user preferences

Βόρεια Αμερική / Μεξικό / Καταστολή / Φυλακές / Ανακοίνωση Τύπου Monday September 10, 2018 22:08 byΔιεθνές Συνδικ. Γραφείο

Ως Διεθνές Συνδικαλιστικό Δίκτυο Αλληλεγγύης και Αγώνα υπερασπιζόμαστε την ίση πληρωμή για ίση εργασία. Δεν μπορεί να γίνεται ανεκτό κρατούμενοι που έχουν να υπομένουν την ίδια την φυλάκιση, να δέχονται και εργασιακή εκμετάλλευση. Θεωρούμε ευθέως υπεύθυνες τις πολιτείες που φυλακίζουν αυτούς τους ανθρώπους για αυτές τις πρακτικές.
Καταγγέλλουμε, επίσης, την πίεση και τις απειλές που ασκούν οι κρατικές δύναμης καταστολής προς τους απεργούς κρατουμένους, προκειμένου να καταστείλουν την κινητοποίηση τους και να φιμώσουν τις δράσεις τους.

Ανακοίνωση του Διεθνούς Συνδικαλιστικού Δικτύου Αλληλεγγύης και Αγώνα για την απεργία των φυλακισμένων στις ΗΠΑ

ΑΛΛΗΛΕΓΓΥΗ ΚΑΙ ΣΤΗΡΙΞΗ
ΣΤΗΝ ΑΠΕΡΓΙΑ ΤΗΣ ΦΥΛΑΚΙΣΜΕΝΗΣ ΕΡΓΑΤΙΚΗΣ ΤΑΞΗΣ
ΣΤΙΣ ΗΝΩΜΕΝΕΣ ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΕΣ

Από τις 21 Αυγούστου, οι κρατούμενοι στις φυλακές των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών βρίσκονται σε απεργία. Οι κρατούμενοι, οι οποίοι δουλεύουν στη φυλακή για λογαριασμό δημόσιων και ιδιωτικών επιχειρήσεων, κατήγγειλαν τις συνθήκες της εργασιακής εκμετάλλευσης που υπόκεινται, όπως επίσης και την έλλειψη σεβασμού στα βασικά Ανθρώπινα Δικαιώματα στους χώρους συνεύρεσης τους.

Μεταξύ των διεκδικήσεων τους, απαιτούν να τελειώσει ο ρατσισμός και οι διακρίσεις στο αμερικανικό δικαστικό σύστημα, την ανάκληση όλων των ρατσιστικών νόμων και την κατάργηση των νόμων που απαγορεύουν την συνδικαλιστική τους ένωση για να υπερασπιστούν τα εργασιακά τους δικαιώματα. Παρόλο που κατά την διάρκεια τέλεσης της ποινής τους, δουλεύουν και προσφέρουν υπηρεσίες που η δημόσια διοίκηση πουλάει σε δημόσιες και ιδιωτικές εταιρείες.

Η απεργία αρχικά προωθήθηκε από τους Jailhouse Lawyers Speak («Οι Δικηγόροι των Φυλακών Μιλούν»), ένα δίκτυο κρατουμένων που παλεύουν για τα δικαιώματα τους στο σωφρονιστικό ίδρυμα του Lee, στην Νότια Καρολίνα. Μετά από τρεις μέρες, η απεργία των κρατουμένων είχε επεκταθεί σε φυλακές στο Χάλιφαξ, την Βόρεια Καρολίνα, την Νέα Σκωτία, την Νότια Καρολίνα, την Τζόρτζια, το κέντρο κράτησης της Τακόμα στην Φλόριντα, το Φόλσομ στην Καλιφόρνια και την Γουασιγκτόν. Στην Τακόμα, οι κρατούμενοι του κέντρου κράτησης είναι μετανάστες εργάτες χωρίς χαρτιά, που βρίσκονται επίσης σε απεργία (κυρίως απεργία πείνας) σε αλληλεγγύη με την απεργία των κρατουμένων και με όλους τους ανθρώπους που έχουν φυλακιστεί άδικα.

Μεταξύ άλλων, οι δράσεις που χρησιμοποιούν οι κρατούμενοι εργάτες συμπεριλαμβάνουν την απεργία κατανάλωσης απέχοντας από τα συσσίτια των φυλακών και δεσμεύονται σε απεργίες πείνας και μη-βίαιες καθιστικές διαμαρτυρίες, όπως επίσης και την εργατική απεργία.

Ως Διεθνές Συνδικαλιστικό Δίκτυο Αλληλεγγύης και Αγώνα υπερασπιζόμαστε την ίση πληρωμή για ίση εργασία. Δεν μπορεί να γίνεται ανεκτό κρατούμενοι που έχουν να υπομένουν την ίδια την φυλάκιση, να δέχονται και εργασιακή εκμετάλλευση. Θεωρούμε ευθέως υπεύθυνες τις πολιτείες που φυλακίζουν αυτούς τους ανθρώπους για αυτές τις πρακτικές.

Καταγγέλλουμε, επίσης, την πίεση και τις απειλές που ασκούν οι κρατικές δύναμης καταστολής προς τους απεργούς κρατουμένους, προκειμένου να καταστείλουν την κινητοποίηση τους και να φιμώσουν τις δράσεις τους.

Δεσμευόμαστε να λειτουργήσουμε σαν ένα μεγάφωνο για τους εργάτες κρατούμενους που απεργούν, όπως επίσης και να στηρίξουμε όλες τις δράσεις υποστήριξης που οργανώνονται εκτός των φυλακών.
-Για τα Ανθρώπινα Δικαιώματα, ενάντια στον ρατσισμό και τις διακρίσεις!
-Για τον σεβασμό και το τέλος της εργασιακής εκμετάλλευσης των κρατουμένων!

#PrisionStrike #August21

Οι οργανώσεις μέλη του Διεθνούς Συνδικαλιστικού Δικτύου Αγώνα και Αλληλεγγύης:

Central Sindical e Popular Conlutas (CSP-Conlutas) – Βραζιλία.
Confederación General del Trabajo (CGT) – Ισπανία.
Union syndicale Solidaires (Solidaires) – Γαλλία.
Confédération Générale du Travail du Burkina (CGT-B) – Μπουρκίνα Φάσο.
Confederation of Indonesia People’s Movement (KPRI) – Ινδονησία.
Confederación Intersindical (Intersindical) – Ισπανία.
Confédération Générale Autonome des Travailleurs en Algérie (CGATA) – Αλγερία.
Batay Ouvriye – Αϊτή.
Unione Sindacale Italiana (USI) – Ιταλία.
Confédération Nationale des Travailleurs – Solidarité Ouvrière (CNT SO) – Γαλλία.
Sindicato de Comisiones de Base (CO.BAS) – Ισπανία.
Organisation Générale Indépendante des Travailleurs et Travailleuses d’Αιτή (OGTHI) – Αϊτή.
Sindacato Intercategoriale Cobas (SI COBAS) – Ιταλία.
Confédération Nationale du Travail (CNT-f) – Γαλλία.
Intersindical Alternativa de Catalunya (IAC) – Καταλονία.
Union Générale des Travailleurs Sahraouis (UGTSARIO) – Ανατολική Σαχάρα.
Ezker Sindikalaren Konbergentzia (ESK) – Χώρα των Βάσκων.
Confédération Nationale de Travailleurs du Sénégal Forces du Changement (CNTS/FC) – Σενεγάλη.
Sindicato Autorganizzato Lavorator COBAS (SIAL-COBAS) – Ιταλία.
General Federation of Independent Unions (GFIU) – Παλαιστίνη.
Confederación de la Clase Trabajadora (CCT) – Παραγουάη.
Red Solidaria de Trabajadores – Περού.
Union Syndicale Progressiste des Travailleurs du Niger (USPT) – Νιγηρία.
Union Nationale des Syndicats Autonomes du Sénégal (UNSAS) – Σενεγάλη.
Unión Nacional para la Defensa de la Clase Trabajadora (UNT) – Ελ Σαλβαδόρ.
Solidaridad Obrera (SO) – Ισπανία.
Confederazione Unitaria di Base (CUB) – Ιταλία.
Independent Workers Union of Great Britain (IWGB) – Μεγάλη Βρετανία.
Ogólnopolski Związek Zawodowy Inicjatywa Pracownicza (OZZ IP) – Πολωνία.
National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT/TUC) – Μεγάλη Βρετανία.
Centrale Nationale des Employés – Confédération Syndicale Chrétienne (CNE/CSC) – Βέλγιο.
Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores del Sistema Agroalimentario (SINALTRAINAL/CUT) – Κολομβία.
Fédération Générale des Postes, Telecom et Centres d’appel – Union Générale Tunisienne du Travail (FGPTT/UGTT) – Τυνησία.
Trade Union in Ethnodata – Trade Union of Empoyees in the Outsourcing Companies in the financial sector – Ελλάδα.
Syndicat national des travailleurs des services de la santé humaine (SYNTRASEH) – Μπενίν
Sindicat dos Trabalhadores da Fiocruz (ASFOC-SN) – Βραζιλία.
Organizzazione Sindicati Autonomi e di Base Ferrovie (ORSA Ferrovie) – Ιταλία.
Union Nationale des Normaliens d’Haiti (UNNOH) – Αιτή.
Confederazione Unitaria di Base Scuola Università Ricerca (CUB SUR) – Ιταλία.
Coordinamento Autorganizzato Trasporti (CAT) – Ιταλία.
Syndicat des travailleurs du rail – Union Nationale des Travailleurs du Mali (SYTRAIL/UNTM) – Μαλί.
Gıda Sanayii İşçileri Sendikası – Devrimci İşçi Sendikaları Konfederasyonu (GIDA-IŞ/DISK) – Τουρκία.
Syndicat National des Travailleurs du Petit Train Bleu/SA (SNTPTB) – Σενεγάλη.
Asociación Nacional de Funcionarios Administrativos de la Caja de Seguro Social (ANFACSS) – Παναμάς.
Palestinian Postal Service Workers Union (PPSWU) – Παλαιστίνη.
Union Syndicale Etudiante (USE) – Βέλγιο.
Sindicato dos Trabalhadores de Call Center (STCC) – Πορτογαλία.
Sindicato Unitario de Trabajadores Petroleros (Sinutapetrolgas) – Βενεζουέλα.
Alianza de Trabajadores de la Salud y Empleados Publicos – Μεξικό.
Canadian Union of Postal Workers / Syndicat des travailleurs et travailleuses des postes (CUPW-STTP) – Καναδάς.
Syndicat Autonome des Postiers (SAP) – Ελβετία.
Federación nacional de trabajadores de la educación (SUTE-Chili) – Χιλή.
Plateforme Nationale des organisations professionnelles du secteur public – Ακτή Ελεφαντοστού.
Fédération nationale des ouvriers et collectivités locales – Union Marocaine du Travail (UMT-Collectivités locales) – Μαρόκο.
Centrale Générale des Services Publics FGTB, Cheminots (CGSP/FGTB Cheminots) – Βέλγιο.
Botswana Public Employees Union (BOPEU) – Μποτσουάνα.
Organisation Démocratique du Travail – Organisation Démocratique du Travail (ODR/ODT) – Μαρόκο.
Federacao Nacional dos Ttrabalhadores em Transportes Aéros do Brasil (FNTTA) – Βραζιλία.
Federação Nacional dos Metroviários (FENAMETRO) – Βραζιλία.
Namibia Football Players Union (NAFPU) – Ναμίμπια.
Palestinian Electricians’ Trade Union (PETU) – Παλεστίνη
Trades Union Congress, Liverpool (TUC Liverpool) – Αγγλία.
Sindacato Territoriale Autorganizzato, Brescia (ORMA Brescia) – Ιταλία.
Fédération syndicale SUD Service public, canton de Vaud (SUD Vaud) – Ελβετία
Sindicato Unitario de Catalunya (SU Metro) – Καταλονία.
Türkiye DERİ-İŞ Sendikasi, Tuzla et Izmir (DERİ-İŞ Tuzla et Izmir) – Τουρκία.
L’autre syndicat, canton de Vaud (L’autre syndicat) – Ελβετία
Centrale Générale des Services Publics FGTB, Ville de Bruxelles (CGSP/FGTB Bruxelles) – Βέλγιο
Arbeitskreis Internationalismus IG Metall, Berlin (IG Metall Berlin) – Γερμανία
Sindicato Unificado de Trabajadores de la Educación de Buenos Aires, Bahia Blanca (SUTEBA/CTA de los trabajadores Bahia Blanca) – Αργεντινή.
Sindicato del Petróleo y Gas Privado del Chubut/CGT – Αργεντινή.
UCU University and College Union, University of Liverpool (UCU Liverpool) – Αγγλία.
Sindicato di base Pavia (SDB Pavia) – Ιταλία.
United Auto Workers local 551 Ford Chicago (UAW Ford Chicago) – Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες Αμερικής.
Sindicato Uno Prodinsa, Maipú – Χιλή.
Industrial Workers of the World – International Solidarity Commission (IWW).
Transnationals Information Exchange Germany (TIE Germany) – Γερμανία.
Emancipation tendance intersyndicale (Emancipation) – Γαλλία.
Globalization Monitor (Gmo) – Χονγκ Κονγκ.
Courant Syndicaliste Révolutionnaire (CSR) – Γαλλία.
No Austerity – Coordinamento delle lotte – Ιταλία.
Solidarité Socialiste avec les Travailleurs en Iran (SSTI) – Γαλλία.
Basis Initiative Solidarität (BASO) – Γερμανία.
LabourNet Germany – Γερμανία.
Resistenza Operaia – operai Fiat-Irisbus – Ιταλία.
Workers Solidarity Action Network (WSAN) – Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες Αμερικής.
United Voices of the World (UVW) – Μεγάλη Βρετανία.
Unidos pra Lutar – Βραζιλία

brazil/guyana/suriname/fguiana / economia / opinião / análise Monday September 10, 2018 01:57 byBrunoL

Lado a lado com a violência simbólica dos discursos de ódio, galvanizados pelo atingido em Juiz de Fora (MG), temos a negação do direito ao reconhecimento e, concomitantemente, a perda progressiva dos direitos coletivos que vinham num crescendo desde 1932 e se consolidaram como política pública permanente na Constituição de 1988. Trata-se de restauração burguesa e liquidação da soberania popular e, por tabela, a soberania nacional.

Bruno Lima Rocha, 09 de setembro de 2018
Às vésperas do sete de setembro de 2018 houve um atentado contra Jair Messias Bolsonaro, candidato do PSL, deputado federal no sétimo mandato e aquele que encarna a “grande esperança branca” da Casa Grande do país governado por um baronato rentista e seus aliados dentro e fora de nossas fronteiras. Desde então abundam teorias especulativas e uma evidência: tal fato tem relação total com o contexto vivido pelo Brasil desde o início do terceiro turno de 2014.
Lado a lado com a violência simbólica dos discursos de ódio, galvanizados pelo atingido em Juiz de Fora (MG), temos a negação do direito ao reconhecimento e, concomitantemente, a perda progressiva dos direitos coletivos que vinham num crescendo desde 1932 e se consolidaram como política pública permanente na Constituição de 1988. Trata-se de restauração burguesa e liquidação da soberania popular e, por tabela, a soberania nacional.
O fim da proteção ao mundo do trabalho é o velório da Nova República?
Vale alguma reflexão. O STF autorizara a terceirização para atividades fim em todas as empresas. Ou seja, entendo que eu na maioria das Pessoas Jurídicas, a classe trabalhadora do Brasil está diante de uma “Pejotização” galopante. Óbvio que a direita afirma que isso é "da nova economia", ou que "a terceirização já existe, logo é preciso autorizar ou regular". Me recorda o debate sobre transgênicos, que acabou sendo liberada a circulação de sementes assim no primeiro governo Lula utilizando um pouco da política do fato consumado. "As sementes vêm de contrabando da Argentina e assim fica impossível ilegalizar todo um setor e blablabla e cumpra-se". Não custa lembrar. Sementes não são animados com mobilidade própria, logo, foram trazidas e o contrabando - a prática centenária de chibeiros - seria bastante controlável nas barrancas do rio Uruguai. Enfim, tal como o fato consumado das sementes, o mesmo se dá com a desagregação social que avança no país.
Em parte, essa é a dimensão substantiva do golpe em andamento e agora, especificamente, rastejando pelas sarjetas da pior política possível. Era esperado e os discursos literalmente se repetem em toda América Latina. Durante o auge dos escândalos do governo Priista de Enrique Peña Nieto, no México, "colonistas de economia" repetiam a ladainha de que o salário mínimo (ou seja, o salário social) é uma "ilusão econômica", pois "primeiro é preciso fazer o bolo crescer para depois dividi-lo". A ladainha perfeitamente falsificável era a mesma. Não exagero, as analogias eram idênticas do guru da modernização conservadora da ditadura, agora travestido de parlamentarista, Antônio Delfim Netto.
Uma observação vinda do nosso campo, pode afirmar que sempre houve desagregação social no período republicano, "desde que o povo bestializado assistiu a tal proclamação". Não há contestação possível desta afirmação. A "tal da república" nunca foi inclusiva e incorporou um governo nacional com reconhecimento para os trabalhadores urbanos somente no varguismo, isso após completarem o trabalho sujo de Arthur Bernardes e Washington Luís, dizimando a liderança sindical de orientação anarquista no Brasil. Em termos de maioria afro-brasileira, a repressão sempre se fez presente, e se faz, na distribuição espacial da mesma, cortando na ausência de direitos civis e sociais da maior parte de nossa população.
Logo, se nada disso é "novidade" (infelizmente), quais as características prevalentes de nosso momento histórico? Ou, falando em termos mais diretos, como liquidaram com a Nova República e quais suas consequências?!
Que tipo de crise é essa? Quando os setores não se protegem do entreguismo visceral
Sabemos a dificuldade de qualquer tipo de tabelamento de preços ter algum fôlego; o próprio Plano Cruzado e o congelamento de preços básicos levou a um aumento da sonegação e do crime contra a economia popular. Mas, isso é diferente de afirmar em termos de "modelo" que as "regras da economia" - ou seja, da balela neoclássica - vai ajeitar o excesso de oferta pelo crédito do BNDES durante o período lulista diretamente implicado no consequente aumento da frota de caminhões. Resumindo: ou o setor de transporte de carga tem alguma forma de proteção para os caminhoneiros autônomos, ou cerca de 500 mil caminhoneiros - e pelas contas, dois milhões de pessoas - serão atingidos. As empresas de agroindústria que têm crédito agrícola vão se defender do jeito que dá, incluindo o protelamento da execução de suas dívidas e quem vive no trecho vai engrossar o desemprego nas cidades.
Como pano de fundo, o que a laia quer fazer crer ao povo brasileiro? Que devemos quebrar o monopólio fático da Petrobrás, pois esta foi quebrada em função da “artificialidade” dos preços praticados anteriormente e também pelo modelo de partilha do Pré-Sal. Sobre a perda de causa e o seguido acordo com a Justiça dos EUA na defesa dos especuladores aglutinados como acionistas minoritários, óbvio que os “consultores” não dizem. Logo, a “solução” apresentada é liberar a importação de diesel, gasolina e demais derivados por todas as transnacionais do setor de óleo e gás. E, também para a obviedade, a cambada nunca diz que existem 16 traders mundiais forçando os contratos futuros e incidindo diretamente na cotação do barril Brent. Logo, desejam expor ainda mais a sociedade brasileira às oscilações forçosas dos especuladores. Como se chama isso em português? Em castelhano os países Hermanos denominam “vende pátria”. Concordo com o conceito.

Bruno Lima Rocha é pós-doutorando em economia política, doutor e mestre em ciência política, professor de relações internacionais e de jornalismo.
(estrategiaeanaliseblog.com / blimarocha@gmail.com)

international / anarchist movement / opinion / analysis Sunday September 09, 2018 07:52 byWayne Price

A review of the nature of the State as understood by anarchists, especially as proposed by the tendency called "post-anarchism." This is done through a review of the opinions of Saul Newman, a leading proponent of post-anarchism, in his work, "Anarchism, Marxism, and the Bonapartist State." The post-anarchist view is opposed by the class theory of the state, versions of which are raised by traditional, revolutionary anarchists and by Marx.


A key question for any political theory is its conception of the state. This includes the view of the state by the trend calling itself “post-anarchism.” This name does not refer to being “after” or “beyond” anarchism. Mainly it refers to attempted integrations of anarchism with the philosophical views of post-structuralism and postmodernism, as developed by certain French philosophers (May 1994; Russell & Evren 2011). According to Ruth Kinna,“Anarchism’s third, post-anarchist, wave [is] usually dated to the rise of the alter-globalization movement in the late 1990s….” (Kinna 2017; 25) It was not so much a change in organizing strategies as a new theoretical approach. “Post-anarchism is not only one of the most significant currents to emerge within contemporary anarchist thought in recent years, it also has ‘evident affinities’ with small-a anarchist movement politics.” (36) In this paper, I am looking at the post-anarchists’ political thinking and not on their background philosophies (in philosophy, I prefer a radicalized version of John Dewey’s pragmatism; Price 2014).

One of the most prominent post-anarchist theorists is Saul Newman. He has written a number of important books and essays on the subject. One essay (Newman 2004) concentrates on the nature of the state. It directly confronts the class theory of the state (also called the “materialist” or “historical materialist” theory of the state). This is a subject on which I have recently written (Price 2018). His is different from many other post-anarchist writings which emphasize that the state is not the only source of power, but that power is created in many places. “Foucault argues that the state is a kind of discursive illusion that masks the radically dispersed nature of power….” (Newman 2004; 23) Newman does not quite agree with this. He takes the state seriously. Whether or not a network of power is a useful model of society, the state still exists and needs to be analyzed. For this reason, I think it would be useful to examine this particular post-anarchist work.

In his essay, Newman never actually defines what he means by the state. I have found the same to be true in other post-anarchist writings. Let me then define the state as a bureaucratic-military social machine, composed of specialized officials, bureaucrats, and armed people, separate from and standing over the mass of people. This is a different matter than just any possible social system of coordination, policy deciding, dispute settling, or even defense from anti-social aggression. All these things existed for thousands of years among humans before the state arose and will exist after it is abolished. It is the state as an elite socially-alienated bureaucratic-military institution which is connected to the capitalist system and all other systems of oppression.

Anarchism and Marxism on the Class Theory of the State



It would be easy to contrast anarchism with Marxist-Leninism, that is, with the recent and current Stalinist states of the USSR, Maoist China, North Korea, etc. These states were founded by people calling themselves “Marxist” and supposed champions of the “working class.” Yet they were state-capitalist, mass-murdering, totalitarianisms. But Karl Marx, a radical democrat, would have been as horrified by such states as are anarchists. The issue is to show what there was about Marxism which led to such results, despite Marx’s intentions. Consistent with that focus, Newman directs himself primarily to Marx’s views, with little to say about post-Marx Marxism (just a few comments on Lenin).

Still, the paper presents itself as a dispute between anarchism and Marxism. In part, this binary is modified by some indications that anarchists have found aspects of Marxism useful. “For anarchists, Marxism has great value as an analysis of capitalism and the relations [of] private property which it is tied to.” (19) “Bakunin perhaps represents the most radical elements of Marxist theory.” (17) (10) Newman himself repeatedly expresses appreciation of the “post-Marxism” of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, whose work comes out of the Marxist tradition.

However, the main problem with Newman’s anarchism-versus-Marxism approach is that the traditional anarchist movement also had a class theory of the state. Peter Kropotkin, the great theorist of anarchism, wrote, “The State has always interfered in the economic life in favor of the capitalist exploiter. It has always granted him protection in robbery, given aid and support for further enrichment. And it could not be otherwise. To do so was one of the functions—the chief mission—of the State.” (Kropotkin 2014; 193) In Kinna’s view, Kropotkin thought “political institutions reflected the nature of economic power, which was fundamental….The state was designed to protect the strong against the weak, the rich against the poor, and the privileged against the laboring classes….Bourgeois government [was] a special vehicle for the protection of commercial and industrial class interests.” (Kinna 2017; 86—88) “Bakunin had advanced the same argument, crediting Marx with its most sophisticated scientific articulation.” (86)

Newman’s attack on the class theory of the state is not only an attack on Marxism but also on the traditional mainstream anarchist view

.

Newman seeks to deny this. For example, he cites Bakunin’s support for the class theory of the state but then tries to turn it on its head. “Bakunin…takes Marx seriously when he says that the state is always concomitant with class distinctions and domination. However there is an important difference….For Marx the dominant class generally rules through the state, whereas for Bakunin the state generally rules through the dominant class….Bourgeois relations are actually a reflection of the state, rather than the state being a reflection of bourgeois relations.” (Newman 2004;17)

This acknowledges that Bakunin, the principal initiator of the movement for revolutionary anarchism, believed that “the state is always concomitant with class distinctions and domination.” That is different from seeing the state as distinct and autonomous from the class structure. Actually, Bakunin saw the state as interacting with the economy, in a back-and-forth, dialectical, manner. The modern state causes capitalism and capitalism causes the modern state.

This is similar to Marx’s concept of “primitive (primary) accumulation,” in which the state played a key role in initiating capitalism. The state expropriated the British peasants from their land, conquered and looted foreign countries, supported slavery, and defended theft from the environment. Theses actions accumulated capital on one side and propertyless workers on the other, the essentials for capitalism. In Capital, Marx wrote of “the power of the state, the concentrated and organized force of society, to hasten, hothouse fashion, the process of transformation of the feudal mode of production into the capitalist mode….Force is…itself an economic power.” (Marx 1906; 823-4) Kropotkin criticized this “primitive accumulation” only because it may imply that this is a passing phase, understating the continuing influence of the state in maintaining capitalism. Recognizing that “Force is itself an economic power”is not a rejection of the class theory of the state.

Newman presents two alternate views: “the state represented the interests of the most economically dominant class—the bourgeoisie.” (Newman 2004; 6) This is ascribed to Marx. Or: “Anarchism sees the state as an autonomous institution—or series of institutions—that has its own interests and logic.” (9) “It is independent of economic forces and has its own imperative of self-perpetuation….Anarchism sees the state, in its essence, as independent of economic classes….” (14) This last view is his opinion, that of post-anarchism, but not that of the “classical” anarchists.

Bonapartism



Newman points out that Marx developed his concept of the state further. This was expressed in his analysis of the French dictatorship of Louis Napoleon III in his 1852 The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (Marx 2002). He developed a concept of “Bonapartism,” which was also expressed in Engels’ and his writings on Bismarck in Germany and on other historical states (Draper 1977). They noted that the state balanced among various class forces. Even within the upper class there were fractions of classes and agents of fractions of classes, which put conflicting pressures on the state. They saw that the state had its own interests as an institution and so did its bureaucratic, political, and military personnel. Sometimes the bourgeoisie had mostly direct control of the state, as under parliamentary democracy. At other times, they were shut out, as under Louis Bonaparte’s “Empire” or under Nazi totalitarianism. But even without democratic rights, the bourgeoisie continued to exploit their employees and accumulate profits. This “right” was still defended by the dictatorial state! “According to Marx…the Bonapartist state served the long term interests of the capitalist system, even if it often acted against the immediate interests and will of the bourgeoisie.” (Newman 2004; 7)

There is a tendency for the state—especially its executive branch—to develop increased independence relative to the rest of society, even under bourgeois democracy, but which reaches its height under political dictatorship. In Newman’s terms, cited above, it may be acknowledged that “the state has its own interests and logic…and has its own imperative of self-preservation.” But it is not true that the state is “independent of class forces.” Rather it balances among them and still maintains the overall interests of the bourgeoisie. This has been referred to as the state’s “relative autonomy.” (5)

Newman claims that anarchists (or at least post-anarchists) took the concept of Bonapartism to its rightful extreme. “Anarchism took Marx’s notion of the Bonapartist State to its logical conclusion, thus developing a theory of state power and sovereignty as an entirely autonomous and specific domain….” (38—39)

Does this make sense? Does not the state, as an institution with a drive for “self-preservation,” have an absolute need to keep the economy going? Under capitalism this means the continued accumulation of capital; it means the exploitation of the working class to produce ever increased amounts of profit. Without this, there is no state, no society, and none of the other oppressions of race, gender, etc. Can there be “an entirely autonomous” state, unrelated to economic oppression? Neither Bakunin nor Kropotkin believed that. I quoted Kropotkin above as believing that protecting capitalist exploiters “was one] of the functions—the chief mission—of the State.” Not the only function or mission, but 'one of the functions” and “the chief mission.”

If we look at the state as a “specific domain,” then it has a great many social forces, economic and otherwise, class and non-class, pushing on it. (Non-class forces include racial tensions, gender conflicts, not to mention organized religion.) Yet these forces are of differing strength and impact. The class theory “involves a claim that the capitalist class is able to wield more potent power resources over against pressure from below and the capacity for independent action on the part of the state itself….The political sway of the capitalist class [is] not exclusive but predominant.” (Wetherly 2002; 197) Even the most autonomous of totalitarian fascist states still must take into account the needs of its capitalist class—or it will not survive. Even the bureaucratic Stalinist states of the Soviet Union, Maoist China, etc.—which had entirely disposed of their stock-owning bourgeoisie—still had to maintain the exploitation of the workers and the accumulation of capital: the capital-labor relationship.

Summarizing the most mature and sophisticated views of Marx (and traditional anarchists)—with which he disagrees—Newman writes, “Rather than saying that, for Marx, the state is the instrument of [the] bourgeoisie, it may be more accurate to say that the state is a reflection of bourgeois class domination, a institution whose structure is determined by capitalist relations. Its function is to maintain an economic and social order that allows the bourgeoisie to continue to exploit the proletariat. “ (11) Or, for the Stalinist states, for someone “to continue to exploit the proletariat”—in this case, the collective bureaucratic class (until it collapsed back into traditional capitalism).

I think that this makes more sense than either a view of the state as a passive puppet of the bourgeoisie (should anyone hold such a crude theory) or as “entirely autonomous” and ”independent of class forces.”

Political Implications



Political analyses have no meaning unless they lead to differences in strategy or tactics. “A difference which makes no difference is no difference,” as the saying goes. Newman contrasts the differing potential “revolutionary strategies” that go with the alternatives of the “neutral” or “autonomous state” or the (class) “determined state.” He discusses which (theorized) state should be seen as the “tool of revolution” and which as something “to be destroyed in revolution.” (8) Rather than summarize his discussion, I will go through the issue as I see it.

(1) The idea that the state was integrally tied to the capitalist class and could not be otherwise, led to the revolutionary belief that this state had to be overturned, smashed, dismantled, and replaced by alternate institutions. In a new preface to the Communist Manifesto, Engels quoted Marx, “One thing especially was proved by the [Paris] Commune, viz., that ‘the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery and wield it for its own purposes’.” (Marx & Engels 1955; 6) This did not deny the value of fighting for reforms, but the ultimate goal was a state-destroying revolution.

But two different conclusions were drawn. One was that the working class, when overturning the capitalists’ state, also needed its own class state, a “workers’ state,” the “revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat”—if only for a while, until a fully classless society could be instituted. This could be interpreted as an ultra-democratic state, similar to the Paris Commune or the early soviets, which would ”immediately” start to “wither away” —which is how Lenin presented it at the beginning of the Russian revolution. Or, alternately, as the justification for an increasingly authoritarian, one-party, police state, which is what Lenin developed over time. This soon evolved into Stalin’s state-capitalist totalitarianism.

On the other hand, anarchists argued that the state, by its very structure (as I defined it above), was an instrument of the capitalist class, or of some other exploiting class. Throughout history, ruling minorities needed a state to maintain their rule over the big majority; a self-managing majority would not need it. If a new state were to be created after a revolution, it would only put a bureaucratic class in power, ruling over a state capitalist economy. (As we know, these warnings came true.) Instead, anarchists argued for networks and federations of workplace councils, neighborhood assemblies, and voluntary associations. The workers and all the oppressed needed to replace all states with the self-organization of the emancipated people.

(2) The alternate theory of a neutral and wholly autonomous state was (and is) championed by reformists, liberals, and social democrats. The state, they claimed, was a machine which could be used by anyone, capitalists or workers, white supremacists or People of Color, oppressors or oppressed. Therefore radicals should fight to take over the existing state and use it to do good. (This is the view of Laclau and Mouffe, the “post-Marxists” whom Newman admires.)

But post-anarchists argue that the state has its own drives for oppression, regardless of the class system it is associated with at any time. To use it to get rid of one system of exploitation would only leave the field open for the state’s own oppressive dynamics. It would only replace capitalism with some other method of exploitation, such as the rule of a bureaucratic class. Therefore the state must not used to make a revolution nor to solidify a new society after one.

Those who identify with the revolutionary anarchist tradition do not really disagree with the last argument. The state has authoritarian and oppressive tendencies which make it unusable for a genuinely popular, democratic, revolution-from-below. However, I do not separate these tendencies from the state’s essential attachment to the rule of a minority exploiting class. These are not distinct dynamics.

Which leads to a response to the question of why Marx’s Marxism led to Stalinist totalitarianism, despite Marx’s own democratic-libertarian tendencies. At least one part of it was his program of replacing the bourgeois state with a new state of the working class and its allies, if only for a time. This transitional state was supposed to expropriate the capitalists and centralize all their property into its own hands. No matter how democratic, popular, and temporary in conception, the use of a socially alienated bureaucratic-military state machine was bound to lead to a new form of exploitation and oppression. This was argued by Bakunin, Kropotkin, and other revolutionary class-struggle anarchist-socialists at the time of Marx and immediately after, and has repeatedly been proven true, alas.

Whether Saul Newman is for revolution cannot be told from this essay (it may be clearer in other works). Most of the other post-anarchists, like the “new” or “small-a” anarchists, advocate building alternate institutions, small scale actions, and different lifestyles, without focusing on an ultimate goal of direct popular attack against the capitalist class or the state. (Price 2016) The post-anarchists usually justify this by arguing that the state is not the only source of power in society, but merely one among many. Therefore anarchists do not need to focus on the state as the main enemy. It can be worked around, chipped away, or just ignored. The capitalist class is seen as a disjointed, pluralistic, entity, with society overall best understood as a network of forces without a center. All of which leads to a rejection of overturning the state as a main goal. In fact “revolution” is usually regarded as the fantasy of a single (bloody) upheaval which would immediately change society—which is rejected as the nonsense it is (and is not a model held by serious revolutionaries). However, revolutionary anarchists regard as a dangerous fantasy the idea that the capitalist class and its state would permit a peaceful, gradual, transformation of society—in which they would lose their wealth and power—without attempting to crush the people (through savage repression, fascism, civil war, etc.).

No Working Class Revolution



Whether Newman is against revolution, he is against working class revolution, because he is against a focus on the working class. He would deny that the “proletariat” is the necessary (but not sufficient) agent to transform society, or even that it is one of the three to five most important potential forces.

Newman repeatedly merges the idea of the working class with the idea of the Leninist vanguard party, objecting “to the central role of the proletariat—or, to be more precise, to the vanguard role of the Party.” (37) But revolutionary anarchists who looked to the working class did not advocate such authoritarian, elitist, parties. Among Marxists, Rosa Luxemburg rejected Lenin’s concept of the vanguard party, and there is a long history of libertarian-autonomist Marxists who orient to the aspects of Marx’s work which are radically democratic, humanistic (anti-alienation), proletarian (anti-bureaucratic), and scientific (anti-scientistic). This trend, neither social democratic nor Marxist-Leninist, does not share a concept of the elitist vanguard party. It has raised libertarian socialist politics which can be in dialogue with revolutionary anarchism (Prichard et al 2017).

The post-anarchists have been criticized for their negative approach to class concerns and how they deal with them. An “emerging critique is that the post-anarchists have given up on the notion of ‘class’ and have retreated into obscure and intoxicating academic diatribes against a tradition built of discursive straw.” (Rousselle, in the Preface to Rousselle & Evren 2011; vii) Indeed, Newman’s rejection of a working class orientation is sometimes on a rather high plane of abstract post-structuralist philosophizing. He denounces “the perspective of a universal epistemological position—such as that of the proletariat….” (37)

At other times, Newman raises empirical problems, which I think are the real issue. He refers to “…the empirical reality of the shrinking of the working class…” (32) and to the “concrete social conditions of the shrinking working class in post-industrial societies….” (29)

It is true that there are fewer industrial workers in the U.S. (although still a big minority), but the population is overwhelming working class. That is, most adults are employed by capital or the state, producing goods or services for pay, without supervising others. Blue collar, white collar, pink collar, in construction or slaughterhouses, cleaning houses for others or waiting tables, writing code or teaching children, in animation or accounting, this is the modern proletariat. The class, in addition to waged workers, includes their children, full-time homemakers, adult students, and those unemployed and retired. Meanwhile one reason for the decline in industrial jobs in the U.S. is that many jobs have been sent overseas. There has been an enormous expansion of industrial workers throughout the “Third World,” for this and other reasons. This is not a proof of the irrelevance of the working class.

It is also an empirical fact that most workers and their families are not revolutionary—and many are even reactionary. This is cited by post-anarchists (and others) as disproving a supposed prediction that the working class must inevitably become revolutionary. Actually the “prediction” is only that the working class is potentially revolutionary, and able to shake the whole society when it is. This is evidenced by a two-centuries long history of workers’ struggles and upheavals. In any case, it is not that we could reject the (currently) non-revolutionary class for some other grouping which is revolutionary. Since such a large proportion of the world’s population is working class, the non-revolutionary consciousness of most of the working class means that most of the general population is not revolutionary, that most women are not revolutionary, nor are most People of Color, nor is any other category we could name. For now.

Perhaps Newman’s major discontent with a working class perspective is his belief that it would suppress all other sources of discontent and rebellion. “Radical political struggles can no longer be limited to the proletariat alone, and must be seen as being open to other classes and social identities.” (33) “The movement…rejects the false universality of Marxist politics, which denies difference and heterogeneity and subordinates other struggles to the central role of the proletariat….” (37)

There is no doubt that there have been wooden Marxists and wooden anarcho-syndicalists who have denied the importance of everything but the class struggle. (There have also been feminists who have subordinated all issues to that of women’s freedom, and Black activists who have put everything aside but Black liberation. But that is not the question here.) However this is not an inevitable result of a class perspective. On the contrary, it can be seen as strengthening the class struggle if the revolutionary workers support each and every struggle of oppressed people. The socialist Daniel DeLeon once said (quoting from memory) that socialists’ support for women’s liberation could unify the working class and split the ruling class.

To cite an authoritative (and authoritarian) Marxist, Lenin opposed “economism,” the strategy of only supporting bread-and-butter labor union issues. Instead he argued that socialists should defend every democratic concern, no matter how apparently far from class. This included supporting big groups such as peasants, women, and oppressed nations, but also students, draftees, censored writers, and religious minorities. “To imagine that social revolution is conceivable without…a movement of the… masses against oppression by the landowners, the church, and the monarchy, against national oppression, etc. – to imagine all this is to repudiate social revolution. So one army lines up in one place and says, ‘We are for socialism’, and another, somewhere else and says, ‘We are for imperialism’, and that will he a social revolution!” (Lenin 1916) I cite this sarcastic comment even though Lenin was not a libertarian-autonomous Marxist, to demonstrate that even such a Marxist as Lenin could advocate that working class socialists should give support to all popular struggles against oppression—by all classes, on all issues. (In any case, the problem anarchists have with Lenin is not that he gave too much support to democratic struggles.)

“The Global Capitalist State Order”



Newman sees a model of the kind of radical movement he wants in “the emergence of what is broadly termed the ‘anti-globalization’ movement….” (Newman 2004; 36) He describes this movement as distinct from either a “universalized” working class or from a bundle of unrelated identity-based struggles. The distinct struggles are linked to each other and have a common enemy, which turns out to be….capitalism! and the capitalist state! “The ‘anti-globalization’ movement [is] a protest movement against the capitalist and neo-liberal vision of globalization….” (36) The movement “puts into question the global capitalist state order itself….It problematizes capitalism….targetting specific sites of oppression—corporate power and greed, G-M products, workplace surveillance, displacement of indigenous peoples, labor and human rights abuses, and so on.” (37) This only makes sense if we realize that these issues, overlapping with each other, are all directly or indirectly due to capitalism and enforced by the state. (For example, environmental, energy, and climate problems are due to the insatiable drive of capitalism to accumulate and grow quantitatively, regardless of the need of the ecosystem for limits and balance. The anarchist Bookchin explored this before the present ecological Marxists.)

We are living in a historical moment…dominated by capitalism, the most universal system the world has ever known—both in the sense that it is global and in the sense that it penetrates every aspect of social life and the natural environment….The social reality of capitalism is ‘totalizing’ in unprecedented ways and degrees. Its logic of commodification, accumulation, profit-maximization, and competition permeates the whole social order….” (Woods 1997; 13)

If the problem is ultimately capitalism, then what is capitalism? (Newman does not define it any more than he defines the state.) Capitalism is the capital-labor relationship in the process of production. Capital commodifies everything it can, including the ability of the workers to labor. Capital buys this labor-power and squeezes out as much surplus wealth (value) from the workers as possible, accumulating profits and expanding production. All the other issues and struggles against aspects of oppression are real and must be addressed, but the central issue of capitalism as such is its exploitation of the workers. And who will oppose capitalism? Is it in the immediate interests of the rich, the managers, the police, or various indeterminate “citizens” to revolt against capitalism? No one has a greater immediate interest in fighting capitalism than those who directly confront it day by day. No one has a greater potential ability to fight it, with their hands on the means of production, distribution, and services.

That is what makes the class struggle—if not “universal”—then central to the fight against “the global capitalist state order.” It is central, and necessary—but not sufficient by itself, since all sections of the oppressed need to be mobilized, on every issue, “against the capitalist and neo-liberal vision of globalization.”

Conclusion: The State Serves the Class Enemy



In recent years there has been a bitter and vicious class war, on an international scale. It has been waged by the capitalist class, using all its resources, most especially its state. There has been a remorseless attack on the working class in both the industrialized (imperialist) nations and in the rest of the world. Hard-won welfare benefits have been slashed, austerity has been enforced, and unions have been cut in number and power. As part of this class war, there has been an attack on the rights of women, of African-Americans, of immigrants, and of LGBTQ people. For the sake of profits, the environment has been trashed and looted, until the survival of civilization (even such as it is) is threatened.

This is hardly the time to deny that capitalist exploitation is at the center of all issues. And that, while the state is intrinsically oppressive, it serves the class enemy.


References


Draper, Hal (1977). Karl Marx’s Theory of Revolution, Vol. 1; State and Bureaucracy. NY: Monthly Review Press.

Kinna, Ruth (2017), Kropotkin: Reviewing the Classical Anarchist Tradition. Edinburgh UK: Edinburgh University Press.

Kropotkin, Peter (2014). Direct Struggle Against Capital; A Peter Kropotkin Anthology (Ed.: Iain McKay). Oakland CA: AK Press.

Lenin, V. I. (1916). “The Discussion On Self-Determination Summed Up.”
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/jul/x...1.htm

Marx, Karl (1906). Capital; A Critique of Political Economy; Vol. 1 (Ed.: F. Engels). NY: Modern Library.

Marx, Karl (2002). “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte” (Trans.: T. Carver). In Cowling, M., & Martin, J. (eds.). Marx’s Eighteenth Brumaire; (Post)modern Interpretations. London: Pluto Press. Pp. 19—109.

Marx, Karl, & Engels, Friedrich (1955). The Communist Manifesto. (Ed.: S.H. Beer). Northbrook IL: AHM Publishing Co.

May, Todd (1994). The Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist Anarchism. University Park PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Morris, Brian (1993). Bakunin; The Philosophy of Freedom. Montreal/NY: Black Rose Books.

Newman, Saul (2004). Anarchism, Marxism, and the Bonapartist State. (Originally published in Anarchist Studies, 12, 1; 2004.) Retrieved on 2011.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/saul-newman-ana...4.pdf

Price, Wayne (2014). “Anarchism and the Philosophy of Pragmatism.” The Utopian. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/wayne-price-ana...atism

Price, Wayne (2016). “In Defense of Revolutionary Class-Struggle Anarchism.” Anarkismo. https://www.anarkismo.net/article/29243?search_text=way...price

Price, Wayne (2018). “An Anarchist View of the Class Theory of the State.”
Anarkismo. http://www.anarkismo.net/article/31082?author_name=Wayn...rice&

Prichard, Alex; Kinna, Ruth; Pinta, Saku; & Berry, David (eds.). (2017). Libertarian Socialism: Politics in Black and Red. Oakland CA: PM Press.

Russell, Duane, & Evren, Sureyyya (eds.) (2011). Post-Anarchism: A Reader. Pluto Press/ Fernwood Publishing.

Wetherly, Paul (2002). “Making Sense of the ‘Relative Autonomy’ of the State.” In Cowling, M., & Martin, J. (eds.). Marx’s Eighteenth Brumaire; (Post)modern Interpretations. London: Pluto Press. Pp. 195—208.

Wood, Ellen Meiksins (1997). “What is the ‘Postmodern’ Agenda?” In In Defense of History; Marxism and the Postmodern Agenda. NY: Monthly Review Press. Pp. 1—16.

*written for www.Anarkismo.net

elsewhere / community struggles / news report Sunday September 09, 2018 00:57 byZaher Baher

This is a report about what is currently going on in Basra, the third main city in Iraq. The protesters back to the streets from 4th of this month, September demanding their basic rights.


The Protest in Basra’s city, south of Iraq, continues

Zaher Baher

Iraq
08/09/2018

“Out Iran out out, Basra lives free” this is one of the main chant thousands of the protesters were shouting. The strong protesters back to the streets in the afternoon of Tuesday, 10/09 when the Prime Minister of Iraq, Haider al-Abadi failed to deliver his promises to meet people’s demands of July.

Since the beginning of the protests on Tuesday,10 protesters killed and over 100 injured. They cut off the road of Umm Qasr on Wednesday, 04/09. Umm Qasr Port is part of the city of Umm Qasr and one of the couple ports in Iraq for entering goods to Basra and the rest of Iraq.

The protests are getting bigger. They are very angry because they are lack of every basic service including clean water electric power. In this very hot weather while the temperature still reaches 50 degree people has no enough power. The concerns of people in Basra mentioned in my initial report of July still have not been taken in to the consideration by the Iraqi government.

On Wednesday, 05/09 the protester occupied the building of the governor of Basra and burned down. On Thursday, 06/09, four TV offices and fifteen political parties headquarters and some of the government’s building also burned down. On the same day, Wednesday night, the protesters occupied the Iranian Consulate in Basra, the staff managed to flee but the protesters set a fire on the building.

People in Basra have lots of sympathy from Iraqis from South to the North of Iraq. There was a big rally/ protest yesterday, Friday, in Tahrir Square in Baghdad to support the people’s demand in Basra.

There are also unconfirmed reports of entering the US forces into the city of Basra watching the situation closely. Other reports are talking about fleeing most of the MPs, the chiefs of the political parties, heads of the companies and the directors of main services in the city. There is other report talks about fleeing government’s agents while some of the protesters found their places where they work and live.

While I am not justifying violence from the protesters but the true is the police, securities and the Militias of the political parties have been very violent from the beginning of the protests in the afternoon of 04/09. There is other reason for the people in Basra to get very angry. They are very desperate and frustrated while for the last 15 years whoever came to power locally and centrally failed them. The people in Basra on one hand see themselves have been deprived almost of everything; on the other hand they see a tiny minority of their people have been beneficiary from the situation and living highlife.

The true and the right thing is people in Basra regardless of their differences have been united, fighting back the local and central government for their legitimate and natural demands. It did not last long for them to realize the religion and the nationalism do not worth a single bread, single tablet, free education, free treatment, freedom and the rest of basic rights.

The protests and the demos have not been controlled by any political parties or any other side from the foreigners. They have so far rejected them because they have 15 years of experience with the regime. But they need to organize themselves in non-hierarchical independent groups in wherever possibly they can to coordinate their action against the state and its powers.

mashriq / arabia / iraq / imperialism / war / opinion / analysis Saturday September 08, 2018 07:15 byZaher Baher

This article is a brief analysing of the future of Rojava in Syria in Line with the attack of Assad’s forces on Idlib’s Province . The battle of Idlib can be a crucial one for all sides who are involve especially for the regime and the Kurdish in Rojava . There are few scenarios that the Kurdish forces there and its self rule administration are facing . There is also a strong possibility after this battle the Kurdish question there can be on the top of Assad and Russia’s agenda to be resolved either way.


The battle of Idlib Province in Syria is decisive and crucial for the future of Rojava

By: Zaher Baher

Iraq, 05 Sep 2018

We are at the final stage of solving the crisis in Syria and liberating whole territory from terrorism”, stated Walid al-Moualem, Syria’s foreign minister when he met Sergei Lavrov, his Russian counterpart, in Moscow.

The Assad Regime and its allies are preparing themselves for the upcoming battle for Idlib. The military launch might start this month, September, or the beginning of October. The war will likely bring victory to Assad and catastrophe to the 2 million citizens of Idlib where 1.6 million are already in need of humanitarian aid.

Idlib, near Aleppo, Hama and Homs, is a stronghold of over 60,000 anti-regime rebels and over 10,000 jihadists. To justify attacking Idlib, Assad often claims the province is full of terrorists.

Although the battle of Idlib looks rather small with any parties like the US, Russia, Turkey and Assad and their other allies' involvement directly or indirectly, it will, no doubt, be a big battle. Each of these parties has their own stake in Idlib and the region. Assad is trying to control the whole country by defeating opposition rebels and terrorist groups. He also wants an open hand over the Kurdish in Rojava either to suppress or negotiate with them on his own terms and conditions. Turkey, which has supported anti-Assad forces and terrorist groups throughout the war for many reasons, has its own interests too. The US and Russia have been the major powers in the region and are arch enemies. Their intervention and involvement in Syria only serves their own interests economically, politically and financially and protects the power of their friends in the region.

As for Rojava’s situation, its future within the Idlib battle scenario is quite complicated. In my opinion, Rojava’s position has been weak since Jul 2015 when Erdogan launched a brutal attack on the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) forcing them to become involved in war. On the other hand, the Democratic Union Party (PYD) has been aligned with the US in the war against Islamic State (IS), and has committed many deadly mistakes mentioned in my previous article.

The battle of Idlib will happen sooner or later. It will be decisive and crucial for the major powers and their allies in the region and also for Rojava. At the moment, US opposes the attack because it would lead to a “humanitarian catastrophe “. The White House warned on Tuesday 04/09 that the US and its allies would respond “swiftly and appropriately” if Assad used chemical weapons. The question here is why the US and its allies were not concerned about a “humanitarian catastrophe” when Turkey invaded Afrin and massacred hundreds of innocent people? In Idlib,the US is probably concerned with defeating the terrorist groups rather than innocent people because they want the game to last longer to achieve completely what they planned in the first place.

Rojava and its self-rule administration and the SDF cannot be ignored during the attack on Idlib and after the battle as well. It cannot be left as it is. The Rojava question and its future must be resolved either way. Rojava is facing many possible scenarios. If Assad prevails in this battle, as commonly predicted, the position of the Kurdish in Rojava will be weaker. Assad will be in a very strong position, securing his hold on power for a while. In this situation, he can impose his terms and conditions on the PYD and SDF while they are in a weak position. There is also the possibility of the SDF joining Assad’s forces for the battle of Idlib while the PYD is negotiating with the regime. As we can see, the PYD and SDF are in a very complicated situation. The SDF may join Assad’s forces against the rebels; an action which is opposed to US interests. In this circumstances the PYD and SDF might be abandoned by the US which, in the near future, may encourage a Turkish attack on Rojava or, at least, Turkey may try to occupy the towns on its border currently under control of the SDF.

If Assad fails to defeat the rebels in Idlib, it won’t be in the interest of Rojava either, because Assad’s defeat will also be a Turkish victory who will then be in a better position to attack Rojava as happened to Afrin.

However, whatever the outcome of Idlib’s battle, it will be critical for Rojava as its future is tied to the battles between the forces mentioned above. The situation may become so complicated in Rojava that it will become difficult for the Kurdish to maintain their principal aim of Democratic Confederalism.

What keeps Rojava alive is the continuing war with Isis and other terrorist groups and, also, the economic embargo imposed by regional powers. Saying this does not mean that Rojava’s movement will collapse. In my opinion, the Kurdish have proved themselves and resolved many questions positively so they cannot be ignored or marginalized by any sides of the major powers and Assad’s regime I believe that, in the end, there might be some compromise between the US and Russia over Syria and its regime. The power struggle between them and their allies to reach their own aims forces Assad, or a future government in Syria, to offer cultural autonomy and some cultural rights. These rights would be far short of building Democratic Confederalism.

Zaherbaher.com

This page has not been translated into 한국어 yet.

This page can be viewed in
English Italiano Català Ελληνικά Deutsch



#Nobastan3Causales: seguimos luchando por aborto libre en Chile

#Nobastan3Causales: seguimos luchando por aborto libre en Chile

Fri 19 Oct, 07:17

browse text browse image

300_0___20_0_0_0_0_0_p_17_04_2017.jpg imageΣυνέντευξη της Devrimci A... Oct 18 21:05 by Paddy Rua* 0 comments

cab_statement_2.jpeg imageNote on the current state of class struggle in Brazil Oct 18 05:22 by Brazilian Anarchist Coordination 0 comments

cab_statement_1.jpeg imageNota sobre el actual escenario de la lucha de clases en Brasil Oct 16 08:11 by Coordinación Anarquista Brasileña 0 comments

cab_statement.jpeg imageNota sobre o atual cenário da luta de classes no Brasil Oct 16 05:41 by Coordenação Anarquista Brasileira 0 comments

push.jpg imageMACG join PUSH! Oct 15 20:31 by Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group 0 comments

44049120_1835425299911634_8600829489510875136_n.jpg image[Colombia] XIV Seminario Militante Oct 14 22:59 by Grupo Libertario Via Libre 0 comments

resistance.png imageΗ αντίσταση κατά ... Oct 14 19:12 by Antonio Tellez 0 comments

bananistao_tio_sam.png imageA face horrenda da nova extrema direita: degenerados, blasfemadores e mentirosos contumaze... Oct 14 06:46 by BrunoL 0 comments

images.jpg imageΟ ρόλος εθνικισμ_... Oct 12 19:15 by Αναρχική Συλλογικότητα mⒶnifesto 0 comments

zak.jpg imageΟ σύγχρονος φασι`... Oct 03 06:38 by DmitriΑναρχική Συλλογικότητα Manifesto 0 comments

p_17_04_2017.jpeg imageDevrimci Anarşist Faaliyet: "The state’s project of eliminating revolutionary opposit... Oct 01 19:47 by Paddy Rua 0 comments

textCONDITIONNEMENT TOXIQUE Oct 01 00:21 by Lukas Stella 0 comments

screen_shot_20180929_at_21.18.png imageMulheres Tomam a Frente da Resistência! Povo Forte Vence nas Ruas! Sep 30 04:21 by Federação Anarquista Gaúcha 0 comments

“Working Women Against the Precaritization of Life,” taken during the 2018 march for International Working Women’s Day. Source: El Grano imageA Feminist Movement to End Capitalism Sep 30 04:09 by Bree Busk 0 comments

ceb6ceb1ceba.jpg imageΚοινωνικός κανιβ... Sep 29 18:04 by Ελευθεριακή Συνδικαλιστική Ένωση 0 comments

text[South Africa] Stop the repression of casualised/contract workers in Ekurhuleni! Sep 29 07:27 by International Labour, Research & Information Group 0 comments

screen_shot_20180927_at_20.28.png imageA fortalecer la organización popular para profundizar la lucha Sep 28 03:43 by Federación Anarquista Uruguaya 0 comments

cropped5h1a2895_1.jpg imageEutopian Library reopens Sep 27 21:18 by Ευτοπική Βιβλιοθήκη 0 comments

cropped5h1a2895.jpg imageΗ Ευτοπική Βιβλι_... Sep 27 21:13 by Ευτοπική Βιβλιοθήκη 0 comments

textPicking up the pieces: How Syrian society has changed Sep 26 13:53 by Synaps Network 0 comments

direitosdopovo.jpg imageTrês reflexões sobre o momento do antifascismo brasileiro Sep 23 10:15 by BrunoL 0 comments

0004f0c1_big610x380.jpg image«Δεν φοβόμαστε» Sep 21 19:23 by Black Rose/Rosa Negra 0 comments

42121200_1806158409504990_924262337735557120_o.jpg image[Colombia] Encuentro Ácrata Sep 20 23:59 by Grupo Libertario Via Libre 0 comments

172090_600.jpg imageThe naked emperor and the new Syria Sep 18 23:12 by Kahled Aboud 1 comments

38016048_1565638766874703_2001858735969927168_n.jpg imageΕθνικισμός-πατρι... Sep 16 19:47 by Καθ’οδόν & mⒶnifesto 0 comments

migration.jpg imageMigration: Europe and Aotearoa/New Zealand Sep 16 08:04 by Pink Panther 0 comments

text"The North American American Anarchist: The Newspaper Dedicated to Direct Action" Sep 15 06:02 by Mike Harris 1 comments

fau.png imageCarta Opinión – fAu – Agosto 2018 Sep 15 05:48 by Federación Anarquista Uruguaya 0 comments

basra1.jpg imageLes manifestations dans la ville de Bassorah, au sud de l'Irak, continuent Sep 14 05:30 by Zaher Baher 0 comments

textThe US-Turkey stand-off in context: the US and the weaponisation of global finance Sep 13 19:04 by VASSILIS K. FOUSKAS and BULENT GOKAY 0 comments

more >>
© 2005-2018 Anarkismo.net. 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 Anarkismo.net. [ Disclaimer | Privacy ]