SPREAD THE INFORMATION

Any information or special reports about various countries may be published with photos/videos on the world blog with bold legit source. All languages ​​are welcome. Mail to lucschrijvers@hotmail.com.

Search for an article in this Worldwide information blog

Posts tonen met het label Anarchist Federation organise. Alle posts tonen
Posts tonen met het label Anarchist Federation organise. Alle posts tonen

woensdag 5 september 2012

(en) Britain, Anarchist Federation Organise #78 - Southern Europe - Austerity - Agony and Antagonism


The worldwide plan to impose new capitalist norms on the masses of people inhabiting this
planet can be seen starkly in Southern Europe where three countries are profoundly
affected- Greece, Portugal and Spain. The so called representatives of the people have
been installed, just as they have in Italy, to impose new hardships on populations already
deeply affected by cuts, inflation and poverty. The International Monetary Fund, the
European Central Bank and the European Union are imposing these measures. - In Greece
despite mass demonstrations, riots, huge strikes and occupations, the administration has
imposed a new austerity programme leading to a 22% drop in the minimum guaranteed wage, as
well as cuts in pensions and the axing of jobs throughout the public sector.

The Greek parliament passed these
measures to avoid ?economic chaos
and a social explosion?. A curious
comment as if they had looked out
of the windows of the Parliament
they would have seen just such a so-
cial explosion in the form of 100,000
people massing to protest these very
measures.

Meanwhile in the capital of Portugal,
Lisbon, the biggest demonstrations
in thirty years saw 300,00 people
gathering to chant ? no to exploita-
tion, no to inequality, no to impov-
erishment!?. The re-organisation of
public transport in Lisbon saw a 50%
rise in fares, leading to a mass strike
of transport workers. Again the IMF,
the ECB and the EU are imposing
measures of austerity to cut public
spending and pensions to attack
employment laws, effecting numbers
of hours allowed to be worked, and
cutting the amount of holiday time
for workers.

In Spain the government of Mariano
Rajoy and his Popular Party of the
right has instigated attacks on em-
ployment laws again imposed by the
Big Bad Three of the IMF, ECB and
EU. These will include a reduction
in redundancy payments to work-
ers, and a 3,000 euro reduction of
tax to companies employing people
below the age of thirty for the first
time, which has already proved
ineffective in France as a measure
to increase youth employment. The
reduction of redundancy payments
will mean that workers will receive
the equivalent of thirty three days?
pay rather than forty five, and even
then a reduction to twenty days if
this involves economic redundancies.
In addition the probation period for
workers starting a new job will be
increased from six to twelve months!

All over Europe and indeed the world
this seems to be the main points
in an attack on the working class-
deregulation of employment laws,
lowering of wages and salaries, and
an end to collective bargaining.

So the crisis, which is THEIR crisis,
will be paid for by us with an attack
on conditions, wages and pensions.
Everything for the exploiters and the
employers, and nothing for the ex-
ploited. A radical shift in the balance
of forces, with the rich gaining more
and the mass of the population,
workers and unemployed, receiv-
ing less. This is one of the biggest
heists carried out by the boss class
and meanwhile the trade unions
have shown their complete inability
to defend the previous gains of the
working class, bowing to the wish
lists of the employing class and their
governments. All they can offer is
worthless ?days of action? which act
as safety valves for the anger of the
working class.

This only demonstrates the need to
jettison the trade unions and look to
new forms of organisation to counter
the bosses? offensive, both in the
workplace and in the neighbour-
hood. Nothing is more pressing than
this.

Bron : a-infos-en@ainfos.ca

maandag 27 augustus 2012

(en) Britain, Anarchist Federation Organise! #78 - Statement of international solidarity with those in Cuba: You Are Not Alone


The following statement was issued following the April 2011 Cuban Com munist Party
Congress and so is over a year old. Nevertheless, the sentiments expressed should be
supported, whilst we have no illusions in the possibility of censors or policemen changing
their minds, as might be implied in the statement. Even today there is still illusion, and
even among some libertarians, in the Cuban regime. Thus whilst the International
Solidarity Commission of the Industrial Workers of the World signed the statement, an
article appeared in the July 2011 issue of the IWW paper Industrial Worker denouncing the
statement and the attempt to set up an IWW branch in Cuba, defending
the regime and calling on the IWW to support the creation of workers? states!!

Statement of international
solidarity with those in Cuba

The Communist Party of Cuba's VI
Congress has just closed with an en-
dorsement of the liberal reforms (?to
each according to his labors?) prom-
ised in the realm of the economy:
but along with these come cuts in
social services and an increased pres-
ence for military and for technocrats
in the machinery of government,
with a reduction in the presence of
intellectuals and workers.

In terms of rhetoric and deeds alike,
efficiency, control and discipline re-
place equality, solidarity and partner-
ship. Against this backdrop we have
indications of a crackdown in the
cultural realm, heralding yet another
set-back to Cubans' exercise of their
fundamental freedoms. Performing
artists find their names blackened
by cultural officials-turned-censors
engaged in frantic campaigns, the
length and breadth of the country
peddling false rumors and spurious
accusations.

A prestigious Cultural Theory Center
finds its facilities and equipment
being sabotaged again by ?thieves?
who forget to take anything and
whom the authorities cannot seem
to identify and punish. Poets and
community activists are visited
by police personnel who threaten
to haul them before the courts as
?counter-revolutionaries? and to
leave them to the mercy of the ?peo-
ple's wrath?, thereby demonstrating
that said wrath is not ?of the people?
nor independent of the powers that
be who direct it.

Damage to social property, defama-
tion and physical and psychological
bullying (and violence) are not only
offenses punishable under legal
codes the world over ? Cuba includ-
ed ? they are also considered acts
of State Terrorism. For decades, the
Cuban people gave their best efforts
to their children and to the world
in order to build up a fairer country
with universal and high quality cul-
ture, health and education despite
the irrational and begrudging bu-
reaucracy that always depicted the
people's gains as its own creations.
Are the repressiveness and lying of
such ?apprentice Stalins? to go down
in History as the features by which
the Cuban process is to be remem-
bered, rather than the day to day
heroism of the Cuban people? This is
not justice.

But if we are to ensure that this is
not the case, then, from below and
from the left, we must banish the
silence and the self-censorship that
underpin the impunity of the cen-
sors, that we should never open our-
selves up to the charge that we are
allegedly ?playing into the enemy's
hands.? The people who today are
finding their integrity and their jobs
threatened by these actions of the
Cuban authorities are deserving of
our utter respect, for we have seen
them at close quarters in a range of
different times and circumstances.
They are not, as the official propa-
ganda line has it, hirelings of the
CIA, as they just about subsist on
the same dismal income as the vast
majority of the Cuban people. When
they go on trips, they spend their
meager savings on publicizing their
humanistic creations and on the
purchase of the materials they need
in order to carry on with their efforts
on behalf of a more cultivated coun-
try with greater freedom. Whatever
help they get from us (in the shape
of some DVD, art equipment or the
proceeds of some modest fund-
raiser) represents solidarity from us
male and female workers, artists and
students who, in our own countries,
resist the neo-liberal, authoritarian
policies of the capitalists and their
gendarmes in Seattle, Mexico City,
Paris, Caracas, San Francisco and
Buenos Aires.

What a contrast between our com-
rades and the bureaucrats comfort-
ably traveling the world in Solidarity
Drives, paid for with the Cuban peo-
ple's money, bureaucrats who defect
to Miami at the earliest opportunity
and parade their repentance on TV
as ?freedom fighters?! What a con-
trast with certain ?friends of Cuba?
intellectuals who, naively or for hire,
mistake the ideals of the Revolution
for the policies of the Cuban state
and deny to our Cuban comrades the
very rights that they demand (and in-
deed, sometimes, enjoy) under their
own bourgeois democratic regimes!
The difference in quality, in terms
of handiwork and spirit, from those
?licensed reformists? who are ready
to treat every wheel and turn of the
Cuban regime with a fresh coat of
theoretical gloss and to indulge in
abstract (pseudo) critiques, as long
as this suits the powers that be.
Our Cuban comrades' only sin is that
they have the effrontery to con-
template (and change) their reality
without waiting for promises from
the Nanny State or Capital's siren
songs. They believe in a fuller life, in
a community where the unhindered
growth of each is the precondition
and measure of the unhindered
growth of all. Dialogue with and les-
sons learned from our other worldly
struggles, from piqueteros and from
zapatistas have broadened their
horizons and also allowed us to learn
from their historical record of mis-
takes and popular resistance. They
represent the liveliest, most splendid
bequest of the Cuban Revolution
which refuses to perish despite the
canker of bureaucracy. They are (in
body and soul) young marxists, anar-
chists, libertarian socialists, followers
of Marti, humanists, feminists, ecolo-
gists, communitarians but, above
and beyond any such labels and de-
scriptions, they are decent folk who
have risked their lives in the service
of others. For which reason we shall
not not allow them to stand alone.
We know that the forces of domina-
tion are mighty, that they control the
billy-clubs and cyberspace, punish-
ment and reward, the intimidated
and the paid retainers. But we pos-
sess the sense of shame and hope
against which ? as popular anti-im-
perialist rebellions around the globe
can testify ? despotic power cannot
stand. Hopefully there may, in the
minds of the censor and the police-
man, be some lingering memory of
the original commitment given to
the Cuban people that hoisted them
into power: but, if not, we are ready
to launch the mightiest solidarity
campaign using every resource avail-
able to the law and to progressive
public opinion worldwide.

_______________________________________________________________
We know our enemies are on the alert : but let them have no
doubt of this: SO ARE WE.
Signatures of supporting groups:
?
Confederation National du Travail - C.N.T. Le Havre (France)
?
Internationaler Arbeitkreis e.V. (Germany)
?
iz3w ? informationszentrum 3. welt, Freiburg i. Br (Germa-
ny)
?
Colectivo Editor de El Libertario (Venezuela)
?
GALSIC ? Grupo de Apoyo a los Libertarios y Sindicalistas
Independientes en Cuba (France)
?
Federation Anarchiste ? FA (France)
?
Le libertaire (newspaper, France)
?
Colectivo Actores Sociales (Mexico)
?
Colectivo Passapalavra (Brasil)
?
Movimiento Libertario Cubano
?
Frente Anarquista Organizado (Chile)
?
Colectivo Feminista Josefa Camejo (Venezuela)
?
Equipo Editorial de Insurrectasypunto (Argentina)
?
Biblioteca Popular Libertaria "Mauro Mejiaz" (Venezuela)
?
Secci?n sindical de la Confederaci? General del Treball (CGT)
de la Universidad de Barcelona
?
Secretar?a de Relaciones Exteriores de la Federaci?n Anar-
quista Uruguaya
?
AK Internationalismus der IG Metall Berlin (section interna-
tionaliste du syndicat, Berlin) ? Germany
?
Asemblea Libertaria del Vall?s Oriental ? Catalonia
?
Ateneo Arte y Cultura de l?Escale de l?Alt Empord? ? Catalo-
nia
?
El Bloque Anarquista ? F.L.L. ? Mexico
?
Colectivo A les Trinxeres ? Catalonia
?
Coordinaci?n anarquista de Le Havre ? France
?
Forschungs- und Dokumentationszentrum Chile-Latein-
amerika e.V. ?Germany
?
Red libertaria Apoyo mutuo ? Spain
?
FALCLC (Federaci? Anarquista ? Comunista llibert?ria Cata-
lana) ? Catalonia

Bron : a-infos-en@ainfos.ca

vrijdag 24 augustus 2012

(en) Britain, Anarchist Federation Organise! The battle of Victoriaville by J. GAGNON


On May 4th, in an attempt to curtail the protests that were sure to occur, a strategy
convention of the Liberal Party of Quebec was moved from its planned site in Montreal to
Victoriaville ? a small town of less than 50,000 people located about 160 km north-east of
the city. As buses from around the province flooded the Walmart parking lot that was to
serve as our meeting spot, there was a celebratory feeling in the air. Walmart had closed
for the day ? presumably out of fear of a spontaneous action ? with the main effect being
that they lost out on sales of lemon juice, vinegar, bandannas and water bottles. After
the arrival of approximately 4000-5000 people, the crowd of students, workers and family
members marched and sang their way to the front of the hotel, where the Quebec Liberals
were preparing to begin their weekend-long convention.

We arrived at a building lined
with small metal barricades. A handful
of Victoriaville police dressed in
windbreakers stood between us and the
front doors of the building. The crowd
hesitated for a moment ? many shocked
by the lack of police protection, some
wondering whether it was a trap ? before
swiftly toppling the barricades one by one
and filling the space in front of the hotel
with protesters, chanting and waving
flags. Right on cue, a line of S?ret? du
Qu?bec (SQ) riot cops spilled out from
either side of the hotel dressed in full riot
gear and with weapons in hand. Within
minutes they had launched CS canisters
at the crowd and the air filled with the
noxious gas.

The chemical gas used in
Victoriaville was unlike normal tear gas.
It hung in the air thick and visible; it was
not meant to disperse the crowd but to
debilitate it. Many unmasked protesters
fell to their knees, tears streaming down
their face, unable to breathe, while others
immediately began to vomit. It was at this
point that the families pulled to the back of
the crowd. The line of riot cops began to
confront the crowd, forcing the protesters
up a hill and into an open field, next to a
small home with a vegetable garden. Once
backed up into this field, the crowd did
not disperse, but stood facing the police
line, chanting but not immediately sure of
how to proceed. From this point on, the
riot police shot tear gas canisters in to the
crowd almost non-stop for the next three
hours. Unmasked protesters in the front,
who were debilitated by this gas, were
dragged out of harm?s way by masked
protesters. And protesters, both masked
and unmasked, began grabbing the gas
canisters landing at their feet ? or hitting
their bodies ? and throwing them back
in the direction of the riot cops, in order
to help maintain our position without
asphyxiating.

The riot police then began to shoot
plastic bullets towards the crowd: hard
green projectiles the length of my palm.
For the next hour, we watched on guard
for any laser sights crossing the face,
head or chest of those around us ? a
signal that someone was about to be
shot. As protesters were hit one by one
with these plastic projectiles, and the
area became ever more engulfed by the
chemical gas, the scene was transformed
from a protest into a war zone. A young
man standing next to me, engaged in a
discussion about finding a safe spot to
move to, was shot directly in the face
with a plastic bullet. As blood streamed
from his collapsed eye socket and riot
police blocked the ambulance trying to
enter the area, it became clear
that this student was going to
lose his eye. Together we ran
up a hill to where we thought
medics might be, and instead
found another student lying
motionless on the ground.
His head was slumped to one
side, exposing a gaping wound at the base
of his skull. He had been shot in the back of
the head with a plastic bullet; his skull was
fractured and he would remain in a coma for
many days. These attacks were occurring at
short range, facilitated by laser sights. The
police were aiming for our heads and the
protesters became increasingly aware that
someone could die that day. And yet despite
the intense panic of the situation, there was
a collective, unspoken effort made to avoid
trampling the nearby vegetable garden,
which sat undisturbed in the midst of this
battle.

Closer to the hotel, an injured
protester lay dazed and semi-conscious
on the ground as a foolish, lone riot cop
tried to arrest them; a group of people ran
over immediately to help their wounded
comrade. A police vehicle then stepped
on its gas and drove directly at the crowd,
trying to run them over as they knelt on
the ground. A collective cry of outrage
was released by the crowd and the vehicle
was swarmed, its windows smashed. It
appeared that the police were no longer
trying to disperse the crowd, but were
trying to kill us.

With the mounting number of serious
injuries that the students had sustained,
many would have expected the protesters
to flee the scene. Instead, these injuries
only increased our dedication to maintain
our ground; we would not run from the
state violence, and we would not allow
our comrades? injuries to be in vain.
We were there to show resistance, and
that is what occurred. From the fields of
Victoriaville to the streets of Montreal,
something has become clear: people
aren?t afraid anymore. As a masked SQ
riot cop raisedhis plastic bullet gun
to shoot me at point-blank range, an
unmasked, unprotected protester threw
down his Fleur-de-lys flag and ran in
front of me with his hands in the air:
?What are you going to do? Kill me??,
he screamed at the police. Protesters
ran in front of us both, protecting us
with blankets and bringing us to safety
behind a barricade. An older local
woman was held up there, handing out
these blankets to the protesters. She told
us to stay strong and to continue our
fight against ?the fascist police.?

a-infos-en@ainfos.ca

dinsdag 21 augustus 2012

Britain, Anarchist Federation Organise - Hungary: the far right menaces


Up until 2010 Hungary was ruled by a union of the left in alliance with a liberal party.
At its head was Ferenc Gyurcsany from the Socialist Party (MSZP). It operated a programme
of severe austerity based firmly on free market and neo-liberal principles. There was much
popular anger against the measures of this government and Gyurcsany had to hand in his
resignation after he was forced to admit that he had lied eighteen months before, when he
deliberately withheld information about the actual budget in his 2006 re-election
campaign. -- The parties of the right, in alliance with those of the far right, exploited
the situation by offering a fake anti-market programme and advancing its protectionist and
racist and xenophobic recipes. As a result FIDESZ , a nationalist, protectionist, and
conservative party led by Viktor Orban, came to power thanks to its alliance with JOBBIK,
a far right party with virulent racist rhetoric and squads of thugs, and with the KDNP,
the Christian-Democrat party.

This success of the right was even seen in
the capital Budapest where a con-
servative mayor was elected for the
first time.


FIDESZ and its allies immediately
began a savage reactionary pro-
gramme starting with a reform of
the Constitution. The word Republic
was removed from references to the
country, now designated simply as
Hungary, implying a national mono-
culture, the rights of minorities were
suppressed, the right to abortion
and the rights of homosexuals were
questioned, the media now came un-
der stricter control and censorship,
journalists were sacked, the judiciary
came under greater control of the
State and an attack on the legitimacy
of the right-far right alliance?s oppo-
nents began.


Organ also instituted a works scheme
that was obligatory for the unem-
ployed, in particular targeting the
Rom gypsies of the country. These
work schemes have been character-
ised as labour camps by some. He
made a further proposal that these
camps should be guarded by retired
policemen.

As to the promised anti-market
measures, in fact what happened
was that the work laws were abol-
ished, education and the public ser-
vices were decimated. There was a
forced reshuffle at the central bank,
electoral changes were made so that
this new government can still main-
tain control even when support for
it has shrunk. Thus the central bank,
the Constitutional Court and the ju-
diciary are far more firmly under the
control of the prime minister than
before. All of this is in the context of
a deteriorating economic situation.
As a result anger among the Hun-
garian population is mounting. It is
organising to oppose the measures
of the government. At the present
the main organisation participating
in this mobilisation is the EMD move-
ment- A Million For Democracy- tied
to reformist notions and far from
combative and containing strong
electoralist currents, especially with
the LMP party (Politics Can Be Differ-
ent). A demonstration of 30,000 took
place on 2nd January of this year,
in addition to opposition parties
attracting the Hungarian Solidarity
Movement, based on the politics of
PolLish Solidarnosc. However social
movements are emerging in this
context not tied to any of the parties
and based on grassroots self-organi-
sation, often using social networking
to organise. As yet they are still a
small force and include a movement
among the students , opposing the
reforms of the universities imple-
mented by the regime.

As a result of the worsening eco-
nomic situation and the growing
opposition, the government will turn
to further autocratic measures and
will increasingly emphasise a rabid
nationalist rhetoric, whilst carrying
out an apparent anti-market politics
with a threat to tax the banks and
to nationalise some private pension
funds. All of this with the intention
of securing conditions for a further
loan from the International Mon-
etary Fund.

Whilst illusions about the left par-
ties have been dispelled among large
swathes of the Hungarian masses,
indignation against the authoritarian
right administration is mounting.
This opposition has to move towards
ideas based on self-organisation and
mass mobilisation and action. Events
of an earth shaking nature as with
the Hungarian Revolutions of 1919
and 1956 might yet sweep away
FIDESZ and its jackbooted allies.

Bron :

a-infos-en@ainfos.ca

zaterdag 18 augustus 2012

(en) Britain, Anarchist Federation Organise



The AF has its roots in a number of small anarchist groupings active in the 1970s. In
addition, the founding members were inspired by the rich anarchist tradition on the
Continent, especially France. Taking what we thought was best from the past and from
abroad, the goal was to create an anarchist communist organisation, firmly based on the
class struggle or ?social anarchist? tradition. ---- The project received crucial impetus
with the bringing on board of the innovative magazine Virus. The Anarchist Communist
Discussion Group was then launched at the Anarchist Bookfair in October 1985. We received
remarkable interest in our project and by April 1986, there was enough stability to
formalise the organisation into the Anarchist Communist Federation. Although there is some
historic continuity with earlier anarchist groups in Britain, the federation was mainly a
new phenomenon, drawing on people new to anarchism in the 1980s.

We started out with a set of aims and principles, which remain largely intact, but there
has still been considerable development in our politics, as new people join and offer new
perspectives, and as we develop our ideas in the course of what is going on in the class
struggle itself. In the late 90s we changed our name to the Anarchist Federation, not
because we had changed our politics, but for pragmatic reasons.

The central plank of our principles, like all anarchist organisations, is the recognition
of the need to bring an end to capitalism in all its varieties as well as the state, which
can never be used as a vehicle to properly transform society. In addition, we believe that
these objectives can only come about through a social revolution, where the working class
organises itself to overthrow the system both ideologically and physically. Our definition
of the working class is broad, reflecting the fact that capitalism has undergone
significant changes. A social revolution can only come about as a result of the will of
the vast majority of the population, including office and shop workers, public sector
employees, the unwaged, women working in the home, children and retired people, as well as
the traditional industrial workers. Anarchism is not about individuals changing their
lifestyle and hoping capitalism will go away, but is about individuals changing themselves
and being changed as part of a general social struggle.

But we never fetishise or glamourise violence, recognising that the use of violence can
brutalize, being a ?blunt instrument?, can lead inadvertently to working-class casualties,
and can produce new hierarchies. The revolution will primarily come about through
non-military means, as we develop our power through a variety of social, economic,
political and cultural forms of resistance. It is to this end that we work. Nevertheless,
we realise that physical confrontation with the state it is unavoidable; it will not go
quietly but will defend property. Therefore we do not hold pacifism to be a point of
principle.

Exploitation and oppression take many forms and extend into all parts of our lives. One
important principle of the AF is that it is not just class exploitation and oppression
that needs to be abolished. Although we are a ?class struggle? organisation, this struggle
is social and personal, as well as economic. Therefore, we argue that anarchists must
fight on a number of other ?fronts?. For example, we believe that the oppression of women
pre-dates capitalism and will not automatically disappear with its end. Sexism permeates
the working class and also the anarchist movement and it will require particular struggles
to rid ourselves of this legacy. At the same time, we do not see struggles against sexism
as totally separate from those against the overall system of hierarchy and oppression.
Recently, the women?s movement has been in decline and this is reflected in the lack of
focus on specifically anti-sexist struggles in our propaganda and our activities. This is
something we are trying to deal with - how not to be gender-blind in our analysis of the
working class and the class struggle. We also recognise that there may be instances where
women will need to organise as independently in order to develop ideas and confidence, and
we applaud those initiatives aimed at developing anarcho-feminism. However, we do not
support ?cross-class? alliances, which end up benefiting mainly middle class women. For
example, ?equal opportunities? policies have largely meant that women have equal
opportunities to become bosses and managers, politicians or media personalities.

The Anarchist Federation has also been in the forefront of developing revolutionary
perspectives and practice within struggles around sexuality and gender identity,
confronting any bourgeois domination of Lesbian- Gay-Bi-Transgender-Queer movements and
routinely confronting capitalism at Pride events. Because woman and LGBTQ people at times
need to organise in our own interests, or for mutual support even within the anarchist
movement, the AF has its own women?s and LGBTQ caucuses.

The social revolution must bring an end to all forms of prejudice, therefore racism too
needs to be combated within the working class itself. We have seen a growth in racism for
a variety of reasons. Misplaced fears against economic migration and ?false? claims to
asylum, and hysterical responses to 9/11 and 7/7 compound the problems of decades-old
ingrained post-colonial racist cultures. As such, much of our propaganda and activity has
been directed at building anarchist resistance to racism and fascism, on the streets where
necessary. But there we refuse ?unholy? alliances with reactionary religious groups.
Nevertheless, like the rest of the British anarchist movement we have had limited success
in attracting members from the full spectrum of ethnic backgrounds. We recognise that
suspicion of the motives of opportunist left-wing political organisations plays a part in
this. As with women and LGBTQ people, people of colour may need to organise themselves
even within revolutionary organisations. We consider that our practice and propaganda play
some role in correctly analysing, undermining and confronting racism nonetheless. We hope
that our practice, in the workplace and community, will help divisions within the working
class to be overcome.

We also recognise the special forms of oppression and discrimination experienced by people
because of our age or our mental or physical ability. Unlike capitalists, anarchists do
not value people on the basis of their economic contribution and exploitability as paid
workers. Where such groups are dependent on the welfare state, our activity as anarchists
in our own defence economically in the current period will be vital in spreading
confidence and direct action amongst us. But discrimination runs deeper than economics.
Anarchists must not perpetuate the stereotypes we receive, from the media for example,
about elderly or disabled people, anymore than we do about different races, genders and
sexualities. We work towards insults in this sense being confronted just as much as
homophobia, racism and sexism. Indeed, anarchists must never turn a blind eye to any kind
of domination and should be prepared to combat signs of discrimination at all levels.
However, we do not believe that we should be calling on the State for help. Prejudice and
reactionary practices will only disappear through activity and struggle, enabling people
to change in their core, not just on the surface.

In terms of the workplace, the nature of Trade Unionism in Britain has posed many problems
for us when trying to decide on a workplace strategy. The unions are not only reformist
but are often totally implicated in the exploitation of the working class. Our experience
led us to adopt what some may call an ?anti-union? position. We argue that people should
not take up paid positions in the union and that in many cases there is no point in even
being a member of a union. There is no point in trying to ?democratise? the unions or try
and make them more combative. It is in their nature to negotiate with capitalism, not to
undermine it seriously. They cannot be reformed. This position has caused some
difficulties because as most workplace activity takes place within the context of the
official union, what do we actually do? We have argued that we should be trying to
organise informal groups of militant workers, whether they be union members or not. The
aim is not to establish an alternative union structure, which would only end up becoming
another reformist union, but to be a source of revolutionary propaganda and a catalyst for
action. In practice, our members take a very pragmatic approach to organising in the
workplace. Members adopt whatever strategy seems most effective for furthering struggle
and resisting exploitation. Though we do not advocate anarcho-syndicalism as an overall
strategy, we agree with the formation of structures which group anarchists as workers or
across industries, in order to further anarchist influence in economic struggles. Several
of our members are also members of the Industrial Workers of the World or the Solidarity
Federation- IWA. The main principle of all our workplace activity is to build up
effective, revolutionary, non-hierarchical forms of organisation, whatever name is given
to them.

Just as important is another ?front? of which we fight: the community. We are aware that
community in the ?traditional? or idealised sense does not really exist. But there are
issues that affect localities where people live. These issues include transport, provision
of public services and the effect of the environment on health. Though these issues can be
raised in a workplace context, effective action requires a broader organisational base,
incorporating people as both producers and consumers. The locality is also the context in
which we engage in anti-fascist, environmental, welfare, anti-war and anti-religion
campaigns. Though members will raise these issues at work, we stress the importance of
organising local actions and distributing propaganda at the community level- on the
streets, in public meetings and through direct action. Members work with other
class-struggle or social anarchists to set up local groups with the aim of raising
awareness of anarchist ideas amongst the wider working class and initiating action in our
defence or to further goals common within our communities.

Finally, we have a strong internationalist perspective and are particularly critical of
national liberation movements and ideologies. There can be no ?better? government, however
representative it is of the peoples it governs. The only way we can achieve true
liberation is through internationalism, which refuses to choose between oppressors.
History has shown that the ?lesser of the two evils? soon turns out to be just as ?evil?.
Meanwhile, you have abandoned your own principles and weakened your own movement. Our
members in Ireland have pioneered, in very difficult conditions, an anarchism that refuses
to take sides with either nationalism. It is only by building up the international
anarchist movement that we can effectively challenge all oppressors, and therefore we are
active members of the International of Anarchist Federations and have played a role in
enabling the formation of social anarchist federations in other countries.



Organisation

We are organised on federalist lines, which means we are a federation of individuals and
groups with no central political apparatus. This does not mean that we have no
decision-making structure. Not to have a formal structure usually leads to informal
leadership cliques with more influence than other members. We have one national conference
and three national delegate meetings a year, which take decisions on our general
orientation, strategy and action. However, these decisions are reached through extended
discussion in our Internal Bulletin and on our internal on-line forum. We use ?direct
democracy?, in that members of local groups take their group?s opinions to meetings, as
opposed to ?representing? them and having individual power. Local delegates and nationally
appointed officers are therefore functionaries, with no power to operate outside their
mandate. They are recalled if they either overstep this or fail to carry out what they
have been tasked with. It is very rare that we have anything that is not generally agreed
after discussion. We aim for consensus in decisionmaking, but we do not fetishise it. If a
consensus cannot be agreed upon and we feel that a decision must be reached nonetheless,
then we can move to a vote. The decision must be based on a two-thirds majority. This is
to ensure that we are moving forward as an organisation. If we do vote on anything, the
vote is first open to any member to register a negative vote. If the decision is still
made, then groups and/or individuals are still free to not implement the decision as long
as they do not seek to undermine the organisation.

One of our central concerns is, therefore, how to ensure maximum participation of all
members and how to avoid formal and informal hierarchies. After all, it is our experiences
that will provide the basis for alternative ways of organising society. We do not always
succeed in achieving the standards of participation that we aspire to. However, we are
continually reviewing our practice. Though the structures and mechanisms for participation
may be in place, we recognise that there are many individual reasons why some are more
dominant than others, related to issues of confidence, age, experience, gender and
educational background. Therefore it is not enough just to say that the organisation is
non-hierarchical. It is necessary to actively encourage participation, through rotation of
tasks, involving individuals in small groups and commission work and helping to build
confidence through workshops and educationals.

We are an organisation of activists and propagandists for anarchy. We publish and
distribute a bi-annual magazine, Organise! and a monthly free bulletin, Resistance . We
also produce a range of pamphlets, posters and stickers. The aim of our propaganda is
primarily to spread anarchist ideas throughout all sections of the working class. However,
Organise! is aimed more at those who are politicised to a greater extent and therefore
focuses on new analysis, debates and theory that will provoke discussion in the anarchist
and wider political movement. In addition to distributing propaganda, individual members
are engaged in a wide variety of activities, in the workplace, in local anarchist or
anti-authoritarian groups, in universities and colleges, in campaigns and actions against
the war, around environmental issues, supporting asylum seekers, and challenging
reactionary ideas of religious fanatics and fascists, on the streets where necessary. But
how do we differ from other anarchists?

The anarchist movement has grown in numbers and in influence over the past decade. People
have been attracted to anarchism for a variety of reasons and therefore it is a diverse
movement, both in terms of ideas and practices. This diversity can be a positive feature
of the movement, and the AF recognises that we do not have a monopoly of ?truth? on what
anarchism should be. However, there are several principles that we take to be vital, and
feel that it is only our organisation that groups all of these principles together. We
have outlined these principles in this text, but we will now discuss briefly why exist as
a distinctive organisation.

1. Organisation

Not all anarchists put the same stress as we do on formal organisation, at both the
national and international organisation. Though strong local groups and initiatives are
the basis of an effective national organisation, co-ordination and sharing of ideas must
happen on the widest level if the working class is ever to organise a revolution. In
addition, this organisation must be permanent in the sense that it continues to exist and
be active regardless of what big events may be taking place or how active particular
individuals are (although the Revolution itself would of course make the AF?s existence
redundant, which is just one way in which we differ from authoritarian communists). We
need an organisation that can continue to exist, regardless of whether some individuals
drop out or become less active. For similar reasons we need to be sceptical of investing
too much time and effort in ?networks?, which come and go, as well as having a tendency to
operate with informal hierarchies. However, although influenced by Platformism and not
opposed to Platformism per se, we do not go so far as some contemporary Platformists; that
is to say, down the route of focussing decision-making and organisational discipline at
the centre, which we consider by-passes the legitimate autonomy of local groups to act as
they wish within the Aims and Principles.

2. Anarchist Communism

We are part of the anarchist tradition sometimes referred to as anarchist communism. That
is to say, we seek the abolition of the state and also of money and private property. We
strive for complete freedom and complete equality simultaneously. We believe in the
importance of building a political organisation that is based on the working class (in the
broadest sense), and which is active on a number of fronts. This is what distinguishes us
from anarchosyndicalism. Though we are part of the same social anarchist tradition
(anarchist communists and anarchosyndicalists are likely to be in the same organisation in
countries like Spain, France and Italy), we emphasise different tactics and strategies.
For us, building an anarcho-syndicalist union can only ever form one prong of an overall
strategy and even then has to be adapted to specific contexts in line with revolutionary
anarchist principles. This is why the AF exists separately from the Solidarity Federation.

Anarchist communism also rejects other forms of anarchism such as green anarchism or
?life-stylism?. Though concern for the environment is a key part of our politics, it does
not take priority over any other issue. We welcome the fact that people refuse to conform
to bourgeois codes but a revolution will not come about by dressing differently or living
in squats. In any case, historical experience has shown that these alternative lifestyles
are short-lived, with many soon dropping out and/ or becoming key members of the
establishment. Anarchism is something to be maintained in all stages of life, even if the
anarchist holds down a job, has children, or takes out a mortgage. Anarchists, after all,
should be part of the working class, not in their own ghetto of alternative ?activists?.
That doesn?t mean, however, that anarchists should seek to adopt some stereotyped working
class image. The anarchist movement should contain a diverse range of people, not
conforming to any stereotype. What matters are one?s ideas, practice and commitment.
Similarly, we reject insurrectionism as a strategy to achieve anarchism. Individuals may
become frustrated at our inability to strike effectively against our oppressors, but
unfortunately there are no shortcuts. It is the everyday organising and struggle that
forms the basis for all the more obvious revolutionary moments.

Individual ?heroics? can never be a substitute for mass action. In addition, individual
acts of violence are usually counterproductive, bringing down repression on a movement not
yet strong enough to defend itself. As the Italian Anarchist Federation declared after
being mistakenly associated with a recent letter bomb- ?Anarchism cannot be delivered
through a letter box?. However, there may be circumstances where violent actions are
justified, but only when the actions are directly linked and supported by a wider
movement. We must be to develop an anarchist presence within the working class both in the
workplace and the locality. The future for anarchism and for the planet lies in anarchism
being taken up by a wide variety of working class people in their everyday struggles.

3. Building the Movement

The AF will support and work with any individual or group who shares the general aim of
creating an anarchist society that is economically egalitarian. We have our distinctive
perspective on how to bring this aim about, a perspective that is part of a long
tradition, and will continue to argue for this perspective to be the basis for the
building of a strong and effective anarchist movement. However, we also recognise that if
this tradition is not to become a historical relic, it must be continually enriched by new
ideas and practices.

We hope that British anarchism will grow into an effective and influential movement within
the working class, bringing together a wide variety of occupations, social groups and
generations. This will require longterm commitment and perseverance, through both the
?highs? and ?lows? of political activity. We will do whatever is necessary to contribute
to the building of such a movement, as the future of us all depends on it.

---

To read more, download the entire issue as a PDF, or order a printed copy. Details above.

Organise! magazine, issue 78, Summer 2012.

http://www.afed.org.uk



Bron : a-infos-en@ainfos.ca

vrijdag 27 juli 2012

(en) Britain, Anarchist Federation Organise! magazine Issue 78 Winter 2012

CONTENTS ---- Editorial: What's in the latest Organise!? Read it below ---- History: The 
Anarchist Federation - In Thought and Struggle. ---- Greece: Let?s go one step further --
Hungary: the far right menaces -- The Luddites bicentenary --- Statement of international
solidarity with those in Cuba: You Are Not Alone ---- Southern Europe: Austerity- Agony 
and Antagonism ---- Special section on Turkey and Syria ---- Response to: Prostitution is
Not Compatible with Anarchism ---- Culture: Steinlen and Delannoy - the anarchist 
illustrators -- Letters --- Editorial: What's in the latest Organise!? ---- This issue of
Organise! has been put together very much with an eye on the Saint-Imier international 
gathering in August 2012. This assembly in Switzerland celebrates the 140th anniversary of 
the founding of the antiauthoritarian international in 1872, where the movement that was 
to become the class struggle anarchist movement was revitalised and found new direction 
after the horrors of the crushing of the Paris Commune and the travesty that the first 
international workers? organisation - the First International - had become.

More importantly, Saint-Imier 2012 it is where those committed to building an 
anarchist-communist, or ?social anarchist? society, will also take stock and re-orientate
itself in an international context. In addition, our own international ? the International 
of Anarchist Federations ? will be holding its Congress in Saint-Imier, parallel to the 
main event, and Organise! fans are most welcome at its open sessions. This issue therefore 
contains a perspective on the Anarchist Federation drafted by some of those who will be 
attending saint-Imier. The article will be the starting point for our intervention there,
although you will find us on many panels and in meetings on everything from the arts to 
nationalism. And expect us to be very vocal in helping the movement work out what its 
future direction should be.

This issue has an international flavour, therefore. It comments on the situation in arenas 
of struggle affected by the ?Long Arab Spring?, specifically Syria and Turkey, as well as
in on parts of Europe which western anarchists could engage with more: Romania and 
Hungary, and on countries about which anarchists in the West have more established 
approaches: Cuba, Greece, Portugal and Spain. We also included a considered response to an 
unhelpful intervention made at the last London Anarchist Bookfair at our meeting on the 
struggle of sex-workers to self-organise. In addition, we offer another anniversary 
article, critically marking the significance of a very much misunderstood early industrial 
movement: Luddism.

First, some thoughts on where we find ourselves in the rapidly evolving struggle against 
austerity and for a free and equal society. Organise! editors recently received a little 
zine about the anarchist movement called The Scoundrel. It?s a cheeky title, like The 
Idler, and is just as useless for engendering meaningful change, also unashamedly 
advocating ?doing nothing?. This is because ideology is an ?infection? and there is ?not a 
lot? that we can do about capitalism except wait. Presumably we are waiting for an 
insurrection which will happen spontaneously, without any groundwork? The Scoundrel 
doesn?t address that. But in the meantime, ?Given my sincere pessimism about the 
possibilities of actively destroying capitalism?, the only thing for it is ?Rather like 
the medical profession?s Hypocratic (sic.) Oath, we should do no harm?. We quote it to 
scoff at its anarchomiserabalism, obviously. But it might strike a chord. Who has not 
thought at some point in the last couple of years, ?What?s the point trying to change 
anything. It doesn?t make any difference?? On one level, such despondency at the moment is 
understandable. It?s not as though the recession(s) and rising levels of poverty and 
inequality are making the working class flock to our banners. The most recent resurgence 
of anarchism was not a response to the current economic crisis but to a variety of more 
positive factors slightly longer ago, when it felt like there was enough anger and vision
to fight war, neo-liberal ideology and environmental disaster successfully. Maybe the 
student protests were the last phase of that feeling of social power and potential. They 
were an affront to both inequality and passivity.

Now we are almost entirely on the defensive. We still have to fight those things, but seem 
further from being effective. The world has been plunged into a situation in which even in 
western Europe, people cannot feed their families. Households are plunged into fuel 
poverty and have to choose between food and heating. Food banks are opening all over. This 
would have been unthinkable a few years ago for people with British passports. It was 
destitute asylum seekers that used them. ?Skipping? for food was a lifestyle choice for 
activists making a point about surplus production and waste. Now people with jobs do it. 
We have no security in social housing and many more are homeless. Some people with jobs 
are paying in rent what people who own their houses pay as a mortgage; but the former have 
no chance of saving for a deposit and will be at the mercy of landlords for decades to 
come. How many people can say that they have job security? Recent university graduates are 
as likely to work via a job agency as to be embarking on a ?career?. Migrants who came 
here legally to work are living on the streets, too poor to return home.

The result of such insecurity is that people are increasingly needing to rely on the 
state, and the state ? we hardly need to say it ? could but won?t support them. The 
state?s answer to the crisis is to ditch its responsibility to spend workers? taxes 
supporting people who can?t support themselves economically. Now Atos &co. ensure that 
people with disabilities or mental health problems that mean they cannot do sustained paid 
work are being kicked off the sorts of benefits that once made their longterm situation 
manageable. They now join people in the other benefit categories, which in themselves are
being diminished and withdrawn, with people are being forced to work for free for big 
companies. Taxation policies actively attack the lowest earners and pensioners, but the 
press laughs at it, treating it like a joke by referring to the ?pasty tax? and ?granny 
tax?, when it is naked class warfare.

So what should we do, and is there any point doing it? The first wave of resistance to the 
new economic reality has passed. Occupy and Uncut spread the word effectively that there 
was a groundswell of awareness of and opposition to the excesses of capitalism. Also, that 
the ConDems lied, and lied again, and are still lying. These movements have probably done
more to spread those two specific messages to the wider public than anarchists have. But 
there is nowhere to go from that critique of bad capitalism and bad politicians except 
into the political process at one level or another, because the logic of replacing them 
with fair capitalism and truthful politicians stays intact. But there are no such things!
This is a logic that is hermetically sealed off from what is really wrong, and from what 
is possible as an alternative. Of course many people in Occupy and UnCut know this, but 
they didn?t say it when they had the world?s attention. And so another mode of resistance
came and went without fundamentally changing anything, or carried on for the sake of 
carrying on, not knowing what else to do.

This realisation easily leads people ? activists included - to be tired and despondent 
about their potential and to feel powerless. What can they do? Unlike the people of the 
Arab Spring, who have moved from being ruled by dictators towards representative 
democracy, we have that ?democracy? already. This is why people feel they cannot change 
things; because the system we have seems to be the only process open to us. Vast numbers 
of people don?t ?not vote? because they are anarchists, but because they know there is 
little point. After years of Labour ? and the more generalised international collaboration 
of the parliamentary left with neo-liberalism - we are in a worse position that we were 
under the Tories. We really are! But this is exactly the point where we have to make an 
intervention, in ideas and action. We can provide an analysis that explains both why our 
dreams and aspirations will always be thwarted by the system, but that there is a way out.

The bottom line is, they can?t stop us if we all rise up. But we are still a long way from 
that happening, because exposing the system and offering a free and equal future is not 
enough. To potential revolutionaries, anarchism is a nice idea, but how could we get 
there? The material reality of people?s experience makes it seem insane to risk what 
little security you have on a Utopian dream.

So it is not just important to tell the truth about what is going on. It is necessary to 
show how Revolution is attainable; that is, step-by-step and through hard work. There are
many stages, including set-backs. But a set-back doesn?t mean that all is lost. In fact 
set-backs are part of the process, because we learn by getting past them.

So, the process towards Revolution is not a case of all or nothing. That is to 
misunderstand it. It is not the case that if we spread the word enough and get enough 
people together with the right analysis, that there will be a sort of snowball effect and
everyone will take to the streets. It isn?t so much a tipping point in class anger that we 
need, as a tipping point in class confidence.

But there is another essential ingredient needed to get to that point in the revolutionary 
process: Solidarity! If we admit that there will be setbacks on the way to a free and 
equal society, that is to admit that some people will suffer, and apparently more so than
if they had settled for a quiet life. So it is essential to demonstrate that we are in 
this for and with other people, and with a conscious understanding of the significance of
one struggle in relation to the rest. There is no ?quiet life? to be had anymore for most
people. So we need to spread the doctrine of active Solidarity as an anarchist strategy, 
as well as that of anarchism as a goal.

Anarchists, more than any other revolutionary movement, have been at the forefront of 
solidarity historically, in the workplace, the community, and with prisoners. We have a 
lot to learn from historical examples, but here let?s note a more recent form that is not
only exposing capitalism and class war and symbolically opposing them, as Occupy and UnCut 
have, but actively undermining them in a way that everyone, whatever their level of 
confidence, can take part in.

Solidarity networks are becoming slowly but surely more widespread. They are an exciting 
form of struggle because they bring together individuals enacting key tenets of anarchism; 
self-help and mutual aid, solidarity on a class basis, collective direct action, and 
de-centralised and highly flexible organisation. These networks form around key 
ideological principles and support individuals and group ?cases? where it is realistically 
possible to win the case through sustained solidarity and direct action. Very importantly, 
the ?victim?s grievance becomes generalised and they switch from being victims to becoming 
owners of their own case, and then becoming experienced actors in resolving cases more 
generally. In this way, winning a case is not a matter of championing one person but 
demonstrating that a victory is a victory for all, that this strategy works and, it must 
be said, showing the class enemy what we are capable of and that we can force its submission.

In terms of who the ?enemy? is, it is worth noting that in the UK, it is often someone in
the new economic sector that ?brokers? capitalism ? for example job agencies (such as in 
the case of the Office Angels victory in 2011) and ?letting agencies? (as in the, already
successful, case against illegal fees being charged in Scotland). Such campaigns also 
target specific bosses and landlords themselves, of course, and are effective where 
tenants would otherwise have to take landlords to court but not be able to afford to, and
in cases that trades unions wouldn?t trouble themselves with. Such campaigns include 
Glasgow Solidarity Network and Nottingham Solidarity Network, as well as the inspirational 
Seattle Solidarity (SeaSol) in the U.S. They owe much to campaigns such as Edinburgh 
Coalition Against Poverty and London Coalition Against Poverty, which likewise take up 
issues on a case-by-case basis where the state fails to protect the people it is supposed
to serve and facilitates our exploitation instead. How successful they will be remains to
be seen, and organisational structures within them need to be carefully considered and 
subject to on-going critique, to eliminate informal hierarchies and ensure individual 
accountability to the group. But reading about them and being involved in them feels like
the western working class is trying something potentially very significant.

But anarchism is about personal and individual responsibility too. Campaigning at this 
micro-level is time consuming and tiring. Campaigners give up elements of their family and 
social life to show practical solidarity for people they hardly know. Anarchists see this
as sowing the seeds of something bigger that can operate without us needing to be the 
?leadership of ideas? anymore. So it is vital, if such initiatives are to continue to be 
successful, that the people whose cases are taken up remain part of the network, as an 
advertisement for it and to give active mutual aid in their turn: from Isolation, to 
Activism, to Anarchism! This is why anarchism is both a goal and a strategy for achieving
it. It is not simply a philosophy or a utopian structuring of ideas.

But this is not to say that any and all action is effective. We need to evaluate what we 
do at each stage, because what we do will be opposed and mistakes are costly. The first 
stage is propaganda that helps explain what is going on. Is it effective in making our 
message and ideals clear and relevant? The next is gathering together in groups, campaigns 
and organisations, temporary or long-term, best structured to spreading these ideas and 
taking action. For one thing, this has to be in ways that can draw in exactly those people 
who have been reached by our propaganda and must not consist in the main of anarcho ? 
dilettantes and tourists (who won?t put down roots ideologically or in terms of sustained
work and accountability to other people where they live, work and struggle, but see 
anarchism as a fashionable pond to dip in and out of). For another thing, as well as 
attracting people, they have to know that we will stand by them. If we have good systems 
of solidarity in place, it becomes more realistic to try to persuade people that anarchism 
is attainable in the longer term.

If we do this, then the other side of the coin is that it is more damaging to discourage 
taking action than it is to fail in that action. We have to get it right and win next 
time, not retreat into a pointless rejection of purpose or conviction. Attempts to 
demobilise anarchists are worse than ?doing nothing?. We are at a low ebb, it?s true, but
the struggle can?t be read just in the here and now but in the context of what has been 
done and what could be done. Let?s re-group and re-vitalise at Saint-Imier, being inspired 
by the actions and achievements of comrades from other countries (often doing far more 
than us and in far worse situations), develop a newly-informed international perspective,
and come home with new positivism: Unashamedly.


To read more, download the entire issue as a PDF http://www.afed.org.uk/org/org78.pdf

http://www.afed.org.uk

Bron : a-infos-en@ainfos.ca