The anarchist feminism of Voltairine de Cleyre

… this ill-got thing you call morality, sealed with the seal of marriage … [is] … the consummation of immorality, impurity, and injustice. … every married woman … is a bonded slave, who takes her master’s name, her master’s bread, her master’s commands, and serves her master’s passion; who passes through the ordeal of pregnancy and the throes of travail at his dictation, not at her desire; who can control no property, not even her own body, without his consent, and from whose straining arms the children she bears may be torn at his pleasure, or willed away while they are yet unborn. It is said the English language has a sweeter word than any other, — home. But … beneath the word … [is] a prison …

Voltairine de Cleyre, Sex Slavery

Voices of revolutionary feminism …

Voltairine de Cleyre is one of the most important writers within the anarchist tradition, and in her own lifetime, her writing fed and was fed by an unwavering political militancy.

An early critic of the place and domination of women in early capitalist society, she saw very clearly, when still quite young, that general human oppression and exploitation could never be brought to an end without the emancipation of women from patriarchal social relations.

We share below an essay on the anarchist feminism of Voltairine de Cleyre.

Continue reading
Posted in Commentary | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

For Toni Morrison (1931-2019)

In this here place, we flesh; flesh that weeps, laughs; flesh that dances on bare feet in grass. Love it. Love it hard. Yonder they do not love your flesh. They despise it. They don’t love your eyes; they’d just as soon pick em out. No more do they love the skin on your back. Yonder they flay it. And O my people they do not love your hands. Those they only use, tie, bind, chop off and leave empty. Love your hands! Love them. Raise them up and kiss them. Touch others with them, pat them together, stroke them on your face ’cause they don’t love that either. You got to love it, you! And no, they ain’t in love with your mouth. Yonder, out there, they will see it broken and break it again. What you say out of it they will not heed. What you scream from it they do not hear. What you put into it to nourish your body they will snatch away and give you leavins instead. No, they don’t love your mouth. You got to love it. This is flesh I’m talking about here. Flesh that needs to be loved. Feet that need to rest and to dance; backs that need support; shoulders that need arms, strong arms I’m telling you. And O my people, out yonder, hear me, they do not love your neck unnoosed and straight. So love your neck; put a hand on it, grace it, stroke it and hold it up. and all your inside parts that they’d just as soon slop for hogs, you got to love them. The dark, dark liver–love it, love it and the beat and beating heart, love that too. More than eyes or feet. More than lungs that have yet to draw free air. More than your life-holding womb and your life-giving private parts, hear me now, love your heart. For this is the prize. 

 Toni Morrison, Beloved

I never asked Tolstoy to write for me, a little colored girl in Lorain, Ohio. I never asked [James] Joyce not to mention Catholicism or the world of Dublin. Never. And I don’t know why I should be asked to explain your life to you. We have splendid writers to do that, but I am not one of them. It is that business of being universal, a word hopelessly stripped of meaning for me. Faulkner wrote what I suppose could be called regional literature and had it published all over the world. That’s what I wish to do. If I tried to write a universal novel, it would be water. Behind this question is the suggestion that to write for black people is somehow to diminish the writing. From my perspective there are only black people. When I say ‘people,’ that’s what I mean.  

Toni Morrison

Is there no context for our lives? No song, no literature, no poem full of vitamins, no history connected to experience that you can pass along to help us start strong? You are an adult. The old one, the wise one. Stop thinking about saving your face. Think of our lives and tell us your particularized world. Make up a story. Narrative is radical, creating us at the very moment it is being created. We will not blame you if your reach exceeds your grasp; if love so ignites your words they go down in flames and nothing is left but their scald. Or if, with the reticence of a surgeon’s hands, your words suture only the places where blood might flow. We know you can never do it properly – once and for all. Passion is never enough; neither is skill. But try. For our sake and yours forget your name in the street; tell us what the world has been to you in the dark places and in the light. Don’t tell us what to believe, what to fear. Show us belief s wide skirt and the stitch that unravels fear’s caul. You, old woman, blessed with blindness, can speak the language that tells us what only language can: how to see without pictures. Language alone protects us from the scariness of things with no names. Language alone is meditation. 

Toni Morrison, The Nobel Lecture In Literature, 1993

It is so difficult to convey the words of a writer who mastered them, and spoke them, wrote them, from the place of where she lived, and the place of her parents, grandparents, and that of “her people”; a place of horrific violence, racist and sexist, that destroyed whole communities, families and individuals. Yet this place was also one of great resilience, courage and resistance, of love. And thus Toni Morrison told the stories of the most silenced of america.

Continue reading
Posted in Commentary, Poiesis | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Anarchafeminist Manifesto

Voices of revolutionary feminism …

The origin of the Anarchafeminist Manifesto is in Norway. The Anarchafeminist Manifesto is the summary of the feminist political program unanimously agreed upon by the third congress of the Anarchist Federation of Norway, 1—7 of June 1982. The manifesto was first published in Norwegian in “Folkebladet” (IJA) no 1 1983 pp. 4—5. Soon after the “Manifesto” was published in CRIFA-Bulletin no 44 mars—avril 1983 in French (p. 12) and English (p. 13). Later on the French version was used as the basis for a translation to English that was published on the Internet. The “Manifesto” is also translated to other languages. Anarchafeminst greetings from Anna Quist, co-writer of the “Anarchafeminst Manifesto.” Translated from French (Bulletin C.R.I.F.A. No 44 mars—avril 1983 p. 12). (The Anarchist Library)

Continue reading
Posted in Commentary | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Anarcho-Feminism: Two Statements

Voices of revolutionary feminism …

The Anarcho-Feminist Manifesto was written by Chicago Anarcho-Feminists. Blood of the Flower was written by Red Rosia and Black Maria of Black Rose Anarcho-Feminists, who in 1971 could be reached c/o The Women’s Centre, 46 Pleasant Street, Cambridge Mass. Both articles first appeared in Siren — A Journal of Anarcho-Feminism Vol 1 No 1 1971 (now defunct), published in Chicago. They were next published together as a pamphlet by the Seattle section of the Social Revolutionary Anarchist Federation and the Revolutionary Anarchist Print Fund, c/o 4736 University Way NE, Seattle, WA 98105. (The Anarchist Library)

Continue reading
Posted in Commentary | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Peggy Kornegger: Anarchism: The Feminist Connection

Destroy capitalism. End patriarchy. Smash heterosexism. All are obviously essential tasks in the building of a new and truly human world. Marxists, other socialists, social anarchists, feminists – all would agree. But what the socialist, and even some feminists, leave out is this: We must smash all forms of domination. That’s not just a slogan, and it is the hardest task of all. It means that we have to see through the spectacle, destroy the stage sets, know that there are other ways of doing things. It means that we have to do more than react in programmed rebellions – we must act. And our actions will be collectively taken, while each person acts autonomously. Does that seem contradictory? It isn’t – but it will be very difficult to do. The individual cannot change anything very much; for that reason, we have to work together. But that work must be without leaders as we know them, and without delegating any control over what we do and what we want to build.

Carol Ehrlich, Socialism, Anarchism, and Feminism

In the wake of our last post, Sabotaging gender, feminism and capital, we thought that it would be useful to share some of the voices of what we wish to call revolutionary feminism. This is not the first time that we do so (click here), nor will it be the last.

We begin with an early and important reflection on the encounter between feminism and anarchism, by Peggy Kornegger.

Continue reading
Posted in Commentary | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Sabotaging gender, feminism and capital

We share below an essay by a friend of Autonomies, a conference paper presented at the CIEG II International Congress: Gender, Feminist and Woman’s Studies: Reflexivity, Resistance and Action (July 24-26), at the ISCSP – Instituto Superior de Ciências Sociais e Políticas, Lisbon.

A contribution to the debate on feminism.

Continue reading
Posted in Commentary | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Élisée Reclus: Why We Are Anarchists

There is morality only in freedom.

Élisée Reclus

We share a text by Élisée Reclus that is perhaps ageless. (From Robert Graham’s Anarchist Weblog).

Continue reading
Posted in Commentary | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Looking back-forward at the gilets jaunes: A taking stock

We share an unfinished debate on the yellow vests’ movement, on what is or was radical within it, and where it failed, if indeed it did so. Our caution here is dictated by the different positions in the exchange below.

We begin with a critical appraisal of the movement from the Temps Critiques collective, followed by a more apologetic note, and in turn a response from the collective.

Without wishing, or being able to close the issue, it can be said that what separates the two sides of this debate is an interpretation or analysis of capitalism. For the Temps Critiques collective, to the extent that the movement fails to contest the conditions of contemporary commodity production, while failing to see the dismantling of the State, the privatisation of daily life in all of its many domains, it is a failed movement. What our apologist, Dietrich Hoss, defends is that the movement has shattered processes of capitalist subjectivisation, which opens up possibilities and potentialities unforseen before its eruption.

It is our conviction that the two views in fact complement each other, but the theoretical work for this union still awaits.

Continue reading
Posted in Commentary | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Jacques Rancière: The singularity of rebellion and autonomy

Démocratie veut dire d’abord cela : un gouvernement anarchique, fondé sur rien d’autre que sur l’absence de tout titre à gouverner.

Jacques Rancière, La haine de la démocratie

To share, the always timely reflections of Jacques Rancière.

A question arises from this interview that is pressing for any anti-capitalist dissident or rebel: what is the relation between autonomy as act or event and its institutionalisation? Can the latter give shape to the former, or must they exist in permanent dissonance? If the following interview provides us with no clear answer, the larger body of Rancière’s work suggests the last. But if this is so, is not Rancière simply reminding us that perfect justice is an impossibility, and that freedom or autonomy resides in the permanent possibility of recreating ourselves, together? And perhaps this is what Rancière finally means by “democracy” as “anarchic government”.

Continue reading
Posted in Commentary | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Beyond violence and non-violence: Peter Gelderloos

… nonviolence, in its current manifestations, is based on falsified histories of struggle. It has implicit and explicit connections to white people’s manipulations of the struggles of people of color. Its methods are wrapped in authoritarian dynamics, and its results are harnessed to meet government objectives over popular objectives. It masks and even encourages patriarchal assumptions and power dynamics. Its strategic options invariably lead to dead ends. And its practitioners delude themselves …

We must realistically accept that revolution is a social war, not because we like war, but because we recognize that the status quo is a low-intensity war and challenging the state results in an intensification of that warfare. We must also accept that revolution necessitates interpersonal conflict because certain classes of people are employed to defend the centralizing institutions we must destroy. People who continue to dehumanize themselves as agents of law and order must be defeated by whatever means necessary until they can no longer prevent people’s autonomous realization of their needs.

Peter Gelderloos, How Nonviolence Protects the State

In what could be described as a sort of “coda” to our last two “film” posts on “violent” anarchist political action, we share a rightfully celebrated and significant essay by Peter Gelderloos on violence and non-violence.

In sum, to confine discussions of tactics and strategy to debates about violence and non-violence is to condemn the former to impotence, because the latter is a false debate, and a dangerously false debate, masquerading as moral rectitude. The issue is one of tactics and strategy, and if these are difficult enough to think through and act upon, they are paralysed by false controversies to which there is no answer, thereby contributing to the perpetuation of what already exists.

If we have disagreements with Gelderloos, they in fact are over the substantive question of tactics and strategy; but as he himself defends, there is no one path of anarchy.

Continue reading
Posted in Commentary | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment