Anarchic update news all over the world - 19.12.2017

Today's Topics:

   
1.  [Spain] Presentation of the Anarchist Forum of Granada and
      debate on the situation of anarchism By ANA (ca, it, pt) [machine
      translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
2.  France, Alternative Libertaire AL Décembre - Chiapas:
      Indios without a king (fr, it, pt) [machine translation]
      (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
  
 3.  black rose fed: ON POPULAR POWER IN VENEZUELA: A STATEMENT
      BY URUGUAYAN ANARCHISTS (ca, it) (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)


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

Message: 1





On Saturday, December 16, at 6:00 pm, at the Biblioteca Social Hermanos Quero, we invite 
everyone to the presentation of the Anarchist Forum of Granada, which was born with the 
intention of creating a meeting point for all the anarchist inhabitants of the city. We 
want to collectively build a place of debate and reflection and thus be able to confront 
and share the different points of view that exist in the libertarian movement. From this 
Forum we also seek the formation of a space that encourages the analysis of society and 
current affairs and is also capable of developing and encouraging the self-criticism of 
our different actions and activities, analyzing the real influence we have in our 
environments. ---- For this first day, in addition to the presentation of the Forum, we 
propose to discuss the situation of anarchism. We attach a series of questions that may 
favor reflection (in no case will be the subject of the debate, only a series of questions 
that seemed interesting). In the same way, we include the poster for its disclosure.

We hope to see you. A strong libertarian embrace.

Cheers!

For more information:  foroanarquistagranada@riseup.net

ANARCHISM: DEBATE (QUESTIONS FOR DEBATE)

* What is the influence of anarchism on society?

* What is the anarchist presence on the streets?

* Are we self-referential?

* Do you think that anarchism would be a model of society valid for all?

* Is there a single strategy for getting to anarchy?

* Do you think the libertarian movement could reach a minimum to design a path or program?

* How did the phenomenon of social movements, such as 15M or the Tides, affect anarchism?

* What is the impact that social networks had on the dissemination of our ideas and in the 
struggle?

* How do we understand self-management?

* Do you believe that victories with short-term reform goals are useful to the libertarian 
movement?

* Are all struggles, such as transfeminism and antispecism, integrated into anarchism?

* Do we and the anarchists act in our immediate reality? Or do we get lost in distant 
issues or problems?

* Is the libertarian movement theoretically formed to respond to current problems?

* Do you think that anarchism has a good ideological background to emancipate humanity?

* With what current theoretical and organizational references does anarchism count today?

* Do you think current anarchist organizations and collectives can be the germ of a 
libertarian society?

* What is the subject of social transformation that contemplates anarchism?

Source: 
https://www.bsquero.net/2017/12/09/presentacion-del-foro-anarquista-granada-debate-sabado-16-diciembre-18h/

Translation> Liberto

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

Message: 2





The Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN) has left the pages of the mainstream media. 
This rupture was assumed by the Zapatistas who chose to work with independent, militant 
and alternative media. ---- The publication of Indios without a king: Encounters with 
women and men of Chiapas of Orsetta Bellani is part of this choice. This strange title - 
Indios without a king - comes from a quote by the writer Eduardo Galeano recounting the 
surprise of the Spanish conquerors to the Mayan communities who elected their leaders 
among those who knew best how to listen. ---- "   This book, which in many ways has the 
form of a logbook, brings us closer to the Zapatista communities. People who are not 
informed about the Zapatista insurrection find elements to go back to the origins of the 
movement while the others draw from it updated information ...   " (extract from the preface).

The book returns first on the before 1994 and the birth of the insurrectional movement. 
This part ends with the disappearance of the sub-commander Marcos before its reappearance 
under the name of Galeano.

The inhabitants of San Sebastián Bachajón a few days after the recovery of their territory 
- (c) Orsetta Bellani
Over the course of the chapters, the issues of power, women's liberation, justice, 
education and health, as practiced in the Zapatista communities, are discussed. It is 
through encounters that we learn from men and women engaged on a daily basis what the 
construction of autonomy means. Orsetta Bellani also discusses lesser-known topics such as 
the "   Zapatista Bank   " or the attraction to young Zapatistas of migration in the 
United States. But Orsetta also does not forget the counter-insurgency and the violence 
that is striking the communities in resistance.

Many black and white photos dot this cheap short book and it is essential for those who 
want to know more about the Zapatista movement.

Marcos

Orsetta Bellani, Indios without a king. Meetings with women and men from Chiapas, 
libertarian creation workshop, 2017, 150 pages, 10 euros.

http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?Chiapas-Indios-sans-roi

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

Message: 3





The political situation in Venezuela continues to be embattled and the legacy of Chavismo 
is one that remains contested and debated on the left. We republish this translated 
statement by the Federación Anarquista Uruguaya (FAU) with their perspectives on the 
current situation (original link). Founded in 1956 the FAU was one of the strongest 
anarchist movements in Latin America, survived the period of dictatorship and continues to 
be active today. We also recommend other translated pieces on Venezuela, “The 
‘Madurization’ of Chavismo” a statement by Caribbean anarchists and an analysis by Chilean 
anarchists who conducted political research in Venezuela, “Political Situation in 
Venezuela: Crisis, Trends, and the Challenge of Class Independence.” The original text in 
Spanish appears below.

“The Popular Power in Venezuela, initially pushed by charismatic Hugo Chavez, has been in 
a constant tension … From above, resources have been cut, and they have hindered, in every 
possible way, the development of Communes and the Popular Power.”

Venezuela
In 1989 Venezuela lived one of the biggest social uprisings known as “El Caracazo.” The 
motivation of this popular revolt was the measures taken by the government of Carlos 
Andrés Pérez, who gave over the Venezuelan economy to the International Monetary Fund and 
implemented a shock policy of explicit neo-liberal nature. Thus, the country’s existing 
economical crisis was deepened and the balance of this huge popular protest was 3,000 dead.

The appearance in the political arena of nationalist military figure Hugo Chavez, first 
through a failed coup, then developing a prominent election campaign and winning these 
elections [in 1999], brought together and channeled all of the popular enthusiasm which 
had been momentarily silenced with gunshots. The Venezuelan political system, completely 
corrupt, did not offer any way out through the two traditional political parties of the 
country, Acción Democrática (AD) and COPEI. They couldn’t develop any proposal which could 
be considered as valid. The patches that the capitalist system needed in Venezuela would 
be finally applied, through a complex process, by Chavez.

This popular adhesion can also be translated in the fact that several leftist groups, and 
even ex-guerrilla fighters, surrounded the now President Chavez. His own brother, a former 
member of the Communist Party, was beside him. Moreover, it was his brother who had a 
decisive influence so that Chavez joined the army in order to carry out certain political 
work inside the institution.

So 2002 arrived, and with it came the attempted coup of AD and COPEI, along with 
Fedecámaras, an entity which gathers all of the business owners of the country. There was 
also the sabotage of the oil industry. Millions of people descended from the hills to 
defend Chavez and what they had gained and had been denied for centuries. There was also a 
hope placed in the new government with Hugo Chavez as its leader.

Why there was so much support from the people? Chavez’s government represented having food 
guarantees, plus some urgent benefits and social rights that were very wanted. After the 
failure of the coup, the Chavista government deepens several plans, the so-called 
“Missions” in the first place, “Barrio Adentro” and “Mercal”, putting to work 28 missions 
in the year 2010, which helped to eliminate illiteracy, provide health care and fulfill 
basic needs for all of the population. The name “Popular Power” emerges and citizens 
organized from working-class neighborhoods, even creating their own militias. There is an 
emergence of production and consumer cooperatives, communes and quite a wide regional 
organization created from below. All of this with a great autonomy at a social level, 
since the State – regarding the governmental aspects – still had certain control over the 
old bureaucracy which had supported the coup.

Of course, the Chavista government had used the “Popular Power” slogan but orchestrated 
such from the top in trying to build new institutions in the capitalist State, but 
functional to their project and also to their conception of State. It is true that an 
important leading role at a popular level emerged, which is impossible to deny, and that 
for a moment, and at a certain level, a parallel society was organized with organisms of 
real Popular Power, which initially had little to no intervention from the State. Many 
radical militants joined this activity of Popular Power and, in the heart of the people, 
they raised the need of independence from the organism of the state and struggling for 
their own objectives.

Clearly though the State only creates bureaucracy and a new bourgeoisie. In the space of a 
few years, former militants and some upstarts began taking control of different aspects of 
the State and started to integrate and enrich themselves. This phenomenon is known as 
“bolirricos” [a play on words between Bolivarian and rich -Translator]. One can say the 
same about the military caste of senior Army officers, who have won benefits as never 
before. This process was accompanied by a certain level of corruption.

All of this happened in the middle of nationalizations, with PDVSA as the most important, 
through which the Venezuelan State takes control of the oil, consolidating Venezuela as 
one of the main exporters of crude oil as they took advantage of the high prices of the 
last decade. It is a messy process. There is no social experiment in its pure form. In 
this context, the popular communes coexist with the army, Chavista communes with a certain 
level of independence, militant sectors working class with different levels of support to 
Chavismo representing millions who have enriched themselves at the expense of the people 
and through corruption. There are always traditional bourgeoisie who have shown some 
interest in Chavismo to adapt to the new situation and take advantage of it. The majority 
of them are willing to turn to the other side when their stingy interests tell them to.

Nonetheless, something that cannot be denied is the fact that, however messy the 
Venezuelan process is, an important part of the people, those from below, participates in 
the construction of something which is opposed to capitalism and the imperialist 
penetration of the United States – they build new social relations, self-manage part of 
the production, services and social life by themselves.

In essence, it is against this self-management and forward-motion from the real Popular 
Power – from below – and against the accomplished conquests, against that general 
anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist feeling, that the dominant classes of Venezuela have 
stood along with the Yankee imperialism, where the government of Trump, just like Obama’s, 
has been playing through international pressure and a specific economic blockade. They 
have taken advantage of a situation in which the Chavista government has some level of an 
important popular discontent because of its inability to solve essential problems such as 
food, medicines and a brutal raise of the cost of living. The right wing, the bourgeoisie 
and the imperialist mechanisms in action have deepened the crisis in every way and have 
even created and recreated this situation. All of this happens in a time when the 
Venezuelan government has also completely minimized its connection with those from below 
who supported it.

Venezuelan communes
In 2013 there was a register of 1,150 communes and 31,670 communal councils. Through the 
Communal Councils, the people solve their issues directly and take part in social 
infrastructure works using the resources from the State destined to these councils. They 
are the grounds and the base of Popular Power.

These Communal Councils work on the basis of neighborhood assemblies, where they set out 
vindications, but also organize to set several tasks and develop social work and the 
infrastructure of the neighborhoods. These communes were created as of 2009 and were 
developed by Chavez before his death to be the lead agency of the revolution, in a 
self-governed and self-managed way. In his discourse, he talked about independence from 
the State and political parties, even the chavista party.

The Communes have even assumed the administration of whole neighborhoods, including the 
allocation of food and primary health, housing construction, infrastructure works such as 
bridges, and they have managed different problems of the population. They have been a real 
organism of democracy and direct participation. Nevertheless, in a sustained and 
increasing manner, they have been restrained from above, from the top of the Chavista 
government, who obstruct the Council’s actions, make sure they depend on state and 
bureaucratic organisms, and delay the approval of laws to provide resources, protect and 
benefit the Communes’ actions.

You can find an example of how a Commune works in the case of Ataroa, which gathers about 
fifty Commune Councils in the south of Barquisimeto (the fourth biggest city in the 
country) and some other social groups. In this place, it was created, among other small 
businesses, a brick factory which provides materials for the works carried out in these 
neighborhoods. This Commune has also assumed the management of an urban transport system 
with eight buses and a television channel, Lara TV. It adds an active element for this 
Commune through which people solve their issues in a natural way, but: “The experience has 
not been without internal and external problems, rivalries to seize certain power, 
bureaucracy, and conflicts with other State institutions.”

We see, therefore, that the Popular Power in Venezuela, initially pushed by charismatic 
Hugo Chavez, has been in a constant tension with the State, the party in the government, 
the Bolivarian bourgeoisie, Army and all of the caste of bureaucrats that have found a 
position in the State and grabbed a little piece of power and oil revenue. >From above, 
resources have been cut, and they have hindered, in every possible way, the development of 
Communes and the Popular Power, because the growth of this experience implies, by itself, 
a strong contradiction with the State and the dominant power. This is a conflict that will 
not be solved peacefully, with no traumas, no ruptures, as many theorists would like. On 
the contrary, as history shows us, class conflicts and interests, when a process emerges 
from below with popular power, resolve through violence. Chavismo is not really aligned 
with this line of rupture with the capitalist system.

The right wing, the crisis, and the role of the United States
Without a doubt, for the putrid Venezuelan right, things had gone too far. After the 
failed coup of 2002, little by little, the right rebuilt its forces and has returned for 
its privileges after Maduro took office. Strikes, shortages produced by the bosses, among 
them the owners of Polar – a group which focuses in food – among others. On the heels of 
the popular discontent, the right gets a majority in the National Assembly. In that place, 
it will try politics and techniques of destabilization and pressure in order to oust 
President Maduro. Thus, ultimately, it intends to oust the Chavista regime. 
“Personalities” of this Assembly belonging to the MUD (Mesa de Unidad Democrática or 
Democratic Unity Coalition) tour the world and maintain contact with political leaders and 
coup-supporting organizations from the US and Europe, willing to play the most 
interventionist card as possible in Venezuela.

Then, the “guarimbas” [street blockages -Translator] and the strategy of seizing the 
streets and causing as much destabilization as possible with different methods.

The American support to the destabilization caused by the Venezuelan right has been total. 
There have been many imperialist organisms which give economical support to the 
coup-inducing actions carried out by the MUD. The CIA of the United States funds these 
actions through different organisms such as the National Endowment for Democracy, a 
secondary agency which diverts funds of the CIA toward different NGOs and groups promoting 
boycotts and isolation of Venezuela. They call for “democracy” but they have no 
“democratic” component, and with the excuse of demanding “Human Rights,” they try to 
destabilize the political and social situation of Venezuela. This is a task that these 
groups carry out systematically in all Latin America and which adapt to the current situation.

Let’s take Provea as an example, which is an NGO linked to the topic of “Human Rights”, 
and is funded by organizations such as the Open Society Foundation – which belongs to 
multimillionaire and financier George Soros – Ford Foundation, the United Kingdom Embassy, 
the European Union, among other embassies and different groups. Probably, the European 
Union is worried about the Human Rights of the Venezuelan people and other Latin American 
countries, but not about the millions of immigrants that arrive to their coasts enduring a 
painful misery, as a product of the wars they have caused in Africa and the Middle East, 
after having looting such territories for over two centuries.

Everything is documented. It’s not just a notion. There are data, reports, proof of the 
Yankee funding to the Venezuelan opposition, which only wants to carry out a coup. An 
opposition which is deeply against the people. Their intentions are to install the pure 
and hard line neo-liberal model such as the one underway in Argentina and Brazil, taking 
popular conquests away and spreading more poverty.

Also, in the political aspects being developed in Venezuela since years ago, it is in fact 
nothing less than the same plan carried out in Chile to overthrow the government of 
Allende in 1973 and to impose the fierce dictatorship of Pinochet, or to defeat the 
Sandinista Revolution in Nicaragua during the 1980’s. Of course, it is a plan that needed 
certain adjustment according to the historical context, but it is the same model. The 
resemblance even attracts the attention.

Naturally, there were several responses in the Maduro government. Some of the political 
calculations are not entirely correct and their results are uncertain. They did not 
properly face the serious internal situation, in which the people lacked essential things, 
and the enormous speculation there was around this tragic setting. On the other hand, the 
government wore out the argument of the Imperialist conspiracy until it almost lost its 
proper effect. That is a fact that the infiltration devices and the imperialist action 
tried to take advantage of in order to fake innocence.

Finally, the election was called for the National Constituent Assembly. For its 
composition, several social organizations were called in a timid way to be part of the 
assembly. In spite of the limitation of their participation, the popular organizations 
revitalized their action in pursuit of this integration. There are indicators that these 
felt once again considered in the ongoing project, which gave new birth to some hopes and 
provided certain social life to those who felt somehow distant. Even though they had some 
criticism, they carried out activities in favor of this constituent organization. Maybe 
thinking that once under its wing they could achieve some favorable social effects and 
some corrections.

This was a political strategy of the Maduro government under pressure, which was opposed 
to another one that had gained the streets and deployed actions in different fields, 
including international matters. A political strategy that was briefly submerged into 
controversy about its legal legitimacy. The context in which the topic was solved was not 
judicial, it was political, and was about who would continue or take control of the 
government. Neither of the parts involved was really worried about the legal authenticity.

Those from below spoke
This political and economic crisis, backed by the coup-monger right-wing and by the US, 
had another response. It seemed like the Venezuelan people in general were not mobilizing, 
that they didn’t find the way to restrain this coup-mongering surge, but in the regional 
elections of last October 15th, the popular majority “spoke” and rejected, in their own 
way, the right-wing and the coup-mongering, which resulting in the victory of the Chavista 
candidates in 17 out of 23 states. The people spoke in the elections, although not in the 
street and resumed activities of Popular Power – which is what ultimately matters – but 
without a doubt, this is an indication that something from below, something in the popular 
structure was developed, is there and is expressed. There is subjectivity at a popular 
level, with confusing and contradictory elements, it’s true, but indicating that 
“something” of this Popular Power lives and functions. “Something” out of all of this 
experience is there, fresh, alive and demanding, still without stumbling, its space and 
place in history.

In the elections, the right wing could not prove there was fraud or anything like it. They 
were left without solid ground, but the truth is that the Venezuelan people chose this 
peculiar way of making themselves heard and trying to maintain the essence of a process in 
which they have a voice, although today it seems to be expressed in a contradictory, messy 
and, at times, faked way. Therefore, “something” of this popular prominence, ideological 
elements – the production and distribution of goods, the self-defense of communities – are 
present and it is not mere propaganda. It is clear that these elements should take action 
in a complex and, for now, hardly favorable frame.

Nevertheless, “something” out of all of this process has a hint of reality. There are 
people in Latin America that dream and take action in order to build “something” different 
from the society we live in. That “something” may evolve in one way or another. It depends 
on the popular support from below and on Latin American peoples to make this “something” 
transform into a strong popular path to achieve real Popular Power with no tutelage from 
the State; and with a socialist horizon in its stare.

Historical and social processes are not perfect, they’re not a laboratory practice. They 
don’t come out of a manual. They are contradictory, messy, highly complex, with each 
people’s own culture and history. But they belong to the peoples, the oppressed, those who 
have been exploited and suffered from looting and the violation of all of their rights, 
persecutions, death, imprisonment, torture. Those experiences of pain and hope can make a 
breakthrough, a rupture, and be the source of a new course.

Furthermore, when the right wing comes to take it all, when the most imperialist power of 
the world intervenes to bury even more what they consider their “backyard”, we can’t 
hesitate about what side we are on. It is not about the defense of this or that 
government. For the anarchists of the FAU (Uruguayan Anarchist Federation), the center of 
the debate is how the peoples from Latin America can move forward toward our complete 
emancipation and liberty and how we create strong peoples and move toward the development 
of Popular Power.

IN VENEZUELA: NO YANKEES, NO BUREAUCRATS, NO GUSANOS

For the self-determination of the people

POPULAR POWER FROM BELOW!!



Translation by Ricardo Araya.


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