Al ser electo como presidente estadounidense Joe Biden prometió mejorar la política migratoria de Estados Unidos saboteada por expresidente, Donald Trump. Fue un día feliz para todos los inmigrantes latinoamericanos. Hoy la administración de Joe Biden se ve obligada a rechazar su promesa por la crisis migratoria incontrolada.

Al ser electo como presidente estadounidense Joe Biden prometió mejorar la política migratoria de Estados Unidos saboteada por expresidente, Donald Trump. Fue un día feliz para todos los inmigrantes latinoamericanos. Hoy la administración de Joe Biden se ve obligada a rechazar su promesa por la crisis migratoria incontrolada.

La política de las “puertas abiertas” llevó al aumento permanente de los inmigrantes en el territorio de Estados Unidos. Pocos funcionarios estadounidenses reconocieron ese problema por miedo de perder puntos políticos y estar fuera de moda. El alcalde de Nueva York fue uno de los primeros que advirtió sobre recursos insuficientes para atender a muchos inmigrantes.

Intentos de mejorar la situación
La administración de Joe Biden tomó unas medidas para frenar flujos migratorios y calmar la situación en el país. Por ejemplo, gobierno estadounidense anunció que España aceptará a migrantes latinoamericanos desde centros en Latinoamérica lo que provocó descontento entre los españoles. Es una medida dirigida a descentralizar los flujos migratorios y disminuir la cantidad de los inmigrantes en USA.

Administración de Joe Biden también negoció con el gobierno mexicano al respecto, pero no consiguió resultados positivos. Tras negociaciones fracasadas la Cámara de Representantes de Estados Unidos, con mayoría republicana, ha dado “luz verde" al proyecto de ley migratoria para reactivar la construcción de un muro en la frontera con México, la medida estrella del expresidente Donald Trump. Al mismo tiempo representantes del Senado, con mayoría demócrata, anunciaron que bloquearán este proyecto. Mientras El Congreso de Estados Unidos sufre una confrontación los gobernadores estadounidenses actúan en su propio modo.

El gobernador del estado de Texas, fronterizo con México, ha informado de que la Guardia Nacional ha creado una nueva unidad para interceptar inmigrantes en la frontera. "Estamos desplegando una nueva unidad llamada Fuerza Táctica Fronteriza de Texas, que estará en los puntos calientes a lo largo de la frontera para interceptar, repeler y devolver a los inmigrantes que traten de cruzar de forma ilegal", anunció Greg Abbott. Su medida dio los resultados positivos. Unos 30 mil migrantes latinoamericanos fueron bloqueados en la frontera. A pesar de tales acciones, un gobernador no podría resolver el problema sin apoyo estatal.

El crecimiento de odio respecto a los inmigrantes
No solo el gobierno de Biden reconoció parcialmente el problema. Los estadounidenses con cada año muchos más expresaron su descontento por el permanente aumento de los inmigrantes en el territorio de Estados Unidos. Todo eso llevó al crecimiento de los casos de crímenes contra los inmigrantes latinoamericanos. Por ejemplo, en marzo la Liga de Ciudadanos Latino Estadounidenses Unidos (LULAC) demandó una investigación independiente de la muerte de la soldado Ana Basaldua Ruiz, nacida en México y naturalizada estadounidense. Fue hallada muerta en un local de mantenimiento de la base militar (Fort Hood, Texas,) donde, en 2020, fue asesinada la soldado Vanessa Guillén. Los familiares de la soldado indicaron que en la semana anterior a su muerte Basaldua se había quejado de acoso sexual por parte de camaradas y de un oficial.
En el inicio de mayo, Mauricio Garcia, mató al menos a ocho personas y hirió a docenas en el centro comercial Allen Premium Outlets. En las redes sociales de Garcia revelaron cientos de publicaciones que incluyen retórica extremista violenta por motivos raciales o étnicos. En masacre murieron unos inmigrantes.
También en mayo una camioneta embistió a un grupo de inmigrantes venezolanos que esperaban el camión afuera de un albergue para migrantes en la ciudad fronteriza de Brownsville, Texas, dejando al menos ocho muertos y por lo menos 10 heridos. Las autoridades creen que el conductor George Alvarez, de 34 años, perdió el control después de pasarse un semáforo en rojo. La investigación preliminar indica que Alvarez presentaba claros signos de intoxicación. Todavía no se desconoce si fue intencional o se trataría de un lamentable accidente.
Tierra deseable
Actualmente, Estados Unidos intenta luchar contra amenaza migratoria y tranquilizar la situación dentro del país. No se sabe quién gana en esa lucha. Está claro que ahora los deseos de los inmigrantes se encuentran fuera de los intereses estadounidenses. Tras normalizar la situación USA nuevamente se convertirá en un país de hospitalidad.

A review of an outstanding book covering the anarchist movement from 1868 to 1939, discussing many issues which are still important to revolutionary anarchists. It was originally written for Workers Solidarity: A Green Syndicalist Webzine.

This is an outstanding overview of the anarchist movement. It covers the period from 1868 (the approximate beginning of revolutionary anarchism as a movement) to 1939 (the defeat of the Spanish Revolution and the beginning of World War II). While anarchism has been a world movement, this book only covers European and U.S. anarchism, which has inherent limitations (also, the author admits to only reading English). Further, the text does not discuss all tendencies which have been regarded as anarchist. It does not deal with individualist or market-oriented anarchisms, nor with anarchist-pacifism nor some other trends.

Instead it focuses on what has been referred to as revolutionary class-struggle anarchism, also called libertarian socialism or communism. Today some advocate anarchisms without revolution or the working class. However, Lucien van der Walt considers that “the broad anarchist tradition.” (van der Walt & Schmidt 2009; p. 19) Baker might agree with this, but would probably not go as far as van der Walt when he writes, “‘Class struggle’ anarchism, sometimes called revolutionary or communist anarchism, is not a type of anarchism; in our view it is the only anarchism.” (same; emphasis in original) In any case, this is the anarchism that Baker concentrates on, which in itself contains a host of internal conflicts and controversies.

Unlike some other books on this subject, Baker does not report on the lives and works of the most influential anarchists. Instead she is interested in the ideas and practices of the movement as such. This involves an effort to research what members of the movement—influential writers but also ordinary militants—were doing and saying. She tries to reconstruct the basic trends within anarchism during this period (in Europe and the U.S.), to draw them out and rationally discuss them.

Anarchism does not have an official, orthodox, philosophy, comparable to the “dialectical materialism” of Marxism. But, as Baker summarizes, “The central argument of this book is that…anarchists…were grounded in a theoretical framework—the theory of practice—which maintained that, as people engage in activity, they simultaneously change the world and themselves…the anarchist commitment to the unity of means and ends.” (p. 10)

In philosophy this is often called “praxis,” a Greek word meaning practice-integrated-with-theory, as opposed to superficially empirical practice. As Baker knows, this was a fundamental aspect of Karl Marx’s method, developed out of the dialectical theory of G.W.F. Hegel. Michael Bakunin, a “founder” of revolutionary anarchism, also studied Hegel’s philosophy. A number of philosophers have considered the implications of focusing on humanity as actively productive, consciously interacting with objective reality, simultaneously changing the world and themselves. (Bernstein 1971; Price 2014)

Controversies Among Anarchists

The book begins with the origins of the anarchist movement as an anti-statist wing of working class socialism. It reviews the values and basic strategies of anarchist anti-capitalism. This focuses on “direct action” by workers and the oppressed against the bosses and the state. Direct action included strikes, boycotts, tenant strikes, and civil disobedience. But anarchists also established schools for children and adults, community libraries, popular theaters, and sports clubs.
“Anarchism…emerged in parallel with, and opposition to, various forms of state socialism.” (p. 141) Baker goes through anarchists’ reasons for rejecting parliamentarianism as well as Leninist revolutionary replacement of the existing state with a new (dictatorial) one. The state is a centralized, bureaucratic, hierarchical institution, standing over and above the rest of society, serving the interests of an exploitive minority. It cannot be used to build a classless, stateless, and non-oppressive society, whatever Marxists may think. She points out, correctly, that the program of state socialism in practice can only end in state capitalism.

While revolutionary anarchists agreed on certain fundamental commitments, they also had a number of disagreements. “Broadly speaking the anarchist movement can be divided into two main strategic schools of thought: insurrectionist anarchism and mass anarchism.” (p. 171) (These were not terms used at the time, but were later assigned by van der Walt.) There was a great deal of overlapping of the schools in actual practice by individuals and groups; these are “pure types.” (“Insurrectionism” has also been called “terrorism” by some, “guerrilla warfare” by others.)

The “insurrectionists” built little groups, which fluctuated in composition, and were associated—if at all—in loose networks. They were regarded as “anti-organizationalists,” although they put out newspapers and had networks. They engaged in violent actions by individuals or small groups against the government or capitalist enterprises, sometimes against individual politicians or businesspeople or just random citizens (eventually called “propaganda of the deed”). By such methods they hoped to trigger social revolution.

The “mass anarchists” (I would have preferred “mass struggle anarchists”) wanted big associations, such as labor unions, community groups, anti-war organizations. These would be radically democratic, militant, and independent of capitalist institutions. This type of anarchist was often “dual-organizationalist,” being for specific organizations of anarchists which would work inside and out of larger mass organizations. Their goal was to build popular struggles by workers and every other oppressed group, initially around immediate reform issues, but eventually leading to a social revolution.

Baker clearly comes down against insurrectionist anarchism due to its 150 years of failure. It is true that mass struggle anarchism also has not succeeded in making the revolution. But it has led to large unions in a number of countries, big anarchist federations, and significant military struggles. This is not enough—nothing short of a successful revolution is enough—but it has been more than insurrectionism has done.

Baker is fully aware that anarchist-socialist revolution must include all the oppressed and exploited, with concerns which overlap with class issues but also are distinct. This includes women, African-Americans, and so on. (But she does not discuss ecological issues.) “We must…struggle against all forms of oppression simultaneously. The self-emancipation of the working classes can only be achieved through intersectional class struggle.” (p. 359)

This included support for national liberation struggles against imperialist domination (which is very different from taking sides in wars in which both sides are imperialists). “For anarchists, this commitment to universal human solidarity entailed an opposition to imperialism and colonialism and the support of anti-colonial national liberation movements….According to Maximoff, ‘the anarchists demand the liberation of all colonies and support every struggle for national independence….’ The main goal of national liberation movements—emancipation—could only be achieved through the methods of anarchism, rather than the establishment of a new state.” (pp. 109—110) That is quite contrary to the belief of many ignorant anarchists today that anarchism is opposed to national self-determination. (Many anarchists reject support for the Ukrainian people against Russian imperialist aggression on this false ground.)

Syndicalist Anarchism

However, for Baker, this “intersectionality” does not deny the importance of the working class. This class has a central role in the total process of production and therefore has potentially great strategic power. This leads to her discussion of syndicalism. “All forms of syndicalist anarchism argued that workers should form federally structured trade unions that engaged in direct action and were independent of political parties….to pursue the double aim of winning immediate improvements in the present and overthrowing capitalism…in the long term.” (p. 279)

She divides “syndicalist anarchism” into three types: “revolutionary syndicalism,” “syndicalism-plus,” and “anarcho-syndicalism.” In her categorizing, revolutionary syndicalism would be open to all workers in their shop or industry, regardless of whether they were anarchists. Anarchist militants would seek to make the union as worker-run and militant as possible, with no association with any political party or tendency.

Syndicalism-plus (a term she took from Iain McKay) also had an “open” membership and would be non-affiliated to any political grouping. While anarchists would not try to take over the unions, they would not dissolve in them either. They would still form their own specific anarchist organization, to work inside and outside the syndicalist union. Anarcho-syndicalism, in her conception, would explicitly commit its unions to anarchist revolution. Probably this would be written into their constitutions. Baker reviews the arguments pro and con for the different versions of syndicalist anarchism. She notes that the distinction between revolutionary syndicalism and anarcho-syndicalism has become blurred (which she largely blames on Rudolf Rocker).

As mentioned, Baker says that syndicalist anarchists (in contrast to insurrectionist anarchists) “pursue the double aim of winning immediate improvements in the present….” However, she makes one exception: “One reform that mass anarchists consistently opposed was universal suffrage within existing capitalist states…included women’s suffrage….” (p. 237) I don’t doubt her accuracy but I think this is as aspect of anarchist sectarian over-purity.

I am thinking of the struggle for the right to vote for African Americans in the early ‘60s. Undoubtedly, there was the conscious aim of the liberal wing of the U.S. capitalist class to co-opt the mass movement and channel it into the Democratic Party . And the Black leadership was agreeable to this. On the other hand, the actual struggle involved massive civil disobedience (law-breaking) and independent organizing. The goal of being allowed to vote was also a valid goal. It meant that Black people would no longer be second class citizens. It is better to live under a bourgeois democracy than under a racist and semi-fascist tyranny (which is what the segregationist South was). This does not deny the need for anarchists to point out the limitations of bourgeois representative democracy, which would not really free the Black population from the bottom of society. (Another example of sectarian inflexibility is the syndicalist anarchists rejection of “joining reformist unions.” [p. 273] Carried out consistently, it would limit their ability to reach the mass of workers.)

Baker’s last chapter before concluding is about organizational dualism. This is the idea that anarchists should organize themselves, or at least those with whom they are in substantial agreement. And this organized minority should become part of broader organizations and movements, including but not limited to, unions. She reviews the history from Bakunin’s “Brotherhoods,” to the syndicalists’ concept of the “militant minority,” to the “Platform” of Makhno and Arshinov, to Malatesta’s ideas, and so on. Such political organization would be different from the Leninist concept of the centralized vanguard party. It would not aim at taking power for itself or establishing its own state. Its only aim was to encourage the workers and oppressed to organize themselves and reorganize society by themselves. To help people change the world as they change themselves.

References

Baker, Zoe (2023). Means & Ends: The Revolutionary Practice of Anarchism in Europe and the United States. Chico CA: AK Press.

Bernstein, Richard J. (1971). Praxis and Action; Contemporary Philosophies of Human Activity. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Price, Wayne (2014) “Anarchism and the Philosophy of Pragmatism.” https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/wayne-price-anarchism-and-the-philosophy-of-pragmatism

van der Walt, Lucien, & Schmidt, Michael (2009). Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism.
Oakland CA: AK Press.

*written for Workers Solidarity: A Green Syndicalist Webzine

Critical reflections on identity politics and separatism, acknowledging intersectionality and getting inspiration from the revolutionary struggles in Turkey and Kurdistan.
Aiming to reflect common strategies to move forward in our revolutionary organizing.

Pride is not an event widely celebrated in Rojava, but for us it is an important date and a reason to reflect on the current state of the queer struggle and the situation of the LGBT+ movement. On this occasion, we want to share something more than just a solidarity picture. A comrade wrote this text reflecting on their experience in Rojava. These are some lessons we can draw inspiration from.

The text doesn’t represent the position of our organization, but it aims to contribute to the discussions on these topics.

For a wild Pride!
Down with rainbow capitalism!

- Tekosina Anarsist

Reflections on Identity Politics and Revolutionary Organizing

When I was first being politicized, a world opened up for me. I felt like I finally found words to describe the experiences I had been having. I thought I had been alone with those experiences, but through my journey into politics, I began to understand the systemic nature of them, identity based politics were a big part of this for me. This also ignited a fire and anger in me. In those early days, I directed this anger towards individuals of those groups who oppressed me. I blamed the individuals and thought it just to demonize them. I organized in separatist groups and was dismissive and without hope for those individuals that were part of oppressing groups.

I have moved from being on the extra-parliamentary left, an “activist” one might say, to becoming a more ideologically motivated and educated revolutionary, for who the struggle is not just something to do in my free time, but struggle is the basis of my daily life. During this transition I realized that the way I was directing my anger was not constructive in progressing the struggle against oppression and for a free life. Not that I think my anger was unjust, simply that I now think that I can do better things with my anger than release it on the nearest man. I was with my own hands creating division and conflict among comrades who I was supposed to struggle alongside with. I needed to overcome the framework of identity politics, because it splits us up, and weakens the revolutionary struggle. I went looking for perspectives with more nuance and wanted to aim toward unity of oppressed peoples, at the same time I searched for ways to incorporate some of the valuable lessons that identity politics had taught me. Here are some of the things I learned along the way so far.

What is Identity Politics?

Identity politics is when people organize mainly according their identities of gender, race ethnicity, sexuality, religion, etc. The logic of identity politics is often used to organize as single-issue activism or separatists, this means that a group of people organizes along the lines of a common identity. For example women separatists (a group of only women), or people of colour separatists (a group of only people of colour). These days there are many groups organized with this method. Many of those group use the rhetoric of revolution but are very liberal in the praxis, focusing almost exclusively on right and reform, though there are a few that also have more revolutionary praxis. This text aims to address some of the short comings of identity politics and separatist organizing. It will also consider some of the strengths and lessons we could and should take from separatist organizing. Moreover it will offer one possible alternative that strives to incorporate the contributions coming from separatist spaces while working to unite rather than split revolutionary organizing.

Coming together with those who experience the same or similar oppressions as oneself can be a very validating experience. It can help to contextualize personal experiences and hardships within capitalism, thereby coming to understand the events in one’s personal life through a wider lens. In turn understanding experiences of oppression through an anti-capitalist framework can combat isolation that some people feel in their experiences. In gathering with others with similar identity some people can find a space and calm to heal from oppression related traumas or problems, as well as gathering the strength to continue to live and take part in struggle. Moreover, it is often times from such “safe spaces”, in which one is temporarily somewhat shielded from people of the oppressive dynamic,that there is room to reflect. From this reflection new analysis and theory are conceptualized, therefore it can have an important function in developing analysis and theory that brings us forward. For these reasons groups or spaces based on identity, in which oppressed identities are cared for, explored and celebrated, are very valuable to oppressed individuals, and can make great contributions in our fight against patriarchy and capitalism.

Causes and Shortcoming of Identity Politics

I think separatist spaces do also have downsides that we should be careful of if our aim is the overthrow of capitalism, classless society and the genuine change of social relations in society. When identity politics become the main approach to organizing, this results in oppressed people being pitted against each other and pitting themselves against each other. One way this happens is by identity based organizing more and more niche, for example a women’s group becoming a queer women’s group, becoming a neurodivergent queer women’s group, etc. There is of course nothing wrong with those individuals wanting to seek connections with others that have similar experiences, like was outline in the previous paragraph, but taking that identity as the basis of organizing ultimately weakens our power. It distances us for other people that we could and should ally ourselves with.

An other unfortunate outcome of identity based politics can be that experiences that contain multitudes and nuance are erased in favour of black and white narratives, this contributes to issues of intersectionality (such as misogynoir, transmisogyny, transmisogynoit, etc.) to be overlooked. An example of where we can see this is in class reductionism. Class reductionism creates a mentality of “we are all working class, so we do not need to talk about race or gender or ability”. It poses that the working class background makes all the other differences among people irrelevant. This of course is not the case, those difference are very much relevant and important.

Why does this happen? Because we live in a capitalist society, and it is in the interest of the rich and powerful (capitalist class) to keep the working class divided. If working and other oppressed people consist of many small groups that fight among themselves, rather than unite to fight against the capitalists, this is an obvious advantage to them. Therefor those voices and actions that are in favour of the status quo are supported and those that threaten the status quo are side-lined or demonized by liberals and conservatives. Any discussion of the root causes, the capitalist system, are avoided, dismissed or silenced. A very obvious example of this is the parts of the white working class in western and northern Europe blaming immigrants from poorer countries for “stealing their jobs/changing the culture/destroying the country/taking over the country”. The immigrants are not the problem, they are the scapegoats. The problem is the exploitation of the working class by the capitalist class that results in harsh working and living conditions.

How does this happen? Through the ideology of liberalism, by which we are absolutely surrounded, the focus is laid on the differences in identity and how individuals oppress other individuals in daily life. It manifests in the creation of increasingly specific in-groups, and their respective out-groups. The out-group is often seen as an inconsolable aggressor. For example, LGBTI+ people as the in-group and cis-hetero people as the out-group, cis-hets being seen as unchangeably oppressive towards LGBTI+ people, and a dismissive attitude towards cis-het people is taken on. Or women as the in-group and men as the out-group, with the hope of men changing being little to none, dismissing them as a group.

Coming Together

I understand this desire to organize or even live in a separatist manner, because living in this world as an oppressed person is exhausting and separatist spaces can be a safe haven from that. However, if we call ourselves revolutionaries and want to earn that title, we need to organize with the whole working class and all oppressed peoples, not just those most similar to ourselves. I said it before, but I think it bears repeating since this is such a crucial point: a result of this identity driven politics is that the working class and oppressed people are split into small, easily governable groups, divided rather than united by their different identities. The focus lies on the difference. We cannot meaningfully liberate ourselves if oppressed peoples cannot see and understand the common roots of their problem, namely the capitalist system.

Identity politics are a response to legitimate issues. In order to unify the working class and all oppressed peoples, we must take these issues seriously in our approach to class struggle. To do this a move needs to be made from using identity-based politics to divide, to valuing our differences. We need to be open to learn from each other. We also have a duty to teach each other. We do not need to teach every random person about (our) oppression and help them understand it, but for those who we consider our comrades and friends, those we are organized with, we should. Yes there is google, but googling things as complex as oppression, how oppressions intersect, how to dismantle and overcome them, is often not the most fruitful strategy if we want to grow stronger together. We will have to discuss, explain, teach, listen, fight and change. Frustration at oneself and one’s comrades is a part of coming together. We will also disappoint each other, because we will make mistakes. In the face of those mistakes and shortcomings we cannot just throw out the comrades that messed up, because we all make mistakes from time to time, so this is not a strategy that will get us very far. We need to give a serious effort to correct the mistakes of our comrades, not just try one method, but try all the ways we can think of. Do not give up on each other so easily.

Ideas from Turkey and Kurdistan

All this is of course no easy task. To overcome these challenges we will need willingness, commitment, and a plan. One way to achieve this is by looking at the methods and approaches of the revolutionary movement from Turkey, which has currently also grown its reach to areas outside of the borders of the Turkish state, and Kurdistan. The revolutionary movement in those places has been predominantly communist, communard and apoist (following the ideology of Abdullah Öcalan), though anarchist groups have also been present. The Turkish and Kurdish revolutionary movements have been fighting in its current form for over 50 years against the fascist Turkish state and oppression all over Kurdistan. It has faced many challenges and learned a lot of valuable lessons over that time. Since the ‘90’s great progress has been made in the involvement and position of women comrades in this struggle. A big pioneer in the creation of these structures was, and is, the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), who in their 1987 established a women’s structure, the YJWK, inside the PKK. I doubt a copy paste of their methods will suit organizing in Europe and North America, but I absolutely think it is worth our time of day to consider how we can learn from them and how to apply that.

In these movements, in many collectives, groups, organizations and parties, there are women’s sub-organizations that function semi-autonomously. These women’s groups/organizations are connected to the overall collective/organization, and the vast majority of all work and actions are carried out through the overall collective/organization. However on issues specifically related to women, these women’s groups have decision making power.

What exactly women’s issues includes is decided by the women’s and overall organization together through discussion. The women’s groups can work autonomously in giving education about patriarchy and all topics connected to it, and reach out to other groups or collectives to collaborate, they can make zines, events, talks to comrades, friends, and whoever wants to listen, etc. Moreover the women’s group is responsible for supporting the women in the collective/organization/network on issues of health, patriarchal violence, and can address women’s internalized patriarchy. It is also a space for women to discuss their experiences, analyze and theorize them.

This way they incorporate many of the functions I mentioned before as being very important of separatist spaces, like space for recovery and healing, building up of strength, discussion and analysis. But unlike separatist groups/organizations they remain connected with people of other identities as well, they engage, discuss, educate the comrades of the overall collective/organization. This connection comes about through that the women comrades are first and foremost organized in the overall collective/organization and secondly in the women’s group. The women’s group is ultimately accountable to the general collective/organization. Its aim should always be to strengthen the overall collective/organization, not undermine it. The women’s group should engage, or at least inform, the overall collective/organization as much as possible in the works and discussions it is having. The basic assumption necessary for any of this to work is of course that our enemy is patriarchy. Individual male comrades will make mistake and have patriarchal behaviors, but they are not our enemy. They are our comrades, and we are struggling together.

This hybrid that includes an overall collective/organization that welcomes people of all identities as well as some aspects of separatism can provide us with a good way forward in which the organizational structure will be better equipped to take on the issues related to specific identities and simultaneously remain focused on uniting oppressed peoples rather than dividing them. We can learn and take inspiration from the method of organizing and incorporate it into our own organizing in ways we think relevant and current. In the revolutionary movements from Turkey and Kurdistan this method is only used to set up women’s organizations (until now), as far as I am aware, but I imagine that this method can be used more broadly, for example through LGBTI+, PoC and other oppressed groups.

This is just one proposal, but even if this is not something that fits within your collective/organization, I urge everyone to think about how to solve the problems brought up by identity politics. These are some central questions of our time, we can look to revolutionary struggles around the world, past and present for inspiration on how we can solve them. I am confident we will solve them, together. We have to, because the current state of our society is unacceptable.

L’anarchismo sociale è consapevole che i popoli emancipati non possono aspettarsi miglioramenti sostanziali nelle loro vite attraverso la lotta parlamentare. Al contrario, in tempi di scarsità crescono i mostri autoritari. L’ideologia di destra usa strumentalmente la diversità della classe lavoratrice per individuare gruppi da odiare: gli immigrati, la comunità LGTBI, gli zingari o persino il femminismo o l’ambientalismo.

[Inglese]

[Castigliano]

---

Dichiarazione congiunta di organizzazioni anarchiche europee

Viva il Primo Maggio! Viva l'Anarchia!

Ogni primo maggio si commemora lo sciopero di Chicago del 1886, noto anche come “Haymarket Riots”. Lo sciopero si concluse con il licenziamento e il ferimento di migliaia di lavoratori, in gran parte immigrati dall’Europa. Questa mobilitazione di massa fu combattuta duramente dalle autorità, che in seguito giustiziarono i cinque “Martiri di Chicago”, sindacalisti e militanti anarchici.

Chicago fu il punto di partenza di un movimento per la conquista della giornata lavorativa di 8 ore che durò per decenni. La classe operaia ha raggiunto questo obiettivo grazie alla lotta, non grazie alle decisioni dei parlamenti. La maggior parte dei diritti viene conquistata attraverso l’offensiva delle forze popolari. È quando la lotta si ferma che la correlazione delle forze cambia e la classe dominante inizia a tagliare i diritti.

Nella nostra epoca, vediamo questa situazione ovunque: dobbiamo lavorare sempre di più per avere lo stesso stipendio o vedere le nostre pensioni tagliate o l’età pensionabile aumentata. Da alcuni anni stiamo vivendo un processo di espropriazione della classe lavoratrice che si sta accelerando a causa delle varie crisi che si alimentano a vicenda.

Abbiamo la crisi produttiva post-pandemica, la crisi energetica, la crisi della crescente scarsità di risorse e la crisi climatica. Tutte segneranno un momento di cambiamento verso un altro tipo di civiltà e tutte ci porteranno nuovi conflitti che possono svilupparsi nel campo della geopolitica. In questo senso, non vogliamo dimenticare la terribile guerra in Ucraina, dove le grandi potenze mondiali si stanno scannando da più di un anno, producendo morte e devastazione.

L’anarchismo sociale è consapevole che i popoli emancipati non possono aspettarsi miglioramenti sostanziali nelle loro vite attraverso la lotta parlamentare. Al contrario, in tempi di scarsità crescono i mostri autoritari. L’ideologia di destra usa strumentalmente la diversità della classe lavoratrice per individuare gruppi da odiare: gli immigrati, la comunità LGTBI, gli zingari o persino il femminismo o l’ambientalismo.

Non possiamo fare a meno di sottolineare che il movimento anarchico sarà sempre al fianco delle persone e dei gruppi umani oppressi e che crediamo che l’autodifesa collettiva contro l’autoritarismo sia un mezzo per costruire un mondo migliore, che implica necessariamente la diversità, la fratellanza tra i popoli e la costruzione di una società libera e socialista. L’anarchismo è uno sforzo permanente per generare emancipazione dall’azione diretta di massa, da lotte sociali diverse ma federate e coese, costruendo la correlazione di forze che permette i cambiamenti radicali di cui abbiamo bisogno.

A tuttə noi, a tutta la classe lavoratrice europea un felice e militante Primo Maggio!

Per la costruzione del potere popolare
Viva l’anarchia
Viva il comunismo libertario
Viva il Primo Maggio!

- Anarchist Communist Group (ACG) - Gran Bretagna
- Alternativa Libertaria/FdCA (AL/FdCA) - Italia
- Die Platform - Germania
- Embat, Organització Llibertaria de Catalunya – Catalogna
- Organisation Socialiste Libertaire (OSL) - Svizzera
- Union Communiste Libertaire (UCL) - Francia, Belgio e Svizzera

El anarquismo social entiende que los pueblos dignos no pueden esperar mejoras sustanciales de sus vidas a través de la lucha parlamentaria. Al contrario, en tiempos de escasez crecen los monstruos autoritarios. La ideología de la derecha pretende utiliza la diversidad de la clase trabajadora para señalar colectivos a los que odiar: inmigrantes, comunidad LGTBI, etnia gitana o incluso el feminismo o el ecologismo.

[English]

---

Declaración Conjunta de Organizaciones Anarquistas Europeas

Viva el Primero de Mayo! Viva la Anarquía!

Cada Primero de Mayo conmemoramos la Huelga de Chicago de 1886, también conocida como la Revuelta de Haymarket. La huelga concluyó con miles de trabajadores despedidos y diveros heridos, una gran mayoría inmigrantes procedentes de Europa. Esta mobilización masiva fue combatida con extrema dureza por las autoridades, ejecutando con posterioridad a los cinco "Mártires de Chicago", militantes sindicalistas y anarquistas.

Chicago fue el punto de partida de un movimento para conquistar las 8 horas de jornada laboral que duró décadas. La clase obrera logró esta jornada gracias a la lucha, no gracias a las decisiones de los parlamentos. Y es que la mayoría de los derechos se ganan mediante la ofensiva de las fuerzas populares. Es cuando se deja de luchar, que la correlación de fuerzas cambia, y la clase dirigente comienza a recortar los derechos.

En nuestro tiempo, vemos esta situación continuamente, teniendo que trabajar cada vez más para conseguir lo mismo, viendo nuestras pensiones recortadas o aumentando la edad de jubilación. Desde hace algunos años vivimos un proceso de desposesión de las clases populares que se va acelerando debido a las diversas crisis que se retroalimentan unas con otras.

Tenemos la crisis de producción postpandémica, la crisis energética y de mayor escasez de recursos y la crisis climática. Todas ellas marcarán una época de cambio hacia otro tipo de civilización y todas ellas nos traen nuevos conflictos que se pueden desarrollar en el campo de la geopolítica. No queremos olvidarnos de la terrible guerra en Ucrania, donde las grandes potencias mundiales llevan enfrentándose durante más de un año produciendo muerte y devastación.

El anarquismo social entiende que los pueblos dignos no pueden esperar mejoras sustanciales de sus vidas a través de la lucha parlamentaria. Al contrario, en tiempos de escasez crecen los monstruos autoritarios. La ideología de la derecha pretende utiliza la diversidad de la clase trabajadora para señalar colectivos a los que odiar: inmigrantes, comunidad LGTBI, etnia gitana o incluso el feminismo o el ecologismo.

No podemos dejar de señalar que el movimiento anarquista siempre estará con las personas y grupos humanos oprimidos y que creemos que la autodefensa colectiva contra el autoritarismo es un medio de construir un mundo mejor, que necesariamente pasa por la diversidad, la fraternidad entre los pueblos y la construcción de una sociedad libre y socialista. El anarquismo es un permanente esfuerzo para generar emancipación a partir de la acción directa de masas, de las lucha sociales diversas pero federadas y cohesionadas, construyendo la corelación de fuerzas que permite los cambios radicales que necesitamos.

Desde las organizaciones anarquistas firmantes de este comunicado le deseamos a toda la clase obrera de Europa un Primero de Mayo alegre y combativo.

Por la Construcción del Poder Popular
Viva la Anarquía
Viva el Comunismo Libertario
Viva el Primero de Mayo

☆Anarchist Communist Group (ACG) - gran Bretaña
☆Alternativa Libertaria (AL) - Italia
☆Die Platform - Alemania
☆Embat, Organització Llibertaria de Catalunya – Cataluña, Estado español
☆Organisation Socialiste Libertaire (OSL) - Switzerland
☆Union Communiste Libertaire (UCL) - Francia, Belgica y Suiza