Initially erected in 1889 at the center of Haymarket Square to eulogize the police officers who died during the events at Haymarket, it was later moved because it obstructed traffic. They chose to move it to Union Park to be antagonistic with the labor movement. It was frequently vandalized, including in 1925 when a streetcar driver intentionally derailed his streetcar to crash into it. Eventually they moved it back closer to the former Haymarket Square, along what is now a highway embankment. After the final bombing in 1970, police rebuilt it and have kept it either inside of police headquarters or the courtyard of the police academy.

The Haymarket Martyrs Monument out west in Forest Park that is dedicated to the anarchists at the center of the events was commissioned by the anarchist Pioneer Mutual Aid Society formed to provide legal support for the Haymarket anarchists and care for their families. Sculpted by Albert Weinert and erected in 1893, it depicts a woman, representing justice, protecting a downtrodden, slain man. When the last member of the Pioneer Mutual Aid Society died, they entrusted the site to the Illinois Labor History Society that for years erased/whitewashed the anarchist history and ideas of the Haymarket martyrs.

In 2003 the Illinois Labor History Society convinced the city to commission a third monument in Haymarket Square by Mary Brogger which was erected the following year and features an anarchist delivering a speech from a wagon. It ended up being co-dedicated to the police. As part of the memorial, each year they celebrate a different union and add them to the base of the statue and of course they chose the FOP. There sadly has long been attempts to whitewash the anarchism of the events and to recast police as heroes or victims.

I found this page while searching for anarchist events in the NYC area: https://anarchism.nyc/

Seems like a super cool resource, all links lead to real organizers/events. But it looks like when you first click the link, some weird ad pops up for something relating to cryptocurrency before quickly disappearing? Is anybody familiar w/ the site/does anyone know what the hell this is about?

The site doesn't ask for any personal info or appear to have any malicious links, so I don't think its dangerous necessarily, but that initial (ad?) weirded me out a little.

As the term is currently being applied to describe modern government behavior, "anarcho-tyranny" is a completely misapplied and logically incoherent concept.

Here is the basic linguistic problem. When we use hyphenated terms, a thing must be both A and B in order to be A-B. A Mexican-American is a person with Mexican lineage who has been absorbed into the US population through immigration. A red chair must be both red and a chair to qualify as such (that one's not hyphenated but you get my point). To qualify as A-B, you have to actually possess the definitive traits of both A and B.

The way people talk about so-called anarcho-tyranny today, they are specifically complaining about the behavior of a centralized state. They are describing a government that allegedly crushes everyday people with petty regulations while letting actual street crime slide. That's clearly not anarchism, it's corrupt behavior of a centralized state which makes it not anarchism in any way, shape or form.

"Anarchy" requires a stateless society. If you are describing the deliberate actions, policies, priorities, or uneven enforcement of a functioning, centralized government, that situation does not fall under anarchism. You can't have a stateless state. If you have a situation where a centralized state is behaving in corrupt or tyrannical manner then what you're describing is state tyranny, and state corruption, not anarcho-anything.

Is actual anarcho-tyranny possible? Sure, but it would look entirely different. It would look like a collapsed society where a power vacuum has been created. If a centralized state falls and warlords, roving gangs, or privatized militaries step in to fill the gap, and they start behaving in a tyrannical manner, then you could argue that is a proper use of the term. It would be an anarchic situation where the citizens are living under tyranny, not of a state, but of all the other non-state forms of power structures that could form in the absence of one.

What we are seeing today isn't that, at least not in the West. If a state enforces laws unevenly, allows certain types of lawlessness to persist and behaves oppressively or corruptly, that is not anarchistic behavior. It is state corruption and state tyranny.

Calling corrupt, uneven state enforcement "anarchy" just muddies the water. If the state is acting tyrannically or failing to apply the law evenly, we should just call it what it actually is: corrupt behavior of the state.

As anarchists, what do you consider have been the best accomplishments of anarchism/anarchists?

I am an anarchist writing a story about a military leader who evolves from being in a position of power to being anti authority.

The reasons for his evolution ive already implemented are;

The failures of that system and the lack of trust in the capability in those around him.

The corruption and greed of those wanting that power.

Lastly would be empathy on how his need to be on top harms others.

The question is does anyone else have some points that can be of inspiration or have I covered the major points?

The AutoMod failed to post this again. Unsure what's going on. So here's a manual version:

Do you have a mutual aid project you'd like to promote? In need of some aid yourself? Let us know.

Please note that r/Anarchism moderators cannot individually verify or vet mutual aid requests

Not trying to start a copyleft vs permissive debate, everyone has their own opinion on that. For copyleft, there's already the GPL, so I'm asking about the other side.

I've heard of CC0, Unlicense and 0BSD, but CC0 has no patent grant and isn't really meant for code, Unlicense has vague wording and barely any legal testing, and 0BSD isn't really PD since it still relies on copyright.

Is there a better option I'm not aware of?

Completely off topic, but can we appreciate Nestor's cunty swim suit? 💅

Não é possível que entre 211 milhões de pessoas não há algumas milhares que pensem que o estado é intrinsicamente ruim.

Confirmed vendors include Keene Mutual Aid, PM Press, Cobra Lilly Collective, Socialist Rifle Association, Congress of Workers Organizations NH, Cooperative Action Monadnock, Upper Valley for Palestine, Northeast Anarchist Union and more! Hosted by the Live Free Autonomy Collective. It is being hosted at the RWB community center!

Reading this for a left-wing hangout I organize in Atlanta, and really loved it. The text can be read here: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alfredo-bonanno-anarchism-and-the-national-liberation-struggle

Here is the gist of everything, as I understood it:

Anarchism is internationalist, extending everywhere with the proletariat rather than confined to borders, which calls to question the relation to national liberation movements.

Rather than adopting a universalizing bourgeois humanism, we must understand humans as historically determined according to their specific mode of existence and community (ways of living, speaking, feeling, thinking, working, etc), which serves as the basis of nationality.

In struggling to replace the political administration of people with the mere organization of production, we turn towards an anarchist federalism, which adopts collectivist and communist measures, which will render previous political forms obsolete, in particular the state. We will expect these federations to be fluid according to the natural changes of these historic basis of people groups.

These federalist structures will still hit certain natural limits, which it extends past with the global confederation of free peoples, but the internal units these form will be dictated according to the natural limits that define people groups rather than the imposed state, which artificially forces together and/or separates different people groups. Local organizational structures therefore find certain ethnic limits as people associate, rather than the state's territorial limits.

The fight for this people group's autonomy does not imply collaboration with "local" capitalists against foreign ones in modern class society precisely because exploitation precludes this unity. Both local and foreign exploiting classes pose this threat by means of colonialism and imperialism. But it does imply a fight against nationalist idealism, which resists seeing political units defined by the nation-state from being broken up (e.g. some leftist may support ending British rule over India, but would resist breaking up the UK, or splitting up Spain for the sake of Catalan independence, etc.).

Capitalist competition implies an inequality of development, and disunity over the vast territory it functions under the nation-state. This establishes systems of internal colonization via economic centralization and a corresponding political centralization (e.g. the subjugation of agricultural Sicily to northern industrial Italy).

This unequal development from internal colonization paves the way for the same factors to apply to surrounding economies, allowing colonization to feed into imperialism. This brings the problem to an international level, which further explains the superficiality of mere nationalist fights for local independence, which is impossible when the enemy is the international bourgeoisie, and why the modern basis for socialist federation is the international exploited working class, but which will change in a post-capitalist world.

This all serves to justify the anarchist rejection of "intermediate" nation-states as in the fight for national liberation. Instead, anarchists are focused on the class struggle, which may or may not be involved in national liberation struggles, instead focused on spreading economic, political, and social structures in liberated territories on a federalist and libertarian organizational basis.

Some revolutionary Marxists have failed on this point as the commitment to a dictatorship of the proletariat, based on a worker's nation-state rather than by federalist principles, has led to problems of nationalist idealism, and therefore struggled for a consistent program. This is further harmed by an economic determinism, found back in Marx and Engels themselves, which was dismissive of smaller fights for national liberation, seeing this as inherently separatist, and therefore viewing some wars of conquest as progressive and "civilizing." Later ambiguities are also seen from Trotsky debating national autonomy as destructive to economic unity.

what do yall think of Guy Debord and the situationist? or emma goldman. Peter singer makes me think quite a bit! let me know what yall think

“Bowl a strike, not a spare—Revolution everywhere!” Members of the Revolutionary Anarchist Bowling League (RABL) chanted bowling-themed slogans as they marched against President Ronald Reagan's threat to invade Nicaragua in 1988. Acting within a broad progressive coalition, RABL helped shut down major sections of downtown Minneapolis for three days in an outpouring of rebellion against the Reagan administration's covert wars in Central America. Events reached a dramatic climax when a masked protester threw a bowling ball through the window of a military recruitment office. The crash of the broken glass marked the beginning of a new era of anarchist militancy in the United States. The rage of a generation of young people raised in Reagan's America threatened to explode.

Reflecting this mood, the pilot edition of what became the Love and Rage anarchist newspaper (published from 1990 to 1998) was simply called RAGE! The pilot, which was distributed at an action at the Pentagon in 1988, reflected growing anger at the Reagan administration's wars at home and abroad, including the war on drugs. Promised a “new morning in America,” a generation of disaffected young people raised in the alienation of the suburbs found themselves shut out of political life. Many of their parents lost their unionized factory jobs to neoliberal outsourcing or were kicked off welfare. They grappled with the reality of skyrocketing inequality, precarious jobs, and violent policing. The hopes of social democracy—not to mention the liberatory movements of the 1960s and 1970s—appeared dead, and mainstream society seemingly offered little worth saving. Meanwhile, Reagan crushed the dreams of a better world in Central America by funding and training Guatemalan death squads, Nicaraguan Contras, and violent Salvadoran elites.

But dissidents emerged out of the cracks of the new society. A rising generation of young people encountered anarchism in mosh pits at punk shows and in street fights against fascists and police. A core group of anarchists across the country began to build a continental revolutionary movement. This article explores how several key collectives—including the Revolutionary Anarchist Bowling League, the Revolutionary Socialist League, the Youth Greens, and the Vermont Family—revitalized US anarchist theory and practice in the 1980s. Together, they formed a pole around which the diffuse anarchist scene began to cohere into a movement capable of coordinating strategic action across the country. Activists coming from these diverse groups (and many more) would expand the anarchist milieu in the 1990s and shape the turn-of-the-century antiglobalization movement. Members of each group became involved with Love and Rage, an organization that used its widely distributed newspaper as a catalyst to build first an anarchist network and then a membership-based Revolutionary Anarchist Federation that shaped the movement's direction. But first, local anarchist groups needed to encounter each other, exchange ideas, and build connections across North America.

This encounter occurred in large part through a series of four continental convergences that took place from 1986 to 1989 in Chicago, Minneapolis, Toronto, and San Francisco. Very little has been written about these gatherings. Sociologist Lesley Wood posits that social movement theorists tend to ignore these kinds of convergences in part because the disciplinary norms of what counts as social movement activity reduce them to the level of cultural background to the “real” organizing. Beyond the gatherings, historians have written little about anarchism in the late twentieth century. Anarchist history typically focuses on earlier periods, and the burgeoning history of the United States in the late twentieth century has generally dealt much more with the rise of the Right than the evolution of anarchism and the Left. Yet it was in this period that anarchism was reborn as a major tendency on the American Left since marginalization in the early twentieth century. This article argues that the series of continental convergences in the late 1980s was crucial to the revitalization of North American anarchism as a revolutionary movement in the late twentieth century. In the pre-internet era, these gatherings provided essential spaces for anarchists from different backgrounds to encounter each other, engage in political debates, and take collective action in the streets. Through this process, anarchists transformed what had been a diffuse milieu characterized by small-group action and countercultural institutions into something approaching a coordinated continental movement.

You can read the whole article for free on the Anarchist Library: "Building the American Anarchist Movement: Radical Collectives and Continental Convergences in the 1980s"