What book are you most upset that people haven't read?

EwokShepherd · 1 day

Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell. Based on a misreading of some of his more popular works, a lot of people aren't aware that Orwell was a committed socialist, and that he actually traveled to Spain to fight the fascists with a radical left wing militia during the Spanish Civil War. For an insightful historical account of that conflict, and for some perspective on the life and experiences of one of the more influential anti-authoritarian voices in our times, I feel like this is a hugely important book that often goes overlooked. At the same time though, I work in a bookstore and I can tell you that if we have it out on display, we can't keep it on our shelves.

db_admin · 9 days

k9pyro · 15 days

Yes, do this. College can wait.

flosama · 15 days

If you don't find it on here make the effort to track em down somehow, they're amazing. Unfortunately the only copies in my life right now are new and at the bookstore I work at.

thaumatropia · 15 days

A rather large correction, actually.

db_admin · 18 days

On a sci-fi kick recently so I'll put my name in the hat. Cheers!

timeneedsme · 18 days

Damn, those eco-punk, hillbilly-crusty types got nothin on those last ones. Any way we could get some backstory?

happycowboy101 · 22 days

This idea was more fully developed in fiction in this book called ecotopia. Great read - a bit utopian, but then again so are even the most moderate proposals of this sort it seems.

godsandmonsters · 25 days

If the outburst of violence was a single occurrence, I would have agreed with you. However, it was only the first in a very long series of attacks by the Arabs on both British and Jewish targets, such as the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine, only a few years later.

They were an occupied territory. Britain's colonial claims in the region were backed by military force, but you're going to condemn Palestinian violence? What could they have done, asked nicely?

godsandmonsters · 25 days

I'm not a pacifist at all, and I agree that sometimes violence is the only possible answer to injustice. However, I do believe that before engaging in violence, all other options should be exhausted. In this case the Palestinians didn't even try to come up with a non violent solution.

The palestinians were not a unified political entity at the time, without a modern political culture, so there weren't really adequate means to exhaust every other possibility. I have the impression that the violence was a more or less spontaneous outburst to a desperate situation, so it's a little disingenuous to discredit their struggle on the grounds that they failed to live up to western democratic standards for proper political action.

godsandmonsters · 26 days

If you recall, the only reason we got into this debate in the first place is because I objected to someone's portrayal of the escalation of tensions in the region as being primarily one sided, not because I was trying to advocate the position you think I am. I'm merely trying to point out that, to many palestinians, the mass migration of foreigners to their land was perceived as an active threat, even though it was happening within a legal framework, and even though some privileged palestinians benefited from the arrangement.

The fact that you justify violence as a means to fight what you see is an injustice, is disturbing.

Tangental to our discussion, but I'm not at all disturbed by the notion that injustice can be met with justified violence. Are you really such a pacifist, or were you just referring to this one particular instance? Like I said, though, I wasn't trying to justify anything of the sort here.

godsandmonsters · 26 days

As you suggest, the palestinians didn't have a say in how they would participate in the capitalist system. First they work as serfs (which creates its own unique relationship to ideas of ownership and possession), then they are thrust into modern capitalist relations by land-buying foreigners. So you're right, I don't think they were ready socially for the disruptions this change caused, and I think they rightfully saw it as a threat to their autonomy and right to self determination. The fact that the jews legally took advantage of an oppressive situation doesn't relinquish them from responsibility for their actions.

godsandmonsters · 26 days

Every economic system currently in use in the world is based on ownership.

Indeed, and I'm not saying that had things developed differently in Palestine that this wouldn't be the case today anyway. My point was that this economic system, or at least particular parts of it (titled ownership as opposed to use based systems) had to be imposed upon unwilling or unknowing populations in a lot of cases, and the resulting social relationships were not known for their fairness to the area's inhabitants. Contrary to our economic system's dominant explanation for its omnipresence, this 'fencing off of the commons' has traditionally been met with great resistance by people who didn't see themselves as standing to benefit from the process, and it was a somewhat new and very much ongoing process in the Palestinian territories when the Zionist ideal was beginning to be implemented. The threat of force comes in when you don't acknowledge or understand the new economic reality of the system imposed on you - to use the most common example from around the world, the land you thought belonged to you because you and your ancestors have been living there for the last couple hundred years just had its title sold to someone you've never met, and now you're legally considered squatters if you continue to live in your home, with all the violent repercussions associated with such an 'illegal' existence.

With a good deal of variation and context, this is pretty much exactly what elicited the violent response Palestinians had toward the influx of 'rich' Jews (by their standards) settling their land.

godsandmonsters · 26 days

Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.

Imposing (or in this case taking advantage of a prior imposition) of an economic and social system based on ownership can certainly be seen as violent, since it is indeed backed up by the threat of force.

godsandmonsters · 26 days

Whether or not that's true, my point is that escalations happened on both sides. Besides, your point stands only if you don't count the influx of relatively rich Europeans buying land that was occupied by people with a short and conflicted relationship to ownership under the title system as a type of economic or institutional violence.

godsandmonsters · 26 days

Speaking of simplifications, you make it seem as if the escalations in tension prior to 1948 were all one sided, and that the palestinian people were primarily responsible for the arab invasion.

americanhanko · 26 days

Did you hear about those venture capitalists investing in an asteroid mining scheme recently? Well that immediately brought to mind some of the social, scientific, and economic themes of the red mars trilogy by kim stanley robinson. Highly recommended (and entirely plausible) hard scifi.

MissJess · 26 days

What's the * after trans for?

jskeetjr · 26 days

I don't know anything about this picture, but I do know a thing or two about women's militias during the spanish civil war.

The start of the war also marked the start of a popular social revolution in much of spain. Groups of men and women, spontaneously organized along trade union lines, siezed local armories and fought the coup during its first few days, liberating much of spain not just from the fate of a military dictatorship, but from any government authority at all. As it became apparent that the coup would result in a more protracted war, these militias came together with other anti-fascist forces to form a united front against fascism, coordinating their efforts in much the same way a regular army would, but still maintaining the autonomy of the original fighting units. That is why for a period of a few years there existed the most irregular of practices within the republican army: elected officers, a general abandonment of traditional military discipline and culture, and of course, integrated fighting units.

In areas where the social revolution was more advanced (anarchist controlled barcelona, for instance), women even organized themselves into women-only militias, the most famous of all being the anarchist mujeres libres. There's a really great film about them that I highly recommend called libertarias. And for a more general look at life during the revolution, George Orwell's homage to catalonia is a classic personal history that can't be recommended enough.

xrthrowaway · 28 days

Is it widely known that you can send free faxes online? That's the best part of your plan, imo.

anonnom · 29 days

The connection may not have existed from the very beginning and it may not be applicable today either, but for a period of time they were one in the same. It wasn't until being a skin would get you beat the fuck up and the fashion was successfully re-co-opted by anti-fa that neo-nazis began to adopt other fashions, or drop out of the counter-culture all together and focus more exclusively on political action.

anonnom · 1 month

The recent history of anti-fa militants violently responding to fascist organizing is a story straight out of the warriors. Skinhead gangs hanging around, beating up punks, immigrants, poc, etc, got what was coming in the form of anti-fa street gangs that eventually were able to bring more to bear on the fascists than they could handle, effectively stopping their reign of terror. This context is very important to the question you're asking because it shows how contemporary militant anti-fa grew out of the very real need for certain communities to defend themselves against fascist attacks. I know it's almost a cliche to say this, but your concern with their freedom of speech is more a reflection with how well militant tactics have worked in the past, since if the fascist gangs hadn't been driven underground you can be sure they would be doing everything in their power to deny you those very rights - and more.

jskeetjr · 1 month

We're anarchists, but we don't live in VA. My friend was just traveling through Richmond and got the idea to put this thing together. I didn't hurt that he goes to school for film though!

sirhotalot · 1 month

If it's not too inappropriate, I thought I'd plug my friend's documentary on a sweet anarchist collective in richmond va, the wingnut. I know ya'll are thinking of something more rural but there's some great ideas in the vid: https://vimeo.com/40653544

Verified Email	Three-Year Club
Secret Santa 2010	reddit mold

jskeetjr

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login