Today's Topics:
1. France, Union Communiste Libertaire AL #300 - UCL-Argentina
Tour: The FOB at the forefront of class feminism (fr, it,
pt)[machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
2. anarkismo.net: José Rodrigues Oiticica (1882-1957) by
Dmitri - MACG [machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
3. New Zealand: communalism - APEC 2021 - Haere atu!
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
4. Bangladesh Anarcho Syndicalist Federation - BASF: WOMAN
SUFFRAGE (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
5. IWA-AIT in Austria - Viennese workers syndicate WAS: On the
last December 21, organized a demonstration of solidarity with
the Chilean insurgents. (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Several hundred people in total participated in the public meetings of the tour organized by the UCL from October 26 to November 23, in
thirteen cities in France, with three activists from the Federation of base-autonomous organizations (FOB autónoma). ---- For more than
twelve years, the red, purple and black flags of the FOB have been known in the streets of Argentina. At the intersection of direct action
and feminism, while advocating self-management and direct democracy, the FOB, which is based on an 80% female base and the vast majority of
whom are migrants, set in motion thousands of workers for their rights. ---- Since this fall, the federation has however split up, a
majority of grassroots organizations having deemed it appropriate to integrate a more bureaucratic and institutional structure of the
piquetero movement. These are therefore three representatives of the minority animated by the libertarian spirit - the FOB autónoma -, who
toured with the UCL.
Over the stages - both urban and rural - public meetings attracted 40-50 people on average, even in villages of less than 1500 inhabitants
and inhabitants, such as Sauxillange (63) or Lasalle (30), with an audience often predominantly female.
The evening was structured by the projection of filmed testimonies of activists explaining the reasons for their engagement: unemployment,
unsanitary housing, the harsh condition of immigrant (a number are Bolivian, Peruvian, Paraguayan, Brazilian), refusal patriarchal violence.
At the FOB, they found solidarity, mutual aid, learned to speak, to organize collective actions. The federation took a large part in the
movement of " green scarves " for the legalization of abortion. Those present then answered questions from the audience.
In Fougères (35), where, after The birds of the storm, a second self-managed place will open in an old factory, the activists were able to
discuss the social activities that the FOB was carrying out in this type of space.
In Montreuil (93), the evening took place at the Maison des Femmes, a historic reception center for victims of violence (at work, domestic
workers, prostitution, forced marriages, sexual mutilation, etc.), with very feminine assistance. and Latin American.
Ditto in Lyon (69), where 90 people came to the self-managed La Plume noire bookstore, with the participation of Family Planning.
In Millau (12), with a public rather yellow vest and trade unionist, the feedbacks were unanimously very good, and the evening strengthened
the local ties and with the militant networks of the neighboring cities.
Since October 27, Argentina has again had a Peronist government, which increases the risks of seduction and institutionalization of social
movements by this political current advocating the reconciliation of capital and labor on the basis of populism and clientelism.
A good part of the Argentinian popular movement will however be able to challenge it, remain independent and combative. And if the FOB
autónoma is like the three comrades who toured the UCL, there is no doubt that this organization will be in the forefront of the fight.
https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?Tournee-UCL-Argentine-La-FOB-a-la-pointe-du-feminisme-de-classe
------------------------------
Message: 2
José Oiticica was a Brazilian anarchist, poet and activist. He was the founder and editor of the anarchist magazine "Ação Direta" ("Direct
Action"), from 1946 until his death. He also wrote and published several poetry books. ---- José Oiticica was a Brazilian anarchist, poet
and activist. He was the founder and editor of the anarchist magazine "Ação Direta" ("Direct Action"), from 1946 until his death. He also
wrote and published several poetry books. ---- As a senator's son, Oiticica was sent to study at a religious school from which he was
expelled for insurrection. In 1906 he founded the Latin American Union, where he supported progressive education. Later, as a professor, he
taught Portuguese Literature at the University of Hamburg (1929-1930). ---- The continued evolution of his ideas led him to anarchism in
1912. He participated in the Center for Social Studies, where he became an active freedom fighter, holding trade union conferences and
participating with workers in various social protest and unrest activities.
In 1918 he was arrested and deported for insurrection, especially after his call for a general strike. In 1924 he returned to prison because
of his liberal and anti-militaristic ideas. He was also a member of the Union of Criminals based in Rio de Janeiro. Also during the 1920s
with the consolidation of Bolshevik Russia the workers' and socialist movements were divided.
In March 1958 various anarchists founded in memory of Oiticica the Center for José Oiticica (CEPJO) in Rio de Janeiro, which operated until
October 1969, when the state attacked it and its members. they were arrested, imprisoned and tortured.
José Oiticica was the father of photographer José Oiticica Filho (1906-1964) and grandfather of artist Hélio Oiticica. Both were influenced
by anarchist ideas.
* Translation: "Neither God-nor-Master".
Related Link: https://ngnm.vrahokipos.net/
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/31708
------------------------------
Message: 3
The New Zealand government will be hosting the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) conference in Auckland in November 2021. This
inter-governmental forum of 21 Pacific Rim countries has spent the last 30 years promoting its neo-liberal agenda, an agenda of endless
capitalist growth at the expense of workers, communities and the environment. ---- According to the government, "APEC 2021 will be the
largest international event ever hosted by the New Zealand Government." They are expecting presidents and prime ministers from across the
Pacific: presidents of the USA, Russia, China and Indonesia to name but a few. ---- Planning for the mega-get-together of warmongers is
already in full swing with the. The Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Trade is taking the lead with organising events. A key component to
their planning is the recent introduction of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC 2021) Bill to parliament, giving the police, army
and security guards a significant increase in temporary powers.
We have been here before. 20 years ago, New Zealand hosted the APEC summit in Auckland. Back in early 1999, the government amended the Arms
Act 1983 by temporarily inserting sections 65A - F which authorised "[authorised]foreign personal protection officer to carry and have
possession of firearms."
But the current proposed legislation goes a lot further than a change to the Arms Act. There are five key sections to the Asia-Pacific
Economic Cooperation (APEC 2021) Bill:
the cops can authorise members of the army to assist the police - which is essentially a militarisation of every-day life
the cops can authorise ‘appropriately trained' people to assist them. This section refers to Australian cops and ‘employees of a New Zealand
government agency' (which is about as vague as you can be) but also - and here it gets more interesting - ‘people commonly known as security
guards, who are called crowd controllers'. So basically the security guards that have been assaulting activists at blockades in recent years
such as the Petroleum Summits or the Weapons Expo will be working hand-in-hand with the cops as private mercenaries
‘Foreign protection officers' (think VIP security guards for visiting presidents and prime ministers) can be armed (just like in 1999)
police can create ‘security areas' giving them a whole heap of power including shutting down roads, public places, privately owned places
and removing and searching people in those areas
and finally, the Bill allows the police to use W-ECM - ‘Wireless electronic countermeasures'. This basically means using massive ‘jammers'
to stop anyone using cellphones or radios (the example given is a presidential motorcade where "there is a chance this technology will block
your signal for a few minutes, after which it will return to normal")
20 years ago, Peace Movement Aotearoa encouraged their supporters to make submissions against the government's desire to amend the Arms Act
to allow foreign secret service agents and others to carry firearms during the APEC meeting. While it appears this legislation will pass
again, we can use this time to connect with each other, strategise and articulate our collective criticism of APEC and what it stands for.
Submissions close on 12th February 2020 and it's easy enough to use parliament's submission form for a brief rant.
More importantly, the organised left in Aotearoa needs to start a serious discussion around how we can counter the neo-liberal and
neo-colonial rhetoric that will be shoved down our throats for the next two years.
https://communalism.noblogs.org/post/2020/01/02/apec-2021-haere-atu/
------------------------------
Message: 4
WE BOAST of the age of advancement, of science, and progress. Is it not strange, then, that we still believe in fetich worship? True, our
fetiches have different form and substance, yet in their power over the human mind they are still as disastrous as were those of old. ----
Our modern fetich is universal suffrage. Those who have not yet achieved that goal fight bloody revolutions to obtain it, and those who
have enjoyed its reign bring heavy sacrifice to the altar of this omnipotent diety. Woe to the heretic who dare question that divinity!
---- Woman, even more than man, is a fetich worshipper, and though her idols may change, she is ever on her knees, ever holding up her
hands, ever blind to the fact that her god has feet of clay. Thus woman has been the greatest supporter of all deities from time
immemorial. Thus, too, she has had to pay the price that only gods can exact,--her freedom, her heart's blood, her very life.
Nietzsche's memorable maxim, "When you go to woman, take the whip along," is considered very brutal, yet Nietzsche expressed in one
sentence the attitude of woman towards her gods.
Religion, especially the Christian religion, has condemned woman to the life of an inferior, a slave. It has thwarted her nature and
fettered her soul, yet the Christian religion has no greater supporter, none more devout, than woman. Indeed, it is safe to say that
religion would have long ceased to be a factor in the lives of the people, if it were not for the support it receives from woman. The most
ardent churchworkers, the most tireless missionaries the world over, are women, always sacrificing on the altar of the gods that have
chained her spirit and enslaved her body.
The insatiable monster, war, robs woman of all that is dear and precious to her. It exacts her brothers, lovers, sons, and in return gives
her a life of loneliness and despair. Yet the greatest supporter and worshiper of war is woman. She it is who instills the love of conquest
and power into her children; she it is who whispers the glories of war into the ears of her little ones, and who rocks her baby to sleep
with the tunes of trumpets and the noise of guns. It is woman, too, who crowns the victor on his return from the battlefield. Yes, it is
woman who pays the highest price to that insatiable monster, war.
Then there is the home. What a terrible fetich it is! How it saps the very life-energy of woman,--this modern prison with golden bars. Its
shining aspect blinds woman to the price she would have to pay as wife, mother, and housekeeper. Yet woman clings tenaciously to the home,
to the power that holds her in bondage.
It may be said that because woman recognizes the awful toll she is made to pay to the Church, State, and the home, she wants suffrage to
set herself free. That may be true of the few; the majority of suffragists repudiate utterly such blasphemy. On the contrary, they insist
always that it is woman suffrage which will make her a better Christian and home keeper, a staunch citizen of the State. Thus suffrage is
only a means of strengthening the omnipotence of the very Gods that woman has served from time immemorial.
What wonder, then, that she should be just as devout, just as zealous, just as prostrate before the new idol, woman suffrage. As of old,
she endures persecution, imprisonment, torture, and all forms of condemnation, with a smile on her face. As of old, the most enlightened,
even, hope for a miracle from the twentieth-century deity,--suffrage. Life, happiness, joy, freedom, independence,--all that, and more, is
to spring from suffrage. In her blind devotion woman does not see what people of intellect perceived fifty years ago: that suffrage is an
evil, that it has only helped to enslave people, that it has but closed their eyes that they may not see how craftily they were made to
submit.
Woman's demand for equal suffrage is based largely on the contention that woman must have the equal right in all affairs of society. No
one could, possibly, refute that, if suffrage were a right. Alas, for the ignorance of the human mind, which can see a right in an
imposition. Or is it not the most brutal imposition for one set of people to make laws that another set is coerced by force to obey? Yet
woman clamors for that "golden opportunity" that has wrought so much misery in the world, and robbed man of his integrity and
self-reliance; an imposition which has thoroughly corrupted the people, and made them absolute prey in the hands of unscrupulous politicians.
The poor, stupid, free American citizen! Free to starve, free to tramp the highways of this great country, he enjoys universal suffrage,
and, by that right, he has forged chains about his limbs. The reward that he receives is stringent labor laws prohibiting the right of
boycott, of picketing, in fact, of everything, except the right to be robbed of the fruits of his labor. Yet all these disastrous results
of the twentieth-century fetich have taught woman nothing. But, then, woman will purify politics, we are assured.
Needless to say, I am not opposed to woman suffrage on the conventional ground that she is not equal to it. I see neither physical,
psychological, nor mental reasons why woman should not have the equal right to vote with man. But that can not possibly blind me to the
absurd notion that woman will accomplish that wherein man has failed. If she would not make things worse, she certainly could not make
them better. To assume, therefore, that she would succeed in purifying something which is not susceptible of purification, is to credit
her with supernatural powers. Since woman's greatest misfortune has been that she was looked upon as either angel or devil, her true
salvation lies in being placed on earth; namely, in being considered human, and therefore subject to all human follies and mistakes. Are
we, then, to believe that two errors will make a right? Are we to assume that the poison already inherent in politics will be decreased,
if women were to enter the political arena? The most ardent suffragists would hardly maintain such a folly.
As a matter of fact, the most advanced students of universal suffrage have come to realize that all existing systems of political power
are absurd, and are completely inadequate to meet the pressing issues of life. This view is also borne out by a statement of one who is
herself an ardent believer in woman suffrage, Dr. Helen L. Sumner. In her able work on Equal Suffrage, she says: "In Colorado, we find that
equal suffrage serves to show in the most striking way the essential rottenness and degrading character of the existing system." Of course,
Dr. Sumner has in mind a particular system of voting, but the same applies with equal force to the entire machinery of the representative
system. With such a basis, it is difficult to understand how woman, as a political factor, would benefit either herself or the rest of
mankind.
But, say our suffrage devotees, look at the countries and States where female suffrage exists. See what woman has accomplished--in
Australia, New Zealand, Finland, the Scandinavian countries, and in our own four States, Idaho, Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. Distance lends
enchantment--or, to quote a Polish formula--"it is well where we are not." Thus one would assume that those countries and States are
unlike other countries or States, that they have greater freedom, greater social and economic equality, a finer appreciation of human
life, deeper understanding of the great social struggle, with all the vital questions it involves for the human race.
The women of Australia and New Zealand can vote, and help make the laws. Are the labor conditions better there than they are in England,
where the suffragettes are making such a heroic struggle? Does there exist a greater motherhood, happier and freer children than in
England? Is woman there no longer considered a mere sex commodity? Has she emancipated herself from the Puritanical double standard of
morality for men and women? Certainly none but the ordinary female stump politician will dare answer these questions in the affirmative.
If that be so, it seems ridiculous to point to Australia and New Zealand as the Mecca of equal suffrage accomplishments.
On the other hand, it is a fact to those who know the real political conditions in Australia, that politics have gagged labor by enacting
the most stringent labor laws, making strikes without the sanction of an arbitration committee a crime equal to treason.
Not for a moment do I mean to imply that woman suffrage is responsible for this state of affairs. I do mean, however, that there is no
reason to point to Australia as a wonder-worker of woman's accomplishment, since her influence has been unable to free labor from the
thraldom of political bossism.
Finland has given woman equal suffrage; nay, even the right to sit in Parliament. Has that helped to develop a greater heroism, an intenser
zeal than that of the women of Russia? Finland, like Russia, smarts under the terrible whip of the bloody Tsar. Where are the Finnish
Perovskaias, Spiridonovas, Figners, Breshkovskaias? Where are the countless numbers of Finnish young girls who cheerfully go to Siberia
for their cause? Finland is sadly in need of heroic liberators. Why has the ballot not created them? The only Finnish avenger of his people
was a man, not a woman, and he used a more effective weapon than the ballot.
As to our own States where women vote, and which are constantly being pointed out as examples of marvels, what has been accomplished there
through the ballot that women do not to a large extent enjoy in other States; or that they could not achieve through energetic efforts
without the ballot?
True, in the suffrage States women are guaranteed equal rights to property; but of what avail is that right to the mass of women without
property, the thousands of wage workers, who live from hand to mouth? That equal suffrage did not, and cannot, affect their condition is
admitted even by Dr. Sumner, who certainly is in a position to know. As an ardent suffragist, and having been sent to Colorado by the
Collegiate Equal Suffrage League of New York State to collect material in favor of suffrage, she would be the last to say anything
derogatory; yet we are informed that "equal suffrage has but slightly affected the economic conditions of women. That women do not receive
equal pay for equal work, and that, though woman in Colorado has enjoyed school suffrage since 1876, women teachers are paid less than in
California." On the other hand, Miss Sumner fails to account for the fact that although women have had school suffrage for thirty-four
years, and equal suffrage since 1894, the census in Denver alone a few months ago disclosed the fact of fifteen thousand defective school
children. And that, too, with mostly women in the educational department, and also notwithstanding that women in Colorado have passed the
"most stringent laws for child and animal protection." The women of Colorado "have taken great interest in the State institutions for the
care of dependent, defective, and delinquent children." What a horrible indictment against woman's care and interest, if one city has
fifteen thousand defective children. What about the glory of woman suffrage, since it has failed utterly in the most important social
issue, the child? And where is the superior sense of justice that woman was to bring into the political field? Where was it in 1903, when
the mine owners waged a guerilla war against the Western Miners' Union; when General Bell established a reign of terror, pulling men out
of bed at night, kidnapping them across the border line, throwing them into bull pens, declaring "to hell with the Constitution, the club
is the Constitution"? Where were the women politicians then, and why did they not exercise the power of their vote? But they did. They
helped to defeat the most fair-minded and liberal man, Governor Waite. The latter had to make way for the tool of the mine kings, Governor
Peabody, the enemy of labor, the Tsar of Colorado. "Certainly male suffrage could have done nothing worse." Granted. Wherein, then, are
the advantages to woman and society from woman suffrage? The oft-repeated assertion that woman will purify politics is also but a myth. It
is not borne out by the people who know the political conditions of Idaho, Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah.
Woman, essentially a purist, is naturally bigoted and relentless in her effort to make others as good as she thinks they ought to be.
Thus, in Idaho, she has disfranchised her sister of the street, and declared all women of "lewd character" unfit to vote. "Lewd" not being
interpreted, of course, as prostitution in marriage. It goes without saying that illegal prostitution and gambling have been prohibited.
In this regard the law must needs be of feminine gender: it always prohibits. Therein all laws are wonderful. They go no further, but
their very tendencies open all the floodgates of hell. Prostitution and gambling have never done a more flourishing business than since the
law has been set against them.
In Colorado, the Puritanism of woman has expressed itself in a more drastic form. "Men of notoriously unclean lives, and men connected with
saloons, have been dropped from politics since women have the vote."1 Could Brother Comstock do more? Could all the Puritan fathers have
done more? I wonder how many women realize the gravity of this would-be feat. I wonder if they understand that it is the very thing which,
instead of elevating woman, has made her a political spy, a contemptible pry into the private affairs of people, not so much for the good
of the cause, but because, as a Colorado woman said, "they like to get into houses they have never been in, and find out all they can,
politically and otherwise."2 Yes, and into the human soul and its minutest nooks and corners. For nothing satisfies the craving of most
women so much as scandal. And when did she ever enjoy such opportunities as are hers, the politician's?
"Notoriously unclean lives, and men connected with the saloons." Certainly, the lady vote gatherers can not be accused of much sense of
proportion. Granting even that these busybodies can decide whose lives are clean enough for that eminently clean atmosphere, politics,
must it follow that saloon-keepers belong to the same category? Unless it be American hypocrisy and bigotry, so manifest in the principle
of Prohibition, which sanctions the spread of drunkenness among men and women of the rich class, yet keeps vigilant watch on the only
place left to the poor man. If no other reason, woman's narrow and purist attitude toward life makes her a greater danger to liberty
wherever she has political power. Man has long overcome the superstitions that still engulf woman. In the economic competitive field, man
has been compelled to exercise efficiency, judgment, ability, competency. He therefore had neither time nor inclination to measure
everyone's morality with a Puritanic yardstick. In his political activities, too, he has not gone about blindfolded. He knows that quantity
and not quality is the material for the political grinding mill, and, unless he is a sentimental reformer or an old fossil, he knows that
politics can never be anything but a swamp.
Women who are at all conversant with the process of politics, know the nature of the beast, but in their self-sufficiency and egotism they
make themselves believe that they have but to pet the beast, and he will become as gentle as a lamb, sweet and pure. As if women have not
sold their votes, as if women politicians cannot be bought! If her body can be bought in return for material consideration, why not her
vote? That it is being done in Colorado and in other States, is not denied even by those in favor of woman suffrage.
As I have said before, woman's narrow view of human affairs is not the only argument against her as a politician superior to man. There are
others. Her life-long economic parasitism has utterly blurred her conception of the meaning of equality. She clamors for equal rights with
man, yet we learn that "few women care to canvas in undesirable districts."3 How little equality means to them compared with the Russian
women, who face hell itself for their ideal!
Woman demands the same rights as man, yet she is indignant that her presence does not strike him dead: he smokes, keeps his hat on, and
does not jump from his seat like a flunkey. These may be trivial things, but they are nevertheless the key to the nature of American
suffragists. To be sure, their English sisters have outgrown these silly notions. They have shown themselves equal to the greatest demands
on their character and power of endurance. All honor to the heroism and sturdiness of the English suffragettes. Thanks to their energetic,
aggressive methods, they have proved an inspiration to some of our own lifeless and spineless ladies. But after all, the suffragettes,
too, are still lacking in appreciation of real equality. Else how is one to account for the tremendous, truly gigantic effort set in
motion by those valiant fighters for a wretched little bill which will benefit a handful of propertied ladies, with absolutely no
provision for the vast mass of working women? True, as politicians they must be opportunists, must take half-measures if they can not get
all. But as intelligent and liberal women they ought to realize that if the ballot is a weapon, the disinherited need it more than the
economically superior class, and that the latter already enjoy too much power by virtue of their economic superiority.
The brilliant leader of the English suffragettes, Mrs. Emmeline Pankhurst, herself admitted, when on her American lecture tour, that there
can be no equality between political superiors and inferiors. If so, how will the workingwomen of England, already inferior economically to
the ladies who are benefited by the Shackleton bill,4 be able to work with their political superiors, should the bill pass? Is it not
probable that the class of Annie Keeney, so full of zeal, devotion, and martyrdom, will be compelled to carry on their backs their female
political bosses, even as they are carrying their economic masters. They would still have to do it, were universal suffrage for men and
women established in England. No matter what the workers do, they are made to pay, always. Still, those who believe in the power of the
vote show little sense of justice when they concern themselves not at all with those whom, as they claim, it might serve most.
The American suffrage movement has been, until very recently, altogether a parlor affair, absolutely detached from the economic needs of
the people. Thus Susan B. Anthony, no doubt an exceptional type of woman, was not only indifferent but antagonistic to labor; nor did she
hesitate to manifest her antagonism when, in 1869, she advised women to take the places of striking printers in New York.5 I do not know
whether her attitude had changed before her death.
There are, of course, some suffragists who are affiliated with workingwomen--the Women's Trade Union League, for instance; but they are a
small minority, and their activities are essentially economic. The rest look upon toil as a just provision of Providence. What would become
of the rich, if not for the poor? What would become of these idle, parasitic ladies, who squander more in a week than their victims earn
in a year, if not for the eighty million wage-workers? Equality, who ever heard of such a thing?
Few countries have produced such arrogance and snobbishness as America. Particularly is this true of the American woman of the middle
class. She not only considers herself the equal of man, but his superior, especially in her purity, goodness, and morality. Small wonder
that the American suffragist claims for her vote the most miraculous powers. In her exalted conceit she does not see how truly enslaved she
is, not so much by man, as by her own silly notions and traditions. Suffrage can not ameliorate that sad fact; it can only accentuate it,
as indeed it does.
One of the great American women leaders claims that woman is entitled not only to equal pay, but that she ought to be legally entitled
even to the pay of her husband. Failing to support her, he should be put in convict stripes, and his earnings in prison be collected by
his equal wife. Does not another brilliant exponent of the cause claim for woman that her vote will abolish the social evil, which has
been fought in vain by the collective efforts of the most illustrious minds the world over? It is indeed to be regretted that the alleged
creator of the universe has already presented us with his wonderful scheme of things, else woman suffrage would surely enable woman to
outdo him completely.
Nothing is so dangerous as the dissection of a fetich. If we have outlived the time when such heresy was punishable by the stake, we have
not outlived the narrow spirit of condemnation of those who dare differ with accepted notions. Therefore I shall probably be put down as an
opponent of woman. But that can not deter me from looking the question squarely in the face. I repeat what I have said in the beginning: I
do not believe that woman will make politics worse; nor can I believe that she could make it better. If, then, she cannot improve on man's
mistakes, why perpetrate the latter?
History may be a compilation of lies; nevertheless, it contains a few truths, and they are the only guide we have for the future. The
history of the political activities of men proves that they have given him absolutely nothing that he could not have achieved in a more
direct, less costly, and more lasting manner. As a matter of fact, every inch of ground he has gained has been through a constant fight, a
ceaseless struggle for self-assertion, and not through suffrage. There is no reason whatever to assume that woman, in her climb to
emancipation, has been, or will be, helped by the ballot.
In the darkest of all countries, Russia, with her absolute despotism, woman has become man's equal, not through the ballot, but by her
will to be and to do. Not only has she conquered for herself every avenue of learning and vocation, but she has won man's esteem, his
respect, his comradeship; aye, even more than that: she has gained the admiration, the respect of the whole world. That, too, not through
suffrage, but by her wonderful heroism, her fortitude, her ability, willpower, and her endurance in her struggle for liberty. Where are the
women in any suffrage country or State that can lay claim to such a victory? When we consider the accomplishments of woman in America, we
find also that something deeper and more powerful than suffrage has helped her in the march to emancipation.
It is just sixty-two years ago since a handful of women at the Seneca Falls Convention set forth a few demands for their right to equal
education with men, and access to the various professions, trades, etc. What wonderful accomplishments, what wonderful triumphs! Who but
the most ignorant dare speak of woman as a mere domestic drudge? Who dare suggest that this or that profession should not be open to her?
For over sixty years she has molded a new atmosphere and a new life for herself. She has become a world-power in every domain of human
thought and activity. And all that without suffrage, without the right to make laws, without the "privilege" of becoming a judge, a
jailer, or an executioner.
Yes, I may be considered an enemy of woman; but if I can help her see the light, I shall not complain.
The misfortune of woman is not that she is unable to do the work of a man, but that she is wasting her life-force to outdo him, with a
tradition of centuries which has left her physically incapable of keeping pace with him. Oh, I know some have succeeded, but at what cost,
at what terrific cost! The import is not the kind of work woman does, but rather the quality of the work she furnishes. She can give
suffrage or the ballot no new quality, nor can she receive anything from it that will enhance her own quality. Her development, her
freedom, her independence, must come from and through herself. First, by asserting herself as a personality, and not as a sex commodity.
Second, by refusing the right to anyone over her body; by refusing to bear children, unless she wants them; by refusing to be a servant to
God, the State, society, the husband, the family, etc., by making her life simpler, but deeper and richer. That is, by trying to learn the
meaning and substance of life in all its complexities, by freeing herself from the fear of public opinion and public condemnation. Only
that, and not the ballot, will set woman free, will make her a force hitherto unknown in the world, a force for real love, for peace, for
harmony; a force of divine fire, of life-giving; a creator of free men and women.
https://bangladeshasf.org/woman-suffrage/
------------------------------
Message: 5
On December 21, WAS (friends of IWA-AIT in Austria) organized a demonstration of solidarity for rebel Chilean workers, together with other
fellow mates and Chilean friends from "Chili Despertos Vienna". ---- We wanted to express our support for the Chilean insurgents, but also
to inform people on the street. What is happening in Chile seems very important to us, but unfortunately too little information is
disseminated in the bourgeois media. ---- Despite heavy rain, around fifty people gathered in Lugeck Square in front of the Embassy of the
Republic of Chile. In addition to the speeches and music, we also distributed flyers of information about the situation in Chile. We
redecorated the place with red and black flags, banners with revolutionary slogans in Spanish and German and many painted eyes. The eyes are
a symbol of the more than 300 people who lost their sight because of rubber bullets' shots during brutal police operations since October.
From there, we then left noisily on Stephansplatz, where we held a rally.
We would like to thank everyone who was there with us!
The fight against capital and for a better life for all continues, in Chile as everywhere!
El pueblo unido jamás será vencido!
https://wiensyndikat.wordpress.com/.../bericht-ueber-die-sol.../
Audio recordings of the demo can be heard here (from 1.30 p.m.): https://nochrichten.net/?p=2741
/2019/12/31/bericht-ueber-die-solidemo-in-wien-fuer-die-chilenischen-aufstaendigen
------------------------------
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten