Anarchic update news all over the world - 10.02.2019

Today's Topics:

   
1.  France, Alternative Libertaire AL #291 - Feminism and Yellow
      Vests, Women's anger in yellow (fr, it, pt)[machine translation]
      (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
2.  France, Alternative Libertaire AL Montpellier - Call to meet
      Tuesday, February 5 at 9am at TGI Nimes, to refuse the repression
      of the social movement and show our solidarity ! (fr, it, pt)
      [machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
3.  luta fob: [FOB-DF] FOR THE RIGHT TO STUDY AND TEACH! (pt)
      [machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
4.  Greece, vogliamo tutto: We do not fight for EEZ, religions
      and homelands. Social-class-war-offensive war [machine
      translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
5.  US, blac rose fed: PICKET LINE LESSONS: THE UTLA TEACHER
      STRIKE (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
6.  Russia, avtonom: Alexander Bikbov: "Stanislav Markelov - the
      figure of the history of the future" [machine translation]
      (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)


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

Message: 1






Despaired, precarious, ignored by power: in a social movement, that of yellow vests, where 
the central question remains the material conditions of existence, no wonder to find women 
in yellow ! ---- Let us first recall that women are the first victims of precariousness: 
they represent 52.1% of the poor population. [1]They are over-represented in the least 
paid trades (eg personal services, domestic workers ...) and much less present in 
positions at the top of hierarchies and wages. Women are forced to work part-time work 
(1.2 million work part-time, compared to 472,000 men [2] or three times more), and are 
paid less than men (34.4% less at the same degree) [3]), and often have larger household 
responsibilities (on average women spend an extra 1½ hours a day doing housework [4]).

Women at the heart of the fight
The yellow vests appear to be rather mixed: men (54%) are slightly more numerous than 
women (45%) [5]whether on roundabouts or in events (55% men for 44%). women). Notable 
fact: women claiming as yellow vests belong to a social category usually not very 
mobilized: women of the lower classes.

The movement of yellow vests has allowed women to struggle, to express collectively their 
anger. Women employed, unemployed, workers, traders ... Women affected by precariousness 
met on the roundabouts, met and told and regained consciousness of their social class. 
Usually kept out of the political scene, they have increased the number of places of 
action, roundabouts and demonstrations and have found the pleasure of talking about social 
issues that concern them.

In the movement of yellow vests, not only are women visible on the roundabouts, but they 
also invest media and representative places. We see them on television, where they explain 
the reasons for the anger. [6]And the media are forced to question them too: without 
spokespersons or official representatives, positions usually assigned to men, we must turn 
to the "  ordinary " protesters ", Collect the word of the ground. Some parolate parolate 
holders were voted in general assemblies and put in place in several cities. If we can not 
deny the presence of women, they are nevertheless still little put forward. The first line 
being, as everywhere, occupied by those who speak louder, longer, more often: men.

Three months after the birth of the yellow vests, the women are always present and animate 
the movement. And yet, in yellow jackets as in the patriarchal society that is France, 
difficult to spend a day without hearing sexist remarks or insults ("  slut  ", " whore 
"), or men who recall their supposed superiority: "  I am not a woman / girl ... " All 
these words remind us that in 2018, a woman is always less valuable than a man.

Since January 6, 2019, a revival has occurred in the movement of yellow vests. Women have 
invested streets alone in non-mixed events. They wear banners with, for example, the 
slogan "  precarious, discriminated, rebellious, women on the front line  "as in Toulouse 
on January 6th. These events, which are taking place every week on Sunday, express the 
suffering of those who are doubly exploited: women of the lower classes. Thus they take 
the street and the word to tell their daily life: single mother to the RSA, caregiver, 
facing the inequality of wages, the non-sharing of tasks, gender-based violence ... This 
willingness to demonstrate between women is announced as an alternative Saturday 
demonstrations where police violence is strongly expressed. If we can judge doubtful and 
essentialist the association "  woman = non violence However, we can admit that these 
demonstrations allow those who do not go out to demonstrate for fear of state violence to 
continue to beat the pavement and to express their demands.

Beat the pavement to express his anger
And yet, if they describe themselves expressly as non-feminists (because of a classic and 
worn-out mistrust of feminism that tends to describe as extremist those who seek the 
abolition of the system of male dominance over women), these manifestations are the direct 
application of materialistic and intersectional feminism. Women in yellow, at the 
crossroads of oppression of sex, class, even race, finally make their voices heard, 
express the injustices they face and demand equality.

During the next democratic national coordination of yellow vests in Commercy (Meuse) on 
January 26th and 27th, which will bring together yellow vests from all over the city in 
order to structure the movement without being recuperated, a time in non-mixed women is 
planned and announced on the networks, as well as a system of joint delegation.

Read " Commercy was motivating, structuring, promising " (January 29)

And now ? The structuring of the movement around the anti-capitalist and class issues is 
slowly taking place (the slogans "  There is a shortage of money  " Let's pay the rich " 
or "  Macron makes the ISF first  " are often heard on the roundabouts ). After three 
months of struggle, Yellow Vests are still angry and continue to redo the world for more 
social justice and equality. But do not stop there. We want things to change for us women 
as well, to finally live in a more just world. Let's get rid of male domination ! Let's 
abolish patriarchy !

Lucie (AL Amiens)

emaildiasporaFacebookprintertumblrtwitter
[1] Observatory of inequalities - INSEE data 2015.

[2] Inequality Observatory - " One-third of part-timers would like to work more " - 
January 20, 2017

[3] Observatory of inequalities - Ministry of Labor data 2013

[4] Observatoire des inégalités - INSEE - time use survey 2009-2010.

[5] Survey yellow vests, conducted among 166 people on 24 November and 1 st December " 
yellow jackets: a pioneering investigation of the revolt of modest means ," The World of 
December 12, 2018.

[6] " As for example November 28, 2018 on LCI in the issue" Yellow Vests La Grande 
Explication "

http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?La-colere-des-femmes-en-jaune

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

Message: 2





Since November 17, the movement of yellow vests has surprised, largely renews the forms of 
the social struggle and impresses with its determination. The power is not wrong: its only 
answer, in addition to an immense contempt for popular aspirations, is a police and 
judicial repression unpublished in recent decades. ---- The number of injured 
demonstrators in two and a half months of social unrest now exceeds 2500 ! Among them more 
than 250 seriously affected, with 18 protesters ravaged by LBD40 shots, 4 hands torn off 
by these grenades GLI-F4 containing a charge of TNT, a permanent loss of hearing ... And a 
death, in Marseille, more to a tear gas cannon shot in the head. A sinister opening for 
the great national debate, never seen in France since the beginning of the 1960s ...

On the legal side also, the state seems determined to calm the ardor of the rebels. By 
mid-January, there were no less than 5339 police guards that the protesters had to endure. 
Strong of the repressive arsenal developed during the last twenty years, after a passage 
through the state of emergency having left terrible scars in the French common law, the 
government hits hard! Going up to the massive use of preventive arrests, such as December 
8, when 1082 people were arrested during, and often before, Act IV of the movement, 
sometimes with the sole motive for possession of protective equipment or saline . What 
seriously worry about the authoritarian drift of Western "democracies" on the eve of a 
bill anti-rioters to "soften" a little more the right to protest !

Locally, 11 people have been severely hit in the head with LBD40 fire since 17 November. 
Several participants in the Montpellier events are imprisoned in Villeneuve-les-Maguelone, 
often as a result of procedures run at full speed by public prosecutors completely 
overwhelmed by the impressive number of deferences. The case of Bessan confirms it: the 
"state will not tolerate the challenge ! Around this village Herault whose toll was a hot 
spot of the mobilization, it is 43 people who were arrested in the morning of January 8, 
with 35 police custody in the key! And it is now a dozen yellow vests that are 
incarcerated, distributed throughout the south of the country to avoid consultations, 
pending the results of a survey for destruction organized gang ...

On Saturday 12 January, for Act IX, a particularly repressed regional event was held in 
Nîmes. Dozens of protesters were wounded, 11 were detained the same day and 12 others were 
summoned and held in custody a few days later. After 48 hours in the cells of the central 
police station of Nimes, Julien, activist Alternative Libertaire, and four other 
protesters are brought before the criminal court. After receiving a postponement of the 
hearing, they are now summoned to "justice" on Tuesday, February 5th.

Come support them, in front of the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Nîmes, on February 5th 
at 9am !

Refuse the criminalization of social movements !

http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?Appel-a-rassemblement-mardi-5-fevrier-a-9h-au-TGI-de-Nimes-pour-refuser-la

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

Message: 3





There are people who want to embarrass some very important matters in school, with 
authoritarian and "moralistic" arguments. That's why we came to undo some mistakes. ---- 
1- Sexual education is not for learning to have sex. It is to HELP PEOPLE TO DEFEND SEXUAL 
ABUSE and also to teach NOT TO ABUSE OF OTHERS, especially of women. In addition it serves 
to prevent early pregnancy. ---- 2- The students have the right to know the struggle of 
women for their rights , known as feminism. ---- 3. The various currents of theoretical 
and political thought must be presented in the school; is part of the content and does not 
oblige anyone to follow the teacher's thinking. ---- 4- The school must approach the 
various religions without imposing any of them. AFRO-BRAZILIAN RELIGIONS MUST BE SPOKEN, 
an important part of black culture and the history of Brazil. Temples and people are being 
beaten because of ignorance and racism.

5- The school must teach about the rights of workers and students , and the struggles that 
gave rise to them, to AVOID THE PEOPLE TO BE EXPLORED. All of these points are guaranteed 
by the Law on the Guidelines and Bases of Education, (Article 3).

N O s, the union core workers / es of education, FOB-DF, advocate a Democrat school will 
tica: teachers, servants, students are respected and can discuss their views without being 
threatened or repressed. It requires the freedom of the community to organize collectively 
through commissions, commissions, unions and social movements.

BELOW FUNDAMENTALIST AND ANTI-SCIENTIFIC REPRESSION IN SCHOOLS!

NO FARM OF "SCHOOL WITHOUT PARTY"!

GREVE GENERAL FOR FREEDOM AND FOR PEOPLE'S RIGHTS!

https://lutafob.wordpress.com/2019/02/05/fob-df-pelo-direito-de-estudar-e-ensinar/

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

Message: 4






The denial of nationalism, intolerance and militarism is an integral part of the struggle 
against states, capital, armies and wars. ---- We do not fight for EEZ, religions and 
homeland-wars social-class-abusive. ---- Solidarity with the total deniers who are being 
tried in Rouf's Military Court in the next 6 February 2019 , 9am, Konstantinos 
Goutsiniotis and Stratos Moses ---- 18 February 2019 , 9am, Pavlos Christopoulos
March 13, 2019 , 9am, Babis Tsilianidis ---- Anarchist / anti-authoritarian / libertarian 
collectives and partners from Xanthi, Thessaloniki, Larissa, Giannena, Corfu, Athens, 
Patras, Heraklion
https://vogliamotutto.espivblogs.net/2019/02/02/den-polemame-gia-aoz-thriskeies-kai-patrides-polemos-koinonikos-taxikos-antikratikos/

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

Message: 5






Assembly of teachers, parents, and students at UCLA Community School in Koreatown debating 
the proposed contract agreement. ---- Members of Black Rose/Rosa Negra - Los Angeles who 
were involved in community mobilization in support of the strike and as members of UTLA 
provide their summary and analysis. The article highlights the community-worker nature of 
the strikes demands, the conditions of the settlement, the pitfalls of union leadership 
and labor law, as well as outlining next steps in the struggle. ---- By Members of BRRN in 
Los Angeles and Boston ---- After six days on strike, Los Angeles teachers and students 
are back in school. The strike was one of the biggest fights LA had seen in decades. It 
organized more than 30 thousand teachers and many thousands more student, parents and 
neighbors into the streets against a school board intent on selling off their public 
education to billionaire corporations. The strike extended into every corner of the city, 
affecting millions of people and inspiring every worker who saw up close the possibilities 
of collective action.

Accompanying with the largely victorious settlement of the strike has come a wave of think 
pieces and reactions from all quarters of the left with most perspectives falling into a 
binary of supporting or opposing the union leadership. Others have dispensed support for 
or criticism of the outcomes of the strike. But what's been lacking are suggestions of 
what realistic steps rank-and-file workers can take to build from this struggle. To 
advance a practical perspective toward building workers power we need to look at the base 
of the union and our working class communities in Los Angeles. What's more, we need to ask 
what we can do together, whether we agree or disagree with union leadership, to build our 
own self-organization.

Fighting For the Whole Class
One of the most historic aspects of the teachers struggle has been what the union calls 
"bargaining for the public good." This means making the union's fight also about the needs 
and demands of the broader community of working class parents and students. In this case, 
that meant teachers organizing around a comprehensive vision of what public education 
should be. Teachers demanded smaller class sizes, more nurses and counselors, more green 
space on campuses, using school property to build affordable housing, and defending 
immigrant students and families. At the same time, teachers fought back against 
standardized testing, charter school expansion, and oppressive police practices on campus. 
The union's ability to develop these demands through a grassroots process and bring 
members out on strike over them is an important step forward. Because we see unions and 
other mass organizations as the potential vehicles for a new post-capitalist society, it's 
crucial that these organizations take on broader and more political demands to fight for 
the entire class.

Many of the demands that teachers won through the strike- especially limits on class size- 
were only possible to win through a strike. The district refused to even recognize many of 
the demands until the power of the strike forced them to come to the table. Seeing the 
example of the LA teachers strike will inspire thousands of union and non-union workers 
across the city to see what is possible through struggle.

Community march in support of the strike Saturday, December 15, 2018.

What Was Won
The largest concrete gain for teachers coming from the strike are new and now enforceable 
limits on class sizes. The issue was so central that the agreement to end the strike only 
moved forward when Superintendent Austin Beutner finally caved on this issue. While this 
will immediately affect 800 classes, the maximum class sizes is still far too high a 39 
students.

Another major demand of the union's was for a nurse and counselor in every school, and 
more librarians. With the new contract the district has agreed to hire 300 more nurses 
ensuring that each school is fully staffed. Every secondary school will how have a 
full-time teacher librarian as well. For counselors the district agreed to hire 17 more 
positions - an improvement - but the student-to-counselor ratio has moved from 750:1 to 
500:1 for secondary schools.

Progress was made on reducing testing, defense for immigrant students creating green space 
on campuses, and supporting ethnic studies. Up to 28 schools will be exempt from random 
searches of students - a failed anti-gun policy put in place that harassed students of 
color and which the student group Students Deserve has been campaigning against. Thirty 
schools will be designated as Community Schools, meaning that they will receive extra 
funding and more local control so that they can establish wrap-around services for the 
neighborhood. Community schools are the union leadership's vision of what public schools 
should look like, and they hope that by establishing these first examples they can show a 
real alternative to charter schools.

Breaking through the repressive systems of the state and unleashing the power of workers 
needs to happen through the initiative, organization, and confidence of rank-and-file 
workers, not the decisions of leadership.
On wages, the union de-emphasized its demands on this front, asking for only a 6.5% 
increase, which is less than a cost of living adjustment would be, and in the end settling 
for 6%. Most teachers seemed satisfied with this for now, believing that the other demands 
for improving working conditions were more important. However, wages in teaching continue 
to be undervalued along with other traditionally female and caring labor professions. With 
wages up for re-negotiation as early as January 2020 there is an opportunity for future 
fights to change this.

Next to class size, a key demand for the strike was limiting charter school expansion. 
Unfortunately the new contract does little to address this with the only concrete language 
around charters being an agreement that the district will give the union advance notice if 
they are planning on taking away campus space from a public school and giving it to a 
charter - a practice known as ‘co-location'. The district will also allow a union 
representative to serve on the board that oversees the implementation of co-location. 
However, this puts the union into the role of acting as an accomplice in the co-location 
process when the entire process, a form of transferring public resources over to private 
control, should be halted all together.

The union also won a vote from the school board supporting a state-wide cap on charter 
school expansion. However, this is an ongoing battle that teachers across California will 
need to keep fighting for, using all of the strength and organization that was built 
during the strike.

Teachers won historic victories from the strike, and should feel proud for what they have 
done. Because of their sacrifices and hours spent on the picket lines, there is renewed 
hope for public education. But it was also possible to go further with this strike. Having 
been out on strike for less than half as long as West Virginia teachers and community 
support still holding strong, should the tentative contract agreement been rejected and 
the strike continued, it's probable that more gains could have been won.

We don't think that a no vote on the contract was justified because the proposal wasn't 
enough but because given the balance of power at that moment it was entirely realistic to 
continue the fight. As it was, many teachers, even those who ended up voting yes on the 
agreement, were left feeling unsatisfied. Workers need to feel like their struggle has 
been worth it, that they are claiming victories with their own power and settling for a 
contract less than expectations and what is practically possible, deflates that subjective 
sense of power, and can discourage future struggle.

However, to successfully carry out a no vote against a contract deal is not simple. The 
UPS contract vote last year is a perfect example of that. It requires having strong 
democratic and rank-and-file led organization independent of the union leadership that can 
articulate its own vision of what a minimum acceptable contract is, coordinate a no vote, 
and then prepare workers to continue action if the leadership is not willing. Building 
that kind of organization is a long and hard process, but situations like this show why 
its so important.

Students marching in support of teachers.

UTLA and Left Leadership
When the current ‘Union Power' leadership was first elected and went through the 2015 
contract negotiations, we were skeptical of its willingness to organize. It had seemed 
like the union leadership was not serious about waging a real struggle or organizing the 
union base, but, as we said, "wielded the threat of a strike as an empty rhetorical 
weapon." Since then, we've seen that the union leadership does have a real commitment to 
organizing. It clearly knew that it had to build a strike this time around in order to win 
the contract and- more importantly- in order to strengthen the union.

UTLA is more organized, more militant, and more politically conscious than it has been in 
quite some time. The current leadership has definitely helped make that happen. But even 
though we underestimated them several years ago, the same structural problems that we 
pointed out during the 2015 contract negotiations are still here today.

The current Union Power slate was first elected in 2014 as a union reform leadership in 
UTLA. The new president, Alex Caputo-Pearl, came from the Progressive Educators for Action 
Coalition reform caucus (PEAC). Although they positioned themselves as a new fighting 
leadership, Alex and PEAC had already helped defeat a movement to strike against the 
layoffs of 6,000 educators during the budget cuts in 2009. Soon after the Union Power 
slate was elected in 2014, the very caucus that got them elected shrank its space for 
independent rank-and-file organizing becoming largely an extension of the leadership and 
eventually stopped meeting altogether. A common dynamic emerged where once left-leaning 
teacher-activists succeeded in getting their candidates elected, they shifted gears to 
supporting and defending those positions.

This is a repeating trap of entering into union leadership. Many other victorious reform 
caucuses see the same pattern: the rank-and-file organizing dries up, and the top-down 
directing of union strategy drags on as before. We spoke on that dynamic during the last 
contract negotiations, and this time around, it was visible in the same way. In both 2015 
and 2019, the union leadership announced a contract deal and an end to the struggle when, 
realistically, teachers and their supporters were ready to push for more. During the 
debate over whether to accept the proposed contract during this strike, members of 
political groups that have a stake in the union leadership seemed to make it their primary 
responsibility to provide backing for what the union leadership wanted.

We are not against participating in union elections. But most union reform efforts 
approach winning leadership elections as a shortcut, instead of going through the long but 
necessary process of re-organizing and democratizing the union from the bottom up. The 
disconnect that we saw between the left in leadership and much of the rest of the union is 
created by seizing leadership before democratizing the union.

See Black Rose/Rosa Negra's other Tweets

Cross-Union Solidarity
One of the simultaneously most inspiring and discouraging aspects of the strike has been 
the amount of solidarity across unions. Although many SEIU workers at public schools 
courageously went out on sympathy strike with the UTLA strike, they did so with little 
support from their union. Before the strike, SEIU announced that they would support their 
members in strengthening the picket lines only if they fulfilled a tall order- within 24 
hours, eighty percent of SEIU workers at each school site would have to sign a petition to 
go on sympathy strike. At first, out of more than 800 school sites, only 10 met those 
conditions. Yet, as they pushed the union, ultimately workers at 43 schools took sympathy 
strike action.

Another school union, the California School Employees Association, to the best of our 
knowledge took no action in support the strike, and IBEW and Teamsters workers were seen 
crossing picket lines while escorted by police. Had there been a greater worker presence 
outside of UTLA on the picket lines, the strike would have come out even stronger. But 
getting to that point requires organizing across unions, breaking down barriers across 
unions and professions, and creating organizing spaces independent of existing unions. 
These must be organizing spaces that can bring together all the workers at the school 
site, all the workers in the neighborhood, and all the workers in the school district. The 
IWW is one existing organizing tool that workers are using to create such organizing 
spaces, but depending on the context, we have many options available to help us do this.

Closed vs. Open Bargaining
Once the contract negotiations of the strike entered their final phase, UTLA accepted 
Mayor Garcetti's condition that they observe complete confidentiality. This meant that the 
union bargaining team was shut up in City Hall with the full pressure of the city and 
state governments to end the strike with no feedback from or connection to the rest of the 
union.

The IWW Burgerville Workers Union in Portland, OR has been using a strategy of open 
bargaining that is open not only to their entire membership, but also to the broader 
community as well. Community groups and other unions, for example, can participate in 
bargaining sessions. Although open bargaining comes with many challenges, it may very well 
have made the teachers' negotiation process more democratic, broken the government-imposed 
isolation of the bargaining team, and strengthened the power of the strike.

Democrats Are Not Our Friends
In Republican-dominated states where teachers have gone on strike, Democrats have put 
themselves forward as the champions of public education which managed to divert energy 
into campaigning for them in the midterm elections. But states such as California, where 
the Democrats hold a state government supermajority, should serve as a warning for the 
rest of the country.

In Los Angeles, where the Republican Party has relatively few elected officials, the union 
is fighting against an all-Democrat School Board. Efforts of privatization and gutting 
public education are led by Democrats as well. And all too often this has been experienced 
at the hands of the very Democrats who the teachers unions helped put into office, former 
LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who's political start began in part as a UTLA organizer, 
being a perfect example. The reality is that "progressive" Democrats in office have not 
only failed to defend public education, but has also perpetuated the attacks against it.

The most effective method for defending public education has not been to put power in the 
hands of Democrat politicians but rather for teachers to wield their own power through 
collective organization and the use of the strike. By building a powerful strike with 
broad community support, LA teachers have even forced notorious pro-privatization and 
anti-union Democrats like Cory Booker to speak in support of the teachers' demands.

UTLA will be putting resources into Jackie Goldberg's special election campaign for the 
school board. Although many union members are very excited about her campaign, teachers 
should be careful not to let this decision take focus away from direct action organizing.

Police intimidation of union and community pickets.
Breaking Through the Legal Limits
This strike has shown the power of workers, but it has also shown where that power has 
been limited and blocked. Over decades of struggle between workers and capitalists, the 
state has created an extremely complex system of labor law meant to keep business running 
smoothly and defuse worker combativity. This legal system limits the strength and 
possibilities of struggle.

First, unions, especially public sector unions, cannot legally strike on their own 
schedule in most cases, but instead must jump through a lengthy series of legal hoops 
before they are allowed to walk out. Even after UTLA's contract expired, it still took 20 
months of various stages of bargaining, mediation, and fact-finding before they could 
legally start the strike. Once UTLA had finally named a strike date, they were forced to 
delay at the last minute because LAUSD filed a lawsuit saying that the union had failed to 
properly fill out a form giving official notice of the strike date.

If unions had the freedom to call strikes on their own timeline, it would give them the 
initiative to take action when it makes sense for workers, not when convenient for the 
courts and bosses. UTLA would have been able to coordinate their strike with the wave of 
red state teacher walkouts last spring. Or Los Angeles teachers could have coordinated 
with teachers in Oakland and other cities to build towards a statewide teachers strike.

The entire contract bargaining process is extremely legalistic and designed to narrow down 
workers struggle, confining it to closed-door sessions between small groups of experts and 
lawyers. LAUSD has used this legal system to declare that many of UTLA's community good 
demands are "outside the scope of bargaining" and need to be dropped. UTLA decided to 
formally drop these demands so that they could get to a strike as quickly as possible 
rather than fighting it out in court between lawyers. Once they brought the power of the 
strike to bear, UTLA was able to unofficially reintroduce those demands and get LAUSD to 
concede on some of them. But while UTLA has shown how to intelligently work within these 
limits of the contract bargaining framework, workers need to be building the strength to 
completely break through this framework and take back the initiative from the bosses and 
courts.

That means, first of all, that unions need to start breaking the law. Public sector unions 
were built on illegal strikes in the 1960s and ‘70s and the 2018 West Virginia teachers 
strike was waged without any formal legality as well as Joe Burns reminds us is "There Is 
No Illegal Strike, Just an Unsuccessful One." The biggest gains of the labor movement have 
been made through mass law-breaking.

However, we don't have any expectation that the UTLA leadership or other union leaderships 
will soon be walking out on illegal strikes or enforcing hard pickets. Breaking through 
the repressive systems of the state and unleashing the power of workers needs to happen 
through the initiative, organization, and confidence of rank-and-file workers, not the 
decisions of leadership. Right now there is almost no independent rank-and-file 
organization within union or non-union workplaces, and the focus of radicals right now 
should be to start building up that organization and developing the militancy of workers 
through the long haul work of one-on-one meetings and committee building.

Alongside pushing to break the law in labor struggles, there are also some reforms that we 
can organize for unions to take up that would expand the ability of workers to take 
action. These include repealing the Taft-Hartley bans on solidarity strikes and other 
union actions, and eliminating no-strike clauses from contracts.

Hollywood High School picket line.
Continuing the Fight
The Los Angeles teachers strike was not the climax of the fight for public education, but 
just the opening salvo in what is likely to be a long struggle. How teachers use the 
power, organization, and momentum built from the strike to escalate the struggle is 
arguably more important than the strike itself.

Strikes are incredibly important because they unleash the self-organization and class 
consciousness of workers and in this case it also forged new relationships of struggle 
between teachers, parents and students. These should be kept going as a permanent 
foundation for future struggle.

The Contract Action Teams created at each school site can be used to fight around local 
site-specific issues, and also as a basis for mobilizing for statewide fights. In our 
pre-strike interview with Kevin, a teacher in South Central, he gave some suggestions for 
how these committees can be organized to build leadership and empowerment in the local 
rank-and-file. Teachers everywhere should be working to build similar workplace committees 
if they don't already exist.

The relationships built with parents, students, and other school workers should be 
incorporated into ongoing workplace and community organizing. The strike was won so 
quickly because of the massive community support and involvement. Strengthening those 
alliances will be key to winning future battles and also for linking the teachers' fight 
with other working class struggles across the city. School site worker committees can 
include space for various union members (SEIU, CSEA, etc), and can support students and 
parents who were involved in the strike to continue organizing by creating similar 
permanent organizing spaces.

Although the local level is where we all need to start organizing, beyond that there are 
many opportunities to connect with teachers across the state as Oakland prepares to go on 
strike, San Diego begins their contract negotiations, and teachers everywhere are 
agitating for better teaching and working conditions. It is important to make direct 
worker-to-worker connections, and not rely on the coalitions of union leaderships and 
non-profits.

Looking ahead, besides the school board election in March, UTLA will be focusing on their 
campaign to increase California's per-pupil funding to $20,000 and a linked 2020 ballot 
initiative that will repeal part of the notorious Proposition 13 which allows landlords to 
pay the same amount in property taxes in perpetuity from when the property was purchased. 
The strike has also galvanized a push for a limit on charter school expansion, which will 
require statewide coordination. Linked to that, there will be a push to unionize more 
charter schools - a handful of which joined the LA strike. Locally, the contract 
re-openers in 2020 and 2021 will see renewed fights over salary and healthcare. These are 
all fights that teachers and supporters should be preparing for through expanding the 
rank-and-file organization that has been created through this strike.

http://blackrosefed.org/lessons-utla-teacher-strike/

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

Message: 6






Killed by a neo-Nazi assassin on January 19, 2009, Stanislav Markelov was a real 
phenomenon, a living embodiment of an impossible combination of properties. ---- 
Inexplicably successful and in his 34 already famous lawyer in high-profile political 
affairs, led the left youth movement, a man of many unrelated media, a supporter of a 
strong social state, a punk-rock connoisseur, a lawyer of anti-fascists, trade unions, 
non-formals and Novaya Gazeta, ardent a human rights activist and a fierce critic of 
Russian liberalism, a political platform and a public intellectual who had every chance of 
becoming a truly important figure in a new, not yet new era. ---- As is often the case, 
the most famous side of his biography begins with success in the professional field: with 
political processes that he regularly won and even in the event of a loss could 
brilliantly turn into a public demonstration of lameness of Russian justice. Earlier 
moments of his biography and lesser-known aspects of his professional activity would 
clarify the source of his amazing skills and extraordinary views.

The published interview is especially valuable for this. Responding to my request to tell 
about the Russian trade unions and his law practice, Markelov, in fact, allowed to look 
into that dimension of his life and work, where the big historical is closely intertwined 
with the intimate biographical. Markelov, the organizer of the largest student movement of 
the 1990s, Markelov, defender of dismissed workers in regional enterprises, Markelov, a 
practitioner of radical social democracy: all these non-obvious components of a successful 
lawyer's career illustrate what a non-trivial trajectory he followed.

Today, as at the time of the conversation, the rational rigor and figurative richness, 
with which Stanislav describes three areas of experience, where he himself was actively 
immersed, are striking at the same time. These are the student actions of the 90s, the 
conflicts of labor collectives with the administrations of enterprises in the 2000s and 
the tactics of confrontations hidden behind the facade of constantly reforming 
legislation. He regards all phenomena in these areas with the impeccable look of a 
strategist who is interested in how this is done, which hinders movement towards the goal, 
how it can be globally changed.

The rational rigor and figurative richness with which Stanislav describes three areas of 
experience, where he himself was actively immersed, are striking at the same time.

At the same time, it is impossible not to notice the crafty sparks of the player and the 
wit that marked his strategic analysis. So, talking about the rise and collapse of the 
trade union movement of the 90s "Student Defense", co-organizer of which he was, Stanislav 
does not forget to mention the key role of the party and ideological "unprincipled" in 
organizational work. And while describing the course of labor conflicts, he is sincerely 
impressed not only by the stamina, but also by the short-sightedness of the workers, and 
sometimes he is able to assess - as a worthy opponent - the tricks and tricks of the 
administration.

Everything Markelov talks about is marked by an amazing mastery of details and the ability 
to link them. His analysis of the high-profile case of the late 90s at the Vyborg Pulp and 
Paper Mill, when workers seized the company to re-launch production, is a ready-made 
script for a future film comparable in entertainment to the Scorsese Gangs of New York. A 
description of the student demonstration in 1995 in the center of Moscow, one of the 
organizers of which he was, sounds like a plan that you need to have for the future. Ten 
years later, Markelov reproduces from memory an exact map of the demonstration movement in 
the city, its stopping points and the content of key events.

This interview reveals not only a personal biography and a great story. It allows you to 
see how the thinking of Markelov the analyst and Markelov the lawyer works. Last intrigued 
me especially. How did he manage to win the most incredible things, including political 
ones, which in Russian practice are often considered "hopeless"? Somehow, answering my 
questions about the strategies of impossible victory, he gave a shockingly simple answer. 
"You see," he explained with a smile, "Russian justice is arranged so that the lawyer in 
the process is not a defender, but an intermediary between the parties. And in a number of 
cases an intermediary who simply puts money in portfolios. There is even such a playful 
name for this phenomenon "Stork." Of course, I never did this. On the contrary. I just do 
everything by the rules - and this alone is often enough. I carefully read all the 
materials of the case, looking for inconsistencies and violations, studying the 
precedents. Often the level in our courts is such that judges and lawyers simply do not 
own the body of law and do not read the materials. And if you go to the end, based on the 
procedure, the judge has no choice but to make a decision in my favor. "

This consistency and exactingness about one's own knowledge is very clear in the analysis 
of the trade union movement that Stanislav proposes. One of the famous processes against 
the "Cadet" riot police in 2005, Markelov won due to the fact that he did not collect all 
possible evidence, but on the contrary, excluded from the case evidence that was not 
perfect. His answers in the interview line up in the same way. It can be seen to what 
extent he is accustomed to excluding all unnecessary things and judging only that he knows 
for sure. Like Newton, Markelov, a public thinker, "does not invent theories" of Russian 
law enforcement or of a political regime. He makes generalizations organically, based on 
experience and proven observations.

In ten years, much has changed in professional law practice. On political and labor 
matters, a whole generation of lawyers was formed, whom Stanislav could call his 
colleagues not only on a formal basis. Less often, storks with plump envelopes fly from 
office to office. But shifts in the organization of a vast field of labor, which Markelov 
noted back in 2006, have become an important part of the overall landscape. On the one 
hand, small trade unions in the educational and cultural sector took to the public stage. 
On the other hand, the struggle against independent trade unions has become tougher and 
the position of corporate ones has been strengthened, where directors are united with 
hired employees "in unison".

Well-built, highly specific observations of Markelov remain in these circumstances an 
important line for reference and comparison. Traitorously stopped at the threshold of the 
2010s, he seemed to have walked around the alley this unfriendly decade, before being in a 
new, yet unknown era.

An abbreviated interview was published in the collection "Nobody but Me" (2009), dedicated 
to the memory of Stanislav Markelov. For the current publication, I reconfigured it with 
the audio recording, eliminating inaccuracies in decoding and recovering the missing 
fragments.
Can you briefly describe how the independent labor movement arose?

Until the 1990s, the independent labor movement was a big problem for the Soviet 
government. And it was including much more powerful dissident. The dissident human rights 
movement was concentrated mainly in large cities and had connections with the West through 
international journalists. The demonstration of three people immediately learned in Europe 
and America. About the labor movement did not know anything. While the working speeches in 
Soviet times were constantly, and sometimes they were attended by up to several thousand 
people. Although they were very dispersed, there was no organization, and in most cases 
they remained unknown. Canadian researcher David Mandel explored this topic and counted 
more than a hundred speeches by workers.

"Workers' speeches in Soviet times were constantly, and up to several thousand people 
sometimes participated in them."

Working speeches were tough. And they took the extreme form in mining towns. It was close 
to suicide when workers refused to rise from the mines. The only attempt to create 
something like the Polish "Solidarity" is the SMOT[Free Interprofessional Association of 
Workers, founded in 1978]. Even at the famous demonstration in Novocherkassk, the workers 
raised a red flag - the same one that hung at their enterprise. This alone was considered 
a crime. Movement under the red flag required wages, bread and butter. The requirements 
were economic. The only more or less political was: "Down with privileges!"

At the end of the 80s, when the democratic wave had already risen, the labor movement was 
very warmly welcomed by the liberal elite. Then, in essence, the creation of independent 
trade unions began. And each working speech was recorded by the liberals, because it was 
directed against the Soviet government and, accordingly, was beneficial to them. Many 
working leaders of the 80s, with whom I spoke afterwards, said: "Yes, we very well 
remember and understand that we were used." The realization of this, in varying degrees of 
clarity, came to the end of 1991. That is, in the first year of the new upsurge of the 
labor movement in Kuzbass, in Belarus, which was previously completely loyal to the Soviet 
government. They carried out strikes that paralyzed transport communications.

"There were privileges, an elite that receives everything, a trade union that does nothing 
and actually consists of the administration of an enterprise"

Naturally, the demands of the workers were reasonable. There were privileges, an elite 
that receives everything, a trade union that does nothing and in fact consists of the 
administration of an enterprise. The most interesting thing is that after 1991 nothing has 
changed. Benefits received the same elite as before 1991. Their status has changed: from 
directors to merchants. The trade unions were assigned the role of uniting workers for 
servitude, as slaves of these merchants.

In the late 1980s, the trade union movement abruptly shifted to completely different 
rails. Part of the trade unions was overbought, and, so frankly, that it resembled America 
of the twenties.

Who bought them?

First of all, local government and business. In the conditions of Russia, their merging 
was especially noticeable. In essence, it was the same thing. Rather, business led the 
government. Such a fate befell the CPR, the Confederation of Free Trade Unions of Russia. 
This is probably the most striking example. Changed and forms of working speeches.

The situation from the 90s: the company stops, no one is dismissed, the new owner sells 
the fixed assets. And the workers arrange performances - not for being defended, but for 
the enterprise to work. Such a statement is not regulated by law. But, although we have 
allowed what is not prohibited, in reality, these speeches of the workers also prohibited. 
Strikes - arrange as you like. After all, at that time it simply formalized the familiar 
situation: the non-payment of wages to workers who were sent on indefinite leave without 
pay. In the event of a strike, they stopped paying officially: go ahead, strike, it's only 
easier for us! During the time when the strike is going on, we will have time to sell 
everything, steal, get quick money, send all the trains and pipelines. And with this money 
move there too. And here you die!

It is important to understand that in the 90s, there were hunger riots hidden by the 
power, already a liberal power. I know for sure. Riots arose because of the termination of 
enterprises. Not because of strikes, namely, the termination of work. It was not just a 
wave, but a real tsunami. In response, the workers used those methods of resistance that 
are considered the most radical in the West: road closures and traffic flows. The media 
reacted to this, but these actions did not make such an impression as, say, in England or 
Germany.

The situation from the 90s: the company stops, no one is dismissed, the new owner sells 
the fixed assets

The most striking example of the anti-privatization wave is the situation at the Vyborg 
Pulp and Paper Mill[in 1996-99]. This was probably the most famous case of the period in 
which I participated. The pulp and paper mill is a unique enterprise, of which there are 
only two in Europe. And Vyborg is next to Peter, far from the outskirts of Russia. There 
literally began hunger. There was no money, and people borrowed and paid off debts with 
potatoes. Children were brought to the city canteen to look at food. They kept them in the 
grass, collecting mushrooms and berries in the summer.

Vyborg pulp and paper mill was privatized, as always with a bunch of violations. Workers 
are waiting for a new owner to start working, but he does not appear. And the workers 
start looking for him. Looking for a host to start working on him! And he has already put 
everything together and sold the maximum possible shares. It turns out that the owner of a 
unique enterprise, which is sold for a pittance - for sixteen thousand rubles in case of 
repayment of debts - this person, who received fantastic dividends, is wanted by Interpol. 
Together with Interpol, workers are looking for a host, and they don't find one.

Then they seize the enterprise into their own hands, they all incorporate into one share, 
give it to the local trade union, which they themselves have organized - the trade union 
of the Vyborg pulp and paper mill - and begin to work. The company immediately began to 
generate income and pay taxes to the state. Before that, for several years it did not give 
anything. What ended this thing?[In 1999]it ended with riot police. And not just by riot 
police, but Typhoon - by a special unit for the suppression of unrest and speeches in 
prison zones. Typhoon broke into the Vyborg pulp and paper mill, beating several dozen 
people, including women, on the way very cruelly.

After the riot police took the enterprise by storm, the workers rose - so that they could 
block the riot police. The wave in the liberal press has gone. And sometimes with the 
requirements to bring to justice not riot police, but workers. That is, not against the 
owners and the authorities, but against the workers, who put the enterprise on its feet, 
which began to bring state revenue. Among these media outlets were such leading liberal 
publications as the newspaper Izvestia. So, one of their reports directed against the 
workers ended with the words: "Why did not the Kantemirov division rise?" That is, why the 
workers did not beat even more and did not enter the tanks? A striking example of liberal 
journalism and the liberal newspaper of the time.

By the way, the Vyborg case showed a key weakness of the trade union movement. Trust in 
the government was maintained here until the very last moment. It is here, in the place - 
evil gangsters, and there, upstairs - good people. It is enough to prove the corruption of 
local authorities, and Moscow will understand, Moscow will understand. "Since we are 
right, we don't need to prove our case, we can ignore the courts," etc. So the workers 
lost all the courts, because they did not even have lawyers. When they began to turn to 
lawyers, they could not work with them, because they were not used to communicating not 
with the workers, but with the state's clients. The workers lost outright. As a result, a 
criminal case was opened against them, although all the injuries - and serious injuries, 
before fractures, concussions of the brain and broken kidneys - were just among the 
workers. The criminal case was initiated on a very serious article "

"It is enough to prove the venality of local government, and Moscow will understand, 
Moscow will understand"

When I met with trade union activists at the pulp and paper mill, I told them: "Guys, why 
are you, they can plant you!" And they: "How so? We are right! We do not need any 
protection, we are right. The court will figure it out!" Thank God, this danger was 
removed. Yes, they held out and were able to prove that when the workers take power in the 
enterprise, it begins to work much more efficiently than with all the privatization taken 
together. But in the end they were crushed. And the Vyborg combine was sold out.

The next very vivid indicator of the activity of workers was the strikes organized by the 
air traffic controllers union. And here is a very interesting moment. Pay attention to 
what trade unions have been the most active since the late 90s. They are air traffic 
controllers, dockers who recently organized a very large strike in St. Petersburg, and 
sailors. These are the categories of workers that are most in demand and have inventories. 
They have fairly high salaries, though not comparable to the severity of their work and 
working conditions. And their actions always led to the desired result, unlike the 
speeches of all the others.

And the miners in the late 90s?

The situation with miners is different: they are simply not needed by anyone when the 
fixed assets of the mines are sold off. With the elimination of the coal mine create 
strategic reserves, close production. And they need the miners like a humanoid who has 
flown in: they have enough of their own problems. Some coal projects died, entire coal 
lands died. I talked with employees of the coal concern, where everything was degraded, 
there is no work, people left. They promised all of them first, they believed. And now 
there is just an extinct region, extinct villages. Unlike miners, the air traffic 
controller, seaman and docker professions still have a need and importance for people. 
They went to the strikes and succeeded.

In 2000, there was a turn when a new business, finally merging with the government, began 
to work not on speculative transactions, but began to rely on longer-term profits. 
Accordingly, they were forced to create permanent jobs and working conditions. How did 
they solve this problem? They created their own trade unions within corporations. Trade 
unions of workers of "YUKOS", "Gazprom". They were engaged in the same that is customary 
for Soviet workers of the seventies: the distribution of vouchers, kindergartens, a small 
improvement in social life. What in the West does the HR manager. Accordingly, for many, 
the ban on the strike was prescribed in the charters and treaties.

In 2000, there was a turn when a new business, finally merging with the authorities, began 
to work not on speculative transactions, but began to rely on longer-term profits.

This is on the one hand. On the other hand, the monster of the FNPR[Federation of 
Independent Trade Unions of Russia], which unites both workers and employers within 
itself, continues to operate. And legally it is absolutely illegal. The new Labor Code 
stipulates that managers and management personnel are representatives of the 
administration. Therefore, even the existence of such a union is illegal. There is the 
concept of "corporate union", in Italian law there is the concept of "convenient union" - 
FNPR exactly fits this definition.

At the official level, I came across Andrei Isaev. This is a remarkable person who has 
passed the path from an anarchist to one of the leaders of United Russia and who managed 
to go everywhere, including in the trade union field. He now heads the Committee on Labor 
and Social Policy of the State Duma and is one of the developers of the modern Labor Code. 
Isaev argued that FNPR is a normal trade union, because top managers, directors, are also 
employees. And therefore they have common interests with the work collective. As a result, 
the union does not even have a strike fund. The largest trade union, which owns rest 
houses and a bank and others, does not have a strike fund, since it does not hold a 
strike. That he does not need.

What is the union bank called?

"Solidarity". For some frauds it was closed. But he still exists. And the leader of this 
trade union, Shmakov, has a dacha near Luzhkov, on Rublevskoe highway. What is the current 
situation with trade unions? In the new labor law, the manifestation of any trade union 
activity is very limited. First, they officially banned the strikes of solidarity. 
Everything. If you want to support colleagues in the workshop with a strike of solidarity, 
you have no right to do this. Secondly, they introduced a very tricky system[in case of 
controversial issues]. If there are several trade unions in the enterprise - an 
independent trade union and FNPRO, they act on behalf of a certain number of workers, for 
example, for concluding a collective agreement, if their opinions coincided - well. But if 
their positions diverged, the position of that union is taken, which has more members. 
Since the official union is entered automatically, and very often people are signed up 
immediately when applying for a job (often this is a condition of admission to the 
enterprise), FNPR always has more members. In many enterprises there were cases when the 
director of the enterprise is at the same time the head of the trade union. One person. 
And so it turns out that independent trade unions lose their right to vote in the event of 
a conflict. This is how labor legislation was drawn up. that independent trade unions lose 
their right to vote in the event of a conflict. This is how labor legislation was drawn up 
that independent trade unions lose their right to vote in the event of a conflict. This is 
how labor legislation was drawn up

"The manifestation of any trade union activity is very limited in the new labor law"

Every labor conflict results in very unpleasant consequences. And encourages not very 
honest actions on the part of the entrepreneur. The last major and interesting work is 
very significant. An independent branch of the trade union Zashchita was created in the 
branch of the Russian railways of the Moscow region. And first of all, the 
controllers-auditors created it - those who go to check tickets. If the passenger did not 
take the ticket when the controller passes, he must pay a fine and receive a receipt. They 
began to press on the controllers, they made a plan for them - at least one thousand one 
hundred rubles. The overseers were outraged and created a trade union. When this conflict 
began to unwind, trade unionists raised the question: what is the plan for fines? RZD is a 
public company, private enterprise. Who should take fines? Money should go to the company.

I went into this business. Together with Deputy Shein, we raised the budget lines of 
Russian Railways, and it turned out that there is simply no such column. Huge sums go 
nowhere. They began to raise this issue in the suburbs. And as soon as they realized that 
this question was open, the money appeared in the local budget. Type of their cashed. And 
the amount they cashed in a year turned out, if I remember correctly in terms of dollars, 
three and a half million dollars. In the budget, all our incomes are fixed, which means 
that this transfer must be very transparent. This situation is in one region - in the 
Moscow Region, in less than a year. And how many regions do we have? That is, people 
paying a fine on the railways pay them to no one knows where. Roughly speaking, this is a 
direct, tax-free income of the Russian Railways management. The maximum that we managed to 
achieve these are instructions from the prosecutor's office to stop this practice. But the 
prosecutor's office refused to initiate criminal proceedings. Otherwise, she would have to 
initiate proceedings against one of the largest oligarchic companies in Russia. That is, 
there was a violation, we sent them a prescription, but there will be no criminal case. 
Everything. So a small conflict grew into an all-Russian business. But the union leader is 
fired, and he is still refused to be reinstated. The administrative lever is in the hands 
of the authorities. The court itself is "on the territory" of the Russian Railways, that 
is, all the affairs of the Russian Railways are held only there. The administration of the 
region has no interest to quarrel with the company, which brings it the main income. we 
sent them a prescription, but there will be no criminal case. Everything. So a small 
conflict grew into an all-Russian business. But the union leader is fired, and he is still 
refused to be reinstated. The administrative lever is in the hands of the authorities. The 
court itself is "on the territory" of the Russian Railways, that is, all the affairs of 
the Russian Railways are held only in it. The administration of the region has no interest 
to quarrel with the company, which brings it the main income. we sent them a prescription, 
but there will be no criminal case. Everything. So a small conflict grew into an 
all-Russian business. But the union leader is fired, and he is still refused to be 
reinstated. The administrative lever is in the hands of the authorities. The court itself 
is "on the territory" of the Russian Railways, that is, all the affairs of the Russian 
Railways are held only in it. The administration of the region has no interest to quarrel 
with the company, which brings it the main income.

But there are certainly successful examples of trade union action?

There is. These are the same air traffic controllers that I talked about. By hunger 
strike, they were able to win, were able to defend their rights. It is very clearly 
visible, these are representatives of those very necessary professions that have a real 
income.

Do you know examples of successful organization of the trade union movement of workers at 
a university, school, or academic environment?

Now there is a wave - educators are trying to organize themselves, primarily secondary, 
and universities sometimes join them. Because working conditions are just disastrous. 
Despite all national programs, in many regions it is even getting worse.

As for intellectual workers, there was a very interesting moment. I was approached by the 
employees of the host of the TV channel, where massive illegal dismissals took place. I 
told them: "It's inconvenient for me to work with each of you individually. Your demands 
are absolutely legal. Your dismissals are illegal. Here you organize a trade union 
together." They: "How should we organize a trade union? What do you mean? Everyone is a 
unique value in itself. Can we walk around with a red flag?" As a result, everyone was fired.

Rather, it is a bad example.

Well, yes, but it shows the characteristic attitude of creative workers in a similar 
situation. Often they are amazed at the liberal ideology.

And student unions?

Oh, this is a separate topic! In the field of education[from the beginning of the 
90s]there was RAPOS, the Russian Association of Students' Union Organizations, a 
structural unit of the FNPR, where students, together with teachers, pay contributions in 
a friendly manner. In the mid-90s, such an idea took place in the left movement, that one 
should focus not on political slogans, which often boiled down to whether you are white or 
red, whether you like or dislike the Communists, but on social slogans. Among the students 
the most popular are: scholarships, deferment from the army, the ability to choose 
teachers and so on. And you need to demand this, at least to the minimum level.

But even when the requirements were minimal, they were already perceived as some kind of 
radicalism. In contrast to 68 in France, where the slogan was: "Be realistic, demand the 
impossible!" After we started demanding the most minimal things, they called us 
"ultraradicals", accomplices of the "red brigades" and modern "Maoists" - who they didn't 
call us.

On the other hand, the creation of trade unions on such a basis, that is, with a clear 
ideology, helped to prevent not even a split, but a complete fragmentation of the youth 
movement. There were not fifty, but one hundred and fifty warring factions that can not 
tolerate each other: the communists are reminded of the past, anarchists do not like 
Trotskyists, Trotskyists are Stalinists, the Trotskyists take a step both to the left and 
to the right as an escape from their ideology, etc., etc. . But the emergence of the 
Student Defense trade union in many ideological leftists caused a bright, tough antipathy. 
Because in "StudentZashchita", anarchists, socialists, Komsomol members, whom they 
couldn't tolerate and now cannot bear it, as well as part of the left who were ready to 
cooperate with anyone at all, as a person who became the chairman of the trade union, were 
included. For that "

Due to what?

Due to the fact that it was fun, it was cool. Due to the fact that - no adults at all. All 
real requirements that were put forward from the bottom were immediately supported. 
Everything that directly concerns you was immediately supported.

And it was not only in Moscow?

In many cities: St. Petersburg, Tula, Novosibirsk (the largest organization), Rostov, 
Moscow. There were many. One of the members of the executive committee of "Studzashchita" 
said that the number reached fifteen thousand people. In my opinion, rather ten to twelve 
thousand people. There was a wide variation in the regions. Naturally, a significant part, 
if not a large one, is absolutely passive, those who simply wrote statements. But the 
largest actions that the left could hold were StudentZashchita.

How did this happen?

April 12, 1994 rally RAPOS demanding "Increase your salary!" Student-Zashchitovtsy come 
there, take all the people away from the RAPOS, and begin an unauthorized rally at the 
White House. Conduct a mass march through the center of Moscow and reach the Theater. 
Naturally, with a massive screw from the police. I know the details only from the words, 
because I did not participate. And the next year, everything repeated exactly, only they 
decided to play it safe. On a tip from the RAPOSTS, who simply pointed with a finger, the 
leaders of "Student Defense" were immediately arrested: Kostenko, Igor Malyarov, people 
with flags and banners. And they thought we were beheaded. Well, here they miscalculated a 
little, because many, including me, for example, did not carry flags.

As a result, with the slogan: "Guys, let's repeat how it was fun last year," they went 
again from the center. But this time everything was much tougher. Because there were more 
police, riot police appeared. A year ago, there was no riot police. But the demonstrators 
turned out to be more. As a result, on the road several times the police tried to stop, 
cut off their tails, grabbed people. They blocked the Arbat, but with lanes, changing 
tactics, we managed to bypass police cordons several times - there are many lanes there. 
They went to the Arbat, defeated the office of "Albi", one of the then corporations. And 
on the Arbat joined informals hanging out there. They approached the Ministry of Defense, 
filled it with paint: just the first Chechen war was already underway. And they decided to 
go to the Kremlin. They went out and went through Znamenka to the Manege. On Manezhnaya 
there was not yet this Tseretelevsky horror, it was a single square. There riot police 
applied such tactics: cut the demonstration into three parts. As a result, the two parts 
are partially screwed, partially scattered. But the head of the column, about one hundred 
fifty-two hundred, tried to go to Red Square. She could not, but she passed by the 
Alexander Garden and went to the Theater. There were fascists, with whom they fought. The 
latter were taken away already on Nikolskaya Street.

"Independent actions continued in the tradition of student mayows"

Independent actions continued in the tradition of student mays, well, or not quite may. 
When there were events on Tiananmen[1989], in a sign of solidarity at the site in front of 
Moscow State University, students - and other universities joined us - broke up a tent 
city for the night. Then, in new times, it all stopped. We have resumed this tradition. 
They also staged a tent camp, but with left slogans and red flags, not tricolor flags. And 
the student body just came to the left party, as it should be. And again in the 
ideologized left-wing environment, these demonstrations provoked the disapproval of so 
many. Because they said that the total mass of students came only to hang out, but it was 
not ideological. They came with bottles of beer and they liked being free to perform. Some 
Natsik tried to penetrate there, it was also,

What else was there? February 23, 1995 staged a pacifist march from the Arbat, together 
with the informals. And he was not scattered, although it was unauthorized. At the Moscow 
State University site in October 1994, if I remember correctly, they staged an 
unauthorized demonstration and burned a stuffed bourgeois. The police tried to incite 
local students against us, like: these are commies.

Did you manage to agree?

No, but it was possible to prevent collisions. But some people screwed about ten people. 
Conducted their own conferences, it was all. And the conference turned, again, into 
parties. Also we established contacts with organizations of Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, 
especially with Belarus, it worked out well. The rise of the anti-Lukashenka youth 
movement had just begun there.

As for the promotion of students' requirements - what did you manage to implement?

In a number of places it was possible. Mostly on a social level, on the simplest. For 
example, free movement inside the student dormitory, payment of scholarships without 
delay, provision of premises inside the university. Each had their own requirements. 
Political work was at a very low level. Moreover, the fame was actively spreading about 
the trade union that these were only bouzoteurs. Therefore, we began to develop our own 
bill on behalf of students who were officially trying to conduct through the State Duma. 
This bill should be in my home. Now this has already become forgotten.

Did you manage to bring him to a vote in the Duma?

As I recall, the Communists were afraid to nominate him for an official vote, but there 
were no other leftists at that time. We must find it - it is not in electronic form, but 
in paper form. I am not sure that after several moves he has remained with me. Probably 
preserved in the archives, you can raise.

The ideological dislike for the trade union remained. But even without it, after 1995, 
Studzashita went down sharply. There were several reasons. First, who are we? Either we 
fight for social rights, or we constantly put forward political slogans. Secondly, for 
those times we received a huge number. By my count, ten thousand. Literally, a person 
comes from Novosibirsk and brings just a bundle of applications. In the same Novosibirsk, 
whole groups joined the "StudentZashchitu", because in the official trade union it is 
necessary to pay fees, and in the "StudZashchit" it is not necessary. What to do with it? 
We did not know how to accumulate these numbers of people. It was a mass of liability: 
where to put it?

Thirdly, the Communists took up the election race. Dasha Mitina, a member of the executive 
committee of "Student Defense", entered the State Duma from them and became a deputy. They 
switched there: all these Komsomol members did not become in "StudZashchit". Plus a 
complete lack of funding. Where to get money from? We did not have them. Finally, if we 
positioned ourselves as a radical left-wing political union, this very much limited 
people: there was no need to touch the ideology, it was necessary to agree on that. 
Although there was no particular dispute. They arose behind the scenes. However, at one of 
the conferences a group of anarchists began to throw bottles into the speakers. But 
literally the next day, everyone already sat together and drank.

Komsomol members tried to bring the "Studzashchu" under the Communist Party - that was 
insane. Well, that's all, we have stalled. That is, we existed for about a year or two. 
Things like "StudentZashchita" did not develop into the system.

Have you tried to develop mechanisms for transferring such activity to undergraduate students?

We could not. Because the mechanisms of activity were rooted in the left environment, and 
student leaders, in fact, did not appear. All the leaders, all the executive committee, 
were leaders of various political groups. They said: Let us be considered bastards, but we 
will not touch the ideology. Though you go, as it is sung, with the profile of Stalin on 
the left breast, and with the father Makhno on the other. By the way, they asked me: "Just 
please stay, don't leave! Otherwise we have some radical freaks. And so, with you, we will 
have Social Democrats. We will say that we have moderate also". And I figured as a member 
of the Social Democratic Party (laughs). Of course, I could then tattoo myself on 
anything, and everyone did not care.

And the whole student body, all the assets reacted like this: "Oh, you are having fun, 
it's cool! Let us lead you, and we will support you." I asked them: "Guys, can you arrange 
something yourself?" - "Well, no. We do not know how." That is, it was difficult to create 
such a system for rotation to take place. Moreover, the personnel shortage began: some of 
the anarchists moved away, part of the leftists, too, just ran. Komsomol members switched. 
I know that now there are attempts to recreate this experience. It's amazing that people 
are trying to start again, stepping on the same rake.

Because there are no people who have already gone through this and passed on the experience?

Yes it is. From the year 96 I switched to Rainbow Keepers and other environmental 
movements. Some of the "StudentZashchita" also switched there.

By ak administration of universities perceived the student union, and what pressure 
equipment on it were themselves effective?

In fact, the university administration is always very cowardly. She is very afraid that 
she herself will be punished. Therefore, it acts according to the principle that 
everything is quiet, so that no one shows with a finger that in our university, so 
glorious and famous, they take bribes at each entrance exam. They are very afraid of 
combat students - always. And they always have a hard pressure lever - deduction. How will 
the student then prove that he was wrongly dismissed? Whose word will be more credible - 
the rector of the university or student? And in relation to people from the outside: they 
immediately began to look for who ordered them. Once created a union, it is either to 
remove them from the post, or the machinations of competitors. They never understood that 
these could be truly legal requirements.

Are there existing trade unions that seriously affect the balance of power in favor of 
employees?

Do you mean individual enterprises? Or on a national scale?

Here and there.

In the all-Russian is not, definitely. In some enterprises, these are industry trade 
unions. An example is the last performance of dockers in St. Petersburg. Or another option 
- the trade unions of one enterprise. The most recent major labor dispute I know is at the 
Yasnogorsk Combine. There is a hunger strike there, and a very serious one. Some of the 
people were taken to hospital, to intensive care. The situation there is very tough. But I 
don't have the details, because I didn't do this myself, but they print little information.

And the trade unions, which have branches in different cities, how does the Sheinskaya 
"Defense" - does it work?

This is possible primarily as trade unions of individual enterprises, united among 
themselves. "Protection" is perhaps the most visible force, although it must be admitted 
that it is minimal. An effective trade union implies a certain mass character.

The question really remains open. Being a teacher, I often faced the question of how I can 
express my displeasure and put pressure on the administration. In situations that 
obviously concern not only me personally. Usually there are only two levers. Either you 
come to the dean personally, if you have access to it, and talk to him, or you complain to 
your superiors, you write a message. The alternative is to talk with other teachers. And 
the question is, what can you agree on in this way? How can you put pressure on the 
administration together? Do not take exams? Hostages will be students. It is not very 
clear what levers teachers can use.

Photo from the archive of "Studzashchita": April 12, 1995, rally at the Government House 
of the Russian Federation. In a few minutes, inspired by the Studzashchita agitators, the 
students will move to storm the Kremlin.

In "StudentZashite" in such a situation, they tried to use what appeared in the conflict, 
what is called "third people", that is, an external factor. When Vasya Pupkin himself 
could not do this: to conflict, write requests to deputies, and so on. Then the 
administration has three options. First - to ban: that you get into my university, you 
have no right! Then - surprise: who ordered me? Well, the third option: it is better to 
quietly stop it so that it does not go further.

That is, the noise factor works: the administration discovers that the noise is growing 
and wants it to stop. So?

Not just noise. The noise immediately moves to another plane. What did we use? Deputy 
inquiries: this is not only noise, it is an indicator of the level of protection Appeals 
to the prosecutor for violations. And who does not have them? They asked for a 
prosecutor's check. Let them refuse. But, to refuse, must request information. Therefore, 
the administration will already be in the know.

It is very interesting! But you are right, noting that the degree of mobilization in the 
intellectual environment is extremely small. And objectively, it cannot be very large 
precisely because spontaneously liberal ideology is spread in it.

In fact of the matter. But if you raise it for any liberal ideas, then the mobilization 
will be relatively large. But only on the liberal. The social demands of the liberals are 
allergic, especially in Russia.

Summarizing your experience, how can trade unions act to influence the situation on a 
national scale rather than an individual enterprise? The same question concerns the 
intellectual and student environment.

I think that in a student's environment it is not trade unions that should be created, but 
a movement. Trade union items, including protection, can take over branches of 
interdisciplinary trade unions in universities. Where is this such a more traditional 
union approach. A movement in the student community to organize with political binding. 
Because she is unable to constantly work on professional issues. Maybe once she was able 
to show herself, but not all the time. Why do we need this work of two types? Because 
students are now very focused on employment. This is their main problem. And having an 
interdisciplinary student union will be very helpful in organizing this bundle when you 
are among the representatives of your own profession for which you are studying. It will 
help the young man to be in the environment, to establish contacts.

Then the main question is how to start? That is, how to make intellectual workers more 
sensitive to the idea of collective interaction?

Here it is important that the union has a positive experience that it could show. So that 
there would be some enterprises, to one degree or another controlled by the trade union. 
This may be involved in the management, ownership of some stake, albeit not a controlling, 
but significant. That is, that it should not be scattered minority shareholders who were 
taken for pro forma, but those who can have a financial impact. To have an impact on 
personnel policy, which is especially important for the trade union. Then the person 
joining the union will understand that the union will then help him to advance. And when 
this is not ...

It is important that the union has a positive experience that it could show. But in our 
legislation everything is specially done to prevent this from happening. In addition to 
the prohibition of strikes of solidarity, the principle has been introduced that 
everything is decided not by federal labor laws, but practically lowered to the lower 
level, to the level of individual and collective labor contracts. When we had sparring 
with Andryusha Isaev, he told me: "Well, the whole hospital cannot have the same 
temperature!" But instead of "the same temperature," he offered all self-treatment.

The usual situation is when a company has a lawyer who can write a competent collective 
agreement. But who has it? At the employer. Now the lower level is the main level of legal 
foundations in labor relations. And in whose favor is the contract being made? In favor of 
the employer.

In the West, if there is a conflict, on the one hand there is a federal union or land 
union immediately, with its lawyers, and on the other, an association of entrepreneurs or 
employers. And it turns out that the parties to the conflict themselves are moving aside, 
and behind them the two big forces are sorting out the relationship.

Professional wrestlers.

Yes, that's right. And here we have no business associations as such. And employees are 
just the staff of all professionals, divided between employers. Accordingly, Vasya Pupkin 
must fight against professional lawyers, against the administration, who have all power 
against a potential trade union. As a result, in labor matters, the most serious and 
really interesting conflicts are now, they are court cases, occur only in very narrow 
special areas. These are highly paid categories of individual workers: the highest level 
of artists, professional athletes. They can invite an expensive lawyer. And the second 
variant of the conflict is the top manager against the employer.

But in general, the splitting of the labor movement is simply extraordinary.

But in general, the splitting of the labor movement is simply extraordinary. Despite the 
fact that everyone understands the causes of a low material level, the main task is to 
fulfill their material requirements.

Speaking at a conference on information on prisons , which I organized[in 2006], you 
mentioned that the criminal world desires to restore the death penalty in the same way as 
the conservative part of Russian elites. I see this as a distant parallel with the 
management of the sphere of labor: repressive consensus.

The fact is that our social elite and the criminal elite have largely grown together. In 
general, the call to save the death penalty is characteristic of the entire criminal 
world, from top to bottom.

And what is the main argument: to intimidate petty criminals?

The top - to frighten little things: hooligans, gangsters, "bespredelschikov." And the 
lower classes see this as a demonstration of common power. That is, the general position 
is: "Yes, crime must be fought. But not with me." They always distinguish themselves, 
considering that they, honest thieves, should not be judged. But all sorts of maniacs, 
sadists and others - of course. Even mokrushniki think so: of course, you need to save the 
death penalty, you need to fight crime. They always separate themselves from the masses, 
which they despise.

Yes, it is very strong and depressing. Just as when the presidents - Yeltsin, Putin, in 
roughly the same logic - say: "Ineffective power must work differently!" That is, when 
people in power speak about what kind of power should not be. This is a constant dismissal 
of certainty, a denial of belonging - just like the criminals: "I am not a criminal. The 
criminals are all others."

Here it sounds even more often: "I am an honest thief." In general, rarely in the criminal 
environment there is a person who opposes punishment.

Does he not feel that this is related to him?

In the modern criminal environment there is an understanding: if something happens to me, 
then I buy off. But those who can not pay off - this is trash, and they need to shoot.

That is, here too: rich and poor, just different in another zone of reality. And the rich 
are not in white gloves, but with the conscience of an "honest thief."

This is ubiquitous. And the language of the criminal world confirms this.

According to a number of testimonies, including polls that should not be especially 
trusted because of the basic flaws in the methodology, 60 to 90 percent of the active 
population are for the death penalty.

I think this is a fair observation. The society is scared enough and shifts the functions 
of its defense to the state. Realizing that they themselves cannot protect themselves from 
anything, they are trying to give it to the state.

And this has to do with what we talked about in connection with the trade unions. No 
installation on self-defense and self-organization.

Yes, she is very weak.

Interview taken by Alexander Bikbov

https://avtonom.org/news/aleksandr-bikbov-stanislav-markelov-figura-istorii-budushchego

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