When faced with the stories of physical and sexual violence, manipulation, gaslighting, and coercion that survivors tell from their experiences within abusive relationships, many people’s first question frequently seems to be “why didn’t they just leave?” And, indeed, with a limited understanding of the overall context that forms abuse, victims remaining with their abusers seems unimaginable. After all, if someone walked up to you on the street and called you a worthless piece of garbage, or slapped you in the face, you would not be inclined to share their company any further, so why do abuse victims appear to accept horrific treatment time and time again without leaving?

In every interaction and through every social structure, humans exercise an unavoidable psychological instinct known as self interest. It is a deep motivational factor that is inseparable from our subjectivity. Whether we are kind or cruel, it operates in the background of our decisions and persists despite our awareness of its presence. It is a definitive root feature of the human animal.

I am writing this piece sitting near my 14-year-old dog, Galaxy, AKA Gal, who I am going to have to say goodbye to soon, potentially as soon as tomorrow. It is a subject in philosophy I’ve been wanting to tackle and write on for a long while now, and with this lovely soul beside me, and near to departing, writing this seems suddenly imperative.

The anti-capitalists of today look back at the most important works of anti-capitalists of yesterday (or the last century) and find a similar flaw threaded through many of the otherwise clear and continuously relevant writings: many of them believed that capitalism’s end was nigh and inevitable. They thought its strength was in its oppressive power, and that eventually that rigid, oppressive power would be unable to hold its form and collapse. What they did not account for — and what we recognize now — is that capitalism has an uncanny ability to adapt. Its incredible staying power lies not within its oppressive power alone, but in its ability to make so many of us foot soldiers in the very system that undermines our interests, poisons our communities, and makes our relationships untenable. Capitalism maintains, not just because there are rich and powerful who enforce it, but also because the rest of us have internalized its logic and march to its beat in our everyday lives. That capitalist logic is this: to live always on the promise of the future satisfaction of desire. We not only enact this logic in the arenas typically understood as the realm of capitalist logic (workplaces, electoral politics, etc.) but also in our most intimate relationships, and that is the arena I will be delving into here.

Butchness is not only the appropriation of traditional masculinity, but the subversion of it. The sacred weapon in the arsenal of patriarchy, the one they did and continue to do everything to keep us from taking, is not something we even bother to steal under the cover of nightfall. Instead, we swagger right through the front door, wryly appraise the shelf on which it sits, and take what of it suits us best. We wear it openly in the streets, keenly aware of the retribution such a theft will at any moment bring down upon us.

As conversations about the possibilities of abolition continue to proliferate — and as they are at the same time co-opted and distorted by liberal politics — it may help us to take a moment to be clear about the distinctions between liberatory accountability and what many refer to as “carceral logic.”

The Age of Reason is dead. Rejoice! We buried him in the shade of the birch tree, and we sang as we dug. We sang new and old songs of knowledges bravely earned, and those lessons became the soil we shoveled on top of him. The Age of Reason came to all of us once, and all of us, in one form or another, at one time or another, in one place or another, or all three, took a sip of his spoils just to know what it tasted like. Some of us, we are deeply ashamed to say, drained the whole glass and asked for more. We know this shame is something we cannot bury. But we did bury him.

In the explosion of interest in the topic of abolitionism during and after the explosive summer of 2020 its meaning and purpose has become distorted in its trek through the popular imagination. The topic of Transformative/Restorative Justice also increased in popularity, and as a result many people even conceptualize TJ/RJ as being one in the same with abolitionism as a political position. While this essay is not intended as an outright dismissal of the importance TJ/RJ practices, it is an examination of why they have risen to prominence and a challenge to the idea that they represent the totality of an abolitionist politic.

Relationships are deeply personal. They are the smallest and most fundamental blocks that form our histories, our cultures, our societies. We are dependent, and thus deeply vulnerable, to other human relationships from the time we are born to the moment we die. Nothing human-made was made outside of relationships. Everything we make is a product of relationships. We are intrinsically tied to other people; such is the reality of human existence. To discuss relationships, then, will always be something that hits everyone in a way that is close, personal, and sometimes uncomfortable. We have insecurities we have been unable to quell and often reach for different forms of relationships as a salve to those insecurities. All of us, ultimately, wish to feel loved, cherished, and appreciated by other human beings, and almost all of our activities beyond basic survival activities (and very often even those basic survival activities) seem to bend towards that end. What will give me the adoration of others? What will earn me the love of others? What will make others impressed, drawn to me, trusting of me? When driven by such intense social need, it can be difficult to truthfully and genuinely assess the underlying values we hold when we seek out connection. What makes a relationship valuable? What makes a person valuable? What makes me valuable?

Radicalising people towards liberatory politics is a challenging, deeply rewarding, and vital component to building real political power towards liberation. It is also emotionally taxing, difficult to navigate, and often rife with conflict. I hope to offer some tools, tactics, and frameworks for engaging in this process with others in ways that can keep doors open for continued process, as well as protect the boundaries and energies of my fellow militants who engage in this work.

The First Intifada (meaning shaking off/uprising in Arabic) was the first Palestinian uprising against Israel’s takeover of Palestinian territory, lasting from December 1987 until the signing of the 1993 Oslo Accords. The “intifada,” which went down in history as the name of the Palestinian resistance against the Israeli occupation, is known by this name all over the world. In December 1987, an Israeli pickup truck crashed into a vehicle carrying Palestinians in the Gaza region, killing four people. Thereupon, the Islamic University of Gaza students started the uprising that would be known as intifada by calling all Palestinians to gather around the hospital to take care of the people who lost their lives or were injured.

Throughout the world, the word “anarchism” has a variety of meanings. When most people think of “anarchism,” the first things that come to their mind are fire-setting bomb throwers and masked rioters smashing Starbucks and McDonald’s windows. In the popular imagination, anarchism is synonymous with chaos. Armed with this image of anarchism as a nihilistic, violent ideology, many people cannot fathom how anyone could self-identify as an anarchist. After all, don’t anarchists hate authority and government? Don’t they want to destroy society and bring about some kind of anarchic utopia populated by roaming gangs of drug-addled hippies who spend their days smoking weed and having sex with whomever they please in abandoned warehouses? No wonder so many people find this idea so laughable… However, within the broad category of social and political movements known as “anarchism,” there are many different ideas about how to achieve greater equality, liberty, and justice for all people. Some anarchists advocate for non-violent resistance or peaceful coexistence with other ideologies and lifestyles; other anarchists support vandalism and property destruction as a tactic against oppressive institutions; some call for an abolition of government while others demand more local control over education, prisons, roads, parks, etc. In this article, we will explore early individualist anarchism in the US which is, in my honest consideration, the closest thing to what the concept of anarchism really is. Looking at the history of the anarchist movement, the main representatives of individualist anarchism are thinkers such as Godwin, Stirner, and Tucker.

The term “egoist” has appeared often in the history of philosophy and social thought, as well as in political ideologies. However, while there are several variations and explanations of what egoism means, its usage has been quite inconsistent. Therefore, when reading about the subject, it is important to distinguish which type of egoism we are talking about. Egoist philosophy generally refers to any school of thought that considers the self (i.e. one’s own personal interests) to be the primary source of ethical standards and action, superseding external factors such as social norms or other-regarding principles. As a result, egoist anarchist schools of thought tend to emphasize personal liberation and non-subordination so that individuals may pursue their own ends without sacrificing them for others or vice versa.

För några år sedan rasade en debatt i Sverige om att så kallad ”blåljuspersonal” inte kunde utföra sitt arbete på grund av att de attackerades, av illvilliga ungdomar och kriminella. Främst skulle detta varit ett problem i storstadsförorter, där en bild målades upp av att allmänhetens liv och hälsa riskerades när blåljuspersonalen inte respekterades. Bland annat genom stenkastning mot poliser. Förespråkare för ”lag, ordning och hårdare tag” vädrade morgonluft och i kölvattnet av debatten ville en majoritet av det politiska etablissemanget införa en ny lag med strängare straff för den som förhindrar blåljuspersonal att utföra sin verksamhet. Det påstådda hindrandet kom sedermera att kallas för ”sabotage”. En statlig utredning tillsattes år 2016 och i januari 2020 trädde lagen om ”Sabotage mot blåljusverksamhet” i kraft. Straffet för att sabotera verksamheten för snuten, brandmän och ambulanspersonal kan bli fängelse upp till fyra år. Ifall brottet är grovt ger det som lägst två års fängelse, och som mest livstids fängelse. För att brottet ska betraktas som grovt behöver handlingen ha uppfattats ”varit av särskilt farlig art”, att sabotaget varit planerat och organiserat, samt medfört en ”betydande skada”. Enligt blåljuslagen är det brottsligt att angripa och störa blåljusverksamhet, att använda våld, samt hot, mot blåljuspersonal, och att skada deras fordon och hjälpmedel. Därutöver är det brottsligt att ens försöka genomföra, att övertala någon att begå ett brott (stämpling), eller att förbereda, samt att inte avslöja blåljussabotage.

För inte så länge sedan föreslog CVE (Center mot våldsbejakande extremism), vilken är en del av Brottsförebyggande rådet, i samarbete med SÄPO att en lag som förbjuder innehavandet av propaganda för våldsbejakande extremism skulle stiftas. Det huvudsakliga resonemanget gäller förebyggande av rekrytering för “våldsbejakande miljöer”.

COPWATCH har granskat domslut från Arbetsdomstolen, och ansökningar om LVU (lagen med särskilda bestämmelser om vård av unga), med kopplingar till våldsbejakande extremism. Syftet med granskningen är att redogöra för vilka juridiska förutsättningar som gäller för radikala kamrater i egenskap av lönearbetare och vårdnadshavare. Därutöver är syftet med granskningen att inspirera till den anarkistiska kampen mot staten. En kamp för att utöka vår frihet och krossa skitsamhället.

I en vaktlokal i Helsingborg misshandlar en polis en onykter, bojad och liggande tonåring (år 2020). En annan person misshandlas och släpas med huvudet i marken av en snut i Eskilstuna (år 2019). I Malmö raljerar ett gäng snutar kränkande och rasistiskt om människor de ser i Rosengård (år 2008). Vi ser återkommande hur poliser misshandlar och kränker kamrater på demonstrationer. Dessa fall är hyfsat välkända. Att vi känner till exemplen beror på att poliserna som begick övergreppen dokumenterades på olika sätt, på bild eller med ljud. Tyvärr är de dokumenterade fallen endast en bråkdel av snutens alla övergrepp.

CW – Bilder på polisvåld! / Images of cop violence! – CW

Mellan åren 1990-2020 sköt svenska poliser ihjäl 38 människor. Polisens dödskjutningar har ökat de senaste åren.

I samarbete med Center mot våldsbejakande extremism (CVE) driver Rädda Barnen en ”Orostelefon om radikalisering”, dit det går att ringa för att få stöd och råd om man är orolig för att ett barn ska radikaliseras. Härom veckan kom Rädda Barnen med en rapport, om hur arbetet med Orostelefonen har gått åren 2017-2020.

Dagen den 3/12 samlades stora delar av den repressiva statsapparaten för onlinekonferens. Center mot våldsbejakande extremism (CVE) bjöd torsdagen 3/12 in socialarbetare, lärare, kommunala tjänstemän, forskare, och snutar till ”Samling mot våldsbejakande extremism”. Drygt 600 repressionsvurmare samlades och diskuterade hur de ska förfölja och konfrontera politiska aktörer som staten ogillar.

Följande artikel har tidigare publicerats i SACs medlemstidning, Syndikalisten, och publiceras här i något reviderad form.

Som aktivist har jag formats djupt av civil olydnads-traditionen. Under ett drygt decennium har jag deltagit i en stor mängd civil olydnads-aktioner, bland annat mot deportationer, vapenfabriker, djurindustrin och klimatförändringarna, och åtalats vid en rad tillfällen. Den senaste gången jag kallades till rättegång var den 13/1, då åtalad tillsammans med åtta andra kamrater ur Slakteriinspektionen. Jag är glad och stolt över de flesta av dessa aktioner och tänker med värme på alla fina medaktivister och de mentorer som gett så viktigt inspiration och vägledning. Dock. Att jag genom åren propagerat för och försökt locka in människor i civil olydnads-aktioner är något jag idag har blandade känslor inför. Allt oftare och alltmer har jag känt mig obekväm med den praxis och teoribildning som är huvudfåran i dessa kretsar.

Oavsett riksdagsvalets utgång är en arbetarfientlig politik att vänta. Ty arbetarrörelsen är död, hävdar syndikalisten Edvin Dahlgren i följande artikel. Vägen framåt, menar han, är att bygga en motmakt av stridbara fackföreningar, ett starkt civilsamhälle och en ny offentlighet.