Elections in Russia, 2018: Managed Democracy? 00:08 Mar 23 0 comments
Αλληλεγγύη στο Αφρ... 18:36 Mar 21 0 comments
Asesinato político, Terrorismo de Estado: Marielle Franco, Presente! 09:55 Mar 20 0 comments
Assassinio Politico, Terrorismo di Stato: Marielle Franco lotta con noi! 22:30 Mar 19 0 comments
Assassinato Político, Terrorismo de Estado: Marielle Franco, Presente! 22:21 Mar 19 0 commentsmore >>
Ελλάδα / Τουρκία / Κύπρος / Ιμπεριαλισμός / Πόλεμος / Γνώμη / Ανάλυση Wednesday February 21, 2018 18:07 byAναρχική Συλλογικότητα mⒶnifesto
«Το λέμε με ειλικρίνεια, όσο επώδυνο κι αν είναι. Φασίστες υπάρχουν και έξω από το φασιστικό κόμμα, υπάρχουν σε όλες τις τάξεις και σε όλα τα κόμματα. Υπάρχουν συνεπώς παντού άτομα τα οποία αν και δεν είναι φασίστες (μπορεί να είναι και αντιφασίστες), έχουν φασιστική ψυχή, την ίδια δηλαδή επιθυμία για καταπίεση που χαρακτηρίζει τους φασίστες.» (Errico Malatesta, 28 Αυγούστου 1923, «Γιατί νίκησε ο φασισμός», Libero Accordo)Για το εθνικιστικό-πατριωτικό συλλαλητήριο της 4ης Φλεβάρη και τον αντιφασισμό
Στις 4 Φλεβάρη στην Αθήνα, ο εθνικιστικός-πατριωτικός εσμός αποπειράθηκε για άλλη μια φορά με πανελλαδική επιστράτευση δεκάδων χιλιάδων εθνικιστών, φιλελέδων, πατριδολάγνων απατεώνων, καραβανάδων, απόστρατων, δεσποτάδων, παπαδαριού, νεοναζί, ακροδεξιών, αριστερών εθνοπατριωτών και φασιστοχουλιγκάνων, να οικοδομήσει «από τα κάτω» συνθήκες συγκρότησης ενός μαζικού πολιτικού πόλου έκφρασης, του επιδιωκόμενου από κράτος και κεφάλαιο, κοινωνικού εκφασισμού. Για άλλη μια φορά το εθνοπατριωτικό συλλαλητήριο συνοδεύτηκε από φασιστικές επιθέσεις σε κατειλημμένο χώρο (Θέατρο Εμπρός), επανασηματοδοτώντας παράλληλα με τον εξωτερικό εχθρό (κράτος Μακεδονίας) και τον εσωτερικό, όπως έπραξε αντίστοιχα και στην Θεσσαλονίκη στις 21 Γενάρη. Η σιωπηλή προσωρινή απόσυρση του στρατηγού Φράγκου Φραγκούλη από το «πάνελ» του αθηναϊκού συλλαλητηρίου, με ταυτόχρονη εμφάνιση και πολιτική στήριξη της φιέστας από τον αριστερό εθνοπατριώτη τσαρλατάνο Μίκη Θεοδωράκη, επιβεβαιώνει την εκτίμηση ότι ο κεντρικός πολιτικός σχεδιασμός για την συγκρότηση αυτού του πόλου είναι δυναμικός και όχι ένα στατικό και παλαιομοδίτικο αντίγραφο αντίστοιχων κινήσεων της δεκαετίας του ’90. Ο σύγχρονος φασισμός ξεπροβάλλει δυναμικά, στα πλαίσια του αστικού κοινοβουλευτικού πρωτόκολλου, με βάση τις κεντροευρωπαϊκές αστικοδημοκρατικές προδιαγραφές. Χρησιμοποιεί τα σύγχρονα εργαλεία κοινωνικής προπαγάνδας (εκκλησιαστικός μηχανισμός, διαδίκτυο, μμε κλπ), είναι δηλαδή μια αναπτυσσόμενη λερναία ύδρα με πολλά κεφάλια και όχι ένα απλό πολιτικό κέλυφος για το ξέπλυμα και την κοινωνική επανανομιμοποίηση των δολοφόνων νεοναζί και των ακροδεξιών οργανώσεων και κομμάτων.
Τα μπουλούκια των εθνοπατριωτών που καμάρωναν βγάζοντας selfies κάτω από τις σημαίες του ελληνικού κράτους και τους δικέφαλους αετούς (σύμβολο της ανατολικής ρωμαϊκής αυτοκρατορίας), προφανώς και δεν είναι όλοι οργανωμένοι σε νεοναζιστικά ή ακροδεξιά μορφώματα. Αυτό όμως σε οποιαδήποτε περίπτωση, δεν αποτελεί άλλοθι πολιτικού τους ξεπλύματος. Τόσο η αριστεροπατριωτική Πλεύση Ελευθερίας και το αριστεροεθνικιστικό ΕΠΑΜ που έσπευσαν να στηρίξουν το συλλαλητήριο του Συντάγματος, όσο και η υπόλοιπη εθνοπατριωτική αριστερά, (κοινοβουλευτική και εξωκοινοβουλευτική, κυβερνώσα και αντικυβερνητική, μνημονιακή και αντιμνημονιακή), που οπορτουνίστικα-ψηφοθηρικά επέλεξε να βάλει πλάτη στον εθνικιστικό-πατριωτικό συρφετό, αναδεικνύοντας επιλεκτικά στις ανακοινώσεις της τον συνταγματικό «αλυτρωτισμό» του γειτονικού κράτους της Μακεδονίας, συγκαλύπτοντας παράλληλα τον εξίσου συνταγματικό «αλυτρωτισμό» του ελληνικού κράτους, ολοκληρώνουν το πάζλ των πολιτικών δυνάμεων που είτε άμεσα-ενεργά, είτε έμμεσα-σιωπηλά παίζουν πάνω στην σκακιέρα των «εθνικών» διαχωρισμών και των διακρατικών ανταγωνισμών. Κανένα «έθνος» δεν μας ενώνει, κανένα σύνορο δεν μας χωρίζει.
Εκτιμούμε ότι τα δύο πανελλαδικά συλλαλητήρια, κυρίως αυτό της Θεσσαλονίκης αλλα και αυτό της Αθήνας, καθώς και τα φημολογούμενα επόμενα, αποτελούν το πρώτο στάδιο πολιτικής ανάδυσης, κοινωνικής νομιμοποίησης και οργανωτικής συγκρότησης ενός νέου πολιτικού πόλου, με ξεκάθαρα φασιστικά (κυριαρχικά και πατριαρχικά) προτάγματα. Ενός πολιτικού πόλου που φιλοδοξεί να παίξει τον ρόλο του «alter ego» της σύγχρονης νεοφιλελέ σοσιαλδημοκρατίας του ΣΥΡΙΖΑ, στο γνωστό μεταπολιτευτικό κοινοβουλευτικό θέαμα του διπόλου «καλό-κακό». Ένα θέαμα που λειτουργεί δεσμευτικά στην ταξική-κοινωνική συνείδηση, επανατροφοδοτώντας εκλογικά την κοινωνική και πολιτική νομιμοποίηση του συστήματος εκμετάλλευσης και καταπίεσης. Ο ολοκληρωτισμός κράτους και κεφαλαίου δεν είναι νομοτελειακό ότι θα εκφραστεί πολιτικά στο τέλος αυτής της διαδρομής, με δικτατορικά καθεστώτα ενός νέου Χίτλερ, ενός νέου Μουσολίνι ή ενός νέου Μεταξά, ούτε ότι θα καταλήξει και πάλι σε έναν γενικευμένο παγκόσμιο πόλεμο. Οι αρκετές χιλιάδες πυρηνικές κεφαλές που περιμένουν υπομονετικά στα οπλοστάσια πολλών (πλέον) κρατών του πλανήτη, διατηρούν την δυνατότητα να εγγυηθούν, ότι ο επόμενος παγκόσμιος πόλεμος θα είναι και ο τελευταίος του ανθρώπινου είδους πάνω στη γή. Η ιστορία έχει αποδείξει αμέτρητες φορές, ότι δεν επαναλαμβάνεται σε «replay». Η πολύπλοκη σύγχρονη πραγματικότητα του πολυπολικού παγκοσμιοποιημένου κεφαλαίου, με την τεράστια χρηματοπιστωτική του φούσκα να απειλεί συνεχώς την ομαλή αναπαραγωγή του, με τους υπερκρατικούς μηχανισμούς στρατιωτικής επικυριαρχίας του στον πλανήτη να ανταγωνίζονται αλλα και να συνεργάζονται ταυτόχρονα (βλ. Συρία, Ουκρανία, Ιράκ, Αφγανιστάν, Λιβύη, Υεμένη, Τσετσενία), δεν μπορεί να συγκριθεί ως προς τα δομικά της χαρακτηριστικά με την περίοδο του μεσοπολέμου. Μια περίοδο του σύγχρονου καπιταλισμού, που γέννησε τα πολιτικά εκτρώματα του ιταλικού φασισμού και του γερμανικού ναζισμού και που οδήγησε σε γενικευμένο παγκόσμιο πόλεμο καταστροφής κεφαλαίου και θανάτωσης εκατομμυρίων ανθρώπων.
Η χωρίς τεκμηριωμένη ανάλυση, προβολή υπεραπλουστευμένων ολογραμματικών απεικονίσεων του παρελθόντος στο παρόν, όχι μόνο δεν βοηθάει στην ανάπτυξη ελευθεριακής πολιτικής συνείδησης, αλλα θολώνει τα αξιολογητικά κριτήρια ανάγνωσης της σύγχρονης πραγματικότητας. Στο μόνο που βοηθάει είναι στην έμπρακτη προπαγάνδιση «λαϊκών» αντιφασιστικών μετώπων, χτισμένων πάνω σε νεολενινιστικές και εθνοπατριωτικές φαντασιακές αφηγήσεις, που συμπυκνώνονται επικοινωνιακά στο τρίπτυχο «ΕΑΜ-ΕΛΑΣ-ΜΕΛΙΓΑΛΑΣ». Η αναζήτηση της πολιτικής καταγωγής σε κάποιο «ηρωϊκό» εθνικοαπελευθερωτικό παρελθόν εντός των συνόρων του ελληνικού κράτους, δεν έχει την παραμικρή σχέση με την παγκόσμια αναρχική σκέψη και πρακτική. Το παγκόσμιο αναρχικό κίνημα δεν αναγνώριζε και δεν αναγνωρίζει σύνορα στη διαλεκτική του σκέψη και στις πολιτικές του αναζητήσεις, ούτε εθνοπατριωτικές αφηγήσεις «εθνικής» απελευθέρωσης. Η αποδοχή της φαντασιακής «κοινότητας» του «έθνους», ένα ιδεολογικό κατασκεύασμα της ανερχόμενης αστικής κυριαρχίας κατά την πρώιμη περίοδο του καπιταλισμού, είναι ένα επιτυχημένο εργαλείο συγκρότησης και διατήρησης των «εθνικών» κρατών και ομογενοποίησης (γλωσσικής, θρησκευτικής, πολιτισμικής) του εργατικού δυναμικού εντός των κρατικών συνόρων. Οδηγεί στην αποδοχή ορίων και συνόρων μεταξύ των ανθρώπινων κοινοτήτων, οδηγεί διαλεκτικά στην έμμεση αποδοχή κρατικών μηχανισμών ως «σταδίων», προπαγανδίζοντας αυτούς τους μηχανισμούς ως «αναγκαίο μεταβατικό κακό» στην επαναστατική διαδρομή προς την ταξική, κοινωνική και ατομική απελευθέρωση από τα δεσμά της κυριαρχίας. Ο εθνικισμός δεν αντιμετωπίζεται με ετεροκαθορισμούς, με την επίκληση δηλαδή κάποιου αόριστου διεθνισμού λενινιστικής κοπής, αλλα με ταξική αλληλεγγύη χωρίς σύνορα. Η γλώσσα της κυριαρχίας δεν είναι η δική μας γλώσσα. Η ταξική συνείδηση πεθαίνει, εκεί που η «εθνική» συνείδηση καλλιεργείται και αναπτύσσεται. «Το έθνος δεν είναι η αιτία, αλλά το αποτέλεσμα του κράτους. Είναι το κράτος που δημιουργεί το έθνος και όχι το έθνος το κράτος.» (Ρούντολφ Ρόκερ, 1937, «Εθνικισμός και Πολιτισμός»).
Στις 4 Φλεβάρη στην Αθήνα, επιλέξαμε συλλογικά και συνειδητά να σταθούμε πλάι-πλάι με συντρόφισσες και συντρόφους που μας δένει ένας ισχυρότατος δεσμός : η συντροφική πολιτική αλληλεγγύη. Επιλέξαμε να σταθούμε δίπλα τους, υπερασπιζόμενοι/ες τις διαχρονικές ελευθεριακές αξίες που επι εκατοντάδες χρόνια επικαθορίζουν τις επιλογές του αναρχικού αγώνα ενάντια στην κυριαρχία και στην πατριαρχία. Επιλέξαμε να στηρίξουμε αλληλέγγυα με τις διαθέσιμες δυνάμεις μας, την περιφρούρηση ενός αυτοοργανωμένου χώρου αγώνα που στεγάζει συντροφικές συλλογικότητες, ακολουθώντας το επιχειρησιακό σχέδιο περιφρούρησης που αυτές επέλεξαν.
Στις 4 Φλεβάρη το εθνοπατριωτικό συλλαλητήριο της Αθήνας ενεργοποίησε αντανακλαστικά και ταυτόχρονα, ένα πλήθος πολιτικών δυνάμεων, συλλογικοτήτων, οργανώσεων, κομμάτων και συγκροτήσεων, δημιουργώντας μια βεντάλια αμυντικών αναχωμάτων απέναντι στην άμεση εθνικιστική απειλή. Η ταυτόχρονη αυτή αντανακλαστική κίνηση χιλιάδων, και οι πολλαπλές πολιτικές επιλογές που μετουσιώθηκαν σε δράση, σε καμία περίπτωση δεν μπορεί να μεταφραστεί ως «ενιαίο αντιφασιστικό μέτωπο» με κοινά προταγματικά και πολιτικά χαρακτηριστικά, ένα μέτωπο που δήθεν καθοδηγήθηκε από την «σωστή» γραμμή. Οι μαυροκόκκινες σημαίες δεν πάνε πακέτο με τις κόκκινες. Όσες φορές ιστορικά στήθηκαν πλάι-πλάι, τόσο σε αντιφασιστικά μέτωπα όσο ακόμα περισσότερο σε επαναστατικά εγχειρήματα του 20ου αιώνα, στο τέλος οι μαυροκόκκινες κοκκίνησαν ολοκληρωτικά, μουσκεμένες από το αίμα των σφαγιασθέντων συντροφισσών και συντρόφων που τις κρατούσαν. Κίνημα χωρίς μνήμη είναι κίνημα χωρίς προοπτική. Τα πολιτικά μέτωπα και οι άτυπες (κάτω από το τραπέζι) συμμαχίες με τον μπολσεβικισμό, δεν μπορούν πλέον να επιχειρηματολογηθούν με επικλήσεις σε «λαϊκά» αντιφασιστικά μέτωπα. Ο αντιφασιστικός αγώνας είναι πυλώνας της αντικρατικής και αντικαπιταλιστικής πάλης, αλλα όσο παραμένει εγκλωβισμένος αποκλειστικά σε ταξικές αναλύσεις και σε κυνήγια νεοναζί, αποφεύγοντας να αντιπαρατεθεί συνολικά και επι της ουσίας με όλες τις ρίζες του σύγχρονου φασισμού, δηλαδή και με τον εθνοπατριωτισμό και με τον ρατσισμό και με την πατριαρχία, τότε στην καλύτερη περίπτωση θα παραμείνει ως ένας ακόμη απομονωμένος θεματικός αγώνας, χωρίς ελευθεριακή επαναστατική προοπτική. Κανένα «έθνος» δεν μας ενώνει, κανένα σύνορο δεν μας χωρίζει, κανένα κράτος δεν πρόκειται να γίνει «δικό μας».
Ο σύγχρονος φασισμός είναι εδώ, στέκει μπροστά στα μάτια μας και τον αντιμάχονται καθημερινά, πλήθος αυτοοργανωμένων και ελευθεριακών συλλογικοποιήσεων. Τον πολεμάνε σωματεία βάσης, ελευθεριακές συνδικαλιστικές συλλογικότητες και δομές κοινωνικής αυτοοργάνωσης και ταξικής αλληλεγγύης, φεμινιστικές και ΛΟΑΤΚΙ συλλογικότητες. Στέκονται απέναντί του μαχητικά, αυτοοργανωμένες πρωτοβουλίες και συλλογικοποιήσεις μεταναστών/στριών και αλληλέγγυων συντονισμών, αλλα και αντιπατριωτικές-αντιφασιστικές ομάδες και αυτόνομοι συντονισμοί. Κανένα «έθνος» δεν μας ενώνει, κανένα σύνορο δεν μας χωρίζει, κανένα φύλο δεν υπερέχει και δεν πρέπει να κυριαρχεί και να επιβάλλεται. Η κυριαρχική επιβολή σε οποιοδήποτε επίπεδο και έκφανση της ζωής και του αγώνα για την ατομική, ταξική και κοινωνική απελευθέρωση, κάθε άλλο παρα αντιφασισμός είναι. Ο φυλετισμός είναι φασισμός. Ο ρατσισμός είναι φασισμός. Ο σεξισμός είναι φασισμός. Αμέτρητες συντρόφισσες πάλεψαν στο παρελθόν ανα τον κόσμο και πέθαναν αγωνιζόμενες για την απελευθέρωσή τους από τα δεσμά της πατριαρχίας, μέσα σε ιδιαίτερα αντίξοες συνθήκες κοινωνικών εξεγέρσεων και επαναστάσεων, οπου κυριαρχούσε η αντίληψη ότι η μοναδική κύρια καταπίεση ήταν η ταξική από το κεφάλαιο και το κράτος. Αγωνίστηκαν επίμονα κι επίπονα για να σηκώσουν ψηλότερα το οικοδόμημα της ατομικής και κοινωνικής απελευθέρωσης από τον ζόφο της πατριαρχίας, παραδίδοντάς μας μια καλύτερη θέση μάχης. Ο αγώνας τους και η πολύτιμη παρακαταθήκη που μας κληροδότησαν δεν θα αλεστούν σε κανένα μύλο σχετικοποίησης και κατηγοριοποίησης «προτεραιοτήτων». Τον σύγχρονο φασισμό θα τον πολεμήσουμε η μία δίπλα στον άλλον, κρατώντας ζωντανές τις ελευθεριακές αξίες και κάνοντας πράξη τα αναρχικά προτάγματα, χωρίς αστερίσκους και χωρίς εξαιρέσεις.
Οι κυριαρχικές αγέλες, που έχουν εθιστεί στην βία και που εθιμικά έχουν νομιμοποιηθεί στο να επιβάλλονται με μαφιόζικες μεθόδους συμμοριών, καθοδηγούμενες από τραμπούκους μικροηγεμόνες, δεν είναι σε οποιαδήποτε περίπτωση αντιφασίστες. Οι αγελοποιημένοι οπαδοί των μοντέρνων θρησκειών της μπάλας και της έγχρωμης σωβρακοφανέλας, οι σύγχρονοι καντηλανάφτες του νέου «ναού» που λέγεται γήπεδο, που ακολουθούν τυφλά έναν κόκκινο, πράσινο, κίτρινο, μπλέ κλπ «θεό» στην κυριακάτικη πάλη του με άλλους «θεούς», πιστά φερέφωνα επιχειρηματικών συμφερόντων, όσα antifa πανιά κι αν σηκώνουν στα γήπεδα και στις κερκίδες του κολοσσαίου τους, δεν είναι αντιφασίστες. Η γηπεδική καφρίλα και η ξέχειλη ματσίλα, κάθε άλλο παρα αποτελούν δομικά στοιχεία του αντιφασισμού. Η μόνη «ταυτότητα» που θα μπορούσαν στην καλύτερη περίπτωση να επικαλεστούν, είναι «αντι-νεοναζί». Οι βιαστές, οι κακοποιητές, οι τραμπούκοι σεξιστές και οι απολογητές/ήτριες της έμφυλης κυριαρχικής βίας, όποια «μαχητικότητα», όσα «παράσημα» και όσους «ηρωϊσμούς» κι αν επικαλεστούν, δεν μπορούν να είναι αντιφασίστες. Ο αντιφασισμός δεν ήταν, δεν είναι και δεν πρόκειται να γίνει το βολικό τους πλυντήριο για να ξεπλυθούν, όσες εναγώνιες προσπάθειες κι αν κάνουν.
Δεν μας αφορά κανένας πανηγυρισμός και καμιά απολογιστική θριαμβολογία για τις 4 Φλεβάρη. Τίποτα δεν τελείωσε, όλα στέκουν εδώ, μπροστά μας, σαν άπαρτα κάστρα. Η ταξική εκμετάλλευση-καταπίεση βαθαίνει πνίγοντας τα κατώτερα κοινωνικά στρώματα, οδηγώντας σταθερά στη φτώχεια και στην εξαθλίωση τους ανθρώπους της τάξης μας. Το αποδεικνύουν η συνεχής πτωτική πορεία στα μεροκάματα που δίνουν τα αφεντικά (μεγάλα και μικρά), τα όλο και συχνότερα εργατικά «ατυχήματα» – δολοφονίες στους χώρους δουλειάς, η πρακτική κατάργηση του δικαιώματος στην απεργία, η αύξηση του ποσοστού της κακοπληρωμένης part-time εργασίας, η μείωση των δαπανών κοινωνικής πρόνοιας και ιατροφαρμακευτικής περίθαλψης, η σταδιακή αύξηση των ορίων συνταξιοδότησης, η μείωση του αφορολόγητου εισοδήματος, η σταδιακή επανεμφάνιση επιδημικών ασθενειών που είχαν μεταπολεμικά εξαφανιστεί. Ο ρατσισμός απέναντι σε μετανάστες/στριες βασιλεύει στα στρατόπεδα συγκέντρωσης της «για πρώτη φορά αριστεράς», στα κέντρα μεταγωγών και στα κρατητήρια των αστυνομικών τμημάτων της δημοκρατίας. Βασιλεύει στα χωράφια, στις δεκάδες Μανωλάδες της επαρχίας και στις βιοτεχνίες των αστικών κέντρων. Βασιλεύει στην σιωπή για τους βανδαλισμούς εβραϊκών μνημείων και συναγωγών από αντισημίτες εθνοπατριώτες. Η πατριαρχία, αυτή η «αόρατη» εξουσιαστική κοινωνική δόμηση εξακολουθεί να μας σκεπάζει σαν καταχνιά, με την κυριαρχική επιβολή μιας συνένοχης σιωπής για τα αμέτρητα θύματά της. Οι θηλυκότητες που βιάστηκαν, που κακοποιήθηκαν, που βασανίστηκαν, που παρενοχλήθηκαν σεξουαλικά ή ακόμη και δολοφονήθηκαν από μάτσο κυριαρχικά σιχάματα, αποτελούν με βάση πρόσφατες έρευνες το μεγαλύτερο ποσοστό του πληθυσμού. Μόνο το τελευταίο τρίμηνο τα πιο ακραία περιστατικά που δημοσιοποιήθηκαν και κατέληξαν στην αστική δικαιοσύνη (ασχέτου αποτελέσματος) είναι πολλαπλάσια των εργατικών «ατυχημάτων»-δολοφονιών ενός χρόνου. Όσο κλείνουμε τα μάτια και τ’ αυτιά μας μπροστά σ’ αυτό το τέρας, τόσο περισσότερο το ταίζουμε και το στηρίζουμε. Η σιωπή, η σχετικοποίηση και ο αγνωστικισμός των «ίσων αποστάσεων», είναι οι πιο πιστοί σύμμαχοι της πατριαρχίας, οι καλύτεροι δικηγόροι για κάθε βιαστή, για κάθε κακοποιητή, για κάθε τραμπούκο σεξιστή, αλλα και για κάθε κυριαρχική αγέλη που τους συγκαλύπτει, τους υπερασπίζεται και τους αγκαλιάζει στοργικά, αναπαράγοντας έμπρακτα στο κοινωνικό πεδίο την κουλτούρα του βιασμού και της τραμπούκικης κυριαρχικής επιβολής.
Ο συνολικός ελευθεριακός αγώνας ενάντια στην ταξική εκμετάλλευση-καταπίεση, στον εθνικισμό-πατριωτισμό, τον ρατσισμό και την πατριαρχία, τις θεμελιώδεις δηλαδή ρίζες του σύγχρονου φασισμού, ή θα είναι ολοκληρωτικός ή θα είναι «αντιφασιστικό» εικονικό άλλοθι για πολιτικάντικα κομπρεμί με κάθε λογής εξουσιαστές, είτε σημερινούς είτε επίδοξους. Ο αταλάντευτος αυτός αγώνας της μνήμης ενάντια στην λήθη, συνεχίζεται με επιμονή, βήμα-βήμα σ’ αυτό το κακοτράχαλο και ανηφορικό μονοπάτι, χωρίς «εκπτώσεις», χωρίς ίχνος φόβου και χωρίς οποιονδήποτε δισταγμό, μέχρι το τέλος. Μέχρι το όποιο τέλος…
ΘΑΝΑΤΟ ΣΤΟ ΘΑΝΑΤΟ ΑΠΟ ΑΓΑΠΗ ΓΙΑ ΤΗ ΖΩΗ
Βόλος, 20 Φλεβάρη 2018
Aναρχική Συλλογικότητα mⒶnifesto
018300x194.jpg 0.02 Mb
Confederalism, Democratic Confederalism and Rojava
By Zaher Baher
Many religions and ideologies from left to the right have tried to tackle class issues and other societal problems, but none of them has been able to resolve these problems, rather most of them have made the situation even worse.
Whilst these problems have remained unresolved, groups, political parties and individuals have continued to come up with different theories and different ideas for how to tackle them. Confederalism or Democratic Confederalism is one of them.
The idea of federation and confederation dates back several centuries. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865) wrote a lot about federation and confederation with regards to Canada, Switzerland and Europe. However, when he observed the debates about European Confederation he noticed that his own understanding and analysis of confederation was completely different from what was actually going on at the time. His comment on this was as follows: "By this they seem to understand nothing but an alliance of all the states which presently exist in Europe, great and small, presided over by a permanent congress. It is taken for granted that each state will retain the form of government that suits it best. Now, since each state will have votes in the congress in proportion to its population and territory, the small states in this so-called confederation will soon be incorporated into the large ones ...” Proudhon’s analysis of the situation was right at the time and still right: “The right of free union and equally free secession comes first and foremost among all political rights; without it, confederation would be nothing but centralisation in disguise”1. In fact the EU, which is a union of States, has developed the most bureaucratic apparatuses and has become a very undemocratic confederation.
In addition to Proudhon, others like Mikhail Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin, have written about confederalism, but none of them has written as much as Murray Bookchin (1921-2006). In fact, Bookchin not only wrote about it, but he also connected confederalism to the issues of social ecology and decentralisation, and considered the building of Libertarian Municipalism as the foundation for confederalism. Bookchin was not just a theorist, he was passionate about his ideas and as a very active, dedicated organiser tried to put his theory into practice during the 1980s, as described here “In Burlington, Vermont, Bookchin attempted to put these ideas [Libertarian Municipalism] into practice by working with the Northern Vermont Greens, the Vermont Council for Democracy, and the Burlington Greens, retiring from politics in 1990. His ideas are summarized succinctly in Remaking Society (1989) and The Murray Bookchin Reader (1997). 2
For Bookchin, building libertarian municipalism is the foundation of confederalism, an alternative to the nation-state, and the way to reach a classless and liberated society. While Bookchin placed libertarian municipalism within the framework of anarchism for much of his life “…..in the late 1990s he broke with anarchism and in his final essay, The Communalist Project (2003), identified libertarian municipalism as the main component of communalism. Communalists believe that libertarian municipalism is both the means to achieve a rational society and the structure of that society”. 2
Janet Biehl, Bookchin’s long-term partner, in her book Ecology or Catastrophe, describes the importance of municipalities and confederalism to Bookchin “ In Bookchin’s eyes , the democratized municipality, and the municipal confederation as an alternative to the nation-state, was the last, best redoubt for socialism. He presented these ideas and arguments, which he called libertarian municipalism, in their fullest form in The Rise of Urbanization and the Decline of Citizenship, published in 1986”.3
In the rest of this article I try to define Confederalism from Bookchin’s viewpoint, and the understanding of Democratic Confederalism by Abdullah Ocalan. This is followed by a brief review of what has been achieved in Rojava.
Although Bookchin had an idea and plan for putting his theory into practice, he knew very well that it would be impossible, or just a dream, to build Libertarian Muncipalism and confederalism among huge existing cities, given the current mentality, education and culture of their peoples and the centralist nature of society. He realised that building Libertarian Municipalism requires a different type of education and organisation, and thought of centralization as one of the main barriers. His thinking has been described as follows: “Bookchin became an advocate of face-to-face or assembly democracy in the 1950s, inspired by writings on the ancient Athenian polis by H. D. F. Kitto and Alfred Eckhard Zimmern. For the concept of confederation, he was influenced by the nineteenth century anarchist thinkers. Bookchin tied libertarian municipalism to a utopian vision for decentralizing cities into small, human-scaled eco-communities, and to a concept of urban revolution”.2
However, Janet Biehl believes differently. She thinks there were other factors that influenced Bookchin. “What really inspired Murray to think about confederation was not Proudhon/Bakunin, etc., but the story of the CNT (Confederation Nacional del Trabajo) in Spain. His book, ‘The Spanish Anarchists’ focuses on the CNT’s structure as a confederation. He was trying to demonstrate that, contrary to the accusation of Marxists, anarchists really could organise themselves, and confederation was the bottom-up structure they chose” (personal communication, 9th December 2017).
Although Bookchin believed in decentralisation and an ecofriendly society, he could not believe that this could be achieved without confederalism - a network through which municipalities could unite and cooperate to share resources between themselves on the basis of their citizens and communities’ needs. However, at the same time he believed each municipality must have autonomy over policy making. His definition of confederalism is “It is above all a network of administrative councils whose members or delegates are elected from popular face-to-face democratic assemblies, in the various villages, towns, and even neighborhoods of large cities. The members of these confederal councils are strictly mandated, recallable, and responsible to the assemblies that choose them for the purpose of coordinating and administering the policies formulated by the assemblies themselves”.4
The road towards confederalism requires the building of Libertarian Municipalism for which working on the primary pillars like decentralization, social ecology, interdependence and feminism are very important tasks. Each of these pillars is connected to the other, such that none of them is workable without the others. Bookchin clarified this very well when he said “To argue that the remaking of society and our relationship with the natural world can be achieved only by decentralization or localism or self-sustainability leaves us with an incomplete collection of solutions”.4 Bookchin also insists that decentralisation and self-sufficiency are not necessarily democratic so will be unable to resolve society’s problems and be successful, he therefore continues to say “It is a troubling fact that neither decentralization nor self-sufficiency in itself is necessarily democratic. Plato’s ideal city in the Republic was indeed designed to be self-sufficient, but its self-sufficiency was meant to maintain a warrior as well as a philosophical elite. Indeed, its capacity to preserve its self-sufficiency depended upon its ability, like Sparta, to resist the seemingly “corruptive” influence of outside cultures (a characteristic, I may say, that still appears in many closed societies in the East). Similarly, decentralization in itself provides no assurance that we will have an ecological society. A decentralized society can easily co-exist with extremely rigid hierarchies. A striking example is European and Oriental feudalism, a social order in which princely, ducal, and baronial hierarchies were based on highly decentralized communities. With all due respect to Fritz Schumacher, small is not necessarily beautiful……..If we extol such communities because of the extent to which they were decentralized, self-sufficient, or small, or employed “appropriate technologies,” we would be obliged to ignore the extent to which they were also culturally stagnant and easily dominated by exogenous elites”.4
Bookchin was not just talking about confederalism in a political way as an alternative to the nation-state. He thought that while the state has its own institutions and politics, and maintains a capitalist economy through its institutions, forces and spies with other administration (Churches, Banks, other Financial Institutions, Media and Courts), its economy can be imposed on and dominate the society. He thought confederalism, through its libertarian municipalities, should create its own institutions, design its own policies and education, build up its own economy, and empower its own individual citizens. So Bookchin stressed that “Confederalism as a principle of social organization reaches its fullest development when the economy itself is confederalized by placing local farms, factories, and other needed enterprises in local municipal hands that is, when a community, however large or small, begins to manage its own economic resources in an interlinked network with other communities”.4
Janet Biehl has tried to clarify and explain Boockchin’s ideas about the above concept in plain and simple language in her book, ‘The politics of Social Economy, Libertarian Municipalism’. In Chapter 11 she explains the meaning of the Bookchin quote above “A confederation is a network in which several political entities combine to form a larger whole. Although a larger entity is formed in the process of confederating, the smaller entities do not dissolve themselves into it and disappear. Rather they retain their freedom and identity and their sovereignty even as they confederate”.5
It is essential that people are economically equal according to their needs otherwise, they will remain in conflict politically. Obviously economic equality cannot happen unless people themselves control their economy. This means the economy should not in any way be in private hands, or in the hands of the State, either in what is called the public sector, or in public-private partnerships. In her book on Libertarian Municipalism mentioned above, Janet Biehl explains in Chapter 12, ‘A Municipalized Economy that the type of economy the community needs is very different from any other type of economy that class-based societies have seen before. She says “Libertarian municipalism advances a form of public ownership that is truly public. The political economy it proposes is one that is neither privately owned, nor broken up into small collectives, nor nationalized. Rather, it is one that is municipalized - placed under community "ownership" and control.”
“This municipalization of the economy means the “ownership" and management of the economy by the citizens of the community. Property - including both land and factories - would no longer be privately owned but would be put under the overall control of citizens in their assemblies. The citizens would become the collective "owners" of their community's economic resources and would formulate and approve economic policy for the community …………In a rational anarchist society, economic inequality would be eliminated by turning wealth, private property, and the means of production over to the municipality. Through the municipalization of the economy, the riches of the possessing classes would be expropriated by ordinary people and placed in the hands of the community, to be used for the benefit of all".5
The concept of Democratic Confederalism `
Abdullah Ocalan, the leader of Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) both before and during his current imprisonment has thought about and analysed the PKK movement and the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern European Blocks. He has also linked the experience and ideology of all the Communist parties in the world with one another, especially in the Middle Eastern Region, and observed that their achievements in real life are not what they claim. However, the trigger point for Ocalan was familiarising himself with Bookchin’s ideas while in prison. Through his lawyer, Ocalan wrote to Bookchin a few times with a view to adapt his ideas to the context of the PKK, but Bookchin was near the end of his life.
At the beginning of this century, Ocalan realised that Bookchin’s proposed citizens’ assemblies and confederalism were the right solution for all the nations and ethnic minorities who are living in the countries of the region. He therefore rejected the idea of the nation-state. In fact he now believes the nation-state is the root of the problem rather than the solution and that it brought and still brings disaster to the people. He wrote “If the nation-state is the backbone of the capitalist modernity it certainly is the cage of the natural society …….. The nation-state domesticates the society in the name of capitalism and alienates the community from its natural foundations”.6
He thinks that not only do nations have no future under the nation-state, but even individuals - the citizens - have no future, except for fitting themselves into a kind of modern society “The citizenship of modernity defines nothing but the transition made from private slavery to state slavery “.6
Ocalan knew the root of the problem in many societies, like the Kurdish society, especially in the region he came from. For him it is not enough just to reject the nation-state, he believes people also need to concentrate on another major problem that has existed in society for a long time, women’s issues. He read a lot about ancient society, from the time of the first civilisation over 10,000 years ago and the role of women through this period. He realised that all issues from the nation-state, through exploitation and slavery to women issues and gender equality are strongly connected and so cannot be resolved separately. Indeed, he thought exploitation started with the slavery and repression of women “Without woman’s slavery none of the other types of slavery can exist let alone develop..….without the repression of the women the repression of the entire society is not conceivable”. 6
Ocalan is deeply concerned about women’s issues and he thought even women is nation but a colonised nation. Testament to his genuine belief in what he wrote, is his insistence that the involvement of women is the first and essential step in the struggle to resolve their own issues as well as the entire problems of society. He was working on these ideas when he was in the mountains and he managed to involve many women in guerrilla fighting, even some non-Kurdish women. However, over time he became more aware of the role of women, not just in fighting the state with weapons, but in fighting the state in different ways and in building a new society based on Democratic Confederalism “The democratic confederalism of Kurdistan is not a State system," he wrote "It is the democratic system of a people without a State."6
Why was Ocalan so insistent on Democratic Confederalism? What is Ocalan’s definition of this concept?
Ocalan shortened the definition of Democratic Confederalism to just few words “democratic, ecological, gender-liberated society……or democracy without State”.7 He thought that capitalism has been built on three pillars: capitalist modernity, the nation-state, and industrialism, and he believed that people can replace these with “democratic modernity, democratic nation, communal economy and ecological industry”7 respectively.
The idea of democratic confederalism for Ocalan is people organising to manage themselves. He sees it as a grassroots task, enacted by collective decisions made by the people themselves about their own issues through direct democracy, which rejects control by the state or any dominant administration. He wrote “Democratic confederalism is the contrasting paradigm of the oppressed people. Democratic confederalism is a non-state social paradigm. It is not controlled by a state. At the same time, democratic confederalism is the cultural organizational blueprint of a democratic nation. Democratic confederalism is based on grass-roots participation. Its decision-making processes lie with the communities.”.6 He goes on to say “[Democratic Confederalism]…can be called a non-state political administration or a democracy without a state. Democratic decision-making processes must not be confused with the processes known from public administration. States only administrate [sic] while democracies govern. States are founded on power; democracies are based on collective consensus”. 6
Examining the definition and views of Bookchin about confederalism and of Ocalan about democratic confederalism, can we see similarities and differences between the two concepts and views? I personally see that both the concepts as well as Bookchin’s and Ocalan’s views on these concepts share many similarities. They may have chosen different conceptual labels, but the meaning of them and the aims are the same.
Minor differences are that Ocalan replaced the concept of confederalism with democratic confederalism and instead of using the concept of Libertarian Municipalism uses a different form of administration that has been put into practice in Rojava. As far as I know, Ocalan saw his theory as a solution to the conflicts and problems between the nations and ethnic minorities especially in the region he came from. However, Bookchin went further in that he believed that confederalism is the solution for all human beings and the way to end capitalist domination in every way. So for Bookchin confederalism is the solution to the problems that people are facing world-wide and not just in one region or some countries.
There is another difference. Ocalan in his analysis of the history of human civilization, exploitation and slavery believes that slavery started from the enslavement of women and hierarchy started from the domination of men over women, although elsewhere he agreed with Bookchin “I have repeatedly pointed out that the patriarchal society mostly consisted of the shaman, the elderly experienced sheikh, and the military commander. It may be wise to look for prototype of a new society within such development with “a new society” we mean a situation where hierarchy emerges inside the clan. The immanent division is finalised when hierarchy gives rise to permanent class-formation and a state-like organisation”.8 The issue of hierarchy is the soul of Ocalan’s theory, as libertarian municipalism was for Bookchin, although both of them see hierarchy as the foundation of the class society. It is quite clear that Bookchin has looked at hierarchy and hierarchical society in greater depth than Ocalan, and at how domination existed before class society through the heads of tribes, heads of families, elders, and the domination of men over women. Janet Biehl wrote in the Bookchin Reader: “According to Marx “primitive egalitarianism“was destroyed by the rise of social classes, in which those who own wealth and property exploit the labor of those who do not. But from his observations of contemporary history, Bookchin realised that class analysis in itself does not explain the entirety of social oppression. The elimination of class society could leave intact relation of subordination and domination……….Bookchin emphasised that it would be necessary to eliminate not only social class but social hierarchies as well........ Hierarchy and domination, in Bookchin’s view, historically provided the substrate of oppression out of which class relations were formed”.9
However, Janet Biehl believes that Ocalan’s theory is almost the same as Bookchin’s and that Ocalan put Bookchin’s theory into practice. As she said on one occasion: “The way I think of it, Bookchin gave birth to the baby, and Abdullah Ocalan raised it to a child.” 10 She continued, noting that “Ocalan altered some of Bookchin’s original model. Bookchin was an anarchist, and as such he was opposed to all hierarchies, of race, of sex, of gender, of domination by state, of interpersonal relations. Mr Ocalan emphasised gender hierarchy and the importance of the liberation of women. [That is] one of the biggest theoretical changes I can see.” 10
In addition to these similarities and differences, in my opinion there is another main difference between Bookchin and Ocalan. Bookchin sees building libertarian municipalities as the foundation of confederalism. This building relies purely and completely on the education, organisation and participation of the people. Ocalan believes that participation is the people’s own job and should be done through mass meetings/assemblies to discuss and debate existing and related issues, and that decisions should be made collectively. The main tool that can be used for this purpose is direct democracy and direct action.
For Ocalan, although the aim is the same, as I have shown above, the way of to get to the destination, to a certain extent, or at least as far as we can see in Rojava and Bakur, is different. Until this moment Ocalan is the leader of PKK and he is the spiritual leader of the Kurds in Bakur and Rojava, as well as of many people in Basur and Rojhalat [Iraqi and Iranian Kurdistan respectively]. It is true that Ocalan contacted his party and his people when he had the chance from his prison cell. He tried hard to convince them to transform the PKK into a social movement. As a result, there was a lot of discussion in 2012 and after about the idea of rejecting the nation-state, committing to a ceasefire and discussing anarchism. However the PKK did not transform into what many of us, probably Ocalan included, suggested and wanted.
Once all the contact between Ocalan and the outside was cut off in April 2015 and a new situation emerged when Erdogan announced a very brutal war against all Kurdish people, not just the PKK, the PKK became more militarised. So for the PKK it became more important to concentrate on fighting than to continue the discussion that commenced in 2012. In Rojava more or less the same thing happened. However, there, instead of having to fight the Assad Regime, it was forced to fight against Isis in defence of Kobane and other places*. There is no doubt that during a war in any country the mass movement will be weaker and the military will be stronger. So too in Kurdistan, Bakur and Rojava, the PKK and the Democratic Union Party (PYD) became more powerful at the expense of the mass movement.
From this I can conclude that in Bakur and Rojava a couple of high-disciplinary and authoritarian political parties, PKK and PYD, are behind building democratic confederalism in both Kurdistan, Bakur and Rojava. It is these parties that are the ones making major decisions, planning and designing the policies, and also setting up diplomatic relationships with other countries and other political parties. It is they who negotiate with their enemies or the states, and make war or peace. Of course, these are very big issues and extremely important as they shape the future destination of the society. However, unfortunately it is the political parties which are making these decisions and not the people in their own assemblies and mass meetings, or through direct action.
For Bookchin building Libertarian Muncipalities and confederalism is the task of people, or “Citizens” as he called them, but for Ocalan and PKK, at least at the moment, it is the task of political parties.
Finally we can ask ourselves a question: is what exists in Rojava democratic confederalism?
This is a difficult question especially for me to answer while I am confined to reading about Rojava, following the news on Rojava TV , Radio, websites and social media, especially Facebook. I believe that to answer this question properly and to understand all sides of this issue in relation to the future of Rojava, I may need to go there to do some essential research. This needs to include visiting cities, towns and villages, speaking to and interviewing people at every level and section of society. Visiting the Communes and participating in their meetings, following their decisions, seeing the Cooperatives, analysing the balance of power between the Movement for a Democratic Society (Tev-Dem) and the PYD as well as between them and the Democratic Self-Administration (DSA) and many more work for me to do.
We have all noticed that there has been a lot written about democratic confederalism in Rojava. The vast majority of these writings are positive and supportive and agree that democratic confedralism has been built or at least is on its way to being built there.
I believe the main problem with those articles or essays were isolated the major things, events and the role, from the influence and the power of PYD. The comrades who wrote these articles did not think or did not want to mention that building confederalism and democratic confederalism should be the task of anarchists. It is the anarchists, not political parties, who should participate and involve themselves through the mass movement in this process of building confederalism and democratic confederalism, because some issues that come up can be resolved completely through the libertarian muncipalism that is the foundation of the libertarian society. Bookchin wrote “before the class society there was “However we should not see democratic confederalism (or communalism) as separate from anarchism because they very much follow the tradition of classical anarchism.” 4
In the case of Rojava many questions remain to be asked and many outstanding issues queried, such as: Is everybody free to be involved in politics and take part in the meetings to make the decisions? Are the issues I raised in the previous page discussed and the decisions about them taken collectively through the mass meetings and by direct action? Are the existing Cooperatives really owned by the communes, the Democratic Self Administration (DSA), or a kind of mixture of private-public ownership; also can everybody be a member regardless of who they are, and finally how are the products distributed? Are the Communes and the Houses of the People really non-hierarchical groups or organisations? Why are the chair and co-chairs in position for such a long time? Is the head of the DSA, and those at the highest levels of the Tev-Dem and the Communes elected through direct democracy or just nomination? How hard is democratic confederalism working towards an ecological society and what has been achieved so far? There are actually many other aspects of democratic confederalism that also need to be questioned.
Those of us so far who have written about democratic confederalism, in my opinion, have not answered many questions or have not been following this project properly. I know some of the comrades and friends who have written about it have not stayed in Rojava long enough to know about all sides of the society and investigate these issues. Additionally, those who have stayed long enough were comrades who were or are with the YPG/J.
Having saying all that, we should agree that when we write and analyse Rojava we should not isolate Rojava from the situation that surrounds it, we should see Rojava’s enemies inside and outside Syria and also the continuing war with Isis, the Assad Regime, Turkey, and the probability that Iraq, Iran and Turkey will come together to fight PKK and Rojava in the future. In addition we should acknowledge that there has been no effective or strong international solidarity from leftists, communists, socialists, trade unionists and anarchists, and the same movement has not emerged in neighbouring countries. Had the situation been different and some of the above conditions met, perhaps Rojava could answer my questions in more positive way and set a better example to follow.
*This article drafted before the State of Turkey’s brutal attack on Afrin which was expected by few of us.
Anarchist and Radical Texts/The Anarchist Sociology of Federalism
2 Libertarian municipalism – Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_municipalism
3 Biehl J. Ecology or Catastrophe, The life of Murray Bookchin, Oxford University Press 2015, P 227
4 The Meaning of Confederalism | The Anarchist Library https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/murray-bookchin...m.pdf
5 The politics of Social Economy, Libertarian Municipalism. Biehl, J. P 110 and 118 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6YOyGNakE86b3RLY2RZN0...aring
7 Democratic Confederalism - ROAR Magazine
8 Capitalism and unmasked gods and naked kings: Manifesto for a Democratic Civilization, Volume ll (page 110). Published New Compass Press, Porsgrun, Norway and International Initiatives edition, Cologne, Germany 2017
9 The Murray Bookchin Reader. Edited by Janet Biehl (page 75) https://archive.org/details/themurraybookchinreader
10 Golphy O. Rojava's democratic confederalism: the experiment of an American theory. 2016. https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivilwar/comments/4fxpd5...ment/
southern africa / miscellaneous / opinion / analysis Monday February 19, 2018 14:58 byShawn Hattingh
The article looks at the structural reasons why Ramaphosa replacing Zuma as the head of state in South Africa won't end corruption.In South Africa, for white and international capital the last few weeks have been a period of rejoicing due to Ramaphosa being elected as ANC President. Zuma’s days as the State President are now also over. He was recalled by the ANC and in doing so he was forced to resign; leading the business elite to feel an even greater sense of smugness.
The bitter faction fights within the ANC, therefore, have seen Zuma defeated and his erstwhile supporters – a section of BEE capital and parasites in the top of the state - placed squarely on the back foot.
The slate that Ramaphosa won on was the promise to eradicate corruption within the state and the ANC. The tone that accompanied this was that Zuma would be removed from the Presidency and that he may even be prosecuted, along with the Guptas, for his role in ‘state capture’. The ANC itself is hoping that such moves will reverse its ailing fortunes and bolster its election campaign in 2019. Its alliance partners, the SACP and COSATU, are also opportunistically hoping Zuma’s exit from the state will give them a new lease of life politically; and that their leaders will be able to hold onto their cushy and ridiculously well paid jobs in the top echelons of the state under Ramaphosa, which were initially handed to them by Zuma for their backing in Polokwane in 2007.
The reality is that the battle within the ANC and now Zuma’s total demise has very little to do with addressing corruption – despite Ramaphosa’s claims. It was a fight for top positions in the state and the speed with which Zuma’s former die-hard supporters and allies, including the Ace Magashule and Malusi Gigaba, have quickly jumped ship since Ramaphosa’s victory has shown this. In the bid to secure their well-paying jobs going forward and to use positions in the state to secure business deals, old allies have been dumped and a new one, in the form of Ramaphosa, has been embraced.
Ramaphosa’s history highlights how his talk of tackling corruption within all structures of the state was and is simply a ploy, which has no substance. This is because Ramaphosa himself has been involved in corruption. Ramaphosa got rich overnight in the 1990s when he used workers’ pensions (supplied by union investment companies) to raise capital for his business deals. He was also supplied capital by white South African capitalists. To be sure, they were not buying Ramaphosa’s business acumen when they provided him shares, board positions and capital; they were buying the influence he had in the ANC and the state in order to further their own capital accumulation. All of this was backed by the ANC as it was expected that Ramaphosa would use his new found riches to boost the coffers of the Party.
Ramaphosa’s main business interest was Shanduka, which he was involved in founding in 2001. While in charge of the company, it was involved in cases of tax evasion as revealed in the Panama Papers. By 2012, as is well known, Ramaphosa was also a shareholder and Board member of Lonmin and he was the one that used his political connections to get the state to crush the strike, which saw the police gun down 34 workers at Marikana. Ramaphosa is not a man who, therefore, particularly shuns corruption or using connections to the state and political power to further his own vile money making interests or those of his business partners.
Likewise, his backers in the form of white capital are also not averse to corruption. Historically, their capital comes from colonial conquest and the state creating a pool of cheap black labour that could be exploited on farms, mines and factories through land grabs, hut taxes, pass laws, legalized racial discrimination and ultimately violence. In the apartheid era, the state also provided the world’s cheapest electricity to white capital and it paid handsomely for the sub-standard coal it bought from Afrikaner capital to fire Eskom’s power stations. Corrupt deals in the apartheid years, and there were many corrupt deals, built up white capital and were part and parcel of how business was done in those years – including transfer pricing, tax evasion and sanctions busting.
Even today, corruption is common practice in the private sector (still mostly in the hands of white South African capitalists). This has been shown through numerous leaks in 2017 and into 2018. For example, it recently surfaced that blue chip South African companies, such as Liberty and Illovo, have been using measures to evade tax on an ongoing basis. Not to be outdone, several South African financial institutions were of late caught manipulating the Rand in order to profiteer from the volatility created. Then of course there is Steinhoff that used Special Purpose Vehicles to fraudulently boost profits and lower debts on its books to the benefit of its shareholders and top management. When this became public knowledge, it was clear that the company was in reality in financial difficulties and its share price plunged at the end of 2017. Like Zuma, Steinhoff’s days may be numbered and it soon may disappear altogether. Nonetheless its shareholders, like Christo Weise, have got away with the ill-gotten gains and are unlikely to be prosecuted for the shenanigans that were taking place at Steinhoff.
White capital, therefore, has no problem with corruption. The problem they had with Zuma is that they were being side-lined in the corrupt deals of the state under his watch, with far more going to the Gupta family and a new BEE elite. Hence, they turned on the Zuma faction and backed Ramaphosa as their man: they wanted back in on the money, often involving corruption, which could be made through relations with the state and top politicians.
This means that corruption is not going to end under Ramaphosa’s tender. Making matters worse is the deal that was made in 1994, which saw the bulk of the private sector remaining in the hands of white capital. In return there would be some BEE, but more importantly the ANC leadership would be allowed to take over the state. In other words, capitalism would stay in place, including the harsh exploitation of the black working class on which it was and is based, but the faces in the state would change.
Since then, there has been some BEE, but it has been limited. As a result, white capitalists still mainly dominate the private sector. Aspiring capitalists that were linked to the ANC, who wanted to own large private companies, were and have been largely frustrated by these capitalists. In this context the state became the key, and in many cases the only, site through which an ANC elite could build itself into a prosperous black section of the ruling class – and corruption has been part of this structural problem.
The working class, in its bid to battle corruption, therefore need to be clear that the Ramaphosa regime won’t end corruption. It is a structural problem; and has nothing to do with good or bad personalities. New patronage networks will emerge, some old ones – including corruption at all levels of the state – will remain; although it will probably be less blatant and amateurish than under Zuma. Zuma and the Guptas will probably also be thrown to the wolves as a token; but corruption within the private sector and state won’t end. This is because corruption is a problem linked to the path that capitalist development has taken in South Africa.
If there is a serious bid to get rid of corruption, therefore, the structure and purpose of the South African economy would have to be fundamentally changed, which probably can’t be fully achieved under capitalism or the state system (which entrenches the rule and oppression of an elite minority over a majority and allows for corruption). Trying to end corruption, by definition, will have to be a revolutionary struggle to fundamentally change the society we have unfortunately inherited.
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
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.
DEVELOPMENT OF IMPERIALISM 1800 – 1900
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.
WORLD WAR II: THE AMERICAN CENTURY
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).
THE USSR & NATIONAL LIBERATION STRUGGLES
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.
THE LIMITATIONS & CONTRADICTIONS OF NATIONAL LIBERATION STRUGGLES
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).
FOR INTERNATIONAL SOLDIARITY AND REVOLUTIONARY RESISTANCE
(Credit for text mark-up: SB, JF).
north america / mexico / community struggles / news report Thursday February 08, 2018 16:20 byDemián Revart
Only one week has elapsed since 2018 and a new tragedy has been written in the massacres list of this republic of death (giving continuity to the blood spilled in the events of Ayotzinapa, Tlatlaya, Arantepakua, Nochixtlán, Ixmiquilpan and a endless more).Demián Revart
Appropriate the chronicle for decipher the truths
Only one week has elapsed since 2018 and a new tragedy has been written in the massacres list of this republic of death (giving continuity to the blood spilled in the events of Ayotzinapa, Tlatlaya, Arantepakua, Nochixtlán, Ixmiquilpan and a endless more).
In the first early morning hours of this Sunday, January 7, inhabitants of the Communal Goods of Cacahuatepec -in the rural area of Acapulco, Guerrero- celebrated a dance in the context of the celebration of the Patron Saint of La Concepción on the court of that community. At the edge of 3 hrs., a young man broke into the command office of the Regional Coordinator of Community Authorities – Community Police (CRAC-PC) to urinate in the building as a form of aggression and provoke the “comunitarios”, so he was detained into the command office for committing that administrative fault. A few moments later, the young man managed to escape through the back door, running towards the place where the celebration was taking place. A group of comunitarios gone out to detain him, but were cowardly received by a group of armed and hooded people who immediately opened fire indiscriminately against them, causing the immediate death of Ulises García Morales -original of the Agua Caliente community- and Eusebio Elasio Martínez -of the community of Huamuchitos-.
The comunitarios who achieved to repel the aggression, resorted to their shotguns to avoid being killed, so a confrontation of a few minutes occurred that ended up taking the lives of 8 people. For what the villagers narrate in their testimonies: “these armed people are linked to the commissioner Florentino Melchor León and the gravel businessmen”, adding to the fact that “they were there as if they were the personal protection or private guard of the aforementioned”.
This, was clearly a planned act with all the purpose to unleash violence with weapons, as well to achieve the liberation of two ex-military retained in the command office since the New Year’s Eve, because -as an infrarealist story- they entered armed in two cars to the Communal Goods with the intention of murdering the CRAC-PC commander, Marco Antonio Suástegui Muñoz.
After a few hours elapsed, approximately at 10 hrs., an operative of the State Police initiated a ‘state of siege’ with more of 200 effectives in the streets of the town to stop ALL the members of the CRAC-PC project by government orders. One hour later, there was another shooting by the operative in front of the Parish of La Concepción and the command office, leaving as aftermath 3 more murdered comunitarios and the arrest of another 30. At the moment, they have been transferred to the Procecution of Justice of Acapulco, where -thanks to immediate photographs of people and solidarity activists- it can be proven State Police have planted them weapons and narcotics, a governmental maneuver already known in cases such as the arrests of the leaders of the self-defense groups (“autodefensas”) in Michoacán and the members of the CRAC-PC but from areas of Tixtla and Ayutla de los Libres in the Costa Chica.
Another point to detail is the attacks suffered by some journalists from Cuartoscuro, Agencia AP and other media during the second shooting. The cops pushed them, beat them and one of them the police snatched their cameras and taken off their SD archive memories . In these facts, the journalist Bernardino Hernández -correspondent in already mentioned media- had to be hospitalized because the lessons received.
During an “Encounter with Media” at noon of that January 7th and chaired by the government’s spokesman on security, Roberto Álvarez Heredia, the facts were distorted, focusing on the reflectors in the well-known strategies of guilt and revictimization to justify the happened massacre.
Social networks are too bullets to avoid
What is the role of the mass media?
In the hegemonic media, much importance has been given to the role of comrade Marco Antonio Suástegui Muñoz, spokesman for the Consejo de Ejidos y Comunidades Opositoras a la Presa La Parota (CECOP) and commander of the CRAC-PC fraction in the zone, under the idea that “he is responsible for everything” what these movements do and decide, when on the contrary, the ethical principles of both social struggles are horizontality, communitarianism and direct democracy -just as their local assemblies are carry out for decision-making.
The Guerrero government has used all the mediatic resources it has had and for having to criminalize the social resistance of ALL PEOPLE that make the CECOP, especially since the year 2013 when the communities made the unanimous decision to join the Community Police due the increasing levels in the threats of those interested in installing the hydroelectric dam -at the moment, legally suspended in favor of the villagers- through the sponsorship of thug groups.
Marco Antonio not only has received accusations to turn him into political prisoner among June 17, 2014 and March 31, 2015; several local businessmen and their families began to defame him on social networks, specifically on the Youtube channel “Desplazados Acapulco”, in which in the most stupid and right-wing way, he is “accused” of promoting the displacement of inhabitants, when the territorial defense that has done along with the CECOP have like main objective THE PRESERVATION OF THE HUMAN LIFE AND THE NATURE IN CACAHUATEPEC .
In this channel a strongly aggressive and violent nuance is used against not only the CECOP, but also against the lawyers and human rights defenders of “Tlachinollan”, the parents, mothers and normalist classmates of Ayotzinapa, as well as the organized teachers in the CNTE (National Coordinator of Education Workers) and the CETEG (State Coordinator of Education Workers of Guerrero).
It’s not a gunmen conflict: It’s the parasitic paramilitarism
It’s not the first time that tears and blood are homologate in the soil of these communities. At noon on Friday, June 9th, 2017, an armed commando riddled without compassion an entire family on the Calle Ceiba. This armed assault provoked the death of three women, a man, a 17-year-old boy and a baby of just four months. The Ministry of Security of Guerrero also reported two minors aged 8 and 11, respectively, and a one-year-old baby were injured .
The incursion of armed groups not legitimized by the villagers and comuneros that give life this territoralization, in sooth took place from March 7th, 2017, so the bells of the organization have touched once again to undertake joint actions and stop the violence that is “commanded from the State government on behalf of a ‘citizen organization’ of armed businessmen.”
As autonomous communication media, in Ruptura Colectiva (RC) we registered the following incidents in March that led to speed up people’s alertness in the face of armed groups: 1) they beat Don “Cheto” from the community of El Rincón until shatter his nose; 2) they shot a resident of Camposanto, wounded him and gave him a “levantón”; 3) in Oaxaquillas they lifted a person, he was beaten and stripped of his money; and 4) they injured a person just for carrying iguanas, arguing that it is a crime, but they do not realize that many people live humbly from that work .
Violence is a pragmatic and logic schem
What is the reason for this permanent climate of violence and internal divisionism? Simple: the logics of EXTRACTIVISTIC CAPITALISM, which in turn generates division in the communities and ‘traditional’ authorities, the formation of armed groups -one, legitimate for the defense of natural resources and people, and others, for the violent intimidation to the detriment of territorial defenders and any opposition action to extractivist projects- and also, the internal decomposition through the increasing of drug sales, extortion and degradation of young people by introducing them to the “world of easy money” (as the main example, we have the young man who started the initial brawl during the early morning hours).
We did not invent this, the proofs are documented:
– On last night Thursday, December 13th, in the community of Agua Caliente, an ex-member of UPOEG (paramilitary group with high presence in Guerrero) named Ezequiel Reyes Morales was arrested. When his backpack was checked, people found a short weapon and a lot of marijuana amounts, so in the interrogation, the aforementioned claimed to engage in the sale and distribution of drugs .
– Only a few days later, on December 17th, 11 more persons were presented before a community assembly accused of car theft, robbery, intrafamily violence, sale and consumption of drugs.
By unanimous decision, those in charge of developing the regulations of the CRAC-PC’s security and justice system to minor offenses, have begun with all these persons a reeducation process to heal the damages at community level for their actions.
It was occurred in the detention of two armed men on New Year is yet more terrorific. In a serie of public testimonies published in daily La Plaza, the exmilitary detainee who responds to name Iván Soriano Leal (Alejandro Liborio López o Guillermo Marín Lopez, because counts with 3 fake identifications) claimed that commissary of La Concepción community, Antonio Morales Marcos, hired him to kill two of his familiars which own several land hectares where it pretends to build parto of the hydroelectric dam “La Parota”, as well to kill Marco Antonio Suástegui.
Today free, this subjetc simbolize all a batallion of hitmen and exmilitary, because the fact of tie off a police operative and cover up a massacre of this magnitude just for release him, it give us the idea about privileges and elite politics position that they posses.
As I have written -and thousands of times- La Parota hydroelectric project represents an enormous booty of profits for the national businessmen class at the cost of the –illegal- dispossession of water, land, air (of the life!) at the Communal Goods of Cacahuatepec, having as its main privilege its location: the tourist empire of Acapulco. This is the crux of everything happened (and the things that could happen if megaproject will not cancel).
With the predatory advance of the multinationals of mining -Guerrero, Puebla, Zacatecas, Chiapas-, wind -Oaxaca-, hydroelectric dams -Morelos, Veracruz- and of transgenic crops -Campeche, Yucatán, Quintana Roo-, as well with the approval of the called Law of Biodiversity, the journey it is easier to plunder the resources of the most vulnerable and forgotten populations, or what I prefer to call “the Acapulco that nobody sees” (or rather, “that nobody wants to see)”.
Sources & critical notes
 “Denuncian periodistas que fueron agredidos por policías estatales. Por: Erick Barrera”, Agencia de Noticias Guerrero, January 7th, 2017. (https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1820665827945884&id=127901443889006&hc_location=ufi)
 “Desplazados Acapulco”, created in July, 2015. (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDR6p64ix9JYBWenHe6wkg...about)
 “Grupo paramilitar asesina a 6 personas y deja 3 menores heridos en Cacahuatepec, Guerrero”, Ruptura Colectiva (RC), June 9th, 2017. (http://rupturacolectiva.com/grupo-paramilitar-asesina-a...rero/)
 “Preparan resistencia en Cacahuatepec, Guerrero, ante la presencia de grupos paramilitares y despojo del territorio”, Ruptura Colectiva (RC), April 24th, 2017. (http://rupturacolectiva.com/preparan-resistencia-en-cac...orio/)
 “Comunitarios de la CRAC-PC detienen a narcomenudista de la UPOEG con un arma y droga en Cacahuatepec, Acapulco”, Ruptura Colectiva (RC), December 19th, 2017. (http://rupturacolectiva.com/comunitarios-de-la-crac-pc-...ulco/)
 “Durante el Año Nuevo, comando armado intenta asesinar a activista opositor a proyecto hidroeléctrico en Acapulco; integrantes de la CRAC-PC detuvieron a los agresores“, Ruptura Colectiva (RC), January 1st, 2018. (http://rupturacolectiva.com/durante-el-ano-nuevo-comand...ores/)
Originally published in: http://rupturacolectiva.com/the-cacahuatepec-massacre-g...-see/
Sat 24 Mar, 18:18
Elections in Russia, 2018: Managed Democracy? Mar 23 00:08 0 comments
Αλληλεγγύη στο Α`... Mar 21 18:36 0 comments
Asesinato político, Terrorismo de Estado: Marielle Franco, Presente! Mar 20 09:55 0 comments
Assassinio Politico, Terrorismo di Stato: Marielle Franco lotta con noi! Mar 19 22:30 0 comments
Assassinato Político, Terrorismo de Estado: Marielle Franco, Presente! Mar 19 22:21 0 comments
O assassinato de Marielle Franco e o genocídio estruturante no Rio de Janeiro Mar 18 20:22 0 comments
Μαριέλ Φράνκο. Πα ... Mar 18 19:37 0 comments
Alternatives from the Ground Up Mar 17 21:59 0 comments
Πορεία αλληλεγγύ... Mar 17 08:22 0 comments
Assassinat Politique, Terrorisme d’Etat : Marielle Franco, Avec Nous ! Mar 16 08:52 0 comments
Political Assassination, State Terrorism: Marielle Franco, Still With Us! Mar 16 00:15 0 comments
Καλό ταξίδι Eduardo Colombo! Mar 15 19:02 0 comments
Συγκέντρωση αλλη... Mar 14 20:35 0 comments
Solidarité avec Ermengol Gassiot, militant de la CGT Catalogne Mar 14 04:29 0 comments
El anarquismo mágico Mar 14 00:04 0 comments
Vre Sans 8 Mas Klas Ouvriyè A Mar 13 20:46 0 comments
Comunicado sobre el 8 de Marzo Mar 13 06:17 0 comments
Por un 8 de marzo de lucha y feminista las educadoras populares nos movilizamos Mar 13 06:06 0 comments
Día Internacional de las Mujeres Trabajadoras 2018 Mar 13 06:01 0 comments
La Huelga General del 8 de Marzo, un hito histórico Mar 12 06:16 0 comments
The dangers of focusing all our attention on Donald Trump Mar 11 22:55 0 comments
28 mujeres luchadoras sociales han sido asesinadas en el marco del pos-acuerdo Mar 11 09:28 0 comments
Ignorate dalle grandi compagnie di Telecomunicazione, le comunita' emarginate di Detroit s... Mar 10 15:12 0 comments
«Προλετάριοι όλω_... Mar 10 15:05 0 comments
Elecciones, "Castrochavismo, "paz" y movimiento popular. Mar 09 09:41 0 comments
WSM International Women’s Day Message - 2018 Mar 08 19:13 0 comments
Προέλευση των “Φί ... Mar 08 13:45 0 comments
Where to now Zimbabwe? An anarchist / syndicalist perspective after the dust has settled Mar 08 05:57 0 comments
8 Μάρτη: Ενάντια στ&... Mar 08 03:52 0 comments
Dünyadan Anarşist Kadınların Mücadele Mesajları Mar 07 11:37 0 commentsmore >>