One might ask what value there is in studying a 'definite trend in the historic development of mankind' that does not articulate a specific and detailed social theory. Indeed, many commentators dismiss anarchism as utopian, formless, primitive, or otherwise incompatible with the realities of a complex society. One might, however, argue rather differently: that at every stage of history our concern must be to dismantle those forms of authority and oppression that survive from an era when they might have been justified in terms of the need for security or survival or economic development, but that now contribute to---rather than alleviate---material and cultural deficit. If so, there will be no doctrine of social change fixed for the present and future, nor even, necessarily, a specific and unchanging concept of the goals towards which social change should tend. Surely our understanding of the nature of man or of the range of viable social forms is so rudimentary that any far-reaching doctrine must be treated with great skepticism, just as skepticism is in order when we hear that 'human nature' or 'the demands of efficiency' or 'the complexity of modern life' requires this or that form of oppression and autocratic rule.

To the dismay of many of my friends, I'm not unalterably opposed to vivisection. In fact, I'd wholeheartedly support it, were vivisectors to make one minor administrative change. It would be that scientists perform the experiments not on nonhumans but on themselves and their colleagues. Scientists keep telling us how beneficial the experiments are for Science with a capital S, Progress with a capital P, and of course Man with a capital M. If the experiments really are Necessary with a capital N, the scientists should be willing to make this sacrifice (with a small s) for the greater good. In any case, because of strict regulations, according to no less an authority than Lord Sainsbury, British Science Minister, advocate of genetic engineering and owner of a very large supermarket chain, experiments generally cause no more than 'moderate' suffering. If this is actually true, scientists shouldn't too much mind throwing their hats into this ring.

Over the past few years anarchist-communist organizations have been budding across the globe from South Africa South America to North America. Yet few people, even within anarchist and revolutionary circles, have a good grasp of the beliefs, motivations and purposes behind this movement. Often times with an emerging movement it is not until the egg hatches, producing concrete and visible results, that people begin to give it its name and tell its story.

This article aims to give a brief outline the lessons to be learned from our revolutionary histories and show the roots from which the current movement of Anarchist-Communists in North America and world-wide stems from and further argue the case for this movements vision of a coherent Anarchist-Communist organization based on a strategic orientation towards social movements of the working class and oppressed.

Kiss the Back of My Butt

sound off 1,2
sound off 3,4
break it on down 1,2,3,4
my back is breaking, my bra's too tight
my booty's shaking from left to right
shout it out! Revolution!
shout it out! Revolution!
enuff is enuff
the poor must rise up
didn't eat today,
no place to stay
kiss the back of my butt, ugh!
kiss the back of my butt, ugh!

Eleven years ago, when I was in a small-town Illinois high school, I had never heard of the word 'anarchism' - at all. The closest I came to it was knowing that anarchy meant 'chaos'. As for socialism and communism, my history classes somehow conveyed the message that there was no difference between them and fascism, a word that brought to mind Hitler, concentration camps, and all kinds of horrible things which never happened in a free country like ours. I was subtly being taught to swallow the bland pablum of traditional American politics: moderation, compromise, fence-straddling, Chuck Percy as wonder boy. I learned the lesson well: it took me years to recognize the bias and distortion which had shaped my entire 'education'. The 'his-story' of mankind (white) had meant just that; as a woman I was relegated to a vicarious existence. As an anarchist I had no existence at all. A whole chunk of the past (and thus possibilities for the future) had been kept from me. Only recently did I discover that many of my disconnected political impulses and inclinations shared a common framework - that is, the anarchist or libertarian tradition of thought. I was like suddenly seeing red after years of colourblind grays.

This book is intended to raise consciousness of what shoplifting entails and what issues are linked to it. It is also intended to warn against traps for shoplifters. None of the suggestions are fool-proof. Shoplifting is also not completely sustainable.

OK, so capitalism isn't the greatest. It means the rich get more and the poor get less. We have to work our lives away, often doing personally unfulfilling menial labor, to afford a place to live and food to eat. This isn't ok; this sucks. This makes us unhappy. There are ways to loosen the system's grip on us. There are ways to acquire what we need even when we cannot afford it.

Dumpster diving is a superb past-time and a sure fire way to get a lot of what you need (especially food) free of charge. I'm not going to go in depth here because that is not what this book is about. But, stores throw tons of goods away every day. They are all just tucked away in neat green metal boxes behind the stores. Find out when the thrash is picked up, go before then and check it out for yourself. Whatever food and other necessities I can't find in dumpsters, I often shoplift.

We need to build a community in which we can share resources and rely on each other. This includes sharing information and learning how to be autonomous as a community. That is the purpose of this zine. There is no scarcity of individuals (or teams) that can do totally amazing things. Fuck specialists and professionals --- we don't need them...

What do bosses do?

- Scheduling- Deciding when work needs to he done. Setting deadlines. This could just as easily he done by the workers themselves.

- Accounting- This is a clerical job, counting the money you make for them.

- Budgeting- The actual work is done by those who do the work and only compiled by the manager. The manager then sets priorities.

- The less work a boss does, the more they are paid! I his is because they are not paid for doing actual work. They are paid for how well they get others to do the most work for the least compensation. It also occurs because bosses tend to use their power to make themselves richer.

'There has never been any consensus definition of terrorism.'
-Richard Betts, director of the Institute of War and Peace Studies, Columbia University

Everyone uses the term, but who really understands it? What precisely is terrorism? What causes it? Who engages in it? Should terrorists be identified according to their intentions, ideologies, tactics, or targets?

When is violence justified so that it is not 'terrorism'? How is terrorism different from assault, murder, and other violent 'criminal' acts? How can one distinguish morally culpable terrorists from legitimate guerillas, insurgents, counter-terrorists, or freedom fighters? ');

The ideology of nonviolence has come to play a major role in political struggles in the United States of America and, indeed, in nations around the world. Almost every organization seeking radical change in the USA has been targeted by organizers for the nonviolence movement. Organizations like Earth First!, which originally did not subscribe to the ideology of nonviolence, have since then adopted that ideology or at least its set of rules for protest and civil disobedience. Yet nonviolence activists have put little energy into bringing their creed to establishment, reactionary, or openly violent organizations.