Today's Topics:
1. Australia, anarchist affinity: Your consumer choices won't
save the planet by Kieran (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
2. US, Itch: "We Demand Accountability by Anarcha-Feminist Hit
Squad AFHS" (an annoymous movement of anarcha-feminists who want
to take action). (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
3. France, Alternative Libertaire - policy, Forum struggles and
anti-capitalist book, by AL Nantes (fr, it, pt) [machine
translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
4. International of Anarchist Federations: "Resistance is Life,
Silence is Death". -- Calling for unity of all freedom seekers
with Rojava revolution forpractical and immediate action (ca, de,
fr) (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
5. Greece, Antiauthoritarian Athens: Because enough is enough!
(gr) [machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
6. anarkismo.net: Interview with ZACF by Sosyal Savas (Social
Struggle) Magazine, Turkey/Kurdistan by Sosyal Savas & Zabalaza
Anarchist Communist Front - ZACF (tr) (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
The climate catastrophe is capitalism. ---- Surely if we were all more committed to buying
green, fair trade, or ethically produced products, there would be less environmental and
economic exploitation in the world, right? ---- The idea that our consumer choices are
‘votes' for the kind of world we want to live in is a powerful one, but it is an idea that
is gravely mistaken. ---- Our current economic system, capitalism, is eating away at the
ecological basis of our existence, whilst exploiting and dominating the lives of billions
of people. This destruction, domination and exploitation is driven not by consumer
choices, but by the logic of capital accumulation. ---- All businesses are confronted by
the need to remain profitable. Businesses that do not generate a healthy return on
investment will soon go bankrupt and be replaced by those enterprises that are profitable.
But it is not enough to simply be profitable, all businesses are in competition to achieve
ever greater investment and profit. Capitalists invest their money in enterprises based on
their understanding of what will deliver the highest return, whilst businesses seek bigger
returns by achieving greater market share. They achieve greater market share by lowering
prices, selling more, and driving their competition out of the market. It is this process
that drives capitalist enterprises to consume larger and larger quantities of resources,
in order to produce more, and sell more, whilst pay workers less.
The logic of ethical consumerism assumes that the destructive waste of capitalism is
caused by the demands made by consumers (most of whom are in turn workers). The argument
goes that it is our desire for more stuff that has pushed capitalist firms to produce in
ever greater quantities, and at ever lower costs no matter the ecological or human impact.
This assumption is incorrect.
Capitalism is driven towards expansion, irrespective of the level of demand that exists
for the goods and services that capitalist enterprises produce. It is for this reason that
capitalists first chased new markets for their goods (and new sources of raw materials)
across the globe. Capitalism now embraces the entire world in what is, more or less, one
capitalist economic system.
Despite the fact that capitalism now embraces the globe, the logic of capitalist expansion
remains unchanged. Individual capitalist enterprises must strive to produce greater levels
of profit, or they will be replaced by those that do. Whenever capitalism as a whole is
not growing, it is in crisis. In order to continue clearing the market place of this
over-abundance of production, capitalist enterprises engage in a continual process of
inventing and manufacturing new needs and new wants among consumers. There is even a whole
industry that specializes in this practice; it is called marketing.
The decision by a minority of people to buy this type of product over that type of product
will not challenge the accumulative logic of capital. It is capitalism's drive toward
perpetual growth that is consuming the ecological basis of our continued existence.
But capitalists love the logic of ethical consumerism. When a concerned group or NGO calls
for a boycott of this or that product or practice, capitalist enterprises can profit from
selling us the greener, more ethical alternative at a higher price! The "more ethical
alternative" is rarely better than a greenwash that serves to improve corporate image and
assuage middle class guilt whilst doing little to change underlying practices in
production. The wealthiest may have been sold the image of social good, but the bulk of us
can do little other than put food on our tables and clothes on our backs at the cheapest
possible prices.
A particularly pernicious strand of ethical consumerism is expressed in relation to
climate change and energy consumption. Those wealthy enough to afford "green energy",
solar panels, or household lithium battery arrays gleefully finance wasteful new
industries. The wealthy enough eco-warriors then turn their noses up at the destructive
‘choices' of the great mass of people just struggling to maintain access to heating,
cooking and light from any available energy source.
Even as larger numbers of the middle class in the developed world pour money into "clean
energy", they don't somehow reduce the consumption of coal, oil or gas. Lower demand for
non-renewable energy lowers the price of coal, gas and oil inputs, which is readily sucked
up by industries that will always consume the cheapest available energy source, or be
replaced by the manufacturer that does.
Ethical consumerism is worse than useless. The false choice of "ethical consumption" gives
those firms most exposed to the risks of consumer backlash a ready source of green wash,
and it provides new opportunities to sell "ethical" products at higher prices. Whilst
doing this, "ethical consumerism" diverts attention away from the dynamic that is
destroying our environment, exploiting workers, and wasting resources. Capitalism requires
and is driven towards ceaseless, unending, economic growth. This requires ever an
expanding consumption of the earth's resources, the production and sale of ever more
products, and the subordination of the mass of the world's population.
I fully understand and accept why people with the ability to do so might wish to minimize
the impact that their consumptive choices have of the planet, on the environment, or on
working conditions. But we cannot simply end sweatshops, or the burning of fossil fuels,
or destructive agricultural practices, by boycotting this or that product. If we are to
save a planet worth living on, we have to end an economic system that is making our planet
unlivable.
http://www.anarchistaffinity.org/2016/09/your-consumer-choices-wont-save-the-planet/
------------------------------
Message: 2
If you don't know the name Johnny ‘Itch' Fox let us give you a small introduction. Itch is
the frontman of once-punk band The King Blues, he is also a producer, a spoken word
artist, a domestic abuser and a sexual predator. ---- At Boomtown Fair 2016 on 13th
August, The King Blues played on the Devil Kicks Dancehall stage. For those of you reading
that haven't been to Boomtown, this stage is the 'punk' stage, it's well established and
has always boasted a popular line up. However, this stage is not without it's issues. On
either side of the stage are two large cut-out women, smiling in their underwear literally
decorating the stage. For us this perpetuates a punk culture that expects women to be
silent and complimentary rather than on the stage playing music themselves. It is also
really conflicts with the antifascist flags brandished around the tent. On top of this,
the 2016 line up had less than five women featured, and even less people of colour.
This is not representative of a political punk scene but as usual, punk comes from the
voices of men, with their political anthems shouted on behalf of minority groups that have
no voice themselves. This is the back drop to The King Blues forty five minute set. When
we saw the line up (like so many other festivals this year) we were hugely disappointed to
see TKB included on this stage. This year there has been very public call-outs of Itch by
survivors of his abuse and women who have encountered his toxic behaviour. There is an
entire blog dedicated to survivor stories, powerful statements have been made by prominent
DIY feminist bands about his predatory and manipulative advances. Itch has not gone
through any kind of accountability process and has never publicly acknowledged any
wrong-doing.
When we saw that they were playing at Boomtown and because we knew that we would be there,
we decided to take action. At the start of the set, ten of us gathered at the back of the
tent, some of us chose to black block to retain our identities. We then hoisted a banner
which said ITCH: STOP YOUR ABUSE OF WOMEN and a smaller banner saying CALL IT OUT and we
began to make our way through the crowd, our allies assisted by clearing a path to the
front barrier. We elbowed our way in, dropped the banner over the barrier and stood
staring at Itch as they played their first song. Like a true performer, it almost didn't
phase him. He eyed us only for a moment and continued, though his manner changed slightly
and we could tell he was uncomfortable. His (new) band mates were less composed and
actively looked at our banner in shock and confusion. (These bandmates were rustled up
quickly after TKB reformed at the beginning of the year and within months two of it's
original members left and were maliciously take down by Itch in a seething interview for
Rocksound.) They clearly had no idea how deceptive Itch really is.
We kept our position for a few minutes before a security guard came and tried to snatch
the banner from us, in the process he injured the hand of one of our group (later she
found out that he had broken her finger). He was not successful, but then the actual tour
manager for TKB snatched it from us and ran off with it. We were angry then, surely we had
the right to protest? We weren't hurting anyone with our canvas banner were we? Other than
some male pride. Luckily, after posing for pictures with it like it was funny, we managed
to steal back our banner and we took a step back from the barrier into the area designated
for the mosh pit. We stood here and held it above our heads, turning to face the crowd so
they could see exactly what was going on. This was nerve-racking as we received threats
and abuse from fans, most notably young men who again tried to take the banner from us. We
held our ground, thanks to our friends and allies who formed a barrier around us. Some
people in the crowd came to speak with us, some out of frustration, demanding to know what
the hell we were doing whereas a few actually joined us after hearing what we had to say.
Some people left the tent entirely whilst one fan looked like his world had crashed around
him and he stared up at Itch with confusion and upset. It was interesting to see how a
crowd (definitely not the usual crowd for the Devil Kicks) were so angry about our
protest, they were swearing in our faces and trying to constantly push into us. It really
struck us that this culture of victim blaming is violent and hostile. Some fans refused
outright to believe us, saying that we were just starting trouble. To those people, NO ONE
puts themselves in those kinds of positions for fun. They do it because they fundamentally
believe it is wrong to stay silent. So we stayed, alternating the banner to face the crowd
and then the stage. It was important for us to stay as long as possible. We had previously
agreed that we would only leave if security threatened to kick us out of the festival.
After 40 minutes and with two songs left, they did make us leave. The security guard spoke
to us and told us that we were causing an obstruction and asked us to leave quietly, if we
refused they would kick us out of the festival. We left, keeping the banners lifted as we
left the tent. The security guard followed us and voiced his unease about the situation,
agreeing that we had the right to protest but that he also had a job to do. We do not
agree with these authorities that abuse their positions, exercise unfair restrictions and
cause physical harm but we did not want to leave the festival.
In many ways the action was successful, it disrupted the set and made an impact on the
crowd. A friendly source informed us that post-set, the band were very quiet and uneasy.
For us, we felt proud that we had taken action in an unlikely and difficult space. We had
made an impact, whether positive or negative, people around the festival were starting to
talk and by the end of the weekend our action was well known. For a few weeks after we
searched the internet looking for any reference to it, but we haven't found any yet. This
is what has prompted us to write this statement. We don't want to be named, this a
collective effort, supporting an intersectional anarcho-feminist agenda that is very much
needed in spaces supposedly antifascist. We also want to show suppor
------------------------------
Message: 3
The Anti-Capitalist Front 44 - U Nantes which is involved -prepare holding a Forum
anticapitalist struggles and books on October 1 in the Manufacture of Nantes. ----
documentary films, stands of over fifteen houses of these editions, catering and
refreshments on site, all at free prices, a day to exchange, discuss, meet, organize,
support ongoing struggles and struggles to prepare come! ---- The anti-capitalist 44 Front
is a militant class struggle. you can contact him at anticapitaliste44@gmail.com ----
NANTES ---- Saturday, October 1, 2016, from 1 p.m. to 11 p.m., ---- Manufacture of
Nantes, 10bis Boulevard de Stalingrad, 44000 ---- the event on social networks, reach and
share! ! ---- PROGRAM: ---- Ground floor -> Book Fair anticapitalist. ---- 1st floor ->
Meeting with various collective struggles ---- 2nd floor -> 14H Great debate: After a
spring struggles, any convergence of social movements?
2nd floor -> 17H Documentary film "equal to equal", portraits of immigrant women unionists
or daughters of immigrants
2nd floor -> 21H gesticulée Conference on class
practical information, it is here! https://forumdesluttes.wordpress.com/infos-pratiques/
http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?Forum-des-luttes-et-du-livre
------------------------------
Message: 4
Revolutions that have been oppressed by governments in the last two centuries have not
been few. But they have never been able to destroy thoroughly a freedom-seeking movement
arising from human nature. This stream of revolutions has not lost its foundations and
bases among people but it is conveyed from nation to nation and from form to form. It has
not stopped its attempts worldwide. Unfortunately so far revolutionary and left activists
of the world have not shown any sign of solidarity against reactionary governments. On the
other side, these governments are doing their best to destroy Rojava and its achievements
---- After spreading of "The Arab Spring" to Syria, due to the current status of the world
and the crises of capitalism, a huge crisis was made in that country. So that in the
recent years, capitalist governments' stand concerning Syria has been mainly aimed at its
destruction
This time, after victories in Kubani and pre-determined imperialistic policies' defeat,
the fascist government of Turkey alongside reactionary Islamist criminals, with the
agreement of the global capitalism, in their most recent act invaded and occupied the city
of Jerablos. This criminal assault on the Turkey's fascist government has made it
necessary to publish a call on all freedom seekers of the world for solidarity and a
common act in defiance of Rojava's revolution. Everyone is aware of the importance of
defending secular and progressive achievements in Rojava and peaceful cohabitation of
Kurds, Arabs, Turkmens and the others in the crisis- stricken Middle East
Immediate actions which must be taken are
The objective of this appeal is to drive people's attention, by means of popular
campaigns, demonstrations etc (attachment 1)
Making attempts for solidarity of the world's left activists and anarchists in defending
Rojava's democratic confederation (all ethnics taking part in it)
Supplying basic, evident needs of Rojava such as: workforce, medical and financial helps
(for more information see attachment)
Translating this appeal in all languages
In order to support the Revolution, people can get inspirations from their own talents and
interests such: music, film, photo, painting, meeting, appeals, etc
Time makes its own decision. If we don't decide to do something now our era will be a
defeated one in history
------------------------------
Message: 5
Very often situations gender violence, including sexual assault, rape and generally
various forms of violence are ignored, devalued, or are normalized jokes. - And what
happens a lot. - Continue. -- Every day. - And it's really dangerous because in this way
the gender violence is reproduced and perpetuated against women. - The rape of women in
Greece is not a current phenomenon and neither appeared suddenly. - For years women more
or less suffer in their bodies and in their souls this violent intervention by men. The
recent incident of abduction and repeated rape tis14chronis Larissa by a group of men is
not an isolated incident. It is one of the many that came to light demonstrating once
again that rapists are people of our daily lives and did not come from another planet. Of
course there are those incidents which may never hear because either the family sake of
maintaining social status of either the local community because of indifference to the
disguise. In turn, the judicial authorities will show their understanding of the offender
and so on. But not so surprising, patriarchal roots of society are deep and know. but our
angers and it will not be silent, we will not stay inactive.
Women's bodies are a field on which articulated all those grounds of gender power
relations by demonstrating that their bodies are under claim by the women themselves, but
also by men. At the same time, however, they constitute a resistance area opposite the
hinge and perpetrating gender authoritarian practices and the creation of those conditions
that will lead to social and political liberation.
For all these reasons and for those that each carries within or outside of, we invite you
to concentration, Saturday 24/9 at Kapnikarea at 12pm.
Because enough is enough with gender violence!
Because enough is enough with rape!
Because our bodies, belongs to us!
Antiauthoritarian Athens Drive
------------------------------
Message: 6
Dear comrades, glad to meet and to create a transcontinental communication and solidarity
with you. We are an anarchist magazine/website from Turkey/Kurdistan. We can not say that
we label ourselves anarcho-communists but mostly we agree in principles of solidarity,
mutual aid, organized struggle and a world without bosses, states, ruling classes etc. the
most important thing is for us to be in solidarity with all anarchists, libertarians and
social movements which seek to destroy capitalism, states and dominations of all kinds.
Only way to achieve success in class war against capitalism and its all apparatus, is to
organize, to stay in touch/contact and to stay strong against it together.
There are lots of documents about ZACF but mostly English. We have very few sources in
turkish. So that we feel to inform anarchists and libertarians who are reading and
speaking turkish about your long term struggle in South Africa. So that we have some
questions which our comrades may wonder about you? Here are questions:
As far as we could follow, the Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Federation is more focused on
working class organizations such as trade unions and cooperatives. In that sense, is the
ZACF a movement based on class war? What are the differing points from the Marxist class
struggle ideas? Are there any trade unionist organizations within the body of the ZACF? If
there are, how are they working?
Zabalaza: It is correct to say that the ZACF, or Zabalaza (meaning "struggle" in the Xhosa
and Zulu languages), is focused on working class organisation(s) and class war, or what we
call the class struggle.
However, we understand the "working class" in a broad sense, which includes peasants,
rural and urban workers; permanent, precarious (e.g. temporary, "casual" and outsourced)
and informal workers; blue and white collar workers; the unemployed and the families of
all of the above. When we talk about working class organisation we mean when any of these
sections of the working class organise themselves to fight against oppression and
exploitation, in defence of their rights and interests and for improvements in their
conditions and for more freedom and control over their lives.
So, by "working class" we do not just mean factory workers. We mean the oppressed and
exploited majority of society.
Our aim is that, through daily struggles and organisation, the working class develops the
necessary class consciousness and capacity for self-management and struggle to build a
revolutionary working class counter-power that, through struggle, seeks to accumulate the
social force necessary to overthrow capitalism and the state and replace it with a
self-managed, federalist and classless society: anarchist communism.
We support - in principle - any social movements and forms of struggle that promote and
defend the rights and interests of the broad working class - including trade unions and
other workers' organisations (for example workers' cooperatives) - but also organisations
of the unemployed, informal workers, working class residents' and community organisations,
student organisations and other progressive social movements and struggles such as
feminist and LGBTI, environmental, anti-xenophobia etc.
The struggle of the working class is the struggle against all forms of oppression: we
definitely do not see the issues of the working class as simply the issues of exploitation
by bosses and the state. It is in the interest of the working class to fight for as many
rights as possible, to resist as much oppression as possible, and to play the leading role
in the fight against all oppression. Otherwise those fights will just be hijacked by new
elites: as we have seen, for example, decolonisation often leads to the rise of new
postcolonial ruling classes, not real freedom for the majority.
To unite the working class, it is essential to fight against all divisions in the class.
And this includes fighting against the special (or extra) oppression faced by those in the
class who are also subject to racism, or national oppression, or oppression as women. It
is also a policy of principled solidarity and unity, based on a relentless battle against
all oppression. But at the same time, only the working class revolution can lay the basis
for a society free of all forms of oppression, by tearing up the structures - notably
capitalism and the state - that help generate and reproduce oppression, and by generating
a new social order that can remove the historical legacies of oppression. And the working
class revolution can never happen if it does not unite as many as possible, against
oppression, domination and exploitation. So we see feminist issues, for example, as
working class issues.
We believe that it is crucial for as many workers as possible to be organised and united
into organisations to defend their interests as workers; that is into trade unions and
workers' organisations (and these organisations should also take up the struggle against
sexism, racism etc. as part of the class struggle). For us unions have a double purpose
both to defend workers' rights and fight for their immediate interests under capitalist
society, and through this daily struggle, to build experience and confidence and develop
the class consciousness, organisational capacity and social force necessary to take over
the means of production and place them under worker control and self-management through a
revolutionary general strike. However, unlike many Marxists, we do not only see the
traditional industrial worker as the revolutionary subject - as vital to the revolution as
they are - but believe worker organisation should be generalised across all sectors and
industries and include and attempt to organise and unite all categories of workers.
No. There are no trade union organisations within the body of the ZACF. The ZACF is a
small political organisation of "active minority", meaning an organisation of committed
and convinced anarchists that work together to promote anarchist ideas and practices
amongst popular movements and organisations of the working class - such as trade unions,
township-based community organisations and progressive social movements - by working
within and supporting them, developing analysis and disseminating propaganda, carrying out
anarchist political education and waging the "battle of ideas" (i.e. fighting for
anarchism to become the "leading idea" among working class organisations and struggles).
We call our approach "Platformist," or "especifista," (the Latin American concept of
anarchist organisation developed by the Federación Anarquista Uruguaya-FAU) but this basic
idea - the need for a well organised anarchist formation, with clear ideas and shared
strategy and collective responsibility - obviously goes back to the activity of Bakunin's
"Alliance" in the 1860s and 1870s.
We do not aim to establish new purely anarchist/anarcho-syndicalist unions from scratch,
but rather to influence existing unions and worker organisations and initiatives in a
revolutionary direction by trying to win workers to anarchist ideas. The strength of a
union lies in the number of its members - and their level of class consciousness and
willingness to struggle - and unions should thus be open to all workers, regardless of
their ideology and political affiliation. Instead of workers being divided ideologically
into an anarchist union, a Marxist union and a social democratic union, for example,
workers should be united into one union with all members and progressive/left political
currents free to propagate and argue for their ideological positions and ideas, strategies
and tactics etc. within the union; and for the members themselves to decide collectively
on the course to be taken after analysing and discussing the different proposals. Forming
new, pure, anarchist trade unions ends up isolating the revolutionaries: the broad masses
do not join, because the union is too small and too pure, and the reformist and
bureaucratic leaders of most existing unions, as well as the political parties that use
union members as cash cows and voting cattle will be only too happy to see the
revolutionaries giving up the fight. Because, let us be clear, we would want to
"bore-from-within" the existing unions, and fight the battle of ideas there!
This is another difference with traditional Marxist ideas, as many Marxist political
organisations and parties aim either to establish their own trade unions, associated with
their party, or win or capture the leadership of existing unions, and use their influence
to win "mass" support from the workers for the Marxist party. As Marxist parties generally
also seek to capture state power trade unions are often used either to get votes for the
Marxist party and install it in government by parliamentary means or, in revolutionary
situations, to help put the party in power by force (e.g. insurrectionary general strike).
Rather than using trade unions to help put the party into state power, however, the
anarchist political organisation sees trade unions as tools to overthrow capitalism and
the state and put social and economic life under worker self-management and community
control - instead of under the control of a Marxist or any other so-called workers' or
socialist government or party.
Similarly, instead of trying to put socialists into power in order to implement laws and
reforms that would favour workers, we believe that meaningful victories for workers and
improvements in their conditions can only be successfully won and defended through
combative and direct struggle; outside and against the state.
How do organization processes and decision-making work? What do you think about the
horizontal (web type) organization and decision-making models?
Zabalaza: In terms of decision-making Zabalaza operates according to the principles of
direct democracy and collective responsibility. We have monthly meetings where our
activities are assessed, proposals are made and discussed and tactical and day-to-day
decisions about our work and focus are made. These meetings are open to all our members
(although unfortunately our members outside Gauteng can't usually attend) and all members
have a right to make proposals, express their opinions and agreements and disagreements.
Where possible we seek consensus but when this is not possible decisions are taken by
majority vote, majority being 50% +1 of the members.
Members who cannot participate in meetings can add items to the agenda, make submissions
to the meetings and cast a proxy vote via our email list. Meeting are also minuted and
minutes circulated to all members so that everyone is aware of any decisions made,
discussions and disagreements had as well as any tasks they might have been asked to carry
out or mandates they might have been given.
The ZACF has two categories of membership: (full) members and supporters.
Supporters are people who are either in the process of joining the organisation and
becoming full members; people that can not - or do not want to - commit to the
responsibilities and requirements of full membership; or former members who have taken a
leave of absence or temporarily reduced their activity and responsibility in the
organisation for external reasons (e.g. personal, academic, professional). Both full
members and supporters have a right to voice and to vote on administrative and tactical
decisions within the organisation, made at monthly ZACF general meetings. However, when
organisation-wide tactical decisions and decisions about the daily functioning of the
organisation need to be made quickly, before the next general meetings is scheduled to
take place, we can either: a) Attempt to poll the full membership telephonically, by SMS
or WhatsApp. b) If time does not permit us to poll the whole membership we can try poll
full members only and, if necessary, c) the elected ZACF Office Bearers (International
Secretary, Regional Secretary and Treasurer) are empowered by the Congress that elects
them to make executive decisions on tactical and administrative matters when urgency
prevents them from polling other members or waiting for the next meeting.
When making decisions the ZACF seeks consensus between all its members and supporters.
However, although supporters have a right to freely voice their opinions in discussions
about the strategic direction of the organisation - as adopted at (usually) annual ZACF
Congresses - only full members can vote on long-term strategic decisions if it comes down
to a vote. That is to say that, although supporters can influence the decision through
debate, only full members can formally change the strategic direction of the organisation
or amend the https://zabalaza.net/organise/constitution-of-the-zacf/.
The ZACF Constitution - the founding document of the organisation, together with its 13 a
https://zabalaza.net/organise/theoretical-positions-of-the-zacf/ - allows for minority
faction rights within the organisation. This means that members (including supporters) who
disagree with the decisions made by the majority of the organisation have a right to have
their positions recorded, distributed and debated internally; and they can try to persuade
the rest of the organisation of their position through caucusing, internal discussions etc.
However, all members are expected to represent, defend and work to implement majority
positions and decisions publicly.
People know before they join the organisation that sometimes they might lose a debate and
be part of a minority that disagrees with a majority decision, and that they will be
expected to implement and defend that decision anyway. This is because the ZACF subscribes
to the principle of collective responsibility, which means that each and every member is
responsible for defending and implementing the political practice of the organisation as a
whole and takes responsibility for the decisions made. Similarly, the organisation as a
whole takes responsibility for the actions and conduct of each of its members.
Potential members are made to know this in advance, before joining the organisation, and
they can decide not to join if they disagree. Similarly, because of the principle of
freedom of association, any member who disagrees with a majority decision and does not
want to defend it publicly or implement it is free to leave the organisation at any time
if they feel so strongly about the disagreement. Potential members are invited to join the
organisation - if the entire membership agrees to this (the only instance of consensus
decision-making in the ZACF) - based on the person's commitment, understanding of
anarchist ideas, agreement with the aims and objectives of the ZACF and its strategy and
tactics etc.; but people join at their own discretion and can leave at any time if they
want to. As long as they are members, however, they agree to abide by the Constitution of
the ZACF and to uphold and promote its aims and ideas and contribute to its political
practice.
In terms of the above Zabalaza supports horizontal organisation, what we call
"federalism", and directly democratic methods of decision-making where everyone affected
by a decision has a say - which means everyone in the organisation because of the
collective responsibility described above.
However, although Zabalaza tries to reach consensus in all our decision-making we reject
consensus as a principle because we believe that, contrary to what a lot of people in
activist circles think, consensus decision-making can actually be very authoritarian and
undemocratic. For example, if you have ten people in a group and all but one of them agree
on a particular decision, nine people would have to change their position and try and find
a compromise in order to accommodate the one person that disagrees. In this way the one
person who disagrees exercises disproportionate power over the other nine who agree, and
can "hold them to ransom" and force them to change or compromise their position in order
to reach consensus. Thus, for us, consensus is desirable, where possible, but not a
principle. Rather, we try to reach a natural consensus by developing ideological,
strategic and tactical unity and theoretical understanding within the organisation -
through ongoing internal political education, theoretical development and organisational
training - so that, when it comes to making decisions, all (or almost all) members would
generally be in agreement naturally, because they have a shared understanding of the
theoretical, strategic and tactical justifications behind a particular proposal or decision.
Can you tell us, by starting with the movement against the evictions and privatization
during 2000s, about your demands and experiences? How do you evaluate the squatting
movement against the displacement policies and practices such as privatization and evictions?
Zabalaza: In the early 2000s, there was a wave of struggles against the implementation and
effects of neoliberal policies by the African National Congress (ANC)-led government and a
mushrooming of largely township-based community organisations fighting the associated
privatisation and commercialisation of public services, evictions, electricity and water
cut-offs etc. The ANC, the party of Nelson Mandela, emerged as the main force in the
anti-apartheid struggle by the 1990s, but once in office, embraced neo-liberalism.
These struggles led to the formation of what were called the "new social movements" - the
first real expression of new forms of organised working class resistance since the end of
apartheid - such as the Anti-Privatisation Forum (APF), Anti-Eviction Campaign and
Landless People's Movement (LPM). These mostly emerged from 2000 onwards.
Of course, the older working class formations - notably the big unions in the ANC-allied
Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), and the South African Communist Party
(SACP), also allied to the ANC - remained very important. But their alliance with the ANC
crippled their politics, and increasingly corrupted their leaders. The formations like APF
were distinctive in being explicitly critical of the ANC, and proposing a left-wing
alternative. Sometimes that alternative was not clear. But it was clear that sectors of
the working class - especially the unemployed, and the pensioners - were willing to break
publicly with ANC. That was an amazing achievement at the time.
The ZACF was primarily involved with the Gauteng-based APF and, later, with the LPM in the
Protea South informal settlement in Soweto.The APF - formed in mid-2000 - had a wide range
of demands centred around the effects of, and struggle against, the ANC's neoliberal
economic policies and the commercialisation and privatisation of public enterprises and
services, such as electricity and water provision. This involved direct action campaigns
to have debt scrapped by "guerrilla electricians" illegally reconnecting thousands of
household's water and electricity after it was cut-off for non-payment, bypassing and
resisting the installation of prepaid meters, uprooting meters in protest against
privatisation of basic services and legalistic means like taking the state and private
water company to the Constitutional Court for preventing people from accessing their
constitutional right to water.
Amongst other things (anti-war, anti-xenophobia, strike solidarity etc. activities)
community organisations affiliated to the APF were also involved in community struggles
and protests for improved service delivery and development, against evictions, police
brutality and corrupt or unaccountable officials etc.
The APF developed significant influence and social force and was able to win a number of
concessions and victories. However, it also had some key weaknesses: the APF relied on
foreign donors and local NGOs for its funding, and when the main funder decided not to
renew its 3-year funding cycle the APF was unable to find other ways of generating the
resources necessary to sustain the organisation and its activities, contributing to its
decline. Coupled to this, the APF - despite good intentions - did not do a good job of
developing new layers of militants with a radical world view, or consistently bottom-up
democratic structures. Discussion was often reduced to the issue of privatisation;
education rarely developed serious theory or skills; some important challenges in the
structure were papered over.
Owing to the desperation of many of the APFs militants, as with others of the new social
movements, it was also susceptible to cooption, careerism, burnout etc. Social movements
struggled to build and maintain a layer of experienced and committed activist leaders
because activists that had proven their capabilities in struggle were drawn into full-time
positions working for NGOs, which took them away from the daily struggles of the
grassroots and left a vacuum of leadership open to opportunists etc. Social movements like
the APF and LPM were also victim of state repression and infiltration and some activists
were coopted by the state into spying on the APF and its leading activists, and LPM
activists were arrested and tortured. Many activists were simply forced to abandon the new
social movements because of the daily pressures of survival and didn't have time for
activism while also trying to make ends meet. The movements were often heavily built
around immediate issues, like electricity cut-offs, so victories could lead to a halt in
activity: there was not much of a serious engagement on the larger tasks of where the
movements should go, beyond just opposing cut-offs, or evictions, or privatisation ...
Another factor which contributed to the decline of the APF and new social movements was
the sometimes divisive and destructive role played by part of the Left (including left
academics, socialist parties and political groupings etc.), which fought for control over
the APF and other social movements. Many tended to see the APF and related movements as a
stepping stone to building a political party to contest elections. Contesting elections
was seen mainly as a way of making propaganda. So, the idea of building up the struggles
and movements towards a revolutionary working class counter-power - for example, into the
nucleus of resident-based organs of self-government and self-management that could
supplant the state - was not entertained. For this Left, the way ahead was always a
political party, and the new movements were just a means to an end.
Because serious political issues and debates were not really addressed, in the course of
APF work, many ordinary members were alienated and confused. This alienated many ordinary
members, who suddenly found a drive to push for the APF to declare itself "socialist"
(again, a label that was not clearly discussed), and an attitude by some that ordinary APF
work was nothing but "reformist." So actual APF community social work and capacities, and
initiatives like income generating projects (e.g. food gardens) that could have helped
provide for some of the militants' basic material needs, making them less susceptible to
cooption, careerism and dropping out of activism was not taken seriously - thus
contributing to making the APF itself more financially independent and self-reliant.
Importantly, there was a lack of clear politics and a revolutionary long-term vision of
social transformation and how to achieve it among much of the grassroots membership - and
disagreement among the Left. Because many of the affiliates organised around single issue
struggles, for example against prepaid water meters or evictions, they sometimes fell into
inactivity when that particular struggle had been won or lost, instead of looking for ways
to maintain activity and build struggle around other issues. We must stress that as
anarchists we did our best to fight for a better direction for APF!
In your opinion, where do the path of anti-apartheid movements cross with the path of the
anarchist movements? What places did anarchists take in the anti-apartheid movements? What
can we say about anarchists in struggle years against apartheid regime? And what can you
say about relations between Communist Party of South Africa and ANC?
Zabalaza: Unfortunately, for most of the struggle against apartheid anarchism was not
present and was almost or completely unknown and non-existent in South Africa.
By the 1930s, the small but very significant anarchist and syndicalist movement of the
first part of the century had disappeared and anarchism only began to reemerge in the late
1980s and early 1990s in the largely white and Indian punk sub-cultural scene, and also
some anti-apartheid university student activists etc. The big traditions of South African
radicalism remain black nationalism and Marxism-Leninism.
However, there are experiences of struggle where the black working class adopted practices
of self-organisation and resistance with anarchistic characteristics -- although it would
not have been influenced by or exposed to anarchist ideas at the time.
One example is a group in the 1950s called Movement for a Democracy of Content that,
although not anarchist, is said to have been influenced by the ideas of Murray Bookchin
and his group of the same name. This group had a somewhat libertarian socialist character
- remember, Bookchin was still developing his ideas then -and was involved in organising
large-scale bus boycotts against the apartheid state-contracted bus company PUTCO in
Alexandra township, Johannesburg, in 1957.
Another example is the organisation of community self-defence units that defended black
communities from political attacks in the 1980s, but also dealt with crime and other
anti-social behaviour in the community instead of relying on or deferring to the apartheid
state or black local authorities. People in black townships sometimes also organised
"civics" (community organisations) in a sort of bottom-up or federalist manner whereby
street committees comprising local residents were federated with street committees from
surrounding streets to form block committees, which then federated with committees from
surrounding blocks to form ward committees and so on to coordinate activities on a wider
scale etc. Again, these initiatives, part of the insurrectionary "people's power" movement
of the time all had limits - for example, many were captured by the ANC, and sometimes
became quote intolerant of non-ANC positions - but showed the libertarian tendencies.
In the first half of the 1980s, there was also the quasi syndicalist, or "workerist",
Federation of South African Trade Unions (Fosatu) which, influenced by the New Left, and
at times, indirectly by anarcho-syndicalist ideas, had a number of principles similar to
those of anarchist trade unionism/syndicalism, such as worker control, worker independence
from party politics, internationalism, non-racialism and strong grassroots organisation
and democracy. Like anarchists Fosatu's "workerists" also opposed the two phase "National
Democratic Revolution" promoted by the SACP (first, the struggle for liberal democracy and
a black majority government and then, only once that was consolidated, the struggle for
socialism) in favour of a "one stage" revolution simultaneously against apartheid and
capitalism in pursuit of socialism. It also spoke in terms of "workers control" of
production and society. However, the "workerists" did not have a clear understanding of
what that socialist society would look like and how it would function, nor a coherent
strategy on how to get there.
It was only in the late 1980s and early 1990s that anarchism began to re-emerge in South
Africa, as stated above, but it did not play any significant role in the struggle against
apartheid. It emerged against the backdrop of titanic struggles and victories, but was
marginal to them, and was battling to find its own direction. The early 1990s saw the
first organized groups, and study circles, and these led directly to the formation, in
1995, of the Workers Solidarity Federation (WSF), from which ZACF is, in important ways,
descended. *** For most of its early existence the ANC was not a mass movement, but a
relatively small organisation of professional blacks that aspired to create a black
bourgeoisie by opening up "fresh fields for the development of a prosperous Non-European
bourgeois class", in the words of Mandela in the 1950s. "For the first time in the history
of this country the Non-European bourgeoisie will have the opportunity to own in their own
name and right mills and factories, and trade and private enterprise will boom and
flourish as never before". Because it was an organisation that represented the interests
of a small more privileged - but frustrated - class of blacks, it needed to ally itself
with the SACP to get the support of "the masses". For the nationalist black elite of the
ANC they just had to adopt a little bit of socialist rhetoric and their alliance with the
SACP could win them mass support and help put them into power once apartheid was ended.
For the SACP an alliance with the ANC and adherence to its two phase NDR conformed with
the Communist International's position that the immediate task in the colonial and
semi-colonial world was national independence and cooperation with nationalists -
socialism coming later, somehow.
Once in power the ANC government carried out widespread privatisation and implemented
extensive neoliberal reforms that led to massive retrenchments and unemployment, cuts in
social spending at the same time as increases in the cost of basic services, evictions and
water and electricity cut-offs etc. Twenty years into the ANC's privatisation and
neoliberal restructuring and the SACP, whose General Secretary is the Minister for Higher
Education and Training, still defends the ANC and its policies and conducts election
campaigns on its behalf. Either because they have become part of the bourgeoisie and their
class interests have changed and they no longer desire socialism, or because they blindly
follow Marx's teleological logic that socialism is not possible until the forces of
production have been fully developed under capitalism. Consequently, the SACP defends the
very policies that are devastating the South African working class as "developmental" and
necessary to developing the forces of production in order to prepare the ground for the
second stage of the NDR: the struggle for socialism, which, by the way, the SACP sees in
terms of state socialism. What this has meant is that the SACP leadership has become
completely enmeshed in the ANC-led capitalist state, and the SACP has withered as a mass
formation.
However, the more entrenched and consolidated neoliberalism and the incumbent ANC-SACP
alliance become the further socialism recedes into the distance.
What do you think about the social movements and forms of struggle such as feminist,
LGBTI, ecologist movements?
Zabalaza: As stated previously the ZACF supports, in principle, all progressive social
movements; including feminist, LGBTI and ecological movements. However, class struggle is
absolutely central for the ZACF and the class character and interests of a particular
social movement would determine our practical support for it.
We believe that all forms of oppression intersect at the point of class, are complemented
and compounded by it, and are reproduced and maintained to divide the working class,
facilitate exploitation and maintain class domination to the benefit of the ruling class -
both private capitalists and top state officials etc. Non-class oppressions, such as
sexism and racism, help uphold the capitalist and state system, but are also reinforced by
it. In order to destroy capitalism and the state it is necessary therefore to destroy all
the other oppressions that hold them up; and in order to destroy non-class oppressions it
is also necessary to destroy capitalism and the state - or the class divisions created by
capitalism and the state, if left intact, will either lead to the reemergence of the same
non-class oppressions or produce new social hierarchies and oppressive relations.
We therefore believe that progressive social movements should be based on a class struggle
programme that puts class struggle against capitalism and the state at the centre, and
links struggles against non-class oppressions to a working class programme of independent
and autonomous resistance and organisation to overthrow capitalism and the state and end
the class system - while also recognising that the struggle against such non-class
oppressions is fundamental to and inseparable from this programme. Progressive movements
that do not have a class struggle approach - that do not seek to abolish capitalism and
the state at the same time as ending other oppressions - can at best treat the symptoms of
the problem, but will always fail to win far-reaching, substantial and sustainable changes
and gains because they fail to confront the problem at its core.
The ZACF rejects the idea that all women, regardless of their class background and status,
have the same interests and share a common struggle, or that all blacks or LGBTI people,
rich or poor, have the same interests and share a common struggle.
Because racism and sexism help to maintain capitalism and class rule, ruling class women,
for example, benefit from patriarchy - even if they are sometimes victims of sexism -
because it helps protect their class interests and position in the ruling class.
Similarly, while a black capitalist might experience some racism in the corporate
boardrooms he still benefits from racism, in terms of his class interests, because of its
effect in keeping the working class divided.
As we said, non-class forms of oppression such as sexism and racism are central to
maintaining the capitalist and state system by weakening and dividing the working class
(in the broad terms described earlier) and, at the same time, these forms of oppression
can only be ended by overthrowing the system of state and capitalism. Therefore, a class
struggle approach - one that seeks to end these non-class oppressions as well as overthrow
capitalism and the state - to fighting these forms of oppression is central. As such, the
ZACF would be dismissive of a feminist or LGBTI movement that struggled, for example, to
have female/homosexual/queer presidents and CEOs of corporations but did not challenge the
role, nature and structure of these institutions themselves.
What about the Marikana massacre in 2012? What really happened there? Did anarchist's have
interventions in strikes? Was there any role of anarchists (or ZACF) in strikes, and any
injurings, arrestees from anarchists? And after the massacre was there any changes like
retreats or suppression in class struggle in South Africa or in contrast did the rage
against the rulling class grow?
Zabalaza: What happened at Marikana is that the South African state, under the ANC,
colluded with the British-owned Lonmin mine owners to kill 34 striking mine workers in
order to end a strike that was affecting capitalists' profits and threatening to scare off
foreign investment. Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa, who was a shareholder in the Lonim
mine at the time, was exposed as having exerted political pressure on the police to deal
decisively with the strike the day before 34 striking miners were killed by the police on
16 August 2012. It is clear from video footage of the massacre that the miners were led
into an ambush, and evidence later emerged that police hunted down and executed some
miners at a second scene - the existence of which they tried to conceal - and prevented
ambulances and first aid from accessing the scenes to treat injured workers.
The contemporary anarchist movement in South Africa is small and marginal and there was no
anarchist involvement or intervention in the Marikana and platinum strikes themselves,
although anarchists were involved in demonstrations and campaigns for justice for the
Marikana workers after the massacre, in solidarity activities and campaigns during the
strike and also did limited political work in Marikana after the massacre but did not make
inroads.
The Marikana massacre certainly exposed the ANC government and dispelled the illusions
that many black working class people still had in the ANC, eroding its legitimacy. The
events of Marikana and clarifying and radicalising effect they had on platinum miners
certainly influenced the 70 000 strong five month long platinum strike - the longest and
most costly strike in South Africa's history - in 2014.
Since Marikana, almost daily community protests and revolts have continued unabated across
the country and, in late 2015, tertiary student struggles against financial exclusion and
racism erupted at universities across the country; soon followed by significant struggles
against outsourcing by workers working at universities. For many of the students involved,
as with protesting communities and striking workers, Marikana would have helped to expose
the real character of the ANC government and to dispelled their illusions in it.
However, the tertiary student uprising faced severe state and private repression, and
there are countless instances of criminalisation of community protest across the country
all the time. When protesters are arrested for participating in community protests where
they blockade roads, burn tyres etc. they are charged with public violence, which is
treated as a criminal act.
Because the ANC government lost a lot of legitimacy in the eyes of the people because of
what it did at Marikana it will increasingly have to rely on repression to maintain its rule.
Can you give some information about anarchist movement in South Africa? And how the people
reacts anarchist ideas and activities? Are there any other libertarian/anarchist
groups/collectives like minded or from different tendencies? And how are relations? Are
there any strict seperations between anarchists?
Zabalaza: Historically, the early anarchist and syndicalist movement in South Africa was a
small but influential current within the broader socialist and labour movement. The first
trade unions for blacks in South Africa were established by anarchists and syndicalists in
the early twentieth century.
However, for a variety of reasons (the growing influence of Bolshevism after the Russian
Revolution, state repression etc.) the anarchist and syndicalist movement had virtually
disappeared by the 1930s and didn't begin to resurface until the late 1980s or early 1990s.
Nowadays, the anarchist movement in South Africa is very small and does not have a lot of
influence in the struggles that are raging across the country, although it is slowly
growing and a few more people are starting to be exposed to - and influenced by -
anarchist ideas. Generally, most people in progressive social movements and on the
socialist left agree with a lot of anarchist ideas when they are introduced to them.
However, because of the recent struggle for the right of blacks to vote, and because of
nationalist and Marxist fixations with state power, many people find it very difficult to
accept the anarchist position that social movements and socialist groups should not engage
in elections or voting, and that we should build movements outside and against the state.
Statism is a massive influence on South African political culture, and many people think
that elections can solve everything. And the political parties hype this all the time.
Because of the dismal failure of the ANC government to implement any changes, however,
more people are slowly starting to feel that change can not come from engaging in the
electoral circus; but this is still a small minority and, because of the influence of the
many small Marxist groupings, many people are still under the illusion that radical change
can come through the electoral system and the state if independent candidates or a "mass
workers party" can be voted into power.
The ZACF is the longest established anarchist group in southern Africa, and has an
extensive record of publishing and organising. We wish there were more groups, but there
are not. Small groups emerge now and then, but few last. One important formation worth
mentioning, however, is a hip-hop collective from Cape Town called Soundz of the South
(SoS). Although it is not a strictly anarchist collective (it has members who are
influenced by black nationalism, for example) the anarchist members of the collective
share the same class struggle analysis as the ZACF and we have a lot in common. Perhaps
the only reason that we don't work more closely together is because Zabalaza is mostly
based in Gauteng, whereas SOS is in Cape Town.
We are not sectarian: we will and do work with a wide range of progressive forces. This
was shown by our role in, for example, the APF and LPM. The key is that we work on the
terrain of working class struggle, which means, in practice, we work in, and with, black
working class neighbourhoods and organisations. We do not believe that everyone who calls
themselves anarchist must work together, just because of a common label. The label is not
a basis for unity: we really can't see much point in working with people that call
themselves anarchist, but reject basic principles of anarchism, like class struggle, or
who are not involved in, or do not support, working class movements and struggles. We
would rather have relations and cooperate, tactically, with the non-anarchist Left and
social movements and unions, involved in class struggle. Of course, we have disagreements
on many issues with these others, and fight to win the battle of ideas. But what counts is
that we go to the masses of the people, because that is where that battle is waged. We are
not interested in being part of an isolated or purist radical science.
We know about an ABCN publication: Black Alert. Is network still working? Is there any
reppression against anarchists or libertarian/anarchist prisoners exist in prisons? What
about prisons in South Africa?
Zabalaza: The Anarchist Black Cross-South Africa was a small ZACF-linked collective that
did anti-repression and solidarity work and prisoner support. It published only three
issues of the newsletter Black Alert, was involved in establishing a short-lived
Anti-Repression Network with other progressive organisations in response to the escalation
of state repression and targeting and criminalisation of social movements. ABC-SA also
established and, for a while, maintained contact with anti-apartheid political prisoners
that were still in prison; leading to the establishment of a clandestine study group on
anarchism at one prison. The group stopped with the death of the main figure in organising
it, Abel Ramarope, apartheid political prisoner turned anarchist. The ABC stopped its
activities not long after.
The South African state does not specifically target anarchists for repression because we
are not that significant yet, but township-based anarchists and members of ZACF sometimes
experience intimidation and threats from the local elite and ruling party supporters who
might see their ideas and activities within the community as a threat to their dominance.
Do you have anarchist/libertarian contacts with other countries in Africa?
Zabalaza: Currently, we only have anarchist contacts in Zimbabwe. We used to have contact
with some anarchists in Swaziland, two of whom were originally members of ZACF when they
lived in Soweto, but we have lost contact and are not sure about their status.
We also used to have contact with the anarcho-syndicalist Awareness League in Nigeria,
which was affiliated to the IWA, but it hasn't existed for some years and its leading
militant, Sam Mbah, with whom we previously had contact, died in 2014.
In the wake of the Arab Spring we established contact with an anarchist group in Egypt
called Libertarian Socialist Movement but again we have not had contact with them lately
and are not sure of their status or activities.
And what can you say about the character Mandela who were flattered like Gandhi and Martin
Luther King by global capitalists? You know, ruling classes mostly prefer some
parliamentarist, pasicist or reformist oppositions or "revolutions". Can we make any
comparision between Mandela and Gandhi or Martin Luther King? Or The Guardian Journal
wrote some similarities between Mandela and Abdullah Öcalan (prisoned PKK Leader). What do
you think about it?
Zabalaza: On Mandela, we need to be very clear about dispelling the myth that has been
created that he was a pacifist in the vein of Gandhi. Mandela was jailed for armed
struggle aimed at the violent overthrow of the apartheid state. These days, he is
presented as a sort of gentle saint, which is not true.
We can respect and do Mandela's struggle against apartheid racism, and his refusal to turn
his back on armed struggle. Obviously in the fight against apartheid, he was on the right
side, the side of the oppressed. But that does not mean we do not criticise him or his
legacy. As a leader of the ANC, he was always committed to the view that a post-apartheid
South Africa would be capitalist. It would be deeply changed, to uproot white supremacy
and "monopoly capitalism," but would also enable "fresh fields for the development of a
prosperous Non-European bourgeois class" in a society where "private enterprise will boom
and flourish as never before". So he was a reformist, in that his aims were narrow. So,
while Mandela was closer to Öcalan, in embracing armed struggle, the ANC was always a far
less radical party than the PKK, in its Marxist-Leninist days, or in its present period of
being more influenced by libertarian ideas.
Even though Mandela was, in fact, briefly in the leadership of the SACP, this did not
change matters: recall that the aim of the SACP itself was not socialism, but the NDR. So,
the ANC/ SACP armed struggle was militant, but it was not revolutionary. By the mid-1980s,
a large part of the ANC and SACP leadership, as well as the leaders of the apartheid
state, were at an impasse, a deadlock: neither side could win. So plans were put in place
to start a process of negotiated transition.
At one level, that transition was a great achievement: for the first time in 350 years,
the territories that became South Africa had a bourgeois parliamentary system; the
authoritarian, racist apartheid system of rule was abolished, along with its segregation,
terror and suppression; but at the same time, all the limits of bourgeois "democracy" were
and are evident. Capitalism remained, the state remained, class rule remained. The
horrific legacy of apartheid, expressed in everything from miserable living conditions for
the black working class, and a situation where 70% of young African men and women are
unemployed, remained. How can this be removed without a radical redistibution of wealth
and power? It cannot, and that requires revolution. But what we have is a capitalism
system where, while the black elite has expanded massively, the bedrock of society remains
a racially divided working class, and a system of cheap black labour. And the ANC, and
Mandela, with their limited vision, with their reformism, with their miserable compromises
with capitalism and the old white ruling class, are partly to blame.
This interview was done for and published by Sosyal Savas (Social Struggle) Magazine,
Turkey/Kurdistan
Related Link: http://zabalaza.net
http://www.anarkismo.net/article/29635
------------------------------
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten