Anarchic update news all over the world - 11.04.2019

Today's Topics:

   
1.  Poland, rozbrat.org OZZIP: Freedom for Aldo Milani! Strikes
      and union activities are not criminal crimes! Nationwide Trade
      Union Workers' Initiative [machine translation] 
      (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
2.  Czech, afed: How would real democracy look like?
      (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
3.  Brazil, luta fob: [FOB-SC] FOB presentation in Blumenau / SC
      (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
4.  Turkey, senin medyan: On March 31st Elections (tr) [machine
      translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
5.  France, Alternative Libertaire AL #293 - Libertarian
      movement, AL-CGA: a fusion to excel (fr, it, pt)[machine
      translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
6.  Britain, anarchistcommunist group ACG: Afternoon tea with
      Corbyn and May (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
7.  zabalaza.net: A ZACF Anarchist in the Landless People's
      Movement, South Africa: Interview with Lekhetho Mtetwa
      (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)


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

Message: 1






In defense of Aldo Milani - national coordinator of the SI Cobas relationship in Italy, 
who will soon be threatened by a 2-year sentence and 4-month prison sentence. In defense 
of other trade unionists threatened by repression. ---- Aldo Milani was unjustly accused 
of "blackmail" in the form of organizing a series of strikes together with slaughterhouse 
employees in the province of Modena. The lawsuit had its finale at the end of March, the 
sentence is to be taken in the coming days. Similar reprisals for employee activities have 
been met by other trade unionists and activists who are today struggling with court trials 
or penalties for participating in strikes. ---- The logistics sector in Italy - one of the 
key areas of the economy in Poland and in the world - has been a place of almost daily 
strikes and labor unrest for about 10 years. In recent years, this movement has spread 
from logistics to other industries such as agribusiness, trade, ceramics and metallurgy.

In the previous century, the majority of workers' movements fought for more favorable 
rights and contracts. Today, concerns are aroused by the order based on the systematic 
violation of national collective agreements and the most basic safeguards regarding wages, 
health and safety and working hours. This labor movement restored rights and dignity to 
thousands of workers (mostly immigrants) previously silenced, reduced to half-enslaved: 
poorly paid, blackmailed, forced to work under inhumane conditions. The movement brought 
to light a densely woven network of lawlessness, tax fraud and mafia infiltration. 
However, the police and public prosecutor's offices have so far often captured workers' 
strikes and anxieties in terms of "violating public order." Employee rights in many 
logistics supply chains have therefore been recovered only by forms of struggle considered 
illegal, for example, plant and street gate locks and wild strikes. These gains translated 
into hundreds of criminal cases against the movement. In addition, recently approved by 
Prime Minister Salvini, the Decree on Security imposes fines of up to 12 years for the 
"crime of blocking the road" and the immediate deportation of workers - immigrants who 
took part in such blockades.

A criminal trial against the national Si-Cobas coordinator Aldo Milaniemu indicates that 
furious repression of the workers' movement in logistics is part of a wider campaign of 
repression against trade union rights, social movements and resistance of the scientific 
community to the current situation in the country. Originally, Aldo was arrested and kept 
in custody for three days in the last stage of trade union negotiations on charges of 
"extorting money" to the detriment of a meat processing company managed by a family 
constantly facing allegations of corruption. His process revealed close links between 
private business and state authorities. The innocence of the trade unionist was so evident 
that the prosecutor himself recently softened the accusation that Aldo was to demand money 
not for himself, but for dismissed workers. He demanded a penalty of 2 years and 4 months 
in prison. However, the allegations made in this way pass the definition of extortion. 
Aldo tried to prevent the dismissal of 55 employees and ensure that they will be properly 
paid together with the payment of taxes and contributions. These are demands typical of 
any serious trade unionist. The prosecutor's office is trying to criminalize the common 
labor dispute and creates a dangerous precedent. If every economic demand in favor of an 
employee can be considered as "extortion", it undermines the very foundations of trade 
union activity. The prosecutor's office is trying to criminalize the common labor dispute 
and creates a dangerous precedent. If every economic demand in favor of an employee can be 
considered as "extortion", it undermines the very foundations of trade union activity. The 
prosecutor's office is trying to criminalize the common labor dispute and creates a 
dangerous precedent. If every economic demand in favor of an employee can be considered as 
"extortion", it undermines the very foundations of trade union activity.

Therefore, we appeal to all forces that support our movement to demand that Aldo Milani be 
cleared of charges. We urge you to sign the letter of support for Aldo - English version 
here: 
https://www.change.org/p/tribunale-di-modena-in-defense-of-the-si-cobas-coordinator-aldo-milani- 
and-of-trade-union-freedom-in-italy .

We also call for support in the campaign against the criminalization of street blocks as a 
form of social and union protests and against the use of police forces in labor disputes 
outside the gates of the workplace.

http://www.rozbrat.org/informacje/miedzynarodowe/4663-wolno-dla-aldo-milaniegostrajki-i-dziaalno-zwizkowa-to-nie-zbrodnie-kryminalne

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

Message: 2





Camilla Hansen's text on the possibilities and limits of existing participatory decision 
making ---- As representative democracy falls into crisis, we must return to the original 
meaning of democracy as a people's government. What should she look like? ---- Why not try 
to change the political system as such rather than to change politicians and parties in 
power? The time has come to imagine what real democracy should look like, and to create 
institutions and mechanisms that could become the building blocks of truly democratic 
societies. ---- Today, democracy is equivalent to a representative government based on the 
free elections of the political elites who rule on behalf of citizens. This system, known 
as "representative democracy," has prevailed in the West in the last two centuries, and is 
now being exported worldwide and promoted as the only possible alternative to open 
dictatorship.

But this system is in deep crisis today. In established representative democracies, trust 
in political elites and conventional institutions is falling apart. Participation in 
elections diminishes and political parties lose their members. In Europe's old "developed 
democracies", streets are filled with millions of protesters against unpopular and brutal 
austerity imposed on them from above. More and more people today realize that their 
elected representatives do not represent them. Governments, both left-wing and right-wing, 
are subject to the dictation of large banks, financial institutions and multinational 
corporations and their powerful lobbies. In this situation, the voice in the elections is 
of little importance, because in fact we have no choice. We can only change the political 
elites that rule us, but we have no right to decide on the evolution of the society in 
which we live.

However, genuine democracy is a direct and participative democracy in which all citizens 
have the opportunity and the right to participate in decisions that affect their lives and 
their communities. While those in power and mainstream media and scholars argue that such 
a democracy, based on the participation of all citizens, is not possible and even 
desirable, in fact there are a number of new - as well as many old - institutions and 
experiments that show that direct and participatory democracy is both possible and 
appropriate today. These democratic innovations, albeit lonely and limited, could - if 
developed, strengthened and expanded - become instruments of radical democratization of 
society.

Participative budgeting

People's plenary, where citizens meet face-to-face to discuss, vote and make collective 
decisions, is an original form of democracy. Historically diverse types of folk plenaries 
existed in many societies around the world, from village rallies in North Africa, through 
forums in ancient Athens, Landsgemeinde in medieval Swiss cantons to city rallies in New 
England in the 17th century. In recent decades, thousands of new democratic institutions 
have been created everywhere in the world, in which the People's Plenum has a fundamental 
role to play. The best-known is participatory budgeting.

Participatory budgeting lets the city's inhabitants decide on what the public budget of 
their city or borough is spent through a people's plenum of neighbors or residents of the 
city district. This process was first introduced in Porto Alegre in southern Brazil in the 
late 1980s, when the Brazilian Workers' Party (PT) won the city council elections after 
the military dictatorship ended. Since then, this has spread to hundreds of cities and 
towns in Latin America, Europe and the US.

In local plenaries, all city residents have the right to participate in budgeting and vote 
for their budgetary priorities. This plenary will then elect regional and local delegates 
to the plenary, which will create a joint budget for the whole city, based on local 
plenary priorities. A large number of participants are involved in the whole process; in 
some places it is more than 100,000 participants each year. Most of the participants are 
usually women, the poor and other populations that are marginalized in conventional 
political institutions. Participatory budgeting has led to many positive outcomes, 
including poverty reduction and redistribution of budgetary resources to the poorest 
areas, significant reduction in corruption and increased transparency, as well as 
strengthening civil society.

There is, however, a great diversity in the organization of different models of 
participatory budgeting that are widespread throughout the world. Strong models provide 
local residents with control over the entire city budget, or at least substantial parts of 
it, and are based on local plenaries where all residents can participate in 
decision-making and vote on individual priorities. It is these strong models that deliver 
the best results in the form of poverty reduction, reducing corruption and broad local 
participation.

In the original model of participatory budgeting, which originated in Porto Alegre, 
Brazil, several rules have been incorporated into the procedure that encouraged 
participation and ensured transparency and accountability. The more local residents of 
local assemblies participated, the more delegates sent this plenary to the regional forum 
to defend the local community's priorities there. This mechanism has mobilized many 
people, especially from poor and peripheral regions, to participate.

In addition, municipal authorities paid community organizers who informed local residents 
about the process and encouraged people to participate in decision-making. To avoid the 
establishment of a professionalized political class, all delegates were revocable and 
their term of office was limited and shortened (usually 1 to 2 years). The mayor of the 
city and the city officials also took part in the meeting and participated in their 
course, so the locals could call them accountable. And to ensure transparency, all 
meetings were open to the public and all information was freely available.

The main dilemma of participatory budgeting is the question of legislative power. In 
Venezuela and Peru, statutory participatory budgeting is mandatory for all country 
councils in the country. However, most cases of participatory budgeting across the world 
do not have direct legislative power. In Porto Alegre, participatory budgeting is not 
codified in the laws on municipal councils. The reason for this is that this process be 
permanently flexible and allow for gradual expansion, so that an increasing proportion of 
the budget can be included under the control of citizens. On the other hand, if 
participatory budgeting is not codified in the law, the city administration can at any 
time cancel or restructure the process. Thus the whole process becomes vulnerable by 
governments and politicians who want to undermine it

Participatory budgeting, as originally understood in Porto Alegre, must also face other 
challenges. As illustrated in the Participatory Democracy Revisited text(A New Approach to 
Participatory Democracy) Carole Pateman, many institutional models that are promoted as 
participatory budgeting, have very few identities with the original Porto Alegre model. 
These are models where citizens have only a very small part of the budget or only some 
small additional funds, or only have a supervisory role and no decision-making powers. As 
weak models were supported by international institutions such as the World Bank, the term 
participatory budgeting has been stripped of its original content. It is now used to cover 
all types of participation, including consultation, information sharing, or government 
feedback. Also in Porto Alegre itself, the process has been considerably reduced over the 
past decade.

If participatory budgeting is to be a tool for genuine democratization of society, 
citizens must be given the power to decide on the whole of the city's budget or at least a 
substantial part of it, and this process must be conducted from the bottom up when the 
highest power is conferred on citizens on the plenary. Local authorities must be willing 
to give up power for the benefit of local residents, and the need to decentralize power 
from national and transnational levels to urban and local levels. This happened in Brazil 
when important powers, including economic ones, were transferred to the municipal councils 
in the 1988 national constitution.

Communal Councils

Another participatory institution, based on popular plenary sessions, is the consejos 
comunales , the municipal councils in Venezuela. Municipal Councils are small 
participatory institutions, composed of an average of 200 to 400 families in urban areas 
and 20 to 50 families in rural areas, which decide to start and implement local projects. 
Projects include basic services such as water supply and sewerage systems, electricity 
distribution, medical care centers, housing and communications, as well as cultural 
activities. All decisions are made within the People's Plenary, composed of at least 10 
percent of the local population over 15 years old. The Plenary also elects committees in 
charge of finance management, government monitoring and monitoring of local priorities 
such as health, education and land management.

Over the years, the municipal councils have become very popular and there are now over 
30,000 throughout Venezuela. The government has transferred millions of dollars under the 
control of these councils, and thousands of projects have been implemented. Wider 
"communities" have also been formed, bringing together more municipal councils.

As with participatory budgeting in Brazil, the decisive step in moving responsibilities 
down to ordinary citizens was at the lowest level of decentralization. While the Municipal 
Councils Act was approved in 2006, the decentralization process began in the 1980s and set 
the stage for it. Thanks to this process, a significant share of power has been 
transferred from national and regional levels to municipal councils. In 2006, 
decentralization continued and deepened thanks to the Chávez government, which transferred 
powers further, from local councils to citizens in neighborhood communities.

However, municipal councils still have to ask for the financial support of the 
Presidential Commission of the People's Power. This gives the central government in 
Caracas ultimate power to decide which projects will be funded. The National Agencies also 
determine the rules governing municipal councils, and these rules limit their powers. The 
municipal councils are confronted with opposition attitudes based on both local and 
national bureaucracy, and the government has been criticized for trying to centralize and 
dominate their progress.

However, none of these weaknesses is irreparable. Municipal councils have the potential to 
continue to strengthen and democratize. Their participants and social movements are 
actively involved in the struggle to redeploy power from central government to community 
level and demand more authority over funding, rules and other parts of the process. There 
are also new proposals for decentralization and radicalization of the municipal council 
system, including the proposal to integrate different levels of governance through popular 
federalism: it would be a "state where regional autonomy and a weak central government are 
strong but coordinating regional services". This proposal is a model of participatory 
democracy involving a multi-level system of participation.

Participatory budgeting and municipal councils are the two best-known cases of 
participatory institutions in which the People's Plenum plays a key role. However, there 
are a significant number of other institutions, ranging from the "Zapatistical Councils of 
Good Government" and the "Kurdish General Assemblies and Councils" to local assemblies and 
committees that decide on cultural policy and urban planning in Grottamare, Italy, 
participatory urban governance in Camaragibo, Brazil and cooperative workers in Argentina 
and elsewhere. By studying these institutions, we can identify their strengths and 
limitations, how they can be improved and expanded, and how they can contribute to the 
radicalization of democracy in society.

Draw and mini-publicity

For democratic participatory institutions, certain democratic mechanisms are essential 
that prevent the establishment and concreting of a professionalized political class, 
isolated from ordinary citizens and local communities. These mechanisms include a short 
and clearly limited term of office for elected delegates, and a permanent possibility to 
withdraw them. Another way to prevent the emergence of elites and ensure diversity and 
mass participation in municipal governance is to rotate delegates. For example, in the 
Zapatist Councils of Good Government, every citizen works for only two weeks and then 
returns to his community.

Another mechanism that effectively prevents the establishment of elites and ensures the 
participation of ordinary people in decision-making, as well as in casting political 
offices, is the drawing of lots, the selection of candidates by lot. The use of draws 
played an important role in the democracy of ancient Athens, where most political power 
offices were occupied in this way. For Aristotle, election was a key element of democracy, 
while elections were a sign of oligarchy. In Athenian democracy, the draw guaranteed that 
citizens could "rule or be controlled" and, together with the rotation of the authorities, 
acted as a protection against oligarchy. However, in modern representative systems there 
is no election by lot. Democracy now equates exclusively to electoral competition for 
political authority positions.

In recent decades, however, we have seen a wide range of lottery experiments in advisory 
bodies such as civil plenary, civic juries, general consensus talks, planning cells and 
advisory surveys of citizens' opinions, often referred to as public affairs. The draw was 
also recently used in the first stage of the process of writing a new constitution in Iceland.

In the public sector, meetings are often conducted by independent organizers; 
Participating participants hold hearings to hear expert testimonies and ask questions. The 
meetings take place both in plenary and in small groups. Participants are selected from 
the public sector by means of a statistical sample to ensure that residents of each social 
group are represented. The draw is different from the popular assembly in that the equal 
opportunity to participate in the meeting is replaced by the equal probability that one 
will be drawn and invited to participate in the meeting. In this way, no citizens or 
social groups are systematically excluded from participating in the negotiations.

Except for a few exceptions, such as the British Columbia Civic Assembly, most mini-public 
services have only an advisory role. Participating citizens are invited to consult but 
their vote is not decisive. Another weakness of most of the Ministries is the role of 
their organizers (usually governments) who determine what they are going to do and select 
experts to influence the outcome of the meetings. In this way, mini-government can be 
manipulated by existing political institutions and elites to legitimize decisions made 
elsewhere. And, as Pateman also points out, most mini-agencies only work temporarily and 
are defended as a mere addition to an existing electoral system.

Nevertheless, experimenting with the ministry and the recent frequent use of the draw 
provide us with convincing evidence that ordinary citizens are able to discuss and solve 
complex problems when they are given the opportunity to do so and are able to make 
important decisions in the public interest. Several democratic theorists have recently 
submitted drafts based on draws to various types of political services, including 
legislative bodies, which would not merely be complementary to existing elected 
institutions, but would represent their alternatives.

Citizens' initiatives

Citizens' initiatives are democratic mechanisms that allow citizens to draft laws and vote 
on them, or other political issues. Once a certain number of signatures has been 
collected, citizens can request a binding vote on the proposed political or legislative 
matter. Citizens' initiatives differ from referendums in which citizens can only accept or 
reject a law or other political issue proposed by Parliament. Switzerland was the first 
country to introduce citizens' initiatives in general, as well as referendums, and several 
other countries in Europe and Latin America have also incorporated them into their 
political system, whether national or local.

The promise of civic initiatives is the way in which they can give citizens the power to 
initiate a wide range of issues, and even decide directly on them. But like other 
democratic institutions and mechanisms discussed above, civic initiatives have their 
limitations. The common problem of all is that a large number of signatures required and a 
short timeframe only make it possible for those who can afford to hire an expensive 
professional signing agency to organize a citizens' initiative.

Another problem is that citizens' initiatives often succumb to manipulations by rich and 
powerful proponents of certain interests or political elites. Large corporations often 
invest huge sums of money in disinformation campaigns to influence the outcome of the vote 
(the latest example is voting on "proposal 37" on labeling food containing GMO crops in 
California that has been slaughtered by an agricultural industry that spent $ 45 million 
on disinformation advertising campaign). It is also widely known that corporations and 
corporate lobbies are creating counter-initiatives to frustrate the civic initiatives of 
social or environmental issues that are unpleasant to them.

This does not mean that citizens' initiatives cannot be valuable democratic instruments, 
but there is a need to consider carefully how to organize and present them in order to 
prevent their disruption by rich and powerful corporations. Improvements should include a 
reduction in the number of signatures required and a longer time for their collection, as 
well as a reduction in the financial contributions to such campaigns. It is also important 
to ensure that citizens receive sufficient information on the issues being voted on and to 
promote a broad and open public debate on these issues.

Citizens' initiatives are effective decision-making tools, but not for discussion. Direct 
democracy should include other tools and spaces for decision-making than the People's 
Plenary, as a voting-based system would be atomized and inadequate. In the face of 
collections and other forms of collective decision-making, citizens are subjected to the 
views of others and are required to take into account the views and attitudes of people 
based on different perspectives and backgrounds, and are therefore better able to make 
important decisions. Despite their constraints, citizens' initiatives can thus form an 
important element in the wider framework of diverse instruments of direct democracy and 
participatory institutions.

Basic network of participatory democracy

Radical, direct and participatory democracy will not be given to us by elites, but it must 
be fought by ordinary citizens and social movements. As Occupy Oakland activists Gabriel 
Hetland and Abigail N. Martin point out, institutional reforms must be accompanied by 
popular struggle and direct action. This is exactly what happened at the Torres Municipal 
Office in Venezuela, where hundreds of citizens occupied the town hall and demanded the 
introduction of participatory budgeting. The result of this popular struggle was one of 
the largest participatory budgets in the world, where local residents had 100% control 
over urban investment.

In order for a radical democratic change to take place, there must be great popular 
movements and must fight for this change. However, until the ideas of direct and 
participatory democracy are known and close to many people, no such movement will emerge. 
So the first step is to spread these ideas and put forward strong arguments why direct and 
participatory democracy can benefit today. As Kristinn Mar Ársaelsson of the Icelandic 
ALDA Association recalls, people will not demand what they do not know.

Perhaps it is time to create an international network of bottom-up social movements and 
campaigners and campaigners for direct and participatory democracy. Although some networks 
and initiatives exist today, they are largely sponsored and supported by agencies such as 
the World Bank and national governments and other elite institutions. Few of them seek to 
introduce participatory institutions as instruments of radical democratization and 
understand them only as additional elements to the existing political system. What is 
missing is a more radical agenda, a fundamental international network promoting and 
fighting for participatory democracy, participatory democracy as an alternative, and a 
definitive replacement for an existing system. Through such a network, social movements, 
activists and ordinary citizens around the world could exchange views and experiences,

The enormous task of rediscovering direct and participatory democracy and the struggle for 
its enforcement in the age of austerity, centralized corporate power and technocratic 
governments will not be easy to fulfill. But in the face of growing ecological, social and 
economic crises, the creation of a genuine democracy could be our only hope.

The text was originally released in New Compass . It was reprinted in the online magazine 
roarmag.org , roarmag.org/2013/08/real-direct-participatory-democracy , where we took it 
from. Preložil -cp-.

Published in Existence No. 3/2014 on Plenum, Forums, Asambley...

Related texts:
Anarchists and direct democracy
Is the consensus an alternative to direct democracy?

https://www.afed.cz/text/6976/jak-by-vypadala-skutecna-demokracie

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

Message: 3




On April 13, FOB will hold a presentation and discussion activity in the city of Blumenau. 
The proposal is to think together the need for union and the organized struggle of 
workers, students, peasants and the unemployed. ---- Bosses, bankers, and governments come 
together to exploit and silence us, with their robberies, their laws and injustices. We 
need to react, but the official unions no longer serve this purpose. Neither the PT nor 
Bolsonaro improved the lives of the people with the illusions of their campaign promises. 
---- Revolutionary syndicalism is the power of the people. Know and build the 
revolutionary alternative to strengthen Santa Catarina workers in the struggle for land, 
labor and freedom.
https://lutafob.wordpress.com/2019/04/08/fob-sc-apresentacao-da-fob-em-blumenau-sc/

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

Message: 4






The 31 March local elections, which were formed by the AKP and MHP before the 24 June 2018 
elections, made the nationalist-conservative coalition, called the "Alliance of the 
Soviets", become a "survivor's struggle". The alliance's vote on June 24 (around 51%) was 
more or less protected (around 51%) in the elections. 'na' passed. After the iyel Trench 
Wars et held in Bakur in 2015-2016, the municipalities, which were appointed by the 
government to reappear by trustees, were taken back by HDP as expected. ---- In the m 
traditional "balcony talk, which AKP President Erdogan made quite implicitly compared to 
the previous ones, the results were evaluated with a mean exponentially and extremely 
cautious language. The remarkable point of Erdogan's speech was the continuation of the 
emphasis on the and survivor's struggle ", which he put in his main discourse throughout 
the election propaganda. Erdogan, who gave a signal to the east of the Euphrates, sent a 
message to his partner in the Cumhur Alliance with his statements and confirmed that the 
alliance was tifak not up to the market, but up to the grave ler. The statements of 
Erdogan against Menbiç and the East of the Euphrates, which he brought back to Syria, can 
also be considered as the Idleb's sentencing to his partner in the Astana Process.

The 31 March Elections, where the participation fell in part compared to June 24, when a 
rate of approximately 86% was measured (around 80%), was achieved in the local elections 
in 1994, in which the major component of the Republican Alliance was won in Istanbul and 
Ankara, where the de facto march was launched. In the context of the loss, it is 
considered a defeat. In addition to these cities, the result was not changed in Izmir, 
where the CHP won in every election. Of Turkey's population, due to labor migration that 
occurred during the year where nearly half 3 + 3 In the big cities (Istanbul, Ankara, 
Izmir + Bursa, Adana, Antalya) except Bursa, the ruling bloc against the results, when 
taken into weighted population eye oppressed in this city striking. This local result, 
which emerged in the context of the 6 major cities, also led the AKP-MHP coalition, The 
sok Beka sok rhetoric, which has started to make the economic crisis, which is becoming 
more and more intense day by day, invisible to the crisis, shows that there is no serious 
response to the oppressed. In addition, the result of these cities, the reaction to the 
economic crisis, as well as the pre-election power block the discriminatory and aggressive 
style of the Kurdish voters who are addressed in the style should be underlined.

In some cities other than the big cities, some results were obtained in favor of the 
opposition. Among these cities, during the Democratic Party, the opposition in favor of 
the opposition to make the district "penalized" as a district, and then traditionally the 
right-wing parties won the election Kirsehir drew attention. Apart from Kirsehir, it can 
be said that the nationalist-secular voters determined the result in the cities such as 
Burdur, Bolu and Bilecik where nationalist-conservative parties were elected in the 
previous elections.

Outside of the city center and outside, the result of the district of Eynesil in Giresun 
was the most distinctive among the others in terms of responding to the injustices of 
power. Eynesil, 11-year-old Rabia Naz Vatan, who had been E suspiciously an wounded in 
front of her home in April last year and lost her life in the past, came back against the 
AKP. The election result in Eynesil was considered a partial answer to social conscience, 
in previous years in Reyhanli or in Soma, is unfulfilled expectations E.

HDP, which adopted the strategy of in we will not make you president her as the main 
slogan before the elections of June 7, 2015, adopted as kazanma winning in Bakur and 
losing it to the AKP in the west AKP on March 31, can be said to be successful in this 
strategy despite everything. While the HDP, which was, criminalized yoluyla by the AKP 
before the election, took back the big cities like Amed, Van and Mardin, thousands of law 
enforcement agencies were shifted to vote, and in Sirnak, which was essentially unmanned 
in the state attacks in 2015-2016, lost an exemplary election. Kars, which was taken from 
MHP administration, made a compensatory meaning in the result of Sirnak.

March 31 elections were on the agenda of the world press. The Guardian newspaper in the UK 
stated that the March 31 elections were turned into a referendum by Erdogan for 16 years. 
. The economic situation in the country has started to reduce the popular support for 
Erdogan, Guard the Guardian commented. The first results in the election, the AKP's power 
since 2002 when it came to the first important defeat marking the newspaper evaluating the 
newspaper, the HDP has taken back some of the municipalities pointed out that the 
registrations. Emphasizing the economic crisis, the Guardian said, üyor The AKP pays the 
working class voters the price of the inflation, which is close to 20 percent and the cost 
of living costs. Ian BBC News, the AKP lost Istanbul and Ankara, which can be seen as a 
sequel to 16-year power wrote. Financial Times, which is the focus of economic results in 
the results, "the loss of Istanbul and Ankara and the economic strong cities such as 
Adana, Antalya, sent a clear message to the political alliance led by the AKP," he 
commented, "the question is left behind when the question marks are resolved not. Turkish 
Lira awaits the inevitable end, asi he predicted, with a devaluation in TL. The Greek 
press also responded to Erdogan, who gave the signals of converting Hagia Sophia into a 
mosque before the election. The Zougla news site commented, en The wrath of Hagia Sophia 
had lost votes to Erdogan Ta, while the Ta Nea newspaper considered the results as a 
political message within the framework of the difficulties in the economy. The German 
media also studied the consequences of the economic crisis. newspaper Stuttgarter 
Nachrichten "... Erdogan's AKP party was being held spouses who are accustomed to victory 
with the growing prosperity in Turkey until today. But on Sunday, most of the voters who 
held the government responsible for economic stagnation, unemployment and the depreciation 
of money preferred to stay at home or vote for rival parties. Ti In commenting, the AKP 
and Erdogan are trying to cover up the real dimensions of the economic crisis, and if they 
want to stressed that it should move.

Since 2014, we have left behind the seventh election by 31 March, again, early, dominant, 
referendum, presidential and local. Although it is said that there will be no choice for 
at least 4.5 years according to the claims of the rulers, it is not surprising to see that 
a new ballot box is placed in front of the society in the forthcoming period due to the 
practices left behind and the methods of using it, although the method of obtaining 
consent is not abandoned. However, rather than the successive kriz democratic dolayisiyla 
choices in kriz democracy i, and the süreç gains kriz that are extremely yarat slow agi 
and misleading in these elections, the focus will be on the political consequences of the 
current economic crisis in the oppressed, and the fact that the revolutionary opposition 
is not lost in the illusion of power. may not be engaged in the agenda. In this way, it is 
possible to eliminate the world of power, which has the potential to attack all segments 
of society with the fear of losing the economic and political interests it has gained 
through elections, and which has built it many times. Coming from the her most democratic 
belki of parliamentary democracies, the predictions of comrade Errico Malatesta, which 
brought the tyranny that imposed the at survival in of the interests of its minorities 
with the rhetoric of the current power of the Turkish Republic as the interests of society 
through elections, in 1924, are today, perhaps even more current than ever. standing in 
front of us.

https://seninmedyan.org/2019/04/01/31-mart-secimleri-uzerine/

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

Message: 5





The creation of a new libertarian communist organization is not nothing. Especially when 
it comes to two political organizations to merge to create a new entity capable of taking 
the best in the organization and the militant practices of each, without denying its past 
or its history. Back on several intense months of exchanges and creation. ---- Libertarian 
Alternative (AL) and the Coordination of Anarchist Groups (CGA) have started for more than 
a year a process that will culminate in June 2019 in the creation of a new organization 
bringing together the libertarian communists. ---- First contacts ---- It was in December 
2017 that Libertarian Alternative received a message from the CGA proposing a meeting. 
Libertarian alternative has responded favorably to this proposition: we are always in 
favor of discussions with revolutionaries and libertarians. While the local links between 
AL and CGA have always existed in the cities where both organizations are present, at the 
federal level we had not taken the time to exchange " officially " since 2012. AL thus 
prepared this meeting with particular care, especially since we knew our closeness on many 
aspects with our comrades.

The CGA then drew a negative balance of the latest social movements: it was not long after 
the failure of mobilizations against the laws Work 1 and 2. But it also pointed to many 
weaknesses in the libertarian movement.

One thing was certain: it is through more exchanges and a concrete rapprochement that we 
would strengthen our current. These exchanges quickly showed a proximity at once 
ideological, organizational and in the militant practices. It was particularly interesting 
to observe that organizations with very different histories (AL came indirectly from the 
Anarchist Revolutionary Organization, and the CGA from the Anarchist Federation) arrived 
in 2018 with thoughts and practices so close.

It then seemed natural to start a more sustained exchange process, in order to decide 
whether or not we could hope to militate in the same organization.

A " road map "
AL and CGA both wanted to take the time without losing. Take time for the discussion, ask 
all the questions, even the most uncomfortable, because it is the key to the subsequent 
comfort. But without wasting time in infernal and sterile roundtrips, which prevent 
militating on the ground and in social movements.

This is why a roadmap has been put in place to frame the process. This document, approved 
by AL and CGA activists, scheduled a succession of meetings. Operating meetings, between 
delegations, to understand the culture of the other, its politics, its internal 
functioning, its militant practices. Local meetings too, in areas where both were present, 
to learn to work together. Thematic meetings on anti-patriarchy, activism at work, places 
of study, etc.

This roadmap was peppered with moments of verification where each organization could say " 
Stop or again ". This allowed a great efficiency in the exchanges, while respecting the 
democratic times of discussion inside the federations.

The main challenge we have faced is, of course, that of distinct militant cultures. It is 
not enough to have similar analyzes, but to be able to work together on a daily basis, and 
in the same direction !

The first question, when we want to bring together members of the same current, is to know 
what current we are talking about. AL has a habit of claiming libertarian communism. The 
activists of the CGA opted either for this term or for that of social anarchism. But 
things are never so clear. The term " anarchist " for example, is claimed by some to AL, 
while it is avoided by others. It is a semantic question that we did not consider 
fundamental to decide.

Very quickly during the process, there appeared a central difference: that of federal 
operation. If you want to caricature, AL has a flexible operation that tries to optimize 
its efficiency and responsiveness. The CGA can sometimes be more " strict ", emphasizing 
respect for democracy and mandate culture. After this, we soon realized that the CGA 
comrades were looking for a more consistent federal operation, and that additional 
democratic safeguards would not hurt AL. In short, the two systems were reconcilable, and 
it's all about where the cursor is !

But once we have discussed politics, once we think that we will be able to find a common 
operation, there remains a central question: that of militant practices. You can always 
agree theoretically with the comrade opposite, if your practices are divergent, mayonnaise 
may not take. A very important moment to verify this point was the AL 2018 Summer Days. At 
this annual event without any decision-making issues, AL and CGA activists were able to 
work together in a friendly atmosphere. where we live self-management daily. There was a 
beautiful alchemy, a beautiful fellowship. Yes, wash the toilets by discussing the strike 
of the cheminot.es approaches ...

Let's not be angelic: there are of course questions in debate ... and fortunately ! That's 
politics: organizing the democratic debate, so that we can make decisions together, that 
will be implemented by a maximum of comrades, go in the same direction, effectively. No 
doubt we will equip ourselves with tools to make these debates live internally.

Expand the process to the maximum
Throughout the process, AL and CGA have kept one thing in mind: we are not simply merging 
two close organizations. We create a new organization, with its own functioning, inspired 
by the best of both, but also new ideas. We want to go beyond both entities. Because the 
goal is to gather widely people who want to campaign in an organization rooted in social 
movements, in an anti-capitalist, feminist and anti-racist organization, in a libertarian 
organization, which will give itself the means to advance its ideas. See you next June at 
the congress for the final act !

Adèle (AL Montreuil)

Some dates for the rest of the process
April 27 in Paris: a final federal meeting will take place between AL and the CGA to 
validate the texts and amendments submitted to the congress.

 From 8 to 10 June in the Allier will take place the founding congress of the new 
organization. We will have a new name, a new manifesto and new statutes. We will also 
appoint comrades to the different tasks to be assured. As a result of this conference, LA 
and CGA activists will meet (or not) separately to dissolve their respective 
organizations, if the news satisfies them !

Afterwards, for a few months, we will decide, according to the methods voted at the 
congress, what we do with our political legacy: the dozens of texts written, voted and 
published by AL and the CGA for years. No question of making a clean sweep of the past ! 
We have a story, or rather stories, and we keep them, or not. While writing a new page ...

http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?AL-CGA-une-fusion-pour-se-depasser

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

Message: 6





The recent machinations of our actual and would-be rulers are interesting! ---- Jeremy 
Corbyn responded to Theresa May's request for talks about a possible alternative Brexit 
deal by dropping his demands for a general election. May started the overture with an 
appeal for "national unity to deliver the national interest." ---- Instead of talking 
about working class unity Corbyn responded to this with the statement that he would agree 
to talks and recognised his "responsibility to represent the people that supported Labour 
in the last election and the people who didn't support Labour." Instead of pressing ahead 
with a no confidence motion in the government, he now commits himself to "national unity".
For the last three years Corbyn has tolerated the Blairite/Brownite right within his own 
party against the feelings of those thousands who have joined Labour recently, believing 
it was a vehicle for radical social change.

Corbyn's office criticised Tom Watson, deputy leader of the Labour Party, when he said 
that he was ready to enter a party of unity with Remainer Tories but three days later 
Corbyn got involved in exactly the same sort of manoeuvre. He talks about looking for a 
way "to unite Parliament and the country".

We can see from this that Corbyn is prepared to run to the aid of a political system that 
appears to be tearing itself apart. The British ruling class can gauge Corbyn as an ally 
against any genuine working class movement by diverting it into the trap of the Labour 
Party and the illusion of a parliamentary road to "socialism".

This is probably the worst crisis that the British ruling class has faced since the Second 
World War. Instead of highlighting this, instead of supporting freedom of movement, 
raising the grave problems of climate change, the destruction of the NHS, the rise of 
racism and populism, and the ongoing austerity measures, Corbyn seeks to get the chestnuts 
out of the fire for the Conservative government.

It just goes to show that the boss class can always rely on Her Majesty's Loyal 
Opposition. In reality, there is no parliamentary road to socialism, and the role of 
socialists is not acting in "national unity" but is to divide that unity and tear down 
nations - class against class. The only genuine road to socialism is revolutionary, 
anti-capitalist and internationalist.

https://www.anarchistcommunism.org/2019/04/07/afternoon-tea-with-corbyn-and-may/

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

Message: 7





Lekhetho Mtetwa, a member of the Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front (ZACF) discusses his 
role in the Landless People's Movement (LPM), formed in South  Africa in 2001. While the 
LPM was affiliated to Via Campesina, and linked to the Landless Workers Movement 
(Movimento dos Trabalhadores Sem Terra: MST), its activities centred on urban squatter 
communities, rather than farm occupations or organising alternative agrarian systems. 
Then-living in a squatter camp in Protea South, Soweto, Mtetwa served as the local 
secretary; by 2013, this was the key LPM branch. Several attempts were made by political 
parties to capture Protea South LPM, using patronage and promises, leading to the eventual 
implosion of the branch. Mtetwa provides an essential analysis of the rise and fall of the 
LPM, and the role that anarchists can play in such social movements.

A ZACF Anarchist in the Landless People's Movement, South Africa: Interview with Lekhetho 
Mtetwa
Introduction

The Landless People's Movement (LPM) was formed in 2001, much of the initial impetus 
coming from an NGO body called the National Land Committee (NLC). Although affiliated to 
Via Campesina, and linked to the Landless Workers Movement (MST) in Brazil, its activity 
has centred on the struggles of urban squatter communities, rather than on agrarian 
issues, farm occupations or organising alternative production systems. In 2004, LPM 
supporters protested the national elections declaring "No Land! No Vote!" In 2008, the 
Gauteng province-based LPM sections (now the main LPM affiliates) formed the Poor People's 
Alliance with the squatters' movement Abahlali baseMjondolo and the Rural Network / 
Abahlali basePlasini (both in KwaZulu-Natal), and the Anti-Eviction Campaign (in the 
Western Cape). The Poor People's Alliance also took an anti-electoral position.

In the texts provided below, Lekhetho Mtetwa, an activist in the LPM in Protea South in 
Soweto, and a member of the Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front (ZACF), discusses the 
struggles of the LPM. Mtetwa was, at the time, LPM secretary in Protea South. It is 
important to note that by 2013 the LPM in Protea South in Soweto was the main LPM 
affiliate. Since Mtetwa's comments were made, this section has faced notable challenges. 
In 2010, a founder member and office-bearer sought to use the LPM to support her running 
for municipal office on a Democratic Alliance (DA)-linked ticket. This was defeated by 
Mtetwa and others, but a long- term schism resulted. From 2014, many in LPM-Protea South 
were (successfully) wooed by the new Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) party: Mtetwa 
resigned in protest. Despite some subsequent disillusion in EFF, following the 2014 
national elections, the section has not fully revived. It seems likely that it will be 
replaced by a branch of Abahlali baseMjondolo.

The texts

Two texts are provided below. The first is a lightly edited transcript of an introduction 
to the LPM that Mtetwa gave on the 29 September 2013, at the "Politics at a Distance from 
the State" conference at Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa. The second text is 
an interview with Mtetwa, at the same event, by Lucien van der Walt, on 30 September.

Part 1: Lekhetho Mtetwa: The Landless People's Movement fights for the people's rights
"I am from the Landless People's Movement (LPM), a movement that engages the people on 
land issues. People have been protesting for their right to land, while the state is 
trying to privatise and control land, and also push shack-dwellers away from the cities. 
The eviction of people is ongoing, so we fight for the "right to the city," and for the 
right to land and housing.

"Another issue we address is unemployment: land is not enough. The workers and the 
unemployed should occupy factories and workplaces, so that we can have jobs and meet our 
needs.

"What does the word ‘state' mean? The state rests on violence against the working class.

"At election times, politicians make empty promises, but after the elections they deploy 
violence against us, the working class. Our structures have been attacked by police and by 
vigilantes. In 2004, we had comrades who were arrested and tortured when they campaigned 
at election time, saying "No Land! No Vote!" In 2007, on the 3rd September, we were 
barricading roads, and we lost one comrade: he was knocked over by a van that rode away. 
The police attacked us, although we were exercising and demanding our rights.

"I am involved in the LPM in Protea South, Soweto, where we are shack-dwellers. The state 
wants to remove all the shack dwellers, and to then use the land for houses for other 
people. This is a major issue that we are fighting. Forced removals are what we are 
facing. Housing is what we want: to be housed properly.

"We also face a lack of consultation from our so-called elected municipal councillors: 
they do things, without consulting the community. The politicians rely on the votes of our 
grandparents: they use them to get elected, promising this and that to get at the end of 
the day more votes.

"These are the problems that we are facing. To organise and fight for the things I have 
mentioned, we as LPM Protea South usually have a protest march or barricade the streets, 
so we can be seen by the state as fighting for our demands. Normally we make it a point 
that no-one from our community goes to work during the protests. There are shops in our 
area: we make it a point that no-one opens on that day also.

"If each and every person joins the struggle, we can make changes. We need to fight the 
struggle together: even fighting for our rights in Protea South is not only a fight for 
LPM members only, but for everyone who lives in in this community and in this world. We 
are fighting for everyone who needs land and freedom.

"All social movements should organise all the ordinary people to take direct action to 
defeat the state and the capitalists. If we always talk and talk without action, we are 
like an empty vessel. We need to be creative, and I push the idea of a poor people's 
summit, to build for big day of action and to allow struggles to be linked up."

Part 2: Lekhetho Mtetwa: Rebuilding the Landless People's Movement from below
Lucien van der Walt (LvdW): Thanks very much for agreeing to be interviewed. Can you tell 
me a bit about yourself and about the Landless People's Movement (LPM) and its work?

Lekhetho Mtetwa (LM): I am Lekhetho Mtetwa, secretary of the LPM in Protea South, from 
Chiawelo, in Soweto.

The LPM was set up in Protea South in 2001, and the person who introduced it was Maureen 
Mnisi. She became its chairperson for plus-minus 11 years, and was also Gauteng LPM chair.

How did I join? I raised issues in a public meeting, around land, and people said, "You 
know what, come and join us." And I was given light on how the LPM movement works, by word 
of mouth. Later I was given the documents of the movement. Eventually I was selected as a 
secretary, because I was politically strong. Initially I was co-opted onto the committee, 
later I was elected.

The LPM fights for the rights of the people, for housing, land, and jobs and against 
evictions. It fights so that the people may be able to support their families.

It doesn't support elections to the state, including to town councils. LPM focuses on the 
needs of the youth, and the community. We take the demands, and go to the local 
councillor, and present the demands. If nothing happens then, we take our demands to the 
top. And if nobody listens, then we march on government offices, and present a memorandum, 
and we barricade the roads, and stay-away from work.

LVDW: Can you can you tell me more about the current situation of the LPM? How is it doing 
these days?

LM: We are trying our best to rebuild the movement, and most of the support we have, we 
are getting from our community - and also from other social movements, which support us.

The LPM was, at one stage, claiming to be a country-wide organisation. Today, though, the 
main branch is in Protea South, Soweto. One of the issues is that there is not a structure 
linking different branches, even if they did exist. But as far as I know, the only other 
existing branch involves comrades in Durban. But there is nothing which I heard from that 
side for some time, about what they are maybe doing. We have contacts with them, but there 
is nothing we have planned together.

Understanding the problems, let us remember our branch of the LPM and other branches also, 
have faced repression. In our case has included arrests and assaults, and also attacks 
from vigilantes from nearby better-off areas in Soweto.

But there are also internal challenges. Recently there was a change in the leadership of 
the LPM branch in Protea South: I am the secretary of the new leadership. This change was 
linked to a fight against people who were using the movement for their own benefit, 
including trying to push it to join political parties, and provide votes. This is part of 
a bigger problem of nepotism, favouritism and opportunism that we see in some movements, 
and that we fight.

The earlier leadership tended to be top-down, not always even elected. We have changed 
that. What we are doing now is involving each and every person in our community, so that 
they can be part of us. What I am trying to say is that, as "leadership," we are not 
saying that, because we are the leaders or office-bearers, we will control and do 
everything. Instead, before we take things forward, we call a mass meeting wherein the 
community brings up suggestions and issues. Then we sit down as a committee, look at these 
matters, and then work out a way ahead. Then after that, we go back to the community: if 
they agree with everything, then we go further with everything; that is what we do; 
otherwise we again take the points and again change the plan, and again go back to the 
community.

Our focus is our branch's work, where we try our best to make the LPM movement go back to 
what it was before, but better. At this present moment we are trying to rebuild the 
movement within our community, and from there, we are planning to start other branches in 
other places.

LVDW: In the past, the LPM used the slogans "No Land! No Vote!" and then "No Land! No 
House! No Vote!" once it helped form the Poor People's Alliance along with Abahlali 
baseMjondolo and others in 2008. Do these slogans still get used?

LM: Yes, it doesn't end. It doesn't end as long as we are living under the circumstances 
under which we are living.

LVDW: And in the long-run what would be your vision of a new, a better South Africa? And 
what would be required to make this into reality?

LM: For me, I want to see everyone owning land and resources together, in common; everyone 
having a house, people living equal lifestyles and having useful jobs.

We should introduce the anarchist principles: all movements should come together and fight 
the system and in that way, build for revolution. We will then be able to defeat the state 
and the capitalists and thereafter the working class and poor people will be the ones 
controlling everything - everything which the bosses and politicians are owning and 
controlling at this present moment.

LVDW: How do you think we can create, solve the job problem in South Africa?

LM: By kicking out the bosses and taking over the factories and workplaces. That is the 
only way.

LVDW: Thanks very much for your time.

LM: Thanks a lot, com.

SOURCE: Lekhetho Mtetwa, 2018, "Interview: The Landless People's Movement Fights for the 
People's Rights," 29-30 September 2013, in Kirk Helliker and Lucien van der Walt (eds.), 
Politics at a Distance from the State: Radical and African Perspectives, Routledge: 
London, New York, pp. 149-152.

https://zabalaza.net/2019/04/05/a-zacf-anarchist-in-the-landless-peoples-movement-south-africa-interview-with-lekhetho-mtetwa/#more-5870

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