WORLD WORLDWIDE FRANCE News Journal Update - (en) France, OCL CA #336 - Who is afraid of anti-industrial criticism? by Saint-Nazaire (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

 See online: A text from the Collectif RUPTURES, available on its site

https://collectifruptures.wordpress.com/ ---- "When we talk to you about
ideas, you answer people. You will tell my comrades (...) that I am a
counter-revolutionary. If they believe you, I pity them..." ---- Louise
Bodin, oppositional communist activist, letter to the Central Committee
of the PCF, November 20, 1927[1]. ---- In the 1960s, some theorized a
critique of the emerging "consumer society". It was the time when the
cultural industry had decided to invest our "free time", our "leisure".
 From simple exploited producers, we also became alienated consumers. In
our 2020s, the omnipresence of digital technology is renewing this
cultural industry and its penetration into the smallest aspects of our
lives. We consult our smartphones several hundred times a day, overload
the Gafam with data and stupefy ourselves in front of a continuous flow
of images... Not to mention the control possibilities allowed by these
technologies.

To combat this "Spectacle Society"[2]2.0, our collective finds one of
its supports in so-called "anti-industrial" theses. However, it turns
out that the anti-industrial movement is currently under heavy fire from
critics. According to some writings, anti-industrialists - including us,
no doubt - are "reactionaries", "proto-fascists", "covido-negationists"
and "complacent with the extreme right" and it is a question of
"elevating "anti-fascist dikes", that is to say, to make
anti-industrialists undesirable in social struggles[3]. Let's go! Who is
afraid of anti-industrial criticism?

Critical thinking vs excommunication

Let's talk about us. Our collective was formed in 2021, during the
health pass protest. Basically, two feelings: on the one hand, a
spontaneous rejection of this measure which appeared to us all to be
liberticidal, discriminatory and authoritarian; on the other hand, a
very strong desire to exchange, to discuss and share our analyses. These
two feelings might seem contradictory. One is of the order of certainty,
of affirmation. The other involves questioning, uncertainty. In reality,
the two are complementary: it is because we had anger in common that we
were able to build a space for reflection which leaves room for
disagreements and individual expression. It was because we had built a
space for discussion that we imagined publishing a small journal which
echoed our thoughts: we compared our ideas and, based on what seemed to
us to be common, we expressed , proposed debates and wrote texts.

We distributed these texts in anti-pass demonstrations and in places
affiliated with the anti-capitalist movement. We wanted to make our
position heard. Indeed, the dominant tone of the anti-pass/anti-vax
movement, where many conspiratorial discourses circulated, seemed far
too confused to us (even if certain groups were trying to stimulate a
dynamic of social demands). Mirroring this, the almost total absence of
left-wing forces, of activists accustomed to defending the notions of
equality and social justice, also posed a problem for us. On this point,
and this is what motivated the choice of the name of our collective, we
found ourselves at odds with the majority of our comrades, who had
chosen to desert, when not to denigrate this movement, accused
(sometimes rightly) of relaying libertarian positions. We preferred to
see it as a movement protesting a repressive measure, a movement which
opposed the acceleration of technological control of populations. The
pandemic, which is very real, was the occasion for the establishment of
unprecedented technological and political means of control which, in our
opinion, prefigure the authoritarian management to come. It seemed
obvious to us to participate in this movement, but by defending, to the
extent of our strength, the anti-authoritarian and egalitarian positions
that are ours.

Clarification that if we wanted to make our position heard, it was not a
question of educating the supposedly ignorant masses, of lecturing, nor
of highlighting our political identity, but of sharing a political
position, hoping that she echoes, that she meets the concerns of other
demonstrators. Faced with the presence of conspiratorial and far-right
discourse, we did not want to "draw lines" or "raise dikes", but to go
to the meeting. Indeed, a bias guides us: not to take people for
imbeciles. The ideas that we defend are not a morality to which we
should adhere, as in an act of faith. We ask readers to consider them,
to think about them, to exercise their critical thinking and to take
from our texts what interests them. We are betting that in this era of
technological surge and authoritarian tightening of power, libertarian
and technocritical ideas can meet popular concerns and resonate.

The reasons for the dialectic

Obviously, when we take a position, it is also in the name of moral
imperatives, of a certain idea of what is "good" or "bad". We all have
ethics, a system of values. It is these which allow us to judge the
justice or injustice of this or that measure, which provoke anger or
appeasement in us (anger, most often). Ethics is the basis of personal
judgment, it is one of the bases of commitment.

This is why political movements which renounce ethics to prefer only
strategy and pseudo "efficiency" are condemned to transforming
themselves into cold bureaucratic machines for crushing individuals[4].
An error committed by a number of communist movements claiming to follow
Lenin and which over the course of the 20th century caused numerous
victims among sincere revolutionaries (including Louise Bodin, cited at
the beginning of this text) suffering from the "Stalinization" of
communist parties and confronted in this framework has a quantity of
slander, insults and exclusion lawsuits[5].

But the opposite is no better. When a movement is based entirely on
poorly defined pseudo "ethical provisions", without taking into account
the real political landscape, this results in a politics of good
feelings which can just as easily create a machine to crush individuals.
It is common knowledge that significant sections of the libertarian
movement indulge in this state of mind, calling for moral positions...
and exclusion, which is the corollary. Sort the Pure from the Impure,
put problematic texts on the index, classify things (and people!)
between Good and Bad. Call for individual redemption to achieve
collective salvation. Part of the radical movement seems to have set
itself the objective of reforming individuals. We note, with regret,
that some people think they are doing politics when they are only doing
ethics and that within French radical circles, the idea of "impurity" is
increasingly prevalent. This is what is at stake with the latest text of
criticism of the anti-industrial movement[6].

In a libertarian and leftist movement with vague borders, this race for
purity can nourish a "liberal" version of Stalinization, in which there
is no need for a Central Committee to pronounce exclusions (since there
is no no membership card, but interpersonal links and a decentralized
"network" of affinity groups). Social networks have replaced Pravda: a
brochure or a podcast can be enough to gain authority and purify the
movement "because, you see, this guy is really problematic, yeah, I read
it in a brochure I think" .

On the contrary, the exercise we are trying to engage in is to
articulate ethical conceptions that are personal to each member of our
group, with political intervention in a complex era. This calls for
constant reflection on the connection between ethics and politics. We
cannot see the world in black and white. Our political radicalism needs
a nuanced vision, and a dialectical reflection allowing us to better
understand our contradictory times. Each member of the collective is not
required to agree with everything that is noted in our readings, or with
everything that is publicly stated by a person or group that we invite
or interview. And fortunately.

Down with alienation!

It is in this context that we draw inspiration from the anti-industrial
criticism, carried by the movement of the same name. Anti-industrial
ideas? A set of texts and analyzes which emphasize a critique of
alienation in advanced capitalist societies, in continuity with the
ideas of the Situationist International[7]and, to a lesser extent, of
the School of Frankfurt[8]. The anti-industrial movement was formed in
the 1980s and 1990s around the journal and publishing house Encyclopédie
des Nuisances[9]. The name was proposed in the early 2000s during the
movement against GMOs by the magazine In extremis . Since then, his work
has been extended by publishing houses such as L'Échappée, La Roue, La
Lenteur or Le monde à l'envers, by the Écran Total network or the Pieces
and main d'oeuvre group. A good part of the activity of this movement
being turned outward, its ideas permeate other circles and are
re-appropriated by multiple people.

At the center of the reflections of this current, there is the idea that
what we call "Progress" is above all a progress of alienation. That
capitalist society, although it constantly claims to be based on Science
and Reason, is above all unreasonable, because its triumphant Reason is
in fact an abstract calculative reason which has no use for individuals,
communities, ecosystems and species, and which favors the growth of
profit and the centralization of power. A headlong rush which, if it
promises us a final catastrophe, is already producing political,
geopolitical, sociological and psychological effects, and -
paradoxically - a massive adhesion of the inhabitants of developed and
developing countries to the ideals and practices promoted by the system.
This adhesion can be intellectual, or even sometimes quasi-religious,
but (fortunately) it is rare. More often, we are content to adhere in
practice to the capitalist way of life. And how else can you do it?
There is no outside. We live in this world, and whatever our individual
efforts to reduce the gap between what we would like to experience and
what we actually experience, we evolve in a society where the default
social relations are based on profit, control, competition and
domination, where food is found in supermarkets that enrich
shareholders, where information is found in newspapers or sites owned by
capitalist groups, where we deposit our savings in bank accounts that
make us prosper financial power, where we write our texts, including
this one on an HP PC... Nothing separates us from the shit that
surrounds us[10]! On a daily basis, we enrich those who exploit us, we
buy what possesses us, we consume what consumes us.

This dissonance is alienation, the fact of "becoming a stranger to
oneself". In the texts of Karl Marx, alienation is a process by which a
subject (an individual) is stripped of what makes him a human being, to
transform him into another, or even into something hostile to him.
same[11]. This is what happens to us almost every moment in this world,
where economic interests are in blatant contradiction with the interests
of humanity. No doubt all social systems produce alienation, but
capitalism relies entirely on it, it generalizes it. What's more,
communications strategists tell us: "buy Nike, it will allow you to
become yourself." They want to make us individually desire what we
experience socially[12]. Alienation is therefore an adhesion, but a
constrained adhesion, in which the individual "will have to permanently
deny himself, if he wants to be considered at all (...). This existence
in fact postulates an ever-changing loyalty, a series of constantly
disappointing adherence to fallacious products. It's about running fast
behind the inflation of depreciated signs of life.»[13]

In our society, two major elements contribute to maintaining alienation:
on the one hand the rise in the standard of living, that which leads us
to "run fast": a new smartphone every two years and a comfortable level
of consumption in the West , although ultimately incompatible with
natural resources; on the other hand, ideology, which allows us to cover
with a modest and very practical veil the sad reality produced by
generalized exploitation, to not think about the final consequences of
our actions... and not to lose control at each moment in the face of
capitalist reality!

For social criticism

Anti-industrial criticism is therefore above all a social criticism, a
criticism of current society, of its power relations and its
contradictions; and if it is critical of technology, it is only by
repercussion, having identified technology as one of the major agents of
the advance of the capitalist system. For our part, if we are interested
in technology, it is not because we are techno-obsessive but because it
is central to society. In fact, the anti-industrial movement is an
update of anti-capitalism.

Anti-industrial criticism is a social criticism, which means that it
fights against the social relations in which we are caught, in the name
of another conception of society. Clearly inscribed in the (critical)
continuity of the May 68 revolt[14], this social criticism combats the
submission of individuals to a social machinery which favors profit at
all costs and in which "the guarantee of not dying of hunger" "exchange
for the risk of dying of boredom"[15]. In the heritage of the socialist
thinkers of the labor movement, it seeks to open the paths to a future
in which individuals and communities would not be subject to the iron
law of the extraction of surplus value, to wage labor , to widespread
exploitation and the social domination that results from it.

This domination only increases as the planetary boundaries approach.
Furthermore, in the era of biotechnology, artificial intelligence,
internet of things, geoengineering, RNA vaccines, artificialization of
reproduction, ectogenesis, ever more advanced use of IT and drones in
productive/logistical processes, a social critique that wishes to
understand and combat this domination must necessarily take into account
the technological question. The "machinery" of which Marx spoke is used
to increase the speed of workers and to reduce their autonomy, as well
as to commodify sectors (geographical and social) which until then
escaped capitalist control. At the individual level, they make us adhere
to a relationship with the instrumental, calculative and calculated
world, made up of information and objects rather than subjects. Thus,
thanks to digital technology, the capitalist relationship is reaching a
milestone in invading all spheres of life. This is what makes the
situationist critique of daily life interesting[16]or the
anti-capitalist critique of morals developed by materialist feminists
(on domestic work, inequalities within the family or representation
women as objects for example). They allow us to put into words the
feeling that the life we lead is slipping away from us, and to seek
avenues for regaining social control.

Everything about anti-industrial criticism indicates that it is part of
the lineage of materialist revolutionaries who fight against
exploitation, alienation and social domination. The main break with the
working-class tradition introduced by the anti-industrialists is the
recognition that capitalist development has taken on such an extent that
we cannot simply take over the tool of production as is. That a critical
assessment, an inventory, is necessary. That part of our "acquis" will
have to be called into question if we leave capitalism (no more
smartphones every two years! No more smartphones at all!). Furthermore,
his criticism of alienation could sometimes result in contempt (which we
do not share, since we refuse to take people for imbeciles) of people
experiencing alienation[17].

Pick up the thread of a fight against exploitation and domination which
would not succumb to the fascination with technological progress (as the
majority of the left and the extreme left have been and still are[18])
is a necessity. Because other "political offers" claim to respond to the
challenges of the time, but far from claiming emancipation they claim to
be authoritarian management of crises. Thus the rise of the
national-populist parties, heirs of fascism. But these only
ideologically assume the authoritarian leaning that the so-called
democratic parties put in place. It is indeed the liberal and social
democratic parties which support the development of AI or algorithmic
predictions, which implement the health pass, intelligent video
surveillance and the Internet of Things... but also more brutally
anti-migratory laws[19]or the increase in police powers[20]. Marine Le
Pen is right when she says that the Darmanin law is an "ideological
victory" for her.

While the Chinese dictatorship under a market economy increasingly
prefigures, for liberals and populists alike, the authoritarian
"solution" to the challenges of our time[21], the anti-industrial
current seems to us, with anarchism to be example, one of the currents
of political reflection most in touch with our time, to try to
understand it and oppose it.

How I argued

But then, how can we understand the heavy barrage that anti-industrial
criticism has faced in recent months within leftist and libertarian
circles? How can we understand the accusations according to which its
main leaders in France are "reactionary", "homophobic",
"covido-negationists", "complacent with the extreme right", etc? How can
we understand that, while the government has just passed the most
restrictive law concerning the entry and stay of foreigners in France
for 50 years[22], while the National Assembly has 88 RN deputies, while
the hearings of CNews are at their highest[23]... some leftists believe
that the danger of fascistization of French society comes from the
anti-industrial current, its supposed links with the extreme right and
the "slippery" themes that it would share with the worst enemies of
emancipation?

Indeed, these accusations could fall on their own if we looked at the
concrete struggles in which these people participate, the self-managed
places that they run on a daily basis, as well as the political heritage
to which they claim.

So, reactions, the "anti-industrial"? Within a current open to a large
number of people, adherence to a supposed "doctrinal purity" is not
demanded: anyone is welcome. So, yes, in these networks, we could
sometimes hear an idealization of past societies or speeches in defense
of current society which "would be better" than all the dystopian
developments in progress, speeches which completely ignore social
inequalities and ultimately the impasse on the very reasons which
originally motivated the movement. These positions seem to us to be a
drift - real but in the minority - resulting from resignation in the
face of the defeats of the revolutionary movement. Other people,
inspired by Theodore Kaczynski, can affirm that their one and only
objective is to dismantle the industrial system... thus ignoring the
question of social inequalities, oppression or the form of the
organization[24]. Should we specify that these positions seem totally
contradictory to us with the values that interest us in anti-industrial
criticism? For our part, we seek to walk between two pitfalls: on the
one hand arrogant and overbearing contempt, on the other hand the focus
on technology to the detriment of social aspects.

Fundamentally, it seems absurd to us to describe the heirs of a
revolutionary current of thought as "reactionaries". As a reminder, the
word "reactionary" designates counter-revolutionaries (inspired by the
thoughts of Joseph de Maistre or Louis de Bonald) who aim to establish a
hierarchical, vertical, immutable society, which naturalizes social
inequalities. The goal of the anti-industrialists is the opposite: to
build the conditions for a pooling of wealth and power where individuals
can flourish, without falling into progressive wanderings which conceive
of emancipation as a radical break with society or with nature. The
anti-industrialists remind their comrades on the left, heirs of
socialism, that the egalitarian demands that we have in common must be
articulated with a critique of liberal technological power. In an age of
impersonal domination (large companies, Gafam, etc.), an anti-capitalism
that refuses to place the technological question at the center of its
reflections would have a good chance of becoming an ally of capitalist
modernization. This debate between "progressive" socialists and
socialists critical of capitalist modernization which has been going
well in recent years is far from being over[25].

But the accusations of recent months do not reflect real disagreements.
It is rather that social networks have been there, with their
"socialization bubbles" and other "Godwin points" which make us wonder
what is "social" about these networks. Coupled with the proverbial habit
of the far left and the ultra-left to split at the slightest ideological
disagreement, this produces this kind of painful text[26]which combines,
in the great conspiracy tradition, real facts, bad faith , biased
information, truncated quotes, lies by omission, when it is not just a
lie. An anonymous text constructed at the cost of contortions and hasty
readings, which will undoubtedly never be the subject of "face-to-face"
debates organized by its authors, but which will serve for a good
fifteen years as support for a campaign of slander and disruption of
militant events, all under the flag of "anti-fascism" (which did not
deserve this).

That we must avoid any link with certain organic intellectuals of the
extreme right (like Olivier Rey, but this also applies to all the
others, including those not cited in the text and whom we will refrain
from quoting here), we we approve. But we must be wary of ideas like
viruses, that we must keep ourselves "pure", for example by refusing to
cite certain sources which themselves would have had the misfortune of
quoting a source which itself would one day have made an inappropriate
statement, we refuse to do so. Critical thinking deserves better than that!

Let's face real conflicts rather than making false accusations. The fact
is that the anti-industrial movement places at the center of its
criticism the institutions that hold power: large companies, public
conglomerates, managers, technological machinery, state services,
political parties. That he gives little importance to "micro-powers",
this concept which considers everyone as a simple avatar of "systems of
domination", a bearer of "privileges". There seems to be a disagreement
here on the notion of "power": is it a circulating flow, present in all
social relations? Or rather capital held by institutions which imposes
itself on a mass of powerless people? Sensitive, rightly, to the unequal
relationships that are created in activist groups (and in all social
groups), many libertarian and leftist activists of the 21st century
focus on the first conception. Sometimes to the point of neglecting the
second and undermining the capacity for action against those who hold
the real powers... This reading of oppression which places the emphasis
on "individual bearers" encourages personal attacks. Obviously, we are
not saying here that we must tolerate any unjustified power situation.
Rather, we must stop seeing power everywhere, at the risk of multiplying
endless controversies where everyone seeks to play the role of the
dominated.

So, who's afraid of anti-industrial criticism? No doubt those who do not
want to attack the roots of capitalism and build unifying struggles, on
popular themes and modes of organization. The same people who favor a
withdrawal of struggles into fantasized communities which are in fact
dead ends, to the detriment of progress towards social equality.

We will not raise dikes

Some say that the far right (we say "fascism") is the priority enemy.
They do not say much about the liberal ideology which plagues our time,
any more than about technological control devices, about the
productivist infrastructure and more broadly about the establishment of
a mass society which treats individuals as adjustment variables.
Furthermore, this tendency to see "fascists" everywhere[27]feeds a
climate of generalized distrust within radical movements, where we are
always watching out of the corner of our eye our comrade, likely to
become fascist in the blink of an eye. 'eye if we relax our benevolent
attention.

In mirror image, others downplay the role of right-wing and far-right
parties, which they think are only "residual", because the real fascism
of our time would be the digital control tools put in place by social
democrats and liberals draped in the ideology of Progress. The priority
enemy would therefore not be the fascists in brown shirts, but rather
the transhumanists in white coats[28].

At Ruptures , we refuse to choose. We believe that technological
infrastructure is the matrix of authoritarianism. A mass society, an
industrial society, is condemned sooner or later to politically assume
its authoritarian infrastructures[29]. We fight authoritarianism
wherever it comes from, from the liberal left, the social left or the
nationalist and populist far-right. We fight in the name of ideals and
values that are incompatible with both. We refuse to interact with the
extreme right as an organization and with its political agents,
intellectuals and activists. On the other hand, we discuss
constructively with people, even if they use racist, sexist, homophobic,
conspiratorial commonplaces, etc. Because we promote critical thinking,
dialogue, and friendly "entrance doors" where we can discuss our
positions and our disagreements in complete peace of mind. We will not
build dikes: we will build struggles that move forward. And for this, we
know that anti-industrial criticism is a valuable contribution.

Breakups , January 5, 2024
Contact here

Who is afraid of anti-industrial criticism?
Download the brochure (134 KB) by clicking on the image
P.-S.
Breakups

Our group is made up of people who participated in the demonstrations
which took place in Grenoble against the health pass. Since September
2021, we have been meeting regularly to discuss, share experiences and
readings, and compare analyses. When possible, we try to build common
positions, write texts and distribute them (via our newspaper La
nouvelle vague and our website), or even organize events and actions.

We find ourselves on a few points: a distrust of the ever-tightening
technological mesh on our lives, a criticism of the environmental and
social ravages of capitalism, the challenge to the authoritarianism of
power (of which the health pass has been a caricature).

We also find ourselves on a method, a desire: a dynamic of research,
discussion and meeting. Thus, we try to discuss and debate our
certainties, to construct nuanced and non-Manichean analyses, and we
have a desire to meet with other individuals and other groups. Even more
so in this very socially turbulent period where any political prognosis
is difficult.

Today, the health pass is no longer relevant, but we are continuing our
activities. Indeed, in our opinion, the Covid crisis was not an
exceptional, extraordinary event, outside of History. This crisis has
above all been a catalyst, an accelerator of already existing trends.
Elements from this period will be found in upcoming social episodes. So,
we might as well say it: even if we deplore it, there will be other
pandemics, because these are not "natural" events, but consequences of
our political and social organization.

Against all these crises (health, but also environmental, economic or
military) and against the "remedies" provided by those in power to these
crises (which do not call into question anything in substance), we need
a break. We don't want to relive a similar episode! This is why we
continue our activities and intend to address subjects that seem central
to us: mass surveillance, authoritarian management of populations,
hyper-technologization, one-way media propaganda, environmental
degradation, etc.

Submission and adaptation are expected of us. We respond: collective
reflections, sharing of analyzes and actions. We want to think, but not
alone in our corner: to think together, to compare our analyzes in
struggles, in demonstrations, to build bridges with other groups... and
to produce action.

(written in January 2023)

Notes
[1]Quoted by Roger Faligot and Rémi Kauffer, L'Hermine rouge de Shangaï
, Les porte du large, 2005

[2]Title of a book by Guy Debord, 1967

[3]In particular "The reactionary sinking of the anti-industrial
movement" (December 2023), the podcast "Critical assessment of the
anti-industrial movement" (November 2022), and "Transphobic ecology and
proto-fascism" (March 2023).

[4]On this subject, read Dwight McDonald, Socialism without
Progress[1947], Slowness, 2012.

[5]A number of books by oppositional communists return to this process.
See for example Ante Ciliga, Ten Years in the Land of Disconcerting Lies
,[1936], Free Field; Boris Souvarine, Stalin, historical overview of
Bolshevism ,[1935], Champ Libre; Jan Valtin, Without country or border ,
Babel/Actes Sud, 1997...

[6]"The reactionary sinking of the anti-industrial movement"

[7]For an introduction, read Patrick Marcollini, The situationist
movement , L'Echappée, 2012.

[8]For an introduction, read Jean-Marc Durand-Gasselin, The Frankfurt
School , Gallimard/Tel, 2012.

[9]the collection of the Encyclopédie des Nuisances magazine can be
found on the autonomy archives site

[10]Virginie Despentes, Nothing separates me from the shit that
surrounds me , online.

[11]Dixit Wikipedia

[12]We raise this question in "  The Chocolate Society  " (December 2023)

[13]Guy Debord, Commentaries on the Society of Spectacle , 1988

[14]Read for example "Ten-year story", Encyclopedia of Nuisances n°2 ,
1984; Jaime Semprun and René Riesel, Catastrophism, disaster
administration and lasting submission , Encyclopedia of Nuisances, 2009.
And for the critical approach: Jean-Marc Mandosio, In the cauldron of
the negative , Encyclopedia of Nuisances, 2003.

[15]Raoul Vaneigem, Treatise on good manners for the use of younger
generations, 1967

[16]See also the analyzes of Henri Lefebvre

[17]Read the critiques of Max Vincent on this subject, for example "From
the time the situationists were right" (2007), "Run faster, Orpheus,
Michéa is behind you" (2011) or "On certain uses of catastrophism»
(2012) on the grass between the paving stones

[18]Serge Audier, The Productivist Age. Promethean hegemony, breaches
and ecological alternatives , Discovery, 2019

[19]Read our brochure Repressive laws and other anti-migratory trifles
(1972-2023)

[20]Read our brochure Repressive laws and other trifles (1974-2022)

[21]See our analyses: "Democracy without a pass" (November 2021),
"Unvaccinated: the making of a new scapegoat" (January 2022),
"Reflections on authoritarianism and extreme right" (February 2022) and
the editorial of La nouvelle vague n°6 (June 2022). On this subject, do
not miss the senatorial report "Health crises and digital tools:
responding effectively to regain our freedoms" (June 2021)

[22]Read our brochure Repressive laws and other anti-migratory trifles
(1972-2023)

[23]The best monthly audience since the creation of the channel was
reached in November 2023

[24]For this position, read Theodore Kaczynski, The Ship of Fools , online

[25]See for example Nicolas Bonanni, Que undo? To rediscover
revolutionary perspectives , The world upside down, 2022 chronicled in
Courant Alternatif 323

[26]"The reactionary sinking of the anti-industrial movement"

[27]This position seems to be that of the authors of the pamphlet "The
reactionary shipwreck of the anti-industrial movement" and seems to us
to be very present on the far left

[28]A reading which can be inspired by certain writings of Pier Paolo
Pasolini, and renewed by the analyzes of Jean-Claude Michéa (see The
mysteries of the left , Climats) and held in particular in different
texts of Pieces and main d'oeuvre , For example

[29]As Engels explained in On Authority in 1872, although to draw
political conclusions opposed to ours!


http://oclibertaire.lautre.net/spip.php?article4050
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca