doe @exiliaex@masto.anarch.cc

it takes only a small change in words to hear the same message - like we've been trapped in a loop.
the vandalism of these college students is less than the vandalism that's occurred all around us by the state, by profit-driven machines of extraction

in place of 'professional incendiarism' we have the language of 'professional agitators' - all deployed to transform real political coordination and action - collective resistance - into excisable tumors.

what crimes does the state justify while doublespeaking and raising the highest complaints about when others commit those crimes? like whining about encampments being 'destruction of property' while they raze gaza.

Marx's "The Civil War in France" has a lot that is still very relevant today. change some words here and there and it's identical. like we've been trapped in a loop.

"The government cries, “Incendiarism!” and whispers this cue to all its agents, down to the remotest hamlet, to hunt up its enemies everywhere as suspect of professional incendiarism. The bourgeoisie of the whole world, which looks complacently upon the wholesale massacre after the battle, is convulsed by horror at the desecration of brick and mortar!
[...]
The Commune knew that its opponents cared nothing for the lives of the Paris people, but cared much for their own Paris buildings.
[...]
If the acts of the Paris working men were vandalism, it was the vandalism of defence in despair, not the vandalism of triumph, like that which the Christians perpetrated upon the really priceless art treasures of heathen antiquity;and even that vandalism has been justified by the historian as an unavoidable and comparatively trifling concomitant to the titanic struggle between a new society arising and an old one breaking down. It was still less the vandalism of Haussman, razing historic Paris to make place for the Paris of the sightseer!"

https://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch06.htm

they would rather call you all violent terrorists for standing up to genocide while amassing organized terror forces to pry into every private part of your life, violently rip you from your home, and force you to pay them for the honor of them judging whether you deserve prison

no matter how all of this shakes out the governments of the world are all going to spend the next century having to deal with the lessons they taught the propertyless masses.

governments, including democracies, despise the self-organization of the propertyless.

this is a good reminder that - however many 'sympathetic' politicians are in power - it will never be enough to be worth giving up our own powers of collective coordination against what is intolerable

hey #histodons and others (#marxists and #anarchists and #criticaltheorists) what's your favorite book on the movements surrounding/following/constituting May '68?

i saw a beautiful red-winged blackbird on a walk today!!

- Mario Tronti, The Strategy of Refusal

https://anarch.cc/uploads/autonomism/autonomia-post-political-politics.pdf

"Working class struggles against the iron laws of capitalist exploitation cannot be reduced to the eternal revolt of the oppressed against their oppressors. Similarly the concept of exploitation cannot be reduced to the desire of the individual employer to enrich himself by extracting the maximum possible amount of surplus labour from the bodies of his workers. As always, the economistic explanation has no other weapon against capitalism than moral condemnation of the system. But we are not here to invent so alternative way of seeing this problem. The problem is already the other way round, and has been right from the start. Exploitation is born, historically, from the necessity for capital to escape from its de facto subordination to the class of worker-producers. It is in this very specific sense that capitalistic exploitation, in turn, provokes workers' insubordination."

"Thus, the worker provides capital, not only insofar as he sells labour power, but also insofar as he embodies the class relation. This, like the inherent social nature of labour power, is another of those things acquired by the capitalist without payment, or rather, it is paid for, but at the cost (which is never subject to negotiation) of the workers' struggles which periodically shake the process of production. It's no accident that this terrain is the terrain that is chosen tactically by the workers as the ground on which to attack the employers, and is therefore the terrain on which the employer is forced to respond with continual technological "revolutions" in the organization of work. In this whole process, the only thing which does not come from the workers is, precisely, labour. From the outset the conditions of labour are in the hands of the capitalist. And again, from the outset, the only thing which is in the hands of the worker is the conditions of capital. This is the historical paradox which marks the birth of capitalist society, and the abiding condition which will always be attendant upon the "eternal rebirth" of capitalist development. The worker cannot be labour other than in relation to the capitalist. The capitalist cannot be capital other than in relation to the worker.

If the conditions of capital are in the hands of the workers, if there is no active life in capital without the living activity of labour power, if capital is already at its birth, a consequence of productive labour, if there is no capitalist society without the workers' articulation, in other words, if there is no social relationship without a class relationship, and there is no class relationship without the working class... then one can conclude that the capitalist class, from its birth, is in fact, subordinate to the working class. Hence the necessity of exploitation."

"The anarcho-syndicalist "general strike", which was supposed to provoke the collapse of capitalist society, is a romantic naivete from the word go. It already contains within it a demand which it appears to oppose — that is, the lassallean demand for a "fair share of the fruits of labour" — in other words, fairer "participation" in the profit of capital. In fact, these two perspectives combine in that incorrect "correction" which was imposed on Marx, and which has subsequently enjoyed such success within the practice of the official working class movement — the idea that it is "working people" who are the true "givers of labour", and that it is the concern of workpeople to defend the dignity of this thing which they provide, against all those who would seek to debase it.

Untrue...
The truth of the matter is that the person who provides labour is the capitalist . The worker is the provider of capital. In reality, he is the possessor of that unique, particular commodity which is the condition of all the other conditions of production. Because, as we have seen, all these other conditions of production are, from the start, capital in themselves - a dead capital which , in order to come to life and into play in the social relations of production, needs to subsume under itself labour power, as the subject and activity of capital. But, as we have also seen, this transition into social relations of production cannot occur unless the class relation is introduced in to it as its content. And the class relationship is imposed from the very first moment and by the very fact that the proletariat is constituted as a class in the face of the capitalist."

"Couldn't we say, in fact, that stopping work does not signify a refusal to give capital the use of one's labour power, since it has already been given to capital once the contract for this particular commodity has been signed.
Nor is it a refusal to allow capital the product of labour, since this is legally already capital's property, and, in any case, the worker does not know what to do with it.

Rather, stopping work — the strike, as the classic form of workers' struggle — implies a refusal of the command of capital as the organizer of production. It is a way of saying "No" at a particular point in the process and a refusal of the concrete labour which is being offered; it is a momentary blockage of the work-process and it appears as a recurring threat which derives its contents from the process of value creation."

felt like dracula with the old scrape and lick technique