of preserving their autonomy. In this sense, the anarchy of the periphery and its peoples dovetails with the political-military strategy of the Party.

 

Indeed, when it comes to the anarchy of the peripheries, the CPP is quite explicit in their strategy of basing their armed struggle specifically in the mountains. They noted that the geography and populations of the internal peripheries are ideal for their armed struggle.

 

The mountainous character of the country countervails its archipelagic character from the very start. A mountainous terrain with some population and with thick vegetation is an excellent condition for our people’s war. […] The Sierra Madre sews up almost the entire length of Luzon on the eastern side of the Cagayan Valley to the Bicol region through Central Luzon. It links as many as nine provinces. […] A mountainous terrain, where more people inhabit the foothills, clearings, plateaus, and riversides or creeksides, is more favorable for the people’s army.28

 

In these red areas, communist guerrillas set up their own autonomous governments and systems of representation for peasants and rural folk.29 Where State power is weak and thus lacks the provision of medicine, education, and law, the New People’s Army also acts as a mobile clinic, school, and court. Among the peripheral peasantry, they institute various reforms they call as “agrarian revolution” or increasing wages, lowering rents, and informal land redistribution (informal because they are obviously not recognized by the State). What is curious about these reforms is that they are rather mild and moderate, recalling to mind one Filipino Trotskyist’s formulation of the New People’s Army as being “social democrats with guns” as they enforce reforms that are essentially social-democratic in nature,30 yet with the effectivity of Maoist praxis of “political power growing out of the barrel of a gun.”

 

Also common in red areas is the practice of “revolutionary taxes”: protection racketeering of rural business like haciendas, plantations, and mines. This isn’t a moralistic judgment: revolutionary racketeering is good, actually! The Ukrainian, Spanish, and Uruguayan anarchists were not above a little racketeering for a cause. Illegalism is quite a valid tactic when the situation calls for it. The problem becomes when this protection racket becomes formalized in a way that revolutionary forces then permit a level of exploitation in exchange for protection money, which the NPA does at times. Sometimes the NPA does destroy mining equipment instead of collecting protection money, so at least they ought to be credited for that.

 

The essential politics behind remontar and mamundok are ultimately agreeable with anarchy and anarchism. However, that does not mean we agree with the Party that espouses it.

 

Half-Dragon, Half-Hydra

The CPP still maintains democratic centralism in Party functions and political line, but they have a longstanding practice of decentralization when it comes to their protracted people’s war. This policy is called “the policy of centralized leadership and decentralized operations.”31 This is partly due to geography: unlike in China, Thailand, Peru, Nepal, and India, the Philippines is an archipelago, not a contiguous land mass. This makes for a centralized contiguous military operation quite difficult and almost impossible by the NPA, hence the use of decentralized islands of guerrilla fronts across the country.

 

Returning to Shoatz’s formulation, the CPP-NPA is a dragon politically, but a hydra militarily and socially. Its hydra aspect gives it multiple advantages in its persistence and resilience, but its dragon aspect leaves them prone to misleaderships. Hence the mass confusion among their mass base during their shameful alliance with the fascist regime of President Rodrigo Duterte.32 Like the “treaty maroons” or the counterrevolutionary Haitian leadership, the CPP and NDF leadership can be co-opted and entreated to demobilize.

 

This is clearly a development from the first communist insurgency of the Huk Rebellion under the old communist party (PKP-1930). The Huks concentrated their forces in a contiguous land area in the plains of Central Luzon, but their highly concentrated dragon-type organization led to a combination of concentrated military offensive against them by the newly independent Philippine government (and their American overlords) and government incentives to give up armed struggle—the carrot and the stick. Eventually, the PKP-1930 was enticed to give up armed struggle, even to the point where they supported the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos Sr., and quite a number of their mass base was co-opted by becoming settlers in the new frontier in Cotabato in Mindanao.

 

Yet the hydra aspect of the CPP-NPA-NDF and the broader tendency of National Democracy is not something to be discounted. Like a hydra with multiple autonomous heads, National Democracy in both its underground and above ground aspects have proven to be very able organizers. The Marcos dictatorship saw innumerable guerrilla fronts open across the archipelago alongside urban mobilizations. A centralized coordination of mobilization of this caliber and character is quite literally impossible and requires a high level of initiative and autonomy from the rank-and-file. Indeed, I have seen and met with youth who identify with National Democracy and I have seen that they are often self-directed in their militancy, sometimes even independent from the formal mass organizations, or even opposed to cadre leadership (this is in the case of the issue with sexual harassment).

 

But we cannot discount the dragon aspect of the CPP. Despite the high level of autonomy in the Party, intrigue and plots in the Central Committee prevented a Second Party Congress from convening directly after the fall of the dictatorship. Anonymous authors speak of “authoritarian tendencies” in the Party, and whole Party organs declared autonomy from the Central Committee, specifically putting the blame squarely on Armando Liwanag (the recently deceased Jose Maria “Joma” Sison).33 Instead of a Second Party Congress, dissident factions of the Party fed up with the authoritarianism of Liwanag simply split from the CPP to form new groups in what is called the Reaffirmist–Rejectionist Schism. This schism, combined with disastrous mass torture and murder of hundreds, if not a few thousand, committed communists during various purges destroyed the gains of the National Democratic revolution.34 In this sense, the dragon aspect of the CPP resulted in a disastrous demobilization and fragmentation. To this day, the CPP has not recovered the heights of its mobilization reached since the ending of the dictatorship.

 

Today, the CPP and National Democracy remains an impressive force, to be sure. The autonomy of action in above ground National Democratic groups are still indicative of a living hydra, but its dragon aspect still has the ability to harm their own movement.

 

Post-Maoism and Dividing the Dragon

There’s a certain tendency in the North American left to talk about the New People’s Army as the “good Maoists” on par with the Zapatistas. This is in part by a very effective publicity campaign by the US-based kasamas (or what National Democrats are called in the United States). I would not go as far to say that I support the CPP-NPA-NDF. I agree that the creation of red zones of autonomy are good, but I still reject the theory of National Democracy, their carcerality,35 their bloody record in internal purge massacres, their assassinations of leftists,36 and their shameful opportunist support for the fascist Rodrigo Duterte out of some false promises.

 

With that said, what the CPP-NPA-NDF does in terms of building autonomy in red areas—rebel peripheries—isn’t exactly wrong. The purpose of their construction in their intent is “National Democracy,” the protracted people’s war, the capture or creation of state power, and the formation of a Party-State apparatus. While this intention is disagreeable to anarchists, the praxis of building organs of autonomy isn’t wrong, and in fact, is to be celebrated.

 

“Insurrectionary libertarian post-Maoism” was a half-serious inside joke in our milieu that referred to the idea that the Maoist insurrection in the Philippines was essentially something to celebrate, but that anarchists in the Philippines needed to build on the revolutionary tradition and transcend Maoism on libertarian terms due to the anarchist disagreements on States. While great for shitposting, the idea is not disagreeable, especially when it comes to the autonomous and self-directed aspects of the communist insurgency today. Indigenization of ideas is a natural yet integral part of revolutionary politics anywhere. In the Philippines, it will necessarily mean also recontextualizing and indigenizing anarchism within the history of desertion, remontar and mamundok, including that of the communist insurgency. Post-Maoism in the Philippines means learning from the experience of the National Democracy and situating our own anarchism within the context of the revolutionary and rebel history of the Philippines. We can reject many of the theories and practices of the CPP and National Democracy—Stalinism as an organizational form, the use of violent purges and assassinations to control the left, class collaborationism as with Duterte—but we can also affirm what they did right: deserting the State, attacking it, and creating spaces for autonomy in rebel peripheries.

 

Another aspect of taking insurrectionary libertarian post-Maoism seriously would be on critiquing its dragon aspect and fully committing to a hydra organizational form. Maoism has always had this tension between top-down centralization and bottom-up organizing, or a tension between the hybridization of its dragon and hydra aspects. In his essay, Shoatz’s example of the failures of dragon-type of organizing was revolutionary Haiti where the dragon-type forces of Toussaint L’Ouverture and his successors would betray their mass base time and time again like reimposing the plantation system:

 

Thus, we can clearly see how Haiti’s dragon forces played a very ambivalent role in the rebel fight for independence: They started out as tenacious and brilliant fighters against all of the European imperial and colonial elements, and the traitors amongst the Mulatto’s, who were all but bent on keeping the enslaved Africans underfoot. During the course of the revolutionary struggle, they all opportunistically switched to the French imperialist’s side, and went on to attempt to drown the still revolutionary masses and their decentralized group in blood; hoping that way the French would allow them to serve as a new elite class of African policemen against a re-enslaved African worker’s class.

 

Failing to suppress the rebels, the dragon forces rejoined the hydra elements and lent their weigh to totally defeating the French, only to once again turn against the revolutionary masses by establishing themselves as a dictatorial and exploitative African elite.37

 

Outside the Black radical tradition, we can see too many of such examples, even if we avoid the obvious example with Joseph Stalin, the supposed wrecker of Lenin’s legacy, so let’s start with Nikita Khrushchev. Maoists are famously anti-revisionist, meaning they uphold the contributions of Stalin. They are anti-revisionist because they opposed the perceived revisions by Khrushchev who succeeded Stalin as paramount leader. But Stalin was the one who concentrated so much dragon power into his position. Khrushchev simply took over the dragon’s head and led the dragon. Stalin, and by extension, Stalinism, had allowed power to be structured in such a way that a “great betrayer” could simply take its place.

 

Thomas Sankara, another darling of the left, also tells us a lot of the dangers of the dragon. Unlike Toussaint L’Ouverture and his successors, we cannot perhaps fault Sankara for being a betrayer. His greatest “sin” is perhaps because he was assassinated and his project fallen apart—supposedly not a fault of his own—but this is crucial. Sankara’s revolution in Burkina Faso was largely top-down and State-led. Without the dragon’s head to protect the gains of his revolution, it simply fell apart. Had Sankara’s revolution seriously made an effort of promoting the revolutionary self-activity of the Burkinabè working class and creating a true monster of a hydra, his assassination would not have led to such an easily-won counterrevolution.

 

But perhaps let us look at a Marxist who did create a true monster of a hydra: Mao Zedong himself. The Cultural Revolution in China, initiated by Mao himself, was truly an unprecedented and unsurpassed marvel of social movement mobilization: so many untold millions were mobilized that the world has never seen a scale of mass mobilization as in China ever before or ever since. Many of those mobilized could not have been commanded to by above and really did practice a level of self-directed militancy. Yet as Wu Yiching shows in his The Cultural Revolution at the Margins, the Party-State acted as a demobilizer, jailer, and executioner of many Chinese communists.38 Yu Luoke wrote and organized against bloodline theory that tried to formalize the creation of a privileged caste, but he was executed for it. Conservative red guards would win over radical red guards because the conservative red guards were the scions of the bureaucrats in the Party-State. The working class alliance Sheng-wu-lien organized against a reemergence of a “red capitalist class,” argued for a “People’s Commune of China” and agitated for the fullest conclusion of the Cultural Revolution.39 For these sins, they were ruthlessly repressed by Mao and the Party-State. Innumerable other Cultural Revolutionary forces were co-opted and then integrated into the Party-State, their political lines moderating until they could be safely assimilated. And so the Cultural Revolution was demobilized. Though he initiated the Cultural Revolution, Mao “is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells”40 and rushed to crush or co-opt the very powers he unleashed. The last hurrah of the Cultural Revolution, in 1989 after Mao’s death and the rise of Deng Xiaoping, saw the communist youth who grew up in the Cultural Revolution march to protect their gains at Tiananmen Square and across China in the June 4th movement. We all know how that ended—a nominally “communist” government slaughtering workers and well-convinced communists,41 their dragon no longer under their control. As Wu argued, the demobilization of the Cultural Revolution by the Party-State led to the post-socialist transition in China. “It is right to rebel,” but only within the allowances of the Party-State. The dragon may have unleashed a hydra, but it re-leashed some of its heads and killed others until the dragon’s head was taken over by yet another great betrayer in Deng Xiaoping and his “capitalist roader” successors. Long declared illegal by the heirs of Deng, the hydra of the Cultural Revolution is still alive, struggling against the Party-State and capitalism with Chinese characteristics, alive in the name of, in spite of, and not because of, Mao.

 

Dragons, then, are alluring and appealing. But even on communist terms, they are dangerous beasts that bring about “revisionism” and the victory of “capitalist roaders.” Others, including Shoatz himself, suggest that a “revolutionary dragon” is still necessary to “consciously disarm and disperse the reactionary dragon,” but that this revolutionary dragon must be kept in “a cage” where it “cannot escape” with the keys in the hands of the hydra, where the hydra brings out the revolutionary dragon only when it is needed and kept in its cage otherwise.42 But what does keeping the dragon in the hydra’s cage and leash even mean? Shoatz’s concession that hydras cannot defeat dragons and need their own dragon to protect them offers little solutions other than vague analogies to prevent the revolutionary dragon from betraying and decimating our hydra. Ultimately, Maoism, and by extension much of Marxism, has no answer to how to prevent a great betrayer from taking over the dragon’s head beyond some sophistry about the mass line, two-line struggle, and launching cultural revolutions or great rectifications.

 

Indeed, we’ve all been here before. Two-line struggle failed to remove “revisionists” and “capitalist-roaders” in the Maobadi movement in Nepal to the point where official Maobadis in government broke strikes and struck deals with multinationals.43 Even in the Philippines, there was fierce two-line struggle in the CPP around fifteen years ago which some have framed as a “Sison–Tiamzon” conflict where Party rank-and-file, apparently self-directed, criticized the upper cadre for class collaboration with the Manny Villar candidacy for president (of which Bongbong Marcos was part of alongside National Democracy!).44 Clearly these lower cadre failed in their two-line struggle and would probably have decried and protested the CPP fawning over Duterte six years later. No, not even two-line struggle in the Cultural Revolution succeeded. Dragons are just that dangerous and can only tolerate hydras at their pleasure.

 

Neither can purges be a necessary nor sufficient solution for preventing the capture of the dragon’s head. The Soviets, Chinese, and Vietnamese purged and purged and purged, but all three saw the restoration of capitalism in the end. The purges in the CPP were even more meaningless as the only result was self-inflicted decimation and demobilization. As we have seen, opportunists and capitalist-roaders survive purges all the time, often able to find refuge in the Party hierarchy.

 

However, do not mistake this as an argument for doing nothing at all.45 I agree with Bookchin’s critique of the failure of the CNT in the Spanish revolution to establish their political power.46 The CNT were given a choice to consolidate their political power, but dogmatically refused to do so out of some naïve belief that it was anti-anarchist. Would not have excluding the statist forces and safeguarding the self-directed militancy of the proletariat been a revolutionary anarchist act? This could have been the unleashing of the hydra and the protection of the hydra from both the Republican and fascist dragons, but after all, hindsight is twenty-twenty.

 

Post-Maoism will mean learning from the dragon and dividing it, thus transcending the Maoist experience. This post-Maoism will necessarily bring into the front the valiant self-directed militancy as in the Cultural Revolution. Post-Maoism will mean necessarily sublating the lessons that are effectively useful for new generations.

 

Rebel Peripheries Today

What is the theoretical and praxeological value of rebel peripheries today? What would it take to think of rebel peripheries as more than a means to an end? As Ursula K. Le Guin once wrote in The Lathe of Heaven: “The end justifies the means. But what if there never is an end? All we have is means.”47 Contrary to the overly enthusiastic online leftists, the Philippines is not at the precipice of communist revolution today. State control is arguably stronger today than it was under the Marcos dictatorship due to highly effective soft power—which has proven to be stronger than mere coercion. Unlike in the Marcos dictatorship which sought to undermine networks of political patronage and political dynasties in favor of strongman (dragon) rule, the current State under the son of the dictator, Bongbong Marcos, co-opts the networks of political patronage and political dynasties. Even the State can be a hydra today. This means a sober reading shows that the ends of communist State power or even National Democracy is not near in sight. “All we have are means”; what we have right now are the rebel peripheries.

 

Anarchists, of course, refuse to make a virtue out of necessity, in this case the rebel peripheries. In a classic example, Czarist Russia necessitated a militarized underground and highly centralized party. Though these material conditions under the Czar were not a universal reality, necessity was made into a virtue and militarized centralism was deemed a virtue for communist parties after the Bolshevization of the Comintern. Even anarchists have done non-anarchist things out of necessity like joining the Republican government and even setting up concentration camps during the Spanish Revolution. Today anarchists reject the virtue of these necessities. Though anarchists are not always right: in a bit unfortunate example today, some anarchists make a virtue out of necessity in joining the Ukrainian military apparatus. It can certainly be framed as a necessity, but it is neither anarchist nor a virtue.

 

In the same way, rebel peripheries can sometimes be seen as making a virtue out of necessity. As I have argued here, it is indeed virtuous to desert and attack the State. But we cannot be satisfied with rebel peripheries; we want the whole world. As James Connolly says: “For our demands most moderate are, / We only want the earth.”48 Rebel peripheries should be seen as making the best use of necessity, but not converting it to a virtue in-of-itself. The CPP and National Democracy is self-aware of this problem. The ongoing Third Rectification movement within National Democracy attests to the idea that they cannot and should not be satisfied with doing underground mass work and being “roving rebel bands”;49 they want the “strategic stalemate in the people’s war” and State power.

 

But why has the CPP failed to move past the rebel peripheries? I suspect that the NPA is unable to move past the peripheries is precisely because of the freeholding class interest of peasants in the peripheries. By freeholding, peasants want to maintain their petty property and independence rather than wanting to overthrow capitalism. Peasants in the periphery want to be independent, and the NPA allows them to keep their independence from the State and from the big agribusinesses. There is no need for the peripheral peasants to move past this petty independence.

 

Since antiquity, States have historically been constructed on the backs of the peasantry. Elites like landed nobility build State power over compelling peasants into compliance—corvée, taxes, conscription, etc. What is unique about the Maoist project since Mao Zedong himself was that the peasants are centered as the agential motors of the new State, as partners in State-building and modernization. In previous eras the agential motors were landed nobility or the later bourgeoisie which saw peasants as subordinates. But again, peasants do not want to build States—they want to escape it and live free as freeholders. There is no “self-abolition of the peasantry” like there is with the proletariat. Peasants do not have an innate class interest for abolishing themselves. If they partake in State-building, it is because they are compelled to by authorities, or it allows them to continue to live independently such as through land reform that creates a class of a free peasantry.

 

Why the peasantry in China was a suitable base for revolution was because the communist bulwark in Yan’an is actually quite large, compared to the NPA rebel peripheries in the Philippines. With this considerable territory (and the relative independence the communists enjoyed due to the political instability of the Warlord Era), the Chinese communists were able to build a State apparatus and a regular army. With this State, the Chinese communists instituted land reform to win over the peasantry to their side in the Chinese civil war until the victory of the communists in the post-War period. In the Philippines, there is no such region where the shadow government of the CPP-NPA-NDF could operate openly and prepare to build a regular army. Nor do they undertake more ambitious land reform projects. So all they have are rebel peripheries.

 

If pericolonialism is the effects of and responses to colonialism from the periphery, we can also think of a “peristatism,” or the effects of and responses to the State from the peripheries, especially rebel peripheries. Just as the Ifugao were pressured to change their social, political, and economic life in response to colonialism on their borders, rebel peripheries likewise face a similar pressure to defend their autonomy. To think of it another way, we can think of the Soviet Union as sort of being in the periphery of world capitalism and imperialism (this is not totally correct, but bear with me here). In the Soviet Union, this resulted in developing support in the imperial-capitalist core to defend the Soviet periphery. Communist parties in the imperial core organized to defend the Soviet Union in the periphery and their own social conditions become secondary. The defense of the “socialist motherland” came first. In the same way, National Democracy’s rebel peripheries become the center of gravity of militancy in the Philippines today. As BISIG once noted,

 

…an organization with a major underground or armed component will eventually make this component its center of gravity. As a result, the logic of the organization’s actions will always follow the needs of the underground component. The above ground expression will only become an auxiliary to the first logic of the underground component.50

 

This is indeed the orientation of National Democracy today. Militarism and militarization makes the armed force the center of gravity. Some anarchists try to solve this through subordinating the armed actions to political struggles rather than other way around. This was the case with the armed struggle of the FAU in Uruguay.51 But for National Democracy, and many of the armed struggle groups across the world, “political power grows out the barrel of a gun” rather from self-directed militancy.

 

In another aspect, the romanticization of mamundok is also problematic. As Paul Mattick Sr. says quite eloquently:

 

Instead of finding their orientation in the actual social conditions and their possibilities, the new leftists base their concerns mainly on a set of ideologies that have no relevance to the requirements of social change in capitalist nations. They find their inspiration not in the developmental processes of their own society but in the heroes of popular revolution in faraway countries, thereby revealing that their enthusiasm is not as yet a real concern for decisive social change.52

 

As Mattick described about how leftists in the core countries are waylayed by romanticism of the third-world guerrilla, perhaps we can also say the same about those Filipino leftists living under the full dominion of the State and their relationship to the guerrillas in the distant peripheries of the same country. The conditions of social and revolutionary change are very different in the internal cores and peripheries of the same country. The focus of gravity is the protracted people’s war and the defense of the rebel peripheries instead of thinking hard about the questions of class struggle in the cities.

 

Indeed, peristatism encourages the center of gravity to be at the rebel peripheries, the red areas. The most militant Filipinos are encouraged to mamundok, to go up the mountain, and desert the state. This leaves the cities impoverished of militants. Those who remain chant “peace talks, ituloy!” (continue the peace talks!). Yes, but what if we want class war? Just as the Moscow-aligned communist parties called for no war with the USSR, National Democracy calls for peace with the CPP-NPA-NDF. To be clear, this isn’t an indictment of the peace process. Realistically, the peace process can be used to push reforms in alignment with the National Democratic agenda and defend the autonomy of rebel peripheries. It is just that the push for the peace process saw the old communist party—the PKP-1930—become best buddies with the dictator Marcos Sr. and then sometime later, Duterte’s presidential campaign for a peace process resulted in disastrous opportunism from National Democracy in exchange for false promises of peace talks.

 

The peristatism of the rebel peripheries have another effect in an unexpected way. In the past two decades, we have seen an uncountable number of urban insurrections across the world: the Arab Spring, Occupy, the squares movement, Yellow Vests, the George Floyd uprisings, and many others. Yet the Philippines has not seen an urban insurrection of a similar caliber precisely because the most militant elements leave the city for mamundok. Indeed, when urban insurrections did happen in the Philippines, as in the 1986 People Power Revolution (also called EDSA Uno), and again in 2001 EDSA Dos and the failed EDSA Tres, rebel peripheries played a very small part. (To their credit, while their rebel peripheries played a small part, National Democracy in the urban centers did participate in EDSA Uno and Dos.) The CPP-NPA-NDF essentially allowed the liberal oligarchic opposition to take lead in EDSA Uno, leaving the left out in the cold as the oligarchy and the political dynasties was reinstated, leaving the working classes without leadership.

 

Peristatism also lives in isolation, and isolation often coincides with poverty. It is not necessarily that peristatism causes poverty, but that they coincide together. Indeed, the anarchy of the peripheries is anarchic precisely because these peripheries lack integration with the State and the world-capitalist system, leading to underdevelopment. It is not a coincidence that impoverished peripheries become rebel peripheries. It is said that in Bicol, “where the road ends, insurgency begins.”53 The Soviet Union and other so-called socialist states were isolated, and while we cannot discount impressive gains in human development, we cannot discount their separation from the vast interconnectedness of Western capitalism. Or perhaps that it is that they were never really well-connected to Western capitalism to begin with that they were able to wage revolution. In any case, rebel peripheries today are beset with economic isolation, even if there are some with impressive human development. Revolutionary projects like the Zapatistas and Rojavans alike may have impressive models of politics and social work, but remain economically isolated and underdeveloped. Maoist rebel peripheries in the Philippines are likewise quite impoverished. While we can sometimes hear of red areas controlled by the NPA that have impressive development due to rich protection rackets, these are more the exceptions that prove the rule.

 

So what? Are rebel peripheries and desertion useful or not? And if rebel peripheries cannot be discounted, what then ought their role be today? And what place do rebel peripheries and desertion have in the social revolution today? We start with some basic facts:

 

  1. Rebel peripheries are still sites of autonomy and bases by which to assault the State.
  2. Hydra-type organizational forms are more resilient to State power than dragon-types.
  3. Rebel peripheries push the center of gravity of a movement towards themselves.
  4. Islands of rebel peripheries are not enough if we want the whole world.
  5. Rebel peripheries are mired in the peristatist problem of isolation, a rare revolutionary island in a counterrevolutionary sea.

As an oft-repeated line in Oppenheimer (2023) says, “theory will take you only so far.”54 The fact of the matter is that revolutionaries have never solved the problem of revolutionary isolation. Even if the CPP-NPA-NDF wins State power tomorrow, they would just have an isolation problem the size of a nation-state, akin to Cuba, Venezuela, or Bolivia. State power fundamentally cannot solve the problem of revolutionary isolation. There are, of course, proposals to solve the problem of revolutionary isolation, a notable creative solution I think is Peter Kropotkin’s The Conquest of Bread (which dealt with the revolutionary isolation of a region the size of Paris and its environs that feeds itself and also reduces working hours),55 but none that have ever been proven to work.

 

Of course, there are some anarchists who don’t have a problem with the problem of isolation in peristatism and rebel peripheries. Desert, for example, revels in the freedom new rebel peripheries offers them in a time of climate crisis.56 But again, we want the whole world.

 

Unpacking Rebel Peripheries

The fact of the matter is that marronage and remontar as modes of struggle as the enslaved or colonized did it was shaped by the limitations of the technologies of power at the time. The colonial and slavocratic States of previous eras could only exercise State power in certain “developed” areas where plantations and taxable economic activity could take place, and therefore where powers of policing and slavery can operate. With desertion, people could simply leave these zones of development and civilization for where the mountain air makes one free. In corners of the world today where rebel peripheries persist, as in the Philippines, India, Mexico, and Algeria, the State is not sophisticated enough to exert complete police powers over its claimed territory. In such places, rebel peripheries remain quite viable modes of struggle.

 

But beyond literally deserting the State and start rebel peripheries in the mountains, can we rethink desertion for the Twenty-First Century? Or rather, if we unpack the concept of rebel peripheries to deserting the State and capital, building community autonomy, and organizing like a hydra, what would that look like? And what would it look like if we specifically want the whole world?

 

I am reminded that Peter Kropotkin, in several media, explained his opposition to a tendency to start isolated communal experiments, something similar to the desertion and community autonomy with rebel peripheries.57 He asked a leading question: “What would become of the European revolutionary movement if most women and men of strong individuality—most of those ready to rebel—went to settle in distant lands, trying to make colonies there?” The answer was simple enough: it would cause a drain in militancy; not to mention the creation of settler relations elsewhere. In the first communist rebellion, the very same people who took up arms against the Japanese and then the post-independence State became willing settlers in Cotabato, tying them to State-making in the region. In the current communist rebellion, the highest stage of class struggle is to mamundok—leaving the city for the guerrilla war. The first case is counterrevolutionary, and the second is revolutionary, but they have a similar effect: divesting the State-administered “white areas” of militancy.

 

Kropotkin’s solution to this is quite straightforward actually: instead of divesting revolutionary energies to communal experiments in the peripheries, just set these up precisely near the urban: “Well, the best spot for it is near London or near Paris!,” he says. Perhaps this is the revenge of Murray Bookchin: that there really is something about the city air that makes one free, that there is something qualitatively unique about the urban that allows for specific forms of collective action and class struggle that overcomes the isolation of the periphery.

 

But is it possible for urban struggles to desert the State and capital? After all, the very same urban force that concentrates populations also allows for the concentration of State powers of administration and policing. Sure, even in the urban there were areas where State power cannot coalesce and govern. One thinks of the Kowloon Walled City in Hong Kong or Free Derry in Ireland. These “urban peripheries” (and even a rebel periphery with Free Derry) can certainly prove that the urban can be sites of desertion and autonomy, but even the very fact of their statelessness only reaffirms the power of the State in the core governed areas. In hoc, ego regam—in this I will rule, to hell with over there!

 

But then again, urban peripheries usually emerges in specific or extreme circumstances. The Kowloon Walled City carved out its autonomy in the context of an inter-State jurisdictional dispute; Free Derry carved out its autonomy under conditions of civil war. Unlike rebel peripheries in the mountains which can defend their autonomy almost indefinitely by virtue of the anarchy of the peripheries and the distance from State power, urban peripheries can be reconquered by the State sooner or later. Then again, the State cannot suffer challenges to power so close to its center of power.

 

Perhaps instead of thinking of building community autonomy in terms of desertion, we ought think of it in terms of organized abandonment. Historically speaking, the State usurped the various functions of society in order to engender dependence from society onto the State.58 States historically used their terrorism to destroy the organizations and mutual aid associations of the working class.59 The State then legitimizes the functions it usurps and delegitimizes functions that it does not license. In the contemporary Philippines, this was most clear when the most able and learned health workers and leaders could not simply self-organize a sane pandemic response to COVID-19 simply because the State chose to legitimize a highly militarized mode of pandemic management under its own power. However, there are some populations where the State chooses not to provide various societal functions to, in essence abandoning them.

 

Again, the Black radical tradition and Black anarchic radicalism is central here, precisely because their radical tradition is one formed by the very premise of exclusion and organized abandonment by the State. As William C. Anderson and Zoé Samudzi summarizes as the “anarchism of Blackness,”

 

While bound to the laws of the land, Black America can be understood as an extra-state entity because of Black exclusion from the liberal social contract. Due to this extra-state location, Blackness is, in so many ways, anarchistic. African-Americans, as an ethno-social identity comprised of descendants from enslaved Africans, have innovated new cultures and social organizations much like anarchism would require us to do outside of state structures.60

 

And true enough, it is through challenging this organized abandonment by the State that Black communities form something akin to a “marronage-in-place.”61 Like the anarchic peripheries of the State, populations abandoned by the State largely live without the societal functions the State provides. Marronage-in-place replies to organized abandonment with desertion-in-place, through the creation of communities of care in defiance of abandonment. This is indeed what the Quilombo in West Oakland California did for a number of years with a social space.62

 

But organized abandonment by the State is different from desertion from the State in one crucial way: policing. Populations like Black America get none or few of the State services but all of its police and carceral violence. In previous modes of struggle, we have seen the Black Panther Party take over neighborhoods abandoned by the State and provide social functions of care. The Black Panthers were most dangerous not when they were shooting cops, but when they were providing social functions of care that the State refused to provide, hence why the State worked industriously to provoke armed confrontations with the Black Panthers over just doing the societal functions it usurped to begin with. In this sense, communities of care in defiance of abandonment was more dangerous than armed struggle.

 

As it happens, the Black Panthers declined precisely because it doubled down on its dragon-type organizing and even turning into internal authoritarianism and violence.63 Rather than facing a great betrayer, the internal authoritarianism simply drove people away and demobilized their movement. Shoatz’s rumination on marronage, dragons, and hydras—and indeed many other Black anarchic radicals—are precisely placed within the context of the failure of the Black Panthers’ organizational form.

 

The crucial difference in the sophistication of police carceral power and the experience of the Black Panther Party and successors like the Black Liberation Army informs what is perhaps the most significant project for Black autonomy today: Cooperation Jackson. Cooperation Jackson is a network of worker cooperatives and community institutions in Jackson, Mississippi that aims to build economic democracy and community power in communities that have historically been abandoned by the State.

 

In building community autonomy in the urban, Cooperation Jackson essentially satisfies Kropotkin’s concern against militancy drainage. In working with communities and populations abandoned by the State, they also operate in conditions similar to desertion and living in peripheries, albeit with all the amplitude the urban provides. That armed struggle is not central to their project, they are not a priority target for repression. And with committing to economic democracy, they commit to a hydra-type organization over a dragon-type (as they are a network of cooperatives and institutions), thereby avoiding the problems and issues faced with heads of the dragon, whether that be betrayal or incompetence.

 

In essence, what I am suggesting is that organizing for autonomous communities of care among abandoned populations could constitute a way to think about building autonomous projects in the Twenty-First Century. This is the beginning of a “mamundok-in-place,” something similar to the Black Panther Party, albeit instead of a Maoist dragon-type of organization, it would need to be a post-Maoist hydra-type of organization to effectively resist co-option, assassination, or isolation and pursue self-directed militancy.

 

This is not without issues. Autonomous projects in the city are still subject to policing and law. They would still be pressured by the logic of value and the need to make and rely on money. This has its own risks where cooperatives become sites of workers becoming their own harsh bosses. Furthermore, there is still a need to defend against the State and its law. However, the contours of this “mamundok-in-place” still need to be mapped. Part of this mapping requires an understanding of organized abandonment and its relation to armed struggle.

 

What is Being Subverted?

It is an oft-repeated line within National Democracy that armed struggle has its roots in organized abandonment by the State. The way it is framed is that the failure of reform and legal struggle alongside organized abandonment—poverty, landlessness, imperialism—feeds into people joining the armed struggle in the periphery.

 

Under different conditions in Black America, the failure of Black reform and legal struggle led to the creation of the Black Panthers Party, the demise of which led to the armed struggle of the Black Liberation Army. In the same way, the CPP argues that armed struggle becomes the primary choice.

 

Armed struggle, however, is not an inevitability from organized abandonment. Armed struggle is a deliberate choice through organizational agency won through initiative and organizing. The CPP consciously decided upon armed struggle based on emulating the Chinese model of armed struggle combined with historically-specific repression under the Marcos dictatorship. After the demise of the dictatorship, the Second Great Rectification reaffirmed the dogma of armed struggle despite the changing material conditions. However, it is clear that we are no longer under conditions of dictatorship. Even the CPP acknowledges that armed struggle is not the only way to pursue National Democracy. Yet armed struggle is still valorized as the highest form of class struggle.

 

The question then becomes: Is armed struggle the correct reaction to organized abandonment? Does it address organized abandonment in a necessary and sufficient way?

 

Paradoxically, armed struggle with the NPA reinforces organized abandonment. The presence of a people’s army makes a State less willing to enforce its rule of law and associated State welfare in a periphery. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as this abandonment is then coupled with a level of autonomy of an area from the State, which in turn reinforces its status as a rebel periphery. Indeed, this is best exemplified by the Zapatistas who have a more contagious and well-known political system. (Compared to the Zapatistas, and even others like the Maobadi of Nepal, the CPP-NPA-NDF are highly secretive of their underground government and there is not much scholarship is done on it.) But even with the Zapatistas, we see how the Mexican State simply abandons the whole of Zapatista Chiapas, and other rebel peripheries in Mexico like Cherán, and reinforcing the isolation these rebel peripheries experience.

 

But then again, in Mexico and the Philippines, armed struggle forces a localized crisis of dual power within a periphery—where the local state apparatus competes with the authority of the revolutionary movement. Unlike the so-called dual power projects in urban environments put forward by anarchists and libertarian socialists, the situation in rebel peripheries are closer to true dual power situations in that State power really does have to compete with revolutionary power. Legitimacy really is in competition in the rebel peripheries.

 

But we cannot speak of generalities. The conditions in Chiapas are different from the conditions in Cotabato. Armed struggle might be necessary and sufficient in Chiapas, but is it so in Cotabato?

 

Unlike the Zapatistas, the Philippine State and the CPP-NPA-NDF seem to be two sides of a single yet bipolar stable system—two sides of the same coin, so to speak. The underground government is the Philippine government’s shadow, just as the NPA is the shadow of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. Over more than fifty years of armed struggle, this system has cohered. The cities and the near-rural belongs to the Philippine government. But the forests, the mountains, the peripheries, and the many abandoned belong to the great underground. As Landauer reminds us, “the State is a social relationship.”64 This bipolar system is only made possible because the social relations of the State are brought to the peripheries where Maoist insurgents cohered their own shadow State power. Indeed, the stability of this bipolar system is still unified by the regime of proletarianization, work, alienation, and hierarchy.

 

I often return to Gilles Dauvé’s “When Insurrection Dies.” To quote at length:

 

Power does not come any more from the barrel of a gun than it comes from a ballot box. No revolution is peaceful, but its “military” dimension is never central. The question is not whether the proles finally decide to break into the armouries, but whether they unleash what they are: commodified beings who no longer can and no longer want to exist as commodities, and whose revolt explodes capitalist logic. Barricades and machine guns flow from this “weapon”. The greater the change in social life, the less guns will be needed, and the less casualties there will be. A communist revolution will never resemble a slaughter: not from any nonviolent principle, but because revolution subverts more (soldiers included) than it actually destroys.

 

To imagine a proletarian front facing off a bourgeois front is to conceive the proletariat in bourgeois terms, on the model of a political revolution or a war (seizing someone’s power, occupying their territory). In so doing, one reintroduces everything that the insurrectionary movement had overwhelmed: hierarchy, a respect for specialists, for knowledge that Knows, and for techniques to solve problems — in short for everything that plays down the role of the common man.65

 

Here, Dauvé challenges to think of armed struggle as something necessary and sufficient. Revolution, in this sense, is not necessarily the taking up of arms (though it can and often does), but rather subversion. The political power of the proletarianized do not come from the barrels of guns or in ballot boxes, but in subverting their class condition of proletarianization—the self-abolition of the proletariat. For the CPP, to be “proletarianized” is to accept the Party program and join the armed struggle. But proletarianization is the very imposition of abandonment, alienation, and the proletarian condition to our bodies by capitalist society. Bourgeois class power is constituted for class rule, while proletarian class power is constituted for the abolition of all classes. Those who talk of proletarian class power without any perspective on self-abolition have a corpse in their mouth.

 

In this sense, perhaps carving out rebel peripheries can and will have a role in subverting proletarianization as spaces of autonomy. The lines of desertion towards rebel peripheries could potentially act as a revolutionary underground railroad by which the proletarianized can escape to where the mountain air makes one free.

 

But armed struggle is itself insufficient. “The force of an insurrection is social, not military,”66 as At Daggers Drawn reminds us. Communist parties that are launching people’s wars certainly claim and believe they are fighting for the whole world, but the fight for proletarian class power is not in the peripheries, it is in the belly of the beast where proletarianization is most cohered. The National Democratic revolution, for all intents and purposes, is not the unleashing of workers from their commodification and proletarianization. Indeed, the NPA even works with “enlightened landlords”67 and I have heard at least one account of the NPA breaking a peasants’ strike. The stabilized system dividing the Philippines between the State and the underground government has eclipsed the possibility of the subversion of social relations. As such, the NPA seem content to carry out social democracy out of the barrels of guns.

 

In this sense, what really matters more in terms of organized abandonment is not the armed struggle, but the subversion of organized abandonment through the autonomous communities of care, the undoing of the conditions imposed by the civilizational order. Armed struggle may still become necessary, but its necessity is rooted in support of subversion and the revolutionizing of social relations, not to merely enforce the creation of rebel peripheries. In a sense, the NPA at least recognizes the necessity of the communities of care—as previously mentioned, they also provide healthcare and pedagogy to the far-flung peripheries. But they crucially fall short of revolutionizing social relations out of a fear of “left-opportunism,” thus leaving land rent, proletarianization, and wage relations largely intact.

 

What this suggests is that mamundok-in-place is something that deserts the current order towards refugia and attacks it from the position of subversion. The contours of mamundok-in-place becomes clearer when we see what is not being subverted in the Philippines today, in terms of the regime of proletarianization, gender, work, alienation, abandonment, and hierarchy.

 

Mamundok-in-Place

To the guerrilla, the boondocks and mountains represent lines of desertion, refugia from fugitivity, and open rebellion. For the anarchist, the whole world is our mountain. To mamundok-in-place is to see mountains of possibility and its lines of desertion in our everyday social relations. Climbing those mountains means to bring autonomy and subversion in all facets of our lives. The virtual rebel peripheries we build is in the anarchy of the everyday. Ultimately, it is not a question of urban versus rural rebel peripheries, but the whole world. We cannot be satisfied with peripheries! We are tired of living in the margins and the peripheries of this world! We want the whole world!

 

Once upon a time, the facets of life we now see as world systems began as seeds of possibility. Money and commodities existed for thousands of years yet only generalized to conquer the whole world within only the last few hundred years. Likewise, it is similar for States. Indeed, even for States, there are still places within the world where State power has not yet cohered or territorialized completely. Some of these are indeed in the anarchy of the peripheries, but even in the urban heart of States, State power is not totalizing and there are refugia.68 Within these refugia are seeds of possibility for another world.

 

After all, anarchists have historically not made use of the anarchy of the peripheries. Rather, anarchists more often nurture seeds of possibility in place. In the revolutions in Ukraine, Spain, Germany, Russia, in the anarchist armed struggle in Uruguay, the insurrectionary attacks in the contemporary Mediterranean, and as part of the united front in Rojava, anarchists have not taken advantage of the anarchy of the peripheries.69 There are many reasons as to why this is so, but it will suffice for our purposes to point out that anarchists are more fond of the “anarchy-in-place” rather than the “over-there” of the anarchy of the peripheries. Anarchy is, after all, what we make of it.

 

These refugia, liberatory seeds, and anarchy-in-place are not merely the machismo of revolution and insurrection. To mamundok-in-place also means to nurture the social relations of care. Indeed, friendship and freedom come hand-in-hand. As the Comité Invisible says,

 

“Friend” and “free” in English, and “Freund” and “frei” in German come from the same Indo-European root, which conveys the idea of a shared power that grows. Being free and having ties was one and the same thing. I am free because I have ties, because I am linked to a reality greater than me. (Emphasis in the original.)70

 

Our friends, our comrades, our communities of care are also refugia. This too is anarchy. Without care, without accountability and community, there is no insurrection.71 There may be no refugia we may desert to without it. These are the social relationships we do differently that undoes the State, as Landauer understood it.72 Our mountains of refuge are also our relations of care and the communities we build now with each other. It is from the seeds of these liberatory social relations that we generalize to the whole world.

 

Indeed, this is one of the key crises in National Democracy. They are in crisis over persisting issues over sexual exploitation. None in the eight components for rectification was about addressing the issue of rape.73 Indeed, the Central Committee of the CPP instead decried “petty bourgeois gender radicalism” on the same page! This has only deepened the crisis of sexual exploitation within National Democracy. Instead, to mamundok-in-place is to make care a revolutionary act, to undo the social relationships of the State, hierarchy, and patriarchy.

 

Thus, the contours of mamundok-in-place become clearer when we connect it to the insurrectionary project of the self-abolition of the proletariat, which itself is connected to desertion of the world of work, cisheteropatriarchy, and hierarchy. This proletarian self-abolition then feeds into the subversion of organized abandonment and towards the refugia of care. The mountains we climb, the refugia we find, the seeds we nurture are the liberatory social relations of care we build. And it is only through the subversion of the hierarchical and domineering social relations and our nurturing of rival seedlings that that project can come about.

 

This mamundok-in-place is the sober analysis of our own material conditions and learning the means by which social change can occur where we are now, and create that anarchy-in-place within our own context. In doing so, we may reject the a priori notion of armed struggle at the peripheries as an end-in-of-itself. Of course, this does not discount linking up with rebel peripheries in the future, once such conditions presents itself.

 

When we talk of building autonomous projects for the Twenty-First Century, this cannot be separated from the insurrectionary break or its necessity, or the care that makes it necessary. Again, what is crucially different with abandonment from desertion is the locality of policing and State power. Mamundok-in-place would also mean abolitionist steps towards the delimitation of the carceral functions of the State and replacing these with our own communities of care. When the revolutionary moment comes where an insurrectionary break can be acted upon, the moment can only be made actionable by what we build before it together.

 

At Daggers Drawn makes a key insight, noting that one can talk of building as many community assemblies, cooperatives, and other autonomous organizations as they like, but without the insurrectionary break, “breaking social normality by force,”74 these projects will remain marginal. To mamundok-in-place will also need cognizance of this contradiction, that the virtual rebel peripheries we build, the refugia we nurture, remain as peripheries in tension with our desire of the whole world. Though as peripheries, they are as seeds of an insurrectionary moment, waiting to generalize to the whole world when the current order can no longer suffice for the means of living.

 

The contours of the insurrectionary moment are always shrouded in the possibility of the future and even of the present. But what is clarified is the historical record. This mamundok-in-place requires dividing the dragon and unleashing the hydra. It is the communities of care in the face of organized abandonment. It is through self-directed militancy, and not the waiting for leaders, that this anarchy-in-place can come about.

 

Because of their position in the stability of the bipolar system, the conditions for the CPP to take advantage of the insurrectionary break has passed. That moment was EDSA Uno, the People Power Revolution. There, key moments for the insurrectionary break were ignored by all factions of the left. The workers looked to leadership and found only the misleadership of the left. This all the while the military rebels, the caciques, and the oligarchs mobilized towards their restoration.

 

A future insurrectionary break would perhaps be a moment where social relations of domination become untenable for reproducing our daily life. The social force of an insurrection has always been social, not military, and subversion will matter more than arms. Such a social force may perhaps look like the Cultural Revolution, albeit done right and directed against the world of domination. There was true self-directed militancy in the Cultural Revolution which saw the unleashing of the hydra of the people in all of its force. However, some of the various heads of the hydra opted to bite each other. Some heads were groomed by the Party-State against more revolutionary heads. The directions of the militancy was made obscure by many heads looking to misleaderships for direction. Those who were self-directed were ultimately betrayed by their Party-State. Insurrectionary libertarian post-Maoism would mean fulfilling the anarchic conclusions put forward by the Cultural Revolution.

 

But the point here is not the rejection of leadership outright, but the rejection of would-be leaders in search of followers. Dangerous are those who seek leadership for followers, for they are those who will lead astray. Such is the nature of hierarchy and dragons. Rather, the leadership of proletarians-in-abolition is collectively held through the hydra of self-directed militancy grounded in communities of care.

 

It is said that in the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. But the country of the blind is a place where sight is not needed to live and prosper. The country of the blind has no need for the one-eyed man because they can see in ways he is alien to.75 We are all living in that country of the blind, and there are one-eyed men all over who would say their sight privileges them to lead. This sight, whether theoretical-programmatic clarity or a self-declared vanguard, does not privilege anyone to lead. Sight is rather a responsibility, a way wherein we can build militancy over membership, a methodology of empowering. The point is not to lead the blind, but the add of the perspective of sight to their repertoire.

 

This is not to say that organization in the present moment is worthless—far from it; it will have its place. The organizations we build in defiance of abandonment can also be refugia, as virtual rebel peripheries. Mamundok-in-place necessarily builds towards the insurrectionary moment, towards the self-abolition of the proletariat, utilizing the refugia, nurturing the liberatory seeds, building the communities of care, developing lines of desertion, dividing the dragon, building the power of hydras, self-directed militancy and all. These things matter for what comes ahead.

 

There are refugia even in our daily life and the social relations we inhabit. From these refugia, we can win the whole world. To mamundok-in-place is to recognize the whole world is our mountain.

 

Author’s Note

This essay has been the product of a year of thinking, writing, and re-writing. Throughout this essay, I am deeply indebted to the Black radical tradition, particularly to Black anarchism and the Black anarchic radicals. I bring Black study in dialogue with the revolutionary traditions in the Philippines. I am also indebted to the many readers and commentators who read this manuscript and provided comments over the past year. I have noted in many places where I am indebted to specific comments.

 

But most of all, I am indebted to my comrades and friends. No piece of political theory is developed in isolation, and indeed, all writing is autobiographical, especially political theory. My comrade Butingtaon half-ironically identified with “insurrectionary libertarian post-Maoism.” Another, Warden Unit, offhandedly mentioned that what the NPA were doing in building autonomy is what we also want, but we just reject their ends of a State. Many in our affinity group stresses the centrality of care and consent. The beginnings of this zine was first conceptualized in dialogue with comrades at Partido Sosyalista. Whatever the deficiencies of the Comité Invisible, they wrote powerfully in To Our Friends, “I am free because I have ties, because I am linked to a reality greater than me.” Such are the contours of mamundok-in-place.

 

Pag-ibig at Galit, Love and Rage!

 

~Someone with the spurious nom de guerre “Simoun Magsalin”

 

NOTES

  1. Simoun Magsalin, “The Libertarian Elements in the Philippine Archipelago,” Anarchist Studies, October 2020, https://anarchiststudies.noblogs.org/article-the-libertarian-elements-in-the-philippine-archipelago/.

 

  1. This coinage was made possible with dialogue with Ruth Kinna.

 

  1. Thank you to Herbert Docena for calling attention to the need to discuss this.

 

  1. Gustav Landauer, “Weak Statesmen, Weaker People!” (The Anarchist Library, February 2017), https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/gustav-landauer-weak-statesmen-weaker-people.

 

  1. James C. Scott, Two Cheers for Anarchism: Six Easy Pieces on Autonomy, Dignity, and Meaningful Work and Play, Fourth printing, (Princeton Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2014), xx-xxi.

 

  1. James C. Scott, The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia, Yale Agrarian Studies Series (New Haven London: Yale University Press, 2009).

 

  1. I thank Mooncake for this excellent phrasing and necessary correction. Kim from Dylan’s class also raised this excellent point of correction.

 

  1. Thank you Hudda for this comment from my initial presentation at Dylan Rodríguez’s class.

 

  1. C. L. R. James, The Black Jacobins: Toussaint L’Ouverture and the San Domingo Revolution, 2. ed., rev (New York: Vintage Books, a Division of Random House, Inc, 1989).

 

  1. Johnhenry Gonzalez, Maroon Nation: A History of Revolutionary Haiti, Yale Agrarian Studies (New Haven (Conn.): Yale University Press, 2019).

 

  1. Russell Maroon Shoatz, “The Dragon and the Hydra: A Historical Study of Organizational Methods,” 4strugglemag, July 2010, https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/russell-maroon-shoats-the-dragon-and-the-hydra.

 

  1. James, The Black Jacobins.

 

  1. Shoatz, “The Dragon and the Hydra”.

 

  1. I thank Kenneth Cardenas for bringing attention to this.

 

  1. Stephen B. Acabado, “The Archaeology of Pericolonialism: Responses of the ‘Unconquered’ to Spanish Conquest and Colonialism in Ifugao, Philippines,” International Journal of Historical Archaeology 21, no. 1 (March 2017): 1–26, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10761-016-0342-9.

 

  1. Reynaldo Clemeña Ileto, Pasyon and Revolution: Popular Movements in the Philippines, 1840-1910, 3rd ed. (Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1989), 185–86.

 

  1. Frederic Henry Sawyer, The Inhabitants of the Philippines (New York; London: Charles Scribner’s Sons; Sampson Low, Marston and Company; Project Gutenburg, 1900), 29, 210, 296, 305, https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/38081/pg38081-images.html.

 

  1. Generoso Maceda, “The Remontados of Rizal Province,” Philippine Journal of Science 64, no. 3 (November 1937): 313–21, https://philjournalsci.dost.gov.ph/past-issues-1.

 

  1. E.g. Murray Bookchin, The Limits of the City, 2nd ed. (New York, Evanston, San Francisco, London: Harper & Row, 1974).

 

  1. Maceda, “The Remontados of Rizal Province,” 315. Maceda here uses colonized language when he defines “police chief” and “members of police.” Maceda is likely a colonized creole who used concepts in his colonized society to refer to self-managed Indigenous ways of keeping people safe. I doubt these Remontado “police” were carceral like that of the colony’s police force, but rather just the people tasked and mandated to ensure the Remontado barrio’s safety, especially from creole landgrabbers.

 

  1. Personal corresopondence with Brian Tokar.

 

  1. Gregorio F. Zaide, Dagohoy: Champion of Filipino Freedom (Manila: Enriquez, Aldaya & Co., 1941), 11–18.

 

  1. Ileto, Pasyon and Revolution, 29–73.

 

  1. Ileto, ibid., 185–86.

 

  1. This guerrilla strategy never took place as the dictator Aguinaldo conspired against and eventually ordered the murder of General Luna.

 

  1. Ileto, Pasyon and Revolution, 163.

 

  1. Personal correspondence, former CPP cadre.

 

  1. Simoun Riple (Jose Maria Sison), Specific Characteristics of Our People’s War (Philippines: Communist Party of the Philippines, 2012), https://www.marxists.org/history/philippines/cpp/riple/1975/specific-characteristics.htm.

 

  1. Redfish, “Inside the New People’s Army,” Documentary, (Redfish, 2018); Nettie Wild, “A Rustling of Leaves: Inside the Philippine Revolution,” Documentary, (Kalasikas Productions, Chanel 4, 1988); Iliya Makalipay, “Have You Heard of the Revolutionary Movement’s Elections?” Liberation, March 2025, https://liberation.ndfp.info/main-stream/have-you-heard-of-the-revolutionary-movements-own-elections/.

 

  1. Kas Ned na Red, personal correspondence.

 

  1. Riple, Specific Characteristics of Our People’s War.

 

  1. Ang Bayan, “Alliance and Struggle Under the Duterte Regime,” Ang Bayan, June 2016, 1–2, https://philippinerevolution.nu/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/20160607en.pdf; Ang Bayan, “Gain Strength in an All-Round Way in Engaging the Duterte Regime,” Ang Bayan, July 2016, 1–2, https://www.bannedthought.net/Philippines/CPP/AngBayan/2016/20160707en.pdf; Joseph Scalice, “First as Tragedy, Second as Farce: Marcos, Duterte and the Communist Parties of the Philippines,” World Socialist Web Site, September 2020, https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/09/01/lect-s01.html.

 

  1. Ka Barry, “Resist Authoritarian Tendencies Within the Party! Let a Thousand Schools of Thought Contend! Comments on the Paper “Reaffirm Our Basic Principles and Rectify Errors” by Armando Liwanag,” Kasarinlan: Philippine Journal of Third World Studies 8, no. 1 (1992): 158–65, https://journals.upd.edu.ph/index.php/kasarinlan/article/view/303; Party Organizations in the Visayas and Manila-Rizal Regional Commission KRMR, “Declaration of Autonomy,” Kasarinlan: Philippine Journal of Third World Studies 9, no. 1 (1993), https://journals.upd.edu.ph/index.php/kasarinlan/article/view/1679.

 

  1. Walden Bello, “The Crisis of the Philippine Progressive Movement: A Preliminary Investigation,” Kasarinlan: Philippine Journal of Third World Studies 8, no. 1 (1992): 166–77, https://journals.upd.edu.ph/index.php/kasarinlan/article/view/304; Alex de Jong, “Hunting Specters: Paranoid Purges in the Filipino Communist Guerrilla Movement,” in Genocide, ed. Ügür Ümit Üngör (Amsterdam University Press, 2016), 113–30, https://doi.org/10.1515/9789048518654-006; Robert Francis B. Garcia, To Suffer Thy Comrades: How the Revolution Decimated Its Own, Revised edition (Mandaluyong City, Philippines: Anvil Publishing, 2018).

 

  1. Simoun Magsalin, Against Carceral Communism, For Abolition Communism!, 1st ed. (USA: Hates Cafe, 2022), https://haters.noblogs.org/files/2022/04/Abolition-Communism.pdf.

 

  1. Pierre Rousset, “After Kintanar, the Killings Continue: The Post-1992 CPP Assassination Policy in the Philippines” (July 2003), https://web.archive.org/web/20130722003041/https://internationalviewpoint.org/IMG/pdf/CPP-AssPol-03.07.04.pdf.

 

  1. Shoatz, “The Dragon and the Hydra”.

 

  1. Yiching Wu, The Cultural Revolution at the Margins: Chinese Socialism in Crisis (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2014).

 

  1. Sheng-wu-lien and Yang Xiguang, Whither China? (Marxists Internet Archive, 1968), https://www.marxists.org/subject/china/documents/whither-china.htm.

 

  1. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (Marxists Internet Archive, 2000), https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm.

 

  1. Mia Wong, “When Communists Crushed the International Workers’ Movement,” Lausan, June 2021, https://lausancollective.com/2021/communists-crushed-international-workers-movement/; Wu, The Cultural Revolution at the Margins.

 

  1. Russell Maroon Shoatz and Steve Bloom, “Dragon and Hydra Revisited — A Dialogue” (Old and New Project, 2014), https://www.oldandnewproject.net/Essays/Maroon_D%20and%20H%20Revisited.html.

 

  1. Red Marriott, “Notes on Nepal: The Long March of Maoism” (Libcom.org, 2006-04/2013-08), https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/red-marriott-notes-on-nepal.

 

  1. See Bulatlatan, “Bulatlatan Archive,” Archive, Marxists Internet Archive, 2024, https://www.marxists.org/history/philippines/bulatlatan/index.htm.

 

  1. Thank you to Brian Tokar for the discussion that led to the addition of this segment.

 

  1. Murray Bookchin, The Next Revolution: Popular Assemblies and the Promise of Direct Democracy (London: Verso London, 2015), ch 8.

 

  1. Ursula K. Le Guin, The Lathe of Heaven (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1971), 82, https://archive.org/details/latheofheaven0000ursu.

 

  1. James Connolly, “James Connolly: We Only Want the Earth” (Marxists Internet Archive, 1907), https://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1907/xx/wewnerth.htm. Thank you Green Tea for this suggestion.

 

  1. Jose Maria Sison, “On ‘Foreign Monsters’ and the People’s War That Persists,” Kites Journal, October 2022, https://kites-journal.org/2022/10/27/on-foreign-monsters-and-the-peoples-war-that-persists/; Jose Maria Sison, “Great Achievements of the CPP in 50 Years of Waging Revolution” (National Democratic Front of the Philippines, August 2018), https://web.archive.org/web/20180921225858/https://ndfp.org/great-achievements-of-the-cpp-in-50-years-of-waging-revolution/.

 

  1. BISIG, “What Is BISIG ?” Bukluran Sa Ikauunlad Ng Sosyalistang Isip at Gawa (BISIG), August 2007, https://filipinosocialism.wordpress.com/what-is-bisig/.

 

  1. Personal correspondence with militants from the FAU.

 

  1. Paul Sr. Mattick, “Introduction to Anti-Bolshevik Communism” (2003), https://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1978/introduction.htm.

 

  1. Thank you to Carolus Plebejus who alerted me to this.

 

  1. Christopher Nolan, “Oppenheimer” (Syncopy, Atlas Entertainment, 2023).

 

  1. Petr Alekseevich Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread, 1907, https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread.

 

  1. Anonymous, Desert (Stac an Armin St. Kilda: Little Black Cart, 2011), https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-desert.

 

  1. Petr Alekseevich Kropotkin, Small Communal Experiments and Why They Fail, 1901, https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-small-communal-experiments-and-why-they-fail.

 

  1. Steve Millett, “Neither State Nor Market: An Anarchist Perspective on Social Welfare,” in Twenty-First Century Anarchism: Unorthodox Ideas for a New Millennium, ed. Jon Purkis and James Bowen (London: Cassell, 1997), 24–40, https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/steve-millett-neither-state-nor-market.

 

  1. Peter Linebaugh and Marcus Rediker, The Many-Headed Hydra: Sailors, Slaves, Commoners, and the Hidden History of the Revolutionary Atlantic (Boston: Beacon Press, 2000).

 

  1. William C. Anderson and Zoé Samudzi, “The Anarchism of Blackness,” ROAR Magazine, no. 5: Not This Time! (2017), https://roarmag.org/magazine/black-liberation-anti-fascism/.

 

  1. I thank Kenneth Cardenas for this formulation. Mooncake was also invaluable with some discussion into how this marronage-in-place would look like.

 

  1. Ben Mabie and Joohyun Kim, “Strategy After Ferguson,” Viewpoint Magazine, February 2016, https://viewpointmag.com/2016/02/01/strategy-after-ferguson/. Thank you Mooncake for alerting me to this.

 

  1. Charles Edwin Jones, ed., The Black Panther Party Reconsidered (Baltimore: Black Classic Press, 2005), 408.

 

  1. Landauer, “Weak Statesmen, Weaker People!”.

 

  1. Gilles Dauvé, “When Insurrections Die,” Endnotes 1, no. 1 (October 2008): 51–52.

 

  1. Anonymous, At Daggers Drawn with the Existent, Its Defenders and Its False Critics (The Anarchist Library, 2012), 12.

 

  1. Amado Guerrero (Jose Maria Sison), “Our Urgent Tasks” (2008), https://www.marxists.org/history/philippines/cpp/guerrero/1975/urgent-tasks.htm.

 

  1. Kenneth Cardenas, “Two Premises: For Political Imagination, and for Varieties of Possibility,” Academic, Kenneth Cardenas, November 2023, https://kennethcardenas.com/2023/11/14/two-premises/

 

  1. See my essay “The Anarchy of the Peripheries” in Muntjac Issue 2: Insurgency & Counter-Insurgency.

 

  1. Invisible Committee, To Our Friends, trans. Robert Hurley (Ill Will Editions, 2014), 66, https://illwill.com/print/the-invisible-committee-to-our-friends.

 

  1. Anonymous, Why She Doesn’t Give A Fuck About Your Insurrection (The Anarchist Library, 2009).

 

  1. Landauer, “Weak Statesmen, Weaker People!”.

 

  1. Ang Bayan, “Fulfill the Tasks of the Rectification Movement and Advance the Revolution!” Ang Bayan, December 2024, 13, https://philippinerevolution.nu/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/20241226en_special.pdf.

 

  1. Anonymous, At Daggers Drawn with the Existent, Its Defenders and Its False Critics, 7–8.

 

  1. I thank Adrienne Cacatian alerting me of this reversal taken from the H. G. Wells short story “The Country of the Blind” (1904).

 

 

Decolonize Anarchism – May Day on Fire: Against Empire and Theocracy

Posted on 01/05/2025 - 05/05/2025 by muntjac

Part of Muntjac Issue 2: Insurgency & Counter Insurgency

The Western left will march on May 1st under red banners, chanting slogans of internationalism and workers’ power. But we must ask – is there room for Iranian workers in your May Day?

 

On April 26, 2025, a massive explosion rocked the Shahid Rajaee port near Bandar Abbas, Iran’s largest commercial port. The blast resulted in at least 70 deaths and over 1,200 injuries, according to official reports. The explosion originated from improperly stored chemicals used in missile fuel. The responsible company operates under the umbrella of Bonyad Mostazafan, is part of a network of Islamic charitable foundations tied directly to the Supreme Leader and the IRGC. These foundations are exempt from labor law, exempt from accountability, and sustained through the direct appropriation of social surplus. They represent a fusion of state capital and clerical authority, animated not by market efficiency but by ideological legitimacy and paramilitary discipline.

 

This catastrophe, like countless others before it, occurred not in a vacuum but within the structural context of disposability, abandonment, and class warfare from above. Bandar Abbas’s port is staffed largely by contract workers from impoverished ethnic minorities, particularly Baloch, Arab and Afro-Iranian communities. Many of them are undocumented, excluded from the most basic forms of legal protection. Some are refugees. Most are hired on short-term contracts with no benefits, no health coverage, and no recourse to independent union representation. These workers were engaged in highly dangerous work-chemical handling, container loading – without adequate safety equipment or emergency protocols. The explosion was the consequence of precisely this neglect, compounded by systemic corruption and a lack of regulatory oversight.

 

This is not an isolated event. Between May 2024 and April 2025, over 2,081 Iranian workers died due to unsafe working conditions. Children as young as 12 labor in mines, waste disposal and textile workshops. In the informal economy – which comprises up to one-third of Iran’s workforce – accidents, injuries, and deaths go unreported. The state, which should enforce labor laws and safety standards, is instead the largest perpetrator of labor exploitation. Some 90% of workers in Iran are employed under temporary contracts, and over a third are uninsured. In practice, this means no job security, no severance, and no healthcare, even for those engaged in the most hazardous work.

 

The repression of labor activism is systemic and ferocious. At least 19 labor activists remain in prison as of this writing. Among them are Sharifeh Mohammadi, Pakhshan Azizi, and Verisheh Moradi, three Kurdish labor and women’s rights activists sentenced to death. Like many Kurdish militants, they were held in prolonged solitary confinement, denied legal access, and tortured into a confession in a sham trial that violates every basic principle of justice. They are not alone. The fact that these women are Kurdish, secular, and radically committed to collective self-organization makes them dangerous in the eyes of a regime that depends on ethnic division, patriarchal control and submission to centralized power. The rope around their necks is not just the regime’s – it is the hangman’s knot of all counterrevolution: nationalism, authoritarianism, and the mystification of captial.

 

The racialization of labor and repression is stark: in Kurdistan, kulbars (cross-border porters) are routinely killed by border guards in Iran’s southeast, Baloch workers, often undocumented, face daily exploitation and militarized violence. In April 2025, eight Pakistani Baloch workers were gunned down in Mehrestan. Killed not for politics, not for protest, but for being poor, racialized and disposable. At least 50% of executions in recent years have targeted Baloch individuals, who make up only 5% of the population. This racialized proletariat – mobile, informal, and excluded – represents one of the most vulnerable yet most radical sectors of the Iranian working class.

 

The plight of Iranian workers must also be read through the lens of gender. Women workers in Iran face the double burden of labor exploitation and patriarchal repression. They are pushed into the most invisible and least protected forms of labor. In unregulated sectors like domestic work and agricultural labor, they are routinely exposed to sexual violence and economic coercion. Female labor activists, such as Sosan Razani and Sepideh Qoliyan, have faced imprisonment, flogging and exile. At Bandar Abbas, many of the injured were women subcontracted into logistics and custodial roles, paid far less than their male counterparts, and denied maternity or medical leave.

 

Against this backdrop, the regime continues to perform an anti-imperialist script. Its leaders claim to defy U.S. hegemony while simultaneously engaging in back-channel negotiations with Washington. These diplomatic maneuvers serve only to reinforce elite power. They do nothing to alleviate the conditions of mass unemployment, unlivable wages and state terror faced by Iran’s workers. The regime uses anti-imperialist rhetoric to justify militarism abroad and pression at home, criminalizing dissent and blaming sanctions for domestic failures, while continuing to implement neoliberal austerity policies dictated by the IMF blueprint: privatization, deregulation, and the dismantling of public services.

 

This hypocrisy– where the Iranian state denounces imperialism while exploiting and repressing its own people-is too often mirrored by segments of the Western left. Trapped in a Cold War binary mindset, they reduce Iran to a simple victim of U.S. aggression, ignoring the reality that the regime crushes labor movements, jails teachers and retirees, and executes minority workers. By framing these atrocities as unfortunate but inevitable responses to sanctions, they erase the agency of Iranian workers and revolutionaries who resist both imperialism and the authoritarian regime. True anti-imperialism must center the struggles of the oppressed – not their oppressors in anti-American clothing.

 

The labor movement in Iran today is fragmented but persistent. Between January and April 2025 alone, there were 44 labor protests across 26 cities, from petrochemical workers in Mahshahr to rural health workers in Manab. These protests are not simply about wages; they are about the right to live, the right to organize, and the right to dignity. In Kurdistan, Balochistan, Khuzestan, and Hormogan – regions of ethnic oppression and economic dispossession – workers are rising up not only against economic exploitation but against the very structure of the state that maintains it.

 

The Western left will march on May 1st under red banners, chanting slogans of internationalism and workers’ power. But we must ask – is there room for Iranian workers in your May Day? 

 

When you denounce U.S. imperialism and condemn neoliberalism, do you name the 2,000 Iranian workers killed last year in preventable workplace “accidents”? Do you speak of the Baloch laborers criminalized and executed, or the Kurdish kilbars shot on mountain paths? Or are these lives too messy, too resistant to your binary frameworks – too inconvenient to your alignment with whichever state you feel obliged to defend or oppose? You claim solidarity. But when labor organizers in Iran are imprisoned, tortured, even sentenced to death, too many of you look away.

 

You do not need to echo the lies of Washington or Tel Aviv to name the crimes of Tehran.

 

If your anti-imperialism does not include those fighting from below – against both local despotism and global capital – then it is not solidarity. It is shadow diplomacy. International solidarity must refuse false choices. To support the working class of Iran is to support their right to organize autonomously, to resist both domestic repression and foreign domination and to imagine a future beyond theocratic capitalism and imperial violence.

 

May Day is not about choosing your favorite regime. It is about the power of a class that has no regime, no flag, no master. 

 

Stolen from instagram.com/p/DJF7luJPnSz find more from the authors at linktr.ee/decolonizeanarchism

Muntjac Collective – What is Anarchism?

Posted on 18/04/2025 by muntjac

What is Anarchism?

We were asked to write this peice as part of Shado’s knoledge series. Check it out on their website.

Liao – Translations of Selected Articles of Pingdeng

Posted on 17/04/2025 by muntjac

Stolen from: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/liao-translations-of-selected-articles-of-pingdeng

Anarcho-Communist Monthly #1 Selected Articles

Tell Workers

This world is a capitalist world. What is capitalism? This is when capitalists monopolize all production tools and production items, use the monetary system, and force us workers to be their wage slaves. We workers were forced by hunger and cold, so we sold our precious labor to them to do everything for them. We workers make everything in factories and cultivate various plants on farmland. However, everything we produce is owned by the capitalists. Even if we have jobs, we can only earn tens of yuan a month. In addition, nothing can be obtained; the tens of yuan of wages are not enough to cover living expenses such as food, clothing, housing, etc. This is the hard work of wages, which creates the wealth of capitalists and the soul of capitalism. That is, “the system of responsibility, the government, military, priests, and law are the ones who protect and maintain the system of responsibility!”

In this period of the decline of capitalism, unemployment panic has become increasingly widespread and profound. At the same time, the pain and tragedies of workers have also continued to occur. The lives of workers are simply worse than cows and horses. “Give me freedom or give me death.” We workers are born in this society where all the rights to survive have been stripped away by the bourgeoisie. How can we still survive in this society?

Three years ago, our alliance published an equal monthly magazine to spread anarchy and communism. Later, due to various obstacles, it was suspended. Today, we publish this magazine again. This is to continue the spirit of equality and strive for success. At the same time, we sincerely hope that dear revolutionary workers will enthusiastically join and support this alliance and spread the ideas of this magazine to the public!

We Are Fighting

What is our strategy?

The strategy of the working class should not be an invention and planning, nor should it be a plot given from outside without their own ideals. Their own ideal is a country that eliminates capitalism!

The labor organizations that emerge from the current society are the germination of a future unified society. Therefore, the strike, the only weapon of the working class, is the seed of our strategy.

We know that the proletariat, which has developed along with capitalism, has greatly expanded and deepened its struggle. Partial strikes have lost their meaning, while group strikes have become general. We must consolidate some of the strikes into those of the General Alliance, and expand and transform the General Alliance strikes into a social revolution of the working class against capitalism and the state!

In this period of rebellion, we must take advantage of the highest priority opportunity to immediately establish all production institutions and consumer goods, so that the working class can actually have all the food, clothing, and shelter. At the same time, we must abandon all cowardly kindness and destroy all remnants of the powerful class rule of the government, release prisoners, destroy banks and police stations, destroy all documents belonging to private property societies, etc. Breaking down all barriers and boundaries, removing all debt certificates, dismantling the management of the barracks guards and policemen, and executing the famous military leaders and policemen. This is an important matter for the revolutionary working class. Having completely destroyed all vestiges of the rule of capital and the state, we must also carry out production on a new basis for as long as possible, that is, extend the existing labor organizations and their combinations and make them manageable. Production; each city must start working independently to establish an anarchist and communist society!

A General League strike is the best way to eliminate and destroy the government. The strength of the army can only be strong when it is concentrated in many places and severely trained. If they are scattered throughout the country, they will have little power. Moreover, if the sergeants once believed that what they were killing was not internal enemies, but only the entire working class, many of them would turn against each other, and they would think that they still had many relatives in their hometown. The same strike, and the same threat of gunfire, if he awakens and arouses his feelings of solidarity with the toiling brothers, at that time, the soldiers will immediately lose their power in front of the revolutionary workers, and the government will inevitably will be smashed to pieces by the loud cries of liberated mankind.

Therefore, in our opinion as anarcho-communists, economic struggle and political struggle cannot represent two completely different and unrelated divisions in themselves. Together they gather the fighting power of the working class to resist all forms of oppression, capitalists and the government.

We identify the great principle and give it life. That is to say, “the liberation of workers is a matter for the working class itself.” Because we do not believe that political parties can achieve anything against the liberation of the working class. The price they pay for the workers’ miserable struggle is only some one-sided and minor reforms. We believe that only the direct struggle of the working class can and will accomplish the destruction of the existing capitalist social order.

Therefore, we state our strategy as follows: “To join the struggle of the working class, to direct its uninterrupted expansion and deepening, to fan it and sustain the fire of the fighting spirit until we have fundamentally shattered the bond between capitalism and government.”

This is our lesson, and this is the meaning of our struggle! We must use this lesson and meaning — the General Allied Workers — to complete the social revolution. We must know that the heroic revolution and the political revolution are history.

Watch Out, Capitalist Lackeys!

The struggles of dock workers in San Francisco have spread to Seattle, Portland, and Los Angeles. This kind of heroic struggle has alarmed the imagination of the bourgeoisie, and their lackeys — the police. In order to protect the interests of his master, he opened his eyes wide and barked at the revolutionary workers, and also thought about staging a massacre to suppress the revolutionary uprising. However, while the workers’ bodies can be killed, the revolutionary spirit cannot be eliminated. The sound of social revolution has shaken the whole world, and the blood tide of social revolution will also surge forward. By then, the lives of these lackeys will be over. I warn you now, dogs of Capital, watch out!

The So-Called National Revolution

What the Kuomintang advocates is the national revolution. The so-called “national revolution” is to unite businessmen, workers and peasants in order to make revolution. Businessmen are the bourgeoisie, and workers and peasants are the proletariat. The interests of the two conflict with each other. So is there any possibility of union? In this way, this kind of revolution is just about killing the poor.

Yes, he did revolutionize the lives of the poor. Look! The warlords and bureaucrats of the Kuomintang are fighting for power and profit, making it difficult for people to earn a living. The workers are all being exploited, and those who uphold justice are always in danger of being shot. What is called national revolution is not actually a revolution for the people!

Roosevelt is a Lackey of the Bourgeoisie

Roosevelt saw that capitalism was bankrupt and that his masters, the capitalists, would be overthrown by the working class. So Roosevelt planned with his masters day and night to find a way to save dying capitalism. After all, Roosevelt’s policies have failed. The most famous NRA has declared bankruptcy. If we look at the general degradation of unemployment among American workers and the acrimony of the revolution, we know that Roosevelt is helpless. Roosevelt, the top lackey, you can rest!

Our Program

First, we believe that “class struggle” is the basis for the liberation of workers and peasants.

Second, we reject all political movements and advocate “economic direct action.”

Third, we advocate “free association of industrial groups” and exclude “centralization of power.”

Fourth, we expel the centralized “presidents” and “leaders” of workers’ and peasants’ organizations.

Fifth, we believe that “the liberation of the working class is a matter of the working class itself.

Sixth, we oppose “nationalism” and promote “international unity of the working class.”

Seventh, we believe that “communism” must eliminate “government,”

Eighth, we must overthrow “imperialism” and advocate the fundamental elimination of “capitalism.”

Ninth, we want human beings to evolve freely and advocate the abolition of “religion” and “family.”

Anarcho-Communist Monthly #2 Selected Articles

My Social Beliefs

Although I have experienced a lot of setbacks, I am not pessimistic about the realization and prosperity of anarchism in the future. The reason why I say this is that North America is where I was attracted by the anarchist doctrine. Restraint, and this is the result of my direct observation of human behavior.

First, everyone loves freedom by nature, and anarchism became a doctrine based on this principle.

Second, and this is the most important point of my social beliefs, even though most human beings live in poverty and misery, there is also a very small group of people who exploit the working class, resulting in economic inequality, which directly. This is why the State came into being to maintain this unfair system.

Third, science tells us that nothing is permanent. We anarchists firmly believe that the slavery system of money will inevitably be eliminated along with the previous serfdom system.

Although there are many other theories in the world that seek to transform the current social system, I firmly believe that mankind can only achieve true liberation through anarchist communism. As for using compromise, cover-up or other various improvement methods to demand justice or hope for peaceful concessions from capital society, it is impossible. In order to maintain their predatory status, the protectors of capitalism (the State) must first rise up and fight against the proletariat. A bloody battle.

I don’t even believe that the bourgeoisie can maintain world peace. In fact, every monarchy or democracy is trying to find a world market to sell their goods. They compete with each other, and the result is a world war. In the future, the second world war will happen. The war will be more cruel than the world war of 1914.

We anarchists should use anti-war propaganda to arouse the proletariat and transform the second war that will break out under capitalism into implementing social revolution. Anarchism is universal, not just for one tribe or race. It has no unreasonable boundaries created by anyone. In an anarchist society, everyone is equal, and slave labor must be eradicated. The proletariat of the world, suffering from unemployment and war, will eventually rise up to accept our call. When they are ready to respond to our call, we will begin to unite to implement social revolution and complete an anarchist communist society of freedom and equality.

Misunderstanding or Slander?

“Of course, anarchy and communism are the ‘Great Harmony.’” This sentence is used by the bourgeoisie to slander the anarchist party. We only feel that the bourgeoisie is despicable, helpless, and shameful.

How pitiful! There are a few anarchists who say “anarchist communism is Great Harmony.” The so-called “Great Harmony” clearly means that Yao’s throne was passed on to Shun instead of his son, and Shun’s throne was passed on to Yu instead of his son. This is to make the throne public to the world. The so-called “world is of the common people” is. “Selecting talents and talents” refers to the selection of a worthy person to succeed the emperor; “Speaking of faith and cultivating harmony” refers to using the education of “faith” and “lu” to consolidate the status of the emperor. “Making the old man have something to end” refers to the power of the government. If that person can be loyal to the government throughout his life and does not rebel, then the government will give him a chance and ask him to enter a nursing home until his death. If he dies, give him a grave. On the contrary, if he is not loyal to the government, he will die as a “message”. “ “Not to be the only one” means that there is still a family system. This is called “Great Harmony.”

After I got off work, I still felt tired. But when I thought about the harm caused by the phrase “Great Harmony,” I took up my pen and wrote this very short article. I wanted to expose “Great Harmony” with that pen!

The Communist Party Speaks Nonsense

The Communist Party wants to cover up its crimes, so it often tells the working class that the Communist Party must go through a “transitional period” to get through to anarchy and communism. In fact, such nonsense only increases the anger of the working class!

The so-called “transitional period” means practicing communism for a few years and then practicing anarcho-communism. However, is communism what is practiced in Russia now? In fact, after the Tsar was overthrown, the Communist Party succeeded the Tsar and ruled the whole of Russia. The government was made by the Communist Party, and the capitalists were made by the Communist Party. The wage system exists, and the private system exists. In short, the Communist Party is just a new bureaucrat and a new capitalist. In other words, the Communist Party is a bureaucratic party; the Communist Party Doctrine is red capitalism. The so-called “transitional period” is nothing but lies!

Will the evil government suddenly die on a certain day of a certain year? Will the capitalists who make a living from exploitation suddenly show mercy and give up all their private property on a certain day of a certain year?

Anarcho-Communist Monthly #3 Selected Articles

Comment on the San Francisco General Strike

The general strike has temporarily failed. This is a fact that we do not need to deny and cannot deny.

The daily struggles of the dock workers expanded. Although it did not expand to the entire United States and other countries around the world, during this great struggle period of the strike, the passionate emotions and heroic actions of the workers’ struggle were deeply expressed! However, the General strike failed for three reasons:

The first reason is that yellow scabs collude with ordinary bureaucrats and politicians, specializing in breaking strikes and auctioning workers’ interests;

The second reason is that the red scabs deceive and bewitch workers to engage in activities to fight for political power, alienate them, and split all activities of the revolutionary workers’ struggle;

The third reason is that the strike of the conference turned into a strike manipulated by the bureaucracy due to the control of the conference affairs by the two scabs, yellow and red. The first and second reasons are obvious matters and need no further explanation. The third reason needs to be explained a little bit.

During this general strike, a small number of businessmen made a fortune, and some workers in San Francisco did not even have a place to drink coffee. This was because during the general strike, confiscation was not carried out immediately. It was a revolutionary action, so it failed after all. However, during the general struggle of the General League strike, the scabs or other politicians and bureaucrats manipulated the strike meeting to destroy the direct economic struggle of the revolutionary workers, causing the strike to lose its function. This is called a “bureaucrat-manipulated strike.” There is no strike that is controlled by the bureaucracy but fails.

Although this general strike failed, we learned several valuable lessons:

Firstly, As soon as the General League strike begins, confiscation must be carried out to take back the things monopolized by the capitalist class and the things they have stolen from the working class.

Secondly, economic equality is the guarantee of working class freedom. Therefore, workers must resolutely reject political power activities and labor-capital compromise; and reject the manipulation and control of political parties; in our struggle actions, we must recognize that “the liberation of workers is a matter of the working class itself.”

Thirdly, the ideal of anarchist communism is a state that eliminates capitalism; every worker should not have any other agenda than their own ideal — anarchism — and should follow the ideal of anarchism and expand from daily struggle to the struggle of the working class. A time when capitalism and government are fundamentally broken.

We workers should keep these three lessons in mind and properly apply these three lessons in our struggle strategies!

Anarcho-Communist Monthly #4 Selected Articles

Reflection on the Failure of the San Francisco General Strike

The San Francisco General Strike, which attracted worldwide attention, began to erupt on July 16th. Will this general strike wipe out the old unequal system and create a new perfect society? It is naturally difficult for people on the outside to predict, but after a little careful observation of this, anyone who has participated in the labor movement can understand that there are already many obstacles standing in front of the workers to hinder their revolutionary actions.

For example, the workers above are not without revolutionary preparations and revolutionary determination. Let us examine the strike trends in various parts of the United States. The heroic actions of workers sacrificing countless flesh and blood are all obvious proof that they already have great determination. And it proves that they have a fearless spirit towards revolution. Even though the police, soldiers, bureaucrats, bourgeoisie, and those who specialize in spreading rumors openly jointly attack the workers, people continue to resist them without flinching.

The general strike in San Francisco was auctioned off by a group of labor leaders who specialized in living off the blood and sweat of workers. The auction plan had already been put into effect on June 16th. At that time, a representative of the union secretly signed the agreement with the capitalists and the mayor. The agreement on auctioning workers’ interests was intended to force workers to revise it.

Although the previous conspiracy to auction off the workers’ interests in New York was considered a success, the workers in San Francisco had long been aware of the evil intentions. After the agreement was signed, it was immediately rejected by all workers. At the same time, it was announced that the representative had no right to represent the workers, and the agreement was declared invalid. It was demanded that factories controlled by the capitalists should be managed by the workers, and all sympathizers participated in the strike. The conditions required by the workers should be addressed simultaneously. This kind of courageous and united spirit makes their enemies fearful!

Several scabs from the San Francisco Federation of Trade Unions also arbitrarily attacked the workers’ revolutionary actions. Later, the lackeys of the state bourgeoisie — the police — staged a massacre of workers on the waterfront, killing two people and injuring more than a hundred others. After the tragedy, all workers were aroused with indignation, and the sound of a general strike shocked the whole city. At this time, the scabs saw the wind and had to change their attitude. On the surface, they had to change their attitude, retract their attacks on the workers, and admit that a general strike was also If necessary, a so-called strike design committee with seven members was organized. However, they deliberately delayed the realization of the “strike” and carried out their so-called peaceful movement. However, the capitalists were unwilling to accept the conditions unless they were detrimental to the workers. Of course, the workers were unwilling to surrender and would suffer increased exploitation by the capitalists. All mediation efforts were ineffective, so the general strike was launched on July 16th.

On the second day after the implementation of the general strike, the scabs had already launched a strike cancellation movement. By the fourth day, the vigorous general strike had begun. It was extremely shameful to be killed by this class of scabs. At this time, the capitalists hid their true colors of hating workers and took this opportunity to expose them. They ordered their lackeys, the police and low-level gangsters, in the park, assembly halls, canteens, and even the Master’s house, using the most despicable means, beating workers, destroying workers’ clubs, and arresting hundreds of workers. The so-called law and order in today’s society is nothing more than this!

The reason why the general strike failed was not because the workers lacked the spirit of solidarity, nor because the workers were unable to withstand the coercion of the bourgeoisie and the ruling class. Its failure was due to the capitalist collaboration with the union leaders in the labor city of the workers.

The failure of this strike taught the workers a good lesson. It warned the workers that it is very dangerous to trust their leaders, so workers should believe in themselves in the future, and they will always be able to work the second time in the future, and workers should not be forced to work again. If you are deceived by the city, you should stand up and take charge of your own career.

It is not a long journey from defeat to victory, if the workers have the determination to make a revolution. Judging from past facts, workers already have such conditions. Then, as soon as the fury of the revolution arrives, the bourgeoisie and the ruling class will collapse like a landslide, and an anarchic society of thousands of freedoms will replace the pseudo society. Just like the brilliance of his mouth, it will shine on this world. Our people in the world have begun to enjoy a new and beautiful life!

Who’s Fantasizing

“You are dreamers!”

When we ignore social injustice, raise the banner of revolution, and shout for building an anarchic society, we are attacked from all sides: “You are utopians!”

Utopians are never satisfied with the status quo. People who devote themselves to reforming social work are often regarded as utopians. Not only this, anyone who sees a new truth and calls out to people loudly is treated as a dreamer.

Since the beginning of human society, how many people have been dreamers?

However, in looking at the evolution of human society, we point out that, driven by this era, has made us evolve from the cave dwelling era to today’s civilized era. It is all the power of such visionaries.

When Columbus said he believed there was land beyond the old world, didn’t others laugh at him as a visionary? But now we publish magazines on land in America. Besides, if someone mentioned airplanes a hundred years ago, others would definitely think of them as crazy but now, if someone has never seen an airplane, they will be laughed at as having little knowledge.

Instead of the government, replace it with management agencies; instead of law, replace it with free consent; abolish the distinction between national classes and give all people the opportunity to work and the rights to enjoy it. All the energy is used in construction. No one will do the work of destruction. Such a society is extremely reasonable and develops according to natural procedures. Who can deny it and say it is unwholesome? Do you think it is evil? I dare to say: Absolutely not!

“You have no way!” Others said. No way? We have made it very clear that such a society cannot be realized overnight. We must prepare for revolution. We know that the purpose of revolution is transformation and construction. We know that the power of workers and peasants is the basic power. We explain clearly everything from daily struggles to General League strikes, and even the organization of consumption and production and the defense of revolution in times of transition. All this has been discussed in great detail in many books, newspapers and lectures.

So who can still laugh at us with our fantasy?

Look! In Spain, southern Europe, the fire of revolution has been ignited. Don’t underestimate the work of those “ideologues”, they will change the face of the world.

Anarcho-Communist Monthly #5 & 6 Selected Articles

We Are There

Some people, our friends and enemies, feel that we anarchists have been silent for too long, and they often ask: “Where are you anarchists?” Because they have not heard our voice for a long time.

Where are the anarchists? This is not a difficult question to answer. Someone has already answered it like this: The Industrial Workers of the World, The Union of Young Anarchists of All Nations, in France, Germany, Austria, Spain, etc, the anarchist federations and trade unions of the world, in the prisons of Italy, the United States, Poland, Bulgaria, Argentina, Japan and other countries, and in the fortress of Soviet Russia.

However, this answer is not enough; anarchism cannot yet exist in these places. Although the activities of the C.N.T., which has millions of workers all over Spain, under the banner of anarchism, has become a fact that shocked the world in recent days. The power of anarchists in Western Europe cannot be understated, and it has been generally recognized by people. But apart from this, there are still thousands of people all over the world who are burying their heads, shutting up, and actually doing anarchist work, that is, to help the working class seek their own liberation. Therefore, it is not just those who always use the slogan ofAnarchism to propagate ism to people, they are anarchists. Therefore, it is not only those people who are always talking about socialism and advocating it to people on the streets, but those who write about freedom and struggle, go for justice, shoulder the mission of human liberation and fight bravely to achieve success. Those who die are anarchists; those who work for the people. Those who seek the liberation of the people and believe that the way to achieve the liberation of the people is the way of freedom, and who believe that organizations organized by free association will replace the institutions that govern people and become the basis of future society, may not say that they are anarchists themselves. But in fact they are.

Therefore, anarchists are not only on the gallows, under bullets, in prisons, in trade unions, in assembly halls, and on the battlefield, but they are also among the people, in remote villages, and in all places where there are human beings and immortals. We can certainly say that wherever there are interests of the people, there are anarchists. When the people seek their own liberation, fight for their own interests, or even rise up against their oppressors, then the people themselves are anarchists. Or, even though they may not understand the meaning of this term.

You see. Anarchists are everywhere, shouting and silent. They are all anarchists. Therefore, it is not surprising that the anarchist voice cannot be heard during this period, because the work of the silent ones cannot be heard over the work of the shouters.

Inform the People

The tragedy of unemployment has spread all over the world. Or maybe you have never tasted the bitter taste of unemployment, but you can see the pain and misery of unemployed people from newspapers in various places or from society. There is no person who does not have sympathy for the unemployed.

Although you may not be a member of the proletariat now; if you admit that you are a member of society and an enlightened one, you must get up immediately and embark on the road of anarchism to seek a fundamental solution. It is a legitimate method, so we working class must unite and work hard to overthrow our enemies, the capitalists — because they deprive us of the clothes and public goods we have earned through hard work, and force us to suffer from hunger, cold, illness, and even death.

The capitalists have seized the machinery of production with city rights, and they require us proletarians to sweat and sweat to make things for them to enjoy, and to cultivate fields and cultivate crops for them to eat. You see! They live effortlessly. They live in tall houses, wear colorful clothes, use exquisite utensils, and eat delicious food. As for us working class, we have no house to live in and no clothes to wear. Food is good, and the harder you work, the less reward you get. Do we, the working class, still want to work for them (capitalists) wholeheartedly? Aren’t you still aware of it? If you are bloody, please get up quickly and kill our enemies. Take back our interests.

If we want to defeat the capitalists, we must overthrow their protectors, the government, in order to achieve a fundamental solution. Because the government is the defender of all power — the source of all evil. The only way capitalists can exist now is to be protected by the government. You see! Capitalists have occupied all production machines, not making them available to society, and depriving workers of their blood, sweat and lives, all these are unreasonable cannibalism; however, the government continues to defend them (capitalists); if the workers have some demands on the capitalists, the government will immediately do its best to suppress our workers, intimidation, and even killing, in the final analysis, the government must be overthrown and cannot be allowed to continue!

At the Crossroads

Economic panic everywhere has pushed the capital system to the stage, and with it comes another panic, which is the panic of ideas.

The bankruptcy of capitalism ushered in an era of world revolution, and we are now facing this bloody situation. The situation of the Spanish revolution is currently developing. On the one hand, because of the interdependence between countries, and on the other hand, because of the serious situation caused by economic panic, the fire of revolution in one country will inevitably burn to other countries, destroying the revolutions in other countries. It must be an extremely violent blow to defeat its real target — international capitalism.

In this fierce battle, thought is an important warrior in the battle. The revolutionary experience of France and Russia has revealed how a powerful thought becomes powerful. The French Revolution was deeply influenced by the democratic ideas held by Democrats and others.

The current Spanish anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists, who represent the anarchist movement of free thought and free association, develop models for a new society of the future.

In the future revolutionary struggle, the two doctrines will present their solutions to the problem of social revolution. This is the state socialism represented by the Bolsheviks and the anarchism represented by the anarchists.

The Bolsheviks are state socialists. They advocate overthrowing the current political system and using the most centralized state as a tool to build socialism. This has been implemented in Russia, but what is the result?

No matter how loudly the propaganda organs of the Bolivarian Party brag, we clearly know many certain facts. Russia is a country where the people have been reduced to the status of serfs. Russia is completely surrounded by bureaucrats and politicians. In Russia, the only words heard are “obedience” “This word means that all social undertakings that should be owned by the public are controlled by politicians and bureaucrats, and the people are oppressed by this reactionary organization day by day.

Just imagine that under the rule of a country, the (Russian) people do not have the freedom to move without special permission from the state. What kind of work should the people do, what kind of books should they read, what kind of plays should they watch, and what should the people and their children do? What kind of education they receive is determined by the state.

All the old systems that represent the extreme corruption of capitalism have been moved to Russia and implemented. The wage system, class boundaries, special rights, forced military service, well-organized detective squads… all still exist in Russia. If anyone dares to doubt the power of the Bolshevik dictatorship to control the lives of 160 million Russian people and destiny, disaster will befall him. The so-called construction of a new society means the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is an extremely absurd misinterpretation of the revolution. Therefore, it is extremely urgent that a new theory is needed to avoid the trap that the authoritarians fall into.

Only anarchism can meet this demand. Anarchism advocates that all social undertakings should be taken up by free groups. Anarchism replaces the coercive system with common voluntariness as the rule. Anarchism firmly believes that freedom is the key to society. Human beings are necessary for evolution. Human development can only be achieved in a free and equal society.

We oppose all systems of hierarchy, and we oppose the state, because the fundamental nature of the state is a tool for one class to exploit another class. We believe that true freedom will not be realized unless all systems of exploitation are eradicated, so we advocate the elimination of the wage system, and a new society must be built on the principle that everyone can do what they can, everyone gets what they need, and everyone has equal rights.

It is in vain to wait for free men under the principles of a free society.

The newly invented mass production machines in modern times can already produce the daily necessities and flood the society. In the future, the private property system and the exploitation system will be abolished. Everyone is currently engaged in useless occupations and will be transformed into those engaged in production. If we work, how endless will human prosperity be in the future?

This means that for the first time in human history, man has been able to freely develop his talents.

Now mankind is at a crossroads. Soon they will be forced to choose one of these two roads.

The Anarcho-Syndicalist Movement in Japan

The anarcho-syndicalist movement in Japan is in a very difficult position because counter-revolutionary propaganda in Japan is increasing day by day. All the workers’ groups affiliated with the International Workers’ Association were originally scheduled to hold their national annual conference last month, but they were canceled. The Japanese government banned it. At the same time, our publications, including our official newspaper (The Worker’s Newspaper) and the anarchist monthly (Under the Black Flag), were banned by the authorities. We have adopted peaceful means in order to achieve liberation, but it has been useless so far. , and the government is desperate to ban our publications. Under such circumstances, we can only carry out our work under extreme secrecy.

Since our annual meeting was strictly prohibited by the government and could not be held, we immediately convened the workers’ groups affiliated with the International Workers’ Association to hold a national conference in Osaka. At that time, workers’ groups from Tokyo, Kobe, Nagoya, Oita and other places were summoned to the meeting. Representatives, these representatives went through many difficulties because they escaped the attention of the police dogs, so they overcame these difficulties and finally disappointed the police dogs.

The entire situation of our movement, both objectively and subjectively, was discussed in detail at this meeting, and it was unanimously approved that our trade union should immediately join the National Federation of Free Workers’ Unions. (It is also an anarcho-syndicalist labor group.) Struggle together. Because their purpose is the same as ours.

The representatives expressed their utmost sympathy for the Industrial Workers of the World, which advocates the unity of revolutionary workers all over the world and opposes all coercion based on the principles of freedom and solidarity. And all generations have unanimously sympathized with the Spanish anarcho-syndical movement (C.N.T.), because the Spanish comrades have made heroic and continuous struggles for the real liberation of the workers, which is particularly worthy of our attention and imitation.

Just last month we secretly printed the book “The Principles, Meanings and Purposes of the International Workers’ Association” by the International Workers’ Association.

New York Awakeness Society Established

The Chinese in New York have always expressed sympathy for the anarchist communists. Recently, I heard that some of the hard-working elements among them established the Awakeness Society in order to study knowledge, increase their knowledge, explore the truth, and transform society. As the plan progresses, the society has begun to organize research classes and books.

Anarcho-Communist Monthly #7 Selected Articles

Give Us Work

Unemployment has become a major issue that attracts everyone’s attention today. And the severity of this problem is increasing day by day. With the world in an economic panic, we clearly see that on the one hand, a lot of goods are piling up without anyone taking care of them; on the other hand, tens of millions of unemployed workers are crying and complaining in slums, no matter what government officials, capitalists and philanthropists claim. In the hope of relief, in fact this contradictory phenomenon is only getting worse. Because they simply can’t solve it.

This contradictory phenomenon can expose the fallacy of some economists. We have never “produced surplus”, as they say; to be honest, nothing that has been produced in the world is too much to be used by ordinary people. To give a simple example, many people in mainland China have no rice to eat, but some rice merchants make huge profits by selling rice abroad.

The purpose of current capitalist production is not to satisfy needs, but to make profits. For example, Britain sent large quantities of woolen fabrics to the Chinese market, while some residents throughout Britain wore ragged clothes. The export of each country is not his own surplus. Workers cannot buy the items they need with the wages they earn, so these items are exported to foreign countries to make a profit for the capitalists. In this way, we cannot say that workers do not need items, we can only say that workers have no power.

Regarding this issue, we will discuss it in detail in the “Theory and Practice of Anarchism” in the future. Now we only cite the solutions we have proposed before: joint production and joint consumption. Our slogan is: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

Naturally, this slogan cannot be fully realized in one day. From production for profit to production for consumption, we have to go through a number of different steps, including a lot of painstaking statistics and sorting work, as well as new and improved production technologies. But we can boldly say now that this is the most effective way to solve unemployment.

Under the capitalist wage system, the problem of unemployment cannot be solved. Anarchism takes the overthrow of capitalism as its starting point and replaces production for consumption with production for profit. Under this situation, every worker is no longer a slave to wages. They produce for the public and for themselves. If they can get what they need, there will never be the paradoxical and strange phenomenon called overproduction. The factory will not close down due to unsalable goods. On the contrary, in order to meet the needs of all mankind, there will only be a shortage of goods, and the factory will only expand, and more workers will be needed.

In this period, from the current unreasonable industrial system to a society with rational production, I worry about the lack of goods! In the beginning, even if all people came to participate in production, we may still not be able to meet needs. In order to meet the needs of all, people must work at that time, as we will never let many people in the world waste time in poverty and sorrow. People are not lazy. Today, in the United States alone and in San Francisco alone, people everywhere are shouting: “Give us work.” However, no one hears their shouts. Even if they are heard, no one does anything about it.

When you are unemployed and have nothing to do — a lot of energy is wasted like this. Many people find work until they die, and many people commit suicide because they cannot find a job. However, there is much work to do in this society.

“Give us work to do,” the cry never stopped, and became louder and louder. Friends, there is work. As long as you stand up and spend your time shouting and looking for a job to overthrow the capitalist wage system, you have work to do. Capitalism is the cause of your unemployment. You should not let it exist anymore, you should not lower your head and ask for work from it.

Human labor is a very valuable thing at all times. Only in today’s capitalist society, a lot of labor is regarded as redundant and allowed to go to waste. Not wanting to accept this wasted fate, a loud voice shouted, “Give us work to do!”

My friends! No one can give you a job. You should unite and take the work into your own hands. When you do this, you work to overthrow the unreasonable current society.

Critique of Historical Materialism

Anarchists may not always agree on materialism or historical materialism. For example, the famous non-Marxist economist Christian Carnelissen, although an anarchist, claims to believe in historical materialism. Although Kropotkin adopted a materialist research method or a corroborative research method, he cannot be said to be a materialist. His attitude of vigorously promoting ideals is completely opposed to materialists. Carnelissen believed in historical materialism because he believed in it from the standpoint of the theory of evolution. It was by no means a materialist view of history that relied on dialectics and so on. As for Kropotkin, he just laughed at dialectics and did not regard it as a problem.

But in our country, the dialectical materialist view of history is very popular, and even among us, some people use it as a problem, so I would like to briefly express my opinion. If I express my opinion in one sentence, the Marxist school of historical materialism or the dialectical materialism of history first regards the human world as a kind of machine, and secondly regards the facts reflected in a small part of human life, and thirdly uses metaphysical doctrines as a standard to judge the infinitely deep and wide life phenomena; to define the complex real social life based on metaphysical teachings. Therefore, based on the actual judgment based on this principle, it is natural that everything is wrong. Although materialists are a good weapon when the bourgeoisie uses the power of wealth to fight against the feudal power class, they have become the biggest obstacle to the free liberation of the proletariat. Today’s Bolsheviks in Russia actually originate from this dialectical materialism, the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

For the sake of explanation, we separate philosophical materialism from historical materialism, and criticize dialectical historical materialism in particular. After that, we will talk about the criticism of the inevitability derived from this historical materialism. The first materialism is materialism. Theory is a term for idealism, an idea. The opposition between materialism and idealism is an idea that has existed since the era of ancient philosophy, that is, this debate has not yet been completed today. In my opinion, I believe that matter and mind are two sides of phenomena, but in fact they are just one thing. There is a fire burning in the furnace. From the outside, it looks like black iron, but from the inside, it looks like blazing fire. It is wrong to just say it is fire or iron.

In the Japanese translation of Bukharin’s Historical Materialism, it is said that the life that appears on the surface of the earth is the last thing of its own material existence. Such things as mental phenomena only seem to have passed through a very small number of years in the long time of the earth. Even based on this, it can also be said that the spirit is just a manifestation of matter. But this is called life or spirit. Botanists say that plants also have spirits, and mineralogists say that stones and soil also have life and meaning. According to experiments conducted by scholars, even the earth can breathe about once every twelve o’clock, so its breathing tidies up the strata under the earth’s crust. This is still a close observation.

In this breath, the sun, moon and other stars in the universe will also be affected by it and perform complex functions. In this way, things like the earth are also alive, intentional, and beautiful. This is based on the relationship with the universe as a whole. Therefore, it can be said that the earth has a beautiful spirit, and the universe has a great spirit. artistic spirit. Recently in Germany, the so-called Expressionist theory of art and Expressionist outlook on life are very popular. Thoughts like this arose precisely to oppose traditional materialism. In particular, we cannot see that the European war took place against the background of modern material civilization, mechanical worldview, materialism, capitalism, etc., and therefore new ideas arose in response to it. Therefore, it is natural that their movement is promoted with extremely fierce arguments. And what becomes the basis of his thoughts is the companionship of the power of spirit and soul. One of the expressionists, Dievold, said in his book “Anarchy in Drama” as follows:

The intelligence of the instrument is used as the criterion for evaluation. In its social life, it is only regarded as the most powerful weapon and god of industrial war. The classical era requires humanity, but today’s people and ancient ethics of goodness and beauty require beauty and virtue from civilization, while the Middle Ages requires money and the speculation of profit-seeking people to dominate education. That kind of muscle-building power, good or evil, is not a question. In the Anglo-American style, everyone in the country is just a number. Only the brain and the spiral are valued. The organization has unified individuality. Offices, factories, and the military have returned to things. Everyone is a pure profit that has been turned into a trust. The wheel of machinery, industrial war and coercion between states have become of little value. The soul has been completely lost, and in the mechanical operation of daily life, the intellect is a brain without ideas, that is, a spirit without spirit. Speech, almost only used in intellectual forms and other forms. Everyday language has almost become a consensus.

But this is not surprising. Since then, the concept of soul has been completely lost, and the concepts of spirit and soul have been completely confused. Like this, scholars and poets in the mechanical cultural era studied or composed it; but this was just a mechanical person without a soul. However, the dramatists of the school relied on the description of character and environment to describe the world. Science relies on microscopes and experiments. Psychology relies on analysis, starting from moral free will. What is most human is ethical feeling and what can be known that together achieves victory, arranging everything as knowledge. And its “spirit is extended and will reach the limit of all things; criticism is swaying, and the soul judges with countless instincts.”

The soul will become the most intimate connection with the body, and this incredible inner soul will reach the deepest divine observation and poetry of our mood. It penetrates all human hearts and listens to the deepest voice of conscience. “The soul is pleased with the moral laws (commandments) and the laws that compress its life, and looks at the consciousness of the will; but the soul obediently waits for the spirit that the artist has entered. The form. And the spirit creates the ideal body inspired by the soul and incorporated into the heart. This description is very abstract and metaphysical. In our opinion, it seems to be unacceptable. It is only necessary to understand that this tendency of thought is a new tendency arising from material civilization that resists the same tendencies of modern materialism, mechanical worldview, and capitalism. The idea of ​​expressionism must have a clearer argument in Germany, but unfortunately it cannot be introduced here.

In the UK, I can look up to Edward Carpenter, as the pioneer of expressionism. Carpenter’s books are read with pleasure by many Germans, as I have heard personally. The so-called “life is an expression”, he already said it thirty years ago. Especially in his updated book “The Art of Creation”, he said: The materialistic worldview has been popular for forty or fifty years ago, but today, it is said that it is based on the phenomenon of things, rather than the formation and formation of the mind. Representation is a kind of expression of thought, and its expression is regarded as a kind of art. Life is expression, so it comes back to the idea of ​​art. To understand Carpenter’s ideological strategy in more detail, let me introduce one section of it.

“Any so-called general theory or opinion will not be of much value if it is not based on detailed and practical observation, so here I want to examine how various things that we actually know almost exist. However, regarding this, the problem is best viewed in terms of what is closest to what we are familiar with. So I think we have to start by looking at how our own thoughts, actions, and bodies exist.”

A Brief History of the Japanese Anarchist Movement (Excerpts from Equality 1–2)

From Equality 1:

Although there have been various peasant riots in Japan that were close to anarchism in the past, let us ignore them for the moment and understand that the modern anarchist movement began with the movement of Kotoku Shusui and others, the so-called Great Rebellion, that is, the assassination of Meiji. After it was revealed that the emperor’s plan was not carried out, Kotoku and twelve others were sentenced to death and life imprisonment. There were many revolutionaries involved in this incident. Most of the activists at that time were socialists in a broad sense, but Kotoku and his lover, Ms. Sukago, were already clear-cut anarchists. This happened in 1903. After the failure of this incident, Japan’s socialism fell into silence for several years. Later, Osugi boldly broke through the danger and republished the civilian news published by Kotoku and others, and later changed it to a magazine. At this time, Osugi began to work with the anarchist workers’ groups. Soon, many brave revolutionary young people were recruited into this group, including its authors such as Tatuo Mizunuma, Eiichi Nobushima, Wada Eitaro, and other working youth. Young anarchists such as Taiji Yamaga, Wada Kyutaro, and Kondo Kenji have played a great role in the anarchist movement in Japan. In addition, older anarchists such as Iwasa Sakutaro, who has lived in the United States for several years and personally participated in the American IWW movement, and Ishikawa Sanshiro, who has lived in Europe for a long time have great power in propaganda.

In the ten years since the incident, Japan’s social movement has not actually developed much. We can say that this period is a period of propaganda and preparation, because the beginning was due to the strong oppression of the government due to the German incident. , followed by the European War. Most of the Japanese people were confused by patriotic ideas and did not look back at their own internal life. Moreover, during the European War, the industries of various European countries were at a standstill. Japanese capitalists took advantage of this to do their speculative business. In particular, Japan’s economic situation was relatively good. Therefore, the Japanese working class did not feel strong oppression in life. It was not until the end of the European War in 1917 that European industry gradually recovered, and Japanese commerce as a result declined. At this time, the unemployment problem intensified and expanded abnormally. With the influence of the Russian Revolution, the resistance movement of Japan’s working class suddenly became very prosperous. In 1919, workers in Tokyo, Japan held the first May Day demonstration. At that time, the conflict between workers and the police was very fierce. The speeches of socialists and anarchists filled the city of Tokyo. The number of strikes increased abnormally in the next two years. Even ordinary scholars remember that the socialist movement in that year was also very. The situation was so intense that many young people gave up their studies and devoted themselves to social movements. At this time, there were anarchist groups such as the labor movement club with Osugi as the center, and the labor union organized by the working youth. There were small works in the peasant movement. There were also many ideological examples in the Human Society. At this time, anarchist publications included “Labor Movement”, “Laborers”, “Small Worker”, etc., and there were many socialist lectures and research conferences. On the 251st of the following year, workers’ demonstrations became even more intense. Clashes between workers and the police filled the entire city of Tokyo. At the same time, demonstrations in Osaka, Japan’s only industrial city, and other cities also became more intense. It was the era of the highest socialism in Japan. At that time, labor groups in Japan could be roughly divided into those affiliated with the Japan Labor and Welfare Federation and those not affiliated with the Federation. Among the cadres of his alliance, most of them are British-style labor unionists, and among them are some communists who are well connected with the Russian Red International. In addition, the Anarchist Union is a group that is seeking to join the federation.

By November 1922, the labor unions all over Japan held a meeting in Osaka to organize the labor unions all over Japan, but they finally broke up. The dispute at this conference was the dispute between contractualism, that is, statism, centered on the Japan Federation of Labor, and anarchism, centered on the Anarchism Union. The two always break up after failing to find common ground. This break should be noted in the history of the Japanese labor movement and even the history of social movements. This break may be a great blessing to the Japanese labor liberation movement. From then on, the movements of their various factions took a clear-cut stand and started their own movements, without the previous color of give-and-take and compromise. This was indeed a great progress in the history of Japanese social movements..

At that time, the French Anarchist Federation initiated the International Anarchist Congress. Osugi secretly escaped from the country and came to France as a Japanese anarchist. After arriving in France, the International Congress moved to Berlin for the meeting. and postponed. In the midst of this, Osugi was arrested by the government for breaking the law by speaking to workers and was escorted back to his country. This happened in May 1923. In July of that year, Osugi returned to Japan. In August, Chinese anarchists also held a large meeting in Beijing. But soon a great disaster befell Japan. On September 1st of that year, Tokyo, Japan, encountered an unprecedented earthquake. The earthquake was followed by huge fires, and the city of Tokyo was almost completely destroyed. The area with the largest number of factories and workers was the center of the disaster. In the midst of this heavenly disaster, Japanese royalists and soldiers, on the one hand, because of the government’s suspicion and fear, and on the other hand, the murderous impulse aroused by the cruel phenomenon, started the so-called “vigilante group” murder tragedy. They took the hint from the government and joined forces with the military and police to seize this opportunity to imprison the Korean people who were oppressed by the socialists and the Japanese. The victims of this brutal massacre included dozens of socialists and anarchists, more than thousands of Japanese and Chinese workers, and more than 2,000 Koreans living in Tokyo. On September 16, Osugi, his lover Noe, and his seven-year-old nephew were arrested by the military police on the way and hanged by the military police. It took a few days for this kind of news to be revealed to the general public. The general workers were very angry. The government had no choice but to appoint the then commander of martial law, and arrested Captain Masahiko Amakasu and handed him to the court. This ended the tragedy of murder. After that, the general Ogawa schools and the government devoted all their efforts to advocating reactionary ideas, so Japan even entered a reactionary period. Generally, right-leaning labor groups are almost suspending their movement, and communists are also calling for a change of direction and a parliamentary movement. The government’s policy at this time was to specifically ban anarchists and adopt a bribery policy towards other groups.

The most obvious movement that arose in the future was that of the proletarian party. At this time, the anarchists were under strong oppression from the government, and at the same time they were fighting against all labor groups that supported the political movement. In addition, many powerful comrades were lost during the earthquake. For the anarchists of this period, there was only death. The general anarchist intellectual class has many hidden ideas, which makes the situation of the youth anarchist labor movement even worse. When Osugi’s funeral was held, there was a serious provincial meeting among Japan’s leading anarchists. They passed several very simple resolutions. The first was to relax theoretical propaganda and focus on practical activities. The second was to annihilate the enemies who killed Osugi and most of the socialists and anarchists in the Kanto Massacre, following the earthquake. The third was to publish The complete works of Osugi.

From Equality 2:

Regarding the first task, on the one hand, they are working hard to develop anarcho-communism, and on the other hand, they are able to take direct actions as individuals and as a cabinet. At this time, other labor groups, democratic groups and ideological groups in Hubei were dreaming of industrial and political bureaucracy. At this time, the Japan Federation of Labor Federation had an internal split, and some communists came to micro-self-revolution. In addition, a more powerful right-wing group, the Japanese Peasants’ Association, and even the right-wing groups within the Machinery Workers’ Association emerged. They wanted to unite and form a unified Japanese proletarian party. They almost completely forgot about the work of the class war and turned to politics. But their movement, like the political movement of property, had a lot of power-fighting phenomena, so they spent two or three years cultivating the elite but without success. The anarcho-syndicalists among them, still brave enough, pretended to slip into battle with their enemies. Their ability to work and direct operations occurred almost every day, and at most there were more than twenty strikes and negotiations in a week. On the one hand, the various ugliness performed by the political movements of right-wing groups has made ordinary working people angry and disgusted. As a result, many workers belonging to right-wing groups broke away from other cadres and cooperated with the leftist unionists. At this time, most of Japan’s labor groups were disappointed with the proletarian movement and turned to the union movement. In addition to the weakened alliances and councils, the sponsors are a group of far-left groups, united under the name of the Japan Federation of Labor. On the one hand, they are called the ultra-left anarchist group, That is, the Free Unionists also formed the National Federation, the Japanese Federation of Labor. In March 1926, the Japanese National Printing Workers Conference resolved to promote national unity of anarcho-syndicalist support groups, which immediately won the approval of the thirteen local groups, and the Local Federation of Free Labor Associations was first established. The following year, it was combined with other groups as advocated by Osaka, Hiroshima, Okayama and other places. On May 24 of the same year, the full freedom of labor unions was opened. The first meeting of the Union was held in Tokyo. There were more than thirty groups participating in this event, and they made extremely quick decisions, organizational methods and programs. They fully adopted anarcho-syndicalism, free association and decentralization. They were jointly established across the country and four local federations were established at the same time, and became an integration of the same industry group. They marked the clear principles of anarcho-syndicalism:

We regard class struggle as the fundamental principle of the liberation movement of workers and farmers;

We reject all political movements and advocate economic equality;

We advocate industry-specific free associationism and oppose statism;

We oppose imperialist aggression and flaunt the international solidarity of the working class.

In this way they completed the national union of the anarcho-syndicalist labor unions. The national federation includes four local federations, ten industries, and twenty-eight industrial groups, including farmers’ groups with about one-hundred thousand members. They issued a monthly magazine “Free Association” which is published every month to this day.

The establishment of this national alliance opened a new era for the anarcho-syndicalist movement in Japan. The right-wing political party movement that surrounded the workers completely failed. Although it was disbanded twice, it had to overcome the siege and established the so-called Workers’ Party. In fact, it was just an organ for the government to bribe the working class. Except for the public status of the Labor Front Alliance, which voluntarily withdrew, and the Labor-Teacher Association Council, which was expelled due to the government’s displeasure, the only remaining organizations are the government’s official organizations. Under this situation, the general alliance and councils that belong to the proletarian parties and those that do not belong to the proletarian parties are all shrinking. The power of the liberal coalition has increased dramatically. Now in the Kanto region of Japan, It has gained the most powerful position, and in the Kansai area, there is also a situation of confrontation with other groups.

The above is the recent status of the activities of anarcho-syndicalist leaders in Japan. Speaking of their second goal, the revenge movement, this movement is naturally the action of a small number of voluntary individuals. But this movement also gave a strong influence to the Japanese anarchist movement. When Osugi and others were killed, comrades Genjiro Muraki and Wada Kyutaro, who had been involved for a long time with Osugi, secretly plotted revenge. They prepared to assassinate General Fukuda, the mastermind of the earthquake-related murders, and Masaki, the chief of the police station. Song Dalang. Genjiro Muraki and Shusui Kotoku were old comrades who started the movement at the same time. Wada was one of the most diligent and enthusiastic young comrades. In the middle of their plan, they organized a meal at the Guillotine Club in Osaka. Daiji Furuta raised sports funds. After killing a banker in Osaka City, Tetsu Nakahama was soon accused by the police. Furuta fled to Goryeo and conspired with Comrade Goryeo to obtain weapons and destroy the Osaka Police Station. After Furuta returned to Japan, he merged with Muraki and Wada Eitaro to plan the money. At this time, the comrades participating in the plan were Keiji Kurachi and Ichiro Shintani. Furuta and Kurachi first went to Hiroshima Prefecture to be regarded as gunpowder factory workers. They obtained mercury from the factory, returned to Tokyo, and secretly made bombs. When their mysterious work was about to succeed, they prepared to destroy the prison while planning to snipe General Fukuda. Wada and Furuta entered Fukada’s residence several times in the hope of success. Later, they got an opportunity. Fukada was at a military lecture. Each had a weapon and guarded what he had to pass. After three locations, the murderer finally met Wada. Wada fired at him with a pistol, but missed, and the second shot failed due to the inconvenience of the pistol. Although the third shot hit Fukuda, he was only slightly injured, and Comrade Wada was arrested. Comrades Muraki and Furuta continued their plan and planned to destroy the police station. Gutian broke into the police station and placed a bomb in the room, but it was not discovered before it exploded, so the purpose of destruction was not achieved. After that, they mailed bombs to the general’s old home. When his daughter opened the bomb, he was out, so only one of his houses was damaged, but Gutian had to escape. From then on, their long-term efforts failed. Soon their secret manufacturing factory was also discovered, and five people were arrested one after another.

Genjiro Muraki, who was in weak health, actually suffered from aggravated lung disease due to failure and mistreatment in prison. He died the day before he left the camp and was moved back to the labor movement club, the headquarters of his comrades, and died the next day. At the same time, another comrade who had been involved in the peasant movement for a long time, Goto Kentaro, went crazy and committed suicide in prison. In addition, four comrades, Wada, Furuta, and Kurachi, were in court in June 1925. Both Wada and Furuta gave moving speeches in court. There was a passage in Mr. Wada’s speech that said: “My actions this time have nothing to do with my ideology. I saw with my own eyes the tragedy of government killings during the earthquake. I once saw the tragic sight of seven comrades with their heads dismembered. The innocent workers of Korea and China were killed, and the Osugi couple and their young nephew were killed by you, and the perpetrators of the killings were let go easily. I had to take this act of revenge. I broke the law of the country, and I broke it knowingly.” This passage clearly shows the spirit of their action. On September 10th of that year, Daijiro Furuta was sentenced to death, Wada was sentenced to life imprisonment and Kurachi was sentenced to twelve years in prison. On September 14th, Mr. Gutian bravely went to the gallows. The other three comrades are still living in the Agricultural Bank of China prison. Tetsu Nakahama was sentenced to death in June 1926.

In short, these three years were a period of bloody struggle between the Japanese government and the anarchists. More than ten comrades were killed. But the anarchist movement became more and more prosperous because of it. Until recently, they were engaged in a bloody battle between workers. On the one hand, the anarchist organization movement was also very advanced. In January 1926, it completely became the Japanese Anarchist Federation.

The collective group Black Youth League. Among the participants were seven trade unions and eighteen social movement anarchist unions. After their establishment, they held a grand lecture to criticize the deception of the proletarian party. The lecture was very successful. After the meeting, dozens of audience members, anonymous anarchist youths, impulsively united and walked to the end of Tokyo. They destroyed more than twenty capitalist shops on the beautiful Ginza street. This is the first popular uprising in Japan recently. Recently, there was a workers’ lockout strike, which was extended for more than a month. There were many direct actions by anarchists during it. Recently, more than ten anarchist youths carried out direct actions against a capitalist in order to aid a worker’s strike. The action destroyed his house, and finally the capitalist succumbed to the workers. Under the situation of people fleeing, Japan’s anarchist movement developed to a degree that is almost beyond our imagination. There are others. Many members of the intelligentsia, who previously only sympathized with anarchism, now take an obvious stance in participating in the actual movement. The peasant movement also created a new situation. The Peasants’ Autonomous Association, organized by anarchists, is also very active. Nowadays, parades, speeches and seminars on various topics are held continuously. We can believe that Japanese anarchism has reached a strong foundation, and it will definitely be able to dismantle all hierarchies!

A Brief Introduction to Anarchism (excerpts from Anarcho-Communist Monthly 1–7)

From Anarcho-Communist Monthly 1:

What kind of thing is the government? What benefits does it have to us humans? We eat when we are hungry, clothe ourselves when we are cold, we can plow and weave to feed ourselves, we can build houses to make ourselves safe, and we can invent science to enhance the happiness of society. It does not depend on the government’s instructions, nor does it need the teachings of politicians. The government itself has set up various laws and regulations to ensnare our people. No one can escape from this trap with a raise of their hands or a cast of their feet. And all freedom of mind is lost. Human beings in the world are all brothers. Our workers love each other instinctively. The government promotes the theory of patriotism, coaches an army that commits murder, and takes it as its daily duty to invade the human country. Therefore, the compatriots in the universe are enemies of each other, and the world of peace Loss is the result of the government: depriving freedom is a poison that disturbs the peace of the world.

How does the government originate? It originates from power. In the barbaric world, one or two strong men conquered their own tribes, called them existing tribes, enslaved the conquered people, and expelled their people to fight with other tribes. They became enemies of each other. This is the origin of this country and the origin of the government. Thinking about it now, it has been worthless for a long time. At that time, animal nature was not gone, so it is no wonder that it was like this, but now it has passed from the realm of beasts and entered the realm of humans. How can it be peaceful to leave this product of the beast’s realm in the human realm of broad daylight?

Politicians defended this by saying: The role of the government is to protect the people from foreign aggression and disputes, rather than to bully others. In this day and age, no government will bully others. How can there be such a thing as foreign aggression? The government must be meant to bully others. Human things can then be decorated in vain by the theory of injury. Let’s talk about resisting insults: when two parties compete, there will be victory or defeat. Will the winner be able to resist foreign aggression and have a good government? Whoever can win in northern Sichuan must be able to bully others. The so-called great powers in this world are all like this. As for the people’s disputes, they are beyond the control of the government. The laws enforced by the government only record the inherent customs of society. (This is what Kropotkin, the great anarchist in modern times, said) If the habit is respected and maintained, then there will be nothing to fight for. If there is a fight, what can be overcome with its inherent habits? The source of the fight. It is true that there is a difference, but I do not know its origin and want to control the beast, but I do not see the government’s ability to do so.

The evils of governments in today’s world have become obvious. People in Europe and the United States have gradually realized the uselessness of governments and are tired of them. The invention of anarchism is like the rising sun in the sky, and a world without government is not difficult to realize.

When people in the world hear those who talk about anarchy, they often have several questions in their minds at the same time. Now we have to answer their doubts: The doubters say: without government, there is no law, and without law, order will be destroyed and chaos will result. The explanation is: Law cannot stop social disturbance. Disturbance arises from disputes, from people to disputes, from poor social organization, and is beyond the control of the law. Looking at urban areas, the laws are the strictest, but there are the most lawsuits and criminals; in rural areas, laws are often beyond the reach of laws, but there are very few lawsuits and criminals. This is clear evidence that this law is not beneficial to society. In life, one must seek to satisfy the desires of life. The desire for life lies in food, clothing, and shelter, and clothing, food, and shelter depend on products. Products are produced by the land and made by human effort. Therefore, given the correct principle, anyone who can contribute effort to produce can certainly satisfy his desire for life. But this is not the case. The private property system of society has been established, and those with money can obtain the highest life, without having to be those who contribute to production. People see that money is omnipotent, so they treat each other with respect and money is a competition. There’s a lot of noise, there’s nothing to eat, there’s no way to get out of here.

From Anarcho-Communist Monthly 2:

People see that money is omnipotent, so they are in harmony with each other and money is a source of competition. There is a lot of noise and chaos, but there is no way to escape here. Get it by fighting for it, train arrogance and extravagance, regard the same kind as cattle and horses, the weak ones turn to the ditch, the cunning ones are used to deceit, the cunning ones sell their girls, (servants and concubines) work hard, (mercenaries and cart drivers) are pure skin and flesh, (prostitutes) think Living a rough life, his powerful drama took risks, took robbery as his livelihood, and regarded killing as child’s play, which led to today’s tragic, dark, sinful and dangerous behavior. Investigating the reason, could it be that the private property system is a class, and even though there are laws, everything is enough to make peace? If there is no government, the private property system will be destroyed and communism will be implemented. Everyone will do their best and get what they need, and the rich and poor will be equal. The competition for money has ceased, life at this time, would have equality, freedom of work, and a competitive society have all changed into cooperative love. Since there is no competition, why worry about disturbing it?

Perhaps the father says that people have different levels of education and education is not universal. Once there is no government and there are only a few people who know the truth, there will be people who take the evil habits of the old society and regard them as disorderly behavior. This is the most common argument used by those who oppose the radicals. Even those who envy anarchists today often have this mentality, thinking that education must be popularized before no government can be implemented, so they dare not advocate for haste and comparison. I don’t know that the bad morals of human beings are due to the bad society; the bad society is due to the government. If all evil governments are gone, human morality will immediately return to purity and beauty, and there is no need to wait for long-term and profound education. How can we say this? Robbery and robbery are the so-called immoral acts in this world: this is what we do.

However, the source of theft is poverty, and people are poor because of the monopoly property of the rich. The reason why the rich can monopolize the world’s public property and the poor dare not monopolize it is because there are government laws to protect it. If there is no government, the private property system will be abolished at the same time. The products of the world will be shared by all the people in the world. There will be no classes of rich and poor. Robbery and robbery will naturally disappear from the world. Murderers are the so-called immoral people in this world. The behavior is also. However, the reason for killing people is that they are fighting for money, otherwise they are lustful. The dispute over wealth is due to the private property system in which property is privately owned, and the dispute over sex is due to the marriage system in which women are privately owned. The reason why the two exist is simply based on the laws of the government. (So-called civil law) If there is no government, private property will be extinct, marriage will be abolished, wealth and sex will not be disputed, and murder will disappear from society.

From Anarcho-Communist Monthly 3:

If a father is selfish and does not care about the common good, he is committing the most common immoral behavior in the world. But in the future, there will be no government, no private property, no family, society will be the direct unity of individuals, and individuals will be simple members of society. Everyone will work hard for their own purposes, and the happiness they will get will be (that is, the food, clothing, housing, transportation, etc. obtained through work) etc.) shared and enjoyed with others, and nothing they did was not for themselves, and nothing was not for others. At this time, there is no public or private matter at all, that is, private interests are nothing but public interests, so there is no public morality for private interests. Everyone is ready. All the other kinds of evils that are today called small morals and so on, if you look at the reasons for them, they must be caused by the bad society, not the sins of the people. The reason for anarchy is to reform this bad society and eradicate the roots of today’s so-called evil and immorality. As for the truth of anarchy, it is not easy for stupid people to understand it. This is the responsibility of the ruling class. However, if you can use various methods to convey the goodness of anarchy to the public and make it known to every household, then naturally No resistance. And this matter is not very difficult, because from today to anarchy, it will take a lot of time and energy to engage in the dissemination and advocacy of doctrine. When the propaganda is conveyed, people will know the truth of anarchy. When the people who know the truth gradually come together and overthrow the government, even if there are a few people who know the truth, it will not be difficult for people to understand the truth without a government. For this kind of truth, there is no profound and mysterious thing that everyone can do. Knowing, everyone can do it. The most important motto is “To each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”. It is easy to know and not difficult to practice. Those who steal or have one or two fierce and fierce people who deliberately seek to be enemies and dare to undermine justice are said to violate human nature and become public enemies of the society. Everyone will denounce them. If you can overthrow a powerful government, how can you just stay here and not go away? Therefore, if you want to implement anarchy today, you can only do your best to convey it. Those who are talented should engage in the task of advocating and implementing it. Those who are not talented should also believe in it first. In fact, everyone who knows that there is a term for system house should pay attention to it today. There is no need to sit back and hope for the universalization of education. The reason why education cannot be universalized today is due to low economic equality, economic inequality, and the government’s protection of private property. Therefore, in a world with a government, there is absolutely no reason to popularize education. (European countries claim to have popularized education, but in fact they are still popularizing education for the rich.) Moreover, government education is generally contrary to the principles of free education. Generally, blind doctrines such as nationalism and militarism are entrenched in the hearts of the people, which is really nothing. Enemies of the government. Therefore, saying that there can be no government after universal education is the same as saying that there can be no government after all the stars on the earth are destroyed.

From Anarcho-Communist Monthly 4:

It is said that people like leisure and hate work. It is human nature and in a communist society, everyone covers what they can and everyone gets what they need. Suppose there are many people who like leisure and happiness, but they only get what they need but not what they can do. What will happen? How should we respond? Said: “It is the nature of people to like leisure and dislike work.” This statement covers the whole story. Otherwise, after a long time in the house, ordinary people want to walk around, sit hard on the mat and feel tired. That is to say, there is no other way to think about movement. People’s ears, eyes, mind, limbs, and every body part all have the instinct to move. Therefore, they cannot do nothing, and there is no need for humans to build mountains. Moreover, humans have entered the human realm from the realm of beasts. The most obvious difference is that they have two hands. The presence of hands in humans indicates their innate ability to work, so “it is human nature to be active”, it can be concluded that there is a reason why people like to enjoy leisure and hate hard work up to now!

The private property system is also a subjugation of class. Now that the system of private property is in place, the difference between the rich and the poor is growing. The power of money is growing, the rich drive the common people like cattle and horses, there are hundreds of jobs in society that are indispensable for human life. (such as farmers, workers, etc.) The rich do not have to do it themselves, but the poor have to do it alone. The rich enjoy leisure and glory, while the poor are humiliated by hard work. Unknowingly, this has created a social mentality that prefers leisure and hates work. (In fact, he loves the rich and hates the poor.) But when it comes to personal affairs, the rich can use money to buy the strength and leg strength of others (such as servants, carriages, sedan bearers, etc.) to replace the natural movements of their limbs and bodies, and add tobacco and alcohol. All kinds of sensual gambling lead a lazy life to amuse the boring time. Doing it for a long time will destroy the spirit and cause physical wear and tear. This is precisely because the human body, brain, and brain are naturally endowed with active instincts that disappear because of it. This is called indolence and indolence. Same as its place. As for the poor, they have toiled all day long, and their blood and sweat for the benefit of society will not be rewarded with silk and hair. Those who plow the fields are hungry, those who weave are stuffed, those who build houses have no tiles, and the cooks who prepare exquisite dishes are white. Everything earned by hard work is a waste. As a result, they are all plundered by the rich. No matter how hard they work, they can only be sacrificed by a few rich and noble people. However, the majority of the compatriots in the society do not share the same. The more diligent and the less happiness they get, the less happiness they get. Disappointment and annoyance are just what human beings should do. They are just like being lazy for a moment, hoping for a moment of boring comfort, which is better than being blindly diligent. Wow, this is not a human sin. In fact, the inequality between the rich and the poor is just for the prostitution of the rich. The consequences of this are the thieves of sin, money, and happiness, and the slow growth of crime. Therefore, no government must oppose private property and replace it with communism. If private property is abolished, there will be no reason for poverty. As for those who are slaves, everyone works hard and does not become accustomed to arrogance and luxury, and is weak and unable to do anything. Moreover, everyone is equal, and there is no distinction between wealth and dignity. Naturally, they ignore the principle of working as a humble servant. Each one has his own profession, combined to form a society of assistance. All work is done to support the life of the whole society, and people are with me in it, rather than just for the sacrifice of a few people. The more diligent you are, the more abundant the production will be, and the greater the happiness of the society. That is to say, the greater the happiness, I don’t believe that there are people who enjoy leisure and hate work at this time.

From Anarcho-Communist Monthly 5 & 6:

The working hours of the people range from eight to twelve hours a day. They work too much and the excessive labor is harmful to their physiology. Although there are machines that can save labor, the rich are unwilling to spend money to buy equipment to save labor. If there is no relationship between money and trade in the world of human beings, all kinds of work can be mechanized. As long as people perform their functions, no matter how skilled they are and how hard they work, they will not become leisure pursuits, that is, they will not. It is possible to get what Kropotkin called the filthy pit and make it as beautiful as the experimental knowledge of the university. Since there is no new money for capitalists, naturally everything can use the results of science. And the so-called happiness of civilization , it is not the exclusive product of the rich. Labor is saved at the same time as time, and there is no need to worry about hardship. There is only joy. If you look at today’s world, the rich are happy and do nothing to produce. Most of the officials and merchants buy navy, army, lawyers, police, slaves, prostitutes, thieves, gangsters, beggars, gangsters, and half of all women in the world (all the above-mentioned people who are not beneficial to social life are collectively called wandering minds), are all provided food, clothing, and shelter by the farmers and workers. Among the workers, part of them is consumed in useless things, so that one person can support three or four people. (It is difficult to accurately estimate the statistics of human occupations in the world.) However, the number of vagrants mentioned above must be three or four times that of farmers and workers. On average, one person can fulfill the promise of three or four people, and one person can obey three or four people. This makes most people see farmers and workers as subordinates, and regard them as slow labor. The happiness gained by farmers and workers is not as good as all kinds of leisurely pursuits. It’s an unfair society.)How can you get something without working?

If at that time everyone was working, suffering and happiness were equal, using machines for various tasks, and there was no wear and tear on battleships, forts, ordnance, etc. and everyone was engaged in the legitimate work of life, the expansion of property at that time would be incredible. According to the statistical calculation results of a certain French anarchist, it is said that each person can work two hours a day to meet the needs of society. Today, it is assumed that it is doubled, and each person works four hours a day. Working for four hours, the time is short, it is easy, and the pain of labor will turn into the joy of entertainment. Today’s people have no leisure and entertainment. Even leisure activities such as traveling, games, gymnastics and other pastimes are enough. However, working for several hours a day is nothing more than a pastime. Why worry about not being willing to work?

There is also an era of nihilistic government, where human beings have no thoughts and there will be no evolvers in society. Not thinking about evolution is the principle of natural evolution, and upward is the common nature of human beings — there is no reason to retreat but not to advance. The evolution of the world depends entirely on science. People who invent science are willing to compete for their own interests, and they are probably the hearts and ears of good social work and evolution. The reason why science is difficult to achieve is because of private property. People who are not rich cannot obtain the highest education. Once they have obtained it, they have to find food and clothing, so they don’t have much free time, and the help of equipment and experiments cannot be achieved unless they have capital. European and American scientific research societies and scientific inventors are often funded by wealthy people. This science is evidence of the manipulation of money. If communism is practiced, education will be equal, everyone will have scientific knowledge, and so-called inventions will not be exclusive to a few people. If you know what you are doing every day, you will have more time for research, and everyone will have access to experimental instruments. At this time, anyone with a profound mind will be able to concentrate on research, and scientific inventions will be far more advanced than they are today. Individuals are trapped under the private property system and earn money for food and clothing every day, but only a lot of money is enough. They are slightly cautious and open-minded, and cannot change their fortunes. If they lived, in a society of mutual love, their thoughts will be improved by all those who think about society and seek happiness. Why not evolve the world?

From Anarcho-Communist Monthly 7:

In addition, there is a common doubt, that is, if a country has no government, it will be invaded and conquered. People who doubt this are probably accustomed to having a government and superstitiously believe that the government is omnipotent. But they don’t know that the government is also a human being and is not omnipotent. The so-called defense against aggression is nothing but reliance on the army. The army is accustomed to obeying orders and has no independent character. Once it is used to defend against aggression, the people’s willingness to listen to orders must be more important than the willingness to defend, so it is not enough to serve. If the people’s self-defense is purely due to the axiom of ensuring resistance to strong power, they must regard the government’s military as their own, powerful. Looking at the French Revolution in 1793, the civilians resisted the allied forces, and the Spaniards defeated Napoleon the First, all of these were conquered by the people’s most outstanding ability to resist foreign aggression. It can be seen that soldiers who do not need to be trained for a long time to resist aggression, and those who advocate full armament in the name of militarism, are only for the government’s private interests and are not specifically for resisting aggression. It is uneasy but since civilians have the ability to overthrow the government of one country and can defeat the army of one country, they can also defeat the army of other countries. Moreover, there are no political parties and no national boundaries. After overthrowing the government of one country, they will allocate their remaining strength to help the revolution of other countries. To overthrow the governments of other countries, various anarchist parties have been organized. If the government of one country is removed, the anarchist parties in other countries will rise up and attack their governments. At this time, all the so-called governments will not have enough time to take care of themselves, and much less still have the energy to invade the country without a government? Just look at the great master of all wars in the world, and his opponent’s anarchy is terrifying. The Anarchist party can unite the peoples of all nations to form a unified alliance, but the governments of all countries cannot unite in a grand alliance of all nations. This shows that the power of Anarchism is far greater than that of the government, and there is no doubt about it.

The above repeated arguments all prove that anarchism is not only correct in theory and political theory, but also can be implemented. How could anyone who reads this disagree?

The Difference Between Anarchism and Marxism

What is the difference between Anarchism and Marxism? The main thing is: Anarchism is the doctrine of the people, while Marxism is the doctrine of the political party.

Marxism is a party-centered alliance of a small number of people, who decide to lead and direct the struggle, and the party’s power is above all else. Anarchism is centered on the common people, and the revolution is completed by the will and power of the common people. The party only serves as the spokesperson among the common people, the core of the common people, and the pioneer of the common people.

The purpose of Marxism is to overthrow the so-called democratic regime (the regime of the bourgeoisie) and establish the regime of the Marxist Party (the regime of the Communist Party), which is euphemistically called: the dictatorship of the proletariat. Anarchism opposes all attempts to seize power. Political power is a tool for a small number of people to rule the majority. The majority of the Chinese people can never hold political power, and they do not need political power. What the people need is an anarchic, autonomous, and united free communist society. The word “communism” used by the Communist Party is often confused with the “free communism” of anarchy and communism, but in fact the content is completely different. The doctrine of the Communist Party is not “communism”. In fact, it is “collective property”, because it nationalizes all property, land, and factories and puts them under the control of the government, and the government becomes a big capitalist. Today, workers and peasants in various countries are enslaved by individual landlords and capitalists. This is called “wage slavery.” Under the dominance of the Communist Soviet government, farmers became serfs of the government, and workers became labor slaves of the government. Although the government raises the flag of the “proletariat,” it is exactly the opposite of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and it has become a group that dominates and exploits the proletariat. Anarchist Communism is a planning principle that returns all property in society to the common people, and the land to farmers. The villagers’ and peasants’ associations plan production, and the factories belong to the workers. The labor unions organized by the workers plan production, and distribution. The entire production and distribution belongs to the Workers’ and Farmers’ Federation. Everyone works, everyone participates in all life decisions, there is no ruler, everyone freely enjoys the common products, and makes the best use of their talents and abilities.

Nowadays, many people misunderstand that the doctrine of the “Communist Party” is “communism”. This is really a mistake. The Bolshevik wing of the Russian Social Democratic Party changed its name to the “Communist Party”, which confuses the eyes of the common people. “Communist Party” is a sign. He does not advocate communism. He advocates collectivism with state dictatorship. What we anarchists advocate is “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” which is communism.

A government can never be communist,

Anarchy leads to communism.

Equality #1 Selected Articles

Our Manifesto

“Equality, equality!” What a wonderful term! You have been the only ideal in the minds of common people for thousands of years. You are the gospel that many people long to look up to. For you and for your realization, countless of our compatriots have Sacrificing their happiness, their lives and everything, the independence of the United States, the revolutions of France and Russia, these earth-shaking great undertakings, that one was not for you, the blood flowing like a river in the bloody battlefield , the mountains of prison bones piled up, the guillotine, the bloody spots under the noose and the sharp knife, the tears of the prisoners in the corpses, and the cries of hungry women and children in the huts in the next alley, are not for this. you. Over the past many centuries, people have paid such a high price!

However, in fact, today’s society is a very unequal society! A big gap divides mankind into two big classes, the plunderers and the plundered — the haves and the have-nots. Some people’s personal waste every day is enough to feed more than a thousand people, and some people have difficulty getting the necessary food every day. On the one hand, he eats delicacies from the mountains and seas, wears silks and satins, and lives in high-rise buildings. On the other hand, he eats rice with residual soup, wears rags and shoes, and lives in miserable thatched huts. On the one hand, wealth is aspirational, on the other hand, poverty is miserable. On the one hand, many rich people do not work at all, produce nothing, and live only on the income of others. They enjoy all kinds of entertainment, spend a lot of money, hire many servants, occupy many houses, and deprive society of wealth. On the other hand, many poor people go looking for work but cannot find it. Their homes are in need of shelter, they are suffering from the cold and are suffering great hardship. Those who had jobs worked hard to support their families, but because they overworked and ate poorly, they died in their thirties and forties, leaving their wives and children to suffer. How terrifying! But it’s not just that. People of one class hold the power of life and death of people of another class, and can kill, imprison and humiliate people at will, while the other class only has one person and can die.

“I’m dying, freezing to death. All the rights of the common people have been taken away. In the end, you can only mourn your own fate with tears in your eyes. However, those shameless rich people live on your favors. But they are openly drinking wine!” When we read this song that was popular in France in the late 18th century, who can’t help but feel for them? However, the sad thing is that this is exactly for our own. What a portrait!

We have the same body of flesh and blood, and we have the same talent and self-gathering points. We have worked so hard to create the wealth of today’s society, why should we still crawl under the influence of the first class and sink into the sea of ​​poverty?

“Equality, equality,” the loud bell rang from this poor world surrounded by pain, poverty and misery. We no longer want to be oppressed slaves, we no longer want to be weak people living under the influence of the God of Destiny. We know our rights. We are here to demand “equality”. This unfair society should be eliminated, the unfair classes should be eradicated, the institutions where people rule over others, the tools used by the capitalist class to oppress us — government laws, military police, etc. should be overthrown.

What we demand is economic equality, de facto equality, where everyone can enjoy the same happiness and fulfill the same obligations. There are no masters, no slaves, no government, no common people, no bourgeoisie, no proletariat. We must hold the banner and advance towards this free and equal society. Our banner is “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” and the way to achieve this is “revolution”. “With revolution”, our “equality” is no longer a fantasy. With “revolution”, we can break the slave system and become free people, so we are all revolutionary parties.

This small monthly publication with black characters printed on white paper is not our main job, nor is it our only weapon. It is just our cry, our flag, and the sound of a bell that arouses our comrades. Here is an explanation of our propositions, and here is a record of our movement. Some are fierce tides in full swing, while others are bits and pieces of blood and tears. Our conscious comrades who are sinking into the dark world and all those who sympathize with us, please come and unite under the banner of equality! We are willing to launch the cannon as your pioneer!

Is Our Society Such an Unfair One?

Before us, there were tens of millions of people who felt that our society was too unfair and unreasonable. They would raise their throats and shout at their companions, and they would not know that there are tens of millions of people who, in order to demand fairness and freedom, dedicate their heads and blood and tears to mankind and their brothers. . And until now, many people are still fighting and bleeding there. But what about the society we live in now? We see manifestations of the so-called civilized society everywhere. In major cities, we can see tall and majestic buildings, convenient transportation, prosperous commerce, gorgeous hotels, and cultural gathering places. School libraries and museums, entertainment theaters and music halls, and all kinds of entertainment life that don’t work. And in fact we can also see that there are some people who enjoy their contented lives. Some people were walking around full of joy. If you don’t know how to look at the other side, you will definitely not believe that this society is unreasonable. But as long as you are not an idiot, you will never fail to see another aspect of this society, or it can be said that only this opposite aspect is the true face of modern society and everything that makes up modern society. You can see pale-faced beggars on the streets. If you get up early or walk to a factory-lined area, you will definitely see male and female workers like insects squirming there for food and clothing. You can walk to the road at dusk. You will definitely see prostitutes wandering around soliciting customers, and so on. If you occasionally walk out of the city, you will see shabby houses and rude farmers, and heavy carriages that make an astonishing noise, like ragged beggars sitting on them. The carriers fetched water from tubes in the deep wells and carried it to the peasant women beside the ugly stove. There was no look of joy on their faces. They had no feminine beauty at all. It was a stone on their bodies. Only coarseness and stupidity can be found. Their children cannot even be counted; they cannot dream of the upbringing and play of the children of the rich. Such people actually constitute one-tenth of the human race. This is still the case in civilized countries.If you pay attention to the societies of so-called “inferior countries” and “inferior nations”, you can see everything that is more cruel and inhumane. In short, before our eyes and in our ears, we are surrounded by extreme disharmony and extreme unfairness. Of the more than 200 million human beings in the world, at least 190 million are slaves, oppressed, and plundered. They have no right to enjoy the natural endowments, they have no right to maintain and expand their lives, they were sentenced to life imprisonment the day they were not even born, and they said you are a slave. In such a society and such a world, most people believe in God and believe in God. They think that being born in the world is punished by God. There are also some philosophers and poets who are skeptical and pessimistic. They want to solve the problem of why humans should be born in the world. Regarding the issue, there are also some scholars who advocate personal upbringing. They encourage people to get rich and become officials. They believe that if you don’t want to be a slave, you should work hard to be a master. There are also some politicians who are superstitious about the state and the law. They say humans are born sinful. Therefore, we can only guide their lives to be good gradually under the rule and the law.

But what a deception this is! All the above and so on are to maintain this unfairness and maintain this disharmony. The country, the law, and the disguised scholars and old moralists just want to reconcile this unfairness and injustice, organize it and solidify it, so that it will never change. It is more appropriate to say that they are the protectors of the privileged class, the bourgeoisie. They are the capitalists, bureaucrats, monks, and the nobility rely on these people to maintain themselves. Let us look at the day when the current legal system is not persecuting us working-class civilians? Although we have gradually woken up from this nightmare, and although our pioneers have sacrificed a lot, we must know that our companions , there are still most people doing something there, and most people are still there to protect the country, make money-making machinery for the capitalists, and make luxury goods for the privileged class. There are also many people who are making weapons to kill people there, and people are being led to war in the field to kill each other.

Friends! Our current society continues to be unfair and unharmonious! How many benefits has modern scientific civilization given us? The only ones enjoying modern civilization are the beasts and the murderous class. We should wake up. If we still think that we are human beings and that we are human beings born in nature, we should stand up and take back our rights as human beings. If we are creatures of nature, we should enjoy the products of nature as much as possible. If we are humans, we should try our best to enjoy the wealth created by humans. Why do we give up our rights? Why do we let the minority murderous class monopolize it? Why do we still work like horses for their private property and private interests?

Friends! If we are not idiots, we should wake up and unite. Friends who are standing in this disadvantageous position! Leave the shackles and everything we have and fight against the cruel beasts! We don’t need to be timid, we have everything around us. We are the masters of all production of weapons. Why don’t we use this weapon and unleash it on the enemy? Why don’t we rise up and manage our production institutions? As long as we realize our status and see our enemies clearly, our world will immediately change according to our wishes. We work for our brothers and we come to share. Is this a fantasy? If someone says this is a fantasy, he is saying that he is cowardly. Now, who is willing to be an eternal slave! We should all despise it.

Equality

There are so many injustices in this society! On the one hand, there is prosperity and luxury, on the other hand, there is poverty and misery. On the one hand, there is wanton waste, on the other hand, there is hunger and cold. On the one hand, there is hygiene and comfort, on the other hand, there is death from disease. On the one hand, there is idleness, on the other hand, there is hard work throughout life. On the one hand there are high-rise buildings, on the other hand is a humble hut. On the one hand there is knowledge, science, art and civilization, on the other hand, there are people that are stupid, rude and uneducated. On the one hand there are capitalists with tens of millions of dollars and wealthy emperors, on the other hand there is a laborer who would starve if he did not work hard for a day. On one hand, there are bureaucratic military police who kill people and brutally commit crimes; on the other hand, there are civilians who are punished and killed and endure the humiliation and pain. In short, this is a society of thieves. Except for a few people, most of them are exploited. The oppressor, the plundered.

We are all people who have been plundered and oppressed, (at least we are people who express deep sympathy for the proletariat), and we are very angry about the injustice of the current society. We must resist the current society: and work towards the current society by the use of revolution, we must overthrow the old and create a happy and bright new society with complete freedom and true equality.

Don’t say that this is an unrealizable utopia! In less than a few decades since the founding of the First International, the efforts of the working class have gradually expanded. Many people who used to work more than ten hours a day now only work eight hours a day. Hours, wages used to be very pitiful, and now the capitalists have to increase their wages many times. Now the whole world has awakened, and there are tens of millions of organized workers, and workers’ own groups are everywhere. Yes, the workers’ own newspapers and magazines are spreading by the thousands, and the news of strikes and revolts is reported every day to the working class. As long as they continue to work hard and continue to fight together, soon this great world will be “ours”, and it will be “our” future. In society, the following two principles must be implemented:

(1) On the economic front, abolish money, capital, and the wage system, and implement communism based on the principle of “everyone can do what they can, everyone takes what they need.”

(2) In politics, there is no need for police, no executioners, no law, no government. All affairs must be organized by workers.

Groups are directly managed, and based on “small organization, large liaison”, they implement organized and methodical anarchism. Stop saying that this is an unrealizable utopia — because the current society is too bad and too difficult, so no one dares to hope for a good, beautiful and happy society. In fact, as long as you think this doctrine is right and reasonable, That will surely come true one day, because history tells us that truth will always conquer everything.

Come on! The current society is so unfair! All the people who are oppressed and plundered, let’s rise up and overthrow this capital system and powerful organizations! We have been slaves enough, let’s become free people where everyone is equal.

Some News (July)

The “Revolutionary Workers’ Alliance” was established in Guangdong and believes in syndicalism, and some of our comrades also joined it. It is said to have 100,000 members.

Five people including Mizunuma Kuma, a representative of Japan’s Kanto Free Federation of Labor Unions, have arrived in Guangzhou after secretly escaping from the country. Mizunuma is the younger brother of Tatuo Mizunuma, the most famous anarcho-syndicalist in Japan. He was the supervisor of the Institute of Science and Technology at Moscow State University. After returning to Japan, he worked as the editor and publisher of “Black Youth”. Very experienced in the labor movement. Now that he has come to China, how much contribution he can make to the development of the Chinese labor movement.

This magazine received a letter from Comrade Goldman. It is said that after arriving in Canada in October last year, she immediately engaged in speech propaganda and achieved great results. Now she plans to stay for another year to plan a large-scale movement. It is also said that when she gave a speech on the situation in China this month, she was extremely opposed to supporting the national revolution of the bourgeoisie. What she paid most attention to was the now awakened young men and women and ordinary workers.

The Italian comrades in this town regularly hold a banquet at the hotel on the evening of the 8th of this month. At the same time, they support the New York “Road to Freedom” magazine and celebrate the launch of the “Liberation” monthly magazine. (The newspaper is in Italian and is scheduled to be published this month) There will be various entertainments, and all our comrades will participate in the fun.

The third issue of another magazine has been published. This issue is the commemorative issue of Shifu, and contains a detailed biography of Shifu. If you want to know Shifu as a person and understand anarchists, you must read it. We will sell it on our behalf. The combined 45th and 45th issues of this magazine are expected to arrive within the next month of printing.

About this Publication

(1) This publication is co-organized by the Equality Society and our comrades who live in Europe and the United States. In addition to promoting anarchism and recording news about the anarchist movement as the main content, this magazine also pays attention to the situation of Chinese workers in Europe and the United States. Comrades, if you have a message to send to this publication, it is most welcome.

(2) This publication is free. If you want to read it, please inform us of the address and we will send it to you immediately. If there is any change of address, please feel free to inform us.

Equality #2 Selected Articles

Chinese Anarchism and Organizational Issues

Regarding the issue of organization, my opinion is the same as that of all Chinese comrades, anarchy requires organization, and it requires strict organization. In the past, there may have been some comrades who advocated not having organizations, but now almost no one would have such an opinion. Therefore, in the past, most of the anarchists in China were the intellectual class. In countries where China’s progress is relatively slow, they cannot have public events. Therefore, some do not understand the organization at all. Some even say that anarchy means no organization. But later, on the one hand, due to theoretical research, it was known that the society required by anarchism was not unorganized; on the other hand, because past experience proved that development cannot be achieved without organization. Therefore, the most pressing issue among Chinese comrades now is the organizational issue.

We all know that the prophets of anarchism such as Bakunin and Kropotkin were all in favor of organization. Bakunin often spoke of the need to organize groups. Moreover, from the experience of the Russian Revolution and the French Revolution, we know that the proletariat cannot be liberated from the shackles of capitalism without the ability to organize, manage industrial and agricultural distribution of production, etc. Therefore, if we want to seek the liberation of the masses, we must develop the organizational power of the masses. If we want to carry out revolutionary work, we must also develop our own organizational power.

Printing a pamphlet or publishing a journal is what an individual can do, but actual revolutionary work, a planned and strategic social revolution, is not something that can be most effective by relying on an individual’s strength. It had to be accomplished through organized gatherings, and by the organized anarchists.

In the past, some comrades were deeply afraid that strict group organizations could only hinder personal development. This idea was wrong. Group organizations not only cannot hinder individual development, but can actually help them develop. development. The effect of operating as an organization not only benefits from the activity of the individual, but also from the activity of the group, which cannot be achieved by the activities of separate individuals.

Although organization is necessary, the organization of an anarchist party is different from other political parties. It is not a centralized organization. Chinese comrades also understand this very well. The organization sought by the Chinese comrades is based on the principle of free association.

Regarding this organizational law, the comrades refer to the resolutions of the 1918 Ukrainian Anarchist Congress, also in the same year, two of the Russian anarcho-syndicalism resolutions, and resolution of the All-Russian Anarchist Congress of 1919 then written a book “Draft Program of the Anarchy”, first published in Minzhong and other magazines, then printed into a handbook.. In general, most comrades in China agree with his views. The main points of its organizational law: the basic unit of the group is a small group of five or more people organized by comrades in factories, schools and other institutions. These small groups united with small groups in villages and towns to form district alliances, and then the district alliances formed the national alliance. Here I give a very simple organizational method as follows:

(1) Purpose: Anarchism has no hierarchy. It is not bourgeoisie’s utopia, it is the ideology of the proletariat. Therefore, the purpose of the anarchist party is to assist the working class and carry out the revolutionary cause.

(2) Members: Anyone who believes in anarchist communism and is willing to be a spiritual force for the working class can join the organization. However, they must be introduced by one or more organization members and approved by the conference before they can join the organization.

(3) Organization: Those who have more than five comrades in a factory or school can organize small groups. Each small group can jointly form a district alliance, which can then become a provincial alliance and then a national alliance. Each small group elects a secretary to handle affairs, and the term of office is limited. The secretaries of district leagues and provincial league organizations are elected by the plenary session or representative meeting. The secretariat must pay attention to and promote the organization of the working class. If an important issue arises, representatives of each group will convene a meeting to discuss all proceeding matters. The resolutions shall be handed over to the Secretariat for execution. The National Grand Alliance is divided into secretaries, editors, propaganda, workers and peasants, and other departments. Its duties are to operate publishing, newspaper propaganda, convene conferences, and liaise with comrades from various countries. The labor and agriculture department specializes in dealing with the workers and peasants movement.

(4) It is stipulated that organization members should perform all team duties and report their duties to the group. There shall be no shirk for the things delegated by the general assembly. If a member damages the name of the group, fails to fulfill his responsibilities as a member or fails to attend three meetings without reason, he will be warned. If he does not listen, he may be expelled by the general assembly.

Generally speaking, Chinese comrades agree with the above outline. However, the organizational network adopted in various places has changed somewhat due to local conditions, and some are more strict.

From the above description, we can get a glimpse of the opinions of Chinese comrades on organization. If the opinions of comrades across the country can be roughly unanimous, the issue of organization will no longer be a problem, and the period of discussion will enter the period of implementation.

This is a section of a report prepared for the preparatory meeting of the “Anarchist International” (i.e., the International Anarchist Congress). Later, due to complaints that the Congress was oppressed by the French government, many comrades from various countries were deported. This report was not translated and sent, but now I have recorded it and published it in this journal.

People

“You are not a human being!” is a very common people’s saying. Not being a human being, of course, doesn’t mean that you don’t have two hands and a mouth, and it certainly doesn’t mean that you don’t have a human form.

Human beings are born free and equal. But now, some — the majority — have become cattle and horses that are eaten, and some — a very small number of people — have become tigers and wolves that eat and kill. Although the world is huge, how can we find a person, a real person?

As for workers and farmers, we are cattle and horses being driven by people, and sheep being slaughtered by people; we still don’t know how to live human lives. As for those policemen and soldiers, you are the dogs that protect the rich and that protect politicians. You are not human beings and you do not deserve to be human beings.

Try your best to be a human being, comrades! You must understand that because you are kneeling under the rich and powerful, you feel that you are humble and inferior. Now is the time, stand up! Raise your head and neck, straighten your chest, and be a self-respecting, self-loving, courageous, spirited, and courageous person!

We have lived enough of slave life. If we live enough, we would rather die if we are not free. Really, it would be better to die if you can’t be a good person!

As for you, “cannibal beasts”, you always look down on people in a smug, arrogant way, but you are even less worthy of being human, and you are even less human.

·Your champagne, hundreds of bottles of champagne — this is the blood of workers, the birth of children and women! You drink it bottle after bottle!

A plate of yours can save many lives — it is made of the flesh and blood of the oppressed! Although you are chewing it quietly and peacefully, such a gentleman’s mask, it proves that you are more vicious than wolves, and more ferocious than tigers! Really, when I turn on the smell of human flesh, look, isn’t it still bloody?

·You are such cannibals. I pity you and give you a final piece of advice: Stop fighting and trampling on the heads of your fellow humans, and stop taking pleasure in their corpses! Stop being a demon that oppresses people. You are a hungry ghost who robs people! Put down your butcher knife and be a human being!

I’m dreaming! How can a hungry tiger and a ferocious tiger become a human? Please continue to eat people and kill people; but remember: “There are no white-haired robbers.” One day, one day, karma will come for you!

Anarchism, in my opinion, has no other purpose than to enable us to be individuals and to enable everyone to be individuals. Let a person not kneel in front of others and beg like a cow because of hunger. No matter what, you can’t be a superior person, no matter what, you can’t be a subordinate.

“What a dream!” I see people saying this everywhere. Let’s discuss it! Design it as much as you can! You guys who eat human flesh and drink human blood! You try your best to buy newspapers and scholars, try your best to propagandize, and say that anarchy and communism are always utopias. This is true in the past world and in the current world. This will always be the case. If it’s not enough, you still have thousands of cages, swords for hands, knives and guns for police dogs, and machine guns for soldiers. Do your best to oppress! Do your best to kill! But you must understand that no one will be afraid of you, because you are just a relic of the “past”, and the “future” has already sentenced you to death.

“Everyone should do what they can, everyone should get what they need, everyone is equal, everyone is free. Although the ideal is good, it is a pity! I’m afraid it can’t be done!” What a miserable and pitiful voice this is, the cry of slaves!

Those privileged classes tell you every day that this is a good ideal but cannot be realized. “You’re used to hearing it, and you actually believe it.” Slaves, you have been deceived and fooled. Don’t you understand now?

“All good ideals can be realized.” This is a true truth, don’t forget it. Wasn’t the airplane fifty years ago a good idea that “cannot control the present”? What is it like now? More than a hundred years ago Motors, your words, etc., aren’t they all “unrealizable” fantasies? What about now? Wasn’t the “national journey” twenty years ago also a good idea that “cannot be realized”? What about now? There are tens of millions of such examples, but I don’t need to give them more. People with money and power are unwilling to believe and instead oppress, the people who made the plunder should have believed it a long time ago.

When a person is born, there is no such thing as superiority or inferiority, high or low, rich or poor, or wisdom and salvation. All kinds of injustices, all kinds of classes, all kinds of evils, all kinds of systems are all made by human power. Since human power can do it, why can’t it be destroyed by human power? We are not human beings. Anyone who has blood and courage, people! If we don’t eat people, we will be eaten by others. If we don’t kill people, we will be killed by others. But we have lived enough, we have really lived enough of this inhuman life! Let’s all get up and work together to destroy this evil and miserable world and create a human society!

There are no officials and no people, no gentlemen and no villains, no masters and no slaves, no sages and no stupid people. You don’t despise me and I don’t flatter you. No one is willing to be oppressed by others and no one wants to go. Once the oppressor reaches that time, we can finally leave the dangerous, terrible, miserable and dark hell, come to the world of light, and shout: Now I’m a human!

Some News (August)

The Italian comrades in this town held a banquet on the evening of the 8th of the previous month, which was recorded in the last issue of this magazine. There were comrades from seven or eight countries attending the meeting that evening, numbering in the hundreds. Most of our comrades also participated. The meeting was held at eight o’clock in the evening. During the banquet, the secretary announced the purpose of the banquet and read out a congratulatory speech. There was thunderous applause. We invited various comrades to give speeches, and finally raised funds for the bi-monthly publications of “Liberation” and “The Road to Freedom”. It was already half past eleven when the meeting ended.

Comrade Shuyao has been working recently. In his spare time, he devotes himself to propaganda work. Every Sunday, he went to the overseas Chinese districts in nearby towns to hold open-air lectures, and distributed this magazine. Every time he read it, the audience was very crowded, and many expressed sympathy for our humanism.

Equality #5 Selected Articles

Some News (November)

The city’s Jewish, Russian, Italian, and Chinese anarchist comrades held a picnic meeting on the 23rd of last month in this city. There were a large number of gays and lesbians attending the meeting that day. In addition to speeches, there were also music and ball games to add to the fun. It was also suggested by a Russian comrade that the four groups should unite in the future and hold a regular meeting every Saturday night to facilitate communication. Once approved by all, it will be implemented on the last Saturday night of last month.

On the evening of the 11th of this month, various worker groups in this city jointly held a commemorative meeting to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the martyrdom of Chicago. It was the evening when many famous speakers gave speeches. The venue address is as follows:

Labor Lyceum, 1740 O’Farrell St.

Some other magazines have been mailed. One costs 2 cents per volume, and the other costs 7 cents per volume, which are sold by our organization.

Equality #12 Selected Articles

What Should We Do Now?

“Fighting for anarchy is the most beautiful way to live life.”

If you blame me for not replying to your letter for a long time, you should know that it’s not because I can’t answer the questions you asked. My silence proves that I want to give you a more important answer. Moreover, in this reactionary period, in a still painful life, with a painful heart, I suppressed the rushing tide, and observed and thought with a calm mind, there is nothing in common with what I have experienced in the past few years. Where the beliefs conflict, I will stay true. I will not be like those people who defect midway, discover a new path, go against their true beliefs, and do things they oppose in order to survive in society, but I am in this era. In the process of moving forward, I realized that the truth I knew was good, and the path I took was endless. If I could die a hundred times and be resurrected a hundred times, I would still walk on the path I am on now, and I would still be a revolutionary anarchist. Since I would still distinguish my thoughts and actions in this way, After some evaluation, I understand that I will not deceive myself, I will not sell my faith, and I will continue to live in this turbulent society without tarnishing my beloved. Ideally, then I feel that I can stand in front of you without any shame, and with comradely sincerity and brotherly friendship, I can sincerely tell you what I really feel and want to say.

“What should we do now?” You asked. In your question, I can see your recent depression and your recent negativity. I know that you are tired of years of hard struggle and have begun to doubt your belief in justice and victory. You then asked: “When will this situation end?” Dear comrade, believe me, my firm answer to the first question is: “According to what is required of us to do. Just do it;” As for the second one, “This situation will eventually end.”

“What should we do now?” This question brings us to a big stage in life. We feel that we are standing on the shore of a turbid and clear sea. What other way do we have to go? We can only jump onto the stage and jump into the sea. However, before we jump in, we should observe this stage and the sea with a thorough mind, and then use the determination to remain unchanged even if a mountain collapses in front of us. Engage in it with unyielding perseverance. There we can be sure that our heels will not drift with the world.

Okay, okay, let’s take a look at this stage, this ocean — China’s society. But before we make this observation, I want to tell you: the story of how another generation of young people in another country got the answer to the same question decades ago. This is a bright mirror for us, and we must reflect our own reflection from it.

In fact, Chernyshevsky, the founder of Russian populism, raised such a question in 1863. In the novel “What Is to Be Done?“The answer he gives is the ideal “trinity” of a generation of young people (nihilists) — (1) “freedom of the will” (2) “educated female companions”; (3) “professions suitable for the doctrine.” This ideal was gradually realized.

I am currently writing “The Story of the Russian Revolution” with blood and tears. Regarding this topic, I would like to quote the following words from the seventh chapter of the book I am writing, “Nihilism”:

In short, the fetters of family and customs were broken. Nihilism has triumphed.

“Then what next?” The old nihilist should be satisfied at this point and stop moving forward. There is no answer to this question. One day a young and enthusiastic guest came from here to visit. He asked the nihilist in a warm tone: “Then what will we do in the future?” The old host replied: “I am happy myself.” After hearing this answer, the young guest, full of passion couldn’t help but become angry, and said something more powerful than a sword: “Of course you are happy, and I know that. But if you knew what kind of situation your compatriots in the country were in, how could you still be happy? Are they? They are about to die from conscription, and the government gives away all their money and forces them to beg for a little crust of bread on the street. They complain to others about their pain, but they are unwilling; they complain to heaven, but heaven does not open up. When it’s cold, no one gives it clothes; when it’s hungry, no one gives it food. Life is not ruthless, but in their eyes, it can’t be said to be ruthless. Maybe you don’t know this; otherwise, how could you? What about enjoyment? How can you not do something for them? Didn’t you say a few years ago that you were willing to “struggle for human happiness.”

“The old nihilist and others were unable to answer this young man’s questions, so the old nihilism would go down the road of death. As for that young man, he will leave filled with sorrow and anger. From then on, he will ask himself repeatedly in a disappointed tone: “What should we do?”

But the season has come. The Paris Commune Revolution of 1871 took place. A picture appeared before this young Russian: a big city was revolutionizing a great ideal. This young man used his full spirit to record the earth-shattering drama that was taking place on the banks of the Seine in France. He saw the blood flowing like a flood; he heard the painful cries of women and children who were slaughtered on the road. What did they die for? What did they cry for? What they died for was the liberation of the workers; it was for the great social ideal.

At the same time, he turned back to Russia. It seems like there is a loud voice saying: Turn your light to the field and look at this person. He was a peasant, a free man, for it was said that there were no more slaves in Russia. You see clearly again — the first free man was not working or sowing. He allowed himself to swallow the clouds of earth. Although the land was given to him, he did not have the rakes or hoes to plow the land, nor did he have cattle or horses, so he could not fertilize the land. He had nothing to eat and was so hungry that he had to eat clods of soil. If he did find tree roots in the soil, he would keep them and take them home to his wife and children who were waiting in the shabby house.. Look at the pictures of peasants: their whole lives are filled with sorrow, suffering and abuse. They suffer from hunger and are tired of routine, and they will always be slaves of the privileged class, toiling all day long without rest, comfort, hope and happiness; the government makes them live in a state of ignorance forever, and everyone robs them , trampled on them, and no one threw a stone to save them. ”

Hot tears flowed from the bottom of this young man, and he was in pain in his heart: “If I am really suffering, if I am really crying, it is because of the painful old Russian mother, who is looking at me. The children died of hunger, cold and poverty in the withered arms of the ground. Russia, I mourn you!”

But it was useless to mourn in vain, so the young man could not get up. He now had the answer to the question “What should we do?” The answer he gave was: “To build a peaceful utopia, we have to rely on the power of the sword.” He found the job he should do — to go among the people. He then extended a helping hand to the farmers. He told farmers how to imagine themselves and how to make them happy. For the poor sufferers — the farmers who could only cry bitterly, the young man’s heart burned like a raging fire. A red light appeared on his forehead, and flames burst out of his eyes. He then made a serious vow in his heart: he was willing to sacrifice his life, his energy, and everything he had to liberate the slaves who were serving under the privileged class and being abused by their bosses; he knew what kind of people they were. He shed his life blood so that a son of the privileged class could live a happy life and be able to study in peace to make himself.

So with unyielding determination, the young man threw away the brocade clothes that burned his body and the delicacies that choked his throat. Wearing cherry blossom clothes and peasant wooden shoes, he left his gorgeous family and said goodbye to his dear ones. He embarked on the journey of “going to the people”. There, as a descendant of the aristocracy, he joined the ranks of the peasants and went to remote areas in the mountains or to windy areas by the fields to push horses and share the joys and sorrows with the peasants. In the moments of leisurely smoking, he promoted socialism just for the sake of it. This type of young people were sentenced to death and exile.

After the movement among the people began, it progressed from propaganda to terrorism, to the assassination of the emperor, and to mass riots. The process in between still requires a pen mixed with blood and tears to write down.. A fifteen-year-old British girl said it well: “We must feel how small we are in front of these men and women!” I will not go on to describe it here. However, from the paragraph that has been described, We can also get a training and a dose of stimulants.

The answer that the Russian youth found is the answer that our modern youth should find, “What should we do?” — Struggle for the great ideal of people’s liberation, the Russian youth found their answer in this sentence. The life work of our Chinese youth can only exist in this sentence.

It will soon become the light of day. I saw the fact that light conquered darkness, my heart became stronger, and my faith became firmer! I believe that one day light will rule the world! However, I can no longer write. In a second piece, we will move our gaze from the Russian battlefield in the second half of the nineteenth century to today’s China!

Notice

After our collective was raided, dear readers, you will understand that many of our books were confiscated by the US government. Now that we have been released from prison, the matter is over. Unfortunately, many of our books that were difficult to collect have been lost. Although we are oppressed and imprisoned, and have suffered this setback, we are still determined to work hard on our work as usual, and equality will be more vividly presented to our dear readers.

Equality #16 Selected Articles

Is It Time For Revolution?

Transforming the system requires two conditions to be accomplished. First, the exposure of the flaws of the old system itself. There is no such thing as a completely unflawed system. However, a new system often comes into being to remedy the shortcomings of the flawed system it replaces; so at the beginning, what everyone notices is only its advantages. Its flaws are often revealed only after a long time of implementation. If the flaws are not exposed, it is difficult to arouse many people’s motivation for transformation. Second, it is people’s awareness of transformation. No matter how the flaws of the old system are exposed, if everyone is bound by inertia, overwhelmed by authority, does not recognize the possibility of transformation, and will not have enthusiasm for transformation. and courage, even if the system needs to be reformed on its own, there will not be a very enthusiastic demand for reform and the fact of reform will be formed. This understanding, enthusiasm and courage for transformation are the result of the consciousness of transformation. The above two conditions, the former belongs to our outer appearance, and the latter belongs to our inner heart. When the outer line and the inner line meet, the transformation is almost successful. But the former is often the cause of the latter. If the system has flaws, it may not be possible for everyone to have the consciousness to reform at once, and the consciousness to reform cannot occur without the defects of the system. If the system is really perfect, how can we have the consciousness that it must be reformed?

The voice of the reform of the current social system (a social system based on capitalism) has been shouted out by a few people. But a greater number of people suspect them, fear them and oppose them. Do we have the tendency to revolt? Let me study whether we have the conditions for revolution.

In any society, the proletariat naturally constitutes the largest majority. The life of the vast majority of the proletariat depends on either farming or working. For workers in the countryside, the daily wages are no more than three or four cents in most and only one or two cents in less. Although wages in cities are higher, expenses have also increased. They also have parents and wives. With the current very expensive rice and commodity prices, such a small salary is not enough to support the necessary food expenses for the family, so why bother with other expenses? Therefore, their closest friends are “Hungry” and “Hungry”. Unfortunately, the two brothers of “Resentment” fell ill, and Mr. “Life” wrote a letter of condolence to them again, announcing that he would sever ties with them. As for the people who work in the fields, the result of their hard work all year round is no less than what the landowners and husbands have robbed of their time. If you encounter a good year, you can also ask the old minister to show mercy and charge them less rent, so that you can have a few grains of rice for the New Year. If the years are spent, a year’s hard work has been wasted and nothing has been gained, and the old husband will be insulted by such things as being “lazy” and “too careless”. Therefore, the hardship of the peasants’ life is not that of the workers. In addition to being oppressed by the landlords, they are also oppressed by the army and the military. There are also those who are unemployed and have no qualifications to suffer the suffering of farmers and workers. They only have two ways. One, go to a place where you will starve and freeze to death. Or, steal from the capitalists and be called a thief.

In short, the life of the proletariat is a life of working for others, and the life of the proletariat is a life of no protection. They have freedom, the freedom of hunger and resentment. They also have rights, that is, the right to “not obey”.

What I have said above is not a matter of heated conversation. If a person who does not aim to be blind and blind, whether he is a bureaucrat, a bureaucrat, or a politician, would not dare to deny that there is such a situation in society: if he wants to deny it, he is not a “living person” in society.

Entering a demanding life means knowing without learning and being able without learning. However, the current social system cannot meet this requirement of the majority of people, and it hinders and hinders this requirement. With such benefits and disadvantages, isn’t its flaw not significant? Isn’t it not obvious? So as far as the first condition for transformation is concerned, now,tThe time has indeed come for transformation.

As for the awareness of transformation, in modern times, it is true that there is only a glimmer of hope, but it will not spread among the people. However, the cries of “life is hard” and “life is hard” can be heard everywhere. The proletarians may not be able to see through the fallacy that “richness and poverty are due to fate” that the capitalists tempt them, or they may be afraid of the authority of the capitalists, or they may be limited by class habits, so they often only know how to “complain” without self-consciousness. Knowing that they have the ability and method to “avoid suffering”, they are unable to get on the track of “reforming enlightenment”. However, it is definitely not human nature to complain about suffering without seeking to avoid suffering. Therefore, it is easy to move from “complaining about suffering” to seeking “avoiding suffering”. Now the power of science and unequal theories are more than enough to destroy “destiny” and “class theory”. The power of proletarian unity can eventually defeat the common law of capitalists. It is what the facts in Europe, America and Japan in recent decades tell us, and it is very trustworthy. As long as a few people who are awakened first spread the doctrine and facts of that force to the people, they will eventually develop the enthusiasm and courage to understand and have the “awareness of transformation”. People who previously advocated preparation and determination , in the end, they used various excuses such as “insufficient level” and “incomplete education” to cover up their “cowardly” mentality. Now those who want to oppose the reform may have that kind of excuse. But the current transformation is an economic transformation. To put it simply, it is a transformation of life. No matter how inadequate the people’s education level is and how little education is popularized, they will never be able to sustain and develop life without knowing what is required. Unless you are someone who denies life, everyone has the ability to seek life, and everyone has received the natural education of seeking life. Is that kind of excuse worth laughing at? Supporting the various doctrines, habits and authority of the privileged class is enough to constrain the will to survive and prevent the development of the consciousness of life transformation. But the shouts of a few awakened people can eventually free the ordinary awakened souls from countless shackles and become the voice of the masses. And the hint of fact is a very powerful promotion machine for enlightenment. If we try to observe the number and capacity of strikes in various cities over the past few years, it will not be difficult to know that the awareness of reform is easy to spread.

From this point of view, although the second condition for transformation is not yet in place, it has already sprouted and will arrive sooner or later.

Be suspicious and afraid of people who oppose reform. If you don’t admit the fact that these two conditions exist, or if you can eliminate them, you can be doubtful, fearful, and opposed. Otherwise, if you don’t doubt, fear, and don’t oppose transformation, transformation will come. If you doubt, fear, and oppose transformation, transformation will come as well. You are suspicious and fearful and oppose transformation. Transformation is nothing more than adding a few more people to be transformed. Rather than reform eventually coming, why should you consider yourself to be in the position of being reformed? Has the time for reform come? It’s here, it’s almost here.

Will we be the proud children of opportunity and become the transformers? Or will we be the ones eliminated of opportunity and become the transformed ones?

Equality #20-22 Selected Articles

Anarchism Returned to Action

Anarchism is not an idea abstracted from the minds of scholars. It is the most universal principle of the universal phenomenon of the universe, the growth of the biological world, and the extremely important roots of the various activities of reproduction.

In this way, it seems to have given an extremely difficult definition to anarchism, but the result of my original composition is completely the opposite. I am not here to discuss difficult academic theories. I am here to explain that anarchism was before the term itself came into being, and before the content of it was considered by the pioneers of what is now called anarchism, such as Godwin. At the time that Bakunin and other pioneers clearly saw it, wrote about it, and publicized it, there were already countless anarchists there doing righteous activities. And it is not only France, Russia, Britain and other places that have produced famous anarchist preachers. There are countless anarchists in every place in the world, in all civilized, barbarous and primitive nations. In short, to put it more clearly, in the evolution of human history, no matter when and where it is, it is always inevitably dominated by two driving forces. One of which is the force of forward movement, the endeavor toward harmony and equality. The other is the force that holds the inherent power, that is, to work towards deformity and inequality. Anarchists are the executors of the former force, and while the Marxists to imperialists are the executors of the latter force.

What kind of people, then, are anarchists? They are those among the people who have pure enthusiasm, far-sightedness, and boldness, who do not have their own pleasures and personal “interests,” who are always in the vanguard of the changes of the times, who are the forerunners of most of those who are fearful of their own fate, who strive for constant change and progress, they are all anarchists. No historian can fail to recognize the greatness of the activity of the anarchists.

Godwin has clearly explained in “Enquiry Concerning Political Justice” that the principle of anarchism has its origins in the French Revolution but not in the expression of theory, but in the facts at the time of the revolution..

When the Tuileries Palace was broken down and King Louis XVI was imprisoned like an ordinary prisoner, the new municipality of Paris immediately realized that this was not the glory of the revolution that rose on July 14th, but the true glory of the revolution. The beginning of the revolution of common people’s equality. In all parts of France, peasants in the countryside violently destroyed the feudal system and freely organized their autonomous regions. By 1793, after the rule of a new tyrant, local rebellions and local unions arose in various places. The movement of activists is obviously the movement of anarchists. The unionists in the Marseilles and Lyons districts can almost represent complete anarchism. Representative figures are completely anarchist in their actions.

“In his “The Great French Revolution “, Kropotkin quotes the bourgeoisie’s representative, the leader of the Girondist party, as saying: “Order and cooperation are the essential means of revolution. The real enemies of the French people and the Republic are the anarchists. I know that the National Government has a party of players in France, and I am here to prove that, firstly, this anarchist party should dominate almost all the discussions of the National Government and all the actions of the Executive Committee. Secondly, that this anarchist party is the cause of all the evils that jeopardize France, and thirdly, that France cannot be saved unless it is seriously deprived of this party. The anarchists make endless comments on the West, on the wealthy, on the charge of being occupiers”, they say that the wealthy are robbers, that they are the same as the officials, and that as soon as a man has a position they think he is a poor, sinful man.”

Society is divided into two classes, the owner class and the empty-handed class, that is, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

“Before August 10th, these saboteurs were true revolutionaries, because then it was time to destroy the old system and to change the Communist regime into one of harmony. Now they are counter-revolutionaries, they are enemies of the people, because the people or the representatives of the people are now the masters”. All these were attacks on the anarchists of the time, but what he was attacking was exactly what the anarchists themselves recognized as their creed, and what they were always moving towards. In fact, the anarchists at that time did not have a party. In the National Government, there was the Gironde Party, the Jacobin Party, but not the Anarchist Party, except that some people sometimes unconsciously took on the color of anarchists, but the anarchists were always on the periphery of the National Government, or rather, above the National Government. Their power was such that they could influence the national government. Some of them were gathered in the Parisian Autonomous League, some belonged to the Club des Cordeliers, some to the Jacobin Club, but their real territory was in the districts, in the streets. Their course of action was public opinion, their weapon was rebellion. They gave life and strength to the revolution, and their ideals were crisp. A republic? Not bad! Legal equality? Agreed! But not only that, much more! This is the anarchism of the French Revolution, anarchism without system or principle.

They are the principal school of the anarchists. But they have all the most important and precious things of anarchism. What they did in 1848 and 1871 was the same, wasn’t it? Especially in the Paris Commune of 1871, in riots, they showed this tendency to the fullest.

If we look at the revolutionary movement in Russia, from the emancipation of the serfs a hundred years ago, from the countless peasant rebellions, from the misty spirit of the fighters who struggled under the cruel threats and tortures, we can see what the bloodlight of the resistance against the power and their own shortness of character has shown. In the cry of “Go to the people! What do the thousands of nameless fighters who, with the cry “Go to the people!”, from the metropolises, abandoning their status, honor, and happiness, leaving their relatives, friends, and lovers, leaving the abode of knowledge, the prosperous playgrounds, changing into rough clothes and heavy shoes, scattering to the poor villages in the four corners of the Russian Federation, ask for?

When the dark tyranny of Nicholas I aroused the desire for revenge, and they used their own blood to demand the blood of those thugs, they used the public will to judge those who had been sucking money from the past. If the blood of the dying people is wiped out by evil spirits, who dares to say that they will not consider their own interests?

What were the demands of those heroes in prison, in exile in Siberia? Before and after the October Revolution of 1917, everywhere they shouted “Land to the peasants, factories to the workers!” Who were they? Who were the peasants’ self-defense armies that rose up in Ukraine, defeated foreign imperialist armies, swept away all kinds of self-defense armies, and demanded “free Soviets”? Who were the revolutionary sailors swept away by the machine guns of Bolsheviks in Kronstadt? Who are the revolutionary sailors who are still in exile, in prisons, in the basements of the real demanders for further revolution?

In one word, we say that they are all anarchists, and that is what anarchists did during the Russian Revolution. From Lieutenant to the present day, Stalin’s followers are also repeating the phrase, “Before the Ten Years’ Revolution they were true revolutionaries, but after that they became counter-revolutionaries.” Because now the people of the proletariat are the masters?

We are no longer going to get involved in a purely social movement against the United States. For the time being, we will only talk about what history thinks the anarchists did in the political revolution.

Bakunin internationalized this spirit. At the end of his long period of rebellion and exile, he completed what is called modern anarchism in the First International. From then on, anarchism continued to develop.

Since the two great anarchist theorists Kropotkin and Shao Kelu laid a solid foundation for the construction of anarchism from an academic perspective, the territory of anarchism has become even larger. They gradually developed in the field of academic thought. On the one hand, they gained a large number of intellectual supporters. This was an inevitable progress in the course of an ideological movement, a significant progress.

But on the other hand in the ideological divisions of the anarchists, a peculiar tendency of the intellectuals, i.e. a reformist tendency, occurred. On the other hand, in the ideological division of the anarchists, a peculiarly intellectual, reformist, tendency took place. This tendency did not occur directly in the person of Kropotkin and Shao Kelu, because they themselves only interpreted actions in terms of theories, because their own lives were also characterized by a process of movement and exile. This is only an indirect tendency, or perhaps it is a phenomenon that occurred when the old ground of the anarchist movement after Europe was hit, when the former direct activists retreated from the work, and when, in the middle of their retreat, they could only propagate their ideas. This phenomenon is not only unique among anarchists but also common among socialists. For example, Marxism of the orthodox school of thought is not in action now, but only a social and economic theory that is popularly studied everywhere.

This tendency had a very bad influence on China. On the one hand, because anarchism came to China at a time when it had already acquired this tendency, on the other hand, the first people to be exposed to this idea in China were those who lacked the ability to act, because the Chinese working class could not enjoy it directly, but had to go through the hands of the petty bourgeois intellectuals who were in the process of revolutionizing the country, and so they took anarchism for what it was. It seems to be something truly transcendent. Some people think that anarchism is only propaganda. Moreover, most of its propaganda is wrong, for example, some people always seem not to understand the relationship between anarchism and individualism. I do not know how anarchism can be put on the side of the utopian class. Some people are skeptical about anarchism because they have only given it a superficial observation. As I said earlier, anarchism plays an important role in every event, in every place, in every change of history, can China be said to be an exception? What then is the explanation for the present state of the anarchist movement in China?

I am here to be able to observe a change of direction or a change of line. Let me be frank and declare that the anarchist movement in China is not being carried out by the average self-proclaimed anarchist, or by the average self-proclaimed anarchist, including ourselves, who organizes magazines and publishes pamphlets. The anarchists are not here. Or maybe this place represents only a little bit of the total percentage. Or maybe from this you can find people who are working against anarchism, you can find slackers, you can find cowards, you can find opportunists who wait for other opportunities and then walk away, but it doesn’t matter, the anarchist strongholds are not here, where are they? They are in the villages that we have never visited, in the peasant states that defend themselves, in the dark corners of the factories, in the armies, in all kinds of socially active groups. The bravest, the least interested among the revolutionary mob, who have probably shed a lot of blood in the various abuses, and who are still ready to shed it, are the ones who are not part of the anarchist army. They are the ones who have performed the important tasks that they performed during the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and they are still performing them, and they may have the name of other parties on their faces, they may not have heard the word anarchism until their deaths, but they, are the anarchists, they are the avant-garde of the evolution of history.

The anarchist laborers who now hang signs and publish magazines are either hindering their work, or at least hindering their union. It is making them reluctant to use the term anarchism. For they hate empty words, they hate cowardice. So I am not talking about a return to activism to them. I hope that the self-proclaimed anarchists, of which I am one, who often speak only in empty words, will give up their timid, intellectual reformist attitude and return to the side of anarchism, which is called for by the “propaganda of action”. In this way we can unite with the people who work on that side, who have never been labeled as anarchists. In unity and with a courage to act that has never existed before, we can give a great power to the future!

The honor of anarchists can never be shouldered by oneself. They are the true executors of public opinion and the pioneers of the times. They are constantly moving further, that is, the people who work towards the realization of greater learning and freedom for the greatest number. They are the people in today’s social organizations. Only those who can shake up the darkest and most depressing parts with full vigor and anticipate future changes are qualified to bear the title of anarchist. Anarchists are the creative cities and builders of history. Anarchism is an honor for all mankind. Because without Anarchists there would be no historical evolution.

Questions and Answers

The state of affairs in China is full of darkness and loss. The common people are all crying out for help and are in a precarious situation. Any young man with a little bit of blood can hardly sit back and watch this situation. But how to save them? In the past, the Communist Party and the Kuomintang both wanted to help them. Now, although the Communist Party is still active everywhere and the Kuomintang is still in dictatorship, the young people and the general public have nothing but resentment and resistance towards them. The left-wing of the Kuomintang are gradually gaining ground, and there are some young people who believe in them. However, in my opinion, they are both figures from the Kuomintang and the Communist Party. If they come to power tomorrow morning and join the government, within a week or a month, they will immediately show their true colors. Those who believe in them now, as a result, are always fooled. Anarchism, in theory, I think is very complete, much better than current society. But it’s just a theory on paper, and so it’s useless. I already believe in anarchism, but my biggest problem is, firstly, it’s very difficult for one person to do something, and you need to have proof of what you’re doing. But I don’t know which organization I will join, the organization in the answer, you said that it is good to have an organization for things. Chinese anarchists are not without organizations. But the group itself is not full, and there is a lack of contact between each other, which we cannot condone! But this is just a fact of the past, a flaw of the past. As long as no one works hard, the future will not be like this. We also believe that to realize anarchism, we need a very substantial group. At the same time, we believe that if we believe in such a group, we will certainly have the possibility of creation. We don’t have to hesitate because of the shortcomings of the past. We should muster the courage to create and start over because of the shortcomings of the past. As long as someone works hard, it will not be difficult to create a substantial group within a few years. Since you believe in anarchism, creating groups is also one of your jobs, so just go for it.

Question, if the group has been organized, what will it do? The Chinese anarchists I have met seem to focus on written propaganda. Literary propaganda is naturally very important, but in addition there must be other tasks. I remember that Kropotkin said that cooperation among peasants is a way to achieve anarchism. What do you think?

Answer, regarding cooperation, some people think that it cannot achieve the purpose of eradicating the private property system. For example, cooperation in Denmark is very developed. One person went to inspect. According to the results he obtained, he only felt that the average person in Denmark, because of cooperation, the private economy, are relatively affluent, but they are content with the status quo and are afraid of social revolution. One worker even said to him that Denmark will not be revolutionary. These remarks are only the observations of one person and cannot be used to judge the relationship between the Danish cooperative system and the future social revolution, but they can be used for reference. However, if we transfer the ideas of the cooperationists to the other side, we can see that cooperation can be used as a means to achieve anarchy, and that it can be used as a means to achieve the goal of social revolution. However, China nowadays, unlike Europe and America, is in a particularly chaotic situation. In many parts of the country, there is either banditry or famine, and the people are not even able to protect their own lives, so how can we talk about other causes? Occasionally, it is a little calm, but when a soldier or bandit arrives, he can destroy houses, movies, food and other things. In provinces such as Hunan and Shaanxi, the people are in a situation where they do not know what is going on in the next month, and they are in a situation where they can hardly make ends meet. I am afraid that the whole country will come to such a state if politics continue in this way. Under such a situation, there is no way for cooperation to flourish. This is my humble opinion.

Question, I have heard some people advocate that organizing syndicalist work circles is a way to achieve anarchism. What do you think?

Answer: Anarchism and syndicalism are not the same thing, but they have many similarities. So many anarchists joined the syndicalists. Within syndicalism, there are so-called anarcho-syndicalists. Anarchists advocate that we should engage in a purely anarchist movement and not join the syndicalists. But according to my personal opinion, I feel that syndicalism, no matter what, has done a lot for anarchism. But China now is a country under one-party dictatorship. All workers’ groups that do not become the workers’ organizations of the Kuomintang are not allowed to do so. They are all subject to the control of the Kuomintang. In Germany, France, the United States, and Japan, syndicalist trade unions can organize and operate openly. In today’s China, there is a workers’ group that openly opposes political parties, the banner of opposition to the government came, and as a result, the title of a reactionary group was added, and its members were arrested in large cases and closed in small cases. In this way, the so-called trade union has almost no possibility except for being secret.

Question, I think the possibility of achieving anarchy by educational means is a bit higher, what do you think?

Answer, it is indeed the best to use the method of education to awaken the people. However, you should know two things. First, the bourgeoisie is very clever in the means of oppressing people. They know that force is often not enough, and they also know that education is important. Therefore, they took over the education mechanism; they forced the people to be educated as slaves by force. It goes without saying that the so-called state schools and public schools are subject to the supervision of the government, and even private schools have to be registered and interfered with; there is no freedom in the textbooks and education laws. If a school were to advocate social revolution, it would be closed down immediately. Secondly, in the present society, education is a privilege of the bourgeoisie. Almost all those who love specialized education and university education are bourgeoisie who, because of their position, will never agree with the revolution; they will only oppose the revolution with clever words and rhetoric. In Europe and the United States, ordinary people only have the opportunity to receive elementary school education, which is very short, and the knowledge gained is minimal. In China, they did not even have the chance to escape from elementary school education, so they could not even read or write. The bourgeoisie cannot but take advantage of the stupidity of the common people. They are afraid that the common people will become smart. But because the common people are stupid, they can be deceived, they can be deluded, they can be oppressed, they can be plundered, and they can be kept in slavery forever. It seems that some have said that anarchism can only be realized if everyone can receive a university education; but let us ask how many of the present university students are in favor of anarchism. Think about it, this kind of education is how to hinder anarchism, you naturally think that your education is anarchist education. This is absolutely not the case with education. However, in such a situation, how will you implement your anarchist education?

Question, if I want anarchism to be realized, the products must be abundant and sufficient for people’s consumption. To produce rich products, we must develop science and machinery. For example, in European and American countries, material civilization can be said to be extremely developed. If anarchism is realized, everyone will naturally be happy. As for China, the traffic is so blocked and the industry is stagnant. Even if anarchy is realized, I am afraid that the people may not get any benefits. Therefore, developing science first and then developing industry may be another way.

Answer, the main path to human happiness is anarchy. If the same country implements anarchism, the happiness of its people will definitely be much better than in the autocratic era, the constitutional era and the era of proletarian dictatorship. For example, there is a place with 500 acres of streets and 100 residents. If these 500 acres of land were shared by and everyone enjoyed it together, then everyone would definitely enjoy much more happiness than if it were monopolized by one or two or three landlords and worked exclusively for them. Although China’s material civilization and ethics are underdeveloped, in a year, the sole capitalists and the government waste so much money. If anarchism is implemented, even if material civilization is underdeveloped, it will still be the same as it is now, but the financial suffering of many people will naturally be much less than it is now. The goods wasted by a capitalist or a big bureaucrat are often enough to feed dozens or hundreds of civilians. This is the first step to solving your problem. Second, the key to realizing anarchism is mutual aid. If there is no mutual assistance in the world, then anarchism will lack the possibility of realization. But according to Kropotkin’s book, this instinct exists not only in the human world, but also in the animal world. In a country with developed science, it is good that people will be happier after realizing anarchism. However, anarchism will not be impossible to realize because of underdeveloped science. And even if science is not developed, after realizing anarchism, its happiness will definitely increase. Third, the development of science without the realization of anarchism, has only become a tool for capitalists to kill civilians. Some people greatly praise the development of European and American science, as if the only way to save the Chinese people is science. How do they know? Under the words “scientifically developed”, there are countless tens of thousands of innocent civilians who have died. You try to look at the poverty of European and American farmers and workers, you try to read the history of the war, you can probably tell that before anarchism is realized, the so-called science can be used as a tool for the capitalists in their extreme desire for poverty and luxury, and as a sharp weapon to kill people, but it is only a great enemy to the common people. If anarchism could be realized only through the development of science, then anarchism would have been realized in Europe and America long ago and there would be no more calls for social revolution. Fourthly, the only way to make science a blessing for all is to realize anarchism. Only through the realization of anarchism can there be unlimited development of science. For example, in China nowadays, how many people can have the opportunity to study science, and how many of them do not study science for the sake of making money? If anarchism is realized, then everyone will have the opportunity to study science, and those who study science will do so almost exclusively for the sake of knowledge, and not for the sake of fame. By that time, it will be easy to understand that the choice of scientific advancement will be different from that of today. Therefore, if we think that sending out science is of great benefit to mankind, then we have no choice but to realize anarchism. Some are great singers of material civilization and great admirers of science. They seem to think that anarchism can be realized after the development of science and material civilization. Their promotion of science without attempting to realize anarchism is tantamount to giving the capitalists a sharp weapon to kill people. Naturally, material civilization and science can be praised, but precisely because we want to praise them, we have to try to realize anarchism first. Please try to comprehensively study the opinions listed above. The answer to your question should be clear.

Question, what do you think of the assassination method?

Answer, Anarchist revolution is overthrowing the social system. When A is killed, B is killed several times; B is assassinated, and C is killed again; it is just a personal change, and it does not shake the fundamental system.

Question, if there was a general workers strike, what do you think would happen?

Answer, in countries with developed industries and workers’ organizations, such as the United Kingdom and the United States, the general strike has been very effective. However, in China now, even if it is implemented, it may not be able to shake the fundamental function of the social system..

Question, the anarchist revolution is a revolution all over the world, and everyone should have a common drive. However, the above you always talk about China, as if China’s revolution should have special methods. What’s the reason for this?

Answer, Ii is true that the anarchist revolution is a world revolution. However, differences in time and environment are inevitable. Let’s compare Europe and China, we all know that there are many differences in every aspect. In my opinion, the aim of revolution is of course the same, but the methods of revolution may not be the same, although they may be similar. If all countries in the world have to adopt a rigid method of revolution, it will not work, and it will not be practical or effective. When planning, sometimes we cannot ignore “temporality” and “spatiality”. Moreover, the so-called world revolution means that the whole world will always move towards the same goal. As for the occurrence of revolution, they cannot be held at the same time. They must be sequential. Everyone in each country should try their best to implement it in their own country first, but there is no need to interfere with whether there is a possibility of revolution. Moreover, we have no borders. There is nothing wrong with a Chinese going to Europe to campaign for revolution, or a European going to China to campaign for revolution. In reality, however, there are always many difficulties. Our revolution is a revolution of the common people. When a European goes among the people, he must have a lot of inconveniences in terms of language, habits, and appearance. Therefore, our revolution can be helped by people from all walks of life, but in practice, for example, in the case of China, the Chinese people have to make their own efforts, and the efforts of the Chinese people cannot be avoided without taking a look at the situation in China.

Question, I have also heard that in order to achieve anarchism, it would be better to first implement proletarian dictatorship as in the case of the Communist Party, or parliamentary policies as in the case of the Social Democratic Party, or to gradually reduce the political power by political maneuvers to the extent that there will be no government at all. However, those ideas are based on the fact that if we do not use force, the people will be more flexible, will they not?

Answer, In the course of the revolution, force cannot be avoided. And the real revolution will take a longer period of time. And a real revolution will take a longer period of time. Sacrifice cannot be avoided. But revolutionaries can always minimize it as much as they can. However, in the present society, there are many people who have been sacrificed for nothing. Those who die of disease, those who die in prison, those who die in war, those who die of hunger, if there were precise statistics, the number would be very cheap to hear. In our society, the average civilian has no right to live. He can be sacrificed anytime, anywhere. I think that during the revolution, the so-called sacrifices were not necessarily greater than those at present, and it is only because people are numb and not aware of it. Moreover, after a revolution, all people will have the right to live in peace and happiness, and so the implicit substitution, the falsehood, is worthwhile. If we don’t have a revolution for fear of being sacrificed, then the future will be sacrificed for generations to come.

Question, will the revolution cause the same terror as the Communist Party?

Answer: Our revolution is absolutely different from that of the Communist Party. When we are destroying the social system, we are not seeking personal revenge against the capitalists. Kropotkin said, “Public people cannot rule the world with terror. Terror is created to create a trap, especially when he is wearing a mask of legality. The person who creates the iron wire to clamp down on the civilian population is in conflict with the revolution.” There must be something better than the guillotine and something more effective in terror. If the revolution has only terror as its way to defeat it, its future will be extremely tragic. Fortunately, it has other more powerful tools. Haha! Yes, Kropotkin made absolutely sense when he said that kind of terror would never be used by civilians. The two-wheelers loaded with victims and the guillotine will soon make the common people poor. He will soon realize that this terror is a preparation for what it should be — dictatorship — and he will destroy the guillotine.” It can be seen that the so-called terror is a tool for the ambitious to achieve dictatorship. A correct revolution has no need of terror; it is far from a revolution to know only the use of terror.

Question, I know the meaning of the revolution, but can you tell us the reason for the revolution? Human beings always love peace, but with revolution, peace cannot be maintained. That’s why many people are always afraid.

Answer: Human beings can never escape evolution, but revolution is one of the ways of evolution. Revolution is a rapid evolution. There is inertia in the world. The inertia is so deep that it cannot be changed without drastic action. If the fire is too strong, pouring water on it will only increase the intensity of the fire, and the only way to prevent it from spreading is to tear down the house. If the house is full of poisonous snakes and white rice worms, and there is no other way but to burn the wood. Although this is not a social thing, it can be inferred that there are many things in the universe that require fundamental reform. Improvements in minor details never help, but rather prolong corruption. This is also true of social phenomena. How many capitalists and landowners are there now, and how many of them can unite all their private property into a harmonious society? This is something that everyone knows is impossible. As mentioned above, education, trade unions, cooperation, etc. are human freedoms, but the government alone does not allow them? Everyone knows this is impossible. Nowadays, society has changed into a state of cannibalism, which is not a social norm, but a social disease. But this sickness cannot be cured without the use of strong medicines.The so-called revolution is nothing more than a medicine. When a man is sleeping soundly in a dream, he will not be able to drag on with shouting, so revolution can also be regarded as a kind of shouting. However, no matter what it is, it has to be influenced by the environment. Under the current conditions, if we want to reform everyone, it is not only a lot of effort, but also often ineffective; if the environment is changed, the individuals in it will be changed unconsciously. Revolution is a way of transforming the conditions, and can also be the most powerful form of education. Revolution can achieve true peace. In our society, there is always fighting and killing, but where is peace? The above remarks are very simple and unsystematic. As for the academic basis, I cannot go into details here due to my limited knowledge.

Question, as the current government, capitalists, has a strong army, and popular rebellion is like throwing eggs at a stone, what’s the use? Although the revolution is well-known, it is very reasonable and necessary, but there is too little guarantee of success.

Answer, What we are afraid of is that the people cannot wake up. However, countless small rebellions and the sacrifices of countless revolutionaries will surely lead to the revolution and awaken the people. The people’s pain is felt and inferred more deeply than ours. The people are unwilling to live a more free and peaceful life. They are afraid to act now because they are under the influence of power, and they are fascinated by fallacies. It is not difficult to awaken them to the nature of human nature. Once they awaken, the army, although strong, will be useless. Can the army live without the people? With no one to make weapons for them and provide them with food, they can only sit back and wait for death. Moreover, the Chinese soldiers were completely forced by hunger and cold, and their lives were very pitiful. They are all slaves of the officials. At the time of the popular revolution, I daresay that very few of them will be enemies of the people for the sake of the officials. They are in the same oppressed position as the people. If the people are awakened and a revolution takes place in one place, many other places will follow. If dozens of places were revolutionized, the army would be useless even if it was large. It can be said that the foundations of the monarchy are deep-rooted, but the power of revolution will eventually overthrow it. If the proletariat revolts, it will be a revolution of a magnitude beyond our imagination. But we need not fear the enemy, only our own lack of effort.

Question, besides revolution, should we do other work?

Answer, certainly, most importantly, there are two other things. (1) Our revolution depends on the initiative of the people and cannot be controlled and directed by a few leaders like other revolutions. Our revolution is not blind, we must have ideals. We need to know what the new society will look like to replace the current society. Therefore, publicity is extremely necessary. “To arouse man to prepare for the future and to bring about revolution is the business of those who foresee the path of evolution.” This is especially the case with secret societies and revolutionary groups. This is the cause of the anarchists. The first and most important thing is to make the purpose of the revolution known to everyone. Use your words and actions to publicize it as much as possible until everyone knows it. If we do this, on the day of the uprising, the purpose of anarchism will be on everyone’s lips. Everyone takes this matter very lightly, but it is actually very important. It is because in the minds of a few people, the purpose of doctrine is very clear, but the majority of the people are not. Because people are often influenced and confused by capitalist newspapers as they are now. The so-called propaganda is not limited to words; we should try to publicize it anytime, anywhere. But in this period when there are too few intellectuals, it is also very necessary to introduce important works and widely distribute popular pamphlets. As for the future, wherever civilians are. They are all places where we publicize. Acting, singing, books, etc. are all required. As for the importance of behavioral publicity, it goes without saying. (2) In order for a revolution to win the sympathy of the people, it is necessary for the revolutionaries to have the virtues of purity, sacrifice and courage. “It is not enough to spread the revolution, but the spirit of revolution should be aroused. The spirit of perseverance and courage (without which the revolution will never come into being) should be aroused and awakened.” Kropotkin thought that even among the so-called revolutionaries and communists in general, they were morally inconstant. Most of them lacked a guiding moral principle, a high moral ideal, and he repeated that it was probably because of the lack of a high moral ideal. The Russian Revolution could not create a new social system based on liberty and justice, nor could it ignite other countries with the fury of revolution, as happened in the French Revolution. The cultivation of high moral ideals is the element of anarchists, that is, the element of anarchist revolution.

Question: What else should we be doing?

Answer: I think the following matters are related to us. We should do what we can to the best of our ability. (1) Participate in the New Thought Movement, student youth movements such as fighting religion, advocating women’s liberation, etc. (2) Participate in mass organizations, such as peasant associations, labor unions, etc. (3) Participate in popular movements, such as strikes, rebellion against the government, anti-war movements, freedom-seeking and other movements. The Italian anarchist Malatesta said, If it is outside our own group, we must use mass movements. Work hard to propagate, participate in it no matter where you are, use all methods to win over the masses, instruct them to make revolution, and try your best to find opportunities to spread socialism and anarchism. All the methods I mentioned here can be adopted as long as they are not contrary to the purpose we have.

I’ve said too much, so let’s stop here. But many of them are my personal opinions, and I hope readers will discuss and correct them.

Our Talk

But enough is enough! Almost half of the previous issues of this journal were devoted to criticizing politics. If the criticism continues for a long time, and this magazine is changed into a daily publication, it will not bear enough criticism! We hope that readers will calmly look at the facts for themselves, and then compare our previous criticisms with the facts. We are limited by space, and would like to spend more time discussing theoretical and practical issues, and pay less attention to criticism of facts that do not deserve criticism. We hope readers will read more about the facts themselves.

Fact 1: We believe that the private property system and the government are dependent on each other. It is simply impossible to abolish the private property system without abolishing the government, so we advocate anarchy and communism. However, there are still people who support the abolition of private property but do not advocate the abolition of government. But what are the facts? When the country revolutionized in early 1917, it did not always pursue the abolition of the private property system. 7 At that time, the old government was overthrown and replaced by the Soviet of Peasants and Workers. When the communist system was passed on, the government was organized and the government took control, the private property system was revived. The private property system cannot be abolished as long as the government exists. The secret is not far away, that is, in Soviet Russia.

Fact 2: People who are superstitious about the government always think that the government can do bad things, but it can also do good things. If the government is only arbitrary, it is prejudiced. But what are the facts? Among the Kuomintang members, there is indeed a lot of opposition to the current Kuomintang government. It is enough, but who are the figures in the National Government? Aren’t they former members of the Kuomintang? Aren’t the Kuomintang members who have greatly opposed the government in the past the same person? If they are not in the position of the government, they will oppose the government; once they enter the government, they are only worthy of being arrested. People object. Didn’t they have a large number of welfare plans for the people before, but once they entered the government, they only turned out to be a blank check! Are their words and deeds when they were not in the government all lies? I think that is not entirely the case. of. “Government” is not a thing unless it drives people to do bad things. What is pitiable is that those who oppose the government today are afraid that they will not join the government; and those who do not want to join the government also hope that a good government will come out. The facts are as clear as daylight, but there are still people who are confused by magic!

How to Understand the True Meaning of Newspapers

People engaged in journalism all claim to represent public opinion, but we must know that today’s newspapers are under the protection of the government and capitalists and have become their mouthpieces. After the so-called public ethics and justice, taking the affairs of the government and capitalists as an excuse is just the resentment and resistance of the working class. Who dares to say a word of justice and win some benefits for the working people? Most of the telegraph news propagandized the regime’s plundering and buying and selling deception, and has no sympathy for the current situation and suffering of the civilians. This kind of news is unreasonable. If people really care about the happiness of the common people, they need to oppose the great enemies that hinder freedom — the good and evil government and capital interest. Only in this way can they represent public opinion and uphold justice.

Everyone who reads this should first understand that the comfortable life of the capitalists in the government is built on the suffering of the working class. Most of the journalists are willing to blame themselves for money and make distorted remarks about “being a slave.”

Following the current etiquette and hatred of the people is a big deception. Only when everyone recognizes the meaning of these things and the government can the social revolution of freedom and happiness be achieved.

Inform the Workers

The oppression suffered by Chinese workers in the United States under the capital system is the most miserable. There is no one with a heart who does not sympathize with the Chinese workers. Now we can only sympathize with the Chinese workers and have some consciousness. We must think of a way to protect the people who have toiled all day long. Therefore, many Chinese workers in recent years have had their labor unions and labor unions organize and organize labor unions. It should be the most legitimate and just thing for workers to ask their bosses for improvements and to pay more wages to support their livelihood. But the workers’ boss was still not satisfied with their ambitions after depriving workers of all the happiness and benefits they had enjoyed with their hard work. He even hid the true face of a worker, and ordered his lackeys and waiters to use his worst methods. Come to deceive Heaven and scare Heaven away from human unity. They refused to accept conditions that were not superior to those of the workers, and devoted themselves to creating and destroying them. They wanted to make the police and thugs attack the sky and arrest the gods. However, the workers continued to work hard without flinching. Reach the full potential of everyone.

You should be confident that you are powerful. When you unite to fight for the interests of the working class, you will be brave and unfailable. Workers must decide their will and be strong. Unity is strength. You must unite bravely.

Overthrow the capital system and let the working people live a better life.

On the Slavery Problem (excerpts from Anarcho-Communist Monthly 2 & 3)

From Anarcho-Communist Monthly #2:

We can infer from an economic standpoint and know that between the fishing and hunting era and the nomadic era, there were fewer wars with immortals compared to the early agricultural era, and the victors retained the captives as slaves. There were very few, because of the unpredictable nomadic life, they lead the captive slaves, and the uncertain floating life can easily give the slaves a chance to escape, and the economic conditions at that time did not allow for more slaves. Existence, as for the nomadic era, progressed to the agricultural period. At that time, the people had fixed residences due to the relationship between sowing and harvesting. The need for labor was urgent, and people in groups were easy to organize. In addition, the land had different fertility. This often leads to invasions or wars. In addition to territorial expansion and wealth acquisition, the victor also captures the enemy and uses them as slaves in addition to exempting them from the death penalty. The slaves became the targets of unlimited exploitation by the conquerors.

We can say that the slavery system was the beginning period from fishing and hunting to nomadic herding, and it was the completion period in the agricultural era. Some people say: In the industrial age, slavery has been declared a death sentence. In fact, these are all lies that violate the facts. In the patriarchal society of the agricultural era, there were serfs, and in the capital society of the industrial era, there were wage slaves. When economic conditions change, the form of slaves changes accordingly, but the essence of slaves remains. Why? What? Our conclusion is:

The system of slavery exists and occurs between a poor class and a powerful class, that is, it is included in the private system. In other words, until the private system is overthrown, the slave system will always exist.

From Anarcho-Communist Monthly #3:

From the perspective of the evolutionary process of slaves, it can be said that they went from being captured, bought and sold to hired. Slaves in the nomadic era were, of course, captured, while most of the slaves in the agricultural era were purchased. After the industrial revolution, capitalism flourished, and the capitalists’ commodities broke through the rural economy. The peasants were oppressed by poverty. They also gradually left the countryside and concentrated in cities. In capitalist society, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie have formed a mentality of fighting against the slaves of this era, who are mainly employed. In other words, the proletariat is a wage slave; a laborer who is blatantly exploited by the bourgeoisie.

As long as slaves exist, there will be no equality and justice; the life of a slave is an inhuman life, a life of shame!

I have said above: The slavery system is a system that occurs between a poor and weak class and a powerful class, that is, it is included in the split of the private system. Then, if the proletariat wants to be liberated from wage slaves and become free people, it is of course necessary to fundamentally eliminate the private system; but it is the government and capitalists who maintain the private system; if we want to overthrow them, we must spread our own ideals among the working class. In order to promote the class consciousness of workers, consolidate partial strikes into general strikes, and transform the general strike mechanism into an armed revolution of the working class against capitalism and the state! This is the solution! The Only Solution to the Slave Problem.

The Opportunity to Liberate Chinese Workers Has Arrived

The garment union was the first to launch an attack. We should respond unanimously.

Our Chinese workers in the United States have been subjected to inhumane treatment by their employers for seventy or eighty years. I have never heard of anyone going on strike to demand improved treatment. This strike by the garment union can be regarded as an unprecedented move by Chinese workers in the United States. Although we are not yet satisfied with the limits of their demands, we really admire their courageous attitude and determined spirit. In addition to our best efforts to provide assistance, our colleagues also have a few words of advice to all my beloved Chinese workers in the United States. The ancients would say, “Although you are wise, it is better to take advantage of the situation.” The current trend is actually a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for our Chinese workers to liberate themselves. Workers in various industries who have unions should respond immediately, and those who do not have unions should respond immediately.

Workers are overly oppressed, treated badly, and have to work for a long time! It is completely beyond the endurance of human beings. Let’s rise and work together to show the brave people? Great unity of gender, country and race is needed! All political parties are our enemies, and we must not be used by them or their affiliates! Workers should believe in themselves and take responsibility for their own cause. Get up! Get up! Unite quickly and stop being like cows and horses! Live freely! Let’s work hard!

Refute of the Communist Party (Excerpts from Anarcho-Communist Monthly 3 & 4)

From Anarcho-Communist Monthly 3:

Have the Communists lost their minds and blinded their eyes? The workers have long since realized that the opinions of the Qunsheng Newspaper are of no value. A few days ago, my friend gave me the 567th and 589th issues of that newspaper to read. After I finished reading them, I felt deeply that Lenin did not have any knowledge of history; Zhang Hentang not only spoke briefly, but also did not know how to. Even if you say half a sentence, in fact, you are still telling lies!

The great anarchist Shifu wrote in “A Brief Introduction to Anarchy”: “How does a government arise from the beginning? It begins with force and power.” The meaning of this sentence is that “the origin of the country and the emergence of the government” are all rooted in the consciousness of power. (The consciousness of power is cultivated from the private system.) Because Zhang Hentang was superstitious about Lenin, he copied Lenin’s words without any history and said: “The state is the product and expression of the irreconcilable class contradictions.” This is really a “superficial explanation.” and “theoretical bankruptcy”. Anyone with a little common sense knows that the entire history of mankind is a history of class struggle; there is an unhidden history of struggle between the plundering class and the plundered class. The two opposing classes can never be reconciled. In this long history of class struggle; the emergence and elimination of states have occurred several times. The formation of modern states only emerged in the sixteenth century. If we follow Lenin’s words, the existence of the state proves that class contradictions cannot be reconciled.“Then, human history is all a history of class struggle, and the state has always existed along with human history? After studying the state, Kropotkin once said: “After the fall of the Roman Empire, the Celts, Slavs, and Slavs. Those races in Scandinavia all started the construction of civilization from scratch. Their primitive races each slowly refined their inherent customs and habits.” which was maintained until the twelfth century. Then came the free cities of the Republic, during which glorious progress was made in their science and art, as well as in all aspects of other human relations. What emerged later was the modern state.

“Medieval urban civilization was destroyed by the modern barbarians who appeared in Europe in the 16th century. Who were the barbarians? They were the country formed by the triangular alliance of military leaders, Roman judges and monks.They wanted to consolidate the ruling power and into a force called a country.”

Times advance along a curve. Therefore, in that era, great power gained power and the state emerged, but at the same time, the free association of the people was temporarily destroyed. But the people’s spirit of resistance still exists. Kropotkin said:

“Since the beginning of human society, there have been two currents of thought and action going hand in hand. On the one hand, the people have built many organizations necessary to make social life stable. On the other hand, there are always many people who unite to help each other. Governing the people, making them obey their commands, and giving them work.”

From this, we can understand that government and country are not the same thing. The state includes the government, which is a member of the organized state. Zhang Hentang said: “Because I have lost my mind and my eyes, I see the country and the government as a whole thing.” In the article he published in Qun Sheng, he quoted Lenin’s “state” in the first section and replaced “state” with government in the second section. This proves that Zhang Hentang is “faint” and “blind”.

Zhang Hentang, the younger Lenin, said, “The state is a powerful and economically dominant class. They use the state to become the political ruling class, and thus have new methods to oppress and exploit the oppressed.” Class” This proves that the state is always a poison that disturbs peace. There can be no doubt that the country should be overthrown. However, on the one hand, the Communists say that the state “is an organ of oppression and exploitation,” on the other hand, the workers support the “fatherland, the Soviet Union.” This is not just Zhang Hentang who is “faint” and “blind”, but actually all Communists are “faint” and “blind”!

Because Zhang Hentang was “faint” and “blind”, he said that the target of anarchism was power. In fact, the working class does not know that the target of anarchy is the bourgeoisie, so when we advocate social revolution, we must eliminate the government. “Fascism,” “imperialism,” and “Marxism-Leninism” are all doctrines that oppress the proletariat. The Communist Party must be eliminated!

From Anarcho-Communist Monthly 4:

Who is “committing theoretical confusion”? In the 589th issue of Qunsheng, “Who is telling lies?” Yi Wenzhu said: “Anyone who has done a little research on communism knows the principles of communism. The ultimate goal is a communist society. It is not an anarchist-communist thing at all, and there is no reason to go through the transitional period of anarchist-communist.” It continued below: “In the end, the existence of classes will be eliminated. Realizing a communist society in which everyone does his best and everyone gets what he needs.” After reading these sentences, we should first understand that in a society in which everyone does his best and everyone gets what he needs, there is a prerequisite, which is to transfer capital. All the wealth of the socialist society was confiscated. At that time, all wealth was based on public ownership. At this time, everyone doing what they can, producing together, everyone taking what they need, and consuming together are not empty words. This is the true implementation of “communism.” On the basis of this “communist” economy, the politics of course is that everyone in the group and association can develop freely. Organize freely according to mutual needs and aspirations, from simple to complex. In this “communist” society: classes, governments, countries, laws, etc., are of course eliminated, because politics is built on the basis of economics. If there are the same economic conditions, there will be the same political facilities. From this point of view, when the Communist Party (actually the Marxist Party) says that its ultimate goal is to “realize a communist society in which everyone can do what they can and everyone gets what they need,” this is not referring to the situation under anarchic communism. In other words? I think the Communist Party must be suffering from “confusion”. If not, why do they say “it is not anarchist communism at all”?

Now let’s take a look at what the Communist Party calls a “transitional period.” According to Lenin: The main condition for the complete transformation of all branches of production is time. In particular, the power of habit is so great that the people are accustomed to a petty bourgeois and bourgeois economy, and it will take a long and difficult struggle for them to be persuaded to change their methods. This is the reason for the “transitional period” of the Communist Party. That is to say, the main task of prolonging and preserving the life of the private system and the country is to completely transform all sectors of production. It is not the invisible and intangible “time”, but to make the disadvantages of the current social system known to the people everywhere. Let them understand that a new society based on the principle of equality is possible, and make the people strictly organized to realize their demands. The proletariat’s social life is not due to any heroes who can create it. The reason for its success is due to the hardship and oppression of its living conditions. If revolution breaks out before it matures, it will be pure rebellion, that is to say, it will have no clear goal. Therefore, if there is more political and economic oppression, there must be greater propaganda and movement, so that the revolution will not fail. After all, Lenin was the spokesperson of the bourgeoisie, so he said that the people were accustomed to a kind of petty bourgeois and bourgeois experience. Such comments and insults to the working class are said without shame. In fact, under this cruel capital system, the people (the working class) can only feel the hardship and oppression of life, and can only maintain their position in the proletariat. Proletarian consciousness has been cultivated in life. If a revolution breaks out at any time, the rivers of bloody tassels will naturally inspire the entire people (working class) to follow the bloody path and carry out armed revolution, which will not stop until complete victory is achieved. The “time”, “transitional period” and “force of habit” that Lenin talked about are nothing more than a mantra used by bureaucrats to deceive and conceal the power of the government. In other words, revolution cannot be successful through Lenin’s “persuasion”. The proletariat does not have “bourgeois economic” habits as Lenin said.

We have to figure out what the “dictatorship of the proletariat” is again. Comrade Fu Gan made it very clear on this issue. He said: The current ruler of the Bolsheviks, a country with a population of 140 million, has become the supreme ruler of Russia under the name of “proletarian dictatorship”. The so-called proletarian dictatorship is not a dictatorship by the proletariat. Millions of people cannot all be dictators, and even tens of thousands or even tens of millions of people cannot all be dictators. The essence of dictatorship is that it is limited to a very small number of people. The smaller the number of people, the stronger and more unified the dictatorship will be. In actual practice, dictatorship is always in the hands of one person, and this one person’s strong will will force his nominal colleagues (the same dictator) to agree. The Bolsheviks (Communist Party) are of course following this path.

“The free activities of the people are the lifeblood of the revolution. If we get rid of it and suppress it, the revolution will only die. The purpose of the revolution is to obtain freedom, so to achieve this goal, we can only use the people. We must express our opinions freely, and we must not use coercion or dictatorship. In the revolution, just as in daily life, there is no third middle way. It is not self-pretending. Comrade Bakunin said well: “No matter what kind of autocracy, It cannot achieve other goals than maintaining its own political power.” From this point of view, so-called communism (Marxist-Leninism) “is not the consciousness of superior revolutionary workers,” and is completely capitalist.

What did the vanguard reporter say? A vanguard reporter tried his best to ridicule anarchists in the newspaper’s pages published on July 15 and August 1, but when we analyzed his article, we found it “ridiculously unreasonable.” “We know very well that those who advocate the continuation of the private system and government are all hostile to anarchists, and they always want to massacre us.” As quickly as possible. The reason is that anarchists support the interests of the working class and carry out social revolutionary movements!

We all know that the publications we publish are all supported by the hard-earned wages of our workers. Therefore, the reason for the temporary suspension of publication of “Equality”, which we published three years ago, was that the livelihood of the workers was relatively difficult, and the economic resources were temporarily suspended. However, even now, although the workers are still in difficulty, they continue to receive our propaganda and guidance, and they are gradually becoming conscious, and our publications have been able to continue to publish with the donations of the conscious workers. Our pride is that we do not receive subsidies from the government or capitalists!

“Concerning Japan’s provocation”, “the Kuomintang’s betrayal”, “the pain of unemployment and capital reduction over time”, the anarchists all have specific and thorough opinions. Aren’t the theories of anarcho-communism and the activities and sacrifices of anarchists the best proof?

Xu Yongying said: “Proletarian leadership is the only way to overthrow the capitalists and completely eliminate them.” But we ask another question: “Overthrow the old-style capitalists and their governments, and then re-establish a government and capitalists under the dictatorship of the proletariat.” So, there is still a stage in society where the working class still does not have freedom. Does the so-called “proletarian monopoly” suppress it so that it cannot be resurrected?

Xu Yongying first joined the Kuomintang, and then he felt that the Kuomintang was reactionary. (I can’t remember which issue he was at the time — he published an article in which he only said that the Kuomintang was reactionary, but did not criticize the Three People’s Principles at all. Maybe he is still nostalgic for it.) Then he joined the Communist Party, which is further proof of his expression. Of course, I don’t want to presume ill will on others. Maybe they are very loyal to the proletariat, but we have to know that being loyal alone is not enough. We should be under the guidance of the anarchist party. Only such loyalty can be practical. Otherwise, it will only earn him a poor mountain to climb. Those “Communists” who are loyal to the proletariat should turn back as soon as possible!

Rumors Heard, Local Police Dispatched Last Night

Two Chinese people were arrested: they were brought to the precinct. The prosecution’s case against them accused them of illegally distributing leaflets. The arraignment was originally scheduled for the 27th. However, at the same time, documents printed by Chinese people began to appear: Yesterday, the Immigration Bureau sent translators to translate the “May Day Special Issue” and “Equality” pamphlets. Many of them were printed by the Equality Society. There is also a pamphlet sent from Shanghai. There are about ten books including “Anarchism”, “On the State” and “Revolution” and “Advice to China’s Revolutionary Youth”. The group is suspected of spreading anarchism.

Warning to Working People

No matter which country, the military education, army, navy, air force. poison gas, bombs, and guns are all used to fight for the property of the country’s capitalist and powerful classes, and to poison, kill and invigorate the people.

We believe that the Japanese imperialists’ actions of invading China and killing people are crimes of capitalism and nationalism. As for solving this crime, only the working people of the world can unite to resist the military education at its root and destroy it. Only by destroying private property, poison gas, bombs, guns and other weapons that kill people, can we overthrow capitalism and abolish nationalism. Only then can we put an end to the chaos that invades and kills people, and can we make it easier for everyone to have a job and have food to eat.

People! Wake up! Work hard to build a free and equal society and realize a peaceful and happy world! Let’s move forward! Let’s fight!

What is Anarchism?

From Anarcho-Communist Monthly 5 & 6:

Dear friends! You may think that the current society is dark and also miserable. Anarchism is not a bad idea, it is just a proposition to “eliminate all the dark and fearful phenomena in today’s society.” No matter what, you will never be able to deny “freedom.” Anarchism is not some terrible madness, it is just a doctrine that “pursues political and economic freedom and equality.”

Anarchists advocate:

1. In politics, we do not want a government that governs people by people. The people’s affairs are best handled by all the people together. There will be no omnipotent person in the world who can manage all affairs. How can we manage the affairs of tens of millions of people? Isn’t it the most unreasonable thing to occupy the position of breaking the rule of law? Isn’t it much better for educators to handle educational matters themselves than for the government’s education department? The fields and factories should be managed by farmers and the government that collects taxes can be eliminated. Anyone can freely organize with others to produce certain items or meet certain needs, such as the Educational Association (not the organ that manages production in the lower corners of the country now dominated by politicians) and the Farmers Association (not the current organization that uses many unproductive people). people can join) and various academic corners, etc. These groups based on region or profession, such as work units, can freely connect with groups in other places and professions. As the people’s hearts advance, organizations become denser, and all transportation, education, production, distribution, etc. are handled by these groups. Isn’t it better than the current government with rogue politicians and military personnel that is strapped for money?

2. Economically, private property should be completely abolished. The fruits of farmers’ and workers’ hard work all year round are wasted in vain by the idle landlords. The capitalists took it away. This is really the most unfair thing in the world. We hold that when an individual is born, he should be educated by society, and when he grows up, he should be able to work (working with both hands and brain at the same time). He strives to produce necessary and luxury goods for society, while also enjoying the food, clothing, shelter and other medicines that can be given to him. Everything is left to the management of various industries, as the landlords, and capitalists have become useless.

From Anarcho-Communist Monthly 7:

Chinese people are too slow to understand anarchism. Here we will briefly explain:

First, many people think that anarchism is immoral. This is completely wrong. What anarchists deny are old legends and stubborn superstitions. Anarchists absolutely advocate morality. We believe that if there is no real morality in society, not only will there be no progress, but it will definitely be eliminated. However, the morality advocated by anarchists is free. If we want to have true morality, we must eliminate the current political, economic, and ethical classes. What anarchists want is true morality such as honesty, mutual aid, fairness, and sacrifice.

Second, many people think that anarchists are just fanatics who fire off guns and bombs. This is also wrong. Anarchism may be a doctrine with a purpose and a systematic system. Those who are shallow in anarchism are also people who are very “loving” and “sympathetic”. When society oppresses us too much, we may have to use this method as a last resort. But usually, we are very willing to use the most peaceful means to win the sympathy of the people.

Third, many people think that anarchists are utopians. This is even more wrong. Anarchists theoretically summarize all modern scientific conclusions obtained by using scientific methods and create anarchism. It serves as the basis for theory, in fact, and serves as the standard for anarchist behavior by objectively observing political and economic trends and the actual situation of human life. The word “utopian” has to be added to the theory that is not obtained by scientific methods and the doctrine that goes against the modern trend. As for anarchism being possible, it is possible to realize it, and its realization is not far away.

Everyone already knows something about anarchism. I hope that if you can calmly think about what I have said above, you most definitely agree with anarchism.

الأمل (Al Amal) / Hope, #2, march-april 2025

Posted on 17/04/2025 - 17/04/2025 by muntjac

Source

Download PDF

Statement of the Anarchist Group of Sudan

From our deep understanding of social revolution as anarchists and our revolutionary duty, we present our perspective and proposals for solutions concerning our beloved homeland and its people.

We have witnessed how political forces, alongside their ally, the Janjaweed, and the same forces that conspired with them to violently disperse the sit-in and kill Sudanese youth, have now agreed to divide the country after failing in their attempt to fully control it.

The Sudanese street, which united with conscious revolutionary spontaneity under clear slogans— »The military to the barracks, the Janjaweed must dissolve »—is now facing an attempt by all the forces it stood against to slaughter its revolution.

The Janjaweed’s adoption of revolutionary principles, along with their allies, is nothing but empty slogans devoid of meaning. The wolf is trying to wear the sheep’s wool. We therefore warn revolutionaries worldwide against falling for their vile tricks. Any support directed towards political forces in Sudan ultimately serves the counter-revolution and buries it.

Just as counter-revolutionary forces have always sought to criminalize revolutionary action, the propaganda of the former regime is intensifying. We categorically reject the exploitation of the Sudanese people’s sacrifices in defending themselves against the imperialist partitioning project, carried out by political forces affiliated with the former regime. The Sudanese people fought against the Janjaweed in self-defense, not for political gain or power.

A Message to the Revolutionaries

The Janjaweed, their political allies, and the remnants of the former regime are enemies of the revolution. This fact has not changed, and the revolution continues. We urge you to reject the racial supremacist discourse that has spread during this war and to unite against the systematic war propaganda. Do not be dragged behind ideological propaganda; instead, assess the revolutionary situation truthfully.

The right to self-defense is a natural right. We do not oppose anyone defending themselves, their land, or their family—this is an inherent human right.

We have witnessed horrific crimes committed by the warring factions. While we stand firmly against the Janjaweed until they are completely dissolved, we also condemn all unjustified crimes committed by state forces. Even under oppressive laws, the right to self-defense is recognized, and legal frameworks exist for addressing crimes. We reject the extrajudicial application of justice, as it only perpetuates cycles of revenge. Crime cannot be countered with another crime.

We call upon revolutionaries to unite behind the idea of mutual aid and solidarity, so we may rise from the wreckage of these schemes that seek to bury the revolution. And we say this: Whoever tries to bury the revolution, know that revolution is a seed—once buried, it will only grow into stronger and more fruitful trees.

Long live the revolution!

Long live freedom!

22d of February, 2025

Tunisian General Labor Union UGTT : Reform from Within, Possibility or Mirage?

The Tunisian General Labor Union (UGTT)  has always been a central force on the Tunisian political and social scene, but at the same time it suffers from a fundamental contradiction between its historical role as an incubator of workers’ struggles and its transformation into a calcified bureaucratic institution. The central question here is: can the union be reformed from within, or is any attempt to do so merely a reproduction of the logic of the state itself within trade unionism?

The Fundamental Contradiction: Union or Institution?

The union emerged in the context of the struggle against colonialism and subsequently established itself as a mediator between workers and the authorities in the era of the national state. However, over time, it ceased to be a mere tool of struggle and became an integral part of the state’s institutional structure, negotiating within a political and economic system that maintains the domination of capital. This is where the main contradiction emerges: a union that is supposed to represent the working class, but which is ultimately subject to the logic of the state, that is, to the logic of hierarchy, representation, and negotiation instead of direct confrontation.

Reform from Within: Possibility or Mirage?

Some believe it is possible to reform the union by restoring the spirit of struggle within it, but this idea ignores the deep structure that governs it. Just as the state cannot be reformed to become « horizontal » without losing its essence as a tool of repression, any attempt at « democracy » within the union runs up against the walls of its inherent bureaucracy, where every internal rebellion becomes a new project of containment. Any internal reform is, ultimately, a reproduction of the same model with new faces.

The Revolutionary Alternative: Overcome, Not Reform. If the problem lies in the structure itself, the solution cannot be a patchwork, but a radical one. The alternative lies not in union reform, but in moving beyond it to forms of worker self-organization: workers’ councils, horizontal unions, structures independent of any bureaucratic representation. Revolutionary union action cannot be an official institution, but must be a dynamic movement that rejects the logic of mediation and seeks to create a genuine working-class force outside the framework of the state and the market. Towards a New Horizon for Union Action The insistence of some on wanting to reform the Tunisian General Labor Union amounts to wanting to reform the state itself from within: an illusion that drags the workers’ struggle into the quagmire of formal reforms. The alternative is not to recycle the same bureaucratic mechanisms, but to build independent structures of struggle based on direct democracy and collective action.

Transcendence, not reform, is the only path to truly freeing workers from the constraints of bureaucracy and the logic of the state.

NC (Tunisia)

El-Fasher: The City That Anarchists Support in Its Self-Defense

Since its formation, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), known as the Janjaweed, have practiced racial supremacy and genocide against the people of Darfur with the support of Omar al-Bashir and the central authority in Khartoum. The Janjaweed have turned the city into a massive military camp by burning villages around it and devastating towns across Darfur, especially El-Geneina, where some of the most horrific modern ethnic massacres have taken place. In one of their brutal acts, the RSF gathered indigenous Massalit people in a water drainage area and buried them alive. Videos recorded by the perpetrators themselves show victims pleading to be shot rather than buried alive.

This horrifying image is deeply ingrained in the minds of El-Fasher’s residents and social communities, making it clear that surrendering to the Janjaweed means being exterminated alive.

That is why they have decided to defend themselves.

As for the army, it holds onto the city for military purposes, but after its withdrawal from Zalingei and Wad Madani, it is no longer a trusted force for the people. Meanwhile, the armed resistance movements that have taken up arms against the Janjaweed have significant ethnic ties to the city’s population.

However, at the core of the issue is the fact that the RSF does not engage in direct battles with military factions but instead bombards civilians indiscriminately, targeting markets and hospitals. This was evident in the complete destruction of Zamzam camp, the largest refugee camp for those fleeing Janjaweed atrocities, where its residents were shelled using Emirati-supplied artillery.

The United Arab Emirates has provided substantial support to the RSF to divide the country, supplying them with drones that destroy civilian infrastructure, along with mortar shells and ammunition, including 120mm, 125mm, and 130mm rounds—used in some of the most brutal indiscriminate bombings aimed at forcibly displacing the population. The UAE’s support is driven by its desire to control Darfur’s gold, land, and livestock wealth, aligning with the ambitions of the Dagalo mafia to dominate the region. Their formation of a new government now lays bare their true intentions of fueling war, which anarchists have long recognized.

Yet, despite this extensive financial and military backing, the unwavering determination of the city’s people and their fight for survival stand as an unbreakable force. This is a fundamental struggle that resonates with all who carry a revolutionary spirit and fight for freedom.

Fawaz Murtada.

The third article, “Why Would You Become an Anarchist in Sudan?” has been translated by the CNT-AIT poorly, as such, you’d be better off reading the translation we posted a a few hours ago.

Fawaz Murtada –  Why Would You Become an Anarchist in Sudan?

Posted on 16/04/2025 - 05/05/2025 by muntjac

Part of Muntjac Issue 2: Insurgency & Counter Insurgency

Friends in the Kurdish-speaking Anarchist Forum (KAF) have recently received this communication from an anarchist comrade in Sudan. We wanted to share here, so people can know the situation for anarchists in Sudan. 

Why Would You Become an Anarchist in Sudan?

This question has always haunted me at many moments in a country of ideological, cultural, ethnic, tribal, and political diversity—where countless choices exist, yet none can be freely made. The moment you are born, your identity in Sudan is determined by religion, while your tribe plays a crucial role in shaping your culture and even your fate.

 

To become an anarchist in Sudan, you must have already escaped all these imposed identities and the suffocating constraints that push us into the furnace of the state. Sudan is a country where war, crises, and disease have never ceased. Its people, saturated with military, religious, and tribal ideologies, serve as perfect fuel to ignite conflicts. In such a country, I have always looked at my life with amazement. Our struggles often resemble action films—perhaps bizarre or unbelievable to outsiders—where survival means constantly fleeing from warring factions, dodging a hail of bullets fired directly at you. Bullets of the state, religion, tribe, sect, and armed factions.

 

Choosing to be an anarchist is an expression of true awareness of the failures of these systems. It is a consciousness that pushes you to the limits of both practical struggle and the deeply complex human experience. And this path leads to only two possible outcomes: you either survive as a true revolutionary resister, or you are consumed by the spiral of power. Just as authority in Sudan takes many forms, so does opposition. There are political resistance movements, parties, mercenary armed groups, so-called revolutionary and liberal militias built on tribal structures, and cultural factions engaged in deep propaganda-driven Authoritarianism.

 

These intertwined hierarchies form the crises of Sudanese peoples. Sudan is, in reality, a collection of small peoples trapped within a state that wields brutal power, recognizing no human rights beyond its own interests.

 

Furthermore, the ideology of extremist Islamists has been another tool for deepening ignorance and backwardness in Sudan.

 

Striving to confront all of this as a lone anarchist is like fighting as a wolf among packs of hyenas. If they find a single weakness in you, it will mean your inevitable destruction. The path forward begins with seeking out those who share your ideas, developing them, and offering them knowledge and education. As an anarchist, you carry the feeling that wherever you are, and whatever your capacity, your mission is to spread freedom. The price of that freedom may be high—it may even cost you your life. Yet, all of this is just a small contribution to the scale of liberation that people need to live a dignified human life. Freedom is the highest state of being, and anarchism shows us how to achieve and practice it. Freedom is not just a poetic word to express aspirations—it is an effort, a commitment to being free with yourself and others, and a struggle to make freedom a reality.

 

To be an anarchist is a blessing that cannot be monopolized or hidden.

 

To be free is to be an anarchist, and to be an anarchist is to be free.

 

Why Should Anarchists in Sudan Be Supported?

Every day, we witness global conflicts over resources, power, and ideology, with peoples divided into camps—either supporting the existing authority in their countries or seeking to seize control of the state. In Sudan, the struggle for resources and power has long been the driving force behind conflicts, culminating in the catastrophe that befell the country on April 15, 2023. These events starkly revealed the truth behind the slogans of the December Revolution, which anarchists actively worked to clarify.

 

When the Janjaweed were an integral part of the military state and participated in the violent dispersal of sit-ins, comrades bravely opposed them, demanding their popular dismantling, recognizing them as a threat to the revolution and society. Later, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) emerged as an independent power based on tribal foundations, wielding their authority and weapons to impose dominance through explicit racial supremacy. In Sudan, organized tribal conflict is visibly fueled by the state, with ignorance

serving as the primary tool for igniting division among communities for the benefit of the ruling powers.

 

Anarchists have rejected tribal authority, which remains the primary driver of conflict in Sudan, and are fighting to spread awareness of freedom, independent thought, and liberation from state and tribal propaganda to prevent people from becoming pawns in the power struggle. In a country exhausted by poverty, underdevelopment, and wars—where resistance has become increasingly difficult, and comrades face unimaginable repression—Sudanese anarchists have insisted on their presence and continued struggle. Their role extends beyond resistance; they have become a mirror reflecting the true reality of the

situation, beyond the distortions of mainstream media, sharing their daily experiences and struggles with anarchists worldwide.

 

In Africa, where anarchist ideas remain relatively scarce, Sudanese anarchists serve as a beacon of hope for spreading emancipatory consciousness. The rise of African peoples against the plundering of their resources and their treatment as a dumping ground for waste and a treasure trove for global exploitation is no longer a choice—it is a necessity. The war in Sudan is not merely an internal conflict; it is an open battleground for arms testing, as many nations sell their weapons to be used against innocent civilians.

 

Today, Sudanese people are not fighting over religion or ideology but are engaged in a fundamentally authoritarian struggle. With social movements against ideology losing momentum, anarchists remain the only ones capable of offering a correct analysis and critique of authoritarian policies. As we give our utmost efforts—and possibly even our lives—to maintain our existence and spread awareness, the support of comrades worldwide is crucial.

 

We cannot fight this struggle alone. Just as we recognize that we are not alone in this world, international solidarity strengthens us. That is why we call on all comrades to support anarchists in Sudan—because supporting them is supporting freedom and justice against tyranny in all its forms.

 

Support the anarchists in Sudan… Support freedom in Sudan!

 

Anarchists Contributions During the War

Certainly, the war had a devastating impact on the formation of our group, as displacement and dispersion were inevitable consequences of the violent conflict in the country. However, thanks to international solidarity, we were able to rescue comrades trapped in conflict zones, bring them to safety, and assist them in adjusting to their new housing situations. We also helped others find shelter. Personally, during the war, I hosted more than three families of comrades, reinforcing the principle of solidarity until they were able to stabilize their situations.

 

Despite our limited resources, we exceeded our capacities significantly. Most of our comrades volunteered to serve the affected community and vulnerable groups such as children, women, and the elderly. With humanitarian aid being scarce and the crisis worsening, we had no other choice but to step up.

 

Additionally, it was essential to reflect the true causes, trajectory, and developments of the war from our anarchist perspective to the world. We also sought to defuse the tensions that warring factions aimed to escalate in order to fuel the conflict, by raising awareness about the nature of the war.

 

Another crucial aspect of our efforts was educating people about the dangers of war remnants and how to handle situations involving captivity, detention, starvation, injuries, and war-related waste.

 

Despite our lack of resources, we remain committed to our liberatory duty—spreading awareness in such complex circumstances. We hope to expand participation and broaden the scope of the struggle.

 

 

 

 

Anon – REMEMBER 2020, 1968, 1878, 1791 — WE CAN WIN

Posted on 16/04/2025 - 17/04/2025 by muntjac

Sent in from: https://eflmemoire.substack.com/p/remember-2020-1968-1878-1791-we-can-win-cd147ea18bbc 

Thousands of years of kings, queens, emperors, presidents, & ministers demanding obedience. 500 years of crackers enslaving & colonizing this planet. 250 years of anglo/yankee domination.

Trump this, Musk that. Democrats, Republicans, Zionists, Confederates, Fascists, Conservatives, Liberals, Progressives. So many flavors of the same expired bullshit.

2020: Cops executed George Floyd. A police station was burnt down. For a brief moment, the world opened up.

1968: White power executed MLK. Black communities erupted into rebellion. For a brief moment, the world opened up.

1878: Indigenous peoples in the South Pacific rose up in arms against european colonizers attempting to exterminate their communities & hijack their homelands. For a moment, the world opened up.

1791: Enslaved Africans & their descendants began an uprising in the Caribbean, destroying property, profit, & slavery. For a long moment, the world opened up.

Whether a handful of friends or a massive crowd, we know that the footsoldiers of every regime can be defeated. The secret is to begin.

In Memory Of Our Fallen; Let us turn their cities into funeral pyres.
In Memory Of Our Fighters; Let us honor your names with fire and gunpowder.
Peace By Piece
(A)

NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE!
¡QUEREMOS UN MUNDO DONDE QUEPAN MUCHOS MUNDOS!

Look for those pushing and help them push harder.

Move together. Be water.

They can control a march of 10,000 — they can’t control 10 marches of 1000.

De-arrest. Don’t let people get grabbed.
If they do, don’t let their cars or busses leave.

They only care about money, so causing monetary losses is your only vote.

On the inside, the demonstration is an organism of care and support.

On the outside, it is ferocious and uncontrollable.

Without their toys they are powerless.

No one is coming to save us.
Everything is at stake.

www.notrace.how

*********

PDF Version also hosted on:

https://mtlcounterinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/akrata.pdf

https://phlanticap.noblogs.org/files/2025/04/akrata.pdf

PDF Version

*********

Posts navigation

Older posts
Newer posts

"Anarchists know that a long period of education must precede any great fundamental change in society, hence they do not believe in vote-begging, nor political campaigns, but rather in the development of self-thinking individuals."

Lucy Parsons - The Principles Of Anarchism, 1905

Contact us
fawnarchy@grrlz.net
(We now have PGP too)

Social media
We hate it, but we're on most of them here: linktr.ee/muntjac

Newsletter (Via Email)
We won't spam you, just updates on the project, new publications and the magazine itself. (you will need to make a lists.riseup account)
lists.riseup.net/www/info/muntjac

Distro
Subscribe / Buy Stuff / Donate
ko-fi.com/muntjacmag

Send Us Stuff!
We adore books, zines, love letters, posters, and sweet treats.
Please contact us first though as we would need to send someone to check the P.O. Box ...

Muntjac Collective
C/O Freedom Press
84b Whitechapel High St
E1 7QX
London
UK

Protect Yourself
Operational Security, Personal Security and Online Privacy.
anarsec.guide
notrace.how

Stay Informed
Check out a counter-info site for the news, reports and discourses you won't see on socials:
actforfree.noblogs.org
unoffensiveanimal.is
unravel.noblogs.org
sansnom.noblogs.org
switchoff.noblogs.org
radar.squat.net/en

Police Monitoring
Copwatch Network
linktr.ee/copwatchnetwork
NetPol
solidarity.netpol.org

Stop Deportations
Find Your Local AntiRaids Network
antiraids.net/local-groups

Prisoner Solidarity
Anti-repression work is everyones responsibility, learn about political prisoners, send letters and money to imprisoned anarchists and anti-colonial fighters.
bristolabc.org
brightonabc.org.uk
iwoc.iww.org.uk
palestineaction.org/prisoners
nycabc.wordpress.com
prisonersolidarity.com
june11.noblogs.org
solidarity.international

All our publications are free for prisoners.

  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
Proudly powered by WordPress | Theme: micro, developed by DevriX.