“All this is the kind of reality we are moving towards. Not because that is what we desire, not because we like violence, blood, destruction, civil war, death, rape, barbarity. It is not that, but because it is the only plausible road, the road that the transformation wanted by those ruling us and who are in command have made necessary. They have moved on to this road. We cannot change all that with a simple flight of fancy, a simple dream. In the past hypothesis where a strong working class existed, one could fool oneself about this passage and organise accordingly. For example, the organisational proposal of anarcho-syndicalism saw a strong syndicalist movement which, penetrating the working class and organising almost the whole of it, was to bring about this expropriation and passage. This collective subject, who was probably mythical from the start, no longer exists even in its mythical version so what sense would there be in a syndicalist movement of a revolutionary nature? What sense would there be in an anarcho-syndicalist movement? None at all.”
I’m all for free speech but infoshops need to stop selling this pamphlet. A woman will read this (if she is unlucky) and the message to her is: Saving the world requires me and other women to be raped? The woman unconsciously registers that when Bonanno says “we”, he certainly doesn’t mean her or other women, who most of the time do not rape and do not need war as an excuse to rape.
If cannibalism was mentioned instead, people would pause and go “whoa whoa dude, too far, too far,” but rape? Eh.
Whose revolution is this again?
Rapists have a way of bending over backwards to justify rape, first of all being “SOMEONE OTHER THAN ME MADE ME DO IT”. Setting a scene that drives the necessity to rape, what a great cop out!
It’s completely ludicrous. There are literally no circumstances which make rape a plausible necessity. Not even the propagation of the species would serve as an excuse to enslave us.
I’ll even explain how this MRA style rape apologism “for the greater good” such as “for the species” falls down. For example, “for our race” is a common male supremacist theme. Male chauvanist black liberationist Stokely Carmichael, justifying women’s sexual subjugation, is quoted as saying: “the woman’s place … is prone”, [link is a PDF] which is to say that he thinks black women should just make babies. While we recognize that black people are a decimated population from rape, genocide, slavery, forced conscription, and racist cops, such an attitude 1) justifies black women’s heterosexuality as primary (since prone clearly implies penis-in-vagina sex, despite any tortured attempts to reinterpret it), thus erasing lesbians, and 2) most importantly it encourages black men (or maybe men in general?) to see black women as tools to be used, which is authoritarian and harmful to black women. Through studies on pornography we know that women are more likely to be raped when they are perceived as objects, or less than human, and we also know from experience that men who objectify women are the same ones making these types of comments. What good is that for the liberation of a people? Black people doesn’t equal black men, it means black men AND women. The truth is, a woman’s womb and the literal life-giving power within it is hers only.
As for Bonanno (this one quote alone tells me this guy’s dick has parasited his brain!), this casual rape comment cannot be allowed to seep into truly libertarian (that is to say, liberatory) discourse. How much of it is just male chest-beating? Women take note. Behind every male chest-beater, is a woman beater. There is a certain type of male radical who is sick, because he fetishizes violence, perhaps literally, a sickness especially clear when you consider that the typical animal is more likely to leave violence as a last resort for survival. I do not believe that the type of manarchist I am speaking of (to say nothing of the quoted writer) really believes that violence is a last resort. The supposed immediate necessity of his edgelording is a sleight of hand. Just as with sadomasochism it is the past, the present, and the future, with no victory in sight and the dual blades of revenge and suicidality. In fact, when a man snuffs himself out, he often takes a woman with him.
FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER, OTHER THAN HIS OWN WEAK EGO.
It is not that we are pacifists, it’s that we violently abhor male supremacy. If all this sounds unreal, I have for example certainly heard at least one manarchist believe that raping “the enemy” is acceptable. Getting the dick out of anarchy is the goal of this blog. Every person that implores people to read Bonanno is pushing them towards reading this horrible pamphlet, “The Anarchist Tension”, which is being sold in radical book stores across the globe, telling young anarchist men that this is okay. They could have mentioned Peter Gelderloos’s “How Nonviolence Protects the State” instead, which will probably go down as a classic someday.
We need to call out Bonanno, and all the other manarchists who get defensive — we need to call them out on this type of shit. Most of all, we need to not back down or apologize. Most of all, they need to listen, because for every radical woman who gets passed over, that’s a comrade lost and reborn a radical feminist who does indeed hate her male peers with every fibre of her being. If that is what women are destined to become in this anarchist non-movement, women will carry on by themselves. Women will escape to safety, to be free from use and abuse, to be free, period.