For several decades, we have witnessed a seemingly irresistible rise in
far-right ideas in France and Europe. Outrageous nationalism, racism,
anti-Semitism, xenophobia are becoming more and more commonplace. As a
corollary, the movements that defend these ideas are seeing their
popularity increase to very worrying proportions. Already, in Europe
certain parties professing ultra-nationalist ideas have come to power;
in France, thanks to upcoming elections, the probability of the arrival
of the boss of the RN at the head of state, also the daughter of
Jean-Marie Le Pen, who has never denied his fascist ideals, can only
worry. Certainly, she has for some time considerably softened her
speech, agreeing to ignore some of her most shocking former demands and
adopting in her public appearances a very dignified and respectful civic
attitude, the antithesis of her father's manners. .
History has shown us enough that to be elected, politicians never
hesitate, to satisfy their ambitions, to lie, to conceal their real
intentions so that we agree to modify our prejudices towards them. Ms.
Le Pen, despite her love of animals and her polite manners, is a
fascist, her past, her relationships, her friendships prove it. However,
the risks that it will achieve its goals in the near future are real; so
what to do if this catastrophic hypothesis comes true?
How can we resist, how can we oppose measures that would call into
question our freedoms, threaten our rights as human beings or attack the
most fragile among us? Opposing state violence, popular violence seems
to us (except in exceptional circumstances) very adventurous, even
suicidal. The media means of forming social consensus, added to those of
police control, surveillance and repression of modern States, have
developed considerably in recent years. For example, we could see that
during the Yellow Vest movement in France, the Republican State managed
its action perfectly (by evolving the means of repression to match the
threat and then discrediting the movement) to contain the popular anger
within limits acceptable to him. If it had been necessary to resort to
more violent means (those for example used during the Commune of 1871:
30,000 communards murdered, thousands imprisoned, exiled), he would
certainly not have hesitated. The State is the coldest of cold monsters
and to fulfill its essential function, to protect the system from the
domination of one privileged class over another, it has never hesitated
to massacre and kill. So what to do?
Very opportunely, the Libertarian Creation Workshops had the good idea
in 2023 to republish "Three stories of resistance without violence
against domination" presented by the "Libertarian Disobedience
Collective". One in particular written by Gene Sharp and dating from
1959 is entitled (and that is enough to describe it): "How, under the
Nazi occupation, Norwegian teachers overcame Quisling and what lessons
can be drawn from this example for a defense without weapons today."
In April 1940, Nazi troops invaded Norway, armed resistance was quickly
broken and the occupier set up a regime in its pay, led by the leader of
a small Norwegian fascist party, Quisling. The new regime quickly took
authoritarian measures and in the fall of 1940 required all civil
servants to sign a loyalty oath. Many officials refused and as a result
the government began to tighten repression. Little by little, a
self-organized network of refusals and resistance was set up in the
schools: the teachers refused to sign, to apply the instructions,
arguing that they had not understood, that it was contrary to their
ethics, etc. At the beginning, it was not a question of direct
resistance, but after some time, a real resistance movement involving a
majority of Norwegian teachers was set up in schools, for example more
than 8,000 teachers (of the 12 000 in Norway) signed a letter stating
their "refusal to participate in the education of Norwegian youth as
determined by the Nasjonal Samling youth movement; "indeed, this is
against my conscience." So much so that in 1942, the government
initiated a showdown, closing schools, then threatening to expel the
recalcitrant and ultimately imprisoning a thousand in appalling
conditions. But this savage repression turned against Quisling, because
the teachers' resistance movement had become very popular and the
Norwegian population did not hesitate to show their solidarity with the
teachers. At the end of 1942, Quisling was forced to abandon his
measures to put the Norwegian school at the service of Nazi ideology.
Trying to draw lessons from this example, the author first notes that a
large majority of the teachers were absolutely not non-violent, some of
them engaged at the same time in an armed resistance movement ruthlessly
repressed by the Nazis. In fact, nonviolent resistance was used because
under certain conditions it was the only one that could be implemented,
but in the end, by forcing Quisling to change his policies, nonviolent
resistance was often more effective than armed guerrillas or sabotage.
Of course, it would be absurd to extrapolate from this Norwegian
resistance movement to the situation in France. However, this example
shows us that it is always possible to resist and fight and a conclusion
that the author Gene Sharp draws from this story seems particularly
relevant to me, so I transcribe it:
"Among the advantages that nonviolent resistance has over violent
methods in the fight against fascist regimes is this: nonviolent
resistance strikes every dictatorship at its naturally weakest point.
Tyranny can continue to exist only as long as its victims continue to
obey and serve it. When obedience, cooperation and service are
withdrawn, tyranny is threatened with collapse. She will strive to
reestablish obedience through terror. The problem is therefore to
organize and maintain non-cooperation against an inhumane regime for as
long as it takes for it to fall."
This theory was exposed by a young Frenchman from the 16th century:
Étienne de la Boétie in his "Discourse on Voluntary Servitude" where he
wrote: "If we give them (the tyrants) nothing, if we do not obey them,
without fighting , without giving a blow, they remain naked and defeated
and can no longer do anything; in the same way, the root no longer
having soil or nourishment, the branch withers and dies (....) simply,
do not help him (the tyrant) and you will see him like a great colossus
whose feet have been mowed down, s 'collapse to the ground of its own
weight and break'.
https://cntaittoulouse.lautre.net/spip.php?article1397
_________________________________________
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
far-right ideas in France and Europe. Outrageous nationalism, racism,
anti-Semitism, xenophobia are becoming more and more commonplace. As a
corollary, the movements that defend these ideas are seeing their
popularity increase to very worrying proportions. Already, in Europe
certain parties professing ultra-nationalist ideas have come to power;
in France, thanks to upcoming elections, the probability of the arrival
of the boss of the RN at the head of state, also the daughter of
Jean-Marie Le Pen, who has never denied his fascist ideals, can only
worry. Certainly, she has for some time considerably softened her
speech, agreeing to ignore some of her most shocking former demands and
adopting in her public appearances a very dignified and respectful civic
attitude, the antithesis of her father's manners. .
History has shown us enough that to be elected, politicians never
hesitate, to satisfy their ambitions, to lie, to conceal their real
intentions so that we agree to modify our prejudices towards them. Ms.
Le Pen, despite her love of animals and her polite manners, is a
fascist, her past, her relationships, her friendships prove it. However,
the risks that it will achieve its goals in the near future are real; so
what to do if this catastrophic hypothesis comes true?
How can we resist, how can we oppose measures that would call into
question our freedoms, threaten our rights as human beings or attack the
most fragile among us? Opposing state violence, popular violence seems
to us (except in exceptional circumstances) very adventurous, even
suicidal. The media means of forming social consensus, added to those of
police control, surveillance and repression of modern States, have
developed considerably in recent years. For example, we could see that
during the Yellow Vest movement in France, the Republican State managed
its action perfectly (by evolving the means of repression to match the
threat and then discrediting the movement) to contain the popular anger
within limits acceptable to him. If it had been necessary to resort to
more violent means (those for example used during the Commune of 1871:
30,000 communards murdered, thousands imprisoned, exiled), he would
certainly not have hesitated. The State is the coldest of cold monsters
and to fulfill its essential function, to protect the system from the
domination of one privileged class over another, it has never hesitated
to massacre and kill. So what to do?
Very opportunely, the Libertarian Creation Workshops had the good idea
in 2023 to republish "Three stories of resistance without violence
against domination" presented by the "Libertarian Disobedience
Collective". One in particular written by Gene Sharp and dating from
1959 is entitled (and that is enough to describe it): "How, under the
Nazi occupation, Norwegian teachers overcame Quisling and what lessons
can be drawn from this example for a defense without weapons today."
In April 1940, Nazi troops invaded Norway, armed resistance was quickly
broken and the occupier set up a regime in its pay, led by the leader of
a small Norwegian fascist party, Quisling. The new regime quickly took
authoritarian measures and in the fall of 1940 required all civil
servants to sign a loyalty oath. Many officials refused and as a result
the government began to tighten repression. Little by little, a
self-organized network of refusals and resistance was set up in the
schools: the teachers refused to sign, to apply the instructions,
arguing that they had not understood, that it was contrary to their
ethics, etc. At the beginning, it was not a question of direct
resistance, but after some time, a real resistance movement involving a
majority of Norwegian teachers was set up in schools, for example more
than 8,000 teachers (of the 12 000 in Norway) signed a letter stating
their "refusal to participate in the education of Norwegian youth as
determined by the Nasjonal Samling youth movement; "indeed, this is
against my conscience." So much so that in 1942, the government
initiated a showdown, closing schools, then threatening to expel the
recalcitrant and ultimately imprisoning a thousand in appalling
conditions. But this savage repression turned against Quisling, because
the teachers' resistance movement had become very popular and the
Norwegian population did not hesitate to show their solidarity with the
teachers. At the end of 1942, Quisling was forced to abandon his
measures to put the Norwegian school at the service of Nazi ideology.
Trying to draw lessons from this example, the author first notes that a
large majority of the teachers were absolutely not non-violent, some of
them engaged at the same time in an armed resistance movement ruthlessly
repressed by the Nazis. In fact, nonviolent resistance was used because
under certain conditions it was the only one that could be implemented,
but in the end, by forcing Quisling to change his policies, nonviolent
resistance was often more effective than armed guerrillas or sabotage.
Of course, it would be absurd to extrapolate from this Norwegian
resistance movement to the situation in France. However, this example
shows us that it is always possible to resist and fight and a conclusion
that the author Gene Sharp draws from this story seems particularly
relevant to me, so I transcribe it:
"Among the advantages that nonviolent resistance has over violent
methods in the fight against fascist regimes is this: nonviolent
resistance strikes every dictatorship at its naturally weakest point.
Tyranny can continue to exist only as long as its victims continue to
obey and serve it. When obedience, cooperation and service are
withdrawn, tyranny is threatened with collapse. She will strive to
reestablish obedience through terror. The problem is therefore to
organize and maintain non-cooperation against an inhumane regime for as
long as it takes for it to fall."
This theory was exposed by a young Frenchman from the 16th century:
Étienne de la Boétie in his "Discourse on Voluntary Servitude" where he
wrote: "If we give them (the tyrants) nothing, if we do not obey them,
without fighting , without giving a blow, they remain naked and defeated
and can no longer do anything; in the same way, the root no longer
having soil or nourishment, the branch withers and dies (....) simply,
do not help him (the tyrant) and you will see him like a great colossus
whose feet have been mowed down, s 'collapse to the ground of its own
weight and break'.
https://cntaittoulouse.lautre.net/spip.php?article1397
_________________________________________
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
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten