We are publishing an article by the Belarusian group Pramen. ----
Recently, action artist Vladislav Bokhan released an article on his
channel entitled "Simulacrum of the Idea of Equality." Since Vladislav
positions himself as an anarchist, we consider it necessary to respond
to some theses from his text, some of which are at odds with our
understanding of anarchism. Having noted the rude and chauvinistic tone
of the narrative in this article, let us focus first of all on the
arguments presented there.
The first of them is that in Western countries political correctness has
replaced the concept of equality, where certain categories of citizens
received a special protected status, becoming, as it were, "first among
equals." As an example, Vladislav cites the situation with attacks by
migrants on religious grounds, which are allegedly ignored by the
left-liberal public.
To begin with, it is worth noting the part of the thesis with which we
rather agree: pluralism and dialogue are possible where their value is
recognized by all parties. If a Nazi, religious fanatic or other
reactionary force declares an attack on human lives, freedoms, dignity,
then any means are acceptable as a defense against them. Although the
value of human life is still taken into account, and dialogue is
preferable to violence, the situation of protection allows one to take
extreme measures. When an interlocutor denies your right to speak, he
ceases to be an interlocutor, and the situation ceases to be a dialogue.
Attempts to return the conflict to the level of conversation are
commendable, but should not reach the point of absurdity, when any
action is paralyzed if conversation is impossible. That's why on the
street you can fight off a hooligan with your fists, that's why
negotiations with Lukashenko are impossible, that's why anarchists are
fighting on the side of Ukraine.
Let us emphasize this principle once again. Freedom of speech and
pluralism extend only to those who accept and practice them. This is not
about comparing groups based on the number of their members. If tomorrow
fascists or cannibal fanatics remain in the minority, this will not mean
that they should be given equal rights to express and implement their
plans simply because their voices are weaker. The essence of the
fascists' statements are prohibitions for others or threats to other
people's lives, and therefore they themselves deny equal dialogue. If
you allow others to speak, follow the principles of pluralism and
respect the freedom of others, and you are silenced, then this is
already a reason to speak out in defense of democracy (though not a
sufficient reason to use violence!) In the face of an attack on freedom
of speech, it is logical to support the voices that are trying to break
through censorship, but these should not be the voices of a new
dictatorship.
The author's mention of some concern of the European establishment about
migrants completely ignores reality and only relays the same racist
narrative that is spread by the right-wingers who have filled
parliaments throughout Europe. Any non-white migrant at least knows.
what is "Fortress Europe" with all its hatred, violence and
discrimination. Any state legitimizes its violence, justifying it in all
possible, even absurd, ways. It is this violence that initiates and is
always much more widespread.
The inability to obtain visas and apply for asylum, being pushed out of
the border, being kept in closed prisons, bureaucratic hell and a lot of
restrictions on the possibility of legalization - isn't this what Vlad
calls the very same concern and "dancing with tambourines around the
rights of certain groups of the population"?
The next thesis is the religious component of the problem indicated by
Vladislav. Let us leave detailed criticism of religion as such for a
separate text, noting that there is no consensus among anarchists on
this matter. One of the common opinions is the defense of religious
freedom and criticism of religious institutions. Supporters of this
approach note the close interaction between the church and the state,
the support of clergy for the practice of domestic violence, all sorts
of restrictions for adherents, and the condoning of interreligious
strife. In this light, anarchist criticism of religious practices
appears convincing, but it is important to separate it from criticism of
migrants.
And here we move on to the most controversial theses - migrant phobia
and cultural integration. Let's look at a few myths on which migrant
phobia is based.
The first myth is that all migrants from the Middle East = radical
Muslims. Despite the overwhelming majority of Muslims, these countries
are also home to Yazidis, Christians, Zoroastrians and representatives
of other religious movements, as well as atheists. Moreover, these
groups decide to migrate much more often than their Islamic relatives
due to persecution in their countries. In Europe there are also regions
from the Balkans to the Baltic, where Muslims have lived for several
centuries, as well as countries to which the migration of Muslims began
in the middle of the 20th century. Generalizing entire groups of people
based on external characteristics, blaming them for ideas that some of
them may profess, should be shameful for a person who calls himself an
anti-fascist. Judgments about what would happen to LGBTQ+ activists in
Palestine sound at least strange, considering that there are such people
there, too. The identification of supporters of a free Palestine with
members of Hamas looks as strange as the identification of Vlad Bokhan
with the Belarusian riot police. Belonging to an ethnic group does not
determine one's political position.
It is also obvious that migration is a grassroots process, which for the
most part is not regulated by religious organizations. The main motive
for moving is the search for security and income, and not cultural
expansion. The vast majority of migrants do not leave for the purpose of
causing religious conflicts, and the popularity of radical Islamism
among them should be sought in marginal living conditions. Often attacks
are carried out by young people who were already born in Europe, and did
not move with the intention of committing an attack. The impossibility
of cultural integration and poverty are often not the migrant's choice,
but the reality of the capitalist world. Let us not forget the
counter-violence from the police and the right. To understand which side
the state takes in this conflict, just look at how the Polish media
spread the news about the death of a border guard at the hands of a
migrant while simultaneously covering up dozens of confirmed deaths of
refugees at the border.
The second myth is that Western society = a stronghold of democracy. In
Western countries there is a Renaissance of right-wing populism and
separatism. The far right is gaining more and more seats in parliaments,
and in some countries they are already heading governments. Christian
traditionalists have enormous influence on society and politics in many
countries. Totalitarian sects of non-Islamic origins number in the
hundreds, and Christian-inspired right-wing organizations operate in
many countries (and are often government sponsored). Traditionalism also
has European origins, but what is characteristic is that the emphasis in
the media is on Islamic migrants.
A historian by training, Vladislav, cannot help but know these facts,
but he becomes hostage to the logic that he himself criticizes at the
beginning of his article: instead of defending democracy and criticizing
all right-wing tendencies, he takes the side of the right-wing European
migrant-phobes "first among equals" on " your land." In his "selective
tolerance" he does not notice the imperialist reasons for migration and
the growing popularity of Islam. In addition, the author even blames the
growth of right-wing populism on the migrants themselves, who allegedly
do not want to integrate.
The thesis about "barbarians bringing the Middle Ages to civilized
Europe" is an example of classic colonial racism, in which white Europe
is presented as an elitist force dictating the rules and norms of
cultural, social and political development - a kind of messiah, bringing
light to the dark corners of the planet, and enlightening barbarians,
imposing their dominance and control on them. Rome can come to the
Barbarians, but the Barbarians can only come to Rome in slave shackles.
Vladislav ends the text with a statement about the necessity of cultural
integration. Firstly, Vlad cites his personal experience, which in a
number of ways is very different from the experience of non-white
migrants. The conditions for integration into Polish society for a
Belarusian and a Palestinian will be very different, starting with the
language barrier and ending with the similarity or difference in
everyday habits. Secondly, we believe that a person has the right to
move and change his place of residence, regardless of not only state
borders, but also cultural differences. The desire to communicate with
people in their language is useful and laudable, but should not become a
condition for coexistence. Without dictating to the majority how to
live, a person has the right to achieve comfortable conditions for
himself. Again, those that will not interfere with the lives of everyone
around.
Freedom of cultural choice is one of the basic values of anarchists. We
believe that it is possible to have a society of cultural pluralism
without significant restrictions on speakers of unpopular languages or
other distinctive cultural elements. Therefore, we support those who are
fighting against Russian imperialism and reserve the right to write
articles in Russian. The degree and speed of adaptation to surrounding
cultural conditions should remain a personal choice of the individual.
This may create objective difficulties for him in communication, but
should not limit his rights as an "alien element."
The land where a person found a home becomes his land, regardless of
where his ancestors lived. And at home, every person should have the
right to vote. The "we are guests here" approach is openly conservative
and leaves no chance for building equal grassroots communities, since we
no longer perceive ourselves as subjects of political and social life.
If we consider ourselves proponents of pluralism, we must stop sorting
people based on origin or language of communication.
No god, no master, no nations, no borders.
P.S. Vladislav Bokhan published a response to criticism of the Pramen
group on his channel.
https://avtonom.org/news/dolg-integracii-kak-avtomigrantofobiya
_________________________________________
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
Recently, action artist Vladislav Bokhan released an article on his
channel entitled "Simulacrum of the Idea of Equality." Since Vladislav
positions himself as an anarchist, we consider it necessary to respond
to some theses from his text, some of which are at odds with our
understanding of anarchism. Having noted the rude and chauvinistic tone
of the narrative in this article, let us focus first of all on the
arguments presented there.
The first of them is that in Western countries political correctness has
replaced the concept of equality, where certain categories of citizens
received a special protected status, becoming, as it were, "first among
equals." As an example, Vladislav cites the situation with attacks by
migrants on religious grounds, which are allegedly ignored by the
left-liberal public.
To begin with, it is worth noting the part of the thesis with which we
rather agree: pluralism and dialogue are possible where their value is
recognized by all parties. If a Nazi, religious fanatic or other
reactionary force declares an attack on human lives, freedoms, dignity,
then any means are acceptable as a defense against them. Although the
value of human life is still taken into account, and dialogue is
preferable to violence, the situation of protection allows one to take
extreme measures. When an interlocutor denies your right to speak, he
ceases to be an interlocutor, and the situation ceases to be a dialogue.
Attempts to return the conflict to the level of conversation are
commendable, but should not reach the point of absurdity, when any
action is paralyzed if conversation is impossible. That's why on the
street you can fight off a hooligan with your fists, that's why
negotiations with Lukashenko are impossible, that's why anarchists are
fighting on the side of Ukraine.
Let us emphasize this principle once again. Freedom of speech and
pluralism extend only to those who accept and practice them. This is not
about comparing groups based on the number of their members. If tomorrow
fascists or cannibal fanatics remain in the minority, this will not mean
that they should be given equal rights to express and implement their
plans simply because their voices are weaker. The essence of the
fascists' statements are prohibitions for others or threats to other
people's lives, and therefore they themselves deny equal dialogue. If
you allow others to speak, follow the principles of pluralism and
respect the freedom of others, and you are silenced, then this is
already a reason to speak out in defense of democracy (though not a
sufficient reason to use violence!) In the face of an attack on freedom
of speech, it is logical to support the voices that are trying to break
through censorship, but these should not be the voices of a new
dictatorship.
The author's mention of some concern of the European establishment about
migrants completely ignores reality and only relays the same racist
narrative that is spread by the right-wingers who have filled
parliaments throughout Europe. Any non-white migrant at least knows.
what is "Fortress Europe" with all its hatred, violence and
discrimination. Any state legitimizes its violence, justifying it in all
possible, even absurd, ways. It is this violence that initiates and is
always much more widespread.
The inability to obtain visas and apply for asylum, being pushed out of
the border, being kept in closed prisons, bureaucratic hell and a lot of
restrictions on the possibility of legalization - isn't this what Vlad
calls the very same concern and "dancing with tambourines around the
rights of certain groups of the population"?
The next thesis is the religious component of the problem indicated by
Vladislav. Let us leave detailed criticism of religion as such for a
separate text, noting that there is no consensus among anarchists on
this matter. One of the common opinions is the defense of religious
freedom and criticism of religious institutions. Supporters of this
approach note the close interaction between the church and the state,
the support of clergy for the practice of domestic violence, all sorts
of restrictions for adherents, and the condoning of interreligious
strife. In this light, anarchist criticism of religious practices
appears convincing, but it is important to separate it from criticism of
migrants.
And here we move on to the most controversial theses - migrant phobia
and cultural integration. Let's look at a few myths on which migrant
phobia is based.
The first myth is that all migrants from the Middle East = radical
Muslims. Despite the overwhelming majority of Muslims, these countries
are also home to Yazidis, Christians, Zoroastrians and representatives
of other religious movements, as well as atheists. Moreover, these
groups decide to migrate much more often than their Islamic relatives
due to persecution in their countries. In Europe there are also regions
from the Balkans to the Baltic, where Muslims have lived for several
centuries, as well as countries to which the migration of Muslims began
in the middle of the 20th century. Generalizing entire groups of people
based on external characteristics, blaming them for ideas that some of
them may profess, should be shameful for a person who calls himself an
anti-fascist. Judgments about what would happen to LGBTQ+ activists in
Palestine sound at least strange, considering that there are such people
there, too. The identification of supporters of a free Palestine with
members of Hamas looks as strange as the identification of Vlad Bokhan
with the Belarusian riot police. Belonging to an ethnic group does not
determine one's political position.
It is also obvious that migration is a grassroots process, which for the
most part is not regulated by religious organizations. The main motive
for moving is the search for security and income, and not cultural
expansion. The vast majority of migrants do not leave for the purpose of
causing religious conflicts, and the popularity of radical Islamism
among them should be sought in marginal living conditions. Often attacks
are carried out by young people who were already born in Europe, and did
not move with the intention of committing an attack. The impossibility
of cultural integration and poverty are often not the migrant's choice,
but the reality of the capitalist world. Let us not forget the
counter-violence from the police and the right. To understand which side
the state takes in this conflict, just look at how the Polish media
spread the news about the death of a border guard at the hands of a
migrant while simultaneously covering up dozens of confirmed deaths of
refugees at the border.
The second myth is that Western society = a stronghold of democracy. In
Western countries there is a Renaissance of right-wing populism and
separatism. The far right is gaining more and more seats in parliaments,
and in some countries they are already heading governments. Christian
traditionalists have enormous influence on society and politics in many
countries. Totalitarian sects of non-Islamic origins number in the
hundreds, and Christian-inspired right-wing organizations operate in
many countries (and are often government sponsored). Traditionalism also
has European origins, but what is characteristic is that the emphasis in
the media is on Islamic migrants.
A historian by training, Vladislav, cannot help but know these facts,
but he becomes hostage to the logic that he himself criticizes at the
beginning of his article: instead of defending democracy and criticizing
all right-wing tendencies, he takes the side of the right-wing European
migrant-phobes "first among equals" on " your land." In his "selective
tolerance" he does not notice the imperialist reasons for migration and
the growing popularity of Islam. In addition, the author even blames the
growth of right-wing populism on the migrants themselves, who allegedly
do not want to integrate.
The thesis about "barbarians bringing the Middle Ages to civilized
Europe" is an example of classic colonial racism, in which white Europe
is presented as an elitist force dictating the rules and norms of
cultural, social and political development - a kind of messiah, bringing
light to the dark corners of the planet, and enlightening barbarians,
imposing their dominance and control on them. Rome can come to the
Barbarians, but the Barbarians can only come to Rome in slave shackles.
Vladislav ends the text with a statement about the necessity of cultural
integration. Firstly, Vlad cites his personal experience, which in a
number of ways is very different from the experience of non-white
migrants. The conditions for integration into Polish society for a
Belarusian and a Palestinian will be very different, starting with the
language barrier and ending with the similarity or difference in
everyday habits. Secondly, we believe that a person has the right to
move and change his place of residence, regardless of not only state
borders, but also cultural differences. The desire to communicate with
people in their language is useful and laudable, but should not become a
condition for coexistence. Without dictating to the majority how to
live, a person has the right to achieve comfortable conditions for
himself. Again, those that will not interfere with the lives of everyone
around.
Freedom of cultural choice is one of the basic values of anarchists. We
believe that it is possible to have a society of cultural pluralism
without significant restrictions on speakers of unpopular languages or
other distinctive cultural elements. Therefore, we support those who are
fighting against Russian imperialism and reserve the right to write
articles in Russian. The degree and speed of adaptation to surrounding
cultural conditions should remain a personal choice of the individual.
This may create objective difficulties for him in communication, but
should not limit his rights as an "alien element."
The land where a person found a home becomes his land, regardless of
where his ancestors lived. And at home, every person should have the
right to vote. The "we are guests here" approach is openly conservative
and leaves no chance for building equal grassroots communities, since we
no longer perceive ourselves as subjects of political and social life.
If we consider ourselves proponents of pluralism, we must stop sorting
people based on origin or language of communication.
No god, no master, no nations, no borders.
P.S. Vladislav Bokhan published a response to criticism of the Pramen
group on his channel.
https://avtonom.org/news/dolg-integracii-kak-avtomigrantofobiya
_________________________________________
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