In a revolt against techno-optimism and the real-world violence it upholds, members of radical research collective Lucy Parsons Labs (LPL) call for an empiricism rooted in technopolitical critique. Drawing from their own years of labor in the struggles against racial and surveillance capitalism, current work in HCI, and radical theorists like Alfredo M. Bonanano and Modibo Kadalie, LPL invites us to incorporate an ethics of rebellion and progress our tech practices into principled, anti-authoritarian praxis.

I am a degrowther, but people keep telling me it's hard to create media communications campaigns for degrowth and that advocating for it is "political suicide." As if endless cancerous growth isn't political suicide already. I'm told people want growth and we should use a different name for degrowth and that we should make it palatable to the public. But degrowth is quite literally a critique of growth. Without this critique, it's just liberal wishywashing for a better future. So I'm at an impasse here. How do we talk about meaningfully talk about degrowth without watering down the message?

I've recently tried mixing the used coffee grounds in baking soda, and I'm seeing a very visible chemical reaction. I haven't tried putting it in the ground yet though.

...other users had questioned whether the term 'Free Territory' had any basis in reliable sources. I was a little surprised. This was the term that I had used for years, one that was inextricably linked in my mind with the Makhnovists. This could not just be some random neologism coined by Wikipedia… right?

At first I could not let myself believe it. I looked through Makhno’s memoirs, as well as Volin’s and Arshinov’s histories, but I could not find the term anywhere. I even checked the Russian language originals, and peered through Viktor Bilash’s memoirs, which tragically remains untranslated. Again, I found no sign of a 'Free Territory'. I could not even find it in the memoirs of Victor Serge, the Bolshevik politician who coined the term 'Black Army' to refer to the Makhnovist insurgents.

Inklusibo’s new manual on housing rights provides an in-depth narrative of the urban poor’s right to housing and livable spaces. This is the first free publication under the Housing and Living Spaces category.

I. Occupations are effective because they are disruptive. The April 1968 occupations shut down the entire university for over a week. This forced the administration to concede to their demands, even after the movement faced repression.

II. An occupation needs to spread in order to survive. New buildings need to be taken on campus, throughout the city, and across the country. Take the enemy by surprise. Strive for daily or even hourly successes, however small. At all costs, retain superior morale.

III. Every occupation is a commune. By shutting down the normal flows of capitalist society, they open up space for something new to emerge. These become a place to experiment with how we might live differently. Share everything. Inside the occupation, there is no private property. Break down barriers. Inside, social status and jobs are meaningless.

Alt text:

Boss made a dollar
I made a dime
that was a poem
from a simpler time

Now the boss makes a thousand
and gives us a cent
while hes got employees
who cant pay rent

So when boss makes a million
nd the workers make jack
thats when we strike
and take our lives back

Yes, it's true: before work was invented everyone lived in their own filth and starved all the time because work hadn't been invented yet.

Beyond jokes, my intention here is to clarify what is meant by antiwork. Antiwork does not mean that a world that has abolished work would see people live in filth and starve. In a world that has abolished work, people will still farm, clean, teach, provide medicine, take out fires, et cetera. Antiwork means the revolutionary abolition of the world of work and all that entails: a waged-labor, a division of labor between waged work and house work, alienation, bullshit jobs, a division between leisure and waged work, compulsion to work or starve, et cetera. Some people call this degrowth, others communism, still others anarchy.

So:

What is work?

Work is a lot of things. For starters, it developed historically from feudal times and had since evolved in its current form in the capitalist mode of production. Within the context of the capitalist mode of production work is waged-labor or reproductive (or house) work and is defined by divisions and alienations. These include a division of labor between waged work and house work, alienation, a division between leisure and waged work, and a compulsion to work or starve. That last one is important. Working people today are free to not work, or starve. This is the freedom that work grants us.

Will people starve and live in filth?

No. Antiwork does not mean that a world that has abolished work would see people live in filth and starve. In a world that has abolished work, people will still farm, clean, teach, provide medicine, take out fires, et cetera.

Will people be bored without work?

I think it's more accurate to say people will be bored by work. A world that has abolished work will still see people that keep themselves busy. Historically speaking, during the Age of Enlightenment, it was the leisure class that didn't do work that was able to make all sorts of exciting and revolutionary ideas about science and art. They won the right to not work because they were privileged due to their wealth. If everyone was able to free themselves from the drudgery of work, what wonders could they achieve?

I expect this post to be a sort of living document. Please feel free to ask questions and I'll try to answer it in the post. ___

Why is a theory of Asian anarchism necessary? The reasons that I believe it is important to create a theory of Asian anarchism can be boiled down to the following points.

Firstly, the movements of anarchism that currently exist within Asian countries have historically been intertwined and transnational. This provides not only a pre-existing framework for a broad theory of all-encompassing Asian anarchism, but also has the potential to create stronger pan-Asian solidarity.

Secondly, historical Asian anarchist movements had many unique successes and failures that differ from the anarchist movements in the West. Hence, a theory of Asian anarchism would have a new mode of analysis on organisational practices, past and current projects, potential paths forward, and fatal missteps.

Thirdly, Asian philosophies such as Taoism and Buddhism have had a significant influence on all anarchists and have made major contributions to anarchist theory. Putting more emphasis and finding more philosophical precedents would surely recover old ideas and inspire new contributions to the body of anarchist theory.

Fourthly, the unique experiences of Asian peoples as a result of colonialism and imperialism that they have been subjected to provide a unique outlook on these struggles. Rather than only opposing and pointing out the inherent evils such as capitalism and the State, Asian anarchism would draw from historical experience and lasting effects of Western colonialism such as British rule in India and China.

Fifthly, as we advance into late-stage capitalism and are forced to live under neoliberal principles, many things that Asians hold valuable such as our cultures, the environment, and our social relations are being destroyed. By forming a theory of Asian anarchism through the lens of important values, we can effectively address the immiseration that Asian communities are dealing with.