#decentralized resistance

[sixbucks]

I’ve always loved tech. Now, I’m a Luddite. You should be one, too.

Washington Post
Opinion by Brian Merchant
September 18, 2023 at 5:30 a.m. CT


Brian Merchant, technology columnist at the Los Angeles Times, is the author of “Blood in the Machine: The Origins of the Rebellion against Big Tech.”

I test drove the first-generation Tesla Roadster. I once lived on Soylent powder shakes for a month. My Twitter account is almost old enough to drive. I wrote a book about the iPhone.
Also, I’m a Luddite.

That’s not the contradiction that it might sound like. The original Luddites did not hate technology. Most were skilled machine operators. In the early days of the Industrial Revolution, what they objected to were the specific ways that tech was being used to undermine their status, upend their communities and destroy their livelihoods. So they took sledgehammers to the mechanized looms used to exploit them.

It is that spirit that I’ve come to appreciate in the age of tech monopolies and generative artificial intelligence. The kind of visionaries we need now are those who see precisely how certain technologies are causing harm and who resist them when necessary.

I didn’t always feel this way. As a teenager in the ’90s, I was captivated by the way the web connected me with friends, enabling us to build our own sites and chat into the night. Apple made gadgets cool. Google let me summon far-flung information. Amazon brought hard-to-find books to my doorstep. (Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, owns The Post; Patty Stonesifer, The Post’s interim CEO, is a member of Amazon’s board.)

The Luddites would have had few, if any, problems with all of that. And neither did I.

At the start of my career in the 2000s, tech, it seemed, was building the future. Silicon Valley’s suite of smartphones, social media networks and sharing economy apps promised connection, discovery and efficiency. Tech companies were expanding, consolidating and accumulating power. Apple was on its way to becoming the first trillion-dollar company. Uber began raking in an unprecedented war chest of $10 billion. By the 2010s, however, there were plenty of signs of the costs. As Amazon grew, stories emerged about grueling conditions in its warehouses. Google used its monopoly power to strangle competitors’ products. A suicide epidemic swept an iPhone factory. Predictions mounted that AI would soon replace tens of millions of human jobs — that the rise of the robots was at hand.
The Luddites would have had a problem with all of that.

That’s what I realized one long Labor Day weekend in 2014, when I stumbled on an academic work that examined the Luddites and their struggle against the tech titans of their day. As someone raised on the idea that technology is the engine of progress — that to say otherwise is taboo — learning the true history of this movement has been a revelation.

The Luddites were not, contrary to popular belief, idiots who broke machines because they didn’t understand them. They were cloth workers who once led comfortable lives, working at home or in small shops, on their own terms and schedules, with freedom and dignity.

When entrepreneurs tried to move their jobs into factories by using power looms and wide frames that did similar work faster, more cheaply and much more shoddily, the Luddites protested. These workers first sought compromise, dialogue and a democratic way to integrate new tech into their communities — to share in the gains. They were ignored. So they rebelled.

To this end, the Luddites were innovators. They pioneered a way of staging a popular, decentralized resistance to technologies that were “hurtful to commonality.” They organized under the banner of the apocryphal Ned Ludd, sending threatening letters to entrepreneurs who invested in automation; they raided the factories of the most hated bosses in town, smashing only the machinery that “stole their bread,” as the Luddites said. For a while, they became folk heroes of England — championed by poets such as Lord Byron and cheered on by the working class; they were bigger than Robin Hood.

Sadly, the Luddites’ plight is as relevant as ever. The parallels to the modern day are everywhere.
In the 1800s, entrepreneurs used technology to justify imposing a new mode of work: the factory system. In the 2000s, CEOs used technology to justify imposing a new mode of work: algorithmically organized gig labor, in which pay is lower and protections scarce. In the 1800s, hosiers and factory owners used automation less to overtly replace workers than to deskill them and drive down their wages. Digital media bosses, call center operators and studio executives are using AI in much the same way.

Then, as now, the titans used technology both as a new mode of production and as an idea that allowed them to ignore long-standing laws and regulations. In the 1800s, this might have been a factory boss arguing that his mill exempted him from a statute governing apprentice labor.

Today, it’s a ride-hailing app that claims to be a software company so it doesn’t have to play by the rules of a cab firm.

Then, as now, leaders dazzled by unregulated technologies ignored their potential downsides. Then, it might have been state-of-the-art water frames that could produce an incredible volume of yarn — but needed hundreds of vulnerable child laborers to operate. Today, it’s a cellphone or a same-day delivery, made possible by thousands of human laborers toiling in often punishing conditions.

Then, as now, workers and critics sounded the alarm.
In the 1810s, no one in power listened. A fierce, popular rebellion broke out. England was pushed to the brink of civil war. The military was called in to put down the uprising — it was the largest domestic occupation in the nation’s history. Scores of Luddites were killed and hanged. The factory system took root and brought prosperity for some, but it created an immiserated working class.

The 200 years since have seen breathtaking technological innovation — but much less social innovation in how the benefits are shared. That’s why, in the age of AI and augmented reality, electric vehicles and Mars rovers, levels of inequality again rival the days of the Industrial Revolution.

Resistance is gathering again, too. Amazon workers are joining union drives despite intense opposition. Actors and screenwriters are striking and artists and illustrators have called for a ban of generative AI in editorial outlets. Organizing, illegal in the Luddites’ time, has historically proved the best bulwark against automation.

But governments must also step up. They must offer robust protections and social services for those in precarious positions. They must enforce antitrust laws. Crucially, they must develop regulations to rein in the antidemocratic model of technological development wherein a handful of billionaires and venture capital firms determine the shape of the future — and who wins and loses in it.

The clothworkers of the 1800s had the right idea: They believed everyone should share in the bounty of the amazing technologies their work makes possible.

That’s why I’m a Luddite — and why you should be one, too.

I had the jump through many hoops to break this out of WaPo paywall prison.

[theadaptableeducator]

Towards Sustainable Futures: Rethinking Colonialism, Nationalism, Imperialism, and Capitalism Through Faiz Ahmed Faiz's Poetic Lens

Faiz Ahmed Faiz, a renowned poet and intellectual, deeply contemplated the interplay between power structures like colonialism, nationalism, imperialism, and capitalism. Let’s delve into each and explore their interconnectivity and unsustainability through the lens of his philosophies, and then discuss sustainable alternatives with modern examples. Colonialism and imperialism are intertwined…

[edsonjnovaes]

GUIA completo NOSTR

GUIA completo NOSTR: o que é, como surgiu e como usar o protocolo que descentraliza REDES SOCIAIS! Area Bitcoin – 08 ago 2023 PARTES DO VÍDEO: 00:00 – O que é e como surgiu o NOSTR 03:58 – Como NOSTR funciona (relays) 06:58 – NOSTR e Bitcoin: o futuro da internet 08:24 – Como criar uma conta no Damus 11:52 – O que são zaps e como enviar bitcoin via Lighting no NOSTR Nostr é a sigla de…

[blocksifybuzz]

Decentralized Social Media: Privacy, Freedom, and User Control

In the 21st century, the realm of digital discourse is shaped considerably by social media, and understanding its ceaseless evolution is pivotal to keeping pace with its fast-changing dynamics. The journey of social media from a simple form of communication to being instrumental in driving modern democracy has been a spectacle to behold. However, despite its meteoric rise, centralization, a key…

[utopicwork]

Hi, I'm Agie, and along with @transamus and @potionslushie I've been working on a big update to PierMesh, a project to bring cheap radio based, decentralized and disaster resistant web technology to trans women and other marginalized people. I've made a demo video of the WebUI and the underlying technologies of it which now include a DNS analog and a bidirectional peer to peer protocol. Please take a look and share this post around if you're so inclined.

[sashayed]

I haven't said as much about electoral politics this year as I have in previous cycles, because I am exhausted like everyone else and have nothing new or helpful to add. That is still true, so caveat lector I guess lmao!!! Happy American Election Day Fellow Sufferers!!

I have been experiencing an internal backlash the last few years to my extremely Sorkinpilled D.C. private school upbringing -- my childhood spent as a kind of convent schoolgirl in the faith of The System Is Good If We All Participate, which of course has a uhhh let's say generously a minimal engagement with the ways in which many of us are by design shut out of participating. I don't think idealism is necessarily childish, but I think MY idealism certainly has childish qualities, an undergirding of 90s feel-goodism, of civic participation as a subtle ego stroke and of voting -- although I would never have consciously put it this way -- as a way to feel superior to people who don't vote.

Lately there has bubbled up in me a sludgy, adolescent fury at this whole stupid country that has made it very very hard to feel like I should do even the bare minimum. For these people? AMERICANS? The ones that not only want Donald Trump to be president but saw what happened the first time and were like, We love this, do it again but worse? Whatever, fuckos. "I hope you people get your dearest wish and it chews you to death slowly," I may have thought.

I have also thought: why is it so controversial to ask elected officials to stop funding a genocide? Why are we treating people who make that ask, who are watching the current administration directly fund death on a mass scale and objecting to that choice, as if they are being babies and just need to get over it? How are they supposed to get over it? Why is anybody over it?

Anyway all this means that I, a known chipper door-knocker and caller of congresspeople, have been pretty low-key this current cycle. I think that is OK. I don't want to make this a big dramatic confessional about how I didn't write enough postcards or whatever. We all get exhausted and this was my turn.

But it has also been an illuminating cycle in that it's made it clear to me how much at my big age I still want politics to make me feel good, and when they don't, I still have the urge to throw a lil tantrum about it! I can get very superior and intellectual about how right-wing operatives manipulate their voters emotionally WITHOUT EVEN NOTICING that I too have been manipulated, in my case into the feeling that nonparticipation is a kind of revolutionary act.* Just absolute "I threw it on the GROUND" logic happening inside my head. "Maybe if I don't vote I will be doing Quiet Quitting, which is uhhhhh anticapitalist." I'm not a part of your system!!!

Anyway, I am trying to have self-compassion about it, and one way for me to do that is to project my internal experience onto a theoretical reader. That would be you, my imaginary friend who clicked on this post for some reason even though you have already decided not to vote! I just want to tell you that I am more sympathetic to your point of view than I have ever been in my whole life, and I'm sorry I have historically been a glib, holier-than-thou asshole about it in ways that may actually have made you MORE resistant to civic participation.

And you're right: it doesn't make that big a difference whether I personally vote or not, or whether you do. But if there are hundreds of us, and I think there are, then each of those people individually do starts to matter.

I guess I would humbly request that you and I both pay attention to what people who need help are actually asking for. I would ask that we both notice who wins when we abdicate this single responsibility. I would remind us both that participating in the electoral process is not some kind of weird either-or with participating in decentralized community building and mutual aid, and the best people we know do both. Isn't it interesting that somehow, insidiously, without even consciously becoming aware of this belief, we have started to think that you can only do one or the other? Who is telling us that story? Who does it serve?

Anyway. I took the stupid 90 minute round trip to my polling place which was VERY hot for some reason and I stood in the stupid line and some babies waved at me and I cast my vote for Kamala Harris and I'm glad I did it in the same way I'm glad after I do the dishes or take a stupid shower. Doing work doesn't always feel like anything. I also saw a really wonderful small black and white dog that I thought was a cat on a leash. I would not have seen that dog if I hadn't gone to vote. So politics can still make you feel good!!!

*I mean all this analysis is cute and everything BUT ALSO i did switch antidepressants twice in the last year, an astonishingly grueling process that almost made me [affect the trout population]. Could these things be related? hmmmmmmm, don't understand the question, won't respond to it.

[anyab]

Via NasAlSudan

Learn about the Sudanese revolution, the significance of December 19, and a legacy of resistance and resilience.

Join our call to action today and everyday during Sudan Action Week.

December 19 2023

Transcript:

Breaking it down

What is the Sudanese Revolution?

The Sudanese Revolution refers to the popular uprising in Sudan that began on December 19, 2018 and eventually deposed 30-year dictator of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir, on April 11 of 2019.

How did the Revolution begin?

Protests first began in Atbara, a city with historical significance to the labor movement in Sudan, in response to the rising costs of basic supplies such as bread and fuel.

Protestors set fire to the national party headquarters, and the news of their revolt quickly spread, inspiring protestors first in other cities, and then in the capital of Khartoum itself.

Online, the caption #TasgutBas, translating to #JustFall, grew in popularity and helped connect the diaspora to those in Sudan.

Was it really just bread?

No. The rising cost of bread in developing nations is an indicator of how badly the economy is strained, to the point where it impacts members of every social class.

At this point in time in Sudan, subsidies on essential goods had been rolled back, funding for social and state services such as healthcare and education was nearly nonexistent, and it is estimated that nearly 90% of economic activity took place in the informal sector, all while the military budget continually increased.

Transcript:

Who led the charge? Creating a revolution

Group: Sudanese Professional's association (SPA)

Who they are:

Group of labor and trade organizations formed in secret in 2012 and publicly declared in 2016

Backbone of grassroots organizing in Sudan

Role played:

Led action on the street, organized national protests, like the initial march on Khartoum for increased wages before the transition to calls for regime change, and worker strikes.

Group: Local Resistance Committees (LRCS)

Who they are:

Initially formed as groups of students and youth organized together on the more local, neighbourhood basis during the Bashir era

Membership is extremely diverse across socio-economic, ethnic, tribal, religious, and political lines

Role played:

Considered the lifeblood of the revolution, with youth organizing local protests and ensuring safety against governmental repression by standing on the front lines + providing security, food, water, and medication to people

Group: Forces for freedom and change (FFC)

Who they are:

Coalition comprising the SPA, LRCS, the Sudan Revolutionary Front (group of anti-governmental Darfur militias), political parties, and civil society groups

Role played:

Essentially became the political mouthpiece of the revolution and signed onto the transitional government with the military on behalf of Sudanese civilians

It is also crucial to note that from a demographic perspective, it is youth and women that largely led and comprised the Sudanese Revolution.

Trabscript:

How did the revolution succeed?

01. Learning from the Past

Following the Arab Spring wave, Sudan also attempted a revolution in September of 2013

Civilians faced violent crackdowns within the first three days of protest. 200 killed, 800+ arrested

Activists were deterred from mobilization + felt a lot of guilt at the massive loss of life and spent the next 5 years grounding themselves in the study of nonviolent theory and action

02. Building a Movement

Coalition Building and People Power

Diversification of the reach of the movement to make sure all sectors of Sudani society were represented

Decentralization of Activism

Past revolutions in 1964 and 1985 were concentrated in the labor movement and educational elites in Khartoum

This time, experienced nonviolent activists trained those in the capital and ensured ethnic, religious, and tribal diversity

Newly trained activists then taught others locally across the Sudanese states

Transcript:

Why december 19?

On December 19, 1955, the Sudanese parliament unanimously adopted a declaration of independence from the Anglo-Egyptian colonial power.

The declaration went into effect on January 1, 1956, which is why Independence Day is officially January 1, but December 19 is when the Sudanese people were truly liberated from colonial rule.

The flag shown is Sudan's independence flag. The blue is for the Nile, the yellow for the Sahara, and the green for the farmlands.

The current Sudanese flag was adopted in 1970, with the colors used being the Pan-Arab ones.

During the 2019 revolution, protestors often carried the independence flag instead as a form of resistance to the narrative of an exclusive Pan-Arab Sudanese identity.

December 19 is ultimately a tribute to Sudanese strength and resilience. It honors our independence and revolutionary martyrs - not just those of the 2019 revolution, but the democratic revolutions of 1964 and 1985 as well.

Transcript:

Why is the revolution ongoing?

The goal was never just the fall of a dictator. The goal was, and is, to build a better Sudan, one free from military rule. One with equal opportunities for everyone, with economic prosperity and safety and security - the key principles of freedom, peace, and justice that the revolution called for.

Today, though, before we rebuild Sudan, before we free it from foreign interests and military rule and sectarianism, we need to save it. Each day that passes by with war waging on is one where more civilians are killed. More people are displaced. More women are raped. More children go hungry. To live in the conflict zones in Sudan right now - whether that be Khartoum, Darfur, Kordofan, or now, Al Gezira, is to be trapped in a never-ending nightmare, a fight for survival. And to live elsewhere in Sudan is to wonder whether you're next.

Sudan Action Week calls on you to educate yourself and others about Sudan, and then to help the Sudanese people save it, because we can no longer do it alone.

Transcript:

What can you do? Uniting for Al Gezira and North Darfur

As we witness the unfolding events in Al Gezira and North Darfur, the communities of Abu Haraz, Hantoub, Medani, El Fasher, and many others are reaching out for assistance. Sudanese resilience persists to this day, with individuals on platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok seeking and providing guidance on transportation services, medical care, food, shelter, protection, safe zones, operational markets, and more. This isn't new for the Sudanese community. A legacy of unity emerged, notably during the 2019 revolutions, where nas al Sudan [the people of Sudan], both within the nation and in the diaspora, rallied together to support each other online. Beyond merely sharing stories on social media, this was about strengthening collective action, enhancing mobilizations, and building a resilient community rooted in solidarity. The essence of the Sudanese community lies in people supporting people, notably during the uprising in 2018 and following the events of April 15th, 2023

Swipe to see how you can help.

Transcript:

What can you do?

This week, on a day nearly mirroring Sudanese Independence and the popular 2018 uprising, Sudanese resilience endures as war follows nas al Sudan to Al Gezira and again in North Darfur. Our call to action this week is not just to share; it's a collective effort to uplift one another.

Share Resources:

If you have access to resources that can help such as transportation services, medical assistance, food, shelter, etc., please comment below.

Community Requests:

If you are in Al Gezira or North Darfur and require specific support, please comment on your needs

Connect Individuals:

For those unable to share resources directly, help amplify requests by sharing this information within your personal networks. Your connection may lead to support from individuals who can assist.

Spread the Word:

Share this call to action on your social media platforms to broaden the reach and encourage more people to contribute.

Transcript:

Hanabniho

حنبنيهوا

[We will rebuild]

#keepEyesOnSudan

#SudanActionWeek

[drdemonprince]

the thing to remember is that the supposed might of the yankees is very much propaganda. a lie designed to make you think you don't stand a chance. but if we look at history the story is completely different. they lost in afghanistan. they lost in vietnam. the many military dictatorships in latin-america and the rest of the world they propped up lost. the native peoples of the so called united states are still here. and just like that their little murderous client state israel will lose in palestine.

there's no real way for them to win other than to make you believe they've won. apart from the myriad ways to materially resist and learn from those who've been or are in this situation, inculcate in yourself and those around you: you haven't lost until you've given up.

it's true! A colonial power fighting against a decentralized, asymmetrical resistance that is local to the region is always operating at a massive (and expensive) disadvantage. Thanks Anon.

[frownyalfred]

Hello, ( ´ ▽ ` )ﾉ

I was re-reading Eye in the Sky, literally hits me in the gut every time I read it I swear the amount complex emotions and relationships all from an outsider POV it's just, I can't but I digress.

Diana did have this whole speech about wanting Bruce to "come back to them" but it's said outright that she'd be 100% kill him is it weren't for Kal interfering. How much of her speech is true about wanting him scared, or was it all just to try to get sympathy/ confuse Duke or any potential listeners. If Bruce were to "give up" (not that it would happen) would she accept him back into the fold as one of the Leaguers and as Batman?

Also, the meeting where they show off Tim, Jason and Dick very obviously misses Damian, Cass and Steph.

My interpretation of the og Injustice -verse was that Damian joined Superman partly due to him believing that villains should be killed but also partially because Dick's accidental death left a rift between him and Bruce that Damian was too scared to address.

However, Dick is very much Alive and at no point does Bruce ever mention Damian joining the Regime willingly.

Are there any crumbs you'd be willing to share?

I don't think Diana outright wants to kill Bruce, but I'm sure she's happy to make threats and attempts she knows will rattle him. We get Duke's POV for this fic so he takes Bruce and the others at face value when they imply the motivation behind these attempts. I think Bruce deep down knows that Diana wants to spook him, wants to make him change his mind, wants to push him and express her anger and frustration. If she killed him without succeeding in getting him back in the Trinity, it wouldn't be worth it. Right?

If Bruce gave in, yes I think Diana would accept him back. She has strong opinions about right and wrong and having a humbled Bruce would satisfy any remaining anger, I think. She's not vengeful, or not in the way we might predict her to be. I think she told Duke much more of the truth than he realized. It was a highly vulnerable moment for her -- she's tired of this too. She didn't want this either.

The characters who aren't obviously referenced by the fic so far are the ones who managed to escape or evade the Regime in some form. We'll see a few of them next chapter. But they're decentralized and isolated, which felt more like a realistic resistance to me.

Thank you so much for reading!

[cyberpunkonline]

What is a Cypherpunk?

The term "cypherpunk" refers to a movement and a community of activists advocating for the widespread use of strong cryptography and privacy-enhancing technologies as a route to social and political change. Emerging in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the cypherpunk movement is a confluence of libertarian political philosophy, hacker ethos, and cryptographic science.

The Core Traits of Cypherpunks

1. Advocacy for Privacy and Anonymity: Cypherpunks champion the right to privacy, emphasizing that individuals should have control over their personal information and digital footprints. This advocacy is often in direct opposition to government surveillance and corporate data collection practices.

2. Use of Cryptography: The cornerstone of the cypherpunk movement is the use of strong cryptography to secure communications and transactions. Cypherpunks believe that through cryptographic techniques, individuals can protect their privacy in the digital world.

3. Open Source and Decentralization: A significant trait among cypherpunks is the belief in open-source software and decentralized systems. This ethos promotes transparency, security, and resistance to censorship and control by central authorities.

Who are the Cypherpunks?

The cypherpunk community consists of programmers, activists, academics, and technologists. Notable figures include Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks; Jacob Appelbaum, a former spokesperson for the Tor Project; and Hal Finney, a pioneer in digital cash systems. The manifesto "A Cypherpunk's Manifesto" by Eric Hughes (1993) [https://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html] eloquently encapsulates the philosophy and ideals of this movement.

The Cypherpunk Movement

Cypherpunks are not a formal organization but rather a loosely associated group sharing common interests in cryptography and privacy. The movement's origins can be traced to the “Cypherpunks” mailing list, started in 1992 by Eric Hughes, Timothy C. May, and John Gilmore. This list served as a platform for discussing privacy, cryptography, and related political issues.

Relation to Cyberpunk Principles

While cypherpunks share some overlap with the cyberpunk genre of science fiction, they are distinct in their real-world activism. Cyberpunk literature, like William Gibson's "Neuromancer" (1984) [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6088006-neuromancer], often presents a dystopian future where technology is pervasive and oppressive. In contrast, cypherpunks aim to use technology, specifically cryptography, as a tool for empowerment and resistance against such dystopian futures.

Notable Contributions and Technologies

The cypherpunk movement has been instrumental in the development of technologies that emphasize privacy and security:

Tor (The Onion Router): A free and open-source software for enabling anonymous communication [https://www.torproject.org/].

Pretty Good Privacy (PGP): A data encryption and decryption program that provides cryptographic privacy and authentication [https://www.openpgp.org/].

Bitcoin: The creation of Bitcoin by an individual or group under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto was heavily influenced by the ideas of the cypherpunk movement. It embodies principles of decentralization and financial privacy [https://bitcoin.org/en/].

Wikileaks: Founded by Julian Assange, WikiLeaks is a multinational media organization that publishes news leaks and classified media provided by anonymous sources [https://wikileaks.org/].

Conclusion

The cypherpunk movement is a critical lens through which to view the ongoing dialogue about privacy, security, and freedom in the digital age. While not an organized group, the collective impact of cypherpunks on modern cryptography, internet privacy, and digital rights is profound. As digital technology continues to permeate every facet of our lives, the principles and contributions of the cypherpunk community remain more relevant than ever. - REV1.

[all-things-are-nothing-to-me]

AK Press made some of their e-books free for a little while. These are the free ones.

An exploration of how emergent strategies can help us meet this moment, survive what is to come, and shape safer and more just futures.

Practicing New Worlds explores how principles of emergence, adaptation, iteration, resilience, transformation, interdependence, decentralization and fractalization can shape organizing toward a world without the violence of surveillance, police, prisons, jails, or cages of any kind, in which we collectively have everything we need to survive and thrive.

Drawing on decades of experience as an abolitionist organizer, policy advocate, and litigator in movements for racial, gender, economic, and environmental justice and the principles articulated by adrienne maree brown in Emergent Strategy: Shaping Change, Changing Worlds, Ritchie invites us to think beyond traditional legislative and policy change to create more possibilities for survival and resistance in the midst of the ongoing catastrophes of racial capitalism—and the cataclysms to come. Rooted in analysis of current abolitionist practices and interviews with on-the-ground organizers resisting state violence, building networks to support people in need of abortion care, and nurturing organizations and convergences that can grow transformative cities and movements, Practicing New Worlds takes readers on a journey of learning, unlearning, experimentation, and imagination to dream the worlds we long for into being.

In a style that bridges the divide between academia and activism, Street Rebellion develops a broader and more accurate understanding of how people struggle for liberation.

We are living in a time of uprisings that routinely involve physical confrontation—burning vehicles, barricades, vandalism, and scuffles between protesters and authorities. Yet the Left has struggled to incorporate rioting into theories of change, remaining stuck in recurring debates over violence and nonviolence. Civil resistance studies have popularized the term “strategic nonviolence,” spreading the notion that violence is wholly counter-productive. Street Rebellion scrutinizes recent research and develops a broad and grounded portrait of the relationship between strategic nonviolence and rioting in the struggle for liberation.

¡No Pasarán! is an anthology of antifascist writing that takes up the fight against white supremacy and the far-right from multiple angles. From the history of antifascism to today's movement to identify, deplatform, and confront the right, and the ways an insurgent fascism is growing within capitalist democracies, a myriad of voices come together to shape the new face of antifascism in a moment of social and political flux.

One of the most unique aspects of anarchism as a political philosophy is that it seeks to abolish the state. But what exactly is “the state”? The State is like a vast operating system for ordering and controlling relations among human society, the economy, and the natural world, analogous to a digital operating system like Windows or MacOS. Like a state, an operating system “governs” the programs and applications under it and networked with it, as well as, to some extent, the individuals who avail themselves of these tools and resources. No matter how different states seem on the surface they share core similarities, namely:

* The State is a relatively new thing in world history

* The State is European in origin and outlook

* States are “individuals” in the eyes of the law

* The State claims the right to determine who is a person

* The State is an instrument of violence and war

* The State is above the law

* The State is first and foremost an economic endeavor

Anyone concerned with entrenched power, income inequality, lack of digital privacy, climate change, the amateurish response to COVID-19, or military-style policing will find eye-opening insights into how states operate and build more power for themselves—at our expense. The state won’t solve our most pressing problems, so why do we obey? It’s time to think outside the state.

Joyful Militancy investigates how fear, self-righteousness, and moralism infiltrate and take root within liberation movements, what to do about them, and ultimately how tenderness and vulnerability can thrive alongside fierce militant commitment.

Why do radical movements and spaces sometimes feel laden with fear, anxiety, suspicion, self-righteousness, and competition? Montgomery and bergman call this phenomenon rigid radicalism: congealed and toxic ways of relating that have seeped into social movements, posing as the “correct” way of being radical. In conversation with organizers and intellectuals from a wide variety of political currents, the authors explore how rigid radicalism smuggles itself into radical spaces, and how it is being undone

Interviewees include Silvia Federici, adrienne maree brown, Marina Sitrin, Gustavo Esteva, Leanne Betasamosake Simpson, Walidah Imarisha, Margaret Killjoy, Glen Coulthard, Richard Day, and more.

Self-help, society-help, and planet-help to shape the futures we want. A resolutely materialist spirituality based equally on science and science fiction: a wild feminist and afro-futurist ride!

Inspired by Octavia Butler's explorations of our human relationship to change, Emergent Strategy is radical self-help, society-help, and planet-help designed to shape the futures we want to live. Change is constant. The world is in a continual state of flux. It is a stream of ever-mutating, emergent patterns. Rather than steel ourselves against such change, this book invites us to feel, map, assess, and learn from the swirling patterns around us in order to better understand and influence them as they happen. This is a resolutely materialist “spirituality” based equally on science and science fiction, a visionary incantation to transform that which ultimately transforms us.

[thewertsearch]

@skelekingfeddy submitted: hey so i was reading through your homestucksona tag and i decided to draw some of your concepts, namely sahlee’s lusus, the midnight crew, and the Palace Historian! i also sprinkled in some of my own ideas (i mean i literally made a whole new exile LOL) hope you like it!

Holy hell, that is some top god-tier spritework. You've officially canonized my Grubsprite's design.

In fact, I don't even know if this was deliberate, but her wires look a lot like the ones in this picture of Sahlee. Above is the same image, without the shadow layer, and even the colors match.

The idea here is that Sahlee is using her psionics to interface directly with her technology. I like the idea that she's able to 'talk' to Grubmom over the network - they probably play a lot of video games together. Maybe it was Grubmom who told her about the most important video game of all.

It feels so right that DD is the best hacker in the Crew. Those glasses were actually part of Sahlee's as-yet-unseen alchemy binge - and unfortunately for her, he actually knows how to use the computer inside.

I love the Investigator, too. I think the catalyst for her Exile was her association with one particular Dersite - a Battlefield farmer who wished to end this pointless war.

By this point, the Investigator had pilfered several files from the Black Queen's private archives, and learned more than any rank-and-file Carapacian was ever supposed to know. She knew that her friend's uprising would be sabotaged by Paradox Space - so she suggested a more decentralized form of resistance.

Together, they worked on a tell-all news article about the true cost of the War. They didn't pull any punches, either - the article called Derse's entire raison d'etre into question, demanding to know what the Royal Plan even is.

"WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE WIN, EH?

AIN'T IT KINDA WEIRD THAT THE SUITS HAVEN'T TOLD US?

ALL THOSE BOYS IN MAROON... WHAT ARE THEY ACTUALLY FIGHTIN' FOR?"

It even dared to ask why they hated Bilious Slick.

Anyway, the Black Queen caught the article through the malware she'd hidden in PawnziBuddy, a 'virtual tyrant' that every Dersite is legally required to install. She canned the article, Exiled the Investigator, and turned the tabloid's server rack into a GristCoin mine.

HI also sent a copy to a Prospitian she trusted - but, oddly enough, that archivist vanished without a trace. Prospit is surely beyond the Black Queen's reach, so it was probably just an unhappy coincidence.

Sad, though - that document could have won Prospit the war. It's too bad that the White Queen never got her hands on it.

[dailyanarchistposts]

On anarchism

“Q: if an anarcho-syndicalist, an insurrectionary anarchist, and an anarcho-primitivist are sitting together in the back of a car, who’s driving?

A: A cop!”

This book is also an intervention into anti-authoritarian movements, especially anarchism. Many threads of anarchism infuse our lives and the lives of those we care about, and we have been inspired and influenced by a range of different anti-authoritarian currents. At its most vibrant, anarchism is not an ideology, but a creative rejection of the ideologies of the state, capitalism, and the Left. Crucial to anarchism is the attempt to escape the certainties of Empire and the certainties that can arise in struggle. Anarchism can support a trust in people’s capacities to figure out for themselves how to live and fight together, rather than constructing a model or blueprint for resistance. Whereas dominant currents of Marxism and liberalism assume the necessity of the state and activate desires for unity and sameness, anarchism often nurtures autonomy, decentralization, and difference.

The anarchism we are interested in does not tell us what we should do. For us this is crucial. Anarchism can help us inhabit spaces by trusting our own capacities, and relating in ways that are emergent and responsive to change. But as with any other tradition, anarchism can also crystallize into a fixed ideology. It can produce closed and stifling milieus. It can lead to duty-bound collectivism, or simplistic individualism. It can feel like a club whose boundaries are policed, or a badge to display one’s radical cred. Anarchist spaces can feel cold, unwelcoming, and scary. Anyone familiar with anarchist milieus knows that there can be vicious sectarian conflicts, which often entrench rigid loyalties and positions.

We do not focus much on these debates here, nor do we situate ourselves as particular types of anarchists. This is partly because we have learned from many different currents, and it seems counterproductive to elevate one above the others. We also want to avoid some of the debates that, to us, have become sedimented and stale. At its best, we think anarchism nurtures trust in people’s capacity to figure things out, while also supporting autonomy and leaving room for conflict. We are inspired by all the ways that anarchists are able to inhabit situations with strong values and fierce care, while also respecting and even welcoming difference.

We are particularly interested in currents of anarchism and anti-authoritarianism that have emphasized the importance of affinities over ideologies. Affinity is a helpful concept for us because it speaks to emergent relationships and forms of organizing that are decentralized and flexible, but not flimsy. Organizing by affinity basically means seeking out and nurturing relationships based in shared values, commitments, and passions, without trying to impose those on everyone else. Affinity is also important because many of the currents that inspire us either reject anarchism—along with all other “isms”—or just don’t have much interest in it. Some of the people we interviewed are self-proclaimed anarchists who are known in anarchist milieus. Others have been deeply influenced by anarchism, and it inflects their projects and their lives, but they don’t identify much with the political label. Others have traditions of autonomy and resistance that come from other sources, including Indigeneity and other non-Western traditions. For many, resistance to hierarchy, violence, and exploitation has been something intuitive, or a question of survival. They are forcing Empire out of their lives and linking up with others doing the same.

There is a conversation going on, within and beyond anarchism, about the potential of strong relationships that are rooted in trust, love, care, and the capacity to support and defend each other. The most exciting currents of anarchism, for us, are those that encourage and enable people to live differently here and now, and to break down divides between organizing and everyday life.

[paingoes]

Destroyer - A Sentence of Sorts

(Masterlist)

(Content: mass death, alcohol, physical abuse, verbal abuse, guilt, self loathing, minor suicidal ideation, implied self harm)

=======================

Delta read the death toll again. 2,367 was the beginner estimate. There was not as much outcry as there was about Lemuria, nor was there the same circus of gore. The fact that it was an attack on Nezu did little to comfort him. He didn’t care for the nuances. In him there was an almost childlike sensibility. He diligently added the new deaths to his personal count. In his half-asleep state, what felt like the great tragedy was not the number itself, but the fact that it could never be reduced. It was the math he was fixated on. It wasn’t fair.

He realized quickly after re-entering the Empire portal that it had been bifurcated between the two sides of the war. He also realized, to his shock, that he’d been grouped into Nezu’s side. He’d actually forgotten that he’d stolen the laptop from one of Nezu’s people. They must have been either dead or on vacation; no one else was ever active on any of the accounts. He had to re-configure a lot of the settings and passwords to regain access to the portal, no doubt indicating a massive security crisis on their side. He scanned the bulletin they’d posted. Saber rattling. In memoriam.

Empire could not afford this war. They’d already stretched themselves thin across the different fronts, practically at the height of their expansionism when the Emperor had died. They faced opposition from a host of recognized nations, as well as a new crop of organized resistance groups that existed solely to topple the whole thing. Empire still wasn’t weak, not by any stretch of the imagination. Its power structure was decentralized enough to survive the past months without anyone at the helm. But Paris and Nezu forcing Empire in half threatened to break the entire web into a whole spectrum of disjointed pieces.

Delta paused. Did he want that? He thought of it as a kind of apocalypse scenario, but he supposed it was technically in alignment with his own goals. With the civil war raging, Empire was planting the seeds of its own demise. But they were just seeds.

He looked back at the death toll. There’d be hell to pay before it finally broke apart. 

He posted the next leak to a new thread, quickly shutting out of the tab before he had time to see anyone’s reaction. He updated semi-regularly now, attaching both current plans and declassifying older files from the early days of Empire. The latter was more for his own curiosity than anything else. To him, it felt like a small act. He was used to the light shows, bold acts of destruction and slaughter. Working with intel was so much subtler; it was hard to trace any development back to something he had released. All he had were suspicions, really. Suspicions and a few messages.

katkittykat: ok rlly can i ask where ur getting this shit

katkittykat: whos ur connection hehehe :3

ndhakdvsnnd: nobody and i dont know what youre talking about

katkittykat: its a lil late to play coy yknow

katkittykat: u dont have 2 b scared of me!!! i want to help u

ndhakdvsnnd: shut up

katkittykat: wtf!!! rude >:3

katkittykat: pretend that face is frowning but its still a cat

katkittykat: wait i got it

katkittykat: /ᐠoᆽoᐟ \╭∩╮

sunspot: Hey thanks again for the leak !! Im sorry about kitty actually im sorry about both of us

sunspot: We arent trying to push you into anything really we are just curious about you

sunspot: Sorry if its stressing you out i would probably be stressed out too in your situation 

ndhakdvsnnd: you dont know fuck about my situation

sunspot: Yeah thats true! But I know youve been helping us a lot and we are kind of worried about you 

ndhakdvsnnd: who is we why do you keep saying we

ndhakdvsnnd: yes you are stressing me the fuck out thanks for acknowledging that

ndhakdvsnnd: didnt you say you were going to stop prying id really appreciate it if you did

sunspot: Fair enough! I havent been that upfront with you either so I guess i am not in a position to be asking so much. If you want to know what is happening on our end i will tell you and maybe that will help?

ndhakdvsnnd: okay

ndhakdvsnnd: not now

sunspot: Talk later?

ndhakdvsnnd: i have to go 

sunspot: Okay be careful then! 

ndhakdvsnnd: thanks

Delta exited out. He got other messages - many, many others - but none as annoyingly persistent as those two. He didn’t know why he kept talking to them. When they answered, it was bad. When they didn’t, it was even worse. He stepped away from the computer, badly needing a break. He wouldn’t get it, of course, not for more than five minutes. He needed to go see Paris.

==========================

The bottle almost nailed him in the fucking head. Delta hissed, softly, his bright eyes flashing violently. 

“You’re late,” Paris let his head loll a little, a lazy smile quirking at his lips. Delta didn’t bother trying to defend himself. His vocal cords were still burnt out, rendering him mute for a time. He moved to the prince’s side, dropping into a kneel. Paris backhanded him before he’d even gotten all the way down. Eager today. Delta winced, immediately moving to touch the tender skin. He knew it had broken; Paris had blood on his ring. He grabbed Delta’s wrist before it could make contact and did not let go.

“Take your hair out,” He ordered. Oh. Delta had forgotten. Paris still didn’t let go of his wrist, so he had to remove the tie with one hand. He slipped it onto his wrist, letting his hair fall loosely down his back. 

“Let me see,” Paris said. Delta tilted his head a little, not understanding. After a minute, he offered Paris his other hand. Paris slid the hair tie off, doubling it over a few times to bind Delta’s wrists together. Delta let them fall in his lap. Not a particularly difficult restraint to get out of, but that didn’t matter. Delta knew better than to try it.

He didn’t understand why Paris had started calling him here again. Besides the little indiscretions with the laptop, he’d been on his best behavior. He had honestly been trying to make it easier on him, but it had no effect. Paris had been difficult before the accident. These days, he was impossible.

He was also tipsy, which was historically worse. Drunk enough to lose any inhibitions, but not drunk enough to let Delta get away with anything. It was a losing game. He was almost glad he couldn’t speak; at least he couldn’t say the wrong thing and send the prince off in a spiral. It was all too easy to do that now, but nobody paid for it the way Delta did.

“Why did you change?” 

That caught him off guard. Delta could’ve asked him the exact same thing, of course. But that wasn’t what bothered him. It was so unfair. Paris, who had all the social grace of a methed up honeybadger, could still read people without any apparent effort. Delta wilted a little bit under his gaze, a small pang of guilt striking him. He thought again about destroying the computer. He thought about it everyday. He bowed his head in apology. Not good enough, apparently. Paris kicked him onto his back. Unable to catch himself, he knocked his head into the carpet, wind knocked out from the blow. Paris had stood up.

“You think I can’t tell?” His voice was unsteady, pitchy, the way it had been ever since he got back. He was getting worked up, Delta could tell. He stifled a groan. This was going to be a long night.

“I was only out for a fucking month, what changed? Why is everyone acting like the show is over?”

Delta felt a sudden kick in his side. Paris gripped his collar. He was light; it was not hard to drag Delta off the ground, even unwillingly. Paris only did it half-way, throwing him back into the desk. Delta’s back slammed into it, again unable to catch himself. He bounced off it, back onto the ground. Slowly, he repositioned himself into a kneel, more muscle memory than conscious effort.

“You know all this could have been prevented if he just wrote a will. The old man thought he would never die. They pierced me right though the exact same place they got him, you know that? Just an inch from the heart. I didn’t ask for a civil war. It’s my birthright, I shouldn’t have to-“

Paris slapped him in the face, “Are you even listening? This is about you.”

Delta nodded, even though it clearly wasn’t. He knew Paris was just taking his anger out on him because he was there — because he couldn’t do anything about it. Delta accepted this with the kind of quiet resignation that only ever seemed to irritate the situation.

“Fucking stop!” The prince yelled. God, he was never happy. He circled behind Delta, landing a kick squarely on his shoulderblades. It sent him forward, onto his hands and knees. Before he could recover, Paris kicked him again in the side, with enough force that he fell flat onto the carpet. For some reason, the rug caught his eye. It was weaved of soft blue fiber. 

Delta thought of Lemuria — and of the ocean. Paris kicked him in the stomach, but he didn’t hear what he said. 2,367 dead, in addition to the 22,534 previous. They were all-star numbers. Paris knocked his leg out, forcing Delta flat on his back. He straddled his waist, which Delta admittedly found much harder to ignore. He winced as Paris’s hands wrapped around his throat, the one still too burnt for him to speak with. His collar gave off a little dryer spark; Paris cursed. Delta thought of all the lives he’d destroyed in the past months alone, the ones he’d never know, the count that would never go down. What kind of terror did they feel in their final moments? How badly did it burn? He didn’t fight as Paris beat him. Fair is fair. Even as the grip tightened, threatening to choke off his air, he didn’t resist it. It was right that he should die. It would be right if he died 25,000 times over.

Paris didn’t give him the satisfaction. His eyes had been burning above him, but they gradually turned to cinders, the pressure letting up. He didn’t look much calmer, but he did look exhausted. He was still injured. The beating might’ve taken more out of him than it did Delta. 

Delta couldn’t ask to be dismissed. He wouldn’t have. When Paris did throw him out, he felt a vague and numinous dissatisfaction. He was being punished for the wrong reasons. It wasn’t enough. In the hallway, he unbinded his own hands. He pulled the band back against his wrist, letting it snap hard against the skin. 

[mariacallous]

President Volodymyr Zelensky unveiled a “resilience plan” for Ukraine in a parliamentary address on November 19, marking a thousand days since Russia began its full-scale invasion of the country. 

“Ukraine was and will remain an independent state with its own destiny. And Ukraine will determine for itself how to live now and in the future,” Zelensky said. “Ukraine has earned the right to this. But in order to be able to realize this right, we must endure now. We must not collapse now. So that the occupier collapses, not us. We need internal resilience.”

The unveiling of the “resilience plan” comes about a month after Zelensky presented a “victory plan” to Ukraine’s parliament, which some opposition lawmakers criticized for its focus on requests to international partners and failure to address domestic issues. 

“In every war, to avoid defeat, there are things that the people themselves can do, and there are things that can only be achieved through unity with allies. That is why these two documents are essential,” Zelensky told the parliament on Tuesday. “And our internal unity must always be strong enough to unite our partners as well.”

The 10-point ‘resilience plan’

In his speech, Zelensky outlined the following 10 points aimed at strengthening Ukraine’s internal resistance, though he noted some of them will remain largely classified for security reasons.

Point 1: Unity

Referring to both domestic unity and “unity with allies,” Zelensky called for accelerating E.U. integration and an immediate invitation for Ukraine to join NATO. He also underscored the need for “information consolidation” and “external justice for Ukraine,” including a tribunal against the Russian Federation, the confiscation of Russian assets, and effective sanctions.

Point 2: The Front

Zelensky outlined changes in Ukraine’s approach to personnel management, mobilization and recruitment, and general training in the Armed Forces. At the same time, he assured that Ukraine is not planning to lower the mobilization age. Zelensky also said that Ukraine is planning “very specific measures to stabilize the front” and will carry out “necessary operations” in the occupied territories and against military targets in Russia. 

Point 3: Armament

Ukraine will continue to expand its domestic production of artillery systems and shells, as well as drones, Zelensky said. This includes plans to produce at least 30,000 long-range drones next year and at least 3,000 cruise missiles and missile drones. 

At the same time, Zelensky underscored that Ukraine needs to “surpass Russia in technology,” attract investment into its military-industrial complex, and ensure the security of defense enterprises. “Even without nuclear weapons, we can find conventional instruments of deterrence,” he said. “Our weapons will always be our first guarantor.”

Point 4: Money

In order to retain its basic resilience, Zelensky said, the Ukrainian economy needs a new economic policy based on three key things:

Maximum support for Ukrainian entrepreneurship, localization, and domestic production; 

Security of doing business and reduced pressure on entrepreneurs from excessive regulation; 

Maximum and legal employment (or, as Zelensky put it, “de-shadowing”). 

“The other side of Ukraine's economic strength is the ability of the state to fulfill its obligations, especially social ones,” he added. 

Point 5: Energy

Zelensky described “Energy” as “the most classified” point of the resilience plan, “because of Russia's criminal intent to plunge Ukraine into a blackout.” Ukraine’s task, he said, is to protect its energy facilities and power grid, decentralize electricity and heat generation, manage energy consumption, and lay the groundwork for establishing the country as an energy hub post-war. 

Point 6: Security

Referring to internal security in Ukraine’s cities and communities, Zelensky outlined plans to combat crime, secure public spaces and educational institutions, build and upgrade shelters, and carry out demining work. “The steps we are taking during the war to ensure internal security are only partially disclosed,” he noted. 

Point 7: Communities

Underscoring the importance of “highly effective governance within communities,” Zelensky called for increased collaboration between communities within Ukraine, as well as international engagement at the community level. He also noted that certain communities — such as cities near the border with Russia and towns trying to integrate large numbers of displaced people — need tailored measures.

“We must not forget our communities that are currently in temporarily occupied territories,” Zelensky added. “Ukraine must be prepared at all levels to restore control over its entire territory at the right time and through the right actions.”

Point 8: Human Capital

Ukraine needs to create all the necessary conditions for every citizen to “truly identify” as Ukrainian and “work in, with, and for” their country, Zelensky said. The annexes to this point in the resilience plan will cover Ukraine’s policy on recovery, a national standard for accessibility, education, social policy reforms, and policy regarding religious organization, he explained. 

Zelensky also said that Ukraine needs to allow dual citizenship, reboot its diplomatic service, and strengthen its policies concerning Ukrainians abroad. Accordingly, he announced plans to establish a Ministry of Ukrainian Unity, tasked with focusing on the affairs of the Ukrainian diaspora.

Point 9: Cultural sovereignty 

In an effort to reinforce Ukrainian culture at home and promote it abroad, Zelensky’s government plans to launch a “cultural Ramstein” forum, he said (akin to the Ramstein Group in the defense sector). Zelensky also underscored the importance of the “deliberate and systematic creation” of Ukrainian content “capable of fully replacing Russian content” and the need to hold Russia accountable for crimes against Ukraine’s cultural heritage. 

Point 10: The Heroes Policy

Zelensky described the “Heroes Policy” as “perhaps the most morally significant point” in the resilience plan. He then outlined measures aimed at regulating soldiers’ transition from military service to veteran status, creating conditions for integrating war veterans into public and economic life, and boosting state support programs for veterans and their families.  

“The key goal is genuine resilience for Ukraine,” Zelensky concluded. “We must end this war — and end it justly. But we must do it in a way that ensures Putin, no matter how toothless, never returns to Ukraine.”

[warsofasoiaf]

Had the Warsaw uprising been successful would the Soviets have just walked in and just mass arrested/killed the resistance regardless

They certainly would have tried. The Soviets were rather infamous for executing any potential rallying points that were deemed insufficiently loyal to Moscow, and much of non-communist Poland despised the Soviet Union for abandoning them in 1939 when the Nazis and Soviets were allied along with atrocities like the Katyn Massacre.

The Soviets probably would have struggled against the Polish Home Army, who were willing to fight with decentralized tactics to take advantage of the clumsy Red Army. Local Polish communists who would be willing to collaborate with the Soviets and help set up any puppet government would likely have been marked for assassination, and Soviet logistics would have struggled to advance supplies through a hostile Poland, and likely resulted in the Soviets levelling villages and cities in their hunt for Polish saboteurs which would jeopardize the campaign on the Eastern Front.

Thanks for the question, Anon.

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King