Today's Topics:
1. anarkismo.net: Occupying democracy by Ercan Ayboga - Farah
Azadi (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
2. anarkismo.net - False hope, broken promises: Obama's
belligerent legacy by Jakob Reimann - ROAR (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
3. France, Alternative Libertaire AL Decembre - policy,
Belgium: The libertarian movement must rebound (2/2) (fr, it, pt)
[machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
The replacement of democratically elected HDP/DBP mayors and local municipality workers by
AKP appointees is a grave threat to democracy in Turkish Kurdistan and the larger region.
---- Nursel Aydogan, painting by Janet Biehl ---- In the aftermath of the July 2016 coup
d'état attempt in Turkey, president Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Justice and Development Party
(AKP) has dismissed, detained and in some cases imprisoned co-mayors from 51 majority
Kurdish local authorities across South East Turkey (North Kurdistan), replacing them with
appointees from the AKP. The majority of these co-mayors belong to the AKP's leading
opposition parties, the People's Democratic Party (HDP) and its Kurdistan branch the
Democratic Regions Party (DBP).
Mass layoffs and detentions of municipality workers, again a majority of whom were
Kurdish, followed, alongside an occupation of the municipality buildings by the Turkish
constabulary forces. Amongst the seized municipalities are North Kurdistan's de-facto
capital city of Diyarbakir (Amed) and other politically consequential cities such as Van,
Mardin, Siirt and Dersim. The capture and occupation of the local authorities is symbolic
of a new phase in repression against the democratic opposition in Turkey, following the
failed military coup in July 2016.
Despite spurious charges of links to ‘terrorism', the recent authoritarian moves by the
AKP target the larger Kurdish freedom struggle. They have, to date, imprisoned over 6000
HDP/DBP members, arrested over 2000 more people from the Kurdish youth movement, trade
unions, social movements and NGO's, and suspended more than 12000 employees of the
Confederation of Public Employees Trade Unions (KESK), the Left trade union that
represents a majority of public servants across Kurdistan.
In September 2016, in the initial days of the AKP occupation, the DBP discussed how it
should refer to the AKP mayoral appointees. It was decided that instead of ‘trustees' as
described by the AKP, the DBP would use the word ‘appointees' and its corresponding word
in Turkish, kayyum, to reflect the word's autocratic political and historical
significance. The DBP also had to agree on strategies of resistance to, and interactions
with, the occupying administration. A unanimous decision was made to engage in a passive
resistance against the new appointees. This meant the DBP would reject any close
cooperation or promotions offered by Ankara, though members would also not risk being
easily sacked.
When 10 leading MPs from the HDP, including its co-chairs Selahattin Demirtas and Figen
Yüksekdag, were imprisoned in November 2016, widespread protests erupted across Kurdistan,
Turkey and the world. Yet, the occupation of local authorities across Kurdistan, an
incendiary situation, and one that is far more perilous to democracy on the ground, has
generated little response from the ‘mainstream' international community. The detention and
imprisonment of elected local representatives and municipality workers, many left to
languish in solitary confinement, must be considered as the crossing of a red line. The
recent decision of the European Parliament over any further negotiations on Turkey's
membership in the E.U. must be weighed in light of these provocations.
Militarised occupation of the municipalities
In the first stages of the occupation, special forces units seized the municipality
buildings to search offices and confiscate files belonging to the administration. Police
officers, laden with heavy weaponry, lined the corridors of all the municipality
buildings; whilst plain clothes agents constantly moved throughout the building repeatedly
entering and exiting offices as a means of harassment and intimidation.
After the seizure of the municipality buildings, Ankara sent their new appointees, who
were instituted under heavy militarised guard. The Turkish state also implemented several
bureaucratic measures that allowed municipality workers to enter their offices only under
special circumstance and extensive state control. No one was allowed to enter the local
authorities without an official ID, and full body searches became standard. The control
and harassment also extended to workers' use of the internet with various websites
blocked, and workers fearful of visiting websites that might be deemed oppositional to the
Turkish state. Email is heavily monitored, and workers limit their communication to the
minimum necessary to do their job.
In light of these measures, and averse to entering police occupied spaces, members of the
public who had frequented the local authorities under the previous administration, soon
stopped coming. Additionally, the police instituted new bureaucratic procedures that meant
it could take weeks for anyone not employed by the local authorities to gain permissions
to access the municipality buildings. Municipalities that had previously expressed an
ethos that is decidedly welcoming and open to the public were transformed overnight to
appear more like a prison.
One of the initial steps taken by the AKP-appointees was to remove the administrative
staff and replace them with law enforcement officers. In Diyarbakir, the mayoral
appointees gave municipality workers as little as a week's notice of the changes that were
going to be instituted, and many workers had scarcely a day to clear out their offices.
Municipality department heads were fired and replaced with loyal AKP supporters.
Departments were then reconfigured with staff being moved between departments without
consent as if they were pieces on a chessboard.
At the outset of the occupation, the AKP attempted to replace the elected city councillors
with appointees in the local authorities as a means of gaining a political majority for
their party. Yet this strategy was abandoned following the assassination of two appointees
and the mass resignations that followed in their wake. There were also considerable
dilemmas over governance, where opposing views on economic policy led to an impasse
between the AKP appointees and the local city councillors over approval of city budgets.
The stalemate resulted in the AKP simply ignoring their colleagues, and failing to convene
meetings of the local councils. As the mayoral appointees rule by decree, rather than
through policy generated by civil servants in specified departments, deputies remain
largely disempowered and local governments unable to function. Repeated lawsuits have been
powerless to change the situation with courts unwilling to challenge Ankara.
Earlier this month, the central Turkish government decreed that the more than 1200
employees of the HDP/DBP municipal authorities (even from municipalities where no ‘new'
administrators have been appointed) were to be permanently suspended from their jobs, a
punitive decision that came without warning. Those who have been fired join the more than
1200 others who have lost their jobs since September 2016, with a multiplying effect of up
to 7000-10000 as municipality employees are often the sole breadwinners. The sweeping
dismissals have been enormously successful in sowing fear amongst the general population
of similar ‘retribution'. Whilst dozens of other municipality workers made the decision to
resigned their positions in protest, not wishing to cooperate in any way with the occupation.
The autocratic measures taken by the AKP have been instituted in an attempt to either
intimidate or mollify any opposition to its power. These actions should be understood
within the context of Ankara's abject fear of widespread resistance in Kurdistan, and
signal an ominous future for democracy in Kurdistan and across Turkey.
AKP's long term intentions
Local elections in Turkey will be held again in March 2019. The authoritarian actions
taken by the AKP alongside active resistance of the Kurdish population in Bakur (South
East Turkey / North Kurdistan) will ensure a short lifespan for the current regime. Many
in HDP/DBP as well as the larger Kurdish freedom struggle have stated that until that day,
rigorous self-criticism of the movement and its objectives will be considered.
Nevertheless, many fear that the AKP will utilise this time to destroy the social and
cultural projects initiated under the HDP/DBP administration. Community projects,
developed after years of discussions and experimentation, including Kurdish language
schools, festivals and cultural centres, memorial-projects, after school programmes and
community houses have been suspended across Bakur. In cities like Cizre, Diyarbakir and
Silvan the systematic dismantling of projects commemorating those murdered, tortured and
displaced in the Kurdish freedom struggle over the past forty years illustrates not simply
the contempt of the current state towards its minority citizens, but how thoroughly its
vacated any future possibility of peace negotiations over the so-called ‘Kurdish question'.
The Turkish military's bombing campaign in the summer of 2015 killed thousands and leveled
dozens of districts across Bakur. To this day, cities remain in rubble with Turkish
military and police forces refusing to allow family members to return to their homes to
claim belongings, and a virtual blackout of the press covering any aspect of the ongoing
hardships communities face in attempting to remain and rebuild.
Instead, the Turkish government has shamelessly seized upon the destroyed districts to
force through neoliberal development ventures that will directly benefit Ankara. These
projects, alongside the capture of the municipalities, are all part of AKP's larger aim of
codifying its neoliberal and Islamist values and consolidating its power. Interweaving
projects and resources with local politicians and companies close to the AKP will generate
an incumbency that is perhaps less discernible but more hegemonic.
Across Kurdistan today, the Turkish state openly appears as an occupying power. Veneers of
democracy or pluralism, though they have in reality never adequately characterised
Ankara's relationship with the Kurds, crumble. The west's principle alibi for continuing
its blood-soaked ‘special relationship' with ‘moderate Turkey' isn't on principle at all,
it remains only for the purpose of averting the gaze of the world from the political
catastrophe of its policy-less policy on migration. The callous short-sightedness of the
west and its refusal to act now to prevent the possible integrants of a third world war
jeopardises the safety of not only the Kurds, but people the world over.
The Kurdish freedom movement, though wounded, remains undeterred and unbowed. Even where
the state has, for now, been able to appropriate all power on a local level and act with
impunity, it has unequivocally lost all legitimacy. Its browbeating of the population who
fear open protest on the streets, only signifies that the AKP is but a paper tiger that
will soon fall.
Related Link: https://www.opendemocracy.net/arab-awakening/ercan-aybo...cracy
Selahattin Demirtas, painting by Janet Biehl
http://www.anarkismo.net/article/29936
------------------------------
Message: 2
When Obama received the Nobel Prize in 2009, the committee acknowledged his commitment to
peace. He has since bombed eight countries. ---- Gigantic hopes were pinned on Barack
Obama when he moved into the White House in 2009. Not just in the US, but across the globe
people were simply fed up with eight unspeakable years of George W. Bush - with his
nepotism, his belligerence and, yes, his sheer stupidity. The world was sick and tired of
the "Cowboy from Texas." ---- And then there came this highly intelligent, charismatic,
eloquent - black - civil rights attorney from Illinois and everything was set to change.
"Yes We Can" infected the whole world. "Hope and Change" were almost physically tangible
to many. Yet Barack Obama has bitterly disappointed the world.
DIALOGUE AND NEGOTIATIONS
In 2009, Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize - not for any concrete action but rather for
his effusive optimism and, eventually, for his Yes We Can campaign. The Nobel committee
acknowledged Obama's commitment to peace and admired his diplomacy-focused aspirations:
"Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most
difficult international conflicts."
Furthermore, the committee appreciated the fact that Mr. Obama had given people everywhere
"hope for a better future." The president himself felt "deeply humbled" and considered the
award a "call to action."
The outgoing president has since bombed eight countries, trumping his predecessor George
W. Bush by two.
Bush infamously held his pathetic Mission Accomplished speech on an aircraft carrier, only
a few weeks after the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. In October 2011, Obama finally declared
the end of the war in Iraq and withdrew US troops from the country. While we shouldn't
shed any tears over Saddam, pre-war Iraq was a reasonably stable country back in 2003. In
2011 it was left behind by Obama as a failed state, a country in total chaos, deeply
drowned in the bloodiest of violence. Today the country is a jihadist breeding ground par
excellence. It is no longer possible to deny that the rise of the so-called Islamic State
was a direct result of the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003.
And so Obama, in 2014, after an absence of 2.5 years in Iraq, set out to "ultimately
destroy" the jihadist legacy of his predecessor Bush - first with air strikes, then with a
few hundred special forces, and now with approximately 6,400 soldiers and private
mercenaries back on the ground.
Similarly, in Libya in 2011, the US and its NATO allies France and the UK misused UN
resolution 1973, which aimed to establish a no-fly zone, and turned it into a pretext for
an illegal war of aggression against Muammar Gaddafi. This led to the overthrow of the
dictator, who was sodomized and executed by a lynch mob in the streets of his hometown of
Sirte.
With his push for regime change Obama not only violated International Law, but US law as
well, since the mandate for his campaign in Libya had already been withdrawn by US
Congress in June 2011. Again, Libya was a reasonably stable country - until then the most
advanced in Africa - that was thrown into turmoil and a bloody civil war. The so-called
Islamic State used this chaos to their advantage as a way to build up its third biggest
troop contingent, after Iraq and Syria. Post-invasion Libya has degenerated into a
melting-pot of terrorists from across Africa and the Middle East.
As in Iraq, Obama once again used the terror threat generated after the orchestrated
overthrow of an unpopular dictator to establish a permanent US commitment: renewed arms
shipments, conventional air strikes, illegal drone killings, and, since May 2016, even US
troops on the ground.
In Yemen, Obama not only bombed the country on his own - both with conventional and with
drone attacks - but since March 2015 Washington has also actively supported a Saudi-led
coalition with intelligence, logistics and massive arms shipments in its illegal war of
aggression against the Houthi rebels. More recently it was revealed that there are US
troops on the ground in Yemen, and that for the first time the US not only attacked
al-Qaeda members but bombed facilities of the Houthi rebels as well.
The perfidious and shameless manner in which the Obama administration peddles falsehoods
about its military misadventures is exposed particularly when looking into its activities
in Syria. Since the beginning of the Syrian civil war in 2011, Obama has supported
different rebel groups in their fight against Bashar al-Assad. "Non-lethal aid" quickly
gave way to the supply of heavy military equipment. Among the groups favored by the US
there have been elements of he Free Syrian Army that later defected to ISIS or to
al-Qaeda, taking Obama's arms and money to their new masters.
Since September 2014, the US Air Force has been launching air strikes against ISIS troops
in Syria. Obama, however, has repeatedly uttered the mantra that there would be "no boots
on the ground in Syria." Yet when US ground forces were eventually deployed to Syria -
initially a few dozen, then hundreds - the government was so bold as to simply deny
Obama's previous promises: as the spokesman of the State Department put it, "there was
never this ‘no boots on the ground.' I don't know where this keeps coming from." Obama has
actually been publicly quoted saying precisely that on at least 16 occasions.
THE RULE OF LAW IS OVERRULED
But that's not all. Every Tuesday, known as "Terror Tuesday," a list of terror suspects
from around the world is submitted to President Obama by his intelligence advisors. As
former CIA and NSA Director Michael Hayden ostentatiously admits, quite often the entries
do not even have names, but are based solely on metadata, like which SIM card is calling
whom, when, and for how long.
Once a week, Obama signs this so-called "kill list" - leading to the extrajudicial
execution of foreign and even US citizens through the president's dramatically expanded
drone program. The bitter irony herein is self-evident: the studied constitutionalist
Obama is acting as prosecutor, judge and executioner at the same time, thus abandoning the
separation of powers - the cornerstone of a constitutional democracy.
Since the beginning of the US drone program in 2004, up to 8,000 people have been killed
by drone strikes. The vast majority of them were authorized by Obama himself, and a few by
his predecessor George W. Bush. Most victims were located in Pakistan (up to 4,000),
Afghanistan (up to 2,300), and in Yemen (up to 1,300), plus around 400 more in Somalia.
In full knowledge of the consequences, Obama authorized the execution of people who often
happened to be in their family circle or in public places when the drones struck. Time and
again, the US has bombed wedding parties, as well as, most cynically, a funeral ceremony
of drone victims. As an act of retaliation, the children of alleged terrorists are also
killed by drones. As former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs once so despicably
declared, "I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father."
The proportion of civilians killed in drone strikes is inevitably extremely high. In
Pakistan, for example, only 4 percent of casualties were confirmed al-Qaeda members.
Because of this blatant injustice, drone killing are widely regarded to be the main
recruiting tool for new terrorists. This is Obama's legacy: he has made the illegal drone
war the norm, and firmly entrenched it as an integral part of the "War on Terror."
THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS
So far, we have discussed seven of the eight countries attacked by Obama. The eighth
country is the Philippines. In 2012, a US drone killed 15 people in the country, thereby
further escalating the ongoing conflict between rebel groups and the government in Manila.
If we include cyber warfare in our list, we could even add Iran as a ninth country. In
fact, from the very outset of his presidency, Mr. Obama waged an "increasingly
sophisticated" cyberwar against the civil nuclear program of Iran, thus becoming the first
president in US history to use "cyberweapons to cripple another country's infrastructure,"
as The New York Times reported in 2012.
Seven of the eight countries physically bombed by Obama are predominantly Muslim. The
Philippines is the exception, but the 15 people killed there were all Muslims. Clearly
this track record sits very uncomfortably with Obama's carefully crafted image as a
reconciler of religions. Just in February he made his acclaimed speech at a mosque in
Baltimore.
Obama certainly did not initiate America's ongoing war on Muslim countries - he is merely
following a decades-old US tradition in that respect. But what Obama has done is to make
the so-called "clash of civilizations," which has long been a staple of foreign policy
hawks in right-wing Washington think tanks, socially acceptable to liberals, normalizing
it to an extent that would have been unimaginable under someone like George W. Bush. This,
too, is his legacy.
THE VISION OF A NUCLEAR-FREE WORLD
In his history-making speeches in front of the Siegessäule in Berlin in 2008 and in Prague
in 2009, Obama proclaimed his goal of a "world without nuclear weapons," an announcement
that was followed by frenetic applause: "Yes, we can!" In his policy plan, he extensively
addressed the issue of nuclear disarmament. To the Nobel Peace Prize committee, this point
was extremely important - the announcement of his award specifically invoked his "vision
of a world without nuclear weapons."
But while the number of nuclear warheads worldwide was dramatically reduced from its peak
of more than 70,000 in the 1980s to just over 15,000 today, with both Russia and the US in
possession of about 7,000 each, the lion's share of this disarmament took place
immediately at the end of the Cold War.
During his presidency, Obama has only minimally reduced the US nuclear stockpile. Even
George W. Bush kept his word and halved the US nuke arsenal. Added together, Bush Sr and
Bush Jr dismantled a total of 14,801 nuclear weapons, while Obama managed to dismantle no
more than 507.
"It's a funny thing," Hans M. Kristensen, the luminary of nuclear disarmament research,
says: "the administrations that talk the most about reducing nuclear weapons tend to
reduce the least." President Obama has decommissioned fewer warheads than "any
administration ever."
But it gets worse. When assuming office in 2008, Obama pledged that he would "not
authorize the development of new nuclear weapons." Then, in 2014, he announced the largest
single item in the US budget for the coming decades: a jaw-dropping $1 trillion to be
spent on a mammoth program to "modernize" the US nuclear arsenal. To put this in
perspective: this means the US will spend roughly $4 million on nukes every hour - for the
next 30 years.
The particular danger with this "modernization" of America's nuclear infrastructure, the
New York Times remarks, is that "the upgrades could allow a future president to rapidly
expand the nation's atomic forces." With the megalomaniacal and unpredictable Donald Trump
soon in the Oval Office, this danger looms especially large.
Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, signed by 191 countries including the
United States, obliges the signatory countries to pursue "effective measures relating to
cessation of the nuclear arms race" and to "complete" nuclear disarmament. The milestone
UN Resolution 1540 of 2004 reaffirms again that all member states are to "fulfil their
obligations" to disarm all weapons of mass destruction. Obama's trillion-dollar nuclear
armament program blatantly violates both of these international treaties.
During the Cold War, there was a trend towards ever larger, more apocalyptic nuclear
bombs. Under Obama's administration that trend has been reversed with the development of
so-called mini-nukes - small atomic bombs capable of destroying strategic targets instead
of entire cities. One of the heads of Obama's modernization plan called mini-nukes the
"more ethical approach." The misanthropy underlying this statement is difficult to bear.
Reducing the size of nuclear warheads actually removes some of the deterrent in using
them. Due to their small size, US generals have fantasized that the use of nukes is "no
longer unthinkable." This, too, is Obama's legacy.
WAR HAS LOST ITS INDECENCY
There is no denying that Obama has made some positive achievements in his foreign and
security policies during his tenure. In some fields he has actually advanced the US and
the whole world. Here the nuclear deal with Iran comes to mind, which I have previously
called "one of the most important global diplomatic agreements of the young century."
Obama also pursued the normalization of diplomatic relations with Cuba and, after almost
90 years, he was the first US president to actually travel to the Caribbean country - a
historic milestone.
But at the same time, Obama has failed to close the concentration camp at Guantanamo; he
has presided over the intensification of military tensions with China in the Pacific
region; he holds a shameful record on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; and his management
of the Ukraine crisis has been disastrous, contributing - together with his intervention
in Syria - to the emergence of a frightening new Cold War scenario, involving the largest
build-up of US troops in Eastern Europe since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
All of this clearly goes to show how Obama blatantly squandered the opportunity to pursue
peace, and instead has handed down the very opposite: a world of escalating conflicts and
tensions. Obama may have started out with good intentions, but as John Pilger so
strikingly put it, "his most consistent theme was never change - it was power."
In a classified CIA analysis published by WikiLeaks in 2010, the Agency bemoaned the
waning support for war among the population of America's European allies. After eight
miserable years under Bush, the Global War on Terror desperately needed paint job. Obama
arrived as a godsend. With the Nobel Peace Prize laureate as commander-in-chief, America's
perpetual state of war lost its indecency. It was even raised up a notch under the
illusion of progressiveness and wrapped in an aura of necessity.
This is Obama's belligerent legacy.
Related Link: https://roarmag.org/essays/obama-legacy-war-conflict-peace/
http://www.anarkismo.net/article/29916
------------------------------
Message: 3
The Belgian libertarian movement suffers from a lack of transmission of the militant
tradition. After the first phase last month, following the long section of the collective
Alternative Libertaire Brussels. ---- In addition to suffering from a hostile political
environment, Belgian anarchists are confronted with a memory vacuum. Each generation must
more or less start from scratch without benefiting from the advice and legacy of the
previous generation. While this may have advantages, such as renewing doctrine and
adapting it to present times, it mostly gives the impression to militants that anarchism
suddenly springs up before it disappears, In us a volatile character and unsuitable to be
a stable revolutionary posture. ---- We can go back a long way to understand this. Belgian
anarchists were very present in the labor movement at the end of the nineteenth century
and at the beginning of the twentieth century. As in France, they organized themselves in
particular around newspapers and then within the trade union movement - during the
execution of Francisco Ferrer in 1909, for example, the houses of the people of the
Hennuyer basin were covered with black flags. Some experiences of alternative communities
have even been attempted near Brussels, mixing self-management, economic solidarity,
vegetarianism or even nudism. But already at the time, Belgium was very dependent on its
great neighbor to the south and even the rest of Europe. Land of exile, it welcomed many
foreign anarchists who came to take refuge, especially in Brussels, following the adoption
of scoundrel laws or the various revolutionary actions carried out in Spain or Italy.
The anarchists Berthe Faber, Francisco Ascaso, Emilienne Morin, Buenaventura Durruti in
the ponds of Ixelles
Personalities such as Elisée Reclus or Buenaventura Durruti have had a lasting influence
on Belgian anarchism; In the same way as hundreds of strangers whose names have not been
preserved but who have followed the same path and broke the bread with their comrades from
beyond Quiévrain. At the crossroads of the European revolutionary circles, Brussels
paradoxically knew few striking figures, in the sense that they perpetuated themselves in
the Belgian imagination and memory; We can quote Ernestan or Émile Chapelier. This
"absence" can also be explained by the difficult transmission of the revolutionary memory
of which we are suffering today - Belgian anarchists would find it difficult to name the
names of some of their ancestors.
Ernest Tanrez, "said Ernestan. Theorist of libertarian socialism and an important figure
of Belgian anarchism.
As in many other European countries, the First World War permanently weakened the
movement, making many anarchists disappear into the trenches and prisons. Although the
Belgian government has always repressed the revolutionary movements, the war has provided
it with radical means to weaken its "enemies from within" - a situation we still know
today with a state of emergency. The next generation, that of the interwar period, was
bled by the Second World War and, for obvious reasons, by the German occupation. It is
above all from that moment on that a cycle of flood and recession takes place. Even 1968,
which also strikes Belgium, will not allow a lasting re-establishment of an anarchist
movement whose last representatives of the golden age died in the early 1970s, without
really meeting and passing on the torch to the new and new Libertarians.
Bridging the Past
Today, anarchists are mostly young or have come to anarchism late. The oldest, notably the
sixty-eight, have shut themselves up in "festive" versions of the rebellion or have
completely abandoned the revolutionary ideal. We can not count on the transmission of a
memory of the struggles, the strategic and theoretical experiences that have been carried
out before us. This memorable nothingness is moreover not the prerogative of anarchists,
the popular memory, if it exists, lack of channels to be diffused and to remain alive
through its reincarnation in the present.
Libertarian Day, Brussels, 24 March 1984
This is precisely the question of how it is transmitted: the world of Belgian publishing
is moribund, but even if it was as alive as in France, the book does not seem to be the
best way to transmit memory . We are very far behind on computer mediums, such as videos
or mini-documentaries, which are very effective in reaching new generations of activists.
The role of a group like that of Alternative Libertaire Brussels is not only to rebuild a
public space of Francophone Belgian anarchism but also to pick up the thread of memory.
Its perpetuity will ensure, for the future libertarians, anchorage in the course of the
history contestant in Belgium, an impression to participate in a momentum that transcends
the years. By also trying to exhume the history of the Belgian anarchist tradition, we can
lay bridges to the past and inspire our predecessors. We hope that, in the future,
anarchism is not only a political solution that emerges every ten or fifteen years, but
rather a revolutionary project of transformation of society, permanently present, with a
knowledge of its past and a perspective For its future.
Thibault (AL Brussels)
http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?Belgique-Le-mouvement-libertaire
------------------------------
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten