Statement from the Anarchist Front of Iran and Afghanistan condemning state wars

 

 

 

Statement source 

 

We, the anarchist front of Iran and Afghanistan, reaffirm our unshakable and principled position:

Every war – on every scale and on every excuse – initiated or sustained by states, must be unequivocally condemned.

Countries, regardless of their shape or appearance, use war as a tool for survival and control. And in this process, the lives, dignity and future of ordinary people are trampled under their feet.

At a time when the world is once again plagued by violence, bombs, death, displacement, and insecurity, we insist on this ongoing truth: the real victims of war are always the people—not the countries, not ideologies, not borders.

Our fight, as always, is not for the redistribution of power among the elites, but against the institution of the state itself and all forms of organized control.

We stand in solidarity – carefully and decisively – alongside the people of Iran, Afghanistan and the wider region.

What we are witnessing today is, on the one hand, the blatant crimes of the Israeli regime, targeting civilians in Gaza and elsewhere with wild cruelty. On the other hand, we see the Islamic Republic of Iran manipulating public fear, playing geopolitical games at the cost of the lives of Iranians, and imposing the burden of war on society.

We see the Islamic Republic not only as the outbreak of a regional war, but as part of a global chain of control and oppression – a regime that has for decades been attacking the Iranian people with censorship, poverty, imprisonment, torture and execution, and recklessly endangering millions through military provocations.

While we condemn the atrocities of the Zionist regime in the harshest terms, we also state that the struggle against the Islamic Republic is part of our broader struggle against all states and structures of control – a struggle that will continue.

We fight for a world without borders, without countries, without armies or authorities – a world in which humanity, life and freedom are at the center. Our main war has always been the war against political authority, totalitarianism and the state itself.

Iran and Afghanistan anarchist front

June 13, 2025

Common-Sense Country by L.S. Bevington

 

Credit to No Bonzo

A short story demonstrating a possible Anarchist future, written sometime in the 1890s.
 

Common-Sense Country

There was a country where Common-sense had somehow got the upper hand. In that country sense was as common as lunacy is in a madhouse. There was a place for everything, and everything was either in that place, or else was on the direct way there—the shortest way, the easiest way, the cheapest way. In that country everybody was brought up with the notion that the simplest plan in everything served everybody’s turn best, even the clever people’s; and it was taken as a matter of course that if things did not go wrong people wouldn’t. They read in their books of history and comparative sociology that in countries were things do go wrong, people go wrong too, in the blind, blundering attempt to straighten things back a bit. But in Common-sense Country it was always said when things went wrong that there had been some nonsense—that is, empty word-play—in the heads or habits of the people, which had diverted attention from realities, and caused the people to let things wander out of the way.

In Common-sense Country all the commodities and goods, all the instruments, utensils, and appliances—in short, all the “things”—had very simple and unadventurous biographies, and, if they could have spoken, they would not have had much harrowing information to impart about the ravages of their tissues and textures caused by moth and rust, nor yet of vicissitudes incurred at the hands of thieves breaking through to steal. “I was needed: I was made: I was conveyed: I was applied: I was consumed.” That would have summed up the history of a thing in the country where things went right: only five short chapters. In most countries, of course, all sorts of distressing and distracting other chapters intervene. Thus: “I was coveted: I was done without: I was lied for: I was hated for: I was speculated in: I was adulterated: I was advertised. I was legislated about: I was sold (and my buyer with me): I was squandered: I was hoarded: I was quarrelled over: I was fought for: I was burgled: I was bombed.”

* * *

In Common-sense Country there was a job for everyone, and everyone was merrily, ardently, or placidly doing that job. No one was doing mere “business” and calling it work. No one was doing real work and feeling it “toil”. Dull jobs were done in short spells by an immense number of people; delightful jobs were worked at for the pleasure of the thing, in longer spells, and by a fewer number of people. It fell out so, naturally, and because of common sense; nobody had to be at the trouble of enforcing the arrangement. The man with the dullest or most fatiguing job, as a matter of course, got the longest leisure for re-creation of his naturally flagging zest for the job. The man with the pleasurable and healthy job hardly knew leisure from job. The kindliest and most able-bodied and jolliest of the people had common-sense reasons for attending to the least appetizing tasks. Everybody knew they wanted doing; and these kindly, vigorous, and jolly folks were those who cared most about getting them done, and cared least about minor disagreeables. They also liked the peculiar way in which other people shook hands with them for it, and more than made it good to them in the way of respect and hospitality wherever they went.

You never saw any feet without shoes in cold weather in Common-sense Country. And you never saw any shoes heaped up thousands thick in warehouses with no feet to put into them. Common-sense citizens had grave objections, not only to cold, discomfort, and disease, but also grave objections to the enormous expense of thought, time, material, and goodwill, necessarily involved in any and every measure for keeping empty shoes warm indoors, and human feet cold outside in the street. You never came to a place in any Common-sense city where, by turning your head to the right, you could see one horn of a dilemma in the shape of a lot of grain or fish being destroyed on the lunatic excuse that it could not be sold for more than it cost, while by turning your head to the left the other horn of the dilemma became visible in the shape of men and women (with their children) hungry, worried, and constantly at their wits’ end, only because they could not buy back the comestibles they had ploughed, reaped, milled, fished, and otherwise laboured to bring within human reach.

* * *

In Common-sense Country there were no jerry built houses, because people could not see any reason for making insecure and unhealthy dwellings. There were no ground landlords to make it disadvantageous to any builder to build honestly; no builders so hard pressed, therefore, that they were obliged to cause the masons to scamp work, use limeless mortar, or unseasoned wood. No builder or mason, moreover, had (in the name of common-sense) any object whatever in view so immediately as the supplying of buildings wanted for use. He built houses for bakers, clothiers, artists, and all sorts of other useful persons; and these lived in the houses and produced food, clothing, works of art, and all sorts of other useful things for the builder in exchange.

There was no waste of any energy or of any talent in Common-sense Country. There were no churches and temples made with hands; because hands had better things to do than build prisons to shut up souls in. Also because in strict common sense the sky was holy enough to “sit under,” and even to sing spiritual songs under. Besides, Common-senseites had discovered that you could not get the sun and fixed stars and all their lesser lights into the biggest of temples ever made with hands. In Common-sense Country people liked daylight for their minds and morals as well as for their bodies; and found it cheapest in the long run.

* * *

There were next to no shipwrecks on the coasts of Common-sense Country; no one raced any ships to port in all weathers for the nonsensical reason of getting in before other ships. People on shore could always afford to wait a day or so for the weather, better than they could afford to kill men, sink ships, and spoil cargoes through running amuck at nature’s meteorological arrangements. It did not matter a jot to any one which ship got in first, since all ships were full of supplies, and sure to drop in, in natural order, as fast as needed. What sense of hurry there was, founded of course on experience of the inconvenience of waiting, led to all possible improvements in the art and science of ship-building and engine-building, so that wind-and-wave difficulties had been reduced to a minimum. So there was no colliding in fogs, no bursting of boilers, no over-lading, and no un-seaworthy craft; also no “Lloyd’s” agencies, to speculate on anyone’s want of common-sense, and to live as parasites on the low moral vitality of the public, making profit at its expense. When folk talked of “insuring” in that country, they always meant making as sure as possible against chances of mishap. To insure a ship was to build her well, fit her well, man her well, to steer clear of shoals, and keep her in sound repair. Likewise with the insurance of houses. And to insure your life, you had only to eat, drink, and clothe yourself on hygienic principles, to avoid the indolence or the over-taxing of any of your faculties, and to act fairly by every one of your fellow-creatures with whom you had to do. In common-sense language, insuring your life or property never meant to make it worth anyone’s while to destroy either one or the other.

* * *

No visible teacher taught common-sense in that country. Children were born with it ready-made. It lay in their human nature. It taught itself. It “growed” (like Topsy) because neither “business” nor “policy” existed to check or warp it—indeed neither the policy of business nor the business of policy were known at all, except as queer, sad, old superstitions, suffered through and done with ages ago, during the time when human generations were paying a big price in the purgatory of civilization, for the privilege of having beaten other creatures in the dangerous matter of language. Children in Common-sense Country were never taught to be “wise and prudent,” because that was the way to prevent anything of any interest or beauty or high import from being “revealed.” Their little, honest, ignorant, simple questions received honest, accurate, and simple answers, in language which they could understand, and which they never needed to unlearn afterwards. And this alike on all subjects. Every young man and young woman grew up with as much common-sense in his or her head or expectations as the elders could help them to. And each young man or young woman went on from a common-sense starting point to use his or her faculties as individual endowment suggested, so that each generation kept on fearlessly adding to real knowledge by experimenting in new directions as common-sense prompted; while the elders loved to have it so, and felt rewarded for their good faith to the children, and were sometimes in their own turn listeners, questioners, learners.

* * *

Common-sense citizens never said “Time is money.” They said that money-minting, money-managing, and money-protecting entail endless waste of time and trouble; that they are an abuse of human faculty, resulting in a great deal of death—bodily, intellectual, moral, and spiritual. Also it was said these and like employments were as nonsensical in their objects as they were vicious in their effects. Money in Common-sense Country had no meaning, any more than it has in a beehive. No one said “Money is power.” Sometimes it was said “Money is weakness.” That was when Common-senseites were speaking of the doings and miseries of the inhabitants of Lunatic Land. (By the way, the word used was not money but mammon.) One objection they had to money, beyond its nonsensicalness, was its tendency—in proportion to the degree of its accumulation in a man’s hand—to sap away his “soul,” his moral individuality, his character. They said, “What can it profit a man to lose his soul, and become a moral paralytic?” They observed also that wherever in Lunatic Land mammon had accumulated in a man’s hand, it had a tendency to put into his other hand a sceptre, a truncheon, a gatling gun, or some other preposterous implement, making of that moral paralytic a lord over two, or five, or ten cities, or markets, or communities—as the case might be.

* * *

As there was no mammon, there were none of those dismal things which are eternal essentials where mammon reigns. There were no arsenals, no armies, no police, no spies: no banks, no prisons, no poorhouses: no brothels, no divorce courts, no nunneries, no confessionals: no “rings,” no strikes, no infernal machines, no gallows. Common-sense found no sort of use in any of these queer things. Common-sense knew by hearsay that mammon could not reign without them; but then common sense found no reason whatever for putting up with mammon, or paying its expenses.

There were many stores and depots where anyone who wanted anything for wear, or consumption, or instruction, or pleasure, or any other use, could go, or send and get it, or get it made. He never had to ask “What’s the damage?” because in Common-sense Country damage was objected to. Everyone knew that no one had got what he did not want, because nobody was so insane as to cumber himself with the custody of anything that was of no use or pleasure to him; so that to ask him to give up what was of direct use or pleasure to him would damage him. No one was short of anything, because the world is very fruitful, and human beings are very numerous, very ingenious, and very industrious, and are able and eager to make it more and more fruitful. Wealth in Common-sense Country increased even faster than the population, so that there was more leisure for every new generation born. Whatever was not of direct use to the individuals who produced it, it was to the convenience of these individuals to place in care, and outside custody altogether, so that those to whom it was not superfluous might choose their own time and put it to their own uses. It is only in Lunatic Land that everybody (willingly or not) makes a practice of fining everybody else for the privilege of living alongside of him on the same planet. It takes a hereditary lunatic of many generations’ standing to go shamming about in the roundabout, nonsensically solemn effort to convert man’s natural home into a penal colony, by means of a cunningly devised system of fines all round for being alive and active and wanting to stop so.

* * *

In Common-sense Country there were horn ninety-five per cent. fewer idiots, cripples, and otherwise afflicted mortals than are born elsewhere. The few there were, were not felt as a burden; for those of tender hearts found a natural pleasure in doing what could be done to make life tolerable for these sad and ever diminishing exceptions; and of course they were no expense in a land of plenty, where access was free to whatever was wanted, without money and without price.

* * *

In Common-sense Country words were true, and purposes single; even newspapers expressed real opinions, and conveyed real information; fun abounded, and nobody preached. Every shade of individuality was respected and made welcome, variety being suggestive as well as interesting. No one wheedled, no one canted, no one flattered, or equivocated, or slandered; because none of these were necessary expedients. There was never anything to fear from either honesty or generosity in that land. People could have food, friends, fun, and freedom without little abject servilities. Every individual was, as a matter of course, left perfectly free on his capable side, while being courteously and gladly aided, by custom and common consent, on his weak side. So that there was nothing to prevent his voluntarily and naturally making common cause with others in the overcoming of common difficulties, and in the acquirement, production, and distribution of all good things.

* * *

There was no schism in that country, because there was no Church. There was a great deal of religion, because Common-senseites had time to try their best powers of life and mind on everything, and the more they knew, the deeper depths of sheer wonderfulness did they find beneath the new-won knowledge. They found that life, love, liberty, peace, progress, and everything worth having came as the reward of adherence to certain inexorable, universal laws, inherent in everything; laws in which there was no variableness, nor shadow of turning; and also no respect of persons. They had the intensest interest and zest in getting hold of these laws, and in falling in with them as fast as they became visible; and they never dreamt of making cheap and nasty substitutes for laws in places or cases where none appeared of their own accord. As neither the ignorance nor superstition of their fellows served anyone’s turn in a country where citizens were free and trusted one another, no people in black were kept to purvey either the one or the other, not even to women or to the little children. All black arts were forgotten, and not missed. On the other hand Common-sense Country was rich in prophets, or poets, of the variety known as “born not made.”

* * *

There was no sedition, because there was no State. Instead, there was every where a most beautiful order; for common-sense, left to itself, saw no use in a public muddle, or in a private scramble; such as exists everywhere and all the while in Lunatic Land. It was moreover found that there were a thousand simpler, cheaper, and surer (because more natural) ways of forestalling and discouraging any atavistic aggressiveness on the part of individuals, than bribing a number of strangers beforehand to be in readiness to retaliate by proxy.

* * *

There was no swindling because there was no competition. Instead, there was endless emulation. The results of doing anything well, usefully, or admirably were wholly pleasant. The social results of doing any thing that wanted doing better and more easily and swiftly than it had been done before, were so exceptionally pleasant that all the most energetic and able people aspired and endeavoured to experience those results at first hand. No man-imposed restriction thwarted or impeded any experiment, and in the end the community learnt something useful by every mistake made. General goodwill and prosperity were immense; because there were no reasons at all for tricking anybody—quite the reverse.

* * *

Human nature was never made a butt for satire, or a subject of regret, in Common-sense Country. No mud, no rotten eggs, no printers’ ink were thrown at it. No one made a “living” by undertaking to convince others of their unsuspected depravity, with promise of cure for it in exchange for cash down and vows of allegiance. No one made any name or fame for himself by undertaking to keep human nature in others in order, by means of penal and restrictive regulations invented and imposed by human nature in himself or his set. Common-senseites saw that human nature was a branch of nature at large, and that to divide it against itself was the surest way to get it out of gear. Whenever a proclivity was found to be universal amongst humans, common-sense put the natural interpretation on the fact, and respected the proclivity, however superficially inconvenient in minor respects or exceptional cases. They respected it as due to some instinct, implanted and developed by the law of Lifewardness, and which it was therefore dangerous and disastrous systematically to nullify and oppose. Their endeavour was, instead, to become better acquainted with it.

* * *

The great pleasure of trustful, unchecked sympathy, and of spontaneous glowing kindliness, was enjoyed nowhere to such a degree as in Common-sense Country. The old people, the little children, the animals and birds had a happy time of it; and there was free exchange of friendship and affection between the dumb and the human sharers of earthly life. And in the healthy, breathable, moral atmosphere of habitual good faith, fearless thinking, true speech, and sincere dealing which (by dint of simple good sense) people had gradually instituted, the necessary love of self, which takes such crude forms in Lunatic Land, had overflowed at every point, and become indistinguishable from the delicious, zest-giving, and inexhaustible pleasure of love for those around.

There was Peace in Common-sense Country, and Goodwill among men; and Happiness and Fullness of Life had become the Natural Order of the day.

Al Amal Second Issue

 

Second edition of the bi-monthly newsletter produced by the Sudanese Anarchist Gathering.

the pdf of the English version can be downloaded here.

 

 Statement of the Anarchist Group of Sudan

From our deep understanding of social revolution as
anarchists and our revolutionary duty, we present our
perspective and proposals for solutions concerning our
beloved homeland and its people.
We have witnessed how political forces, alongside their ally,
the Janjaweed, and the same forces that conspired with them
to violently disperse the sit-in and kill Sudanese youth, have
now agreed to divide the country after failing in their attempt
to fully control it.

The Sudanese street, which united with conscious
revolutionary spontaneity under clear slogans—"The military
to the barracks, the Janjaweed must dissolve"—is now facing
an attempt by all the forces it stood against to slaughter its
revolution.

The Janjaweed’s adoption of revolutionary principles, along
with their allies, is nothing but empty slogans devoid of
meaning. The wolf is trying to wear the sheep’s wool. We
therefore warn revolutionaries worldwide against falling for
their vile tricks. Any support directed towards political forces
in Sudan ultimately serves the counter-revolution and buries
it.

Just as counter-revolutionary forces have always sought to
criminalize revolutionary action, the propaganda of the
former regime is intensifying. We categorically reject the
exploitation of the Sudanese people’s sacrifices in defending
themselves against the imperialist partitioning project, carried
out by political forces affiliated with the former regime. The
Sudanese people fought against the Janjaweed in self-defense,
not for political gain or power.

A Message to the Revolutionaries

The Janjaweed, their political allies, and the remnants of the
former regime are enemies of the revolution. This fact has not
changed, and the revolution continues. We urge you to reject
the racial supremacist discourse that has spread during this
war and to unite against the systematic war propaganda. Do
not be dragged behind ideological propaganda; instead, assess
the revolutionary situation truthfully.

The right to self-defense is a natural right. We do not oppose
anyone defending themselves, their land, or their family—this
is an inherent human right.

We have witnessed horrific crimes committed by the warring
factions. While we stand firmly against the Janjaweed until
they are completely dissolved, we also condemn all
unjustified crimes committed by state forces. Even under
oppressive laws, the right to self-defense is recognized, and
legal frameworks exist for addressing crimes. We reject the
extrajudicial application of justice, as it only perpetuates
cycles of revenge. Crime cannot be countered with another
crime.
We call upon revolutionaries to unite behind the idea of
mutual aid and solidarity, so we may rise from the wreckage
of these schemes that seek to bury the revolution. And we say
this: Whoever tries to bury the revolution, know that
revolution is a seed—once buried, it will only grow into
stronger and more fruitful trees.
Long live the revolution!
Long live freedom!
22nd of February, 2025

 News from the Anarchist group of Sudan (early April)

"We are pleased to announce that the construction work on
the new headquarters is complete and that our activities will
soon resume.
This was made possible thanks to the support of the CNT-AIT
and all the individuals and associations around the world
who participated in the fundraising.
However, we still need support for our upcoming projects."
If you would like to participate in the solidarity fundraising,
your donations can be made by bank transfer (contact us at
contact@cnt-ait.info for our bank details) or via the
electronic platform:
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/cntait1
(please check "Send money to an individual" to reduce bank
fees). Send an email to contact@cnt-ait.info to inform us of
your donation, and we will inform you of its use.
Donors list number 2:
Carlos CL 20; Mýšačka Records / Priama Akcia AIT 380;
Esteban BC 1000; FAI Italia 3500; Yves Michel D 500; Calais
60 support collective; CNT-AIT Toulouse 33.5; Quynh L 17.55;
Alex B 43.87; Jonathan L 56.92; Joke K 100; Daniele C 56.81;
Antoine D 50; Joseph K 30; Marlene A 10; Pierre-Henri Z 15;
The Ephemeral 63 215; Odile and Miguel O 20; HB 100;
Anthony V 144.51; Nicolas IP 500; Ashley W 12.79; Kevin H
100; Jake F 115.11; Frédéric C 5; Cyrielle C 100 (total:
7316.06)
Total transferred to Sudan: 6800
Total transferred to Sudanese migrant solidarity groups: 500

 Tunisian General Labor Union UGTT : Reform from Within, Possibility or Mirage?

The Tunisian General Labor Union (UGTT) has always been
a central force on the Tunisian political and social scene, but
at the same time it suffers from a fundamental contradiction
between its historical role as an incubator of workers'
struggles and its transformation into a calcified bureaucratic
institution. The central question here is: can the union be
reformed from within, or is any attempt to do so merely a
reproduction of the logic of the state itself within trade
unionism?

The Fundamental Contradiction: Union or Institution?

The union emerged in the context of the struggle against
colonialism and subsequently established itself as a mediator
between workers and the authorities in the era of the national
state. However, over time, it ceased to be a mere tool of
struggle and became an integral part of the state's institutional
structure, negotiating within a political and economic system
that maintains the domination of capital. This is where the
main contradiction emerges: a union that is supposed to
represent the working class, but which is ultimately subject to
the logic of the state, that is, to the logic of hierarchy,
representation, and negotiation instead of direct confrontation.
 

Reform from Within: Possibility or Mirage?

Some believe it is possible to reform the union by restoring
the spirit of struggle within it, but this idea ignores the deep
structure that governs it. Just as the state cannot be reformed
to become "horizontal" without losing its essence as a tool of
repression, any attempt at "democracy" within the union runs
up against the walls of its inherent bureaucracy, where every
internal rebellion becomes a new project of containment. Any
internal reform is, ultimately, a reproduction of the same
model with new faces.

The Revolutionary Alternative: Overcome, Not Reform. If the
problem lies in the structure itself, the solution cannot be a
patchwork, but a radical one. The alternative lies not in union
reform, but in moving beyond it to forms of worker self-
organization: workers' councils, horizontal unions, structures
independent of any bureaucratic representation.

Revolutionary union action cannot be an official institution,
but must be a dynamic movement that rejects the logic of
mediation and seeks to create a genuine working-class force
outside the framework of the state and the market. Towards a
New Horizon for Union Action The insistence of some on
wanting to reform the Tunisian General Labor Union amounts
to wanting to reform the state itself from within: an illusion
that drags the workers' struggle into the quagmire of formal
reforms. The alternative is not to recycle the same
bureaucratic mechanisms, but to build independent structures
of struggle based on direct democracy and collective action.
Transcendence, not reform, is the only path to truly freeing
workers from the constraints of bureaucracy and the logic of
the state.
NC (Tunisia)

 El-Fasher: The City That Anarchists
Support in Its Self-Defense

Since its formation, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF),
known as the Janjaweed, have practiced racial supremacy
and genocide against the people of Darfur with the support
of Omar al-Bashir and the central authority in Khartoum.
The Janjaweed have turned the city into a massive military
camp by burning villages around it and devastating towns
across Darfur, especially El-Geneina, where some of the
most horrific modern ethnic massacres have taken place. In
one of their brutal acts, the RSF gathered indigenous
Massalit people in a water drainage area and buried them
alive. Videos recorded by the perpetrators themselves show
victims pleading to be shot rather than buried alive.
This horrifying image is deeply ingrained in the minds of
El-Fasher’s residents and social communities, making it
clear that surrendering to the Janjaweed means being
exterminated alive.

That is why they have decided to defend themselves.
As for the army, it holds onto the city for military
purposes, but after its withdrawal from Zalingei and Wad
Madani, it is no longer a trusted force for the people.
Meanwhile, the armed resistance movements that have
taken up arms against the Janjaweed have significant
ethnic ties to the city's population.

However, at the core of the issue is the fact that the RSF
does not engage in direct battles with military factions but
instead bombards civilians indiscriminately, targeting
markets and hospitals. This was evident in the complete
destruction of Zamzam camp, the largest refugee camp for
those fleeing Janjaweed atrocities, where its residents were
shelled using Emirati-supplied artillery.

The United Arab Emirates has provided substantial support
to the RSF to divide the country, supplying them with
drones that destroy civilian infrastructure, along with
mortar shells and ammunition, including 120mm, 125mm,
and 130mm rounds—used in some of the most brutal
indiscriminate bombings aimed at forcibly displacing the
population. The UAE’s support is driven by its desire to
control Darfur’s gold, land, and livestock wealth, aligning
with the ambitions of the Dagalo mafia to dominate the
region. Their formation of a new government now lays
bare their true intentions of fueling war, which anarchists
have long recognized.

Yet, despite this extensive financial and military backing,
the unwavering determination of the city’s people and their
fight for survival stand as an unbreakable force. This is a
fundamental struggle that resonates with all who carry a
revolutionary spirit and fight for freedom.
Fawaz Murtada.

Conclave Explaining the Conclave

 

There's an election in the Vatican, soon we'll have another supreme pontiff. The College of Cardinals has released this infographic to explain the composition of the Papal Conclave. I've seen much confusion other its factions, so to help out the damned heathens curious, I've made use of Edward Berger's movie Conclave to make the distinctions more clear.

The Bergoglian Shepherds (I decent name for a band that mixes folk with heavy metal) are the Cardinals who were given that position by Pope Francis. It's a bit like the Mafia and the concept of a `Made Man`. They're expected to support Francis 2.0 in the election. The Progressives are either Cardinals who predate Francis or Bergoglians who moved to support reforms too extreme for Francis, if you're looking for supporters of women as priests and marriage for clergymen they'll probably be amongst that number.

The Peripherals are well the undecided, or moderates or independent voters. They could go either way. If you're curious about the distinction between the Conservatives and the Traditionalists, well to simplify the former run the range between thinking Francis has done enough reforms and changes and no more is needed to wanting to reverse some, or most or even all of Francis' reforms. The Traditionalists meanwhile are the fanatics who despise Vatican II, want to go back to Latin services and probably lament the end of the Inquisition in private.  

I've seen some be surprised that the Cardinals College leans heavily towards reform in some form, with the declared reactionaries being in such a minority. Well, it'd be nice to think this is evidence of a groundswell of progress and reform, the reality is far more mundane. The Pope is the only one who can make someone a Cardinal, and they typically seek to use that power to stack the administration of the Church and weight the Conclave for his successor. Barring a short reign or massive pushback from other quarters, It's typical to see a strong showing for the previous Pope's followers. Francis was Pope for eight years and in addition to stacking vacancies he was proactive in forcing out conservatives in the higher echelons of the church and pushed hard for his people to occupy those positions. 

Behind all the pomp and marble, the Universal Church is a gerrymandered bureaucracy.

The threads that connect Murray Bookchin to Death Stranding

 

 Over the past week or so, I've been reading The Next Revolution (NR), a collection of essays by Murray Bookchin, and talking to a friend whose been playing the 2019 game Death Stranding (DS). I enjoyed my time with the game when I played through it just over a year ago, and aside from some notes, I'm enjoying the read of NR. Since both are on my I've noticed some parallels and threads or strands if you will connecting the two.

 A quick summary, DS is a game set in the aftermath of an apocalyptic event where humanity is reduced to a scattering of small settlements ranging from tiny one or two person shelters to cities that are roughly a few blocks in size with a central depot and maybe a dock. You play Sam the courier and guide him on his journey, exploring the land and delivering packages.

Murray Bookchin was a lifelong revolutionary theorist committed to answering the question of how to overcome capitalism and build a better society in its place. Bookchin went through many schools of thought, from Marxism to Anarchism to a new idea he sometimes called Libertarian Municipalism/Communalism or Ecological Communalism. But throughout his journey, his commitment to centreing ecological questions remained constant. If you were on social media in 2016-19, you may remember the meme "Google Murray Bookchin!" that was indeed about the same man.

The world of DS is one where renewable power is omnipresent and recycling of material is the driver of manufacturing, but that's not quite what I have in mind when I think of the parallels between the two works. What caught my mind is Bookchin's arguments in favour of a confederation of communes to replace capitalist and state society. A common argument against alternatives to capitalism concerns the impossibility of such a society working in practice. How can disparate communities get along and work out common problems or share without some outside authority to compel them to do so? A common response has been to stress self-sufficiency of each collective or commune, in which case it just isn't rational to fight and squabble as it won't lead to any benefits but will still require many costs in time, energy and resources. If a system of self-sufficient societies is feasible, then I suppose that would be an answer, personally I don't think it is possible to achieve a system where every single community is self-sufficient in every detail, but assuming it is possible I think that's a strong incentive for isolation and extreme localism. Bookchin is also sceptical of such a possibility, his answer is rooted in that co-dependency of communities. In this Communalist alternative, Communes will Federate or Confederate together for mutual need and benefit.

 A crucial element in giving reality to confederalism is the interdependence of communities for an authentic mutualism based on shared resources, production, and policymaking. If one community is not obliged to count on another or others generally to satisfy important material needs and realize common political goals in such a way that it is interlinked to a greater whole, exclusivity and parochialism are genuine possibilities. Only insofar as we recognize that confederation must be conceived as an extension of a form of participatory administration—by means of confederal networks—can decentralization and localism prevent the communities that compose larger bodies of association from withdrawing into themselves at the expense of wider areas of human consociation.
Essay 4: The Meaning of Confederalism

In short, this society will work together because its material needs compel it and its material structure is the most rational way of fulfilling those compulsions. 

In Death Stranding, a version of this social structure plays out. The scattered outposts of humanity seem to be sufficient alone for the bare necessities of survival and existence, but they all lack in specific equipment, resources and the things that make life fulfilling. Sam the main character is a courier and in this society it is the courier's role to take needed supplies from those who have, to those who need. In return, the people Sam helps give him more tools and resources to improve his work and survival in the wilderness and agree to actively participate in a network of exchange and support with the other settlements by joining the Chiral network (I'll explain what that is later). It's mutual assistance for collective benefit, they all prosper the more their dependence and connections with each other deepens and the network eventually grows from one isolated corner to a vast region. Some people will join up relatively quickly in gratitude for Sam's efforts and the benefits that collaboration brings, but others take more convincing or in another way negotiation through deeds.

To take one example, the character Elder, an old man who lives alone on top of a hill. He has needs that can't be provided at his camp, but he is wary of joining the network that Sam is recruiting for, so he is reluctant to sign up, he co-operates with Sam to an extent and is eventually won over by the delivery of medicine and other positive experiences and the potential benefits joining gives him. In return, he produces unique equipment and resources for Sam.

If Sam fails to deliver medication in time, Elder will die and the benefits of his joining will be denied to you.

 

 This communal interdependence being the groundwork of social interactions based on collaboration is also reinforced by the multiplayer aspects. While playing the game, other players can interact with you in the game world. This can just be emoting to each other, trading (exchange of materials) gifting items, or working collaboratively to make traversing the extremely hostile terrain more manageable and fun. 

One example stands out in my mind. To make travelling the vast distances of the world and its rivers, crevices and jagged rocks more manageable, there is a road network. However, it hasn't been built yet, that's your job should you choose to do it. There is a network of 3d printers that with enough material will build the road in sections. 

The world of DS is harsh and difficult, especially when balancing kilos of equipment and material on your back. So a road that is smooth and level is an obvious advantage, but the resources required is a barrier, especially in the early game. I spent a long while scrapping together the resources needed for the first part of the road. I still remember how my elation at seeing the printer conjure up a road deflated once I saw just how little of the road it had constructed and how big the map was. Building that on my own would be time-consuming and not fun. So, I gave up on it and focused on my missions and hauling cargo over rocks and streams, dodging scavengers. 

While I was doing that, three other players popped into my world and pooled enough resources to build enough of the road to connect the first sub-region of the world. This drastically cut down my travel time, and made it safer, and more enjoyable as I could now ride my three wheeled back or boxy truck without worrying about hitting a ditch. It even charged my vehicles' battery, boosting its range when I had to go off the grid. It's also when the multiplayer and the message of DS clicked for me. Having understood the message and mechanics of the game, working for everyone benefits everyone, I found more enjoyment in the game and made sure to put any surplus material into other road building nodes or storage boxes. This is just one example of many I could give, ranging from sheltering from a snow storm to placing ladders to help others cross rivers.

The Stranding.
Borders, countries, governments—it’s all bullshit. Least that’s how it was, and maybe always will be, but…if you really believe that there chiral network of yours can bring people together, no matter what walls stand between ‘em, then spread it all over. But you damn well better make sure that you do right by each and every American—only then can you ask them to do right by the UCA. That’s the social contract, and don’t you ever forget it.
I’m taking a chance on you, Bridges, not because I believe in you and yours, but because I want to. Don’t let me down again.
Email from Elder

It's not however a perfect depiction of Bookchin's new society. The Chiral network is not a representation of an egalitarian confederation of like-minded communities, it's run by the remnants of the United States Government, and they've tasked Sam with expanding it as part of a plan to "rebuild America". This rump USA is the central node and foundation of the network of settlements. The disparity between the cities which are the main production hubs and the smaller settlements is also a divergence. Bookchin unlike some ecological thinkers believes cities have their place, albeit in a very different organisational structure and much smaller than cities in our present world. A Communalist Death Stranding would drop the USA as a relic and instead of a few cities and dozens of one and two person shelters would restructure it to say a dozen communities of similar size. Perhaps retaining a handful of the isolated one or two person shelters as a contrast and representation of the dangers of refusing to adapt.

"War is the Health of the State" (1918) by Randolph Bourne

 

 

"War is the Health of the State"
(1918)

by Randolph Bourne

War is the health of the State.

It automatically sets in motion throughout society those irresistible forces for uniformity, for passionate co-operation with the Government in coercing into obedience the minority groups and individuals which lack the larger herd sense. The machinery of government sets and enforces the drastic penalties, the minorities are either intimidated into silence or brought slowly around by a subtle process of persuasion which may seem to them to really converting them. Of course the ideal of perfect loyalty, perfect uniformity is never attained. The classes upon whom the amateur work of coercion falls are unwearied in their zeal but often their agitation instead of converting, merely serves to stiffen their resistance. Minorities are rendered sullen, and some intellectual opinion, bitter and satirical. But in general, the nation in war-time attains a uniformity of feeling, a hierarchy of values, culminated at the undisputed apex of the State ideal, which could not possibly be produced trough any other agency than war. Other values such artistic creation, knowledge, reason, beauty, the enhancement of life, are instantly and almost unanimously sacrificed and the significant classes who have constituted themselves the amateur agents of the State are engaged not only in sacrificing these values for themselves but in coercing all other persons into sacrificing them.

War - or at least modern war waged by a democratic republic against a powerful enemy - seems to achieve for a nation almost all that the most inflamed political idealist could desire. Citizens are no longer indifferent to their Government but each cell of the body politic is brimming with life and activity. We are at last on the way to full realization of that collective community in which each individual somehow contains the virtue of the whole. In a nation at war, every citizen identifies himself with the whole, and feels immensely strengthened in that identification. The purpose and desire of the collective community live in each person who throws himself whole-heartedly into the cause of war. The impeding distinction between society and the individual is almost blotted out. At war, the individual becomes almost identical with his society. He achieves a superb self-assurance, an intuition of the rightness of all his ideas and emotions, so that in the suppression of opponents or heretics he is invincibly strong; he feels behind him all the power of the collective community. The individual as social being in war seems to have achieved almost his apotheosis. Not for any religious impulse could the American nation have been expected to show such devotion en masse, such sacrifice and labour. Certainly not for any secular good, such as universal education or the subjugation of nature would it have poured forth its treasure and its life, or would it have permitted such stern coercive measures to be taken against it, such as conscripting its money and its men. But for the sake of a war of offensive self-defence, undertaken to support a difficult cause to the slogan of "democracy", it would reach the highest level ever known of collective effort.

For these secular goods, connected with the enhancement of life, the education of man and the use of the intelligence to realize reason and beauty in the nation's communal living, are alien to our traditional ideal of the State. The State is intimately connected with war, for it is the organization of the collective community when it acts in a political manner, and to act in a political manner towards a rival group has meant, throughout all history - war.

There is nothing invidious in the use of the term "herd", in connection with the State. It is merely an attempt to reduce closer to first principles the nature of this institution in the shadow of which we all live, move and have our being. Ethnologists are generally agreed that human society made its first appearance as the human pack and not as a collection of individuals or of couples. The herd is in fact the original unit, and only as it was differentiated did personal individuality develop. All the most primitive surviving types of men are shown to live in a very complex but very rigid social organization where opportunity for individuation is scarcely given. These tribes remain strictly organized herds; and the difference between them and the modern State is one of degree of sophistication and variety of organization, and not of kind.

Psychologists recognize the gregarious impulse as one of the strongest primitive pulls which keeps together the herds of the different species of higher animals. Mankind is no exception. Our pugnacious evolutionary history has prevented the impulse from ever dying out. This gregarious impulse is the tendency to imitate, to conform, to coalesce together, and is most powerful when the herd believes itself threatened with attack. Animals crowd together for protection, and men become most conscious of their collectivity at the threat of war. Consciousness of collectivity brings confidence and a feeling of massed strength, which in turn arouses pugnacity and the battle is on. In civilized man, the gregarious impulse acts not only to produce concerted action for defence, but also to produce identity of opinion. Since thought is a form of behaviour, the gregarious impulse floods up into its realm and demands that sense of uniform thought which wartime produces so successfully. And it is in this flooding of the conscious life of society that gregariousness works its havoc.

For just as in modern societies the sex-instinct is enormously over-supplied for the requirements of human propagation, so the gregarious impulse is enormously over-supplied for the work of protection which it is called upon to perform. It would be quite enough if we were gregarious enough to enjoy the companionship of others, to be able to co-operate with them, and to feel a slight malaise at solitude. Unfortunately however, this impulse is not content with these reasonable and healthful demands; but insists that like-mindedness shall prevail everywhere, in all departments of life. So that all human progress, all novelty, and non-conformity, must be carried against the resistance of this tyrannical herd-instinct which drives the individual into obedience and conformity with the majority. Even in the most modern and enlightened societies this impulse shows little sign of abating. As it is driven by inexorable economic demand out of the sphere of utility, it seems to fasten itself even more fiercely in the realm of feeling and opinion, so that conformity comes to be a thing aggressively desired and demanded.

The gregarious impulse keeps its hold all the more virulently because when the group is in motion or is taking any positive action, this feeling of being with and supported by the collective herd very greatly feeds that will to power, the nourishment of which the individual organism so constantly demands. You feel powerful by conforming, and you feel forlorn and helpless if you are out of the crowd. While even if you do not get any access of power by thinking and feeling just as everybody else in your group does, you get at least the warm feeling of obedience, the soothing irresponsibility of protection. Joining as it does to these very vigorous tendencies of the individual - the pleasure in power and the pleasure in obedience - this gregarious impulse becomes irresistible in society. War stimulates it to the highest possible degree, sending the influences of its mysterious herd-current with its inflations of power and obedience to the farthest reaches of the society, to every individual and little group that can possibly be affected. An it is these impulses which the State - the organization of the entire herd, the entire collectivity - is founded on and makes use of.

There is, of course, in the feeling toward the State a large element of pure filial mysticism. This sense of insecurity, the desire for protection, sends one's desire back to the father and mother, with whom is associated the earliest feeling of protection. It is not for nothing that one's State is still thought of as Fatherland or Motherland, that one's relation towards it is conceived in terms of family affection. The war has shown that nowhere under the shock of danger have these primitive childlike attitudes failed to assert themselves again, as much in this country as anywhere. If we have not the intense Father-sense of the German who worships his Vaterland, at least in Uncle Sam we have a symbol of protecting, kindly authority, and in the many Mother-posts of the Red Cross, we see how easily in the more tender functions of war services, the ruling organization is conceived in family terms. A people at war have become in the most literal sense obedient, respectful, trustful children again, full of that naive faith in the all-wisdom and all-power of the adult who takes care of them, imposes his mild but necessary rule upon them and in whom they lose their responsibility and anxieties. In this recrudescence of the child, there is great comfort, and a certain influx of power. On most people the strain of being an independent adult weighs heavily, and upon none more than those members of the significant classes who have had bequeathed to them or have assumed the responsibilities of governing. The State provides the most convenient of symbols under which these classes can retain all the actual pragmatic satisfaction of governing, but can rid themselves of the psychic burden of adulthood. They continue to direct industry and government and all the institutions of society pretty much as before, but in their own conscious eyes and in the eyes of the general public, they are turned from their selfish and predatory ways, and have become loyal servants of society, or something greater than they - the State. The man who moves from the direction of a large business in New York to a post in the war management industrial services in Washington does not apparently alter very much his power or his administrative technique. But psychically, what a transformation has occurred! His is now not only the power but the glory! And his sense of satisfaction is directly proportional not to the genuine amount of personal sacrifice that may be involved in the change but to the extent to which he retains his industrial prerogative and sense of command.

From members of this class a certain insuperable indignation arises if the change from private enterprise to State service involves any real loss of power and personal privilege. If there is to be pragmatic sacrifice, let it be, they feel, on the field of honour, in the traditional acclaimed deaths by battle, in that detour of suicide, as Nietzsche calls war. The State in wartime supplies satisfaction for this very craving, but its chief value is the opportunity it gives for this regression to infantile attitudes. In your reaction to an imagined attack in your country or an insult to its government, you draw closer to the herd for protection, you conform in word and deed, and you insist vehemently that everybody else shall think, speak and act together. And you fix your adoring gaze upon the State, with a truly filial look, as upon the Father of the flock, the quasi-personal symbol of your definite action and ideas.

Letter from Mahmoud Khalil, a Political Prisoner in an ICE Detention Centre

 

Mahmoud Khalil being detained. Source

Mahmoud Khalil is a student and political activist who was a leading figure in the Columbia University campus protests sparked by Israel's invasion of Gaza and its collective punishment tactics. As punishment for his activism, he has been targeted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) who are working to revoke his student Visa and arrested him on the 8th of March. Currently, he is in an ICE detention centre. 

There is no accusation of criminality against Mahmoud Khalil, the legal grounds for this repressive act is being justified by invoking the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, a McCarthyite era piece of legislation designed to punish migrants who become too bothersome to ignore. Personally, I would be opposed to the actions against Mahmoud Khalil even if there were criminal charges, but I bring this up to demonstrate that this is a deliberate targeting aimed at intimidating others from resisting.

The Letter is taken from the Centre for Constitutional Rights

Letter from a Palestinian Political Prisoner in Louisiana
Dictated over the phone from ICE Detention
March 18, 2025

My name is Mahmoud Khalil and I am a political prisoner. I am writing to you from a detention facility in
Louisiana where I wake to cold mornings and spend long days bearing witness to the quiet injustices
underway against a great many people precluded from the protections of the law.
Who has the right to have rights? It is certainly not the humans crowded into the cells here. It isn’t the
Senegalese man I met who has been deprived of his liberty for a year, his legal situation in limbo and his
family an ocean away. It isn’t the 21-year-old detainee I met, who stepped foot in this country at age nine,
only to be deported without so much as a hearing.

Justice escapes the contours of this nation’s immigration facilities.
On March 8, I was taken by DHS agents who refused to provide a warrant, and accosted my wife and me
as we returned from dinner. By now, the footage of that night has been made public. Before I knew what
was happening, agents handcuffed and forced me into an unmarked car. At that moment, my only concern
was for Noor’s safety. I had no idea if she would be taken too, since the agents had threatened to arrest her
for not leaving my side. DHS would not tell me anything for hours — I did not know the cause of my
arrest or if I was facing immediate deportation. At 26 Federal Plaza, I slept on the cold floor. In the early
morning hours, agents transported me to another facility in Elizabeth, New Jersey. There, I slept on the
ground and was refused a blanket despite my request.

My arrest was a direct consequence of exercising my right to free speech as I advocated for a free
Palestine and an end to the genocide in Gaza, which resumed in full force Monday night. With January’s
ceasefire now broken, parents in Gaza are once again cradling too-small shrouds, and families are forced
to weigh starvation and displacement against bombs. It is our moral imperative to persist in the struggle
for their complete freedom.

I was born in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria to a family which has been displaced from their land
since the 1948 Nakba. I spent my youth in proximity to yet distant from my homeland. But being
Palestinian is an experience that transcends borders. I see in my circumstances similarities to Israel’s use
of administrative detention — imprisonment without trial or charge — to strip Palestinians of their rights.
I think of our friend Omar Khatib, who was incarcerated without charge or trial by Israel as he returned
home from travel. I think of Gaza hospital director and pediatrician Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya, who was
taken captive by the Israeli military on December 27 and remains in an Israeli torture camp today. For
Palestinians, imprisonment without due process is commonplace.

I have always believed that my duty is not only to liberate myself from the oppressor, but also to liberate
my oppressors from their hatred and fear. My unjust detention is indicative of the anti-Palestinian racism
that both the Biden and Trump administrations have demonstrated over the past 16 months as the U.S. has
continued to supply Israel with weapons to kill Palestinians and prevented international intervention. For
decades, anti-Palestinian racism has driven efforts to expand U.S. laws and practices that are used to
violently repress Palestinians, Arab Americans, and other communities. That is precisely why I am being
targeted.

While I await legal decisions that hold the futures of my wife and child in the balance, those who enabled
my targeting remain comfortably at Columbia University. Presidents Shafik, Armstrong, and Dean
Yarhi-Milo laid the groundwork for the U.S. government to target me by arbitrarily disciplining
pro-Palestinian students and allowing viral doxing campaigns — based on racism and disinformation —
to go unchecked.

Columbia targeted me for my activism, creating a new authoritarian disciplinary office to bypass due
process and silence students criticizing Israel. Columbia surrendered to federal pressure by disclosing
student records to Congress and yielding to the Trump administration's latest threats. My arrest, the
expulsion or suspension of at least 22 Columbia students — some stripped of their B.A. degrees just
weeks before graduation — and the expulsion of SWC President Grant Miner on the eve of contract
negotiations, are clear examples.

If anything, my detention is a testament to the strength of the student movement in shifting public opinion
toward Palestinian liberation. Students have long been at the forefront of change — leading the charge
against the Vietnam War, standing on the frontlines of the civil rights movement, and driving the struggle
against apartheid in South Africa. Today, too, even if the public has yet to fully grasp it, it is students who
steer us toward truth and justice.

The Trump administration is targeting me as part of a broader strategy to suppress dissent. Visa-holders,
green-card carriers, and citizens alike will all be targeted for their political beliefs. In the weeks ahead,
students, advocates, and elected officials must unite to defend the right to protest for Palestine. At stake
are not just our voices, but the fundamental civil liberties of all.

Knowing fully that this moment transcends my individual circumstances, I hope nonetheless to be free to
witness the birth of my first-born child.

On the Collision in the North Sea

 

Courtesy of the BBC

 

It's not often that I get to comment on recent news from a position beyond armchair commentator. Several weeks ago, my small corner of the world became global news for a time. Two great big cargo ships collided in the North Sea at an anchorage for vessels waiting clearance to enter the River Humber. One was the carrier of aviation fuel, the Stena Immaculate, and the second a container ship Solong. The captain of Solong is a Russian national, that fact coupled with the news that he's being investigated for criminal conduct has encouraged speculation that this was a deliberate act carried out as part of the Russian Federation's hybrid warfare doctrine.

The investigation is ongoing, and I won't speculate on whether I think the charges have merit or not. What I will say is that if it comes to light that the cause of the collision which killed one of the crew of the Solong and injured dozens of sailors on both vessels was negligence or equipment failure, well I wouldn't be entirely surprised.

There's a fortune tied up in international freight and massive pressure to avoid delays at all costs. Cutting corners and meeting windows for berthing, discharging cargo and taking on new cargo are stressful times with many bottlenecks, that area of the North Sea is effectively a floating car park for vessel to wait their turns, clearance and the boarding of pilots. Miss that window and the ship is at the back of the line, which can cost tens of thousands of dollars. 

I know this because I have friends and family who worked in the shipping agencies, and I worked on the same dock that ships including the Stena Immaculate regularly berthed and met their crews and captains. It's a small part of the world. I've had the pleasure of being shouted at in 02:30 am because a ship hasn't sailed for Norway due to its bridge crew not returning from shore leave, I've also had to draw maps of the docks for crew members who were just dumped outside the gates for their shore leave, and I've had to stand in the pouring rain with a radio awaiting the arrival of the port medical team so I could show them a dead body that washed up.

But enough flavour text, the reason I'm bringing this up is to demonstrate why a vessel barrelling at 16 Knouts in low visibility in an area well known for being a busy anchorage doesn't shock me despite being an obviously bad idea. This attitude of rush, rush, rush, get it done quickly is endemic to the shipping economy, and it breeds a culture of apathy and resentment towards the regulations that are designed to prevent incidents and accidents like what happened here. 

Russian owned/captained vessels were especially notorious for obeying the letter of the law and ticking all the boxes, while expending the least amount of effort possible. I remember two examples, one was when a sailor had collapsed, and I was talking to the medical team, they repeatedly asked me to confirm the ship was not Russian, because the last time they had attended a Russian vessel the captain wanted to leave the crew member on the jetty and depart without answering any questions. Another time I was working over water and needed a life jacket, UK regulations state you must wear one when working over water, the penalties for violating that one are quite steep. When we ran short, we just radioed the vessels and used some of their spares. The Russian vessel gave use life jackets that were empty, either someone had stolen the bouncy material or they never had any. I thought that was a one-off, but a guy who'd been there for longer than me said it happened all the time. 

I must stress the point of this is not that the Russians are uniquely corrupt and lazy. Corners were cut across the industry, and there were many times Russian vessels arrived without incident or noticeable deficiency. Common issues are Flags of convenience where a ship is registered to a company in a nation with lower safety and employment standards, I saw that all the time, it was blatant, crew lists and manifests gave it away, a ship that sails between Le Havre and Grangemouth, is operated by a company in France and is crewed by Indians and Filipinos and has a Greek captain is registered as belonging to Liberia or one of the smaller Caribbean island nations. Often finding out who actually owns a ship is an impossible task. The news reported that the Solong had Portuguese owners and the Stena Immaculate is owned by the USA, but the Stena was an exception as it served US military aviation, I met a Department of Defence rep once who turned up to inspect the ship. He had a baseball cap and a denim jacket, called everyone buddy. 

So, in conclusion, I'll wait and see what the results of the investigation are. I am interested in their findings but the two most likely options will not be surprising to me.

 

Through a Glass Rosily

by George Orwell, Tribune, 23 November 1945

The recent article by Tribune’s Vienna correspondent[1] provoked a spate of angry letters which, besides calling him a fool and a liar and making other charges of what one might call a routine nature, also carried the very serious implication that he ought to have kept silent even if he knew that he was speaking the truth. He himself made a brief answer in Tribune, but the question involved is so important that it is worth discussing it at greater length.

Whenever A and B are in opposition to one another, anyone who attacks or criticises A is accused of aiding and abetting B. And it is often true, objectively and on a short-term analysis, that he is making things easier for B. Therefore, say the supporters of A, shut up and don’t criticise: or at least criticise “constructively”, which in practice always means favourably. And from this it is only a short step to arguing that the suppression and distortion of known facts is the highest duty of a journalist.

Now, if one divides the world into A and B and assumes that A represents progress and B reaction, it is just arguable that no fact detrimental to A ought ever to be revealed. But before making this claim one ought to realise where it leads. What do we mean by reaction? I suppose it would be agreed that Nazi Germany represented reaction in its worst form or one of its worst. Well, the people in this country who gave most ammunition to the Nazi propagandists during the war are exactly the ones who tell us that it is “objectively” pro-Fascist to criticise the USSR. I am not referring to the Communists during their anti-war phase: I am referring to the Left as a whole. By and large, the Nazi radio got more material from the British left-wing press than from that of the Right. And it could hardly be otherwise, for it is chiefly in the left-wing press that serious criticism of British institutions is to be found. Every revelation about slums or social inequality, every attack on the leaders of the Tory Party, every denunciation of British imperialism, was a gift for Goebbels. And not necessarily a worthless gift, for German propaganda about “British plutocracy” had considerable effect in neutral countries, especially in the earlier part of the war.

Here are two examples of the kind of source from which the Axis propagandists were liable to take their material. The Japanese, in one of their English-speaking magazines in China, serialised Briffault’s Decline and Fall of the British Empire. Briffault, if not actually a Communist, was vehemently pro-Soviet, and the book incidentally contained some cracks at the Japanese themselves; but from the Japanese point of view this didn’t matter, since the main tendency of the book was anti-British. About the same time the German radio broadcast shortened versions of books which they considered damaging to British prestige. Among others they broadcast E.M. Forster’s A Passage to India. And so far as I know they didn’t even have to resort to dishonest quotation. Just because the book was essentially truthful, it could be made to serve the purposes of Fascist propaganda. According to Blake,

A truth that’s told with bad intent
Beats all the lies you can invent,

and anyone who has seen his own statements coming back at him on the Axis radio will feel the force of this. Indeed, anyone who has ever written in defence of unpopular causes or been the witness of events which are likely to cause controversy, knows the fearful temptation to distort or suppress the facts, simply because any honest statement will contain revelations which can be made use of by unscrupulous opponents. But what one has to consider are the long-term effects. In the long run, can the cause of progress be served by lies, or can it not? The readers who attacked Tribune’s Vienna correspondent so violently accused him of untruthfulness, but they also seemed to imply that the facts he brought forward ought not to be published even if true. 100, 000 rape cases in Vienna are not a good advertisement for the Soviet regime: therefore, even if they have happened, don’t mention them. Anglo-Russian relations are more likely to prosper if inconvenient facts are kept dark.

The trouble is that if you lie to people, their reaction is all the more violent when the truth leaks out, as it is apt to do in the end. Here is an example of untruthful propaganda coming home to roost. Many English people of goodwill draw from the left-wing press an unduly favourable picture of the Indian Congress Party. They not only believe it to be in the right (as it is), but are also apt to imagine that it is a sort of left-wing organisation with democratic and internationalist aims. Such people, if they are suddenly confronted with an actual, flesh-and-blood Indian Nationalist, are liable to recoil into the attitudes of a Blimp. I have seen this happen a number of times. And it is the same with pro-Soviet propaganda. Those who have swallowed it whole are always in danger of a sudden revulsion in which they may reject the whole idea of Socialism. In this and other ways I should say that the net effect of Communist and near-Communist propaganda has been simply to retard the cause of Socialism, though it may have temporarily aided Russian foreign policy.

There are always the most excellent, high-minded reasons for concealing the truth, and these reasons are brought forward in almost the same words by supporters of the most diverse causes. I have had writings of my own kept out of print because it was feared that the Russians would not like them, and I have had others kept out of print because they attacked British imperialism and might be quoted by anti-British Americans. We are told now that any frank criticism of the Stalin regime will “increase Russian suspicions”, but it is only seven years since we were being told (in some cases by the same newspapers) that frank criticism of the Nazi regime would increase Hitler’s suspicions. As late as 1941, some of the Catholic papers declared that the presence of Labour Ministers in the British Government increased Franco’s suspicions and made him incline more towards the Axis. Looking back, it is possible to see that if only the British and American peoples had grasped in 1933 or thereabouts what Hitler stood for, war might have been averted. Similarly, the first step towards decent Anglo-Russian relations is the dropping of illusions. In principle most people would agree to this: but the dropping of illusions means the publication of facts, and facts are apt to be unpleasant.

The whole argument that one mustn’t speak plainly because it “plays into the hands of” this or that sinister influence is dishonest, in the sense that people only use it when it suits them. As I have pointed out, those who are most concerned about playing into the hands of the Tories were least concerned about playing into the hands of the Nazis. The Catholics who said “Don’t offend Franco because it helps Hitler” had been more or less consciously helping Hitler for years beforehand. Beneath this argument there always lies the intention to do propaganda for some single sectional interest, and to browbeat critics into silence by telling them that they are “objectively” reactionary. It is a tempting manœuvre, and I have used it myself more than once, but it is dishonest. I think one is less likely to use it if one remembers that the advantages of a lie are always short-lived. So often it seems a positive duty to suppress or colour the facts! And yet genuine progress can only happen through increasing enlightenment, which means the continuous destruction of myths.

Meanwhile, there is a curious backhanded tribute to the values of liberalism in the fact that the opponents of free speech write letters to Tribune at all. “Don’t criticise,” such people are in effect saying: “don’t reveal inconvenient facts. Don’t play into the hands of the enemy!” Yet they themselves are attacking Tribune’s policy with all the violence at their command. Does it not occur to them that if the principles they advocate were put into practice, their letters would never get printed?

[footnote 1]: When Tribune's Vienna correspondent had reported the appalling conditions in the city and, quite truthfully, described the monstrous behaviour of some of the Russian occupying troops, several readers protested against what they called “this slander” on the Red army.

War and Hell or Peace and Starvation

 

 

 

I came across this short article by Eugene V. Debs. It was written in 1915 but much of it, including the peace in the USA and war in Europe, is still very timely. I sometimes feel tired of saying that when going through historical records, especially since it only seems to apply to bad things, disease, poverty, war, corruption, bigotry etc. 

Debs was at the time the leader of the Socialist Party and was its pick for Presidential candidate, his opposition to American entry in the First World War and refusal to buckle to pressure led to his arrest, and he ran his last Presidential campaign from behind bars.

 

 Published in St. Louis Labor, whole no. 578 (Aug. 14, 1915),

 

 Because the workers have everything to lose, including their lives,
and absolutely nothing to gain in war, it does not follow under the
benevolent rule of capitalism that they have everything to gain and
nothing to lose in peace. In Europe just now the workers have war
and hell while in this country they are enjoying peace and starvation.
That there may be no mistake about the latter condition I quote from
the highest capitalistic authority, the Associated Press, which carries
the following dispatch:

COLUMBUS, Ohio, July 26th, 1915.— Reports received here
today from militia officers who have charge of the distribution of
food supplies among destitute families in the Southern Ohio coal
mining districts, prompted state officials to send out additional
appeals for contributions to aid in the relief work.

The reports showed that a large number of these 10,000
families in the Hocking and Sunday Creek Valleys are dependent
on outside aid for food. In describing conditions the word “piti-
able” appeared frequently in the reports. There is no strike in
these districts, but most of the miners are out of work owing to
the shutting down of the mines.

There is much more to the dispatch, but this is enough. There is
no war in this country and there is no strike in Ohio. Instead of war
and hell such as they have in Europe they have peace and starvation
in Ohio. The soldiers who are asphyxiated in the trenches have one
advantage in war over their fellow-workers who are starving in the
mining camps in peace — their agony is reduced to hours, perhaps
minutes, instead of being prolonged into a lifetime. Blessed are they
who are speedily reduced to wormfood, for they shall not see their
offspring starve in the midst of plenty.

 • • • • •
It is not the misfortune of the miners that condemns them to see
their wives and children starving before their eyes in a state bursting
with riches they themselves produced; it is their folly and crime in
common with the folly and crime of the people among whom they
live.

The men who shut down the mines and locked out the miners
and are now starving them and their families are not among those
crying for relief. They own the mines and control the jobs and can
shut out and starve the miners at will — by grace of the miners them-
selves, an overwhelming majority of whom belong to the same capi-
talist party their masters do and cast their votes with scrupulous fidel-
ity to perpetuate the boss ownership of the mine in which they work
and their own exclusion and starvation at their master’s will.

Blessed be the private ownership of the mines, for without it the
miners and their wives would lose their individuality, their homes
would be broken up, their morality destroyed, their religion wiped
out, and they would be denied forever the comfort and solace of pov-
erty and starvation!

When the miners themselves control the mines, once they have
learned how to control themselves, they will not lock themselves out
and starve themselves and their loved ones to death. The bosses are
very kindly doing this for them, but only because the miners them-
selves, by their votes and otherwise, have willed it.
The bosses lose their power and along with it their jobs when the
workers find theirs.

• • • • •

But I only meant to show that in peace as in war the workers are
the losers; if they are not killed in war they are starved in peace; if
they escape the trenches they are reserved for the slave pits.
The bosses are always the beneficiaries; the workers always the
victims. The Rockefellers never lose and the [John R.] Lawsons never
win. Such is capitalism and the workers who side with the bosses and
support capitalism politically and otherwise, and are therefore respon-
sible for capitalism, are also responsible for the hell they get in war
and the starvation they suffer in peace.

 

Using Mother Night to Understand Elon Musk

 

Thanks to Cold War Steve

 Some years ago, I reviewed Kurt Vonnegut's story Mother Night. I won't rehash what I said then, I'd just like to bring up that one of the points I was keen to emphasise is that the book is one of the few that deserves the cliché "More timely now than when it was written". I'm not sure if Mother Night is my favourite of Vonnegut's works, but it is the one I come back to most.

I don't think I need to introduce Elon Musk, even if this is the first blog post you've read. There have been much commentary on his Nazi salutes and boosting of Nazi sympathisers on his platform Twitter. The thesis of Mother Night is summed up in the phrase "You should be careful about what you pretend to be, because in the end you are what you pretend to be". 

I don't think Elon Musk is a Nazi in his heart and mind, his temperament isn't a good fit for the mindset. But, this is irrelevant compared to the material impact of his actions and his conscious attempts to emulate the Nazis as much as the circumstances and his own talents will allow. It doesn't matter that he's not a Nazi, because in the end of the day he is pretending to be one. 

He shares some things in common with Howard Campbell Jnr, the protagonist of Mother Night. Howard, like Musk was a bit of an outsider, Howard was an American but raised in Germany and spoke German as a first language, and like Musk Howard was a Nazi, that's why he's in a cell in Israel when the story starts. He was a prominent official working under Goebbels. He was also a spy for the Allied cause and is credited by his handler with bringing the Allied victory sooner than expected. 

  So, what's Howard's problem? Well, in a nutshell, Howard can't reconcile his idealised version of himself with the material reality of his existence. In order to become a good spy he had to win over the Nazi government, in order to do that he had to be useful to them. During the War Howard spent his time crafting propaganda for the Axis powers, radio broadcasts to the US Army denouncing Roosevelt, plays and other antisemitic propaganda. All of which he personally ridiculed as insane drivel. At no point in the narrative are we given any suggestion that Howard was remotely close to the Nazi ideology, he was just very good at both of his jobs.

This fact haunts him, time, and again he is confronted with the toxic impact and festering legacy of his work. His father-in-law a brutal Nazi police officer who enslaved dozens of Slav women to work on his estate thanks Howard personally for convincing him of the righteousness of the cause. In a horrifically beautiful passage, the father-in-law unknowingly twists a knife in Howard's insides by confiding that there was a time when he had doubts about this whole Greater Germania and master race thing, but it was Howard's propaganda that corrected him. 

In yet another example, after the War, Howard runs into the American Neo-Nazi fringe. This is a tiny movement led by decrepit cranks and a dozen or so angry, alienated young men. The whole "movement" is a sad bunch of losers, but their guns still work, and they've been using bootleg recordings of Howard's old racist ranting speeches for succour and to maintain morale. Even after the War has ended, the seeds he planted are still sprouting.

Still, Musk and Howard are not completely alike, Howard is torn apart about the evils he aided, whereas Musk seems positively giddy about them and frustrated that he can't go further. In the end if Musk teaches us anything, it's that Vonnegut was right. We are who we pretend to be.

 

News from Zengakuren

 

 

ZENGAKUREN, the All-Japan Federation of Autonomous Student Bodies is a mass revolutionary organisation, with a militant tradition of struggle against American Imperialism and the Japanese ruling class. In 1960, it organised strikes and continuous demonstrations, in which many were wounded, outside the Tokyo Diet, against the Ratification of the Japanese – US Security Treaty. These reached such an intensity that the US Government thought it advisable to cancel a proposed Eisenhower visit to Japan.

The Zengakuren have recently called for the establishment of an anti-war International. They are supported in this by the Committee of 100, the Student Peace Union in the US, the Socialist Students Organization of West Germany and many other organizations opposed to both American and Russian tests. On August 17, 1962, representatives of the Zengakuren, including Nemoto, their President, attended the Leningrad Conference of the International Union of Students. On their way, they had demonstrated in Red Square against all nuclear tests. They had been arrested, then released and `closely watched during the remainder of their stay`.

We publish below an extract from Zengakuren Information Bulletin No.3, describing their discussions with representatives of the Soviet Student Council (SSC):

Soviet Student Council (SSC): Are you fighting against the nuclear testing of any nation other than the USSR? Do you realize that the Soviet Union is not the first country to engage in nuclear tests?

Zengakuren: We are engaged in a militant mass struggle against American nuclear tests. Our slogan in this struggle is, `Against tests of USA and USSR`. We oppose any nuclear activity by any country, be it England, France or China. Of course, we are fighting against the nuclear armament of Japan. You who sponsor the I.U.S. Congress should have known such a well-known fact.

SSC: Granted, but what country began the first nuclear tests and how many times were such tests carried out before the Soviet Union began?

Zengakuren: That is of no consequence. We accuse all countries engaged in testing of promoting the arms race and of suppressing the working class and people.

SSC: We are glad to hear that you oppose the American nuclear tests and can appreciate your stand against these tests. We lost millions of lives in World War II. This tragedy was due to the fact that our military forces were weaker than those of the Fascists. We do not want to be the second Hiroshima. If during the war Japan had had nuclear weapons at their disposal, the tragedy of Hiroshima would not have occurred.

Zengakuren: We oppose your dangerous view. According to your logic, you encourage the Japanese Imperialists to arm themselves with nuclear weapons. Do you really think that this is an effective way to stop the nuclear race and to prevent nuclear war?

SSC: The best way to prevent war is obviously total disarmament, but the next best procedure is to continue Soviet nuclear tests.

Zengakuren: Your policy, based on such a philosophy, wields an immeasurably harmful influence on the anti-war struggle of the working class. Do you know the slogan that is being used in Tokyo, New York and London to fight N-tests? `Against tests by the US and USSR`. These students and workers attempt to obtain peace not with nuclear weapons but by their own struggles.

SSC: You believe that if the Soviet Union stopped its tests, the working class movement would increase in strength and the imperialists’ tests would stop. We cannot be sure of such an outcome.

Zengakuren: Are you suggesting that the workers of the world stop their struggles and support Soviet testing? By holding such a view, you cause dissension among the workers of the world and make them oppose each other. The workers must unite. Soviet nuclear testing does not support peace. It provides America with an excuse to continue their tests and intensify the arms race. Any nuclear testing suppresses the workers of the world and subjects them to the domination of the ruling class. Aren’t you yourselves the slaves of nuclear weapons?

SSC: We can appreciate your point of view, but we are of totally different opinions.

Zengakuren: The justice of our views will be borne out by the continuation of the world-wide struggle against N-tests.

SSC: Your opinion sounds quite sincere; continue your work as you like, but don’t forget that you are in the USSR now.