Anarchic update news all over the world - 22.11.2018

Today's Topics:

   
1.  Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group MACG Statement of Shared
      Positions (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
2.  France, Alternative Libertaire AL #288 - Migrants and
      migrants, A shelter, an activist canteen: solidarity (fr, it,
      pt)[machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
  
 3.  Australia, Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group MACG: The
      Anvil Vol 7 No 3 - NOT A ROAD TO SOCIALISM 
      (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
4.  Britain, anarchist communist group ACG: How Did World War
      One Really End? (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
5.  Poland, zsp: POLOmarket and "courteous overtime" [machine
      translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
6.  Greece, liberta salonica: Event The reality we live in has
      only one question: How will we overturn it? [machine translation]
      (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)


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

Message: 1





This document is to be read as a supplement to the Aims & Principles of the Melbourne 
Anarchist Communist Group. Agreement with the positions in this document is a condition of 
membership. ---- 1. The social revolution will be the act of the working class, organised 
in the workplace. Other classes (e.g. the peasantry) and social strata (e.g. students) in 
society may support the workers in this struggle, but cannot substitute for them. The 
workers have a unique role because of their numbers, their role in production which means 
that they are able to remove the economic power of the capitalists by organising under 
their own initiative, and the fact that the experience of social co-operation in 
production tends to produce the values that promote solidarity in the struggle against the 
employer. One corollary of the fact that the struggle will be decided in the workplace is 
that it will not be decided by street brawls with the cops. While it is certainly 
necessary to defend ourselves against police attack, capitalism's achilles' heel is in the 
workplace and our strategic orientation must be there.

2. We stand for the complete equality of the sexes and oppose all forms of oppression of 
women. The liberation of women from patriarchy will not be achieved without the overthrow 
of capitalism and the destruction of class society. The overthrow of capitalism will not 
be achieved without the full participation of working class women in the struggle. It is 
therefore in the interests of male workers to support all struggles for equality and 
freedom for women, even if these are at the expense of male privileges. The solidarity of 
the male and female halves of the working class can only be built on the principle that an 
injury to one is an injury to all. We support the right of women to organise autonomously 
within the wider working class movement and also within Anarchist organisations.

3. We oppose the oppression and dispossession of indigenous people in Australia. This 
means that indigenous people have the right to equal treatment within Australia (i.e. no 
racial discrimination, whether from the State or in society) and have the right to remain 
indigenous (i.e. retain their lands and culture, without pressure for assimilation into 
the dominant culture). Indigenous people in Australia have never ceded sovereignty and 
have never sold their land. We acknowledge the desire of indigenous people in Australia 
for a treaty to recognise their prior occupation and continued rights, but believe that no 
such treaty can be negotiated on just terms for indigenous people while capitalism and its 
State endure in Australia. We believe a just settlement for indigenous people can only be 
achieved after a revolutionary transformation of society, including crucially the 
abolition of capitalist real estate.

4. We are internationalists, opposing the division of humanity into conflicting nation 
States and supporting working class solidarity as the one force which is capable of being 
an axis of effective counter-mobilisation against nationalism and racism. We therefore 
support open borders as a principle that will be implemented under Libertarian Communism 
and in the meantime will support struggles which provide opportunities to move in that 
direction. In particular, we support the struggle of refugees for asylum in Australia and 
oppose both immigration detention and deportation.

5. We oppose both pacifism and terrorism. Instead, we support the right to use reasonable 
force in self defence.
Pacifism is the principled refusal to meet physical force with physical force. Terrorism 
is the strategy of using violence, or the credible threat of it, in order to create a 
climate of fear for personal safety in the civilian population of a society, or a 
definable sub-group of it, to achieve a political end.
The problem with pacifism is that it assumes that there is a degree of humanity at work 
amongst the capitalist class and its State and that there are limits to their 
ruthlessness. The history of the last hundred years, however, provides plentiful evidence 
to the contrary. In the face of totally non-violent resistance, a sufficiently ruthless 
force, even if a tiny minority, could impose its will on the rest of society.

The problem with terrorism is that it is a strategy which marginalises the mass of the 
working class politically and drives it into the arms of the State for protection. Even if 
used in the pursuit of supportable goals, therefore, its political effects are inevitably 
reactionary. The callous and instrumental attitude to humanity necessary to use terrorism 
is completely antithetical to the principles of Anarchism and thus to resort to this would 
be to betray our philosophy.

Our position is that we recognise the right to use reasonable force in self defence. We 
are consistent on this point and thus we repudiate the State's proclamation of a monopoly 
on the legitimate use of force. Rather, we insist that we do not lose the right to self 
defence when we enter the field of political struggle. Workers thus have the right to use 
reasonable force to defend themselves against police or thug attack on the picket line or 
on demonstrations.

We oppose the use of force beyond what is reasonably necessary for self defence. This 
would contradict the humanitarian values of the society we wish to create. The working 
class, being the immense majority in industrialised societies, has the advantage of the 
weight of numbers and the ability to use economic force to press its cause. We therefore 
have no need of violence, beyond what is necessary to defend ourselves against those who 
themselves would use violence to prevent us achieving our goals non-violently. We also 
believe that the use of unnecessary violence would alienate sections of the working class 
and make it harder to break them from authoritarian ideologies. In particular, it would 
strengthen the position of authoritarian groups active within the working class.

We believe that Fascism provides an example, unique in advanced capitalist democracies at 
present, of a specialised application of the principle of reasonable force in self 
defence. A Fascist group is not a debating society, but a permanent conspiracy to murder. 
It is an open threat of violence against women, immigrants, indigenous people, all other 
minorities and ultimately, to the working class and its organisations. Defence against 
Fascism is therefore necessarily, in many cases, pre-emptive. Fascist groups should be 
defeated and broken up, if possible, whenever they show their faces. We emphasise that 
this position is unique to the issue of Fascism and does not apply to Right wing 
populists, where the ordinary use of the principle of self defence would apply when 
fighting them.
We recognise the possibility that, in revolutionary situations, self defence may require 
pre-emptive action against forces of the State. This is not a pretext, however, for 
abandoning a principled opposition to offensive violence. The situation must still be 
assessed using the criteria of whether the use of force is both necessary for defensive 
purposes and of a reasonable degree given the threat.

We reject any attempt to equate property damage with violence. Property has no rights and 
damage to it must be assessed in the light of its impact on people. Damage to nuclear 
weapons, therefore, is the complete opposite of damage to a worker's home.

6. "Free thought, necessarily involving freedom of speech & press, I may tersely define 
thus: no opinion a law - no opinion a crime." - Alexander Berkman

We therefore oppose State bans on any opinion, even ones with which we passionately 
disagree. Any such bans would end up being used, in the end, against the working class and 
its organisations.

We also, therefore, recognise complete freedom of conscience. We support the right to 
believe in any religion or none, to practice any religion or none and to preach any 
religion or none. In the Australian context today, this includes a special responsibility 
to defend the right of people to be Muslims without discrimination or harassment.
In addition, freedom of conscience is a right of every individual person and is not 
restricted to religious leaders. Adherence to religious precepts must therefore be 
entirely voluntary. Attempts by religious leaders or denominations to compel adherents to 
conform to their teachings or discipline must be resisted and we resolutely reject any 
attempt to give them State backing.

7. In line with our commitment to social revolution, we hold that there is no 
Parliamentary road to Libertarian Communism. We agree with the statement attributed to 
Lucy Parsons, "Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth." 
Parliament, being elected by all classes together, can only be a bourgeois institution. 
The working class must organise independently in order to have its own democracy.

On this basis, we oppose holding executive office in the capitalist State (e.g. government 
minister, mayor, etc). Political groups or parties which do so cross the class line and 
join the other side. We thus oppose running for election to these offices.

In contrast to executive office, we believe it is possible to enter a capitalist 
Parliament on a principled basis. This would require:

(a) Refusing confidence to all ministers and ministries;

(b) Opposing all war expenditure and borrowings;

(c) Using the platform of Parliament, and campaigns for election to it, to support working 
class struggles;

(d) Taking what opportunities are available to secure worthwhile reforms, provided this 
can be done on a principled basis; and

(e) Explaining to the working class that, no matter what reforms are secured through 
Parliament, a free and just society can only be achieved through workers' revolution.

While it is possible to enter a capitalist Parliament on a principled basis, we believe 
that it is a waste of the movement's time and effort, so we therefore oppose Anarchists 
running in Parliamentary or local council elections. We will not campaign for any 
candidate for Parliament or local council. Class struggle Anarchists can achieve far more 
from building direct struggles on the ground than they can by putting the same amount of 
time and energy into an election campaign. We therefore advance the slogan "Build 
Movements Not Elections".

We recognise that other groups in the working class movement, for example State 
Socialists, may decide to waste their time and energy by running for Parliament. Whether 
it is possible for an Anarchist to cast a principled vote for such a candidate depends on 
one of two tests.

If there is no realistic chance of the candidate being successful, all that is required is 
that the candidate be clearly standing for Socialism and not to have disgraced themselves 
before the whole working class (as, for instance, the SWP has in Britain with its rape 
apologism). In this case, the vote is purely symbolic and amounts to putting up one's hand 
and saying "I'm against capitalism and for Socialism."

If the candidate has a realistic chance of being elected, however small, they also need to 
judged according to what they will do if successful. They therefore need to meet criteria 
(a) to (e) above. Criterion (e) is especially important because, in a capitalist society, 
the very act of running for Parliament creates illusions in the eyes of the workers who 
are considering voting for you that they can, indeed, reach Socialism through Parliament. 
A principled candidate would need to dispel those illusions by explaining that this is not 
possible.

8. A libertarian communist society will be one that is ecologically sustainable. Even if 
capitalism were just and supportable on other grounds, it would fail the test of 
sustainability. We need to reject the instrumental thinking inherent to capitalism and 
realise that we are part of nature - a conscious and creative part, but a part. As such, 
nature is not something to be dominated, but to be protected - and particularly to be 
protected against human damage.

In building a sustainable society, it is essential to end the use of non-renewable 
resources - or develops ways of making them renewable. In the short term, this means a 
rapid transition away from burning fossil fuels and towards renewable energy. In the 
medium term, we need to restructure our existing cities for a preponderance of medium 
density living and decentralise into a considerably larger number of smaller cities. And 
in the long term, we need to phase out mining before the exhaustion of accessible mineral 
deposits at practical grades forces us to abandon it involuntarily.

A commitment to ecological sustainability does not, however, mean enforced poverty in 
living standards and even less so does it require a return to a hunter-gatherer society. 
We therefore reject Malthusians of all varieties and especially in their primitivist 
manifestation. Production of a wide variety of goods and services needs to be increased, 
not decreased, in order to abolish poverty and want from the face of the Earth. We hold 
that it is capitalism, not human nature, that is responsible for the wanton environmental 
destruction which has occurred in the last two centuries and is threatening the very 
liveability of the planet which we inhabit.

Further, the fact that technology has been developed under capitalism does not 
irretrievably contaminate it. Different technologies have capitalist relations embedded 
into them to different degrees and in some cases development of a particular technology 
has been slowed because it doesn't fit well with contemporary capitalism. Nuclear power is 
an example of a technology which will have to be abandoned as anti-social, while solar 
power is an example of a technology which, on the whole, undermines the power of the great 
capitalist corporations.

A libertarian communist society will resolve the current conflict between the need to 
increase production and the need to limit the environmental damage that capitalist 
production imposes by:

(a) Producing for rationally determined needs, rather than for wants generated by advertising;

(b) Producing quality goods which last, rather than shoddy ones which break down quickly;

(c) Using only renewable energy;

(d) Using closed loop manufacturing processes, with 100% material recycling and zero waste;

(e) Rationally planning the satisfaction of social needs in the most energy and resource 
efficient manner;

(f) Using the most modern technology to institute efficient small-run production of a wide 
variety of goods, thus eliminating a large part of the need for long distance transport; and

(g) Planning cities, and the means of transport within and between them, on ecologically 
sustainable and energy efficient lines.

Finally, we believe that the current so-called "population crisis" is an illusion caused 
by the inefficient, unjust and unsustainable practices of capitalism. While there is a 
natural limit to the carrying capacity of the planet, we believe that this limit is 
impossible to determine until after capitalism has been abolished and its destructive 
practices eliminated. If population reduction is called for after the planet's carrying 
capacity is established, it can be achieved gradually through social consensus.

MACG Statement of Shared Positions

http://awsm.nz/2018/11/19/macg-statement-of-shared-positions/

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

Message: 2






In recent months, support groups for migrants have emerged in many French cities. They 
have fought an active and effective struggle to remedy the failures of the state. In 
Nantes, mobilization remained strong throughout the summer to help migrants living on the 
streets. Back on a struggle that has been going on for over a year now. ---- In Nantes, we 
can set the starting point of the current struggle to November 19, 2017 when activists 
have invested the former School of Fine Arts to shelter isolated foreign minors who slept 
on the street. After one night, the building is violently evacuated by the police, at the 
request of the town hall. A few days later, buildings on the university campus are 
occupied: first the basement of the Censive building and then the Château du Tertre. After 
a showdown with the presidency of the university, the threat of expulsion is lifted until 
the return of January. In a context of social movement, with the student struggle, against 
the selection at the university and Parcoursup, the occupation of the campus will last 
until March 8, 2018,

Solidarity against repression
No solution of relocation is then proposed. The next day, a new building is opened in the 
city center: the Bréa residence, formerly Ehpad. Migrants thus find a new roof and better 
living conditions than on campus. This time, it is with the town hall that the arm 
wrestling engages and the latter quickly agrees not to evacuate the building before the 
end of the winter break, on March 31st. But the population of the residence is growing 
rapidly, from a hundred occupants and occupants to more than 500 in a few months. 
Promiscuity and lack of food create tensions and the situation is gradually deteriorating. 
At the end of May, the town hall and the prefecture decide to intervene: a restricted 
access is set up, a minority of occupants and occupants are allowed to stay, framed by 
associations working with the town hall, while a large part of migrants are again on the 
street. A new series of open and evacuated squats followed until the end of June, when 
square Daviais, in the city center, became the main place of life for migrants.

Since November 2017, migrants in Nantes have been able to find solid support from 
students, trade unionists, community and political activists or ordinary citizens.

While we have always struggled to find a home for them, the people of Nantes have also 
acted to meet the nutritional needs of migrants. Thus, starting in July, the collective 
L'Autre Cantine was created to serve hot and complete meals to the migrants of Square Daviais.

For a welcome worthy of migrants
Thanks to donations and the help of many volunteers, more than 40,000 meals have been 
prepared and served since the beginning of July each evening of the week. Meals also more 
balanced (rice, cooked vegetables, fruit salads) than those distributed by the city 
council, consisting of packets of chips and industrial sandwiches. In parallel with the 
immediate help given to the migrants, a strong and lasting mobilization made it possible 
to establish a balance of power with the town hall and the prefecture through actions and 
demonstrations, thus pushing the public authorities to react.

On September 20, the square Daviais is finally evacuated: about 700 migrants are "   put 
away   " in gyms of the city before being allegedly supported in a more sustainable way in 
places of accommodation in Nantes and the territory, from October.

On 4 October, the residence Bréa is also evacuated: out of the 200 remaining occupants, 
127 were transferred to a reception and situation assessment center, in other words a 
state sorting center. . The border police, present during the evacuation, arrested eight 
migrants, four of whom were incarcerated in the Rennes administrative detention center 
pending their expulsion from the territory. For the sixty or so people remaining, no 
accommodation solution, even temporary, has been proposed. Each time, it is not a support 
for migrants but travel to better hide the problems.

Since then, the police pressure on the migrants and their support continues to intensify, 
everything seems permissible as long as it is hidden from view, it should not especially 
scorch the image of Johanna Rolland, the mayor socialist of Nantes  ! It stresses that the 
management of these migrants is the responsibility of the State, which must assume its 
responsibilities by opening more places in reception centers for asylum seekers. It is 
clear that the mayor of Nantes is only trying to get rid of this embarrassing subject. 
Despite the omnipresence of the words "   solidarity   " and "   humanity  In his 
speeches, the socialist mayor has no desire to help the migrants. Once again we see that 
only popular mobilization and self-organization can sustain solidarity and that 
politicians have only the repression to offer.

Contrary to the racist and xenophobic remarks that can be heard on both the right and the 
left of the political spectrum, France has the capacity to welcome and take care of the 
migrants who are already in the territory or who wish to join him. The only barrier is 
that of political decision. For various reasons (convictions, electoral strategy), the 
question of welcoming migrants is taboo. We stand against this logic and affirm that we 
can and must welcome these people in distress. And if diversity scares some of us, we 
think instead that it is a richness. So let's continue to fight for an unconditional 
welcome of migrants. For open borders and papers for everyone !

Alexandre, Steph and Robin (AL Nantes)

http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?Un-refuge-une-cantine-militante-la-solidarite

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

Message: 3





The Victorian State election scheduled for 24 November offers workers no advance towards 
socialism. The incumbent Labor Government, led by Daniel Andrews, appears to have leapt 
straight from the pages of the latest edition of a neo-liberal textbook written in the 
bowels of the International Monetary Fund. A few mildly progressive initiatives and some 
inadequate action on climate change are firmly subordinated to capitalist market 
relations. Meanwhile, Labor's pretences at being socially progressive haven't stopped it 
joining in the Right wing media's racist campaign against "African crime gangs". ---- The 
alternative government, the Liberal Party, is an altogether less complicated beast. As the 
official mouthpiece of capital, its economic policies are stuck in 1990s IMF zealotry. 
There aren't enough capitalists to win elections, so the Libs also need social 
reactionaries to vote for them. Therefore, the Libs are against taking any action on 
climate change and they've been working closely with Right wing media in fomenting a 
general "law and order" campaign, centred around a panic about alleged African crime gangs.

So, who else is running? Let's pass by the assortment of Right wing nut jobs (who bicker 
amongst themselves just as badly as the Left does) and single issue parties, whose very 
existence is a statement that "Everything about this society is pretty well OK, except for 
this one particular issue". The biggest challenge comes from the Greens. They are 
certainly committed to better environmental and social policies than either major party. 
They are fundamentally handicapped, though, by their delusion that a just and sustainable 
capitalism is possible. Grassroots activists have described them as "neo-liberals on 
bikes" and it's difficult to disagree.

This time, we also have the Victorian Socialists, who are running in a number of upper and 
lower house seats. They are seriously trying to win an upper house seat in the Northern 
Metropolitan province. And because this is not just a flag-flying exercise, they have to 
pass a strict test. We oppose running for elections because, although it's possible to 
enter a capitalist Parliament on a principled basis, we think it's a waste of time and 
effort to do so. The energy required for the election campaign can be far more usefully 
directed towards building grassroots struggles. Nevertheless, the question arises of how 
to respond if a State Socialist group decides to waste its resources that way.

Firstly, the party has to be standing clearly for Socialism and against capitalism. The 
Vic Socialists are doing this. If the election campaign is just a flag-flying occasion, 
that's basically enough, provided the party hasn't disgraced itself in front of the whole 
working class like the British SWP has with its rape apologism (put "Comrade Delta" into 
your favourite search engine). Second, the party has to advance strong progressive 
positions on the issues of the day. The Vic Socialists do this, too. There's room for 
argument about their adequacy in this or that area, but it's not litmus test material for 
a State upper house. Third, the party has to promise to take the side of workers and 
oppressed groups in struggle. They tick that box, as well.

Unfortunately, the Victorian Socialists fall at the last hurdle. In the absence of 
argument to the contrary, the act of a Socialist running for Parliament serves to raise 
illusions that a parliamentary road to socialism exists. Potential voters will see their 
vote as the vehicle for attaining Socialism, through the election of sufficient Socialists 
to Parliament. It is therefore the duty of principled Socialists to explain that, while 
Parliament may be able to deliver some worthwhile reforms, Socialism can only be achieved 
by the revolutionary action of the workers themselves. The Victorian Socialists are 
conspicuously silent on this point.

To vote for a Socialist who has no hope of winning is simply to say "I'm against 
capitalism and for Socialism". In lower house seats and in seven of the eight upper house 
provinces, this is the meaning of a vote for the Victorian Socialists. And there's no harm 
in that. If the Socialist has a chance of being elected, though, we need to look at the 
situation more deeply. A Victorian Socialist in the Legislative Council of Victoria might 
make stirring speeches in support of grassroots struggles and might fight hard to get 
reforms out of this neo-liberal Labor Government, but if they don't explain to the working 
class that this isn't how we'll win Socialism, they'll be leading workers in the wrong 
direction.

On this basis, the Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group says that it is not possible to 
lodge a principled vote in the Victorian election on 24 November in Northern Metropolitan, 
the one constituency where they have a slight chance of winning. None of the candidates 
offer a road to Socialism.

BUILD MOVEMENTS NOT ELECTIONS

https://melbacg.wordpress.com/2018/11/19/not-a-road-to-socialism

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

Message: 4





The following are the notes from the talk given at the ACG public meeting in Leicester on 
10th November ---- In this centenary of the end of the First World War and the media 
hyping of Remembrance Day we have stories like "How Lloyd George Ended the War" along with 
praise for Marshal Petain, the arch-militarist and leader of the Vichy regime from French 
President Macron. We are told the Allies were fighting for "civilisation" and democracy 
against Prussian militarism.  Curiously the German Empire from 1871 to 1918 (and the North 
German Confederation before it in 1867) had universal male suffrage whereas universal male 
suffrage was not introduced in Britain until 1918 (women in both Britain and Germany had 
to wait until after the War for any voting rights). But how did the World War Really end? 
In fact, it was the working class that brought about the end of the War through disorder, 
riots, mutinies, strikes and indeed two revolutions.

The First World War was a watershed for the workers movement. The majority of the Social 
Democratic Parties in Europe, including the Labour Party, took the side of their 
particular states, whilst syndicalist unions like the Confederation General de Travail 
(CGT) which had promised a general strike if war broke out, caved in and were swept away 
by war fever. A minority of social-democrats like the Bolsheviks and the Menshevik 
Internationalists in Russia opposed the war. A minority within the anarchist movement 
supported the Allies, with the majority taking clear anti-war positions.

In fact, the Armistice signed by Marshal Foch with the German military leaders on November 
11th 1918 did not end the War. Fighting continued on many fronts with a result that 10,000 
were killed, wounded or reported missing on that day. Indeed, the Allies continued to wage 
war with the new Russia created by the February and October Revolutions long after the 
signing of the Armistice. Britain and France eventually withdrew from Russia in April 1919 
because of strikes and mutinies in their own countries.

In Britain and France in there was great support for the War. In Germany there was a more 
subdued support for the War, whilst in the Austro-Hungarian Empire the subject 
peoples-Slovenes, Czechs, Ruthenes, Croats, Serbs, Italians etc- were tepid about 
mobilising. This less than enthusiastic support for the war became more pronounced as the 
Austro-Hungarian Empire quickly suffered several defeats. In Russia there was discontent 
from the start and a defeatist attitude towards the Tsarist autocracy's direction of the 
war. This become more pronounced from 1915 with the start of mutinies within the Russian Army.

In Britain the Labour Party supported the War, in France the Socialists in general and the 
unions did the same, with the exception of Jean Jaures whose anti-war stance led to his 
murder. In Germany the Socialists rallied the German working class with the defence of 
civilisation against Russian autocracy and barbarism. The German trade unions banned all 
strikes, the only exception being the anarcho-syndicalist FVDG whose anti-war position led 
to their banning by the State. Those Socialist MPs- Liebknecht, Ruhle- who had anti-war 
and internationalist positions, failed to vote against war credits in the German 
Parliament on August 4th and obeyed Party discipline. Only one socialist deputy abstained 
and he failed to make any political statement about this act.

The First World War followed the American Civil War in its industrialised slaughter. 
Casualties began to mount and in Britain this led to the introduction of conscription in 
January 1916, resulting in draft dodging and conscientious objection. Within the Russian 
Empire war weariness, exacerbated by food shortages, grew and in February 1917 women 
workers and housewives demonstrated on International Women's Day with the slogans of Down 
With The War! And Give Us Bread! They brought out male workers in the factories and 
combined with soldiers' mutinies this brought about the February Revolution.

The February Revolution in Russia had immense sympathy among the working class 
internationally, first of all because it was seen as a way of ending the War.

In Germany living standards began to fall because of the war and the allied blockade. 
Prices rose and inflation soared. Wages fell and by 1915-1916 many foods became scarce, 
with a veritable famine. However, the rich were protected from this suffering, and this 
included the officer class within the army and navy. This developed a class consciousness 
and a polarisation between the ruling class and the mass of the population. Starting in 
1916 workers ignored the Social Democratic Party and the trade unions and took part in 
direct action and strikes to improve their situation.

The following year there were massive strikes throughout Germany. The worsening food 
situation was aggravated by a fuel shortage. The Russian Revolution further added fuel to 
the fire. In April 1917 there were huge strikes in Berlin, Leipzig and elsewhere. 
200-300,00 went on strike in Berlin against a decrease in bread rations. In Leipzig the 
strike became openly political with demands for peace without annexations, and freedom for 
political prisoners.

The strikes were followed by hunger strikes in the Navy against the decrease in food 
rations. The officers were thoroughly hated for their arrogance and the fact that they 
were better fed. In August mutinies broke out with sympathy strikes in Wilhelmshaven 
harbour. The High Command reacted with repression and two sailors were executed.

Massive demonstrations followed in German cities in November 1917. In January 1918 in 
Austria, which faced a similar situation to Germany, there were massive strikes and 
demonstrations because the peace talks with Russia were failing. A massive strike followed 
in Berlin on January 28th. The demands of the strike were: workers' representation in the 
peace talks, better food, the end of martial law, and a democratic regime in Germany. The 
strike spread to many towns and cities., with over a million on strike in the next few 
days.  The authorities replied with repression, deploying police and the military. The 
strike failed but in July and August wildcat strikes broke out, but they were soon 
defeated.  Serious defeats increased the number of desertions. By late October the German 
High Command attempted a naval attack on Britain. Sailors at Wilhelmshaven and Kiel were 
expecting peace and feared that this expedition would destroy any chance of peace 
negotiations and that the officer class were planning a coup d'état. Mutinies broke out. 
Sailors took over Kiel forming sailors' councils with dock workers also creating workers' 
councils. The rebellion spread to other ports and harbours. This was followed by a 
spontaneous uprising throughout Germany. Soldiers refused to fire on the demonstrators. 
Workers, soldiers' and sailors' councils emerged everywhere. On 9th November the Kaiser 
abdicated and fled to the Netherlands. The monarchy was ended and the new republic began 
peace negotiations with the Allies. The action of the masses had brought about the end of 
the War.

As we have seen there was also unrest in Austria. Mutinies broke out in Czech and Ruthene 
units in June 1916. And these spread in 1917 and 1918. On February 1st, 1918 a mutiny 
broke at at Cattaro (Kotor) in Montenegro with Czech and Italian sailors in the forefront. 
A red flag was run up on the cruiser St George. The mutiny was crushed, with 4 of its 
leading lights executed. In France where soldiers suffered great suffering in the trenches 
mutinies began in May 1917. The 21st Division revolted and its leaders were shot.  Revolts 
followed in the 120th Division and then the 128th. Twenty thousand deserted. The 
authorities reacted with a mixture of repression and compromise, executing 49 whilst 
promising more leave and better conditions. At least 918 French soldiers were executed 
during the War. Russia had sent two brigades to fight with the French Army in 1916. 
Mistreatment by the French led to unrest, with an outright mutiny taking place in May 
1917. The French then moved the brigades to La Courtine, an isolated camp in south central 
France. Here they held mass meetings and refused to return to the French front, having 
already suffered 4,000 casualties. They elected soldiers' committees, refused to recognise 
their officers and defied the Russian High Command. The French military, in collusion with 
the new Kerensky regime in Russia, surrounded La Courtine and began an artillery 
bombardment. Hundreds died.

Within the Bulgarian Army unrest led to 600 executions. In Italy, which had joined the 
carnage later than the other combatants, there was an officer class that was drawn from 
the upper classes and which looked on the rank and file with contempt. Soldiers were seen 
as completely expendable resulting in huge losses. 750 executions took place with many 
hundreds of other summary executions. 25,000 deserted, 5,000 defied the callup whilst 
34,000 others obeyed the call-up but deserted before mobilisation. There were mutinies in 
the Army with the Ravenna Brigade revolting in May 1917 and the Catanzaro units in July 
1917. These were brutally repressed.

Within the British Imperial Army, where there was a similar class divide between the 
officers and the ordinary soldiers. Soldiers were flogged and manacled for trivial 
offences. New Zealand troops mutinied at Etaples in September 1917. Later in the month a 
mutiny resulted in 23 deaths at Boulogne. Strikes broke out in labour battalions on 
September 11th, and mutinies continued through to 1918.  Resistance to the war expressed 
itself in self-inflicted injuries to avoid being sent to the Front. As a result, 3,894 
soldiers were sentenced to prison for these actions.

https://www.anarchistcommunism.org/2018/11/19/how-did-world-war-one-really-end/

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

Message: 5






As previously reported, the District Court in Bydgoszcz issued a judgment ordering 
POLOmarket to pay Rafal, a member of ZSP, remuneration for work in excess hours and 
compensation for transporting goods by private car . We also provided excerpts of 
justification . ---- On October 29, POLOmarket (appearing under the code name H500 G560) 
appealed against the verdict. ---- The appealing party accused the court of "error in 
factual findings", consisting of: ---- "the acceptance that the occasional use by the 
plaintiff of his private car to transport meat from one defendant's shop to the other 
fulfilled the conditions for providing work for the defendant, for which performance the 
defendant failed to pay the due amount of compensation to the plaintiff, while the 
plaintiff's raids on the described section were inalieal and They held on an unpaid 
courtesy courtesy of "

the Company also seek to undermine the fact that the former pracowika disability ignored, 
thus forcing him to work schedule appropriate for the able-bodied. According to 
POLOmarket, this "is justified by the protection of privacy and sensitive data of the 
employee himself, who may not express the will to be treated in a new place of work as a 
disabled person" .

 From the image created by the POLOmarket lawyers, we learn that overtime work is 
"courteous", and the lack of employee rights resulting from the disabled status results 
from "sensitive data protection".

The Polish Syndicalist Association supports Rafal in all his matters against the 
supermarket chains

http://zsp.net.pl/polomarket-i-nadgodziny-grzecznosciowe

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

Message: 6






What does a refugee cross the Aegean, an unpaid worker in a tourist area, an immigrant who 
works black in Athens, a fighter that fights the scaffolding, a woman throwing her burka 
in Syria, a student who conflict with the police in Europe, a retired, a political 
prisoner, an unemployed person, a redundant pregnant woman and an anarchist? ---- They are 
people who fight for dignity. People who are called, without necessarily knowing the exact 
way, to resist the most grandiose plans of capital and state, to giant investment 
projects, to the most advanced armies for a meal, a month of life, a pure conscience. This 
is the one face of the world. ---- There is the reverse. The landlords, the bankers, the 
shipowners, the drug dealers, the fascists. All of them have picked a long side.

If we owe something to this situation, that is the setting up of our own response. The way 
we fight, the means we will use, our strategy and the tactics that will serve it, our 
alliances and the racing ethos that will lead us to the band of the torrent of our own 
anchorages. The organization and struggle for the victory of our class, for a society of 
freedom, equality and solidarity.

The reality we live in has only one question: How will we overturn it?

Event - Discussion

Saturday November 24 at 17:30 at the Thessaloniki Labor Center

Anarchist college Octana

Anarchist collectivity of Rubikon

Eleutherian Initiative of Thessaloniki

members of the Anarchist Federation

https://anarchist-federation.gr

https://libertasalonica.wordpress.com/2018/11/19

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