#Worldwide #Information #Blogger #LucSchrijvers: #Past1#Update: #anarchist #information from all over the #world - 21.05.2020

Today's Topics:

   1. zabalaza.net: Lucien van der Walt - MODES OF POLITICS AT A
      DISTANCE FROM THE STATE: A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT 
      (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
  
 2.  [Canada] Announcing the 2020 Toronto Anarchist Book Fair! By
      ANA (pt) [machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
3.  [Spain] Ecosocial revolution By ANA (pt) [machine
      translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
4.  Declaration by the Local Autonomous Network on the Alleged
      Repression of Anarchists in the Philippines By ANA (pt) [machine
      translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
5.  Germny, AND: BAD NEWS 34 - Angry voices from around the
      world (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
6.  DAF, Meydan #53 - Either Donakal, Run or Battle (tr)
      [machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
7.  Third comment on corona virus pandemic, from the south of
      England: The future of our Class. By Mal Content.
      (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)


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

Message: 1



The crisis of the statist politics that dominated working-class politics -- social democracy, Marxism-Leninism, and anti-imperialist
nationalism -- and the rise of neoliberalism, has aided the rediscovery of society-centred, anti-capitalist forms of bottom-up change "at a
distance" from the state. This article critically assess the three main modes of "at a distance" politics: "outside-but-with" the state,
which combines using the state with popular movements; "outside-and-despite" the state, aiming at disintegrating the system by building
alternatives in its cracks; and "outside-and-against" the state, associated with anarchism/ syndicalism, rejects the state for building
autonomous working class counter-power that can resist, then defeat, state and capital. While each mode has limits, the anarchist/
syndicalist approach is arguably the most convincing, and its implications are serious. And it directs militants to work within the mass
movements of the popular classes

THE RISE AND FALL OF THE "ENABLING STATE"

For much of the last hundred years, the dominant parts of anti-systemic movements focused on winning state power, seeing an "enabling state"
as the essential means for social transformation. The idea that radical social transformation meant wielding state power was shared by
ever-increasing sectors of the anti-capitalist left, of workers' movements, and of national liberation forces.

However, by the 1990s, state-centric models, whether social democratic, Soviet-Marxist or anti-imperialist nationalist, were in crisis. By
the 1970s already, they had become marked by economic failures, non-achievement of many of their stated goals, and the inability to sustain
themselves in the face of an increasingly internationalised capitalism, a deep global economic crisis and a shifting geopolitical order.

Further, marked by endemic inequality, they all faced popular unrest and dissatisfaction with their top-down, bureaucratic and statist
approaches, much of this from labour and the left. For example, workers in Tanzania occupied factories in the early 1970s, in defiance of a
government calling itself "African socialist," while workers' movements toppled African governments across the continent in the 1980s and
early 1990s; workers rebelled across the Marxist world in the 1960s, and again, the 1980s; massive strikes shook the West, most famously in
France in 1968, as ordinary people demanded deep changes in the workplace and the larger society.

NEOLIBERALISM DOES NOT WEAKEN THE STATE

As the old systems of state-led capitalism crumbled - import-substitution-industrialisation in the south, Marxist-Leninist central planning
in the east, the Keynesian welfare state in the west - the door was opened to the victory of global neoliberalism. This was a new phase of
capitalism, not a mere change in a few policies that could easily be undone with better policies.

Neoliberalism marked the end of the era of state-led models of capitalism, but did not mark the end of the capitalist state, or even the
involvement of the state in capitalism. Neoliberalism centres on free markets, but it does not remove the state, nor weaken it - the state
is not gone, but is manifestly an agency for massive interventions to subsidise capital, expand commodification and discipline the popular
classes.

*States are not victims of a neoliberalism that somehow appears from somewhere else, external to the state, but its key authors.* The major
multilateral organisations that drive neoliberalism, like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and World Trade Organisation
(WTO, formerly the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, GATT) are not, as some believe, private banks or organisations of multi-national
corporations (MNCs) - their members and shareholders for the first two, and their members for the latter, are states.

The expansion of MNCs, and their ability to move capital around the planet with ease, is not something that happened to states. It was only
made possible in the first place by states liberalising their controls of over capital movements and currencies, to allow such movement, and
the role of states in creating an international infrastructure for such activities, which enables such movement. Naturally, different states
have different agendas in allowing these changes: for poorer countries like

China in the 1980s, for example, this was a means of attracting investment; for richer countries like the USA in that time, this was a means
of accessing cheaper labour, skipping unions and dodging environmental laws.

STATES DISABLE MOVEMENTS

The end of the supposedly "enabling state" disabled anti-systemic movements enamoured of states. I do not mean, and do not want to be
misunderstood as saying, that the old models of labour and left politics are dead. On the contrary, these retain enormous attraction, and
continue to attract substantial support. Globally, there has been some revival in the fortunes of left-of-centre parties, like the Communist
Party of India (Marxist) (CPI-M), the Social Democratic Party (SPD) in Germany and the Workers' Party (PT) in Brazil, as well as the
formation of various new left parties during the 2000s, including in South Africa. We can also note the excitement with which many greeted
the Venezuela government under Hugo Chavez, the interest in Bernie Sanders in the USA and in Jeremy Corbyn in Britain, and the push to form
new left parties in South Africa.

I am suggesting, instead, that these models are no longer workable. Not only did they collapse after nearly fifty years in crises, but they
also operated in a very different global context. The Keynesian welfare state in the West, for example, assumed class compromises based
within specific nation-states, in which a business class largely focused on the national market was willing and able to make significant
compromises with the national working class, and in which that class could exert enormous power and threat, in the context of massive
economic growth that could fund substantial improvements in popular conditions without threatening capitalism. None of these conditions
apply anymore.

The dominant section of private capitalists is organised in MNCs which have no interest in national level pacts, seeking instead advantages
and markets across the globe; working class movements are weak, even if still very large (and in fact growing); there is almost nowhere in
the world where ruling classes experience the working class as a deadly threat or expect a socialist revolution from below, a situation
dramatically different from the 150 years that ended in the 1990s, with the rise of various forms of socialism from the 1840s; and low
growth and recurrent crises since the 1970s have reduced the money available for redistribution to the popular classes and pressured
capitalists to roll back the gains made in the past by working people, and redistribute wealth and power upwards. If the 1940s to the 1970s
saw falling inequality, the 1990s onwards has seen inequality skyrocket.

So, the problem is not just that neoliberalism has come to dominate, but that the main alternatives that were presented in much of the
twentieth century *are no longer feasible*, even if they were ever desirable. As SYRIZA found in Greece, as the ANC found in South Africa,
and as the PT found in Brazil, neoliberalism is the name of today's game. Even Venezuela's "Bolivarian" model was premised not on a sharp
break with the neoliberal order, but simply a boom in oil revenues driven by neoliberal capitalism elsewhere that allowed, for a time, some
booms in welfare. Beyond this, the Venezuelan economy was in crisis well before the recent US sanctions, and, when the oil price fell, the
model fell apart.

The victory of neoliberalism, then, was partly due to the absence of a clear labour and left alternative at the time that which could be
championed by the working class. But this was because the working-class movement faced the crisis, failure and passing away of the main
statist models. It could either pose these as an alternative again, and fail; or seeing the failure, be demoralised and accept neoliberalism
or defeat; or they could seek a third option, beyond the state.

THE RETURN TO "POLITICS AT A DISTANCE FROM THE STATE"

This situation has led directly to a crisis of the dominant currents in left and working-class politics, but it has also opened space for
the *rediscovery* of society-centred, anti-capitalist modes of bottom up change, labelled as "at a distance" politics. These had always
existed, and had been very influential into the 1940s, but were supplanted from 1945 worldwide by statism. In recent years too, "at a
distance" politics have registered important successes in practice, such as the Zapatistas in Mexico.

These society-centred positions involve a politics of anti-capitalist transformation that question fundamentally state-centred change. In
place of statist and hierarchical models, "at a distance" politics stress possibilities for more democratic, bottom-up and radical models of
transformation - previously often effaced by state-centric struggles and the project of capturing state power, but now increasingly
rediscovered.[1]For example, within anti-apartheid organisations of the 1970s and 1980s, there was also an implicitly anti-statist tendency
which sought to build a different form of politics, often consciously opposed to the top-down logic of state hierarchies and governance. For
instance, the declared aim of the United Democratic Front (UDF, formed in 1983) of constructing "people's power" and the stress by many
black-centred trade unions, notably those in the "workerist" tradition of the Federation of South African Trade Unions (FOSATU, formed in
1979) on "workers' control," were indicative of a vision of an incipient politics of transformation that - despite ambiguities,
contradictions and limitations -did *not* centre on using the state for liberation.

A "politics of emancipation" that is at a "distance from the state," and not centred on the capture of state power, is not a monolithic
project.[2]This is not because "at a distance" politics inevitably rejects unity or makes a virtue of disagreement and incoherence, but
simply because there is no single "at a distance" model." Politics at a distance from the state" actually describes *a range of approaches*
that are grouped together more because of their scepticism about state-centred change - *such a politics does not even have to be anti-statist.*

It is possible to distinguish, analytically, at least three modes of "at a distance" politics: "outside-but-with" the state;
"outside-and-despite" the state and "outside-and-against" the state.[3]These are not necessarily the labels these three broad modes of "at a
distance" politics themselves use, but they serve as a useful way of dividing up the types, the better to understand them.

MODE 1: "OUTSIDE-BUT-WITH" THE STATE

This holds that radical change should not centre on the state. Rather, popular initiatives, movements and autonomy should have maximum
scope, but should be combined with transforming and democratising the state. In place of a statism that supplants popular self-activity, and
a politics that rejects the state in all instances, this mode involves a synergy (or at least a creative tension). It seeks to move beyond
the traditional social democratic stress on parliament and corporatism, by complementing these with popular mobilisation.[4]Although often
presented as new, these ideas had earlier incarnations in, for example, Guild Socialism.

This is certainly "politics at a distance from the state," since it neither reduces politics to the state, nor seeks to subsume popular
struggles into the state apparatus, yet it is also not anti-statist - it is a "politics at a distance" that is "outside-but-with" the state.
There have been a wide range of efforts to implement it, and a range of possible modalities for its operation. For Murphy Morobe in 1987,
for instance, the anti-apartheid coalition the United Democratic Front (UDF), in which he was a leader, built "active, mass-based democratic
organisations and democratic practices within these organisations" to fight the apartheid state, but the idea was that, after apartheid,
these would exist alongside parliament.[5][...]One strand in the "workerist" tradition of Federation of South African Trade Unions (FOSATU)
also fits: it aimed at building workers power and a radical working-class movement, but it was also willing to participate in state
institutions, including the courts and the statutory bargaining machinery, even under the apartheid state.

The politics of "outside-but-with" the state is based on the idea that the state is a contested terrain, susceptible to popular demands and
anti-capitalist policies. The state acting against people is seen as due to the state being temporarily captured by the wrong groups.
Pressure on the state, from outside, and work within the state, as well as alliances between states and movements, are seen as ways of
transforming the state, and of pushing back capitalism. There is, according to this view, no built-in relationship between capitalism and
the state; the state can be delinked from capitalism, either to remove it or to place it under some sort of regulation that benefits the
popular classes. Very often this view looks optimistically at the past, speaking in terms of a golden age before neoliberalism, in which,
supposedly, states were truly democratic.

A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT

The problem here is that this does not consider that states are closely linked to capitalism, if for no other reason than that they are
funded by capitalism: taxes on profits, taxes on incomes, taxes on sales, and loans from banks. This immediately limits what states are able
to do; in a context where capitalism is neoliberal and crisis-ridden, it seems most unlikely that states will take sides with the people
against capitalism. In other words, states can vary in what they do, and states are certainly shaped by popular struggles, but there are
*absolute* limits on what states can or will do.

States are also centralised, disempowering and top-down institutions, and, as such, provide little scope for popular involvement. If the
state is centralised, as all states are, how exactly can the majority of people participate in any meaningful ongoing way?

And if states have institutional imperatives of their own - survival in a competitive interstate system, the need to maintain capitalist
accumulation, the reproduction of their control over territories etc. - will these not reshape *popular* movements, on the pattern of the
state? To put it another way, if the state is top-down and works on its own agenda, it can only include popular movements in ways that will
in turn, make those movements more centralised and more compatible with state structures.

There is, in other words, a contradiction between the top-down logic of the state (and of the capitalist corporation) and the bottom-up
logic of democratic, popular movements - the two could not be reconciled in the manner "outside-but-with" proposals suggested.

MODE 2: "OUTSIDE-AND-DESPITE" THE STATE

This position is often identified with a strand of unorthodox Marxism promoted by the autonomist John Holloway, but it is far from unique to
that Marxism. The core idea is that ordinary people can build a new society outside of the state, and capitalism. For Holloway, the state is
nothing but a reflection of capitalism, so it is pointless to use it. But since that means you cannot capture the state peacefully (as in
social democracy) or by force (as in Marxism-Leninism), what should you do?

Holloway suggests that the first step is to refuse to participate in the system, which is created and recreated daily by our actions.[6]We
should rather build alternatives in the cracks of the system, and where there are enough cracks that are widened enough, the system will
start to crumble. Since there is no party with a unified project, and no central aim, like winning state power, the argument continues,
there is no single project. There is a stress on open-ended and indeterminate processes, and scepticism towards grand programmes and
revolutionary schemas. In fact, to create any such unified project risks seems bring back the state and the party. Rather, an experimental
and evolving communism will somehow emerge in these alternative spaces. Everyday practices that reject the imposed system and its way of
thinking widen the cracks to the point where the system is broken.

Although Holloway claims not to have a formula, we can infer one from his writings: the alternatives should be based on horizontal
relations, acceptance of difference, a stress on the *process* of making change as more important than the ultimate change itself, a
rejection of moving power away from people, and a fairly straightforward schema for change where people do more and more, until it is enough.

A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT

Holloway's examples of "building ways of living that don't depend on wage labour"[7]are extremely modest: meetings in squares, the
re-opening of closed factories, and "community gardens."[8]However, as ruling classes *already* have a virtual monopoly on administrative,
economic and military resources, how will those resources be moved over? If they are not, these tiny islands will operate within a
capitalist sea and be eroded by it, rather than change society as a whole.

This raises questions of how the means of production, for example, will be placed under popular control on a meaningful scale, and how the
armed might of the state will be fended off. If popular movements did move into direct confrontations on the terrains controlled by ruling
classes, by for example, seizing open factories, this would mean open conflict, war from above by powerful elites, who would not simply
wither away.

At its core, the system is not based on agreement, or a majority vote. It is difficult to see how a series of projects, lacking a clear
programme and ideology, will be able to tackle highly organised and centralised ruling classes.

Dodging such issues - with references to the need to avoid dogma and so on - is extremely dangerous and avoids a key discussion. At the end
of the day there is a need for a clear strategy, and a clear debate on strategy. While claiming not to have a strategy, and to be open and
experimental, the "outside-and-despite" approach, in effect, advocates a very narrow strategy and closes down debates on strategy.

Finally, there is also really nothing that makes alternative institutions, relations and struggles automatically lead to a new egalitarian,
"communism" - the transition in South Africa, born out of struggles from below, but ending in neoliberal capitalism, surely shows this. This
means the battle of ideas does matter, and that raises the question of how to wage it.

MODE 3: "OUTSIDE-AND-AGAINST" THE STATE

The third mode - often associated with anarchism/syndicalism - argued that states were centralised institutions of class rule: they were
centralised organisations that existed to allow small ruling classes to rule. They did this by concentrating in a few hands the major means
of administration and coercion - centralisation allowed a few to wield these resources - and they ensured class exploitation continued -
which also required that major means of production were owned and controlled by a few, either in a state or private corporations.

This meant that states could not be used for radical change by the working class - first, because they were designed for the opposite
purpose, second, because their centralised structure prevented the mass of people participating in them, and, third, because the price of
participation was the centralisation and corruption of movements that participated.

So, the alternative was then not to build a political party to take state power, or to participate in the state, but to build, firstly,
bottom-up, democratic organs of *"counter-power"* that could empower people to *resist* the ruling class, fight against all forms of
oppression and exploitation as a means of unifying the popular classes and forging an egalitarian movement, thereby creating the *nucleus*
of a future, self-governed socialist system. This would mean taking over means of administration, coercion and production directly and
placing these under the control, of the organs of counter-power.[9]

The alternative would involve, secondly, a project of promoting a revolutionary *"counter-culture,"* or alternative worldview/
*counter-hegemony*, that would provide a critique of the existing world, embody alternative values and outline the framework of, and
strategy for, a new world. There was just no automatic move from struggle to revolutionary change. The battle of ideas was needed.

In an example of this approach, unions could be repositioned to agitate, educate and organise, building capacity to seize and self-manage
the means of production.

So, basically, there is a stress on building a new society from outside the state, based on people being active; this approach rejects the
use of political parties to capture state power. Although some form of political organisation could play a role in building counter-power
and counter-hegemony, it cannot itself take power. You can win reforms - but through protest and pressure outside the state. Reforms are
possible, but not enough, and ultimately the state - the existing state - must be replaced with a democracy from below.

A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT

One of the common criticisms of this approach is the claim that the revolutionary changes that it envisages are risky. Obviously, the
ultimate outcome of this project would be a showdown between the mass of the people and the state - and with it, the ruling classes - which
also means a confrontation with the armed forces of the state. This would be very destabilising, may not result in a successful revolution,
and might even lead to a degeneration of the revolution, in that the need to win the battle might lead to a destruction of the democratic
core of the revolutionary project. The danger is that there are no checks and balances - like Chapter 9 institutions - and therefore, the
worst outcome would be a worse system.

Another criticism is that the project is a bit unrealistic - it basically assumes that there will be a steady accumulation of power by the
people, but will this be permitted? Such a revolutionary project could face repression, but will anyway be threatened by continual changes
in the capitalist system, e.g. economic crisis, the fourth industrial revolution. If the revolution is disrupted, then either it will have
to take place where people are not ready - the counter-power is weak and limited in coverage, and the counter-hegemony is weak - which would
mean a high risk of failure; or the process of building counter-power must take time to recover. However, if the process keeps getting
pushed back like this, then will the revolution ever happen? If not, what is the point of the project?

This would lead to a third criticism: the scope for revolution is exaggerated, so the focus should be on small realistic changes. These are
more feasible, and in any case, the pessimistic (negative) view of the state here maybe ignores how much change is possible *within* the
existing system.

CONCLUSIONS

How we think about the state is crucial to what we think works best - there is a different theory about the nature of the state at work in
each approach, which also links to a view of how society works. Is society, and is societal change, based upon endless class struggles? Are
the differences in society something that can be effectively and peacefully resolved? Another issue to be aware of here is that there are
different views of what type of political practice is better - top-down, bottom-up, plans, no plans, struggle, peaceful change? This leads
to quite different views of movement-building, e.g. should it involve parties, parliaments, use of courts, and use of state grants; should
it have leaders and, if so, of what type?

Footnotes:

[1]Helliker, K. and L. van der Walt. 2018. "Politics at a Distance from the State: Radical, South African and Zimbabwean praxis today." In
K. Helliker and L. van der Walt. (eds.). 'Politics at a Distance from the State: Radical and African perspectives.' London and New York:
Routledge.
[2]Badiou, A., F. Del Lucchese, and J. Del Smith. 2008. "‘We Need a Popular Discipline': Contemporary politics and the crisis of the
negative." 'Critical Inquiry,' Vol 34 (4): 47, 649-650.
[3]Helliker and van der Walt, "Politics at a Distance from the State."
[4]Wainwright, H. November 2004. "Change the World by Transforming Power, including State Power!" 'Red Pepper.'
[5]Morobe, M. 1987. "Towards a People's Democracy: The UDF view." 'Review of African Political Economy,' 40: 81-88.
[6]Holloway, J. 2005. 'Change the World without Taking Power: The meaning of revolution today.' Revised edn.. London: Pluto Press; Holloway,
J. 2010. 'Crack Capitalism.' London: Pluto Press.
[7]Holloway, J. 29 September 2014. "John Holloway: Cracking capitalism vs. the state option." 'ROAR' Magazine.
[8]Bonefeld, W. and J. Holloway. 2014. "Commune, Movement, Negation: Notes from tomorrow." 'South Atlantic Quarterly,' Vol 113 (2): 214-215.
[9]Van der Walt, L. 2018, "Back to the Future: Revival, relevance and route of an anarchist/ syndicalist approach to 21st century left,
labour and national liberation movements." In K. Helliker and L. van der Walt. (eds.). 'Politics at a Distance from the State: Radical and
African perspectives.' London and New York: Routledge.

SOURCE: John Reynolds & Lucien van der Walt (eds.), 2019, "Strategy: Debating Politics Within and at a Distance from the State,"(NALSU),
Rhodes University, Makhanda, South Africa.

https://www.facebook.com/lucien.vanderwalt.3/posts/2529987013932237

https://zabalaza.net/2020/05/18/modes-of-politics-at-a-distance-from-the-state-a-critical-assessment/#more-6227

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

Message: 2



Although we don't know what the next few months will look like, we are pleased to announce and invite you to book your calendars for the
Toronto Anarchist Book Fair on October 24, 2020. ---- Although there is a lot of uncertainty in the world today, it is our hope and
intention to host a book fair this year. The need for many of our ongoing projects has not stopped and, in fact, the need for community
organization, direct action and mutual help has become more urgent than ever in periods of Coronavirus. Likewise, we think it is important
to maintain this project, if we can, and to have something to work and wait for. We really hope to be able to get together for a much needed
community meeting in October 2020. If we can't, we will explore other options and continue to work on a plan that will allow us to come
together in person as soon as we can.

Keep an eye ontorontoanarchistbookfair.noblogs.orgor the Toronto Anarchist Book Fair Facebook page ( facebook.com/narchistBookfairToronto )
in the coming months for updates!

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

Message: 3



 From the Higinio Carrocera group, we started this blog with the aim of reflecting on the revolutionary process that, we understand, opens
up in the face of the already evident collapse of capitalism and the Nation-State. The Covid-19 pandemic, with dire consequences for all of
humanity, adds to the migratory phenomena, climate change and the political, economic and social crisis worldwide, with class explosions in
many countries. It is very likely that after the collapse there will be a confrontation between the remnants of economic power and the
States, which will arm themselves with an ecofascist model to maintain their privileges and monopolize everyone's resources, which are
increasingly scarce thanks to their predatory economic model. From the result of this clash of forces, an eco-social transition based on
degrowth can come and prepare society for self-management,

 From degrowth to anarchism

We believe that the revolution that is coming will be eco-social. And this is because the current collapse opens the way, through degrowth,
to an anarchic society, where self-management, mutual support and federalism can serve as the basis for a world where the sense of humanity
is recovered, in harmony with nature. in the face of the values of power, money and the market, which brought us to this dead end.

The collapse (climate change, pandemics, economic and social crises...) is beginning. The owners of economic, military and political power
are also aware of this and know that their model will explode. In order to shield their privileges and interests, they are already building
what is called ecofascism, against which there will be no other solution than a confrontation, a revolution to prevent the perpetuation of a
system that is destroying life on this planet and that reaches its limits of the biosphere.

After the revolution, if it finally emerges victorious, the transition to the new social model will arrive. It will be slow and difficult
(it will assume a radical change in people's mentality) and it will have to be based on degrowth, at the end of the patriarchal system, at
the gradual abandonment of cities, at the end of waste and irrational consumerism, in the search for more austere lives and of simpler
communities ... Definitely, it will suppose a programmed disappearance of the growth society that will force us to renounce our way of life.
Degrowth is a necessity, not a principle or an ideal, it is a phase in which the unreasonable goal of growth through growth comes to an end.
For that, it is necessary to abandon the capitalist economy.

It is true that many people, individually, have chosen a different personal ethic and practice it in their daily lives. However, while their
example may serve as a model for other people, they do not radically question the system, and without this structural questioning, the
change will be a patch.

We understand that anarchism seeks perfectly the new model that will surpass capitalism and the nation-state, based on a self-organized and
cooperative society, or as Latouche says: where "altruism precedes selfishness, cooperation to unbridled competence, the pleasure of leisure
to the obsession with work, the importance of social life to unlimited consumption, the taste for work well done to productive efficiency
and the reasonable to rational ".

With this initial approach, we want to start, open the debate and fill this blog with content, enriching it with articles and proposals that
are taking shape, both the analysis of this process for the eco-social revolution and the degrowth and that of the new society that will
have to come after the ecosystem transition.

Cheers and on!

>> To access the blog, click here:
higiniocarrocera.wixsite.com/revolucionecosocial

Translation> Sol de Abril

anarchist news agency-ana

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

Message: 4



The Local Autonomous Network (LAN) is a fluid network of individuals and collectives composed of anarchist, anti-authoritarian and
autonomous activists here in the Archipelago called the Philippines. Since the early 2000s, people in the network have been in contact with
each other consistently, regardless of whether they are from the south or north of the Archipelago. The network has its own level of
knowledge and trust in the other, which comes from the rigid process of organization, carrying out campaigns and initiating different
activities and projects. ---- We heard about the report published onlineby groups abroad about anti-anarchist repression in the Philippines.
The report entitled "The Philippines - The continuing crack down on anarchists" (The Philippines - The continuing crack down on anarchists)
was first published by the Anarchist Communist Group (ACG), based in the United Kingdom, and then copied and distributed to others.
international anarchist pages. Most of the people involved in the Local Autonomous Network had the same reaction to the report: "this is
alarming". As it is a local matter, we decided to investigate and do our own research locally on what the real situation of anarchists in
the field was.

In the given context, it is true that the Duterte regime is an oppressive and repressive government, even more so than the other presidents
in previous regimes. The Drug War that Duterte started in 2016 and which has been waged since then has killed approximately 30,000 people,
that is a fact. Some of the victims of extrajudicial killings in the Drug War were drug personalities, but hundreds of victims of
extrajudicial killings were not even connected to any kind of drug related issue. Ongoing crimes and murders are also carried out against
leftists, dissidents, peasant leaders, community organizers, and other activists. Anarchists in the Philippines were not spared, and in 2018
volunteers from Food Not Bombs (Food Yes Bombs No) were murdered and arrested. (See post¹ "The war on drugs in the Philippines: four Food
Not Bombs volunteers murdered, one is in prison").

This is a subject that we are close to, and our comrades who were arrested on that occasion have already been released. The Local Autonomous
Network has been an active part of the campaign against the War on Drugs and the atrocities committed by the State since September 2016. We
carry out events, protest actions, publishing zines, and other initiatives against these mass murders.

In the era of the COVID-19 pandemic, Duterte's authoritarian regime treats the current crisis as if it were at war, and implements police
and military checkpoints instead of reinforcing people's medical and health needs. It is true that in this confinement, people have
suffered, especially the poor and marginalized urban sectors. The government is not really prepared to deal with the health crisis. Instead
of helping and supporting those who have lost their jobs, the government is making more efforts to control the movement of people without
clear plans for how they will survive. For example, government financial assistance is delayed and some people are taking to the streets to
beg for food.

Now, based on our investigations into the report on the repression of anarchists and murders in the Philippines, we have not been able to
confirm the details behind "Philippines - Continued repression of anarchists". The details in the report seem unreliable. We have come to
the conclusion that it is fake news and not a truth in itself. This according to people who know the writers of the material. The people who
wrote it have no connection to the Local Autonomous Network, nor any involvement in anarchist projects or initiatives. We tried to make
contact with them and talk to clarify things, with the intention of doing solidarity actions, but they were on the defensive. We also found
that before this report was made, there were several letters of appeal from these individuals asking for financial support from people abroad.

As anarchists in the Archipelago, we are not currently the target of the state. As far as we know, the State is largely unaware of our
organization. We are very cautious and well planned in promoting anarchist advertising. We do not want anarchism committed to this untrue
report that this non-affiliated group sent. The anarchist network here is very small and we know each other very well; with our current
internet technology, we can find out if there was an incident against our comrades in the field. That said, we have heard nothing about what
allegedly happened in Cebu, and we learned of it from anarchist pages abroad who published or shared this false report. We know that the
state here is targeting dissidents, but not because they are anarchists.

The Local Autonomous Network then requires news agencies to delete the fake report immediately from all of its websites, blogs, and Twitter
or Facebook pages. This is for the safety and protection of anarchists in the Archipelago. This report commits the anarchist network in the
Archipelago to the alarming title and the written lies.

We look forward to the cooperation of our international comrades on this issue.

For news and updates, see the various collectives that are part of the Autonomous Local Network:

* BandilangItim:bandilangitim.noblogs.org&

twitter.com/BandilangItimPH

* Etniko Bandido Infoshop:

etnikobandidoinfoshop.wordpress.com&

facebook.com/ebinfoshop

* Safehouse Infoshop:facebook.com/safehouse.infoshop

* Onsite Infoshop:onsiteinfoshopphilippines.wordpress.com

* Feralcrust:feralcrust.noblogs.org/ &

facebook.com/feralcrustinfoshop

* Pirate Studio Space:facebook.com/piratestudiospace

* FlyingHouse / Ncspace / Tarima:

facebook.com/flyinghouse2013

Local Autonomous Network, May 14, 2020.

[1]
https://noticiasanarquistas.noblogs.org/post/2018/10/25/a-guerra-erca-as-drogas-nas-filipinas-quatro-voluntarios-do-food-not-bombs-assassinados-um
-this-stuck / )

Translation> Sid Sobral

anarchist news agency-ana

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

Message: 5



Welcome to the 34nd episode of "B(A)D NEWS - Angry voices from around the world", a news program from the international network of anarchist
and anti-authoritarian radios, consisting of short news segments from different parts of the world. ---- This issue is naturally
concentrated on topic of corona-virus and it's influence on our struggles. Unfortunately we have inputs only from one continent this time,
but it is special due to the presence of voices of people struggling at Rojava, at Moria refugee camp and prisons in Greece. For us it's
very important to give this voices a chance to be heard. ---- Content of this edition: ---- - Free social radio 1431AM, Thessaloniki, Greece
---- * Hunger strike of V. Dimakis ---- * 1st of May in Greece ---- * Some words about Grup Yorum, the hunger strikes and the deaths of 3
comrades.

- A-Radio Berlin: Interview on the film "Radical Resilience" about political burnout and how to avoid it.

- FrequenzA: The audio is from two internationalist, which are based in Rojava at the moment, about their thoughts and analysis of the
impact of COVID-19 on the society there and why it makes sense to fight the capitalist system worldwide.

- Radio Fragmata: Updates on situation in Greece and coronavirus (May Day 2020, New environment destructive policy, police brutality,
refugees struggles and fascists attacks, anarchist and revolutionary prisoners situation, mutual aid actions)

- Invisible Radio: Voices of people from Moria camp and Last incidents in prisons and camps in Greece

-recommended radios from $hile:

raraenvivo.wordpress.com/

https://radio31deenero.noblogs.org/

(episode in total 1:22:00)

you can listen to the episode the below...

/ 1:21:59

or download it directly from archive.orgDOWNLOAD
https://hide.espiv.net/?https://ia601504.us.archive.org/33/items/bad-news-episode-34-20-05-en/Bad%20News_Episode%2034_20-05_EN.mp3

If you'd like to get involved in the network or want to hear more - send an email to a-radio-network@riseup.net. Check out all the shows
look for the a-radio-network collection on archive.org or at our website, a-radio-network.org

https://and.notraces.net/2020/05/16/bad-news-34-angry-voices-from-around-the-world/

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

Message: 6



Due to the corona crisis and the subsequent quarantine application, new articles, determinations, things to do and things not needed are
scattered every day. Our days pass by listening and reading conspiracy theories and applications that will not provide any benefit. Many
people stopped counting on the day of quarantine. In which month were we really? Is March taking too long? While the winter is not ending,
the suggestions for protecting mental health began to be lined up one after another while the days were mixed together at night. ---- Almost
everyone is trying to make a promise of our own psychiatric and psychological process. This article aims to look at the arguments of the
system from a different place, considering all these psychological / psychiatric facts.
First Encounter with Danger; Can I Escape This?
According to psychology, in its simplest terms, trauma is the event or situation that threatens the physical and mental integrity of the
individual and it continues to be triggered for various reasons and turns into continuity. Social trauma can be described as the common
suffering of society, a living organism. War, exile, massacre, accident, disaster, epidemic disease; Conditions such as ethnic identity,
sexual identity and orientation-based bullying and violence can be described as social trauma. In other words, what is called social trauma
especially for people living in this geography is not that foreign feeling or it is not the first time that it has entered our lives with
quarantine. However, the big difference should not be overlooked. This time, a larger part of the society is experiencing this trauma and
social traumas are growing on top of each other.

For those who are directly or indirectly involved in this situation, all emotions that may be called negative, such as terror, helplessness,
pain, anger, dullness, loneliness, spread to the society. While the lives of some of them continue without much change, some's lives are
turned upside down. Even more negative of all this is that the state, which claims to hold the regulation of our lives, constantly triggers
this trauma in an organized manner due to its existence. On-the-spot sampling to trigger an announcement that there will be a curfew with
two hours remaining, and that the healthcare system appears to be functioning "smoothly". On the other hand, fascist rhetoric, unfortunately
we are accustomed to, the detentions against critics, the prohibition of various solidarity campaigns,

You Can Do Nothing: Freezing

Each individual is subjected to a series of recommendations in order to sustain their home life in their own traumatized area. "Spending
quality time", which is constantly spinning, especially on social media, is launched as if it should be "what it should be". It is talked
about "turning the crisis into an opportunity" with discourses such as "Here is the expected time for those who say I cannot find time to do
anything". Making good meals, listening to music, drawing, sculpting, playing games with children, doing yoga and meditation, reading books
that have been delayed for a long time to read, watching movies and more...

The concept of "spending quality time" is absolutely unfair. First of all, the workers such as cargo workers, market workers, municipal
cleaning workers, construction workers, who have to work in quarantine, of course, also work much more than before, so they are more
exploited. While the problems experienced by the "people who cannot stay at home" in order to ensure the continuity of the economy that can
sustain their lives in the capitalist system, their anxiety to become a patient / carrier is added. "Why are you outside?" or "Why aren't
you taking the necessary action?" are exposed to the judgmental attitude that started, they are excluded. It is not possible for these
individuals to spend the time mentioned in high quality. On the other hand, The individual, whose workplace has been closed due to
quarantine and thus unemployed, will undoubtedly fall into the trouble of nutrition and shelter, which is the most vital need. In such
conditions, "quality time" suggestions to individuals who have already been sufficiently traumatized will be even more triggering about trauma.

Those who are lucky and can stay at home somehow do not have to be included in the "quality time". Known for his collaboration with
psychiatrists, writer David Kessler describes the corona crisis and quarantine process as a kind of mourning. In other words, after losing
someone, the same emotional state may show its presence. According to Kessler, this situation consists of five steps. Primary level denial:
"The virus does not affect us." Then anger comes: "You make me stay at home and take my activities away." The third step is bargaining: "If
I stay at home for a few times, everything will be the same, right?" The subsequent depression usually manifests itself by not knowing when
this situation will end. And the final acceptance: "This event is happening and I have to discover how to proceed."

Being able to come to the acceptance part of the job is of course a very long process and includes many different equations. It cannot be
said that a woman, child or LGBTI who is experiencing violence accepts the psychologically existing situation. The same goes for the
individual who is unemployed, does not have regular income and is worried about what to eat in the evening. However, there are still some
clues about acceptance for those who can be found in a somewhat safe, albeit partial, home environment.

There are many people who spend all day in front of the television, maybe on the phone, empty and dull without doing anything.

Don-run-fight or fight!

The deer grazing in the woodland is caught by the lion, who suddenly appears before him, despite all his efforts to escape. The lion deer
begins to teeth; the deer flutters a bit first, then their gaze is completely frozen. There are no signs of breathing. Soon a few hyenas
arrive and the lion deer, who is afraid to clash with them, leaves on the spot and moves away. The deer's eyes are dull, there is not the
slightest expression of life in his body. A period of ten minutes passes and breathing becomes visible. It starts to tremble a little first,
stands up after five minutes and the full speed begins to run with all its strength. It runs and runs so that the cameras can't follow it...
It's a nervous system response: frost-run-war.

According to the Polyvigal theory, our nervous system responds with three different reactions during an attack that threatens our lives;
fight, run or freeze in the face of an attack. Faced with the feeling of insecurity that we have felt since the corona crisis started, being
in a situation that does not know what to do now is actually a warning of our nervous system. So "not to do anything" - for this very reason
- is a very usual reaction that is always present in life, just as the deer imitates dead. On the other hand, it seems that escaping is not
a reaction that can happen. Is it possible to fight or in other words to fight?

If it is said that sociality, which is one of the greatest vital needs of the individual, and the way of communication and relationship with
people other than himself, is somehow turned into danger, how can it be dealt with? Undoubtedly, the answer is in solidarity. Physical
distance never requires social distance.

The concept of social distance used by everyone from government officials to experts in capitalism is quite wrong because the process we are
in requires only physical distance. It is social solidarity, not social distance, required to survive. Social solidarity is the solidarity
of states and private companies, not just "aid campaigns" that are just a demonstration of the body. Empathy is not what Cola Cola writes on
billboards; to meet the food exchange of the neighbor who has no economic income. The one who will save us from this danger (!) Is to be
"us" who will support protecting our mental health.

Ece Uzun

This article was published in the 53rd issue of Meydan Newspaper.

https://meydan.org/2020/05/17/ya-donakal-ya-kac-ya-da-savas/

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

Message: 7



Parts 1 & 2 can be found here. ---- "Always be honest and logical with people who are honest and logical. Do not be either with a system
that is neither." ---- - Carl Cattermole: The Prison Survival Guide. ---- This is written as the British government has once again changed
the "rules"* for the territory of England. Scotland and Wales will continue to make their own, under the devolved administration, and of
course Ireland will have two sets, causing people to scurry back and forth across the border. ---- * What a stupid idea; no-one ever takes
pride in following rules, only in getting around them. ---- I'm not remotely interested in these changes, which only reflect what people
were doing anyway, or what the state found it could not police, with a smattering of pointless detail on precisely under what circumstances
people are "allowed" to meet others from outside their "household"* to give the impression some thought has gone into it.

* I'll take a moment to deconstruct this bourgeois concept; it is a hateful thing and we should have no truck with it. It implies property
ownership and once involved a retinue of servants, including women and children who had no agency and were subject to abuse.

The privatisation of domestic space that accompanied the separation of production from reproduction encouraged Working Class folk, contrary
to their own traditions, to mimic the bourgeois household and abuse their own.

The nuclear family is simply the most efficient unit for wage labourers to reproduce at their own expense. The Working Class has always
drawn its strength from the extended family, tribe or village; the atomisation of these support mechanisms has been high on the capitalist
agenda since the industrial and agricultural revolutions.

Anyone who believes the policy-makers are wiser than us is irredeemably stupid and at high risk of dying from something or other at any
time. For example some fuckwit has decided that public transport is safer than car-sharing! For a taste of just how dense these people are,
here's a screen shot from the government's own website:

According to the Oxford English Dictionary: "Retail is the sale of goods to the public in relatively small quantities for use or consumption
rather than for resale." - Not wholesale, transport, research, manufacturing, cleaning, construction or admin. But you knew that, and so did I.

My purpose here is to examine the class dynamics that will develop in the aftermath, and how we can turn these to our advantage. Indeed, how
we must if we are to avoid the bleak future the bosses have planned for us.

As stated previously the concept of "lock down" is construed entirely in bourgeois terms. Their slogan "stay at home, stay safe" is aimed at
a tiny minority who are thus able to monopolise the moral high ground. If I had a pound for every middle class prick on the radio telling us
"we all work from home now" whilst waiting for a Worker to deliver their groceries, I'd be able to retire. The television combines corporate
team-building bullshit with adverts for technological gimmicks and online gambling.

For the precarious and heavily exploited people who keep the infrastructure running, the only noticeable effect of "lock down" has been the
closure of their leisure facilities and meeting places, reduction of already sparse and overcrowded public transport, queueing at the shops,
and the pressure of a potentially unsafe working environment. The bosses have tacked a ‘race to the bottom' in health and safety on to that
of wages and security.

Workers in hospitality and entertainment, bar and sex work have been subjected to a simple lock-out. The "furlough" scheme is inadequate and
doesn't apply to everyone; 80% of fuck all is fuck all.

Added to this, is the interruption of Working Class children's education, and loss of their main/only meal of the day, yet another handicap
in the lottery of life. It hasn't occurred to the toffs that many families rely on free school meals to feed their kids, or perhaps they
have reverted to the 20th century tactic of using starvation to keep the lower orders from developing.

The changes will feed a new group of workers to the virus, after healthcare, logistics and transport, now manufacturing and construction,
whilst the idle rich - including the media and politicians - continue to hide themselves away. Golf and tennis are coming back, but not
basketball or boxing. It's all intended to keep the bourgeoisie firmly in the saddle. As ever, the workers suffer and scrimp to protect
their masters' wasteful and extravagant lifestyles, the bourgeoisie's self-inflicted crisis of 2007 fell entirely on the poor whilst the
rich got steadily richer without a hiccup.

The tinfoil hat merchants would have us imagine the entire situation has been manufactured to allow the imposition of totalitarianism, I
won't entertain this idea, we know our leaders are all bent, but they really aren't that clever. Neoliberal disaster capitalism is
programmed to exploit every crisis to increase the power of the ruling class - but not at the expense of everyday commerce. Even the most
unscrupulous capitalists: Virgin's Branson, Wetherspoons' Tim Martin and B.A.'s Willy Walsh, bemoan the ineptitude of their political lackeys.

They have visibly been caught on the hop, despite having been warned by the study they commissioned in 2016 that the NHS would not be able
to cope with a pandemic, they carried on squeezing it and flogging it off. They shot themselves in the foot with ‘brexit' and presumed we
would carry the can for that as well. You've only got to look at that idiot Boris de Pfeffle Johnson pointing at a graph on telly to
conclude that he'd never set eyes on one before. Nor are we fooled by their arbitrary "steps" and "phases". Pfeffle will be getting the sack
as soon as they can find a replacement; there should also be hue and cry from our Class over the thousands of unnecessary deaths from their
failure to procure adequate PPE, ventilators or testing.

Ask yourselves: how much longer will you let this gang of chancers blight your future in pursuit of their failed neoliberal project?

The money economy is going to take the biggest hit of its life. It was not fully developed during the Black Death and since the modern
banking system appeared in the late mediaeval period it has always been fed and watered by the expansion of empires. War has never hurt the
bourgeoisie, two World Wars and the cold one generated huge state subsidies to industry for the development of technologies they would come
to own and protect with patents. Almost everything we take for granted in the modern world was invented for the military. The debt thus
created and traded is underwritten by the Working Class.

This is entirely different, it's a straight contraction of commercial activity; it has not served any of the functions of war: to destroy
surplus production, to cull the working population*, no lucrative technologies have been developed and there will be no rebuilding of
infrastructure. The bosses will be desperate to recoup their losses and expect us to do it for them. Capitalism will not survive unless it
is carefully nurtured, unless we sacrifice to make up their profits, and why would we want to do that?

* Appalling though it is, the death toll will not have a significant effect on the labour market.

There is going to be mass unemployment, homelessness, failure of health and welfare systems, and vast numbers of empty buildings - what are
we going to do about it?

If the anarchist movement has any value in the modern world we must be on hand to offer credible alternatives, bring our experience to bear
and lead by example. This is the moment we have been waiting for.

We need to squat everything - including residential dwellings - in an organised systematic fashion and we will need to exercise
self-discipline, not just because the virus is likely to be with us for some time. We recall the devastation wreaked on Working Class
communities by thatcher. People on the street without support can rapidly lose self-respect, empathy and focus.

The spooks are most likely going to flood the country with cheap smack as they did in the 80's, or maybe ketamine. Don't be prison fodder;
if they can't extract your surplus-value they will lock you up and make money out of you that way.

There will be skilled trades-people standing idle who can co-operatively prepare buildings for use once the homeless have taken and secured
them.

Occupy unused land and grow food on it.

Turn disused restaurants into free canteens for the Working Class.

Set up neighbourhood supply and defence committees to protect the vulnerable and resist evictions, deportations etc.

Create no-go areas for cops, bailiffs and other undesirables.

We should look into occupying manufacturing facilities with a view to making something useful (to us). The simple act of setting up a
co-operative venture, learning and sharing new skills, organising the work and supply chain by consensus, prepares us to take over industry
once and for all.

Some will find teaching their children at home works for them. With the range of skills and experiences available to the extended family or
‘village' kids can learn much more than how to fit themselves to the wage system. Who knows, they might actually find things they enjoy and
are good at.

Empty offices can be social centres, libraries, medical or legal drop-in points, venues for gigs, film shows, seminars, meetings,
self-defence training or whatever you want.

We should have our own radio stations, they're more fun than the internet and easier to keep a grip on.

It has been suggested there will be no live entertainment this year, well they can fucking back out with that! We may see a revival of the
free party/festival scene, playing cat and mouse with the babylon. Parties could be timed to coincide with more serious expropriations. The
more we stretch their resources the less they will have to evict squatters.

Those of us who find ourselves by chance still in waged labour are another front. It beggars belief after decades of austerity and precarity
that most of our Class are still not unionised. If this is you, get into one fast, you can join the IWW for a pound a month unwaged, or, if
appropriate, one of the more location and industry specific such as UVW, CAIWU and IWGB. It will fall to us to prevent the boss class
re-asserting itself; all the old Wobbly tactics are as relevant as ever.

Sick-in, the slightest sniffle will now give you good reason to take seven days self-certified, you're doing society a favour!
Good work strike, be kind to your class, turn a blind eye to shoplifting for example.
Sabotage (need not involve physical damage), use your imagination here.
Expropriation (theft), you need never queue for bog rolls again!
Open mouth (whistle blowing); let's hold the bosses fast to the rules while we break them.
Working to rule. Health and safety legislation allows any worker to walk off the job if they believe it poses a risk to themselves, their
colleagues or the public. They cannot be disciplined for this and their belief does not have to be correct, only reasonable. This is a good
excuse for a sit-down strike while they sort it out.
Shirking, skiving, go-slow; take it in turns to do fuck all for half an hour, see above.
Dual power: organise the work to suit yourselves and by-pass the boss, it's good training for when there isn't one.
Bombard management with grievances to tie them up and waste their time; I see no problem with using the law as it is the terrain on which we
operate, so make yourself an expert. It's skewed in favour of the bosses but this has led to a culture of impunity whereby most of them
can't be arsed to familiarise themselves with it, which leaves a lot of ‘low hanging fruit'. It's akin to hitting your opponent with the
door or the wall rather than bringing a cosh to the party. The only thing that matters in a fight is who's left standing at the end of it.
You'll find more tactical detail here:

How to Fire Your Boss - a workers' guide to direct action.

Here's a pamphlet on taking over the healthcare sector:

Defend the NHS - fight for socialised healthcare. By Felix Sabot.

Let's hope it's a long, hot summer and we have some good riots.

Mal C. X

May 17, 2020

https://wessexsolidarity.wordpress.com/2020/05/17/third-comment-on-corona-virus-pandemic-from-the-south-of-england-the-future-of-our-class-by-mal-content/

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