Anarchic update news all over the world - 10.05.2017

Today's Topics:

   

1.  France, Alternative Libertaire - Travelogue, A libertarian
      communist in the YPG # 05: An emotional funeral (fr, it, pt)
      [machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   

2.  France, Alternative Libertaire AL #271 - Economy: Universal
      income: a measure of the left ? (fr, it, pt) [machine
      translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   

3.  black rose fed: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
      LIBERTARIANISM AND ANARCHISM? 

     By Tom Wetzel (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   

4.  Britain, afed: system-malfunction (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)


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

Message: 1



"Drowned in a compact crowd of more than 6,000 people who came to honor the militants who 
fell to defend the revolution." ---- Alternative libertarian reproduces the blog posts 
Kurdistan-Autogestion-Revolution , a travel diary of a fellow committed to the YPG. ---- 
Over the course of the weeks, he will testify to the life of the fighting militias, the 
debates that take place there and the experience of democratic confederalism in the 
liberated zones. ---- Surroundings of Dekrik, April 29, 2017 ---- It is already the second 
time since my arrival in Rojava that I participate in a ceremony in the sehiden (" martyrs 
  ") ... Already, the first time, it had marked me. But here it was different, firstly by 
the number of buried martyrs (20) and the symbolic, since they were the victims not of 
Daech, but of the bombing of the Turkish fascist state on the YPG-YPG HQ in The Canton of 
Afrîn. It's hard to describe the atmosphere. What we feel when we witness this kind of 
ceremony, drowned in a compact crowd of more than 6,000 people who came to honor the 
militants who fell to defend the revolution.

It is a moment at once sad but full of strength, courage and paradoxically a form of joy. 
People come from everywhere, from all communities, the Syriac Christians rub shoulders 
with Muslims, Yezidis, and so on. All gathered to pay tribute to those who fell.

Of course I do not do it. We see that communities are still struggling to mix. But they 
find themselves for the same reason, in the same place, I think that here it means a lot 
of things.

 From a Western point of view, this cult of the martyrs may be a little put off ... But 
what I can understand is a way of materializing the slogan "  sehid namerrin  " (" martyrs 
do not die  ").

They do not die because the struggle, the cause (confederalism) continue.

It gives courage ... and courage it takes to face the Daech fanatics or the 8 th army in 
the world (Turkey).

It is hard to imagine when one has not lived it, but these events are a thousand places of 
the stilted and mortifying ceremonies of our States. Here, it makes sense, there is no 
barrier between the militiamen and the people, we form a whole. There is not that cold 
distance which exists between all the armies of mercenaries of the State and the people 
whom they are supposed to defend. Here everybody is one, one mixes, one embraces, We 
discuss, share the water, so precious in these hours of great sunshine. People also dredge 
themselves, discreetly, breathing a joyous revolutionary disorder - life, in short.

Arthur Aberlin

http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?Un-communiste-libertaire-dans-les-YPG-05-Des-funerailles-pleines-d-emotion

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

Message: 2



Universal income was put at the heart of the "  left  " primary by Benoît Hamon. But what 
exactly is this measure put forward by so many politicians claiming the left as the right? 
---- Universal income has emerged in the primary campaign of the "  Belle Alliance 
populaire  ", defended by Benoît Hamon as a left-wing idea, guaranteeing each and everyone 
the means to live in a society where full employment has become inaccessible. Yet, the 
idea of universal income is historically rather a liberal idea. ---- Thus, one of the 
first attempts to achieve universal income occurred in the 1970s in the United States. 
Defended by John Kenneth Galbraith and 1,200 Keynesian and Liberal economists, he is then 
called the Demogrant, and is shaped by James Tobin (a theoretician of the capital move tax 
that bears his name) and included in The program of Democrat George McGovern, beaten in 
the 1972 presidential election by Richard Nixon.

A scam to break Safely

This type of universal income would be a minimum parachute that would allow us to live, 
albeit very poorly, by remaining below the poverty line, like the "  decent income  " of 
Manuel Valls.

In France, the RMI, which has since become RSA, is a basic income of this type, although 
it is increasingly accompanied by workfare- type constraints , that is, an obligation to 
seek employment, working "  voluntary  " unpaid, for example the county council of 
Haut-Rhin who managed to impose it, illegally, in February.

We note that it cohabits with social security, unemployment and pensions, but that it is 
far below the poverty line: an RSA alone is at 463 euros, an RSA + APL (housing 
assistance) has a ceiling of 690 Euros, while the poverty threshold is 950 euros in France ...

In truth, the liberal universal income is simply a scam to break Social Security and 
unemployment. It would no longer be worthwhile to have unemployment benefits if everyone 
has a low income that keeps him just below the poverty line. This would also make huge 
savings for employers, and would ultimately undermine the social gains ...

This is not the case with the left-wing version of the universal income, moreover, taken 
up by Benoît Hamon. It comes in two versions.

The former sees universal income as a wage supplement, but at a decent standard of living 
in contrast to liberal universal income or the RSA. Basically, the idea is that when you 
work you are paid by a normal salary, and when you do not work, whether you have 
contributed or not, you get a guaranteed income that is more or less equal to your salary. 
It is defended by the disciples of André Gorz, and it has sometimes been put forward 
during assemblies of intermittent and precarious: everyone could work three days, unemploy 
eight, and so on and have indemnities Which would be a great improvement over existing 
arrangements.

Nevertheless, what seems most important is the idea that the generalization of this system 
leads to enormous flexibility and precariousness.

Basically, it would allow employers in general to hire people, to put them in the closet 
temporarily when activity is lower and to rehire them when there is much more activity. 
This would mean outsourcing wages to the state and the community. The employee does not 
lose money, but is at the disposal of the employer. For the boss, he is obliged to pay 
wages only when he really needs them. Even more need to pay leave as income is guaranteed 
... It also pushes to split, fragmented, etc. forms of employment.

The second method of the  guaranteed income would be more " revolutionary  ": the 
guaranteed income would replace the wage backed by employment. People would or would not 
be working, and they would receive an income in monetary form from the state.

Among his followers are the followers of André Gorz, in the 1990s and 2000s, members of 
Cargo (Collective Agitation for an optimal Guaranteed Income), who will go to AC ! 
(Working together against unemployment !).

Read also: Switzerland: Basic income, salary to test , Alternative libertarian, 
July-August 2016
Wealth and Work

This change would be based on a rather smoky mutation of capitalism: it would no longer be 
labor that would produce value. Indeed, for most liberal but also Marxist economists, what 
produces wealth is labor. For Marxists, it is the fact that labor power is a commodity 
that allows the capitalist to extract surplus value. This is called exploitation: workers 
produce wealth, but only receive a portion of this wealth in the form of wages, the rest 
going to the exploiter.

The vision of supporters of basic income
(c) http://revenudebase.info/comprendre-le-revenu-de-base/
For Gorz but also for Cargo holders, value no longer comes from work. For Gorz, cognitive 
capitalism means that work is no longer really necessary and that it is a relatively 
autonomous sphere, and that the work of industry no longer creates value, and it is the 
whole of society in Out of work that would produce wealth.

On the basis of this conception of value, since wealth is no longer based on material but 
on the intangible, it would be enough to set up a guaranteed income system that would 
somehow abolish capitalism since productive labor No longer exists.

Proponents of basic income or guaranteed income say one simple thing: "  There is money in 
the boss's fund, just tax  ". Nevertheless it is not known how much it would be necessary, 
nor if the bosses would really accept. For us, these conceptions, especially that which 
sees the guaranteed income replace the wage-earning, are an imaginary reformism, coming 
from a left who dreams of a return to the Trente Glorieux with great blows of a magic wand 
rather than an abolition of the capitalism. A whole series of thinkers and economists have 
a series of measures that propose to come back politically and economically ...

Matt (AL Montpellier)

http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?Economie-Le-revenu-universel-une-mesure-de-gauche

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

Message: 3



This depends on which of the two meanings of "libertarian" you have in mind. In the 
original 19th century and early 20th century sense of "libertarian", which is still 
predominant in a number of non-English-speaking countries, there isn't really any 
difference in terms of which segment of political opinion these terms refer to. In this 
original sense of "libertarian" the difference is between a positive and a negative 
definition. "Anarchism" has a negative definition: opposition to top down hierarchies of 
power ("bosses", "rulers") such as the corporations and the state. "Libertarian" refers to 
a viewpoint that places great emphasis on positive liberty: controlling your life, 
controlling decisions to the extent you are affected by them, self-management over work & 
community, and access to the means to develop your potential, and thus your capacity for 
self-management.

The other meaning of "libertarian" was concocted in the USA in the 1950s-60s period. It 
was designed to be a new name for advocates of classical 19th century extreme 
individualist liberalism. What is central to this form of "libertarianism" is limiting the 
definition of "liberty" to negative liberty: absence of coercion or restraint. Thus you 
can see the distinction between the two "libertarianisms" in how they view the institution 
of wage-labor under capitalism.

To the left wing libertarians, the anarchists, being forced to work for employers, being 
subject to management power, is a form of oppression because it tramples, disallows, your 
self-management, and prevents the realization of the potential of wage-workers who are 
stuck in dead-end jobs.

To the right wing libertarians, being forced to work for employers, being commanded by 
bosses, is consistent with liberty because no one puts a gun to your head to take a job. 
And therefore it isn't coercion. From the anarchist or left-libertarian point of view, 
this is a drastically poverty-stricken definition of "liberty."

Anarchists do not necessarily reject "government." As anarchist thinker Peter Kropotkin 
pointed out, there is a distinction between the state and government. Government consists 
of the institutions of governance... making rules, adjudicating disputes, social 
self-defense. A state, on the other hand, is a top down bureaucratic apparatus with 
command over military & police forces, separate from real control by the mass of the people.

Right wing libertarians are fine with the existence of the state because a state is 
necessary to protect the minority capitalist or employing class. Their disagreements with 
left-wing liberals and social democrats over the state are about the use of the state to 
provide social benefit systems to benefit the masses of ordinary people - unemployment 
benefits, minimum wage laws, social security systems, public health insurance, etc. Right 
wing libertarians are opposed to these things.

Left wing libertarians advocate systems of provision of social benefits such as free 
health care, education, or public transit, but they want these services to be managed 
directly by their workers. But left wing libertarians & anarchists are opposed to the 
state because of its other side, its use to defend and protect the interests of 
dominating, exploiting classes, such as capitalists and bureaucrats.

Leftwing libertarians thus propose to replace the state with systems of direct popular 
power based on direct democracy of assemblies in workplaces & neighborhoods & delegate 
bodies closely controlled by the base assemblies. Thus we could say they want governance 
without the state.

http://blackrosefed.org/difference-between-libertarianism-and-anarchism/

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

Message: 4



The Tories have found their election slogan. The words ‘strong and stable leadership' will 
be stuck on repeat for the next month, but so far there has been something off in the 
Tories' delivery of their core message. Theresa May seemingly can't end a sentence without 
some form of the words ‘strong and stable leadership'. The compulsion to keep repeating 
the mantra betrays an obsession with the words that go beyond the usual parroting of 
meaningless sound-bites. The Tories addiction to the slogan feels like an unconscious 
over-compensating. They have to say the words constantly because they know that actually 
these times are not stable, and they simply can not offer anything, let alone strong 
leadership. ---- There was a time when the British political elite were looked upon as a 
wise and capable governing class. They have always been arrogant and uncaring of course, 
but they seemed to be able to govern in a way which guaranteed remarkable stability and 
predictability.

Tradition ruled. Parties alternated in power with barely a day's disruption. Instability 
was something that happened in other, foreign, places. Contrast this with the recent past, 
where we have seen two referendums on vital strategic state interests, and are now heading 
into a second general election in as many years. Instability in the British state seems to 
be stemming not so much from the actions of the population below but from the growing 
incompetence of the elite itself. One aspect of our times is that the political elite of 
the British state are losing their touch. A once poised and self-assured group has become 
a series of bumbling caricatures with little sense of direction.

It all started almost a decade ago with the crisis of 2007-8. When the financial industry 
crashed the economy it spelled the end of, an admittedly tired, government that had held 
power comfortably for ten years. What replaced it was something virtually unknown for the 
British state, coalition government. Different factions of parliament had to collaborate 
to govern and their first act was to bring down the axe of austerity. Making the poor pay 
for the crisis of the financial system naturally drew a response, there was the student 
movement, strikes, riots and protests. Even though such events are not uncommon in 
Britain, they broke the belief ,held widely both inside and outside the country, that 
street politics simply doesn't happen here.

Toward the end of its reign the coalition government almost scored what would have been 
one of political history's most spectacular own goals. Massively misjudging a growing 
anti-elite sentiment PM Cameron very nearly oversaw the dismemberment of the British state 
with the Scottish referendum of 2014. Only some last minute scrambling and cajoling saved 
that situation. The following year a decaying Labour party helped the Tories to a surprise 
outright majority in the 2015 general election. Commentators were caught off guard by the 
swift return to single party government and normal service looked to have been resumed. 
However, an even more over confident and arrogant Cameron finally managed that spectacular 
own goal he'd narrowly missed in Scotland. There are a lot of things to say about Brexit, 
who wanted it and who will gain by it, but  a large chunk of the domestic political and 
economic elite ,and virtually all the international elites were against it. Clearly it 
wasn't actually supposed to happen. The British state wasn't meant to veer away from ever 
more integrated capitalist markets, and yet an internal party power play got out of hand 
and ended up fundamentally altering the state's strategic direction. Almost on a whim the 
British elite have disregarded a key part of the state's foreign policy that has been 
adhered to for centuries, don't allow the states of Europe to unite in opposition to it.

In the year since the referendum, the political elite have looked very confused. Lacking 
any coherent direction their behaviour is becoming more erratic. The surprise call for 
another general election is just one more instinctive reaction to a situation they've 
stumbled into. It used to be said, wrongly, that the British Empire was acquired in a fit 
of absence of mind, now it seems such an absence of mind is the political elite's approach 
to governing.

There was a method and a plan behind the actions of the political elite over the last 
years but such is their loss of political skill that it seems only to have led them to a 
dead end. Following 2007-8 it was clear to everyone who was responsible for the crisis. 
That's why when the coalition tried to use austerity to get the state out of the crisis 
capitalism had brought it to there was a response. Yet austerity and anti-austerity long 
ago stopped being the main political issue. As elsewhere the political elite protected 
their friends, and sometime co-workers, in the City by switching the blame for the crisis 
to the poor and immigrants. They were helped along in this process by the consequences of 
other errors they had made. Were it not for the disastrous western interventions in places 
such as Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan by successive British governments there would not have 
been the need for so many people to become refugees in recent years. Here the mistakes 
feed into one another with military campaigns creating refugees who then become hate 
figures of the right.

Presumably they thought they could stoke xenophobia and racism while keeping it under 
control. But the vote for Brexit showed that they have lost control of this beast. There 
are good grounds for wishing to leave the European Union, just look at what it has done to 
Greece, but the anti-immigration vote was decisive in 2016. Individual business interests 
and nostalgic nationalists have their own reasons for leaving the EU, but the majority of 
British capitalists want migrant labour to exploit and the City certainly needs access to 
the European market. By building up anti-immigrant sentiment to mask the financial crisis 
the British elite shot itself in the foot.

So we get to the current moment. A Prime Minister who might or might not support Brexit 
(I'd be surprised if even Theresa May herself knows what she believes) is promising to 
deliver a hard Brexit to satisfy anti-immigrant feeling, knowing this is damaging to the 
interests of the state. The political elite have trapped themselves by their own 
manoeuvres. The return to the stability the elite used to enjoy still seems some way off 
despite the likelihood of an enhanced Tory majority at the next election. This majority 
could help the Prime Minister deal with the compromises ahead but does not guarantee they 
can ride out the storm. An anti-immigrant hard Brexit could damage the economy and 
undermine the British state in Scotland and Northern Ireland. A compromise with the EU 
over freedom of movement will expose the Tories to the very hatred they have been fanning.

The incompetence of the elite is dangerous, perhaps even more dangerous than the times 
they are competent. Political elites around the world are finding it difficult to get out 
of the various crises that keep coming up. As always the manoeuvres of the elite are a 
threat to those they rule. It may well be true that the Tories have done more damage to 
the British state than any revolutionary movements have managed in recent times but this 
is of no comfort to the people endangered by austerity and racism. For the political elite 
their games have no real consequences, even the most disastrous of Prime Minsters will 
still live out a luxurious life, and will be roundly cheered by their colleagues. For 
everyone else the consequences can be very real.

The only sliver lining to the dark clouds dominating the present moment is the fact that 
for increasing numbers of people the status quo is no longer tenable. More and more people 
are looking for a way out and there is a general feeling that something has to be done or 
has to happen. So far, no one, least of all the political elites, knows what to do and 
various different options are being tried. In Greece there has been an attempt to find a 
left wing way out of the crisis. This has failed. It did so not only because Syriza had no 
plan to overcome the first obstacle, the Troika, but because they were also devoid of any 
actual ideas or strategy. Much of the left's response to the crises which gathered pace 
after 2007-8 has been limited to a reaction against austerity, and a hope for a return to 
the pre-crisis situation. Beyond going back to the pre-2007 world the left seems to have 
little new to offer, hence the reason Labour had to look so deep into its ranks and past 
to find a leader. This lack of new ideas is why Syriza has done absolutely nothing but 
implement the terms of its bailout despite holding state power for more than two years.


Greek police increasing security at the offices of Syriza, after people quickly loose 
faith in the party
In Britain and the USA we see an attempt at a right-wing exit from the crisis. The right 
too only seeks to go backwards, this time further back to the era of the independent 
nation state. Anyone who has so much as glanced at history knows what happened last time 
strong independent nation states were the foundation of the international order. We 
already see some hints of this returning world. Trump is very enthusiastic to throw around 
the full arsenal of the US military even if he sometimes appears to forget which country 
exactly he is bombing. So far on the international stage Brexit Britain has only been 
something of an embarrassment to itself, with Tory grandees and the right-wing press 
trying to stir up a fight with Spain over Gibraltar.

Crises are increasingly common in various forms throughout the western states these days. 
Here in Britain the elite are losing their ability to manage the situation. They can only 
solve one crisis by creating another. This is likely one more thing that will not change 
whatever the outcome of the election on June 8th. There will be no strong and stable 
leadership. The system is malfunctioning and so far attempts to reboot it only lead to 
further crashes. How to find a way out and escape from under a floundering elite are more 
critical questions than any an election could pose.

https://afed.org.uk/system-malfunction/

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