CLASS STRUGGLE ANARCHISM

because you're worth it

Tomorrow I’m heading out for a four wheel drive adventure into the great Australian wilderness, so I probably won’t be posting for ten days or so

Can’t wait, my partner and I haven’t had a holiday together in 3 years, and that was just a long weekend in Melbourne… looking forward to some whisky under the stars and no nappies to change for a while…

http://class-struggle-anarchism.tumblr.com/post/95252376564/rakaizombie-jean-luc-gohard-so-we-got-white

rakaizombie:

rakaizombie:

jean-luc-gohard:

So we got white cops with guns pointed in black faces because they believe we don’t understand the system and we need to be trained to obey like dogs, undercover KKK members handing out molotov cocktails and encouraging the yutes to be violent, and white…

I mean, they’re white, but do anarchists have a “look”? That’s completely unfounded. Not to mention that well-meaning “community leaders” with liberal groups like NAACP ARE actively collaborating with police and power. Is this beyond reproach? You can’t paint Ferguson with such a wide brush and say that since a few moderates are angry about McDonald’s being looted, people shouldn’t riot. I agree that specifically going in to agitate is sketchy as fuck but I completely agree with that crimethinc article and still want evidence beyond “this picture of some white people who kinda look like anarchos”.

Like I said, I don’t know who they are, but I’m not in denial about the fact that they may well be anarchists. I have never said that people shouldn’t riot, but I do think that white people from outside of the community should be offering the kind of solidarity they are asked for, not just taking whatever action they have predetermined to be in everyone’s best interests.

I’m not sure how you can “completely agree with that crimethinc article” and also think that “specifically going in to agitate is sketchy as fuck” - it’s quite clearly expressing support for activists from outside going in to agitate, unless the “us” who are being accused of being outside agitators are actually local black residents of Ferguson, in which case crimethinc are taking it upon themselves to speak on their behalf, which is fucked up too.

Like, the media narrative is definitely to reach for the “outside agitator” bogeyman etc, and while it’s important to see that for what it is,  I don’t see why we need to convince ourselves that there are no white anarchists going to Ferguson to fight the police, unless of course we just want to avoid having to condemn them for it. 

rakaizombie:

jean-luc-gohard:

So we got white cops with guns pointed in black faces because they believe we don’t understand the system and we need to be trained to obey like dogs, undercover KKK members handing out molotov cocktails and encouraging the yutes to be violent, and white Crimethinc anarchists and RCP dudes trying to burn and loot and destroy.

And yet black people are the ones being portrayed as violent.

i would love to see the evidence of “crimethinc anarchists”

This crimethinc article definitely reads like support for anarchists coming from outside the community to engage the police against the wishes of black community leaders:

Sometimes they appear as surveillance cameras, security guards, police stopping and searching or shooting us. Other times, when that becomes too controversial, the forces of peace and justice reappear as the good cops who really seem to care about us, the earnest politicians who want to make everything better—whatever it takes to get public opinion back on the side of the ones who shoot the tear gas. Still other times, the forces of peace and justice are community leaders begging us to leave the streets, accusing us of being “outside agitators,” or promising some more effective outlet for our rage if only we will cooperate—anything to thwart, discredit, or defer immediate concrete struggle against injustice. In every case, it’s the same swindle: peace now, justice later.

And I don’t know who the people in this photo are, but the article says they were part of a small group who refused to disperse after the curfew:

Shooting victim: This image shows the man who was shot in the early hours of Sunday morning after a small crowd failed to disperse after midnight, the state-imposed curfew. Police are searching for the shooter

If they’re not white anarchists they sure do look like ‘em

"In a sense, demographic data were to twentieth-century racists what craniometric data had been to race scientists during the nineteenth. Like the phrenologists who preceded them, the eugenicists worked backward from classifications they defined a priori and declared a causal relationship between the data and race. Instead of measuring skulls, they counted inmates in state institutions. If statistics showed that immigrants were less healthy, less educated, and poorer than native-born Americans, that was deemed evidence of the immigrants’ inferior physical constitution, intelligence, and ambition."

Mae M. Ngai

They’re still doing exactly this

Anonymous asked: So are you going to post more thoughts on Maoism.

yeah but I want to finish reading some Mao first, otherwise my thoughts on Maoism are just my thoughts on any form of state socialism which everyone knows already. Maoism doesn’t really exist as a current where I come from, so I’ve never really had the impetus to read it before. I’ll admit I haven’t been exactly prioritising Mao, but I’m reading it just for you anon, no need to hassle me…are Maoist guerrillas beating down your door and you need to rebut them? 

You might be interested in this article by Martin Glaberman, he was a trot of the CLR James school, does quite a good job here of demolishing the idea that Mao was anywhere close to a decent dialectician, showing how he was closer to philosophical idealism, voluntarism etc

"

the Immigration Act of 1924 comprised a constellation of reconstructed racial categories, in which race and nationality-concepts that had been loosely conflated since the nineteenth century disaggregated and realigned in new and uneven ways.

At one level, the new immigration law differentiated Europeans according to nationality and ranked them in a hierarchy of desirability. At another level, the law constructed a white American race, in which persons of European descent shared a common whiteness that made them distinct from those deemed to be not white. Euro-Americans acquired both ethnicities-that is, nationality-based identities that were presumed to be transformable-and a racial identity based on whiteness that was presumed to be unchangeable.

This distinction gave all Euro-Americans a stake in what Matthew Jacobson has called a “consanguine white race” and facilitated their Americanization. But, while Euro-Americans’ ethnic and racial identities became uncoupled, non-European immigrants-among them Japanese, Chinese, Mexicans, and Filipinos-acquired ethnic and racial identities that were one and the same.

The racialization of the latter groups’ national origins rendered them unalterably foreign and unassimilable to the nation. The Immigration Act of 1924 thus established legal foundations for social processes that would unfold over the next several decades, processes that historians have called, for European immigrants, “becoming American” (or, more precisely, white Americans), while casting Mexicans as illegal aliens and foredooming Asians to permanent foreignness.

"

— Mae M. Ngai, The Architecture of Race in American Immigration Law.

I was cycling home from uni along the swan river today when I saw a single bottlenosed dolphin diving around near the banks, I stopped for a better look and it came right up into the shallow water, right in front of me it snapped up this blackspotted catshark that had been minding it’s own business near the shore, and proceeded to torment the poor fucker, throwing it up in the air and grabbing it again, battering it around and then just swimming off, leaving it for dead. I felt slightly guilty being such an avid observer of this wanton cruelty - but I can’t help myself, I’m fae Glasgow, we don’t get dolphins in the Clyde, I was transfixed. 

I even got a wee bit of video, maybe I’ll upload it if I figure out how on my phone

"A ‘postmodern’ boss insists that he is not a master but just a coordinator of our joint creative efforts, the first among equals; there should be no formalities among us, we should address him by his nickname, he shares a dirty joke with us … but during all this, he remains our master. In such a social link, relations of domination function through their denial: in order to operative, they have to be ignored."

— Slavoj Žižek, In Defense of Lost Causes

ready-to-fight:

Fight Back
Anonymous asked: Smdh at anarcho-capitalists. who in their right mind is pro-hitler???

Honestly, sometimes part of me suspects that anarcho-capitalism is just one, big, epic troll

Like one day they’re all just going to dissolve into laughter and be all like “pfft had you all going there…anarcho-capitalism haha…. yeah right…you idiots bought it”…. taking off their bow ties and tossing them in the bin, chuckling away to themselves

cercletucker asked: How would wishing Stalin had been defeated in the Liberals' War disqualify one as an anarchist?

Anarchists don’t pick sides in inter-imperialist wars, something the international anarchist community was quick to remind Kropotkin of when he lost it in his old age and decided to support the allies in WWI.

Never heard WWII be described as “the Liberal’s War” before, it’s not very accurate, if I’m going to give it a fancy name I usually call it the second great imperialist war. 

Of course, you realise that it’s not so much wanting Stalin’s defeat that disqualifies you as an anarchist as wanting Hitler’s victory… You would basically be supporting fascist victory in world war two, welcoming the full realisation of the holocaust, worldwide fascist domination etc. Never mind not being an anarchist, that would make you an utterly contemptible human being in general. 

By the way, from a glance at your blog you are a capitalist - in case you’re in any doubt, that disqualifies you from being an anarchist too.

So, if you’re in a fight with someone who adheres to the non aggression principle, does that mean you always get to throw the first punch? Because that is a massive advantage right there

"Revolution transforms all social elements ( people, things, relationships, ideas, nature, etc. ) into a community. The material basis for such a society already exists, but all of these components are still activated, controlled and socialised by value, either in the form of capital, or in the earlier form of simple commodities. The labour force is a commodity. Instead of enabling man to appropriate the world on the material, intellectual and affective levels, labour is now only a means for producing objects in order to increase value. Subversion, since the time of Luddism, has been an attempt to get rid of value as a social relation. One must bear this in mind when considering unofficial strikes, riots, etc., even when these actions fail to assume and express a communist perspective."

— Gilles Dauvé