(en) Britain, Anarchist Federation - INTRODUCTION TO ANARCHIST COMMUNISM (APRIL 2013 EDITION) - 4. How We Fight + 5. There is no Conclusion

4. How We Fight: Building a Culture of Resistance ---- As we've said, a culture of 
resistance is built of many different organisations working in many different ways. When 
people organise themselves without leaders or representatives to take direct action 
against the things that exploit and oppress them then they are taking part in creating a 
culture of resistance which in the end is what will overthrow capitalism and create a new, 
free society. It is impossible to tell in advance what forms this culture of resistance 
will take. The needs and the imaginations of the people involved will dictate what happens 
and how. ---- However, it is possible to lay out the very broadest outline of how people 
can organise themselves and fight back. We can look at what has worked in the past and 
what people are doing now and point out how direct action and self organisation can be 
applied to a number of areas of everyday life.

There can be no complete list, but in this section we're going to look at how people can 
fight at work and, in different ways, in their communities. We will also look at what role 
minority revolutionary organisations like the AF can play in this.

Resistance in the Workplace

At work the confrontation between workers and bosses is at its most obvious. Workers want 
to work as little as possible for as much money as they can get, whereas bosses want as 
much work for as little pay. This is the nature of capitalism. Bosses exploit workers and 
workers resist exploitation. It is for this reason that when we are at work, we are 
watched and controlled more closely than anywhere else. The amount of work we do is 
measured, the kind of work we do is strictly defined. We are told when we can eat and when 
we can go to the toilet. We are watched every minute of every day by bosses and managers 
whose job it is to make sure that every minute we are being paid we are working for the 
company.

However, the amount of effort management makes to control people at work points to 
something else. At work we are incredibly powerful. When we work for a wage we create the 
profits that the ruling class needs to exist. They need us to do what we are told in order 
to exist at all. We don't need them. When workers disrupt the smooth running of a 
workplace through strike action or sabotage and so on, we directly disrupt the ability of 
the ruling class to make the profits it depends on. For this reason, resistance at work 
always has revolutionary potential, however small-scale it is. When we refuse to make 
profits for our bosses we threaten their very existence.

There is a constant conflict between the interests of management and the interests of 
workers which is shown in many different ways. On a small-scale, individual level are 
theft and slacking off where workers find ways round the control mechanisms that 
management uses. On a larger, more collective level are strikes and sabotage where workers 
seek to force concessions from management. In these kinds of struggles there are two 
things at stake. Firstly, workers seek to get a bigger slice of the profits management 
make by exploiting them, either through theft or through wage claims. Secondly, workers 
seek to resist the control of management, to get more freedom on the job. Both sets of 
demands are important, but it is the second set that leads in directions that are very 
dangerous to the ruling class.

When management are faced with a militant workforce that is disrupting their ability to 
make profits, they will try and negotiate. However, they will always negotiate over wages, 
working hours or something similar. That is, they will negotiate the level of 
exploitation, never the fact of it. They will never negotiate away control of the 
workplace. Indeed, they will pay a great deal of money to retain and expand that control.
This is the difference between revolutionary and reformist struggle at work. Reformist 
struggles tackle the level of exploitation, seeking a 'fairer' deal between workers and 
management. Revolutionary struggles challenge exploitation altogether and seek to take 
control away from management. Whenever we fight at work, both kinds of struggle are there 
as potential. It is the way that we fight and the kinds of organisations that exist that 
determine whether a struggle will take a reformist or revolutionary direction.

The Ungovernable Factory: British Industrial Struggle in the 1970s

For a brief time in the 1970s the bosses were very close to losing control of the 
factories that made them their fortunes. Thatcher's 1980s rhetoric about the threat to 
'management's right to manage' was not just the usual politician's guff. From the late 
1960s right through to the defeat of the miners' strike in 1984, a mass movement of 
militant workers challenged management not just for better pay but over how the workplace 
would be run.

Workers in the car industry were particularly militant, but 'the English disease' - as 
widespread strike action was known - spread throughout the economy. At its peak in 1979, 
29.4 million working days were 'lost' to strikes and disputes frequently escalated into 
occupations and open confrontation. To take just one example, workers at the Halewood Ford 
plant on Merseyside struck repeatedly throughout the 1970s. They fought for pay rises and 
against attacks on their working conditions. Speed up on the line and other attacks were 
repeatedly defeated. More than this, workers eventually started rejecting work altogether. 
Friday night was strike night as the late shift downed tools every week to go out drinking 
instead.

Importantly, much of this activity was run by the workers themselves, with militant shop 
stewards based on the factory floor rather than distant union bureaucrats taking on many 
tasks. At Halewood, the mass meetings held regularly throughout disputes are still 
remembered today and were often addressed by people from outside as well as inside the 
workplace. These struggles were antagonistic not just to management but to the unions as well.

Throughout Britain militant workers such as those at Halewood confronted management and 
the trade unions for greater control of their lives. It took a major assault by the state 
and a complete transformation in the global economy to defeat them.

The most common kind of working class organisation in the workplace is the trade union. As 
discussed above, this is one kind of organisation that is more often than not completely 
co-opted by the ruling class. As a result of past struggles which threatened management's 
power, the trade union is invited to the negotiating table. In return for ensuring that 
workers don't behave unpredictably ? taking wildcat strike action or sabotaging equipment 
for example ? the union is given a place in the management of capitalism, a little slice 
of the power that management has. The way that most unions are organised as hierarchies 
with leaders and so called 'representatives' means that this power is concentrated in the 
hands of a small number of people who become as much part of the ruling class as the 
managers that they supposedly oppose. It is the form of trade union organisation ? based 
on negotiation and representatives rather than direct action and full involvement by the 
membership, hierarchical rather than participatory ? that leads to the various 'sell outs' 
and 'betrayals' that are such a common feature of modern workplace struggles. The problem 
is not any one particular leadership, but the fact that there is a leadership in the first 
place.

The alternative to the trade union is, ironically, the very thing that gives the trade 
unions what little power they have. Militant workers organising independently to take 
direct action on the job are the thing that management is most afraid of. It is trade 
unionism's promise to control these militants that management demands as a condition of 
giving them a place at the negotiating table. When workers are militant and self organised 
? as they were in the 1970s, for example ? the trade unions are more powerful because 
management needs their ability to control and channel struggles so much more. When workers 
are divided, disorganised and passive, then unions lose their power and management stops 
working with them, as has happened in recent years for example.

It follows from this that the priority for people fighting in the workplace should be not 
a strong union branch, but strong bonds of solidarity between workers on the job. These 
bonds mean that direct action to defend conditions and make gains is much more likely to 
succeed. Ultimately, we see these bonds of solidarity as forming an important part of a 
culture of resistance and as the basis for moving beyond reformist and defensive struggles 
? those to protect and improve pay and conditions ? into revolutionary struggles.

These revolutionary struggles involve not just fighting management, but getting rid of 
them altogether. In periods of heightened struggle when a majority of the working class is 
mobilised against the ruling class, workers can move from fighting management to managing 
themselves. Workers take over the factories and the workshops, the fields and the haulage 
yards to start producing the goods and services that society needs for their own sake 
rather than for the profit of the bosses.

For many workers this will mean simply walking away from from the unproductive and 
pointless jobs that they do. Most call centres and offices, insurance, advertising, 
banking and other pointless parasitic jobs that just move money around for the rich should 
just be abandoned. For those in more useful jobs, the way work is organised should be 
completely transformed. Workplaces should be run by meetings of all workers or, where this 
is impractical, by meetings of mandated delegates from different work groups and sections. 
The exchange of raw materials and finished products across the world would be worked out 
by federations of these self-managed workplaces and the communities they are part of 
rather than driven by the profit motive.

In the beginning, we would simply have to keep these places running to produce the things 
we needed, but as the revolution became more secure, the very nature of work itself would 
need to be completely transformed. Some work would be decentralised and carried out on a 
smaller scale so that communities had more control over the things they needed. Other jobs 
? transport, for example ? would still have to be run on a large scale and so would be run 
by federations accountable in every way to the communities they served. The amount of work 
needed would be greatly reduced as the profit motive is removed and the alienation of each 
individual from the tasks they carry out would disappear. All of us would be involved in 
decisions about what kind of work needed to be done and all of us would have free choice 
about what kind of work we wanted to do. Relationships in the marketplace between 
depersonalised commodities would be replaced by relationships between people doing work 
that interested them. What happens now only to a limited extent in small privileged 
sections of the professional elite ? some scientists and academics, for example ? would be 
the norm for everyone. We would work because we wanted to for the sake of all those around us.

Resistance in the Community

Unlike work, where it is more easy to see the lines of struggle, 'community' is much 
harder to define. In the past, many people lived in close knit working class communities 
centred on a particular workplace ? mining villages or factory towns, for example ? where 
work and home all served to bind a particular group of people together. These kinds of 
communities are much rarer now, but even when they were common not everyone who lived in 
the same area could feel part of them. These communities were often divided by race with 
ghettos for particular groups of immigrants and a great deal of hostility between what 
were effectively different communities. In the US in particular, the division between 
white and black workers could be every bit as violent and exploitative as the division 
between the working and the ruling classes. They were also divided by gender. Men and 
women could have vastly different experiences of life in these 'united' communities, with 
men enjoying such power over 'their' women that it was their violence that was the biggest 
problem in women's lives, not exploitation by the ruling class.

While it can be argued that these divisions serve the interests of the ruling class, that 
does not mean that they automatically disappear if we assert a common 'working class' 
identity. We cannot assume that just because working class people live in a particular 
area that there is a 'community' there that is ready to fight back. We should also refuse 
to be nostalgic for working class communities of the past. The unity that they had was 
often marred by, and even sometimes based on, racism, sexism, homophobia and so on.
This does not mean, however, that we should reject the community as a site of working 
class struggle. There are many important battles to be fought outside of the workplace 
which are just as important in building a culture of resistance. What it means is that we 
have to think carefully about the kinds of struggles that take place and the different 
kinds of engagement that they require.

Fighting for the Social Wage: Poll Tax Rebellion

In 1989 the then Tory government tried to introduce a new local tax, the Community Charge 
or Poll Tax, first into Scotland and then, in 1990, into the rest of Britain. This new tax 
levelled a fixed charge on all tax payers meaning that poorer people paid a much higher 
percentage of their income than the better off. For the very poorest the new tax would be 
a real burden whereas the rich would see their taxes fall.
Through much debate and disagreement a movement grew to resist the new tax by refusing to 
pay it. This movement organised itself into local Anti Poll Tax Unions, or APTUs, which 
organised to spread the idea of non-payment and to help people resist any attempts to 
force them to pay. The APTUs organised mass meetings, physical resistance to bailiffs 
trying to collect the tax and protests at and occupations of town halls and council 
buildings. These tactics were so successful that bailiff companies went bust, unable to 
operate when confronted with entire communities determined to stop them. Council revenues 
collapsed as up to 17 million people refused to pay and the cost of chasing non-payers 
through the courts rocketed.

Protests at town halls often turned into confrontations with the police, with small scale 
riots and disorder all over the country. A national demonstration went the same way when 
police attacked in Trafalgar Square and fighting went on for hours. The grass roots of the 
movement rallied round to defend those arrested, but some of the left political parties 
involved disowned the rioters (although they soon soon denied having done this when the 
riot proved to be popular) and even cooperated with the police, proving that in the end 
they're more concerned with their own power than the needs of working class people.

In the end, the Poll Tax was defeated by widespread self organisation and direct action. 
The APTUs allowed people to meet and make their own decisions and the non-payment campaign 
created a direct confrontation with the state, a confrontation that we won.

There are broadly speaking two kinds of struggle that working class people face in the 
places that they live. The first is the social wage struggle, that is struggles against 
cuts in essential services and against attacks on living standards through increases in 
the cost of living. The second is what might be called the 'identity' struggle, although 
it is about far more than this. In this category are struggles by women against 
patriarchy, ethnic minority/majority people against racism and white supremacy, LGBTQ 
people against homophobia and transphobia and so on. These kinds of struggles take place 
at home, in the workplace, inside and outside of working class organisations. They are, 
however, community struggles in the sense that the people who fight them often find 
themselves bound together through that fight. These two forms of struggle are ideal types 
and often get mixed up ? in the struggles of asylum seekers, for example, who must 
confront racism as well as attacks on their living standards ? but keeping in mind the 
different ways they work can often help us understand what is going on.

Social Wage Struggles

When we talk about a social wage we're talking about all the different ways that working 
class people receive services from the state and the ruling class that are in effect part 
of their share of the profits of industry. Healthcare, subsidised and social housing, 
transport and utilities like water and electricity, libraries and social services, 
benefits and many other things can be seen as part of the social wage. Like wage increases 
and shorter working days these services are often the result of previous rounds of 
struggle, victories won by the working class in the past. They are also, just like the 
benefits we receive at work, often used to control us.

Community struggles over the social wage take many forms but they usually involve a fairly 
straightforward confrontation between some arm of the state ? the local council, for 
example ? and a relatively clearly defined group of people who depend on a particular 
service. Cuts in local medical services are resisted by those who use them ? patients of a 
particular clinic or those living in an area served by a particular hospital. Rent 
increases are resisted by the tenants of a particular landlord or housing authority. 
School closures are resisted by the parents and children directly affected. There are many 
different tactics available to people fighting these kind of struggles. Petitions and 
appeals to representatives are often used, and more often than not fail, but there are 
also forms of direct action that people can use. Occupations of threatened buildings and 
services, mass protests outside, and inside, government buildings, blockades and 
disruptions to the normal running of services, street riots and disorder. Social wage 
struggles are often the most imaginative of all struggles in terms of the tactics they 
use, and this is in part because of the difficulties they face.

The difference between social wage struggles and struggles in the workplace is that it is 
not always possible for people fighting over the social wage to hurt the profits of the 
people they oppose. Rent strikes and the refusal to pay taxes can work in this way, but 
protests and occupations don't always have this effect. This is one of the biggest 
difficulties that social wage struggles face ? it is much harder for them to hurt the 
people in charge. Many of the tactics communities use are aimed at disrupting the smooth 
running of local government in the same way that industrial disputes disrupt the smooth 
running of the workplace. However, another set of tactics is also aimed at the legitimacy 
of the institutions of government, at questioning whether the council or the NHS trust and 
so on even have the right to run the services that are being attacked.

It is here that social wage struggles often move in the direction of self organisation and 
self management ? running occupied buildings and services themselves, squatting land and 
simply building the things that are needed without waiting for permission. It is also 
here, however, that social wage struggles are often co-opted. Sometimes, political parties 
move in and claim to speak for the people involved in resistance to cuts and so on. They 
claim that the problem is the result of who is in charge, not because of the system as a 
whole. They use the discontent and resistance of ordinary people as a basis for their own 
power, as a way of governing rather than freeing people. These parties come from across 
the political spectrum, whether from the mainstream, from the left or even the far right ? 
this is a tactic the BNP used, for example. At other times, the organisations that the 
community has set up for itself to defend the services it relies on are invited to 
negotiate with the state, even invited to run some things themselves. Very quickly they 
find themselves managing people's dissatisfaction on the state's behalf, just like a trade 
union in the workplace.

If this co-option can be avoided and resisted by self-organised groups working without 
representatives and taking direct action to fulfil their own needs, then these kind of 
social wage struggles can move in amazing directions. Millions of people can be organised 
to resist the degradation of their own lives, as happened during the struggle against the 
Poll Tax for example. They can also take over the running of important aspects of their 
day to day lives which at the moment are in the hands of the state.

At times of heightened struggle ? for example during long lasting general strikes ? this 
dynamic leads to people taking over the running of their own communities, providing for 
themselves the services they rely on. During and after the revolution this will expand to 
break down the division between work and the community so that people decide amongst 
themselves what services they need and how they will provide them for themselves. 
Neighbourhood assemblies will work in cooperation with councils in the factories and 
workshops to provide everything needed for life, with everyone affected by a decision 
involved in making it.

'Identity' Struggles

The word 'identity' is really not up to the job of describing the kind of struggles we're 
talking about here, but it is better than any of the other terms that we have. Most 
liberal, and even most radical, ways of talking about the struggles of women, of LGBTQ 
people, ethnic minority/majority people and so on do not recognise the relationship 
between these kinds of struggle and working class struggle. Sometimes they are seen as 
distractions and sometimes as 'separate but equal', but rarely as an integral part of the 
struggle against capitalism as a whole. For anarchist communists capitalism is more than 
just as class system, it is a system that uses a whole range of hierarchies to maintain 
the power of a minority. Resistance to all of these hierarchies should be seen as 
resistance to capitalism.

This does not mean, however, that separate organisations are not needed by people fighting 
patriarchy, white supremacy and so on. Just because the struggles of women or LGBTQ people 
are important in the struggle against capitalism does not mean that those struggles can 
simply be folded into some 'wider' fight against capitalism. The nature of these forms of 
exploitation and oppression mean that not only do ethnic minority/majority people or LGBTQ 
people and so on face attacks from the state in the form of discriminatory laws or police 
harassment, they also face attacks from other working class people.

Because of this it is necessary for these people to form their own communities not only in 
order to organise together but also to talk together without having to justify what they 
say to people who do not share their oppression. It is essential that people form groups 
which are all women or all ethnic minority/majority or all LGBTQ or all disabled and so on 
and so on. These groups provide a space in which people can understand what is unique 
about their own oppressions and in which they can be free of the prejudices - conscious or 
unconscious ? of people who do not share their experiences. These groups can be the basis 
of communities of resistance, where a shared understanding becomes a set of shared tactics 
and actions to take on both the state and the everyday prejudice and violence that can 
make life hell for anyone defined outside the norm.

These unique understandings and tactics become an important part of a culture of 
resistance. They strengthen the challenge that all exploited groups make to capitalism by 
broadening and deepening the range of resistance that the ruling class faces. The power 
differences and hierarchies that the ruling class uses to keep us divided from one another 
are not overcome by some false 'unity' that ignores the differences in our experiences of 
exploitation and oppression. They are overcome when different people use their own 
experiences to come up with unique forms of resistance that meet their own needs. This is 
the foundation of alliances between different groups, between men and women, black and 
white, immigrant and native, queer and straight and so on, not a unity built on ignoring 
these differences.

These communities of resistance are as vulnerable to co-option as any other kind of 
resistance. Feminist groups find themselves taking government funding and becoming part of 
the administration of capitalism rather than resisting it, ethic minority/majority 
activists become 'community leaders' and end up as part of the problem. It should be 
stressed, however, that this is not a special feature of this kind of group. Workers' 
organisations are just as vulnerable to being co-opted as women's or queer organisations 
for example. Indeed, it is often the divisions caused by different hierarchies that are 
used to do this. Early trade unions were bought off by the expulsion of women and 
immigrant workers from the workplace, giving male workers a little slice of power as a 
bribe. Queer groups have often seen gay men take positions of leadership and power in 
exchange for downplaying, indeed sometimes even opposing, the needs of lesbian women or 
transgender people, breaking the unity brought by a common oppression with the privileges 
of male power in a patriarchal society. As always, it is direct action and
self-organisation that can avoid this kind of co-option.

The ultimate goal of revolutionary 'identity' struggles is the same as any other kind of 
revolutionary struggle. It is not for equal rights or a place at the capitalist table. It 
is instead the complete transformation of the way society is organised. The struggle is 
for a world in which everyone has the chance to be a full human being and do whatever it 
is that they need to grow and fulfil themselves. In the end, 'identity' struggles seek to 
destroy the need for that identity, just as workers in struggle want to stop being workers 
and start being people. The future we're fighting for is one in which there are only 
people, and the colour of their skin, who they chose to sleep with or what kind of 
genitals they happen to have are their business and no one else's.

The Role of the Revolutionary Organisation

If people are capable of running their own struggles and of fighting for themselves to 
meet their own needs then what is the point of an organisation like the Anarchist 
Federation? We are an organisation of conscious revolutionaries who see ourselves as 
working towards an anarchist communist revolution but, as we've made clear in this 
pamphlet, we don't think that any revolution will be down to us. It will be the self 
activity of millions of working class people that makes the revolution, not the work of a 
handful of people with some nice ideas. We are not a revolutionary party that will lead 
the working class out of its 'trade union consciousness', out of reformism and into 
revolution. We are not the embryo of a workers' council or a revolutionary union that will 
grow and grow until we eventually take over. We do not lead anyone, we do not act on 
behalf of anyone but ourselves.

The Environment and the Social Wage: The German Anti-Nuclear Movement

In 1975 the West German government began building a nuclear reactor in the tiny hamlet of 
Wyhl. Since 1971 a grassroots movement had been building to oppose the new reactor, but 
had been ignored at every stage of the planning process. On the 18th February, one day 
after construction had begun, local people occupied the site and were dragged away and 
beaten by the police. A few days later on the 23rd February, 30,000 people came back and 
reoccupied the site, forcing the police to back down. Within a month the construction 
license had been withdrawn and the reactor was never built.

This was the first major victory for the German anti-nuclear movement which had been 
growing since the 1960s in the belly of the peace movement and through local citizens' 
initiatives. Through the late 1970s hundreds of thousands of people were involved in 
occupations and direct action aimed at stopping the government's nuclear power programme. 
Projects in Wackersdorf and Gorleben were defeated and in 1981 100,000 people faced off 
10,000 police with sticks, stones, molotovs and slingshots in protest at a proposed plant 
in Brockdorf.

The German anti-nuclear movement is the single most successful environmental direct action 
movement in recent history. It started with local communities organising themselves to 
resist building projects through legal channels (lobbying, protests and so on). It grew 
into a major alliance between anarchists, the libertarian left, local groups and national 
campaigns that was able to fight and win against some of the biggest police mobilisations 
ever seen in Germany. In the end, some parts of this movement were co-opted into the 
German Green Party and other parts faded away as the government backed down, but its 
influence still lives. Even in 2008, it was possible for 15,000 to blockade nuclear waste 
shipments and any German government can guarantee that moves towards a new nuclear 
programme will be met with resistance.

There are, however, some things that a revolutionary organisation can do that would be far 
less likely to happen without it. Anarchist communism is a living working class tradition, 
but there are times when that life hangs by a very thin thread. In periods of defeat and 
division, when the working class has few organisations of its own and there is very little 
struggle, something has to keep the lessons that have been learned alive. The 
revolutionary organisation is an important store of knowledge and skills. It is a kind of 
memory that keeps alive a vision of the working class as united and defiant even when the 
class has been kicked in the head so many times it's starting to forget its own name, let 
alone its past.

This means producing leaflets and pamphlets, organising meetings and education to keep 
ideas and history alive. This is not just an academic exercise, playing with ideas for the 
sake of it, it is intensely practical. Accounts from the early days of the Poll Tax 
struggle make clear that people were drawing inspiration from the stories of previous 
fights against taxation, going back to the 14th century peasant's revolt! Knowing that 
something has happened before can make people feel that it is more realistic to fight back 
now. And this need not just be some vague 'inspiration', however important this is. A 
revolutionary organisation with national and international contacts can be an important 
channel for information which bypasses hierarchical structures like the unions or the 
media and puts workers in different, isolated, struggles in direct contact with one another.

There is much to it than this of course. Members of a revolutionary organisation are also 
militants in their own right and intensely involved in struggles where they live and work. 
The ideas of anarchist communism spread not just through the words of our organisations 
but also through things that we do. Whatever we are involved in, we push for direct action 
and self organisation and resist takeover and co-option by authoritarian groups. Our 
membership of a broader organisation of revolutionaries gives us access to the experiences 
of our comrades and allows us to discuss and debate the issues and tactics of any 
particular struggle without having to worry about the basics. The high level of political 
agreement within a revolutionary organisation allows us to worry about the crucial details 
rather than having to make the same arguments against the unions and for direct action 
again and again and again.

It is in these two main ways ? preserving and spreading the memory and lessons of previous 
struggles, and supporting committed but potentially isolated militants in day to day 
struggles ? that a revolutionary organisation contributes towards a culture of resistance. 
The ideas of anarchist communism work. When we use them to fight, our chances of winning 
increase because these ideas empower us and show us our own strength rather than telling 
us to rely on some set of leaders or representatives. The revolutionary organisation is 
one important way of spreading those ideas, of putting them into action and using them to 
build a culture of resistance.

5. There is no Conclusion

Anarchist communism is a living, breathing working class tradition that grows out of the 
actions and experiences of millions of people over the centuries of struggle against 
capitalism. The one lesson that we learn again and again is that people fight back. 
Wherever they are and whatever is happening to them, people fight back. Sometimes we win, 
more often we don't, but whenever we make progress the principles of direct action and 
self organisation are usually at the heart of it. Our defeats are never total: there's 
always something left to move forward and carry on fighting. Our victory will never be 
final: human beings will always seek to change and experiment, to experience new things 
and new ideas.

We believe that as long as capitalism, patriarchy, white supremacy and all the rest of it 
still exist there will always be people who resist. We believe that they have the best 
chance of winning when they organise using anarchist communist principles. As long as that 
resistance goes on, the Anarchist Federation and the many groups like us all over the 
world will do whatever we can to bring those ideas to the people that need them. Whether 
at work, at home or in the community people will always fight back, and anarchist 
communists will always be there to support them as best we can.