user preferences

Upcoming Events


No upcoming events.
international / imperialism / war / other libertarian press Saturday February 10, 2018 19:57 byArchive

Against Imperialism: International Solidarity and Resistance: A Discussion on Anti-Imperialism, National Liberation Struggles, & Extending Social Struggles to an International Level of Resistance

Part of a discussion on International Solidarity & Revolutionary Resistance presented at the Regional Anarchist Gathering held in Jan.26-29/90 in Vancouver, Canada, the first half is a brief introduction to the historical development of imperialism, including the rise to dominance of US capital in the global economic order, and the second half discusses national liberation struggles, their contradictions & limitations, & an anarchist perspective to these struggles. If anarchist or autonomist struggles are to have any impact, a complete re-assessment of our analysis & methods is necessary. Developing this means addressing ourselves to an analysis against capital- something which this article also mentions.

Against Imperialism: International Solidarity and Resistance
A Discussion on Anti-Imperialism, National Liberation Struggles, & Extending Social Struggles to an International Level of Resistance

Endless Struggle #12, Spring/Summer 1990, Vancouver, pp. 13-15, 24

“It is our opinion that our failing to have any significant presence in the reality of present day struggles is largely due to complacency & lack of up to date analysis of problems in an increasingly complex social structure” (Bratach Dubh collective, intro. to Anarchism & the National Liberation Struggle, by Alfredo Bonanno)

The following article was part of a discussion on International Solidarity & Revolutionary Resistance presented at the Regional Anarchist Gathering held in Jan.26-29/90 in Vancouver, Canada.

The first half of this article is a brief introduction to the historical development of imperialism, including the rise to dominance of US capital in the global economic order. The second half discusses national liberation struggles, their contradictions & limitations, & an anarchist perspective to these struggles. It certainly isn’t definitive in total, but we hope it provides a starting point for discussion. A lot hasn’t been analysed, such as the present global economic thrust towards mobility in production, significant changes in capitalist production (i.e. technology, flexibility), & the relationship between these factors & the class struggle in the advanced capitalist countries corresponding with the national liberation struggles. It is beyond the scope of this article to fully address these, nevertheless, if anarchist or autonomist struggles are to have any impact, a complete re-assessment of our analysis & methods is necessary. Developing this means addressing ourselves to an analysis against capital- something which this article also mentions.

Anarchists tend to reduce anarchism to mere anti-statism or opposition to authority, a superficial & all encompassing “anti-authoritarian blanket” draped over all social struggles. Instead of extending an analysis to patriarchal & capitalist exploitation, which by its nature demands an international struggle, anarchists have restricted their perspective (if at all) to the most blatant products of this: sometimes in the “life-stylist” approach by boycotting multinationals, at other times in the pursuit of “alternative economic communities”. Capitalism is acknowledged, but only as some kind of background setting with no specific structures or conditions. When the Economic Summit of the G-7 (the seven leading industrial countries consisting of the US, Canada, Japan, W. Germany, Britain, France & Italy) was held in Toronto in June /88, the movements lack of anti-capitalist analysis was clear: “Protesting the 7 leaders is somewhat of a red herring, seeing as it’s not just these 7 who are the problem, but all leaders & capitalism itself” (from Ecomedia Toronto, our emphasis). In this, the world economic order, dominated primarily by US capitalism, & its structures the IMF & World Bank, in which the G7 maintain dominant positions, is reduced to a problem of “leaders” & “capitalism” remains as something lurking in the background. The article continues on, making the point of resistance a question of who controls the streets rather than one of who maintains the levels of exploitation: “But many anarchists came out to support the days actions because the issue turned from one of protesting the leaders to… reclaiming the streets of our city, which have been blocked off for us for the length of the Summit”.

This is a reflection of the fact that most anarchists don’t see various social struggles (ecological, anti-sexism, anti-racism) as having a basis in class struggle. But this isn’t to say that these social struggles are irrelevant or secondary to the class struggle, as some Marxists (as well as some anarchists) do, but rather the opposite: these social struggles make up the basis of the class struggle. In the minds of those who delegate these social struggles to a secondary position it is commonly argued that capital created racism, sexism etc. as a tool to divide the class. But such a simplistic analysis ignores the patriarchal & racist ideological basis that makes up the domination & expansion of capitalism. Today, capitalism shapes & effects our cultural & social relationships like no other social culture has. Anti-capitalism is not only an economic struggle but is also a cultural struggle.

For most anarchists, the logical conclusion of an international class struggle against international exploitation, imperialism, is not seen. A primary component of resistance to imperialism has been the national liberation struggle. The anarchist response has been silence, reluctance, or outright hostility to these movements. We think there is another approach, one of intervention & solidarity.

Between 1800-1900, the full division of the world amongst the major European and American powers was completed. From this point on, only the re-division of the world was possible. During this period, Great Britain acquired 3, 700, 000sq. miles with 14, 700, 000 inhabitants, and so on (from Lenin’s Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism where he quoted economist J.A. Hobson).

For nations which had a level of independence after fighting colonial wars, the metropoles were already developing new forms of colonialism in the forms of debts and dependence. In the 1820s, English banks lent a total of £21 million to former Spanish colonies (Chile, Argentina, Peru, Mexico, and Guatemala). The loans were directed towards developing export infrastructures: roads, railways, and ports, specifically from the mining and agricultural industries. The traditional agriculture was destroyed and replaced by monocultures, “cash crops”, grown for export. The export of raw materials was essential for the industrialization process of the metropoles, England, France, Spain, etc. With the debts, it was also a way of ensuring dependency, through the import of technology and machinery necessary for large-scale export, the increase in loans for these projects, and loans to maintain a balance-of-payment on the debt.

This then, is the basis of the economic control of the “Third World”, & the mass poverty & super-exploitation gripping the people in the Three Continents today; the peripheral countries provide agricultural & mineral raw materials for the imperialist centres, at the same time serving as sales markets for the manufactured goods produced in the metropoles, & as spheres of influ-investment for their surplus capital.

The Second World War market a substantial change for world imperialism, & out of it the US was to emerge as the dominant player.
The US ruling class entered the war with a clear idea of what it wanted. Competing imperialist nations would be dismantled & made dependent on US capital. Britain, Japan, Germany & France were exhausted & almost non-functioning economies from the war, & they would be reduced to junior partners. An important part of this was the Marshall Plan, in which the US gave or lent to W. Europe & Japan $17 billion between1947-55. This allowed the US to control post-war re-building along capitalist lines & to expand foreign investment by US multinationals. Alongside this, the US prepared plans for a new world trade & monetary order to prevent a world economic crisis as in the 1920’s & to further develop the expansion of US capitalism. The IMF & World Bank were important steps in this direction. For obvious political reasons, the USSR & its satellites were excluded. In fact the USSR was to be seen as the major threat to US interests, even though as a result of the war it wasn’t in a realistic position to do this. Nevertheless, the US quickly began consolidating itself against this “spread of communism”. Military & economic blocs, dependent on the US, were created to contain & encircle the USSR & its European satellites. These came in the form of NATO in 1949, SEATO in 1954 & ANZUS.

This was to be the “American Century”! But the post-second world war expansion was to last only 3 decades. The pattern of economic growth came to an end in ’73 – 74. The investment boom making up for war-time losses & shortages, & capitalizing on new industries (electronics, jet aircraft etc.) had run its course with nothing comparable to take its place as a force of driving the capitalist accumulation process (Paul M. Sweezy, US Imperialism in the 90s). The interpenetration of the US market by W. European & Japanese manufactured goods forced the US to shift many of its manufacturing industries to the Asian market, where costs were low. The formerly dependent powers in W. Europe & Japan were in the process of breaking out of their dependence on the US (Already new developments are occurring, with the possibility of the creation of 3 competing blocs; the US & its dependents, the USSR & its dependents, & the European Economic Community, which in 1992 will abolish trade barriers within its borders. The Free Trade Agreement between the US & Canada is an integral part of this development. US imperialism can be said to be declining as a dominant world power).

Contributing to this decline of the US were revolutionary movements within the US itself & the development of national liberation movements. During this period a “record number of defections” from Western imperialism occurred: Ethiopia in 74, Angola, Mozambique, Guinea-Bissau, leading up to Grenada, Nicaragua, & Iran in 79, & Zimbabwe in 1980. These liberation movements had their roots in the struggles between1954–75. During this period, 17 British colonies in Africa alone achieved nominal independence, the French followed ceding independence to 19 of its 20 African colonies. But upon independence, political power was merely transferred from colonial gov’ts to local bourgeoisies. In this way, the metropoles were able to maintain influence & control.

But this “formal break” with colonialism was only a prelude to revolutionary struggles in the form of national liberation movements. A primary characteristic of these were the nationalisation of industries & resources, the “ideology of nationalization” (Julio Rosad “Behind the US Economic Decline,” Breakthrough vol. xii no. 1. Summer 88).

It is without doubt that conditions for national liberation movements would be much more extreme without the aid of the USSR. The existence of this competing bloc has in ways reduced the movements of the western bloc. But this should be seen as the result of the USSR’s own interests. Under the rhetoric of “socialist internationalism”, the USSR has given aid according to its own geostrategic interests & designs. “…the Eastern bloc is a black stain in the political geography of leftism… it is mainly according to their geostrategic interests & the priority given to the consolidation of their own existence through the external policies of the Soviet Union are decided. The aspiration to be “recognised” & to have the equivalent of imperialism & not the aspiration of World Revolution is the red thread that runs through all of the world politics” (Revolutionary, Cells/Red Zora Discussion Paper on the Peace Movement 1984).

Afghanistan shows that the USSR, like the US, is prepared to defend the interests using violence in the form of armed intervention, napalm, & chemical weapons. Even with this however, the USSR cannot be placed on an equal level of that of the US. The USSR’s expansion is based on need, not on a surplus, & in this way is incapable of developing a strong dependence. “In the face if [sic] imperialism is based on need & not on surplus. They cannot rely on the “gentle” violence of a mode of production, waiting for it, as a result of its inherent expansive logic, to build a durable dependence (RZ/RZ Discussion paper). In the age of perestroika, the East bloc shows its own integration into western capital in the form of its massive debts to western banks, the IMF & World Bank. Even today, the Deutsche Bank opens up offices within the East bloc.

Today, the consolidation of national liberation & self-determination is an unrealistic goal. In these isolated struggles, one nation merely moves from one capitalist bloc to another, unable to determine its own economic direction. Because of this, many anarchists & marxists define the FMLN in El Salvador as the “left-wing of capital’s political apparatus”, while the US backed regime is the “right-wing”. In a candid interview, Francisco Jovel of the 5 member FMLN General Command flatly stated “We are not talking about installing a socialist regime. This is a product of our analysis of national & international reality” (NACLA Report on the Americas, Vol. xxiii no. 3 Sept. 89). Eduardo Sancho, another member of the General Command, describes the FMLN’s proposed “Gov’t of Broad Participation”, the “pluralistic democracy” which is the basis of the FMLN’s proposals, as being “from an ideological & economic point of view, nothing more than (a program for) the development of capitalism in El Salvador … We first have to develop our minimal program .. then later bases to construct socialism, & then later communism – which we think will develop in this country around the year 3,000” (talk about long-range development plans! From NACLA, Report on the Americas Sept. 89). Obviously, the FMLN is the “left-wing” of capital, but this reformist view of socialism is only a reflection of the reality that self-determination isn’t possible in national liberation.

Increasingly, it becomes clear that the consolidation of social liberation, the breakout of national liberation, & the extending of the insurrection in the periphery is directly related to our own revolutionary struggles here & now, in the centres. This is the basis of Internationalism: “If Internationalism is not to be merely meaningless rhetoric, it must imply solidarity between the proletariat of different countries or nations. This is a concrete term. When there is a revolution, it will be as it has been in the past, in a precise geographical area. How much it remains there will be directly linked to the extent of that Internationalism, both in terms of solidarity & the spreading of the revolution itself” (Jean Weir, intro to Anarchism & the National Liberation Struggle).

In the absence of this Internationalism, the success of a Cuba (altho[ugh] the continued repression including that against the anarchists is well known) in the eradication of mass hunger & extreme hunger, providing healthcare & schooling, takes on a new level of attractiveness for the people still fighting for these necessities. In this way, the “left-wing of capitalism”, & its’ accompanying condemnation, becomes little more than political posturing, true as it is. The total rejection of the FMLN as the left-wing ignores the context of what they are fighting for and what they must fight against.

Of course, there are countless other criticisms of national liberation fronts & struggles: that, as in Cambodia, there is the possibility of disastrous outcome or that they are mostly dominated by Marxist-Leninist positions. Perhaps we could let Insurrection no. 4 May 88 [reply]: “One could reply to the first that there is no such situation as one that can guarantee a revolutionary or progressive outcome in advance, but rather that such an outcome would be more probable in the presence of the anarchists & their struggle.” As for the blinding neo-McCarthyism, the same article goes on to say: “… the relationship between Marxism & the National liberation struggle is purely instrumental. That is, the people in struggle have adopted … certain Marxist elements as they have nothing else at their disposition. And is this not the fault of the anarchists?” This also reflects the fact that anarchism, while addressing themselves to all sorts of social & cultural struggles, have recently failed to offer any kind of attack on capitalism’s economic exploitation. Is it no wonder that the most economically and socially oppressed peoples have always been areas where Marxists or Marxist-Leninists have been able to make inroads?

National liberation fronts, as vehicles for achieving political & economic independence, contain contradictions in their very content, & these clearly lead to their limitations. These fronts generally encompass all people who are part of the specific ethnic group that is engaged in struggle. Thus for the ETA or native peoples in Canada, it becomes a question of the “liberation of … Basques” or the liberation of native peoples, rather than one of specifically class struggle. Writing on this in the magazine No Middle Ground (no. 3-4/85), K. Sorel, in reference to the FSLN in Nicaragua, wrote: “From its very beginnings in the 1960’s the FSLN had emphasized multi-class co-operation against the regime & that the Patriotic middle-classes would play a central role…” and that the “Sandinista regime (after overthrowing Somoza) quickly demonstrated its class nature by inviting leading businessmen Alfonso Robelo & Arturo Cruz into top positions of the new gov’t. At the Managua labor seminar of the state-controlled labor union, the Sandinista Workers Central, Commander Carlos Nunez declared that it was “important to distinguish between those members of the bourgeoisie who are still influenced by imperialism & those who had been victims of the dictatorship because the latter are individuals the FSLN wants to attract & consolidate into the revolution” (Sorrel quoted Barricada Sept. 25/79).

Expanding on this narrow view of ethnic culture, Fronte Libertaire wrote: “Ethnic culture is not that of all who are born or live in the same territory & speak the same language. It is the culture of those who, in a given group, suffer the same exploitation. Ethnic culture is class culture, & for this reason is revolutionary culture” (quoted from Anarchism & the National Lib. Struggle). In this way, the diversity of the “front” begins to contradict what should be the logical base of its struggle: anti-capitalism. “National lib. Movements are capitalist multi-class coalitions in which the proletarians of the Third World do the fighting & dying …” (No Middle Ground no. 3-4). If anti-imperialist resistance (here or there) doesn’t expand beyond this, if it is in opposition to imperialism only, then it too begins to develop its own contradictions & can in fact become a reformist struggle. As Alfredo Bonanno writes “The enemy is he who exploits, organising production & distribution in a capitalist dimension, even if this exploiter then calls us compatriot, party comrade, or whatever other pleasing epithet … Unity with the internal exploiters is impossible, because no unity is possible between the class of workers & the class of exploiters”.

In rejecting national lib. struggles some anarchists & marxists use the slogan “Nation or Class,” with the view that because we struggle for international revolution, limited national struggles are an obstacle. However, as has already been said, the limitations of these struggles can be viewed as a direct result of our own revolutionary struggles lacking intensity & influence. Demanding "World Revolution" while rejecting national lib. struggles & ignoring the lack of revolutionary struggle here, is like trying to get blood out of a stone. With or without revolutionary solidarity, the exploited of the 3 continents will continue to build resistance on their own. Whether or not the national liberation struggles contribute to international revolution, by extending the insurrection, is something that also rests in our hands.

Our internationalism, which connects revolutionary struggles here with the struggles in the periphery, is what creates the anti-imperialist resistance. The basis of our anti-imperialist struggle is extending the social struggle to form a base in the anti-capitalist struggle within an international perspective. A contributing part of developing an anti-imperialist, international perspective is seeing that even with the contradictions & limitations, national liberation fronts also contain class fronts, & this is what connects our struggles into one. Our position should be one of intervening & extending the struggle.

"Anarchists should give all their support, concrete regarding participation, theoretical concerning analysis & study, to national liberation struggles" (Alfredo Bonanno, Anarchism & the National Liberation Struggle).


(Credit for text mark-up: SB, JF).

Διεθνή / Αναρχικό κίνημα / Γνώμη / Ανάλυση Wednesday January 31, 2018 21:12 byCoordenação Anarquista Brasileira

Η τακτική πρέπει να εξαρτάται από την περιορισμένη χρονική στρατηγική, η οποία πρέπει να εξαρτάται από τη γενική στρατηγική, η οποία πρέπει να εξαρτάται από τους τελικούς στόχους.
Δεν συμβαίνει ότι «οι άξονες που δικαιολογούν τα μέσα», αλλά μάλλον ότι οι άξονες πρέπει να καθορίσουν τα μέσα (στρατηγικές, τακτικές κλπ.).
Αυτή είναι μια συνοχή που δεν μπορούμε να ξεπεράσουμε. Αυτό που κάνουμε σήμερα συμβάλλει στο σημείο όπου θα φτάσουμε αύριο.

Από την Coordenação Anarquista Brasileira (CAB - Αναρχικός Συντονισμός της Βραζιλίας)

Μετάφραση από τον Νικόλαο Νάπαλο

Δύναμη, κυριαρχία και κοινωνικές τάξεις

Οι σχέσεις εξουσίας διαπερνούν όλες τις κοινωνικές σχέσεις και εμπλέκουν τους κοινωνικούς παράγοντες στις πιο ποικίλες διαμάχες και τις προσπάθειες να επηρεάζουν τις καταστάσεις. Στις κοινωνίες που χωρίζονται σε κοινωνικές τάξεις υπάρχει μια συγκεκριμένη σχέση εξουσίας που μπορεί να εκδηλωθεί σε διαφορετικούς κοινωνικούς τομείς (οικονομικό, πολιτικό και ιδεολογικό): κυριαρχία, κυριαρχία.

Η κυριαρχία λαμβάνει χώρα όταν μια τάξη, ομάδα ή άτομο εκτελεί το σχέδιο άλλου ατόμου, ομάδας ή τάξης ενάντια στα συμφέροντά του, καταστρέφοντας έτσι τα ίδια και ενισχύοντας τα προνόμια του κυρίαρχου.

Οι κοινωνικές τάξεις σηματοδοτούν την ιστορία της ανθρωπότητας από την εμφάνιση των μεγάλων πολιτισμών μέχρι σήμερα, κατέχοντας έναν εξέχοντα και συγκεκριμένο ρόλο στον καπιταλισμό. Οι σχέσεις μεταξύ κοινωνικών τάξεων είναι σχέσεις κυριαρχίας.
Ο αναρχισμός, ως σοσιαλιστικό ρεύμα, αγωνίζεται για το τέλος της κυριαρχίας και, κατά συνέπεια, για το τέλος των κοινωνικών τάξεων, έχοντας ως στόχο την οικοδόμηση ενός ισοδύναμου (σοσιαλιστικού) και ελεύθερου (ελευθεριακού) συστήματος.
Για να επιτευχθεί αυτός ο στόχος, είναι απαραίτητο για τους αναρχικούς γενικότερα, και ειδικότερα τους πολιτικούς μας οργανισμούς, να χτίσουν μια στρατηγική και πρόγραμμα που θα καθοδηγήσει τη γενική πορεία αυτής της μεταμόρφωσης.

Γενικό Στρατηγικό-Προγραμματικό Πλαίσιο

Ο παρακάτω πίνακας συστηματικοποιεί αυτό που καταλαβαίνουμε με τη στρατηγική και το πρόγραμμα μιας πολιτικής οργάνωσης.
Σημείωση: Τα στοιχεία στον πίνακα είναι: Γενική Στρατηγική, Στρατηγική 1 & 2 Περιορισμένης Διάρκειας, Τακτική 1-6, Ανάλυση Περιοχής, Ανάλυση Δομής και Ανώτατο Σκοπό
Στρατηγικά-Προγραμματικά Στοιχεία
Παρακάτω συζητάμε και εννοούμε τη στρατηγική και το πρόγραμμα, γενικά, ακολουθούμενη από την τοποθέτηση των άλλων στοιχείων στο πλαίσιο.

Στρατηγική και πρόγραμμα

Η στρατηγική περιλαμβάνει μια ανάγνωση της πραγματικότητας, τους στόχους που θέλετε να επιτύχετε και μια πορεία προς αυτήν. Δεν είναι τίποτα περισσότερο από την επιστήμη των συγκρούσεων, σε τελική ανάλυση, τη μελέτη του πολέμου (σε όλα τα επίπεδα, μορφές και εντάσεις), συμπεριλαμβανομένης της κοινωνικής σύγκρουσης ή της ταξικής πάλης.

Η ιδέα της στρατηγικής προκύπτει από τις σχέσεις των συγκρούσεων μεταξύ τάξεων, ομάδων ή ανθρώπων και από το γεγονός ότι οι πολιτικές διαμάχες περιλαμβάνουν ανταγωνιστικά συμφέροντα.

Πρέπει να διαμορφώσουμε μια γραμμή που ενοποιεί τη δραστηριότητά μας με έναν τρόπο που είναι ομοσπονδιακός, αλλά ποτέ δεν είναι κατακερματισμένος. Μπορούμε να υλοποιήσουμε μια συμπαγή και εσωτερικά συνεκτική δράση μέσω μιας πολιτικής πρακτικής που αναπτύσσει την οργάνωση και αυτό απλά σημαίνει μια γραμμή που χτίζει ή ανοικοδομεί τις κοινωνικές οργανώσεις που είναι απαραίτητες για τη βάση της λαϊκής εξουσίας. Σε αυτή την ενοποιητική γραμμή δίνουμε το όνομα και το εννοιολογικό βάρος του προγράμματος.

Το πρόγραμμα επισημοποιεί μια επιλεγμένη στρατηγική και ως εκ τούτου καθοδηγεί τις ενέργειες για ένα δεδομένο χρόνο και τόπο. Για να οικοδομήσουμε ένα πρόγραμμα, πρέπει να χρησιμοποιήσουμε στρατηγική αξιολόγηση και σχεδιασμό. Πρέπει να παρουσιάσει στρατηγικές σκέψεις σχετικά με το πού είμαστε, πού θέλουμε να πάμε σε μια συγκεκριμένη στιγμή και πώς θα περπατήσουμε αυτό το μονοπάτι.

Ένα πρόγραμμα συγκεκριμενοποιεί τη γραμμή που εφαρμόζουμε σε μια περίοδο. Μπορεί να είναι για βραχύτερες ή μεγαλύτερες χρονικές περιόδους. Περιλαμβάνει μια σειρά σημείων, στόχων και στόχων που πρέπει να εφαρμοστούν βραχυπρόθεσμα ή όχι βραχυπρόθεσμα (μεταξύ οργανωτικών συνεδρίων, για παράδειγμα) και αντικατοπτρίζει τον κεντρικό στόχο της στρατηγικής (γενική ή συγκρατημένη σε μια συγκεκριμένη χρονική στιγμή). Παρουσιάζει τα κατάλληλα εργαλεία για τη λαϊκή δραστηριότητα (οριζόντια και μαχητική): να ενοποιήσει τους αγώνες, να ενεργήσει μέσα από τα διαφορετικά μας μέτωπα, να δημιουργήσει μια ταυτότητα στην οποία τα διαφορετικά κοινωνικά θέματα βλέπουν και ενεργούν από την έννοια των καταπιεσμένων τάξεων.

Υπάρχει λοιπόν μια γενική πολιτική γραμμή που θα καθοδηγεί τις πρωτοβουλίες μας σε μια συγκεκριμένη χρονική στιγμή. Μπορεί επίσης να συμβεί ότι οι στρατηγικοί στόχοι μιας περιόδου δεν ανταποκρίνονται πλήρως στην τρέχουσα ικανότητα των μαχητών μας (τόσο στην υποδομή όσο και στους ανθρώπους / το χρόνο να εργαστούν σε όλα τα απαραίτητα επίπεδα) ούτε με την δύναμη της παρέμβασής μας σε κοινωνικούς αγώνες. Ακόμα, πρέπει να μετατρέψουμε σε συγκεκριμένη πολιτική πρακτική αυτό που επιλέξαμε ως γενικούς στόχους για αυτό το στάδιο. Το πρόγραμμα θα είναι το μέσο που θα καταδείξει τις συγκεκριμένες ενέργειες που θα αναλάβουμε για να υλοποιήσουμε τη στρατηγική μας υπόθεση. Γι 'αυτό και μιλάμε για μια ατζέντα. Πρόκειται για ξεχωριστές πράξεις που πρέπει να λειτουργήσουν για να επιτύχουν μια ζωντανή δύναμη (επειδή σκοπεύουμε να την υλοποιήσουμε), ενόψει των σκληρών συνθηκών διαβίωσης, του κατακερματισμού, της απελπισίας που προκαλείται από τη δυστυχία, της απώλειας της ιδέας ενός συλλογικού μέλλοντος , τον κοινωνικό ιστό στα τσαγκάκια και την ιδεολογική εξέλιξη των παλαιών-δεξιών (ολιγαρχιών, οικονομικών ή / και εθνικών κεφαλαίων) καθώς και του νέου δεξιού (κλάσματα της άρχουσας τάξης, καλλιέργεια νέων πολιτικο-διοικητικών ελίτ, ).
Φυσικά, ο τελικός στόχος και η γενική οργανωτική στρατηγική μπορεί να εμφανιστούν στο πρόγραμμα. Σε αυτή την περίπτωση είναι ένα "μέγιστο πρόγραμμα", με ελάχιστες διακυμάνσεις. Παρ 'όλα αυτά, είναι σημαντικό το πρόγραμμα να παρουσιάζει στενότερο βραχυπρόθεσμο και μεσαίο επίπεδο

Δομή / Δομική ανάλυση

Είναι η αξιολόγηση αυτών των στοιχείων που μας επιτρέπει να κατανοήσουμε το σύστημα και τη δομή στην οποία εισάγουμε, λαμβάνοντας υπόψη την μακροπρόθεσμη συνειδητοποίηση. Αυτός ο τύπος ανάλυσης βασίζεται στην ιστορία και επιδιώκει να παρουσιάσει τα κύρια δομικά χαρακτηριστικά (τα οποία δεν διαφέρουν πολύ με την συγκυρία) του καπιταλιστικού συστήματος, του κράτους, της τρέχουσας ηγεμονικής κουλτούρας (πάντοτε με αυτήν την μακροπρόθεσμη συνειδητοποίηση) .

Η ανάλυση του Μαρξ για τον καπιταλισμό στο Κεφάλαιο, για παράδειγμα, είναι διαρθρωτική, όπως και η αναρχική θεωρία του κράτους (και αυτή η θεωρία της τύχης είναι ανεξάρτητη από το κυβερνών κόμμα). Η δομή είναι βαθύτερη και έχει στοιχεία μεγαλύτερης διάρκειας από τη συγκυρία. σε μια ανάλυση αυτού του τύπου, προσεγγίζουμε το σύστημα κυριαρχίας και την ταξική δομή του, ανεξάρτητα από το αν η εταιρεία Χ ή Υ έχει μεγαλύτερη οικονομική ισχύ ή εάν το κόμμα Α ή Β έχει εξουσία πάνω στον εκτελεστικό ή νομοθετικό τομέα της κυβέρνησης για παράδειγμα.

Ανάλυση συγκυρίας / συγκυρίας

Είναι η αξιολόγηση αυτών των στοιχείων που καθιστούν δυνατή την κατανόηση της στιγμής κατά την οποία βρίσκεται το σύστημα και η δομή της κοινωνίας, δηλαδή ποιος είναι ο χαρακτηρισμός της περιόδου στην οποία συναντάται η κοινωνία και τα πιο σημαντικά χαρακτηριστικά της ; Αυτός ο τύπος ανάλυσης είναι πολύ πιο άμεσος από τη διαρθρωτική ανάλυση και λαμβάνει υπόψη αλλαγές όπως οι οικονομικές πολιτικές, τα πολιτικά κόμματα στην εξουσία, οι οικονομικοί καπιταλιστικοί μπλοκ, τα διεθνή και εθνικά σενάρια, οι πόλεμοι, οι συγκρούσεις, τα μεγάλα γεγονότα, τα λαϊκά κινήματα, έννοια, κ.λπ.

Ως αναρχικοί, πιστεύουμε ότι, ακόμη και με διαρθρωτικούς / συγκυριακούς περιορισμούς, η ανθρώπινη δράση είναι ικανή να τροποποιήσει / να μεταμορφώσει την κοινωνία. Επομένως, πρέπει να λάβουμε υπόψη στις αναλύσεις αυτές τις ανθρώπινες ενέργειες που συνέβαλαν στις κοινωνικές διαρθρώσεις. Δεδομένου ότι δεν είμαστε εντελώς καθοδηγημένοι από τη δομή / συγκυρία, πρέπει να σκεφτούμε πώς να τοποθετούμε τους εαυτούς μας και πώς να ενεργούμε σε σχέση με αυτούς. Η συγκυρία είναι η τρέχουσα στιγμή, αλλά είναι απαραίτητο να επιλέξουμε ένα κομμάτι της πραγματικότητας για να μπορέσουμε να το αλλάξουμε. Είναι, τουλάχιστον, τρεις ταυτόχρονες διαστάσεις. Ο ένας είναι ο χρόνος, δηλαδή η περίοδος που αναφέρουμε.

Μπορούμε να πούμε ότι η χρονική περίοδος που ορίζουμε είναι η ακόλουθη (πολύ βραχυπρόθεσμη = 2 χρόνια, βραχυπρόθεσμα = 4 έτη, μεσαία = 8 χρόνια και μεγάλη = 12 ή περισσότερα) ή ότι αναλύουμε τη συγκυρία του μήνα , ένα τέταρτο και ούτω καθεξής. Μπορούμε επίσης να πούμε ότι αναλύουμε τον προγραμματισμό ενός άλλου πράκτορα (δηλαδή ενός άλλου πολιτικού κόμματος ή ενός θεσμού του εχθρού), και εκεί χρησιμοποιούμε το χρονικό διαχωρισμό που ο ίδιος ο άλλος πράκτορας όριζε. Μια άλλη απαραίτητη διάσταση είναι η γεωγραφική διάσταση του εδάφους. Έτσι, μπορούμε να αναλύσουμε τη συγκυρία μιας περιοχής της μητρόπολης, καθώς μπορούμε να προσπαθήσουμε να αναλύσουμε το Rio Grande do Sul (μια επαρχία της Βραζιλίας), καθώς προσπαθούμε να κάνουμε μια παγκόσμια ανάλυση της πραγματικότητας του πολέμου ενάντια στο Ιράκ. Η ανάλυση απλώς δεν μπορεί να γίνει εκτός χρόνου και χώρου και ως εκ τούτου αυτές οι δύο διαστάσεις είναι θεμελιώδεις.

Απώτερος Στόχος

Ο απώτερος στόχος είναι άκαμπτος και καθιερώνει την κοινωνία που επιθυμεί κάποιος για το μέλλον. Στην περίπτωση του CAB, όπως επισημαίνεται στις αρχές μας, οι απώτεροι στόχοι είναι η κοινωνική επανάσταση και ο ελευθεριακός σοσιαλισμός. Στην περίπτωση ενός αναρχικού προγράμματος, θεωρούμε απαραίτητο να επισημάνουμε τα γενικά χαρακτηριστικά αυτού του συστήματος, δηλαδή αυτό που προτείνουμε για την αυτοδιαχείριση και τον φεντεραλισμό στις τρεις σφαίρες. Ο απώτερος στόχος εδραιώνεται με την κατάκτηση της κοινωνίας από τις δυνάμεις του λαού και με τη νίκη της λαϊκής εξουσίας, μέσα από μια μακροπρόθεσμη επαναστατική διαδικασία. Αυτή η νίκη σημαίνει πολιτική δύναμη από την ομοσπονδιακή και επαναστατική μορφή και την κοινωνικοοικονομική αυτοδιαχείριση σε όλη την έκταση της απελευθερωμένης περιοχής.

Είναι πολύ σημαντικό να γνωρίζουμε ότι οι φιναλίστ δεν πρέπει να συγχέονται με τη συνολική στρατηγική. Ο καθορισμός των στόχων που θέλουμε να επιτύχουμε επισημαίνεται από τις ιδεολογικές επιλογές που κάνουμε, έτσι ώστε οι αλλαγές στους γενικούς στόχους να συνεπάγονται ιδεολογικές αλλαγές, αλλά όχι απαραίτητα το ίδιο με τη στρατηγική. Επομένως, η αναθεώρηση της στρατηγικής δεν συνεπάγεται αλλαγή των αρχών. Ο ελευθεριακός σοσιαλισμός είναι ένας στόχος και η οικοδόμηση της λαϊκής εξουσίας είναι περισσότερο στον τομέα της στρατηγικής.

Αυτοί οι στόχοι θα εξαρτήσουν τη δημιουργία των στρατηγικών και των τακτικών μας, καθώς οι στόχοι που καθορίζουν τις στρατηγικές και αυτές καθορίζουν την τακτική. Αυτό είναι που οι αναρχικοί χαρακτήρισαν τη συνοχή μεταξύ μέσων και σκοπών. Αυτός ο απώτερος στόχος καθορίζεται από την ουτοπία.

Η ουτοπία είναι ένα άκαμπτο και μόνιμο στοιχείο. Είναι ένας τόπος που πρέπει να οικοδομηθεί, η έμπνευση που, με συγκεκριμένο τρόπο, εντοπίζει τον τελικό στόχο. Ο χώρος που πρέπει να οικοδομηθεί είναι μια σοσιαλιστική και ελευθεριακή κοινωνία, όπου η μορφή της κοινωνικής οργάνωσης για να ζει κανείς στη συλλογικότητα δεν θα προκύψει μέσα από αδικία, συστήματα προνομίων ούτε θα ανασυστήσει ένα κράτος. Μπορεί να μην φτάσουμε ποτέ σε αυτό, αλλά αυτός ο τόπος είναι αυτός που κατευθύνει τους στρατηγικούς στόχους και τον χρόνο του οργανισμού.

Γενική / Μόνιμη Στρατηγική

Η γενική / μόνιμη στρατηγική είναι άκαμπτη και χαρακτηρίζεται από γενικό σχεδιασμό που συντονίζει τους αντικειμενικούς στόχους (όπου θέλουμε να φθάσουμε) και τα μέσα που χρησιμοποιούνται, έτσι ώστε οι στόχοι αυτοί να προωθούνται σε σχέση με τις άλλες δυνάμεις που εμπλέκονται σε συγκρούσεις, ξεκινώντας από μια συγκεκριμένη στιγμής (που χαρακτηρίζεται από τις δομικές και συγκυριακές αναλύσεις). Στην περίπτωση του CAB, επισημαίνουμε ως γενική στρατηγική:

"Η γενική στρατηγική του αναρχισμού που υπερασπιζόμαστε βασίζεται στα λαϊκά κινήματα, στην οργάνωσή τους, στη συσσώρευση δύναμης και στην εφαρμογή προηγμένων μορφών αγώνα, με στόχο την επανάσταση και τον ελευθεριακό σοσιαλισμό. Αυτή η διαδικασία λαμβάνει χώρα από κοινού με τη συγκεκριμένη αναρχική οργάνωση η οποία, ενεργώντας ως καταλύτης / κινητήρας, ενεργεί από κοινού με τα λαϊκά κινήματα και παρέχει τις συνθήκες μετασχηματισμού. Αυτά τα δύο επίπεδα (των λαϊκών κινημάτων και της αναρχικής οργάνωσης) μπορούν ακόμη να συμπληρωθούν από ένα τρίτο επίπεδο, αυτό της τάσης, που προστίθεται σε περιοχές που σχετίζονται με λαϊκά κινήματα. Η στρατηγική της τάσης [γνωστή και ως ενδιάμεσο επίπεδο] στοχεύει στη δημιουργία και συμμετοχή σε λαϊκά κινήματα που υπερασπίζονται ορισμένες μεθοδολογικές και προγραμματικές αντιλήψεις μέσα σε αυτήν, έτσι ώστε να μπορούν να επισημάνουν έναν τελικό στόχο, ο οποίος τείνει στην κατασκευή της νέας κοινωνίας. "

Δηλαδή, η στρατηγική αυτή συνεπάγεται μια μακροχρόνια επαναστατική διαδικασία, με τον πρωταγωνιστή των καταπιεσμένων τάξεων, και με υψηλό επίπεδο αντιπαράθεσης (σε όλα τα επίπεδα, στρατιωτικό, πολιτικό, κοινωνικό, οικονομικό, νομικό και κυρίως ιδεολογικό) . Σε ένα αναρχικό πρόγραμμα, αυτό πρέπει να συζητηθεί λεπτομερέστερα για να χαρακτηρίσει το γενικό περίγραμμα αυτής της στρατηγικής. Γενικά, σε ένα πρόγραμμα, είναι σκόπιμο να επισημανθεί ένας χρόνος λίγο-πολύ αναμενόμενος για αυτό το σπουδαίο βήμα, δηλαδή για την υλοποίηση αυτών των στόχων.

Μπορούμε ακόμα να πούμε περισσότερα. Η στρατηγική αντιστοιχεί σε μια θεωρία των γενικότερων και αργών αλλαγών του συστήματος και μιας πολιτικής ρήξης που κατευθύνεται προς τις θεμελιώδεις δομές της κυριαρχίας. Τοποθετημένα σε αυτή την κατηγορία είναι ένας χαρακτηρισμός του συστήματος της κυριαρχίας, του καπιταλισμού και των δομών της δεσπόζουσας εξουσίας, του σκληρού πυρήνα που καθιερώθηκε από τον κοινωνικο-ιστορικό σχηματισμό. Σε αυτό το πλαίσιο έχουμε ορίσει στρατηγική επαναστατικής λαϊκής εξουσίας. Υποθέτουμε ως συστατικά στοιχεία: τον πρωταγωνιστή των λαϊκών οργανώσεων, μια νέα πολιτική-κοινωνική άρθρωση, την επαναστατική ρήξη ως λαϊκή εξέγερση. Το σύνολο των στοιχείων συστηματικά και συνεκτικά συνδυάζεται με τους τελικούς στόχους: μια επανάσταση του σοσιαλιστικού και ελευθεριακού χαρακτήρα που περιλαμβάνει ένα μέτωπο των καταπιεσμένων τάξεων ως αντικείμενο αλλαγής. Εκεί βρίσκεται το αντικειμενικό πρόγραμμα, το οποίο περιλαμβάνει ένα σύνολο μέτρων και προτάσεων που αντιπροσωπεύουν το νόημα αυτής της κοινωνικής αναδιάρθρωσης.

Η μόνιμη στρατηγική μας είναι να οικοδομήσουμε τη λαϊκή εξουσία μέσα από τη δημιουργία (ή αναψυχή) ταξιαρχίας και αυτόνομων λαϊκών οργανώσεων και να προχωρήσουμε βήμα προς βήμα στον πρωταγωνιστή τους ως οργανωμένο λαό. Αλλά απλά μια δήλωση πρόθεσης δεν αρκεί για να εκπληρώσει το έργο της συμμετοχής και της αμφισβήτησης της ηγεμονίας αυτής της λαϊκής εξουσίας. Δεν πρόκειται μόνο για διάδοση των αρχών, αλλά και για επηρεασμό και διασφάλιση της λειτουργίας αυτών των οργανώσεων. Όσο πιο φιλελεύθεροι και σοσιαλιστές αυτοί οι οργανισμοί και τα κινήματα είναι εσωτερικά, τόσο περισσότερες ευκαιρίες το έργο μας θα έχει. Δηλαδή να έχουμε έναν λειτουργικό φεντεραλισμό ως τρόπο πολιτικής διαχείρισης. Αυτοδιαχείριση ως τρόπο κοινωνικοοικονομικής παραγωγής. αλληλεγγύη με άλλες ταξικές οργανώσεις και κινήματα · έχοντας εσωτερική δημοκρατία και υψηλό βαθμό λαϊκής συμμετοχής και διεξάγοντας τον αγώνα με τον πιο προηγμένο τρόπο για κάθε στάδιο του λαϊκού αγώνα. Με αυτό τον τρόπο θα οικοδομήσουμε την αναρχική ηγεμονία μέσα στα λαϊκά κινήματα που βρίσκονται υπό κατασκευή ή / και πρόοδο.

Βραχυπρόθεσμη στρατηγική

Η περιορισμένη χρονική στρατηγική είναι άκαμπτη εντός του προβλεπόμενου χρόνου και αποτελεί τη στρατηγική για ένα δεδομένο χρονικό διάστημα μικρότερη από την εποχή της γενικής στρατηγικής. Δεν είναι η γενική στρατηγική, επειδή ο χρόνος είναι πιο περιορισμένος και δεν είναι η τακτική, επειδή έχει χαρακτηριστικά πιο μόνιμα και λιγότερο ευέλικτα και όχι απλώς λειτουργικά. Περιλαμβάνει ένα συγκεκριμένο στάδιο, λιγότερο από το γενικό στρατηγικό στάδιο και μεγαλύτερο από το στάδιο μιας περιορισμένης σειράς τακτικών.

Συνδέεται με ταχύτερες αλλαγές και δεν μπορεί να περιοριστεί στο πεδίο της τακτικής. Αντιστοιχεί στην ανάλυση συγκεκριμένου κοινωνικού σχηματισμού στο τρέχον στάδιο ανάπτυξής του, προκειμένου να εξετάσει τις ιδιαίτερες συνθήκες και τις δυνατότητές του. Αυτό είναι να βρούμε μια λογική απάντηση σε μια προηγούμενη δήλωση που είπε: «Υπάρχει μόνο μία στρατηγική, ποιες αλλαγές στις μετατοπίσεις του χρόνου είναι οι τακτικές». Δεν αλλάζουν μόνο οι τακτικές, αλλά και ορισμένες πτυχές ή ζώνες της στρατηγικής. Η στρατηγική σχεδιάζεται με την άρθρωση και τη συνεχή αλληλεπίδραση με την τακτική.

Με αυτή την κατηγορία κάνουμε ορισμούς για το χαρακτήρα της σκηνής (ή της φάσης), όπου συλλέγουμε περιγραφικά και αναλυτικά στοιχεία που "κόβουν" ιστορικές περιόδους και ενημερώνουν τα μοντέλα λειτουργίας του συστήματος στην ιστορική του δυναμική. Το ελάχιστο πρόγραμμα από αυτή την άποψη συμφωνεί με τα προβλήματα που αντιμετωπίζει το κυρίαρχο μοντέλο και τη συσσώρευση ανταγωνιστικών δυνάμεων για την κατασκευή μιας ελευθεριακής εναλλακτικής λύσης.

Μπορεί να είναι ότι με το ελάχιστο πρόγραμμα έχουμε μια ζώνη συναίνεσης με τους κλάδους του αριστερού καταυλισμού, ο οποίος από μόνο του δεν αποτελεί πρόβλημα. Αυτό που δεν μπορεί να λείπει ως στοιχεία διάκρισης και ορισμού είναι οι γενικές γραμμές που θα περιγράψουν το προφίλ μας στην πολιτική πρακτική και τα αντίστοιχα καθήκοντά της μέσα στα σχέδια και τους όρους που οριοθετούμε στο σημερινό στάδιο. Μέσα στο ευρύ πλαίσιο ενός ελάχιστου προγράμματος που συγκεντρώνει τον αγώνα κατά του κυρίαρχου μοντέλου, η στρατηγική μας ξεκινάει από πού είμαστε και τι κάνουμε, να διαμορφώσουμε προτεραιότητες και σχέδια ανάπτυξης, να διαμορφώσουμε συμμαχίες και να δημιουργήσουμε πιο αποφασιστικές κοινωνικές δυνάμεις.

Αυτό είναι μέρος της συνολικής στρατηγικής, αλλά περιορίζεται σε ένα συγκεκριμένο τομέα. Η δυνατότητα αλλαγής είναι μεγαλύτερη από τη γενική στρατηγική και λιγότερο από την τακτική. Είναι γενικές γραμμές σε ένα συγκεκριμένο πεδίο δραστηριότητας που τροφοδοτούν το πρόγραμμα εργασίας για μια ορισμένη περίοδο. Για παράδειγμα, έχουμε μια γενική στρατηγική για την επίτευξη του ελευθεριακού σοσιαλισμού και μια πιο στενή στρατηγική στον τομέα της υγείας, η οποία διαλόγου με τη γενική στρατηγική. Ενεργώντας μέσα στους αγώνες του τομέα της υγείας θα χρησιμοποιήσουμε διάφορες τακτικές.

Αυτή είναι η μόνιμη στρατηγική μας, επισημαίνουμε μια συγκεκριμένη φέτα στο χρόνο. Δηλαδή, χρονοδιαγράμματα. Για πολύ βραχυπρόθεσμο χρονικό ορίζοντα (το οποίο είναι ακριβές χρονικό διάστημα = 2 έτη) και βραχυπρόθεσμα (= 4 έτη), όπου θα εφαρμόσουμε τη στρατηγική μας. Σε αυτή τη συντομότερη και πιο ορατή χρονική περίοδο (δηλαδή πού και πότε μπορούμε να εφαρμόσουμε τον προγραμματισμό μας), θα ορίσουμε τους κεντρικούς στόχους, τους καθοριστικούς παράγοντες των μεταβολών και των μεταβολών μακροπρόθεσμα και την κατάλληλη αυτονομία λήψης αποφάσεων από τον φεντεραλιστικό μηχανισμό. Σε αυτή τη συντομότερη μορφή στρατηγικής δίνουμε το όνομα που αντανακλά την έννοια της περιορισμένης χρονικής στρατηγικής (που εφαρμόζεται σε αυτούς τους περιορισμένους χρόνους).


Οι τακτικές είναι ευέλικτες και διαθέτουν αυτονομία και συνιστούν μια δράση ή ένα σύνολο δράσεων στιγμιαίας φύσης που έχουν ως στόχο την προώθηση της περιορισμένης στρατηγικής και, συνεπώς, της γενικής στρατηγικής. Είναι πολύ πρακτικοί και συγκεκριμένοι και "μιλούν" για την καθημερινότητα της οργάνωσης και την πολιτική της πρακτική.

Αποτελείται από το σχέδιο δράσης που πρέπει να υλοποιηθεί ως στόχος της οργάνωσης για βραχυπρόθεσμο χρονικό ορίζοντα. Λειτουργεί σε αυτό το ιστορικό παρόν, από τα συγκεκριμένα προβλήματα και συγκρούσεις. Στο σημείο αυτό επισημαίνουμε τις οργανωτικές λύσεις και τη γενική τακτική, δηλαδή τις συμφωνίες, τις έννοιες, τα κριτήρια εργασίας και τους στόχους που θα εκφράσουν τη μαχητικότητα ως ενιαία πολιτική δέσμευση κατά τη διάρκεια της δράσης. Η εκτέλεσή του και τα καλά ή κακά του αποτελέσματα εξαρτώνται, ως εκ τούτου, από μια παγκόσμια ή / και αλληλεγγύη άποψη των συντρόφων πέρα ​​από τον τόπο εισαγωγής ή συγκεκριμένης αποστολής. Αυτή είναι η φύση μιας πολιτικής οργάνωσης. Αν δεν είναι σε θέση να συγκεντρώσει τη δύναμη σε διαφορετικές γραμμές, αποδυναμώνει το συνεταιριστικό της σύμφωνο και καταλήγει να χάνεται με αδύναμες ενέργειες.
Προκειμένου να προχωρήσουμε από τη στρατηγική μας έως ότου φτάσουμε στον τελικό μας στόχο, θα πρέπει να ασχοληθούμε με βραχυπρόθεσμα, μεσοπρόθεσμα και μακροπρόθεσμα ενδιάμεσα προϊόντα που αποτελούν μέρος του δρόμου που χτίζουμε. Η οργάνωση της κοινωνικής μαχητικότητας στις τάσεις, για παράδειγμα, είναι κάτι τακτικό που μπορεί να ταιριάζει ή να μην ταιριάζει στην ίδια στρατηγική, αλλά μόλις εγκριθεί, μπορεί να διαρκέσει για χρόνια και να είναι απλώς μια τακτική. Αυτές οι ενέργειες που συνδέονται με αυτούς τους στόχους, που ονομάζονται τακτικές, πρέπει να συμβαδίζουν με τους γενικούς στόχους και, συνεπώς, με τη συνολική στρατηγική. Πρέπει να εκτελούνται με βάση τις ίδιες αρχές, αλλά με επαρκή ευαισθησία να αντιλαμβάνονται την ευγενέστερη τους ευελιξία υπό την έννοια της αλλαγής των διαφόρων τακτικών σύμφωνα με τη στρατηγική κατασκευή που θα κάνει διάλογο με τη συγκυρία στην οποία εισάγεται.

Στόχοι και μέσα

Η τακτική πρέπει να εξαρτάται από την περιορισμένη χρονική στρατηγική, η οποία πρέπει να εξαρτάται από τη γενική στρατηγική, η οποία πρέπει να εξαρτάται από τους τελικούς στόχους.
Δεν συμβαίνει ότι «οι άξονες που δικαιολογούν τα μέσα», αλλά μάλλον ότι οι άξονες πρέπει να καθορίσουν τα μέσα (στρατηγικές, τακτικές κλπ.).
Αυτή είναι μια συνοχή που δεν μπορούμε να ξεπεράσουμε. Αυτό που κάνουμε σήμερα συμβάλλει στο σημείο όπου θα φτάσουμε αύριο.

international / anarchist movement / debate Tuesday January 16, 2018 01:52 byKevin Doyle

An overview of the important links and differences that exist between anarchism and marxism.

The speaker is Alan MacSimoin.

Alan MacSimoin has been active in the anarchist and trade union movements for over forty years. In 1984 he was one of the founders of the Workers Solidarity Movement, and was a member for the following twenty seven years. Among the struggles he participated in were campaigning against social partnership in the unions, winning the legalization of both contraception & divorce, fighting against household taxes, and stopping the nuclear plant in Wexford. He was one of the organisers of the big 1992 “X-case” demonstration in Dublin, when a 14 year old rape victim was ordered by the High Court not to leave Ireland in order to obtain an abortion. In recent years he has been involved in many more campaigns including the successful anti-water tax movement which help put a brake on the imposition of austerity in Ireland in the aftermath of the 2008 financial meltdown. He helped to set up the popular Stoneybatter & Smithfield Peoples History Project, and also administers the online Irish Anarchist History Archive.

Embedded Video Description: anarchism OR marxism?

internacional / imperialismo / guerra / opinião / análise Monday January 15, 2018 07:00 byBrunoL

A proposta desse artigo é expor uma linha de interpretação básica, de forma resumida, a respeito dos moldes da governança global no quesito do complexo tecnológico das telecomunicações, bem como o laço geoestratégico da economia política internacional. Por conseguinte, como demonstrado no artigo “A sonda Voyager1- desmente o dicurso neoliberal do Ministro Meirelles” (recomenda-se sua leitura antes deste) os advogados da ortodoxia econômica, ou novo liberalismo – encarado por eles como a economia em si mesma, ou, “a única alternativa”, com dizia Margareth Thatcher – são incapazes de pensar sobre questões relativas ao poder nacional, administração pública e governança global, as quais são questões co-determinantes do mundo real. Não que esta capacidade interpretativa seja muito distante ou quase inalcançável em função da ausência de erudição propalada por este neoliberalismo vulgar e doutrinário, mas sim por que todas as tentativas de falsificação das evidências se transformam em rodopio retórico na busca de modelos metafísicos – ridículos em termos científicos – mas perigosíssimos para qualquer forma de relação social.

Ricardo J. Camera
Bruno Lima Rocha .
Neste período de transição, que ainda está longe de terminar ou de chegar a bom termo, é indiscutível a retomada da hegemonia americana. O que não se sabe é a viabilidade dos EUA se transformarem, de forma estável, numa economia cêntrica a partir da qual o mundo seria reorganizado por uma nova geografia econômica e política”. Maria da Conceição Tavares, “A retomada da hegemonia norte-americana”, 1985.
A proposta desse artigo é expor uma linha de interpretação básica, de forma resumida, a respeito dos moldes da governança global no quesito do complexo tecnológico das telecomunicações, bem como o laço geoestratégico da economia política internacional. Por conseguinte, como demonstrado no artigo “A sonda Voyager1- desmente o dicurso neoliberal do Ministro Meirelles” (recomenda-se sua leitura antes deste) os advogados da ortodoxia econômica, ou novo liberalismo – encarado por eles como a economia em si mesma, ou, “a única alternativa”, com dizia Margareth Thatcher – são incapazes de pensar sobre questões relativas ao poder nacional, administração pública e governança global, as quais são questões co-determinantes do mundo real. Não que esta capacidade interpretativa seja muito distante ou quase inalcançável em função da ausência de erudição propalada por este neoliberalismo vulgar e doutrinário, mas sim por que todas as tentativas de falsificação das evidências se transformam em rodopio retórico na busca de modelos metafísicos – ridículos em termos científicos – mas perigosíssimos para qualquer forma de relação social.
Afinal de contas, o suposto indivíduo atomizado que faz suas escolhas no mercado não assimila que, concomitantemente ao tipo de “racionalidade” empregada em determinada sociedade (cuja média mundial não está nada próxima dos perigosos devaneios da Escola de Chicago), houve uma série de influências para além de grupos primários (como família, território, laços afetivos, instâncias básicas de sociabilidade) e também uma sobre determinação das instituições que moldam nossas preferências – ou a ausências destas – e que absurdamente somos levados a pensar como “escolhas”. Essas escolhas também derivam da propaganda ideológica do consumo em massa – do tipo American Way of Life – difundida pelas modernas telecomunicações e empresas internacionalizadas, principalmente após a Segunda Guerra Mundial, cumprindo a agenda da política externa de potências dominantes do sistema internacional.[2]
Do mesmo modo, quando alguém realiza uma compra online no eBay ou Aliexpress, não compreende as implicações de que essas transações passam por um sistema interbancário internacional, cujos satélites pertencem a uma empresa entrelaçada com a vigilância dos Estados Unidos. Também não é do entendimento comum atribuir aos projetos militares estadunidenses o surgimento da Internet, dado que o mundo digital é visto comumente como um produto heroico de nerds pobres em suas garagens – logo, a conta de chegada é óbvia: todas as comunicações online transitam nos servidores basilares dos Estados Unidos, os quais podem desligar o domínio br a qualquer momento, por exemplo[3].
Por fim, é necessário mencionar que quase a totalidade das transações globais, atrelada à jogatina financeira dos famosos derivativos, se dá em Dólar, ou seja, uma moeda que advém de uma instituição nacional dos Estados Unidos, e portanto, atrelada a sua política monetária, fiscal e cambial, em detrimento das demais nações que passaram a depender desse sistema após 15 de agosto de 1971. Em outras palavras, esta é a arquitetura quase fantasmagórica – porém concreta – por trás de uma simples compra online no eBay.
1. A geoestratégia das telecomunicações
Consequentemente, como foi exposto no artigo indicado, o Vale do Silício surgiu no embalo de grandes projetos do Departamento de Defesa dos Estados Unidos, haja vista os fundos públicos empregados, as leis de proteção industrial e conteúdo local criado e a encomenda multibilionária dos órgãos Federais como DARPA, NSA, NASA e afins. Como produto desse arranjo institucional entre mercado, universidade e Estado, o sistema de satélites ocidental foi desenvolvido e lançado, tendo como instituição chave a INTELSAT (ver hoje uma corporação privada consorciando-se com a Intel para ampliação do espectro comercial), surgida como convênio internacional/multilateral, fora do âmbito da ONU e liderada pelos Estados Unidos – cujo qual detinha a maior carga de investimento, seguido pelo Reino Unido. Para constar, o Brasil estava em 8º lugar, representado pela Embratel. A finalidade da INTELSAT era deter o monopólio das telecomunicações internacionais, frente ao protecionismo dos Estados signatários – maioria dos países e territórios.
No que se refere à América anglo-saxã, os antigos membros dos oligopólios privados de telecomunicações, bem como o complexo de defesa/tecnologia (RCA, AT&T, Boeing, Raytheon, Hughes, Philips, GE, IBM, GM, PanAmSat, Grumman, entre outras…) – sevadas historicamente pela encomenda e arbítrio estatal do século XX – buscaram, com apoio cativo do governo, a internacionalização de seu capital na era Reagan. Em 1984 a administração republicana iniciou um processo de desregulamentação do setor, no intuito de facilitar investimento privado em P&D, bem como o processo estratégico de transnacionalização (CGEE, 2013). Dos anos ’80 em diante, a governança das telecomunicações aprofundou seu caráter mission oriented, de modo que o capital estadunidense se conveniou com todos os projetos de desenvolvimento de satélites que emergiram em diversos países a partir dessa mesma década – o que significa, na prática, que os códigos fonte e a tecnologia sensível estavam em posse de multinacionais e leis de embargo Norte-Americanas (CGEE, 2013). Ou seja, por definições desde sua origem satelital, o sistema comercial de telecomunicações está sob a tutela direta ou indireta do Império, e sua vantagem estratégica na projeção de poder e força na corrida armamentista se deu justamente por este quesito. O custo social interno – mesmo para os EUA – foi e segue sendo tremendo, com o aumento progressivo da desigualdade.
Os Estados Unidos, por seu turno, influenciaram a Organização Mundial do Comércio/GATT, União Internacional das Telecomunicações e o quadro de países da INTELSAT para promover a privatização do sistema internacional de satélites – fato que os Americanos não conseguiram nos anos ‘60, vis-à-vis o temor geopolítico dos demais países envolvidos. O sistema é constituído, como já dito, pelos satélites multilaterais da INTELSAT e da INMARSAT – esta que é um braço da anterior, e cuja história inicia na demanda da Organização Marítima Internacional em ’79, para o controle do trafego marítimo)[4].
O senador estadunidense Lockheed Martin, cuja empresa leva o mesmo nome, propôs a lei de privatização nos anos ’90, de modo que adquiriu primeiramente o sistema doméstico COMSAT (empresa privada, mas criada e controlada pelo Estado desde 1962, no intuito de representar os Estados Unidos no sistema INTELSAT, assim como a Embratel representava o Brasil). Por consequência, a corporação Lockheed Martin teve seu capital fundido com a INTELSAT – cuja holding foi alocada no paraíso fiscal de Bermuda. Para constar, Lockheed Martin se constitui como a maior fornecedora de armas e tecnologia para o Departamento de Defesa dos Estados Unidos, extraindo daí 95% de seus lucros[5] – ou seja, o sistema mundial de satélites INTELSAT, que já era controlado majoritariamente pelos pelos Norte-Americanos (e sua aliança com os países Anglo-Saxões), foi privatizada, em parte, para um oligopólio Americano, que não por acaso, é o maior fornecedor do Departamento de Defesa, e cuja holding, como se não bastasse, foi firmada em um paraíso fiscal caribenho[6]. Para se ter uma ideia da dimensão do que Noam Chomsky chamou de Camelot – o complexo industrial militar e o volume de compras de governo – a própria Lockheed Martin tem um setor apenas de contratos e recruta profissionais especializados nesta área, ou seja, um setor inteiro[7]. Aliás, privatizar ou estatizar é um vocabulário que faz pouco sentido em uma estrutura em que o poder do Estado-Nacional se confunde, do início ao fim, com suas corporações.
Voltando à cronologia do sistema de satélites – nos anos seguintes, se observou um alto endividamento na empresa, e ainda, a presença das estatais/semi-estatais (do consórcio anterior à privatização), as quais continuaram na carteira de acionista da empresa. Dito e feito, em 2004 a INTELSAT foi negociada e renegociada, com todo o tipo de implicação jurídica nas leis Norte-Americanas. Por consequência, foi adquirida por firmas Equity[8a] dos Estados Unidos – Private Equity são fundos de investimento que adquirem e gerem empresa, ou parte dela, de capital fechado. Não se pode esquecer de mencionar, inclusive, que o destino da Holding contábil continuou sendo Bermuda, e dois escritórios principais, um em Washington, D.C. e outro em Luxemburgo – onde se paga menos impostos[9].
O nível de capital financeiro, humano e tecnológico investido, bem como o entrelaço das leis americanas (emplacada junto aos termos de privatização pelo governo/Congresso) e a parceria orgânica com o Departamento de Defesa faz com que o sistema INTELSAT/INMARSAT seja virtualmente de domínio dos Estados Unidos. O que também reforça esta posição é também a cultura corporativa e as ciências administrativas incorporadas historicamente no sistema pelos seus funcionários, formados, em geral, nos centros de business estadunidenses[10]. Um exemplo empírico desta cultura está na apresentação da INTELSAT para investidores, onde um conglomerado de envergadura estratégica – daquelas que afirma-se ser grande demais para falir – too big to fail[11].
2. O grande jogo
Do ponto de vista geoestratégico, o sistema privatizado da INTELSAT serve bem à política externa dos Estados Unidos, dado que grande parte de seu capital é norte-americano, e portanto, submetido às leis nacionais. Conforme os termos de acordo de fiscalização e controle da empresa privatizada, os países ou instituições que dependem do sistema Intelsat Ltd estarão entrelaçados com obrigações das leis estadunidenses[8b]. Exemplarmente, os países não alinhados com os Estados Unidos podem sofrer, como ato de sansão, o desligamento do sistema global de telecomunicações. A título de exemplo, em 2002, os Estados Unidos vetaram a instalação do satélite Intelsat APR-3 de banda-Ku, que a chinesa SINOSAT[12] planejava lançar. Tal satélite iria prover telecomunicações à China, Rússia, Índia e Oriente Médio (KATKIN, 2008).
“Sim, é quase impossível dizer a diferença entre os agentes da NSA e os empregados civis da Lockheed Martin, Ford e IBM” disse Margaret Newsham aos jornalistas dinamarqueses Bo Elkjaer e Kenan Seeberg em 1999. A doutora Newsham trabalhou para a Lockheed Martin entre o final dos anos ’70 e anos ’90, quando fez denúncias sobre o programa de espionagem dos Estados Unidos, sendo demitida logo em seguida. Newsham ajudou a desenvolver o software do programa ECHELON, demandado pelos órgãos de inteligência dos países que compreendem o tratado de segurança UK-USA (Estados Unidos, Reino Unido, Canadá, Nova Zelândia, e Austrália, o chamado Eixo Anglo-Saxão). A interceptação do ECHELON ocorria principalmente nos satélites da INTELSAT, a qual, nesta época, teria capital fundido coma própria Lockheed Martin, ou seja, justo a responsável pelo software de espionagem e, como dito anteriormente, a maior fornecedora do Departamento de Defesa dos Estados Unidos.
Coincidência? As denúncias de Margaret Newsham foram comprovadas mais de uma década depois, por meio dos vazamentos do Wikleaks e do ex-agente da NSA (e também ex-funcionário terceirizado do complexo), Edward Snowden. Para completar a cena, a PanAmSat (gigante Americana de telecomunicações), se fundiu à INTELSAT, originando o maior sistema de satélites até então, sendo a PanAmSat uma das empresas atreladas ao esquema ECHELON.
Nesse sentido, ao longo das negociações para a instalação do SIVAM (Sistema de Vigilância da Amazônia) durante os anos ’90, o governo francês acusou os Estados Unidos de espionagem industrial, por meio do programa ECHELON, para obter vantagens comerciais sobre a concorrente francesa Thompson. Por consequência, a empresa estadunidense Raytheon emplacou a licitação para desenvolver o SIVAM. Mesmo sendo avisado pela França sobre a possível manipulação, o governo de Fernando Henrique Cardoso afirmou, por seu porta-voz, que não voltaria atrás no contrato com a Raytheon[13]. Apenas para constar, a Raytheon é outra grande fornecedora das forças armadas dos EUA. Inclusive, a empresa detém um contrato multimilionário com o North American Aerospace Defense Command Cheyenne Mountain Complex (Comando de Defesa Aeroespacial da América do Norte, Complexo da Montanha Cheyenne, no município de El Paso, estado Colorado) ou, o famoso NORAD, a base militar subterrânea que sempre aparece nos filmes de guerra e ficção científica[14]. Isto é, a empresa que tem contrato com o QG da força aérea dos Estados Unidos é a mesma que projetou os radares de vigilância do espaço aéreo da Amazônia brasileira, o que, em tese, significa que o detentor dos códigos fonte, detalhes técnicos e sensíveis é o complexo industrial/militar estadunidense…
Tal fato não constitui um risco real à soberania brasileira? Para reforçar a preocupação, na época, um dos alvos do sistema ECHELON foi a Embraer – na mira recente da Boeing, concorrente e fornecedora do Department of Defense. Já em 2013, por sua vez, os documentos vazados por Snowden demonstraram que a Petrobras, bem como outros órgãos e lideranças brasileiras foram interceptados, incluindo a própria presidente da República, na época, Dilma Rousseff. Mas as perplexidades não param por aí.
Desta, tem-se como consequência prática a vulnerabilidade de todos os países e instituições que hospedam serviços por meio dessa teia de telecomunicações. A hegemonia estadunidense ao se utilizar desses aparatos é inconteste. No auge da Guerra Fria, por exemplo, os Estados Unidos não permitiram a aproximação soviética da INTELSAT e INMARSAT, haja vista o medo de translado tecnológico ao inimigo. Além disso, durante a guerra das Malvinas em 1982, o eixo Anglo-Saxão, em um apertar de botões, bloqueou o satélite meteorológico que cobria toda a América Latina, deixando todos os países do cone sul sem previsões meteorológicas, na intenção de prejudicar a Argentina na guerra[15]. Pouco tempo depois, um satélite meteorológico europeu, da rede Meteosat/INTELSAT falhou, fazendo-se necessário o deslocamento do satélite que cobria a América do Sul, prejudicando mais uma vez os países da região. Mais recentemente, em 2010, o satélite norte-americano GOES 10, do qual o Brasil dependia para serviços meteorológicos, foi desativado, o que trouxe relativo prejuízo ao país, dado que o satélite substituto será deslocado conforme a piora do clima no hemisfério norte[16].
Da mesma forma, observa-se a perda de autonomia ao longo da formação das telecomunicações modernas brasileiras. A título de exemplo, a Embratel, antiga estatal do sistema Telebrás – criada ainda no período dos governos militares – teve seus sistemas de satélites construídos pela americana Hughes[17], outra grande fornecedora das forças armadas do norte hegemônico, e ainda, adquirida, em parte, pela gigante de defesa Raytheon – mencionada anteriormente – e suas outras subsidiárias foram adquiridas pela Boeing e GM. Por seu turno, a Embratel foi privatizada no final dos anos ‘90 para a estadunidense MCI – que segundo o jornal NY Times, usou a Embratel para encobrir fraudes contábeis no início dos anos 2000.
Como se não bastasse, em 2006 a MCI foi adquirida por outra gigante das telecomunicações, a Verizon, a qual também apareceu nos vazamentos de Snowden, revelando as relações escusas com o programa ECHELON desde os anos ’90[18]. Para constar, a partir de 2014, a Embratel foi adquirida pelo conglomerado mexicano de Carlos Slim…
2.1 Liga, desliga
Analisemos também o exemplo do caso SWIFT – em português, Sociedade de Telecomunicações Financeiras Interbancárias Mundiais. O SWIFT surgiu no final de 1973 após o fim da paridade dólar-ouro de 1971. Tal estratégia geoeconômica livrou os Estados Unidos do lastro em um material escasso, tornando-se a ser o dólar a reserva de valor do mundo. Assim, a moeda passou a ser emitida conforme a vontade nacional, de modo que o dólar foi atrelado ao mercado do petróleo, cujo qual era controlado majoritariamente pelas corporações estadunidense, desde a extração e refino à logística de distribuição – donde surgiu as grandes tradings de logística e especulação de preço no mercado financeiro[19].
Por seu turno, o sistema SWIFT emergiu em meio a chamada crise do petróleo, e portanto, de um lado o governo Americano detendo a liberdade de endividamento e liquidez universal, e de outro, jorravam os petrodólares dos países da OPEP em direção aos fundos e bancos ocidentais. Toda essa “dinheirama” precisava de um sistema eficiente e supostamente protegido para circular entre os países. Assim sendo, os bancos e financeiras mundiais celebraram a criação de um sistema de comunicação bancária à satélite, o SWIFT – sistema que predomina ainda hoje – e cuja arquitetura de rede foi, no passado, operada pelo sistema INTELSAT, mas principalmente por cabos submarinos[20]. Os resultados práticos disso são os escândalos que explodiram em 2009/2010 quando se descobriu que os órgãos de inteligência dos Estados Unidos espionavam as transações bancárias da União Europeia, Oriente Médio e América Latina[21]. A possibilidade de espionar as contas governamentais, incluindo as transações de projetos estratégicos é grande, bem como o desligamento de determinando país, como já explicitado. É por este motivo que Rússia e China, atualmente, possuem um sistema de pagamentos paralelo, como forma de precaução frente a sanções ocidentais[22].
Para terminar a série de exemplos, o sistema GPS é outro clássico do complexo aeroespacial estadunidense. O programa NAVSTAR GPS foi inteiramente desenvolvido nos laboratórios do Departamento de Defesa e Força Aérea Americana, haja vista os motivos militares primários que envolveram a questão[23] – como disse um estrategista do presidente Nixon – “muita burocracia, política e agencias envolvidas. Por que você simplesmente não deixa a Força Aérea fazer como sempre fez?”[24]
Comentários finais
Quando um seleto grupos de Estados e seus oligopólios, sob a liderança de um país materialmente hegemônico, conseguem por um lado sobrepor ao mundo o que ele vai depender e consumir – organizar qual território produz, o que e quanto produz – pode, por sua vez, controlar os meios de fabricação, translado, propriedade intelectual, legislação, papel moeda e meio de transação, detêm ainda a capacidade de impor sua vontade independente de organismos internacionais, formatando toda a produção capitalista a nível global e combatendo geopoliticamente os estados não alinhados, e não menos importante, molda processos políticos regionais de acordo com seus interesses, está se falando, portanto, de como se procede a chamada governança global; cuja qual advém, como visto, do complexo Americano aeroespacial, defesa e telecomunicações.
Partindo dos pressupostos e fatos analisados, há que se fazer apenas uma pergunta para finalizar este artigo: como defender, sem crítica alguma, os conceitos do novo liberalismo frente os mecanismos da governança global?
Notas e Referências:
[1] Professor de Relações Internacionais na Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos – UNISINOS, doutor em ciência política E-mail:
[2] GUIMARÃES, Samuel Pinheiro. 500 anos de Periferia – Uma contribuição ao estudo da política internacional. Porto Alegre: Ed. da Universidade, 1999
[3] Entrevista telefônica realizada com o Dr. Luiz Francisco Perrone, membro do Conselho de diretor da Intelsat entre 1974 e 1976 e vice presidente da Intelsat durante 11 anos de 1984 a 1995. Também ocupou a diretoria da Embratel e vice-presidência da recém criada Anatel, Brasília, 2018.
[5] B DURHAM, Robert. Supplying the Enemy, 2015
[6] ULRICH, Hans F., LEHRMANN, Ernst P., Telecommunications Research Trends.
[7] Lockheed Martin – Contracts Opportunities
[8][a][b] GAO – Intelsat Privatization and the Implementation of the ORBIT Act (PDF)
[9] Entrevista telefônica realizada com o Dr. Luiz Francisco Perrone, membro do Conselho de diretor da Intelsat entre 1974 e 1976 e vice presidente da Intelsat durante 11 anos de 1984 a 1995. Também ocupou a diretoria da Embratel e vice-presidência da recém criada Anatel, Brasília, 2018.
[10] ULRICH, Hans F., LEHRMANN, Ernst P., Telecommunications Research Trends.
[11] INTELSAT – Investors
[12] SINOSAT – About us e ver também sua subsidiária de capital limitado baseada em Hong Kong
[13] Ver em NASSIF, L. O Projeto Echelon, São Paulo, 2000
[14] Raytheon – NORAD Operations and Sustainment
[15] Ver em MEIRA FILHO, L. G. GUIMARÃES FORTES, L. T. DORNELES BARCELOS, E. Considerações sobre a Natureza Estratégica das Atividades Espaciais e o Papel da Agência Espacial Brasileira, 1998.
[16] INPE – Satélite meteorológico GOES-10 será substituído por GOES-12 em dezembro
[17] FGV – Embratel
[18] The Guardian – NSA collecting phone records of millions of Verizon customers daily
[19] TAVARES, M.C. e Fiori, J.L. (1997)
[21] Spiegel – NSA Monitors Financial World
[22] RT – Russia’s banking system has SWIFT alternative ready
[23] The Navstar Global Positioning System. Rick W. Sturdevant, 1992
B DURHAM, Robert. Supplying the Enemy: The Modern Arms Industry & the Military–Industrial Complex. Edition, illustrated. Publisher,, 2015.
CENTRO DE GESTÃO E ESTUDOS ESTRATÉGICOS. Dimensões Estratégicas do Desenvolvimento Brasileiro: As Fronteiras do conhecimento e da inovação: oportunidades, restrições e alternativas estratégicas para o Brasil. v.2, Brasília, DF, 2013.
PERRONE, L. F. Entrevista por telefone com o Dr. Luiz Francisco Perrone, membro do conselho de diretor da Intelsat, vice presidente da Intelsat, diretoria da Embratel, vice-presidência da Anatel, Brasília, 2018.
EKSTRA BLADET, November 17, 1999 -
GUIMARÃES, S. P. 500 anos de Periferia – Uma contribuição ao estudo da política internacional. Porto Alegre: Ed. da Universidade, 1999.
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AND COMPETITION IN CIVILIAN SPACE ACTIVITIES (Washington, DC: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-ISC-239, July 1985).
MEIRA FILHO, L. G. GUIMARÃES FORTES, L. T. DORNELES BARCELOS, E. Considerações sobre a Natureza Estratégica das Atividades Espaciais e o Papel da Agência Espacial Brasileira, 1998. (Texto originalmente preparado para palestra proferida no IV Encontro do Núcleo de)
Estudos Estratégicos da UNICAMP, realizado em Campinas em maio de 1998.
NASSIF, L. O Projeto Echelon, São Paulo, 2000 - http://www1.folha /fsp/dinheiro/fi0512200011.htm
KENNETH D. Katkin, "Communication Breakdown?: The Future of Global Connectivity After the Privatization of INTELSAT" (March 12, 2005). bepress Legal Series. bepress Legal Series.Working Paper 508.
SCOTT, SUSAN V. AND ZACHARIADIS, MARKOS (2012) Origins and development of SWIFT, 1973–2009. Business History, 54 (3). pp. 462-482. ISSN 0007-6791
SHARON L. Fjordbak, International Direct Broadcast Satellite Controversy, The, 55 J. Air L. & Com. 903 (1990).
ULRICH, Hans F., LEHRMANN, Ernst P., Telecommunications Research Trends, editora Nova Science, New York, 2008.
WHALEN, David J. The Origins of Satellite Communications, 1945-1965 (Smithsonian History of Aviation and Spaceflight Series), 2014.
TAVARES, M.C. e Fiori, J.L. (1997) Poder e dinheiro, uma economia política da globalização. Petrópolis, Editora Vozes.
Nostrand Reinhold, V. The Navstar Global Positioning System. Authors: Logsdon, T. Publication: The Navstar Global Positioning System., by Logsdon, T.. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY, USA, 1992.

international / workplace struggles / opinion / analysis Saturday January 13, 2018 00:51 byShawn Hattingh

Mechanisation and automation have been called the Fourth Industrial Revolution. But these are not inevitable or neutral economic realities. They are political weapons of oppression under capitalism. It is a war against the working classes to increase profits. It is no an accident that bosses choose to mechanise and automate in the context of the massive crisis of capitalism.

The political nature of the Fourth Industrial Revolution

by Shawn Hattingh (ZACF)

Mechanisation and automation have been called the Fourth Industrial Revolution. But these are not inevitable or neutral economic realities. They are political weapons of oppression under capitalism. It is a war against the working classes to increase profits. It is no an accident that bosses choose to mechanise and automate in the context of the massive crisis of capitalism.

Recently, the accounting multinational company, Grant Thompson, conducted a study amongst 2500 multinational corporations regarding mechanisation, automation and the introduction of artificial intelligence. Of these companies, 56% said they planned to automate parts of their operations within the next year. Another study by Oxford University was even starker. It stated that 47% of jobs in the United States and possibly 50% of jobs in parts of Africa – including South Africa – could possibly be lost to artificial intelligence, mechanisation and automation in the next two decades. It is clear that if this transpires, the consequences will be dire for workers in Africa – including South Africa – and their ability to organise.

Some people have said that this move to use advanced computers and automation is the ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’; and that the evitable advance of technology must be accepted. The reality, though, is that automation is not inevitable, but a political choice of the ruling class to wage a war against the working class to increase profits and oppression. It is important to understand how and why growing automation is political, and to do so we need to look at the relations at the heart of capitalism.

Exploitation defines capitalism

Capitalism is a system in which the ruling class, through private property and state ownership, own and control the means of production – in other words the farms, banks, factories, machines, mines and services. They use their control of the means of production and capital to hire workers to produce goods to sell at a profit. In doing so, capitalists also compete with one another in the market. The vast majority of people, the working class, are kept in a position whereby they own very little and are forced to work for the ruling class to survive. The state assists the ruling class to maintain this situation through the law and – when need be – policing.

Workers, however, never get the full value of their labour; bosses only pay workers a small share of the value they produce through wages, and keep the rest that workers produce as profit. It is this exploitation that defines relations between bosses and workers. To keep workers exploited bosses have to try and make them as powerless as possible through oppression. Workers throughout history have collectively resisted and fought to try and win a larger share of the value that they produce in terms of better wages. To try and break this resistance, one weapon capitalists have is to introduce technology like machines and computers.

War through mechanisation

Bosses often choose to introduce mechanisation and automation to drive up profits, because this means they can reduce the workforce, and therefore, have a smaller wage bill and hence more profits. Capitalists, however, will often only mechanise or automate if doing so proves cheaper than continuing with the exiting workforce and levels of workers. So mechanisation and automation is aimed at replacing well-organised workers with machines. Low paid and poorly organised workers, like in sweatshops, are usually not replaced with machines because it is cheaper for bosses to keep on these workers. So mechanisation and automation is an attack generally on more organised and better paid workers.

Linked to this, mechanisation and automation is about disorganising and increasing the oppression of workers. So bosses don’t always introduce all the new technologies that exist or that are possible. They only introduce technology that will drive down wages; or increase oppression and the disorganisation of the working class or both. In many of the companies that choose to mechanise or even automate, there is usually a history of workers organising. Thus, companies mechanise and automate often to try and break organising.

Lessons from the past

We can see how this has worked by looking back at the past. The first machines to be introduced by capitalists into factories took place in 1811 in Britain during what is called the First Industrial Revolution. The machines were introduced so that they could be operated by low paid, unskilled and so easily replaceable workers. Before then skilled craft workers were responsible for spinning and weaving. They were well organised into guilds, and because of their skills they were also well paid – meaning through their wages they were taking a relatively high percentage of the value they produced. To break these workers and their organising, and to drive up profits by lowering wages, bosses began introducing machines that allowed unskilled low paid workers using them to do the weaving and spinning.

The weavers and spinners began resisting being replaced by machines and unskilled workers by entering into factories and breaking the machines. The state then sent the army against them, and implemented the death sentence for workers caught destroying machines. So the state and bosses worked together to smash organised workers, to lower wages and increase profits through introducing machines and unskilled labour. Through this, divisions were also created amongst workers as bosses pitted skilled and unskilled workers against one another – undermining the prospect of united resistance.

Mechanisation and the capitalist crisis

Today we are again seeing a massive increase in mechanisation and automation, the so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution. The aim is again to undermine and prevent workers organising and to drive down wages. It is not an accident that bosses are choosing to mechanise and automate today in the context of a massive capitalist crisis. It is also not an accident they are targeting countries and sectors where there has been a recent history of worker organising.

The new drive to mechanise and automate is a response by corporations to try and increase profits in the capitalist crisis. It is also not a coincidence that multinational companies operating in China are at the forefront of automating and mechanising. This is because in recent years Chinese workers have been organising on a massive scale, and through mechanisation and automation there is an attempt by bosses to break this.

The attempts by bosses, however, to automate and mechanise won’t end the current capitalist crisis. This is because the current crisis is partly due to over-production, something which mechanisation and automation does not address and will possibly make worse. In the past, the job losses due to mechanisation were offset by economic growth which created new jobs. Today capitalism is no longer growing, and mechanisation in this context will lead to greater unemployment. This means there will also be fewer workers to buy goods companies are producing, meaning over-production will remain a problem, which will lead to less profits in the long run for companies involved in manufacturing.


It is clear, therefore, that the mechanisation and automation were are seeing in the so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution is an attack on the organising of workers. It is also clear that workers need to resist mechanisation and automation, as today in the context of a capitalist crisis it offers the working class very little. But to do so, workers are going to have to experiment with new ways of organising, ways that can build unity in a working class that is now defined by mass unemployment, casualization and huge divisions.

Some unions in this context have called for a just transition that will lessen the impact of the so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution on workers. The reality though is, capitalists, states and politicians are not interested in any just transition. This means, as part of fighting the new wave of automation and mechanisation, we have to renew the struggle for revolution to overthrow capitalism and the state. If we don’t, the automation and mechanisation we are seeing today, and will see in the future, will have devastating consequences for the working class, including mass unemployment for large sections of the class (something we already see in South Africa).

Indeed, the problem we see is that mechanisation and automation are not neutral but rather reflect and are used as political weapons of oppression under capitalism. In a different society, mechanisation and automation could have benefits, but under capitalism that is experiencing a massive crisis, for the vast majority of people, it is a living nightmare.

This page has not been translated into 한국어 yet.

This page can be viewed in
English Italiano Català Ελληνικά Deutsch

Rojava: Mensaje urgente de un compañero anarquista en Afrin

Rojava: Mensaje urgente de un compañero anarquista en Afrin


Mon 19 Feb, 03:48

browse text browse image

textAgainst Imperialism: International Solidarity and Resistance Feb 10 19:57 by Archive 0 comments

logocabtodas.jpg imageΓια μια Θεωρία τη ... Jan 31 21:12 by Coordenação Anarquista Brasileira 0 comments

videoanarchism OR marxism Jan 16 01:52 by Kevin Doyle 0 comments

thewarroom750x430.jpg imageGovernança global e hegemonia dos EUA Jan 15 07:00 by BrunoL 0 comments

lead_automation.jpg imageThe political nature of the Fourth Industrial Revolution Jan 13 00:51 by Shawn Hattingh 0 comments

460_0___30_0_0_0_0_0_img_0511.jpg imageΕίναι επαναστατι... Jan 08 19:55 by Zaher Baher 0 comments

original.jpg imageLa militancia en la era de la obsolescencia programada Jan 04 06:55 by Omar López 0 comments

us_missile.jpg image"Desmontando a mitologia liberal sobre a origem da tecnologia moderna" Jan 02 07:37 by BrunoL and Ricardo Camera 0 comments

commodities_traders.jpg imageOs especuladores globais das commodities e a fragilidade brasileira Dec 22 21:42 by BrunoL 0 comments

460_0___30_0_0_0_0_0_0_0___10_0_0_0_0_0_banner.jpg imageΣτην ταξική πάλη Dec 14 20:37 by Δίκτυο Ευρωπαϊκών Οργανώσεων Anarkismo 0 comments

textNosotrxs, anarquistas / libertarixs, en la lucha de clase en la Europa del Capital. Dec 13 01:32 by EuroAnarkismo 0 comments

textNós comunistas anarquistas/libertários na luta de classes, na Europa do capital Dec 12 00:58 by EuroAnarquismo 0 comments

textNoi comunisti anarchici/libertari nella lotta di classe, nell'Europa del capitale Dec 11 05:39 by EuroAnarkismo 0 comments

0_0___10_0_0_0_0_0_banner.jpg imageWe, anarchists and libertarian communists in the class struggle in capitalist Europe Dec 11 05:38 by EuroAnarkismo 1 comments

0_0___10_0_0_0_0_0_banner_2.jpg imageNous, communistes anarchistes/libertaires, dans la lutte des classes dans l’Europe du Capi... Dec 11 05:38 by EuroAnarkismo 0 comments

northmaramine1024x722.jpg imageΕγκλήματα της “Barrick Gold” Dec 07 17:58 by Yves Engler* 0 comments

poing_vernis.jpg image#Moi aussi, j’ai #balancé : et après ? Dec 07 03:10 by Julie, Emilie & Flo 0 comments

drapeau_noir_violet.jpg imageContre les violences masculines, solidarité féministe ! Dec 07 03:06 by CGA - Lyon 0 comments

liquidity.jpg imageAs oligarquias da mundialização financeirizada esgotam a pouca democracia do sistema capit... Dec 04 20:26 by BrunoL 0 comments

23621210_1554466087979679_7958404320359471288_n.jpg imageΠολιτική Φύση τη`... Nov 27 18:38 by Eλευθεριακή κοινότητα 0 comments

textDemocracia virtual Nov 22 06:28 by Alexander Escobar 0 comments

ziegelbrenner imageIl mistero di B.Traven Nov 18 20:30 by leonhard schaefer 0 comments

economicimperialisminindiaexamplemeaning.jpg imageTraçando uma definição de imperialismo na etapa do capitalismo global e financeiro pós-200... Nov 15 07:37 by BrunoL 0 comments

rating_agencies.jpg imageAs agências de “análise” de risco e a violação de soberanias Nov 08 21:41 by BrunoL 0 comments

001africa1968africalazaroabreuemorydouglas.jpg imageNational Self-Determination, Internationalism, and Libertarian Socialism Nov 08 05:56 by Wayne Price 3 comments

powertotheworkers.jpg imageHail the October Revolution Nov 07 16:22 by Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group 0 comments

.jpg imageΠιοτρ Κροπότκιν, ... Nov 07 15:49 by ΕΠΙΜΕΛΕΙΑ: ΔΗΜΗΤΡΗΣ ΤΡΩΑΔΙΤΗΣ 0 comments

anarquismo_nao_e_crime.jpg imageOPINIÃO DA CAB Nov 03 20:03 by evandro 0 comments

textThe Kurdish people should get involved in and support campaigns on Local and National issu... Nov 01 05:22 by Zaher Baher 0 comments

textLavagem de dinheiro e a hipocrisia estruturante do Sistema Financeiro Internacional Oct 15 08:04 by BrunoL 0 comments

more >>
© 2005-2018 Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by [ Disclaimer | Privacy ]