#Worldwide #Information #Blogger #LucSchrijvers: #Update: #anarchist #news and #information all over the #world - 4.01.2020

Today's Topics:

   
1.  Spine, el miliciano cnt-ait chiclana: The anti-prison fight
      from CNT-AIT today (ca) [machine translation] 
     (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
2.  France, Union Communiste Libertaire AL #300 - Is Thomas
      Piketty anti-capitalist? (fr, it, pt)[machine translation]
      (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
3.  France, Union Communiste Libertaire AL #300 - History,
      1917-1919: the communes in the Russian Revolution (fr, it,
      pt)[machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
4.  anarkismo.net: The occupation of Rosario City Hall 100 years
      ago in Argentina, by Dmitri - MACG (personal (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)


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

Message: 1






 From the Trade Union of Albacete Various of the CNT-AIT we want to make public some reflections, as well as conclusions, which we have
reached from a series of debates about the problem that has been generated in relation to the strikes of hunger that is being carried out by
the group of prisoners in struggle in Spain - and that is summed up very well in the issues raised by the group of support for prisoners El
Carro de Palencia, in a round table held in October this year 2019. ---- The problems in particular are: lack of social repercussion of the
actions of the prisoners, insufficient social support in general both inside and outside the prison, and lack of union and coordination
among the groups they support. The response to the sacrifice that prisoners are making with these fasting strikes is minimal. We are giving
ourselves against a wall of indifference that burns us and consumes us energy. Prisoners are literally killing each other for minimum claims
and almost all responsibility rests with those we support. It always comes back to us like a boomerang, because if something needs to be
done, it is we who are on this side of the wall who will have to move it because we are free to do so. We will have to reflect on how, so as
not to get stuck in impotence.

We understand that the effectiveness in the fight against prison is to understand that prison, as Amadeu Casellas said in his book, is a
reflection of society. Society is consumerist, apathetic, and passive, outside, and consequently so are most prisoners. In contrast, during
the years of COPEL (Coordinator of Prisoners in Struggle), in the Transition, there was much more movement in society, and the prisoners
also moved more. This means that as long as it is not assumed that the work initially starts here, and the creation of a culture and a
popular organization that responds, not only to jail, but to all the challenges of revolutionary social transformation, our support It will
be nothing more than accompaniment.

We are watching how the extreme right advances as parliamentary democracy degenerates to populism. This second democratic transition will
lead us to fascism if the tendencies that parliamentarism itself generates, with the delegation of power in professional politicians. A
false well-being, a false abundance, sustain a false awareness of the reality that conforms to a mass of population. It is town and not mass
the only thing that can get us out of this vicious circle. That is why in the face of the idea that we must rely on politicians of the
parliamentary left to save us from fascism, we advocate an active and self-managed abstention, because the act of voting is a claudication
that nourishes that monster that is the mass, which must be feared more than the professional fascists themselves. Delegating to politicians
instills in us a mentality of waiting for others, be it the market or the State, to solve our problems, instead of organizing ourselves. An
anti-prison struggle without departing from this supposed anarchist is useless, because prisoners will never have the support of a sleeping
society, plunged into the political minority. Therefore, we must politicize this struggle, and give it an anarchist character.

In order for the anti-prison fight to be effective, it is necessary to integrate all the struggles into one: the fight against all forms of
hierarchy, that is, anarchism. We have been hearing for years that ideology hinders, that scares, that divides, that detracts from us. Most
of the unions that make up the CNT-AIT today were already expelled for this reason from what the CNT-CIT is today.

We do not accept to renounce our principles, tactics and purposes, after all, our identity, to swell fronts or platforms without ideology
whose effectiveness is never going to be demonstrated. What we do in the field of the anti-prison fight, we want to do it from the anarchist
organization, with an identity and a project of total social transformation. This is our sincere positioning. A union with the prisoner
support groups, without ideological cohesion, would imply a renunciation of ourselves that is not even justified by effectiveness, since the
problem of prison is the social problem, which must be attacked at the root, and there is no more way. We can collaborate, but in everything
that does not imply giving up our path, in our way of fighting.

The problem we face when it comes to wanting to give strength to anarcho-syndicalism is the same as that of all social movements, that
passivity, that false conscience, that we have to face, and we cannot fight it from fighting formations without ideology, without
organization, etc., because we would result in the same problem. We need to recover the union, that it will have strength again to stop the
train of capitalism and the repressive state that sustains it politically. Strikes, boycotts and sabotage, are weapons of solidarity that
historically have been doubly effective, both for the free worker and for the prisoner. Recall that the majority of prisoners are of low
social extraction, and most are there for property crimes. We also know that the majority of prisoners in struggle have become anarchists in
prison, and yet there is no organization of their ideology that responds to the intensity of their struggle. Our impression is that when we
are strong, their struggle will multiply their power. Perhaps it will sound arrogant to those who choose another route contrary to that of
the ideology, organization and the backbone of this struggle with the labor movement, but we are sure of what we think and what we do, and
that, ultimately, no There is another way.

Trade Union Various Albacete CNT-AIT
Confederal Core of Cieza CNT-AIT

http://elmilicianocnt-aitchiclana.blogspot.com/2019/12/la-lucha-anticarcelaria-desde-cnt-ait.html

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

Message: 2






Thomas Piketty puts "capital" in the titles of his books, he is presented as a radical critic of capitalism ... But Piketty is very far from
Marx ! His latest book in fact defends a social democratic project, and takes into account neither the social dimension of inequalities, nor
the power struggles that cross societies. His "participatory socialism" is a scientific-looking utopian socialism. ---- In the last chapter
of Capital and ideology, Thomas Piketty exposes a program of " participative socialism " based essentially on two propositions: the
establishment of " social property " and that of "temporary property" . ---- The first would be to grant to employee representatives " half
of the voting rights on the boards of directors of all private companies, including the smallest " (page 1119). It would be strengthened by
the development of shareholding and by the capping of the most important shareholders' voting rights. The " temporary ownership "for its
part would operate at the level of (re) distribution of heritage and private income, calling on an annual tax on the heritage owned,
intended to prevent their increasing concentration and centralization over the generations (through inheritance ): strongly progressive, it
should reach the rate of 90% for heritage ten thousand times higher than the average heritage. Added to that of the inheritance tax, also
made highly progressive, its revenue should abound a fund capable of endowing any individual, at the age of twenty-five, with a heritage of
around 120 000 euros in the states on which Piketty carried out simulations (United States, Western Europe, Japan).

At the same time, maintaining an income tax, also made highly progressive (with a marginal tranche of 90%), should make it possible to
continue to finance a generous welfare state and guarantee everyone a minimum income of around 60% of average after-tax disposable income.
On the other hand, all indirect taxes (VAT and other taxes on consumption), which are clearly decreasing, would be eliminated, except those
aimed at correcting externalities (such as the carbon tax incorporated into income tax).

" By combining the two elements, we end up with a system of property which has very little to do with private capitalism as we know it
today, and which constitutes a real surpassing of capitalism " (page 1138). One can easily subscribe to the first member of this assertion;
the second is however very questionable.

Undoubtedly, the adoption of the two previous reforms would significantly modify the face of contemporary capitalism, by drastically
remedying one of its fundamental flaws which is the persistence of social inequalities. The fate of the working classes would undoubtedly be
improved.

A reformism which does not admit its name
But whatever Thomas Piketty says, they would continue to live in a capitalist society. If he can claim the opposite, it is because he is
mistaken or deluded about what capital is. Thus, it extends the definition to all forms of private property: it places on the same plane "
social property " (which concerns capital as production relation) and " temporary property " (which concerns private heritage). Now it is
enough to restore the concept of capital to its proper meaning for Thomas Piketty's illusions about the anticapitalist scope of his
proposals to dissipate.

In fact, as a social relation of production, capital is characterized by the expropriation of producers, their de facto and de jure
separation from the means of production that they use; by the transformation of their labor forces into goods; by the unification under the
wage system of these means of production and labor forces, allowing the valorization of the capital-money advanced to acquire them like
goods, through the extortion of a surplus work (of an additional quantity of work to that necessary for the reproduction of labor forces) in
the form of surplus value.

The change in capital ownership regime proposed by Piketty in no way changes this production relationship. Even if they owned half or more
of the shares of the company that employs them, the employees would nonetheless remain potentially separable from the means of production
that they and they implement (by termination). As employees, their labor forces would remain commodities, the value of which would remain
governed by the two factors that already govern it: the state of development of the productive forces of society (and in particular average
productivity of social work) and the current social norm of consumption. Finally, as employees of a singular capital (a capitalist enterprise),

Recasting the classic social democratic project
As for " temporary property " , it would operate at the level of the redistribution of property and private income. In other words, whatever
its scope for correcting the inequalities arising from the primary distribution of income between social categories and their sustainability
and worsening over generations (in the form of wealth inequalities), it would by definition have no major impact on production reports which
are located upstream. Despite the fact that it promises to " go beyond capitalism " , Thomas Piketty's political project is by no means
revolutionary. He is a reformist. His " participatory socialism " aims to refound the classical social-democratic project: to introduce
structural reforms in contemporary capitalism to make it less unequal.

When production reports are revenged ...
However radical it may appear, Thomas Piketty's reformism nevertheless has its limits. Because production relationships continue to exert
their own effects, they are likely to limit the scope of the recommended reforms, however generous they may be. We can illustrate it by the
example of the two major benefits that Piketty expects from it, in terms of widening the possibilities of participation in the social and
political life of the popular strata (thus legitimizing the qualifier of " participative "which he supports socialism of his own). Thus, the
possibility for their members to access higher training levels than those to which they are generally confined, by correcting the
inequalities in the initial training of which they are victims by widening their possibilities of access to continuing training as follows:

" [...]A person leaving school at 16 or 18 and who therefore only used an educational expense of 70,000 euros or 100,000 euros during their
initial training, like the 40% d '' a generation benefiting from the lowest expenditure, could then use during their life an education
capital of a value of 100,000 or 150,000 euros in order to rise to the level of the 10% having benefited from the most expenditure strong in
initial training " (page 1164).

But to reason in this way is to omit, or ignore, that income inequality is not the only nor the main factor of inequality in education,
which distribution and accumulation play just as well. unequal " legitimate cultural capital " within families. However, this last factor is
directly correlated with the social division of labor, including the separation between " intellectual work " (functions of management,
organization, design, legitimation and control) and " manual work "(execution functions) is the central vertebral axis. A dimension of the
capitalist relations of production which Thomas Piketty ignores and hardly ever mentions. Depending on one's position in the social division
of labor (that of one's parents or one's own), one generally does not have the same skills and opportunities, any more than one develops the
same aspirations and projects, whether at home. with regard to initial training or that of continuing training, regardless of the possible
cost of access to such training.

Thomas Piketty also expects from these reforms a broadening of the powers of participation of the popular strata in representative
democracy. To this end, he puts forward the idea of reforming the public funding of politicalparties , on the one hand by giving "to each
citizen an annual voucher of the same value, for example 5 euros per year, allowing him to choose the party or the political movement of its
choice " , on the other hand by instituting " a total ban on political donations from companies and other legal persons[...]and a radical
cap on donations and contributions from private individuals (which Julia Cagé proposes to limit to 200 euros per year "(page 1172). It is
singularly naive to think that, in this way, we would be advancing appreciably on the path of " a participative and egalitarian democracy
"(page 1173). Once again, it is to forget or ignore that what immediately hinders the participation of the popular strata in political life
is first of all their position in the social division of labor (ergo the social relations of production) which is a concrete obstacle to the
objective capacities (free time but also the necessary power and knowledge: for example, the capacity to speak in public) and subjective
(for example, the feeling of one's own legitimacy to deal with political questions ) that such participation requires. Disabilities that
only active participation in popular organizations (associations, unions and politicians) can compensate and certainly not the meager
allocations of public funds in the form of "good for democratic equality " . Moral of the story: drive the social relations of production
out the door, they surreptitiously come back out the window and sabotage your beautiful redistribution projects !

The fundamental impasse
But the main shortcoming of the " participatory socialism " projectthat Thomas Piketty submits to us at the end of his work is of another
order. Referring regularly to the Fordist compromise and claiming the inheritance, Piketty can not ignore which cycles of struggle, union,
political, ideological, pursued over decades, and which power struggles at both national and international level resulting from the two wars
and the collapse of liberal capitalism in the 1930s were necessary to reach such a compromise. Nor can he ignore the fact that his own
proposals for the redistribution of wealth and income, however purely reformist they may be, would not fail, if implemented, to arouse
anger, rejection and the mobilization of all privileged social strata that they would harm, who have many means (of all types) to defend
their interests and who would not hesitate to implement them. No doubt these same proposals would, conversely, obtain the support of the
majority of the broad popular strata who would be the beneficiaries. But that is not enough to tell us how to generate and obtain their
mobilization or how to build the balance of power that would be necessary to make them triumph.

In fact, in spite of the few passages where he refers to what contemporary history understands of social struggles, of struggles involving
social classes and their relationships, their organizations and their representations, everything happens as if Thomas Piketty was convinced
that it is enough for him to present his project and deliver it to public debate for the ideas thus put forward to make their way and end up
creating, by the sole virtue of their argument and the wealth of statistical information on which they are based , the political majority
which would be necessary for their implementation within the framework of parliamentary democracies. In short, fishing idealism (in the
philosophical sense) that appears in multiple formulations throughout the book and still shines at the end: " "The history of any society up
to the present has been only the history of the class struggle," wrote Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx in 1848 in the Communist Manifesto.
The statement remains relevant, but I am tempted at the end of this investigation to rephrase it as follows: the history of any society
until today has been only the history of the struggle of ideologies and of the quest for justice." (Page 1191). As a result, Thomas
Piketty's project is reminiscent, mutatis mutandis, of what Engels and Marx said of representatives of what they called " critical-utopian
socialism and communism " in this same Manifesto:

" Social activity must be replaced by their own ingenuity ; the historical conditions of emancipation, imaginary conditions; to the
progressive organization of the class proletariat, an organization of society that they themselves fabricated. For them the future of the
world is resolved in the propaganda and the implementation of their social plans. » [1]

Alain Bihr (UCL Alsace)

Thomas Piketty, Capital and ideology, Threshold, November 2019, 1,232 pages, 29.90 euros

[1] Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party, pages 36-37 original date of publication February 21, 1848, available
freely on the Classiques.uqac.ca website.

https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?Lire-Thomas-Piketty-est-il-anticapitaliste

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

Message: 3






The "commune" covers diverse meanings and historical realities. From the community of villagers sponsored by the lords to the egalitarian
community, from the conceptualization and its dissemination by the anarchists to its confiscation by the Marxists, the historian Éric
Aunoble [1]returns here to the origins and developments of the commune in the Russian Revolution. ---- From the traditional climb to the
Wall of the Federates to the demonstrations which "degenerate", one always hears the word of commune resonating. In 2011, we also talked
about communes for the "Occupy" movement in Oakland and for the revolt in Tahrir Square in Cairo. Closer to here, it is also used in
connection with Zad, or even yellow vests. But what are we talking about ? >From a small autonomous community or from the whole class of
exploited who is emancipated ? Direct democracy put into practice or the embodiment of the "real" Republic ?

If the multiplicity of meanings and uses can conceal contradictions and turn to confusionism, it is not a new phenomenon. From 1917 in the
former Russian empire, the term kommuna spread to serve as a watchword for both the Bolsheviks and anarchists. Above all, he designated very
diverse practices and institutions. This reveals the creative richness of a revolutionary period and one cannot reduce this kommuna to a
single ideological inspiration.

Kommuna: from word to thing
We must also be careful not to make it a unique and linear story. In the West, collectivism in Russia is easily associated with the
traditions of the village community, the obchtchina (or mir). From 1866, the exiled Alexandre Herzen (1812-1870) also designated as "
Russian socialism ", " this socialism which starts from the land and the peasant way of life, from the re-distribution of fields and the
peasant lot such that they exist, of community ownership and management . " This profession of faith nurtures the growth of narodnitchestvo
(populism), the revolutionary ideology that ignites Russian youth to the end of the XIX th century.

The social and political reality of the obchtchina has, however, little to do with the ideal. Far from being the spontaneous creation of
peasants, it is an institution sponsored by lords and the State who need mediation to collect taxes. It also sanctions the patriarchal power
of the heads of families who each exploit the lot allocated by the assembly. In addition, after the abolition of serfdom in 1861,
individualism undermined community traditions and, in 1917, the peasant congresses demanded the division of the land of the Latifundiaires
and not their collective exploitation.

The void of hope left by the decay of the obchtchina opens a space for the kommuna . Neologism entered the Russian language shortly before
the Paris Commune and covered both an egalitarian community and an autonomous political body. In the small Russian revolutionary milieu,
1792 and 1871 quickly became the usual references and the collective way of life of certain groups of young radicals was called kommuna .

In 1875, Piotr Tkatchev (1844-1886) generalized the concept. " The revolutionary state will achieve social revolution by[...]the gradual
transformation of the current peasant community[obchtchina], based on the principle of temporary private sharing, into
community-commune[obchtchina-kommuna]based on the principle of 'common, joint use of the means of production and on joint, joint work '.

We may be surprised by the absence of Bakunin and then Kropotkin in the Russian debates on obchtchina and kommuna , when they appear to us
as the fathers of the revolutionary concept of commune. In fact, the two revolutionaries developed their theoretical vision in exile, where
they spent most of their lives. Kropotokine's anarchist writings were written in French or English for the public in these countries.

Transform the city into a second Paris Commune
Kropotkin was not translated into Russian until after the 1905 revolution. However, life had been faster than theory. In 1905, two anarchist
groups had the names of Free Commune ( Svobodnaya Kommuna in Moscow) or Communards ( Kommunary in Bialystok). The latter called on the
population to transform the city into " a second Paris Commune ". The ambition is the same in the most radical fringe of the
socialist-revolutionaries, the maximalists, whose newspaper was called Kommuna .

After the overthrow of Tsarism in February 1917, revolutionary ideas spread but the meaning of the words quickly changed. Almost everyone is
now "socialist" and particularly the forces which, in the provisional government, want to stem the revolution and continue the war.

The Northern Municipality , newspaper of the Soviets of the Petrograd region in 1918.
Readers who grab freshly published dictionaries of political terms and foreign words discover kommuna and kommunar. The reference to the
commune becomes a marker of radicalism and, in Petrograd, the monthly of the young anarchist-communist Federation takes up the title Kommuna .

Another incarnation of extremism, the Bolshevik party, left wing of Marxist social democracy, proceeds to its aggiornamento. Lenin
challenges the legacy of the II th International, bankrupt since rallying to the Sacred Union in 1914. In this context, it shows the history
of the Marxist current against the current of reformism. It proposes to adopt the name of Communist Party to return to the term used by Marx
in his Manifesto of 1848. Most importantly, it advances the " claim of a" common state " (Gosudarstvo-kommuna) that is to say of a State of
which the Paris Commune was the forerunner ".

For Lenin, there is a social revolution if " the proletariat and the poor peasantry take over state power, organize themselves freely into
communes, and unite the action of all the communes to strike capital ". The " free union of municipalities as a nation " aims to " destroy
bourgeois domination and the bourgeois state machine ". Aware of the connotations of his speech, Lenin recognized that " we will be confused
with the anarchist communists ". For him, this is better than " being confused with national socialists, liberal socialists or radical
socialists ".

To the chagrin of the anarchists, the preemption of the terms "communist" and "common" by the Bolsheviks was definitively established four
months after the seizure of power. At its VI th Congress, in March 1918, the Bolshevik Party became the Communist Party. At the same time,
the kommuna begins to designate particular institutions of the new regime.

The northern capital becomes the Laborious Commune of Petrograd, a member, along with the Laborious Commune of Karelia and others, of the
Union of Communes in the northern region. Simple change of sign bureaucratically decided ? Not necessarily. If the "power of the Soviets" is
no longer hardly pluralist in the spring of 1918, it remains effectively extremely decentralized.

Destroy bourgeois rule and the state machine
In the countryside, the villagers had made their revolution from a rather individualistic perspective, by sharing the land. Some peasants
nevertheless declared that they wanted to " do the work together, store the harvest in one place, put the money in a common
box[and]distribute the food as needed ". The sources give few examples of the practice of such collectivism. Nestor Makhno and Piotr
Archinov claim, however, that the first agricultural communes in Gouliaï-Polé, in the south of Ukraine, were created in spring or autumn 1917.

On the Bolshevik side, this type of experience became an issue at the beginning of the summer of 1918. While the civil war became a reality,
Communist farms would have a double interest: on the one hand, they would more readily supply the working-class cities than the small owners
do ; on the other hand, faced with the latter, they could lead " the class struggle in the village ".

Having left Ukraine where his supporters were fighting against the German occupiers, Makhno arrived in Moscow precisely at that time. He
recounts his interview with Lenin on June 25, 1918: " Lenin[...]added: " Yes, yes, anarchists are strong in thinking about the future; in
the present, they are suspended in the air, and they are pitiful only because, given their hollow fanaticism, they have in reality no link
with this future... "[...]I replied to Lenin and Sverdlov[...]: "[...]Your assertion that anarchists do not understand the" presentAnd have
no real connection to it, etc., is fundamentally false. The anarchist-communists in Ukraine[...]have already given much evidence of their
total connection with the present[...]. Your Bolsheviks are almost absent from our villages, and where they exist, their influence is quite
miserable. Almost all peasant communes and peasant artels in Ukraine were founded by anarchist-communists[...]" .".

Faced with Lenin, Makhno takes advantage of the communes as a patent of realism and radicalism. Here, insurgents from the Makhno
Revolutionary Army with the slogan " Death to all those who oppose workers' freedom!" "
Makhno thus takes advantage of the communes as a patent of realism and radicalism. And Lenin seems to have heard it. A week later, the
Council of People's Commissars released special aid of 10 million rubles for the municipalities and a manual for their organization was
published by the People's Commissariat for Land in the following weeks.

(To be continued in the next issue)

Éric Aunoble

Éric Aunoble is a historian, author of Le Communisme, straight away ! The movement of municipalities in Soviet Ukraine, The Red Nights, 2008.
CHRONOLOGY
February 21, 1848: publication of the Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels.
1861: abolition of peasant serfdom in the Russian Empire.
1870s: in intellectual youth who want to "go to the people", creation of populist socialist circles who "live in common".
September 1864: foundation of the I st International in London.
1871: Municipality of Paris.
September 1872: AIT congress in The Hague, break between Marxists and anti-authoritarians.
September 15, 1872: birth of the Anti-Authoritarian International.
1889 foundation II th International.
1892: French publication of La Conquête du pain by Kropotkine
1905: first Russian revolution: demonstrations and workers' strikes ; creation of the first soviets (workers' councils) ; peasant uprisings,
mutiny by the sailors of the battleship Potemkin. Bloody repression by the tsarist regime.
1914 - 1918: First World War.
August 3, 1914: proclamation of the Sacred Union, political rapprochement of all French political and religious tendencies in the aftermath
of the declaration of war by Germany against France.
February 1917: Tsarism is overthrown after ten days of demonstrations and workers' strikes in Petrograd.
Spring 1917: return of revolutionary activists from exile (Lenin and Trotsky return to Petrograd) or prison (Makhno returns to Guliaï-Polé
in Ukraine).
October 1917: the Bolsheviks seized power in Petrograd, relying on the Soviets. Disaggregation of the Russian State in favor of social
affirmations and national separatisms.
March 1918: occupation of Ukraine by the German army which supports the Ukrainian nationalist movement against the Bolsheviks.
emaildiasporaFacebookprintertumblrtwitter
[1] Éric Aunoble published Le communisme, immediately ! The movement of municipalities in Soviet Ukraine published by Red Nights, 2008, €
18.30, 285 pages.

https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?Histoire-Il-y-a-deux-cents-ans-les-communes-dans-la-revolution-Russe

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

Message: 4






As soon as the red flag was posted on the central balcony of the building, indicating that a "workers 'government" had been formed, that the
mayor and the advisory council had been expelled, that general management had passed to the local workers' federation), redeployment of
redundancies, abolition of taxes and improvement of working conditions in urban hospitals, both for employees and for "in-house doctors" (a
request put forward by medical students). ---- Rosario. On the morning of February 7, 1921, a group of City employees and medical students -
mostly anarchists - who had been affected by the wave of uprisings around the world and particularly by strikes in the countryside and
Patagonia - as well as by the a loud Russian Revolution - decided to surprise Palacio de los Leones (Palace of Lions), the seat of the
municipality in the city of Rosario (Santa Fe) under Fernando Schleisinger - to establish a libertarian community there.

Let us remember that for several days, municipal officials were on strike against wage cuts, based on the solidarity of teachers, seamen,
rail and taxi drivers, as well as students of the Universidad de Rosario Medical (Universidad de Rosario Medical). . Through this conflict,
the Federación Obrera Provincial (Provincial Federation of Workers) called for a general strike on 5 February to support the oppressed rural
workers, for whom 25 unions declared their immediate solidarity with their pledges. Sarmiento. In response, Mayor Fernando Schleisinger
decided to cancel the carnival party and dismiss several municipal officials.

Finally, on Monday, February 7, Carnival Day, a group of students and workers carried out the occupation as an expression of rejection
before it happened, hoping to have the rapid reaction of the rest of the strikers. Among the working-class protagonists of the uprising were
several trade unionists with anarchist backgrounds, such as the brothers Carlos and Ricardo Chaminaud, Felipe Morales, l. Armando Roche,
Luis Tafalta, Saturnino Ricardo, Lorenzo Biamino, Adolfo Gomez, Telemachus Giorgiades, José Manuel Dumas, Francisco Schorr, Carlos Ábalos,
Carlos Oliva, Antonio Zemberg, Manuel Martínez, Antonio Ferreyra and JC among others.

As soon as the red flag was posted on the central balcony of the building, indicating that a "workers 'government" had been formed, that the
mayor and the advisory council had been expelled, that general management had passed to the local workers' federation), redeployment of
redundancies, abolition of taxes and improvement of working conditions in urban hospitals, both for employees and for "in-house doctors" (a
request put forward by medical students).

Apart from sympathizing with other workers in the area, the occupation - which lasted for eight hours - did not prosper due to the rapid
arrival of a police officer. Responsible for the crackdown was the 11th Infantry Regiment, which, after a quick entry into the building,
managed to stop the team - poorly armed and prepared for such an operation - Prisoners - accused of disaster - will defend Dr Rafael Bielsa
grandfather of the technical director). After these episodes, one newspaper wrote, "in the societies another world is kneading, driving the
desire for better order and a better life" and that "in a period of strikes the economy comes second." * Source: Emilio Crisi. Translation:
"Neither God nor Master"

https://www.anarkismo.net/article/31711

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