Anarchic update news all over the world - 17.05.2018

Today's Topics:

   
1.  anarkismo.net: Democracy, Radical Democracy, and Anarchism-A
      Discussion by Wayne Price - Review of Markus Lundstrom, Anarchist
      Critique of Radical Democracy (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
2.  Czech, afed: Book News II - Another forthcoming publication
      goes back to forgotten subculture. Roman Laube: Tape and
      hooligans [machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
  
 3.  France, Alternative Libertaire AL #283 - Neither god nor
      schoolmaster: And our rational Amazonian school ? (fr, it, pt)
      [machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
4.  London Anarchist Communists ACG - statement on Windrush:
      Tories, Labour, LibDems ALL Guilty! (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
5.  France, Alternative Libertaire AL -international, Tour AL
      2018: Kurdistan, Revolution, Self-management (fr, it, pt)
      [machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
6.  US, black rose fed: "WILD, UNPRECEDENTED" REFORMISM: THE
      CASE OF LARRY KRASNER (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)


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

Message: 1





Reviewing Lundstrom's "Anarchist Critique of Radical Democracy" leads to a discussion of 
what "radical democracy" could mean and whether anarchists should support it. Some 
anarchists oppose "democracy" of any sort because they regard "majority rule" as 
inherently oppressive and un-anarchist. This view is criticized and rejected in favor of a 
view of anarchism as democracy without a state. ---- While it is conventional to regard 
"democracy" as supremely good, there is a great deal of unclarity over what it actually 
means, in theory and in practice. This little book by Markus Lundstrom addresses that 
topic. it begins with a discussion of "radical democracy." It ends with a review of 
"democracy" from the viewpoint of various anarchists. In between it applies radical 
democratic theory to a 2013 rebellion ("riot") in a multi-national town in Sweden.

I will call the existing state form in the U.S. and Europe "bourgeois democracy." (It is 
also called "representative democracy," "liberal democracy," "parliamentary democracy," 
and so on.) It functions together with a capitalist, market-based, and completely 
undemocratic, economy. (The ideological rationalization of the capitalist economy is not a 
claim to "democracy" but to "freedom.") Anarchists are in revolutionary opposition to 
capitalism and to all versions of its state, including bourgeois democracy. The question 
is what should be raised as an alternative.

Radical Democracy

"Radical democracy" is used by some reformists to mean "extending democracy" in bourgeois 
democracy. "Democratic socialists" (reformist state socialists) wish to create a more 
representative and democratic form of the existing semi-democratic state. And they wish to 
expand "democracy" economically by using this improved state. They suggest nationalizing 
some industries, regulating others better, promoting worker representation on corporate 
boards, promoting cooperatives, etc. Lundstrom quotes Chantal Mouffe advocating "a 
profound transformation, not a desertion, of existing institutions." (80) Whatever the 
value of such reforms (and whatever the likelihood of achieving them), such a program does 
not break radically with bourgeois democracy.

Others use "radical democracy" to indicate a vision of an alternate society. This includes 
workplace councils in socialized industries, popular assemblies in neighborhoods, and 
self-managed voluntary associations. Everyone participates. Decisions are made through 
face-to-face direct democracy. Councils and assemblies are associated through networks and 
federations. It is claimed that modern technology has the potentiality to fit such a 
council system. In the opinion of myself and others, this conception of radical democracy 
is entirely consistent with the mainstream of anarchist tradition-and with a view of 
anarchism as being extreme democracy without a state.

However, Lundstrom bases his conception of radical democracy on his interpretation of 
Jacques Ranciere (2014). "Radical democratic theory typically acknowledges the 
contentious, conflictual nature of democracy....Democratic life, people's political 
activity outside the state arena, is recurrently targeted by the democratic state: the 
police-accompanied decision-makers of municipalities or nation-states....[This 
is]democratic conflict-the antagonism between governors and governed...." (Lundstrom 2018; 
14) "Democratic life" is the striving of people to mobilize and organize themselves to 
satisfy their needs and desires-to live their lives as they want. But such self-activity 
clashes with the "democratic state." Really a form of "oligarchic government," this state 
uses representative democratic forms to co-opt and/or repress the population into 
passivity and acceptance of its rule.

Lunstrom's and Raniere's approach can be a useful way of looking at "democratic" 
conflicts. I would describe it as "democracy-from-below" versus "democracy-from-above." It 
does not necessarily contradict the vision of councilist direct democracy. That could be 
postulated as a possible outcome if "democratic life" eventually wins out over the 
"democratic state."

However, as an analysis it has a weakness. Although well aware of economic influences on 
the governing democratic state, neither Lundstrom nor Ranciere appear to accept a class 
analysis of the state. A version of a class analysis of the state was developed by Marx, 
but anarchists also have their version. Peter Kropotkin wrote, "The State is an 
institution which was developed for the very purpose of establishing monopolies in favor 
of the slave and serf owners, the landed proprietors,...the merchant guilds and the 
moneylenders,...the ‘noble men,' and finally, in the nineteenth century, the industrial 
capitalists....The State organization[has]been the force to which the minorities resorted 
for establishing and organizing their power over the masses...." (2014; 187-9)

To be clear: a class theory of the state does not deny that, as an institution, the state, 
with its personnel, has its own interests. It does not deny that there are other pressures 
than those of the capitalists which influence state policies. It does not imply that the 
state simply takes direct orders from businesspeople. A class theory of the state says 
that, overall, the state serves the interests of the capitalist class and the capitalist 
system-essentially the drive to accumulate capital by exploiting the working class. The 
capitalist class needs the surplus value squeezed out of the workers. Without that extra 
amount of wealth, the capitalist class cannot survive, nor can its institutions, including 
the state.

The conflict is not only "between governors and governed," in Lundstrom's terms, but it is 
also between exploiters and exploited. Therefore it is not enough to attack society's 
political decision-making methods. It is also necessary to end the wage system, the 
market, and private property in production. It is necessary to expropriate the capitalists 
and abolish capitalism, along with all supporting forms of oppression (racism, patriarchy, 
imperialism, etc.), as well as the state. To anarchists (unlike Marxists), the implication 
is that the state (neither the existing one nor a new one) cannot be used for such 
fundamental change. The implication is that a new society must be prefigured by a movement 
of the working class and all oppressed-a movement which is as radically democratic as 
possible.

Anarchist Views of Democracy

To repeat, all revolutionary anarchists oppose even the most representative and 
libertarian of bourgeois democratic states. It is true that there is a difference between 
bourgeois democracies and fascist or Stalinist totalitarianism. It is easier to live and 
be political in a representative capitalist democracy. Anarchists have fought against 
fascism and defended the limited legal rights afforded by democratic capitalism. But they 
continue to be revolutionary opponents of bourgeois democracy, aiming to replace it with 
socialist anarchism. That is not the issue.

Among anarchists, there has been a wide range of views about democracy, as Lundstrom 
recognizes. "The relation between democracy and anarchy is notably diverse and 
discontinuous....[There is a]variety of ideological strands that compose multifaceted 
understandings of democracy and anarchy." (2018; 28-9) There is no one, orthodox, 
anarchist opinion of democracy. (I do not know how an "orthodox anarchism" would be 
defined, and doubt that I would fit the definition.)

Lundstrom divides anarchist history into "classical anarchism (1840-1939) and 
post-classical anarchism (1940-2017)." (2018; 29) The first period, he claims, developed 
"an anarchist critique of democracy," which was mainly negative toward democracy, while 
the second worked out "an anarchist reclamation; notions of direct, participatory 
democracy became equivalent to, or perceived as a step toward, anarchy." (27)

Whether this historical distinction is true (and I think that it is very rough), there 
have been, and are, many anarchists who have supported direct, participatory, democracy, 
and many others who have rejected even the most decentralized and assembly-based 
democracy. Of U.S. anarchists in the 20th-21st centuries, advocates of 
libertarian-socialist democracy include Paul Goodman, Murray Bookchin, David Graeber, 
Kevin Carson, Cindy Milstein, and Noam Chomsky, despite other differences. (Lundstrom 
briefly mentions me. See Price 2009; 2016; undated) Since Lundstrom does not really 
explain why some anarchists support radical democracy, I will present some reasons.

Collective decisions have to be made. If not by democratic procedures, then how? 
Collective decision-making by free and equal people is what democracy is.

Individualist anarchists sometimes write as if making group decisions was a choice. It is 
not. People live in groups, in a social matrix, and interact. Social anarchists believe 
that we are social individuals. Our language, our personalities, our interests, and so 
much more are created in the productive interaction with others and with non-human nature. 
Our technology-no matter how decentralized and reorganized it will become-requires 
cooperation, locally and on an international scale.

The individualist-egotist conception (developed by classical liberalism) portrayed people 
as atomic, ahistorical, asocial, selfish, essentially prior to interaction with others, 
and naturally opposed to society.  Such individuals primarily pursue private matters in 
competition with everyone else.  In this conception, common interests are few and fragile. 
This is an elaboration of the capitalist world-view, in which everything and everyone is 
reduced to exchangeable commodities.  This includes people's ability to work (labor-power) 
and their capital which can hire other people to work.  While recognizing certain insights 
of the individualist anarchist school (such as its rejection of moralism), social 
anarchists reject this whole line of thought.

Michael Bakunin wrote, "Man[including women-WP]completely realizes his individual freedom 
as well as his personality only through the individuals who surround him, and thanks only 
to the labor and the collective power of society....To be free...means to be acknowledged 
and treated as such by all his fellowmen....I am truly free only when all human beings, 
men and women, are equally free.  The freedom of other men, far from negating or limiting 
my freedom, is, on the contrary, its necessary premise...." (Bakunin 1980; 236-7)  Bakunin 
called this "the materialist conception of freedom." (238)  Bottici argues that Bakunin's 
idea of freedom in not so much an aspect of individuals as a relation within a discursive 
community.  "According to Bakunin, because human beings are so dependent on one another, 
you cannot be free in isolation, but only through the web of reciprocal interdependence." 
(Bottici 2014; 184)

 From the perspective of social transaction, to counterpose democracy and individual 
freedom is meaningless.   Since collective decisions have to be made all the time, 
people's participation in the decision-making is an essential part of their freedom.

Communes and collective townships must decide on whether to have roads, sewers, bridges, 
and other infrastructure, and where to put them. Shoemakers' workshops must decide what 
footwear to produce, how much, and in what way. Book clubs must decide what they will 
read. These decisions must be made, one way or another. Dissenting individuals and small 
groups could decide to leave a particular town, workshop, or club. But other towns will 
also have to decide about infrastructure, other workshops will have to plan production, 
other clubs will have to decide their activities. Again I ask: if not by democratic 
procedures, then how?

However, there are many activities which should not be decided by the whole collectivity, 
that should be the concern only of individuals or small groups. It is not for the 
majority, nor a powerful orthodox minority, to tell people what religious views to have, 
what sexual practices to engage in, or what artistic tastes to cultivate. Anarchists agree 
with civil libertarians that neither majority nor minority rule applies to such 
activities. But even with this exception, there remains a great many areas of cooperative 
decision-making which must be carried out, one way or another.

Social anarchism does not aim at the complete lack of coordination, cooperation, group 
decision-making, and dispute-settling. What it aims at is the complete abolition of the 
state-along with capitalism and all other forms of oppression. What is the state? It is a 
bureaucratic-military socially alienated organization, composed of specialized armed 
forces, officials, politicians, and agents of the ruling class, who stand over and above 
the rest of society.

Radical democracy means that the state is replaced by the self-organization of the people. 
When everyone "governs," there is no "government." In the opinion of Brian Morris, "Such 
notions as...the ‘democratic state' are thus, for Bakunin, contradictions in terms.  If 
the term ‘democracy' denoted government of the people, by the people, for the people, then 
this would imply no state, and Bakunin could therefore happily call himself a ‘democrat'." 
(1993; 99)  He quotes Bakunin, "Where all rule...there is no state." (99)

Anarchist Opposition to Majority Rule

Yet many anarchists reject any concept of democracy, no matter how libertarian. (Actually 
such anarchists often advocate what others would call radical democracy, but call it by 
other names than "democracy", such as "self-management," "autogestion," 
"self-organization," etc.) Their major argument for rejecting even direct democracy is 
opposition to "majority rule." This is rooted in an essentially individualist-egotist 
aspect of many people's anarchism. Lundstrom writes, "The individualist strand of 
anarchist thought...comprises...an essential component in the anarchist critique of 
democracy: the opposition to majority rule." (46) He cites Errico Malatesta and Emma Goldman.

The basic argument is that, while it is wrong for a minority to rule over the majority, it 
is also wrong for the majority to rule over a minority. Nor is there any reason to think 
that the majority is more likely to be right on any question than the minority. Often it 
is wrong. If no one has the right to rule over others, to dominate others-as anarchists 
believe-then it is as wrong for the majority as for the minority. Democracy through 
majority rule is nothing but the "tyranny of the majority." "Anarchy" means "no rule"; by 
definition it is inconsistent with "democracy," the "rule of the people (demos)." So it is 
argued.

As an aside, let me say that the problem with bourgeois democracy is not majority rule. 
Bourgeois democracy is a form of minority rule, the domination of a minority class of 
capitalists and their agents. The ruling minority fools the majority into supporting them. 
The boss class uses various mechanisms, such as distorted elections, domination of the 
media, and keeping the working class from hearing the views of anarchists and other 
radicals. If the majority has not heard the views of dissenting minorities before making 
up their minds, they are a fraudulent majority.

Some seek to avoid majority rule by using "consensus." A community should always seek for 
as much agreement as possible. But often everyone cannot agree-there are majority and 
minority opinions on what to do. What then? If the minority is allowed to "block 
consensus," to veto the majority's desire, then this is minority rule. If the minority 
agrees to "stand aside" and not block consensus, then we are back at majority rule. A 
radical democratic collective may chose to use consensus, but it really does not resolve 
the issue.

The basic fallacy of opposition to majority rule is its treatment of the "majority" and 
the "minority" as fixed, stable, groupings. It is if they were talking about the 
African-American minority oppressed by a white majority under white supremacy. Instead, 
radical democracy is an encounter among people with varying opinions and interests. The 
resolution of conflict requires deliberation and persuasion.  Reconciliation of 
differences is aimed for, but what is important is not a unanimous consensus but an 
on-going discourse, with no one left out. In direct democracy, "majority rule" is a 
technical way to make decisions, not overall rule by a majority.

Sometimes individuals are in the majority and sometimes in the minority. Those in a 
minority on one issue are not being oppressed. It is childish to imagine that people are 
coerced and oppressed if they do not always get the group decisions they want.  Even in 
mostly private matters, a person cannot always get what she or he wants; that in itself 
does not mean that the individual is not free.  The only adults who always get what they 
want, and who cannot be denied anything by others, are dictators-who are not models of 
free individuals.

The radical-liberal theorist of participatory democracy, John Dewey, wrote that democratic 
forms "involve a consultation and discussion which uncover social needs and 
troubles....Counting of heads compels prior recourse to methods of discussion, 
consultation, and persuasion....Majority rule, just as majority rule, is as foolish as its 
critics charge it with being.  But it never is merely majority rule....'The means by which 
a majority comes to be a majority is the more important thing':  antecedent debates, 
modification of views to meet the opinions of minorities, the relative satisfaction given 
the latter by the fact that it has had a chance and that next time it may be successful in 
becoming a majority....It is true that all valuable...ideas begin with minorities, perhaps 
a minority of one.  The important consideration is that opportunity be given that idea to 
spread and to become the possession of the multitude." (Dewey 1954; 206-8)  For Dewey, as 
for anarchists, this requires decentralized communities and workplaces:  "In its deepest 
and richest sense, a community must always remain a matter of face-to-face intercourse 
....Democracy must begin at home, and its home is the neighborly community." (211 & 213; 
see Price 2014)

Lundstrom has a positive coverage of the opposition to democracy of many anarchists. 
"Anarchist thought also deliberately concedes to accusations of being anti-democratic." 
This is rooted, he writes, in "an individualist critique of majority rule." (81) He seems 
to agree with this view, at least in part.

He even adds some extraneous arguments. Basing himself on animal liberation theory (which 
he confuses with anarcho-primitivism), he claims that human oppression and abuse of 
non-human animals forecloses democracy. I do not see why this would be the case. Surely 
better relations between humans and the rest of nature is consistent with thorough-going 
human democracy. Similarly, he raises the issue of the Platform of Makhno and Arshinov, 
which called for the self-organization of revolutionary class-struggle 
socialist-anarchists. I am for this and he is against it, but I do not see its connection 
to whether there should be radical democracy for society.

But then Lundstrom expresses agreement with anarchists who hold to radical democracy. It 
is not entirely clear (to me, anyway) why he comes to hold this view. "By recognizing the 
pluralist and participatory dimensions of democracy...anarchism clearly aligns with 
open-ended explorations into radical democracy...Anarchist thought also produces an 
understanding of democracy as a step, however tiny, toward anarchy." (81) This last phrase 
implies that some hold anarchy as an ideal of a totally free, uncoerced, society, which 
cannot be immediately (if ever) completely achieved. Therefore radical democracy is 
supported as moving in the direction of this ideal goal, whether or not it ever reaches 
it. In practice this view is essentially the same as that which holds that radical 
democracy is anarchy, but that it must continually increase its libertarian and 
self-governing aspects. The aim is to make it impossible for anyone to dominate and 
exploit the rest of society-a goal which Lundstrom calls "the impossible argument." In any 
case, I am glad that we finally agree.

Revolutionary Democracy

Lundstrom does not discuss how anarchism/direct democracy might be achieved. In his 
summary of the "Husby riots" in Sweden, he does not mention the conclusions participants 
drew as to future struggles, nor does he make any suggestions. He makes comments which 
seem to support a non-revolutionary, gradualist, and reformist approach (which would be 
consistent with individualist anarchism). In this view, held by many anarchists, such as 
David Graeber and Colin Ward, alternate institutions should be gradually constructed to 
replace capitalism and its state, with a minimum of actual confrontation with the ruling 
class. This ignores the ruling class' powers of repression and co-optation.

In this view, there may never be a final achievement of anarchy-it is a never-ending 
effort. "Abolition of government is a permanent struggle, a continuous impeding of 
authority growing anew." (75) He refers to the views of Gustav Landauer and Richard Day 
that "the state-and capitalism-[are]not primarily...structures but...sets of relations." 
(74) That is, the state is not a structure to be overthrown but relationships to be 
gradually changed. As if social structures were anything but repeating patterns of social 
relationships! This view denies the existence of a minority with an interest in 
maintaining these oppressive "sets of relations," a minority which must be confronted and 
replaced. He refers favorably to the anarcho-pacifism of Bart de Ligt and Leo Tolstoy, 
which implies that the police and military forces of the state do not have to be overcome. 
He misrepresents Errico Malatesta as a reformist, when actually Malatesta was a 
revolutionary who believed that "gradualism" would be appropriate only after a revolution, 
not before.

Over centuries, radically democratic forms have repeatedly emerged during popular 
revolutions. Murray Bookchin summarizes, "From the largely medieval peasant wars of the 
sixteenth-century Reformation to the modern uprisings of industrial workers and peasants, 
oppressed peoples have created their own popular forms of community 
association-potentially, the popular infrastructure of a new society-to replace the 
repressive states that ruled over them....During the course of the revolutions, these 
associations took the institutional  form of local assemblies, much like town meetings, or 
representative councils of mandated recallable deputies[based in]...committee networks and 
assemblies...." (Bookchin 1996; 4-5)

Reviewing the rebellions of France (1968), Chile (1972-3), Portugal (1974-5), Iran (1979), 
and Poland (1980-1), Colin Barker concludes, "The democratic workplace strike committee 
has provided the basic element in every significant working class revolutionary movement 
of the 20th century....The development of factory committees and inter-enterprise councils 
conditions the parallel development of all manner of other popular bodies: tenants' 
committees, street committees, student organizations, peasant unions, soldiers' 
committees, and so on." (2002; 228, 230)

While limited, Lundstrom's short book provides a useful basis for beginning to discuss the 
relationship between anarchism, democracy, and radical democracy. But from my 
anarchist-socialist perspective, it is not enough for democracy to be radical; it must be 
revolutionary. In the course of uprisings, riots, rebellions, and revolutions working 
people, the oppressed and exploited, have created radical democratic structures-and will 
create them in the future. Only through mass struggle and rebellion can, in Bookchin's 
terms, "the popular infrastructure of an new society" be created and solidified. This is, 
in practice, the revolutionary anarchist view of revolutionary democracy.

References
Bakunin, Michael (1980).  Bakunin on anarchism. (ed.: S. Dolgoff).   Montreal:  Black Rose 
Books.

Barker, Colin (2002) (ed.). Revolutionary rehearsals. London/Chicago: Haymarket Books.

Bookchin, Murray (1996).  The third revolution: Popular movements in the revolutionary 
era.  Vol. 1.  London/NY:  Cassell.

Bottici, Chiara (2014).  Imaginal politics; Images beyond imagination and the imaginary. 
NY:  Columbia University Press.

Dewey, John (1954).  The public and its problems.  Athens:  Swallow Press/Ohio University 
Press.

Kropotkin, Peter (2014). Direct struggle against capital; A Peter Kropotkin anthology. 
(ed.: Iain McKay). Edinbourgh/Oakland: AK Press.

Lundstrom, Markus (2018). Anarchist critique of radical democracy; The impossible 
argument. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan/Springer.

Morris, Brian (1993).  Bakunin:  The philosophy of freedom.  Montreal/NY: Black Rose Books.

Price, Wayne (undated). "Radical Democracy-An Anarchist Perspective." Submitted to Theory 
In Action.

Price, Wayne (2016). "Are Anarchism and Democracy Opposed? A Response to Crimethinc." 
Anarkismo.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/wayne-price-are-anarchism-and-democracy-opposed
Price, Wayne (2014). "Anarchism and the Philosophy of Pragmatism."  The Utopian.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/wayne-price-anarchism-and-the-philosophy-of-pragmatism
Price, Wayne (2009). "Anarchism as Extreme Democracy." The Utopian.
http://www.utopianmag.com/files/in/1000000006/anarchism_extreme.pdf
Ranciere, Jacques (2014). Hatred of democracy. (trans. Steve Corcoran). London/Brooklyn: 
Verso.

*written for www.Anarkismo.net

https://www.anarkismo.net/article/30986

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

Message: 2





As we have promised, we present another book novelty with which the Anarchist Federation 
Publishing House will present at this year's Anarchist Book Festival . ---- The title Tape 
and Hooligans , which boasts a rich picture of the accompaniment, was prepared by our 
friend Roman Laube. His previous book, In the footsteps of the adamites , proved to be 
very desirable, so we hope that they will be equally impressed by the Páskové. ---- Even 
in the 1950s, there was a counter-culture that was able to preserve independence. Tapered 
and later hooligans, as the then independent propaganda of the independent youth, were 
certainly not allowed to talk about what music to listen to, how to dance, what to read, 
or even how to dress and dress. Their social protest, expressed in public in particular by 
clothing, was not the first but not the last one that political power attempted to 
suppress. Obviously, such attitude and behavior did not go away for its wearers without 
consequences ...

Who cares more, finds it on 80 pages of A6 format at the Publishing House AF stand. The 
recommended contribution to cover costs is 40 CZK.

You can also find Steel century from Vadim Damier and other books, both new and previously 
published. There will also be an anarchist Revue Existence .

The festival will be held on Saturday, May 19, 2018, from 10:00 to 20:00, in the Eternie 
area of Smichov, and will be out of books and magazines rich in lectures - you can find 
their annotations HERE .

https://www.afed.cz/text/6838/knizni-novinky-ii

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

Message: 3





Let's go back to our original subject. We had a clue, two months later where are we 
looking ? Did these remote lands of Catalonia Ferrer also know the libertarian education 
of the martyr of Montjuich ? And if so, how did it happen ? A passage by the libertarian 
library Maxwell Ferreira de Belém will give us some additional elements. This library is a 
little treasure chest for us, local anarchists, whether libertarian communist, or another 
sensibility. There, the posters and flags of the world's anarchist movements - among which 
Libertarian Alternative figure prominently - despite their number fail to hide the 
impressive amount of books, in Portuguese of course, but also in Spanish, English and 
French, available in this place that pursues the libertarian tradition of athènes and 
other places of popular education so dear to our eyes.

And so, during a visit, a comrade who knows my research, goes to the shelves and a safe 
hand out of one of them a book: O Anarquismo na escola, no teatro, na poesia [1]by Edgar 
Rodrigues. He said to me, "  Look in there, comrade, I think you can find things that will 
interest you. "

Thus, returned to my penates, I leaf through the summary and set my heart on the chapter 
dealing with rational schools created in Brazil, and there, the list goes on, long, 
provided: Belém is there, and prominently, well and truly in 1919, two years after the 
great general strike launched from the economic center of São Paulo and which allowed 
considerable social progress. The rational school of Belém is there, almost sensitive, 
presented for its inauguration by figures close to the local labor movement such as a 
certain Bento de Menezes ... neither more nor less than this famous Bruno de Menezes 
(under his name of "civil status"), the poet of Pará so much praised by my libertarian 
comrades keen on Amazonian letters.

What exactly does the text of Edgar Rodrigues tell us ? The Rationalist Teaching is the 
subject of a warm commentary in the pages of O Semeador [2]which tells us about the 
inauguration of the Francisco Ferrer Rational School, in Belém - Pará, on October 13, 
1919. Representatives Federations of the working classes, Union of the drivers, the 
resistance of the barber officers, the Federation of the civil construction, the Union of 
the artists tailors, the Union of the employees of hotels and restaurants, the Union of 
the workers Shoemakers and the cosmopolitan center of Braganza spoke under the presidency 
of "  Comrade Silva Gama  ". "  The comrades Júlio Clement dos Santos, Antonio Porto, 
Bento de Menezes and Fernando Nazaré also spoke of the importance of rationalist education 
"  now established in Pará  ".

Next step, another place of research: the public archives of the state of Pará. There, the 
goal will be to find the documents that describe the creation of this school, its 
location, who was a teacher, how long it has worked and what reactions, positive or 
rejection, it has aroused. Many things to discover in short.

Accattone

[1] Anarchism at school, at the theater, in poetry.

[2] The Sower.

http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?Ni-dieu-ni-maitre-d-ecole-Et-notre-ecole-rationnelle-amazonienne

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

Message: 4






Thanks to Windrush, Amber Rudd has fallen. She became the necessary sacrifice to save the 
Theresa May government. She has been replaced as Home Secretary by Sajid Javid, the first 
Black, Asian Minority Ethnic member to sit in one of the three most important positions 
within the State. ---- Rudd was forced to resign because she was caught lying about 
targets for deportation and to save Theresa May herself, the previous Home Secretary. ---- 
In 2016 almost 40,000 people were removed from the United Kingdom or left "voluntarily" 
after receiving threatening letters. Many others have been detained at ferry terminals and 
airports and sent to another country under the "deport first, appeal later" process. In 
addition, at least 10,000 others have waited for more than six months for decisions on 
claiming asylum and because they cannot work, live on an allowance of £37.75 a week, which 
reduces them to extreme circumstances.
This hostile environment, this intimidating atmosphere did not originate under Rudd and 
neither did it under Theresa May. We have to go back to the Labour Party under Blair for 
that. In fact "hostile environment" was first used as a term in February 2010 in a Home 
Office report which said: "This strategy sets out how we will continue our efforts to cut 
crime and make the UK a hostile environment for those that seek to break our laws or abuse 
our hospitality." This was the Home Office presided over by Labour Home Secretary Alan 
Johnson. He gloated over the destruction and clearance of the "Jungle camps" by the French 
authorities in 2009. When asked in Parliament "Would you deport a family whose children 
know no home other than the United Kingdom?" Johnson replied: "It is not my personal job 
to do the deportation. If that was the judgement, having gone through due process, then yes".
It ended up with the Labour election campaign of the same year with the slogan "Controls 
on immigration. I'm voting Labour" on mugs and badges. And only 18 Labour MPS (including 
Corbyn and Diane Abbott) voted against the Immigration Act in 2014.
The hostile attitude to immigrants continued under the coalition government with the 
nodding complicity of the Liberal Democrats and then under the Conservatives ruling alone. 
Rudd escalated the policy as she had promised to the previous Home Secretary and now Prime 
Minister Theresa May. This was all done knowingly, with an awareness of the terrible 
consequences for so many working class families.
The destruction of thousands of documents related to Windrush incomers also points to a 
hostile environment, making it more difficult for people to prove their status.
Labour's Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry backed the checks on people looking for 
jobs, homes and healthcare, which were brought in by the 2014 Immigration Act. She 
defended Alan Johnson by saying that "The words were used but the culture was not!!
We should also recall that after the referendum on the EU in 2016, Corbyn stated on 
several occasions that immigration controls would remain in place under Labour. Diane 
Abbott went on to state that Labour did not condone an amnesty, and when questioned, 
remained silent on what Labour would do about illegal immigrants.
So far, the controversy has centred on Windrush migrants but already tens of EU citizens 
have been refused permanent residence. We should resist the attempt to divide people into 
"good migrants", those who emigrated to Britain from the Commonwealth from the 1940s 
onwards and "bad" migrants, those from the EU. In particular Boris Johnson is pushing this 
line with his hard Brexit politics which envisages the re-establishment of better 
relations, both economic and trading with the Commonwealth countries.
So will the appointment of Javid make a blind bit of difference? The answer is a categoric 
NO! Many residents of the UK are under the illusion that they have the right to live in 
Britain. They are kept in the dark about the need to apply for "settled status" whilst 
others under threat include all those family dependents like children and the elderly who 
believe that other family members are UK citizens just because they live here!
Javid will change the language from emphasis on targets and deportations but in fact it 
will be business as usual. He has already been caught out after denying that any members 
of the Windrush generation had been illegally deported. In fact, this went beyond them and 
included someone originally from Somalia who was a legal British citizen. The head of Home 
Office Immigration, Hugh Ind, admitted that such illegal deportations had taken place and 
said he did not know why Javid and the immigration minister, Caroline Nokes, claimed to be 
unaware of this.
It should be remembered that in the past Sajid Javid has supported every aspect of the 
"hostile environment" policy including voting to extend powers to deport before appeal on 
human rights grounds.
Meanwhile members of the Windrush generation are excluded from Britain after having gone 
away on holiday, are interned in camps like Yarl's Wood, are illegally deported and are 
harassed with threatening notices and denied work and access to health services after 
checks. Some have lost earnings because their employers sacked them after immigration checks.
At the same time we heard of the women who went on a hunger and work strike at Yarl's Wood 
after being detained there indefinitely. In response to the strike they were issued with 
letters threatening them with accelerated deportation if they continued with their 
protest. This was all condoned and enacted by Caroline Nokes.
Capitalism and the State use racism and xenophobia to divide and weaken us. We should 
resist the increasing levels of racism and xenophobia that both the May regime and the 
mass media are peddling. We should argue against the false divide between "deserving" and 
"undeserving" migrants. We should mobilise against the "immigration removal centres" like 
Yarl's Wood run by companies like Serco, where conditions are appalling and detainees are 
treated abysmally, and we should fight for the closing down of these centres.
The treatment of the Windrush generation is appalling but we can't just say that and 
forget about those who have not been here for as long who are suffering the same 
treatment. We should not draw any difference between which refugees and immigrants we show 
solidarity with.
Oppose All Borders! For Internationalism!

https://londonacg.blogspot.co.il/2018/05/acg-statement-on-windrush.html

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

Message: 5





 From May 27th to June 23rd, Alternative Libertaire is organizing a round of debates with 
one (or even three) revolutionary volunteers in the YPG. The opportunity to meet friends 
who roamed the Rojava in 2016-2018, and can give their point of view on the emancipatory 
dynamic, its limits, its potential, and the indispensable international solidarity. ---- 
Since 2014, its role as a bulwark against jihadist atrocities in the Middle East has put 
the Kurdish left in the limelight. ---- What is less well known is that in the areas it 
controls, and particularly in Syrian Kurdistan (Rojava), it has fostered the rise of a 
counter-society on feminist, social and democratic bases. in a way, secular. ---- For this 
reason, it scares the tyrants of the region: the Turkish, Iranian or Syrian regimes.

This unprecedented situation calls for the support of all sincere revolutionaries and 
anticolonialists.

Acritical support  ? Not because, like any revolutionary process, it runs risks: an 
authoritarian drift is always possible, as well as an instrumentalization by foreign 
powers (United States, Russia, France ...). That's all we want to talk about.

IN THE PROGRAM
Screening of the film by Chris den Hond and Mireille Court, Rojava, a utopia in the heart 
of Syrian chaos (45 minutes) ;
Presentation of the book Kurdistan Autogestion Revolution , ed. AL, March 2018 ;
Intervention of Arthur Aberlin , French libertarian communist activist engaged in the YPG 
in 2017.
Intervention (subject) of two other revolutionary activists engaged between 2016 and 2018.
ALL DATES

View full screen

May 11th in Lisieux (14) , at 8:30 pm at the train station bar, 2, place Pierre-Sémard 
(without Arthur Aberlin)
May 27 at Rouen (76), at 3 pm, at the Cloth Hall, 19, Place de la Basse-Vieille-Tour, 
co-organized by AL and the FA
On May 28 in    Orléans (45) , at 7:30 pm, in the auditorium of the media library, 1 place 
Gambetta
May 29th at     Angers (49) , in the evening, at L'Etincelle, 56 Boulevard du Doyenné, 
co-organized by AL, Kedistan and the bookshop Les Nuits Bleues
On May 30 in    Rennes (35) , at 8 pm, at Babazoula Bar, 182 avenue du Général-Patton, 
co-organized by AL, CDK and the Kurdish friends of Brittany
May 31st in Lorient (56), in the evening, at Cité Allende-Maison des associations, 12, rue 
Colbert
On 1 st  June in        Nantes (44) , at 19:30, at the House of Unions, 1, place de la Gare de-State
On the 2nd of June in Fougères (35), in the evening, at the local self-managed Les Oiseaux 
de la tempête, 14 rue de la Pinterie
On 4 June in Bordeaux (33), in the evening, at the Athénée Municipale, Place 
Saint-Christoly, co-organized by AL, the CDK and the anti-fascist group Pavé brulant
On June 5th in Millau (12), at 8:30 pm, at the Café La Loco, 33, avenue Gambetta
June 6 in Toulouse (31), evening, at the Chapel, 36, Casanova Street
On June 8th in Nîmes (30), at 7 pm, at Café Chez Mémé, 7, rue Fléchier, co-organized by 
AL, CGA and the Kurdish Democratic Center of Gard
June 9th in Montpellier (34), at 8 pm, at La Gerbe Center, 19, rue chaptal
On June 10th at Fréjus (83), at 5 pm, at the Palais des Reaux, 129, rue Albert-Einstein, 
co-organized by AL and the Kurdish cultural center of Draguignan
On June 11th in Marseille (13), in the evening, at Mille Bâbords, 61, rue Consolat
On June 13th in Brioude (43), in the evening, at Café La Clef, 53, rue de la Pardige
On June 14th in Lyon (69), in the evening, at the Maison de la Mesopotamie, 11, rue 
Mazagran, Lyon 7 th
On June 15 in Dijon (21) , at 7 pm, at the self-managed space of Tanneries, 37, rue des 
Ateliers
June 16 in Strasbourg (67), at 7 pm, at the Democratic Center of the Kurdish People, 7, 
rue de la Broque
On June 18th in Nancy (54), at night, at the MJC des Trois-Maisons, 12, rue de Fontenoy
On the 19th of June in Paris 10 th , evening, at the Academy of Arts and Culture of 
Kurdistan, 16, rue d'Enghien
On June 20 in   Montreuil (93) , at 7:30 pm, at the open house, 17, rue Hoche
June 21st in Saint-Denis (93) (venue to come)
On June 22 in Amiens (80), at 7 pm, Maurice-Honeste room, 67, boulevard du Cange, 
co-organized by AL, the libertarian collective Alexandre-Marius Jacob, Ensemble, FSU, 
Solidaires
On the 23rd of June in Lille (59), in the evening, in the autonomous area Les 
Dix-Huit-Ponts, 38 rue de Treviso

http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?Tournee-AL-2018-Kurdistan-Revolution-Autogestion

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

Message: 6





The election of Larry Krasner as Philadelphia District Attorney was hailed by many on the 
left as a positive example of left electoralism - the election of a "people's prosecutor." 
This piece by Tim Horras of Philly Socialists puts forward well argued criticisms of the 
assumed narrative around Krasner that the election of progressive politicians translates 
to important reforms and in line with our piece "The Lure of Electoralism: >From Political 
Power to Popular Power" it raises key questions of left strategy. As Black Rose/Rosa Negra 
we fully support the called for need of political organization and base building but place 
our emphasis around the goal of popular power and not that of a Socialist Party. This 
piece originally appeared in the Philadelphia Partisan, publication of Philly Socialists.

By Tim Horras

"Activists do politics better than politicians."

- Lawrence S. "Larry" Krasner, 26th and current District Attorney of Philadelphia (May 2018)

Introduction
In the socialist movement today, the importance of electing progressives to public office 
is a widely accepted axiom, considered relatively uncontroversial by all but the most 
hardened anarchists. But only rarely do we seek to justify this belief, despite a 
less-than-stellar track record of left electoral ventures.

This "electoralist" perspective is widely echoed in the mass media - a set of institutions 
which plays an important role in policing what is considered politically acceptable at any 
given time. As the interim between election cycles seemingly shrinks into nonexistence, it 
becomes more important than ever to take a step back and take stock of the relationship 
between policy reforms to electoral politics.

Putting aside the numerous instances of supposed progressives and reformers who've gone on 
to betray the movement for criminal justice reform, we must still grapple with the 
following questions: How important is it to have progressives in elected office? Is the 
election of a progressive the key ingredient to achieving reforms?

This essay intends to contribute to the argument that reforms and concessions are not 
dependent upon the ideological beliefs or partisan identification of elected 
officeholders. Policy victories are the product of class struggle, when the mobilization 
of masses of people creates a threat (or the possibility of a threat) to class rule.

To investigate these questions, we will take as an example a situation which has developed 
locally here in Philadelphia, but with implications nationally: the election of 
progressive trial lawyer Larry Krasner to the office of District Attorney (DA), a move 
which has been frequently pointed to as evidence of the efficacy of running on the 
Democratic ballot line.

Our contention is simple: in most cases, activists can achieve similar policy objectives 
without working to elect progressive politicians. From a purely tactical perspective, the 
superiority of electoralism has yet to be demonstrated, and the burden of proof lies 
squarely on the reformist camp.

By zeroing in on one of the reforms being touted by Krasner's proponents, the elimination 
of cash bail, we show that this reform has been accomplished in many other municipalities 
without the election of a progressive district attorney, which raises the question for 
those of us interested in making social change: just how important is it to have 
progressives in elected office, anyway?

What we will find is that, at least around the issue of ending cash bail, not only is the 
presence of a progressive District Attorney not a key ingredient, but that a number of 
quite different political strategies - some of which stand in direct opposition to the 
tactics promoted by electorally-minded socialists - have led to an identical outcome: the 
phasing out of cash bail.

A Progressive, People's Prosecutor
Larry Krasner's candidacy took place in the context of a seriously troubled DA's office. 
District Attorney Seth Williams, who'd been elected as a reformer, became mired in a 
corruption scandal which ultimately culminated in the disgraced DA being sentenced to five 
years in prison.

Following this upset, Krasner persevered in the Democratic Party's primary after 
establishment forces failed to united around a single candidate, splitting their support 
between several contenders. His ground game was buoyed up by canvassing muscle provided by 
a number of unions and liberal activist groups. To seal the deal, his message was further 
amplified by $1.7 million in funding from billionaire hedge fund manager George Soros. 
While progressives tend to downplay the role that investment capital played in the race, 
it's hard to imagine that it had little or no impact, given that contributions from Soros 
"exceeded the $1,288,287 spent by all candidates in the race over the same period."

Before and after his election, liberal news outlets have lavished glowing praise on the 
"people's prosecutor." Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Will Bunch claimed Krasner's 
election wasn't simply a primary victory, but rather "a revolution." Slate claimed Krasner 
was making, "wild, unprecedented criminal justice reforms." Meanwhile, commentator Shaun 
King (who works for a PAC dedicated to electing progressive District Attorneys) wrote a 
breathless piece for The Intercept calling Krasner's policies "revolutionary" and "a dream 
come true." But it's not only liberal journalists who've been enchanted. Current Affairs 
referred to Krasner's election as part of a "wave of victories" for the left. Left-wing 
taste-makers at Jacobin hailed Krasner's election as beginning "a new day in 
Philadelphia," while New York's Indypendent touts Krasner's campaign as "a grassroots 
model" which should be replicated across the country.

While Krasner's candidacy certainly excited Philadelphia's activist milieu, the wider 
public wasn't nearly as taken with it. Voter turnout for the election was a mere 17%, 
relegating it to the respectable but far-from-spectacular third highest turnout over the 
past eight DA races. In terms of share of the vote, Krasner received a smaller percentage 
than his now-disgraced predecessor Seth Williams did in 2009, with Krasner's share being 
lower than Williams' in both the primary and the general election.

To be sure, the District Attorney's progressive bona fides have never been in doubt. 
Krasner has gained a deserved reputation among Philadelphia's activist milieu for 
defending protesters pro bono. Beyond Krasner the candidate, the role of individuals and 
organizations who have done years of organizing against mass incarceration in raising 
these issues in the public consciousness deserves recognition and acknowledgement. Many of 
these comrades saw the elevation of a friendly face to high office and assurance of a 
"seat at the table" as the culmination of many years of painstaking labor and sacrifices 
undertaken in conditions of relative obscurity.

Krasner's campaign marked a tactical alliance between establishment progressive nonprofits 
and labor front groups, rich liberal donors, grassroots prison abolition organizations, 
Bernie Sanders supporters, and networks of returning citizens and the families of the 
incarcerated. However, socialist participation in the Krasner campaign was negligible; 
although Krasner's campaign has been widely associated with the Democratic Socialists of 
America (DSA), the Philly chapter didn't endorse his campaign until several months after 
the critical primary election, at which point Krasner's ascension into office was already 
a shoo-in.

On the policy end, Krasner has backed an unobjectionable reform agenda, which includes a 
number of common sense measures such as ending civil asset forfeiture abuse and treating 
addiction as a medical condition rather than a crime. His principled stance against mass 
incarceration have gained a grudging respect even from his more conservative detractors.

Krasner has also promised to never pursue the death penalty, although just how much of an 
impact this pledge will have is is debatable, given that "Pennsylvania has not executed an 
inmate since 1999 and has carried out only three executions since 1976, making it one of 
the least-active states with the death penalty" and that the state currently has an active 
moratorium on the death penalty.

View image on Twitter
NLADA
@NLADA
  "The Prison Policy Initiative reports that 1 of every 5 people locked up is in a local 
jail awaiting trial - in other words, legally innocent." Ending cash bail starts with 
re-framing the public mindset and rethinking jails. 
#RethinkJailshttps://mic.com/articles/189363/this-mothers-day-volunteers-are-paying-to-get-moms-out-of-jail-with-the-blackmamabailout-campaign#.Eduv1Kb00 
...

6:47 PM - May 14, 2018
6
See NLADA's other Tweets
Twitter Ads info and privacy
A Case Study in Reform: Ending Cash Bail
One of the flagship reforms Krasner has been credited for has been pushing to end the 
practice of cash bail.

The cash bail system means that when someone suspected of breaking a law is arrested, they 
must pay a certain amount of money in order to be released from jail until a trial 
determines their guilt or innocence. In recent years, a national debate has unfolded in 
which critics of the system point out the unfair and unequal burden this places on poor 
and minority suspects.

A number of negative consequences flow from the cash bail system, including the propping 
up of a parasitic bail bond industry, the imposition of enormous costs onto taxpayers (who 
foot the bill for interning suspects), the exacerbation of preexisting racial and class 
inequalities, and the de facto unjust imprisonment of poor suspects regardless of guilt or 
innocence.

Fortunately, a reform movement has made numerous strides toward decreasing power of the 
"American gulag," and cash bail is one flash point in this struggle. Here in Philadelphia, 
the City Council recently passed a non-binding resolution calling for the District 
Attorney's office, the state legislature, and the courts to begin overhauling the cash 
bail system. This symbolic action reflects a widespread sentiment among lawmakers at the 
municipal and state level that the cash bail system is irreparably broken.

In locales as diverse as New York, New Orleans, Nashville, Birmingham, and Washington 
D.C., activists have succeeded in pressing state and municipal governments to lower or 
eliminate bail bonds. Without question, the tenacity of grassroots activists in these 
cities and many others have made admirable progress in reversing the decades-long trend of 
mass incarceration.

In many of these cases, this has been accomplished without a progressive District Attorney 
initiating the process.

In Maryland, changes in cash bail were made as a result of a decision by the state's Court 
of Appeals. Certainly reforms such as these which are handed down by courts from on high 
are welcome, but what lessons do we draw from them? Rarely if ever do socialists (even of 
the "democratic" variety) argue for the movement to employ litigation as a strategy for 
achieving our policy goals, although litigation in defense of social justice has 
historically been responsible for major breakthroughs and has been a long-standing tactic 
used by progressive groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), National 
Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and Freedom to Marry.

Why don't socialists generally support strategies utilizing litigation as a centerpiece of 
a campaign? Perhaps it's because on some level, even the most right-wing elements of the 
movement intuit that our job as socialists has something to do with organizing the working 
class and the oppressed, whereas lawsuits and court cases only create opportunities for 
organizing by way of byproduct or afterthought, if at all. Fighting it out in the 
capitalist courts means entering into a political terrain that privileges the ruling 
class. From a revolutionary perspective, it also engenders the illusion that our legal 
system is the fair and unbiased institution that civics textbook propaganda claims it is, 
disarming us by muddying the clear-eyed realism we need in understanding the courts and 
prisons as appendages of the enemy.

The case of Atlanta is further instructive. Here, the newly-elected mayor, Keisha Lance 
Bottoms, made eliminating cash bail her administration's first policy initiative. But far 
from being the progressive darling, Mayor Bottoms ran against the Bernie Sanders backed 
candidate. Liberal columnist Shaun King eloquently summed up Mayor Bottoms' political 
outlook while chastising leftists for not supporting her:

Bottoms was the establishment Democrat in the race from the beginning. She was supported 
by the Democratic Party. She was endorsed and supported strongly by the current mayor, 
Kasim Reed. She was supported by much of the black establishment in Atlanta. Bottoms, on 
policy matters, is not democratic socialist. She's not a Berniecrat. She's not an 
activist. To my knowledge, she's never been arrested in a protest. She's not a radical. 
She's a mainstream Democrat.

Clearly having a progressive in office is not a necessary prerequisite for achieving 
meaningful reforms.

Finally, while the District Attorney should certainly be credited for doing his part to 
eliminate cash bail by pledging not to request it, we should remember that "Even if a 
prosecutor doesn't ask for bail for a particular defendant, magistrate judges could still 
make the decision to order it." Effectively, the ball remains in the judge's court.

This points to a larger problem in the Krasner "model": while District Attorneys can 
exercise prosecutorial discretion - which is to say, while they can determine whether or 
not to press charges, what sort of charges to bring up, recommend sentences and offer plea 
bargains - they are neither legislators nor judges. They don't write laws, issue rulings, 
or set legal precedents. So while DAs have significant leeway in setting priorities, any 
policies they enact are less durable than reforms won through legislation or judicial 
decisions; it only takes a new person occupying the office of executive to roll back such 
reforms-by-fiat, as we've seen in the case of the Trump administration reversing many of 
the Obama administration's executive orders.

All told, the urgency of electing progressives appears to take a backseat to spurring on 
powerful grassroots social movements and building independent political organizations 
which can effectively criticize policies, raise demands, and put pressure on every 
institution and political actor.

Police and Prisons: Reform or Abolition?
In studying the political context, Krasner's policies appear much more as a continuation 
of long-standing trends rather than a sharp break from past practices.

When touting Krasner's victory in the Democratic Party primary as a "model" to be employed 
elsewhere, proponents of the progressive prosecutor have proudly touted the nine percent 
reduction achieved in the DA's first one hundred days. Unfortunately, this sort of 
boosterism fails to account for larger long-term trends which have driven these sorts of 
fluctuations and, therefore, obstruct us from understanding the root causes of the 
changes, instead ascribing them to the actions of a single politician.

Nationally, incarceration rates have reached a two-decade low. Locally, from 2008 to 2016, 
the number of inmates in Philadelphia prisons fell by over twenty percent, from 9,300 to 
7,452. In 2016, Philadelphia received a $3.5 million grant from the MacArthur Foundation, 
the twelfth largest private foundation in the United States. The goal of the grant was to 
reduce the prison population in Philly jails by more than one third. Today, the number of 
inmates has fallen an additional "26 percent since the reform initiative was announced." 
In fact, the city has made enough progress on these metrics that officials recently 
announced their plan to shut down the dilapidated, 91-year-old House of Corrections, which 
they expect to close by 2020.

In material terms, a grant from a capitalist foundation likely had a significant impact in 
reducing the prison population. But no serious revolutionary would argue that we need to 
spend our time writing grants. Given that a decent case could be made that a 
policy-directing grant from a capitalist foundation has as big an impact as the election 
of a progressive politician, we're left with no understanding as to why elections are the 
favored tactic of the reformist when, looking at it purely from the perspective of 
accomplishing a given reform there are much more efficient routes. Perhaps this is why so 
many reformists end up capitulating to the political logic of the nonprofit industrial 
complex, finally ending up snugly in the capitalists' back pocket.

Liberal elements of the ruling class have recognized for some time that current 
incarceration levels - the highest in the world - are unsustainable. In bourgeois 
democracies such as the United States, the ruling class doesn't govern by violence alone. 
Consent of the governed requires keeping up the appearance that the system works for a 
large fraction of the population, and at least the acquiescence of the majority. The 
system is also adept at leveraging reforms and concessions to co-opt potential enemies, 
undermine more radical demands and placate strategic sections of the working class. For 
this reason, criminal justice reform has recently become a pet project of more farsighted 
liberal elites.

While a variety of wealthy liberals have bankrolled criminal justice reform institutions 
such as the Sentencing Project, Real Justice PAC, the ACLU and others, without a doubt the 
most visible role has been played by hedge fund manager George Soros, who in addition to 
pumping the aforementioned million dollars plus into Krasner's campaign, has lavished 
funding on numerous other District Attorney races as part of a larger nationwide strategy. 
As of August 2016, "The billionaire financier ... channeled more than $3 million into 
seven local district-attorney campaigns in six states." The number of DA races and the 
amount of money has only increased since that time.

Why has this been happening? Capitalists prize social stability, and over the past few 
years our society has been rocked by the reemergence of a powerful mass movement against 
police violence. The Black Lives Matter movement polarized American society - at one point 
exerting such influence over the narrative (as reflected, for instance, in a precipitous 
drop in confidence in the police by the general public) - that the legitimacy of the 
police has been questioned to an extent and with a persistence that is really unprecedented.

Realizing not only are the policies of mass incarceration unsustainable, but that the 
entire system of policing is threatened by a crisis of legitimacy, liberal capitalists 
promote the remaking of the police on a new basis ("police reform"). By materially 
supporting efforts at police and prison reform, it allows the ruling class to preempt and 
undermine the more radical specter which has been raised by numerous activists within the 
black liberation and socialist movements: abolition of police and prisons.

The demand to abolish police and prisons is the sort of clarion call which can 
dramatically reshape the political playing field. As author and lawyer Derecka Purnell 
explains, "a call for police transformation after abolition undermines the purposes of 
abolition. The call tethers accountability to police review boards, task forces, and pleas 
to value black lives." It's precisely these sorts of efforts to bring about "police 
transformation" which are a prominent feature on the agenda of the nonprofit-industrial 
complex. Perhaps it should come as no surprise, but a movement for abolition and 
liberation can never emerge from a set of institutions funded by billionaires.


On Tough Choices, Self-Discipline, and the Need for Strategy
"To allow oneself to be carried away by a multitude of conflicting concerns, to surrender 
to too many demands, to commit oneself to too many projects, to want to help everyone in 
everything is to succumb to violence."
- Thomas Merton, Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander (1966)

Among socialists today, it's popular to say that all strategies can be pursued 
simultaneously, and there is no need to pursue a single, unified and coherent strategy. 
The idea is widely promoted that there are no trade-offs between throwing time and effort 
into phone-banking for a Democrat and protesting in the streets, setting up a mutual aid 
program or organizing a union in our workplace.

Much like Adam Smith's "invisible hand," our movement seems to believe that by every 
activist pursuing their own individual interests, this will ultimately, somehow, result in 
a net positive social change. This idea makes sense to many of us because it syncs up with 
and reinforces an understanding of the world which has been drilled into us our whole 
lives: call it the "neoliberal theory of social change."

However, the hard truth is that as individuals we cannot be in multiple places at the same 
time. Our organizations and movements have only a finite amount of time, resources and 
energy to expend in pursuit of our objectives. In terms of deploying our relatively few 
activists and volunteers, we are still operating under conditions of acute scarcity, and 
we should be therefore laser-focused in how and when we take up a cause.

But there is an alternative to this individualist laissez faire attitude toward movement 
activity: it's called "strategy."

As important as it is to choose tactics and interventions wisely, most of the time 
pursuing a strategy means making decisions about what not to do. As individuals, 
organizations, and movements, increasingly we need to learn how to say "no" to 
volunteering to take on activist obligations. "No, we won't attend your rally." "No, we 
won't endorse your candidate." "No, we won't sign onto your campaign."

For every action we take, there exists an opportunity cost for the action we didn't take. 
Without adhering to a clearly-delineated strategy, we risk losing our ability to identify 
fault lines in the class struggle and intervene in critical political openings. If, on the 
contrary, we believe that every political opportunity which comes our way is equally 
important, we're likely to end up right back in the vicious cycle of activist networking. 
This inevitably leads to us chasing after the latest political fad until enthusiasm 
inevitably dies down, until the next big social movement appears, and desperately trying 
to jump on the bandwagon once again.

Our movement needs to learn how to practice self-discipline: how to investigate social 
conditions, identify fault-lines, gather and collate information, create a strategy, then 
do the work and stick with it until our efforts have produced enough evidence to even tell 
us if our efforts are succeeding or failing. That doesn't mean we shouldn't improvise on 
the fly. It does mean that if we pivot from deep organizing into mass mobilizing, our 
sharp turn needs to fit into a long-term strategic sequence, so that we emerge from the 
other end of our pivot in a better position than we did going into it.

For the reformist, the purpose of activism is to win reforms. The choice of tactics flow 
from this analysis - for instance, we support politicians because they will fight on 
behalf of a particular reform, etc. Revolutionaries, however, especially within the 
base-building milieu, see our present moment, and its related tasks differently. In the 
absence of a revolutionary situation, our primary task is to develop revolutionary 
political organization which can lead toward the construction of a socialist party. When 
we decide whether or not to intervene in struggles to win reforms, our first question is 
therefore not whether the reform is a good in and of itself, but will this specific reform 
help cohere a social base which can form the nucleus of a party.

In the current period, neither reformists nor the majority of revolutionaries believe that 
revolution is on the immediate horizon. Recognition of this fact doesn't mean, however, 
that what's needed to achieve success is to modulate our message or water down our 
politics. Meeting people where they are at doesn't absolve us from the responsibility to 
engage them in a process of mutual transformation through organizing, education and 
collective struggle.

Revolutionary politics are, to be sure, a minority perspective - not only in our society 
but even within the socialist movement. But it doesn't necessarily follow from this we 
need to throw out our entire understanding of the world in order to better fit in. If 
anything, we have an obligation to vigorously advocate for a revolutionary perspective. 
Opinions are not static, and while we can't will into existence a revolutionary situation, 
we can and should try to change people's minds and win them over to a politics of working 
class hegemony.

Conclusion
"We do not live in a revolutionary moment, but that is no excuse to abandon revolutionary 
socialism as a political horizon."
- R.L. Stephens (July 2017)

The Krasner campaign presents no conundrums whatsoever among liberal progressives. If 
anything, it functions as as the epitome of what a successful electoral campaign should 
look like, which probably explains the urgency with which the campaign's successes have 
been bandied about in the left media. This is because the liberal is generally not 
especially concerned with long-term goals of revolution, the abolition of police and 
prisons, or establishing a socialist economic system; for the liberal, harm reduction 
isn't simply one component of a more ambitious political strategy; it's the end goal itself.

But among revolutionaries, the Krasner campaign must necessarily appear more problematic. 
Given that socialists only participated peripherally in the Krasner campaign, it can't 
very well be taken as any kind of "model" which the movement should attempt to replicate 
elsewhere. Neither does it vindicate the notion that progressives winning competitive 
primaries is any sort of determinate factor in shaping policy. For the revolutionary left, 
the campaign raises more questions than provides answers, but primarily this: If not this, 
then what?

The economic crisis of 2008 showed conclusively that contemporary capitalism stands on 
much shakier ground than is generally acknowledged. As for those in the movement who 
proclaim that this time the capitalist state really is invincible, and that any rebellion 
against it is a fool's errand, we can only reply that for all their talk about the 
impossibility of revolution, they have no more idea of what's to come than we do. While 
they chide us for faith in the revolutionary potential of the masses, the reformists have 
their own kind of faith in the stability of the status quo.

The ultimate test of truth for Marxism is determined by the encounter with reality. For 
the genuine revolutionary, a certain humility about an unknowable future coexists with an 
optimism as to the long-term structural instability of capitalism. The great revolutionary 
socialist Amílcar Cabral instructs us to "tell no lies, claim no easy victories." For 
those who wish to change the world, fidelity to truth is indispensable; if we 
misunderstand our reality, if our goals are nothing more than pipe dreams, then any 
positive outcome to our activity will be at best a happy accident, and more likely a 
predictable tragedy.

While the election of Larry Krasner to the office of District Attorney in Philadelphia has 
certainly buoyed up hopes of many, we must be clear-eyed and vigilant; our movement cannot 
subsist on feel-good victories which don't build up long-term capacity, just as human 
beings cannot subsist on sugar-coated rocks. Only by facing unpleasant truths and 
dispensing with comfortable self-deceptions can we fully reckon with the enormity of our 
tasks - the abolition of police and prisons and the establishment of a revolutionary 
counterpower - which, while daunting, remain an absolutely essential prerequisite to 
achieving our goal of socialism.

If you enjoyed this piece we recommend the similarly themed pieces: "The Lure of 
Electoralism: From Political Power to Popular Power" is cited in this article and gives a 
broad criticism of left electoralism; "Building Power and Advancing: For Reforms, Not 
Reformism" and "Active Revolution: Organizing, Base Building and Dual Power" both discuss 
a strategic approach to building social movements and popular power; and "Below and Beyond 
Trump: Power and Counter Power" gives a high level analysis of the current political 
terrain and outlining a strategic orientation.  Additional articles can be found in our 
"Electoralism" and "Strategy" tags.

http://blackrosefed.org/reformism-larry-krasner/

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