Bölümler

  • Full text https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/james-guillaume-ideas-on-social-organization


    A pamphlet written by James Guillaume in the 1870's attempting to sketch out and explain how society will transition from a class based society to a classless one during a revolution.
    Notes on Ideas on Social Organization
    by The Anarchist Spectacle :
    These notes are meant to be read after reading Ideas on Social Organization by James Guillaume. They add a 21st century refinement to his ideas for a future society.
    1. By corporation, Guillaume means the equivilent to an industrial union. The word had a different meaning at the time than it does today.
    2. By exchange, Guillaume means the transfer of goods from one actor to another. By buying, Guillaume means the subtraction of a worker's labour vouchers for the good that the worker wants.
    3. By selling, Guillaume means the swapping of the producers goods or the giving of a service by the service provider in exchange for labour vouchers.
    4. Guillaume says that the system of labour vouchers will gradually transition into a system where goods are given purely on the basis of need or desire. This transition will happen as the good is no longer in need of any form of rationioning.
    5. The purpose of the labour vouchers is not to maintain renumeration or a currency system, but instead as a rationing mechanism for goods that are not abundant enough to be given out without regulation.
    6. In the context of the 21st century, the Communal Statistical Commission would simply be a computer program that connects to the different producer's collectives via the internet. It. would likely simply called the Communal Statistics Program. In the time of Guillaume, the lack of information age technology necessitated a human composed commision.
    7. In a similar fashion to the Communal Statistical Commision, the Bank of Exchange would have a drastically simplified mechanism in the 21st century. There would be no need to send delegates to convey estimated levels of economic demand. Workers at their various workplaces could simply use computers that are connected to the internet to convey their production levels. People in their homes would simply fill out a form on a computer on a regular basis to indicate their estimated consumption levels.
    8. Labour vouchers would certainly not be paper or physical in todays world. Instead we could store the worker's vouchers in a large distributed computer database that is connected via the internet. This way, we could leverage the technology that used by debit cards and simply have a worker swipe a card whenever they obtain a good or service.
    9. Once the scarcity of goods becomes low due to the advances in production from collectivization, the communes could simply have a combined voucher pool that each worker subtracts from when they take something. It would make sense to retain labour vouchers in this limited way, because of the enhancement of precision it would create for economic planning. The vouchers would evolve from being a rationing mechanism into a purely statistical device for economic planning.
    10. In the section on security, Guillaume talks about how there would be a "Communal Police" so to speak. He admits in the same sentence that the word has a bad connotation, but it seems likely he merely could not think of an alternative phrase. A better term would be the "Communal Safety Committee". As Guillaume states, all physically able people in the commune would participate in this Communal Safety Committee. It seems obvious to me that violent crimes would not be punished, but rather the perpetrator of the act would rehabilitated. Guillaume indicates this intention in the last sentence of the security section. "Criminals being an exception, they will be treated like the sick and the deranged; the problem of crime which today gives so many jobs to judges, jailers, and police will lose its social importance and become simply a chapter in medical history."
    11. Guillame uses exlusively masculine pronouns, but this is not due to a sexist attitude, but rather due to language and writing conventions of the 1870s. It should be noted that the usage of the masculine pronoun as gender neutral among anarchists was the norm until language began to be analyzed further by the anarchist movement in the 20th century. The same can be said of the terms "men" and "man", which refer accordingly to the terms "people", and "person".

  • Full text https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/james-guillaume-ideas-on-social-organization

    A pamphlet written by James Guillaume in the 1870's attempting to sketch out and explain how society will transition from a class based society to a classless one during a revolution.
    Notes on Ideas on Social Organization
    by The Anarchist Spectacle :
    These notes are meant to be read after reading Ideas on Social Organization by James Guillaume. They add a 21st century refinement to his ideas for a future society.
    1. By corporation, Guillaume means the equivilent to an industrial union. The word had a different meaning at the time than it does today.
    2. By exchange, Guillaume means the transfer of goods from one actor to another. By buying, Guillaume means the subtraction of a worker's labour vouchers for the good that the worker wants.
    3. By selling, Guillaume means the swapping of the producers goods or the giving of a service by the service provider in exchange for labour vouchers.
    4. Guillaume says that the system of labour vouchers will gradually transition into a system where goods are given purely on the basis of need or desire. This transition will happen as the good is no longer in need of any form of rationioning.
    5. The purpose of the labour vouchers is not to maintain renumeration or a currency system, but instead as a rationing mechanism for goods that are not abundant enough to be given out without regulation.
    6. In the context of the 21st century, the Communal Statistical Commission would simply be a computer program that connects to the different producer's collectives via the internet. It. would likely simply called the Communal Statistics Program. In the time of Guillaume, the lack of information age technology necessitated a human composed commision.
    7. In a similar fashion to the Communal Statistical Commision, the Bank of Exchange would have a drastically simplified mechanism in the 21st century. There would be no need to send delegates to convey estimated levels of economic demand. Workers at their various workplaces could simply use computers that are connected to the internet to convey their production levels. People in their homes would simply fill out a form on a computer on a regular basis to indicate their estimated consumption levels.
    8. Labour vouchers would certainly not be paper or physical in todays world. Instead we could store the worker's vouchers in a large distributed computer database that is connected via the internet. This way, we could leverage the technology that used by debit cards and simply have a worker swipe a card whenever they obtain a good or service.
    9. Once the scarcity of goods becomes low due to the advances in production from collectivization, the communes could simply have a combined voucher pool that each worker subtracts from when they take something. It would make sense to retain labour vouchers in this limited way, because of the enhancement of precision it would create for economic planning. The vouchers would evolve from being a rationing mechanism into a purely statistical device for economic planning.
    10. In the section on security, Guillaume talks about how there would be a "Communal Police" so to speak. He admits in the same sentence that the word has a bad connotation, but it seems likely he merely could not think of an alternative phrase. A better term would be the "Communal Safety Committee". As Guillaume states, all physically able people in the commune would participate in this Communal Safety Committee. It seems obvious to me that violent crimes would not be punished, but rather the perpetrator of the act would rehabilitated. Guillaume indicates this intention in the last sentence of the security section. "Criminals being an exception, they will be treated like the sick and the deranged; the problem of crime which today gives so many jobs to judges, jailers, and police will lose its social importance and become simply a chapter in medical history."
    11. Guillame uses exlusively masculine pronouns, but this is not due to a sexist attitude, but rather due to language and writing conventions of the 1870s. It should be noted that the usage of the masculine pronoun as gender neutral among anarchists was the norm until language began to be analyzed further by the anarchist movement in the 20th century. The same can be said of the terms "men" and "man", which refer accordingly to the terms "people", and "person".

  • Eksik bölüm mü var?

    Akışı yenilemek için buraya tıklayın.

  • Full text https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/james-guillaume-ideas-on-social-organization


    A pamphlet written by James Guillaume in the 1870's attempting to sketch out and explain how society will transition from a class based society to a classless one during a revolution.
    Notes on Ideas on Social Organization
    by The Anarchist Spectacle :
    These notes are meant to be read after reading Ideas on Social Organization by James Guillaume. They add a 21st century refinement to his ideas for a future society.
    1. By corporation, Guillaume means the equivilent to an industrial union. The word had a different meaning at the time than it does today.
    2. By exchange, Guillaume means the transfer of goods from one actor to another. By buying, Guillaume means the subtraction of a worker's labour vouchers for the good that the worker wants.
    3. By selling, Guillaume means the swapping of the producers goods or the giving of a service by the service provider in exchange for labour vouchers.
    4. Guillaume says that the system of labour vouchers will gradually transition into a system where goods are given purely on the basis of need or desire. This transition will happen as the good is no longer in need of any form of rationioning.
    5. The purpose of the labour vouchers is not to maintain renumeration or a currency system, but instead as a rationing mechanism for goods that are not abundant enough to be given out without regulation.
    6. In the context of the 21st century, the Communal Statistical Commission would simply be a computer program that connects to the different producer's collectives via the internet. It. would likely simply called the Communal Statistics Program. In the time of Guillaume, the lack of information age technology necessitated a human composed commision.
    7. In a similar fashion to the Communal Statistical Commision, the Bank of Exchange would have a drastically simplified mechanism in the 21st century. There would be no need to send delegates to convey estimated levels of economic demand. Workers at their various workplaces could simply use computers that are connected to the internet to convey their production levels. People in their homes would simply fill out a form on a computer on a regular basis to indicate their estimated consumption levels.
    8. Labour vouchers would certainly not be paper or physical in todays world. Instead we could store the worker's vouchers in a large distributed computer database that is connected via the internet. This way, we could leverage the technology that used by debit cards and simply have a worker swipe a card whenever they obtain a good or service.
    9. Once the scarcity of goods becomes low due to the advances in production from collectivization, the communes could simply have a combined voucher pool that each worker subtracts from when they take something. It would make sense to retain labour vouchers in this limited way, because of the enhancement of precision it would create for economic planning. The vouchers would evolve from being a rationing mechanism into a purely statistical device for economic planning.
    10. In the section on security, Guillaume talks about how there would be a "Communal Police" so to speak. He admits in the same sentence that the word has a bad connotation, but it seems likely he merely could not think of an alternative phrase. A better term would be the "Communal Safety Committee". As Guillaume states, all physically able people in the commune would participate in this Communal Safety Committee. It seems obvious to me that violent crimes would not be punished, but rather the perpetrator of the act would rehabilitated. Guillaume indicates this intention in the last sentence of the security section. "Criminals being an exception, they will be treated like the sick and the deranged; the problem of crime which today gives so many jobs to judges, jailers, and police will lose its social importance and become simply a chapter in medical history."
    11. Guillame uses exlusively masculine pronouns, but this is not due to a sexist attitude, but rather due to language and writing conventions of the 1870s. It should be noted that the usage of the masculine pronoun as gender neutral among anarchists was the norm until language began to be analyzed further by the anarchist movement in the 20th century. The same can be said of the terms "men" and "man", which refer accordingly to the terms "people", and "person".

  • Full text https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/james-guillaume-ideas-on-social-organization

    A pamphlet written by James Guillaume in the 1870's attempting to sketch out and explain how society will transition from a class based society to a classless one during a revolution.

    Notes on Ideas on Social Organization
    by The Anarchist Spectacle :

    These notes are meant to be read after reading Ideas on Social Organization by James Guillaume. They add a 21st century refinement to his ideas for a future society.


    1. By corporation, Guillaume means the equivilent to an industrial union. The word had a different meaning at the time than it does today.
    2. By exchange, Guillaume means the transfer of goods from one actor to another. By buying, Guillaume means the subtraction of a worker's labour vouchers for the good that the worker wants.
    3. By selling, Guillaume means the swapping of the producers goods or the giving of a service by the service provider in exchange for labour vouchers.
    4. Guillaume says that the system of labour vouchers will gradually transition into a system where goods are given purely on the basis of need or desire. This transition will happen as the good is no longer in need of any form of rationioning.
    5. The purpose of the labour vouchers is not to maintain renumeration or a currency system, but instead as a rationing mechanism for goods that are not abundant enough to be given out without regulation.
    6. In the context of the 21st century, the Communal Statistical Commission would simply be a computer program that connects to the different producer's collectives via the internet. It. would likely simply called the Communal Statistics Program. In the time of Guillaume, the lack of information age technology necessitated a human composed commision.
    7. In a similar fashion to the Communal Statistical Commision, the Bank of Exchange would have a drastically simplified mechanism in the 21st century. There would be no need to send delegates to convey estimated levels of economic demand. Workers at their various workplaces could simply use computers that are connected to the internet to convey their production levels. People in their homes would simply fill out a form on a computer on a regular basis to indicate their estimated consumption levels.
    8. Labour vouchers would certainly not be paper or physical in todays world. Instead we could store the worker's vouchers in a large distributed computer database that is connected via the internet. This way, we could leverage the technology that used by debit cards and simply have a worker swipe a card whenever they obtain a good or service.
    9. Once the scarcity of goods becomes low due to the advances in production from collectivization, the communes could simply have a combined voucher pool that each worker subtracts from when they take something. It would make sense to retain labour vouchers in this limited way, because of the enhancement of precision it would create for economic planning. The vouchers would evolve from being a rationing mechanism into a purely statistical device for economic planning.
    10. In the section on security, Guillaume talks about how there would be a "Communal Police" so to speak. He admits in the same sentence that the word has a bad connotation, but it seems likely he merely could not think of an alternative phrase. A better term would be the "Communal Safety Committee". As Guillaume states, all physically able people in the commune would participate in this Communal Safety Committee. It seems obvious to me that violent crimes would not be punished, but rather the perpetrator of the act would rehabilitated. Guillaume indicates this intention in the last sentence of the security section. "Criminals being an exception, they will be treated like the sick and the deranged; the problem of crime which today gives so many jobs to judges, jailers, and police will lose its social importance and become simply a chapter in medical history."
    11. Guillame uses exlusively masculine pronouns, but this is not due to a sexist attitude, but rather due to language and writing conventions of the 1870s. It should be noted that the usage of the masculine pronoun as gender neutral among anarchists was the norm until language began to be analyzed further by the anarchist movement in the 20th century. The same can be said of the terms "men" and "man", which refer accordingly to the terms "people", and "person".

  • This short appeal was published by Alexander Berkman at a time when the United States of America was mobilising to enter the First World War. Aside from its geographical references it remains a relevant and much needed appeal.

    Tyranny must be opposed at the start. Autocracy, once secured in the saddle, is difficult to dislodge. If you believe that America is entering the war "to make democracy safe," then be a man and volunteer.

    But if you know anything at all, then you should know that the cry of democracy is a lie and a snare for the unthinking. You should know that a republic is not synonymous with democracy, and that America has never been a real democracy, but that it is the vilest plutocracy on the face of the globe.

    If you can see, hear, feel, and think, you should know that King Dollar rules the United States, and that the workers are robbed and exploited in this country to the heart's content of the masters.

    If you are not deaf, dumb, and blind, then you know that the American bourgeois democracy and capitalistic civilization are the worst enemies of labor and progress, and that instead of protecting them, you should help to fight to destroy them.

    If you know this, you must also know that the workers of America have no enemy in the toilers of other countries. Indeed, the workers of Germany suffer as much from their exploiters and rulers as do the masses of America.

    You should know that the interests of Labor are identical in all countries. Their cause is international.

    Then why should they slaughter each other?

    The workers of Germany have been misled by their rulers into donning the uniform and turning murders. So have the workers of France, of Italy, and England been misled. But why should *you*, men of America, allow yourselves to be misled into murder or into being murdered?

    If your blood must be shed, let it be in defense of your own interests, in the war of the workers against their despoilers, in the cause of real liberty and independence.

  • Full text here: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/leo-tolstoy-on-anarchy

    Leo Tolstoy the famous Russian writer of War & Peace and Anna Karenina was also a social critic and advocate of peaceful resistance and a form of Anarchism often called Christian Anarchism. This short essay outlines his views on left wing ideas and his own preferred way to achieve a just society for all humanity.

  • Full text here https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-up-against-the-wall


    "The Campaign’s aim to tear down the Wall is aligned with the Palestinian desire for liberation—for those of us inside and in exile, the young and old, those who have died, and those yet to be born."
    - Stopthewall dot org

  • Full text here: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-an-anarchist-solution-to-global-warming

    If the Green Capitalist response to climate change will only add more fuel to the fire, and if government at a global scale is incapable of solving the problem, as I argue in previous articles, how would anarchists suggest we reorganize society in order to decrease the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and to survive an already changed world?

  • Full text here: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-desert

    Author’s Note
    I have written Desert as a nature loving anarchist primarily addressing others with similar feelings. As a result I have not always explained ideas to which I hold when they are, to some extent, givens within many anarchist and radical environmental circles. Hopefully I have written in an accessible enough manner, so even if you don’t come from this background you will still find Desert readable. While the best introductions to ecology and anarchy are moments spent within undomesticated ecosystems and anarchist communities, some may also find the following books helpful — I did.

    Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism (London: HarperCollins, 2008).

    Fredy Perlman, Against His-story, Against Leviathan (Detroit: Black & Red, 1983).

    Christopher Manes, Green Rage: Radical Environmentalism and the Unmaking of Civilization (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1990).

    Clive Ponting, A Green History of the World (London: Penguin Books, 1991).

    Forward!
    Something haunts many activists, anarchists, environmentalists, many of my friends. It haunted me. Much of our subcultures tell us it’s not there, that we can’t see it, hear it. Our best wishes for the world tell us not to see it. But for many, despite their best efforts — carrying on with the normal activism, the movement building, living both according to and as an expression of their ethics — despite all this, the spectre gains form. The faint image grows more solid, more unavoidable, until the ghost is staring one in the face. And like many monsters of past tales, when its gaze is met — people freeze. Become unable to move. Give up hope; become disillusioned and inactive. This malaise, freezing, not only slows ‘activist workload’, but I have seen it affect every facet of many of my friends’ lives.

    The spectre that many try not to see is a simple realisation — the world will not be ‘saved’. Global anarchist revolution is not going to happen. Global climate change is now unstoppable. We are not going to see the worldwide end to civilisation/capitalism/patriarchy/authority. It’s not going to happen any time soon. It’s unlikely to happen ever. The world will not be ‘saved’. Not by activists, not by mass movements, not by charities and not by an insurgent global proletariat. The world will not be ‘saved’. This realisation hurts people. They don’t want it to be true! But it probably is.

    These realisations, this abandonment of illusions should not become disabling. Yet if one believes that it’s all or nothing, then there is a problem. Many friends have ‘dropped out’ of the ‘movement’ whilst others have remained in old patterns but with a sadness and cynicism which signals a feeling of futility. Some hover around scenes critiquing all, but living and fighting little.

    “It’s not the despair — I can handle the despair. It’s the hope I can’t handle.” [1]

    The hope of a Big Happy Ending, hurts people; sets the stage for the pain felt when they become disillusioned. Because, truly, who amongst us now really believes? How many have been burnt up by the effort needed to reconcile a fundamentally religious faith in the positive transformation of the world with the reality of life all around us? Yet to be disillusioned — with global revolution/with our capacity to stop climate change — should not alter our anarchist nature, or the love of nature we feel as anarchists. There are many possibilities for liberty and wildness still.

    What are some of these possibilities and how can we live them? What could it mean to be an anarchist, an environmentalist, when global revolution and world-wide social/eco sustainability are not the aim? What objectives, what plans, what lives, what adventures are there when the illusions are set aside and we walk into the world not disabled by disillusionment but unburdened by it?

  • Full text here: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-desert

    Author’s Note
    I have written Desert as a nature loving anarchist primarily addressing others with similar feelings. As a result I have not always explained ideas to which I hold when they are, to some extent, givens within many anarchist and radical environmental circles. Hopefully I have written in an accessible enough manner, so even if you don’t come from this background you will still find Desert readable. While the best introductions to ecology and anarchy are moments spent within undomesticated ecosystems and anarchist communities, some may also find the following books helpful — I did.

    Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism (London: HarperCollins, 2008).

    Fredy Perlman, Against His-story, Against Leviathan (Detroit: Black & Red, 1983).

    Christopher Manes, Green Rage: Radical Environmentalism and the Unmaking of Civilization (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1990).

    Clive Ponting, A Green History of the World (London: Penguin Books, 1991).

    Forward!
    Something haunts many activists, anarchists, environmentalists, many of my friends. It haunted me. Much of our subcultures tell us it’s not there, that we can’t see it, hear it. Our best wishes for the world tell us not to see it. But for many, despite their best efforts — carrying on with the normal activism, the movement building, living both according to and as an expression of their ethics — despite all this, the spectre gains form. The faint image grows more solid, more unavoidable, until the ghost is staring one in the face. And like many monsters of past tales, when its gaze is met — people freeze. Become unable to move. Give up hope; become disillusioned and inactive. This malaise, freezing, not only slows ‘activist workload’, but I have seen it affect every facet of many of my friends’ lives.

    The spectre that many try not to see is a simple realisation — the world will not be ‘saved’. Global anarchist revolution is not going to happen. Global climate change is now unstoppable. We are not going to see the worldwide end to civilisation/capitalism/patriarchy/authority. It’s not going to happen any time soon. It’s unlikely to happen ever. The world will not be ‘saved’. Not by activists, not by mass movements, not by charities and not by an insurgent global proletariat. The world will not be ‘saved’. This realisation hurts people. They don’t want it to be true! But it probably is.

    These realisations, this abandonment of illusions should not become disabling. Yet if one believes that it’s all or nothing, then there is a problem. Many friends have ‘dropped out’ of the ‘movement’ whilst others have remained in old patterns but with a sadness and cynicism which signals a feeling of futility. Some hover around scenes critiquing all, but living and fighting little.

    “It’s not the despair — I can handle the despair. It’s the hope I can’t handle.” [1]

    The hope of a Big Happy Ending, hurts people; sets the stage for the pain felt when they become disillusioned. Because, truly, who amongst us now really believes? How many have been burnt up by the effort needed to reconcile a fundamentally religious faith in the positive transformation of the world with the reality of life all around us? Yet to be disillusioned — with global revolution/with our capacity to stop climate change — should not alter our anarchist nature, or the love of nature we feel as anarchists. There are many possibilities for liberty and wildness still.

    What are some of these possibilities and how can we live them? What could it mean to be an anarchist, an environmentalist, when global revolution and world-wide social/eco sustainability are not the aim? What objectives, what plans, what lives, what adventures are there when the illusions are set aside and we walk into the world not disabled by disillusionment but unburdened by it?

  • Full text here: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-desert

    Author’s Note
    I have written Desert as a nature loving anarchist primarily addressing others with similar feelings. As a result I have not always explained ideas to which I hold when they are, to some extent, givens within many anarchist and radical environmental circles. Hopefully I have written in an accessible enough manner, so even if you don’t come from this background you will still find Desert readable. While the best introductions to ecology and anarchy are moments spent within undomesticated ecosystems and anarchist communities, some may also find the following books helpful — I did.

    Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism (London: HarperCollins, 2008).

    Fredy Perlman, Against His-story, Against Leviathan (Detroit: Black & Red, 1983).

    Christopher Manes, Green Rage: Radical Environmentalism and the Unmaking of Civilization (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1990).

    Clive Ponting, A Green History of the World (London: Penguin Books, 1991).

    Forward!
    Something haunts many activists, anarchists, environmentalists, many of my friends. It haunted me. Much of our subcultures tell us it’s not there, that we can’t see it, hear it. Our best wishes for the world tell us not to see it. But for many, despite their best efforts — carrying on with the normal activism, the movement building, living both according to and as an expression of their ethics — despite all this, the spectre gains form. The faint image grows more solid, more unavoidable, until the ghost is staring one in the face. And like many monsters of past tales, when its gaze is met — people freeze. Become unable to move. Give up hope; become disillusioned and inactive. This malaise, freezing, not only slows ‘activist workload’, but I have seen it affect every facet of many of my friends’ lives.

    The spectre that many try not to see is a simple realisation — the world will not be ‘saved’. Global anarchist revolution is not going to happen. Global climate change is now unstoppable. We are not going to see the worldwide end to civilisation/capitalism/patriarchy/authority. It’s not going to happen any time soon. It’s unlikely to happen ever. The world will not be ‘saved’. Not by activists, not by mass movements, not by charities and not by an insurgent global proletariat. The world will not be ‘saved’. This realisation hurts people. They don’t want it to be true! But it probably is.

    These realisations, this abandonment of illusions should not become disabling. Yet if one believes that it’s all or nothing, then there is a problem. Many friends have ‘dropped out’ of the ‘movement’ whilst others have remained in old patterns but with a sadness and cynicism which signals a feeling of futility. Some hover around scenes critiquing all, but living and fighting little.

    “It’s not the despair — I can handle the despair. It’s the hope I can’t handle.” [1]

    The hope of a Big Happy Ending, hurts people; sets the stage for the pain felt when they become disillusioned. Because, truly, who amongst us now really believes? How many have been burnt up by the effort needed to reconcile a fundamentally religious faith in the positive transformation of the world with the reality of life all around us? Yet to be disillusioned — with global revolution/with our capacity to stop climate change — should not alter our anarchist nature, or the love of nature we feel as anarchists. There are many possibilities for liberty and wildness still.

    What are some of these possibilities and how can we live them? What could it mean to be an anarchist, an environmentalist, when global revolution and world-wide social/eco sustainability are not the aim? What objectives, what plans, what lives, what adventures are there when the illusions are set aside and we walk into the world not disabled by disillusionment but unburdened by it?

  • Full text here: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-desert

    Author’s Note
    I have written Desert as a nature loving anarchist primarily addressing others with similar feelings. As a result I have not always explained ideas to which I hold when they are, to some extent, givens within many anarchist and radical environmental circles. Hopefully I have written in an accessible enough manner, so even if you don’t come from this background you will still find Desert readable. While the best introductions to ecology and anarchy are moments spent within undomesticated ecosystems and anarchist communities, some may also find the following books helpful — I did.

    Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism (London: HarperCollins, 2008).

    Fredy Perlman, Against His-story, Against Leviathan (Detroit: Black & Red, 1983).

    Christopher Manes, Green Rage: Radical Environmentalism and the Unmaking of Civilization (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1990).

    Clive Ponting, A Green History of the World (London: Penguin Books, 1991).

    Forward!
    Something haunts many activists, anarchists, environmentalists, many of my friends. It haunted me. Much of our subcultures tell us it’s not there, that we can’t see it, hear it. Our best wishes for the world tell us not to see it. But for many, despite their best efforts — carrying on with the normal activism, the movement building, living both according to and as an expression of their ethics — despite all this, the spectre gains form. The faint image grows more solid, more unavoidable, until the ghost is staring one in the face. And like many monsters of past tales, when its gaze is met — people freeze. Become unable to move. Give up hope; become disillusioned and inactive. This malaise, freezing, not only slows ‘activist workload’, but I have seen it affect every facet of many of my friends’ lives.

    The spectre that many try not to see is a simple realisation — the world will not be ‘saved’. Global anarchist revolution is not going to happen. Global climate change is now unstoppable. We are not going to see the worldwide end to civilisation/capitalism/patriarchy/authority. It’s not going to happen any time soon. It’s unlikely to happen ever. The world will not be ‘saved’. Not by activists, not by mass movements, not by charities and not by an insurgent global proletariat. The world will not be ‘saved’. This realisation hurts people. They don’t want it to be true! But it probably is.

    These realisations, this abandonment of illusions should not become disabling. Yet if one believes that it’s all or nothing, then there is a problem. Many friends have ‘dropped out’ of the ‘movement’ whilst others have remained in old patterns but with a sadness and cynicism which signals a feeling of futility. Some hover around scenes critiquing all, but living and fighting little.

    “It’s not the despair — I can handle the despair. It’s the hope I can’t handle.” [1]

    The hope of a Big Happy Ending, hurts people; sets the stage for the pain felt when they become disillusioned. Because, truly, who amongst us now really believes? How many have been burnt up by the effort needed to reconcile a fundamentally religious faith in the positive transformation of the world with the reality of life all around us? Yet to be disillusioned — with global revolution/with our capacity to stop climate change — should not alter our anarchist nature, or the love of nature we feel as anarchists. There are many possibilities for liberty and wildness still.

    What are some of these possibilities and how can we live them? What could it mean to be an anarchist, an environmentalist, when global revolution and world-wide social/eco sustainability are not the aim? What objectives, what plans, what lives, what adventures are there when the illusions are set aside and we walk into the world not disabled by disillusionment but unburdened by it?

  • Full text here: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-desert

    Author’s Note
    I have written Desert as a nature loving anarchist primarily addressing others with similar feelings. As a result I have not always explained ideas to which I hold when they are, to some extent, givens within many anarchist and radical environmental circles. Hopefully I have written in an accessible enough manner, so even if you don’t come from this background you will still find Desert readable. While the best introductions to ecology and anarchy are moments spent within undomesticated ecosystems and anarchist communities, some may also find the following books helpful — I did.

    Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism (London: HarperCollins, 2008).

    Fredy Perlman, Against His-story, Against Leviathan (Detroit: Black & Red, 1983).

    Christopher Manes, Green Rage: Radical Environmentalism and the Unmaking of Civilization (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1990).

    Clive Ponting, A Green History of the World (London: Penguin Books, 1991).

    Forward!
    Something haunts many activists, anarchists, environmentalists, many of my friends. It haunted me. Much of our subcultures tell us it’s not there, that we can’t see it, hear it. Our best wishes for the world tell us not to see it. But for many, despite their best efforts — carrying on with the normal activism, the movement building, living both according to and as an expression of their ethics — despite all this, the spectre gains form. The faint image grows more solid, more unavoidable, until the ghost is staring one in the face. And like many monsters of past tales, when its gaze is met — people freeze. Become unable to move. Give up hope; become disillusioned and inactive. This malaise, freezing, not only slows ‘activist workload’, but I have seen it affect every facet of many of my friends’ lives.

    The spectre that many try not to see is a simple realisation — the world will not be ‘saved’. Global anarchist revolution is not going to happen. Global climate change is now unstoppable. We are not going to see the worldwide end to civilisation/capitalism/patriarchy/authority. It’s not going to happen any time soon. It’s unlikely to happen ever. The world will not be ‘saved’. Not by activists, not by mass movements, not by charities and not by an insurgent global proletariat. The world will not be ‘saved’. This realisation hurts people. They don’t want it to be true! But it probably is.

    These realisations, this abandonment of illusions should not become disabling. Yet if one believes that it’s all or nothing, then there is a problem. Many friends have ‘dropped out’ of the ‘movement’ whilst others have remained in old patterns but with a sadness and cynicism which signals a feeling of futility. Some hover around scenes critiquing all, but living and fighting little.

    “It’s not the despair — I can handle the despair. It’s the hope I can’t handle.” [1]

    The hope of a Big Happy Ending, hurts people; sets the stage for the pain felt when they become disillusioned. Because, truly, who amongst us now really believes? How many have been burnt up by the effort needed to reconcile a fundamentally religious faith in the positive transformation of the world with the reality of life all around us? Yet to be disillusioned — with global revolution/with our capacity to stop climate change — should not alter our anarchist nature, or the love of nature we feel as anarchists. There are many possibilities for liberty and wildness still.

    What are some of these possibilities and how can we live them? What could it mean to be an anarchist, an environmentalist, when global revolution and world-wide social/eco sustainability are not the aim? What objectives, what plans, what lives, what adventures are there when the illusions are set aside and we walk into the world not disabled by disillusionment but unburdened by it?

  • Full text here: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-desert

    Author’s Note
    I have written Desert as a nature loving anarchist primarily addressing others with similar feelings. As a result I have not always explained ideas to which I hold when they are, to some extent, givens within many anarchist and radical environmental circles. Hopefully I have written in an accessible enough manner, so even if you don’t come from this background you will still find Desert readable. While the best introductions to ecology and anarchy are moments spent within undomesticated ecosystems and anarchist communities, some may also find the following books helpful — I did.

    Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism (London: HarperCollins, 2008).

    Fredy Perlman, Against His-story, Against Leviathan (Detroit: Black & Red, 1983).

    Christopher Manes, Green Rage: Radical Environmentalism and the Unmaking of Civilization (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1990).

    Clive Ponting, A Green History of the World (London: Penguin Books, 1991).

    Forward!
    Something haunts many activists, anarchists, environmentalists, many of my friends. It haunted me. Much of our subcultures tell us it’s not there, that we can’t see it, hear it. Our best wishes for the world tell us not to see it. But for many, despite their best efforts — carrying on with the normal activism, the movement building, living both according to and as an expression of their ethics — despite all this, the spectre gains form. The faint image grows more solid, more unavoidable, until the ghost is staring one in the face. And like many monsters of past tales, when its gaze is met — people freeze. Become unable to move. Give up hope; become disillusioned and inactive. This malaise, freezing, not only slows ‘activist workload’, but I have seen it affect every facet of many of my friends’ lives.

    The spectre that many try not to see is a simple realisation — the world will not be ‘saved’. Global anarchist revolution is not going to happen. Global climate change is now unstoppable. We are not going to see the worldwide end to civilisation/capitalism/patriarchy/authority. It’s not going to happen any time soon. It’s unlikely to happen ever. The world will not be ‘saved’. Not by activists, not by mass movements, not by charities and not by an insurgent global proletariat. The world will not be ‘saved’. This realisation hurts people. They don’t want it to be true! But it probably is.

    These realisations, this abandonment of illusions should not become disabling. Yet if one believes that it’s all or nothing, then there is a problem. Many friends have ‘dropped out’ of the ‘movement’ whilst others have remained in old patterns but with a sadness and cynicism which signals a feeling of futility. Some hover around scenes critiquing all, but living and fighting little.

    “It’s not the despair — I can handle the despair. It’s the hope I can’t handle.” [1]

    The hope of a Big Happy Ending, hurts people; sets the stage for the pain felt when they become disillusioned. Because, truly, who amongst us now really believes? How many have been burnt up by the effort needed to reconcile a fundamentally religious faith in the positive transformation of the world with the reality of life all around us? Yet to be disillusioned — with global revolution/with our capacity to stop climate change — should not alter our anarchist nature, or the love of nature we feel as anarchists. There are many possibilities for liberty and wildness still.

    What are some of these possibilities and how can we live them? What could it mean to be an anarchist, an environmentalist, when global revolution and world-wide social/eco sustainability are not the aim? What objectives, what plans, what lives, what adventures are there when the illusions are set aside and we walk into the world not disabled by disillusionment but unburdened by it?

  • Full text here: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-desert

    Author’s Note
    I have written Desert as a nature loving anarchist primarily addressing others with similar feelings. As a result I have not always explained ideas to which I hold when they are, to some extent, givens within many anarchist and radical environmental circles. Hopefully I have written in an accessible enough manner, so even if you don’t come from this background you will still find Desert readable. While the best introductions to ecology and anarchy are moments spent within undomesticated ecosystems and anarchist communities, some may also find the following books helpful — I did.

    Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism (London: HarperCollins, 2008).

    Fredy Perlman, Against His-story, Against Leviathan (Detroit: Black & Red, 1983).

    Christopher Manes, Green Rage: Radical Environmentalism and the Unmaking of Civilization (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1990).

    Clive Ponting, A Green History of the World (London: Penguin Books, 1991).

    Forward!
    Something haunts many activists, anarchists, environmentalists, many of my friends. It haunted me. Much of our subcultures tell us it’s not there, that we can’t see it, hear it. Our best wishes for the world tell us not to see it. But for many, despite their best efforts — carrying on with the normal activism, the movement building, living both according to and as an expression of their ethics — despite all this, the spectre gains form. The faint image grows more solid, more unavoidable, until the ghost is staring one in the face. And like many monsters of past tales, when its gaze is met — people freeze. Become unable to move. Give up hope; become disillusioned and inactive. This malaise, freezing, not only slows ‘activist workload’, but I have seen it affect every facet of many of my friends’ lives.

    The spectre that many try not to see is a simple realisation — the world will not be ‘saved’. Global anarchist revolution is not going to happen. Global climate change is now unstoppable. We are not going to see the worldwide end to civilisation/capitalism/patriarchy/authority. It’s not going to happen any time soon. It’s unlikely to happen ever. The world will not be ‘saved’. Not by activists, not by mass movements, not by charities and not by an insurgent global proletariat. The world will not be ‘saved’. This realisation hurts people. They don’t want it to be true! But it probably is.

    These realisations, this abandonment of illusions should not become disabling. Yet if one believes that it’s all or nothing, then there is a problem. Many friends have ‘dropped out’ of the ‘movement’ whilst others have remained in old patterns but with a sadness and cynicism which signals a feeling of futility. Some hover around scenes critiquing all, but living and fighting little.

    “It’s not the despair — I can handle the despair. It’s the hope I can’t handle.” [1]

    The hope of a Big Happy Ending, hurts people; sets the stage for the pain felt when they become disillusioned. Because, truly, who amongst us now really believes? How many have been burnt up by the effort needed to reconcile a fundamentally religious faith in the positive transformation of the world with the reality of life all around us? Yet to be disillusioned — with global revolution/with our capacity to stop climate change — should not alter our anarchist nature, or the love of nature we feel as anarchists. There are many possibilities for liberty and wildness still.

    What are some of these possibilities and how can we live them? What could it mean to be an anarchist, an environmentalist, when global revolution and world-wide social/eco sustainability are not the aim? What objectives, what plans, what lives, what adventures are there when the illusions are set aside and we walk into the world not disabled by disillusionment but unburdened by it?

  • Full text here: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-desert

    Author’s Note
    I have written Desert as a nature loving anarchist primarily addressing others with similar feelings. As a result I have not always explained ideas to which I hold when they are, to some extent, givens within many anarchist and radical environmental circles. Hopefully I have written in an accessible enough manner, so even if you don’t come from this background you will still find Desert readable. While the best introductions to ecology and anarchy are moments spent within undomesticated ecosystems and anarchist communities, some may also find the following books helpful — I did.

    Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism (London: HarperCollins, 2008).

    Fredy Perlman, Against His-story, Against Leviathan (Detroit: Black & Red, 1983).

    Christopher Manes, Green Rage: Radical Environmentalism and the Unmaking of Civilization (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1990).

    Clive Ponting, A Green History of the World (London: Penguin Books, 1991).

    Forward!
    Something haunts many activists, anarchists, environmentalists, many of my friends. It haunted me. Much of our subcultures tell us it’s not there, that we can’t see it, hear it. Our best wishes for the world tell us not to see it. But for many, despite their best efforts — carrying on with the normal activism, the movement building, living both according to and as an expression of their ethics — despite all this, the spectre gains form. The faint image grows more solid, more unavoidable, until the ghost is staring one in the face. And like many monsters of past tales, when its gaze is met — people freeze. Become unable to move. Give up hope; become disillusioned and inactive. This malaise, freezing, not only slows ‘activist workload’, but I have seen it affect every facet of many of my friends’ lives.

    The spectre that many try not to see is a simple realisation — the world will not be ‘saved’. Global anarchist revolution is not going to happen. Global climate change is now unstoppable. We are not going to see the worldwide end to civilisation/capitalism/patriarchy/authority. It’s not going to happen any time soon. It’s unlikely to happen ever. The world will not be ‘saved’. Not by activists, not by mass movements, not by charities and not by an insurgent global proletariat. The world will not be ‘saved’. This realisation hurts people. They don’t want it to be true! But it probably is.

    These realisations, this abandonment of illusions should not become disabling. Yet if one believes that it’s all or nothing, then there is a problem. Many friends have ‘dropped out’ of the ‘movement’ whilst others have remained in old patterns but with a sadness and cynicism which signals a feeling of futility. Some hover around scenes critiquing all, but living and fighting little.

    “It’s not the despair — I can handle the despair. It’s the hope I can’t handle.” [1]

    The hope of a Big Happy Ending, hurts people; sets the stage for the pain felt when they become disillusioned. Because, truly, who amongst us now really believes? How many have been burnt up by the effort needed to reconcile a fundamentally religious faith in the positive transformation of the world with the reality of life all around us? Yet to be disillusioned — with global revolution/with our capacity to stop climate change — should not alter our anarchist nature, or the love of nature we feel as anarchists. There are many possibilities for liberty and wildness still.

    What are some of these possibilities and how can we live them? What could it mean to be an anarchist, an environmentalist, when global revolution and world-wide social/eco sustainability are not the aim? What objectives, what plans, what lives, what adventures are there when the illusions are set aside and we walk into the world not disabled by disillusionment but unburdened by it?

  • Full text here: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-desert

    Author’s Note
    I have written Desert as a nature loving anarchist primarily addressing others with similar feelings. As a result I have not always explained ideas to which I hold when they are, to some extent, givens within many anarchist and radical environmental circles. Hopefully I have written in an accessible enough manner, so even if you don’t come from this background you will still find Desert readable. While the best introductions to ecology and anarchy are moments spent within undomesticated ecosystems and anarchist communities, some may also find the following books helpful — I did.

    Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism (London: HarperCollins, 2008).

    Fredy Perlman, Against His-story, Against Leviathan (Detroit: Black & Red, 1983).

    Christopher Manes, Green Rage: Radical Environmentalism and the Unmaking of Civilization (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1990).

    Clive Ponting, A Green History of the World (London: Penguin Books, 1991).

    Forward!
    Something haunts many activists, anarchists, environmentalists, many of my friends. It haunted me. Much of our subcultures tell us it’s not there, that we can’t see it, hear it. Our best wishes for the world tell us not to see it. But for many, despite their best efforts — carrying on with the normal activism, the movement building, living both according to and as an expression of their ethics — despite all this, the spectre gains form. The faint image grows more solid, more unavoidable, until the ghost is staring one in the face. And like many monsters of past tales, when its gaze is met — people freeze. Become unable to move. Give up hope; become disillusioned and inactive. This malaise, freezing, not only slows ‘activist workload’, but I have seen it affect every facet of many of my friends’ lives.

    The spectre that many try not to see is a simple realisation — the world will not be ‘saved’. Global anarchist revolution is not going to happen. Global climate change is now unstoppable. We are not going to see the worldwide end to civilisation/capitalism/patriarchy/authority. It’s not going to happen any time soon. It’s unlikely to happen ever. The world will not be ‘saved’. Not by activists, not by mass movements, not by charities and not by an insurgent global proletariat. The world will not be ‘saved’. This realisation hurts people. They don’t want it to be true! But it probably is.

    These realisations, this abandonment of illusions should not become disabling. Yet if one believes that it’s all or nothing, then there is a problem. Many friends have ‘dropped out’ of the ‘movement’ whilst others have remained in old patterns but with a sadness and cynicism which signals a feeling of futility. Some hover around scenes critiquing all, but living and fighting little.

    “It’s not the despair — I can handle the despair. It’s the hope I can’t handle.” [1]

    The hope of a Big Happy Ending, hurts people; sets the stage for the pain felt when they become disillusioned. Because, truly, who amongst us now really believes? How many have been burnt up by the effort needed to reconcile a fundamentally religious faith in the positive transformation of the world with the reality of life all around us? Yet to be disillusioned — with global revolution/with our capacity to stop climate change — should not alter our anarchist nature, or the love of nature we feel as anarchists. There are many possibilities for liberty and wildness still.

    What are some of these possibilities and how can we live them? What could it mean to be an anarchist, an environmentalist, when global revolution and world-wide social/eco sustainability are not the aim? What objectives, what plans, what lives, what adventures are there when the illusions are set aside and we walk into the world not disabled by disillusionment but unburdened by it?

  • Full text here:https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-desert

    Author’s Note
    I have written Desert as a nature loving anarchist primarily addressing others with similar feelings. As a result I have not always explained ideas to which I hold when they are, to some extent, givens within many anarchist and radical environmental circles. Hopefully I have written in an accessible enough manner, so even if you don’t come from this background you will still find Desert readable. While the best introductions to ecology and anarchy are moments spent within undomesticated ecosystems and anarchist communities, some may also find the following books helpful — I did.

    Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism (London: HarperCollins, 2008).

    Fredy Perlman, Against His-story, Against Leviathan (Detroit: Black & Red, 1983).

    Christopher Manes, Green Rage: Radical Environmentalism and the Unmaking of Civilization (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1990).

    Clive Ponting, A Green History of the World (London: Penguin Books, 1991).

    Forward!
    Something haunts many activists, anarchists, environmentalists, many of my friends. It haunted me. Much of our subcultures tell us it’s not there, that we can’t see it, hear it. Our best wishes for the world tell us not to see it. But for many, despite their best efforts — carrying on with the normal activism, the movement building, living both according to and as an expression of their ethics — despite all this, the spectre gains form. The faint image grows more solid, more unavoidable, until the ghost is staring one in the face. And like many monsters of past tales, when its gaze is met — people freeze. Become unable to move. Give up hope; become disillusioned and inactive. This malaise, freezing, not only slows ‘activist workload’, but I have seen it affect every facet of many of my friends’ lives.

    The spectre that many try not to see is a simple realisation — the world will not be ‘saved’. Global anarchist revolution is not going to happen. Global climate change is now unstoppable. We are not going to see the worldwide end to civilisation/capitalism/patriarchy/authority. It’s not going to happen any time soon. It’s unlikely to happen ever. The world will not be ‘saved’. Not by activists, not by mass movements, not by charities and not by an insurgent global proletariat. The world will not be ‘saved’. This realisation hurts people. They don’t want it to be true! But it probably is.

    These realisations, this abandonment of illusions should not become disabling. Yet if one believes that it’s all or nothing, then there is a problem. Many friends have ‘dropped out’ of the ‘movement’ whilst others have remained in old patterns but with a sadness and cynicism which signals a feeling of futility. Some hover around scenes critiquing all, but living and fighting little.

    “It’s not the despair — I can handle the despair. It’s the hope I can’t handle.” [1]

    The hope of a Big Happy Ending, hurts people; sets the stage for the pain felt when they become disillusioned. Because, truly, who amongst us now really believes? How many have been burnt up by the effort needed to reconcile a fundamentally religious faith in the positive transformation of the world with the reality of life all around us? Yet to be disillusioned — with global revolution/with our capacity to stop climate change — should not alter our anarchist nature, or the love of nature we feel as anarchists. There are many possibilities for liberty and wildness still.

    What are some of these possibilities and how can we live them? What could it mean to be an anarchist, an environmentalist, when global revolution and world-wide social/eco sustainability are not the aim? What objectives, what plans, what lives, what adventures are there when the illusions are set aside and we walk into the world not disabled by disillusionment but unburdened by it?

  • Full text here: https://libcom.org/library/socialism-reaffirmed-maurice-brinton

    Some basic principles put together by Maurice Brinton in 1960 aimed at being ones around which revolutionary socialists - as distinct from bureaucratic state socialists - could regroup.

  • Recorded by librivox.org


    Helena Glory, as the daughter of a major industrial power's president, is a woman on a mission. She faces the island factory of Rossum's Universal Robots, the world's leading company in robotic engineering. She is convinced that these new creations called robots they make are deserving of rights like humans do. Everyone else is convinced robots are nothing more than tools for human use. Is it so, or is a robot rebellion becoming a more likely prospect as the robots start to seem more intelligent than first thought?
    First performed in English in 1922, R.U.R. is most notable for being the play that introduced the word "robot" into the English language and one of the popular early examples of the science fiction genre onstage. (Mary Kay)