Author: Hasse-Nima Golkar
An anarchist analysis of the authoritarian slogan “One Nation – One Flag – One Leader,” which was chanted at the gathering of supporters of the monarchy of Reza Pahlavi on 25 Bahman 1404 (14 February 2026) in Munich, Germany, through the loudspeaker of the organizers’ official podium, at least by three speakers—Aran Kamangar, Saeed Bashirtash, and Iraj Mesdaghi—during this event.
DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE, WHICH IS VERY CLOSE TO ITS ESSENCE?
1 – This slogan was used to emphasize the idea of a unified and homogeneous German state under the absolute authority of Adolf Hitler, reflecting the extreme nationalism, authoritarianism, and totalitarianism of Nazi ideology, which sought to consolidate power and control over all aspects of German society.
Slogan of Adolf Hitler’s supporters for an authoritarian state in Germany (1938):
“Ein Volk – Ein Reich – Ein Führer”
“One Nation – One Empire – One Leader”
2 – This slogan was used (Munich, February 14, 2026) to emphasize the idea of a unified and homogeneous Iranian state under the absolute authority of Reza Pahlavi, reflecting the extreme nationalism, authoritarianism, and totalitarianism attributed to the Pahlavi ideology, which seeks to consolidate power and control over all aspects of Iranian society.
“Ein Volk – Eine Flagge – Ein Führer”
“One Nation – One Flag – One Leader”
From an anarchosydicalist perspective, the core issue is not only the names or the flags, but the structure of power itself, not content of these slogans but their shared logic: the centralization of power in one state, one homogeneous people, and one leader. So, anarchism:
• opposes all forms of concentration and authority
• views the idea of a unified nation as exclusionary and oppressive
• sees charismatic leadership as a reproduction of hierarchy
The similarity between the slogans lies in the fact that they:
• dissolve individuality into the abstract collective of “the nation”
• replace social plurality with enforced unity
• impose power from above rather than organizing it horizontally
The real question is not who the leader is, but why should there be a leader at all.
Bakunin warned that every state — even when speaking in the name of the people — ultimately becomes an instrument of domination, because centralized power inherently tends to reproduce itself.
Kropotkin opposed the myth of enforced unity with the idea of voluntary solidarity and horizontal organization: a living order emerging from free communes and associations, not from the command of a center.
Goldman went further, showing that the nation, the leader, and authority are psychological patterns of obedience that dissolve individuality into an abstract collective.
From this viewpoint, slogans invoking one people, one flag, and one leader — regardless of their historical context — rest on a common logic: the erasure of plurality, the denial of self-organization, and the transformation of human beings into a mass.
Anarchism responds: freedom lies not in imposed unity but in free multiplicity; order grows not from command but from cooperation;
and society needs not a leader, but relationships.
No Mullah! No Shah!
Woman-Life-Freedom!

Why don’t we believe in Pahlavi?

1. The coalition under his leadership claims to believe in four principles. One of them is equal citizenship rights. This equality should exist regardless of lineage or gender. However, the source of Reza Pahlavi’s political legitimacy is his relationship to his father and his being male; therefore, his political base itself contradicts the principle of equal citizenship.

2. In Pahlavi’s discourse, Iran is portrayed as great, honorable, and noble, yet the agency of the people living in this geography is not respected. If an Arab or Kurd calls for independence or federalism, Pahlavi labels them as foot soldiers of the enemy, and his supporters attack those who believe in other ideas — even though they, too, are Iranian.

3. He frames his struggle as one to gain political power, rather than to manage the ongoing catastrophe. Much of his and his team’s effort appears focused on legitimizing the political current they belong to, and so far they have shown no real will to address urgent issues such as internet shutdowns.

4. In his strategy, Pahlavi relies on political and military forces that operate beyond his control and sphere of influence, in whose decisions he plays only a minor role. As a political figure, this draws society into a state of waiting and disappointment vis-à-vis those forces, and in relation to the dead, the costs incurred, and his previous claims, he has not acted responsibly.

5. Although his supporters claim that after the fall of the Islamic Republic they will believe in freedom and the ballot box, in present reality they do not tolerate criticism or opposition. Instead of political competition, they resort to character assassination, threats, and even physical assaults against their opponents. Belief in freedom is not secondary; it must begin today.

6. Reza Pahlavi’s own political record has not been particularly successful. He and his team have managed, at considerable expense, to secure a certain level of social acceptance, but in advancing coalitions and at key historical junctures they have not acted effectively or realistically.

7. The issue of identity and solutions:
The concept of “Iranian-ness” in Iran-shahr thought is tied to a level of mythological concepts. While the *Shahnameh* and other mytho-religious cultural products undoubtedly have cultural value, they cannot serve as references for making political and economic decisions. Monarchists, through constant references to myths and grand identity narratives, simultaneously avoid offering rational solutions and lay the cognitive foundation of an Iranian identity that does not correspond to the concrete and immediate realities of a vast and diverse society. In this sense, they are aligned with the Islamic Republic.

No mullahs! No shah!
Woman – Life – Freedom!
Anarchist Front of Iran and Afghanistan

Disarm the patriarchy, create feminist peace worldwide! – Take to the streets on Feminist Struggle Day!

Wars destroy lives – here and everywhere. In many parts of the world, war means the destruction of families, cities, and livelihoods. It means displacement, violence, and daily survival under bombs and occupation. At the same time, billions are being invested in rearmament here, while social infrastructure is neglected and sexualized violence is increasing. This policy is no “coincidence” – it aims to push Germany back to the forefront of imperialism and to profit from our lives. We say: Enough is enough!

We are fighting for a society in which wars, weapons, and nationalist power politics do not determine how we live, but where solidarity, care, self-determination, and peace are at the center. For us, feminist peace does not simply mean the absence of war, but the end of a patriarchal and capitalist system that produces wars. It means taking our lives into our own hands and creating a politics that protects life instead of destroying it.

We stand in solidarity with all those suffering from wars – with people in conflict regions, with refugees, and with feminist movements worldwide who continue to fight for dignity and self-determination despite bombs, displacement, and violence. These struggles of solidarity are inseparable from our own. The struggles against patriarchal violence, for social rights, for decent working conditions, and against racism belong together with the struggle against war and militarization.

That is why we are taking to the streets together on March 8 – for feminist peace, for social justice, and for a world without patriarchy. For us, this means:

1. Stop rearmament – invest in social and feminist infrastructure!
Billions for weapons and the military increase insecurity and violence. Instead, we demand massive investment in care work, education, healthcare, protection from patriarchal violence, and social security for all.

2. Feminist peace instead of patriarchal war politics!
There can be no peace without overcoming patriarchy and capitalism. We must build a politics based on international solidarity, civilian conflict resolution, and self-determination instead of militarization, nationalist power politics, and profit.

3. Solidarity with refugees and feminist struggles worldwide!
Protection, rights, and safe escape routes for all people fleeing war, violence, and persecution. Feminist movements worldwide must be strengthened, not criminalized.

Only if we fight together can we win together!
Take to the streets on Feminist Struggle Day!

IS THE SHADOW OF WAR GROWING OVER IRAN?
Author: Hasse-Nima Golkar
In recent days, the United States has significantly reinforced its air and naval presence in the Middle East. According to U.S. officials, this move is aimed at increasing political pressure, strengthening deterrence, and keeping a military option available if diplomacy fails.
At the same time, Donald Trump has once again taken a hard line against the Iranian government and has described “regime change” as a desirable outcome.
Media outlets such as CNN report that military plans are in place and forces are in a state of readiness, but no final decision to launch an attack has been made.
Reuters has also reported preparations for a potential operation that, if carried out, could last several weeks.
However, there has been no official announcement of war, and the diplomatic track remains open.
Possible Scenarios:
1- Continued pressure without war
The military buildup serves mainly as leverage in negotiations and as a deterrent.
2- Limited, targeted strike
A short-term operation against specific targets (e.g., military or nuclear facilities) without a full-scale war.
3- Escalation into regional confrontation
Proxy clashes or retaliatory actions that could destabilize the wider region.
4- Return to diplomacy
Military pressure used as a tool to reach a political agreement.
Bottom line:
The tension is real, but war is not inevitable. The outcome will depend on political decisions, developments on the ground, and the course of negotiations.
War is the business of capitalist governments, because peace is not profitable for them!

What should be done in the face of tear gas?
When tear gas is fired, your golden time is only a few seconds.
1 – Stay calm!
Use a cloth soaked in lemon juice or vinegar to cover your mouth and nose.
2 – How to neutralize the canister
The canisters become extremely hot after being fired, so never touch them with bare hands:
Method 1: If you have access to a bucket of water, throw the canister into it to stop the chemical reaction.
Method 2: Cover the canister with a metal bucket to block the spread of the gas.
Method 3: Using a fire extinguisher is the fastest way to neutralize it.
3 – How to protect yourself and move
a) Do not sit on the ground, because the gas is heavy and stays low. Always move to higher ground and go against the wind so that fresh air reaches your face.
b) Do not rub your eyes, as this will cause severe burning.
4 – First aid
a) Use only cold water for washing, because warm water allows the toxins to be absorbed into the skin.
b) A solution of water and liquid antacid (aluminum-magnesium) is the best neutralizer for the skin and face.
c) At the first opportunity, change your clothes and take a cold shower.
Share this information with others and share this video clip as well.
LONG LIVE FREEDOM!
WOMAN-LIFE-FREEDOM!

A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE POLITICAL-HISTORICAL EXPERIENCES OF ANARCHO-SYNDICALISM, FASCISM AND ANTI-FASCISM
Research by Hasse-Nima Golkar
The anarchist movement is inherently anti-fascist, and therefore all anarchists are necessarily anti-fascists. However, the anti-fascist movement and all anti-fascists are not necessarily anarchists.
In order to avoid any simplification, this important proposition has been examined with the necessary and essential precision in its conceptual and theoretical-historical analysis from the anarcho-syndicalist point of view.
1 – Definition of Basic Concepts
a) What is anarchism?
Anarchism is a set of socio-political theories and movements that emphasize the following principles:
• The negation of all forms of hierarchy, including the repressive and authoritarian systems of the state, religion, patriarchy, capitalism, racism, etc.
• The unconditional defense of self-organization and self-management, mutual aid, solidarity, individual–collective freedom, and social equality.
• A fundamental opposition to nationalism, militarism, and the concentration of any form of power.
In anarchism, the state is not considered a neutral tool but an organized institution of domination.
b) What is fascism?
Fascism is a modern authoritarian ideology and the ultimate concentration of political, economic, and cultural power, whose central features are:
• A centralized, totalitarian, and charismatic state
• Extreme nationalism and the myth of the “one nation”
• Organized repression of opponents
• Hierarchy, obedience, militarism
• The negation of individuality in favor of the “organic whole of the nation”
2 – Why is anarchism inherently anti-fascist?
Opposition to fascism is not merely a tactical or purely ethical position, but the logical result of the theoretical foundations of anarchism.
a – Fundamental contradictions at the political–philosophical level:
• Anarchism is the negation of authority; fascism is the sanctification of authority.
• Anarchism is based on horizontal relations; fascism on absolute vertical hierarchy.
• In anarchism, the individual is free in a free society; in fascism, the individual is dissolved in nation–homeland–flag and leader.
• Anarchism is against every kind of state regardless of its nature; fascism is the worship of the state.
• Anarchism believes in international solidarity; fascism in extreme nationalism.
Therefore, anarchism without being anti-fascist falls into an internal contradiction, whereas being anti-fascist does not necessarily create such a contradiction, because it may defend and promote certain small and quasi-socialist states.
b – Historical experience
Anarchists have been among the first victims of fascism:
Italy; repression of anarchists by Mussolini.
Nazi Germany; the complete destruction of anarchist movements.
Spain; the civil war and the resistance of anarchists against Franco.
Chile, Argentina, Greece; the violent repression of anarchists by authoritarian regimes.
As a result, anti-fascism for anarchism is not merely theoretical, but a lived experience.
3 – Are all “anarchists” anti-fascists?
a – Apparent exceptions
Sometimes currents such as “national anarchism” are mentioned. For example, a party called “Iranarchism / Iran-Anarchism” is active under the leadership of an Iranian lumpen, opportunist, wave-rider, charlatan and political trickster poet residing in England named Ali Abdolrezaei, known as “Mouta.” However, such openly contradictory tendencies are not considered defined and accepted anarchism. Because based on the fundamental principles of anarchism, neither nationalism, nor partyism, nor misogyny, nor genderism in any form or content can be acceptable or exist.
b – The preservation of concepts such as “fixed ethnic identity,” “cultural borders,” or a “homogeneous society” is in contradiction with the negation of authority. Many of them are rebranding of fascism or the far right.
Therefore, in the main and معتبر tradition, anarchism and fascism are completely incompatible.
4 – Why are not all anti-fascists anarchists?

a – Anti-fascism (Antifa) can be a broad front of different tendencies without a single intellectual root (exactly the opposite of anarchism despite its various intellectual branches). What tactically places anarchists, Marxists, Leninists, left social democrats, etc., in a coalition front is only opposition to fascism, not agreement on the desired post-fascist society.
b – Critique of non-anarchist anti-fascism
From the anarchist perspective, some forms of anti-fascism are contradictory:
• Defending a strong or weak “democratic” state to confront fascism
• Justifying the police, the army, and prison as anti-fascist tools
• Sacrificing freedom in the name of security
While anarchists argue: fascism cannot be defeated by institutions that themselves cultivate the seeds of fascism and authoritarianism within themselves and society.
5 – The difference between anarchist anti-fascism and other forms
a) Anarchist anti-fascism:
• Against every kind of state and non-horizontal structure
• Emphasis on direct action, self-organization, self-management, solidarity, mutual aid, and social defense
• Simultaneous struggle against all forms of capitalism, racism, and authoritarianism
b) Authoritarian anti-fascism:
• Authoritarian is bad, but some types of states are defensible
• Focus on repression from above, which carries the risk of reproducing authority in another form
6 – The views of some classical anarchist thinkers
a) Mikhail Bakunin: the root of authority in the state and the emergence of the seed of fascism
Bakunin was perhaps the first thinker to explain the inner logic of modern authoritarianism before the historical emergence of fascism. His critique of the state is not merely functional but anthropological and structural.
State as an institution of domination:
In Statism and Anarchy he argues that every state, even if established with emancipatory intentions, inevitably produces a ruling class and an obedient mass. From Bakunin’s point of view, fascism is not a sudden deviation from the modern state, but a naked, unveiled, and crisis-ridden form of the same logic of state authority.
Critique of “authoritarian socialism”:
Bakunin points out that even a revolutionary state can become a monstrous repressive force. This prophetic analysis later played a fundamental role in the anarchist understanding of “pseudo-left” fascism or authoritarian anti-fascism. Therefore anarchist anti-fascism since Bakunin has always been dual: struggle against fascism + struggle against statism.
b) Peter Kropotkin: mutual aid versus organic nationalism
Although Kropotkin did not experience fascism, his theory of mutual aid provides an anti-fascist framework at the social level.
Critique of the Darwinian–fascist narrative:
Fascism relies on myths such as natural competition, survival through domination, and the nation as an organic body. Kropotkin shows that cooperation and mutual aid, not domination, have been the main factors of survival and social progress. This critique directly targets the biopolitical foundations of fascism.
Anti-fascism as the defense of everyday life:
In Kropotkin’s thought, freedom is not a state project but a way of collective living. Anarchist anti-fascism means defending the horizontal networks of life against authoritarian mass mobilization. This view forms the basis of today’s social and local anarchist anti-fascism.
c) Errico Malatesta: anti-fascism without the illusion of the state
Fascism as a bourgeois reaction:
Malatesta directly experienced and analyzed Italian fascism. He considered fascism a reaction to the crisis of capitalism and a tool for reconstructing order through violence. But unlike state socialists, he believed fascism cannot be defeated by a stronger state because that same state has provided its ground.
Critique of “legal anti-fascism”:
Malatesta strongly criticized the type of anti-fascism that resorts to law, police, or the army and postpones freedom until after “victory.” He emphasized that if we use fascist tools to defeat fascism, we have only changed the name of the enemy.

d) Emma Goldman: fascism, the psychology of obedience and the masses
Fascism as a culture of obedience:
Goldman presented one of the deepest analyses of the psychological dimension of fascism. She did not consider it merely a political regime, but the product of authority-centered education, the morality of obedience, and the fear of freedom. In this sense, fascism can exist without Mussolini or Hitler.
Anti-fascism as individual liberation:
From Goldman’s perspective, real anti-fascism is impossible without sexual, intellectual, and cultural liberation, because any anti-fascism that sacrifices the individual to the “whole” is itself potentially fascist. This analysis links anarchist anti-fascism to the critique of authoritarian culture and subject formation.
7 – Contemporary anti-fascism: the continuation of the anarchist tradition
a – Contemporary texts in the statements of self-organized groups (Antifa handbooks) are clearly influenced by the anarchist tradition: rejection of centralized leadership, direct action, collective defense of social spaces, distrust of the state and the police.
b – Analysis of fascism as a phenomenon rooted in capitalism, racism, and authority.
Antifa in this sense is neither a party nor a single ideology, but a horizontal method of struggle.
8 – Comparison between anarchist-centered anti-fascism and Marxist-centered anti-fascism
a) Common points:
• Analysis of fascism as a structural phenomenon
• Its connection to the crisis of the capitalist system
• The necessity of organized resistance
b) Fundamental differences:
• The state in anarchist anti-fascism is inherently problematic; in Marxist (authoritarian) anti-fascism it is a potential tool of liberation.
• Power in anarchist anti-fascism must be dissolved; in Marxist (authoritarian) anti-fascism it must be seized.
• Organization in anarchist anti-fascism is horizontal and self-managed; in Marxist (authoritarian) anti-fascism it is party-based and centralized (democratic centralism).
• Freedom in anarchist anti-fascism is achieved simultaneously with the struggle; in Marxist (authoritarian) anti-fascism it is postponed until after victory.
• The danger of new fascism in anarchist anti-fascism is reproduced in every form of authority; in Marxist (authoritarian) anti-fascism only in the bourgeoisie.
Therefore anarchists argue that many Marxist anti-fascist regimes, because they preserve the logic of authority, have led to other forms of structural repression.
9 - The experience of the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939)
a) The Spanish Civil War was not merely a war between “Republicans” and “fascists,” but at the same time a social revolution and an anti-fascist struggle. This simultaneity is precisely where the gap between anarchist anti-fascism and statist (Marxist-Stalinist) anti-fascism becomes clearly visible. This experience shows that anarchist anti-fascism is not merely “confronting the enemy,” but building a social alternative in the very moment of struggle. For this reason, the social revolution was not an obstacle to the anti-fascist war, but the condition for its real victory.
b) The split in the anti-fascist camp:
The entry of anarchists into the government, meaning a form of statism against autonomy (self-organization – self-management), is considered a tragedy and one of the most controversial moments in the history of anarcho-syndicalism (revolutionary syndicalism). Because the decision of some pioneers of the “CNT” to join the Republican government in 1936 was the result of the logic of “first victory, then freedom.” The same logic against which Bakunin and Malatesta had previously warned. Of course, later the anarchists acknowledged this dreadful decision and criticized themselves.
c) Repression by the “anti-fascists”
The events of May 1937 in Barcelona and the severe repression of the anarcho-syndicalist and anarchist collectives by the Stalinist communists were the peak of this split. An anti-fascism that suppresses the social revolution ultimately paves the way for the victory of fascism.

The defeat of the Spanish revolution was not only the result of Franco’s military power, but the product of the internal contradiction of the anti-fascist camp and the reproduction of the logic of authority within the struggle. This bitter experience in Spain objectively showed that:
• Bakunin was right; “the anti-fascist state tends to devour the revolution.”
• Kropotkin was right; “mutual aid can be the basis for organizing a complex society.”
• Malatesta was right; “fascism cannot be defeated with the logic of the state.”
• Emma Goldman was right; “without individual and cultural liberation, anti-fascism is empty… Spain was not the proof of anarchism’s ‘naïve idealism,’ but its historical test.”
10 - Final summary and conclusion from the anarcho-syndicalist perspective:
• Fascism is neither a deviation nor an exception, but the extreme of the logic of authority, statism in every form, nationalism, and hierarchy. Therefore, the struggle against fascism without the struggle against these roots will be incomplete and unstable.
• Real anti-fascism is not possible without the critique of the state, capitalism, and the culture of obedience.
• It considers anti-fascism not a tactic, but an existential necessity.
• Not every anti-fascist is necessarily an anarchist, but all real anarchists without exception are anti-fascists.
• For anarchism, anti-fascism is an existential position, but for many others it is a tactical or temporary position.
• The main difference from Marxist anti-fascism is that anarchist anti-fascism does not want to “replace” one state with another state or authority (as the seed of fascism), but wants to remove the conditions of their very possibility.
• Anarchist anti-fascism is simultaneously negative and positive; it both resists and builds, it does not postpone freedom to “after the victory.” These differences distinguish it from liberal-security anti-fascism and Marxist-statist anti-fascism.
• The Spanish Civil War showed that fascism can be stopped from below, but if the logic of authority is reproduced in the anti-fascist camp, its defeat is inevitable. Because the defeat in Spain was not the defeat of “too much freedom,” but the defeat of compromise with authority.
The final goal of anarchist anti-fascism is a society in which fascism no longer has the possibility of emergence. And this is precisely the point where it goes beyond anti-fascism and dissolves it into a more radical project for the abolition of all forms of domination and authority.

TALIBAN DESPOTISM OVER WORKERS AND THE NECESSITY OF LABOR UNIONS IN AFGHANISTAN Author: Rahyab
Five years have passed since the Taliban came to power. During this period, severe political, social, and civil restrictions on the people—especially women—have gradually but steadily increased. Yet alongside political despotism, another form of pressure has also been imposed on society: systematic economic pressure under the name of “order” and “law,” which has targeted workers and small business owners more than anyone else.
These pressures have in practice turned into a tool for extortion and the confiscation of the rights of the toiling classes. Not only do people not benefit from underground resources and national wealth, but through the imposition of strict laws and severe restrictions on work and free economic activity, their daily lives are becoming more difficult with each passing day.
For example, a taxi driver is forced to pay several kinds of taxes and fees. How much he works, or whether he makes any profit at all, is of no concern to the authorities. Even if his income does not cover his expenses, he must still pay the fixed amount; otherwise, no excuse is accepted. The same situation has been imposed on shopkeepers, small traders, butchers, street vendors, truck drivers, tailors, and farmers. Taxes and restrictions are imposed without regard for the people’s economic reality, and the result is nothing but greater pressure on the working classes.
A few days ago, I witnessed a scene that has not left my mind. Municipal officers were collecting the handcarts of street vendors from the roadside—stalls that were perhaps the only source of income for a family. An elderly man, with trembling hands and tearful eyes, was begging, saying that this cart was all he owned; these few items were what enabled him to bring home dry bread for his children at night. But the cold and merciless response was: “It is none of our concern. If you have it, eat; if you don’t, die.”
At that moment, not only a cart, but human dignity was trampled.
This narrative is not an exception; it is part of a recurring reality. The gap between the lives of the rulers and the lives of the citizens is growing deeper every day. The ruler becomes richer, and the subjects poorer.
Alongside all this suffering, there is another fundamental problem: the fragmentation and isolation of the people. The taxi driver is separate from the butcher, the butcher from the farmer, the farmer from the street vendor. Everyone is bent under pressure, but because each is alone, their voice reaches nowhere. This very loneliness is the greatest asset of the oppressors.
If workers and small business owners cannot come together in the form of professional and labor unions, these pressures will continue. The experience of many societies has shown that one of the most effective and civil ways to defend livelihood rights is the creation of independent professional organizations—organizations that can collectively, systematically, and purposefully present the legitimate demands of the people.
In Afghanistan, unfortunately, strong and independent labor and professional unions either do not exist or have not been allowed to operate freely. Under such circumstances, conscious and peaceful professional solidarity can be one of the most important ways to reduce pressure and defend the basic rights of the people. When hundreds of taxi drivers, thousands of street vendors, or dozens of farmers’ associations raise their demands with one voice and through civil methods, it will not be easy to ignore them.
Oppression continues as long as its victims remain scattered. But collective awareness and solidarity can change the balance. No one is capable of change alone, but people together can defend their dignity, their bread, and their right to live—with unity, with organization, and with a clear and humane demand.