Saturday, August 07, 2010
INTERNATIONAL POLITICS COSTA RICA:
STATEMENT OF LA LIBERTAD:
Through much of the last century the country of Costa Rica stood as a beacon in the troubled region of Central America. Its early decision to refuse having any standing army and a succession of mildly social democratic governments insulated it against the 'thug politics' of military coups of much of the region. Its policies also guaranteed it a gradually increasing standard of living that was the envy of its neighbours and actually exceeded that of the communist dictatorship of Cuba. In sum Costa Rica was somewhat on its way to being the "Scandinavia of the South". In recent years this country has drawn away from its earlier wise policies, as the following article from the Anarkismo website lays bare. the original authors of the following are the Costa Rican anarchist group La Libertad, publishers of the (very) irregular anarchist magazine of the same name. Costa Rica is gradually abandoning its neutrality and anti-militarism in hopes of placating the Yankee giant to the north. The end result of this will not be increased prosperity but rather increased poverty and the end of freedom. Here's the story.
@@@@@@@
Costa Rica: No cheeks left to turn
Statement on the growing militarization of the Caribbean & Central America
Statement by the Colectivo La Libertad from Costa Rica on the increasing militarization of Central American-Caribbean area, the growing repression of the popular movement and of any form of social protest, and their position on the approval for the stationing of thousands of US Marines on Costa Rican territory.
----------------------
No cheeks left to turn
Since early July this year, plantation workers, peasants and indigenous people of the province of Changuinola in Bocas de Toro (Panama), have been on strike to defend basic labour rights threatened by the so-called "Jailhouse Law" and "Sausage Law" passed by Martinelli's militaristic right-wing government.
More than 4,000 workers affiliated to the Confederación de Trabajadores de la República de Panamá and 700 workers from the Convergencia Sindical, demonstrated on 8 July against the cancellation of the right to strike, restrictions of the freedom of association, the criminalization of protest, punishable with prison, and the elimination of union dues, when they were brutally repressed by police forces whose violence and batons left at least seven people dead, over 100 hospitalized and about 30 arrested.
These actions sparked protests in every province and the convening, by a national meeting of leaders of popular organizations, syndicates and trade unions, of a national strike for Tuesday 13 July. The worker and peasant organizations, threatened with extinction after the establishment, by law, of a Trade Union Central loyal to the government, demanded the release of the imprisoned workers and investigation into political killings.
However, the violence of the State, the official pressure and the media circus have again, as so many times in the past in this region, permitted "negotiations" and gave birth to a "way out" of the conflict. But this case is yet another example of the ways in which today the capitalist system and the State commit murder in Central America; it is an example of the barbarism which the fascist right is capable of reaching in order to impose its plans for economic liberalization, the extraction of resources and the commodification of life.
This is a trend that has been developing for several years and has been taking shape under the aegis of militarist, neo-liberal States in the region, from Mexico and Honduras, through Costa Rica, to Panama and Colombia. There is no coincidence in the close relationship of the current president of Costa Rica with Martinelli's Panamanian government (which in its most vulgar form consists of Costa Rican police involvement in acts of repression across the border inside Panama), nor the role that this country has played in the international legitimization of the coup in Honduras and the unthinkable government of Porfirio Lobo.
Nor is it a coincidence that the home-grown military presence has increased in recent months, alongside the influence and military intervention of the USA. The permission to land more than 7,000 soldiers, 46 warships and 200 US Army helicopters by the ruling governmental, evangelical and freedom-killing alliance in the Costa Rican parliament, shows in all its harshness the absence of any national sovereignty in Costa Rica, and the clear willingness of the local oligarchy to follow the orders of the gringo government's geopolitical plans.
So the lie that every day we tell ourselves about this peaceful Costa Rica of ours and about our perpetual, sacrosanct neutrality is laid bare: the American soldiers will enjoy absolute immunity from Costa Rican justice, the Marines will be able to enter and leave the country at will and move throughout the country in uniform, carrying their weapons. Nobody is alarmed at the huge number of international reports of assaults, rapes and intimidation by US personnel against citizens of other occupied countries.
But do not think that this is new. The government's strategy of militarization could already be glimpsed in the exchange agreement with the Italian government to give the Costa Rican police military training in exchange for carbon credits for the European country. ( Think of this for a moment. Translated into realistic English this means that Costa Rica is trading "permission to pollute" to Italy via some mythical balancing act of its forests in exchange for "training to kill" from the Italians. One can only hope that the Italian military lives down to its historical reputation. Old joke..Q. What's the shortest book in the world. A.The list of Italian war heroes. )Not to mention the numerous occasions since 2007 when landings have been approved, similar to the above: 5 warships and 17 Coast Guard gunships 3 years ago, 13 warships with a crew of approximately 20 officers and 200 enlisted men each in 2009 (all with airplanes and helicopters), and many other aircraft landing permits for the US Coast Guard. All this supposedly in view of democratic security and the war on drugs.
The false war on drugs - whose main objectives are never the local and international mafia bosses, nor representatives of the narcopolitics of governments in the region - is just an illusion, a show of words to divert attention from the real interests: increasing US military presence in Central America and consolidating the hegemony of the neoliberal project. It comes as no surprise, then, that throughout the world those countries with the greatest US military presence are those with the largest increases in the production and marketing of drugs.
We are now seeing the consequences of these mechanisms almost daily: political repression, criminalization, the dismantling of the legal structure for rights, the criminalization of protest, media stigmatization of social struggle. This permanent war against the "other" (the immigrants, the criminal, the communist, gangs, but also the peasant, the indigenous, the poor), especially in its version known as the drug war, is actually, as we have said, a "war against the peoples" (see http://www.elpais.cr/articulos.php?id=28871), "a war that does not reach the affluent North America", or is interested in seriously addressing a resolution of any conflict.
This so-called war is a systematic and calculated attack on the region. It is the explicit expression of implicit momentum: the control and dominion over the population and the resources. Business strategies serve to hide strategies for looting, cooperation initiatives serve to hide interests for control, regional security policies serve to hide policies for geopolitical domination. Examples of these forms are the free trade agreements, the Mérida Initiative ("Plan Mexico"), Plan Colombia, but also more specific signs such as the Obama-Uribe Treaty for the use of seven Colombian military bases by the United States, the recent reactivation of the Fourth Fleet, the coup d'état in Honduras, the military occupation of Haiti and the granting of new military bases in Panama.
In Central America, the rule of law begins only with its negation. Security begins only with its negation. Peace begins only with its negation. Our people live under assault from the law, unsafe, amidst constant violence. The only promise that the powers make us is that they will never tire of beating us, striking that "other cheek" that we tirelessly offer them. Thus, the only promise we can make to ourselves is to arm ourselves with dignity and ensure that no more cheeks are offered.
Colectivo La Libertad
San José, Costa Rica
July 2010
Costa Rica: No cheeks left to turn
Statement on the growing militarization of the Caribbean & Central America
Statement by the Colectivo La Libertad from Costa Rica on the increasing militarization of Central American-Caribbean area, the growing repression of the popular movement and of any form of social protest, and their position on the approval for the stationing of thousands of US Marines on Costa Rican territory.
----------------------
No cheeks left to turn
Since early July this year, plantation workers, peasants and indigenous people of the province of Changuinola in Bocas de Toro (Panama), have been on strike to defend basic labour rights threatened by the so-called "Jailhouse Law" and "Sausage Law" passed by Martinelli's militaristic right-wing government.
More than 4,000 workers affiliated to the Confederación de Trabajadores de la República de Panamá and 700 workers from the Convergencia Sindical, demonstrated on 8 July against the cancellation of the right to strike, restrictions of the freedom of association, the criminalization of protest, punishable with prison, and the elimination of union dues, when they were brutally repressed by police forces whose violence and batons left at least seven people dead, over 100 hospitalized and about 30 arrested.
These actions sparked protests in every province and the convening, by a national meeting of leaders of popular organizations, syndicates and trade unions, of a national strike for Tuesday 13 July. The worker and peasant organizations, threatened with extinction after the establishment, by law, of a Trade Union Central loyal to the government, demanded the release of the imprisoned workers and investigation into political killings.
However, the violence of the State, the official pressure and the media circus have again, as so many times in the past in this region, permitted "negotiations" and gave birth to a "way out" of the conflict. But this case is yet another example of the ways in which today the capitalist system and the State commit murder in Central America; it is an example of the barbarism which the fascist right is capable of reaching in order to impose its plans for economic liberalization, the extraction of resources and the commodification of life.
This is a trend that has been developing for several years and has been taking shape under the aegis of militarist, neo-liberal States in the region, from Mexico and Honduras, through Costa Rica, to Panama and Colombia. There is no coincidence in the close relationship of the current president of Costa Rica with Martinelli's Panamanian government (which in its most vulgar form consists of Costa Rican police involvement in acts of repression across the border inside Panama), nor the role that this country has played in the international legitimization of the coup in Honduras and the unthinkable government of Porfirio Lobo.
Nor is it a coincidence that the home-grown military presence has increased in recent months, alongside the influence and military intervention of the USA. The permission to land more than 7,000 soldiers, 46 warships and 200 US Army helicopters by the ruling governmental, evangelical and freedom-killing alliance in the Costa Rican parliament, shows in all its harshness the absence of any national sovereignty in Costa Rica, and the clear willingness of the local oligarchy to follow the orders of the gringo government's geopolitical plans.
So the lie that every day we tell ourselves about this peaceful Costa Rica of ours and about our perpetual, sacrosanct neutrality is laid bare: the American soldiers will enjoy absolute immunity from Costa Rican justice, the Marines will be able to enter and leave the country at will and move throughout the country in uniform, carrying their weapons. Nobody is alarmed at the huge number of international reports of assaults, rapes and intimidation by US personnel against citizens of other occupied countries.
But do not think that this is new. The government's strategy of militarization could already be glimpsed in the exchange agreement with the Italian government to give the Costa Rican police military training in exchange for carbon credits for the European country. ( Think of this for a moment. Translated into realistic English this means that Costa Rica is trading "permission to pollute" to Italy via some mythical balancing act of its forests in exchange for "training to kill" from the Italians. One can only hope that the Italian military lives down to its historical reputation. Old joke..Q. What's the shortest book in the world. A.The list of Italian war heroes. )Not to mention the numerous occasions since 2007 when landings have been approved, similar to the above: 5 warships and 17 Coast Guard gunships 3 years ago, 13 warships with a crew of approximately 20 officers and 200 enlisted men each in 2009 (all with airplanes and helicopters), and many other aircraft landing permits for the US Coast Guard. All this supposedly in view of democratic security and the war on drugs.
The false war on drugs - whose main objectives are never the local and international mafia bosses, nor representatives of the narcopolitics of governments in the region - is just an illusion, a show of words to divert attention from the real interests: increasing US military presence in Central America and consolidating the hegemony of the neoliberal project. It comes as no surprise, then, that throughout the world those countries with the greatest US military presence are those with the largest increases in the production and marketing of drugs.
We are now seeing the consequences of these mechanisms almost daily: political repression, criminalization, the dismantling of the legal structure for rights, the criminalization of protest, media stigmatization of social struggle. This permanent war against the "other" (the immigrants, the criminal, the communist, gangs, but also the peasant, the indigenous, the poor), especially in its version known as the drug war, is actually, as we have said, a "war against the peoples" (see http://www.elpais.cr/articulos.php?id=28871), "a war that does not reach the affluent North America", or is interested in seriously addressing a resolution of any conflict.
This so-called war is a systematic and calculated attack on the region. It is the explicit expression of implicit momentum: the control and dominion over the population and the resources. Business strategies serve to hide strategies for looting, cooperation initiatives serve to hide interests for control, regional security policies serve to hide policies for geopolitical domination. Examples of these forms are the free trade agreements, the Mérida Initiative ("Plan Mexico"), Plan Colombia, but also more specific signs such as the Obama-Uribe Treaty for the use of seven Colombian military bases by the United States, the recent reactivation of the Fourth Fleet, the coup d'état in Honduras, the military occupation of Haiti and the granting of new military bases in Panama.
In Central America, the rule of law begins only with its negation. Security begins only with its negation. Peace begins only with its negation. Our people live under assault from the law, unsafe, amidst constant violence. The only promise that the powers make us is that they will never tire of beating us, striking that "other cheek" that we tirelessly offer them. Thus, the only promise we can make to ourselves is to arm ourselves with dignity and ensure that no more cheeks are offered.
Colectivo La Libertad
San José, Costa Rica
July 2010
Labels: American imperialism, anarkismo.net, Central America, Costa Rica, international politics, La Libertad, militarism
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
INTERNATIONAL POLITICS PANAMA:
PANAMA - THE GOVERNMENT VERSUS THE PEOPLE:
A little more than two weeks ago the government of Panama introduced what might be the grandmother of all omnibus bills, Bill 30, the so-called "sausage law" (maybe because it slices Panamanian society into a thousand pieces). The overall intent of the bill is to make any opposition to the business interests that the government hopes will flood in with a US/Panama free trade deal difficult to impossible. To add to this the government expects the people to pay for this giveaway of their country by a 40% increase in consumer taxes. This is both insult to injury and further injury to injury.
The reaction was swift. Labour unions called a national strike. Ordinary people demonstrated in the street. The government's reaction was equally swift and much more brutal as a wave of oppression swept across the country, killing six so far and imprisoning many more. The people refused to back down, and as we speak the Panamanian government is at least partially backtracking. Here's an explanation of what is happening down canal way. I originally saw this item on the Libcom website, but I've later learned it was originally published in The Examiner.
PPPPPPPPPP
Panamanian pandemonium
U.S. Interventionism has helped shape the Republic of Panama. With the recent bloodshed at a banana workers strike, will "push-back" result in socialist unrest amongst the Panamanian people and will President Martinelli and his corporate-interest minions close Pandora's Box? History shall be our guide.
The history of collective bargaining and the formation of organized labor movements in the United States was a knock-down, drag-out fight, where corporate America ultimately proved unsuccessful in its bid to prevent the “unionization” of workers in several industrial sectors. While the U.S. federal government denounced meetings and rallies, a “popular uprising” shook the very foundations of capitalism’s strangle-hold over the impoverished working lower-class. Mass demonstrations of co-workers exploited by corporate overlords were able to channel their voices, combining tactical action with strategic inaction, so that the oppressive profiteers were forced to ameliorate protested grievances. After years of bloodshed and picket-lines, the rise of America's unionized labor force was rivaled only by the formation of a "middle-class" it is credited with helping .
What the purveyors of America's global economic dominance failed to realize was that during their full-throttled pursuit to denounce socialist propaganda in the early half of the 1900’s, by surrendering to the collective will that birthed the “organized labor movement”, the pressurized steam of popular socialism was released, so that the kettle of the working class wouldn’t boil over. The “red scare” was alleviated more by this domestic suppression of oppression, with its internally stabilizing increase in worker compensation and family-sustaining benefits previously not offered to the “average working stiff”. This “steam valve” method of appeasing the building-up of “subversive elements” preserved the American capitalist “free market” economic model, but investors continued to reap windfall profits by reacting with a shift toward import markets, “capitalizing” from the sweat and tears of “third-world” citizens.
Although the full story involves further complexities than this brief synopsis allows for, it directly correlates to the recent popular disturbances in the Republic of Panama. The U.S. government steadily subverted Panamanian "labor-force activism" for decades, unwilling to endorse the "unionization" that Americans had ultimately adopted for themselves. These “strong-arm”, state-sponsored business practices helped inflate the affluent elitist Wall Street moguls who have steered the “interests” of U.S. empire ever since.
The so-called “Banana Republics” of Central and South America are one regional example (of many) where American imperialism allowed U.S.-based corporations to wield unquestioned power and authority over entire populations, systematically backed by the U.S. State Department. American military might helped countless regimes gain, re-gain or maintain control over citizens that were democratically opting for new leadership; all this despite relentless U.S. rhetoric advocating the worldwide spread of democracy.
The history of U.S. interventionist policies in the southern hemisphere poetically served to produce the current uptick in regional socialism. One by one, each of these nations have struggled for self-determination; each in its own way, with its own unique brand of political, social-democratic evolution.
Panama has experienced the benefits and consequences of its geographical significance, located at the smallest pinch of the Americas, where the Atlantic and Pacific oceans are joined by this relegated “short-cut”. As Panamanians struggled for independence, this intrinsic “value” was seized upon by former President Teddy Roosevelt. (Speaking softly, but carrying a big stick) Roosevelt opted to establish a ten-mile-wide “zone” spanning the country by strategically “weaponizing”, then supporting, a dictatorial regime that would allow for this annexation. In stark contrast to the democratic wishes of the mass-majority of Panamanians at the time, a new day of domination for American trade relations had dawned, and U.S. sovereign control of the Panama Canal Zone would endure for nearly a century.
By the 1980's, CIA-influenced narco-traffickers infiltrating the ranks and ideologies of the historically corruptible Panamanian military resulted in the Reagan-endorsed dictator, Manuel Noriega, rising to a blood-stained throne of power. When Noriega declined to assist Oliver North with military support of the Nicaraguan Contras. Suddenly, his exploits of human-trafficking and money laundering became a bone of contention with the U.S. Justice Department. Once Reagan changed course with Noriega, the U.S. moved ahead with sanctions (serving only to further impoverish one of the poorest nations in the world), and eventually military assault when President G.H.W. Bush (formerly Reagan’s V.P.) launched Operation Just Cause.
Since the smoke has cleared from Reagan-era “interventionism”, Panama has undergone positive growth, acceptable to the current War Council in Washington. Former President Clinton would oversee the transition of sovereignty of the Panama Canal Zone back into the rightful owning hands of Panamanians. This has given the country a running start at becoming a viable, self-governing democratic Republic.
Last year, sweeping into presidential victory on a media-blitzing platform of “hope” and “change”: No, not Barack Obama, but Ricardo Martinelli, the newly-elected President of Panama. This American-educated business-giant (still chairman of the Super 99 supermarket chain) maintains investing interests in several corporations both in, and outside of, Panama. He swept into victory with 60% of the vote, and saw his popularity rise steadily since taking office. Along with having the healthiest growing economy in Central America, Martinelli’s short reign prepares to oversee full implementation of the $5.25 billion Canal Zone Expansion Project, passed by the previous (Martin) Torrijos administration. This improvement project looks to create 7,000 to 9,000 new jobs through 2011.
Then, Martinelli, an ultra-conservative politician for traditional Panamanian standards, pressed for passage of his business-friendly, legislative super bill, notoriously known as “the sausage law” for its eclectic design affecting multiple, unrelated tiers of governance. What can only be viewed as a “sweetening” of Panamanian economic conditions, Martinelli and his Democratic Change party may be attempting to finalize the stalled-out U.S./Panama Free Trade Agreement (FTA) that never received the final nod from the U.S. Senate after being passed by the House of Representatives in ’07.
The “sausage law”, officially dubbed “Law 30”, is a nine-part reversal on many young Panamanian laws. It side-steps environmental impact studies for agribusiness developers to tread more heavily in pursuit of profitability. It removes the federal mandate for union employees, so that paying applicable dues becomes voluntary. It contains “anti-strike” provisions that remove employment protection for striking workers, and does not render the business “closed” due to the strike (an expectation traditionally providing the only leverage strikers had against corporate improprieties). It overturns a 13-year-old law regarding “preventive incarceration” for police officers accused of brutality and/or excessive force. It forces anyone in opposition to “public bids” to initially lay down 15% of said bid in before legal proceedings can advance questioning the legitimacy of the contract. It also rewrites code enforcement for fraudulent passport production and use; undeniably all over the place with regards to customary law-making practices in Panamanian parliament.
And with that, banana growers went on strike in the city of Changuinola, province of Bocas del Toro. These were employees of Chiquita, formerly known as the United Fruit Company, the regime-shifting power-wielding conglomerate that shaped governments (with U.S. backing) and prevented democratic endeavors throughout Central and South America for much of the 20th century. United Fruit was the company at the center of the famed “Banana Massacre”, where up to 4,000 striking locals were slaughtered by Columbian military forces at the behest of Henry Stimson, Secretary of State under President Herbert Hoover.
A dispatch from the U.S. embassy in Bogota, Columbia, where the attacks occurred, sent to Stimson revealed disappointment for the contemporary “liberal media” that was “spinning” the state-sponsored act of terrorism for what it actually was.
“Although the thinking people of the country realize that it was only the Government's prompt action that diverted a disaster, this insidious campaign of the Liberal press will undoubtedly work up a great deal of feeling against the Government and will tend to inculcate in the popular mind a belief that the Government was unduly hasty in protecting the interests of the United Fruit Company,” reads the wire transmission, telegraphed December 11, 1928. “The Conservative journals are defending the Government's course but I doubt that their counter-fire will suffice to do away with the damage the Liberal journals are causing.”
Now, in Panama, a near repeat of the Banana Massacre more than 80 years later, as Panamanian forces opted to open-fire on scores of unarmed protesters. Government soldiers used shotguns filled with bird-shot, sometimes at point-blank-range. Two union members were killed, indicated by Panamanian spokespersons as “accidental” incidents, as the intent was to injure, but not fatally wound. Along with these two senseless acts of “accidental assassination”, as many as 30 people were blinded and maimed by such shootings. Martinelli blamed Panamanian media for "a campaign of disinformation" which led to the large group protests.
Some members of Martinelli’s government expressed immediate remorse for “mistakes” that were made, while others defended the actions of militant “crowd control” in response to collective-bargaining acts of non-violent, civil disobedience. What Martinelli received as a reaction to the state’s “over-reaction” was a national, general strike of July 13th, looking to cripple the construction projects in the “canal zone”, as well as across Panamanian urban centers. He also witnessed a 12-point drop in his previously swollen approval ratings. Panama's National Front for the Defense of Social Rights (FRENADESO) claimed a 95% effectiveness for its strike across the board, insisting their aims were achieved, while the government of Panama maintains that all sectors survived the incursion unscathed.
Secretary of State Clinton may have a lot to say and do about these recent developments. Again, it was former president Clinton who administered the transition of the Canal in 1999 over to Panamanian authorities, honoring the Torrijos-Carter Treaty of ’77. Despite the deafening silence put forth by the Obama administration over the incident, Hillary will have Bill in her ear more so than Barack with regards to Panama, and Clintonian initiatives may incentivise her diplomatic treatment of the matter in the coming months. Whether or not “the sausage law” is a requisite for the currently neutralized FTA pact to get back off the ground remains to be seen.
One “change” we can “hope” for: state-sponsored murder will have to subside for the U.S./Panama FTA to advance itself from its frozen legislative status in the U.S. Senate.
Will President Martinelli back down from his “sausage law”, having incited labor groups throughout the country into civic action and commercial paralysis? Or, will the level of brutality authorized by the Martinelli government increase in defense against the democratically natural push-back of the Panamanian people. These are the apprehensions the Martinelli administration tries to navigate as the first-year president attempts to stabilize the capitalist backbone of Panama's constitutional republic, surrounded by a region dominated by surging Socialist movements?
Pending investments by foreign bankers poised to explore Panama’s economic potential, including the multi-billion-dollar canal-expansion bids, all hinge on a peaceable outcome presenting itself at ground-level. More crucial to Martinelli’s fledgling coalition government is for it to avoid re-hashing Socialist sensibilities in a nation self-determined to become a free-market player, replete with support from the World Trade Organization, as well as the World Bank which funds the viral trend of globalization.
Martinelli’s minions may ultimately heed the lessons learned from the history of collective bargaining in the U.S. itself, allowing the Panamanian people the “steam release” needed for its workers to thrive awaiting the presumed emergence of that elusive “middle-class”. Meanwhile, concern for the plight of the Panamanian worker yields itself to corporate interests, opting to “go bananas” with their attempt to seize “control” of the disenfranchised working class. It isn’t the first time such an egregious and inhumane miscalculation was made by the benefactors of Imperialism, and likely not the last.
PPPPPPPPPP
The Panamanian strike and the government's reaction to it has brought forth expressions of solidarity from across Latin America and Europe. Here's one such example reprinted from the Anarkismo website.
PPPPPPPPPP
All our support to the struggles of the Panamanian people!
We express our total rejection of the Panamanian government and our unconditional support to our working class comrades in Panama, following the appalling acts of bloodshed and repression carried out by the government of Panama led by Ricardo Martinelli against the Panamanian people and, specifically, the persecution, killing and imprisonment of leaders of the Frente Nacional por la Defensa de los Derechos Sociales (National Front for the Defence of Social Rights - FRENADESO) and the Sindicato Unico Nacional de Trabajadores de la Industria de la Construcción y similares (Single National Union of Construction Industry Workers - SUNTRACS).
This wave of repression has resulted in six deaths, 150 injured and hundreds arrested. There have also been the very selective arrests of comrades such as Jaime Caballero, Assistant General Secretary of SUNTRACS, who was arrested in Chiriquí and transferred to the capital (where he is still confined in La Joya prison). Also incarcerated at the same time were FER-29 leader, Kuna youth leader and member of the FRENADESO Noticias alternative media site, Ronaldo Ortiz, together with Alexis Garibaldi of the SUNTRACS trade union.
SUNTRACS leaders Genaro López and Saúl Méndez are now in hiding, along with other comrades, as a result of a warrant being issued for their arrest. It has been revealed that the authorities intend to send them to La Joya and La Joyita prisons, where they would be killed by common criminals under the orders of the State security forces.
According to official data, it is estimated that nearly 20 union leaders have had arrest warrants issued against them. Besides those already mentioned, also in the firing line are comrades Andrés Rodríguez, Mario Almanza, Marco Andrade, Gabriel Castillo, Dalia Morales, Yaritza Espinoza, Juan Saldaña, Ariel Rodríguez, Gloria Castillo, Juan Carlos Salas, Carlos Obaldía, David Niño, Eustaquio Méndez, Marco Guzmán, Maribel Gordón, Cristian Díaz, Cle Osvaldo Gómez, Juan Ramón Herrera and Juan Jované, amongst others.
All the above events are connected with a series of demonstrations that have carried out by the workers and the Panamanian people against the recent onslaught from the government of Ricardo Martinelli at the behest of the bosses, forcing on the people things such as changes to labour legislation (designed to curtail unionization and strikes), the passing of three executive orders and Law 30 (known as the "Sausage Law")[1], as well as an increase in consumer taxes of almost 40%, which has had a violent effect on the cost of living for Panamanian people. Finally, the government has passed a Prisons Law that criminalizes social protest.
At this stage it is essential that the support and solidarity of our class goes to the Panamanian people and social activists, who are aware that such an abuse of authority cannot go unpunished. We therefore demand the release of all political prisoners and the trial and punishment of these tyrants.
For workers' unity and organization!
Long live those who struggle!
Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores de la Construcción (SINTEC), Chile
Translation by FdCA International Relations Office
Translator's note:
1. The "Ley Chorizo" is a mish-mash of reforms to 9 different laws, including big changes to labour laws (giving bosses the power to fire striking workers, for example, or removing the obligation to pay union rates), criminal laws (criminalizing protest, obligatory DNA testing of anyone under police investigation), environmental laws (exempting projects considered as being of "social interest" from having to provide environmental impact studies) and immigration laws. The law is very unpopular among large swathes of the Panamanian population as it also provides the police with almost total impunity.
PPPPPPPPPP
There is an excellent source (in Spanish) from Panama itself on events in that country. See the FRENADESO site, dedicated to social and ecomomic rights in that country. A very useful corrective to at least one of the stories circulating about the 'anarchonet' these days, seemingly claiming in triumphalist fashion that the protests were entirely successful. In actual fact all the government has done is to delay the implimentation of the Bill and agreed to strike only three clauses from the numerous provisions of the bill. NO, this is hardly anything near the total victory that the following, also from Libcom (but reproduced elsewhere) seems to claim. Exaggeration is in the end no service to the cause it promotes. What this is, at best, is a temporary truce. The struggle is far from over, and no victory is assured.
PPPPPPPPPP
Panama: strikes and protests force climbdown on anti-strike laws
A ten-day strike by banana plantation workers in Panama has come to an end after the government agreed an package of concessions that included the suspension of its anti-strike legislation, Law 30.
The strike by over 4000 banana plantation workers began on July the 2nd after workers at the Bocas Fruit Company had the portion of their pay used to pay their union subs withheld by the company in line with the recently introduced law. As the protests spread, they were joined by around 2000 independent banana growers.
Protests by plantation workers in the Bocas del Toro province on the 9th of July led to street fighting with police, who were ordered in by president Ricardo Martinelli. Demonstrators burned down a bank and several other businesses were attacked, while roadblocks were set up around the Atlantic city of Changuinola. The rioting has led to the death of two workers at the hands of police – named as Antonio Smith and Fernán Castillo - and the wounding of more than 100 more. Over 115 workers were arrested, while demonstrating workers took four police officers hostage. Union official Rafael Chavarria has claimed that the situation is much worse than the government version of events, and that a further four protesters were killed.
A parallel strike by construction workers on the Panama Canal ended today following concessions by managers on working conditions. The action by employees of the international consortium Grupos Unidos por el Canal halted work on the Panama Canal expansion project at the Gatun zone on the Panamanian Atlantic coast . The workers were reportedly demanding facilities to cook their own food, wash their clothes, and for management not to interfere with the construction workers' union SUNTRACS. National police and canal security agents arrested five reported strike leaders in the course of the dispute. According to a communique by the banana workers' union FRENADESO, “more than 70 workers striking for salaries, working conditions, and against Ley 30 were fired. Police took the workers off the bus, handed them termination papers and gave back the petitions that workers had given to the “United for the Canal”.
Meanwhile officials and members of SUNTRACS - Sindicato Único de Trabajadores de la Construcción y Similares - were arrested by police who raided a union meeting at a hotel in Panama city which passed a resolution calling for a general strike. At the time of writing, they are still being held.
Around 50 students at the University of Panama set up a roadblock on one of the main roads at the university in solidarity with the strikers, leading the government to order the cancellation of all classes.
Law 30 limits the right to strike action, union membership and freedom of association. Moreover, it outlaws workers' ability to organise street protests in the course of industrial conflicts, with the associated criminal offence carrying a penalty of two years imprisonment. It has been introduced alongside another law, Law 14, which creates new criminal offences relating to the blocking of roads by demonstrators.
Labels: American imperialism, anarkismo.net, deaths, imperialism, international labour, international politics, LibCom, panama, repression, strike., The Examiner
Saturday, June 12, 2010
INTERNATIONAL POLITICS/SPORTS:
STATEMENT FROM SOUTH AFRICA ON THE GAMES:
Molly has to admit it. She's been following the World Cup games in South Africa fairly religiously (if you can ascribe such a term to Molly). So far it is as I said before. Ties dominate the field even though South Korea has defeated Greece 4/0 and Argentina has defeated Nigeria 2/0 in group B. groups A is nothing but ties so far. One wonders how they will make decisions if this trend continues.
Meanwhile there is a lot going on "behind the scenes" that doesn't end up telecast to your local bar. Here's a statement from the Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front about the effect of the games on the ordinary person in South Africa. the following comes from the Anarkismo website.
@@@@@@@@@@
All in the Name of the Beautiful Gain
A ZACF statement on the 2010 Soccer World Cup in South Africa
The 2010 Soccer World Cup must be exposed for the utter sham that it is. The ZACF strongly condemns the audacity and hypocrisy of the government in presenting the occasion as a “once-in-a-lifetime” opportunity for the economic and social upliftment of those living in South Africa (and the rest of the continent). What is glaringly clear is that the “opportunity” is and continues to be that of a feeding-frenzy for global and domestic capital and the South African ruling elite. In fact, if anything, the event is more likely to have devastating consequences for South Africa’s poor and working class – a process that is already underway.
All in the Name of the Beautiful Gain
A ZACF statement on the 2010 Soccer World Cup in South Africa
The 2010 Soccer World Cup must be exposed for the utter sham that it is. The ZACF strongly condemns the audacity and hypocrisy of the government in presenting the occasion as a “once-in-a-lifetime” opportunity for the economic and social upliftment of those living in South Africa (and the rest of the continent). What is glaringly clear is that the “opportunity” is and continues to be that of a feeding-frenzy for global and domestic capital and the South African ruling elite. In fact, if anything, the event is more likely to have devastating consequences for South Africa’s poor and working class – a process that is already underway.
In preparing to host the World Cup the government has spent close to R800 billion (R757 billion on infrastructure development and R30 billion on stadiums that will never be filled again), a massive slap in the face for those living in a country characterized by desperate poverty and close to 40% unemployment. Over the past five years the working poor have expressed their outrage and disappointment at the government’s failure to redress the massive social inequality in over 8,000 service delivery protests for basic services and housing countrywide. This pattern of spending is further evidence of the maintenance of the failed neoliberal capitalist model and its “trickle down” economics, which have done nothing but deepen inequality and poverty globally. Despite previous claims to the contrary, the government has recently admitted this by doing an about turn, and now pretends that the project was “never intended” to be a profit making exercise [1].
South Africa desperately needs large-scale public infrastructure, especially in the area of public transport which is in some cities, including Johannesburg, is almost entirely absent. The Gautrain, which was launched on Tuesday the 8th June (just in time for the big event) is probably the biggest irony here: in a country where the large majority rely on unsafe private mini-bus taxis to travel long distances on a daily basis, the Gautrain offers high speed, luxury transport for tourists and those travelling between Johannesburg and Pretoria… who can afford it if a single trip between the airport and Sandton will set you back a massive R100. The same picture reveals itself everywhere: the Airports company of South Africa (ACSA) has spent over R16 billion on upgrading the airports, the commercialised South African National Road Agency Ltd (SANRAL) has spent over R23 billion on a new network of toll roads – all of which will implement strict cost-recovery measures to recoup the billions spent, and most of which will be of little benefit to poor South Africans. All over the country municipalities have embarked on urban regeneration schemes… accompanied by corresponding gentrification schemes, as the government attempts to hastily paper over the harsh South African reality. Over 15,000 homeless people and street children have been rounded up and dumped in shelters in Johannesburg alone, in Cape Town the municipality has evicted thousands of people from poor areas and squatter camps as part of the World Cup vanity project. The City of Cape Town (unsuccessfully) attempted to evict 10,000 Joe Slovo residents from their homes in order to hide them from the tourists travelling along the N2 highway, and elsewhere they are being removed to make space for stadiums, fan parks or train stations [2]. In Soweto, roads are being beautified along main tourist and FIFA routes, while adjacent schools sport broken windows and crumbling buildings.
Although many South Africans remain unconvinced, others are inundated and swept along by the deluge of nationalist propaganda aimed at diverting attention from the circus that is the World Cup. Every Friday has been deemed “soccer Friday”, in which the “nation” is encouraged (and school children forced) to sport Bafana-Bafana t-shirts. Cars are kitted out in flags, people learn the “Diski-dance” which is performed regularly at every tourist restaurant, and buy Zakumi mascot dolls. Anyone sceptical of the hype is denigrated unpatriotic, the prime example being when appeals were made to striking South African Transport and Allied Workers Union (SATAWU) workers to shelve their concerns “in the national interest” [3]. In a context where close to a million jobs have been lost over the course of the past year, government celebrations that the world cup has created over 400 000 jobs are empty and insulting. The jobs that have been created in the run up have been mostly casual or “Limited Duration Contracts (LCDs)”, taken by workers that are not unionised and paid well below the minimum wage.
Apart from the repression of unions, social movements have received similar hostility from the state, which has unofficially put a blanket ban on all protest for the duration of the event. In fact there is some evidence that this has been in place since as early as the 1st March. According to Jane Duncan:
A snap survey conducted at the end of last week of other municipalities hosting World Cup matches revealed that a blanket ban on gatherings is in operation. According to the Rustenberg municipality, "gatherings are closed for the World Cup". The Mbombela municipality was told by the SAPS that they were not going to allow gatherings during the World Cup. The Cape Town City Council claimed that it continues to accept applications for marches, but indicated that it "may be a problem" during the World Cup period. According to the Nelson Mandela Bay and Ethekwini municipalities, the police will not allow gatherings over the World Cup period [4].
Although it is clear that the constitution, often hailed for its “progressiveness” is far from the guarantor of freedom and equality that government claims it to be, this new form of repression is clearly in contradiction with the constitutional right to freedoms of expression and gathering. However, social movements in Johannesburg including the Anti-Privatisation Forum and several others have not given up so easily, having managed to get authorization for a protest march on the day of the opening with the help of the Freedom of Expression Institute. However, the march is being forced to be held three kilometres from the stadium where it will not attract the sort of media attention the government is worried about.
Not only has the state been repressively severe on the poor and any anti-World Cup demonstration or activity, all within the guise of painting South Africa as a host flinging its arms open in invitation to those flocking to its upmarket hotels, bed-and-breakfasts and cocktail lounges, but it does so under the guidance of Sepp Blatter & Friends’ legal criminal empire called FIFA (wonderfully referred to as THIEFA by the Durban Social Forum). Not only are they expected to benefit from a 2010 windfall of nearly € 1.2 billion, but have already gained over € 1 billion from media rights alone.
The stadia, and areas around the stadia, which were handed over to FIFA for the duration of the tournament (“tax-free cocoons” literally creating FIFA-controlled and monitored areas exempt from normal taxation and other State laws), and all routes to and from the stadia have been forcibly cleared of anyone selling non-sanctioned FIFA products and those eking out an existence in squatter camps along airport roads. As such, people who would have banked on World Cup sales to boost their survival incomes are left out in the "trickle down" cold.
FIFA, as sole owner of the World Cup brand and its spin-off products, also has a team of approximately 100 lawyers scouring the country for any unauthorised selling of these products and marketing of the brand. These products are seized and sellers are arrested despite the fact that most in South Africa and on the continent purchase their products from the informal trading sector, as very few have R400 to dole out on team t-shirts and other gear. It has also has effectively gagged journalists with an accreditation clause that prevents media organisations from bringing FIFA into disrepute, clearly compromising freedom of press [5].
The major irony is that soccer was once truly the game of the working class. Viewing games live at stadia was cheap and easily accessible to people who chose to spend 90 minutes forgetting about the daily drudgery of their lives under the boot of the boss and the State. Today, professional football and the World Cup bring exorbitant profits to a small cabal of a global and domestic elite (with billions spent unnecessarily and in a time of a global capitalist crisis) who charge patrons thousands of rands, pounds, euros, etc. every season to watch disgustingly overpaid footballers fall and dive all over manicured pitches at the slightest tug and who squabble, via parasitic agents, over whether or not they are deserving of their huge salaries. A game, which in many respects maintains its aesthetic beauty, has lost its working-class soul and has been reduced to just another set of commodities to be exploited.
Bakunin once said that “people go to church for the same reasons they go to a tavern: to stupefy themselves, to forget their misery, to imagine themselves, for a few minutes anyway, free and happy”. Perhaps, amongst all the blindly nationalistic flag waving and vuvuzela-blowing, we can add sport to his equation and that it might seem easier to forget than to actively partake in combating injustice and inequality. There are many who do, though, and the working class and poor and their organisations are not as malleable to illusion as the government would want to believe. From temporary squatter camp constructions at the doors of the stadia, to mass protest and demonstrations, to countrywide strike action, unsanctioned or not, despite the taunts and jeers and the labels of being “unpatriotic”, or blanket bans on freedom of speech, we will defiantly make our voices heard to expose the terrible inequalities characterising our society and the global games played at the expense of the lives of those upon whom empires are built and will be, ultimately, destroyed.
Down with the World Cup!
Phansi state repression and divisive nationalism!
Phambili the people's struggle against exploitation and profiteering!
This statement was issued by the Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front
For more information and other articles of critique see:
http://www.ukzn.ac.za/ccs/default.asp?2,40,5,2037
http://antieviction.org.za/
http://www.abahlali.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
1. See Star Business Report, Monday 7th June, 2010
2. http://antieviction.org.za/2010/03/25/telling-the-world-that-neither-this-city-nor-the-world-cup-works-for-us/
3. http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71654?oid=178399&sn=Detail
4. For article see http://www.sacsis.org.za/site/article/489.1
5. http://www.sportsjournalists.co.uk/blog/?p=2336
Related Link: http://www.zabalaza.net/
Labels: anarkismo.net, current events, international politics, soccer, South Africa, sport, world Cup, Zabalaza
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
INTERNATIONAL ANARCHIST MOVEMENT- GREECE:
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH:
The events in Greece continue along with the anarchist response there, a response that I have often characterized on this blog as "inadequate". Perhaps "immature" would be a better word. Despite the great rebelliousness of the Greek population the anarchists there generally have little to offer beyond...more rebellion. this is immensely sad. Looking across the world Greece may be the second country after Spain where anarchism is most popular on a per capita basis. Travelling through downtown Athens you might even get the illusion that anarchism was more popular than in places such as Barcelona. I've been in both. The difference, and it is a great and profound difference, an essential difference, is that in Spain the majoritarian anarchist tradition is anarcho-syndicalist. This means that anarchism has sunk deep roots amongst ordinary people, and that anarchism speaks to their concerns and not to people whose primary identification is with a subculture. This means that anarchism in Spain is inherently less "flashy" but much more profound and practical for its lack of visible "difference".
Not that I don't admire the Greeks. When visiting that country I was privileged to meet with anarchosyndicalists and members of the 'Anti-Authoritarian Movement'. The former, however, are small and marginal amongst Greek anarchists. Hopefully it will not always be so. The latter are gradually struggling towards a class based politics and a program that is detailed enough to appeal beyond a subculture of rebellion. This subculture is, it must be admitted, a considerable cut above that that is so common in the 'anglosphere', especially the USA. There is none of the usual nonsense about how to dress, what to eat, what music to listen to (more or less) nor how to talk (politically correct speech). Still, while it may be admirable in comparison it is still...an incestuous subculture. Many Greek anarchists recognize this, and they also know that what has been offered so far is simply not enough to draw the ordinary person to their side.
The problem in Greece is that this evolution towards a "popular anarchism" is inhibited by a form of anarchism, "autonomism" which actually derives from Maoist roots and is under the great illusion that one can precipitate some sort of libertarian revolution without either organization nor program by simple violent actions. Autonomism is a particularly European example of the decay of Maoism 9and the idea of "peoples' war" applied to urban settings) that has very little echoes today outside of Greece, Italy and Germany. It is in Greece that it is most prominent.
This "deviation" (to use an old commie term) has always inhibited the Greek movement insofar as its addiction to mindless violence has both disgraced anarchism in the view of the average person and also diverted the majority of the movement into something resembling a "competition of militancy" whereby they hope to compete with the firebombers.
Firebombers !!! Arson in an urban setting is pretty well always a very stupid idea. Here in North America the stupidity is compounded by the fact such arsons are pretty well inevitably connected to nothing more than the desire of the perpetrators to prove how committed and "enlightened" they are. Even when there is a "real" issue that doesn't involve arrogance bordering on psychopathology such as "hating porn stores" (Canada) or the people who drive SUVs (USA) arson very rarely (never ???) accomplishes anything. Even if you are making a "class point" against the ruling class - such as firebombing banks- it accomplishes nothing.
It is also very bad propaganda. What it says very plainly is that you don't give a shit about what has euphemistically called "collateral damage" which is always a possibility when fires are started in urban areas. Don't depend on the fire departments to be omnipotent. In Greece this possibility has become a reality as three bank workers were killed by a fire started by protesters in recent demonstrations. There have been all sorts of "excuses" for this. Some "anarchists" have echoed the commies and the vague leftists of the Coalition of the Radical Left by trying to blame the incident on agents provocateurs. This is nonsense. Others have tried to shift the blame to the management of the bank who (literally) locked the workers in. This, at least, has some truth to it, but it avoids the ultimate question. EVERY TIME when you start a fire in an urban area (and often in a rural area) there is the possibility of the death of innocent people. Greece has certainly seen enough of this sort of arson (with deaths) in recent years carried out by people who intend to redevelop land. It's a sad commentary on the "anarchism" of some people that they should imitate the actions of the lowest and most criminal of the business class.
No doubt there are some who are hardened ideologues, once more particularly in the USA, who call themselves "insurrectionist anarchists" who do their damnest to excuse such actions-or at least to argue against how atrocious they are. In Greece this "struggle for the soul of anarchism" has been going on for many years. Those who think that terrorist options are the best way to proceed have not been sparing in also physically attacking attacking other anarchists who disagree with them, and once more arson has been one of their methods.
What should be made plain here and now is that the semi-religious devotion to "a diversity of tactics" here in North America can result in obvious disaster. The demand that there be no criticism of any action no matter how foolish is preliminary to physical attacks on those who dissent. Such attacks have already happened in Canada and the USA.
Quite frankly it hardly matters in the cosmic scheme of things if totalitarians disguised as anarchists want to attack those who disagree with theatrical "mini-riots" involving a few dozen people. Nor if they physically assault somebody who has dissented from the "vegan cult". The world moves on. It does, however, matter when important issues such as those in Greece are in play.
The great point that I want to make here is not to those who are ideologically convinced that one riot after another will lead to a libertarian society (or at least convinced for 5 1/2 years until they either mature or find a way to make money out of the nonsense). I speak here to those who have been convinced by the rhetoric of "diversity of tactics". Such suspension of disbelief may be all well and good when an action will have no visible consequences ie all "anti" protests so favoured by the "travelling anarchist rent-a-riot". It is a totally different matter when the destiny of a nation is being determined. People in Greece are desperately attempting to make anarchism relevant for ordinary people. You have two choices for your "solidarity". You can be in solidarity with the Greek anarchists who want to make anarchism a living and practical reality or you can be in "solidarity" with those who have both frustrated their project in the past and also physically attacked them. The choice is clear.
The following , from the Anarkismo website, is one out of many self criticisms from within the Greek anarchist movement about the events that led to the deaths of the three workers. What is significant here is that the criticism comes from within, and it proposes the question of "who" you are in solidarity with. It's obvious what side I have chosen. To echo Martin Luther..."here I stand, I can do no other".
@@@@@@@@@@
An anarchist comrade from Athens:
Enough is enough
Let us shout it out loud and if they do not hear it let us show it with our actions: Enough is enough.
On the 5th of May, we lived the chronicle of three pre-destined deaths. Unfortunately, the belief that we had for the longest time that it is only a matter of time before we mourn the first victims of indiscriminate violence, came true. Unfortunately, lives had to be lost in order to hear or read from some of the collectives of the movement, albeit timidly, albeit vaguely, the first allusions of criticism for the nihilistic culture of violence. Unfortunately, some still continue to hide behind their finger, focusing on those that bear the moral instead of the actual responsibility, on the results of the murderous act and not the reasons behind it.
Let's show the courage and the sincerity that (must) characterize a revolutionary/liberating movement and let's talk about the gist of the matter. If the death of the three people was proven to be the result of a targeted action by the far right, would they focus on the - anyway criminal and inhuman - stance of the management of the bank? But even if this was the case, the below are fully in effect.
The tolerance that has been shown for the longest time by a part of the anarchist movement to the proponents of indiscriminate violence is the beginning of any (self-) criticism. All those that, for many years, acted virtually undisturbed, in the same monotonous, dangerous, destructive and provocative ways, next and inside our blocks, should have been isolated, instead of being described on hindsight, generally and vaguely as "agents provocateur" or "gang-members", without any analysis whatsoever on how we ended up in this situation accompanying those characterizations. This can still take place though and work as a kind of catharsis. All these years when anyone tried to distance themselves from phenomena of indiscriminate violence, or from mass - armed or not - violence, was thought as setting themselves apart, was jeered or attacked. So is it not positive that even now, even vaguely, voices against the practice of violence for the sake of violence are being heard? Maybe it is and maybe it isnʼt. Only time will tell.
The more our critique of the phenomenon remains hazy and without supporting evidence, the less persuasive it becomes. The effortless characterization of "agents provocateur" is insufficient mainly because it is too general. With this general condemnation you do not expose the crux of the matter. You only avoid to answer questions such as those that follow, ones that we need to answer with clarity and also look into the results of a sterile "insurrectional" oratory and the even more sterile and dangerous practices that originate from this oratory. As agents provocateur can act not only a sad gang of ego-centric malcontents, but a state-sponsored gang on designated duty as well, if we judge the acts only in relation to their results. But is such a judgment suitable for us to adopt? No, because the revolutionary expression is rational, clear, acute and examines the causes of each phenomena. No, because at this point we need to be direct and act accordingly. No, because such a critique characterizes Authority and the crutches that prop it up. They are the ones who are used to give a fuzzy explanation and leave it at that. But if you are indeed seeking to prick the boil of violence, your discourse against blind violence needs to be concise and consistent at all times. Your actions, even more so. Otherwise, any abstract verbal distance one may try to keep from those gangs and their actions will not be believable. And moreover, they do not help in the spreading of the anti-authoritarian word. Even if one is not diachronically consistent, the change of attitude and course - if it is sincere - has to be followed with arguments and self-criticism, to avoid becoming opportunism. The questions we talked about earlier are many. If they were a state-sponsored gang, why did we not break them up during the rally? Were we caught with our pants around our ankles? Obviously not, since they act the same way for years on end. But then the question becomes why we have not done so all those years. Our reflexes against state gangs and secret policemen have not been blunted that much, so our inactivity is not justified. Perhaps the reflexes of some of us have been blunted towards gangs that hijack anarchist and anti-authoritarian ideology to play their little games to our detriment.
Let's dispense with the jokes, the convenient excuses and reasoning. We watch the same play for years on end. A part of the movement was accepting for many years the brainless partisans of violence for violence's sake, the proponents of window-smashing, providing them with an ideological basis for their actions. The rest either reacted spasmodically, or put up with them, or awaited a fateful event in order to react. Let it be understood that their murderous stupidity has cost human lives. We are not talking anymore about immaturity and ideological fixations; we are talking about a crime. They are the perpetrators. The anarchist and the social movement in general has paid dearly the fad and the autism of a few cowards and those that supported their actions with their so-called 'insurrectionist' oratory, believing that the social struggle against the State and Power is undertaken by a few insurrectionary types in society's absence and is limited to broken glass or whatever mobilizes the police for a stone-throwing war. With them and their practices, anarchy has nothing in common. Enough discredit, enough backward steps. The conflict will be multi-level and massed. Targeted and conscious.
The very moment that an entire square demanded furiously "Burn this brothel, the parliament", the very moment that hundreds of thousands were on the streets to clash with totalitarianism, the very moment that life is taken away from us, this moment the anti-violence to the violence of Power must at all costs shed this weight. This though, from now on, even belatedly we need to prove that it is a fact. For starters, we can do what people are talking among themselves: organize immediately a rally and protest march against indiscriminate violence. This will act as a rallying beacon for the movement, will make known our position towards society and maybe become the starting point of setting the score straight with the aforementioned autism.
Let us shout it out loud and if they do not hear it let us show it with our actions: Enough is enough.
Labels: anarchism, anarkismo.net, class, current events, Greece, insurrectionism, international anarchist movement, subcultures, tactics
Thursday, May 06, 2010
INTERNATIONAL POLITICS- GREECE:
ANARCHIST STATEMENT ON THE EVENTS IN GREECE:
The following item comes from the Anarkismo site and is the collective statement of 5 platformist organizations from various countries on the events in Greece. Special thanks to the Porkupine Blog where I first saw this item. It has since been reprinted widely. More on the events in Greece later.
The Greek crisis continues to make news every single day, particularly because it raises the spectre of 'sovereign default' on the part of other European countries such as Portugal, Spain, Italy , Ireland and even Great Britain. Such an event would be beyond the capacity of the EC (or the world for that matter) to patch up, and could easily lead to the end of the EU with all the unknown consequences of same, let alone its effect outside of Europe. While other events such as the Icelandic volcano and the Gulf of Mexico oil spill have contributed to nervousness in world markets there is little doubt that the events in Greece are the major influence on recent market volatility.
Is there a reason to be nervous ? Certainly if one simply takes the potential for sovereign default as 'Financial Crisis Version 2.1' there is indeed. A domino cascade of sovereign defaults would be basically unstoppable and would provoke a far greater crisis than the one we are gradually emerging from. Is there reason for the ruling class to be nervous and their opponents to be hopeful about an effective opposition emerging from the present crisis ? Personally I doubt it. On our sister blog Molly's Polls I gave (sneakily) several reasons about why a revolution in Greece is improbable. I stand by these items no matter how dramatic present events may seem.
It may be hard for some amongst the crazier fringes of anarchism in the USA to understand the difference between revolution and mindless rebellion, but most other people in the world ( including pretty well all responsible anarchists outside of the primitivist, post leftist cult)understand it very well. In revolution you don't firebomb banks and run like hell. You take over the building, destroy the records of debts and turn the building to good use whatever that may be. Perhaps the bank workers try and devise new accounting systems for a new society. can you begin to comprehend how far away from such an eventuality Greece is ?
Events in Greece have hardly progressed beyond what I personally envisioned as the "maximum extent of rebellion". That is "rebellion" not revolution or even a prelude to the latter. Why do I say this ? Let's take some well accepted "necessities" that define a pre-revolutionary state.
1)The ruling class can no longer operate in its usual fashion. This condition at least is fulfilled in Greece. Bankruptcy is bankruptcy. This does not, however, mean that the plan (read conspiracy) of the EU and the IMF cannot at least salvage something for the local Greek ruling class and, more importantly, international finance that holds Greek debt. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that the bailout plan can work albeit with all the victimization of ordinary people that the following statement points out.
2)The ruling class is divided. You have to search pretty thoroughly to find evidence of this. Yes, the main conservative opposition party in Greece voted against the austerity measures, but this is an obvious rhetorical devise on their part, and I have a hard time believing that anyone takes their "opposition" seriously. They, after all, laid the basis for the present crisis by their fraudulent national accounting, and I'm pretty sure that the average Greek is more than sufficiently aware of this just as the rest of the world is. When the vote came up in the Greek Parliament only three socialist PASOK deputies voted with their conscience against the austerity measures. Try to understand that in most modern societies the "left" is very much just another aspect of the ruling class (most obviously in the USA ). If there will be a division amongst the Greek ruling class it will appear first amongst the so-called 'socialists". There is little evidence of such desertion to the "other side" at this time. Perhaps the vast, vast, vast majority of "socialist" bureaucrats are making very rational calculations about the general mood in Greece today. ot perhaps you'd like to believe ultraleft groupuscles instead.
3)The population can no longer live in the present conditions. Actually in Greece the population is rebelling against a set of circumstances that has yet to be implemented. For the vast majority of the people who have come out into the streets the issue is not their present conditions but rather what they will be in the future if the government's policies are implemented. It's a basically conservative response (nothing wrong with that by the way), but the population is still very far from being driven against the wall by an unendurable situation. The people in other countries have been the unfortunate subjects of even more brutal readjustments and revolution has not been the results, even if, as in the case of Argentina great advances in terms of libertarian ways of organization have happened. The Greek people can love with what the ruling class is planning for them, however vicious it may be, and I think they are likely to realize this and not toss caution to the winds in the end.
4)The opposition is united, at least in terms of getting rid of the present regime. This is where the present Greek situation is most deficient in terms of the preconditions for revolution. As I mentioned before the general reasons for the present protests are not to remove a regime but rather to keep a certain system of benefits in place. No doubt the more clear sighted of the anarchists (excluding the insurrectionists who have no program beyond- more violence ) have a vague idea of a society that is different from our present one, but it has hardly been expressed at least in "mass terms" beyond vague generalities. No doubt the Coalition of the Radical Left also have vague proposals for an alternative society (with all the corrupting and futile statism that such a party can muster ). In such a vague cloud the conservative aspects of the movement come to the fore...as they actually have if one examines the numbers in the news from Greece dispassionately without revolutionary illusions. Here you will see a horrible and obvious fact. the various factions of the Greek left not only, in the majority, don't want an alternative society but they abhor each other with a deep passion. Various union centrals make great efforts to stay separate from others in their demonstrations. I am speaking here of the major players in the present Greek drama, not the separation of all of them from the anarchists. To say the least this is not the way to proceed.
5)Finally a "revolution" as opposed to a revolt presupposes a vision of society ie a goal that is sufficiently diffused amongst the general population such that they see it as both worthwhile and possible. Sometimes these goals can be pretty limited ie the end of communist rule in eastern Europe. When a clear alternative, however, is not present it is the responsibility of "revolutionaries" to present such alternatives over the course of how many decades they may take to seek into popular consciousness. The most common goal of the present Greek rebellion is not a new and different society, as I have mentioned above. It is merely a defensive action against an "adjustment" that will remove benefits from ordinary Greeks. Good luck to them, even if I think the effort is doomed.
In any case here is a perfectly rational statement from various international anarchist groups in support of Greek workers. I agree with its statements of fact and its call to action even if I am very much a pessimist as to the conclusion of this struggle.
Solidarity with the Greek workers' struggle!
Statement on the Greek crisis
Greece is a test case for the social dismantling that awaits us all. This policy is being enacted by all the institutional parties, by every government and by all of globalised capitalism's institutions. There is only one way to hold back this policy of barbaric capitalism: popular direct action, to widen the strike movement and increase the number of demonstrations all across Europe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOLIDARITY WITH THE GREEK WORKERS' STRUGGLE!
The Greek working class is angry, and with good reason, with the attempt to load responsibility for the bankruptcy of the Greek State onto their shoulders. We maintain instead that it is the international financial institutions and the European Union who are responsible. The financial institutions have plunged the world, and Greece in particular, into an economic and social crisis of historical proportions, forcing countries into debt, and now these same institutions are complaining that certain States risk not being able to repay their debts. We denounce this hypocrisy and say that even if Greece - and all the other countries - can repay the debt, they should not do so: it is up to those responsible for the crisis - the financial institutions, not the - to pay for the damage caused by this crisis. The Greek workers are right to refuse to pay back their country's debt. We refuse to pay for their crisis!
Instead, let us shift the capitalists into the firing line: Greek capital generates some of the biggest profit margins in Europe due to its investments in the poorer Balkan countries, the absence of social protections, collective guarantees and a minimum wage for Greek workers, not to mention the country's gigantic black economy in labour and an even greater exploitation of immigrant work. Greek capital is also very lightly taxed, due to the weakness of the State (with regard to the rich) and major corruption which permits fraud and tax evasion on a massive scale. So it is equally up to Greek capitalists to pay for this crisis.
We also denounce the attitude of the European Union. The EU was presented to us as a supposed guarantee of peace and solidarity between the peoples, but now it is showing its true face - that of acting as an unconditional prop for neoliberalism, in a complete denial of the notion of democracy. As soon as an economy becomes mired in difficulties, all pretence of solidarity evaporates. So we see Greece being scolded and accused of laxity, with insulting language bordering on racism. The "Europe which protects us" that liberals and social-democrats extolled at the time of the scandalous forced adoption of the Lisbon Treaty (particularly in France and Ireland) now seems a long way away.
As far as actual protection goes, the EU and the financial institutions have combined their efforts to frog-march Greece towards the forced dismantling of public services, through austerity plans that recall the "Structural Adjustment Plans" of the IMF: the non-replacement of staff, wage freezes, privatisations and VAT increases. Today the EU is demanding that the retirement age be moved back to 67, not only in Greece but also in other countries, and is also threatening to dismantle the social welfare system. In this way they are opening new markets for investors, while guaranteeing the assets of rich investors, to the detriment of the basic interests of the working class. It is a Europe of the ruling class, and one which we must all work together to oppose.
This is why we call for participation throughout Europe in solidarity initiatives with the Greek working class and with future victims of the onslaught of the banks.
Against the values of greed and rapacity that the European Union is based on, let us respond with class solidarity! Greece is a test case for the social dismantling that awaits us all. This policy is being enacted by all the institutional parties, from out-and-out bourgeois to liberals and social democrats, by every government and by all of globalised capitalism's institutions. There is only one way to hold back this policy of barbaric capitalism: popular direct action, to widen the strike movement and increase the number of demonstrations all across Europe.
Solidarity with the Greek workers' struggle!
Alternative Libertaire (France)
Workers Solidarity Movement (Ireland)
Federazione dei Comunisti Anarchici (Italy)
Organisation Socialiste Libertaire (Switzerland)
Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front (South Africa)
Labels: anarchism, anarkismo.net, bailouts, current events, financial crisis, Greece, international politics, platformism, revolution, tactics
Sunday, May 02, 2010
ANARCHIST PUBLICATIONS:
ANNOUNCING 'ESPECIFISTA':
As anarchism grows more and more popular across the world the desire to have a more coherent and effectively organized movement grows as well. Here's more evidence of the latter from the Amanecer group in California who are bring out a new journal 'Especifista'. Here's the announcement from the Anarkismo website.
@@@@@@@@@@
ESPECIFISTA #1 is out!
ESPECIFISTA #1 is out!
A publication by Amanecer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amanecer: For a Popular Anarchism is proud to present the first issue of its publication - Especifista.
Especifista is a sporadic publication by Amanecer: For a Popular Anarchism. Especifista aims to start a conversation with those involved in different struggles, be in the community, in labor or any other, about the roots of society’s ills, the possibility of fundamental change and how we can achieve it.
Especifista is a publication by anarchists, that is to say, people who believe that society should be organized in a manner that provides for all based on their needs, and where the power and decisions flow from the bottom up, in a real democratic way.
We selected the name Especifista because it best describes our political perspective.
Especifismo is a practice of anarchism originated in South America, and first theorized by the Federacción Anarquista Uruguaya in the 1950’s.
With other parallels in the anarchist movement, it is based on the idea the anarchists should primarily be involved in the struggles of the people, not to control them but to preserve their democratic and radical character. This is called social insertion, and comes from the belief that popular movements are not only the hands of revolution, they are also its brain.
Anarchists should organize into their own, specifically anarchist organization to theorize and strategize about their involvement in the social movements and to learn from them.
The organization of anarchists should also be a voice for the principles of solidarity, democracy and anti-capitalism in the popular movements.
With Especifista, we aim to add to the voices that continue to promote these principles inside social movements.
For contact, please e-mail us at especifista@gmail.com
Related Link: http://especifista.wordpress.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amanecer: For a Popular Anarchism is proud to present the first issue of its publication - Especifista.
Especifista is a sporadic publication by Amanecer: For a Popular Anarchism. Especifista aims to start a conversation with those involved in different struggles, be in the community, in labor or any other, about the roots of society’s ills, the possibility of fundamental change and how we can achieve it.
Especifista is a publication by anarchists, that is to say, people who believe that society should be organized in a manner that provides for all based on their needs, and where the power and decisions flow from the bottom up, in a real democratic way.
We selected the name Especifista because it best describes our political perspective.
Especifismo is a practice of anarchism originated in South America, and first theorized by the Federacción Anarquista Uruguaya in the 1950’s.
With other parallels in the anarchist movement, it is based on the idea the anarchists should primarily be involved in the struggles of the people, not to control them but to preserve their democratic and radical character. This is called social insertion, and comes from the belief that popular movements are not only the hands of revolution, they are also its brain.
Anarchists should organize into their own, specifically anarchist organization to theorize and strategize about their involvement in the social movements and to learn from them.
The organization of anarchists should also be a voice for the principles of solidarity, democracy and anti-capitalism in the popular movements.
With Especifista, we aim to add to the voices that continue to promote these principles inside social movements.
For contact, please e-mail us at especifista@gmail.com
Related Link: http://especifista.wordpress.com/
Labels: American anarchist movement, anarchism, anarchist publications, anarkismo.net, announcements, Especifista, international anarchist movement
Sunday, April 25, 2010
ANARCHIST THEORY:
ANARCHIST ALTERNATIVES BY WAYNE PRICE:
I originally thought to publish the following piece by Wayne Price because, from the title, I thought it was a criticism of the apocalyptic viewpoint that far too many anarchists and leftists in general fall into. As will be obvious from the article below it is no such thing. In terms of that question it is, at best, a caution to not try and set timetables that are "imminent". That part is fairly obvious as the history of the left, anarchist and otherwise, is littered with predictions of the imminent demise of capitalism over the last 150 years. Littered to the tune of 100,000s of wrong predictions to be exact. The author still believes that such a collapse is inevitable, and in the long term he will inevitably be right because no social system lasts forever. Many points for noticing the obvious. The worm in the apple is that said economic and political system will collapse for reasons utterly outside the theories of leftists. NONE of the great founts of leftist wisdom predicted how the recent economic crisis would come about, and no legitimate economists and few investment advisers did any better. Reality has a habit of putting simplistic theories of complex phenomena to hard tests that they inevitably fail.
The Marxist economics that the following author thinks is so illuminating failed its test over 100 years ago as every single prediction that Marx made was falsified. Not one. Not some. Rather all. The whole matter was dealt with by Bernstein very thoroughly in 'Evolutionary Socialism' at the turn of the 20th century. As a "scientific" theory that can make testable predictions Marxism has been proven an abject failure for an incredibly long time.
I recognize that present day Marxists, the few of them that are left, hardly are not tremendously concerned with subjecting their beliefs to a scientific test. To them it is both a matter of faith and, to their minds, an "organizational necessity" to make their predictions. When they are proved wrong they sometimes resort to causisty of one sort or another to explain away the failure. More commonly they simply ignore their previous infallible predictions.
As may be apparent I disagree profoundly with what follows, especially as I am one of those dreaded "gradualists" and very unapologetic about it. Quite frankly it would take examples from real economics, real history and real sociology , as opposed to Marxist fantasies, to convince me that I was wrong. Predictions of 'inevitable collapse' even when intelligently put off into a nebulous future are not convincing arguments to my mind.
So, for what it is worth, here's the article.It is intelligently argued, but the premises are faulty. The following has been slightly edited for English spelling. The original is at the Anarkismo site.
@@@@@@@@@@
Are the Alternatives Really Socialist-Anarchism or Barbarism?
Is a Workers’ Revolution Necessary to Prevent Catastrophe?
Responds to arguments that it is not necessary to show that capitalism leads to social and ecological catastrophe in order to be a revolutionary anarchist.
A statement on the nature of the period and the economic crisis was published by US-NEFAC (US-Northeastern Federation of Anarchist-Communists) (1). It resulted in a lot of discussion on at least one site (e.g., Anarchist Black Cat). While the majority of those who accessed that` site checked that they agreed with the statement mostly or somewhat, most of those who bothered to write a comment expressed varying degrees of disagreement. I am going to summarize the discussion, as I understand it, and make some remarks.
The basic view of the US-NEFAC statement is that capitalism as a world system is not doing too well and will be doing worse in the not-too-distant future. It does not deny the possibilities of short-term improvements, such as a relative recovery from the Great Recession, but it expects that the overall direction of the economy is downhill. There will be no return to the prosperity of the 50s or even of the 90s. Reforms and benefits may yet be won by the people, but over time the workers and oppressed will be faced with the alternatives of revolution or destruction. Without predicting just when there will be widespread reaction, it did expect an eventual popular radicalization and rebellion.
As evidence for the long-term crisis, there has been the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Wars continue, raising the dangers of world war and of a civilization-destroying nuclear war. Also there are deepening ecological and energy crises, especially global warming, which are acknowledged by almost everyone—and which is another aspect of the capitalist crisis.
For example, I happen to have in front of me a statement by the Green activist, Lorna Salzman (not an anarchist or socialist of any kind), who writes, “Expert scientists and scientific bodies now unanimously agree that we have less than ten years to reduce the CO2 concentration to 340 ppm…Beyond this period, irreversible and uncontrollable feedback will occur from disappearing ice sheets, melting permafrost, and ocean warming, reducing biodiversity, destroying coral reefs, acidifying the oceans, raising sea level, and leading inevitably to crises in drinking water, food production, land use, and public health that will cost societies far more than it will cost to mitigate or avoid these impacts” (2). Clearly great suffering is predictable for many people, because industrial capitalism has unbalanced the ecology and cannot repair it.
I am giving a very condensed review of the NEFAC statement’s viewpoint; I expanded on it, from my perspective, in an essay, “Socialism or Barbarism! Anarchism or Annihilation!” (3). Also see my review of a book on the causes of the Great Recession (4). I have argued that we are living through a reassertion of the basic conditions of the epoch of capitalist decay, such as had been apparent to all from 1914 to 1946.
The Future is Unpredictable….
Against this viewpoint, opponents made essentially three arguments. First, it was denied that it was possible to make such predictions with any confidence. Sure, things might get worse, but they also might get better. Who could say? After all the Great Depression and World War II were followed by a prolonged period of relative prosperity, from 1947 to about 1970. Throughout the Cold War, the big imperialists avoided nuclear war. And perhaps the international bourgeoisie will wise up and do something about the environment and energy.
The analysis of the downward slide toward destruction is based on Marxist economics (or, more precisely, on Marx’s critique of political economy). A humanistic, libertarian-democratic, interpretation of Marxism overlaps with class-struggle anarchism. The analysis is also based on the study of ecology and energy, integrated with Marxism and with anarchism (5). Some of our critics reject Marxist economics particularly, and others do not seem to know much about it or care to learn. Obviously it would take much more space and time than I have here to discuss the labor theory of value, the nature of surplus value, the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, the causes of business cycles, the epoch of monopoly capital and imperialism (and imperialist wars), as well as the causes of the limited prosperity after World War II and why this had to end. But neither have the critics spent time in expounding what is wrong with these conceptions.
Even integrated into an ecological awareness, these concepts do not lead to specific predictions, comparable to the natural sciences. Over the last decades, I have felt like a geologist who is predicting an eventual huge earthquake in California (the “big one”), and urges people to build more safely—but who cannot predict when the earthquake will occur—in a month, a year, a decade, or many decades. Social predictions are especially uncertain, since, unlike geological strata, classes are composed of people with consciousness and the ability to make choices (“free will”). But it has been possible to say, with reasonable confidence, that social earthquakes are coming.
The alternate view is scientifically nihilistic. It denies that groups of human beings act in repeatable patterns (“laws” or tendencies) about which we may generalize into probabilistic predictions. This belief in unpredictability is consistent with a liberal view: perhaps the state can, after all, be used to end exploitation. Who knows? Perhaps capitalism can peacefully and gradually evolve into libertarian socialism? Supposedly it cannot be predicted otherwise. Unfortunately such views disarm us before capitalist disaster.
Only a Moral Judgment is Required….
This leads into the second argument used against our view. Some say that we do not need to know that capitalism is going to cause catastrophe unless a revolution is made. It is enough, they say, to judge that anarchist-communism would be morally superior to capitalism. Among other anarchists, this view is held by Murray Bookchin and his followers.
I do not deny that libertarian socialism would be better than capitalism as a way for human beings to live and work. I insist on it. I reject any arguments—particularly from Marxists—that it unnecessary to make such a moral evaluation. But a moral argument is not enough, not by itself. It could just as well be used to justify a gradualist, reformist, program—and it often has. Once we have decided on a social goal, for moral reasons, we have to then decide how to reach this goal—by reformism or by revolution. This requires as objective as possible an analysis of how the system operates and what can be done to change it.
To take a revolutionary position requires something more than only moral judgment. It requires a belief that a revolution would not only be good but that it would be necessary. A revolution, even the most nonviolent, would involve mass struggle, suffering, bloodshed, and destruction. It is irresponsible to advocate revolution unless we believe that it is absolutely necessary. Nor would many people join one unless they were convinced that they had to. And they would be right not to.
It is Enough to Know Workers’ Consciousness….
Another argument which was raised also claims that it is not necessary to know the nature of the period or the tendency of capitalism toward self-destruction. What is necessary, this argument says, is to know the level of popular struggle, what issues excite workers, and what a revolutionary minority can do to join in popular struggles.
This argument is not so much wrong as one-sided. There are two possible unilateral positions which a revolutionary minority may take, both wrong. One is know-it-all, feeling that it is sufficient to know that socialist revolution is necessary. Then the revolutionaries go to preach to the unenlightened masses, telling them The Truth. As is well known, this is realistic picture of various sectarians.
The reciprocal error is to start from wherever the people are and build a program only as an elaboration of popular consciousness. It is certainly true that revolutionaries need to know what non-revolutionary workers and oppressed people are thinking. We need to know how to talk to them about our ideas. But we cannot just expand on their current consciousness. Popular consciousness is a very mixed bag, with progressive and reactionary ideas jumbled together. Working people are influenced by many sources, including the mass media, the church, and schools. These inculcate reactionary ideas along with positive beliefs in democracy, freedom, and fairness. Workers develop ideas based on their experiences, which include pushes toward radical consciousness, such as their oppression and their working collectively with others. But they also have experiences which push in other directions, such as job distinctions, some apparently decent jobs, demoralizing overwork or unemployment, etc. All-too-often these lead to racism, conservatism, sexism, superpatriotism, and religious superstition. But these can change drastically and quickly during periods of upheaval.
The revolutionary program cannot be based on workers’ current consciousness. That effort has historically been called “tail-endism” or “rank-and-fileism.” That is the approach, for example, of the US Solidarity group. Rather than sectarianism, in practice this is what is wrong with most of the Left.
Instead, the revolutionary program is based on the objective conditions, which means on the need for a socialist-anarchist revolution. In fact, the socialist-anarchist revolution is the program, the whole of the program. But to express the need for revolution requires breaking it up into specific planks, specific demands, slogans, and proposals. And how to explain these planks, demands, slogans, and proposals is based on the interaction between the objective analysis and popular consciousness. The revolutionary minority must be in a constant dialogue with working people—especially (but not only) with the most militant, active, and radicalized workers and youth.
As brief examples, faced with an assault on workers’ wages and conditions on the job, we should undoubtedly defend the workers’ demands for better pay, no givebacks, better conditions, and union protections—standard reforms. But we also propose that workers should make additional demands: that supposedly unprofitable businesses and industries, instead of be allowed to cut workers’ wages and/or firing workers, should be taken away from the bosses (expropriation) by the state. They should be turned over to the workers and local communities to run democratically. We add that they should not become competitive producers’ cooperatives but should coordinate with each other to create useful products and to improve the environment.
To support workers’ goals, even the most mild reform goals, we support union strikes and boycotts. But we also argue that mass picketing, plant occupations, and general strikes are needed. (And so on.) When and how to say such things depends on circumstances…but they must be said.
This is precisely the issue which divides anarchists and libertarian Marxists into two tendencies, those who believe that revolutionary libertarian socialists should organize themselves into distinct political groups (with clear, revolutionary, programs), and those who want them to dissolve into the broader movement. It is because the program is not simply the sum total of the workers’ demands that a special organization needs to be organized around it. Otherwise, why bother?
A revolutionary approach is a complex interaction of various aspects: objective prediction, moral judgment, necessity, and response to worker’s concerns. Nothing by itself will be enough. Only everything is enough.
References
(1) US-NEFAC (2010). “Nature of the Period; Background and Perspectives”
http://www.anarkismo.net/article/16222
(2) Salzman, Lorna (5/3/2010). “An Open Letter and Appeal to Bill McKibbin and 350.org” Advt. The Nation, v. 290, no. 17; p. 19.
(3) Price, Wayne (5/28/2010). http://www.anarkismo.net/article/16212
(4) Price, Wayne (6/1/2009).
http://www.anarkismo.net/article/13296
(5) Bookchin, Murray (1980). Toward an Ecological Society. Montreal-Buffalo: Black Rose Books.
Foster, John Bellamy (2000). Marx’s Ecology; Materialism and Nature. NY: Monthly Review Press.
written for http://www.anarkismo.net/
Are the Alternatives Really Socialist-Anarchism or Barbarism?
Is a Workers’ Revolution Necessary to Prevent Catastrophe?
Responds to arguments that it is not necessary to show that capitalism leads to social and ecological catastrophe in order to be a revolutionary anarchist.
A statement on the nature of the period and the economic crisis was published by US-NEFAC (US-Northeastern Federation of Anarchist-Communists) (1). It resulted in a lot of discussion on at least one site (e.g., Anarchist Black Cat). While the majority of those who accessed that` site checked that they agreed with the statement mostly or somewhat, most of those who bothered to write a comment expressed varying degrees of disagreement. I am going to summarize the discussion, as I understand it, and make some remarks.
The basic view of the US-NEFAC statement is that capitalism as a world system is not doing too well and will be doing worse in the not-too-distant future. It does not deny the possibilities of short-term improvements, such as a relative recovery from the Great Recession, but it expects that the overall direction of the economy is downhill. There will be no return to the prosperity of the 50s or even of the 90s. Reforms and benefits may yet be won by the people, but over time the workers and oppressed will be faced with the alternatives of revolution or destruction. Without predicting just when there will be widespread reaction, it did expect an eventual popular radicalization and rebellion.
As evidence for the long-term crisis, there has been the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Wars continue, raising the dangers of world war and of a civilization-destroying nuclear war. Also there are deepening ecological and energy crises, especially global warming, which are acknowledged by almost everyone—and which is another aspect of the capitalist crisis.
For example, I happen to have in front of me a statement by the Green activist, Lorna Salzman (not an anarchist or socialist of any kind), who writes, “Expert scientists and scientific bodies now unanimously agree that we have less than ten years to reduce the CO2 concentration to 340 ppm…Beyond this period, irreversible and uncontrollable feedback will occur from disappearing ice sheets, melting permafrost, and ocean warming, reducing biodiversity, destroying coral reefs, acidifying the oceans, raising sea level, and leading inevitably to crises in drinking water, food production, land use, and public health that will cost societies far more than it will cost to mitigate or avoid these impacts” (2). Clearly great suffering is predictable for many people, because industrial capitalism has unbalanced the ecology and cannot repair it.
I am giving a very condensed review of the NEFAC statement’s viewpoint; I expanded on it, from my perspective, in an essay, “Socialism or Barbarism! Anarchism or Annihilation!” (3). Also see my review of a book on the causes of the Great Recession (4). I have argued that we are living through a reassertion of the basic conditions of the epoch of capitalist decay, such as had been apparent to all from 1914 to 1946.
The Future is Unpredictable….
Against this viewpoint, opponents made essentially three arguments. First, it was denied that it was possible to make such predictions with any confidence. Sure, things might get worse, but they also might get better. Who could say? After all the Great Depression and World War II were followed by a prolonged period of relative prosperity, from 1947 to about 1970. Throughout the Cold War, the big imperialists avoided nuclear war. And perhaps the international bourgeoisie will wise up and do something about the environment and energy.
The analysis of the downward slide toward destruction is based on Marxist economics (or, more precisely, on Marx’s critique of political economy). A humanistic, libertarian-democratic, interpretation of Marxism overlaps with class-struggle anarchism. The analysis is also based on the study of ecology and energy, integrated with Marxism and with anarchism (5). Some of our critics reject Marxist economics particularly, and others do not seem to know much about it or care to learn. Obviously it would take much more space and time than I have here to discuss the labor theory of value, the nature of surplus value, the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, the causes of business cycles, the epoch of monopoly capital and imperialism (and imperialist wars), as well as the causes of the limited prosperity after World War II and why this had to end. But neither have the critics spent time in expounding what is wrong with these conceptions.
Even integrated into an ecological awareness, these concepts do not lead to specific predictions, comparable to the natural sciences. Over the last decades, I have felt like a geologist who is predicting an eventual huge earthquake in California (the “big one”), and urges people to build more safely—but who cannot predict when the earthquake will occur—in a month, a year, a decade, or many decades. Social predictions are especially uncertain, since, unlike geological strata, classes are composed of people with consciousness and the ability to make choices (“free will”). But it has been possible to say, with reasonable confidence, that social earthquakes are coming.
The alternate view is scientifically nihilistic. It denies that groups of human beings act in repeatable patterns (“laws” or tendencies) about which we may generalize into probabilistic predictions. This belief in unpredictability is consistent with a liberal view: perhaps the state can, after all, be used to end exploitation. Who knows? Perhaps capitalism can peacefully and gradually evolve into libertarian socialism? Supposedly it cannot be predicted otherwise. Unfortunately such views disarm us before capitalist disaster.
Only a Moral Judgment is Required….
This leads into the second argument used against our view. Some say that we do not need to know that capitalism is going to cause catastrophe unless a revolution is made. It is enough, they say, to judge that anarchist-communism would be morally superior to capitalism. Among other anarchists, this view is held by Murray Bookchin and his followers.
I do not deny that libertarian socialism would be better than capitalism as a way for human beings to live and work. I insist on it. I reject any arguments—particularly from Marxists—that it unnecessary to make such a moral evaluation. But a moral argument is not enough, not by itself. It could just as well be used to justify a gradualist, reformist, program—and it often has. Once we have decided on a social goal, for moral reasons, we have to then decide how to reach this goal—by reformism or by revolution. This requires as objective as possible an analysis of how the system operates and what can be done to change it.
To take a revolutionary position requires something more than only moral judgment. It requires a belief that a revolution would not only be good but that it would be necessary. A revolution, even the most nonviolent, would involve mass struggle, suffering, bloodshed, and destruction. It is irresponsible to advocate revolution unless we believe that it is absolutely necessary. Nor would many people join one unless they were convinced that they had to. And they would be right not to.
It is Enough to Know Workers’ Consciousness….
Another argument which was raised also claims that it is not necessary to know the nature of the period or the tendency of capitalism toward self-destruction. What is necessary, this argument says, is to know the level of popular struggle, what issues excite workers, and what a revolutionary minority can do to join in popular struggles.
This argument is not so much wrong as one-sided. There are two possible unilateral positions which a revolutionary minority may take, both wrong. One is know-it-all, feeling that it is sufficient to know that socialist revolution is necessary. Then the revolutionaries go to preach to the unenlightened masses, telling them The Truth. As is well known, this is realistic picture of various sectarians.
The reciprocal error is to start from wherever the people are and build a program only as an elaboration of popular consciousness. It is certainly true that revolutionaries need to know what non-revolutionary workers and oppressed people are thinking. We need to know how to talk to them about our ideas. But we cannot just expand on their current consciousness. Popular consciousness is a very mixed bag, with progressive and reactionary ideas jumbled together. Working people are influenced by many sources, including the mass media, the church, and schools. These inculcate reactionary ideas along with positive beliefs in democracy, freedom, and fairness. Workers develop ideas based on their experiences, which include pushes toward radical consciousness, such as their oppression and their working collectively with others. But they also have experiences which push in other directions, such as job distinctions, some apparently decent jobs, demoralizing overwork or unemployment, etc. All-too-often these lead to racism, conservatism, sexism, superpatriotism, and religious superstition. But these can change drastically and quickly during periods of upheaval.
The revolutionary program cannot be based on workers’ current consciousness. That effort has historically been called “tail-endism” or “rank-and-fileism.” That is the approach, for example, of the US Solidarity group. Rather than sectarianism, in practice this is what is wrong with most of the Left.
Instead, the revolutionary program is based on the objective conditions, which means on the need for a socialist-anarchist revolution. In fact, the socialist-anarchist revolution is the program, the whole of the program. But to express the need for revolution requires breaking it up into specific planks, specific demands, slogans, and proposals. And how to explain these planks, demands, slogans, and proposals is based on the interaction between the objective analysis and popular consciousness. The revolutionary minority must be in a constant dialogue with working people—especially (but not only) with the most militant, active, and radicalized workers and youth.
As brief examples, faced with an assault on workers’ wages and conditions on the job, we should undoubtedly defend the workers’ demands for better pay, no givebacks, better conditions, and union protections—standard reforms. But we also propose that workers should make additional demands: that supposedly unprofitable businesses and industries, instead of be allowed to cut workers’ wages and/or firing workers, should be taken away from the bosses (expropriation) by the state. They should be turned over to the workers and local communities to run democratically. We add that they should not become competitive producers’ cooperatives but should coordinate with each other to create useful products and to improve the environment.
To support workers’ goals, even the most mild reform goals, we support union strikes and boycotts. But we also argue that mass picketing, plant occupations, and general strikes are needed. (And so on.) When and how to say such things depends on circumstances…but they must be said.
This is precisely the issue which divides anarchists and libertarian Marxists into two tendencies, those who believe that revolutionary libertarian socialists should organize themselves into distinct political groups (with clear, revolutionary, programs), and those who want them to dissolve into the broader movement. It is because the program is not simply the sum total of the workers’ demands that a special organization needs to be organized around it. Otherwise, why bother?
A revolutionary approach is a complex interaction of various aspects: objective prediction, moral judgment, necessity, and response to worker’s concerns. Nothing by itself will be enough. Only everything is enough.
References
(1) US-NEFAC (2010). “Nature of the Period; Background and Perspectives”
http://www.anarkismo.net/article/16222
(2) Salzman, Lorna (5/3/2010). “An Open Letter and Appeal to Bill McKibbin and 350.org” Advt. The Nation, v. 290, no. 17; p. 19.
(3) Price, Wayne (5/28/2010). http://www.anarkismo.net/article/16212
(4) Price, Wayne (6/1/2009).
http://www.anarkismo.net/article/13296
(5) Bookchin, Murray (1980). Toward an Ecological Society. Montreal-Buffalo: Black Rose Books.
Foster, John Bellamy (2000). Marx’s Ecology; Materialism and Nature. NY: Monthly Review Press.
written for http://www.anarkismo.net/
Labels: anarchism, anarchist theory, anarkismo.net, gradualism, Marxism, revolution
