Laws are just a moral wall.

Quiero compartir esto que hice durante el día. Opiniones?

hoy estaba al pedo en el laburo e hice esto con canva. opiniones?

Much appreciated

Des membres français en fait parti dans ce subreddit ?

Had a thought thinking about a local upcoming festival. Could I print out a bunch of zines from crimethinc and others and walk around handing out for free? Could have a shirt or something that says free zines and free stickers or something like that. Has anyone ever tried something like that? Good idea or not a good idea?

Hello, I've recently noticed a plethora of attempts to start a revolution in the recent years.

So I am wondering: If someone were planning to organzie an internation general strike--you didn't know wether it would suceed or how many others would follow--would you join?

Genuinly, would you be able to unsubsrive from any and all servives you are sunscribed too. Would you be able to reduce the amout of meat and cheaply produced crops you eat because of the impact of the agriculture and meat industry on the enviroment, would you be willing to educate your peers and strangers despite the scrutiny you might face?

Would you do everything a revolt against pedopolitics and capitalism asks of you? Opting to walk and bike instead of using a car, arming yourselves, helping those in need, sheltering the marginalized and on the day of--not going to work? Striking for those who cannot?

I'm curious. Please share your thoughts.

This was uploaded in March 2026, so old news, but also welcome news.

Happy reading!

Long live anarchy!

New evidence revealed for the first time in this Intercept investigation, shows that Song, a former Marine reservist and expert marksman, may have never intended to shoot the police officer.

Sound and Fury is a multimedia literary project by me, Mike Crook, combining speculative fiction, poetry, and tabletop game design in a single work. 

The book contains Irreducible Tales, Volume 1, a collection of seven speculative stories; Formalism for Anarchists, a ten-piece collection of poems accompanied by optional prompts for generating musical interpretations; and MATH ROCKS!, a setting-agnostic tabletop role-playing game created by Mike Crook and Gina Truitt.

Contagionpress.com

I started hate watching korra and it is genuinely making me sick at times, especially as a severely disabled person who's losing my ability to walk.

Korra(the show as a whole) treats oppressed people as a cult who seeks to cause merciless harm to everyone without nuance. It's sickening to watch that as I watch my community being faked claimed to death and not recieving the care they need due to the sentiments on display in korra s1's writing.

Anyways I keep looking for video essays that have good takes but all of them are liberal asf or mysogenistic(especially the one where the guy said smth along the lines of 'anarchy only exists to create a power vaccine for the other two ideologies'¿?????????). Please if anyone has recs pls give

Also if y'all wanna have a convo ABT how korra portrays the oppressed in the comments I'm all for it

So basically, I was involved in Occupy Santa Cruz, which was a huge branch of Occupy that had its own battles with the police, although nothing like what happened in Occupy Oakland.

The best way I would describe Occupy was as a kind of boot camp for anarchists and political revolutionaries. It brought people from all sides of the political spectrum together who were suffering under oligarchy, and we all worked together to try to find solutions. Unfortunately, with federal influence, internal divisions, tribalism, and other problems, the movement eventually fell apart. But I believe an Occupy 2.0 is possible.

It would have to be different.

One of the biggest things I learned from Occupy is that when you are trying to build a revolutionary movement, every person can end up operating as an individual. There was very little structure connecting all of these different groups, and eventually every little tribe started doing its own thing.

In our encampment, there was an FBI informant who I believe contributed to tearing us apart from the inside by pushing divisions within the activist community.

Then there were other anarchists who broke off into their own groups and, in my view, some of those groups may have been infiltrated as well. There were betrayals, internal conflicts, and constantly shifting alliances. Eventually, the movement became fragmented.

The fundamental problem is that if you want to build a sustainable revolutionary movement, you need an organized movement. You need a code of conduct. You need a sense of purpose. You need mutual respect between different factions and communities.

You also need to take care of the people involved.

If I were building a movement today, I would want people to go through some kind of orientation and training before becoming deeply involved in the main activities. That training would include things like conflict resolution, wise and intelligent civil resistance, personal safety, digital privacy, meditation, stress management, and learning when to step away from the movement to recuperate.

That last part is extremely important.

I saw a lot of fist fights between activists during Occupy, and sleep deprivation played a major role in some of the conflicts I witnessed. When people are exhausted, stressed, traumatized, and constantly surrounded by conflict, they do not make good decisions.

A movement has to protect its people from burning themselves out.

There is also a major lesson to be learned from what has happened to activists in recent years. I have heard accounts from activists in Minnesota who believed federal authorities were monitoring their communications and using various forms of surveillance against them. I cannot independently confirm all of those accounts, so I am not presenting them as established fact. But the broader lesson is still important: activists need to understand modern surveillance, digital security, facial recognition, and the risks associated with putting everything through a smartphone.

There are legitimate privacy tools and communication systems that activists can learn about, but the larger point is that security should be approached responsibly and legally. People should understand what information they are exposing, what their threat model actually is, and how to protect their personal information without turning the movement into a paranoid mess.

And that brings me to another lesson from Occupy.

You have to learn how to work with other people.

Positive communication is incredibly important. Loyalty is important. If you promise that you are not going to do something reckless that could endanger everyone else, then you need to keep your word.

Do not break away into your own little faction and start doing reckless things that can destroy the entire movement.

Occupy Santa Cruz is the movement I personally had the most involvement with, while Occupy Monterey, which was down the road, took a very different approach.

Occupy Monterey managed to negotiate with its city government and obtain a building. That gave them a stable place to operate, helped them survive the winter, and allowed them to create a more sustainable community. They were able to establish a real center where people could organize and provide services to people in need.

That is an enormous lesson.

When you can get elected officials to work with you, you should seriously consider doing it.

Learning diplomacy is just as important as learning activism. We do not fight simply for the sake of fighting. We fight to create something better. Needless drama does not help anyone.

After seeing what happened in Monterey, people in Santa Cruz began considering whether something similar might be possible there. We knew the storms were coming. We knew our encampment could flood. We knew we needed a stable base of operations.

Some of us were proposing that we work with the city and pursue a more sustainable solution.

Instead, the person I believed was an FBI informant strongly discouraged that approach. He argued that we needed to completely militarize the movement, break into banks, turn them into bases of operations, and have a major street confrontation with the police.

It was an incredibly reckless idea.

When you cannot win a physical confrontation with a vastly more powerful opponent, you should not deliberately create one.

Unfortunately, the idea was persuasive enough to gain support. What ultimately happened was that the police were able to monitor and prosecute some of the most committed activists. Cameras were used, surveillance increased, and the activist community became overwhelmed by legal cases.

The result was devastating.

It broke the back of the anarchist movement in Santa Cruz for roughly a decade.

What remained was a collection of separate groups that did not really work together, while much of the movement's leadership had effectively disappeared.

Looking back, I think there was another possible path.

Had we worked more closely with the city council, as some of us were proposing, we might have been able to secure a large building, develop 24 hour resource centers for homeless and mentally ill people, and begin building a real community support network.

That could have been a major victory.

And if that model had worked, it could have given the movement a foundation from which to pursue much larger projects.

This is where tactical decision making becomes incredibly important.

If a major confrontation with the police does not produce a meaningful political benefit, then what exactly are you accomplishing?

Sometimes an encampment or protest movement can be used as political leverage to force negotiations and win legitimate resources for the community. If a city is willing to recognize part of what you are doing and provide you with a building or other resources, that can give you something much more valuable than a street battle.

You can build.

You can organize.

You can provide services.

You can demonstrate that your ideas actually work.

And when government officials violate your rights, you can use legitimate legal and political institutions to hold them accountable.

Ironically, after the movement collapsed, when I spoke with people whose names I will leave out, many of them eventually came to a similar conclusion themselves.

You need legitimacy.

You need enough political power to protect your people and accomplish your goals.

Then you can begin pursuing much larger structural changes.

Being a militant anarchist may allow you to survive on the streets, but survival cannot be the entire strategy. You need an end game.

Otherwise, you eventually end up in jail, exhausted, fragmented, or forgotten.

Anarchists need serious training in decision making, conflict resolution, organizing, diplomacy, and strategic planning. There are decades of experience from movements that have fought authoritarianism and fascism around the world that could be studied.

Violence should never be treated as the objective. The objective should be creating a society where people have the power and resources to live better lives.

That is a difficult lesson to learn when you are deeply anti government.

Eventually, you have to recognize that if you want to change institutions, you need some form of legitimate power to actually get things done.

That does not necessarily mean becoming the government you once opposed. It means understanding how power works well enough to build alternatives that people actually want to participate in.

This is a conversation worth having.

It is a conversation worth debating.

I do not claim to have all the answers. Hell, I might not have any of them.

But I think the lessons of Occupy are worth studying instead of simply allowing the movement to disappear from public memory.

There is actually a really good podcast that everyone interested in this subject should listen to. I was surprised to see the Hindsight podcast put together a huge six part course on the Occupy movement. I am happy to see Occupy getting more attention because I think we need to seriously study what worked, what failed, and what could have been done differently.

The next generation of movements should learn from those mistakes.

Build communities.

Build political power.

Create legitimate institutions.

Provide services that people actually need.

Work with people when cooperation is possible.

Challenge institutions when necessary.

And ultimately, build something better than the system you are trying to replace.

Listen to this:

https://www.futurehindsight.com/occupy

The Russian Bolsheviks were far less bad for Jews than the ukrainians of the UPA, who did physical genocide against Jews in 1918-1920.

Poking through Zoe Baker’s Means and Ends I noticed that in a few places that the term command is used in place of coercion and it (at least from my perspective) seems like command was used earlier in Anarchist History while coercion replaced command as time went on.

Don’t know if I am incorrect or missing something, but was curious if anyone had any insight into the usage of command, its correlation to coercion, and why (at least from my perspective) modern-day anarchism has done-away with command and sticks with coercion.

Edited so the comments will focus on the main point of interest.

I am speaking about European NEETs in particular; they have job welfare (a form of social welfare) where theoretically you can be on social welfare-like conditions forever.

There are some more unique conditions one will find themselves in when you are reliant on these systems.

And I feel like a NEET forum in particular should be about topics surrounding it.

Except, half the stuff you find is just a person saying how (XXX) they are so they can't find (made up goal society talked into them)

There's no talking about for instance effects caused by alienation, or about state repression done in the form of bureaucracy. Stuff like being put into an unemployment course for learning how to apply (or else they cut some of your social welfare), while you are already unemployed for years and it is clearly done to get you out of the statistics or even worse, try to get you out of the social welfare (without improving your condition), especially since most countries have a high amount of unemployed people and there are less than half the amount of jobs theoretically available for them, so some people are gonna stay on the social welfare whether they like it or not. And that also means these courses, if they don't qualify people for jobs, are a waste of people's precious life time.

But when you look at the top posts, or any whatsoever, there are very few posts actually talking about topics like that. And you figure these would actually be taken overhand considering these are the things that worsen our daily lives.

What do you think, guys of a big project ! There are some regions depopulated in France but the only problem is the French centralism and this one is pretty rude uh.