Today's Topics:
1. Poland, rozbrat.org: Statement - Nationalism will not pass!
[machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
2. wsm.ie: Planning and volunteering meeting for the Anarchist
Gathering 2017 (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
3. Pland, INICJATYWA PRACOWNICZA - WORKERS'
INITIATIVE - Warsaw
committees IP against "decommunisation" [machine translation]
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
4. France, Alternative Libertaire AL - Second Antifascist Book
Fair, in Montreuil, April 9 (fr, it, pt) [machine translation]
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
5. Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group: PRESIDENT TRUMP by
ablokeimet (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
6. France, Alternative Libertaire AL #270 - Point of view: NPA
and LO: which program against capital? (fr, it, pt) [machine
translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
7. France, Alternative Libertaire AL - Apero-debate, Elections,
and after * April 6 in Orléans (fr, it, pt) [machine
translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
8. Britain, freedom news: Mooboo tea's not-so-refreshing unpaid
labour scam (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
9. US, Twin Cities IWW African People's Caucus - For An
Anti-fascist, Revolutionary Unionism (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
10. wsm.ie: Common Threads #1 - The political and personal
landscape of choice in Ireland (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
In the past few years, a wave of nationalism, racism and xenophobia swept across Poland.
The development of these ideas, supported by the ruling party, gaining momentum with each
passing day. More and more often we hear about attacks on ethnic and religious, every step
you can meet someone proclaiming the death of the enemies of the homeland, and
antyuchodzcze material appearing in the media have become the norm. In 2015, the number of
reported crimes on racial and ethnic increased by 40 percent over the previous year. Their
victimizing 954 people, primarily Jews (154 people), Muslims (140 persons) and Roma (123
people). Most of the citizens of our country opposes the presence in Poland of people from
Africa, 62 percent unfavorable considers the presence of Arabs and 52 percent do not want
the Turks themselves here.
Nationalism is a problem each and every one of us. This is not just a problem of the
"other" color, regularly attacked on the streets of cities across the country. Not only
foreign students who are in fear of harassment do not go out of their dorms. Not only
applies to migrant workers, exploited and treated like slaves by their bosses. Not only
the followers of other religions, considered as potential terrorists. Does not concern
only women, by conservative uprzedmiotawianych great white Polish fans, who strengthen the
inhumane ruling ideas, such as the tightening of anti-abortion laws or restricting access
to contraception, sex education and prenatal care. It applies to any person who in any way
different from the nationalist ideals of the "Polish patriot" and "Polish Mother".
Nationalism is always connected with chauvinism, racism, fascism, homophobia and other
forms of exclusion, violence and exploitation, and faith in his "positive impression" is
the belief in a lie consistently built to powdering the true face of nationalists.
Nationalism is the ideology of serving the rich, enabling them to use the poor to get rich
even more. Nationalism fosters divisions and hierarchies between people and method of
management of divide and conquer. Students, employees or retirees are beginning to act
against each other, not against the government, and others who are responsible for their
basic problems - poverty, violence, exploitation, quality of education and limited access
to it.
Nationalism is building a false image of the past, creating propaganda myths "Soldiers
accursed" - throwing one set all, of the victims of the communist regime after common
criminals murdering women and children. The Conservative government a picture of the past
is apparently needed because dismisses the possibility of an honest debate about both past
and talk about the present. The public is fed with myths and subsequent historical
anniversaries. People have just mindlessly singing hymns learned and repeated slogans.
Radical nationalist and fascist organizations well find themselves in just such a reality
- to beat and not think for themselves.
Hate parade organized by the All-Polish Youth brown militias in Poznan is just one example
of insolence and ignorance lovers "soldiers accursed." The organization co-responsible for
the introduction of the ghettos lawkowych universities in the thirties has no right to
rely on the ethos of the university, has no right to intimidate students and university
staff, and even more have no right to attack and destroy the defenseless people built
their initiatives.
We will not passively observe the racist and nationalist aggression! We oppose turning the
representatives of nationalist parties openly to the public debate! We do not discuss the
racists! We oppose this hateful ideology! Only breaking national limitations, we will be
able to build equal and just society.
Nationalism does not pass!
DEMONSTRATION - NATIONALISM not go!
http://www.rozbrat.org/dokumenty/lokalizm/4521-owiadczenie-nacjonalizm-nie-przejdzie-
------------------------------
Message: 2
A planning and volunteering meeting for the Anarchist Gathering will take place at 7:30pm,
Tuesday, 11th April in Jigsaw (10 Belvedere Court, Mountjoy, Dublin 1) The organising
committee has received lots of good ideas for discussions, offers of help on the day, and
offers of transport for people travelling long distances. We need to discuss how to make
the Anarchist Gathering a great, inclusive and creative event, and to share
responsibilities for making it happen. We will also use the meeting to finalise a proposed
agenda for the day with the aim of publicising the agenda shortly afterwards. Please reply
to activity@wsm.ie if you wish to attend the planning and volunteering meeting on 11th
April. ---- In solidarity, Anarchist Gathering 2017 organising committee
Event date and time: Tue, 2017-04-11 07:30
http://www.wsm.ie/c/planning-and-volunteering-meeting-anarchist-gathering-2017
------------------------------
Message: 3
Six committees OZZ Workers' Initiative from Warsaw issued this week against the so-called
common position. "Decommunisation" street names. Signatory of the signatories of the
document and pointed out that "both the whole project decommunisation and preliminary list
of names for the changes[...]have one goal: to remove the memory of the radical left
social, including the activities of the trade union movement." ---- Full text of the
position is available[here]. ---- As we read in a statement, the Warsaw "decommunization"
is to cover, among others, activists and activists of pre-war trade unions, members of the
Voluntary Workers Battalions of Defense Warsaw (defending the capital in September 1939.),
organizers of the Jewish resistance in the Warsaw Ghetto and Dabrowszczaków - volunteers
and volunteers who and which arms have transgressed against fascism during the Spanish
Civil War in 1936-1939. In the opinion of the IP sygnujacych position
"means[that]elimination of the tradition of strikes and armed struggle in the fight for a
better tomorrow, the tradition of social struggles to improve the living conditions of
working people, the tradition of anti-fascist resistance, the tradition of
internationalism and cooperation transnational labor movement."
Under the signed position: Warsaw Environmental Commission, the Commission factory at the
National Audiovisual Institute, Working Commission on Non-Governmental Organizations,
Environmental Workers Arts Commission, the Commission Works in the Museum of the History
of Polish Jews POLIN, Inter-Commission Working in Gastronomy. In the near future it will
be transferred to the capital city councilor Warsaw.
http://www.ozzip.pl/teksty/informacje/mazowieckie/item/2244-warszawskie-komisje-ip-przeciwko-dekomunizacji
------------------------------
Message: 4
The second edition of the Antifascist Book Fair will be organized on Sunday 9 April (10.30
am to 10 pm) at La Parole Errante in Montreuil by VISA (Vigilance and Anti-Fascist Trade
Union Initiatives - in partnership with the IHS-CGT, FSU and CEFI research institutes
-Solidaires, publishing houses (Syllepse, Libertalia, Le Temps des Cerises, Agone). ----
Several debates will take place during this day: ---- - from 11:00 to 12:30 - the
inter-union campaign "Uni-es against the extreme right" - a debate animated by VISA in the
presence of representatives of the CGT, the union Solidaires and the FSU ---- -> 14:00 to
16:00 - "Culture, history and ideology of the extreme right" - debate led by Evelyne
Rognon of the FSU Research Institute with William Blanc and Jean-Paul Gautier,
-> from 18:00 to 20:00 - "The FN in the presidential and legislative elections 2017 ...
and after ? "- debate hosted by VISA with Caroline Monnot (subject) and Annick Coupé (for
the" Our rights against privileges "campaign)
But there will also be projections, stands, theater ( Unknown at this address of Kathrine
Kressmann Taylor, 1938), anti-fascist and anti-racist poster displays, a silk-screening
workshop with graphic designers, a children's playground ... And the day will end with an
aperitif concert with the friends of the Invisible Fanfare.
In addition, a space of expression is planned for the association "La Parole errante
tomorrow" and the anti-fascist collective of Montreuil.
All info on the VISA website
Meals (organic and at free price) will be provided by the Flying Aprons
* Prior to this day, the documentary film Return to Forbach by Régis Sauder will be
screened on Saturday, April 8 at the Méliès cinema in Montreuil at 8:30 pm followed by a
debate with the director and director of the cinema .
* The Salon will be preceded by a week of the antifascist book from April 1 to 9 inclusive
with some twenty independent bookstores partners in IDF: selection of books, debates and
publicity for the Antifascist Book Fair.
http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?Deuxieme-edition-du-Salon-du-Livre-antifasciste
------------------------------
Message: 5
This article was published as Vol 6, No 1 of The Anvil, March-April 2017 ---- Against
majority expectations, last November Donald Trump was elected President of the United
States. He was inaugurated in January with the most reactionary Cabinet in living memory.
While, considered individually, almost all of his choices (i.e. excepting Steve Bannon)
would fit into a government of his Republican rivals, as a whole they represent an attempt
to implement a radical shift of US public policy. ---- Trump has since come under strong
pressure from elements within the State to change course. These elements are aligned
either to the Democratic Party or to the old guard of the Republicans, the people Trump
shoved aside to get the nomination. Such dynamics have dominated the media reportage of
Trump and the way he has been going about governing. While they are significant, the MACG
believes that there are two far more important considerations. The first is the reason why
Trump won and the second is how to build effective opposition to Trump and the forces he
has unleashed.
Why Trump Won
Trump's campaign slogan "Make America Great Again" struck a chord that the Business As
Usual platform of Hillary Clinton did not. It should be noted at the outset that this was
setting the bar very low. Clinton was foisted on the Democratic Party membership by a
party machine armed with an immense war chest of Wall St money. The Democrats also took
for granted a range of US states where the working class was being kicked in the teeth by
them, and yet union officials were still expected to deliver their votes. The result was a
collapse in the Democrat vote, so that Trump won, despite collecting fewer votes than any
Republican this century.
So why did "Make America Great Again" strike that chord? What had changed in the United
States so that a candidate who previously would have been disqualified on many counts
could actually be elected? Why were some sections of the US capitalist class prepared to
break ranks and support Trump?
US Decline
Trump's campaign resonated because he said out loud that the US is declining in power and
he promised to change that. Trump's slogan combined three different issues into one
compelling vision. The first issue was the huge social changes in the US in the last forty
years. Demographic change such as the changing ethnic composition of US society, the rise
of working women and the increasing acceptance of LGBTIQ people threatens traditional
social hierarchies and lifestyles.
The second issue was the dominance of neoliberalism in the US over that time. The
consequences included stagnation of real incomes for most people, loss of opportunity for
social advancement for many and monopolisation of the fruits of economic growth by a tiny
minority referred to these days as "the 1%".
The third issue was the declining power of the United States on the world stage. It became
necessary to wage frequent, inconclusive and increasingly endless wars to defend the world
order which the US created but which now seems to benefit other countries more than the
US. That is why a large minority of the US electorate and a crucial minority of the US
capitalist class decided: that America is no longer great like it used to be. Emergency
action is required to Make America Great Again.
Trump is offering the illusion that he can turn back the clock. He can force other
countries like Mexico and China to do what Uncle Sam tells them. He can bring back secure
jobs to workers impoverished by decades of neoliberalism. He can roll back decades of
social change by making America White again. This is not conservatism - it is reaction. It
is impossible to achieve and even the attempt will require massive amounts of State violence.
In foreign policy, Trump proposes a radically different approach he is calling "America
First". He believes that the system of alliances which the US has built up over the past
years has outlived its usefulness to the US. It carries a heavy overhead cost, without
giving the US anywhere near enough benefit. Some people believe that Trump will tend more
to isolationism and refrain from fighting so many wars to defend the current order, but
they are wrong. Trump's vision doesn't lead to fewer wars, but different ones. Trump's
wars will be direct raids for booty, while allies will be asked, "What have you done for
us lately?" The question will be asked regularly. It remains to be seen, though, how
thoroughly "America First" will be implemented.
What is to be done?
There is already massive opposition to Trump's presidency in the US and around the world.
There are different currents to this opposition, and the Melbourne Anarchist Communist
Group believes it is essential to distinguish between them in order to advance the
interests of the working class. First, it is necessary to distinguish between Trump's
government and the pre-existing Alt-Right movement which he has energised. Second, it is
necessary to distinguish between the elements in the anti-Trump resistance which are
fundamentally establishment and conservative and those elements which have something to
offer the working class, even if some of their offerings are flawed. Finally, it is
necessary to understand the best division of labour between movements inside and outside
the United States.
The Alt-Right
Donald Trump is a racist populist with a dangerous authoritarian streak. To call him a
Fascist, however, is a dangerous mistake. Trump's government, nasty as it is, operates
within the norms of capitalist democracy. Calling Trump a Fascist obscures the danger of
the actual Fascists who are now mobilising under his banner and attempting to build gangs
of genocidal thugs. The only Fascist in Trump's Cabinet is Steve Bannon, the former editor
of Breitbart.
On the ground, however, all sorts of Fascist and even neo-Nazi groups are emerging to
support Trump and push him to fulfil his most extreme rhetoric. At the same time they are
engaging in extreme violence against their opponents and are planning vastly more. People
like Richard Spencer and Milo Yiannopoulos are key figures in the attempt to crystallise
an emerging Fascist network, though as yet they have had limited success in making the
transition from keyboard trolls with genocidal fantasies to a cadre of genocidal
stormtroopers.
The appropriate response to Right wing populists who operate within the parameters of
capitalist democracy is a political mobilisation. The appropriate response to the Fascists
attempting to organise in Trump's reflected glory is reasonable force in self defence.
This means that public events organised by or giving a platform to actual Fascists
(defined clearly so as to distinguish them from mere Right populists) should be shut down
and the participants dispersed. In this case, self defence encompasses pre-emptive force
because their violent intent is not open to reasonable doubt and it is impractical to
follow Fascists around waiting for them to attack their intended victims.
Resistance
Large sections of the US ruling class believe that Trump is pursuing dangerous policies in
a dangerous way. Perhaps the most notable evidence of the depth of this disaffection is
the stream of leaks coming out of the CIA and FBI. The wide variety of activities in the
anti-Trump resistance, however, have only two strategic orientations. One is essentially
conservative and aims to keep Trump within the bounds of capitalist legality and to build
electoral support for the Democratic Party. The other is radical and aims to build a
movement with the social power to prevent Trump implementing his program, regardless of
its legal status. Such social power can only be based on the working class. Attempts to
build this movement based on forces other than the working class have insufficient power
and will be dominated by the conservative Democratic Party.
The conservative anti-Trump resistance, while impressive in scope, will fail for two
reasons. Firstly, its organisations act to demobilise and disempower grassroots activists,
while remaining silent on the areas of continuity between Trump and previous presidents.
The Democratic Party has no strategy to deal with Trump's policies if they are upheld by
the courts. Democrats will find it difficult to support anti-deportation actions when
Barack Obama himself earned the title of "Deporter-in-Chief" by deporting more immigrants
than any previous US president. Secondly, and more fundamentally, the conservative
anti-Trump resistance cannot address the reasons why Trump came to power in the first
place. It has no answer to the ever-growing disparity between rich and poor, no answer to
the decay of industrial towns in the mid-West and no answer to the gradual erosion of US
primacy in world affairs. Its policies have produced the first two phenomena, while there
is no answer to the third. The resistance of the Democratic Party, therefore, is built on
sand.
Mobilising effectively can only be done through the working class. The airport
mobilisations, while inspiring, stopped with the limited court victories. If airport
workers had occupied their workplaces, the challenge to Trump would have been stronger. A
few hundred coppers can clear a terminal of protestors, but they cannot find a scab
workforce to handle baggage, check tickets, or re-fuel and re-provision planes - let alone
fly and staff the planes. The working class has the social power to turn Trump's Executive
Orders and his laws into mere pieces of paper.
Two conditions must be met before the working class will mobilise against Trump. First,
there must be a program that is clearly in their interests that they can fight for. It is
only in the context of the struggle for higher wages and better conditions for all that
white workers can be broken from racism and won to the principle of "Touch One, Touch
All". Only in the course of struggle will white workers recognise that their racial
prejudice is an impediment to their victory. Fighting racism and all other forms of
special oppression is an essential part of building the strength of the class sufficient
to win.
Second, there must be a recognition of the obstacles on the road - principally the union
bureaucracy. In most industrialised countries, and the US in particular, union officials
are wedded to conservative industrial and political strategies that guarantee death to
unionism. This was displayed to great effect in the US last year when the union
bureaucrats, almost to a person, supported Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries,
despite her program being manifestly inferior to Bernie Sanders (who, himself, was
unsupportable, though this is a different topic). For workers to mobilise to fight Trump,
rather than merely voting against him, will require rank and file networks capable of
rolling over the opposition of union bureaucrats. These networks must begin to take the
dimensions of a parallel and unofficial union movement outside the control of the officials.
Different tasks in response to the challenge
For the most part, it is only workers inside the US who can take the necessary direct
action against Trump. Only they can fight for the program which is necessary to defeat
Trump, the old guard Republicans and the Democrats. Direct action against Trump may be
possible for some workers outside the US (e.g. workers in US-owned corporations, workers
supplying US military bases), but this is necessarily supplementary and guided by the
tempo of US events.
Outside the US, the main task will be to continue building resistance to the capitalists
in countries where we are. Here in Australia, we must build a movement which can defend
wages, jobs, housing and social services, while also consolidating the working class by
fighting for Aboriginal rights, refugee rights, abortion and child care rights and the
right to same sex marriage. Here in Australia, building resistance means creating a rank
and file movement to take on the Laborite bureaucrats who run the unions, but don't defend
them against capitalists' attacks.
Finally, the role of Anarchists, whether in the US or elsewhere, is to organise to argue
in support of a program of this nature and to play an exemplary role in the struggle for
it. Hop to it, comrades.
https://melbacg.wordpress.com/2017/03/31/president-trump/
------------------------------
Message: 6
The two anti-capitalist parties that play the game of electoral strategy both claim to
have an anti-capitalist transitional program. Does this program take into account the
reality of capitalism and its laws? ---- The NPA (New Anti-Capitalist Party) and LO
(Workers' Struggle) presented relatively similar programs, consisting of higher wages
(Smic at 1700 euros net), reduction of working time (32 hours), suppression of tax Tax and
VAT niches, the fight against tax evasion and financial taxation. They also propose
measures such as the socialization of banks and major energy groups. Finally, there are
also proposals such as the prohibition of redundancies, the opening of books of account,
or the payment of the debt by the capitalists.
Capitalism and redistribution
Morally, these measures are fair because they aim to improve the living conditions of the
vast majority of the population, but they underlie an analysis that the crisis is due to
too much capitalist greed, which should be moderated Gluttony. It is certainly possible to
say that the crisis, beyond a certain stage, has been aggravated by neoliberal
policies[1]. In this case, all other things being equal, raising wages by puncturing the
share of profits of capitalists not reinvested in production (hoarding, consumption of
luxury goods, etc.), would stimulate the economy punctually.
However, by presenting only measures acting in the direction of the distribution of
wealth, without addressing the problems of wealth production, LO and NPA seem not to take
account of the problems and limitations of capital valuation More wealth, its growth).
To ignore this is not to understand that the resolution of the crisis of realization (the
impossibility of transforming goods into capital by selling) would bring back to the
initial situation of valorization crisis (lack of growth)[2], which was the cause Attacks
on wages and against public services after the 1974 crisis[3]. Indeed, it may be thought
that raising wages and banning redundancies will increase the solvent demand (more people
will be able to buy goods) and will satisfy everyone: the employees who will be able to
consume, and the Companies that will be able to sell and continue their profits. But it is
unaware that the increase in wages is not compatible with growth, And that the latter is
vital for capitalism. The share of the profits of a company that can be robbed is that of
the personal income of the shareholders and managers (one agrees, they live in luxury).
But one who returns to the company to buy more efficient machines (or any other investment
in production) can not be robbed because of a crisis that was supposed to be solved.
Overaccumulation, banking and financial crises merely obscure the impasse in which the
real economy finds itself, having made capital too productive for capitalism, causing more
and more falling mass of value produced (more goods are produced But at increasingly low
costs), while at the same time eliminating more and more living labor (the curve of real
unemployment is not ready to reverse), and can only survive through the accumulation of "
A mountain of unsolvable debts[4].
It is therefore useless to fight against banks and finance, except to reveal the fragility
of the real economy and the need to abolish it. Indeed, as long as the structures of
capitalism are maintained, the laws of value, the imperative of growth, and thus the
possibilities of crises and their disastrous consequences for the working class are
maintained. Even if wages were increased, working hours reduced, and even if the companies
were managed directly by those who work there.
Knowing this, it is therefore completely useless to try to open the books of accounts to
prove that "money, there are, in the pockets of the employers". And it is radically
impossible to think of measures such as debt cancellation or the prohibition of
dismissals, in the context of a capitalism in which the distribution of wealth has
changed, or even of a state socialism which Would not have broken with commodification. It
is necessary to move towards the radical abolition of capitalism and its structures today,
tomorrow, always!
The problem of valorisation
The argument generally put forward not to mention the crisis of value is that it would be
inaudible or too complicated to explain to the working class. The rapid rise of the masses
should be promoted by emergency programs affecting the immediate interests of the
proletarians, even if systemic criticism should be left aside.
Several problems arise here: revolutionary precipitation will not allow enough time to
explain the root causes of crises to millions of people. Why put the working class before
the fait accompli of the failure of a model to which it was aspired, then explain to it
that it was predictable, and that we had another project in reserve?
On the other hand, the lack of understanding of the double crisis of capitalism and the
emergence of crises within a socialist society could give back to the ideas of
counter-revolutionary currents.
On the contrary, all anti-capitalist, communist, and libertarian communists should
emphasize that the problem is not only the despoiling of wealth by the members of an evil
and predatory class, but the increasingly profound incapacity Of a capitalist, commercial,
competitive society to fulfill its objectives of valorization and expansion while
satisfying the needs, and hence the impossibility for this system to eliminate the crises
and their disastrous consequences. It would logically follow that it is not only the
bosses, shareholders, financiers and bankers that must be fired. The whole system must be
changed!
If LO and the NPA were to be 1 to 3 per cent, they would have little to lose from the
arsenal of superfluous and confusing reformist proposals to simply propose the
expropriation of the capitalists. The abolition of private ownership of the means of
production, wage-earning and trading.
Floran Palin (AL Marne)
[1]Alain Bihr, "The catastrophic triumph of neoliberalism", to be read on alencontre.org.
[2]A.Bihr, "About an excess of surplus value," to read about alencontre.org.
[3]To complete the analysis, read: "Labor
http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?Point-de-vue-NPA-et-LO-quel
------------------------------
Message: 7
How to build the social response ? ---- Apéro-debate, Thursday 6 April, 6:30 pm, Bar
Bourgogne organized ---- by Alternative libertarian Orléans ---- For the first time, the
two main political parties of the right and left (PS and LR) could be absent from the
second round of the presidential elections. ---- How could Macron, worthy heir to the
quinquennium Holland, be elected ? ---- Does the FN really have a " social program " as
it claims ? ---- What about the " universal income " brought by Hamon but also by a
part of the environmental movement ? ---- Can we make it more democratic capitalism, for
example by moving to the " 6 th Republic " ? ---- And above all, basically, what will
these elections change ? How can we resist the liberal scroller and prepare a " 3 rd
social turn " on the streets against racism and liberalism ?
To discuss all these questions, come and participate in the aperitif debate,
Thursday April 6 at 6:30 pm, Bar Bourgogne (upstairs) 248, rue de Bourgogne, Orléans
Organized by Alternative libertarian Orléans
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/events/402705126777011/
http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?Elections-et-apres-le-6-avril-a-Orleans
------------------------------
Message: 8
Liverpool SolFed has signed up to the campaign against "bubble tea" specialist Mooboo
ripping off free labour from hospitality workers. Here they explain the brouhaha. ----
Unpaid trials in hospitality are often a way to get free labour in busy periods like
weekends. It is too common to find restaurants offering unpaid trials every week or so.
Mooboo, a company specialising in "bubble tea" with 12 stores around UK, went a step
further and started forcing their applicants to do a 40-hour unpaid trial. ---- Mooboo is
a company specialising in "bubble tea", a traditional Taiwanese tea-based drink. The
company has 12 stores around the UK, and workers have reported 40-hour unpaid trials in
two stores - Glasgow and Liverpool. ---- Better than Zero, a Scottish movement against
precarious work, started a campaign a few months ago against these practices. The campaign
was really successful and the company recently withdrew their "training process" - so it
looks as if Mooboo aren't doing unpaid trials anymore.
However, the campaign has not stopped. Better than Zero is now trying to encourage workers
who suffered those unpaid trials to ask the company for the wages they should have been
paid. Liverpool Solidarity Federation has agreed to join the campaign and we are
encouraging workers to fight back.
Unpaid trials are very common, even when this practice is not legal. There is a myth that
a company can make you work for free just to check if they like you. This myth will
continue until workers change the mentality of being grateful to our bosses for offering
us the chance to be exploited. Our time has a value, and if a company wants our time they
have to pay for it.
Labour relations are not based on equal relationships. A person who lives in a bubble and
owns twelve stores around the UK is not in the same position as a desperate person looking
for a job to pay their rent and bills. We can begin to equalise the relationship when we
organise and fight back.
This article first appeared at the Liverpool SolFed blog
https://freedomnews.org.uk/mooboo-teas-not-so-refreshing-unpaid-labour-scam/
------------------------------
Message: 9
Fascism is a concept that has grown a lot of particular interest since the election of
Donald Trump and the failure of neoliberalism. While we don't consider Trump himself to be
a fascist but a right wing populist, we do recognize that he has mobilized a broad
coalition of the right, which includes some fascists. However, reactionary violence is
nothing new to black and African people living in the United States. Our communities have
seen first-hand the terror campaigns of proto-fascist groups such as the KKK, and other
kinds of organized white supremacist violence. Our oppression and exploitation have been
central to the establishment of modern capitalism in the Americas. This also means we have
been fighting back since we were brought here. Our stake in anti-fascism is not an
academic question.
Fascism needs to be defined for our context: right now this is a smaller
element participating within a popular front of the right wing. Most
notable of this multi-tendency white nationalist milieu is the alt-right,
who believe in atrocities such as "white" ethnic cleansing, misogyny,
violence against a perceived "other" (minorities, refugees, Muslims,
women, lgbtqia, Jews), and overwhelming worship of authority and class-based
hierarchies. What allows this to spread is that neoliberal economic
policies under capitalism cause the working class to suffer, and they are
given scapegoats and offered false and authoritarian solutions. The
reactionaries' influence within the State will be strengthened, which will
increase the suffering of black and African people at the hands of the
police, prison, and poverty.
While fascism sometimes spreads using political opportunists like the
electoral right wing, it is also an independent movement of the insurgent
right wing and has an agenda separate from and opposed to the current
state. Fascists also recruit through entryism into popular cultures and
subcultures (music, arts, internet groups, faith-based, etc). Today's
fascists have improved the ability to hide within "legitimate"
conservative political and social groups. Its spread is international and evident in
the western turn away from neoliberalism towards economic nationalism,
Islamophobic motives surrounding Brexit, and the State literally
assassinating drug users in the Philippines. Trump is a big piece of this,
but definitely not the only one. In addition to being aware of fascists
attempting to turn the repressive state apparatus against us, we also have
to prepare to defend ourselves against reactionaries like George Zimmerman
and Dylann Roof, who have terrorized us with direct extralegal violence
since we got here.
It's important that we not let our history of struggle be claimed by the
liberal narrative that the civil rights era was built on a dogmatic
commitment to "nonviolence". Black and African people have had to
physically, mentally, and emotionally defend their communities from State
and white supremacist terror, and it was organized. Groups like the
Deacons for Defense, Black Liberation Army, and Black Panther Party understood why
a self-defense approach in the face of police and reactionaries was
necessary. If a person knows the bloodshed that occurred at the height of
the labor movement, one must also acknowledge there has been consistent
violence against black and African people for centuries.
Labor organizers and specifically the IWW have long-opposed class traitors
like the Ku Klux Klan. White supremacists despise the radical left because
of their commitment to solidarity with all oppressed people. The IWW will
remain a target of the State and the far right, especially as our activity
gains momentum and size. The General Defense Committee has been and can
continue to be an excellent vehicle to grow the anti-fascist movement.
Anti-fascism needs to grow into an extremely popular movement in order to
win. Communities that build their capacity for organized defense against
the State and organized hate will be major contributors in the fight
against capitalism.
We black and African workers face this threat in many places within and
beyond our workplaces, and a fascist threat to any of the working class is
a threat to the entire class. We have no choice but to confront organized
white supremacists, just as we have no choice but to struggle against the
bosses in our workplaces. We are calling on our comrades in the IWW and
elsewhere, to join us in confronting white nationalists organizing to
direct further violence against our people. We are calling on the General
Administration to give our rank and file militants the support we need to
organize in defense of ourselves and our class on the ground. We believe
that the slogan "an injury to one is an injury to all" should also be
demonstrated by our white comrades who feel as though confronting fascism
is optional or of little importance.
For an anti-fascist, revolutionary unionism!
Twin Cities IWW African Peoples Caucus
https://www.facebook.com/notes/twin-cities-iww-african-peoples-caucus/for-an-anti-fascist-revolutionary-unionism/1915544445347468
------------------------------
Message: 10
It is all but impossible, both in theory and in practice, to legally obtain an abortion on
the island of Ireland, both north and south of the imaginary border that divides this
island. It is completely impossible to safely and legally obtain an abortion anywhere in
Ireland; the legal framework in the south specifically requires that in order to obtain
an abortion without being criminalised for so doing, the woman who needs it must be ill
enough to die; thus it is rendered impossible for her to be safe in access to legal
abortion. ---- In the north, the Offences Against the Person Act dating from 1861 - over a
century and a half ago - is what renders women taking control of whether or not they give
birth and remain pregnant illegal. It describes abortion as ‘procuring miscarriage', a
description which is very apt for what those who need abortions in the north of Ireland
today are forced to do by this archaic bit piece of legislation; obtain the abortion pill
illegally online via organisations like Women on Web, Women Help Women, or less reputable
means.
It states that anyone who does this "shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted
thereof shall be liable[..]to be kept in penal servitude for life".
However there was an exception made to this under the Criminal Justices Act of 1945. This
Act, while it created the offence of "child destruction", defining it as "any wilful
act[that]causes a child to die before it has an existence independent of its mother"
allowed that such a "destruction" could be carried out without legal penalty if one is
acting in good faith to preserve the life of the "mother".
Unlike in the south, this has been interpreted by subsequent judgements to mean not only
that the woman must be on the brink of death, but also that the woman's health was
important as well.
(In the south, the Supreme Court ruling on X in 1992 specifically excludes the woman's or
girl's health from being in any way relevant to whether she is permitted to access an
abortion.) In 1994 a court in the north found that this "does not relate only to some
life-threatening situation.
Life in this context means that physical or mental health or well-being of the mother and
the doctor's act is lawful where the continuance of the pregnancy would adversely affect
the mental or physical health of the mother. The adverse effect must however be a real and
serious one and there will always be a question of fact and degree whether the perceived
effect of non-termination is sufficiently grave to warrant terminating the unborn child."
However it is very difficult to establish clearly the criteria under which this is deemed
to be the case.; On the 26th of March of this year the Northern Ireland Executive finally
agreed to publish guidelines for healthcare professionals on when it is legal for women to
access abortion.
This was following enormous pressure on the Executive owing to a ruling from Belfast High
Court in November 2015 which found that to deny abortions to women carrying pregnancies
that will not survive to term, or beyond birth, or pregnant as a result of "sexual crime"
was a breach of their human rights.
Again, as in the south, this legislative framework ensures that a woman cannot be safe if
she is unwell and endangered enough to fit the criteria of being ‘permitted' to access a
legal abortion.
Despite the obvious outdatedness of the Offences Against the Person Act of 1861, there are
nonetheless not one, but two pending prosecutions in Belfast at the moment under it. One
is of a woman who procured the abortion pill for her teenage daughter; subsequent to its
administration they both presented at a hospital in search of medical treatment, worried
for the daughter's well-being.
Though details of the case are as yet unclear, it seems that a (presumably anti-choice)
medical professional they encountered there felt the need to report them to the police for
something twhat would render them open to life imprisonment. The second pending
prosecution is of a woman in her twenties who obtained the abortion pill for herself and
apparently for others.
Again, details of her situation are unclear, but given that there is no prosecution or
pursuit of any of the over 200 women from the north who haves openly and deliberately
incriminated themselves under their full names in repeated open letters and publications
in various media as people who have needed access to the abortion pill, it seems likely
that this prosecution too came about under pressure from another party.
The legal structure in the south of Ireland is the 8th amendment to the Irish
constitution. It states that "The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and,
with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to
respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right."
The obvious afterthought of the right to life of the carrier of the foetus granted was
only included in the wording after a vigorous campaign from feminist groups of the time.
The referendum for its inclusion in the constitution of southern Ireland was passed in
1983 after a vitriolic debate in a referendum in which only 53% of the electorate voted.
67% of those who voted, voted for it. This means that a decision made by a mere 35% of the
electorate of southern Ireland 32 years ago, none of whom are likely to be women of
reproductive age today (the youngest a voter in that referendum would be now is 50), is
deemed relevant and appropriate to force every person capable of becoming pregnant in the
south of this island to remain that way regardless of that person's own opinion on the
matter, underon threat of imprisonment.
The 8th amendment also strips, from any pregnant woman or other person, the right to
consent or refuse any treatment a higher power than herself(!) may deem necessary for the
foetus she carries in pregnancy. It also means that it is at the whim of a medical
treating power to deny a pregnant woman potentially lifesaving medical treatment if they
consider it may damage the foetus she carries, as was seen in the case of Michelle Harte.
Michelle Harte was a cancer sufferer who was receiving treatment denied to her by Cork
University Hospital's "board of ethics" (what a misnomer) when she became accidentally
pregnant.
The same ethics board denied her, a dying woman, access to an abortion and forced her to
travel to the UK while incredibly ill with cancer to obtain the health-care she needed -
an abortion. She subsequently died. A Catholic bishop sits on that ‘ethics' board.
Since the context of choice and bodily autonomy in most public discussions, even most
leftist public discussions, seems only to be understood as the choice to continue or to
end a pregnancy, it is imperative to highlight that the 8th amendment is used also as a
tool of coercion against women and others in continued pregnancy and during birth.
The 8th amendment is regularly cited to pregnant women wishing to go against what their
doctor deems to be the best for them; the phrase, "I could bring you to court if I have
to, you know" is one used against pregnant and birthing women in Ireland far too often.
This is explicitly stated in the HSE's National Consent Policy, which cites the High
Courts as the appropriate place to determine what can be perpetrated upon the body of a
pregnant woman without her consent.
Doctors, midwives and social workers are more often those doing the coercing in this
scenario; it rarely goes as far as the courts, as most women when told by the social
workers who arrive on their doorstep (as has happened in more than one instance) that
their existing children will be taken from them into care if they continue to refuse to
comply with their doctor's vision of what is best for them, do not feel capable of
struggling back when in all likelihood they will lose anyway. However there is one
instance in which the High Court has been invoked, in Waterford in 2013 in the Mother A case.
The Mother A case involved Waterford Regional Hospital taking a woman, known as ‘Mother A'
by the court, to the High Court in an attempt to secure an order coercing her into a
caesarean section.
They took this action despite the fact that Mother A was not utterly refusing to consent
to a c section; she specifically said that despite her desire to have a vaginal birth,
should an emergency arise, she would consent to a section.
It was not an emergency situation; the spur for the coerced c section was a foetal trace
which was categorised by the person interpreting it as "non-reassuring" rather than emergency.
She also wanted to delay the birth by at least 24 hours, because her partner was out of
the country until then and she wanted him to not only be present at the birth but also to
be able to be there to care for their older child during the period she was in hospital.
Further, while the hospital insisted she was 41 weeks and 6 days pregnant, she deeply
disagreed with their assessment. (It is worth highlighting at this point a similar case in
Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda in 2003 where a woman, Therese Darcy-Lampf, was
coerced into a section at 34 weeks owing to the hospital having wrongly noted her
gestation after a scan, despite the fact that she pointed this out to them repeatedly.
Her baby, Jessica, died shortly after being born far too early.) All very reasonable
things to want; yet all things that were utterly denied her at the apparently capricious
behest of an obstetrician and a hospital that stripped her of her voice and her autonomy.
No judgement was handed down in this case as the woman "consented" to the caesarean
section before one became necessary.
The nightmarish reality of forced caesarean sections has now been publicly enshrined not
only in Irish practice by the Mother A case, but also in law and in practice by the
passing of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act of 2013.
The first draft of this bill was called the Protection of Maternal Life During Pregnancy
Bill; but clearly this concept, that women should not die because we are pregnant, was
deemed far too radical by the Labour-Fine Gael coalition government to pass into law and
thus it was renamed to ensure that nobody reading it should become confused and think
perhaps that women's lives matter.
Such confusion is however highly unlikely given the content of the Act, which requires
that a suicidal woman must prove that she is suicidal to up to 6 doctors before eventually
being granted a lifesaving abortion. This despite the fact that suicide is a leading cause
of death during pregnancy in Ireland, and despite the fact that we are constantly being
reassured through ad campaigns telling us to ‘please talk' (talk to whom is never made
clear) that mental health is in fact real health.
It is only real health until it comes to pregnant women, as was made obvious by the
atrocities perpetruated on Ms. Y by the medical establishment and the state in the south
in 2014.
Ms. Y arrived in the south of Ireland on March 28th, 2014 as a refugee. At what is
described as a "health screening". Six days later she found out she was pregnant; she made
known to those performing the screening on behalf of the state that she had been raped and
that she could not possibly under any circumstances have a child. She was very distressed.
A nurse made an appointment for her two days later with the IFPA who informed Ms. Y that
abortion is not accessible in Ireland and that travel for her "may" be difficult - as an
asylum seeker travel documents and visas into and out of Ireland are time consuming,
costly and difficult to obtain.
The IFPA made an appointment for Ms. Y to have a dating scan and referred her to the
Immigrant Council of Ireland for advice and support on travelling as a migrant. Four days
later, Ms. Y hads a dating scan performed and it wais discovered she wais 8 weeks pregnant.
At this point it would have been possible to hand her three pills and for her to have
ended her own pregnancy as she wished, with minimal impact on her, minimal further
violation of her bodily autonomy and integrity, and minimal pain and suffering. Three pills.
Instead, she was handed about from pillar to post, having contact with three separate NGOs
as well as the HSE staff she initially encountered, and her situation appears to have
slipped between the cracks of these, unnoticed by anyone except herself as with the
continuation of her pregnancy her despair and hopelessness deepened.
A doctor from Spirasi, one of the NGOs she had contact with, wrote to the GP of the direct
provision centre she was consigned to, describing her as "having a death wish". The GP of
this centre says that the letter was not received. A co-ordinator at the ICI formed the
opinion that Ms. Y might change her mind about needing an abortion based on apparently
nothing whatsoever.
A counsellor at the IFPA suggested adoption to her. For a further 16 weeks she was handed
around and around until she eventually, on the 23rd of July, (almost four months after her
pregnancy was first discovered and she initially declared herself utterly unable to
contemplate going through with it), she had an assessment with a consultant psychiatrist
who told her it was too late to have an abortion and then coerced her into being detained
in a maternity hospital under constant surveillance, where she refused all food and fluids
for several days.
By that timenow she had met a consultant obstetrician who was of the opinion, despite the
fact that Ms. Y was so despairing and suicidal that she was even refusing water, "that Ms
Y could be maintained on the ward for as long as possible and hopefully to 30 weeks so
that the baby could be delivered appropriately."
This would have meant another 6 weeks of detention against her will; another 6 weeks of
sedation against her will in order to forcibly feed and hydrate her against her will in
order that her body and autonomy undergo repeated violations in order to host a pregnancy
she loatheds so much she would rather have died than have it in her body any longer.
Instead however, as Ms. Y continued in her determination to refuse fluids, a caesarean
section was carried out on her several days later; enforced major abdominal surgery, also
against her will.
This horrifying and traumatic ordeal inflicted upon Ms. Y was torture; state-sanctioned,
state-inflicted torture, state-legalised torture. And were another Ms. Y to arrive in the
south tomorrow, in the same harrowing circumstances, the state would more than likely
torture her in precisely the same manner.
It is important to note here the degree toin which the maternity hospitals in the south
are complicit in, and even the driving forces behind, the denial of basic bodily autonomy
to pregnant women; both in abortion and in continued pregnancy.
It is for these reasons that those of us who are involved in the pro-choice movement
should be deeply wary of embracing the "masters" (the word alone should be warning) of the
Dublin maternity hospitals such as Rhona Mahoney and Peter Boylan when they declare
themselves to be opposed to the 8th amendment. At least one of those ‘masters' has been
known to invoke going to the courts in order to coerce pregnant women into interventions
during their pregnancies, labour and births, and both of them are opposed to women's
choice of type of care (midwife-led or obstetrician-led) and the choice even of birth
position in the case of Peter Boylan.
Furthermore Peter Boylan in 2015 testified in the High Court in defence of the barbaric
practice of symphysiotomies. Tempting though it is to reach for a "higher authority" in
defence of our stance, these are not our allies in the struggle for women's bodily autonomy.
However those who are our allies in this struggle are, in fact, the majority of the voting
public in the south. An exit poll carried out at the general election in February of this
year found that 64% of people support the repeal of the 8th amendment. This number is all
the more invigorating for those of us in the trenches of this fight given the increasing
vehemence of the well-funded anti-choicers over the last number of years.
It's also all the more inspiring because there's a general misunderstanding of what the
pro-choice position is in the public discourse around abortion in the south; the case is
constructed as "Would you agree with and support her decision in this case?" rather than
"Would you personally stop her?", a much truer reflection of what the pro-choice stance is
and means.
As the fight continues, it becomes more and more important to avoid the slippery slope of
only publicly advocating and arguing for abortion access in terms of the "hard cases",
such as where the pregnancy will not survive outside the womb or in the case of survivors
of rape. The majority of those who seek abortions do not fall into these categories and
would be left by the wayside.
Only allowing abortion access for pregnancies conceived by rape and incest would not only
be impossible to legislate safely for but also makes clear that the enforcement of
continuation of unwanted pregnancy because the woman chose to have sex is outright
misogyny; either one believes that an embryo or foetus has rights overriding that of the
person carrying it or one does not.
We own our own bodies. We are not property of any state. We can and will birth where, how,
and if we choose.
WORDS: Sinéad Redmond
http://www.wsm.ie/c/political-personal-pro-choice-ireland
------------------------------
Home »
» Anarchic update news all over the world - 6 April 2017