PERSONAL:

WHAT I LIKE ABOUT THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT PART 4:

As the various Occupy camps fall one after another (a proof of the need for organization ?) to the various authorities it is perhaps about time to reflect on why these protests have gathered the sort of support that "the left" has failed to gather for decades. There are a lot of reasons, and I hope to comment on them in the future. For now, however, let's examine one of the key factors behind the success of the protests.

One of the key reasons behind the success of Occupy is that they have chosen a path of non-violence. This doesn't mean that they are automatically morally superior. It does, however, mean that they are rational enough to chose the most effective tactics. This really comes under the heading of good advice such as, "don't fart loudly in Church". In other words there is a time and place for everything. It should be obvious, but for some it is not.

I only feel this is noteworthy because I have seen otherwise sensible people disparage the Occupy movement because (rhetoric coming now) "it can't defend itself, as evidenced by the police crackdowns". Such a statement ignores two things. One is the obvious structure of reality that some seem to have been detached from particularly in North America. The simple FACT is that the so-called "self defense" tactics as advocated by that defend the actions of something like the Black Block have failed every single time over and over and over. Not once, not twice, not even 50 times but 100% of the time every time they are tried. At its worst the police let the BB vandalize things for a short period of time for the necessary propaganda value. Then the BB disappears and lets their allies take the heat. At its "best" the BB always loses for at the end of the spectacle the police still control the streets. Proving that you're crazy and you want to lose endless fights is not "self-defense". Some have defined this sort of behavior as a characteristic of insanity.

This disparagement of the Occupy movement is written from an emotional viewpoint, and the best that I can do is advise holders of such opinions to go outside their social circles and see with their own eyes how the vast majority looks on those who appear to be innocent victims of police violence as opposed to gangs fighting the cops and always losing. To their credit the majority of people involved in Occupy recognize that they are doing politics and not psychotherapy. Some may be under delusions about how nasty the police can be. Others may have "moral arguments" for their non-violence, but I really think that at least a large minority and possibly a majority recognize that the picture of police attacking non-violent people is "the shortest way to the goal of gathering public sympathy".

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS:

DEMOCRACY VERSUS THE BANKERS:

The following item on the international finamcial crisis is from the Anarkismo website.

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Europe & the Bankers
The limits of democracy in Project Europe

When the Arab peoples began to agitate at the start of the year, European countries quickly began to distance themselves from the dictators they had been nursing for some time, in order to seize the flags of change that the people were demanding in the streets. By doing theis, they sought to calm the clamour for social and economic demands and substitute them with cosmetic democratic reforms, as if the struggles of these peoples had not been about the right to bread but the right for access to the polls. There were some who accused the Europeans and their big brothers in Washington of hypocrisy: while the were "horrified" at the repression in Syria, they supported it openly in Bahrain and Yemen; while they waved the bugbear of radical Islamism in Yemen, they openly supported a regime of jihadists that was seeking to impose sharia law in Libya; while they were demanding the resignation of Assad, they closed one eye to the medieval monarchies of the Emirates, Jordan, Morocco and Saudi Arabia. It is absolutely no surprise, since the imperialists (and the USA and EU are imperialists in the classical sense of the term) never act unless it is for a goal that fits in with their own material and geopolitical interests. Hypocrites they may be, but their hypocrisy is fairly predictable.

Others also denounce hypocrisy on the part of the Europeans when they talk about "democracy", seizing this concept too and deforming it at will, when what they were doing was carefully channelling the process of change in the Arab countries in a typically Leopard-esque way ("change everything in order to change nothing"), so that there would be no more open dictatorships but monitored "democracies", with the army as the final custodian of the imperial interests. After all, the only freedom they know how to defend is the freedom of the market [1].

But there were also others again who corrected us saying that the European countries were not hypocrites, but merely contradictory: i.e., that it wasn't that they were not "democratic" in themselves, it was that they had one policy at home and another abroad. Foreign policy was naturally determined by their venal interests, whereas domestic policy was supposedly based on well-rooted democratic values.

It just needed the entrance onto the scene through the Puerta del Sol of the "indignados" in all their glory and majesty for this myth of a democratic Europe to explode. Western democracy, as some call it, works as long as no-one protests. As Chomsky has so dramatically demonstrated, in advanced capitalist societies the real mechanism of control is not so much the police baton as the creation of forced consensus by means of a stifling form of propaganda. Once the people decide to move outside the tight limits on democratic liberties by this small elite that governs, European democracy shows its teeth and imprisons, beats (no-one dares say torture, but it is also this) and even kills. It happened in Genoa ten years ago and it has happened several times in Greece, but the memories of European citizens are fragile things...
The Bankers Coup in Greece
Last week we witnessed a real coup d'état in Greece. When the "social democrat" George Papandreou took the crazy initiative of calling a referendum to decide whether Greece would continue to remain as part of the Euro zone, he was immediately pressurized into quitting. The pressure, naturally, did not come from the Greek people but from the mandarins of the European Union. Why is the EU against a referendum? What can be more democratic than a referendum, where the people get to have a direct say on policies that directly concern both them and the next three generations at least?

The EU's opinion on referendums is all too well known to anyone living in Ireland, where people twice voted against European Treaties (Nice in 2002 and Lisbon in 2008) and on each occasion were forced by Brussels to vote again after being threatened (and not in too roundabout terms) with all sorts of dire consequences ranging from expulsion from the EU to expulsion from the Eurovision Song Contest.

In Greece, they knew that they would have lost the referendum and so it was aborted in the most anti-democratic of ways, showing how they can force an entire people into remaining part of a commercial zone that is bleeding them to death with illegitimate, extortionate debt. They got rid of the social democratic Papandreou and substituted him, without any election, with a certain Lucas Papademos, ex-governor of the Bank of Greece until 2002, then vice-president of the European Central Bank and finally economic adviser to Papandreou. This is the man who was responsible for the transition from the drachma to the euro, who had a leading role in the irresponsible loans to Greek banks and, lastly, who personally promoted the failed economic policies of a government that brought an entire country to ruins. In other words, we are talking about the persons who alone is more responsible than any other for the mess that the Greeks find themselves in today. But the bankers have spoken: they will not accept any hint of "populism" (the word that is used when "democracy" gets results that Capital does not want) and the hard times that are in it demand a strong hand both to control finances and to control the streets, a stong hand for the poor, but a generous hand for the poor speculators... the bankers in power!
Technocrats and liars in power
In the meantime, the Italians have a good many reasons to celebrate the downfall of the pathetic, decadent Berlusconi, who transformed his premiership into nothing short of a reality show, with a little extra spice from sexy showgirls, sex with underage girls and "bunga bunga" parties, all serving to cloak his links with the mafia and the rampant corruption throughout the country. But they have less reason to celebrate their new premier, Mario Monti. His history is similar to Papademos': he was a European Commissioner, an adviser both to Goldman Sachs, speculators extraordinaire, and to the infamous multinational Coca Cola, and he is close to the current president of the ECB, Mario Draghi. We can only guess whose interests he will be serving, albeit perhaps more efficiently than the corrupt clown who has just left office.

In Ireland too the government fell at the end of last year, and in the improvised elections that were held in February, an apparently schizophrenic coalition was elected: Labour (who in Ireland are to the right of Tony Blair) and Fine Gael, a firmly right-wing nationalist party who once even flirted with Nazism, even to the extent of sending men to fight for Franco. They reached office by promising all the usual lovely things that are promised during election campaigns. They promised that they would review the outgoing government's accords with the ECB and renegotiate the rescue plan; they also swore they would not shift the load of the debt onto the shoulders of the poorer parts of society. And in fact, they also lied, as is usual during election campaigns. Not only have they worsened the terms of the rescue package agreed by the previous corrupt government, they have announced further cuts in the next Budget which will hit the poor, social spending and the workers, while the bankers who created the mess continue to receive their millionaire bonuses because - according to Labour - those bonuses were agreed before the crisis started!

These governments will guarantee that this illegitimate debt will continue to be paid, that they will get every last cent out of us before these countries declare themselves bankrupt. There is no other logic to these Structural Adjustment Programmes and cuts in social spending that are strangling internal markets and de-stimulating spending. It's a case of getting everything you can now before the house burns down.
Governments are falling... but where's the alternative?
The tragedy in Europe is that governments are falling but there is no way out of the crisis being indicated by the mobilized people, partly because the popular movement itself is in crisis after decades of social pacts, immobilism and pacification and due to a quite thorough ideological penetration of the bankers' fallacies in every layer of society. There are the struggles in Greece, but so far they haven't proved enough. There are the "indignados" in Spain, but the working class there has only just started to wake up. In Italy and Ireland, protests are practically nonexistent. In Ireland, any mass mobilization is limited to the weekends (so as not to "damage" the economy), and as far away as possible from government buildings, where bankers are reminded of their social responsibility. As soon as the mass mobilizations that challenge the regime begin, what will happen in this (social) democratic Europe, so proud of its civil liberties? We've already had some idea with the experience of the Basques and Northern Ireland, which demonstrate that when democracy doesn't work, they resort to a state of emergency, something which is as much a part of capitalist democracy as the illusion of elections. Don't forget that in March 2009, at the time of what proved to be a flop of a general strike in Ireland, Michael O'Leary, CEO of Ryanair, asked the government to militarize the country's airports in order to prevent any union action.

There has not been even the slightest hint of a revolution in Greece and already they've carried out a coup d'état - not a military one, true enough, but a coup nonetheless with a force that is greater than that of arms: the force of the euro. This should be proof enough for all those who still believe in the mantra of liberal values rooted in European society that these things can happen here, too. In the final analysis, capitalism is based on brute force and its exercises in democracy are merely formal, cosmetic. The "indignados" in their camps around Europe are right to demand real democracy, when everyone can see that the decisions that concern all of us are taken in Brussels and by the ECB.

We should of course never forget that there can be no democracy in politics unless there is democracy in economics. As long as the economy (i.e., the organization of the means to guarantee the people's subsistence) is in the hands of a minority, it will be at the service of a minority. And this minority will have power over the others, without having to worry whether it governs by means of referendums or technocrats. This is the basic limit of democracy, sacrosanct private property and this should be the first element that any truly alternative project must challenge if it is to overcome the crisis.

José Antonio Gutiérrez D.

15 November 2011

Article written for Anarkismo.net. Translated by FdCA-International relations office.


[1] On monitored democracies that are being set up under the patronage of the EU and the USA in countries which have deposed their dictators, see the articles I wrote some months ago: http://www.anarkismo.net/article/19017 and http://www.anarkismo.net/article/19142

INTERNATIONAL ANARCHIST MOVEMENT:

LIBERTARIAN SOLIDARITY WITH THE STRUGGLE IN EQYPT:

The following is a document sign by a number of libertarian socialist organizations reiterating their support for the People's Struggle in Egypt. The following is from the Anarkismo website.

====================================
International Libertarian Statement of Solidarity with the Egyptian popular Struggle

On the weekend 19-20th a new wave of mass protest all over Egypt broke out because of the systematic violence of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) against the Egyptian masses. People are tired of its dictatorial behaviour, the use of extreme force against protesters, the military trials that in 10 months have ended up with 12,000 comrades rotting in jail, their censorship, the torture, kidnappings and selective murder of activists. People are tired of the military council hijacking the banners of our revolution to continue the same old dictatorship through other means. People are tired of the sectarianism they promote to divert us from our real fight for justice, equality and freedom.

Imperialism has dictated an "orderly transition" to democracy in Egypt. The military have shown themselves obedient in implementing this design. The people in Egypt demand an end to dictatorship and the uprooting of all the remnants of the hated Mubarak regime. People in Egypt want to feel, at last, that they have a country run by themselves for themselves.

The anarchists in Egypt, and the international solidarity movement with the libertarian revolutionaries, wholeheartedly support the just struggle of the Egyptian people to continue their revolution and deplore the massacre of protesters that shows that the SCAF is no different to Mubarak.

Unlike other sectors that hold illusions about bourgeois democracy, we believe that democracy and the State are irreconcilable. Real democracy was put into practice by the Egyptian people when they formed their popular committees and ran their own communities, their own towns, their own affairs from the bottom up. We call to strengthen these popular committees, we call to decentralise the country, to make every single political position recallable by the committees if they fail the popular mandate.

We also believe that the yearning for democracy is incompatible with the capitalist system, based on the elite control of the economy and the means of life, which condemn 25,000 human beings each day in the world to die of hunger. Real democracy is only possible when all of society democratically runs the economy and the industry of a nation. This requires collective ownership of land and companies and self-management by the workers and peasants themselves. If the few control the wealth of the world, the few will keep having power over the majority. The free market is a more subtle form of dictatorship.

Therefore, we call for the trade unions and the workers to take a leading role in the current struggle, to occupy their workplaces, to turn them into workers' cooperatives and to prepare for the full self-management of the Egyptian economy.

The crisis of Egypt will not be solved with half-hearted solutions. We need the commitment of the youth, of the women, of the working class in order to uproot the sources of tyranny and violence in our country - the capitalist system and the State. Let us all unite under the banner of the struggle against military rule, but let us defend a revolutionary, libertarian option for the Egyptian masses.

25 November 2011


Libertarian Socialist Movement (Egypt)
Federazione dei Comunisti Anarchici (Italy)
Organisation Socialiste Libertaire (Switzerland)
Workers Solidarity Movement (Ireland)
Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front (South Africa)
Workers Solidarity Alliance (USA)
Confederación Sindical Solidaridad Obrera (Spain)
Grupo Libertario Vía Libre (Colombia)
Centro de Investigación Libertaria y Educación Popular (Colombia)
Instituto de Ciencias Económicas y de la Autogestión (Spain)
Federación Comunista Libertaria (Chile)
Revista Política y Sociedad (Chile)
Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group (Australia
Common Struggle - Libertarian Communist Federation (USA)
Unión Socialista Libertaria (Peru)




Related Link: http://www.anarkismo.net

LITERATURE:

SO THEY NEVER DID LIVE HAPPILY EVER AFTER:

I have recently finished 'The Collected Fairy Tales Of Hans Christian Anderson, and am about 80% through 'The Collected Fairy Tales Of The Brothers Grimm'. Lots of things could be said about these collections. The most obvious one is the bourgeois pietism of Anderson which creates a much"grimmer" picture than the bucolic peasants of the Grimm tales.

One little example, however stands out to me. I am reading direct translations from the Danish and German, and guess what ? The phrase "and they lived happily ever after never appears. I suspect it was a Victorian invention to sanitize death out of the originals. Here's a few examples of how the Grimm tales end:

1)"During the rest of their lives the farmer and his wife were tormented by a guilty conscience and spent their days in poverty and misery. (The Poor Boy In The Grave)

2)"The king drowned, but Hans married his daughter and became the king" (The Griffin)

3)"And the ungrateful son had to feed the toad every day; otherwise it would have eaten away part of his face. Thus the son wandered about the world without a moment of rest" (The Ungrateful Son)

The book purlates with such endings, some grimmer than others. About the closest one gets to the traditional fairy tale ending that we grew up with would be statements like, "...and so they lived happily until they died". I'm not a literary historian by any means, and so I am left to wonder when and why the classic fairy tales were bowdlerized.

TODAY IN HISTORY:

ANNIVERSARY OF 'THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES'

**********

It was today in 1859 that Charles Darwin published 'The Origin Of Species'. It can be argued that this has been the most influential book of the modern age. Today pretty well anybody involved in the sciences is a "Darwinist". This doesn't just apply to the obvious disciples such as biology, anthropology or archeology. Evolutionary thought is now a paradigm in fields as far apart as cosmology, geology and even chemistry.

Those who refuse evolutionary thought are a tiny minority, at least outside of the USA. On the left there are a tiny number of academics who deny that evolution has anything to do with humans. On the right the USA is the only country in the world where large numbers of people oppose the idea of evolution for religious reasons. In a strange twist of "survival of the fittest" America still has to come to terms with its high class university system bleeding India, Russia, China, Japan and Korea for talent while at the same time religious obscurantism helps to keep the public school system in the USA as substandard.

FEMINISM/ CANADIAN LABOUR:

EQUAL PAY LAWSUIT SETTLED IN FAVOUR OF WORKERS- 28 YEARS LATER:

Here's an interesting item from the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) about a lawsuit initiated 28 years ago demanding equal pay for equal work at Canada Post. I heard about this decision while driving about the city for work today. The internet and print reports add little to the initial report. Basically a 28 year lawsuit was recently settled over different wages paid to women as opposed to men decades ago. Well thanks guys ! There is a lot to be said both pro and con about this decision, but let us assume a sympathy for workers' position. All that Molly can ask is whether this matter would have taken 28 years to resolve if the workers in question had applied direct action ways of pressuring the government ie direct action? It's a thought to think. Here's the bare bones from the Cape Breton Post.

OTTAWA (CP) —

The Supreme Court has handed the Public Service Alliance of Canada a victory in a marathon dispute over pay equity with Canada Post.
Topics :
Canada Post , Supreme Court , Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
In a rare ruling from the bench Thursday, the justices unanimously found for the union in a case that began a generation ago.

PSAC claimed in August 1983 that women were being discriminated against under the Canadian Human Rights Act because they made less than men in comparable Canada Post jobs.
After more than a decade of hearings, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled in 2005 that the crown corporation had violated the act and awarded back pay and interest of about $150 million.

But the Federal Court of Appeal set aside the tribunal’s decision, saying the finding of discrimination was not supported.

The justices said reasons for their decision will be available later.

PERSONAL

WHAT I LIKE ABOUT THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT PART 3

As I've mentioned before, both here and on my Facebook page, the very fact that the movement has refused to set up a list of demands to the power elite is a source of strength not weakness. What the Occupy movement is is a widely based challenge to the very power of that elite to direct society. It is not a delegation ,cap in hand, for whatever meagre reforms the elite my offer. The very lack of clarity that the movement is accused of is actually a formidable strength.

A consequence of this refusal to limit the movement's meaning to a shopping list is the amazing fact that the Occupy movement has touched the "Populist Chord" that the traditional left has been unable to play upon for decades. Looking at the participants one sees a broad cross section of society, and the "99%" slogan has caught on with a population not yet ready to camp out themselves. I have noticed a truly remarkable absence of the usual lefty private language and even the fractious "anti-isms" that doom most leftist movement. Those who have taken up this struggle obviously understand the value of unity, and they act accordingly. This has hardly been the case amongst the left of the last few decades, and it is a welcome breath of fresh air.

This lack of particular demands is actually quite unifying. The Occupy movement doesn't just demand a larger slice of the pie for groups a, b, and c. It says there is a whole different and better way to cook pies.

PERSONAL

WHAT I LIKE ABOUT THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT (PART 2):

The first part of this series was published over at my Facebook page a little while ago. Yet a movement such as the 'Occupy' protests deserves far more than one comment. There is little doubt that this has become the most extensive political movement of the last century even if the number of participants says that it is not as intensive as many others. Yet, without plan, direction or control a worldwide movement has arisen that directly challenges class society worldwide. While anarchists, especially in Spain, have been at the forefront of this movement and while anarchist methods of organizing have become the accepted standard of the protesters it would be utterly false to say that this is solely an "anarchist movement". The central themes of the movement have been those that anarchism shares with a broad left consensus. The only "point of pride" is that anarchists have shown the way to a much broader constituency that actually extends far beyond the traditional left. This is "propaganda of the deed" at its best, without self-destructive violent acts, without the illusion of provoking an immediate uprising and without the arrogant supposition that the so-called "revolutionary vanguard" (cough, cough) are the posessors of all truth. In other words the Occupy movement is amazingly morally clean for a protest movement.

But one thing I would like to point out now is how what seems to external observers as a fault is actually a virtue. I am hardly the first to point this out, and I would like to refer the reader to the Bureau of Public Secrets website for a much more thorough discussion. What I refer to is a very frequent so-called "criticism" of the Occupy movement as to its lack of "specific demands" and it seeming to be a collection point for a wide spectrum of grievances. All that I can say to this criticism is that it is "true" but it misses the point entirely. The Occupy movement has arisen as a broad protest against the inequalities and injustices of our present class societies. OF COURSE every interest group and demand will attach themselves to such a broad based movement. Perhaps even some of their activists will recognize the fact that their grievances cannot generally be solved under the present socioeconomic system.

Thus they attach themselves to a movement that (metaphorically) goes for the jugular because of the insufficiencies of their single interest group/issue groups. Make no mistake about it, the Occupy movement has "gone for the jugular". What it presents in a world diluted manner is the challenge to the representative "democracy" that revolutionary movements have laid out for almost 150 years (since the Paris Commune) ie the challenge of "direct democracy". This goes far beyond any simple reforms. It is not the question of whether the billionaires will pay their fair share of taxes. It is a question of how ordinary citizens can have enough influence to prevent any such perversions of law occuring.

The Occupy movement merely seems incoherant because its goals are far removed from what is usually considered "politics" in our societies. Its basic message is not this or that reform but rather a totally new way of "doing politics". The Movement Is The Message.

CANADIAN POLITICS:

STOP PUBLIC HOUSING PRIVATIZATION IN ONTARIO:

The following appeal is from the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP).

***************

Stop the Sell Off of Toronto Community Housing!‏
STOP THE SELL OFF OF TORONTO HOUSING!

Statement from the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty www.ocap.ca

In a move that falls in line with the plans of Rob Ford, Toronto CommunityHousing is looking to sell off close to 1000 homes. The money raised in the sale would, we are told, go to meet the $600 million repair bill that years of neglect have created in public housing owned and operated by the City of Toronto. The sell off will involve ‘stand alone’ homes throughout the City.

Tens of thousands of desperate people sit on the 10 years’ long waiting list for rent geared to income housing in this City and the housing authority is now looking to sell off a major portion of this precious resource. Displaced tenants will have to be moved into units presently standing idle, that will be renovated with the money from the sale. This will mean that few people on the waiting list will get housed while the stock of public housing is reduced massively.

As bad as this move is, for Rob Ford and his allies, this is only a first move. They will carry on until public housing is entirely privatized.

This attack is a major part of an austerity agenda to destroy public services in Toronto and it has to be fought. TCH tenants and their allies must mobilize to stop the sale and defend their homes.

On Friday, October 21, from 9.00 AM to 2.00 PM, the TCH Board is meeting at their main offices at 931 Yonge Street. A call has been issued for people to make deputations to the Board by Tenants for Social Housing which we are including with this statement. However, it is beyond doubt that the fight will continue beyond this Friday and a serious and determined struggle on this vital issue will have to be taken up.

Join Toronto Stop the Cuts Network in the fight-back against city cuts!

Join a neighborhood committee or start a new one! www.torontostopthecuts.com

www.facebook.com/stopthecuts tostopthecuts@gmail.com http://www.youtube.com/user/TOstopthecuts

twitter.com/tostopthecuts

---------------

Join with the Tenants for Social Housing - We Are Not for Sale Mobilization:

Stop the Sell Off of Social Housing - We are Not for Sale!

Toronto Community Housing Corporation Board Meeting

THIS Friday October 21, 9 am to 2 pm 931 Yonge Street

TCHC will be recommending the sale of your home and over 1,000 more at a Board meeting on Friday, October 21. We still have a chance to stop the sale of our homes and the dismantling of our communities!

• Register to make a deputation at the Board meeting by emailjanice.lewkoski@torontohousing.ca or call 416-981-4232 before October 21,2011.

• Send TCHC CEO Len Koroneos an email at len.koroneos@torontohousing.ca today and let him know that you do not support the sale of our homes! Join tenants at the Board meeting and let TCHC know that We’re Not For Sale!

Link for the report: http://www.torontohousing.ca/webfm_send/7677/1?#

PERSONAL:

GROWING UP WITHOUT THE STATE:

It's been many many years since I left my old home town. 48 if I count right. I left it at precisely the right time, when I was turning 13. Enough of "being one with nature". Time to get into some serious trouble. Which, of course, I found in the (cough) "beautiful" city of Regina. My purpose in what I write below is to show a life that was as "stateless" as possible, under harsh climatic conditions. A life that was endured and sometimes enjoyed by a diverse mixture of ethnic groups and not just some favoured "oppressed" group. Perhaps the town of my childhood memories doesn't deserve recording. Except for one salient feature. It was a town in an area that never had a functioning and overbearing government. Now it is true that most natives in this part of the world grew up under exactly the same conditions with the difference that they saw more of the cops than we did. They also suffered a lot more from the (triple cough) helping arm of the churches, something that simply couldn't happen in a town where there were 3 distinct churches and education was public and non-demoninational.

So let's start with the obvious ie the police. We saw the RCMP a grand total of one time in the 13 years I lived in said town. Did this mean that we were a community of saints. Obviously not. There was the usual vandalism and petty theft which the community found it could deal with far better on its own than by calling for the 'tender actions' of government. Not that the retaliation wasn't sometimes overdone, but short of cutting off fingers or toes any physical pain is preferable to being cast as raw material for socia1l workers to "reform". The one occasion where the state/government proved itself useful was when one farmer went nuts and killed his wife. He came down to the general store to surrender, and he sat there for the required hours until the RCMP felt it was convenient to pick him up.

I mention this just because it is the most obvious "state function" that comes to people's minds, right up there with firefighters and above education and health care. The point that I want to make is that many of the functions that government now performs were or are provided by other means in the not-so-distant past, Or a little bit beyond the city limits in most provinces where rural firefighting is on a volunteer basis. Many other things such as education or health care could easily be provided via cooperatives rather than government. Sometimes a person may recognize all of this but still draw the line at police and the "justice" system. It seems almost unbelievable that people could do without what radicals call "the oppressive arm of the state". It is, however, true that the vast majority of people in history have lived without police (unless you count the agents of the landlord coming to steal things), and there are those such as myself who grew up in such conditions ie it is a living memory.

This doesn't mean that I think some almost mythical revolution could abolish the need for police, courts and prisons overnight. If I were having coffee with a cop I would admit that people like him or her are needed in the near future. Yet I would also say that it is indeed possible to do without police. More than possible. It is a fact that I can remember in my own life. Yet a change in the way people in a neighbourhood act towards each other is a much more effective remedy for crime than more police even today. What anarchists, at least those in the broad majority tradition of anarchism is not a society without demands and rules. It is a society without a specialized caste who enforce such rules or in the case of our present society also enforce the rules of the more wealthy.

What anarchists propose is perhaps summed up by a very clumsy neologism ie the "smalltownization" of a society that presently lives mostly in cities. This is not some marijuana addled vision from the 60s and 70s where everyone has to "go back to the land" and "pretend" to be indpendent of the wider society. What it means is that urban neighbourhoods could grow to have many of the virtues of a small town (such as its ability to live without police) without some of the vices.

Not that my home town was any anarchist utopia by far. We were connected into the wider society by such things as electricity from Sask Power. The electrical grid came in on the same year as I was born. Before that the town had its own generator like most northern communities have even today. This was also the same year, ironically enough, that they took passenger service on the railway away from the town. I see no reason, however, why a crown corporation such as Sask Power couldn't be run as a cooperative. Many advantages actually. Similarily the Province paid teachers' salaries, something that was different from my father's time when teachers were paid by the local community. Another example of memory of a different life. We actually had a Provincial highway a couple of miles from town, but the road to town was maintained (or not) by the RM as were the dirt trails that led out to various farms.

Then, most importantly, we were connected to the wider society and hence to the state by the fact that our rural economy was built on the availability of gasoline (and also oil for the privileged few who didn't have to depend on wood in the winter). Can the universal availability of hyrdocarbon products be provided outside of the state or big business ? The answer is obviously yes as Co-op service stations are a constant feature of most of the western provinces of Canada. If it is done it is possible.

I have to admit that what I have said may seem like something conservative rather than radical, but I have to say that most "conservatives" are actually quite "progressive" in their desire to clear away all obstacles to the increase in power and wealth of the people they imagine are the "wealth creators". My vision is frankly reactionary in the desire to turn back the clock (or ahead if you like) to a different sort of politics and economy. I stand in the anarchist tradition of such people as Paul Goodman in his book 'Notes Of A Neolithic Conservative'.

More on this topic later.

HUMOUR:

THE WAY IT GOES:

Another winner from the pen of Stephanie McMillan.

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR GEORGIA:

RESPECT WORKER RIGHTS IN GEORGIA:

The now independent Caucasus republic of Georgia is (in)famous as the homeland of Soviet dictator Josep Stalin. Sorta like being noted as the homeland of malaria. Living down to this "fine" tradition the present government of this republic is trying to supress the independent unions of that country. The economy may change but the urge to dominate remains the same. Here's an appeal from the onl;ine labour solidarity site Labour Start for solidarity with Georgia's unionists.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Georgia: Stop attacks on trade unions - respect labour rights
An iconic example of the potential to build free unions in post-Soviet states, the Georgian Trade Union Confederation (GTUC) is in serious jeopardy of being destroyed. Even as its fate hangs in the balance, the GTUC is the largest and most viable civil society organization in Georgia, with a reform-minded leadership that possesses an increasingly sophisticated understanding of the role democratic and representative trade unions play in the promotion of labour rights and democracy. Immediate action is necessary to combat the Georgian government’s concerted, intensifying efforts to dismantle the GTUC and take over the GTUC's teachers' union by violating international labour standards and actions aimed at starving it of financial resources.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

THE LETTER:

Please go to this link to send the following letter to Georgian authorities.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
President Mikheil Saakashvili
Office of the President of Georgia
1 M. Abdushelishvili Street
Tbilisi, Georgia 0103

Dear President Saakashvili,

I am writing to protest the continuing attacks by the Government of Georgia on the Georgian Trade Union Confederation (GTUC) including the Educators and Scientists Free Trade Union of Georgia (ESFTUG). Your government, which claims to uphold democratic values, is revealing its true nature by actively and aggressively working to destroy the basic labor rights of the Georgian people. I understand that the AFL-CIO has filed a Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) petition against the Georgian government due to your lack of respect for international labour standards. I urge the Government of Georgia to take the importance of labour rights seriously and immediately stop the harassment of the GTUC and ESFTUG. Your government should begin serious negotiations with the GTUC to strengthen labour rights and particularly change the labour code to allow for real freedom of association and other labour protections. You may be assured that the international labour movement is united in this call for your government to respect their international obligations and cease these attacks on Georgian working people.

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS BAHRAIN:

TELL US WOMEN'S WORLD CUP PLAYERS TO SUPPORT THEIR FELLOW PLAYERS IN BAHRAIN:

As this is being written the US Team at The Women's World Football Cup has advanced to playing in the finals against Japan. With each advance the significance of the team showing solidarity with other footballers in Bahrain becomes more significant. Here's an appeal from the Human Rights First organization asking you to add your voice saying that the US Team should take a stand.

*******************
Guard The Line: Stand Up for Bahraini Athletes Supporting Democracy!
By Quinn O’Keefe
Senior Associate, Human Rights Defenders

The Women’s World Cup semifinal will take place tomorrow in Germany where the U.S. women’s soccer team has already given fans reason to cheer the players’ skill, resolve and tenacity. Half a world away, the government of Bahrain has launched a brutal attack on its athletes. It has suspended over 150 athletes, coaches and referees for supporting the democracy movement and arrested several others. The Bahraini government is hoping that its crackdown will pass unnoticed. We must not allow them to succeed.

Ask the members of the U.S. women’s soccer team to use the opportunity of appearing in the World Cup semifinals to publicly take a stand in support of Bahraini pro-democracy athletes.

The good news is that many Bahraini athletes have been released. But several were tortured and humiliated while in custody including soccer player Mohammed Hubail and his brother, striker A’ala Hubail, as well as goalkeeper Ali Saeed. Mohammed was recently sentenced to two years in prison during a sham military trial. Now, he and others fear another round of detention and torture if they speak out to journalists.

The U.S. women’s national soccer team will compete on the world stage again as they play against France in the Women’s World Cup semifinals tomorrow. They’ll have every soccer fan’s attention.

Ask the members of the U.S. women’s soccer team to stand in solidarity with their fellow soccer players and denounce Bahrain’s abusive treatment of its athletes.
********************
THE LETTER:
Please go to this link to send the following letter to the USA Women's Team at the World Cup.
*******************
Dear U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team,

We are deeply concerned about reports that Bahraini soccer team members were tortured during the country’s brutal crackdown on pro-democracy activists. Mohammed Hubail, A’ala Hubail, and Ali Saeed were reportedly abused during their detainment, according to friends and relatives. Additionally, Mohammed Hubail has been sentenced to two years in prison simply because he was involved in a wave of peaceful protests.

You will have the world’s attention as you take the field for the semifinal game with France tomorrow. The Bahraini government is hoping its abusive treatment of its athletes will pass unnoticed. We ask you to stand in solidarity with your fellow footballers and publicly denounce Bahrain’s treatment of its soccer players. Athlete should not be unjustly targeted by oppressive regimes because of their public prominence.

Please join us in speaking out against the arbitrary arrest, detention, and torture of athletes and all others who have been detained for peacefully expressing their views.

Thank you,

AS I SEE IT:
PSEUDO RADICAL BABBLE:


I've been at this game (leftism) for over 40 years now, and I certainly have accumulated a scrapbook full of "stupid things lefties believe and do". Back in those deep dark days of my youth a lot of the smellier bullshit used to revolve around the word dialectics .This, of course, had its own secret Marxist meaning in addition to a regular definition that had nothing whatsoever to do with either Hegel or Marx.



To be "dialectic about it" the use of the language that surrounded this supposed "quick key to understanding the world" was "contradictory". It was a supposed path to understanding that might change the world, but, on the other hand, it was the occasion of nothing more than endless word games and attempts at pseudointellectual posturing. As such its acceptance which was supposedly a "plus" for changing the world made the left an object of ridicule or disgust. Exactly the opposite of what its speakers intended. I wonder what the synthesis of this quandary would be if you were to stay in this literary form ?


Back in those days , as it did in generations past "dialectics" served a number of leftist functions but was an absolute failure in what it was supposed to do. While it never led to any unexpected insights that couldn't have been seen via less complex common sense it did give its practitioners at least the illusion of superiority to those of lesser "consciousness". But that illusion provoked more hostility (and sometimes ridicule)than acceptance of the "dialectical message" because of its "superiority". Posturing has a tendency to finally be found out.



Ah but academic lefty fashions come and go, and these days it is hard to find many advocates for "dialectics" except amongst a quite aged cadre of academics. A few decades ago the fashion shifted, both in the academy and in the real world. The interests of younger radicals (once again unfortunately most represented in social science departments of universities) changed from Leninist dreams of becoming a new ruling class (though that's never how they would have put it) to issues that had more "emotional charge" if not exactly the same objective importance as "class struggle".


It is not coincidental that the final social configuration that the rebellious 60s and 70s produced offered all sorts of hitherto unknown opportunities to exercise power over others outside the realm of actual productive enterprise. "Revolution" would hardly be of benefit to this emerging caste/class who, in the end, prey on the weaknesses of various marginals in a society that produces more and more of them. Similarly a totalitarian vision of the world such as Marxist philosophy held little attraction for the "resentariat" who saw the road to power open and clear.


The new 'magical key' that replaced dialectics was "post modernism". If anything this replacement in academic fashion was even more trivial and useless than its ancestor. The trivial disguise of such commonplaces as, "nothing lasts forever and everything changes", "there is struggle in all social systems", etc. including some statements that are demonstrably false such as Marxism's belief that history in inevitably "progressive" gave way to a new set of truisms and falsehood.

The baby was named "post-modernism", and it was born in the most appropriate academic manger ie literature departments which didn't even have the tenuous connection to reality that many social sciences had. The baby was a bastard from the get-go. It espoused a "radical relativism" towards anything but its own theories and conclusions. In this it repeated the fallacy of the 'necessary being argument' for the existence of God while being blithely unaware that it was setting up an eternal mirror paradox.

But essential value or not the baby was indeed born at the right time when there was widespread "radical sympathy" for a great number of 'new causes' while at the same time the traditional leftism was saying its before death prayers. The totalitarian system of Marxism had been replaced by a vague collection of "oppressions", not all of them of equal importance. The trainers of the new segment of the ruling class arrived at their tenure, usually without any opposition that they couldn't shout down. What to do ? What to do ?

By the time that post-modernism became the dominant ideology, at least in the North American academy, pretty well everything that could be said about "oppressions" had been said already repeatedly. Now understand something about that particularly vicious, close to chimpanzee social interactions, "politics" that happens in the academy. The theory is that an academic has to continually produce original thought or investigation. By the time the "anti-ists" began to populate the departments the various oppression veins of ore had pretty well been mined out. Not such a good thing if you are trying to advance yourself in such a cutthroat situation as a social science department.


Now "dialectics" and writing about it certainly had its stylistic difficulties of which a vague abstract way of speaking was one. Still, it was a cut above the academic fashion of post-modernism. The champions of dialectics did indeed say things that were wrong and even ridiculous to those outside the magic circle. But most of what they said actually made sense. With the advent of post-modernism it became the fashion to write in a way that was both "beyond grammar" and also "beyond sense". Without the imaginary clothes of the emperor what was called "intersectionality" would have been seen as the triviality that it is. For those without an acquaintance with academic leftism (lucky you) "intersectionality" means that you collect a handful of "isms", sexism, racism, classicism (sic), etc., etc., etc. off into increasingly bizarre "oppressions" and you note that almost all individuals may be both "oppressors" or "victims" depending upon how you look at their situation.


To say that this is a trivial observation actually overstates the case. One can expand the oppressions and the isms endlessly and there is no dou7bt that leftists have already plumbed most of what is open to human imagination..."lookism" ???? The problem is that even with this tool there comes a point where there is no longer anything, true or false, to be said about the subject. A bad situation for those who wish to be published in academic journals.


Ah here's the meat of this long essay. I came across the following question on an usually sane anarchist board, "Is the idea of Kyriarchy more revealing and useful than intersectionality"?. Well, the short reply is that it is somewhat difficult to be less than zero, but it still can be achieved. Now, I had an advantage here as an ex-Catholic in that I remember the old "Kyrie eléison" which meant "Lord have mercy" in the Mass. So I go in search of the originator of this neologism. I'm not disappointed as the originator is one Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza a "feminist Catholic theologian". Work your mind around that little tidbit of information.

Now I have little doubt that Professor Fiorenza has a vast academic knowledge of the subject of Biblical studies, and she even hold many opinions that she doesn't dare voice for fear of the discipline of the Church. I also suspect, though I am not certain of this, that she is literate in ancient Greek. Since that may be the case let's get really pedantic here. The word from which this all derives is the Greek "Kyrios" for Lord. In the Catholic mass "Kyrie" is the 'vocative case' use in speaking to an individual, in this case the Lord. Now to make an English word out of this Greek and to mean it to say "rule of the Lord" you would have to use "kyrionarchy"(the possessive case). Not as snappy as the using the old Catholic vocative case for sure.


However that may be one can forgive Professor Fiorenza for using a word form that she was convinced nobody would check up on. But let's investigate the meaning of her neologism. "Kyriarchy" means, if you excuse the grammar of its originator" "Lord Rule" ie "Rule of the Lord". Fascinating isn't it that the definition of "Lord" already assumes the function of "ruling". What else do "Lords" do pray tell ? So what does 'Kyriearchy' mean ? It means "rule by those who rule". Only in the hothouse of academic leftism where connection to reality has long since been abandoned could this be said to be an "advance" on anything.

Anyways I'm sure everybody has been bored to death now, but that's as I see it.

LOCAL EVENTS:

'STOP SIGNS: CARS AND CAPITALISM' BOOK LAUNCH:

Coming up this Wednesday at Winnipeg's Infoshop the Mondragon, 92 Albert St.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Stop Signs Book Launch with Yves Engler
Time Wednesday, July 6 · 7:00pm - 10:00pm

----------------------

Location Mondragon Bookstore & Coffee House
------------------------
More Info

Stop Signs —Cars and Capitalism
on the Road to Economic,
Social and Ecological Decay— 2011 Cars and Capitalism on the Road to Economic, Social and Ecological Decay

In North America, human beings have become enthralled by the automobile: A quarter of our working lives are spent paying for them; communities fight each other for the right to build more of them; our cities have been torn down, remade and planned with their needs as the... overriding concern; wars are fought to keep their fuel tanks filled; songs are written to praise them; cathedrals are built to worship them. In Stop Signs: Cars and Capitalism on the Road to Economic, Social and Ecological Decay, authors Yves Engler and Bianca Mugyenyi argue that the automobile’s ascendancy is inextricably linked to capitalism and involved corporate malfeasance, political intrigue, backroom payoffs, media manipulation, racism, academic corruption, third world coups, secret armies, environmental destruction and war. When we challenge the domination of cars, we also challenge capitalism. An anti-car, road-trip story, Stop Signs is a unique must-read for all those who wish to escape the clutches of auto insanity.

AS I SEE IT:

FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS:

The 104 year old Bell Hotel which closed in August 2007 was just one other downtown flophouse, but when it closed it forced 50 people living there to scramble and find other accommodation. Well the years have passed and 5.3 million dollars has flowed under the bridge. This "heritage" minded town has kept the external facade because, after all, frontage is more important than people.

So now the reopening is celebrated with much breaking of arms as various social service bureaucrats pat themselves furiously on the back. You can guess where I'm going with this can't you ? The upgraded premises now have a toilet for every room and, guess what, several social service outlets in the building. Not unexpected and neither is the self congratulation of the bureaucrats as they talk about opening space for 42 new tenants who will be housed whether they have substance abuse problems or not. Oh goody, goody, goody you're so liberal guys !

Let's have a little look at this wonderful gift to Winnipeg's down and out. In case some people are truly mathematically "challenged" it is hard to accept that it isn't obvious that 42 is smaller than 50. That's right. $5.3 million and three years have provided exactly eight fewer places for the poor than there were before. Look at another way. I have little doubt, having grown up without same, that a private indoor toilet is a very good thing , but each of the suites cost about $126,000 each. This in a city that recently spent a goodly amount of tax money hunting down "backyard huts" that otherwise homeless people rented to escape the unwanted "help" of social service bureaucrats. I don't think I'm out of line in saying that there are large numbers of abandoned properties in this town (a lot of which would cost nothing as they are long overdue for expropriation for non-payment of taxes)that could be upgraded far faster at a fraction of the cost. Ah, but palaces for social workers to pretend to work in wouldn't be part of such deals.

There is actually a local initiative that shows a totally different way of doing things. When the infamous Occidental Hotel was morphed into the 'Red Road Lodge' there was indeed government support for putting something else in place of the booze can. Somehow I don't think it was $5.3 million. The RRL also decided to make a go of it by renting out part of the premises to various other businesses and community groups, but no, no social workers (or booze). And the residents were not summarily evicted like they were at the Bell.

Let's look at in yet another way. It's true that this little "initiative" has managed to build accommodation of 42 people at $126,000 per person. Yet it has also managed to "dehouse" eight people at a cost of $664,000 per person. What an advance !

There is, of course, no silver lining for those displaced by this project. Neither is there any sense of accomplishment (whatever the propaganda says) for the taxpayer who has been forced to cough up the millions to do less than was being done before. Who actually benefits from this ? The answer was given in a recent Winnipeg Free Press article where it was stated that "tenants at the Bell must commit to staying in touch with social service agencies". Ah huh ! The big liberal/conservative argument was whether the tenants had to be "clean" before being housed. The answers were predictable. But one thing that both leftists and conservatives agree on in this society is that people have to be controlled.

The Bell Hotel fiasco is a prime example of how NOT to help the poor ie don't throw millions at a problem where there are bureaucracies that stand to benefit financially. And peoplke ask me why I'm an anarchist.

HUMOUR:

A QUICK AND EASY GUIDE TO FORMS OF GOVERNMENT:

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR COLOMBIA:

STOP VALE UNION BUSTING IN COLOMBIA:

The other year workers in Ontario and Newfoundland were "treated" to an exhibition of just how hard hearted and tight fisted the international mining giant Vale is. But Canada and Brazil are only two countries that figure in the global assets of the company. In Colombia Vale goes even further in its disdain for workers and democracy. Here's a petition from the online labour solidarity site Labour Start asking people to protest Vale's tactics in Colombia.

********************
Colombia: Tell Vale no more union busting
As if it wasn’t hard enough for unions to operate in Colombia, now Vale wants to make it harder. Workers at global giant Vale’s El Hatillo coal mine in Colombia recently organized with the union SINTRAMIENERGETICA and presented modest bargaining demands. Rather than negotiate, Vale has attempted to dictate the process by which the union formulates its demands. Vale supervisors have threatened every worker with dismissal unless they renounce the union. Vale’s superintendent locked one union supporter in his office and threatened him to the point that the supporter showed symptoms of a heart attack and was hospitalized in serious condition. The majority of workers at El Hatillo are subcontracted which also limits their right to organize.

********************

The Letter:

Please go to this link to send the following message to the President of Colombia and the Vale management:

********************
Dear Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos and Vale Colombia CEO Zenaldo Olivera,

We demand that you respect the fundamental rights of workers employed at Vale’s El Hatillo coal mine in Colombia. Vale must cease its obstruction tactics and threats. It must recognize the union that these workers have organized with, SINTRAMIENERGETICA, and negotiate in good faith. The Government of Colombia must ensure that the fundamental rights of workers employed at Vale and those of all other Colombian workers are respected. Specifically, the Government must ensure that companies cannot use cooperatives or other subcontracting arrangements to deprive workers of their basic rights.

THE CALENDER:

WELCOME TO SUMMER:

Today is the summer solstice, the beginning of summer. Here's an article that tells what it all about.

********************
Summer solstice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the Earth's axial tilt.
Diagram of the Earth's seasons as seen from the north. Far left: summer solstice for the northern hemisphere. Front right: summer solstice for the southern hemisphere.The summer solstice occurs exactly when the Earth's semi-axis in a given hemisphere is most inclined towards the sun, at its maximum tilt of 23° 26'. Though the summer solstice is an instant in time, the term is also colloquially used like Midsummer to refer to the day on which it occurs. Except in the polar regions (where daylight is continuous for many months), the day on which the summer solstice occurs is the day of the year with the longest period of daylight. The summer solstice occurs in June in the Northern Hemisphere north of the Tropic of Cancer (23°26'N) and in December in the Southern Hemisphere south of the Tropic of Capricorn (23°26'S). The Sun reaches its highest position in the sky on the day of the summer solstice. However, between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn, the highest sun position does not occur at the summer solstice, since the sun reaches the zenith here and it does so at different times of the year depending on the latitude of the observer.[1] Depending on the shift of the calendar, the summer solstice occurs some time between December 21 and December 22 each year in the Southern Hemisphere, and between June 20 and June 21 in the Northern Hemisphere.[2]

Worldwide, interpretation of the event has varied among cultures, but most have held a recognition of sign of the fertility, involving holidays, festivals, gatherings, rituals or other celebrations around that time.[3]

The word solstice derives from Latin sol (sun) and sistere (to stand still).

Dates and times The following lists the dates and UTC times of the summer solstice for the early portion of the 21st century.[4]

Year Northern Hemisphere Southern Hemisphere
2000 June 21, 01:48 December 21, 13:37
2001 June 21, 07:38 December 21, 19:21
2002 June 21, 13:24 December 22, 01:14
2003 June 21, 19:10 December 22, 07:04
2004 June 21, 00:57 December 21, 12:42
2005 June 21, 06:46 December 21, 18:35
2006 June 21, 12:26 December 22, 00:22
2007 June 21, 18:06 December 22, 06:08
2008 June 20, 23:59 December 21, 12:04
2009 June 21, 05:46 December 21, 17:47
2010 June 21, 11:28 December 21, 23:38
2011 June 21, 17:16 December 22, 05:30
2012 June 20, 23:09 December 21, 11:12
2013 June 21, 05:04 December 21, 17:11
2014 June 21, 10:51 December 21, 21:23
2015 June 21, 16:38 December 22, 04:48
2016 June 20, 22:34 December 21, 10:44
2017 June 21, 04:24 December 21, 16:28
2018 June 21, 10:07 December 21, 22:23
2019 June 21, 15:54 December 22, 04:19
2020 June 20, 21:44 December 21, 10:02

INTERNATIONAL ANARCHIST MOVEMENT:
A TALE OF THREE COUNTRIES:


The usual historiography of anarchism traces its beginnings to the international socialist movement and the First International. Like most things in the social sciences this is only approximately true. The pre-International workers' movement in France, the most advanced on the European continent, generally held to a variety of anarchism called Mutualism. Still it is true that anarchism, for better or for worse, acquired most of its modern characteristics in the struggle against Marxism within the First International. This development is often portrayed as a stuggle between the Latin sections that held, more or less, to the ideas of Bakunin with the Marxoid German movement. The English trade unionists generally kept aloof from both factions.


This is, once more, approximately true. It was in the Latin countries (with the addition of Belgium- half Latin, Switzerland and the Netherlands) that the anti-authoritarian strain of the workers' movement gained purchase and laid the foundation for modern anti-statist socialism. Yet there was and is a wide difference between these countries as to the degree that anarchism 'caught on'. Why ?


I've just finished reading 'Bakunin and the Italians' by T.R. Ravindranathan, and it tells basically the same story as another book 'Italian Anarchism: 1864-1892' by Nunzio Pernicone. The Introduction and first chaper of yet another book, 'The French Anarchist Movement' by David Berry twells the story of early anarchism in France. Herein lies the question. Both France and Italy were much more likely to become the 'motherland of anarchy' than Spain was. France had the existence of a large mutualist labour movement as well as its tradition of revolution. Italy was the 'centrepiece' of the antiauthoritarian sections of the First International, and its early history of anarchism would seem to say that it should have become the centre. What if fact occured was that Spain went on to become the classic land of anarchism, ending up exporting it to much of the Spanish speaking world. The Italian movement while 'large' in a comparative sense never grew to the extent that the Spanish one did, and offered far less resistance to fascism in Italy than the Spaniards did in Spain. The French movement managed to escape its ghetto for a brief period in the glory days of the CGT, but was later to become a rump of its original self. Once more why ?


All three countries shared the same basic social structure ie a combative upper class, in the case of France and Italy one that rose to the top via previous revolutions or wars, and in the case of Spain an decaying aristocratic and clerical class. In terms of the difference between regions Italy was almost a carbon copy of Spain. The messogiorno was pretty well the same as southern Spain. Ther French situation was somewhat different insofar as most rural provinces were conservative after having their land hunger satisfied by the revolution of 1789.


So similar and yet so different. My own suggestion is that the difference came about via certain choices that the 'proto-anarchists' of that day made in different countries. In Italy as in France the choice of syndicalism was delayed by decades. The most prominant action of the early Italian anarchists were the comic-opera "insurrections" that they engaged in. To say thery were laughable understates the case. Meanwhile in Spain the anarchists were organizing strikes and actually "going to the people". Any premature insurrections in Spain in the late 1800s and the early 1900s were peasant rebellions that the leadership of the anarchists supported but not too much.


Let's put it another way. While the anarchist movement in France and Italy was mired ion tactics that were doomed to fail the Spanish anarchists did one salient thing. They organized the working class for bopth its immediate demands and for the eventual social evolution. This combination was something that eluded both the French and the Italians.