Today's Topics:
1. awsm.nz - ANZAC DAY: Peace Action Wgtn -- Join us to change
the narrative this ANZAC Day! (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
2. Greece, Text for feeding and housing from the Liberty
University of Patras Posted by dirty horse APO (gr) [machine
translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
3. Czech, afed: A3: Barricades 2018 - French spring after 50
years? [machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
4. London Anarchist Federation - Monthly reading group
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
5. London Anarchist Communists Ideas and Struggles: anarchism
yesterday, today and tomorrow Notes from ACG meeting on April
19th in London (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
6. France, Alternative Libertaire AL #282 - Bure: The wood
Lejuc " will be taken again " (fr, it, pt) [machine translation]
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
7. The Fight For Anarchism is The Fight For Peace by ablokeimet
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
8. Aotearoa Workers' Solidarity Movement (AWSM) - ANNOUNCEMENT:
Mutual Aid Fund (MAF) (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
9. Greece, Anarchist Initiative of Thessaloniki: CHRISTMAS
PRIMARY 2018: STREET 10:30 KAMARA, DAILY COURSE 2018 (gr)
[machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
10. wsm.ie Thinking About Anarchism: Competition Versus
Co-operation (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
This Anzac day we will attend the Dawn Service at Pukeahu National War Memorial Park
holding a banner reading ‘Honour All The Dead, No More Wars'. If you would like to stand
with us, meet in front of Mount Cook School by 5:45 am. ---- We will also participate in
the Wellington Citizens' Wreath-laying Service at the Cenotaph arriving at 8:30am with the
ceremony starting at 9am. We will be laying a wreath for civilian victims of war along
with other groups who will be laying wreaths for the Afghan civilian casualties of
Operation Burnham, the Surafend Massacre and conscientious objectors. ---- We are
disrupting the mainstream narrative by bringing an anti-war message but not disrupting the
ceremonies themselves. We aim to highlight the senselessness of war and challenge war
glorification. If you'd like to meet us beforehand to have a chat, we'll be at Vic Uni Hub
outside Vic Books on Tuesday night at 6:15.
https://www.facebook.com/peaceactionwellington/
http://www.awsm.nz/2018/04/23/anzac-day-peace-action-wgtn/
------------------------------
Message: 2
BELOW YOURS FROM THE GROUNDING AND HOUSING ---- As part of the educational restructuring
that has been attempted in recent years at university institutes, the state and
governments have been stepping up on all the achievements of the student movement. You
have not been able to withstand this need for food and housing. The state, through a
series of adjustments, regulations and bills, is gradually withdrawing from any student
care provision by passing the cost of attendance on the backs of the students and turning
the student's care into a contributory one. That you pay, you get. Everything is subject,
from the writings and travel to feeding and housing. ---- The evolving state attack on the
university is the most obvious in terms of facilities, equipment and infrastructure for
our feeding, housing and education. Housing, which is one of the most basic needs for
every individual, for the state and for capital, is only a costly supply that has to be
shrunk. In particular, the first-year-olds destined to stay in the outfit (a very small
number compared to those in need) stay for a whole year in a hotel, which is paid by
contract. When the payment is delayed, the hotelier threatens to leave the students on the
road, leaving them so sloppy for their own roof. Still, in several outbreaks has been
proposed the "partial contribution", the rent for the focal points. The miserable
conditions at the moment (zero maintenance, lack of basic structures for everyday life)
are the result of the abandonment of social benefits by the state and the existence of
contractors. Lack of oil for heating and hot water, communal showers and bathrooms in
miserable condition, damaged sewer system and structure-damaged rooms are some of those
that undermine the living and health conditions of the outbreak and are called upon by
dozens of interns.
Not enough of the effort to dissolve student care and transport the cost of attendance on
our backs could not be left with food. Everyone knows how to provide food to students (a
special card issued based on family income or 20 coupons for 20 meals, 10 for lunch and 10
for dinner, free entry status during the morning meal was attempted to overturn with the
student student card requirement). What is constantly concealed, however, is under what
conditions this is provided. In particular, a contractor is leased by the Ministry of
Education (INDI- ABIM) for the provision of workforce (cooks, cleaning staff, etc.)
working inside the outbreak. Workers are recruited with fortnightly contracts that are
renewed (?) Continuously while workers are forced to work on different posts to fill labor
shortages. Still, it is a common phenomenon that the contractor leaves unpaid workers for
several months. Indeed, in Patras, workers have come to a point where they are thinking of
stopping their jobs because they have no money to cover their transportation costs to the
university. This situation is burdened by the Gavroglu law with the self-government of the
universities, where the responsibility for solving the problem of underfunding is
essentially transferred to individuals. while workers are forced to work on different
posts to fill labor shortages. Still, it is a common phenomenon that the contractor leaves
unpaid workers for several months. Indeed, in Patras, workers have come to a point where
they are thinking of stopping their jobs because they have no money to cover their
transportation costs to the university. This situation is burdened by the Gavroglu law
with the self-government of the universities, where the responsibility for solving the
problem of underfunding is essentially transferred to individuals. while workers are
forced to work on different posts to fill labor shortages.
Still, it is a common phenomenon that the contractor leaves unpaid workers for several
months. Indeed, in Patras, workers have come to a point where they are thinking of
stopping their jobs because they have no money to cover their transportation costs to the
university. This situation is burdened by the Gavroglu law with the self-government of the
universities, where the responsibility for solving the problem of underfunding is
essentially transferred to individuals. Indeed, in Patras, workers have come to a point
where they are thinking of stopping their jobs because they have no money to cover their
transportation costs to the university. This situation is burdened by the Gavroglu law
with the self-government of the universities, where the responsibility for solving the
problem of underfunding is essentially transferred to individuals. Indeed, in Patras,
workers have come to a point where they are thinking of stopping their jobs because they
have no money to cover their transportation costs to the university. This situation is
burdened by the Gavroglu law with the self-government of the universities, where the
responsibility for solving the problem of underfunding is essentially transferred to
individuals.
The assault we receive daily from the state and the various blood-thirsty individuals
inside the university reflects the grim reality that the sovereigns prepare for us
students, the unemployed, the immigrants and the workers. Inside this gloomy reality,
however, there are also the resistances that are developing, which are a source of
inspiration and we are even more convinced. These are the small but important student
class denials that are being developed in the university everyday life. Refusals that
disturb the calm waters of '' university normality ''. Through self-organized struggles
that are staffed without any guidance and demonstration by some envied avant-garde.
Through the direct activation of class reflexes of students, we see various outbreaks of
controversy, resistance and struggle in the university. Winning matches such as the
capture of INDIBIM in Athens and the opening of the restaurant in Patras to restore free
entry at breakfast confirm that faith, organization and giving to the race are the
necessary and necessary conditions for our struggles are thorough and victorious.
AGAINST MOODING OUR NEEDS
TO PROMOTE STUDENT AND CLASSIC GAMES
DO NOT STOP BACK TO OUR NEEDS
CHRISTMAS-HOUSING-FREE MOVEMENT FOR ALL
Eleftherioscopy of the University of Patras
https://ipposd.wordpress.com/2018/04/23/
------------------------------
Message: 3
All this is what it says - strikes, busy schools, and the battle for ZAD. Download, print
and distribute the April issue of the A3 wall paper! ---- The fact that the state
apparatus is pushing its slimy claws everywhere it comes up has been able to convince us
many times in our country and beyond. A roof over your head for thousands of people or
natural wealth ... All of this can be well done. ---- This time, the government's interest
turned to the area near Notre-Dame-des-Landes in western France. In 2008, the French
government approved a decades-long project to build a giant airport in this area, which
would cost more than a billion dollars, and for the locals to make a complete loss of
homelessness or interference with their lives and destroy the countryside. And that's
another airport twenty-six miles away.
Some of the people in the area left after they received compensation. But some remained.
And people from all over France started to come to their support. Civil resistance against
the project began in the 1970s, the first occupation began in 2008. On the ground came a
ZAD (Zone À Défendre) anarchist defensive zone, which for years successfully faced the
open hostility of government politicians, repeated police attacks, arrests , court
verdicts ... In homes abandoned by people who have "let go of buying," a new life began to
emerge. Additionally, improvised buildings have begun in many places to be incorporated
into the infrastructure of local nature defenders against megalomaniac technocrats, their
political representatives and police threshers.
Current French President Emmanuel Macron decided in January that it would be better to
withdraw from the airport project. After all, according to plans, the airport should be
opened in 2017, then 2019 - but it has not even begun to build. Although Macron is a
typical representative of the capital that has the past of an investment banker acting in
the interests of corporations, there is no need to seek an ideological turnaround in his
decision. The airport project has been problematic from the outset, and its appeal is the
possibility of gaining some political points that are losing even by overworking labor law
for the benefit of employers. Even beyond its predecessor, 56 percent of France's
population was against the airport.
French political representation counted that withdrawing from the project would be at the
end of the protest movement that had been associated with it. It is clear that their
authoritarian lewd heads can not understand the dynamics of free self-organization. And
when the defenders did not leave alone, the government structure decided that the
anarchist-organized territory must simply disappear from the surface of the earth. So, on
April 10, in front of the "gates" of the area inhabited by several hundred people, there
were 2500 heavy-loaders in full field and accompanied by armored personnel carriers.
Strikingly, journalists from the state media, who wished to wait for each thrown stone or
the dirt of the earth, were in a hurry to allow terrorists or activists or local people to
defend themselves against police violence.
Defenders of the ZAD did not kill police demonstrations. They built barricades, hindered
access roads, faced hundreds of tear grenades, as well as bat gun strikes. There are many
injured, fortunately no victim of life, unlike previous battles, when one activist was
killed by a police grenade. Other people come to the site to help with defenses, including
farmers from the surrounding area who come to their tractors. Meanwhile, the police are
battling the individual buildings, which they then leave with bulldozers and other heavy
techniques in ruins. Destroying and thrashing is a police slogan (not only) these days.
Defenders of the ZAD, however, are enjoying great support in many French cities where
demonstrations and conflicts with the police are taking place. Solidarity is also coming
from abroad.
On one thing, politicians like to forget about their planning, and it's no surprise when
they are usually accustomed to succumbing to the interests of developers and corporations
and moving in a world where more power than they have money. They forget that the idea of
another, better world will not even delete the biggest money. The desire for a free and
dignified life will not break even the toughest baton or a thousand grenades. There will
always be people who are willing to sacrifice many to defeat the power of capitalism, or
at least to defend little that has not yet been taken and what they have resisted on.
We, anarchists, express our support and solidarity here. Even though we are hundreds of
miles away, our heart is burning for the ZAD. The battle is not over yet. Although the
number and armaments of the repressive bodies far outweigh the possibilities of the ZAD
defenders, the human determination still did not defeat.
France marks this fifty years since the revolutionary events of 1968. This year's
anniversary will surely be one of the drivers of the growing struggles of French trade
unionists, students and environmental activists and activists. The hope is that they do
not separate their struggles and support each other in many places. Resistance is alive,
the fight continues!
A3 ( April 2018) HERE to download . http://www.afed.cz/A3/A3-2018-04.pdf
Download, print, spread!
The A3 wall paper is published by the Anarchist Federation every month. They are intended
primarily for spreading through street lifts or posting in workplaces and schools.
https://www.afed.cz/text/6828/a3-barikady-2018
------------------------------
Message: 4
The London anarchist federation are kicking off a monthly reading group in the downstairs
shop space of Freedom Bookshop. We will be reading and discussing an anarchist book,
chapter or pamphlet each month. ---- For the first one we're starting with some classics
and will be reading two chapters from volume 1 of ‘Anarchism, a documentary history of
libertarian ideas', edited by Robert Graham. We will be discussing chapters 8 ‘Anarchist
Communism' and 9 ‘Anarchy and anarchism'. A pdf of the texts can be found over at Libcom:
https://tinyurl.com/jcv5s7f ---- The chapters include the follow essays/extracts: ----
Carlo Cafiero: Anarchy and Communism (1880) ---- Kropotkin: The Conquest of Bread (1892)
---- Kropotkin: Fields, Factories and Workshops (1898) ---- Luigi Galleani: The End of
Anarchism (1907) ---- Jose Llunas Pujols: What is Anarchy (1882)
Charlotte Wilson: Anarchism (1886)
Elisee Reclus: Anarchy (1894)
Jean Grave: Moribund Society and Anarchy (1893)
Gustav Landauer: Anarchism in Germany (1895)
Kropotkin: On Anarchism (1896)
E. Armand: Mini-Manual of the Anarchist Individualist (1911)
After this trip to the 19th Century we intend to look at some more modern texts in future
months although book choice will be agreed by those attending. Suggestions so far include:
Barbara J. Fields and Karen Elise Fields, Racecraft: The Soul of Inequality in American Life
François Martin and Gilles Dauvé, The Eclipse and Re-emergence of the Communist Movement
Silvia Federici, Caliban And The Witch
C.L.R.James, A History of Pan-African Revolt
Adolph Reed Jr, Class notes
Raj Patel and Jason W. Moore, A History of the World in Seven Cheap Things: A Guide to
Capitalism, Nature, and the Future of the Planet
Hopefully something there will pique your interest. Attending every month is not a
requirement- just come along when we're discussing a text you like!
https://aflondon.wordpress.com/
------------------------------
Message: 5
Anarchism today is part of a long tradition of thought and struggle. This discussion
meeting, presented by Brian Morris, will show how many of the ideas of past anarchists,
such as Bakunin and Kropotkin, are still relevant today. The reason for this is that their
ideas emerged from actual struggles of the working class. However, this does not mean that
we should treat these ideas as religious doctrine. They were very much products of their
time and issues such as the oppression of women were not at the forefront of their
thinking. Though many of the fundamental conditions are still the same, like capitalism
and the State, there have been many changes and new struggles which have become relevant.
Therefore we need to look for new ideas. But where do we look? The corridors of
universities or people involved in struggles? Brian will focus on environmentalism as one
of the important new struggles.
Brian's talk
The only political tradition that is worth anything today is anarchist communism; this is
the tradition that comes from such anarchists as Bakunin, Kropotkin, and Goldman. In fact,
their ideas are if anything more relevant than at any time in the past.
Bookchin, in 2002, suddenly declared that he was no longer an anarchist. Why at the age of
81 did he say this? Why does he trash his old heritage? But this is not actually the case.
He was always a libertarian socialist/anarchist communist. What he meant was that he was
not the kind of anarchist that emerged in the 1990s. He was against the ‘post-Left'
anarchists, anarcho-primitivists and other forms of so-called anarchism that emerged at
that time. For example he was against those that looked to Nietzsche - a poetic rebellion,
you don't have to do anything, just express yourself. He was against Bahro in Germany who
argued that the state of the world is so bad we need a Green Adolf. Bookchin was saying
that if this is anarchism then he did not want to be an anarchist. The essential features
of anarchism for Bookchin were a confederation of municipalities, a libertarian communist
society and direct democracy.
What is anarchism?
There have always been anarchists around, eg hunter-gatherers- practice of sharing and
individual freedom. In all societies there are example of people organising their social
life. People have always rebelled. Some people argue that anarchism is just anti-State and
anti-authority. A book written in 1900 by Fritz Brupbacher took the ‘seven sages' approach
and this has continued in other writings about anarchism until this day. These 7 are
Godwin, Proudhon, Tucker, Stirner, Tolstoy, Bakunin and Kropotkin. When there was an
upsurge in interest about anarchism in the 1960s, people who write books focused on the
ideas of key people. For Peter Marshall, in his book Demanding the Impossible, he included
everyone who was anti-State, including Thatcher. So with this 57 varieties of anarchism,
the impression is one of complete incoherence.
But there is another way of looking at anarchism. It is not a group of ideas or rebellion
against authority, it is a social and political movement which emerged in the 1870s. It is
not based on iconic figures or celebrities. Bakunin and Kropotkin became known because
they wrote books but they were part of the social movement that broke away from the 1st
International in 1872 as a response to the authoritarian tendencies represented by Marx.
It was not just a European movement and they didn't call themselves anarchists, rather
libertarian socialists or non-authoritarian socialists. One recent collection of essays
argues that what we need is libertarian socialism that would bring together Marxists and
anarchists. But this is incorrect as those who broke with the Marxists in the 19th century
were already libertarian socialists. Other names include anarchist communism. The point is
to bring together an emphasis on liberty with co-operation and equality.
Summary: Main features of anarchism.
1. They were against anything that restricts individuals' freedom to develop their
personality; the movement is anti-Marxist, anti-workers' State.
2. They have always been anti-capitalist.
3. Vision of society based on mutual aid, and co-operation. Post-anarchists critique of
anarchists is that they are starry-eyed idealists. They did have ideals, but they were
historical thinkers. Humans have not always had a State or capitalism. There have always
been elements of an anarchist communist society; it is a real possibility.
4. Anarchism is based on philosophy, defined as how we see the world. They learned a lot
from Darwin and Marx. Their ideas are based in evolutionary naturalism- ours is a material
world. This is the basis of Bakunin's thought. There is no room for God or spirits. They
are anti-religion.
What anarchist communists are against
Anarchist communists often define themselves in relation to others.
1. Stirner
He is very popular amongst academics.. He is anti-authoritarian, anti-government. It is a
book of rebellion. He argues against equality, freedom, morality, justice. He goes to the
extreme with the autonomy of the individual. He wants power over others; the world must be
his property if he is to gain full enjoyment. ‘The State is me'. For anarchist communists
this autonomy is not the same as liberty. They do not see the individual as sovereign; you
only have liberty as long as you respect the equal liberty of others. It is human
solidarity that is also important.
2. Marx
Anarchists began as a movement that critiqued Marx.
3. Individualist anarchists
They gained their inspiration from Proudhon and then Tucker. Examples of these are
American liberals who are keen on private property, the market system and competition.
4. Religious anarchists
Tolstoy doesn't like the State or the Russian church. Still he believes in praying to God.
Anarchist Studies publishes articles in support of religion, criticising the anarchist
communist position. Anarchist communists are not against religion as such- you can believe
what you want. But they are against using religion as a support for the political system.
Religion sanctifies political power. Every system has used religion: India, China, Turkey.
And all of these are pro-capitalist. In Mexico, the anarchist Magon spoke of the ‘dark
trinity'- capitalism, political rulers and clerics.
5. Anarcho-primitivism
The argument is that humans have gone wrong since the beginning of agriculture. But we
cannot go back to being hunter-gatherers.
6. Post-anarchism
This comes from academics. They attempt to put together anarchism with modern theoeries,
eg Lacan, Leotard, Heidegger, whatever is trendy at the moment. They are anti-reason,
completely distorting the ideas of the earlier generation of anarchists. It is a slash and
burn approach. You destroy what went before, accuse a whole generation of anarchists. But
they have misunderstood the human subject and the concept of power. Bakunin did not see
humans as a disembodied ego. We are social beings. They also use the concept of
post-industrial, arguing that the working class has disappeared. But the working class is
very much alive- not just production but services, tourism etc. Working people rather than
producing people. And, industrial workers have not disappeared. They very much still
present around the world. Bookchin said that we will not change anything without working
people.
Discussion/Questions
Some of the issues covered include:
1. The environment. Though early anarchists such as Reclus seemed concerned about the
environment it was not until after WWII that the full impact of capitalism on the
environment became apparent. Bookchin was talking about climate change back in the 70s. He
disagreed with Marxists who seem to think that we will get control of nature through
technology.
2. Many writers today are really just calling for Keynesian policies, eg Monbiot and
Klein. They have a good analysis of what is going on but they are really just calling on
the State to intervene to stop capitalism.
3. Discussion of why we need to create our own structures, our own mutual aid, eg
Greece, Black Panthers.
4. Issues with academic anarchists who set themselves up as experts when they have no
link to an actual social and political movement, unlike anarchist writers such as Bakunin.
Academia puts various pressures on people, to be original- to come up with some supposed
new idea- often that is phrased in such obscure terms that nobody can understand it.
Anarchism should not be something that people make a career out of- it is a set of ideas
and practices that need to be firmly embedded in a movement and developments of the ideas
should come from experience of struggles.
https://londonacg.blogspot.co.il/2018/04/ideas-and-struggles-anarchism-yesterday_25.html
------------------------------
Message: 6
After the violent expulsion by the police of the occupiers and occupants of Lejuc wood,
the movement of opposition to the storage of radioactive waste is set in motion. ---- In a
way, the future of the French nuclear power industry is played in Bure, a small village of
less than 100 inhabitants, located in the department of Meuse. As the ultimate step in the
nuclear industry, the management of high-level, long-lived radioactive waste is one of the
weak links. Created in 1979 to manage this waste, the National Agency for the Management
of Radioactive Waste (Andra) is responsible for finding an underground storage solution. A
bit like hiding the dust under the carpet. But this dust - 100,000 m 3 of long-lived
high-level and medium-level nuclear waste hiding 500 meters underground for hundreds of
thousands of years - would pose immense danger to neighboring populations.
Contempt of the people ... and the legality
These risks, even if they are still officially denied, sometimes go beyond the " official
" media lock . Thus, in Le Monde of January 15, 2018 Pierre-Franck Chevet, president of
the Nuclear Safety Authority, underlines the risk of fire associated with certain waste
destined for the landfill of the Meuse. A fire that could become uncontrollable and result
in massive releases of radioactive isotopes via the gas evacuation wells. One risk among
others [1].
Because the future of the sector depends on the possibility of finding a solution to this
extremely dangerous final waste, the state officials are ready for any contortions to get
the project through. Because already the French nuclear industry sinks into the crisis.
The nuclear power plant is aging and Areva can not get away from the EPR sites, first in
Flamanville in the English Channel, but also in other countries [2].
The project Cigéo (Industrial Geological Storage Center) in Bure must therefore prove to
the world market that the French industry, despite its difficulties, is always at the
forefront of technology.
Unfortunately, projects for landfilling nuclear waste have always caused massive rejection
of the inhabitants concerned. This is so in Bure. Never mind, Andra continues the project
forced march. It carries out clearing work in the Lejuc wood, where the evacuation wells
must be opened. She also built a concrete enclosure to strengthen her site. But on Monday
1 st August 2016, the High Court of Bar-le-Duc condemns Andra for illegal work in wood
Lejuc - the agency did not even have building permits - and ordered the restoration of the
forest. And on August 13, 2016, hundreds of opponents shot down the protective wall of the
building site. And a new occupation of the wood by the opponents is organized.
Faced with a growing challenge, the state clearly decided on 22 February to send an
authoritarian and violent signal (see box), expelling the occupants of Lejuc wood. But far
from undermining the determination of the inhabitants and militants, this intervention of
the police forces triggered an unprecedented wave of solidarity. Nearly 80 rallies were
held throughout France on the evening of the intervention of gendarmes and this wave can
only amplify.
" The wood will be taken back ": this is the state of mind of the expelled. " They lost in
advance.[...]When there are demonstrations to take back the wood, it is thousands of
people who are there. So they can put as many CRS as they want, the wood will be taken back .
The first stage of remobilization took place on the weekend of March 3rd and 4th. On the
one hand, demonstrations were organized on March 3 and March 4, which brought together
several hundred people, but still saw the repression come to an end. On the other hand, an
" Intercomités " was held, attended by 37 support committees to coordinate actions that
will be organized throughout France.
Colonization of territories for capitalist purposes
On the 24th of March at 10 o'clock was held a fight against Cigeo assembly, to which all
the components of the fight were invited. On the agenda were, on the one hand, a
debriefing of past weeks, on the other hand the elaboration of new perspectives of
struggle: and they are numerous !
For we can not accept either the danger that the nuclear industry makes to society, or the
colonization of territories for capitalist purposes. As Gaspard d'Allens and Andrea Fuori
wrote last year: " What is played here is essential. To oppose Cigeo is to refuse to
become co-managers of the atomic disaster. It is a clear and determined no to the nuclear
oligarchy that tries to make us responsible for its nuisance. This waste is not ours. We
did not have a voice, the French energy policy was imposed on us in violence and
authoritarianism " [3].
A victory at Bure would be a wedge in the nuclear power industry and a step towards total
nuclear output. First in Bure, but also everywhere in France ! Support committees can be
created and serve as mobilization relays.
Ecology Commission
Police violence and repression: the two breasts of Macron !
Thursday, February 22, 500 gendarmes intervene at 6 o'clock in the morning to expel the
occupants of the Lejuc wood in Bure. Then at 11 o'clock they illegally invest the House of
resistance. Two activists were arrested and placed in detention until the day of their
trial for " violence " and " rebellion ". Their trial was held on March 19 at the
Bar-le-Duc court. He and she were sentenced to three months in prison and kept in detention.
A demonstration was called in protest on March 3rd. The prefect of the Meuse, Muriel
Nguyen has filed several orders prohibiting traffic, parking and the event. Despite this,
hundreds of demonstrators gathered.
A witness quoted by AFP says: the procession was " peaceful ", before being " repressed by
the gendarmerie ". The latter throws tear gas canisters to prevent the demonstrators from
building " a lookout at the entrance of the wood on the ground of a friend ". The
demonstration fell back in the village of Mandres-en-Barrois, besieged, under surveillance
of helicopters and drones, but the event remains welded, there were no arrests.
The next day a hundred people go on a new ride to the wood Lejuc. But the fire of lacrymos
is linked, continue in the village and even in private gardens. Finally, a violent police
charge ends with the custody of eight people. They were released after forty-eight hours
and are summoned to court on 23 May in Bar-le-Duc.
[1] " Nuclear waste: in Bure, in the Meuse, technical challenges unsolvable quickly ",
Reporterre, November 14, 2013
[2] Also read " Bure: why the state wants so much to break the challenge ", Alternative
Libertaire, September 2017.
[3] Gaspard d'Allens and Andrea Fuori, Bure, the nuclear battle, Seuil, 2017.
http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?Bure-Le-bois-Lejuc-sera-repris
------------------------------
Message: 7
Our comrades in the Aotearoa Workers Solidarity Movement across the other side of the
Tasman have put out an Anzac Day leaflet of their own. We think it's pretty AWSM. Check it
out here: "This morning, the Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group distributed copies of its
annual Anzac Day statement at the 8 Hour Monument in Melbourne opposite Trades Hall on the
outskirts of the CBD. The text can be found here: ----
https://melbacg.wordpress.com/2018/04/25/the-useful-dead/ ----
http://www.awsm.nz/2018/04/18/anzac-day-pamphlet/ ---- THE USEFUL DEAD ---- This is the
MACG's Anzac Day Statement for 2018 by ablokeimet ---- 1915 ---- On this day, 103 years
ago, Australian, New Zealand and other troops of the British Empire stormed a Turkish
beach. It was a poorly conceived, poorly executed plan to secure a passage through the
Dardanelles for the navy of the Czar of Russia. It was a sideshow in the greater crime of
the war itself, where two rival imperialist alliances fought to redivide the colonies,
markets and resources of the world. The war was ended by revolution, first in Russia in
1917 and then in Germany the following year. Victories for the Entente on the Western
Front, while significant, were a result of the social disintegration of the Central Powers
rather than being decisive factors themselves.
Today
War is politics pursued via other means. Politics under capitalism is the battle between
the capitalist classes of different countries and between each capitalist class and the
working class it exploits. Conflict between the most powerful capitalist classes has
produced a system of imperialism. In modern globalised capitalism, wars are fought to
advance the perceived interests of the capitalist classes of the belligerent powers and
nationalism is propagated to enrol the workers behind the flag of their masters. In
Australia, dead Anzacs serve once more. Their sacrifices are useful to today's politicians
to generate support for today's wars.
Australian Imperialism
Australia is a small-time imperialist power in its own right, supporting the US-dominated
world order so it can dominate the South Pacific unchallenged. Australia's politicians
therefore got a rude shock recently when reports started circulating that Vanuatu, a
Pacific Island country that Australian capitalists rarely think about, was about to agree
to establishing a Chinese military base. Naturally everybody denied anything like that was
on the agenda, but Australia's political and military establishment now have something to
worry about. How can they keep China out of Australia's "back yard" - even if the peoples
of the South Pacific regard it instead as their living room?
Anzac Day
In recent years, Anzac Day celebrations in Australia have become increasingly strident and
nationalistic, full of cloying militarism. And Right wing mobs in the media have taken to
denouncing those who are insufficiently patriotic - particularly if they are brown and
female. This is a sign that Australian nationalism is under pressure. People considering
themselves humans before they are Australians is just too dangerous a thought these days.
The Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group opposes Australian imperialism and militarism and
all celebrations of it. We look forward to a workers' revolution which will usher in a
world community of freedom and equality for all - and where war will be seen in museums,
not the news.
END ANZAC DAY
END AUSTRALIAN IMPERIALISM
END CAPITALISM
Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group
macg1984 @ yahoo . com . au
PO Box 5108 Brunswick North 3056
25 April 2018
------------------------------
Message: 8
AWSM is announcing the establishment of a Mutual Aid Fund (MAF). This is intended as
political and financial support for projects and campaigns organised by other
organisations with which we sympathize. We do so with the following considerations: ----
1) We will use a ‘scale of priority' around requests for funds from the MAF. This is based
primarily on who the organisation is and secondly on the timeliness or urgency attached to
the need for the funds. The priority in order of relevance is: ---- a) Work by other
Anarcho-communist groups in NZ/A ---- b) Work by other Anarchist groups in A/NZ ---- c)
Work by non-Anarchist groups in NZ/A that benefits the working class ---- d) Work by other
Anarcho-communist groups overseas ---- e) Work by other Anarchist groups overseas ---- f)
Work by non-Anarchist groups overseas that benefits the working class
So this doesn't mean "First come, first served" but "Most relevant based on our criteria,
served."
2) We expect some acknowledgement or recognition of AWSM's contribution to the particular
project. The specifics of this will be discussed with the organisation requesting access
to the MAF.
3) While we definitely wish to assist the good work of other organisations, we will not be
able to exceed our internally allocated financial resources for the MAF, which will be
determined on an annual basis. When its gone, its gone. Like all political organisations,
our primary function remains pursuing and promoting our own efforts.
4) We will endeavour to process requests for MAF access as fast as we can, allowing for
the urgency of the project or campaign in question. To help us do this, we would
appreciate applicants supply as much detailed information as possible. We will notify
people as soon as we can, following internal debate on the request.
We look forward to hearing from interested organisations that share our desire for a world
without hierarchy and exploitation.
In Solidarity
Aotearoa Workers' Solidarity Movement (AWSM)
http://www.awsm.nz/2018/04/25/announcement-mutual-aid-fund-maf/
------------------------------
Message: 9
NO WAR BETWEEN THE WAYS ---- NO PEACE BETWEEN TAXES ---- The pervasive class attack that
takes place in the years of the capitalist crisis is in full swing. First-residence
auctions, increase in age limits and pension cuts, limitation of labor rights,
legalization of collective redundancies and lock-out for bosses, misappropriation of
strikes, privatizations and cuts in social spending, exclusions from the health system,
make up the mosaic of bosses' to the oppressed and exploited. As if not all of this, the
sirens of defending national sovereignty and the possibility of war in the name of
"national interests" (EEZ, Macedonian, Aegean) are sounding louder. ---- We respond with
internationalist class solidarity, participating in militant base societies, with an
unwavering struggle against state and capital with the aim of social revolution and the
creation of a world of freedom, equality, community and solidarity. We say that the
oppressed have no homeland and we will fight with all our might against the slaughter of
the war.
WE DO NOT WANT FOR THE INTERESTS OF OUR AFFECTS
COURSE
MAY MAY, 10:30 KAMARA
Collectivism of Anarchists from the East
------------------------------
Message: 10
Consider the accompanying image: phone service providers. How many of these companies does
a rational society really need? Their job is to connect our mobile phones to
communications networks (GSM, 3G, 4G, Wi-Fi). Do we really need five such organisations in
the 26 counties to attempt that same task? And who does it benefit that these five
organisations compete with one another for profit? After all, they are all using the same
infrastructure! Surely five organisations co-operating will be more effective than five
walled-off organisations each attempting the same task individually. ---- But this article
is not about phone coverage in particular. It is about those broader questions which run
right through the fabric of our societies.
Capitalism is a system of competition. Competitiveness is hailed as a virtue. We are told
that competition brings out the best in us and leads to the best result. When this is
challenged, often the criticism is scoffed at and recourse made to some simple examples of
competition. Imagine how a presenter might respond if one appeared on RTE or Newstalk and
said that competition, broadly speaking, does not make sense. But does this adamant
promotion of competition survive scrutiny?
Competitive Sports
Someone might talk of a running race. In this case, the athletes are strictly in
competition with one another. They train so they can individually be the best, and in this
effort to be the best, they push themselves to their limit, and that is how world records
are set, how excellence is achieved. This is true. They might talk of a rugby or football
match, or any other team sport, and talk of each team co-operating internally but
competing with other teams in order to be the best, and say this is analogous to our
competitive market system, the firm being the team. Again, there is no doubt that
competition makes for entertaining sport and challenging matches. But, surely, that is
very different to society in general. There are very different issues at play. Do we
really want to structure our entire society according to the same rules as boxing, tennis,
or Formula One? Let us illustrate this.
In a running race, competition is built into the definition. A race is inherently about
competition. That's why people are watching, that's what adds excitement, that's what the
athletes signed up to. To phrase it in clinical economic terms, the goal for the
‘consumer' is to observe the spectacle of competition. It probably makes no odds to them
how fast someone gets across the line, they don't care, they just want a good show.
The Analogy Breaks Down
This is not the case for the rest of society. Consider companies producing food. Is this a
form of entertainment? Do consumers watch the league tables of food companies, munching on
bags of popcorn as one company overtakes the other in stock price or quarterly profits?
Clearly not. Their goal is very different. The ‘consumer' wants food. They want food that
nourishes them, that tastes good, and that they can afford.
If a running race was analogous to food production, the point of the race would be for
somebody - anybody - to get across the line as quickly as possible. Then it would not make
sense for the runners to compete. What would make the most sense would be for them to
co-operate with each other. One of the athletes would run alongside the others shouting
encouragement to help them keep going. They would share their tips for how to train, on
running technique, and so on, in order to increase the maximise the speed of each person.
In short, they would work as a team to achieve the fastest time they could, pooling their
resources, and indifferent to which runner crossed the line first.
The point is that these competitive analogies don't work for our society. The goals are
different. If the goal is to produce the best food at the lowest cost, why don't food
companies co-operate? If they co-operate, they will each become more effective. They could
share material resources, skills, knowledge, and workers. Each firm could gain something
from the others and become more effective. From the point of view of producing something
this would be the best option. From the point of view of making a sporting spectacle it
wouldn't be. Football matches are great to watch when the two teams are clashing, taking
the ball off each other, trying to get in the other team's goal. But if the aim was
actually just to get the ball in one of the goals, regardless of who did it, then
obviously the two teams would stop impeding each other, and get the ball in a goal,
whichever goal, within a few seconds.
Why Don't Firms Co-operate Under Capitalism?
Why don't companies co-operate, why do they compete? The answer isn't a lack of
intelligence on the part of the businesses, it's not even a lack of morals, rather it is
built into the economic system. Competition is a fundamental fact. A business has to look
out for numero uno or else it will go under. This means not helping other businesses, even
though that would actually be best for the consumer.
Under capitalism, firms will go to great lengths to keep secrets from other firms, to the
extent that corporations are known to hire spies to conduct ‘industrial espionage' on
their competitors. From the perspective of one firm's profit, this makes sense. Sharing
their knowledge with competitors will dull their competitive edge and push them closer to
market failure. From the perspective of productivity, this is absurd. Hoarding knowledge
might increase profits, but it maims the production process across the board. We must ask
ourselves if the task - growing vegetables, designing computer chips, manufacturing
medicines - or profit-making is more important.
I have witnessed this nonsensical antagonism between firms first hand, receiving monthly
corporate updates from on high, usually involving some remark upon the success or failure
of the despised competition with schadenfreude at the ready for when it transpires that
their plans have been frustrated. It is utterly bizarre to someone who is rooting for
humanity rather than any particular company to observe such gladiatorial displays between
two enormous technology firms. ‘Surely', I think, ‘it would be better for everyone if we
co-operated, rather than walling ourselves off and wishing each other to fail'. But the
purpose is precisely to re-align the interests of workers and managers with the firm
rather than humanity. It's the corporate version of nationalism: how to make it seem as
though the CEO on $2 million a year is on the same team as the rest of us lackeys. It
definitely helps to have an external enemy. But that enemy isn't really an enemy at all,
it is a potential great friend and ally.
To switch from a competitive economy to a co-operative economy, we would need to make big
changes. We would need to re-write the economic system from scratch. That is possible and
it would be a huge boon for humanity. Competition is holding our creative capacity in a
straitjacket. We say ‘two heads is better than one', so why not unleash this principle in
our economy?
Plot Holes in the Competition Story
The fact is that capitalism was not invented like a jet engine, washing machine,
transistor, or wind turbine. Someone did not sit down trying to invent the best social
system from first principles, recording at some point ‘my research has proven conclusively
that competition produces the most and best quality work, the most groundbreaking ideas,
and the best satisfaction of human needs, out of any form of human or economic
interaction'. What happened is that capitalism spread around the planet, and people who
had a stake in its continued existence justified why it was the best post hoc, just like
if we decided we didn't want to do the dishes we might come up with all sorts of clever
and reasonable sounding reasons why somebody else should really do it.
Another fact is that capitalism could not function without co-operation. Co-workers are
driven by economic incentives to compete with each other, but if they did not meaningfully
co-operate, the firm would collapse. Firms co-operate in economic organisations like the
Chamber of Commerce. They don't really co-operate, for instance, they wouldn't share their
intellectual property with each other, they more conspire to increase the share of the pie
that business, rather than labour, gets. But even within an institutional framework of
rabid competition, capitalists see some need to co-operate. Firms will co-operate to
produce industrial standards so that production is more uniform across different firms
and, hence, is more harmonious and effective. Critically, capitalism can only continue to
exist because it sits upon a bedrock of human co-operation, without which society itself
would be ripped apart, and large-scale social organisation would become impossible.
Why Co-operation is Enough
The argument against 'two heads is better than one' is that without competition people
won't do anything productive, and if they do it will be poor quality because there isn't
the incentive to beat the competition. This is repeated over and over again, and it sounds
logical, but further consideration finds some serious problems with this explanation.
Firstly, if this was true, then no team or group could exist and co-operate, period. Think
of a family. Is that one big competitive marketplace? No. People co-operate and have a
sense of common purpose. The question which needs to be answered properly is why we are to
believe that co-operation can exist all across society, but it cannot be extended across
the economy.
Secondly, we are not stupid. We will still be able to figure out that we need to eat food
to live, without a competitive economy! It's as simple as some people deciding ‘let's grow
some food', others saying ‘let's process some food', others saying ‘let's distribute some
food', and others saying ‘let's stock some food'. We manage to do things in our own lives
every day without doing so for reasons of competition, and if humans needed competition to
organise such basic matters, our species would have gone extinct long ago. The idea that
we are clueless morons who cannot understand what needs to be done without being forced
into competition with other people is not just deeply insulting it is absurd.
Recall that under feudalism people like you and me were told to believe in the divine
right of kings, that monarchies were the presence of god on Earth. We are fed all sorts of
guff to believe that the current situation is fair and wonderful even if it makes no
sense, 2000 years ago, 500 years ago, and today.
Thirdly, competition is not the sole reason, or often the reason at all, that humans do
things well. If there's anything I know about people, it's that we are proud. We like to
do a good job, feel like we did a solid day's work, whatever that is, feel useful. That is
very important to us. And this isn't just my opinion, it has long been the consensus
within the field of psychology. That's one reason a person's mental health often gets
crippled when they lose their job. They lose a sense of purpose and feel useless - it is
unfortunate because not having a job doesn't stop one being a human deserving of
happiness, but this is how we learn to think in this society.
If one talks to a teacher, they will not say ‘I bring out the best I can in my students so
I can be as competitive as I can on the labour market'. That is ridiculous. If one talks
to a surgeon, they will not say ‘I am as careful and as quick as I can be in surgery so
that I can be as competitive as possible on the labour market'. That is ridiculous. They
will say that they take pride in their job and that it is important to do well because the
results matter. Engineers, the people behind most of what is nowadays called ‘innovation',
are famously indifferent to business matters and most would rather be left alone as
boffins focusing on developing a high quality and clever product. It is amazing just how
enthusiastic a person can be about something another might consider monumentally tedious.
People like to be good at what they do. There will always be a few slackers, but, as we
know, that is true under this competitive system. There is an argument to be made that we
have even more slackers because of how this economic system works but let us leave that
for another article.
Lazy Monopolies
A common objection to critiques of market competition is that if there was only one
company, the personnel would likely become complacent, lowering quality, efficiency, and
innovation. That argument is not without merit. But the salient fact is that the
alternative being presented here is not monopoly under capitalism. It is not about
reducing the number of firms who compete for profits on a market to a number as close to
one as possible. The alternative is changing the economic system so that competition is
not the defining principle of operation. There are things that humans need and want, and
we would organise ourselves, using our ability to rational reflect upon our circumstances,
in the most efficient and fairest ways possible to meet those needs and wants.
Becoming complacent due to lack of competitors for profits wouldn't be applicable. Under
capitalism, firms organise themselves to maximise profits, for which they compete with
other firms. They must stay ahead of, or at least even with, the progress of their
competitors. When that stimulus, the push and pull of market share from other firms, is
removed, and a firm becomes a monopoly, they have a captive market, and can be less
concerned with satisfying customers than before. This is because the aim of the firm was
never to satisfy customers, it was to make profit.
A productive organisation in a co-operative society would not experience this shift in
priorities. The organisation was never trying to make profit, it was always trying to meet
human needs and wants most effectively. So it doesn't matter if there are zero, one, two,
or twenty, other similar organisations attempting the same task, it will not become
complacent due to lack of competition. If we wanted, we could say that such organisations
would be competing with the physical conditions of the universe, for health against
disease, for plenty against scarcity, for leisure against toil, and so forth.
Is There a Place for Economic Competition?
Does this all mean that we should eradicate all competition from our economic affairs?
Furthermore, should we eliminate competition as an idea totally?
What needs to happen is that competition ceases to be the primary organising principle in
our economic affairs, that competition is no longer institutionalised and lionised.
Is there still room for economic competition then? Not as we would immediately recognise
it. Perhaps competition in small doses has some value. It can be motivating and healthy
sometimes to have some friendly competition. That might merely involve a person observing
others, for instance a particularly able co-worker, and attempting to keep up with or
surpass their productivity. That can be fine, even a good thing, as long the ego doesn't
get in the way and degenerate from friendly competition to bare competition, and as long
as it doesn't turn into a rivalry.
There's a fine line to tread on, and it's always best to strive for a truly co-operative
approach as the default since even small amounts of competition can be corrosive. Upon
further reflection, it seems this is less competition and more using what others do as
motivation to improve oneself. The more egotism enters the process, the more it becomes
competition.
It might involve different teams within a given enterprise having a friendly competition
to devise the best solution to a problem. This could in some circumstances be a good way
to explore different solutions and then choose the best one. In some circumstances,
another approach would be better. The point is not to elevate competition as almost a
moral principle which must be enacted.
There could be several different enterprises or organisations engaging in a certain
pursuit, say designing and manufacturing guitars, rather than one enterprise. This is
especially likely since as a global society, do we expect all guitars to be designed and
manufactured in one part of the planet, all bananas to grown in another, all books to be
published in another? Of course not. In the case of guitars, different organisations might
have different approaches to doing the best job. Some guitarists might appreciate one type
more than another, the different enterprises could learn from one another, perhaps noting
ideas they wouldn't have developed themselves. That is a healthy dynamic to be encouraged,
and one which at no point requires one enterprise to try to overwhelm, dominate, and bury,
the other ones. It is not competition so much as each enterprise striving to be its best,
and learning from other enterprises attempting a similar task. There would be no
institutional reason the enterprises could not help each other, since the aim would be
meeting the human want of music, rather than the economic goal of profit.
If no one wanted the guitars of one enterprise, perhaps the enterprise would not need to
exist any longer. Under capitalism, that means dreaded unemployment, being tossed to the
gutter. But in a co-operative society the needs of the workers would be provided for by
society - no cause for panic. And after all, the goal of meeting human needs and wants
would have been achieved, either some other guitars were satisfying to people, or no one
wanted guitars anymore. Isn't that a logical way of approaching life?
Should We Eliminate Competition Totally?
Should we eliminate the idea of competition totally? Of course not. The above examples
prove this, as does the earlier discussion of competitive sport. There is some limited
place for competition within our societies, either in peculiar contexts like sports, in
dilute form as motivation to improve ourselves, or even occasionally as a technique to
find the best solution between groups. And certainly competition with oneself, which is of
another character entirely to competition with other people, is very valuable and ought to
be encouraged.
But just because in some very particular cases it has merit, does not mean we should base
our society upon it. That is as reasonable as saying that because sometimes guilt can
produce good results, we should base our society upon feeling guilty, or that because
sometimes shouting serves a good purpose, shouting at one another should become the norm.
Competition is surely a blight on our existence. We compete with each other to look the
best, we compete to be the funniest, we compete to be the coolest and most popular, we
compete to be the most successful, we compete to be the most moral, we compete to be the
most intelligent and knowledgeable, we compete to be the most manly and the most feminine.
This is based upon insecurity and a phony understanding of what life is about, something
we all accept in some regard, unless we put tremendous effort into overcoming our
psychological weaknesses and social programming. And even then, something lingers.
Many will attribute such competition to human nature, and, in truth, it couldn't happen if
this potential didn't exist somewhere in our natures. But there also exists a different
potential, a potential to live as securer, wiser, more open, people. People who strive to
be themselves and do the best they can rather than constantly comparing themselves with
others, rather than living to ‘get on top' in life, as if it were a big sprinting race and
other people were our opponents.
The Future is Co-operation
Which human potential is expressed is largely a function of what environment we create for
ourselves. A society which institutionalises competition between people cannot be expected
to produce an environment conducive to the securer, wiser, more open, people we could and
should be.
We are even split geographically into different ‘nations' which compete with each other on
‘the world stage', even though the nation in which a person is born is as random as the
lottery. Each nation tries to maximise its ‘competitive advantage', to lower its
corporation tax and minimum wage to attract foreign direct investment away from other
nations, even to hold the biggest nuclear arsenal so it could annihilate every other
nation. Does this competitive game best serve the human species?
Our intense ability and propensity to co-operate is one of the distinguishing features of
Homo sapiens - it is a deeply ingrained inclination which naturally evolved because it
works, and which takes quite a sustained hammering to knock out. Whatever the small
acceptable degree of competition in our societies, what is certain is that our lives will
be successful and flourishing in proportion to how much we choose to co-operate with one
another. We could have a global human society founded upon co-operation, where teamwork
replaces bitter conflict, where ‘two heads are better than one' is put into practice,
where we have realised that when we join forces life is better than it ever could be
straining against each other.
Author: Alex Amargi
https://wsm.ie/c/anarchism-competition-cooperation-introduction
------------------------------
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten