Montreal Against PEGIDA this Saturday / Montréal Contre PEGIDA ce samedi

Print PDF

facebook: http://ift.tt/1iO6eRN

SATURDAY SEPTEMBER 26 AT 1PM
PLACE EMILIE GAMELIN

This Saturday, the fascist scum from PEGIDA are going to try for a second time to march in the streets of Montreal to promote their xenophobic and racist ideas. (http://ift.tt/1iO6ct3).

There is reason to believe that PEGIDA will join the Silent March Against Bill 59 which is happening Saturday at 2pm (http://ift.tt/1QAGYZl).

The RSM-Montreal invited everyone who is concerned by the rise of racism and Islamophobia to meet at 1pm at Place Emilie-Gamelin, the starting point of the Silent March. Let’s take this opportunity to show that there are many of us who oppose these ideas. We will block the path of PEGIDA and their allies if necessary.

¡No pasarán!

** Note that this is not a gathering in support of Bill 59 **

 

 

SAMEDI LE 26 SEPTEMBRE À 13H00
PLACE EMILIE GAMELIN

Samedi prochain, la racaille fasciste de PEGIDA tentera pour une deuxième fois de défiler dans les rues montréalaises pour faire la promotion de ses idées xénophobes et racistes (http://ift.tt/1iO6ct3).

Nous avons de bonnes raisons de croire que PEGIDA prendra part à la Marche du Silence contre le projet de loi 59 prévue samedi à 14H00 (http://ift.tt/1QAGYZl).

Le MER-Montréal invite celles et ceux qui sont préoccupéEs par la montée de l’islamophobie et du racisme à se rassembler dès 13h00 à la place Émilie-Gamelin, point de départ de la Marche du silence. Profitons de cette occasion pour rappeler que nous sommes nombreusEs et nombreux à nous opposer à ces idées. Nous barrerons la route à PEGIDA et à ses alliéEs si nécessaire.

¡No pasarán!

**Notez que ceci n’est pas un rassemblement en appui au controversé Projet de loi 59**

on the main Kersplebedeb website: http://ift.tt/1iO6ct7

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST

Interview with an Antifascist Prisoner in Sweden

Print PDF

Joel is an antifascist prisoner in Sweden. In July 2014, he was sentenced to five and a half years in prison for attempted murder, violent disorder, and carrying an illegal weapon. The sentence followed a collective defense against a Nazi attack on an antifascist demonstration in Stockholm. The interview was conducted in the fall of 2014. Explanatory notes have been added.

You were sentenced in connection with an antifascist demonstration in Kärrtorp, a suburb of Stockholm, in December 2013. Can you tell us about that day?

During the weeks before the demonstration, there had been trouble in Kärrtorp and the neighboring suburbs. The Swedish Resistance Movement (Svenska motståndsrörelsen, SMR) had tried to establish itself in the area. They went through the usual Nazi routine of spraying swastikas on the local school and attacking people who have no place in the world they envision – in some cases with knives.

I’m not sure, but I think Network Line 17 already existed before the demonstration. In any case, it was this network that organized it.¹ There were indications that Nazis might show up to disrupt the event, but when I checked in with people in the morning it seemed that everything was going to be fine. Since there was a solidarity benefit for an imprisoned antifascist the same night, I thought I would only stop by the demonstration for a short while before heading into town to help prepare the evening event. When I got to Kärrtorp with a few friends, we were about ten minutes late.

Five minutes later, the Nazis came.² We saw them from about 200 yards away. Everything became very chaotic; we weren’t prepared and spread out across the square. We also had very little to defend ourselves with. The Nazis began to shower us with bottles. It didn’t seem to matter to them that there were many children and pensioners among us. They advanced onto the square while we retreated.

One of the strongest memories I have from that day is a policewoman standing between us and the Nazis and then suddenly running away. When I read the police report later, I understood that she went to get her helmet because of all the flying bottles, but at the time it felt like this was going to get really dangerous, even life-threatening. Everyone knows how happy SMR members are to use their knives.³

Once the initial confusion was over, we managed to gather and start a counterattack. We stopped the Nazis’ advance but that was not good enough. A front line formed. The police didn’t have a clue what was going on and beat us at least as hard as the Nazis. It was still chaotic, but now we were at least coordinated. We pushed back the Nazis further, and this is when I first saw one of them with a knife. I started heading towards him but lost sight. Meanwhile, the Nazis tried to regain ground. There were serious skirmishes and I saw another Nazi with a knife. If, at that point, the Nazis had gotten the upper hand and one of us had fallen to the ground, it could have been fatal. That’s when the Nazi closest to us got stabbed.

A number of demonstrators who had first left the square now returned. With their help, we managed to push the Nazis from the square to the adjacent bus station, then past some buildings out into the forest. More police arrived only when we were already at the bus station. I had hurt my knee in the melee and didn’t go with the others. Soon, the police shielded off the Nazis and protected them.⁴ I waited for my friends to return to the square, then I went, as planned, into town to help prepare the evening event.

You said that it wasn’t “good enough” to stop the Nazis’ advance. What do you mean by that?

It is important to understand that the Nazis came to attack us. They didn’t come to have a counter-rally, as they claim. Had it been up to them, they would have chased everyone from the square and, ideally, hurt some folks in the process. The attack was not just about preventing people from taking a stand against them, it was also about propaganda. The goal was to prevent any resistance to their recruitment efforts in the area and to use the action itself as a recruitment tool. Anyone who doesn’t understand this, chooses to ignore reality. Kärrtorp isn’t unique, that’s how it works everywhere. If we don’t fight on the streets, where are we going to fight?

I’m digressing, but it’s really important to point out how crucial it was to not only stop them but to chase them out of Kärrtorp. If you want their activities to end, this is needed.

You also mentioned that everyone knows how happy SMR members are to use their knives. Can you give examples?

The readiness of SMR members to use knives is well documented. About a year before the Kärrtorp attack, a person was stabbed to death by SMR members in Vallentuna, just outside of Stockholm. Only a few days before the Kärrtorp attack, someone was severely injured just a few suburbs away. And at least one of the people who murdered the union activist Björn Söderberg (rest in peace) was connected to SMR.⁵ There are more examples, but these should suffice. SMR tries to attract people – mostly young ones – with revolutionary romanticism and a sense of community that builds more on violence than ideology.

When did you get arrested?

About a week later. I was picking up my son from school.

It seems that you’ve been active in Sweden’s antifascist movement for quite some time. Can you tell us a little about this?

I grew up in Linköping during the 1980s and ’90s. Just like in the rest of Sweden and Europe, Nazis were on the rise. In Sweden, the “Laser Man” wreaked havoc, and the band Ultima Thule topped the charts.⁶ Linköping was strongly affected by this. It was a center for the production of White Power music and several leaders of the different Nazi organizations that existed in Sweden at the time were living in or around the town.

I was born in Chile, so I have personally experienced the everyday racism that still exists in Sweden. When I was little, I was physically attacked by Nazis. Once I got older, I started to fight back and defend myself. I realized that this made things much easier for me.

When I was 13 years old, I started going to hardcore punk shows. At the time, the hardcore punk scene was much more political than today. At a gig in 1995, someone asked me if I wanted to travel with him to Denmark to protest a march celebrating the German Nazi Rudolf Hess. I didn’t hesitate a second.

It was during this trip that I really embraced antifascism. I hadn’t known that there was a real antifascist movement out there. Everything in Denmark seemed so organized. There were lots of people from all ages at the demonstration, and this didn’t change even when we got into skirmishes with the police trying to keep us away from the Nazis. You could call it an initiating experience. It took some time before I got organized myself, but it was during this trip that I really understood that I was an antifascist.

Was the antifascist movement in Denmark better organized at the time than in Sweden? Has this changed?

I can’t really say how well antifascists were organized in other parts of Sweden at the time, but in Linköping there was no organization at all, or at least you didn’t notice it. In the late 1990s, however, an extraparliamentary left developed in Linköping as well.

I don’t want to go into details regarding antifascist organizing in Sweden, but once I had gotten involved myself, I noticed that things were really progressing. All aspects improved: research, recruitment, infrastructure. We only dropped the ball in one respect, and that was tactics. While the Nazis experimented successfully with new forms of politics, we didn’t make that leap.

Is the far right a big danger in Sweden? What does the movement look like today?

That depends on how you define the far right. The Sweden Democrats are now the country’s third biggest party. I reckon that is a big threat.⁷ It seems that the political situation in Sweden mirrors that in the rest of Europe. Far-right parties are gaining ground everywhere.

With respect to Nazi organizations, there is little risk that they will enter parliament.⁸ But Nazis will always pose a physical threat to anyone fighting them. Whenever Nazis are left alone, they grow. This is evident if you look at what has happened in Sweden during the last ten years: in towns where antifascists were strong, Nazis pretty much had to abandon their efforts. Those who deny that connection don’t know what they are talking about.

Antifascist activism can sometimes feel tough and unrewarding, but in a town like Örebro, for example, where Nazis were very active just a few years ago, there is now basically no activity at all. Other towns where militant struggle on the street has brought results are Linköping and Gothenburg. For different reasons, Stockholm is a difficult town to work in, but even there Nazis have been pushed back several times.

Internationally, Sweden is still seen as an open and liberal country. How does this go together with the far-right currents that you’re describing?

I think that whenever Nazis go from talk to action, that is, when they kill immigrants or rob banks, it is usually swept under the carpet. And whenever this is not possible – for example in the case of Malexander⁹ or Kärrtorp – the politicians make a big media circus out of it, full of condemnation and outrage. So either Nazis aren’t seen as a problem, or, when they are, the politicians give the impression that they will take care of it.

What are the perspectives for the country’s left?

I assume you mean the extraparliamentary left. Not sure if I’m the right person to ask since I’ll be out of the game for some time, but I think there needs to be better collaboration between different leftist groups and we need to establish more common goals.

Can you give examples for such goals?

I think we should be active in the areas that concern us all, especially in those where the underclass is attacked most heavily – this concerns, for example, the privatization of council flats or precarious labor relations. I also think that it is important to engage in small projects where you can actually experience victories and see that it’s possible to change things. That’s crucial for our morale. A good example was the campaign against JobbJakt.

What was it about?

JobbJakt is a website offering jobs. Some years ago, they wanted to introduce a bidding feature where the person ready to do the job for the lowest wage would get it. So, say, someone wants his bathroom redone, and then one person offers to do it for 150 crowns an hour, another for 100 crowns, etc. This is clearly wage dumping and hostile to the working class. It was important for us not to let such practices take root in Sweden and so we campaigned against the website – successfully.

You’ve been stressing the importance of organization in political work. Can you elaborate on this?

The importance of organization speaks for itself. If we do things together we are stronger. How exactly we are organized is secondary. It can be in a band, a union, a militant group, a pacifist group, a cultural center, a social center, a publishing house, a bookshop, or whatever. It doesn’t need to be die-hard activism either. But it’s important that organizing doesn’t stop with your own project. We need to make use of our movement’s diversity. Networks and umbrella organizations are important. At this point, the extraparliamentary left hardly feels like a movement at all.

What is your personal situation like? As a prisoner, what kind of support do you consider most important?

Right now, I’m at the prison in Kumla waiting for an evaluation. Kumla is a “Class 1 Prison” in Sweden, that is, a maximum security facility. Once the evaluation is done, I will probably be transferred to another maximum security facility.¹⁰

Support? I’d be very happy if more people got active and, especially, organized.

Some final words?

Let me quote Madball: “Times are changing for the worse / Gotta keep a positive outlook / Growing up in such violent times / Have some faith and you’ll get by.”

If you want to send mail to Joel, please check the current address at the Facebook page “Free Joel”.

1. The Network Line 17 (Nätverket Linje 17) is a network of community groups along the southern end of Stockholm’s subway line 17.


2. There were about thirty SMR members involved in the attack.


3. During the attack, there were only about handful of police officers present. Reinforcements took several minutes to arrive.


4. Twenty-eight SMR members were arrested. So far, sixteen have gone to court, seven of whom have been sentenced. The highest sentence so far has been eight months in prison for violent disorder.


5. On September 21, 2012, Joakim Karlsson was murdered in Vallentuna. On December 7, 2013, Fidel Ogu was severely injured in Hökarängen. On October 12, 1999, Björn Söderberg was killed outside his apartment in Sätra in southern Stockholm.


6. From August 1991 to January 1992, the “Laser Man” John Ausonius killed one person, the Iranian student Jimmy Ranjbar, and severely injured ten more in a series of shootings targeting people he considered “foreign” (in the beginning, Ausonius used a rifle with a laser sight, hence the name). Ultima Thule was a popular Swedish rock band with ties to the neo-Nazi milieu.


7. At the 2014 parliamentary elections, the far-right Sweden Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna) received 12.86% of the vote.


8. The Party of the Swedes (Svenskarnas parti), which until recently was called the National Socialist Front (Nationalsocialistisk front), also participated in the elections. It received 0.07% of the vote.


9. On May 28, 1999, two policemen were shot dead by neo-Nazis in the small town of Malexander in southern Sweden following a bank robbery.


10. Shortly after the completion of this interview, Joel was moved to the maximum security prison of Tidaholm. For updates, please see the Facebook page “Free Joel”.

on the main Kersplebedeb website: http://ift.tt/1wswHXW

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST

Not Quite "Ordinary Human Beings"—Anti-imperialism and the anti-humanist rhetoric of Gilad Atzmon

Print PDF

[This is a statement signed by almost one hundred anti-imperialists and organizations denouncing the Israeli-born jazz musician Gilad Atzmon for his antisemitism, and asking our fellow progressives to not promote him or his works. The list of endorsements included here is accurate as of March 9, 2012; an updated list will be maintained on the Three Way Fight blog: http://threewayfight.blogspot.com/p/atzmon-critique_09.html]

Attempting to latch onto the just, vital, and growing movement in support of the Palestinian national liberation struggle, Gilad Atzmon is one of a very small and unrepresentative group of writers who have argued (in agreement with many Zionists) that there is no meaningful distinction to be made between Jews in general and Israeli atrocities. According to Atzmon, the latter are simply a manifestation of Jews’ historic relationship to gentiles, an authentic expression of an essentially racist, immoral, and anti-human “Jewish ideology.”

Atzmon’s statements, besides distorting the history of Jews and constituting a brazen justification for centuries of anti-Jewish behavior and beliefs, also downgrade anti-Zionism to a mere front in the broader (anti-Jewish) struggle. Atzmon has specifically described Zionism not as a form of colonialism or settlerism, but as a uniquely evil ideology unlike anything else in human history. In addition to any ethical problems, this line of argumentation actually strengthens Zionism’s grip and claim to be the authentic representative of Jews. It obscures the reality that Zionism is an imperialist and colonialist enemy of Jewish people and Palestinians, as well as the Arab people generally and all those oppressed and exploited by imperialism.

In his online attack on Moshe Machover, an Israeli socialist and founder of the anti-Zionist group Matzpen, Atzmon states:

Machover’s reading of Zionism is pretty trivial. “Israel,” he says, is a “settler state.” For Machover this is a necessary point of departure because it sets Zionism as a colonialist expansionist project. The reasoning behind such a lame intellectual spin is obvious. As long as Zionism is conveyed as a colonial project, Jews, as a people, should be seen as ordinary people. They are no different from the French and the English, they just happen to run their deadly colonial project in a different time.[1]

For Atzmon, such views are “pretty trivial” and “lame” because he holds that Jews are in fact radically different from the French and the English. Of the many quotes we could provide in this regard, here is a small sampling:[2]

In order to understand Israel’s unique condition we must ask, “who are the Jews? What is Judaism and what is Jewishness?”[3]

Zionism is a continuation of Jewish ideology.[4]

The never-ending robbery of Palestine by Israel in the name of the Jewish people establishes a devastating spiritual, ideological, cultural and, obviously, practical continuum between the Judaic Bible and the Zionist project. The crux of the matter is simple yet disturbing: Israel and Zionism are both successful political systems that put into devastating practice the plunder promised by the Judaic God in the Judaic holy scriptures.[5]

Sadly, we have to admit that hate-ridden plunder of other people’s possessions made it into the Jewish political discourse both on the left and right. The Jewish nationalist would rob Palestine in the name of the right of self-determination, the Jewish progressive is there to rob the ruling class and even international capital in the name of world working class revolution.[6]

Were Jewish Marxists and cosmopolitans open to the notion of brotherhood, they would have given up on their unique, exclusive banners and become ordinary human beings like the rest of us.[7]

I do not consider the Jews to be a race, and yet it is obvious that “Jewishness” clearly involves an ethno centric and racially supremacist, exclusivist point of view that is based on a sense of Jewish “chosen-ness.”[8]

At the most, Israel has managed to mimic some of the appearances of a Western civilisation, but it has clearly failed to internalise the meaning of tolerance and freedom. This should not take us by surprise: Israel defines itself as a Jewish state, and Jewishness is, sadly enough, inherently intolerant; indeed, it may be argued that Jewish intolerance is as old as the Jews themselves.[9]

Israel and Zionism then, has proved to be a short lived dream. It was initiated to civilise Jewish life, and to dismantle the Jewish self-destructive mode. It was there to move the Jew into the post-herem[10] phase. It vowed to make the Jew into a productive being. But as things turned out, neither the Zionists nor the “anti Zionists” managed to drift away from the disastrous herem culture. It seems that the entire world of Jewish identity politics is a matrix of herems and exclusion strategies. In order to be “a proper Jew,” all you have to do is to point out whom you oppose, hate, exclude or boycott.[11]

The conclusion to such views is not difficult to draw:

The endless trail of Jewish collective tragedies is there to teach us that Jews always pay eventually (and heavily) for Jewish power exercises. Yet, surprisingly (and tragically) enough, Jews somehow consistently fail to internalise and learn from that very lesson.[12]

More precisely, commenting on the climax of State violence directed at Jews in the 1930s, most famously by Germany, but also in most other European nations, Atzmon is clear:

The remarkable fact is they don't understand why the world is beginning to stand against them in the same way they didn't understand why the Europeans stood against them in the 1930s. Instead of asking why we are hated they continue to toss accusations on others.[13]

Within the discourse of Jewish politics and history there is no room for causality. There is no such a thing as a former and a latter. Within the Jewish tribal discourse every narrative starts to evolve when Jewish pain establishes itself. This obviously explains why Israelis and some Jews around the world can only think as far as “two state solution” within the framework of 1967 borders. It also explains why for most Jews the history of the holocaust starts in the gas chambers or with the rise of the Nazis. I have hardly seen any Israelis or Jews attempt to understand the circumstances that led to the clear resentment of Europeans towards their Jewish neighbors in the 1920’s-40’s.[14]

It is, as such, not surprising that Atzmon’s work has received enthusiastic reviews by such prominent members of the racist right as former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, Kevin MacDonald of the Occidental Observer, David Icke, and Arthur Topham’s the Radical Press. It should not be surprising that Atzmon has distributed articles defending Holocaust deniers and those who write of “the Hitler we loved and why.”[15] These connections ultimately serve the interests of Zionism, which seeks to conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Jewishness. Zionist agents have repeatedly attempted to ensnare and link Palestinian, Arab, and/or Muslim rights advocates to Neo-Nazism, through dirty tricks and outright lies.

It is more surprising and disappointing, then, that a small section of the left has opted to promote Atzmon and his works. In the UK, the Socialist Workers Party promoted Atzmon for several years before finally breaking with him; his latest book The Wandering Who? has been published by the left-wing Zero Books (a decision that elicited a letter of protest from several Zero authors).[16] In the United States, the widely-read Counterpunch website has repeatedly chosen to run articles by Atzmon. Currently, in February and March 2012, Atzmon is on tour in North America, where several of his speaking engagements are being organized by progressive anti-imperialists who we would normally like to consider our allies.

While perhaps well-meaning, operating under the assumption that any opposition to Zionism is to be welcomed, progressives who promote the work of Atzmon are in fact surrendering the moral high ground by encouraging a belief-system that simply mirrors that of the most racist section of Israeli society. Anti-racism is not a liability; on the contrary, it is a principle that makes our movements stronger in the long fight for a better tomorrow.

As political activists committed to resisting colonialism and imperialism—in North America and around the world—we recognize that there can be different interpretations of history, and we welcome exploring these. Without wishing to debate the question of whether far-right and racist ideologues should be censored, or how, we see no reason for progressive people to organize events to promote their works.

In our struggle against Zionism, racism, and all forms of colonialism and imperialism, there is no place for antisemitism or the vilification of Jews, Palestinians or any people based on their religions, cultures, nationalities, ethnicity or history. At this historic junction—when the need to struggle for the liberation of Palestine is more vital than ever and the fault lines of capitalist empire are becoming more widely exposed—no anti-oppressive revolution can be built with ultra-right allies or upon foundations friendly to creeping fascism.

As'ad AbuKhalil, The Angry Arab News Service, Turlock, CA

Suha Afyouni, solidarity activist, Beirut, LEBANON

Max Ajl, essayist, rabble-rouser, proprietor of Jewbonics blog site, Ithaca, NY

Haifaa Al-Moammar, activist, stay-at-home mom, and marathon walker, Los Angeles, CA

Electa Arenal, professor emerita, CUNY Graduate Center/Hispanic & Luso-Brazilian Literatures and Women's Studies, New York, NY

Gabriel Ash, International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, Geneva, SWITZERLAND

Joel Beinin, Donald J. McLachlan Professor of History, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA

Dan Berger, Wild Poppies Collective, Philadelphia, PA

Chip Berlet, Boston, MA

Nazila Bettache, activist, Montréal, CANADA

Sam Bick, Tadamon!, Immigrant Workers Center, Montréal, Québec

Max Blumenthal, author; writing fellow, The Nation, New York, NY

Lenni Brenner, author, Zionism in the Age of the Dictators, New York, NY

Café Intifada

Paola Canarutto, Rete-ECO (Italian Network of Jews against the Occupation), Torino, ITALY

Paulette d’Auteuil, National Jericho Movement, Albuquerque, NM

Susie Day, Monthly Review, New York, NY

Ali Hocine Dimerdji, PhD student at The University of Nottingham, in Nottingham, UK

Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, professor emerita, California State University

Todd Eaton, Park Slope Food Coop Members for Boycott/Divestment/Sanctions, Brooklyn, NY

S. EtShalom, registered nurse, Philadelphia, PA

Benjamin Evans, solidarity activist, Chicago, IL

First of May Anarchist Alliance

Sherna Berger Gluck, professor emerita, California State University/Israel Divestment Campaign, CA

Neta Golan, International Solidarity Movement

Tony Greenstein, Secretary Brighton Unemployed Centre/UNISON, Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods, Brighton, UK

Andrew Griggs, Café Intifada, Los Angeles, CA

Jenny Grossbard, artist, designer, writer and fighter, New York, NY

Freda Guttman, activist, Montréal, CANADA

Adam Hanieh, lecturer, Department of Development Studies/SOAS, University of London, UK

Swaneagle Harijan, anti-racism, social justice activism, Seattle, WA

Sarah Hawas, researcher and solidarity activist, Cairo, EGYPT

Stanley Heller, "The Struggle" Video News, moderator "Jews Who Speak Out"

Mostafa Henaway, Tadamon!, Immigrant Workers Center, Montréal, CANADA

Elise Hendrick, Meldungen aus dem Exil/Noticias de una multipátrida, Cincinnati, OH

Doug Henwood, Left Business Observer, New York, NY

Ken Hiebert, activist, Ladysmith, CANADA

Elizabeth Horowitz, solidarity activist, New York, NY

Adam Hudson, writer/blogger, San Francisco Bay Area, CA

Dhruv Jain, Researcher at the Jan Van Eyck Academie and PhD student at York University, Paris, FRANCE

Tom Keefer, an editor of the journal Upping the Anti, Toronto, CANADA

Karl Kersplebedeb, Left Wing Books, Montréal, CANADA

Anne Key, Penrith, Cumbria, UK

Mark Klein, activist, Toronto, CANADA

Bill Koehnlein, Brecht Forum, New York, NY

L.A. Palestine Labor Solidarity Committee, Los Angeles, CA

Mark Lance, Georgetown University/Institute for Anarchist Studies, Washington, DC

David Landy, author, Jewish Identity and Palestinian Rights: Diaspora Jewish Opposition to Israel, Dublin, IRELAND

Bob Lederer, Pacifica/WBAI producer, Queers Against Israeli Apartheid, New York, NY

Matthew Lyons, Three Way Fight, Philadelphia, PA

Karen MacRae, solidarity activist, Toronto, CANADA

Heba Farouk Mahfouz, student activist, blogger, Cairo, EGYPT

Marvin Mandell and Betty Reid Mandell, co-editors, New Politics, West Roxbury, MA

Ruth Sarah Berman McConnell, retired teacher, DeLand, FL

Kathleen McLeod, poet, Brisbane, Australia

Karrie Melendres, Los Angeles, CA

Matt Meyer, Resistance in Brooklyn, New York, NY

Amirah Mizrahi, poet and educator, New York, NY

mesha Monge-Irizarry, co-director of Education Not Incarceration; SF MOOC City commissioner, San Francisco, CA

Matthew Morgan-Brown, solidarity activist, Ottawa, CANADA

Michael Novick, People Against Racist Terror/Anti-Racist Action, Los Angeles, CA

Saffo Papantonopoulou, New School Students for Justice in Palestine, New York, NY

Susan Pashkoff, Jews Against Zionism, London, UK

Tom Pessah, UC Berkeley Students for Justice in Palestine, Berkeley, CA

Marie-Claire Picher, Theater of the Oppressed Laboratory (TOPLAB), New York, NY

Sylvia Posadas (Jinjirrie), Kadaitcha, Noosa, AUSTRALIA

Roland Rance, Jews Against Zionism, London, UK

Danielle Ratcliff, San Francisco, CA

Liz Roberts, War Resisters League, New York, NY

Emma Rosenthal, contributor, Shifting Sands: Jewish Women Confront the Israeli Occupation, Los Angeles, CA

Penny Rosenwasser, PhD, Oakland, CA

Suzanne Ross, Free Mumia Abu-Jamal Coalition, The Riverside Church Prison Ministry, New York, NY

Gabriel San Roman, Orange County Weekly, Orange County, CA

Ian Saville, performer and lecturer, London, UK

Joel Schwartz, CSEA retiree/AFSCME, New York, NY

Tali Shapiro, Anarchists Against the Wall, Boycott From Within, Tel Aviv, OCCUPIED PALESTINE

Simona Sharoni, SUNY, author, Gender & the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Plattsburgh, NY

Jaggi Singh, No One Is Illegal-Montreal/Solidarity Across Borders, Montréal, CANADA

Michael S. Smith, board member, Center for Constitutional Rights, New York, NY

Pierre Stambul, Union juive française pour la paix (French Jewish Union for Peace), Paris, FRANCE

Muffy Sunde, Los Angeles, CA

Bhaskar Sunkara, editor of Jacobin, Bronx, NY

Tadamon! (http://www.tadamon.ca/), Montréal, CANADA

Ian Trujillo, atheist, Los Angeles, CA

Gabriella Turek, PhD, Auckland, NEW ZEALAND

Henry Walton, SEIU, retired, Los Angeles, CA

Bill Weinberg, New Jewish Resistance, New York, NY

Abraham Weizfeld, author, The End of Zionism and the liberation of the Jewish People, Montreal, CANADA

Ben White, author, Palestinians in Israel: Segregation, Discrimination, and Democracy, Cambridge, UK

Laura Whitehorn, former political prisoner, NYS Task Force on Political Prisoners, New York, NY

Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, founding member, Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods (J-BIG)

Asa Winstanley, journalist for Electronic Intifada, Al-Akhbar and others, London, UK

Ziyaad Yousef, solidarity activist

* List in formation

* Organizations listed for identification purposes only

* Contact us at: antiracistantizionist@yahoo.com

Postscript:

This text is not intended as a comprehensive critique of Gilad Atzmon's politics. It was written quickly by some North American anti-imperialists who learned of Atzmon's 2012 speaking tour just days before it was to begin in late February 2012. At first it was thought it would be signed by just a few people, but the initiative quickly took on a life of its own, being posted to the web and to multiple listservs, discussed via email and on Facebook, and elsewhere, even before the wording had been finalized or a decision had been made as to how to use it (the initial assumption had been that it would be passed on to organizers with far less fanfare). Instead of a few signatures, within a week there were dozens, and emails continue to arrive from people wishing to sign on. We believe that this speaks to the deep frustration that many of us feel when confronted with Atzmon's anti-Jewish beliefs, which constitute an affront to our anti-racist principles, as well as a distraction from the essential tasks of opposing colonialist genocide and Israeli apartheid. What this response makes clear is that for many anti-imperialists, opposing such racism remains essential to building a movement against imperialism and the myriad forms of oppression that both feed on and are fed by it.

Any subsequent news or information about this initiative will appear here on the Three Way Fight website (threewayfight.blogspot.com). Those wishing to endorse or discuss this initiative, or for more information, should email antiracistantizionist@yahoo.com. We wish to reiterate that we consider many of those promoting Atzmon's work to be allies, but would ask that they reconsider their decision to do so. This is not a call for censorship, but for consistency and accountability.

---

[1] Gilad Atzmon, "Tribal Marxism for Dummies," originally published in June 2009, republished on his Web site on April 24, 2011.

[2] Many more quotes like these could be provided, but we assume this is enough to show that these are not out-of-context or out-of-character remarks. If not, readers may wish to peruse the section of Atzmon’s website on “Jewishness” at <www.gilad.co.uk/writings/category/jewishness>.

[3] Gilad Atzmon, "Tribal Marxism for Dummies," Atlantic Free Press, July 2, 2009.

[4] Anayat Durrani, "Exposing Dangerous Myths," Interview with Gilad Atzmon, originally published in Al-Ahram Weekly (May 19-25, 2011), republished on Atzmon's Web site on May 19, 2011.

[5] Gilad Atzmon, "Swindler's List: Zionist Plunder and the Judaic Bible," Redress Information & Analysis, April 5, 2008.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Gilad Atzmon, "An Interesting Exchange With A Jewish Anti Zionist," Atzmon's Web site, August 17, 2011.

[9] Gilad Atzmon, "The Herem Law in the context of Jewish Past and Present," Atzmon's Web site, July 16, 2011.

[10] “Herem” is a Hebrew word that refers to banning or excluding someone, it is also the name of the repressive legislation Israel recently passed to enable punitive lawsuits against those calling for a boycott of the apartheid state. For Atzmon, this law is just one more example of Zionism’s Jewish uniqueness (guess he never heard of SLAPPs), as he concludes that “this is what Jews do best: destroying, excluding, excommunicating, silencing, boycotting, sanctioning. After all, Jews have been doing this for centuries.”

[11] Ibid.

[12] Gilad Atzmon, "A Warning From The Past," Atzmon's Web site, May 26, 2011.

[13] Quoted in Shabana Syed, "Time for World to Confront Israel: Gilad Atzmon," Arab News, June 14, 2010.

[14] Gilad Atzmon, "Jewish Ideology and World Peace," Atzmon's Web site, June 7, 2010.

[15] Tony Greenstein, "Bookmarks & Invitation to Gilad Atzmon & Holocaust Denial," JustPeaceUK, Yahoo! Groups, June 9, 2005.

[16] "Zero Authors' Statement on Gilad Atzmon," Lenin's Tomb, September 26, 2011.

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST

News and Analyses from BASICS Community News Service

Print PDF

BASICS is newspaper put out by some revolutionaries in Toronto, with a popular and working class orientation.  Would definitely say it's worth checking out... material from the latest issue is going up online, here's a list of some of the pieces:

• OPERATION ‘PROFUNC’: Canada’s Plans to Intern 16,000 Communists, 50,000 Sympathizers - by Steve da Silva
• Development for whom? - by Marco Luciano, Migrante Ontario
• Open Letter - reject Barrick Gold's involvement in Latin American 'leadership' event - by Hassan Reyes, Barrio Nuevo
• Students and Communities Lose out on Access to Campus Space
• French Pension Reforms Imposed, Despite Largest Strikes in 40 Years - by Steve da Silva
• Play Review: Not By Our Tears by R. Cheran  - by Nayani Thiyagarajah

Also, be sure to listen to this important discussion on Radio Basics (November 22, 2010), about Fascism and Anti-Fascism in Canada Today, including a discussion with a victim of a recent Nazi home invasion. Anti-Racist Action member Jason Devine is interviewed about the home invasion he suffered at the hands of neo-Nazis on the night of Nov 7-8, while his four children and wife were in the house. The Nazi thugs beat him and another friend with bats, hammers, and other blunt weapons. Includes a discussion of fascist and anti-fascist politics across Canada and throughout history.


The hardcopy of Issue #24 is coming out in early December. To help with community distribution, please contact them at basics.canada@gmail.com.

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST

Fundamentalism, feminism and anti-fascism

Print PDF

The following of interest from the london anarcha feminist koelektiv:

June saw the fascist and undeniably opportunistic English Defence League (EDL) announce plans to march through Whitechapel in apparent protest at a planned United Kingdom – Islamic Conference (UK-IC) at the Troxy Centre, a conference which would see extreme Islamic fundamentalist speakers espousing their hate of Jews, women and homosexuals. Past years have witnessed the growth of Saudi-funded political Islam in Tower Hamlets, oppressing local Muslim communities and destroying Asian cultures, promoting repression of women, and beginning to dominate the local authority.

The rise in religious fundamentalism, whatever the religion may be, poses a serious and very real threat to women, who are seen as crucial in representing and transmitting the supposedly unchanging morals and traditions of the whole community. Women who fail to conform to so-called traditional family values are portrayed as placing the honour, well-being and future of the whole society or community at risk. The control of women’s minds and bodies is, therefore, at the heart of fundamentalist agendas everywhere and is something that must be challenged.

In the run up to that Sunday in Whitechapel, women’s bodies became a battleground on which both sides fought. “They (Muslims) want all women in burqhas” proclaimed the EDL and “we’re not fascist, we’ve got a LGBT division, we just care about the wimmin”. Anti-EDL groups and individuals also used women in their ideological battle; rumours were circulated that local Muslim women had been attacked and raped by the EDL, resulting in a large angry turn-out when the EDL youth division came for a “quiet” drink in Whitechapel.

A group called Women Against Fascism in their call-out on Indymedia for the mobilisation against the EDL, recognised how women are used in this battle without challenging these pervasive paternalistic attitudes to women. “The women who are against fascism are the friends, girlfriends, wives, sisters, aunties, grandmothers and mothers of young men who feel that they are being provoked into violence by the EDL. Boys of school age feel that they have to defend their mothers and sisters etc from the EDL who want to demonstrate in Whitechapel.” Their call-out made no mention of the UK- IC speakers.

Unite Against Fascism also concentrated solely on the EDL in their mobilisations against the far-right, ignoring the woman-hating, homophobic ideology of the right-wing Islamists and calling all those who pointed out the bigotry of the UK-IC speakers, and the need to oppose both sides equally, including anarchists, as islamaphobic and racist.

The UK-IC conference was thankfully cancelled and the EDL called off their planned demonstration in the area. The UAF still marched, unsurprisingly refusing to critique or even acknowledge the fundamentalism of the UK-IC or the right-wing islamist ideology of some of those who marched with them.

The EDL are a serious threat. Fascism must be challenged and stopped, but we cannot do this at the expense of challenging those with fundamentalist agendas. Fundamentalism and fascism both deserve our contempt, and this is the position that anarchists must take.

Class struggle, community cohesion and militant physical opposition are the only effective means to repel fascism and the conditions in which it flourishes and this may mean making political alliances with those who we consider to be religious moderates or even conservative secularists. But how do we as feminists/ anarchists navigate the awkward space between our secular views and those of even moderate religious persuasion? Paternalistic, misogynistic attitudes to women and homophobia are not just confined to realm of religious fundamentalism, it is unfortunately prevalent across all sections of society, including among those who consider themselves moderates, progressives or secular. Can we really, as anarchist women, work with and ally ourselves with those who have anti-woman, anti-queer attitudes, traditions and practices even if it is with the purpose of coming together as working class people to fight fascism?

Perhaps we need to use these times when we do connect with our neighbours over a common enemy despite religious, cultural or political differences, to raise our concerns about and contempt of misogyny, racism and homophobia, as well as pushing an anti-capitalist class-based critique of the state. In this battle against fascism, we must take care that we do not reinforce or accommodate patriarchal attitudes and so must confidently encourage dialogue that confronts and challenges the sometimes anti-women, anti-queer attitudes of even moderate people of faith and secularists.

.

Now is the time for discussion on fundamentalism and fascism and how we can organise and oppose both in an anti-sexist, inclusive way. Feminists must, while fighting all forms of religious fundamentalism, develop targeted feminist campaigns to take on the growth of political Islam and its misogyny, authoritarianism and distortion of the genuine variety of Muslim cultures. We must provide young people with alternatives–feminist, anarchist, secular and participatory–to the great big reactionary mosques and synagogues and churches. In our fight against fascism, we’ve got to be prepared to take on all forms of religious fundamentalism and manifestations of misogyny in everyday life.

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST

Free Jock Palfreeman

Print PDF

Comrades in europe have asked me to pass this on:

Jock Palfreeman is a 23 year old Australian who had the courage to stand up against 16 Nazis on a night out in Sofia, Bulgaria. He witnessed the fascists chasing and attacking two young Roma boys. Jock ran to the boys' aid, he did his best to keep the Nazis at bay by waving a knife at them but they attacked him. Jock was left with nowhere to run and had no choice but to defend himself. One of the Nazis was stabbed and killed and another was injured. The Roma boys ran away.

Jock has since been tried and sentenced for murder and attempted murder. He has been sentenced to 20 years imprisonment and has been fined £220,000. [More details of his case can be found at www.freejock.net.]

Jock has its appeal on 21st of October- it is his only chance to walk free. We need to do everything we can in order to get him out of there. An international Day of Action for Jock on has been called on the 19th. If you can organise an event in your area please contact: anarchosolidarity@yahoo.com .

It is also of vital importance to keep up the pressure with protest messages and smaller actions up till this time. Please distribute this call widely, put it on your blogs, websites, forums, email lists.

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST

Antifa Activist Shot in Portland

Print PDF

Shortly after midnight on Saturday, March 27, a man was brutally attacked in the heart of downtown Portland. His attacker shot him and left him lying in the street. He is currently in the Intensive Care Unit in an area hospital, fighting to overcome extensive injuries.

It is no secret that this man, Luke Querner, is a long-time anti-fascist activist. He has devoted over a decade of his life to opposing the most vicious elements of our city’s white supremacist movement. Rose City Antifascists, the Portland chapter of the Anti-Racist Action Network, believe that the local neo-Nazis whom Luke has opposed for years attempted to murder him on Saturday morning.

Luke is proud to be an anti-racist skinhead. The true skinhead movement has always been anti-racist, tracing its origins to the cultural intersection of Jamaican immigrants and working class whites in England during the 1960s. After racists and the far-Right attempted to hijack the skinhead movement in the late 1970s and ‘80s, a movement known as SkinHeads Against Racial Prejudice (SHARP) emerged in 1987 to reaffirm the anti-racist roots of the subculture. As with many other anti-racist skins, Luke is deeply committed to racial equality and social justice. This commitment has caused Luke to be targeted in the past.

Rose City Antifa believes that the most recent attack was planned and committed by an element within Portland’s neo-Nazi underground. This is the most logical explanation for such a vicious act, for several reasons:

1. Local neo-Nazi organizations and cliques have the capability to carry out such an act. Several organizations, including the Portland-centered Volksfront International, are tightly-organized, disciplined, and command significant loyalty from adherents and sympathizers. Their members have experience committing violent acts, including murder.

2. Luke was a prime enemy of organized racists. Luke and his community have been violently targeted by Volksfront in the past. The recent shooting echoes the sentiments expressed in the song “SHARP Shooter” by the old Volksfront-affiliated rock band, Jew Slaughter.

3. Local fascist groups have spent recent months uniting despite organizational differences. Volksfront as well as National Socialist Movement affiliates hosted a series of social events that have likely emboldened individual fascists. One recent point of unity between local neo-Nazi cliques and groups—whether they be Volksfront, the Northwest Front, the National Socialist Movement or Hammerskins—has been common targeting of anti-racists and the Left.

4. Given the overall resurgence of the radical Right in recent years (see Southern Poverty Law Center report), neo-Nazis have expressed more urgency in their propaganda, expecting a race war in the near future.

Luke is an entrenched and beloved figure in the anti-racist community and well known by local fascists. Saturday’s shooting was an intentional message that those standing up for equality are in mortal danger.

Portland has a long, violent history of racist organizing that continues to this day. In the late 1980s, Portland became notorious as a hotbed of white supremacist activity. Many organizations, such as the Aryan Nations, declared the Pacific Northwest to be a future white homeland. The groups that would go on to comprise Volksfront and other formations, swelled in numbers. The 1988 murder of Ethiopian student Mulugeta Seraw and trial of the three neo-Nazi culprits represented the high water mark of Nazi terror at that point. Concerted community efforts, as well as a high-profile civil suit, drove many local neo-Nazis underground. Unfortunately some of these white supremacists are still here, always struggling to re-emerge.

The attempted killing also reminds us of the 1998 executions of Lin "Spit" Newborn and Dan Shersty--who were also anti-racist skinheads--by neo-Nazis in the desert outside of Las Vegas, Nevada.

Rose City Antifa believes that this shooting is of particular significance, representing a neo-Nazi attempt to reclaim the streets and apply their white supremacist agenda through force and terror. This seems to be tied to the larger context of a nationwide mobilization of the radical Right.

We criticize the Portland Police response to this tragic attack, which appears to be further victimizing the survivor and his community. This police approach reflects the Department’s institutional biases regarding race and racial hate, apparent in the recent police bean-bag shotgun assault on a 12-year-old African American girl, and their killing of an unarmed African American man two months ago. Despite the fact that Luke’s shooting was an unprovoked attack with a fairly obvious motive, the police appear to be treating the victim as the problem. The police released Luke’s name to the media on the Sunday after the shooting, in total disregard for his safety and security.

We feel it is extremely important to clarify the nature of this situation, given that the information released so far has generally situated this event in the same category as an unrelated shooting about 50 minutes earlier in Portland, reportedly related to violence between rival gangs. Treating Luke’s shooting as a gang related event obscures the political implications of the attack, and utterly misses the point. The racist overtones of much of the online commentary on the coverage is particularly appalling given that Luke was someone that spent his entire adult life fighting white supremacy. Portland Anti-Racist Action vigorously challenges any assumptions that the ambush was performed by people of color, which may have been suggested by prior media coverage. This was not a fight that got out of hand. There was no fight. It was an assassination attempt.

Luke is currently looking at a mountain of medical bills. The Anti-Racist Action Network is currently hosting benefits from coast to coast to raise funds. In addition, the ARA network has set up a PayPal account to send Luke donations.

As always, Rose City Antifa is looking for any and all information related to fascist organizing in our town. Contact us at fight_them_back@riseup.net or leave a voice mail message at 971.533.7832. We will not rest until we see some measure of justice for Luke.

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST

Police Infiltrating Militant Anti-Fascists in UK

Print PDF

Revelations of cop who infiltrated Youth Against Racism in Europe during the 1993-1997 period - he engaged in violence alongside antifa, had sex with his antifa "targets", and eventually became a leading figure in various campaigns.

As this pig brags today, "My role was to provide intelligence about protests and demonstrations, particularly those that had the potential to become violent. In doing so, the campaigns I was associated with lost much of their effectiveness, a factor that ultimately hastened their demise."

During the 1990s there was lively debate on this side of the Atlantic about the degree to which antifa should cooperate with police and the state. During the Clinton administration there was a mass far right mobilization - the militia movement - and some people felt that "we" should work with the state against the fascists, as the lesser of two evils.

While it differs as to who the ostensible immediate targets were, the so-called "Grant Bristow Affair" in Canada already provided ample proof of the state's involvement in attacks on antifa here. And across this continent there continue to be numerous examples of heavily-funded "antiracism experts" (think SPLC) who openly advertise their function as auxiliary political police - and during the current era of far-right "tea party" mobilizations, these state allies are receiving a hearing in some quarters where folks should know better.

But this most recent case provides a stark example of even anti-state, anti-capitalist comrades being infiltrated and manipulated by the police -- and it would be ridiculous to assume that "Officer A" in England did not have his parallels in North America. While there is no way to guarantee that one will not be targeted and neutralized by such "deep cover" agents, their open existence should put to rest naive ideas of "working with the police" (hate crimes units, etc.) against the fascists. If the capitalist state is "anti-fascist", its antifascism is of a completely different sort than out own, and stands in direct opposition to us. Any cooperation simply increased our vulnerability.


The complete story, from The Guardian (be sure to also check out this chilling television clip):

An officer from a secretive unit of the Metropolitan police has given a chilling account of how he spent years working undercover among anti-racist groups in Britain, during which he routinely engaged in violence against members of the public and uniformed police officers to maintain his cover.

During his tour of duty, the man – known only as Officer A – also had sexual relations with at least two of his female targets as a way of obtaining intelligence. So convincing was he in his covert role that he quickly rose to become branch secretary of a leading anti-racist organisation that was believed to be a front for Labour's Militant tendency.

"My role was to provide intelligence about protests and demonstrations, particularly those that had the potential to become violent," he said. "In doing so, the campaigns I was associated with lost much of their effectiveness, a factor that ultimately hastened their demise."

His deployment, which lasted from 1993 to 1997, ended amid fears that his presence and role within groups protesting about black deaths in police custody and bungled investigations into racist murders would be revealed during the public inquiry by Sir William Macpherson into the death of south London teenager Stephen Lawrence.

His decision to tell his story to the Observer provides the most detailed account of the shadowy and controversial police unit that has provided intelligence from within political and protest movements for more than four decades. He believes the public should be able to make an informed decision about whether such covert activities are necessary, given their potential to curtail legitimate protest movements.

Officer A – with a long ponytail, angry persona and willingness to be educated in the finer points of Trotskyist ideology – was never suspected by those he befriended of being a member of the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS), a secret unit within Special Branch, whose job is to prevent violent public disorder on the streets of the capital. Known as the "hairies" due to the fact that its members do not have to abide by usual police regulations about their appearance, the unit consists of 10 full-time undercover operatives who are given new identities, and provided with flats, vehicles and "cover" jobs while working in the field for up to five years at a time.

The unit has been credited with preventing bloodshed on numerous occasions by using intelligence to pre-empt potentially violent situations. Unlike regular undercover officers, members of the SDS do not have to gather evidence with a view to prosecuting their targets. This enables them to witness and even engage in criminal activity without fear of disciplinary action or compromising a subsequent court case.

Officer A joined the SDS in 1993 after two years in Special Branch. It was a time of heightened tension between the extreme left and right and almost every weekend saw clashes between the likes of the Anti-Nazi League, Youth Against Racism, the British National party and the National Front. The SDS is believed to have infiltrated all such organisations.

During Officer A's time undercover, all 10 covert SDS operatives would meet to share intelligence about forthcoming demonstrations. The information was used to plan police responses to counter the threat of the demonstration getting out of control.

A key success for Officer A came just two weeks into his deployment during a demonstration against the BNP-run bookshop in Welling, south-east London. His intelligence revealed that the protest was to be far larger than thought and that a particularly violent faction was planning to storm the bookshop and set fire to it.

As a result of intelligence provided by Officer A, police leave was cancelled for that weekend and, despite violent clashes, the operation was deemed to be a success for the Met. The then commissioner, Sir Paul Condon, met the members of the SDS to thank them.

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST

Words to the Misguided

Print PDF

A nice appeal to those who find themselves attracted to the patriot movement, care of Phoenix Class War Council:

As it now stands, much of the patriot movement demands not an end to fascism, but an exemption from the fascism that it demands for others.

To read the whole post, click here.

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST

Antifascism and Violence

Print PDF

These thoughts are provoked by a number of recent incidents: the assault on Sofia Papazoglou in Greece, bricks thrown through the windows of anti-racists in Bridgeland, Alberta, threats from Blood and Honour boneheads against Barricade Books in Australia, an autonomist youth center burned down by neo-nazis in Germany, as well as the successful dwarfing of a four-person (!) neo-nazi "rally" in the Twin Cities ... the list goes on. i don't think it's so much a sign of an upsurge in actual activity - though the combination of a Democrat in the whitest house and the economic crisis has pushed public discourse to the right in the u.s. - as it is a random upsurge in what's been coming into my email inbox.

Still, worth commenting on.

The main thing that sets antifascist work apart is the question of violence. This question is in the background of all our movements, but in the case of antifascism it is front and center right from the get-go. This automatically brings with it the question of how to relate to the state. The state claims a semi-monopoly on violence, so the antifascist terrain leads to a very quick polarization around this question.

Normally when we act we do so with an idea of how we will be allowed to act, and how our opponents will react, which is conditioned by our awareness of the state's monopoly on violence. If police overstep their bounds during a protest, then we protest that - and publicizing and exposing police brutality has in fact become a major axis of activism, especially in the era of the cellphone camera. Likewise, there are certain things that we allow ourselves to do in a lax manner, because we know they are "protected" by law - be it "free speech" or "freedom of assembly" or whatnot.

When we act naughty in other struggles, breaking some petty laws, we do so with a certain advantage, in that it is in the state's interest to not escalate matters at this moment. This may be a sign of our weakness, but in this case (perhaps perversely) weakness has its advantages.

Antifascism is a case apart because we are going up against people who have a plan of their own, and who often are often more willing to put themselves in danger for their beliefs than some of our own allies. Furthermore, many people are attracted to the far right because they feel that it provides a serious challenge to the status quo, and that it's more "for real" than the radical left.

When we oppose the far right we have to be ready to match its escalation and beat it back. We cannot assume that we can spraypaint or trash their hang-outs but that they will leave ours alone. As we organize against them, they will organize against us. We cannot assume that we will be able to choose the time or place or level of confrontation, or that it will happen on our timetable.

Everything i listed in the preceding paragraph also goes for our conflict with the state, of course. However, the difference is that most of the time the state's priority is maintaining hegemony, keeping up appearances, and for that reason it is in its interest to tolerate a certain level of dissent. This is not an eternal truth, and of necessity if we do our work right the struggle with the state will eventually become militarized, but in the meantime it is easy to become lazy and take the leeway the state gives (some of) us for granted.

With the fascists, the opposite hold true. Showing themselves to be a force worth reckoning with is necessary for them to win recruits. Whereas the state maintains its hegemony by denying or posing as outside of social conflict, fascists gain credibility amongst their target base by instigating and taking the lead in confrontation.

Today, when fascists are posed in opposition to some aspects of neocolonialism, there are possibilities for them to benefit from both positive and negative engagements with the state. When antifascists ally themselves with the state against the far right, they almost always hand a propaganda victory to all parties involved - except themselves.

Which is why maintaining independence from the state, and autonomy from liberal antifascists, is a priority for radicals engaged on this terrain.

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST

Aryan Guard Hides Behind Calgary Cops

Print PDF

Comrades in Calgary seem to be getting mixed results against the Aryan Guard vermin in their town.

The Aryan Guard is a neo-nazi outfit based in Calgary - for a good quick overview on the group, i'd recommend checking out this pdf from One People's Project. The AG's recent activities include raiding Siksika First Nation territory to smash up buildings with baseball bats, infiltrating demonstrations against the Israeli massacre of Palestinians in Gaza, promoting racist music CDs to local young people, and of course their annual "white pride" march held on March 21st to mark the United Nations International Day for the Elimination of Racism and Discrimination.

The annual Aryan Guard propaganda event this year attracted 40-50 nazis, with the ARA counterdemo bringing out 400-500 people, many of them apparently passersby who joined in when they realized what was going on. A large police presence kept the nazis protected, though it seems some people did manage to connect. (See youtube video above.)

What is disappointing is that it seems people are unable or unsure of their ability to do what it takes to enforce a "no platform for fascists" line in Calgary.

For instance, at the Palestinian solidarity demonstration on January 10th it seems the nazis were only forced to leave near the end of the demo, despite people having been aware of who they were and what they were about from the beginning. It would seem that while ARA was clear about wanting them out, there was not a strong enough understanding amongst other demonstrators to make this initially practical, and demo organizers obviously failed in their responsibility to provide leadership on this question. Truly disgusting, considering the high profile the Aryan Guard has had in the area, and the fact that it has been repeatedly linked to racist violence and neo-nazi ideology.

But even more worrisome, because it's a sign of weakness in what should be a pole of strength, since last weekend's demonstration there have been news reports quoting ARA spokespeople condemning those who physically attacked the nazis last week. If these quotes are not media fabrications, then it's a sad day indeed.

While it may not always strategically correct to violently attack the fascist scum, or may not always be tactically feasible, the fact of the matter is that it normally is the best the course of action. To question the validity of such attacks is to implicitly adopt the same kind of logic that had the police out defending the fascists, it is to fall back on the "we'll only fight in self-defense" line that acts as a cover the kind of liberal politics that end up wanting to protect fascists' "freedom of speech".

Regardless of what organizers may have wished happened, the fact that some people who joined the demo did attack the nazis is a sure sign that the time is right for that kind of action - it is occurring spontaneously, organically - in that situation whether they planned for it or not, the only appropriate response from organizers is to defend and explain such a militant response. To do otherwise is to cut yourself off from the most advanced sections of the struggle in order to pander to middle class elements with their disingenuous complaints about violent antifascists being "as bad as" the nazis.

The folks from Calgary ARA should be congratulated for calling for a response to the Aryan Guard, but at the same time i would urge them to speak out in support of the militant antifascists who understood the need and validity of going on the offensive.

It's just basic political common sense.

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST

Calle Santa Fe: Remembering Those Who Fought

Print PDF

Calle Santa Fe 2007 / 35 mm / Colour / 163 min, Dir. Carmen Castillo, Chile - France.

On October 5th 1974 the Chilean military and political police (DINA) raided a safehouse in a working class neighbourhood in Santiago. Miguel Enriquez, a leader of the underground resistance to Pinochet and a hero of the revolutionary left, was killed and his fellow combatant Carmen Castillo was seriously wounded in a two hour long shoot out.

Castillo, who was six months pregnant at the time, was then dragged into Santa Fe street ("calle Santa Fe") and left there bleeding as soldiers argued about what to do with her; she would likely have died were it not for a neighbour who called an ambulance and insisted that it drive through the military lines to rescue her. Amazingly, the driver agreed and the soldiers did nothing to stop them.

Even once at the hospital, Castillo was not out of danger. Soldiers arrived, and what might have happened next - torture, detention, execution - was all too clear. Yet a nurse got to a phone and made a call to Castillo's uncle, and then the word was out: the junta was trying to kill a wounded woman, a pregnant woman at that. It struck a chord, and there was international outrage, and the junta - eager to be rid of this problem - had Castillo and her children exiled to France within a month. And so in this way we will be told that "the dictatorship could not overcome the acts of anonymous people."



In the years following memories of the shootout on calle Santa Fe would haunt Castillo, and would eventually push her to write and make several films trying to come to grips with what had happened. As if the superficially simple events of the day - "police killing guerilla resisting dictatorship" - were like one little loose thread, as she would tug on the story, Castillo would come up against questions - how did the police find the safehouse? who talked and why? - which would eventually see her re-examining the mythology of the resistance, and for a time have her excluded from it.

Castillo's latest film, Calle Santa Fe, recaps the events of that day, introducing us (briefly) to the radical left and the resistance to Pinochet she was a part of; but mainly this is a film about about how repression and exile, political errors and defeat have played themselves out in the film maker's life, the lives of her children and those of her comrades. Through her eyes we see what society looks like after fascism, after the butchers have safely retired and everyone else tries to pretend life is normal. We see this is as Castillo travels back to Santiago, to the house on Calle Santa Fe where Enriquez was killed and she was wounded, to the city where she meets family members - who have quite different feelings about her political activities - and also former comrades and neighbours.

*************

The Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionaria, or Movement of the Revolutionary Left, was founded in Chile in 1965 during the conservative pro-American presidency of Eduardo Frei. It brought together students, trade unionists, anarchists, Trotskyists and radical Christians, and was heavily influenced by the example of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara who had led a revolution in Cuba just six years earlier.

While it has been claimed that it was primarily a student group with little base among Chilean workers, according to the former members interviewed by Castillo the MIR found its strongest support amongst the poorest sections of society, presumably the unemployed, landless peasants and Indigenous people. According to one source, by the early seventies the MIR had only 2,000 members, as compared to the Socialist Party's 80,000 and the Communist Party's 100,000 within the Chilean working class. (In the Chilean context at that time the Communist Party was far more conservative and timid than the left-wing of the Socialists, being the strongest advocate of a peaceful strategy class collaboration, and a vicious critic of the "extremist" MIR.)

For the entire Chilean left this time was of course marked in every way by the election of Salvador Allende as president in 1970. The socialist Allende was the candidate of Unidad Popular ("Popular Unity") a coalition of left-wing parties which included the Socialist Party, Communist Party, Radical Party, Social Democratic Party and MAPU. Under his leadership the Popular Unity government would follow a cautious strategy, nationalizing key industries while also reaching out to the middle classes and right-wing military officers.

Calle Santa Fe does not tell us how Castillo ended up on the revolutionary left, and then in the MIR, but she has written about this elsewhere. As Mary Jane Treacy has summarized in Carmen Castillo and the Politics of Forgiveness :

...Carmen Castillo, daughter of the former rector of the Universidad Catolica, lived at the heart of the MIR throughout much of her young adulthood, an involvement that embraced not only her political affiliation, but also her social group of friends, lovers, and family. She reveals that her entry into revolutionary life at seventeen was primarily an infatuation with "la belleza del compromiso," the beauty of political commitment and obedience to those who embodied it. Thus she first turned to Beatriz Allende, daughter of the future president, and was fascinated by the young woman's refusal to conform to the norms of seductive femininity, insisting instead upon maintaining a serious mien that befitted her role as member of a guerrilla organization. Castillo's response to this example was to obey "la Tati:" "[m]e fascinaba su saber y su rigor, gustaba de obedecerle sin cuestionar, me plegaba a sus ordenes, buena alumna"/ I was fascinated by her knowledge and inner strength; I enjoyed obeying her without question; I followed her orders like a good student (vuelo 115). Castillo joined Allende's revolutionary group, serving as go-between ("buzon") with militants in Bolivia, and repeating that she must fight unto death ("luchar hasta morir").

As Castillo fell in love with Beatriz's cousin, Andres Pascual, who gave her a theory of revolution to interpret her practice, she entered into the leadership circle of MIR, married this Allende and had a daughter, Camila. When soon after she fell in love with Miguel Enriquez, she abandoned her flamboyant style ("good-bye to mini-skirts," she announces) to embody the simplicity of a serious revolutionary, following the wishes of her new com-panero: "me sentia alegre, descubria el gozo de obedecer a las exigencias del hombre amado"/ I was happy; I found the joy of obeying the demands of the man I loved (vuelo 120).

[quotes from El vuelo de la memoria, by Carmen Castillo and Monica Echeverria. Santiago-Paris. Santiago: LOM, 2002]

While the MIR - which officially rejected electoralism - was well to the left of the Popular Unity government, it was not opposed to it, but rather maintained a position of critical support. For example, one of the former MIRistas interviewed by Castillo recounts how in 1970 the group temporarily called off all its actions in order to not hurt the Allende's chances at the polls. During the election campaign the Popular Unity candidate's own security corps was provided by the MIR, as the police could not be trusted and the groups own intelligence operatives inside the military and the right had warned them of plots against Allende's life. In fact Castillo tells us how some of Allende's MIRista bodyguards were being sought by police at the same time as they guarded him. Little surprise that following his victory the new socialist president would pass an amnesty for all members of the organization.

The MIR's chief criticism of Allende was that in opting for a "constitutional", legal and peaceful road to socialism, the new government was too intent in currying favour with the middle class, which meant sabotaging the radical workers' and peasants' movements and relying on the army to remain neutral and play its "traditional" role as protector of the State. The MIR, the only left-wing party to not officially participate in the Popular Unity government, advocated the creation of dual power structures as a step towards setting up a workers State. Rodriguez and other MIR leaders argued that that instead of relying on the army to protect it the government's only chance lay in arming and empowering the grassroots organizations of the working class while democratizing the armed forces, removing power from the anti-communist officer corps.

As an example of how far Allende was willing to go to placate his ruling class enemies, in 1971 when the MIR published its programme regarding the army and police forces in its newspaper El Rebelde, the Popular Unity government had all copies of the paper seized and laid charges against the programme's author. A sad sign of where things were at, all the more so as the last two point in the MIR's "scandalous" programme were that soldiers and police should "disobey officers calling for a coup" and "join with the people in their struggle against the capitalist class." (see Chile the State and Revolution, pages 193-4)

The MIR's criticisms were proven right on September 11th 1973, when the armed forces rebelled against the left-wing government, murdering Allende and bringing to power a military junta under the leadership of Augusto Pinochet - ironically, a man Allende had trusted to be his eyes and ears within the armed forces.

Castillo gives us a glimpse of what it was like to be a revolutionary on that day: the MIR sent word to Allende in the Moneda (presidential palace) offering to rescue him, but the president - "mindful of the power of symbols" - refused, even though he knew it would mean his death. Instead, Allende sent word back to the MIR, telling his left-wing critics that it was up to them to "continue the fight".

At first, comrades helped mount barricades in the working class neighbourhoods of Santiago, despite the order to go underground. The initial feeling was that this was where the people were making their stand, and that this was the proper place for revolutionaries. But by the end of the day it seemed that the army had crushed this resistance, and as night fell the entire organization went underground.

i wish Castillo had spent more time on this period, the lead up to the coup and its immediate aftermath. After skimming the book Chile: State and Revolution (by Ian Roxborough, Philip O'Brien and Jackie Roddick, Holmes and Meier Publishers 1977) i feel that there are a few things which just aren't mentioned in Calle Santa Fe, and should be. Not that i am unsympathetic to the filmmakers position - this documentary is almost three hours long, and i know that if she had provided all the details i would want it would be at least twice that. Still, in the interests of filling some of these gaps, i'll take a moment and mention a few points here...

According to Roxborough, O'Brien and Roddick the MIR benefited from having the correct analysis of the possibility of "peaceful change", but suffered from a very limited influence amongst the working class and peasantry. They even claim that many of the land occupations which were attributed to the MIR at the time were in fact autonomous actions of peasants or Mapuche Indians, and that accusation that the MIR was involved were a political smear, nothing more. Although they were correct in predicting that the "constitutional road" would prove itself to be a mirage, along with most of the radical left they did expect the armed forces to split, with a section moving to defend the Popular Unity government. When this split failed to materialize, the MIR was as lost as everyone else.

Also, i wonder if the rosy picture of relations between Allende and the MIRistas is not a case of wishful thinking some thirty years after the fact. As a martyr Allende has become a powerful symbol of resistance to fascism and imperialism, his decision to face death in the Moneda rather than flee or negotiate with the coup leaders being one of the most evocative images of that day. Nevertheless, the historical record is clear: in the lead up to the coup Allende was part of the more conservative faction of the Socialist Party, which along with the Communists formed the "right-wing" of the Popular Unity government, and as such opposed those efforts which might have actually have helped prepare the working class to resist the impending massacre. Perhaps there was personal warmth, friendship even, between individual MIRistas and Allende (after all, the presidents own nephew was a leading member of the organization!), but this did not prevent the PU government from trying to reign in the radicals as part of its strategy to woo the middle classes and the officer corps. i am left with the impression that some of the nice things all those interviewed by Castillo had to say about the martyred president might be just a bit exaggerated...

One more point worth clarifying: in terms of actual resistance to the coup, it is true that the MIR like others on the left called for a strategic retreat on the 11th, telling members to go underground. In retrospect, this was clearly the correct decision, the only one which did not lead directly to torture - often followed by death - at the hands of the military. At the time it seems that the MIRistas believed that everyone else was doing the same thing, and that the army had smashed the workers' resistance by the late afternoon. Yet in terms of honouring the dead, we should note that on this point the MIR were wrong: workers continued to fight for days after the Allende was killed, often led by radical members of the Socialist Party, and snipers continued to pick off soldiers for a week in the popular neighbourhoods of Santiago. Finally the military resorted to aerial bombardment and random massacres, the hallmarks of fascism in power, to terrorize the neighbourhoods and put and end to this popular, though disorganized, resistance.

Despite these minor holes, i found what Castillo and her old comrades had to say about this time to be of great interest, all the memories fascinating because they were so real. People told how they had read books about how to operate in clandestinity, about how to live a guerilla existence, but that when the time came they were completely unprepared, out of their depth. They threw on clothes that had been in style in their grandparents' day, men shaved their beards (and all stood out because their chins were whiter than the rest of their face!) and put on ties, and to the best of their ability they disappeared to organize the next stage of the resistance.

Those interviewed by Castillo are not so much typical of the MIR's fighters, but rather of those who survived, for by 1974 the junta had managed to hunt down and kill some 80% of the leadership, by 1978 some 800 MIRistas had fallen. This was a time of hardship and bitter losses. While the MIR managed to publish El Rebelde from the underground ("we often preferred to go without food in order to publish," one woman remembered), and carried out acts of "armed propaganda", defending the people as best it could and assassinating army torturers, even those survivors we meet in the film were almost all captured within the first year or two of the dictatorship, held in the junta's infamous prisons, tortured, and then expelled from the country in 1975.

Although the MIR had criticized Allende for relying on the army to protect him, its own preparations for armed resistance seem to have been far too tentative for the level of violence the Pinochet regime was willing to inflict. Which is really understandable if you think about it: how many of us have talked about catastrophe around the corner, criticized our less radical comrades for their naive faith in the system's stability, and yet made no real preparations of our own?

Beyond these initial weaknesses and reversals, these former militants explained that going underground itself had major negative repercussions. As one man explained, being a revolutionary means working with other people, making personal connections with the oppressed; clandestinity stops you from doing that, instead you must concentrate on survival, and as a result you risk becoming invisible to those you would prefer to be working with.

Although Castillo herself had lived underground alongside MIR leader Miguel Enriquez, she shares little of her own experiences of this period. So far as this film is concerned, her own story really begins with her capture in 1974. Expelled from the country, she became active with the international movement to expose the crimes of the Pinochet regime, all the while remaining a member of the MIR. Indeed, as a result of all the arrests and expulsions during these first years of struggle against the junta, many, perhaps even most, of the MIR's active members ended up in a similar position, living outside of Chile.

While Calle Santa Fe does not touch upon what life was like for Castillo in those years, she has written about it elsewhere, and according to Treacy's overview of her works this was clearly a time of great pain:

The MIR leadership, a hierarchical circle that kept its members under party discipline, still had an important interest in Castillo's life as "the Widow" and therefore carrier of Miguel's political essence. It sent her regularly on tour to build solidarity among radicals throughout Europe, even as she was barely coping with her many personal losses (vuelo 185-86). Her attempted suicide, or breakdown, inattention to her dying infant, and inability to care for the daughter entrusted to her care bear witness to Castillo's deep emotional distress at the same time that Cuba was demanding debriefings on Miguel's death, the MIR insisting that she remain in Latin America to play out her role as revolutionary icon, and former non-militant friends rejecting her as a troublemaker.

*************

If many of the surviving MIRistas had been forced outside of Chile by the mid-1970s, many of their lives were now to take a particularly hard turn. In 1978, with the declaration that "The MIR Does Not Seek Asylum!", the organization initiated Operation Return ("Plan Retorno"), by which militants were to be smuggled back into the country to carry out armed struggle against the military regime.

What gets explained here is so valuable precisely because it is what one can imagine getting left out of some left histories.

Operation Return was not something you volunteered for, nor was it just a matter of a few cadre sneaking back temporarily to carry off an attack. For a resistance movement which had been largely driven out of the country, Retorno represented a major offensive, a gamble of sorts, a plan to smuggle large numbers of militants into a country ruled by a brutal dictatorship in order to re-establish an underground revolutionary movement.

Most painfully, as many of the MIRistas had kids, the Operation had a second dimension - "Operation Shelter" - whereby the revolutionaries' children would be sent to Cuba, to be raised collectively while their parents lived or died far away.

This was obviously a difficult, excruciating, process, and one which was made all the more so as it had been decided by the leadership and imposed on the cadre. And although Castillo herself did not return to Chile at this time - as a high-profile MIR spokesperson she would have been a liability to the new underground - she too sent her children to Havana, "in order to devote my entire life to supporting the resistance" she says.

Castillo interviews her own daughter, and also the daughter of a fellow MIRista, the one being remarkably understanding and sympathetic to the whole process, the other summing up her feelings as "Mom, you left me for shit!" In a discussion with many of these mothers, one woman explained that there were no separate women's structures or spaces in the MIR in which to discuss Operation Return or Operation Shelter, and figure out what was really the best thing to do - "not even a place to cry together" over the loss of their kids, as one woman remembered. "We could have never imagined how much pain we were causing," explains another.

i found this section to be of such importance because it dealt with a real problem that confronts people carrying out illegal resistance, and which - because of the sexist division of labour - is particularly heavy for women. All over the world people have sent their kids to be raised by others as they have entered situations of particularly heavy confrontation, but this is obviously a very difficult choice, and one which most people will not make if there are other options. This dilemma may be avoided by small groups in situations where one can "volunteer", where one is not forced underground; but in terms of mass movements, simply mooting the point and saying "that's what needs to be done", is going to mean developing a movement which most people will not want to join, and one which will hampered by the predominance of mainly young men.

i'm not offering any solutions, and what criticisms come to mind are accompanied by the respect i have for what one woman explained, that she "wanted to build a better world for our children - and left them to build this world"... nevertheless, Operation Shelter appears deeply flawed, which is what makes it useful to think about. One obvious point to make is that what it means to be deprived of one's parents really depends on the way in which one had been raised up until that point. Children who are raised collectively, either by comrades or by extended family networks or some combination of the two, will fare better than those whose mother and father were the central caregivers. But there are limits to this logic, as children who are exiled along with their parents, or children who survive along with a few key caregivers, are likely to enjoy a particularly close bond and dependency with those particular adults. & even if children are raised collectively by many adults, what happens when suddenly most or even all are instructed to leave? no obvious answers...

i am particularly curious about the gender balance within the MIR at this time - while i imagine that like the rest of the Chilean left it had had more male than female members prior to the coup, was this still the case in 1977-8? War often changes gender balances, especially as the enemy may find it easier to identify and kill male combatants than women (i.e. just look at the fact that Enriquez was killed, but Castillo was sent abroad after a quick campaign which made much of the fact that "the military was persecuting a pregnant woman"). How many of the combattants who were to go underground in Chile in Operation Return were women? and how was this decision made? Is this what one male MIRista meant when he criticized himself and the party for having been too rigid, for having excluded cadre who were not willing to abide by decisions? And what part does this question play in Castillo's question as to whether or not Operation Return was really worth it, sending so many back to be killed?

questions questions questions...

*************

For all this, the 1980s were a decade of open resistance to the dictatorship. Reinforced by the returned members, the MIR carried out a variety of armed actions. We are shown video footage of truckloads of stolen food being redistributed in working class neighbourhoods. This also seems to be a time of inventive tactics, developed in relation with the communities of people the dictatorship oppressed. One woman recounts turning a neighbourhood into a no-go zone for the army simply by distributing loads of soccer balls to local kids who played with them in the streets and thus just happened to block the army's vehicles.

It would have been good to see more on this resistance to the junta in this period, either by the MIR or by other groups. As it is, we are given these examples, and some footage of demonstrations, and then... we are suddenly told that the MIR leadership decided to liquidate the organization in 1989, just before the dictatorship was to allow the first presidential elections in almost twenty years!

The announcement comes as a shock even to us just watching the film; it is clear how much more horrible and confusing it must have been to those who had survived and resisted underground. The decision was not explained, and even today it seems some former members do not understand why it was taken. Militants were simply told to get married, have kids, go to school, and forget about their life underground.

In the words of one former MIRista, she now felt like an orphan.

*************

Watching Calle Santa Fe i could only think that history can be like a gun, and some unlucky people are fired out of it like bullets. They may not "win", or even strike their targets, and yet they themselves are ripped apart, paying a great price for even having dared to try.

Re-reading this review, i see with some dismay that i have not been able to do this film justice. Or even given a fair impression of what it's about. Most scenes are not historical footage, but are of Castillo as she wanders through the downtown Santiago, or through poblaciones, or around the old calle Santa Fe, looking at post-fascist Chile and asking herself, torturing herself, with the question "was it all worth it?" So much sacrifice, so much pain, and here the murderers were allowed to write their own ending, to retire in peace, while men and women like herself and her comrades are the odd ones out, reminders of possibilities that were closed off, battles that were lost and are now eagerly forgotten.

If Calle Santa Fe left me with so many unanswered questions about the MIR, it is probably because this film is not simply about the resistance, but about what a post-fascist society like Chile today means to those who resisted with such uneven results.

In this sense i am reminded of another excellent film, The Dark Side of the White Lady, which tells how the Chilean Navy's flagship Esmerelda was turned into a torture-ship during the first days after the coup. The Esmerelda is a national symbol in post-fascist Chile, something like Canada's Bluenose, and is still used with pride by the navy for ceremonies and tours abroad. The film opens with a small demonstration outside some military ceremony on the ship, calling for truth and memory and honouring the people who were tortured and killed on board... while passersby look at the protesters as if they were freaks, one woman explaining that if Chile is so "prosperous" today it is only because Pinochet saved it from the communists.

The day after Castillo was captured and Miguel Enriquez was killed his brother Edgardo issued a statement that "The fight will not be over until we have hung Pinochet by his balls at the Santiago Place d’Armes." But Edgardo was himself killed in 1976, while Pinochet got to die a natural death in 2006 at the ripe old age of 91. There was no anti-fascist victory, and today those who fought and managed to survive appear as embarrassments or anachronisms.

Nor does it seem like yesterday's guerilla has an obvious place in today's left. One of the hardest moments in Calle Santa Fe is where Castillo meets a younger activist in a bar, ostensibly to talk to him about her hopes to buy the house where Enriquez was killed and turn it into some kind of left-wing community centre. The young man she is meeting with - perhaps in a staged conversation, but certainly one which represents something real - tells her that such a plan does not really interest him or other younger activists, that they've almost had enough with hearing of those who fought and died, and that instead of commemorating what the older generation did (or failed to do), they prefer to act as they believe their elders would have. Which may be fair but is also unclear, and leads to more questions than answers.

One of Castillo's former comrades tries to convince her that the MIR had an effect, that it has a legacy, and that this can be seen in the new "horizontalist" left of today. Not party-based, but more "social" he says, as the camera zooms in on some hip hop street musicians rapping about poverty and capitalism, as if to say "This is what it was all for, this is our legacy." But for me at least the scene is unconvincing, this kind of nostalgic cozy sentimentalism, whereby whatever "they" did was worth it as it gave rise to whatever "we" are up to today.

To leave aside questions of cause and effect, success or failure, does not seem an adequate way to honour the past or really even see the present.

& for what it's worth, Castillo herself does not seem entirely trusting of such a tale.

If for nothing else, Calle Santa Fe is worth watching for this sadness and this honesty. Carmen Castillo shares with us herself, and her doubts, and her feelings of defeat, her questions of whether all sacrifices were necessary, or even useful. These are hard questions, and there are no answers, certainly not at this stage in the game.

*************

Calle Santa Fe is by no means a complete story. As i mentioned, Castillo has been driven to examine her past in the revolutionary left, and what happened to it. She has written several books, and in 1993 made her first film, a painfully honest, and surprisingly sympathetic, portrait of the woman who broke under torture and gave her and Enriquez up to the police (La Flaca Alejandra: vidas y muertes de una mujer chilena released in english in 1994 as In a Time of Betrayal).

Castillo first learned that the DINA had managed to "break" many captured MIRistas, and use them as double-agents to draw out and capture guerilla fighters, in the late seventies. Revealing the extent of this in a memoir she wrote at the time shattered the organization's mythology regarding its political prisoners, and led directly to her being expelled from the MIR, which accused her of doing "moral damage to the Revolution, MIR and the memory of Miguel."

Given this, one might expect Castillo to be one of those "ex-leftists" who feel a need to reveal all about the "bad revolutionaries" they once hung out with. i have not read her books, but judging from what i have found online, and from watching Calle Santa Fe, nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, while certainly not uncritical, Castillo is so clear in her sympathies and her unflinching solidarity with her own past and truth, that when she mentions in passing that she had "become distant" from the MIR in the 1980s i thought i had heard wrong, and it was only in reading about her on the internet that i learned of her expulsion and realized that this was in fact what she had said.

i went into Calle Santa Fe not knowing much about the MIR or the resistance to Pinochet, and had never heard of Carmen Castillo. While the film was almost three hours long i left the cinema with so many more questions than i had had before. The lead up to the coup, life underground, Operation Shelter, resistance in the eighties, life in exile for those who did not return - there is so much that is touched on, but only just touched on.

This is a compliment, not a criticism. i fully intend to check out what else i can find by Castillo, and will keep an eye open to what she does in the future. If the workers' movement in Chile was defeated by extreme violence, experiences around the world have shown how the left can also be suffocated by its own pablum and easy distortions. By showing us her own life and that of her former comrades, by not retreating from solidarity but also not giving in to self-serving "fibs", Castillo shows us what it means to treasure the truth, all truths, including the difficult ones.

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST