War is close ---- In recent days, and especially at the end of the week,
interesting events have taken place on the border of Ukraine and theBelgorod region of Russia. For the residents of Ukraine, of course, the
war is no longer "on the doorstep", but right in the house, and people
there continue to die from bombings in cities. For example, in Odessa,
21 people died after a rocket attack on March 16, and there was a second
attack aimed at the rescuers who were working there.
These crimes of the Russian army, as terrible as they are, have almost
ceased to cause surprise - although we have no doubt that ultimately all
those who gave the orders for these strikes will receive their retribution.
But that's not about that now. What's there in the Belgorod region? The
main front of the war is not moving particularly anywhere after the
capture of Avdeevka, but on the territory of the Belgorod region,
"volunteer detachments" such as the RDK or the "Siberian Battalion"
actually controlled by Ukraine have become more active again and are
conducting small-scale offensive operations of a tactical scale.
Belgorod itself is under attack by Grad missiles and drones. It is still
difficult to understand what exactly is happening there, but it is easy
to understand the reason for this activation.
So why did the Ukrainian military decide that right now it is important
to show that the war also concerns the residents of Russia? Because this
weekend there are so-called "elections" in Russia.
"Elections" like a circus with greenery
By the time this episode of "trends" airs, the strange event called "the
election of the President of the Russian Federation" will already be
over. All television channels will solemnly announce that for the next
six years the country will again be ruled by Tsar Vladimir Vladimirovich
Putin. The dull nature of this event is not overshadowed even by
occasional news about "observers were not allowed" or "a girl poured
brilliant green into a trash can, and she was sent to a pre-trial
detention center for this."
It's important to say this. For many years, anarchists have criticized
representative democracy as such - for the fact that voters lack real
control over the actions of those elected, for the fact that it
reproduces hierarchical power dynamics, and so on. Instead, various
variations of "participatory democracy" or "direct democracy" are
proposed (at least in the future).
Even now, before Putin's electoral event, several articles have already
appeared where the authors criticize the very idea of elections from
libertarian positions: "What are elections?" , "Before choosing" .
And these are all correct theses; we really should strive for direct
democracy, where ideally decisions are made by those who will be
affected by the consequences of these decisions.
But it seems a little beside the point in this case. The event, taking
place in Russia on March 15-17, 2024, is not an "election" in the
traditional sense of the word. It has nothing in common with "elections"
in bourgeois democracies such as the USA or European countries, except
for the name and some external attributes. This is just a ritual of yet
another extension of Putin's reign. So, criticizing these "elections"
from the position that "representative electoral democracy is not real
direct democracy" is the same as, when you see a fascist who got a job
in the police, bursting out with detailed explanations of why the police
are an authoritarian repressive institution . It is, of course, a
repressive institution, but the immediate problem right now is the
fascist, whether he works for the police or not for the police. It seems
to me important to emphasize the differences between the political
system of modern Russia and liberal democracies, even if we are quite
critical of liberal democracies. Accordingly, it is necessary to
distinguish between criticism of representative democracy (which is
practically absent in Russia) and criticism of the authoritarian
criminal-fascist regime (which is still present in Russia).
Returning back to the dull nature of these very "elections". We have
already said in previous "Trends" that the actions of the liberal
opposition associated with the "elections", such as "noon against
Putin," most likely will do neither harm nor good. Now I look at
numerous reports about how the Russian authorities are bending over
backwards to bring as many people as possible to the polls - and I am
inclined to think that there will be more harm in the long term.
Firstly, because the Putin regime as a whole benefits from a picture of
a high turnout at "elections" (and any numbers can be drawn; there is no
control over "elections"). And secondly, and most importantly, because
participation in itself in an "electoral event" leads to the fact that
in people's heads the distinction between a more or less real democratic
institution and its total imitation is blurred.
It is too convenient to agree to an invisible agreement like "the
authorities pretend to hold elections, and we pretend to protest by
voting for the non-Putin." And everyone is fine. But in the end, any
radical changes become even more incredible because people get used to
acting within the system of power, and according to the rules
established by this system. This is the path to political passivity and
stagnation, and nowhere else.
I really liked the thesis of one of the editors of the DOXA publication.
In general, I advise you to read the entire article about "Putin's
Message against the backdrop of Navalny's funeral," but here is one of
the main conclusions:
"By the beginning of the third year of the war, I myself came to the
conviction that the Russian government cannot be "outwitted" by
integrating into the system. Contacts with the state and projects close
to it must be kept to a minimum. And at the same time, create your own
systems, perhaps secret ones; self-realization among friends ", perhaps
sacrificing ambition; working against power, perhaps sacrificing
standard of living."
It's called - how to say the words "underground work" without saying the
word "underground work." I agree with Doxa: attempts to influence the
Putin regime "from within", using its own mechanisms, are extremely
ineffective, and rather even harmful, because they are easily co-opted
and used by this very regime. Authoritarian dictatorships are not
demolished by elections, because in authoritarian dictatorships there
are no elections, there are imitative institutions.
What to do and the question of power
Of course, in response to words about the pointlessness of participating
in "elections," many heard "well, what then, do nothing?!" This question
is not new, and of course, even without resorting to the theory of
anarchism, it is easy to see a huge range of possible activist and
political actions against the Putin regime, which have at least some
effect, and at the same time do not force you to become part of the
system: from letters to political prisoners and donations to independent
media to radical direct action.
But if we talk about a more strategic vision, that is, about goals, then
the anarchists have given the answer to this question many times. Even
more than 10 years ago, during the "white ribbon protests" in Russia,
participants in "Autonomous Action" discussed "active
non-participation." Then this concerned the issue of interaction with
parliamentary parties, or parties that were striving to get into
parliament. Then "active non-participation" meant the creation and
development of a "non-party political organization", which in principle
could grow out of "Autonomous Action".
It seems to me that this is still relevant today. If we want to turn
Russia's vector of movement in the opposite direction from sliding into
archaism, conservatism and fascism, then we must balance between two
priorities. On the one hand, it is important to preserve and build
anarchist political organizations with a clear project for an
anti-authoritarian future. We need our own identity. On the other hand,
it is also necessary to cooperate with a broad front of anti-war and
anti-Putin movements, including liberals, and perhaps, in some places,
moderate nationalists. Within the Russian Federation, such situational
cooperation is understandably difficult, but for the diaspora abroad it
is certainly possible. Collective efforts are always more effective than
individual efforts.
But here we come to some more global contradiction. This contradiction
is connected with the question of power and revolutionary changes.
The destruction of Putin's authoritarian system will inevitably be
revolutionary to one degree or another, since this system does not
contain mechanisms for any kind of "peaceful upgrade." How can this be
done in reality? Naturally, I will not give out an entire political
program now as part of the podcast; rather, I will raise questions.
As we know, anarchist politics is prefigurative: in general, this means
that political ends and means must coincide. As the European anarchist,
philosopher and football player Gabriel Kuhn wrote , "the construction
of an egalitarian society, which provides the opportunity for free
individual development, is carried out by political actors who directly
implement the main values of this society - in the ways of their
organization, struggle and the structure of everyday life.
Self-government, mutual assistance, horizontal organizing and fighting
all forms of oppression are the key principles of anarchism . "
Or the libertarian municipalism of Murray Bookchin is " to make politics
moral in character and grassroots in organization ."
Therein lies the contradiction - is it possible to "change the world
without seizing power", as in the book of the same name by John
Halloway? Politics is often defined as the "struggle for power," but
then is what we are doing "politics" at all, if in some sense we are
going to destroy power as a phenomenon, "spreading" it as much as
possible among all people? Sometimes this is defined as "anti-politics",
but this line of thinking often leads to a lack of any activity at all,
for fear of "turning into politicians."
Autonomous Action's strategy for most of its existence has actually been
activism , especially street activism . Can this be called "politics"
in the full sense of the word? I'm not sure. Activism in itself is not
something bad, but if there is no political goal and at least an
approximate understanding of how to achieve it, then you can paint
graffiti, lay flowers at monuments and throw firecrackers at marginal
street Nazis indefinitely - without any changes in society generally.
Now our reality is a criminal-fascist regime that is waging aggressive
wars, and at the same time, with varying degrees of success, trying to
appease its own population with cash handouts. It seems to me that
anarchists need to think about how exactly, at least hypothetically,
this regime can be overthrown, how a political or social revolution will
take place, and what role anarchists themselves will play in it. The
same Nestor Makhno did not engage in activism - he seized power,
including through violent methods. It was only possible to hold her for
a short time.
Frankly speaking, it's not that Russian-speaking anarchists are
particularly bad. The global anarchist movement, in principle, does not
have a detailed strategy for gaining power during revolutionary events,
like, say, the Leninists. This is logical - it seems like we are not
going to "seize power." For Leninists, of course, the problem is that it
is possible to gain power, but somehow it turns out that it all always
quickly slides into a dictatorship of the worst kind - precisely because
the means contradict the goals. We don't want this, but this does not
negate the need for strategy.
Is it possible to say that participatory democracy, "participatory
democracy" is the "power" for which we are fighting? Or for us, "power"
is the dominance of libertarian-communist values in the ideological
field, much like liberal-bourgeois ideas dominate now? In a sense, the
integration of anarchist ideas into mass consciousness is "power," power
over minds. "An idea that captured the imagination of millions," as in
Murray Bookchin. But if we only publish magazines and write on social
networks, won't we inevitably become pawns in the game of other
political forces who will not hesitate to use force to gain power,
"power" as the ability to impose their will on others? We need to think
about this.
You also need to think about which tasks are currently a priority and
which are not. This is closely related to the issue of tactical and
strategic actions. Tactical objectives may well be "reformist", such as
"stop the war" or "overthrow Putin." On the other hand, the opposition
of "strategy" and "tactics" itself is dynamic and depends on optics.
Compared to raising money for an anti-war event, the collapse of Putin's
dictatorship is a strategic task. But in comparison with the global goal
of creating a worldwide "confederation of municipalities and
neighborhoods of giant megacities, as well as cities and villages"
(Bookchin again), the victory over the dictatorship of Putin's gang is
just a tactical success.
Depending on what task we are focusing on at the moment, different forms
of organization may be more or less effective. This is again a question
of balance between a chaotic network of affinity groups as one extreme
and rigid platformism with a single program and almost a hierarchy of
subordination as the other extreme. Each nail has its own hammer.
And finally, the same Gabriel Kuhn, long before the war in Ukraine,
wrote the following: "... if we really think seriously about revolution,
we cannot turn the army and police into an eternal enemy. Almost all
revolutions were based on what they involved in their ranks of the army
and police. The military capabilities of guerrilla groups in a period of
high-tech warfare are rapidly declining. This is a reality that we must
deal with, no matter how inconvenient it may be."
The war in Ukraine showed that Kuhn was right: partisan resistance
"against everyone" is really practically impossible there now; these
partisans will simply be crushed into powder by the armies opposing each
other. Therefore, many anarchists join the Armed Forces of Ukraine -
also in the hope of exerting at least some ideological and practical
influence on military structures.
Security abroad
The repressiveness of the Putin regime continues to increase, and after
a short lull, attacks on his political opponents began again, including
abroad, in seemingly safe countries. This is what our comrades from
"Anarchist Irkutsk" write:
"Not long ago, news about an attack on Leonid Volkov spread across
telegram channels. Most likely, the Russian state is behind this.
Sometimes it is possible to get unwanted people even abroad. This is
called transnational repression (TNR). This phenomenon did not appear
yesterday. You can remember the murders of those who escaped from
Kadyrov Chechen: ok, poisoning of the Skripals.
With the beginning of the war, it became clear that not only prominent
oppositionists, but also any anti-war Russians, especially those trying
to organize, could be subject to TNR. Russian security forces tried to
put pressure on the organizers of anti-war protests in Berlin,
threatened and spied on journalist Irina Dolinina, and poisoned
journalists Elena Kostyuchenko and Irina Babloyan. Just recently, in
February, a Russian pilot was killed after hijacking a helicopter to
Ukraine."
On our own behalf, we will also add surveillance in Germany of
journalists from the publication "Protocol", which wrote about the
assembly of Russian military drones in Tatarstan.
In general, even if you are formally outside the control of the FSB,
Center "E" and other unpleasant organizations, be careful. Be especially
careful if you are doing something that brings at least some damage
(material or moral) to the Kremlin. There is no need to get paranoid,
but you shouldn't relax either.
Repression: Azat and Max
Inside Russia, of course, the state also has enough strength for
repression. Let us remind you that in Yekaterinburg, another trial
against Azat Miftakhov is nearing its end , for allegedly "justifying
terrorism" right in the colony during his previous term. Azat is holding
up well, we are sending him rays of support, and we encourage you to
send him letters and donations to the support group.
And finally, a new column about the Ukrainian anarchist, journalist and
human rights activist Maxim Butkevich has been published on the website
avtonom.org. He fought as part of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, was
captured by the occupiers and was sentenced to 13 years in prison on the
absurd charge of "war crimes."
Let's end with the words of the column's author, which in many ways
apply to other people:
"I heard from second hand that Max, even recently, considered himself an
anarchist. I have no confidence in this, since he himself did not
advertise it. And by and large, this did not play any role, since he
lived exactly as he should live an anarchist ...
At work, he was involved in serious journalistic matters, including
investigations about Ukrainian fascists, for which he received threats.
But after work, like many activists, he began his second working day -
protecting migrants. In one from the poorest countries in Europe, this
is a completely thankless task. People don't understand - don't we have
enough problems of our own? Who needs the rights of some
incomprehensible "extremists" from Uzbekistan? These were the most
vulnerable people in Ukraine, and Max needed them, many of them
specifically saved lives, including many anti-fascists who fled Russia
after fights with fascists or an attack on the city administration in
Khimki.
There are several ways to be an anarchist. An anarchist can, for
example, be an underground fighter and go into direct conflict with the
authorities in any way. But an anarchist can also seek maximum
opportunities to influence society through public means, but without
trying to come to power. Many anarchists get into journalism or human
rights advocacy this way. Max did both and excelled in both areas."
Indeed, "there are many ways to be an anarchist." Ultimately, anarchism
is about individual freedom and collective action at the same time. This
inevitably gives rise to fundamental contradictions. But these
contradictions are the kind that do not slow down, but move forward both
individual people and humanity as a whole. So the walls will collapse,
and our victory is inevitable.
Well that's all for today! We remind you that in Trends in Order and
Chaos, members of Autonomous Action and other authors give anarchist
assessments of current events. Listen to us on YouTube , SoundCloud
and other platforms, visit our website avtonom.org , subscribe to our
e-mail newsletter!
Issue prepared by Mani
https://avtonom.org/news/izmenit-mir-ne-zahvatyvaya-vlast-trendy-poryadka-i-haosa-epizod-149
_________________________________________
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