Today's Topics:
1. Aotearoa/New Zealand Workers Solidarity Movement (AWSM) -
Left to Your Own Devices (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
2. France, Alternative Libertaire AL #255 (Nov) - Cinema:
Jean-Gabriel Periot "A German youth" (fr, it, pt) [machine
translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
3. Aotearoa/New Zealand Workers Solidarity Movement (AWSM) -
Left to Your Own Devices (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
4. An anarchist guide for christmas By Ruth Kinna.
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
5. Student Federation Libertaria FEL - The laughs UAM students
(ca) [machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
6. anarkismo.net: Comment on the (AK Press) Accusations against
Michael Schmidt by Wayne Price (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Coltan. Sounds like the name of an evil king in a cheap sci-fi movie, doesn’t it? In fact,
it is a mineral that has electricity conducting properties. Without it the Samsung device
I am typing this on and the mobile device or laptop you are reading this on would not
exist. Most of the world’s supply of coltan comes from the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The majority of it comes from cheap or child labour rounded up by various militia armies
who mine it so they can buy weapons and other supplies according to a 2003 UN Security
Council report and various human rights organisations. ---- Lithium is also an electricity
conducting mineral but it is also very good at storing it. That’s why this mineral is used
to make batteries, such as the one on the device you are using now. Where does the
majority of the world’s supply of it come from? Australia and Chile according to the US
Geological Survey in 2015. Chile’s record as far as extractive industries is concerned has
been far from impressive in terms of wages and conditions. This was highlighted by the
2010 Copiapó mining accident in which 33 workers became trapped after a mine explosion.
Although that one was not a lithium mine, it does highlight the generally poor standards
that exist. In China, one of the other major lithium purchasers, the number of miners
killed is often in hundreds every year.
There are other minerals that are mined elsewhere that go into your mobile devices but
they’re not as important. No matter where they are sourced whole ecosystems and
environments are wiped out to enable these minerals to be extracted, transported by road
or rail to the nearest port then transported to a factory in China. Odds are if your
device is an Apple it will have been made via a Taiwanese company called Hon Hai Precision
Industry Co., Ltd (commonly known as Foxconn). Their Chinese factories use cheap labour
that is so brutally exploited that suicides among its workers have caused a scandal. If
not, chances are that the devices will have been made by prison labour.
Once manufactured, your device will be exported around the world and marked up to
astoundingly ridiculous prices. According to TIME magazine 24/9/14 the total cost of
manufacturing an Apple 16GB iPhone 6 is about $USD200.10. The standard retail price for an
iPhone is around $USD649 or so without a contract to a wireless provider. Other companies
like Samsung and Huawei don’t charge as much but that is usually because they are bullied
into putting bloatware into their products. Bloatware is built in software or apps that
aren’t actually necessary or wanted but which takes up lots of memory and drains battery
power like crazy while running in the background.
If that does not shock you then think about the environmental destruction being caused to
mine the coal, build the hydroelectric dams and drill for the oil needed to both transport
the minerals and the completed electronic devices and to generate the electricity needed
to charge up or plug in all those devices. Those cell phone towers used to send signals to
your mobile device also rely on those environmentally unfriendly forms of electricity
generation.
Finally, we come to what happens when the device is rendered useless by changes in the
networks or operating systems or if you smash it in frustration. It becomes E-waste.
E-waste is not as easy to dispose of as one might think. Most landfills will not accept
E-waste and the devices that end up being dumped contain all sorts of toxic chemicals that
pose a major threat to the health and safety of landfill workers, recyclers and others
involved in the disposal of e-waste.
According to a 2011 report by the academics Wath/Dutt and Chakrabarti, who did a case
study of conditions in India, the environmental impact of various items that make up e-waste
include:
Cathode ray tubes (used in TVs, computer monitors, ATM, video cameras, and more) leads to
lead, barium and other heavy metals leaching into the ground water and release of toxic
phosphor.
Printed circuit board (a thin plate on which chips and other electronic components are
placed) leads to air emissions as well as discharge into rivers of glass dust, tin, lead,
brominated dioxin, beryllium cadmium, and mercury.
Chips and other gold plated components lead to hydrocarbons, heavy metals, brominated
substances discharged directly into rivers acidifying fish and flora. Tin and lead
contamination of surface and groundwater. Air emissions of brominated dioxins, heavy
metals and hydrocarbons
Plastics from printers, keyboards, monitors, etc leads to the emissions of brominated
dioxins, heavy metals and hydrocarbons.
Computer wires leads to hydrocarbon ashes being released into the air, water and soil.
Trying to recycle or dispose of e-waste impacts on everything from what we eat to the air
we breathe, as its waste products infiltrate our environment. From the extraction of the
minerals used to make high tech devices to the disposal of e-waste the exploitation of
workers and hazardous working conditions dominate the industry. Even when workers can
afford to buy and use the high tech products their labour produces the apps and other
features are mostly determined by what corporate elites dictate at a price based on
blatant profiteering rather than what they are actually worth.
What can we do about all this in the short term?
For a start we can opt to purchase our high tech products from businesses that don’t get
their coltan and lithium from conflict zones or countries that ignore basic workers’
rights and safety standards.
We can even set up enterprises or collectives that recycle e-waste in a more
environmentally friendly way.
According to an article published on the BBC website on July 17, 2013, new businesses like
Neverware are being set up in the United States which are recycling old computers by
installing wireless systems in them which upgrade automatically. This saves money on
having to replace computers, reducing e-waste and helping to meet the needs of cash
strapped organisations like schools.
However, a much simpler way of dealing with the negative side of technology is for people
and organisations to give away older technology to those who would otherwise have limited
or no access to high tech or the Internet. In a decent society the simple act of giving
away that which we don’t need or want, might be how much of the economy would operate. We
don’t need to wait for wholesale change to begin doing some of that.
The ugly side of technology raises important questions: Some of the measures I’ve just
sketched might help but is it possible to reform the current system to the point where the
environment can be saved for the wellbeing of everyone? If the current system can’t be
reformed what desirable alternative is realistically possible?
The high level of technology that has been achieved, grew out of an earlier period of
capitalism that developed industrial capacity, firstly in Europe. This came via the
exploitation of colonies and through the wide scale destruction of the world’s environment
from Peru to Nauru and Nigeria to Burma. The supposed alternative of state directed
industrialism that held sway in the former USSR and Soviet bloc was just as, if not more
destructive.
So it is capitalism and its authoritarian pseudo-alternative that got us into the current
perilous situation. That centuries-long history is not a good basis for thinking the same
system can get us out of trouble now. At the same time it should be acknowledged that
there are a lot of well-meaning people who are trying to make things better. Thousands of
dedicated people put in time as workers for NGO’s and single-issue groups that focus on
environmental issues. From time to time their efforts achieve success. However there are a
few problems with this kind of reformist activity.
Firstly, these organisations, no matter their initial good intentions when established,
are often heavily bureaucratic and top-heavy, with structures and working methods that
imitate the corporations and governments they lobby against. The young people wearing
coloured jackets and holding clip-boards on your local street corner probably haven’t met
the well-paid head honcho of the organisation they are either volunteering for or being
paid minimum wage for. The leaders of these organisations have no difficulty shifting from
for example being co-leader of the Green Party to being a boss at Greenpeace. In such
circumstances, the government is hardly going to feel worried about dealing with these
establishment-friendly figures. The nature of these organisations also tends to result in
either passivity or limited, symbolic actions. They encourage us to donate money to them
or click an online petition, which is easily ignored and salves our conscience for 5
seconds while we go back to whatever else we were doing, safe in the knowledge that ‘I’ve
done my bit’. Some even think this equates to ‘activism’.
Secondly, the corporations and governments can actually handle certain appeals for
‘change’ without being too effected. They like the idea that we engage with them as
consumers. By doing so, we willingly position and perceive ourselves as buyers of their
products. They undertake ‘greenwash’ whereby they give the impression they have made some
alteration, while in fact they are still destroying the environment. Using the power of
advertising and billions of dollars of influence, energy companies and other
multi-nationals can get their way while we buy into their claims and remain consumers. In
the case of governments, they are occasionally prepared to back down on a certain issue
but it often means that while they do that in one sector, they are doing little in another.
There are some fundamental problems with the mainstream environmentalist and consumer
action oriented approach. By seeing environmental destruction as a series of single-issue
campaigns, the underlying system that has produced these problems remains unchallenged.
Capitalism manifests itself in different ways, but ultimately there is an underlying set
of behaviours and structures at work and a bottom line based on profit. Logically a
unified system requires a unified theoretical response, not a piece-meal one involving
rushing around putting out small fires while the pump producing the fuel continues to be
left on. This relates to the second problem that a consumerist outlook ignores the
question of production. Dealing with the consumption of goods by choosing to buy telephone
A instead of washing up liquid B puts us on the receiving end. In a world where the
workers are not in control of and do not own the means of production, the vast majority of
us will never be able to make the basic changes required to manage the world more
responsibly. We won’t be able to make the rational choices as to what really benefits
people environmentally. Our masters don’t want us to look at ourselves in that way. They
want us to keep watching TV, using their phones and eating their products.
Assuming we don’t have to deal with some post-apocalyptic nuclear waste-land, most people
will still want to be able to use a reasonably high degree of technology in a future
non-capitalist society. This may involve a decrease in production, some difficult
compromises and an ongoing but reduced degree of environmental problems. However, with the
workers of the world in control and able to plan production, distribution and consumption
on a rational basis, we will be better able to ensure we all have a decent future. Whether
that involves coltan, we can’t be sure yet.
http://www.awsm.nz/2015/12/29/left-to-your-own-devices/
------------------------------
Message: 2
For his first feature film, documentary filmmaker Jean-Gabriel Periot is interested in
Baader. Specifically, a German youth focuses on the period preceding the period of armed
struggle. One reason for this choice is that the images of that period abound, not least
because the members of the RAF were first future for many of them wanted to change the
world by doing films, but political course Nevertheless aesthetically strong and loaded
with humor (we see, for example, intense relay race and shifted with red flag in the
streets of Berlin). Ulrike Meinhof, meanwhile, was a relatively influential columnist
regular guest on TV shows, and thus had the means to express themselves to a wider
audience - which also indicates that this is not the word of deprivation explains
radicalization. Made exclusively with archive footage (student films, TV shows ...)
without voice, confronting the viewer with images embedded in their time, where future
events are not yet known. If the reasons for the transition to the armed struggle there
are not really explained, the film makes beautifully the spirit of revolt that has marked
the time.
Vincent (AL Paris-Sud)
Jean-Gabriel Periot, a German youth, 2015, 93 min, in cinemas from October 14.
http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?Cinema-Jean-Gabriel-Periot-Une
------------------------------
Message: 3
Coltan. Sounds like the name of an evil king in a cheap sci-fi movie, doesn’t it? In fact,
it is a mineral that has electricity conducting properties. Without it the Samsung device
I am typing this on and the mobile device or laptop you are reading this on would not
exist. Most of the world’s supply of coltan comes from the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The majority of it comes from cheap or child labour rounded up by various militia armies
who mine it so they can buy weapons and other supplies according to a 2003 UN Security
Council report and various human rights organisations. ---- Lithium is also an electricity
conducting mineral but it is also very good at storing it. That’s why this mineral is used
to make batteries, such as the one on the device you are using now. Where does the
majority of the world’s supply of it come from? Australia and Chile according to the US
Geological Survey in 2015.
Chile’s record as far as extractive industries is concerned has been far from impressive
in terms of wages and conditions. This was highlighted by the 2010 Copiapó mining accident
in which 33 workers became trapped after a mine explosion. Although that one was not a
lithium mine, it does highlight the generally poor standards that exist. In China, one of
the other major lithium purchasers, the number of miners killed is often in hundreds every
year.
There are other minerals that are mined elsewhere that go into your mobile devices but
they’re not as important. No matter where they are sourced whole ecosystems and
environments are wiped out to enable these minerals to be extracted, transported by road
or rail to the nearest port then transported to a factory in China. Odds are if your
device is an Apple it will have been made via a Taiwanese company called Hon Hai Precision
Industry Co., Ltd (commonly known as Foxconn). Their Chinese factories use cheap labour
that is so brutally exploited that suicides among its workers have caused a scandal. If
not, chances are that the devices will have been made by prison labour.
Once manufactured, your device will be exported around the world and marked up to
astoundingly ridiculous prices. According to TIME magazine 24/9/14 the total cost of
manufacturing an Apple 16GB iPhone 6 is about $USD200.10. The standard retail price for an
iPhone is around $USD649 or so without a contract to a wireless provider. Other companies
like Samsung and Huawei don’t charge as much but that is usually because they are bullied
into putting bloatware into their products. Bloatware is built in software or apps that
aren’t actually necessary or wanted but which takes up lots of memory and drains battery
power like crazy while running in the background.
If that does not shock you then think about the environmental destruction being caused to
mine the coal, build the hydroelectric dams and drill for the oil needed to both transport
the minerals and the completed electronic devices and to generate the electricity needed
to charge up or plug in all those devices. Those cell phone towers used to send signals to
your mobile device also rely on those environmentally unfriendly forms of electricity
generation.
Finally, we come to what happens when the device is rendered useless by changes in the
networks or operating systems or if you smash it in frustration. It becomes E-waste.
E-waste is not as easy to dispose of as one might think. Most landfills will not accept
E-waste and the devices that end up being dumped contain all sorts of toxic chemicals that
pose a major threat to the health and safety of landfill workers, recyclers and others
involved in the disposal of e-waste.
According to a 2011 report by the academics Wath/Dutt and Chakrabarti, who did a case
study of conditions in India, the environmental impact of various items that make up e-waste
include:
Cathode ray tubes (used in TVs, computer monitors, ATM, video cameras, and more) leads to
lead, barium and other heavy metals leaching into the ground water and release of toxic
phosphor.
Printed circuit board (a thin plate on which chips and other electronic components are
placed) leads to air emissions as well as discharge into rivers of glass dust, tin, lead,
brominated dioxin, beryllium cadmium, and mercury.
Chips and other gold plated components lead to hydrocarbons, heavy metals, brominated
substances discharged directly into rivers acidifying fish and flora. Tin and lead
contamination of surface and groundwater. Air emissions of brominated dioxins, heavy
metals and hydrocarbons
Plastics from printers, keyboards, monitors, etc leads to the emissions of brominated
dioxins, heavy metals and hydrocarbons.
Computer wires leads to hydrocarbon ashes being released into the air, water and soil.
Trying to recycle or dispose of e-waste impacts on everything from what we eat to the air
we breathe, as its waste products infiltrate our environment. From the extraction of the
minerals used to make high tech devices to the disposal of e-waste the exploitation of
workers and hazardous working conditions dominate the industry. Even when workers can
afford to buy and use the high tech products their labour produces the apps and other
features are mostly determined by what corporate elites dictate at a price based on
blatant profiteering rather than what they are actually worth.
What can we do about all this in the short term?
For a start we can opt to purchase our high tech products from businesses that don’t get
their coltan and lithium from conflict zones or countries that ignore basic workers’
rights and safety standards.
We can even set up enterprises or collectives that recycle e-waste in a more
environmentally friendly way.
According to an article published on the BBC website on July 17, 2013, new businesses like
Neverware are being set up in the United States which are recycling old computers by
installing wireless systems in them which upgrade automatically. This saves money on
having to replace computers, reducing e-waste and helping to meet the needs of cash
strapped organisations like schools.
However, a much simpler way of dealing with the negative side of technology is for people
and organisations to give away older technology to those who would otherwise have limited
or no access to high tech or the Internet. In a decent society the simple act of giving
away that which we don’t need or want, might be how much of the economy would operate. We
don’t need to wait for wholesale change to begin doing some of that.
The ugly side of technology raises important questions: Some of the measures I’ve just
sketched might help but is it possible to reform the current system to the point where the
environment can be saved for the wellbeing of everyone? If the current system can’t be
reformed what desirable alternative is realistically possible?
The high level of technology that has been achieved, grew out of an earlier period of
capitalism that developed industrial capacity, firstly in Europe. This came via the
exploitation of colonies and through the wide scale destruction of the world’s environment
from Peru to Nauru and Nigeria to Burma. The supposed alternative of state directed
industrialism that held sway in the former USSR and Soviet bloc was just as, if not more
destructive.
So it is capitalism and its authoritarian pseudo-alternative that got us into the current
perilous situation. That centuries-long history is not a good basis for thinking the same
system can get us out of trouble now. At the same time it should be acknowledged that
there are a lot of well-meaning people who are trying to make things better. Thousands of
dedicated people put in time as workers for NGO’s and single-issue groups that focus on
environmental issues. From time to time their efforts achieve success. However there are a
few problems with this kind of reformist activity.
Firstly, these organisations, no matter their initial good intentions when established,
are often heavily bureaucratic and top-heavy, with structures and working methods that
imitate the corporations and governments they lobby against. The young people wearing
coloured jackets and holding clip-boards on your local street corner probably haven’t met
the well-paid head honcho of the organisation they are either volunteering for or being
paid minimum wage for. The leaders of these organisations have no difficulty shifting from
for example being co-leader of the Green Party to being a boss at Greenpeace. In such
circumstances, the government is hardly going to feel worried about dealing with these
establishment-friendly figures. The nature of these organisations also tends to result in
either passivity or limited, symbolic actions. They encourage us to donate money to them
or click an online petition, which is easily ignored and salves our conscience for 5
seconds while we go back to whatever else we were doing, safe in the knowledge that ‘I’ve
done my bit’. Some even think this equates to ‘activism’.
Secondly, the corporations and governments can actually handle certain appeals for
‘change’ without being too effected. They like the idea that we engage with them as
consumers. By doing so, we willingly position and perceive ourselves as buyers of their
products. They undertake ‘greenwash’ whereby they give the impression they have made some
alteration, while in fact they are still destroying the environment. Using the power of
advertising and billions of dollars of influence, energy companies and other
multi-nationals can get their way while we buy into their claims and remain consumers. In
the case of governments, they are occasionally prepared to back down on a certain issue
but it often means that while they do that in one sector, they are doing little in another.
There are some fundamental problems with the mainstream environmentalist and consumer
action oriented approach. By seeing environmental destruction as a series of single-issue
campaigns, the underlying system that has produced these problems remains unchallenged.
Capitalism manifests itself in different ways, but ultimately there is an underlying set
of behaviours and structures at work and a bottom line based on profit. Logically a
unified system requires a unified theoretical response, not a piece-meal one involving
rushing around putting out small fires while the pump producing the fuel continues to be
left on. This relates to the second problem that a consumerist outlook ignores the
question of production. Dealing with the consumption of goods by choosing to buy telephone
A instead of washing up liquid B puts us on the receiving end. In a world where the
workers are not in control of and do not own the means of production, the vast majority of
us will never be able to make the basic changes required to manage the world more
responsibly. We won’t be able to make the rational choices as to what really benefits
people environmentally. Our masters don’t want us to look at ourselves in that way. They
want us to keep watching TV, using their phones and eating their products.
Assuming we don’t have to deal with some post-apocalyptic nuclear waste-land, most people
will still want to be able to use a reasonably high degree of technology in a future
non-capitalist society. This may involve a decrease in production, some difficult
compromises and an ongoing but reduced degree of environmental problems. However, with the
workers of the world in control and able to plan production, distribution and consumption
on a rational basis, we will be better able to ensure we all have a decent future. Whether
that involves coltan, we can’t be sure yet.
http://www.awsm.nz/2015/12/29/left-to-your-own-devices/
------------------------------
Message: 4
Ruth Kinna is the editor of Anarchist Studies and Professor of Political Theory at the
University of Loughborough. This essay tries to claim Christmas to remind us that the
masses and good wishes are the basis of mutual support; if we can follow the example of
Kropotkin redistributive Claus, we can create a future that is Christmas... ---- It is not
surprising to find that Kropotkin was interested in Christmas. In Russian culture, Saint
Nicholas was revered as a champion of the oppressed, the weak and the disadvantaged.
Kropotkin shared those feelings. But there was a family tie. As everyone knows, Kropotkin
could trace their ancestry to the ancient Rurik dynasty that ruled Russia before the
arrival of Romanov, which, from the first century AD, controlled the trade routes between
Moscow and the Byzantine Empire. The family branch of Nicholas was sent to patrol the
Black Sea. But Nicholas was a spiritual man and escaped from the life of piracy and
banditry by his Russian family was known Viking. Then he settled under a new name in the
lands south of the Empire, now Greece, and decided to use the wealth he amassed during his
life of crime to alleviate the suffering of the poor.
Archival sources published recently discovered in Moscow show that Kropotkin was
fascinated by this family bond and striking physical similarity between him and the figure
of Santa Claus, popularized by the publication of "A Visit from St. Nicholas" (better
known as "The Night Before Christmas ") in 1823. Kropotkin was not as fat as Claus, but
with a pillow tucked into his tunic, thought he could take the hit. Elisee Reclus his
friend advised him to remove the skin edge of disguise. It was a good idea as it would
also allow a little more wear black with red. Also it decides to follow the advice of
Elisée about reindeer and a sleigh of hand use. Kropotkin was not much given to dressing
up. But exploiting the similarity to spread the anarchist message was an excellent
propaganda by deed. Anticipating a "V", Kropotkin thought we could all pose as Santa
Claus. In the margin of a page Kropokin writes: "Infiltrate stores, gift toys!"
We read in the faint traces on the front of a postcard:
The night before Christmas, we are all ready
While people are sleeping, we recognize our strength
Expropriate goods stores, because it is just
And we distribute widely, between those who need care.
His project also reveals some valuable flashes of his ideas about anarchic features
Christmas and thinking about ways in which Victorian Christmas rituals can be adapted.
"We all know," he wrote, "the big stores - John Lewis, Harrods and Selfridges - are
beginning to exploit the commercial potential of Christmas, setting magical caves and
lands fantastic tale to appeal to our children and to pressure us to buy Gifts do not want
and can not afford. " "If you're one of us," he continued, "you will notice that the magic
of Christmas depends on the production system Papa Noel, not in attempts to seduce stores
to consume useless luxury." Kropotkin described expanding workshops at the North Pole,
where elves happily worked all year, because they knew they were producing for the
pleasure of other peoples. Emphasizing that these workshops were strictly non-profit,
based on crafts and executed in community lines, Kropotkin treated them as prototypes
factories of the future (outlined in fields, factories and workshops). Some people feel,
think that the dream of Santa Claus to see that everyone received gifts at Christmas, was
quixotic. But it could be done. In fact, the extension of the workshops - which were quite
expensive to maintain in the Arctic - to facilitate the widespread production and
processing needs of the occasional gift in the ordinary share. "We have to tell people,"
wrote Kropotkin, "that the community workshops can be set anywhere and we can pool our
resources to make sure that everyone meets their needs"!
One of the issues that most bother about Christmas Kropotkin was the way in which the
inspiring role that Nicholas had played to conjure myths had mistaken Christmas Christmas
ethics. Nicholas was wrongly depicted as a charitable and benevolent man is holy because
it was a benefactor. Absorbed in the figure of Santa Claus, the motivation to give
Nicholas had been further altered by the Victorian setting with children. Kropotkin did
not really understand the links, but felt that it reflected an attempt to moralize
children through a concept of purity which was symbolized by the birth of Jesus. Naturally
I could not imagine the creation of Santa Claus Big Brother knows when a child is asleep
or awake and is apparently knowing the people who dared to mourn or pouting. But sooner or
later, he warned, this idea of purity would be used to distinguish the naughty children of
the good and only those in the second group would be rewarded with gifts.
Anyway, both were important to recover the principle of compassion Nicholas of this
confusing verbiage and folk origin of Santa Claus. Nicholas was because it hurt to know
the hardships of others. Although he was not a murderer (as far as Kropotkin knew), shared
the same ethical Petrovskaya Sofia. And although it was obviously important to worry about
the welfare of children, the anarchist principle of taking into account the suffering of
everyone. Likewise, the practice of giving thought required the implementation of a
centralized plan, overseen by an omniscient administrator misinterpreted. That was quite
wrong: Santa Claus came from the imagination of people (consider only the variety of local
names that Nicholas had - Sinterklaas, Tomte, of Kerstman). And the dissemination of good
humor - through the party - was organized from below. Buried in Christmas, Kropotkin
argued, it was the solidarity principle of mutual support.
Kropotkin appreciated the importance of ritual and the real value that communities and
individuals assigned to the carnival, acts of remembrance and commemoration. No more
wanted the abolition of its republicanization Christmas through a stubborn bureaucratic
reorganization of the calendar. It was important, however, untie christmas ethics promoted
the uniqueness of its conclusion. A party was just that; extend the principle of mutual
support and compassion in everyday life was something else. In capitalist society,
Christmas provided a special room for good behavior. Although it was possible to be a
Christian once a year, anarchism was for life.
Kropotkin realized that their propaganda would have more chance of success if it could
show how the anarchist message was also embedded in the dominant culture. His notes show
that particularly noticed the Dickens novel "A Christmas Carol" to find a vehicle for his
ideas. The book was widely recognized to be grounded in ideas of love, joy and goodwill at
Christmas. Kropotkin found the genius of the book in its structure. What else was the
story of Scrooge encounter with the ghost of Christmas past, present and future that a
review of the change? seeing his present through his past, Scrooge had the opportunity to
change their stinginess and rebuild both their future and the future of the Cratchit
family. Even if it were only remembered once a year, thought Kropotkin, book Dickens gave
the anarchists the perfect vehicle to teach this lesson: altering what we do today,
shaping our behavior in Nicholas, we can help build a future that is Christmas!
Ruth Kinna is Professor of Political Theory at Loughborough University where she
specializes in political philosophy. Since 2007 she has been editor of Anarchist Studies.
She is the author of Anarchism - A Beginners Guide and William Morris: The Art of Socialism.
https://freecollective.wordpress.com/2015/12/25/una-guia-anarquista-para-la-navidad/
http://www.alasbarricadas.org/noticias/node/35484
------------------------------
Message: 5
From the we denounce certain situations resulting from the disastrous management of
Rector, his lies and deceptions. These situations against the interests of students and
the entire educational community. ---- We understand these conflicts as a part of the
continued deterioration that is occurring consciously by elites and their representatives
on public education. If it were not for the remarkable resilience of the student movement
in the UAM we know that this situation would be much worse. We therefore wish to appeal to
all students to join forces in the daily conflicts of our university, putting solution
from mobilization and collective action. ---- Unit Audiovisual and Multimedia Resources
(URAM): Closed course earlier without explanation. A worker suspended without pay for
protesting against the situation which relegated him to the job instability. In the
complaint of the students, at a meeting between the Association of Students of Science
Manuela Malasaña two vice-chancellors and the director of libraries will reveal the
mistakes from the UAM. Today still can be used in some materials URAM and their website
does not show any information.
The refund of the desmatriculaciones. One of the points of the last strike in the UAM was
the obligation of the UAM to return the money of the subjects that students
desmatricularan Rector's commitment was to return the money because it was a grossly
unfair and incomprehensible situation. As of today still happen cases where the amount is
not returned, we want to remind all students must make an appeal to Chancellor so that
they get their money back.
The service reprographics CANON: Since the centralization of services in one space in the
Plaza Mayor, the service has not gotten worse. endless queues day after day and very high
prices. It is cheaper one reprographic neighborhood of the university, where a private
company is managed as a monopoly. Students organize ourselves again under the name " The
UAM is not for sale "with a sticker campaign and collect signatures.
The Study Room 24 hours: Another constant claim of students for years. We brought two
campaigns, one for the Assembly of Science and the other a claim of the last strike, where
the Chancellor is committed to maintaining a 24-hour study room, again the Chancellor
breaks its word. There will be 24 hours room between 21/12 and 6/1, space before time test
dates.
Remedy to this situation is in our hands. Luckily we have a university with a high density
in the form of associative assemblies, groups, associations or organizations, allowing us
to better defend our needs collectively. How could it be otherwise, we reach out to all
the power you want to change this situation, building a strong and combative student
movement as we have been doing for years.
http://madrid.felestudiantil.org/uam-la-uam-se-rie-de-sus-estudiantes/
------------------------------
Message: 6
Response to Charges that He is a Fascist as Well as an Anarchist ---- For months there has
been a heated discussion over charges that Michael Schmidt, author of well-known books
about anarchism, is actually a fascist and "white nationalist." Now that the main
statements are out on both sides, I have been waiting for an evaluation by some panel of
reputable anarchist activists and theorists. As this has not happened, I am publishing my
own conclusions. ---- Michael Schmidt ---- When I first read the accusation that Michael
Schmidt was a fascist and racist, I was astounded. I had met him and read his writings on
anarchism. It seemed unlikely that he was really a fascist. Yet the people at AK Press,
who had made the charge, were serious, sincere, anarchists, who had made great
contributions to the movement (and had published one of my books). I could not believe—and
do not believe—that they acted out of malice (against one of their own authors?). And I
knew that people do strange things (consider the history of Ignacio Silone, the Italian
socialist and author). So I have read all the accusatory research of Alexander Reid-Ross
and Joshua Stephens (as agents of the AK Press Collective) along with Schmidt’s statements
of defense, as well as many of the side comments. I have been waiting for some panel of
respected anarchists to make a balanced judgement. Since this has not (yet?) happened, I
will put out my own conclusions (so far).
The Accusations
The original accusation, by the AK Press Collective, was: “Michael Schmidt was an
undercover fascist….We have received and compiled what we consider to be incontrovertible
evidence that Michael Schmidt is a white nationalist trying to infiltrate the anarchist
movement.”
In effect, this charge of being “an undercover fascist [and] white nationalist trying to
infiltrate the anarchist movement” has been withdrawn. It is no longer repeated. The gap
in time from the original accusation to its de facto withdrawal has been unconscionable.
Instead, Schmidt is now charged with being both a (subjectively) sincere anarchist as well
as some sort of fascist. Reid-Ross now writes, “His anarchist writings were never in
question: the problem is that, in the usual style of National Anarchists, third
positionists, and other neo-fascists, he has sought to combine anarchist ideas with those
of fascists and white supremacists.” This “combination” is supposedly due either to
Schmidt’s holding a contradictory theory (as do the “national anarchists,” etc.), or to
being psychologically mixed-up, or both.
The question is not whether Schmidt is a nice person or an obnoxious one. It is not
whether his version of anarchism is the best one. (Personally I am in general political
agreement with him, with some disputes—but this is irrelevant here.) Also the issue is not
whether as a white person he has been influenced by racism and whether his work is
sometimes affected by it. Of cause he has and it is (what else?). This is not an excuse
for anyone but something to be watched out for. He is not accused of being a poor
anarchist but of being a fascist.
Evidence for the Accusation
Reid-Ross and Stephens cite various pieces of evidence against Schmidt. This includes some
racist assertions in a withdrawn document, jewelry and tattoos he may or may not have, the
names of his dogs, and comments which anonymous people say he has made. There are various
things he has written under his own name, as an anarchist or as a journalist. The meanings
of these writings relies a great deal on how we interpret various statements and
formulations.
The main evidence against Schmidt has always been the comments he has posted on
fascist/white supremacist web sites. For approximately ten years he had generated a stream
of comments which were vile, disgusting, racist rants. These were not under his own name
but under assumed personas. The comments were not directed either to anarchists or to the
general public but to the fascist milieu. There is no evidence he did any organizing among
the fascists or that he tried to organize anarchists to become fascists.
He claims that the comments were made in order to establish his bona fides to the
fascists, in order to do journalistic research. In fact, many anti-fascists have “trolled”
fascist sites to get information. However, the quality of Schmidt’s comments were so
vicious, yet thorough, that they raised questions about his actual motives to many people.
Reid-Ross and Stephens concluded, “…There is nothing in his online activity that, in
principle, anyway, conflicts with a (perhaps staggeringly overzealous) long-con for the
sake of investigation.” But they do not accept this conclusion because Schmidt’s editor at
the time of most of his writings—whom Schmidt had claimed would back him up—does not
support his claims of editorial permission. In fact, his former editor expresses a great
deal of personal hostility toward Schmidt! Schmidt responds that the editor must have
forgotten. In any case, it is unclear whether the editor’s remarks refute the possibility
that “in principle” Schmidt may have been carrying on a “long-con” against the fascists.
Evidence Against the Accusation
The main evidence against the accusation of racism and fascism is Schmidt’s decades of
activity as an anarchist—his work with anarchists of various classes, nationalities, and
races, to organize an anarchist movement in South Africa and elsewhere. And the series of
articles, pamphlets, and books (some quite lengthy) he wrote promoting anarchism. These
activities and writings were done under his own name, in his own person, addressed to a
public interested in anarchism.
It is for this reason, if none other, that Schmidt’s accusers have dropped the original
complaint that he is an outsider, a non-anarchist, really a fascist and racist, who was
“trying to infiltrate the anarchist movement.” Instead Reid-Ross now writes, “His
anarchist writings were never in question.” (This isn’t true but never mind.)
Reid-Ross then writes, “…The pages of his defense that are devoted to his anarchist
pedigree…are mostly beside the point.” No they are not. For several reasons.
The main thrust of Schmidt’s work (together with Lucien van der Walt) has been to reject
the conception of anarchism as a European or Euro-American program. In Black Flame and
elsewhere, he has consistently argued that anarchism as a movement has been an
international phenomena. “Anarchism and syndicalism played a crucial role in…fighting
racial prejudice and discrimination, and developed into a multinational and multiracial
movement that contributed to the history of unionism, peasant movements, and the Left
among people of color.” (Schmidt & van der Walt, Black Flame; 309)
Anarchism, he writes, has been fought for by many nationalities, races, and peoples, and
on almost all continents. He argues that it is arising again, throughout the world, among
the world’s peoples and the international working class. This is not a view which is
consistent with a “white nationalist” concept of “national anarchism.”
Similarly, in Black Flame, Schmidt and van der Walt discus the national liberation
struggles of oppressed nations. They neither cheer on the movements’ nationalisms nor do
they oppose the struggles of the oppressed peoples (in effect, capitulating to
imperialism). Instead they propose that anarchists “participate in national liberation
struggles in order to…displace nationalism with a politics of national liberation through
class struggle.” (310) This too is inconsistent with white supremacy.
Schmidt’s writings also clash with the anti-democratic historical trend in anarchism. Many
anarchists, in the past and present, have counterposed anarchism to “democracy.” Some have
seen anarchism as a program for superior individuals to be free of domination by “common
people.” George Woodcock summarized: “No conception of anarchism is further from the truth
than that which regards it as an extreme forms of democracy…. Anarchism advocates the
sovereignty of the person….Anarchism, far from being democracy carried to its logical end,
is much nearer to aristocracy, universalized and purified.” (Anarchism: A History of
Libertarian Ideas and Movements; 33-34) A great many other anarchists may be quoted making
similar statements, e.g., “Anarchism, then, represents not the most radical form of
democracy, but an altogether different paradigm of collective action.” (Uri Gordon,
Anarchy Alive!; 70)
Imagine if Schmidt had written such a statement! Instead, what his Black Flame says is,
“Anarchism would be nothing less than the most complete realization of democracy—democracy
in the fields, factories, and neighborhoods…based on economic and social equality.” (70)
(I am not—repeat NOT—claiming that Woodcock [or Gordon] is a fascist! This would be like
someone arguing that since I am known for writing that anarchists can learn from aspects
of Marxism, such as its political economy, then I must be a Stalinist.)
In short, to claim that Schmidt’s anarchist writings are “beside the point,” is indeed to
miss the point. While Schmidt may have made all sorts of errors in his theorizing, there
are key areas, central to his work, in which he adopted a view of anarchism which was as
far away from fascism as possible.
My Conclusion
The original charge that Michael Schmidt was a fascist-racist infiltrator into the
anarchist movement has been abandoned. It should never have been made.
The other charge is of somehow being both pro-anarchism and pro-fascism. It is primarily
based on Schmidt’s postings to fascist sites. It is contradicted by his history as an
anarchist organizer, activist, and scholar. Much of his writings are far from what might
be expected from a fascist sympathizer, in their internationalism and support for workers’
democracy. Considering the rule of being innocent until proven guilty, I would give
Schmidt a Scottish verdict of “Not Proven.” I believe that AK Press should continue to
publish Schimdt’s books, which have been so useful for the anarchist movement.
December 2015
*written for www.Anarkismo.net
http://www.anarkismo.net/article/28923
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten