Out with the old, in with the not so new 14:58 Feb 19 0 comments
Against Imperialism: International Solidarity and Resistance 19:57 Feb 10 0 comments
Fire and Fury in the Time of Trump 02:08 Feb 08 0 comments
La revolución rusa. Una interpretación crítica y libertaria 08:37 Feb 04 0 commentsmore >>
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/
Fire and Fury by Michael Wolff is a popular book about Trump and his administration. It may be popular because it focuses on Trump's bizarre personal peculiarities rather than the political context and the forces which led to Trump's presidency.If not the best book on the crazed Trump administration, this is certainly the most popular. Perhaps because it focuses on Donald Trump’s personal peculiarities rather than the political context, it has become a top best seller. It has been criticized because the author, Michael Wolff, says that he sometimes listened to contradictory reports of various events, given by the unreliable members of the administration, and then used his own judgment in integrating these reports into unified accounts. While this may lead us to wonder how accurate his reportage of specific White House events may be, there is no doubt that his overall account is accurate. It fits very well with what we have seen of Trump and his agents as they have acted out in public, in front of cameras and newspaper reporters.
Through his own observations of the president, and through the reports of Trump’s allies, supporters, family members, and minions, Wolff draws a picture of his behavior and personality. Trump is thin-skinned and easily hurt by criticism, desiring always to be liked and admired, yet insensitive to others’ feelings, desires, and needs. He is impulsive, and easily aroused to anger. He is highly distractible, unable to concentrate for extended periods, and readily bored. He has a need to constantly be winning. Women are seen by him as merely sex objects or as aides to his work if they are sufficiently obsequious—but then he sees everyone as objects, useful to him or not.
Trump knows very little and is generally incurious, including about what he should know to manage the presidency. He lies constantly, not necessarily for specific purposes but just for the sake of it. However, he may not know when he is lying, since he lives in a fantasy world of his own making, an alternate reality which is immune to facts. Most of those around him regard him as stupid (although it is hard to say if this is due to limited intelligence or to a personality-based unwillingness to think—or both). “Trump didn’t read. He didn’t really even skim…Some believed that …he was no more than semiliterate….Some thought him dyslexic….He didn’t listen. He preferred to be the person talking.” (113-4) He develops his views mostly through watching right wing television.
“Rupert Murdoch [was]…certain Trump was a charlatan and a fool.” (19) “The people who knew him best” regarded him as “careless, capricious, disloyal, far beyond any sort of control.” (223) “…Senior staff believed the president had a problem with reality….” (242) Rex Tillerson, the Secretary of State, called Trump “a fucking moron.” The Treasury Secretary, Steve Mnuchin regarded him as an “idiot.” H.R. McMaster called him a “dope.” (304) All the senior staff belittled Trump’s intelligence, openly or quietly. “Everyone…struggled to express the baldly obvious fact that the president did not know enough, did not know what he didn’t know, did not particularly care, and, to boot, was confident if not serene in his unquestioned certitudes.” (304) “…Staffers [were] concerned that his ability to stay focused, never great, had notably declined….” (309)
These observable traits have led some mental health professionals—and other people who could pick up a psychiatric manual—to diagnose Trump with various personality disorders, even though they have not personally examined him. I am not going to do that, precisely because I am a licensed psychologist (although I would love to see his responses to the Rorschach Inkblots). His publicly observed behavior is terrible enough for us to say that he should not be in office. Trump has responded to these reports by asserting that he is really “a stable genius.”
Wolff focuses almost entirely on these personal traits of Trump and of those around him. These others are also more or less batty in behavior, the administration being full of crackpots, clowns, ignoramuses, right-wing ideologues, and other strange people. “Few in the thin ranks of Trump’s inner circle….had almost any relevant experience. Nobody had a political background. Nobody had a policy background.” (25) They pride themselves on being saner and smarter than Trump but cannot keep him from engaging in bizarre and self-destructive behavior.
Besides personal behavior, Wolff looks at the court tensions among Trump courtiers. He observed three main factions: (1) family members, mainly son-in-law Jared Kushner and daughter Ivanka Trump, whom he peculiarly describes as New York “liberal Democrats”; (2) establishment Republicans, who were then represented by Reince Priebus, now fired.The pressure continues from the Republicans who lead in the House and Senate; (3) Steve Bannon, reflecting the extreme nationalist, nativist, right-wing. Bannon has also been let go, and since this book came out (with Bannon’s criticisms of Trump and his family members), has lost much of his influence—at least for now. But others carry the torch, such as Steven Miller, encouraging Trump to stick to his worst anti-immigrant policies. There is also the on-going influence of the ultra-right Mercers, father and daughter, who are described as among the “difficult, even sociopathic, rich people” pushing their agenda on Trump and his entourage. (177)
Beyond this, there is little consideration of politics or of the political context. These only come up in relation to the personal quirks or cliquish conflicts in the White House. For example, Trump’s decision to withdraw from the international climate treaty is discussed as a victory for Bannon and a defeat for Ivanka, rather than as an attack on the global climate. Trump’s continuation of the war in Afghanistan is considered in relation to his reluctance to make decisions as well as the differences between the generals’ desire to expand the war versus Bannon’s isolationist desire to withdraw.
Wolff downplays the issue of Russian collusion, looking more at Trump’s inept reactions. He speculates that Trump’s resistance to the investigation has mostly to do with the fear that it would uncover various illegal financial shenanigans by the family businesses (which may certainly be one aspect of Trump’s reaction). Trump has “come out of the real estate business; …based on substantial debt…it often…is a preferred exchange currency for problem cash—money laundering.” (17) “…If the unraveling began [it] would likely lead to the messy Trump (and Kushner) business dealings.” (102)
However, Wolff does describe the now-notorious meeting of Trump’s people with Russian agents as “one of the most preposterous meetings in modern politics” (253) and an “imbecilic meeting.” (254) He quotes Bannon as regarding the meeting as “treasonous or unpatriotic.” (255) Wolff expresses certainty that Donald Jr. would have told his father about it.
Much of what Wolff describes, while not completely new, is still fascinating. However, it is weak as a guide to understanding the political situation. While Wolff may be some sort of liberal, there is nothing in the book that a “Never Trump” Republican would disagree with. Wolff repeatedly describes the mainstream media as the “liberal media.” He accepts the right-wing view that most of the newspapers and television news programs are “liberal,” left versions of Fox News and right-wing radio talk shows. Actually, if we compare the views of really liberal journals (The Nation, Mother Jones, etc.) with most of the press and TV news, the mainstream comes off at least right-center. (The exception is the mildly liberal evening MSNBC shows of Rachel Maddow and others.) Noam Chomsky has demonstrated the pro-capitalist, pro-imperialist, bias of the media, and this has not changed. However, Trump is so bizarre in his behavior and so far to the right that the media cannot report on him without appearing hostile. As has been said, “Reality has a left bias.”
Trumpism is Republicanism
Much of President Trump’s politics and behavior is idiosyncratic, unique to him. His constant lying, bragging, misstatements, and other peculiarities, would not have appeared if other Republicans had been elected president—such as Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, or even Mike Pence His reluctance to criticize Nazis is not a typical Republican attitude. (The U.S. ruling class is not ready for fascism.) The whole Russian imbroglio would not have appeared with any other politician. There are sections of the U.S. capitalist class which are for better relations with Russia (represented by Tillerson, the former head of Exxon). But even these would not have been so in denial about the Russian interference in the U.S. election. Also most of the U.S. capitalist class favors more “free trade” agreements with other countries and a more flexible immigration policy; they want to benefit from cheap labor. On these points they (and their hired politicians) have been in disagreement with Donald Trump.
Yet in many ways, Trumpism is a symptom of the reaction by Republicans and Democrats to deep problems in U.S. and world society. These have caused a drastic turn to the right, to attacks on the working class. There is economic stagnation, increased inequality, and pressures on real profits (as opposed to financial speculation and overvaluation of stocks and bonds).
Basically, Trumpism is an extension of modern Republicanism. The Republican party is the cutting edge of the attack on the working class and the environment. This was pretty clear when virtually all the Republican politicians supported the unpopular Trump tax cut for the very rich. It is also apparent when almost all the Republican Representatives and Senators have doubled down on defending Trump against the Department of Justice investigation. They are attacking the investigators and trying to distract the public.
Big capitalists had not supported Trump in the election and had preferred Clinton. But with his election, there “was a surprising and sudden business and Wall Street affinity for Trump….An anti-regulatory White House and the promise of tax reform outweighed the prospect of disruptive tweeting and other forms of Trump chaos….” (87) (Note that Wolff uses the pro-business term, “tax reform,” instead of the accurate “big tax cuts for the rich.”)
Some sections of Trump’s popular base have become disillusioned with him, but polls have shown that the rank-and-file of the Republican Party overwhelmingly still supports Trump. (For the general public, he is the most unpopular first year president in the history of polling.) The Republicans have lied to a section of the population (white middle class and upper working class, especially males, in the suburbs and rural areas). These people have responded to real grievances of growing poverty and inequality, de-industrialization, loss of jobs, de-unionization, and rural stagnation—but mostly responded with false and misleading politics, being called on to blame African-Americans, immigrants, Muslims, Mexicans, environmentalists, feminists, and the “liberal elite.” The Republicans have whipped these people up to a nihilistic frenzy of despair. Then the Republican leadership was surprised when this hyped-up mass did not follow their lead but instead voted (in the primaries and in the general election) for the most unqualified person available, since he said what they believed. However, many other Trump voters were not attracted to his overt racism and nativism, but rather voted for him for change and because of a dislike of the Democratic candidate. But even these did not object to Trump’s racism, not enough to reject voting for him.
While the modern Republican Party, as well as Trump himself, leans far to the right, neither it nor he are fascist. Neither Trump nor the party leaders will ban all other political parties, shut down the newspapers, cancel elections, or declare Trump president-for-life. If the system seems increasingly repressive, well, that is what we have in the limited democracy of capitalism. Yet Trump has opened the door for the real fascists, given them a bit of respectability. After the Charlottesville march of Nazis and Klanspeople, “the president’s sympathies were muddled. However easy and obvious it was to condemn white racists…he instinctively resisted…and he continued to be stubborn about not doing it.” (293-4)
The “Lesser Evil” Democrats
If the Republicans were Trump’s “enablers,” as Paul Krugman has suggested, then the Democrats were the enablers of the enablers. After eight years of Barrack Obama’s presidency, there was more inequality than ever and continuing de-industrialization throughout much of the nation. This was even though the economy was in a long, slow, and shallow “recovery” from the Great Recession—which continues now, and will continue until the next crash. A not-very-good health plan was passed. More immigrants were deported than ever before. Climate catastrophe was recognized in words but an ineffectual minimum was done about it. Wars were continued and expanded abroad.
The two-party system encourages a certain type of amoral maneuverer, for whom political programs are not goals to be achieved so much as means to personal success. “A close Trump friend who was also a good Bill Clinton friend found them eerily similar—except that Clinton had a respectable front and Trump did not.” (23)
The Democrats ran the most business-as-usual figure they had, Hillary Rodham Clinton. She and her husband Bill had gotten rich in their years of “public service.” She was paid big bucks for speaking at gatherings of the biggest capitalists. She was known as the most hawkish member of the Obama administration. (There were also bad reasons for disliking her, including sheer misogyny, and the way a mountain was made out of a molehill over her emails.) The only reasons for voting for her came down to breaking the gendered presidential glass ceiling and that she was not Trump. These were reasons enough for her to win a thin majority of the popular vote, but then to loose in the archaic Electoral College.
For years the Democrats had been deliberately turning their backs on the unions and the working class in favor of appealing to the professional-managerial middle and upper classes. Thomas Frank had warned that this would have electoral and political costs (Price 2016a). In the event, many white workers and their families who had voted for Obama, now voted for Trump. Many others stayed home. (A little less than half of eligible voters did not vote.) Meanwhile large sections of African-Americans were disaffected; they would not vote for Trump but, again, many who had voted for Obama also stayed home. Latinos knew that Trump was viciously against them, but they also knew that “the Obama administration had been quite aggressive in deporting illegal aliens.” (63) Many Latinos also sat this one out.
For years the liberals had been opposing the greater political evil by supporting the lesser evil. Sometimes they won and sometimes they lost, but overall the greater evil got more and more evil, and so did the lesser evil. That is, the Republican Party became completely committed to far-right ideology, while the Democratic Party moved to where the “moderate Republicans” used to be. (For example, for a health care program they did not advocate the liberal “single-payer” approach but adopted the program developed by Mitt Romney when he was Massachusetts governor.) In brief, the politics of “lesser evilism” has not worked.
The liberal Warren-Sanders wing of the Democrats has no power. It serves as a shill to bring young people, labor, progressives, African-Americans, feminists, environmentalists, etc., into a party really ruled by corporate politicians such as the Clintons. Liberal Democrats and the MSNBC talking heads like to focus on the issue of Trump’s ties to Russia and his efforts to cover them up. While this is a real issue, it also has the effect of distracting from such U.S. matters as inequality, climate change, or the danger of nuclear war. It makes the Democrats look patriotic and proudly chauvinistic. It lets the liberals wallow in patriotic hypocrisy. The imperialist U.S. state intervened in 81 national elections and supported about 36 attempted military coups, from 1946 to 2000. (McCoy 2017) Who is the U.S. to denounce foreign intervention in elections?
The Republicans can fire up their middle class base. While these people may get out of hand and elect a Trump, they do not threaten the system. But the Democrats never could fire up their historic base of workers and People of Color. The demands of the working class and the oppressed for better standards of living and more public services immediately threaten the profits of the corporate rich. Brought to an extreme, their demands threaten the very basis of capitalism. This is why liberals constantly complain that the Democrats do not stand up to the conservative Republicans, and why the Democrats were so willing to turn away from the working class, the poor, and People of Color, in favor of the professional middle class.
According to Wolff, Trump and his campaigners never expected to get elected; he expected to improve his “brand” while he prepared to claim that he had been cheated. With the election of this accidental president here has been a major increase in popular struggles and movements. (Price 2016b) This includes forming thousands of local anti-Trump clubs, enormous mass demonstrations, and local demonstrations at “town hall” meetings and at airports. At this time, most of the movement has been channeled into electoral activities, electing more Democrats, especially women. Probably this was inevitable for now, but it is a dead end. There needs to be a radical, libertarian-socialist, wing of the anti-Trump movement, which rejects the Democrats in favor of independent, mass, direct action.
Many liberals and Democrats look forward to when Trump is gone (through losing the next presidential election or even being impeached). They think that the evil days will be gone and things will return to “normal.” It is true that the peculiarities of Trump’s behavior will be over. But the crazy right-wing politics of the Republicans will continue. The wishy-washy but pro-corporate capitalist politics of the Democrats will continue. And the underlying economic decay and stagnation and ecological catastrophe will continue. The system will escalate its attacks on the working class and the environment, and, through wars, on people around the world. No part of the political or economic system can be relied on; as with the weather under conditions of global warming, there is a “new normal.” Those of us who believe in ecological sanity, freedom, mutual aid, and radical democracy had better do all we can to build a popular movement for these goals.
McCoy, Alfred W. (2017). In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power. Haymarket.
Price, Wayne (2016a). “Party of Which People? Review of Thomas Frank, Listen, Liberal.” http://www.anarkismo.net/article/29505?search_text=Wayn...Price
Price, Wayne (2016b). “Not My President! The New Resistance.”
Wolff, Michael (2018). Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House. NY: Henry Holt.
*written for www.Anarkismo.net
rusia / ucrania / bielorrusia / historia del anarquismo / opinión / análisis Sunday February 04, 2018 08:37 byAgustín Guillamón
La revolución rusa fue fruto de un amplio y profundo movimiento de masas. No la hizo ni la dirigió ningún individuo o partido, sino que fue una tempestad popular que lo arrolló todo a su paso, superando a todas las organizaciones e instituciones existentes. Fue una revolución propulsada desde abajo hacia arriba, que produjo órganos de poder obrero y de democracia directa como los soviets o consejos de delegados obreros.
La revolución rusa fue fruto de un amplio y profundo movimiento de masas. No la hizo ni la dirigió ningún individuo o partido, sino que fue una tempestad popular que lo arrolló todo a su paso, superando a todas las organizaciones e instituciones existentes. Fue una revolución propulsada desde abajo hacia arriba, que produjo órganos de poder obrero y de democracia directa como los soviets o consejos de delegados obreros.
Tue 20 Feb, 17:43
Out with the old, in with the not so new Feb 19 14:58 0 comments
Against Imperialism: International Solidarity and Resistance Feb 10 19:57 0 comments
The Cacahuatepec Massacre, Guerrero: First notes concerning an emergency that “nobody want... Feb 08 16:20 0 comments
Fire and Fury in the Time of Trump Feb 08 02:08 0 comments
La revolución rusa. Una interpretación crítica y libertaria Feb 04 08:37 0 comments
¿Por dónde cortar el nudo gordiano en la negociación ELN-Gobierno de Colombia? Feb 03 09:06 0 comments
Decades of organising wins new abortion referendum in Ireland Feb 02 18:43 0 comments
Geopolítica del pueblo kurdo y el caso de Rojava Feb 01 22:15 0 comments
Vanguards of Humanity: Why I support Afrin & the Rojava Revolution Feb 01 19:22 0 comments
Για μια Θεωρία τη ... Jan 31 21:12 0 comments
Solidarity for Afrin and Rojava against the Turkey State Jan 30 23:58 1 comments
A call for solidarity: defend Afrin — defend humanity! Jan 29 06:41 0 comments
The geopolitics of the Kurds and the case of Rojava Jan 29 06:38 0 comments
Afrin: la guerra degli Stati verrà sconfitta dalla guerra popolare Jan 28 17:41 0 comments
Saguenay (Canada) : Les morts vont prendre leur revanche Jan 26 22:48 0 comments
[Book Review] “Anarchist Encounters. Russia in Revolution”. Edited by A.W. Zurbrugg (Londo... Jan 25 20:57 0 comments
Les États en guerre contre les peuples subiront la défaite Jan 25 20:52 0 comments
Halklarla Savaşan Devletler Kaybedecek Jan 25 18:21 0 comments
Σχετικά με τον εμ ... Jan 25 13:30 0 comments
Τα κράτη θα ηττηθ ... Jan 24 21:49 0 comments
Los estados en guerra contra el pueblo perderán Jan 24 09:42 0 comments
Rojava: Mensaje urgente de un compañero anarquista en Afrin Jan 24 09:38 0 comments
States at War with Peoples will Lose Jan 24 09:23 0 comments
La consigna libertaria es no olvidar el año viejo Jan 22 23:38 0 comments
The Yoke of Washington and Wall Street Jan 21 10:08 0 comments
The Iran Protests: A Third Path to Political Change? Jan 19 06:36 0 comments
Ciao Donato ! Jan 18 09:16 0 comments
Για το Μακεδονικa... Jan 18 05:42 0 comments
[Iberia] CGT convoca huelga el 9 de febrero en la enseñanza andaluza Jan 18 03:17 0 comments
A propos du départ prématuré de notre compagnon et ami Donato Romito Jan 17 20:52 0 commentsmore >>