user preferences

Upcoming Events

No upcoming events.

Warning: in_array() expects parameter 2 to be array, null given in /var/www/html/objects/indyruntime/sitefiltereddisplay.inc on line 208
russia / ukraine / belarus / imperialism / war / opinion / analysis Sunday February 26, 2023 22:44 byDreyfus

On the anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine the AnarCom Network (UK) continues to argue that a new tendency is emerging - an internationalist revolutionary class struggle realignment, as a response to the reality of war and its existential threat. As Anarchist Communists we support the No War But The Class War position.

The following article originally written in 2014 by comrades in AnarCom marking the Russian occupation of Crimea in the 100th anniversary of the First World War.

On the anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine we continue to argue that a new, if historically familiar, tendency is emerging - an internationalist revolutionary class struggle realignment, as a response to the reality of war and its existential threat.

Our response is to continue building good relationships with revolutionary internationalist militants on this basis. War will not cease without it. This is not new, as the following article written in 2014 by comrades in AnarCom marking the Russian occupation of Crimea in the 100th anniversary of the First World War demonstrates:

1914-2014 - the Great War continues

"Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it."
― Edmund Burke

As the threat of war looms in Eastern Europe echoing the threat of a third World War yet to come, the 100th anniversary of the outbreak of World War One looms more as a lesson for our time than merely an obsession of academic geeks.

In 1914, a violent act of Slav nationalism took the brakes off Europe's alliances and treaty systems driving rival power blocks into a devastating armed conflict that wracked Europe with its consequences for the century to come.

The current conflict is as much framed by treaties and timetables as then. Russia wants its share of Ukraine before it slides into the framework of the EU and NATO and the stakes would be higher.

Before the current fog over the Crimea there were those in Britain who sought to revise the First World War and claim it as a source of national pride and dress up the death of 13 million as a price worth paying in a 'just' war.

Were the millions of workers led into a war between ruling elites of bankers and aristocrats "lions led by donkeys" or true sons of freedom defending all that was good in Britain?

The debate is a smoke screen to hide one of the greatest mass murders in history. It's hardly surprising that those who want to celebrate the generals and spirit of Empire and claim the war as 'just', are the privileged great grandchildren of the 'donkeys'.

The current conflict has the same roots as its historical predecessor - a conflict between elites, the gangster capitalism of the Russian oligarchs versus the free market plunderers of the neoliberal European club. 'Just' or 'unjust' is the new smokescreen again.

International conflicts between or within states only have one lesson, and that is those of us with no real stake, workers on both sides, die, lead or driven by the donkeys, to preserve their power, profit and privilege.

The lessons now as then are the same - we die, they pillage, and their pride is our shame.
russia / ukraine / belarus / anarchist movement / opinion / analysis Saturday February 18, 2023 01:22 byWayne Price

My response to an article, “British Anarchism Succumbs to War Fever” by Alex Alder. That article expresses dismay that many anarchists, in Britain and Eastern Europe and elsewhere have come to support the Ukrainian side of its war with Russian imperialism. It regards this perspective as a betrayal of anarchism, internationalism, and anti-militarism.

I, on the contrary, think that this solidarity with the Ukrainians is a very good thing. It is completely consistent with revolutionary anarchism.

This is my response to an article, “British Anarchism Succumbs to War Fever” by Alex Alder. It appeared on the libcom site and has been promoted by the Anarchist Communist Group. It was published on anarchistnews. https://anarchistnews.org/comment/51586#comment-51586

Its author is dismayed that so many revolutionary anarchist-socialists are in solidarity with the Ukrainian people. “How is it that today the anarchist movement in Britain (and elsewhere) is supporting one nation’s military against another, ideologically justifying and materially provisioning the Ukrainian war effort? … From the long-standing anarchist paper Freedom and anarcho-communist Anarchist Federation (AFed), to the anarchist ‘scene’ around antifascist and other activist groups, war fever is rife.” From my perspective it is a very good thing that so many Western anarchists are supporting the Ukrainian people against the Russian imperialist attack. So are most Ukrainian, Russian, and Belarusian anarchists. “Many of the anarchists in Ukraine, and across Eastern Europe, have thrown themselves behind Ukraine’s war effort.” Alex Alder sees this as a betrayal of anarchist internationalism and anti-militarism. I do not.

If two slave masters get into a brawl, freedom-loving people will stay out of it. We don’t care who wins. But if a slave master is fighting with a slave who is trying to escape, freedom-loving people will support the slave. If another slave master (an enemy of the one fighting) throws a club or knife to the slave, we who love freedom will still support the slave and help him or her escape. (The metaphor does not present the “slave” as the Ukrainian state but as the Ukrainian people.)

Nationalism and Internationalism

Alder argues that supporting Ukraine contradicts anarchist opposition to nationalism. He quotes with favor a previous statement by the British AFed against nationalism: “As anarchist communists, we have always opposed nationalism…including that of ‘oppressed nations’. While we oppose oppression, exploitation and dispossession on national grounds, and oppose imperialism and imperialist warfare, we refuse to fall into the trap … of identifying with the underdog side and glorifying the ‘resistance’— however ‘critically’.”

Surely this is an odd statement. On the one hand it opposes national oppression and exploitation and imperialist warfare, while on the other hand it refuses to identify with the “underdog,” the oppressed and exploited. Why should anarchists, opponents of all oppression and exploitation, not identify with the underdog, and support (if not “glorify”) the popular resistance?

The reason given is that national resistance is done under the ideological cover of “nationalism.” Here it is worth citing the view of the great Italian anarchist, Errico Malatesta (associate of Bakunin and Kropotkin). In 1915, he wrote “While the Carnage Lasts,” in opposition to both sides in World War I. Among other things, he wrote,

“We are cosmopolitans….But we understand that in countries where the government and the main oppressors are of foreign nationality, the question of freedom and economic emancipation presents itself under the guise of nationalist struggle, and we therefore sympathize with national insurrections as with any insurrection against the oppressors. In that case, as in all others, we are with the people against the government.…We bow before the will of those concerned.”
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-while-the-carnage-lasts

In other words, anarchists are not nationalists but internationalists (“cosmopolitans”). Yet we recognize that sometimes peoples are oppressed by rulers from other nations. For example, the Ukrainians are not just exploited as workers (although the class conflict is always involved). They are bombed, massacred, raped, and tortured as Ukrainians. As Ukrainians they are threatened to have their language banned from schools, their children kidnapped, and their independence abolished. This is what the earlier quotation called “oppression, exploitation and dispossession on national grounds.” Therefore they tend to see this conflict in nationalist terms—not surprisingly. As Malatesta concluded, “We therefore sympathize with national insurrection…We are with the people against the [invading foreign-WP] government.”

“Nationalism,” which anarchists oppose, is not simply the same thing as opposition to national oppression. It is not just a desire for one’s people to be able to decide for themselves what kind of country they will have. That is “national self-determination”—including the freedom of a people to chose what political system they want (e.g. a democratic state, a centralized state, or no state at all [anarchy])—and their freedom to decide what economic system they want (state socialism, capitalism, libertarian socialism).

Rather, nationalism is only one program proposed for national self-determination. It implies the total unity of the nation, denying the reality of class and other differences, and supporting the ruling class and its state. Anarchists reject nationalism but not the goal of national self-determination. In the same article, Malatesta wrote, “We would like every human group to be able to live in the conditions it prefers and to be free to unite and break away from other groups as it pleases.” This is anarchism.

Similarly, Michael Bakunin wrote, “Nationality…denotes the inalienable right of individuals, groups, associations and regions to their own way of life. And this way of life is the product of a long historical development. That is why I will always champion the cause of oppressed nationalities struggling to liberate themselves from the oppression of the state.” (Referring specially to the foreign state which is oppressing that nationality.) (Bakunin On Anarchism. [S. Dolgoff, Ed.] 1980; Black Rose. My emphasis.)

Unlike nationalists, anarchist-socialists (anarchist-communists) believe that all countries can achieve full self-determination only through the revolution of the international working class and its allies among all the oppressed. This includes women, people of color, and, among others, people of oppressed countries. Meanwhile, anarchists should not use popular nationalism as an excuse to not be “with the people against the [invading] government.”

The Ukrainian state is getting significant support from the U.S. and its NATO allies. Alder argues, “In supporting Ukraine, British anarchists have found themselves on the side of NATO, an imperialist military alliance …But rather than take this as an opportunity to repudiate NATO, acknowledging a mere coincidence of interests in this particular situation, anarchists in Britain have wavered in their opposition.”

If true, those anarchists are making a mistake. It is possible to continue opposition to NATO, calling for its dissolution, while recognizing that there has been a “coincidence of interests” between Western imperialism and the Ukrainian people. However much the U.S. and other imperialist states are materially aiding the Ukrainians, it is the Ukrainians who are doing the actual fighting. It is the Ukrainian people who are being bombed and massacred. They are paying for their independence with their blood.

It is not unknown for competing imperialisms to support the rebellion of countries oppressed by the other imperial state. During the Cold War, the USSR gave support, military and otherwise, to peoples rebelling against the Western empires in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Meanwhile, the U.S. supported Russia’s satellites in Eastern Europe.

The Vietnam-American war was a mirror image of the Ukrainian-Russian war, but the principle was the same. The U.S. was the active aggressor, while Stalinist Russia sent military aid to Vietnam. Yet the central conflict was between the rebellious Vietnamese people and the imperialist U.S. That the imperialist Russians sent aid or that the Vietnamese were misled by Ho’s Stalinist-nationalists, did not change the fundamental dynamics nor the justification for solidarity with the people of Vietnam.

There is no need to politically endorse NATO. There is merely a “coincidence of interests” and they would betray the Ukrainians in a heartbeat if it suited their interests—as the U.S. has repeatedly done with the Kurds. But the Ukrainians have every right to take arms and aid from NATO. They have to get missiles from somewhere and where else is there? (Similarly, in the Vietnam-U.S. war, the Vietnamese had every right to get weapons from the Soviet Union.)

Anti-Fascism and the Popular Front

Alex Alder understands that Putin’s Russia and Zelensky’s Ukraine are not the same. While he would not call either “fascist,” he regards Russia as
having “reached a level of authoritarian nationalism, internal repression, and revanchist expansionism comparable to the fascist regimes of the twentieth century. The Ukrainian state can better be described as a neoliberal, corrupt democracy.” There are fascist movements in both societies, but he rejects Putin’s claim to be “denazifying” Ukraine.

He does not deny that it is better to live under a limited, bourgeois, democracy than under a semi-totalitarian dictatorship. But he does not believe in fighting for bourgeois democracy. He quotes Gilles Dauve, “The fight for a democratic state is inevitably a fight to consolidate the state, and far from crippling totalitarianism, such a fight increases totalitarianism’s stranglehold on society.”

He does not realize that the fight for bourgeois-democratic rights is also a fight for elements of workers’ democracy which exist under capitalism: the freedom to form unions, to form radical political organizations, to argue for anarchism and socialism, to publish left literature, to organize for greater freedom for women and for People of Color, to demonstrate against ecological disaster, and against imperialist wars, and so on. Nor does he realize the revolutionary significance of the capitalist state’s inability to live up to its democratic promises. The fight for democratic freedoms must come up against the limitations of bourgeois representative democracy. If fought for all the way, it leads toward anarchist-socialist revolution.

Alder repeatedly compares support of the Ukrainian war to a “Popular Front.” In the 1930s, Popular Fronts were political alliances of “workers’ parties” (Socialists and Communists) with liberal and conservative pro-capitalist parties, to form governing coalitions. Because they included bourgeois parties, they guaranteed that the government could not go beyond capitalism, despite the “workers’ parties” claims to stand for some sort of socialism. Popular Fronts were formed in a number of countries, France being one and Spain another. In Spain, after Franco’s fascist military rebellion, the main anarchist organizations (the CNT-FAI) also joined the Popular Front government. Then and now, revolutionary anarchists have regarded this as a disaster and a prelude to the victory of the fascists.

In fact, none of the anarchists who support the Ukrainian side of the war have advocated Popular Fronts. In particular, in Ukraine, where almost all anarchists support the war, no one has joined Zelensky’s party, urged votes for Zelensky, endorsed his party, allied with his party, taken positions in the government, or even ran for election on a separate ticket. Nor have other anarchists in Britain or elsewhere called for coalitions with bourgeois parties.

However, to Alder and his co-thinkers, just participating in the war makes anarchists collaborators with the capitalist state, a part of its militarism, in a de facto Popular Front. Other anarchists have seen things quite differently. For example, during the Spanish Civil War of the 1930s, some revolutionary anarchists denounced the policy of the anarchist leadership. They opposed joining the Popular Front and cooperating in the rebuilding of the Spanish state. They demanded that the anarchist leaders withdraw from the government. But they did not call on the anarchist workers to withdraw from the war against the fascists. The workers would not have understood such a proposal; they would have seen it as surrender to fascism. (And today, Ukrainians would see a demand for them to stop fighting as a call for surrender to Russia.) Further, working in most industries during a war was almost as much serving the war as being in the military. Instead they proposed to stay out of the government, but to participate in the anti-fascist war effort, with the aim of eventually winning over enough of the working class to carry out a revolution against both the liberal Republicans and the fascists.

One such dissident anarchist group was The Friends of Durruti Group. In their pamphlet Towards a Fresh Revolution (written 1938 by Jaime Balius), they wrote:

“There must be no collaboration with capitalism….Class struggle is no obstacle to workers continuing at present to fight on in the battlefields and working in the war industries….Revolutionary workers must not shoulder official posts, nor establish themselves in the ministries. For as long as the war lasts, collaboration is permissible—on the battlefield, in the trenches, on the parapets, and in productive labor in the rearguard.” (emphasis added)

This strategy is based on the assumption that the war is just, in the interests of the working class and the oppressed, and that the anarchists’ goal—whether short-term or long-term—is to make a revolution against the state and capital.

War and Class Struggle

The author interprets the European conflict as having only two aspects, the capitalist class and its state versus the working class. His approach fits with the slogan, “No War but Class War!” Yet most anarchists these days would acknowledge other oppressed groups besides the proletariat. There are women, People of Color, LGBTQ people, Deaf people, Jews, other religious minorities (depending on the country), and so on and so forth. To be sure, these oppressions all overlap with class conflict but they also have their own reality and dynamics. Shall we then chant, “No War but Class War, and War Against Patriarchy by Women and their Allies, War Against White Supremacy by People of Color and their Allies, War against Antisemitism by Jews and their Allies, Etc., Etc.”? It would make an awkward slogan, but most anarchists these days really mean this when they chant, “No War but Class War!”

While almost all anarchists accept all these non-class (but overlapping with class) oppressions as real, for some reason a great many reject national oppression as real. As I have previously quoted, Bakunin took it as real and Malatesta took it seriously as something people cared deeply about. Yet many reject national self-determination because they see it as supporting a new state, which anarchists know is not the answer. But a people’s self-determination means that they can chose their own society. They are (relatively) free to decide if they want a state, or to merge with another state, or to form a federal or centralized state. Right now most peoples are not anarchistic. They want their own state. Hopefully they will have the opportunity to learn from their mistakes. But we who believe in freedom want them to have their own chance to find out for themselves—the Palestinians, the Tibetans, the Puerto Ricans, the Yemenis, the West Saharans, the Uighurs, the Chechens, African-Americans, or, yes, Ukrainians.

We Who Believe in Freedom

To some anarchists and revolutionary libertarian socialists, by no means limited to Alex Alder and the Anarchist Communist Group (UK), support for Ukraine is un-anarchist. So is support for any national liberation struggle. Yet, to their dismay, many revolutionary anarchists do stand in solidarity with the Ukrainian people—despite their government, their capitalist class, and the support (for its reasons) by U.S. imperialism. This is true of many British anarchists as well as Ukrainian and Eastern European anarchists. So many anarchists disagree with them! Also, although Alder does not mention it, many anarchists throughout the history of the movement have supported wars of national self-determination. I have cited Bakunin and Malatesta; there are many other examples.

We who believe in freedom do not reject both sides when a powerful imperialist army tries to crush a smaller, weaker, and poorer country. We are not neutral when an imperialist dictatorship is seeking to destroy a people’s independence, culture, and national freedom. We do not look for excuses to stand off from supporting the attacked people. Neither do we drop our principled program of revolutionary opposition to all states and all capitalists. We do not support the Ukrainian state and its ruling class. We do solidarize with the workers, farmers, and others of the mass of Ukrainian people who are bravely resisting their re-colonization by the imperial Russian state. This is a part (not the whole) of the struggle for freedom, which is what anarchism is all about.

Will a victory by Ukraine, with its current state and imperialist alliances, open up the possibility of more freedom and democracy—leading to a greater possibility of an anarchist-socialist revolution? This cannot be said for sure. I do not have a crystal ball. But the defeat of the Ukrainian people by the authoritarian Russian empire of Putin will probably make our goals even harder to reach. In either case, it is the right thing to do to stand on the side of greater freedom.

*written for Anarkismo.net
Διεθνή / Αναρχικό κίνημα / Γνώμη / Ανάλυση Friday February 17, 2023 16:18 byMatt Crossin

Οι αναρχικοί θα πρέπει να έχουν κατά νου τα λόγια του Peter Kropotkin γι’ αυτό το θέμα και την προειδοποίησή του προς τους εργάτες που αρνούνται να εγκαταλείψουν τέτοιες τακτικές για επαναστατικό αγώνα:
«Δούλεψε για εμάς, καημένο πλάσμα που πιστεύεις ότι μπορείς να βελτιώσεις την τύχη σου με συνεταιρισμούς χωρίς να τολμήσεις να αγγίξεις ταυτόχρονα την περιουσία, τη φορολογία και το κράτος! – Κράτα τους και μείνε σκλάβος τους!» (Π. Κροπότκιν, «Σύγχρονη επιστήη και αναρχισμός», 1914).

Αναρχικοί και δυαδική εξουσία: Κατάσταση ή στρατηγική;

Matt Crossin*

Έχει συμβεί μια περίεργη εξέλιξη που οδήγησε στο να συσχετίζεται όλο και περισσότερο η αναρχική θεωρία με μια τακτική που αναφέρεται ως «οικοδόμηση Δυαδικής Εξουσίας». Οι υποστηρικτές αυτής της τακτικής πιστεύουν ότι οι αναρχικοί –καθώς αντιτίθενται στα αφεντικά και τις κυβερνήσεις– θα πρέπει, ως πρωταρχική τους στρατηγική, να δημιουργήσουν παράλληλους, αυτοδιαχειριζόμενους θεσμούς, όπως εργατικούς συνεταιρισμούς, κοινοτικές συνελεύσεις, ομάδες αλληλοβοήθειας κ.λπ. Το επιχείρημα αυτό λέει ότι καθώς αυτές οι οργανώσεις πολλαπλασιάζονται, θα αποτελούν μια μορφή λαϊκής εξουσίας που όχι μόνο παρέχει ένα ελκυστικό όραμα ενός άλλου κόσμου, αλλά αφήνει τους καπιταλιστές χωρίς εργάτες και το κράτος άσχετο.

Αν και η χρήση του όρου «δυαδική εξουσία», αναφερόμενη σε τέτοιου ειδους τακτικές εμφανίζεται σποραδικά στη δεκαετία του 1990 (στο υλικό της ομάδας «Love and Rage», για παράδειγμα), δεν είναι σαφές πώς ακριβώς η συσχέτιση αυτή έγινε τόσο ευρέως δημοφιλής τα τελευταία χρόνια. Αυτό που είναι ξεκάθαρο είναι ότι αυτή η αντίληψη περί Δυαδικής Εξουσίας δεν έχει τίποτα κοινό με την αρχική χρήση, που επινοήθηκε από τον Λένιν, ως μέσο περιγραφής μιας συνθήκης επαναστατικής πιθανότητας.

Η δυαδική εξουσία δεν ήταν μια στρατηγική για την επίτευξη τέτοιων περιστάσεων (πόσο μάλλον ο σοσιαλισμός). Περιέγραφε μια πραγματικά υπάρχουσα κατάσταση όπου τα όργανα της εργατικής εξουσίας (σοβιέτ, εργοστασιακές επιτροπές, πολιτοφυλακές), που σχηματίστηκαν μέσω της ταξικής πάλης, μπορούσαν να συλλέξουν πόρους και λαϊκή νομιμότητα ώστε να είναι ικανά να συναγωνιστούν και να ξεπεράσουν ευνοϊκά αυτά του κράτους. Αυτές οι συνθήκες έφεραν τους εργάτες σε θέση να απαλλοτριώσουν την καπιταλιστική τάξη και να ανατρέψουν το Κράτος. Αργότερα, στην Ισπανική Επανάσταση, παρόμοιες επιτροπές και συλλογικότητες, με τη ίδια επαναστατική δυναμική, εμφανίστηκαν εν μέσω της αντιφασιστικής εξέγερσης και μετά κάθισαν άβολα δίπλα σε μια σταδιακά ανασυσταθείσα ρεπουμπλικανική κυβέρνηση. Και στις δύο περιπτώσεις συνυπήρχαν δύο αντίπαλες διεκδικήσεις για την εξουσία: μία αστική, μία προλεταριακή. Σε καμία περίπτωση η δυαδική εξουσία δεν αναφέρεται στην εφαρμογή μιας στρατηγικής. Σίγουρα δεν βασίζεται στην έναρξη της λειτουργίας συνεργατικών χώρων εργασίας, κοινοτικών κήπων ή ομάδων «αμοιβαίας βοήθειας», όπως η Food Not Bombs – ανεξάρτητα από τα πλεονεκτήματα αυτών των αντίστοιχων έργων.

Η πραγματική δυαδική εξουσία είναι εγγενώς ασταθής, δεδομένου ότι δεν αντιπροσωπεύει μια ενεργό απειλή για την εξουσία των κυβερνήσεων και των καπιταλιστών. Τόσο στη ρωσική όσο και στην ισπανική περίπτωση, οι συνθήκες της δυαδικής εξουσίας έληξαν με αναπόφευκτες αντιπαραθέσεις. Στη Ρωσία η προσωρινή κυβέρνηση ανατράπηκε προς όφελος μιας ολοένα και πιο αυταρχικής κυβέρνησης των Μπολσεβίκων (αρχικά νομιμοποιημένης υπό το σύνθημα «όλη η εξουσία στα σοβιέτ»). Στην Ισπανία, οι επαναστατικές επιτροπές, αφού απέτυχαν να συντρίψουν το Κράτος ανεπανόρθωτα ή να κοινωνικοποιήσουν πλήρως την παραγωγή, υπήχθησαν στο Λαϊκό Μέτωπο και τελικά συντρίφθηκαν από έναν φιλελεύθερο-σταλινικό συνασπισμό εντός της ρεπουμπλικανικής κυβέρνησης που είχαν βοηθήσει να αναβιώσει.

Μακριά από το να αντιπροσωπεύουν την πολιτική του κλασικού μαζικού αναρχισμού (μερικές φορές αναφέρεται ως αναρχισμός της «ταξικής πάλης», οι νέοι υποστηρικτές της Δυαδικής Εξουσίας ως στρατηγικής, στην πραγματικότητα, αναβιώνουν την παλιά «ουτοπική» παράδοση του μη συγκρουσιακού, μη επαναστατικού σοσιαλισμού. Είναι, στην καλύτερη περίπτωση, η πρωτοαναρχική πολιτική του Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, παρά ο αναρχισμός του Errico Malatesta, του Mikhail Bakunin ή των επαναστατικών αναρχικών εργατικών οργανώσεων που αναπτύχθηκαν από την Ομοσπονδιακή πτέρυγα της Διεθνούς Ένωσης Εργατών.

Όπως ακριβώς ο Προυντόν, και σε αντίθεση με την επαναστατική αναρχική πεποίθηση, οι υποστηρικτές της Δυαδικής Εξουσίας υποστηρίζουν ότι μπορούμε να βελτιώσουμε τη θέση μας στον καπιταλισμό και τελικά να επιτύχουμε την αναρχία, συνδυάζοντας όποιους πόρους μπορούμε να συγκεντρώσουμε και διαχειρίζοντάς τους με αυτόνομο, συνεργατικό τρόπο. Στην πράξη, αυτό θα σήμαινε ότι οι καλύτεροι ανάμεσά μας παρέχουν αγαθά και υπηρεσίες σε όσους από εμάς βρίσκονται σε χειρότερη θέση (μια μορφή παροχής υπηρεσιών που συχνά συγχέεται με την έννοια της «αλληλοβοήθειας») (1) και συνεταιριστικές επιχειρήσεις που ανταγωνίζονται τις παραδοσιακές επιχειρήσεις στο αγορά.

Ιστορικά, αυτή η στρατηγική είναι αποτυχημένη, για λόγους που διατυπώθηκαν επαρκώς από αναρχικούς αλλά και μαρξιστές. Ως εργαζόμενοι, δεν έχουμε σχεδόν τίποτα να μοιραστούμε μεταξύ μας. Εν τω μεταξύ, οι καπιταλιστές έχουν τα πάντα. Θα μπορούν πάντα να υπερτερούν του συνεταιριστικού τομέα. Η λογική της αγοράς θα πιέζει πάντα τους εργάτες-ιδιοκτήτες αυτών των συνεταιρισμών –δηλαδή της συνεταιριστικής διαχείρισης ιδιωτικής ιδιοκτησίας με τη μορφή επιχειρήσεων– να επιδεινώσουν τις δικές τους συνθήκες, να μειώσουν τους μισθούς τους, να μειώσουν την ποιότητα των προϊόντων τους, και να αυξήσουν τις τιμές για τους καταναλωτές προκειμένου να επιβιώσουν.

Η επιβίωση, διατηρώντας παράλληλα το πνεύμα του συνεταιριστικού έργου, είναι από μόνη της ένας αγώνας. Το να εκτρέπονται παραδοσιακές καπιταλιστικές επιχειρήσεις από τη λειτουργία τους, να ιδιοποιούνται οι πόροι τους, να τίθεται αυτή η περιουσία υπό ευρύτερο κοινωνικό έλεγχο και να εξαφανίζεται το κράτος στη διαδικασία, είναι μια φαντασίωση.

Οι υποστηρικτές της Δυαδικής Εξουσίας αποφεύγουν να απαντήσουν σε ολόκληρο το ερώτημα για το πώς μοιάζει η νίκη. Ακόμα κι αν η στρατηγική της Δυαδικής Εξουσίας μπορούσε να επιτύχει μια κατάσταση πραγματικής δυαδικής εξουσίας (όπως διατυπώθηκε από τον Λένιν), ο στόχος μας ως αναρχικοί είναι να εξαλείψουμε το κεφάλαιο και το κράτος, όχι να υπάρχουμε «εκτός» ή «παράλληλα» με αυτά ή ως «δεύτερη» εξουσία. Σαφώς, κάποια στιγμή θα χρειαζόταν να απαλλοτριώσουμε το κεφάλαιο και αυτό φυσικά θα προκαλούσε την απάντηση του Κράτους, το οποίο εξαρτάται και αναπαράγει την ταξική κοινωνία.

Ωστόσο, η αντιεξουσία –η εξουσία μέσα στις παραδοσιακές καπιταλιστικές επιχειρήσεις, ενάντια στα αφεντικά και την κυβέρνηση, ικανή να αναλάβει τον έλεγχο της οικονομικής ζωής της κοινωνίας, να την θέσει στην υπηρεσία της ανθρώπινης ανάγκης και να υπερασπιστεί δυναμικά αυτόν τον μετασχηματισμό των κοινωνικών σχέσεων– σπάνια λαμβάνεται υπόψη από οι υποστηρικτές της Δυαδικής Εξουσίας Εδώ υπάρχει επίσης μια θεμελιώδης αδυναμία στο όραμα της Δυαδικής Εξουσίας για τη μεταρρύθμιση, καθώς η δομική μας θέση μέσα στις καπιταλιστικές επιχειρήσεις (που απαιτούν την εργασία μας) είναι αυτή που μας επιτρέπει να ασκούμε μόχλευση leverage στα αφεντικά και τις κυβερνήσεις που τους υπηρετούν.

Οι αναρχικοί θα πρέπει να έχουν κατά νου τα λόγια του Peter Kropotkin γι’ αυτό το θέμα και την προειδοποίησή του προς τους εργάτες που αρνούνται να εγκαταλείψουν τέτοιες τακτικές για επαναστατικό αγώνα:
«Δούλεψε για εμάς, καημένο πλάσμα που πιστεύεις ότι μπορείς να βελτιώσεις την τύχη σου με συνεταιρισμούς χωρίς να τολμήσεις να αγγίξεις ταυτόχρονα την περιουσία, τη φορολογία και το κράτος! – Κράτα τους και μείνε σκλάβος τους!» (Π. Κροπότκιν, «Σύγχρονη επιστήη και αναρχισμός», 1914). (2)

ΠΑΡΑΠΟΜΠΕΣ

1) Για μια κριτική αυτού που συχνά εκλαμβάνεται εσφαλμένα ως «αλληλοβοήθεια«, ανατρέξτε στο άρθρο «Socialism is not charity: why we’re against “mutual aid”» («Ο σοσιαλισμός δεν είναι φιλανθρωπία: γιατί είμαστε ενάντια στην “αλληλοβοήθεια”») που δημοσιεύτηκε από την ομάδα Black Flag Sydney στο περιοδικό τους «Mutiny» (διαθέσιμο στη διεύθυνση: https: //blackflagsydney.com/article/21). Για μια άλλη εξέταση του τρόπου με τον οποίο η αλληλοβοήθεια σχετίζεται με τον επαναστατικό αναρχισμό του Κροπότκιν, βλέπε το άρθρο του Gus Breslauer «Mutual Aid: A Factor of Liberalism’ in Regeneration» («Αλληλοβοήθεια: Ένας παράγοντας φιλελευθερισμού» στην «Regeneration» διαθέσιμο στη διεύθυνση: https://regenerationmag.org/mutual-aid-a-factor-of-liberalism/)

2) Αυτό το απόσπασμα περιέχει προσθήκες που έγιναν στο πρωτότυπο του 1913 σε μια έκδοση του 1914 που κυκλοφόρησε η «Freedom». Παραθέτω από την οριστική έκδοση του 2018 που επιμελήθηκε ο Iain McKay και κυκλοφόρησε από την AK Press, αλλά χρησιμοποίησα το εκτεταμένο κείμενο (που περιλαμβάνεται από τον McKay σε μια υποσημείωση) για να αντικατοπτρίζει τη μεγαλύτερη έκδοση του 1914. Διαθέσιμο εδώ: https://usa.anarchistlibraries.net/library/petr-kropotkin-modern-science-and-anarchy

Επίσης:
Matt Crossin, ’Anarchists and Neo-anarchists: Horizontalism and Autonomous Spaces’

*Το κείμενο δημοσιεύθηκε στις 18 Ιουλίου 2022 εδώ: https://www.redblacknotes.com/2022/07/18/anarchists-and-dual-power-situation-or-strategy/?fbclid=IwAR0I5JuS-koDSFBPoL6g4bW3YgvPAYIiZcdIIoQxP9Iy6X7Dts...L-dSw

**Μετάφραση: Ούτε Θεός Ούτε Αφέντης.

bolivia / peru / ecuador / chile / miscellaneous / opinión / análisis Sunday February 05, 2023 18:05 byCoordenación Anarquista Latinoamericana

En Perú se ha consumado una situación política bastante extraña: el presidente disuelve el Parlamento y el Parlamento a su vez, desplaza al presidente y coloca en su lugar a la vicepresidenta. Esta situación que a simple vista puede parecer una disputa o puja de poderes dentro del marco liberal burgués, pero tiene raíces más profundas y que hoy vemos consolidarse en un Golpe de Estado.

La llegada de Pedro Castillo al gobierno se dio en elecciones con un margen muy ajustado. Su contrincante, Keiko Fujimori denunció fraude, el cual no pudo ser comprobado. En los 15 meses que duró el mandato de Castillo, éste no pudo gobernar, ya que fueron constantes los ataques del sector fujimorista desde el Parlamento, haciendo renunciar a todos sus gabinetes de ministros y con las cotidianas denuncias y juicios por corrupción a Castillo y su familia

La derecha peruana ha agudizado esta situación de inestabilidad política. En años anteriores también cayeron otros gobiernos, como el de Kuczynski en 2016 y Martín Vizcarra en 2020. El sector fujimorista tiene fuerte peso a nivel parlamentario. Por otra parte, Castillo ha perdido los apoyos incluso de su partido, Perú Libre. Y el hacer caer gobiernos que no son propios, es parte de la estrategia del fujimorismo para controlar el poder político en el país. Lo que no logra en las urnas, lo logra por otras vías. Toda una estrategia ya conocida utilizada en varios países de la región en la última década.

Si algo enseña la situación del Perú, es que el poder no está en el gobierno ni en las instituciones electas con el “sufragio universal”. El poder político reside en otros lugares del Estado, pero también de las esferas económica e ideológica. Los grandes grupos económicos del Perú asociados a la derecha fujimorista pretenden controlar incluso el gobierno, no se contentan con ser el “poder real”. El discurso “anticomunista” en Perú es muy fuerte, se pudo apreciar en la campaña pasada, cuando Castillo era presentado como como “comunista” o “terrorista” por el sector fujimorista. Estos adjetivos no son antojadizos, vienen de una larga campaña iniciada por Alan García en los años ’80 y bajo la feroz dictadura de Fujimori en los ’90, donde se aplicó una política de “guerra sucia” y genocidio de la población vinculada a las experiencias guerrilleras y la utilización del mote de “terruco” para cualquier persona de izquierda. Tenemos aún en nuestra retina los cadáveres de Néstor Cerpa Cartolini y otros miembros del Movimiento Revolucionario Túpac Amaru en 1997, luego del asalto a la embajada de Japón hecho a sangre y fuego por el ejército asesino de Fujimori padre, por mencionar un ejemplo de esa política genocida.

Como vemos, el fujimorismo no está muerto. Es parte del sistema político peruano, construye discurso y logra adhesión. Corrupción endémica a altos niveles (por lo menos desde la época de Fujimori y los “vladivideos” hasta el escándalo de Odebrecht que salpicó todo el continente). Pero el problema no es la corrupción, ello es un derivado de la estructura de poder y social del Perú. Una sociedad con una gran concentración de riqueza y poder, donde los sectores indígenas y mestizos son subordinados, continuando con una estructura social proveniente de la época colonial y profundamente racista, entre otros graves problemas que enfrenta el pueblo peruano; allí deben buscarse la raíz de los problemas políticos en el Perú y las causas del levantamiento popular y que varias regiones se hayan declarado en “insurgencia”. No es solo por el retorno de Castillo o que se realicen nuevas elecciones, son las necesidades más sentidas del pueblo peruano que llevan siglos sin ser contempladas.

Hoy esas necesidades, esos reclamos cobran vida en la exigencia de una asamblea constituyente que elabora una nueva Constitución que suplante la de 1993, la fujimorista. El problema de fondo sigue siendo el poder real y eso es lo que comienza a asomarse con este levantamiento popular en el Perú. La derecha sigue controlando el Poder Político en el país o el pueblo construye su propia fuerza, su Poder Popular que dispute en la vida cotidiana el control de la economía, de la salud, de la vivienda, del reparto de tierras, de los recursos, es decir de la vida social. No hay otra opción: los de arriba o los de abajo. Poder de la burguesía y del Estado o poder del pueblo. La solución no pasa por las instituciones burguesas ni radica allí.

Al momento de escribir estas líneas son más de medio centenar los compañeros del pueblo hermano del Perú, fallecidos por la represión policial. El país ha sido militarizado. Seguramente vendrán días y meses de lucha más ardua, con más pueblo en la calle y en las rutas. El pueblo peruano tiene una inmensa tradición de pelea y resistencia, lejos está de terminar esta situación de conflicto. Los de arriba se pensaron que el pueblo se iba a quedar en sus casas, pero el pueblo dijo presente. Está en la calle, en estado de insurgencia.

Como Anarquistas apoyamos la lucha popular peruana contra toda dictadura y por la forja de un destino propio para las clases populares del Perú. Hoy están presentes Túpac Amaru, Micaela Bastidas, Néstor Cerpa y todos los y las combatientes de ese dignísimo pueblo hermano.

¡POR LA CONSTRUCCIÓN DE PODER POPULAR!

¡VIVA EL LEVANTAMIENTO POPULAR EN PERÚ!

¡ARRIBA LOS Y LAS QUE LUCHAN!


COORDINACIÓN ANARQUISTA LATINOAMERICANA (CALA)

Federación Anarquista Uruguaya (FAU)

Coordinación Anarquista Brasilera (CAB)

Federación Anarquista de Rosario

Organizaciones hermanas:

Organización Anarquista de Tucumán

Organización Anarquista de Córdoba

Organización Anarquista de Santa Cruz

The union movement must be rebuilt and as soon as possible. It will only be harder the more the movement declines. Rebuilding can only be done through a rank and file insurgency. There may be times and places where it is appropriate to organise new unions (for example in entirely unorganised parts of the workforce, or where the existing union is wholly on the side of the bosses and cannot be recaptured by its members). Most workers, though, will not break with the officials until they are already mobilised and a practical decision is in front of them, so the insurgency must operate largely within existing unions.

Australia: State of the union movement

We are witnessing the slow extinction of Australia’s trade union movement. In 1976, 2.5 million Australian workers (some 51.6% of the workforce) were members of a trade union. As of August this year, trade union density in Australia has fallen to 12.5% (1.4 million people). The Australian trade union movement is older than ever before, only 2% of employed 15-19 year olds and 5% of 20-24 year olds are members of a union (ABS 2022).

The decline in union membership is mirrored by a decline in industrial action. In the December quarter of 1991, 589,000 Australian workers spent at least a day on strike. The latest quarterly figures for this year record 28,000 workers involved in industrial action. As bad as this seems, it still represents a relative uptick since the COVID lockdowns.

Trade unions are built in struggle. Unions are built and grow when workers strike and win. In Australia, successive Labor and Liberal governments have built one of the most restrictive legal frameworks for industrial action in the developed world. It is exceptionally difficult to go on strike in Australia, and without the support of the union bureaucracy, almost impossible.

The union bureaucracy has strong incentives to avoid strikes, and especially to avoid the kinds that would be necessary to break out of the legal straightjacket of the Fair Work Act. Australia’s legal framework, and the loyalty of the union officials to the ALP, create a relatively privileged position for the formal union leadership. For unions that step out of line, there are substantial fines, and the threat of deregistration. The threat of deregistration is significant, since unions depend on the few legal privileges that registration brings in order to maintain what membership they have.

The trade union bureaucracy has shown that it cannot break from its legal and political straight jacket (one partly of its own making). There are relative strongholds in education and healthcare (where the fear of legal liability compels workers to join their union) but the unions, as currently organised, are doomed. The officials cannot defend the institution over which they preside.

However, the death of the union movement would not be a good thing. Despite the inadequacies of formal Australian trade unions, the 1.5 million members of Australian unions are still the most organised segment of the Australian working class. The loss of union organisation will only lead to further losses in wages, conditions, and the relative strength of the class.

The union movement must be rebuilt and as soon as possible. It will only be harder the more the movement declines. Rebuilding can only be done through a rank and file insurgency. There may be times and places where it is appropriate to organise new unions (for example in entirely unorganised parts of the workforce, or where the existing union is wholly on the side of the bosses and cannot be recaptured by its members). Most workers, though, will not break with the officials until they are already mobilised and a practical decision is in front of them, so the insurgency must operate largely within existing unions.

Though the Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group advocates a rank and file movement within the existing unions, it mustn't be bound to the current legal structures. It needs to operate independently of the union bureaucracy in order to build the strength that is needed to break with the legal and political limits of Australia’s industrial relations system. And it is only by breaching those limits that the union movement can survive.

IF YOU DON'T FIGHT, YOU LOSE

*This article is from “The Anvil”, newsletter of the Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group (MACG), Vol. 11/ No 6, November-December 2020.

https://melbacg.wordpress.com/

Photo Credit: Wall Street Journal

This page has not been translated into 한국어 yet.

This page can be viewed in
English Italiano Català Ελληνικά Deutsch




Warning: in_array() expects parameter 2 to be array, null given in /var/www/html/objects/indyruntime/sitefiltereddisplay.inc on line 208

Opinion / Analysis

Thu 28 Mar, 21:15

browse text browse image

image.png imageCarta de Opinión Marzo 2024 Mar 09 00:40 by Federación Anarquista Santiago 1 comments

carta_de_opinin_general.png imageCarta de Opinión Enero 2024 Jan 29 23:40 by Federación Anarquista Santiago 1 comments

coops.jpeg imageΚοοπερατίβες ή τ^... Oct 12 06:55 by Tommy Lawson 1 comments

377428561_843860310647981_2410053042863431509_n_1.jpg imageComunicado Público a 50 años del Golpe Cívico-Militar Sep 12 05:10 by Asamblea Anarquista de Valparaíso y Federación Anarquista de Santiago 2 comments

images.jpg imageA Talk on the Ukrainian-Russian War Aug 31 03:36 by Wayne Price 7 comments

mihail_gerdzhikov.jpg imageΗ Κομμούνα της Στ ... Aug 28 20:23 by Γιάβορ Ταρίνσκι 0 comments

tucuman.jpg imageΑργεντινή: Το κλε ... Aug 23 21:22 by Organización Anarquista de Tucumán 2 comments

elisee_reclus.jpg imageΕ. Ρεκλύ: Ένας πρωτ&... Aug 20 21:58 by Αυτολεξεί 2 comments

i5af_baby_logo.jpg imageIn Support of “Turning the Tide” Aug 02 03:38 by I-5AF 4 comments

hac_1_copy.jpg imageSeize the Hospitals! ...But How? Aug 01 14:09 by BRRN Labor Committee 3 comments

361909747_668974455270194_7612568894314076845_n.jpg imageCarta de Opinión Julio 2023 - FAS Aug 01 02:25 by FAS 3 comments

health_spain.jpg imageΥγειονομική φρον... Jul 22 20:14 by Αργύρης Αργυριάδης 0 comments

textTensiones y desafíos actuales en torno a las construcciones populares autónomas Jul 21 08:45 by Diego Naim Saiegh 0 comments

tambov.jpg imageTambov ενάντια στον μπ ... Jul 08 19:04 by Dmitri (edit.) 1 comments

1980.jpg imageΑπόπειρες αναρχι... Jul 03 12:58 by Αναρχικοί Αγ.Αναργύρων – Καματερού 1 comments

For a wild Pride! imageReflections on Identity Politics and Revolutionary Organizing Jun 28 19:29 by Ara Avasin 3 comments

cliffordharper512x640.png imageΗ ανάγκη για restart May 29 18:36 by Ευριπίδης Καλτσάς 2 comments

eklogiki.jpg imageΗ εκλογική συγκυ`... May 27 20:20 by Αργύρης Αργυριάδης 1 comments

94995495595994794996322725x640.png imageΔεξιά στροφή στη_... May 22 20:09 by Δήμος Βοσινάκης 2 comments

1_de_mayo_2023.jpeg imagePerspectivas sobre las luchas obreras actuales en Colombia May 03 08:38 by ViaLibre 25 comments

cala_1_de_mayo.jpg imageDECLARACIÓN PRIMERO DE MAYO May 03 08:34 by Coordinación Anarquista Latinoamericana CALA 1 comments

i5af_baby_logo.jpg imageEl movimiento Apr 25 02:18 by I-5AF 18 comments

edgard_leuenroth.jpg imageΟ Edgard Leuenroth και η απεργί^... Apr 13 21:34 by Dmitri (trans.) 1 comments

1170x255.jpg imageΠροβοκατορολογί... Mar 30 17:22 by Μ. 2 comments

textSky Anarchy Mar 24 13:59 by Jacob Hutchison 2 comments

capitalism.jpg imageCapitalism Is the Disaster Mar 23 06:26 by Pink Panther 4 comments

1517671_1199237206768129_7348846615584991693_n.jpg imageThoughts on Revolution Mar 22 04:45 by Wayne Price 11 comments

pottier1.jpg imageΟ σοσιαλιστής πο_... Mar 20 16:41 by Π. Αργυριάδη
ς 0 comments

download.jpg imageMalatesta για τoν Πόλεμο κ^... Mar 15 18:53 by Wayne Price 0 comments

quico_sabate.jpg imageΣαμπατέ: Aντίστασ ... Mar 13 19:28 by Αργύρης Αργυριάδης 0 comments

more >>
© 2005-2024 Anarkismo.net. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Anarkismo.net. [ Disclaimer | Privacy ]