Category Archives: General

An Anarchist View From Rojava on Recent Events in Syria: A conversation with a combatant of Tekoşîna Anarşist

"An anarchist view from Rojava on recent events in Syria: a conversation witha combatant in Tekoşîna Anarşist | The Final Straw Radio, Dec 22, 2024" featuring a drawing of a combatant with their face covered, holding an AK47 and sitting on cinder blocks
Download This Episode

This week, we’re sharing a conversation with Errico, a combatant member of Tekoşîna Anarşist, an internationalist anarchist formation in critical solidarity with the Rojava Revolution. For this episode, Errico answers some questions we had about what’s been happening in Syria and concerns from within the Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria. You can find ideas and updates from the TA formation on their blog, https://tekosinaanarsist.noblogs.org. Past interviews with TA can be found here.

Errico’s voice has been re-recorded by a comrade for anonymity. The transcript is already up in the show notes and at our website for easier reading, translation and sharing and you can find past interviews we’ve done with TA linked in the show notes. And there is an announce-only signal group that anyone can join with updates and analysis by anarchists in the region or paying attention which we’ll link in our shownotes. Just a headsup, the usernames of members of this group will be visible to the all other users there and it might be a good opportunity to set up your signal username and make your phone number unfindable for better anonymity prior to joining the signal group ( https://signal.group/#CjQKIN0TDK_nsHV4uXRtLIdaUOL2R6yv7uvRs8c3RUiXLr-EEhBPEntGCDqJQOD4pzU36i6O )

We simultaneously recorded an interview with Cedric and Khuzama, two libertarian communists and editors of and contributors to the blog Interstices-Fajawat.org about their insights into Syria. This interview will be coming out soon, so keep an eye on our feed.

. … . ..

Featured Track:

. … . ..

Transcription

TFSR: Would you please introduce yourself to the audience with any name, pronouns, location, and affiliation that you want to share?

TA: Yeah, so this is Errico here. I’m talking from the provisional press office of Tekoşîna Anarşist, based at the moment a few kilometers away from the front lines. So for this, the best pronouns I can use is they then, if needed, but yeah, maybe that’s it.

TFSR: Would you remind listeners about Tecoxina Anarchist and its relationship with the PYD and the Rojava revolution?

TA: Tekoşîna Anarşist is an anarchist organization that has been working for more than seven yearsnow in the northeast Syria. We are here in critical solidarity with the revolution in Rojava. We see how the values that this revolution is like promoting are extraordinarily close to what we see as anarchism, as libertarian socialism and therefore many anarchists from all around the world has been coming here, had been fighting and defending this revolution. Some of us, we saw the need of building a more stable project that can learn from this revolution in a more collective way to be able to not only learn these lessons, but also being able to translate it and share it with other anarchist organizations and comrades all around the world.

When we talk about our works here, we are a military structure that cooperates with the Syrian Democratic Forces. We are integrated inside the Syrian Democratic Forces and we are with them in the front lines fighting against the enemies that tried to destroy this revolution. Mostly we have been in the front lines against the Islamic State but since 2018 and the invasion of the Turkish army in Afrin, we have been also in the front lines against the Turkish army and its proxies. As a military structure, also, we want to promote a reflection of what does it mean for anarchists to be engaged in a military context because we know that anarchism often has been also connected with anti-militarist movements.And this is also part of our tradition, but here we see the necessity of being part of the defense of this revolution in a military sense. So we often say that we are not a military organization, but a militarized one, because the conditions on the ground had forced us to take up weapons to defend this revolution and even our life, especially in the front lines against the Islamic State. And this was something that got a lot of international attention and this is a bit like the part that has been more mediatic. But for us, most of our work is also to function as a political organization here. As I say, critical solidarity with Rojava and trying to bring practical aspects to the meaning of international solidarity because when we talk about international solidarity, we can see that the capacity to bring solidarity on the ground with other struggles is often limited and we wanted to reflect on how we can directly bring this solidarity.

And there was this sentence that we often like from a really interesting revolutionary group from Denmark that was saying that “solidarity is something you can hold in your hands.” And we try to put this in practice and not stay in the symbolic solidarity, but be here shoulder to shoulder working with our Kurdish and with our Arab Syrian comrades and doing the work that is necessary on the ground to keep developing and defending this revolution. This means a lot of things that maybe we can talk about and discuss further in this interview but this also means relations with other political groups, with our political structures. You were mentioning the PYD, that it’s true that PYD is maybe the political body of part of the revolutionary bodies that are here. PYD is a political party that was created in 2003 to represent the voices of like Kurdish people here in northern Syria. But on the ground, and I think it’s important to understand PYD is mostly all people that is trying to bring solutions and like develop whatever is needed for the society to function. So what does it mean on the ground? They have an office and when people have problems, when there are conflicts in the different things that happen in the daily life, people often go to this office and discuss with the friends to try to find solution. This includes a big range of things like from how new buildings that are being built are coordinated, to garbage collection, but especially it comes to political talks with different elements. So there is like a close relation between PYD and the autonomous municipalities of each area that they try to help each other to solve the social problems.

There’s a nice story, you know… In the town that I’m right now, we were buying groceries so often in the shop that we kind of became friends with the shop owner. And some months ago, this shop owner asked “how are you?” and he was telling us that now he was asked to be responsible for the PYD office and this was him inviting to their office. So we came over for tea and were talking a bit about the situation of the city and the problems that they were facing. So we have a friendly relation, but the PYD is mostly like a local social center, mostly they have their office that functions as a social center to talk with the neighbors and discuss the situations on the ground. So this is part of our work, this diplomacy of like being in contact with the situation that the people is living here facing the same challenges and difficulties and problems and try to find solutions together with them.

TFSR: With the social structure and the social part of the revolution that you’re engaging with it makes a lot of sense for you to be able to be fluid and participating and engaging in the ways that you find interesting and necessary in this critical solidarity. But as an anarchist organization under a military structure, it would seem a bit more difficult to maybe navigate the autonomy and consensus of the members of the group with the decision-making of a what is generally considered to be a top-down, hierarchical organization like in the SDF, for instance, or with the YPG or YPJ. How is negotiating that? Can you talk about some of those tensions and some of the some of the ways that you’re able to negotiate that?

TA: Yes. Sometimes when we look for very technical answers, an audience can get disappointed because the reality here is much more organic. And of course we function as a military structure, not so much for like being military, but for being ready to defending revolution when it’s needed. For example, right now under the attacks that the Turkish proxy forces are doing, we have been mobilized most of the time, we as an organization have the responsibility that all our militants, all our members are able to be deployed in a military capacity if necessary. So we are responsible also to make sure that all our militants that want to engage in this kind of work are able to do it and this is something that can be coordinated with the local military structures. Also, there are members that maybe they don’t have interest in this part of the work so that they can focus in civilian work. During the times that there is not a big mobilization, most of us have capacity to be engaged in this kind of civilian works.

And we have to remark how the revolution here and how the movement is organized, gives a lot of space for that. There are not only like the local communes that are like working, it’s like these neighborhood councils to run the different things, but there are a lot of different institutions from like art and culture, education, health that are functioning And we also, of course, try to work with special intention with the women’s structures, like the structures connected with the women’s movement that are also diverse from the Kongreya Star that is the main umbrella structure, but also the different Mala Jin, or women’s houses, and the Jineology institutes. So also like a big variety, especially comrades that are read as women here are trying to engage and give priority to connect with this because we see it as also one of the main aspects of the Rojava Revolution.

So we have been evaluating, like where are the different structures where our militants can make better connections. And over these years, our militants have been working in coordination with like many different groups from this like art and culture, health, education, with the youth. It’s a quite diverse environment that, of course, it’s always teaches us a lot of things because it’s not only like living with the people here and learning from their culture, but also engaging on a human level. People here are eager, like to get to know us and also to invite us to their homes. And we also ask them, like, “how’s the situation? How was the situation before the revolution? How is now?” And we also talk about politics. We recently started to find more and more texts of anarchism translated to Arabic. And we are sharing some of the books of Bakunin that have been translated and discussing with like some of the comrades, like how they see it. And even if it’s true that anarchism is not known here, even the word sometimes leaves people confused. But when we explain it and we talk about it as libertarian socialism, it’s easier for comrades here also to understand. And for local people, sometimes it’s it can be funny to like have these conversations. But at the same time, we are also connected with many other revolutionary organizations so that even when they are more familiar with more like Marxist tendencies, a lot of them are also like aware. And even some of them have deep knowledge of anarchist authors and ideas. And we have been engaging with like really extraordinarily deep political discussions on anarchism and it’s really like an enriching part of hearing how people here see and perceive these ideas.

TFSR: So the news of the last couple of weeks in Syria has been pretty crazy. But then again, so have the last decade and a half since the Civil War began. With an understanding that this complex situation is still developing, can you give us a very simplified description of some of the actors on the ground and the international backers?

TA: Yeah. So there are a lot of actors. But to make it simple, we will focus maybe on four of the main actors right now that are present in the conflict.

On one side, we have the SDF or Syrian Democratic Forces that we already mentioned. That is the military coalition of the different military structures around the autonomous administration of northern Syria. This means also that different regions have developed their own military councils, like local military councils that are confederated in this umbrella that is the Syrian Democratic Forces. This includes also different forces. We can see how different ethnic minorities, for example, have their own military structures and that they exist in different cities. So it’s a quite diverse and complex system so to summarize, we will talk just about the SDF as comprised of different military structures working together, coordinating efforts to defend this revolution and this territory.

A second actor that we will refer is Hayʼat Tahrir al-Sham or HTS, and this is the group that has been viewed as leading the offensive that overthrew the Assad regime. Shortly, we can dive a bit on the history. HTS is the new reorganization of the Salafist group that can be traced to the Al-Nusra Front that was the Syrian branch of Al-Qaeda. It’s true that in the last years, there has been an effort of switching a bit the narrative and the ideological lines and going towards the line of more moderation and there has been purges getting rid of those elements more close to the ideas of Al-Qaeda. And we saw this process of moderation, but still, it’s important to remember that their roots lay there. They’ve for several years been the effective government in the region of Idlib and ruling with a really like authoritarian methods. Also, again, dividing and absorbing other Islamist groups in a quite violent ways. And there are quite some interesting articles that can be also shared about the background, maybe to refer to at least one there is the report from, I think, February 23, something like this from the Rojava Information Center that it’s called “When the Jihadists Learn to Smile”, that makes a big dive on how HTS developed.

The third actor that we have to talk, even if it’s not existing right now, is the Syrian Arab Army that was the regular army of the Syrian Arab Republic, therefore, it was the army of the Al-Assad regime. At the moment, the Syrian Arab Army is dissolved, most of the most of the fighters left their uniforms behind and ran away, leaving their positions. Some of them defected, joining different factions.

The other umbrella organization that it’s the Free Syrian Army that maybe needs to be mentioned. Some people will probably be familiar with the name Free Syrian Army as it was the umbrella name used for a lot of the opposition groups, especially during 2012 and 2013. But it’s important to remember that it was never a coherently organized force, it was more like an amalgam of different groups. We can see that since this last offensive of HTS against the Syrian Arab Army, the idea of the Free Syrian Army has come back to life. And a lot of groups joined the offensive of HTS against the Syrian Arab Army, raising the opposition flag and somehow pledging alliance to this Free Syrian Army that, even if it doesn’t really exist, still holds the idea of the forces in opposition to the Bashar al-Assad regime.

And the last element that we will mention is the Syrian National Army. The name can be confusing because even if it’s true that most of their fighters are Syrians, the commanders are not. It’s a Turkish proxy force supplied, trained and command by Turkish state and it has been proved to be recruiting ex-fighters of Daesh. There’s a published document that contains the identity of like more than 400 identified ISIS fighters and that are now in the ranks of this SNA and it has been the name that the Turkish state used to reorganize their Islamist forces against the Kurdish movement. Right now it’s the group that is leading the offensive against the self-administration of North East Syria.

So to summarize how it is on the ground, these four elements that we mentioned, SDF, HDS, SAA and SNA are fighting almost two parallel wars with HTS mainly fighting against the regime, against the Syrian Arab Army. While at the same time, the SNA or these Turkish proxies had been fighting against the SDF or the Kurdish-led administration in North East Syria. And it’s relevant to see that even if the Turkish proxies have a lot of coordination with HTS, they are separate structures that had been fighting different wars. These Turkish proxies never had serious interest in engaging in combat with the Syrian Arab Army and their focus has been solely the attacks against the regions, especially of Shehba, Til RifatArifat, Manbij and now Kobane, targeting only the self-administration of North East Syria. These groups are backed somehow in different geopolitical powers, but we can see how SDF is a really local force that in the fight against the Islamic State was actively supported by the international coalition led by the US forces. And partly the US has been keeping some support to the SDF, especially in the war against the Islamic State, not so much or not at all in the war against the Turkish invasion. When Turkey invaded before in Sere Kanye and in Afrin, the US did nothing. And not just did nothing, but even like withdraw to allow Turkey to crush some of the territories that they invaded. So in a lot of media, we can often see often a listing of the Syrian Democratic Forces as the backed force, but US is only backing it in the war against the Islamic State, not much more. When we look at HTS, we can see it in a similar fashion, but there has been direct support from Turkey in the defense of the region of Idlib. Turkey has been holding different military positions around Idlib to defend the government and the forces of HTS from the attacks of the regime. So even if it’s true that HTS is also a local force, their reliance on Turkey, not just for their defense but also for the supply lines was and still is really strong.

The Syrian Arab army that was functioning as the state army for more than 60 years was at the moment of collapse, supported especially by Russia and Iran. Russia had an interest in maintaining the military bases of Latakia and Tartus that are the only naval bases that Russia had in the Mediterranean Sea. And Iran also had a lot of interest in supporting the regime to keep their supply routes to groups like Hezbollah and Hamas open across Syria. So we saw that, yeah, Russia and Iran were the main supporters. And when it comes to this last factor, the SNA, this Turkish proxy force, this is not just that it’s supported, it is that it’s built directly by Turkey. So this is a bit the distribution of these four elements and their main international supports.

TFSR: It gets so complicated with especially the international backing under certain circumstances and then not under others. I’m going to ask more questions momentarily about Israel, but the fact that Iran and Israel both had an interest in backing the Assad regime for their various reasons, like whether it be because of regional stability or the ostensible fight against ISIS by Israel, understanding that the Assad regime was doing that. Or Iran having a historical relationship with both of the Assad’s and allowing that transit of weapons and money and stuff to go to Lebanon. Yeah, it’s really complicated and confusing.

Israel has taken the power vacuum as an opportunity to seize territory in the Golan Heights and is stating that it will integrate it with the settlements while bombing weapons depots and infrastructure to cripple whatever comes next in Syria. Can you speak about the relationship between Assad and Israel and how it fits into the wars on neighboring territories that Israel has brought? And also, HTS has made a statement that Palestinian groups would need to disarm and no longer be able to train in Syria, which feels not disconnected from this.

TA: Yeah, this is a complicated question and it brings in scope Israel. Now, that was an actor that we didn’t mention when we mentioned this for forces right now fighting in Syria. But for sure, Israel is also extremely present. Maybe if we look back a bit for long and to look at like the how Hafez al-Assad and the ideas of Pan-Arabism and Nasserism took hold in Syria, we have to see the establishment of Israel as a state in the Middle East as one of the sources of conflict for many of the situations that we are living through now. Hafez al-Assad and the idea of Pan-Arabism worked a lot on those lines, on the idea of building an Arab union and to question or challenge the establishment of Israel in those regions. To bring the Palestinian people to their lands, especially after the Nekba, was something that gave a lot of force to this idea of Pan-Arabism. So Hafez al-Assad, historically has, been confronting Israel and trying to build this alliance between Syria and Egypt to bring to an end the Zionist ideas in the Middle East. So, there’s a long-term historical confrontation between Syria and Israel. We could go into all the wars that they fought, but maybe it’s not necessary right now.

But we can also look at the short story. Right now, Israel is bombing more than 400 locations in what Israel themselves declared to be the biggest air operation they have ever conducted. That has been extraordinarily destructive and they are talking about having destroyed more than 90% of the military capabilities of Syria. There are rumors, I don’t know how true they are, that Bashar al-Assad gave the locations of all these weapons to Israel in exchange for not being shot while leaving Syria. I will not dive in on that, I just want to note that clearly Israel had locations of all the weapons storage locations. Now, for more than a week Israel has been bombing nonstop, day and night, all these locations and really destroyed any kind of air defense capability, advanced weapons capability, they really made sure that Syria cannot be a military threat for Israel probably forever.

So, this comes to what is the approach of HTS to Israel. HTS is now reaching a stage where they are in control of the transitional government, the interim government that is being assembled in Damascus and they are there trying to keep a very conciliatory presence and making speeches of about not looking for war, calling for the war to have ended and about trying to not escalate any conflict with Israel. They are not even condemning the brutal bombings that Israel is doing, even if several people have been already killed in those bombings. They are trying to avoid any conflict because Israel did not only just bomb all these more than 400 locations, Israel is also expanding their so-called security zone, the occupied territories in the Golan Heights and right now mostly they are advancing around the border between Syria and Lebanon. And now the IDF have troops and tanks less than 30 kilometers of Damascus. So, in the case that Israel feels threatened at any point by HTS, there’s not many things that HTS can do to dissuade Israel to take action. At the moment the governing body of HTS is very aware that they have no capacity to challenge the military force of Israel. They’re looking for peace and probably this statement to call for Palestinians to disarm and no longer trade in Syria, is part of this, of like a dissuasion methods to kind of pacify Israel and get a bit of a green light of Israel for getting the government. Because at the end of the day, this person that is taking the leadership of HTS, Al-Jolani, his family is from the Golan Heights.

How much there will be a continuation of the hostilities that Syria historically always had with Israel, it’s still a question at the moment. But Israel wants to make sure that in case of any will to return to hostilities, that Syria doesn’t have any trade capacity to do it in the next decades.

TFSR: And beyond that territorial gain in the Golan Heights, would you speak a bit about the Israeli and SDF relationship? What are Israelis’ interests in this besides destabilizing a potential threat to the south? Are there any oil interests? And how do people think that there’s a possibility of Israeli support?

Is it worth mentioning a relationship historically between Turkey and Palestine in this dynamic?

TA: So, first, the main interest of Israel is probably just cutting the Iranian supply lines to Hezbollah and making sure, as we were saying, that Syria cannot become a threat for the next years on Israel. And also to limit the capacity of Iran to threaten Israel over their support of proxy forces like Hezbollah, like Hamas. So, with Syria, Syrian supply lines being cut to Iran, this makes it much easier for Israel to control the Iranian proxy forces within their borders. And, of course, Israel’s support here is often seen with contradictory views. On one side, Kurdish people also suffered a lot for the oppression of the Ba’ath regime that was imposing an identity that was based on the Syrian Arab Republic. So, Kurdish identity was denied. Kurdish language was forbidden. There was no school in Kurdish. Kurdish people was not allowed to study in their own language. They were forced to learn and go to school in Arabic. Not like other minorities, especially like Christian minorities had access who had some freedom to sustain their own languages like Armenians, Assyrians, but that was not the case with the Kurds. So, there is some historical hate that has been building in that sense. There has been this imposed identity of Arabs that Kurds are not happy about.

So, in that sense, when Israel is talking about Kurds being oppressed, Kurds can identify in those eyes. And Israel is trying to inflame these ethnic differentiations to undermine any possibility for pan-Arabism or Arab unity. So, it’s true that in the Kurdish population, there are sometimes even some approval for Israel. But in the revolutionary project of Rojava and what the political organizations here on the ground are evaluating, we know what Israel is as a state, we know what Zionism is. And the Kurdish liberation movement has been training and found refuge in the Palestinian revolutionary movement. And they even have militants in the ranks that were killed in the war against Israel. So, the solidaristic links between revolutionary Palestinian movements and revolutionary Kurdish movements are strong, with long-term cooperation. So, in that sense, the revolutionary movements have a big, big mistrust of Israel. And this sometimes gets into contradiction, you know, when local people see Israel as like an option, like to break the hegemony of the Arabs that they felt oppressed by. This can be sometimes in contradiction with the political movement here, knowing that the solidarity with the Palestinian movement is critical for Palestine as it is for Kurdistan. Because it is only in support with the oppressed identities and the revolutionary groups that a new Middle East can develop.

This is also difficult nowadays because the Palestinian movement

has been going over transformations over the last decades. The Israeli state especially targets any kind

of revolutionary project inside the Palestinian movement, promoting a more conservative line. And this resulted in nowadays having the Palestinian resistance being led often by Islamist groups like Hamas. And for revolutionary movements, of course, of course, this is a bit of a defeat. The Israeli state, we can say partly succeeded in crushing the important revolutionary Palestinian movement, that it’s a defeat for all revolutionaries of the world. And it’s a defeat for us. But of course, it’s especially like a defeat for the Palestinian revolutionary movement. Right now when we saw, the the main conflict with Hamas is what is being seen as one of the main spearheads of the Palestinian resistance.

And we need to remark that Hamas is also connected with the Muslim Brotherhood, as President Erdogan is. Therefore, we see that in the last years, the narrative of the Turkish state and it’s ruling party, the AKP, and Erdogan has been often vocal in support with Palestinians. But this support is not for the revolutionary movement, this support is aligned with the Islamist claims of Hamas. And this connection between the AKP, the party of Erdogan, and Hamas also created some aversion from the Kurdish revolutionary movement, which is taking distance from this Islamist-led Palestinian movement while at the same time, of course, trying to keep and support this now smaller

revolutionary Palestinian movements.

TFSR: So there was news in the last couple of weeks was that Turkey, after an extended period of air raids on northeast Syria, has been amassing troops at its Syrian border for what appears to be an offensive. At a joint press conference recently between the US and Turkey, both members of NATO and the US acting to attempt to facilitate communication on a ceasefire between Turkey and SDF. Turkey reiterated that it would deal with the US-backed SDF, whose Kurdish leadership

Turkey argues is linked to the Kurdish Workers’ Party, the PKK, within its own borders, as it saw fit, and would not be directed by the US. In the meantime, my understanding is that the US announced that it was going to take an administrative headquarters in Kobane and raise the US flag as a deterrent for Turkish invasion.

So I wonder what the last few weeks have been like in the area of the democratic autonomous administration of northeast Syria, and what do you see is coming next in terms of this sort of stalemate or at least threat of defense by the US being a larger power than the SDF can muster?

TA: Yeah. So, yeah, the last weeks and especially the last days have been crazy, and this has been a very relevant topic. Maybe to put it in context, we have to remember what happened in 2016, before the creation of the SDF, the main forces were the YPJ and YPG, with quite openly Kurdish-identified fighters. Then the YPJ and YPG, were the spearhead of the forces of the international coalition against the Islamic State. And during that time, the US was especially supporting these militias, like the fighters of the YPG and YPJ, in their war against Islamic State with their air force and the liberation of Manbij was a critical time.

There was some agreement between US and Turkey claiming that the YPG and YPJ cannot cross and to the west of the Euphrates River and that was the spark that ignited the process of conversations that ended up in the creation of the SDF or the Syrian Democratic Forces, an attempt to build these more regional realities of the military councils and the creation of the Manbij military council. So, this past agreement is something that Turkey has been contesting, claiming that the US promised that the Syrian Democrats, at that time the YPG and YPJ , could not go over the Euphrates River, and therefore was arguing that SDF had no right to be on the west of the river. And on the west of the river is Manbij, the city that has been recently occupied by the SNA. There was not so much

ground that US could hold diplomatically because of that agreement, so, the US did not intervene in front of the occupation of Manbij, but one of the red lines of the US in front of Turkey had often been like the Euphrates River and therefore Kobane. Turkey is trying to dismiss any kind of these claims and to go for a full military operation that occupies all the area. And therefore Kobane is a symbol of resistance, is a symbol of victory against the Islamic State, where the Kurdish forces managed to break the lines of the Jihadist groups. And it’s a really important symbol of resistance for the revolution here and it was like what gave international name to what is happening here. It was also the city where the US started to bomb the lines of the Islamic State. Therefore, US repeatedly say to Erdogan that Kobane was not on the agenda for Turkish occupation. And now with this invasion, clearly the proxy forces of Turkey were willing to dismiss these claims and attack Kobane directly. And as a deterrence, yeah, we saw an American convoy entering the city and raising the American flag.

What does it mean is still not clear. But for the moment, it’s true that there seems to be negotiations where US is trying to balance the requests of Turkey with the need of the SDF. The commander of the SDF, Mazloum Abdi, was putting a proposal for considering Kobane as a demilitarized zone where SDF could withdraw, letting just the the local Asayish security operate as basic security, like civilian structures, with supervision of US. That was a proposal put on the table with the idea to respect the claims of security of Turkey. And of course, for the US, this is a bit of a mess because they have a NATO partner that is clearly recruiting ISIS fighters and putting them on their groups to attack the Kurdish forces that have been the main partner on the ground to fight the Islamic State. So even if everyone knows that Turkey is still a nationstate that is part of NATO and the US doesn’t want Turkey to get too close to Russia as it has been already playing both sides a bit, they want Turkey to remain in NATO because it’s true that right now Erdogan is on the head of Turkey. Probably in the next elections, he will not hold that position and the US wants to make sure that this really big, powerful army that is the second force of NATO remains part of the of their military alliance. So they don’t want to let Turkey move away from from NATO. But at the same time, they don’t want to let Turkey smash the forces that really brought an end to the Caliphate.

And not only that, but we also have to remember that SDF is currently in control of the security of the prisons that hold tens of thousands of ISIS members. We’re talking about thousands of fighters that are in the prisons, and tens of thousands of woman and children that were living in the caliphate of the Islamic State and that are right now a really big threat for the whole region. These people really believe in the ideas of the caliphate, their minds aren’t going to be changed, and they are waiting for the opportunity to build it again. And US is aware of that and doesn’t want to let these prisoners break out because we saw the cooperation of the Turkish state with Islamic state. Many of the international fighters of ISIS were crossing into Syria through Turkey. And this is something that is not a secret, it is known, but still they want to prioritize keeping Turkey as a NATO partner over any kind of human rights, any kind of risk prevention of the Islamic state to return.

Yeah. Anyway, we could talk long hours about this, but the situation is that US forces returned to Kobane that were not there since they withdrew before the last Turkish invasion under the orders of Trump. So right now they are there apparently preventing Turkey for immediately attacking with ideas of having a ceasefire until the end of the week, trying to reach an agreement. It’s not clear if any agreement is reachable. And maybe Turkey will try to attack anyway, on their own. And as far as we know, there are US senators already threatening Erdogan with sanctions like the ones that were placed in 2019, even if the ones of 2019 were never implemented. But they are using these sanctions as a measure for pressure to make sure that Erdogan don’t make this step. What Erdogan will do is still something that we will see. At the end of the week, probably things will have to fall in one side or the other. If Erdogan wants to attack whatever the price, probably we will see the most brutal war that we saw since the days of the Islamic State here. SDF are ready to fight until the end. Kobane is not negotiable. Kobane is the most important symbol of the resistance that ends the Islamic State and a really important symbol of the revolution. So it’s something that will be defended, for sure, with the strongest capacity that the SDF can put on the lines unless some agreement is reached where Kobane doesn’t end up in Turkish hands.

TFSR: Okay, so this is going to cover some of the similar topics, but how have things on the ground in in the DAANES, been since the HTS and SNA offensives, and how have SDF allied forces engaged?

What do you think about the statements of Abu Muhammad al-Jolani of the HTS that point to a more tolerant vision of Islamism in Syria after the ouster of the Assad regime? You already mentioned this Rojava Information Center article from a few years ago “When the Jihadists Learned to Smile”,

I think. And I’ll put a link to that in the show notes. But what do his words offer in relation to advances in the rights of women and LGBTQIA folks that have or could be won through models like that

of Jinealogy? And can you talk a little bit about the vision that the the Rojava revolution promotes?

TA: Maybe we can divide this in two parts, because even if the offensive of HTS and the offensive of

SNA are somehow combined, they are really different forces with different political aims,

and they are also acting different on the ground. So, the SNA until now occupied first and foremost the

region of Shehba, where all the refugees from the Turkish invasion in 2018 of Afrin were living in refugee camps and the snA forced them to flee again, finding shelter in eastern regions of Syria in territory of the autonomous administration. And they occupied not only Shehba, that has been the first territory occupied, but also recently the occupation of Manbij. And we can see how SNA is advancing and behaving as like poorly organized criminal gangs, just looting, robbing, kidnapping. There are some interviews in the in the site of the information center with like those refugees from

Shehba that are arriving to Raqqa, to Tabqa, and they are describing how the was evacuation and it’s

terrifying. Like these groups were just executing people on the road, were kidnapping. It has been a terrifying experience for those who went through that and that stands in contradiction with what HTS is trying to do. HTS was promising safe passage to the people of Shehba to areas of the autonomous administration. And SNA didn’t respect that and it’s SNA is behaving exactly in the same way in Manbij, like looting, stealing, killing. There is a lot of videos that even they themselves are recording of torturing people, there was this video of like going into the hospital asking injured people if they were Kurds or not, and for who they were fighting and just shooting them on the spot in the hospital. It was quite brutal. So these are groups that don’t have any political aim beyond massacring and killing and directed by the Turkish state to just destroy the project of the autonomous administration of North Syria. So I would not even talk about any political project because there is none beyond obeying the orders of Turkey in the most brutal way possible.

HTS is a bit of a different thing. Even if we can see that they are coordinating in some areas, HTS is a political organization. They come from a political tradition of Islamism, and they have been shifting into a more moderate positions in the last months, or years even, to try to become a Syrian force that is a credible proposal for government for Syria. Well, we already made the comparison that it’s maybe not so different from what the Taliban are doing in Afghanistan. And the idea is probably in the same lines, they are already talking about installing morality police, the Islamic courts. But at the

same time, maybe talking about the Taliban in Afghanistan sounds too aggressive. But we can also remember that it’s exactly the same thing that Iran is doing in the sense of the Islamic Republic of Iran. So is this idea of like bringing religious fundamentalism into politics, that it’s something tha if we mentioned that is Muslim people doing it sounds dangerous, but that so many Christian

fundamentalists are doing exactly the same thing. So I think it’s not so different. It’s like bringing

religious fundamentalist ideas into politics. And that seems to be the main idea of HTS and it’s what

they probably will try to implement with their interim government.

And of course, we already saw some of these declarations where some of the members of the government, (I don’t remember who it was) making this statement that you say, like claiming that women are not capable of like having some positions in the of administration. Well, we can also reflect on how much religious fundamentalism and patriarchy go hand in hand and we can see how in the demonstrations of HTS, most of the time, we just see men, especially in the area on Deir ez-Zor where there was some protest calling for the SDF to withdraw and HTS to come. We can see how this protest is mostly men, how these ideas of religious fundamentalism also are in line with the power that men hold in the mosque and perpetuating these patriarchal forms of the family. So, of course, the project of the autonomous administration is completely opposed to the vision of patriarchy. And probably this is going to be one of the main contradictions if we reach a point where the autonomous administration and HTS have to negotiate conditions for a new Syria, because for the for the autonomous administration of north Syria, woman’s revolution, woman’s liberation is a fundamental, if not like the main points of this revolutionary project. This is something that for sure is not negotiable at all. So any kind of restrictions that HTS would like to impose on woman’s rights, these would be for sure a total red line for the autonomous administration. And this can be a challenge for some negotiations if these negotiations end up happening.

But for now, it’s not even clear how much HTS is really engaging in these negotiations or if it’s

just a face that they are putting on, hoping that Turkey will put a finish the project of the autonomous administration. Because we saw how HTS received diplomats in Damascus of the autonomous administration and open negotiations and they are calling for Kurds to be part of this new Syria. But it’s not clear, at least to me, how much this is something that they really believe in, or this is something that they are saying to gain time until the Turkish proxy forces can eradicate the project of Northern Syria.

TFSR: I think it’s worth noting too, that Al Jalani has specifically said that they’re not trying to

create a Taliban and not look, not to look to Afghanistan for what their goal is. But, you know, when the Taliban reclaimed portions of Afghanistan after the U.S. withdrawal, they were saying the same, like, “we’re very moderate now, we’re very reasonable.” And then they went back to the same playbook. So, I mean, that’s just politics, it’s not even Islamism, I guess. The SDC has proposed a 10 point plan for moving forward towards peace, including increased inclusion of women in government posts. Along with this, do you see the DAANES and the democratic confederalist model as being allowed to actually play a role in the next transitional phase of Syria? And how do you see this as happening?

TA: Yeah, as you see, it’s a really interesting thing. The Syrian Democratic Council, because it’s the political body that was somehow aiming to build some national alliance in the level of Syria to prepare for a future organization. And one of the main figures of the political body that now develop as the Syrian Democratic Council was Hevrin Khalaf. Hevrin Khalaf was a Kurdish politician and she was murdered in the invasion of 2019. And it was not just another murder, like there was a group of Turkish-backed Islamists that penetrated several kilometers behind the front lines going explicitly after her car and killing like hers and the driver. So we can see how Turkey was scared of like this idea of a political body that can bring a national proposal for Syria, connected to the self-administration of North East Syria. And the Syrian Democratic Council continued, even if the president was killed, assassinated by these Turkish proxy groups. Eight now the proposal for a federal Syria is on the table and this is one of the main points that the political delegations of the self-administration are bringing to Damascus. This proposal is not coming just for North East Syria and the Kurdish self-administration, but for all the different minorities that are present in North East Syria. We are talking about Armenians, Syriacs, Assyrians, but also not only for North East, as in the South with other minorities like the Druz, different groups that have been for quite some years already in contact with the diplomatic bodies of the self-administration and building together this political project of the Syrian Democratic Council. And this is the idea that it’s being brought on the table “Let’s create a federal Syria with the principles of democracy that the self-administration of North East has been already putting in practice. Let’s build this almost a model of libertarian municipalism where like different cities can confederate and allowing also that the different cities have their own councils, different ethnic groups, religious groups, develop their own civil and political institutions and building this democratic confederation, this democratic confederalism and proposing this for Syria.”

Of course, this is very different of what HTS is envisioning. HTS, if we guide our analysis on what they had been doing in Idlib, they had been struggling to have a really centralized and authoritarian governance system that probably they expect to supplant just the centralized government of the Ba’ath regime with themselves and impose themselves as a central authority. It’s true that they don’t have capacity to do that. HTS was strong in Idlib, but they don’t have any ground in these big cities that the Syrian Arab army just withdrew from. Like Halab (Allepo) is the second city of Syria. Damascus is also a really big city and they don’t have feet on the ground there, like people, militants, they don’t have their political bodies to administrate this centralized government that they could envision. So still a question how much they will be able to develop some credible proposal for a transitional government, because for sure they will need to negotiate with local authorities, with the local political bodies. The self-administration has already been doing this work of building political alliances with other forces to bring a different proposal for Syria on the table. But maybe we can see that western governments are already taking the words and the proclamations of HTS and the provisional government as official. And this is a bit of a problem because to see how much western powers are recognizing this model of authoritarian regime. Yeah. And it really reminds of what happened in Afghanistan with Taliban, even if they want to distance themselves from that.

TFSR: So, Turkey has a history of aiding Daesh or ISIS, which you’ve brought up, in order to weaponize the destruction they cause in SDF-held regions. And the DAANES has been uncomfortably sitting on prison camps for ISIS affiliates and their families, whose home countries in a lot of cases refuse to repatriate them. This is sort of a powder keg that one occasionally sees sparks near when there’s a breakout or attempted breakout or violence occurring within the camps. Can you speak about what’s important for the international and US audiences to understand about the position that the administration is in and the ways that these camps and the Daesh prisoners are weaponized by Turkey and others?

TA: Yeah. So this is a big topic and it has so many implications that to summarize, it’s going to be challenging. But a lot of people have heard from the news from the Al-Hol camp which is this vast refugee camp divided in different areas in what is known as the annex is holding most of the families that were evacuated after the war in Hajin, the last pocket of Daesh. So we are talking about the most militant and committed people to the Islamic state that was fighting until the last second. That was finally evacuated and the SDF has been ensuring the security for the area, but also their capacity to ensure security inside is extraordinarily limited. There are a lot of crazy things happening in Al-Hol. And from time to time, the anti-terror units of the SDF have to organize raids to identify some of the Daesh members that are inside because in theory it’s a camp that is only for women and, and children, but there is a constant building of networks of tunnels, of smuggling, people going in and out for in roads that are difficult to locate. And it’s really dangerous area where people that’re moving away from the ideas of the Islamic State areeven being murdered by other people in this camp. So we are talking about 40,000 people in that camp. Not all of these 40,000 are in the annex and that is the most dangerous part, but still there are a lot of people in this area so that if they break free, they will have a lot of force to revive the ideas of the caliphate.

Al-Hol is the biggest example, but the fighters of the Islamic state are not in that camp. Fighters of Islamic state are in different prisons, mostly in Heseke, but also in many other areas. These prisons are under like heavy security as the SDF is trying to ensure that food, medical assistance in case of health problems, is provided. There habe been a massive amount of resources that had been put into like sustaining the security and supplies to those prisons with constant request to different national states all around the world to take their prisoners back because we are not talking just about Syran people. Most of those, especially fighters, are also from different territories, but national states are not interested in taking these people back to their countries.

As we mentioned, Al-Hol camp is the biggest one, but there are many other camps in like different areas but Daesh is also on the ground, there are sleeping cells that are waging small scale attacks, insurgencies all around the area. In fact, with the collapse of the regime, we saw a big revival of the activity of these Islamic state cells. We are talking about more than 80 dead since the, since Bashar al-Assad left the country. They are making raids, attacking small isolated areas, killing everyone and stealing everything they can. There have been recently also attacks on checkpoints of the autonomous administration. So we see that there’s already an ongoing revival of the Islamic state that is extremely dangerous.

This is also supported by the words of the MIT, the intelligent services of Turkey that they had been using these sleeping cells to attack and this came also in combination with other elements that Turkey has been using on the ground. Not always Daesh, but also just traitors as Turkey is offering money in exchange for information about commanders, like SDF commanders, our different locations.

And this has been one of the ways that Turkey had access to information that is used to constantly attack with drones, different commanders of SDF. and for several years we have seen that almost every month, sometimes even every week, Turkey is attacking with drones, different positions and assassinating SDF commanders all over the place. So these are some of the threats that Turkey has been posing and the risk of a combination of both things is always very big. We saw in past Turkish campaigns mostly bomb power stations, oil refineries, oil stations, but they have been also often bombing the surroundings of the Al-Hol camp, even security checkpoints of Al-Hol camps to promote uprisings in the Daesh prisons. And sometimes some of the prisoners managed to escape thanks to those drone strikes by Turkey on the security facilities of these prisons and camps.

TFSR: When I had asked the question about conditions in northh east Syria at this point, I didn’t really ask about the day-to-day situation that people are experiencing is like with these frequent air raids and drone strikes. Obviously there are the targeted assassinations that you described happening, but also I know that Turkey has weaponized water in the past and access to water to cities that are within the DAANES. There was recently the SNA attacks on the Tishreen Dam, and as you mentioned, attacks on power stations and other infrastructure that’s important for civilian life there. Can you talk a little bit about what life outside of the administration officials or the SDF, has been like since Assad was overthrown, with these different invasions and jockeying forces?

TA: So these bombing campaigns have been going on for years. Turkey has been bombing the power stations and cutting the water for a long time. People have been suffering these power cuts and lack of water for several years. Right now it’s true that since the invasion in some areas this has intensified, especially as you were mentioning the Tishreen Dam, which is one of the main power supplies for a big part of Northern Syria. That has caused power cuts for a lot of people, but still it’s very recent and it’s a war. So right now, electricity is a bit secondary in most of the areas because the primary risk is that the Turkish proxies are threatening to invade most of the area. And we can see how is in these times of Turkish invasion where the system of the autonomus administrations has been reacting with more force against the threats. Now we can see that people are taking turns doing safety patrols, making sure that safety is maintained, making sure that there are no threats. Turkey is also using a lot of disinformation on the ground, spreading fake news on ocial media saying that “SDF is running away from this position,” or “SNA already entered this village.” All these things that are not true to scare population. It’s impressive to see how much people are taking the defense of the land into their own hands, how neighborhood committees are organizing checkpoints in the main streets to make sure that Asayish can be redirected to points where they are more needed. So in these times of invasion the people’s mobilization is stronger and a few hours or a few days without electricity isn’t the big worry at the moment.

TFSR: Can you talk about assertions in the recent past of known instances of corruption developing in the DAANES and the administration itself? I’m thinking claims of bribery or skimming off the top by officials in positions of power? Is this a situation you know about, is it simply rumors or is it something that is being dealt with?

TA: That’s a really interesting question because here is also when we can bring the part of critical solidarity, no? In the sense that we are here in support of the revolution and we are here supporting what the autonomous administration is doing but we are also reflecting on how things are going on the ground. And we’ve seen in the last years, especially, an increase of the corruption cases. There’re problems in the sense of people trying to steal from communal resources, bribaries and these things that are happening. At the same time, I can say that this is mostly happening in mid-levels structures, people that maybe were not ideologically aligned with the revolution, but at some point decided to join the works of the autonomous administration and managed to get to some like mid-level position of administration. And then they use these positions to steal, to divert money. For now what we are seeing is that the self-administration is also aware of that and is tackling that and is also like starting to have groups of investigation that are like following what’s happening with this money. We have been also working in support of like medical structures and we saw how in hospitals, also medicines and resources that should be destined for the people that end up in the pockets of someone.

The self-administration is starting to spend many more people and resources for investigation committees. And they are dealing quite harshly with that in the sense of when they find these corruption cases it’s mostly often just men that with some of their family members trying to make these schemes to get some money and the autonomous administration are quickly taking away the responsibility of those people and putting them in prisons for some time and trying to cut off these levels of corruption. We also see that this is this mid-level corruption is not something we see reproduced in like high levels of the administration, like people that is in like serious responsibility positions coordination of like cantons, of whole areas. These people that have been with the revolution since the beginning, these people are not easily corruptible. We can see how there’s a strong will

to stop these dynamics of corruption and that it’s not like most national states where you can see this is common in any kind of centralized government, those who are in the center of states like that often use the structures to steal and make themselves rich. Especially i think that the example that we have very close is Bashur, in Iraqi Kurdistan where the Barzani clan is running such a model of business, you know, where they run the main oil companies and a lot of money goes directly for them and for their family members. This is nothing that is not like this happening here. We can see how the the directive

levels of the autonomous administration are mostly run by people that is really believing that it’s possible to build a different way of living and they are making sure that there is no like clan or small power group that is taking hold. And they’re ensuring that there is a revolutionary spirit and a revolutionary project directing the the efforts of the self-administration.

TFSR: Demonstrations have been occurring across Germany during called-for days of action from groups like Rise Up for Rojava. After over a year of ongoing slaughter by Israel backed by Imperial core countries like the US, Germany, Britain and France despite frequent protests and lockdowns the prospect of these sorts of tactics bringing about the intended changes feels unlikely to me, but the questions of what effectiveness looks like amidst looming or real genocide across the world requires a whole conversation. Can you talk about what you know of the awareness raising for a democratic Syria, activism in other countries, pressure on Turkish business and government institutions and what sorts of international solidarity can be useful to defend and support the Rojava Revolution?

TA: Mmmhm. That’s a critical questions and for us it has also been one of the main points of reflection. Like “how to transform this international solidarity into real actions into practice that people can work with and people can develop from this?” And it’s still a big question how much this, maybe, more street protests are affecting the situation. One of the things that we can see now is that all these these campaigns and these small-level actions and protests they create social conscience. It’s no coincidence that the image of Turkey in so many places is so damaged, especially for politically conscious people. It’s now known how much Turkey has been supported supporting the Islamic State. Also because of these mobilization campaigns and the awareness of putting on the table the bad things that the Turkish state and their fascist structures had been using to fight against the Kurds. We can also remember what the origins of this state are, the first big moves made it possible for Turkey to become a state was the Armenian genocide in 1915, just at the end of the first world war. Two million Armenians were massacred and their wealth was stolen and this was one of the bases that allowed the Turkish state to build itself up. So these genocidal policies are rooted in the dynamics of the Turkish state and this is something that needs to be called out, that needs to be exposed. We can see how the one is a direct continuation of these policies now especially against the Kurdish people. So these actions of

visibility are having impacts in the social and political conscience.

Actions like boycotts can also have direct impact. We saw different groups calling for boycotting Turkish airlines. Maybe the best example has been the the campaign of BDS on Israel and this seriously has had impacts. But for sure the best solidarities are to come to Rojava and share the same fate as these people here. How many internationalists have been coming to this area to learn from the revolution, to understand what it means on the ground, what does it mean to build a stateless society, what does it mean to build a woman’s revolution, what does it mean to build social ecology? And these lessons are something that aren’t just practical solidarity of having more people here, building and developing this project. But it’s also learning and opening doors for internationalist revolutionaries from all around the world to experience what is happening here and to learn. With these lessons we can also rethink and re-evaluate our experiences in order to better adjust our programs as revolutionaries back home to make sure that our models and our ideas are in connection with the reality that we are living in. This is a very important part also of international solidarity, to learn from experiences of other revolutionary movements and develop lessons together that are not just limited to the areas where the revolutionary process happened. That can also inspire revolutionary processes all around the world.

TFSR: For those that might be interested in going there are there any organizations that they should

consider reaching out to, depending on what their abilities or interests are, that you would suggest

TA: At the moment traveling here is not easy. We see that when there are Turkish military operations, travel would often have to be done in coordination with the KRG and like what we were saying, the Barzani government is making sure that border access is limited. But here there are many internationalist groups that have been working and also learning how best tointegrate and support internationals arriving here to learn. I would not encourage one group over another, I think there are quite a lot of reflections from on the ground and many comrades have already been coming here. So I would invite whoever is interested in coming to make sure that they understand what the reality on the ground is and to try to have an overview from comrades who have been here so as to have better ideas of what area they would like to work on, or what can be the best structure for that kind of work.

TFSR: And for folks who are looking to learn more and either keep up on the ongoing and quickly changing situation, are there any news sources that you would suggest or groups that people can research online?

TA: Many structures are giving lots of updates about the situation. We can always refer to the Rojava Information Center as a quite reliable source for the situation on the ground. There’s also a signal group that is broadcasting the situation happening here on the ground and the updates are also being posted on the website of the Tekoşîna Anarşist. We just recently made a new tab where these updates of the situation on the ground are being shared on the website and there are several channels on telegram that are also reporting of the situation. But if you have interest maybe we can have you this link for joining this broadcast in signal in the show notes in case friends want to and receive daily updates with an anarchist perspective

TFSR: Well, Errico, thank you so much for having this conversation. Is there anything that i failed

to ask about that occurs to you right now that you want to mention?

TA: Maybe one of the things that we have been reflecting lately is the importance of building relations, especially with all the Syrian revolutionaries that in 2011 and 2012 were part of the protest against the regime and were proposing libertarian paths to build a revolutionary movement in the whole of Syria. The main example that we can bring now is Omar Aziz, an anarchist that was writing really interesting documents calling for confederations of local councils as a path towards the Syrian revolution. I also think that at this time if these libertarian groups of 2011 or 2012 were having these experience of local councils, could see what’s happening in northern Syria and how these communes of the Rojava revolution, which now many Arab people, Asyrian people, Armenian people are putting into practice… This can be seen as a very direct connection with the proposal of Omar Aziz and it’s something that can be brought together. Especially now that the regime has fallen, it’s time to push for a libertarian proposal, that it’s not falling into trying to rebuild a centralized state in Syria with a central government, but to push for a decentralized project where these local councils could become the main political arena for a new Syria.

TFSR: Okay on that note thank you very much for having the conversation, i really appreciate it.

TA: My pleasure thank you.

TFSR: Say hello to the hevals for me.

Art As A Vehicle For Anarchist Ideas (ACAB 2024)

photo with a line of riot cops covered in various colors of paint
Donwload This Episode

This week, we’re sharing another presentation from the 2024 ACABookfair in so-called Asheville. On youtube you’ll find the audio sync’d up with the slideshow presentation from the bookfair by visiting youtube.com/@thefinalstrawradio.

The following is a recording from the 2024 Another Carolina Anarchist Bookfair in so-called Asheville, NC. You can find more info and recordings from this and other years at ACABookfair.NoBlogs.Org. This is a presentation entitled Art as a Vehicle for Anarchist Ideas with N.O. Bonzo, Des Revol, and Sugarbombing World. From the description:

“Three longtime anarchist artists—N.O. Bonzo, Des Revol, and Sugarbombing World—will explore the role that art plays in resistance and movements, along with remembrance of the past and visions of the future. They’ll look at ways that art brings people together, and can serve as a great tool, whether in organizing and agitating, and/or inviting people into anarchism.”

Red Onion Prison Updates + Antifa-OST Case in Germany

This week, we’re featuring two segments.

logo featuring an onion with a person behind bars in the pearl and the logo for "Soli Antifa-Ost"
Download This Episode

First up, Phil Wilayto of the Virginia Defenders talks about conditions at Red Onion State Prison in western Virginia where a number of prisoners have been self-immolating in order to escape longterm isolation and racist guard violence. You can find Phil’s article on the SF Bay View which includes a clip of Noelle Hanrahan on Al-Jazeera talking about this subject, and past interviews with and about Kevin “Rashid” Johnson at this link here. [00:01:02 – 00:41:15]

Then, you’ll hear Jo, an anarchist from Germany, speaking about the recent building of conspiracy cases against antifascists known as Antifa-Ost, or Antifa East. You can find our prior interview about NSU Watch and Day X here. [ 00:44:45 – 01:11:42 ]

More info on Antifa-Ost and the Budapest Structure:

. … . ..

Featured Track:

Peter Gelderloos on Memory, Community, Organization and Struggle

book covers of "They Will Beat the Memory Out of Us: Forcing Nonviolence on Forgetful Movements" and "Organization, Community, Continuity"
Download This Episode

This week, we’re airing an interview with anarchist author, Peter Gelderloos about two of his recent books They Will Beat the Memory Out of Us: Forcing Nonviolence on Forgetful Movements (Pluto Books, 2024) as well as Organization, Community, Continuity (Detritus, 2024). For this episode, we speak on movement memory, community, care work, organization and struggle.

Past interviews with Peter can be found here and his collaboration with Sub.Media is here.

. … . ..

Transcription:

TFSR: All right, so welcome back to the show Peter. Would you please introduce yourself for the audience?

Peter Gelderloos: Hi, thanks for having me again. My name is Peter Gelderloos. I am a lifelong anarchist. I do a lot of writing based on my experience in movements. I’ve lived most of my adult life in Catalonia, in and around Barcelona. I’m back in the in the states now in Cleveland. Happy to be on the show again.

TFSR: Thanks for taking the time. I really appreciate it. I’m excited to speak to you again. In the last year you had two books published, that we’ll be touching on today. The titles are They Will Beat the Memory Out of Us: Forcing Nonviolence on Forgetful Movements which came out from Pluto Press and also Organization, Community, Continuity, an essay published alongside the essay For an Anti-Authoritarian Inequality out from Detritus Books. These two publications touch on a lot of topics, but the threads that I’m hoping we can pull on in this conversation, relate to questions of preparation, collaboration and orientation as the Trump administration returns to office and beyond that too. I know a lot of people have, while not rooting for a Harris regime, are bracing themselves for a new Trump presidency. In the year of run up to his 2016 election, there was a lot of organizing and escalation towards resistance from many on the center and the left of the population living in the US, that I don’t feel there was this time around. There was definitely agitation and organizing in the street concerning Palestine but there weren’t huge Trump demonstrations that caused street fighting, or that caused communities that were hosting them to to really bring up their hackles and their defenses. Can you talk a bit about memory and movement, the erasure of that memory or the organizing of resistance in this situation?

Peter Gelderloos: To understand some of the loss of momentum, or this feeling of collective strength or collective response that we’re experiencing right now after Trump’s re-election and to understand strategically the kind of difficulties that we will probably face in the next couple years, immediately going forward, it’s really necessary to look at what things were done effectively and what sort of mistakes were made during the first Trump presidency and in the intervening years. I think we primarily are not doing that or not remembering what we need to be remembering for two reasons. One is a lack of continuity, a lack of collective or inter-generational continuity. Whether because a lot of the people who were in the streets, who were organizing in 2016/2017 are not so active or not so much in communication anymore. Whether it’s because folks who have started more recently to to organize, to struggle, are not in connection with folks who were earlier, with our memories and experiences. Or a combination of those things. I have a feeling we’ll get to that later. Then another reason is that we’re not referring to this wealth of knowledge, because a victory, as much as a defeat is a wealth of knowledge for a struggle. It’s a really important experience that we can learn from if we actually do the work of digesting it. That, I think, is the key of this other reason, which is that there really was not a collective digestion of mistakes that were made. I really wish that that we could just have a movement culture where we were able to name mistakes, whether it was our own, or mistakes that we think other people or other currents made without the ego. Just having a baseline of solidarity, that we’re there for each other, we have each other’s backs. All of us will make mistakes. All of us will get it wrong sometimes, and we will be stronger if we can just talk about that in a supportive way, but a critical, honest way. Ego gets in the way of that. Which is just my own personal advice. If you see comrades who lead with ego, if ego for them is more important than these other questions, don’t feed the beast. Give more support and more time and more collaboration to other comrades.
We come up, most of us, in a very conflict avoidant culture. That’s another reason. Because of this lack of memory, a lot of folks get into the struggle with unrealistic expectations about how long it takes, about the fact that it’s not a geometric process. It’s not a line that just angles upward, that struggles get quantitatively stronger and stronger and stronger until we win. There’s always dips, there’s ebbs and flows. There are moments that require very different ways of showing up. So people lose hope, or after pouring themselves into this organizing, into this struggle or facing situations of risk, situations of harm, situations that can be really traumatizing, they they give up in one way or another. They turn to these simpler solutions that can come from political parties, from single-issue NGO organizing, that can come from a more authoritarian approach to struggle. These different things are generally what I’m referring to when I talk about the left.

There’s another loss of historical memory: the left originally refers to the left side of the aisle in the parliament, or in Congress, in the congressional building. It comes from one of the French Revolutions, and the anarchists in most of the world still remember that (at the very least linguistically) and understand that the left doesn’t refer to anarchists or other fully anti-State approaches to struggle. A lot of indigenous movements that are still fighting against colonialism today, fighting to be able to revitalize their cultures and win back their lands and their ways of relating with the land. Which historically and traditionally means without the State. Obviously, that’s not at all to say that the right and the left are the same. We’re never going to make any kind of alliance of convenience with the right. We’re not going to tolerate intentionally, openly and consciously oppressive behaviors and approaches and attitudes. We’re going to fight that in every way. But it means having a more complex understanding of of the left. In most other languages, people remember that distinction, that the left wing is focused on transforming society either within the government or by seizing state power. By those means, every left wing movement that has ever succeeded has maintained capitalism rather than abolishing it. Lenin himself named the system that he was implementing State Capitalism. Clearly, if you look at all the stats of GDP growth, etc, and their place in the world economy, no country from China to Cuba that has a socialist government can actually claim to have abolished capitalism. However, most of the rank and file of the left (people who aren’t on the payroll, people who are not highly paid union bureaucrats or party leaders or NGO directors pulling in six figures) most of that rank and file are sincere. They do actually want to make the world a better place. They’re not rabid transphobes and white supremacists and xenophobes like the base of the right wing is. So we need to understand that they’ve given up their agency by by choosing to follow these more authoritarian approaches. But they still have real desires for some kind of healthy transformation for the world.

Basically, when dealing with the left we need to understand that the leadership of the left is trying to do, ultimately, the same thing as the right wing, which is to protect state authority. They want to be the ones in control of it, but they want to refresh state authority. They want to renovate it so that it can improve its image, improve its strategies for social control. The left honestly tends to be more effective and more intelligent in going about that. Whereas the right wing tends to be so paranoid about their various forms of entitlement that they often are the ones who %$#@ the bed and actually weaken state power. So that’s another really important point of historical memory that would stretch back through centuries of examples. It’s a question of continuity that’s more lateral. It’s not just going back to previous generations, but it’s going to other continents, the way that people have always moved across continents, the way that our movements have always been as global as we’ve been capable of sharing experiences across borders. So that’s really important. It’s like naming that relationship with the left. Why? Because that was forgotten. In 2016/2017 Obama was possibly one of the most progressive presidents in most of our lifetimes. He deported more people, he continued to to carry out mass murder in in Iraq and Afghanistan, the situation with the ecological crisis got worse, police killings got worse. We still had to respond to police killings with the riots and the uprisings in the streets in Oakland, in Ferguson, in New York City and so many other places. None of that got better, and in some cases, it got worse.
We remembered this. We realized this. Many people developed more of a critique of the left, or the idea that change was going to come through a more progressive shift in the in the mainstream institutions. When Trump comes in, one of his first measures (I believe it was an executive order), what he referred to as a Muslim Ban. Which was to basically ban immigration from from a number of primarily Muslim countries. Trump, wasn’t hiding it, it was so clearly a prejudicial policy that goes against all the laws on the books that have to do with discrimination around religion and race. The NGOs, the Democrats, as far left as you want to go within the institutions couldn’t stop it. So many people have forgotten about that or are unaware of what happened whether they were active back then or not, whether they’ve started more recently. Our movements blocked that by occupying and shutting down pretty much every international airport in the country. And that was an illegal thing to do. It was just a great example of direct action. People didn’t jump through all the bureaucratic hoops which were proven not to work, which we know and should know don’t work. We shut it down ourselves as a movement and stopped that policy.

In general, many of those occupations were organized in an in an anarchic way. They weren’t controlled by by parties or NGOs. They happened very quickly, very spontaneously. Showing one of the strengths of anarchism is that people don’t have to identify as anarchists. They don’t have to have experience as anarchists to work in these anarchic ways or to begin organizing in these anarchic ways. Of course, there’s always a learning process there but everyone can get started at any time. We also see that in the anti-police uprisings. We see that in the mutual aid responses to these worsening so-called natural disasters, which are really disasters of capitalism. They’re disasters of the ecological crisis caused by capitalism and the State. The best first responses, the responses that saved the most lives, that distribute the most resources, that keep people safe, are the ones organized along the logic of mutual aid were most of the time by people who have never participated in social movements, who don’t even know what anarchism is. Likewise, many of the airport shutdowns went down that way (and in a number of others), in a lot of the first ones, it was anarchists, people from our movement who initiated and organized these first shutdowns and that stopped it.

Let’s contrast that with another thing that happened during those years and immediately after. The right wing was increasingly mobilizing in the streets and on the internet, and people who had been organizing against those kind of white supremacists and transphobic threats in the past were people of color. Whether they belong to political organizations or organizing on a more informal, neighborhood level.

Anti-Racist Action was an organization in the US that actually adapted Anti-Fascist Action from from Europe. In general, European movements have a lot of difficulty understanding and focusing on questions of racism and white supremacy. So Anti-Racist Action was adapted for that more anti-racist consciousness in in the US. Trans groups, sex workers, feminist groups. Those are the groups who for a long time have been organizing, have been the main line of defense against the white supremacists (the transphobes who are out there murdering people and not wearing badges) with this general fear, this panic that spread also to the center and all throughout the left and to a lot of anarchists who had forgotten that we’re not actually a part of the left. We need to be working with the rank and file, with the base, the grassroots of the left, but we need to have a strong criticism and a critical awareness of the function of the leadership of the left fell. We fell into a sort of Anti-fascist common front, right?
This would be one of the first times in the US that you have an Anti-fascist common front. That’s more associated with countries like France and Spain, where it was used to control and to limit revolutionaries, to control and limit anarchists and others. But in the US, we can find similar popular fronts and united fronts in organizing against the Great Depression. The idea of a popular front was created largely as an adaptation of earlier models, like everything is. It was created largely by the Communist Party before World War Two. A lot of folks don’t know, but the communists actually had a policy of allying with the Nazis early on, in order to try to fight against their rivals in the left, to fight against the Social. Democrats, anarchists, etc. As soon as the Nazis took power, they realized that they made a major miscalculation. They never admitted their error. So you just shifted to a popular front, or a sort of left unity kind of strategy. Which is another way for them to try to maintain control, and another way to to limit the potential of the most radical edge of these struggles; often the only part of the struggles that’s actually looking at the root causes of these problems that we’re dealing with.
There was a lot of that in like 1930’s organizing during the Great Depression, organizing against capitalism, where you had a very strong movement. So much so that people on top were afraid of revolution. That’s what brought, arguably, the most progressive presidential administration in the US in the 20th century, which was FDR. This brought us a lot more social benefits, welfare, Social Security, things like that. That was the left trying to get out ahead of a revolution and to try to buy off the working classes. That was also in the interests of the Communist Party who was trying to lead the left, but also not actually as interested in a revolution as their propaganda might have led one to believe. Communist parties all around the world at that time basically bent to the interest of of the USSR, which is most of all interested in having different alliances on the geopolitical stage. This kind of left wing unity helps bring about these reforms, for sure, but they prevented a revolution. They prevented us as the under classes, all oppressed and exploited in these different and intersecting and entangled ways, from actually being able to transform society ourselves, to define our own problems and define our needs and define the solutions to those needs. As we can see, again and again and again. So this brings up, once again, the question of memory. A government reform is not something that we can trust, not only because it’s often dehumanizing, it often creates new problems or is horrible in some way.

A year and a half ago, I got diagnosed with a brain tumor and I’m not being flippant or hyperbolic when I say getting Medicare and Medicaid and dealing with the government bureaucracy has been much, much, much more difficult than dealing with a potentially lethal brain tumor. It’s designed to be that way. Once you go through it, you can see it has to be intentional for it to be so torturous and dehumanizing of a process. Also we can’t trust these governmental reforms because they’re temporary. They will take them away from us as soon as we are no longer a threat to them, as soon as it’s in their interests to take them away from us. So abortion…that was great that Roe v. Wade was on the books for a few decades. That’s in large part due to feminist organizing, a movement that was a combination of direct action, more revolutionary approaches, more illegal approaches and also NGOs.

Feminists like Gloria Steinem (who worked for the CIA to rat out more revolutionary feminists) or people working in NGOs, who are making the big bucks to advocate for a good cause and working with the government and helping spread the lie, helping pass on this fiction that the government is a neutral institution. If it’s in the right hand, that it can be a friendly instrument, it can be a tool that protects us, that keeps us safe. It’s there for our own good. With a Trump victory, I have no idea if Medicaid might get slashed. I might lose my health care, might lose those benefits. Abortion, with just a different Supreme Court, that’s out. All of these different progressive changes that protects people, that might, in some way, actually make life better. If it’s the government that’s that’s ensuring it, then it’s not in our hands. It’s temporary. So this was largely forgotten in a lot of ways as the years of the first Trump term went on. From a really promising, more radical start, to more collaboration with the left.

The switch from anti-racism to anti-fascism also kind of required people to dramatize and pretend, invent or actually believe that some kind of fascist coup was imminent. You can go back to a lot of texts in 2018-2020 predicting that there would be a fascist takeover of government. As far as I’ve seen, none of the people who were publishing those very alarmist predictions ever made any kind of correction or ever acknowledged that they were wrong about that. I’d love to talk a little bit about what’s damaging about that. So much of history constantly gets rewritten. Trump’s attempt at electoral obstructionism and preventing the certification of the votes in the 2020 election is very different from a coup. Ironically, John Bolton, this arch-paleoconservative, put it pretty well. [He’s] one of the architects of earlier Republican administrations, the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, and someone who himself orchestrated many coups around the world in the Global South. He put it very well that a coup takes a lot more organization than what happened in January 2021. What happened in January 2021 was very half assed. It was poorly organized. There was no military leadership on board, not enough media on board, no coordination. It was Trump throwing a dangerous temper tantrum that had had a body count, albeit a small one. It is certainly problematic for any kind of democracy. Absolutely. But it is a long shot from a coup.

It’s important to recognize that for also the reason that Trumps tendency towards being hyperbolic. Everything is always the worst thing and the most unjust thing that’s ever happened. An actual military coup is a lot more dangerous and would require a different response. The people who are predicting “Oh, there’s gonna be a right wing takeover of power, and there’s gonna be a military dictatorship.” We’re not actually carrying out the kinds of preparation that we need to be carrying out when that is more possible. It is more possible now at this point, and also it really minimizes the harm caused by democracy.

Democracy is from its origins, a white supremacist system based in enslavement and in colonialism. A lot of the alarmism around Fascism is middle class people or white people, or people who are not exposed normally to the everyday violence that democracies use against its most marginalized subjects. They’re worrying about getting the same treatment. That was really worrying to me. There was more alarmism around a type of of government that would bring the kinds of violence that have always been there for a lot of people, to a larger group of people. That seemed to be happening, not only in an unrealistic way, not only in an ahistorical way, but in a way that was not very solid, realistic and just not very well thought out.

TFSR: I think on that point you can point to the protests in Israel concerning the Netanyahu administration, concerning the changes in the judiciary there and executive power, and concerns about Netanyahu being able to continue holding power, even though he’s been kicked out once. These “pro-democracy demonstrations” are not saying anything about the existence of an ethno-religious state sitting on occupied land, terrorizing and murdering and ethnic cleansing Palestinian people, Arab people, other people that are not Israeli subjects.

The lack of preparation and the lack of terrain that Trump was working from- his footing was unsure when he was doing this. It was very much like him, where it’s not really prepared for, it’s just kind of a last minute, last ditch effort. So that was very ham-fisted, what happened in 2021. But the fact that the intention was there, and that there were some people that were willing to follow through with it, to some degree, was concerning. The fact that there has been a large amount of the voting population that voted for him- about the same numbers last time as I understand the popular vote- voted for him again, with the knowledge that (even if they’re drinking their own Kool Aid, about the stolen election or whatever) he has the intention, he’s done this before, he denies that it was a bad thing. What’s to keep him from doing it again? Obviously, power is continuing to stand behind him in a lot of ways.

A lot of capitalist institutions, and dark reaction people like Peter Thiel are backing him. So even if he’s not going to be the one that would hold power after that, they’re not against the idea of somebody holding power. Having attempted this thing, and who might very well try to do the same thing again. I don’t think the people that backed him in this last election necessarily believe that he did a great job in the first round, but that he was willing to do the kind of stuff that they want. That’s explains something like Project 2025, as idealistic or imperfect as it might be in action. That’s why that stuff is scary to me.

Peter Gelderloos: I think that is definitely accurate. That leads into some of the more evolved or advanced dangers that we’re facing in 2024 and 2025 that we weren’t actually facing in 2016 or 2020. We can look at that in one way, as Trump kind of changed the rules of politics by never admitting to being wrong, never admitting to have lost anything, and never admitting to any kind of embarrassment. That really, really worked. The present media landscape can help with that.

One critical moment from the perspective of democracy (which is not my perspective, but it’s helpful to be aware of): a huge part of the Republican Party establishment actually doesn’t do well under Trump, has been largely replaced since Trump. They saw that but they also saw that they would have more chances to be closer to power in any kind of Republican administration than in a Democratic administration. There was that moment when the house had impeached him, and the vast majority of Republicans in the Senate decided to not go ahead and turn that impeachment into actual penal consequences for Trump. They could have had Trump locked up and barred from future office at that moment but they were worried about empowering the Democrats. They made a short term decision. These kind of political structures are designed to favor short term decisions over long term decisions.

So even though a good part of the Republican establishment actually wants some kind of functioning democracy because it’s also in their interest, they don’t want the US to totally mess up its position on the world stage. For example, they certainly don’t want tariffs to like tank the US economy. But they made a short term decision to try to avoid giving the Democrats momentum. If something had happened to Trump that was beyond his control to brush off or deny like going to prison then I think the whole movement behind him would have collapsed. He finally would have become (in his own words) a loser. He’s been able to cast himself as both a victim and a hero by shrugging off or fighting off, or smirking in the face of everything that he’s been caught doing. That’s a little bit about how this kind of trajectory is tied to a built in weakness of the democratic system itself. It’s good to bring that up. Large parts of of the right wing of the Republican establishment that are critical of Trump are still helping enable it.

Can I mention another thing that more involves the left, from the end of Trump’s first presidency, that I think is showing up now?

TFSR: Please.

Peter Gelderloos: The left was able to regenerate itself, to spare itself from some criticism, through these ideas of left wing unity that are built into anti-fascism. It’s important to recognize that there are a lot of elements out there that three years out of every four, are very critical of the Democrats. They will talk about the abolition of the prison system, or the abolition of police. They will talk about how horrible the border regime is, and all those things. But when an election year comes around, they dramatically change their discourse. They might maintain some semblance of criticism of the Democratic Party, but they will begin to phrase it as “the necessary choice” or “the better of two options”, things like that. If they’re able to build up strength, if they’re able to build up credibility between elections, we should have been able to see over this last year the ways that they will use it and the ways that they won’t use it when an election is on the line. An election means if the Democrats are in power, a lot in terms of funding for NGOs. That means a lot in terms of who has their hand on the money faucet. It makes a big difference to the people in the left who are on the payroll of the leaders of the left.

Another important thing that was happening was on the internet, in social media. Anarchists were not only important in the streets combating these actual neo-Nazis, or the KKK or the proud boys, and these other white supremacist, far-right organizations- some of which were democratic, and some of which were definitely pro-fascist alliance of convenience- but also on the internet. Social media, undoubtedly, has become one of the most important tools, not just for the right, but for the far-right. It’s a tool of propaganda, it’s a tool of recruitment, it’s a tool of organizing. It’s a tool of pushing the entire political framework farther right, of normalizing things that after World War Two, after the Holocaust, so much of the world was saying “never again” to. Now we’re seeing it all over again.

There were a number of anarchist platforms which we’re doing the best that they could to confront these discourses, to create this sense of inspiration that we could fight back against these Nazis. Though the largest platforms were banned, on Facebook and then on Twitter or X at the end of the Trump administration and at the beginning of the Biden administration.

TFSR: And also Patreon and PayPal and payment platforms in addition.

Peter Gelderloos: Yes. Thank you for naming those as well.

Yeah, this was what could be called a movement amongst the tech world. Which is a very important, vital part of the newer sectors in the capitalist economy. Because they’re newer, the more traditional institutions of democratic power don’t already have structures in place or strategies in place for how to deal with them.    At the instigation of right-wing figures within those companies- whether it’s PayPal’s founding figures, or other folks rising the ranks, who were connected the Republican Party, far-right people- they pushed for these anarchist platforms to be banned. This was not based on any kind of criteria that were being used against other groups. It was very clearly to silence anarchist voices that were organizing against racism, against transphobia, against the borders. After that, it was really free range for the far-right.

Not only did that allow them to increase their recruiting and increase their organizing, it allowed them to increasingly push the entire discourse farther right and normalize these really horrible, dangerous and harmful positions. It’s not just a matter of opinion. These are some of the same people attacking trans folks, shooting Black Lives Matter protesters or signing up as cops or soldiers and carrying out the killing themselves. These are some of the same people. Not only are they pushing things farther right, but also this was a really key area that allowed the dominance of the far-right over the entire right.

Normally, after a big electoral upset, when a political party loses the way that Trump and the Republican Party lost in the 2020 elections, you would have a change of guard. You would reconsider the strategies and switch who’s in charge. There was some attempt by the Republicans to do that, it held short of getting Trump sent to prison or barred from holding future office. I think a lot of them had the expectation that he would fade away. These social media spaces, these internet spaces, are insulated from the turbulence of electoral politics in a way that the rest of the party structure was not. They are basically immune. Just like how they’re immune to fact, they’re also immune to consequence. It’s one of the existential features of social media and of these online spaces.

So Trump’s base in social media (and really the base of the far-right in social media) was not just preserved, it was expanded in a critical moment. That prevented any kind of course correction for the right-wing. Not just in the US, but in a lot of other countries as well, in a way that’s really relevant to this emerging (at times, very strategically important) coalition building with the far-right in Israel. Which is, of course, allied with the rabidly antisemitic, far-right in Europe, with Hungry, with Orban, with Bolsonaro (who is someone even more organized, more together and more coherently in favor of of a dictatorship than Trump, in Brazil.)

TFSR: Though their attempted coup was also pretty comedic, too.

Peter Gelderloos: Yeah, the final thing that ties that together is, what did the left-wing do in response to what was very openly censorship? With very few exceptions they did nothing. They don’t talk about it. Most news analysis nowadays is looking to “oh my gosh. Let’s analyze the role that the far-right social media played in all of this and Trump’s new victory.” They won’t mention that these major platforms, mostly anarchist platforms, were censored in the social media world.

So they’ve made it easier for the far right to co-op this whole free speech discourse as though they’re the champions of free speech and Democrats are just punishing everyone for using politically incorrect language. They’re helping hide the fact that the far right got a huge boost from the censorship of the people and political currents that were actually going against and organizing against them and getting to the roots of the problem. The left stayed silent on that. In part because of these mistaken strategies from a lot of anarchists (that helped the left revitalize itself), and in part because the left favored its own short term interests and stabbed us in the back all over again, which was not surprising at all. They helped participate in our censorship, silencing, loss of resources and platforms and all of that. Now you have a much weaker situation in social movements. That’s the long story of how I wanted to tie that in, and the way that loss of memory, lack of self-criticism and refusal to learn lessons ties into that.

Part of the reason that we’re seeing such a weaker response right now is because the last few years have been really demoralizing. The right wing and how it’s gone farther and farther right has a part in that and the left wing also has a role in that. Not just with this tacit support for the censorship. I’m living in Ohio now and for the vast majority of the electoral cycle every Republican ad had only two focuses. The Democrats were talking about the economy and them failing to talk about the economy certainly was a dumb strategy on their part. The Republican campaign was based on almost exclusively transphobia and criminalization and demonization of immigrants, in a very obviously racially coded way. So white supremacy and transphobia were the foundations of the Republican campaign, and at least in Ohio. None of the Democratic ads, none of the Democratic propaganda, none of the discourse, pushed back on those things. So a large part of the left, a large part of the Democrats, being more at the center-left, participated in this shift to the right by not pushing back on the xenophobia, not pushing back on the transphobia.

TFSR: One thing that I’d like to just briefly talk about, if that’s okay. I’m I’m open to critiques of the left, but it’s such a vague term that sometimes it sends up little alarms for me, because I’ve definitely heard people who have shifted through post-left to far-right perspectives, who are critical of the left. But then it’s not about the institutions. It’s often about the expressed values. Where I at least put the values that are innate to a right wing perspective, or a far right perspective, is that there are innate, natural hierarchies in the world, and there’s a natural order that humans can understand and define. I think that the left tends to have an ideological tendency that challenges that and says that structures are socially constructed. They can look the ways that we want them to, that undermine essentialism (as understood within one culture or another) as defining features for human beings, or animals, or natural life.    That’s just more complex,    it’s more of a web. I’d love if you could say a few things about that, like holding criticism of the capital l Left, while at the same time holding the potential for solidarity with people that identify as being on the left. Because of those, I won’t say egalitarian, but at least values that don’t posit more worth to one person than another.

Peter Gelderloos: I think that’s really important. The way that you summed up the right is really succinct, really accurate and lays bare how important it is not to fall into the kind of bull#$% about how “Oh, they’re using some kind of rebellious discourse about not trusting the government.”- that there would be any possibility of some kind of relationship of convenience with with the right wing. I mean, I tried to get at this earlier.

TFSR: No Boogaloo.

Peter Gelderloos: [laughs] It is really vital to work with folks who identify with the left and who consider themselves leftist. We grow up in a society (especially in the Anglophone world, in the English speaking world) that it’s either the right or the left. The right are the racists, the sexist and the transphobes and all that. They believe in these so-called natural hierarchies like you named. People think that the only way to oppose that is by joining the left and supporting the left. They’re not given that historical context that actually, in practice today (and certainly in its origins historically) the left was just another part of government, the left of the aisle, another strategy for holding and wielding State power. They’re taught that the State is a neutral instrument, that it can be used for good or for bad, depending on who’s at the wheel.

Sincerity is highly important. That support for some idea of freedom and dignity for everyone and not believing in these supposedly natural hierarchies of race or gender or any of that. That’s all super important. It just needs to be done in a critical way, to show that those who are in charge the left, their first priority (we can look at the historical record) has always been to to maintain, often renovate, reform but to maintain these institutions of power. Which are the originators of mass enslavement, of the ecological crisis, of borders and all those things.

TFSR: I think that’s really well put. The methodologies shape the structures that come out of them, or the reverse. If you’re wondering “Well, these groups say this stuff that resonates with me,” there’s also the question of “How are they organizing? What sort of part do you have in this in the meantime, and how, how does this reflect the vision of the world that that group is creating?”
Similarly, I think, just to put a pin in the discussion about democracy, the far right will also speak negatively against democracy. I think that there’s a little bit of linguistic overlap that shows some honesty in the critique from the anarchist or the autonomous position, of democratic institutions: saying that these are formulated off of the Greek city-states like Athens, or property holding, gendered hierarchies, citizenship and slave owning, are all very central parts to it. That was reproduced in the US system. People like neo-feudalists will say, “Yes, exactly. That’s what we need to go back to. Thomas Jefferson would have loved this.”

The system has recuperated the idea of people making decisions about the things that directly impact their lives. The word democracy has become the ideal, and the thing that they can say, “This is us. This is this in application.” However, being critical of that doesn’t mean being pro-elitism and a centralized, decision making model. It’s just saying that you’re pointing to something without actually understanding the word. Maybe it’s time for us to reformulate what we mean when we’re pointing to this, what values we’re extracting and how we move forward organizationally.

Peter Gelderloos: Absolutely. If I may put one more pin in democracy: currently the far right (or at the very least, the most relevant, dangerous part of the far right)    criticizes democracy and say the US actually isn’t a democracy. The US is a republic. Part of what they’re saying is that they want to limit the formal rights of participation and the voice that you are supposedly constitutionally given within the government of the United States. Whether it’s a democracy or republic. They want to champion a more authoritarian system which is still electoral. It’s not an outright dictatorship. That’s folks like Peter Hegseth who is the current Defense Department nominee. He was on Fox News, was a major television presenter, Army vet, and also a strong representative of Christian Nationalism. I want to name that when anarchists are criticizing democracy it’s because the promises that democracy makes around participation and freedom have always been false promises. Those promises can actually be much better served through decentralized, networked, collective, self-organization, of a variety of models that each group of people would choose and develop for themselves on the basis of solidarity and mutual aid and all that without the State.

We’re going for more of that, where we actually get to be free with full empowerment and access to all the resources for happiness. Not just survival but the happiness that everyone needs. Opposed to the far right criticizing democracy. Some of them want a dictatorship and the more relevant, more dangerous parts are the Christian Nationalists who want to reduce the rights that people expect and are championing a Republic rather than the democracy.

TFSR: Pivoting a little bit, but talking more about how we envision the world, how we move forward as anarchists, how we organize within the communities that we exist in, as well as our chosen communities. Within anarchist movements, at least in the last few decades and earlier, there have been recurring debates between positions that could be generally referred to as organizationalism versus informalism, which you discuss in the organization portion of the Detritus release.

Since that was published in Catalan in 2022, I’m guessing it was directed at different audiences than the new release was, but I think that you’re framing and approach towards different coordinating tools is really useful in this time, where people in our audience may be looking to get organized, and because we have this limited memory, this lack of intergenerational communication, we’re mostly working with what we’ve been handed or have been able to excavate ourselves. So can you talk a little bit about the question of coordination, formality and what methods we might approach the tasks at hands with?

Peter Gelderloos: Like you mentioned, I wrote Organization, Continuity and Community in 2022 in Catalan. Probably the most important thing to be aware of: The context is that in Catalonia and across the Spanish State, there is more density in the anarchist movement. With more density, there’s more organization of a variety of kinds across the spectrum, from informal to more formal. There are elements to that writing that I believe to be valid anywhere outside of that context (which is different from the States). In the States, anarchist organization tends to be very project oriented. In part that’s a function of less less density, a smaller proportion of anarchists in the population and a much broader territory. Also, more geographical space between different anarchists, nuclei, groups, or collectives of anarchists. So in the States, organization tends to manifest as as project, collective projects, whether that is some kind of publishing or media project, whether it’s a social center…

TFSR: Food Not Bombs?

Peter Gelderloos: Food Not Bombs, exactly. So there’s less relationship between projects. That might even make it harder to conceive of the importance of the organizational question, in regards to relationships between different groups, different projects, different structures. Like you mentioned, it largely comes down to what often plays out as a dogmatic contest between formalism and informalism, affinity groups versus Federation and their organizational structures. I don’t think that’s very helpful. I don’t think it’s it is actually really paying attention to how organization works.

There’s actually a quote from an anti-capitalist, armed group during the Franco years, that some of my older friends in Catalonia participated in, which bypassed an unhelpful way of looking at the problem. They said, organization is the organization of the tasks of the struggle. A cliched English way of rendering that would be: Organization is a verb. Which I kind of have to shudder a little bit after that because, technically, it’s not. It’s a noun. But grammar woes aside, it means that the whole purpose is finding the tools to focus and to amplify the sorts of actions and activities that you’re carrying out. This helps us take the organizational question out of a dogmatic terrain but not into a terrain of false relativism, where everything’s the same, where one form of organization is just as good as valid as the next, because it’s not.

But we entirely miss the point when we start to build up our identities or get more dogmatic about whether we prefer a more informal or formal structure. There are many, many different organizational modes or structures in the toolbox that are valid. They have different advantages and disadvantages. The most helpful thing is to be able to look at these without having our sense of identity tied into them, and comparing the advantages and the disadvantages that they each have. Every tool has things that it’s good at and things that it’s really not made for. We should be comparing those to the situation that we’re facing, to the things that we’re trying to accomplish. Then, even better, is getting out of that, going beyond that to look at the relationship between the different methods of organizing and the different organizational structures that are in play. So not being dogmatic about it.

How do we know we’re not being dogmatic about it, but then also not falling into like a false relativism? There are organizational modes that can never, ever be compatible with anarchic ends, like the State. The State is a type of machine that destroys freedom, that is extractivist, that disempowers people, that violently organizes people, coercively organizes people in order to steal all of our power away and our resources, and concentrate those resources and that power within the centralizing framework. That is the nature of a State every bit as much as it is the nature of an automobile (as currently designed) to to burn gasoline. Making it electric powered changes some things. That requires a completely different motor. The previous motor is not going to be able to run. You’re not going to plug it into the wall. Even if you do change that motor it still is stuck to driving. If you get a brain tumor you’re not going to go to a car to fix that for you, even if a surgeon is driving the car. So that’s kind of the way that… when people look at organizations like this completely neutral thing, or the State as like a neutral thing, that metaphor can help to see how naive or unrealistic that expectation is.

TFSR: They’re technologies, right? They’re techniques and technologies that are best applied towards what they’ve been developed for.

Peter Gelderloos: Yeah, and are incapable of doing certain other things.

TFSR: Did say something about eating pasta with a hammer?

Peter Gelderloos: I think so. Yeah. You can tell I was in a Mediterranean country when I wrote that. I’m fighting back my impulse to do a stereotypical Italian accent. But hey, I’m actually not politically correct. It’s fun to insult white people. So anyways, I’ll leave that up to you with the final cut. But whatever. I said it. Come at me. [laughs]

That brings us to the importance of what I refer to sometimes as the ecosystem of revolt, or an ecosystemic approach to understanding organization. Pay attention out there. We will never fit all of the movement into a single organization, and doing that actually hurts our resistance, hurts our struggle. I’m pretty sure it was in this text, I looked at different, broader modes that the movement might be in when it segmented or compartmentalized, fragmented or fractured and unified. A unified movement is a very weak movement. All of our eggs are in one basket. There’s going to be a lot more political interests, more possibility for informal or formal hierarchies developing. It’s just more vulnerable because we don’t have all of the benefits of a complex, diverse array of advantages and disadvantages in different organizations. It’s the One Big Union thing. It doesn’t work. When we’ve gotten close to that, it has self-defeated. It has self-destructed. I can’t remember exactly how I translated it. Either segmented or compartmentalized. That’s when you have a lot of different organizational structures or initiatives, and they don’t really communicate. Either because there’s bad blood, because it’s after some kind of movement breakup, or just because there’s not a lot of movement density, or not good movement practices of solidarity and communication. That means these different organizational experiences aren’t learning from one another. They’re not in active solidarity. They’re not helping each other out. They’re not bringing their their array of advantages and disadvantages to the table in a strategic way.

Time and again, if you look at like the times when we’re strongest in our revolutionary movements it’s when it’s a more fragmented, fractured or splintered organizational landscape. It’s a lot easier to understand from on the inside, but every understanding is going to be different based on where you are in this broader anarchist space. It’s going to be extremely difficult for to understand from above, which is the perspective of of policing. Whether that’s from the NGOs that are trying to tame and civilize the whole thing, or from the perspective of the actual police who are trying to figure out who’s doing what, how to turn them against each other, how to repress and control them.

It also enables us, in situ, from an embodied place within our specific context, our specific struggles, our specific organizational methods, to strategically craft our relationships and solidarity. To find out in what circumstances does it make sense to work really closely with other projects and initiatives? How do we use meta levels of organization to structure or to amplify or to channel that collaboration, that cooperation? In what circumstances is it better to just leave some space, have some air. We’ll do things our way. They’ll do things their way. There might be some conflict. We’ll do our best to not violate solidarity, in how we handle that conflict. We’ll have disagreements sometimes. We might hate each other a little bit, but as long as we can recognize that the other side aren’t cops and they’re doing the best they can, we might learn something from them. Even if we’re strongly in disagreement.

It’s an ecosystem. The reason that should not lead us towards a false relativism of “everything’s equal”. It’s like the old diversity of tactics approach: everything is equally valid, and we just shouldn’t criticize anything. An ecosystem is helped by having a diversity of members, a lot of different organisms, different approaches to life that are creating different things within this habitat that we all create together. We’re creating one another’s niches. We’re creating one another’s spaces to exist, and nutrients and so on and so forth. The way that a healthy ecosystem does. We eat one another, and that’s a good thing. It’s sometimes an uncomfortable experience, dying and being eaten, but that gets to the heart of life and how it’s able to keep going and be resilient.

Not everything fits in an ecosystem. A petrochemical plant doesn’t fit in an ecosystem. A parking lot is a dead zone. So there are organizational modes that create dead zones, like the State, like these NGOs, things like that. White supremacist organizations or organizing methods, those create dead zones. They make the ecosystem weaker. They don’t fall within that generosity of extending solidarity to a wide form of organizational approaches. Rather than saying “the affinity group is the correct model. Everyone needs to be in affinity groups and networks of affinity groups” or “the Federation is the correct model. Everyone needs to form a local chapter of our federation and join it.” Monopolizing is an ecosystem destroyer. Monopolizing kills life, whether that’s out in the economy and the relationship between the economy and the ecology, or whether that’s in our movements.

TFSR: Thank you for that. So I appreciate how both books really speak about the existing rhizomal networks of relationships that we carry, foster and we are carried by, throughout our lifetimes. As we change through our lives, in body and imagination and desire and in need, the importance of sustaining movements and communities- where many ways of being and ways of engaging politically can exist- moves to the fore. Whether it’s because our bodies change, we’re no longer able to physically do certain things, our brains change, we have children, we have care relationships with elders, our interests or desires change as I said. Can you talk a bit about the role of care, the idea of burnout and the scope of cultures of resistance?

Peter Gelderloos: That’s one of the most important questions. It’s definitely one of the focuses of both books. Let’s contrast the idea of care and the idea of burnout. Burnout: that’s the mechanical technology, and that shows a certain view of treating ourselves like machines, understanding ourselves as machines. We’re not machines. I’m not criticizing you for using that term, because I used it well into the process of writing the book, until I realized, “Crap. I gotta stop. I gotta stop talking about it in this way and thinking about it in this way.” It’s not just a word choice that actually doesn’t matter that much. It really does reflect how we’re treating ourselves and how we’re treating one another in the course of the struggle. And I think we can see that when we look at the range of things that are referred to as burnout, right?

People who are exhausted, because we were running a bail fund for a few weeks after protests. That was after months of meeting after meeting after meeting, preparing these big protests. Now there’s some people facing trial, and we’re shifting into trial support and all that. And we’re, we’re just exhausted. We’re pushing ourselves beyond what we can actually handle. There’s some interviews in the book with some comrades who who really focus on the support work and how there’s an endless need for support. But we can’t decide how much of this work we do, based on the need out there. We have to decide based on our own capacity.

That’s a very mechanical approach. It shows no care for the instrument. It’s like if this power washer can only wash 1000 trash bins a day before it breaks down, then we’re going to use it till it breaks and we’re going to get a better one. That’s how we’ve been treating ourselves a lot of the time rather than treating one another and treating ourselves as people, as living beings that only so much capacity, that also need to be taken care of.

Going back years, I’ve heard folks in the movement who are really the militants, the more charismatic figures (militant more, not in an English sense, so more charismatic figures) the ones who have more informal power, the ones who are doing capital “O” Organizing, more in the spotlight. Someone is dealing with trauma. Someone is raising kids, someone is dealing with a chronic health problem. Someone has shifted to a different project, and that person is referred to as having dropped out, or having burnt out. Which is just absolutely not true. A lot of the times, the things that they’re doing might actually be more strategic or more helpful, more useful. In any case, they don’t need to be put on this linear ranking, like “what is the more valid form of struggle?” It’s important to be able to make criticisms, and making criticisms of some of these more charismatic modes of showing up in the struggle.

Actually, I will make a ranking there: If there’s care work that’s collective, informed by an awareness of how capitalism works, of how white supremacy works, of how patriarchy works, and if it’s also informed by an awareness of how to combat those systems of oppression…that kind of collective, solidaristic, revolutionary, transformative care work, I will say, is more important than most of the capital “O” Organizing or this more charismatic, “who’s the most popular activist” way of participating in struggle.

In general, I think we need to shift away from any kind of linear ranking. Not just reversing the existing ranking system, but naming it, being aware that these kind of more heroic activities and these more charismatic activities are valued so much more than all of these other forms of struggle and organizing. On the one hand we need to recognize the necessary mutuality between different ways of showing up, identifying ways of showing up that are not helpful and poison the soil for everybody. But then find ways that allow us, as as we age, as different things happen in our lives, to shift between one way of showing up and another. Care work is very undervalued. I’m someone who’s spent my life arguing against pacifism and non-violence but there is a downside, which pacifism does not at all provide the answer for. There are these modes of struggle that are very heroic where more attention and more reward is given to people who, at the very least, give off the appearance that they’re into the hardcore %$#@: The sabotage, the fighting with cops, fighting with Nazis and stuff like that. That’s not a great security culture to reward people who very clearly give off the impression that “Oh yeah, I do that illegal $#@!”

TFSR: That Brandon Darby energy?

Peter Gelderloos: Yeah, absolutely. Look up Brandon Darby, folks who don’t know that name. Speaking of memory. It’s also just so, so harmful to us and to our movements. We need fighting with the cops. We need to know how to carry out sabotage, to sabotage different kinds of machinery that’s destructive to life. We need to know how to defend ourselves from white supremacist militias and all of those things. Those are extremely valuable. It shouldn’t be done with bravado. That can be traumatizing. It’s a huge risk and those roles need support.

But Jesus, long term care work, taking care of people with chronic health problems, having chronic health problems and still showing up because of course, disproportionately the people who are doing care work, are folks with health problems or who are differently abled. Folks who are often not cis-men are disproportionately doing that work. So it’s no coincidence that work is often invisibilized. Movements can’t survive without that. We can’t have intergenerational movements where we’re actually learning from the experiences of previous generations without that care work, without people who focus on education, without people who focus on growing food, on medical care. There are so many things that need to happen and that are happening. It’s sad when only some of those things happen. It’s even sadder when all of these different activities necessary for revolutionary struggle are actually occurring and then when someone shifts from a more rewarded form, to a more invisiblized form, they’re referred to as having dropped out or burnt out, or it’s not even recognized as a form of struggle.

TFSR: Yeah, I think that those points and the points that you make in the book beyond that, really flesh out that in a way that I appreciate hearing. Probably in the early 2000s, I first came across some zine, from probably Quiver Distro, which was a Santa Cruz based insurrectional anarchist zine distro, or maybe it was from Green Anarchy. They republished something, I think, from Do or Die number nine, which was an insurrectionary anarchist magazine coming out of the Earth First! movement and the anti-road movement in the UK in the late 90s. It was talking about the importance of creating cultures of resistance that can expand and extend across generations, because the fight that we’re in is so long.
This is shifting from how should we be engaging around care and around folks whose needs, or abilities, or desires change… I think that there’s a point in the book where you talk about how do we think about this struggle with a longer scope? Obviously we’re on a timeline. Temperatures are changing, storms are getting more intense, bio-regions are getting poisoned, water systems are getting poisoned. Simultaneously, this is a fight that not only do we have to sustain for a long period of time, but has been sustained for long periods of time. So learning about that intergenerationality and fostering an ecosystem where all of the stages of a life cycle have space, have importance and relevance and are appreciated, feels really important. Our enemies are looking at the movements for ecological justice, for gender justice, for black liberation, as insurgencies. Industries, policing, military, governance, are all looking at it in terms of those things. I know it’s pulling in militaristic language but I think that it’s important to think about how we foster these relationships. How do we expand our communities of care and resistance, and how do we start talking about both of those things in the same breath, as elements of the same thing?

Peter Gelderloos: That’s a great way of putting it. The only militaristic language that you pulled in, was the fact that States view our movements through the lens of counterinsurgency. The works that have been published like David Galula and Kilcullen. They analyzed their wars of oppression and colonialism in Algeria, in Vietnam, in Kenya, in Detroit, in Iraq and Los Angeles. They do develop a science of of control. That’s gone through a major shift over the last, especially half century. Counterinsurgency is one of the preeminent lenses that they use. It makes sense that their framework is a militaristic framework, because that’s kind of one of the bases of their power.

TFSR: So humans tell stories, to inspire, to transmit historical knowledge and experience and to consider our desires and next steps. States and other authoritarian structures recognize this and attempt to supplant that process as an ongoing counterinsurgency attempting to flatten the world and the possibility of our living. Like that oft quoted, Ursula Le Guin statement about imagining a world beyond the divine right of kings.

Just to throw in an anecdote right now and this may seem a little a little random: We’re about to come up on the 25th anniversary of the WTO protests in Seattle in 1999, which I participated in as a young anarchist. There’s a narrative that’s often spun by progressive and leftist organizations and publishers around this event, as this moment of the coming together of labor, environmental issues and anti-colonial movements and going into the streets, getting mass arrested, shutting down the delegates from getting into the spaces and shutting down the organizing of the event, in the face of massive police violence, by putting our bodies on the line, by telling the truth and by forcing the State to basically release everyone from the jail a couple days before the end of the conference. We just overwhelmed them with our mass civil disobedience. I think that homogenizes and flattens the experience of what I saw up there.

I was not especially radical. I was coming into my own and learning about the world. Breaking the Spell is, like an interesting documentary that points to and it shows the breaking of the like the civility of disobedience through the bringing of tactics that the city was not prepared for, the destruction of property, the breaking of windows, the conflict with the police. Some of it brought the spirit of Eugene at the time, with a burgeoning insurrectionary and green anarchist movement there, or from other parts of the Pacific Northwest, like Portland. Obviously the black bloc was not invented there, but that was one of the first times that it made a major part of conversation around the country. People had seen it during the first Gulf War, brought into some cities as a resistance method but that tool, in and of itself, is just one in a toolbox.

I would just want to comment on the flattening of that image and how, for me, one of the most important things was those different voices and different approaches, looking at how capitalism is imposed, and how the Bretton Woods model of globalization, is terrible. But also that these different methods of resistance that are uncivil- just looking at the reactions of people On the left to it and the institutions of power- but how disruptive it actually was, how much attention it brought to this demonstration and to the issues at hand. It gave agency to the people that were in the streets. Just to keep going for a second, about seven months later, because I used to work for Project Censored (this media critique organization out of the west coast), a few of us were sent down to Los Angeles for the Democratic National Convention in 2000. We were tasked with watching the media coverage throughout the week to see what narratives were being posited about the demonstrations, what was being talked about on the inside, and about the issues that people were trying to bring to this mass protest, to the Democratic National Convention at the Staples Center.

To me, just to see that process of the shifting of stories and the flattening of things into a different power-positive narrative, was on the first day. On the Monday- I think that’s when Rage Against the Machine and some other bands had a concert outside of the Staples Center- and the police (it wasn’t because of Rage), but the police decided “this is getting too raucous. We want to shut this down.” They closed off one of the exits to this giant caged-in area where people were listening to speakers and bands and such, and then started making announcements that people had to leave, otherwise they would be detained or beaten or whatever. So the media coverage, the local news channels on that night, when they were reporting on what was happening, reported on the massive violence by police, the escalation of violence by police, the use of cops on horseback with giant batons swatting people in the crowd, just willy nilly, just creating terror, just injuring people. Because the journalists were there, the TV was live. This is the experience that they had. Within a day or two, the narratives about the violence of that night on the local news, had all switched and they were talking about how terrible it was that people had thrown marbles underneath the police horses to make them ineffective, or the police horses had gotten injured because cops riding on their backs were batoning people, and people were reacting to them.

So for me, that sort of quick shift in narrative that disguises the violence that was laid bare at that moment by the State and the possibility of resistance among the crowd, and then sort of eschews everything, turns it into a circus. Like, There’s something there to the story, about how memory is important. We need to dig a little deeper when we’re handed narratives. Digression aside, I wonder if you could talk about the options that were told around the table in resistance, and the weaving of generations and learning lessons from this long struggle. That was a lot. I apologize.

Peter Gelderloos: No, not at all. I think that example about the DNC and that change and how the media approached it is is really important. It helps us see that these are institutions that will always work within a range of ways and not outside of that range. Ultimately, their effect and their purpose is to maintain power within the present system, which obviously is very oppressive and exploitative. Also, these are institutions that are staffed by people. They don’t work without people, but they’re not in themselves people. They are institutions.

We might get a simplistic analysis, which is simplistic but true. The media is a part of these horrible power structures. They’re not going to really inform us. The reality is more complex than that, because sometimes the people who make the institution run, are also getting beaten up by cops, like you named. They’re upset about that, and they report on that. So people will misunderstand the meaning of that when you have these moments that are a little bit more exceptional, that are a little bit less standard. So they they misinterpret that by thinking “Oh, well, the media is capable of reporting the truth about how the police actually function.” You can never construct a whole picture from a single data point. The one exceptional data point, for every thousand standard ones, of the media actually reporting in a fairly honest way, on police brutality. It is a reflection of part of the facts, part of the truth, which is that, up until now anyways, like these institutions need people to run. They need people working for them. That doesn’t erase the fact that these institutions only exist and they only continue through time, because they are overwhelmingly effective at getting people to put aside their personhood and function as machines. Which is why a thousand days to one, the media are going to have a manipulative and dishonest portrayal of what the police are there for. That’s a really important story for multiple reasons, but among them that one.

I want to add more to what you shared about the protests in Seattle in 1999 against the World Trade Organization. You shared about how you were there. You saw how the narrative that is being spread now is- you call that, I think, homogenizing or flattening. I’d go even further and say that there was a level of erasure. We can just really call it a fully dishonest portrayal, that it was these big labor unions and environmental activists dressed up as turtles, and other folks like that, who carried out civil disobedience and shifted the narrative. The perspective that I want to share is as someone who wasn’t there. I grew up in Virginia. At that point in time, 1999, I knew that our society was a very unhealthy and unjust place. I knew that for a variety of reasons, my survival and well being were threatened by this dominant society. I had no idea that any social movements still existed that wanted to change this, that really, truly wanted to get to the roots of this and change it. I had no idea that there were still anarchists. I thought they’d all died in the 19th century, and I didn’t know that there were any revolutionary movements anywhere in the world, since the 60’s or 70’s. The internet then was not where it’s at now.

I identified with anarchism in some way. I fought back against some of the manifestations of power and this kind of threat that was before me, using the tools that that I could find. Often alone, sometimes with a friend or two, without any perspective that there’s a possibility of revolutionary change. Until I saw those riots on on the television. They would not have been on the television all the way across the country, in Virginia (more than some really brief, five second segment that made it look like some meeting of bureaucrats) if it hadn’t been for the black bloc, if it hadn’t been for the rioting. So it was not the people dressed up as turtles. It was not people carrying out civil disobedience. In my experience, which was transformative, the most important thing happening there, the most transformative thing, was the rights carried out by the black bloc. That was the moment in which I realized, I had people out there, that I wasn’t alone in this. From that moment forward I proactively found other anarchists. There weren’t many in my time, for sure, but I traveled, I found them and connected to the movement.
It’s that kind of erasure of the actual history even though, yes, there were also people carrying out civil disobedience dressed as turtles, big union showing and all of that, all that is relevant, all that is like necessary to name, but really the transformative element there was this return to a combative and revolutionary approach to these problems. That erasure is systematic nowadays. People who hear a little bit about the civil rights movement or the movement against white supremacy back in the 50’s and 60’s, they think Birmingham was a civil disobedience campaign. The reason that Birmingham gets recorded in the history books and that it was actually directly connected to most of the progressive reforms won by that movement, is because it turned into a riot, because people gave up on the non-violence, and they burned down all the white businesses in the center of Birmingham, which we know was the capital of segregation in the South. That erasure is systematic.

That can point us to this really interesting connection between memory and imagination. Sometimes there’s similar areas of the brain that get used when we’re remembering things and when we’re imagining things. There’s this idea that has some validity, that we might be incapable of carrying out social transformations that we’re incapable of imagining. I think it’s very true that social movements these days are less imaginative than in the past. A century ago, anti-capitalist and anti-colonial movements would frequently share imaginings of a world without capitalism, of a world without colonialism. This is vital. Those movements had a lot of overlap, dialogue with and continuity from anti-colonial movements and earlier pre-industrial, anti-capitalist movements. These imaginings of a radical, revolutionary social transformation were also drawing heavily on the memory of indigenous societies that were traditionally Stateless and that remembered that they didn’t need a State. They remembered how colonialism actually came about, how capitalism actually came to be spread globally, that it was through violence, through invasion. They remembered their societies from before that, how they were much healthier societies. In many, many, many cases, these were not patriarchal societies. These were not status societies. These were more cooperative, more solidaristic societies.

In Europe, where whiteness and colonialism were born, a lot of these anti-capitalist factory workers’ imaginary was actually guided by some surviving memory of the generations before them, who lived in the countryside in relationship with the commons as the commons were being enclosed. In fact, absolutely contrary to the predictions of Marx and Engels, who also treated people like machines in a lot of ways, the places where anti-capitalist movements in Europe were the strongest were not where capitalism’s productive forces were most advanced. They were precisely in those locations where the new urban industrial class was the most recent and had maintained the most continuity of memory from their peasant grandparents and great grandparents who were struggling against the enclosure of the commons, who remembered the word communism. It’s sad that it’s been so corrupted and so twisted by this wretched party which has destroyed revolutionary possibilities around the world for over a century. Because it should beckon us to remember the commons, to remember when (even in Europe) survival was achieved collectively. It was achieved through some kind of mutual solidaristic relationship, not just with other human beings but with our ecosystem, the land, the forests, with rivers, the wells, the seas, and all these other commons that were taken away so that capitalism could thrive. Because they remembered that, they were also more able to imagine other ways of living than we’re currently able to.

TFSR: Well, Peter, thank you so much for this conversation. I really appreciate it. I know that you’ve been on book tour recently. This is going to come out pretty soon after we have this conversation. Are there any upcoming tour dates that you want to mention, and can you name your Substack, or any other ways that people can follow your work and engage with you?

Peter Gelderloos: I am hoping to do some more talks, primarily in the Midwest, because I just don’t have the health and the financial resources right now to go much, much farther afield. That will be early next year. People can subscribe for free. All the articles are free on my Substack: petergelderloos.substack.com, or also @survivingleviathan on Substack. I’m not gonna direct people to Twitter. For the moment Bluesky is a little bit less wretched. It’s just my name at Bluesky. I have an account there. I generally don’t waste a lot of time with the bull%$@# thing and usually just link to writings or listenings of mine, or other people that I think are worthy. I have also been working with the great folks at subMedia, one of the more long, lasting and really, really valuable media sites that that we anarchists have. We’re working on a three part video series for those who prefer to watch and listen and to read, called It’s Revolution or Death. Part 1: Short Term Investments is already out. The other parts, two and three will come out in the next month or two. It starts out looking at the official responses to the ecological crisis, and then goes from there. I’ve been lucky to work with those folks because they’re very much pros. They’re really good at the whole video format.

TFSR: The first one is a beautiful and disturbing film, and a good thing to watch with a group of people to spark a conversation, much like some of the past series that subMedia has done.

Peter Gelderloos: Yeah, also really good to share if you have friends or relatives who are not flat-earthers. Like, they recognize that climate change exists, but they have some faith in the existing framework, they think that the UN and green energy is going to solve the problem, part one is designed to show how it’s actually making the situation work. So I think we’ll have something of interest for just about anyone who is willing to recognize that we live on a planet.

TFSR: Well, thanks a lot Peter, take care, and hope to get to talk to you soon.

Peter Gelderloos: Thanks so much for having me. It’s always a pleasure to talk. Take care.

NC Womens Prisons + Overcrowding Post-Helene in NCDAP

This week, we’re featuring two interviews concerning prison conditions in North Carolina.

"TFSR 11-17-24 | NC Womens Prisons + Overcrowding Post-Helene" featuring a photo of women in a county jail in NC and a photo of Benevolence Farm
Download This Episode

First up, you’ll hear from Elizabeth Simpson of Emancipate NC, one of the signatories to a public letter to this state’s department of corrections calling for the release of hundreds of prisoners in North Carolina. This comes in response to over-crowding and understaffing of prisons following the emergency transfer of 2,000 prisoners from prisons in the western part of the state effected by Hurricane Helene. [00:01:15 – 00:18:50]

Then, Mona Evans of Benevolence Farm, a post-release residence and re-entry program in North Carolina for people coming out of the women’s prisons talks about their programs, re-entry and some of the realities faced inside womens prisons in this state.   [00:20:04 – 01:04:40]

In this conversation I mentioned Victoria Law’s latest book, Corridors of Contagion: How the Pandemic Exposed the Cruelties of Incarceration (Haymarket Books). You can find our 2013 interview with her about her 2nd edition of Resistance Behind Bars: The Struggles of Incarcerated Women at this link.

Other projects Mona mentioned include:

  • Arise Collective re-entry program
  • DownhomeNC engages in a number of progressive causes in this state, including the bail fund that Benevolence Farms is currently running. You can find our 2020 interview with them here.

. … . ..

Featured Track:

  • Women on the Inside by Sistas In The Pit from The We That Sets Us Free: Building A World Without Prisons

Continue reading NC Womens Prisons + Overcrowding Post-Helene in NCDAP

Out-Organizing Antisemitism with Ben Lorber and Shane Burley

book cover of "Safety Through Solidarity" with a star of david made of interlocking hands
Download This Episode

A recent conversation we had with the Ben Lorber and Shane Burley, co-authors of the recently published book, Safety Through Solidarity: A Radical Guide to Fighting Antisemitism. For the hour we discuss the roots of antisemitism in the West, pushing back on Zionism in the midst of the genocidal war on Palestinians, a rebirth of Bundism and addressing antisemitism in left spaces. I definitely recommend this book to folks and hope you enjoy the chat! And as always, thanks for supporting this project.

If you’re a non-Pacifica station looking for this weeks 58 minute radio show, you can find it here. We’re hoping Archive.Org will be back online and allow us to upload files there soon.

Past interviews with Shane:

. … . ..

Featured Track:

Continue reading Out-Organizing Antisemitism with Ben Lorber and Shane Burley

Prisons and Prisoner Solidarity with Eric King, Jake Conroy and Josh Davidson

Prisons and Prisoner Solidarity with Eric King, Jake Conroy and Josh Davidson

collage of photos of Eric King smiling with his book, Josh Harper and Jake conroy
Download This Episode

This week we’re sharing a discussion recorded some months back in the pacific northwest featuring former political prisoners Eric King, who went in for actions in solidarity with the Ferguson Uprising in 2014, and Jake Conroy, who was convicted for coordinating successful anti-vivisection divestment campaigns against Huntington Life Sciences as one of the SHAC7. They are joined by Eric’s co-author of Rattling The Cages, Josh Davidson. We hope you appreciate the wisdom and passion of the discussion.

You can find Jake’s youtube channel The Cranky Vegan for a long-running and ongoing commentary on animal liberation topics. And you can follow Eric’s panels with other former prisoners and supporters on the instagram for Rattling The Cages and past media and articles by and about Eric (including past interviews we’ve done with or about him) at SupportEricKing.org and find more from Josh at linktr.ee/JoshDavidson..

Prior interviews:

There are two upcoming Firestorm Books political prisoner panel talks in November, both of which you won’t want to miss.

  • Saturday, Nov. 9th, 7:00pm – 8:30pm ET, Eric King will be talking with Jason and Jeremy Hammond. Register now!
  • Saturday, Nov. 23, 7:00pm – 8:30pm ET, Eric will be talking with Linda Evans, Laura Whitehorn, and Nicole Kissane. Register now!

A few other things (per Josh):

  • BPP/BLA comrade and former NY Panther 21 defendant Dhoruba bin Wahad needs our support. Help if you can!
  • The 2025 Certain Days: Freedom for Political Prisoners calendar is now available, and it’s beautiful. Get one or 100 today!
  • If you missed the last panel talk with Eric, Jake Conroy, and Claude Marks – or any of the previous 6 Firestorm Books panel talkswatch them here.
  • Don’t stop talking about Gaza, genocide, and US imperialism. Long live all those dying every day for Palestine.

. … . ..

Featured Track:

  • Walking Is Still Honest by Against Me! from Crimes As Forgiven By…

Continue reading Prisons and Prisoner Solidarity with Eric King, Jake Conroy and Josh Davidson

Jail and Housing Conditions, Recovery in Post-Helene Asheville

Jail and Housing Conditions, Recovery in Post-Helene Asheville

WNC Tenants network logo, Sumud Collective logo and Asheville Community Bail Fund logoWNC Tenants network logo, Sumud Collective logo and Asheville Community Bail Fund logoThis week on The Final Straw Radio, you’ll hear three  interviews relating to community needs and recovering concerning Hurricane Helene in Western North Carolina.

If you’re a non-Pacifica radio station airing the show, here’s a link for the 58 minute radio edition while Archive.Org continues to be down due to hacker attacks.

First up, you’ll hear Jen Hampton of the WNC Tenants Network about the re-opening of eviction courts in Buncombe County and conditions of housing in an already difficulty place to live.

Then, Bruce and G talk from the Asheville Community Bail Fund speak about conditions in the local jail during and after this unnatural disaster.

Finally, Yousef of the Palestinian and Arab-led Sumud Collective speaks about his experience of the storm and recovery work in the region in an interview recorded a couple of weeks ago.

Other links from Jen:

. … . ..

Featured Track:

  • Reflections by The Supremes from Gold

Continue reading Jail and Housing Conditions, Recovery in Post-Helene Asheville

Mutual Aid and Disaster Relief in Southern Appalachia

Mutual Aid and Disaster Relief in Southern Appalachia

<a href='https://traffic.libsyn.com/forcedn/thefinalstrawradio/tfsr-podcast-20241006.mp3">Download This Episode</a>Over the first weekend of October, 2024, there was a deluge from two storms (including level 4 Hurricane Helene) descended on southern Appalachia, mostly on the eastern side which includes Asheville and other parts of western NC, eastern TN, south eastern Ohio, and northern Georgia. At the point of this recording there are over 200 known dead and hundreds missing, portions of the region continue to be without electricity or cellular service, and where the toxic mud and water linger and separate people from medical and community care. This episode, we’re speaking with two people who’ve lived in the region and have been helping other residents distribute storm relief.

Groups worth following doing work on the ground include:

. … . ..

Featured Tracks:

  • 500 Year Flood by Adam Pope
  • Day 3 on Pigeon River by Sarah Howell

Continue reading Mutual Aid and Disaster Relief in Southern Appalachia

Mutt on the (Incomplete) Black Autonomy Reader

Mutt on the (Incomplete) Black Autonomy Reader

a collage featuring photos of Black folks studying, playing, farming and organizing
Download This Episode

This week, you’ll hear my conversation with Mutt, editor of a new and incomplete Black Autonomy Reader, contributor to Muntjac Magazine, Organise! Magazine and Seditionist Distro. We speak about Black Anarchism, intellectual property, community self-defense in response to the racist riots that spread around the UK in August of 2024 as well as other topics. And keep an ear out for an interview on the ItsGoingDown podcast with Mutt as well.

A benefit for Anti-Raids network.

. … . ..

Featured Track:

  • No Agreement by Fela Kuti and Africa 70 from No Agreement

Continue reading Mutt on the (Incomplete) Black Autonomy Reader