Anarchic update news all over the world - Part 1 - 24.6.2017

Today's Topics:

   
1.  black rose fed: THE "LEFT-WING TERRORISM" NARRATIVE DOESN'T
      UNDERSTAND VIOLENCE (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
  
 2.  New Brigade, Critical debate with the anarchists of the
      armed struggle in Rojava - Part 3 (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
3.  France, Alternative Libertaire AL #273 - Middle East:
      Another Future for Kurdistan? (fr, it, pt) [machine translation]
      (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
4.  Brazil, 3rd General Anarchist Forum (FGA) (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
5.  Message of Solidarity to Annual Meeting of the Brazilian
      Anarchist Coordination (CAB) from ZACF (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
6.  anarkismo.net: Book Review: Raymond B. Craib, The Cry of the
      Renegade. Politics and Poetry in Interwar Chile by José Antonio
      Gutiérrez D. (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)


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

Message: 1



The Alexandria, Virginia Shooting and the Hollow "Left-Wing Terrorism" Narrative By Tariq 
Khan ---- The shooting at a Republican congressional baseball practice in Alexandria, 
Virginia last Wednesday has been followed by a predictable flurry of disingenuous and 
opportunistic narratives from politicians, corporate media outlets, and the right-wing 
about the rise of "left-wing terrorism" in the current political landscape. This is not 
only false but in fact works to obscure the larger reality of violence in America and the 
world while also demonizing the left and making invisible the much greater violence of the 
right-wing and especially of the state. ---- The narrative of the "rise in left-wing 
terrorism" revolves around the fact that the shooter worked as a volunteer for Bernie 
Sanders' presidential campaign during the Democratic primaries.

Both politicians and corporate media have become fixated on the supposed trend with for 
instance Newt Gingrich blaming the shooting on a pattern of "hostility" by the left - 
what's telling though is that the focus on "left-wing violence" ignores the far larger and 
pattern of the far-right.

The Pervasive Violence of the Far-Right
According to an expert on political extremism interviewed by NPR, for murders that can be 
categorized as committed by domestic political extremists over the past ten years, an 
overwhelming 74% were committed by right-wing extremists, while only 2% were committed by 
left-wing extremists.

Since Trump's election we've seen several attacks against mosques, Sikh temples, and 
Jewish cemeteries. On the night of Trump's inauguration a supporter of "alt-right" fascist 
Milo Yiannopoulos shot a member of the Industrial Workers of the World in the stomach 
during a protest of his talk at the University of Washington in Seattle. Last month a 
young white man who was a member of the fascist Facebook group "Alt-Reich: Nation" 
murdered black University of Maryland student Richard Collins III by stabbing. Only a few 
weeks ago a white supremacist man in Portland who participated in a far-right "free 
speech" rally stabbed two people to death and injured others who intervened to stop him 
from his loud anti-Muslim harassment of two black girls on the train. These are only a few 
of literally hundreds of recent violent assaults and murders committed by right-wing 
extremists.

This kind of violence is proliferating within the context of "alt-right" fascist 
organizations publicly mobilizing "free speech" rallies and expanding onto university 
campuses as they are emboldened by Trump and his gang of white supremacist bullies taking 
office. However, it is important to keep in mind that while we are seeing an insurgency of 
white supremacist vigilante violence, this has always been a feature of the American 
political landscape and is much older than the Trump administration.

Vilification and Violence

So why are politicians and media pundits making such a big deal of so-called "left-wing 
terrorism"? Historically, the vilification of the left as a violent threat is accompanied 
by increased state repression and vigilante violence against leftists during moments when 
state and capitalist hegemony is weakening. In other words, people are increasingly losing 
faith in the state and capitalist institutions and looking to leftist alternatives such as 
socialism and anarchism. Vilification and repression is how state and capitalist 
institutions attempt to maintain their domination.

On the rare occasions when there are political acts of violence that are directed up the 
social hierarchy, such as the recent shooting in Alexandria, it is important to understand 
the underlying causes. Some view this case within a context of mass shootings while others 
view it as political violence. Other have importantly pointed out connections between mass 
shooting and toxic masculinity: that mass shooters are overwhelmingly men or boys, and 
that they often have a history of misogynist or cis-hetero-patriarchal violence. The 
Alexandria shooter fits this description, a man with a history of misogynist abuse.

There also seems to be political motivation, which is what most mainstream media stories 
have focused on: the shooter's support for Sanders and disdain for Republican policies. 
Many people are being harmed by policies that increase economic inequality and decrease 
working and sub-working class people's access to resources. With the level of economic, 
political, and racial injustice the state perpetuates, frankly it is a wonder that violent 
attacks against congressmen are so rare. Political violence directed up the social 
hierarchy is an inevitable byproduct of the daily injustice the state sends down the 
social hierarchy. It seems that people who are serious about preventing these kinds of 
tragic and suicidal acts should be thinking about two things: 1) How we, as a society, 
socialize men and boys, and how we might challenge cis-hetero-patriarchal social 
conditioning, and 2) How we might organize society so that people are not so isolated, 
hopeless, and desperate that they have to resort to suicidal violence to be heard. To 
condemn a shooter but not work to overthrow the conditions that produce them is not only 
futile but hypocritical.

The Greater Violence of the State

Another key aspect in this discussion of violence is the near complete blindness to the 
pervasive violence of the state. Upon hearing of the shooting US Senator Bernie Sanders 
quickly condemned the act in statement saying, "I am sickened by this despicable act. Let 
me be as clear as I can be - violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society, and I 
condemn this action in the strongest possible terms. Real change can only come about 
through nonviolent action, and anything else runs counter to our most deeply held American 
values."

But the notion that violence runs counter to "American values" is utter nonsense and 
should be taken to task. The United States was founded on and expanded through the 
violence of colonial expansionism ("manifest destiny") and it's role in the global 
economic and political order continues to be maintained through the violence of coups, 
military invasions and war. As Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin, an organizer with the 1960's civil 
rights group Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), famously said, violence "is 
as American as cherry pie." It should also be pointed out though that Sanders fits well 
within the mainstream of the US political establishment in his continued support of 
Israel's violent oppression of Palestinians, support for Obama's extrajudicial drone 
assassination  program, support for multiple US military interventions, and his past 
support for expanding the racialized prison system.

The violence of the state, which is exponentially greater than the violence of any 
lone-wolf shooter, is obscured only through the heaviest of blinders. One can support 
violent settler colonization, imperialism, and state repression and still, without a hint 
of irony, say "violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society." This is possible 
because the term "violence" as it is used in the wider U.S. political discourse skips over 
the violence of the powerful and only refers to violence that is directed up the social 
hierarchy. The far greater violence that constantly waged downward on the social hierarchy 
escapes scrutiny or even mention. We can see this at work when the man who shot 
Congressman Steve Scalise is instantly labeled a "violent extremist," while Scalise 
himself is just a good hometown American who loves baseball. Scalise's past ties to 
Klansmen and neo-Nazis are not enough for him to be considered a violent extremist. His 
work to take away poor people's access to abortion and contraception, to make decent 
healthcare inaccessible to working-class people, to take away the already meager 
protections for LGBTQ people  against discrimination, and to make it easier for 
corporations to profit from environmental destruction some how escapes the "political 
violence" label.

Looking for Alternatives

Understanding why people commit such acts is not the same thing as condoning or 
encouraging them. Suicidal acts of individual violence, disconnected from and 
unaccountable to larger social movements are no kind of strategy for radical social 
change. The violence of the state and capitalist society are social relationships and ways 
of organizing society for the benefit of a few and the only way to change this are mass 
social movements from below.

This is not an argument for pacifism though. For example, most anarchists are proponents 
of community self-defense and collectively confronting and shutting down fascist 
movements. Many anarchists point to examples of emancipatory mass movements in places such 
as Chiapas and Rojava, where people took up arms in defense of their communities. 
Oppressed communities have a right to liberation by any means necessary but these examples 
have nothing to do with suicidal lone-wolf shooting. The point is not to think 
strategically in terms of violence versus nonviolence, but rather in terms of what is 
empowering to people and movements that we care about. The shooting in Alexandria was 
tragic but ultimately an act of desperation and acts like this are no strategy for 
liberation. Rather, it requires the steady and often frustrating but rewarding work of 
collectively organizing horizontal, anti-authoritarian, anti-capitalist mass people's 
movements.

Tariq Khan is a member of Black Rose Anarchist Federation/Federación Anarquista Rosa Negra.

If you are looking for more information on the ideas of anarchism we recommend the 
introductory article Who Are the Anarchists and What is Anarchism or this podcast episode 
on Revolutionary Left Radio.

http://blackrosefed.org/left-wing-terrorism-alexandria/

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

Message: 2



(Third continuation interview with anarchist guerrilla group IRPGF) ---- Given that the 
alliance between Kurdish and US forces probably will not last indefinitely and allow for 
radical projects in Rojava what anarchists can take a position in this fight? You can 
maintain autonomy with respect to decisions made by others in Rojava who are involved in 
this alliance? ---- Considering that the alliance between Kurdish and US forces is not 
likely to last indefinitely or to create space for radical projects to grow in Rojava, how 
can anarchists position themselves in this struggle? Can you maintain autonomy from 
decisions made by others in Rojava who are involved in this alliance? ---- The word 
"alliance" here is very misleading, indeed it is a strong and implicit word. The US and 
its coalition allies, for totally unrelated political and economic reasons, have made a 
project of eliminating an armed group (Daesh) from which the Revolution must defend itself 
and which YPJ/G would also like to eradicate. YPJ/YPG are on the same battleground as US 
forces. Since they share the same enemy, and since the inherent political, ideological, 
and economic antagonism between the two is, by a certain priority of interests, delayed 
from igniting, military cooperation is not surprising. There is no political alliance 
between the US and the revolutionaries of Rojava.

Indeed, we believe that the cooperation between revolutionary forces and US forces is not 
likely to last. Of course there exist forces here in Rojava that would seek a nation-state 
or have used nationalist sentiments to stir up support. Right next door is the US 
supported Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) under the leadership of Masoud Barzani, who 
is yet another US puppet in the region. The KRG has a virtual embargo on Rojava. Barzani 
and the KDP are seen by many as traitors for allying themselves with Turkey at the expense 
of the Kurds and the Ezidis of Shengal. Additionally, the KRG seeks to "stir things up," 
both politically with groups like the Kurdish National Council (ENKS) and KDP within 
Rojava as well as militarily with the Rojava Peshmerga. The enemies of this revolution are 
countless.

It is often noted that some anarchist thinkers like Murray Bookchin contributed to this 
social revolution in the first place, which led Abdullah Öcalan to move away from 
Marxism-Leninism and create his theory of "Democratic Confederalism." Regardless of how 
accurate that is, ultimately anarchists both in the armed struggle and in civil society 
can make an impact on this revolution. Through dialogue and joint projects, we can work 
with local communities and develop relationships that can further entrench the gains of 
the revolution while pushing it forward. The more influence anarchists and anarchist 
philosophy have in dialogue with the people and structures in Rojava, the more we can 
build something new together and focus on transformation not only in Rojava but around the 
world. That is the importance of connecting the struggles as we have done so far regarding 
Belarus, Greece, and Brazil. The struggle in Rojava is the struggle in every oppressed 
neighborhood and community. It is the struggle for a liberated life and that is where 
anarchists can have their biggest impact.

As anarchists, we are uncompromisingly against all states and authority. That is 
non-negotiable. While we fully acknowledge the role of the various parties in struggling 
and fighting to liberate territory both in Rojava and in the broader mountainous regions 
of Kurdistan, we believe that critical solidarity allows us to work, fight, and possibly 
die alongside the parties while having the autonomy to remain critical of their 
ideologies, structures, feudal mentalities, and numerous policies. We can maintain 
autonomy in the sense that we can disagree with the positions or choose not to fight 
should the alliances the revolutionary forces make be beyond survival and pragmatic 
geostrategic necessity. In the final analysis, should the revolutionary forces make formal 
alliances with state powers and Rojava be turned into a new state, even if that state is 
social democratic, the IRPGF would leave and move our base of operations elsewhere to 
continue the revolutionary struggle. Anarchist projects within civil society would still 
be able to operate and function so long as they were allowed to do so, and they should, 
but, it is most likely that anarchist as well as communist guerrilla groups would no 
longer be allowed to operate in Rojava.

Have you experienced a tension between engaging in armed struggle and developing social 
projects in Rojava? In what ways do they feed into each other and reinforce each other? In 
what ways are they in contradiction?

Our group is only in the beginning stages of developing social projects in Rojava. It is 
difficult for a unit to organize and maintain social projects while engaged, at the same 
time, in armed struggle if it lacks the resources in terms of personnel and 
infrastructure. This requires more people to be here; we must reach the critical mass 
necessary to develop a successful project. Some of our comrades have worked in civil 
society before and are actively working on creating new initiatives that are both 
sustainable and achievable. This will allow us to achieve our respective commitments to 
the armed struggle and the social revolution.

Has the war effort in the Rojava community subjected other structures to its imperatives? 
Are there spaces or spheres of life in which control is centered in the hands of 
militarized groups, contributing to de facto hierarchical relations? How do we prevent 
military priorities from determining who has power in a community at war?

Certainly the war in Rojava and the broader Syrian and Iraqi Civil Wars have drastically 
changed the relationship between civil society and military forces. What is currently 
going on in Rojava can be aptly described and characterized, as some hevals[comrades]have 
put it, as "war communism." The current situation in Rojava has subjected much of the 
economy and civil society to the war effort. However, this is not surprising. Rojava is 
surrounded by enemies who seek to destroy the nascent revolutionary experiment. Daesh is a 
highly lethal and efficient para-state actor with tremendous resources, both financial and 
military, as well as a fighting force numbering in the tens of thousands. As such, it is 
one of the most brutal and capable threats against Rojava itself. Had it not been for the 
massive war effort on the part of large segments of the society, most notably the 
resistance of Kobanê and its subsequent victory which was a pivotal turning point, Daesh 
would have been victorious and continued its rapid expansion.

While the war has turned and Daesh is now on the run both in Iraq and Syria, Turkey 
entered the war seeking to stifle YPJ/G efforts to secure contiguity between the Kobanê 
and Afrîn cantons. One must be cognizant of the fact that almost daily, Turkish forces on 
the borders of Rojava bombard targets within its territory, killing scores of civilians 
and military forces. Likewise, to the east in Iraq, the Kurdistan Regional Government 
(Bashur) under the leadership of Masoud Barzani and the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) 
continue to impose a virtual blockade and embargo on Rojava in addition to attacking 
People's Defense Force (HPG) and The Sinjar Resistance Units (YBS) positions in Shengal 
using the Peshmerga. Additionally, Barzani and the KDP collude with Erdogan, the fascist 
Justice and Development Party - Nationalist Movement Party (AKP-MHP) government and the 
Turkish state, sharing intelligence, resources, and conducting joint military operations.

Without a doubt, war leads to de facto hierarchical relationships and seriously hinders 
horizontal relations and community power. In fact, multiple layers of hierarchical 
relationships exist. There are hierarchies within the party structures which permeate 
social structures and extend into the broader civil society. Those tend to be, for 
example, whether someone is a cadre or not, how long they have been in the movement for, 
their ideological formation and knowledge, their influence and contacts in addition to 
their combat experience. This can be perceived as a system of rank, privilege, and 
advancement. It does in fact exist, but it is something that operates in tension with a 
party which is self-critical of this and an ideology that seeks to transcend these 
relations in the midst of a real existing social revolution. While the cadre members of 
the militarized groups do in fact have a de facto social position which would be above 
other people in society, they ultimately answer to the people through the commune 
structure and the larger framework of the Northern Syrian Federation. Ultimately, these 
hierarchical relations exist as a military necessity in the midst of one of the most 
brutal wars. As anarchists, we see them and understand why they are necessary while being 
critical of their existence and seeking to challenge these relations of centralized 
authority and control. It is positive that these relations can be criticized using the 
tekmil process (a directly democratic assembly for critiquing a commander or others in a 
unit), a serious, vital practice of criticism-self-criticism and self-discipline which has 
its roots in Maoism.

Hierarchical relations of power, while sometimes necessitated by military realities and 
priorities in the context of combat, must exist as something which we want and desire from 
one another in order to act effectively. When there is time for deliberation, we can 
discuss, criticize, and make collective decisions. In combat, one expects immediate 
guidance, instruction, protection, certainty, and accountability from comrades more 
experienced and knowledgeable, because there are many decisions and tasks affecting the 
group that one cannot deal with and should not be burdened with. This applies to training 
and secure recruiting as well. But these relations can ultimately have the potential to 
harm the autonomous, horizontal, and self-organized nature of communities if they are not 
understood and practiced in accordance with other ideological principles. How can we, as 
anarchists and members of the IRPGF, prevent kyriarchal relations in this context-that is, 
in these overlapping contexts? The complexity of this question additionally reveals an 
inherent problem with how the question is framed. That is to say, that somehow the 
military priorities or defense of a community are separated from the community itself; 
imposed from without by some non-community actor. While it is true that military 
priorities are imposed on some communities, for example, evacuating villages that are on 
the front lines, in danger of attacks and using people's homes for temporary military 
outposts, the fact is that in Rojava, local communities, neighborhoods, and 
ethno-religious communities are responsible for their own defense.

This is not something new. In fact, it goes back to the Qamishlo riots of 2004 (an 
uprising of Syrian Kurds in the northeast) that led to the creation of community defense 
initiatives and the precursor to the YPG. To protect against the larger defense structure, 
the YPG, should it seek to impose its will in a military style coup and take power away 
from the communities, communities have their own defense forces, the HPC (Hêzên Parastina 
Cewherî). While the YPG represents the people's guerrilla army of Rojava, there are 
smaller forces-for example, the Syriac Military Council which is comprised of Syriac 
Christians and works to protect that community. Defense itself is decentralized and 
confederalized while at the same time retaining the ability to deploy rapidly, to call on 
troops and even conscription, which does occur in Rojava.

We believe and affirm that communities at war must be responsible for their own defense. 
Yet, with large state, para-state, and non-state actors attacking these communities in an 
effort to wipe them out, there is a necessity for even larger military forces. This may 
necessitate certain processes that, in a time of war, curtail the autonomy of a community. 
This reality is one that we are forced to live with. Ultimately, there is a dichotomy and 
tension between communities at war and the military forces which confront enemies 
sometimes many times their size. We are tasked with ensuring, as much as possible, that 
communities retain their autonomy and decision-making processes while simultaneously 
protecting them and ensuring their survival. Communities are ultimately responsible for 
their defense; when the need arises, all the unique and diverse communities can come 
together to form a larger military force for their collective protection. This means that 
each community constitutes a fundamental component part of the much larger force whose 
task is the protection of all the communities. This tension, between the community and 
military, is but another aspect of the philosophical tension between the particular and 
the universal. Our task is to ensure that this imbalance is minimized as much as possible 
so that communities can remain autonomous and ultimately have the final say as to their 
priorities and defense.

What is it that distinguishes anarchist armed struggle formations and strategies from 
other examples of armed struggle? If you oppose "‘standing armies' or ossified 
revolutionary groups" but grant that armed struggle may be necessary until it is 
impossible to force hierarchical institutions onto anyone, what is the methodological 
difference that can keep long-term anarchist guerrilla forces from functioning in the same 
way that a standing army or ossified revolutionary group does, concentrating social power?

A question often asked of us is how we are different from other armed left-wing groups? 
What are our distinguishing characteristics? As an anarchist armed struggle formation, 
along with other anarchist groups around the world, we strive for liberated communities 
and individuals based on fundamental principles within anarchism. We are not dogmatic nor 
orthodox in our understanding of anarchism, but perpetual iconoclasts and innovators. 
Anarchism is an ever changing and growing ideology that cannot be separated from life 
itself. While other non-anarchist left-wing groups may want some version of socialism 
and/or communism, we are ultimately distinguished from these armed struggle formations by 
our understanding of authority, both within the group and beyond. We have no leader. There 
are no cults of personality and no portraits of ourselves hanging on the wall. We take 
inspiration from the Zapatistas who cover their faces and focus more on the collective 
than on individuals, for we, as a collective of individuals, represent many unique 
identities and social positions. We make decisions by consensus, and when we are on the 
battlefield we agree on one or more comrades who will be responsible for the operation. 
There is no permanent command structure within the IRPGF. There are rotating positions of 
responsibility and assignments, the logic being not to reproduce military ranks or 
technocratic class structures.

Anarchist armed struggle formations are not new. For example, there are anarchist groups 
around the world including the Conspiracy of Cells of Fire, FAI-IRF (Informal Anarchist 
Federation - International Revolutionary Front), and Revolutionary Struggle. We do not 
necessarily agree with all the positions of these groups or their members. For us, we do 
not seek to be elitist or to be mountain guerrillas who leave the world to focus on 
people's war in the countryside, though that is an important aspect of the struggle. We 
seek to bring the mountains to the cities and vice versa. It is important to connect all 
the struggles around the world, for they are interconnected by nature due to the various 
systems of oppression and domination which exist. We too "shit on all the revolutionary 
vanguards of the world" as Subcomandante Marcos once said. We do not see ourselves as 
anarchist vanguards. We are anything but this.

The IRPGF feels it is necessary to be with the people and to understand the social 
character of the revolutionary process. There is no revolution without all of the 
communities, neighborhoods, and villages participating. We do not seek to glorify the arms 
and weapons we possess, though we do see them as a vehicle towards our collective 
liberation. Yet liberation is not possible if the social revolution is not present. 
Therefore, we are not another urban guerrilla group that seeks only to destroy without 
building anything social and communal. Of course, having arms and engaging in armed 
struggle carries with it a tremendous responsibility and great danger, not only for 
ourselves but for the power we possess. We agree with the guerrillas who often repeat the 
Maoist principle of not even taking pins from the people. We are revolutionaries guided by 
principles, not a marauding gang of mercenaries. This is the foundation by which we, as 
the IRPGF, seek to develop a collective ethic and understanding of armed struggle.

Knowing full well that armed struggle may be necessary for many years and decades to come, 
and realizing that as the years progress, structures become more entrenched and rigid, we 
are concerned about the creation of certain group dynamics that could lead to various 
hierarchies and a concentration of social power wherever we are based. In order to 
minimize this risk, we feel that it is necessary to not only be professional full-time 
revolutionaries but equally members of a living community. That means that we must be 
involved with local struggles and projects within civil society. Whereas a standing army 
or an ossified revolutionary group see their position as either professional work or 
lifelong dedication to struggle, they both maintain their distance and remoteness from 
communities and everyday life.

Anarchist guerrilla groups must remain horizontal entities and resist the temptation or 
structural necessity to centralize and concentrate social power. Should they fail to do 
this, they would no longer be liberating nor anarchist, in our perspective. As the IRPGF, 
understanding this danger, we feel that developing projects and developing relationships 
within civil society is the main way to withstand the creation of social hierarchies. It 
is a process that will be fraught with contradictions and errors. Yet it is through these 
contradictions and shortcomings coupled with our criticism-self-criticism mechanisms and 
horizontal self-organized structure that will challenge the creation of an ossified 
revolutionary group that has centralized its own authority and concentrated social power.

As you say, the conflicts in Syria, Ukraine, and elsewhere are only the beginning of what 
will be a protracted and messy period of global crisis. But what do you consider the 
proper relationship between armed struggle and revolution? Should anarchists seek to 
commence armed struggle as soon as possible in the revolutionary process, or to delay it 
as long as we can? And how can anarchists hold our own on the terrain of armed struggle, 
when so much depends on getting arms-which usually means making deals with state or 
para-state actors?

First of all, there is no general formula for how much armed struggle is necessary to 
initiate and advance the revolutionary process, nor at which point it should commence, if 
at all. For the IRPGF, we recognize that each group, collective, community, and 
neighborhood must ultimately decide when they initiate armed struggle. Armed struggle is 
contextual to the specific location and situation. For example, whereas throwing a Molotov 
cocktail at police is fairly normalized in the Exarchia neighborhood in Athens, Greece, in 
the United States the person throwing it would be shot dead by the police. Each particular 
local context has a different threshold for what the state allows in terms of violence. 
However, this is not an excuse for inaction. We believe that armed struggle is necessary. 
Ultimately, people must be willing to sacrifice their social position, privilege, and 
lives if necessary. Yet we are not asking people to go on suicide/sacrifice missions. This 
struggle is not for martyrdom but for life. Should it require martyrs, like the struggle 
here in Rojava and Kurdistan, that will be part of the armed struggle and revolutionary 
process as it unfolds.

Armed struggle does not necessarily create the conditions for a revolution and some 
revolutions may occur with little to no armed struggle. Both armed struggle and 
revolutions can be spontaneous or planned years in advance. Yet, local or national 
revolutions, which in some cases have been peaceful, do not create the conditions for 
world revolution nor challenge the hegemony of the capitalist world-system. What remains 
our fundamental question here is-when should one commence armed struggle? To start, we 
think that one has to analyze their local situation and context. The creation of local 
community and neighborhood defense forces which are openly armed is a critical first step 
to ensuring autonomy and self-protection. This is a powerful symbolic act and one that 
will certainly attract the attention of the state and its repressive forces. Insurrection 
should happen everywhere and at all times, but it doesn't necessarily need to happen with 
rifles. Ultimately, armed struggle should always be done in relation to living communities 
and neighborhoods. This will prevent vanguard mentalities and hierarchical social 
positions from developing.

Revolutions are not dinner parties and, what's worse, we do not choose the dinner guests. 
How can we, as anarchists, remain principled in our political positions when we have to 
rely on state, para-state, and non-state actors to get arms and other resources? Firstly, 
there is no ideologically clean and pure revolution or armed struggle. Our weapons were 
made in former Communist countries and given to us by revolutionary political parties. The 
base we are staying in and the supplies and resources we receive come from the various 
parties operating here and ultimately from the people themselves. Clearly, we as 
anarchists have not liberated the kind of territory we would need to operate on our own. 
We must make deals. The question then becomes: how principled can our deals be?

We have relationships with revolutionary political parties that are communist, socialist, 
and Apoist. For us, we fight against the same enemy at this point and our combined 
resources and fighters can only further the struggle. Yet, we remain in critical alliance 
and solidarity with them. We disagree with their feudal mentalities, their dogmatic 
ideological positions, and their vision of seizing state power. We both know that should 
they one day seize state power, we will be enemies. Yet for the time being, we are not 
only allies but comrades in the struggle. This does not mean that we have sacrificed our 
principles. On the contrary, we have opened a dialogue on anarchism and criticized their 
ideological positions while affirming the principles and theoretical positions we share in 
common. This exchange has transformed us both and is part of what some of them refer to as 
the dialectical process: the necessity of both theory and practice to advance both the 
armed struggle and the social revolution.

For the IRPGF, making deals with other leftist revolutionary groups we can find common 
ground with is a reality we live with. Yet, we also must acknowledge that the larger 
guerrilla structure that we are a part of does make deals with state actors. While we once 
again reaffirm our position against all states, which is non-negotiable, our structure 
makes pragmatic deals with state actors to survive another day to fight. For the time 
being, all of our supplies and resources come from revolutionary parties that we are in 
alliance with, who also make concessions and deals with state and non-state actors. We 
recognize this as a contradiction but a harsh reality of our current conditions.

Anarchists must choose, depending on their particular context and situation, what kind of 
deals they can make and with whom. Should they need to be pragmatic and make deals with 
state, para-state, or non-state actors to acquire arms, to hold on to their terrain, or 
to, at the very least, survive, that will be addressed and critiqued when the time comes. 
Ultimately, collectives and communities will make decisions for how to advance in the 
revolutionary process and how to use the various state and non-state actors for their 
benefit, with the goal of eventually not needing them and destroying them all. In the 
final analysis, armed struggle is necessary for the revolutionary process and the various 
alliances we make we deem necessary to achieve this goal of a liberated world. We, as the 
IRPGF, believe and affirm the often-repeated phrase from Greece that the only lost 
struggles are the ones that weren't given.

Sooner or later, every revolution divides into its constituent parts and necessary 
conflicts ensue. These conflicts determine the ultimate outcome of the revolution. Has 
this already begun in Rojava? If it has, how have anarchists dealt with this? If it has 
not, how can you prepare comrades around the world for the situation we will be in when 
the internal conflicts in the revolution rise to the surface, and it is necessary to 
figure out what the different positions are? Some comrades outside Rojava have been unsure 
how to understand some of the reports from Rojava, because in our experience there are 
always internal conflicts, even in the strongest periods of social revolution, and people 
reporting on the experiment in Rojava have been hesitant to articulate what they are. We 
can understand why it would be necessary not to speak openly about such conflicts, but any 
perspective you can offer us will be very useful, even if it is abstract.

The simple answer is yes, these conflicts have begun in Rojava. Within such a large party 
and confederal structure, contradictions and different factions have emerged. There are 
those who seek to carry the revolution to the end and others who are ready to make 
compromises on certain aspects of the revolution in order to secure whatever has been 
achieved up until now. There are those who still dream of a Marxist-Leninist Kurdistan and 
others who are ready to open up to the West and ally themselves with the "forces of 
democracy." Within the armed struggle, there are some who want to unleash an all-out 
people's war while others claim that the time for armed struggle is nearing its end and 
that we should slowly cease hostilities. Within this chaotic political arena, with what is 
a seemingly endless array of acronyms, how do we as members of the IRPGF navigate these 
murky and often dangerous waters?

As anarchists, we navigate within these complexities and contradictions with the goal of 
trying to claim as much ground as possible for anarchism. We align ourselves with the 
sections of the revolution and the party that are closest to us. The alliances we forge 
are ones that are most facilitating and the least assimilating. We try to keep ourselves 
safe from assimilation both ideologically and as a group. Being in an autonomous space 
that supports our goals provides us with tremendous opportunities. There is free space 
that the party gives to groups such as ours for training, to develop projects and outright 
space for revolutionary experimentation. The more anarchists come here to Rojava to help 
us build anarchist structures, the more we will influence and make our goals a reality in 
society. For example, the youth, who are more critical of their feudal and traditional 
past, are at the forefront of tremendous social changes and advancements. We want to work 
with the youth to form educational cooperation and, as anarchists, to focus on anarchist 
theory and even address queer, gender, and sexuality (LGBTQ+) issues which are still very 
taboo in the majority of society.

There is a vast space to experiment and build the anarchist structures that will continue 
to revolutionize society and further liberate all individuals and communities. We believe 
that our work as anarchists, both in the armed struggle and in civil society here in 
Rojava, will be valuable to the entire anarchist community worldwide. We look forward to 
sharing our results, to everyone's continued solidarity, and to the anarchists who will 
join us out here.

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

Message: 3




The struggle of the Kurdish emancipation movement in the Middle East aroused the interest 
of revolutionaries in our latitudes, and the Black and Red editions demonstrate it again 
with this dense and supplied work - over 800 footnotes ! The book is divided into three 
main parts. ---- In the first, Pierre Bance explains the theory of libertarian 
municipalism as conceived by Murray Bookchin in the years 1970-1980. It also restores it 
to its rightful place in the international anarchist movement, which has globally rejected 
it. ---- In the second part, he describes the democratic confederalism theorized in the 
2000s by Abdullah Öcalan, the founder of the PKK. Pierre Bance emphasizes the clearly 
anti-authoritarian and anti-state positions. ---- In the third part, the translation of 
the theory into practice is carefully dissected. Relying on a mass of fierce research, 
this Doctor of Law has been able to accurately dissect the implications of the Rojava 
Charter, adopted in 2012 - very progressive in some respects - and criticizes some of its 
applications.

Kurdistan, the Kurdish left and self-management from Alternative libertarian on Vimeo .

Pierre Bance takes us into a world of often theoretical details, validating or not the 
libertarian aspect of this or that part of the doctrine. This reading grid "  libertarian 
" or "  not libertarian  " is sometimes a little withering, and not always relevant in 
view of the situation on the ground, characterized by a cruel war and a near total blockade.

But the main shortcoming of the book is undoubtedly the lack of field observation. Before 
the writing of his book, the author met almost no Kurdish activist or activist. He has 
never been to Kurdistan either, and it feels so. It would have been desirable to confront 
at least his texts with the vision of the first and the first concerned. But this bias is 
assumed by Pierre Bance, who seeks to keep a distance with his subject.

His political conclusions are positive about the experience of Rojava, he hopes, rightly, 
that this will influence our own revolutionary practice in France. Nevertheless, he calls 
for a "  critical support  " for the revolution in a somewhat ethereal way since, 
according to him, libertarian movements should be content to criticize from afar what is 
happening in Kurdistan, and in particular in Rojava, without even To leave the country 
alone, leaving it to the international powers alone to help the Kurds materially.

Despite these shortcomings, the book has the merit of relying on solid documentation, 
which helps to form an opinion on the movement of Kurdish emancipation and democratic 
confederalism. Above all, one must pay tribute to the first work of this magnitude in 
French - and as such, unavoidable - on a movement that has not finished shedding ink.

Raphael Lebrujah

Pierre Bance, Another Future for Kurdistan ? Liberal municipalities and democratic 
confederalism, Editions Noir et Rouge, February 2017, 400 pages, 20 euros.
"  Liberté Autogestion Revolution  " support t-shirt

In addition, a support t-shirt was edited by AL. It is on sale at 14 euros.

The proceeds will be donated to a self-managing project in Kurdistan.

http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?Moyen-Orient-Un-autre-futur-du-Kurdistan

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

Message: 4




Makhnovist banner in Esperanto at the 3rd General Anarchist Forum (FGA) that took place in 
Campinas, #Brasil (16-18 June 2017). The Forum was co-organized by IFA-Brasil and attended 
(beside many brasilian groups) by delegates of IFA member federations from Chile (FALV), 
Argentina (FLA), Mexico (FAM), Slovenia/Croatia (FAO), France (FA), Spain (FAI), UK (AFed) 
and Germany (FdA).

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

Message: 5





We of the Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front warmly congratulate you on yet another year 
of sterling work in spreading the ideas and practices of anarchism amongst the popular 
classes of Brazil. We have been following the struggles in Brazil with interest and also 
much respect. We salute the bravery of you, our comrade sisters and brothers - the working 
class and anarchists of Brazil - and look forward to a victorious outcome for you in these 
struggles. ---- 14 June 2017 ---- Dear Comrades of the CAB, ---- We of the Zabalaza 
Anarchist Communist Front warmly congratulate you on yet another year of sterling work in 
spreading the ideas and practices of anarchism amongst the popular classes of Brazil. We 
have been following the struggles in Brazil with interest and also much respect. We salute 
the bravery of you, our comrade sisters and brothers - the working class and anarchists of 
Brazil - and look forward to a victorious outcome for you in these struggles.

The ZACF continues to look to you for ideas and lessons. We share common bonds of 
struggle, ideology and history and see you comrades in the CAB as not only fellow 
anarchist travellers, but as teachers imparting knowledge gained through organising, 
educating and agitating for change.

You continue to inspire us! During times of hardship, for our organisation and our people 
here in southern Africa, we are held fast in our belief in the ideals and practices of 
anarchism. Much of this is due to your example. We ask of you, our comrades in the CAB, to 
continue to fight and build and to overcome whatever obstacles you face through trust in 
each other, through taking care of each other.

We hope you have a provocative, productive annual meeting and we look forward to you 
sharing your outcomes with us.

You are all invited to South Africa!

Always in solidarity! Forward Anarchism!
Forward to the Social Revolution!
Your comrades in struggle and in victory,
on behalf of the Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front (South Africa)
Warren McGregor, Regional Secretary

https://zabalaza.net/2017/06/17/message-of-solidarity-to-annual-meeting-of-the-brazilian-anarchist-coordination-cab/#more-5321

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

Message: 6




Craib narrates to us skilfully a story that certainly deserves to be told: a history of 
repression and resistance, of savagery and hope, built by a radical coalition of workers 
and students in the late part of the 1910s and 1920 in Santiago de Chile. Although this is 
a book about a particular time and place populated by people who make sense in this very 
specific context, it has much to teach radicals today facing similar challenges. ---- 
Raymond B. Craib, The Cry of the Renegade. Politics and Poetry in Interwar Chile (Oxford 
University Press, 2016) ---- "The Cry of the Renegade" is one of the latest contributions 
in critical academia to the rich history of anarchism in Latin America, a movement which, 
far from confined to history books, it is still very much alive. Although much of these 
studies -whereas on anarchism on radical labour- are centred on the transnational 
dimensions and interactions of these movements, Raymond B., Craib brings back the 
attention to their localised, contextualised and embedded nature.

In this sense, he follows the path of other great contextualised histories of local 
anarchist movements, with Bruce Nelson's "Beyond the Martyrs" for transnational anarchists 
in Chicago, Tom Goyens' "Beer and Revolution" for German anarchists in New York, and Chris 
Ealham "Anarchism and the City" for anarchists in Barcelona, among others. He narrates to 
us skilfully a story that certainly deserves to be told: a history of repression and 
resistance, of savagery and hope, built by a radical coalition of workers and students in 
the late part of the 1910s and 1920 in Santiago de Chile. Page after page, we are told the 
story of this movement through specific characters, articulated around specific places and 
their contexts. Casimiro Barrios is the character that allows us to understand how racism 
and deportations was used to counter radicalism. The Gandulfo brothers, Juan and Pedro, 
are used to gain an insight into the students' movement of the time and its complex but 
fruitful relations and interactions with the workers movement. José Domingo Gómez Rojas, 
helps us to explore questions around the radical cultural movement and the fate of the 
many victims of repression (the book starts and finishes with his funeral in late 1920). 
And José Astorquiza helps us to understand the logic of the ruling class behind the 
repression and the savagery of the State.

Santiago de Chile was a city where a much radicalised working class existed, drawing 
behind it other social sectors disaffected with the status quo. Latin America, although it 
didn't suffer directly from the calamities of the Great War (1914-1919), it suffered from 
the economic consequences of it, as most countries, which depended heavily on European 
markets, entered a period of recession in the aftermath of the conflagration. Chile, after 
the annexation of nitrate-rich territories belonging to both Bolivia and Peru in the War 
of the Pacific (1879-1883), experienced sustained growth for decades thanks to the nitrate 
bonanza. Although there was a boom in the demand of nitrate at the start of the Great War, 
after the synthetic version was invented, Chile entered into a steady economic decline 
which would dominate the country for the best part of two decades. In this context, 
signalled by a generalised lack of rights, and frightful misery coupled with hunger, 
unrest grew steadily. Organised workers had some decades of organisation in resistance 
societies and class oriented unions, leading to the creation of the Chilean branch of the 
Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) in 1919 -which would become the bête noire of the 
Chilean plutocrats. Together with a very defiant students' movement articulated around the 
Chilean Federation of Students (FECH), which reflected the discontent among the growing 
middle classes, they merged forces in order to challenge the conservative establishment.

This was a "capacious left", as described by Craib, which combined radicalised elements 
with those who favoured the more traditional and legalistic methods of struggle, all 
united in a utopian view of a world of free and equal beings. A capacious left which 
debated their ideas in clubs, radical cafes and union or students' halls, that voiced 
their views through a vigorous press and who joined forces in meetings, demonstrations and 
broad organisations to fight an unjust social order. This alliance of workers and 
students, in spite of its feet being firmly rooted in the streets of Santiago, followed 
global events with avid interest, particularly the Russian Revolution -an episode which 
sent shockwaves throughout the world. In Chile, this fateful event stimulated hope for the 
radicalised elements and instilled physical fear in the hearts of the aristocratic 
bourgeoisie. The response of the regime to this challenge was swift and brutal. This 
response was disguised in 1920 with growing militaristic jingoism and military 
mobilisation for an artificial conflict with Peru -the so-called "War of Don Ladislao", a 
reference to the then Minister of War. The repression wave saw the subservient media 
calling "subversives", as "Peruvian agents" in Chile. It is on the impact of this State 
savagery on the actual lives of people, the main topic Craib deals with in his book.

One of the reasons why this (hi)story deserves to be told, is because it speaks to 
contemporary concerns. In particular, this is a book about the toxic mixture of patriotism 
and militarism, xenophobia, the ugly spectre of the far-right, about repression and class 
violence. But this is also the (hi)story of the various ways in which people, more or less 
successfully -notwithstanding the dear human cost they were made to pay- resisted this 
onslaught, organised, fought, defended and expanded rights. Resistance was fruitful, indeed.

The repression of the State combined legal, paralegal and brazenly illegal methods. Laws, 
on the one hand, started to get increasingly repressive and the scientific method was put 
to use for increasing mechanisms of surveillance and control, in Chile and elsewhere. When 
these laws were deemed insufficient to control the "subversive" elements, the State didn't 
hesitate to resort to illegal detentions, arbitrary incarcerations and torture. Working 
class people were being kidnapped without warrant by detectives and by members of a 
notoriously corrupt police force, on non-existent crimes such as instigating strikes, or 
accused of being Peruvian spies. Political prisoners would be held for months without 
trial, in solitary confinement, without food for protracted periods of time, manacled in 
heavy shackles for weeks, subject to torture, dwelling in morbid conditions, denied fresh 
air and sun. In these conditions, the young poet, anarchist, Christian, wobbly (member of 
the Chilean branch of the IWW) and radical, José Domingo Gómez Rojas, lost sanity and then 
died in Santiago's psychiatric hospital on September 1920. This hideous crime caused a 
wave of outrage and protest which, eventually, meant the first crack into the conservative 
edifice of Chilean institutions. A new generation of Chilean radicals, which included 
Salvador Allende, the first Marxist to ever come to power through a democratic vote in 
1970, were inspired by many of the protagonists of this resistance.

However, the cost paid by the anarchist movement was frightfully high. The ruling elite 
called subversives and anarchists agents of chaos, but, as Craib notes, despite "the 
repeated efforts by many to criminalize oppositional voices and to caricature anarchists 
and others as the progenitors of violence, it was Chile's ruling class who chose force 
over law" (p.7). And they did so perfectly covered and protected by the forces of law and 
order, who organised lynch mob parties to raid workers' printing shops and the Fech hall. 
The instigators of this violence, as long as they were members of the golden elite, were 
always let go scot-free. In contrast, law students, such as Pedro Gandulfo, were banned 
from ever exercising their profession having their records being stained with the word 
"subversion". There is nothing new to the ruling class trampling over their own laws in 
order to force their way whenever they see fit. Anti-terror laws have been widely used 
over the last decades all over the world, from Colombia to Spain, and the USA of course. 
Chile, in this respect, has been no exception to the rule.

But class violence took also other sinister turns: as repression mounted against the 
"subversives", there was also a political campaign of ethnic cleansing going on in the 
north of Chile, a process which has been dismissed or simply not mentioned in official 
Chilean history. Labelled as a "Chileanisation" campaign, the Chilean state started 
stimulating mass migration of a distinctively Chilean population from the couth into the 
northern territories which had been conquered through force from Peru some decades 
earlier. This policy was coupled with unspeakable harassment and violence, both official 
and para-official, against the local and native population, who were mostly of Peruvian 
descent. In a couple of decades the Chilean state managed to completely change the ethnic 
composition of those territories, a stain in Chilean history which has rarely been 
confronted even by the left. The xenophobic and racist component of this campaign, which 
involved acts of ethnic cleansing, went hand in hand with its criminal nature, something 
even questioned by the US consul in the city of Iquique, who informed the ambassador that 
"the actual rounding up of those deported was in the hands of two men well known in 
Iquique for their criminal records (...) Ninety per cent of those deported are natives of 
the province (...) and are forced to go to Peru where they have neither homes nor 
interests" (p.147). Not unlike the Red Scare in the US around the same time, Chile had 
passed a residency law to be applied to "undesirable" foreign elements in the eyes of the 
ruling bloc -ie, agitators or worker organisers- to be expelled from the country. The wave 
of expulsions, from one country to the next, led to the first coordination between 
repressive apparatuses in the neighbouring States of Chile, Argentina, Peru and Bolivia.

  Decades later, this coordination for the specific purpose of torture, killings, 
disappearances and the wanton abuse of the most basic human rights, would be revived 
during the horrific years of the Plan Condor during the 1970s. Among others, Casimiro 
Barrios would be persecuted by Chile, Peru and Bolivia, being ultimately killed and 
disappeared in 1931. As we see, the dictatorships that plagued the Southern Cone those 
years were far from an anomaly, and had, indeed, clear precedents in the 1920s. In the 
face of the current wave of xenophobia and brazen racism affecting most of the so-called 
first-world, and how it interacts with general repressive trends, the detailed and 
compassionate review of events unfolding in Chile in the 1920s, gives us plenty of food 
for thought.

With mounting xenophobia and racism in Chile, coupled with witch-hunts and a most 
sophisticated repression on the one hand, and increasingly assertive students' and 
workers' movements, I'm glad to know that a Spanish translation has just been finished and 
that LOM editorial house is preparing its first Chilean edition. Certainly, progressive 
Chileans have much to learn from this reading. While some great history books have been 
written about this period and these characters (among them, the biography and works of 
Fabio Moraga and Carlos Vega published in 1995), this book is unique in bringing together 
these contextualised characters into a movement explored through the lens of current 
concerns. The battle for memory in Chile is still going on in full force; while many a 
great progress has been achieved in recovering from the State sanctioned amnesia memories 
of the Pinochet's regime savagery, the nasty repression of decades prior to the 1973 coup 
has largely lingered in a haze of oblivion.

Craib's narrative is both simple and elegant, at the same time. He avoids heavy specialist 
jargon and an unnecessarily complicated narrative style which are, unfortunately, common 
currency in the social sciences. Reading this book is nothing short of a joy. His style is 
engaging and it is indeed very difficult to put the book down while you start reading it. 
He brings together with great skill cultural commentary, with history, sociological 
insights, and anthropological concerns, blending it all into a narrative that flows 
steadily. Although this is a book about a particular time and place populated by people 
who make sense in this very specific context, it has much to teach radicals today facing 
similar challenges. As such, this is more than a history book and becomes a companion to 
people who are trying to change the world.

José Antonio Gutiérrez D.
26th May 2017

https://www.anarkismo.net/article/30348

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