Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the bombing at a Chicago workers' rally in 1886 and the trial, execution and subsequent pardoning of anarchists blamed for inciting the attack. Show more

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the notorious attack of 4th of May 1886 at a workers rally in Chicago when somebody threw a bomb that killed a policeman, Mathias J. Degan. The chaotic shooting that followed left more people dead and sent shockwaves across America and Europe. This was in Haymarket Square at a protest for an eight hour working day following a call for a general strike and the police killing of striking workers the day before, at a time when labour relations in America were marked by violent conflict. The bomber was never identified but two of the speakers at the rally, both of then anarchists and six of their supporters were accused of inciting murder. Four of them, George Engel, Adolph Fischer, Albert Parsons, and August Spies were hanged on 11th November 1887 only to be pardoned in the following years while a fifth, Louis Ling, had killed himself after he was convicted. The May International Workers Day was created in their memory.

It's about 6 months old, but I thought this essay by William Gillis was pretty good. Also particularly relevant to a lot of the discourse that happens in the lemmyverse.

It's Going Down

How do you organize mutual aid in a city without power, water, and internet?

Don't miss our latest episode of This Is America, featuring an interview with someone from Rural Organizing and Resiliance (ROAR) and volunteers @firestorm in #Asheville.

We discuss how hundreds of people across the city came together following #HurricaneHelene in mass meetings and helped to organize autonomous disaster relief and mutual aid. ROAR speaks about the challenges of mobilizing in rural areas.

We also speak with the two hosts of 'The Dugout' a Black anarchist podcast, roundup resistance news, and talk about how Trump is already moving to contest the next election.

Just looking for ways to get involved with my community at the local level. Seems like the kind of thing you have to ask around for.

I know these federated communities exist as well as raddle, but it still seems like most people will stay on toxic and corporate-run platforms like reddit or Twitter. I'm far from perfect myself and I still use reddit sometimes, especially for more niche communities, but when it comes to ideologically strong communities like the anarchist ones, it just feels wrong that the majority still hang out on reddit. Or you know, moving to something like Bsky when Twitter became too toxic but which is still run by a large, for-profit corporation (if they moved in the first place). What are your thoughts? Is there any justification for this?

This goes to all the peeps who support parliamentary voting as a valid political action.

If your society has been steadily progressing towards fascism for decades regardless of your voting (like the USA has been), is there any point, any action which will convince you that voting ultimately doesn't work?

Is so, what is it? What would your government have to do for you to acknowledge that voting doesn't matter? For many people, it was of course, supporting genocide (which is why so many states desperately try to deny a genocide is ongoing). But if genocide isn't, what is yours?

Eventually a society which has been slowly progressing towards fascism regardless of voting, will become fascist. And we all know what comes after that. There's always one thing where I think even the most hardcore parliamentarian will agree that voting ultimately didn't work: When they're personally being force-marched to the mass grave-sites.

Would that be your point? Or does it come earlier? If so, when?

excellent shortish read. I recommend.

I found this answer on a reddit thread pertaining to the question and I thought it would be worth sharing.

“ Becoming disabled in my late 20s greatly accelerated my move towards radical leftism. As such I can speak to why ideologies like this appeal to disabled people, even if I can't go into the nitty-gritty details.

Disability is explicitly incompatible with the capitalist system. The way it's supposed to work is that you work for the means of survival, and then the meritocracy rewards those who work harder or in a more innovative way with luxuries and wealth. Those who refuse to work are left by the wayside; people who only do the bare minimum only recieve the bare minimum in return.

(This is bullshit, but that's how it's supposed to work)

The existence of disabled people is a massive problem for this system. What is society to do with people who are unable to work through no fault of their own? Leaving them (that is to say, us) to starve would clearly be barbaric, which is why only conservatives will countenance it, and even then they usually have enough shame not to say so directly.

The enlightened, progressive solution to this problem--the one that even those supposedly socialist European countries deploy--is to give disabled people the bare minimum they need to survive. Obviously we won't leave them out on the streets, but giving them enough money to go on holidays or buy nice things, or even to live independantly on their own, well that would be unfair! People are supposed to earn those things. From the meritocracy. The reality is that once you become disabled, the things that are supposed to make life under a capitalist system worth living are placed beyond your reach.

To a mind not warped by neoliberal capitalism, this is clearly absurd and cruel. The only reason why this attitude would ever be seen as reasonable is because we live in a system that enshrines ruthless competition between people as a positive good, and in which all things are provided to others for profit.

I currently live in a country that has a generous and accessible benefits system compared to the US and UK, and even then my disability payments would not be enough for me to live on by themselves. The only reason I can live comfortably in my current situation is because of other factors, which are mostly down to luck and privilege. Had I been born in a different situation or if random events outside my control had played out differently, I would be far worse off than I am now, with no way to improve my circumstances.

Again: this is the humane, progressive solution to the "problem" of disability.

Anarchism isn't the only ideology that pushes back against this--any anticapitalist worldview is addressing the root cause of oppression of the disabled--but I find the anarchist focus on grassroots mutual aid to be very positive. I am skeptical of the willingness of a communist state to treat disabled people better than capitalist governments currently do. Even if they did, I inherently dislike the idea that my quality of life and humanity are in the hands of a centralized authority with the power to discard them if it's deemed to be necessary. “

source: reddit, r/anarchy101

I had a discussion with @Cowbee@lemmy.ml recently where they insisted that Anarchists on Hexbear accept Lenin's analysis of Imperialism and therefore all support "Actual Existing Socialist" states such as Cuba, USSR and I guess North Korea as well.

In fact, they argued it's the reason most anarchists of Hexbear don't like to discuss anarchism away from hexbear, explicitly because outside anarchists do not support "AES".

So I'm curious to see what your thoughts are on this. If you're an anarchist who supports "AES" how do you square this support with the conflict these states have with anarchist theory on hierarchy?

You call out Russia or China, MLs think if they regurgitate "read theory" that solves my issues with them.

You call out American liberals and how they aid fascists, you're calling a secret Trump supporter.

You say that genocide is an evil action, liberals and Tankies will defend their favorite country's actions because you're a shill for the enemy if you do.

You say America did something kinda good, you're somehow a neolib in disguise. You lightly praise the USSR, you're Stalin's second cousin as an AI.

I just don't want people harmed by a government force. Fuck me, I guess? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills for applying the same morals to every politician and country, even ones I live in or slightly like.

Edit: If someone said it was annoying being an leftist and a bunch of liberals came in exusing their actions and doubling down, everyone would be singing a different tune. Just kinda fascinating.

Found some discussion on hexbear where dbzer0 was once more found to be living rent-free in their heads, but it got me thinking:

I find it telling that tankies will constantly prattle about "critical-support" of fascist chuds like Asad, and red-fash regimes like North Korea, or more often, just unironically bring up bog-standard SocDem capitalism like China as "Actually Existing Socialism" (AES), but will immediately marginalize, dehumanize or expel from their spaces anarchists who don't support AES, or who support market-based forms of socialism (such as mutualism).

Likewise, why not give "critical support" to other SocDems for their good policies? (note, I don't support socdems in either liberal-capitalist of state-capitalist form, I'm just asking questions, philosophically)

I can't quite put into words why this bothers me, but I suspect it's due to the usual hypocrisy I see from them. What do you think of this phenomenon?

Wrote this a while ago, but someone just brought back the same tired argument 16 years later (goddamn!) so I felt it was a good time to repost.

agdo.blackblogs.org

Edit: I dont get why people feel like they need to image negative things when they see a cute and obviously consensual group cuddling. Maybe they should start looking inward and think about what makes them doing that.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/21742062

when asked to share your fav text/writing/blog/etc. on anarchy or anarchist principals, historical or modern, what do you send and why?