What do you think?
Rate this book
They Will Beat the Memory Out of Us: Forcing Nonviolence on Forgetful Movements
In the face of ecological crisis, police repression and white supremacy, there is an apparent lack of options for effective resistance. Here, Peter Gelderloos brings to life some of the conflictive and subversive events of the last couple of decades in a radical new criticism of nonviolence.
The book weaves history, vignettes, interviews and personal reflections to show how our movements suffer from an inability to pass on lessons learned from one generation to the next.
Learning from the antiracist rebellions triggered by police murders from Minneapolis to Bristol, and the climate campaigns that often fail to centre an anticolonial consciousness, we can understand nonviolence as a symptom of social amnesia, an inability to remember our places in this world and what we have learned from past episodes of resistance.
Cautioning against future waves of pacification and forgetting, this book urges us to collectivise memory and develop the methods we need to fight for our survival.
The book weaves history, vignettes, interviews and personal reflections to show how our movements suffer from an inability to pass on lessons learned from one generation to the next.
Learning from the antiracist rebellions triggered by police murders from Minneapolis to Bristol, and the climate campaigns that often fail to centre an anticolonial consciousness, we can understand nonviolence as a symptom of social amnesia, an inability to remember our places in this world and what we have learned from past episodes of resistance.
Cautioning against future waves of pacification and forgetting, this book urges us to collectivise memory and develop the methods we need to fight for our survival.
176 pages, Paperback
Published September 20, 2024
15 people are currently reading
475 people want to read
About the author
Peter Gelderloos
26 books114 followersPeter Gelderloos is an American anarchist activist and writer.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
January 14, 2025
This book is about memory and how those in power, those that want power, and the victors rewrite this history so that we feel hopeless. They pick the parts of our movements and uprisings that suit capitalism and the state, and focus on that, while erasing the truly radical moments. They pick and choose who from the movement to elevate into positions of power (as long as their memories are consistent with those in power) and who to throw in prison. This re-written history becomes what most of us know. No wonder we often feel so hopeless.
Gelderloos points out some potential reasons we got here and ways to move forward while reclaiming our memories. Key among these reasons/solutions are the relationships between the youth and the elders in our movements. As a 45 year old who still considers himself to be quite radical, I've seen people burn out, sell out, become liberal, or just disappear countless times. There are still elders around though, even if they're not as active as that firebrand 20 year old, and they have stories to tell. Sure, some of them tell their stories in condescending ways (“things were much better then...”), but there are still lessons that we can learn from. Having context, especially of victories, can be one of the most important tools in our toolboxes.
There is also the written word. Most mainstream books about history (especially the one's we read in school) are highly slanted to favor the victor. In order to learn the truth, the people's histories, we need to dig. But once we do, there's plenty out there. From books (like this one) to old documentaries to independent research, our histories are recorded.
Once we begin this history, it's not only so much easier to rise up but it's also easier to win. It's easier to see connections between the different fights throughout time and space. It's easier to learn from mistakes that have been made in the past, instead of repeating them over and over and over.
I'm running out of review space, so here's some bullet points/quotes:
–The secret to a million people rising up is a thousand people rising up. The secret to a thousand people rising up is a hundred people rising up. Etc.
–“I have not come across a single [researcher] who has made a well researched argument that capitalism could have developed globally without causing all the ecological devastation we take for granted.”
–One of the biggest mistakes the younger radicals and orgs make is confusing civil disobedience with direct action.
–“It's ok to do less with more intention as you age.”
Gelderloos points out some potential reasons we got here and ways to move forward while reclaiming our memories. Key among these reasons/solutions are the relationships between the youth and the elders in our movements. As a 45 year old who still considers himself to be quite radical, I've seen people burn out, sell out, become liberal, or just disappear countless times. There are still elders around though, even if they're not as active as that firebrand 20 year old, and they have stories to tell. Sure, some of them tell their stories in condescending ways (“things were much better then...”), but there are still lessons that we can learn from. Having context, especially of victories, can be one of the most important tools in our toolboxes.
There is also the written word. Most mainstream books about history (especially the one's we read in school) are highly slanted to favor the victor. In order to learn the truth, the people's histories, we need to dig. But once we do, there's plenty out there. From books (like this one) to old documentaries to independent research, our histories are recorded.
Once we begin this history, it's not only so much easier to rise up but it's also easier to win. It's easier to see connections between the different fights throughout time and space. It's easier to learn from mistakes that have been made in the past, instead of repeating them over and over and over.
I'm running out of review space, so here's some bullet points/quotes:
–The secret to a million people rising up is a thousand people rising up. The secret to a thousand people rising up is a hundred people rising up. Etc.
–“I have not come across a single [researcher] who has made a well researched argument that capitalism could have developed globally without causing all the ecological devastation we take for granted.”
–One of the biggest mistakes the younger radicals and orgs make is confusing civil disobedience with direct action.
–“It's ok to do less with more intention as you age.”
October 12, 2024
Cohesive and succinct with a blend of philosophy and real-world examples. This is my first time reading about anarchism from an inside perspective, and I found its critiques of Marxism/authoritarian leftism especially interesting. This book opened my eyes to revolutionary possibilities I hadn't considered before.
August 23, 2025
Oh boy.
The premise of "They Will Beat the Memory Out of Us" is very interesting, and I'll admit that I find the title hauntingly beautiful. It's why I was really looking forward to this. Basically, it aims to explore intergenerational collective memories within activist circles and how state and capitalist institutions use their power to Iimit the sharing of experience and knowledge from one generation with another.
The first problem is that the book does not actually conceptualise anything. For example, violence. Violence and non-violence are big themes within the book, but it lacks any thorough explanation. It does not draw from any theories, nor does it try to establish a theory. It's just a bunch of ideas and half-thoughts.
Secondly, with a concept like this, you would expect some sort of political or sociological theory. Or at the very least you would expect a somewhat chronological, historical narrative. Instead it relies heavily on philosophy, and it lacks a comprehensive narrative for the most part. It also relies on anecdotes from the author and from (seemingly random) interviewees. It references historical events, but there is no real common thread or even a central theme within the book. It just jumps from one point to another, and then often repeats itself later on.
Chapter 2 is especially odd. It starts off with 5 pages of "what if this thing didn't happen??? and also what if thing X, thing Y AND thing Z never happened?" And it's basically a continuous stream of assumptions and plain bullshit. It has completely nothing to do with the rest of the chapter.
Chapter 3 is better, and focuses (among other things) on how collective memory is intrinsically tied to space. (Like a street, a building, a town.) It talks about this in relation to state repression, but it's also interesting because you can also draw parallels to other issues here. (E.g., how girls and women are less able to take up public space due to patriarchal violence.)
An interesting point in chapter 1 is that it shows how American radicals get pacified by those in power exploiting these relations. Quote: "It disrupts even the most radical of anarchist circles, as tensions around "listening to Black people" manifested into listening to formalized forces of Black power—clergy, churches, local politicians—the "legitimate voices.""
Despite good points like that, the main purpose of this book is to romanticise 'rebellion', it's written badly and honestly it feels goofy asf at times. I don't recommend this book (unless if you can get it cheap or for free and have nothing else to read).
The premise of "They Will Beat the Memory Out of Us" is very interesting, and I'll admit that I find the title hauntingly beautiful. It's why I was really looking forward to this. Basically, it aims to explore intergenerational collective memories within activist circles and how state and capitalist institutions use their power to Iimit the sharing of experience and knowledge from one generation with another.
The first problem is that the book does not actually conceptualise anything. For example, violence. Violence and non-violence are big themes within the book, but it lacks any thorough explanation. It does not draw from any theories, nor does it try to establish a theory. It's just a bunch of ideas and half-thoughts.
Secondly, with a concept like this, you would expect some sort of political or sociological theory. Or at the very least you would expect a somewhat chronological, historical narrative. Instead it relies heavily on philosophy, and it lacks a comprehensive narrative for the most part. It also relies on anecdotes from the author and from (seemingly random) interviewees. It references historical events, but there is no real common thread or even a central theme within the book. It just jumps from one point to another, and then often repeats itself later on.
Chapter 2 is especially odd. It starts off with 5 pages of "what if this thing didn't happen??? and also what if thing X, thing Y AND thing Z never happened?" And it's basically a continuous stream of assumptions and plain bullshit. It has completely nothing to do with the rest of the chapter.
Chapter 3 is better, and focuses (among other things) on how collective memory is intrinsically tied to space. (Like a street, a building, a town.) It talks about this in relation to state repression, but it's also interesting because you can also draw parallels to other issues here. (E.g., how girls and women are less able to take up public space due to patriarchal violence.)
An interesting point in chapter 1 is that it shows how American radicals get pacified by those in power exploiting these relations. Quote: "It disrupts even the most radical of anarchist circles, as tensions around "listening to Black people" manifested into listening to formalized forces of Black power—clergy, churches, local politicians—the "legitimate voices.""
Despite good points like that, the main purpose of this book is to romanticise 'rebellion', it's written badly and honestly it feels goofy asf at times. I don't recommend this book (unless if you can get it cheap or for free and have nothing else to read).
December 1, 2024
Much like the ideology it espouses, this book is disorganized, misleading, and chaotic. There is probably a total of one single page of text that actually criticizes the nonviolent movement. The rest is a collection of anecdotes and personal accounts from anarchists that serve to romanticize the eternal struggle of anarchism. I was looking for a book with teeth and got a book without even a spine to hold it up.
June 28, 2025
I may have a bias for prescriptive structures, because I enjoyed the end of the book jajaja. It has a plethora of great paragraphs—tried, but could not restrain myself from including at least one.
“The State does not passively respond to crime. It has always organized repression as an offensive measure against the societies it governs, to divide, to surveil, to intimidate, and to eliminate. The process of repression begins with the State proactively defining crime so as to prepare the battlefield to its advantage. Thus, theft means stealing food from a convenience store or stealing a tourist’s iPhone; it does not mean reducing our wages, inflating our rent, plundering the wealth of an entire society, or taking away a community’s food source.”
“The State does not passively respond to crime. It has always organized repression as an offensive measure against the societies it governs, to divide, to surveil, to intimidate, and to eliminate. The process of repression begins with the State proactively defining crime so as to prepare the battlefield to its advantage. Thus, theft means stealing food from a convenience store or stealing a tourist’s iPhone; it does not mean reducing our wages, inflating our rent, plundering the wealth of an entire society, or taking away a community’s food source.”
August 31, 2024
ARC Review.
DAMN, this took me a lot longer to finish than I anticipated. I found myself routinely having to put it down to sit with what I was reading after every few pages or so.
This book is bold and unrelenting from start to finish. I think this will be a massively important work for years to come, especially for young folks.
DAMN, this took me a lot longer to finish than I anticipated. I found myself routinely having to put it down to sit with what I was reading after every few pages or so.
This book is bold and unrelenting from start to finish. I think this will be a massively important work for years to come, especially for young folks.
June 29, 2025
ich checke, aber ich hab auch mal wieder gemerkt wie dolle und warum ich kein*e anarchist*in bin…
September 1, 2025
This is a book about memory and how it's manipulated to benefit the powerful. Which is great but to be clear has zero to do with violence or non violence.
Recently read Domestic Habits of the Americans, in which a contemporary foreigner marvels at how we made gods out of the Founding Fathers not like, decades after their deaths, despite everyone knowing they were slavers and that Jefferson in particular raped his slaves and enslaved his children. Which we all 'learned' was true in like 2000 when they tested Sally Hemings' descendants. But was always true and whats more was *widely known to be true* at the time. The 1990s published copy I had specifically had an asterisk to call out that this was 'known to be' a cruel fabrication used to slander him. Fact to forgotten to known lie to fact again and all it took was 200 years of sustained effort of families retelling the same story while being called liars and the invention of magical tech no one could have imagined at the time.
Likewise, Japanese internment. Another thing we all 'culturally reckoned with' and rediscovered in the late 90s/00s. Just watched Bad Time at Black Rock a movie from the 50s, set in the immediate aftermath of the war, centered on the internment and landgrabs/violence that accompanied it. Indeed, the entire plot of this noir that is considered one of the best movies ever made, makes barely any sense without that context. Not only was everyone aware at the time, people were making major motion pictures that became big hits and entered the canon that involved and grappled with and condemned this thing. And then at some point they got every single person in America to shut up about it at once for forty consecutive years such that the Xers and Millenials had to rediscover it.
Anyway, seen the Democrats come out to George Floyd protests they had zero to do with helping assemble or organize and turn them into campaign rallies for crooks currently under public indictment, while literally scolding people to vote blue no matter who and not do 'purity tests'. Guess how these democrats voted when it came time to vote millions of COVID relief dollars into the pockets of the cops who beat the shit out of everyone assembled that day. It is a real phenomenon and I'm glad its discussed and called out because it is hard for normal people to attack those who present themselves as allies when things are bad.
Note I say 'normal people'. In my experience anarchists aren't normal and they not only have no compunction calling out bad actors, they seem to have an obsessive COMpulsion to call out anyone they can find who they think is getting more shine than they are.
I started rolling my eyes and by the end of the book they're almost falling out of my fucking head. Just the constant drivebys with zero context or justification on other orgs. Ok, Extinction Rebellion is an 'Op'. Sure. Wanna show your work? No?
In a section on how Anarchist groups fall apart/tear themselves apart thus doing their own work of erasing their own history, and how anarchists need to fix that 'somehow' (left as an exercise for the reader) he mentions the Greek Communist Party which has maintained continuity for 110 years. 110 years of authoritarian suppression of the left or some such. Now, look. I know that anyone can call themselves anything they want, and many 'socialist', 'left', or even 'communists' can be center or right cutouts in Europe. Hell the 'Progressives' in America wrote the Chinese Exclusion Act. But if I assume a group calling itself the Communists in 1915 meant it? Fella you better explain why the anarchist left has nothing to learn from the group you are slagging off even as you tell us they have a century of successfully doing the work you're saying the Anarchists can't manage for a single generation.
But I will tell you this as an absolute fact - none of your readers know one goddamn fact about the Greek Communist Party and for no other reason than providing basic context you need to explain who the fuck they are and why the fuck they suck.
As an aside, I and I'm sure lots of other people have met the worst most toxic people in the left and they always call themselves 'anarchists'.
Not to be a Maoist or anything here, but if you want to be in an 'organization' with enough size and enough intelligent direction to affect change, there is going to need to be some division of labor and some heirarchy to organize it. That's how the fuck it works! And the people who wreck every left organization are the ones who for ethical and political reasons will never take an order but surprise surprise have no problem giving them.
Then, finally, in his chapter about burnout which, hey! happens to everyone, and getting old which hey! likewise, he veers into that incredibly annoying lefty tendency to offer forgiveness out of their bleeding heart of infinite love for the most despicable people, who conveniently they have never met, nor do they know a victim.
You know the 'real lefty' because they'll call you an asshole for saying its good a serial rapist of children like R. Kelly is in the awful, carceral system, meanwhile get people to vote down some crack-brained proposal of theirs in your 20 person org and they will pursue you forever with a grudge the heat of a thousand suns. Again, anarchist orgs don't break apart because everyone is so lovely to each other. Fucking, a Mel Brooks thing where Comedy is someone horrible enough I can score points publicly and loudly and conspicously and invidiously finding more compassion in my heart than my cohort for, but distant enough I have no real emotional connection to their crimes, while Tragedy is someone like, referencing an author or book I haven't read in a study circle, making me look dumb for which they will be DESTROYED.
This is a book ostensibly (but as everyone notices, barely) about the failures of nonviolence and the need to consider violent resistance. Ok. He provides almost no examples, no tactics or strategies. Ok, that might be tricky to put in writing from a legal standpoint. The anecdotes which are so jumbled and unconnected, to one another and to the thesis of the book or the chapter they are in, as to be functionally anonymous if not in fact also have no real concrete information. Again, if you're doing some underground violent resistance you don't want your name connected with an unsolved crime or whatever in a book. But then why write the book! Why agree to the interview!
But! and here is my point. If you take as a given that all people are alike deserving of dignity, to the point that R. Kelly's trip to jail (which will be nicer and safer than 99% of prisoners due to his wealth and influence, the same wealth and influence he used to do those kid rapes that landed him in jail) is to you a cause for conspicuous and invidious mourning... How the fuck are you gonna do violence to someone? Who is so far beyond the pale that you would hurt or kill them if your politics required it? You can pull the same crocodile tears shit for R. Kelly as you can for individual cops, politicians, or billionaire capitalists. They're all people. They're all products of their environment. They've all got power they shouldn't have not least because they mainly use it for incredibly widespread and deep harm, just like R. Kelley.
I would also love to get the other side of the story from when he vaguely and with no detail gestures at harm he did to comrades in his chapter about why its so important everyone be automatically forgiven.
Also, I don't know how the left wins and arguing about 'alienating language' is some democrat consultant shit but I cannot help but believe we are so few and so powerless because everyone who ends up running an org or writing a book seems obSESSSED with letting everyone know (or making everyone think) they went to college. Just talk normal! Use normal fucking words! I'm so sick of multihyphenate latinate words that are so vague as to mean anything, and by the time you realize what the phrase is supposed to mean, its 20% misapplied anyway.
Oh nice to meet you, what do you do? You 'facilitate community acccountability processes to address interpersonal harms'? Wow, cool. My friend is also an HR rep's LinkedIn Resume, hey, while I got ya here have you seen that crustpunk I was talking to?
You know who else does this? What other dumb shits shoehorn thesaurus word of the day words needlessly and incorrectly? "This particular individual was embroiled in an officer involved tactical kinetic exchange..." fuck off, literally no one is fooled.
This has gone on too long, I could probably go back in this review and find where it would fit in organically but I'm tired, nevertheless I HAVE to address the following from the end of the book - "What has been deliberately left out of the account is how, they got their mode of struggle ... from clandestine anarchists... the difference is anarchist groups generally stayed anonymous because they saw their role as lending new capacities... rather than pretending to lead."
So, I'm supposed to be mad because credit for armed struggle didn't go to the people who started it, clandestinely, and anonymously, because they didn't want glory. Also I have to take you at your word this is true as you provide no details or even references to look up those details in what you admit is a hidden, effaced history. If true, you're being a butthurt weenie in a way your own heros repudiated, knock it off, credits not what counts. If false, man, fuck off.
Gets one star for being about a real thing (erasure of memory) one star for at least saying most 'pacifists' are the same people who happily call the cops to kill activists to their left, even as becomes clear, this might be an accidental direct hit as he hoses strays at everyone on the left from literal communist guerillas down to centrist Dems. I probably would recommend it even less than 3 stars, if there were any other books I could find about either topic.
Recently read Domestic Habits of the Americans, in which a contemporary foreigner marvels at how we made gods out of the Founding Fathers not like, decades after their deaths, despite everyone knowing they were slavers and that Jefferson in particular raped his slaves and enslaved his children. Which we all 'learned' was true in like 2000 when they tested Sally Hemings' descendants. But was always true and whats more was *widely known to be true* at the time. The 1990s published copy I had specifically had an asterisk to call out that this was 'known to be' a cruel fabrication used to slander him. Fact to forgotten to known lie to fact again and all it took was 200 years of sustained effort of families retelling the same story while being called liars and the invention of magical tech no one could have imagined at the time.
Likewise, Japanese internment. Another thing we all 'culturally reckoned with' and rediscovered in the late 90s/00s. Just watched Bad Time at Black Rock a movie from the 50s, set in the immediate aftermath of the war, centered on the internment and landgrabs/violence that accompanied it. Indeed, the entire plot of this noir that is considered one of the best movies ever made, makes barely any sense without that context. Not only was everyone aware at the time, people were making major motion pictures that became big hits and entered the canon that involved and grappled with and condemned this thing. And then at some point they got every single person in America to shut up about it at once for forty consecutive years such that the Xers and Millenials had to rediscover it.
Anyway, seen the Democrats come out to George Floyd protests they had zero to do with helping assemble or organize and turn them into campaign rallies for crooks currently under public indictment, while literally scolding people to vote blue no matter who and not do 'purity tests'. Guess how these democrats voted when it came time to vote millions of COVID relief dollars into the pockets of the cops who beat the shit out of everyone assembled that day. It is a real phenomenon and I'm glad its discussed and called out because it is hard for normal people to attack those who present themselves as allies when things are bad.
Note I say 'normal people'. In my experience anarchists aren't normal and they not only have no compunction calling out bad actors, they seem to have an obsessive COMpulsion to call out anyone they can find who they think is getting more shine than they are.
I started rolling my eyes and by the end of the book they're almost falling out of my fucking head. Just the constant drivebys with zero context or justification on other orgs. Ok, Extinction Rebellion is an 'Op'. Sure. Wanna show your work? No?
In a section on how Anarchist groups fall apart/tear themselves apart thus doing their own work of erasing their own history, and how anarchists need to fix that 'somehow' (left as an exercise for the reader) he mentions the Greek Communist Party which has maintained continuity for 110 years. 110 years of authoritarian suppression of the left or some such. Now, look. I know that anyone can call themselves anything they want, and many 'socialist', 'left', or even 'communists' can be center or right cutouts in Europe. Hell the 'Progressives' in America wrote the Chinese Exclusion Act. But if I assume a group calling itself the Communists in 1915 meant it? Fella you better explain why the anarchist left has nothing to learn from the group you are slagging off even as you tell us they have a century of successfully doing the work you're saying the Anarchists can't manage for a single generation.
But I will tell you this as an absolute fact - none of your readers know one goddamn fact about the Greek Communist Party and for no other reason than providing basic context you need to explain who the fuck they are and why the fuck they suck.
As an aside, I and I'm sure lots of other people have met the worst most toxic people in the left and they always call themselves 'anarchists'.
Not to be a Maoist or anything here, but if you want to be in an 'organization' with enough size and enough intelligent direction to affect change, there is going to need to be some division of labor and some heirarchy to organize it. That's how the fuck it works! And the people who wreck every left organization are the ones who for ethical and political reasons will never take an order but surprise surprise have no problem giving them.
Then, finally, in his chapter about burnout which, hey! happens to everyone, and getting old which hey! likewise, he veers into that incredibly annoying lefty tendency to offer forgiveness out of their bleeding heart of infinite love for the most despicable people, who conveniently they have never met, nor do they know a victim.
You know the 'real lefty' because they'll call you an asshole for saying its good a serial rapist of children like R. Kelly is in the awful, carceral system, meanwhile get people to vote down some crack-brained proposal of theirs in your 20 person org and they will pursue you forever with a grudge the heat of a thousand suns. Again, anarchist orgs don't break apart because everyone is so lovely to each other. Fucking, a Mel Brooks thing where Comedy is someone horrible enough I can score points publicly and loudly and conspicously and invidiously finding more compassion in my heart than my cohort for, but distant enough I have no real emotional connection to their crimes, while Tragedy is someone like, referencing an author or book I haven't read in a study circle, making me look dumb for which they will be DESTROYED.
This is a book ostensibly (but as everyone notices, barely) about the failures of nonviolence and the need to consider violent resistance. Ok. He provides almost no examples, no tactics or strategies. Ok, that might be tricky to put in writing from a legal standpoint. The anecdotes which are so jumbled and unconnected, to one another and to the thesis of the book or the chapter they are in, as to be functionally anonymous if not in fact also have no real concrete information. Again, if you're doing some underground violent resistance you don't want your name connected with an unsolved crime or whatever in a book. But then why write the book! Why agree to the interview!
But! and here is my point. If you take as a given that all people are alike deserving of dignity, to the point that R. Kelly's trip to jail (which will be nicer and safer than 99% of prisoners due to his wealth and influence, the same wealth and influence he used to do those kid rapes that landed him in jail) is to you a cause for conspicuous and invidious mourning... How the fuck are you gonna do violence to someone? Who is so far beyond the pale that you would hurt or kill them if your politics required it? You can pull the same crocodile tears shit for R. Kelly as you can for individual cops, politicians, or billionaire capitalists. They're all people. They're all products of their environment. They've all got power they shouldn't have not least because they mainly use it for incredibly widespread and deep harm, just like R. Kelley.
I would also love to get the other side of the story from when he vaguely and with no detail gestures at harm he did to comrades in his chapter about why its so important everyone be automatically forgiven.
Also, I don't know how the left wins and arguing about 'alienating language' is some democrat consultant shit but I cannot help but believe we are so few and so powerless because everyone who ends up running an org or writing a book seems obSESSSED with letting everyone know (or making everyone think) they went to college. Just talk normal! Use normal fucking words! I'm so sick of multihyphenate latinate words that are so vague as to mean anything, and by the time you realize what the phrase is supposed to mean, its 20% misapplied anyway.
Oh nice to meet you, what do you do? You 'facilitate community acccountability processes to address interpersonal harms'? Wow, cool. My friend is also an HR rep's LinkedIn Resume, hey, while I got ya here have you seen that crustpunk I was talking to?
You know who else does this? What other dumb shits shoehorn thesaurus word of the day words needlessly and incorrectly? "This particular individual was embroiled in an officer involved tactical kinetic exchange..." fuck off, literally no one is fooled.
This has gone on too long, I could probably go back in this review and find where it would fit in organically but I'm tired, nevertheless I HAVE to address the following from the end of the book - "What has been deliberately left out of the account is how, they got their mode of struggle ... from clandestine anarchists... the difference is anarchist groups generally stayed anonymous because they saw their role as lending new capacities... rather than pretending to lead."
So, I'm supposed to be mad because credit for armed struggle didn't go to the people who started it, clandestinely, and anonymously, because they didn't want glory. Also I have to take you at your word this is true as you provide no details or even references to look up those details in what you admit is a hidden, effaced history. If true, you're being a butthurt weenie in a way your own heros repudiated, knock it off, credits not what counts. If false, man, fuck off.
Gets one star for being about a real thing (erasure of memory) one star for at least saying most 'pacifists' are the same people who happily call the cops to kill activists to their left, even as becomes clear, this might be an accidental direct hit as he hoses strays at everyone on the left from literal communist guerillas down to centrist Dems. I probably would recommend it even less than 3 stars, if there were any other books I could find about either topic.
November 2, 2025
Having a clear thesis and logical structure must be a hierarchical system rooted in patriarchy, racism and capitalism imposed on us by the white colonizer since this book had none.
Only worth reading to understand how anarchists are insufferable, self-congratulating idealists with even less grip on reality than tankies.
Only worth reading to understand how anarchists are insufferable, self-congratulating idealists with even less grip on reality than tankies.
June 25, 2025
this is a good jumping off point. it’s largely anecdotal and a lot of the information provided leaves you to write things down to look up and research later, which can be a decent resource. i bought this book specifically to help shape framework for the quilting projects i make, about memory and history. i found some good stuff. it will not lead you to water, this book. it is largely informal and sometimes all over the place.
February 24, 2025
A love letter to violent resistance, and a lamentation of lost collective anarchist memory. I particularly appreciated the last chapter, and the sections about aging within the movement and changing needs and roles really hit home. While this isn’t the book I was looking for (something to make my stepfather shut up about pacifism), it was exactly the book I needed at this moment.
May 20, 2025
this was an introduction to anarchism for me. I found it to be an eye-opening and comprehensive initiation into a way of thinking that is necessary in the larger conversations we have.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews