Anarchic update news all over the world - 1 Part - 13.09.2018

Today's Topics:

   
1.  anarkismo.net: Post-Anarchism on the State-An Anarchist
      Critique by Wayne Price (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
2.  France, Alternative Libertaire AL - Antifascism: The far
      right kills (fr, it, pt)[machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
3.  anarkismo.net: USA: Strike strike by International
      Syndicate.        Office (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
4.  Vrije Bond Secretariat: [Amsterdam] Open meeting for
      building a Fossil Free Agriculture Campaign (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)


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

Message: 1





Response to Saul Newman, "Anarchism, Marxism, and the Bonapartist State" ---- A review of 
the nature of the State as understood by anarchists, especially as proposed by the 
tendency called "post-anarchism." This is done through a review of the opinions of Saul 
Newman, a leading proponent of post-anarchism, in his work, "Anarchism, Marxism, and the 
Bonapartist State." The post-anarchist view is opposed by the class theory of the state, 
versions of which are raised by traditional, revolutionary anarchists and by Marx. ---- A 
key question for any political theory is its conception of the state. This includes the 
view of the state by the trend calling itself "post-anarchism." This name does not refer 
to being "after" or "beyond" anarchism. Mainly it refers to attempted integrations of 
anarchism with the philosophical views of post-structuralism and postmodernism, as 
developed by certain French philosophers (May 1994; Russell & Evren 2011). According to 
Ruth Kinna,"Anarchism's third, post-anarchist, wave[is]usually dated to the rise of the 
alter-globalization movement in the late 1990s...." (Kinna 2017; 25) It was not so much a 
change in organizing strategies as a new theoretical approach. "Post-anarchism is not only 
one of the most significant currents to emerge within contemporary anarchist thought in 
recent years, it also has ‘evident affinities' with small-a anarchist movement politics." 
(36) In this paper, I am looking at the post-anarchists' political thinking and not on 
their background philosophies (in philosophy, I prefer a radicalized version of John 
Dewey's pragmatism; Price 2014).

One of the most prominent post-anarchist theorists is Saul Newman. He has written a number 
of important books and essays on the subject. One essay (Newman 2004) concentrates on the 
nature of the state. It directly confronts the class theory of the state (also called the 
"materialist" or "historical materialist" theory of the state). This is a subject on which 
I have recently written (Price 2018). His is different from many other post-anarchist 
writings which emphasize that the state is not the only source of power, but that power is 
created in many places. "Foucault argues that the state is a kind of discursive illusion 
that masks the radically dispersed nature of power...." (Newman 2004; 23) Newman does not 
quite agree with this. He takes the state seriously. Whether or not a network of power is 
a useful model of society, the state still exists and needs to be analyzed. For this 
reason, I think it would be useful to examine this particular post-anarchist work.

In his essay, Newman never actually defines what he means by the state. I have found the 
same to be true in other post-anarchist writings. Let me then define the state as a 
bureaucratic-military social machine, composed of specialized officials, bureaucrats, and 
armed people, separate from and standing over the mass of people. This is a different 
matter than just any possible social system of coordination, policy deciding, dispute 
settling, or even defense from anti-social aggression. All these things existed for 
thousands of years among humans before the state arose and will exist after it is 
abolished. It is the state as an elite socially-alienated bureaucratic-military 
institution which is connected to the capitalist system and all other systems of oppression.

Anarchism and Marxism on the Class Theory of the State

It would be easy to contrast anarchism with Marxist-Leninism, that is, with the recent and 
current Stalinist states of the USSR, Maoist China, North Korea, etc. These states were 
founded by people calling themselves "Marxist" and supposed champions of the "working 
class." Yet they were state-capitalist, mass-murdering, totalitarianisms. But Karl Marx, a 
radical democrat, would have been as horrified by such states as are anarchists. The issue 
is to show what there was about Marxism which led to such results, despite Marx's 
intentions. Consistent with that focus, Newman directs himself primarily to Marx's views, 
with little to say about post-Marx Marxism (just a few comments on Lenin).

Still, the paper presents itself as a dispute between anarchism and Marxism. In part, this 
binary is modified by some indications that anarchists have found aspects of Marxism 
useful. "For anarchists, Marxism has great value as an analysis of capitalism and the 
relations[of]private property which it is tied to." (19) "Bakunin perhaps represents the 
most radical elements of Marxist theory." (17) (10) Newman himself repeatedly expresses 
appreciation of the "post-Marxism" of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, whose work comes 
out of the Marxist tradition.

However, the main problem with Newman's anarchism-versus-Marxism approach is that the 
traditional anarchist movement also had a class theory of the state. Peter Kropotkin, the 
great theorist of anarchism, wrote, "The State has always interfered in the economic life 
in favor of the capitalist exploiter. It has always granted him protection in robbery, 
given aid and support for further enrichment. And it could not be otherwise. To do so was 
one of the functions-the chief mission-of the State." (Kropotkin 2014; 193) In Kinna's 
view, Kropotkin thought "political institutions reflected the nature of economic power, 
which was fundamental....The state was designed to protect the strong against the weak, 
the rich against the poor, and the privileged against the laboring classes....Bourgeois 
government[was]a special vehicle for the protection of commercial and industrial class 
interests." (Kinna 2017; 86-88) "Bakunin had advanced the same argument, crediting Marx 
with its most sophisticated scientific articulation." (86)

Newman's attack on the class theory of the state is not only an attack on Marxism but also 
on the traditional mainstream anarchist view
.
Newman seeks to deny this. For example, he cites Bakunin's support for the class theory of 
the state but then tries to turn it on its head. "Bakunin...takes Marx seriously when he 
says that the state is always concomitant with class distinctions and domination. However 
there is an important difference....For Marx the dominant class generally rules through 
the state, whereas for Bakunin the state generally rules through the dominant 
class....Bourgeois relations are actually a reflection of the state, rather than the state 
being a reflection of bourgeois relations." (Newman 2004;17)

This acknowledges that Bakunin, the principal initiator of the movement for revolutionary 
anarchism, believed that "the state is always concomitant with class distinctions and 
domination." That is different from seeing the state as distinct and autonomous from the 
class structure. Actually, Bakunin saw the state as interacting with the economy, in a 
back-and-forth, dialectical, manner. The modern state causes capitalism and capitalism 
causes the modern state.

This is similar to Marx's concept of "primitive (primary) accumulation," in which the 
state played a key role in initiating capitalism. The state expropriated the British 
peasants from their land, conquered and looted foreign countries, supported slavery, and 
defended theft from the environment. Theses actions accumulated capital on one side and 
propertyless workers on the other, the essentials for capitalism. In Capital, Marx wrote 
of "the power of the state, the concentrated and organized force of society, to hasten, 
hothouse fashion, the process of transformation of the feudal mode of production into the 
capitalist mode....Force is...itself an economic power." (Marx 1906; 823-4) Kropotkin 
criticized this "primitive accumulation" only because it may imply that this is a passing 
phase, understating the continuing influence of the state in maintaining capitalism. 
Recognizing that "Force is itself an economic power"is not a rejection of the class theory 
of the state.

Newman presents two alternate views: "the state represented the interests of the most 
economically dominant class-the bourgeoisie." (Newman 2004; 6) This is ascribed to Marx. 
Or: "Anarchism sees the state as an autonomous institution-or series of institutions-that 
has its own interests and logic." (9) "It is independent of economic forces and has its 
own imperative of self-perpetuation....Anarchism sees the state, in its essence, as 
independent of economic classes...." (14) This last view is his opinion, that of 
post-anarchism, but not that of the "classical" anarchists.

Bonapartism

Newman points out that Marx developed his concept of the state further. This was expressed 
in his analysis of the French dictatorship of Louis Napoleon III in his 1852 The 
Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (Marx 2002). He developed a concept of 
"Bonapartism," which was also expressed in Engels' and his writings on Bismarck in Germany 
and on other historical states (Draper 1977). They noted that the state balanced among 
various class forces. Even within the upper class there were fractions of classes and 
agents of fractions of classes, which put conflicting pressures on the state. They saw 
that the state had its own interests as an institution and so did its bureaucratic, 
political, and military personnel. Sometimes the bourgeoisie had mostly direct control of 
the state, as under parliamentary democracy. At other times, they were shut out, as under 
Louis Bonaparte's "Empire" or under Nazi totalitarianism. But even without democratic 
rights, the bourgeoisie continued to exploit their employees and accumulate profits. This 
"right" was still defended by the dictatorial state! "According to Marx...the Bonapartist 
state served the long term interests of the capitalist system, even if it often acted 
against the immediate interests and will of the bourgeoisie." (Newman 2004; 7)

There is a tendency for the state-especially its executive branch-to develop increased 
independence relative to the rest of society, even under bourgeois democracy, but which 
reaches its height under political dictatorship. In Newman's terms, cited above, it may be 
acknowledged that "the state has its own interests and logic...and has its own imperative 
of self-preservation." But it is not true that the state is "independent of class forces." 
Rather it balances among them and still maintains the overall interests of the 
bourgeoisie. This has been referred to as the state's "relative autonomy." (5)

Newman claims that anarchists (or at least post-anarchists) took the concept of 
Bonapartism to its rightful extreme. "Anarchism took Marx's notion of the Bonapartist 
State to its logical conclusion, thus developing a theory of state power and sovereignty 
as an entirely autonomous and specific domain...." (38-39)

Does this make sense? Does not the state, as an institution with a drive for 
"self-preservation," have an absolute need to keep the economy going? Under capitalism 
this means the continued accumulation of capital; it means the exploitation of the working 
class to produce ever increased amounts of profit. Without this, there is no state, no 
society, and none of the other oppressions of race, gender, etc. Can there be "an entirely 
autonomous" state, unrelated to economic oppression? Neither Bakunin nor Kropotkin 
believed that. I quoted Kropotkin above as believing that protecting capitalist exploiters 
"was one]of the functions-the chief mission-of the State." Not the only function or 
mission, but 'one of the functions" and "the chief mission."

If we look at the state as a "specific domain," then it has a great many social forces, 
economic and otherwise, class and non-class, pushing on it. (Non-class forces include 
racial tensions, gender conflicts, not to mention organized religion.) Yet these forces 
are of differing strength and impact. The class theory "involves a claim that the 
capitalist class is able to wield more potent power resources over against pressure from 
below and the capacity for independent action on the part of the state itself....The 
political sway of the capitalist class[is]not exclusive but predominant." (Wetherly 2002; 
197) Even the most autonomous of totalitarian fascist states still must take into account 
the needs of its capitalist class-or it will not survive. Even the bureaucratic Stalinist 
states of the Soviet Union, Maoist China, etc.-which had entirely disposed of their 
stock-owning bourgeoisie-still had to maintain the exploitation of the workers and the 
accumulation of capital: the capital-labor relationship.

Summarizing the most mature and sophisticated views of Marx (and traditional 
anarchists)-with which he disagrees-Newman writes, "Rather than saying that, for Marx, the 
state is the instrument of[the]bourgeoisie, it may be more accurate to say that the state 
is a reflection of bourgeois class domination, a institution whose structure is determined 
by capitalist relations. Its function is to maintain an economic and social order that 
allows the bourgeoisie to continue to exploit the proletariat. " (11) Or, for the 
Stalinist states, for someone "to continue to exploit the proletariat"-in this case, the 
collective bureaucratic class (until it collapsed back into traditional capitalism).

I think that this makes more sense than either a view of the state as a passive puppet of 
the bourgeoisie (should anyone hold such a crude theory) or as "entirely autonomous" and 
"independent of class forces."

Political Implications

Political analyses have no meaning unless they lead to differences in strategy or tactics. 
"A difference which makes no difference is no difference," as the saying goes. Newman 
contrasts the differing potential "revolutionary strategies" that go with the alternatives 
of the "neutral" or "autonomous state" or the (class) "determined state." He discusses 
which (theorized) state should be seen as the "tool of revolution" and which as something 
"to be destroyed in revolution." (8) Rather than summarize his discussion, I will go 
through the issue as I see it.

(1) The idea that the state was integrally tied to the capitalist class and could not be 
otherwise, led to the revolutionary belief that this state had to be overturned, smashed, 
dismantled, and replaced by alternate institutions. In a new preface to the Communist 
Manifesto, Engels quoted Marx, "One thing especially was proved by the[Paris]Commune, 
viz., that ‘the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery and 
wield it for its own purposes'." (Marx & Engels 1955; 6) This did not deny the value of 
fighting for reforms, but the ultimate goal was a state-destroying revolution.

But two different conclusions were drawn. One was that the working class, when overturning 
the capitalists' state, also needed its own class state, a "workers' state," the 
"revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat"-if only for a while, until a fully 
classless society could be instituted. This could be interpreted as an ultra-democratic 
state, similar to the Paris Commune or the early soviets, which would "immediately" start 
to "wither away" -which is how Lenin presented it at the beginning of the Russian 
revolution. Or, alternately, as the justification for an increasingly authoritarian, 
one-party, police state, which is what Lenin developed over time. This soon evolved into 
Stalin's state-capitalist totalitarianism.

On the other hand, anarchists argued that the state, by its very structure (as I defined 
it above), was an instrument of the capitalist class, or of some other exploiting class. 
Throughout history, ruling minorities needed a state to maintain their rule over the big 
majority; a self-managing majority would not need it. If a new state were to be created 
after a revolution, it would only put a bureaucratic class in power, ruling over a state 
capitalist economy. (As we know, these warnings came true.) Instead, anarchists argued for 
networks and federations of workplace councils, neighborhood assemblies, and voluntary 
associations. The workers and all the oppressed needed to replace all states with the 
self-organization of the emancipated people.

(2) The alternate theory of a neutral and wholly autonomous state was (and is) championed 
by reformists, liberals, and social democrats. The state, they claimed, was a machine 
which could be used by anyone, capitalists or workers, white supremacists or People of 
Color, oppressors or oppressed. Therefore radicals should fight to take over the existing 
state and use it to do good. (This is the view of Laclau and Mouffe, the "post-Marxists" 
whom Newman admires.)

But post-anarchists argue that the state has its own drives for oppression, regardless of 
the class system it is associated with at any time. To use it to get rid of one system of 
exploitation would only leave the field open for the state's own oppressive dynamics. It 
would only replace capitalism with some other method of exploitation, such as the rule of 
a bureaucratic class. Therefore the state must not used to make a revolution nor to 
solidify a new society after one.

Those who identify with the revolutionary anarchist tradition do not really disagree with 
the last argument. The state has authoritarian and oppressive tendencies which make it 
unusable for a genuinely popular, democratic, revolution-from-below. However, I do not 
separate these tendencies from the state's essential attachment to the rule of a minority 
exploiting class. These are not distinct dynamics.

Which leads to a response to the question of why Marx's Marxism led to Stalinist 
totalitarianism, despite Marx's own democratic-libertarian tendencies. At least one part 
of it was his program of replacing the bourgeois state with a new state of the working 
class and its allies, if only for a time. This transitional state was supposed to 
expropriate the capitalists and centralize all their property into its own hands. No 
matter how democratic, popular, and temporary in conception, the use of a socially 
alienated bureaucratic-military state machine was bound to lead to a new form of 
exploitation and oppression. This was argued by Bakunin, Kropotkin, and other 
revolutionary class-struggle anarchist-socialists at the time of Marx and immediately 
after, and has repeatedly been proven true, alas.

Whether Saul Newman is for revolution cannot be told from this essay (it may be clearer in 
other works). Most of the other post-anarchists, like the "new" or "small-a" anarchists, 
advocate building alternate institutions, small scale actions, and different lifestyles, 
without focusing on an ultimate goal of direct popular attack against the capitalist class 
or the state. (Price 2016) The post-anarchists usually justify this by arguing that the 
state is not the only source of power in society, but merely one among many. Therefore 
anarchists do not need to focus on the state as the main enemy. It can be worked around, 
chipped away, or just ignored. The capitalist class is seen as a disjointed, pluralistic, 
entity, with society overall best understood as a network of forces without a center. All 
of which leads to a rejection of overturning the state as a main goal. In fact 
"revolution" is usually regarded as the fantasy of a single (bloody) upheaval which would 
immediately change society-which is rejected as the nonsense it is (and is not a model 
held by serious revolutionaries). However, revolutionary anarchists regard as a dangerous 
fantasy the idea that the capitalist class and its state would permit a peaceful, gradual, 
transformation of society-in which they would lose their wealth and power-without 
attempting to crush the people (through savage repression, fascism, civil war, etc.).

No Working Class Revolution

Whether Newman is against revolution, he is against working class revolution, because he 
is against a focus on the working class. He would deny that the "proletariat" is the 
necessary (but not sufficient) agent to transform society, or even that it is one of the 
three to five most important potential forces.

Newman repeatedly merges the idea of the working class with the idea of the Leninist 
vanguard party, objecting "to the central role of the proletariat-or, to be more precise, 
to the vanguard role of the Party." (37) But revolutionary anarchists who looked to the 
working class did not advocate such authoritarian, elitist, parties. Among Marxists, Rosa 
Luxemburg rejected Lenin's concept of the vanguard party, and there is a long history of 
libertarian-autonomist Marxists who orient to the aspects of Marx's work which are 
radically democratic, humanistic (anti-alienation), proletarian (anti-bureaucratic), and 
scientific (anti-scientistic). This trend, neither social democratic nor Marxist-Leninist, 
does not share a concept of the elitist vanguard party. It has raised libertarian 
socialist politics which can be in dialogue with revolutionary anarchism (Prichard et al 
2017).

The post-anarchists have been criticized for their negative approach to class concerns and 
how they deal with them. An "emerging critique is that the post-anarchists have given up 
on the notion of ‘class' and have retreated into obscure and intoxicating academic 
diatribes against a tradition built of discursive straw." (Rousselle, in the Preface to 
Rousselle & Evren 2011; vii) Indeed, Newman's rejection of a working class orientation is 
sometimes on a rather high plane of abstract post-structuralist philosophizing. He 
denounces "the perspective of a universal epistemological position-such as that of the 
proletariat...." (37)

At other times, Newman raises empirical problems, which I think are the real issue. He 
refers to "...the empirical reality of the shrinking of the working class..." (32) and to 
the "concrete social conditions of the shrinking working class in post-industrial 
societies...." (29)

It is true that there are fewer industrial workers in the U.S. (although still a big 
minority), but the population is overwhelming working class. That is, most adults are 
employed by capital or the state, producing goods or services for pay, without supervising 
others. Blue collar, white collar, pink collar, in construction or slaughterhouses, 
cleaning houses for others or waiting tables, writing code or teaching children, in 
animation or accounting, this is the modern proletariat. The class, in addition to waged 
workers, includes their children, full-time homemakers, adult students, and those 
unemployed and retired. Meanwhile one reason for the decline in industrial jobs in the 
U.S. is that many jobs have been sent overseas. There has been an enormous expansion of 
industrial workers throughout the "Third World," for this and other reasons. This is not a 
proof of the irrelevance of the working class.

It is also an empirical fact that most workers and their families are not 
revolutionary-and many are even reactionary. This is cited by post-anarchists (and others) 
as disproving a supposed prediction that the working class must inevitably become 
revolutionary. Actually the "prediction" is only that the working class is potentially 
revolutionary, and able to shake the whole society when it is. This is evidenced by a 
two-centuries long history of workers' struggles and upheavals. In any case, it is not 
that we could reject the (currently) non-revolutionary class for some other grouping which 
is revolutionary. Since such a large proportion of the world's population is working 
class, the non-revolutionary consciousness of most of the working class means that most of 
the general population is not revolutionary, that most women are not revolutionary, nor 
are most People of Color, nor is any other category we could name. For now.

Perhaps Newman's major discontent with a working class perspective is his belief that it 
would suppress all other sources of discontent and rebellion. "Radical political struggles 
can no longer be limited to the proletariat alone, and must be seen as being open to other 
classes and social identities." (33) "The movement...rejects the false universality of 
Marxist politics, which denies difference and heterogeneity and subordinates other 
struggles to the central role of the proletariat...." (37)

There is no doubt that there have been wooden Marxists and wooden anarcho-syndicalists who 
have denied the importance of everything but the class struggle. (There have also been 
feminists who have subordinated all issues to that of women's freedom, and Black activists 
who have put everything aside but Black liberation. But that is not the question here.) 
However this is not an inevitable result of a class perspective. On the contrary, it can 
be seen as strengthening the class struggle if the revolutionary workers support each and 
every struggle of oppressed people. The socialist Daniel DeLeon once said (quoting from 
memory) that socialists' support for women's liberation could unify the working class and 
split the ruling class.

To cite an authoritative (and authoritarian) Marxist, Lenin opposed "economism," the 
strategy of only supporting bread-and-butter labor union issues. Instead he argued that 
socialists should defend every democratic concern, no matter how apparently far from 
class. This included supporting big groups such as peasants, women, and oppressed nations, 
but also students, draftees, censored writers, and religious minorities. "To imagine that 
social revolution is conceivable without...a movement of the... masses against oppression 
by the landowners, the church, and the monarchy, against national oppression, etc. - to 
imagine all this is to repudiate social revolution. So one army lines up in one place and 
says, ‘We are for socialism', and another, somewhere else and says, ‘We are for 
imperialism', and that will he a social revolution!" (Lenin 1916) I cite this sarcastic 
comment even though Lenin was not a libertarian-autonomous Marxist, to demonstrate that 
even such a Marxist as Lenin could advocate that working class socialists should give 
support to all popular struggles against oppression-by all classes, on all issues. (In any 
case, the problem anarchists have with Lenin is not that he gave too much support to 
democratic struggles.)

"The Global Capitalist State Order"

Newman sees a model of the kind of radical movement he wants in "the emergence of what is 
broadly termed the ‘anti-globalization' movement...." (Newman 2004; 36) He describes this 
movement as distinct from either a "universalized" working class or from a bundle of 
unrelated identity-based struggles. The distinct struggles are linked to each other and 
have a common enemy, which turns out to be....capitalism! and the capitalist state! "The 
‘anti-globalization' movement[is]a protest movement against the capitalist and neo-liberal 
vision of globalization...." (36) The movement "puts into question the global capitalist 
state order itself....It problematizes capitalism....targetting specific sites of 
oppression-corporate power and greed, G-M products, workplace surveillance, displacement 
of indigenous peoples, labor and human rights abuses, and so on." (37) This only makes 
sense if we realize that these issues, overlapping with each other, are all directly or 
indirectly due to capitalism and enforced by the state. (For example, environmental, 
energy, and climate problems are due to the insatiable drive of capitalism to accumulate 
and grow quantitatively, regardless of the need of the ecosystem for limits and balance. 
The anarchist Bookchin explored this before the present ecological Marxists.)

"We are living in a historical moment...dominated by capitalism, the most universal system 
the world has ever known-both in the sense that it is global and in the sense that it 
penetrates every aspect of social life and the natural environment....The social reality 
of capitalism is ‘totalizing' in unprecedented ways and degrees. Its logic of 
commodification, accumulation, profit-maximization, and competition permeates the whole 
social order...." (Woods 1997; 13)

If the problem is ultimately capitalism, then what is capitalism? (Newman does not define 
it any more than he defines the state.) Capitalism is the capital-labor relationship in 
the process of production. Capital commodifies everything it can, including the ability of 
the workers to labor. Capital buys this labor-power and squeezes out as much surplus 
wealth (value) from the workers as possible, accumulating profits and expanding 
production. All the other issues and struggles against aspects of oppression are real and 
must be addressed, but the central issue of capitalism as such is its exploitation of the 
workers. And who will oppose capitalism? Is it in the immediate interests of the rich, the 
managers, the police, or various indeterminate "citizens" to revolt against capitalism? No 
one has a greater immediate interest in fighting capitalism than those who directly 
confront it day by day. No one has a greater potential ability to fight it, with their 
hands on the means of production, distribution, and services.

That is what makes the class struggle-if not "universal"-then central to the fight against 
"the global capitalist state order." It is central, and necessary-but not sufficient by 
itself, since all sections of the oppressed need to be mobilized, on every issue, "against 
the capitalist and neo-liberal vision of globalization."

Conclusion: The State Serves the Class Enemy

In recent years there has been a bitter and vicious class war, on an international scale. 
It has been waged by the capitalist class, using all its resources, most especially its 
state. There has been a remorseless attack on the working class in both the industrialized 
(imperialist) nations and in the rest of the world. Hard-won welfare benefits have been 
slashed, austerity has been enforced, and unions have been cut in number and power. As 
part of this class war, there has been an attack on the rights of women, of 
African-Americans, of immigrants, and of LGBTQ people. For the sake of profits, the 
environment has been trashed and looted, until the survival of civilization (even such as 
it is) is threatened.

This is hardly the time to deny that capitalist exploitation is at the center of all 
issues. And that, while the state is intrinsically oppressive, it serves the class enemy.

References

Draper, Hal (1977). Karl Marx's Theory of Revolution, Vol. 1; State and Bureaucracy. NY: 
Monthly Review Press.

Kinna, Ruth (2017), Kropotkin: Reviewing the Classical Anarchist Tradition. Edinburgh UK: 
Edinburgh University Press.

Kropotkin, Peter (2014). Direct Struggle Against Capital; A Peter Kropotkin Anthology 
(Ed.: Iain McKay). Oakland CA: AK Press.

Lenin, V. I. (1916). "The Discussion On Self-Determination Summed Up."
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/jul/x01.htm

Marx, Karl (1906). Capital; A Critique of Political Economy; Vol. 1 (Ed.: F. Engels). NY: 
Modern Library.

Marx, Karl (2002). "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte" (Trans.: T. Carver). In 
Cowling, M., & Martin, J. (eds.). Marx's Eighteenth Brumaire; (Post)modern 
Interpretations. London: Pluto Press. Pp. 19-109.

Marx, Karl, & Engels, Friedrich (1955). The Communist Manifesto. (Ed.: S.H. Beer). 
Northbrook IL: AHM Publishing Co.

May, Todd (1994). The Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist Anarchism. University Park 
PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Morris, Brian (1993). Bakunin; The Philosophy of Freedom. Montreal/NY: Black Rose Books.

Newman, Saul (2004). Anarchism, Marxism, and the Bonapartist State. (Originally published 
in Anarchist Studies, 12, 1; 2004.) Retrieved on 2011.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/saul-newman-anarchism-marxism-and-the-bonapartist-state.a4.pdf

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 (2016). "In Defense of Revolutionary Class-Struggle Anarchism." Anarkismo. 
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/29243?search_text=wayne+price

Price, Wayne (2018). "An Anarchist View of the Class Theory of the State."
Anarkismo. http://www.anarkismo.net/article/31082?author_name=Wayne+Price&

Prichard, Alex; Kinna, Ruth; Pinta, Saku; & Berry, David (eds.). (2017). Libertarian 
Socialism: Politics in Black and Red. Oakland CA: PM Press.

Russell, Duane, & Evren, Sureyyya (eds.) (2011). Post-Anarchism: A Reader. Pluto Press/ 
Fernwood Publishing.

Wetherly, Paul (2002). "Making Sense of the ‘Relative Autonomy' of the State." In Cowling, 
M., & Martin, J. (eds.). Marx's Eighteenth Brumaire; (Post)modern Interpretations. London: 
Pluto Press. Pp. 195-208.

Wood, Ellen Meiksins (1997). "What is the ‘Postmodern' Agenda?" In In Defense of History; 
Marxism and the Postmodern Agenda. NY: Monthly Review Press. Pp. 1-16.

*written for www.Anarkismo.net

https://www.anarkismo.net/article/31126

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

Message: 2





Violence is intrinsic to far-right movements. It is not only used as a means to impose 
their ideas, but also as an end. The social projects of the various far-right movements 
have in common that they are based on the brutal exclusion of categories of the 
population. We write these lines as the trial of the neo-Nazi skinheads who murdered our 
comrade Clément Méric is about to begin on September 4th. ---- The far-right thugs who 
assaulted Clément and his comrades on June 5, 2013 were members or close to Third Way and 
Jeunesses Nationalistes Révolutionnaire (JNR). The motto of the JNR, "   Believe, fight, 
obey,   " announces the color, taking over this formula of the fascist party of Mussolini. 
These organizations were dissolved in 2014. This did not prevent other far-right groups 
from continuing to come forward with violence.

Some try to make believe that solidarity is one of their foundation. This is the case of 
the Social Bastion, which, like the Casapound model in Italy, wants to open places for the 
abandoned public authorities and help the SDF. Only if they are White and French. It is 
clear that precariousness and exclusion do not recede in the places where it is located. 
On the other hand, some of its members are condemned for racist attacks, as in 
Aix-en-Provence.

Violence going beyond the borders of France
This violence of the extreme right therefore has appalling effects: assaults and murders. 
And that goes beyond the borders of France. A little over three months after Clément's 
murder, Pavlos Fyssas, a Greek anti-fascist activist, was killed by Golden Dawn neo-Nazis. 
Renato Biagetti was stabbed by fascists in 2006 in Rome, and the following year, the same 
thing happened to Carlos Palomino in Madrid. Last year, Heather Heyer was killed by a 
white supremacist who drove into an anti-fascist protest in Virginia.

The extreme right is killing militants and anti-fascist activists. It also campaigns for 
the exclusion, humiliation, distress and even death of whole categories of the population, 
fighting, both in the streets and in parliaments, against marriage for all, against the 
right of women to dispose of their bodies, against the opening of the borders. And 
governments make their xenophobia and racism. This is evidenced by the migration policies 
of Donald Trump and the countries of the European Union or the impunity of the police in 
poor neighborhoods.

Faced with this threat, international solidarity and struggle are the basic answers. Thus, 
the group of Solidarity Mothers founded in the spring aims to make heard the voices of 
their children, victims of fascism and state repression. Their goal is to make them 
understand that they are right because they fight for justice and solidarity. It is part 
of a European movement of Mothers.

"   A life of struggle rather than a minute of silence   "
The fight against fascism is an internationalist commitment against violence, hatred and 
exclusion. It is necessarily anti-capitalist since the system in which we live is bringing 
members of our social camp together to protect the class interests of big bosses, 
shareholders and their profits.

Faced with the fascist crimes, against the capitalist, racist, sexist system, there is 
only one solution: "   a life of struggle rather than a minute of silence   ".

Lucie (AL Saint Denis)

http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?Antifascisme-L-extreme-droite-tue

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

Message: 3





As an International Trade Union Solidarity and Conflict Network, we defend the equal pay 
for equal work. It can not be tolerated prisoners who have to endure the imprisonment 
itself, accept working exploitation. We are directly responsible for the states that 
imprison these people for these practices. ---- We also denounce the pressure and threats 
that the state power of repression has on strikers, in order to suppress their 
mobilization and silence their actions. ---- Announcement of the International Trade Union 
Solidarity Network and Struggle to Imprison the Prisoners in the United States  ---- 
SOLIDARITY AND SUPPORT ---- TO THE EMERGENCY OF THE LOST WORKING CLASS ---- IN THE UNITED 
STATES ---- Since 21 August, prisoners in the United States have been on strike. Prisoners 
working in jail on behalf of public and private businesses have denounced the conditions 
of working exploitation that they are subject to, as well as the lack of respect for basic 
human rights at their meeting facilities.

Among their claims, they demand that racism and discrimination in the US judicial system 
be terminated, that all racist laws be revoked and that laws prohibiting their trade 
unions be abolished to defend their labor rights. Although at the time of their sentence, 
they work and offer services that public administration sells to public and private companies.

The strike was initially promoted by Jailhouse Lawyers Speak, a network of prisoners 
fighting for their rights at Lee's Coroner Institution in South Carolina. After three 
days, the prisoners' strike had been extended to prisons in Halifax, North Carolina, Nova 
Scotia, South Carolina, Georgia, Tacoma detention center in Florida, Folsom in California 
and Wagonton. In Tacoma, prisoners of the detention center are undocumented migrant 
workers who are also in strike (mainly hunger strike) in solidarity with the strike of the 
detainees and with all the people who have been imprisoned unfairly.

Among other things, the actions used by prisoners include the drinking strike, abstaining 
from the prisons of prisons, and committed to hunger strikes and non-violent sedentary 
protests, as well as the labor strike.

As an International Trade Union Solidarity and Conflict Network, we defend the equal pay 
for equal work. It can not be tolerated prisoners who have to endure the imprisonment 
itself, accept working exploitation. We are directly responsible for the states that 
imprison these people for these practices.

We also denounce the pressure and threats that the state power of repression has on 
strikers, in order to suppress their mobilization and silence their actions.

We are committed to acting as a loudspeaker for the striking prisoners of workers, as well 
as to support all support actions organized outside prisons.
-For Human Rights Against Racism and Discrimination!
-To respect and end the labor exploitation of prisoners!

#PrisionStrike # August21

The member organizations of the International Trade Union Network of Solidarity and 
Solidarity:

Central Sindical e Popular Conlutas (CSP-Conlutas) - Brazil.
Confederación General del Trabajo (CGT) - Spain.
Union syndicale Solidaires (Solidaires) - France.
Confederation of Travail du Burkina (CGT-B) - Burkina Faso.
Confederation of Indonesia People's Movement (KPRI) - Indonesia.
Confederación Intersindical (Intersindical) - Spain.
Confederation Générale Autonome des Travailleurs en Algérie (CGATA) - Algeria.
Batay Ouvriye - Haiti.
Unione Sindacale Italiana (USI) - Italy.
Confédération Nationale des Travailleurs - Solidarité Ouvrière (CNT SO) - France.
Sindicato de Comisiones de Base (CO.BAS) - Spain.
Organization of Générale Indépendante des Travailleurs et Travailleuses d'Request (OGTHI) 
- Haiti.
Sindacato Intercategorio Cobas (SI COBAS) - Italy.
Confédération Nationale du Travail (CNT-f) - France.
Intersindical Alternative to Catalunya (IAC) - Catalonia.
Union Générale des Travailleurs Sahraouis (UGTSARIO) - Eastern Sahara.
Ezker Sindikalaren Konbergentzia (ESK) - Basque Country.
Confederate Nationale de Travailleurs du Sénégal Forces de Changement (CNTS / FC) - Senegal.
Sindicato Autorganizzato Lavorator COBAS (SIAL-COBAS) - Italy.
General Federation of Independent Unions (GFIU) - Palestine.
Confederación de la Clase Trabajadora (CCT) - Paraguay.
Red Solidaria de Trabajadores - Peru.
Union Syndicale Progressiste des Travailleurs du Niger (USPT) - Nigeria.
Union Nationale des Syndicats Autonomes du Sénégal (UNSAS) - Senegal.
Unión Nacional para la Defensa de la Clase Trabajadora (UNT) - El Salvador.
Solidaridad Obrera (SO) - Spain.
Confederazione Unitaria di Base (CUB) - Italy.
Independent Workers Union of Great Britain (IWGB) - Great Britain.
Ogólnopolski Zwiazek Zawodowy Inicjaatywa Pracownicza (OZZ IP) - Poland.
National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT / TUC) - Great Britain.
Centrale Nationale des Employés - Confédération Syndicale Chrétienne (CNE / CSC) - Belgium.
Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores del Sistema Agroalimentario (SINALTRAINAL / CUT) - 
Colombia.
Fédération Générale des Postes, Telecom and Centers d'appel - Union Générale Tunisienne du 
Travail (FGPTT / UGTT) - Tunisia.
Trade Union in Ethnodata - Trade Union of Employees in Outsourcing Companies in the 
Financial Sector - Greece.
Syndicat national des travailleurs de services de la santé humaine (SYNTRASEH) - Benin
Sindicat dos Trabalhadores da Fiocruz (ASFOC-SN) - Brazil.
Organizzazione Sindicati Autonomi e di Base Ferrovie (ORSA Ferrovie) - Italy.
Union Nationale des Normaliens d'Haiti (UNNOH) - Applicant.
Confederazione Unitaria di Base Scuola Università Ricerca (CUB SUR) - Italy.
Coordinamento Autorganizzato Trasporti (CAT) - Italy.
Syndicat des travailleurs du rail - Union of Travailleurs du Mali (SYTRAIL / UNTM) - Mali.
Gida Sanayii Isçileri Sendikasi - Devrimci Isçi Sendikalari Konfederasyonu (GIDA-IS / 
DISK) - Turkey.
Syndicat National des Travailleurs du Petit Train Bleu / SA (SNTPTB) - Senegal.
Asociación Nacional de Funcionarios Administrativos de la Caja de Seguro Social (ANFACSS) 
- Panama.
Palestinian Postal Service Workers Union (PPSWU) - Palestine.
Union Syndicale Etudiante (USE) - Belgium.
Sindicato dos Trabalhadores de Call Center (STCC) - Portugal.
Sindicato Unitario de Trabajadores Petroleros (Sinutapetrolgas) - Venezuela.
Alianza de Trabajadores from Salud y Empleados Publicos - Mexico.
Canadian Union of Postal Workers / CUPW-STTP - Canada.
Syndicat Autonome des Postiers (SAP) - Switzerland.
Federación nacional de trabajadores de la educación (SUTE-Chili) - Chile.
Plateforme Nationale des organisations professionnelles du secteur public - Côte d'Ivoire.
Fédération nationale des ouvriers et colectivités locales - Union Marocain du Travail 
(UMT-Collectivités locales) - Morocco.
Centrale Générale des Services Publics FGTB, Cheminots (CGSP / FGTB Cheminots) - Belgium.
Botswana Public Employees Union (BOPEU) - Botswana.
Organization Démocratique du Travail - Organization of Démocratique du Travail (ODR / ODT) 
- Morocco.
Federacao Nacional dos Ttrabalhadores em Transportes Aéros do Brasil (FNTTA) - Brazil.
Federação Nacional dos Metroviários (FENAMETRO) - Brazil.
Namibia Football Players Union (NAFPU) - Namibia.
Palestinian Electricians' Trade Union (PETU) - Palestine
Trades Union Congress, Liverpool (TUC Liverpool) - England.
Sindacato Territoriale Autorganizzato, Brescia (ORMA Brescia) - Italy.
Fédération syndicale SUD Public Service, Vaud canton (SUD Vaud) - Switzerland
Sindicato Unitario de Catalunya (SU Metro) - Catalonia.
Türkiye DERI-IS Sendikasi, Tuzla and Izmir (DERI-IS Tuzla and Izmir) - Turkey.
L'autre syndicat, Canton de Vaud (L'autre syndicat) - Switzerland
Centrale Générale des Services Publics FGTB, Ville de Bruxelles (CGSP / FGTB Bruxelles) - 
Belgium
Arbeitskreis Internationalismus IG Metall, Berlin (IG Metall Berlin) - Germany
Sindicato Unificado de Trabajadores de la Educación de Buenos Aires, Bahia Blanca (SUTEBA 
/ CTA de los trabajadores Bahia Blanca) - Argentina.
Sindicato del Petróleo y Gas Privado del Chubut / CGT - Argentina.
UCU University and College Union, University of Liverpool (UCU Liverpool) - England.
Sindicato di base Pavia (SDB Pavia) - Italy.
United Auto Workers local 551 Ford Chicago (UAW Ford Chicago) - United States of America.
Sindicato Uno Prodinsa, Maipú - Chile.
International Solidarity Commission (IWW).
Transnationals Information Exchange Germany (TIE Germany) - Germany.
Emancipation tendance intersyndicale (Emancipation) - France.
Globalization Monitor (Gmo) - Hong Kong.
Courant Syndicaliste Révolutionnaire (CSR) - France.
No Austerity - Coordinamento delle lotte - Italy.
Solidarité Socialiste avec les Travailleurs en Iran (SSTI) - France.
Basis Initiative Solidarität (BASO) - Germany.
LabourNet Germany - Germany.
Resistenza Operia - operai Fiat-Irisbus - Italy.
Workers Solidarity Action Network (WSAN) - United States of America.
United Voices of the World (UVW) - Great Britain.
Unidos pra Lutar - Brazil

https://www.anarkismo.net/article/31128

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

Message: 4






ASEED Europe is inviting all interested people to join our monthly open campaign meeting, 
on Tuesday, September 11th in Amsterdam. This will be the third meeting since June. We 
will hear updates from the working groups and there will be an opportunity to get involved 
in upcoming projects, such as the campaign to save the Boterbloem farm and Lutkemeer 
polder, the Hannover Climate and Justice Games, Free the Soil 2019 and Food Autonomy 
Festival 3.0. ---- Practical points ---- The meeting will take place in the NieuwLand in 
Amsterdam on Tuesday, September 11th, from 7.30 to 9.00 PM. The address is Pieter 
Nieuwlandstraat 93, Amsterdam. ---- From 6.30 to 7.30 PM there is the option to share a 
vegan dinner (for donation). ---- If you are interested in coming, please send a message 
at the following address: info (at) aseed.net - knowing how many people we can expect 
helps us to prepare the meeting (and dinner). And this way we can send you some more 
information about the agenda of the meeting.
If you are interested but not able to join you can also send some feedback by email.
Background
Our goal is to help build a powerful emancipatory movement from below for a sustainable 
and just food system. By focussing on the use of fossil fuels in the corporate controlled 
industrial food system, we aim to expand the concept of climate justice to include 
agricultural justice, connecting the fossil fuel focussed climate movement and the food 
sovereignty movements, while opening a conversation about the structural links between the 
agro-industry and the fossil fuel industry, and the major role it plays in the escalating 
climate, ecological and social crises.

The industrial food system heavily relies on fossil fuels: from chemical fertilizers for 
large-scale monocultures to farm machinery, food processing, and long-distance transport 
for a speculative global commodity market dominated by a small group of very powerful 
corporations. The devastating consequences cannot be ignored any longer: runaway climate 
change, ecological collapse, impoverishment of farmers and the destruction of rural 
communities. While it claims the opposite, it is clear that fossil fuel based industrial 
agriculture can not feed the world, because it relies on a variety of finite resources and 
is destroying the very foundations of life itself: healthy soils, biodiversity, 
agricultural diversity, and a stable climate.

The impact of what we do here can be felt in many places since the Netherlands functions 
as Europe's most important distribution center for both fossil fuels and industrial 
agriculture. The largest factory of the biggest nitrogen fertilizer company in the world 
(Yara) is located in Sluiskil, Zeeland. It is one of the largest users of gas in the 
country, consuming about 2 billion cubic meters of gas annually, of which a quarter is 
coming from the Groningen gas field. On top of Yara more synthetic fertilizer companies 
are active in the Netherlands. The greenhouse horticulture sector is also a major user of 
Groningen gas, consuming approximately 3 billion m3 per year to grow and export tropical 
flowers and tasteless tomatoes in winter.

To make things worse, this country is hosting a huge and ruthless industrial livestock 
industry and performs as a European hub for the distribution of genetically modified soy 
imports. On the political level, the Dutch government is enthusiastically promoting the 
intensification of industrial food production, harmful and undemocratic trade agreements 
and risky new GMO-techniques. Taking action here, in our own backyards, is clearly both 
urgently necessary and of strategic importance.

Fortunately, the real solutions are already all around us: food sovereignty, agro-ecology, 
and peasant agriculture, which feed the planet and cool the earth. While large-scale 
agricultural production uses 70 percent of the global agricultural resources to produce 
only 30 percent of the total food supply, peasant-based food systems provide 70 percent of 
our food while using only 30 percent of agricultural resources. Agro-ecological farms that 
produce local and seasonal food can promote biodiversity and soil health, use fewer water 
resources, are resilient to the shocks of a changing climate, offer the possibility to 
capture carbon in the living soil and can provide dignified compensation to farmers.

We urgently need to dismantle the fossil fuel powered industrial food system. Instead, we 
should nurture people's connection with the food they consume, such as through food 
cooperatives and community-supported-agriculture projects. People that want to stay on the 
land or go back to the countryside should be encouraged and supported. Working 
alternatives to capitalism through cooperative, collective, autonomous, 
real-needs-oriented and small-scale production initiatives already exist and have to be 
expanded further. Industrial scale meat and dairy production have to be eliminated.

While individual consumer choices and reducing food waste are important, alone they will 
not be capable of addressing the problems of industrial agriculture because the causes are 
systemic. The fossil fuel industry and corporate agribusiness are not there to provide 
people with healthy and sustainable food or to protect our climate, but to make profit and 
to increase their domination over the food chain. As in other areas, agriculture is 
clearly showing a recurring pattern: people and nature are exploited for profit, and power 
is concentrated in the hands of a few. We need to unite and organise against these 
structures that lie at the root of our problems!

Goals of this campaign
We invite you to join us in developing a campaign strategy with a clear plan for movement 
building based on different levels of engagement. In this campaign, ASEED wants to be a 
facilitator of the grassroots, not the ‘leader'. We aim to link local practical action 
with global political struggles by engaging in spectacular, inspiring and effective direct 
actions that build increasing power from below that can counter the lobby of the 
fertiliser industry, the rest of the agri-corporations, the eco-modernists and free-market 
fetishists. Our actions should educate the public and trigger more and more people to 
confront those organisations that promote and profit from a food system that serves 
neither the people nor the planet. We are targetting big business and the politicians that 
support them, not the farmers that are victims of a corrupted system.

Organising principles
In our efforts to collaborate for change we approach our work with respect for all people 
and all life on Earth. We strive in both our perspectives and practices, to challenge 
racism, sexism, homophobia, and oppression in all its forms. We empower each other to take 
up new responsibilities by rotating tasks and sharing skills. We firmly oppose any 
attempts to use our opposition to the corporate industrial food system for reactionary or 
nationalist aims.

Aseed, klimaatactivisme, Nieuwland

Vrije Bond Secretariaat

https://www.vrijebond.org/amsterdam-open-meeting-for-building-a-fossil-free-agriculture-campaign/

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