IPOS and SCUM, what he get's wrong about Anarchism

 

Content Warning: Includes discussion of sexual violence. 

A video essay by the YouTuber In Praise of Shadows (IPOS) popped into my recommended list yesterday. It's about the SCUM manifesto and its author Valerie Solanas. The link to the video is here. As a quick summary Valerie Solanas rose to fame in 1968 for the attempted murder of Andy Warhol, the manifesto she wrote was published to capitalise on the notoriety of her attempted assassination. It has since gained a reputation as an extremely radical feminist call to arms for the extermination of all men, and that reputation is earned SCUM is nothing if not explicit. SCUM the quasi movement of the text stands for Society for Cutting Up Men. 

I was intrigued as IPOS normally covers horror content. I had previously read SCUM many years ago while exploring the depths of 60s-70s radicalism. The video covers the text and the life of Solanas in great detail, I suggest watching it for more insight. 

Overall I was surprised that IPOS was willing to look beyond the popular stereotype of a "Crazy bitch" and investigate the ideas of SCUM. It is a hard text to take seriously, leaving aside the attempted murders (she also shot and wounded art critic Armando Amaya) the language is not only blunt and ugly but has a strange habit of sliding into the comical. e.g. "The male has a negative Midas touch--everything he touches turns to shit." It also uses ugly slurs which while more common in the 1960s were still considered vulgar for printing in a serious political essay. 

Despite SCUM's many flaws, its arguably got worse with age as passages read in the current year read clearly as forerunners to many anti-trans and anti-queer arguments that can be found easily in every unmoderated comment section today, there are some interesting bits of critique and commentary to be found, though as IPOS notes they usually miss the mark or shift into the wrong lessons. 

Sadly, at around the 01:02 mark  (citing YT vids is a pain) IPOS ruins the positive impression by attempting to critique Solanas's "Anarchistic themes". In doing so he retreats into a very common superficial rant about human nature we've all heard before mixed with misanthropy and American centrism, that I find genuinely baffling in how common it is to find amongst politicos in the USA. 

For the most part its fairly standard fare, humans are terrible people who can't be trusted, society becomes a "wasteland" without a government. It's quite disappointing, but as I was just going to roll my eyes and let the segment pass. However, as the segment wore on it shifts gears into a deeply misanthropic or perhaps misAmercathropic series of comments about how the US and its populations are irrevocably tainted*. That seemed a bit of a logical leap at first, but then as the moment worked through the personal beliefs of IPOS that it clicked for me. The parts of SCUM that IPOS found interesting seemed to tally with his own beliefs and criticisms to a degree, so when we get to the "anarchistic" parts of SCUM which IPOS rejects it is treated in much the same way as the overt bigotry and calls for mass murder.

So, with that in mind I think its worth poking a bit deeper to explore the weaknesses of this argument and IPOS's weakness as an essayist. 

But first to clear the air, this is not motivated by anger, disagreement is not a failing in my book. I don't agree with much of SCUM either to pick a relevant example, I like IPOS's content just fine, and have diasgreed before and will no doubt do again. I'm just interested in probing further and a great case study fell into my lap. No personal animosity is intended.  

I'm also not really interested in defending the "anarchist vision" of SCUM, while I can see anarchist influences within SCUM as well as many other radical political and cultural and scientific movements that were in vogue at the time, I don't think it is at its source and anarchist text for reasons that will probably come up. Though I do think there are times when IPOS misrepresents these ideas and will be pointing them out.  

The core of the issue

So, you don't think human's can be trusted with freedom, why on earth do you want to trust them with power? 

The core of this argument is that human's are greedy and selfish and wicked, I was initially confused why so many people including IPOS act like this is some kind of trump card. I can only infer that they believe anarchism is an idea based on optimism and unicorns. There certainly are many anarchist arguments that emphasise positive aspects of humanity but to pretend that's all there is to it is just showing ignorance. One of the key texts arguing in favour of Anarchism is Kropotkin's Mutual Aid a factor of evolution.  Which is an examination of mutual aid within animal and human societies. It's a scientific text with empirical data and observations. And importantly while it emphasises examples of working together independently for mutual benefit it does not ever deny the negative associations with behaviour and nature. Furthermore, there are anarchists who have embraced greed and shown how it makes anarchism a more viable method of social organisation. 

To be more blunt even if your misanthropic view of humanity is completely accurate, you're making an argument for anarchism and not one against anarchism. To believe that humanity is fundamentally threatening and to then advocate a society where human's have power over others is simple put stupid. Why on earth would you want these same nasty goblins to have direct power over you backed up with institutional force? IPOS like every ideologue who presents this argument has no answer to this contradiction. The best IPOS can manage is a very weak acknowledgement that this isn't ideal and that "restructuring" of society. But restructuring class society in a way that preserves classes and power dynamics via states and government is ultimately pointless, some humans will still have power over others to enact their vices at the expense of others. 

At one point later in the video IPOS brings up Trump and the MAGA movement, the reason is to use them as an example of a dangerous minority capturing a nation. I think that's an interesting example but works even better illustrating the weaknesses of IPOS's wider argument. Much of the opposition to Trump focuses on how his abnormal and different from the other President's of the USA. And yes Trump is certainly different, but the difference is in degree not in kind. Trump is killing US civilians in his brutal ICE raids, but ICE has always killed people including US citizens, as did the border agencies that predate ICE, just as the cops have killed people in the US regardless of whose in the White House. If you can't trust a Trump to be in charge of police, borders or nuclear warheads you cannot trust anyone with them.

 "We are selfish. We are dangerous. Even the most mildmannerd and empathetic of us can still easily be pushed over the edge in the right circumstances. The most moral of us can still make bad judgement calls and act in selfish ways, no one is a saint". IPOS.

Anarchism is a materialist criticism of the failings of human beings. It advocates for the dismantling of the material power relationships and the institutions that uphold them. What's more harmful a bully or a bully with a badge? a bigot or bigot with a church? a control freak or a control freak with the power to evict you or fire you? All of these are bad and anti-social and should ideally be dealt with where possible. However the negative impulses of the latter are magnified by their positions of power. Just restructure things so only good people occupy positions of power is utopian nonsence. Even IPOS does not believe it is possible, his argument is founded on the belief that anyone can become the later. Which is itself a core anarchist belief hence the solution of getting rid of the mechanisms for domination. Anarchism is not abolish the state and perfection reigns. Its well aware that people are still flawed and complex social creatures capable of many things some positive, some negative. The Defence Councils of Aragon and the insurgent territories of Ukraine to pick two examples of anarchism on a mass scale were not perfect, but they do not reflect the lazy and ugly caricature that IPOS and others associate with them. 

I get a sense that IPOS hasn't read much or any anarchist statements which if true is very poor form for an essayist commenting on the subject. I went ahead and re-read SCUM in preparation for this rather than rely on half remembered phrases, doing so confirmed to me that much of what IPOS was saying her is effectively meaningless. 

 But even stranger, while I don't consider SCUM an anarchist text I must on re-reading it concede that SCUM itself goes beyond IPOS's characteture in its criticisms of state or Man's as SCUM puts it society which exposes IPOS's superficial commentary even when read narrowly as an attempted rebuttal of Solanas. 

"But she very much disagrees with me, and again to me showcases a bit of a pie in the sky mentality of how people function in reality". Immediately after saying this IPOS quotes the following section.

 There's no reason why a society consisting of rational beings capable of empathizing with each other, complete and having no natural reason to compete, should have a government, laws or leaders.

SCUM but quoted by IPOS,

Which seems to be a fair reading of SCUM, however, if you have read SCUM or have it open for reference you will notice something odd. Many passages of the text explicitly reject "pie in the sky**" reading of humanity including this section

     Authority and Government: Having no sense of right or wrong, no conscience, which can only stem from an ability to empathize with others...having no faith in his non-existent self, being necessarily competitive and, by nature, unable to co-operate, the male feels a need for external guidance and control. So he created authorities--priests, experts, bosses, leaders, etc. --and government. Wanting the female (Mama) to guide him, but unable to accept this fact (he is, after all, a MAN), wanting to play Woman, to usurp her function as Guider and Protector, he sees to it that all authorities are male.

 SCUM

Which precedes the section IPOS quotes so he must have been aware of it. And even if he missed that part it is not an isolated passage, there are multiple criticisms of communal living throughout SCUM. 

     The "hippie" babbles on about individuality, but has no more conception of it than any other man. He desires to get back to Nature, back to the wilderness, back to the home of the furry animals that he's one of, away from the city, where there is at least a trace, a bare beginning of civilization, to live at the species level, his time taken up with simple, non-intellectual activities--farming, fucking, bead stringing. The most important activity of the commune, the one on which it is based, is gangbanging. The "hippie" is enticed to the commune mainly by the prospect of all the free pussy--the main commodity to be shared, to be had just for the asking but, blinded by greed, he fails to anticipate all the other men he has to share with, or the jealousies and possessiveness of the pussies themselves.

SCUM 

Ironically, IPOS and Solanas's views on humanity are very similar, the real separation isn't some professed support for anarchist optimism, but that Solanas places the source of the rot on Man's nature while IPOS places it on Human nature. Miasndry vs misanthropy if you will.

IPOS tries to dismantle his strawman about a world where everyone is good and rational by asking the rhetorical question as to what even is a good and rational society? This pushed me off the fence into the side that IPOS is just using SCUM as an opportunity for personal soapboxing, and has little appetite for self reflection. The solution offered by Solanas is to kill all men and the women who are too tainted by the ideas of Men. That's a terrible solution, but it is obviously what Solanas considers as a "society consisting of rational beings capable of empathizing with each other, complete and having no natural reason to compete, should have a government, laws or leaders."

You do not have to agree with SCUM and I sincerely hope you do not, but that is for Solanas what a better society looks like. If the object was to sift and probe into SCUM IPOS should have a response to that, playing coy as he does is essentially useless. If however IPOS meant to move beyond SCUM and to explore anarchism generally and just fumbled the transition than the answer to the question is to look at anarchist alternatives to our present day. IPOS doesn't do that either, the only references made are to SCUM and his own personal beliefs with very little of substance or elaboration. 

IPOS's solution is less murderous but even flimsier, "restructure" society. The hows and the whys of such a restructuring are left undexamined. Meanwhile SCUM's androcidal views did also realise that for this perfect lesbian commune to survive dismantling of the power relationships goes beyond simple murder.

     Philosophy, Religion and Morality Based on Sex: The male's inability to relate to anybody or anything makes his life pointless and meaningless (the ultimate male insight is that life is absurd), so he invented philosophy and religion. Being empty, he looks outward, not only for guidance and control, but for salvation and for the meaning of life. Happiness being for him impossible on this earth, he invented Heaven.

SCUM

 "Without a government even if you did kill every man on the planet, widespread pillaging and sexual assault would still happen".  IPOS says with a smirk.

This may seem like I'm repeating myself but I was stunned that IPOS admission that his views are incoherent slip out while grinning as if he delivered a master stroke. The first part suggests that government's prevent pillage and sexual assault a ludicrous statement destroyed by just accesing a newsfeed, but then follows it up with an admission that no it actually does happen with governments. This effectively raises some questions, if government (which by the by is not the state in totality) does not actually prevent this man eat man world than what exactly is the point of keeping it around at great cost to the population and the world? Surely this is an admission that government et al is irrelevant in preventing violence. 

 After this odd bit of rhetorical flubbing IPOS proceeds to talk about sexaul assault, violence and rape happening right now, only to declare that the answer is "restructuring". This is an admission that IPOS has a limited grasp on societal violence. Many women are in prison because they defended themselves from their abusers.  The state and its version of justice is complicit in punishing victims, that's what hierachies do, they build links with the upper levels and exploit the lower levels. You can wish for a better exploitation, rejig the edges but as long as the system is in place someone will have to be on the recieving end. To think you can "reform" or "restructure" an fundamentally violent system so that it only does good things but still somehow has the capacity to order others to comply is simply "pie in the sky thinking" it has no basis in facts and is just wish fulfilment. 

"rape would happen in a wasteland, ten more times than it does now if the average man did not fear death or imprisonment at the hands of the state" IPOS

No, IPOS doesn't back any of these assumptions up beyond gut feelings. I notice that IPOS keeps referring to a strange choice between the state and a "wasteland" which does goes to show the ignorance of IPOS and his confidence in regugitating hunches as cast iron facts. This is a very common argument against police and prison abolition, usually by right wing groups that favour more criminalisation and more use of the death penalty. So, it is interesting when a self described "leftist" makes it as it is the same logic and justification that religious fundamentalists make in regards to the "wasteland" of atheist society. If fear of the state is sufficient to prevent 10x the number of rapes ocurring in the world thant surely faith or fear of a deity will stop even more? There is no difference here, its a swapping of a religious diety for a secular one. Perhaps Bakunin was on to something when he wrote God and the State.

Is it even worth addressing this "argument"? its just baseless speculation, why settle for 10 times and not a 100 times more rape? I'll be honest I find it in extreme poor taste that IPOS would attempt to use rape for cheap rhetorical points, anyone aware of the seriousness of this issue would put more effort into interrogating their views and see if its supported by something before speaking so glibly about it. 

But as IPOS rambles on without any anchor he again makes an odd admission "the inherent sexual violence that has been baked into the core functioning of our society". If IPOS really believes this and is not just confused or trying to pre-empt criticism with a figleaf, then we can ignore what he said before this. If rape is due to the baked in core functioning of our society (The USA for him) then his objections to any different society melt away. They cannot by definition have the same outcomes if their core functioning differs from ours. The only way you could consciously claim that sexual violence would go up by a factor of 10 in some other society is if the soceity in question reflected the same core functions as this one but by a factor of 10. You can't claim in one sentence the state is preventative of sexual violence and then argue sexual violence is baked into the core functions of this soceity, what is the state if not a core function? They are in mutual conflict which each other. Its like claiming a strong military keeps a nation secure and then admitted you're a believer in the security dilemma. Which is it then?

 Speaking of facts, Cheran a town in Mexico was overwhelmed by cartel violence, the police and government did nothing to stop it and often were complicit. The town as a community rose up, expelled both the police and the mayor and then drove the cartel out of their territory on their own. Since 2011 they have administered their own affairs, communally. Crime or anti-social behaviour still occurs, mostly by cartels trying to get a foothold in the town again, but overall rates for all crimes have fallen drastically. Is this anarchism in action? Not quite, though it is close to what anarchists in Mexico and globally advocate in building new communities.   

 This might work for a village but not the world

This also comes up often in this style of argument and IPOS does not dissapoint.  

 "It may work on a community level, but globally it would never" what is a globe if not made up of communities? Even in the current world of power blocks and nation states each constituent player on the world stage is built of communities. The populations of the world are alienated from their government's but they still take part in their societies. Taxes fund armies, labour produces commodities for internal and international markets, without communities the global system would collapse. So, how could something work on a community level and not be scalable to a higher level? What exactly is the stumbling block? If you can't even name it how do you know its there?

Anarchism has scaled up on several occasions, Anarchist collectives in Aragon assembled on the village community level, then built up to regional level, eventually organising a population of 7 million at its peak. They organised schools, fields, workshops, shops, communal areas, defence and security, and trade and were in the process of building a hydroelectric dam.  

 It's also worth considering The Conquest of Bread by Kropotkin. Which is a how to build anarchist relationships in an isolated community up to a city the size of Paris. You start small and then scale up as and when you can and need to. 

 Conclusion

While watching the video I grew increasingly certain that IPOS's familiarity with anarchism was limited at best. I assumed though that much of this was coming from exposure to SCUM and its extremism. But on re-reading I don't think that's true either. I'm still a sceptic of SCUM but I don't think IPOS's rebuttals work as good faith criticisms of that. Which I think is damning.

 If IPOS reads this I would urge him to not take this as an attack on the person but on the ideas and negative impulses associated with them. By all means, reject anarchism all you want, just take sometime to figure out what anarchism actually is first. Opposition keeps the wits sharp, you made through SCUM, there are many far more pleasant anarchist texts out there.

 

 *The cult of American exceptionalism has sunk such deep roots that the US citizen has to centre themselves and present as unique even while supposedly lamenting their own short comings.

 

** Interesting bit of trivia, "Pie in the sky" was popularised by the Industrial Worker's of the World (IWW) a radical labour Union with heavy anarchist involvement, who used the term to criticise defenders of work and hierarchy, as seen in their song the Preacher and the Slave, "You'll have pie in the sky when you die". Its modern usage flipping the script to be a criticism of political radicals seems to be an excellent example of the smothering nature of capitalism and hierachy over modern society. 

Statement by Iran Labour Confederation - Abroad / کنفدراسیون کار ایران - خارج از کشور on the Ongoing War and the Urgency of Revolutionary Action

 

Statement by Iran Labour Confederation - Abroad / کنفدراسیون کار ایران - خارج از کشور on the Ongoing War and the Urgency of Revolutionary Action

 Statement sourced from here

The killing of Ali Khamenei, alongside a number of senior figures from the IRGC and the ruling apparatus, is an exceptional development in Iran’s current trajectory. It is a decisive blow to the heart of the repression machine and the backbone of the Islamic Republic. For millions in Iran, the death of a man who for decades symbolised massacre, suppression, poverty, militarism, and rule through blood has triggered a moment of release — a mix of long-contained rage and explosive relief.

People’s presence in the streets and the broader social reaction reveal the depth of hatred that years of crime and slaughter have accumulated inside society.

This is not joy in war. It is not joy in bombardment or in the killing of children. It is not joy in foreign intervention. It is the grim relief of seeing cracks appear in a monster that only two months ago, in Dey, drenched the country in blood — gunning down and crushing tens of thousands and turning society into an ocean of grief and anger.

The people who are breathing today are the same people who yesterday were beaten, shot, and thrown into prisons.

Still, we must state the reality plainly: this blow to the top of the state has taken place within a war launched from above and outside the people’s will. A war that threatens lives, turns cities into zones of death, and seeks to paralyse society through fear and ruin.

The United States and Israel have played a direct role through their military attacks, and they must be condemned unconditionally. No “rescue” narrative and no “defensive” framing can launder the killing of civilians.

At the same time, it must be said clearly: the Islamic Republic and the IRGC are not the victims of this war, they are among its principal architects. A state that for years has used society as a shield for its military and nuclear projects is now paying the price for those policies through internal collapse.

Khamenei’s death does not mean the crisis is over, but it does show unmistakably that this system can no longer reproduce its former authority. A structure whose leader has been removed, which is now at war, and which faces a society saturated with anger and hatred has entered a phase of irreversible instability.

We must also be alert to a crucial fact: a rupture at the top does not automatically mean the people’s will is being realised. It is precisely in moments like this that projects designed to contain society become active, “controlled transition,” reshuffling of elites, and the promotion of top-down alternatives meant to hijack the revolution and take the direction of events out of the people’s hands.

Backroom deals, reproducing the same structure with a new face, or imposing client governments under the slogans of “stability” and “transition” are all attempts to neutralise revolutionary momentum and block direct popular power. These scenarios do not represent the end of the Islamic Republic; they represent the continuation of the same repressive order in a new form. The only force capable of blocking this outcome is independent, nationwide, bottom-up organisation.

In a moment like this, the central question is not merely “opposition to war.” The real question is whether society can consciously use the opening created by the rupture at the top to advance revolutionary overthrow. War is meant to frighten society and suspend the revolution; the people’s answer must be to rebuild and organise their social power right in the middle of this crisis.

Workers, wage earners, youth, women, and all social forces must understand one basic truth: no foreign power is going to deliver freedom. The only force that can bring this system down for good is an organised society. Joining existing social organisations, strengthening independent labour organisations, and building councils, local committees, and mutual-aid networks is not a “choice” today — it is an urgent necessity, both to protect human lives under wartime conditions and to take collective control of society’s future.

The Islamic Republic is wounded and unstable. This is not a moment for spectatorship or hesitation; it is a moment for action. The real end of this war will not come through agreements between states, but through the revolutionary overthrow of an order that has turned life itself into a field of death.

We call on people worldwide, labour movements, and freedom-loving forces to stand with the people of Iran — not with states and war machines. Real solidarity means supporting the people’s right to overthrow the Islamic Republic and to build an order that is humane, free, and equal.

The struggle has entered a new stage. Repression has cracked, fear has been shaken, and the possibility of advancing has opened. A society that has paid so much in blood has the right — and the duty — to build its own future.

Iran Labour Confederation – Abroad 

 

  تحولات ایران است. این اتفاق، ضربه‌ای تعیین‌کننده به قلب ساختار سرکوب و ستون فقرات جمهوری اسلامی است. مرگ کسی که دهه‌ها نماد کشتار، سرکوب، فقر، جنگ‌طلبی و حکومت با خون بود، برای میلیون‌ها نفر در ایران، لحظه‌ای از رهایی، خشمِ فروخورده و شادی انفجاری بوده است. حضور مردم در خیابان‌ها و واکنش‌های اجتماعی، بیانگر عمق نفرتی است که جمهوری اسلامی طی سال‌ها جنایت و کشتار در دل جامعه انباشته کرده است.

این شادی، شادیِ جنگ نیست. شادیِ بمباران و مرگ کودکان نیست. شادیِ دخالت قدرت‌های خارجی نیست. این شادی، شادیِ دیدن ترک برداشتن هیولایی است که همین دو ماه پیش، در دی‌ماه، با گلوله و سرکوب ده‌ها هزار انسان را به خاک و خون کشید و جامعه را به دریایی از داغ و خشم بدل کرد. مردمی که امروز نفس می‌کشند، همان‌هایی هستند که دیروز زیر باتوم، گلوله و زندان له شدند.

با این‌همه، واقعیت را باید بی‌پرده گفت: این ضربه به رأس حکومت، در دل جنگی رخ داده که از بالا و خارج از اراده مردم آغاز شده است. جنگی که جان انسان‌ها را تهدید می‌کند، شهرها را به میدان مرگ می‌کشاند و می‌کوشد جامعه را زیر سایه ترس و ویرانی فلج کند. آمریکا و اسرائیل با حملات نظامی خود در این جنگ نقش مستقیم دارند و باید بی‌قید و شرط محکوم شوند. هیچ روایت «نجات‌بخش» یا «دفاعی» نمی‌تواند کشتار مردم را تطهیر کند.

اما هم‌زمان باید تأکید کرد: جمهوری اسلامی و سپاه پاسداران، نه قربانی این جنگ، بلکه از معماران اصلی آن‌اند. حکومتی که سال‌ها جامعه را سپر پروژه‌های نظامی و هسته‌ای خود کرده، امروز بهای همان سیاست‌ها را با فروپاشی از درون می‌پردازد. مرگ خامنه‌ای به‌معنای پایان بحران نیست، اما به‌روشنی نشان می‌دهد که این حکومت دیگر توان بازتولید اقتدار پیشین را ندارد. ساختاری که رهبرش حذف شده، درگیر جنگ است و با جامعه‌ای سرشار از خشم و نفرت روبه‌روست، وارد مرحله‌ای از بی‌ثباتی برگشت‌ناپذیر شده است.

هم‌زمان باید هوشیار بود که شکاف در رأس قدرت، لزوماً به‌معنای تحقق اراده مردم نیست. درست در چنین لحظاتی است که پروژه‌های مهار جامعه فعال می‌شوند: «گذار کنترل‌شده»، جابه‌جایی مهره‌ها و لانسه‌کردن آلترناتیوهایی از بالا که قرار است انقلاب را مصادره و مسیر تحولات را از دست مردم خارج کنند. توافق‌های پشت‌پرده، بازتولید همان ساختار با چهره‌ای جدید، یا تحمیل دولت‌هایی دست‌نشانده تحت عنوان «ثبات» و «گذار»، همگی تلاش‌هایی برای مهار انقلاب و جلوگیری از اعمال اراده مستقیم مردم‌اند. این سناریوها، نه پایان جمهوری اسلامی، بلکه تداوم همان نظم سرکوبگر در شکلی دیگر است.

تنها نیرویی که می‌تواند این روند را خنثی کند، سازمان‌یابی مستقل، سراسری و از پایین جامعه است.

در چنین لحظه‌ای، مسئله اصلی جامعه فقط «مخالفت با جنگ» نیست. مسئله، استفاده آگاهانه از شکاف ایجادشده برای پیش‌برد سرنگونی انقلابی است. جنگ قرار است جامعه را بترساند و انقلاب را معلق کند؛ پاسخ مردم باید این باشد که درست در دل این بحران، قدرت اجتماعی خود را بازسازی و سازمان دهد.

طبقه کارگر، مزدبگیران، جوانان، زنان و همه نیروهای اجتماعی باید بدانند که هیچ نیروی خارجی قرار نیست آزادی را به ارمغان بیاورد. تنها نیرویی که می‌تواند این حکومت را برای همیشه به زیر بکشد، جامعه‌ای سازمان‌یافته است. پیوستن به تشکل‌های اجتماعی موجود، تقویت تشکل‌های مستقل کارگری، و ایجاد شوراها، کمیته‌های محلی و شبکه‌های همیاری، امروز نه یک انتخاب، بلکه یک ضرورت فوری است؛ هم برای حفاظت از جان انسان‌ها در شرایط جنگی و هم برای به‌دست‌گرفتن سرنوشت جامعه.

جمهوری اسلامی زخمی و متزلزل است. این لحظه، لحظه تماشا و تعلیق نیست، لحظه اقدام است. پایان واقعی جنگ، نه در توافق دولت‌ها، بلکه در سرنگونی انقلابی نظمی رقم می‌خورد که زندگی را به میدان مرگ تبدیل کرده است.

ما از مردم جهان، جنبش‌های کارگری و نیروهای آزادی‌خواه می‌خواهیم که در کنار مردم ایران بایستند؛ نه در کنار دولت‌ها و ماشین‌های جنگی. حمایت واقعی، حمایت از حق مردم برای سرنگونی جمهوری اسلامی و ساختن نظمی انسانی، آزاد و برابر است.

مبارزه وارد مرحله‌ای تازه شده است. سرکوب ترک برداشته، ترس شکسته و امکان پیش‌روی گشوده شده است. جامعه‌ای که این همه خون داده، حق دارد و باید آینده را خودش بسازد.

کنفدراسیون کار ایران – خارج از کشور
۱۰ اسفند ۱۴۰۴
اشتراک بگذار:

1886: Expropriation an Essay by Kropotkin

 

 

 

Expropriation
An Essay by Kropotkin 

Published in La Revolte in 1886 
Translated by Henry Glasse 

No Social problem is more important for Revolutionists than that which deals with the expropriation of the rich in favour of the people, and the appropriation of all wealth by the latter. We invite all our comrades to study this problem under all its aspects, and to disenss it unceasingly, in view of its realization, which must sooner or later force itself upon us, as the definite success or temporary failure of the Revolution depends upon the manner in which this expropriation is applied.

As a matter of fact, no Socialist can doubt that any revolutionary effort is condemned in advance if, it does not correspond with the interests of the great majority, and find means for satisfying its requirements. It is not enough to have a noble id al: man cannot live on great thoughts and lofty discourses alone; he requires bread; the stomach has more rights than even the brain, for it is the stomach which sustains the whole organism. If, on the morrow of the Revolution, men do not see by the force of evidence as clear as daylight that the situation has been totally changed to their advantage—if the upset ends merely in a change of persons and formulas, nothing will have been done, and once more we shall have to set ourselves to the thankless task of Sisyphus ceaselessly rolling his massive rock uphill. In order that the Revolution may be something more than a name, and that a reaction may not bring us back on the morrow to the situation of the day before, it is necessary that the conquest of the day should be worth defending, it is necessary that he, who was wretched yesterday should no longer be miserable to-day. After the Revolution of 1848, simple-minded Republicans placed “three mouths of misery” at the disposal of the Provisional Government. The offer was accepted with enthusiasm, and, when the appointed time came, those who had accepted it did not fail to render payment for the three months, but they did so with volleys of grape-shot and wholesale transportation. The unfortunate people had hoped that those painful months of waiting would have sufficed for the enactment of the salutary laws which they expected would make them free men, and secure to them work and their daily bread. In place of asking, would it not have been better to take? Instead of making a parade of their misery, would it not have been preferable to put an end to it? Not but what devotion is a grand and beautiful thing, but it is not devotion, it is treason to abandon to their unhappy lot all those who march along with us. Let combatants die —Good! but let their death be of some use! Let devoted men sacrifice themselves-Quite right! but let the masses profit by the self-sacrifice of those valiant ones!

A general expropriation alone can satisfy the multitude of sufferers and oppressed. The matter must be made to pass from the domain of theory into that of practice: but, in order that expropriation may correspond with its principle, which is the suppression of private property and the restoration of all to all, it ought to be accomplished in vast proportions. On a small scale it would seem only vulgar pillage, on a large scale it would be the commencement of the Social Revolution. Of course we should be altogether ignorant of the laws of history, if we were to imagine that all at once a whole vast country could become our field of experience. Europe and the world will not become anarchist by a sudden transformation, but we know that on the one hand the madness of the ruling classes, together with their ambitions, their wars and their bankruptcies, and, on the other hand, the unceasing spread of our ideas, will have as their consequences great upheavals, that is to say, revolutions. It is at such times that we can act. How many times already have Revolutionists been taken by surprise, and allowed events to pass without taking advantage of them, and so have left propitious destiny still unattained!

Well, when these opportunities arise—and it is for you, comrades, to hasten their coming—when a whole district, or when large towns with their environs shall have shaken off their rulers, our work will be clearly traced out for us; the whole stock of instruments of labour must return into the possession of the community, and the wealth detained by private individuals must be restored to its true master -everybody- in order that each may be able to have his ample share in consumption, that production may be continued in respect to all matters necessary and useful, and that our social life, far from being interrupted, may he renewed with greater energy. Without the gardens and fields which afford us the articles indispensable to life; without the granaries, stores and warehouses which contain the accumulated products of labour; without the manufactories and workshops which supply the stuffs, the wrought metals, the thousand objects of industry and of art, together with the means of defence, without the railways and other means of communication which will enable us to exchange our products with the free communities in our neighbourhood, and to combine our efforts for resistance and attack: without all these we are condemned beforehand to perish, and to be stifled like the fish out of water, which cannot breathe, though bathed in the immense ocean of the air. Let us remember the great strike of railway servants which took place in America some years ago. The great bulk of the public recognized that their cause was just, everybody was weary of the insolence of the railway companies and rejoiced to see them at the mercy of their servants; but when the latter, having made themselves masters of the locomotives and railways, had neglected to make use of them; when the interchange of commodities continued interrupted, and food and articles of all descriptions had doubled in price, then public opinion changed sides, and people began to cry out, “Let us rather have the companies that rob us and break our limbs than these fellows on strike who starve us.” Let us never forget that it is necessary that all the interests of the people be protected, and that its needs as well as its instinctive love of justice be fully satisfied. 

Nevertheless it is not sufficient to recognise the principle, we must also apply it. Our opponents say to us, “Venture to touch the peasant’s plot of ground or the mechanic’s cottage, and see how they will receive you.” Very well! But we shall not interfere with the plot of ground nor with the cottage. We shall take good care not to attack our best friends, who without knowing it to-day, will certainly be our allies to-morrow. The expropriation will be to their advantage. We know that there is an average of means below which men suffer want, and above which they have a superfluity. In each town, in each country this average differs, but the popular instinct will not err, and without there being any necessity for drawing up lengthy statistics on paper, or for filling a whole series of volumes with figures, the people will know how to recover what is its own. In our beautiful existing society, a feeble minority lays claim to the bulk of the national wealth, has town and country houses built for itself, and accumulates in banks the coin, notes and documents of all sorts which represent the wealth produced by labour. All this we must seize, and by one and the same blow we shall set free the unhappy peasant whose plot of ground is burdened by a mortgage, the small shopkeeper who lives in constant dread of bankruptcy, and all that wretched crowd of persons who have not enough bread for the morrow. All this multitude may have been indifferent on the eve of the Revolution, but when the day of expropriation comes, how can it fail to see that it depends upon itself whether it is to remain free or to fall again into misery and eternal anxiety? Or, indeed, instead of freeing itself by itself, will it again have the simplicity to appoint a provisional government consisting of individuals with supple fingers and glibly wagging tongues, nor be contented until it has set up new masters in place of the old? Let it do its own work if it is to be done; let it confide it to representatives if it wishes to be betrayed!

It is not enough that the interested parties should come to recognise their interest, which is to live without continual anxiety respecting the future, and without the humiliation of having to serve masters, it is also necessary that ideas should change with regard to property, and that corresponding ideas of morality should be modified in consequence. We must understand and admit without hesitation or reserve that all the instruments and products of human labour are due to the united labour of all, and have but one proprietor – Humanity. We must clearly see that private property is a conscious or an unconscious theft of that which belongs to all, and we must be prepared to sieze all with alacrity for the common use and benefit so soon as ever the hour of redress shall sound. Take, waste not, for all is yours, and you have need of it. But destroy without delay all that has to be destroyed; the forts which are built to overawe the towns, the prisons, and those unhealthy quartes in which you have so long breathed an atmosphere loaded with poison. Take up your abode in the palaces and mansions, and make a bonfire of the piles of bricks and rotting wood which were your unwholesome dwellings. The instinct of destruction so natural and so just, because it is at the same time the instinct of renovation, will find ample room for satisfaction. How many antiquated obstructions there are to be done away with! Everything has to be re-modelled-- houses, cities, agricultural and industrial appliances, and, in short, the entire social apparatus.

To each great historical event there corresponds a certain evolution in human morality. It is certain that the morality of equals will not be the same as that of the charitable rich and the grateful poor. For a new world a new law is necessary, and it is indeed a new world which is giving notice of its near approach. Our adversaries themselves repeat unceasingly: “The gods are vanishing, the kings are going, the prestige of authority is disappearing.” And what is there to take the place of the gods, the kings, and the priests, if not the free individual relying on his manhood? Blind faith takes flight! Make way for Science! Gracious pleasure and Charity disappear! Make room for Justice!

P. Kropotkin

The Crooked Cross; fascism and appropriation of Celtic Culture

 

Croeso! 

A bit ago, a US politician got in some trouble when he unwittingly disclosed that he had a tattoo of the SS emblem, the Totenkopf (Death's Head). That politician is called Graham Platner, and he's a Maine Democrat. In a related story, another Democrat politician Dylan Blaha disclosed he has six tattoos, five of which seem to be typical military ink (both Dylan and Graham are ex-servicemen) but the sixth raised an eyebrow for me. On his right calf, Dylan has a Celtic cross, which he got in Germany after a trip to Ireland.

Now, I don't know either of these guys, Graham Platner claims he didn't know it was the SS murder skull and says he got it altered when he found out. As for the Celtic cross, it isn't a hate symbol yet, but there is a determined push to make it into one. And I know from experience this is largely overlooked in Anglophone circles.  So, I have no idea if either Democratic politician is a secret Nazi. I think it would be a very stupid thing for secret Nazis to declare themselves that way, but I'll sit back and let better placed individuals look into those stories. What I am going to do is take advantage of the rare window of public attention these revelations have caused to sound the alarm bells about a pernicious tactic on the far right. 

 I don't like talking about myself, but this text will go on to rely on my personal experiences, so I may as well get this out of the way. I am a Celt (it's pronounced Kelt) I grew up in a Celtic family surrounded by other Celts, in Ireland, Wales and Scotland, and the part of England I live in is one with a large Scottish and Irish population. I would not pass an Irish or Welsh language test nor could I write a book on Celtic folklore (not yet anyway) but I did grow up hearing words from both languages. In fact, in a funny twist for today's topic, my blood is so purely Celtic that I have a rare genetic blood disease that targets north European Celtic populations. That's not relevant to this particular discussion, but I think you should keep it in mind for when you encounter gobshites bemoaning the watering down of Europe with all that race mixing.  

Cultural appropriation, now to be clear I'm not using this term the way some do to mean any and all cross-cultural interaction and exchange. I mean it in the sense of taking something from one cultural and deliberately and radically trying to reclaim it as something else for a deliberate political end. I have no objection to other peoples learning about Celtic history and culture and myths, if anything I think its beneficial that cultural awareness is increased as a way to combat the attempts to hijack it for divisive ends. 

Fascists and their fellow travellers have been busy for years trying to replace the old toxic branding, swastikas, fasces etc, with new ones that can serve to rally the racists without tipping off normal society. They've mostly targeted Scandinavian cultural artifacts with knock off runes due to associations with Viking warriors and the convenient overlap with German mythology and some connections to original Nazi occultists.

I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment in detail on the pillaging of the Norse lore, so I'll also leave that to others. They have also appropriated Celtic symbology, including adopting a variation on the Celtic cross that marks very old churches in Ireland and Britain and have a smaller presence in Northern Europe. Celtic cross have many designs, what they usually have in common is a circle behind the head and the arms of the Cross. Fascist groups have latched onto to a simplified version of that characteristic and use variations of it that often look like a target cross-hair or a plus symbol in a circle. I've known for sometime that knowledge of these fash rebrand attempts isn't very high for some time. Even experienced anti-fascist activists who clock that these are fash emblems often don't know what they are. I remember one calling out the use of "fascist plus signs" on a banner when checking out who was marching down the street.

 

The sheer gall, or should I say Gaul, of French far right using Celtic imagery

 

I grew up with tattoos of Celtic crosses, every man from my father's generation who's a Celt has one somewhere, its become a very popular symbol of heritage and pride. Like the Harp for the Irish, Red Dragons for Welsh or Thistles for Scottish only this one can be used by most Celtic peoples. Generally the more the tattoo looks like its based on a real 9th century cross in a graveyard somewhere in Donegal or rural parts of Western Scotland, and the owner is a Celt or someone who has parents/grandparents, or just lives in Wales or Brittany or something, it's probably benign. When someone is using the streamlined version and has no connection to the Celts or a part of Europe where the Irish Catholic Church (which promoted the adoption of that cross style) had no presence, I would ask questions, like "what is that?" and then "why did you choose that?" and their answer is some nonsense about "our heritage" or pride I would be wary of them.

To link back to original premise, if Dylan Blaha had got the tattoo in Ireland, I'd think it's either a touristy thing or an attempt to get in touch with his "roots". Getting it in Germany gave me a moment of pause, the Ancient Celts were around the Rhine and Alpine regions but didn't get into the German interior much. However, designs for "authentic" crosses are popular, and their details are a good way for a skilled tattoo artist to show off their skills. If it turned out he just went to a tattoo parlour in Germany where knowledge of far right symbols is more common especially for tattoo artists who can get into trouble for making them, and got a short and quick plus and circle job I'd be far more suspicious. 

From a friend on Bluesky, a stall for the National Rebirth Party in Leicester, using a Triskelion as their emblem.

It's not just the cross that's been high jacked, other lesser known Celtic symbols are also being used. A variation on the Triskelion also pops up from time to time. Now Triskelion's aren't strictly a purely Celtic symbol, like the swastika its appeared in many cultures, some of which predate the Celts, it was also heavily tied to early civilisations in Sicily as another example. The Celts of ancient times used versions of it in many forms, and I have seen variations used by fash types that are based on the more common Celt designs. So, by talking mostly about the Celt versions I don't wish to imply the other cultures are fair game, just sticking to what I know.

If you don't know what a Triskelion is, the flag of the Isle of Man uses a version, the three legs on it are an example. Yes, the tri in triskelion means three, so it's a triskelion if it uses a pattern of three.  This appropriation is not as well known but goes back further. The ultra racist Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (AWB) took the Nazi flag, cut the swastika out of it and stitched a black triskelion into its place.

I guess subtlety doesn't translate into Afrikaans.

 There was also a SS division that used one as their personal logo.

Again I don't like seeing symbols I grew up with re-purposed for hate politics, growing up the Triskelion was a symbol of protection, a silly good luck charm. Speaking of luck charms, specifically Irish symbols are commonly used by far right groups in the United States of America. I'm thinking of the Ayran Brotherhood who use clovers as their emblem. This one I feel is more well known, I've seen documentaries about it for one, and I'm not familiar with conditions in the United States, so I won't talk further on this other than to note that in the documentaries I've seen on this group they allege that the Brotherhood considers clovers to be their symbol and not an Irish symbol and will attack Irish American inmates who have clover tattoos who aren't a "brother". I can't think of better example of the dangers of cultural appropriation.

Part II, Why?

  Now I've detailed some of the more common examples I feel It's important to look at why these disparate groups are doing this. Well while it may not seem like it in 2026 with the far right gaining popular support in many nations the authentic WWII era Nazi branding is still toxic and weird to even the majority of their voters. Fascism has always relied on euphemism and that reliance has grown since the WWII defeat and the Holocaust and the other brutal occupations from that time. One curious fact about the Graham Platner incident is that he says he got the SS tattoo in Croatia. Croatia like all the former Kingdom of Yugoslavia suffered greatly from German occupation, events marking the partisan movement are still publicly commemorated to this day. That said, Croatia also had an infamous history of collaboration with the Axis powers. I'm going to be careful here and make clear I do not mean all Croatians collaborated, there was however a fascist Croat movement called the Ustasha who were given de facto control of a collaborationist state and this state and its movement enthusiastically carried out genocides against Serbs, Jews and Freemasons and Communists and Gypsies and other undesirables*. I have no idea if Graham Platner is being honest when he claims ignorance, however it is inconceivable that the tattooist who gave him that skull didn't know about it.

In addition to misdirection the choosing of Celtic bits and pieces also slots in nicely with pre-existing fascist pseudo-history. The Celts in the accounts of Ancient Greek and Roman sources are violent and war like, which fits in with the machismo men of action cult. The Celts are also quite pale and European, so those are two ticks on the check sheet right there. Of course, most of this breaks down once you take even a cursory look at history, but I'm getting ahead of myself. Theirs also a religious component, the Celtic cross is also a cross, and its origins lie with the Irish Catholic Church. While fascism is quite diverse on questions of spirituality, hostility to Jews and Muslims means some form of militant Christianity will appeal to some of them. I don't think every fash with the fascist plus symbol is a militant christian, but I have seen its use in places like Italy and France where the Celtic connection just doesn't make sense, but the "a normal Italian/Frenchman is a Christian/Catholic" does make some kind of ideological sense.

And of course we can't overlook the follow the leader phenomena. I have a suspicion that if you were to conduct a poll of the international far right population where the Celtic cross is used many respondents wouldn't know what it really is and just copied what another fascist group did. This isn't the first time this has happened. When Mussolini came to power in Italy their was a global trend in copycat ___ Shirt movements. The Brown Shirts in Germany, Blue Shirts of Ireland, Silver Shirts in the USA, in Britain Mosely couldn't be bothered to pick a different colour they just ripped off Benito entirely.  And when Hitler rose to power in Berlin their was another wave of copy cats aping him. The fascists in Hungary where called the Arrow Cross party because their knock off Swastika was a cross made of Arrows. 

They're also fairly easy to draw and have the added bonus where should a fascist group find itself out of step and under hostile scrutiny they can play the "Nu-uh" card. They can use to attract sympathisers in the know while playing coy to everyone else. Of course this is subject to the rule of diminishing returns, the more they use it the less cover it provides. The more times an "immigration sceptic" is caught at a stop the boats protest with a triskelion t-shirt is found to have been at a national front rally in the 80s with a Nazi armband the less credulous the general public will become.

 Part III, Why the Celts make terrible stormtroopers

I was debating whether or not to include this part, I don't think this is the place for a full history of Celts whether ancient or modern. However as I said when I spoke about cultural appropriation, I think knowledge of real Celtic culture and its symbols will help to expose the operation, its also really interesting, with dragons, vengeful gods, curses and so on. Though I believe most Euro fash are unaware and do not care about the Celts even as a tool to use. As an example I've seen the symbols stolen by groups operating in countries where the Celts left no impact if they ever got their and Italian and French fascists are using it. If you wonder why I keep bringing them up, Italian fascsits love the Romans, who committed multiple genocides against many Celtic tribes and are in fact the nemesis of the ancient Celts. Meanwhile the French republic in 2026 is currently actively carrying out policies to destroy the culture and language of the Bretons, its Celtic minority. That's the nasty side of appropriation and fetishisation, it doesn't actually care about its targets, it just exploits them for its own gain.

 So here's a few inconvenient facts that get in away of a more serious fash interpretation of the Celtic legacy. 

1. Ancient Celts were quite diverse. The old Celts of the times of Asterix and Obelisk got around, they spread out so far and for so long that there is still debate over where the Celts originated, one theory says Central Europe, another says they came from Iberia and Western Europe. With an open question about where did their ancestors come from.
2. Celtic culture originates in language, the Ic in Celtic means speaker of a Celt language. Attachment to the Celtic peoples of antiquity were on the basis of tongue not race. Some nationalists may push back on this with an appeal to shared Europeanness. But that doesn't hold either, while the Celts were concentrated in North and Western Europe we know that Celts were present in areas further afield, the Galatians from the bible were a Celtic people and they lived in the middle of what is now Turkey. Celtic tribes also had access to the Mediterranean and traded extensively, where there was differences on parentage or relationship was along tribal lines within the Celts. They were never a unified "Volk" there were variations in culture, custom and language throughout. 
3. If the Celts had a "nemesis" they wouldn't be Jews or Africans or any other foreign bogeyman picked on by the far right. There enemies were other Europeans, Vikings, Germanic tribes, Romans, Greeks etc. If there were stop the boats protests in Britain in the 6th Century the targets would be the Saxons, Jutes and Angles who created the proto-English culture**. That Celts even still exist is a testament to resistance to these attempts to destroy and subjugate them. The French Republic is still trying to force the Bretons to become French by doing all it can to make Brezhoneg a dead language. The people who have been oppressing us, destroying our cultures and forcing us to behave as they see fit are fellow Europeans, often motivated by nationalism.
4. The Celts expose the arbitrariness of nations, races and culture itself. The terms Celt and Celtic dissappear until the 1700s when very early studies in what would become anthropolgy and linguistics realised the langauges and cultures of the people living in Wales, Ireland, Brittany etc shared many common characteristics and that some them seem to connect these modern peoples to those of the civilisations from ancient times. They could've easily not adopted the common "family name" and kept us all separate afterall while the Celtic languages are related they're not mutual intelligible, at least not at without a good deal of exposure. And since language was the main decider rather than religion or physical characteristics (I would say stereotypes) we can easily redefine the Celtic population drastically downward excluding many including myself but include a small number of other people including a student from Hong Kong who speaks far better Cymraeg then I can. If langauge is the deciding factor that it de facto means that ethnicity and sense of belonging are largely arbitrary and open to change. Which it already has, many English and French share the same ancestors as Bretons and Welsh, and yet we think of them as different peoples because when the labels were reintroduced the majority of them didn't speak a Celtic language as their first and main language.  

That's the annoying thing about history for propagandists its too messy and doesn't fit neat sides of a box. If militant Celtic nationalism where to take off as a movement it'd be more likely to divide the Euro fash camp even more. Let's look at one Welsh national hero, Owain Glyndŵr (Owen Glendower in English). There's a man who in the popular retelling rallied the Cymry in a heroic struggle for freedom from the violent alien oppressor the English... Mainstream Celtic nationalism is already speratist.

 Appendix: Real Celtic Fascism

I wasn't sure whether to add this or not, but on re-reading I felt there was a theme of alien corruption of noble culture. While I beleive much of this appropriation is from non-Celtic sources there are examples of homegrown Celtic fascist and other reactionary tendencies. And while I'm busy pre-empting criticism I'll reiterate my personal view that these fash types being "foreign" is not the issue, I genuinely like it when others show interest in culture and language, nor do I have an issue with benign use or borrowing for new things.  Its very much the exploiting a frankly damaged and misunderstood culture for xenophobic purposes that I can't stand, regardless of whose doing it.

 So, with that in mind I will briefly document a few examples of Celtic fascism from history. 

 The Blue Shirts,

 

Fascist politician Eoin O'Duffy inspects his troops,

The Blue Shirts were one of the copy cats of Mussolini, their leade O'Duffy also set up a Corpratist Political party further copying his mentor. At their peak in 1934 the Blue Shirts numbered 48,000 though they quickly lost most of those members. The Blue Shirts were formed as a paramilitary and security unit for one of the groups that merged into Fine Gael (Family of the Irish) the same Fine Gael that currently is the ruling coalition of the Republic of Ireland. The Blues infamously raised a brigade of Irish volunteers for Franco's army rebels in the Spanish Civil War. Some Irish historians try to avoid the Fascist label for the Blue Shirts but curiously not its leader O'Duffy, by arguing they were motivated by extreme authoritiarian catholicism. I won't deny there Catholic zealotry but that's not a disqualifier for fascist politics. They also officially supported democracy in Ireland, however they materially supported a fascist dictatorship in Spain and their idea of a model democracy was the Irish Free State, a state that was not free and had came into existence through an extreme and ruthless victory in a civil war. The Blue Shirts were founded largely due to the release of prisoners from the losing side in that war. The Free State of the 30s was not the tourist friendly Temple Bar of modern Dublin, it was suspicious and actively controlling of the population.

The Breton National Party

The Breton National Party, founded in 1931 was a nationalist party that sought independence from France. It rivaled a Breton federalist movement***. During the second world war it collaborated with the Nazi Occupation forces. Brittany had its own little Vichy. 

Members of the BNP in 1942, its hard to make out, but those armbands they're wearing sport a Triskelion

 The BNP was disbanded forcibly in 1944 during the liberation of France. Meanwhile the rival federalist movement which sported a Hevoud symbol which is also sometimes called a Celtic swastika was driven out of eixstence sometime after 1938. Though sucessor organisations of sorts for both them came into existence in the 2000s, the Adsav being the far right bastard child of the BNP, still keeping the triskelion emblem, while the Federalists revived the Federalist League name. 

Defence Leagues

The English Defence League or EDL was the most popular and in your face strain of far right politics in the UK in the 2010s. Of course there was both a knock off Scottish Defence League and a Welsh Defence League but the EDL had the numbers and caused the biggest impact and damage to communities all over Britain. 

I don't know much about the Scottish Defence League but I'm more familiar with the WDL, though not by much as it collapsed into infighting and feuding after investigations into their members and their links to Neo-Nazis were exposed**** soon after launching. The same fate eventually befell the EDL with many splinter groups and rivals often trying to beat the rump EDL of the streets in some regions.  

The Welsh off shoot collapse so quickly that the EDL tried to pick up the slack by marching in Wales demanding "their country back", which didn't go down well. 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 *I should also mention that there were Croats who resisted occupation and that the other groups and peoples in Yugoslavia had collaborators too, it's not a clear-cut distinction. 

 ** A fun fact, in all the Celt languages still spoken, the word for an Englishman literally translates as Saxon. Whereas Welsh and Wales come from Saxon words meaning foreigner and outsider. 

***  "..the pressing duty to gather those of our compatriots who do not want to confuse Brittany with the Church; Brittany with reaction; Brittany with puerile anti-French bias; Brittany with capitalism; and even less, Brittany with racism." From the manifesto of the Breton Federalist League 

**** Unmasked: Welsh Defence League, by the BBC 

The Ghosts of the Past

 

Spanish Republican prisoners

 I was listening to the Real Dictators podcast, specifically working through the episodes on Francisco Franco the Fascist dictator of Spain. I've gone through many books, articles and documentaries and feature films about the Spanish Civil War, but this one did cover some information that was new to me including an in-depth look at the collaboration between the British establishment and Franco and the other rebel Generals. 

Episode Four, revealed some information that genuinely caused me to hit the pause button and then rewind to listen with my complete attention. The segment documented the network of Concentration Camps Franco had built throughout Spain to break the will of the population. Victory on the battlefield does little to win hearts and minds, after all. It's a grim sequence of figures for deaths, slavery and executions. The part that shook me was the revelation that I had been to one of these Concentration Camps several times as youth. That it is because that camp is now the location of the Aqualand water park in Torremolinos. My family lived in Gibraltar so we got to know Andalusia quite well, Torremolinos was a regular holiday destination and the park was a welcome relief from the heat. My family have many anecdotes of misadventures there, the kind that's nostalgic and hilarious to us but boring to everyone else. 

 

One of the unearthed documents that prove the Camp existed.

But as you may suspect, there was no inkling that the site used to be a place of death and brutality. Which is not surprising if you're familiar with Spain, part of the aftermath of the transition from Francoismo to liberal democracy was that the state would leave sleeping dogs to lie. Spanish governemnts have not as a rule championed or officially endorsed Francoismo, and it has moved legislatively away from personalised dictatorship and toward liberal democracy and regional autonomy. Still, It very rarely gets involved in dealing directly with its past unless it has to. Official Francoist commemoration events take place annually in areas where the Franco cult remains strong, and it was not until 2019 that Franco's remains were removed from the Valley of the Fallen, a tomb dedicated to the war dead of the Civil War and while it contains bodies of Republican soldiers, it is dedicated using the Motto and other iconography of the dictatorship.

 

Before the removal of his body the site had become a place of pilgrimage for many Spanish and foreign far right groups.

 

So, the majority of the work of establishing the facts and the scale of the repression which may have included over 200,000 victims has been handled by the survivors and independent minded historians and journalists, who have done the lion's share of work uncovering the 700 and counting mass graves, and tracing the archipelago of state violence, its connections to the Spanish military and business world and of course the Catholic Church. The revelations that the Camp in Torremolinos did in fact exist was largely thanks to the work of the historian Carlos Blancos. 

 Until now. Local historian Carlos Blanco has found official documents that show the existence of the facility; these include a quartermaster's report, an administrative journal and an invoice. A budget from the Ministry of National Defence reveals that the Seville Treasury covered the expenses of this terrible service, with a daily cost of 1.65 pesetas per prisoner.

The documentation discovered by Blanco leaves no room for euphemisms despite years of attempts by the council to play down the facility. Former mayor Pedro Fernández Montes (PP) denied that there had ever been a concentration camp in Torremolinos - only a detention centre, which is not the same - and called the claim cliché during a council meeting in 2015. 

More details in this article 

This is rather typical of parts of Spain where the remembrance of the dead are especially inconvenient, the result is greatly uneven remembrance. There are parts of the country, especially in regions with their own language and identity, where the work of documentation, mourning and remembrance are quite extensive. In other parts where the Francoists were more popular, the work is far less prominent. Currently, Spain is in a weird state of flux were the atrocities of Franco are not denied outright, the former Mayor* for example did concede something happened in Torremolinos, but defenders of the dead regime will downplay and minimise and do their best to ignore the bad things, while loudly shouting about the supposed benefits of decades of brutal dictatorship**. 

I think overall the tide is shifting in the right direction, more evidence throughout the country is being unearthed, and it's harder and harder for the Spanish right to play dumb. While it took far too long, removing Franco's bones from a national monument where he took centre stage was also a positive symbolic step. Unfortunately this path is not guaranteed the Spanish right is still large and in the form of the right wing of the PP and the Vox party is much more open to embracing the Francoist past which was considered taboo in polite circles. If that movement succeeds in gaining momentum and coming to power, who knows what the future brings. 

 There is also another danger these malignant splinters of Francosimo pose to the international community. I have encountered both online and in the wild people who know nothing of Spain but have met a Spaniard who is a Francoist and bought wholesale the nonsense they spout. It's frustrating dealing with these gullible fools. So far it's relatively easy to put them on the back foot with simple references to the frequent execution by garroting, the time Basque nationalist sent Franco's Prime Minister into space, But a lie repeated often enough while not becoming the truth is believed to be by a greater number of people each time. The Spanish historians, journalists, survivors and family of survivors are doing fantastic work in dragging the secrets of the Spanish far right into the sunlight, I wish to support their efforts. 

 

Poster for the 1979 drama Operacion Ogro which covered the 1973 assassination.

*If you're curious, PP stands for the Partido Popular (People's Party) a Conservative party and the largest political party in Spain in 2026. 

** An example of this odd tension was the 2016 Cassandra case. 18-year-old Cassandra Vera Paz posted a series of tweets poking fun at the 1973 assassination of Prime Minister Blanco via car bomb, this is the event that's been commemorated as "Spain's first astronaut" in memes. Paz was found guilty of the crime of insulting the victims of terrorism, and sentenced to a year in prison. Eventually, Spain's Supreme Court overruled the sentence for a number of reason's including the fact that many people around the world have been making jokes about that assassination for decades.

Re-defining Donald Trump; a response to the Financial Times

I was unable to find the original English version, so this Spanish translation will have to suffice for now.

 

 This month, I read an article in the Financial Times, Defining Donald Trump, The US leader is often called a fascist but he represents a different kind of political authoritarianism  by Simon Kuper. I think it's one of the more intelligent attempts to grapple with Donald Trump I've seen from the mainstream news outlets. There are points in which I agree with Kuper, but fundamentally I disagree with how Kuper defines fascism.

Kuper's article contends that Donald Trump's administration is modelled on a mafia instead of a fascist police state. I agree that a mafia family is the closer model so far (we'll see how that develops in the future) but I disagree that this means we can discount the fascist content of the administration.

Kuper's article cites two sources of expertise on what is fascism. One is Umberto Eco's 1995 essay Ur-Fascism, and a collection of essays by German researchers called When Yesterday Knocks. Readers of Umberto have noticed the strong correlations between how Donald Trump behaves and the movement he is attached to, and the 14 features outlined in Ur-Fascism. The image at the top was created early into his first term, which started in 2016. And Kuper agrees with the connections, however the latter text has convinced him that the model doesn't quite fit.

I haven't been successful in tracking down a copy of the latter text, so I'll have to rely on Kuper's commentary, the key points are in summary.

1.  Hitler believed in a Volk and its highest aim was war, while Trump is not interested in war and only attacks nations too weak to strike back.
2. Trump has no interest in the state and openly believes in capitalism to extreme levels, he even brought in Elon Musk to break up parts of the state.
3. Hitler downplayed his family while Trump relies on them for key parts of his business and policy.

And I think there's series problems with all three if we're trying to use them to argue that Donald Trump isn't a Fascist.

1) Firstly, I think the WWII is muddying the waters somewhat. Yes, we know that Hitler was a fanatical racist, who had extreme fixations on war and conflict. However, Trump is also clearly extremely racist and his ideas on what constitutes a "real American" and a "Great America" is one with fewer ethnic minorities. His actions vis a vis Muslims are similar to early actions taken by Nazi Germany against its Jewish population. In addition, both Hitler and Mussolini showed extreme caution in the early days, Mussolini invaded Ethiopia, Albania and Greece, nations he was convinced he could beat easily, and Ethiopia and Greece proved he was wrong. Italy didn't formerly join WWII until after the invasion of France. Hitler in 1934 pulled support for the Austrian Nazi party that was trying to seize control of Austria in the July Putsch when Mussolini declared he would back Austria. Yes, you read that correctly, there was once a time when Hitler was intimidated by Mussolini. His re-militarisation of the Rhineland was so controversial that the army had standing orders to withdraw should France respond. And in the Spanish Civil War it was impossible to hide German involvement, but steps were taken to limit knowledge of how much German assistance was provided and what that assistance was doing. The bombing of Guernica by German bombers, for example wasn't officially admitted until 1939, Franco's troops did their best to collect the bomb fragments and blame the devastation on the "Red Republicans". And the invasion of Poland did not happen until Germany had signed an agreement with the Soviet Union to divide it and the rest of Eastern Europe between them.

Hitler did become the global menace he was until after years of getting away with easy victories and the opportunity to build up his forces. This should concern us greatly, considering right now the same thing is happening with Trump.  

 2) I concede that there is plenty of difference between Trump and Hitler on the role of the state and capitalism, Hitler hated financial capitalism while loving heavy industry. While Trump loves financial capitalism, although he has also spent plenty of air time bemoaning the collapse of American industry and claims his economic policies will revive it. However, Hitler and the Nazis while fanatics did not live like monks. Hitler used his political power to become the richest man in Germany, he even associated himself with merchandising opportunities. The German post office had to use his face on their stamps and pay him for the use of his likeness as just one example. In general the Nazis inherited a German economy with a large state sector and then privatised most of it, awarding assets and contracts to loyal party members and industrialists who would toe the line.

 On the other hand, the activities of private business organizations and the fact that big
businesses had some power seem to be grounds for inferring that the Nazis
promoted private property. Privatization, according to this analysis, was intended
to promote the interests of the business sectors supportive of the Nazi regime, as
well as the interests of the top echelons in the Nazi Party

Against the Mainstream 

 Even the holocaust involved private capital, slave labour was leased to factories and IG Farben was a private company.

You'd be hard-pressed to find a dictator, Fascist or otherwise, who didn't exploit their position for personal gain. Spain's Francisco Franco became a millionaire during the Civil War and used those funds to build an extensive business portfolio for him and his family.

 Mariano Sánchez Soler, the journalist who is most familiar with the Franco family businesses (he wrote a book, Los Franco S. A., or Franco Inc., a must-read for anyone with an interest in the matter), holds that the Francos had assets worth well over a billion pesetas in 1975, the year of the dictator's death. In the following decades, they ate up "a few bits of the cow," including the palace of Canto del Pico or the villa that Carmen Martínez-Bordiú sold to the ambassadors of Venezuela for 150 million pesetas (over 900,000 euros).

El Pais. 

Franco also leased the inmates of his Concentration Camps to private companies as a source of cheap labour. Slave labour was used in the construction of Malaga airport to pick just one example close to me personally.  

It's true that the manner in which the theft of public funds is different, however we should remember that Trump was a businessman first, and then a politician whereas most dictators move into politics first, and then they branch out into big business. 

3) Sure, Hitler was extremely weird about his family, but other dictators weren't so shy. Two of Mussolini's sons served in the Italian air force and participated in carpet bombing operations in Ethiopia. I'll be honest, I don't wish to come across as one of those debate bros with their "Not an argument!" but I do not think this argument should be included, it's taking a personal behavioural pattern of one man who had few friends and relationships and elevating them to an ideological standard. Hitler didn't use family as members of his important networks, but then he didn't have any close family left by the time he came to power in 1933. His inner circle of party chieftains divided up Germany and took on important international posts for him instead. Does it really matter that Goebbels wasn't a relation when he was given control over Germany's media? Or that Heydrich never married into the Hitler household when working out whether it was feasible to send the European Jewish population to Madagascar?

 In conclusion, I do not disagree that Trump acts like a Mob boss. However, I do not think that that means we can dismiss the fascist threat that he and his regime poses. I think the differences here are more the result of circumstance and the USA of the 21st century as opposed to Europe in the 1930s.

So they're threatening us with an new Animal Farm movie

 

I was innocently scrolling through social media when a trailer for an CG film starring animals started playing. My settings mute automatically so I just saw a few seconds of CG pigs smiling. Those pigs look creepy when they smile was my reaction, and then I moved on with my life.

A few days later I saw those creepy porcine smiles again, this time as part of a thread of comments denouncing the film, which is how I learnt that it was an Animal Farm movie, and that Seth Rogan voices the Napoleon character. Oh, joy.

Look, the film has not been released, it's scheduled for release on the 1st of May 2026, that's International Worker's Day, and from the bits shown in the trailer it looks to be a modern retelling of the dangers of capitalism. I don't particularly wish to watch it and I have no expectations for it, but I won't write it off before it comes out. Though I do have things to say about an Animal Farm but capitalist reading, which I will come back to later on.

 Before we move on, I have a question for you. Have you read Animal Farm? I'm not being cute, I think it's one of those things where the discourse/gossip that surrounds it is more well known and more famous than the story itself. And I think that's partly to blame for the majority of the confusion and abuse of that name. So, if you haven't read it, I would recommend you do so. It's quite a short read it's a novella and most versions don't include Orwell's preface making it even shorter. It's public domain in the UK and can be found online fairly easily, here's the first version I read many years ago. 

 No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

A brief summary,

 Our story is set on Manor Farm, a typical farm in the 1930s England, the Farmer Jones is lazy and drunk. The Animals are growing dissatisfied with his stewardship of the farm, eventually tensions explode and a revolt led by the pigs succeeds in overthrowing the hated Jones and the animal's find themselves in charge of the farm. Not knowing what to do now, the animals consent to letting the pigs take the vanguard position, and they administer the farm. The pigs promise equality and a new life free of exploitation, but work needs doing, so the other animals provide the muscle and work to the pigs plans. Overtime, the pigs gain and enjoy more privileges and their rule becomes far less popular, by manipulating language, fears and the use of force the pigs under their leader Napoleon from a dictatorship and in the end they use the wealth of the farm to parley a seat at the table with the human farmers. The quotation above comes from the final scene, where the pigs entertain a group of human farmers. It's not as iconic as "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others" but it represents the same message and is key to the author's intent with the story. 

You may have been aware that Animal Farm is an allegory for the Russian Revolution, and it is, although just knowing that fact without familiarity with the work will obscure the main point of the story.  Many readings of the book and its other film adaptations will focus on Napoleon being like Stalin and other events that have parallels with early soviet history and then deduce something along the lines of "Animal farm is an allegory about the dangers of revolution and how they eat their own" this might be what they got from it, but I don't see that in the story and from what I know of George Orwell. For starters, Jones is seen as a tyrant who needed to be overthrown, the problem is in the aftermath and how the pigs behave.

The other animals don't act like the pigs, many are shown to be devoted to the cause they work and often die for. Their problem is that they allowed the pigs to occupy positions of power over them and the pigs grew accustomed to the trappings of power and their own self-importance and corrupted themselves and their revolution. The pigs are the Bolsheviks here, you see. 

There is a sort of restoration theme in Animal Farm, but the return of the status quo is the crux of the depressing ending. You're not supposed to think it's good that the pigs act so much like their former masters that the animals can't distinguish between them any more.  

 

The pointlessness of an anti-capitalist animal farm

From the trailer the 2025 Animal Farm film casts its Napoleon as a tech bro capitalist, it's not the first time someone came along and wrote an anti-capitalist version of Animal Farm, there was an unofficial sequel where Snowball (a pig heavily coded as Leon Trotsky) returns from exile to the farm and leads it in a new business friendly way. Neither of these re-imaginings can escape a core problem, and that is that we already have a definitive attack on capitalism to George Orwell's Animal Farm. It's called Animal Farm, it was published in 1945 and was written by George Orwell.      

Going back to the quote, the reason that the animals can no longer distinguish between the human's and pigs is so damning of an ending is what both represent. The pigs represent the communist party, I don't know anyone who would dispute that, but what many seem to miss is that the humans in the story are the capitalists. They're allegories for the capitalists who rule the world, they take the eggs, and milk and meat etc. from the animals and sell them for a profit. That's an allegory for the capitalist system, the produce is the commodities produced by workers labour time and power. 

So, when the animals can't tell the difference between the two, Orwell is accusing Stalin and his party cronies of using the language and symbols of socialism to trick the population while he builds a capitalist economy. This is not a surprise, throughout the story the pigs use and exploit the other animals to make a profit, and it's their ability to control a restive farm and conduct good business that turns the humans who initially rejected the pigs as usurpers other to letting them take part in the wider community. 

That is a very simplified criticism of the Soviet Union, but one that is based on a wider criticism of capitalism. It's good that Jones is gone, and it's a tragedy that the new rulers continue to behave like him and represent the same cruel dynamic. The pigs are usurpers, but not because they dared to take Jones's rightful property, they usurped a genuine movement to end tyranny and exploitation. 

This gets overlooked all the time by liberal critics and deliberately ignored by the "communists" who comment on the work. I can understand the former, the phrase missing the forest for the trees springs to mind. The clear parallels to Stalin and the Soviet Union are so obvious that its wider message gets lost. It doesn't help that much of the intended audience has its own blinkers on, since Animal Farm is obviously the Soviet Union* which was different from the USA which we all know is capitalist, so the capitalist dimension is overshadowed. I think this is the result of buying into capitalist propaganda, the idea that capitalist economy is built on an abstract freedom and not the material class relationships of boss and workers. Workers in both the USA and USSR were alienated and controlled, they're worked on what those above them chose for them and in the manner decided for them, and the results of their work, the products and materials were sold off, and the profits went to the powerful. There are differences between a board of directors and a state planning agency, sure, but the foundations of the economy are the same. 

A film where Napoleon parties and drives a Tesla might be entertaining, I doubt it, but it is possible. However, it will always be redundant. We already had that story in 1945.

 

Appendix One: The 1954 film, aka the CIA movie

"You'll laugh and cry a little!" good to see lying has been a cornerstone of marketing for so long.

 

 Thought it's best to deal with this one while we're here. In 1954, just four years after the death of George Orwell, the British studio Halas and Bachelor released a full length animated adaption. The animation is excellent for 1954 and is arguably the first feature length animated film released in the United Kingdom. And aside from a few changes (we're getting to), is a faithful adaption of the story. But that's not why anyone talks about this film.

No, all that anyone talks about when the film comes up is the presence of the CIA. It's true, two executives who worked for the CIA bought the rights to the film from Orwell's widow then used Rochemont as a front who selected Halas and Bachelor to produce the film. This was unknown to everyone until historian Tony Shaw uncovered the financial connections. So, I think we have an excellent example of the damage propaganda can have on art. Even when it produces a technically impressive and moving work, the real purpose of it hangs over it.

Regarding those changes, the film's wiki entry helpfully lists them and some potential changes that were not made. A few that stand out, adding scenes where some animals who are content have no interest when learning of the revolution in Animal Farm, I get their intent, but the result is a short and succinct demonstration of what marxists call false consciousness. There were also animals in the novella who didn't see why they needed to fight Jones either, 

 Some of the animals talked of the duty of loyalty to Mr. Jones, whom they referred to as "Master," or made elementary remarks such as "Mr. Jones feeds us. If he were gone, we should starve to death." Others asked such questions as "Why should we care what happens after we are dead?" or "If this Rebellion is to happen anyway, what difference does it make whether we work for it or not?", and the pigs had great difficulty in making them see that this was contrary to the spirit of Animalism. The stupidest questions of all were asked by Mollie, the white mare. The very first question she asked Snowball was: "Will there still be sugar after the Rebellion?"

Another concerns Snowball being too good and the need to make him just as bad as Napoleon. Well, that mission failed Snowball is still seen as the good of the two pigs and his murder by the dogs reads as tragic. Another change due to pressure was the reduction of humans and the focusing on Jones as the evil one. 

But the big change concerns the ending. Orwell's novella ends with the animals broken, the film ends with the pigs being overthrown. I personally don't see an issue with the bad guys being overthrown, it's a change, but the novella's ending was the way it was because it was released in 1945 when Stalin stood triumphant. In 1954 there had been revolts, including East Germany the year before. To me the bit of the changed ending that is a problem is the replacement of the human visitors with other pigs. These pigs are clearly stand ins for the soviet sattelite states of East Germany, Bulgaria etc. This means that Napoleon hasn't been accepted by the wider capitalist world. But, to my great surprise the ending keeps the trigger point. It still keeps this bit.

 No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

They see the pigs acting like Jones the human and its that which drives them into a frenzy to overthrow their masters. So, the CIA funded a film based on a work where the villains are evil for adopting capitalist methods and despite wielding great influence kept that criticism in the film. Its not just in the ending either, throughout the film the pigs constantly trick, pressure and cajole the other animals into working so they can profit from their labours. Animal Farm is ruled by a brutal clique who spend other people's money on booze, clothes and automobiles, and this is somehow different to the USA how?

Again, I really think you should read the novella, the criticisms of capitalism are entwined within the crticism of Stalin.  

Oh and one final note on the changes, while reading the book Orwell Subverted:The CIA and the filming of Animal Farm, I came across the CIA's negative reactions to the first proposed uprising ending where the human guests are preserved.

 This dramatic reversal of the book’s downbeat conclusion notwith-
standing, the memo argued that, as scripted, the final sequence, which
included men and pigs, was ‘‘ambiguous at best’’ and ‘‘at worst’’ was an
‘‘endorsement of . . . anarchism.’’

So, there you have it, keeping the anti pig and human theming of the Novella is an endorsement of Anarchism.  

 Appendix Two: The other Animal Farm movie

 

Somehow this poster even more misleading than the 54 version

Did you know that there was another Animal Farm film? It released in 1999, and it uses the voices of Patrick Stewart for Napoleon and Kelsey Grammar for Snowball. It also uses some CG animation but mostly relies on animatronics, puppets and real animal stuntwork. It was also faithful to the Novella and as far as I can tell was not funded by any intelligence services. Oh and the pigs don't look creepy when they smile.

 It doesn't get brought up ever when Animal Farm is being discussed. I guess its marketing failed, its trailer and posters make it look like a Babe Big in the City knockoff. Its a shame really, its a strong adaption. Again the biggest change is the ending, some animal's after seeing the pigs and humans pal around to the point it is impossible to say which is which they run off and escape. Then years later the regime has crumbled and collapsed. I suspect that change was due to the film releasing in 1999 years after the soviet union crumbled in on itself and collapsed.

If you want a faithful adaption of Animal Farm this will probably remain the best version available.  

Taken together the Novella and the two films represent an interesting timeline, we have Stalinism triumphant (1945), in trouble (1954) and death through decay (1999).  

 

  *Which makes me wonder how younger readers react to it since they have no memory of the Soviet Union to base their thoughts on.