Today's Topics:
1. anarkismo.net: Should the Left Call for a Third Party? by
Wayne Price (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
2. Britain, clas swar: Brixton Arches: anti-eviction street art
sends out a message to Network Rail (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
3. France, Alternative Libertaire AL - international, Syria:
Kurdish left alone against all (fr, it, pt) [machine translation]
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
4. CAB's opinion on the current Brazilian situation
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
5. France, Alternative Libertaire AL Septembre - policy, Social
Movement: A comeback in strength (fr, it, pt) [machine
translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Electoralism or independent mass action? ---- There are non-anarchist radicals who
advocate creating a new, third, party, to replace the Democrats at least. They share many
of the values of anarchists. However anarchists regard this as a mistaken strategy. ----
There are a number of radicals who reject the "two-party system". These are socialists (of
various sorts) and left-liberals who do not accept the anarchist goal of abolition of the
state as well as capitalism. But the Leftists I am writing about agree with anarchists
that it is a mistake to support the Democratic Party and its politicians and its
organization (the modern Republican Party is not an attraction for Leftists). They agree
that the Democrats, like the Republicans, are agents of the big business owners; that the
Democrats support capitalism as a system; that they support the imperialism and war-making
of the national state as it is; that, while the Democrats play lip service to the danger
of climate change, they actually support policies which will lead to ecological
catastrophe; that in practice they are actually supporters of racism, sexism, and other
forms of oppression. (I am not going to argue for these controversial propositions, at
this time.) Such radicals and left-liberals are aware that the Democrats serve to draw in
popular movements, co-opt their leaders, and kill off their militancy. Therefore these
militants do not organize for votes for any Democrat, even in the very unusual situation
when a Democrat calls himself a "democratic socialist." Instead they seek to build a new,
third, party to run in elections.
I am not discussing what individuals may do on election day, as individuals without a
movement. Whether one person votes or doesn't, and for whom, does not really have much
effect (if the individual is allowed to vote, and even if that vote is counted). I am not
discussing how individuals should react to the vile Donald Trump in this specific
election. What matters is what radicals advocate to be done by large numbers of people:
the unions, the African-American community, organized feminists, the environmental
movement, the LGBT community, immigrant associations, and so on. These groupings (which
are the base of the Democratic Party) are potentially very powerful, if they would act
together.
Rejecting the two-party-system, anarchists instead propose non-electoral mass action.
Anarchists advocate union organizing, community organizing, strikes, marches,
demonstrations, nonviolent civil disobedience, "riots" (rebellions), military mutinies,
and a general strike. They call for sit-ins and occupations of factories, of other
workplaces, schools and universities, city centers, and transportation hubs. It was just
such militant methods which won union rights and public benefits in the ‘thirties, which
overthrew legal racial segregation in the ‘sixties and won certain other gains for
African-Americans. Such methods were used to oppose the Vietnamese war in the ‘sixties and
‘seventies. The modern LGBT movement began with the Christopher Street "riot" and was
advanced by ACT-UP's civil disobedience, among other events. Gains for women were won in
the context of these upheavals and mass radicalization.
However, the non-anarchists, while not necessarily against direct actions, focus on
building a new popular political party. Some of them, often from a Trotskyist background,
see this as a proposal for a Labor Party based on the unions, as in Britain and Australia.
Others are for a vaguer "Workers' Party" or something similar. Some raise both. For
example, the slogans "Fight for a Labor Party!" and "For a Mass Party of Labor!" appear in
a pamphlet distributed by the (Trotskyist) Workers International League. (Woods 2011)
Others just focus on building some sort of general new party-class-content not specified.
Michelle Alexander (who has led in exposing the attack on African-Americans through mass
incarceration) wrote, "I am inclined to believe that it would be easier to build a new
party than to save the Democratic Party from itself." (Alexander 2016)
Past Efforts
In any case, it is accepted that the new party would not be a revolutionary party, at
least at first, if ever. Many-perhaps most-working people hold views to the left of the
conventional party politics. They are for taxing the very rich, fair trade between
countries, guaranteed jobs, free community colleges, equal pay for women, prevention of
climate change, and other causes. But the people do not (yet) see this as implying a
social revolution. If a new party runs, not just to make progressive propaganda, but to
get elected, it cannot advocate revolution-that is, it cannot tell the truth about what is
really needed to save the world.
Back in 1968, some militants tried to create "a broad third-party movement of the left."
(Draper 1972; 118) This was the attempt to build a national Peace and Freedom Party. Its
rationale was explained by a leading advocate (another sort of Trotskyist): "The
‘revolution' that is on the agenda for Peace and Freedom today is not yet overthrowing the
whole System, but something a little more modest for the day: viz. overthrowing the
two-party system...." (132) This effort failed.
In 1972, over 8,000 African-American militants went to Gary IN for a "Black Political
Convention." They seriously discussed forming an independent Black party. But this was
defeated by the Rev. Jesse Jackson and other establishment-oriented Black leaders.
An attempt to build a movement for a labor party began in 1991. The Labor Party Advocates
was supported by a number of relatively left union officials, who were dissatisfied with
the Democrats-and by members of various socialist organizations. At one point it even
tried to declare itself a real "Labor Party." But the union officials just wanted to
pressure the Democratic politicians on whom they relied, not to actually break with them.
And so the organization failed.
Since then there have been other attempts to build a new party (one effort calling itself
the New Party). Many U.S. radicals were inspired by the election in Greece of the Syriza
Party and the growth in Spain of Podemas (although the recent failures of Syriza may have
had a negative impact). In November 2013, Kshama Sawant of the Socialist Alternative
(Trotskyists) was elected to the Seattle City Council, with support from unionized
workers. Sawant and her group have campaigned for some sort of independent party of the
left. The group around The North Star website, led by Louis Proyect (and initiated by the
late Peter Camejo) has also been advocating independent political action-a new party of
the left.
In May 2015, there was a conference, "The Future of Left/Independent Electoral Actoin in
the United States." It was attended by members of Socialist Alternative, Solidarity
(Trotskyist), the International Socialist Organization (ditto), The North Star, the
radical wing of the Green Party (such as Howie Hawkins), the Peace and Freedom Party
(California), the Vermont Progressive Party, and others. About 200 attended. No solid
organization came out of it.
In New York State, unions and others back what is called the Working Families Party.
Unlike other states, New York permits cross-endorsements, so that the WFP can get enough
votes to keep its ballot line by endorsing Democrats. In the last election it endorsed
Governor Andrew Cuomo for re-election, despite his terrible record. The WFP probably
should not be regarded as part of the third party movement.
At this time, the most successful "new party" is the Green Party. While its platform holds
many good points, it is not actually anti-capitalist. For example, its platform says, "We
must change the legal design of corporations so that they generate profits, but not at the
expense of the environment...We must compel[corporations]to serve human and environmental
needs..." (Green National Committee 2014; IV Economic Justice and Sustainability) So, in
their green society there would continue to be profit-seeking corporations competing on
the market, but they would be better regulated. This is a liberal image of an improved
capitalism.
The Green Party has run several presidential campaigns, the most notable being when they
endorsed Ralph Nader (including 2000, when he was accused of costing Al Gore the
election). They have run gubernatorial campaigns. (Recently they got five percent of the
vote in New York State against Gov. Cuomo, who was so bad that even the teachers' union
could not endorse him-while the Republican, safely, had no chance of winning). The Greens'
membership includes liberals (Roseanne Barr offered to run as their presidential
candidate), Trotskyist socialists, people with "Green" politics (whatever that means to
them), and others. In the New York gubernatorial campaign, their candidate was Howie
Hawkins, who used to be associated with the anarchist Murray Bookchin. Their candidate for
lieutenant governor was Brian Jones, of the ISO.
The Greens and other such parties have also won seats on local city councils. For example,
in Richmond CA, the Richmond Progressive Alliance (which includes Greens) has won
elections for Mayor and City Council. In the U.S. "federal" system, local government is
the most democratic and the easiest to get elected to. It also has the least power.
However, the movement for a viable, left, third party was torn by Bernie Sanders'
presidential campaign. Sanders calls himself a "democratic socialist," even though he does
not actually advocate socialism. He does not propose expropriating any capitalists or
creating a cooperative, democratically-planned, economy; his model is the capitalist
welfare-state of Denmark. He has a liberal program, if one to the left of other
politicians. And he ran within the Democratic Party. It was doubtful that he would be
allowed to win the nomination, let alone the election. If elected, it was impossible that
he could carry out his program-let alone socialism. But it is significant that he had
drawn a large and excited following, especially among young people and working people.
The Left groups which usually get involved in the Democratic Party, such as the Democratic
Socialists of America hadthrown themselves into the Sanders' campaign. (After some
vacillation, the Communist Party supported Hillary Clinton, probably because of her
support among African-Americans.) But many who might otherwise support a third party were
also arguing for Bernie. Many of the Greens' members were attracted to Bernie. Certainly
it had become impossible to build much of an independent political organization so long as
Sanders appeared to be showing that it was possible to run inside the Democrats. Whatever
Sanders was thinking personally, the effect of his campaign (like that of Eugene McCarthy,
George McGovern, Jesse Jackson, or Dennis Kucinich before him) was to draw potential
opposition forces into the establishment Democratic Party. Some of his present supporters
have become disillusioned by the whole process. Rather than being burned out (so to say)
they may become revolutionaries.
Leaving the Sanderistas alone for now, let me focus on those who still want to build a
third party of the left-if not now, then as soon as possible.
Trying to Build a Third Party is Impractical
First I will consider the most immediately practical issue. It would be very difficult to
build a new party. Building an electoral machine and running in elections costs a great
deal of money, as everyone knows. By definition, the capitalists have much more of it than
the rest of the population. Sanders has been able to draw on lots of small donations-but
he is running inside a major party, in a one-shot-deal (that is, he is not trying to
create an on-going mass organization). He still has much less than Ms. Clinton, let alone
his Republican rivals, if we count PACs and Super-PACs, which he has rejected (the rich
would not donate to him anyway).
It also requires a lot of people, especially for maintaining an on-going organization. The
working class and other oppressed people do have lots of people (much more than the
"one-percent"). But the Democrats and Republicans start at least with fully staffed
organizations while new parties must start from scratch.
It has been possible to start new parties in Europe and elsewhere for reasons which do not
apply in the U.S. Other countries have proportional representation, so that a minority
party which gets five percent of the vote gets five percent of parliamentary seats. Or
they have second round voting: people may vote for their preferred minority party, without
feeling that they are "wasting their vote." There will be a second round of votes, with
only the largest two or three parties competing. Only a few places in the U.S. have
second-round voting. There are other advantages which non-U.S. parties have and U.S.
citizens do not.
The U.S. has a bizarre political system, especially given its boast of "democracy." This
makes it almost impossible for a new party to do more than to win an election here and
there-if it wants to actually take over the whole government democratically.
Just at the national level, elections to the House of Representatives are grossly
distorted by gerrymandering (also known as "incumbent protection"). The Senate has two
senators from each state, no matter their size (so that Rhode Island and California each
have two senators), elected for six year terms. The presidency is elected through the
infamous Electoral College; all the electors of each state go to the majority candidate,
no matter how large the minority vote (so that Democrats in Texas or Republicans in New
York may as well stay home on election day). Judges at the national level are appointed,
not elected-for life. This does not count the local levels with their corruption, legal
distortion, gerrymandering, and voter suppression. This is before looking at the effects
of money (legal and illegal), advertising, manipulation of the media, racist laws, and so on.
The "founding fathers" of the U.S. knew exactly what they were doing (even if they did not
predict the rise of parties). They did not want the "mob" to rule ("democracy" as they saw
it). This would threaten their property. The people might break up big landed estates or
create cheap money so they could pay off their creditors. But the founders did not want
one-person rule either: a new king, or a dictator such as Oliver Cromwell. They wanted a
"republic" where their class could maintain its wealth-a government which would settle
disputes within the ruling class, make decisions, and keep the "mob" in its place. Despite
changes, the system has continued to do that up to this day.
Supporters of new parties argue that some previous third parties made significant impacts.
They refer to the Peoples or Populist Party and Debs' and Thomas' Socialist Party. This
claim has truth to it, but these parties did not establish themselves nor change the
system. The one time when a new party was successful was the one time when the system came
apart. Lincoln's Republican Party did destroy the Whig Party and temporarily split the
Democrats, in the process of getting elected. But the country was then in turmoil over
slavery, sections of the ruling class (slaveowners and capitalists) could not find
agreement, and a civil war was around the corner. Similar upheavals may yet occur in the
modern U.S., but they have not yet.
This makes a successful new party unlikely in the near future. Is this how the U.S. Left
should spend its limited human and financial resources?
A Classless (Capitalist) New Party?
As can be seen, many of those advocating a new or third party are not concerned with its
class composition or class program. Like the Green Party, they may propose major
improvements in the environment; worker rights; anti-racist, anti-sexist, and
anti-homophobic policies; and general improvements in society. But they do not propose to
change the economy from one owned mostly by what Sanders has called "the billionaire
class," to one collectively owned and democratically managed by the working class and
oppressed. Their program is left-liberal, but not anti-capitalist.
Similarly, such third party advocates want to attract people of all classes, from
farmworkers to dentists and, if possible, "progressive" businesspeople. Of course, they
would like the support of working people (non-supervisory workers and their families make
up 80 % or so of the population, after all). Similarly they are for unions, but not as the
single biggest (even now), most potentially powerful, organization of the working class.
They have no special approach to workers as workers and no special hostility to
capitalists as capitalists.
In brief, what this trend proposes is a third-capitalist-party. But the U.S. already has
two capitalist parties and does not need a new one. Nor are progressive people likely to
put money and effort into creating another capitalist party, when they can work within one
of the existing ones. Despite its initiators' best intentions, such a third party would be
under the immense pressure of the capitalist system to maintain that system. Once
committed to maintaining this system (or at least, to not changing the system), it will be
unable to resist the logic of the beast. I assume the supporters of this classless
approach do not believe that capitalism is a central cause of climate change, economic
crises, wars, and oppression. They are wrong. Without getting rid of capitalism, we cannot
get rid of these terrible evils.
A "Workers' Party"?
The original motivation of Marxists was not to build a new, third, capitalist party. Quite
the opposite: it was to break the workers away from the capitalist parties (such as the
British Liberal Party, in Marx's day). It was to enhance working class self-organization
and self-assertion against all capitalist parties. Marx wrote,
"Even when there is no prospect whatsoever of their being elected, the workers must put up
their own candidates in order to preserve their independence...." (quoted by D'Amato 2000)
And Engels declared, "In a country that has newly entered the movement, the first really
crucial step is the formation by the workers of an independent political party, no matter
how, so long as it is distinguishable as a labor party." (quoted by D'Amato 2000)
This was the one major practical dispute between Marx and the anarchists in the First
International. Marx wanted every local group of the International to foster independent
electoral action. The anarchists were opposed. Marxists, then as now, accused the
anarchists of being "political indifferentists" and "anti-political." The truth was that
they were only anti-electoral. They were not against mass strikes and demonstrations which
pressured the state. They were against spreading false confidence that workers could make
real gains through getting elected to the government.
By now the historical "experiment" of forming workers' electoral parties is over. The
Labor parties, Social Democratic parties, Communist parties, and Green parties have all
had their day in Europe and elsewhere, with little to show for their elections. It seems
peculiar to advocate a U.S. Labor party, given the reactionary, pro-imperialist, history
of the British and Australian Labour parties. Most recently, there are the disastrous
examples of the socialist parties elected in Venezuela (Chavez' Bolivarians), in Brazil
(Lula's Workers Party), and most recently in Greece (Syriza, a real failure).
Sticking to Marx's class approach should lead to socialists rejecting votes for Democrats
but also for third-capitalist parties, such as the Green party. Unfortunately, there is
likely to be little real difference between a third capitalist party and a new"labor" party.
In a time of crisis, when masses of people are angry, radicalizing, and rebellious, the
"leaders" of the workers will try to run around to get in front of them, in order to lead
them into safe and respectable activities (such as going to the election booths every few
years). The left wing of the union bureaucrats will split away from the Democrats, and so
will the liberal politicians, the preachers, the pundits, and the middle class
"leadership" of all the movements (women, environment, African-American, etc.). They may
call their new party a "workers" party or a "labor party," but they may just as well call
it a "green" party or a "citizens" party.
Advocates of a "labor party" admit, "...The assumption must be, given the political level
of the American working class, that...such a labor party would be launched under
thoroughly reformist leadership and program, with revolutionary socialists acting as a
critical left wing at best....If American labor formed its own party...then there can be
little doubt that the candidates it would run...would be as individuals not much
politically different from liberal Democrats today. The difference would not be in the man
but in the movement." (Draper 1972; 124-125)
But I am arguing that a "movement" for an electoral labor party would not, in practice, be
much different from a movement for a new capitalist party-no more than the "man" would be
different from other, reformist, men and women. If it showed any signs of vitality it
would immediately attract all sorts of liberal mouthpieces, professional bureaucrats, and
leftist charlatans, right along with the union officials, all comprising that "thoroughly
reformist leadership."
In the coming time of crisis and rebellion, revolutionary anarchists do not want to let
the politicians mislead the workers and others into conventional politics. Anarchists will
do their best to prevent the limitations of the movements by electoral parties-to inspire
popular militancy.
Revolution or Reform
If there is one thing on which Lenin and Trotsky agreed with the anarchists, it was that
the existing (bourgeois) state could not be used to make fundamental changes-that it would
have to be overthrown, smashed, dismantled, and replaced by alternate institutions. (Lenin
and Trotsky advocated a new, "workers' state," while anarchists are for federations of
popular councils and associations.) Lenin would quote Marx's conclusion from the 1871
Paris Commune rebellion, "The working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state
machinery and wield it for its own purposes"-a statement which Marx and Engels were to
attach to their next introduction to the Communist Manifesto. (Marx 1992; 206) Unlike
anarchists, Lenin and Trotsky were for running in elections as platforms for revolutionary
propaganda. But they denied that it was possible to use elections to take over these
states. So they said, many times.
Yet here we have all these Leninists, Trotskyists, and other Marxists who want parties to
run in elections without saying that a revolution is necessary. Presumably some of them do
not believe that such electoral action can lead to laying hold of the ready-made state
machinery and wielding it for the purposes of the working class. Yet they do not say so
nor fight to include such ideas in the party's platform. Other socialists and Greens
probably believe that the "ready-made state machinery" can be used for the good of
all-that is, they are sincere reformists. But what are the supposedly revolutionary
socialists doing? Are they deliberately lying to the voters?
To repeat: however democratic it appears, the U.S. government was designed so that the
working people could not take it over. In any case, the ruling capitalist class is not so
attached to democracy as to let the U.S. population vote in a government which would take
away its wealth and power, its factories, offices, banks, mansions, private jets, islands,
and politicians. Faced with such a threat, the capitalists will resist tooth and claw, to
the bitter end. (As the Southern slaveowners did when Lincoln was elected.) They will whip
up race hatred, organize fascist private bands, cancel elections, organize a military
coup, or do whatever it takes to "save civilization," as they see it. They must be
disarmed and removed from power. The workers and oppressed are the big majority of the
population, with their hands on the means of production, transportation, distribution, and
communication. The ranks of the military are the daughters and sons of the working class
who will not fire on their families if approached by the people. A revolution might be
fairly nonviolent, if the working people are united, courageous, and self-organized. And
if they do not let down their guard by holding illusions in elections.
Right now almost no one, beyond a marginal few, is for a revolution (of any kind). Most
people know that something is wrong with this system but have no idea what to do about it.
Yet more people can see the possibility of a general strike in a major city than they can
see any hope of organizing an alternative to the Democratic Party. And one such mass
strike, shutting down a city, would shake up the political consciousness of millions. The
whole of U.S. politics is organized so that ordinary people, the workers of every
category, do not realize what a terrific power they have if they would use it. Even now,
people can see the use of militant mass actions, if radicals were organized to raise such
ideas. This talk about forming new electoral parties is a diversion, something which takes
us away from really fighting the power.
In brief, an attempt to build a new national party would be extremely difficult, would be
reformist in its program, would be another capitalist party, and would serve as a barrier
to independent mass movement. Independent mass actions and struggles are what anarchists
advocate, to build a movement which might culminate in a popular revolution.
References
Alexander, MIchelle (2016). "Why Hillary Clinton Doesn't Deserve the Black Vote." The
Nation. http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/
D'Amato, Paul (2000). "Marxists and Elections." International Socialist Review. Issue 13,
August-September 2000. http://www.isreview.org/issues/13marxists_elections.shtml
Draper, Hal (1972). "The Road Forward for the California Peace and Freedom Party." The New
Left of the Sixties (ed. Michael Friedman). Berkeley CA: Independent Socialist Press. Pp.
118-138.
Green National Committee (2014). Platform.
http://www.gp.org/economic_justice_and_sustainability/#ejCurbing
Marx, Karl (1992). "The Civil War in France." The First International and After: Political
Writings: Vol. 3 (ed. D. Fernbach). London: Penguin. Pp. 187-236.
Woods, Alan (2011). An Introduction to Marxism and Anarchism. London: Welred Books.
*previously written for the Anarcho-Syndicalist Review
http://www.anarkismo.net/article/29595
------------------------------
Message: 2
"With most of the businesses now evicted from Brixton's railway arches, local street
artists have sent out a message to Network Rail, decrying their unpopular redevelopment
plans. The work by @Morganico and @MariaInPaint conveys powerful images about the impact
of Network Rail's plans, which has resulted in many much-loved businesses booted being out
of their premises..." ---- Brixton Arches: anti-eviction street art sends out a message to
Network Rail ---- BY MIKE URBAN - SEPTEMBER 3, 2016 ----
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2016/09/brixton-arches-anti-eviction-street-art-sends-out-a-message-to-network-rail/
---- View image on Twitter ---- Follow ---- Class War ---- Classwar2015 ---- Art on the
much loved Max cafe that's getting closed ---- Brixton Arches campaigners react angrily to
Lambeth's "smear campaign" http://bit.ly/2b4jxwK #savebrixtonarches
http://www.classwarparty.org.uk/brixton-arches-anti-eviction-art/#more-14043
------------------------------
Message: 3
It had to happen eventually: Western imperialists unleash the YPG to please Ankara. The
open parenthesis there two years Kobanî closes. But there is no choice: the struggle
continues. ---- With the entry of the Turkish army in Syria on 24 August, the civil war
enters a new phase. This martyr country is, more than ever, the sport of rivalries between
imperialist powers - Iran, Turkey, Russian, American, French, British, Saudi, Emirati,
Qatari ... ---- In this cruel quagmire, Alternative Libertaire supports, since 2014, the
forces of the Kurdish left - the PYD and the YPG-YPJ militias now spearhead of the
Arab-Syrian coalition Kurdish Democratic Forces (SDS). If AL supports the Kurdish left,
not only because it is "our best defense against Daech" as we hear too often in the mouths
of some Westerners, but especially because it is the only political force to propose a
project federalist, democratic, feminist and, somehow, secular, for the Middle East. A
project where all the cultural components of the region - Arabs, Kurds, Turkmen, Sunni,
Shiite, Christian, Yezidi ... - can live in equality. In this sense, it is the strength of
any and all friends of freedom and emancipation.
For everyone, this is obvious: the Turkish army did not enter Syria to fight Daech; and
not really either to fight Bashar; it has occupied the region that Djarabulus to prevent
the junction of the cantons of Afrin and Ayn al-Arab, and therefore the territorial
unification of Rojava (Syrian Kurdistan). Ankara and initiates the formation of the
"buffer zone" it announces for years, and that will allow it to continue to control the
jihadists chains that leave its territory to join Raqqa, the capital of the "Caliphate".
Incidentally, the Turkish military shelled the positions of FDS, and shelled several
villages under their control, leaving dozens dead.
View full size
The Rojava, a pawn on the chessboard imperialist
Since the battle of Ayn al-Arab (September 2014-June 2015), the Kurdish Left accepted the
financial and material support of some foreign powers (Russia, USA, France ...) not to
remain isolated against other ( Iran, Turkey, Damascus regime ...).
If you want to see the glass half full, we can say it played, with some skill, one
imperialism against another.
If you want to see the glass half empty, we can say it played a dangerous game. Because
obviously the imperialists see in the Rojava (Syrian Kurdistan) a pawn on their
chessboard. And it is this piece that they are sacrificing.
Dropping from Washington, Moscow and Paris
Fait accompli, the United States is trying in vain to limit the clashes between their
historical ally in NATO (Turkey) and occasional ally (SDS). But fundamentally, John Kerry
was quick to assure his loyalty Ankara and to distance itself from the SDS. On 26 August,
he said in Geneva:
"We are a united Syria. We support any independent Kurdish initiative. There was a limited
engagement, as everyone knows, with a component of Kurdish fighters, on a limited basis,
and we have cooperated very closely with Turkey to fully ensure that there is a better
understanding of the rules governing this commitment. "
Echoing his Russian counterpart Lavrov Segueï, immediately added:
"I believe that Kurds must remain a part of the Syrian state, and be part of the solution,
rather than being an actor instrumentalized to atomize and fragment the country."
Russia, godmother of Bashar Assad, and full reconciliation with Turkey since the
Erdogan-Putin meeting on August 10, and sets the limits to which they wish the MSDS
comply. It is however careful not to condemn the Turkish attack[1].
France is slavishly aligned Ankara. François Hollande, reported, on August 25 to
"understand" the Turkish intervention, letting out a few words of regret for the Turkish
bombardment on the positions of FDS[2].
Viyan Qamislo
This militia YPJ fell Wednesday, September 1 Daech face on the front of Manbij.
Cc blog Kurdish Struggle
"The Kurds have their friends to the mountains"
We must not imagine that the Kurdish left is surprise of this desertion. From the
beginning, she knew very well that this benevolence on the part of Western imperialists
was only temporary. "The Kurds have their friends to the mountains," says a local proverb,
meaning that this people must rely on itself.
In the coming weeks, if it continues dropping, the Kurdish left may end up alone again
well. For our part, we will continue to support its action. Because the face of bloody
potentates Ankara, Damascus or Raqqa, it embodies the only possibility of a democratic
alternative, federalist and popular.
Alternative Libertaire, August 31, 2016
[1]"Remarks With Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at a Press Availability" , Geneva,
26 August 2016.
[2]"Turkey. François Hollande "includes" intervention in Syria " , on Letelegramme.fr
http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?Syrie-la-gauche-kurde-seule-contre
------------------------------
Message: 4
The political and social situation of the country is far from finding a peaceful way,
without major fluctuations. The outcome of the coup among the powerful that ousted
President Dilma Rousseff, marking the possible end of the cycle called
"neo-developmentalist", led in recent decades by PT. The crisis and political instability
on the top floor, next to the power struggles and the interests of national and
international capital governments have created an extremely timely p ara a political,
legal and media blow on the PT by the Brazilian elite faithful doormat of the
international market interests. There were several factors that are inter-related in this
process, we can mention as very important: media campaigns, the acordões between political
subtitles, handling legal cases (personalized in the figure of Moro, transformed by the
elite in "anti-hero") the rise of a strong anti-PT sentiment, inflated not only the right
but also by both disappointed with the government's lack of progress EN social rights, as
also the attacks and withdrawals of other rights. The lurches to the right of PT, as well
as the able leadership of the great fox PMDB, Eduardo Cunha, were also determining factors
in this outcome. Analis air these issues, their conspiracies and power architectures is
critical to understand the moment we are going through.
The PT government project faced in the last period not only a serious political
instability in the balance of power within the parliamentary and legal institutions of the
country, but had to prove by force the poison himself who helped produce with its
alliances. The PT, which left no longer has anything thrown into the mass grave of the
order parties, guarantor of large groups, the profit of the big landowners, contractors
and bankers, tent or but not satiated greed of groups that even "belly full "do not want
to lose any penny in this recession. They want the people to pay the bill and move on to
further lacerate the few social gains, increasing the exploitation of the poor and the gap
of social inequality.
The PT sought its governance operating a policy of alliances that will attract and divided
oligarchic sectors of the right. So, it was pushed to the mass grave of collusion,
lobbying, bribes, slush, among many public funds deviations and private business
favoritism schemes. In society, pitched a social pact policy that did arrive governance
mechanisms on both ends of the class structure. Made growth policy in the financial system
gains and the big capital and, next to it, met with social programs the poor who were
underserved p public olicies. But left intact the structures of concentration of wealth
and power, and has for much of the budgets for payment of public debt. That is, the
so-called "progress" had a high price for the country, where the powerful of the belly was
even more full.
The result of engineering power assembled by PT within the developmental logic, was a
parliamentary coup that created the opportunities that the PT has the opportunist right.
Remember, so do not overlook that the setting (we call blow to rights) began to be
implemented even within the PT government. It was strongly advocated by the president on
his defense in the Senate and Lula. In a speech held on October 29, 2015, Lula said that
the party's priority was to "create political conditions that are approved the measures of
fiscal adjustment forwarded by Dilma Rousseff." And when the model of the social pact is
immured by the recession and the high cost of living, they are the cuts of pol & i acute;
public tics that the government uses as single output, with the excuse of improving the
economy. The first acts of the Executive attack the rights of the working class to the
taste of employers. Two of them are emblematic. A relief program to industrial, with
salary reduction, not to be facing layoffs to the crisis, a legal precedent included in
Provisional Measure 680 which creates the PPE and more flexible labor rights. And the
change of insurance rules, which virtually condemns the working youth to access their
rights when hit by unemployment.
The adjustment in the national budget took public schools to the brutal dismantling of
education, which was answered by occupations in São Paulo, Goiania, Rio de Janeiro, Ceara,
Rio Grande do Sul and Mato Grosso. Public health faces with panic dengue epidemics, and
zikavírus chikungunha transmitted by the mosquito which breeds in poor areas sanitation.
But the banks do not stop to celebrate your winnings. Half of the national budget is
charged by loan sharks public debt. Let's see how they walk the employer, controllers and
mining company Samarco shareholders criminals who destroyed the city of Mariana in 2015
ends, the Doce River to the sea coast, with its flood of toxic waste over everything.
Agribusiness and mining imposed and imposes its deadly model to indigenous peoples,
quilombolas, riparian and other poor people in the field.
In the field, the government Dilma became less that Lula and Cardoso government. The
government FHC became 287,994 families in the first term and 252,710 in the second term,
totaling 540,704 families settled. The Lula government settled 381,419 families in the
first term and 232,669 in the second term, totaling 614. 088 families settled. The
Government Rousseff became the first term only 107,354 families. In addition, the
government Dilma was the government allocated less land for agrarian reform, "were 2.9
million hectares of land in four years. Before, the worst mark was the second gove rnment
FHC (8.6 million hectares). "(INCRA data)
The government Dilma structured some existing settlements, but not settled families still
need land. Thus, land reform almost stopped, she walked very little. The various cuts in
the INCRA budget paralyzed some activities in the field.
With regard to indigenous lands, the government Dilma figure as the worst in the
Demarcation of Indigenous Lands since 1985. Only 10 TIs declared in the first term and 3
in the second. View:
http://pib.socioambiental.org/pt/c/0/1/2/demarcacoes-nos-ultimos-governos .
In addition, an extreme improvement over the Amazon. The government Dilma elected as model
of development in the agribusiness field, represented symbolically by the Rural Minister,
Katia Abreu (PMDB). He made agreements with the caucus in Congress, so that the government
sacrificed the settlements of landless families, the demarcation of indigenous lands and
settlement areas of quilombo communities. In the Lula government there was an opening for
the production of pesticides, and so, Brazil has become the country that eat poisoned
food, where consumption per person is 7.3 liters per year.
The federal failure in the case Guarani-Kaiowá well demonstrated who the government PT /
PMDB wanted to meet. The preference for landowners made several Indians were killed at the
behest of the farmers in the area of the Kaiowá. Indians, fishermen / farmers and the /
the western Amazon and the area is in the vicinity of Belo Monte were also forgotten while
megaprojects facing hidrobusiness received large investments from the federal government.
In the slums, Dilma reinforced and approved in collusion with the PMDB, the oppressive and
racist project of the UPP's, whose developments reinforce the genocide of black people. It
went further and signed in 2014, the authorization of the occupation of the favela Maré
(RJ) by the army.
With regard to issues of gender and sexual diversity, remain a common agenda of
conservatism. The last government vetoed the distribution of "anti-homophobia kit" in
schools, pointing to assume the Statute of the Unborn and refused, even with so much
appeal, to issue interim measure providing for a stipend to families of children with
microcephaly (we know that those who suffer most in these families is the mother). In this
matter also, a deafening silence about permission for abortions, where the federal
government est & AACU you; fulfilling the unfortunate role of criminalizing and "isolate"
the mothers with zika.
Therefore, the government PT / PMDB was not a government that ensured rights and much less
Temer guarantee something. The petismo and his government cut stratospheric funds for
education, health and culture. It changed the rules of PIS, created and signed the damn
Antiterror Law, helped in shaping the MP of the process of obstructions and sent on 22
March the Complementary Law Project - PLC 257/2016 (government project sent to the House
of Representatives ) attacking public servants across the country. Only about his
departure from the government, Dilma r esolveu symbolically invite some social movements
to some government defense ceremonies in the central highlands, trying to keep a dialogue
around the defense of "democracy" with some movements. But truth be told, the PT
government never ruled with any movement.
At the extreme pressure that has received capital from the imperialist government of the
PT opened auction exploration fields, yielding increasingly to the easing advancing the
privatization of public oil reserves of the pre-salt layer. Finally, the financial system
managed to impose, with the final approval of the Presidency, this Anti-Terrorism Act that
a precedent to launch on the social protest, which escapes from his control, a tourniquet
criminal-repressive legislation.
The third shift, as rightly spoken there, had its outcome in a mega political-legal farce
called impeachment. We know that this kind of revanchist stance in Brazilian politics is
nothing new because the historical constitution of the country have gone through different
strokes of different shades and shapes to name them. The question was always hope for the
best time to do it. Sure enough, with the help of PT, the blow was struck and threatens
even more exfoliate with full force the few rights of the poor s country.
In this scenario of representative politics, opportunism rule, already commonplace within
the guild policies, is giving more "to cloth sleeve." When it comes to rule, the PT is its
alliances by pure chance, too, regardless of whether these "allies" is the acronym that
stuck in political grave or not. Therefore, the calculation is to be government at any
cost, just following the natural logic of bourgeois democracy. An example is that in
municipalities where the PT maintains coligaç & atild and, with the PMDB there is no
embarrassment.
In all this, our anarchist opinion or demarcate positioning without any illusion in state
conspiracies, opinion which seeks to position from the foundation to give combat violent
withdrawal rights and the brutal adjustment that is applied. The output is not right there
on the corner, you need to know to position a set of forces to make popular resistance
adjustment and repression.
The state is not "neutral apparatus." No change fund comes from within the system machine.
The bourgeois liberal democracy was made by PT popular-democratic project and its
satellites the privileged channel to digest the social and political struggles. And with
it came inside, ideological production embodied in the practices and rules of the
institutional game: collaboration with the oppressors of the people repudiated, business
with multinationals, financial, industrial sectors, agribusiness, corruption, bureaucracy
and cooptation of social movements, disqualification popular participation that is not
related to their devices, legalization and criminalization of independent protest.
Moved the state apparatus, the PT tables bring to the movements the illusion that the blow
operated by reactionary sectors have no relation with the misshapen practices that PT
curled. Prepare well, the 2018 elections and a new social pact with the bourgeoisie (now
in opposition) you want to use the movements and trade unions, again as a ladder to a
flawed political design.
It is time to reaffirm the class independence of the workers against the economic
adjustment; it is time to oppose the corrupt system of representation of bourgeois
politics, with direct democracy and grassroots people's organizations; it's time to
generalize the struggle in the streets, strikes and occupations outside the bureaucratic
controls and electoral calculations.
Our militant position puts power in the basic work in forging solidarity organizational
spaces and direct action, with autonomy, with libertarian federalism struggles and joints,
rebuilding class independence perspective within the movements, communities and trade
unions. It is true that the path to these tasks is long, but it is also true that
socialism and freedom we defend not come, nor ever will come from within the state.
Against the electoral farce and cutting rights. Only the popular struggle decide!
Against blow to rights! Fight and Win Outside Urns!
OUR REBELLION NOT ACCEPT SET!
Coordination Brazilian Anarchist - CAB
anarquismo.noblogs.org
------------------------------
Message: 5
After a hot spring, summer was the occasion for a first assessment stage, which calls on
all components of social movement to return to the streets after the summer, against the
labor law, but also against repression, against large and imposed unnecessary projects,
and carry the battle of ideas at the dawn of an election year ahead foul. ---- After the
strong spring movement for the defense of the Labour Code, the summer was not really a
holiday taste. From the beginning of July, a return date was indeed raised in the agenda
to resume the struggle against the government and its anti-social project: it will be on
15 September. ---- Past mobilization and future was therefore in everyone's head, not to
engage in a final assessment but to debrief hot pending recovery: trade union strategies
have been decrypted, the role of media was analyzed the phenomenon unpublished standing
Nights has been widely discussed and answers - authoritarian and police - government have
been commented by all those and all those who, since March 9, beat the pavement ... and
some did not even really elsewhere suspended mobilization, as in Valenciennes where
rallies were held against the harsh repression that hit the trade union activists in the
region.
Radicalization of society
This movement was an opportunity for many people to engage for the first time,
demonstrated by standing Nights that flourished all over France. These protests gathering
spaces that largely outside the usual circles activists were often hesitant or confused
and, paradoxically, when they were born of the mobilization against the labor law, they
had difficulties to focus on this issue and to mobilize around this emergency there. More
than tools for the fight, standing Nights were finally politicization of tools and AL had
its place as a carrier of a constructed discourse and practices of self-organization - for
the word of distribution the decision on taking action.
All appointments of 15 September
for the repeal of the Labour Law Interactive map: add your local appointment
View full size
The scale of the mobilization and new forms of protest that have emerged now feed
expectations for social return, especially since trade union and political organizations
were not necessarily ready for the protest marathon and do have not always been able to
play their part: the wind turns not expected hoisted sail. A company's radicalization is
felt and was reflected in various ways: in the unions, and also in fractions of less
organized people, who use Nights standing or city AG to be heard. The consequence of this
is that the unions have been disoriented because it is not their usual tactics.
It is now to roll up their sleeves to mend the relationship and develop resistance cadres
capitalist juggernaut, either by strengthening union structures or trying to convince the
anti-capitalist political organizations to work together to dig breaches in the current
system. We'll have to develop our collective militants and rethink the relationship
between unions and structures that organize social struggles at the local level to achieve
more convergences.
In terms of modes of action also it will have to be bold: the protests have been proven
but have also shown their limits in a power that is not afraid to impose a law against the
opinion of a majority Population. The filter dams on them rather well received by the
public and used to continue the battle for public opinion.
Demonstration July 5 against El Khomri law
cc Daniel Maunoury
Type directly in portfolio
Finally, let alone blockages strikes show that we own the means of production and we have
the ability to make the government back by typing directly to the portfolio. Reducing the
government, it would first seek the repeal of the labor law, but it is not an end in
itself: we must get out of the defensive logic of recent years and enter a protest
vibrant, dynamic conquest to not let the extreme right to benefit from the general
exasperation.
There is much to do, much to rethink. And political time leaves little room for
reflection. The schedule ahead is already loaded and the state of emergency is a new
threat with which we must deal. In addition to the September 15, several sectoral
initiatives were announced September 8, in education and on the same day for workers in
social and medico-social.
Other fronts of struggle will not be outdone in this social return and that is in the
field of ecology we have perhaps the most to do. The challenge was indeed strengthens Bure
against a nuclear waste landfill project[1]or in Flamanville against the construction of
the EPR[2]. In both cases, extremely expensive projects in the service of a dangerous and
completely opaque industry are stubbornly led by power. Same to Notre-Dame-des-Landes
where, after a referendum cleverly staged by the government, environment and agricultural
autonomy are ever threatened. And we will continue to tell us that it is urgent to reduce
our expenses ...
At Notre-Dame-des-Landes and in the streets against the labor law, the way the government
handles political issues reveals the authoritarian drift of a state whose primary
objective is to maintain the existing system - and benefits of those who profit from this
system - whatever the price. Conversely, activists and militants of Alternative Libertaire
tirelessly carry a vision of society based on direct democracy, trying to disseminate
self-management practices in struggles and show more broadly that another world is possible.
But by entering into this new resistance against authoritarian logic, we strongly expose
repression . Faced with this, it will be necessary to demonstrate an unwavering solidarity
with all those and all those who are being prosecuted. In the coming weeks, many trial
will take place and we will be waiting for you to show our support. Several dates are also
known and already we can already give appointment on 19 and 20 October in Amiens to demand
the release of Goodyear employees convicted at trial in the prison for selected executives
of 'business.
This solidarity will be all the more important that the topic of security (as well as that
of "national identity", as has reminded the foul controversy over the Burkini in late
summer) will be at the heart of public debate in the election period ahead. Whether the
PS, with Republicans or FN, the field is ready, the speeches are honed and topics will
impose themselves. While the whole of the political spectrum continue to tilt to the
right, one can easily predict the tone for future discussions. Security, immigration,
austerity; both say blind repression, racism and uninhibited further dismantling of public
services at the expense of the working classes.
Neither resignation nor low profile
Again, we will be asked to validate a system that only protects those who hold wealth.
Again, we will be asked to give up our power of decision to others. Again, our word will
be stifled by the media machine. But this is not to resign or to lay low for the coming
year: on the contrary, we need more than ever to propose another project company, which
must be designed to be consistent with the current reality and respond to new social
challenges.
In this period, the unions and the broader social movement must act to remember that
political solutions can not be limited to institutional electoral competition. We must
play our part, start from the lived reality of working people to suggest other ways to
transform society, with our fears, our dreams and our certainties. This is where we always
found our forces. This is how we existed and we have won new rights through history,
through the conflict.
Nans (AL Ferns) and Benjamin (AL Paris-Nord-Est)
[1]Read "Antinuclear: Bure live" in Alternative Libertaire from July to August 2016.
[2]See particularly "Flamanville EPR: nuclear detonated prices" in Alternative Libertaire
in January 2013.
http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?Mouvement-social-Une-rentree-en
------------------------------
