revolution

Is libertarian socialism possible in North Africa?

Is libertarian socialism possible in North Africa? Is it even possible to struggle for it in an organised way? What about West Africa? Central Africa?

These are the regions I am trying to educate myself about now. South of Europe.  There are hundreds of thousands of refugees and migrants trying to cross the Mediterranean, and I have been trying to find out why.

Of course, I knew the general picture – Wars, Poverty, environmental destruction, corrupt and oppressive governments – and I knew that all these things in one way or another are the fault of transnational capitalists and the big imperialist states, of which most sit on the UN Security Council.

But now I’m trying to find out which way or another. Which transnational corporations, companies and capitalists are making money out of where, with help from who, and with what consequences? It’s a big question, made up of a great deal of smaller ones.

Of course, there are lots of books available, and lots of documentaries, but you’d be surprised how little actually. Or perhaps you wouldn’t.

Most countries in the Sahara and Sahel regions do not have TV networks producing high quality journalism in the English language, because of government repression, a general lack of resources, and sometimes just because of the generally chaotic situation.

Two English-language broadcasters who do have quite a lot of stuff up there on YouTube for free are Al Jazeera – owned by Qatar, and Press TV, owned by Iran. Iran and Qatar have completely contradictory geopolitical interests for the most part, and it is no surprise that Al Jazeera and Press TV often report contradictory narratives.

For example, take the war in the north of Mali. Al Jazeera glorifies the struggle of the Tuaregs for an independent State called Azawad with many emotional interviews and personal stories. Press TV says that hardly anyone in the north of Mali actually wants independence and it’s all a French conspiracy.

So basically, both of these channels are trying to appeal to Westerners who have anti-imperialist sympathies, as of course is Russia Today. But all of them are actually controlling information and constructing narratives to suit the interests of various imperialist states and, one must suppose, transnational capitalists.

How many Tuaregs actually wanted independence? Al Jazeera could just be focusing on the minority who do and making it seem like they represent them all, or Press TV, who don’t provide any evidence for their statistics, could be making it all up. Al Jazeera makes no mention of possible French interests in stirring up the conflict, though is usually quite critical of French imperialism.

So you can’t just base your ideas on what is on TV, is the conclusion. You have to go back to the basics.

When Britain, France and other imperialist powers directly colonised countries in Africa, and in other parts of the world, they basically wanted to export resources back to their imperial centres to sell to their people, or to convert in factories to something else which they could sell to people both in the colonies and in Europe.

So they needed to make sure that some roads and ports got built, as well as mines, plantations and a few shitty houses for native workers to sleep in, but that was about it. They definitely didn’t want these countries to have big industries of their own so that they could produce their own goods, because then they wouldn’t have to buy them from the imperialists.

Today in Africa you still see people using industrially-made products that are imported from outside Africa, only now the companies are not only European but Asian and American as well. You still also see African resources mainly being exported outside of Africa to Europe, Asia and the Americas.

So it’s clear that despite many changes of government in the past 60 or more years since these countries became independent, not that much has changed in terms of the basic economic set-up.  In colonial times, this economic set-up was based on the brutal force of a completely undemocratic state, and again, not much has changed.

So what about libertarian socialism? As Nationalism, Marxist-Leninism, Islamic Fundementalism and even ‘African Socialism’ have all failed to actually change the basic situation that African workers, peasants and landless, unemployed refugees are in, could a non-statist political movement work?

What has usually happened when countries have had mass political movements for independence from European empires is that their leaders have taken over the state structures and economic infrastructure that the Europeans left and have been corrupted or bullied by the Europeans and Americans into keeping everything basically the same as it was before.

Often there has been a bit of a struggle, usually taking the form of military coups and civil war, which when you look a bit closer turn out not to be a bunch of ‘mindless savages killing each other for no reason’ or whatever the Western media tries to present it as, but actually a bunch of armed groups funded by different imperialist powers fighting each other, or just one group funded by the West fighting another group which genuinely wants to nationalise the wealth of the country.

Unfortunately most of these armed fighters who have simply wanted to nationalise the wealth of the country have also been guilty of killing civilians and so cannot be supported uncritically, even if the imperialist stooges they are fighting are far worse.

Increasingly the anti-imperialist fighters are fucking crazy Islamic fundamentalists who kill anyone they don’t like, oppress women, kill LGBT people, and do all sorts of other stupid bullshit.

So what about libertarian socialism? What about a movement that says the same thing as all the others have said ‘stop exporting all the resources at the barrel of a gun’ but which instead of saying ‘then give it to our new state in the name of Allah, Socialism, the Nation or Whatever’ says ‘let the workers control the means of production directly at the level of the shopfloor?’

What about NO state? What about communities running their own affairs in municipal assemblies, workers running their own workplaces, everyone electing all individuals to be put in any position of responsibility or authority and having the power to instantly recall them if they abuse it?

What about villages, neighbourhoods, workplaces, all being self-governing and choosing delegates, again subject to instant recall, to go to regional or industrial meetings to coordinate production and distribution between themselves as and when is necessarily, with no fixed centralised authority?

There are some African political activists calling for such a thing. There are anarchist movements in South Africa, Nigeria, Egypt, maybe other places. But it is a very small movement in a very big continent.

Travelling activists have always played a role in the history of the anarchist movement. Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Emma Goldman, Makhno, they all moved across borders many times in their lives, spreading ideas along the way and linking together organised workers and revolutionaries in different countries.

It seems to be that Europe has quite a lot of educated people of libertarian socialist opinions (whether they use that term or not) who are not particularly ‘engaged in revolutionary struggle’ right now – and North Africa is the closest place to go for most Western Europeans, where they would be able to find actual revolutionary conditions.

In Europe, conditions are not revolutionary because the ‘masses’ are far too bourgeois. There is an ‘underclass’ or lumpenproletariat of people who have nothing much too lose and everything to gain from social revolution. The majority of people, though, are enjoying the benefits of transnational capitalist imperialism far too much.

Look at me, for instance. I am unemployed, yet I can still eat and have a roof over my head, because the food I eat is mostly grown in other countries and the producers paid a fraction of the low prices that I pay for it, out of money that the State in my country is able to afford to pay me, just to stop me getting too angry, because it is a rich State that makes wealth by exporting high tech arms and financial services around the world to maintain the global, brutal capitalist order which it helped create in the first place.

Now take the average unemployed person in Morocco, the closest African country to me. They don’t get given money by the State just for being unemployed. The state isn’t going to pay the impoverished masses there money to stop them getting too agitated. Instead it relies on brute force and a network of government informers in every neighbourhood.

The Moroccan state couldn’t afford the kind of social welfare system that exists in the UK. They have what money the Western imperialist governments let them have, through the World Bank, foreign aid, or direct investment, which is very little.

Say they wanted to buy a load of landmines from a Western company. Well, I’m sure a Western bank would lend them the money, and a Western government would encourage them to. Then the Western arms company would have more money, and so would the bank, so that Western government would have a higher GDP. The same people might even own the bank, the arms company, and control the government. In effect they have just given the Moroccan state a bunch of weapons for free, because they wanted to anyway, to keep down the pesky Moroccan workers. But you may as well make shit loads of money at the same time.

So basically, in Europe you have a lot of revolutionaries with not much potential for revolution, and in Africa you have a lot of potential for revolution without enough revolutionaries. So how about some redistribution?

To be clear – I am not at all calling on European activists to come and ‘save Africa’ or any shit like that. We are not going to ‘bring anarchism’ to the masses. Anarchism doesn’t work like that. It is not the same as Marxism.

Marxists, especially Marxist-Leninists, believe that the people are basically too stupid to govern themselves, but that if a bunch of Marxist intellectuals come along at the right time and boss them around a bit, maybe those intellectuals could take over the State, and boss the people around some more, until one day, far in the future, the people will be ready to govern themselves.

Anarchists believe that people are able to govern themselves now, if only they would be given a fucking chance. Being given a chance includes acquiring land, tools and other means of production while being free from external oppression for long enough to get something going.

So whereas Marxists, for their strategy to work, need to go around convincing people that Marxism is a belief system that makes sense, but that is just too complicated for the workers to understand, and that they, the Marxists, are very clever and should be listened to and obeyed all the time if the workers know what’s good for them, anarchists have no need to behave like this.

Anarchists just need to go along, pitch in, help out, just like everyone else, and stay true to their principles, being as open and honest about them as is possible without getting shot in the head. At the most, anarchists need to convince workers of the value of themselves, not of anarchist theory.

For example, if you say to someone, ‘you can do that yourself, you don’t need some big shot to do it for you” and they say ‘oh no, for sure, I couldn’t do that, not little old me”, you just need to tell ‘em they shouldn’t be so down on themselves. Just be encouraging, like a mate.

There are people in Africa who cry out for foreigners to come and solve all their problems for them. They may not particularly be happy with a bunch of foreigners coming and saying ‘no, do it yourself, but we can help out a bit if you like’, but hey. Fuck ‘em. You can’t treat someone differently because they are from a different country. If some dickhead came up to me in England and asked me to solve all their problems for me I would tell them the same thing.

There can be no revolution in Europe without revolution in Africa. When people there kick out the multinational corporations and destroy all the dictatorships, taking the wealth of their countries into their own hands, directly, you know what will happen here in Europe? We won’t have any fucking food to eat, or petrol to drive cars with, uranium to power our laptops, or coltan to make those laptops out of. Then you might see some revolution. Then the European working classes might think about rising up and seizing the land, factories, and other means of production.

So that is the basis on which I am saying European activists should go to Africa – as revolutionaries who see no borders as being real, and know that our liberation is bound up with the liberation of all people, all around the world. We should use our privileged access to resources – as well as other privileges such as relative freedom of movement and in many cases skin colour privileges – to support working-class, peasant and landless people’s struggles for liberation – helping to build connections between movements in different countries, on the basis of non-hierarchical, horizontal organising, and resisting all bureaucratic or authoritarian tendencies in those movements from within.

It’s a lot to ask, I know, and potentially very dangerous. But what else is there? Shall we let Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb be the leading voice of opposition to capitalist imperialism in the region while we sit in Europe watching things get worse and worse from a distance?

Or should we practice what we preach?

The Spirit of Revolution is the Spirit of Rock and Roll

There’s only one great occupation that can change the world: that’s real Rock’n’ Roll.  I believe to the bottom of my heart – the last cell – that Rock’n’Roll can change everything, and I am a graduate of Warhol University, and I believe in the power of Punk. To this day I want to blow it up. Thank you.”  – Lou Reed’s acceptance speech as GQ Inspiration of the Year 2013, his last public appearance before he died – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNBQkWxnpLE.

IS it in your nature to be aggressive, to lash out at people and inanimate objects when things go wrong, to complain in curse words and envision vengeance against the perpetrators of injustices meted out against you, your kin and your friends?

Is it the sound of drums beaten till they are about to collapse and screetching electric guitar noises, huge booming bass and pained voices joyfully unburdening their anger at the world that gets your attention, gets your ears pricked up and your eyes rolling back in your head in ecstasy?

Will you tolerate the death of rock-n-roll? Will you stand by as record company capitalists and teenage boys with plastic smiles seek to corrupt the minds of the youth leading them away from the true path of spiritual development through primal, raw, ROCK AND ROLL and instead lose their individuality in a sea of gormless conformist morons ready and willing to be used as cannon fodder for modern-day fascist regimes?

would Jimmi Hendrix have stood idly by while the bombs rained down on Baghdad in 2003? No, he would have done a guitar solo. A fucking awesome one.

Hammers on the windows of arms factories, hammers on the machinery inside, fire to the rest of the buildings, masses of people camped out on train lines in front of carriages full of soldiers and military equipment, armaments depots being set ablaze, fascist cops fought back against when they would have tried to move us.

This is what would have stopped the war in 2003, not a million people marching peacefully. 10,000 people taking DIRECT ACTION would have been enough to stop the war, according to an article I read, age 19, and that article set me on a course that would find me an enemy of the State, a revolutionary with no option to turn back to normal life, no way to renounce what I have done and proclaim a false belief in reactionary ideology, for who would possibly believe me?

10,000 people doing radical things, things that would put their own bodies and lives at risk in the sake of a great cause, in the sake of saving Iraqi lives, in the sake of saving the lives of western imperialist soldiers, in the sake of saving the lives of victims of terrorist attacks not yet perpetrated that would be carried out in revenge for the war.

10,000 people being reckless, raw, ROCK AND ROLL. Listening to awesome guitar solos. And shit like that.

To some people rock and roll is called Hip Hop. To some people it is called Reggae. To some, Drum’n’bass (as if the ‘n’ wasn’t a total giveaway) Techno, Breakcore, Gabba, all kinds of crazy words. To some, it is even called Jazz. But I know the truth about any music that makes a crowd go wild, gets people shouting at each other with smiles on their faces as they pull aggressive postures and listen to lyrics depicting violence spat out by hoarse throats.

They are all imbued with the same spirit. The Spirit of Rock’n’Roll.

The Spirit of Revolution.

Revolution is not something that will happen in the future in accordance with some dialectical theory of history. We do not have to wait until capitalism has made everything even worse than it already is before we can begin to fight against it in the name of fairness, of liberty, of solidarity.

We can fight NOW to change things NOW. We demand freedom NOW. Always NOW, NOW, NOW.

We fight and we will win or not win but we will fight and fight in the Spirit in which we desire to carrying living if ever the fight is finally won. Muslims call it “fighting in the way of Allah”. A Holy War is not just a war against people who think something else is Holy than what you think is, it is a war you fight in a Holy way.

So, for those of us who believe not in Allah and the teachings of his Prophet Mohammed, but instead in the Spirit of Rock’n’Roll, how do we apply this?

Going to battle against the State as we would in a mosh pit – moshing the fucking system right down around our feet, smashing it the fuck up, SMASHING IT THE FUCK UP.

In a mosh-pit you don’t lay down rules at one another like a PRICK. You just let each other be, man, and dig it. Dig the vibe. It’s all part of the total scene. Another page in the history book of Rock’n’Roll.

A wise man said once “Be excellent to one another. And party on, dudes”. His name was Ed Solomon, the main writer of the Bill and Ted movies, and a man who fully understood the significance the Rock’n’Roll has on the world stage.

He prophesied that one day a band would be formed that would rock SO HARD that they would solve all the worlds problems and usher in a new age of reason and global unity and happiness for all, based upon that simple maxim.

This is not just a movie starring Keanu Reeves, like The Matrix. This is a movie foretelling the coming revolution, like THE MATRIX REVOLUTION.

I believe in the prophesy of Ed Solomon. I believe in the dying words of Lou Reed. I believe in the Revolution, and in Rock’n’roll. And I will not be silenced.

ALL POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!

FREE YOUR HATE, FREE YOUR DESIRES!

BLOW IT UP!!!

ROCK’N’ROLL, MUTHAFUCKA!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

Anarchism Which is not Anti-colonialist is Just Racism in Disguise

Saying you are opposed to Capitalism and the State without talking about Imperialism and Colonialism is quite a strange thing to do. It is in fact suspicious, as it indicates not only that you live in an imperialist country and enjoy the benefits of this, but also that you refuse to admit this fact. I am afraid to say this makes you a racist, even if you don’t realist it. Like with drugs, the first step to giving up racism is admitting you have a problem. The UK Anarchist movement has yet to take this first step.

Divide and Rule Affects Anarchists Too

Many people living in Imperialist countries whose armies have invaded other people’s territory to exploit their labour power and resources may feel pissed off at the government for reasons that have nothing much to do with Imperialism.

They may feel that their taxes are too high, for example, or that the government is letting too many immigrants come into the country, or not providing enough public services. In all of these examples such people may actively support even more imperialist government policies to bring more wealth to the country, such as wars of aggression and tightly regulated border controls between imperialist countries and their colonies.

Basic to the age-old Imperialist strategy of divide and rule is the placing of members of certain ethnic groups in privileged positions in relation to others. In settler-colonies such as the modern day Israeli-occupied Palestinian West Bank, the settlers are the group given the privileges by the government, while the indigenous people are subjected to racist oppression. In imperialist “home” countries it is the “indigenous” population which is given privileges by the State whilst migrants from the colonies and their descendants are racially oppressed. Modern day Israel is also a good example of this, as people of Palestinian Arab descent are systematically excluded from political and economic power.

Sticking with the example of Israel, let us examine the Israeli Anarchist movement. Judith Butler, in a lecture available online misleading called “Queer Anarchism and Anarchism Against the Wall” (which in fact barely mentions Queer Anarchism at all) offers a critique of certain sections of the Israeli Anarchist movement which talk about their struggle against the Israeli state as something separate from the Palestinian people’s struggle for self-determination.

Butler points out that many Anarchists, not just in Israeli but all over the world, wrongly understand “self-determination” to mean “the creation of a State”, which is not necessarily the case. Though it is of course true that many Palestinians do wish to see the creation of a new State of “their own” (which to Anarchists would be an impossibility since States are always controlled by elite minorities rather than whole populations) many other Palestinians keep the ideas of self-determination and State-creation deliberately distinct.

This confusion on the part of Anarchists living in Imperialist countries between anti-colonial struggles for self-determination and chauvinistic nationalist struggles for the creation of new States does not just apply to Palestine, but indeed to all anti-colonial struggles. This leads many anarchists from such countries to refuse to support any anti-colonial struggles unless they are explicitly anti-statist, which is very rare.

Point 4 of the UK Anarchist Federation’s Aims and Principles

… is typical of this confusion, stating:

We are opposed to the ideology of national liberation movements which claims that there is some common interest between native bosses and the working class in face of foreign domination. We do support working class struggles against racism, genocide, ethnocide and political and economic colonialism. We oppose the creation of any new ruling class. We reject all forms of nationalism, as this only serves to redefine divisions in the international working class. The working class has no country and national boundaries must be eliminated. We seek to build an anarchist international to work with other libertarian revolutionaries throughout the world.

Notice that there is no distinction made here between different types of nationalism, indeed the first sentence talks about “the ideology of national liberation movements”, as if they were all the same. They do claim to support “working-class” struggles against colonialism, but what does this mean in regions of the world that remain industrially undeveloped or where capitalist modes of labour relations have not been fully established?

The first sentence also mentions “claims that there is some common interest between native bosses and the working class in the face of foreign domination”, but it does not actually offer any argument against these claims, because there is none. No-one can deny for example that the Chinese working class is better off now than they were under colonialism, even if they are still horribly exploited.

But being less exploited is in their interest, and it has come about because of the interests of their “native bosses” in promoting export-led industrial development. The Communist Party has an interest in enriching itself and trying to outcompete the West, and this has led to increases in the standard of living for working class Chinese people as well.

This refusal to provide an analysis of how capitalist economies actually work, beyond the simplistic communist view of that money and wage-labour are inherently wrong and need to be ended, is perhaps part of the reason for these baffling claims against economic nationalism being in the interests of working class people.

What I think the Anarchist Federation mean to say is “being oppressed by native bosses is not as good as being your own boss”. So why don’t they just say this, instead of ruling out support for any anti-colonial movement that calls itself nationalist?

Benedict Anderson argued that “nations” are Imagined Communities, in his book of the same name, because in any nation there are too many people for them to all personally know one another, yet they still think of one another as a community.

Is it not possible, therefore, to imagine a community that you might even use the word “nation” to describe that does not have a State? Anarchism is after all the philosophy that communities don’t need States to exist or manage themselves. But the Anarchist Federation claim that any form of nationalism “divides the working class” and that “national boundaries must be eliminated”.

I would argue on that it is rather Nation-States that divide the working class and that it is the institutions of border control between such States that must be eliminated. If this happens then it really doesn’t matter in economic or political terms whether or not people choose to identify with nationalist concepts.

In the same lecture about Israel, Judith Butler mentions the “age-old” question of whether Anarchy can only exist if there is a State for it to be opposed to, or if Anarchy is instead something that can exist without States, even though it is defined in relation to them.

I would say that of course Anarchy can exist without states, and that just because the word means “without State” it doesn’t mean States have to actually exist for the concept to make sense. Before there were States people obviously didn’t use the word “Anarchy”, because it wouldn’t have meant anything, like how no one used to talk about “organic” food before chemical pesticides and fertilisers were invented. But just because they may have used different words back then it doesn’t mean people’s food wasn’t organic or their societies anarchic by the definitions we use today.

The words “self-determination” are much less confusing, because they are framed in positive terms. Anarchists would perhaps be better off describing their beliefs in such terms, especially when engaging in anti-colonial struggles. If a group of people “imagines” themselves to form part of a national community and organises a political movement calling for their “self-determination”, there is nothing wrong with this in itself from an Anarchist standpoint.

The problem only comes when people start conflating the concepts of “self-determination” with “state creation”, and as anti-statists Anarchists should be the main people voicing opposition to this conflation, rather than conflating it in our own heads as well.

This means instead of closing our eyes and putting our fingers in our ears whenever we hear about a group of people struggling in the name of their national identity, we should actively participate in these movements as much as possible in order to promote an anti-state perspective from within.

It is strange that organisations like the Anarchist Federation do not apply this logic to anti-colonial struggles when it is precisely the same logic they use to justify their engagement with workplace and community struggles more generally. In these struggles, the Anarchist Federation argues, it is necessary for anarchists to be present in order to counteract the tendency of authoritarian and statist groups, whether Marxist, Liberal or whatever, from taking decision making power over the direction of the struggle away from the rank-and-file.

Anarchists do this not only because it provides opportunities to spread our critiques of States and authoritarianism to wider audiences, which is more like a by-product of taking up this role within wider social movements, but also because we believe that if Statists take control of struggles then the rank and file have already lost, whereas we want them to win.

As anti-capitalists, Anarchists desire a world in which the concept of being “working class” becomes meaningless, because there would be no other classes to compare it to. Yet we are happy to call ourselves “working class” right now in order to join in struggles with other people who identify with this label. So why can we not apply the same logic to nationalism?

Just as we criticise Marxists for claiming that working class self-determination can only be achieved by the creation of a Workers State, so should we also be arguing that national self-determination (whatever nation you might be talking about) is not dependent on the creation of a Nation State, but is actually severely damaged by it.

White Supremacist Anarchism

If anarchists living in imperialist countries (such as Russia, Israel, the US and all the EU countries) do not participate in anti-colonial struggles which are being fought against those same states, then we can only conclude that they do not really care about destroying the State they are oppressed by, or in preventing anti-colonial struggles from being taken over by Statists.

If this is so it suggests that they are in fact merely pretending to be opposed to inequality when they really want to maintain their own privileges over colonised people, whom they are also happy to allow to continue to be oppressed by States, whether “foriegn” or “native”. As they will almost always have a different ethnic identity to the colonised people whose struggles they refuse to declare allegiance with, this position must be seen as fundamentally Racist.

I do not mean to suggest that this racism is conscious, and I know full well how quickly people can lose their tempers once accusations of subconscious oppressive attitudes start getting thrown around. In the past Anarchist Federation members have argued that their position is justified because some of their members are from the same countries as the anti-colonial movements which they criticise. This was the apparently the case with an article they produced which criticised the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka for being nationalists, at a time when Tamil civilians were being brutally murdered and one might have expected words of solidarity instead.

If this article was written by somebody of Sri Lankan Tamil descent, then of course it doesn’t make much sense to accuse them as an individual of being racist. But the Anarchist Federation was not a presence at any of the Tamil Solidarity demonstrations going on in the UK at the time, nor has it been very involved in anti-colonialist solidarity activism in general.

Instead they focus mainly on the struggles of unionised workers in the UK, who are predominantly White Europeans of British descent and so are already extremely privileged compared with other ethnic groups. Though the Anarchist Federation is heavily involved in anti-fascist activities, to its credit, it does not emphasise an opposition to racism in UK society more broadly, and is itself a disproportionately White organisation, despite its black (and red) flag.

The main emphasis of the AF is on issues of economic oppression, which also reflects the fact that it is a predominantly White (and Male) organisation. The minority of Female-identifying and Queer members has enabled a shift towards recognising the necessary interconnectedness of struggles against both class society and patriarchy, but so far even this has been limited and no comparable shift towards an anti-racist focus has occurred.

Islamophobic Anarchism and Atheist Chauvinism 

This may also have something to do with the AF’s 10th point in its Aims and Principles, which declares:

We oppose organised religion and cults and hold to a materialist analysis of capitalist society. We, the working class, can change society through our own efforts. Worshipping an unprovable spiritual realm, or believing in a religious unity between classes, mystifies or suppresses such self-emancipation / liberation. We reject any notion that people can be liberated through some kind of supernatural force. We work towards a society where religion is no longer relevant.

Though an improvement on the previous wording of this point which simply said “we are opposed to organised religion and religious belief”, the fact that this is even part of the Aims and Principles is clearly going to disincline the vast majority of the world’s population from wanting to have anything to do with the organisation. When I was a member of the Anarchist Federation I witnessed and participated in many discussions on this issue and found that the Anti-religious faction was simply too powerful within the organisation for there to be much hope of this changing.

This is one of the reasons that I declared in my “Critique of the Anarchist Federation” that the organisation should just be abandoned and a new one formed, because it is too set in its ways to be reformed, much like the State it purports to oppose.

I found many Anarchist Federation members, and other White UK anarchists generally, to hold Islamophobic views almost identical to the fascists they opposed. Many Anarchists fall into the trap of accepting the Fascists’ own terms of the debate, including the assumption that Islam is inherently authoritarian and sexist.

Most Westerners have a very poor understanding of the core teachings of Islam, and Anarchists are no exception. All you need to do in order to be considered a Muslim, according to the most liberal interpretations of the Koran, is declare belief in a single God and Mohammed as the messenger of that God. In itself this has nothing to do with the question of whether or not one is opposed to the state or has a materialist analysis of capitalism.

Going one step further in being a good Muslim than simply saying you think the Koran is genuinely the word of a single God who actually exists, you could also decide to pray 5 times a day (which is mainly just declaring the first point over and over again), give 2.5 per cent of your income to the poor, fast during Ramadan and try to visit Mecca at least once in your life.

That’s it. Those are the 5 pillars of Islam and everything else is pretty much optional (again, according to the most liberal interpretations). Women don’t have to cover their faces, and have the right to divorce their husbands. All races of people are considered equal. Usury and inequalities of wealth are considered immoral. Oppressed people have the right to fight back against oppression.

Rather than being opposed to Anarchism, liberal forms of Islam actually complement it incredibly well. Any religion that emphasises “One God, One Authority” can also be interpreted as an anarchistic statement that “there should be no human authority in the material world”.

Just because you don’t believe in God doesn’t give you the right to say that people who do cannot be true revolutionaries. Just because you were brought up to believe in Christianity – a particularly illogical religion which tries to say that God both is and isn’t human at the same time –  then lost your faith in it later, that doesn’t mean you know everything about all world religions.

Believing in “materialism” as the Anarchist Federation claims to, usually means having been raised in a society where you have been able to achieve a high enough standard of scientific education to be able to get at least the basic gist of both the Biological Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection and the Cosmological Theory of the “Big Bang” as well as the Socio-economic “Labour Theory of Value”.

These theories are all on the State school curriculum’s of many Western countries, and open discussion of them is not punishable by law. This is not the case in most of the rest of the world.

Even if many anti-colonial political organisations may be “secular” this does not make their members Athiests, and secularism is in fact more often used to help people of different religious faiths get along rather than to help them get along with athiests.

I am not going to claim that refusing to work with religious people is actually racist, even though the majority of people who take such a hard line against religion are likely to be from ethnically privileged backgrounds. What I will say though is that it does nothing to help the aims of the movement, which I understand to be the achievement of greater working class unity around the world.

There is no reason why someone cannot have both a materialist analysis of capitalism and a moral one which is prepared to actually call capitalists and governments Evil. The use of moral language in political discourse makes for much more powerful propaganda than just “holding to a materialist analysis of capitalism”. If you say “capitalism is against our interests as a working class people” the obvious response is “So what? Who are we to assert our interests anyway, in a value-free materialistic universe?” but if you also say “revolutionary activity is the only moral thing to do” then you hit people where it hurts, their hearts.

Non-white people living in the UK, or the world in general, are much less likely to be Atheists. This means that most people actively struggling against colonialism – and therefore against presently existing States – have some kind of religious view. Saying that they “worship…an unprovable spiritual realm [which] mystifies or suppresses [their] self-emancipation/liberation” is not only a terrible way to express solidarity with them, it is also quite clearly not true.

Religious faith is often cited by its practitioners to be the only thing keeping them going in tough times, such as when they are fighting revolutionary wars against the State for instance. Far from “suppressing” their self-emancipation, religious teachings often provide a catalyst for it, for example when Malcolm X encouraged Black people in the US to organise for “self-defence by any means necessary”.

This was a most revolutionary idea and one which was based on Islamic religious teachings that legitimise violence against oppressors. Indeed, one of the last things the Prophet Mohammed said to his followers before he died was “do not oppress, and do not be oppressed” which could be considered an elegant summing up of anarchist revolutionary practice.

Again, just because you may see your own society’s dominant religion – Christianity, for most Westerners – as a force keeping down the working class in your country, it doesn’t mean that religious belief necessarily always plays this role everywhere in the world.  Even Christianity has sometimes been used as a catalyst for revolutionary anti-colonial and anti-capitalist struggles, especially in Latin America, where many Catholic Priests influenced by “Liberation Theology” even took up arms themselves against the State alongside poor people.

If the Anarchist Federation, or any other similar organisation, wants to be a private members clubs for atheists only, it should choose another name. Christian, Islamic, Buddhist and Hindu Anarchists have all played roles in world history and will continue to do so. So will anti-statist nationalists involved in anti-colonial struggles.

Anarchists of all ethnic and religious/philosophical identities should unite on the basis of a shared commitment to the self-determination of all people and the negation of all States, and leave religious and national/racial identities out of it.

Then we might just stand a chance of really becoming a global working class movement.

 

 

 

You don’t have to be a lover to be a revolutionary, but it helps.

In my song “thoughts on fucking and the system” I wrote several lines that might indicate to people that don’t know me, that I think of love, and especially romantic love, as somehow a negative thing from a revolutionary perspective.

Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the song is intended as a satirical wake-up call to revolutionary activists who have become so jaded that they have abandoned even the concept of love, replacing it with the more abstract, less emotional notion of “mutual aid”.

The song also seeks to highlight the very real forces acting on us as human beings, and perhaps especially as revolutionaries, in a society based on hatred deliberately sown by the greedy and deceitful. When government agencies orchestrate terrorist attacks on symbols of particular ethnic or religious groups in such a way as to make blame appear to lie with members of another such group, solely to increase profits for a select few corporations and banks, it is difficult to maintain a loving attitude towards humanity.

But then, life itself is difficult. If there were no challenges in life it would not be worth living. Abandoning love, whilst still looking at the world through the prism of a perspective that see’s ignorance, greed and hatred ruling society and corrupting all our minds, is tantamount to suicide. Indeed this is the route taken by many of us who understand the basic functioning of the global system but feel powerless to change it, often indirectly through substance abuse.

If revolutionaries cannot see ourselves as morally superior to our enemies, our struggles cease to feel meaningful. For revolutionaries guided by religious faith, this moralising is perhaps easier than it is for more atheistic people. But you do not have to believe in God, the Astral Plane or the Immortal Soul, to believe in Love.

Love, as I also wrote in the above-mentioned song, is made of chemicals, or perhaps more accurately electrical signals travelling down neural pathways that are created, ultimately, by chemical reactions at the level of DNA. For our brains and bodies to have developed the multitude of parts and processes that we call “Love”, there must have been an evolutionary advantage for our ancestors to have done so, if you accept the theory of evolution by natural selection.

As Kropotkin sought to demonstrate in Mutual Aid, animals that evolve cooperative instincts towards members of their own species tend to stand a better chance of survival than those that don’t. It is easy to understand why: many hands make light work, and thus the overall expenditure of energy for a group in order to survive is less when they cooperate.

But talking about animals having cooperative instincts is still outside the realm of human emotion. Kropotkin may have been excited when he saw a crab trying to help it’s companion in Brighton Aquarium, but normal people are not usually satisfied with observations of the behaviour of other species when trying to resolve their own emotional crises.

We may, however, feel happy, even deliriously, overwhelmingly so, when another human being that we feel love for shows some sign that they love us too. Everyday, all over the world, billions of nods of encouragement, hugs, kisses and caresses of reassurance, and loving words are given out by human beings to one another. If this were not the case, would our societies function at all?

And yet, displays of intense emotion or preferential treatment of loved ones are not considered professional in today’s world run by machines and people who aspire to think and act like machines. Officially, the business world is held together by webs of direct personal financial interests which coalesce and converge at dizzying rates, and are measured in terms of numbers, graphs and longwinded jargon on pieces of paper and computer screens.

For human beings brought up in such a world, whether they are the ones acting like machines or being acted on by them, it is hard to imagine learning to love at all. Luckily, however things are not quite so bad yet.

I used to scoff at revolutionary rhetoric that referenced love, even though it was probably revolutionary messages coated in the language of romantic idealism that most influenced my early development.

Now I wonder why I was so cynical. What was I trying to prove? That I didn’t need love?

Falling in love for the first time with someone who loved me back came much earlier in my life than my involvement with political activism. If I hadn’t have had that boost to the spirit, would I ever have had the gall to think I could take some kind of meaningful action to change the world?

I do not currently have any sexual or romantic relationships going in my life, and yet strangely don’t seem to care as much as I used to. I used to feel such a desperate longing in my soul for someone, usually female but sometimes not, to be some kind of soul mate, and release my from my inner anguish.

But I always remembered the concept of the “anima” I’d read about whilst working a terrifying job in central London for a fat, bald tyrant, that there is a figure that recurs in the dreams and art of almost all human beings of a beautiful woman, representing all kinds of good, pure and gentle qualities, but still somehow bound up with lust. The more relationships I had with women the more I realised I just kept on projecting that image onto them, trying to force them to be what my subconscious felt I was lacking.

The anima is based on an internal separation in the mind, reinforced by all the sexist and heteronormative bollocks that our brains are bombarded with since birth. Whenever I was with a girl who resembled the female archetype, it brought out negative traits in me that are usually associated with masculinity.

I aspire to make these concepts meaningless in my own mind, a task I know to be impossible, but a worthwhile pursuit nonetheless. It means not identifying with any gendered identity.

If you are macho, you’re macho, regardless of your biology, and if you are sensitive, you’re sensitive.

All of us have to be sensitive sometimes and put on a front at others. If half the population only knows how to do one and not the other, what kind of ridiculous pressure does that put on romantic relationships?

Relationships aren’t meant to be about people compensating for each others’ flaws. They’re meant to be about love. Unconditional love would preclude conditions like “you must pretend to be exactly opposite to me in all the ways society dictates we must be”.

But then, it’s no wonder that in such a dictatorial society people are ill-equipped with wise teachings to help them balance out all the contradictory aspects to their being. For society does not have as it’s aim our spiritual development, if it can be called that. Societies aim is the self-expansion of capital, by murder, deceit and the poisoning of the earth if so be it.

That is the primary dictate to which all others have been brought in effect to more efficiently enforce: poisoning minds for generations with racist, sexist, classist crap to create this family unit, this class structure, these racial and gender classifications. This inequality.

This alienation from everyone around us, even people we see and talk to everyday.

Except for those happy souls who are able to project love at almost everyone they see, and so constantly see it reflected back at them in the faces of others responding in kind. They do not necessarily see the world as such a dystopian place.

Two people in a different mood standing on the same street might observe two almost entirely unrelated realities, which if they were to relate later to a mutual friend would sound nothing alike.

One might observe the buildings, reflecting on why they had been built in such a way and what purpose they were currently being used for, and see the people scurrying past like labrats running through mazes constructed by higher powers completely disinterested in their wellbeing.

The other might simple see a street full of crazy characters, each with their own backstory, with love interests, hope and dreams, and quirky little mannerisms that make them each adorable in their own special way.

The people who can only see their fellows as cogs in a machine, are themselves guilty of being so much like a machine, that they have started to think like one. Without love.

These crazy quirky characters are the people of the earth. They are who society is built from, and who any future society will have to be built from too. When I look at them, and imagine the society they could build if they were only liberated and empowered enough to do so, I see a world I would risk my life for.

It would be a world not exactly based on love, but one where it would certainly be easier, because everyone would be happier within themselves, following their own dreams and desires, instead of having to scrape together whatever magic or fun they can in the few hours between working and fitful sleep.

People who are exhausted physically and emotionally do not make the best lovers. They do not really make the best workers either, but that’s what being a worker makes of them, especially when the system keeps trying to make them better and better, or at least more efficient at turning time into money.

Don’t we all want to be happy within ourselves and able to feel loved by, and love towards other people and things? Some perhaps would answer no, but I suspect they would mainly be lying to themselves, or else are seriously fucked in the head.

Don’t we all feel that the power structures and associated cultural restrictions we have now are making it harder and harder to be happy or to feel love? To feel anything but loathing and despair?

To change things we need a lot of collective action. Fucktons of it in fact: toppling governments, regrowing rainforests, educating new generations not to be as stupid as our current leaders are, all kinds of shit. People need to unlearn all the programs that have been fed into them, deal with their twisted views on race, gender, sex and material objects, and to support one another while doing so.

What else could tie all that collective action together except love?

Ideology? Collective recognition of long term benefit? Incentive schemes?

Human beings are not designed for such mental gymnastics and self control. Set a system up and watch it fall, that’s our species’ favourite sport.

But we are all born with an ability to love. If we were not our species never would have survived. If the first human mothers didn’t love their children why the fuck would they put up with them sucking at them and not just leave them to die in the jungle? Why would they have protected them until they were old enough to reproduce themselves?

Men and women are not physically so different as people always go on about. Maybe mothers can love more than anyone who isn’t a mother could ever know, or maybe we all can love anyone with that same strength with which a mother loves a child.

In a world where collective organisation ensured a decent standard of living and respect for individual and social freedom, maybe we wouldn’t even have to speculate about such things, for everyone would have so many different examples of love around them that they would know pretty much everything about it, and we could get on with something else.

Like trying to find aliens. And then fall in love with them.