Today's Topics:
1. France, Alternative Libertaire AL #271 - Spanish state: Tod
@ s in the calle, all in the street ! (fr, it, pt) [machine
translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
2. US, black rose fed. - "IF YOU WANT A BETTER CAPITALISM": AN
INTERVIEW ON SOCIAL DEMOCRACY WITH GABRIEL KUHN
By Enrique Guerrero-López and Adam Weaver
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
3. Indonesia, anarkis.org: Hoax: Alternative Facts and Methods,
Steps Laughing System BY FATHUL PURNOMO [machine translation]
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
4. Poland, 47. newsletter Workers' Initiative #47 - Forum: The
activities nationwide [machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
5. anarkismo.net: Greece, ESE, Small tool for the new
anti-labor law by ESE Thessaloniki (gr) [machine translation]
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
With the Marches of Dignity, on Sunday, February 25, in several towns on the Peninsula,
the Iberian social movement, which has been retreating for the past two years, has taken
the initiative and the path of resistance. ---- An awakening that is a real good news, so
much " the effect " Podemos has done evil, to the point of making to forget that the
class struggle was in the street and in the companies, and not in the urns. This poison of
the " political outlet " has, alas, penetrated many sincere militant circles (including
in the ranks of the libertarian movement). This poison has had obvious consequences on the
level of combativity, whereas the social movement in the Pyrenees has always been
characterized by its creativity, its mass character (among other things the Indignad @ s
movement) and its radicality.
A reversal confirmed and summarized by Irene de La Cuerda, from the secretariat for social
action of the Spanish anarcho-syndicalist CGT: " The irruption of Podemos and its
pronouncements largely contributed to the demobilization by making believe that the" We
could change things from within the system. What could have changed was the intrusion of
the machinery of institutions. "
This day of the March of Dignity of 25 February marks a new era of mobilization. It has
been successful, with several tens of thousands of people on the streets, in several cities.
Unemployment rate well above 20%
As in previous markets, they have demands specific to the current context. The president
of the government, Mariano Rajoy (People's Party, right), who is in a parliamentary
majority, intends to deepen the counter-reform of pensions initiated by the Socialists of
the PSOE in 2011. Such an attack on social rights will have serious consequences for the
population whole.
In a country where the unemployment rate is well above 20% and reaches 40 % among those
under 30 years of age, in many households retirement pensions are the only fixed resource
for families.
Other demands were highlighted in the demonstrations: the end of impunity for policies and
corruption, the repeal of the Mordaza (Gaglet) law [1], which aims to criminalize the
social movement or The demand for the amnesty of militants imprisoned or prosecuted by the
courts.
" New markets are already planned for May 27, with the idea that they all converge
towards Madrid, " concludes Irene de la Cuerda. The Iberian social movement has not said
its last word ...
Jérémie Berthuin (AL Gard)
[1] On the Mordaza Law, see on the site of AL: " Spain: A law to put the resistance on
its knees ".
http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?Etat-espagnol-Tod-s-a-la-calle-tous-et-toutes-dans-la-rue
------------------------------
Message: 2
In the era of Trump, there's a clear and growing interest in socialism, especially among
young people. The first measurable shift began to peek over the horizon in polling data
done in the wake of the Occupy movement, showing 49 percent of people ages 18-29 favored
socialism over capitalism. The political terrain of the US was rocked to such a degree
that even the Republicans took "capitalism" out of their talking points. As the narrative
of free markets and unquestioned neoliberalism publicly unraveled, we reached the point in
2016 where a majority of those under 30 rejected capitalism and had a positive view of
socialism. This crisis of the political establishment was further deepened by the
emergence of Black Lives Matter. Ferguson became symbolic of the deep racial inequality
that exists across the US, but it was also the rebellion of urban centers like Baltimore -
traditionally Democratic and with significant Black elected leadership - which melted away
the "post-racial" mythology that took hold during the Obama years.
So when Bernie Sanders stepped into the ring for the 2016 presidential election as the
anti-establishment candidate building a "political revolution," he slid through the door
kicked open by social movements, exceeding even his own expectations and gaining
unanticipated popularity. The Sanders campaign simultaneously popularized and clouded
understandings of socialism. When asked about his vision of socialism during a CNN
presidential debate, Sanders responded that we should "look to countries like Denmark,
like Sweden and Norway," conflating a social democratic welfare state with the
anticapitalist core of socialism.
Taking a cue from Sanders, we decided to "look to countries like Denmark, like Sweden and
Norway" to take a deeper look at social democracy from the perspective of those who live
in "actually existing" social democratic countries. We recently spoke with Gabriel Kuhn,
an Austrian-born author living in Sweden and involved in radical labor and migrant
solidarity efforts, about his analysis and experience of social democracy. Kuhn, the
author of numerous books including Antifascism, Sports, Sobriety: Forging A Militant
Working-Class Culture, is a member of the syndicalist SAC (Sveriges Arbetares
Centralorganisation) and has in recent years mainly been involved in migrant solidarity
projects.
Enrique Guerrero-López and Adam Weaver: Through the Bernie Sanders campaign, social
democracy reentered public discourse in the US. Sanders and others often point to
countries such as Denmark as a model for the US to follow. As someone who grew up and
lived in more than one European social democratic country, how would you respond to his
supporters?
Gabriel Kuhn: Well, as someone who lived in the US for several years in the 1990s and who
visited regularly during the following decade, I guess I understand the sentiment. What I
mean is, if social justice, egalitarianism and civility guide your politics, European
social democracy has several advantages over US realities: There is a stronger safety net
for the sick, the needy and the elderly; higher education is not reserved for the
economically privileged; there aren't significant amounts of the population sitting behind
bars (and no one on death row); most workers are unionized; civil rights are not under
constant threat by religious fundamentalists and right-wing zealots, and so forth. So,
yes, if you want a "better" capitalism, I think you will find it here. But of course, it
is still capitalism, with all that entails: individualism, competition, alienation, class
divides, the maxim of profitability and the propagation of constant economic growth
despite its disastrous social and ecological consequences. This is all just administered
differently. Plus - and this is really important - European social democracy, like any
type of government in the "First World," rests on an imperialist system that is everything
but social, egalitarian and civil. The state, of course, is very powerful, which wouldn't
appeal to folks with anarchist or left-libertarian leanings. Bureaucracy and red tape are
a part of daily life.
With respect to European social democracy serving as a possible model for the US, there
is, of course, another thing to consider, namely whether that is at all feasible, even if
it was desirable. I doubt that the model could be reproduced in the US. Apart from
imperialist exploitation, two factors were key for the growth of social democracy in
Western Europe: a strong workers' movement and the long shadow cast by the Soviet Union on
its ruling classes. This context is gone even in Europe, and it never existed in the US in
the same way. In addition, there are other historical factors to consider in the US - for
example, what J. Sakai calls "settlerism," notions such as "American exceptionalism" and a
deep mistrust of government, both on the left and the right. So I think that if the left
in the US wants to make mitigating capitalism's worst effects a priority - which is,
basically, what social democracy has been doing in Europe throughout the 20th century - it
needs to develop its own visions and, particularly, strategies. If the focus ought to be
on revolutionary politics, it would require a different framework altogether.
A common argument from those on the left who support left-leaning electoral campaigns,
such as that of Bernie Sanders, or those who advocate forming a new, independent left
party of some sort, is that these campaigns can help support and build social movements.
Some highlight the efforts of Bernie Sanders in echoing the demands of Black Lives Matter
and immigrant worker struggles as examples. In the European social democratic countries,
how would you describe the relationship between electoral politics and social movements,
both historically and today?
In order to answer this, I think we need to look at the history of European social
democracy. I will try to make this short.
It must not be forgotten that social democracy's roots are Marxist. The Bolsheviks were
originally a faction of the Russian Social Democratic Party. Before World War I, a
classless society was the goal of all social democrats, even if there were heated
discussion about the right strategy; some favored a parliamentarian, step-by-step
approach, others an immediate, insurgent one. Then, three major historical developments
successively pushed social democracy further to the right:
1. World War I and the Russian Revolution of 1917 led to a division between the social
democratic camp and what now became known as the communist one; the first gathered the
critics of the Bolshevik dictatorship of the proletariat, and the second its supporters.
(Anarchists, who tried to maintain a third position, lost influence.) In Austria, the
so-called Austromarxists were the last social democrats who still pursued a classless
society. They tried to build bridges between social democracy and Bolshevism and reserved
the possibility of a dictatorship of the proletariat - if need be - in their party
platform. The fascist takeover of Austria in 1934 marked not only the end of the
Austromarxist era, but the end of social democracy as one of three possible paths to a
classless society (communism - or, more precisely, Leninism - and anarchism being the
other two).
2. With the rise of fascism, in particular the Nazis' ascension to power in 1933, and
World War II, early 20th-century social democracy was basically wiped out. The social
democratic movement that re-emerged from the ashes of World War II was significantly
different. Any ambition - or even pretense - of creating a classless society was gone, and
the foundations for modern-day social democracy were laid, namely overseeing a more docile
version of capitalism, characterized by class compromise, anti-communism and confusing
slogans, such as "social market economy."
3. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the era of neoliberalism basically eradicated all
differences between social democratic and bourgeois parties. If the legacy of post-World
War II social democracy is preserved at all, then it is in self-proclaimed "left" or
"communist" parties, such as Die Linke in Germany or Syriza in Greece. Since 1990, the
shift to the right in mainstream European politics has been so strong that positions now
considered "extreme left" would have been average social democratic positions even in the
1970s. We are witnessing certain attempts to counteract this development, with left
currents in social democracy making themselves heard. In the UK, a representative of this
trend, Jeremy Corbyn, is even heading the Labour Party. This is not without significance
for public discourse, but the restraints that both the political system and the internal
structures put on established power brokers, such as the British Labour Party, limit the
impact of these tendencies. There are forces at play that are bigger than politicians'
intentions, no matter how good they might be.
So, to answer your question about the connections between social democracy and social
movements against this historical background: Historically, this connection was strong.
The workers' movement, which carried social democracy in the beginning of the 20th
century, was a cultural movement going beyond questions concerning wages, working
conditions, union representation, housing or social services. It addressed all aspects of
life, including the arts, sports and entertainment. In the early 20th century, the rise of
social democracy was closely tied to mass movements focusing on everything from the
emancipation of women to community education to temperance. (Issues that seemed more
obscure - such as sexual liberation or animal rights - found stronger support among
anarchists.)
The connection between social democracy and social movements was significantly weakened by
the institutionalization of social democracy following World War II. Social democratic
politicians have sometimes tried to gain votes by piggybacking on popular social movements
(say, the antiwar movement or the anti-nuclear movement), and today's "left social
democrats" certainly try to make this a part of their agenda, but, for the most part,
social movements have been considered a nuisance or even a threat to the civil order
maintained by social democratic bureaucrats. This is why the so-called green-alternative
parties formed across Europe in the late 1970s, hoping to serve as institutional
representatives of the social movements that had emerged since the late 1960s, and whose
demands the social democrats were both unable and unwilling to meet. Today, of course,
most of those parties have become part of the political establishment, too.
I suppose that two factors allowed Sanders to champion social movement support in his
campaign: First, an antiestablishment sentiment and turn toward populism and grassroots
organizing in general (also on the right); and, second, what's effectively still a
two-party system, which means that no other relevant party on the left occupied that role.
What this means for social movements is difficult to say, and I have to leave that
analysis to folks on the ground in the US. But of course, there is always the possibility
of cutting off movements' edges to make them appear more acceptable, of compromising their
independence by support that is more controlling than generous, and of outright co-opting
them for one's own interests. All of this is hard to avoid if you play the political game.
In the US, critics argue that social democracy has historically rested on both a
colorblind populism and a parochial nationalism, which sidesteps an analysis of white
supremacy and xenophobia. For example, during the New Deal era in the US, a modern welfare
state coexisted with both Jim Crow and Japanese internment camps. What has been the
relationship between race, nationalism and social democracy in the Europe?
The critique you're mentioning certainly applies to European social democracy, too. The
way in which many social democrats rallied behind national interests during World War I
came as a shock to genuine internationalists, and was a major factor in the following
division between the social democratic and communist camps. Even if international
solidarity - expressed in support for anticolonial movements, granting asylum to political
refugees, or above-the-average foreign aid (it's a low bar) - has characterized certain
social democratic governments until the 1970s, social democracy never overcame the
nationalism that is inherent in protecting the rights of a nationally defined working
class. In other words, social democracy never did or could live up to true
internationalism, which would extend the fight for social justice beyond national borders
and attack the imperialist order.
As far as race is concerned, many social democrats were avid followers of eugenics before
this so-called science was discredited by the horrors of the Nazi regime. The social
democratic embrace of eugenics was related to the idea of creating "healthy," "advanced,"
"higher" human beings. While many social democrats must be credited for their resistance
to fascism - which they opposed due to its anti-democratic and chauvinist[ic]character, as
well as its hostility toward the workers' movement and other people's movements - there
were certain ideological overlaps in the 1920s and '30s. This was also expressed in
rhetoric and aesthetics.
An important question, of course, is whether these flaws are inherent in social democracy,
or whether they were historical errors that can be overcome. The history of most
movements, anarchism included, is stained by shortcomings and embarrassments. However, one
thing is certain: The achievements of European social democracy cannot be separated from
imperialism and an unjust international order. The combination of economic growth and
relative social justice that characterizes European social democracy rests on the
exploitation of colonized peoples and cannot be reproduced globally. Global justice
requires a very different setting.
In the US, many people equate social democracy with socialism. How would you respond to
those who make this claim, and what is your vision for a socialist society?
Social democracy is not socialism. No serious social democrat would claim that either.
Historically, social democrats believed that social democracy can pave the way to
socialism. Today, hardly any social democrat believes even that.
In a socialist society, the people's basic needs - housing, shelter, food, health,
education, care, access to culture, etc. - are satisfied communally and distributed
equally. It is different from a communist society in that it still allows for personal
property. It is different from an anarchist society in that it still has governing
institutions that are not under direct control of the people. I don't think we can point
to any nation state that has realized socialism, although some - including European social
democracies - have obviously come closer than others. Examples for true socialism -
historically and presently - might be found in communes, cooperatives and collectives of
different stripes, often during times of revolutionary upheaval. They are inspiring, but
seldom serve as long-term models for the organization of millions of people. How socialism
is going to work on a large scale in the complex world we live in is something we still
need to figure out. Stating that it will never work is no answer. It is an ideal well
worth fighting for.
Segments of the left in the US, either as organizations or individuals, called for various
levels of tactical engagement with the Sanders campaign, arguing that this is an
opportunity to advance socialist politics and potentially build a new party of the left.
What are some examples of this being attempted in Europe? How has it played out in practice?
I think we need to distinguish between two questions here: One, when is it time for
radicals to support candidates in political elections? Two, what is the long-term
political prospect of this?
What I'm trying to get at is the following: There are occasions when the outcome of
elections makes a big difference, both for the daily lives of millions of people and the
possibilities of radical organizing. I know that many anarchists refuse to vote under all
circumstances, and as far as I'm concerned, that's up to them. The "lesser evil" argument
certainly isn't always the best. If you only have terrible options, why would you choose
any of them? However, fetishizing voter abstention as a demonstration of political
superiority or a criterion for anarchist identity is silly. It turns anarchism into a
Christian ethics of conscience, rather than a commitment to social change. I can name
numerous recent elections here in Europe where it was very important to vote for or,
especially, against certain candidates. We live in dangerous times and there is no place
for ideological quirks. And as far as the last presidential elections in the US are
concerned - which affect people worldwide, not just in the US - I would have rather seen
Sanders become president than Trump or Clinton, so I don't think there is any shame in
people having tried to get him elected.
That's one thing. The other thing is what you expect from that and how much of your
political effort you want to put into this. In other words, if supporting someone like
Sanders becomes your political priority, and if you really think it can lead the way to a
radical transformation of society, you're probably doing more damage than good to radical
politics. Without a clear revolutionary perspective - and as far as I can tell, Sanders
never had one - the changes you can make are limited. You won't be able to challenge the
system itself. If you allow me to return to the opening sentences of this interview:
you'll have "better" capitalism, but that's it.
As far as the comparison with Europe is concerned, I think the situation in the US with
Sanders was rather unique. European radicals argue often enough about whether it's okay to
support certain candidates in elections or not, but very few have illusions about this
being anything more than a pragmatic intervention in the political terrain we are forced
to operate in - again, concerning how it affects both the daily life of the people and
radical organizing. Maybe it's the two-party system, maybe it's a question of culture,
maybe it's the lack of a strong social democratic tradition, maybe it's the sensation of a
self-confessed "democratic socialist" running for president - whatever the reasons, the
fact that Sanders enthused so many on the left, including the far left, doesn't really
have recent European equivalents. Even when Syriza rose to power in Greece, the
understandable excitement was always kept in check by widespread skepticism and
apprehension. Whether that makes European radicals more perceptive or just more cynical,
I'm not sure.
This is not to say that there isn't collaboration between radicals and left-wing parties
in Europe. In some cases, relatively strong left-wing parties can help extra-parliamentary
politics, as long as there are personal contacts, respectful collaboration and an
understanding that they are the parliamentary representation of broader struggles. If we
take the example of Die Linke in Germany, there is no doubt that it strengthens
extra-parliamentary socialist politics through grants, access to infrastructure and
information, the influence it has on public debate, etc. As I said before, there is always
the danger of co-optation, and radical activists need to be aware of that, but to assume
that co-optation is inevitable is not only wrong but also assumes a position of weakness.
It is wrong for empirical reasons. If we use the example of Germany, I know many folks
doing radical work with the support of Die Linke without being compromised in what they
are doing, both because they are aware of the potential pitfalls and because segments
within Die Linke see supporting them as an obligation. It assumes a position of weakness
because it reckons that any collaboration with less radical forces will necessarily weaken
the radical ones. This is a big problem for the advancement of radical politics. While
there are historical examples - and certain organizations on the left - that make such a
position seem plausible, there is no natural law dictating any such outcome. Whether more
or less radical forces will gain from such a collaboration will be determined by taking on
the challenge. This is often the only chance for radicals to spread their ideas and gain
any broader influence. The alternative is sectarianism and self-marginalization.
There are historical examples that might help illustrate what I mean. The German
anarchists Gustav Landauer and Erich Mühsam played a significant role in one of the most
exciting chapters of revolutionary history in Germany, namely the Bavarian Council
Republic of 1919. Landauer was lynched for his involvement by right-wing soldiers, Mühsam
spent years in prison. Both Landauer and Mühsam were outsiders in the German anarchist
movement. They were influential in the Bavarian Council Republic because they met, argued
and worked with communists and left-leaning social democrats. Most anarchists in Germany
at the time organized around a journal called Der Freie Arbeiter and were very critical of
Landauer and Mühsam. Their influence on the revolutionary upheavals in Germany at the time
was close to zero. This is not where I like to see anarchism.
So, let us return to the present and the specific situation in the US. I don't have enough
insight to say anything about whether a broader socialist movement that gained momentum
through the Sanders campaign is able to advance radical politics. But I would say that
this needs proper analysis rather than instant dismissal or tantrums about selling out.
One important factor to consider is whether the current situation mainly demands defensive
measures or whether this is a time for attack. To phrase this in more general terms: At
what point does protecting certain social achievements take priority over pushing for
revolutionary change? After all, the latter can become a dangerous exercise if the
possible outcome is a step back (or several) rather than a step forward, which is the case
when right-wing forces are better equipped to use a revolutionary situation to their
advantage than left-wing ones. The socialist movement of the 1930s faced similar questions
with regard to fascism, and I would argue that the communists' talk of "social fascism"
and the rejection of any collaboration with social democrats undermined the potential of
United Front policies. (Many anarchists were guilty of the same mistake, but they were no
longer a significant force, so this was less consequential.) In a contemporary US context,
with the Trump presidency and the right wing on the offensive, the question becomes: Is it
a priority to defend civil rights and social services together with a coalition as broad
as possible (not least in order to keep any possibility of future radical offensives
alive), or would this mean to settle for less than what's achievable and abandon radical
politics altogether? Finding answers is very difficult, but it needs to happen in order to
address the issues you're raising.
As far as building a party of the left is concerned, I'm not really sure how that would
play out in the US. I'm mainly thinking of the electoral system. Basically, in most
European countries, you enter parliament if you gather more than 4 or 5 percent of the
popular vote. A similar percentage gets you into regional parliaments and city councils.
This is why Die Linke in Germany - to continue with this example - is able to provide
important infrastructure to extra-parliamentary movements, even if its nationwide support
hovers at no more than around 10 percent. The party also receives plenty of media
attention, participates in all relevant television debates, has members in federal
committees, and the like. In view of the electoral system in the US, it doesn't seem
likely that you reach that level of influence unless you can seriously challenge the two
big parties. Under such circumstances, I'm not sure whether building a party is a useful
tool to advance the socialist cause, even if you are open[to]broader coalitions. I have
heard theories that the Democratic Party could be turned into a left-wing player of sorts.
I have a hard time imagining this, considering both the history and composition of the
party and the dynamics of US politics, but that's just my impression from across the pond.
I am convinced that the left needs organizational structures. We need solid frames for
networking, collaborating, discussing and coordinating. At the same time, there must be
respect for diversity and the autonomy of local groups and caucuses. Whether we need a
"party of a different kind" or different names for our organizations seems mainly of
academic concern. The wording isn't all that important. Important is the establishment of
organizations that can strengthen socialist politics. This is one of the biggest
challenges the left is facing. I believe that in order for these organizations to be
effective, they ought to engage various left-wing currents. These, however, must meet on a
level playing field without dominant groups absorbing the rest.
Enrique Guerrero-López and Adam Weaver are both members of the Black Rose Anarchist
Federation / Federación Anarquista Rosa Negra (BRRN) in their respective cities of Austin,
Texas and Miami, Florida.
http://blackrosefed.org/4733-2/
------------------------------
Message: 3
Materialism; Metamorphosis and Proliferation Options ---- Ancient theses of Marxism
vulgarly sees the existence of determination in every dot of civilization, and of course
the accused is again capitalism, including in this case the production of knowledge. The
base guarantees the rate of stanzas per suprastructure verse, arguing through the
post-Marxist critique that the supersutructure can work independently without the reality
of the underpinning of the base is certainly relevant in some respects, but not in the
technological world. After all, in reality the limit is 150 characters on twitter, and
with the arrangement of facebook alogarithm, the user can not do outside of the
provisions, who else if not them the owners of capital. What they produce is not content,
it is true that the production process runs individually, but with work lines that have
been offered previously.
This reading explicitly dictates that consumption is nothing other than the product of
production, and even worse, the act of giving like and social status in social media as a
process of self-consumption, is actually what we are employed by facebook, immaterial work .
In an era in which prodigious authorization takes place, the return of capital to
individual loci-you deliberately assume the smartphone is yours, but at the same time
there is an act of control that is crossed from the asymmetric pull of the universe of
ourselves. Instead of producing and acting according to solitary desires-which, of course,
without reading any discourse of technology, is an assumption worthy of being listed in
the complementary menu of goats because since man was born in a social womb in the same
way with his intention of action which is never purely individual, When we can acknowledge
that freedom is only guarauan after uyupan soup soto Lamongan, with the knowledge that
seeks to pursue the supreme righteousness of the version of the holder of capital, Then in
so doing what we produce, what we want to find is predictable, or in other words
diceterminating. Reading linear historicalism like this is certainly problematic, and the
funny thing is that we are the users who perfected the forecast put forward by social
media. The video of the cat that facebook alogaritma heading is never definitively wanted,
but because he is the one, so we like him.
So that in this era also humans increasingly easy to become fanatical in one mahzab, they
are conservative wing always berserk with progressive peers, as simple as has been
eliminated choice.
With the rise of technology, and the change of reality included in man, it can be said
optimistically, that this is the era of victory from materialism. Even the information
units are easier to materialistly examine, as opposed to wishing for revelations that
descend from there-need more flaming bushes on the banks of the Ciliwung River. The basic
character of materialism is its change, meaning it is metamorphosed from one form to
another, and it is this change of positiveness that is dammed with the algorithm that is
determined by the owner of capital. The basic basis of technological materialism turns
into physicalism. Step by step the changes have been in the map. The motion of true
materialism is able to open the proliferation of possibilities. From what should not be
unlimited,
Covering Main Narratives, Alternative Facts
Then alternative facts become hope for the expulsion of reality, with no fixed with the
great narrative that has been formed. Alternative facts are useful in forcing the hard
space of knowledge, so that knowledge does not stagnate. It is precisely by giving
alternate facts that have not been summed up in the realm of knowledge.
The addition of an alternative fact will react directly with the old knowledge, in
addition it may synthesize, or even abort the previous theses. What is clear is that
knowledge moves back, and is not produced from one side only. Feminism, for example,
suggests alternative facts in civilization, beginning with how reality has been formed by
men, and continuing on how language as a product of civilized preparations wore masculine
styles. With that also the expression and experience of women can not be translated in the
developing language structure, so it needs to illustrate it through the expression of the
body of the woman. And the work of true knowledge is thus, he only works when supplied
with facts that not only support, but also often break old beliefs.
Terma 'alternative fact' itself began to rise after the victory of Donald Trump. He
arbitrarily claimed that there were about 1.5 million masses present at his inauguration
ceremonies, which did not correspond to valid facts that only ranged as many as 250
thousand humans. In other languages Donald Trump has spread hoaxes, or information with
fake data. Not only this time, on the contrary, he feels that scientific research on
global warming is not believed, or if conversion to scientific research is considered a hoax.
Many of the people are angry especially with how the nature of Donald Trump has been
displayed in the public. Including some people who are eagerly skinning any portion of the
error in a story that is classified as a hoax. Even more funny is, people who exploded
angry with the news hoax is at once my colleague who the number of follower instragramnya
about 10 thousand and entirely bodong, alias he bought follower! Or more radically, that
in 10 facial photoshoots at the same time one will be chosen among the others with the
highest level of self-satisfaction, is the fact that we like, so people will always have
to add the caption #NoFilter when the photo Which is naturally uploaded. Our deal is one,
humans love to be deceived, and even deceive themselves. So when netizens get angry with
hoaxes, it means he is actually being denial , because from the beginning the facts are a
matter of choice. This is where trust emerges, and at the same time why it is impossible
to abort it.
The practice of replicating objects turns out to be from being imitated, better, more
aesthetic and we like it. From the beginning, facts are a matter of preference, we will
always choose the facts we like. No longer a matter of harmony or not with reality, which
you often encounter incompatibility with dating app like Tinder.
Then the fact is never presented as a natural emerged and entered in the slots of
knowledge naturally, as long as it is imagined. In addition to the slots already provided,
as well as the fact that there is always the fact that we choose, and even in the case of
hoax he does not have to always correspond to the facts out there.
Brain Work, Recommended Pragmatism
Facts that are intentionally captured and reproduced in the brain are always facts that
the brain already wants . The consideration is of course diverse, and my speculation is as
simple as the fact or information is the most profitable.
Civilization has always imagined the brain is a device with the aim of always reaching for
the absolute truth out there. In fact, if placing it in the pace of evolutionary history,
pure brain features appear to conform to reality. And thus, its function and its practical
work, certainly ensures survavilitas. So when meeting a cobra in the jungle, the brain
work is not what imaginists think it is-an absolute doubt only happens when you own an
apartment and start upset with the rising electricity tariff. Our ancestors of course
directly helter skelter to avoid the danger of the snake's poison bites. So the brain from
the beginning was not designed to serve the queen of truth, practically this is a matter
of life and death. Included in the knowledge, there is a process of trusting first,
So when confronted with theoretical truth, the most correct is the most reliable in
reality. And this is where the hoax appears, he works to serve the agitation of
middle-aged mothers about the latent danger of China, in order to strengthen the identity
of the native of Java and its Islamic religion. Hoax appears practical in a pragmatic
framework, giving him significance in reality.
Out of Binary, and Alternative No Alternative
With a hoax that works pragmatically, the binary-binary is no longer able to be used to
determine where the hoax is located. Hoax is detached from such a binary dichotomy, hoax
ignore the academic criteria. The simplest example is the existence of an 'aseng'
utterance, connecting a foreign word, usually in the form of a sentence, "Indonesia has
been occupied by foreign and aspiring henchmen" . And if you want to be strict in logic,
other than the local there will only be foreign, there are only two categories, then silly
when there is a new category with the name of aseng. But precisely with that hoax
compiled, he was detached from the references of knowledge that was initiated as true.
In science, it can be found that it is commonplace in pseudo-science , the impossible
knowledge to be broken, not because it has fulfilled the absolute rightness of knowledge,
quite the contrary. True knowledge is capable of fulfilling its impossibility, meaning
that it can be broken with new knowledge. Hoax will always miss when trying to target,
because indeed he was created from the beginning not to meet the rules of knowledge. Of
course you can very carefully expose sterile arguments in a hoax, but it will not mean
anything, because he will still work.
So in this case it is also impossible to convert people to the consumption of hoaxes,
other than the form of sectarianism thanks to the algorithm that has been compiled, the
human from the beginning of selecting facts, and especially faced with situations that
benefit survavilitasnya. That's where the hoax is fertile. No matter what the arguments
offered by abortion, it will not be able to abort trust, because hoaxes are not designed
with such kevalidan.
Hoax does not work solitary, they colonize, so when one fruit of them has been consumed
will simultaneously reeled his comrades following. The formation of information in the
mode of language, one hoax will resonate other words, like the word revival of the PKI
will simultaneously thrill the word atheism, and so on. This shows that in every bongkah
of information, a cosmology of supporting information around it will be established. That
is the reason each discussion will always end up with one of the others running out of
comments when asked for something, on the grounds that the comment he or she is making
will be submitted by the other. This suggests that the social mind has been constructed,
so that even comments will be provided with slot-based analytics slots. Though it should
always appear alternativitas from one fact, and the alternatives are pruned. So what is
claimed so far as an alternative may not be that alternative. Simultaneously insist that
the alternative, is a fact that is not produced by the same party. Quoting Zizek that even
what we imagine as a way out of this issue is already provided by the interested parties.
Based on the letters from Oxford Dictionari's Word of the Year , this era is a post-truth
era , in which post-facts are born . Some are very optimistic to see that hoaxes will be
effectively used against the media that is subjected to single truth, on the other hand
some upset with the hoax growing. Using critical reasoning in this era? The truth is,
critical reason is no doubt just like applying lie detecor from the time of James
McKlenzie to Jessica Kumala Wongso. The best way to treat a hoax is to laugh at it. It is
impossible for him to be wiped out of reality.
What is much more urgent is needed is an alternative method, even with any dated fact,
with the same eyeglasses, will end up in the same narrative. He, an alternative fact is
what has been previously in the frame of mind of the former system. Dispose of the system,
describe the reality out of the slots that have been formed. This is what civilization needs.
http://anarkis.org/hoax-fakta-dan-metode-alternatif-langkah-menertawai-sistem/
------------------------------
Message: 4
It read, among others, the decisions taken at the tenth congress of delegates and
delegates of our union, association events and activities in the 2016 final compensation
that must be paid Amazon wrongly exempt employees and other ongoing trials. In addition to
the interview with fighting for many months IP trade union committee at the Polish Theater
in Wroclaw, also read about the situation in Malopolska tower crane operators and
employees of cultural institutions on the example of POLIN Museum in Warsaw. On the
following pages we publish an interview with the conditions prevailing in Poznan
gastronomy, as well as an article about how the upcoming reform of education already
affects the conditions of employment in education. Zwiazkowczynie IP talk about the
reasons why they take part in the protests associated with attempts to tighten abortion law.
We remind you that in addition publish the bulletin always condominiums on the pages where
they write and the author of the friendly with OZZ IP tenant organizations.
In the section of Journalism you read about health and safety at Amazon warehouses and
behind the scenes to organize protests against the tightening of the abortion law in Wroclaw.
On the pages devoted to the history we write about subsequent scenes of street fighting
Dabrowszczaków in Warsaw, as well as publish the position of the Warsaw committee on
so-called IP. decommunisation.
The section read a summary of last year's World International Affairs have engaged our
relationship, as well as an article about the biggest strike in the history of mankind,
which broke out in September last year.
At the end we invite you to extensive relations with the European Employee Meetings
Economics, which was held last year in Greece.
At press[@]ozzip.pl waiting for your texts, comments and thoughts.
Download: Biuletyn_InicjatywaPracownicza_47net_1.pdf
http://ozzip.pl/teksty/informacje/ogolnopolskie/item/download/282_8565fb009e353d8d4c6e4248f4143f22
http://www.ozzip.pl/teksty/informacje/ogolnopolskie/item/2251-47-biuletyn-inicjatywy-pracowniczej
------------------------------
Message: 5
We are forced to go on the road to answer the requirements of capital. To demand signing
collective agreements, reduced redundancy threshold repealing ypokatotatou wage, restoring
three-year, better and safer working conditions. To fight against undeclared work, to
demand benefits for the unemployed. We have to get out with aggressive spearhead the road
through militant base unions in workplaces. Redo syndicalism dangerous for the bosses away
from ergatopateres-union bureaucrats (GSEE PAME). To take our lives in our hands. ---- A
small tool for the new anti-labor law ---- Lately monitor the media ridicule as our
working class, with the government giving supposedly fierce battles with the institutions
in a game is already rigged. This time the burning question that arises for the
disbursement of the tranche is to review the trade union law - a trade union law was
passed amid struggles of workers in the period of transition and was a great acquis of the
season workers. These data are for us trying to negate circumvention and the few remaining
means our defense against the employer. Here are the possible changes on the law:
Collective Agreements
The institutionalization of collective-sectoral agreements was one of the most important
achievements of workers during the junta. Most workers-s could be costed by industry or
profession their work, and any change in the contracts had reason the clubs and their
respective federations. The second memorandum essentially freeze the collective agreements
and are now applied exclusively business-individual, further paving the way for the
implementation of flexible working hours, wage legalizing arbitrariness and questioning
the fundamental principle of the most favorable arrangement for the employee. A typical
example of a targeted attack the boss is the fact that with the passage of the bill of
thousands of large and small companies rushed to implement the new measure degradation of
the labor force, often amid threats of dismissal non-renewal of the contract, as happened
recently with the acquisition the Marinopoulos by Sklavenitis. Most European attorneys
bosses require the government to abolish collective agreements as a prerequisite for the
country to take a new dose.
Minimum Salary (basic or as they say bosses)
For years now the bosses and their minions (Media) try to convince us that the minimum
wage is called basic. But basic for what? Probably for anyone because we know very well
that is not enough for either basic necessities. Image fills the existence of ypokatotatou
salary measure but which is contrary to the European Social Charter (signed by the United
Europe) explicitly prohibits discrimination in wages based on age. Nevertheless we see
that this measure suits the bosses of all kinds as even large 'Profitable enterprises (see
Box, Public) apply repeatedly the recruitment policy of cheap labor. The government
therefore intends to further downgrade our workforce as called to cut bonuses and
mandates, for those who still have pocketed and to cut extra money from ypokatotato.
Redundancy limit release
Another issue is the increase in the threshold of redundancies in large companies. It is
obvious that workers will not comply with the requirements of their employers will see
their way home, now massively and legally. It is certainly an issue that "burns" the so
favored by understandings Greek banks and large companies, for which the next day the
wants to make downsizing their staff, as far as 'voluntary exits' which have carried out
is costly .
Declaring strikes-Legalization of lockout (lockout)
Finally controversial point of the amendment of the trade union legislation is to strike
declaration process, turning the premise of ensuring the majority of members in general
meeting at a majority of registered members, making it practically impossible to declare a
strike in unions. This would eliminate the most important weapon of the workers against
exploitation of their bosses. Even returns legalization of lockout (lockout), which was
banned in the polity. Conducting legal lockout involves the suspension of mutual
obligations of the parties: labor supply from one payment of wages on the other. In short
bosses of a company will no longer be entitled to hire scabs during a strike and also to
challenge abusive strike-retention on the part of workers.
Obviously, with the excuse of the crisis, state and bosses create a cheap labor force,
eliminating claims and rights that have been won with blood. We know very well that behind
the word 'development' lies the disciplining of workers to sweetened local and foreign
exploiters and bring prosperity into their pockets while aftoprovallontai as benefactors.
They know very well that through base unions can be created fight homes, outside the
confines of the dominant bureaucratic unionism and therefore seek the suppression of
workers' claims.
Experiencing oppression and exploitation every day at work. Stress, fatigue, derogatory
behavior by the boss, and at the end of the month and our lives penny in his pocket.
Additional safety conditions in the workplace go walking, as we see from the recent
killings of workers in Metro, Mikel, everest. Every day makes me wonder if we will be the
next. Finally with the specter of unemployment looms and endless queues outside the OAED
be made daily nightmare, terror bosses forcing us to waste and our little dignity.
The current treaty gives us two choices: Be miserable dying amid the daily life or to lift
his head and fight against exploitation, against the organized attack of the bosses to the
workers, the unemployed, the immigrants. Now that has left us nothing, the only thing left
is to oppose collectively against those who condemn us to misery.
We are forced to go on the road to answer the requirements of capital. To demand signing
collective agreements, reduced redundancy threshold repealing ypokatotatou wage, restoring
three-year, better and safer working conditions. To fight against undeclared work, to
demand benefits for the unemployed. We have to get out with aggressive spearhead the road
through militant base unions in workplaces. Redo syndicalism dangerous for the bosses away
from ergatopateres-union bureaucrats (GSEE PAME). To take our lives in our hands.
ERC Thessaloniki
http://www.anarkismo.net/article/30185
Home »
» Anarchic update news all over the world - 24 April 2017