Today's Topics:
1. ait rus, May Day appeal K.R.A.S. 2019 - What and why do we
celebrate the First of May? [machine translation]
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
2. zabalaza.net-anarkismo.net: A Case for Anarchist Class
Analysis - Why it Works Better than the Marxist Approach and What
it Means for Struggles by Leroy Maisiri (ZACF) (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
3. Greece, A common anti-fascist communication on the paths in
Kalamaria and Menemeni 7/4/2019 By APO [machine translation]
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
4. [Brasilia-DF] Pamphlet of the Autonomous General Union
(SIGA-DF) [FOB] for the 1st of May By ANA (pt) [machine
translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
5. asran arshism: Rojava Democratic Confederations Lessons for
Democratic Iranians [machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
On May 1, 1886, in Chicago, police shot a rally of workers demanding an 8-hour workday.
After that, the anarchist workers Parsons, Spies, Fisher and Angel were executed on
trumped-up charges, and Ling died in prison. In memory of these "Chicago martyrs" the day
of international solidarity of working people began to be celebrated throughout the world.
---- Solidarity is what we need today more than ever. The owners of "factories,
newspapers, steamboats", relying on the power of the state machine, try to divide us, set
us on top of each other, so that they can be more comfortable to rob us. We are forced to
compete with each other for jobs and more profitable sale of their hands and brains - and
under the guise of this work in unworthy human conditions, for pennies and as long as the
owner needs.
We are subjected to all the new bullying reforms: they take away the last social
guarantees, extend the retirement age so that most of the population does not live up to
it at all, raise taxes, prices, housing and utilities fees, tolls on roads, destroy public
education and health care. ...
And the ruling officials are more and more openly and brazenly mocking us, declaring that
"the state owes us nothing" to us, and we have enough of "eating makaroshka".
We, the people of work - working, students, pensioners, the unemployed - have been
declared a war "from above." In order to offer decent resistance, we must unite in free
organizations of workers at the place of work, study and residence, without political
parties, leaders, bosses and bureaucrats.
In such unions, decisions will be made equally by everyone, at general meetings. These
organizations will begin to work on the basis of direct action, that is, without the
involvement of party and trade union officials and without regard to unfair laws. Such
associations will not only allow us to protect our rights and interests, but also be able
to take a course towards achieving a just society based on universal self-government and
the principle "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
Remember: A TRUMPING SYSTEM. She is afraid of even the slightest protests if their
participants are determined and ready to fight. The language of strikes and protests is
the only one she understands.
Only in the fight will we gain our right!
Russian Section of the International Association of Workers
https://aitrus.info/node/5256
------------------------------
Message: 2
The purpose of this pamphlet is giving a coherent, comparative analysis on how anarchists
and Marxists view the concept of "class," and the political implications of each approach.
Class is the nucleus of both Marxism and anarchism; however the conceptualisation of class
is different for both. In pointing out these differences, it is my hope that I will
convincingly show how and why the anarchist conceptualisation of class is more
comprehensive and more useful, providing a more holistic analysis of many related aspects
of class, and a more practical political guide. In particular, the anarchist approach -
which stresses ownership and control of administration and coercion, not only means of
production, as with Marxism - allows us to develop an effective analysis of why the state
simply cannot be used to emancipate the popular classes i.e. the working class, the poor
and the peasantry.
Theory Matters
The use of theory within the Left has serious implications in our lived experiences and
political praxis. Theory has been deployed for, and many times profoundly shaped,
political action. Simply put, how we analyse the problem shapes what we see as the solution.
It is therefore essential that activists and the Left, in general, not only know and
understand the differences between anarchists and Marxists, but remain cognisant of the
implications these differing views have for day-to-day struggle. Like the Marxists, our
theory as anarchists is, from the outset, not developed by arm-chair reasoning, or by
intellectual work for the simple pleasure it brings, but as a means of change. Anarchism
was designed by and by, the working class in its struggles, and so, it must be tested and
regulated by everyday struggles. If we have bad theory, we have bad practice; we need
theory to understand what we are fighting and to understand how it can change.
The Marxists on Class
In the teachings of Marxism, class is defined as a social relationship built around
differential possession and rights over the means of production i.e. raw materials, tools
and equipment, including machinery, used in production.[1]It is the relationship to the
means of production that defines class. Not all societies have classes. But in class-based
societies there is, the argument goes, a small group (an upper, or ruling, class) that
owns the means of production, which locates that group of people in a position of
dominance over a much larger group (a producing class) that is marked by its lack of
control and ownership over these means of production.
Classes are therefore a relation of production, and this relationship is characterised by
exploitation: the class lacking control and ownership has to work for the owning class,
and earns less in return than it produces, and is therefore exploited; since it is without
ownership, it is dominated - ruled - by the owning class, and we have thereby a situation
where the majority is both an exploited and a dominated class, suffering all sorts of
oppressions, besides exploitation, as it, the lower class, is bled out for the benefit of
the few. So, class relations are social relations, based on the different class positions
of different individuals i.e. class differences in rights and powers over the forces of
production.[2]
Marxist class analysis highlights conflict as intrinsic to class relations. The fact of
exploitation means that in class societies, there is a structured relation of inequality
between the main classes. The livelihood of the exploiters can only be secured by the
constant, systematic exploitation of the oppressed lower class. Therefore within class
societies, exploitation is structural - it's not just about bad conditions and bad
attitudes, but built-in - and describes the core type of relationship that exist between
the classes. What this also means is that class societies are based on a core
contradiction: there are fundamentally opposed class interests, since the oppressed class
is harmed by exploitation and resists it, while the oppressor class needs exploitation and
imposes it.[3]
The silver lining in this structural darkness is that exploitation means dependence: the
upper class has to rely on the low class for its incomes and so, its very survival; its
very existence as a class is inevitably linked to the existence of the class system.
However, this creates a pressure point, massive structural leverage that the lower classes
can use against the upper class to win reforms. In short, the lower class can disrupt
production, and therefore force concessions from the upper class, and the upper class
cannot exterminate, replace or remove the lower class.
For Marxism, it is important to note here, the owning class also controls the state - the
army, the administration, the government - due to its economic dominance of society, which
then acts as a machine to keep this unjust system going. Since the two main classes have
different interests, they are involved in a class struggle, and this struggle, the
existing state is aligned to the owning class. This is why, for example, police kill
strikers not bankers.
The Marxist Idea of "Historical Materialism"
Why the focus on the means of production? Marxist theory views society as basically
structured around the mode of production, which is a mixture of a specific set of forces
of production (means of production plus labour) and specific relations of production
(specific class system), each mode operating on specific historic laws. For example,
capitalism has machine-based forces of production, and is a society based on a
wage-earning lower class (working class/ proletariat) exploited by capitalist class
(bourgeoisie) compelled to make profits by selling goods and services.
Beyond this, Marxism tends to see history moving through a series of ever-more advanced
modes of production until we are in a position in which a classless mode of production can
emerge through a socialist transition. In this sense, Marxism can be generally understood
as explaining the history of the economy in order to explain the history of society.[4]
For Marxism, society's laws, ideas, politics and culture are all a superstructure that
rests on an economic base. These "superstructural" elements are very real, very solid, but
they are basically seen as a product of something deeper and even more solid, the "base."
In Marxism the economic base is the determiner of what type of society will exist, and
what type of class relations will occur, and how power will be produced and used.[5]
In Marxist reasoning, the base leads to everything else. It is the prime mover. This is
exactly why each type of society is defined in terms of a mode of production, why the
historical laws of each mode are basically about the dynamics in the economy, and why the
core social relations are the relation to the means of production, why in fact class is
itself seen as a relation of production,[6]and why there is the Marxist idea that the
state serves the economically dominant class.
Marxism also believes its model of society to be scientific, and thus its political
programme is not just a programme, but truth, not just a prophecy about change, but a set
of scientific predictions. Obviously this claim to science is easily translated into the
idea that the "truth" of Marxism is non-debatable - can you "debate" gravity? - and, as
such, there is no room for competing ideologies. Since Marxism claims to be scientific,
and that its view is the one, true working class ideology, all other approaches are at
best unscientific, and at worst represent the views of other classes e.g. the bourgeoisie,
petty bourgeoisie, feudalists, lumpen-proletariat etc.
This act of grand-standing by Marxism gets taken to the point where Marxism is presented
as created by history - as a merely a "discovery" of reality - and not as a set of ideas
initially devised by a few men in a specific context: Karl Marx and Frederick Engels in
the 1840s. In this depiction Marx is becomes merely a scientist describing the facts, and
the description (Marxism) an all-knowing model that is never wrong, and which explains
where we come from and where we are going: a History with a final destination (teleology),
that just happens to correspond precisely to what Marx and Engels believed should happen.
So, Marx believed the working class was duty-bound by History to move into a certain
direction, and to end up with a revolutionary state, a Dictatorship of the Proletariat
(DOP), and since the proletariat's "real" ideology is supposedly Marxism that meant a DOP
run by. the Marxists. It was not about what the working class wanted or needed, but
rather, about what the working class supposedly was, and was consequently compelled to do
i.e. it was all about the historical purpose bestowed on them from the very beginning of
time.[7]
The Marxists' Valuable Contributions
As this paper continues to unfold it should be made clear that Marxism cannot be taken as
scientific, but that one can certainly use parts of it and benefit from this, for there
are many parts that help generate scientific knowledge. Marxism is not a "science," but is
rather than ideology that mixes some scientific elements (like a profound analysis of
capitalism: Marxist economics) with unprovable and unscientific claims (like teleology,
the necessity of the DOP, the claim to be the one, true working class theory and so on).
If we put aside the criticisms of the political agenda and the grandstanding claims of
Marxism, great credit must go to Marxism for its powerful analysis of capitalism, the
precision and attention to detail it brings to bear, its ability to highlight and name
many things, which, now conceptualised, can be debated and contested.
If nothing else, Marxism is a powerful and challenging set of ideas that have undoubtedly
contributed to the development of scientific ideas - even if just as an object of
critique. Anarchism itself emerged through debates over Marxism in the 1860s and 1870s,
and remains deeply influenced by Marxist economics.[8]However, anarchism is not Marxism
and breaks with it in key ways - and one of the breaks is over the issue of how we
understand "class."
Marxist class analysis builds on the concepts of exploitation and domination, and when
this applied to modern capitalism, it is a profound criticism of (the dominant) liberal
economic theory, which sees capitalism as a benevolent system based on the choices of free
individuals. Marxism locates individuals in classes, stresses the unequal relations
between the classes, and the exploited and dominated nature of the working class, and the
contradictions in capitalism. In doing so it explodes the liberal myths of free markets
and free choice, with a picture of inequality, crisis and oppression.
While the liberals focus on exchange - choices within markets - Marxism unpacks the
relationship between exchange and production in capitalism.[9]Marxists use class analysis
to emphasise the close links between the ways in which social relations are organised
within exchange and within production: for example, working class people are not just
consumers, but also people who have to sell themselves for wages in order to survive. This
is an example of how differences of ownership and non-ownership of the means of production
play out. There is structured variation in how individuals can exercise choices, and these
come down to different rights and powers over productive forces i.e. the prearranged class
relations.[10]
Where does Anarchist Class Analysis Differ from Marxism?
Anarchists aim to separate all the good of Marxism from the bad, and build on that good,
to develop something different. In this sense, anarchists critically appropriate Marxist
theory, but shear it of its economic reductionism, teleology, DOP doctrine and associated
party-building focus, while developing a much larger critique of society that opposes all
forms of hierarchy.
Class Analysis without Base / Superstructure
In the first place, the anarchists do not agree with the Marxist model of historical
materialism. Anarchists like Mikhail Bakunin and Rudolph Rocker completely accepted the
Marxist claim that economic factors were enormously important. For example, it is a fact
that many wars are waged to get access to cheap labour and cheap raw materials. However,
they rejected the idea that everything can be derived from or reduced to the
base.[11]Ideas, laws, politics and culture - and the dynamics of the state itself - cannot
always be read off the economy. For example, a state based on an ideology of nationalism
will often engage in activities like deporting undocumented immigrants because they are
foreign, even though this limits the supply of cheap labor to many capitalists. War, too,
can be due to rivalries in the state system - rather than economic issues, as Bakunin
argued. The apartheid state definitely benefited capitalism by providing cheap, unfree
black African labour, but its very difficult to see what laws - strictly imposed - that
banned sex across the race line had to do with capitalism or the economic "base."
The whole idea that history is going in a definite direction is also, as Piotr Kropotkin
argued, a completely unscientific "metaphysical" view - and many of Marxism's specific
predictions have proved false.[12]
For example, Marshall Berman in his book, All that is Solid Melts into Air noted that
Marx's stress on the incredibly disruptive nature of capitalism undermined Marx's
prediction that capitalist society would polarise into a small, unified capitalist class
facing a vast, increasingly united and conscious working class, set on creating the
DOP.[13]If working classes were continually disrupted, uprooted, and disintegrated, argued
Berman, how would the conscious global working class get a chance to form itself into a
coherent agent that can unite and overthrow the system?
Marx believed that divisions of age, gender and nationality would be eroded by capitalist
development, but it could equally be argued that the endless disruptions of capitalism
would continually inflame these divisions. Post-apartheid South Africa, which has an
official ideology of non-racialism, non-sexism and African belonging typifies this
analysis, having the working class fractured by divides of women/ men, black/ coloured/
Indian/ white, and South African/ foreign. If the working class is continuously put in a
blender and chopped up - as Marx predicted - how can it be united by the very process of
capitalism - as Marx also predicted?[14]
What this means is that there is no real basis for a base/ superstructure model, a serious
problem with teleological views, and strong grounds to be highly sceptical of Marxism's
claims to be a science.
The DOP as Contradiction in Marxist Theory
It is worth noting here that there is a contradiction within the Marxist theory itself on
these same issues. The materialist conception of history argues that society moves
fundamentally in a way that can be extrapolated from the economic base, this applying to
everything we see and do, including the world of ideas; in this view the state itself is a
superstructure, emerging as the product of the rise of class society, with class society,
of course, seen basically in terms of a society becoming fractured between owners and
non-owners of means of production, and the onwers needing a state to defend themselves.
But the Marxist theory of transition from capitalism to communism centres in the idea of a
DOP. This is a revolutionary state, which is supposed to create socialism by suppressing
the capitalist class, taking over the means of production, and supposedly representing the
working class. It goes without saying that for Marxists the DOP will be a Marxist state,
since Marxism claims to be the one true working class ideology and the DOP is supposed to
be the one true working class state.
Marx and Engels always insisted against Bakunin and Kropotkin that a working class
revolution could only take place through a Marxist state, a DOP, and that the DOP was
essential to expropriate the capitalists of the means of production, suppress their
violent resistance and start to construct a new planned economy. The DOP enables the
socialist mode of production, in which the formerly oppressed working class suppresses the
formerly exploiting capitalist class. When it has done its job, there are no classes, and
we come into a classless communist mode of production, which is the end of the story.
But if when looking at the nature of the DOP, one can see that it is a state, and so, a
superstructure. But now, suddenly, the state is no longer a reflection of the base as the
theory prescribes and in fact its ideology - Marxism - also does not clearly come from
that base. The DOP emerges within the capitalist mode of production but it is not
determined by it. It is a superstructure that is used to then revolutionise the base and
change society. But if the superstructure can change the base, then either the Marxist
theory of historical materialism is wrong or the DOP theory is wrong. In either case, this
is an incoherent jump in the Marxist system that questions its reliability and highlights
its non-scientific nature.[15]
If it is the DOP that will begin to create a better society using state power, and this
means in the first place creating a new base - a new set of social relations of production
- how can this be reconciled with the Marxist insistence that everything originally comes
from and reflects the base, even the state? That would mean the DOP reflects the base, and
if so, the DOP cannot emerge under capitalism, but if it does not emerge under capitalism
it is pointless. Or we have a situation where the DOP does emerge, but this means suddenly
the opposite happens: superstructure determines base. So which is it?
Class Analysis beyond Means of Production
But then, second, if the historical materialist theory of society falls away, and we have
to take the state, ideas, culture and politics seriously in their own right - as
irreducible phenomena, which are linked to economic issues but also distinct[16]- what is
the basis for insisting withn the Marxists that class must be reduced to a relation of
production, or defined by ownership / non-ownership of the means of production? Economic
issues are essential but are they enough?
If the economy is no longer the determining factor in society, is there any specific
reason to insist that class is basically, and only, about a relation to the means of
production, or even to insist that the state is controlled by an economically dominant
group? If the state has its own dynamics, what does this mean for understanding class?
Bakunin noted in the 1870s that new ruling elites could emerge from within the state, as
former nationalist leaders used state power to become exploiting, dominating elites: he
gave the example of Serbia in Eastern Europe.[17]Lucien van der Walt noted how, in the
late industrialising powers of Germany and Japan, states led by modernising feudal lords
created capitalist industry for military purposes.[18]The work of Robert Fatton
highlighted how postcolonial African states enabled elite accumulation and the formation
of new ruling classes, which some have called a "bureaucratic bourgeoisie."[19]
These examples go against the economic determinism found in Marxism: here we see political
(state) power generate economic (capitalist) power, which is the opposite of historical
materialism argues. It is important to look at such cases seriously and to avoid the arm
chair reasoning that skips empirical tests, as is the case with a fair amount of Marxism.
The pure Marxist model - base determines superstructure, rising bourgeoisie wins state
power - might apply to some Western countries. But even there it surely does not apply to
Germany or Japan, long the second and third most powerful capitalist economies. And surely
a neat, textbook Marxism might be a reasonable theory on paper, but it struggles to
explain cases like most postcolonial African states.
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR, Soviet Union), which was the world's first
Marxist state, fits into this problem well. In making a revolution in economically
backward Russia - which had a mainly feudal, rural society, much poorer than Egypt, India
or South Africa today - Marxists like V.I. Lenin did not read the Marxist textbook. But
the fact that under Joseph Stalin, and later, in China, under Mao Zedong, it was the state
that industrialised the country, again refutes the historical materialist view.
Marxists have tried to dodge this, by saying that this shows how well "socialism" works
etc., or a "workers' state" works, but those argument only makes sense if we accept the
DOP theory, but that means throwing out historical materialism - and taking the state
seriously as a power in its own right. But then where is Marxism?
Indeed, the USSR and similar states were anything but the actual rule of the actual
working class, the proletariat. The state, as noted by writers like Alec Nove, created a
mew, top-down system: "...one could, without too much exaggeration, fit Soviet society
into a universal civil and military service model."[20]
In such a model, orders come from above, and go down; power is centralised. In the USSR,
for example, all means of production were effectively controlled by a small group that
controlled the state. In this way, the small elite was a ruling class in the Marxist sense.
But what gave it power over means of production, how did it come to "own" these means?
What was it that allowed states like Serbia in the 1800s, the USSR in the 1920s, or
independent Kenya in the 1960s economic power? It was the "means" - the resources - built
into the state itself. These are the means of coercion (the military, police, courts, and
jails, in short armed force) and means of administration(the governing apparatus,
including bureaucratic systems, government departments, parliament, and so on, in short
the bodies that enable making and administering law).
It is these, which allow those who control to the state to extract taxes, to nationalise
means of production, to employ workers, to evict people, decide at the stroke of a pen
whether a Simbabwean living and working in South Africa is "legal" or must be repatriated.
Using these resources, the new elites we spoke about earlier were able to take over
property, award themselves lucrative contracts and jobs, appoint themselves senior posts
in state and private sector, and otherwise act as a ruling group.
For the anarchists, anyone with control or ownership of any of these three means -
administration, coercion or production - that is any one of these three pillars, is part
of the ruling class. Not only this, access to any one pillar allows relatively easy
movement between the other pillars.
This is why the anarchist conceptualisation of class is quite superior to the Marxist one,
as it can easily map out the class position of, say, the President of a country, who is
not strictly a capitalist and has no means of production but is surely not a proletarian.
He or she has means of administration and coercion who has his or her own interests and
agendas. He or she can mobilise armed forces, and legislate. Generally he or she will do
so in ways that keep capitalism going, since this generates tax, and tax helps pay for
means of administration and coercion. But by having his or her own independent power base
- in the state apparatus itself - he or she is no simple tool of the capitalists, and can
make demands upon them, even disrupt them in major ways including in some cases by
nationalising means of production.
Applying the Anarchist Approach: The Soviet and South African Cases
Using anarchist theory provides a more comprehensive analysis at what is happened within
complex modern society. The anarchist, unlike the Marxist, uses a more holistic term: a
"ruling class" rather than, for example, a "capitalist class." The term "capitalist class"
which Marxists use for capitalist society's ruling group just does not accurately capture
the ruling group in the state. It continues the economistic focus, reducing the ruling
class to the economically dominant class. But political domination through the state is
essential for the survival of the economically dominant group - through armed forces and
state control - and it involves means of power not reducible to economic power - coercion
and administration.
By saying "ruling class," we are speaking in detail of what is happening in the penthouse
layer of society: within the ruling class we are acknowledging that there exist different
types of elites, the economic elite, or capitalists, and the political elite, or state
managers, and we are positing that "State + Capital = Ruling Class."[21]Therefore when
conceptualising class relations, anarchists look at three pillars that can be used to help
locate which class an individual can be found in. The first one is production which is
neatly covered by Marxism the second one is administration and the last one is
coercion.[22]Fatton called such elements "class powers."[23]
Obviously the exact way a given ruling class is structured - how the pillars fit together,
and who is in each - can vary. In the USSR, all means of administration, coercion and
production were centralised into a single state. In the United States of America, most
means of production tend be in the hands of private capitalists, and most means of
administration and coercion are in the state, so here we have the ruling class structured
into two wings. In many postcolonial African countries, the state elite tended to be
comprised of a local elite, mostly from indigenous races, and merging from the educated
"middle" class, which rode to power through the nationalist movements that captured state
power at independence, while private capital tended to be foreign, usually owned by large
multi-national companies. Here we have two wings, but while in the USA the two wings
tended to both be mainly American, in these African cases, the one wing was local, the
other foreign.
In all cases there are tussles between different sections of the elite - based in
different pillars, as well as conflicts between those in different pillars - but there is
a common class interest in keeping the system going which usually helps keep it together.
Coming closer to home in demonstrating a comprehensive analysis using anarchism, van der
Walt's piece on Who Rules South Africa gives a close look at the South African ruling
class, and does so in an intricate detail showing of the strength of anarchist approach.
His analysis argues that in post-apartheid South Africa, there exist two main ruling class
camps: one that is made up of mostly black individuals, who are the core of the state
elite, and the second camp is largely of white individuals, in the private corporate
elite. These two ruling class camps have clashes - for example, the state elite wants more
tax, the private elite, less - but these contradictions are secondary; they share a common
enemy, the South African working class.[24]
Rivals or Allies or Instruments?
In explaining the class relations one can see that the state ruling class requires capital
accumulation" to take place, first to generate tax so it is able to keep spending on
arming its military and growing its power of coercion, and in the second, because
capitalist innovations also enable the development of the forces of administration and
coercion.[25]For example, a large and efficient capitalist steel industry is key to the
production of weapons, while capitalist software used to monitor workers in the private
sector is also very useful for state surveillance.
So, the anarchist theory distinguishes between economic power and state power, but unlike
the Marxist narrow conception where the state "serves" the interests of the capitalists in
some way, where in effect the capitalists are the top dog and the state is basically
subordinate, the anarchist theory argues that both camps share generally common interests,
but neither of them use the other as a means to an end.[26]The state elite needs capital
accumulation to fund and arm itself; the private elite needs the state's power to maintain
capital accumulation.[27]
The anarchist perspective views the typical ruling class under capitalism as having "two
wings: private capitalists centred on means of production in corporations, and state
managers, centred on means of administration and coercion in the state,"[28]although these
can merge, as was the case in the USSR
What this Means for Revolutionary Change
In the beginning of this paper I argued that Marxism, and anarchism, as a theories aiming
to fundamentally change society, must be tested in struggles - and are theories that are
meant to be used in struggles. This means that we need to consider carefully the theories
in terms of their usefulness and in terms of their political implications.
I also argued that both Marxists and anarchists see class as the central fact of
capitalist society, and maintain that a class struggle - ending in the victory of the
oppressed, exploited classes - is the key means of breaking out of capitalism and ending
its state. I have also argued that anarchists agree with a great amount of the Marxist
analyses of capitalism, although not everything.
The theories differ in some important ways, as I have shown. The Marxist model centres on
the idea of historical materialism, with its base/ superstructure model, while the
anarchists have insisted that while economic factors are very important, ideas, politics,
the state and other factors all play their own role, and this cannot be reduced to the
economy. One expression of this is that, while Marxists reduce "class" to ownership of the
means of production, anarchists see "class" in terms of ownership or control of the means
of administration, or coercion, or production, or any combination of these.
But what does this really mean in practical terms? It had huge implications for political
strategy. Marxists have historically insisted that the DOP is the road to socialism -
essentially you need state power to defeat capitalism. Anarchists have disagreed, arguing
this would in fact create a new elite.
When we unpack the different theories at play - including the different understanding of
class - this difference makes perfect sense, and I would say also shows the anarchist
scepticism of the DOP is well-founded and far more realistic than the Marxists' faith.
In the classical Marxist tradition, the state is conceptualised as a "body of armed men"
serving the dominant class, to use Lenin's paraphrase of Marx.[29]Here the state is not
really theorised, except as something generated by the needs of something outside of
itself: the economically dominant class. The possibility that the state has its own
dynamics and interests is ruled out by the historical materialist theory, where the real
action is in the base, the prime cause of everything. Since the state is seen as simply a
shadow thrown by the class society, once that class society ends - when the DOP has done
its job - the state will somehow "wither away," in Engels' words.[30]
This does make sense in Marxist terms: remove the cause (class-divided base) then you
remove the effect (class-state). But what if, as argued earlier, the state is not just an
effect, not just a shadow, but itself a site of class power, based not on elite control of
means of production as such, but on elite control of means of administration and coercion?
That would mean the Marxist party running the DOP would be part of the ruling class,
ruling over the working class, distinct from it, dominating it and requiring it to be
exploited. Now if that same political elite also became the economic elite - by using its
administrative and coercive powers to nationalise (capture) the means of production and
suppress any private economic elite - then obviously it would also exploit the working
class directly. It would have its own class interests and it would crack down on workers
resistance, strike and dissent. And this is precisely what happened in the USSR and
similar states where the working class was systematically crushed by self-described
Marxist states.
The blindness of Marxism towards other aspects of class and the its weak theory of the
state that results for historical materialism led Marxists to create DOPs - but in doing
so, to simply end up as new ruling classes, oppressing the very people they set out to
emancipate.
This is exactly what the anarchists had in mind when they argued (like Kropotkin) that
"state... and capitalism are inseparable concepts," and insisted (like Bakunin) that
revolutionary Marxist states would end up as a type of brutal "state capitalism," not
socialism at all.
The more holistic conceptualisation of the state is important in the anarchist approach,
and explains how the state itself is a part of the class systems, creating and giving
space to a minority system of rulership that inevitably concentrates power and wealth in
the hands of a few. The state's hierarchical structure is in the very DNA of the state; it
centralises power in the hands of a small elite, and does so by no means accidentally.
Conclusion: Counter-Power, Not State Power
When comparing anarchism and Marxism, it becomes clear from the very beginning that one is
speaking of "warring brothers." Marxism, although interesting, complex and investigative,
as well as an important influence on anarchism itself, is outdone by anarchism for the
simple reason that Marxism has some fundamental errors in its analysis - and therefore in
its strategy.
Marxist theory has a strong economically reductionist and teleological thread, which
insists on trying to force everything into an explanation in which the economy is the
prime mover - even when this is clearly false. This is one of the main reasons that the
Marxist perspective simply fails to properly understand the state - despite the fact that
the state is central to society, and despite the fact that the Marxist theory for
transition is all about getting state power through a DOP. Related to this, Marxism has a
surprisingly weak theory of class.
Sadly Marxism has tended to be quite impervious to criticism. This is partly because of a
tendency to assume that Marxism is a science, while not scientifically testing key claims,
such as economic reductionism, and while insisting on ideas that cannot be scientific,
such as a teleological theory of history. The view that Marxism is the one true working
class theory has also led to a ready dismissal of criticism by labelling critics as
"anti-working class," as has long been done with the anarchists, who many Marxists dismiss
as "petty bourgeois" without any proof at all (and a lot of evidence to the contrary).
The anarchist theory retains Marxism's valuable emphasis on class, as well as accepts a
great deal of Marxist economics. But a distinctive contribution of the anarchist
perspective on class and class analysis, and to the discourse on class, is the argument
that class theory needs to be delinked from a reduction of class to economics, and the
related argument that the state must be seen as an entity that, in itself, generates
classes. It is a centralised apparatus, and while the elite at the top can be changed, it
will only change the personnel, not the role of the state itself as a site of minority
class rule. Those at the top of the state have class interests that are basically the same
as private capitalist elites - and at odds with the mass of the people.
Politically this means that the state cannot be used to end the class system, as the
misleading DOP idea claims, since it requires minority classes to exist. It cannot bring
about emancipation: as Bakunin said, "No state - not even the reddest republic - can ever
give the people what they really want."[31]The state cannot be the guardian angel of the
people against capitalism, since it is in essence allied to capitalism and identical to
it, in that it is a structure of class rule.
Therefore for the anarchist, the aim is the complete removal of the state - rather than
trying, pointlessly, to use it as a way to change society. The removal of the state is a
prerequisite for creating a self-managed, libertarian, bottom-up socialist society without
oppression and inequality i.e. an anarchist society. To create such a society requires
organising new formations of working class counter-power outside and against the state, in
place of creating parties to capture state power; it means organising democratically and
from below, unlike the top-down, elitist organising of the capitalists, through their
corporations, and the political elites, through the state. Rather than taking the shortcut
of the DOP - a road to nowhere - or hoping capitalism will automatically or inevitably
unite the working class, anarchism advocates careful organising and mass education,
knowing that only a conscious people can replace elite rule.[32]
List of References:
Berman, Marshall. (1988). All that is Solid Melts into Air: The Experience of Modernity.
Penguin.
De Vroey, M. (1980). Managers and Class Relations: A Marxist View of Ownership and
Control. In T. Nichols (ed.). Capital and Labour: A Marxist Primer. London: Fontana.
Fatton, Robert. (1988). Bringing the Ruling Class Back in: Class, State and Hegemony in
Africa. Comparative Politics. 20 (3) 253-264.
Knowles, R. (2004). Political Economy From Below: Economic Thought in Communitarian
Anarchism, 1840- 1914. Routledge.
Nove, Alec. (1975). Is There A Ruling Class in the USSR?. Soviet Studies. 27 (4): 615-638.
Van der Walt, Lucien. (2013) Who Rules South Africa?: An Anarchist/Syndicalist Analysis of
the ANC, the Post-Apartheid Elite Pact and the Political Implications. Zabalaza: A Journal
of Southern African Revolutionary Anarchism, 13: 7-13.
van der Walt, Lucien. (2016). Back to the Future: Revival, Relevance and Route of an
Anarchist/ Syndicalist Approach for Twenty-First-Century Left, Labour and National
Liberation Movements. Journal of Contemporary African Studies, 34 (3): 348-367.
van der Walt, Lucien. (2017), "Anarchism and Marxism", in N. Jun (ed.), The Brill
Companion to Anarchist Philosophy, Brill Academic Publishers, Leiden.
Wright, E.O. (2005). Foundations of a Neo-Marxist Class Analysis. In E.O. Wright (ed.).
Approaches to Class Analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Footnotes:
Wright, E.O. (2005). Foundations of a Neo-Marxist Class Analysis. In E.O. Wright (ed.).
Approaches to Class Analysis. Cambridge University Press. Pp. 4-30.
Wright (2005).
Wright (2005): 28.
De Vroey, M. (1980). Managers and Class Relations: a Marxist View of Ownership and
Control. In T. Nichols (ed.). Capital and Labour: A Marxist Primer. London: Fontana.
Wright (2005): 29.
van der Walt, Lucien. (2017), "Anarchism and Marxism", in N. Jun (ed.), The Brill
Companion to Anarchist Philosophy. Brill Academic Publishers, Leiden. Pp. 505-550.
van der Walt (2017).
van der Walt (2017).
Wright (2005).
Wright (2005).
van der Walt (2017).
van der Walt (2017).
Berman, Marshall. (1988). All That is Solid Melts into Air. The Experience of Modernity.
Penguin.
Berman (1988).
van der Walt (2017).
van der Walt (2017).
See van der Walt, Lucien. (2016). Back to the Future: Revival, Relevance and Route of an
Anarchist/ Syndicalist Approach for Twenty-First-Century Left, Labour and National
Liberation Movements. Journal of Contemporary African Studies, 34 (3): 348-367.
van der Walt (2016).
Fatton, Robert. (1988). Bringing the Ruling Class Back in: Class, State and Hegemony in
Africa. Comparative Politics. 20 (3): 253-264.
Nove, Alec. (1975). Is There A Ruling Class in the USSR? Soviet Studies. 27 (4): 616
van der Walt (2013).
van der Walt (2016).
Fatton (1988): 255.
van der Walt (2013).
van der Walt (2013).
van der Walt (2013).
van der Walt (2013).
van der Walt (2013).
van der Walt (2013).
van der Walt (2013).
Quoted in van der Walt (2013):54.
Knowles, R. (2004). Political Economy From Below: Economic Thought in Communitarian
Anarchism, 1840- 1914. Routledge. P. 7.
THE AUTHOR: Leroy Maisiri comes from Bulawayo, Zimbabwe and currently lives in South
Africa. He is involved in political education and civil society initiatives, and is
working on a study of the independent left in the anti-apartheid 1980s "people's power"
movement in South Africa.
He is also a militant of the ZACF.
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/31398
First published April 2019 as a Zabalaza Books (South Africa) pamphlet
https://zabalaza.net/2019/04/30/a-case-for-anarchist-class-analysis-why-it-works-better-than-the-marxist-approach-and-what-it-means-for-struggles-leroy-maisiri/
------------------------------
Message: 3
As soon as we were informed that the fascist group "Holy Loch" wanted to organize a
Macedonian pride party at the Kodra camp of Kalamaria, we moved to spoil the kings of the
Nazi killers. There was, and there would be no chance to leave any attempt by historical
precipitations to gain space and reason in the sphere of public life. ---- Already 2 weeks
before the party's announcement, we have made speeches, bulletins and other propaganda
moves in the Kalamaria area to break the climate of terrorism that tried to create the
wars. On the 7/4 day of the nationalist party, a public anti-fascist
counter-concentration. ---- The Holy Lodge had already changed its time on April 30 from
14:00 at 17:00 (few hours after the publication of the first call for an anti-fascist
concentration ) and a few days before the event changed at the time of the event. In the
anti-fascist concentration the number of protesters exceeded 1,200. We traveled to the
neighborhoods of Kalamaria in a long-term course defending the area's memory against the
fascist militias. We formed a joint anarchist bloc with the Black & Red, Libertatia, AMO
Ataxia, Quieta Movere, Pueblo. The block from Fabrica Jafnet, the Anti-Eastern Movement of
Thessaloniki, anti-fascist co-ordination and left-wing organizations were distinct. We
traveled through many streets of Kalamaria, returning from the coastal square to where we
first arrived.
The silence of the Fascists that were non-existent was equally deafening with our
antic-like anarchist slogans. The sacred opera with another announcement, three hours
before the start of his fascist feast, brought the event to Menemeni. As the nationalist
party moved to Menemeni, the groups decided to appoint a new appointment to get closer and
to stop the Nazi tragedy they tried to build.
We renewed our presence at Eptalofou square, in the municipality of Ampelokipon-Menemeni.
From there, more than 250 comrades have been fighting and persistently trying to get to
the park in which their co-rulers were badly and wrongly built. The police headquarters in
Thessaloniki mobilized several of its strengths to protect the fascists under the popular
state tactics of the bereaved children of the system. The course returned to the original
meeting point, where it stood for some time until it headed to the center through central
streets - arteries of the city, erasing from the beginning of the day many kilometers of
anti-fascist, anti-racist and anarchist slogans giving once again our position in the city.
As long as we live, we will not allow fascists to exist in public space. We will always
defeat them through social struggles against the state and the fossilized capital of faith
in the struggle for life and dignity. Faith and act of anarchy, libertarian communism and
social revolution.
collectiveness for Social Anarchism Black & Red / member FROM - OS
college for libertarian Communism Libertatia / member FROM - OS
Anarchist Student Assembly Quieta Movere
anarchist student group Ataxia
http://apo.squathost.com
------------------------------
Message: 4
1 the May: DAY OF WORKER AND WORKER -- REVOLUTIONARY SYNDICALISM DAY ---- On May 1, 1886,
workers in Chicago (USA) organized a general strike with large demonstrations on the
streets. It was a time of much exploration. They demanded from the bosses the 8-hour
working day. They organized themselves into revolutionary unions. ---- However, the
demonstrations were severely repressed by the police. Eight anarchist leaders were
arrested, and four of them condemned to death by the gallows! They became known as the
Chicago Martyrs. ---- Then May 1st was adopted as World Day of Workers and Work, and a
struggle for the 8-hour day, which was won in many countries. ---- In Brazil, the 8 hours
were also won by revolutionary syndicalism , which organized the general strike of 1917
among other movements. It also conquered the prohibition of child labor in our country.
TODAY we are in a new era of great exploration.
In Brazil, the Temer government approved the labor reform, which worsened working
conditions. They said it was to generate employment, but unemployment continues to rise.
The Bolsonaro administration wants to take even more rights with the pension reform.
This retirement increases the contribution time to retire and decreases the value of
retirement. Decreases even widows' pensions and the benefit of the elderly!
Throughout the world, governments and big businessmen seek to make the same kind of reform
that happens in our country, removing the rights of workers.
Today's unions, unfortunately, are not responding to the height. Many of them are allies
of bosses or governments. They use weak methods. They are often more concerned with
strengthening their own leadership than with improvements for the workers. These unions do
not seek a major change in society.
We must return to the idea of revolutionary syndicalism. It is necessary to reorganize the
workers' struggle to have, once again, the capacity to confront those policies that
precarious our living and working conditions. The movement must seek a new type of
society , without exploitation and without oppression. An egalitarian society where all
have good living conditions, time for themselves and for the family, without constant
threat of crimes and violence.
To realize this idea, the people must gather in organizations to build a true revolution
against the powerful in Brazil and in the world . Come and get organized with us!
GENERAL AUTONOMOUS UNION - SIGA (DF)
FEDERATION OF REVOLUTIONARY TRADE UNION ORGANIZATIONS OF BRAZIL - FOB
# 1world1struggle
Contact SIGA: fob-df@protonmail.com
https://lutafob.wordpress.com/2019/04/27/fob-df-panfleto-do-sindicato-geral-autonomo-siga-df-para-o-1o-de-maio/
------------------------------
Message: 5
It is no longer clear to anyone that, during the popular uprising against the Ba'athist
government in the wake of the civil war and the massive violence that has been taking
place in the country for nearly eight years, a different political-social experience in
the northern regions of Syria and its Kurdish initiative Diar is formed. While the
democratic experience of Rojava (Syria's Kurdistan), and in particular the booming and
effective presence of women in various social and political spheres, has more or less
sparked serious discussions among intellectuals and critical activists around the world,
with little regard for this phenomenon In the midst of democracy, no one wants Iran. Of
course, given the leftist and anti-capitalist tendencies of the Rojava Revolution and the
overcoming of a reformist and liberal view in the Iranian democratic movement, this
attentiveness is not very strange at first. Add to these the centralism nationalism that
has become inflated in recent years and is suspect of any political program posed by
national minorities.
Given the fact that liberal democracies have been struggling with deep-seated crises in
Western developed capitalism and in the Middle East in the last decade, the need to pay
attention to experiences such as democratic defencism is doubled. The unprecedented class
divide, which was the result of total and all neoliberal policies, and the growing
weakening of the power of elected governments against macroeconomists and capitalists, has
reduced the power of electoral mechanisms and the growing distrust of the people to make
them fit for their demands. The widespread protests in the wool jackets in France testify
to this. The use of popular populism such as Moody's in India, Bolsonaro in Brazil, the
Deteret in the Philippines and the Tramp in the United States, who have gained a clear
fascist interest in the "free elections", are another sign of the ineffectiveness of
liberal democratic electoral systems in securing freedom, social justice and Preventing
government violence and repression. Moreover, the persistence of systematic discrimination
against the Kurds in Turkey and the failure of its parliamentary and multiparty system to
find a logical solution to the Kurdish issue reveals the structural problems of liberal
democracies in multinational societies.
In a society like Iran, whose pluralism and diversity of nationalities, languages and
religions are more and more diverse than Turkey, one must definitely think more about the
coordinates of the democratic system. It is in this context that one can and should
consider and learn from the ideas and experiences that, with the knowledge of the
imperfections of liberal democracy, seek to richer the principle of democracy. The
democratic confederative system is merely an example of this kind of ideas, and certainly
not indisputable, but the implementation of this idea in the recent years in Rojava, and
later in the rest of the northern areas of Syria, under the name of the "Democratic
North-Syrian Federation", approaches and approaches to confronting Many of the structural
and historical issues of the region are worthy of attention. Previously, on a few
theoreticalI have written this idea and here I am convinced that, in the opinion of
Abdullah Ocalan, the founder of the theory of democratic confederacy, the state is
logically and historically not a means to emancipation but a major obstacle to achieving
freedom and equality. Hence, democratic confederacy is a kind of state-neutral or
anti-government democracy, the sum of democracy from the bottom up in opposition to
government domination over society and the state-centered, top-down hierarchy. Of course,
given the facts of the existing world order, such an idea may seem very ambitious and
impractical, but it should be kept in mind that the removal of the state is a lengthy
process, and what is important is that this should not stop the formation of alternative
institutions and autonomy To replace government institutions and strengthen society. The
formation of councils and communes at all local and larger levels from neighborhoods,
villages and towns to the Rojava cantons is in the same direction so that people have
autonomy in the administration of their local affairs, as well as macro decisions, the
determination of policies and rulers of The body of society. The vital condition for the
democratic existence of this structure is equality of political participation and
decision-making process for all members of society. For this reason, what attracts most
attention to observers is the openness and inclusiveness of this structure, especially in
relation to marginalized groups of society. This inclination not only in the text " For
this reason, what attracts most attention to observers is the openness and inclusiveness
of this structure, especially in relation to marginalized groups of society. This
inclination not only in the text " For this reason, what attracts most attention to
observers is the openness and inclusiveness of this structure, especially in relation to
marginalized groups of society. This inclination not only in the text "The Social Contract
"(Constitution) of the North Syrian Democratic Federation is reflected in recognition of
the common languages and the presence of people of different nationalities and religions
in power. Such a phenomenon is precisely the opposite of the experience of the
nation-states and what the nationalists specifically promote in the Middle East-the
domination of a ethnic / national / religious group on others in the name of national
identity, which results in nothing but the creation and animosity of hostility and war and
There was no bloodshed among the many nationalities and religions in the region. Given the
fact that democratic confederacy has a fundamental and fundamental conflict with the
formation of independent states and the creation of new borders, its implementation in
Iran can also largely dampen the accumulation of wealth and power, as well as the Iranian
nationalists' concern about the breakdown of Iran due to the demands of minorities Nationally.
The widespread and undeniable participation of women in all areas of social and political
life has also been the most significant aspect of the Rojava Revolution. The abolition of
anti-women laws, equal representation of women with men in all management positions, the
necessity of at least forty percent of women in all elected bodies and the formation of
all-women councils for the approval and rejection of any law that is somehow related to
women, including achievementsThey are rarely found anywhere in the Middle East, but
globally. Given the fundamental importance of women's liberation from patriarchal
constraints for the establishment of real democracy, the degree to which political groups
adhere to male and female equality is in fact a serious measure to measure their
democrats. Many political groups in Iran deal with women's rights, but in most cases they
have no specific plans other than changing unfair laws, and in practice the issue of
systematic oppression against women is a matter for them which is always subject to more
important political issues. Women often play a marginal role in decision-making processes
in reformist political groups and Iranian opposition, and their presence also has a
decorative and promotional side. In some groups, the situation is more complicated and
women are not even physically present. If Iranian political parties and movements are
expecting their democratic claims to be taken seriously, they should not only take
effective and equal participation of women in politics and politics, but also provide for
the independent organization of women. In the same vein, the focus of the environment can
be pointed out in the Democratic Confederacy project, and given the unbridled exploitation
of nature and its commodity, the democratic community must necessarily pursue policies in
harmony with the preservation and empowerment of nature. Despite the severe environmental
conditions in Iran, including water scarcity and droughts, widespread destruction of
forests and natural habitats and air pollution, Iranian political groups are rarely a
serious program for environmental and democratic transplantation. They are not even
seriously trying to model and strengthen environmental campaigns, especially in regions
like Kurdistan and Azerbaijan.
It should be noted that the positive developments seen in Rojava are the result of an
understanding of democracy, which, according to Ransir, is supposed to be equal from the
outset, rather than as a lot of democracy calling on Iranians to prioritize a vague
concept called "the establishment of democracy" They will postpone the fulfillment of the
demands of women, peoples, peoples and others. Such a view, if not deceitful, definitely
reflects a confused perception of democracy. In fact, this can be attributed to the
radical difference between the conception of democracy in these two backgrounds. While the
Rojava Movement emphasizes participatory democracy and sees democracy as a community
organization, organization, education, and constant and independent struggle among the
people, the prevailing view among Iranian reformists and even the overthrowing opposition
is based on a kind of liberal / electoral democracy based on The momentum and momentum of
the people in politics (or elections) and the transfer of politics and decision to the
elite insists. Often, Iranian democracy, with a positivist look and reference to
indicators such as high urbanization rates, middle class growth, literacy rates, and such
criteria, consider Iran's society as an instrument of democracy, and its achievement
merely depends on the replacement of current rulers with the " "And the formation of a"
real private sector "in the economy. In other words, politics for many reformist and
reformist activists is a specialty of community-based management and not collective action
based on the equality of members of the community to consolidate and deepen freedom and
justice. Such an attitude is not open to seeing urban and modern dictatorships such as
Singapore and Russia, and not what Sheldon Woolin calls "reverse totalitarianism" or the
assimilation of power (governmental and nongovernmental) by the same "real private sector"
in Western democracies. The liberal / electoral conception of democracy in Iran, which has
a nationalist and center-oriented framework, has the capacity not only to maintain the
gulf of the center-periphery, but also to reproduce dissatisfaction with marginalized and
subordinate classes. This does not mean that a model like democratic defensiveism should
be put to the point in Iran (of course, the owner of this item has no doubt about the
advantage of this model to liberal democracy), but the point is that for the democratic
transformation it was necessary to open up to the experiences of others, and By learning
from these experiences, he has become a model for his own objective situations. The
liberal / electoral conception of democracy in Iran, which has a nationalist and
center-oriented framework, has the capacity not only to maintain the gulf of the
center-periphery, but also to reproduce dissatisfaction with marginalized and subordinate
classes. This does not mean that a model like democratic defensiveism should be put to the
point in Iran (of course, the owner of this item has no doubt about the advantage of this
model to liberal democracy), but the point is that for the democratic transformation it
was necessary to open up to the experiences of others, and By learning from these
experiences, he has become a model for his own objective situations. The liberal /
electoral conception of democracy in Iran, which has a nationalist and center-oriented
framework, has the capacity not only to maintain the gulf of the center-periphery, but
also to reproduce dissatisfaction with marginalized and subordinate classes. This does not
mean that a model like democratic defensiveism should be put to the point in Iran (of
course, the owner of this item has no doubt about the advantage of this model to liberal
democracy), but the point is that for the democratic transformation it was necessary to
open up to the experiences of others, and By learning from these experiences, he has
become a model for his own objective situations.
As such, Iranian efforts to establish a democratic system have important lessons for the
Rojaawa movement. The power of organizing and creative initiatives of the workers'
movement, women and the environment in the dictatorship is worthy of serious
consideration. In addition, the emergence of religious tyranny from the people's
revolutionary point of view is a serious warning to the Rojava Revolution, which is a mere
publicity and public participation, not a guarantee of the consolidation and continuation
of democracy. The existence of the Islamic Republic as a system that, despite the
so-called democratic preservation (frequent holding of multiple elections, the formation
of city and village councils), a highly undemocratic and repressive regime, demonstrates
the possibility of the return of tyranny in various faces. News Restrictions for a number
of opposition parties and activists in Rojaawa by human rights and media organizationsThey
are of concern to Rozhava fans. There is no doubt that the high-status war situation,
especially in the past two years, and the associated security sensitivities, have a
negative impact on democratic mechanisms in all circumstances, but undoubtedly the effects
of undemocratic acts on spreading public dissatisfaction and undermining the social base
of the movement will be much more destructive. Preventing the activities of some parties
and groups due to their lack of legal record, which was spoken long ago by Elham AhmadIt
was repeated like the justifications used in conventional liberal systems and do not seem
appropriate to a system that claims to be a progressive and radical form of democracy.
Perhaps it is time for open and ongoing discussions about the legitimacy of democratic
Confederates in Rojava with the participation of opponents of this idea and ultimately a
general referendum on the form and the coordinates of political and economic governance in
the region to determine the weight of political groups and In the event of a possible
attack by the central government of Syria in the future, the North Syrian Democratic
Federation has foreshadowed its legitimacy and popularity. Moreover, it is surprising that
in a revolution that is known to empower the oppressed, especially women, little attention
is paid to the problems of homosexuals and genders , and in some cases even reactionary
perspectives on the denial of their identities and efforts toChanging them is heard. There
is no doubt that the ideology governing the Rojava revolution and the intellectual system
of the rulers of Iran is far away, and the pressure from the war conditions and the
economic sanctions of the Turkish economy can not be denied, but it should not be
forgotten that what can ultimately lead to the credibility and legitimacy of political
democratic confederacy Destroyed by the Turkish army and ISIS fighters, whose movements
and movements are undemocratic.
Behnam Amini
Source: The Rojava Strategy
https://asranarshism.com/1398/01/14/democratic-confederalism/
------------------------------
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten