article image

From Fanny's and Fanya's
March 9, 2026

Two weeks ago, the situation report on left-wing extremism in North Rhine-Westphalia was presented.

The report mentions a poster for the event "Green Anarchy – What is Green Anarchism?" The event took place on May 2, 2025, in Bochum and was organized by the initiative Fanny's and Fanya's for an anarchist center.

The content was a critical examination of civilization and anthropocentrism.

Anthropocentrism places humans above the rest of the environment. It is central to the idea of ​​wanting to dominate "nature" and is therefore partly responsible for the destruction of global ecosystems.
This was partially correctly categorized in the situation report. However, the classification as left-wing and extreme is inappropriate from the initiative's perspective. Fanny's and Fanya's therefore considers itself incorrectly listed in this situation report.

Member Leah Feldman explains:
“Fanny’s and Fanya’s consistently advocates for a society without domination, something many left-wing groups do not. Numerous groups from the Marxist spectrum mentioned in the situation report strive for a dictatorship of the proletariat. We saw what this means in the GDR and the Soviet Union. Part of this involves more power for the police and intelligence services, and an expansion of state surveillance. In these aspirations, many Marxist groups have more in common with Herbert Reul and the rest of the North Rhine-Westphalia state government than with us.
We reject the use of the state as a tool. For us, the state is the extreme. It serves to secure the rule of an elite based on the oppression and exploitation of the rest of the population.
To maintain this order, its police and military exercise massive violence.
Without the state and its allied institutions like capitalism and colonialism, there would be no climate catastrophe, no poverty, and no wars. Resistance to this is not extreme, but libertarian. A free and democratic order can only exist without a state.”

Fanny's and Fanya's also alludes to the fact that both of its namesakes, Fanny Kaplan and Fanya Baron, were murdered in the fight against a Marxist dictatorship. Fanny Kaplan was executed for shooting Vladimir Lenin. Fanya Baron's murder also occurred on Lenin's orders.

The group's basic principles include:

• Self-determination and equality for all people

• Rejection of all forms of misanthropy

• Decentralized, consensus-oriented decision-making by all those affected by a decision

• Abolition of all forms of domination, including state, capitalism, patriarchy, colonialism, and ableism

• End of all penal systems, including prisons and police

• Shared responsibility in cases of abuse

• Violence solely as a means of self-defense against oppression and not for the enforcement of dominant interests.

• Rejection of all military and compulsory military service

• The goal is to deal with conflicts, whenever possible, without oppression or violence.

From the initiative's perspective, this is about advocating for a truly free and equitable social order. This contrasts with the state-based democratic order, which requires rule ("cracy") and therefore cannot be free.

The state's designation of the organization as a political opponent to be combated is therefore logically consistent. However, it would be factually correct to list it in a separate situation report on anarchism, rather than classifying it as left-wing extremist.

Contact details

The Fanny's and Fanya's initiative is available to the press for (anonymous) interviews in written, audio, or video format. Please contact us by email at fannysandfanyas@riseup.net.

Best regards,
The Fanny's and Fanya's initiative for an anarchist center in Bochum

Comments

anonymous (not verified) Mon, 03/30/2026 - 15:08

This is about german “radicals”, so have to ask if they're zionists

Fredy Perlman (not verified) Wed, 04/01/2026 - 10:00

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

Son, I dunno what you're on about, I've just your standard plague on all houses when it comes to nationalism. Think they used to call that internationalist anarchism? Dunno these days though. From the river to sea, all state formations can suck on deez.

anonymous (not verified) Wed, 04/01/2026 - 10:28

In reply to by Fredy Perlman (not verified)

I like internationalist anarchism too, as opposed to your racist, marxist, class reductionist, imperialist chauvinism for the colonizer countries.

I prefer Bakunin's "Every nation, like every individual, is of necessity what it is, and has an unquestionable right to be itself" and turn the Franco-Prussian War into a civil war, Michel's support for the Kanak resistance, and the CNT's/SolidaridadObrera's "Our internationalist thinking, one hundred percent, induces us to pose the problem of the colonies. We must consider the workers of the Riff as sufficiently capable of dealing with their own lives and wealth," to your pro-French, pro-Spanish, pro-Israel bullshit class reductionism. This is one of main reasons I always preferred anarchism to marxism. The Haymarket anarchists supported the Northwest Resistance, while racist colonizers like you, if you'd been around at the time, would be whining, "Neither the Metis Nor Canada! Seize the factories that don't even exist there yet instead!"

Fuck marxism! Fuck class reductionism! Long live anarchist internationalism against colonialism!

Fredy Perlman (not verified) Wed, 04/01/2026 - 12:08

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

Can you read. ALL countries will be going in the bin. From Rojava to Romania, Reunion to Rwanda. Along with their arselickers, God willing. The class FKA as the working class has no country, I don't give a fuck what Mikhail said.

And you should see what I say to the Marxists to wind them up. No sacred spooks with me, chief.

anonymous (not verified) Wed, 04/01/2026 - 13:32

In reply to by Fredy Perlman (not verified)

Unfunny TROOTH is that many societies are zombies as of now. They're dead inside and without a future, yet they just keep going because no nuclear state is (yet) willing to fire teh missiles, so citizens keep trying to get some bling-bling and status coz that's what the Guccis told them to do... or just to feed their children.

Anarchists still not doing their jobs well? Maybe. Normieism, or conformity, is hard to confront when punk is dead and queer got massively recuperated as an ID pols rep scheme.

anonymous (not verified) Wed, 04/01/2026 - 12:38

In reply to by Fredy Perlman (not verified)

I'm not a settler, you moron! And settler colonialism isn't about migration or moving, or individuals, it's about the settler state. Something you wouldn't have as much problem with being that you're a marxist, but that anarchists do have a problem with.

anonymous (not verified) Thu, 04/02/2026 - 08:10

In reply to by Fredy Perlman (not verified)

Saying settler colonialism is about the settler state not just individuals moving around means that the US is a settler state! Forget university, you seem to have skipped elementary school given your lack of reading comprehension. You wouldn't be the first stupid racist tho.

Wayne Price@ (not verified) Wed, 04/01/2026 - 15:38

In reply to by Thomas Muntzer (not verified)

Calling anarchists (or anyone) you disagree with "cunts" is simply woman-hating. It is bad enough that people on this site feel free to insult and name-call (he-man cussing) anybody they think is mistaken, but this sort of crude misogyny has no business among anarchists.

km (not verified) Thu, 04/02/2026 - 16:08

In reply to by Bonnot Gang (not verified)

i used to think this sort of thinking was right-wing coded because the right is full of baby-men, but it seems it is also prevalent among anarchists as well. so what is that about? why, when someone finds a word or phrase objectionable (for any number of reasons), and asks that it not be used, why do you respond like "fuck your feelings!" or whatever? why are feelings ignorable? unimportant? feelings are one way bodies figure out the world around them, disregarding them is like gouging out an eye. like why would you do that? because of the perhaps minor inconvenience of taking another into account? a bit shortsighted, don't you think

Max Stirner (not verified) Fri, 04/03/2026 - 04:17

In reply to by km (not verified)

1, in the land of the blind, the one eyed person is queen. Shortsightedness is preferable to no vision.
2, shame no longer works. You may have sensed that when an actual honest to God NONCE was elected president but the warning signs have been apparent. It's obviously more divisive than allowing grown adults to speak how they wish but judging them on their actions. Suspect the reason we do it arse over tit is because anarcho and the wider left actions' have been dogshit for about a century or more. Future's looking up also.
3, actual neo-fash & state militarism is mobilising, not in their feelings but materially, as we speak. Maybe bigger fish to fry right now than language, innit.

km (not verified) Fri, 04/03/2026 - 09:23

In reply to by Max Stirner (not verified)

1. one eye is preferable to none sure, but putting one's own eye out is, uh, not.

2. what does a president have to do with anarchists? why do you care about who holds office? anarchists have our own ethics not reliant on government or who the current office holder is.

3. this is a comment section, the language used is all we have. not to mention language use is a material action in the real world as well. how we speak to each other has material effects.

anonymous (not verified) Fri, 04/03/2026 - 10:58

In reply to by km (not verified)

km i've agreed with most all of your posts here, and in general don't give a shit who elected politicians are, but they are still markers of general trends in the culture, which is what above anon seems to be marking. if their point is that things are getting worse/remaining a terrible level of bad, then you being pedantic about the mention of specific politician is avoiding the point. 

i mean, i've gotten very tired of the urgency-baiting of activists, etc, but sometimes things are also actually more urgent? or maybe things being more blatant doesn't mean they're actually more urgent. there's a whole other question, i guess.

km (not verified) Fri, 04/03/2026 - 12:20

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

my point was, yes the electeds of a country matter to the general trends. AND, as anarchists, are we not outside that? Do we not pride ourselves on being outside the general trends?
that is what i was trying to get at. that and as anarchists do we not hold to better ethics? i think we do, though i recognize many anarchists also bristle at the mention of ethics, nevermind morals, so, you know, ymmv.

Max Stirner (not verified) Fri, 04/03/2026 - 12:33

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

Yeah, you got it.

Look, I'm not denying I like to bait people, but not senselessly. You've got normies openly saying things like "I don't care he's a pedophile" or "I am far right", how have people missed this cultural shift or the implications within? That they'd rather be far right than associated remotely with the left should invoke some self reflection & criticism ASAP. Even worse, just look at the gender, sexual, and racial make up of these people, and they look more diverse than leftoid groups to me. This is game over shit.

And what's the plan to get out of this maelstrom? The scolding that got us there in the first place?AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

anonymous (not verified) Fri, 04/03/2026 - 13:08

In reply to by Max Stirner (not verified)

12:33, seems like you're making lots of assumptions. i assume km doesn't identify as either left or right (as i don't). so the argument to make (if you want to) is why the current state of affairs actually requires something different from anarchists than the past times of more hidden (sometimes) but just as egregious activity by normies, politicians, businesses, etc. is it worse to have open fascists or worse to have hidden fascists? i know what the left says about that, but it gets harder and harder to decide whose "factual accounts" and so-called history to believe. 

that said, my ending question from before is a real question. just not one that can be worked out by strangers online, maybe?

Max Stirner (not verified) Sat, 04/04/2026 - 05:15

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

Because, and I don't think there's any way to say this without sounding hyperbolic or unhinged, we are on the cusp of a neo fascist movement that will make the Nazis look quaint. Neither left nor right is a great slogan, but if you're reproducing the praxis of the left, then it's just talk. Bad spot to be in at third & long.

anonymous (not verified) Sat, 04/04/2026 - 07:57

In reply to by Max Stirner (not verified)

are you saying that since things are so bad, anarchists should abandon their values (presumably because these values and the practices associated with them are ineffective?) and become the left?

am i understanding you? (read in a sincerely questioning tone, no snark intended)

Max Stirner (not verified) Sat, 04/04/2026 - 08:24

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

No? The opposite. I would say all values and practices need interrogating if you're ostensibly a mass movement vehicle and literally no one wants to get on. "Destruction is a creative act" applies to all things, anarchism itself above all.

In other words, "The principal work that it appears to me should be envisaged now is the theory of historical action. This means to bring forth, in its moment, which has come, strategic theory. At this stage—and to speak schematically here—the foundational theoreticians to retrieve and develop are not so much Hegel, Marx and Lautréamont, but Thucydides—Machiavelli—Clausewitz" -- Debord

anonymous (not verified) Sat, 04/04/2026 - 13:44

In reply to by Max Stirner (not verified)

i would never call anarchy a mass movement vehicle, though i recognize that plenty of anarchists think of it that way. 

(i do find it funny that someone calling themselves max stirner is quoting debord. but that's a different thread probably.)

anyway, thanks for clarifying.

anonymous (not verified) Sat, 04/04/2026 - 23:54

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

The question of destruction being a creative act is a good one. Tho I don't find it being the only true creative act, as there is also evasion, transgression (that are equally relevant to anarchism) and the liberal avenue of synthesis (what most artists and capitalist innovators are into).

Equally I've seen a lot of the typical destruction carried by anarchists which, while being a necessary response to social-political violence, didn't achieve much long-term realizations.

Thucides was an authoritarian. As an historian of Greek politics -and of the OG politics of the Western world- he's relevant of course, but as theorist?

Max Stirner (not verified) Sun, 04/05/2026 - 02:49

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

For what it's worth, I'd be too individualistic for the social anarchist types but pragmatically nothing happens without the mass. Criticisms aside, the Spanish Revolution endures as the mythic because its' sheer numbers could force institutional change.

Stirner would probably have loved Debord. Massive prick, ego(ist) for days, and the spectacle/simulation is peak spook shit. He'd also get a kick out of Debord privately saying Marx's value system was boring. Game recognises game.

anonymous (not verified) Sun, 04/05/2026 - 08:12

In reply to by Max Stirner (not verified)

excellent latter paragraph, so thumbs up, and if i were a cooler person i'd leave it there, but the mass is a spook, right? we can talk about a lot of people doing the same kind of thing because they find their own reasons for doing so, but the mass (capitalized or not) is a shortcut that creates/is its own monster. at least imho. 

Max Stirner (not verified) Sun, 04/05/2026 - 11:42

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

THE MASS is definitely a spook but it's partly a symptom of no universally agreed term for the revolutionary engine in the age of postmodernity. Subaltern, precariat, lumpen, etc etc, none have seemed to stick. A mass could be small to be fair, at least a constitutive element to get the ball rolling. But I agree it's trappy framework.

On the other hand, the masses may just be about that mog life: “The masses know that they know nothing and they have no desire to know. The masses know they are powerless, and they don’t want power. We reproach them vigorously for these signs of stupidity and passivity. But they’re not that at all: the masses are very snobbish; they sovereignly delegate the faculty of choice
to someone else, in a sort of game of irresponsibility, ironic challenge, sovereign lack of will, or secret ruse." -- Baudrillard

anonymous (not verified) Sun, 04/05/2026 - 13:18

In reply to by Max Stirner (not verified)

omigoodness, all of those labels are also spooks

since the point is to group together people who are individuals as if they have some essential quality that links them beyond their powerlessness, understanding of society, or whatever it is that is that the label is naming. 

a label can adequately group people along a single metric, but them being in a group (based on income, power access, skin color, sexuality, whatever) doesn't mean anything more than that. it doesn't address their motivations, desires, goals, etc etc. a good label might explain a generality about how the rest of the world sees them -- but those are usually used against folks more than for them...

why am i explaining spooks to someone calling himself max stirner?! what craziness is this

 

anonymous (not verified) Sun, 04/05/2026 - 23:34

In reply to by Max Stirner (not verified)

The biggest communist is a full, ruthless egoist in revolutionary clothing. That's what Deboard was. His theories were a gem, but as with "never meet your heroes"... the guy was a world-class asshole.

anonymous (not verified) Sat, 04/04/2026 - 10:46

In reply to by Max Stirner (not verified)

"we are on the cusp of a neo fascist movement that will make the Nazis look quaint"

Reads like you're hyping for it?

But the Nazis cannot look quaint from any standpoint, other than the neofash themselves. They still systematically murdered millions by their own planning, and would have killed tens, even hundreds millions more if they had won the war.

Yes, there is a problematic wave of football knuckleheads in Europe and some Muslim countries, but the Far Right has just kept getting a shitstorm for their support to the MAGA regime, and as Russian ops in Europe.

If you've got any other "intel" to share then let us know! But if not, your claim sound far-fetched at best.

Max Stirner (not verified) Sat, 04/04/2026 - 11:45

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

This perputal outrage is the opposite of strategy by the way. No, it sounds fucking awful obvs. I can't be fucked to give a full exegesis but fascism of the 20s/30s was tiny petit bourgeois movements with little popular support and at least a nominal opposition of organised labour. Compare that to now, chuck in the climate, all time highs of Reichian repression, male loneliness turning to vindicativeness, the falling rate of profit being steep as fuck, living standards cratering and the phrase "Hitlermaxxxing" existing, magic eight ball says outlook is bleakkkkkkkkkk

vampire bonanno (not verified) Thu, 04/02/2026 - 12:01

There is small mistake, it is not all humans trying to dominate nature than capitalist humans, slaves dont destroy our planet.

quote: "Anthropocentrism places HUMANS above the rest of the environment. It is central to the idea of ​​wanting to dominate "nature" and is therefore partly responsible for the destruction of global ecosystems."

Add new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a href hreflang> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul type> <ol start type> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
V
u
S
8
K
)
j
s
Enter the code without spaces.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.