Anarchic update news all over the world - 13.01.2018

Today's Topics:

   
1.  black rose fed: URUGUAY: ON THE MURDER OF A LABOR MILITANT
      BY        A SCAB (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
2.  Greece, dwarf horses APO - Event-Debate: "The Stonewall
      uprising, lgbtq movements and the possibility of their
      revolutionary prospect" - by initiative of women against
      patriarchy (gr) [machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
3.  US, black rose fed: A REVIEW OF ANARCHISM IN KOREA By José
      Antonio Gutiérrez (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
4.  wsm.ie: Strike-4-Repeal - A Call to Action this January 2018
      (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)


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

Message: 1






The following are translated statements by the SUTCRA transportation union (El Sindicato 
Único del Transporte de Carga y Ramas Afines) and the FAU (Federación Anarquista Uruguaya) 
---- SUTCRA communiqué on murder of Marcelo Silvera ---- The Union of Freight Transport 
and Related Branches (SUTCRA) laments to communicate the condemnable and fateful murder of 
a comrade and leader of SUTCRA, Marcelo Silvera, during a General Strike decreed by our 
union on Tuesday, January 2, 2018. ---- This murder has numerous different characteristics 
and has aggravating circumstances that resemble an act of common violence, taking into 
consideration that while the comrade Marcelo Silvera was traveling with his wife to take 
their young son to a fellow comrade due to health problems, he came across a worker from 
the Rivera firm, Viena Transport, a driver who was using the firm's truck, not in 
compliance with the union's measure. Recognizing our comrade due to his well-known 
militancy, the driver carries out a harsh maneuver that obliges Silvera to brake his 
vehicle in such a way that his life and those of his wife and son become threatened. In 
these circumstances, a discussion arises regarding the route that ends at the doors of the 
Viana Transport firm, when Comrade Marcelo alights from his car and directs himself to 
tell this worker off for his attitude. Cowardly, this worker from above the truck and 
without ever coming down from it shoots our comrade Silvera in the chest, leaving him 
bleeding out on the floor of the firm's entrance, being embraced by his wife and his 
6-year old son.

The Viena Firm, failing to provide assistance and desiring to distance itself from the 
murder, orders the truck with the murderer in it to enter the firm's property. Because the 
company lacks the decency to even call any health service by phone, the neighbors from the 
community are those who call the authorities, having heard the heartbreaking cries of 
Silvera's wife.

SUTCRA energetically condemns and repudiates the murder of our Comrade National Director, 
Marcelo Silvera, and demands that his murder be profoundly investigated, and that the 
culpability not only for the murder but also the Viena firm, which employed an armed 
worker during a day of general strike. Furthermore, we wish to stress the omission of 
assistance rendered by the company once our comrade had been shot.

We commit ourselves to struggle daily so that the murder of our leader Marcelo Silvera 
will not remain in impunity, and that events such as these never recur in our beloved country.

In light of the events that have been highlighted, SUTCRA declares a national general 
strike out of sorrow from 12pm to midnight.

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

On the Murder of a Labor Militant by a Scab: Statement from the Uruguayan Anarchist Federation


On 2 January 2018, the Transport Workers Union (SUTCRA) realized a strike to advance 
pressure for concrete gains before the Wage Council. During the strike, a scab got in 
between our comrade Marcelo Silvera and his family, with a result that is now known to 
everyone - our comrade was assassinated by the scab, the hitman or gunman at the service 
of the management.

This filth bragged about going armed to his workplace, of having intimidated workers so 
that they do not join the union or union actions, of having "offered" to his boss to take 
down unionists with the truck that he drove... A fatal repertoire, but nothing that 
escapes the reality that exists in our country. This was not the work of a "crazy man" or 
a "maladapted." Maybe there has been a component of "excess," but an excess that is still 
within the framework of the political-ideological positions of many sectors of the owning 
classes.

There is a great quantity of bosses that do what they want with their enterprises and 
their employees. They pay what they want, when they want, refuse to comply with labor 
rights, and when workers organize among themselves to make corresponding demands, these 
bosses say with total impunity that they are not going to pay anything, that they will not 
comply. Hundreds of these cases exist in the interior of the country.

In many of these cases we encounter a strong reactionary component, in many cases a 
fascist one. The reactionary logic that has been permeating important sectors of our 
society permits, with total impunity, the occurrence of these acts. That same reactionary 
and anti-union logic, and anti-poor in general, provides that framework for which a 
fascist can assassinate a union militant and officer.

And now where is the discourse about "serious and responsible negotiation," "democratic," 
"the labor-management accord," when there is a union officer assassinated? All of that 
discourse turns out to be hot air in moments like these. This action is what inaugurates 
the round of Wage Councils for 2018, a round that will not be the same as those before. 
This act marks a before and after that they will make a ruling on the negotiations and 
struggle in the Wage Council.

The bosses want to play dirty. This is not strange to us. As a class, they were the ones 
who gave us the military coup of 1973. Their managerial associations greeted the coup with 
open arms and took advantage of the opportunity to fire unionized workers and labor 
militants by use of the 4 July 1973 Decree implemented by President Bordaberry and the 
Council of National Security. Fascist sectors that supported the coup took advantage of 
the opportunity to attack students and workers. The JUP (Uruguayan Youth on Foot) had 
already assassinated Santiago Rodriguez Muela in High School #8 before the coup. Those 
fascist groups were already getting involved in the police and military structure. Today, 
their members move around in those spaces, loose.

The bosses did not come out to denounce the murder, nor did the government aside from the 
Ministry of Labor. But these, like others, were lukewarm declarations that located the 
emphasis in "violence" and "co-existence" and in the "peaceful resolution of conflict."

How else can one explain the main project of the State whose Ministry of the Interior has 
developed a militarized force to invade and bring violence to the poorest neighborhoods of 
the country? How else can one explain that the Armed Forces cost millions of dollars 
daily? Peaceful coexistence when the armed apparatuses of the State are armed for war? 
Peaceful coexistence when the majority of femicides have been carried out by members of 
the police? It is a sick joke!

We reassert that in capitalism a peaceful coexistence between classes is an illusion. It 
is impossible. This recent lamentable act speaks clearly to this. The bosses do not have 
any shame in applying force to repress popular movements. Capitalism is "naturally" 
violent, it is in its constitution to utilize violence to maintain an unjust social order. 
Historical examples show that the dominant classes retaliate with a ferocious repression 
against el pueblo, all the way up to the use of genocide.

In response to these acts, which are turning points, we believe that a united popular 
movement should come out to the street to denounce, to demand justice, and to prevent the 
same impunity that keeps allowing for these sorts of scenarios. But looking beyond just 
that, we have to prepare ourselves. More difficult and complex times are ahead. In our 
neighboring countries military persecution is becoming more and more normalized, such as 
the offensive against Mapuche and solidarious leftist organizations in Argentina and 
attacks against anarchist organizations in Brazil.

The assassination of comrade Marcelo Silvero will not remain an isolated incident without 
justice. It should not be forgotten. We are obliged to escalate the struggle, to escalate 
our commitment to militancy for a society without bosses, middlemen, or armies.

This is an alarm sounding that the political situation is beginning to change and it 
requires that we remain alert for the times that come. The only guarantee of change and 
victory for those from below is that of organization and struggle. Only through popular 
direct action can we create a strong people that can flip the tables on the bosses' class.

AGAINST THE IMPUNITY OF BOSSES AND THE HITMEN AT THEIR SERVICE
STRUGGLE AND ORGANIZATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF POPULAR POWER
ARRIBA LOS QUE LUCHAN!!

-URUGUAYAN ANARCHIST FEDERATION

http://blackrosefed.org/uruguay-murder-labor-militant-scab/

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

Message: 2






+ Viewing the movie: "Pride"

In London in 1984 a gay activist group is trying to raise money to support the miners' 
strike. But when its members need to go to Wales to meet the strikers they will find they 
are not exactly welcome.
TUESDAY 16/1, AT 19:30 in the self-managed area On the Up (Patreos 87)
women's initiative against patriarchy

https://ipposd.wordpress.com/2018/01/09

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

Message: 3






Review of "Anarchism in Korea. Independence, Transnationalism, and the Question of 
National Development 1919-1984" by Dongyoun Hwang (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2016) ---- 
Dongyoun Hwang has been working for many years recovering the history of Korean anarchism, 
a movement which has been remarkably important for the history of its own country, to the 
point that anarchism was even mentioned by some South Korean scholars as one of the ten 
more influential ideas ushering Korea into the 20th century (p.1). Notwithstanding its 
relevance, it has been largely overlooked by anarchists elsewhere and whose history has 
been inscribed in a nationalist narrative which misrepresents it. Like Nestor Makhno in 
Ukraine, in Korea, important anarchist historical figures such as Shin Chaeho have been 
appropriated in purely nationalistic terms, devoid from social and internationalist/ 
transnational aspirations which are at the very core of their anarchist commitments. But 
more importantly, the understanding of the movement as inscribed within the boundaries of 
modern national borders, ignores its transnational genesis. The book of Hwang is an 
attempt to portray this movement in its own terms and to understand their positions in 
their own local circumstances. As all good books, it doesn't exhaust the topic, leaving 
many avenues to be explored by future research and many questions deserving more analysis.

The main contentions of the book are, on the one hand, that the Korean anarchist movement 
cannot be dissociated from other regional movements in East Asia, particularly in Japan 
and China. With these movements they were in constant contact, exchange and there was 
plenty of ideological and practical cross-fertilisation. He also contends, on the other 
hand, that Korean anarchism was never a monolithic and homogenous body, with important 
practical and ideological differences which can be explained to a great degree before of 
the localisation of anarchism in given contexts. Taking together these two main arguments, 
I feel the book would have been more aptly called "Korean Anarchisms", instead of 
"Anarchism[as if singular]in Korea[as he deals extensively with Korean anarchists in China 
and Japan too]".


Korean People's Association in Manchuria (KPAM, 1929-1931), an autonomous anarchist zone 
in Manchuria near the Korean borderlands formed by the Korean Anarchist Federation in 
Manchuria and the Korean Anarcho-Communist Federation.
The question of national liberation
Another important contention of the book, is that some of the political options of the 
Korean anarchist movement -such as their insistence in independence, the national 
question, their participation in a national front and eventually in the Korean Provisional 
Government in China- should not be condemned beforehand as deviations from an abstract 
universal canon, but they should be understood -however critically- in the exceptional 
circumstances this movement had to face as an expression of a colonised people. In a way 
not too different to how some national liberation movements during the second half of the 
20th century came to view Marxism as a short-cut towards modernity and as a tool to 
achieve national independence, Korean radicals came to view anarchism as an alternative 
path to modernity and to national liberation, which originally was part and parcel of a 
process which ultimately would lead to a radical transformation of society based on 
anarchist principles.

Anarchism in Korea developed in the aftermath of the March 1st Movement, in 1919, which 
saw the first mass demonstrations in Korea against Japanese occupation of the peninsula. 
The yearning for national liberation of a colonised people was key to radicalise segments 
of society and the youth in the first half of the 20th century, and they embraced and 
translated anarchism in order to adapt to this circumstances. Naturally, this process was 
dialectical and these radicals lived in a permanent tension between their national goal 
and the transnational aspirations shared with other anarchists in the region. 
Paradoxically, Korean anarchism developed to a great degree because of the exchanges with 
Japanese anarchists which were made possible by colonialism -Koreans went to work and 
study to Japan, Japanese publications circulated and thus, Koreans became familiar with 
anarchist theory and ideas. Anarchism in Korea depended largely on initiatives by students 
returning from Japan. Among the main influences of Korean anarchists were the writings of 
the Japanese anarchist Osugi Sakae and of the Russian anarchist Pyotr Kropotkin, whose 
evolutionary thought and ideas on mutual aid would be a most enduring legacy for Korean 
anarchism through its various phases, as we shall see.

Transnational networks of discourse and practice

Korean anarchism flourished through networks of discourse and practice, in which Tokyo, 
Osaka, Shanghai, Beijing and Quanzhou, acted as nodes of these radical transnational 
networks. But in these networks, discourses and practices did not travelled unaltered, but 
were localised into the diverse realities in which anarchists had to operate. Anarchism 
not only was translated and adapted to the local conditions of their colonised homeland by 
Korean anarchists; their anarchism was also responsive to the local conditions in foreign 
territories were they became anarchists. There were marked differences in the local 
compositions of the movement, which was also consequential to discourses and practices. 
While in Japan the movement was mostly composed by students, who usually had to work to 
sustain themselves, and of some economic migrants, in China the movements was mostly 
composed by exiles.

But even within each country, there were important differences according to local 
conditions. In Japan there was a marked difference between the more ideological anarchist 
circles of Tokyo -a city attracting mostly Korean students, and with vibrant Japanese 
anarchist circles- and the more pragmatic, cooperative and labour oriented activities of 
Korean anarchists in Osaka -an industrial centre with a significant Korean population 
attracted to work in the industry as cheap labour. In China, anarchists in Shanghai and 
Quangzhou were engaged in educational activities together with their Chinese counterparts, 
while in Manchuria their main activity focused on welfare cooperatives and self-defence 
associations. In Korea itself, anarchists in the largely agrarian south were more 
ideological and given to propaganda efforts, while northern anarchists were more inclined 
to labour and pragmatic action for the downtrodden sectors of society, as the north was 
undergoing a process of intense and rapid industrialisation, hence the concern on the 
impacts of this process both on the urban masses and on the industrial and urban workers. 
To what a degree the legacy of anarchists discourses on autonomy, independence, 
self-sufficiency in the north had an impact over the development of the Juche 
(self-reliance) ideology which is the trademark of the Democratic People's Republic of 
Korea, is not explored by the author, but it is one of those unexplored avenues which this 
research opens up.

Anarchists and alliances

As Korean anarchism was reflecting the radicalisation of segments of Korean society in the 
wake of the 1919 nationalist movement, the relationship to nationalism was tense and 
contradictory. Anarchists in Korea, in their heyday (1925-1930), almost completely failed 
to mention the idea of independence, emphasising the social -rather than the ‘national'- 
aspect of the struggle. A similar trend can be seen among Japanese anarchists: whether in 
Tokyo or Osaka, they were very critical of nationalism, stating above everything the need 
to change and transform the social relationships produced by capitalism and imperialism. 
Although ideology was undoubtedly at play here, according to Hwang other more pragmatic 
reasons may also be at play, since any such pro-independence propaganda in Japan or Korea 
would have attracted unwanted attention from the ubiquitous surveillance and repressive 
apparatus of the Japanese empire. Japanese repression had a crippling effect over the 
movement, shattering not only the anarchists as a movement, but also physically, as soul 
and bodies. In China, instead, anarchists would have had far more freedom, at least for a 
while, during the 1920s, and the prime goal of Korean anarchists in China was, 
undoubtedly, national liberation and independence -except for those anarchists in 
Manchuria. But likewise, ideological reasons may also be at play here: in China there was 
a veritable nationalist effervescence which in all likelihood left its imprint in the 
priorities of anarchists there -while Manchuria remain some kind of hinterland with a 
poverty-stricken migrant population in need of pragmatic solutions to their urgent and 
most basic needs.

As Korean anarchists whether in Japan, Korea or China, opposed Japanese imperialism and 
the discrimination against and oppression of Koreans, there were marked differences also 
in relation to the question of working with other political currents, particularly with 
nationalists, socialists and the communists. While anarchists in Japan were very critical 
of nationalism, rejecting that the social question should assume a secondary role, as 
Koreans were exposed to all sort of humiliations and discrimination in the country of the 
coloniser, but also because of the influence of syndicalism and "pure anarchism", the 
dominant currents of Japanese anarchists. The socialist movement in Japan had a great deal 
of common interaction, and in places like Osaka, Korean anarchists cooperated with 
communists and socialists. Let us remember that some Japanese anarchists, such as founding 
figures like Kotoku Shusui, came from a Marxist background. Although in Tokyo, the more 
ideological anarchists were quite vitriolic against the communists, still they were in the 
same organisation in the early 1920s (splitting in 1922).

Anti-communism

In China there was a booming nationalist movement, quite anti-communist in nature, headed 
by the Guomindang, in which some anarchists participated, although downplaying their 
anarchism, under constant threat of being purged and concentrating in relatively safe 
havens such as Quanzhou. While fully immersed in radical circles in China, most Korean 
anarchists systematically opted to side with anti-communist nationalists. There may have 
been a number of reasons for this. The nationalist discourse would have been closer to 
their own longing for national liberation. They may have seen better opportunities to 
advance their autonomous social projects with them as opposed to a communist movement 
which they saw largely controlled by the Soviet Union.

Undoubtedly, the fact that Korean anarchism developed in the 1920s, when globally the 
anarchist movement started a long decline (which also affected the anarchist movements in 
China and Japan) and the communist parties, led by the Soviet revolutionary example were 
gaining momentum and filled the vacuum left by anarchism's retreat, played a significant 
role in the hostility of many an anarchist against working with communists. This was 
intensified as news of the suppression of anarchists in Soviet Russia reached Korean 
anarchists, an experience they learned from a Russian anarchist in China, Vasily 
Eroshenko, who paradoxically would later in the decade return to Russia and work with 
Communist Party cultural initiatives. In Manchuria there was a tense alliance with 
nationalists and active hostility against the communist guerrillas, which lasted until the 
Japanese invasion of 1931.

But there were also other reasons, more practical in nature, for the Korean anarchists' 
rejection of communists. In the case of anarchists in China, particularly since the bloody 
purge of communists led by the Guomindang after the Shanghai strike of 1927, they had to 
distance themselves from communists (anarchists would be labelled as "cousins" of 
communists by conservative nationalists) and thus downplay important aspects of the 
universal anarchist credo, such as its insistence in revolutionary means, class struggle, 
and the struggle against the State. In this process, Kropotkin's ideas of mutual aid, of 
combining manual and intellectual labour, and his view of an anarchist modernity in which 
industrialisation would take place in harmony with the development of the countryside, 
offered a vision which could appeal to the nationalist aspirations of their constituency 
without risking exposing dangerous ‘communist' overtones.

Anarchists in government

The Japanese progressive invasion of China since 1931, which started in Manchuria, 
represented a big challenge but also a big opportunity for Korean anarchists. On the one 
hand, they lost a safe haven they've had for nearly a decade, free of the Japanese 
repressive State, but also it turned the national liberation question into a political 
imperative. Whatever goals Korean anarchists had on their top priorities, none were 
possible under Japanese colonialism and the liberation of Korea was a necessary 
precondition for any of them. The military triumph of China over Japan too became then a 
precondition for the liberation of Korea, for the conditions to lay out the foundations of 
the new society. With this in mind, they started in 1936 to discuss ideas for a united 
national front with all sectors opposing Japanese colonialism. In 1937, the outbreak of 
the Sino-Japanese war and the second united front between the Guomindang and the Chinese 
Communist Party (CCP), paved the way for Koreans to emulate this unity. If Chinese 
nationalists and communists could cooperate, why not Koreans? Furthermore, the experience 
of national fronts in other countries threatened by fascism was also followed attentively 
by anarchists.

Anarchists became engaged in armed struggle and terror attacks directed against 
collaborators and Japanese military and civilian officers in the 1930s. Eventually, in 
1941, after some years of a joint experience with other independence and socialist groups 
-the Korean communists, who were then affiliated to the CCP conspicuously absent-, 
prominent anarchists joined the rather conservative nationalist Korean Provisional 
Government in China, in the name of the unity of the anti-Japanese forces. Yu Rim, one of 
the anarchists in the government, had actually met in 1937 and 1938 with Mao Zedong and 
the Chinese Communist Party with an eye to foster cooperation, but eventually these 
meetings came to nothing. Anarchists were indeed divided in regard to alliances, some 
leaning more towards working with conservatives, others towards socialists and even 
communists. Some guerrillas formed by anarchists, despairing at the ineffectiveness and 
inability (unwillingness?) of both the Guomindang and the Korean Provisional Government to 
fight the Japanese, ended up going to Yan'an to fight the Japanese with the support of the 
Chinese Communist Party. These tensions and contradictions in relation to alliances were 
reflected in the post-1945 trajectories of some of the leading anarchists fighters and 
activists of this period: some anarchists, such as Yu Ja-Myeong, ended up having prominent 
roles in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, others occupied important posts in the 
South Korean military, such as Bak Giseong, and yet others ended up as activists in South 
Korea suffering from perennial persecution and hardship, such as Jeong Hwaam (p.148).

Cold War anarchists

After Japan was expelled from the Korean peninsula in 1945, in the context of World War 
II, with the North occupied by the Soviet Union and the South by the USA, the Cold War -of 
which Korea became a frontline, as attested by the brutal War of 1950-1953- exacerbated 
these feature in the Korean anarchist movement. While in the North it is uncertain what 
happened to the anarchists, although some defected, and some collaborated, it is most 
likely that the radical space of anarchism was completely co-opted by the communists led 
by Kim Il Sung. In South Korea, on the other hand, a series of authoritarian governments 
and dictatorships, all extremely anti-communist in nature, could only reluctantly tolerate 
a movement which rejected any commonality with the communist ideology -thus, anarchists 
would shift towards cooperative experiences, rural development and the idea of a 
harmonious relationship between countryside and urban centres as the key to national 
development took central stage, as opposed to the revolutionary tenets of pre-1945 
anarchists. Kropotkin again was instrumental to give a continuity in ideological terms to 
the movement into this new phase of its development.

This de-radicalisation of anarchism, which eventually favoured an autonomous government, 
which combined democracy with notions of equality and freedom. The main concern of South 
Korean anarchists then became how to develop Korea ‘as an autonomous country with minimum 
social problems that had been prevalent in the capitalist countries and at the same time 
without communist intrusion' (p.188). Many of them stopped questioning imperialism or even 
capitalism after 1945, with anarchists even cooperating with the New Village Movement of 
the ‘modernising' dictatorship of Park in the early 1970s. Although many of these 
decisions may have been pragmatic, as Hwang argues, reflecting the difficulty of bringing 
forward anarchists proposals in the context of a totalitarian anti-communist regime at 
risk of being labelled communist and therefore being tortured and executed, together with 
the hostile environment in the Cold War South Korea to anything resembling socialism, it 
still reflects some ideological trends which developed before 1945. In particular, the 
nationalist strand, the anti-communist proclivities, the idea of a national front, all 
conspired for the movement to stop questioning South Korean capitalism and State, and 
indeed supporting them however critically. This means that when a new wave of protests 
brought together people to protest the dictatorships and the neoliberal reforms in the 
South during the 1980s and 1990s, anarchists did not play a significant role.

"I don't think," writes Hwang, "the active involvement or even initiative by Korean 
anarchists in the formation of the Korean National Front in 1930s and 40s in China and 
their participation in the Korean Provisional Government before 1945 should be viewed as 
an aberration from anarchist basic principles (...). They did not lose their "anarchist 
voice" yet, but were only ready to accommodate anarchism to post-1945 Korea" (p.156). Yet, 
it is clear that gradually, in the process, important aspects of the anarchist 
revolutionary message were being lost in translation. Particularly, the critique of 
capitalism and of the State, which went from being accepted temporarily in the process of 
national liberation to being unquestioned. It is interesting to see today the Kurdish 
liberation movement dealing with similar demands imposed by their context, yet responding 
with a platform which remains anti-Statist in nature. Much could be learned from comparing 
these experiences and contrasting them, considering naturally the local circumstances of 
each respectively.

By way of conclusion

Until now, non-Korean speakers didn't have such a comprehensive, balanced and thoughtful 
history of Korean anarchism put together. We have to be thankful both of Dongyoun Hwang 
and of SUNY Press for publishing this book, which is undoubtedly a contribution to a 
better understanding of radical movements in the 20th century in general, and of anarchism 
in particular. Given the importance of this experience, and the wealth of lessons and 
debates, I think this book is of great interest to scholars in a wide range of 
disciplines, but also to activists interested in difficult problems such as those of 
decolonisation, development, anti-authoritarian politics and nationalisms.

The book, however, is hardly introductory and we need a cautionary note here. Hwang takes 
for granted that readers will have some basic -and not so basic- knowledge of Asian 
history and particularly of events in China, Japan and Korea. For best understanding of 
the book, I'd recommend previous reading of general and/or revolutionary histories of the 
20th century in those countries. That said, it is a book which was long overdue and we can 
only praise that, finally, it has become available, filling an important gap.

Article republished from Anarkismo.net

If you are interested in learning more about anarchism in Korea and Asian we recommend 
"Resources on Anarchism in Asia" which includes articles, reviews, bibliographies and more 
related to the history of anarchism in Asia.

http://blackrosefed.org/review-korean-anarchism/

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

Message: 4






Strike4Repeal launched in January 2017, it exists currently as an ad hoc group of 
pro-choice activists, academics, trade unionists, artists and students. We directed a 
single demand towards the government: a national strike would take place on the 8th March 
unless a referendum on the 8th Amendment of the Constitution was called. In December, we 
in Strike4Repeal came together once more to announce that a second strike action will take 
place if it becomes clear during Dáil debate that full abortion access will not be 
legislated for or if there is no straight repeal question on the ballot in the upcoming 
referendum.[Video][Audio] ---- Strike4Repeal on 8th March 2017 defied the expectations of 
many. The strike was a success with over 12,000 people taking part in strike action in 
over 50 places across Ireland and internationally. Actions on this day were self-organised 
by local activists within their own areas, and much of the success of strike is owed to 
organisers who took initiative to engage in direct action locally. Stalls and 
demonstrations were held across the country to mark the day of action. In Berlin, London 
and across Europe, various actions and protests took place with some occurring outside of 
Irish embassies. Demonstrations were held in cities across the US, Canada and Australia. 
Students in every major university in Ireland organised walkouts. O'Connell Bridge was 
blockaded by over 6,000 protesters and held for over three hours, seriously disrupting the 
capital.

Autonomous organising and radicalism were the key ingredients to the success of 
Strike4Repeal on 8th March and they will be key factors in the success of Strike2. 
Although the political landscape has changed vastly and we have seen significant progress 
since March, the need for radical direct action has not dissipated. The Citizens' Assembly 
and Joint Oireachtas Committee has proposed liberal reforms to our abortion laws and while 
Strike4Repeal welcome these recommendations, we feel they do not go far enough to ensure 
there is full abortion access for all those that need it after 12 weeks. There is also no 
guarantee that these recommendations will be implemented. The UN, World Health 
Organisation, Citizens' Assembly and numerous other international and domestic human 
rights organisations have repeatedly told the Irish state to legislate for full abortion 
access yet this has not happened. It is only via direct action we can ensure that our 
demands for a straight repeal question in the referendum and full access to abortion will 
be met.

The significance and urgency of this action cannot be underestimated. This is our final 
chance to organise and influence debate before referendum wording is finalised, and our 
timeline for such an action is tight. From current indications it appears the debate could 
happen over three days. If the deadline for a May referendum is to be met then the debate 
and vote will take place between 16th and 31st of January.

Taking this into account we will be holding a Strike Assembly outside the Dáil on the 
final day of debate. We will be gathering at Leinster House and we'll be monitoring the 
debate to make it known that any watering-down of our demands will not be tolerated. No 
specific date has been announced for debate or for the vote, and we recognise the 
challenge this poses to those who wish to organise and participate.

We are asking people, firstly, to attend the Strike Assembly outside the Dáil but also to 
be ready, prepared and pledge to strike at short notice sometime within the 16th to the 
31st January if the debate and subsequent vote goes badly. Participation can take many 
forms such as wearing black, taking a day off work, withdrawing from domestic labour or 
taking part in a form of protest. We ask that people sign the Strike4Repeal supporter's 
form; wear visible support or share a pledge on social media; organise a show of support 
in your local area; talk to friends and family about the issue. It was a grassroots 
movement that was responsible for the success of Strike4Repeal on 8th March and it will be 
a grassroots movement and all those who pledge to strike who will be responsible for the 
success of Strike2.

A clear message was sent to the government on International Women's Day. It showed there 
can be no doubt surrounding the strength of our movement or the number of people 
sufficiently angry and motivated to participate in a direct action in the pursuit for full 
abortion rights. With this, Strike4Repeal has marked a distinct shift in tone of the 
abortion rights movement in Ireland and has given a space for anger to be expressed 
through a direct action. An act of civil disobedience of this scale is new for our 
movement, and has captured the political imagination of the thousands that autonomously 
organised and participated within their own local communities, universities or took part 
in blockading O'Connell Bridge.

The decentralised and non-hierarchical structure of Strike4Repeal keeps in line with 
strong anarchist and feminist traditions. A great deal of trust is required on the part of 
organisers, that people can and will organise without the need for instruction from a 
central committee. There were a number of factors that were effective in raising the 
political consciousness of all involved in Strike4Repeal and contributed towards making it 
one of the most memorable pieces of pro-choice activism to occur in Ireland and 
internationally in recent memory. Firstly, the radical tone of the strike was fresh and 
new, and has been seldom seen in the abortion rights movement in Ireland. The radical 
nature of the action reflected the feeling of frustration among participants. Secondly, 
providing people with the concept of a social strike as a method of action resonated with 
many; how it differs from a traditional union strike and how it works to connect different 
facets of labour both inside and outside the workplace. Lastly, activists were given the 
autonomy to organise according to their own capacity. Local activists know their local 
communities best and as organisers they have the final say on what particular strike 
action has the greatest chance of success.

An important feature of Strike4Repeal, as with any strike, is the emphasis on workers' 
rights and the fact that abortion rights are workers' rights. In a novel and recent study 
commissioned by five trade unions, the Alliance for Choice and the Trade Union Campaign to 
Repeal the 8th Amendment, over 3,000 trade union members from five unions (Unite the 
Union, Unison, Mandate Trade Union, the CWU and GMB) both north and south of the border 
were surveyed. It stated that over 20% of workers have direct experience of abortion; of 
those with direct experience 73% did not disclose it to their workplace. Other issues 
cited by those affected by abortion in the workplace were stigma, advice and support, 
time-off and sick pay. Within the context of Strike4Repeal, taking a day's leave from the 
workplace is an important act of solidarity for all those that are required to take time 
off work to travel outside of Ireland for an abortion or those that take abortion pills at 
home. Whilst also acknowledging that withdrawing from domestic labour in the home for a 
day is also a radical and participatory action in itself.

Need Abortion Ireland (NAI) operate in a similar vein, with an emphasis on direct action. 
NAI are a group of activists that contravene law to deliver an essential health service 
that the state neglects to provide. They work with Women Help Women to provide 
information, advice and financial support for people who wish to procure a medical 
abortion in Ireland. Their tone is that of solidarity and support, and their focus is on 
desperately needed service provision opposed to political lobbying. Much like 
Strike4Repeal, the manner in which Need Abortion Ireland operates is the anarchist method 
of working outside the state to enact change, doing what is right rather than necessarily 
what is legal.

Even if Joint Oireachtas Committee recommendations are enacted through legislation how 
widely will they be implemented in practice? The HSE is an extremely strained health 
service that is already struggling to provide elective procedures without massive waiting 
lists. If medical abortion is left in hands of GPs (a more preferred option) will 
conscientious objection become an obstacle for those wishing to obtain a medical abortion, 
as has been case in other European countries? Considering the above, the service NAI 
provide could still be extremely necessary for many in a post-repeal environment, and 
brings need for decriminalisation to the fore. Decriminalisation - something UK abortion 
activists are still fighting for - would mark a step forward allowing NAI and those who 
wish to procure an abortion at home with pills continue to do so without risk of 
prosecution. Thus begging the question: even if a legal precedent for abortion is set do 
we trust the Irish state to make it accessible to all those who need or want it?

Pledge your support for Strike4Repeal. Rights were never won by asking politely, it is 
only through radical and direct action that our demands will be heard and met. We will not 
let constitutional clauses or restrictive wording sabotage our chances for a straight 
repeal and full abortion access. No more debate, we won't wait.

Pledge2Strike form: https://tinyurl.com/y7nxszz9
Strike Assembly event page: https://www.facebook.com/events/322845051455332/

https://www.wsm.ie/c/strike4repeal-call-action-january2018

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