Today's Topics:
1. Britain, AFED, Organise Magazine: The Outer Worlds | RBG
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
2. US, black rose fed: BOLIVIA: THE EXTREME RIGHT TAKES
ADVANTAGE OF A POPULAR UPRISING by Raúl Zibechi
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
3. US, black rose fed: BOLIVIA: COMMENTARY ON THE
COUP UNDERWAY
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
4. Britain, freedom news: Interviews with anarchists concerning
the Yellow Vests movement (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
I don't get along with "zaney" video games. Maybe I'm just a grumpy git with no sense of
humor but I just can't get into them. Across the board from Team Fortress to Borderlands,
I just can't get into them. So when I first saw a trailer for The Outer Worlds, my eyes
rolled right back, I gave a good huff and booted up the buggy mess that is Star Citizen.
I'm the kind of player who would rather have weight to a game. I want it to make me think
about my actions, fret over them afterwords and dare I say it, develop as a person. Ok, so
sure, sometimes I'm looking for some idle distraction to relax too and that's what PUBG
and Euro Trucker 2 are for! ---- If I'm going to invest emotionally with a story it needs
a narrative I can get my teeth into and truly feel. This for me, always means less
bubblegum and more substance.
Deus Ex did this, Colony Wars did this, Skyrim did this and it's why they remain so
treasured by the gaming community. They draw you into their world, make you invest and
leave you rambling like a mad man over the proverbial watercooler and leave you thinking
about your choices long afterwords. The Outer Worlds started making this kind of noise on
the run up to it's release but I'd invested in bah humbuggery so carried on ignoring it
until a couple of days after it comes out, half my social media to spilling over with
praise for it's politics and, ah what the hell, I went and bought it for PC (Yep, Epic
finally got me), I want to play me some space revolutionary!
Fair warning, there are plenty of spoilers after this point.
The Outer Worlds is set in the colony of Halcyon a couple hundred years into the future. A
group of corporations - know as The Board - have cobbled together and bought the rights to
the fledgling colony and have driven it into the ground. You come into the game a frozen
popsicle in a colony ship called The Hope which after some mysterious malfunctions turned
up late and get's mothbballed on the edge of the system. Thankfully for you the infamous
Dr. Welles is at hand to rez you and send you packing off to do his bidding. There is a
pretty good theory (which the creators effectively confirmed during a QnA) that it's set
in an alternative timeline where the Anarchist Leon Czolgosz never assassinated William
McKinley in 1901 and subsequently the governmental curbing of large scale buisness trust
under Roosevelt never occured. Subsequently they've been left to run rampant and Halcyon
is a prime example of this. Flooded with crass advertising, forced corporate compliance
and all manner of woes for the workers and customers alike.
The game is lush, like amazingly beautiful. It's an orgy of visual delight. The score and
foley are similarly fantastic and you'll find yourselves truly absorbed in no time.
Straight up, I can't here the theme without getting shivers of adventure. The main combat
is driven by gunplay and for this you're armed with a diverse array of weaponry and they
all feel meaty enough. The various types of weapons (force, plasma, shock anmd a couple of
rarer specials) all give differant effects when you murder someone and it's all very
satisfying. Yeah, it's safe to say that graphically everything has a very high standard of
polish on it. The colonies aestethic is a curious clash of frontier western, golden era
pulp, art deco and Juche propoganda which... well it works, it really works.
Instead of a vast map to explore you'll bounce around five main maps areas with a similar
amount of smaller, self contained, mission specific ones. There isn't any flying of space
ships mind, you just jump from one to the other. This actually works and provides the game
with several very dissimilar environments and keeps a fast paced space opera feeling.
Aside from The Groundbreaker which is a self contain space ship come station, these spaces
all have the feeling of being a small part of a wider world and you're simply at the bit
we're focusing on for the story. However it is here that I find my first criticisms. Once
you've been there, killed/fetched/hacked your way through the lab/ruin/base then you're
done with that location. Even when the game drags you back to places you've been before
there is absolutely zero incentive to check up on people you've affected, the NPCs are all
limited in their little parochial encampments and once you've ticked them off you'll never
see them again.
It's drive through heroism, and while not the worst sin a game could commit, it's was the
first aspect to pull me out of the game, I started fast travelling and just speeding
through towns with little care or need to stop by and say hello.
Now, you've played this game before.
Here you are random stranger, come to do the fetching and killing with your near super
hero prowess. Enjoy sunny Halcyon, meet the dead eyed locals who can't do anything for
themselves and save or ruin their day as you see fit. Get yourself a few companions and
help them grow! We've been here before, but their ain't nothing wrong with retreading well
loved ground. Encounters with the local wildlife and maruaders are limited to set areas
rather than random occourances and you're given the usual variety of ways to go about
things, hack the security system, smash them with your hammer, snipe snipe, or go in all
guns blazing etc. This is made even more fun with additional of "science weapons" such as
the shrink ray and mind control gun which I'm sure are going to bring us plenty of memes.
Combat is a bit basic tho, with the AI being a weak and held into a rather rigid "threat
assessment" system thats pretty easy to cheese and there is little in the way of tactical
combat from the AI. This time around you also have the ability to slow down time and deal
specific debuffs to your prey, this is called " Tactical Time Dilation " and it works
quite well. It'sdefinitely worth making good use out of TTD, not it is vital in some of
the harder fights, it also makes for some tidy Max Paine esk moments (my particular
favourite is blasting some poor fella while diving off a a house). You have this ability
due to the chemicals used to ressurect you, but the game spends literally about two lines
of dialogue on this and moves you along. It's never a great sign when the game can't be
assed explaining your super power to you but by this time you've landed on Edgewater and
already hating these corporate bastards so let's move on!
There is an interesting but woefully undervalued system of consuming drugs and food via a
vape that's right out of Barbarella that is your health and skill buffer. I would have
liked it more if combinations had interactions but alas it's just a way of bumping up the
stats. Mind you I didn't use it much as you auto heal in two seconds and the game is
pretty damn easy. This isn't a bad thing so much but given how much you stumble over
weapons and consumables it seems bit of a loose extra. I'm sure on "Super Nova" difficulty
it comes in much more use tho.
One of the first computers I had a gander on was a record of a man's suicide. The chief
concern was that as an indentured servant he had actually damaged company property and
they were not happy. It set a grim tone that I was pleasently suprised with. Over the next
hour I was supporting striking workers at the cannery and meeting with deserters after
being sent on a mission that would give me my first ethical hurdle. Do you keep the power
going to Edgewater, forcing the deserters to abandon the Botanical gardens they had made
their home, pushing them back into the corporate fold or do you reroute it to the
deserters new home and shut down the company town?
This should have been a really hard hitting moment for me, but it wasn't.
You see I always play my first run through "straight", by which I mean I play myself in
this fictional world. I'm playing on normal and I'm not looking up "best solutions" or any
of that. In both in Edgewater and The Botanical there were curious statements made in
passing and in the dialogue. The leader of the Edgewater is a seemingly reasonable man
Tobson, a typical middle management pettifogger, asking you to do right by everyone. The
leader of the deserters on the other hand is a women called Adelaide whose quite
comfortable with the idea of letting the workers in the town die due to starvation,
because hey, it's for the environment and liberty and what not.
A little looking around the place and it becomes evident that "it's aint Saltuna in the
cans", meaning that there is some Soylent Green situation going on at the cannery, while
back at The Botanical they are able to grow crops, simply because they are using corpses
and fertilizer.
I go with the lesser of two evils and as I'm specifically intent on fucking over
corporations I make the call to pull Edgewater's power because that's what I would have done.
What ruined it for me is two fold. First, it's immediatly apparently that the games
revolutionary branding is actually going to be more about thje binary choice to support
the evil corps or deserters with indigestibly muddy ethics. Second, I know games and
understand the silent language we all accept. So I'm 90% certain that with enough back and
forth, the finding of a specific document, the right dialogue path or some shit, I can
reveal to both Tobson and Adelaide that they are cannabal pricks and they'll agree to
share the power or something, you could almost taste it. I don't want to be "playing" the
game to get all the ticks and the best ending. Solutions like this shouldn't be hidden
behind the modern day version of "rubbing the right item with the right object to progress
the story". It should come from our actions and intentions instead (similar to this is the
super weapon on Monarch which turns out to be a form).
So bye bye Edgewater despite the concerns of my first companion Parvati, and I'm here
feeling railroaded. Ok, so this is the just in intro so maybe I should just get on with
it?... Still, I would have liked the option to push the workers into seizing the cannery
and then working with Adelaide to establish a better food basket for the colony. If you
CAN do this, feel free to shut me down, but I tried and failed and for a game that's
trading on its counter corporate politics I thought this would have been the default go
too? Instead we get a fairly standard by the numbers mission which some hidden solutions
if you know the secret math.
This is the grounding of my third and primary point of concern.
The politics are shite.
I really don't understand where other people are coming from with their fawning affection
over the games revolutionary patter. It's all surface, it's hideously shallow and pretty
inept. I'm not asking for quotes from Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution or anything but
the first time you see the word "Revolutionary" it's to define a npc class from a faction
of religious zealots call ed the Iconoclasts and "anarchy" is only ever used to mean
"chaos". Almost everyone, even the anti Board types are full of praise for the the
corprate system. The standard line is "sure they are bad guys, but without them who would
protect us? Who would keep order?" urgh. Wretch. This is repeated time and time again even
from allies who hate The Board. They don't want to end the corporations, they just want a
better type of corporation.
(This is woven into the game itself as it seems there isn't even a corporate free ending
that could be considered good)
The Outer Worlds really dives into this in the third act when get to work for a
corporation The Board have cut out of the colony proper with an embargo and propaganda
campaign. They are a Democratic Socialist's wet dream. Monarch Stellar Industries (MSI)
want a more ethical form of capitalism and eventually if you play I like I did (not simply
murdering everyone corporate for no reason but trying to do "what's right") you end up
leading them into an alliance with the afformentioned "revolutionaries" who are akin to
right wing libertarians and christian survivialists.
Even your companions constantly berate you for being so naive if you cuss out the
corporations. The only light in the political window is Felix, but he's played as a
violent thug of low intelligence, lost in a somewhat arbitary loyalty and romanic vision
of revolution. The only faction that seem legit are the crew of The Groundbreaker who hold
onto their position as a bastion of liberty in the colony and even tho they hold offices
for both the evil Board and the local mafioso Sublight Salvage & Shipping. Maybe I'm wrong
here, maybe Max and Ellie turn out to be full on Black Bloc bad asses if you take them to
get lit on Scylla together but I doubt it.
It's a bloody waste of a great premise that never delivers on the compliments it seems to
be getting. I actively tried to be anti corp, but without randomly mowing down their
guards this seems impossible. I was well respected by them right up until the end game.
Ok, the end game is a nice protracted fire fight where the outsiders come together and
help you take down the big bad but this itself happens with zero build up. I feel like I
missed a chapter where I went around rabble rousing and building up a plan of attack, they
just randomly turn up. Given that franchaises like Farcry, Killzone, Half Life and Red
Faction have all taken on social movements and political commentary in a much better
manner, I was expecting the ground work to have already been put down. I went in looking
for a work class revolution to join and I struggled to find even an anti-capitalist
dialogue string let alone a revolutionary that wasn't played are corrupt in one way or
another (ok, Zora comes close in the end).
Saying all this, it does do a grand job of visibility with a diverse range of characters
and the very first asexual story thread I've ever encounted in anything other than a small
indie game. So fair's fair top marks there.
So is it worth a play?
Yeah, go on, it's worth it. If you like fast paced narrative driven gameplay and can get
behind the cheesy space opera stuff, you'll love it. It isn't half as zaney as I thought
and I got pretty invested in some of the storylines (Parvati is pure and needs to be
protected!).Jjust don't expect too much as it feels like half a game. I felt that it
constantly drops the ball on going deeper and so many of the interesting possibilites hit
a dead end. Why didn't we get to explore the mechanical love affair Ada and SAM seem to
have? Why did we never get to usurp the social order in the capital Byzantium, even after
we get to know it and realise it's falling from grace? What the hell is happening with Earth?
The game is refreshing in a world of microtransactions and is very well made. Heck, no day
one patch tells us that they are quite happy with what they've put out. I only encountered
one of two bugs such as the missing text on the computers and the odd visual glitch. There
are a couple of game breakers but they seem quite difficult to find yourself in and in
thirty hours of gameplay that is rather rare. The character creator is pretty cool with a
good array of options. Politically it rises above some previous failings by including afro
hair styles and while you have to select male or female as a template, males can have
makeup and the females can fashion themselves with a beard. The vibe here is Adam Ant
meets Peaky Blinders depending if you want a dirty face or some big ol' scars. Easy to
miss there are also some blemishes and features hidden under "make up" and while it could
do with allowing multiple layers it's plenty servicable given that you're almost certainly
never going to see your face again.
On normal the game is mostly a cake walk (aside from one particular Mantiqueen and RAM,
there was little threat). If you have a decent set of dialogue and science skills you'll
avoid a bunch of fights and with the right companions, with the right perks, you'll walk
through it. You're tripping over guns and food so you never really find yourself in a
tight spot either, infact I never really had to use any of the venders for anything other
than the bypass shunts and mag-picks or the odd obviously a quest item purchases. This
isn't really a major problem with the game tho, it's flaws lie a little deeper. I want
more politics, more social development and more reason to treat it as a epic adventure
come walking simulator as I do Fallout and Skyrim. Tho The Outer Worlds makes the right
kind of music it never really becomes as substantial as either of these other titles, and
I'm not sure we can blame budget or anything like that. There is a wee game we reviewed
called "A Bewitching Revolution" which managed to do all three of these in a much smaller
and confined narrative space. As it is, after beating it, other than trying the challenge
of Super Nova or replaying as a corporate stooge or violent insurgent terrorist there is
little reason to go back to it right now, tho hopefully this changes with DLC.
At the end of the day tho, I think the game is well worth your time, get hold of a copy
and give it a spin. Just don't go in expecting a proper space sim and certainly not
something to sink your Anarchistic teeth into. It's a fast paced space opera full of
thrills and spills but it's as shallow as a paddling pool. Accept that and you're going to
have a blast, look for something deeper and you are going to find it lacking. The story is
engaging, the dialogue pretty hilarious at times, I really liked filling my spaceship with
enough bits of tat that it looked like an American dinner and for some reason I got quite
serious about collective tossball cards.
You'll invest and you want to talk about it and that's what games are about. It'll make
you want to ramble on like a mad man over the proverbial watercooler or leave you
squirming about with a knowing smile when your mate says "no spoilers!". The Outer Worlds
sure did that for me and for that reason it's thumbs up. Seriously tho, the politics of it
were a let down and a few choice quotes don't change that. ?
Rhyddical is just another pseudo bohemian revolutionary Anarchist who expects better of us
all but does his mains in Tesco anyway.
(mildly proofed and edited 03/11/19)
http://organisemagazine.org.uk/2019/11/01/the-outer-worlds-rbg
------------------------------
Message: 2
In the following translated article by Raúl Zibechi, the long-time Uruguayan militant and
analyst of social movements in Latin America, the author adopts the position that the
resignation of Evo Morales was the outcome of his government marginalizing and repressing
the very social movements that had formed the base of Morales' Movimiento al Socialismo
(MAS) once he came to power. While these movements continue to oppose the ongoing
right-wing coup carried out by the civilian bourgeoisie and armed forces, they also
withdrew their support for a renewed fourth presidential term for Morales. Zibechi takes
this opportunity to challenge readers to "see beyond the leaders (caudillos)" and reject
colonial and patriarchal forms of politics in our struggles. Español
By Raúl Zibechi
What caused the fall of the government of Evo Morales in Bolivia is an uprising by the
people of Bolivia and their organizations. Their movements demanded his resignation before
the army and police did. The Organization of American States sustained the government
until the bitter end.
The context for what is taking place in Bolivia didn't start with electoral fraud, rather
it began with systematic attacks by the government of Evo Morales and Álvaro García Linera
against the same popular movements that brought them to power, to the point that when they
needed the movements to defend them, the movements were deactivated and demoralized.
The social mobilization and the refusal of movements to defend what in another moment they
considered to be "their" government was what precipitated Morales' resignation. That is
made clear by the declarations by the Workers' Central of Bolivia (COB), the teachers and
authorities of the Public University of El Alto (UPEA), and dozens of other organizations,
including Mujeres Creando, which has been perhaps the clearest of all. The Latin American
left appears unable to accept that a considerable segment of popular movements demanded
the resignation of the government, because they can't see beyond the leaders (los caudillos).
Demonstrations in La Paz, Bolivia on October 22, 2019, against electoral fraud and the
government of Evo Morales. Photo: Paulo Fabre, Wikimedia Commons.
The declaration of the Union Federation of Mine Workers of Bolivia (FSTMB), an
organization that is close to the government, provides a clear example of what is felt
from many within organizations: "President Evo, you have already done a lot for Bolivia,
you improved education, health, and brought dignity to many poor people. President, do not
allow your country (el pueblo) to burn, and don't allow more deaths, president. The people
will respect you for the position you have to take, your resignation is inevitable,
compañero president. We must leave the national government in the hands of the people."
This sad outcome has precedents that go back, in a short version, to the march in defense
of the Isiboro-Sécure Indigenous Territory and National Park (TIPNIS) in 2011. After that
massive action, the government began to divide the organizations that convened the march.
Morales and García Linera maintained excellent relations with the business class as they
created a coup against the National Council of Ayllus and Markas of Qullasuyu (CONAMAQ)
and the Confederation of Indigenous Peoples of Bolivia (CIDOB), two historic Indigenous
organizations. They sent in the police, kicked out legitimate leaders, and then sent in
new leaders that close to the government under police protection.
In June of 2012, the CIDOB denounced "government meddling with the aim of manipulating,
dividing and affecting the organic and representative organizations of the Indigenous
peoples of Bolivia." One group of dissidents, with support from the government, refused to
recognize the authorities and convened an "expanded commission" to elect new authorities.
In December of 2013, a group of dissidents linked to the Movement Towards Socialism (MAS)
within the CONAMAQ took over their offices, and beat and removed those who were there,
with help from the police. They remained there so as to impede access by the legitimate
authorities who wished to recuperate their headquarters. The communiqué of the CONAMAQ
said that the coup against them was so that the organization would "approve all of the
policies against the Indigenous movement and the Bolivian people without anyone saying
anything."
On February 21, the government itself convened a referendum so that the people could vote
on the possibility of a fourth re-election for Morales. Regardless of the fact that the
majority voted NO, the government plowed ahead with plans for re-election.
Both of these actions, disregarding popular will and the removal of the legitimate leaders
of social movement organizations, were coups against the people.
But it gets worse yet. On the morning of Wednesday, November 17, 2017, days before the
referendum on re-election, a demonstration by parents of students arrived to El Alto's
City Hall. A group of 100 demonstrators entered the building by force, causing a fire
which killed six people. Members of the MAS had infiltrated that mobilization, hiding
behind a group of parents.
This is the style of a government that cries "coup," but that time and again repressed
organized popular sectors that stood up against the government's extractivist policies.
For the majority of people in Bolivia, the elections of October 20 were fraudulent. The
first counts indicated there would be a run-off election. But the counts stopped without
explanation and the results presented the next day showed that Evo had won the first
round, obtaining just a 10% lead over his next rival, though without receiving over 50% of
the vote.
In different regions of the country there were clashes with police. Demonstrators burned
three regional offices of the electoral tribunal, in Potosí, Sucre and Cobija. Citizen
organizations called for an indefinite general strike. On October 23d, Morales denounced
that a "coup d'état" by the Bolivian right was underway.
On Monday, October 28th, protests intensified, blockades were erected and demonstrators
clashed with police, there was also fighting between government supporters and members of
the opposition. As in other moments, Morales and García Linera mobilized co-opted social
organizations to confront other organizations as well as those who opposed their government.
On November 2nd there was an important development. Luis Fernando Camacho, president of
the Civic Committee of Santa Cruz, which had an alliance with the government of Morales,
called on the police and army to "stand on the side of the people" to force the
resignation of the president, invoking God and the bible. On Friday November 8th, the
first three police units mutinied, in Cochabamba, Sucre and Santa Cruz; in La Paz
uniformed officers mingled and mixed with demonstrators. Two days later, with the country
mobilized, Evo verbally resigned (though not in writing).
In this extremely polarized scenario, we must point to the notable role of the feminist
movement in Bolivia, especially of the Mujeres Creando collective, which spearheaded the
articulation of women's organizations in the largest cities in Bolivia.
On November 6, in the midst of violent polarization, María Galindo (of Mujeres Creando)
wrote in the Pagina 7 newspaper: "Fernando Camacho and Evo Morales complement each other."
She continued: "Both call themselves the sole representatives of the ‘people.' Both hate
freedoms for women and queers. Both are homophobic and racist, and both are using this
conflict to try and gain the upper hand."
Galindo not only demand the resignation of the government and the electoral tribunal
(which was complicit in the fraud), but she demanded that new elections be convened under
new rules, with which society is involved, so that "nobody, ever again, needs a political
party to be heard and to be represented."
The immense majority of people who live in Bolivia refused to enter into the game of war
that Morales and Garcia Linera set up when they resigned and sent party members to
participate in destruction and looting (especially in La Paz and El Alto), probably so as
to force military intervention and justify their claim of a "coup" which never existed.
The majority of Bolivians have also stayed out of the game played by the extreme right,
which acts in violent and racist ways towards popular sectors.
If there is anything left of ethics and dignity in the Latin American left, we should be
reflecting on power, and the abuses committed in its exercise. As feminists and Indigenous
people have taught us, power is always oppressive, colonial and patriarchal. That is why
they reject leaders (caudillos), and why communities rotate their leaders so that they
don't accumulate power.
We cannot forget that in this moment there is a serious danger that the racist, colonial
and patriarchal right manages to take advantage of this situation to impose rule and
provoke a bloodbath. The revanchist social and political desires of the dominant classes
is as present as it has been over the last 500 years, and must be stopped without any
hesitation.
We will not enter into the game of war that both sides wish to impose.
Raúl Zibechi is a journalist and popular educator who accompanies grassroots processes in
Latin America. One of his most well know books is Territories in Resistance: A Cartography
of Latin American Social Movements.
http://blackrosefed.org/bolivia-the-extreme-right-takes-advantage-of-a-popular-uprising/
------------------------------
Message: 3
With the situation in Bolivia in motion, we offer this brief commentary from a Black
Rose/Rosa Negra comrade in Latin America on the current situation. ---- By Romina Akemi
---- I am not going to offer a hot take on the situation in Bolivia. But I can offer an
opinion as a historian who has studied Bolivian history and as a revolutionary. ----
First, I want to underscore that the coup in Bolivia is more than a simple overthrow of
Evo Morales. Just like the 1973 coup in Chile was more than the overthrow of Allende.
There is a reason why thousands of people were tortured, executed, and exiled: the
military coup intended to wipe out an entire generation of socialists and communists. The
coup in Bolivia was organized by the white Santa Cruz elite, who have hated Evo Morales
since day one. They routinely call him "dirty Indian" in public and at political events.
The fact that there are reports about burning the Wipala flag, native social centers, and
arresting indigenous folks who are either members of the senate or Morales' cabinet,
demonstrates how this new government in power is motivated by racism against native
Bolivians. I think folks remember, that it was indigenous female-led coca farmer
organizations that put Morales in power, and who have also organized mass rallies
criticizing his governance in recent years.
Second, the fact that the far-right in Bolivia has been able to tap into popular anger
from the left against Morales' rule is a story repeated in other countries in Latin
America that were part of the "Pink Tide." We have seen this in Brazil, Nicaragua, and
Venezuela. I was telling a comrade yesterday that if Bachelet was president of Chile right
now[former center-left Socialist Party President that preceded Sebastián Piñera], then we
might have a more complicated situation. But since the uprising took place during a
right-wing government that has refused to compromise with popular demands, the far-left
demands are spreading and infecting even moderate folks. The claims about election fraud
against Morales' government are most-likely valid and represent an inability by him and
his supporters to win over a sector of society, including those who became disillusioned
with his rule.
Third, as a historian, I also want to recognize the considerable importance that Morales'
win was for indigenous people. He is not akin to Obama. Morales did bring about
significant changes, especially the new 2009 constitution that declared Bolivia a
Plurinational country that recognized the indigenous population for the first time and
their religions. Bolivia's 1952 Revolution still looms heavy over the population as the
first uprising where indigenous people in a majority indigenous nation demanded social
rights. Before the '52 revolution, indigenous people were indentured to white landowners,
slept outside in the haciendas, received starvation wages or none, and could not vote.
After the '52 Revolution was defeated (but not entirely overturned) and the uprising that
took place after Che and his followers were murdered, Morales' coalition was the first
attempt after decades for indigenous people to reclaim power.
Yes, it was through elections, and, yes, it did create social inequalities, including the
development of a bourgeois indigenous class, but it was a historical and important gain
for indigenous communities. It gave them a sense of pride to be political subjects, wear
their indigenous clothing, and speak their language. When I was visiting Argentina
recently, I saw Bolivian Aymara tourists taking photos and wearing their indigenous dress.
That scene would have been highly unlikely before Morales' win. Whether sectors of that
new wealthy indigenous class are supporting Morales or the new government is not known yet.
I think we should oppose the coup and support the indigenous people of Bolivia. But as
revolutionaries in the US, we have an even greater duty to oppose the US's role -
primarily its connection with the OAS - that made this fascist coup possible.
If you enjoyed this piece we recommend "Women in the Revolution: The Forgotten History of
Las Sandinistas" and "One Million Hands Flourishing: Nicaragua and the Neverending Task of
Planting."
http://blackrosefed.org/bolivia-commentary-on-the-coup/
------------------------------
Message: 4
What follows is an edited version of a brochure written in French and translated into
several languages. The brochure is available here. To aid readability in web format I
have changed the structure somewhat but the words and ideas remain the same. ---- The text
is comprised of a series of interviews conducted mainly by email between anarchists based
in the Parisian suburbs, Dijon, Caen and Toulouse and comrades in Brazil. The idea for the
brochure originated in the initiative of a Brazilian anarchist magazine, Crônica
Subversiva, from Porto Alegre. ---- Whilst working on this I couldn't help but compare the
French Gilet Jaunes with the Extinction Rebellion movement. Both consist of a
decentralised mass movement that has gained enormous traction in a relatively short period
of time, with a large portion of its members taking part in a political struggle for the
first time. But the similarities end there; whereas the GJs are largely working class,
distrusting of existing political structures, talk of the "convergence of struggles",
don't fear offensive tactics as a tool and have become sensitised to the subject of police
violence (if they weren't already), XR remains criticable in it's attempts to appeal to
neo-liberal politics and banalisation of state violence (although after recent events in
London a lot of peoples opinions will no doubt have changed). Personally I have noticed
worryingly little acknowledgement of other social struggles and attempts at solidarity
with non able-bodied middle class, white folks for whom being willingly arrested is not an
option. I feel that XR activists in the UK have a lot to learn from the Gilet Jaunes
experience, that's basically why I wanted to publish this - enjoy!
The interviewees and dates of interviews are:
- T, an anarchist from the Paris suburbs, February 1-11
- E&L, two anarchists from Toulouse, February 19
- A, an anarchist from the Paris suburbs, March 9
- J, from Dijon, March 21st
- R&R, two anarchists from Caen, April 2nd
We think that, as anarchists, it is crucial that we ask ourselves certain questions,
especially that of our role among social movements. How can we take part in a movement
without renouncing our convictions? Without becoming a revolutionary avant-garde? How can
we share and spread our ideas towards people who, at first sight have entirely differing
world views, in some cases contradictory even to ours? Is creating chaos our only objective?
Enkapuzado: First of all, could you explain to us how the Yellow Vests movement was born?
And at first sight, what was the reaction of (the) anarchist movement(s) in relation to
the social movement?
T: The movement first started in October 2018 on the Internet, in "social media",
following the rise of gas prices. The first few people who initiated the movement didn't
know each other, and did not come from militant/activist circles/backgrounds. The movement
became consistent following the first occupations of roundabouts and the first turbulent
gatherings on the Champs-Elysées, in Paris, on November 17 2018, which took on a unique
shape and displayed distrust and even hostility towards[political]parties. >From the very
first day, this movement gathered very different people, politically and socially. And
very quickly, the question of taxes and the rise in gas prices was bypassed: this primary
demand seemed secondary compared to the generalized anger. Finally, since the beginning of
the movement, only one slogan is unanimous during the big days of mobilization (the famous
weekly "Acts" that started on November 17): "Macron resign". First of all, with its
initial focus on the question of taxes and based on the fact that it regrouped people from
opposing political strands, the Yellow Vests movement inspired both suspicion and
enthusiasm from anarchists. Some of them actively participated in the movement from the
first day, while others still refuse to do so. Similarly to the anarchist movement, maybe
even more so than in "normal" times, there is no common position gathering all
trends/tendencies.
A: The Gilets Jaunes movement was first born in reaction to the dramatic increase in the
price of petrol at the gas station. This piled up on top of the explosion in the number of
speed cameras, on ever-more frequent traffic-related fines when the Macron administration
lowered the speed limitation on non-highway roads from 90km/h down to 80 in July 2018, and
on the scandal of the French highways. In the 1970s, the state subsidized the construction
of these highways through a public-private partnership with Vinci and other companies.
Basically, the French "tax dollars" (francs back then) paid for a part of the works and
once the investment was recuperated for these industry giants the tolls were supposed to
disappear. And the complete opposite happened: in 1995 the Jospin administration sold the
highways to these big companies and inserted terms in the contract that bound them with
the state, an annual increase in toll prices even stronger than inflation.
It's no wonder this movement was born on the roundabouts: it was first a movement of
people who lived outside of the cities and for whom driving their car is a huge portion of
their expenses.
E&L: In the Toulouse region, it[the movement]was made concrete through a daily presence on
roundabouts around the city and at toll booths. The first Saturday demonstrations started
after two weeks. For us, it was a bit hard in the beginning to know where to stand and
seize the opportunity, because of a wide and blurry political spectrum, including
nationalistic claims (such as closing borders or even reporting migrants on a roundabout
in the North of France). What sparked the interest of the anarchist movement was the
riotous character of the demonstrations, the rejection of parties and unions and the
class-related demands. However, it also opened a way to fascist dynamics, and it feels
like it took us some time to find our own way in that movement (which is still not easy
today).
J: Most of our comrades were pretty disdainful of the movement because they saw it as a
protest of rednecks that were complaining because they wanted cheaper petrol. In Dijon, we
were less than ten comrades at the first protest. Our friends quickly changed their mind
when they saw how big the protests became.
R&R: The reactions among the revolutionary movement were very diverse. Depending on each
person's experiences, ideological bases or geographical location, some militants took part
in the movement from the beginning, occupying roundabouts. Others, more skeptical and
afraid to see the movement infiltrated and turned by the extreme right, waited a few weeks
before joining it. Some are only there for moments of clashing (during protests) and take
only little part in the organization of the movement. Finally, there certainly are those
who, in a very critical way, require a firmer political coherence and do not participate
at all.
Enkapuzado: Over here, we hear that this movement claims no attachment to any political
party or trade union, as if it emanated from some general weariness towards social misery
and a rejection of traditional politics. Do you think this might be "fertile ground" to
propagate anarchist ideas and practices?
T: Definitely. A large part of this movement carries this rejection, and has affirmed it
since the very beginning. There is actually a lot in common between the Yellow Vests and
anarchist militants: the rejection of the government, of political parties, of trade
unions and other "social partners" (considered as "intermediary bodies" that are supposed
to defuse any revolt and to soothe the relations between the State and protesters); and,
of course, the recourse to direct action. The movement exists through illegal acts, going
from symbolically blockading roundabouts to burning down a prefecture/police Department.
These actions have been carried out since November 2018, and are as numerous as they are
diverse.
J: The movement defines itself as such. The "leaders", or those that are called that way
by the media, don't behave according to the way the institutions would have hoped. The
government doesn't have any partners with whom to dialogue, like with the unions, and so
they don't have anyone to relay the calls for calm and dialogue. Of course these are
fertile grounds for our ideas and practices, because everyone understands that by
attacking the symbols of capitalism (even they aren't described as such) or by blocking
the economy (by barricading Paris on Saturday afternoons), you'll be taken seriously.
After that, either they send the cops or they answer your demands. For now, the State has
always sent the cops, which has at least helped us spread our ideas.
E&L: In Toulouse, the links between the anarchist movement and Gilets jaunes are realized
mostly through anti-repression frameworks and forms of action. For example, we noticed it
was pretty hard to bring about "fundamental" political questions.
Despite a disrupted relation to the "political", a large portion of the movement still
claims the movement as "apolitical". And so, as much as there are some opportunities for
propaganda leading to interesting discussions, we sometimes run into a wall where our
texts and leaflets are perceived as "too radical" or as showing a will to divide.
R&R: As for us, we could say it's "fertile ground" for propagating our ideas and our
practices, because the spokespeople were quickly removed. The modes of action that are
used (sabotaging speed cameras, direct action, clashing with the police) also confirm
this. Then, as for the modes of organization, apart from social media, which are not
really our thing, there have been general assemblies of nearly 300 people since the start
of the movement. One of those took place in a migrants' squat (the "squat du Marais",
which houses 200 to 250 people). Certain contacts taken with the first Gilets jaunes led
to the organization of that assembly and, from the start of it, solidarity with the
foreigners who are mistreated by the French state was put forth.
Enkapuzado: We also felt a nice overflowing of the movement which translated into direct
actions that targeted material symbols of the state and of the capital, in the streets of
big cities but also all over France. We can imagine that the media and the government
tried to spin this violence to divide the movement into the "good-citizen demonstrators"
and the "rioters". What effect did that have inside the social movement and on the
relationship between the anarchists and the Yellow Vests?
T: Much like on most other subjects, there is no consensus among the Yellow Vests. As in
every revolt, the State and its allies described the movement as a scandal, criticizing
the rebels' violence without ever talking about the day-to-day social violence that caused
the revolts. The president, Macron, his first minister Edouard Philippe and the Minister
of Interior, Christophe Castaner, were relentless in smearing the "bad Yellow Vests". Same
thing goes for the media: a number of journalists, politicians and experts called for the
repression to be toughened.
Of course, it's much easier to openly proclaim, in front of an assembly of 80 people or in
front of a TV camera, that one is against the protesters' violence. On the other hand,
it's much harder to describe why we think it's right and just to smash a ministry's door
down, to throw stones at polices, to loot a luxury boutique or to burn a cop car.
As anarchists, it's very important to address this issue with pertinent arguments, to
affirm direct action as a means of struggle, whatever the alleged degree of violence.
R&R: From the beginning, in certain cities, a person who would dress in black and wear a
mask risked expulsion from the protests. Today, the black blocs are more easily accepted
and sometimes celebrated on Facebook or during protests. But it has become evident that
the so-called "professional rioters" who get arrested, brought up for immediate trials and
sometimes convicted are actually, very often at least, working-class people who are not at
all used to collectively expressing their anger by destroying a bank window here or
throwing paving stones at the cops there. That could also partly explain why the movement
still lives on today, when there has been considerable destruction of the symbols of state
and capitalism every Saturday for several months now, in several cities across the country.
So the mixing during protests between on the one hand inexperienced Gilets jaunes and on
the other militants more accustomed to destroying what oppresses them, went quite well
from our perspective.
E&L: Even though it's not that clear, we can see that a part of the movement describes
itself as "citizenist" and another part claims solidarity with the diversity of tactics in
the movement. For instance, during Act XII, some anti-riot Gilets jaunes went to meet the
mayor of Toulouse to negotiate an itinerary for the march and declare the demonstration.
Fortunately, that was hugely criticized and only 30 people showed up to their protest.
This initiative came mainly from the storekeepers. In the end, the attempt at dividing the
movement failed completely here. In court, the people who were arrested usually take
responsibility and own up to their actions, both criticizing the justice system and
claiming their participation in the movement. Similarly, most of the people who were
imprisoned show solidarity with the movement as a whole, by maintaining anti-division
positions and solidarity with the movement despite sentences which are often heavy.
Starting from the organisational framework against the repression attacking the Gilets
Jaunes, some anarchists are trying to bring forward the question of prison in general, by
breaking down the specificity of solidarity with only the political prisoners. As for the
media, we can see a rejection of the bourgeois/mainstream press as a whole, both in words
and in action: journalists who were thrown out of the protests or media headquarters
attacked. This mistrust of the media stems in particular from the image that the media
conveyed about "rioters"[casseurs]and about the population's supposed contempt for the
movement. Concerning the attacks themselves, it is clear that the targets accepted by
everyone are the banks, insurance companies and more and more the real estate agencies.
But there remains reluctance and division regarding street furniture (bus stops,
advertising billboards,...) and the practice of selfdiscount/looting in stores.
J: From what I've heard in the assemblies I've attended, the Yellow Vests don't
distinguish between themselves and the "rioters". For them, everyone remains a gilet jaune
and the different forms of practices and actions are complementary. This pretty quickly
became the common discourse here and that's really good news.
Enkapuzado: We can imagine that among anarchists there are also different ways to take
part in the movement, could you tell us which is yours and why?
J: I went to the first protest to observe, because I saw this thing becoming bigger and
bigger on the internet and in the media, and because most of the comrades presented this
as something the fascists were going to hijack, so I was both scared and at the same time,
I didn't believe that would happen. So I went to the protest. And it was the biggest
protest I had ever seen in Dijon. 10,000 people, and the Yellow Vests announced that they
wanted to go onto the highway, so the prefecture/police Department closed the highways to
cars so that we could go protest. The crowd refused to go there, they discussed the matter
and said "we want to march in the city, we'll show them what it's like when we're angry".
T: It took me longer than most to figure out that this movement carried an insurrectional
tide, and that it was going to go far beyond the issue of gas taxes. But since the
beginning of December, I'm in it 100%!
However, a certain confusion reigns amongst the Yellow Vests movement's ideas and
perspectives. This is due to the originality of the movement's composition: there are
mostly people who hate the system and the bourgeoisie, sometimes named "oligarchy", there
are a lot of self-proclaimed "apolitical" or "apartisan" people, and there are also a lot
of politicized people, from anarchists and antifa to the far right, alongside members of
different political parties (sovereignists/nationalists and/or far-left). Because of this,
I decided it was important to actively participate in the political debate inside the
movement, which meant attending the different assemblies, distributing pamphlets and
writing on the walls... Well, it's not as if I don't "normally" do this, but I just felt
like it was very important to do this during this movement.
E&L: A presence in the streets for one, to shout slogans, to mess with fascists and to be
part of the direct actions. In a more organized way, it seemed maybe more "simple" to get
into the anti-repression framework by organizing a turning presence/hotline for the
friends and families of inmates, writing letters for imprisoned people and distributing
legal advice in leaflets or workshop.
A: What I think is essential to understand is that an overwhelming majority of the Gilets
jaunes are first-time protesters. For most of them, this was the first time that they ever
occupied or blocked anything, that they acted outside the law. This appears clearly in the
naivety with which they faced police and judiciary repression. The numbers are hard to
check but there were, for December only, over 4,000 arrests, at least 200 prison
sentences, systematically coupled to provisions banning them from protesting for three
years (that is unprecedented in France, but it seems to be just a beginning).
Among the convicted people, almost everyone had a blank record and was convicted based
only on their own confessions. Like: "yes, I threw a bottle at the cops because they hit
us for no reason, I was only defending myself", etc. When we're aware of the justice
system's reaction to procedures which are, most of the time, devoid of any material
evidence, we understand better the naive nature of such confessions.
R&R: Where we live, we have been quite lucky. Of course, the identitarians and other
mindless little fascists participated in the movement (blockades, demonstrations, etc.)
but they were never numerous enough to actually initiate anything or to influence any
political orientation locally. We called them out soon and they had to keep an even lower
profile than they already had for the bulk of the Gilets jaunes. Also, the organization
arose without any leader or spokesperson, horizontally in general assemblies with various
committees (anti-repression, actions, communication, perspectives, street-medics).
Enkapuzado: After almost three months of a social movement which doesn't seem to be
running out, what are the perspectives? Quickly, seen from here, the extreme-right seems
less and less present. Does this mean there is a seizing of the movement by the unionist
left? How do the anarchist Yellow Vests stand on, for example, the candidacy of a Gilets
jaunes list for the European elections?
T: Of course, we must talk about the far-right. Many far-right groups are still present.
Last Saturday (February 9), antifa and fascists clashed in Lyon, and the fascists were
routed, despite being very well established in the city. The previous week, the Yellow
Vests had already kicked fascists out of the protest in Paris. Similar scenarios happened
in Bordeaux and other cities over the past few weeks. However, it's still too early to
conclude that the far-right has been totally kicked out of the movement. The unionist left
has started to show up in the demonstrations, but remains far behind in terms of
its[implication/significance], and the Yellow Vests continue to express their strong
distrust of trade unions.
A number of anarchists involving themselves in the Yellow Vests movement push forward the
ideas of self-determination, and horizontal and decentralized organization, through the
form of assemblies, and try to organize these assemblies at a higher level whilst always
relying on the local assemblies. On the other hand, the demand for the RIC (Citizen's
Initiative for a Referendum) is perceived as a means to calm the revolt by creating an
illusion of popular power through the possibility of participating in thematic votes. In
the first case, there are principles of self-determination that don't need a State or any
form of political hierarchy. In the second, there would be a renewal of socially reformist
relations with the same forms of political campaigns (with all the usual problems of
funding, mediatisation and brainwashing typical of our Spectacular-market society) to push
us to vote "yes" or "no" for a given proposition, with the State giving the final say.
E&L: We can also note that in the beginning, the Gilets jaunes seemed pretty angry when
fascists were physically thrown out of protests, always with that argument that "there's
no point in being radical" and that it would only divide the movement. On that level,
things started to change when the Maoists were attacked by fascists who were making Nazi
salutes. It's kind of reassuring to see the emergence of some limits to a democratic
principle that claims to be absolute and stronger than anything, even though it's still
not enough and we'd like to see some other lines or perspectives appear, that would be
politically clearer. That's the scary thing about this movement, the lack of political
perspectives per se, other than "Macron démission" ("Macron, resign!"). Everything seems
to centre around common practices and the fear of division. There also appears to be fewer
occupied roundabouts and more than a few Gilets jaunes start to be discouraged among
certain committees. In general, the unionist left seems at a loss with partly failed
attempts at a general strike and attempts at attending Gilets jaunes general assemblies.
A: Since the beginning of February, the counter-revolutionary forces have been working at
full capacity. The administration, seeing the impossibility of managing the movement
through recuperation, decided to go with plain repression. We'd just never seen that, not
even in 1968, according to the elders. The numbers increase day by day but roughly: 3,000
gravely injured; 22 eyes lost (the majority of which belonging to outright pacifists!); 5
hands ripped off (by the infamous GLI-F4 grenades, which contain TNT); 6,000 arrests since
November, 5,000 people in police custody, at least 2,000 sentences (a lot of trials still
haven't taken place yet), 250 prison sentences (often for things like transporting
swimming goggles...). Add on top of that the new "anti-rioter" law, which has been ready
for 10 years but that no previous government had dared pass, and for good reason: it
allows for and organizes the preventive arrest of anyone suspected by the State from,
maybe, one day, inshallah... committing an act of violence. It's really like Minority
Report in Voltaire's country.
The repression is so high that we no longer even manage to have a reliable count locally,
for our small town: more than 250 people arrested, 140 legal proceedings including 50
trials, at least 12 Yellow Vests in prison, more than 35,000 euros in fines... The two
heaviest offenders in France are from Caen, with sentences of 3 years and 3 months, and 3
years, including 6 months suspended. This police and judicial attack, against people
unfamiliar with militancy and for the most part precarious, will have at least had the
effect of raising a general questioning of state violence. We have seen protestors calling
for the ban of LBD-40 (ex-Flashball). Recently, too, an emerging demand has been for an
amnesty for all imprisoned Yellow Vests.
J: In the Yellow Vests assemblies, there are very few discussions on
the[European]elections, or none. And that's pretty reassuring.
We hope it's not going to stop.
With the repression and all the rest, we'll see how it's going to go.
https://freedomnews.org.uk/interviews-with-anarchists-concerning-the-yellow-vests-movement/
------------------------------
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten