maandag 11 mei 2026
WORLD WORLDWIDE INFORMATION - ACTIVISM - A-infos-index24 - Latest Headlines - 40 posts - News in all languages. Monday 11 May 2026.
WORLD WORLDWIDE EUROPE ITALY - news journal UPDATE - (en) Italy, FAI, Umanita Nova #11-26 - Algorithm Victory? Digital Networks and Social Activism (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]
One of the interpretations advanced to explain the unexpected NO victory in the referendum is that the electoral preferences expressed on March 22nd and 23rd are the product of a network in which human will, interface architecture, and computing infrastructure operate in an inextricable, intertwined, and mutually dependent manner, capable of exceptional results. The logic of this system is geared toward producing highly arousing emotions and capturing the subjects' attention. The NO camp, according to this interpretation, would have benefited from the divisive, oppositional, and indignant demands that constituted its emotional underpinning, and which were more congenial to the dynamics of the algorithm.
With respect to this interpretation, it is worth considering that the architecture of the networks on which social media reside and the algorithms that make them function can be considered the structure of a sector, that of the communications industry, in which the mechanism of value production and surplus value extraction is analogous to that at work in manufacturing. We are therefore faced with a piece of the "structure" of society, which produces its effects on society's political and ideological "superstructure."
The capitalist mode of production cannot survive without continually revolutionizing the instruments of production, and therefore the relations of production, and therefore the entire set of social relations. Previous modes of production, on the other hand, were based on the preservation of the traditional mode of production. This incessant revolutionization of production brings with it the equally incessant upheaval of all social conditions, all the stable and rusty conditions of life, with their entourage of opinions and beliefs, made venerable by their persistence over time. Bourgeois society, therefore, presents itself as unstable and less capable than previous generations of maintaining the pyramidal structure of society. This instability is accentuated by the growing inability to valorize capital, ensuring income for the privileged classes based on the exploitation of the labor capacity of the vast majority of the population. The ongoing transformation of the means of production is particularly intense in the high-tech, communications, and information technology sectors, shaken by constant innovations in materials, equipment, and procedures.
Scientific literature recognizes the importance of search engines in orienting the human subjects who interact with them. Psychologist Robert Epstein has suggested, as early as 2015, that a search engine manipulation effect (SEME) exists. Epstein's experiments suggest that partisan search rankings can shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by 20% or more; The shift can be much higher in some demographic groups, and these rankings can be masked so that people are completely unaware of the manipulation.
These effects, which can even manipulate voting patterns, are facilitated by the transmission of highly emotional messages. Emotions such as amazement or awe, anger, moral indignation, fear, or pleasure at the misfortunes and humiliations of political rivals are stimulated by the algorithm and, in turn, stimulate the algorithm.
Based on these considerations, it is legitimate to believe that the algorithm played an important role in the NO victory in the referendum, just as it did, on another level, in the mobilizations following the Israeli military seizure of the Global Sumud Flotilla, which included several Italian citizens.
Conversely, we can offer some reflections.
The management of search engines by governments and large monopolistic groups makes them a powerful tool of social control, but their intrinsic instability, resulting from the constant revolution in information technology, infrastructure, and network protocols, makes them incapable of ensuring the long-term stability that is a prerequisite for social preservation. The same pursuit of maximum profit, which primarily motivates monopolistic groups, pushes them to convey popular and therefore potentially profitable demands, regardless of their consistency with the overall project.
Another consideration concerns epistemic bubbles and echo chambers. An epistemic bubble is a social structure that limits exposure to diverse information, leading individuals to receive only content that confirms their preexisting beliefs. This phenomenon is particularly prominent in social media. The echo chamber, in turn, is a closed communication space that arouses no interest in outsiders or rejects their input.
It remains to be seen whether these epistemic bubbles and echo chambers that would have favored the NO victory were born in response to the electoral message or whether they pre-existed and merely bounced this message. Naturally, this depends on the type of bubble. The WhatsApp or Telegram chat of such-and-such a collective obviously pre-exists the flow of information about the referendum, which penetrates it and provokes different reactions in participants. In this sense, the algorithm accelerates and amplifies aggregation, perhaps directing it, but does not generate it. To understand the genesis of these aggregations, we must step outside of virtual reality and return to analyzing social reality. Social movements originate in their contradictions, not in the architecture of computer networks.
The unusually high turnout in the referendum means that many people who did not participate in the last elections went to vote. We are witnessing a mass mobilization in defense of the constitution, or rather to bring down the Meloni government. We are therefore witnessing a form of mobilization comparable to that in support of the Flotilla, though obviously less confrontational. Both the Flotilla and the referendum are mobilizations whose themes, one is solidarity, the other freedom, albeit vaguely understood. This is as far as it gets from the immediate and visceral reactions catalyzed by the content that the digital architecture, designed for this, systematically rewards and amplifies.
A final consideration concerns the extent to which revolutionary movements, and anarchism in particular, can interact with search engines. For my part, I believe that the algorithm's operating mechanism is intrinsically incapable of performing any emancipatory function, understood as the ability to build collaborative relationships between subjects and develop critical attitudes toward the messages it conveys. In reality, the algorithm's functioning reproduces, in an updated manner, traditional government practices, which tend to keep the masses in a state of subjection.
The way in which some supporters of the "NO" front have presented their issues has often been crude, based on an emphasis on legality and the demonization of their opponents, especially those who supported abstentionism, branding them as objective allies of the right.
Social critique represents an essential element of a reconstruction of revolutionary subjectivity, outside and against the logic of domination. A critique that, by uncovering the mechanisms of exploitation and oppression, restores to the revolutionary subject the ability to understand, if not control, the explosive contradictions that shake bourgeois society. This critique must question authoritarian and violent practices within grassroots movements and organizations, starting with the toxic rhetoric that uses denigration of others as a tool to assert one's own views. But to do all this, as we have seen, the digital architecture of social media represents more of an obstacle than a help: we need to step outside of cyberspace, put our feet on the ground, and engage face-to-face with our social contacts.
Our goal is not to win a few more votes in the next elections; our goal is to build the forces and organizations to create a new society.
Tiziano Antonelli
https://umanitanova.org/vittoria-dellalgoritmo-reti-digitali-ed-attivismo-sociale/
_________________________________________
(en) Italy, FAI, Umanita Nova #11-26 - Algorithm Victory? Digital Networks and Social Activism (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]
Date Mon, 11 May 2026 06:06:42 +0300One of the interpretations advanced to explain the unexpected NO victory in the referendum is that the electoral preferences expressed on March 22nd and 23rd are the product of a network in which human will, interface architecture, and computing infrastructure operate in an inextricable, intertwined, and mutually dependent manner, capable of exceptional results. The logic of this system is geared toward producing highly arousing emotions and capturing the subjects' attention. The NO camp, according to this interpretation, would have benefited from the divisive, oppositional, and indignant demands that constituted its emotional underpinning, and which were more congenial to the dynamics of the algorithm.
With respect to this interpretation, it is worth considering that the architecture of the networks on which social media reside and the algorithms that make them function can be considered the structure of a sector, that of the communications industry, in which the mechanism of value production and surplus value extraction is analogous to that at work in manufacturing. We are therefore faced with a piece of the "structure" of society, which produces its effects on society's political and ideological "superstructure."
The capitalist mode of production cannot survive without continually revolutionizing the instruments of production, and therefore the relations of production, and therefore the entire set of social relations. Previous modes of production, on the other hand, were based on the preservation of the traditional mode of production. This incessant revolutionization of production brings with it the equally incessant upheaval of all social conditions, all the stable and rusty conditions of life, with their entourage of opinions and beliefs, made venerable by their persistence over time. Bourgeois society, therefore, presents itself as unstable and less capable than previous generations of maintaining the pyramidal structure of society. This instability is accentuated by the growing inability to valorize capital, ensuring income for the privileged classes based on the exploitation of the labor capacity of the vast majority of the population. The ongoing transformation of the means of production is particularly intense in the high-tech, communications, and information technology sectors, shaken by constant innovations in materials, equipment, and procedures.
Scientific literature recognizes the importance of search engines in orienting the human subjects who interact with them. Psychologist Robert Epstein has suggested, as early as 2015, that a search engine manipulation effect (SEME) exists. Epstein's experiments suggest that partisan search rankings can shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by 20% or more; The shift can be much higher in some demographic groups, and these rankings can be masked so that people are completely unaware of the manipulation.
These effects, which can even manipulate voting patterns, are facilitated by the transmission of highly emotional messages. Emotions such as amazement or awe, anger, moral indignation, fear, or pleasure at the misfortunes and humiliations of political rivals are stimulated by the algorithm and, in turn, stimulate the algorithm.
Based on these considerations, it is legitimate to believe that the algorithm played an important role in the NO victory in the referendum, just as it did, on another level, in the mobilizations following the Israeli military seizure of the Global Sumud Flotilla, which included several Italian citizens.
Conversely, we can offer some reflections.
The management of search engines by governments and large monopolistic groups makes them a powerful tool of social control, but their intrinsic instability, resulting from the constant revolution in information technology, infrastructure, and network protocols, makes them incapable of ensuring the long-term stability that is a prerequisite for social preservation. The same pursuit of maximum profit, which primarily motivates monopolistic groups, pushes them to convey popular and therefore potentially profitable demands, regardless of their consistency with the overall project.
Another consideration concerns epistemic bubbles and echo chambers. An epistemic bubble is a social structure that limits exposure to diverse information, leading individuals to receive only content that confirms their preexisting beliefs. This phenomenon is particularly prominent in social media. The echo chamber, in turn, is a closed communication space that arouses no interest in outsiders or rejects their input.
It remains to be seen whether these epistemic bubbles and echo chambers that would have favored the NO victory were born in response to the electoral message or whether they pre-existed and merely bounced this message. Naturally, this depends on the type of bubble. The WhatsApp or Telegram chat of such-and-such a collective obviously pre-exists the flow of information about the referendum, which penetrates it and provokes different reactions in participants. In this sense, the algorithm accelerates and amplifies aggregation, perhaps directing it, but does not generate it. To understand the genesis of these aggregations, we must step outside of virtual reality and return to analyzing social reality. Social movements originate in their contradictions, not in the architecture of computer networks.
The unusually high turnout in the referendum means that many people who did not participate in the last elections went to vote. We are witnessing a mass mobilization in defense of the constitution, or rather to bring down the Meloni government. We are therefore witnessing a form of mobilization comparable to that in support of the Flotilla, though obviously less confrontational. Both the Flotilla and the referendum are mobilizations whose themes, one is solidarity, the other freedom, albeit vaguely understood. This is as far as it gets from the immediate and visceral reactions catalyzed by the content that the digital architecture, designed for this, systematically rewards and amplifies.
A final consideration concerns the extent to which revolutionary movements, and anarchism in particular, can interact with search engines. For my part, I believe that the algorithm's operating mechanism is intrinsically incapable of performing any emancipatory function, understood as the ability to build collaborative relationships between subjects and develop critical attitudes toward the messages it conveys. In reality, the algorithm's functioning reproduces, in an updated manner, traditional government practices, which tend to keep the masses in a state of subjection.
The way in which some supporters of the "NO" front have presented their issues has often been crude, based on an emphasis on legality and the demonization of their opponents, especially those who supported abstentionism, branding them as objective allies of the right.
Social critique represents an essential element of a reconstruction of revolutionary subjectivity, outside and against the logic of domination. A critique that, by uncovering the mechanisms of exploitation and oppression, restores to the revolutionary subject the ability to understand, if not control, the explosive contradictions that shake bourgeois society. This critique must question authoritarian and violent practices within grassroots movements and organizations, starting with the toxic rhetoric that uses denigration of others as a tool to assert one's own views. But to do all this, as we have seen, the digital architecture of social media represents more of an obstacle than a help: we need to step outside of cyberspace, put our feet on the ground, and engage face-to-face with our social contacts.
Our goal is not to win a few more votes in the next elections; our goal is to build the forces and organizations to create a new society.
Tiziano Antonelli
https://umanitanova.org/vittoria-dellalgoritmo-reti-digitali-ed-attivismo-sociale/
_________________________________________
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
WORLD WORLDWIDE EUROPE ITALY - news journal UPDATE - (en) Italy, UCADI, #206 - POLITICAL OBSERVATORY (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]
Great Britain ---- The by-elections in Great Britain are ringing alarm bells over the shaky Labour leadership of the Starmer government, which suffered a devastating defeat in the by-election for the House of Commons seat in Gorton and Denton, a constituency near Manchester. This diverse constituency includes traditionally working-class neighborhoods once strongly Labour-leaning, now leaning toward Reform as well as a large number of university students and Muslim residents. The defeat is directly attributable to Starmer, who vetoed the candidacy of Andy Burnham, the popular Labour mayor of Greater Manchester, from running in the by-election, considering him a potential rival for the Labour Party leadership. This is Labour's second defeat in a by-election since their return to government in July 2024.
Green Party candidate Hannah Spencer, a 34-year-old plumber, won with 41% of the vote, ahead of candidates from Reform UK (29%) and the Labour Party (25%), becoming the fifth Green Party MP in Parliament. For the first time, the Greens have won a by-election thanks to a widespread campaign on the ground that managed to mobilize 28% of the constituency's Muslim population, ready to vote for them because of their pro-Palestinian stance and strong condemnation of Israel's bloody military retaliation in Gaza. Farage's party candidate, a professor who has become a television commentator for the right-wing broadcaster GB News, came in second.Significantly, the Greens, conquering what was historically considered a Labour stronghold, garnered over 40% of the vote, thus proving themselves a viable alternative to Nigel Farage's Trump-led Reform UK. This is a collapse with serious consequences for the increasingly frail prime minister, who continues to see his leadership of the government and the party under threat. This has intensified following the Mandelson-Epstein scandal, which forced the resignation of one of his closest aides, Peter Mandelson, the seasoned Labour politician, appointed by Starmer as UK ambassador to Washington, to reward him for his support within the party to expel Jeremy Corbyn and marginalize Labour's left-wing wing.
The British leader's crisis is driven by mounting economic and social problems, including the high cost of living and the decline of public services and welfare, the education and research system, growing spending on support for Ukraine, and the recent developments in the Epstein case.
The Greens' success is due to the electorate's disillusionment with Labour's rightward shift, which betrayed Starmer's promises by embracing the right's anti-immigration policies. This was facilitated by the Greens' downplaying environmental policies to support far-left positions, proposing tax increases for the wealthy and openly supporting the Palestinian cause. The right fights with left-wing positions.
Germany
Earlier this month, the Greens won the elections in the state of Baden-Württemberg, located in southwest Germany, with a 30% victory, surpassing Chancellor Merz's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) (27.7%). AfL (18%) emerged as the third largest party, doubling its support compared to the previous election. The SPD fell to its lowest point (5.5%), barely above the electoral threshold; the FDP and the Left remained outside with 4.4% of the vote.
Baden-Württemberg, governed by a CDU-Green alliance, was a particularly close watch because it marked the transition from a Green leader, in government since 2011, to a new phase, led by the new leader Özdemir, who was called upon to defend his party's primacy, and Hagel (CDU), who was committed to restoring the CDU to the regional leadership. The Green Party candidate stated that he wanted to continue the collaboration with the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), with which the Greens have governed for two terms. He stated that the future coalition must be the result of a partnership of equals focused on the good of Baden-Württemberg, and highlighted the results achieved over the past 10 years as a shared success of which the CDU can also
be proud.
This result demonstrates that the far right could consolidate its position even outside the eastern Länder, where it had built its strongest gains, and that the political and social unrest reflected in its advance is creeping into a region like Baden-Württemberg, one of the pillars of the German automotive industry, home to giants like Daimler and Porsche and home to groups like Mercedes-Benz and Bosch. However, Baden-Württemberg is now one of the places where the crisis of the German industrial model has been most visible, pressured by competition from Chinese electric vehicle manufacturers, weak demand, and a still-sluggish national recovery after two years of recession, driven primarily by high energy costs, a direct consequence of the war in Ukraine.
For Merz, the CDU's failure to win represents a problem compounded by its subservient stance toward Trump and the financial strain of the war.
Elections in Rhineland-Palatinate were held on March 22, with 3.2 million voters voting. After 35 years, the CDU overtook the SPD, which had been in uninterrupted government. Merz's party's victory is largely a consequence of the SPD's decline, which is now experiencing a full-blown crisis due to economic stagnation, rising youth crime, and its pro-war policy in Ukraine. Proof of this is the AfD's renewed success, which hovered around 20%, up 11 percentage points compared to the previous elections. This success in the two western German states indicates that the neo-Nazi party's chances of governing in the next general election are growing significantly, thanks to its primary strategy for combating the crisis: a return to purchasing Russian gas and oil. The next regional elections will be held in Saxony-Anhalt on September 6 and in Nörburg-Vorpommern on September 20.
France
The first and second rounds of municipal elections in France were marked by low turnout and strong polarization on both the right and left, further weakening President Emmanuel Macron's centrist coalition. Voter turnout in the first round was below 59%, an increase compared to the 2020 municipal elections, which were impacted by Covid, but down from the 63.5% recorded in 2014, with a record 42% abstention in the second round. In the second round, turnout dropped to 57.82%. The French far right, with Marine Le Pen's National Rally, achieved its best result ever in these municipal elections, considered a test case for the presidential election. The moderate left holds firm in the major cities, with Paris remaining its main stronghold. Emmanuel Grégoire, candidate of the Socialist Party and former deputy to outgoing mayor Anne Hidalgo, is the winner. La France Insoumise (LFI) scored a historic victory in Saint-Denis,
wresting the municipality from the Socialists and becoming the dominant force in the Île-de-France region after the capital. The only centrist who can consider himself satisfied is former Prime Minister Edouard Philippe. Re-elected mayor of Le Havre with over 43 percent of the vote, Philippe has cemented his leadership of the Horizons party and, more importantly, his future presidential candidacy. His success contrasts with the decline of Macron's official candidates, who in many provinces lost votes to right-wing lists.
Over 904,000 candidates competed for elected office in approximately 35,000 municipalities across the country, from large cities to villages with just a few dozen inhabitants. The election campaign was largely overshadowed by the war with Iran and its consequences, particularly its impact on fuel prices.
The results show relative stability among the main political blocs, with twelve right-wing cities in 2026 (the same number as in 2020), six centrist cities (one more than in 2020), 22 left-wing cities (two fewer than in 2020), and two far-right cities (one more than in 2020).
The biggest losers in these elections are primarily the environmentalists, who have retained only three of the seven cities they led before these municipal elections. The right and center have strengthened in medium-sized cities. However, extending the analysis to all cities with more than 10,000 inhabitants, the balance tips in favor of the right and center, as it appears that municipalities classified on the left excluding local lists are much fewer in 2026 than in 2020. Municipalities classified as "different left" number only 148 compared to 196 six years ago. In 2026, municipalities classified as socialist or left-unionist number no more than 129, compared to 141 in 2020. The decline is particularly marked for the Communist Party, which in 2026 has only seven municipalities with more than 10,000 inhabitants, compared to 25 in 2020 controlled by the Ministry of the Interior. Municipalities with a mixed right-wing, LR, or UDI majority have increased to 464, compared to 455 in 2020. Municipalities led by a centrist mayor (Renaissance, MoDem, Orizzonti) have increased to 177, compared to 200 nationally, and their allies now control 37 cities, compared to nine in 2020.
The conflict on the left is looming particularly harsh, as evidenced by the first secretary of the Socialist Party, Olivier Faure, declared that Jean-Luc Mélenchon has "become a burden on the left," condemning, on Monday morning on BFM-TV/RMC, the "excesses" and "anti-Semitic tendencies" of the leader of La France Insoumise. However, as usual, most political parties have declared themselves victorious.
Slovenia
A total of 2.1 million voters cast their ballots in the country. The outgoing governing coalition consisted of the liberal Freedom Movement (Gibanje Svoboda), the Social Democrats (SD), and the ecosocialist left (Levica). The election was marked by extreme polarization and allegations of corruption and foreign interference, particularly by an Israeli fixer firm supporting the right-wing party led by Janez Jansha, a Trump supporter with ties to Victor Ornan.
Slovenia chose continuity, but it did so by the skin of its teeth, and the party led by leader Robert Golob and his Freedom Movement (GS) will need to form a coalition government with smaller parties to govern.
"At a time when populists across Europe are working to undermine democratic institutions, Slovenia stands out for having chosen a different path a stable, centrist, and pro-European leadership to counter far-right policies.
Hungary
On April 12, Hungarians will go to the polls to renew their parliament, and for the first time after four consecutive terms of unchallenged rule (16 years), Viktor Orbán and his Fidesz party are seriously at risk of defeat. His challenger is PMagyar, a former member of his own party, from which he left after revealing a minor Epstein case within Orbán's supporters. The defector took over the leadership of the Tisza party (an acronym for Tisztelet és Szabadság, "Respect and Freedom," in 2024), a movement founded in 2020 that had previously been irrelevant. Magyar has appealed to that segment of the electorate tired of Orban's rule and the system of power he has built, surrounding himself with relatives and clients and organizing a financial network that profits from public contracts and manages lavish European funding, amassing copious personal wealth and nurturing a widespread network of supporters. In this way, he has revitalized an opposition stunned by years of electoral defeats and harsh repression through liberticidal legislation.
Faced with the threat to his power, Orban has taken action by waving the flag of nationalism and has identified Ukraine, and the financing of its war against Russia, as the reasons that should drive the Hungarian people to continue supporting his policies. Orban has been wise to point out that Ukraine forcefully beats Hungarians into conscription and sends Hungarian-speaking and ethnic Hungarians from Transcarpathia, a region Ukraine has annexed, despite it being a land of Hungarian language, culture, and tradition. He also denounced the interruption of the Druzba Friendship pipeline, which supplies Russian oil to Hungary and Slovakia, as an action contrary to Hungary's economic interests, depriving the country of the low-cost energy essential to its economy. As a retaliatory measure, Orban withheld his consent to Ukraine's accession to the European Union and denounced the corruption of the Kiev regime, exploiting the seizure by Hungarian customs officers of a convoy from the Ukrainian state bank Oschadbank, carrying EUR35 million (US$40 million) and 9 kg of gold, bound for Switzerland, through the country, raising suspicions that they were being used to finance his opponent's election campaign.
Clearly, a battle to the death is underway, especially considering that Orban's party is significantly behind in the most credible polls and that the European Union is certainly doing everything it can to replicate the ploy used in Romania to ensure the victory of pro-EU candidates.
Of course, Orban's illiberal regime, its repression of civil and democratic liberties, its denial of the rule of law, and its sex-phobic and obscurantist policies, do not inspire any sympathy, nor do the labor laws that force Hungarian workers into compulsory and unpaid labor for employers. But Brussels is not confident in relying on Magyar to neutralize Orban. The opposition candidate is not gentle toward Ukraine, nor toward European politics and the European Union: perhaps he does so out of electoral opportunism, but he remains highly ambiguous about his future intentions.
The Editorial Staff
https://www.ucadi.org/2026/03/28/osservatorio-politico-10/
_________________________________________
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
WORLD WORLDWIDE NEW ZEALAND - news journal UPDATE - (en) NZ, Aotearoa, AWSM: Polar Blast - Getting From Here to There: The Question of Transition (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]
There is a question the anarcho-communist theory of freedom tends to leave unanswered, or answers only in fragments, and it is the question that sceptics most persistently raise: how do you actually get from the world as it is to the world as you want it to be? Prefiguration tells us that the means must be consistent with the ends. Historical examples tell us that people have built free institutions under conditions of crisis and collapse. The theoretical argument tells us what a free society would require. But none of this amounts to a coherent account of transition, of how a society saturated in domination, whose institutions are designed to reproduce themselves, whose people have been formed by the conditions they live in, actually moves toward something different.
The anarchist tradition's resistance to providing such an account is not simply evasion. It is grounded in a genuine and well-founded suspicion of revolutionary blueprints. The history of the left is littered with detailed plans for the postrevolutionary society that turned out to be either irrelevant to the actual conditions of revolution or, worse, templates for new forms of domination. The Bolshevik programme was not vague, it was precise, detailed, theoretically elaborated, and it produced the Gulag. The anarchist insistence that you cannot specify inadvance how a free society will organise itself, that genuine freedom means people determining their own arrangements rather than having arrangements determined for them by revolutionary theorists, is philosophically serious and historically vindicated. However, there is a difference between refusing to blueprint the post-revolutionary society and having nothing to say about the process of transformation. And the anarchist tradition does, in fact, have things to say, they are just scattered across different thinkers and tendencies rather than assembled into a single coherent account. What follows is an attempt to draw those threads together.
The oldest and most persistent anarchist theory of revolutionary transformation is the general strike, the idea that the coordinated refusal of workers to sell their labour is both the most powerful weapon in the working class arsenal and the embryo of a new social order. Georges Sorel developed the most elaborate philosophical account of this, but the idea runs from Bakunin through the syndicalist tradition to the IWW and beyond. The general strike is not merely a tactic, it is a demonstration that production depends on workers rather than on owners, that the economy as a whole is held together by the cooperative labour of those at the bottom of the hierarchy rather than by the decisions of those at the top. A successful general strike does not just win concessions, it reveals the actual structure of social power and prefigures, in its organisation, the kind of voluntary coordination that could replace the coercive coordination of the market and the state.
Alongside the general strike, the anarchist tradition has theorised what might be called the insurrectionary commune, the moment of revolutionary rupture in which existing institutions collapse and new ones are built in their place. The Paris Commune of 1871 is the paradigmatic example:, an improvised experiment in direct democracy, workers' self-governance, and the dismantling of the bourgeois state apparatus that lasted seventy-two days before being drowned in blood by the French army. Kropotkin drew extensively on the Commune as a model, and the Spanish collectivisations of 1936 can be understood as its most developed realisation. The insurrectionary commune is not planned in advance, it emerges from the collapse of existing authority and the spontaneous self-organisation of people who find themselves, suddenly, without masters. Its strength is its organic connection to real conditions, its weakness is its dependence on a crisis that creates the space for it and its vulnerability to the organised violence of counter-revolution.
A third strand of anarchist thought about transition, one that has become more prominent in recent decades, partly in response to the defeats of the classical revolutionary moment, is the accumulation of what some have called dual power: the building, within existing society, of institutions that meet real needs and prefigure the kind of collective self-governance that a free society requires, gradually expanding their scope and legitimacy until they are capable of replacing rather than merely supplementing the existing order. This is not reformism, it does not accept the legitimacy of the existing order or seek to improve it from within. It is the patient, difficult work of building the infrastructure of a different world alongside the infrastructure of this one - workers' cooperatives, mutual aid networks, community land trusts, free schools, housing cooperatives, solidarity economies. Each of these is imperfect and partial, none of them resolves the fundamental contradictions of capitalism, but collectively and over time they develop the capacities, relationships, and institutions that a free society requires, and they do so in ways that are immediately useful rather than deferred to a revolutionary future that may never arrive.
These three approaches, the general strike, the insurrectionary commune, and the accumulation of dual power, are not mutually exclusive, and the most sophisticated anarchist thinking about transition has always understood them as complementary rather than competing. The dual power institutions provide the social infrastructure that makes a general strike viable and gives the insurrectionary moment something to build on rather than starting from scratch. The general strike tests and develops the capacities for collective self-organisation that dual power institutions have been cultivating. The insurrectionary moment, when it comes, is more likely to produce lasting free institutions if it emerges from a social fabric already partially organised on free principles than if it erupts in a vacuum.
What all three approaches share is a refusal of the Leninist model of transition, the seizure of state power by a vanguard party that then directs the construction of socialism from above. The anarcho-communist objection to this model is not simply that it has historically produced authoritarianism, though it has. It is that the model is structurally incompatible with the goal of freedom. A revolution that passes through the seizure and exercise of state power cannot produce a stateless society, because the exercise of state power develops precisely those habits of command, hierarchy, and institutional self-perpetuation that the stateless society requires to be abolished. You cannot abolish the state by using it. You can only build, practice, and defend the free institutions that make it unnecessary, and then, when the moment of rupture comes, extend those institutions rather than capturing the machinery of the old order.
This account of transition is less satisfying than the Leninist one in certain respects. It does not promise a decisive moment of revolutionary victory after which the hard work is over. It does not offer a clear organisational form, the party, the vanguard, the disciplined cadre, that can serve as the instrument of liberation. It requires the acceptance of a long and uncertain process, full of setbacks and partial victories, in which the outcome is never guaranteed. But these features are not bugs in the anarcho-communist theory of transition, they are the honest acknowledgement of what social transformation actually involves. History does not offer shortcuts. The freedom worth having is not delivered, it is built, slowly and collectively, by people who have decided to refuse the terms on offer and organise their lives on different principles, now, in the present, in whatever conditions they actually face.
https://thepolarblast.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/to-be-free-together.pd
_________________________________________
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
WORLD WORLDWIDE EUROPE FRANCE - news journal UPDATE - (en) France, Monde Libertaire - History Pages No. 121: Understanding the Rise of the Far Right (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]
Hamit Borzalan's work emphasizes that the far right has a long history. He traces its roots back to the 19th century to explain how nationalist right-wing movements developed within a counter-revolutionary framework. This framework was based on the deconstruction of the Enlightenment. Revolutionary right-wing movements rejected the egalitarian principles developed around the French Revolution. At the same time, these movements constructed a revolutionary project based on the concept of the "new man," an eschatological dimension that rejected both the "bourgeois" world, "social emancipation," and "liberalism," perceived as laissez-faire. They relied on an exaltation of the past while seeking to create a "new era" founded on order and authority. These principles took hold in the interwar period, first in Italy and then in Germany. While they seem to have virtually disappeared in their original forms, a number of aspects can resurface over time.
The investigation into the new generation of the far right reveals that while these cultural dimensions remain present, it would be historically inaccurate to establish a direct continuum between the two. The book offers an immersion into the lives of activists who entered politics around 2010 and who have since occupied a significant portion of the media and cultural landscape.
The book concludes with a description of the funeral of Patrick Buisson, the leading figure of the far right. The former Minute journalist, who became an advisor to Nicolas Sarkozy, returned to the fold and theorized a right wing encompassing everything from republicans to revolutionary nationalists. The entire elite of the new generation of the far right was present alongside the old guard.
The aim of the investigation is to demonstrate how this new generation of nationalist and identitarian activists was formed. It benefits from a dual set of circumstances. First, it relies on the rebranding of the National Rally (RN) by its new president, Marine Le Pen, who is shedding some of the party's old habits (tolerance of Holocaust denial, admiration for fascist writers, complacency towards Vichy, etc.). It is facilitating the rise within the party apparatus of young people seemingly without political baggage, of whom Jordan Bardella is the prime example. The second aspect rests on their media-political structure, of which the "Manif pour tous" (Demonstration for All) was the center and prototype. They marched together and share a common cultural background: rejection of migrants, hidden behind the label of Islam, and a strong demand for authority. This new generation, whether they come from the Republicans, the Union for Defense Group, or the National Front (now the RN), shares this common cultural background. A number of former UMP youth are joining this new-look far right. A few ambitious young people imagine that to seize power, the traditional right must break with its historical legacy of Gaullist antifascism and advocate for an alliance with the National Rally (RN). This is what happened in the streets starting in 2013 and continues to this day. These activists then gather in Parisian right-wing social spaces like the Café des Caves or Aux Soupers. For the most part, these young people are well-born and come from good Parisian or provincial families who have moved to the elite universities; most of them already belong to families considered right-wing on the political spectrum. Furthermore, they benefit from an unexpected media platform: the pronouncements of a polemicist, Éric Zemmour, who, like this new generation, shifts from anti-European sovereignty to denouncing immigration. Several activists launch media campaigns. After the sensational stunts of Generation Identity, they sought to seize control of the media. Having dabbled in fringe websites and newspapers belonging to the radical right, Valeurs Actuelles became their first prize. Then, with the help of Patrick Buisson, they secured prominent positions at Le Figaro and occasionally in other media outlets considered to be on the right of the political spectrum. In 2017, some of them founded a newspaper reflecting their ideology: L'Incorrect, which aimed to expose the right wing. With a barrage of posters and advertisements, the newspaper provoked and challenged certain media outlets receptive to this type of agitation and propaganda. They used it as a vehicle for ideological fusion. Finally, the media outlets controlled by the Bolloré Group became their springboard. Today, despite the tripartite division, these young people (Republican, National Front, Zemmourist) feel ready to take power despite the apparent divisions, which in essence resemble more a struggle for positions and tactical disagreements than ideological clashes. The authors, citing one of them, remind us that, fundamentally, they agree and their ideas are gaining momentum; the new leader of the National Rally is, in a way, their standard-bearer.
Walpurgis: Right-Wing Revolutions, 19th-20th Centuries
Hamit Bozarslan
Passés/composés 2026 448 pp. EUR26
Génération Bardella
Marylou Magal and Nicolas Massol
Gallimard 2026 266 pp. EUR9.50
https://monde-libertaire.net/?articlen=8909
_________________________________________
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
WORLD WORLDWIDE EUROPE GERMANY DORTMUND - news journal UPDATE - (en) Germany, Dortmund, AGDO:The Apple & the Trunk - Katja - Fragments of Community (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]
CN - interpersonal conflicts, abuse of power
web - www.transform-social.orgPerspective - white queer cis woman in a Berlin housing project.
Community is when you remember there's no more toilet paper in the bathroom and quickly run over, laughing, to hand a new roll to the next person just in time.
What are the motivations for seeking community? Not feeling comfortable in a society where people are marginalized. No longer being able to endure isolation. Not being able or willing to keep up with capitalist competition. Wanting to contribute to climate-friendly slowness. Wanting to share resources to reduce the ecological footprint. Struggling with mental health issues. Wanting to develop further. Needing support. Wanting to play together.
Different biographies, different utopias. Together in a community? At first, it works; at first, the group euphoria and the shared goal are paramount. Then it becomes more difficult. Then come those who think they know how "the right," "the true" community works, who push themselves to the forefront, offering input to others. Potential for conflict, at least from an anarchist perspective.
What exactly is community? (No, there isn't one "right" interpretation, lol.) Community is characterized not only by social cohesion but also by shared resources. These don't necessarily have to be material goods like houses in the case of housing projects. They can also be shared goals and values, shared experiences, shared time, or a joint project. All of these are resources that need to be shared, nurtured, and preserved. What's special about anarchist communities is that decisions about the distribution, maintenance, and further development of resources are made according to needs and by consensus. The community evolves with the dynamic goal of anarchist societies.
An anarchist community is a prefigurative structure that embodies an anarchist society as best as possible "in the wrong system," making an anarchist utopia a reality. A countercultural movement that aims to tip the system.
Community is when I cook huge amounts of lasagna and it's all eaten in the end.
In an anarchist community, the focus on needs is liberating for those whose needs are largely ignored under capitalism. Expressing needs becomes a discovery of the self, a liberating act, a countercultural action.
At the same time, there's a risk that the focus on needs could tip in an unfavorable direction: desires presented as needs, needs strategically deployed, needs that are neither understood nor accepted. People who express their needs as emotionally, dramatically, and eloquently as possible, with great vehemence and urgency, are more likely to be heard. Less articulate, shy, less self-absorbed people, people on the spectrum, people with little time for these discussions, tend to get left behind. People with needs that stand in the way are pressured by repeated inquiries into what lies behind those needs, as if they still haven't been understood. Conflicts over scarce resources become a competition for the strongest and most important needs, turning needs into weapons.
Why do these battles occur? It's simply not always possible to meet all needs within a community. For example, when it comes to scarce resources, such as space in a housing project. How do we deal with the fact that there are many more unmet needs outside the community? Are we stuck in patterns of unreflective consumption and competition? Things become particularly problematic in long-term communities when past conflicts remain unresolved, when people feel their needs are constantly being neglected, and when the competition for needs escalates.
Then trust is lost. Trust that needs will be communicated honestly, trust that people aren't only concerned with themselves, that agreements will be honored, trust in the future, trust in anarchist communities.
"You only get as much done as you initiate," someone told me during my first visit to a housing project. Is that true?
I wish, especially for long-term communities, that we can trust one another. A safe space and security. This includes letting go of the pattern of shirking responsibility that we learned through socialization in authoritarian structures. It's not about blame, it's about responsibility. Respecting everyone's needs, respecting agreements that were important to others. If others only grudgingly agreed to an arrangement, checking in after a while to see how they're doing. Intervening when others attack each other. Passive observation normalizes this behavior and further humiliates the person being attacked, a loss of perspective, a loss of understanding of what constitutes appropriate behavior. A loss of security and community.
An anarchist community cultivates critical thinking and the courage to resolve conflicts. As an anarchist, can you handle criticism, even when it concerns your authoritarian behavior? In long-term communities, running away from conflicts is difficult. In housing projects, conflicts are your neighbors. And when they get out of hand, ignorance, cynicism, and social coldness follow.
Community is when, in rural areas, the entire queer movement comes together for Pride without splintering.
Should we shift our focus more towards available resources? What structures can we use to recognize patterns of manipulation and domination early on, before vile behavior becomes normalized and conflicts build up? What agreements do we make for addressing conflicts at different levels of escalation, and do we actually stick to them?
Social structures in communities, interpersonal interactions, and needs are complex. Perhaps the complexity within the group is too high. Perhaps our ideas of community don't align. Separation is just one option among many. Especially when it comes to coveted resources like affordable housing, separation is difficult. People stay because they cling to the resource without truly wanting to be part of the community anymore, which in turn reinforces the frustration of those who want to strengthen community structures.
Separation is not failure or defeat, but rather the prefiguration of diverse communities, a key anarchist idea: Diverse communities form around shared interests or needs; communities emerge and dissolve; communities separate and coexist. Can we create structures that facilitate separation? For communities about which stories can be told, stories that shift the narrative, that make anarchist societies conceivable.
Community is what, despite all the anger at violence, brings tears of emotion to the eyes when reading "Stone Butch Blues."
------------------------------------------
This text was first published in the zine "The Apple and the Trunk" on the topic of community. The zine was lovingly organized, compiled, laid out, and printed by the Anarchist Group Dortmund. Many thanks for that! The print edition is available from Black Mosquito, and you can find it online as a PDF here. https://archive.org/details/DerApfelUndDerStamm/FINAL/
From the perspective of a white queer cis-female person in a Berlin housing project.
https://archive.org/details/DerApfelUndDerStamm/Web_2026-03-13-Zine_Gemeinschaft_barrierearm/page/n1/mode/1up
_________________________________________
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
WORLD WORLDWIDE EUROPE FRANCE - news journal UPDATE - (en) France, UCL AL #370 - Antipatriarchy - Iceland: Kvennaár, 50 Years Later, the Struggle Continues (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]
Last autumn, Reykjavík hosted the anniversary mobilization of the country's first mass feminist strike. Fifty years after the exemplary struggle of Icelandic women transformed social policies and made Iceland one of the most egalitarian countries in the world today, another national day of strike action took place, called by 54 organizations whose feminist demands remain relevant today. ---- On October 24, 2025, a general strike of women and non-binary people was held in Reykjavík, Iceland, to raise awareness of their status. This mobilization, called Kvennaár ("Year of Women"), had a dual purpose: to commemorate the first feminist general strike of 1975 and to highlight what remains to be done.
On October 24, 1975, the first general women's strike Kvennafrídagurinn took place in Iceland. On that day, nearly 90% of the country's 220,000 women stayed home from work and staged a massive domestic strike. The country's fishing industry was paralyzed for the day, as women made up the majority of employees. Other sectors, such as schools, daycare centers, department stores, and cultural centers (cinemas, theaters, etc.), were also closed. The day became known as "the day the children went to the office," with men forced to take care of them. That same day, 25,000 women gathered in the center of the capital for a demonstration, the largest Iceland had seen up to that time.
The demands at the time included, among other things, equal pay (women earning on average between 60 and 75% of men's salaries for the same job), representation in the Alþýðusamband Íslands (the main trade union federation), opposition to the mantra hún gerir ekki neitt, hún er bara heima ("she doesn't work, she's just at home"), and to professionalized patriarchy (being a man counts more than qualifications when hiring)[1].
Every ten years, on the anniversary of October 24, women leave their jobs earlier, the departure time being calculated in relation to progress in the status of women. In 2023, 100,000 women took part in the strike. On October 24, 2025, commemorating the 50th anniversary of the initial mobilization, a series of demonstrations were planned. No figures are currently available regarding the number of people who participated in these mobilizations, but it is assumed that they were widely attended. In 2025, the initial demands had changed very little, but others were added: mandatory education on gender issues (particularly on gender-based and sexual violence), greater recognition of LGBTI people, better maternity leave pay, etc.[2]
Women and non-binary people in Iceland still earn about 21% less than men, only 5 points more than fifty years ago, and the number of gender-based and sexual violence incidents is skyrocketing. Inequalities are widening everywhere, and patriarchal violence is omnipresent. Let's all respond with a general strike!
Rudy (UCL Caen)
Submit
[1]The full list of demands is available on the website of the Icelandic Women's History Archive: Kvennasogusafn.is.
[2]The full list of demands is available on the demonstration's website: Kvennaar.is.
https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?Islande-Kvennaar-50-ans-plus-tard-la-lutte-continue
_________________________________________
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)