(en) Brazil : Ideas & Action - Lighting a Black Flame: The history and politics of global anarchism and syndicalism - Transcript of talk by Lucien van der Walt, S?o Paulo

I would like to thank everybody for coming today. I understand it?s a public holiday 
today. So, thanks for coming. Now, Black Flame is a big book, and taken as a whole the 
book is quite a complex one. So I?m going to focus on some of the main arguments in the 
book. Maybe in the discussion time, later, we can go into detail about some of the other 
issues, but for the talk, I?m just going to stress the main issues. I must also just 
mention that this is volume one, of two: there will be a second book. Volume one is Black 
Flame; volume two will be Global Fire. ---- So this is the foundation block for a bigger 
project, and it focuses on themes in the history of anarchism, and its offshoot, 
revolutionary or anarcho-syndicalism, which is anarchist trade unionism.

A NOTE ON TERMS

Please note that when I use the term ?syndicalism? here I am using it in the English sense 
of specifically meaning revolutionary syndicalism and/ or anarcho-syndicalism, not in the 
Romance language sense of meaning unions in general. And when I just say ?anarchism? I am 
usually including ?syndicalism? because its a variant of anarchism.

One of the key issues that must be addressed for a book like this, a book which looks at 
anarchism and seeks to do so in a truly global and planetary way, rather than through a 
narrow focus on parts of Europe (which is how the history of anarchism is often done), is 
that you have to think very carefully how you define the subject.

WHAT IS ?ANARCHISM? ANYWAY?

The issue of where you draw the boundary around ?anarchism? is very important. This is 
important to the analysis and the research; I am not talking about drawing an arbitrary 
boundary, just to be exclusive for its own sake.

The problem with a loose definition is that you do not have a clear subject of study; 
inclusion and exclusion becomes vague, arbitrary and often absurd. There is, in English, a 
well-known survey of anarchism by Peter Marshall. This is an important and insightful 
book. But it defines anarchism very loosely: basically to be anarchist is to be against 
?authority?, especially the ?authority? of the state. ?Authority? is not really defined 
here, and evidently, as I will show, just being against the state, for whatever reason, by 
no means provides a reasonable basis to define something or someone as ?anarchist.?

Using this approach, we find Marshall including in his survey of anarchism the neo-liberal 
Margaret Thatcher, because she opposed state intervention, as well as the Marxist-Leninist 
Che Guevara, because Guevara was mildly critical of some of the bureaucratisation of the 
Castro regime. These were people who embraced the state, as such, but were against certain 
state forms.

And remember, Thatcher played a key role in breaking the British welfare state and trade 
unions, in driving down wages and closing industries, and in shifting income to the rich. 
For her, being against the state meant merely to be against the interventions of the state 
in the free market. She was perfectly happy to use the state to beat up protestors, 
strikers, to invade the Falklands. As for Guevara, we are talking here about a man who 
admired Joseph Stalin, who worked with the Russian dictatorship, who helped erect a 
one-party state with a secret police, in Cuba. So, yes, he was mildly critical of some 
elements of the Castro regime, but it?s a regime that he, of course, helped construct and 
helped run, a regime he never repudiated.

NOT JUST ?ANTI-STATE?

But if we just define anarchism as being ?against? the state, and use the notion of being 
?against? the state in a very loose and vague way (and here, it obviously does not even 
entail wanting the abolition of the state, but just some changes in the state), then it is 
logical to include Guevara and Thatcher.

But if, by the same token, we can logically have a study of anarchism, like that of 
Marshall on anarchism, that is comfortable including neo-liberals and Marxist-Leninists as 
part of the story anarchism, then we have a logical problem.

Specifically, if we define anarchism loosely, as mere anti-statism, or maybe as a vague 
commitment to ?freedom? of ?the individual,? then it becomes very difficult to 
consistently distinguish it from other ideologies ? not least, from neo-liberalism and 
Marxism-Leninism. And if we cannot distinguish anarchism from neo-liberalism and 
Marxism-Leninism, then it is pretty difficult to demonstrate that such a current as 
anarchism even exists.

Analytically, the problem goes even further: if we follow the line of argument that 
Marshall makes, where anarchism is effectively reduced to opposition to the state, then 
one must be consistent, not arbitrary.

If you define anarchism just as being against the state, there is no reason why Karl Marx 
or Joseph Stalin or Mao Tse Tung cannot be included, because they all said, quite 
explicitly, that the state must ?wither away? in the future, as part of the final 
emancipation of humankind. Guevara may have made an appearance in Marshall?s book, but 
there is no reason to exclude Stalin or Mao. That is simply arbitrary. If Guevara can fit, 
there is no reason Stalin and Mao cannot.

But to define anarchism in such a way that it can embrace Stalin or Mao seems to me highly 
problematic ? not to add that this is an approach way that elides all sorts of crucial 
issues. For example, figures like Stalin and Mao were associated with massive repression, 
a one-party state and so on. I don?t think that it is unreasonable to suggest that 
historic anarchism has been in favour of pluralism, debate and basic political and civil 
rights. But if we define it in a way that can include Stalin, then surely we cannot claim 
that historic anarchism has been in favour of pluralism, debate and basic political and 
civil rights.

Similarly, neo-liberals are sceptical of the state, and they believe the power of the 
state must be reduced as much as possible, whether it?s in the economy as a whole, or in 
economic transactions between contracting individuals. So, if to be anarchist is just to 
be against the state, then there is no particular reason not to include, for instance, J. 
S. Mill, von Mises or von Hayek or Milton Friedman, or even General Pinochet in Chile, 
into the anarchist tradition, because they are anti-statist in the sense that they 
distrust state intervention, and view the free market as emancipatory, efficient and natural.

CLARITY OF ANALYSIS

But to include Thatcher ? even if we stop at Mill and the rest, although as I said, there 
is no reason to stop there ? must mean that certain elements that may be reasonably 
suggested to be part of historic anarchism, like opposition to capitalism, wage systems, 
and private property, must also be thereby treated as irrelevant to, as inessential to, 
historic anarchism. So, anarchism here has become something compatible with one party 
states (through Stalin) and free markets (through Thatcher), and simultaneously with 
increased and reduced state intervention, and with one party states and multi-party states.

Throughout history, you?ll find some people who are against the state in some way or 
other, but treating them all as ?anarchists? leads us to straight into an analytical dead end.

If anarchism is just anti-statism, we can and must include as ?anarchists? both Stalin and 
Pinochet. But if we can include Stalin and Pinochet, Marxist-Leninists and neo-liberals, 
dictators of left and right, and a whole host of others, then if there is anything 
evidently or specifically ?anarchist? anywhere, it?s not clear what it might be.

We can treat all of those people as ?anarchists,? but in this case, the very notion that 
something called ?anarchism? even exists becomes nonsensical, because it becomes 
impossible to actually delineate anarchism from anything else. And once that is done, the 
very possibility or utility of actually studying and understanding anarchism in the first 
place is destroyed by the project of trying to do so.

HISTORICAL ANARCHISM

But there is an alternative approach, which is argue that anarchism emerged, at a specific 
point in history, in the form of a new mass movement, that was evident to observers as a 
new movement ? a revolutionary movement. Then we look at what that movement sought, and 
what its historical trajectory entailed. Then we can also start to understand the 
historical conditions ? material, intellectual and social ? in which this movement 
emerged, and so, explain its rise and fall and rise and fall, that is, its history as a 
social force, through social analysis. And we can also examine the evolution, that is, the 
history, of its ideas. And we can identify an anarchist lineage of movements, and an 
anarchist canon of writers.

That is, if we historicise anarchism, we can delineate it, and explain it and understand it.

If you use the argument that ?anarchism? means pretty much anything that is against the 
state, then you will certainly find anarchists everywhere. Marshall is perfectly 
consistent when he says that the first anarchist was Adam, in the Garden of Eden, who 
didn?t listen to God. The problem, analytically, is that if anarchism is universal in 
human history, then it cannot be explained by reference to changing social conditions. 
This would mean, in effect, that anarchism is in some way a natural part of humanity. But 
if that is the case, then there is a serious analytical problem: if anarchism is natural 
to people, then we cannot understand much of human history, which undoubtedly involves the 
ongoing expansion of oppression, exploitation, and of the power of an elite few over the 
working and poor majority.

Now here we must grapple with a problem, which is that all political movements, all 
movements to change the world, create around themselves a set of myths ? and the 
anarchists have also made their own myths. The argument that anarchism is somehow a 
universal feature of human society is one that some key anarchists also made, in order to 
legitimise their embattled, controversial movement.

Making claims that anarchism is universal and steeped in the ages is a simple and easy way 
of deflecting claims that the movement is new, impossible or bizarre. But it?s just not a 
valid claim, however politically useful it might seem to be.

MOVEMENT MYTHS VERSUS MOVEMENT TRUTHS

We must distinguish between certain anarchist myths, from the actual history of anarchism. 
So, to study anarchism we have to study anarchism, but not necessarily always in the way 
that the anarchists themselves have presented themselves.

Allow me to draw an analogy. Nationalists usually develop a mythical history of their 
nation, presented as reaching back into deep antiquity, with an unchanging culture, a 
shared history, common food, dress, territory, language and so on. Very often, these 
claims are simply not true; we can recognise these as myths. Analysing these as myths is 
important, because it tells us something about how the nationalists view themselves, how 
their ideas are expressed and so on. But it would be fundamentally mistaken to take 
nationalist views of the nation?s history literally, since these views are usually 
profoundly flawed, misleading and elective.

Likewise, it is important to study how anarchist ideologues like Piotr Kropotkin and 
Rudolph Rocker created (to give two examples), these mythical histories, and why they did 
so, and what effects these histories had on anarchism and anarchists.

Nationalists, we know, make myths, and we do not take these at face value, as 
self-evidently true. But we examine the myths.

But anarchists also made up myths, and these should also not be taken at face value. 
Rather we must examine the myths.

What gets included in the myths is very interesting, since it tells us something about the 
anarchists. For example, Kropotkin is quite explicit in suggesting that anarchism has deep 
roots in both Asia and European cultures, and in this sense, it is striking to note how 
deliberately he presents anarchism as universal, rejecting Eurocentrism. And Rocker 
stresses the links between the anarchists and the first modern working class movement, 
citing similarities between the Chartists in Britain in the 1840s, and visionary early 
labour leaders like Robert Owen: this shows his stress on trade unionism and on 
anarchism?s links to other socialists.

But it would surely be a mistake to literally follow Kropotkin in claiming Lao Tze in 
ancient China, or Zeno in ancient Greece, was literally an anarchist, or to suggest, as 
Rocker almost does, that the Owenites were anarchists.

The point is that we must understand the movement that was making the myths, rather than 
take the myths the movement made as literally true. To understand anarchism, as a 
movement, we should understand what it says about itself, but we need to understand that 
there was a movement, which emerged, and which could then speak about itself, using 
various rhetorical strategies ?

Let me stress here, and this is important, that not every anarchist has bought into these 
mythical histories, or that the anarchists even have one unified set of mythical histories.

There is a strong tradition in anarchism that was never involved in creating these 
mythical histories: Mikhail Bakunin, for example, never made such claims, while writers 
like Georges Fontenis were very critical of such myths. On the other hand, there were many 
myths and no real unified synthesis of them: different part of the movements had different 
myths. For example, the Korean anarchist Ha Ki Rak claimed that the Dong Hak peasant war 
of 1894 in Korea was in many respects identical to the anarchist 1936 Spanish Revolution.

UNDERSTANDING THE IDEAS AND DEBATES

Now, a last issue: if we define anarchism as anti-statism (or even as vaguely committed to 
?freedom?) and then, logically enough, must include under the anarchist banner such 
radically different people as Thatcher, Guevara and Bakunin, and so on, then our 
discussion of anarchism as a set of ideas must be always be profoundly superficial because 
it trying to understand ideas that are totally different to each other ? and that do not 
belong together in any way.

That is, we can only group these disparate figures if our discussions of anarchist theory 
are vague, and if we ignore the many points of deep divergence between these figures.

If, to put it another way, we claim that Thatcher, Guevara and Bakunin can all be seen as 
somehow part of one tradition, then we have to only examine what they share; and what this 
means is that we cannot take into account a wide range of issues on which they differ, 
such as capitalism and states, not to mention the very meaning of ?freedom? and 
?anti-statism,? not to mention even more complicated issues, of theory (for example, 
around social structure), of strategy (for example, over vanguardism and one-party rule) 
and tactics (even issues as key as how anarchists should act) ?

Instead, we have to studiously vague, grasping for commonalities, and skirting over

With this sort of approach, the debates in the historical anarchist movement, the 
achievements of the movement, in theory and in praxis, and, indeed, the very basic theory 
and politics of the movement all get lost. We end up with banal discussions that deal 
vaguely and superficially with many issues, and that entirely ignore a great deal more 
issues ?

So, a definition of anarchism as anti-statism, cannot really say who is in anarchism and 
who is outside of anarchism, cannot really say what anarchism was, and why it emerged, 
cannot really say what the anarchists did, and why, and why they succeeded or failed, and 
why, and cannot even say really, what the anarchists wanted and thought?

Again, the only way to solve this problem is to look history and see when the ?problem? of 
anarchism as a subject emerges, and this means looking when an explicitly anarchist 
movement that is also recognised by its contemporaries as something new actually emerges. 
And to start there and to look at what that movement said and did.

BAKUNIN AND THE WORKING CLASS

Well, the historical record shows very clearly that a specific, self-defined, consciously 
anarchist movement only, and first, emerges in the First International around Mikhail 
Bakunin and the International Alliance of Socialist Democracy. That puts it in the period 
from 1864, around 150 years ago, and not in the Garden of Eden and not in the Ancient world.

This is not to say that there were not people who had ideas that anticipated that 
prefigured parts of anarchism or that there were not other libertarian currents, before 
this moment.

But it is to argue, to insist, that to understand what anarchism was and is, we have to 
use a historical approach. A historical approach points us to the First International. 
That locates, as a consequence, as rooted in the working class and socialist movement. 
That also places it firmly in a tradition of radical thought going back to the 1700s.

And if we look here, the First International, then a good place to start to grapple with 
its key ideas is to look at the writings of Bakunin, his theories, and also those of Piotr 
Kropotkin, the other great luminary of the movements.

Now, please let me stress that this approach, which stresses a historical approach, does 
not claim that these two, Bakunin and Kropotkin, had a perfect and comprehensive world 
view that was unchanging and that emerged perfectly formed. It does not claim that 
anything and everything that they said was a perfect revelation, against which all claims 
of truth have to be judged.

It?s not saying anything like that that.

INFLUENCES AND ANTECEDENTS

Rather, it?s arguing, simply, that their ideas and writings are, by any reasonable 
measure, foundational and representative texts of the anarchist movement.

Certainly, the anarchist movement, which emerged in the First International, was 
influenced, very influenced indeed, by the libertarian socialism of P.J. Proudhon, who was 
writing from the late 1830s ? and in particular, by his stress on self-management, 
decentralisation and anti-statism.

But influence does not mean something is identical. The anarchist current was very 
different to Proudhon because (as I will show in its strategy and its overall outlook) it 
engaged in some serious ruptures with Proudhon?s approach.

It?s not Proudhonism but it was influenced by it.

Similarly the new ?anarchist? movement was influenced by Karl Marx, who was writing from 
the 1840s ? and in particular, by the economic theories of Karl Marx, not his politics but 
his economics. It used Marxist economics, but in a critical way, in a way that that 
engaged and actually transcended and developed those economics, in a way that I would 
suggest even seems to solve some of the problems in Marxist economics (for example, it 
develops a better price theory, which takes into account the impact of power relations).

It?s not Marxism but it is influenced by it. Influence is not identity.

And last, the anarchist ideas were only possible against the backdrop of massive ferment 
in radical thought, driven by massive class struggles, from the 1700s. They were part of 
the ferment of modern ideas of science and freedom, which we can give many labels, 
including that of ?the Enlightenment.?

CORE IDEAS OF ANARCHISM

Now, I?m assuming people here have an understanding of what anarchism is, but perhaps I 
should take a step back and clarify: if we look at it [anarchism] there?ve been three or 
four main fundamentals of the movement. These include opposition to relations of 
domination between human beings, including those expressed in the government (or the 
state) and those expressed in capitalism, but also including those expressed in all sorts 
of other ways among human beings (such as national oppression).

The liberals stress the importance of individual freedom and so forth, just like the 
Marxists stress the importance of abolishing capitalism, but it was anarchism that took 
these two parts, and put them together in a way that none of these others really managed.

So, anarchism is a movement that?s against hierarchy and that?s against exploitation, and 
its a movement that (in other words) links the struggle for individual freedom to the 
struggle against capitalism and the state ? With this theoretical position it was able to 
develop a critique of a range of other forms of domination, for example imperialism and 
national oppression, and to also point out the dangers of opposing capitalism by using, 
for example, dictatorial states.

And, in terms of its strategy, the overall strategy that it emphasised was the need to 
build a movement from below of the popular classes (the broad working class and the 
peasantry), which would fight against all those inequities and create a new and better 
world. It aimed at revolution from below, the forcible occupation of the workplaces and 
the defeat of the state machinery in a conflict? this was quite different to Proudhon, who 
envisaged a slow process of cooperatives being built up, slowly replacing capitalism ?

PROLETARIAN INTERNATIONALISM

One of the key things in this regard, in regard to this revolutionary perspective and 
stress on class struggle, that I must just stress before moving on, is that what defined 
anarchism (contrary to, say, nationalism) was a thoroughgoing internationalism? a literal 
and principled internationalism, literally ?Workers of the World Unite!? as a vision, as a 
practice, and as a way of thinking?

This means a class-based politics, which sees the popular classes worldwide as having more 
in common with each other no matter their country, than they can ever really have with the 
political and economic elites within their home countries ?

TIGHT FOCUS, BETTER PICTURE

Now, armed with a historicised definition and understanding of anarchism and its offshoot 
of revolutionary and anarcho-syndicalism, and an idea of its basic principles and its key 
figures, we can start to analyse anarchism globally, and look at it as a worldwide 
movement ? something that has major implications for how we understand its history, its 
impact and its achievements.

In one way, we have ?narrowed? the definition of anarchism but this very narrowing allows 
us to have a clearer focus, just like with a camera: you can see more, despite a tighter 
focus.

So, then, we can work in a systematic way to understand this anarchist movement, as it 
emerged and as it operated globally, and we can start to really understand the patterns in 
the movement. So if we are looking at the movement from the 1860s onwards, and we are 
taking a global view there are some important changes in our mindset that must arise, that 
must follow.

GLOBAL ANARCHISM; PROVINCIALISING SPAIN

Now, one of the key things that arise, which I want to stress here, is that, very often 
when we think of the history of anarchism, we focus very much on Spain and on Spanish 
anarchism. And of course, the story of Spanish anarchism is central to the story of 
anarchism and syndicalism worldwide.

But when we look globally we find that the story of Spain is not so unique, we find that 
Spanish anarchism just one ?province? in a in a worldwide anarchist ?country.? And, in 
fact, by some measures (for example if we look at the influence of anarchism in trade 
unions) we find movements elsewhere that are bigger than that of Spain.

So, this isn?t to say Spain is not important but that Spain is part of a larger anarchist 
world and that Barcelona is just one of a whole chain of red-and-black cities

To Spain?s great fiery rose of anarchism, Barcelona, we must add other red-and-black 
cities like Auckland, Buenos Aires, Chicago, Guangzhou, Glasgow, Havana, Mexico City, 
Montevideo, Santos, Tokyo ? all cities with a major anarchist or syndicalist influence. 
And then the second tier red-and-black cities, with substantial movements (but not as 
large as those just mentioned), like Alexandria, Auckland, Johannesburg ?

I could go on, I?ve given examples, but the point of this is that when you understand 
anarchism clearly and you take a global view, you start to see that this history needs to 
be brought back into many other histories: the histories of unions, peasant struggles, of 
civil rights and national liberation struggles were all histories that the anarchists and 
syndicalists shaped ? and histories that cannot be understood adequately unless we look at 
how these histories intersect with anarchist and syndicalist history, globally.

INFLUENCE AND LABOUR MOVEMENTS

Now, looking at international patterns is one way to understand and assimilate all of this 
information. So let us take one trend, let?s look at one trend, which is the role of 
anarchists (including syndicalists) in founding and pioneering trade union movements

And let?s start in the colonial and postcolonial world. Isabelo De Los Reyos, who founded 
the first trade union in the Philippines in 1902, was deeply influenced, in doing so, by 
the Spanish anarchists. In China it was the anarchists who formed the first modern trade 
unions from 1914 onwards, and in Guangzhou and Hunan the unions in China were led by 
anarchists far into the 1920s.

In South Africa the first trade union for black Africans was set up by revolutionary 
syndicalists in 1917. Similarly in Ireland the first industrial unions were led by people 
identified with the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World, formed in the USA in 1905) 
tradition of revolutionary syndicalism, in 1900. And these unions were successes, they won 
victories, they organised and educated people, and at times they grew explosively: in 
Ireland, by 1920, the revolutionary syndicalist-influenced unions had grown from 5,000 to 
120,000.

And this points us to another major pattern in the history of the anarchist and 
syndicalist movement, which was its role in organising massive strikes and class 
struggles. I will illustrate this by referring here to some important strikes: Parma, 
Italy, in 1907; Paris, France, in 1910; Auckland, New Zealand, in 1913 ?

If you look at this photo, if you look at the banner carried by these workers from the New 
Zealand Federation of Labour (known as the ?Red Feds?), that slogan is straight from a 
poem wide;ly distributed (author unattributed) by the IWW, and which starts ?We have fed 
you all for a thousand years, and you hail us [greet us] still unfed?? A poem that tries 
to explain how the working and poor people have built the world we have, but have been 
excluded from its benefits. And that text on the banner, which says, ?If blood be the 
price of your cursed wealth, Good God, we have paid in full,? is based on the poem. It 
means the wealth of the ruling class is paid for by the blood of the working class ? and 
that the working class has paid heavily, has paid more than enough.

And to continue: in Mexico City, they led massive strikes in 1915 and 1916; in 
Johannesburg, South Africa, in 1918, syndicalists worked with black nationalists to try 
and organise a general strike; in Chicago, the United States, in 1919, syndicalists like 
William Foster played a leading role in a massive strike by steel workers. In Japan, too, 
the anarchists were very important in the trade unions, and published the first paper 
dealing specifically with labour, called ?Labour Movement.? Anarchist-led syndicalist 
unions in Portugal included a range of groups not normally thought of as union members, 
such as artists and tenants, and this enabled a leading role in actions such as a major 
tenants? strike against high rent in Lisbon in 1921.

To draw together this outline of the union role, and the role in workplace struggles, I 
want to list some countries where the anarchists or the syndicalists at one stage or 
another were the main force in the labour movement: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Cuba, 
France, Mexico, the Netherlands, Peru, Portugal, and Uruguay. And of course Spain, 
although there they were always challenged by a large social democratic rival union, the 
UGT, that often matched them in numbers and influence. And other countries where they were 
large and influential, but not hegemonic, in labour, include Australia, Bolivia, Bulgaria, 
China, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Guatemala, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mozambique, 
New Zealand, Paraguay, Poland, South Africa and the United States.

That?s an outline covering just a few years, and a few places, just a narrow slice of 
history; that is not the whole history of the movement by any means, a movement that went 
back into the 1860s and continues today, and that has had many major organisations and 
achievements in that 150 year span of time. But more examples, I think, would not add much 
to the point and would take a lot more time ?

POPULAR IMPRINTS AND POLITICS

Now, the point of this is simply to underline the popular imprint of the movement, to show 
that the movement of Bakunin and Kropotkin was important in workplaces, was important for 
millions of people, was able to win real material gains, whether in the form of higher 
wages or in the form of lower rents; also, that it was also a movement that organised in 
the neighbourhoods and territories of the working class and of the peasantry.

And this was not a movement that only dealt with issues like wages and rents ? it was 
actively involved in political issues, in struggles around rights, in struggles over 
power. Let us take the IWW in Australia. This was an important current in the larger union 
movement, and opposed the prevailing trends of social democratic reformism and of overt 
white racism.

When Australia, as part of the British Empire, entered into the First World War in 1914 
against the German bloc, the IWW stood firm to its internationalist, anti-militarist and 
anti-imperialist positions. It stood against the tide. The leadership of the IWW was tried 
for treason, and the organisation was made illegal. Some people paint the revolutionary 
and anarcho-syndicalist unions as solely focussed on wages and conditions; this is just 
not true, as this example surely illustrates.

You see, with that Australian case, just one example of the movement raising basic issues 
around war and the power of the state, and asking the simple questions: Whose war? In 
whose interests? And why should working class youth kill each other, for the benefit of 
elites that do not sacrifice or risk life or limb, yet gain from the bloodshed of others?

A GLOBAL APPROACH AND ITS REVELATIONS

Now, another of the key features of the movement, especially in the period from the 1890s 
to the 1930s, was the role of networks of people, of newspapers, and of the linkages 
created by worker migrations.

A lot of the history of anarchism and syndicalism is written in the mode of national case 
studies, that is, for example, the history of Cuban anarchism, of Brazilian anarchism and 
so on. This is useful, but it also actually blinds us to an important process in the 
movement, and so, to an important part of its history.

There are many processes and connections which take place across state borders, and 
despite the existence of state borders, but these don?t get captured by a national 
framework of analysis. And we need to look at these transnational processes and 
connections, so that we can understand what happens within specific countries better, and 
so that we can also examine processes that operate transnationally and that cannot be 
understood within national frameworks.

I?m just going to give one example, I can give others, but I?m just going to give one for 
now. Lala Har Dayal, a brilliant South Asian (that is, Indian) scholar, born in Delhi, won 
a scholarship to Oxford University in Britain. Increasingly politicised, he moved to 
India, then to France, Algeria and Martinique, before ending up in California in the 
United States in 1911. Associated increasingly with anarchist ideas, he joined the IWW and 
served as secretary of its San Francisco branch, and also set up a Bakunin Institute; he 
also had a job at Stanford University.

And meanwhile, always committed to Indian independence and radical social change, Dayal 
made contact with local South Asian communities, mainly Sikhs from the Punjab region of 
India, and in 1913 co-founded and played a central role in the radical Ghadar Party in 
California. ?Ghadar? means ?mutiny,? referencing an uprising, a rebellion.

The Ghadar party platform, and ideas, had elements of anarchism, and elements of Indian 
nationalism mixed up? it developed as a global formation, building an international 
network that included Canada, Japan, parts of Africa (notably Kenya), Afghanistan and 
elsewhere. In India its key connections were in the Punjab and in 1915, the party launched 
an armed uprising in India against British rule. By this time Dayal had lost his job, and 
arrested in the United States, had fled into exile in Europe.

Now the 1915 rising was repressed and defeated, but in the years that follow the party 
rebuilt itself and remained active into the 1940s, not least in Kenya. And it retained 
throughout an anarchist imprint.

The point is that a story like this, is a global story, and it locates anarchism and 
syndicalism firmly in international migrations, transnational networks and worldwide 
movements. It is not easy to grasp a story like this through a national framework that 
divides the world into discrete movements in the United States, in India, in Kenya ?

RESISTANCE, REHEARSALS, REVOLUTIONS

Another pattern that I am going to point to, as I start to bring this to a close, is the 
role of anarchists and syndicalists in moving in some cases from resistance to attempt to 
change society in a fundamental way, that is, to revolution.

What I have mentioned, as struggles so far, were about building mass movements and 
campaigns. These were about resistance and they were about fighting ? but there were times 
when the popular classes, with and through the anarchists, actually took control of 
society and remade it ? in this sense, they moved from being classes in an existing class 
system, to creators of a system without classes.

Some of these experiences are partial, and some far more thoroughgoing.

Let?s start with some of the more limited attempts at recreating the world.

An early example was in Macedonia in 1903, in the struggle for independence from Turkey, 
which was then called the Ottoman empire. Anarchists were leading figures in this struggle 
and in 1903 a number of the key areas were taken over by militias in which anarchists were 
key figures, and there were attempts to create radical ?communes.? Then in Mexico 1911, 
Ricardo Flores Magon?s movement, in Baja California, attempted to create a revolutionary 
anarchist territory.

Some struggles were perhaps more modest than these, yet still radical and still able to 
start making some real changes in society. In Ireland, during the Irish war of 
independence, syndicalist-influenced unions were involved in taking over workplaces and 
running them. One, a creamery, had the slogan ?We make butter not profit.?

There is also of course the Italian factory occupations movement of 1920, centred in the 
metal industry of Turin, and this was in a context where there was a powerful 
revolutionary syndicalist movement and an important anarchist influence at the working 
class base. Many of these workers were not, in fact, in the important Italian Syndicalist 
Union, then almost 1 million strong, but they were influenced by the large anarchist and 
syndicalist current of the time.

At least in the English-speaking world, much of the story about these events has been 
retroactively written around the figure of Antonio Gramsci, later a famous Marxist. He?s 
presented as the intellectual leader of the movement. But this is simply not true. In fact 
Antonio Gramsci?s newspaper, ?New Order.? was selling over 5,000 copies every two weeks, 
and this at a time that the anarchist Errico Malatesta?s anarchist ?New Humanity? was 
selling 50,000 a day. And the editor of the Gramsci paper was a follower of the anarchist 
Kropotkin, while the early Gramsci was far closer to anarchism and syndicalism than many 
Marxists of the time.

Now, I?m going to look at actual revolutions that anarchists made, because all these 
things I have looked at so far should be, I think, be seen more as rehearsals, as 
revolutionary rehearsals. In terms of anarchist revolutions, I am talking about events 
that in terms of scale, in terms of depth, in terms of the number of people involved, and 
in the amount of time that they lasted, were quite distinctive, were qualitatively different.

I am sure many here will have heard of the anarchist revolution associated with the forces 
of Nestor Makhno in the Ukraine from 1917-1921. This involved a territory of millions, a 
democratic and participatory system of councils and assemblies, for workers, peasants and 
soldiers, and various efforts at self-management. It was also, and this is worth 
remembering, deeply entangled with the struggle for independence for the Ukraine from 
Austria, Germany and Russia. And for the anarchists an independent Ukraine would have to 
be a revolutionary, anarchist, society.

Less well known was the revolution that took place on the Manchurian and Korean 
borderlands. In 1929, Korean anarchists including militants from the Korean Anarchist 
Federation and anarchists like Kim Jwa-Jim (who led a larger part of the Korean 
Independence Army) organised a revolutionary society, rather similar in key respects to 
that seen ten years earlier in the Ukraine. The parallels do not stop there either. This 
revolution was also deeply linked to an independence struggle, in this case against 
Japanese imperialism.

Why a ?Korean? anarchist revolution that was not really in Korea? Well, Japanese 
colonialism in the Korean peninsula was very, very severe, so nearly three million Koreans 
were in exile in Manchuria; anyway, Manchuria was not quite a discrete territory either. 
It was claimed by Chinese, claimed by Koreans. And it was at the time an area largely 
outside the control of the Japanese empire and also largely outside of the control of 
Chinese warlords and Chinese authorities.

So, in this territory for three years, in Shinmin, anarchists made a revolution that was 
in many ways the same as uh as that we saw in Ukraine. This included institutions like 
collective production, libertarian education and a fairly free social order based on 
worker and peasant councils and so forth.

And of course, Spain from 1936-1939, was also very important indeed, incredibly radical.

The point is that the Spanish revolution was very important but wasn?t the first or the 
only anarchist revolution. It was the third in a period of around twenty years. Certainly 
in much of the literature, including on the left, the impression is generally created of 
?Spanish exceptionalism?: that is, that only in Spain was there a big anarchist and 
syndicalist movement and that only in Spain was there a revolution.

But in fact some of the questions faced by the Spanish anarchists (for example whether to 
join the government) had already been posed elsewhere. Indeed in Korea a section of 
anarchists joined the Korean government in exile, and after independence in 1945, a wing 
of the movement even ran in elections, and some anarchists had seats in government.

THE ?BIG THREE?: REVOLUTION

I see there is a question being asked about which of the ?big three? revolutions should be 
seen as the biggest? According to me?

It depends what we use as a measurement. If we are talking about complete control of an 
area, that is, the full realisation of popular self-governance through councils and 
self-management and so on, then both Ukraine and Korea are ?bigger? than Spain, where the 
revolutionary forces co-existed in the republican zone with a capitalist state?

But if we are talking of numbers of people involved, or the number of self-managed 
collectives, then it?s probably Spain that was the biggest, in that there were more 
collectives than Korea, than Ukraine. Part of the difficulty for the movement in Ukraine 
and the movement in Korea was the situation of extreme warfare, and rapid shifts over 
territory controlled: for both of them this posed the difficulty of creating sustainable 
and stable structures. In contrast, for much of say, Catalonia, in Spain, the territory 
was defended and enemy incursions were slow and steady rather than rapid land seizures by 
the enemy, followed by rapid expulsions of the enemy by anarchist forces, as in Ukraine?

These points, in fact, help us understand better the reality of an anarchist revolution 
led by Koreans and Korean anarchists but largely outside of Korea itself. We need to bear 
in mind that for East Asia large-scale war does not start in 1939 with the Second World 
War but goes back to the 1920s. And the anarchist territory created from 1929-1931 was 
facing on the one side pressures from the Soviet Union, which was arming Korean Marxist 
communists (who waged incessant attacks on the zone), on the other, Chinese forces, and on 
the third, a very determined and powerful Japanese Imperial Army that was pushing through 
Korea and Manchuria and into China ?

So the first part that I spoke about was on the issue of how we define anarchism, and on 
this issue, the need to be historical; the second part of my talk has stressed the need to 
think globally.

DEBATES AND STRATEGIC DIVISIONS

When this is done, it is important to identify the political debates within the anarchist 
and syndicalist movement. It?s easy enough to say you?re against capitalism or against 
domination or against the state, but what do you do tomorrow? What does this mean for 
concrete political activity, what does this mean in terms of strategy and tactics?

When we look historically, and when we look globally, at anarchism and syndicalism, its 
possible to identify two basic strategic approaches in anarchism.

INSURRECTIONIST ANARCHISM

The first one is insurrectionist anarchism. When we are using this term, we are talking 
about a wing of the movement which says that reforms are useless, that all small 
improvements are useless, that if wages go up then prices go up ? and you?re back where 
you started. That?s an example of this sort of thinking.

And politically, strategically, this leads straight to the conclusion that instead of 
fighting for reforms and small improvements, that you must only fight for revolutions and 
do so right now ?.that would be the idea.

Luigi Galleani, an Italian anarchist, was one of the key thinkers in this tradition, and 
he argued that anarchists must use the ?tactics of corrosion,? by which he meant that 
rather than supposedly ?waste? time with things around wages and rents, the anarchists 
must attack the ruling class directly and relentlessly all the time. And do so without 
demands, without negotiations, with instead the perspective of an immediate revolutionary 
assault?

You could, of course, simply do this by making by telling people ?now, you must make a 
revolution,? that is, propaganda of the word. That is a ?tactic of corrosion,? in that it 
undermines the system and the ruling class. But in practice the insurrectionist anarchist 
approach, which cannot really immerse itself in movements like unions, in struggles for 
lower rents, in demands for better laws, ends up with one main tactic of ?corrosion,? a 
tactic that becomes a strategy. And this is ?propaganda by the deed? in the form of direct 
armed action against the ruling class: assassinations, of ?expropriations? of banks, of 
bombings.

This is ?corrosion? since it supposedly weakens the ruling class, but how is it 
propaganda? Its propaganda, claim the insurrectionists, in that these actions will 
supposedly inspire and awaken the masses, showing them their enemies and showing them they 
can fight these enemies, and showing them how to fight these enemies. The idea is 
basically that these actions will provoke massive spontaneous rebellions with directly 
revolutionary purpose i.e. sudden uprisings for the creation of anarchist society.

And these insurrectionist anarchists were not idle speech makers, they were and are very 
committed to this politics. As a simple example, the first car bomb, many writers suggest, 
was done by a Galleanist who bombed Wall Street in 1920, a man called Mario Buda? And you 
get this movement not just around Galleani and his network, but also in Spain, Argentina, 
in Japan and elsewhere. In Japan Kanno Sugako, an anarchist woman militant, was executed 
in 1911 for being part of a plot to kill the Japanese emperor.

Now, for many people, at first, insurrectionist anarchism, emerging from the 1880s, was 
very appealing, and it was actually widely defended even by anarchists who were not 
insurrectionists. Even Kropotkin thought it a good idea for a while.

And the reputation for militant violence also attracted people to anarchism who were 
looking for alternatives, among them Chinese and Indian youth. And insurrectionist 
anarchists certainly managed to assassinate a great many heads of state.

ITS FLAWS AND FAILINGS

But there were many problems with insurrectionist anarchism, and these ensured that most 
anarchists remained in what was always the main current in anarchism: mass anarchism, what 
we call mass anarchism.

Some of the problems with insurrectionist anarchism are obvious. First, it never came 
close to inspiring a revolution, and this partly because there was and is a certain 
passivity built into this model. People watch the armed attacks of the active 
insurrectionists, admire them, and identify with them. But they don?t join them. They 
really watch them, they?re spectators.

Secondly, as people like Malatesta noted, kings and emperors and presidents and big 
capitalists are easily replaced; the system is not really weakened by a few 
assassinations, and the basic problem of most people accepting the need for such rulers is 
not really tackled by the insurrectionist model. After all, Wall Street still operates, 
nearly a century after Buda?s bomb; in fact it was operating the very next day after 
Buda?s bomb, and hasn?t stopped since.

And last, of course, insurrectionist anarchists provided a pretext for massive crackdowns 
on labour and the left: just to go back to Japan in 1911, 26 anarchists were executed for 
treason against the emperor and most of them had nothing to do with insurrectionism: 
K?toku Sh?sui, the key figure in Japanese anarchism, and who promoted anarcho-syndicalism, 
was among the victims. The Red Scare repression in the United States in the late 1910s was 
directly precipitated by Galleanist and related bombings. And most victims of that 
repression were trade unionists and rights activists among ethnic and racial minorities, 
including in all these cases anarchists and syndicalists, but also the larger left, 
including the most moderate of socialists.

And of course anarchists are still tarred with this brush, of terrorists, bombers and 
killers, long after insurrectionists has ceased to be a significant force ? this was made 
possible by the insurrectionists? actions, and continues to hinder anarchism even today.

MASS ANARCHISM

The alternative approach, far more influential amongst the anarchists, and certainly an 
approach that demonstrably had a record of building up mass movements and a mass base for 
anarchism ? of securing for anarchism many social ?vectors? into the popular classes ? was 
mass anarchism.

I am talking here about a type of anarchism which says that immediate struggles, for small 
improvements, whether around wages, prices, transport, rent, land, discrimination, 
oppression, civil rights are where it is possible to build a mass revolutionary anarchist 
movement.

The key task, from this perspective, is for anarchists to immerse themselves in these 
immediate struggles, and in the movements that are built around these struggles. And 
within these spaces to systematically link the daily struggles and concerns of the popular 
classes to the larger vision of the anarchists for radical social transformation.

How? It is possible to use these immediate struggles to build confidence; to clarify 
thinking, debate politics and win the battle of ideas for anarchism; and to build strong 
and participatory movements that directly lay the foundations for a new anarchist order.

So for example, winning a higher wage will give a worker more confidence that he or she 
can really make a difference, can really matter. It builds confidence and motivation, and 
also provides more time and space to think and fight. Someone who is not willing to stand 
up to their boss is not going to make a revolution that gets rid of all bosses. But in 
these immediate struggles themselves, people get opened to new ways of seeing the world, 
and open to the anarchist critique of domination and exploitation, and the anarchist 
explanation of where the problems come from and who the enemy is.

DAILY BATTLES AND SYNDICALISM

There is nothing automatic here: there is an opportunity to win people to anarchism, and 
to win respect for anarchism, and to show the validity of anarchist ideas and methods 
(especially the use of direct action, and participatory movements).

At the same time, large and stable organisations get formed, which lay a basis for further 
struggles and victories, such as trade unions. Here too the anarchists can play a key role 
in ensuring that such movements are open, democratic and participatory schools of 
bottom-up democracy, comradeship and equality.

The key thing, in short, is to use those immediate struggles that are happening today to 
start to lay the foundation of the future. It?s what Black Flame describes as building a 
counter culture (that is, winning the battle of ideas among large numbers of people), and 
building a counter power (that is, building mass movements that can both challenge the 
ruling class in the day-to-day reality, and eventually also replace it entirely with 
alternative structures to run society).

The syndicalists, as an expression of mass anarchism, called this the revolutionary role 
of syndicalists unions: to fight battles today, to educate the masses, and to organise, 
through the unions themselves, the very basis of self-managing the factories and other 
workplaces, the structures that would occupy and run the workplace itself?

CONCLUSION

Simply put, for this perspective, you still need a revolution, but there are no shortcuts. 
To have a revolution, you need the masses to make it; and to get the masses, you need to 
go to the masses, and fight alongside them, but also point them to a better future and the 
methods and ideas needed to bring about that future.

- See more at: http://ideasandaction.info/#sthash.Iw7HnG2o.dpuf

(en) Brazil, S?o Paulo, [Terralivre] STUDY GROUP "ANARCHISM AND EDUCATION" - EARTH FREE LIBRARY (pt)

Upon completion of libertarian Education Colloquium in November 2012, event commemorating 
the 100 years of the founding of Modern School St. Paul 
http://coloquioeducacaolibertaria.wordpress.com/, will resume in 2013 the meetings of the 
Study Group "Anarchism and Education." The first meeting will be February 19, Tuesday, at 
19 hours. ---- The Study Group this is a space for reflection and production knowledge of 
pedagogy and educational practices perspective anarchist. We use it for reading 
theoretical texts (classic and contemporaries), and historical documents. Movies and 
documentaries are also good support materials used for discussions. ---- The group has 
existed since 2010, but is open to new investments due to their dynamics based on 
self-training and mutual support among members. Even more Now it starts a new cycle of 
readings, all stakeholders are welcome.

On site
http://bibliotecaterralivre.noblogs.org/grupos-de-estudos/anarquismo-e-educacao/
is recorded the history of the group and its course readings and
activities so far.

Continuing this important work, we call a first meeting
with the usual participants, but open to new stakeholders, so that
we can talk about possible topics of study for 2013.
We propose to heat as reading the debates of the article F?lix Garc?a
Moriyon that opens the book edited by him launched in Brazil, because it is
interesting general reflections on libertarian education:
http://www.4shared.com/office/GGP2cYEV/Educacao_Libertaria_-_FG_Moryi.html

Moriyon is professor of philosophy in high school in Madrid and militant CGT.
In this video you can hear him talk a bit about the topic of libertarian education
(In Spanish, without subtitles): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP3UXMNeCvs

See you the 19th!

Greetings libertarian!

***

STUDY GROUP "ANARCHISM AND EDUCATION"

First Meeting of 2013: TUESDAY, February 19 at 19h

READING: Introduction and Presentation of the book "Libertarian Education" organized
by Felix Garcia Moryion, Porto Alegre, New Haven, 1989
To download the text:
http://www.4shared.com/office/GGP2cYEV/Educacao_Libertaria_-_FG_Moryi.html

Thereafter the group will meet on Tuesdays always from 15 to 15
day from 19h to 22h.

ATTENTION! Limit vacancies: 10 participants.
Registration prior (in order of arrival) via email:
bibliotecaterralivre@gmail.com

LOCATION: Headquarters Library Free Land
Francisco Azevedo Rua Engineer, 841 - room 07
S?o Paulo - 05030-010
Lane between Hector Street and Avenue Hairstyle Pompeii.
Two blocks from metro Vila Madalena.

***

GROUP STUDY:

19/02 - Anarchism and Education
21/02 - Anarchist Thinkers
27/02 - Independent Labor Movement

***

FREE LIBRARY EARTH
bibliotecaterralivre@gmail.com
http://bibliotecaterralivre.wordpress.com/
https://www.facebook.com/biblioteca.terralivre

(en) Brazil, S?o Paulo, Rhizome, Hackers invade profile GCM and disclose personal data in social network (pt)

All support! GCM ---- OUT OF THE WORLD! ---- BUNCH OF RED!! ---- Removed from: ---- 
http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/cotidiano/1211459-hackers-invadem-perfil-de-gcm-e-divulgam-dados-pessoais-em-rede-social.shtml 
A group of hackers broke into the Facebook profile of a metropolitan policeman who was 
involved in a scuffle with skaters on Roosevelt Square, in downtown S?o Paulo. Reform of 
Roosevelt Square - pleases, but generates discussion about the use of space; watch 
Skateboarders and residents discuss use of Roosevelt Square ---- After discovering the GCM 
data, members of the Anonymous group released information like mobile number and address 
of his house on a social networking page.


reproduction

Anonymous hackers disclose data Guardia Civil who assaulted skater in Roosevelt Square, 
S?o Paulo
The video catches the GCMs-action between them-Medeiros was made ??last Friday (4) and 
posted on the Internet by one of the skaters involved in confusion. Until 22h on Monday, 
the information had been shared more than 15,000 times.

The images show at least one boy being detained by a GCM, which was not uniform in 
Roosevelt Square. Other metropolitan civil guards also appear in the video using pepper 
spray against skaters who were on the spot and protested the action.

The author of the video shows the swollen eye in reaction to spray several times and is 
cursed by the GCM.

He and the others involved have been identified and removed from service. The guards 
provide testimony to the Internal Affairs Division of the Metropolitan Civil Guard, which 
clears the case.

Wanted, the author of the video and the GCM did not comment on the incident. (FELIPE AND 
ADRIANA SOUZA FARIAS)

(en) Brazil, S?o Paulo, Rhizome January 17 - Radio Free Lowland Settlement and Milton Santos - shoulder to shoulder (pt)

The Settlement Milton Santos resists. Incra S?o Paulo is busy since Tuesday. ---- To 
start, a report said. It is available on this page (click the tag!) all materials - 
texts and videos - which have been published in the Pass Word about the struggle of 
Settlement Milton Santos . ---- As I said here , we at Radio Free Lowland , we are side 
by side with those who struggle and desire to overcome this social system that represses 
and imprisons all of us who want to live independently in the wild. ---- And that's why 
last Thursday, January 17th, we attended again with settlers and supporters of Milton 
Santos Occupation INCRA. Here is an excerpt from the report of the Pass Word: ---- 
Training and culture << occupation ---- But not only of heated meetings was the day of the 
occupation.

Just after lunch, Radio Free V?rzea developed an activity at the entrance gate of the 
occupation. He was left an open mic for the settlers tell their life stories, give 
testimony, make fun and laugh a little. In a row, the group gave a brief discussion on the 
topic of communication and coverage of social struggles in the mainstream media. >>

Training, really. We learned, too, that day. For this reason, we thank settlers and 
supporters, and we will be there next week with more activities in front of the battle.

That same day, as can be read in the report cited here, a meeting was held tense and full 
of empty promises (until when?) With representatives of INCRA (National Institute of 
Colonization and Agrarian Reform). It is the message: President Dilma, you have a few days 
to sign the decree for the expropriation by corporate interest area Settlement Milton Santos!

http://varzea.radiolivre.org/2013/01/20/varzeaemiltonsantosombroaombr/

en) Brazil, S?o Paulo, Rhizome: presentation (pt)

Why Rhizome? ---- In botany, the term refers to Rhizome stem polymorph capable of giving 
rise to different branches - flor?feros, fol?feros or roots - typically located beneath 
the ground and provided with horizontal growth. In 1980, the book A Thousand Plateaus, 
Giles Deleuze and F?lix Guattari's rhizome botanical appropriated to embody a 
philosophical system devoid of fundamental roots, which articulates how integrated network 
in which all links while supporting and derive the others. Complex and innovative 
approach, the rhizome is concerned to delineate multiplicities in our world, in measuring 
the underground lines that run through, set them by strata and segmentaridades, 
associations and conflicts. Opens the rhizome, the possibility of pursuing the trait that 
necessarily connects to other traits - the locus where everything is related to 
everything: "a rhizome would not cease to connect semiotic chains, organizations of power, 
occurrences that refer to the arts, science, social struggles. ".

Other thinkers endorse the intelligibility of the rhizome. And among these the best known 
is Michel Foucault.

Equally attentive multiplicities, Foucault study the associations between conflict and 
social forces, power asymmetries and strategies including the historical and spatial 
clashes by the exercise of power. In the book Discipline and Punish, 1975, Foucault never 
demonstrate how power is exercised by a single force and strictly repressive. The power is 
appealing for several distinct groups, through a series of different devices and 
mechanisms by ordering bodies, creating pleasures, exorcising souls, producing wealth.

If articulate the rhizome of Deleuze and Foucault Guatari the power of an analysis of our 
own time and space, the seizure of traits hidden (or rather hidden) of our society becomes 
possible.
S?o Paulo In current, from this perspective, notices immediately that there is a very 
discernible social stratum and select which exercises the power and legitimacy. Some 
groups are specialized, dynamic, and reciprocal association that exist: the rulers of the 
state executive, legislative and bureaucratic supervisors, the judges, prosecutors and 
judges of the judiciary, investors and speculators from large foundations and companies, 
researchers and scientists aligned with interests of accumulation, conservative media 
sectors, the military brass - the exercise of power spins the fabric that combines 
underground.

Indeed, few places so completely reproduce this association as the University of S?o 
Paulo: the senior bureaucratic rectory are nominated by the state government PSDB; 
together, both advocate the submission of research support the marketing criteria, while 
imposing standards on enterprise production and academic interaction; professors 
technicist guarantee the perpetuation of this project in select university councils, the 
development of this university - enterprise and capitalized - induces the presence of 
walls, uniforms and weapons, always legitimate for a judge order and heritage; 
conservative sectors of the media convey this project as "innovative" and "modernizing"; 
companies providing outsourcing services to university (as the Union and BKM), private 
foundations with offices on campus (as the FIA ??and FIP), and large companies benefit 
from the market research (such as Volkswagen and Bayern) and institutional support 
financially the perpetuation of the rectory and managers of the state, completing the circuit.

Although USP is perhaps the most perfect example of corporate and institutional oligopoly, 
this pattern of association exists throughout the social fabric in modernity, covering 
other universities, judges, bureaucrats, businesses, banks, police, government officials ...

The student mobilization in recent years, both held at USP as in several other Brazilian 
universities, specifically challenging oligarchic these circuits, since the rule of 
university space, opposing their business standards and their knowledge of the market of 
solidarity and self-management creative freedom that only the living can enable horizontal.

It is this opposition that motivates concrete prisons and criminal, evictions, layoffs, 
slanders spread by the landowners of the information, the attacks on our living spaces.
Nevertheless, it is also because of this opposition that another circuit of association 
gurpos between branches underground, as opposed to the oligarchic social stratum to be 
realized in the exercise of reflection and practices of resistance - and not in the 
reaffirmation of the relations of domination.

In other words, if there are branches that run through the governor's office, go through 
the table of the dean and the deputy reached the parlor, there are also branches that may 
integrate the targets of that domination in the practices of resistance, renewing them the 
possibilities of a way of life fairer and more autonomous. Students mobilized from various 
universities, staff and combative workers, intellectuals really critical, democratic 
groups of judges, student unions and non-equipped, party groups outside the state and the 
theater democratic, free media, social movements claim housing, land or labor - these 
groups share the burden of oppression imposed by elites, while they join in the prospects 
for a better future.

Analyzing the exercise of power in today's society through the eyes of the rhizome, so it 
is clear that multiple social forces make up two larger sets that exist in conflict: on 
one hand, the circuit oligopolistic working out the criteria to discern what can be and 
what can not be done, who has the legitimacy to intern and incarcerating that appropriates 
the spaces and collective work on behalf of values ??like "democracy" and "order" and the 
other side of the circle of resistance, more volatile and constantly threatened, which is 
expressed in different ways to ensure basic autonomy, to ensure their living spaces and 
fellowship, to the survival traditions of art, production of conduct.

Clearly, the relationship between these two poles is larger complex and multifaceted, and 
ultimately depends associations and minor conflicts that each multiplicity develops social 
with others. It is also evident that these two sets do not match the totality of society: 
they are situated between several other social multiplicities, which oscillate between the 
two poles and can never be neutral judge.

However, it also seems undeniable that in recent years this has increased polarization 
only, and conflicts as in Pinheirinho are real examples of new trends of radicalization 
that open.

In the process of radicalization that foreshadows social change, students libertarians can 
and should appear as relevant social agents. Because it holds can enjoy the privilege of 
training with potential criticism of our society, besides being free from the constraints 
that inhibit part and tame to most people. And they should because it is essential for 
today's time that groups think and try new modes of collective life, thus making sharper 
opposition to artificial and consumerist models that still dominate us. In short, 
autonomous and libertarian students can contribute socially creating possibilities - even 
if encased in a short duration - breaking with traditional chains hierarchy, overcoming 
the performances and simulations of capitalism, encouraging self-management and 
cooperation, enhancing marketing concepts not art, space, life.

It is against these perspectives that we organize at USP: a tendency to solidify between 
horizontal and libertarian students that transcends the traditional expressions of 
partisan left and suggest new possibilities of creation and reflection before a conflict 
increasingly tense. A collective student must abandon notions of vanguard to erect the 
flags of self-management, direct democracy, collective training theoretical emancipation 
of public spaces.

An active group, a libertarian group, a group of students.

Brazil, S?o Paulo, Rhizome - libertarian and autonomous trend (pt)

Why libertarian and autonomous trend? ---- Before presenting the results of our 
discussions about what is the Rhizome, we highlight some important caveats: we do not 
intend to present immutable definitions and do not want to cling to rigid concepts. While 
we understand that there are settings that can imprison collectives, we argue that the 
concepts and definitions should get out of our collective practices, and serve to 
strengthen these, allowing the construction of discourses that express thoughts and 
legitimations about our action. That is, we understand that the definitions presented here 
are only a single photo of a long movie. We want to build a collective dynamic, ongoing 
construction, which maintain a self-critical and constantly renews itself: the rhizome is 
not, is.

Exactly why intencionarmos that our group is fluid and open to change, choose the concept 
of tendency to define ourselves. Trend because we want the actions and reflections of our 
group tend to a political horizon, in this case, the horizon of the libertarian strand. 
Trend because what unites us are some methodological and programmatic agreements - some 
consensus about the ends we want, and about the appropriate means. Trend because we 
believe that through our work in microrealidade university can contribute so rhizomatic in 
broader struggles. Trend because we understand that it is also necessary to have 
collective commitment and respect this journey in order that she give the best possible 
way - are against discipline as a means of taming the bodies, but rather advocate the 
importance of compromise, "proceeds" of if it fulfills the tasks with which we are 
committed individually and collectively. However, we would like to emphasize that we aim 
lightness in no way mean that the rhizome should work as an advantage nor as a cult - do 
not want a group uniform or uniform! The Rhizome we came striving to build on these 
initial six months is not restricted to a collective people of a particular philosophical 
or ideological position, the Rhizome you want is merely a group of students participating 
in the student movement and share some goals and some methods fighting. Yes we want to 
influence the movement some practices and strengthening specific aspects of this, however, 
does not want to impose our views and as much as co-opt people not only want to accept or 
deny other positions. We do not want to be neither vanguard nor the rear of the movement. 
We want to propose, criticize and collectively build, shoulder to shoulder.

By saying that the rhizome is not restricted to a particular current political-ideological 
not wish in any way to deny that we do have some current proximity to, for example, with 
different lines of anarchism with situationism with autonomism with zapatismo , with some 
lines heterodox Marxist (autonomy, councilists, Lefebvrians ...). We want to make it clear 
that yes Rhizome is a tendency, not a party, which is a sector of the movement, not a 
political group. So yes we need some terms of long term goals, some converging horizons, 
however, that while these agreements engessem group. That's where the second part of the 
definition of the Rhizome: Why libertarian and autonomous?

Libert?rixs because we are against all forms of oppression, be they economic, political, 
ideological etc.. We are against the domination State (antiestatistas), we are against 
capitalist exploitation (anticapitalist), we are against the oppressions ethnic, gender 
and sexual orientation, and we are against the disciplinary institutions and ideologies 
that make us docile servants. We libert?rixs because we understand that only through 
direct action, only with xs pr?prixs oprimidxs performing their struggles without relying 
not have representatives, can we achieve progress towards a society without domination. We 
libert?rixs because we understand that we start building now, through our struggles, the 
society we want to live tomorrow - and by this, we advocate self-management and direct 
democracy as organizational forms. We libert?rxs because we understand that my personal 
freedom is extended to infinity when it meets another, it is because we believe that 
individual freedom has to be complementary to collective freedom. We claim because 
libert?rixs social freedom, not freedom selfish commonsense liberal. And also because we 
libert?rixs understand that only with a broad alliance of social movements of different 
popular sectors is possible the transformation we so desire.

And because we libert?rixs not want fights or coptar militant outfit. And Semos 
libert?rixs, we identify with the different historical and contemporary popular struggles 
against the domination of society. And because we libert?rixs, but we understand that 
there must be consistency between discourse and practice, and we're here to act, not to 
make empty speeches - the action and the way we act is intrinsic, inseparable part of who 
we are. And because we libert?rixs not ever present a proposal ready, locked and 
unchangeable; understand that the path is going, that building is constant and ongoing. 
And because we libert?rixs not read reality as a mere result of economic relations, but as 
a result of complex power relations of the different spheres of social reality. And 
because we libert?rixs, when we look around and see so much repression, inevitably, raise 
the sleeves of our shirt, and we will fight courageously - to destroy everything that 
oppresses us! Until we build an egalitarian and free!

And because we libert?rixs, are also autonomous. Freelancers argue that because the 
movements themselves must define their destiny - the paths should be decided by todxs of 
motion and movement, not in party offices, businesses, governments, or any other type of 
organization and institution. Autonomous because we want to emphasize the importance of 
the territorial issue in struggles contestativas.

For all this, we decided to engage in this collective project, and we are always open to 
todxs hoping to help build this alternative for the student movement.

Fighting for another university to build another company!

(en) Brazil, S?o Paulo, Rizome Settlers of Milton Santos occupy the building Incra (pt)

In the early hours of Tuesday, January 15, 2013, 70 families and supporters of the 
settlement Milton Santos, located in Americana and Cosmopolis, occupied the premises of 
INCRA (National Institute of Colonization and Agrarian Reform) in Sao Paulo. They aim to 
report they are threatened with eviction and demand of President Dilma Rousseff to sign 
the decree of expropriation by corporate interest, preventing a possible tragedy. Settlers 
are threatened with being evicted from their homes and lots, where they plant and lived 
for seven years, when were officially settled by the federal government. Families of 
Milton Santos suffer this threat for more than six months, and last Wednesday, January 9, 
Incra received judicial notice requiring the families to vacate the area in maximum 15 
days. If stay is authorized the use of state and federal police force to carry out the 
eviction. Several legal actions have been taken and representatives of the federal 
government pledged not to evict the families. However, no effective measure has been taken.

It is already known that the only effective measure to prevent the eviction is the 
expropriation by corporate interest area. So families are willing to maintain the 
occupation until President Dilma sign the decree of expropriation.

Contacts:
Paulinho: 11-9 8706-9318 / 19-992415286
Fatima: 19-8239-4507
assentamentomiltonsantos@gmail.com

Learn more about the case:

www.assentamentomiltonsantos.com.br

http://www.facebook.com/AssentamentoMiltonSantos

Collective Communication Settlement Milton William Santana Santos

(en) Brazil, S?o Paulo, rhizome - "They heard? It's the sound of your world falling ": EZLN (pt)

http://desinformemonos.org/2012/12/escutaram-eo-som-de-seu-mundo-se-derrubando-ezln -- In 
a massive action, disciplined and simultaneously, not seen since the days of insurgent 
survey of 1994, thousands of Zapatistas occupied peacefully in a deafening silence and 
five cities in the state of Chiapas. A few hours later showed a brief statement. ---- 
Desinform?monos ---- Translation: Mariana Petroni and Erneneck ---- Photos: Moyses Z??iga 
---- Chiapas, Mexico. Thousands of support bases of the Zapatista Army of National 
Liberation (EZLN) occupied a silent emblematic streets of the five municipalities of 
Chiapas, in the first demonstration that the Zapatistas do pubic since May 7, 2011, when 
joined the call of the Movement for Peace with Justice and Dignity. This simultaneous 
action and massive, the largest in history, was preceded by the announcement that the 
indigenous organization would give his word, which met a few hours after mobilization.

"To whom it may concern. Heard? It's the sound of your world falling. It is the 
resurfacing of our world. The day was the day it was night. And night will be the day that 
will be the day "the message was signed by Subcomandante Marcos and widespread hours 
later, through Enlace Zapatista page.

In each of the cities occupied (Ocosingo, Las Margaritas, Palenque, Altamirano and San 
Crist?bal), the Tzeltal, Tzotzil, ch'oles, Tojolabal, Zoque, and mestizos mames marched 
with their traditional scarves and balaclava, queued and silence rigorous. Men and women, 
mostly young, started on the templete in each city, and raised his fist. That was the most 
symbolic expression of the entire mobilization.

Strength, discipline, an extraordinary order, dignity, integrity and cohesion. Not hardly. 
There are 19 years in which a multitude of times were considered dead, divided and 
isolated. Again and again came out to say "here we are." Today, with 40,000 Zapatistas 
streets, again silenced, all at once, rumors infused.

In San Crist?bal de Las Casas, a city where demonstrations are traditionally made for the 
EZLN outside its territory, more than 20 000 men and women from the Zapatista caracol of 
Oventik where focused a day earlier, paraded under a rain that began at dawn . The march 
of 28 detachments (numbering according to leading groups in their balaclava) started out 
of town, around eight-thirty in the morning, and about noon the rear was still far from 
the city center. The central square was too small to receive all of them.

Inhabitants and tourists cheered and sang the hymn in some sections of the Zapatista 
march. Traders, as usual, dropped the curtains, because the Indians surprised them again. 
The pavilion has been placed in front of the cathedral, while the blocks were located 
Zapatistas arranged around the central area of ??town.