The rehabilitation of fascism in post-Soviet Ukraine

By Dmytriy Kovalevich

The first attempt to rehabilitate Ukrainian OUN/UPA fascists we repelled yet in late Soviet Union in late 1980s - Gorbachev’s period. 

The next mass information campaign to whitewash and rehabilitate them was in early 1990s - Ukrainian leadership invited that time a lot of former fascists from Canadian diaspora to lead the information campaign. 

The next their campaign started in late 1990s - nearly all our government and commercial media stubbornly promoted and whitewashed the Ukrainian fascists, condemning the Red Ukrainians. However, that attempt was repelled too.

The next serious attempt started in 2004-2005 with ‘Orange revolution’ supported by pro-UPA nationalist factions. The period ended with posthumous awarding the leader of Ukrainian fascists S.Bandera with the title of ‘Hero of Ukraine’. That’s actually why V. Yanukovich, a corrupt crook, won in the next elections - he promised to revoke that notorious decision. And actually did it.

However, he continued to flirt tacitly with pro-fascist faction and Canadian diaspora too, therefore, he didn’t have a mass support during the Maidan coup in 2014 - which was also the next attempt to rehabilitate pro-fascist faction.
That’s the victory of pro-OUN/UPA faction mobilized Crimeans to secede from Ukraine. And the next attempt to rehabilitate Ukrainian fascists led also to the civil conflict in Donbas which still lasts.

Some our people, who used to infiltrate into pro-fascist groups and Canadian diaspora, reported to us that they had a long term strategy, aimed at total rehabilitation Ukrainian OUN/UPA fascists. Reportedly, they said in 1990s: “Twenty years woul pass and the current pro-Soviet generation dies out at last”. But they say it even now, facing mass resistance. 

The picture: today’s antifascist resistance’s poster in Odessa, that says:
“Beat the Banderites [OUN/UPA fascists] - revenge for the people’s grief!” 

Ukrainian fascists of OUN/UPA are stubborn, but we’re not less stubborn.

“In the first denials of Protestantism, for example, the anarchic yearnings of communism were already implicit. While Luther was, from the viewpoint of his explicit formulations, no more than Luther, all the tendencies, state of soul, and imponderables of the Lutheran explosion already bore within them, authentically and fully, even though implicitly, the spirit of Voltaire and Robespierre and of Marx and Lenin.” (Plinio Correa de Oliveira)

The struggle between those who possess social power and those who do not, between freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guildmaster and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed is a war fought with many and varied weapons. Of highest importance are ideas, weapons in an ideological warfare by which every class struggling to maintain its grip on the world tries to justify its position morally and rationally, while those fighting to overturn the social order produce their own self-justificatory ideology as a counter-weapon.

If the revolution succeeds, that revolutionary ideology becomes transformed into a weapon of consolidation and conservation whereby yet further revolutionary challenges to the new dominant class can be resisted. Nothing better illustrates the historical progression of such ideological weapons than the revolution that created the twentieth century market-industrial society.

The society of Europe before the seventeenth century (with the exception of certain mercantile Italian republics) was characterized by a static, aristocratic scheme of relations in which both peasants and landowners were bound to each other and to the land and in which changes in the social positions of individuals were exceedingly rare. Persons were said to owe their position in the world to the grace of God or to the grace of earthly lords. Even kings ruled Deo gratia, and changes in position could only occur by exceptional conferrals or withdrawals of divine or royal grace. But this rigid hierarchy directly obstructed the expansion of both mercantile and manufacturing interests who required access to political and economic power based on their entrepreneurial activities rather than on noble birth.

Moreover, the inalienability of land and the traditional guarantee of access to common land inhibited the rapid expansion of primary production and also maintained a scarcity of labor for manufactories. In Britain, the Acts of Enclosure of the eighteenth century broke this rigid system by allowing landlords to enclose land for wool production and simultaneously displacing tenants, who then became the landless industrial workforce of the cities.

At the same time in France, the old ‘nobility of the sword’ was being challenged by the administrative and legal hierarchy who became the'nobility of the robe’ and by the rich commoners of banking and finance. The bourgeois revolution was brewing, a revolution that was to break assunder the static feudal-aristocratic bonds and create instead an entrepreneurial society in which labor and money could more freely adapt to the demands of a rising commercial and industrial middle class.

But the bourgeois revolution required an ideology justifying the assault on the old order and providing the moral and intellectual underpinnings of the new. This was the ideology of freedom, of individuality, of works as opposed to grace, and of equality and the inalienable rights to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ Paine, Jefferson, Diderot, and the Encyclopedists were the ideologues of the revolution, and one theme comes through in their writings: the old order was characterized by artificial hierarchies and artificial barriers to human desire and ambitions and those artificial barriers must be destroyed so that each person can take his or her natural place in society, according to his or her desire and ability.

This is the origin of the idea of the 'equal opportunity society’ in which we now supposedly live.
Yet the bourgeois revolution that destroyed those artificial barriers seems not to have dispensed with inequality of station. There are still rich and poor, powerful and weak, both within and between nations.

How is this to be explained? We might suppose that the inequalities are structural, that the society created by the revolution has inequality built into it and even depends upon that inequality for its operation. But that supposition, if taken seriously, would engender yet another revolution. The alternative is to claim that inequalities reside in properties of individuals rather than in the structure of social relations. This is the claim that our society has produced about as much equality as is humanly possible and that the remaining differences in status and wealth and power are the inevitable manifestations of natural inequalities in individual abilities.

It is this latter claim that has been incorporated from an early stage into the ideology of the bourgeois revolution and that remains the dominant ideology of market industrial societies today. Such a view does not threaten the status quo but, on the contrary, supports it by telling those who are without power that their position is the inevitable outcome of their own innate deficiencies and that, therefore, nothing can be done about it.

—  Richard Lewontin

“For two decades the supporters of Bolshevism have been hammering it into the masses that dictatorship is a vital necessity for the defense of the so-called proletarian interests against the assaults of counter-revolution and for paving the way for Socialism. They have not advanced the cause of Socialism by this propaganda, but have merely smoothed the way for Fascism in Italy, Germany and Austria by causing millions of people to forget that dictatorship, the most extreme form of tyranny, can never lead to social liberation. In Russia, the so-called dictatorship of the proletariat has not led to Socialism, but to the domination of a new bureaucracy over the proletariat and the whole people. …
What the Russian autocrats and their supporters fear most is that the success of libertarian Socialism in Spain might prove to their blind followers that the much vaunted "necessity of dictatorship” is nothing but one vast fraud which in Russia has led to the despotism of Stalin and is to serve today in Spain to help the counter-revolution to a victory over the revolution of the workers and the peasants.“
- Rudolf Rocker, The Tragedy of Spain (1937)

bael-bard  asked:

What do you think about "There are no lemon trees Braavos" theory? Especially about the one that claims that house with the red door was actually in water garden. If Dany is destined to burn Water Gardens, that would give it more emotional weight. I also feel like it makes sense. Separating princes is smart, and Dorne was the biggest Targaryen ally.

Sorry, it’s a garbage fire. Allow me to count the ways.

1) “Trees did not grow on Braavos, save in the courts and gardens of the mighty.” Which is precisely where li’l Dany was living. 

2) There’s no indication that Dany and Viserys were ever separated. 

3) I see no reason for Viserys to later lie to Dany about where the house with the red door was.  

4) Unless you plan on launching the counter-revolution immediately, exile actually makes a lot more sense than squirreling yourself away somewhere in Westeros. 

5) Doran Martell is a hyper-cautious man, even as he gradually advances his plans. He was willing to send Arianne to Tyrosh to meet Viserys, in secret, under the guise of fosterage. It would be entirely OOC for him to have hosted Dany and Viserys in Dorne. 

6) And even if he did, why then send them away? Why give control of them over to Illyrio? It’s pretty clear that Varys and Illyrio aren’t in league with the Martells, after all. (Not yet.) 

7) Why wouldn’t Doran tell Quentyn this? It would’ve been such a helpful revelation for him to spring on Dany: I’m here to bring you back to your childhood home. We kept you safe, now we’re ready to help you win your birthright.

I’m sure there are more reasons that I’m forgetting, but that’s plenty. Like I said about the whole Mance = Arthur Dayne thing, this is inventing a mystery where there is none and solving it with nonsense. 

Lenin Arrives in Petrograd

Lenin’s arrival at the Finland Station, in a Stalin-era painting.  Note how Stalin is pictured above Lenin; he was not actually present, and in fact was not overly impressed by Lenin’s April Theses.

April 16 1917, Petrograd–After a long journey via Germany, the Baltic, Sweden, and Finland (then part of Russia), Lenin arrived by train in Petrograd shortly before midnight on April 16.  This happened to coincide with the last day of the All-Russian Bolshevik Conference, and they gave him a grand welcome at the train station, along with representatives of the Petrograd Soviet.  A band struck up the Marseillaise (not Lenin’s preferred Internationale) as revolutionary sailors stood at attention.

Lenin was not expecting this sort of reception, and gave a short impromptu speech in the waiting room of the station.  His fellow Bolsheviks soon escorted him outside the station, to an armored car that was to lead a procession to the conference.  Lenin went up onto the turret of the armored car, silhouetted by a electric light, and started an impassioned speech that continued as the armored car went along the streets of Petrograd.  The speech’s text is unknown; here is a short selection from his speech in the waiting room:

Any day now the whole of European capitalism may crash.  The Russian revolution accomplished by you has prepared the way and opened a new epoch.  Long live the worldwide socialist revolution!

At the meeting of the Bolsheviks that night, Lenin delivered a ninety-minute speech in a similar vein, starting at two in the morning.  He was convinced that the “second stage” of the revolution, in which the proletariat would take power.  He called for an immediate end to the war, and to not negotiate with the other liberal or socialist parties that merely called for a war without annexation.  “To demand of a government of capitalists that it should renounce annexations is a nonsense, a crying mockery.”  

The speech was not received well; most thought that Lenin’s urging for a continued revolution (even if he did acknowledge some patience might be required) were ill-thought-out at best.  Lenin had not been in the country for years, had not been present in February; even so, they thought, he still must have known that Russia was not ready for such a drastic step, which would only lead to reaction and counter-revolution.  Lenin recognized this attitude as his speech was winding down, and concluded: “You comrades have a trusting attitude to the government.  If that is so, our paths diverge.  I prefer to remain in a minority.” Lenin crystallized these thoughts in a short treatise, his April Theses, which were published in Pravda, after some delay, and with a note explaining that it did not represent the view of the rest of Petrograd’s Bolsheviks.

Earlier Today:  The Nivelle Offensive

Sources include: Richard Pipes, The Russian Revolution; Catherine Meridale, Lenin on the Train.

Lenin, being a consistent Marxist and consequently a reactionary, wrote together with Plekhanov in the ‘Iskra’ that 'the Proletariat cannot and should not concern itself with federalism.’ If he had come out in 1917 with the ideas of the 'Communist Manifesto,’ developing them with as much energy as he showed in developing the ideas that were contrary to the 'Manifesto,’ he would have never attained success, and like Tkachev, the Jacobine, he would have remained a rather inconspicuous figure throughout the revolution. Lenin realized it only too well, and that is why he developed and popularized not the ideas of the 'Communist Manifesto’ but those of the 'Civil War in France.’ The ideas set forth by Marx in the latter pamphlet are in full contradiction to his previous as well as subsequent writings.
The pamphlet was written under the pressure of the 1871 events in Paris and the prevailing spirit of the First International which threatened Marx with the loss of influence. By making concessions to Anarchist tendencies, Marx aimed to remove the growing dissatisfaction with his policies and to check the growing influence of the Federalists and Bakuninists in the First International. Had Marx not done it, had he based his pamphlet 'The Civil War in France’ upon the ideas of the 'Communist Manifesto,’ he would have been cast aside and would have ended his days in the remote by-ways of the course of socialism and the revolutionary labor movement.
—  Gregori Maximov, “The Guillotine at Work: The Leninist Counter-Revolution”

Excerpts from an interview with Assata Shakur in Cuba in 1997:

Sociologist Christian Parenti: How did you arrive in Cuba?

Assata Shakur: Well, I couldn’t, you know, just write a letter and say, “Dear Fidel, I’d like to come to your country.” So I had to hoof it–come and wait for the Cubans to respond. Luckily, they had some idea who I was, they’d seen some of the briefs and U.N. petitions from when I was a political prisoner. So they were somewhat familiar with my case and they gave me the status of being a political refugee. That means I am here in exile as a political person.

Parenti: How did you feel when you got here?

Shakur: I was really overwhelmed. Even though I considered myself a socialist, I had these insane, silly notions about Cuba. I mean, I grew up in the 1950s when little kids were hiding under their desks, because “the communists were coming.” So even though I was very supportive of the revolution, I expected everyone to go around in green fatigues looking like Fidel, speaking in a very stereotypical way, “the revolution must continue, Companero. Let us triumph, Comrade.” When I got here people were just people, doing what they had where I came from. It’s a country with a strong sense of community. Unlike the U.S., folks aren’t so isolated. People are really into other people. Also, I didn’t know there were all these black people here and that there was this whole Afro-Cuban culture. My image of Cuba was Che Guevara and Fidel Castro. I hadn’t heard of Antonio Maceo (a hero of the Cuban war of independence) and other Africans who had played a role in Cuban history.The lack of brand names and consumerism also really hit me. You go into a store and there would be a bag of “rice.” It undermined what I had taken for granted in the absurd zone where people are like, “Hey, I only eat uncle so and so’s brand of rice.”

Parenti: So, how were you greeted by the Cuban state?

Shakur: They’ve treated me very well. It was different from what I expected; I thought they might be pushy. But they were more interested in what I wanted to do, in my projects. I told them that the most important things were to unite with my daughter and to write a book. They said, “What do you need to do that?” They were also interested in my vision of the struggle of African people in the United States. I was so impressed by that. Because I grew up–so to speak–in the movement dealing with white leftists who were very bossy and wanted to tell us what to do and thought they knew everything. The Cuban attitude was one of solidarity with respect. It was a profound lesson in cooperation.

Parenti: Did they introduce you to people or guide you around for a while?

Shakur: They gave me a dictionary, an apartment, took me to some historical places, and then I was pretty much on my own. My daughter came down, after prolonged harassment and being denied a passport, and she became my number one priority. We discovered Cuban schools together, we did the sixth grade together, explored parks, and the beach.

Parenti: She was taken from you at birth, right?

Shakur: Yeah. It’s not like Cuba where you get to breast feed in prison and where they work closely with the family. Some mothers in the U.S. never get to see their newborns. I was with my daughter for a week before they sent me back to prison. That was one of the most difficult periods of my life, that separation. It’s only been recently that I’ve been able to talk about it. I had to just block it out, otherwise I think I might have gone insane. In 1979, when I escaped, she was only five years old.

Parenti: You came to Cuba how soon after?

Shakur: Five years later, in 1984.

Parenti: You’ve talked about adjusting to Cuba, but could you talk a bit about adjusting to exile.

Shakur: Well, for me exile means separation from people I love. I didn’t, and don’t miss the U.S., per se. But black culture, black life in the U.S., that African American flavor, I definitely miss. The language, the movements, the style, I get nostalgic about that. Adjusting to exile is coming to grips with the fact that you may never go back to where you come from. The way I dealt with that, psychologically, was thinking about slavery. You know, a slave had to come to grips with the fact that “I may never see Africa again.” Then a maroon, a runaway slave, has to–even in the act of freedom–adjust to the fact that being free or struggling for freedom means, “I’ll be separated from people I love.” So I drew on that and people like Harriet Tubman and all those people who got away from slavery. Because, that’s what prison looked like. It looked like slavery. It felt like slavery. It was black people and people of color in chains. And the way I got there was slavery. If you stand up and say “I don’t go for the status quo.” Then “we got something for you, it’s a whip, a chain, a cell.” Even in being free it was like, “I am free but now what?” There was a lot to get used to. Living in a society committed to social justice, a Third World country with a lot of problems. It took a while to understand all that Cubans are up against and fully appreciate all they are trying to do.

Parenti: Did the Africanness of Cuba help, did that provide solace?

Shakur: The first thing that was comforting was the politics. It was such a relief. You know, in the States you feel overwhelmed by the negative messages that you get and you feel weird, like you’re the only one seeing all this pain and inequality. People are saying, “Forget about that, just try to get rich, dog eat dog, get your own, buy, spend, consume.” So living here was an affirmation of myself, it was like “Okay, there are lots of people who get outraged at injustice.” The African culture I discovered later. At first I was learning the politics, about socialism–what it feels like to live in a country where everything is owned by the people, where health care and medicine are free. Then I started to learn about the Afro-Cuban religions, the Santaria, Palo Monte, the Abakua. I wanted to understand the ceremonies and the philosophy. I really came to grips with how much we–black people in the U.S.–were robbed of. Here, they still know rituals preserved from slavery times. It was like finding another piece of myself. I had to find an African name. I’m still looking for pieces of that Africa I was torn from. I’ve found it here in all aspects of the culture. There is a tendency to reduce the Africanness of Cuba to the Santaria. But it’s in the literature, the language, the politics.

Parenti: When the USSR collapsed, did you worry about a counter-revolution in Cuba, and by extension, your own safety?

Shakur: Of course, I would have to have been nuts not to worry. People would come down here from the States and say, “How long do you think the revolution has–two months, three months? Do you think the revolution will survive? You better get out of here.” It was rough. Cubans were complaining every day, which is totally sane. I mean, who wouldn’t? The food situation was really bad, much worse than now, no transportation, eight-hour blackouts. We would sit in the dark and wonder, “How much can people take?” I’ve been to prison and lived in the States, so I can take damn near anything. I felt I could survive whatever–anything except U.S. imperialism coming in and taking control. That’s the one thing I couldn’t survive. Luckily, a lot of Cubans felt the same way. It took a lot for people to pull through, waiting hours for the bus before work. It wasn’t easy. But this isn’t a superficial, imposed revolution. This is one of those gut revolutions. One of those blood, sweat and tears revolutions. This is one of those revolutions where people are like, “We ain’t going back onto the plantation, period. We don’t care if you’re Uncle Sam, we don’t care about your guided missiles, about your filthy, dirty CIA maneuvers. We’re this island of 11 million people and we’re gonna live the way we want and if you don’t like it, go take a ride.” Of course, not everyone feels like that, but enough do.

Parenti: What about race and racism in Cuba?

Shakur: That’s a big question. The revolution has only been around thirty-something years. It would be fantasy to believe that the Cubans could have completely gotten rid of racism in that short a time. Socialism is not a magic wand: wave it and everything changes.

Parenti: Can you be more specific about the successes and failures along these lines?

Shakur: I can’t think of any area of the country that is segregated. Another example, the Third Congress of the Cuban Communist Party was focused on making party leadership reflect the actual number of people of color and women in the country. Unfortunately by the time the Fourth Congress rolled around the whole focus had to be on the survival of the revolution. When the Soviet Union and the socialist camp collapsed, Cuba lost something like 8.5% of its income. It’s a process, but I honestly think that there’s room for a lot of changes throughout the culture. Some people still talk about “good hair” and “bad hair.” Some people think light skin is good, that if you marry a light person you’re advancing the race. There are a lot of contradictions in people’s consciousness. There still needs to be de-eurocentrizing in the schools, though Cuba is further along with that than most places in the world, In fairness, I think that race relations in Cuba are twenty times better than they are in the States, and I believe the revolution is committed to eliminating racism completely. I also feel that tine special period has changed conditions in Cuba. It’s brought in lots of white tourists, many of whom are racists and expect to be waited on subserviently. Another thing is the joint venture corporations which bring their racist ideas and racist corporate practices, for example not hiring enough blacks. Ali of that means the revolution has to be more vigilant than ever in identifying and dealing with racism.

Parenti: A charge one hears, even on the left, is that institutional racism still exists in Cuba. Is that true? Does one find racist patterns in allocation o/housing, work, or the functions of criminal justice?

Shakur: No. I don’t think institutional racism, as such, exists in Cuba. But at the same time, people have their personal prejudices. Obviously these people, with these personal prejudices, must work somewhere, and must have some influence on the institutions they work in. But I think it’s superficial to say racism is institutionalized in Cuba. I believe that there needs to be a constant campaign to educate people, sensitize people, and analyze racism. The fight against racism always has two levels; the level of politics and policy but also the level tof individual consciousness. One of the things that influences ideas about race in Cuba is that the revolution happened in 1959, when the world had a very limited understanding of what racism was. During the 1960s, the world saw the black power movement, which I, for one, very much benefited from. You know “black is beautiful,” exploring African art, literature, and culture. That process didn’t really happen in Cubar. Over the years, the revolution accomplished so much that most people thought that meant the end of racism. For example, I’d say that more than 90% of black people with college degrees were able to do so because of the revolution. They were in a different historical place. The emphasis, for very good reasons, was on black-white unity and the survival of the revolution. So it’s only now that people in the universities are looking into the politics of identity.

Parenti: Are you still a revolutionary?

Shakur: I am still a revolutionary, because I believe that in the United States there needs to be a complete and profound change in the system of so-called democracy. It’s really a “dollarocracy.” Which millionaire is going to get elected? Can you imagine if you went to a restaurant and the only thing on the menu was dried turd or dead fungus. That’s not appetizing. I feel the same way about the political spectrum in the U.S. What exists now has got to go. All of it: how wealth is distributed, how the environment is treated. If you let these crazy politicians keep ruling, the planet will be destroyed.

Parenti: In the 1960s, organizations you worked with advocated armed self-defense. How do you think social change can best be achieved in the States today?

Shakur: I still believe in self-defense and self-determination for Africans and other oppressed people in America. I believe in peace, but I think it’s totally immoral to brutalize and oppress people, to commit genocide against people, and then tell them they don’t have the right to free themselves in whatever way they deem necessary. But right now the most important thing is consciousness raising. Making social change and social justice means people have to be more conscious across the board, inside and outside the movement, not only around race, but around class, sexism, the ecology, whatever. The methods of 1917, standing on a comer with leaflets, standing next to someone saying “Workers of the world unite” won’t work. We need to use alternative means of communication. The old ways of attaining consciousness aren’t going to work. The little Leninist study groups won’t do it. We need to use video, audio, the Internet. We also need to work on the basics of rebuilding community. How are you going to organized or liberate your community if you don’t have one? I live in Cuba, right? We get U.S. movies here, and I am sick of the monsters; it’s the tyranny of the monsters. Every other movie is fear and monsters. They’ve even got monster babies. People are expected to live in this world of alienation and tear. I hear that in the States people are even afraid to make eye contact in the streets. No social change can happen if people are that isolated. So we need to rebuild a sense of community and that means knocking on doors and reconnecting.

The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America

External image
 by Gerald Horne 

The successful 1776 revolt against British rule in North America has been hailed almost universally as a great step forward for humanity. But the Africans then residing in the colonies overwhelmingly sided with London. In this trailblazing book, Gerald Horne complements his earlier celebrated Negro Comrades of the Crown

External image
, by showing that in the prelude to 1776, the abolition of slavery seemed all but inevitable in London, delighting Africans as much as it outraged slaveholders, and sparking the colonial revolt.  

The so-called Revolutionary War, Horne writes, was in large part a counter-revolution, a conservative movement that the founding fathers fought in order to preserve their liberty to enslave others—and which today takes the form of a racialized conservatism and a persistent racism targeting the descendants of the enslaved. The Counter-Revolution of 1776 drives us to a radical new understanding of the traditional heroic creation myth of the United States.

[book link

External image

anonymous asked:

Your last post about merging Marxism and anarchism proves you're really just Liberal Daily Reminders. You need to concentrate power into the vanguard at various points after a socialist revolution so that counter-revolution can't happen. There needs to be unity of purpose against liberalism and you can't get that by allowing sectarianism and free reign by anarchists.

То, что я должен сказать
Александр Вертинский

“What I have to say” is one of the most famous russian anti-war song written in 1917 by Alexander Vertinsky.  

According to Vertinsky, it was dedicated to the junkers died during October Revolution in Moscow. Because of it Vertinsky even had some troubles with Cheka (the organization combating with Counter-Revolution and Sabotage). “What I have to say” has a very tragic verses: young soldiers’ deaths are meaningless, because “in the bletcherous country even bright deeds are just steps in endless precipices to inaccessible spring”,

This song was relevant in different epochs: it was performed during Soviet war in Afghanistan and Chechen-Russian conflict by different singers (including Boris Grebenshchikov). Now it becomes actual again.

while Trump and Obama met in DC to discuss the peaceful transfer of power, Palmer and DiFranco held their own meeting in NY to discuss a peaceful revolution to counter-attack the hatred, bigotry and intolerance of this man at any cost.

so many loved ones are truly afraid right now for their safety, their literal healthcare, their futures. people are mobilizing. the NYCLU came onto stage last night with me and explained exactly what is at stake for many of our civil liberties (and if you’re a woman or a minority, things are not looking up).

my friends : forces are aligning, a massive movement of all of us who stand for peace and progress and inclusion is being lit into action, and we will be calling for you.

we will need you. this is not a drill.

love will trump hate, and it’s not just words. we are organizing the details, because this battle will be long and hard.

stand up, hands up, to be counted among the resistance.

let’s go.

recently read

America’s Great Depression by Murray Rothbard
Lots of stats, facts, figures, names, dates, etc. It’s good if you’re writing a research paper but it’s not entertaining to read and the basic argument could be gleaned by reading just the last chapter. Do not recommend. 

America’s Counter-Revolution: The Constitution Revisited by Sheldon Richman
Richman adapted a bunch of short op-ed sized articles from his The Goal is Freedom column into this punchy book packed with interesting history and libertarian arguments. Richman argues persuasively that the Constitution was and is not a pro-liberty document and that libertarians should not only not support it, but recognize it as the result of a conservative counter-revolution which effectively undid the American Revolution and created Big Government in America. Highly recommend.

anonymous asked:

What's wrong with ancomism

Theres a lot I could say about ancomism, but basically my problem with ancoms is the same as my problem with anarchism in general: its criticism of society (idealist, utopian, and increasingly just straight up petit-bourgeois) fails to connect the mode of production with political practice of the masses. Anarchists have been fringe among socialists for this reason. I see anarchists as idealist principally because their theory explains their political stances and organizational practice with definitions based on properties of things, ideally, and not on the material position of those things in relation to class society. Because of this, anarchists see their organizing as anti-state, when in fact it creates a state (because a state is not defined by hierarchy or centralization (nor are they large factors in the function of states historically) but as an institution based on class rule and on the reproduction of capitalist relations). This idealism leads to utopianism, which is apparent in anarchist critiques of the dictatorship of the proletariat and in their defenses of anarchist states (catalonia, UFT, etc.). Modern popular trends of anarchism (post-left, insurrectionist, anti-civ, egoism) further fall into utopianism and idealism in theory and and petit-bourgeois counter-revolution in practice. They all further abstract an already abstract philosophy, and contribute nothing to actual political activity outside of their immediate circles.