For some years now the issue of gentrification has been at the core of different actions and struggles with the involvement of anarchists around Europe. These changes in neighbourhoods driven by capitalist profit-seeking or statist management are very visible since they are taking place in central areas of cities. Regularly, these are areas where anarchists and their projects or the ones from an alternative or radical movement had carved out a space outside and/or against the dominant logic. This is easily understandable because these areas were deemed not interesting enough or too difficult for the usual power brokers (although not sheltered from capitalist or authoritarian logic) and thus through the cracks some weeds popped up. But these areas are resuscitating a renewed interest.
Without individuals dreaming, scheming, and turning their thoughts into action, nothing happens. Protest organizers are not special; they imagine a situation they want to bring to life and invite others to help them make it happen. The same is true for any anarchist endeavor involving more than one person. Gardens, attacks, fundraisers, occupations, bands, they’re all the result of people deciding to make their own realities. The constant process of thinking and acting without being told what to do is what makes anarchy possible. Some people call this autonomy, and without it anarchy is impossible.
Yesterday, the FCC voted to repeal Net Neutrality. Without those protections, private corporations—and the class that controls them—can shape what information is available to people according to their own interests. Imagine a future in which the content widely available on the internet is comparable to what you could watch on network television in the 1980s! Today, the flows of information on the internet are almost identical with our collective thought processes: they determine what we can discuss, what we can imagine. But the fundamental problem is that the internet has always been controlled by the government and corporations.
The debate among anarchists around the Catalan independence movement continues unabated. From a distance, as always, it is difficult to follow events, to grasp all that is at stake, to draw reasonably clear conclusions. It is however our conviction that the events are important (not only to understand what is going on, but also to understand the position of anarchists with regards to a mass movement of national self-determination) enough to justify our ongoing concern to present, in translation, some of the protagonists in this controversy.
We share below an essay by Tomás Ibáñez, published earlier this month, on the 1st of December, in response to an essay by Santiago López Petit, and which follows earlier interventions by him on the anarchists in the Catalan referendum.
In a recent posting on the Institute for Anarchist Studies website Shane Burley, the author of Fascism Today: What it Is and How to End It, presents twenty five theses which seek to define and describe modern fascism. Unfortunately the work is flawed as he refuses to provide any kind of historical analysis to the subject, ignores previous theoretical work on fascism as either antiquated or inarticulate, provides a uniquely conflicted analysis, and fails to acknowledge the fact that he eventually concludes by encouraging the left to adopt, adapt, and refine the tactics used by fascism.
As antifascists, it should be clear that our brand is empathy and liberty. We stand not only on the side of love, but also on the side of joy. We fight nazis because we want a world where speech can be free. The contradiction of a shallow first glance fails to capture us. Sometimes the best way to maximize freedom and liberate love, is to resist that which would destroy or silo them into inbred cesspools of homogeneity. When we punch nazis, or spend years researching, infiltrating, and exposing them, we do it for love, not out of a vulgar brutalism. Don’t ever let someone steal that truth from us.
by Magpie, via birds before the storm
I want to die in bed, a hundred years old, having lived most of my life in a stateless, anticapitalist society. This is possible. Authoritarianism is not unconquerable. I don’t believe in utopia, per se, and I don’t think an anarchist society would be perfect, but I believe we could live a lot healthier, happier, and more freely than we do now. So I want to win. I believe it’s possible for us to win.
On the other hand, I don’t expect to.
by NEZUMI, from HAPAX blog
When it comes down to it, there are two revolutions. The revolution which answers and the revolution which does not, or the revolution which answers and the revolution which questions. The revolution which is made to conceal even a millimeter of teleology, evolutionary theory, or program is the enemy. Caught between right wing and liberal, the old left, New Left, and even officially recognized anarchism (including mutations like anarcho-fascism) form a gradation. All of this amounts to nothing more than a struggle over governance. All that matters is severing ourselves from it.