**Minnesota’s Resistance Network** is an independent, grassroots effort focused on political dissent, ecological awareness, and social solidarity. It serves as a hub for resistance-minded readers, curating commentary, resources, and links to broader activist and degrowth movements. The tone is informal and raw—part field report, part manifesto—reflecting a do-it-yourself media ethos rather than polished journalism.
Anarchism comes to us from the Greek anarkhos—“without a ruler.” “To be governed,” wrote the famous French anarchist Pierre Proudhon, “is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so.” But anarchists are concerned with more than oppressive states. They sought liberation on all fronts including sexual freedom, an end to private property, freedom of expression, and freedom from want through mutual aid. Often portrayed as irrational actors espousing social ideas that are either needlessly violent or hopelessly utopian, anarchists have actually been a significant and influential presence in world and American politics. In this course we will examine this varied and complex philosophy through four central themes: property, family, violence, and government. What does it mean to live ungoverned? Who or what governs a community in the absence of a state? What, if anything, distinguishes propaganda of the deed from terrorism? Is revolutionary violence justifiable? What does sexual freedom look like? Why is sexual freedom and personal expression more than just a bourgeois preoccupation? And how do we define and ultimately abolish private property? We will read Emma Goldman, Pierre Proudhon, William Godwin, Ruth Gilmore, Alexander Berkman, Murray Bookchin, Victoria Woodhull, and James C. Scott among others.
Who gets the soup?
A critique of the main premise of the baking with guillotines statements.
Intro-
______________
Let's welcome our new members!
this Is community based "resistance satire" group.
we are here to explore the political intersection of: "baking with guillotines"
(and)
the plurality of: "a separation of state".
1. everyone who wants soup, gets the soup.
2. everyone who makes the soup, shares the soup.
3. everyone who don't make soup, becomes the soup.
4. everything is in the soup, nothing is left out of the soup.
5. those who don't want soup, passes the soup down.
bring your own spoon: spoon are optional and not included
the symbol of the guillotines are the best recipe to appease the people when they hunger for justice and thirst for peace.
any questions? ask us! food not bombs!
Andrea Springmeier,
Guillotines Political Party - 02024
_____________________
question -
Thanks for the welcome and explanation of group focus.
Um... my main question has to do with intersectionality. I get this is a group focused on solidarity amongst the working class, in opposition to the ruling capitalist class and their enablers.
However, as a chronically ill and unemployed member, my main concern is for those who "don't make soup" because they aren't able to, but aren't a part of the exploiter class, and I'm really hoping there is an answer other than "becomes the soup".
Also, I may be misinterpreting the bring your own spoon part, from the context of "spoony culture". But many of us Spoonies™ truly lack the "spoons" as it were, to consistently affect change, and would still like to be included in the revolution in whatever capacity we're able.
Those are really great and thoughtful questions. Yes. The concept isn't fully thought through or complete. It's a work in progress, untill everyone gets the soup they need and then the soup we want.
The soup is used in this case a metaphor for the great work.
humanity, the people share one thing in common above all else.
We need to eat, stay warm and feel safe.
In terms of intersectionality - in the simple acts of sharing this soup we can share the experience of our collective humanity to discuss The why the plurality of “separations of state” is good for us or not. The primary goal is thru the practices of common meals that bring ppl together the ideology is secondary, when we hunger for justice AND thirst for peace.
“Those who dont make the soup, becomes the soup. this is a statement of inclusivity. “ how does this statement include the disabled? Of Course not! we don't imply cannibalism. Again, as a metaphor we imply that those who can't contribute becomes the focus of the great work, the soup implies. In other words, the soup is benefit those who need it most. The soup is for you. The soup goes into you, you don't go into the soup. Baths are not soup. That's something else. Lol
bring your own spoon: spoon are optional and not included
edit- utensils are optional: bowls and spoons not included
I'm not familiar with spoonie culture
It's a reference to the rainbow gatherings. Where they offer free soup bowls and utensils are not included. whereas they bring thier own as private property. There are community utensils Public bowls though they come with the cost of public washing.
As a metaphor the spoon and bowl, represents the ability to accept The soup, though not required. Does that imply personal action? I'm not sure.
Will they pour soup into your bare hands? Probably if you insist. though they might be inclined to get you a public bowl instead. We're not monsters.
