Anarchic update news all over the world 17-08-2017

Today's Topics:

   
1.  France, Alternative Libertaire AL - logbook, A libertarian
      communist in the YPG # 09: " Incorporated in a tabur consisting
      of" cadros "Kurds" (fr, it, pt) [machine translation]
      (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
2.  black rose fed: MOURN THE DEAD, FIGHT LIKE HELL FOR THE
      LIVING - STATEMENT ON CHARLOTTESVILLE (ca, fr, it, pt)
      (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
3.  We'll Kill the Drill at Leith Hill - Anti Fracking Action.
      by Anarchist Federation. Surrey & Hampshire Group.
      (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
4.  anarkismo.net: What is Libertarian Socialism? An
      Anarchist-Marxist Dialogue by Wayne Price (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
5.  Greece, APO: Update from Mesohora - complete occupation (gr)
      [machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1





"Just an hour after we met, we were leaving for the front. Objective: Mansoura, last small 
town before the western districts of Raqqa." ---- Alternative libertarian reproduces the 
blog posts Kurdistan-Autogestion-Revolution , travel diary of a fellow committed to the 
YPG. ---- Over the course of the weeks, he will testify to the life of the fighting 
militias, the debates that take place there and the experience of democratic confederalism 
in the liberated zones. ---- Raqqa East Front, 12 August 2017 ---- It had been more than 
two months since I had written a real note ! Sorry, but after I left the YPG training 
academy, things were chained fast enough. I participated in the liberation of Mansoura in 
the suburbs of Raqqa in early June and since then I have not stopped operations on the 
front line.

A big flash-back is necessary.

On May 21st, I was incorporated into a tabur (fighting unit) made up of Kurdish "  cadros 
" - activists who commit themselves to life in the struggle, I will speak more about it in 
a future post - replacing Of a wounded comrade.

Everything was done in an indescribable haste. In less than an hour I had to say whether 
or not I accepted the assignment. A few minutes before I finished lunch I was wondering 
what I was going to do with my day ... Time to gather my things, and here I am in a white 
pick-up rushing towards Tabqa !

Goal: Mansoura, last stage before Raqqa

Tabqa had been taken to Daech ten days before, and this was one of the major stakes before 
the siege of Raqqa. In addition to the city, the FDS have indeed seized the largest 
hydroelectric dam in Syria.

The worst of it was that on arriving at Tabqa, I could not find my stool: they and they 
had gone to a neighboring village. It took me five days to see them come back. And just an 
hour after we met, we were leaving for the front. Objective: Mansoura, last small town 
before the western districts of Raqqa.

Our homemade tanks ... and this is far from being the only resemblance to the Spanish 
Revolution of 1936 !

So I was finally going to be confronted with Daech's men. What did they look like ? The 
question tapped me, even though, as you know, I am here more for the social revolution 
than for shooting jihadists. The media - and Daech's propaganda - had already set the 
image of black-clad combatants, caricatures of terrorists dressed in a Z-series costume 
designer, devoid of emotion and indulging in the worst atrocities. In short, the perfect 
enemy as we do more ...

Our convoy stopped in a small village freshly removed by the FDS, less than a kilometer 
from the entrance of Mansoura. Clearly a springboard before the assault on the city. As 
soon as we got down from the vehicles, the first stroke of the strain was gunfire at 200 
or 300 meters from our position ... The village did not seem entirely to us ... But in the 
vast house where my stool had taken up residence, Guerrillas did not seem very worried. 
Soon a majority slept peacefully.

A little nap, like everyone else

After a while, I felt a bit foolish to be the only one on the war foot, to put myself in 
the firing position with every burst of machine gun. So I ended up doing like everyone 
else ... and stinging a nap. The rest of the day was spent in this semi-torpor punctuated 
by exchanges of fire. It was right to teach us at the Academy that the first quality of a 
fighter is patience !

I had the opportunity, during a guard tour, to see our firepower when two dochkas (heavy 
machine guns mounted on pick-ups) methodically watered, for an hour, several buildings at 
the edge Of Mansoura. Soon after, a comrade came up to me - I was beginning to drift dry, 
perched on this roof in full sun.

I did not imagine that on the way down, I would be confronted, for the first time, with 
two soldiers of the Caliphate.

Arthur Aberlin

http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?Un-communiste-libertaire-dans-les-YPG-09-Incorpore-dans-un-tabur-compose-de

------------------------------

Message: 2





Black Rose/Rosa Negra Anarchist Federation has received word about the white supremacist, 
fascist violence committed in Charlottesville today. We are writing to you from our 
national convention, and we are all feeling for you, together. ---- We are deeply saddened 
by the loss of our comrade in struggle. Our hearts and minds go out to their loved ones. 
---- At this time we understand that members of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) 
and Democratic Socialists of American (DSA) were injured; details are forthcoming among 
conflicted reports of further injuries and at least one death in this attack. ---- We 
cannot sit idly by and allow this violence to be perpetuated against our communities. ---- 
We stand in solidarity with anti-racist activists in Charlottesville today, their 
families, the IWW and DSA members present, and all those involved in the struggle against 
the rising tide of fascism worldwide.

Together, we will not be slowed, and we will not be stopped.

"Mourn the dead, fight like hell for the living."

- Mother Jones

Your support is needed! - Local organizers in Charlottesville have created a Fundly page 
to raise money towards medical expenses for those injured during the protest.

http://blackrosefed.org/charlottesville-statement/

------------------------------

Message: 3





Anarchist militants from London and the South East region are starting to get futher 
involved in the anti-fracking resistance at Leith Hill near Dorking. Watch this space for 
more info about future actions; sabotage, communications blockades, demos, disruptions and 
pickets.

https://surreyandhampshireanarchistfederation.wordpress.com/2017/08/12/well-kill-the-drill-at-leith-hill/

------------------------------

Message: 4





A Review of A. Prichard, R. Kinna, S. Pinta, & D. Berry (eds.). "Libertarian Socialism; 
Politics in Black and Red". ---- Libertarian Socialism is the brand of socialism which 
opposes statist, authoritarian, and oppressive varieties of socialism. It is anti-statist, 
radically democratic, self-managing, and humanistic. It blurs the boundaries between 
anarchism and Marxism, especially between class-struggle anarchist-socialism and 
libertarian-autonomist Marxism. These 15 essays place libertarian socialism in the context 
of various anarchists, syndicalists, council communists, decentralists, and libertarian 
communists--examining their views and histories. ---- "Some people believe that Marxism 
and anarchism are based on the same principles and that disagreements between them concern 
only tactics, so that...it is quite impossible to draw a contrast between these two 
trends....This is a great mistake....Anarchists are the real enemies of Marxism." -J. 
Stalin (quoted on p. 290)

Historically, authoritarian, statist, versions of socialism have dominated the Left-and do 
so today. Yet, even further to the left, there have also been anti-authoritarian and 
anti-statist socialisms. To redevelop and rediscover this broad current of libertarian 
socialism requires looking at the historical interaction, overlapping, and 
cross-pollination of anarchism and anti-authoritarian trends within Marxism. There are 
various sets of ideas which challenge the status quo, such as feminism or ecological 
thinking, and these are very important. But I believe that anarchism and Marxism are the 
two concepts which offer total challenges to the existing society. This is why it is worth 
considering what they can learn from each other.

The editors of this book have decided to work at this task. Their original inspiration was 
a 2009 conference in the UK, "Is Black and Red Dead?" The book is composed of 13 essays 
plus an Introduction and Conclusion. The editors and contributors have a fairly wide range 
of Left views. There is a somewhat academic air to the chapters (all the writers, except 
one, are professors or other college-level teachers). Mainly they focus on reviewing the 
history of various interactions of Marxism and anarchism. Their focus is scholarly and not 
on how to build a revolutionary libertarian socialist movement. However, their approach 
has the utility of looking at past experience and putting libertarian socialism into 
historical context.

The editors regret their inability to get someone to write about the relation of feminism 
to libertarian socialism. The book also lacks a discussion on the struggles of People of 
Color in relation to anarchism and Marxism. Chap. 8, by Christian Hogsbjerg, on C.L.R. 
James, does not cover his important analysis of the autonomous struggle of 
African-Americans. Chap. 9, by Andrew Cornell, does comment on the role that 
anarchist-pacifists played in the U.S. Civil Rights movement. The editors promise two more 
volumes, which will concentrate more on current developments and on the oppressed 
("non-European") nations.

The thirteen chapters cover a wide range of topics. I am an anarchist who has argued that 
anarchists can learn much from aspects of Marxism (e.g., Price 2017a; 2015; 2013). I found 
this book exciting and fascinating throughout. I was tempted to write responses to each of 
the 15 chapters! Unfortunately this would require a second book. Instead I will discuss 
certain themes which are raised through the book's essays

??The Closest Trends of Marxism and Anarchism

There are a great many versions of Marxism as there are of anarchism. These have 
interacted in many positive and negative ways. The totalitarian versions of Marxism 
(Stalinism, Maoism, or orthodox Trotskyism) do not mix well with any type of anarchism 
(with one area of exemption, see below). The hyper-individualist-egotist versions of 
anarchism do not mix that well with Marxism. In general, the two schools closest to each 
other are "class-struggle anarchist-socialism" (or "anarchist-communism") and "libertarian 
Marxism" (or "autonomous Marxism" or "left communism").

Class-struggle anarchism is the historical trend from Bakunin and Kropotkin to 
anarchist-syndicalism and anarchist-communism (as opposed to individualist or market-based 
anarchism). Libertarian Marxism is that minority set of tendencies which have oriented to 
the radically-democratic, humanistic, and proletarian aspects of Marxism (as opposed to 
social-democracy and Marxist-Leninism). Despite differences, what they both have in common 
is a belief in working class revolution. They advocate that the working class and its 
allies among all the oppressed overturn the existing state, the capitalist class, and all 
institutions of oppression-and replace them with non-state forms of cooperative social and 
economic direct democracy and self-management. To these ends, they reject bureaucratic 
methods of organizing and efforts to take over the old state or to form a new state. 
Instead they advocate methods of mass direct action and popular self-organization. They 
believe, "The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working-classes 
themselves!" This was the "first rule" of the First International, written by-but not 
invented by-Karl Marx. That is revolutionary libertarian socialism.

Of Marxists, the various chapters discuss William Morris (the first libertarian Marxist), 
Antonio Gramsci (who worked with anarchists on factory councils), Georges Sorel (described 
as an "anarcho-Marxist"), the council communists and other councilists, C.L.R. James (of 
the "Johnson-Forest Tendency"), Daniel Guerin (a libertarian Marxist who sought a 
synthesis with anarchism), the French Socialisme ou Barbarie group and its British 
co-thinkers in Solidarity (they both evolved from dissident Trotskyism to libertarian 
Marxism to a rejection of Marxism), the Situationists, and Italian autonomous Marxism.

To refer to these and other libertarian Marxists is not to say that they have the 
"correct" interpretation of Marx while Marxist-Leninists are "incorrect." It is merely to 
point to the empirical reality that some Marxists have had politics compatible with 
anarchist perspectives. There were both libertarian and authoritarian elements in the 
original Marxism of Marx and Engels-so both sides have a basis to claim to hold a 
"correct," even "orthodox," interpretation.

Besides these libertarian Marxists, other Marxist trends covered include DeLeonism, which 
was anti-anarchist but contributed to the syndicalist movement, and Trotskyism. Two of the 
writers are from the unorthodox wing of Trotskyism (which rejected Trotsky's concept that 
Stalin's Soviet Union remained a "workers' state" because it still had nationalized 
property). One of these is Paul Blackledge (Chap. 2), who essentially rejects anarchism 
for Leninism. On anarchism, Andrew Cornell (Chap. 9) covers the U.S. anarchist-pacifists 
and others of the ‘60s. Toby Boraman (Chap. 13) also discusses the "carnival anarchists" 
of 1970s Australasia (who sound a lot like the U.S. Yippies). But most of the anarchists 
discussed are anarchist-syndicalists or other types of class-struggle anarchist-socialists.

To say that libertarian Marxism and class-struggle anarchism are the two schools which are 
closest to each other does not rule out other Marxist/anarchist interactions. Boraman 
(Chap. 13) covers the closeness of "carnival anarchism" with cultural Marxists inspired by 
Situationism. As a far-left Marxist, Daniel Guerin was oriented to "social, constructive, 
collectivist, or communist anarchism." (quoted by D. Berry, Chap. 10; p. 197) Yet he also 
valued Max Stirner, the ultra-individualist anarchist. As a Gay activist, Guerin 
appreciated an emphasis on individuality and opposition to moralism. Personally I have 
learned a great deal about decentralism from the anarchist-pacifist Paul Goodman (1965) 
and the gradualist-mutualist anarchist Kevin Carson (2010; Price 2017b). It is also 
important to remember that, as Cornell (Chap. 9) and Boraman (Chap. 13) point out, it 
became difficult for either Marxists or anarchists to maintain a revolutionary 
working-class, perspective during the period of prosperity which followed World War II 
(which is now over).

Strategy and Tactics

In 1872, the split between the Marxists and the anarchists in the First International was 
over various issues. The most immediately practical issue was Marx's insistence that all 
sections of the International form workers' parties to run in elections. (Price 2017a) The 
anarchists rejected this as a state-oriented strategy. Instead they proposed 
non-electoral, extra-parliamentary, direct action by the working class. (Both sides were 
already for building unions and supporting strikes.)

William Morris (a contemporary of Engels) had allied with the anarchists against the 
Marxists in opposition to parliamentary action. This was up to the last years of his 
political activities when he apparently retreated in disappointment from anti-electoralism 
and similar opinions (Kinna Chap. 3). Mates (Chap. 4) discusses the interaction in the 
pre-1914 British coal fields between anarchist-syndicalists and Marxist syndicalists from 
DeLeon's Socialist Labor Party. One disagreement was over the SLP's running in 
elections-but the SLP was, properly speaking, more left-social democratic than libertarian 
Marxist. Almost all libertarian Marxists felt that (whatever had been the case in Marx's 
day) it was now a mistake to engage in electoral action. In this they split from Lenin and 
the Communist International, which had insisted on their parties running in elections.

Electoralism is no longer an issue between anarchists and libertarian Marxists. But there 
were other issues which were not so much between the two traditions as cutting across the 
two. Whether to work within unions or to work solely outside the union structure, 
including whether to take union offices, were major areas of controversy (Mates Chap 4; 
Boraman Chap. 13). Guerin, for example, was strongly supportive of unions. Another issue 
(not covered in this book) was whether to support, however "critically," national 
liberation struggles against imperialism. Most anarchists and libertarian Marxists did 
not, and still do not. C.L.R. James did, and Daniel Guerin supported the Algerian peop[e's 
war against French oppression.

Pinta (Chap. 7) covers the discussions of the Spanish Revolution (1936-1939) by the 
council communists, such as Paul Mattick and Karl Korsch (by then, living in the U.S.; 
Mattick had joined the IWW). Of all the forces in Spain, these libertarian Marxists were 
most supportive of the anarchist-syndicalists, their union federation (CNT) and their 
revolutionary organization (FAI). Mattick wrote, "In the course of the present civil war, 
anarcho-syndicalism has been the most forward-driving revolutionary element." (p. 127)

Other far-left Marxists (such as Bordiga's followers) rejected both sides of the conflict 
(the pro-government Loyalists and Franco's fascists) as capitalist. But the council 
communists recognized that the revolutionary working class had to ally itself with the 
liberal Loyalists, until they were strong enough to overthrow them. The councilists 
admired the anarchists' federalism and their implementation of worker control in industry 
and agriculture. Pinta shows the similarity of the councilists' views to those of the 
dissident anarchist Friends of Durruti group. The FoD condemned the main anarchist 
organizations for joining a government coalition with the capitalist parties and the 
Stalinists-leading to the defeat of the revolution.

As can be seen, there is a tendency among many libertarian socialists (not all, but many) 
to take a sectarian, inflexible, and ultimatist approach to many struggles. There may be 
some truth in the Trotskyist Hogsbjerg's criticism of James (and, implicitly, other 
libertarian Marxists) for "abandonment of the rich classical Bolshevik legacy of strategy 
and tactics...." (Chap. 8; p. 158) This includes the united front, critical support, 
rank-and-file unionism, support of democratic rights, etc. But libertarian socialists 
would have to be careful in evaluating how to use such tactics for different ends than the 
Bolsheviks.

Revolutionary Organization

Another major issue which cuts across traditions is whether a revolutionary 
libertarian-socialist minority should organize itself, in order to develop its ideas, and 
to fight for its program in broader organizations and movements (unions, workers' 
councils, community organizations, antiwar movements, etc.). This would not be a "party" 
because it would not aim to take over the state, either through elections or revolution.

Opinions have varied. Benoit Challand (Chap. 11) shows that Castoriadis in Socialisme ou 
Barbarie did advocate such an organization. Challand mistakenly interprets this as 
equivalent to an authoritarian Leninist party. Pinta (Chap. 7) shows that the council 
communists were divided between those who were against a special organization (Otto Ruhle) 
and those who were for one (Herman Gorter), with some vacillating between the two (Mattick 
and Pannekoek). Pinta points out that the pro-organizational councilists' view was very 
similar to certain views in the anarchist tradition. This stretches from Bakunin's 
Alliance for Socialist Democracy to the Platform (of Makhno and Arshinov) to the Spanish 
FAI to today's neo-platformism and especifisimo.

Jean-Christophe Angaut (Chap. 12) summarizes "what the differences were between Leninist 
and situationist conceptions of the avant-garde: basically Lenin understood the 
avant-garde as a general staff and not as an advanced detachment." (p. 250) Libertarian 
socialists with "an advanced detachment" perspective see the most revolutionary and 
anti-authoritarian among the workers as forming groups to spread their views and to fight 
against authoritarian and pro-capitalist views. This is not opposed to the 
self-organization of the working class and oppressed people but is an essential part of it.

Democracy, Anarchism, and Marxism

Paul Blackledge (Chap. 2) and Ruth Kinna (on William Morris; Chap. 3), raise the issue of 
democracy, which is controversial among anarchists (see the essays in Massimino 2017). 
Blackledge argues that anarchism is based in individualist-egotist thinking, as 
exemplified by Max Stirner. Therefore it is supposedly unable to really support the 
collective decision-making of democracy. In a democracy, sometimes individuals have to 
give way to majority opinion (although this is truly democratic only if all individuals 
have participated in the decision-making process equally and continue to have full 
rights). Blackledge cites various anarchists who reject "democracy" because they see it as 
coercing individuals and minorities. Blackledge asserts that Marxism sees workers under 
capitalism as developing collective class consciousness and social awareness, which 
supposedly makes real (socialist) democracy possible.

Kinna cites William Morris (a contemporary of both Engels and Kropotkin) as making similar 
arguments. Morris connected anarchists' extreme individualism to pointless terrorism and 
violent-sounding propaganda-which he (rightly) opposed. The difference between Morris and 
Blackledge is that Morris rejected the state while Blackledge is advocating a "democratic" 
state-a transitional, "workers' state."

There has been a hyper-individualist and anti-democratic trend in anarchism, but it is not 
the whole of anarchism. Stirner was not influential in the early anarchist movement (until 
later individualists rediscovered him). Certainly, from Bakunin and Kropotkin onward, 
socialist-anarchists have rejected a view of society as nothing but isolated individuals, 
oppressed by collectivities. Even Blackledge admits that socialist-anarchists saw society 
as an interaction of individuals and social groups-holding that individuals could only 
exist in societies. For him, this is still too much individualism, but I see this as 
consistent with a basic concept of libertarian democracy.

He claims that pro-democracy anarchists (he cites me, among others) "do not 
address...anarchist criticisms of democracy...." (p. 22) This has since been done-again, 
see the essays in Massimino (2017), especially those by Carson, Milstein, Graeber, and 
myself. (For lack of space, I am not going to get into Blackledge's use of Marxist social 
psychology to defend the state. For a Marxist view contrary to his-and which cites 
Kropotkin positively-see Struhl 2016.)

Kinna also shows that William Morris saw anarchists as extreme individualists. He was 
blind to the social, cooperative, views of many anarchists. He even denied that people 
such as Kropotkin, because of their social viewpoint, could "be anarchists in the true 
sense of the word"! (quoted on p. 38) She suggests that Morris' presented "democracy" in a 
fashion which anarchists could not accept. However, in some of his works, she points out, 
Morris had offered a more libertarian vision of participatory democracy, one which was 
consistent with anarchist values. "...Disagreements about[a]proposal are resolved through 
dialogue and a continuous process of direct, open balloting....Agreement is reached 
through...consensual and deliberative debate...a model of decision-making which assumed 
that individuals might reach voluntary agreement through open discussion and 
consensus...." (p. 52) Many anarchists could agree with this version of radical democracy.

Writing about Daniel Guerin's historical study of the French Revolution, Berry (Chap. 10) 
says, "For Guerin, the French Revolution thus represented not only the birth of bourgeois 
parliamentary democracy, but also the emergence of ‘a new type of democracy,' a form of 
working-class direct democracy as seen, however imperfectly, in the sections...precursors 
of the Commune of 1871 and the Soviets of 1905 and 1917." (p. 191)

Marxism: Its Weaknesses and Strengths

Oddly there is no discussion of the limitations of the Marxist approach to democracy. Even 
Marx's most radical presentations are, at best, very democratic versions of representative 
democracy. This is the case with his writings on the Paris Commune of 1871 or Lenin on the 
original soviets (councils). There was no conception of direct, face-to-face, democracy, 
in the neighborhoods or in production workplaces. Direct democracy does not rule out 
federation of such self-managed communities or the election of delegates to other 
bodies-but it roots federation and election in the daily, democratic, decision-making of 
the people-it makes democracy literally into a way of life.

Blackledge quotes Marx's conclusion from the Commune that the workers cannot take over the 
existing state and use it for their emancipation. Blackledge does not consider Marx's 
statist strategy after the defeat of the Commune, namely his attempt to force the First 
International to form workers' political parties to run in elections to try to take over 
the existing states. Similarly Blackledge cites various democratic statements by Lenin, 
without discussing how Lenin (and Trotsky) established a one-party police state in Russia, 
laying the basis for Stalin's totalitarianism.

While the book has Blackledge's attack on anarchism for its supposed individualism, there 
is no comparable critique of Marxism, its weaknesses and its strengths, except for brief 
comments (such as on Guerin's views, p. 193). The critique of Marxism developed by 
Socialisme ou Barbarie is not considered in the chapter on it. This is a lack, if 
anarchists are to consider Marxism as a partner in developing libertarian socialism. There 
is a serious question here: why was libertarian Marxism never more than a minority trend 
within Marxism? Why was most of historical Marxism either pro-imperialist 
social-democratic or totalitarian Marxist-Leninist? No doubt there were objective factors 
but what was there in Marx's Marxism which contributed to these statist, authoritarian, 
and mass-murdering forms? This would requite a discussion of Marx's centralism, his 
teleological determinism, and his statist program: state ownership of the economy achieved 
through taking over a state by workers' parties.

On the other hand, the book does not really discuss one of the main strengths of Marxism, 
namely Marx's economics (more precisely, his critique of political economy). This was an 
analysis of how capitalism worked, what changes were happening, and how the working class 
and its allies should respond to capitalist developments. Unlike Marxism, anarchism has 
valuable explorations of how a post-capitalist economy might work. But it does not have an 
analysis of how capitalism works today. Here we have to look to Marxism. This may include 
even looking to authoritarian schools of Marxism (this is the exemption I mentioned above) 
which may have useful economic theory. For example, the council communist Paul Mattick, 
Sr., was greatly influenced in his writings on political economy by the unconventional 
Stalinist, Henryk Grossman (Kuhn 2007).

Boraman (Chap. 13) uses a Marxist political-economic approach on one topic. He challenges 
the common view of many anarchists (and Socialisme ou Barbarie) to reject the centrality 
of class exploitation in favor of "domination" in all aspects of society. "Domination" 
provides a broad-range view of the total social system, but it downplays the need of the 
capitalist class to rely on the surplus value squeezed out of the workers. Without that 
extra amount of wealth, the capitalist class cannot survive, nor can its institutions, 
including the state. Therefore he concludes, "Fundamentally transforming the 
decision-making processes in society is not enough in itself; private property, the 
market, and the wage system also need to be abolished." (p. 262) Which leads to the 
working class as at least one of the central agencies needed to make a revolution.

Conclusion: Libertarian Socialism

In the Conclusion (Chap. 15), Pinta and Berry write, "The purpose of this collection of 
papers has been...to rediscover the lost history of a libertarian socialist tradition-an 
ideological current effectively blurring the boundaries between anarchist and Marxist 
variants of revolutionary socialist thought-...by re-examining the relationship between 
Marxism and anarchism-or rather between Marxisms and anarchisms...." (p. 295) Despite the 
inevitable limitations of such a collection of viewpoints, I think the book achieved its 
purpose.

References

Carson, Kevin (2010). The Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto. Booksurge.

Goodman, Paul (1965). People or Personnel; Decentralizing and the Mixed System. NY: Random 
House.

Kuhn, Rick (2007). Henryk Grossman and the Recovery of Marxism. Urbana and Chicago: 
University of Illinois Press.

Massimino, Cory (ed.) (2017). "June C4SS[Center for a Stateless Society]Mutual Exchange 
Symposium: Anarchy and Democracy."[36 essays]https://c4ss.org/content/49206

Price, Wayne (2017a). "The First International and the Development of Marxism and 
Anarchism." http://www.anarkismo.net/article/30330

Price, Wayne (2017b). "Kevin Carson's Revival of Individualist Anarchist Economic Theory." 
Review of Kevin A. Carson, Studies in Mutualist Political Economy. 
http://www.anarkismo.net/article/27661?search_text=Kevi...arson

Price, Wayne (2015). "In Defense of the Anarchist Use of Marx's Economic Theory". 
http://www.anarkismo.net/article/28438?search_text=Wayn...Price

Price, Wayne (2013). The Value of Radical Theory: An Anarchist Introduction to Marx's 
Critique of Political Economy. Oakland CA: AK Press.

Pritchard, Alex; Kinna, Ruth; Pinta, Saku; & Berry, David (eds.). (2017). Libertarian 
Socialism: Politics in Black and Red. Oakland CA: PM Press.

Struhl, Karsten J. (2016, January). "Marx and Human Nature: The Historical, the 
Trans-Historical, and Human Flourishing." Science & Society. Vol. 80; No. 1. Pp. 78-104.

*written for www.Anarkismo.net

http://www.anarkismo.net/article/30411

------------------------------

Message: 5





Around 7 pm on Monday 14/8, the motorized route from Mesohora to the occupation that had 
taken place earlier in the Autonomous Match Meeting at the Glystra hydroelectric plant began.
Thirty soldiers arrived at the entrance of the factory occupied, holding banners and 
shouting slogans, joined with the squatters, and they all went back to the village.

The police force that was sent from Trikala, and passed from Mesochora at the time of the 
march, finally did not reach the factory, was lost on the road to the villages of Acheloos 
and until night it was somewhere between Myrofyllou and Messoundas ...

------------------------------