Shooting Us Like Partridges.

       It didn't take a crystal ball to predict the fate of anarchists in Russia after the Bolsheviks came to power. Though the Bolsheviks have gone, the persecution of anarchists continues to this day, and not just in Russia. 

From Enough Is Enough:

       Here is an extract from the new PM Press edition of Voline’s anarchist history of the Russian Revolution, The Unknown Revolution (with a new introduction by Iain McKay), describing Voline’s encounters with Leon Trotsky, before and during the Russian Revolution. It goes well with Emma Goldman’s “Trotsky Protests Too Much,” which I posted earlier. The excerpt can also be found in Daniel Guérin’s No Gods, No Masters (Ni Dieu Ni Maitre), published by AK Press.

Encounters with Trotsky

           In April 1917 I met Trotsky again. (We had known each other in Russia, and, later in France from which we were both expelled in 1916.) We met in a print shop which specialised in printing the various publications of the Russian left. He was then editor of a daily Marxist paper Novy Mir (New World). As for me, I had been entrusted with editing the last numbers of Golos Truda (Voice of Labour), the weekly organ of the anarcho-syndicalist Union of Russian Workers, shortly before it was moved to Russia. I used to spend one night a week at the print shop while the paper was being prepared. That is how I happened to meet Trotsky on my first night there.

      Naturally we spoke about the Revolution. Both of us were preparing to leave America in the near future to return home.

       In the course of our conversation I said to Trotsky: “Truly I am absolutely sure that you, the Marxists of the left, will end up by seizing power in Russia. That is inevitable, because the Soviets, having been restored, will surely enter into conflict with the bourgeois government. The government will not be able to destroy them because all the workers of the country, both industrial workers and peasants, and also most of the army, will naturally put themselves on the side of the Soviets against the bourgeoisie and the government. And once the Soviets have the support of the people and the army, they will triumph in the struggle. And once they have won it will be you, the Marxists, who will inevitably be carried into power. Because the workers are seeking the revolution in its most advanced form. The syndicalists and anarchists are too weak in Russia to attract the attention of the workers rapidly by their ideas. So the masses will put their confidence in you and you will become ‘the masters of the country.’ And then, look out anarchists! The conflict between you and us is unavoidable. You will begin to persecute us as soon as your power is consolidated. And you will finish by shooting us like partridges. . .”

        “. . .Come, come, comrade,” replied Trotsky. “You have a stubborn and incorrigible imagination. Do you think we are really divided? A mere question of method, which is quite secondary. Like us you are revolutionaries. Like you we are anarchists in the final analysis. The only difference is that you would like to establish your anarchism immediately without a preparatory transition, while we, the Marxists, do not believe it possible to ‘leap’ in one bound into the libertarian millennium. We anticipate a transitory epoch in the course of which the ground for an anarchist society will be cleared and ploughed with the help of the anti-bourgeois political powers: the dictatorship of the proletariat exercised by the proletarian party in power. In the end, it involves only a ‘shade’ of difference, nothing more. On the whole we are very close to one another. We are friends in arms. Remember now: we have a common enemy to fight. How can we think of fighting among ourselves? Moreover, I have no doubt that you will be quickly convinced of the necessity of a temporary proletarian socialist dictatorship. I don’t see any real reason for a war between you and us. We will surely march hand in hand. And then, even if we don’t agree, you are all wrong in supposing that we, the socialists, will use brutal force against the anarchists! Life itself and the judgement of the masses will resolve the problem and will put us in agreement. No! Can you really admit for a single instant such an absurdity: socialists in power shooting anarchists? Come, come, what do you take us for? Anyhow, we are socialists, comrade Voline! We are not your enemies."

         In December 1919, seriously ill, I was arrested by the Bolshevik military authorities in the Makhnovist region of the Ukraine. Considering me an important militant, the authorities advised Trotsky of my arrest by a special telegram and asked for his instructions concerning me. The reply, also by telegram, arrived quickly, clearly, laconically: “SHOOT HIM IMMEDIATELY—TROTSKY.” I was not shot, thanks to a set of circumstances particularly fortunate and entirely fortuitous.

Visit ann arky's home at https://radicalglasgow.me.uk

A Revolution With A Laugh.

     There are lots of ways to get your message across, demos, protests, meetings, occupy, leaflets, discussions, forming groups, direct action, solidarity groups, etc., etc.. However, has it all become too po-faced and serious? Anarchists are people with a rough road map to that better world, but perhaps where a more serious approach fails, we should launch a giggle fest, and capture people's imagination with a laugh. Humour is a rich and fertile field, parody and satire are sharp weapons, ridicule can destroy the the persona of the pompous, and it can all be very enjoyable. Remember Emma Goldman's quote; “If I Can’t Dance, I Don’t Want To Be Part of Your Revolution”, though there is doubt she actually said those words, but you get my drift.

This article by @muse from Anarchist News:

Anarchists storm, occupy, helium factory

       Why are anarchists so serious all the time? Where are the flash mobs, the parodies, the theatre? Pranks are fun to execute with friends and also a great way to fuck with the State.
       Many are familiar with the Situationist concept of detournement, but what about when Crass spliced together audio from speeches given by Ronald Regan and Margaret Thatcher and released it anonymously and the tape was taken seriously by the government as legitimate soviet propaganda?
      Jello Biafra ran for mayor of San Francisco with the slogan "There's always room for Jello." All he needed was 1500 signatures or $1500 to receive equal airtime as other candidates, which he spent thoroughly mocking the entire political process. He finished third out of tenth place.
     Jello may have been inspired by the Yippies, who threw fistfuls of money from the balcony of the New York Stock Exchange. Imagine witnessing the traders, some of them booing, as others scrambled to grab as much as they could, clutching the notes in greedy fists.
      Not only were these pranks hilarious, but they earned political, social, and media attention in a way that in their frame of history protected them from the negative legal ramifications.
      Why don't we do more fun things? Must everything be so clinically serious and/or dangerously illegal? Is there room in the gray for cutting up and showing spoof to power?
     Oscar Wilde is incorrectly quoted as saying, "If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you." Regardless of whether this was said or not, there is a point: sometimes you can say things in jest that you can't say seriously. It's not currently illegal to make audio projects that challenge the boundaries of free use and copyright law, or to run for political office as an art stunt, or to parody famous figures to highlight their absurdity. Stunts like these are fun, and they also capture the attention of broader audiences because they disrupt assumptions on all sides–they make people laugh, and then they make them think. Is there room for innovation in the vacuum of dry, serious, deliberation?
       What are some of your favorite historically acknowledged pranks? Are there still opportunities for more? What fantasies might you unleash as pranks that seriously stick it to the State?

Workers, Know Your History, Ben Reitman.

       Ben Reitman was an anarchist, born 1879, died from a heart attack in Chicago 1943. During his life he was kidnapped, beaten, tarred and feather and branded and later, 100 years ago tomorrow, in January 17th, 1916, imprisoned for the horrific crime of, distributing leaflets on birth control. That's democracy for you. These heroes of the working class are airbrushed out of history, the establishment  would rather they never happened, or at least are forgotten. We have a duty to remember and record those who fought on the side of the ordinary people for that better world for all.

From Wikipedia:

        Reitman was born in St. Paul, Minnesota, to poor Russian Jewish immigrants in 1879, but grew up in Chicago. At the age of ten, he became a hobo, but returned to Chicago and worked in the Polyclinic Laboratory as a "laboratory boy".[2] In 1900, he entered the College of Physicians and Surgeons in Chicago, completing his medical studies in 1904. During this time he was briefly married; he and his wife had a daughter together.[2]
        He worked as a physician in Chicago, choosing to offer services to hobos, prostitutes, the poor, and other outcasts. Notably, he performed abortions, which were illegal at the time.[2]
      Reitman met Emma Goldman in 1908, and the two began a passionate love affair, which Goldman described as the "Great Grand Passion" of her life.[1] The two traveled together for almost eight years, working for the cause of birth control, free speech, worker's rights, and anarchism.
        During this time, the couple became involved in the San Diego free speech fight in 1912–13. Reitman was kidnapped by a mob, severely beaten, tarred and feathered, branded with "I.W.W.,"[1] and his rectum and testicles were abused.[3] Several years later, the couple were arrested in 1916 under the Comstock laws for advocating birth control, and Reitman served six months in prison.[4]
        Both believed in free love, but Reitman's practice incited feelings of jealousy in Goldman.[5] He remarried when one of his lovers became pregnant; their son was born while he was in prison.[2] Goldman and Reitman ended their relationship in 1917, after Reitman was released from prison.[2]
         Reitman returned to Chicago, ultimately working with the City of Chicago, establishing the Chicago Society for the Prevention of Venereal Disease in the 1930s.[2] His second wife died in 1930, and Reitman married a third time, to Rose Siegal.[2] Reitman later became seriously involved with Medina Oliver, and the couple had four daughters — Mecca, Medina, Victoria, and Olive.[2]
      Reitman died in Chicago of a heart attack at the age of sixty-three. He was buried at the Waldheim Cemetery[6] (now Forest Home Cemetery), in Forest Park, Chicago.

Visit ann arky's home at www.radicalglasgow.me.uk

"ANARCHY", IN COMMON PARLANCE, CHAOS, VIOLENT DISORDER!!

        I have always maintained that if you ask 100 people what the meaning of anarchy is, you'll get 100 different answers. Most will be wrong and will be answers like chaos and disorder, and will be based on ignorance of all things anarchistic. The establishment, state, mainstream media are all involved in perpetuating that line of thought, probably because they see anarchism as their greatest threat.

This from The International Encyclopedia of Revolution and Protest:

In common parlance “anarchy” refers to a state of chaos or violent disorder and “anarchism” to the rebellious or merely perverse pursuit of this state. Indeed, the word “anarchist” was first used in the seventeenth century as an epithet against the defeated Levellers in the English Civil War. While the ideas and practices that would become known as anarchism were distinctly foreshadowed by movements such as the Diggers and the Ranters in the seventeenth century as well as by eighteenth-century thinkers such as William Godwin (and arguably by far more ancient schools of thought, from the Cynics of the fifth century bce to the Taoists of a century later), it was not until Pierre-Joseph Proudhon turned this epithet into a positive self-description that we can speak of anarchism per se, as a historical entity. Historically speaking, however, anarchism is the name for a movement, originating in mid-nineteenth-century Europe, characterized by its vision of a society of generalized self-management, its opposition to all forms of hierarchy and domination, and its particular emphasis on means of transformative action that prefigure the desired ends. The word also serves to name the goal of the movement – substantive and universal freedom, sometimes called “anarchy” – elements of which may be found in every society that has ever existed, particularly among peoples living without private property and the state.

Principles and Practices

Popular misunderstandings concerning anarchism, fed by more than a century and a half of sensationalistic media representations, are widespread – and, unfortunately, many scholarly accounts of anarchism do little to correct these distortions. The association of anarchy with chaos and senseless violence, while owing something to a certain phase in anarchist history (that of “propaganda by the deed”), is readily dispelled by even a cursory reading of works by actual self-described anarchists: “Anarchism … is not bombs, disorder, or chaos,” writes Alexander Berkman (1870–1936). “It is not a war of each against all. It is not a return to barbarism … Anarchism is the very opposite of all that” (Berkman 2003: xv). Similarly, Emma Goldman (1869–1940) defines anarchism as “the philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary” (1910: 56). The entry on anarchism that Peter Kropotkin (1842–1921) wrote for the 1910 Encyclopedia Britannica defined it as “a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government” (2002: 284). These three explanations of anarchism – it would be difficult to find any more widely accepted by anarchists – show that anarchism is a form of social order rather than mere disorder or absence of organization; the form of social order anarchism represents is intended to maximize freedom, and to do so without recourse to the kinds of coercive institutions that are typically assumed to be necessary, variously called “government,” “law,” or “authority”; and in place of these institutions, anarchists propose to produce social order through a system of “free agreements” to meet individuals' “needs.”

Continue READING:

ann arky's home.

WORKERS KNOW YOUR HISTORY -

- EMMA GOLDMAN'S BIRTHDAY.

      As the struggle of the ordinary people is set to become more harsh, we should always remember those who in their life gave so much to that struggle. We can learn from their deeds, their words and take inspiration from the way they lived their life.
     Today June 27 is the birthday Emma Goldman, born, 27 June 1869, died 14 May 1940, one of the many working class giants that took the full force of the state but never wavered in their believe, never lost their desire for a better world for all.

      On June 27, 1919 Emma Goldman spent her 50th birthday behind prison walls, where she was serving a two year prison term in Jefferson City, Missouri, for her conviction, along with Alexander Berkman, for conspiracy against the Selective Service Act of 1917 (for publicly speaking out against conscription). Today, June 27, 2011 we should take strength from the countless Emma Goldman's across the world and refocus our vision and re-double our efforts to carry on the struggle for that better world for all.
     
       Emma Goldman's writings and speeches touched on the full spectrum of human activity, she had clear thoughts on everything from love to death and all that comes between. Here are a couple of quotes from those two perspectives.
 

Cover of 70th Birthday Commemorative Edition pamphlet (Los Angeles: Libertarian Committee, 1939)

[Kate Sharpley Library]    

  

  Love:          

              Free love? As if love is anything but free! Man has bought brains, but all the millions in the world have failed to buy love. Man has subdued bodies, but all the power on earth has been unable to subdue love. Man has conquered whole nations, but all his armies could not conquer love. Man has chained and fettered the spirit, but he has been utterly helpless before love. High on a throne, with all the splendor and pomp his gold can command, man is yet poor and desolate, if love passes him by. And if it stays, the poorest hovel is radiant with warmth, with life and color. Thus love has the magic power to make of a beggar a king. Yes, love is free; it can dwell in no other atmosphere.

     Death:

               As to killing rulers, it depends entirely on the position of the ruler. If it is the Russian Czar, I most certainly believe in dispatching him to where he belongs. If the ruler is as ineffectual as an American President, it is hardly worth the effort. There are, however, some potentates I would kill by any and all means at my disposal. They are Ignorance, Superstition, and Bigotry — the most sinister and tyrannical rulers on earth. As for the gentleman who asked if free love would not build more houses of prostitution, my answer is: They will all be empty if the men of the future look like him.

        Responding to audience questions during a speech in Detroit (1898); as recounted in Living My Life (1931), p. 207; quoted by Annie Laurie Gaylor in Women Without Superstition, p. 382

ann arky's home.

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY 2011.

“Women need not always keep their mouths shut and their wombs open.” Emma Goldman.

     

      March 8 is celebrated across the world as International Women's Day (IWD), a day when we can come together to honour women world wide. In 1910, the Second International held the first international women's conference in Copenhagen and an 'International Women's Day' was established. It was suggested by the German Socialist Clara Zetkin, although no date was specified. The first IWD was observed on March 19, 1911 in Germany.

       It is a day when we can pay homage to all those women who selflessly fought to improve the conditions of not just women, but all humankind. Women who struggled to improve working conditions, for justice, for peace, for unity of all ordinary people.

      Every country, every city, has its role of honour of such women, perhaps not publicly displayed but it will be there, in folklore, in song, in theatre and poem. Glasgow can be proud of its list of women who fought injustice where they saw it, some struggled away in obscurity, some in the limelight of publicity, all paid their part in improving our lives. Today more than ever we need our women heroes, we need the unity of all men and women to combat the savage onslaught against our living standards. Today more than ever people have to stand up and join hands in solidarity with all people's across the globe.

     Here are just a few of Glasgow's women from our recent past that are worthy of being honoured today.

Mary Barbour,   Ethel MacDonald,    Helen Crawfurd,    Agnes Dollan,    Jenny Patrick,  who would you add to this list, there are hundreds from which to choose. Where are our modern Mary Barbour's, where is today's Ethel MacDonald? Can you name them?

 

 
"It is not by changing ministers - such guilty men! - or issuing declarations that fascism will be conquered. The problem is more complex than that. We do not intend to add our voice to those who delude the workers that their 'leaders' will get them out of the mess. The problems need a complete transformation in the present attitude of the working class."  Marie Louise Berneri From; War Commentary, December 1940.

ann arky's home.