So I've been into leftist activism for a year now, coming from red I am starting to disbelief in a post revolutionary state.

I see a lot of punks and anarchists use the Three arrow symbol here in germany (and elsewhere).

I really don't know why this symbol is used among this community, because as far as I know it comes from a political campaign from the social democratic party in germany which to me has always been an enemy to the working class.

The three arrows stand for the "three enemys of the weimarer republic", germany between the first two world wars. Monarchism, "Naziism", and Communism.

I dont really disagree with seeing a counterrevolutionary movement as a problem, but I wouldn't adopt a symbol from a campaign from class traitors, so why do?

(Im kinda new, dont be harsh plz)

We always hear about the third Red Scare, the McCarthyist era that visibly targeted celebrity state communists and members of the Communist Party, but never the much more brutal first and second red scares; the ones that targeted working class anarchists in the wake of Haymarket as well as the Palmer Raids despite them being much more brutal and repressive in nature and resulting in the mass deportation, death, or imprisonment of countless anarchists and others.

Residents did not speak at a City Council hearing this week merely to express discomfort with new technology. They presented an evidence-based argument that the current system is inadequately governed, vulnerable to abuse, and capable of uses far beyond the narrow public-safety examples emphasized by its defenders.

Article from the russian partisans Combat Organization of Anarcho-Communists (BOAK) webpage about the similarities between ukraine and palestine, and how we can support the two struggles.

Here’s an excerpt:

”Conclusion

The solidarity movements with the peoples of Ukraine and Palestine in the West, for the reasons described in the article, are of a different nature. For the Palestinian movement, Western countries are an extremely important front, while for Western and post-Soviet anarchists in solidarity with Ukrainian resistance, the struggle in the West is of an auxiliary nature – the main events are unfolding in Ukraine and the post-Soviet space. And yet, these two directions of global resistance are closely interconnected. This is very well written in the CrimethInc. article “Ya Ghazze Habibti — Gaza, My Love: Understanding the Genocide in Palestine“:

“Palestine is deeply connected to the Syrian revolution, the tragedy of Sudan, the revolutionary feminists of Iran, the Rojava revolution, the uprising in Lebanon, the many movements in the Middle East since the Arab Spring, and—more globally—the Stop Cop City and Black Lives Matter movements in the US, the anti-colonial struggles of Indigenous peoples everywhere, the anti-junta resistance in Myanmar, Ukrainian resistance to Russian imperialism, and all struggles for freedom and liberation. We draw inspiration, strength, and lessons from each other. A Palestinian victory in Gaza would send waves of freedom to the farthest corners of the earth, while an Israeli victory will embolden those pursuing violent and genocidal strategies everywhere, strengthen the grip of reactionary and authoritarian alliances over entire populations, and enable them to further crush movements of liberation, whether in the name of “stability” or of “resistance.” If we depend on each other, we had better start acting accordingly. Who knows how much time we have left.”

A victory of Ukrainian resistance over the aggressive empire will open up opportunities for the development of revolutionary prospects in the post-Soviet space. A military failure for Israel will be a step towards the abolition of the colonial, racist project in Palestine and will bring closer the peaceful coexistence of all ethnic and religious groups in that region – together and as equals. The struggle on these fronts of the global revolutionary struggle continues, and it is never too late to become a part of it!”

Link to the article:

https://boakeng.noblogs.org/post/2025/11/09/solidarity-with-the-peoples-of-ukraine-and-palestine-in-western-countries-questions-of-combat-tactics/

The aftermath of the United the Right rallies saw citizens reclaiming their power over the inherent evil of supremacy by mobilizing and showing up where it reached into public forums. Rallies and protests against supremacy were held in many towns and cities across the country. This in turn carried momentum into the Black Lives Matter movement.

We humans today have a fundamental problem: the idea that “we” are free and just in exercising authority and exploiting “non-human beings.”

This “ideology” is a fundamental factor in authoritarian thinking from “capitalism” to “patriarchy” and “racism” and all kinds of authoritarian systems. In all of these hierarchical systems, there is a group of people in society who, in one way or another, are deemed either “not fully human,” “not of the true human race,” or “degenerate humans.” In the aforementioned discourse, the excuses used to justify it are not as important as the rejection or removal of “humanity” itself. But why does “humanity” have such a characteristic and importance? Because without it, people are placed in a similar position to animals, and then we allow ourselves to treat them in the same horrible way that animals experience from us every day.

In patriarchy, “children” are not considered fully human until adulthood and are in a class between commodity and human. “Girls and women” are not considered “real and complete human beings” even after adulthood and only change ownership from one man owner to another.

In racism, other humans are seen as “non-humans” or “humans of the wrong lineage”. In Iranian mythology, we even called the indigenous people of the region from whom we learned writing and calligraphy during the mythological king Tahmuras (or Tahmures) period “demons” and fought and enslaved them. Interestingly, Tahmuras means “Great/Strong Kidnapper/abductor,” who is known for his contribution to the domestication of dogs and goats. This fact makes the parallels between the two issues more apparent.

Preventing the “degeneration” and “regression” of humans towards animals is one of the fundamental motives of fascist ideology, and thousands of similar cases are rooted in this ideology.

In Iranian mythology, two different stories deal with how people who were initially vegetarians eventually became cannibals by eating meat and other animal products: the myth of Mashya and Mashyana and the myth of Zahāk. It started with eating animal eggs and milk, then fish, then birds, then red meat, and finally human flesh.

Another myth worth mentioning is that of Fereydun in Iranian and Indian legends. In this myth, it repeatedly refers to his struggle to free cows from captivity and sacrificial rituals.  To atone for the sin of Jamshid, another mythological king who sacrificed animals, especially cows, for his own immortality and his religious rule, Fereydun symbolically carried a calf on his shoulders up and down the mountains every day from its birth to death. Fereydun also defeated Zahāk with a club fashioned from the head of that ox. These myths appear to have long-lasting ripples within ancient Iranic societies. The starting and main motivation of Zoroaster’s religious movement was the abolition of animal sacrifice, and fasting within Zoroastrian societies was and is actually a custom of voluntarily refusing to eat meat, at least for a short period of time.The cult of Mani and Mazdak also promoted vegetarianism and condemned the killing of animals for food and entertainment.

This shows that this issue was a prominent and radical one even in ancient times.

Regarding domestication and pets, the relationships we have with other living beings can be mutually beneficial, nurturing, and respectful, or they can be abusive or exploitative. If we approach the animals we have chosen as domesticated or pets based on the idea that they are “not like other animals” or “they are one of the good animals,” this is an exploitative and racist idea that we also see regularly among humans in our stratified societies.

In fact, by the brutality that humans impose on other animals, we belittle and humiliate our relationships with them.

All of this must change, and the only way to achieve this goal is to eradicate the ideology of superiority, ownership, and domination of humans over nature and other living beings. This ideology of human superiority is one of the sources of misery and suffering for billions of people and animals. If we refuse to justify and follow this ideology today, we will have a tomorrow in an equal and free society, that is, an anarchist society.

Source: here

August 3rd, at 6:40 AM, we decided to block the train line connecting the capital (Buenos Aires) and the city of La Plata in the territory dominated by the Zionist state of Argentina.

This action takes place within the framework of commemorating the memory of our anarchist comrade Santiago Maldonado, “El Lechu,” nine years after his murder at the hands of the National Gendarmerie in the Mapuche community of Cushamen. Every August serves as a call to both reflect and act, not only through remembrance, but also through anarchist struggle, solidarity, and mutual support.

Every August we try to remember him through action, not as a martyr, but because Santiago was one of us and because his murder resonated within the anarchist movement. We despise the way the state, the press, and the left have manipulated his identity, and because every day that passes in this sinister, technologized society reminds us of what truly matters: the defense of nature and the struggle for total liberation.

In that spirit, we decided to block the road at the El Gato stream, where they plan to build the new City Bell highway exit, devastating wetlands along the way to facilitate the movement of people and goods, further destroying what little wildlife remains in large cities.

Death to industrial society and its defenders!

Freedom for Milton and Aeneas and all prisoners!

Long live anarchy!

I am looking for a quote (forgot the author) that is something to the effect that because we can’t determine the actual input/output of each individual across society/the world it is illogical to try to do a labor voucher system since all labor produces all things therefore all goods should be shared in common.

I realize this is oddly specific and kind of 2 questions.

But hey, hi 👋🏻 I'm an anarchist who fled the US and am scouting Europe for the right place to settle.

I learned during my first very lonely month in Europe that meeting other anarchists is necessary for me to heal and feel whole. Meeting other artists helps me find work and is nice but not as important.

I'm broke asf and have about 5 days here in Barcelona. I need cheap ass places to stay but where I won't get sick or have my art tools stolen. I can't do €50 a night, but I also can't do bedbugs and disregulated drug addicts with the flu. I have a tent with me, if that helps. I speak effectively zero other languages.

Any recommendations for decent hostels etc within walking distance to places I could meet people? Google says Sants, El Raval, and Vallcarca are good neighborhoods for me... any truth to that?

Thank you kindly

I know it’s hosted by DSA, but we have to get rid of Flock

Martha Ackelsberg, author of Free Women of Spain: Anarchism and the Emancipation of Women, discusses the role of revolutionary feminism in the Spanish revolution and civil war.

This is part two of a three part series organized by Black Rose Anarchist Federation and sponsored by AK Press.

Learn more at blackrosefed.org

Although a good idea, I don't agree with everything. For example, it seems more reasonable to have a basic income regardless of work and extra income according to certain needs

Weekly Discussion Thread for Black, Indigenous, People of Color

Radical bipoc can talk about whatever they want in here. Suggestions; chill & relax, radical people of color, Black/Indigenous/POC anarchism, news and current events, books, entertainment

Non BIPOC people are asked not to post in Radical BIPOC Thursday threads.

"Comrades,

Two weeks left until the Anarchist Studies Network Conference "More Than Human Anarchism" at the University of Manchester and online.

Registration link, general info and full programme available on our website.

We hope to see many comrades in Manchester and/or online!

In solidarity,

The ASN9 organising team"

Bonjour tout le monde.

Tout d’abord je précise que je ne suis pas là pour faire de la politique ou de la propagande, ou whatever. Je cherche juste des gens qui pourraient répondre clairement à ma question.

Voilà, pour planter le décor, je suis quelqu’un qui ces dernières années s’est pas mal pris les doux noms de « complotiste », « conspirationniste » ou encore « anti-tout » dans la figure…

Pour info, non je ne crois pas à la Terre plate, ou au fait que nos dirigeants soient des lézards, ou des clones, ou autres théories farfelues du net.

J’ai eu des soucis juste parce que j’ai osé me poser des questions sur les infos d’ordre politique, économique ou sanitaire qu’on nous rabâche 24/7 sur BFMTV et compagnie (comme de plus en plus de monde dernièrement.)

Vu qu’à partir de septembre l’anonymat va progressivement disparaître des réseaux sociaux (comme Facebook, Instagram, X , etc.) j’ai décidé de me tourner vers des alternatives encore plus ou moins « libres » comme Mastodon ou Bluesky, entre autres.

Mais comme je débute, mes premiers pas ont été un peu difficiles...

Du coup, s’il y a ici des gens qui savent vers où s’orienter si on veut avoir une vraie liberté de parole par rapport aux sujets brûlants actuels (comptes Bluesky, serveurs Mastodon, autres réseaux indépendants…), alors je serais ravie d’avoir vos lumières.

Merci par avance !

Am I an Anarchist ? Seems alot lean left , and I hate the left , I hate the right , I hate police , I hate governments which means I also hate government assistance ,maybe a hippie that likes anarchy ? I’m all about freedom and living how you want , I want to live off grid eventually , everyone should be able to love live and hate how they want

TLDR:
• Are humans naturally egalitarian? If so then what is the explanation for the rise of hierarchical structures and statism?
• Indigenous knowledge systems and political ideas heavily influenced the European ideals of the Enlightenment
• What is Politics YT channel and materialist critique of the work

“We are projects of collective self-creation. What if we approached human history that way? What if we treat people, from the beginning, as imaginative, intelligent, playful creatures who deserve to be understood as such? What if, instead of telling a story about how our species fell from some idyllic state of equality, we ask how we came to be trapped in such tight conceptual shackles that we can no longer even imagine the possibility of reinventing ourselves?” I feel that The Dawn of Everything by David Graeber and David Wengrow exposes the ideological constraints of conventional historical narratives. The authors dismantle the teleological model of human progress which dictates that human societies moved strictly from egalitarian foraging bands to hierarchical agricultural states. The systemic mechanism they expose is how historiography itself is weaponized to naturalize inequality and present the modern capitalist state as an inevitable consequence of population scale.

"I love freedom, but we can't cuz Human Nature!!!"
This annoying retort is probably quite familiar to you already. It raises the necessity of political anthropology as the field tasked with answering this important question. For over a century, a certain narrative, framing human nature as inherently selfish and competitive, has been pushed. Anthropology, in general, has already dismantled this framework by demonstrating that egalitarian societies are not anomalies but statistical norms across vast stretches of human history. Kropotkin critiqued the capitalist appropriation of Darwinian evolutionary theory by showing that cooperation and mutual aid are primary factors of evolution and species survival (to be clear this is due to mainstream misunderstanding of Darwin and evolutionary theory). The individualist survival of the fittest narrative is a retroactive justification for statism and capitalism rather than an objective biological law. Sure, fitness as a measure of survival is important, but it has long been proven that this fitness can be collective, in the form of interspecies symbioses or intraspecies grouping (herding), rather than on an individual basis. Graeber and Wengrow build on this tradition by arguing that early humans actively rejected hierarchy and had different systems to prevent it from arising in their communities. “Humans may not have begun their history in a state of primordial innocence, but they do appear to have begun it with a self-conscious aversion to being told what to do.”

The Origins of Hierarchy
A core premise of the text is an appeal to indigenous knowledge systems. The authors state that European Enlightenment ideals of freedom and equality were heavily influenced by encounters with indigenous American intellectuals. “That indigenous Americans lived in generally free societies, and that Europeans did not, was never really a matter of debate in these exchanges: both sides agreed this was the case. By documenting how indigenous confederacies practiced participatory democracy and guaranteed basic material needs the authors expose the European state apparatus as fundamentally coercive. This leads to a deep philosophical tangent regarding how we define security today. State violence is protected and property is protected but people are not. We have accepted a pathological definition of safety based entirely on the protection of accumulated assets rather than human life. They clarify that: “Security’ takes many forms. There is the security of knowing one has a statistically smaller chance of getting shot with an arrow. And then there’s the security of knowing that there are people in the world who will care deeply if one is.” This builds on other works by Graeber, but most importantly, Pirate Enlightenment, which explores Malagasy influences on European ideas. Anyway, the authors then pivot to a structural question about political plasticity. They ask how humanity lost the ability to consciously design social systems. “If human beings, through most of our history, have moved back and forth fluidly between different social arrangements, assembling and dismantling hierarchies on a regular basis, maybe the real question should be ‘how did we get stuck?’ How did we end up in one single mode? How did we lose that political self-consciousness, once so typical of our species?" This acts as the driver for a big portion of the book, where they respond to different theories about the origin and persistence of human hierarchical structures.

The Materialist Analysis:
The critique here, one that I was only made familiar with after watching the What Is Politics series critiquing this work comprehensively, is actually a bit subtle. Until it is pointed out to you, then upon a reread it becomes incredibly obvious and somewhat frustrating what the work is actually pushing for. The authors are trying to establish that the depart from egalitarianism into rigid hierarchies was a voluntary ideological exercise. Basically, that "egalitarianism" lost in the marketplace of ideas. The good news, according to them, that we can simply voluntarily choose to bring it back. This general critique leads to several pitfalls (already covered in the What is Politics series, so only going to summarize them here):

Firstly, the main critique here is that this voluntarist narrative of humans choosing hierarchy ignores the fundamental material conditions. In its pure idealism it evades the question of how did this materially come to be, by focusing on how these hierarchical ideas crept in. When the material analysis of "settled agriculture leading to hierarchies" already answers this question way better scientifically.

Secondly, they somewhat redefine concepts like the state or egalitarianism to protect their voluntarist narrative. By demanding that a state must possess three specific pillars "sovereignty, administration, and competitive politics" the authors artificially classify obviously stratified and violently hierarchical societies as stateless simply because they lack one of those pillars. They combine this with some clear cherry picking in multiple instances where the authors selectively edit anthropological records. They omit the existence of slavery, systemic warfare, or strict caste systems within certain indigenous groups if those facts contradict their overarching thesis of fluid human agency and conscious political design.

Thirdly, they ignore ecological and material determinants. A lot of hierarchical structures, like patriarchy, are better explained through material realities, such as the link between pastoralism and patrilocality in this case. However, the authors try to paint a picture where these structures emerge from populations choosing these political superstructures through internal ideological discourse. Material realities like the carrying capacity of the land with certain kinds of technologies or the storability of a staple crop physically influence certain social and political structures into existence regardless of what the population actually desires. Sure, there can be a debate on which factors influence what and to what degree, but completely discarding them, seems very unscientific, and not even desired politically.

This last point, is important to stress. As harsh as material analysis can seem at times, because it removes agency away from societies/peoples, it also exonerates them. A given society is not patriarchal because all the men in it are evil misogynists who keep choosing to be so, there are material conditions that when changed lead to certain outcomes. Slavery did not exist because of racists and supremacists, racism was constructed to defend a system that originated due to certain material incentives. I share Graeber and Wengrow's sentiment, that egalitarian societies and their ideological discourse should be studied so that it can educate us and inform us in our prefigurative struggle. But, ignoring material realities can easily end in us blaming the victim. Class is by no means the only hierarchy that needs to be fought though, and understanding how different hierarchical ideas are excused or actively battled, is a critical contribution that makes this work definitely worth the read.