Today's Topics:
1. Greece, Thoughts and reflections on the case of Ireanna and
Pericles By APO (gr) [machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
2. France, Alternative Libertaire AL September 2017 - Review:
Thinking of the struggle with "The Utopians" (fr, it, pt)
[machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
3. wsm.ie: Pro Life is a Lie - dismantling the anti-choice spin
By Nic S, Emmanuel (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
4. Britain, wessex solidarity: Call-out for Demonstration at
the Home Office tomorrow (Friday 29th Sept): Give us Our Files!
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
5. Indian Anarchist Federation: The Propaganda Model for India
~ SARTHAK (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
6. Melburn Anarchist Communist Group MACG: Statement on
Marriage Equality Survey by ablokeimet (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
More than two months have elapsed since the court rejected Herianna B.L.'s request for
suspension. In that period, but also in the pre-judgment case, there are several
conclusions that can be drawn from the whole case, the way in which the prosecution was
handled by political bodies and SMEs, but also the way in which the solidarity of the two
defendants was manifested. However, two main parameters must be clarified: firstly, the
prosecutions of both Hieran and Pericles are political and only as such must be dealt
with; secondly, although both persecutions are political, the persecuted subjects are not
political prisoners . They are not in prison because of their political identity or
action, but because of their social contacts.
1.
The case of the protection of personal data and the collection of data from repressive
mechanisms should not be considered as minor. The explicit or implicit presentation of
genetic material as an independent presumption of condemnation implies the demonstration
of its unreliability and the struggle against its establishment as such. The technique of
identifying DNA samples is a delicate multi-step process, each of which is subject to
inviolable standards and strict sterilization rules. Even though such a process resulted
in secure, unsure results, their interpretation is not entirely unique. DNA demonstrates
where it was not someone, not necessarily where it was. It is also true that, depending on
the political and social circumstances, counter-terrorism transfers and plant genetic
material to verify its inspirational scenarios that make guilty. Particularly in the case
of Heranna, which is characterized by the impossibility of reconsidering the sample and
thus of verifying the whole process, taking into account the acknowledged low quality of
the original samples, the vengeful-exemplary manipulation of the persecution mechanisms
clearly emerges. The struggle against the consolidation of DNA as a sufficient presumption
of guilt is imperative; especially when a multitude of people are currently being
persecuted with constructed elements or pending accusations of refusing to voluntarily
give DNA. which is characterized by the inability to review the sample and thus to verify
the whole process, considering the acknowledged low quality of the original samples
clearly reveals the vengeful-exemplary manipulation of the persecution mechanisms. The
struggle against the consolidation of DNA as a sufficient presumption of guilt is
imperative; especially when a multitude of people are currently being persecuted with
constructed elements or pending accusations of refusing to voluntarily give DNA. which is
characterized by the inability to review the sample and thus to verify the whole process,
considering the acknowledged low quality of the original samples clearly reveals the
vengeful-exemplary manipulation of the persecutory mechanisms. The struggle against the
consolidation of DNA as a sufficient presumption of guilt is imperative; especially when a
multitude of people are currently being persecuted with constructed elements or pending
accusations of refusing to voluntarily give DNA.
2.
It is undoubtedly the right of every accused to claim by all means his freedom and to
follow whatever defense line he considers most appropriate for himself. In this case,
however, it was rather unfortunate that the decision not to link to the solidarity
movement directly and promptly and the second defendant. Without forgetting that they are
not political prisoners, it is clear that if earlier and with a common defense line they
were connected with the wave of solidarity and the two defendants, things may have been
more positive. The political-social cost of any judicial decision is analogous to
intensity of solidarity. Intensity depending on how deeply the movement is willing to
strike to defend the recipients of this solidarity. In any case, the logic of "I am
innocent, so I have nothing to hide, so I give evidence "(1) turns out to be wrong.
Respectively, statements of invoking bourgeois legitimacy from the related (2)
neighborhood have the effect of attracting more determined people for self-promotion and
support with calculated benefits than for solidarity.
3.
Because of their timing, some parallels of the case of Ireanna and Pericles can be made
with that of Tassos Theophilus. In the latter case, there has been a marked delay in the
(broader) manifestation of solidarity towards him. The fact that Theophilus was a declared
anarchist-communist has acted as a deterrent to many who over the past five years have
been stubbornly absent and appeared late as solidarity. For them, Theophilus was not the
"innocent child" who unjustly called it anarchist, did not have the promising career of
social recognition, did not meet the profile of a peaceful, consciously "colorless"
politician and devoted to the subject of the younger brother. There was not, therefore,
the right ground upon which, after the carpet of the "democratic right to education" votes
would be won, articles would be sold, political agendas adjusted. Written by A. Psarra in
the Journal of the Editors (12/6/17):For a girl who had nothing to do with any "extreme"
political area that simply has a bond with a new man who persistently tried to engage with
the prosecution authorities and who was finally irrevocably acquitted by Three Criminal
Appeals Court, the sentence of 13 years imprisonment without suspension , without
mitigating, without witness evidence against it and with only one element a partial
controversial DNA sample surpassed every precedent.(3) Thus, the (lean) limb theory is
re-introduced from "progressive" journalism. Why, even in quotation marks, it is
sufficient to have a connection with anarchy and communism, or even with people who
embrace this "extreme" way of thinking. He is exhorted in advance by the offense of
political identity. This condition for anarchy is not unprecedented nor impressive. There
are dozens of cases of people being persecuted or persecuted with only a guilty
presumption of their political identity and their personal / political relations. Sadly,
she had to find herself in the wake of the arbitrariness of the law enforcement and
judicial authorities to understand how the rule of law is a cheap showcase and nothing else.
4.
On the body of Heranna played a play of political spectacle, political correctness, and
political supremacy by people who need to underestimate first of all to like them later,
by people who speak the language of the theory of two extremes, class peace, democratic
normality, "Educate the Nazis". They remembered the artists who did not let the teachers
raise their banners in a concert to talk about the teacher Hieran. And the followers
remembered Hieran, those responsible for attacks on fighters and the suppression of
occupation. And from the field of sport they remembered Heranna. (4) Ministers and
parliamentarians remembered Heranna. Many remembered Hieran, because they remembered the
belief in bourgeois justice,
However, even when it fails to suppress or dilute social anger, those who use solidarity
for personal gain, by means of the troubadours of homonymy, the advocates of pacifism and
"internal changes and revolutions", appear to be able to succeed their purposes and alter
their meanings and contents. Because, undoubtedly, social alliances and the financial
support of prisoners are indispensable. But the last concert - with which Pericles was
once again unrelated - was the definition of converting solidarity from a position of
battle and defense to cheap access to concert venues and easy entertainment.
The slogan passion for freedom is stronger than all cells which refers to fighters is not
deconstructed when it sounds about people who simply came to the target of state
repression and not about the struggle they give, not about their passion channeled into
the struggle for social and individual liberation. These meanings, solidarity, struggle,
equality, freedom are what makes the spectacle distort. When words lose their meaning,
then the meanings do not come together with acts whose means will be in agreement with the
very content of the struggle. The primary healthy social reflex of solidarity, therefore,
when it comes to completing a vague strategy, an attitude based on vague and contradictory
means of conducting the struggle, is prone to assimilation. Alleviating from the
mechanisms of the state, sovereignty, spectacle,
5.
The state has continued. And its sequel keeps decades. The legal system is structured in
such a way as to serve specific interests and specific law: the law of the monopoly of
state violence, the law of capital, the law of the markets and capitalism. In this legal
system, those who are not on the strong side are indifferent losses. From the pre-war
state that the relatives of the Communists have not found a job so far, little has changed
in their essence. The case of Herannas and Pericles is primarily a matter of all those who
are fighting. Those who organize events, participate in marches, collectivize social and
class liberation with vision, struggle with their own forces for the destruction of the
state and capital.
In closing, on 16 October (the day of the new release), our position will be on the side
of Herannas. Our solidarity is clear and clear. But at the same time, it is honest and has
a critical dimension in seeking to make a two-way relationship.
No criminalization
Photo of solidarity banner in Heryana-Pericles, which was posted in the General Lyceums of
Corfu.
of relatives-social relationships should not be tolerated.
Freemasons to Heranna and Pericles.
cumulonimbus anarchist group
- (1):
http://tvxs.gr/news/ellada/synenteyksi-tis-iriannas-moy-zitane-na-apodeikso-pos-den-eimai-elefantas
(2):
http://www.alfavita.gr/arthron/koinonia/i-irianna-diafonei-me-ta-epeisodia-tin-endiefere-mono-i-epsistimi-tis-thelei-na
(3): http://www.efsyn.gr/arthro/i-anastoli-den-einai-gia-tin-irianna
(4):
http://www.avgi.gr/article/10813/8297745/trianta-okto-ypographes-gia-ten-erianna-apo-paiktes-kai-proponetes
http://apo.squathost.com
------------------------------
Message: 2
Labor law, union unity and representativeness, claims ... Solidaires' quarterly reflection
book makes it possible to debate practices in the social struggle. ---- According to the
major bourgeois media, the return of September, in opposition to the labor law II, would
be undermined, among other things, by a lack of trade union unity. In addition, according
to figures from the Directorate-General for Labor, these " trade union experts "
asserted that the CFDT had become the first trade union force in that country and that the
results were proof of support from employees a trade union organization that defends the
labor law. Add to this the criminalization and repression of social movements, everything
suggests that the re-entry looks rather morose in terms of struggle and resistance to
Macron's policy.
Everything lets believe ... Indeed ! But it is without counting on the wise view of the
militants of Solidaires that bring a much more pertinent view in their last notebook The
Utopiques of June 2017 (n ° 5) that we had succinctly presented in the last issue of AL.
It's in the boxes that it goes !
In the words of Les Utopiques, it is evident that for the employees of the private as well
as the public, trade union unity constitutes an important guarantee of success when it is
necessary to establish or to reinforce a balance of power with the employers or to
building a mobilization. It is obviously impossible today, at national level, and very
difficult, in companies, to bring together reformist unions and " revolutionary " unions
". The CFDT, during the major mobilisations on pensions, the labor law ..., has chosen to
follow the proposals of the governments of Sarkozy, Holland, and soon Macron. It thus
brings discredit to the trade union movement by positioning itself as a privileged
interlocutor of governments and making trade unions " irresponsible " or even " criminal
" when they are more radical. All the more reason to stick together !
Beyond the differences between trade union organizations, whether structural or
ideological, the intersyndicale remains an important framework that must be lived, as soon
as possible. It is not uncommon to see a unitary SOUTH-CGT-FO-CNT-CNT SO unit, which
brings together the employees and thus allows a more efficient balance of power with
greater chances of victory.
As Utopics points out , an intersyndicale must be regarded " not as a perennial structure
but as a regular space for exchanges, analyzes and conceptions of unitary actions in which
each trade union organization retains its autonomy of decision or decision 'action '.
It is now complicated and illusory to contribute to a unified trade unionism, as has been
the case in the civil service, one of the crucibles of unity of action between trade
unions, as the article on the tax sector [1].
The trade union movement has split up around the links between political parties and trade
union organizations, the more or less rejection of reformism, the more or less categorical
attachment to a pyramidal structuring, the corporatist expectations of the workers.
Whatever the bourgeois media say, trade union organizations are very conscious of the
interest of the inter-union framework, even if it is sometimes weakened by the positioning
of the apparatus and by electoral strategies. It must first be able to be set up at the
level of the company by highlighting the concrete demands of the employees. The local
struggles then allow for discussion at a broader level, such as the sector of activity or
the national framework.
Thus, the CFDT would be the big winner in the professional elections and the employees by
voting massively for this organization would massively approve the Macron projects ? This
is not the analysis of the comrades of the union committee and the working group on the
elections of TPE of the trade union union Solidaires. Thus, the most recent writing of the
magazine Les Utopiques describes what one might qualify, but it would be an abuse of
language, of national interprofessional representativity.
The law of 2 August 2008 on the renovation of social democracy concerns in particular
trade union representativeness. The text reproduces the essence of the " common position
" signed on 10 April 2008 by Medef, CGPME, CGT and CFDT and modifies the criteria for
representativeness by introducing among them the audience of each trade union organization
measured on the basis of of professional elections. The threshold of representativeness is
fixed at 10 % of the votes in the companies, at 8 % at the level of the professional
branch. At the interprofessional level, organizations with 8 % of the votes at the
national level are recognized as representative .
Noting that:
* more than half of the workers are employed in one of the 1.15 million enterprises with
fewer than 50 employees and that these enterprises are trade union deserts,
* there is a restriction on the participation and eligibility of subcontracted staff,
* elections are carried out at company level (works councils) and not at national level
(thus everyone has no choice but to vote for the trade union organization there is no
union section),
* 3.5 million unemployed and 5.6 million public servants are not eligible to vote, as do
the 16 million retired workers who vote in the joint labor organizations. retirement
management.
It is still 25.1 million workers who are deprived of elections, even though
interprofessional negotiations affect all of them !
In addition, 40 % are not organized by employers - who frequently forget to send
elections to the EC - that there is an employer's benevolence to establish the CFDT and to
transfer or to intimidate somewhat too virulent delegates from the South or from the CGT
... Moreover, the EC results for 2016 during the labor law only take into account the TPE
with 7.35 % participation, etc.
The vast majority of wage-earning is therefore far from being acquired at Macron, and we
see it in our boxes. September guarantees us its share of tumults and all police
repression, attempts to criminalize the trade union movement, and the state of emergency
will do nothing. What is certain is that state propaganda is in full swing and that it is
fortunate to have a more objective view, not by " trade union experts ", but by
unionized workers .es.
Marie-Line (AL Lyon)
[1] François-Xavier Ferrucci, " Union Unity in Taxation" , Les Utopiques, n ° 5, June 2017.
http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?Revue-Penser-la-lutte-avec-Les-Utopiques
------------------------------
Message: 3
When pro-choice militants argue that their struggle is the continuation of a historical
fight against the oppression of women, they are met with a pro-life movement which
attempts to symmetrically paint itself as fighting for the rights of ‘‘the unborn child'',
a category which would otherwise remain defenseless and be sentenced to life or death by
their bearers. ---- But both sides are far from holding symmetrical views. For one thing,
while people who can get pregnant initiated the pro-choice movement, there is no doubt
embryos didn't start the pro-life movement. No pro-life advocate would deny this trivial
statement, if anything they would use the voicelessness of "the unborn" as an argument to
emphasise the unfair nature of abortion rights.
While it is easy to understand why one group would be motivated to fight for their own
interests, explaining why a group would me motivated to fight on behalf of another group
is not as straightforward. Pro-life advocates would have us believe that they are fighting
for the "unborn child" first and foremost out of a strong sense of empathy and out of an
unremitting commitment to defend the human right to life. The problem is that this is
demonstrably untrue. Far from being satisfying explanations, empathy and adhesion to moral
principles don't even qualify as partial explanations for the commitment of pro-life
advocates.
Although human beings are capable of empathy (here defined as the capacity to experience
pain when witnessing someone else's pain) this aspect of our psychology can easily be
influenced by other factors which can at times dim our empathy or make it selective. In
the context of the abortion debate, if empathy is what is motivating pro-life advocates,
then we are at best dealing with a very selective form of empathy, where the few minutes
of assumed pain experienced by the foetus during the abortion are more important than the
definite psychological and physical pain of a person going through an unwanted pregnancy,
which depending on the case might imply carrying the baby of a rapist, going through a
predictable and sometimes deadly postpartum depression, being involuntarily committed,
dying from sepsis, having to live a life that you do not want, having to live in fear of a
violent partner who didn't want the child but whom you cannot leave for economic reasons,
exposing yourself to the violent reaction of a partner who believes not to be the father,
practicing stressful and unsafe backstreet abortions... the list could go on and could be
extended to the psychological consequences of growing up as an unwanted child, or to the
psychological suffering of a family who has to witness their mother/wife being transformed
into an incubator after her death so as to keep the embryo alive for as long as
possible... but you get the idea. One can't help but ask why the empathy displayed by
pro-life advocates is so selective despite the insistent claim that they "love both" (to
be fair, they never said "love both equally").
To this, pro-life militants have a clear answer: keeping the child doesn't necessarily
lead to the mother's death (they would deny it ever does), but abortions will ALWAYS kill
the foetus. This brings us back to the myth according to which at the root of the pro-life
stance lies a commitment to the defence of human being's right to life. Yet under closer
examinations it appears that pro-life militant's attachment to the human right to life is
just as selective as their empathy.
If it can be shown that pro-life advocates are not willing to apply the right to life
across the board, then one is entitled to ask why this is applied selectively in the case
of abortion. Many pro-lifers will claim that a pregnant person does not have to keep the
child because adoption will allow this child a chance at life. Under the current Irish
law, unless there is a real risk of death from the pregnancy, adoption is the only legal
option for pregnant people who do not want to be parents. In this scenario the pregnant
person is basically a life-support system for another person.
What if this was a requirement for everyone in society?
If everyone had the legal duty to keep alive any citizen they can, what would that look
like? Imagine that everyone is a mandatory donor, organ donor, blood donor, bone marrow
donor, etc. Everyone is on a list and when someone has need and is matched to another
person, that other person must donate as long as the donation does not kill them. This
would be the closest approximation to the Irish abortion law if it were expanded. If the
right to life is truly universal then the proximity to the patient should not matter,
whether that person resides within my body or not, if this is a separate person with equal
status under the law, then everyone should have the same access to the resources of other
people's bodies, a foetus should not be a special case. In fact, the more this principle
is examined the stranger it becomes since the same right to life of an embryo to the
pregnant person's body ends as soon as it is born. The parent of this newborn has no legal
mandate to offer any part of their body to keep this child alive. So once outside the womb
the child has a dramatically reduced right to life. Which begs the question: if pro-life
people are really pro-life, why are they seemingly unconcerned with what happens outside
of the womb? Why are they not campaigning for every citizen to become compulsory organ,
tissue and blood donors? Why should pregnant people be the only ones forced to make this
sacrifice?
One response to this argument is that it ignores the distinction between killing a person
and letting a person die. Pro-lifers argue that if it is possible to save someone with
little or no risk to yourself, then these are ordinary circumstances and not saving the
person would qualify as killing. For example, if I see a severely injured person in an
isolated place, I am the only one who is there to help, there is no danger to myself and I
just leave this person there, then I have effectively killed them. However if there is a
person only I can help, but I must risk my own life to save them and I do not, this is an
extraordinary circumstance so I have simply let that person die.
The distinction between killing someone and letting someone die becomes dubious at best
once it is understood that a lot of preventable deaths are the result of an economic
system that can be replaced through political action, and that not challenging a system
that benefits oneself at the expense of others is itself a political act. On top of that,
where to draw the line between ordinary and extraordinary circumstances is largely
subjective. But even if we accept these distinctions, and even if we accept that the
degree of risk involved in saving a life defines whether or not a person is committing a
murder, this still doesn't work in the case of pregnancy.
Pro-life advocates claim that having an abortion is killing because pregnancy poses a
minimal risk to the pregnant person's life and therefore the embryo's right to life must
be respected. However, if this is so, then it should apply to society as a whole for this
to be a truly universal right. Everyone being blood, tissue and organ donors is not
extraordinary since it does not pose a high threat to the donor's life which means that
any time a donation is refused it can be considered killing a needy recipient. Remember
that in the example above the moral duty assigned to pregnant people who do not want to be
parents is to not kill the foetus, so they are being asked to carry a pregnancy and then
offer the child to adoption. In this scenario the pregnant person is simply life support
for a stranger, a person they will never know. If they have an abortion it amounts to
withdrawing life support from this other person, which will result in death. But how is
this different from asking anyone to undergo a difficult, painful and time-consuming
procedure to save a stranger? For instance, the rates of severe complications for bone
marrow and kidney donations are of the same order of magnitude as pregnancy, meaning that
both are relatively low risk and preserving life.
One way around this difficulty would be for pro-life advocates to claim that the situation
of the embryo cannot be compared to that of a person needing a transplant. The argument
would go like this: unlike a patient who needs to get the consent of a donor before being
treated, the embryo is already receiving life support from the moment of conception. In
other words, once a person is pregnant, we are past the point where consent can be granted
or refused. This argument would imply yet again a selective use of a moral principle:
consent. By that double standard, a registered bone marrow donor or a person engaged in
sexual intercourse may withdraw their consent at any point, but a pregnant person cannot.
It also implies that any person consenting to a sexual intercourse is simultaneously
consenting to bear a child. This is of course untenable when the pregnancy occurs despite
the use of contraceptive, and it is oblivious of the fact that not all pregnancies are the
result of consensual sex.
What comes out of his overview of the moral argument put forward by pro-life advocates is
that it is impossible to defend the 8th amendment without making a selective use of moral
principles. What this selective use reveals is that the pro-life stance is not founded on
moral principles. Rather, moral principles are opportunistically used to justify
legislations that coincide with a preexisting belief according to which an embryo has more
value than a pregnant person (after all, the embryo might be a boy). To be more precise,
people who can get pregnant are valued by pro-life advocates only insofar as they bear and
raise children.
It is not life that the pro-life advocates are interested in preserving, but rather a
specific version of society. Under the surface of the ‘right to life' argument lie
gendered assumptions about the nature of men and women. In this misogynistic worldview the
essential function of people who can get pregnant is to bear children and spend their
lives raising these children, thus providing a regular supply of future workers and
caregivers. This worldview sees the traditional family as the basic unit of society. While
they see it as a source of social stability, it is a means of perpetuating inequality
between the sexes and controlling the sexuality of people who can get pregnant. As long as
people who can get pregnant bear the burden of parenthood they are less able to engage
politically, especially in a legal system where having a uterus makes a person the de
facto legal guardian of any child they bear. And when pro-life advocates point to adoption
as the humane option this conveniently ignores the brutal history of forced adoptions,
mother and baby homes and slave labour in the Magdalene laundries. Even in the organ
donation example, the stigma attached to adoption is not accounted for: if a person is
willing to sacrifice 9 months and endure physical trauma to save another person, they are
not further stigmatised for not looking after that person over the next 18 years.
In the end pro-life advocates simply want to preserve the status quo of a society based on
gender inequality, but rather than state this explicitly, they claim to found their stance
on a moral argument and to be primarily concerned with the protection of the "unborn
children" who cannot defend their "right to life" by themselves. in a culture that is
increasingly questioning and challenging inequalities across the board, it is difficult to
defend a model of society by voicing sexist and antiquated views about the nature of men
and women. Besides this, as Irish society moves further away from religious institutions,
the church can no longer be used as a source of legitimacy to control reproduction. Moral
arguments centered around the right to life have become the only tools left to pro-life
advocates, but this tool can be made useless if it is shown relentlessly that the pro-life
stance is founded on a reactionary belief system. The belief system is what shapes the
moral arguments, not the other way round.
So the next time you hear a pro-lifer trotting out the same tired argument about the
sanctity of life simply ask them why the unborn are more deserving of life then everyone else.
Words: Nic & Emmanuel
Author: Nic S, Emmanuel
https://www.wsm.ie/c/pro-life-lie-anti-choice-spin
------------------------------
Message: 4
Join us to demonstrate at the Home Office this Friday, 29th September: ---- Give us our
files! Release the cover names! (And the list of over 1000 groups spied upon by the
Special Demonstration Squad and the National Public Order Intelligence Unit....) ----
Stand in solidarity with those spied upon by abusive undercover #spycops units ----
Outside the Home Office in Marsham Street SW1 - between 9-10am... ---- ...and again
between 4-5.30pm. (We may visit other places in between - call or text us on 0759 869 7591
to find us during the day) ---- We aim to go in the morning and demand our Special Branch
files, giving them till 4.00 that afternoon to hand them over. After years of revelations
about undercover police spying on us, they have had enough time. We've had enough of
police cover-ups, lies and delays to the Undercover Policing Inquiry.
We want to know who spied on us, what information they have collected, the groups and
movements they have targeted and the people they have abused/miscarriages of justice they
have colluded in.
"No More Delay! Give us our Files Today!"
https://wessexsolidarity.wordpress.com/
------------------------------
Message: 5
"The twentieth century has been characterized by three developments of great political
importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of
corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy", wrote
Australian sociologist and historian of American propaganda Alex Carey. ---- To ensure
protection of "corporate power against democracy," the concept of Democracy and Media were
reconstructed. This morphing went completely unnoticed and was subsumed within the
culture, legal framework and is now accepted without any challenge by most of us, the
world over. As Thomas Paine observed "a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it
a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in
defence of the custom."
A democracy to be functional requires citizen equipped with all relevant facts and
complete spectrum of opinions to take informed actions and to furnish this value is the
job of the media. This is a normative and descriptive definition of the two concepts. The
other concept that is less spoken about but the one actually practiced in the real world
is this: People are not the best judges of their own interests and that of the society,
believing that they are such is considered to be "democratic dogmatism." Therefore,
"responsible men", recognizing the "ignorance and stupidity" of citizens must tell these
"meddlesome outsiders" what to believe.
And this ought to be obvious to any serious observer of world affairs that in any society
where economic, social and political gap exist the powerful will ensure that they continue
possessing their power. In a totalitarian society this security could be ensured by the
bludgeon, but in more civilized societies it takes the subtle form of molding opinions.
Propaganda in India can roughly be divided into four phases: first, the freedom struggle.
Then the Second World War. The Independence and the Cold War period and finally the
Post-liberalism period. Though the study of first phase has immense importance for many
reasons, it does not concern the topic under question.
The Indian elites, who were relishing with profits from WW2 economic boom for a small
sector, also appreciated the propaganda effort of the Allied Forces and actively learned
from it. But larger changes started after the Independence. The XP division (a propaganda
agency, primarily aimed at global audience) was set up, which though largely inefficient
due to Nehru's uncoordinated and self centered propaganda methods. Nehru also sent a team
to hire Edward Bernays for the XP division and to help setup the propaganda apparatus in
India. This was never realized for unknown reasons, but this much becomes clear that
although Indian elites found US propaganda system to be ineffective for Indian purposes,
they shared basic ideological tenants and commitments.
After ‘Emergency' Indian press became lot more serious and investigative journalism was at
its peak in the country. But actions to bring this under check were quickly taken by
government (usually state governments) and corporate sector. In 1977 Directorate of
Advertising and Visual Publicity issued circulars asking public sector organizations not
to advertise in The Statesman and Express. The organized propaganda effort in India did
not penetrated as much as it did in more industrial societies like US, UK and Australia
for multiplicity of reasons. But as observed above, the power holders believed in the
ethos of "controlled democracy". And in post-1990's India and after corporatization of
media the dream of Bernays, Lasswell and the likes have been realized in India as well.
The Propaganda Model (PM) is a conceptual framework (created by Edward Herman and Noam
Chomsky) based on empirical understanding of media institutions. It provides five Filters
to help us understand how and why media is forced by institutional restrictions to create
content which is expectable within ideological confines of the political-corporate class;
and why media cannot question the dominant power systems - as it is part of the same system.
Filters:
SIZE, OWNERSHIP, AND PROFIT ORIENTATION OF THE MASS MEDIA.
THE ADVERTISING LICENSE TO DO BUSINESS.
SOURCING MASS-MEDIA NEWS.
FLAK.
DOMINANT IDEOLOGY.
For a scholarly treatment of the Filters readers are advised to read Manufacturing Consent
(edition 2008.) The first two filters are based on the type of political-economic
institutions in the society in question. Third filter is a derivative of the first two and
in India these take form of corporate PR agencies and government sources. Fourth filter is
a negative response to a media statement or program. It may take the form of letters,
lawsuits, speeches and other modes of complaint, threat, and punitive action. It rarely
takes the overt form of censorship, but it can and does from time to time.
Fifth Filter is exercised primarily in two ways. One: providing an enemy to fear and/or
hate (or turning the already present hate and fear towards them.) Two: A fanatical belief
in the "market." Beyond and within these are also some beliefs that enjoy non-partisan
consensus in this nation among all parties and corporate sector. These include "a strong
Centre for stability", "security" and "liberalism".
Media capital is highly concentrated in India. According to ‘The Press in India 2015-16'
report 8855 newspapers are owned by Common Ownership Units. By some estimates less than
100 corporation and individuals own most of the Indian media. In this respect the
ownership variable acts similarly in India and in the USA. Even as the advertisement
revenue system is failing, it still continues to be the primary source of profit for
Indian media houses.
The limits of the PM should be stated clearly. It is a model of media content, not of
audience response to this content. It does not claim propaganda campaigns always achieve
what they set out to. This is crucially dependent on knowledge and interest of the
audience over the specific issue. Also the dominant ideology is not monolithic. Except
some basic political-economic commitments it could change, morph, and diverge over time.
In conclusion I would urge that Indian media analysts and practitioners take the
institutional view of the media production system seriously, like many of their
counterparts in USA and UK. Also the implication of such analysis and critique should be
recognized. If it is true, as I believe it is and as the PM shows empirically, that
serious democracy cannot be achieved within these institutions and they need to be
replaced; mere "journalistic objectivity" cannot do much - as P. Sainath has claimed
journalistic objectivity has become a synonym for reporting for the powerful.
_____
*Propaganda here is used in its classical sense, as understood before the Second World
War. The term "media" throughout the article is used for ‘news media', unless clearly
stated otherwise. Article was originally written for a journalism magazine, which did not
publish it.
https://thecominganarchy.wordpress.com/2017/09/29/the-propaganda-model-for-india/
------------------------------
Message: 6
The Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group supports a YES vote in the postal survey on
marriage equality now in progress in Australia. We do this, not because we endorse the
institution of marriage, but because the survey will have concrete results and we need to
choose which results we favour. ---- Marriage is a reactionary social institution which
exists so that men can ensure that their property will be inherited by children who are
unquestionably their own offspring. Historically, it was also a means for negotiating
alliances between families to advance their interests. The wishes and interests of women
were of little account in the process. Marriage has thus been part of the subordination of
women to men within class society. With the rise of capitalism, romantic love gradually
superseded dynastic manoeuvring, allowing individuals relative freedom in choosing their
partner. Such freedom is still subordinated, though, to the need to ensure paternity in
the inheritance of property.
In recent decades, social prejudices against homosexual activity have been decaying, a
consequence of widespread contraception, which has severed the previously iron link
between sex and reproduction. This has opened the door for LGBTIQ people to gain wider
acceptance in society and allowed their struggles for equality to achieve greater success.
The struggles have been hard fought, because power concedes nothing without a demand, but
the preconditions for success now exist in a way they didn't a century ago.
In 2004, the Coalition Government of John Howard saw the growing push for equality in
society by LGBTIQ people and decided that something had to be done to stop it. Howard saw
he would have trouble holding the line in the face of a piecemeal push against a series of
petty material forms of discrimination, so he decided that he would draw a line in the
sand over a major symbolic issue - marriage. After a brief media campaign, the Labor Party
capitulated and voted with the Coalition to entrench compulsory heterosexuality in the
Marriage Act. Howard had won another battle in his culture wars and had his position
strengthened. What few anticipated, though, was how far and how fast public opinion would
change.
Until Howard changed the Marriage Act, getting the legal right to marry had not been a
priority of the LGBTIQ movement. For the most part, it saw marriage as a reactionary
institution. There had only been a few stirrings of interest, provoked by developments in
the United States. Howard had engaged in a pre-emptive strike, ensuring that marriage
equality would not be achieved through the courts. His action turned the political
situation around. The Marriage Act now stands as a massive statement by the State that
LGBTIQ people are not equal to straight people and their relationships are second class
ones. The LGBTIQ movement got the message and realised that social equality wasn't going
to be achieved without marriage equality. The forces of reaction have chosen their ground
and we must wage our battle on that field, or not at all.
In itself, changing the Marriage Act to allow couples of the same sex to marry is a very
minor reform. LGBTIQ people will have access to a reactionary institution which will be
rendered irrelevant by a workers' revolution which abolishes property and thus
inheritance. The significance of the campaign for marriage equality, though, is in the
enemy we must defeat to achieve it. We are fighting organised religion, with the Catholic
Church at its head. We are fighting some of the most powerful and justly hated figures on
the political Right in Australia, including Tony Abbott, Cory Bernardi and Andrew Bolt.
And we are fighting the Fascists, who have taken time out from spreading Islamophobia and
anti-Semitism to demonstrate that this campaign is not about marriage, but about the
legitimacy of homosexuality itself. If we win, we put these people to flight. If we lose,
we will face a festival of reaction such as Australia hasn't seen since the 1950s.
The postal survey is a flawed process of direct democracy, something far inferior to an
authentic plebiscite on a concrete proposal. We didn't choose this battlefield, but it's a
battle we must win. Vote YES for liberty, equality and solidarity. Vote YES and prepare to
take the struggle further.
https://melbacg.wordpress.com/2017/10/02/macg-statement-on-marriage-equality-survey/
------------------------------
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten