To be honest, in my experience there is a bit of a deniyal that some people seems to be (genetically?) especially vulnerable to addictions and people just extrapolate from their own healthy or at least not problematic substance-use onto others. So often people just think drugs are not really a problem.
Había una tendencia de árabes que aceptaban el sionismo y algunos de ellos incluso vivían dentro de los kibbutzim, no como miembros, sino como aprendices.Y una vez terminada su formación, se les negaba la afiliación.
“ You don’t have a bunch of companies coming forward saying I wish you’d do something about these right-wing extremists,” said Johnson, who left his position in 2010, after his warnings about right-wing violence were dismissed. “If enough people lobbied congresspeople about white nationalists and how it’s affecting their business activity, then I’m sure you’ll get legislation.”
Turns out capitalists are way more concerned about leftists threatening to hurt their businesses than they are about reactionaries threatening to hurt actual people.
So glad they're the people in charge of our whole society.
But there are? Maybe we have a different underszanding of what that sentence means, but there are anarchist organizations that want to grow bigger. From anarchist unions to anarchists organizations that organize based on ideas such as plattformism and espescifismo.
Right? Just off the top of my head, I listen to podcasts on the Channel Zero Network of Anarchist Podcasts. Started at Margaret Killjoys “Live the the world is dying” and now, due to ads on the network for other shows, I listen to about a half dozen shows on the network religiously. That seems like an organization that is trying to grow, and doing it successfully.
Some of us are antiorganizationalists. Maybe the writer is one of them, and furthermore the type that considers organizationalists to be hokey anarchists or something to that tune.
I discussed the original text that this is a reaction to with a Brazilian who claims to be well connected to the original core cell that started the protests and they said that Bevin's reading is a complete misinterpretation of what happened. I think some other Brazilian here on Lemmy also commented something similar.
Personally I know a bit more about the protests in Egypt, and for these I would also but to a lesser extend say that Bevin's description of them is very flawed. At the very least some of the people involved are on record stating that the "Twitter revolution" moniker is a complete western media fabrication and social media played only a very small role in organising the protests.
That's kind of a weird critique, because it's actually consistent with the book. He spends a lot of time talking about how wildly different every person's interpretation of the event is, and that's kind of the problem. It's part of why these movements are illegible to power. He's very clear that this is his interpretation, based on his own contacts, experience, and extensive research, but that it's not going to be the same as everyone else's.
Same is true with the moniker. Whether or not the people on the ground felt that way about it or not, that story, fabricated without input from those on the ground, is what ended up creating meaning out of the movement, at least insomuch as power is concerned. That's like the core thesis of the book: The problem with that wave of protests was not being able to assert their own meaning over their actions. The meaning was created for them by people like western media, and they weren't able to organize their own narrative, choose their own representatives, etc.
edit to add: IIRC, he even specifically discusses how the different people in the core group of Brazilian organizers disagree on what happened.
Nice article except one point: organisations tend to be single issue or intentionally limited in scope to allow wider coalition building. This is IMHO fine as you can easily be a member of multiple organisations.
The friction usually comes from people that want to use an organisation as a platform to promote a niche and controversial topic. People that do this have a really poor understanding of organisation internal dynamics and/or have made their membership of a single organisation too much of their personal identity to see that in the end an organisation is just a tool to achieve certain agreed goals.
Both Trump and the Libertarian Party try and brand themselves as an alternative to the status-quo, in the hopes of attracting dissatisfied voters angry at the growing cost of living, the current war, and the immiseration of everyday life for working-class people.
my hot take on the booing is that it was staged to splash the libertarian brand across all major media sites to scoop up these very votes the article is talking about; at such a crucial time before the election, we’re seeing Biden fail to inspire the masses—and, frankly, his age—and Trump continuously failing as a the successful, antiestablishment businessman he convinced many he was in 2016. isn’t the alt-right’s strategy for this election to sway votes away from Biden; no consideration for where they land, left or right, just as long as Biden doesn’t land them?
The author does not seem to have read Azarov or at least his references to sources leave this impression. If he was doing his research right now, I would recommend him to browse one book for hints about how the RIAU called themselves, and for additional sources of literature. But in general, I think he has the right conclusion. :)
The PDF sadly isn't searchable (it's image, so it's a black hole for most search engines).
My understanding: they called themselves the "Insurgent Army", sometimes the "Insurgent Division" and did not declare a state or claim a territory. When they were popular and widespread, they were more formally known as the "Revolutionary People's Army of Ukraine" and "Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine" (kontrrazvedka was the counterintelligence branch which did dirty deeds like assassinations, espionage, counter-espionage, sabotage, expropriation / grand theft, etc)
A related story:
The first known anarchist state, and perhaps the only one, was to my understanding a republic declared by rebelling sailors and fortress-builders of the Russian fleet on the tiny North Estonian island of Naissaar (Nargen). (source) The "state" was laughably tiny and the population too - but the name was backed by possession of two battleships (Sevastopol and Petropavlovsk), with the ironic twist that the crew far outnumbered island dwellers. The only body to ever recognize the "state" was the Soviet of Tallinn, which existed during a double rule (togehter with the prototype Republic of Estonia) in the power vacuum between the Czarist retreat and the advance of imperial German troops. Evacuating before the German advance, the battleships sailed first to Finland and then Kronstadt, and the anarchists of the short-lived republic became core organizers among the sailors who later rose up in the Kronstadt Rebellion.
I totally agree that "outside" protestors shouldn't be considered any kind of reasoning for dismissing a movement. It does imply the movement is bigger than local or territorial lines and therefore should be taken more seriously than not. In regards to anti-national revolutionists, that's actually a very specific point of pride, and it should be. We are all people regardless of the territorial lines we are forced into. If we can reach outside the scope of the nation, we have in a sense, beaten it. This is why I see internationalism, or as some say, globalism, to be a very important goal for all movements focused on human rights. We are more than just where we are on the Earth. Humanity is a connected species, and in my opinion, that does go beyond just tech and state structures. I feel that reactionary solidarity should not be dismissed, though. Class warfare, for example, has a certain level of necessity for movements against oppression. I do not disagree with oppressing the oppressor. I think it's a tactic we've actually seen too little on the left and perhaps could explain some of the incrementalism we've seen so far. I am, however, an accelerationist. Personally, I feel the more I am fought, the more I can fight back - and I do think that's really important to allow others on the left to utilize too. We must find ways to equal the playing field, and I think literally all forms of solidarity have their roles in that. I think to say we cannot alienate those that alienate us leaves us as the only ones alienated. Those that disregard the use of reactionary solidarity disregard the use of tactics used against us. This is actually a larger philosophical argument of pacifism. I like to call it the batman argument. You're putting yourself on a moral high-ground that only hampers your effectiveness. The "bad guys" keep going and keep coming because they are not actually stopped. They are not, as some of the more intensive left likes to say, "stomped". The right-wing stomps, and they also steal from us constantly. We should stomp and steal back, while also using transformative tactics. Never disregard the importance of diversity, not in anything, but especially not in warfare. Honestly, I see this argument against it as dividing the left up more. There are aggressive leftists. They have their right to be, because of self-defense. The right-wing fucking murders us, to say we should not be angry and that such anger somehow makes us weaker... I just simply disagree.
This is an awesome information resource! Also, free Palestine, and THE STATE CANNOT ERASE THE PEOPLE! THE PEOPLE WILL ERASE THE STATE! THE PEOPLE MUST ERASE THE STATE! YOU WANT WAR? YOU'LL GET WAR, MOTHERFUCKERS! Ahem. This is a very important subject that shouldn't be ignored. The military industrial complex and their relationship to silencing protests has to be dealt with by the people. It's completely unacceptable. The government (the state) won't, because they're fucking weak and greedy. It's been going on for so long now. Always the time for the people to use that second amendment. Equalize American weaponry or the weaponry must be destroyed, and it has to stop being sent to murder people in unrelated countries. The state can't keep doing this to people, It has to be stopped if it won't stop itself.
A mother, angry about state motherfuckers, downvoted on mother's day. Damn.
The second amendment: "WELL REGULATED MILITIA", which is quite specifically a citizen's army. I'm literally just advocating rights we were guaranteed at the beginning of our constitution. This shouldn't actually be controversial. If you can't regulate to an equal playing field, the only way to "well regulate" is by destruction. "Arms" isn't exclusive to guns just as it isn't exclusive to bombs. It is however made exclusive to THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT to "bear arms". The people can find equality in arms that aren't totally insane (such as the arms they had when the constitution was written), and that is an important part of saying "well regulated". They designated the military as not an official part of "the people" (the citizenry), and the military itself technically has no right to bear arms. That is why it is within the purview of the second amendment, and arguably the government's job, to destroy all arms not accessible to the people (and in the case of the military, arms not accessible to ALL PEOPLE). The very point of it is to assure equal weaponry so that the people are not forced from their freedom by the power of the larger societal structures, whether that be a state, a military, or capitalism.
The government owes the people respect, not the other way around. They put food on their table with our money, our work, whether we agree or not. The government's money isn't the government's money, it's the people's money, distributed. If they're going to take our money with or WITHOUT CONSENT and put it towards something else, especially something like murdering innocent people for what mostly seems to be a religious cause, we have to be allowed to complain. We have to be able to shut them down if they won't change, as the people. The founding fathers intended for our system to change, or we wouldn't even be able to make amendments. The constitution itself was an intended change from the static religious monarchy of Britain, which required civil war because it was static (it refused to equitably change).
The state, especially the federal government, technically only exists to regulate currency (and resulting industry) as the people need for maximum well-being. So the state needs to get their heads out of their ass and do it instead of trying to silence protestors during national crisis and every war or they'll be, in a sense, fired. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. Then again, if they were actually doing their fucking job, none of this shit would be happening. The constitution isn't an unreasonable structure. The biggest problem is that we have let capitalism completely overwrite it, which is quite literally the opposite of what the constitution intended. Once again, "WELL REGULATED".
Anarchism and Social Ecology
Active
This magazine is not receiving updates (last activity 0 day(s) ago).