Anarchistic update news all over the world - Part 1 - 11 October 2016

Today's Topics:

1.  France, Alternative Libertaire AL - public meeting, Aperitif
      debate presentation of Alternative Libertaire on 19 October in
      Nantes (fr, it, pt) [machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
2.  anarkismo.net: Leftists and Communists have damaged the
      Socialist movement as much as the right-wing did by Zaher Baher
      (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
3.  wsm.ie: Dublin solidarity protest with Polish women's strike
      - video report (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
4.  anarchist group "restive horse" (A.P.O.): SOLIDARITY IN THE
      CONCENTRATION AGAINST ARRESTED IN AUCTIONS (gr) [machine
      translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
5.  Czech, afed.cz: Anarchist tabloid. Existence 4/2016 - The
      main theme of this number of the anarchist review Existence is a
      bit untraditional [machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
6.  rebeldiacontrainfo: ¡Peace is not built with votes, it is
      resisting from below! (ca) (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1



Anti-capitalist, self-managing, feminist, union ... come and discuss with us the political 
project of Alternative Libertaire. How to fight today? What social project to propose? 
---- Alternative Libertaire Nantes, groups of revolutionary militant-es Nantes and Loire 
Atlantique who identify with anti-capitalism, self-management and the class struggle. ---- 
Workers in the public or private, with or without a job, students with high school 
student-es, retirees or insecure, we are fighting every day on our places of study, work 
and life. Supporters of a struggle unionism, we invested es in different union structures 
(CGT Sud Rail and SNCF, CGT Carquefou, South Rural, Solidaires students with Nantes ...). 
---- NANTES ---- Wednesday, October 19, 2016, from 19 am to 22 pm  ---- The Bruiser (43, 
rue du Maréchal Joffre)

the event is on social networks to join and share!

We are also pushing through collective struggles or associations ( Popular University of 
Nantes ). We try our level contribute to the development of social struggles and all 
emancipatory struggles. For housing rights, feminism, the regularization of undocumented 
migrants, against dismissal (Seita, Chapter, Air France ..) or of course against the 
airport project of Notre-Dame-des-Landes.

We also work for the unity of anti-capitalist Nantes through the construction of 44 
Anticapitaliste Front , grouping es-es organized militant or not, to come out of 
isolation, promote the struggles and make audible the radical critique of capitalism.

see the ad on the site of Alternative Libertaire Nantes

http://alternativelibertairenantes.fr/index.php/evenement/aperodebat-presentation-dalternative-libertaire/

http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?Apero-debat-de-presentation-d

------------------------------

Message: 2



There are many people from leftists, communists , socialists and some of the anarchists 
believe that Marxism and Leninism are two different things . They think that Lenin has 
distorted Marxism. My article here explains with evidence that whatever Lenin said and did 
have been originated from Marx . It tells you that Marxism has contributed greatly in 
damaging the socialist/ anarchist movement as much as the rightwing did. ---- The article 
analysis the role of technology, Proletariate , political party, bourgeoisie, nature and 
environment , revolution and nation question in view of Marx and connecting Lenin to him. 
---- Leftists and Communists have damaged the Socialist movement as much as the right-wing 
did  ---- By: Zaher Baher ---- Sep 2016 ---- The last century has seen a couple of 
historical catastrophes that continue to present day and the world still suffers from 
their fallout. The first one was so-called the Bolshevik revolution (Bolshevism) and the 
second was the "Iranian revolution". While none of them was revolution, in fact both 
stopped the revolution in the half way.

The first catastrophe has lasted almost for 80 years, it engaged nearly half of the world 
and its shade still looms over our heads. The second one helped to build religion 
political parties and their militia in the region, especially in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and 
Afghanistan. This has caused deepest fear and wariness for its main rival, Saudi Arabia. 
To the Iran/Iraq war, incoming of Mujahidin, Taliban, al-Qaeda in Afghanistan then Isis 
and the current wars between Sunni and Shia, Sunni and Sunni and Sunni and the "infidels", 
the "Iranian revolution" contributed greatly. Dark time triggered by this movement is here 
to stay and nobody knows for how long.

Both of them were recognised and defined by many people, including the leftists and 
Communists themselves, as two different events/directions. The first one as a left and the 
second as a right-wing, while both of them were the enemy of socialism/anarchism. Both of 
them were the main obstacles to reach the socialism destination. While both of them built 
upon their own principles, in practice both are being hostile to socialism, so recognising 
them by left or right for me in that aspect does not make a sense. In addition both have a 
common principal "Ideology" that has given them strength and power.

In this article I mainly elaborate and highlight the communists and its ideology's base, 
Marxism. Here I want to explain briefly the source of hostility to socialism that the 
leftists and Communists have relied on and the affected realms.

1 Left in the past and present:
Leftists, from social democrats, the socialist political parties, green parties to the 
working class/labour parties throughout the world never could become revolutionary forces 
to take the society towards major changes. Their slogans and demands, like freedom, social 
justice and equality have vanished as soon as they reached power. The Leftists' struggle 
in non industrialised countries was represented the guerrilla's war. In a sense of 
analyzing radical struggle, they never got anywhere or just simply built something, what 
in many cases was worse than the previous one.

In industrialised countries their struggle was the parliamentary election system. Once 
they reached power, they were unable to fulfil what they promised to people, so they 
betrayed those who voted for them. There is no doubt that among them there were faithful 
and dedicated people that their actual motivation to involve politics was to serve people, 
especially among the social democrats or labour parties. There were Marxist-Leninist 
people within these groups and most of the time they have/had more radical manifesto than 
their own party.

The power of people in political parties is very limited and they only project the 
illusion of changes, eventually disappointing their own supporters.

The socialist, the very radical people inside these political parties, in reality have 
left no doubt that, whether deliberately or not, they serve this system much better than 
their right-wing colleagues. They do that by prolonging the system; by deceiving people 
that their life can be improved step by step through the historical lie of election. They 
tell them this is the only way to make improvement, so there is no another way, no third way.

The experience and the realities proved while the leftist or socialists are in power, they 
are not only quelling the spirit of revolution among people, in fact they demoralise them, 
even killing their normal drive for resistance. In Europe, especially in UK, the period 
when Labour Party has been in power the number of the protests and strikes decreased 
compared to when Tory Party were in power.

The link below shows how the strikes in UK since 1970s are decreasing and becoming less 
effective as well. Since 1990 each year the number of the strike actions and their 
effectiveness dropped apart from 2011 as it was slightly different. The link also shows 
the reasons why there are fewer strikes every year although I personally disagree with the 
author's reasoning. http://isj.org.uk/why-are-there-so-few-strikes/

For many of the leftists, especially the Communists, distorting of the socialist movement 
for not achieving socialism go back to ‘Stalin'. A minority thinks Stalin has done nothing 
except prolonging Lenin's period and his theory.

However, if we look at the history and reality properly, we reach a conclusion that we 
cannot blame Stalin and Lenin for that because all of what Lenin did was originated from 
Marx and Engels.

Let's briefly look at the excuses of those who believe Lenin and Marx were different from 
one another as if Lenin has distorted Marx's theory and idea:

Organisation and working class party:

One of the factors pushed Lenin to build a political party was transferring a class 
consciousness to working class. He did not believe that the class consciousness emerges 
from external conditions and their actual impact on working class itself. He also believed 
in controlling the working class through the strict discipline of political party as he 
did not believe in the spontaneous movement of working class. He thought the spontaneous 
movement is chaotic and does not get the working class anywhere.

For victory of the revolution Lenin believed building a revolutionary political party is 
essential and also believed the communists are the most conscious people. This was the 
reason for him to build his party outside of the workers. So the Vanguard party is the 
best tool of the revolution and to build the Dictatorships of Proletariat. In his famous 
book "what can be done?" he lied down the plans and principles for Bolshevik Party and 
made it as main guideline for the party members to work on and go by it.

Lenin has got the idea of building the working class party form Marx. Marx in the 
Manifesto of the Communist Party said "The Communists do not form a separate party opposed 
to other working class parties "

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

Clearly in this short line Marx tells us: a) the communists and the workers are different. 
b) The working class can have their own political parties.

John Molyneux, academic, writer and one of the former leading SWP in Briton and now in 
Ireland has written various articles about Lenin and his theory. I regard him as one of 
the best people who has excellent knowledge about Lenin, Trotsky and Marx and can 
connecting them in respect of analyzing many issues. I refer here to him in some of his 
writings about the working class political party. In the link below he said "But when one 
speaks of Marx's theory of the party, the subject is not political parties in general, but 
the revolutionary party which has as its aim the overthrow of capitalism - specifically 
one is talking about Marx's concept of a proletarian political party, because, of course, 
it was his view that ‘the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class .." He 
continuous writing and says "...Indeed Marx often suggests that the workers cannot be 
regarded as a class in the full sense of the word until they have created their own 
distinct party. Thus we find in The Communist Manifesto that ‘the organization of the 
proletarians into a class, and consequently into a political party, is continually being 
upset Again by the competition between the workers themselves'[11], and in the decision of 
the London Conference (1871) of the First International that ‘the proletariat can act as a 
class only by constituting itself a distinct political party'.[12]This basic idea remained 
central to the theory and practice of both Marx and Engels from the mid-1840s to the end 
of their lives" in the same writing Molyneux carry on, he refers to Marx who said "This 
constitution of the proletariat into a political party is indispensable to ensure the 
triumph of the Social Revolution and of its ultimate goal: the abolition of classes.[45]"

https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/molyneux/1978/party/ch01.htm

Lenin and Marxists-Leninists wanted to share their idea and principles with the working 
class to debate the working class struggles and transferring them the socialist 
consciousness, but as the history since then shows in practice they have controlled them 
and while they were in power they exploited and suppressed them.

2 State, Centralism and Authority
In regard to the above, there are leftists and Communists again who believe that what 
Lenin did was not originated from Marx and Engels. In my opinion that is not true. In fact 
Marx and Engels persisted on centralism and authority. In the first and second 
International Workers' Organisation as the central and authoritarian organisation, the 
messages sent out and order the working class was " Workers of the world, unite!". Marx 
himself was on the top position in this organisation. It was then when Marx insisted on 
having a central authority in the organisation which was rejected by Bakunin. Bakunin 
believed that centralism in organisation suppresses the spontaneous action and 
revolutionary enthusiasm. This was one of the reasons that made Marx remove Bakunin and 
his comrades from the organisation.

Marx believed after taking over control of the means of production there will be a 
temporary period of transition from the socialist society to Communism. Marx made his 
theory about that very clear in 1870 in his book, Critique of the Gotha Programme "The 
transitional period is essentially a period of revolutionary change. "Between capitalist 
and communist society," wrote Marx, "lies the period of the revolutionary transformation 
of the one into the other."24.. Although Marx in this book clearly talked about the 
authority but the foundation of this ideas has back to 1843 "In fact, in The German 
Ideology itself, the theory of proletarian dictatorship (not yet given this name) is 
presented rather clearly: ". . . every class which is aiming at domination, even when its 
domination, as is the case with the proletariat, leads to the abolition of the old form of 
society in its entirety and of domination in general, must first conquer political power 
in order to represent its interest in turn as the general interest, which in the first 
moment it is forced to do."18 Marx and Engels, The German Ideology, 52-53. Please see the 
link below.

In fact the type and the reason of state that Marx and his successors wanted to establish 
are really not important at all. Any type of state whether is small or big, proletariat or 
bourgeois state; all of them need bureaucratic administrations, police, military, courts 
and law and the spies' network or institutions.

In reply to Marx, Bakunin said in his book: Statehood and Anarchy, "If there is a state, 
then there is domination and consequent slavery. A state without slavery, open or 
camouflaged, is inconceivable-that is why we are enemies of the state. What does it mean, 
‘the proletariat raised to a governing class?'"26. Marx responded, "It means that the 
proletariat, instead of fighting in individual instances against the economically 
privileged classes, has gained sufficient strength and organisation to use general means 
of coercion in its struggle against them..."27. Then Bakunin asks, "Will all 40 
million[German workers]be members of the government?"28 Marx's response, "Certainly! For 
the system starts with the self-government of the communities."29

When Marx writes about the proletarian power and the peasantry he says "the proletariat... 
must, as the government, take the measures needed... "30, see the link below

http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/alternatives-to-capital/karl-marx-the-state.html

However, from very beginning Bakunin idea and attitudes towards state were clear and never
hidden; he made the following caustic remark about Communism "I detest communism, because 
it is the negation of liberty and because I can conceive nothing human without liberty. I 
am not a communist because communism concentrates and' absorbs all the powers of society 
into state, because it necessarily ends the centralization of property in the hand of the 
state, while I want the abolition of state"

http://www.politicalsciencenotes.com/political-ideas/comparison-between-karl-marx-and-michael-bakunin/1207

Alas what Bakunin predicted about Marx's state, after almost a half century the Communist 
and the Bolshevik party proved to be true.

Many Marxists deny that what came in Critique of the Gotha Programme, has anything to do 
with state. However, both Marx and Engels in other statements or correspondences were 
insisting on power and centralism. Even for some countries or places Marx accepted 
election as the Parliamentary system can be a peaceful period to exchange the power "Did 
they not advocate participation in bourgeois elections, and the election of workers' 
candidates into parliament? In fact, in certain countries, they even thought that a 
working class parliamentary majority could be used for a peaceful transition to socialism"62

http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/alternatives-to-capital/karl-marx-the-state.htm

A couple of issues were very important for Marx: centralism and industrialisation. He was 
very keen on having them. He always thought these two are main foundations for 
establishing socialism. That is why both Marx and Engels became a great advocate of 
centralism in the politics and in working places as well. They never denied this fact; I 
have already mentioned centralism in regards of their politics above.

They believed that working in factory is good for the workers. Engels praised the factory 
"as a school for hierarchy, for obedience and command" (Ecology or Catastrophe, the life o 
Murray Bookchin, By Janet Biehl), P 190.

In another book, Bookchin says "Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were centralists - not only 
politically but socially and economically. They never denied this fact, and their writings 
are studied with glowing encomiums to political, organisational, and economic 
centralisation. As early as March 1850 in the ‘Address of the Central Council to the 
Communist League', they called upon the workers to strive not only for ‘the single and 
indivisible German republic, but also strive in it for the most decisive centralisation of 
power in the hands of the state authority ‘ lest the demand be taken lightly , it was 
repeated continually in the same paragraph, which concludes: ‘As in France in 1793, so 
today in Germany the carrying through of the strictest centralisation is the task of the 
really revolutionary party'." The Murray Bookchin Reader Edited By Janet Biehl, P140.

On the same page Janet wrote: The same theme reappeared continually in later years. With 
the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War, for example, Marx wrote to Engels "The French 
need a thrashing. If the Prussians win, the centralisation of state power will be useful 
for the centralisation of the German working class"

On the personal level, Marx also was arrogant and authoritarian. He has not made much 
effort and was not ready to unite with those who differed with him, even they if they did 
not have significant differences. Anybody who reads his correspondences with his opponent, 
like Proudhon, Bakunin, Max Stirner and the others realises that.

3 Working class and Technology
Marx was very concerned about the revolution and insisted that it was the task of working 
class only. He, in other words, thought the advanced technology and industrialisation 
creates a strong working class that will be ready for the revolution. This was the reason 
why we see almost his main writings and studding being about industrialisation, capital, 
added value, working class and its class struggle with bourgeoisie to prove that the 
future of socialism can only be in the hand of Proletariat. This means that any society 
must go through the advanced capitalism before heading to socialism. This is the reason 
for Marx to be very hopeful about Proletariat to the point "Marx had written that if the 
working class ever accepted capitalism as natural, then all hopes for revolution would be 
lost" Ecology or Catastrophe, Edited By Janet Biehl, P285.

While Marx connected the strengths of Proletariat to advanced technology, he did not hide 
his feeling and happiness even if that would happen through destroying many people's life, 
displacing many thousands more, the environment, causing starvation and unemployed. The 
best example was East India Company, while this company in the end became an empire on its 
own and ruled a very large area of India.

Janet Billie in the same book on page 60 drawing our attention to what Bookchin remarkably 
said about Marx's idea and thought "Marx had considered it capitalism ‘historical mission 
to develop technology to the point where it could provide for humanity's material needs" 
In the same book on page 190 she wrote what Bookchin says "Marx had even thought 
capitalism, by destroying earlier economic forms and developing technology, had played a 
historically progressive role. He thought class society had been historically necessary to 
achieve humanity's ultimate liberation. Such notions, Bookchin wrote, made Marxism, all 
appearance to the contrary, ‘the most sophisticated ideology of advance capitalism'."

David Graeber in his new book: The Utopia of Rules on page 121 and 122 talks about Marx's 
idea of technology and profit that actually did not come out true especially if it 
concerns revolution in the area of means of production. He says " Marx's specific argument 
was that, for certain technical reasons, value, and therefore profits, can only be 
extracted from human labour. Competition forces factory owners to mechanise production, so 
as to reduce labour costs, but while this is to the short-term advantage of the individual 
firm, the overall effect of such mechanization is actually to drive the overall rate of 
profit of all firm down. For almost two centuries now, economists have debated whether all 
this is really true. But if it is true the otherwise mysterious decision by industrialist 
not to pour research funds into the invention of the robot factories that everyone was 
anticipating in the sixties , and instead to begin to relocate their factories to more 
labour-intensive, low-tech facilities in Chain or the Global South, makes perfect sense"

Graeber in the same book on page 143 says "...that capitalism is in its nature 
technologically progressive. It would seem that Marx and Engels in their giddy enthusiasm 
for the industrial revolution of their day were simply wrong about this. Or to be more 
precise: they were right to insist that the mechanisation of industrial production would 
eventually destroy capitalism, they were wrong to production market competition would 
compel factory owners to go on with mechanisation anyway"

Even knowing that Proletariat was a minority within the society, Marx put a huge task on 
it. Not just fulfilling the revolution and even not controlling the state only; in fact he 
believed that the workers should have and set up their own committees in the factories and 
the other places of work to control the production and other issues. This means giving the 
authority to a minority of people to overrule the majority; in other words, power to 
minority on the expense of majority. The power and authority, whatever its size anywhere 
that means there is no social justice, no equality and no freedom.

Murray Bookchin in his interview with Janet Billie explained this point very well " 
...Well unless the worker in an enterprise really begin to see themselves primarily as 
citizens rather than workers, then we are opening up the very strong possibility that they 
will claim at the expense of the popular assembly. To the extent that you withdraw power 
from the popular assembly and give to work place, to that extent you open cracks in the 
unity of the popular assembly and increase the possibility that the workplaces itself will 
act as subversive element in relation to the popular assembly. let me put it simply: The 
more power the workplace has, the less power the popular assembly has - and the less power
the workplace has, the more power the popular assembly has." The politics of Social 
Ecology, Libertarian Municipalism, Edited by Janet Billie, Page162.

In regards to the definition of Proletariat for Marxist today, especially the Marxists in 
Middle East they need to clarify themselves. If they accept the same definition as Marx 
had in his day of Proletariat then that is quite far from the reality and they will be 
disappointed about the revolution. If they agree that everybody wherever they work and 
whatever they do including students, pensioners and disabled people are workers, and then 
in this case they should review their understanding of Proletariat.

However, it might not be very important really how they define proletariat. What important 
is we know and very clear is the working class is much weaker and the hope of the 
revolution by them very slim than the time was Marx alive. Here, we can say that Marx's 
prediction by increasing the quantity and quality of proletariat along side of advance 
technology, strong capitalism and getting frequent economic crisis that for him as coming 
a sign of the revolution did not happen.

If we look at the reality considering working class even the people's movement are in a 
very low level, except in France and Greece. Even the actual struggles in these two 
countries are not to achieve anything new, in fact to maintain, to keep what they had 
before. This made me for the last 10 years to think that the economic crisis has not been 
capitalism crisis, it was our crisis. To clarify my point I wrote a long article in Oct of 
2015 under the title: Is Capitalism in Crisis, or Are We?

http://zaherbaher.com/2015/12/14/is-capitalism-in-crisis-or-are-we/

Technology and its Role: As I mentioned above technology and its advances were very 
important for Marx and Marxists in building socialism. For them advanced technology was a 
historical development and condition to tackle scarcity of production and also to create 
dynamic revolutionary force, proletariat. If we look into this topic closely we can make 
several points. First: Marx had no doubt that a strong proletariat emerge from an advanced 
technology and advanced technology is necessary for industrialising society; finally full 
industrialisation creates socialism. This was how Marx has seen his final goal and that 
was also the reason as to why Marx thought the bourgeois is a revolutionary class and 
recommended the proletariat to offer its support. Even now many of the Marxists think the 
bourgeois is revolutionary. Second: this analysis by Marx became the foundation for Lenin, 
Stalin and their successors to work on to clarify Marx's point better and put it in 
practice in real world. With help of Marx's theory they have divided the history of human 
beings society in respect to arriving of socialism into 5 to 6 stages. It started from 
primitive society, slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism and then communism. This 
division clarified the role of proletariat and technology as even more important. They 
insist on that talking about building socialism in the non advanced economy countries was 
dream and not practical.

Technology and the quantity and quality of proletariat in fact are not even a secondary 
condition for emerging revolution and reaching socialism/anarchism society. The grounds 
for this revolution are existing classes and hierarchical society dominated by the tiny 
minority of elites. This condition has left the majority of people either having nothing 
or very little and the elites having everything. This kind of societies existed throughout 
the history since the class society appeared, so it is really not important whether that 
tiny minority in that society was named feudal, bourgeois or capitalist. It is very true 
the societies have been changed through the means of production but the exploitation, 
suppression, class and hierarchy society were always there. The above was the main ground 
for emerging revolutions regardless of the type of the society that people lived in.

In general the Communist, Bolshevik parties in the world struggled to make bourgeois more 
stronger and to work on industrialising the society, even if their slogans praised 
socialism. This was the reason for those parties to cooperate with the so called 
"patriotic bourgeois" to establish different kind of powers: socialist state, patriotic 
democracy state, popular democratic state, communist state. In few pre-capitalist 
countries, like Iraq, the Communists even participated in governments. They were trying to 
transform the society into socialist one, skipping the capitalist phase (the non- 
Capitalist path of development). In Iraq the Iraqi Communist Party, ICP, had a pact with 
Ba'ath party over 5 years between 1973 to end of 1978.

So whatever happened in Lenin period and after him, we will see its root in Marx's theory 
and idea.

In my opinion this thinking of proletariat and advanced technology as necessary for the 
society to go through capitalism in order to reach socialism/anarchism greatly damaged our 
movement for the last 170 years. It is also quite obvious this idea has made the Marxists 
ideologist blind, as they cannot see the realities, pen their mind, think on their own 
rather than following someone who died 133 years ago. They now need to ask themselves if 
Marx's revolution theory connects to the role of proletariat and industrialisation that 
means the revolution in the none industrialising countries will not be happening. More 
questions here are how this revolution can happen even in the industrialised countries? Is 
it through vanguards, even if history proved they are the suppressors of the revolutions 
rather than liberators? Let's say it will be happened through them; but how do you 
transfer the society into full power through the Dictatorships of Proletariat, to 
Communism, classless society? The Marxists can only respond to these questions quoting 
Marx's bible, not through the reality.

4 Technology, Nature, Environment and Ecology:
Marx and Engels exceptionally highly valued technology, for their own purpose. No doubt it 
was on the expense of environment, nature and whatever creatures live on the planet. Marx 
saw human beings precious and valuable to the extent of subduing the nature and dominating 
it by the human beings for their interests. In this point Marx shares his interest with 
Qur'an because both of them believe that the nature has been created to serve human being.
This was the reason for Marx to produce his infamous line when he says "Human being is the 
most valuable capital in the world" According to this statement the other creatures are 
not very important, In other words, we can sacrifice them for the sake of human being's 
interests.

I cannot recall Lenin writing a lot about ecology or environment like how Marx did. Even 
Marx has not written as much as Peter Kropotkin and Murray Bookchin have. However, 
whatever Marx wrote about this issue, showing his concern, in practice he was very hostile 
to nature by praising and advocating technology so much. Marx wanted the nature to be 
dominated by the human being and this can only happened in his view by having advanced 
technology. He did not pay any attention to damage and destruction of natural environment.
He did not mind killing animals, birds and other creatures with displacing many more. He 
missed the need of balance between technology and nature. He ignored the fact that while 
nature in many ways serves people and the society and then in return it should be served 
by the Human being as well.

What is clear today is the whole natural disasters including raising global temperature 
are being created by mankind through the advanced technology for more money and profit. I 
believe many of us agree that this is a clear hostility towards nature.

5 Self-Determination and Nation State:
Marx and Engels talked and wrote a lot about various issues. As the nationalism and 
national movements at their time were a hot issue they tried to link it to proletariat 
question so that they could not avoid discussing it.

At the time there was Poland issue back to 1795 and Ireland that for a few centuries was a 
colony of Great Britain and from 1801 became a part of it. There was also the Jewish 
question, in addition to Hungary, Slovaks, and Czech and Bulgarian issues as well.

When the Bourgeois revolution in France in Feb 1848 happened, it pushed Marx and Engels 
towards giving more attention to national question and their expectation from Bourgeois 
class. Their definition for Bourgeois revolution was Democratic Bourgeois Revolution, 
struggling for nation's freedom. So we should not be surprise to hear their opinion of the 
Bourgeois "At this time, Marx and Engels believed the bourgeoisie could play a 
historically progressive role by sweeping away feudalism, despite clear signals that it 
was prepared to compromise with the old order because it feared the power of the growing 
working class that allied itself to the anti-feudal struggle". Marx and Engels did not 
pause here, when they spoke about Germany and its connection with Poland, they clarified 
their attitude about the National issue and laid down a duty for the Proletariat 
"Referring to the struggle in Germany at the time, Marx and Engels explained that this 
meant the working class must "fight[together]with the bourgeoisie whenever it acts in a 
revolutionary way, against the absolute monarchy, the feudal squirearchy, and the petty 
bourgeoisie".3

http://links.org.au/node/164

Of course they believed that support or even union of proletariat and bourgeoisie in the 
anti-feudal struggle would be in the interest of working class, creating next step towards 
socialism

In Poland question, Marx and Engels were very much in favor of the Polish after seeing a 
clear exploitation and suppression; they supported them in their right of 
Self-Determination. In Nov 1847 in commemorating the 1831 Polish revolt in London meeting, 
Engels had a speech about the liberating Poland. He said "We Germans have a particular 
interest in the liberation of Poland. German princes have profited from the partition of 
Poland and German soldiers are still exercising oppression in Galicia and Posen[parts of 
Poland]. It must be the concern of us Germans, above all, of us German democrats, to 
remove this stain from our nation. A nation cannot be free and at the same time continue 
to oppress other nations. Thus Germany cannot be liberated without the liberation of 
Poland from oppression by Germans. And for this reason Poland and Germany have a common 
interest, for this reason Polish and German democrats can work together for the liberation 
of both nations".5 (see: the previous link)

What is amazing here although above was Engels' opinion about Poland as one of the "great 
historic nations" but in the meantime he did not approve the same right for some of other 
nation, like, Southern Slavs. His justification was " Engels' view was based on the firm 
materialist reasoning that the various southern Slav peoples were not yet nations - were 
not oppressed as nations - and therefore could not exercise a self-determination 
independent of the reactionary Prussia-Austria-Russia axis (...) Apart from the Poles, the 
Russians and at most the Turkish Slavs, no Slav people has a future, for the simple reason 
that all the other Slavs lack the primary historical, geographical, political and 
industrial conditions for independence and viability. (...) While Engels noted the 
capitalist tendency towards centralization and the establishment of large states, he 
underestimated the countervailing tendency for small nations to fight against national 
oppression and for independent states of their own - that the path to the elimination of 
national boundaries might first have to go through a proliferation of them - a fact that 
Lenin was later to recognize" (The same previous link.)

In regards to Ireland Marx had different opinions. In a letter to Engels in 1867, Marx 
said "I used to regard Ireland's separation from England as impossible (...) I now think 
it inevitable, although federation may follow separation." He continued and said "I long 
believed it was possible to overthrow the Irish regime by way of the English working class 
ascendancy. A deeper study has now convinced me of the opposite. The English working class 
will never achieve anything before it has got rid of Ireland".

I quoted Marx and Engels in respect of National Question to draw the reader's attention to 
the fact that Lenin has got his opinions and principles from Marx. It is not his own 
theory; however, we should acknowledge that Lenin has done this in practice. The statement 
of "Self-Determination" became an article in the plan and program of Bolshevik alike 
parties in the world. He has written a lot about this issue in very detail especially in 
his famous book, Lenin and National Liberation in the East. This book has become a guide 
for the Communist people although in many countries the Communist parties have sacrificed
the principle of Self-Determination to diplomatic relation between Russia at the time with 
the "Patriotic Government". In some of the countries the Communist Parties have sacrificed 
this principle because they got on very well with the Ruler Bourgeois. Obviously in this 
circumstances the only interest the Communist party was concerned was the old Russia's 
interest and clearly it was at the expense of their own people.

Conclusion:

Lenin followed Marx in whatever he has done and said. Some of the analyzing from Marx for 
the Marxists became a Bible, but this is not right because many of Marx's writings and 
predictions have not come out truth, in fact they damaged the socialist movement badly. 
The Marxists should have reviewed Marx rather than sacred him. Marx's times in term of 
Proletariat and technology were very much different from now. Many of Max's writings and 
predictions were wrong for his time and are still wrong now. Marx had a great fear about 
the scarcity of necessary production to sustain the life of people, this was one of his 
reasons of defending the technology and also technology for him has a great role in coming 
revolution. The life proved that this was not true as well. His definition for proletariat 
as only a revolutionary class might for his period was right, but certainly now have been 
proved wrong. Not only they cannot unite in one day action even they cannot unite in one 
office, in one section, department (of course there are reasons for this). Working class 
like the rest in the society are the main protectors of this system, it is them who hold 
the system tied and keep it intact. What important for them are their jobs even if that 
comes at the expense of killing innocent people in other countries and destroying their 
lands. We can see this fact today very clearly; any of us can bring up many examples. 
Again setting up committees and assemblies only from the working class and them to be in 
control is wrong. We want everybody should have a power not just the workers alone.

Marx and Marxists have been believing in political revolution and taking power from the 
top, while the revolution should be social revolution starts from the bottom of the 
society and should cover every single area. The ecology issue is very important too; to 
certain extent if the revolution does not cover that area then the revolution will be 
failed. We also cannot talk only about class issue without addressing the hierarchy issue 
seriously.

In dividing history of human beings in respect of arriving socialism, like how Lenin and 
Stalin developed later, Marxists are wrong. This theory has caused a lot of problems for 
the countries in which the Communist parties betrayed the socialism by cooperation with 
the Bourgeois Ruler in the country and take a part in the dictator government or setting 
up their own one.

http://www.anarkismo.net/article/29659


------------------------------

Message: 3



Tuesday 3rd October evening hundreds of Polish women and their allies gathered outside the 
Polish consulate in Dublin to protest the anti-woman bill being pushed in the Polish 
parliament that will criminalise women who have abortions in all circumstances. Ahead of 
last nights'Dublin - Solidarity with Polish Women on Strike' protest the organisers said; 
---- "Last week, the Polish parliament has decided to proceed with a bill that directly 
attacks women. The majority party voted uniformly in favour of further discussions on a 
bill that bans abortion with the exception of immediate threat to a woman's life. If the 
bill will be legislated for, abortion will be illegal even in cases of risk to women's 
health, fatal foetus abnormalities or when the pregnancy is a result of rape and incest. 
The bill calls abortion ‘prenatal slaughter' and introduces criminalisation of women for 
the procedure.

Major protests countrywide will be taking part this weekend as part of Czarny Protest 
(Black Protests) with women and men wearing black to express their rage, but also mourning 
for fundamental human rights being refused to women in Poland. The protests will culminate
on Monday with Black Monday - warning strike, with women across Poland taking a day off 
from work, university and household tasks to continue protests around the country. Many 
shops, universities and restaurants will be closed or only men will work. This is just the 
initial warning for the government."

http://www.wsm.ie/c/dublin-solidarity-protest-polish-womens-strike-sept2016

------------------------------

Message: 4




Wednesday 5/10 held once again rally outside the courts of Thessaloniki in order to block 
the process of auctioning. In gathering crowd called collectives, associations, unions, 
popular assemblies and student figures. Concentration Wednesday came in the wake of the 
mobilization last week in Thessaloniki district court where protesters clashed with the 
police and managed to block the auction of primary residence of a five-member family. ---- 
Yesterday (5/10), the riot police tried to prevent the assembled to enter the courtroom. 
The comrades and fighters clashed once more with riot police and managed to block the 
process. A companion Intrinsic prosachthike- and then bringing transformed into arrest. He 
was released today after the trial got postponed for Friday 7/10 at 12 (accused of 
insulting, resistance and bodily harm).

It is now obvious that the 'left' government has put in place the left version of the 
doctrine law and order. In these circumstances widespread social liquidity, which 
seamlessly continued imposition of modern totalitarianism, the rule puts all means to 
service the purpose of which is none other than the complete control from below. 
Simultaneously with the imposition of poverty and deprivation, attempts to establish a 
permanent climate of fear and subordination in society. And it passes through persecution, 
repression and "exemplary" punishment of those who doubt the power and struggling towards 
overturning and spreading a collective vision different from the dominant. Since the 
evacuation of the Rector, the crackdown on protests for 3 memorandum evacuations of 
housing occupations, to wood and arrests in the concentrations against the auction, it is 
clear that the government has given the generalized humiliation and constant loss of 
social consensus and then by imposing new hard looting conditions, has no choice but to 
targeting, the slander and repression of social, class and political resistance outbreaks 
to continue unhindered its work.

Opposite the repressive approaches, the resistance is not bent and does not go away. 
Battling. Toward poverty, misery and repression oppose the obstinacy of the fight, the 
syllogikopoiisi and companionship.

To take the lives in our hands, to take responsibility to define the present and the 
future, building a new emancipated society based on dignity, justice, freedom and 
solidarity in the wreckage of the power world, the state and capital.

The slow death of a bankrupt system that does not have to offer rather than fear and 
misery oppose the organization of the struggle for the Social Revolution, for anarchy and 
libertarian communism.

RESISTANCE TO PROJECTS OF STATE AND CAPITAL

Block IN PRACTICE THE AUCTIONS OF FIRST RESIDENCE

Organize social and class counter-attacks

anarchist group "restive horse" /

member of the Anarchist Political Organisation - Federation collectivity

Patra, October 2016

http://apo.squathost.com/

------------------------------

Message: 5



It aims in three directions - to grab attention, to entertain a bit and foremost to pose 
some questions to think about. We follow which are the most popular themes in anarchist 
magazines and websites, which print formats are the most successful. We kind of compare 
our observations with the practice of mainstream media. But our motivations and goals are 
very different from theirs. We obviously have to strive for reader friendliness but can't 
be a goal in and of itself and we need to avoid such traps. We ask: How to use humour and 
satire? What can ties to culture bring? Can marketing methods be used for our needs? 
Should we try and aim at the public or give up this broad term and concentrate on 
particular groups? To what extent should we use simplified rhetoric and a certain kind of 
populism? Isn't it against our principles to try and get into mainstream media? How to 
work with language in order to be comprehensible?

The theme is supplemented by the experience of the British group and magazine Class War or 
the Belorussian newspaper Navinky. We look to different uses of humour and satire in the 
anarchist movement, a hundred years ago and just a few decades ago, with a particular 
emphasis on the art of making fun of ourselves. This is followed by two pages of fictive 
news and an untraditional column - one of them is about the relationship between anarchism
and the detective genre.

Furthermore you can read a report from the anarchist camp that took place in August in 
northern Austria, information about the Anarchist library and archive in Vienna, the work 
of Vadim Damier on post-war anarchism in Bulgaria, an article on anarchist cinematography 
in Spain during the social revolution, a reminder of the atmosphere of riots during the 
uprising in Oaxaca in 2006 or an interview with a Cuban anarchist about the local 
movement. Due to latest developments we concentrate on Turkey and Kurdistan through an 
interview with activists from Turkish ABC and an overview of the situation of anarchists 
in Kurdistan.

We also inform about the congress of the International of anarchist federations, that took 
place in Frankfurt and we publish two statements that the congress adopted. The ABC column 
talks about another trial with our friend Igor, who was first accused of terrorism to 
finally recieve a ban to attend anarchist events, all for recording some graffiti. This is 
followed by a satirical report from another trial where our friends are potentially facing 
very high sentences in a case constructed by the police. As always texts from the wall 
newspaper A3 are not missing, as well as reviews and an overview of public activities of 
the local movement.

Download http://afed.cz/casopisy/existence/Existence_4_2016.pdf

https://www.afed.cz/text/6536/existence-4-2016

------------------------------

Message: 6



We share the English translation of our article of opinion "¡La paz no se construye con 
votos, se hace resistiendo desde abajo!", Translated by Andy Folk from New York, USA, whom
we thank. ---- We offer a profound, disobedient and rebellious NO to the referendum, not 
only to its detestable result, but to its procedure and strategy as well. We recognize it 
as mechanism to usurp the thoughts and decisions of the grassroots communities, a 
mechanism of politicking for various partisan forces: politicians in the right wing 
hierarchy, but also the left. They are once again trying to interrupt and interfere with 
the social processes from below, since the leaders of the great political structures 
always linger around these popular processes in order to capture political capital, only 
to disappear without fulfilling any of their promises or commitments to these communities.

The manipulation and strategy of domination inherent in the referendum were made obvious
in its sad results. In Catatumbo, in Choco, in the Cauca, in Uribe and Medium Magdalena 
"Si"[Yes]won. In the cities, where an indolent an unreflective middle class is easily 
manipulated by hegemonic media from safe distance from the armed conflict, "No" won. How 
easy it is to cowardly ask for war from the security of the cities! How easy it is to talk 
shit about peace, when you only have to vote, and it's others who assume the direct 
consequences of the war, those that always have had to bare this war: the indigenous, 
blacks, peasants, and youth of marginal neighborhoods.

Decisions of life and the death in the rural zones cannot stay in the hands of the 
indolent and brutal unconscious of the urban middle class. This is the great absurdity of 
the referendum, entering into the game in which the decisions of life and death of these 
communities are negated through substitution for party, electoral, and media mechanisms.

To accept whatever type of liberal decision-making mechanism is to enter into the 
power-play of the oppressors. The peace is not built with a vote, the peace is not a gift 
from those above, the peace is built little by little, in the struggle and forms of 
organizations of those below, transforming this country through exercising the communal 
autonomy and power, as did the "Peace Community" of San Jose de Apartado 90 years ago, as 
did the indigenous community Nasa when they expelled the military bases of Cerro de Berlin 
in July, 2012. No more militarism or military dominance of the territories! Let's all 
build the peace in resistance, from the territories and the communities!

https://rebeldiacontrainfo.wordpress.com/2016/10/04/peace-is-not-built-with-votes-it-is-resisting-from-below/

------------------------------