Capitalism begins from a simple assumption: resources can be owned. Land can belong to an individual. A factory can belong to a corporation. Software can belong to a company. Data can become an asset. Knowledge can be enclosed behind intellectual property. Anarchist politics begins by asking a different question: What if some things should belong to everyone? A commons is a resource collectively governed by the people who depend upon it. Its participants establish rules for access, maintenance and use rather than simply handing control to an owner or distant authority. The commons offers an alternative to both private ownership and centralised state control. This idea can be applied far beyond traditional common land. Housing can also become a commons. Community land trusts and cooperative housing models separate land from speculative ownership and allow residents to collectively govern their homes. The objective is not to make housing free of responsibility. Residents still maintain buildings, pay costs and establish rules. The difference is that housing becomes a collectively governed social resource rather than primarily an investment asset. Urban infrastructure could follow the same logic. Community energy systems, shared workshops, local transport networks and neighbourhood gardens can all operate through collective management. Publicly funded research could produce technologies available for collective use rather than being enclosed behind permanent commercial ownership. Digital knowledge can also become a commons. Open-source software already demonstrates how large communities can build sophisticated technological systems without conventional corporate ownership. Contributors cooperate across borders, improve shared infrastructure and make their work available to others. Digital technology could also make some forms of commons governance easier. Transparent records, open-source tools, and distributed decision-making systems can help communities coordinate across geographical boundaries. NASA image on Unsplash The same principle could extend to artificial intelligence. Instead of allowing advanced computational resources and models to become concentrated entirely within a few corporations, communities could develop open AI infrastructure governed through transparent rules. But technology cannot replace political participation, since a commons is not simply a database or a platform, not just an economic arrangement, but a political relationship. People who use a commons participate in governing it. This is unlike the relationship between citizen and institution. Instead of receiving services passively from either corporations or governments, people are active participants in maintaining commons and governing shared systems. There are obvious challenges. Commons can be badly managed. Communities can exclude outsiders. Participation can become dominated by particularly powerful members. Rules can become complicated. These problems do not invalidate the concept, but demonstrate that collective ownership requires institutions. Anarchism means no rulers, not having no rules. It means creating rules without permanently concentrating power in a ruling authority. The deeper significance of the commons is that it challenges the assumption that every useful resource must have a conventional owner. Some things can be collectively governed because people depend upon them together. The future of radical politics may therefore involve expanding the territory between private property and state ownership. More land can become community-governed. More knowledge can become openly accessible. More technology can become collectively controlled. More infrastructure can become locally governed. The commons offers a simple but radical proposition: Not everything valuable needs an owner. Some things can belong to everyone precisely because no individual owns them. The post The politics of the commons appeared first on Freedom Press.

SOLIDARITY BEGINS WHERE WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT OUR WITHDRAWAL AND ESCAPISM HAS CONSEQUENCES FOR OTHERS ~ Lola, Barrikade ~ Partyvism is not a music genre, not a subculture. It’s an attitude. The conscious or unconscious practice of suppressing societal tensions through constant partying, scene consumption, and escapism, while minimising or completely outsourcing political participation. Partying is experienced not as a supplement, but as a substitute for engagement, organisation, and responsibility. As the rightward shift accelerates, militarisation is ruthlessly pursued, authoritarian policies become mainstream, crises escalate, people are systematically exploited and slaughtered for resource colonialism, and genocides continue or are relativised — a segment of the scene withdraws. Partyvism is not a harmless side effect; it’s dancing rather than fighting, intoxication rather than solidarity, the scene rather than organising. The problem isn’t partying itself. The problem is partying as a substitute activity. Partyvism transforms collective powerlessness into short-term ecstasy and sells it as freedom. While others use all their resources to build structures, mitigate repression, support those affected, and fend off attacks, a large segment remains on the margins, often politically informed, but rarely practically involved. This isn’t about condemning partying. Joy, physicality, intoxication, and community are legitimate needs. Many people are exhausted, overwhelmed, psychologically burdened, or simply preoccupied with surviving their daily lives because they are oppressed by the system day after day. Maximum participation cannot be demanded of anyone at all times. Those who ignore this reproduce precisely the performance-driven and exploitative logics that helped create these crises. But: Those who systematically stay out of it leave the field to others and indirectly profit from their work. Partyvism shifts responsibility downwards and risks outwards. It thrives on others taking the fall. No one owes permanent activism. But there is a difference between taking breaks and permanently withdrawing. Between self-protection and political complacency. The illusion that one can simply stay out of it is deceptive. As if one’s own body, one’s own scene, or the club were an apolitical space. But the shift to the right doesn’t stop at the door, repression doesn’t bypass dance floors, and political decisions affect us all, whether we’re partying or not. Solidarity cannot be postponed or relegated to after-hours parties. This is how invisible hierarchies emerge: Some organise, others consume. Some slowly burn out. This isn’t subculture; this is political division of labour without consultation, always at the expense of those who stay. The question isn’t whether we’re allowed to celebrate, but what for. Whether spaces are merely places of distraction or places where relationships are forged that will sustain us when things get serious. Whether pleasure is connected or becomes an excuse. Solidarity also means asking ourselves: Who keeps the structures running? Who pays the price for political passivity? Who can even afford escapism? Not everyone has to do everything. But no one is completely uninvolved. Solidarity begins where we acknowledge that our withdrawal has consequences for others. That our escapism generates real costs and creates real imbalances: Some keep struggles going while others consume. Some burn out while others dance. This is rarely malicious intent, but it weakens movements and deepens isolation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Machine translation The post Partyvism appeared first on Freedom News.

THE CONFLICTS IN UKRAINE AND GAZA HAVE BEEN HIGHLY TECHNOLOGICAL, PUSHING SURVEILLANCE TO NEW HEIGHTS. ~ Nikita Ivansky ~ As the first bullets fly and shells explode, we begin to learn the names of the war machines and the companies that manufacture them. We learn which weapons are the most lethal and cause the most harm. However, during this learning process, the other side of the war often slips from our sight. The smaller companies, which work with information, are overlooked. From processing your personal data to AI that assists with bomb strikes, invasive technologies have a hard time passing through civil society in times of peace. However, when violence erupts, and we all look to the sky, hoping for no more drone strikes in our neighbourhood, we are happy about the eyes looking in all directions, trying to find an enemy. The conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza have been among the most technologically advanced on this planet. But outside the traditional scope of war – where tanks and firearms kill and destroy – these technological wars push surveillance to new heights. Four months after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine began, Palantir Technologies CEO Alex Karp personally visited the country to offer his services to the Zelensky government. For free. Most activists following the surveillance sector are familiar with Palantir, a data-mining giant that law enforcement in many countries dream about. In Ukraine, the company has found a zone outside of regulations where it can test its software on the live data of millions of people. According to Time magazine, “Palantir’s software uses AI to analyse satellite imagery, open-source data, drone footage, and reports from the ground to present commanders with military options. It is responsible for most of the targeting in Ukraine.” And not only targeting. Time also noted that Palantir was working with half a dozen ministries in the country, including the ministry of finance and education. Palantir itself doesn’t produce the data. It doesn’t manage surveillance satellites or street-level CCTV cameras – those are handled by different companies. Palantir accumulates and processes data, assisting humans in decision-making. In a country like Ukraine, Palantir can operate with little oversight. While Ukrainian society struggles against the Russian invasion, help is accepted from any direction. The Palantir CEO understands this, as does most of the Western military-industrial complex. Another role in processing data for the war was given to controversial American face-recognition technology (FRT) company Clearview AI. Officially its software is used to identify the bodies of combatants, and possible spies crossing into Ukraine. Police forces also use it to identify war criminals and those responsible for kidnapping Ukrainian children – a very wide scope of operations. A Ukrainian digital security laboratory commented on Clearview AI’s usage in the country: “Initially developed for law enforcement purposes, Clearview’s technology matches the images against the database of publicly stored images scraped from websites, including social media platforms. Notably, despite not having unified legislation on the usage of such data, Ukraine still resorts to digital measures without legal framework and safeguards … arbitrary usage of FRTs by authorities may negatively influence citizen’s privacy, by continuing to be applied even when the emergency ceases to exist.” While Clearview AI faces legal challenges in the US and EU, Ukraine provides space for its work without any serious challenges. From personal conversations, only some Ukrainian anti-authoritarian activist circles were aware of the facial recognition systems in their cities. This is mostly due to the fact that groups which would usually fight against a surveillance state are currently occupied with resisting the Russian invasion, while State repression is still very low compared to the rest of the region. Both Palantir and Clearview AI are companies built around the extreme-right tech movement mobilised by billionaire fascist Peter Thiel. It is hard to imagine the role of these companies, as well as many smaller ones trying to enforce strong government control, fading away in the event of a ceasefire or peace agreement. The infrastructure is in place, and the State’s security forces have seen its effectiveness. It is more likely that Thiel’s allies will continue to assist certain government branches. In a country with a growing far-right movement, this could pose a serious threat not only to anarchists but also to moderate leftists and liberals. While we know little about surveillance processes in Russia, even before the invasion, Putin’s regime tried to create a network to control any opposition activity. It was used in 2022 to detain or force into exile many political opponents. In recent days, control, especially in occupied territories, has reached a new level, fuelled by a fear of saboteurs. With the global ecological crisis only getting worse and the possibility of a full-scale war across Europe, we are looking at a very dire future of rapid surveillance expansion and automated data processing. Algorithms will make decisions about repressions against certain parts of society. This will certainly be a challenging future, but we must fight to stop fascism today, as tomorrow will be too late. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This article first appeared in the Winter 2025/26 issue of Freedom Journal Image: Funeral of David Chichkan in August, by @polidavydenko.   The post Ukraine: Big Brother in a warzone appeared first on Freedom News.

WHITE SUPREMACY MAY BE AN AMERICAN TRADITION — BUT GRASSROOTS RESISTANCE IS GROWING ~ Dana Williams ~ Although I no longer live there, I continue to identify as a Minnesotan. It’s a rather white state, but also greatly influenced by immigrants, who have always been part of my own life. Among other groups, Minnesota has many resettled Hmong and Somali refugees, displaced by US military invasions of their homelands. Like Portland and San Francisco, the state capital of Minneapolis is known to have a progressive population, often more left-leaning than its liberal politicians. When Mayor Jacob Frey admonished ICE to “get the fuck out of Minneapolis”, Democrats and liberals cheered because of ICE’s association with Trump. But radical anti-racists know talk is cheap: ICE thrived under the Obama and Biden presidencies, too, and Frey (who resisted popular demands in 2020 to de-fund the city’s police department) hasn’t ordered Minneapolis police to arrest or eject ICE from the city limits. Instead, Minneapolis cops have attacked and arrested anti-ICE demonstrators, and protected ICE gangs. In fact, this current xenophobia is only really new in style. Anti-immigrant ideology is as old as the settler-colonialist state. The rot that socially-constructed borders create is deep in the national psyche. This version isn’t any worse than past iterations—consider decades of Chinese “exclusion”, Mexican “repatriation”, and Japanese internment. But white supremacy is hypocritical. Thanks to the 1790 Naturalization Act, my ancestors from Britain, Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland were all legally defined as “white”, and thus welcomed with open arms. Minnesota—named after the Dakota word for cloudy water—is itself a creation of theft masquerading as immigration. The federal facility where ICE is staging its operations from is adjacent to a settler fort that served as a concentration camp for prisoners following the 1862 US-Dakota War, that helped White Europeans flood in and expel indigenous people from the territory. It’s illogical to proclaim that some could be “illegally” residing on stolen land, but white supremacists aren’t concerned with redressing historical crimes. They believe to be Minnesotan is to be white. Nothing makes this clearer than the arrest of Ogalala Sioux Tribe members by ICE—profiled simply for not looking white. The US Supreme Court recently ruled it’s now legal for ICE to use “ethnicity” as grounds for detaining suspects. Dubbed a “Kavanaugh stop” due to Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s opinion, the US has abandoned a half-century of presumed “colour-blindness”, thereby legalizing the already common practice of racial and linguistic profiling by law enforcement. Have an accent? Look Black or brown? Wearing non-Western clothing? ICE agents don’t need legal warrants for specific suspects, they can stop anybody they wish and create a reason later. The legacy of repression targeting Minnesota’s Lakotan people continued into the 20th century, but so did resistance. Police brutality against indigenous people in Minneapolis—mostly survivors of the genocidal residential schools—was so extreme that it provoked the formation of the American Indian Movement in 1968. Anti-racist movements have thrived ever since, from the Baldies and Anti-Racist Action to the Black Lives Matter movement. It’s no coincidence that rapid response participant Renee Nicole Good was murdered on 7 January 2026 within a mile from where George Floyd was murdered 25 May 2020, which sparked a global uprising against police and white supremacy (likely the largest in world history). The difference between now and the past is that a sizable minority of the US-born white population have become outspokenly pro-immigrant. By becoming accomplices with our immigrant neighbours, we can disrupt the pathetic American tradition of acquiescence to cruelty and injustice. So many white people are in the streets of Minneapolis right now because every one of them can tell the same story as me about how immigrants have enriched their lives, made them better people. Their rage at seeing the contemporary equivalent of antebellum slave patrols (a very American repressive organisation that targeted Black people) roaming around, and harassing and disappearing people in their community makes them want to fight. Residents are joining rapid response networks, carrying whistles and blowing them whenever they see ICE driving around, and then standing their ground until ICE leaves. According to one long-term militant, the anti-ICE siege of the federal building has drained ICE resources, thus limiting the number of kidnappings ICE can make. As the disruption spreads, it could draw in more people and generalize the revolt against authority. For example, the local labor council has called for a general strike tomorrow (23 January), 2026, the first in Minneapolis since 1934. Fascism only wins when we stop fighting it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Image from CrimethInc.com The post Becoming accomplices against ICE appeared first on Freedom News.

THEIR NATIONALISM IS A NARROW AND CLOSED “ORDER”—OUR HOMELAND IS THE WORLD ~ PM ~ We have been surrounded by nationalist rhetoric for far too long, but there are periods, particularly when the economy or political power declines, when nationalism is presented as a given (the bourgeoisie needs it). This is aided by bourgeois media outlets, funded by economic powers, which are surprisingly close to tyrannical thinking. As for public media, they follow the editorial line set by these other outlets. But nationalism kills. It kills intelligence, it kills solidarity, it kills critical thinking. It also kills in real life… Nationalism thrives on interclassism, on the idea that we are united in the nation, against “the others.” No internal economic, political, or social struggles, because otherwise we would be anti-nation, against unity, therefore against order, therefore against the State. On the other hand, they have no problem with external conflicts with other nations that these nationalist pretenders would like to dominate with the help of hysterical populations. Nationalism, which is the replacement (or accompaniment) of God/King by the nation, is an absolutist ideology. It is no wonder that reactionary theists/royalists/monarchists (and I include Leninists in this) seized upon it during the 19th and 20th centuries. Nor is it surprising that later, left-wing Bolsheviks and right-wing fascists did the same. Is it surprising that centrist liberals also use it? No, it’s their offspring. When the economy falters, they need this nationalist ideological support to ensure “order, order, order.” They are prepared to continue institutional violence without restraint. Can we conceive of things without a nation? Yes and no. The etymology of “nation” comes from “to be born,” so if you are born somewhere on Earth, you belong to that somewhere (whose borders are merely decisions made by states). It would seem that one must pledge allegiance to this somewhere. But the key question is whether you are confined to a communitarian, identity-based, essentialist “somewhere,” or whether you are open to this somewhere and, indeed, to the world as an Earthling. For example, it’s not the same thing to say that I am “French,” or “Breton,” or “from Finistère,” or “from the land.” We, anarchists, are “from the land” before belonging to a local community… We can defend the dignity of a local culture/community while being critical of harmful/naive aspects of that culture/community, even if it is mythical. Because it’s not just one’s birthplace that matters; the social question is paramount. We are indeed in support of the oppressed/exploited, not the oppressors/exploiters. This doesn’t preclude a critical view of both the oppressed/exploited and the oppressors/exploiters. For private landowners, wherever they may be, are despicable, as is the acceptance of these relations of domination by the oppressed/exploited. The abolition of classes and social hierarchy is a prerequisite for unconditional support. This is what nationalists (just like theists or capitalists) fear: that the population will be divided on social issues and take part in their social emancipation. However, obviously, just as we are all born somewhere, that’s a fact… we also have basic needs (food, shelter, entertainment, etc.) that require a social response. For example, when you have little or nothing to eat, the nation isn’t the answer to this social question; it’s “why do others have enough to eat and I don’t?” or “why do others have a well-paid job and I have very little, even though I also contribute to a useful production need?” This raises the question of private property, a source of social injustice for several hundred years. Nationalists, on capitalist steroids, will individualize the problem and say that in the face of the work society, everyone has their chance, that where there is a will there is a way, that there would be equality of opportunity and that if not there is charity… vast swindle of this hierarchical society which does not want life to be livable for everyone, that only certain privileged people can access exceptional comfort, and that others are on the contrary in exceptional discomfort. For the moment, it is the nation that makes up the collection of believers useful to capitalism; it could become a divine entity again in certain regions, and perhaps later it will be nature? In all this spectacular mess, it matters little what ideological tool is used so that the private property of capitalism remains sacrosanct. Nationalists out! Private landlords out!  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Machine translation The post Nationalism Kills appeared first on Freedom News.

A SINGLE SUPREMACIST AGENDA CONNECTS VENEZUELA AND MINNEAPOLIS—AND IT IS STARTING TO OVER-REACH ~ Louis Further ~ “We live in a world in which, you can talk about international niceties and everything else, but we live in a world, in the real world… that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world since the beginning of time…” That’s the ghoulish Goebbels clone, Stephen Miller — influential White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, and Homeland Security ‘Advisor’ since 2025 when interviewed hours after Trump/MAGA’s attack on Venezuela, which is illegal under Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter [pdf]. He says you all you need to know about the priorities and impetus behind Trump/MAGA foreign ‘policy’: Might makes right. Here‘s fascist House representative Andy Ogles (Tennessee) last week “[the United States is…] the dominant predator, quite frankly, force in the Western hemisphere”; and Trump interviewed in the ‘New York Times’: “[I do…]not need international law… [my]… power is limited only by […my…] own morality”. Jaws dropped at the news from Venezuela; TV programmes were interrupted; a few public figures told everyone how they should be ‘outraged’; pundits reminded audiences that there is nothing ‘new’ in US war with South American countries and speculated on how likely was similar aggression on Colombia, Cuba, Mexico then even Greenland and Canada. Yet (substantive) consequences for Trump and his cult members are unlikely because bombing Venezuela and kidnapping its leader was an ‘official act’, from prosecution for which the US Supreme Court ruled in July 2024 Trump is immune. MAGA cult members voiced support… “It’s about time!”. “Good, now we can get ‘our’ oil back!”. “Here’s hoping there can be a peaceful transition of power”. Minnesota Republican Tom Emmer on Fox ‘News’ was typical: “God bless this president of peace, Donald J Trump”. Representative Randy Fine (Florida) was sure that invading Venezuela was OK because it… “put America first”. Would supporters have to lie about the lives which the takeover will save by curtailing the ‘import’ of drugs? Yes: most fentanyl goes anywhere but north to the US. Oil, then? Crude in Venezuela’s main oil-producing area (the so-called Orinoco Belt in the east of Venezuela) is amongst the ‘dirtiest’ and most damaging in the world. Anyway, it soon became clear that major petrochemical executives weren’t really keen on the idea – even though they were rumoured to have been given advanced notice of the attack. Explaining that, of course, did for one major oil company as punishment. Impulsivity? Could be: Trump is known to have a short attention span and be influenced by his latest encounter with a sycophant or some snippet on far right TV. Secretary of State Rubio is known to have had régime change in Central America on his list for decades. Such scattershot actions seem also to lie behind Trump’s cryptically-inspired indiscriminate bombing of villages in Nigeria. Although possibly more than 100 were killed during the attack, Democrats in Congress were more concerned at not having been given the chance to weigh in on the plans for Venezuela (which they might well have endorsed: “Maduro is one of the bad guys”) than they were about the dangers of such unprovoked aggression: internecine rivalry and violence have already begun; widespread and/or regional instability must follow. Nor has the US gained a viable ‘bargaining chip’ with and for NATO, Putin, China. Remember, Democrats did nothing in response to Trump’s many acts of piracy killing over 100 sailing in the Caribbean and Pacific. You could sympathise with Democrat congresspeople angry at Trump’s continual illegal bypassing of Congress… only the US legislature can sanction invasions (War Powers Resolution), impose tariffs, demolish and de-fund government institutions and so on. Rather, the Democrat line is fast becoming that the best the party can do now is hang on and set their hopes on ‘change’ in the Midterms in November this year, and/or the next presidential election two years later – assuming that they happen. It seems as though Trump/MAGA is testing limits – how far can he go to implement Project 2025 before something breaks. For instance, more agents are to be sent into Minneapolis after events there. RESISTANCE  On the fifth anniversary (6th January) of Trump’s attempted insurrection in 2021, the official Whitehouse website published a trough of lies and rubbish in an attempt to rewrite the narrative of those same events which surely half the nation saw for themselves as it happened. Similarly, within hours of the murder of Renee Good by an ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agent, the Department of Homeland Security took the unusual and unorthodox step of excluding local agencies in Minnesota from any ‘investigation’ into Good’s murder. Yet again widely viewed videos used in evidence already reveal – at the least – that an ICE agent stood in front of a vehicle preparing to exit a situation dangerous for its occupant (Good), and discharged his weapon (apparently in anger and retribution) at a moving vehicle – something which ICE training specifically prohibits [pdf]. Also within hours, resistance began, both spontaneous and hastily planned. From the unequivocally ‘forceful’ (with a capital ‘F’) imprecations of Minneapolis Mayor, Jacob Frey and others in the city, to peaceful vigils and marches in Minneapolis to the planned thousand “ICE out for Good” events in all 50 states and at least 500 cities last weekend. Remarkable was the speed with which participants voiced – and were able to express – alarm and revulsion at the whole idea of scapegoating, kidnapping and violently trafficking (non white) guest-workers, and – not for the first time –  murdering them. Also significant was the network of neighbourhood resistance: observers; notification (“Alert: ICE nearby”, whistles) techniques; blocking and protecting tactics. There is also vehement resistance in Portland, Oregon, where two passengers in a vehicle were shot by ICE agents, on 8 January. And refusal, despite these events, to be intimidated. And courage. And solidarity: recent reporting suggests that ICE mobs are specifically recruiting ‘gun enthusiasts’ and ‘military fans’ in a $US100 (£75) million drive. There is anecdotal evidence that many of those already working for ICE are welcomed as members of far right militias like the Proud Boys. Accounts on social media like these in this Reddit thread suggest that the situation in Minnesota has rapidly deteriorated even further in the past week, with ICE gangs now behaving much as the Gestapo did in the 1930s and ‘40s. This returns us to where we began: the supremacist strategy underlying it all. Trump’s Department of Homeland Security now plans to deport almost a third of the country’s residents: ‘The peace of a nation no longer besieged by the third world’ – meaning: “we’ll be getting rid of as many non-whites as we can”. According to an official government post, ‘2026 will be the year of American Supremacy’. Congresspeople have a constitutional right to visit ICE detention centres; but last week were again prevented from properly visiting one in Minnesota. Nevertheless, neither Democrat leader listened to calls to try and curb ICE through spending cuts. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Images: Radical Graffiti in Minneapolis, MN and Paris, France The post Notes from the US: Might makes right appeared first on Freedom News.

IF THE GOVERNMENT REALLY HAD THE COURAGE TO “RECONNECT EMOTIONALLY” WITH THE BRITISH VOTER, IT WOULD BE BLASTED BY SHAME AND HORROR ~ Tabitha Troughton ~ What is this, slithering in your direction, smears of red and shards of bone in its wake, smirking ingratiatingly, waving gory tentacles, and muttering platitudes through its 27,000 teeth? Is it a giant slug? No! It’s the UK’s government, which has just been told, by Starmer’s toxic chief of staff, that it needs “to reconnect emotionally with voters”. Given the government’s documented track record of carnage, cowardice and corruption, voters may well flee, but the Guardian is made of sterner stuff. “In a presentation”, that paper explained seriously on its 6 January front page, “ministers were told the government needed to gain back voters’ trust with three Es”. The jokes are writing themselves. Who would not, at this point, risk an MDMA-induced stroke for a brief, delusional high, in which one forgets the government’s ongoing policies, and also the near indescribable awfulness of a recent Keir Starmer promo video, in which workers were invited to Downing Street for Christmas lunch. This showcased the prime minister prodding limply at cold roast potatoes,and pretending to chat to a prole, while completely ignoring their replies. It was the best they could do, or a post-realist joke. The “three E’s” with which the government were told to woo the country turn out to be “emotion, empathy and evidence”. Presumably the same emotion driving continued diplomatic and military support for our ally, the Israeli government, whose continuing genocide in Gaza has seen children freeze to death in inundated tents. Perhaps the empathy to match that of our ally, the Israeli government, who backs settlers ravaging in the West Bank and escalates the torture and rape of Palestinian prisoners with relish and impunity. Or maybe the kind of evidence yet to be heard against un-convicted prisoners of conscience starving to death in UK prisons for opposing weapons supply to our ally, the Israeli government—deliberately held on remand way beyond the legal limit, while the government contemptuously dismisses them. The UK’s prime minister, eyes glassy, refuses to support international law. It is not, he says, in the “national interest”, as though it is ever in the national interest to be a humiliated ally to demented, brutal, sociopathic regimes. The economy of Spain, whose government has stood openly against Trump, is out-performing those of Germany, France and Italy. Meanwhile the UK, staggering and flailing, pays vassal tribute: billions more to US pharmaceuticals, billions upon billions more on “defence”. There is a vast, shapeshifting horror in the shape of civil war, posing on the horizon behind the UK’s giant slug of shame. It is being invited into the country by obedient acolytes Nigel Farage and Stephen Yaxley-Lennon. And this government’s attempt to ditch jury trials, for example, is the latest in a series of gifts to this unholiest of gods. It is now absurdly easy to picture the UK state in five years time as a low-budget version of America, even without Reform. Looking to Gaza, we might be tempted to think we deserve this. But of course, no-one deserves this. If the government did have the courage to “reconnect emotionally” with the British voter, it would be blasted by shame and horror. Hannah Arendt observed, in ‘The Origins of Totalitarianism’, that modern terror is not merely used by dictators against opponents, but as an instrument to rule masses of people, who are perfectly obedient. So, to the barricades, UK citoyens! Keep up your pens and paintbrushes, your guitars and cameras, your research tools; keep raising your flags and voices; sport your frivolous costumes against the coming shadow. Create plans for neighbourhood support. Save the slug from itself. Being “perfectly obedient” is not an escape, or an answer. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Image: Number10 on Flickr CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 The post Gifts to the unholiest of gods appeared first on Freedom News.

THE TRUMP REGIME’S SHOWY BID FOR VENEZUELAN OIL IS NOT SIMPLY REHASHING THE MONROE DOCTRINE—IT IS AN OPENLY FASCIST ASSERTION OF FLAGRANT POWER ~ Daniel Adediran ~ Venezuela’s Vice President Delcy Rodriguez has been sworn in as the country’s new leader, sounding a conciliatory tone towards the United States after it abducted her predecessor Nicolas Maduro and his wife under “Narco-terrorism” and weapons charges. US President Donald Trump has publicly said that the operation was intended to increase access to Venezuela’s oil reserves, stating that his regime will “run” the country. This new phase of American global power games is not simply a warmed-up corpse of the Monroe Doctrine which rejected European involvement in Latin America and designated it as the United States’ backyard. Trump’s monstrous realpolitik of open disregard for the law is blatantly a fascist geopolitical doctrine, fully complementing the authoritarian creep at home. The US has been using violence to promote its interests as a ‘continental superpower’ for much of its history, whether it’s Panama, Chile, the Bay of Pigs, Haiti, or extra-judicial killings all over the Caribbean going back to the 19th Century. As was made plain in a statement by the Latin American Anarchist Coordination (CALA) and its sister organisations, even its meddling recently in Argentina’s sovereign affairs is part of this pattern. Neither is it surprising that the USA’s media class was in lock-step with the administration, seeing tried and true headlines and catchphrases from the last 30 years come back into vogue in political punditry. What is different today is that only the flimsiest vestiges, if any, of international or even domestic legality are being provided for the invasion. Trump’s cynical use of the language of the “War on Drugs” and “The War on Terror” was bound to ring hollow, after the failure of both adventures by the ‘World’s Policeman’. Only those entirely hypnotised by the powerful will cling on to such rhetoric after the disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan. However, this flimsiness of legitimating rhetoric is actually what it’s all about: to a fascist regime, none of it matters any more. Trump is making a point of sidestepping even his own official legal parameters to uphold a twisted vision of flagrant, unlimited US power. This is an openly fascist policy—the brazen use of violence to further national interests, linked to a drummed-up external threat to unify the in-group and boost the regime’s woeful unpopularity at home. Nor is this the first time that America invasions to instigate regime change has been met with crickets by other Western states. The weak-willed calls from European nations to respect and uphold international law are thus predictable; they never recognised Maduro’s administration, and thus practically approve of the US operation. What remains astonishing is Prime Minister Keir Starmer ability to outdo even the most milquetoast responses of conservatives like Germany’s chancellor Merz or EU Commissioner von der Leyen—as he refused to even acknowledge that international law has been violated. As anarchists, we know that the rule of law—whether on the international or domestic level—is a complete farce meant to protect the powerful and their cronies. If anything, the genocide in Gaza has put its laughable hypocrisy on full display. With Israel facing hardly any official consequences for its murderous actions, the ground has been prepared for the American abduction of Maduro to appear ‘surgical’ in comparison.  The attacks on Caracas and the abduction of Maduro will do nothing to bring freedom to the Venezuelan people. But nor will they crush the people’s own resolve to achieve it. Venezuelans are more resilient now than they were in 2014, despite the switch of those in power from the wallet to the gun. Outstanding grassroots initiatives like CECOSESOLA have withstood over four decades of shocks, from government crackdowns and environmental strain to crippling economic sanctions, hyperinflation, countrywide mass exodus and food shortages. It has inspired literally thousands of other co-operative projects in Venezuela, which even with the blockade have been meeting the needs of over 100,000 families in seven different Venezuelan states. Whatever happens to the regime and its oil, horizontal self-organisation in the country will continue to be the people’s only hope for liberation. It will never roll over for a fascist. The post Surgical coup in the fascist backyard appeared first on Freedom News.

BOTH THE “CENTRE” AND THE COBWEB LEFT WALLOWED IN FAILURE, WHILE THE FAR RIGHT EASILY HAD ITS BEST YEAR ~ Rob Ray ~ Reform UK has consistently topped national polls in 2025 as the “anything but LabCon” choice, with its predictable and often ridiculous incompetence in local government barely making a dent on numbers. Barring a minor miracle, it will win big in May’s local elections. Meanwhile its street wing, in the form of Tommy Robinson’s mob, managed to pull out a record crowd for Unite The Kingdom and litter every lamp-post from Kent to Yorkshire with the butcher’s apron. KEIR? HARDLY Much of the blame for this must be laid at the feet of former human rights lawyer Keir Starmer, whose journey from McLibel activism to implacable opponent of left dissent went supernova when his government proscribed a non-violent direct action group, Palestine Action, as a terror organisation. A monumentally stupid decision on all counts, not least for his own political future, as for many, it stripped away their last illusions of Labour as a progressive force. The impact of Labour’s attitude to the left, its abandonment of promised policies, and its seething hatred for protest can’t be overestimated in terms of where it finds itself entering 2026. Starmer’s wing of the party, its eminence thoroughly greased by Morgan McSweeney, never did understand that over the long term, if you have no tame corporate media you need grassroots activity. Not for the election-time door knocking, but for the shield it provides online. When no-one wants to defend you, because you make it clear you despise them, all that gets heard is the negative voice. The impact of this choice, to deliberately insult and alienate its own base, can be seen in the wake of the Autumn Budget, which did have a few vaguely centre-left ideas in it, and the Employment Rights Act, which (even watered down) genuinely does introduce a handful of protections for working people. Nobody cared. No-one has been jumping in on socials to pat Labour on the back, not even the old guard of (lower case r) reformists who previously would have been saying “see, this is better than the Tories”. And as a result, it all goes one way. As many predicted when Starmer first started purging Labour’s ranks of anti-Zionist Jews and rolling back on his leadership promises before the general election, a total reliance on public exhaustion with the Tories was never going to hold up, and so it has proven. With a grassroots shattered by its own hubris, an implacably hostile corporate media, and a public refusing to trust a word said by party or government, how Labour might pull out of the nosedive is anyone’s guess. All of which, in tandem with the Tories’ own self-immolation, has opened the void through which Nigel Farage sauntered. YOU’RE KIDDING ME … To his left, meanwhile, all has been chaos embodied by the extraordinary saga of Your Party. What were they thinking? Freedom has never made many bones about its position on Corbyn and the ultimate uselessness of the cobweb left, but even we weren’t predicting such an immediate and comprehensive proof. It’s hard to think of a critique, sneer, or bald-faced insult that could do justice to the absolute fucking shambles of it all. Amidst perhaps the most dangerous political situation of the postwar era, we watched a handful of inflated egos take all the potential energy created by Labour’s desertion and explode it into little pieces. The people I feel most sorry for are those who genuinely, for just a little while, believed it could go somewhere. Not in a patronising way, but in the comradely sense of knowing how it feels to have hope in a project and see it dashed. That is what the likes of good ol’ Corbs, Zara Sultana, and the various “revolutionary” parties should feel ashamed of: they took the energy and hope of hundreds of thousands of people and stamped it into the mud, unnoticed amidst the squabbling and scrabbling for position. There can be no better example of why we don’t need parties, but to turn outwards and organise the working class directly — place the horse firmly in front of the cart. Leave that pack of blithering idiots behind and give up on their decades of abject, piteous failure. SAVED BY THE (GREEN) BELL? The beneficiaries on the left from these twin towers of dung were, of course, the Greens under their affable, well-meaning and occasionally analytically shallow new leader Zack Polanski. No word of a lie, it’s been nice hearing someone be direct and relatively uncompromising in his language while taking on the press this year. His absolute refusal to play the “how many rights can we take away from trans people this week” game, in particular, is the sort of confidence many on the left could stand to learn from. But, even setting aside obvious anarchist critiques of the inchoate core and systemic shortfalls of the Green Party project, there are plenty of limitations on its surge, which already seems to have peaked. The Greens have no friendly media. Not the Independent, not the Guardian, not even the Morning Star, which (in the absence of a functional Communist Party offering) has broadly plumped for Your Party as the home of a more Proper socialist politic. And the Star is probably correct there — pathetic though Corbs and co. may be, their platform is at heart red economics, while the Greens are, well, green, with social democracy largely tacked on as an often uncomfortable coalition-building exercise. Much like the Lib Dems, green parties are notorious for opportunism, most notably in Germany where they frequently enter coalitions with the conservatives. So it remains to be seen how deep its commitments will run when placed under pressure. WHAT ABOUT US? Perhaps I’m being Mr Bias of Cheerleader City, but I think the direct action movement, particularly that wing of it which refused to simply roll over on Palestine and proscription, deserves a great deal of praise this year. It’s been a hard one, in which it became clear long sentences for non-violent dissent are here to stay, surveillance and repression are on the rise, and money has poured in to fuel our opponents. But thousands of people stood up to be counted, knowing they could face prison terms, knowing they would be mocked and mistreated. There has been a great deal of bravery on display throughout the year, and everyone involved should be proud of themselves. Always under the cosh, always few and underfunded, facing up to a State that increasingly has done away with even the slightest respect for privacy and human rights — the fact you keep going is frankly incredible. If 2025 has shown one thing, though, it’s that we’re right. The “practical” cobweb left and their electoral obsessions won’t save us; they can’t even save themselves. They’ve been given chance after chance, and shown that even if they could win power they probably shouldn’t. We need grassroots strength. We need the force of unified working class communities who can disrupt business as usual and make those in power sit up. It was direct action this year which, time and again, rattled the government where the conferences of electoral leftists produced only a distant gale of laughter. As we head towards the spectre of a far-right government which will show us no more mercy than this one, I can only say: keep going. Because they sneer at you. Because they seek to silence you. There is no greater proof of a government’s fear than a law designed to stop you from doing what you’re doing. You’re right. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Images: Radical Graffiti The post 2025: A gilded year for the right, hubris fulfilled on the left appeared first on Freedom News.

THE RECENTLY PUBLISHED BROCHURE ANARCHISTISCH RECHT EXPLORES ‘ANARCHIST LAW’ AS A COLLECTIVE TERM FOR FURTHERING CRITIQUES OF THE SOCIAL AND LEGAL ORDER ~ Thom Holterman ~ Anarchism can offer an excellent framework for fundamental legal criticism. Since anarchists critique capitalist society, which relies on oppressive laws to maintain its existence, the addition of legal perspectives can allow for decisive criticisms of the present social order. The two approaches do not exclude each other; instead, anarchists can advance legal criticism without compromise. This aligns with what is known as ‘positive anarchy’, a term borrowed from Proudhon. Fundamentally, it encompasses a view of society without oppressive power and refers to order, dynamism, and rationality, in addition to mutualism and federalism. Such views and ideas can also be found in Kropotkin and Bakunin. Here, I would like to emphasise Clara Meijer-Wichmann (1885-1922) in particular, as she was one of the first female jurists, challenging existing criminal law and the entire penitentiary system over a century ago. What I call ‘anarchist law’ here should be understood as a collective term with plural meanings. ‘Anarchist’ refers both ideologically to ‘anti-capitalist’ and sociologically/politically to ‘without coercion’. Referring to ‘law’ as anarchist law thus places the term into a forward-looking perspective towards a libertarian society. This future-oriented focus does not imply that it is new, or without a past. Forms of anarchist law have always existed, but have remained largely unknown. As is evident in my first contribution in the recently-published brochure Anarchistisch Recht, entitled ‘Law and Power in a Libertarian Perspective’, one of the sources of law is human co-operation. This is further elaborated in my second contribution, ‘George Gurvitch (1894-1965) and Social Law’, where his ideas of ‘social law’ and political pluralism are discussed. The third contribution, entitled ‘State, Law, and Legitimacy’, addresses the foundations of that ‘other’, libertarian society, by French libertarian activist, anarcho-syndicalist, and historian René Berthier. The fourth contribution comes from French libertarian jurist Anne-Sophie Chambost, a university lecturer in legal history specializing in Proudhon. She demonstrates that anarchist law already has a history. Her text is titled ‘Anarchist Thoughts on Law in the 19th and 20th Centuries’. In these first four contributions, anarchism and law are seen as converging. As already noted, this doesn’t preclude viewing the two phenomena in a divergent, mutually-opposed sense. Law that is used to maintain the existing capitalist society, which is precisely what anarchists are fighting against, is a main aspect of this opposition. The Armenian physician, activist anarchist, and author Alexander Atabekyan (1868-1933) makes clear to us that this has been the case for a long time. His contribution, the fifth, was sent to me in a German translation from Russian, published here under the title ‘Law and Supremacy’. The apparent divergence between anarchism and law can be put into practice or worked around in various ways. In the sixth contribution, I listed some of these anarchists’ ways: ‘Apart from the Law – On Illegalists, Direct Action, Take and Eat movement’. Finally, the seventh contribution is by French libertarian jurist and anarcho-syndicalist Pierre Bance, who once again comprehensively examines the ‘question of law in anarchy’ and encourages recognising ‘anarchist law’ as a key issue.   The post Anarchism and Law appeared first on Freedom News.