Born 1904 - Kilifarevo, Bulgaria, died May 28th 1925 - Belovo, Bulgaria.
Born in Kilifarevo, Bulgaria on 14th August 1904, the student-actress Mariola Sirakova belonged to a well-off family. She revolted from an early age against her social background and became an anarchist communist when she went to the Girls High School at Tarnovo in 1919.
She regularly took part in secret anarchist meetings.
She began a relationship with another Bulgarian anarchist, Gueorgui Cheitanov. She associated with other important anarchists like Petar Maznev, Georgi Simeonov Popov, and others. In her frre time, she acted in the Orpheus Theatre Company in Kilifarevo. In 1922-23 she studied in Pleven. She often hid wanted anarchists like Vassil Popov and Valko Shankov
In 1923 a military coup led to the butchery of 35,000 workers and peasants. The armed resistance that followed ended with the bomb attack by the Communist Party on Sofia cathedral which was aimed at the country's elite. A massive campaign of repression was then unleashed by the fascists and military against the revolutionary movement.
Mariola was arrested by the police, and brutally beaten. In June 1924 she returned to Kilifarevo. She was arrested again, but soon released. She gave support to the Kilifarevo cheta (armed guerilla unit), bringing them food, medicine and clothes and caring for the wounded.
Special police detachments were set up to hunt Cheitanov down. All the guerrillas united into a single detachment, being forced to disperse towards the end of May. Cheitanov and Mariola Sirakova, were caught in an ambush and arrested. They were taken to Belovo railway station and shot with 12 other prisoners on May 28th June 1925.
Megathreads and spaces to hang out:
- β€οΈ Come listen to music and Watch movies with your fellow Hexbears nerd, in Cy.tube
- π Come talk in the New Weekly Queer thread
- π Read and talk about a current topics in the News Megathread
- βοΈ August Movie Nominations βοΈ
reminders:
- π You nerds can join specific comms to see posts about all sorts of topics
- π Hexbearβs algorithm prioritizes comments over upbears
- π Sorting by new you nerd
- π If you ever want to make your own megathread, you can reserve a spot here nerd
- πΆ Join the unofficial Hexbear-adjacent Mastodon instance toots.matapacos.dog
Links To Resources (Aid and Theory):
Aid:
Theory:
- β€οΈFoundations of Leninism
- β€οΈAnarchism and Other Essays
Obviously not coming from this at a racist angle but
Why did the United States end slavery? I dont buy that they did it to be good people, was it international pressure and capitalists competing with eachother? What am I missing?
Morality WAS a significant factor. Like we can't look at the radical republicans, the barnburners and the free soilers and pretend there wasn't a significant amount of people who were morally outraged by slavery. But of course this morality was in part informed by economic interest. The American political structure in much of the country was built around paving over issues of class and economic relations by providing "free" land and thus an incredible amount of perceived social mobility, which created a large class of small holding farmers and petite bourgeoise. These people's economics interests were not aligned with slavery, because they were in direct competition with slave staffed farms and the cash crop plantations of the south.
So as the country settled more and more western territory, these small holders were interested in limited the expansion of slavery, and the slave holding classes of the south were interested in expanding it. This came to violent clashes, which intensified the opposition to slavery, because not only are slave plantations a direct competition to the ideal of the American settler-farmer, he's also hiring dudes to go around murdering the American settler-farmer for it. So whenever America expanded there was intense conflict over whether the new territory should be a slave territory, and therefore adopt the plantation based economic model, or align itself with the northern faction. This was important not only because of the individual economic and political interests of the people settling the land, but new states and territories meant new representatives and senators who would affect the balance of the legislature. The South had a totally outsized level of political representation, but they were intensely paranoid of letting that slip, and many people in other states were pissed that like seven guys in slave states had as much voting power as entire towns and the southern senators were lording that shit over everyone. So on top of everything else, "The south" is paranoid that new states won't be slave states so they don't get to hold all the power, "the north" wants new states to not be slaves states because southern senators are the fucking worst. That's why the south secedes despite no one actually coming for their slaves yet, they're worried they eventually won't hold all the power and lose their control of the senate. (I'm using "The south" and "The north" as short hands, things didn't neatly align this way. Also I'm totally ignoring the existence of factions like the doughfaces, the worst people in the world)
So Jimbos Pool Cleaning Services, Marthas Brunch Emporium and Local Monopoly Man Towing Services inc. teamed up, got in a shit eating match with Walmart and a good thing results that was also supported by good people at the time.
Pretty much. But bear in mind the separation between petite bourgeois and proletarian was being artificially bridged by genocidal land grabs, and of course that the whole thing can get super complex if you dive into it.
Word. A lot of revisionism tries to downplay the moral outrage, but it's literally in the battle hymn of the republic. I think a lot of it is Southern propaganda; It's easier for them to justify themselves if they can convince people that the North was just bullying them and no one actually cared about slavery.
But then you look at the Battle Hymn of the Republic and it's literally calling for a righteous holy crusade to crush "The Serpent" and free the slaves. When someone equates your entire way of life with Satan and says they're coming to free your slaves from bondage they definitely have moral concerns.
Plus the sheer number of people who jumped to volunteer to fight. I'm sure a lot of them were nationalism brained, but there are few causes more righteous than ending slavery and I'm sure that must of fired up some hearts.
And to the tune of John Brown's Body, which everyone would have known and also sends a clear message.
I agree with your sentiment, but I don't think we can fully take battle songs as evidence for the true beliefs of a movement. I think if we are to go with rhetoric, we should go both with speeches made by radical republicans and the diaries of soldiers speaking of their disgust at slavery.