ئەرشیفەکانى هاوپۆل: English

Englishمێتالێکۆڵینه‌وه‌مێتاهه‌واڵ و ڕاپۆرت

Demonstrations and protests continue in Iran

Zaher Baher

01/01/2026

The Iranian protests have spread to nearly 30 cities and towns by the fifth day. Meanwhile, the gendarmerie and the Revolutionary Guards have responded with brutality and continue to repress the protesters through killing, arresting, and kidnapping them.

There are no exact figures, and no one knows how many people have been killed or injured, arrested, or kidnapped. What is clear, however, is that the people have gone beyond demonstrations and protests, and the movement has turned into an uprising. Likewise, their everyday demands about the rising cost of basic necessities have shifted into political demands, reflected in slogans such as “Down with the regime,” “Out, out, dictators,” “Women, life, freedom,” and many others.

Meanwhile, Iran’s president, Masoud Pezeshkian, claims that he is trying to talk to the protesters peacefully, saying that he is “listening to their demands, solving their problems, and wanting to meet their representatives and talk to them.” However, as Farhad, not his real name, a university student, said, “Only a fool would believe them. If they want to listen to us, why are they killing us in the streets? Why don’t they release the prisoners? Why don’t they change people’s lives?”

There is extensive reading and analysis among some of Iranian and Iraqi people about the current situation, much of which is pessimistic and even suggests that the outcome may be worse. These views are often justified by examples from previous years, such as Iraq, Egypt, Libya, and Syria. In addition, some leftists and Marxists argue that changing one regime for another will not improve the lives of workers.

Of course, just as uprisings are unpredictable, their outcomes will not necessarily follow our plans, wishes, or goals. What is clear is that the course of history cannot be stopped by anyone, and change often takes place beyond our will.

If the Iranian uprising succeeds, I believe there will be major changes not only in Iran but also across the region.

First, it will restore people’s will and confidence in themselves. When they are able to change a regime that has been in power for 47 years and has controlled all aspects of life, they will be able to change future rulers more easily. The people of Iran will gain valuable experience that can serve as an example for the whole world, especially the region.

Second, changes in Iran would lay the groundwork for change in Iraq, because it is widely believed in Iraq that Iran dominates and controls many aspects of the country and has diverted large amounts of Iraqi money to Iran and to pro-Iranian forces.

Third, the threat of Israeli and US attacks on Iran would disappear, even if only temporarily. This would not only prevent casualties but also restore a degree of security to the region for a period of time.

Fourth, the major Shiite and Sunni powers that confront each other will become better armed, boosting weapons and ammunition companies in developed countries. This also encourages the formation of armed groups in other countries to fight each other and be used as proxies against Israel and the United States. With a change of regime in Iran, these tensions would ease to some extent, even if only temporarily.

Fifth, the dependent political parties of the Iranian authorities would lose their logistical, ideological, military, and financial support, leaving them weakened.

Sixth, the weakening of nationalist and other authoritarian parties in Iran would occur, which is a very positive development.

Seventh, the Iranians’ 47-year experience with this regime makes it less likely that another religious regime will take its place, leading to significant improvements in the situation of women in Iran.

Eighth, it is clear that demonstrations and uprisings are always driven by basic necessities, rising prices, and lack of freedom, not by distant goals such as those envisioned by leftists and Marxists who aim to establish a workers’ government or a dictatorship of the proletariat. We must understand that people prioritize secure access to food and essential needs over the lofty slogans of authoritarian parties and organizations. People who are hungry, lack medical care, or cannot send their children to school cannot wait for a better labor or proletarian government; they need solutions immediately.

Undoubtedly, the points above are the main positives of a change in the mullahs’ regime in Iran. There are many other benefits that need not be discussed here. At the same time, the uprising could be silenced or suppressed, either through the control of political parties, which is unlikely, or through authorities negotiating with a few demonstrators chosen as envoys rather than electing delegates through mass meetings and direct democracy. Another significant danger is the involvement of US, European, Russian, and Israeli leaders, who have heavily influenced media coverage and openly supported the demonstrators.

In my opinion, and that of many others, the success of this uprising would be very positive. The people in Iran are highly conscious and experienced just as workers and citizens organized themselves during the 1978–1979 so-called revolution, they can now act with even greater experience, both in Iran and globally. They can make important decisions themselves through non-hierarchical assemblies in workplaces, universities, streets, and neighbourhoods, practicing direct democracy. Together, they can implement these decisions, work collectively, and establish cooperatives to manage and improve their own lives.

Doing this is necessary, and life shows that socialist or anarchist communities, whether small or large, can be created and serve as examples for other places and regions.

Let us hope that the people leading the uprising in Iran are taking these steps.

Englishمێتالێکۆڵینه‌وه‌مێتاهه‌واڵ و ڕاپۆرت

Demonstrations and Protests in Iran

Zaher Baher

30/12/2025

The situation in Iran, as in many countries, has deteriorated in almost every aspect of life. High inflation, the rising value of the dollar, pound, and euro, the collapse of the national currency, the soaring cost of living, and the lack of basic freedoms have created unbearable conditions. Repression, arrests, kidnappings, and violence against anyone who speaks out against the regime have become routine.

These conditions have led to demonstrations and protests that began three nights ago in Tehran and have since spread to many neighbourhoods, as well as to cities such as Karaj, Qeshm Island, Hamadan, Kerman, Alborz, and others. Shops and markets have closed in solidarity with the protesters and joined the movement.

Iranian society has specific characteristics that shape these uprisings. A large portion of the population is young and largely unemployed. The country has been ruled for more than four decades by a dictatorial clerical regime. At the same time, there is a conscious and experienced working class across many sectors, especially in oil and gas. Decades of repression and failed political organizations have left the population deeply disillusioned, but also experienced.

What is happening today is a continuation of earlier uprisings, including the student protests of 1999 and 2003, the Green Movement of 2009–2010, the general protests and strikes of 2018–2019, the fuel price protests of 2019–2020, and the Woman, Life, Freedom movement of 2022–2023.

The current demonstrations, which began on December 27, have an uncertain outcome. They are being met with extreme repression, including live fire, arrests, killings, and kidnappings.

After all these painful but valuable experiences, there is hope that people will organize themselves in neighbourhoods, streets, schools, and workplaces through non-hierarchical, horizontal groups. By forming neighbourhood assemblies and then city-wide assemblies, people can make collective decisions and take direct action through genuine direct democracy.

Englishمێتالێکۆڵینه‌وه‌مێتالێدوان

Is the labor movement a socialist/anarchist movement?

By: Zaher Baher

December 2025

Authoritarian socialists, communists, and even some anarchists believe that the labor movement and the socialist/anarchist movement are the same and share identical goals. In this article, I want to show that there is a difference between these movements and to explain how this misunderstanding arises. This does not mean that the working class which drives the country’s economy should be overlooked. On the contrary, we can say that a socialist or anarchist revolution cannot take place without the participation of the working class and the vital role it plays.

It can be understood that workers are not inherently (or necessarily) revolutionary in the way that some expect or demand. The labor movement is primarily a union movement,

and its demands arise from the reality of exploitation and oppression they face. Workers fight for more holidays, higher wages, better workplace safety, the right to form unions, shorter working hours, improved living and working conditions, and other rights that affect their families. Among their most ambitious demands are participation in the management of factories and companies and the acquisition of shares. In other words, their efforts are aimed at modifying and reforming the capitalist system to ensure its survival. This has been the historical condition of workers and remains so today. We can observe this more clearly now, especially with the rise of a sector of the aristocratic working-class workers employed in key industries and advanced technologies.

The workers’ struggle remains primarily an economic struggle, not a political one a trade union struggle, not a struggle led by a political party. It is not directed against the authorities or the state, but rather seeks to adapt to and secure a better position within the existing system. Workers may be able to change governments or administrations in a short period, but overthrowing the system and fundamentally transforming it is neither their role nor their responsibility.

The socialist and anarchist movements are fundamentally different from the labor movement. Their aim is to abolish wage labor and the capitalist system entirely, and to create a classless, non-hierarchical society.

Authoritarian communist and socialist elements, along with their political parties, are fully aware that workers are not inherently revolutionary in the sense of abolishing the system and establishing socialism or communism. Because they see themselves as fundamentally different from the workers, they believe that by seizing power, they can bypass mere reforms and guide society toward a classless, non-hierarchical structure.

They are fully aware of the workers’ situation. Workers are the backbone of the country’s economy and have the power to halt daily life, stop profits, and weaken the state and its system.

What is clear to me is the following:

First, workers possess class consciousness simply because they exist. The existence of any person, animal, or living being necessarily involves a form of consciousness shaped by the environment in which they live.

Second, as I stated above, there can never be a revolution without the participation of workers, since they control production and profits. However, this does not mean that workers can or want to abolish the system of wage labor. That task is not their responsibility and lies outside their immediate agenda of struggle.

Third, I also know that, historically, many socialist movements and parties emerged from working-class organizations. Through these organizations, the working class became familiar with socialism, and socialist ideas were introduced to them and spread among them.

Throughout history, we see many uprisings and events in which workers clearly played an important role. These have often been cited by socialists, authoritarian communists, and some anarchists as evidence that past uprisings and revolutions prove the labor movement and the socialist movement are the same, and that every revolution is essentially a workers’ revolution.

I find it necessary to cite important examples of labor movements from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to support my argument. To do this, I will refer to some statistics to illustrate my point about the size of the working class in these countries at the time, as well as their membership in and support for the organizations and political parties of that period.

First: The Paris Commune:

The Paris Commune took place in 1871 and lasted only 72 days. During this period, it abolished many capitalist institutions and practices, such as night work, child labor, poor housing conditions, and private ownership. It also replaced the old ministries with ten executive commissions, each functioning like a ministry, along with many other significant measures.

The revolutionary workers were largely influenced by the supporters and followers of Louis Blanqui, commonly known as “Blanquists,” as well as by socialists and anarchists. This experience is often described by Marxists as the first serious attempt by the working class to overthrow capitalism.

The administration that emerged there, largely because it lasted only 72 days, was neither a fully developed workers’ administration nor a bureaucratic one. The Commune was simply too short-lived for such structures to fully take shape.

The legislative and executive body of the Commune, the Communal Assembly, was elected on March 26, 1871. Although 92 members were elected, only 79 were active at any given time. Of these, approximately 30 to 40 were workers. In addition, teachers, journalists, employees, and small shopkeepers also participated in the councils. Professionals such as lawyers and doctors formed a small minority, mostly drawn from working-class or lower-middle-class backgrounds, and many of them earned extremely low incomes.

At the time, Paris had a population of between 1.8 and 2 million, although war, famine, and expulsions significantly reduced this number. Even so, workers who supported the Republicans or Jacobins also known as “Red Republicans” numbered between 400,000 and 500,000.

The socialists, particularly the Blanquists (revolutionary socialists), had between 200,000 and 250,000 worker members. The First International, also known as the International Workingmen’s Association (IWA), which included both Marxist and Proudhonian factions, had between 65,000 and 70,000 members in Paris. Communists and Marxists formed a small but influential minority. Anarchists were intellectually important and influential, especially the Proudhonians, but they were not numerically dominant.

Overall, the vast majority of Parisian workers were republicans, leftists, or socialists who were not aligned with any organized political party.

Second: The Bolshevik Revolution.

The Russian Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 led to the creation of the Soviets (workers’ councils), and many factories were taken over and brought into the Bolshevik movement. Although the Bolshevik Party had many supporters, members, and activists among the workers, it was the workers’ strong support for the party that enabled it to lead the overthrow of the Provisional Government.

Let us examine the statistics concerning the number of workers in Russia and the participation of socialists, communists, and anarchists in the 1917 Revolution.

In 1917, the Russian working class included about 3 million industrial workers. If transportation, construction, and other categories of labor are included, the total rises to between 4.5 and 5 million. However, the industrial proletariat what Marxists define as the working class numbered approximately 3 million.

Supporters of the Bolshevik Party made up 40–60 percent of the workers, and the party itself had between 150,000 and 200,000 worker members out of a total of 350,000, up until October 1917. The Mensheviks accounted for 10–20 percent of labor membership. Other parties and organizations also had worker members. Anarchists represented about 5 percent of industrial workers, while other active workers mainly in Petrograd, Kronstadt, and Ukraine supported roughly another 5 percent.

The events in Russia represent a historic moment in which the Bolshevik Party successfully leveraged the movement of the working class and the broader Russian population to seize state power.

 Three: The German Revolution of 1918-1919

Revolutionary workers’ councils were formed across Germany with the goal of replacing capitalism with a council republic (Räterepublik). In certain regions, particularly Bavaria, these councils proclaimed a socialist republic aimed at overthrowing capitalism; however, these efforts were short-lived and ultimately failed.

Germany, which was far more industrialized than Russia at the time, had approximately 7.5 to 8.5 million industrial workers. By late 1918, about 3 million of these workers were members of trade unions. Many workers were divided among the Social Democrats the largest workers’ organization the Independent Social Democratic Party, and several other political groups. Anarchists, although significantly weaker than their counterparts in Russia and Spain, numbered between 50,000 and 150,000 workers.

Four: Spanish Revolution 1936-1937

The revolutionary forces in this movement, known as the CNT-FAI, were anarcho-syndicalist organizations. The FAI (Federación Anarquista Ibérica, or Iberian Anarchist Federation), founded in Spain in 1927, was closely aligned with the CNT as well as with the General Workers’ Union (UGT), established in 1888. These groups sought to abolish both capitalism and the state. They occupied as many factories, farms, and transportation systems as possible.

It is clear that anarchists and anti-government socialist elements played a major role in this revolution, which controlled large parts of Catalonia and Aragon. The revolution ultimately failed due to internal conflicts and the pressures of war.

The Spanish working class in 1936–1937, in a country less industrialized than Germany and Britain, numbered between 2.8 and 3.2 million industrial workers. In addition, a large portion of the population consisted of rural wage laborers and landless peasants, bringing the total working population to between 5.5 and 6 million.

Membership in the anarcho-syndicalist unions (CNT) ranged from 1.5 to 2 million workers, representing approximately 70 to 80 percent of the workforce. These organizations also enjoyed broad support, with an overall following of between 2.5 and 3 million workers, concentrated mainly in Catalonia, Barcelona, Aragon, and parts of Madrid. The largest revolutionary group within the working class was the FAI (Iberian Anarchist Federation), which had between 70,000 and 100,000 fighters, almost all of whom were workers.

Five: The 1919 Hungarian Soviets

In Hungary, workers’ councils were established in 1919 by socialist and communist parties with the aim of overthrowing capitalism and creating a socialist republic. This system was implemented but lasted only 133 days before being defeated by Romanian forces and local opponents.

The Hungarian working class in 1919, following World War I and the collapse of Austria-Hungary during a period sometimes referred to as Magyarstan included an urban industrial workforce of approximately 800,000 to 1 million workers. Hungary at the time remained predominantly agrarian. A much larger number of workers were employed in agriculture or were landless farm laborers, numbering between 1.5 and 2 million.

The dominant political forces among workers were socialists and communists. Anarchists were neither numerous nor well organized in Hungary during this period.

Workers were divided between communists and social democrats. In early 1919, the Social Democratic Party had between 500,000 and 600,000 members, including landless peasants and industrial workers; in total, its membership ranged from 800,000 to 1 million.

The Hungarian Communist Party, founded in 1918, officially had between 30,000 and 50,000 members by March 1919. Despite its relatively small membership, it exercised significant influence. An estimated 100,000 to 150,000 workers supported the party.

Conclusions

According to the above examples, the Social Democratic Party, the Bolshevik Party, the Socialists, the Trade Unions and the Anarchists had a very active and widespread position among the workers. It is obvious that this great position and power is reflected in the activities and movements of these parties and they have been very strong, so they have been able to have a great dominance and influences over the workers. In some countries, workers, party members and supporters were so huge and mixed that workers were political parties and political parties were workers. This meant that the labor movement of that time, in all the examples I have given above, was a follower and dependent on the organizations and political parties I have listed above, and was loaded with the ideas and principles of socialism and to some extent anarchism as well.

What about right now? If we are a little conscious or being workers, we know that the workers and their movement are so weak that they cannot even defend what has been achieved since the middle of the previous century. How can they talk about the overthrowing the system and the abolition of wage labor? It was not easy to obtain reliable statistics on the number of socialist, communist and anarchist workers in the ranks of the workers in the countries I have mentioned above, but what we see among current workers is hardily many socialist or anarchist.

We can say that the building of a socialist society is a dream for the workers themselves, and an imagination for those of us who think that it is the duty of the workers.

English

IFA statement on the situation in Sudan

IFA statement on the situation in Sudan

Posted on by

See background information on IFA website: https://i-f-a.org/2025/04/15/article-about-anarchism-in-sudan/

Solidarity with people in Sudan from Ljubljana, joint statement of the CRIFA delegate meeting of the International of Anarchist Federations that took place in Slovenia, 2/11/2025.

We received the news of the fall of Al-Fachar with sorrow. After the killings and the displacings, horror never stops in Sudan.

The war between different autoritarian armed forces for control of the territory is one of the largest military conflicts still ongoing in the world. This butchering caused more than 150,000 victims, the displacement of more than 10 millions and widespread famine, rape, diseases…

In order to survive, the Sudanese population tried to organize and created Revolutionary Commitees. These initiatives have been repressed by the military with arrests, torture and killing of our comrades.

We share to you the appeal of Ali Abdel Moneim from the Anarchist group in Sudan :
“We in the Anarchist Group in Sudan have lost comrades; some of our members were injured and some died; others face the imminent danger of war. Our families suffer from hunger, lack of medicine, and lack of food. We believed in anarchism in a land where authority is everywhere, and we fought to defend ourselves, our idea, and our unity. Today we need you – reach out your hands to us and stand with us so we can resist the authorities and the Janjaweed.”

As anarchists, members of the IFA gathered in Ljubljana for a CRIFA we want to address our support to the sudanese people who’s oppressed. Our thoughts go to the fallen ones that defended themselves. Those comrades fought to defend a better life and payed the cost.

This war is like every other, all to be denounced and deserted. As anarchists we will try our best to support the victims of conflicts and to oppose this situation. Our antimilitarism and antiwar activism overcome the borders and the seas. “May the revolution endure — a poisoned dagger in the hearts of tyrants. “

The Committee of Relations of the International of Anarchist Federations (CRIFA), Ljubljiana 2 November 2025

Englishمێتاهه‌واڵ و ڕاپۆرت

The Situation inside Sudan

05/11/2025

The Situation inside Sudan

 October 4, 2025

 Anarchist Group in Sudan

 The Current Situation inside Sudan

 Our fellow revolutionaries around the world, you have been following the events in El Fasher and the developments through the platforms of groups concerned with the revolution in Sudan. However, we would like to inform you of the following:

First, after paying tribute to our comrades who struggled in El Fasher and Khartoum and who became beacons of light for the group, we declare that while we completely reject the principle of bearing arms—as we are aware that arming one side or the other in the conflict serves only imperialism and its interests in this war—our fallen comrades had no choice but to take up arms and defend themselves and their families. They did not belong to any military faction before the war, and when the siege of El Fasher began and the Janjaweed attacked, they had no option but to defend themselves. They fought alongside the Popular Self-Defense Forces, which continued fighting in the city even after the withdrawal of the Sixth Division Command of the army.

 Contact with our comrades was lost on September 9, 2025, but we learned from their families, after their displacement to the Tawila area and the camps for displaced persons, that they were martyred defending them. They were defending themselves as a natural right to life, freedom, and dignity.

The least we can do for these comrades is to care for their families, with whom the group is in contact. These families are sleeping on the ground, scorched by the sun during the day, and enduring hardship. The bitter cold at night, as well as their severe malnutrition and lack of healthcare, are causing them hardship. We are doing everything we can to help their families in their honor. Comrade Kahraba used to say that he hated the Kalashnikov, but he hated even more the loss of his freedom and the humiliation of his dignity.

 We also want to clarify that after our contact with the comrades was cut off, they were martyred at different times, but we were unable to confirm this due to the suffocating siege and the communications blackout. We fear the Janjaweed’s revenge against their families who are still in Janjaweed-controlled areas. We will suffice with their names, which will be engraved in our hearts and in the history of the liberation movement.

We want to reassure everyone that our comrades in the group remain in areas far from the armed clashes. However, there are still comrades in Sudan who have not yet left to convey the group’s message to the world. But there is no safe place in Sudan, as the country teeters on the brink of a civil war, like the one in Rwanda. The state and the Janjaweed have begun mobilizing thousands for the coming confrontation, and if the war does not stop, it will be a humanitarian catastrophe in which we expect millions of innocent people to die.

O comrades of the path of liberation, O revolutionaries of the world, the direct struggle against authority comes at a heavy price on expense of our lives and our freedoms. Your comrades in Sudan have chosen not to remain silent, and this is the nature of revolutionaries. While we desire peace, call for peace, and reject war, the most heinous experiences of racist authority, imperialist hegemony, and international conflict are manifesting themselves in Sudan.

 One of our comrades’ famous sayings is that the weapon is the idea, and the idea is the weapon. Either you direct your idea against your oppressor, or you die carrying it for yourself. This is how we live: free or die as revolutionaries. Therefore, we ask you to expand support campaigns throughout the world, for our comrades have a right upon us. Their defense of El Fasher is a defense of all revolutionaries. After the fall of El Fasher in Sudan, there will be either the division into two dictatorial military states or a civil war and rivers of blood.

Donate to support your comrades in Sudan

 Glory and eternity to our free revolutionaries

 

Secretariat

English

The Situation Inside of the Sudan

The Anarchist Group in Sudan

The Situation Inside

Our revolutionary comrades around the world — you have been following what happened in Al-Fashir and following developments on the platforms of groups interested in the revolution in Sudan — but we would like to share the following with you.

First, and after remembering our comrades who fought in Al-Fashir and Khartoum and raised the banner of the group: while we categorically reject the principle of bearing arms — because we understand that arming one of the warring components serves only imperialism and its interests in this war — our comrades who died had no option but to take up arms to defend themselves and their families. They did not belong to any military faction before the war, and when Al-Fashir was besieged and the Janjaweed attacked it, they had no choice but to defend themselves. They fought alongside the Popular Forces for Self-Defense, which continued to fight in the city even after the command of the 6th Division of the army withdrew.

Contact with our comrades was cut off on 9 September 2025, but we learned from their families after they fled to the long displacement camps that they were martyred defending themselves. They defended their right to life, freedom, and dignity. The least we can do for these comrades is to care for their families, with whom the group remains in contact. They sleep on the ground, scorched by the sun by day and battered by bitter cold at night; they suffer from severe malnutrition and poor medical care. We are doing everything in our power to reach out to their families and support them in honor of the fallen.

Comrade “Kahraba” used to say he hates the Kalashnikov, but he hates even more to have his freedom captured and his dignity humiliated. We should make clear that after our communications with the comrades were cut off, they were killed at different times, but we were unable to know because of the suffocating siege and communications blackout. We fear Janjaweed reprisals against their families who still remain in Janjaweed-controlled areas. We will limit ourselves to their names, which will be engraved in our hearts and in the history of the liberation movement.

We want to reassure you that our remaining comrades in the group are in areas far from armed clashes, but there are still comrades in Sudan who have not yet left and who carry the group’s voice to the world. There is no safe place in Sudan, where the country stands on the brink of a civil war like the one that happened in Rwanda. The state and the Janjaweed have begun mobilizing thousands for the coming confrontation. If the war does not stop, it will be a humanitarian catastrophe in which we expect millions of innocent people to die.

O comrades of the paths of liberation, O revolutionaries of the world — direct struggle against power carries a steep price: our lives and our freedoms. Your comrades in Sudan chose not to remain silent — that is the nature of revolutionaries. We want peace and call for peace and the rejection of war, yet the most horrific expressions of racist authority in Sudan, imperial domination, and international rivalry are manifesting themselves. One of our comrades’ well-known sayings is that “the weapon is the idea, and the idea is a weapon”: either you aim your idea at your executioner, or you die carrying it within yourself. Thus we live free or die as revolutionaries. Therefore we ask you to expand support campaigns worldwide: our comrades have a right upon us — their defense of Al-Fashir is a defense of all revolutionaries. After the fall of Al-Fashir in Sudan, the country faces either division into two military dictatorships or civil war and rivers of blood.

Donate to support your comrades in Sudan.

Glory and eternity to our free revolutionaries.

Secretary-General of the Group,

English

Claiming Freedom in Revolution and in War: an Introduction to the Anarchist Group in Sudan

Claiming Freedom in Revolution and in War: an Introduction to the Anarchist Group in Sudan

In 2024, Black Rose/Rosa Negra’s International Relations Committee began working closely with anarchist revolutionaries in Sudan. This relationship has involved the exchange of ideas, practical advice, and support.

Earlier in 2025, Black Rose/Rosa Negra organized a campaign to raise $20,000 USD on behalf of our Sudanese comrades, which they have since used to purchase a printing press.

In this article, developed in consultation with our Sudanese comrades, we provide a written account of how the organization now known as the Anarchist Group in Sudan (AGS) came into being.

By Morgan P.

The Sudanese Revolution was one of the great revolutionary upsurges of the 21st century. Like all too many of our great revolutions it has — for the moment at least — been throttled in blood and dictatorship. But also like all great revolutions, it was a crucible that forged significant new political ideologies and tendencies.

While anarchism is not new to Africa, like in many other parts of the world it has struggled recently to go beyond being an intellectual tradition or a lifestyle and toward becoming a living movement with substantial strategic recommendations. Through fully throwing themselves into the social movements that drove the Sudanese Revolution while simultaneously growing their own formal political organization, anarchists in Sudan have been able to develop a revolutionary practice that has real meaning for class struggle in their country. Despite their conditions being far different from ours here in the US, we can still learn valuable lessons from their experiences both in the process of revolutionary struggle, and in the current state of surviving under civil war and intense repression.

Before the outbreak of mass street protest in December 2018, Sudan had already been experiencing simmering opposition to the dictatorship of Omar al-Bashir and the crushing economic conditions that the people faced under his rule. And this atmosphere of successive outbursts of student and worker protests encouraged young student activists to study and look for ideologies that would help them overcome the many obstacles they faced. It was in this period that some of the founding members of the Anarchist Group in Sudan (AGS) first found anarchism, and that they founded the organization as a small group of five comrades in April 2017.

The AGS was initially a small student organization, and they began by focusing their efforts on establishing a foundation in Sudanese colleges. They organized secretly, and concentrated on the smaller, more peripheral campuses where the eye of the state would not be so intense. Within the context of the Sudanese opposition, clandestinity was common practice. AGS itself strategically avoided direct confrontation with power, with its members instead attempting to immerse themselves in spaces of broad popular struggle, particularly student unions. The reach of the group grew as they came into contact with more young activists seeking alternatives to the failed and stale political ideologies of yesterday.

As the organization grew, it attracted professionals such as lawyers and engineers — which was, through the Sudanese Professionals Association, a prominent organization representing a specific class layer driving the Revolution. The AGS began emphasizing recruitment more, and spread across many universities, and achieved influence within the coalition of student unions. As they grew, they used the name “Anarchist Federation of Sudan”, which a number of their statements appear online under, but ended up using the term “group” rather than “federation” as they operated as a single unitary organization.

The founding and initial growth of the AGS was well-timed to match the explosion of the Sudanese Revolution in December 2018. The Revolution was led by grassroots social movements such as workers unions, student unions, women’s organizations, and the neighborhood-based resistance committees.

Protesters celebrate the collapse of president Omar al-Bashir’s government in 2019.

The resistance committees are of particular note. Similar to the local coordination committees of the 2011 Syrian Revolution, the Sudanese resistance committees are essentially small groups of neighbors self-organized to participate in protest and the revolutionary process. Networking together as hundreds of local committees, they formed the fabric of the movement to overthrow al-Bashir. We see them as a classic example of popular power in practice, as neighbors confront state power and simultaneously begin taking control over their own neighborhood and creating the organizational structures of self-management that could replace the state.

The AGS actively worked in the resistance committees and student organizations during the first months of the Revolution while still staying underground. Militants were able to advocate for anarchist positions and influence the direction of groups without publicly announcing themselves as anarchists. Through participating in this mass upsurge in self-organization coupled with mass street confrontation, anarchism moved from an idea into a lived strategic practice. They saw anarchism as a pragmatic way to involve themselves in social struggle while contesting all of the authoritarian forces that oppress the Sudanese people, whether it be tribal, cultural, military, religious — a comprehensive struggle against all this and for freedom and individual rights.

The strategies proposed by anarchists in Sudan are unprecedented in addressing the complex social crisis. The principle of rejecting even small, grassroots authorities—such as tribal domination and racism based on ethnicity—forms the core of dismantling power structures in Sudanese society. This has psychological effects on the individual and social consequences that may bring them into direct confrontation with entrenched authority. However, we believe that freedom is indivisible, and every individual deserves to be free—even outside institutional power, including power within one’s own behavior. Authority is a social behavior rooted in the individual’s desire to monopolize violence and deprive others of freedom.

— Member of AGS during dialogue with members of BRRN, September 2025

Within the resistance committees, the AGS coordinated anarchist activity to push the committees in a more anti-authoritarian direction. The resistance committees were in many ways an organic expression of existing Sudanese society — the basic elements of solidarity and mutual aid that have been necessary to survive in a country where the government provides nothing for the survival of the people. While this gave them strength, it also meant that a lot of work needed to be done to give them the organized power and vision to challenge the state. The AGS worked, for example, to expand the nature of many committees from being more limited groups with a selected membership and president, vice-president, etc., into being open to everyone in the neighborhood to join and participate.

Protesters clash with security forces after the military coup initiated by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan in 2021.

Alongside the practical organizing work, the AGS initiated the organization of “thinking circles” to discuss anarchist ideas and worked on making anarchists texts available in Arabic. They put their modest membership dues to use printing anarchist pamphlets and organizing university events.

While the Sudanese social movements succeeded in overthrowing al-Bashir by April, the military took control of the government and the struggle deepened. On June 3rd, 2019, government forces conducted a massacre of a sit-in protest in Khartoum, martyring more than 100 and raping more than 70. This was just the largest of many massacres during this time, when many protesters and comrades were murdered by state forces. Workers responded to the June 3rd Khartoum massacre with a general strike that shut down the country, and brought the military leadership to the negotiating table. It was in this context, of a country on the brink, with the resistance committees taking control of territory, that the AGS first announced themselves to the public during a massive march in Khartoum on June 30th.

Predictably, they faced a large backlash after publicly declaring themselves as an anarchist organization. But because they had embedded themselves within the student unions and the resistance committees, and made themselves known to their fellow students and neighbors as committed comrades with sensible ideas, they were able to gain many new members. Many youth who were disillusioned in the false choices presented by the so-called leaders — including the “national liberation” state communists who had propped up the dictatorship — were drawn to the principled stand for freedom of the anarchists.

However, anarchism in Sudan was not able to grow freely for long. The mass uprising achieved a historic victory in forcing out the military dictatorship in July 2019, with a compromise civilian-military transitional government put in place. But this was an inherently unstable solution, and the military and ‘Rapid Support Forces’ (RSF) together led a counter-revolution in October 2021 that brought a renewal of harsh dictatorship.1 This too was an unstable solution, and the RSF and Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) fell out in a power struggle and initiated a civil war in April 2023. The tragedies that have spread across the country since then are too deep and numerous to detail in this account.

Heavily armed members of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF)

The civil war, which has deep roots in both the legacies of British colonialism and in local histories of domination, is also a war for Black survival against attempted genocide. Ruling powers in Sudan, particularly the RSF, are Arab supremacists who seek to dominate and ethnically cleanse dark-skinned Sudanese ethnic groups from their lands. Our comrades report that slavery is being perpetrated against Black people in Sudan, and so they see the current struggle as one for liberation from racial authoritarianism.

As the revolutionary movement continued a bitter struggle against the return of military power, this period has seen many martyrs, including anarchist comrades such as Omar Habbash, a doctor in Al Fashir, Sara, a leading activist in Khartoum, and others. Comrades, wherever they are, are constantly under threat of prison – which generally means death within a month. Faced with these losses, the AGS is committed to continuing their struggle with selflessness and determination. As armed conflict spread, anarchist comrades had two general approaches – to fight with independent resistance militias that attempt to defend the people from the ravages of the RSF and Sudanese Armed Forces, or to focus on avoiding armed confrontation through planting ideas and organizing at the grassroots to grow the movement. The AGS supports both strategic approaches currently.

With the country being ripped apart in a proxy war by external powers like the United Arab Emirates and Egypt intent on exploiting its natural resources, as some seven different military factions unleash terror on the Sudanese people, the AGS has nonetheless survived. Members have been scattered as internal and sometimes external refugees, but have managed to stay in contact and coordinate. When possible, they help run communal kitchens, they help refugees reach safety, they provide medical care, they support resistance militias, and they continue anarchist propaganda whenever possible.

Black Rose / Rosa Negra has been coordinating solidarity for the AGS together with our comrade organizations in the International Coordination for Organized Anarchism (ICOA), in particular Die Plattform in Germany and Union Communiste Libertaire in France. Along with smaller initiatives, a public fundraising campaign riased more than $20,000 USD to support AGS in their purchasing an industrial printing press to use for both spreading anarchist propaganda and for providing a means of economic self-support. While the printing press has not yet been put into full operation due to the always-shifting front lines and waves of repression behind the lines, it is a symbol of the AGS’ determination that continuing revolutionary anarchist struggle is a practical necessity, even in the midst of one of the planet’s worst humanitarian catastrophes.

Image of printing press purchased by AGS using funds raised by Black Rose/Rosa Negra’s solidarity campaign.

Anarchists in Sudan believe that international solidarity will be critical in ending the conflict, particularly focusing on those powers that are fueling the civil war:

Combating foreign [state] intervention in Sudan’s war requires a global uprising of struggling networks to expose the entities profiting from the blood of the people—not only in Sudan but across the region. Ideally, their own populations should stand against them to stop the bloodshed in exchange for wealth accumulation. Everyone can contribute to exposing this crime of war sponsorship in their own locations and raise awareness among people that the war in Sudan can stop if the external support for it ends—then peace will follow.

— Member of AGS during dialogue with members of BRRN, September 2025

The political goal of the AGS now is, in the most immediate term, the end of the war and of the massacres committed by both the RSF and army. In the longer term, they continue struggling to overcome the tribal and ethnic divisions that have been exacerbated by racist colonialism to win the social revolution and create a self-managed socialist and feminist society in Sudan and throughout Africa.

As revolutionaries in the imperialist core, our lives are far removed from that of our comrades in Sudan. Nonetheless, we have much to learn from their experiences inserting themselves into the base a mass movement, transforming anarchism into a lived practice that is meaningful for the lives of working class people, acting collectively as a political force to influence the direction of movement struggle, and their determination to continue anarchist struggle even in the most challenging conditions. Support for our comrades in Sudan is important for all of us who want to see anarchism reborn as a true force for global liberation.

Notes

  1. The Rapid Support Forces (RSF) was initiated as a paramilitary group primarily composed of Janjaweed tribesmen. Previously it acted as an auxiliary force of the Sudanese state and was used by the military Junta which took power in 2019 to violently suppress popular protests. Since 2023 it has been in armed conflict with the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF). ↩︎

English

Statement of the Anarchist Group in Sudan

The Anarchist Group in Sudan

Statement

To all revolutionaries of the world, to all liberatory socialists, to all anarchists:

Today we mourn the martyrdom of our comrades in Al-Fashir who fell defending their city, their families, and themselves. They are:

Faisal Adam Ali

Radwan Abdel Jabbar (“Kahraba”)

Adam Kibir Musa

Abdel Ghaffar Al-Tahir (“Al-Sini”)

We also mourn a number of volunteer youths who were killed by the terrorist Rapid Support Forces militia while their only “crime” was bringing food to the city’s residents.

We, in the Anarchist Group, call on comrades everywhere: the time has come to gather and stand with us against this destructive authoritarian war. We must raise awareness across the world about the mass extermination being carried out by the Rapid Support Forces militias — supported by the United Arab Emirates — which are turning their guns toward ethnic cleansing and genocide on racial grounds for the sake of vicious imperialist interests seeking to control resources and gold in exchange for blood. The world must not stand by and watch us in silence. Revolutionaries everywhere must know of our sacrifices and our struggle against savage capitalist terror, against the bloody authority, and against systematic ethnic cleansing.

We in the Anarchist Group in Sudan have lost comrades; some of our members were injured and some died; others face the imminent danger of war. Our families suffer from hunger, lack of medicine, and lack of food. We believed in anarchism in a land where authority is everywhere, and we fought to defend ourselves, our idea, and our unity. Today we need you — reach out your hands to us and stand with us so we can resist the authorities and the Janjaweed.

May the revolution endure — a poisoned dagger in the hearts of tyrants.

Ali Abdel Moneim

Donation link for the group زیاتر بخوێنەرەوە Statement of the Anarchist Group in Sudan →

Englishمێتالێکۆڵینه‌وه‌

The concept of political Islam

By: Zaher Baher

October 2025

In this article, I aim to clarify, explain, and explore the roots of the concept of ‘political Islam’. I will address several crucial questions, such as: What is the purpose behind the way leftists and communists present this concept? Is its use in this particular framework deliberate or accidental? And are those who use it fully aware of its meaning?

The terms ‘political Islam’ and Islamist extremism have become common among political writers and analysts in the Middle East. In the United Kingdom, the media and politicians also use these terms, especially in the aftermath of terrorist attacks.

As far as I know, the term was first used by the Arab economist Samir Amin, and later adopted by leftists and communists in the region.

In my opinion, the use of the concept of political Islam in writing and literature is not only incorrect but also a serious misrepresentation by both leftists and Islamists even by those who use it out of ignorance.

I believe the most accurate term to use is Islamic authoritarian or authoritarian Muslim instead of the commonly used one. I base this view on the following reasons:

First, the way this concept has been used both politically and linguistically is incorrect. Muslim people may view the problems they face in their social lives and societies as political issues, but that does not necessarily mean they are fanatical or authoritarian. In other words, ordinary Muslims can address and resolve their problems without becoming extremists or seeking to seize power or establish a state in the name of Islam. They may politicize their issues and struggles, but this does not mean they themselves are political in the sense of belonging to any fanatical or terrorist Islamic organization.

Second, extremist actions and reactions can be found in all areas of society. Violence exists in every part of social life. People do not need to hold political power to be violent or authoritarian. The authority they already have may allow them to abuse others or use violence against those under their care, guidance, or influence. Teachers, parents, managers, directors, clan leaders, family heads, police officers, and other leaders can all be violent and authoritarian. Just as political leaders and governments often display violent tendencies, many of these individuals do as well. The justification for being abusive or authoritarian is often the desire to control others a tactic used to dominate and achieve power. Therefore, anyone who adopts this mindset, including those labelled as “political Islam” or “political Muslims,” can be considered extremist.

If this were not the case, why would a head of a household become extremist or violent toward their own family members? Similarly, why would a schoolteacher act violently toward students, a priest toward his followers, or a mullah or imam in a religious school (madrasa) toward his students? The same question applies to office managers, company directors, or factory supervisors who behave harshly toward their employees and workers.

This authoritarian tendency can also be applied to the heads of government whether in democratic or dictatorial systems and to politicians in positions of power. All of them seek to control those who are obedient and under their authority, often by imposing their power upon them. When they realize they can no longer maintain control or enforce their authority, they tend to resort to violence and oppression. Therefore, we can conclude that it is authoritarian tendencies that ultimately lead to violence.

In short, the root cause of violence is a potential tendency that exists within political parties, which becomes apparent when they come to power. It is essentially the desire for, or demand of, power.

When a government is unable to control mass movements, protesters, or demonstrators, it becomes clear that they cannot manage the situation, often leading them to resort to violence and, in some cases, even murder to suppress and oppress people. The same applies to terrorist groups, regardless of their name: when they cannot control certain individuals or contain a group, they often turn to violence and assassination as a tactic.

Obviously, the tools of violence* and repression are used twice: first, to gain power, and then, once in power, violence is employed again to maintain authority and control. Here, politics functions as a tactic, while power itself is the strategy, the ultimate goal. All political parties and their leaders, from left to right, religious or secular, prioritize one thing above all else: acquiring and maintaining power, regardless of the claims they make.

Third, if we look back at the creation and spread of Islam from the time of Prophet Muhammad to the present Islamic political groups and parties, whether fighting internally or externally, have always been and continue to be driven by the pursuit of power, and nothing else. All the conflicts and battles during the time of Prophet Muhammad, the Rashidun Caliphs**, the Umayyad and Abbasid states***, the Safavid and Ottoman empires, as well as between Shiites and Sunnis, were ultimately struggles for power, not purely for God or religion. Religion, in these cases, served primarily as a tactic to achieve the ultimate goal: power.

All Muslims, whether ordinary people or those in positions of authority, agree that God has the power to do anything. So why would God need Islam and Muslims to spread the religion through the use of force or any kind of power? Why would God need to create a state to promote Islam and expand the Muslim nation (the Ummah of Muhammad) when he could do so in an instant if he wished? In reality, the history of Islam from its very beginning shows that many disputes and killing both past and present, internal and external have been driven by the pursuit of power.

I also believe that the media, politicians, and political parties deliberately misuse this concept to restrict its meaning among certain groups. They want to tell us that these people are terrorists simply because they have disputes with “us.” It is presented as a “culture clash,” a “conflict between two civilizations,” or attributed to a lack of education and improper upbringing.

The media, politicians, and political parties, whether in power or in opposition, deceive us by saying these things. They want us to believe that violent people are born violent that it is in their blood. In fact, what they say serves to justify themselves and their position. They create the impression that they are engaging in politics to improve our lives, protect us, and provide opportunities for survival and peaceful living. What they do not tell us, however, is the nature of the politics and policies they intend to implement, many of which are very different from the promises they make while in opposition.

If they tell us that extremist right-wing groups and Islamic terrorist groups are authoritarian and that this is the reason for all the violence, how would people respond to them? Of course, by saying this, they are implicitly admitting that the essence of power found in the state, government, and authority is inherently violent and capable of terror.

Meanwhile, political parties in the Middle East deliberately use this concept. They avoid using the term authoritarian Islam. Similarly, leftists and communists consciously use the term in a way that constitutes a serious betrayal or injustice to “political Islam” or political Muslims, labelling them as if the term applies only to them, while ignoring themselves and other parties that share similar tendencies.

What is clear regarding these leftist, communist, and other political parties in the UK whether in power or in opposition is that their use of this term serves to exclude themselves from other oppressive and extremist forces while presenting themselves as champions of freedom and human rights. Therefore, if these parties label others as Islamic or authoritarian Muslims, they should, by the same standard, be included themselves. After all, they advocate for democratic states, communist states, nation-states, civil states, and workers’ or proletarian states. They are no different from authoritarian Islamists who seek the power of a caliphate, because the common factor on both sides is a strong belief in ideology and a tendency toward authoritarianism and repression. Neither side is less extreme than the other.

* Undoubtedly, there are many tools and forms of violence and repression, ranging from speech to the creation of laws, all used to silence and oppress

** The Rashidun Caliphs, or “Rightly Guided Caliphs,” were the first four leaders of the Islamic community following the death of Prophet Muhammad: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali. Their 29-year reign (632–661 CE), known as the Rashidun Caliphate, is regarded by many Muslims as a model of ideal Islamic governance.

*** The Umayyad state, also known as the Umayyad Caliphate, was the second Islamic caliphate, ruling from 661 to 750 CE with its capital in Damascus. It was the first Islamic dynasty, established by Muʿawiya I following the death of the fourth caliph, Ali. The Umayyad state became one of the largest empires in history, stretching from Spain in the west to Central Asia in the east.

The Abbasid Caliphate was a vast Islamic empire that ruled from 750 to 1258 CE, with its capital in Baghdad. As the third Islamic caliphate, it overthrew the Umayyad dynasty and ushered in the Golden Age of Islam, a period marked by major achievements in science, culture, and philosophy. The Abbasids were a dynasty descended from Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib, the uncle of the Prophet Muhammad.

Zaherbaher.com

Englishمێتاهه‌واڵ و ڕاپۆرت

For the ninth consecutive night, hundreds of Moroccans demonstrated*

06/10/2025

For the ninth consecutive night, young Moroccans took to the streets in cities across the country on Sunday, demanding an end to corruption and a change of government. The demonstrations, organized by the GenZ 212 group on social networks and whose founders are unknown, have swept the once very stable North African country since September Protesters are calling for reforms in social services, particularly health and education, and expressing anger at social inequality.

 According to live Moroccan media broadcasts, demonstrators gathered in the working class neighborhood of Fida in Casablanca and demanded the resignation of Prime Minister Aziz Akhnoush. Media also showed that similar slogans were chanted in the northern city of Titwan, where hundreds of people gathered.

In the capital Rabat, about 100 demonstrators gathered in front of the country’s parliament, shouting “the government is corrupt. “Reforms in the health and education sectors are very necessary. We know this will take time, but we have to start somewhere,” Imrani, 20, said at the demonstration.

 GenZ 212, which has more than 180,000 members on the social networking site Discord, emphasizes the peaceful nature of its demonstrations and the rallies have so far been generally non-violent. But local reports said there was violence in several small towns after Wednesday’s demonstrations. That night, three people were killed by security forces in what authorities called a “legitimate defense” after protesters allegedly tried to attack a base in the village of Laqlia.

 The protests follow rallies that erupted in several cities in mid-September after news broke that eight pregnant women had died at a public hospital in Agadir for childbirth surgery. Protesters see the deaths as evidence of shortcomings in the public health sector, which has sparked wider protests about social inequality.

* The Rudaw Digital