Today's Topics:
1. cgt.org.es: CGT meeting with the United Parliamentary group
Podemos (ca, it) [machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
2. greece, New Circulation: The Bakunin sputum casting |
Eleftheria Nautilus by denial horse on APO [machine translation]
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
3. anarkismo.net: [Book Review] "Anarchist Perspectives in
Peace and War 1900-1918" by A.W. Zurbrugg (London: Anarres
Editions -Merlin Press, 2018) by José Antonio Gutiérrez D.
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
4. London Anarchist Federation: Queer Liberation — Not
Rainbow Capitalism - An anarchist critique of Pride in London
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
5. Italy, Libertarian Anarchist Collective - Livorno: For
freedom, against borders! (it) [machine translation]
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
6. Canada, ucl-saguenay, Collectif Emma Goldman: Increase the
pressure: hit where it hurts (fr, it, pt) [machine translation]
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
On yesterday July 3, 2019 the Secretary of Organization and the Secretary of Trade Union
Action of CGT attended a meeting with representatives of United We Can in the premises of
the Congress of Deputies, at their request, in which they explained his priorities for the
next term in labor matters and his intentions to try to participate in a coalition
government with the PSOE to ensure that they are carried out. ---- THE PERMANENT
SECRETARIAT OF THE CONFEDERAL COMMITTEE OF THE CGT ---- For our part, we indicate that the
CGT is an anarcho-syndicalist organization and we do not explicitly support any government
, although it does not escape anyone that we prefer that there be no government of
Franco's heirs (PP, CS and VOX) .
From CGT we transmit what are our priorities, namely: the repeal of the two last Labor
Reforms to recover collective bargaining, to end the precarious work imposed and the
unacceptable figures of temporary, the dignification of wages, recover regulation previous
on the role of the Administration in the ERE, the elimination of the ETT, the issue of
Contracts and Subcontracts, the increase of the work accident rate as a direct consequence
of these forms of precarious contracting, etc ...
On the other hand, we explain our commitment to the defense of Public Services , recover
all those that have been privatized, in the municipal sphere fundamentally, but also in
the autonomic and state, prevent the privatizations that are intended and establish forms
of direct participation in the management by the workers of these Services.
We also transmitted that we would continue to mobilize together with social groups for
Public Pensions to guarantee the system via General Budgets and end the "sustainability
factor", for the equality of women in all areas of life , against violence machistas, the
wage gap and all the discrimination they suffer, the fight against climate change that
will be totally transversal in the coming years, working and living conditions of
migrants, etc ...
Finally, we also pose as absolute priority for the CGT the repeal of the Gag Law and end
the persecution and repression of people who are social activists and trade unionists,
ultimately recover the rights and freedoms that have taken from the social majority
governments that we have been suffering during the social scam called crisis.
Verify that there were many coincidences between your stated priorities and ours , that
the meeting was very cordial and with many elements of harmony and highlight that we also
raised our concern about the lack of social mobilization that is breathed on the street
that, in our opinion , has a lot to do with the expectations that are generated in the
electoral processes.
For all this we announce that from CGT we are working to form a large mobilization in the
medium term, with people, groups and movements that coincide in this need and share
analysis and claims, because we understand that this is the best guarantee to achieve them
and also the best "spur" for any government, more if there are coincidences like those
that they themselves have raised.
http://cgt.org.es/noticias-cgt/comunicados/reunion-de-cgt-con-el-grupo-parlamentario-de-unidas-podemos
------------------------------
Message: 2
The Bakunin sputter is the cast ... ---- San Michele, Giulio Manieri and the
Anti-Anarchist Congress of Rome (1898) ---- New edition from the liberal publications
Nautilus of Thessaloniki First distribution in Athens at the 2nd libertarian festival of
social, classical & internationalist solidarity that will take place in the MITHE section
of the Zografou campus 4-5-6 July. ---- It is therefore the corpse of Marxism-Leninism
buried under tons of ruins of the Soviet Empire. Instead, every time we dive in the Venice
lagoon outside of San Alves, where the anarchist fighter has drowned the directorial hand
instead of finding the lifeless body of revolutionary anarchism, we discover a bottom of
stars in a whole universe of resistance.
The baton of the passionate struggle was not given to any party in any supposedly superior
science-fiction authority. The struggles were continued by the farmers in Andalusia, by
the students in Paris and Rome, by the workers in Turin and continued throughout the
lengths and backs of the world where people struggle for a better world without
exploitation and oppression without bosses , priest and party leaders. Where the
black-eyed rose, the same vision continues to live, and this is the only timeless moment
of this film. And that's the revenge of Julio Maniere. "
[...]For our part, we continue the struggles against the exception regime, in the states
of constant emergency, applying in practice the dystopia of modern totalitarianism and
spitting angrily into the sparrow of old comrades, not because of some futility that the
present times do not recognize us and trust us, but as a promise of a fight against a
bankrupt world of injustice, inequality, barbarity and poverty that will leave the
historical spotlight along with all the creatures that put it lan.
https://ipposd.wordpress.com/2019/07/04
------------------------------
Message: 3
This is, above all, a history of the anarchist movement from the perspective of those who
were at the centre of its development, their voices recovered through a careful and
extensive research of conference proceedings, journal articles, memoirs, etc. Altogether,
this is a prime example of historical work which is not backward-looking, but
forward-looking, bringing history back to life in order to feed contemporary agitated
conversations, encounters and debates. ---- "Anarchist Perspectives in Peace and War
1900-1918" by A.W. Zurbrugg (London: Anarres Editions -Merlin Press, 2018) ---- A.W.
Zurbrugg has edited and worked on some very interesting contributions on historical
anarchism: his selection of Bakunin's texts and his book on anarchists' impressions on the
Russian Revolution, had both been reviewed in anarkismo.net before and I absolutely
recommend them to anyone interested in anarchism. Now Zurbrugg comes back with a more
ambitious project: an international historical recount of anarchism in the 20th century in
four volumes, of which the first one was published under the title "Anarchist Perspectives
in Peace and War 1900-1918".
So what's different in this attempt at an international history of anarchism from others?
This is, above all, a history of the anarchist movement from the perspective of those who
were at the centre of its development, their voices recovered through a careful and
extensive research of conference proceedings, journal articles, memoirs, etc. He doesn't
uncouple theory from practice -as in the famous Daniel Guérin anthology, Anarchism, in
which theory and practice are treated as separable entities. On the contrary, Zurbrugg is
interested in ideas as long as they spring from organisational practices and debates. This
historical recount of anarchism is not as concerned with utopianism as it is with the
development of ideas through practical engagement. As such, his approach to anarchism is
eminently materialist, not based on immaculate ideal definitions but on the experiential
dimension of anarchism as a movement. His view is also less canonical than that contained
in works such as Van der Walt and Schmidt's Black Flame, for he accepts contradiction as
inherent in the dynamic and evolving process of the definition of a movement in motion. In
his own words,
‘anarchism' was not the result of some a priori theory, although no doubt revolutionaries
were certainly influenced by several past theories; rather, ‘anarchism' evolved and was
defined in practice by the choices women and men made to join this or that workplace
movement, or protest, stressing certain choices and perspectives. It was not one immutable
doctrine, it was a set of mixed and agitated conversations, encounters, debates,
reflections and synthesis, coming together at one moment and evolving. Out of these
conversations there emerged strands of federalist and decentralised socialism (p.6).
I can't think of a more useful -and at the same time, less canonical- definition of
anarchism ever produced, which squarely places anarchism in a broader socialist tradition.
Needless to say, his views of anarchism evolving as a ‘synthesis' are not to be conflated
with the idealist project of a ‘synthesist anarchism' produced by Voline and his
associates; while they referred to anarchism as deriving from distinctive ideal currents
(individualism, communism and syndicalism), Zurbrugg refers to the synthesis of ideas
emanating from practical engagement.
These ideas circulated mostly through publications. Anarchism had a flourishing press in
the period covered by this book. Hundreds, if not thousands, of papers and pamphlets were
produced in a multitude of languages all over the world. These papers, before the era of
internet, were the means by which anarchists of various persuasions and continents stayed
in touch with one another, made their ideas circulate, debated and took home practical
ideas. But not only ideas circulated through the papers and through written propaganda;
anarchists attempted to organise international networks and organised conference, such as
the London conferences of 1896 and 1913 which are covered in this book, or the Amsterdam
conference of 1907. On this occasions, anarchists from different persuasions and countries
debated about some of the most pressing issues of the time, about the objectives and the
methods of their movement, and on a variety of social, economic, and philosophical issues.
Another source of circulation of ideas were migrants and refugees, who formed anarchist
groups, circles and unions wherever they went, liaised with other anarchists in their
countries of origin, and tried to keep an international -not only in outlook or spirit,
but above all, in practice- movement to challenge am equally globalised unjust social
system. Papers and their editors were persecuted and censored; conferences were often
subject of close surveillance, banned and delegates prevented from reaching them; and
migrants were extensively persecuted, deported, and subject to repressive ‘alien acts'.
Although repression took a heavy toll on the anarchist movement at the turn of the
century, it still managed to fight back.
This first volume is concerned with a period (1900-1918) marked in Europe by the
escalating militarisation, growing conflicts over boundaries and the scramble for the
colonies, and the entrenchment of toxic nationalistic jingoism. But this spirit also
reached across the Atlantic Ocean to the American continent, and one may say, through the
colonial tentacles of the European powers to every single continent in the world. This is
the backdrop against which the anarchist movement had to organise, struggle and respond
to. They tried to do so to the best of their ability and they did so across the globe.
However, the scope of the book is limited to mostly to urban movements in Europe, the USA
and Latin America (mostly, but not exclusively, Argentina and Cuba). A truly global
history of anarchism, in both towns and countryside, is beyond the capacity of any
individual; and yet, in spite of this limitation, the method of following the circulation
of ideas through the press, congress resolutions and manifestos, works exceedingly well.
Instead of focusing on anecdotes or minute details about the anarchist movement in many
countries, Zurbrugg follows the trends as they developed in the movement in response to
global challenges. This in itself is a remarkable achievement.
Naturally, the rise of militarisation, colonialism, and jingoism, dominate much of the
debates of these anarchists, together with other issues such as the unity of action of the
socialist movement and the labour movement. The volume is thus organised in two parts. A
much larger part called ‘peace', that is, the period before the outbreak of the Great War
of 1914 -a period which can be hardly described as of peace in any meaningful sense of the
word, being the period when all the causes leading to the mass slaughter of the 1910s were
being incubated. And a much shorter part called ‘war', in which the book deals with the
perspectives and responses of anarchists in the face of the Great War, a fateful event to
which they were proved to be ill-prepared and which seemingly took them by surprise to the
point that the French anarchist paper Les Temps Nouveaux claimed, a week after war between
France and Germany broke out, ‘what we had refused to believe until the last moment is now
an accomplished fact. War has been unleashed' (p.158). It is not that they didn't see such
a scenario coming: they fatally overestimated their own strength (with most unions
claiming that they would call for a General Strike if war broke, a scenario which didn't
materialise when war actually stormed Europe) and the internationalist feelings of the
European working class. If they were slow to realize about the seriousness of the
situation they were facing in the advent of the Great War, they showed far more prescience
about the fact that this first war would necessarily lead to another deadlier
conflagration. In the words of Malatesta, ‘it is most probably that there will be no
definite victory on either side. After a long war, an enormous loss of life and wealth,
both sides being exhausted, some kind of peace will be patched up, leaving all questions
open, thus preparing for a new war more murderous than the present' (p.181).
While the anarchist and syndicalist movement took a decisively anti-war and
internationalist perspective, the reformist labour movement and the social-democracy took
a lukewarm approach to internationalism and refrained to condemn militarisation
experienced in Europe way before the Great War broke. The French CGT, the most significant
revolutionary union of the time together with the US IWW, were at the foremost of
anti-militarist propaganda, and tried to call for coordination of action between the
working classes of potential warring countries, facing the opposition of the German
social-democratic labour movement who dismissed their attempts. In reality, this showed
how the parliamentary left, as long as they saw themselves as having a stake in their
national-State, became progressively identified with the elites' agenda. When war
materialised, they just followed their leaders and respective governments and rolled the
drums of war. However, the CGT was unable to react, since they didn't prepare for a
scenario in which they, a French organisation, wouldn't have a significant German
counterpart to oppose the war with and practice internationalist working class solidarity.
This major flaw, together with overestimating their own forces and their capacity to call
for a General Strike in the event of war, proved fatal, and the organisation backed from
their rhetorical anti-war position to a mild justification of the French government
claiming that theirs was a "defensive war". Pierre Monatte and other staunch revolutionary
syndicalists reacted in disgust and distanced themselves from these positions, while
anti-war activism was seriously repressed and persecuted.
Anarchist anti-militarism, although it found a common ground with the pacifist movement,
differed with the latter in important respects. The former, didn't simply advocated
‘peace' but they advocated revolution. Their goal was to turn the crisis caused by war
into a generalised struggle of the oppressed against their oppressors. As such, the
accusation of the veteran anarchists (headed by none other than Kropotkin) who signed the
so-called "Manifesto of the Sixteen" in support of the supposedly ‘progressive' France
against ‘autocratic' Germany, who claimed that ‘talk of peace at this moment would be
playing the game of the Bülow's German ministerial party and its allies' (p.179) was
completely misplaced. The real problem for the vast majority of anarchists who rejected
taking sides on behalf of any State in the face of war, in my opinion, was that they were
seriously ill-prepared to oppose in practice and to turn any war between States into a war
between classes. In spite of their best intentions, the sincerity of their convictions,
and the intensity of their agitation, the anarchists were too disorganised to be able to
challenge effectively the course of events. Their attempts to form an international
coordination, networks or federations, came to nothing but the formation of corresponding
bureaus, at best. While talking much about organisation in their propaganda (see for
instance the writings of Malatesta), this talk rarely translated into solid organisational
work in practice. As mentioned by Zurbrugg, there was no secure foundation for
international federations ‘in the absence of a regular pattern of regional, national and
international anarchist congresses' (p.113) which meant that the far better organised
Social-Democracy prevailed in the international socialist and labour movement. Thus, they
lacked the organisational resources and solid international bridges which could have
effectively challenged the haunting spectre of war over Europe, and then to capitalise the
deep discontent left in the wake of war, which translated into (mostly unsuccessful and
aborted) mutinies, uprising, and revolutions.
This organisational failure of anarchism, led many anarchists to turn to revolutionary
unionism or syndicalism from the 1890s, which the veteran anarchist James Guillaume saw as
the continuation of the work of the anti-authoritarians in the International Workingmen's
Association. The relationship of anarchists with the revolutionary unions and with the
labour movement more generally, was another point of contention within the broad anarchist
movement: while the syndicalist sector claimed that the unions were sufficient as
revolutionary tools, others -with Malatesta being probably the most visible of the
critics- claimed that anarchists should also be organised in political organisations as
anarchists, and that they should avoid ‘politicising' the unions and work in mainstream
and all unions bringing their programme. In 1907, in the Amsterdam conference, this debate
was the most important discussion in the agenda. However, the debate was misleading. The
real question was not the nature of the unions, or what should anarchists do in relation
to unions in abstract; the real point was to understand the unions in context, in relation
to the prevalent fighting mood of the working class in a particular region or country, and
the organisational resources available to anarchists to offer other alternatives. Without
consolidated anarchist organisations, to turn away from revolutionary unions and to devote
all efforts and energies to working in mainstream unions would have deprived anarchists of
any effective influence in the current events at the time. Irrespective of one's opinions
in the union/anarchist debate, the incontrovertible truth is that, if anarchism had any
historical significance at the turn of the 20th century was mostly because of their work
in militant labour organisations. As put forward by Zurbrugg, in this debate, ‘Malatesta
missed the spot: the USI (ie. Italian revolutionary union) had evolved out of real
frustration and the failure of the CGL (ie. Italian reformist union) to support action,
and those who joined the USI had chosen something beyond the CGL' (p.117). Theoretical
preferences for this or that type of union, in other words, shouldn't take precedence over
the general mood of the working class or a sound understanding of developments on the
ground. Moreover, any serious criticism of the revolutionary unionist strategy should have
gone hand in hand with the development of something else being offered alternatively by
the ‘pure anarchists', so to speak.
Alas, it is this alternative which was not properly worked about. The tragic lack of solid
anarchist organisations, no doubt, didn't help anarchists make a far bigger impact to
prevent the bloodshed of the Great War and to turn this event into a full-scale
revolutionary offensive. But it also could be detrimental at a more local level, as
Malatesta himself acknowledged: ‘It's good, when our propaganda obstructs the people
sending to parliament socialists or republicans (...), if we have the capacity, with those
we have wrenched away from electoral fetishism, to facilitate them becoming active and
conscious fighters for true and complete liberation. If not, we would, and will, serve the
interests of conservatives and the monarchy' (p.28). Anarchist tactics, without an
anarchist strategy and organisational capacity, could be easily capitalised by precisely
some of their worst enemies. This is an extremely important lesson which should be
carefully considered by committed anarchists today, and which Malatesta didn't fully
comprehend. In another article, he recommends that anarchists ‘should be in the front rank
when it came to a fight, but when it came to negotiations with the bosses or authorities
they should not take the lead' (p.118). This attitude is not only self-defeatist but
dangerous: so what if the negotiators call for strengthening discrimination against
migrant workers or against women? Malatesta put forward these ideas at a time when unions
in many countries, like the US, called for restrictions to Asian workers in particular, or
at a time when, even in the French CGT, it was a prevalent idea that women should stay out
of the workforce because they exercised negative pressure over salaries. As such, to claim
that anarchists should not take a lead in negotiations could lead to disaster,
particularly if anarchists had been at the forefront of struggle. The real question,
again, was what sort of leading role should anarchists adopt and how those roles derived
from clear organisational structures and mechanisms which gave full control to the rank
and file?
However, if the anarchist thought during this period seems inadequate to address some
crucial organisational issues, it was far-sighted on other subjects. One remarkable aspect
which is clear in Zurbrugg's work is how anarchist prefigured many of the current battles
across the globe over a century ago: struggles for women's self-determination at a time
when discussion on abortion or contraception was considered obscene and could lead to
heavy fines or terms in prison even. This was not only a debate taking place in the USA or
in Europe; important papers such as La Voz de la Mujer in Argentina proved the debate was
bot one confined to the so-called advanced capitalist countries. Struggles even for
participatory budgets could be traced back to anarchist discussions: in 1896, an
international congress of anarchists and syndicalists, meeting in parallel to the
conference of the Second International in London, proposed that while the State was not
abolished, ‘communal mass meetings should meet and vote on budgets, war credits and
taxation' (p.18). This idea was part and parcel of the syndicalist emphasis in disputing
the State on the economic field, way before the Brazilian PT came with these ideas in
Porto Alegre in the late 1980s. The anti-militarism of the anarchists and their
transformational ethos linked to anti-militaristic campaigns, challenging colonialism,
imperialism, the militarisation of society, and the rise of domestic repression which
accompanies war, also prefigured some of the radical anti-war movements in the world from
Vietnam, to Iraq. Finally, unlike the entrenched racism and chauvinism of many
social-democratic movements and parties, which favoured racially segregated unions in
places such as South Africa or Australia, or which lent credence to the ‘civilising
mission' of European powers, anarchists and revolutionary unionists tended to have a
radical commitment to anti-colonialism and racial equality which was well ahead of its
time. Of course, there were exceptions to the rule and it is possible to find casual
racism in the anarchist press at the time, or lack of sympathy with the plight of
colonised peoples on occasion. Sometimes, migrant communities failed to reach native
populations and were ghettoised -but this was equally true for many Spaniards in Cuba, or
for Italians n Egypt, as it was for the French in the UK. By and large, anarchists were
uncompromising enemies of colonialism, they rejected the civilisation/savage dichotomy
which underpinned the Age of Empire, and they generally advocated working class unity
regardless of creed and race -which as truly revolutionary at the time. In the highly
segregated US society, the IWW played a very inspiring role in this respect.
One flaw of the book is that it lacks a conclusion chapter. The immense wealth of
reflections and topics touched upon throughout the book, as well as the critical issues
here raised, required a conclusion to summarise and synthesise some key questions for the
reader. To be sure, this was merely the first chapter of an ambitious project consisting
of four volumes and I imagine that the author is saving the concluding remarks for the
last volume. However, I would suggest that in the next two volumes, the author includes a
concluding chapter. The ending is abrupt and leaves the reader with the impression that
something was missing in order to wrap up an otherwise brilliant contribution to anarchist
studies.
Altogether, this first volume is a prime example of historical work which is not
backward-looking, but forward-looking, bringing history back to life in order to feed
contemporary agitated conversations, encounters and debates. I am looking forward to the
next three volumes of Anarchist Perspectives: the second volume ‘Syndicalism, Revolution
and Fascism 1917-1930', the third volume ‘Revolution in Spain 1931-1939', and the fourth
volume which will deal with anarchists perspectives after the Second World War. Judging by
this first volume, they will all have much to say which is significant and of relevance
for socialists and revolutionaries today.
José Antonio Gutiérrez D.
3 July, 2019
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/31480
------------------------------
Message: 4
This year, Pride in London is doing its best to commemorate fifty years in LGBT+ struggle,
from the Stonewall riot to now. It is a significant milestone. We must remember those who
took part in the riot, such as Stormé DeLarverie, Marsha P Johnson, and Sylvia Rivera, and
the ways that their actions as gay and trans activists helped to kickstart the gay
liberation movement from the late 1960’s. But if these activists were to show up at Pride
in London today, would they be happy with what they find? Would they even be allowed to
march? ---- It would be shortsighted to stop where we are today and think that Marsha or
any of the others who were there on June 28th would be happy with where we are today. We
do not yet exist in a society where being gay, bi or asexual is completely accepted. And
we definitely don’t exist in a society where being trans is completely accepted or even
partially understood.
And, in case you haven’t noticed, we are still living under a capitalist system that sucks
the profit out of anything it can get its hands on, including progressive societal
movements. Simply maintaining the status quo is exactly what those in power are trying to
do, which means pain and struggle for those caught in the margins.
Pride in London is no longer an act of resistance in the way that Stonewall was. Stonewall
was a riot against the police; Pride in London marches with them. Stonewall encouraged
everyone to participate; Pride in London hosts TERFs and requires payment in order to be
in the march. Simply looking at their website shows us that this march is not something
revolutionary, but simply another route to monetary gain. The revolution will not be
televised, but it also cannot be sponsored. Barclays, Amazon Music, and Tesco are
sponsoring this year, just to name a few rainbow capitalists. As Peter Tatchell says of
these corporations:
“They’ve got the money, so they have huge extravagant floats that outshine and overwhelm
the LGBT+ community groups…Many of the companies have degayed their floats. They don’t
mention LGBT+, just Pride.”
It isn’t new to see companies trying to cash in on societal movements. But if we continue
to allow marches like Pride in London to be co-opted by corporations and greed, Queer
Liberation will become less of a battle cry and more of a Che Guevara t-shirt.
We stand in solidarity with groups like Reclaim Pride in New York, and Transgenialer CSD
in Berlin. Pride needs to be a people’s movement, not a capitalist’s parade. The Anarchist
Federation condemns the way Pride in London has betrayed what pride really means:
liberation. We stand in solidarity with our trans family who continue to suffer like
Marsha did, and for all those affected by anti-LBGT+ violence. Queer Liberation, not
rainbow capitalism! No pride in capitalism!
https://aflondon.wordpress.com/2019/07/06/queer-liberation-not-rainbow-capitalism
------------------------------
Message: 5
Thursday 4 July - from 9pm. In the garden of the Livornese Anarchist Federation - Via
degli Asili 33-35, Livorno ---- The story of the Sea Watch 3 is only one of the last and
most striking cases that make clear the repressive and racist policies in place for years
now. Let us confront each other on forms of resistance and action against this
authoritarian grip starting with the "Security Decree bis" recently approved by the
government and the situation in Malta in the context of the war against migrants in the
Mediterranean. We talk about it with Giacomo and Francesco, who have just returned from
Malta, where they worked on a report on the situation of migrants and on solidarity
activities. ---- Photos by Giacomo Sini will be projected ---- Anarchist Libertarian
Anarchist Federation of Livorno
https://collettivoanarchico.noblogs.org/post/2019/07/02/per-la-liberta-contro-le-frontiere/
------------------------------
Message: 6
In order to avoid any misunderstanding, we specify that this text is not intended to
criticize the friends of the Coalition Fjord or the various collectives fighting on the
territories. It is a text of reflection to push the fight even further. ---- The months go
by and the different projects go through the various stages of the great masquerade.
Public consultations are multiplying, the MRCs, towns and villages take a stand on the
subject to facilitate the implementation of industrial projects. The industry is making
its merry way. This is a must-go that can be "boring" for representatives and
communications managers, but everything goes as it should. Public consultations are a must
for companies. A way to make people believe that they share their information, concerns
about projects and they consult us (as if they really took into account the
recommendations of citizens). From time to time, there is a BAPE (Office of Public
Hearings on the environment), although for Énergir and the gas pipeline that will feed the
BlackRock plant in Grand Anse, the BAPE will take place thanks to the efforts put forward
by members of the Fjord Coalition). Then, it is the war of which manages to make its point
of view. Pages of ads for LNG Quebec, pro-project opinion pieces, lackeys who start a
petition to show us how happy they are to be entubered. On the other side, scientists and
defenders of the territory who write texts or letters of opinion to demonstrate the
absurdity of the various industrial projects planned on the stolen land of Nitassinan. add
a little more green varnish (although for Énergir and the pipeline that will feed the
BlackRock plant in Grand Anse, the BAPE will take place thanks to the efforts put forward
by members of the Coalition Fjord). Then, it is the war of which manages to make its point
of view. Pages of ads for LNG Quebec, pro-project opinion pieces, lackeys who start a
petition to show us how happy they are to be entubered. On the other side, scientists and
defenders of the territory who write texts or letters of opinion to demonstrate the
absurdity of the various industrial projects planned on the stolen land of Nitassinan. add
a little more green varnish (although for Énergir and the pipeline that will feed the
BlackRock plant in Grand Anse, the BAPE will take place thanks to the efforts put forward
by members of the Coalition Fjord). Then, it is the war of which manages to make its point
of view. Pages of ads for LNG Quebec, pro-project opinion pieces, lackeys who start a
petition to show us how happy they are to be entubered. On the other side, scientists and
defenders of the territory who write texts or letters of opinion to demonstrate the
absurdity of the various industrial projects planned on the stolen land of Nitassinan.
before by members of the Coalition Fjord). Then, it is the war of which manages to make
its point of view. Pages of ads for LNG Quebec, pro-project opinion pieces, lackeys who
start a petition to show us how happy they are to be entubered. On the other side,
scientists and defenders of the territory who write texts or letters of opinion to
demonstrate the absurdity of the various industrial projects planned on the stolen land of
Nitassinan. before by members of the Coalition Fjord). Then, it is the war of which
manages to make its point of view. Pages of ads for LNG Quebec, pro-project opinion
pieces, lackeys who start a petition to show us how happy they are to be entubered. On the
other side, scientists and defenders of the territory who write texts or letters of
opinion to demonstrate the absurdity of the various industrial projects planned on the
stolen land of Nitassinan.
Public opinion: the imaginary ally of the pro-projects
As Bourdieu said in a presentation entitled Public opinion does not exist "It is known
that any exercise of force is accompanied by a speech aimed at legitimizing the strength
of the one who exercises it; it may even be said that the power of all power is to have
all its strength only to the extent that it conceals itself as such. In short, to speak
simply, the politician is the one who says: "God is with us". The equivalent of "God is
with us" is today "public opinion is with us". This is the fundamental effect of the
opinion poll: to constitute the idea that there is a unanimous public opinion, thus to
legitimize a policy and strengthen the balance of power that underpins or makes it
possible. Public opinion, this great scarecrow brandished in all directions. As a God we
can not contradict the word. A creation from scratch to fuel the passivity of people.
Create a false consensus in society to make any resistance futile. In addition, in "public
opinion", the dominant never take into account the opponents. They are not part of
society. There is the public opinion and on the other side the opponents to the projects.
Society is public opinion, that is to say, those who in the majority (according to their
statements and phony surveys) are for projects and outside of that, there are hippie
ecologists. Public opinion is not a homogeneous entity that will go down the streets and
give us the victory. It is a weapon at the service of the dominant. Create a false
consensus in society to make any resistance futile. In addition, in "public opinion", the
dominant never take into account the opponents. They are not part of society. There is the
public opinion and on the other side the opponents to the projects. Society is public
opinion, that is to say, those who in the majority (according to their statements and
phony surveys) are for projects and outside of that, there are hippie ecologists. Public
opinion is not a homogeneous entity that will go down the streets and give us the victory.
It is a weapon at the service of the dominant. Create a false consensus in society to make
any resistance futile. In addition, in "public opinion", the dominant never take into
account the opponents. They are not part of society. There is the public opinion and on
the other side the opponents to the projects. Society is public opinion, that is to say,
those who in the majority (according to their statements and phony surveys) are for
projects and outside of that, there are hippie ecologists. Public opinion is not a
homogeneous entity that will go down the streets and give us the victory. It is a weapon
at the service of the dominant. They are not part of society. There is the public opinion
and on the other side the opponents to the projects. Society is public opinion, that is to
say, those who in the majority (according to their statements and phony surveys) are for
projects and outside of that, there are hippie ecologists. Public opinion is not a
homogeneous entity that will go down the streets and give us the victory. It is a weapon
at the service of the dominant. They are not part of society. There is the public opinion
and on the other side the opponents to the projects. Society is public opinion, that is to
say, those who in the majority (according to their statements and phony surveys) are for
projects and outside of that, there are hippie ecologists. Public opinion is not a
homogeneous entity that will go down the streets and give us the victory. It is a weapon
at the service of the dominant. is not a homogeneous entity that will go down the streets
and give us the victory. It is a weapon at the service of the dominant. is not a
homogeneous entity that will go down the streets and give us the victory. It is a weapon
at the service of the dominant.
Disturb, block, prevent
Eventually, it will have to raise the pressure one notch. To be the rock in the shoe. We
must prevent all their meetings from happening peacefully, and at best, cancel them by our
presence. Block the project process, make investors doubt and lose as much money as
possible. It's the only language they understand. We must ensure that our counter-attack
is proportional to the force used by those who want to exploit and destroy our territories
and our communities. Their events, their offices and the sites where the projects will
take place are all targets to hit. Let's build our power and counter-power!
R
-------------------------------------------------- ----------------------
The Collectif anarchist Emma Goldman, the Defense Committee and decolonization of
territories (CDDT) and other accomplices are organizing the next 6 and 7 July weekend
workshops and reflection on the destructive projects in Saguenay Lac-St- Jeans.
This weekend of camp is an opportunity to connect people from different regions to learn
about the territory and ways to defend it. A mobilization is already organized in the
region for several months, between citizen groups, ecologists and students. Now, we are
calling for a weekend of camp in order to join those who do not want to wait for the end
of the world to mobilize, who want now to organize to defend the territories. Join us on
the weekend of July 6 and 7 to develop and think about the rest together.
We are calling on all those concerned with the protection of the Saguenay Fjord to come
together to discuss the businesses and projects that threaten it.
Link to the Facebook event: https://www.facebook.com/events/1937500839682891/
--------------------------------------------
Location: 304 rang Saint-Louis, Saint-Fulgence, Saguenay
In the program:
Write us for allergies.
The weekend will be outside. Bring chairs, your tent and your camping gear if you stay
overnight!
Children are welcome! Please write to us if you would like babysitting.
Listed 18 hours ago by Collectif Emma Goldman
------------------------------
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten