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