Andrew Robinson - Theory Blog

Friday, October 08, 2004

Resist Social Cleansing! Victory to the Anti-Social! (Polemical article published on Indymedia and various elists)


Andy, 08.08.2004 03:39

The "decent majority" try to have things their own
way, but the cost is the corrosion of freedom and a
drift towards totalitarianism. Hysteria against the
"anti-social" is a means to incorporate the masses
into projects of social control. Against these
projects, activists should counterpose resistance in
solidarity with the "anti-social", and a logic of
minorities and multiplicities which breaks down any
idea of "society" as a fixed totality.


Noisy neighbours… gangs of feral children… boy
racers…. youths who shout obscenities and congregate
outside shops… football hooligans… graffiti “vandals”…
petty thieves… people making their neighbours’ lives
“a misery”… litter and fly-tipping… crack houses…
drunken louts… When does a day go by when the chorus
of ranting from the socially included against an
open-ended series of folk devils does not grace the
front page of every tabloid, every local paper and the
stories covered on the national news? What politician,
from the Nazis of the BNP to the so-called
International Working Class Association, taking in the
Lib Dems, Labour and the Tories, can refrain from the
constant cries for action against the “anti-social”
and on behalf of the “decent” and the “law-abiding”
(for which read: social and political conformists,
people who obey the law and therefore are sheepish in
relation to the dictates of the state, people whose
“common sense” is so unthought-out, so confused and
contradictory, that they cannot imagine any
possibility of a rejection of their views being
anything but ignorance or evil)? The war against the
“anti-social” is becoming the main strategy of capital
and the state in the present historical period – the
“touchy nodal point” which holds together the
pseudo-consensus which buttresses the status quo. The
anti-social have today the same position as the Jews
in Nazi Germany – the enemy of the people, to be
exterminated at any cost. The Nazis in fact used the
concepts of the asocial and the gemeinschaftsfremde
also; the Jews were a subordinate category of the
gemeinschaftsfremde, or the anti-community, the
anti-social. In Franco’s Spain, too, we find the
discourse of a Spain and an anti-Spain. The war
against the anti-social was the lynchpin of historical
fascism, and it is the lynchpin of the micro-fascism
of contemporary politics.

The anti-social are a vaguely-defined, amorphous
enemy. Often, they are invoked in the form of
pseudo-obviousness – as those who immediately offend
against some particular individual (“I know these
people on my estate, and they piss in the lifts, they
broke into my flat, etc. etc. – THEY’RE the ones we’re
after!”) But the category itself has no clarity. It
can mean anyone or next to no-one. On the one hand,
the anti-social are by definition a “tiny minority”,
and this – for some strange reason – is a part of what
makes them evil. It is, says Tony Blair, a stratum of
5,000 people, or in an earlier speech, no more than 20
or 30 in each city. But it is also EVERYONE – since
everyone at some point exceeds the self-definition of
the insiders, at some point has some unconditionality
which must not be interfered with even if it offends
or “harasses” others. The same tabloids which stand
for gleichschaltung, raise hell when the police raid a
house to seize ornamental pigs after a complaint by a
Muslim, or when a taxi-driver is banned from flying an
England flag in his taxi (both real examples of
tabloid stories, whatever the basis for them); and the
people who rally against the anti-social, rally to
these beleaguered individuals. So the anti-social is
also even the most included. Or, since petty crime is
necessarily anti-social according to the dominant
discourse, the anti-social are everyone except the 2%
or so who have never broken the law. The anti-social
is everyone and is everywhere.

And the “decent majority” is also everyone and no-one.
On the one hand, it is assumed to encompass everyone
except the “anti-social”. And all but the most
“extremist” among us would identify with the label,
and use it when referring pejoratively to others.
(Even capitalists and politicians are condemned as
“criminals”, as “anti-social”!) But on the other, it
is a norm, a role; and as such, it is an ideal
construct, a “spook”. It is in fact no-one, and any
might overflow it at any minute, whether due to a
neurotic symptom, a strong passionate attachment or an
unfortunate case of labelling by a “corrupt” official
or elite member. So the war against the anti-social is
a war of everyone and no-one, against everyone and
no-one. Yet of course, in social terms, it emerges as
a specific project of social control, engineered by
the politicians, the police, the media barons, and
others among the powerful, to construct social space
in line with what Steven Gill has called “disciplinary
neo-liberalism”, to destroy uncontrolled or
potentially uncontrolled spaces, to domesticate or
destroy every trace of wildness or of
uncontrollability, to carry on the building of a
police state to ensure the continuing dominance of the
existing systems of production, consumption, spectacle
and power.

I recall reading some time ago of a rare public
complaint made by a listener to the Nazi state radio
service, who had heard an embittered and
strongly-worded diatribe against the Jews, calling for
their extermination. The objection was not to the
extermination of the Jews, nor to the views propounded
in the broadcast. It was to the use of bad language –
and the way this could corrupt good, German ears. Here
is the disproportion, the sole focus on the insiders,
which is at the core of every project of social
cleansing. The “decent majority” define themselves as
the only ones who matter. The majority dictates, even
when the minorities in their proliferating
multiplicity outnumber the majority, even when
“majority” becomes a purely socio-normative and not at
all a quantitative concept. The majority DEFINES
itself as the only group which matters – and from its
self-imposed standpoint of superiority, it wages
endless war against out-groups of every kind, against
any who resist the stultifying rigidity of its own
life-world (work-consume-die), or who are excluded
from this world by the people who run it, and forced
to seek survival beyond its “moral” parameters of
social control.

The new agenda is carried to terrifying lengths by the
paradoxical barbarism of high technology – the use of
cyborg implants, CCTV surveillance, biometrics, and a
thousand other robotised interferences in the very
integrity of human life as a natural phenomenon. And
alongside the attack on the integrity of the body, the
insiders launch an assault on every last right and
liberty, whatever its origins – whether the liberties
of conservatism, liberalism, socialism, of local
traditions of various kinds or of the global
ideologies of capitalism itself. Where the “majority”
spreads its rule, there are no rights, because
conformity is a precondition for provision, and
because openness, which is necessarily space for the
different, is experienced by the insiders as a threat,
as space for the enemies and the anti-social.
Britain’s anti-social behaviour laws are paradigmatic
in this respect, in that no right is too sacred to be
abolished in a single case at the whim of a particular
magistrate. One victim of an ASBO has been banned from
using computers, another banned from riding a bicycle,
another banned from buying alcohol, another banned
from living in his lifelong home area, and so on. A
man in Scotland has been banned from putting Christmas
decorations on the outside of his house. There are
cities which operate city-wide shop banning schemes –
which could make it hard for some people to obtain
even basic necessities such as food. Where in all this
is the idea of rights or of freedom, however defined?
And of course protesters have been among those

The targeting of protesters is a subset of a larger
set, however. The “threat” posed by protesters is
conceived in terms of their “anti-social” effects,
thus of their being outside the moral parameters of
the “decent” in-group. Look at the discourse used
against animal rights activists – not that they are
wrong to oppose vivisection, but that writing repeated
letters or demonstrating outside people’s houses is
somehow “anti-social” and so must be smashed. The
trump-card of the war against the anti-social is
raised whenever the state wants an excuse to curtail
rights, to crack down against dissent, to continue the
inexorable building of a massive global police state.

To reverse perspective is to stop seeing things
through the eyes of the community, of ideology, of the
family, of other people… [It is to] base everything on
subjectivity and to follow one’s subjective will to be
everything’ (Raoul Vaneigem)

Other targets are vulnerable for similar reasons.
Surveys reveal, for instance, that the spread of
CCTV’s increases social conformism and reduces
tolerance for difference across a wide spectrum. The
psychologically different are typically victims of
normalising crackdowns. ASBO’s and related laws are
regularly used against sex workers, sexual deviants
(such as people who have sex in public), beggars and
youths. The campaign to drive beggars from city
centres is especially insidious, often being combined
with a pseudo-philanthropic drive to raise money
instead for projects the purposes of which are to
enforce the normalisation of beggars into capitalist
work routines and conformist social action. Even
people who smuggle tobacco are under threat of being
evicted by some councils! Make no mistake, these
attacks kill. Beggars are dying of cold in the winter,
sex workers are dying because they are driven
underground and therefore take more risks. People are
dying in showdowns with the police over issues which
need never have arisen but for the growing intolerance
of conformists. And there is, of course, a backlash.
One ASBO victim responded to being banned from his
home area by taking several people hostage. Another
man, desperate to be home before his court-imposed
curfew, hijacked a bus while drunk and crashed it into
a lamp-post. This is the inevitable boomerang against
the included, the “normal”, which results from their
own intolerance. Not a threat from the outside, but
the social symptom of their own ideology.

The real social effect of this project of violence
against the excluded is not, of course, the fluffy
image of social harmony conjured by the idiots who
think that once people “learn” respect at the end of a
truncheon, their imaginings of a past Golden Age will
become reality. The real effect is instead what has
recently been described by a protester in New York:
police take anything out of the ordinary to be an
excuse for extreme violence, and all the safeguards
are dropped. Of course, the “anti-social” actions do
not stop; sometimes the “anti-social” end up forming
violent gangs and associating with organised crime for
their own protection (as in America), sometimes they
escalate their actions because the exclusion which
causes many of these actions is worsened. But there
are real social changes due to such projects of
control. These take the form of what was known in Nazi
Germany as GLEICHSCHALTUNG – the coordination of
social space as if it were a single machine with the
state at its head. Social space is thus homogenised
and rigidified, activity ordered and regulated,
difference labelled and criminalised or pathologised.
In Britain, pubs, for instance, are expected to
conform to police-led conformity efforts or be closed
down as anti-social; musicians are supposed to get
expensive licenses; homeless people are supposed to be
re-trained to make them better wage-slaves. Even
physical spaces are regulated, through means such as
closing alleyways which could be used by the
“anti-social”, and smashing up houses where people use
drugs (even if the same people who support this, then
complain about needles in the street). All of this is
part of a massive project of gleichschaltung,
destroying open spaces, lines of flight and loopholes
so as to create an order akin to an Orwellian or
Kafkaesque nightmare, and with more than a passing
resemblance to classical totalitarianism (even if the
regulation of speech and publication has not reached
such extremes).

And all this is supported by many people who see
themselves as ordinary – the “little man” of Reich’s
classic text – and even some who see themselves as
working class, as socialist, or as anarchist. Support
for aspects of this agenda – for symbolic “evictions”
of youths from public spaces, for the use of evictions
and ASBO’s against certain groups of people – have
come from some unlikely sources, including authors in
SchNews, Black Flag, Solidarity, Freedom Fortnightly
and Red Action. Anarchist activist Flacco wrote a
piece in a SchNews annual lauding people who smashed
up telephone boxes, blocked alleyways and tried to
shut down public toilets to make these unusable by
certain groups of the “anti-social”. The logic of
closure of space always serves the powerful – imagine
the situation if the police and residents in an area
are involved in sustained clashes, and all the public
hiding-places and secret escape routes had been
destroyed or were covered by cameras – yet it often
gets support from the powerless, because the
superficial agenda of “dealing with” some specific
problem is placed ahead of any attempt to deal
systematically with social relations – especially
issues like this, which are under-theorised in any
case. It is not only the bosses, but also the “decent
law-abiding majority” who are the enemy of freedom
today. Or to put it another way: the self-definition
as “decent law-abiding majority” turns potential
rebels, members of subordinate groups, into the
discursive lackeys of the status quo. The more they
collaborate in gleichschaltung and the closure of
spaces, the more they tighten the bars of their own

‘The catastrophe is that things continue to “go on as
they are”… Hell is not what awaits us but the life we
are living’ ( Walter Benjamin, Zentralpark). Hell is
not what is brought from the outside by the
anti-social, but the existing regime of the social

And there is an entire fantasy-frame behind this
conformism. There is an “us and them”, where “they”
are defined as a race apart, and where the basic laws
of causality are suspended. There is a myth of
“society” as a whole, rather than as a set of social
relations, so “society” can act as one against its
enemies. There is an illusion that the iron fist of
state (or vigilantist) power will somehow create a
utopia, or at least a “decent” world where only the
“decent” exist. There is a stupid claim – contradicted
by all sociological evidence, which says the exact
opposite – that tolerance for minor deviance causes
major deviance, and that serious “crime” arises from
tolerance of small-scale social problems. And there is
the paranoia which says that “decent people” are
afraid – as perhaps they are – of every minor
manifestation of otherness. That people are afraid to
go out of their houses in case they see graffiti or
litter, or in case they see a beggar sitting on the
pavement. And as if this paranoia is somehow obvious,
rational, normal, and needs to be pandered to instead
of criticised. It is apparently very easy indeed to
make certain people’s lives a “misery”, or a “living
hell” – usually those for whom the hells of the “Third
World”, of Darfur, of Guantanamo Bay, of bombed Iraq,
of occupied Palestine, even of Auschwitz, are of no
significance. And for those who actively strive to
bring misery to the “anti-social”, to turn the penal
system into a “living hell”. “Make THEM feel the
fear”, said a recent police poster – with “they”, of
course, being the so-called “criminals”. So where is
the ethical consistency? Nowhere. There is simply “us
and them” – hell for us, or hell for them. And for
some reason, we are all supposed to side with “us” –
even though this in-group as at the root of both
hells, at the root of the global hell.

“Social cleansing” is the term which should be used
here. What is going on is akin in structure to ethnic
cleansing, but with the difference that the out-group
is defined as socially rather than ethnically
undesirable. And basically ethnic cleansing is simply
an especially doctrinaire form of social cleansing,
where an ethnic group is labelled as inherently
criminal or anti-social, in relation to the “decent”
core of the nation. The agenda of normalisation is
turned into a war against the different.

Indeed, the term “social cleansing” is already used in
Latin America for the extreme forms of such practices
which occur there – for instance, the genocide against
street children in Brazil and elsewhere, and the
violent bulldozing of shanty-towns. As usual with the
barbarism of capitalism, its brutality in the
so-called Third World eclipses its not inconsiderable
barbarity in the north/west. Just the other week I
received (and re-posted) a call for solidarity from
activists in Goa, India. An entire area of the city
had been bulldozed, the residents chased away, many of
them arrested; people who resisted were beaten and
attacked by police. What is the reason for this?
Ostensibly, the extermination of prostitution,
considered to be a “moral” problem. The hundreds made
homeless, some of them sex workers, many of them
simply residents of the “wrong” area, are victims of
the “moral” agenda of the power-holders who stand for
the “respectable”, “decent” majority. This is what
happens when this “majority” is put at the heart of
politics. Of course it is sharpest in the global
periphery, where capitalist power is at its weakest
and where the included are besieged most obviously by
marginalities. But it is a great evil wherever it

And what is the “war on terrorism” but a global
expansion of this project of control? “Terrorists” are
distinguished from warmongers only in that they fall
within a space defined as deviant. “They” hate the
“way of life” of the socially included, “they” have no
moral values and express pure evil, and “they” must
therefore be ruthlessly destroyed by methods far worse
than those for which “they” would be condemned as
beyond the pale. The quick passing of the Abu Ghraib
scandal, and the fact that the demand for the
practices which caused torture to occur to be
abandoned was barely heard and that no changes (except
the banning of cameras from US detention facilities)
resulted from the scandal, reveals how the priorities
of the included pan out. An even clearer example is
the “war on drugs” – which means an alliance with the
neo-fascist AUC in Colombia, attacks against the
peasantry in Bolivia, mass destruction and devastation
wherever the west lays its plans. The “war on terror”
and the “war on drugs” are social cleansing extended
to a global scale. The war against immigrants,
identified as culturally different, is also a part of
social cleansing.

It is often pointless, but necessary nonetheless, to
point out the utter moral bankruptcy of an agenda
which permits genocide but forbids swearing, which
permits chemical warfare in the name of normalising
social behaviour, or which permits mass enforced
homelessness to enforce the sexual norms of the
majority. The libidinal investments in such a
distorted morality are such that its moral hypocrisy
is invisible to its adherents, and that it becomes all
the more barbaric, the more categories are included
among the moral goods it values.

Sadly, the identity of the decent majority has
contaminated resistance movements – anarchists,
activists, the left. Even the Zapatistas, regarding
the issue of banning drugs. Perhaps because those
involved in resistance necessarily come from the wider
society, they fail to break with its categories.
Perhaps many people still unconsciously seek a place
at the table of power. Or perhaps the categories of
“community” were so useful to resisters in an earlier
epoch that they are hard to discard. Whatever the
case, this discourse is a constant barrier to thinking
out clearly a resistance to the oppression which is
the present. Because it stands in the way of
formulating a politics directed firmly against social
cleansing in all its forms – not only against this or
that unwanted effect of social cleansing, but against
the whole genocidal logic it encompasses.

Victory to the anti-social! Victory to the marginal!

“It is by leaving the plan(e) of capital, and never
ceasing to leave it, that a mass becomes increasingly
revolutionary and destroys the dominant equilibrium of
the denumerable sets. It is hard to see what an
Amazon-State would be, a women’s State, or a State of
erratic workers, a State of the ‘refusal’ of work. If
minorities do not constitute viable States culturally,
politically, economically, it is because the
State-form is not appropriate to them, nor the
axiomatic of capitalism, nor the corresponding
culture” (Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, A
Thousand Plateaus)

In Italian autonomism in the 70s, the emarginati –
those marginalised from society – were given a central
position in movements of resistance. The explosion of
multiplicities which break down the society of
bureaucratic and ideological control. Today, this
project must be rediscovered in the struggle of the
“anti-social”, in the struggle against social
cleansing, against gleichschaltung, against
disciplinary neo-liberalism.

The slogan “victory to the anti-social” is strictly
equivalent to the slogan “victory to the intifada”. It
does not imply that every act labelled “anti-social”
is somehow good in itself. Nor does it imply a
political identification with particular groups (such
as the PLO leadership, or the religious bigots of
Hamas) who are at the forefront of the struggle. No
doubt some very unsavoury, even oppressive, practices
are part of what is subsumed under the massive label
“anti-social”. Perhaps the bosses try to trick us by
including there a few of our own oppressors, such as
organised fascists, wife beaters, child abusers. Just
as the Israeli rhetoric targets the “terrorists” and
“fanatics” of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. But must one
who opposes the wanton murder of civilians, who
opposes the imposition of an Islamic state, therefore
renounce solidarity with the struggle of the
Palestinians against Israeli oppression? Must one
renounce the slogan “victory to the intifada”? Of
course not! So also, we must raise globally the cry,
“victory to the anti-social”!

“Victory to the anti-social” means victory to the
logic of freedom, to the logic of openness of social
spaces, to the idea that whatever rights one advocates
are for everyone and not just for conformists, to the
idea that any strengthening of state power or of
community repression is a restriction on the freedom
of all.

The minorities, the multiplicities, those whose
singularity, whose irreducibility, whose “uniqueness”
(in Stirner’s sense) makes them irreducible to “the
social” in the sense of a social totality with a core
or centre, who are therefore in the situation of
various marginalities and peripheral positions, are
not a single group, are not denumerable or
axiomatisable. The movement to denumerate, label,
classify the marginals is a project of the core, for
what is marginal can be classified only in relation to
the core, as otherness, as lesser being. Hence the
movement to classify “criminals” into types,
“psychotics” into various clinical categories, and so
on. But the whole threat posed by the marginal to the
social inside, to the repressive regime imposed as a
unitary “society”, is precisely their tendency to
break down boundaries, to overflow and hybridise
categories, to flee from and escape logics of fixity,
to make space into something open and contingent and
contestable instead of the fixed property of a
totalitarian regime. What remains beyond social
fixity, beyond gleichschaltung? What remains is the
possibility of open space, of smooth space; of
voluntary social relations, of creative human
activity, of a world without measure and without
borders, a world of free creative activity where
social production is subordinated to
desiring-production and is nothing more nor less than
the multiplication of the powers and desires of those
who enter into it (and which ceases the moment it
ceases to perform this role and becomes repression).

The anti-social are the three billion perverts on the
stand, the millions and millions of potential Alices.
The anti-social are you and I, to the extent that we
overflow the status quo, the system of social
totalisation through gleichschaltung. Social cleansing
must not be tolerated. Social openness must be posed
as the alternative to repressive closure. Victory to
open spaces which are multiple and not subordinate to
an overarching social order! Victory to the

The response of revolutionaries, of those who truly
value freedom, who seek the release of desires and
intensities, who oppose statist gleichschaltung and
disciplinary neo-liberalism, must be to POLITICISE
anti-sociality. To politicise the movements of the
marginals, to bring them to points of confrontation
with the system, to points of refusal of the status
quo, and into movements to create temporary and
permanent autonomous zones. This is similar to
Vaneigem’s proposals as regards active nihilism.

“In the last reckoning, the nihilists are our allies.
If they now live in the despair of non-transcendence,
a coherent theory will suffice to set them straight,
placing the potential energy of their accumulated
rancour in the service of their will to live…
Nihilists, one more effort if you want to be
revolutionaries!” (Vaneigem)

Of course, this politicisation of anti-sociality is
incompatible with any attempts to win over the “decent
majority” by appealing to their existing beliefs,
their existing attachments, their existing discourse.
The “decent majority” can be faced only with the stark
demand that it unlearn its dominance, its impositional
discourses, and that it become other. But this demand
is also emancipatory, for the “decent majority” is
itself trapped in its roles, its conformity. The
becoming-anti-social of the decent majority is also
its breaking of its ties to the status quo, its
refusal of the “cops in our heads”. In this way, the
liberation of the anti-social is simultaneously a
“universal” liberation.

In this, the historical context must be remembered:
the fact that, before the Industrial Revolutions, the
peasantry everywhere engaged in petty deviance as a
function of its class struggle against the landlords,
and in many places still does; the fact that the
disciplinary division between decent citizens and
delinquents was a historical strategy by the powerful
to break down this great resource of class resistance
and deny it to the workers of the industrial age.
Neither the delinquents as a state-labelled group, as
a subculture defined by its otherness from the decent,
nor the decent defined by their moralistic exclusion
of the delinquents, can be in any way a revolutionary
class. Only by breaking down the binary – by creating
a type of social subjectivity which is at once deviant
and affirmative – can a truly revolutionary challenge
be posed.

Enough with the rhetoric of incorporation – with the
idea that so much gleichschaltung is OK, that
such-and-such is a legitimate victim because she or he
deserves it, that such-and-such social problem is
severe enough to warrant repression, that
such-and-such use of repressive power is to be
condoned or even supported as a blow against some
social evil or other. All of this is libidinal fuel to
the fires of the status quo! First they came for the
beggars, and I did not speak out because I was not a
beggar. Then they came for the street racers, and I
did not speak out because I was not a street racer.
Then they came for the prostitutes, and I did not
speak out because I was not a prostitute. Let us not
repeat the fatal logic of Pastor Niemoeller! Victory
to the emarginati, victory to the anti-social!


Carry out symbolic inversions against leading
advocates of social cleansing. “Evict” judges. Serve
“citizen’s ASBO’s” on home secretaries. Prevent
councillors from getting to council meetings, “in case
they cause a public nuisance”. Try to shut down the
ACPO conference as an “unruly gathering”.

Organise mass defiance of ASB laws. For instance, a
mass sit-in by under-18s in areas where they’re banned
from being out at night, with others in attendance
also. Chain everyone together and just stand or sit
around. At whatever time the curfew ends, the cops
will have to stop arresting youths. A Gandhian/Kingian
approach might be effective here, because the laws
concerned are so illiberal. So even this kind of
protest would be very overtly defiant of the fascistic

Organise similar mass solidarity demos in other cases.
For instance: stage a march through a city centre,
with someone banned from the centre under an ASBO.
Conceal the person’s face so they can’t be identified.
And surround them to prevent this person being

Resist the panopticon. Organise a new Rosa Parks
campaign against CCTVs on buses – set up local
networks and explicitly declare a boycott until CCTV’s
are removed. Don’t be surprised if cameras and/or
buses get sabotaged during the campaign too. Actually
CCTV’s anywhere are at risk of this. But with a
resistance campaign against (say) a specific bus
company, there could be real pressure, instead of just
symbolic damage.

Resist evictions. This has already happened in some
places. Strategies include: blockading the house or
flat to be evicted; putting up barricades; removing
the person to be evicted (and property etc.) elsewhere
and then just moving them back when the bailiffs have

Target corporations involved in manufacturing tools of
repression, in the same way one might target companies
involved in vivisection. For instance, organise
boycotts of these companies’ other, less harmful
products. Pressure others to withdraw funding and
other kinds of support from these companies. Hold
protests and pickets outside their offices.

Organise mass-defiance inversion protests against
crackdowns. For instance: when there’s attacks on
graffiti artists, stage a mass graffiti campaign. When
a parent is jailed because a kid played truant,
organise a school strike.

Of course, the “anti-social” will also resist
directly. Often in ways some activists are
uncomfortable with. We don’t have to support every
single act of resistance, but it’s important always to
remain in solidarity, and not to condemn acts of
resistance against social cleansing even if we
disapprove of them. Instead, use every opportunity to
explain and promote the motives behind even those
actions one disapproves of.


especially chapters 18 and 19

Article by Dot Matrix on domestic violence in the
latest issue of Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed


Post a Comment

<< Home