Using social democracy as a stepping stone on the road to anarchy

My favorite state capitalist, US Senator Bernard Sanders. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bookchin-sanders

 Several years ago, if you asked me what I thought about the free market I’d have said burn it to the ground, without much nuance. Now, while I don’t believe that markets are inherently liberating, I don’t believe they are inherently oppressive either. The power dynamics that lead to oppression within a market system are the same power dynamics that lead to oppression in any other system. There is little difference between a system in which a landlord or boss is an agent of the state or one in which they are a self-seeking entrepreneur. Either way, the individual is subjugated to bureaucratic control.

In the context of capitalism, what people erroneously call the free market is indeed hierarchical, oppressive, and tantamount to velvet coated slavery for the average working class person. As long as the state is willing to enforce intellectual property, tariffs, money monopolies and absentee property there will always be immense social stratification. In other words, if capitalism exists, selective neo liberal style deregulation will always result in regular people being crushed by their landlords, and employers. The environment will be trampled upon as well.

The sad reality is that right wing proponents of the free market scarcely desire to see a truly free market anymore than state communists want to see communism actually realized. Both groups cynically utilize flowery sounding populist rhetoric to woo legions of people into supporting their peculiar privileges and monopolies. On paper communists and radical capitalists both purport to be monopoly busters. In reality their state enforced policies end up concentrating wealth in the hands of a small elite. If we give all power to the state as Marxist-Leninists would by nationalizing all industry, or selectively deregulate the labor and consumer market as the radical capitalists desire we’ll end up with similar results; the destruction of the environment, the destruction of free and organized labor, and mass impoverishment.

In the context of a society based upon an equal distribution of land, the cooperative mode of production, independent laborers, and organized upon a form of progressive communal self-governance, the free market will be devoid of the current class antagonisms that lead to the oppression of the working class individual. From there we likely wouldn’t need a massive state to regulate the market for the supposed benefit of the working class, because the working class will be defacto in charge of the economy at the point of production. This will of course lead to relative equality in the distribution of wealth and power. What regulations may need to exist to protect the environment could be achieved by communities themselves and by free contract between industrial federations or unions as Proudhon envisioned. In other words, the cooperative market economy of mutualism would be largely self regulated.

 In the meantime though, social democratic labor policies are necessary to prevent the bourgeoisie from crushing workers and the environment. Radical capitalists will never allow free competition to exist because they will never abolish the land monopoly, banking monopoly, tarrif monopoly, or IP monopoly. These state granted privileges put every would-be competitor at a disadvantage by placing those seeking to enter the market for the first time at a different starting point. In order for competition to exist, competitors must start from the same place, otherwise there is no competition at all, but a rigged display of supremacy. The sad fact is that lenders will never allow worker cooperatives to compete fairly and freely because they will always prefer traditional hierarchical firms. Similarly, state communists will always suppress attempts by workers to build a decentralized worker managed and communally planned economy of the kind advocated by Peter Kropotkin.

Unfortunately regarding the state, this leaves only some form of social democracy or social liberalism as the lesser evil. With a social democratic state, we know what we are getting. It is neither a utopia, nor a dystopia. It’s safe, middle of the road state capitalism with a liberal character. And that’s just it, all modern systems are essentially a variation of state capitalism. Your choice is between state capitalism with a welfare component, or state capitalism without one. Social democracy is simply the most benevolent form as it prefers to incentivize the working class with high wages and social programs instead of regimentation or austerity. Make no mistake, on its own social democracy will never advance into a genuine socialist society, but by the same token neither will it devolve into unbridled totalitarianism. It may also slow the gradual collapse into twentieth century gilded age robber baron capitalism. This is not to imply that social democracy busts monopolies any more than state communism or neo-liberalism, it does not. In fact, the more intelligent and progressive bourgeoisie prefer it to neo liberalism, since it makes the pace of exploitation sustainable on a longer time scale. But it has the extreme deficiencies of neither total nationalization or total corporate privatization. It neither outlaws the labor movement, nor does it totally absorb it into the state, but leaves it in a arguably favorable middle ground with some privileges, and some limitations.

How to achieve the desired reforms though is the question. It does not necessarily follow that we must all vote for a social democratic party if we desire labor reform. On the contrary, in the United States many of the most beneficial laws we have in place come not from the benevolence of political parties or politicians on high, but from legions of valiant working class people who have forced the state into adopting more benevolent policies from below by engaging in direct action of either the violent or non-violent variety. Segregation was not dismantled purely from above by kindhearted politicians, it was achieved from below by dedicated activists, including Martin Luther King Jr and his many associates. While King is primarily remembered for his anti racist activism, he was also a champion of the working class. In the last days of his life he primarily focused on economic justice for all working class people, where he led a March on Washington for economic rights and supported the Memphis sanitation strike of 1968. Labor activism in America neither began or ended with King though. This country has a rich tradition of direct action that includes valiant struggles such as the Bread and Roses Strike, the great Pullman strike, and the infamous Battle of Blair Mountain.

I believe political parties, even those that may espouse some reasonable ideas are nothing but a blight on society. They may pass one or two laws that are beneficial to workers, but where one decent law is passed they will push ten more that line the pockets of the rich with our money. They do nothing but alienate us from the political process, pitting one worker against another. Instead of voting, I propose that workers put pressure on the state to adopt basic labor reforms through non-violent direct action. The general strike is our greatest weapon! The sanders campaign failed, and while his efforts may be commendable, he is ultimately a politician and cannot be trusted anymore than Joe Biden or Donald Trump. The wallet of the politician is tied to the state, and so they go where the state goes just as an obedient dog will go where it’s owner leads it.

Life is short, and the crisis of capitalism is never ending. We can’t afford to sit around waiting for a savior to come rescue us from above. We must act in the here and now. The best part? Even if the greater goal is not achieved, such as the initiation of a general strike which might lead to broader reform, direct action in the work place will yield an immediate benefit to the workers where as voting will not. If the general strike is not initiated so what, at the very least you have unionized your work place or perhaps even engaged in a wild cat strike! That means you have put real power in the hands of the workers, not in the hands of the state. And if it is, all the better, we’ll shut down the economy and demand that we be given basic rights such as paid time off, parental leave, universal basic income and whatever else we may desire.

It may sound counter intuitive, but a stateless egalitarian market society like I described would be more easily constructed in the context of a social democratic environment than anything mainstream right wing or centrist proponents of the free market advocate. This is because workers will have more expendable income and free time to build institutions that might make a future egalitarian free market society possible. E.I. cooperatives, community land trusts, tenants unions,  mutual aid networks, and eventually a dual power structure that can challenge the hegemony of absentee property and the state itself. In other words the counter economy, solidarity economy, dual power or whatever you choose to call it will be far easier to build if regular people are not living paycheck to paycheck.

 The fact of reality is that people need time and capital to found non state institutions that benefit the working-class. Social democratic healthcare programs will allow workers to save more money in that realm, high minimum wages will grant more people expendable income from their paycheck and negative income tax, or universal income can put a small amount of capital directly in their hands. This isn’t to say we should stop there as far as getting capital in the hands of workers goes, we should pursue all options available as long as they’re ethical. Whether this is some form of mutual banking as Proudhon and William B. Greene suggested, various schemes involving crypto, or an agorist strategy, I don’t know, it’s not my area of expertise. But I am fairly certain workers will have to develop parallel structures for the acquisition of capital in tandem with state derived and employment derived sources.

 Mutualism can only be built from the ground up by workers themselves, and most of the construction would have to be done by way of non-violent direct action. Social democracy could never directly lead to libertarian socialism, or anarchism of any kind. State socialists are wrong in their belief that an institution based upon violence can lead to anything other than violence. The state is only capable of replicating itself and can never lead to free associations of workers as Marx erroneously believed. However, it might indirectly lead to an anarchic society by providing working class people with a material basis to build a libertarian socialist economy within the existing society. Perhaps workers can use state resources and laws to their own advantage. By convincing the state to give us free time and capital, we might be convincing it to give us the noose to which we can strangle it! At the point where working-class institutions have reached critical mass, they will likely have to challenge the state. Hopefully the destruction of the state will not be cataclysmic and violent. I hope that it will be a gradual decline by way of obsolescence, but I cannot say what will happen at that point. Unfortunately, though, if we continue to live in this neo-liberal hellscape where people have just enough money to scrape by and hardly any free time, anarchism, mutualist, or otherwise will never exist, and we’ll never find out.

Anti Zionism isn’t Enough, We Must Oppose Nationalism in All forms.

In today’s cynical and dishonest political climate every critique of Zionism is smeared as antisemitic by the right wing and moderate liberal media. For instance, no matter how many times US representative Ilhan Omar apologizes or clarifies the intentions of her statements against Israeli war crimes, she is time and again labeled a terrorist sympathizer or antisemite. However, critiquing Israeli nationalism and colonialism is no more inherently antisemitic than critiquing the Chinese Communist Party is inherently anti-Chinese. Believing that to be the case is in itself racist because that belief is rooted in the idea that people and states are the same thing. The people and the state are in fact two distinct phenomena. Consider what Rudolph Rocker had to say on the subject in his book Nationalism and Culture:

A people is the natural result of social union, a mutual association of men brought about by a certain similarity of external conditions of living, a common language, and special characteristics due to climate and, geographic environment. In this manner arise certain common traits, alive in every member of the union, and forming a most important part of its social existence. This inner relationship can as little be artificially bred as artificially destroyed. The nation, on the other hand, is the artificial result of the struggle for political power, just as nationalism has never been anything but the political religion of the modern state. Belonging to a nation is never determined, as is belonging to a people, by profound natural causes; it is always subject to political considerations and based on those reasons of state behind which the interests of privileged minorities always hide. A small group of diplomats who are simply the business representatives of privileged caste and class decide quite arbitrarily the national membership of certain groups of men, who are not even asked for their consent, but must submit to this exercise of power because they cannot help themselves.

A “people” is quite simply a group of individuals that have associated together and have over time formed cultural similarities. It is an organic network of affinity groups with a culture that developed freely and naturally, and that will change and evolve over time. A people have no innate “essence” that exists out in the ether, and there is no force involved to maintain a people. A nation state on the other hand is a group of elites that has forced many people under one despotic military regime with the goal of creating and maintaining an artificial and unified identity. The more nationalistic the state is, the more it views its subjects as lumps of clay on which it can impose an idealized notion of culture. The nation state does not merely recognize the people as they are, and it does not accept that they will naturally evolve and change over time. It wishes to shape them, mold them, and then prevent them from growing or evolving. It can be secular, or theocratic, the results are similar in either case. It does not inquire about what is with an open and accepting mind, it dictates what should be with a mailed fist. The nation state is then an authoritarian collectivist project by nature. 

 We can go yet a step further and separate the individual from the people. While all humans are certainly influenced by their associates, and shaped by their environments we are still at the end of the day all individuals and cannot be reduced to homogenous masses or mere members of a community. Humans are not just cultural artifacts of a particular ethnicity nor are they the biological property of any “race”. All humans have their own thoughts and feelings, and there is much division even within groups that might otherwise appear united from the outside. White nationalists commonly claim that any critique of American colonialism is anti-white, because in their minds the colonial state represents the “will of the people.” Obviously, this is in itself racist nonsense. What many might miss is that this is the same internal logic that is used when proponents of the Israeli state claim that it is antisemitic to critique the Israeli government. Paradoxically this is in itself antisemitic because it implies that all Jews, even those who are not citizens of that state are somehow beholden to it. 

Despite this, I believe that using the label anti-Zionist in the west is ultimately still counterproductive. The usage of that label, however well-intentioned, inadvertently makes the job of the western Zionist much easier than it otherwise should be. Another unfortunate byproduct is that the anti-Zionist label when used in the west can indeed provide cover for actual fascists. It would be more effective and safer to critique Zionism from the point of view of a generalized anti-nationalist stance. Zionism at its core isn’t any different than white nationalism or any other form of ethno-statism. All ethno-nationalist projects are dangerous, aggressive, xenophobic, and oppressive. There are many conflicts all over the world that are erupting as a result of nationalist aggression; the Russo-Ukrainian conflict, the war between Azerbaijan and Armenia, the attempted ethnic cleansing of Syrian-Kurds in north and east Syria by the Turkish state. Thus, the critique of Israel as a state should fall under the umbrella of a generalized anti-nationalism. We don’t need special labels to oppose specific kinds of nationalism. This approach may be advantageous for several reasons.

Critiquing Zionism from a generalized anti-nationalist stance makes it harder for actual antisemites to infiltrate the left under the guise of anti-Zionism. Consider the bizarre 3rd positionist neo-fascist trend of autonomous nationalism and how it used anti-Zionism and other left-wing symbols to infiltrate, confuse and subvert the left. As Alexander Reid Ross writes in Against the Fascist Creep,

The Autonomous Nationalists still in operation present another imitation, or perverse evolution, of a number of social movement forms developed through prewar, interwar, and postwar Europe. The initial attempts to wed revolutionary syndicalism and ultranationalism, which bred fascism in the 1910s, had mutated into the bizarre conflations of Maoism, anarchism, and fascist terror that characterized the “Third Position” during the Cold War, transforming once again to incorporate contradictory reactionary and autonomous tendencies. Wearing Palestinian kaffiyehs and black-bloc clothing, the Autonomous Nationalists could almost be mistaken for leftists. Yet their Palestinian solidarity has generally signified anti-Semitic sentiment masked as “anti-Zionism,” or the even more padded rhetoric of nationalist differentialism developed by former FAP activist Christian Worch. Their operations tend to take the form of vandalism and “anti-antifascist” campaigns that involve targeting and harassing antifascist activists, while also transforming antifascist symbols into fascist ones.

Unfortunately, I myself have witnessed a fascist infiltrator attempt to use anti-Zionist rhetoric as a cover with my own eyes in the workplace. I once had the displeasure of engaging in a shouting match with a coworker who claimed to be an anti-Zionist while making antisemitic talking points. He was no simple anti-Zionist however, he quickly revealed himself to be a 3rd-positionist, much like those described above. The man claimed that Jews ruled the world, even going so far as to make a reference to the Protocols of The Elders of Zion. This guy was an obvious fascist. He made quasi-socialist talking points in the workplace while also promoting right wing cultural values, such as open bigotry against LGBTQ people. At one point the man suggested utilizing xenophobic sentiments to unite American workers against foreign capital. Unsurprisingly he was fired for pissing too many people off. This strategy, though, is hardly uncommon. Using the label anti-Zionist in the west often inadvertently gives these people a cover. I do not wish to imply that the majority of self described left-wing anti-Zionists are closet antisemites, I do not believe that, but one has to ask; Why make the job of the fascist entryist easier? Especially when it yields no particular strategic advantage. Though no rhetorical strategy or framework can be one hundred percent effective against entryism, a generalized critique of nationalism from the perspective of universal human solidarity and internationalism automatically cuts down on the likelihood of fascist co-optation for the simple reason that fascists are themselves a nationalistic, xenophobic, racist movement.

It would also be much harder for pro-Israel rightists or liberals to cynically smear sincere critics of Israel as closeted antisemites. If you call yourself an anti-Zionist, it’s pretty easy for a political opponent to say, “well you’re just an antisemite”. The problem of fascist entryism further compounds this issue. To people who are not familiar with the complexities of radical and fringe politics, the accusation looks quite plausible when it’s easy enough to throw a stone into a crowd of self-proclaimed anti-Zionists and hit an actual antisemite that’s using the crowd for cover. This is not to say that western Zionists, especially Christian-Zionists will not continue to use that dishonest tactic, but it’s less likely that people will take it seriously if the critique is part of a generalized anti-nationalist stance.

Lastly, it needs to be stated that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict isn’t much of a conflict at all. It’s more like a slow extermination campaign, however it’s hardly unique in the broad stroke of history. As Ilan Pappé points out in On Palestine; “European settlers coming to a foreign land, settling there, and either committing genocide against or expelling the indigenous people. The Zionists have not invented anything new in this respect.” This is not meant to downplay the extreme nature of what is happening to the Palestinian people. The slow genocide of Palestinians is undoubtedly one of the worst modern crimes against humanity. It is however important to highlight the centuries long history of European colonialism. And what’s more, it is also important to point out that colonialism isn’t a purely European phenomenon, lest our critiques devolve into myopic campism. The Japanese empire famously conquered much of Asia in the 20th century and engaged in a form of imperialism that was at least on par with the barbaric behavior displayed by its western counter parts at the time. Imperialism is not unique to one geopolitical bloc or another, any nation state or alliance of nation states may engage in imperialistic adventures. It is of the utmost importance to keep in mind that one of the primary issues underlying all the aforementioned conflicts and all extermination campaigns is nationalism. Nationalism is one of the greatest threats, not only to human freedom and dignity, but to human survival itself. We must not forget that nationalism as a broad phenomenon is the underlying problem at this crucial hour when the Israeli-Palestinian conflict threatens to drag the whole world into global war. It is imperative to remember that Zionism, however vile it may be, is ultimately one small piece of the unthinkably large, anti-individualist, blood-soaked puzzle that is nationalism.

What anarchists might learn from mainstream progressives: A criticism of reactionary attitudes within anarchism regarding the war crimes of the CNT-FAI

“My point is not that we must, in telling history, accuse, judge, condemn Columbus in absentia. It is too late for that; it would be a useless scholarly exercise in morality. But the easy acceptance of atrocities as a deplorable but necessary price to pay for progress (Hiroshima and Vietnam, to save Western civilization; Kronstadt and Hungary, to save socialism; nuclear proliferation, to save us all)—that is still with us. One reason these atrocities are still with us is that we have learned to bury them in a mass of other facts, as radioactive wastes are buried in containers in the earth. We have learned to give them exactly the same proportion of attention that teachers and writers often give them in the most respectable of classrooms and textbooks. This learned sense of moral proportion, coming from the apparent objectivity of the scholar, is accepted more easily than when it comes from politicians at press conferences. It is therefore more deadly.”

Howard Zinn

Mainstream progressives have a lot of deficiencies and blind spots, but so do anarchists. We could perhaps learn something from them, just as they could from us. In the United States, mainstream progressives like AOC or Cornel West are happy to engage in criticism of the sordid legacy of the United States, but they also praise it when applicable. This is because they believe in the general concept of democracy but are sober enough recognize that America has never really lived up to the promise of democracy. They are more than willing to admit that America was built upon colonialism, genocide and slavery and they do not celebrate those aspects of it. Instead, mainstream progressives celebrate the aspects of America they believe to be worthy of defending, but they are not cowards when it comes to confrontation of the ugly truth. For that I commend them, even if I personally believe the entire state apparatus to be rotten to the core.

On the other hand, conservatives have become more and more reactionary on the subject, and thus more and more calloused. They started out by downplaying atrocities, and now they have come full circle, meeting the fascists at “stolen not conquered” style sloganeering. At this point they all but openly celebrate anti indigenous violence and the Atlantic slave trade. And this is dangerous because once people begin to celebrate past atrocities, they are bound to repeat them if a violent conflict should arise. This is not unique to just conservatives though, it is a rule that applies to everyone. Uncritically romanticizing the past is generally a reactionary trait, especially with regards to violent conflicts, and nothing good can ever come of it.

Anarchists in the US are not so different regarding the CNT-FAI. I fear that the way some anarchists blindly defend the war crimes of the CNT-FAI can mirror the way Marxist-Leninists defend the USSR. In that sense we are not entirely different than conservatives in the way that they overlap with the fascists on their side. I find that incredibly disturbing. Recently I’ve found myself locked in a heated debate with a militant revolutionary anarchist who seems to have fallen into this trap. For ethical reasons I will not name them, but I will use some of their quotes that I find to be illustrative of typical attitudes that self-described revolutionary or insurrectionist anarchists hold regarding this subject. Let their words be a case study for a fairly common and highly problematic phenomenon.

“The anticlericalism and the burning of the churches that sheltered fascists was one of the best aspects of the Catalonia revolution” – anonymous anarchist.

This was their response to my criticism of the anti-clerical killings. As you may see there is a lot there to unpack. First and foremost, they conflate the destruction of property with the killing of actual human beings. The burning of churches was strategically foolish from an optical standpoint. On that note I agree with the anarchist revolutionary Saturnino Carod Lerin who had this to say to his column of fighters:

 You are burning the churches without thinking of the grief you are causing your mothers, sisters, daughters, parents, in whose veins flows Christian, Catholic blood. Do not believe that by burning churches you are going to change that blood and that tomorrow everyone will feel himself, herself an atheist. On the contrary! The more you violate their consciences, the more they will side with the church. Moreover, the immense majority of you are believers at heart’ . . .

That’s a pretty reasonable stance from a real and highly celebrated anarchist veteran who was actually there in the thick of it. I’m sure many modern anarchists in America could relate. We all have Christian or religious loved ones, and perhaps have even met a few comrades of faith along the way. There is much that can be said about the many deep issues regarding religion, but that is a subject for another time. The primary point is that, why would we want to cause those people unnecessary pain, much less alienate them from our movement by destroying things that are near and dear to them? I have personally felt the hatred of reactionary Christianity myself as a bisexual man and an atheist. I understand the anger, frustration and even hatred with the church as it has personally left me with many emotional scars, but we cannot reduce every person of faith to a reactionary or fascist. The Christian faith is like any other. It is highly diverse and sectarian. Spain was not necessarily so different. The Church as an institution was indeed highly repressive, but that does not mean everyone within it was guaranteed to support that aspect, much less fascism or Franco.

With that in mind, I would pay little attention to the subject if property crime was the worst crime of the revolution. The main problem is the murder of people, not the destruction of things. I find that harder-than-thou revolutionaries commonly resort to these kinds of obfuscatory tactics instead of dealing with the actual moral argument presented to them. It is much easier to attack a secondary point, or perhaps even blur the distinction between two related points than it is to engage with the primary moral argument. I suspect that in their heart of hearts, they probably know it was wrong, just as conservatives know that the mass murder of indigenous people and theft of their land was wrong. That is why the primary moral issue is sidelined or conflated. Though a one hundred percent moral equivalence may not exist, the attitudes represent two sides of the same coin. The ideologies are worlds of part, but humans are humans regardless of what they believe. Violent historical events will always have their beastly defenders.

Upon arguing that it is wrong to kill unarmed civilians even if they harbor fascist sympathies the anarchist in question responded by saying “priests become enemy combatants when they use their power and influence too [Sic] quarter and support fascism.” Is this not the exact same logic conservative supporters of American terror against Vietnamese citizens used during the Vietnamese war? What is the threshold for such a judgment anyway? Is it allowing a fascist to stay in your church over night? Is it giving them a loaf of bread? Is it merely saying you support them? It’s not at all clear to me. Human rights extend to all humans, not just the good guys. It is valid to engage fascists soldiers or terrorists in combat, but that is different than executing unarmed prisoners of war, or civilian sympathizers. Again, this is another example where overly militant anarchists refuse to see any distinction. To reiterate in case the point is not understood; Fascism is an abhorrent ideology that needs to be thwarted, perhaps even by violent resistance if it has reached critical mass, but that does mean it’s morally acceptable to arbitrarily murder prisoners of war, much less non-combatants who may be sympathetic.

Furthermore, I find this problematic because it assumes the guilt of all those who were killed. It does not leave room for the possibility of a miscarriage of justice. The assumption is that all sixty thousand victims of the anti-clerical violence, generalized terror and out bursts of mob violence were indeed all guilty. This is laughable to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the actual historical events, and completely disregards the attitudes of leftist militants within the CNT who were critical of the terror, such as Saturnin Carod Lerin.

To boot the attitude validates the death penalty and implies that the clergy were guilty of treason to the working class. And while that charge of treason maybe be true from a war time perspective when applied to individual cases, we must ask ourselves; are we not against the death penalty, against collective punishment, and for restorative justice? Such hypocrisy! Other options were available. Enemy aligned civilians could have been held in prison until after the war and from there they could have been rehabilitated. Death for the crime of treason is not something anarchists would support under any other circumstance. For instance, no self-described anarchist would be caught dead calling for the head of the Rosenbergs during the cold war.

Consider the following scenario:

 After five days of fighting, the laborers reached the heights and set fire to the church, only to be driven back by a hand-grenade attack. But the right-wingers’ situation was desperate. Water, electricity and the telephone had been cut off by the besiegers; morale was affected by knowing that wives and children were in the attackers’ hands. The lieutenant tried to get a message out; it was captured. The attackers sent a note demanding the defenders’ surrender. In vain. They dispatched a group of women hostages, followed by armed men, towards the square. Before the women could open their mouths, the lieutenant fired his revolver, the bullets ricocheting at their feet. Screaming, the women fled back to the San Francisco convent.

 A priest was dragged down the street, a halter round his neck, by men who were insulting him. A few minutes later, Manuel CASTRO, who witnessed the scene, heard the sound of a shot. One of the men had fired his shotgun in the priest’s face, blinding him. He was taken to San Francisco, shot again and burnt.

 —Why kill a priest? Because they were close to the rich, if only because they had to get money from the rich to be able to give alms to the poor. But the poor always believed that a part of the money, the best part perhaps, remained in the priest’s hands. There were many priests who knew nothing of the labourers’ lives, who lived aloof from the people …

 But the majority of the workers didn’t want priests killed, he was sure. In the first couple of days of fighting, the labourers killed only a dozen of the town’s rich. —And there was every justification for killing them, they were the harshest of the right-wing ruling-class landowners, the forty or fifty to whom the labourers had to go, cap in hand, to ask for work. And there would have been no more deaths, I’m convinced, if the guardias and the gentry hadn’t resisted. It was this which drove the labourers wild. They were determined to take the town and make it their own …”- From Blood of Spain, Militancies

What was the priest actually guilty of? “Being close to the rich.” In other words, they were guilty of the mere crimes of association, and possibly greed or theft. For that they were shot in face and burned to death. Ah yes! Just what Kropotkin had in mind. If someone is guilty of theft the death sentence is not applicable! That should be obviously clear to any sane person, especially a self described anarchist.

How about the hostages the workers took? Were the wives and children of the rich defenders all villainous fascists? Or were they perhaps products of circumstances just as any of us are? What if you, dear reader, were the leftist son of a militant fascist and your comrades ransomed your life to coax some fascists out of an entrenched position? Would that be ethical? Is it your fault your dad is a fascist in this scenario? These are but a few heinous crimes out of tens of thousands that were committed. I have to assume that anarchists who uncritically defend clerical killings have never mustered the courage to actually subject their eyes to the gory details.

With all this in mind, I cannot say for certain that I would have been principled enough to argue against unethical strategies such as hostage taking and the murder of innocent civilians had I been alive during that war, though I’d like to think I would be. The point I am making is that there is much merit in pointing out the many flaws of a revolutionary movement in a dire situation, it is that it there is no need to mindlessly defend every bad thing that was done. It should be noted that The Francoists and fascists were far worse than the leftists and many of these killings were revenge for previous killings in nationalist zones. In total the nationalist forces killed as many as two hundred thousand people. And they systematically imprisoned raped and tortured many more. Such is the nature of civil war, it is an innately immoral affair, and it devours all who are sucked into it, including those on our side.

So perhaps I too would have fallen prey to baser instincts and the thirst for revenge upon hearing of my comrades being slaughtered in nationalist territory. I am only human, just as the workers of Spain were. From this perspective, I do not totally condemn the Spanish working class as a whole. Instead, I pity them for being in that situation to begin with. I empathize with them wholly and likely would have been a member of the CNT-FAI myself had I been a Spanish peasant, just as I was a wobbly for several years in my actual lifetime. I still hang a CNT poster on my office wall to this day. I am not anti-CNT, but I also do not feel the need to romanticize things or overlook moral failures. I do not look down upon the Spanish working class of the era, however I do look down upon those twenty first century imbeciles in our ranks who uncritically glorify atrocities of the past. It is childish and is a disservice to everyone involved. It is akin to right-wing fanatics who gawk over the many war crimes committed by the United States military. That’s morally a repugnant thing to do no matter who is doing it.

The stupidity of defending the terror from an anarchist point of view

The terror didn’t inherently have anything to do with anarchism as an ideology and had everything to do with working class attitudes themselves. The sad fact is that the Spanish church had a centuries long history of repressing working-class people and peasants. This is the same church of the Spanish inquisition we are talking about. And this is the root of the killings. The anti-clerical killings in Spain started far before anarchism arrived on the scene, they go back as far as the Napoleonic wars. The workers wanted revenge and they would have sought it with or without anarchism. It’s that simple. With this in mind we do not need to defend every action the workers undertook, especially nearly a hundred years later with the benefit of hindsight. We can understand their motives, we can even admit that the subjective anger they felt with the church and clergy was just justified, but that doesn’t mean we have to justify their actions from a moral or strategic standpoint. Anarchism is about anarchism, not what people might mistakenly do in its name, or what they might do out of anger. On that note, mass indiscriminate terror is not baked into the DNA of anarchism. Well-known anarchist revolutionaries such as Mikhail Bakunin even explicitly argued against it:

“You will agree with me that it is already too late to convert the peasants by theoretical propaganda. There remains then, apart from what I have already suggested, this one tactic: terrorism of the cities against the countryside. This is the method par excellence advocated by our dear friends, the workers of the great cities of France, who do not realize that this revolutionary — I was about to say reactionary — tactic was taken from the arsenal of revolutionary Jacobinism, and that if they ever have the misfortune of using it, they will destroy not only themselves but, what is far worse, the Revolution itself. For what would be the inevitable and fatal consequence of such a policy? The whole rural population, ten million strong, would go over to the other side of the barricades, and these innumerable and invincible masses would reinforce the armies of the reaction.” Bakunin, letter to a Frenchman

Indiscriminate political terrorism is antithetical to anarchist strategy, revolutionary or otherwise. While certain anarchists in the nineteen or twentieth century may have seen terrorism as a necessary evil in the face of dictatorship and repression, these “propaganda of the deed” style direct actions were highly targeted against those in power, not random acts of mindless mob violence. The fact that certain militants and mobs chose to use terror against their civilian opponents is not something we need to defend, just as we do not necessarily need to defend assassinations that took place a hundred years ago. We have the benefit of knowing that those strategies ultimately failed, and we should seek to learn from their failures, not replicated them. As Bakunin pointed out mass slaughter is precisely the kind of thing that discredits a revolution and thereby destroys it. It is a reactionary strategy! And loan behold, the fascist and right-wing press did in fact use the anti-clerical killings to justify crushing the revolution to the international community.

Western anarchists will undoubtedly scoff at this and say, “ah but why be so concerned about how reactionaries respond to the war?” All this tells me is that they have not made much effort to study warfare, and thus are not serious about their proposed revolutionary war. If this is your line of thinking then you are either a fool, a naive child (I was once one as well) or some kind of grifter looking to gain social media clout off of your “revolutionary” aesthetic. It has been common knowledge for over two hundred years that “winning the hearts and minds of the people” is equally as important as winning the actual war. This is because the goal of warfare is not typically to entirely annihilate your enemy, it is to force them to surrender. Part of that is actual violence, part of that is logistics, and part of that is demoralizing the enemy. Do you know what does the opposite of demoralizing the enemy? Killing people that they perceive to be innocent. It only encourages their resolution and galvanizes their cause no matter how unjust it is. All this does is prolong the war by providing the enemy with fresh recruits who might have otherwise remained neutral.

This is doubly important when considering strategies to achieve revolutionary victory because you are not just subjugating a foreign enemy as an imperialist might, you are creating a new society where you have to coexist with your former foes as neighbors and coworkers once the fighting is done with. The entire goal of a revolution is to convince people that the new order is better than the old. If it cannot do that than the revolution is doomed to force alone, and that will result in nothing but tyranny. Unfortunately, most self-proclaimed western revolutionaries never get this far in their thinking. In my experience many are better suited to a therapy room than a war room.

Apart from this, anarchists and leftists weren’t the only ones who engaged in anti-clerical terror, the right was also known to engage in anti-clerical violence as well, even if it was on a somewhat more limited basis;

“—Not that Carlists defended the clergy because they were clergy. Oh no! Carlists were capable of stoning priests out of their villages if they became friendly with the rich and didn’t carry out their obligations to their parishioners. The Carlist defended religion, not the priest because he wore a cassock …
It wasn’t like that elsewhere, he was soon to learn. The hatred of the church in other regions might be engendered in part by the local intelligentsia, but in greater part the clergy itself was to blame.

—There wasn’t merely a difference between the Basque and Navarrese clergy and the clergy in the rest of Spain; the gulf was so wide it went beyond being a difference. The communists in Navarre were more religious than the priests in Castile. Does that seem a joke? It was the truth. In Navarre, a communist would go to mass, confess and take communion at least once a year which is what the church demands. In Castile, as we saw during the war, the person who didn’t go to mass was the priest …” Blood of spain, Carlist peasant.

So, why do American anarchists feel the need to defend a broad and tragic sociopolitical phenomenon? The anti-clerical killings were not even entirely unique the left. It was a mass phenomenon that transcended ideological lines, even monarchist peasants sometimes used violence against the clergy. Perhaps they falsely believe that by not defending anti-clerical violence they are not defending anarchism. But the phenomena existed separately from anarchism, and parallel to it. Had anarchism never existed in Spain, the killings would have taken place anyway. Personally, this is where I think we could learn from our mainstream progressive counter parts. We can and should defend the positive gains of the revolution, and the valiant struggle against fascism and Stalinism. In context of the time and place the CNT-FAI was undoubtedly the lesser evil, but they were far from perfect and did not live up to the anarchist dream just as America does not live up to the democratic dream.

Its true that the CNT FAI made great strides towards creating a libertarian socialist society on the economic and political front. In other respects, though they failed, particularly in the department of justice. Kangaroo courts and mob violence are not something we should celebrate, they have nothing to do with traditional anarchist notions of justice, such as restoration and rehabilitation. These flaws are something that could have been corrected after the revolution, and likely would have been. If a reactionary slave state like the American Republic can advance to the semi liberal Republic it is today, then surely the Spanish anarchist society had far more potential to become something truly liberatory had it survived the war. But instead of adopting a nuanced stance like this, most of us choose to adopt the attitude of the conservative; unrepentant mindless defense of everything that was done, good and bad alike. This is reactionary through and through!

On a more positive note, there are ethical modern examples of how to deal with enemy combatants we can draw from in our modern era should we find ourselves in such an unfortunate place as to be locked in a mortal struggle. Personally, I do not endorse revolution as a strategy suitable for North America, so long as democracy exists, but it is worth thinking about revolutionary ethics nonetheless because I cannot predict the future. Our democratic government may one day be destroyed by reactionary forces and supplanted with a dictatorship, in which case revolution would in my opinion be a morally justifiable strategy. With regards to ethical conduct in the event of such a catastrophe, we can look to the autonomous administration of North and east Syria and how they have dealt with former ISIS militants;

“When the Kurdish-led administration created its justice system in Rojava, it set up appeals courts, enlisted defense lawyers and abolished the death penalty. The maximum punishment Amir faces will be 20 years in prison. Amina tells NPR that if ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi were ever found and tried here, he would be eligible for exactly the same sentence, in the hope he would be rehabilitated.

“Revenge is for the weak,” says a lawyer named Khaled who, along with Amina, heads the Kurdish Syrian administration committee overseeing ISIS trials. Because judges and lawyers in Rojava receive regular death threats, he asked that NPR not use his surname.

Torture is prohibited in the Rojava justice system, Amina says, and prison guards are disciplined for any action perceived as humiliating to prisoners.”

Libertarian socialism has come a long way and there is no need to romanticize the CNT or pretend everything they did was good and wonderful. If the Kurdish forces can fight Islamic fascists without resorting to murder, than so could have Spanish anarchists. As for them we acknowledge the good, and learn to deal with the bad in a mature and compassionate manner. It’s time to stop looking at the past with rose colored glasses. This is true for everyone, from right to left.

1- https://www.npr.org/2019/05/29/727511632/revenge-is-for-the-weak-kurdish-courts-in-northeastern-syria-take-on-isis-cases?fbclid=IwAR17B0fpW6DnxW6JzYViOD5xYHsqPCrADh0Wa6cZgJ8NeqvxLQMca9eSnTQ

2- I recommend watching this to learn about the positive aspects of the revolution. https://youtu.be/jPl_Y3Qdb7Y

3- I recommend that everyone read blood of spain so that they can familiarize themselves with the good bad and the ugly aspects of the revolution. https://libcom.org/article/blood-spain-ronald-fraser

4- see the section under spain for information on the origins of Spanish anti clerical violence. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-clericalism

5- the white terror in spain https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror_(Spain)

Stop Treating the Israeli-Palestine Conflict like a Spectator Sport

American civilians watching the civil war for entertainment

I’m not a centrist. I do not believe both sides are always equally bad. To be clear Sometimes one side is worse and on average that is the right. In this long-standing conflict, my sympathies have always been with the Palestinian people. But that does not mean I turn a blind eye to the suffering of innocent Israeli civilians who are caught in the crossfire either. I do not believe in mindless tribalism, nor do I believe in the cause of nationalism. When I support an oppressed people, it is not because I believe in any nationalist ideology that some of them may espouse. It is because I am an ardent supporter of human dignity and the cause of liberty, equality and solidarity for all. As such, I do not believe that anyone is obligated to justify everything a military organization does in the name of liberation. I do however believe that the way Americans are acting with regards to the conflict is quite despicable. There are a lot of bad takes coming from all sides, including the center.

As Americans we have the privilege of never knowing what war is like. When wars are waged, they are fought thousands of miles away from us in countries we may have never heard of. Hell, our country fights so many wars that a lot of us can’t even keep track of what country we are or are not bombing at any given time. The American war machine is a well-oiled machine, but very few Americans actually have to get their hands dirty maintaining it. That’s a privilege a lot of people will never know. From that perspective we should be using our voices to call for peace, not war. If you are doing anything else in this conflict, you are abusing your privilege. Let’s examine two common ways in which western partisans have abused their privilege.

Expecting Palestinians to be totally peaceful is unrealistic, on that I agree. Violent resistance is valid, provided civilians are not the target. However, the common refrain I hear from closeted or even open left-wing supporters of Hamas goes something like “You can’t expect decolonization to be totally peaceful” or “You want revolution here, but when people do it in the third world it’s a problem.” Typically, this line of propaganda is directed at phantom progressives under the assumption that anyone to the right of Ho Chi Minh thinks Palestinians should do nothing but wave signs as they are mowed down by IDF machine guns. Nuanced progressive and libertarian socialist statements regarding the subject are simultaneously smeared as being “liberal” by vulgar anti imperialists who support hamas, or as being supportive of hamas by right leaning democrats. This is despite the fact that progressives and libertarian socialists are typically at odds with pro-Israel liberals AND the few unironically pro hamas leftists on the fringe of the fringe. Statements condemning war crimes on both sides such as the one made by Bernie Sanders simply aren’t enough for moderates or vulgar anti imperialists:

“I absolutely condemn the horrifying attack on Israel by Hamas and Islamic Jihad. There is no justification for this violence, and innocent people on both sides will suffer hugely because of it, It must end now.”

Somehow, sentences like that are frequently misinterpreted as being both pro-Israel and pro Hamas. Personally, I’ve never met a working-class progressive that actually supports the IDF or Hamas, let alone one that somehow supports both. This is rubbish that’s based on contradictory stereotypes that only exists in the imagination of harder than-thou redditors and paranoid ultra centrists. To your average western third worldist anyone who doesn’t support every single action undertaken by a self-described anti-imperialist group is personally guilty of colonialism. To your average liberal anyone who doesn’t support the state department party line is a rabid extremist. Nuanced and independent thought no longer exists. In the grim-dark future there is only groupthink and tribalism.

The truth is that the majority of those who identity as progressives, libertarian socialists or democratic socialists hope for peace. That is our primary aspiration. But, we also believe that if there is war the expectation is for attacks to be aimed at legitimate targets; soldiers or infrastructure related to military operations, and not random civilians that have nothing to do with the conflict. If all Hamas did was target IDF soldiers or vehicles the outrage expressed by progressives, democratic socialists and libertarian socialists (yours truly) would be minimal. It would likely be coming almost exclusively from the GOP or establishment liberals.

Meanwhile derange Christian-Zionists and mindless American nationalists conflate Netanyahu’s disproportionate response with “self-defense”. They claim that leftists expect Israel to let the attacks go totally unanswered. Rational people on the left don’t expect Israel to “not defend itself”. They expect Israel to end its aggressive occupation which is the primary cause of the issue. If Israel went after the militants responsible for the attacks and conducted operations in a manner that is compliant with international law, that would be one thing, but that’s not what’s happening. Israel is leveling an entire city and attempting to starve the whole population of Gaza. It is engaging in collective punishment on a massive scale that could very well lead to genocide. The Israeli government has returned one evil act with another and has not engaged in a single moment of self-reflection. What might be the cause of the attack? Surely, it didn’t come out of nowhere. Surely it couldn’t have been spurred on by decades of horrific abuse. The question likely never entered Netanyahu’s mind.

The expectation Americans should have for all sides in a conflict is for combatants to abide by the rules of war. That should be the expectation for our own armed forces as well. Limiting the scope of war to military targets only is in the interest of the entire human race, not merely whatever side you may support. You don’t get to pick and choose sides when it comes to human rights, they are universal by nature. If they are not, they are not rights. They are mere privileges. You can’t condemn Hamas for war crimes and not the IDF, and vice versa. In otherwords, you can’t have your cake and eat it. Of course, armies fight, it’s what they do. If Hamas wants to attack an IDF military target, that’s war. If the IDF wants to counterattack, that’s war. If either sides attacks non-military targets it is murder, plain and simple. It’s not self-defense (the pro IDF crowds’ euphemism for war crimes) and it’s not resistance (the pro Hamas crowds’ euphemism for war crimes).

A small child can understand the difference between a war crime and a legitimate act of resistance or defense, yet many American adults seem to be incapable. Many Americans are treating this like it’s the world cup. Both armies have committed war crimes even if the body count isn’t currently at a perfect one-to-one ratio. Even if the war crime tally sat at a five to one ratio it shouldn’t matter because again, it’s not a game and it isn’t some kind of sick competition. There are real individuals suffering, all war crimes must be condemned without exception. On top of that, even a person who’s completely ignorant of war time law can skim the Geneva convention for five minutes and see that Hamas and the IDF are both criminal organizations.

Art. 18 Civilian hospitals and their staff are to be protected
– Netanyahu literally just blew up a hospital.

Arts. 13, 32 Civilians are to be protected from murder, torture or brutality, and from discrimination on the basis of race, nationality, religion or political opinion.
– The Israeli army constantly violates this, and Hamas violated this during their attacks.

Article 8

IV-Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.
– See Netanyahu’s obliteration of Gaza

VII
Taking of hostages.
– See Hamas

From section B article 8

I-Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities.
– Both have done this in spades

IV-
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.
– Again, Hamas attacks against the Kibbutz and concert goers, and IDF bombardment of Gaza

XXV- Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including willfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions.
– Netanyahu is cutting off access to food and water as I type this.

It took me five minutes of research. Do better. Stop supporting war crimes. I support Palestine. I believe in freedom for Palestinians. But I don’t support Hamas or it’s Jihadist ideology. And if you believe in the security of Israel or whatever western Zionists believe in then you shouldn’t support Netanyahu or what he’s doing, because he’s just putting “his people” in more danger by fueling the very righteous anger that people feel towards the Israeli state right now.

On that note, stop conflating American Jews with Israel. Stop calling Israel their “homeland”, that’s antisemitic as it implies dual loyalty. Israel isn’t their home any more than Germany is mine. The state of Israel also isn’t a people, it’s a nation state, an entity which is distinct from a people. You can learn about that distinction by reading this highly informative book. Stop conflating Palestinians with Hamas, Hamas is a military organization rooted in a Jihadist ideology, it is also not a nation or a people. Stop conflating the wholesale destruction of Gaza with self-defense. Stop conflating the murder of civilians with anti-colonial resistance. You’re discrediting decolonization and legit resistance. And yes, legitimate resistance can be violent provided it abides by the rules of war. And finally, stop treating the conflict like a spectator sport. Instead attempt to recognize the humanity in everyone who’s involved.

Link to the red cross summary of the Geneva Convention

Link to the UN

Link to the sanders quote

Property is violence, so let’s keep it to a minimum.

“The land monopoly… consists in the enforcement by government of land titles which do not rest upon personal occupancy and cultivation… the individual should no longer be protected by their fellows in anything but personal occupation and cultivation of land.”

-Benjamin R. Tucker, “State Socialism and Anarchism”

Ironically, the non-aggression principle as understood by much of the libertarian right can in practice be used to justify a whole lot of aggression. With regards to this subject Murray Rothbard stated that “no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else.” On paper that might sound very similar to Tucker’s stance against invasion and coercion, but in practice it couldn’t be further away. To understand why we have to define some basic conceptions of property, the state, and anarchism. What do these words mean in practice? Let’s find out.

 If property is anything, it’s the ability of one person to use violence, of either the lethal or non-lethal variety to prevent another person from using a thing oneself is using. I rely on my car for daily transportation, if someone were to attempt to deprive me of it, few, aside from the most squeamish pacifists would deny that I have the right to defend it against the incursions of a thief. Surely, the level of violence I should employ is debatable. Is defending the car worth breaking bones, inflicting lacerations, or even death itself upon the aggressor? Most would likely agree that the level of violence I employ should probably correspond in proportion to the level of violence the thief is willing to use in order to dispossess me of my car. But few people will argue it’s unethical to employ violence against someone who is trying to dispossess me of a thing I need for survival. We would then likely conclude that some amount of background violence in society is acceptable.

If the state is anything, it’s an exclusive clique that has the ability to enforce its own will over a given territory and by extension over the individuals living within that territory. The violence of the state exists whether or not you consent to it, and that combination of violence and elitism is precisely what defines the state. The state in other words is a monopoly on violence that is held over a population in a given territory by an exclusive clique.

And finally, if anarchism is anything it is the opposition to that monopoly on violence called the state, it is the opposition to authority. As Proudhon said in The General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century: “The fundamental, decisive idea of this Revolution is it not this: NO MORE AUTHORITY.” It then follows that to rid ourselves of the authority of the state, we must rid ourselves of the monopoly on violence. And to rid ourselves of the monopoly of violence we must necessarily limit the violence of property to the absolute minimum so that the state does not arise again.

On that note I propose that we stop beating around the bush. Let’s stop using the word property and instead substitute it with its true definition, violence. Property inherently implies the threat of violence. If you take my thing, or invade my place, some amount of violence will be inflicted against you by me, my neighbor, or the state if it exists. Property can never be divorced from violence. The more property one has spread out over an area the more violence one will have to use to enforce that property. An individual cannot physically defend a large area without the assistance of others. That means they will have to employ enforcers of some kind to do it for them. This can be done indirectly through taxes with a police force, or directly by paying a private security firm, it does not matter.

 This begs the question, how can an anarchist who by definition is against the monopoly on violence held by the State support a monopoly on violence held by the individual? Again, what is the state other than an exclusive group of individuals that hold a monopoly on violence over other individuals? If the state is defined by its monopoly on violence, and a single individual or a corporation holds that same monopoly, then it in turn becomes indistinguishable from the state. It is the same thing regardless of its label.

 That is why anarchists cannot logically support the existence of absentee property and simultaneously claim to be adherents of the non-aggression principle. Absentee property in effect allows one person or a small group to hold a monopoly on violence over another person or group of people. It allows the reach of the individual to extend far beyond the tips of their fingers, and onto the fingers of armies of jack-booted thugs wielding truncheons, guns and tasers. If the state were to be abolished tomorrow and replaced by a direct regime of infinitely acquirable absentee property as self-described libertarian capitalists would see fit, all that would do in practice is create a slew of private security police states owned by the richest among us. One state would be replaced by many.

On the other hand, it is entirely consistent with the internal logic of anarchism for an individual to use violence to enforce their possession over a single house in which they reside, or the objects within it on grounds of occupation. It is also consistent for a community to use violence to defend their right to collective land occupation, as was the case when the Neo-Zapatistas resisted an attempted land enclosure in nineteen ninety-four. The former is a very small monopoly on violence that would not exceed more than a few acres or be held over others, the latter is a similar scenario but applied to a group of individuals instead of a single individual. Again, let us refer to Benjamin R. Tucker:

 Whoever invades, individual or state, governs and is an Archist; and that whoever defends against invasion, individual or voluntary association, opposes government and is an Anarchist. Now, a voluntary association doing equity would not be an invader, but a defender against Invasion, and might include in its defensive operations the protection of the occupiers of land.- “Land Occupancy and its Conditions” 

 Neither of the above scenarios I mentioned involve the violence of an individual or group of armed invaders sent to enforce the extraction of wealth at the behest of a landlord. In these scenarios violence is only used to ensure the continued right of occupation of the individual or group residing within the territory in question, but it is not used to prevent an individual or group from establishing residence in a hitherto empty house or piece of territory. Violence in these scenarios is restricted to the defense against extraction and dispossession instead of enforcing them. Thus, it is not of a statist, or “archist” character.

 But what about when an individual holds a monopoly on violence over an entire neighborhood and thus the people living in it? What about an entire city? Or an entire country? If that is the case they are a state, this fact is unavoidable. It does not matter if this vast stretch of land was acquired via a fat roll of cash or the rolling treads of a tank column. The omnipresent threat of violence against the dispossessed is the same.

 Think about this the next time you ponder a landlord’s ownership claim over a tenant’s home. Ask yourself, what is the true nature of the relationship between the two people once they are stripped of their respective titles? The tenant pays for the maintenance of the property through their rent, and in addition at least a portion of the landlord’s income. If this payment is not made on time, then violence will be used as a punishment for nonpayment. Is that not the relationship of invader and defender with the landlord occupying the former role and the tenant the latter? Perhaps you will realize that the landlord exacts their payment in the same way a state does when it comes to collect taxes or the same way a mafia soldier does when they come demanding protection money.

Anarchists then are against any system which uses violence as a tool of invasion and economic extraction, and not merely for the defense of the things a person needs to sustain their daily life, their place of residency, certain movable objects, or the lives of those they care about. We reject the idea that people should employ violence to hold land, housing and the means of production hostage from those who actually use the things. We abhor the violence of dispossession and exploitation and find that the only type of violence that is truly compatible with the non-aggression principle, non-coercion principle, non-invasion principle, or whatever you choose to call it is that which defends against exploitation and dispossession.

 The theory is quite simple, if you are a resident or worker of a particular place, it is de facto within your possession. If you are a worker at a particular business, it is de facto within your possession. We recognize the right to employ defensive violence required to maintain these daily possessions on the grounds that they are continually used. In practice this limits the level of background violence in society to the absolute minimum amount possible and thus prevents the growth of a new state. In a regime such as this, cops will no longer beat workers on strike, they will no longer destroy homeless camps, they will no longer come with guns to evict pregnant mothers who cannot pay their rent. This kind of invasive violence will cease to exist.

 If anarchism will exist at all, it will exist as a regime that is either entirely devoid of the violent enforcement of the individual’s grasp of things, in which all is shared by all, or a regime in which the violent enforcement of the individual’s grasp on things is strictly limited to mutual defense of the things they depend on for their daily lives and nothing more. Anything else is by definition a form of statism.

Economic Philosophy for the Self-Interested Worker

I’ve been re-reading Avrahm Yarmolinksi’s Road to Revolution. It’s one of my favorite books on radical history. I happened to stumble upon it by chance sometime in twenty seventeen, a mere year after first self identifying with anarchism. Back then, while I never totally identified with anarcho-communism, I was adjacent to that as I primarily identified with Rudolph Rocker’s conception of Anarcho-syndicalism. And while I have not necessarily abandoned my affinity for syndicalism, I’m somewhat of an oddball syndicalist in that I wish for a syndicalism based not on libertarian communism, but instead on continental mutualism. From that early libertarian communist adjacent perspective I was like most American progressives in that I accepted the popular dichotomy which casts socialism as being a quasi-religion based totally on self sacrifice and altruism, while holding capitalism to be the ideology of egoism and self interest. And thus I scoffed at any suggestion that humans were on average, somewhat selfish. Upon reading Yarmolinksi’s Road to Revolution: A Century of Russian Radicalism I was surprised to find that the commonly accepted aforementioned dichotomy is somewhat of a modern invention.

In the book Yarmolinksi describes the different moral attitudes of the populist movement. They range from amoral nihilism, perhaps adjacent to Max Stirner, to dogmatic moral absolutism. I’m not a moral nihilist. I do see the value in morality and ethics as concepts. I think they can be beneficial to the individual and society when applied delicately and with a heavy dose of relativity, and thus I tend to be very wary of moral absolutism or anything that smacks of the sacred. And I can sympathize with the nihilistic criticism of morality on that level, while not necessarily endorsing nihilism in its entirety. Let’s consider two moral attitudes in the populist movement- the quasi religious and the enlightened egoist.

The quasi religious:

 “There were those who felt that they were missionaries of a new gospel and, in fact, not without satisfaction they anticipated martyrdom. One young woman had a fixed idea that a revolutionary was most effective when he suffered for the cause. A participant in the movement reports that he saw some propagandists pore over the pages of the New Testament. A wooden cross stood on a shelf in the headquarters of a tiny circle the members of which were the first to ‘go to the people.’ They dreamed of a new faith that would at once steel the intellectuals with fresh courage and enlist the religious sentiment of the masses on the side of revolution. Lavrov has it that the intention of the agitators was not to accomplish something of practical value, but to perform a podvig, a deed of self-abnegation and spiritual merit. At the time, he wrote, Populism resembled a religious sect rather than a political party.”

I’ve met many socialists that fall into this kind of thinking, and personally I find them to be insufferable. The most ironic thing about them is that they alienate themselves from the very workers that they fetishize by preaching to them about morality instead of trying to spark their interest via the promise of a bigger paycheck and more personal freedom. They don’t see people as individuals with real interests, they see them as potential converts to the new faith. Ironically, the whole thing becomes about self gratifying martyrdom, as Lavrov points out. From that perspective they assume the paternal attitude of an enlightened despot, not an enlightened egoist. They view themselves as the arbiters of morality and goodness and instead become the harbingers of amorality and despair. What I mean is that this typically ends in one adopting a black and white world view, which unsurprisingly leads to a far worse strain of nihilism than any self interested egoist “libertine” could arrive at. This is the nihilism of Nechayev or Machiavelli, where means justify the ends, and people are not people, they are meager appendages of the “mass” that can be shorn off and discarded so they do not corrupt the social organism as a whole. If you find yourself in a place where you’re willing to throw your own life away for the glory of “the revolution” (an abstract idea), what might you be willing to do to others who stand in the way of that?

Contrast that mentality with Yarmolinksi’s description of Chernyshevsky’s enlightened egoism:

 to pursue one’s self-interest one must be free to do so and one must know wherein it lies. Chernyshevsky attributed the greatest importance to knowledge as a power for good. People were wicked, he believed, because they did not know that it was to their advantage to eschew evil. His shibboleth was enlightened egoism. This, he held, precluded narrowly selfish, anti-social acts. It led the individual, naturally and effortlessly, to identify his own happiness with the happiness of all, his private advantage with the public weal. Furthermore, he argued that since man belongs in the order of nature, he is a creature of circumstance, shaped as an ethical being by society. Consequently, in the last account, moral responsibility lies there.

Now Chernyshevsky has his own issues, chief among them being his opposition to any kind of market transaction. In addition Chernyshevsky did not always take his own ideas to their rational ends, he could on occasion be as blood thirsty and zealous as his religiously minded counterparts. I do not wish to place him on a pedestal anymore than I do Karl Marx, Proudhon, or Bakunin. As with all great thinkers he inspired a wide range of people; everyone from Vladimir Lenin, to Emma Goldman and some say even Ayn Rand. I count myself among those who believe that he was an inspiration to Rand, being a native Russian, it was likely that she was familiar with his work.

Typically political pundits in the west frame socialism as the economy of altruism, and capitalism as the economy of self interest. It’s also a common assumption in our age that humans are self interested creatures, its practically taken for granted. The logic then follows that “humans are selfish, and thus we need an economy based on self interest.” Well, I disagree with the idea that capitalism is the only economic form that is compatible with self interest, I believe that socialism is also compatible with human self interest, it merely expresses the self interest of the working class instead of the employing class. When you take into account the fact that most of humanity is made up of the working class, some kind of socialism would then express the self interest of a far greater chunk of the human race than would capitalism. That makes socialism far more compatible with human self interest than capitalism, in my book. It is that kernel of truth I wish to extract from Chernyshevsky’s ideology. I believe the basic concept of rooting socialism in the mutual self interest of workers is much more convincing than some highfalutin pseudo-religious moral ideal.

The fact is workers come in all colors. Literally and metaphorically. We come from all over the world and we all have different moral and cultural ideas. What unites us is our economic interests, not necessarily what we believe as individuals, that in my opinion is the most solid foundation of socialism. If we can get people to recognize that simple fact they might begin to see the individual where they previously saw the “other”. They might be able to look beyond their own moral dogmas and personal prejudices that they’ve inherited from the society in which they were born. However, if instead we come at people with condescending moral attitudes we risk alienating them before we even start. This is not to say we can win everyone over with the promise of material well being and freedom, a true believer in reactionary dogma is just as hell bent on martyrdom as the religious revolutionary. Both are willing to throw themselves and others on the pyre for their faith. But this attitude is what we should seek to avoid, so we might not want the true believers anyway, as they will likely just replace one violent faith with another.

The other advantage of a socialism based on enlightened egoism is that we don’t have to place anyone on a pedestal. We don’t have to “go to the people” and preach down at them from the pulpit. We can meet them where they are at, on their own terms as individuals. We don’t have to seize power to create some magical utopia at their expense either, because from this perspective socialism is not the end in itself, it’s the means to an end; material well being for yourself and others. If taken to its logical conclusion, this kind of socialism would exclude any roads that entail mass suffering for the red gospel. After all, if a form of socialism leads to the enslavement and misery of the individual, then it is self-defeating and we want nothing to do with it. All we have to do is recognize that every worker is a self interested individual, and that our mutual freedom and material well being can be achieved through the democratic worker cooperative, free association, and the abolition of the state.

Not all federalist forms are compatible with liberty; the difference between right wing authoritarian federalism, and federalism within the anarchist movement.

Not all forms of federalism are created equally. In North America, federalism is largely associated with the political right. The political right employs spurious arguments centered around states' rights, which is typically a dog whistle for anti-working class, anti-woman, anti LGBTQ and anti-minority legislation. “States rights” are not an attack on authority in general, but merely replace the national authority of Washington with a regional authority that is in practice even more oppressive. In other times and places though, federalism has been of a progressive character, and has been championed by minorities and working-class people, and not so much by elites and racial majorities. This is the kind of federalism that anarchists espouse. 

 Federalism is a word that is casually thrown about within anarchist circles. To an outsider living in north America, it might evoke images of the “federal government” or central government in Washington. Paradoxically it may also refer to right wing organizations like the federalist society that seek to strengthen the power of state governments while weakening the power of the federal government. As you can see, even within the context of American politics the word federalism has a dual meaning, where it simultaneously refers to a larger centralized state power, but also to the power of smaller states. 

 In North America, federalism is often used in contrast to the word confederation. In Europe the two things were often synonymous during the early years of anarchism. In this context confederation and federation both meant autonomy and voluntary association where groups meet in a congressional fashion, but where there is no or little coercive central power. 

 Federalism in the context of anarchism can be used interchangeably with confederalism. For example, in Spain the larger political body uniting anarchist unions was called the national confederation of labor. Meanwhile there exists a larger international anarchist organization called the international workingmen’s association that is referred to as a federation, the structures however are interchangeable regarding the amount of autonomy local branches enjoy. For the purpose of this essay, I’ll stick to federalism though since it’s the traditional language used by anarchists the world over to this day. In this essay federalism will simply mean “a group of political bodies that come together for the purpose of higher organization but retain a great level of autonomy.” 

 To understand what makes anarchist federalism unique I find it useful to first analyze other types of federalism that already exist in the world or have existed in the past. I have identified at least four types including anarchist federalism, which is synonymous with statelessness or the absence of a ruling elite. It is worth noting that the terms I will outline are neologisms of my invention, though the structures I describe are actually existing structures that are commonly referred to by other words in a rather imprecise or inconsistent fashion. As such they may not be widely used or understood out of context. I have chosen them as I believe they are more precise than actually existing nomenclature. 

 It is also worth noting that as with all systems these things can overlap and bleed into one another. A democratic federation may share many commonalities with an anarchist federation, just as a republican federation might share many qualities with an authoritarian federation. 
 The four categories are as follow; 

1-	Authoritarian federalism 
2-	Republican federalism 
3-	Democratic federalism 
4-	Anarchic federalism 

In addition, I would like to define the following terms for further clarity: 

1-Republic- A government based on representatives elected from an aristocracy. Republican governments typically have very little direct input from the general population regarding legislation. Once an official is elected, they make the rules and the general population is expected to passively obey. Often times this is also called a representative democracy. A Republican state can co-exist with any number of economic systems including socialism or capitalism.  

2-Democracy- A government run by elected representatives that may or may not come from an aristocracy. What distinguishes a democracy from a Republic is that its policies are in some way affected directly by the people- E.I referendums. The word democracy comes from the combination of Greek words "demos" (people) and Kratia (rule), therefore it is rule by the people. Often times this is referred to as a direct democracy or semi-direct democracy. Democracy is at least nominally compatible with both socialism and capitalism, though a capitalist democracy does not extend popular control of the economy to the working classes. A democracy could take the form of a moderate capitalist state such as Swiss Confederation, or something more radical such as the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, which is a Kurdish libertarian socialist state that coexists with the larger Syrian state. 

3- Anarchy/anarchic- Anarchy comes from the combination of the greek words an (without) and arkhos (ruler). Political anarchy in this context does not mean chaos. It refers to a society without rulers, in other words it is a stateless society. A stateless society has no specialized ruling class, and thus no monopoly on violence. This does not mean it is without any formal political organization or laws, it simply means there is no special class that has economic, political, or governmental privileges. Stateless societies likely incorporate at least some elements of a democracy, though they are not democracies because they are not ruled by the people, they are ruled by no one. All people share equal power and responsibilities, and association is voluntary. 

 These forms are not always completely distinct, as with anything they are a spectrum. The United States of America is a good example. It bares most resemblance to a Republic, but at a state level there can occasionally exist direct democracy in the form of referendums, though this is quite limited. Many Republics have some elements of democracy, and the lines between a radical democracy and anarchy may not always be clear, such was the case of the Paris Commune of 1871, or some argue the aforementioned Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria.  

Authoritarian federalism

 As with all types of federalism, authoritarian federalism is a decentralized political system on a macro scale. Authoritarian federalist systems do not have a strong central authority as within a centralized state system, but instead have strong hierarchies at local and regional levels. Think feudalism vs. totalitarianism. A totalitarian society has a strong hierarchy at every level of society from top to bottom, a federalist authoritarian system lacks a strong hierarchy at the top while retaining strong hierarchies at the bottom and middle. In practice this gives elites a lot of autonomy but not regular people. You could think of it as federalism for me but not for thee. Many feudal societies could be classified as having an authoritarian federalist structure in the sense that nobles often possessed a great deal of autonomy, while peasants were practically slaves. 

 It might be useful to contrast this with an absolute monarchy, military dictatorship, or a modern totalitarian society where people are subject to strict regimentation at every level. In a totalitarian state like Nazi Germany elites were undoubtedly highly privileged, but they did not possess the same degree of freedom that a feudal lord might. They were far more beholden to the centralized state. On the other hand four centuries prior to World War two Germany was comprised of a loose federation of feudal states known as the Holy Roman Empire. This is a great example of authoritarian federalism. In both systems the average person was totally subservient to elites, the distinguishing factor is that the former is built around subservience to one central elite, and the latter is built around subservience to many elites. 

 As a citizen in an authoritarian federalist type of society you might not even be aware of the authority of a larger government, but you are certainly aware of the authority of your local government or lord as they have absolute power over you. You might think of this system as an alliance of authoritarian rulers or states that have a of lot autonomy themselves, but retain a high degree of control over their subjects. It is the tyranny of a thousand little führers. 

 It should be clear that authoritarian federalism would scarcely be more desirable to an anarchist than would modern centralized authoritarianism or totalitarianism. In both cases the average person is totally subservient to the upper classes. That makes both of these systems statist and hierarchical regardless of whether or not they are made up of one authoritarian state, or many. 

Republican federalism

 Republican federalism is a decentralized network of republican states or representative  democracies. The United States of America is somewhere between a centralized republic and a federal republic as it offers a mixture of regional and central government control. In a true republican federation the states would be autonomous having full rights of secession. Often times people mistakenly think of the Confederate States of America as an example of a republican federation, but the CSA was every bit as centralized as its northern counter part. 

 The CSA constitution was essentially a clone of the northern constitution, with the addition of a formal support of slavery and white supremacy. In practice this made the CSA little more than a  harrenvolk republic. This is a kind of society in which democratic franchise is only extended to one particular ethnicity. Next time someone says the civil war was about states rights it would be remiss to not remind them of this important detail. A better example of a republican federation would be the European Union where each member state is a constitutional monarchy or democratic republic with full rights of secession, though to be clear this is not a perfect example either, as it includes constitutional monarchies such as England. 

 Nevertheless, the EU is in practice the closest thing to an actually existing Republican federation. Each state has a high degree of legislative autonomy while voluntarily adhering to a broader union that binds the members to certain contractual obligations. Not only is secession guaranteed on paper, it has been proven feasible in practice by way of “Brexit”, for better or worse. 

 In practice most republican systems that proclaim to be a federation have some element of centralization. In theory though this kind of system would be built around a network of states that are representative democracies. Each representative democracy, or Republic, would have a governor, prime minister or president with its own executive and legislative bodies. These states would send representatives to a federal congress, however the member states themselves would have the final say, and not the central congress. You might think of this system as an alliance of independent democratic republics that all agree to certain contractual obligations. 

  A federal republic could have a wide range of social policies that might be highly progressive or highly reactionary, and that would depend largely on the dominant culture and political strategy of those involved. In the United States, progressive forces have for the last century mostly focused on a centralizing strategy for the sake of expediency, leaving federalism to the way side for reactionary forces to leverage to their advantage. In other times and places though the reverse was true. During the Mexican revolution the conservatives were largely in favor of a centralized government. On the left there were centralist and federalist factions. The left centralists were represented by Francisco Madero while the left federalists were represented by Pancho Villa and Emilio Zapata. Both groups opposed the reactionary centralist government of Porfirio Diaz, and later fought one another, with the centralists coming out on top. 

   On paper there is much to appreciate about the republican federation, but in practice often only a slight improvement upon authoritarian federalism. This is because republican federalist structures almost always exist in parallel with a capitalist economy. Though citizens will likely have a high degree of formal legal autonomies much of the authority of local economic elites might indirectly replicate the authority of local elites in an authoritarian federalist system. In an authoritarian federalist system such as feudalism economic and political elites are often one in the same, a landlord might also be a military ruler. Under a federal republic the two powers are formally separate, but economic elites like landlords and business owners still retain a high degree of control over tenants and workers much like a feudal landlord would over serfs and peasants. 

 In addition citizens have little input when it comes to shaping the actual laws themselves. They are expected to elect their rulers and then passively sit by as they create legislation in the name of their constituents. 
 The advantage of this system is that workers might be able to use the legislative authority of local and regional governments to curtail the authority of the economic elites. The disadvantage is that economic elites can do the reverse. This often results in a tug-o-war between the halves and have-nots, leading to political instability and lack of continuity. 

Democratic federalism 

 Democratic federalism is very similar to republican federalism except for the addition of direct or semi direct democracy, making it democratic, not republican. In a democracy, the people themselves have a  direct influence on the state, whereas a republic is built upon the authority of an elected aristocracy, that rules in the name of their constituents without any input. The concept of democratic federalism is not to be confused with the Kurdish libertarian socialist ideology known as “democratic confederalism” which nominally aims for statelessness as a desired goal. 

 Democratic federations consist of a series of semi autonomous democratic states or cantons. Each state will be run by elected representatives just as they would in a republic, however there will be further democratic control in the form of regularly reoccurring popular referendums. A great example is the Swiss confederation. The Swiss confederation is a semi direct democracy in which decisions made by congress must be ratified by the general population. You might think of this system as an alliance of democratic states. 

 The advantages and disadvantages of this system are very similar to those of the federal republican systems. However the extra layer of popular control could work in favor of the working class if they understand  where their interests are. Direct democracy in a statist system allows for citizens to have at least some input when it comes to shaping laws in their society. Most anarchists would see this system as flawed, but much more desirable than the previous two. 

Anarchic federalism

 Anarchic federalism goes much further than all of the forms I have outlined above. Anarchic federalism not only does not have a central hierarchy, but it is also bereft of local and regional hierarchy as well. Anarchist federations actually have a lot in common with democratic federations. Where they differ is in their dedication to socio-economic equality, their commitment to non-coercion, non-domination, and voluntary association. 

 In an anarchic federation society is built from the ground up on a voluntary basis. It starts at the individual level, then builds up to the communal, regional, national or even global level. An anarchic federation could be as big or small as its member's desire. Not only do regional associations that may approximate the size of a modern state have the right to secession, so too do the communities and individuals that make them up. Anarchist federations have been described as having a web or cell like structure. 

 While there is no grand scheme for how these societies have to function, they are typically built upon direct democracy or consensus democracy. Often times representatives will be limited to the absolute minimum in favor of making decisions via a direct majority vote. In some communities a decision that affects everyone will require the consensus of every member of a community, either system can be used in the context of an anarchic federation. When representatives are necessary, they are bound by a citizen's mandate and are directly recallable. What this means is that a representative acts as a messenger and not a ruler. The representative will be given instructions by their constituents, which the constituents determined via a prior face to face democratic process. The representative will then be required to fulfill those instructions. This way power flows upwards toward the top, and never downwards towards the bottom. 

 These societies may even hold a central congress for large scale coordination, much as a statist society would. What distinguishes this congress from that of a governmental or statist congress is that it does not have the power to enforce decisions, in other words it has no executive authority. Any and all decisions made will likely be mere rubber stamps of actions already carried out by the base or will only be carried out should the member bodies consent to them and carry them out via their own free will. 

 Anarchists also advocate for the abolition of cultural, social and economic hierarchies. This means that we do not believe that one group of people should be privileged while another is disadvantaged. As such we reject any economic or political system that places one human or group above another, E.I capitalism with its employer-employee relationship, or nationalism with its linguistic and cultural hegemonies. Other forms of federalism are typically only concerned with the political question. Meanwhile Anarchic federalism is concerned not only with the political question, but the social and economic questions as well. This is because these things are inseparable. 

 Thus, Anarchists extend federalism and democracy to matters of defense and to the workplace in addition. Anarchists favor different forms of workplace democracy, and even often extend democratic procedures to military structures when possible. The officer corps of the insurrectionary black army of Ukraine was actually elected by their comrades in arms instead of appointed by a military hierarchy. Some anarchist armies took this principle even further and allowed their members to retreat without fear of punishment. Such was the case for the workers militias that made up the military component of the CNT-FAI, perhaps the most famous anarcho-syndicalist union. 
 In the workplace anarchists prefer that there be no management at all. However, in the cases where management may be deemed necessary by the workers, they believe that management should be elected, and not only that, but that workers should actively be in charge of companywide policies such as pay scales and attendance. 

 A very important part of anarchic federalism is free association and non-coercion. For freedom of association and non-coercion to be fully realized, everybody has to have access to land, natural resources, and at the very minimum the ability to create their own housing without any economic barriers. While there is no universally agreed upon form of property ownership amongst anarchists, we all agree that institutions such as rent, and mortgage are unjust and that they result in forced participation in the industrial system. While we do not oppose voluntary industrial production, we do not believe that workers should be forced to go to the factory everyday if they feel it is not in their self-interest or the interest of their community to do so. 

 Within industrial societies, be they capitalist or state socialist, workers are compelled either directly or indirectly to participate because of their proletarian status. A proletariat is a person who does not own any land or capital. In other words, they are obligated to pay a rent or mortgage every month or their home will be taken away from them by force. As such we all typically agree that land and housing should be owned communally or only on a small-scale basis and only upon the continuous residency of an owner (Usufruct). 

 As you can hopefully see, anarchic federalism has many features that radically distinguish it from all other forms of federalism, while having a few that overlap. You might think of anarchic federalism as an alliance of free communities, comprised of autonomous individuals in the context of social equality. 

 Anarchists don’t claim to have ever  achieved a perfect state of federalistic association, we only claim to have made progress towards our federalist ideal. The Paris Commune of 1871 went a long way in abolishing central authority and rent, but many businesses remained hierarchically organized. The Spanish anarchist revolution of 1936 saw the democratization of over 2,000 work places and the temporary destruction of the state, but it’s collectivization, though frequently voluntary, was sometimes indirectly coercive due to the climate of fear in a time of brutal civil war. Today there exist some societies that have characteristics of both anarchic federalism and democratic federalism. Examples include the MAREZ or rebel Zapatista autonomous municipalities in Chiapas, Mexico, or the Autonomous administration of North Eastern Syria. Anarchists often critically support these societies and seek to learn from their failures and successes. To date though, no actually existing federal organization fully embodies all of the principles of anarchic federalism. They all have mixed characteristics and probably fall somewhere between democratic federalism and anarchic federalism. 

Important distinctions 

 It should be clear by now, but I still feel that it’s important to state that anarchist federalism has little to do with the current battle over “states' rights” in America, or the ideas espoused by the federalist society. The right-wing usage of states' rights is nothing but a Machiavellian political strategy to uphold white supremacy, the worst aspects of capitalism, and institutional patriarchy. Swapping a powerful national authority for a powerful regional authority has nothing to do with liberty, and especially not anarchism. 

 Anarchists do not particularly see much value in states' rights when they are used for oppressive purposes and as such would more often than not only support states' rights when it is politically expedient or results in an outcome that is preferential to minorities, the working class and the environment, though this has never been the case in the United States historically. However, if a progressive movement existed that sought to expand states' rights as a strategy to protect progressive values many of us would support it, just as we have supported national authority in circumstances where it is used to ensure individual autonomy (Roe v. Wade, the ADA, the civil rights act of 1964, the equal rights amendment and many others).  It is possible that we may see such a movement arise in the future as a response to the failure of the centralized state to uphold basic civil liberties established in aforementioned rulings. 

 Preferences in American politics with regards to the rights of the state government and national government are rarely based on principled stances and instead are based on expediency, or the ability to quickly and efficiently achieve a desired goal. For many anarchists, it's no different. Conversely, if a state level progressive movement were to become popular the political right would surely drop its pretense of federalism and resort to supporting the centralized state to achieve their aims, just as the European right currently does. In fact, the winds of change may have already begun to blow in the form of “common good constitutionalism”. 

Adrian Vermeule, a rising right wing star espouses what he calls “common good constitutionalism” and states that it’s main aim is; 

“certainly not to maximize individual autonomy or to minimize the abuse of power (an incoherent goal in any event), but instead to ensure that the ruler has the power needed to rule well … Just authority in rulers can be exercised for the good of subjects, if necessary even against the subjects’ own perceptions of what is best for them — perceptions that may change over time anyway, as the law teaches, habituates, and re-forms them. Subjects will come to thank the ruler whose legal strictures, possibly experienced at first as coercive, encourage subjects to form more authentic desires for the individual and common goods, better habits, and beliefs that better track and promote communal well-being.” 

 Vermeule seeks to challenge the predominant position of the American Federalist Society and may very well succeed in the near future. In addition politicians like Donald Trump have increasingly cultivated an authoritarian cult of personality, which tends towards centralization and not federalism. 

 For now though the American right largely espouses federalism. However, the particular kind of federalism that the American right espouses is a mixture of authoritarian federalism and republican federalism, and has little to do with anything resembling anarchic or even democratic federalism. Right wing American federalists typically seek to put hands in the power of state level elites and private corporations to the detriment of the working class, the environment, or various minorities. At best this will disempower working class people in general, at worst it will create a white power elite (working class whites will not be included in this elite group) resulting in a society resembling an authoritarian federalist type society or a harrenvolk democracy, like apartheid south Africa. 

 As for the progressive tendency to look to the centralized state as a guardian of liberty, many of us would be critically supportive for the sake of expediency. Roe v. Wade and other pro civil rights acts have been a great victory for the rights of the individual, but why stop there? To this end anarchists advocate a yes-and approach. 

 The advantage of using a central node of power is that it can be highly expedient. It may get the job done fast, and when one is  affected by oppressive state laws choosing the most expedient option is likely the wisest thing to do, but the disadvantage is that a central node of power creates a single point to attack. It is much easier to undo one federal law than fifty state laws. It is my personal opinion that using the centralized state to protect abortion and civil rights is the right move, but it shouldn’t have stopped there. The progressive left needs to  continue to fight for local and state legislation that will enshrine basic rights like same sex marriage and bodily autonomy. 

 In addition, Instead of only focusing on governmental laws and the tension between the central state and its fifty constituents as Democrats and Republicans do, anarchists also choose to build local grassroots power outside of the state. This can take many forms such as the libertarian municipalist movement or anarcho syndicalist movement, mutual aid networks, or even affinity groups. For many anarchists the debate between states rights and the power of the “federal government” is purely superficial because a state is a state, regardless of what “level” it exists at. The power of the government of Ohio is no less tyrannical than the power of the government of Washington, and neither is particularly accessible to ordinary people.
 
 What side we take will likely depend more on the outcome it has for regular working class people and minorities. If the federal government legalized Marijuana tomorrow I doubt many anarchists, or sane people in general would decry this as the tyranny of Washington. However if Washington banned drag in all fifty states we would be unanimously opposed. If states rights means tyranny for trans people workers and migrants, we want to nothing to do with it. If the  power of Washington means tyranny for trans people workers and migrants, we want nothing to do with it either. Expediency and the likelyhood of a preferential outcome are likely to take precedent over the superficial struggle between bureaucracy in Washington or bureaucracy in Ohio. In the end, we are against all state power irregardless of whether or not it’s considered local, regional or national. 

Futher reading and link to high resolution graphics

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/pierre-joseph-proudhon-the-principle-of-federation

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/michail-bakunin-federalism-socialism-anti-theologism

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/daniel-al-rashid-what-do-anarchists-mean-by-federalism

High resolution copy of graphics Download

Fear of communism is a greater threat to liberty than actual communism

“in America the struggle was befogged by the fact that the worst fascists were they who disowned the word ‘fascism’ and preached enslavement to capitalism under the style of constitutional and traditional Native American liberty.”- Sinclair Lewis 

 The threat of communism in the united states is virtually non existent. There is no red spectre haunting the streets of north America, but the discordant siren song of fascism is seducing conservatives, radical capitalists, and evangelical Christians in nearly every town hall. 

 On this blog, I frequently criticize Leninists and sometimes western or libertarian Marxists. This is because I believe it’s everyone’s responsibility to rein in the misguided fools on their own side, so that they don’t get out of control. I also do this because I care about the survival of anarchism as an ideology independent of the Marxist left. I spent years warning conservative family members about the creep of fascism in the GOP, most of my warnings fell on deaf ears, but, I am no hypocrite and I don’t want to see the American left succumb to the same madness as the American right. 
But with that being said, Marxists of any kind don’t pose a threat to American democracy, let alone Marxist Leninists or Maoists. 

 Unlike the fascists on the right, Leninists have no mainstream equivalent. Fascists have Trumpism, and while it’s not nearly as extreme as something like Attomwaffen or even Patriot Front, it is still a form of fascism. It’s ultra nationalist, populist, xenophobic (this is distinct from biological racism), based on a cult of personality, obsessed with cleansing internal enemies, fixated on a sense of emasculation, and now espouses redemptive violence and direct action. Those are all the hallmarks of classical fascism. It even pulls various ideas from the left and flips them on their head, such as anti-globalization and post modernism. Syncretic thinking was another common attribute of 20th century fascism. 

 The danger of Trumpism is as that it doesn’t use the foreign imagery of German national socialism, or Italian fascism, but instead it drapes itself in the stars and stripes, while maniacally waiving the Gideon Bible. It’s exactly as Sinclair Lewis predicted. People, forget that in Weimar Germany, the swastika and red flag weren’t frightening foreign symbols. They were as wholesome to the average German as a picture of uncle Sam is to your average rust belt American worker. 
 In addition, American fascists have a ready made army in the form of right wing militia men, anti communists, paranoid doomsday peppers, evangelical Christian nationalists, proud boys, QAnon, and other reactionary conspiracy theorists. All they needed doing was to unify them around a singular charismatic leader. Fascists have achieved this task with aplomb. 

 There isn’t however a communist or even generic  Marxist movement in the US that has mainstream pull. The closest thing is the democratic socialist movement, but democratic socialists are not radical far leftists, where as the Trump movement is at this point a far right movement. American Democratic Socialism would be boiler plate progressivism in Europe. In fact actual Marxists and especially Leninists mock Bernie Sanders adjacent groups like the DSA for their soft, liberal and reformist character. In a few cases Maoist red guards have even attacked these mainstream groups. 

 If we’re being entirely honest the only thing Marxist Leninists and Maoists are a threat to is the spread of leftism to the mainstream. They make us all look crazy, and they are the biggest cause of infighting. Sure, anarchists and democratic socialists have their beef, but the quickest way to sow discord is to bring up controversial figures like Stalin or Mao Zedong. In that way, when they are literally aligning themselves with the right (see MagaCommunism), they are still inadvertently acting in behalf of the right by scaring off normal people and causing chaos.
 
 In addition, I am highly confident that if we had some basic rent control in the slums, widespread unions, universal healthcare, and guaranteed vacation by law at least 50% of the tankie morons in the US would probably go back to being normal people. They’re not exactly hardened peasant warriors fighting Cheng Kai-shek from mountains, more than likely they’re sad people that haven’t found much success in life, and that’s why they gravitate towards simple answers, like a romanticized communist past. Give them bread and shelter, and most of them will turn in their hammer-sickle flags for the red rose pin and a Bernie poster. 

 Lastly, even moderate forms of anarchism such as mutualism, individualism and pacifism have never really had mass appeal in America. The closest thing to an anarchist mass movement was the industrial workers of the world,  which capped out at a hundred thousand prior to 1917 before being obliterated during the red scare. Today the IWW has a whopping ten thousand members. If people don’t want the libertarian syndicalism of the IWW, or the pacifism, cooperatives, and solidarity economies of P.J. Proudhon, then they sure as hell don’t want the secret police, one party state, and mass executions of V.I. Lenin. 

 If socialism ever comes to America, it will probably be very moderate, and hardliners will denounce it as welfare capitalism, social imperialism, or liberalism. Personally, I’d love to see it. Though, I will still advocate for mutualism. 

 So, remember this next time someone tries to bring you on board with the new red scare. Communism in America just doesn’t have mainstream appeal, and it never will. It’s never going to be anything more than a flag for disaffected college kids to angrily waive at their parents, or a fringe form of millenarianism for the those who have lost hope to find hope in. In the end the fear of communism far out weighs the actual threat of communism. And for that reason, fascism will always be the greatest threat to liberty in North America. 

The revolutionary vanguard of robber barons

I made up a satirical ideology. It’s called “Revolutionary robber baronism”, and its inspired by the robber barons of the 19th and 20th century, like John D Rockefeller, and also totalitarian dictators like Vladimir Lenin.

As in Leninism, it’s about achieving the goal of a total monopoly on the means of production by an elite vanguard, which will in theory then transfer ownership of the means of production to the workers. And like fascism it’s about cooperation between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

Instead of using violent revolution to achieve the monopoly, the robber baron revolutionary vanguard uses cut throat capitalism inspired by right wing libertarian economics. The revolution has four steps.

Step 1-Deregulation-Dregulate the entire economy in the fashion of Milton Friedman. This will allow a new class of robber barons to arise.

Step 2-The Party- Create a click of robber barons who are actually a benevolent vanguard that have long term interest of the workers at heart. The robber barons will learn how to become the most ruthless capitalists around. They will be completely unscrupulous in their methodology just as the Leninist revolutionaries were in their terrorism and coups, and just as the robber barons were in their monopolizing of industry. After all, why not? The means justify the ends don’t they? Exploitation today so we can have equality tomorrow! That will be their slogan.

Step3 Monopolization – Each Robber baron is assigned to monopolize a specific sector of the economy. For instance; energy, entertainment, or transportation. As for the proletariat, they need not worry. The interests of the entrepreneurial party and workers is the same!

Step 4 The glorious peoples revolution- once the robber baron revolutionaries have achieved their monopolies, they will then hand the means of production over to the workers. Or at least that’s how it’s supposed to go…

If you didn’t get the joke;

The fascists and Leninists of the 20th century had the same motivation as the capitalists of the 19th century; to monopolize the means of production. The only difference is their methodology and the ways in which they chose to gain popular support.

The robber barons used the market, and then justified their actions by philanthropy. “Look at the good we do by giving back to the community.” Or “We gave you all jobs! You should be great full for your slavery!” Rockefeller was a good guy right? His charity has given more money to the poor and cured more diseases than any other charity on the planet! Right!? So don’t pay attention to the bad stuff.

The fascists and communists used guns and bombs, and then justified their actions with ideology. “Lokk at all the good we’ve done for the proletariat/nation.” Or “Look at all the material progress we have created, you should be great full for your slavery!” Leninism industrialized a backwards country like Russia in just a few decades. Mussolini made the trains run on time! Don’t pay attention to the famines and imperialism, you nitwit class traitor.

In the end, there is no difference between capitalist monopolies, authoritarian communist monopolies, or fascist monopolies. The poor do all the work, the rich get fat off their labor. Hierarchy dominates everyone except for those at the top, and flimsy ideology is used to control the minds of the people. One is the dictatorship of the entrepreneur, one is the dictatorship of the intellectual, and another the dictatorship of the soldier. In all three scenarios the workers remain in their place, subordinated to the ruling class.

The duality of private gun ownership

I’ll keep this short. I count myself among the defenders of private gun ownership, because I am an anarchist and I see utility in having a population that can challenge the state monopoly on violence if needed. Despite this, I am highly critical of right wing gun culture and it’s simple manichean narratives that cast those who support private ownership as the defenders of liberty and those who oppose private ownership as mad tyrants. Guns are tools. They’re not magic wands, and they don’t inherently signify anything about one’s feelings towards liberty.

The idea that mass private ownership of fire arms could potentially be a bulwark against tyranny is valid, but not without some caveats. It’s easy enough to understand the simple logic of “if the people are well armed then they can fight off tyrants.” I often think of anarchist resistance to Franco in the Spanish Civil War and how a well armed peasantry and proletariat might have been a deciding factor in the struggle. Spanish peasants and workers often didn’t have access to private firearms. They had to break into state armories to aquire weapons, and these weapons were often old, out dated, and poorly maintained. What if they had been as well armed as the North American population is today albeit with weapons of the time? Perhaps they wouldn’t have had to rely as much on weapons from Stalin, and maybe his goons wouldn’t have been in a position to stab them in the back as a result. We’ll never know.

The flip side that people need to consider is that private fire arms can also be used to establish tyranny. What if a majority of gun owners support a mad man hell bent on personal dictatorship? What if the majority of gun owners in Spain were supporters of Franco? What if the rich are the only people who can afford decent weapons? Sadly this was the case. The rich fascists were indeed the most likely group to be well armed in Spain, because they were on average the most wealthy and well connected. This is the dark side of private fire arms that not many of us want to broach.

Now, to be clear, I am not making an argument against private ownership. I am in favor. However, we all need to understand the duality of an armed population if we are going to be an armed population. Education is the first bulwark against tyranny. If people understand how to spot a tyrant they will be less likely to follow one. Social equality is the second. If everyone is taken care of, we won’t have a desperate mass willing to sacrifice their freedom for bread. A culture of non domination is the third. If people are socialized to have an anti authoritarian bias they will find authority repugnant. Horizontal institutions are the fourth. If we have federalism, direct democracy and free association then there won’t be a central node of power which can be used to subordinate the masses. The abolition of the state is a must if we truly want to avoid tyranny. Guns, however, are dead last. Guns are for when everything else has failed.

Unfortunately, “the people” are not always the good guys. The people could be progressive working class libertarian socialists, or they could be reactionaries, racists, and totalitarians. Unfortunately, I think we’re trending towards the latter rather than the former these days. A big factor is a simple formula people run through their minds. The formula goes like this;

Pro gun = anti tyranny, anti gun = pro tyranny, therefore the most pro gun voice is the most anti tyranny voice.

From this point of view anyone can be conned into following an authoritarian, while paradoxically believing they are on the side of liberty.

This logic is baked into the American consciousness. The narrative goes that “we’re a revolutionary country and we used our private rifle stockpiles to fight off the tyrannical monarchy.” So, anyone who wants to overthrow the government is just doing 1776 all over again, right? But if guns can be used to knock down authoritarian regimes, can they not also be used to set them up? What if that pro gun leader you’re following has you fooled? What if the obnoxious anti gun liberal is in other ways, more libertarian even if not on that one issue? After all, Mao famously said; power comes at the barrel of a gun. This was not an anti gun quote either, as some have bizarrely claimed. Mao was a guerrilla warlord who established a totalitarian state, and he did it by convincing legions of peasants to follow him by promising land and liberty. Of course after they used their guns to defeat the enemy, they then used their guns to establish a monopoly on violence.

White supremacists have a similar formula for taking power;

Step one- talk about using the gun to protect freedom.

Step two- trick people into using the gun to establish a dictatorship.

The famous white supremacist novel “The Turner Diaries” depicts a “revolution” which is kicked off by a liberal seizure of guns. In the book, the white supremacists use terrorism in order to goad the liberal state into confiscating assault rifles. The white supremacist revolutionaries then lead a revolution. What does their revolution look like? Well, they hang every black person, jew, and liberal from a street post. Not very much on the side of liberty were they? But they sure did love their guns! In this book they used the foolishness of white American gun culture to initiate their totalitarian race war. Today this book forms the basic blue print for the strategy of every right wing mass shooter in America.

The thing is, one’s position on gun ownership is not really a good litmus test for detecting be tyrants. A tyrant might very well at least initially be very supportive of private firearm ownership before they have consolidated power. Especially if they are attempting to subvert a democracy. This is because they can use their followers as a private army. Meanwhile, perhaps the democrat railing about the evil of guns might be a better friend of liberty, even if they are extremely misguided on this one subject.

Consider a boiler plate liberal president. They ban assault rifles, but nominally support unions, gay marriage, the legalization of Marijuana, separation of church and state, easy emigration/immigration, and abortion. Now consider a theocratic president that was a proponent of private fire arms and told his followers to destroy democracy with their fire arms. After doing so, this hypothetical leader then bans abortion, bans emigration and immigration (trapping you there), institutes the death penalty for the sale of Marijuana, and jails union organizers, outlaws homo sexuality of any kind, establishes Christianity as the official state religion. Which scenario gives the individual greater autonomy? It should be obvious.

To be clear, I do not support the prohibition of assault rifles, or private ownership. I do not support the democratic party either. I am merely debunking the idea that anyone who supports the prohibition must be a tyrant, and that anyone who is against is on the side of liberty. This is a simple narrative that has led many astray. Authoritarianism is a spectrum. A person can be an authoritarian in one way, and a libertarian in another. This is the case for most people. For instance, people will often support the legalization of weed, while simultaneously believing we should shoot every heroin dealer in the head without a trial. Or they might be highly critical of state violence committed by ICE, but totally fine with police using violence against tenants on a regular basis. Humans are complex and paradoxical, we are not always the rational animals we believe ourselves to be.

Next time your leader asks you to break out your rifle. Ask them, why? Look deeper than this one issue. Part of being a gun owner is respecting and acknowledging the potential misuse of weapons. Part of being a libertarian of any kind is thinking critically about how any institution can be used to affect individual autonomy in both positive and negative ways. We don’t want to inadvertently get sucked into doing the bidding of a statist, especially not when we’re doing it at the end of gun.