NATA-NY is an organizational matrix in which individuals and communities can activate to manifest their intrinsic autonomy. We are a decentralized and leaderless network that aspires to increase the empowerment and independence of all people living in the New York area.
Showing posts with label Communism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Communism. Show all posts
Friday, July 10, 2015
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
The Rothbardian Reconstruction of the Political Spectrum
Via: ATS
Rothbard’s classic 1965 essay, “Left and Right: Prospects for Liberty,” is a must read for anarchists, libertarians, anti-statists, and decentralists of any species. This essay as much as any other really defines the historical context and trajectory of our common fight, irrespective of our other differences.
By Murray Rothbard
Mises Institute
[Originally appeared in Left and Right, Spring 1965, pp. 4-22.]
The Conservative has long been marked, whether he knows it or not, by long-run pessimism: by the belief that the long-run trend, and therefore Time itself, is against him, and hence the inevitable trend runs toward left-wing statism at home and Communism abroad. It is this long-run despair that accounts for the Conservative’s rather bizarre short-run optimism; for since the long run is given up as hopeless, the Conservative feels that his only hope of success rests in the current moment. In foreign affairs, this point of view leads the Conservative to call for desperate showdowns with Communism, for he feels that the longer he waits the worse things will ineluctably become; at home, it leads him to total concentration on the very next election, where he is always hoping for victory and never achieving it. The quintessence of the Practical Man, and beset by long-run despair, the Conservative refuses to think or plan beyond the election of the day.
Pessimism, however, both short-run and long-run, is precisely what the prognosis of Conservatism deserves; for Conservatism is a dying remnant of the ancien régime of the preindustrial era, and, as such, it has no future. In its contemporary American form, the recent Conservative Revival embodied the death throes of an ineluctably moribund, Fundamentalist, rural, small-town, white Anglo-Saxon America. What, however, of the prospects for liberty? For too many libertarians mistakenly link the prognosis for liberty with that of the seemingly stronger and supposedly allied Conservative movement; this linkage makes the characteristic long-run pessimism of the modern libertarian easy to understand. But this paper contends that, while the short-run prospects for liberty at home and abroad may seem dim, the proper attitude for the libertarian to take is that of unquenchable long-run optimism.
The case for this assertion rests on a certain view of history: which holds, first, that before the 18th century in Western Europe there existed (and still continues to exist outside the West) an identifiable Old Order. Whether the Old Order took the form of feudalism or Oriental despotism, it was marked by tyranny, exploitation, stagnation, fixed caste, and hopelessness and starvation for the bulk of the population. In sum, life was “nasty, brutish, and short”; here was Maine’s “society of status” and Spencer’s “military society.” The ruling classes, or castes, governed by conquest and by getting the masses to believe in the alleged divine imprimatur to their rule.
The Old Order was, and still remains, the great and mighty enemy of liberty; and it was particularly mighty in the past because there was then no inevitability about its overthrow. When we consider that basically the Old Order had existed since the dawn of history, in all civilizations, we can appreciate even more the glory and the magnitude of the triumph of the liberal revolution of and around the 18th century.
Part of the dimensions of this struggle has been obscured by a great myth of the history of Western Europe implanted by antiliberal German historians of the late 19th century. The myth held that the growth of absolute monarchies and of mercantilism in the early modern era was necessary for the development of capitalism, since these served to liberate the merchants and the people from local feudal restrictions. In actuality, this was not at all the case; the King and his nation-State served rather as a superfeudal overlord re-imposing and reinforcing feudalism just as it was being dissolved by the peaceful growth of the market economy. The King superimposed his own restrictions and monopoly privileges onto those of the feudal regime. The absolute monarchs were the Old Order writ large and made even more despotic than before. Capitalism, indeed, flourished earliest and most actively precisely in those areas where the central State was weak or non-existent: the Italian cities, the Hanseatic League, the confederation of 17th century Holland. Finally, the old order was overthrown or severely shaken in its grip in two ways. One was by industry and the market expanding through the interstices of the feudal order (e.g., industry in England developing in the countryside beyond the grip of feudal, State, and guild restrictions.) More important was a series of cataclysmic revolutions that blasted loose the Old Order and the old ruling classes: the English Revolutions of the 17th century, the American Revolution, and the French Revolution, all of which were necessary to the ushering in of the Industrial Revolution and of at least partial victories for individual liberty, laissez-faire separation of church-and-state, and international peace. The society of status gave way, at least partially, to the “society of contract”; the military society gave way partially to the “industrial society.” The mass of the population now achieved a mobility of labor and place, and accelerating expansion of their living standards, for which they had scarcely dared to hope. Liberalism had indeed brought to the Western world not only liberty, the prospect of peace, and the rising living standards of an industrial society, but above all perhaps, it brought hope, a hope in ever-greater progress that lifted the mass of mankind out of its age-old sink of stagnation and despair.
Soon there developed in Western Europe two great political ideologies, centered around this new revolutionary phenomenon: the one was Liberalism, the party of hope, of radicalism, of liberty, of the Industrial Revolution, of progress, of humanity; the other was Conservatism, the party of reaction, the party that longed to restore the hierarchy, statism, theocracy, serfdom, and class exploitation of the old order. Since liberalism admittedly had reason on its side, the Conservatives darkened the ideological atmosphere with obscurantist calls for romanticism, tradition, theocracy, and irrationalism. Political ideologies were polarized, with Liberalism on the extreme “Left,” and Conservatism on the extreme “Right,” of the ideological spectrum. That genuine Liberalism was essentially radical and revolutionary was brilliantly perceived, in the twilight of its impact, by the great Lord Acton (one of the few figures in the history of thought who, charmingly, grew more radical as he grew older). Acton wrote that “Liberalism wishes for what ought to be, irrespective of what is.” In working out this view, incidentally, it was Acton, not Trotsky, who first arrived at the concept of the “permanent revolution.” As Gertrude Himmelfarb wrote, in her excellent study of Acton:
The second great philosophical influence on the decline of Liberalism was evolutionism, or Social Darwinism, which put the finishing touches to Liberalism as a radical force in society. For the Social Darwinist erroneously saw history and society through the peaceful, rose-colored glasses of infinitely slow, infinitely gradual social evolution. Ignoring the prime fact that no ruling caste in history has ever voluntarily surrendered its power, and that therefore Liberalism had to break through by means of a series of revolutions, the Social Darwinists looked forward peacefully and cheerfully to thousands of years of infinitely gradual evolution to the next supposedly inevitable stage of individualism.
An interesting illustration of a thinker who embodies within himself the decline of Liberalism in the nineteenth century is Herbert Spencer. Spencer began as a magnificently radical liberal, indeed virtually a pure libertarian. But, as the virus of sociology and Social Darwinism took over in his soul, Spencer abandoned libertarianism as a dynamic historical movement, although at first without abandoning it in pure theory. In short, while looking forward to an eventual ideal of pure liberty, Spencer began to see its victory as inevitable, but only after millennia of gradual evolution, and thus, in actual fact, Spencer abandoned Liberalism as a fighting, radical creed; and confined his Liberalism in practice to a weary, rear-guard action against the growing collectivism of the late nineteenth-century. Interestingly enough, Spencer’s tired shift “rightward” in strategy soon became a shift rightward in theory as well; so that Spencer abandoned pure liberty even in theory e.g., in repudiating his famous chapter in Social Statics, “The Right to Ignore the State.”
In England, the classical liberals began their shift from radicalism to quasi-conservatism in the early nineteenth century; a touchstone of this shift was the general British liberal attitude toward the national liberation struggle in Ireland. This struggle was twofold: against British political imperialism, and against feudal landlordism which had been imposed by that imperialism. By their Tory blindness toward the Irish drive for national independence, and especially for peasant property against feudal oppression, the British liberals (including Spencer) symbolized their effective abandonment of genuine Liberalism, which had been virtually born in a struggle against the feudal land system. Only in the United States, the great home of radical liberalism (where feudalism had never been able to take root outside the South), did natural rights and higher law theory, and consequent radical liberal movements, continue in prominence until the mid-nineteenth century. In their different ways, the Jacksonian and Abolitionist movements were the last powerful radical libertarian movements in American life. [3]
Thus, with Liberalism abandoned from within, there was no longer a party of Hope in the Western world, no longer a “Left” movement to lead a struggle against the State and against the unbreached remainder of the Old Order. Into this gap, into this void created by the drying up of radical liberalism, there stepped a new movement: Socialism. Libertarians of the present day are accustomed to think of socialism as the polar opposite of the libertarian creed. But this is a grave mistake, responsible for a severe ideological disorientation of libertarians in the present world. As we have seen, Conservatism was the polar opposite of liberty; and socialism, while to the “left” of conservatism, was essentially a confused, middle-of-the road movement. It was, and still is, middle-of-the road because it tries to achieve Liberal ends by the use of Conservative means.
In short, Russell Kirk, who claims that Socialism was the heir of classical liberalism, and Ronald Hamowy, who sees Socialism as the heir of Conservatism, are both right; for the question is on what aspect of this confused centrist movement we happen to be focussing. Socialism, like Liberalism and against Conservatism, accepted the industrial system and the liberal goals of freedom, reason, mobility, progress, higher living standards the masses, and an end to theocracy and war; but it tried to achieve these ends by the use of incompatible, Conservative means: statism, central planning, communitarianism, etc. Or rather, to be more precise, there were from the beginning two different strands within Socialism: one was the Right-wing, authoritarian strand, from Saint-Simon down, which glorified statism, hierarchy, and collectivism and which was thus a projection of Conservatism trying to accept and dominate the new industrial civilization. The other was the Left-wing, relatively libertarian strand, exemplified in their different ways by Marx and Bakunin, revolutionary and far more interested in achieving the libertarian goals of liberalism and socialism: but especially the smashing of the State apparatus to achieve the “withering away of the State” and the “end of the exploitation of man by man.” Interestingly enough, the very Marxian phrase, the “replacement of the government of men by the administration of things,” can be traced, by a circuitous route, from the great French radical laissez-faire liberals of the early nineteenth century, Charles Comte (no relation to Auguste Comte) and Charles Dunoyer. And so, too, may the concept of the “class struggle”; except that for Dunoyer and Comte the inherently antithetical classes were not businessmen vs. workers, but the producers in society (including free businessmen, workers, peasants, etc.) versus the exploiting classes constituting, and privileged by, the State apparatus. [4] Saint-Simon, at one time in his confused and chaotic life, was close to Comte and Dunoyer and picked up his class analysis from them, in the process characteristically getting the whole thing balled up and converting businessmen on the market, as well as feudal landlords and others of the State privileged, into “exploiters.” Marx and Bakunin picked this up from the Saint-Simonians, and the result gravely misled the whole Left Socialist movement; for, then, in addition to smashing the repressive State, it became supposedly necessary to smash private capitalist ownership of the means of production. Rejecting private property, especially of capital, the Left Socialists were then trapped in a crucial inner contradiction: if the State is to disappear after the Revolution (immediately for Bakunin, gradually “withering” for Marx), then how is the “collective” to run its property without becoming an enormous State itself in fact even if not in name? This was a contradiction which neither the Marxists nor the Bakuninists were ever able to resolve.
READ MORE HERE
Rothbard’s classic 1965 essay, “Left and Right: Prospects for Liberty,” is a must read for anarchists, libertarians, anti-statists, and decentralists of any species. This essay as much as any other really defines the historical context and trajectory of our common fight, irrespective of our other differences.
By Murray Rothbard
Mises Institute
[Originally appeared in Left and Right, Spring 1965, pp. 4-22.]
The Conservative has long been marked, whether he knows it or not, by long-run pessimism: by the belief that the long-run trend, and therefore Time itself, is against him, and hence the inevitable trend runs toward left-wing statism at home and Communism abroad. It is this long-run despair that accounts for the Conservative’s rather bizarre short-run optimism; for since the long run is given up as hopeless, the Conservative feels that his only hope of success rests in the current moment. In foreign affairs, this point of view leads the Conservative to call for desperate showdowns with Communism, for he feels that the longer he waits the worse things will ineluctably become; at home, it leads him to total concentration on the very next election, where he is always hoping for victory and never achieving it. The quintessence of the Practical Man, and beset by long-run despair, the Conservative refuses to think or plan beyond the election of the day.
Pessimism, however, both short-run and long-run, is precisely what the prognosis of Conservatism deserves; for Conservatism is a dying remnant of the ancien régime of the preindustrial era, and, as such, it has no future. In its contemporary American form, the recent Conservative Revival embodied the death throes of an ineluctably moribund, Fundamentalist, rural, small-town, white Anglo-Saxon America. What, however, of the prospects for liberty? For too many libertarians mistakenly link the prognosis for liberty with that of the seemingly stronger and supposedly allied Conservative movement; this linkage makes the characteristic long-run pessimism of the modern libertarian easy to understand. But this paper contends that, while the short-run prospects for liberty at home and abroad may seem dim, the proper attitude for the libertarian to take is that of unquenchable long-run optimism.
The case for this assertion rests on a certain view of history: which holds, first, that before the 18th century in Western Europe there existed (and still continues to exist outside the West) an identifiable Old Order. Whether the Old Order took the form of feudalism or Oriental despotism, it was marked by tyranny, exploitation, stagnation, fixed caste, and hopelessness and starvation for the bulk of the population. In sum, life was “nasty, brutish, and short”; here was Maine’s “society of status” and Spencer’s “military society.” The ruling classes, or castes, governed by conquest and by getting the masses to believe in the alleged divine imprimatur to their rule.
The Old Order was, and still remains, the great and mighty enemy of liberty; and it was particularly mighty in the past because there was then no inevitability about its overthrow. When we consider that basically the Old Order had existed since the dawn of history, in all civilizations, we can appreciate even more the glory and the magnitude of the triumph of the liberal revolution of and around the 18th century.
Part of the dimensions of this struggle has been obscured by a great myth of the history of Western Europe implanted by antiliberal German historians of the late 19th century. The myth held that the growth of absolute monarchies and of mercantilism in the early modern era was necessary for the development of capitalism, since these served to liberate the merchants and the people from local feudal restrictions. In actuality, this was not at all the case; the King and his nation-State served rather as a superfeudal overlord re-imposing and reinforcing feudalism just as it was being dissolved by the peaceful growth of the market economy. The King superimposed his own restrictions and monopoly privileges onto those of the feudal regime. The absolute monarchs were the Old Order writ large and made even more despotic than before. Capitalism, indeed, flourished earliest and most actively precisely in those areas where the central State was weak or non-existent: the Italian cities, the Hanseatic League, the confederation of 17th century Holland. Finally, the old order was overthrown or severely shaken in its grip in two ways. One was by industry and the market expanding through the interstices of the feudal order (e.g., industry in England developing in the countryside beyond the grip of feudal, State, and guild restrictions.) More important was a series of cataclysmic revolutions that blasted loose the Old Order and the old ruling classes: the English Revolutions of the 17th century, the American Revolution, and the French Revolution, all of which were necessary to the ushering in of the Industrial Revolution and of at least partial victories for individual liberty, laissez-faire separation of church-and-state, and international peace. The society of status gave way, at least partially, to the “society of contract”; the military society gave way partially to the “industrial society.” The mass of the population now achieved a mobility of labor and place, and accelerating expansion of their living standards, for which they had scarcely dared to hope. Liberalism had indeed brought to the Western world not only liberty, the prospect of peace, and the rising living standards of an industrial society, but above all perhaps, it brought hope, a hope in ever-greater progress that lifted the mass of mankind out of its age-old sink of stagnation and despair.
Soon there developed in Western Europe two great political ideologies, centered around this new revolutionary phenomenon: the one was Liberalism, the party of hope, of radicalism, of liberty, of the Industrial Revolution, of progress, of humanity; the other was Conservatism, the party of reaction, the party that longed to restore the hierarchy, statism, theocracy, serfdom, and class exploitation of the old order. Since liberalism admittedly had reason on its side, the Conservatives darkened the ideological atmosphere with obscurantist calls for romanticism, tradition, theocracy, and irrationalism. Political ideologies were polarized, with Liberalism on the extreme “Left,” and Conservatism on the extreme “Right,” of the ideological spectrum. That genuine Liberalism was essentially radical and revolutionary was brilliantly perceived, in the twilight of its impact, by the great Lord Acton (one of the few figures in the history of thought who, charmingly, grew more radical as he grew older). Acton wrote that “Liberalism wishes for what ought to be, irrespective of what is.” In working out this view, incidentally, it was Acton, not Trotsky, who first arrived at the concept of the “permanent revolution.” As Gertrude Himmelfarb wrote, in her excellent study of Acton:
his philosophy develop(ed) to the point where the future was seen as the avowed enemy of the past, and where the past was allowed no authority except as it happened to conform to morality. To take seriously this Liberal theory of history, to give precedence to “what ought to be” over “what is,” was, he admitted, virtually to install a “revolution in permanence.”The Liberal, wrote Acton, far surpassed the Whig:
The “revolution in permanence,” as Acton hinted in the inaugural lecture and admitted frankly in his notes, was the culmination of his philosophy of history and theory of politics… This idea of conscience, that men carry about with them the knowledge of good and evil, is the very root of revolution, for it destroys the sanctity of the past… “Liberalism is essentially revolutionary,” Acton observed. “Facts must yield to ideas. Peaceably and patiently if possible. Violently if not.” [1]
The Whig governed by compromise. The Liberal begins the reign of ideas… One is practical, gradual, ready for compromise. The other works out a principle philosophically. One is a policy aiming at a philosophy. The other is a philosophy seeking a policy. [2]What happened to Liberalism? Why then did it decline during the nineteenth century? This question has been pondered many times, but perhaps the basic reason was an inner rot within the vitals of Liberalism itself. For, with the partial success of the Liberal Revolution in the West, the Liberals increasingly abandoned their radical fervor, and therefore their liberal goals, to rest content with a mere defense of the uninspiring and defective status quo. Two philosophical roots of this decay may be discerned: First, the abandonment of natural rights and “higher law” theory for utilitarianism. For only forms of natural or higher law theory can provide a radical base outside the existing system from which to challenge the status quo; and only such theory furnishes a sense of necessary immediacy to the libertarian struggle, by focussing on the necessity of bringing existing criminal rulers to the bar of justice. Utilitarians, on the other hand, in abandoning justice for expediency, also abandon immediacy for quiet stagnation and inevitably end up as objective apologists for the existing order.
The second great philosophical influence on the decline of Liberalism was evolutionism, or Social Darwinism, which put the finishing touches to Liberalism as a radical force in society. For the Social Darwinist erroneously saw history and society through the peaceful, rose-colored glasses of infinitely slow, infinitely gradual social evolution. Ignoring the prime fact that no ruling caste in history has ever voluntarily surrendered its power, and that therefore Liberalism had to break through by means of a series of revolutions, the Social Darwinists looked forward peacefully and cheerfully to thousands of years of infinitely gradual evolution to the next supposedly inevitable stage of individualism.
An interesting illustration of a thinker who embodies within himself the decline of Liberalism in the nineteenth century is Herbert Spencer. Spencer began as a magnificently radical liberal, indeed virtually a pure libertarian. But, as the virus of sociology and Social Darwinism took over in his soul, Spencer abandoned libertarianism as a dynamic historical movement, although at first without abandoning it in pure theory. In short, while looking forward to an eventual ideal of pure liberty, Spencer began to see its victory as inevitable, but only after millennia of gradual evolution, and thus, in actual fact, Spencer abandoned Liberalism as a fighting, radical creed; and confined his Liberalism in practice to a weary, rear-guard action against the growing collectivism of the late nineteenth-century. Interestingly enough, Spencer’s tired shift “rightward” in strategy soon became a shift rightward in theory as well; so that Spencer abandoned pure liberty even in theory e.g., in repudiating his famous chapter in Social Statics, “The Right to Ignore the State.”
In England, the classical liberals began their shift from radicalism to quasi-conservatism in the early nineteenth century; a touchstone of this shift was the general British liberal attitude toward the national liberation struggle in Ireland. This struggle was twofold: against British political imperialism, and against feudal landlordism which had been imposed by that imperialism. By their Tory blindness toward the Irish drive for national independence, and especially for peasant property against feudal oppression, the British liberals (including Spencer) symbolized their effective abandonment of genuine Liberalism, which had been virtually born in a struggle against the feudal land system. Only in the United States, the great home of radical liberalism (where feudalism had never been able to take root outside the South), did natural rights and higher law theory, and consequent radical liberal movements, continue in prominence until the mid-nineteenth century. In their different ways, the Jacksonian and Abolitionist movements were the last powerful radical libertarian movements in American life. [3]
Thus, with Liberalism abandoned from within, there was no longer a party of Hope in the Western world, no longer a “Left” movement to lead a struggle against the State and against the unbreached remainder of the Old Order. Into this gap, into this void created by the drying up of radical liberalism, there stepped a new movement: Socialism. Libertarians of the present day are accustomed to think of socialism as the polar opposite of the libertarian creed. But this is a grave mistake, responsible for a severe ideological disorientation of libertarians in the present world. As we have seen, Conservatism was the polar opposite of liberty; and socialism, while to the “left” of conservatism, was essentially a confused, middle-of-the road movement. It was, and still is, middle-of-the road because it tries to achieve Liberal ends by the use of Conservative means.
In short, Russell Kirk, who claims that Socialism was the heir of classical liberalism, and Ronald Hamowy, who sees Socialism as the heir of Conservatism, are both right; for the question is on what aspect of this confused centrist movement we happen to be focussing. Socialism, like Liberalism and against Conservatism, accepted the industrial system and the liberal goals of freedom, reason, mobility, progress, higher living standards the masses, and an end to theocracy and war; but it tried to achieve these ends by the use of incompatible, Conservative means: statism, central planning, communitarianism, etc. Or rather, to be more precise, there were from the beginning two different strands within Socialism: one was the Right-wing, authoritarian strand, from Saint-Simon down, which glorified statism, hierarchy, and collectivism and which was thus a projection of Conservatism trying to accept and dominate the new industrial civilization. The other was the Left-wing, relatively libertarian strand, exemplified in their different ways by Marx and Bakunin, revolutionary and far more interested in achieving the libertarian goals of liberalism and socialism: but especially the smashing of the State apparatus to achieve the “withering away of the State” and the “end of the exploitation of man by man.” Interestingly enough, the very Marxian phrase, the “replacement of the government of men by the administration of things,” can be traced, by a circuitous route, from the great French radical laissez-faire liberals of the early nineteenth century, Charles Comte (no relation to Auguste Comte) and Charles Dunoyer. And so, too, may the concept of the “class struggle”; except that for Dunoyer and Comte the inherently antithetical classes were not businessmen vs. workers, but the producers in society (including free businessmen, workers, peasants, etc.) versus the exploiting classes constituting, and privileged by, the State apparatus. [4] Saint-Simon, at one time in his confused and chaotic life, was close to Comte and Dunoyer and picked up his class analysis from them, in the process characteristically getting the whole thing balled up and converting businessmen on the market, as well as feudal landlords and others of the State privileged, into “exploiters.” Marx and Bakunin picked this up from the Saint-Simonians, and the result gravely misled the whole Left Socialist movement; for, then, in addition to smashing the repressive State, it became supposedly necessary to smash private capitalist ownership of the means of production. Rejecting private property, especially of capital, the Left Socialists were then trapped in a crucial inner contradiction: if the State is to disappear after the Revolution (immediately for Bakunin, gradually “withering” for Marx), then how is the “collective” to run its property without becoming an enormous State itself in fact even if not in name? This was a contradiction which neither the Marxists nor the Bakuninists were ever able to resolve.
READ MORE HERE
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Anarchists vs. ISIS: The Revolution in Syria Nobody’s Talking About
Via; Cult Nation
by Gareth Watkins February 6, 2015
The Middle East today is the last place anyone in mainstream western thought would think to look for progressive political thought, and even less to see those thoughts translated into action. Our image of the region is one of dictatorships, military juntas and theocracies built on the ruins of the former Ottoman Empire, or hollow states like Afghanistan, and increasingly Pakistan, where anything outside the capitol is like Mad Max. The idea of part of the region being not just free, but well on its way to utopian, isn't one that you're going to find on mainstream media.
But you're not on the mainstream media right now, are you?
Along Syria's borders with Turkey and Northern Iraq, lies a mainly Kurdish area with a population of 4.6 million where a huge social experiment is taking place at the centre of a crossfire between Syria's dictatorship, ISIS's collective insanity and Turkey's ongoing hostility towards the idea of Kurdish autonomy, with the US and NATO looming large in the background. The Democratic Union Party (PYD) and Kurdish National Council (KNC) established in the region of Rojava a society that mixes fierce libertarianism (guns are everywhere and there are no taxes – none) and Occupy-friendly anarchist thought with a healthy dose of feminism. While most Kurdish groups, especially those the US is friendly with, would some day like to establish a Kurdish state, in Rojava they have leap-frogged over the idea of the nation state into a more advanced system that they call Democratic Confederalism.
In the cantons of Rojava, there is a small central government with an absolute minimum of 40% female delegates, but most of the day-to-day work of running society happens at a local level, street by street and village by village. Democratic Confederalism's chief architect, Abdullah Ocalan, says that “Ecology and feminism are central pillars” of the system he has spearheaded, something that you would have to go very far to the margins to hear from Western politicians. In Rojava, men who beat their wives face total ostracism from the community, making their lives in a highly social, connected society virtually impossible. Instead of a police force and jails, 'peace committees' in each municipality work to defuse the cycles of inter-family revenge killings by consensual agreements between both sides – and it works.
The only part of Rojava's experiment that has received any international attention has been the YPJ, the female-only paramilitary forces that have been fighting, and winning, against ISIS and the Syrian Army. NBC, the Guardian and even Marie Claire have all covered the YPJ's bravery without even paying lip service to the ideology that makes it possible.
It was the YPJ, along with their male counterparts the YPG, that rescued the thousands of Yazidis stranded and encircled by ISIS on Mount Sinjar in northern Iraq. The Yazidi community had the misfortune to be based almost entirely inside the area that ISIS has claimed – and they have been a hated minority in the Islamic world for a thousand years, accused of 'devil worship'. While the US dropped supplies from above, the Syrian fighting groups broke ISIS's lines and saved tens of thousands of lives. They also successfully defended the city of Kobani when ISIS launched an all-out assault on the city of forty-five thousand with tanks, missiles and even drones. Despite heavy losses, the city remains ISIS-free, though its surrounding villages are still contested.
The YPJ/G and the the Democratic Society Movement that they fight for aren't perfect: they have been accused of using child soldiers (girls as young as twelve serve as cooks and cleaners for the YPJ and undergo some basic combat training, though they aren't deployed in combat) and they are forever tainted by their association with the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), led by Abdullah Ocalan and classified as a terrorist organization by most nations. The formerly Marxist-Leninist party also has some murky connections to the drug trade and Turkish intelligence.
Despite all the obstacles facing them, the people of Rojava are, right now, the only large-scale movement on the entire planet implementing a real, working alternative to the state and capitalism. Like the Spanish anarchist federations and the Mexican Zapatistas before them, the people of Rojava have chosen to do the impossible: to create a new society while fighting as one of the smallest forces in a regional war, a tight-rope walk through a dodge-ball court. Only time will tell if they can pull it off.
by Gareth Watkins February 6, 2015
Photos: Erin Trieb
The Middle East today is the last place anyone in mainstream western thought would think to look for progressive political thought, and even less to see those thoughts translated into action. Our image of the region is one of dictatorships, military juntas and theocracies built on the ruins of the former Ottoman Empire, or hollow states like Afghanistan, and increasingly Pakistan, where anything outside the capitol is like Mad Max. The idea of part of the region being not just free, but well on its way to utopian, isn't one that you're going to find on mainstream media.
But you're not on the mainstream media right now, are you?
Along Syria's borders with Turkey and Northern Iraq, lies a mainly Kurdish area with a population of 4.6 million where a huge social experiment is taking place at the centre of a crossfire between Syria's dictatorship, ISIS's collective insanity and Turkey's ongoing hostility towards the idea of Kurdish autonomy, with the US and NATO looming large in the background. The Democratic Union Party (PYD) and Kurdish National Council (KNC) established in the region of Rojava a society that mixes fierce libertarianism (guns are everywhere and there are no taxes – none) and Occupy-friendly anarchist thought with a healthy dose of feminism. While most Kurdish groups, especially those the US is friendly with, would some day like to establish a Kurdish state, in Rojava they have leap-frogged over the idea of the nation state into a more advanced system that they call Democratic Confederalism.
In the cantons of Rojava, there is a small central government with an absolute minimum of 40% female delegates, but most of the day-to-day work of running society happens at a local level, street by street and village by village. Democratic Confederalism's chief architect, Abdullah Ocalan, says that “Ecology and feminism are central pillars” of the system he has spearheaded, something that you would have to go very far to the margins to hear from Western politicians. In Rojava, men who beat their wives face total ostracism from the community, making their lives in a highly social, connected society virtually impossible. Instead of a police force and jails, 'peace committees' in each municipality work to defuse the cycles of inter-family revenge killings by consensual agreements between both sides – and it works.
The only part of Rojava's experiment that has received any international attention has been the YPJ, the female-only paramilitary forces that have been fighting, and winning, against ISIS and the Syrian Army. NBC, the Guardian and even Marie Claire have all covered the YPJ's bravery without even paying lip service to the ideology that makes it possible.
It was the YPJ, along with their male counterparts the YPG, that rescued the thousands of Yazidis stranded and encircled by ISIS on Mount Sinjar in northern Iraq. The Yazidi community had the misfortune to be based almost entirely inside the area that ISIS has claimed – and they have been a hated minority in the Islamic world for a thousand years, accused of 'devil worship'. While the US dropped supplies from above, the Syrian fighting groups broke ISIS's lines and saved tens of thousands of lives. They also successfully defended the city of Kobani when ISIS launched an all-out assault on the city of forty-five thousand with tanks, missiles and even drones. Despite heavy losses, the city remains ISIS-free, though its surrounding villages are still contested.
The YPJ/G and the the Democratic Society Movement that they fight for aren't perfect: they have been accused of using child soldiers (girls as young as twelve serve as cooks and cleaners for the YPJ and undergo some basic combat training, though they aren't deployed in combat) and they are forever tainted by their association with the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), led by Abdullah Ocalan and classified as a terrorist organization by most nations. The formerly Marxist-Leninist party also has some murky connections to the drug trade and Turkish intelligence.
Despite all the obstacles facing them, the people of Rojava are, right now, the only large-scale movement on the entire planet implementing a real, working alternative to the state and capitalism. Like the Spanish anarchist federations and the Mexican Zapatistas before them, the people of Rojava have chosen to do the impossible: to create a new society while fighting as one of the smallest forces in a regional war, a tight-rope walk through a dodge-ball court. Only time will tell if they can pull it off.
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Fiume: The last Pirate Utopia
During the golden age of piracy in the 17th and 18th century, heroic rebels plundered the lucrative shipping routes between Europe and the New World. They operated from free ports, the so-called pirate utopia’s on islands and along unreachable coastlines, outside the grasp of civilization. From these anarchist enclaves these free men organized unseen raids with which they undermined mercantilism and the upcoming system of worldwide oppression, slavery and colonialism.
One of the last of these pirate utopias was founded in 1919 by the celebrated poet and well known Italian national hero Gabriele D’Annunzio (1863-1938). He gained fame during the First World War, where he fought in the Italian army, but refused, as did so many of his generation, to conform himself back to civilian life after the war. Therefore Italy became a pool of nationalist and revolutionary aspirations after the war. Futurists, fascists, anarchists: all tried to create a ‘new’ Italy, based on heroism, national glory and overcoming the class struggle.
Fiume (now known as the Croatian Rijeka) was part of the Habsburg Empire for centuries, before the First World War made an end to this. And although the city was then claimed by the Italians, it was given to the Slaves in Versailles by the Entente. D’Annunzio did not agree with this and moved from words to actions by marching from Ronchi di Monfalcone to Fiume in September 1919 with about three thousand deserted Italian soldiers. The city was conquered without even firing one shot and D’Annunzio and his troops were warmly welcomed by the population of the city.
After the Italian government refused to annexate the city, Gabriele D’Annunzio pronounced Fiume to be a Free State and for sixteen months conducted a revolutionary reign. With this Fiume became a social experiment and pilgrimage for all kind of freethinkers, artists and revolutionaries. Together with the national-syndicalist Alceste De Ambris he created the ‘Carta del Carnaro’, which served as the new constitution of the newly formed Free state. The absolute equality of men and women, freedom of religion and a comprehensive social system based on corporatism were the essential principles of this new constitution. Gabriele D’Annunzio wanted to develop a new civilization that was different from the corrupted, shiftless, vulgar and outplayed politicians of western civilization. His free port had to set the example to create a new spiritual storm which would radically change the western world. This new civilization would no longer be based on mammon and power, but on heroism and individual freedom.
D’Annunzio thought it was of a crucial importance that the population of Fiume introduced a new way of living. Each day parades were held, bonfires were ignited and theatrical speeches were given to inspire the population. A participation-democracy was realized with a decentralized government and many forms of direct democracy. This social experiment became the starting point of departure for universal rebellion. And under the leadership of the futurists, revolutionaries and other adventurers that en masse came to the city, it seemed this could work. After a trade-blockade by Italy to undermine the economy of Fiume, D’Annunzio developed an alternative system which was mainly based on piracy. His land- and sea robbers he called ‘Uscocchi’, after the infamous Slavic pirates from the past, who raided the region. One of the most well-known actions of the Uscocchi took place on the 18th of April 1920, when they robbed 46 expensive thoroughbreds from a riding school of the Italian army. The Italian government was furious and threatened with hard sanctions against Fiume, after which D’Annunzio promised to return the horses. However instead of returning the stolen thoroughbreds, D’Annunzio returned 46 emaciated peasant horses to the Italian government. A provocation which inspired many people.
Gabriele D’Annunzio was ahead of his time when he noticed the newly formed League of Nations (the predecessor of the United Nations) was a conspiracy of thieves and scammers. As an alternative he founded the ‘Lega di Fiume’, a league which had to unify and liberate all the oppressed peoples of the world. Within this league there would be place for the Irish, the Palestinians and other Arab peoples, Asians and of course the Slavic peoples who were oppressed by Serbia. However, these plans came to an abrupt end when in the December month of 1920 the Italian army made a definitive end to D’Annunzio’s pirate utopia, This day became known as ‘Bloody Christmas’.
After the fall of the Free state Fiume, Gabriele D’Annunzio retreated to Italy, where many of his ideas found an entrance in the rising fascism of Mussolini. Although he supported some fascist ideals, he strongly rejected others. The poet supported the corporatist arrangement of the economy and the strife for a new society based on heroism, action and nationalism. However Mussolini’s alliance with the foundations of the ‘old’ Italy – the monarchy and the church – could of course not get his approval. The Free state of Fiume was by no means an example what Italy could expect for the coming two decades. The Free state of Fiume was a social experiment in which the anarchist principles of direct democracy stood at the basis, while the fascism of Mussolini degenerated into a conservative and totalitarian dictatorship. Where the population of Fiume knew an unprecedented individual freedom, many Italians totally forgot the meaning of freedom after twenty years of fascist oppression.
Every attempt to qualify D’Annunzio’s regime as a rightwing or leftwing phenomenon is deemed to fail. The great force of the poet was his ability of acquiring support from a colorful and very diverse companionship that was capable – be it for a short period of time – to create their own reality. With the fall of the Free state of Fiume there came an abrupt end to the glory time of the pirate utopias. In a time in which the influence of modern society seems to be insurmountable and the State seems to influence all aspects of human life, the prospect on such a Free state seems further away than ever before. However, it is exactly because of this that we have to keep on pursuing the ideals of D’Annunzio and other spirited rebels. Only by realizing Free spaces outside the influence sphere of the State – how big or small they maybe -, we can show the people that real freedom can still be achieved.
Monday, June 9, 2014
Anarchy Global Revolution and the Purpose of NAM
By Pasquale Pulella
NATA-NY
Anarchy’s greatest feature is also its greatest weakness. Anarchy is a world without rulers which means no organized hierarchical violence. This lack of violence is not necessarily a weakness but it has been in the past. Just look at the past examples of anarchy and how quickly they were overcome by the state. One example was the Barcelona Revolution in the 1930’s after the anarchists had liberated Barcelona it had no state no police and a faction who was their ally; the communist backed Republic of Spain had attacked the city, funds were cut off from the Anarchists. The new republic eventually took Barcelona and later Francisco Franco won the Civil war. If there was no government globally than Anarchy would stand a better chance at lasting because no outside government could threaten anyone’s freedom. Is this possible? No.
The Idea that we could globally end all governments at once is impossible for any number of Anarchists. Let alone the fact that we Anarchists have been and still are a minority worldwide, also we are heavily divided and many groups prefer to fight each other rather than the state. Also simple armed revolt is not enough because the chaos created by armed revolt is enough to cause a power vacuum that will be filled. Furthermore we anarchists have no financial backing compared to ALL other revolutions, because no Aristocrat is dumb enough to back a revolution witch would threaten their state defined property. Also people who have not a clue who or what anarchists are will wake up to one day hear that there is an anarchist uprising and that they are terrorists, if this takes place in Europe or north America the public will hate the revolutionary’s and side with the government.
So now we can see why there is no state-less societies today. Anarchy is the hardest thing to accomplish, is it impossible? No. if there is anything we humans can learn from our own creation is that NOTHING is impossible. Scientists are currently working on plasma rockets as a means of propulsion through space; they were successful but are working on a means to make it more efficient. Years ago the words “plasma Rocket” were confined strictly to science fiction novels, they were laughed at as a fantasy but it has become a reality. How than can we say that ANY political or economic system is impossible if we know that nothing is impossible. How then can we achieve a long lasting stateless society? The 17th century pirates of Nassau had to worry about the British Empire, the Spanish had to worry about the outside governments backing their enemies, and the Native Americans had to worry about white westward expansion. If there was a way for the Anarchists to have their cake and eat it too it would be great.
So what’s the answer how do we achieve a long lasting stateless society? The answer is global anarchist revolution through the NAM movement. In order to overcome the differences that Ideological Anarchists have with each other we need a system where Anarchists of different Ideology’s work toward common goal of overthrowing the state and will agree to disagree. This first part is already taking place in the National Anarchist Movement. Next we need other cells of NAM to establish relations with each other and get to know each other just enough to want to help each other. Then we need to focus our resources where it is needed most. For example areas where government is failing and anarchist uprisings are occurring such as Greece. Or we need to start movements in other areas where government is failing but there is no Anarchist movement to speak of such as Somalia. Another good placement of resources would also be the US, Russia, and China because of their global military influence. Also we need a concrete strategy for the creation of a stateless society that focuses on the maintenance of a stable society when the state completely fails. Another vitally important area is education. The Anarchists of the Barcelona revolution have showed us that setting up free schools and local Anarchist publications can go a long way in creating a free society. Public education of anarchy is essential to the movement it is especially important in places where a power paradigm is about to shift such as a civil war area, a failing government, or an area of economic instability. Some places where public education is necessary are South America, USA, Italy, France, Spain, and Somalia. The reason for these places is that the current power structure is extremely fragile for example the Italian government just collapsed again and the taxes are unpayable in many regions.
For Increased connectivity between NAM and other Anarchist organizations a platform for communication must be established outside the mainstream and a platform for currency exchange. Actually the currency change already exists. What we need is a Website where Anarchist Factions worldwide can communicate freely and openly. Such a platform would need to be open source, with no servers only a program to download and install. Furthermore when the dark market comes online it will need to be integrated with that as well as all the criptocurrencys currently available including and not limited to Bitcoin and Darkcoin. Together all the anarchists can benefit from increased connectivity. The benefit of global connectivity is that if one anarchist group is in need of allies and they can’t find any locally, International allies may be helpful; we learned this lesson form the Barcelona revolution.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
NATA-NY's experience at the seventh annual NYC Anarchist Book Fair
By Gabriel Brown
NATA-NY member and co-founder
On April 6, 2013, the seventh annual NYC Anarchist Book Fair, which was held at the Clemente Soto Velez Cultural Center in New York City, provided the setting for a violent attack on the peaceful members of the National Anarchist Tribal Alliance of New York (NATA-NY).
NATA-NY originally planned to attend the book fair to check out books and the different workshops. We always hope to further develop our philosophies and understandings by speaking to anarchists of all hyphenations. NATA-NY always seeks to learn from others in the anarchist community as well as share our own experiences, attempting to find unity among people on all sides of the “left/right”spectrum. We are involved with creating educational materials, building intentional communities, DIY permacultural projects, environmental clean-up actions, homeless outreach programs, etc. Our ultimate goal is to help communities build self-sufficiency for the present and the future.
The controversy began on the Anarchist Book Fair facebook event page shortly after Craig FitzGerald began posting up information about NATA-NY and Pan-Anarchism. Someone by the name of “Modern Man” began posting up a collection of articles including the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) article on the defunct group known as the Bay Area National-Anarchists and an essay that NATA-NY recently reposted entitled “Anarcho-Fascism” by Jack Donovan, who is NOT a affiliated with NATA-NY (nor a National-Anarchist at all).
Modern Man’s posts remained on the book fair's event page alongside other anti-NATA-NY smears including demands that Craig be banned from the book fair. The articles Craig posted up on the event page were permanently deleted so no one would have an opportunity to read about NATA-NY firsthand. When I saw that the articles Craig posted were being censored, I decided to get involved with the discussion as an attempt to set the record straight regarding the inaccuracies and false narratives in the “antifa” articles written in January and February of 2013. As soon as I became part of the discussion, other event page participants began accusing Craig and I of being “fascist,” “right-wing,” “nazi” and “racist” (just to give a few examples of the typical buzz words) as an attempt to discredit our input and malign our group. Every time NATA-NY members posted articles to encourage other anarchists to see NATA-NY’s ideas for themselves, the articles were either deleted or responded to with juvenile remarks illustrating a complete lack of reflection and analysis.
Over the week of discussion, it was proclaimed that no violence would be tolerated at the Anarchist Book Fair. NATA-NY asked if that also applied to “antifa” given their modus operandi of brutally attacking those with whom they disagree. (Insert link from the Australian antifa attack on N-AM members in Australia) In response to this genuine question, Eugene Onegin explained that “antifa” isn’t violent, and that “antifa's” victims are actually assaulting themselves. These are the kind of illogical statements made when NATA-NY attempts to have a philosophical and intellectual exchange of ideas with dogmatic “anarchists”.
Over the week of discussion, it was proclaimed that no violence would be tolerated at the Anarchist Book Fair. NATA-NY asked if that also applied to “antifa” given their modus operandi of brutally attacking those with whom they disagree. In response to this genuine question, Eugene Onegin explained that “antifa” isn’t violent, and that “antifa's” victims are actually assaulting themselves. These are the kind of illogical statements made when NATA-NY attempts to have a philosophical and intellectual exchange of ideas with dogmatic “anarchists”.
Considering that NATA-NY is not involved with racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and upholds the principle of non aggression, NATA-NY should have been allowed to be present at the book fair as fellow anarchists. However, a message was put out by one of the organizers of the event, Elias Naser, that NATA-NY would not be allowed to attend the book fair because “NATA’s position and agenda is causing a rift in the Anarchist community not only here in NY but the world.”
Although NATA-NY practices anarchist principles and has never engaged in violent actions toward activists or those within a variety of diverse political circles, it was clear that hypocrisy, censorship, group-think, and the sort of dramatic behavior that one finds in high school was at play.Members of NATA-NY, who have been members of other organizations in the past, are not strangers to false accusations and libel; this has been a common occurrence by government front groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League. “Antifa,” like its hidden SPLC/state masters, have used character assassination methods to discredit those they disagree with politically and philosophically. The same “ smear and attack” formula is used in the narratives of both nazi and communist groups as an attempt to destroy us for aiming to bridge the gap between the “left and right” under the principle of freedom.
“Antifa's” scathing description of NATA-NY is unfounded and ridiculous when you look at the diverse group of individuals and our body of activist work.
It became clear that the organizers of the book fair desired to retain an exclusive monopoly over anarchism; they were even oppressive to their own supporters by censoring the legitimate questions regarding an alleged rapist and informant's presence at the book fair.
The day before the book fair an announcement was made that the facebook event page would be deleted and further information and location details could be found on their website. Before the event page was shut down, a “wanted poster” was posted up and distributed amongst those who said they would be attending the bookfair to be on the lookout for NATA-NY members and to send “antifa” information on individuals involved with NATA-NY.
Knowing that there was a possibility that NATA-NY would be banned from entering the book fair, as originally planned NATA-NY members went ahead with a street action in front of the event, giving people an opportunity to speak directly with NATA-NY members about the controversy.
The book fair had a large police presence outside, and there were several security guards checking bags upon entry. There was also a secondary check point inside of the building before you entered the book fair.
When I arrived with other NATA-NY members and supporters who intended to interview speakers and participants for their independent media outlets, “antifa” dupes outside were handing out “wanted posters” with photos of NATA-NY members. One of these people handed me a copy of the flier and informed me to be on the watch because a bunch of “nazis” were going to show up to the book fair. Apparently, he did not realize that I was one of the individuals pictured. It was a scene right out of the movie “The Fugitive.”
Eventually one of individuals on the flier attempted to walk into the book fair but was stopped by security and told he could not go in. I attempted to walk into the event and also was told I could not go in. Eventually everyone trying to enter was not allowed in and it became rather chaotic with attendees arguing with security. At this point those provoked by “antifa's” smears recognized me, pointing directly at me shouting “fascist!” Eventually other people started looking at me as if I was the devil incarnate. It became a rather hostile environment so one of our allies began to video document the belligerency for his own safety and the safety of others, including an older woman who came out in support of NATA-NY.
I attempted to speak rationally with the angry mob of people but reason and common sense were nowhere to be found. The only thing these people “knew” was what they had been told by “antifa.” Nobody seemed interested in looking to see if the narrative fit the claims made against the live human beings they were interacting with. It was as if Mao’s Cultural Revolution and the gospel of the “Red Book” had once again taken form but not by communists, by anarchists or those claiming to be anarchists
Even though I brought out information that would debunk “antifa's” claims about NATA-NY, the venue's attendees stated they did not care about the facts and continued to chant “nazi” at me.
I soon recognized Eugene Onegin (self-described “Secular Humanist” and “Communist anarchist”) who had been arguing with Craig and I online, so I attempted to initiate a dialogue regarding what NATA-NY stands for. Of course the same sort of responses that were given on the event page were repeated in person. With narrow-minded condescension, he claimed that the word “national” could never possibly be used within anarchism at all. Eugene attempted to make claims that anarchism was communism and justified “communism” as an acceptable term within anarchism but refused to extend that same respect toward other words or ideas.
Outside of the book fair, NATA-NY legally posted up on a public sidewalk. “Anarcho”-communists tried to do everything in their power to make our experience as uncomfortable as possible. They verbally attacked us, claiming that we were just trolls who are not anarchists at all but really just fascists. We were falsely accused of only providing a helping hand to white people during the National Anarchist Movement International Day of Action when NATA-NY gave out food and provisions to homeless people on the streets of New York. (Those claims are easily debunked by the photos that NATA-NY took that day.) Anti-NATA-NY zealots even went as far as to claim that NATA-NY is affiliated with the Aryan Nation ( A long defunct white supremacist group), which is a complete lie.
As I took pictures, I was harassed by attendees who demanded I delete any photos with them in the background. They also demanded to take my camera so they could see the pictures I took, claiming it violated their privacy rights. I attempted to be respectful (despite the ridiculousness of the authoritarian demand upon my private property), but mutual respect was never given in return. People were very sensitive to having photos taken of them or the venue, but had no problem plastering inaccurate, unfounded wanted posters with our photos all over the event. These hypocrites attempted to impose a double standard of respecting only some people’s privacy on a public sidewalk. Intimidation and hatred began to heat up beyond words when a book fair attendee spit on me, calling me a “fucking Nazi” as she walked off.
NATA-NY's opponents argued that anarchism is about homogenized collectivism, that anarchism is communism, that the Individual is of no importance to the overall mission of replacing the state, and that freedom and equality only extend to certain groupsdeemed privileged because of their “oppressed” status.Many of our defamers' platform issues were identical to the talking points of statist political parties, and the rest were all regurgitated summaries of Marxist philosophy. The idea of separation (i.e. independent self-determination) was said to be oppressive and counterproductive to replacing the state and that people did not have a right to retain their culture or individuality within a global anarchist world. Mere ideas were called dangerous and differences in opinion were defined as “violent” behavior. Some of the attendees saw the idea of real diversity (as opposed to “gray-race” homogeneity) as the root of all oppression. Many defended the “need” for people to be forced into reeducation institutions or killed off if they refused to assimilate into the greater collective of a single people. It was clear that people had limited understandings or unrealistic expectations about what an anarchist society would actually look like. Some of these individuals were becoming the very things that they claimed to oppose.
Although there was a great deal of negative behavior at the book fair, a positive side did exist. Several people asked NATA-NY members directly what we really believe. Despite the ignorance, fear, and hateful remarks made toward NATA-NY members and those associated through friendship, it was clear that individuals outside of the group-think mindset were curious about what all of the controversy was really for and why NATA-NY had been targeted so viciously. Those conversations were generally productive. NATA-NY members were able to distribute fliers explaining what NATA-NY represents for several hours outside of the book fair and managed to have diplomatic discussions with those who were concerned, curious, and open-minded.
At one point, I was discussing NATA-NY's stance on racism (we're against it) and racial separatism (it's not for us, but we accept it as a reality in a decentralized world) with someone who was willing to have a rational dialogue. In the middle of our conversation, a book fair attendee came outside and handed this person a copy of the wanted poster, warning him that NATA-NY was “racist.” Rather than join the discussion which dealt directly with the topic of race, he proceeded to run back inside the building. It was clear to the person who was speaking with me that something more complex was at play here. Based on the actions of our defamers, this neutral person realized that the banishment and slander of NATA-NY was not only unwarranted, but abominable as well.
Toward the end of the night, NATA-NY had just about exhausted our supply of literature, and many people had already left the book fair. As NATA-NY was preparing to leave and take a quick group photo, a few people nearby noticed the NAM flag and became enraged. One of the most militant yelled “fuck off with your nationalist shit!” She quickly became irrational and physically confrontational, flailing her arms at the NAM flag and calling us “racists” and “fascists”. Robert of NATA-NY tried to rationally point out that her violent behavior towards a peaceful group was more authoritarian and fascist than anything we have ever done. The reactionary woman and her associates immediately increased the level of physical aggression.
Toward the end of the night, NATA-NY had just about exhausted our supply of literature, and many people had already left the book fair. As NATA-NY was preparing to leave and take a quick group photo, a few people nearby noticed the NAM flag and became enraged. One of the most militant yelled “fuck off with your nationalist shit!” She quickly became irrational and physically confrontational, flailing her arms at the NAM flag and calling us “racists” and “fascists”. Robert of NATA-NY tried to rationally point out that her violent behavior towards a peaceful group was more authoritarian and fascist than anything we have ever done. The reactionary woman and her associates immediately increased the level of physical aggression.
Steve of WeAreChangeCT attempted to film the scuffle while a man wearing a hood hit Steve’s camera out of his hand and then ran back into the book fair. The attacker then came back outside and ran up on Steve, attempting to punch him from behind. Steve was knocked directly into a older woman (who came out in support of NATA), who fell into the street. While we were each dealing with assaults from all angles, a shadowy individual from the right side of the building ran up to me and grabbed the NAM flag. This person ran like a football player on a mission to receive a touchdown. As I tried to retrieve the flag, I was attacked by an individual from behind a car who sucker punched me in the head about five or six times. Then the man who assaulted Steve joined my attacker before he was scared away by the NYPD, who were nearby.
The Anarchist book fair violated its own policies by showing intolerance toward diverse groups, and for allowing “antifa” and their supporters to engage in physical violence against NATA-NY and those deemed associated. The environment of the book Fair was corrupted with fear, elitism, privilege, group-think, and juvenile behavior. It was a very chaotic situation, and a glaring example of hypocritical double standards that do a great disservice to the philosophy of anarchism and to individuals within the greater anarchist community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)