User loginNavigationAnarchist Events
Action!Donation |
Where there's smoke.... Anarchism after the RNC
The next morning, I got a call from a friend alerting me that the cops were raiding anarchist houses across south Minneapolis. Eventually, four houses had been raided, and eight members of the Welcoming Committee jailed. Over the next week, over 800 people would be arrested in conjunction with the protests. Many would be injured by rubber bullets, concussion grenades, tear gas, pepper spray, and other weaponry. The state imposed a high cost on expressing dissent. II. No doubt, the prospect of a major political convention being delayed or cancelled due to protest activity would be extremely embarrassing for the ruling elites. However, we must also be aware of the way that the capitalist class uses threats to the existing order to legitimize the violence with which it maintains its hold on the planet. The experiences of the Italian left in the 1970s provide valuable historical lessons for today’s radical movements. In the 1970s, the Italian state, backed by the United States government, faced a massive social insurgency that threatened the stability of capitalism. In response to the rise of autonomous movements of workers, women, students, youth, and pretty much everyone else, the state launched a campaign of terror. In 1969, the Piazza Fontana was bombed in a 'false flag' attack, killing 17 people and injuring 88. The attack was attributed to anarchists, although it had in fact been planned by neofascists with the support of US covert operatives. Their goal was to delegitimize the left, stem the tide of social insurgency, and push the government to declare a state of emergency in which the left could be crushed. In the wake of the bombing, the state arrested 4000 people, many of them anarchists. This was the first in a series of over 140 bombings, kidnappings, assassinations, beatings, and other assaults perpetrated by the state and neofascist right in order to demonize the left. This was dubbed the "Strategy of Tension." The objective is to render the cultural environment impervious to social movement organizing by discrediting, and then eliminating the interventionist left. To borrow a phrase from counterinsurgency strategy, the Strategy of Tension 'drains the swamp,' raising the stakes for participation in social struggles, leaving only the most hard core activists alone on the field of battle where they can be easily targeted and destroyed. The ensuing defense work serves to distract activists from actual struggles, forcing them to devote time, energy, and money to bailing comrades out of jail. III. On one side were the proponents of mass organization and mass violence, the friends of "Comrade P 38," as we can call them. They favored self-defense of the movement on the broadest possible basis. The leading theorist of this wing of the movement were the intellectuals clustered around Antonio Negri and the other 'Autonomists.’ The movement coelesced into a gallaxy of collectives, workplace committees, small political parties, campaigns, free radio stations, and other autonomous direct action initiatives that was termed the "Area of Autonomy" or Autonomía. Participants in Autonomía were by and large ready to defend themselves in battles with police that occurred at every major demonstration. It was not uncommon for one or two people to be left dead in the street after a protest or strike. In self-defense, some autonomists carried the P 38 revolver, which was cheaply available on the black market. When the pigs fired on the people, the people answered in kind. However, violence never became the focus of the movement. The emphasis remained on building mass organizations to expand human freedom. On the other side of the split were the Red Brigades and other hierarchical, closed armed formations. For them, the armed struggle was more than defense, it was a revolutionary strategy in itself. Their organization was the mirror of the state. Through their violence, the state no longer needed provocateurs or false flag attacks. The actions of the Brigades alienated much of the working class base of the movements and provided plenty of rationale for the inevitable crackdown. The Brigades strategy of armed struggled fit neatly within the state's own strategy of tension. In 1979, the Italian state arrested all the leading figures of the Autonomist project, including Negri and the proponents of the mass, participatory movement. Negri and others were then framed as the intellectual authors, or even as the leaders, of the Red Brigades. Caught between the forces of the state on one side, and the advance of an armed, hierarchical left on the other, the autonomous movements of 1970s Italy lost popular support and were crushed by a wave of mass arrests. It took over a decade for the left to recover. III. In the case of the Red Brigades, their tactics ended up playing into the hands of the state, touching off a wave of repression that the left was unprepared for, pushing the possibility of revolution even farther into the future. The state was able to place the Red Brigades' strategy within its own, making the actions of the Brigades into the motor of their own destruction. We need to turn the strategy of tension upside down. We must develop a form of antipolitical judo, making the actions of the state into a motor for the growth of our movements. Currently, when we go on the offensive as a small minority, the state cracks down with the approval of the public. The state frames their actions as defense against a small number of terrorists or 'criminal anarchists' who endanger the public welfare. Only when non-anarchists are caught up the crossfire do we hear anything about the state "going too far." We cannot depend on the police making mistakes in order to make our point or to delegitimize the state. We must build a broad base of solidarity so that an injury to one is truly an injury to all. The state must know that when they strike one, they strike one million. We must defend victims of state repression, such as the RNC 8. However, the only real deterrent to repression is the support and solidarity of autonomous mass organizations. More importantly, this kind of revolutionary base is the only force that will have the actual power to abolish the capitalist system while ending the racism, sexism, homophobia, and national chauvinism that plague the world. IV. How can we participate in this historical moment to nudge the world toward revolution? In the United States, we are ill-prepared to answer this question. Most anarchists have played little meaningful role in any major movement in almost a decade. Most anarchists practically stood by watching during the largest anti-war protests in history in 2003. In 2006, most anarchists had virtually nothing to contribute to the largest workers movement in decades, as millions of immigrant workers stepped out of the shadows and into the streets. For our own benefit, and for the future of this planet, we must begin engaging with our coworkers, neighbors, classmates, and acquaintances to build the kind of power we will need to overthrow the state, seize the means of production, and handle the repression that comes down as we do so. We have as much to learn as we have to teach, but either way, we have a role to play. We need to begin the work of building a revolutionary social bloc, a coalition of grassroots, autonomous mass organizations based in neighborhoods, homes, schools, and workplaces, fighting for self-determination. In some places this means joining existing organizations, in other places it means building new ones. Many anarchists would love to participate in a revolutionary movement of the broad masses, but lack the vision, hope, or skills to get from point A to point B. We need to look for lessons from other times, places, and movements for how to participate radically in mass movements. We don't have to look far into the past for examples. In Europe, Africa, and even the United States, organizations like the Spanish CNT, the Italian FdCA, the Irish WSM, the North American WSA, and others continue a rich tradition of engaged revolutionary anarchism the winds its way through many of the major struggles of the last century. But we may be able to draw the greatest inspiration from South America. Many are familiar with the powerful autonomous movements that have rocked South America over the last decades: the Piqueteros and reclaimed factories in Argentina, Landless Peasants Movement in Brazil, the fight against water privatization and for indigenous rights in Bolivia, to name a few. The role of Anarchists in these movements is less widely known. In Latin America, Anarchists have developed a praxis of involvement in social movements that they call "Especifismo." The mainstay of Especifismo is the belief that anarchists must form a "specifically" Anarchist organization to formulate and enact a common strategy of engagement with society. This engagement is called "social insertion," which means that the Anarchist organization joins non-Anarchists in mass struggle or mass organizations around common interests. These struggles can include strikes, rent strikes, struggles for control of the land, struggles against the police and gentrification, struggles against sexism, for the right to abortion, against bus fare increases, or any other issue that angers working people and moves them to act. In the struggles, Anarchists put forward viable proposals and ideas based on an anti-authoritarian, anti-statist approach to organizing. As struggles are won, regular people gain more power against the bosses and the state. Those who are oppressed within the working class build their own autonomous organizations, fighting for the specific demands of women, queers, people of color, immigrants, indigenous, students, youth, the disabled, and other groups. Contradictions emerge, conflicts occur, the movement grows stronger. This is not nearly as sexy as shutting things down and getting branded as a terrorist, but over the long-term, this patient, conscientious approach is the only way to lay the basis for revolution in the United States itself. IV. Background Reading On the RNC: On the Italian Movements A Few Anarchist Organizations |
PollNews commentsRecent blog posts
SearchCheck out the Anarchist News newsletter. |
snitches get stitches
snitches get stitches
"So be yourself, and mind
"So be yourself, and mind yer fuckin' business."
diggin this. there's some
diggin this. there's some good points
well said, now is the time
well said, now is the time to go out and plant seeds, help people see an alternative and give them a taste of freedom and power. These are amazing times to be alive and awake.
i like it. these are the
i like it. these are the conversations i've been having lately. definitely interesting shifts happening, in a good way.
Yawn. Plattformist strawmen
Yawn. Plattformist strawmen arguments. Its a shame that the debate always get stuck on these. It gets in the way of real communication and debate about what strategy anarchists should be using. I guess the divide is too big to overcome. Oh well.
you mean between building
you mean between building real autonomous working class power and privileged white kid drop out adventurism? agreed.
No i mean between anarchists
No i mean between anarchists and closet-troskyists. But perhaps it is a good thing. Idiot.
no, i believe you meant
no, i believe you meant anarchists and those who will never do anything that matters or changes anything. except community gardens and maybe a broken starbucks window.
Ah, like the plattformists
Ah, like the plattformists ever changed anything. No i mean between anarchists and those with pipedreams about building the anarchist party...80 years too late!
i kept thinking each one of
i kept thinking each one of these was going to be an actual flame back, but they were all in agreement, you are all fucking amazing!
Don't worry, you're both
Don't worry, you're both idiots.
Sorry comrade, the W.S.A. is
Sorry comrade, the W.S.A. is not a closet tro. organization. We stand foresquare on anarchist principles
http://workersolidarity.org/?page_id=78
Wasn't by any
Wasn't by any (neo)platformist(s).
Um. I happen to know the origin of this paper, and it wasn't from any member(s) of any platformist organizations. Try again.
How about you or they
How about you or they explain why they are for "especifismo". A better question would be how they drew the conclusions they did with the history they exposed. The connection seems to be lacking in why a specific anarchist organization is needed. I didn't see anything that showed this to be a solution that could be drawn and the history didn't do more than gloss over specific anarchist organizations.
Really? Then why does it
Really? Then why does it argue for platformist organisation? Why does it list all those platformist organisations at the end? Bullshit that this is not platformist.
I also know the author and
I also know the author and have for several years now. True, he is not a member of any platformist organizations because there aren't any where we live. He is generally very pro-platformism and has advocated forming such an organization, I'm fairly sure. I'm not 100% sure if he fully identifies with platformism at this point, but he's definitely into their ideas and orgs. And he is extremely dismissive (and down right vengeful at times) toward insurrectionists and to be honest, I don't think that he approaches it with an open mind or actually tries to understand their theories without stereotyping them as whack-job kids who like to riot and that's all they do.
Sounds like this guy has a
Sounds like this guy has a good head on his shoulders.
lol agreed
lol agreed
Anarchists just need to
Anarchists just need to realize that anarchism isn't a political approach, something that we must push on people, but an anti-authoritarian approach to LIFE. And we have countless opportunities in everyday life to show people that some of the decisions they have already made are anti-authoritarian, and that to apply that to all of life makes sense.
Define 'people'. Because I
Define 'people'. Because I sure as hell want to push it on the state and capital, which are made up of people.
Well said. Great piece that
Well said. Great piece that speaks to the need to build bottom up mass movements of regular folks, the only way that we're going to be able to create a new world without capitalism and the state, and the need for specifically anarchist organization so that we can support each other in our mass organizing work and put fowards anarchist values and ideas in an organized way.
Why? This writing doesn't
Why? This writing doesn't build the case that this is true at all.
Whatever. Building
Whatever. Building organizations aren't anarchist. Anarchy means disorder. We want to disorganize the state and the government. We don't want organizations. There is too much organizations already. Organizations are not anarchist. People who think we need organizations are not really anarchists even if they think they are.
Maybe you could explain
Maybe you could explain yourself? This just sounds like a bunch of bullshit also.
You can't have organizations
You can't have organizations without hierarchy, that's what I'm trying to say. Temporary organizations because of a struggle like a protest is different.
That's crap- if my friends
That's crap- if my friends organize around one another in planning our daily lives, we are an organization so to speak. We are not hierarchical. Or consider one of our projects. We organize and plan with a long-range plan in sight. There is no hierarchy there. Decisions are made by consensus, if someone doesn't agree, they don't have to participate. We don't impose our will on that individual, nor do we punish them for not wishing to participate. No one is delegated any 'position' and there is certainly no 'leader.' We come together state general aims amiable to us and how we might accomplish them. People contribute what knowledge, skills and material they can. If I had to guess, I would think you are making a half-cocked argument against the fetishization of organization and obsession with organization. Regardless, your argument here is severely lacking.
Ofelas - that anon is
Ofelas - that anon is talking about permanent/mass organizations when they say "organization". I think. . .
People should be clear and defined with their words when having discussions like this, and dropping vague one-liners doesn't really help either.
Explain Alcoholics anonymous
Explain Alcoholics anonymous then.
It is a free association organization with no rulers in its guidelines, no dues, no fees, come or go, doesn't matter.
Each individual group is autonomous yet communicates with others and does have an organization up to a national level.
You can ask for a post like treasurer, bathroom cleaner but are limited in time and can say fuck it at any time.
You can start fights with anyone and still come back again and again.
Been around for nearly 75 years now!
How is a religion-based
How is a religion-based organization that gets many of its US members through court-ordered "treatment" free association?
The use of guilt and breaking down of self-esteem to retain its membership rolls seems to jibe with what the author of the original piece is proposing. It's basis in the Stalinist (literally) notion of addiction as an incurable disease is telling, too.
It is not religion based. It
It is not religion based.
It is based on one alcoholic helping another.
It is also not based on guilt, it is based on being responsible for ones actions.
and Yes their is a lot of the 13th step stuff like stated.
It is to be expected when you get a bunch of people with addictions to manipulate someone for sex, or a crutch instead of being responsible for oneself.
Who is responsible for judging anothers actions???
the courts send a lot of
the courts send a lot of people there because it is free and that little piece of paper the court makes you sign does not mean shit.
no one there will actually say if you were there or not (anonymity is fiercely protected) so that piece of paper could be signed by anyone.
It also has a better success rate than anything the courts can send you to.
the number one reason for the success rate is the fact that some of the people there care and want to help because someone helped their ass out of the same thing.
I was told to get signatures
I was told to get signatures by the judge but not given any specific form by her.
She never even asked for it next time I saw her:p
I'm not going to disagree
I'm not going to disagree with true believers.
Wasn't there a scandal in
Wasn't there a scandal in AA, where the older dudes were banging the younger alcoholics? Maybe that was just my hometown but I think it was a bit of a national thing.
I have a an old friend who
I have a an old friend who was sentenced to bunch of court ordered NA meetings, who told me that many guys would refer to the "13th step", as "hugging vulnerable women"
LOL i thought you meant you
LOL i thought you meant you been in it for 75 years!
I was gonna say CLEARLY it hasn't been effective for you!
it almost sounds like he is
it almost sounds like he is someone that buys the mainstream "anarchy = chaos" line or the person is a new cop pa"troll"
Anon, you're operating
Anon, you're operating entirely on the presumption that mass organizations are the only forms of organization that are valid.
So, back up your rhetoric or piss off.
Anyway...This entire piece was very weak. It presented no evidence as to why mass organizations should be desirable to anarchists and how those mass organizations even operate. It's completely rhetorical (not that rhetoric is bad, but if you're going to start making assertions you should probably at least make an attempt to explain yourself and throw some validity into it).
As for Autonomia Operaia, I caught this post on Infoshop: http://significantfailure.blogspot.com/2007/03/gasping-from-shallows.html
Excerpt:
"The failure of the autonomia cannot simply be regarded as a product of external repression; it also had to do with factors within the movement that limited the extent to which it broadened and deepened its attack upon the dominant society. The movement was in part a product of the unevenness of development of Italian capitalism, an unevenness that pitched modern ideologies of capitalist life against more archaic conceptions of submission and excluded a section of the younger generations from work during a period of economic restructuring. For this reason, the autonomia incorporated within itself not just a dissatisfaction that reached to the very roots of contemporary capitalism but also a relatively superficial disappointment at the lack of means and opportunities to indulge the proclivities the spectacle had created. The result was ambivalence or even outright enthusiasm within autonomia for certain of the leading edges of commodity consumption, and especially the domain of youth culture. From the 1950s onwards, popular youth culture has been a central part of the development of advanced capitalism, producing vast new markets for clothes, films, music and other commodities and an associated spectacle of unrestrained, hedonistic consumption that has increasingly become a key exemplar of what desirable life consists of in contemporary times. The rock and roll spectacle’s catalogue of sensationalist thrills, fun and ecstasy produced by cacophony, speed, stereotyped bodily movement, abundant mechanistic sex, stylish dress, drink, drugs and the collective ideologies that allow these sensations to be construed as enjoyable has naturally horrified the bearers of moralist attitudes fashioned in more austere periods of capitalist development (e.g. many of the members of the Italian Communist Party); but the clash between the old and new means of adaptation to life dominated by the commodity, a clash that has undoubtedly sharpened the desirability and the apparent subversiveness of the latter, is only one more false division in the spectacle. By failing to repudiate youth culture in its entirety, autonomia fell into the contradictory position of proclaiming its rejection of the dominant society while simultaneously embracing an important dimension of the everyday life that the self-same society held out. It may from time to time have disrupted popular culture events, as in 1977 when the Metropolitan Indians stormed a jazz concert in Umbria, and denounced musical spectacles, yet dreams of producing or consuming popular culture permeated the movement without effective challenge, as can be seen for example in the music played on movement radio stations and at social centres, the autoriduzione that sought to reduce ticket prices for rock concerts and films, and the fashions in casual clothing marketed to the young that were taken up almost ubiquitously by movement members. Even the eventual slide into a destructive use of hard drugs by parts of the movement can be understood as more than the product of despair at the worsening conditions brought about by state repression. It was also another instance of the movement seeking the pleasures and consolations of the hedonistic spectacle."
Basically, this essay is attempting to make it's argument valid without making it valid. If that makes any sense. Why do we need mass organizations? Mass organizations have been the mainstay of pro-revolutionary struggle for a very long time, and in the course of that "long time" every major revolutionary effort has failed. So perhaps it's time we abandoned forms of formal/mass organization? This is really just common sense, something the Left has yet to adopt it seems.
if you're talking about
if you're talking about insurrection vs organization
why can't we has both?
I'm not talking about
I'm not talking about insurrection vs organization. Insurrectionalist praxis was formed through the development of alternative organizational theory.
Eyedea, Can you say more
Eyedea,
Can you say more about the specifically organizational aspects of insurrectionist theory? I'm probably not the only persyn out there reading this who doesn't understand it that well. And I find a lot of insurrectionist theory kind of difficult to understand. I guess I don't have the necessary vocabulary. Can someone explain it in a nut shell in laymen's terms, perhaps using examples or metaphors to help illustrate the point? Or point me to some accessible resources?
the idea of insurrection (as
the idea of insurrection (as used by the people who could be called insurrectionists) is that real social change (as opposed to reform, of course) is going to happen when/if/because some kind of big social rupture happens. i don't think that the insurrectionary authors are clear about (or agree on) whether anarchists (and other people who want big change) can create such a rupture, but i believe all agree that we can help it along once it happens, or starts to happen.
insurrectionists are against organizations to the extent that organizations take on lives of their own, start to be their own reason for existing. people who argue for workers organization and for insurrection (for example) don't seem to understand the insurrectionists' critiques of how revolutionaries have thought and acted up til now.
go here for more info:
http://www.geocities.com/kk_abacus/vbinsur.html
Insurrectionary anarchism
Insurrectionary anarchism was formed as a response to the prevalence of formal organizations, i.e. platformist federations, unions, parties, etc. The idea being that the composition of formal/mass organizations becomes an end in and of itself. Institutions only have one goal, to reproduce themselves continuously in order to ensure their survival. Same thing with mass organizations; the growth of their membership becomes an end in itself. Formal/mass organizations can only ever strive to reproduce themselves as the attainment of their goals becomes dependent on their reproduction.
As an alternative, insurrectionary anarchists proposed (and continue to propose) informal organization. Organizations without an enduring structure, not based on uniformity to 'documented tenets' (as platformist organizations and political parties are fond of) or the reproduction of structure (unions, platformism, mass organizations), but merely the coming together of bodies attracted to each other, for whatever reason, and the use of those bodies in autonomous manners to carry out agreed upon projects, i.e. affinity groups. Affinity groups are, when it comes down to it, a cheesy version of squad cohesion. Not to say that's a bad thing, but they're not perfect. Structureless organization, like affinity groups, is simply the most reliable form of organization between humans in terms of being non-hierarchical and avoiding mediation (feel free to argue against that). It negates the need to reproduce structure and it's only composed of a few people, so uniformity can be challenged more readily (i.e. mediation between bodies is negated by their 'closeness').
An analogy: affinity groups are like rain drops on a car window. Except, these raindrops are sentient. So they move freely about; fuse and diffuse with each other; become concentrated or dispersive; Etc.
But, insurrectionary anarchism has developed a lot since 'back in the day'; it's not just about organization anymore. And I'm obviously not going to lay out the entirety of insurrectionalist theory right here.
As far as recommendations go, that will be a problem. The majority of online insurrectionalist text is on Yahoo's Geocities. Geocities is shutting down. But don't worry!! Most of it has been saved by The Anarchist Library, which is a new up and coming site. It pretty much has all of the text from Killing King Abacus and other Geocity sites that focused on I@. T@L isn't live yet, but I believe we're scheduled to open up on June 1st.
325 collective has a lot of of insurrectionalist writings. They're all in pdf form though. You should start with this.
We can, hopefully...but
We can, hopefully...but organizations have a tendency in my experience to try to keep people in line, under control, tell them what to do, and put a lid on struggles or insurrections that organizations as such can't contain or manage. Bureaucracies and hierarchies, formal or informal, seem to creep up, even amongst groups of anarchists.
In some senses we could think of insurrection (not "insurrectionism" as a body of theory) as an excess that can't be contained, a point of rupture that resists mediation, and that is at least to some extent oppositional to the functioning of a formal organization. The trick it seems to me, is to figure how to organize (and I mean that in a very broad sense of the term) in a way that is a vehicle for struggle that will not become a lid or a break.
So I do think some forms of organizations (not platformist groups, parties, non-profits, or mainstream unions) are necessary. I wish a spark could ignite society into a general uprising, but sadly I don't think it's that easy or that there are any short-cuts to a mass radicalization and insurrection.
I think this issue of forms/methods of organizing is probably the most important thing anarchists should be debating and experimenting with, rather than getting caught up in the way you think everything should be "after the revolution", although obviously the means and the ends are interrelated. But really though, I don't think the ends are that important to figure out exactly, since no one really knows what is possible or what might happen and we need to figure this shit out as we go. We need a general idea of where we're headed, what we're for and what we're against, and then we need to keep the means consistent with those ends or we'll never get where we want to go.
And that is for each of us to decide for ourselves through discussion and experimentation, we don't need to all come to the same conclusions. I think a diversity of theories and tactics are beneficial to the anarchist movementS and folks waste way too much time bickering with each other. If you really think you've got it all figured out and you can't tolerate people who disagree with you then you are arrogant as fuck. A lot of the posts on anarchist sites like this come off that way to me and if you want to be a jerk, fine, you'll find lots of others to take turns hurling insults at. But be intentional about your behavior and the way it drives other people away. I am totally generalizing and I don't mean this to be essentialist, but from my own experience talking with friends it usually seems to be the womyn folks who get turned off by the "let's see who can be the biggest jerk contest." I'm sure plenty of non-female identified folks do too and note that I am not implying that it is always male-identified folks who engage in internet aggro posturing.
Look I'm sorry I don't have
Look I'm sorry I don't have all the insurrectional theory and vocabulary down I am just trying to participate in the conversation I thought that was the point. That guy/girl said it better than me in that last comment. Organizations have tendencies to try to keep a lid on things so that the organization can keep in control. So we shouldn't have organizations. Sometimes maybe we have to have them but they are a necessary evil at best. I'm not convinced that we have to have organizations actually but I am following what that last person said. I would like to hear more of that argument about why we have to have organizations. I thought people were saying the problem with this article is that it says we have to have organizations, that makes sense to me but then I said I agreed then someone tells me to piss off. Now people say they disagree with the article but that we need organizations. I guess I don't get it so I will just piss off.
"Look I'm sorry I don't have
"Look I'm sorry I don't have all the insurrectional theory and vocabulary down I am just trying to participate in the conversation I thought that was the point. That guy/girl said it better than me in that last comment. Organizations have tendencies to try to keep a lid on things so that the organization can keep in control. So we shouldn't have organizations. Sometimes maybe we have to have them but they are a necessary evil at best. I'm not convinced that we have to have organizations actually but I am following what that last person said. I would like to hear more of that argument about why we have to have organizations. I thought people were saying the problem with this article is that it says we have to have organizations, that makes sense to me but then I said I agreed then someone tells me to piss off. Now people say they disagree with the article but that we need organizations. I guess I don't get it so I will just piss off"
I was telling the anon who was defending mass organizations to piss off. They weren't even presenting an argument as to why mass organizations are valid, just like the essay. Are you that anon?
too many punk zines for this
too many punk zines for this kid
@NrKiii!!11 oi oi oi
@NrKiii!!11 oi oi oi
Wow, I mean, this is why
Wow, I mean, this is why anarchism will get nowhere. I've heard this same wishy-washy crap for more than 30 years.
What a jerk.