💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › anark-constructing-the-revolution.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 06:36:30. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Constructing the Revolution Author: Anark Date: 9-22-20 Language: en Topics: Revolution, revolt, uprising, praxis, prefiguration, anarchism, anarchist, libertarian socialist, EZLN, Rojava, Zapatistas, Black Anarchism, Cooperation Jackson, Nestor Makhno, Kontrazzvedka, Breadtube Source: Author’s Script, Video Source
The following is the script of the video I published on my channel
. If you would like to watch that video, it is here:
Minor edits have been made to the script to instead refer to itself as
an essay instead of a video. Other than this, the content has remained
the same and may be seen as a copy of the video, in text form, that can
be distributed wholly in place of the video. I hope that this work
provides a strategic overview of the project of prefiguration and
revolt.
Solidarity forever.
One of the main goals of the essays I have written has been to lay out
the bigger picture of how anarchists and libertarian socialists view the
world and explain the theoretical and historical justifications for this
view point. However, after I completed The State is
Counter-Revolutionary
(https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anark-the-state-is-counter-revolutionary),
many people were still left wondering: if not vanguardism and the state,
then what? This is an entirely reasonable question to ask. As I have
said before, my goal on this channel is not just to offer you
abstractions, critiques, and deconstructions, I want to lay out a
concrete and actionable understanding of the world.
In this way, this essay can almost be seen as a direct follow up to The
State is Counter-Revolutionary, not because it dwells on the same
issues, but instead because it seeks to lay out an alternative which was
absent there. It can also be seen as a strategic bridge from the
theoretical inspection of Change and Revolution
(https://youtu.be/bSgdqczhrOk) to the structural discussion of After the
Revolution (https://youtu.be/sMoTWFZjoYA). Together, these can be seen
as a more comprehensive overview of the revolutionary project at hand,
of its pitfalls and triumphs, of possibilities for future action and an
understanding of the guiding tendencies of progress and revolt.
What I will describe here is a sort of synthesis of many other
anarchists and libertarian socialists: contemporary Black anarchists,
historical anarchist militaries, communalists and democratic
confederalists, the Neo-Zapatista movement, anarcho-syndicalists, and
many other peoples who have struggled for autonomy and dignity
throughout the world. And while these diverse traditions differ
significantly, they overlap in one very important concept:
prefiguration.
Prefiguration is the praxis which desires to “build the new in the shell
of the old.” It is a process of revolutionary action in which the
structures we create here and now, are attempts to mirror the
institutions of the future world to the greatest extent possible. And I
say “to the greatest extent,” because it is quite possible we will be
unable, in many circumstances, to build those post-revolutionary
institutions in their fullest sense within the boundaries of capitalism.
After all, capitalism will place many constraints on what we can create
within its sphere of dominance. But this concept of prefiguration, in
its desire to reach for the highest achievement of future goals within
the current moment, is a direct response to the failures of previous
revolutionary junctures. It is an embodiment of the anarchist conception
that the means are fundamentally intertwined with the ends.
Prefiguration is a sort of revolutionary school, in which the masses are
taught how to manage themselves through action, how to struggle
themselves, not to be commanded, but to emancipate humanity as a unified
mass. This essay seeks to lay out a plan of how we will go about
constructing the revolution
If we are to demand prefiguration as our revolutionary vehicle, if we
are to say that we must “build the new in the shell of the old,” then
the burden is on us to describe what institutions we think will meet
that task. Many anarchists shirk this burden, thinking that prescribing
the revolutionary struggle too closely is to work against the
fundamentally experimental nature of revolt. And it’s true, if we create
a program which is too rigid, we risk being too inflexible to survive
the harshness of reality. But, as Malatesta said [1]:
“When a collective has needs and its members fail to organize themselves
spontaneously, by themselves, in order to get by, someone, some
authority figure pops up to cater for that need by deploying everyone’s
resources and directing them according to his whim.”
Indeed, this is exactly what Nestor Makhno diagnosed as the primary
failure of the Russian anarchists after seeing what took place in the
Bolshevik Counter-Revolution and it was the reason he wrote On
Revolutionary Unity [2]; to help establish a platform so that anarchist
and libertarian communist movements could avoid vanguard co-option and
aimlessness. Knowing these mistakes, we cannot harbor disorganization
and we cannot reject concrete programs because it is within a
disorganized, aimless people that the cancer of hierarchy is first
allowed to metastasize. In that spirit, I contend that there are four
key components that must be sufficiently developed if we hope to weather
the revolutionary process and actually enact a liberatory future. They
are:
This list is not exhaustive, nor are each of these mutually exclusive.
That is to say, each cannot just be built in and of themselves with the
belief that they will successfully prefigure a future society. They are
also not all equal in their weight. In fact, the first component on this
list, council bodies, precedes all others in its importance, because if
there is no aspect of community control, whatever is created in the
other categories is going to be neutralized or destroyed. The council is
the body by which Economics, Defense, and Intelligence are made into
projects of revolutionary activity. The councils solidify the
revolutionary thrust of this four part program by creating a vehicle for
expansion and resolution. And, because the councils represent the needs
of the people, they are the civil bodies by which further transformation
can take place as successes and failures present themselves.
It is no coincidence then that this is precisely where we shall begin.
So what is a council? When I use the word council I am referring to a
horizontal, freely associated, directly-democratic body, which is
composed of the people from some particular region, interest, identity,
or profession. In these councils, all proposals are created and brought
to a vote by the members, not some narrow leadership, and if the council
needs to delegate someone to carry out a task, that delegation is
temporary and able to be revoked by a simple majority vote at any time.
If you would like to get a more in-depth explanation of what I mean by
this, I recommend reading the essay After the Revolution. There I lay
out how a mass scale weak-consensus voting system of nested council
structures might work.
However, I would offer two points about how this process of council
building should differ from the one I laid out in that essay: first,
when sizes permit, consensus voting should be used instead. That is to
say: decisions should only pass in these councils with unanimous
approval. Consensus is almost always superior, so long as it can be
used, because it guarantees that no one’s needs are ignored and promotes
strong agreement upon a plan of action. The second comment is simply to
say that this vision of council structures is much more flexible than
the system laid out in After the Revolution, involving a much larger
variety of groups for which councils could be built to facilitate their
needs.
With such a wide open field, it is probably difficult to decide where to
even begin. But I advise that you begin with yourselves. That is to say;
the group of people that seek to organize councils in different
communities, should be the first to model the method. After all, if
you’re going to bring the idea of democratic management to strangers,
you should already have proof that it at least works in managing your
group first. This sort of organizing council, composed of ideological
anarchists and libertarian socialists that has the goal of spurring on
further radicalization and prefiguration, is called a catalyst group. It
stands in contrast to the vanguard model of the authoritarians. In this
catalyst group, power is never centralized in the hands of a narrow
group of leaders, at any stage. Instead, control is held equally among
all members of the group. The catalyst is meant to integrate itself into
and learn from the communities it interacts with, to listen to their
struggles and meet their needs, not paternalistically dictate to them
the conditions for assistance. The catalyst group is not a superior,
dictating from outside of the masses, but a cooperator and a confidant
to those who are oppressed.
Ultimately, the motivating ethos is that those who are affected by some
decision are those who should decide. A council could be created by a
neighborhood, so that they could decide together about things which
affect them. Or a council could be created on a certain city block,
street, area code, city, or any other geographical location. Similarly,
councils could be created to represent the needs of particular oppressed
identities; Black citizen councils, Indigenous American councils,
women’s councils, and so on. Councils could be created for families
affected by police violence, or elders in an area, or radical youth.
If you want to get an overview of different council bodies that could be
created and how to create them, there is a very good coverage in the
work Let Your Motto Be Resistance by Kali Akuno and the Malcolm X
Grassroots Movement [3]. In this work, the atom of council building that
they present is called the Block Committee and serves as a very good
descriptor of the sort of minimum entity I advocate here. Similarly,
among many communalists, there is a conception of what is called a
Neighborhood Pod and there is a wonderful video by Neighbor Democracy
called Neighborhood Pods: What They Are And How To Start Them [4], which
also serves as a tactical companion to this essay.
Regardless of what that minimum entity is called, the thrust remains the
same: we must build democratic bodies at the smallest level first, so
that the people can control their lives directly. Deciding whether one
should focus on neighborhoods, blocks, streets, apartment buildings, or
any other span, is a matter which is particular to your conditions! You
will have to ask yourself: what size, span, and scope is most reasonable
for me to group people together in my area?
I am sure that many of you, as you are listening, are nervous imagining
that you will have to go speak to your neighbors and, worse, have a
conversation with them about something so contentious. Yet this is
precisely why such a thing must be done. This project is not only
revolutionary in the action of creating democratic structures that will
oversee our projects, it is revolutionary precisely because it
represents a hope in repairing the atomization of capitalism. All
hierarchies of power desire to keep us separate, competing, and
individualistic, because we are easier to exploit that way. Dismiss the
idea that your task is only to build councils of fully like-minded
individuals. You have to start from a presumption that those around you
are salvageable until the time comes that they confirm to you that they
are not. It is by this rebuilding of our shattered communities that we
might rediscover solidarity with our fellow humans.
After councils have been constructed, there are many possible goals for
them to have. It is generally the case that they should seek out the
issues that most affect the individuals within them, then act toward
ameliorating those issues. For example: if the council is mostly
composed of Black people experiencing police brutality, it is only
natural that they should organize community self defense and cop watch
groups. If the group is experiencing the poisoning of their soil by some
agricultural company, they could organize blockades against that
company. If a community is in a food desert, they might start a food
sovereignty project. Ultimately, understand that the goal of the council
is not the choice of the catalyst group. The catalyst group is not a
vanguard. Its job is to provide help and support, ideas and motivation,
to those people who wish to achieve autonomy.
And if, after you have assisted some group in constructing a council,
they do not organize toward defeating the particular hierarchy you had
hoped for, do not spend too much time trying to push them into that end,
find the people who are most motivated to fight and conquer that other
hierarchy and organize them as well. This is not a zero sum game. Every
hierarchy of power and privilege is a sort of cancer that must be rooted
out and destroyed in order to bring mass liberation. We must fight on
each front and cooperate together in our shared struggle against
hierarchy.
Also, do not think that the catalyst group is the only group fit to
become a popular educator. One of the best ways that new councils can
remain on a prefigurative trajectory is to become bodies of popular
education. The councils should not only try to establish reading groups
where they engage with and analyze radical literature, they should also
try to host teach-ins that are free to the public, create free
libraries, table with radical literature, and generally try to spread
radical ideas which are conducive to furthering this project. This is
especially important in areas where the constituency is very
conservative or generally not amenable to radical ideas. In this way, it
may be very necessary to tend the soil for some time before planting
seeds.
Another very useful practice for these newer councils is to act as
confederators. That is to say, these councils may choose to focus on
some particular issue, say food sovereignty, and instead of planting
gardens themselves, start by seeing who is already planting community
gardens and trying to create a council body that joins all of them
together. In doing so, the council who helped carry out the
confederation creates an ally and a possible connection for creating
mutual aid. All of the groups are strengthened in having access to new
resources.
The councils can also function as organizing bodies; planning strikes,
raising funds for people in desperate circumstances, using direct
action, and so on. As with the practice of creating these councils, it
is possible an entire book could be created laying out the organizing
process, so instead I will direct you to the expanded Black Flag
Catalyst Protest Guide [5].
As these councils grow in strength and solidity, they will have the
labor needed to spearhead more and more substantive projects. But it is
very likely that they will run into issues funding these plans. Such a
problem can be especially challenging given the perverse incentives of
capitalism. And, while for many historic organizations, the compromise
has been some form of membership dues, here I will offer a more holistic
approach.
In having a discussion about economics we are delving into a topic which
absolutely dominates the leftist canon. But, despite this extensive
range of theoretical work, the bulk of historical leftist movements have
relegated themselves to a somewhat narrow prefigurative path, focusing
largely on the creation of different kinds of unions; viewing the union
as a tool of anti-capitalist warfare. And the union, if established and
managed through the same democratic, horizontal principles as we have
laid out beforehand, is indeed a body fit to do battle with capitalism.
But it is also an entity which only exists as long as capitalism exists;
it is a model entirely based on negotiation with capital, not a body
configured to give the workers full control. Unions are worthwhile, good
even. But the more hierarchical they are, the more likely they will not
endure the transition out of capitalism and thus have an institutional
tendency to resist that change or function as forms of co-option in the
labor movement.
Our struggle is not just in capitalist workplaces, it is a broader
struggle to create our own, cooperative workplaces, operating on our
radical ideas. These worker-owned and self-directed enterprises should
have the goal of producing the basic necessities which are needed for
society to function. Further, these cooperatives should be held
accountable to the councils as they operate within the market. In doing
this, we create the foundations of a sovereign, self-sustained economy,
a way to provide for ourselves and expand as needed, especially in such
an occasion that insurrection or sabotage arises.
And there are examples of this praxis being carried out: particularly a
group called Cooperation Jackson in Jackson, Mississippi. This project,
heavily involved with ideas of Black anarchism, is very much endeavoring
in the direction we have laid out here. While creating cooperatives and
establishing community land trusts, they are also making popular
assemblies in neighborhoods around them. They have written an excellent
book covering this project called Jackson Rising [6], which I highly
recommend.
While we are making inroads into worker control within market dynamics,
we should also endeavor to create more direct, demonetized distribution
networks. Where cooperatives over-produce, they should funnel their
products directly into existing mutual aid networks. Even better, they
may see fit to put aside some substantial portion of their production,
above and beyond sustaining the cooperative, toward these community
mutual aid networks. At the same time, establishing community gardens,
when carried out with serious intent, can provide greater food security
for surrounding areas, especially for those who are in food deserts,
where fruits and vegetables may be quite difficult to acquire. Mutual
aid is, the more it is expanded, an increasingly real model of
communism: distribution based on need and production based on ability,
the abolition of price and currency in favor of human solidaric
cooperation.
This summary does not, by any means, exhaust the range of economic
bodies that could be created. We have not even delved into land-trusts,
alternative currencies, time banks, communes, intentional communities,
credit unions, expropriation, or squatting. But each of these may also
serve a useful purpose in the project of economic independence. If you
wish to find a more extensive history of pregurative economics, Paul
Raekstad (creator of the YouTube channel Red Plateaus) gives a very
thorough coverage in his book Prefigurative Politics [7].
But we cannot stop here; economics plus councils is still not enough.
Even if we create the entities we have laid out here, insofar as they
become a real threat to power structures, they will be actively
suppressed. When that time comes, we must be prepared to defend our
projects from the tyrants and we cannot simply organize such a
resistance in the heat of the moment. To be successful, we will need to
have a countervailing force that is trained and ready to defend the
collective.
As we begin this conversation, it may seem a lamentable affair that
those of us who only wish to build a more free and dignified world for
the masses, must also arm ourselves and prepare for conflict. However,
even if we are to imagine we would build and never aggress, we cannot
deny the precedents of history. It is an inevitable outcome that power
structures will assault our prefiguration violently the more successful
it grows and when they do, we must be prepared to defend the seeds of
our future society which we have so meticulously planted and tended to
fruition. Because, do not think that the purpose of these defense
formations is only to countervail the state and capital, they are also a
means to keep our communities safe in the meantime.
Some examples of defense organizations which might be formed are: cop
watch, community defense, direct action security, and militias. Each of
these, built for a different purpose, will also be structured in a
slightly different way. For example, community defense and cop watch
groups may not even be armed by default, but encouraged to arm
themselves in the occasion that violence is being carried out in the
area. Direct action security may often be armed in order to protect
protesters from interference as well as uniquely trained for protest
safety tactics, however there are examples of direct action security,
such as the Bike Brigade, which are both effective and unarmed. By
contrast, militias, as revolutionary bodies in waiting, will need to be
armed and educated on the principles of military conflict, and should
therefore read about military tactics and strategy, drill small unit
tactics, and educate the community on its place in the larger
revolutionary schema. What each defensive body holds in common, however,
is that they should each be formed first at the level of the locality
and should be based primarily on the needs of that locality.
There are real pitfalls that must be avoided, however, in forming
militias. Because a militia is a trained group of citizen soldiers, it
is also, inherently, a group trained to do violence. Even more, it will
often be necessary, especially as enemies attempt to suppress our
projects, that a truly effective revolutionary militia becomes
clandestine, largely hidden away from the view of the public and
planning actions of a seditious nature. And if such a group does not
view itself as accountable to and consisting of the community it is
embedded in, it will often have a tendency to become a sort of violent
vanguard party, conscripting the masses into an insurrection under their
hierarchical control.
But it’s not inevitable that this will take place. It is, instead, the
outcome of too much centralization and not enough integration of
militias into their communities. A militia should not be viewed as the
revolution itself, it should be seen as the enacted wrath of the people,
the conscious self-defense of the collective, and therefore a mere
instrument to carry out the overthrow of the tyrants when the time comes
that they think they will crush us through force.
In order for the militias to carry out these necessary tasks, however,
they must be able to model a structure of discipline while
simultaneously avoiding the hierarchies of coercion and rejecting the
cult-like brainwashing seen in standing armies. If these hierarchies of
power are allowed to exist, the heads of the militias will become
failure points in the system, a new place for the cancer of
centralization to metastasize. So let us try and find a balance.
In all militias, in order for a person to become a member, they must
opt-in to a code of conduct both in the militia and in the confederation
of militias. Because the militias have only been given the right to
train and enact organized violence by the collective, that code of
conduct should also be decided by the collective. For this reason, there
is no separate process of militia grievance. Militias are fully
integrated parts of a revolutionary community and therefore they are
held to the standards that the community has set. The councils will
almost certainly choose to delegate some significant number of these
militia tasks to experts within the confederation, of course, but
crucially, the power to revoke those decisions and to recall those
people chosen as delegates must be held in the hands of the council
bodies.
In this structure, militia members and community members vote together
to determine the chain of command. Unlike a standing army, militia
members are a fully constituted part of the total military body and thus
they have the same rights to vote on the placement of themselves and
fellow soldiers as they would in a workplace or a community council.
This control by the mass of militia members does not mean that
discipline is still not paramount, but is instead a statement that
punitive justice does not work in military command any more than in
civil society. Instead, unwillingness to follow commands should be
judged on a case by case basis. If the insubordination of a soldier
saved the lives of fellow militia members, avoided committing a war
crime, or served the end of protecting the autonomous body, for example,
they should be pardoned and kept in their position, maybe even rewarded.
If, however, their choice to disobey command put other peoples’ lives at
risk, whether fellow militia members or the autonomous body, they may be
sanctioned through removal from the position they were in, reassignment,
further training, or dismissal from the militia structure back into
citizen life.
It should also be said, much of what is specified here about the
militias will probably also need to be true of the other defensive
bodies that we have laid out. They should be accountable to their
communities, their code of conduct decided jointly with the councils,
and so on. However, we have focused on the militias, because their
effective formation is most integral to the long term revolutionary
success of the project.
As with the practice of building community councils and solidarity
economies, we do not have time to get into specific militia tactics or
the many organizational precepts which will lead to effective defense
organizations. The topic could not possibly be summarized in the course
of a single essay. However, it is recommended that people who are
interested in this aspect read Kuwasi Balagoon’s A Soldier’s Story [8]
and, once again, Let Your Motto Be Resistance by Kali Akuno [9]. Also,
we are fortunate that our enemies publish their field manuals openly. In
fact, United States Army has one in particular which may be of interest
in anarchist militia training called the Unconventional Warfare Manual
[10].
But there is one last subject we must cover if we are going to have a
fully functioning revolutionary confederation. How do we deal with the
fact that our enemies will be constantly attempting to surveil and
undermine our projects? How do we gather intelligence and create
actionable information to make decisions? It is a question that has
received very little attention in anarchist literature, so let us
explore a possible answer.
In this last section of the essay, I will proceed to lay out what I am
calling ‘anarchist intelligence.’ And this function is an important one.
The information gathered by this intelligence apparatus will not only be
needed by the militias, it will also be needed by the civil council
bodies so that they can make fully informed decisions about their
society. If the council is to be a tool for self-governance, it must be
informed about the actions of its enemies. If the militia is to act in
situations of life or death, it must know the lay of the land. Even
economic bodies may benefit from the knowledge that can be gained by a
trained and effective intelligence agency.
However, intelligence agencies represent one of the most dire threats
for power accumulation. Where there is secrecy, there must be trust, but
in order for there to be trust, there must be transparency. Thus there
has to be a clever middle ground. In this section we will attempt to
find that middle ground. It is very likely that there will be flaws in
this model, but it is one which I have crafted with the utmost attention
toward maintaining a balance of power in the hands of the councils,
while also mimicking crucial features of how intelligence agencies must
function to be successful.
The first organizational principle is that the intelligence bodies will
be split into clandestine pods, just as militias are split into
localities. These intelligence pods have three primary positions:
handler, analyst, and asset.
The job of the handler is to read reports given to them by intelligence
analysts and assets and then to create a course of action for assets.
This position is elected by the council body and should be chosen with
trust as the highest priority. The handler does not do work on the
ground, they are the intermediary between the analysts, the councils,
and the assets. They only have access to information given to them by
analysts and assets.
The job of the analyst is to compile information and reportbacks from a
larger body of assets and handlers into reports to help handlers manage
their assets and for councils to make decisions. This position is also
elected by the council body and should also be chosen with trust as the
highest priority. The analyst is tasked with storing information
gathered by assets in the field into information databases, but,
similarly to the handler, they do not do work in the field. They sort
information as to its importance to the council, the handler, or the
asset and those three bodies must merely make requests to the analyst in
order to get information that is needed.
The job of the asset is to gather information in the field, either as a
technician or as a spy. The asset is not elected by the council bodies,
they are chosen by the handler. This is to avoid putting assets in
danger, as delegation would expose their identity to the public and thus
ruin their ability to embed successfully and put them at risk of
discovery. Examples of roles that assets might take are: spies, hackers,
surveillance teams, and social engineers. All of these positions are
bound to breach into illegal actions and that is why they must be kept
completely safe and their actions clandestine.
Because handlers, analysts, and assets are all given extremely high
access to secretive information, there must also be a process in place
to hold them accountable to the councils, just like the militias and
economic bodies. This process is called auditing. If the council body
requests, they can elect an auditor who is given a mandate to inspect
the functions and information within the work of analysts, handlers, and
assets. Nothing is off limits to this auditor and they will create a
report to bring back to the council so that the council can make
decisions about revoking the positions of analysts and handlers if
necessary, as well as possible restructuring of these pods.
As with previous sections, there is not nearly enough room to discuss
the tactics of these pods, however the Makhnovists in Ukraine used an
intelligence structure that had some key similarities to this. There is
a very good book written on this topic called Kontrrazvedka: The Story
of the Makhnovist Intelligence Service by V. Azarov [11]. Examples of
decentralized intelligence pods in the modern era have also now evolved
to include digital spaces, where we can see the utility of hacking
groups such as Anonymous and anonymized information publishers like
Wikileaks, although they are much less structured and accountable
compared to what we lay out here. Lastly, if one wishes to become good
at intelligence work, it is advisable to study the tactics of the enemy;
for this purpose, it is recommended that one refer to the US Army’s
Counterinsurgency Manual [12].
These anarchist intelligence pods are the eyes and ears of the
confederation of councils and economic bodies, a clandestine, dispersed
network of individual entities; interwoven and nested within the citizen
power structures. And with them, we have laid out our four pillars.
Now, with all of these pieces in place, we can imagine a process in
which local councils, cooperatives, militias, and intelligence pods,
join together into larger bodies at the city, state, region, nation, or
global level. After all, the enemy is not the bourgeois of one country
or region, the enemy is a planetary system. The arbitrary, opportunistic
propaganda of the powerful is only meant to separate us and pit us
against one another, to placate us, to encourage us to give in to
nihilism and defeat.
For this reason, our praxis must be unification upon an
anti-hierarchical program. Our praxis must be to build a new human
social ecology that does not view itself as separate from its
environment, that opposes patriarchy, white supremacy, paternalism, and
all other forms of justification for hierarchies of power and privilege.
In these new communities we must recover the revolutionary spirit and
dismantle the mentality of the oppressor. Their borders are not our
borders, their constructs of race and gender, of who is indebted, of who
is enslaved, of who is deserving and who is undeserving, must all be
demolished. Structures of supremacy and exploitation are not fit for a
communal future; that future can only be built through the mass action
of a common people in struggle against tyranny.
It is then global solidarity that will lead humanity to a new stage of
development, contrary to the needs of the oppressors and the bigots and
the self-interested capitalists. Let us build a revolutionary ecosystem
that will heal the planet and dismantle the justifications of the
overlords. The powerful have not yet won this fight. The planet is not
yet doomed. We can become the stewards of the land once again.
But if we ever hope to do this, all of us together must take back the
autonomy and the dignity they have stolen; strike down the exploiters,
confound the slave catchers and destroy their implements, overthrow the
tyrants and bury their shattered thrones. In the great void that is the
unknown future, there is a liberatory world that lies yet unfulfilled.
Let us struggle together to destroy the great chimera of hierarchy. We
have nothing to lose but our chains.
[1] Errico Malatesta, “
”
[2] Nestor Makhno, “
”
[3] Kali Akuno, “
”
[4] Neighbor Democracy, “
Neighborhood Pods: What They Are And How To Start Them
”
[5]
The Black Flag Catalyst Revolt Guide
[6] Kali Akuno and Ajamu Nangwaya, “
”
[7] Paul Raekstad, “
Prefigurative Politics: Building Tomorrow Today
”
[8] Kuwasi Balagoon, “
”
[9] Kali Akuno, “
”
[10] United States Army, “
”
[11]
V. Azarov, “
=> https://libcom.org/files/Kontrrazvedka%20-%20The%20Story%20of%20the%20Makhnovist%20Intelligence%20Service%20-%20V.%20Azarov.pdf Kontrrazvedka: The Story of the Makhnovist Intelligence Service
”
[12] United States Army, “
”