Anarchic update news all over the world - 4.04.2018

Today's Topics:

   
1.  US, black rose fed - ACTIVE REVOLUTION: ORGANIZING, BASE
      BUILDING AND DUAL POWER (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
2.  France, Alternative Libertaire AL #281 - Neither God nor
      schoolmaster: Célestin Freinet, a libertarian educator ? (fr,
      it, pt) [machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
3.  Greece, Update from the Anti-Patriarch-AP Group's
      interventions in Athens, Patras and Thessaloniki on 8 March By
      APO (gr) [machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
4.  anarchist communist group acg: Workers wildcat at East
      London recycling plant (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
5.  Czech: afed: Existential party on "Reaction Ready" [machine
      translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
6.  vrije bond: City For Sale? Lecture about gentrification,
      housing and action (nl) (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)


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

Message: 1





While the larger radical/anti-capitalist left has arguably few universal tenets of 
strategic agreement, the statement that "a strong left is one that's rooted in working 
class and oppressed communities and struggles" is easily one of them. The question that 
all tendencies and formations grapple with is how do we understand this process and what 
are the methods to transition from being isolated and powerless players to a left with 
deep roots within powerful working class social movements. ---- A welcome discussion along 
these lines is from Philly Socialists and the "Marxist Center" conference and a recently 
compiled reader around the concepts of ‘base building' and ‘dual power' titled "It's All 
About that Base". If you're not familiar we recommend giving it a read.

With this post we wanted to highlight a number of writings with similar themes coming out 
of the contemporary US anarchist milieu stretching back over 20 years into the late 1990s. 
Likely the entry of the concept of dual power into the vernacular of US anarchism first 
came with Love & Rage Revolutionary Anarchist Federation in numerous writings and made the 
point in their Draft Political Statement that "The creation of a general state of dual 
power is a necessary requirement for a successful revolution."

The reprinted article below, "Active Revolution" by James Mumm, published in The 
Northeastern Anarchist (Issue #4, Spring/Summer 2002) and circulated in other forms in the 
late 1990s, provides an extensive treatment on the difference between activism and 
organizing, dual power, movement building and collective power. While we may not agree 
with all the particulars today and these discussions have advanced and evolved over time, 
this piece is an important reference point for those active in US anarchism since the 
2000's. (We also would highlight the "Editor's Note" from The Northeastern Anarchist at 
the end which takes issue with the piece's position on political organization).

Other reference points since the publication of this piece are those of the late Joel 
Olson with Bring the Ruckus in his 2009 piece "Between infoshops and insurrection: U.S. 
anarchism, movement building, and the racial order." Influential pieces include "Back to 
the Roots: Anarchists as Revolutionary Organizers" by Ian Martin circa 2005 which 
highlighted the need to "build relationships," "organize relationships into a structured 
form," and "build leadership and empower people" toward the goal of dual power. This and 
other similar pieces are included in "An Anarchist Reader for Effective Organising" 
published by Zabalaza Books in South Africa.

An important landmark especially for those of us Black Rose/Rosa Negra is the influence of 
the South American current of anarchism known as "especifismo" which introduced a new 
vocabulary around relating to movements, concepts such as "social insertion" and later the 
concept of "popular power."

 From "Especifismo: The Anarchist Praxis of Building Popular Movements and Revolutionary 
Organization" published in The Northeastern Anarchist (Issue #11, 2007):

"Social insertion means anarchist involvement in the daily fights of the oppressed and 
working classes. It does not mean acting within single-issue advocacy campaigns based 
around the involvement of expected traditional political activists, but rather within 
movements of people struggling to better their own condition, which come together not 
always out of exclusively materially-based needs, but also socially and historically 
rooted needs of resisting the attacks of the state and capitalism."

Later documents such as "Anarchism and Social Organization," a 2008 organizational 
document of the Anarchist Federation of Rio de Janeiro (FARJ), translated into English in 
2012 (see the English edition introductory note), also provide more detailed discussions 
around building popular movements and how these relate to political organization. In sum, 
we think pieces like "Active Revolution" and the other writings mentioned here can be 
useful reference points in discussions today around these concepts.

-Introduction by Adam Weaver

Part I: Anarchist, Grassroots Dual Power
Dual Power Defined
The term "Dual Power" has been used in several ways since it was first coined. The 
following definition builds on the previous meanings of Dual Power, most importantly by 
articulating the equal and necessary relationship between counter-power and 
counter-institutions. In the original definition, dual power referred to the creation of 
an alternative, liberatory power to exist alongside and eventually overcome 
state/capitalist power.

Dual power theorizes a distinct and oppositional relationship between the forces of the 
state/capitalism and the revolutionary forces of oppressed people. The two can never be 
peacefully reconciled.

With the theory of dual power is a dual strategy of public resistance to oppression 
(counter-power) and building cooperative alternatives (counter-institutions). Public 
resistance to oppression encompasses all of the direct action and protest movements that 
fight authoritarianism, capitalism, racism, sexism, homophobia, and the other 
institutionalized oppressions. Building cooperative alternatives recreates the social and 
economic relationships of society to replace competitive with cooperative structures.

It is critical that these two general modes of action do not become isolated within a 
given movement. Counter-power and counter-institutional organizations must be in 
relationship to each other. The value of reconnecting counter-institutional organizations 
with explicitly oppositional counter-power organizations is a safeguard against the 
former's tendency to become less radical over time. As counter-power organizations are 
reconnected to their base, they ground their political analysis in the concrete experience 
of counter-institutions - mitigating against the potential political "distance" between 
their rhetoric and the consciousness of their families, fellow workers and neighbors.

Dual power does not imply a dual set of principles, and therefore processes - one for 
public resistance and other for building cooperative alternatives. The process used for 
both strategic directions has the same set of principles at its root. The anarchist 
principles of direct democracy, cooperation and mutual aid have practical implications 
which inform the dual power strategies for revolution.

Direct democracy means that people accept the right and responsibility to participate in 
the decisions which affect their lives.

Cooperation means that our social and economic structure is egalitarian, that we cooperate 
instead of compete to fulfill our needs and desires.

Mutual aid means that we share our resources between individuals and groups toward 
universal need and desire fulfillment.

These principles lend us the foundation for creating inclusive, anti-authoritarian 
relationships as we work in grassroots organizations. Regardless of the strategic 
direction within dual power that is being pursued, we will follow the same process - 
building relationships, organizing these relationships into groups, and moving these 
groups toward collective action.

We organize in order to build power with others - power that gives us the opportunity to 
participate in the decisions which affect our lives. It is in the conscious construction 
and use of this power that we find true democracy.

Part II: Defining a Process for Revolutionary Social Change
Liberation is the struggle to be fully present, to have the ability to act - to become 
powerful, relevant and therefore historical. Liberation through action is one of the ways 
in which people experience such self-actualizing transformation. Of course, liberation can 
also take place through other means - chief among these are popular education, cultural 
work and identity-based activity.

But, in our complex and oppressive society, a holistic strategy for liberation must be 
multi-faceted and geared toward some measure of action.

Once we get beyond this general agreement on the centrality of action to liberation, the 
debate on the specifics of action begins. There is a clear distinction between the three 
most common forms of action in the United States - activism, advocacy and organizing. 
Their effectiveness as strategies for change is at the heart of this essay. First, a 
summary of each strategy.

Activism - An activist is a person who is responsible to a defined issue and who helps 
address that issue through mobilizing a base of people to take collective action. 
Activists are accountable to themselves as moral actors on a specific issue. Democratic 
structures are a utilitarian consequence of activities designed to win on the defined 
issue (my definition).

Advocacy - An advocate is a person who is responsible to a defined issue and who helps 
address that issue through collective action that uses the instruments of democracy to 
establish and implement laws and policies that will create a just and equitable society 
(Advocacy Institute).

Organizing - An organizer is a person who is responsible to a defined constituency and who 
helps build that constituency through leadership development, collective action and the 
development of democratic structures (National Organizers Alliance).

To clarify, power is simply the ability to act - and it can be used over or with others. 
As anarchists, power with others forms the core of our belief system. In each of the above 
strategies, power is gained through collective action - how each uses that power begins to 
illuminate considerable differences. The democratic structures created to focus that power 
also shed light on these differences.

Relationships form the foundation of all collective action. The intentionality of those 
relationships determines if your primary commitment is to your constituency or to the 
issue around which a constituency is built.

People participate in collective action because they have a self-interest in doing so. 
Self-interest is a middle ground between selfishness and self-sacrifice, determined most 
practically by the activities in which people spend their time, energy and money. 
Self-interest is the activity of the individual in relation to others. It is in the 
self-interest of people to participate in social change because such activities resonate 
with a need or desire within themselves. Thus, people choose issues or organizations 
because something about them is in their self-interest.

In addition to a shared commitment to collective action - power, relationships and 
self-interest are all critical elements that the three strategies of action have in 
common. The differences emerge in the use of power, the degree of intentionality placed on 
relationship-building, and the emphasis on issue or organization as the point of 
connection between people.

1. Use of Power
Activists and advocates use power primarily to win on issues. Given that power is 
currently derived from two sources - people and money - activists and advocates try to 
mobilize a quantity of each to affect change. More often than not this means mobilizing a 
lot of people, and a little bit of money. These two strategies differ in that advocacy is 
explicitly about altering the relations of power in the established institutions of 
society, while activism doesn't necessarily place its faith in the perfectibility of 
American democratic institutions.

Advocates make a serious error in not differentiating power over others and power with 
others. They try to negotiate for a change in the relations of power between oppressor and 
oppressed, failing to understand that these two conceptions of power cannot be peacefully 
reconciled. Advocates end up negotiating to share power over others, and in doing so find 
themselves transformed.

No longer are they building power with others, but power for others - which is just a 
lighter shade of power over others. The struggle between these two types of power is a 
zero sum game - as one wins, the other loses. Only power with others is limitless; power 
over others always implies a finite amount of power.

Activism's power is derived first from its ability to affect change on issues and secondly 
on the potential force for change embodied in organized people. Organizing uses power 
differently - by first building an organization. For organizers, issues are a means to an 
end (the development of peoples' capacity to affect change). Organizers' use of power with 
others to alter the relations of power over others inherent in government or capitalist 
corporations forces such authoritarian groups into a debilitating contradiction. Opening 
such contradictions creates room for change. Authoritarian institutions may well react 
with violence to preserve power over others, or these contradictions may result in real 
social change. Liberation and revolution take place as relationships change from 
authoritarian to egalitarian.

Too often organizers and their organizations fall prey to the same negative transformation 
as advocates - in negotiation to alter the relations of power they begin to build power 
for others rather than power with others. The authoritarian government and capitalist 
system are frighteningly seductive. They promise to change incrementally, and then slowly 
lull organizers, advocates and activists into a reformist sleep. However, the strength of 
organizing lies in the deliberate construction of a constituency that holds itself, its 
organization and its organizers publicly accountable. A commitment to relationships rather 
than issues is key to public accountability, and to insuring a lasting dedication to 
building power with others.

2. Relationship-Building
All action has the potential to be liberatory. However, it is the degree of intentionality 
placed on relationship-building that determines the quality of the learning that takes 
place. Organizers differentiate between public and private relationships. Public 
relationships are those in which there is an agreement between people to act and reflect 
together in the process of social change. Organizers cultivate deliberate public 
relationships and bring people together in situations that foster relationship-building 
among those taking action. Intentional reflection upon action is key to maximizing 
learning. In organizing, people recognize relationships - not issues - as the foundation 
of their organizations.

Activism and advocacy use relationships as a means to an end - victory on an issue. 
Relationships are an end in themselves for organizers. This element of the debate centers 
on the question of constituency. The constituency of activism is other activists and 
potential activists, motivated through their individual moral commitments to a given 
issue. Advocates have no primary constituency. The constituency of an organizer is the 
universe of people who are potential members of a given organization with a defined 
geographical area or non-geographical base (through affinity or identity).

3. Issue vs. Organization
Relationships are built between people; only through abstraction can we say that people 
have relationships with institutions or issues. There is an inherent contradiction in 
activism's attempts to mobilize people around an issue, given that issues are conceptual 
while people actually exist. People are not in relationship with issues - they can only be 
in relationship with other people.

Organizations provide the context for public relationships. As anarchists we build 
organizations based on the ‘power with others', non-hierarchical model. We believe in 
organization - how much and in what form are the debatable points. But, as anarchists, we 
know that organization is necessary as a vehicle for collective action.

Multiple dynamic relationships (organizations) are the product of an organizer's work. For 
activists, organizations are a utilitarian consequence of their work on a given issue. And 
for advocates they are a utilitarian tool used to negotiate for power. Organizers trust in 
the ability of people to define their own issues, a faith that rests in the knowledge that 
maximizing the quantity and quality of relationships produces dynamic organizations and 
therefore dynamic change. Advocates synthesize issues from a dialogue between people and 
dominant institutions, and they struggle for practical changes to the "system." Activists 
engage in continuous analysis of issues, producing clear and poignant agendas for social 
change - and then rally people around those agendas.

The problem of "distance" is primarily one of both activism and advocacy. People who spend 
a great deal of time developing an issue have a tendency to create an analysis that is 
significantly different than that of most other people. As the distance increases between 
the depth of understanding between an activist or advocate and that of other people, we 
find increasing polarization. Such distance can breed a vicious cycle of isolation.

4. Revolutionary Social Change
Perhaps the greatest difference between these three strategies of action is in their 
ability over to time to create revolutionary change. In the final analysis - primary 
commitment to an issue is in contradiction to a primary commitment to power with others. 
The faith of anarchists lies in the ability of people to govern themselves - on holding 
power with others. This faith implies a staggering level of trust in others, and a 
monumental commitment on a personal level to participate publicly in social change. 
Activism and advocacy have no such trust in others - their faith is in their analysis of, 
and moral commitment to, an issue. By putting their faith in an issue they are removing 
their faith from people. Relationships do not form the basis for their action, and 
therefore they cannot be said to have a primary commitment to power with others. Of the 
three strategies of action, only organizing has a primary commitment to people - to power 
with others - and to anarchism.

The modern anarchist conception of dual power encourages us to build liberatory 
institutions while we fight the oppression of the dominant system. Activism and organizing 
exist in both arenas, while advocacy exists only in the latter.

There is room to construct and practice a fresh revolutionary organizing process that is 
relevant to our current historical context. Aspects of such a revolutionary program would 
certainly incorporate radical social service, counter-institutional economic development, 
counter-power, educational and cultural dimensions. To maximize our effectiveness, it is 
important to define our strategy for action clearly across the range of possible 
activities and organizations.

As a model approach, organizing offers a starting point for a strategic social change 
process. Advocacy, as a contradictory and liberal strategy, may be necessary in order to 
keep the system from degenerating at a faster pace but it is insufficient for anarchists 
interested in revolutionary change. Activism is flawed by its insistence on elevating 
issues over relationships and its tendency to use organization and people as means to an end.

Organizing begins when we make a commitment to develop the capacity of ourselves and those 
people with whom we work to affect change. The intensity of conscious action and 
reflection is the engine that drives organizers to build relationships, construct dynamic 
organizations, and move those relationships into collective action. As anarchists we must 
learn the theory and practice of organizing if we are truly committed to revolutionary change.

5. Organizing Theory/Organizing Skills
A holistic framework of effective organizing (through community, labor or issue-based 
organizations) must include some conception of relationships, self-interest, power, and 
organization. Again, relationships are the means with which we communicate and regulate 
our social existence. Relationships are always political, and as such are the foundation 
of all conceptions of power. Self-interest is the self in relationship to others, and 
signifies our political bonds and individual priorities for how we spend our time, energy 
and money. Power is simply the ability to act, and can be used as either power with others 
or power over others. Organizations are social constructs with which power is exercised.

The skills of effective organizing are all geared toward building relationships, 
organizing those relationships into groups and moving those groups into collective action. 
One-on-one meetings are structured conversations that allow each person to share their 
experiences toward identifying their individual and mutual self-interests. These meetings 
may be scheduled, or they may take place going door-to-door, house-to-house, or over the 
phone. A network of one-on-one relationships can be increased exponentially by asking 
people to hold "house meetings" where people invite their own networks (family, friends, 
neighbors or co-workers). Through this process we can identify people who are potential 
leaders - people with a sense of humor, a vision of a better world, a willingness to work 
with others, and a desire to learn and grow in the context of action. As relationships are 
built between leaders, organizations are formed which can move into action on collectively 
defined issues.

This is the critical point - it doesn't matter what issue people choose to work on. And we 
shouldn't steer people in a direction that we think is better or more radical. Organizing 
is not about identifying an issue and rallying or mobilizing people around it. Organizing 
is about building organizations that can wield collective power. Action may begin as 
reform to the existing system, and that is OK. We cannot expect people to take radical 
action if they have not yet given up on the "system." It is our job to encourage action in 
many forms, and to reflect upon that action in order to learn from it. We must trust that 
such action and reflection will radicalize people over time.

Finally, how do we organize non-anarchists, or more seriously, people with different 
class, race, cultural backgrounds from ourselves, or do we? We must begin by locating 
ourselves in the complex matrix of oppression. What is your identity, in what ways do you 
experience oppression? In this way we can identify the social networks in which we either 
have relationships, or because of our identity could readily form relationships.

Then we must ask ourselves - where do we want to have an impact? In what communities can 
we identify a constituency for our organizing efforts? Do we have a common identity with 
these identified communities? If not, why do we consider them a possible constituency?

It is very important to identify the constituency in which we want to have an impact 
before we identify issues that we will work on. To do otherwise takes us backward, and 
initiates an authoritarian process in which we are dictating issues to a constituency.

Getting back to the question - is it wrong for an organizer to define a constituency that 
is not a part of their history or identity? Should we concentrate on organizing within our 
own communities? I cannot answer these questions for you - I simply don't have the 
answers. But, I do know that they are critical and must be resolved before an organizing 
or popular education project may begin.

6. Active Participation by Anarchists in Community, Education, Labor and Issue-based 
Organizations
It is not a concession to liberalism, nor a descent into reformism, for revolutionaries to 
participate actively in organizations that are not explicitly radical. Neither are we 
their vanguard. The only realistic way to build a mass movement is to work directly with 
oppressed people - in essence, we are transformed as we transform others.

We join existing organizations to build our skills in the realm of political action. 
Through immersion in grassroots struggles we develop an understanding of the process of 
radicalization - beginning where people are at, using dialogue and research to build our 
collective analysis, taking action, and reflecting upon that action in an ongoing circular 
process.

There are some hard learned truths in these ideas. First, your vision of a better world is 
incomplete and impotent without the participation of grassroots people in its construction.

Second, you cannot impose your ideas, however radical you think they are and however 
backward you think others' beliefs are, without compromising anarchist principles. So 
then, how do we move forward?

Participation in existing organizations allows us to gain experience in political action. 
We can then use this experience to create new organizations that are based more closely on 
anarchist principles, but which are still dedicated to a grassroots base. But, you should 
not presume that you are ready to start a grassroots organization without having a clear 
idea on how to build and sustain such a group. That is why I encourage you to learn from 
the many models of organizing and education that are currently operating in the world 
before you strike out on your own.

Part III: Concrete Directions for Dual Power
1. Current Anarchist Forms of Organization
Anarchists have used a wide array of organizational forms and strategies of action in the 
past one hundred and fifty years.

Collectives: Cadre organizations (or closed collectives) and open collectives closely 
resonate with an activist strategy. Infoshops, for example, operate as open collectives. 
As activist groups, they tend to coalesce around an issue - in this case anarchism itself. 
Most infoshops of the 1990s who attempted to move beyond the limitations of activism were 
hampered by theoretical and practical barriers. The Beehive (Washington, DC), Emma Center 
(Minneapolis, MN)and the A-Zone's (Chicago, IL) attempts at anti-gentrification organizing 
have been intermittent and rarely effective. Issues and analysis must be developed in 
conjunction with the people affected by those given issues, or the separation between 
people and analysis leads to vanguardist distance. You cannot be an ally without first 
choosing the method of alliance - what is your relationship to the people affected by an 
issue, and how will your organizational form contribute to effective work on that issue? 
These are central questions for anarchists operating on a local level and who are 
interested in grassroots struggle.

Worker/Consumer Cooperatives: Worker cooperatives are a special category of closed 
collectives - as consumer cooperatives are of open collectives. As needs-based 
organizations, they combine elements of activist and organizing strategies. It is critical 
for grassroots cooperatives to commit themselves to organizing's participatory model of 
action, but it is also vital that they are allowed the space to try out new ideas. With a 
careful eye to the issue of distance, cooperatives are an effective means of organization.

Mass-based Organizations: Mass-based organizations, like the IWW, have the potential to be 
influential elements of a popular revolutionary movement. There is no effective way to 
build a mass-based organization except through organizing. A cursory reading of history 
shows mass-based organizations growing as movements spring up in response to injustice - 
and then they fade away when justice is met. This conception of history ignores the 
countless years of work that go into every "spontaneous" movement. Spain had a 
revolutionary anarchist movement in 1936 because of the incredible organizing that began 
there in the 1860s.

Intermediary Organizations: Organizations that directly encourage the creation and 
development of the above forms of organization are necessary adjuncts to a holistic 
conception of revolutionary organizing. In an anarchist model, intermediary organizations 
are most effective in the form of a confederation. Intermediaries can provide:

Dialogue and Action - as a political formation, counter-institutional and counter-power 
organizations would come together to engage in revolutionary praxis (action and reflection).

Training - on the basics of organizing, facilitation, issue analysis, direct action 
techniques, organizational, issue and membership development, etc.

Technical Assistance - participatory research on issues, access to technology, technical 
knowledge on the "how-tos" of things like forming economic or housing cooperatives (where 
to get money, how to get started, etc.).

Financial Assistance - grassroots fundraising, grant writing, and the investigation and 
implementation of resource pools.

The point is that anarchists must think strategically about their forms of organization 
and strategies of action within a particular historical context. We must make conscious 
and informed decisions about the prospects for effective revolutionary social change that 
are either enhanced or limited by our choices of organization and action.

2. Becoming More Radical and More Grassroots
More than fifteen years of modern anarchist gatherings, conferences and events haven't led 
to a coherent anarchist movement - on a continental, regional or local level. This is 
significant because other groups of people, similarly collected together on the basis of 
political or issue affinity have developed a higher degree of movement organization. Why? 
First, anarchists have tended to form organizations that are not integrated with a 
grassroots base and, second, anarchists have not built effective intermediary organizations.

The lack of a grassroots base is the result of an anti-mass conception of organization 
among anarchists. Favoring collectives, anarchists have constructed insular groups that 
are simply not relevant to the lives of their families, neighbors and co-workers. While 
collective organization is useful under certain conditions, it is not conducive to 
building a movement, which implies a much higher level of mass participation. Learning 
organizing and popular education theories and skills is the answer for anarchists 
interested in building a broad-based and diverse movement.

Additionally, North American anarchists have not developed intermediary organizations to 
connect locally organized radical groups with each other, and then to 
regional/national/continental networks. Anarchists seem hellbent on remaining a collection 
of individual people and their individual groups due to a reluctance to be accountable to 
a wider constituency through engaging in the process of strategic organizing and popular 
education. Simply arguing for a network (locally or continentally), presumably for 
communication and mutual aid, also hasn't taken off despite numerous tries. And in the 
case of the Love and Rage Revolutionary Anarchist Federation, it did work for almost a 
decade, but at the expense of losing the local organizations. This does not have to be the 
case.

We need to develop massive resources of our own - social and economic - if we want to make 
similarly massive changes in society. Our forms of organization must infect and transform 
society away from competition, capitalism and oppression.

The challenge is to initiate broad-based organizing and popular education to build both 
counter-power and counter-institutional organizations and to construct intermediary 
confederations to connect them. We must stop trying to build a movement of anarchists and 
instead fight for an anarchistic movement.

* * * * *
Editor's Note
Although we welcome the author's insights and analysis around dual power and grassroots 
organizing, we reject his final conclusion which claims that anarchists must "stop trying 
to build a movement of anarchists, and instead fight for an anarchistic movement." Those 
of us from NEFAC would argue that both are equally necessary.

We do not believe that an activist strategy based solely on anarchist methods of 
organizing (self-organization, mutual aid, solidarity and direct action) will inevitably 
lead us any closer towards anarchism. Such a strategy, on its own, only serves to provide 
a radical veneer and egalitarian legitimacy for liberal-reformist or authoritarian 
activist trends.

A successful revolution will require that anarchist ideas become the leading ideas within 
the social movements and popular struggles of the working class. This will not happen 
spontaneously. We believe that, if only to wage the battle of ideas, anarchist 
organizations are necessary. The purpose of such organizations, for us, is to connect 
local grassroots activism to a larger strategy of social revolution; to create an 
organizational pole for anarchists to develop theory and practice, share skills and 
experiences, and agitate for explicitly anarchist demands (in opposition to 
liberal-reformist or authoritarian trends) within our activism.

If you enjoyed this piece we recommend the similarly themed pieces, "Building Power and 
Advancing: For Reforms, Not Reformism" by Thomas Giovanni and "The Problems Posed by the 
Concrete Class Struggle and Popular Organization" by José Antonio Gutiérrez D.

http://blackrosefed.org/base-building-dual-power/

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

Message: 2





A trip over the Atlantic further, go to the School of Piolier in Vence (Alpes-Maritimes) 
to discover what the work of Celestin Freinet proposes and in what it meets the principles 
of libertarian education . ---- Small impromptu step on the land of Celestin Freinet, not 
far from Nice, on the grounds of the famous teacher of the schools of the last century, 
emancipator, critic, one could say even political. Politics but not partisan ... 
Libertarian, then Freinet ? As Anne-Marie Milon Oliveira reminds us in her interesting 
book (in Brazilian Portuguese), "  without a shadow of a doubt, anarchist thought is 
present, very present even, in the work of Freinet  ". The trade union educator in 1935 
had had to open his own proletarian school despite his commitment to public school. He 
had, in fact, to bear the brunt of the attacks of fascists and local reactionaries. Thus, 
from 36-37, with the Spanish war the school will host small Spanish refugees whose parents 
are struggling with the conflict.

And today ? Does the Freinet project in terms of education continue to carry values and 
functions that correspond to our own principles and modes of action ?

At the top of a village road is the school surrounded by a large park with a completely 
deconcentrated plan: it is the geography of the place that guides the establishment of the 
school buildings. Each of them appears as the testimony of a collective organization 
without hierarchy or centralism.

We notice the small theater with the antique miniature which testifies to this attention 
paid to the tools of the emancipation that one finds in many initiatives of popular education.

In class, we find the teacher in the middle of students who work individually, in pairs, 
in groups, on their own initiative, following a path established by the dialogue with the 
teacher, the self-evaluation of his level, knowledge to achieve. Also note the maintenance 
work done by the children in autonomy ... Everything shows that freedom (seen as an 
apprenticeship, a conquest) goes hand in hand with initiative and sense of responsibility 
and that children know how to cultivate one. and the other when they have the opportunity.

If, indeed, Celestin Freinet was not an educator of the libertarian movement in the strict 
sense of the term, his work is nevertheless a fundamental step towards libertarian 
education, partly because it belongs to a time when, in any case, libertarian thought 
permeated the entire educational world. And it still feels today in the school he founded 
where we find principles and techniques that remind us of Paul Robin, Sébastien Faure and 
other more recent.

So, yes, Freinet is not libertarian pedagogy in the strict sense but it has interesting 
aspects that invite to deepen the discourse and especially the practice.

Accattone

http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?Ni-Dieu-ni-maitre-d-ecole-Celestin-Freinet-un-educateur-libertaire

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

Message: 3





On Thursday 8/3, interventions were made by the Anti-Patriarchate Group - APO in Athens, 
Patras, Thessaloniki on the occasion of "Women's Day". Behind the legendary myths, which 
distort the assumption of female emancipation by presenting it as a request for "equality" 
in the administration of power, lies the story of bloody feminine struggles, from the 
strikes in which emigrant seals were at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of 
the 20th century, from where the roots of March 8 to Mujeres Libres, drawing a route to 
this day. ---- In Athens, we participated in the gathering and demonstration that was 
called at Klathymonos Square. We shared the text of the Group against Patriarchate, which 
was read by the microphone along with a brief greeting to the International Meeting of 
struggling women in Mexico and a message of solidarity with the comrades in Turkey who 
were demonstrating the same day against gender discrimination as well as the extraordinary 
which was attempted to be imposed by a ban on all concentrations. With a banner saying 
"From Greece to Mexico and from Turkey to Palestine - Internationalist Solidarity in 
Women's Games against Patriarchy, the State and Capitalism" we participated in the 
process, we called slogans such as "Women's Subversive Games, Social Revolution in the 
whole earth ",

In Thessaloniki, we called a microphone gathering in Kamara, where she shared the text of 
the Women's Group against Patriarchy on 8 March, as well as the brochures published by our 
team, "Challenges for Women's Liberation. A look through women's struggles in Chiapas ". 
The banner of the collection wrote "MEXICO TO TURKEY WOMEN'S WOMEN FOR FREEDOM". Extracts 
from our text were read and we welcomed the first international meeting of women 
struggling, called by Zapatista women. The call of the women's team to the Patriarchal 
Solidarity Demonstration in Libertatia Occupation was also read, sending a message of 
solidarity and resistance to every woman struggling against exploitation and oppression 
for a life of dignity.

In Patras, about 90 people responded to the call of the Women's Initiative Against 
Patriarchy and the Group Against Patriotism of the APO. in Georgiou square. There were two 
banners in the gathering, one of the initiative that read: "March 8 - RESISTANCE AND RACE 
DAY | INTERNATIONAL AND DOCTORAL SOLIDARITY IN WOMEN 'S WOMEN "and one of the group 
against the patriotism of APO:" FROM GREECE TO MEXICO AND TURKISH WOMEN' S FIGHT FOR 
FREEDOM ". Hundreds of texts were shared, tricky threads were thrown, reminding us that 
our position is such a day on the road. This year's gathering for March 8 was one of the 
most massive gatherings of recent years in Patras.

This March 8th also finds us participating in the "1st International Civil, Artistic, 
Sports and Cultural Encounter of Women", organized by Zapatista women in Caracol, Morelia, 
Mexico. As anarchists we stand together with the words and actions of the struggling women 
who meet in a raised punch and a look of solidarity, which reinforces our determination to 
destroy all forms of human oppression by man, to build together a world of equality, 
solidarity and freedom. From Mexico to Turkey, we join our voice with women struggling 
worldwide, sending a signal of internationalist and class solidarity, keeping the project 
of women's emancipation and social liberation alive. "

8 MARCH - DATE OF RESISTANCE AND RACE

INTERNATIONAL SOLIDARITY AGAINST CONTEMPORARY INTEGRATION, PRESSURE, EXCURSION, LOST 
DISCRIMINATION

FOR SOCIAL RESPONSE,

ANARCHY AND FREEDOM COMMUNICATION

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

Message: 4





United Voices union members at the Orion recycling plant in east London walked off the job 
this morning in a historic and inspiring wildcat strike to protest against inhuman working 
conditions. ---- The 10 migrant workers, all of whom are from Peru, took the courageous 
decision to stand together and fight, despite being told to ‘fuck off' by their foreman, 
and threatened with the sack. ---- Within only 19 hours of first coming to United Voices 
offices in Elephant and Castle to speak out about the conditions they endure, they were on 
strike and negotiating with their boss in a mass meeting at the gates of their workplace. 
---- The workers had never been members of any union before let alone been on strike, and 
much less a Wildcat strike. This shows what can be achieved in next to no time and at no 
expense with the right combination of inspiration, determination, unity, and solidarity.

The workers, who were joined at the gates in the pouring rain by representatives from the 
Bakers' Union and McDonald's strikers, as well as United Voices union supporters, had the 
courage to also demand from their boss - face to face - a living wage for working in 19th 
Century conditions.

They demanded and won a personal pledge from the company owner to provide them, by 9am the 
next day, with proper face masks, air filters, gloves, four pairs of protective overalls 
each, soap and toilet paper - and to provide showers on site within a month.

They also won a pledge to meet with the union to discuss a 25 per cent raise in the 
workers' minimum wage pay rate to the London Living Wage, plus occupational sick pay. They 
also received a personal apology from the site manager for abusing the workers, and walked 
off with the promise that for the day of this unprecedented wildcat strike they would 
still be paid and not be victimised!

Confident, combative, united and inspiring, these ‘invisible' workers have shown what it 
takes to stand up and resist precarity and marginalisation.

Dismissed as ‘unorganisable' by most official unions, these migrant worker members of 
United Voices of the World have shown that the best weapon to fight back is the collective 
strength of those you work with.

If ‘invisible' migrant workers at an industrial site in east London can do this, there's 
no reason why other workers can't take on the bosses and win!

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

Message: 5






Invitation to traditional debate on the occasion of the issue of the next issue of 
Anarchist Revue Existence. ---- Wednesday 11th April 2018 ---- From 19.00 Salé ---- 
Infocentre (Orebitská 14, Prague 3 - Žižkov) ---- AF Publishing House invites an Anarchist 
Revue on the occasion of the issue of an additional issue Existence for a discussion 
session at the Salo Infocenter. ---- In connection with the main theme of the "Reaction 
Relay", we would like to discuss what the unprivileged leaders are doing to counter their 
own interests by leaning on false alternatives that are just a little different to the 
current capitalist order. And what is behind these reactionary "alternatives"? And what 
will be the next issue? ---- Your views, insights, and ideas help shape the content, form 
and distribution of an anarchist magazine that has re-emerged as a quarterly magazine in 2010.

The new number Existence , like the older one, will be available on site (and subscription 
for further distribution).

 From 18.30 there will be a common dinner.

https://www.afed.cz/text/6816/existencni-vecirek-na-tema-reakcni-rejdy

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

Message: 6





On 23 April, a lecture will be held at The Royal Academy of Art on gentrification, housing 
and the connection with the protests on Labor Day. ---- When: 23 April 2018 ---- Time: 
17:00 ---- Location: The Royal Academy of Art, Prinsessegracht 4, Den Haag ---- Affordable 
housing is being demolished on a large scale. A growing number of people cannot find 
affordable living space. The city is slowly turning into a space where most people don't 
seem to be welcome anymore. Many people find themselves in precarious housing situations; 
those who aren't rich are being pushed out to the city's peripheries or beyond. ---- This 
happens in a process that works as a silent killer. Streets and neighbourhoods are filled 
with pop-up stores where hip entrepreneurs can kick-start their business with relatively 
low rents. Although this may sound attractive, it only happens in order to financially 
upgrade a certain street or neighbourhood. Once the neighbourhood is attractive enough for 
investors, low-income housing will be replaced with unaffordable homes and exclusive 
businesses. The local residents will be driven out of their neighbourhood; what remains is 
generic elitism. Because of this process, known as gentrification, rents rise dramatically 
while people's incomes remain the same. This increases the gap between the rich and the 
poor. Small shops and socially accessible spaces will also disappear to give way to 
exclusive shops, hotels and cupcake shops. If we don't stop this process, the city will be 
turned into a playground reserved only for the rich. The city should not be an instrument 
for endless profit making, but a place where people should feel free and where everybody 
should be able to maximally develop themselves.

Some people will talk about gentrification, the battle against it and the upcoming 1st of 
May demonstration in The Hague on this theme.

https://www.vrijebond.org/city-for-sale-lecture-about-gentrification-housing-and-action/

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