Today's Topics:
1. France, Alternative Libertaire AL Décembre - international,
Syria: The Kurdish left at the hour of truth (fr, it, pt)
[machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
2. France, Alternative Libertaire AL Décembre - Read: Hazan,
"Through the lines" (fr, it, pt) [machine translation]
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
3. awsm.nz: On growing our own radical unions (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
4. Collective Rupture (RC): Women of the EZLN call for the "1st
International, Political, Artistic, Sports and Cultural Meeting
of women who fight" (ca) [machine translation]
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
5. anarkismo.net: The Revival of U.S. Socialism-And an
Anarchist Response by Wayne Price (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
As the armed opposition is on the wane and Daesh temporarily eliminated, diplomatic
dealings intensify to decide the country's future. Without waiting for their results, the
federation constituted de facto on the liberated territories must raise several economic
and democratic stakes. ---- Since the fall of Raqqa and Deir Ez-Zor, the Syrian civil war
has entered a new phase. The level of violence has dropped significantly in the country,
now divided between three rivals. ---- First, the Assad regime with its Russian and
Iranian godfathers, has regained confidence. ---- Secondly, the armed rebellion, without
unity, released by its Turkish, American, European and Saudi support, is circumscribed to
a few regions in the west. ---- Tertio, the Arab-Kurdish coalition of the Syrian
Democratic Forces (SDF), which has supported most of the fighting against Daesh with the
support of Moscow and Washington, is trying to play its card.
The SDF now holds all Syria east of the Euphrates and eliminates the last jihadist
pockets, with the support of US and French special forces. On the other side of the river:
the army of Bashar al-Assad, its Russian chaperones and the troops coordinated by Tehran:
Hezbollah, Iranian troops and Afghan mercenaries. Some armed skirmishes have already taken
place around Deir Ez-Zor but, as long as Russians and Americans are there, the " armed
peace " will certainly continue to prevail.
YPJ militiamen on the front line against ISIS, in the Serê Kaniyê (Ras Al-Aïn) region, in
2014. * Yann Renoult
Russia favors a federal state
How, now, to end the war ? After a year and seven rounds of talks in Astana and Sochi, the
trio Moscow-Ankara-Tehran, which now presides over the destinies of Syria, gradually
approximates its views on the political transition and maintenance (provisional ?) Of
Bashar Assad in power.
The main stumbling block is finally Syrian Kurdistan (Rojava), whose fate divides the
partners. Damascus, Ankara and Tehran would willingly scratch the map, if there were the
dissuasive presence of Russian military units in Afrin, and the United States in Kobanê
and Cizîrê.
Neosultan Erdogan has put Anatolia on fire since the summer of 2015 to crush the Kurdish
intifada. Turkish tanks now occupy northern Syria, have almost encircled the township of
Afrin and regularly threaten invasion.
Read the review of Olivier Grojean's book, The Kurdish Revolution. The PKK and the
fabrication of a utopia.
Damascus and his Iranian godfather are in the same mood. Since the summer of 2017, the
pro-Iranian media have come out of their reserve and spread slander against the YPG and
the SDS, accused of being handled by the CIA, by the Mossad - a classic rhetoric in the
Middle East - but also to do ethnic cleansing and be accomplices of Daesh, which does not
lack spice ! [1].
In reality, these three nationalist regimes can only withstand a historically subordinate
people, now intends to enforce their rights. As a result, Ankara and Tehran still blocking
the invitation of the PYD party talks in Astana and Sochi on the future of Syria [2].
Russia, on the other hand, considers that the inclusion of the Kurdish left is necessary
for the success of a possible peace process, and advocates a federalisation of Syria,
respecting the autonomy of Kurdistan, even regions east of the Euphrates [3]. The United
States would also be in favor, because it would allow them to maintain military bases in
the region, for all purposes - the anti-jihadist struggle, of course, but also the
containment of Iran, which has become the obsession of the axis. Riyadh-Washington-Tel Aviv.
From the point of view of the Kurdish left, the options are therefore limited: there are
imperialists who want to destroy it, and imperialists who want to use it. It is a
non-choice, and it is fraught with danger.
While diplomats are working far from Syria, the Kurdish left is giving priority to
consolidating democratic confederalism in the liberated territories. It means getting
local people to participate, which is a huge issue.
The Democratic Federation of Northern Syria in December 2017 (click to enlarge)
Advance with and despite the feudal
Recall that the project of the PYD and its militia YPG-YPJ is not the independence of
Kurdistan, but a confederal system that would associate all the ethno-confessional
components of Syria on the basis of a " Social Contract " with accents progressive.
In December 2016, the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria was formed, which includes
the three historic Kurdish cantons - Afrîn, Kobanê, Cizîrê - and a fourth predominantly
Arab canton, Shahba, which elected its self-administration in March 2016. This fourth
canton, whose main city is Manbij, is currently cut in two by the Turkish occupation zone.
The liberated areas further south - Raqqa, Deir Ez-Zor, the Euphrates Valley - have not
yet been formed into cantons, have not held elections, and have not been integrated into
the federation. . They are under the provisional administration of the SDS and local
councils. The Raqqa Civil Council, for example, includes local activists who have just
returned from exile, but most of all ... sheikhs and other tribal leaders.
A paradoxical situation for the Kurdish left, forced to cope with people who formerly
collaborated with the El Assad regime, then made a deal with Daesh. Now, they are
complying with these Kurdish militia and militiamen who must seem to have fallen from
another planet with their " social contract ", their democratic communes and their
equality between men and women. Difficult to circumvent them considering their local
weight, but there is no doubt that these feudal chiefs will return their jacket at the
first opportunity.
The challenge is therefore to support the local development of a left that adheres to the
project of democratic confederalism, as was done in northern Syria with the birth, in
September 2014, of the Syrian National Democratic Alliance. (TDWS) [4], several of whom
were elected to self-administration in Shahba Township.
The list of the TDWS in local council elections in Shahba Canton, in December 2017.
Democratic confederalism gains the support of the Arab population.
It is a sign, among others, of a growing adherence to democratic confederalism among the
non-Kurdish population of Rojava. As for the Kurdish opposition, it has clearly
diminished. In 2016, several small parties distanced themselves from the PDK - Massoud
Barzani's " liberal-feudal " party in Kurdistan, Iraq - and stopped boycotting the
confederal institutions.
Still, some events worry. Thus, on November 4, in Manbij, dozens of traders led a protest
strike against compulsory recruitment - each family must send a son into the armed forces.
The militia and militia of the PYD are accused of trying to break the strike force by
reopening shops, and have arrested several protesters who wore banners hostile to the SDS
[5]. The Daesh threat now being ruled out, conscription goes badly. And it will not go
better with authoritarian methods.
In a school in Qamislo, in 2014. After decades of prohibition by the nationalist regime,
residents of Rojava know how to speak Kurdish language, but not to write it. * Yann Renoult
Still no energy autonomy
But the main problem remains the lack of economic autonomy of Rojava. The region still
lives under Turkish embargo ; trade with the regime in Damascus and with Iraq is
precarious. Damascus, which still pays the salaries of civil servants, has suppressed
those of most teachers, under the pretext that the schools of Rojava, now bilingual and
applying a different pedagogy, are " anti-national ".
The agricultural sector (wheat, cotton, market gardening) is doing well, but energy
production is struggling. The hydroelectric dams of Tichrine and especially Tabqa turn
into under-regime, because they were damaged by Daesh, but mainly because Turkey, which
controls the Euphrates upstream, deliberately divided by three the flow of the river.
Finally, the region, which has oil wells, but no refinery, suffers from a shortage of fuel
[6]. More generally, the question of hydrocarbons engages the future. While the Kurdish
left says they want to build an ecological and autonomous economy, what to do with the oil
fields of Eastern Syria ? Their exploitation could quickly bring back the necessary
currencies for the reconstruction of the country. But, to obtain the logistics, it would
be necessary to accept the intrusion of the multinational oil companies [7]... and the
massive corruption that goes with it. In this regard, Iraq's Kurdistan, led by Massoud
Barzani's KDP, is a counter-model.
William Davranche (AL Montreuil)
Oil extraction in the region of Dêrik. * Yann Renoult
Rojava only has small-scale refineries (here, near Hassakê), which causes additional
pollution. * Yann Renoult
[1] The Voltairenet.org website is the main French-language channel of the Iranian state.
For those who doubt the fabulist talents of his boss, the charlatan Thierry Meyssan, do
not miss his articles where he explains that Saleh Moslim, the co-chairman of the PYD, is
in fact a " spy " Erdogan. Both want to create a Kurdish state in Syria so that Turkey
will deprive its Kurdish population. This diabolical plan would have been concluded during
a " secret meeting " at the Elysee, with the complicity of François Hollande, in full
battle of Kobanê !!
[2] " Syria: the postponement of Sochi, revealing the obstacles that Moscow must overcome
", East-Day, November 18, 2017.
[3] " The text of the draft Syrian constitution proposed by Russia revealed ", Sputnik,
January 26, 2017.
[4] His website: Twds.info .
[5] " Residents of Manbij protest against conscription in Kurdish militias " , on
Zamanalwsl.net, November 5, 2017.
[6] Mireille Court & Chris Den Hond, " A utopia in the heart of Syrian chaos ", Le Monde
diplomatique, September 2017.
[7] Some Russian, American and French emissaries (Total) are already on the alert in
Qamislo, according to the testimony of Raphaël Lebrujah (Initiative for a democratic
confederalism).
http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?Syrie-La-gauche-kurde-a-l-heure-de-verite
------------------------------
Message: 2
Eric Hazan, founder of the La Fabrique editions, was interviewed during the publication of
the First Revolutionary Measures. He has just assembled in a short volume a compilation of
his political articles and other free forums covering the period 2003 - 2017. ---- An
excellent opportunity to remember the struggles and debates of the period but also to find
some older memories including a beautiful tribute to Maspero. So we close this book
regretting not having a compilation of writings covering the previous decades ! A brief
introduction to the documents focuses on this divergence with this eternal optimist who
remains convinced that the insurgency is happening even if he recognizes that the "
positives are all about the future ".Note that we do not share the idea that it is
positive that young people choose precariousness rather than regular work. We do not think
that it is by fleeing the world of work that we can change it but on the contrary by
leading the struggles that will lead to a self-management alternative.
Read also Dialogue around First revolutionary measures in Alternative libertaire n ° 213
It is indeed on the analysis of the period that he is mistaken when he insists, through
two texts, that the head processions stop attacking the police to call them to join the
revolution. His arguments on the tipping of the forces of repression are theoretically
true on the eve of a revolution because many are able to change masters in time. But they
are false at a time when the servility of the cops to their old masters is their best
guarantee. Moreover, this change found a hundred times in history would suppose that our
next revolution have new masters, which is far from our conceptions and far from the
spirit of the first revolutionary measures.The editorial production of La Fabrique is
extremely heterogeneous. And internally, many house and friend writers did not like Houria
Bouteldja's latest book Les Blancs, les juifs et nous. Eric Hazan explains it by claiming
in his function of critical editor the necessity that all the voices can be heard. If the
explanation is thus admissible, the reader would nevertheless have been interested in his
personal opinion on the content of the work. But here we will remain on our hunger.
Jean-Yves (AL 93-center)
Eric Hazan, Through the lines, La Fabrique 2017, 12 euros.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GULgsSQ5KHc
http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?Hazan-se-livre-A-travers-les-lignes
------------------------------
Message: 3
As workers, the prospect of a new generation not being organised should worry us. The
attacks we're currently facing are the result of a ruling class seeking to kick us when
we're down; they perceive the union movement as weak enough to allow them to roll back the
gains of previous decades, and they're not wrong. With a crunch in union membership, there
can be no doubt that they'll see the opportunity to stick the boot in further. ---- But as
anarchists, we have an answer. It's the same answer as it always has been - organising
democratically from the ground up and using direct action - but the size of the movement
putting it into practice is growing. ---- Unions like IWW, IWGB and UVW in the UK are
doing so in the workplace, and though they're worthy of an article all on their own it's
worth mentioning that tenants and claimants groups as well as organisations like Sisters
Uncut are doing similarly excellent work in communities.
The importance of all this is that it's not just a more effective way of making and
defending real gains in the present. Combined with an anti-state and anti-capitalist
perspective, it's the movement we need to build if we're going to shape our own future as
well.
----------------------------------------------------------
Amid TUC decline, Britain's radical unions grow
Analysis, Dec 21st
The Trades Union Congress is facing a decline in membership that many within the
organisation are recognising as a crisis. At the same time more radical unions are not
only growing but actively winning time and again. What do they offer that the TUC doesn't?
The TUC's membership crisis is a generational one. Of those currently in work, the
generation with the highest density of union members is edging towards retirement.
Those following on behind them, currently around the middle of their working lives, are
only marginally less likely to be union members - but they're getting older. When we look
at those just starting their working lives, however, the drop in density is stark. In
essence, when older trade unionists retire there's nobody coming in behind them. The next
generation of workers simply isn't unionised and the membership crisis is set to come to a
head in about 15 years.
Under the TUC umbrella this has provoked reactions ranging from denial to panic. However,
even when they acknowledge the problem that doesn't mean the answer is necessarily useful.
Seeing a TUC blog suggest that "instead of saying ‘let's stand in solidarity together' we
might say ‘unions are your best way to get ahead at work'" tells you all you need to know
about how wrong-headed the direction they're heading in is.
But while the TUC is looking at "three new models" to "engage" young workers, ready to run
a "full pilot" of what they view as the best in 2018, something far more crucial and
exciting is happening. Workers are getting organised in the most precarious sectors of the
economy and making enormous gains.
The traditional unions aren't declining because young people don't think they're hip, or
because the next generation is riddled with individualists looking for career advancement,
willing to accept any affront from zero hours to unpaid overtime to do so. That kind of
line only serves to accept the narrative of 21st century capitalism and justify a
service-provider unionism which is clearly going nowhere. The actual reason for the
decline is in the retreat to the public sector and other traditional strongholds of union
membership such as manufacturing, dismissing the gig economy, the service sector and so on
as "impossible to organise" and so hardly worth the time.
One recent honourable exception to that rule is the "McStrike" by the Bakers Food and
Allied Workers Union (BFAWU). But in TUC terms this is an aberration, with stale
parliamentary lobbies over the public sector pay freeze and the predictable one day
strikes to follow more par for the course.
By contrast the efforts of unions such as the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW),
Independent Workers of Great Britain (IWGB) and United Voices of the World (UVW) are truly
inspiring. These unions have proudly staked a claim to the impossible to organise, and
over the past couple of years there has been a marked growth in their numbers.
Cleaners and security guards in places such as the University of London, cycle couriers,
private hire drivers, restaurant staff and more have quickly established themselves as the
militant edge of the organised working class in Britain, far ahead of the sabre-rattling
"awkward squad" of the TUC.
What's important is that this militancy isn't just defined by taking strike action. The
civil service union PCS took more strike days than many other unions from 2010 to 2014 as
it lost, in succession, disputes over pensions, pay and attacks on terms and conditions.
But these low paid, precarious workers are actively winning. The Living Wage, outsourced
workers getting the same conditions as in-house staff such as occupational sick pay and
holidays, the reinstatement of sacked reps, the list goes on.
A key factor in this is the tactics, of course. Strikes which are called to inflict
economic damage rather than as mere protests are the linchpin of a wider arsenal which has
included occupations, blockades, marches and demonstrations far more loud and vibrant than
veterans of dreary TUC-organised trudges across big cities may be familiar with. But these
tactics are effective because they're backed by effective grassroots organising and
vibrant rank-and-file democracy.
You don't have to be an anarchist to realise that the approach of the TUC unions is
completely antithetical to this. The extreme examples are the open hostility of full time
officials to lay members taking any initiative and doing things without their say-so and
unions actively purging activists for having unpalatable politics.
More mundane is how live issues are stripped away from members to disappear into
"negotiations in confidence" and stale campaign tactics imposed upon workers from above.
Trade union politics are as weary and soul destroying as the most toxic office politics
and any seasoned rep with an ounce of sense has long since been disillusioned and
embittered by the whole thing.
In the 21st century, how we organise has to evolve. We have more ways than ever to
communicate with our fellow workers, and they can be a great asset if used effectively.
But the core principles of organising which works and yields results remains the same:
talk face-to-face, agitate over issues that workers actually care about, pick winnable
battles and use direct action to win them so that workers can realise their own collective
power, escalate as more workers get involved.
In theory, that's trade unionism 101. But even if a union has an organising model in
theory, in practice it doesn't sit well with the bureaucracy's need to sustain itself and
retain its handle on power at all costs. Democracy and autonomy for members and branches,
too, are obstacles to this.
As workers, the prospect of a new generation not being organised should worry us. The
attacks we're currently facing are the result of a ruling class seeking to kick us when
we're down; they perceive the union movement as weak enough to allow them to roll back the
gains of previous decades, and they're not wrong. With a crunch in union membership, there
can be no doubt that they'll see the opportunity to stick the boot in further.
But as anarchists, we have an answer. It's the same answer as it always has been -
organising democratically from the ground up and using direct action - but the size of the
movement putting it into practice is growing.
Unions like IWW, IWGB and UVW are doing so in the workplace, and though they're worthy of
an article all on their own it's worth mentioning that tenants and claimants groups as
well as organisations like Sisters Uncut are doing similarly excellent work in communities.
The importance of all this is that it's not just a more effective way of making and
defending real gains in the present. Combined with an anti-state and anti-capitalist
perspective, it's the movement we need to build if we're going to shape our own future as
well.
Who's doing what
Industrial Workers of the World
Founded in the US in 1905, the syndicalist union currently lists 14 active branches around
Britain, making it the most geographically diverse of the base unions. Particularly active
in places such as Bristol and Sheffield, it has a solid organising background and
excellent international contacts.
Independent Workers of Great Britain
Originally organised as an offshoot of the IWW, IWGB has made its bones working with
precarious and migrant workforces across London, particularly in universities, and
recently made a big splash by facing off against controversial taxi app service Uber over
its treatment of staff.
Solidarity Federation
Doesn't have official workplace branches as it is not a registered union, but maintains a
strong presence in Brighton and active Locals in half a dozen cities nationwide.
United Voices of the World
Strong presence with migrant workers in London, fighting casualisation and for the Living
Wage. Recently backed the Ferrari Two in their wage fight against H R Owen.
This article first appeared in the Winter 2017 issue of Freedom Anarchist Journal
https://freedomnews.org.uk/amid-tuc-decline-britains-radical-unions-grow/
http://www.awsm.nz/2017/12/31/on-growing-our-own-radical-unions/
------------------------------
Message: 4
COMMUNIQUE FROM THE CLANDESTINE REVOLUTIONARY INDIGENOUS COMMITTEE-GENERAL COMMAND OF THE
ZAPATISTA ARMY OF NATIONAL LIBERATION. ---- MEXICO. ---- December 29, 2017. ---- To the
women of Mexico and the World: ---- To women from Mexico and the World: ---- To the women
of the Indigenous Council of Government: ---- To the women of the National Indigenous
Congress: ---- To the women of the Sixth national and international: ---- Companions,
sisters: ---- We greet you with respect and affection as women we are, women who fight,
resist and rebel against the patriarchal and macho capitalist system. ---- Well we know
that the bad system not only exploits us, represses us, robs us and despises us as human
beings, it also exploits us again, represses, steals and despises us as women.
And now we know it because it is worse, because now, all over the world, they kill us. And
the murderers, who are always the macho-faced system, do not care if they kill us, because
the police, the judges, the media, the bad governments, all those up there are what they
are at the expense of our pains cover them, overlap them and even award them.
But as we want we do not have fear, or we do have it but we control it, and we do not give
up, and we do not sell and we do not give up.
So, if you are a woman who fights, who does not agree with what they do to us as women, if
you are not afraid, if you are afraid but you control them, then we invite you to meet us,
to talk to us and to listen to us as women who we are
That is why we invite all the rebellious women of the world to:
FIRST INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL, ARTISTIC, SPORTS AND CULTURAL MEETING OF WOMEN WHO FIGHT.
To be held at the Caracol de Morelia, Tzotz Choj area, Chiapas, Mexico, on March 8, 9 and
10, 2018. Arrival on March 7 and departure on March 11.
If you are a man, you are listening or reading this because you are not invited.
We are going to put the zapatista men to do what is necessary so that we can play, talk,
sing, dance, say poetry, and any form of art and culture that we have to share without
pain. They will take care of the kitchen and cleaning and what is needed.
You can participate individually or collectively. To register, there is the email address:
encontromujeresqueluchan@ezln.org.mx
And you put your name, where you are from, if you are individual or collective, and how
you are going to participate or if you are just going to come and party with us. No matter
your age, your color, your size, your religious creed, your race, your way, it only
matters that you are a woman and that you fight as it is against patriarchal and macho
capitalism.
If you want to come with your children who are boys because they are still little, well,
you can bring, it serves that they begin to understand in your head that, as women we are,
we are not willing to continue to endure violence, humiliation, teasing and shit from men,
or from the system.
If you want to accompany a male older than 16, there you see it, but the kitchen does not
pass. Although maybe there something can see and hear, and something learns.
In other words, men who do not come accompanied by a woman are not allowed.
It's all here, we wait for you partner, sister.
From the mountains of the mexican southeast.
For the Clandestine Revolutionary Indigenous Committee-General Command of the Zapatista
Army of National Liberation and on behalf of the girls, young women, adults, old women,
living and dead, councilors, juntas, promoters, militia, insurgents and Zapatista support
bases.
Comandantes Jessica, Esmeralda, Lucia, Zenaida and the girl Zapatista Defense.
Mexico, December 29, 2017.
Originally published at:
http://enlacezapatista.ezln.org.mx/2017/12/29/convocatoria-al-primer-encuentro-internacional-politico-artistico-deportivo-y-cultural-de-mujeres-que-luchan/
http://rupturacolectiva.com/mujeres-del-ezln-convocan-al-1er-encuentro-internacional-politico-artistico-deportivo-y-cultural-de-mujeres-que-luchan/
------------------------------
Message: 5
How Should U.S. Anarchists Respond to the Increase of Interest in Socialism? ---- There
has been an increase of U.S. interest in "socialism," especially among young adults. What
is the significance of this? What does "socialism" mean to people? Why is this happening
now? What is holding back the development of a socialist movement? What should be the
reaction of anarchists and other anti-authoritarian socialists? ---- In the United States
there has been recently a rise of interest in "socialism," especially among young adults
("millennials"). Different political views have reacted to this rise in various ways.
Conservatives are appalled ("Have we forgotten the lessons of the Cold War?"). The
leadership of the Democratic Party (the moderate center) is disturbed ("We're for
capitalism, after all!") The liberal-left is pleased, so long as "socialism" is
interpreted to mean liberal-left politics-not taking away the wealth of the capitalists
and creating a democratic, nonprofit, economy.
Anarchists also have various responses. Some hope to create a libertarian
(anti-authoritarian) socialist revolutionary wing of a socialist movement. Others see
anarchism as different from-even opposed to-socialism of any kind.
To be sure, what most people mean by "socialism" is unclear. I assume that at a minimum
they mean opposition to the capitalist status quo and a desire for a better, more just,
society (discussed further below).
This is a change in U.S. political culture. For a long time "socialism" (let alone
"communism") has been a word on the devil's tongue. During the Cold War, being a socialist
was enough to get one fired (and being a communist was even more dangerous). All other
industrialized capitalist democracies developed mass parties calling themselves socialist,
social democratic, labor, or communist, and many "third world" countries had governments
calling themselves African socialist, Arab socialist, etc. This never developed in the
U.S. Its main "left" party was the Democratic Party, which was always pro-capitalist
(leaving aside its origins as pro-slavery). In the last two periods of radicalization (the
‘30s and the ‘60s), there developed minorities which regarded themselves as revolutionary
socialist, views which mostly died out in the more conservative periods which followed.
The most obvious sign of this change in politics was the 2016 electoral run of Bernie
Sanders in the Democratic Party. He was self-identified as a "democratic socialist" and an
advocate of "political revolution." While in his past, Sanders had expressed sympathy for
state-communist regimes, he currently identifies his "socialism" with the social
democratic Nordic (Scandinavian) countries. Sanders' campaign undoubtedly promoted an
interest in socialism, but it was also a symptom of that interest, which had been
developing for some time.
The Polls Speak
"The anti-Communist Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation was alarmed to find in a
recent survey that 44 percent of millennials would prefer to live in a socialist country
compared with 42 percent who want to live under capitalism." (Goldberg 2017)
"The American Culture and Faith Institute recently conducted a survey of adults 18 and
older....Most Americans (58 percent) see themselves as politically moderate. ... ‘The most
alarming result... was that four out of every ten adults say they prefer socialism to
capitalism....That is a large minority, and it includes a majority of the liberals.' ...40
percent of Americans now prefer socialism to capitalism...." (Nammo 2017)
"...An April 2016 study by Harvard University found that 51 percent of millennials -a
loosely defined group of people aged between 18 and 29 - reject capitalism and 33 percent
support socialism. " (Strickland 2017)
"In a recent YouGov survey,[Jan. 25-27, 2016]respondents were asked whether they had a
‘favorable or unfavorable opinion' of socialism and of capitalism....Overall, 52 percent
expressed a favorable view of capitalism, compared with 29 percent for socialism....There
were just two exceptions to this pattern: Democrats rated socialism and capitalism equally
positively (both at 42 percent favorability). And respondents younger than 30 were the
only group that rated socialism more favorably than capitalism (43 percent vs. 32 percent,
respectively)." (Rampell 2016)
From a Gallup poll: "Thirty-five percent of Americans have a positive view of the term
socialism, similar to what was found in 2012 and 2010. ...60%...have a positive view of
capitalism....Young Americans constitute the only age group that does not view the term
socialism more negatively than capitalism." (Newport 2016)
"...Last summer Gallup asked survey respondents[for whom]they would be willing to
vote....Just 34 percent of respondents age 65 and older said they would be willing to vote
for a socialist, compared with about twice that level[69 percent]among respondents younger
than 30." (Rampell 2016)
"....As far back as 2011, a Pew poll revealed, fully 49% of Americans (not just Democrats)
under 30 had a positive view of socialism, while just 47% had a favorable opinion of
capitalism...." (Meyerson 2016)
What the polls reveal, pretty consistently, is that the majority of U.S. people reject
socialism and are in favor of capitalism, but that a notable minority (between 30 to 40
percent) favors socialism. While this is only a minority, it is about the same proportion
of the population as that which supports President Trump! Approximately one in three is a
significant number. Importantly, young adults are most likely to have a positive view of
socialism and a negative view of capitalism (from 40 to 50 percent). "Bernie Sanders
didn't push the young toward socialism. They were already there." (Meyerson 2016)
This is part of a general swing among part of the population toward the left. I am not
going into the polls which show that a large number of people-often the majority of the
U.S. population-agrees with the left on many issues: universal health care, increasing
(not decreasing) taxes on the rich, free (or cheap) higher education, providing jobs for
all, fighting global warming, raising the minimum wage, supporting unions, etc.
"...They don't counterpose socialism to a militant liberalism. The rise in the number of
people who identify as socialists coincides with a rise in the number who call themselves
liberals. Whereas in 2000 only 27% of Democrats told Pew they were liberal, by 2015 that
figure had risen to 42%, and among millennials, it had increased from 37% in 2004 to 49%
today." (Meyerson 2016)
Why the Rise of Socialism?
One factor in the increase of socialist interest is the collapse of the Soviet Union and
its satellites, the changes in China, and the end of the Cold War. During the Cold War,
both sides agreed that the "socialism" of the Soviet Union was the only socialism there
was or could be. Those repelled by the totalitarian repression of the Soviet Union were
led to reject "socialism" in favor of Western "democratic" capitalism ("free enterprise").
Those who rejected the evils of capitalism (poverty, racism, pollution, wars of aggression
in Vietnam and elsewhere) were attracted to the statified regime of Stalinist Russia as
"really existing socialism." Very few (besides anarchists) rejected both sides in the Cold
War and both models of society.
Today the Communist states are no longer available as a bogeyman (the current "enemy" is
jihadist terrorism, which is anti-socialist). The right still uses Stalinist Russia as an
historical bad example (as it was), but their argument does not have the same bite it once
did. Using civilized Sweden's welfare state as an example of socialism hardly raises the
same horror as Stalin's gulag. The most the conservatives can say is that centralized,
bureaucratic, state economies are inefficient. Which they are, but how efficient is U.S.
capitalism?
The main reason for the spread of socialism lies within the United States and its allies.
An extended period of relative prosperity followed the Great Depression and the
destruction of World War II. This ran out of steam around 1970. The general development
since (with ups and downs) has been stagnation, increased poverty, growing inequality,
successful attacks on the unions, revived threats of nuclear war, and movement toward
ecological catastrophe.
"The prime mover of millions of Americans into the socialist column has been the near
complete dysfunctionality of contemporary American capitalism. Where once the regulated,
unionized and semi-socialized capitalism of the mid-20th century produced a vibrant middle
class majority, the deregulated, deunionized and financialized capitalism of the past 35
years has produced record levels of inequality, a shrinking middle class, and scant
economic opportunities (along with record economic burdens) for the young." (Meyerson 2016)
The lived experience of young people in the working class (as most people are) is no
longer one of apparent prosperity. Instead they face limited job opportunities, low wages,
mountains of school debt, no union protection, a threat of another economic crash, and a
frightening future of climate change. They face the most reactionary government in
generations, attacking everything good and decent, while the Democratic alternative
remains wishy-washy and inadequate (barely a "lesser evil"). The question is not why are
people turning toward socialism but why aren't more people turning into socialists?
The Problem with Socialism
What is "socialism" or "communism" (using them as having similar meanings, as was the case
originally)? In Vol. 1 of Capital, Karl Marx refers to "a community of free individuals,
carrying on their work with the means of production in common, in which the labor-power of
all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labor-power of the
community." (1906; 90) Their work would be "consciously regulated by them in accordance
with a settled plan." (92) That is, a cooperative, socialized, economy would be
"consciously regulated by them," the "free individuals," self-organized in their
community. This seems like a good enough general definition of socialism/communism.
Unfortunately Marx saw this as being carried out in a centralized manner, through the
state. (See the program at the end of Section II of the Communist Manifesto, "Proletarians
and Communists.") Anarchists point out that the state (according to both anarchist and
Marxist analysis) is not a self-organized community of free individuals, but a
bureaucratic-military machine standing over and above the rest of society; such an
instrument can only serve the interests of a minority ruling class. It can be nothing
else. (Anarchists advocate a democratic federation of free associations and workplace and
neighborhood assemblies which would be a community of self-organized free individuals-and
would not be a state.)
This statist orientation of Marx (and many other socialists) can lead in two main
directions-both with roots in Marx. One statist strategy is to try to take over the
existing capitalist state, mostly through elections. The workers would seek to take over
the present bureaucratic-military state, nationalizing most of the economy. (This became
the program of the European "social democrats".) But the capitalists and their state
agents do not want to let socialist workers take over their state and take away their
wealth and power. They have put many roadblocks in the way of the socialist movement, from
granting temporary, minimal, reforms to fascist coups.
In the period after World War II, the European social democrats completed their evolution
from reformists to mild liberals. They no longer even pretend to advocate a new sort of
society. They propose to improve the economy only through government manipulation, such as
liberal Keynesian spending, tax changes, and (sometimes) nationalization of failing
industries. They have simply become the left wing of capitalist politics. In the
prosperity after World War II they could achieve certain gains for working people in the
welfare state. Now that the prosperity is over, they are unable to resist capitalism's
turn to austerity, its attacks on working people's standard of living.
In Bernie Sanders recent presidential campaign he identified as a "democratic socialist."
He did not raise any socialist programs; he did not call for expropriating any of the
capitalists or their corporations (such as the oil companies or the banks). He did not
raise a vision of a different, better, sort of society. He only proposed to improve
society through more government intervention in the capitalist economy. His state programs
might provide benefits in this or that area, but are overall ineffective and inadequate
for this time of decline and crisis.
The other statist strategy is to overthrow and smash the existing state-but not to create
a self-managed "community of free individuals." Rather they aim to create a new state,
which is ruled by a single party controlled by an individual or small group. Such a
program may seem to be revolutionary. In China and other countries, as well as in the
satellites of the Soviet Union, the Communists did overturn the old states. They did take
away the wealth of the old capitalist class (the stock-owning bourgeoisie). But the
bourgeoisie was replaced by a new ruling class, a collectivist bureaucracy. The workers
continued to be exploited. The state became the center for capital accumulation, in
competition with other states and corporations, with an internal market. These regimes
murdered tens of millions of workers, peasants, and others. Rather than a "community of
free individuals," this was state capitalism. While they had their benefits, overall these
states were horribly oppressive and economically inefficient. Eventually most of them
collapsed back into traditional capitalism. (There is also a third, very much minority,
trend within Marxism which bases itself on the radically-democratic, humanist, and
proletarian aspects of Marx, with politics which overlap with anarchism.)
Anarchists have always rejected these statist programs, predicting that in practice "state
socialism" would result in state capitalism. In 1910, Peter Kropotkin predicted, "To hand
over to the State all the main sources of economic life-the land, the mines, the railways,
banking, insurance, and so on-as also the management of all the main branches of industry,
in addition to all the functions already accumulated in its hands (education, ...defense
of the territory, etc.) would mean to create a new instrument of tyranny. State capitalism
would only increase the powers of bureaucracy and capitalism." (1975; 109-110)
When we ask, why aren't more people socialists, part of the answer has to do with what
socialism has presented itself as: bureaucratic, ineffective, no different from
pro-capitalist liberalism, inefficient, or-under certain conditions-monstrously
repressive. If people are nevertheless turning to socialism, it is due to the failures of
capitalism!
Libertarian Socialism?
From the beginning, anarchists have rejected state socialism (or what they called
"authoritarian socialism"). Kropotkin wrote, "...The anarchists, in common with all
socialists, of whom they constitute the left wing...consider the wage-system and
capitalist production[for the sake of profits]altogether as an obstacle to
progress....While combating...capitalism altogether, the anarchists combat with the same
energy the State as the main support of that system." (1975; 109)
P.J. Proudhon, the first person to call himself an anarchist, also called himself a
"socialist". Michael Bakunin, who was involved in initiating the modern anarchist
movement, called himself a "revolutionary socialist", as well as a "collectivist."
Kropotkin regarded himself as a "socialist" and a "communist." The dominant tendency in
anarchism after Kropotkin was "anarchist-communism." Even Benjamin Tucker, a major
individualist-anarchist, called himself a "socialist" (mostly meaning that he was
anti-capitalist). In the 1880s, Adolph Fischer, one of the Chicago "Haymarket martyrs,"
claimed that "every anarchist is a socialist, but every socialist is not necessarily an
anarchist." (Guerin 1970; 12) Many anarchists, and others who were close to anarchism,
have called themselves "libertarian socialists" or "anti-authoritarian socialists" or
"libertarian communists."
I write the last paragraph because many socialists simply do not know that anarchists are,
and have always been, socialists. And many anarchists also do not know this. Both groups
take for granted that "socialism" means "state socialism." But a view which advocates a
cooperative, collectivized, economy, of freely federated associations, which produces for
use and not profit, and which is democratically planned from the bottom up-what is this
but authentic socialism? It would be a classless, stateless, "community of free
individuals" consciously self-managing their collective labor and dividing their products
for the good of all: socialism.
There are also anarchists who do not want to use the term "socialist" today because it is
so unpopular-whatever its history. As I have demonstrated, however, there is a lot of
support for "socialism." It is a more popular term than "anarchism"! (Probably most people
see "anarchism" as violence, bomb-throwing, window-smashing, and chaos.) It makes sense
for anarchists to show their connection to the more popular term. However, I would agree
that "communism," in the U.S. anyway, is still a very negative term (meaning
totalitarianism to most people). In other countries (such as France or South Africa) this
may not be the case, but in the U.S. it is. I am in the tradition of anarchist-communism,
from Kropotkin on, but I rarely use the communist label. (See Price 2008.)
There are also anarchists who deliberately reject the "socialist" label, because they
identify as "post-Left," "post-anarchist," "anti-civilizationist," or other views. They
often write as if it is a new insight to reject the authoritarianism and pro-capitalism of
the Left. Actually anarchists have been opposing the statism and pro-capitalism of the
majority of the Left since the beginning-it is what anarchism has always been about. But
anarchists have not confused "state socialism" with everything which is on the Left. The
Left is in opposition to capitalism, the state, and all oppression. As I quoted Kropotkin
above, anarchists "are the left wing" of the Left, the left of the Left-that is, we are
most in opposition to all the evils of capitalist society, the ones really for the
"community of free individuals". Anarchists are the authentic socialists.
Popularity of Libertarian Socialist Programs
Due to the collapse of most Communist states and the overall failures of Marxism, there
has been an upsurge of interest in anarchism-certainly as compared to the 30s and 60s. Yet
"anarchism" is not yet a mass movement or a widely-liked label. Without seeing any polls,
I am sure that it is less liked than "socialism" (but perhaps more accepted than
"communism"-in the U.S.).
However, there are aspects of anarchism (libertarian socialism) which are relatively
popular. For example, the idea of government takeover of industry ("nationalization") is
not attractive to many people. Much more attractive is the idea of worker-run enterprises
(producer cooperatives), worker's management, consumer cooperatives, government ownership
at the local level (city, town, or village), with worker management. Such ideas have
become quite widespread on the Left. There is a significant number of writers, not all
identified as socialists, who have made workers' self-management central to their programs
(see Price 2014).
In themselves, the ideas of producer co-ops and municipalization are not radical-but in
certain circumstances they may be revolutionary: such as a program to expropriate the
energy industry and turn it over to worker and community control. Or if striking workers
occupied workplaces and demanded to take them away from the owners, proposing to federate
with each other.
Similarly, among climate justice theorists, there is agreement on the need for coordinated
efforts and an overall plan for a transition to renewable energy, on a national and
international level. But there is also agreement on the need for more economic,
industrial, and urban decentralization and local integration. This would cut down
transportation and distribution, make recycling easier, improve democratic participation
in planning, bring food production into daily life, and in general create a human scale
life style. Such ideas have been raised from writers such as Naomi Klein to Pope Francis,
as well as Marxist eco-socialists (see Price 2016).
Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org, wrote a book asserting, "We need to move decisively to
rebuild our local communities....Community, it turns out, is the key to physical survival
in our environmental predicament and also to human satisfaction." (2007; 2) McKibben is a
left liberal (he backed Sanders). But he illustrates how ideas, worked on for generations
by anarchists, have become active in the current movement. (Anarchists can also agree with
the need for overall democratic planning for a transition to a balanced ecology-but not by
the existing institutions of the capitalist states.)
Even in the short run, there are militants who are fed up with approaches based on trying
to take over the state-usually through elections, via the Democratic Party or a new-party.
They could be open to a strategy based on militant mass actions, demonstrations, union
organizing, occupations of workplaces and schools, strikes and general strikes which close
down cities until real gains are won. These are the strategy and tactics of a
revolutionary anarchism.
Conclusion
"Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, and socialism without freedom is
slavery and brutality."-Michael Bakunin
In the broadening movement of opposition to the U.S. capitalist attacks on the working
population, there is a need to build a revolutionary libertarian socialist wing of
anarchists and other anti-authoritarian socialists. The evils of capitalism in decline
pushes people toward socialism. Its bureaucratic, statist, and centralist history pushes
people away from socialism. But a focus on freedom, self-management, and cooperation may
attract a layer of workers and youth and other oppressed people to the vision of a truly
free, cooperative, democratic, and ecologically balanced community.
References
Goldberg, Michelle (2017, Dec. 5). "Why Young People Hate Capitalism." New York Times. A27.
Guerin, Daniel (1970). Anarchism: From Theory to Practice. (trans. M. Klopper). NY:
Monthly Review Press.
Kropotkin, Peter (1975). The Essential Kropotkin (eds. E. Capouya & K. Tompkins). NY:
Liveright.
Marx, Karl (1906). Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Vol. 1. NY: Modern Library.
McKibben, Bill (2007). Deep Economy; The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future. NY:
Henry Holt & Co./Times Books.
Meyerson, Harold (2016, Feb. 29). "Why are there Suddenly Millions of Socialists in
America?" Guardian U.S. Edition.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/29/why-are-there-suddenly-millions-of-socialists-in-america
Nammo, Dave (2017, March 18). "Socialism's Rising Popularity Threatens America's Future."
National Review.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445882/socialism-polls-indicates-its-alarming-rise-public-opinion
Newport, Frank (2016, May 6). Gallup News.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/191354/americans-views-socialism-capitalism-little-changed.aspx
Price, Wayne (2016). "Eco-Socialism and Decentralism: The Re-Development of Anarchism in
the Ecology/Climate Justice Movement." Anarkismo.
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/28974?search_text=Wayne+Price
Price, Wayne (2014). "Workers' Self-Directed Enterprises: A Revolutionary Program;
Industrial Democracy and Revolution " Anarkismo.
http://www.anarkismo.net/article/26931?search_text=Wayn...Price
Price, Wayne (2008). "What is Anarchist Communism?" Anarkismo.
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/7451?search_text=Wayne+Price
Rampell, Catherine (2016, Feb. 5). "Millennials have a Higher Opinion of Socialism than of
Capitalism." Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2016/02/05/millennials-have-a-higher-opinion-of-socialism-than-of-capitalism/?utm_term=.e082afbc9c9c
Strickland, Patrick (2017, Feb. 9). "More Americans Joining Socialist Groups under Trump"
Al Jazeera United States.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/02/americans-joining-socialist-groups-trump-170205083615002.html
*written for www.Anarkismo.net
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/30763
------------------------------
Home »
Anarchic update news all over the world - Part twoo - 5.01.2018
» Anarchic update news all over the world - Part twoo - 5.01.2018