Today's Topics:
1. A-Radio Berlin Channel Zero Network: Staying safe at street
actions (PSA) (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
2. anarchist communist ACG: On Free Agreement
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
3. France, Union Communiste Libertaire AL #306 - Sahel: the
long time of intertwined conflicts (fr, it, pt)[machine
translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
4. Greece, liberta salonica: To the anarchist movement and all
the fighters in the USA, | Anarchist Federation [machine
translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
5. Czech, afed: Piles of bricks and other things that are
completely off - 11 arguments against conspiracies about current
protests in the United State [machine translation]
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
6. Asif Azhar - People's economy By Bangladesh
AnarchoSyndicalist Federation - BASF [machine translation]
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Dear all | As A-Radio Berlin we are part of the anarchist Channel Zero Network (CZN), an alliance of podcasts and radio shows in English
language from around the world. ---- In the context of the recent BlackLivesMatter uprising against police brutality and racism in the US,
CZN published a short audio containing advice on how to more safely navigate street actions. Most things would also apply outside of the BLM
or Covid-19 situation. ---- You'll find the audio (to listen online or download) here: ----
https://www.aradio-berlin.org/extra-channel-zero-network-staying-safe-at-street-actions/ ---- Length: 2 min ---- You can find other English
audios as well as all issues of the monthly anarchist show "Bad News" here: https://www.aradio-berlin.org/en/audios-2/.
Among our last audios you can find:
* An interview from The Final Straw Radio with an anarchafeminist about
the political and social situation in El Salvador:
https://www.aradio-berlin.org/extra-el-salvador-an-anarchafeminist-perspective/
* An interview with an organizer of the first feminist Congress in
Wroclaw, Poland: https://www.aradio-berlin.org/feminist-congress-in-poland/
* The second part of a long conversation about Brazil and exile with two
Brazilian activists living in Portugal:
https://www.aradio-berlin.org/brazil-2020-1-em-fevereiro-tem-carnaval-a-conversation-about-brazil-and-exile-part-2/
* The first part of a long conversation about Brazil and exile with two
Brazilian activists living in Portugal:
https://www.aradio-berlin.org/a-radio-in-english-brazil-2020-1-em-fevereiro-tem-carnaval-a-conversation-about-brazil-and-exile-part-1/
* A call for a Week of Solidarity with the Political Prisoners of the
revolt in Chile: 13.-19.1.2020:
http://aradio.blogsport.de/2020/01/11/chile-13-19-1-2020-woche-der-solidaritaet-mit-den-politischen-gefangenen-semana-de-solidaridad-con-lxs-presxs-politicxs/
* A feature about the first anniversary of the Yellow Vest Movement in
France, from the perspective of Toulouse:
http://aradio.blogsport.de/2020/01/02/a-radio-in-english-one-year-yellow-vest-movement-in-france-a-feature-from-toulouse/
* A series of audios from the social revolt in Chile:
http://aradio.blogsport.de/2019/10/20/zur-situation-in-chile-deesen/
* An interview about the Brexit from an anarchist perspective and the
situation in Great Britain:
http://aradio.blogsport.de/2019/09/13/a-radio-in-english-brexit-and-anarchism/
Enjoy! And please feel free to share!
A-Radio Berlin
ps.: We are on Mastodon and Twitter! Please feel welcome to follow us at
@aradio_berlin!
ps2.: Please note: We are always looking for people willing to lend us a
hand with transcriptions and translations from Spanish or German into
English as well as people able to do voice recordings - in order to
amplify our international radio work. You can contact us at
aradio-berlin/at/riseup(dot)net!
------------------------------
Message: 2
An ACG member writes... ---- Sometimes when I talk to people about anarchism they are interested and open-minded. Other times people are
dismissive. What I hear a lot from these people is "that'll never work". Anarchism is dismissed by these people the moment they hear the
word. It has always seemed to me that these people are not concerned with detail in theory, practice or history. It's as if they think it's
just too good to be true - that an alternative to a parliamentary, centralised state couldn't possibly work. For me to merely state that
anarchist collectives during the Spanish Civil War were more efficient and democratic than capitalism is not enough. For this reason this
article sets out to show that anarchism can work and is better and more democratic than any type of capitalism. The four examples I present
are from Peter Kropotkin's Conquest of Bread, published in 1902, but are still as relevant today as when it was written.
One of the core tenets of anarchism is Free Agreement. This means that the community comes together and discusses matters and comes to an
agreement. This agreement is then put into action and is not law, it needs no ministers, councillors, directors or managers. It is a
community of individuals coming together to, say, repair a road or railway track or whatever. Kropotkin tells us that from his research the
European Railway System was built, not by a European Railway Minister, or committee, nor with the assistance of a single state or government
official, but by Free Agreement. It needed no state interference at all. It needed only people who knew what building a railway required and
those to build it. Meetings were held, (non-state) delegates sent and matters settled with Free Agreement. Proposals were forwarded to be
rejected or accepted and a continental railway network was operational. Kropotkin wrote:
"if man had predicted this fifty years ago, our grandfathers would have thought him idiotic and mad."
You might want to argue that it was corporations and a great deal of money that achieved this only, but what is to stop an empowered and
improved community, which will no doubt consist of all sorts of people who could, for example, construct or improve a railway network,
coming together and making society work organically? The ordinary person is only held back from achieving such things because he/she is
prevented from ownership and control of the means of production, by force, by law, by the state and its corporate friends. The fact is that
we are not ordinary; if we break our shells, we are capable of true civilisation.
Kropotkin then goes on to inform us of the Dutch, Scandanavian and Baltic canal system, which (at least in his day) required no government
to run it smoothly. The canal system was organized by syndicates, free/voluntary association which sprung from the very needs of navigation.
Most boat owners saw the benefits of joining the guilds and they spread along the Rhine, the Weser, the Oder, and as far as Berlin.
Let us move onto another organization which operates in what could be described as an anarchist communist manner, the English Lifeboat
Association. A completely free initiative that arose out of need, it was left to volunteers to found this brilliant organisation that did
not rely on hierarchy or leadership at all. At the time Kropotkin wrote:
"In 1891 the association possessed 293 lifeboats. The same year it saved 601 sailors and 33 vessels. Since its foundation it has saved 32,
671 human beings."
Yet another association that has worked in an anarchist manner is The Red Cross. We need not go into great detail here because of this
organisation's gigantic success and reputation. Before this association was created, it would have been presumed impossible and utopian
nonsense. Yet again, Free Agreement, no leadership, immensely successful. It is true however that nation states tried to take this
association for themselves and watched and patronized it greatly. Kropotkin though, saw the success of the Red Cross for what it was:
"It is not to this patronage that the success of the organization is due. It is to the thousand local committees of each nation, to the
activity of individuals, to the devotion of all those who try to help victims of war. This devotion would be far greater if the state did
not meddle in it."
So, these successful projects were not achieved by anarchist organisations themselves as such. They did, however, utilise free agreement and
in this way can be said to have played a significant role, especially in the last three examples. It is extracts like these from literature
and history which convinces me that anarchism is a real alternative to capitalism and something that can change things for the better and it
kind of makes me proud to be an anarchist. I hope this article gives you hope and inspiration that there is an alternative to the mess that
capitalism has put us in and that we, the working people, are capable of great things.
https://www.anarchistcommunism.org/2020/06/02/on-free-agreement/
------------------------------
Message: 3
Tuareg independence, manipulation of the Algerian and Libyan services, establishment of jihadism, persecution of the Peuls, uranium
extraction, cross-checking by the French army, corruption and economic crisis ... The cleavages in the Sahel are more complex than a "war of
the Good" against Evil". ---- 1960: independence of the French colonies in sub-Saharan Africa. ---- 1963-1964: first Tuareg rebellion in
Mali, crushed by the army. ---- 1969: Beginning of uranium extraction in Arlit, Niger, by the French company Cogema, which will become Areva
in 2006. In the 1980s, the site will represent 40% of world uranium production. This feeds French nuclear power plants. ---- 1990-1992:
second Tuareg rebellion, supported by Algeria and Libya, for the "self-determination of Azawad" (northern Mali). ---- 2000s: establishment
in the Sahel of Islamists from the Algerian civil war.
2006: third Tuareg uprising in the Kidal region of Mali, supported by Algeria.
September 2010: Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (Aqmi) attacks the uranium mines of Arlit, in Niger, and takes seven hostages, including
five French. The last hostages will be released in October 2013.
2011: revolt in Libya, where Gaddafi is overthrown with the support of the West. Hundreds of its soldiers join the Tuareg rebellion and
Islamist groups in the Sahel with weapons and luggage.
Tuareg separatists from the MNLA formed an alliance with jihadist groups in 2012. They quickly bit their fingers.
Magharebia.com
The collapse of the Malian army
January to March 2012: joint offensive of the independence movement of the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA) and the
jihadists of Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (Aqmi), Mujao and Ansar Dine. The Malian army, under-equipped and undermined by corruption,
broke up and abandoned the northern cities one after the other.
January 24, 2012: Aguelhoc massacre: the jihadists massacre dozens of captured Malian soldiers. The country is in shock.
January 31, 2012: March of mothers and wives of soldiers from Kati in Koulouba to denounce the government and the general staff, who send
the men to die at the front without weapons or ammunition.
March 22: Captain Sanogo's coup. Following a mutiny, President Amadou Toumani Touré is expelled from power. He is replaced by an interim
president, Dioncounda Traoré.
April 6, 2012: The MNLA proclaims the independence of Azawad.
In Timbuktu, the Islamists burned precious manuscripts that could not be sheltered.
Photo: Abdoulkadri Maiga / Unesco
Islamists impose their law in the north
May-June 2012: The MNLA appears to be more and more overwhelmed by its jihadist allies, who end up driving it out of the main cities of the
north manu militari. Locally, the Islamists make themselves unpopular by imposing religious terror and by ransacking the "impious" heritage
, like the mausoleums of Timbuktu. The French government is reflecting on the scenario of a military intervention and its validation by the
UN, and is negotiating the outlines with the governments of the Economic Community of West African States (Cédéao).
September 24, 2012: Urged by the ECOWAS, Bamako asked the UN for help from a foreign military force.
December 20, 2012: At the UN, resolution 2085 authorizes the deployment of an African military force in Mali.
French intervention
January 2013: an Islamist column makes an incursion into the south of the country. The Malian army wants to stop her at Konna. The whole
country crosses its fingers. The city falls in two days.
January 10, 2013: Bamako officially requests, through the UN Security Council, France's military aid. Immediately accepted. The long-running
Serval operation starts straight away.
January 17, 2013: The ECOWAS constitutes, within the framework of resolution 2085, an African military coalition (the Misma) which follows
in the footsteps of Serval.
January-February 2013: Serval drives out the Islamists from the northern cities, where the Malian army and the Misma take position ...
except in Kidal, where the MNLA settles under the protection of the French army, causing a first resentment in Bamako .
February 2, 2013: François Hollande visits Bamako and Timbuktu under the cheers. April 2013: Malian anti-globalization activist Aminata
Traoré, for her criticisms of Serval, is banned from entering the Schengen area.
Read also: "Why the French army must leave the Sahel" , Alternative libertaire, June 2020.
June 18, 2013: ceasefire agreements between the Malian army and the MNLA. July: Misma gives way to the Minusma peacekeepers: 6,000 soldiers
in 2013, 13,000 in 2020, 130 dead in seven years.
August 2013: Ibrahim Boubacar Keïta (IBK) becomes president of Mali.
February 2014: creation of the G5 Sahel (Mauritania, Mali, Burkina, Niger, Chad) to coordinate the "war on terror". This G5 Sahel remains
virtual, with no real means of action.
The endless war
1 stAugust 2014: end of Serval, the beginning of the operation barkhane to hunt down jihadists in the desert.
June 20, 2015: Algiers agreement between Bamako and the Azawad movements (it will take four years to begin implementing) for the disarmament
of Tuareg combatants and the return of the Malian army to Kidal.
Paris turns a blind eye to the atrocities committed against the civilian population by its allies in the name of anti-terrorism.
Photo: army staff.
2015-2019: growing power of jihadist groups in Mali, but also now in Burkina Faso and Niger. Avoiding the French army, they primarily target
African civilians and armies, sometimes the Minusma, causing hundreds of victims and hundreds of thousands of displaced people. With the
consent of the Malian and Burkinabè states, proliferation of self-defense militias which gradually become ethnic and provoke killings
between the Fulani on one side, Mossis and Dogons on the other.
Jihadist leaders when the GSIM was founded in March 2017. In the center, the tutelary figure: Iyad ag Ghali, trained by the Libyan regime,
then Tuareg rebel leader, then government official in Bamako, then jihadist rebel. Left: Fulani preacher Ahmadou Koufa.
March 2017: Unification of four jihadist formations - Ansar Dine, AQMI-Sahel, Al-Mourabitoune and Katiba Macina - within the Support Group
for Islam and Muslims (GSIM), which affiliates with Al-Qaeda.
November 25, 2019: a helicopter accident kills 13 French soldiers , attracting the attention of French public opinion.
December 2019: French drones are now armed with missiles.
January 10, 2020: in Bamako, 1,000 demonstrators for the departure of Barkhane. Some are calling for a more "effective" imperialist
intervention by the Russian army.
January 12, 2020: G5 Sahel summit in Pau. Pressed by Macron, the 5 African heads of state reaffirm that France is a guest (and welcome)
power in the Sahel.
The Barkhane operation in the first half of 2020. Click to enlarge
Source: French Ministry of Defense
https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?Sahel-le-temps-long-de-conflits-entrecroises
------------------------------
Message: 4
to those who are on the street and fighting racism against the government ---- To the anarchist movement and everybody in the USA that
participates in the struggle, to everybody that is out in the streets fighting racism and authority. ---- It is with excitement, suspense,
hope and sorrow that we watch what is transpiring in the streets of the cities of the US after the racist murder of African American George
Floyd. Our thoughts are with you, our solidarity will be expressed in action from here. You are the ones struggling in the heart of a
superpower that, along with others, dominate the planet. You are in what the rest of the world sees as the "centre of the world". So, the
images and reports we receive from the protests, the clashes and the propaganda war have historic value and an effect much wider than just
within the borders of the United States. You affect us much more than we ever could affect you, no matter what we did. We cannot talk in
length about the direction of your struggle, nor suggest anything.The differences between the Greek and American conditions are such that
they shape a completely different landscape. Here, there are no minorities with the same social characteristics like the African Americans
are in the United States. Here, systemic racism is aimed towards refugees, Romani, and some ethnical minorities that are geographically
isolated. We face repression from a state that is barbaric like any other but with fewer resources than the equivalent in the United States
also lacking its "Imperial" pride. Here, we are but 10 million people with just two metropoles... The only reasonable thing for us to do is
to share with you our experiences from similar events that, despite the differences in the circumstances, could contribute to the choices
that the people in the struggle will be forced to come across, as they do in every such revolt in history. In the end, the Greek state is
itself an advanced capitalist one, a western imperialist power with a bourgeois democracy, with media of similar degeneracy as the ones in
America, and with plenty racists and fascists too. And so, in 2008 police officers murdered a 15-year-old in the historically radical region
of Athens, Exarcheia. Throughout the country, we experienced a month of massive insurrection against the barbarity of the state, an
insurrection lead by the youth and with other radical political forces - the anarchists first among them - on the tip of the spear.In
addition, a few years later, during the economic recess and the over vision of Greece from the IMF and the EU, we again experienced
important insurrections. A few years after these events, we are now at the stage of extracting our conclusions, some of which we think could
relate to your struggle. We address them in a few words, hoping you will find them useful.
Events of insurrection make the people listen. Suddenly, thousands of people are not only willing to listen to new suggestions and ideas,
but they ask for it. It is a once in a lifetime chance for the radical movements to address the people and convince them.
In times like these, the worst threat comes from within. Behind everyone fighting, everyone losing their sleep, getting injured or arrested,
there are conventional political forces biding their time, seeking their own promotion. They are the first to try and undermine the fighting
spirit, the first that will try to make people go back to their homes and isolate the more radical elements when the tension dies down. In
Greece, after the events of 2008, the ultimate winner was a leftist political party that eventually became government and naturally
dismissed their previous promises.
Insurrections die and often the question is what is gained in the end. The state will not hesitate to initially sacrifice its "unfortunate"
servant who with their actions-which have often been repeated by others like them in the past and are unfortunately "normalized" by the
state- in order to quench the public outrage. In Greece, the murderer of the 15-year-old boy was convicted and given life imprisonment.
Depending on the duration and intensity of the insurrection, and apart from the- usually temporary- punishment of the perpetrator, some
ground could be gained in the form of law reforms. This is good, but there are much better things to gain, such as confidence, the
development of the political consciousness and the long-term organization of the people from the grassroots. After the 2008 revolt our
movement came out much stronger but at the same time, much less so than it could have been had it had the readiness to engage in organized
political work and develop new social structures, able to accept many more people.
Although the struggle against repression or racism are central issues, the insurrection will bring forward many more. In the end, this is
the most important thing: organizing the people from the grassroots. In Greece, during the time of financial crisis and big popular
movements, grassroots assemblies were formed. In our opinion, the anarchist movement lacked a strategy capable of continuing and expanding
itself and so, this potential within the working class withered and died. However, while it still functioned, it displayed elements that
allowed us to have very high hopes...
During revolts, as well as during revolutions, people from more privileged social classes may stand with the people of the working class.
This is not a bad thing. Often, the social consciousness of a person overcomes their class or political interest. However, this cannot
cancel the fact that in the end the working class must seek the causes of its suffering in class inequality and political delegation. Class
analysis and its reference cannot be absent, and it is with joy that we hear the famous slogan "Eat The Rich" shaking the streets of the
American cities. Apart from the streets however - this has become apparent to us - workplaces must also be turn into spaces of resistance,
insurrection, and organization.
Slander, doom-mongering and the production of fear are beyond doubt part of the armoury of the media, every time a situation such as this
arises. This is inevitable. It is a fear-producing strategy that tries to present an acceptable facade for the bourgeois. Poor people,
immigrants and outcasts will surely loot the wealth which they are denied. However, the problem of organized crime hijacking the revolt
requires diligent attention, not for the sake of the media, but for the sake of the soul of the revolt.
We are the ones that produce wealth and there is no other action more deeply revolutionary than reclaiming it.
In 2010, during the peak of the struggle against the financial oversight of Greece, during the biggest and most militant protest in the
centre of the capital, a bank caught on fire and 3 workers that were inside died. The sorrow that this caused to everyone as well as the
fierce slander the media produced against the movement quenched its rage and dealt a blow from which it never recovered. Such events are
either products of bad luck, criminal negligence or provocation and can become the tombstone of a movement.
It is a given that fascists will step forward, aiding the state in the slander and repression of the struggle, especially since the murder
of George Floyd had racial motives. Such circumstances, when the fascists step forward while the state is struggling to keep them under its
protection, are always a good chance to settle things with the most dangerous political infestation that plagues the working class.
Despite battling in the streets for decades, we cannot criticize the militant part of your struggle. We do not confront the same type of
army you do. We can, however, share with you some experience from the 2008 revolt on a certain issue. Aside from the clashes during central,
massive events, activism in different districts and throughout the city or country can intensify the general climate and disorient the state
forces.
During these times, the main thing organized revolutionary forces must do is to be able to give answers on matters of operation,
organization, and politics. It is not the time to follow ideological approaches by the book. It is 1000 times better to make a wrong
decision than to make no decision at all. No revolt is a copy of another and hence each new revolt requires new approaches. Anarchists must
be ready and capable to find what those are without hesitation or delay. Experiment, keep an open mind and unify (a revolt can drastically
change the status quo within the movement, as we found out in 2008). We insist on unity and common strategy among anarchists, knowing well
it is easier said than done.
In situations such as this, what is great and what is not, what is important and what unimportant is determined by the future, not the past.
In no case it is our intention to give lessons. What we see happening in the US is bigger and more important than anything we have lived up
to now in Greece. We will stand by your side to the best of our abilities, while maintaining our own struggle over here. Internationalism
and unity among people of the struggle reflect the unity of the interests of the working class throughout the world regardless of colour,
race, and culture. We remember the solidarity of the American movement to our struggles. The road we follow is common for all of us, no
matter where we happen to be on the map. It is the road of the struggle against capitalism, the state, fascism, racism, sexism, and any kind
of discrimination.
For equality. For freedom. For true and permanent justice. For social liberation.
Anarchist Federation (Greece)
https://libertasalonica.wordpress.com/2020/06/06
------------------------------
Message: 5
We are witnessing many people spreading rumors on social media and sharing conspiracy theories about the uprising that is taking place.
These may be rumors of potential attacks by white supremacy groups, interventions or conspiracies, that police agents are responsible for
the violence perpetrated by the protesters. Such online behavior is harmful and undermines the movement you are likely to be trying to
support. So we said to ourselves that we should discuss why to oppose this trend together. ---- 1) Riots, which include activities such as
throwing bricks and other things that can be classified as violent, are and have historically been part of encouraging social change. For
better or worse, a long history of unrest can be found in America and elsewhere. The most popular examples in the United States include the
riots in Watts, Compton's Cafeteria and then Stonewall, the riots over Rodney King, and more recently events such as the Ferguson Uprising.
Riots occur for many different reasons and under different circumstances, but usually (at least in part) they are the result of nothing else
working, of people being ignored, unheard of and cornered. Sometimes they are inevitable and play an important role.
2) Riots, throwing bricks and other violence should not delegitimize the movement. Such events are often the only thing that makes those who
are less affected notice what is happening - the police are killing African Americans and no one is paying due attention to it. Police in
America have killed several African Americans since the covid crisis broke out, including Breonna Taylor, and everything has remained the
same. People are paying so much attention to this now precisely because of the reaction to George Floyd's death. The fact that people are
listening now is proof of the effectiveness of these tactics.
3) As for the first two points, violent protest can in fact help and operate in tandem with non-violent protest. Many times the successes of
the pacifist resistance have suddenly not been achieved. Rather, nonviolent movements operated along with more militant ones, with similar
goals but using different strategies and tactics. For example, we cannot talk about the civil rights movement in the United States and about
figures like Martin Luther King without taking into account the Black Panthers and other armed groups. It is common for the existence of
more militant groups or events to create a context in which those in power are forced to deal with other groups that appear milder than
them. This is not necessarily desirable and there is a real risk of co-optation, but it is part of the struggle and understanding of how
society changes over time.
4) Many conspiracy theories focus on bricks near protest sites, as if it were the only thing that causes violence. But people have used a
number of tactics from the beginning, including much more violent than throwing bricks. People have guns and shoot at the police, people are
arsoning and setting fire to buildings, there is vandalism, looting, etc. And the violence certainly does not come only from anti-racist
demonstrators, but more often from elsewhere. There is white domination - racist cops kill with impunity, supporters of white supremacy hold
political office, and millions of African Americans are behind bars, not to mention intense socio-economic inequality. Given this reality,
any way in which those who are oppressed choose to respond is fair and legitimate, and it is important to support it rather than criticize it.
5) The argument that violent or confrontational protest causes state violence and repression is problematic for several reasons. First of
all, this is simply not true. How the state's response to the protest looks is influenced by many different factors, and it is not just a
question of whether it is peaceful or not. It also includes, for example, the identity or social status of the participants, the level of
threat to the situation, the potential to spread, etc. There are many examples of how the state reacts violently to completely peaceful
protests, and it is completely beyond the control of those who oppose it. The state's ability to use violence is a political reality - this
movement has broad support, and it is this that has done more against the will of the police than the tactics chosen by the protesters.
Supporting people on the streets, rather than delegitimizing resistance, will ensure that they are safe.
6) The argument that conflict demonstrations cause state violence shifts the blame from those responsible and those who should be held
accountable (ie those who actively and violently suppress the movement) to those who in this case are fighting for survival in the face of
face intense and daily structural violence. In other words, if a woman was in a relationship where she is physically abused and decided to
stand up one day and her partner beat or killed her, the responsibility for that would not lie with the woman but with her partner. The same
goes here. The state and white supremacy are to blame, not those who resist them.
7) Provocateurs, secret bastards and other state agents exist, but that's off topic. Emphasizing this fact distracts from more important
things. It helps support and promote conspiracy theories that overshadow the African-American agenda, disguises their experiences and
actions, and gives the police too much credit and publicity. Of course, state agents can incite violence and maybe leave some bricks like
ammunition somewhere, and the police do tricks and tricks all the time. But it doesn't really matter, because most people throwing bricks
and engaging in other confrontational activities don't belong to the police. The police do not start riots and definitely do not maintain
them or continue them, people do it and they have good reasons for it.
8)In connection with the above, it is not only untrue to attribute such activity exclusively to state agents, but it is also harmful and
potentially dangerous. People may then think that only police officers do confrontational or violent things, so those who do them for their
own reasons will be considered someone who helps the state and goes against the movement. It helps maintain the narrative of a good
protester vs. a bad protester in which the actions of some people are considered inherently legitimate and others as inherently
illegitimate. Instead of providing space for a diversity of tactics and approaches and creating opportunities for coalition building,
solidarity action, etc., mistrust and, more easily, conflict arises. This is exactly what the state wants and it is one of its central
strategies (COINTELPRO is just one well-known example) through which it seeks to disrupt, discredit and otherwise oppress. The state does
not want riots, but people to fight among themselves.
9) In addition, attributing violence exclusively to the state is in fact dangerous and endangers people in at least two other ways. There
may be situations where protesters attack other protesters because they believe or assume (incorrectly) that they are either police officers
or work for the police. So if rumors that the police are inciting violence and throwing bricks are spreading, those who are not police
officers and do not work for the police but choose to do such things may be attacked by the crowd. Misidentification and accusation without
concrete evidence can have serious consequences.
10) In the latter case, if it is considered that anyone engaged in certain activities (whether state agents or not) is harming the movement,
overzealous people may take the lead and try to control or even control the protest. other protesters. In such cases, the "peace police" may
actively try to stop someone's actions (usually by physical restraint) or, in the worst case, make a "civil arrest" and hand them over to
the police (where they are likely to be subjected to violence). Recently, a particularly horrific video circulated in which a protester
smashed concrete from the road to throw it away when another group of protesters surrounded it, knelt it, and pulled it to the nearest lines
of heavily-clothed people.
11) The struggle for change is chaotic, complicated, contradictory and yes, sometimes violent. This is true throughout the history of social
movements to this day. Violence can be empowering, it can bring about change, and sometimes people have no choice - the world sometimes has
to burn in order to build something new in its place, and it is important to respect the autonomy of the African Americans who have risen.
Fighting can take many forms and involves a huge variety of activities. Right now, instead of speculating or spreading rumors, we should
focus on how we can engage, what is good to take risks for, and support what is happening, in a real, material sense, and not just on social
media (which causes a lot of more harm than good).
https://www.afed.cz/text/7185/kupy-cihel-a-dalsi-veci-ktere-jsou-uplne-mimo
------------------------------
Message: 6
In the previous chapter we have seen what the role of government is in the economy and we have also seen that this role of government is not
an inevitable condition for the existence of the economy. The government does not produce anything. The job of the government is just to
control. The government imposes some control on the economy that is born out of the needs of the people of the society - the government is
not the creator of the economy. That is why it is not difficult to say that the economy will survive without a government. ---- If the
government disappears, only government control will be removed from the economy - there is no danger of the economy becoming stagnant. At
the heart of all production is labor and the government's job is to help employers deprive those who provide labor. Without such an
authoritarian and coercive force, there is no reason to think that the production process of society will come to a halt. It is not because
of the presence of government that production is going on in the society.
Now the question is, if the people's federation takes the responsibility of running the society instead of the government, then what will be
the production system of that society? The answer to this question must be said first of all, there will be no profit in the people's
economy. And if there is no profit, then it is not a difficult task to realize what the economy of that society will be like. If there is no
profit, let's find out which way the economy will go.
If there is no profit, the first thing that will happen is that unjust luxury will disappear. Not all of the huge profits that are made in a
country's economy go back to production as capital. A large part of the profit is used for consumption. This enjoyment must be called
luxury. The reason is that if there is a fair distribution of the wealth produced, this consumption is much more expensive than what
everyone can enjoy. Luxury means more enjoyment than would be possible if all the resources of the society were distributed equally.
Suppose a society has a capital of one trillion rupees. Again, the population of that society is one million. Now suppose that equality is
established on all the capitals of that society and the profits are taken away so that no one accumulates extra capital. What will be the
amount of capital in each case? One crore rupees. If one spends the entire income from this one crore rupees on consumption, will it fall
into the category of luxury?
No. It cannot be called luxury. The reason is that no one is taking away anyone's rights and there is no exploitation. Even if
exploitation-free enjoyment becomes powerless, it has at least a fair basis. In that case, it should be understood that the wealth of the
society has really taken an incredible size and everyone is able to enjoy a lot more because of its distribution. This enjoyment is not a
luxury. The reason is that the ability to enjoy this has been made in the hands of everyone in the society.
That enjoyment must be called luxury that the means of enjoyment is acquired through exploitation. Luxury is an unimaginable enjoyment for a
large section of society. Another notable aspect of luxury is that what was in the past may not be in the category of luxury now. The reason
is that the capacity of the exploited class has also increased a bit as compared to the past, although it is much less than that of the
exploited class.
Some aspects of the luxury of a hundred years ago may fall within the scope of the present exploited class. So these can no longer be called
luxuries. But it is not the society that has reduced luxury. On the contrary, thousands of new ways of luxury have emerged that are beyond
the reach of the present exploited class. Many of these luxuries are nature destroyers. The unbridled luxury of today's rich society is
wreaking havoc on the world's climate and nature.
There is no doubt that if the path of profit is closed from today, it will bring incredible benefits to the life and climate of the world.
Profits make the rich richer and keep the workers in the same position. This widens the gap between the rich and the working class. Luxury
grows in tandem with this growing inequality. The only way to stop these destructive luxuries of nature is to destroy profits.
With the disappearance of profits, as the luxuries begin to disappear, so will the infrastructure for the production of luxuries. The huge
amount of capital that was used to produce luxury is now forced to run towards meeting the needs of the masses. Because there is no profit,
on the one hand, the demand for luxury will continue to decrease and on the other hand, the demand for goods and services for the masses
will continue to increase.
This is the simultaneous effect of the fall of luxury. Because the money that used to go into the pockets of the capitalists will now go
into the pockets of the working people. What will happen is that just as a part of the profits will go back to the production sector as new
capital, a part of the current wages will be added to the production sector as new capital. Again, just as another portion of profits was
used for luxury in the past, another portion of the current wages will be used to meet public demand.
In short, if profits are taken away, a large part of the wealth produced will not be accumulated in the pockets of some people but will
spread to a large part of society. This will reduce the demand for luxury goods and increase the demand for natural goods. This will also
reduce the investment of capital in the production of luxury goods and increase the use of capital to meet the needs of the people. Just as
a part of the profits used to enter the field of production as new capital, a part of the current wages will enter the field of production
as new capital.
Just as capitalists in the past not only enjoyed their profits with money, they also used it as capital - so now the working people will use
it as part of their capital without consuming the whole of their income - this is normal. As a result, the total capital of the society will
continue to increase in the same way as before. The only difference will be in the investment of capital. Just as the industries engaged in
meeting the needs of luxury were developing in the past, now the industries engaged in meeting the needs of the masses will develop at a
tremendous pace.
In other words, the economy will continue to develop as it did before. Income-production-capital will all remain, only ownership will
change. As there is no profit, the ownership of capital will pass into the hands of the masses instead of into the hands of a few. As a
result, the capital invested in the manufacturing industry will look like mass capital. This mass capital will be so large in 20-30 years
that it will be able to produce many luxuries of the past. But since everyone can afford it, then it will no longer fall under the
definition of luxury.
We have seen how capital ownership and consumption will change if there is no profit. Let's see what changes in the management of the
economy in the extinction of profits. Who is running the current capitalist economy? The simple answer is that those who have capital are
running the economy. The entire economy is run by a number of capitalist 'companies'. Thousands of companies are behind the leadership,
planning and success of a country's entire industrial production.
If profits disappear, who will run the economy? The answer is simple - those who have capital will run the economy. If there is no profit,
the ownership of capital will go to the working people. And the whole economy will be run by several 'syndicates' of these workers.
Thousands of syndicates will be involved in the leadership, planning and success of the entire industrial production of a country.
Just as many capitalists interested in a particular business come together in a single company, so all the working people involved in a
particular industry will be involved in a single syndicate. Just as many shareholders in a company maintain discipline among themselves and
all work together for the common good, so do all the members of each syndicate maintain discipline among themselves and work together for
the common good.
Economic interests bring unity and discipline to the members of a syndicate just as economic interests bring unity and discipline to the
members of a syndicate. Disputes between the shareholders of a company can be resolved in the same way as disputes between members of a
syndicate.
Unity, conflict, order, chaos - if capitalist society can survive with everything, then it is not difficult to say that the society of the
masses can also survive with its limitations. Since we consider an unusual thing like exploitation to be the ultimate truth, it becomes
difficult for us to imagine a society without it. Not everyone in the capitalist class of a country has a known and friendly relationship.
The number of people in the bourgeoisie can be in the tens of thousands or even millions in any country. So how do they stay united? The
answer is - they all follow a certain procedure. They follow this method for their own benefit. Similarly, if the responsibility of running
the society falls into the hands of working people, then they too will run the society in a certain way and everyone will follow that way.
Decisions made at a company's board meeting are in the best interests of the company. It is not difficult to say that the decisions that
will be taken in a syndicate meeting will be in the interest of all the members of the syndicate. If the workers' syndicates that formed in
the developed world in the early nineteenth century could have come out of the confusion of forming a 'parliamentary government', perhaps
these syndicates would be the lifeblood of the modern economy today.
Capitalist governments have a role to play in the management of the capitalist economy, just as capitalist companies have a successful role
to play. But the government does not run the economy directly; The government only 'controls' the economy. Although the capitalist companies
manage production in their own fields, the government works to coordinate and maintain order in production across the country. At the same
time, the government needs to maintain the power and prestige of the capitalists.
The reason is that it is not possible for a single company to pet an armed force and it is not possible to suppress a workers' revolt. The
task of protecting capital ownership, maintaining profits and seizing the country's natural resources is not possible for any company alone.
The government is also needed to resolve disputes between the two companies. Therefore, all companies have to unite to protect their
security, interests and authority. The government is the organization that they build by bringing everyone's power in one place.
Having a government does not require a single company to spend huge sums on security. Government forces are ready to provide great security
to anyone at any time. So for such security, everyone does not have to spend large sums separately. The security of all is protected at the
expense of the government forces. Since all these expenses are borne by the government, no one is under much pressure. The government and
the government forces are run by everyone with a small amount of tax money.
We know that if profits go bankrupt, so will capitalist companies. What will happen to the government in that case? Yes. The government will
also rise. Because if the capitalist companies do not exist, then for whose security will the government be formed? And who will form the
government? The people to whom the government was formed to suppress the people will again launch a government to suppress whom?
Yes, you may think - even in this crowd, a government is needed to maintain order. But is there really a need for a 'government' for this?
Does a simple task like maintaining order among the independent masses require such a large force as the government? Don't you think that
the 'discipline' that the capitalist government maintained was basically another name for suppressing a large population by force?
Is there a need for such a repressive force to prevent petty crime among the independent masses? There is no need at all for an organization
as big, so expensive and so armed as the government to suppress petty crime and maintain discipline. Should a government that had the power
to uproot the movements of millions of people or billions of people survive only to suppress a few hundred or a few thousand criminals?
So it is very clear that if profits from the current economy disappear, so will the bourgeoisie, their companies and the government. In this
case, some more questions may arise. For example, apart from maintaining discipline and repression, the government has some other work to
do. For example, the government has work to coordinate and develop the economy of the whole country, such as roads, ghats, electricity,
ports, education, health, etc.
If there is no government, who will see all this? Yes, if there is no government, there is no need for a big organization to see and hear
these things. But for all this, there is no need for a terrible organization like the government. All that needs to be done to do this and
the rest of the work is for all the syndicates to come together and form a large organization.
We have learned in the previous chapter what the name of such a mass organization can be. In the early nineteenth century, the primary
organizations formed by workers in various industries in developed countries were called by different names. For example, in France they
were called 'syndicates', in England-America they were called 'trade unions'. Syndicates or trade unions of each country together formed
'Federation' or 'Con-Federation'.
In present day Bangladesh or India, apart from the workers' organizations, there is a great possibility of participation of the middle class
in such federations. We can call the mass organizations formed by the workers-peasants-middle class and common people of all walks of life
as mass federations. Isn't such a federation of people enough to coordinate the economy of the whole country and do development work?
If governments are abolished, so will national boundaries. One of the most terrifying lies in the world is this nationalist frontier. This
boundary is utterly irrational and unnecessary in today's age. In many cases, there is no conflict between the governments of the two
countries, just as there is no conflict between the people of those two countries.
Yet the two countries are separate. The reason is power. Those who are in power between the owners of the two countries and those who are
coming to power will not allow the two countries to become one. Because if there is one country, there will be no more two governments, one
government and one head of government. Neither head of government of the two countries would want to relinquish power and the rest of their
government would not want to share power with the other.
If the federations of the people can achieve independence, that is, they can achieve full sovereignty by removing the government, then it is
not uncommon for two federations of two countries to become one federation. A few federations can also form a confederation. On the other
hand, a large country may have multiple federations before and after independence.
It doesn't matter how big or small a federation is because there is no issue of power. Again, it does not matter how large the functions of
a federation are. Because there is no power here. However, many workers' organizations, past and present, cannot be considered free from the
issue of power. In the past, many big workers' federations have lost their way in the politics of power.
No organization other than the People's Federation, free from the confusion of government and power, can ever meet the demands of justice.
Since there is no protection of the interests of any particular person, a people's federation will be able to reflect the public welfare and
public interest to the maximum extent while formulating economic policies and decisions. The same thing will happen with the judiciary. One
hundred percent independent and impartial judiciary can be formed not by the government but by an independent people's federation.
Human history shows us with our fingers in our eyes that welfare and justice have never been established by power. So the name of the
biggest false project in history is government. For the last five and a half thousand years, the government has survived only by relying on
power and terror. From the beginning of its existence till today, the government has remained in the bosom of the society as a great and
holy organization despite committing the most unjust and most criminal crimes.
One of the great forts of terror-oppression-injustice-oppression is the government whose scratching of the village was also a sin.
Murder-exploitation-looting-war-bloodshed and destruction are the religion of the government. Its relationship with welfare is very weak.
Not only this, the government has also turned those who have been oppressed into mental slaves. That is why only governmentism has been
lingering in the minds of people, in the minds of intellectuals, in the minds of revolutionaries for thousands of years. No one can even
dream that there is no need for government in the society.
Many people do not understand how a society without a government can be more organized, orderly, self-reliant and crime-free. That is why
for most people, lack of government is a kind of scary word. People are afraid of lack of government, that is, they are afraid of
themselves. People think out of fear of themselves, an unnecessary monster called Sarkar needs to be guarded. But how many times the world
has been destroyed by the monster called government, how many times wars and massacres have emptied the world - most people do not know the
calculation.
What many do not realize is that there are countless rulers in the history of the world who have killed as many people as a single ruler.
Because the weapons needed for killing and destruction, the army needed, the interests needed - no existence can be found in a society
without a government. Yet the fear is not without government, not with the government.
Another common misconception about government is the idea of forming a good government by abolishing the oppressive government. This
thinking is one of the most failed and catastrophic thoughts in history. Pro-government military authority and governmental rule have not
been able to bring any change in the world. So historically, the last outline of social change that is left in the world is the outline of a
government without a government. At least once we should go beyond the governmental society and see if there is any need for a repressive
organization like the government for the society at all.
https://bangladeshasf.org/gnn-maanusser-arthniiti/
------------------------------
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten