Emma Goldman said half of the punchy things about revolution quoted on memes here, including “If you can’t dance to it, it’s not MY revolution.” And now the project to study her and bring out a final volume of four on the findings is at risk and may end by November 1.
(by Guido van Helton)
I love Emma
Children of the world, unite. Release the future from the shackles of the past. My peers, it is our time to steal. Not in order to gain property but in order to lose respect for it. Property is like a ghost. You cannot possess it without being possessed by it. Steal and let others steal. Let property move freely from place to place so it will not haunt your home. Steal from the local supermarket. Steal from the city! Steal from the state! Steal from your parents! And above all, don’t accept inheritance—steal it. Rob your parents and rid yourself of promises you will have to keep. Children of the world, unite. Release the future from the shackles of the past.
Anarchist communities often value and revere “back to the land” attitudes. They fetishize a world after the industrial collapse where we are all riding our bikes everywhere and growing our own food. But that’s not a world I can live in. As a person with a disability, I depend on technology to keep me alive. I depend on my hearing aid, and my mobility chair. I depend on my perscription (sic) drugs to keep my immune system from destroying my spine. I can’t afford to “fuck cars and ride my bike.” Anarchist communities who celebrate able bodies, have bonding and strategizing events in inaccessible locations, adopt mantras like “racism is a DISEASE” and “The revolution will not be motorized” are not welcoming or safe places for me. These ideas of what revolution mean are exclusive, and borrow heavily from eugenicist idealogy. They are rarely criticized, because PWDs (people with disabilities) are humiliated by dominant culture AND by most anarchist culture. It’s not a revolution unless everyone is invited.
THIS SO MUCH THIS
This is basically the killer argument against primitivism - their ideology is really incompatible with having autonomous and mobile disabled people.
(caveat: my idea of revolution doesn’t require “everyone” to be invited, but “disabled people” is obv not an exclusion I want!)
wow this is a super fucking important point and not something that gets talked about nearly enough
yooo and this applies to people who have serioud conditions that require medications like asthma or diabetes.
My anarchism will be intersectional and inclusive or it will be bullshit.
Bonus: “back to the land” primitivism is often further whitewashed Noble Savage fantasy with an added dose of the implication that disability/disease are not just modern-day “weaknesses” literally tied to the corrupting and “indulgent” influence of capitalist states/the bourgeoisie, they also deracialize that argument to protect anarchist Whiteness AND get to demonize the sick/injured/disabled + advocate for their removal as an extension of class restructuring. Aka, some cultural revolution genocide shit that I am not down for.
Wren is a really awesome person (we went to college together) and gosh I really needed to hear that. (via asystoles)
Anarchy does not necessarily mean some Rousseau-inspired neoprimitivism though. Frankly, the hippies will be used, discarded, and crushed. The future will belong to those who are not afraid to use the tools we have.
Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984) full - BBC 1954.avi (by Joel Soihet)
this is my linen closet, *shows you some towels*
and this is my lenin closet *shows you communist propaganda*
I just leave mine out on the coffee table. Cuts down the time the Jehova’s Witnesses linger chez moi.
While it’s important to acknowledge that anarchists wish to break with the existing society and contain within them a negative politics, it’s also important to recognize that historically anarchists have had a generative politics. That is, within destruction is also creation. So anarchism is also a creative endeavor — this has been demonstrated historically through anarchist attempts to create alternative institutions or, in the words of the IWW, build “the new world in the shell of the old.”
In the place of systematized robbery, anarchists have proposed the social ownership of society or, alternative stated, the abolition of property altogether. This might sound absurd in a society that treats property as sacrosanct, but anarchist put forward a specific definition of property: ownership claims on those things that one neither occupies nor uses. Anarchists usually juxtapose this with possessions, or those things that we use or the homes that we live in (i.e. no anarchist wants to take your home or guitar away). This is how bosses and landlords exploit workers, by claiming to own the things they do not use or the places in which they do not live, then extracting rents and value from the people who do actually use them. In place of private ownership, anarchists put forward visions of a social system in which we produce for the needs of the people instead of the profits of capitalists.
Similarly, instead of a state [government] that stands above society, directing it, anarchists typically propose federations of neighborhood assemblies, workplace associations, community councils, and the like as coordinating bodies compromised by the people. We would collectively make decisions that affect our lives than rather having those decisions made for us by politicians or left to the whims of the market. Functions of safety and collective decision-making, then, would be organized through networks “of participatory communities based on self-government through direct, face-to-face democracy in grassroots neighbourhood and community assemblies” instead of representation, police, prisons — in a word, bureaucracy.
Page 1 of 15