Democracy Is Direct

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Democracy Is Direct

Postby American Dream » Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:38 am

TFN #7: In ZAD We Trust


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYxAdyw2sqw

Long running anarchist media project SubMedia.Tv offers up this weeks episode of The Fuckin News.

In this week’s TFN, France’s off-brand Napoleon, Emmanuel Macron, meets his Battle of Waterloo in La ZAD, or Zone to Defend, in Notre Dames Des Landes. Meanwhile, in Hamilton so-called “Ontario”, the pigs launch a SWAT raid against a local anarchist collective house in an attempt to save face after last month’s “Locke Street Riot”.

For more information on how to help comrades in Hamilton:

https://hamiltonanarchistsupport.noblogs.org/

https://fundraising.the-tower.ca
"If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything."
-Malcolm X
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Democracy Is Direct

Postby American Dream » Tue May 01, 2018 8:44 am

https://godsandradicals.org/2018/05/01/ ... -our-feet/


The Land Under Our Feet

RHYD WILDERMUTH

Image
Llyn Dinas, below Dinas Emrys (photo by author)


Tribes which hadn’t spoken to each other in decades gathered together on frigid northern plains to face down hired mercenaries, police, infiltrators, and their army of bulldozers.

At the same time on the other side of the planet, mothers raged and fathers wept to Allah as their children were shot dead for throwing stones at other bulldozers and other mercenaries called “soldiers.”

A few hundred years ago, women laid their children in graves dug shallow into peat. Beneath threadbare cloaks clinging to shoulders laden with what little they could carry, they cursed landlord and king while boarding ships to take them across a cold sea into servitude.

At almost the same time in the land to which those other women traveled, other women clawed into dry hard earth with nails made brittle from famine. There they buried their own dead in their own shallow graves–all those who died on the march from the fecund swamps that were once home along the trail of tears.

As you read this, undocumented refugees and artists hide behind barricades in a forest, shouting and jeering at and sometimes fleeing police armed with grenades and truncheons. The police advance and with sledgehammers smash homes where children were born and lovers held each other in desire; then they retreat to their own homes in time for dinner before sleep to begin the destruction the next day.

In high mountains a village mourns a shaman whose songs led them and many others into the arms of the goddess of a sacred plant. Her body riddled with bullets, like so many others murdered for the sole crime of being in the way of those who wanted the land upon which she lived for something more profitable.

The brutal repression of the resistance to the Dakota Access Pipeline at Standing Rock, the violent oppression of Palestinians, the Irish famine, the forced marches of indigenous people and the murder of their leaders, and the French government’s violent eviction of the Z.A.D. from Notre Dame des Landes: these are the stories of capitalism, the blood and sorrows of millions soaking into the land under our feet.

Today’s Mayday. It’s Beltane.

It’s a day of celebration. It’s a day of revolt.

For anarchists and communists, it’s a sacred day, marches and riots to remember martyred workers. For Pagans and witches, it’s a sacred day, when forest and sun dance like sex and the life it breeds and the meaning it gives.

One chants of resistance, the other sings of joy, and under both is the land under our feet.

Capitalism began only a few hundred years ago with the forced expulsion of peasant from land in Europe and the forced expulsion of colonized from their land across the waters. Evictions, massacres, enslavement, settlement and re-settlement: without these things there could have been no Capital, no factories and what they produce. Marx called these acts “primitive accumulation,” theft of wealth and labor and most of all land by force and law.

But this is not just our history, this is our now.

The money funding the bank which forecloses on a poor Black family’s home is the labor stolen from Africans enslaved and land stolen from commons enclosed.

The investment capital that gentrifies a white neighborhood is the alchemical product of cheap labor and the forests in which First Nations hunters stalked Elk and Bear.

The bulldozers used to demolish the homes of Palestinians are the bulldozers that tear down homeless and refugee camps, that move the rubble of bombed homes and move the dirt into mass graves.

The guns used to shoot the child throwing rocks are the guns pointed at the Black kid just trying to walk home from the store, the guns which kill American kids in their classroom are the same guns used to subdue Mexican teachers demanding better pay, guns hoarded and wielded by police and soldiers everywhere to prevent us from taking back our collective birthright: the land under our feet.

Under all of this is land. Humans live only because of land, we eat and drink and breathe because of land. Without land our gods are naked and cannot speak, our children are hungry and cannot live, our ancestors forgotten and cannot be heard.

Paganism is about that land. Anti-capitalism is about that land.

Colonialism, Capitalism, Empire: these are the names of the story of how humans are ripped from land, severed from the gods and each other and themselves.

Now in the crush of cities we rush from rented space to work, from work back to rented space. Now in towering tenements we open foil packets into boiling water as children cry, sirens wail and televisions declare the future is now and capital always.

Now the forests die.

Now species older than humanity breathe their last.

Now the oceans rise and storms rage.

Now backlit screens become our society, likes and retweets our comfort, all because we have forgotten we are also the land under our feet.

Today is Beltane. Today is Mayday. People are dancing. People are being shot. People are shouting in rage. People are fucking each other, people are sighing at another day of wretched work.

Gods&Radicals exists because they are connected by the same thing. We write because we remember the land, remember each other, remember ourselves. We remember our gods stolen from us by sword and cross and dollar, springs and forests taken from us by fence and judge and profit, ancestors and offspring asking us when the cruelty of Empire will finally end.

We are witches, heretics, dreamers and bards. We are guerrillas, organizers, rioters, saboteurs.

We long for the liberation of others and for the liberation of ourselves, the coming time when around burning barricades or crackling hearths we can be ourselves again. No longer laborers for others, no longer criminals under the tyranny of law. No longer illegal and refugee, no longer colonized and conquered.

No longer anything but the land under our feet, and those who live upon it.

Happy Beltane. Happy Mayday.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Democracy Is Direct

Postby American Dream » Tue May 01, 2018 9:19 pm


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1FPW-_j-Mw


Latest from Woodbine: “Coordinates”

May 1, 2018

Take stock of our time and chart new paths forward with “Coordinates,” the latest video from Woodbine.

Amid omnipresent confusion and catastrophe, idiots and conmen are at the helm. Tech billionaires prey on the future while the ground gives way beneath our feet. Every day reminds us that the world is on fire.

In the face of it all, new struggles are exploding across the country in courageous attempts to reclaim life and to reopen the future.

We must begin from the real, from what is already between us, from what we know and what we feel. Become animated by the spirit of a life-in-common and fight against the end of the world.

We are partisans of the real, bearers of new worlds.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Democracy Is Direct

Postby American Dream » Thu May 03, 2018 9:22 am


https://vimeo.com/266955645


Trouble #12: There Goes The Neighborhood

By submedia.tv - April 30, 2018

Long running anarchist media project Sub.Media offers up a new episode of their show, Trouble. This episode focusing on gentrification and the economic, political, and racial forces which drive it.

In cities across the world, established urban environments are being transformed according to the dictates of capital. Gentrification is destroying the social fabric of working-class and racialized districts, displacing long-standing residents in order to make way for a new class of upwardly-mobile, and often white professionals – who often view the rich local histories of the spaces they move into as nothing more than kitschy branding appeal. The culture clash that emerges between established community members and these new arrivals is often viewed as the front-line of struggles around gentrification; a quarrel between patrons of a locally-owned roti shop, and those of a new craft beer pub; or a battle between NIMBY condo-dwellers and the beneficiaries of a local social service agency.

But while this tension is certainly real, it is only the tip of the iceberg. Gentrification is a systematic process, facilitated by state, regional and local governments and bankrolled by massive financial institutions managing multi-billion dollar portfolios. It is class war playing out in physical space, with all the complexities and contradictions that entails.

In this month’s episode of Trouble, the first in a two-part series, sub.Media examines gentrification as a process of capitalist urban development, by taking a closer look at how it is playing out in three mega-cities: Toronto, New Orleans and Istanbul.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Democracy Is Direct

Postby American Dream » Thu May 03, 2018 8:15 pm

Trans Liberation

Dominika Bednarska, “Passing Last Summer,” in Nobody Passes: Rejecting the Rules of Gender and Conformity, ed. Matt Bernstein Sycamore, (Berkeley, CA: Seal, 2006): 71-82,
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid= ... Z&hl=en_US


Leslie Feinberg, “We are all works in progress,” in Transliberation: Beyond Pink and Blue, by Leslie Feinberg, (Boston: Beacon Press, 1998): 1-13,
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid= ... w&hl=en_US


Sherilyn Connelly, “The Big Reveal” in Gender Outlaws: The Next Generation, edited by Kate Bornstein and Bear Bergman (Berkeley, CA: Seal, 2010): 76-82, https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid= ... 1&hl=en_US


Emi Koyama, “Transfeminist Manifesto,” eminism.org, http://eminism.org/readings/pdf-rdg/tfmanifesto.pdf. Older, printable version: http://www.hist.unt.edu/faculty/Pomerle ... ifesto.pdf


TransGriot, “How can we contribute to society if you won’t hire us?” TransGriot Blog, December 8, 2009, http://transgriot.blogspot.com/2009/12/ ... f-you.html


Kate Bornstein, My Gender Workbook: How to Become a Real Man, a Real Woman, the Real You, or Something Else Entirely, (London: Psychology Press, 1998),
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid= ... dentifying


Charlie the Unicorn, Ace Detective, “The Layperson’s Guide to Understanding the Trans* Experience and Identity,Charlie the Unicorn, Ace Detective Blog, April 30, 1011, http://unicornsareace.wordpress.com/201 ... -identity/.


Lisa Duggan, “Crossing the Line: The Brandon Teena Case and the Social Psychology of Working-Class Resentment,” New Labor Forum 13, no. 3, (Fall 2004): 37-44, https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid= ... C&hl=en_US


Rickke Mananzala and Dean Spade, “The Nonprofit Industrial Complex and Trans Resistance” Sexuality Research and Social Policy 5, no. 1 (March 2008), https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid= ... otJvvWAkua


All from: http://werehirwerequeer.wordpress.com/queer-theory/
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Democracy Is Direct

Postby American Dream » Fri May 11, 2018 7:38 am

“Order today - what they mean by order - is nine-tenths of mankind working to provide luxury, pleasure and the satisfaction of the most disgusting passions for a handful of idlers.

Order is nine-tenths being deprived of everything which is a necessary condition for a decent life, for the reasonable development of intellectual faculties. To reduce nine-tenths of mankind to the state of beast of burden living from day to day, without ever daring to think of the pleasures provided for man by scientific study and artistic creation - that is order!

Order is poverty and famine become the normal state of society. It is the Irish peasant dying of starvation; it is the peasants of a third of Russia dying of diphtheria and typhus, and of hunger following scarcity - at a time when stored grain is being sent abroad. It is the people of Italy reduced to abandoning their fertile countryside and wandering across Europe looking for tunnels to dig, where they risk being buried after existing only a few months or so. It is the land taken away from the peasant to raise animals to feed the rich; it is the land left fallow rather than being restored to those who ask nothing more than to cultivate it.

Order is the woman selling herself to feed her children, it is the child reduced to being shut up in a factory or to dying of starvation, it is the worker reduced to the state of a machine. It is the spectre of the worker rising up against the rich, the spectre of the people rising against the government.

Order is an infinitesimal minority raised to positions of power, which for this reason imposes itself on the majority and which raises children to occupy the same positions later so as to maintain the same privileges by trickery, corruption, violence and butchery.

Order is the continuous warfare of man against man, trade against trade, class against class, country against country. It is the cannon whose roar never ceases in Europe, it is the countryside laid waste, the sacrifice of whole generations on the battlefield, the destruction in a single year of the wealth built up by centuries of hard work.

Order is slavery, thought in chains, the degradation of the human race maintained by sword and lash. It is the sudden death by explosion or the slow death by suffocation of hundreds of miners who are blown up or buried every year by the greed of the bosses - and are shot or bayoneted as soon as they dare complain.

Finally, order is the Paris Commune, drowned in blood. It is the death of thirty thousand men, women and children, cut to pieces by shells, shot down, buried in quicklime beneath the streets of Paris. It is the face of the youth of Russia, locked in the prisons, buried in the snows of Siberia, and - in the case of the best, the purest, and the most devoted - strangled in the hangman’s noose.

That is order!”


On Order - Peter Kropotkin
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Democracy Is Direct

Postby American Dream » Wed May 16, 2018 7:07 am

This Is What Antifascism Looks Like

Image
Give me back my 1937. Antifascists are tortured in the country that defeated fascism. So who won? Rupression.com”


More: https://antidotezine.com/2018/05/15/wha ... ooks-like/
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Democracy Is Direct

Postby American Dream » Wed May 16, 2018 12:58 pm

“We Are the Inferno”

A Conversation on the Anarchist Roots of Geography


In the 1970s, radical geographers expanded the discipline to study the interplay between spaces and social relations, focusing on the spatial dimensions of inequality and oppression. Since then, the radical geography has come to encompass a wide range of tools—yet Marxism remains the most common framework. In this conversation between scholars in the field, Alexander Reid Ross interviews Simon Springer, author of The Anarchist Roots of Geography: Toward Spatial Emancipation, who argues that a truly radical geography must oppose the state and all notions of command and control.



Image
Water protectors on the Standing Rock Sioux reservation in 2016.

SS: I don’t want to position anarchism as a colonizer of any particular groups or their ideas. Anarchism is a lens that makes sense to me, but I don’t assume the arrogance of suggesting that it works for everyone. I can see the expression of what I would call “anarchism” in the patterns of association and mutual aid among many groups, whether indigenous or otherwise. Yet for me to impose this particular viewpoint onto ways of knowing and being in the world that have vastly different historical trajectories than my own understandings of the world would be really problematic.

In the spirit of anarchism, I think it is important for any group of people to define their own politics, and not simply be told what it is by an outside agent. While I may see expressions of anarchism in what many indigenous peoples do, or even in the actions of the Cambodian people I do research with, there may also be significant breaks with anarchist modes and it isn’t really my place to tell anyone what is anarchist or isn’t.

It would be a contradiction where I would be replicating a certain form of authority and encouraging a hierarchy of knowledge. I get my fair share of hate mail. I suppose it comes with the territory of exposing my ideas to the world, but in some of this correspondence I’ve had people tell me I’m wrong about anarchism, and then proceed to tell me what “real” anarchism is all about. To me this mode of argumentation doesn’t sit well with how I understand anarchism. We have enough policing in our world already that we don’t need to be policing each other about the ostensible “correct” and “true” form of anarchism. To me the ethos of anarchism should be one of experimentation and affinity, and that’s precisely what indigenous groups are actively engaging, and have been for centuries. But they are doing so on their own terms, using their own language to define it, which is the crucial piece. So my view on this seemingly congruent movement is that there are important synergies between anarchists and indigenous activists, but they can’t be assumed or imposed. Any sense of alliance has to develop out of mutual respect and understanding, and often the best position for an anarchist is to simply be an ally and listen carefully. The theoretical lessons to be learned from indigenous peoples are very practical. In North America there has been 500 years of oppression, met with 500 years of solidarity and resistance to settler colonialism. Indigenous peoples have not given up, and they refuse to bend and bow to the impositions of the modern state. The threats that they are presented with are manifold. Capitalism has in the past and continues into the present to actively steal their land, abuse the young, and rape and murder the women. This is not hyperbole, but a tangible reality of the lived experiences of indigenous peoples in the province I call home. Mainstream society responds with ambivalence because the racism runs so deep in Canadian society, and yet indigenous peoples persevere in spite of the indifference and scorn they are presented with. I come at this from the perspective of having grown up in British Columbia, where white people look at racism as something that only happens south of the border. Meanwhile there are deeply rooted prejudices that show no sign of letting up right here at home. So something seemingly as simple as pushing for an indigenous hire in my department at the University of Victoria is met with suspicion, doubt, and even contempt. Those of us working on the principle of wanting to redress the historical marginalization of indigenous voices on campus and within our curriculum have been accused of being racist for even proposing such an idea. There is no understanding that what is actually racist is the suggestion that working towards corrective equity is racist. It is an inverted argument that is intensively afraid of diversity, and expresses that anxiety through a kneejerk reaction that fails to understand that racism is much more than simple categorization. It is a form of systemic violence that is cultivated through the maintenance of privilege and disadvantage. There is no willingness to admit that the playing field is not and has never been even, and that there are significant societal barriers that indigenous people have to contend with that white people never have to consider. At base, it represents the classic scenario of blaming someone for their own poverty, while ignoring the fact that you’ve fixed the game to ensure their impoverishment.

ARR: On a global scale, European ultranationalism often pretends to identify with the struggles of decolonization and national liberation, insisting on the liberation of Europe from the structures of capital, and its replacement with a national variety of socialism that clearly excludes outliers based on ethnicity or “culture.” It is here that we find Alexander Dugin’s greatest inclinations toward “geopolitics,” which he gleaned from such National Bolsheviks as Jean-François Thiriart and Nouvelle Droit ideologues like Robert Steuckers. Dugin views geopolitics in terms of broad metaregions like Eurasia, producing a spiritual empire from Lisbon to the Pacific, and from the Arctic to the Indian Ocean, in which regional sovereignty is actuated by national communities defined by cultural traditions, even while being linked in a greater chain of what he views as a kind of new Internationale. Unfortunately, even if often unknowingly, much of the largely-Marxist left wing of the broad-based anti-imperialist movement posits a kind of Duginist position wherein Russia becomes, if not an ally, then a kind of lesser evil or useful “enemy of an enemy” in the struggle against multiculturalism and liberal capitalism. A lot of these politics are reflected in notions that Bashar Al-Assad is holding down some semblance of stability in the midst of encroaching chaos, so his regime ought to find support among leftists who loathe Washington’s interventions in Iraq. They also tend to identify North Korea as a similar ally in anti-imperialist struggle, due to the DPRK’s skillful propaganda machine’s ability to deploy left-wing critiques of capital and US imperialism while downplaying its own nationalist self-image as the “cleanest race.” In geographic terms, how do you see this geopolitical positioning of allies and enemies? An unsophisticated game of Risk? A kind of armchair geopolitics? A threat to the left or to the right?

SS: The geopolitical map of allies and enemies is one of futility and hubris. It doesn’t surprise me that many Marxists would paint the world with such monochromatic strokes. There is so much about Marxist politics that rubs me the wrong way, and some of this comes out in my book.

The bottom line is that we are talking about states and sovereign control. On the basis of this alone there is nothing worthwhile to support from an anarchist perspective.

The discourse of “lesser enemy” is a ruse, and we should be suspicious of this black and white rendering of the world. It plays itself out in electoral politics, where hawks like Hillary Clinton are supported in a facile attempt to stave off other monsters like Donald Trump. It represents an apathetic acceptance of false choice, and so we shouldn’t be surprised to see its manifestation in other arenas like geopolitics. Is this a threat to the Left? Yes, without question! I think Marxists in general are a threat to the Left, because they are so self-assured in having the right answers about the world. This might get me in trouble, but I’m far past the point of caring about assuaging the egos of Marxists. For anarchists I think there is a much more humble and unassuming understanding of what anarchism can offer. This is not to say anarchists are naïve or incapable of solutions, but rather that we are much more willing to see things work themselves out in the process of unfolding through our collective efforts, subject to ongoing revision and revitalization, rather than following a set course towards some imagined end goal. David Harvey has lamented that I am somehow trampling on the possibility of Left unity, asking me to listen to his plea, but what he is really mourning is that the Marxist position has been toppled on the streets and its citadel in the academy is now actively being stormed.

The rise of anarchism in academia in recent years is merely a reflection of the politics of the world, a world that is in desperate need of new ideas beyond the narrow possibilities of the state.

This is after all an institution that repeatedly proves itself to operate not out of concern for the collective of humanity, but in the interests of an elite. Marxists continue to beguile themselves with the idea that one set of elites (i.e., their vanguards) will do better than the current set of elites, and then after their astute wisdom leads us to the so-called Promised Land in the aftermath of revolution, they will suddenly give up the reigns and full communism will blossom. We’ve heard this story before, and we’ve put it into practice. It is a cypher for our disempowerment, and a dangerous crutch that continues to shackle the Left to statist politics, a politics with no hope of ever being emancipatory because its very premise is hierarchy and control.


More: https://crimethinc.com/2017/08/10/anarchistgeography
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Democracy Is Direct

Postby American Dream » Fri May 25, 2018 6:09 am

Franco ‘Bifo’ Berardi’s Futurability: The Age of Impotence and the Horizon of Possibility

by Giovanni Vimercati

Through a compelling analysis of the work of Michel Houellebecq, Futurability traces the genesis of contemporary fascism back to the “aggressive loneliness of the male body,” whose patriarchal authority is being undermined. Conversely, he identifies “the magmatic sphere of possibility” with femininity. He also stresses the importance of invention untrammeled from the imperatives of profit, which would in turn enable the creation of what is authentically useful, needed, and beautiful. The frantic search for the lowest common denominator supposedly able to satisfy the largest possible consumer base has made the world uglier—the real tragedy being that there is literally nothing that the profit motive will stop at. “The business of violence is one of the main branches of the global economy” notes Bifo, “and financial abstraction does not discriminate against criminal money.” Hence the unstoppable proliferation of wars and armed conflicts, a “fragmentary global civil war” with no general strategic vision. From the workplace to the world stage, competition as fratricidal war seems to be the current mode of existence. At some point, the author describes our current predicament in the following, very effective, terms: “capitalism is dead, and we are living inside its corpse, frantically looking for a way out of the rotting putridity.” A few pages later, though, he also evokes the nightmare of zombie capitalism when reporting a tragically surreal New York Times story about people in France having fake jobs at fake companies. Faced with this kind of dystopia that even the likes of J.G. Ballard or Philip K. Dick would have found too far-fetched, one is left wondering what can eventually bring this Calvinist folly to a standstill.

Bifo remains predictably vague when it comes to concretely suggesting a possible way out, and it would be naïve and possibly even dangerous to expect otherwise. If we are to ever survive the end of capitalism, it won’t be thanks to a magic formula readily laid out in a book, and certainly not by someone who spent his life advocating the joy of collective action against the sadness of individual indifference. Bifo sees the “emancipation of knowledge from capital accumulation” as the key to the liberation of everyday life. What cognitive workers need, according to him, is “a technical platform for autonomous cooperation” in order to “dismantle and re-programme the machine.” Left out from the emancipatory equation, though, are the millions of neo-slaves, be they Chinese factory workers, Uber drivers, undocumented migrant laborers, or eastern European prostitutes. Are we sure that general intellect alone can emancipate workers, not only cognitive ones, from the increasingly medieval conditions that are being forced upon them? Unlike accelerationist enthusiasts, Bifo knows and stresses the fact that automation and the consequent reduction of manual jobs does not automatically mean liberation from wage slavery. Quite the contrary, the paradox of automation under capitalism is that “it blackmails workers to work faster in exchange for less and less money in an impossible race against robots.” As outdated and antiquated as it may sound, perhaps workers’ struggles, made almost impossible by the violent deregulation of the job market, remain the cardinal juncture through which a future without exploitation, or at least less of it, has to go. That said, Bifo’s central intuition about the centrality of bodies, radical generosity, and affection is indeed precious—though maybe preliminary. To share, disinterestedly, whatever little we have left, both materially and emotionally, is indeed the toughest challenge ahead of us.


Image


https://brooklynrail.org/2017/12/books/ ... ossibility
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Democracy Is Direct

Postby American Dream » Sun Jun 10, 2018 8:01 am


https://vimeo.com/274164694


TFN #12: Law and Disorder

By submedia.tv - June 8, 2018

Your weekly sedition of The Fuckin’ News takes on anti-anarchist hysteria and repression on both sides of the border.

In this week’s sedition of TFN, a look at the repression being faced by comrades in Klanada and the United Snakes. First an update on the J20 trials, where prosecutors have been repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot, and then an update on the state’s crack-down on anarchists in so-called Ontario and Quebec in the lead-up to this weekend’s G7 Summit.

For more info on how to help peeps in Hamilton:
https://hamiltonanarchistsupport.noblogs.org/

For more updates on the J20 defendants, follow Unicorn Riot (@UR_Ninja) and Defend J20 (@Defendj20) on Twitter!
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Democracy Is Direct

Postby American Dream » Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:09 am


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IDyLk_EYdE
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Democracy Is Direct

Postby American Dream » Wed Jun 27, 2018 9:17 am

Through infrastructures of resistance, movements will build alternatives but, as importantly, have capacities to defend the new social formations. These infrastructures of resistance will directly confront state capitalist power. Thus, they will need to be defended from often savage attack. The key impulse is to shift the terrain of anti-capitalist struggle from a defensive position–reacting to elite policies and practices or merely offering dissent–to an offensive one–contesting ruling structures and offering workable alternatives. Movements need to shift from a position of resistance to one of active transformation.

This would serve to meet practical needs–of shelter, education, health, and well-being–while also raising visions for broader alternatives and stoking the capacity to imagine or see new possibilities.

Building infrastructures of resistance will directly affect movements in practical and visionary ways. It will also challenge ruling elites by pushing them into reactive, rather than purely offensive, and confident, positions.

Such infrastructures of resistance would shift possibilities for strategizing and mobilization. They might render demonstrations unnecessary by offering a base for refusing or countering institutions and practices of states and capital. At the same time, more than simply opposing authoritarian institutions we might develop our own means for living the lives we desire.

Transformation must focus on controlling means of reproduction as well as means of production. Focus on worker control alone leaves communities unable to allocate resources effectively and efficiently to meet broader needs (social or ecological).

At the same time, community control without control of means of production would be futile, a fantasy.

A new social world cannot be built from scratch. Nor does it need to be.

The mutual aid relationships and already existing associations that people have organized around work and personal interests (clubs, groups, informal workplace networks, even subcultures) can provide possible resources.

At the same time, many infrastructures are needed. Even today, in working class and poor neighborhoods and households, many workers have only loose informal connections in their workplaces. In apartment complexes, households can link up in direct assemblies to organize shared resources. Some might include cooking, maintenance, laundry, health care, education, birthing rooms, and recreational facilities.

Building infrastructures of resistance encourages novel ways of thinking about revolutionary transformation. Rather than the familiar form of street organization or protest action, within constructive anarchist approaches, the action is in the organizing. There needs to be already existing infrastructures or else a radical or revolutionary transformation will be impossible (or disastrous).

On the need for pre-existing revolutionary infrastructures, larger mobilizations such as general strikes cannot have a meaningful impact in the absence of infrastructures of resistance. Under general strike conditions essential goods and services would be absent. Water, energy, food, and medical services would not be available without alternative associations or capacities to occupy and run workplaces to meet human social needs. These sorts of takeover themselves require pre-existing infrastructures.


--Jeff Shantz, Taking it OFF the streets!
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Democracy Is Direct

Postby American Dream » Fri Jun 29, 2018 4:46 pm

On Syria and Imperialism

A Revolution Against Neoliberalism


Monopoly and Myths of Capitalist Multipolarity

The complexity of imperial presence in Syria caught the western left off guard; it was a moment of realization for many that the unipolar world that rose in the wake of the collapse of the USSR was being challenged, if not on its way out. I would argue that the world is still unipolar in several ways, but the order is indeed experiencing challenges. The post-World War II policy of uniting inter-capitalist rivals around the globe has become untenable, as the emergence of China, Russia and other emerging markets have altered the geopolitical field. The US, China, Russia, Iran, and indeed, Syria, are all empires differing size and scope — but not in form. As these countries integrate further into the global capitalist order, their tendencies toward expansion and further exploitation become more powerful. The imperial state in capitalism plays the role of facilitating conquest as well security guard (protecting investments and interests related to them). Capitalism is historically not the only driver of imperialism, but imperialism has been integral to capitalism since its inception. (10)

The idea that imperial expansionism is inherent to capitalism is an important theoretical point, and it’s not one that is lost on Marxist-Leninists. However, there is perhaps a strategy of avoidance when it comes to this fact. A contradiction within Marxist-Leninist theory of imperialism and Monopoly Capitalism is that successful capitalist “self-determination” results in empire. Capitalism is only sustained by growth. Recognizing this does not imply that one is against national liberation, but rather it provides us with a critical anti-capitalist lense to understand national liberation through. With this understanding, we can move forward with the recognition that Russia and Iran, for example, are not anti-imperialist by definition; they are emerging capitalist empires, whose interests in exploitation and territory may or may not be in conflict with the US (and each other), but are no different in form. Thus, their interventions in Syria are imperial interventions; and given that Assad could not have survived the popular revolution without Russian and Iranian backing, we believe it is a farce to refer to the Assad regime as an expression of national self-determination (11).

Aside from the comfortable certainty of following the simplistic Cold War binary logic, underlying the geopolitically motivated support for Bashar Al-Assad by some is the vague goal of capitalist multipolarity. The theoretical underpinnings of this can be found in Lenin, the Monthly Review school, and Dependency theorists like Samir Amin — and it is important to challenge this goal as both an illusion and counter-revolutionary. Under this theory of imperialism, imperialism is driven by the interests of monopoly capital, whose interests and institutions have been fused with finance and the state (12). Thus imperialism is an expression monopoly power in the global market, and the anti-imperialist position is to engage in national liberation struggles against the monopoly capitalists of the imperial core. Notably, what is emphasized in this framework is the struggle between states that represent capitalists, while the struggle between labor and capital moves to the side. We have seen historically how this has usually amounted to Popular Frontism and justification for allying with the national bourgeoisie in what is essentially an exaggerated version of a small business position; if what is most important is to eject the foreign monopoly capitalists, then an alliance with national capitalists is justified. Indeed, this strategy is what propelled the Syrian Baathist regime initially in the 1960s , just as it did for Ayatollah in Iran in the 70’s . In both cases, the strategy left progressive forces vulnerable to reactionary forces within the front, and capitalism and conservatism were reinforced. (13) (14)

The notion that it is absolutely necessary that we pick sides within inter-capitalist rivalries for the sake of resisting monopoly is a dead end and founded upon two crucial bourgeois political economic assumptions: that capitalist competition allocates resources efficiently and optimally, and that the monopoly is the opposite of competition (refer back to my last piece on monopoly capital theory). In point of fact, there is no evidence that capitalist competition allocates resources better than capitalist monopoly, and all monopoly that exists is in fact intense oligopolistic competition. Prices are not determined by market power or lack thereof (as bourgeois economists claim), but determined by the severity of labor exploitation (15) . Indeed, what matters for workers is not *primarily* the power relations between capitalists or capitalist nations, but the power relations between labor and capital. In fact, a 2010 study shows that income inequality in the US grew simultaneously with a decline in large firms; this counter-intuitive development begins to make sense when we consider the more salient fact that this increase in income inequality coincides with a decline in organized labor (16). Class composition still matters; the national capitalists will betray workers just as fast as monopoly capitalists, and rejecting the monopolists without rejecting capitalism is a limited approach.

We oppose monopoly and monopoly capitalists as much as anyone, but we have to be both accurate about how monopoly operates in relation to capitalist competition, as well as be critical toward the road that has led to Popular Frontism and state capitalism repeatedly. A “multipolar world” of several competing capitalist empires cannot be merely assumed to be “historically progressive”, as it says next to nothing about the relationship between the exploiters and the exploited, it doesn’t address resource distribution issues on its own, and in fact, without the class component, it can only result in more exploitation and war as a result of increased competition among capitals. The hegemony of the US must be challenged, but under the direction of and in the interests of workers and marginalized peoples.

In the case of the Assad regime, the guise of multipolarity allows imperial intervention and neoliberalism to be equated with anti-imperialism and even socialism. By turning the conflict into a disingenuous and bourgeois geopolitical exercise, class struggle is left to the wayside by the authoritarian left. The biggest and most determinative monopoly that exists is the monopoly that capitalists hold on productive resources — it would be best if we did not ignore that.


Globalization, Inter-Imperialism and Islamophobia

Although the era of truce between capitalist powers looks like it is falling apart in many ways, there are significant relationships and connections of mutual interest that tie capitalist rivals together. These relationships are engendered by the global capitalist system, which the US sits at the top of, and which poses hard constraints on the prospect of self determination. In a world where absolute advantage is defined by degree of labor exploitation and resource extraction, integration into the world capitalist economy and the adoption of the western commodity form pose new questions and challenges for anti-imperialism. The authoritarian leftist case for defining capitalist powers like Russia, Iran, and Syria as anti-imperialist is inadequate given the criticisms of the monopoly capitalism framework, but also it ignores the implications of neoliberal globalization. Rather than understanding the adoption of the western commodity form as its own form of western imperialism — a result of west’s world hegemony, serving western capitalist interests — many on the left wish to protect neoliberal elites in supposedly anti-imperialist countries who are instituting this adoption. Putin, Assad, Khamenei are not insignificant agents in the proliferation of global neoliberalism; and their supposed resistance has always been contradicted by their participation in global capital. Assad’s neoliberal reforms sparked the revolution against him, and it was Putin and Khamenei that came to the aid of neoliberalism in Syria.


Read more: http://m1aa.org/?p=1527



Image
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Democracy Is Direct

Postby American Dream » Sun Jul 01, 2018 8:07 am

https://leftyhooligan.wordpress.com/201 ... 8-mrr-422/

Switchovers and crossovers: “What’s Left?” July 2018, MRR #422

Image

Every elementary schoolchild knows that, after 1492, two food staples common to the “New World” were introduced into the “Old World” via the trans-Atlantic exchange inaugurated by Columbus. I’m talking about potatoes and corn, or maize. What’s not so well known is that maize was substantially undigestible, that potatoes contained low level toxins, and that native Americans processed both heavily in order to make them palatable. Plant breeding and hybridization techniques since 1492 have resulted in far more edible varieties of both maize and potatoes, at the cost of the diversity of the original plant populations.

Both maize and potatoes are considered species complex (superspecies, species aggregate) which, biologically, means a group of closely related species that are so similar in appearance to the point that the boundaries between them are frequently unclear. In fact, the original maize and potato superspecies each contained hundreds, if not thousands of related individual species that could potentially hybridize. One species of maize or potato might not be able to easily cross breed with another species of maize or potato at the far range of their respective genetic spectrums, but that spectrum did allow for gradual, continuous hybridization along the way.

Now, think of the political Left and Right as separate species complex. I’m well aware of the dangers of comparing social phenomena with biological realities. The Nazis were adept at such false comparisons, for example defining the Jews as a biological race and then attributing everything from their physical appearance to their demographic dispersal and communitarian organization to that faux race. I’m using species complex to describe politics not as an analogy but as a metaphor, even as that concept provocatively conveys the political fluidity that individuals within the Left and Right can demonstrate.

On the Left, Victor Serge started as a youngster sympathetic to socialism who became a radical left anarchist before joining the Bolshevik party after the Russian 1917 Revolution. Eventually Serge affiliated with left Trotskyism in opposition to Stalinism, but at every stage he remained highly critical of the Left to which he subscribed. More recently, ex-MMA fighter and anarcho-communist darling Jeff Monson became a Russian citizen and joined the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. Moving in the other direction, there is the example of Murray Bookchin. He started out as a Stalinist by virtue of his upbringing, gravitated toward Trotskyism by joining the Socialist Workers Party, and finally developed into an ardent anarchist communist whose pamphlet “Listen, Marxist!” (part of his collection of essays Post-Scarcity Anarchism) became a rallying cry for a whole generation of post-New Left anarchists.

Image

Because the Left is based much more on program and ideology than the Right, political movement within the Left seems more rational. No less sectarian mind you, but there’s the unifying sense that “we’re all part of the Left.” In John Sayles’ well-known short story “At The Anarchist Convention,” when the building manager threatens to call the police to evict the Convention because they refuse to move to a smaller room, “[n]obody bickers, nobody stalls or debates or splinters.” They stand together, “arms linked, the lame held up out of their wheelchairs, the deaf joining from memory […] in ‘We Shall Not Be Moved’.” However, such moments of revolutionary solidarity are short-lived, with the Bolsheviks organizing their Cheka two months after the October Revolution and the German SDP resorting to the Freikorps soon after the 1918 sailors and workers soviet revolution.

On the Right, much has been made of “The Insidious Libertarian-to-Alt-Right Pipeline” described by Matt Lewis in The Daily Beast. Michael Brendan Dougherty calls it “The Libertarianism-to-Fascism Pipeline” in the National Review, but the notion is similar. (This is a veritable four-lane freeway compared to the local road between alt.lite and alt.right.) Not only is libertarianism a unique gateway drug to neo-Nazism, there’s an easy exchange between the two that is belied by their seeming ideological incompatibilities. That exchange might even be considered a conscious—if secret—strategy of the Right generally, as revealed by J.P. Nash in his review of Jim Goad’s Shit Magnet: “If I had to describe my political philosophy, I would say: ‘Libertarianism now, fascism later.’ We need to preserve our civil liberties now in order to take them away from the morons later, when we create a healthy White society: an organic state with no parties, no elections, no demagoguery, and no politicians—a society where the best rule for the good of all—a society that takes eugenic measures to drain the Goad end of the gene pool forever—a society where the degrading filth of Judeo-Afro-Homo-Chomo-Pomo popular culture is rolled up by a giant dung beetle and plopped into the bottomless pit of oblivion.”

As a revolt against modernity and thus in continuous reaction to the Left, the Right is fundamentally non-rational in its blind appeal to authority, whether that be tradition, belief, divinity, scripture, law, the state, leadership, or charisma. Whether or not the Right’s authoritarian and libertarian wings are in collusion, the Right’s appeal to authority is what Richard Wolin calls the seduction of unreason that disguises its schismatic nature, producing a sectarianism that often puts the Left to shame. For instance, when Martin Luther replaced the centralized authority of the papacy with the decentralizing authority of scripture, what followed was Reformation, Counterreformation, some ten million dead, and eventually almost 50,000 Protestant denominations. And the Right is by no means united in what constitutes proper authority.

But what about individuals who seem to jump between far Left and far Right? Returning to the original biological metaphor, what about movement not within (intra) species no matter how broadly defined, but between (inter) species? Isn’t the latter much more dramatic than the former?

In my classical anarchist days, as a member of the Social Revolutionary Anarchist Federation, I was appalled by the story of “Red” Warthan who became an anarchist in response to Federal gun restrictions but turned Nazi skinhead when he was attacked and beaten up by a crowd of black kids. Perry Warthan is now in prison convicted of murdering a fellow skinhead in his gang for being a suspected police informant. Many a New Leftist turned conservative, among them David Horowitz and Ronald Radosh. A canard of the neoconservative movement is that most started as Trotskyists like Irving Kristol and Jeane Kirkpatrick. Not true, although many like Daniel Moynihan and William Bennett began politics as liberals. Today, Andrew Anglin has a similar political arc, going from being an antiracist vegan Leftist to a Holocaust-embracing, neo-Nazi alt.rightist who is currently underground evading subpoenas in a civil suit caused by his vicious trolling. Jason Kessler, one of the organizers behind the Charlottesville “Unite the Right” riot, also began political life as a Democratic supporter of Obama and a participant in Occupy Wall Street. But supposedly such is the “natural” progression of things, in a more extreme form, from the quote attributed variously to Churchill, Clemenceau, or Lloyd George that: “Any man who is not a socialist at age twenty has no heart. Any man who is still a socialist at age forty has no head.”

There are numerous individuals who’ve made a similar if opposite journey from Right to Left, from fascism to liberalism or the Left. Ex-skinheads Timothy Zaal, Christian Picciolini, and T.J. Leyden have told stories of leaving violently racist skinhead gangs to become more tolerant, accepting, liberal, even Leftist. Much less dramatically, GOP stalwarts like Kevin Phillips, David Brock, Michael Lind, and Bruce Bartlett have proclaimed they can no longer support their former conservative agendas and have become moderate, even liberal Democrats. Karl Hess, Joan Didion, Garry Wills, and Elizabeth Warren also come to mind. All this flipping from Left to Right and visa versa can produce a kind of political whiplash that is disconcerting and can make anyone doubt the genuineness of such conversions.

Certainly such inter-political switchovers are sensational, far more dramatic than the slower intra-political evolution we’re usually familiar with. But politics is not biology, and our metaphor is just that, a metaphor. Left and Right are not separate species incapable of cross breading, even as individuals are perfectly capable of politically crossing over and as movements are capable of cross-pollinating. And of sometimes creating monsters.

In a way it’s misdirected to focus on individuals and their personal reasons for changing politics. A similar caution can be made of political movements. There are social contexts and “the times” when such political conversions occur with greater frequency, specifically during spontaneous grassroots political upheavals and more calculated instances of ideological battle. The Right likes to call those latter moments “culture wars” or even more disingenuously, “metapolitics.” Mao put the lie to this succinctly when he said “politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed.”

I’ll conclude this discussion of Left/Right political conversions—whether intra or inter—next column by detailing various illustrative social contexts that enhance or inhibit such political crossovers.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Democracy Is Direct

Postby American Dream » Mon Jul 02, 2018 7:17 am

Ivysyn's blog

State Socialist Anti-Communism

Image

Something of a reply to the essay by Michael Parenti, "Left Anti-Communism: The Unkindest Cut" and a retort to the tenancy of modern Stalinists to attack their left opponents by calling them "anti-communist". This article argues that state socialism as a project and ideology was/is effectively anti-communist.

In the 90s an article written by political scientist Michael Parenti was circulated. This article was an attempt to show that that the non-Stalinist left (Anarchists, Trotskyists, and pretty much any leftist critical of the Soviet Union) were essentially for a left wing version of anti-communism. This anti-communism was like right wing anti-communism in that it supposedly opposed the communist project and sought to prevent it from being realized. Unlike right wing anti-communism so called “Left Anti-Communism” cloaked it’s opposition to communism in a leftist ideological veil. An example of this Michael Parenti gives is professor Noam Chomsky who despite giving very open and cutting critiques of US empire and propaganda, none the less says that the fall of the Soviet Union was actually “the best thing that ever could have happened for socialism”. In his essay “The Soviet Union vs Socialism” Chomsky argues that the Soviet Union was an authoritarian regime that used the word “socialism” and the imagery associated with it to garner support from socialists and revolutionaries and thus to hide the fact that in actuality (according to Chomsky) it was really a repressive capitalist state that exploited workers through wage labor in place of private capitalists. Anarchists, since the Bolsheviks consolidated their rule after the Russian Revolution, have argued that the state socialist regime in Russia lacked the direct control of society by freely associated self-managing producers required for genuine socialism. Parenti attacks this view as left anti-communist as well.

So why are these two positions anti-communist? According to Parenti because they attack the communist project in practice. Parenti argues that state-socialist regimes like the Soviet Union were the real experiments in socialism and communist revolution. They were the result of the in practice application of the ideas of the communist and socialist movement. As such, by attacking the communist project’s realization in practice state socialism’s critics are effectively putting down the communist project and arguing against it, and just as well, working to undermine it. “The pure socialists regularly blame the Left itself for every defeat it suffers. Their second-guessing is endless. So we hear that revolutionary struggles fail because their leaders wait too long or act too soon, are too timid or too impulsive, too stubborn or too easily swayed. We hear that revolutionary leaders are compromising or adventuristic, bureaucratic or opportunistic, rigidly organized or insufficiently organized, undemocratic or failing to provide strong leadership. But always the leaders fail because they do not put their trust in the “direct actions” of the workers, who apparently would withstand and overcome every adversity if only given the kind of leadership available from the left critic’s own groupuscule. Unfortunately, the critics seem unable to apply their own leadership genius to producing a successful revolutionary movement in their own country.” -Parenti

Parenti, as you may have gathered by now, is a defender of state socialism. He sees the regimes of the USSR, China, Cuba, ect. as something close to models of how socialism and communism are really enacted. In a speech given after the Soviet Union’s collapse Parenti argued that despite having layers of sometimes repressive bureaucracy that limited economic efficiency, despite Stalin being a bit despotic, the Soviet Union implemented socialism for the first time on a mass scale and created a generally prosperous and humane society. Followers of the state socialist model today, or as they call themselves “Marxist-Leninists”, or sometimes “Maoists” depending on what traditions they particularly fallow, echo this criticism throughout time. Despite the collapse of the USSR and sweeping market reforms in China and Vietnam modern day state socialists will accuse leftists who are critical of certain regimes as fundamentally anti-communist, working against socialist and communist goals rather than toward them. These regimes include Cuba, North Korea, the Syrian Baath government, Iran, and sometimes even China, or the Russian Federation.

A particular brand of modern state socialist, Maoists, apply this principle to Stalinist guerrilla movements in the third world such as the Naxalites in India, the New People’s Army in the Philippines, the Shinning Path in Peru before it’s defeat by state forces, and sometimes the FARC in Columbia. In his reply to Left Communist working class historian Loren Goldner’s critical article on the Soviet Union, Mao’s China, and leftist support for Mao Maoist academic J. Moufawad-Paul calls on Loren’s publication, Insurgent Notes, to drop “insurgent” from it’s name. Moufawad-Paul argues that Maoists through their presence in the form of these aforementioned guerrilla groups are the people fighting for communism in modern times, by rejecting Maoism, Loren Goldner is in effect rejecting the communist movement itself. “Not so with Loren Goldner’s Notes Towards a Critique of Maoism which is not only insulting to maoists but also insults the intelligence of anyone who has bothered to critically investigate the history and theory of the communism that was influenced by the Chinese Revolution. And yet Insurgent Notes published this article that mocks the ideology of the only communist insurgencies that currently exist and have existed since the fall of the Soviet Union proving that it only cares about insurgency insofar as to denigrate actually existing revolution. Indeed, even Insurgent Notes’ general readership appears to wallow in the ignorance Goldner’s article promotes as evinced by many of the comments, all of which betray the same shallow understanding of the subject matter.”-J. Moufawad-Paul

So, how can I, a Libertarian Communist and someone who rejects state socialism respond to this claim? Well if we examine the actual facts of the legacy of state socialism we can formulate a response pretty easily, a response that shows that state socialism and it’s ideological support base are the real “left anti-communists”.


Continues: https://libcom.org/blog/state-socialist ... m-30062018
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 49 guests