WA Delegate (non-executive): The Commonwealth of Miekzhemy (elected )
Last WA Update:
Embassies: Anarchy, Antifa, NSLeft, The Leftist Assembly, Libcom, Hippy Haven, The Communist Party of NationStates, Forest, Gay Equality, The MT Army, North Korea, Democratic Socialist Alliance, Communist International, LGBT University, The Communist Bloc, Marxist Scholars Circle, and 3 others.The Socialist Anarchist Society, The Great Red Union, and The Revolutionary Communist Alliance.
Today's World Census Report
The Highest Economic Output in The Federation of Anarchist Communes
World Census bean-counters crunched the numbers to calculate national Gross Domestic Product. Older nations, with higher populations, were noted to have a distinct advantage.
As a region, The Federation of Anarchist Communes is ranked 3,273rd in the world for Highest Economic Output.
|1.||The Consolidated State of Greater Mijak||Corporate Police State||“To Health! Prosperity!”|
|2.||The Great Crusaders of United Provinces of Atlantica||Left-wing Utopia||“ᛂᚵ ᛋᛐᛆᚿᛑᛆ - ég Standa”|
|3.||The International Conspiracy of Stroznia||Civil Rights Lovefest||“Bullsh!t Makes the Flowers Grow, and That's Beautiful.”|
|4.||The People's Democratic Republic of Antifascism||Inoffensive Centrist Democracy||“¡Hasta La Vista, Fascista!”|
|5.||The Tetrad Communes of Insert Clever Anime Reference||Liberal Democratic Socialists||“End exploitation, by pen or by rifle”|
|6.||The Communalist E-democracy of Libertarian Socialist Subtropics||Civil Rights Lovefest||“Liberty, equality, solidarity!”|
|7.||The Commonwealth of Miekzhemy||Civil Rights Lovefest||“You can talk about us, but you can't talk without us!”|
|8.||The Rogue Nation of Maupof||Left-wing Utopia||“your heart is a muscle the size of your fist”|
|9.||The Slumbering Anarchy of Kassimo||Left-wing Utopia||“No one forgotten, Nothing forgiven.”|
|10.||The Participist Confederation of Otryium||Left-wing Utopia||“The emancipation and realization of all.”|
Regional Poll • Build embassies with the Cuddle Commune?
Voting opened 2 days 9 hours ago and will close . Open to residents. You cannot vote as you are not logged in.
- : The Community of The Free Associated Kingdoms of Europa arrived from The Kingdom of Great Britain.
- : The Slumbering Anarchy of Kassimo created a new regional poll: "Build embassies with the Cuddle Commune?".
- : The Slumbering Anarchy of Kassimo proposed constructing embassies with The Internationale.
- : The Eidgenossenschaft of Deutsche Raterepublik of the region Cuddle Commune proposed constructing embassies.
- : Embassy cancelled between The Internationale and The Federation of Anarchist Communes.
- : The Confederacy of Trabajadores libres arrived from The South Pacific.
- : Island of boo ceased to exist.
- : Leftovercrack ceased to exist.
- : The Democratic Federation of Northern Syria arrived from Balder.
- : The Participist Confederation of Otryium arrived from Anarchy.
The Federation of Anarchist Communes Regional Message Board
Against the Logic of the Guillotine
"The guillotine has come to occupy our collective imagination. In a time when the rifts in our society are widening towards civil war, it represents uncompromising bloody revenge. It represents the idea that the violence of the state could be a good thing if only the right people were in charge."
"[...] that desire [for revenge] is distinct from my politics. I can want something without having to reverse-engineer a political justification for it. I can want something and choose not to pursue it, if I want something else even more—in this case, an anarchist revolution that is not based in revenge. I don’t judge other people for wanting revenge, especially if they have been through worse than I have. But I also don’t confuse that desire with a proposal for liberation."
"For radicals, fetishizing the guillotine is just like fetishizing the state: it means celebrating an instrument of murder that will always be used chiefly against us."
"Our adversary is not a kind of human being, but the form of social relations that imposes antagonism between people as the fundamental model for politics and economics. Abolishing the ruling class does not mean guillotining everyone who currently owns a yacht or penthouse; it means making it impossible for anyone to systematically wield coercive power over anyone else."
Anarchism: The Feminist Connection (1975)
"If we don't allow ourselves to be paralysed by fatalism and futility, it could force us to redefine revolution in a way that would focus on anarca-feminism as the framework in which to view the struggle for human liberation. It is women who now hold the key to new conceptions of revolution, women who realize that revolution can no longer mean the seizure of power or the domination of one group by another–under any circumstances, for any length of time. It is domination itself that must be abolished. The very survival of the planet depends on it. Men can no longer be allowed to wantonly manipulate the environment for their own self-interest, just as they can no longer be allowed to systematically destroy whole races of human beings. The presence of hierarchy and authoritarian mind-set threaten our human and planetary existence. Global liberation and libertarian politics have become necessary, not just utopian pipe dreams."
"Anarchist men have been little better than males everywhere in their subjection of women. Thus the absolute necessity of a feminist anarchist revolution. Otherwise the very principles on which anarchism is based become utter hypocrisy."
"Traditional male politics reduces humans to object status and then dominates and manipulates them for abstract 'goals'. Women, on the other hand, are trying to develop a consciousness of 'Other' in all areas. We see subject-to-subject relationships as not only desirable but necessary."
"In rebellion against the competitive power games, impersonal hierarchy, and mass organization tactics of male politics, women broke off into small, leaderless, consciousness-raising groups, which dealt with personal issues in our daily lives. Face-to-face, we attempted to get at the root cause of our oppression by sharing our hitherto unvalued perceptions and experiences. We learned from each other that politics is not "out there" but in our minds and bodies and between individuals. Personal relationships could and did oppress us as a political class. Our misery and self-hatred were a direct result of male domination–in home, street, job, and political organization."
"By looking at Spain and France, we can see that true revolution is 'neither an accidental happening nor a coup d'etat artificially engineered from above.' It takes years of preparation: sharing of ideas and information, changes in consciousness and behavior, and the creation of political and economic alternatives to capitalist, hierarchical structures. It takes spontaneous direct action on the part of autonomous individuals through collective political confrontation. It is important to 'free your mind' and your personal life, but it is not sufficient. Liberation is not an insular experience; it occurs in conjunction with other human beings. There are no individual 'liberated women'. So, what I'm talking about is a long-term process, a series of actions in which we unlearn passivity and learn to take control over our own lives."
"Potentially, anarchist affinity groups are the base on which we can build a new libertarian, non-hierarchical society. The way we live and work changes the way we think and perceive (and vice versa), and when changes in consciousness become changes in action and behavior, the revolution has begun."
"I used to think that if the revolution didn't happen tomorrow, we would all be doomed to a catastrophic (or at least, catatonic) fate. I don't believe anymore that kind of before-and-after revolution, and I think we set ourselves up for failure and despair by thinking of it in those terms. I do believe that what we all need, what we absolutely require, in order to continue struggling (in spite of oppression of our daily lives) is HOPE, that is, a vision of the future so beautiful and so powerful that it pulls us steadily forward in a bottom-up creation of an inner and outer world both habitable and self-fulfilling for all."
Quoting Marge Piercy: "Despair is the worst betrayal, the coldest seduction: to believe at last that the enemy will prevail."
"We must not let our pain and anger fade into hopelessness or short-sighted semi-'solutions'. Nothing we can do is enough, but on the other hand, those 'small changes' we make in our minds, in our lives, in one another's lives, are not totally futile and ineffectual. It takes a long time to make a revolution: it is something that one both prepares for and lives now. The transformation of the future will not be instantaneous, but it can be total... a continuum of thought and action, individuality and collectivity, spontaneity and organization, stretching from what is to what can be. Anarchism provides a framework for this transformation. It is a vision, a dream, a possibility which becomes 'real' as we live it. Feminism is the connection that links anarchism to the future."
"Capitalism is a society that produces “goods” through the production of illness, destruction and death. The scale of the disaster is so great that we “have reached the threshold”, in Amorós words, or perhaps, even passed some kind of point of no return, such that all anti-capitalist politics must be thought through in the shadow of catastrophe."
I think that this new politics centred on disaster, catastrophe, collapse, crisis, etc. is something we need to clarify in our theory. What do we mean by these terms?
In terms of climate change and industrial ecocide, it is clear that we are currently undergoing an ecological 'collapse'. This kind of collapse is a matter of scientific study. Politically however, ecological collapse presents the capitalist economy with problems that it cannot solve, such as the demand for perpetual growth confronting ever-more limited resources. In general, all viable solutions to global warming and ecological collapse involve a fundamental restructuring of human societies, including the end of a profit-driven, growth dependent, industrial economy; that is, the end of capitalism. The continuation of capitalism, even with 'green' technology and environmental reforms, can only lead us, ever-quicker, into undermining the ecological/material conditions for the survival of the human race. In this case, ever-increasing mass displacement, regular extreme weather events, droughts, famines, resource wars, de-mystified inequality, etc. will all more or less undermine the political, social, and economic institutions, structures, processes and norms that constitute society as we know it (i.e. so called 'civilization').
Some radicals respond to this by emphasising the necessity of social revolution to destroy capitalism before it destroys us. Some radicals take for granted that a global social revolution is simply not going to happen before the status-quo totally breaks down, and respond to this by theorising revolution in the context of impending 'catastrophes'. Some radicals believe that whatever course we take it is too late to stop the chain reaction of ecological collapse, and respond to this by envisioning the realisation of anarchy in a post-collapse dystopia.
There is ambiguity regarding whether this crisis is currently ongoing or a future event. The common view among radicals seems to be that this ecological collapse is currently occurring but that it will reach a threshold at which existing capitalist society will break down. What is the point of collapse, what will it look like? Can we really expect a distinct 'event' in which capitalism breaks down, or will it simply be an ever-faster descent from capitalism into chaos?
How should our long-term strategies respond to the short/medium-term potential for 'catastrophe'? Surely it cannot be simply another 'issue', another aspect of the usual 'activism'. Nor can we simply dismiss such an urgent problem with the thought that it will be addressed when 'the revolution' arrives to grace us. The global social revolution has not happened in the centuries since it was first demanded and predicted by socialists of every variety, why should we expect to see such a revolution emerge any time soon?
Then there is the crisis internal to capitalism. The falling rate of profit, the bankruptcy of neoliberalism, with no viable solution emerging (the Keynsian solution still peddled by the left not economically possible), the extension of markets to their limit, with nowhere left for the commodity economy to colonise, the depletion of natural resources, recurring financial crises, ongoing recessions, etc. This sort of crisis opens up potential for revolutionary politics, but also for populists and reactionaries.
There is also a kind of existential crisis, that has been growing since the First World War, but which seems to be coming to the limits of human endurance at present. I am talking about the crisis of values that emerged from the rejection of God, and the absolute power invested by God in the State, the Church, and their social order, especially moral dogma. The search for freedom, meaning, and absolute values to replace the old, has clashed with the capitalist project that has seen the ever-increasing atomisation and alienation of people as individual subjects. The human need for meaning and inter-subjectivity has clashed with the reification of human relations, which sees individuals as objects, commodities, in a system of exchange. Authentic human communities are displaced by the community of capital, reality displaced by representation, direct relations displaced by commodity-mediated and state-mediated relations. I could go on. We face a mental health crisis of unprecedented proportions, alongside the irresolvable fragmentation and polarisation of societies, which is increasingly destabilising and undermining basic human sociability, as well as making life increasingly intolerable. This 'existential' crisis, furthermore, leaves us impotent to acknowledge and react to the other crises we face. (Is it any surprise that a society of depressives, workaholics, the criminally rich, and the abjectly poor, is unable to address a global crisis demanding the total transformation of life as we know it?)
I think clarifying what we mean by crisis, clearly distinguishing different kinds of crisis, and clearly laying out how we respond to exisiting and potential crises, is an urgent task.
Lastly, we must be aware of the way in which exisiting powers, particularly the State, use the notion of 'crisis' and 'emergency' to increase their power, further developing mass-surveillance based police states, and pushing through radical reforms to defend their class interests.
Excerpt from "The Society of the Spectacle", Guy Debord
The First International’s initial successes enabled it to free itself from the confused influences of the dominant ideology that had survived within it. But the defeat and repression that it soon encountered brought to the surface a conflict between two different conceptions of proletarian revolution, each of which contained an authoritarian aspect that amounted to abandoning the conscious self-emancipation of the working class. The feud between the Marxists and the Bakuninists, which eventually became irreconcilable, actually centered on two different issues — the question of power in a future revolutionary society and the question of the organization of the current movement — and each of the adversaries reversed their position when they went from one aspect to the other. Bakunin denounced the illusion that classes could be abolished by means of an authoritarian implementation of state power, warning that this would lead to the formation of a new bureaucratic ruling class and to the dictatorship of the most knowledgeable (or of those reputed to be such). Marx, who believed that the concomitant maturation of economic contradictions and of the workers’ education in democracy would reduce the role of a proletarian state to a brief phase needed to legitimize the new social relations brought into being by objective factors, denounced Bakunin and his supporters as an authoritarian conspiratorial elite who were deliberately placing themselves above the International with the harebrained scheme of imposing on society an irresponsible dictatorship of the most revolutionary (or of those who would designate themselves as such). Bakunin did in fact recruit followers on such a basis: “In the midst of the popular tempest we must be the invisible pilots guiding the revolution, not through any kind of overt power but through the collective dictatorship of our Alliance — a dictatorship without any badges or titles or official status, yet all the more powerful because it will have none of the appearances of power.” Thus two ideologies of working-class revolution opposed each other, each containing a partially true critique, but each losing the unity of historical thought and setting itself up as an ideological authority. Powerful organizations such as German Social Democracy and the Iberian Anarchist Federation faithfully served one or the other of these ideologies; and everywhere the result was very different from what had been sought.
The fact that anarchists have seen the goal of proletarian revolution as immediately present represents both the strength and the weakness of collectivist anarchist struggles (the only forms of anarchism that can be taken seriously — the pretensions of the individualist forms of anarchism have always been ludicrous). From the historical thought of modern class struggles collectivist anarchism retains only the conclusion, and its constant harping on this conclusion is accompanied by a deliberate indifference to any consideration of methods. Its critique of political struggle has thus remained abstract, while its commitment to economic struggle has been channeled toward the mirage of a definitive solution that will supposedly be achieved by a single blow on this terrain, on the day of the general strike or the insurrection. The anarchists have saddled themselves with fulfilling an ideal. Anarchism remains a merely ideological negation of the state and of class society — the very social conditions which in their turn foster separate ideologies. It is the ideology of pure freedom, an ideology that puts everything on the same level and loses any conception of the “historical evil” (the negation at work within history). This fusion of all partial demands into a single all-encompassing demand has given anarchism the merit of representing the rejection of existing conditions in the name of the whole of life rather than from the standpoint of some particular critical specialization; but the fact that this fusion has been envisaged only in the absolute, in accordance with individual whim and in advance of any practical actualization, has doomed anarchism to an all too obvious incoherence. Anarchism responds to each particular struggle by repeating and reapplying the same simple and all-embracing lesson, because this lesson has from the beginning been considered the be-all and end-all of the movement. This is reflected in Bakunin’s 1873 letter of resignation from the Jura Federation: “During the past nine years the International has developed more than enough ideas to save the world, if ideas alone could save it, and I challenge anyone to come up with a new one. It’s no longer the time for ideas, it’s time for actions.” This perspective undoubtedly retains proletarian historical thought’s recognition that ideas must be put into practice, but it abandons the historical terrain by assuming that the appropriate forms for this transition to practice have already been discovered and will never change.
The anarchists, who explicitly distinguish themselves from the rest of the workers movement by their ideological conviction, reproduce this separation of competencies within their own ranks by providing a terrain that facilitates the informal domination of each particular anarchist organization by propagandists and defenders of their ideology, specialists whose mediocre intellectual activity is largely limited to the constant regurgitation of a few eternal truths. The anarchists’ ideological reverence for unanimous decisionmaking has ended up paving the way for uncontrolled manipulation of their own organizations by specialists in freedom; and revolutionary anarchism expects the same type of unanimity, obtained by the same means, from the masses once they have been liberated. Furthermore, the anarchists’ refusal to take into account the great differences between the conditions of a minority banded together in present-day struggles and of a postrevolutionary society of free individuals has repeatedly led to the isolation of anarchists when the moment for collective decisionmaking actually arrives, as is shown by the countless anarchist insurrections in Spain that were contained and crushed at a local level.
The illusion more or less explicitly maintained by genuine anarchism is its constant belief that a revolution is just around the corner, and that the instantaneous accomplishment of this revolution will demonstrate the truth of anarchist ideology and of the form of practical organization that has developed in accordance with that ideology. In 1936 anarchism did indeed initiate a social revolution, a revolution that was the most advanced expression of proletarian power ever realized. But even in that case it should be noted that the general uprising began as a merely defensive reaction to the army’s attempted coup. Furthermore, inasmuch as the revolution was not carried to completion during its opening days (because Franco controlled half the country and was being strongly supported from abroad, because the rest of the international proletarian movement had already been defeated, and because the anti-Franco camp included various bourgeois forces and statist working-class parties), the organized anarchist movement proved incapable of extending the revolution’s partial victories, or even of defending them. Its recognized leaders became government ministers, hostages to a bourgeois state that was destroying the revolution even as it proceeded to lose the civil war.
"As We See It", Solidarity
"Meaningful action, for revolutionaries, is whatever increases the confidence, the autonomy, the initiative, the participation, the solidarity, the equalitarian tendencies and the self-activity of the masses and whatever assists in their demystification. Sterile and harmful action is whatever reinforces the passivity of the masses, their apathy, their cynicism, their differentiation through hierarchy, their alienation, their reliance on others to do things for them and the degree to which they can therefore be manipulated by others - even by those allegedly acting on their behalf."
I can't stand youtube politics myself, but I understand lots of people are exposed to new ideas through this platform, so these lists may be of use:
And for film & TV:
Paul Cockshott, while not an anarchist, is an incredible contemporary mind. His YouTube channel is by the same name, and he’s a PhD with published books. Can not recommend him enough.