A good book on Illegalism or Prop of the deed

35 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sik Kunt's picture
Sik Kunt
Offline
Joined: 19-04-12
Apr 19 2012 18:02
A good book on Illegalism or Prop of the deed

I have been intrigued by the idea of some Anarchists of the 1890's, seems like dead prez stole RBG from a bunch of white boys

Sik Kunt's picture
Sik Kunt
Offline
Joined: 19-04-12
Apr 20 2012 16:51

bump

Wiz's picture
Wiz
Offline
Joined: 11-04-12
Apr 20 2012 17:06

search on here?- http://theanarchistlibrary.org/

Sik Kunt's picture
Sik Kunt
Offline
Joined: 19-04-12
Apr 20 2012 19:46

That's a great library with a good read on illegalism on it, thanks!

Would like to hear some users views on it on here too.

tastybrain
Offline
Joined: 11-11-07
Apr 20 2012 20:47

http://libcom.org/library/you-cant-blow-up-social-relationship

Sik Kunt's picture
Sik Kunt
Offline
Joined: 19-04-12
Apr 20 2012 20:57

I was not talking about terrorism, but rather Anarchists choosing to rob banks, kidnap rich people etc etc, sure would be less shit than working long hours at a job you hate.

I don't think expropriation will abolish capitalism, but I think it would be better than my life as a wage slave.

I know as Anarchists people should be looking for ways to raise class consciousness, agitate and organize, but when it is clear revolution is not round the corner, why is it wrong for an Anarchist to look for an alternative to living as a broke worker?

Obviously a system won't be overthrown without the near entire population behind the struggle, while Anarchist revolution is far away, I can see the appeal to fight and not live the shit life your dad and mum and Grandmother and friends all live but live outside it.

Says the person who works haha grin

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Apr 20 2012 21:04

propaganda of the deed refers to violence with the intent of inspiring revolution, not taking up crime as an alternative to work

Black Badger
Offline
Joined: 21-03-07
Apr 20 2012 21:18

"You Can't Blow up a Social Relationship" contains just about the stupidest arguments against "violence" ever written by anarchists. Here's the best response to it I know of:

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Bob_Black__You_Can_t_Blow_up_a_Social_Relationship..._But_you_can_have_fun_trying_.html

Wiz's picture
Wiz
Offline
Joined: 11-04-12
Apr 20 2012 21:20
radicalgraffiti wrote:
propaganda of the deed refers to violence with the intent of inspiring revolution, not taking up crime as an alternative to work

perhaps you should read the thread title again.

Wiz's picture
Wiz
Offline
Joined: 11-04-12
Apr 20 2012 21:23
Black Badger wrote:
"You Can't Blow up a Social Relationship" contains just about the stupidest arguments against "violence" ever written by anarchists. Here's the best response to it I know of:

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Bob_Black__You_Can_t_Blow_up_a_Social_Relationship..._But_you_can_have_fun_trying_.html

so true. it's just like how 'workerist' anarchos continue to reference Bookchins 'lifestlye anarchism' like it's actually something other than a dire ramble.

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Apr 20 2012 22:06
Black Badger wrote:
"You Can't Blow up a Social Relationship" contains just about the stupidest arguments against "violence" ever written by anarchists. Here's the best response to it I know of:

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Bob_Black__You_Can_t_Blow_up_a_Social_Relationship..._But_you_can_have_fun_trying_.html

its not an argument against violance its an argument against guerilla and terrorist groups which try and instagat revolution through indervidual violent actes without any mass bass/ revolutionar tendecy in the working class as a whole

edit

i have to think that the person who wrote that didn't read the pamphlet or didn't understand it, as a responce it doesn't make sense

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Apr 20 2012 22:03
Wiz wrote:
radicalgraffiti wrote:
propaganda of the deed refers to violence with the intent of inspiring revolution, not taking up crime as an alternative to work

perhaps you should read the thread title again.

if its not about creating a new world then its not anarchism.

actual it sounds like the kind of "anarchists" Luigi Fabbri was talking about here

http://libcom.org/library/bourgeois-influences-anarchism

Wiz's picture
Wiz
Offline
Joined: 11-04-12
Apr 20 2012 22:11
radicalgraffiti wrote:
Wiz wrote:
radicalgraffiti wrote:
propaganda of the deed refers to violence with the intent of inspiring revolution, not taking up crime as an alternative to work

perhaps you should read the thread title again.

if its not about creating a new world then its not anarchism.

actual it sounds like the kind of "anarchists" Luigi Fabbri was talking about here

http://libcom.org/library/bourgeois-influences-anarchism

ugh, please spare me your boring reading list.
never heard of illegalism? the bonnot gang? fair enough if you haven't, but it does make it funny when you attempt to come over as a know it all.

flaneur's picture
flaneur
Offline
Joined: 25-02-09
Apr 20 2012 22:52

How is that at all helpful? You can be interested in propaganda of the deed or illgealism without having to be reminded it's a bad idea to blow shit up for real.

And radicalgraffiti, illegalism never pretended to be like the Durruti quote, it was about disillusioned anarchists realising their desires in the here and now, which really isn't a terrible thing.

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Apr 20 2012 23:27

i never said it was bad to do the best you can in the now, but that is not in itself anarchism.

RedEd's picture
RedEd
Offline
Joined: 27-11-10
Apr 21 2012 10:25

Illegalism reminds me of a G.K. Chesterton quote: "Thieves respect property. They merely wish the property to become their property that they may more perfectly respect it." Theft is by and large compatible with capitalism and shares many of its basic assumptions, so making a politcs out of it is, to my mind, counter-revolutionary. Which is not to say there's anything necessarily wrong with it, just that it shouldn't be fetished as a way of living in the same way being a 'radical' intellectual or a greenpeace employee shouldn't. I realise that a lot of illegalism existed in a situation of limbo between seeing it as a good way to get by in the here and now and seeing it as a pro-revolutionary rejection of capitalist norms, and it's only the latter tendency I'm criticising.

Sik Kunt's picture
Sik Kunt
Offline
Joined: 19-04-12
Apr 21 2012 10:30
RedEd wrote:
Illegalism reminds me of a G.K. Chesterton quote: "Thieves respect property. They merely wish the property to become their property that they may more perfectly respect it." Theft is by and large compatible with capitalism and shares many of its basic assumptions, so making a politcs out of it is, to my mind, counter-revolutionary. Which is not to say there's anything necessarily wrong with it, just that it shouldn't be fetished as a way of living in the same way being a 'radical' intellectual or a greenpeace employee shouldn't. I realise that a lot of illegalism existed in a situation of limbo between seeing it as a good way to get by in the here and now and seeing it as a pro-revolutionary rejection of capitalist norms, and it's only the latter tendency I'm criticising.

If one was to use Illegal-ism by carrying out crimes against the rich, kidnappings, bank robbers, high end theft, counter fitting for financial benefit to relieve them from the shitty economic and lifestyle restrictions of a worker, how does that hurt or betray the proletariat?

If an Anarchist, is himself working class, surely him robbing the rich is in support of the working class, as it benefits him?

Toms's picture
Toms
Offline
Joined: 16-05-10
Apr 21 2012 10:55

There's a movie on Lucio Urtubia.

RedEd's picture
RedEd
Offline
Joined: 27-11-10
Apr 21 2012 11:44
Sik Kunt wrote:
RedEd wrote:
Illegalism reminds me of a G.K. Chesterton quote: "Thieves respect property. They merely wish the property to become their property that they may more perfectly respect it." Theft is by and large compatible with capitalism and shares many of its basic assumptions, so making a politcs out of it is, to my mind, counter-revolutionary. Which is not to say there's anything necessarily wrong with it, just that it shouldn't be fetished as a way of living in the same way being a 'radical' intellectual or a greenpeace employee shouldn't. I realise that a lot of illegalism existed in a situation of limbo between seeing it as a good way to get by in the here and now and seeing it as a pro-revolutionary rejection of capitalist norms, and it's only the latter tendency I'm criticising.

If one was to use Illegal-ism by carrying out crimes against the rich, kidnappings, bank robbers, high end theft, counter fitting for financial benefit to relieve them from the shitty economic and lifestyle restrictions of a worker, how does that hurt or betray the proletariat?

If an Anarchist, is himself working class, surely him robbing the rich is in support of the working class, as it benefits him?

I see what you mean, by I don't think anarchism is, in the final analysis, about benifitting the working class as a class in itself, but about abolishing class as such. It's in that context that actions should be judged as pro-revolutionary or non-revolutionary, and given that anarchism is nothing if not revolutionary, I don't think things that simply benefit members of the working class are anarchist, whilst I do still think that they are generally good.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Apr 21 2012 13:36

We have a bunch of articles on propaganda by deed here:
http://libcom.org/tags/propaganda-by-deed

a good book on is Richard Parry's The Bonnot Gang. I'm going to try to get it in the library here in the next few months

redsdisease
Offline
Joined: 31-12-10
Apr 21 2012 17:53
Sik Kunt wrote:
If one was to use Illegal-ism by carrying out crimes against the rich, kidnappings, bank robbers, high end theft, counter fitting for financial benefit to relieve them from the shitty economic and lifestyle restrictions of a worker, how does that hurt or betray the proletariat?

If an Anarchist, is himself working class, surely him robbing the rich is in support of the working class, as it benefits him?

Personally, I don't really have a problem with becoming a criminal to improve your life, as long as you're not harming other working class folks. However, when you use the words illegalism or prop of the deed, that implies to me that it's a revolutionary theory of some kind and I think it's valid to criticize it as such.

flaneur's picture
flaneur
Offline
Joined: 25-02-09
Apr 21 2012 18:33

They can correct me if I'm wrong but I think Sik Kunt got the two mixed up. In any case, those calling illegalism an anarchist theory don't have a clue about the practice or the context it was set in. It was largely individual anarchists involved, and it was in light of the early century defeats and the realisation that lasting revolution wasn't around the corner. If anything, it was a rejection of anarchist theory.

georgestapleton's picture
georgestapleton
Offline
Joined: 4-08-05
Apr 21 2012 21:11

Sorry flaneur but that just isn't true. Its a rewriting of history.

Galleani, Sacco, Vanzetti, Bonnot, Di Giovanni, Fillipi, Most, Novatore etc were sincere anarchists. And although predominantly individualists, they were not just 'individual anarchists'. They worked with each other, with other anarchists and with the wider labour movement.

flaneur's picture
flaneur
Offline
Joined: 25-02-09
Apr 21 2012 23:31

Would you really put Galleani and other American propgandists of the deed in with Bonnot? Regardless, I'm not saying owt about them being solid and dedicated anarchists, on the contrary, I sympathise with their disappointment being channelled into something tangible. I just think the dichotomy some are painting between those involved in the unions at the time (or now) and those who turn to illgealism is a false one.

wojtek
Offline
Joined: 8-01-11
Apr 22 2012 06:29
Quote:
Steven wrote:
a good book on is Richard Parry's The Bonnot Gang. I'm going to try to get it in the library here in the next few months

Here you are, probably wanna change the blurb lol. smile

There's a review here also:

https://swiftlytiltingplanet.wordpress.com/2008/09/20/the-bonnot-gang-by-richard-perry/

Skraeling
Offline
Joined: 7-04-06
Apr 22 2012 09:47
radicalgraffiti wrote:
Black Badger wrote:
"You Can't Blow up a Social Relationship" contains just about the stupidest arguments against "violence" ever written by anarchists. Here's the best response to it I know of:

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Bob_Black__You_Can_t_Blow_up_a_Social_Relationship..._But_you_can_have_fun_trying_.html

its not an argument against violance its an argument against guerilla and terrorist groups which try and instagat revolution through indervidual violent actes without any mass bass/ revolutionar tendecy in the working class as a whole

edit

i have to think that the person who wrote that didn't read the pamphlet or didn't understand it, as a responce it doesn't make sense

Yeah, radicalgraffiti is right. T'was written in a different context - the 1970s at the height of support for guerrilla groups, and armed struggle groups, and also as a critique of ultra-ultramilitancy. And it was not written by an anarchist, but a councilist within the Brisbane Self-Management Group (a group similar to Socialisme ou Barbarie or Solidarity (UK)) for the SMGs magazine, then was republished by anarchist groups the world over.

On illegalism, there is also this http://www.freedompress.org.uk/news/2010/01/18/illegalism/
I'd agree with G.Stapleton that illegalism is not something confined to individualist anarchism before WWI. It has been a strand and/or a tactic at various times within 'class-struggle anarchism' and esp. anarchist communism eg. prop of the deed stuff after the Paris Commune (Kropotkin etc), the bank robberies etc carried out by the Spanish anarcho-syndicalists in the 1920s and 1930s, the Gallaenists in the US and Argentina, the insurrectionist strand of anarchist communism from the 1960s to the present (Bonanno etc.). Certainly not the dominant strand within class-struggle anarchism, but it has been present for a long time.

Then there is a sort of illegalist or semi-illegalist current since the 1960s - those groups who mix a vague, watered-down and sometimes confused situationism with anarchism (sometimes synthesist, sometimes insurrectionist) with counter-cultural lifestyles and communal living, and taking militant illegal action in the here and now. Their illegalism tended to be not as risky as robbing banks - more confined to shoplifting, stunts, squatting etc. Crimethinc would be a modern example. While Tiqqun are much broader in outlook, there is some continuity there, and they fit better in that tradition than the communisation box they are sometimes placed in eg. see this - http://www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/invisible-politics-introduction-to-contemporary-communisation.

Skraeling
Offline
Joined: 7-04-06
Apr 22 2012 10:07
georgestapleton wrote:
Sorry flaneur but that just isn't true. Its a rewriting of history.

Galleani, Sacco, Vanzetti, Bonnot, Di Giovanni, Fillipi, Most, Novatore etc were sincere anarchists. And although predominantly individualists, they were not just 'individual anarchists'. They worked with each other, with other anarchists and with the wider labour movement.

Oops I wrote that you think Galleani wasn't an individualist. I think you're rewriting history here too. It's a common ploy, esp. by platformists, to claim that Galleani and his followers were individualists, but they were anarchist communists. eg Galleani wrote "The characteristic aspirations of anarchism are then, in the economic field, communism; in the political field, the elimination of all forms of authority and compulsion." which is bog standard anarchist communism. See http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Luigi_Galleani__The_End_of_Anarchism_.html
Galleani was a fan of Kropotkin.

(Btw, i'm no insurrectionist or illegalist or anarchist for that matter).

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Apr 22 2012 11:36
wojtek wrote:
Quote:
Steven wrote:
a good book on is Richard Parry's The Bonnot Gang. I'm going to try to get it in the library here in the next few months

Here you are, probably wanna change the blurb lol. smile

There's a review here also:

https://swiftlytiltingplanet.wordpress.com/2008/09/20/the-bonnot-gang-by-richard-perry/

hey, thanks so much for posting that. And the blurb you wrote is great! If you wanted to post the review as well that would be good

georgestapleton's picture
georgestapleton
Offline
Joined: 4-08-05
Apr 22 2012 19:18
Skraeling wrote:
georgestapleton wrote:
Sorry flaneur but that just isn't true. Its a rewriting of history.

Galleani, Sacco, Vanzetti, Bonnot, Di Giovanni, Fillipi, Most, Novatore etc were sincere anarchists. And although predominantly individualists, they were not just 'individual anarchists'. They worked with each other, with other anarchists and with the wider labour movement.

Oops I wrote that you think Galleani wasn't an individualist. I think you're rewriting history here too. It's a common ploy, esp. by platformists, to claim that Galleani and his followers were individualists, but they were anarchist communists. eg Galleani wrote "The characteristic aspirations of anarchism are then, in the economic field, communism; in the political field, the elimination of all forms of authority and compulsion." which is bog standard anarchist communism. See http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Luigi_Galleani__The_End_of_Anarchism_.html
Galleani was a fan of Kropotkin.

(Btw, i'm no insurrectionist or illegalist or anarchist for that matter).

I wrote:
although predominantly individualists
Skraeling
Offline
Joined: 7-04-06
Apr 24 2012 06:51

Yup you did. write that. But why do you think he was predominantly individualist, given he identifies with anarchist communism? And the more impt related question: is there a strong correlation between individualism and illegalism? I doubt this for many reasons, but happy to listen to others views, esp. as i'm no expert on this.

flaneur's picture
flaneur
Offline
Joined: 25-02-09
Apr 24 2012 11:14

Since I think individualism is shite, I'm hesistant to say yes but the anarcho communists of the time having taken up unionism, saw the illegalists as shirking their responsibilities. Perhaps it was a question of interests, rather than different anarchisms though. Speaking of Di Giovanni, his spat with Diego Abad de Santillán (then writer for FORA's paper), managed to get out of hand enough that an editor ended up dead. And people say the attitude on Libcom is bad!