La parabola del "movimento no global"

A 24 anni di distanza dal funesto G8 di Genova e da quelle torride giornate di luglio, alla luce della mia esperienza, temo che la maggioranza della gente sia del tutto sorda e indifferente alle giuste ragioni sociali e politiche rivendicate in quei giorni dal cd. "movimento no global", resosi portavoce di tutti coloro che erano e sono "invisibili" nella società dei consumi di massa. Quel movimento fu, nel corso della storia occidentale, l'unico tra i vari movimenti di una certa rilevanza politica a non rivendicare nulla per sé e a spendersi a favore delle istanze e dei diritti altrui, dei soggetti sociali più emarginati e meno abbienti, impegnandosi per cause umanitarie e solidali. Un movimento di ampie dimensioni di massa, eterogeneo e multiforme, che riuniva in sé una moltitudine di forze sociali, politiche e sindacali, provenienti da varie realtà nazionali ed internazionali. Il comune denominatore politico e culturale era una visione condivisa di una società differente, più umana e radicalmente alternativa all'esistente. Un comune sentire ed un approccio critico (sia pure vago e generico in molti casi) alla realtà alienante della "globalizzazione" di matrice neoliberista. Le critiche mosse dai "no global" a quel modello economico-materiale e consumistico, vincente a livello planetario, il rifiuto dell'egemonia culturale esercitata dal "pensiero unico neoliberista" e da un'ideologia consumista, erano nettamente valide e sacrosante. Tuttavia, i limiti di quel movimento, al di là dei meriti e delle ragioni incontrovertibili, evidenti oggi più che nel passato, consistevano in una precarietà e fragilità politica e progettuale, in una sterile e scarsa unità di intenti sul versante più squisitamente strategico ed organizzativo, che ne hanno pregiudicato ogni spinta propulsiva per una trasformazione radicale del sistema economico e politico neo-imperialista, che rischia di trascinare l'umanità sull'orlo di una vera apocalisse atomica. Dopo le feroci brutalità poliziesche durante il G8 di Genova ed il "trauma" dell'11 settembre 2001, il movimento perse la sua "verginità" e si indebolì rapidamente fino alla sua totale e definitiva uscita di scena, avvenuta più o meno dopo il 2006/07, se non erro. Guarda caso, in concomitanza con la confluenza dei consensi a favore del "centro-sinistra ulivista" presieduto da Romano Prodi con l'appoggio del PRC di Fausto Bertinotti. Vale a dire con l'accordo di "desistenza". Amen...

Lucio Garofalo

From Regeneración, we're publishing the interview conducted by the magazine Ekintza Zuzena with a comrade for its 2025 issue (https://www.nodo50.org/ekintza/2025/numero-51-de-la-revista-ekintza-zuzena/), as it reviews the fundamental threads of our movement.

A preliminary question: How would you define and situate the historically known platformist anarchism? And what about specificist anarchism?

I'll start with some historical notes. First, the Platform emerged in France in the 1920s among anarchist militants who came from Russia. Finally at peace, after a long revolutionary war they couldn't win, they were able to take stock of their journey as a movement during the Russian Revolution. The Dyelo Truda group (one of those exile groups composed of prominent figures such as Nestor Makhno, Pyotr Arshinov, Ida Mett, Gregori Maksimov, and others) concluded that the cause of the defeat by the Bolsheviks was the lack of organization, program, and discipline of the Russian anarchist movement. They had acted differently in each place. There were never any overall strategic plans or forums to discuss them. The Bolsheviks were able to defeat them city by city, region by region, without putting up a fight on any level other than in Ukraine.

Dyelo Truda proposed a new organizational model: the General Union of Anarchists. This model sought to unify the most active elements of anarchism into a single organization under the program outlined in The Platform. I will clarify that it was not a complete program, but a partial one, as they recognized. The full program would have to be debated within this General Union once it was underway.

This new platformism was highly critical of the "anarchist synthesis," an organizational model that blended anarchists from all currents of anarchism into a single organization. According to the platformists, the lack of homogeneity of approaches "would inevitably lead to disintegration when confronted with reality." In other words, it would render the organization ineffective in the face of the major challenges facing any movement. They were extremely critical of anarchist individualism and nihilism ("chaotic anarchism," they called it). They were also unconvinced by anarcho-syndicalism, since in Russia it had been oriented almost exclusively toward industrial workers, neglecting the peasantry, which was the majority social component in Russia.

So, which anarchist militants were they addressing?

We base our hope on other militants: on those who remain faithful to anarchism, having experienced and suffered the tragedy of the anarchist movement, and painfully seek a solution.[1]

Therefore, they proposed an organization with tactical and strategic unity and discipline. Militants should not join an organization to do whatever they wished, but to fulfill its program. Dyelo Truda intended the Platform to be the revolutionary backbone and meeting point of Russian anarchism, given that at the time they were speaking to exiles, although it would soon be extended to all territories.

These approaches were the reason why the Platform fell out of favor with many militants in other countries at the time, and its development was thus slowed. However, its ideas were the driving force behind the Bulgarian Anarchist Communist Federation, which was strongly present in the resistance to the 1934 coup d'état, in the partisan resistance of World War II, and in the postwar period against Soviet domination, until it was finally liquidated in 1948. These ideas also took root in France, among a sector of anarchism that maintained them from its beginnings until the postwar period. And later, they were promoted again by the Libertarian Communist Federation, with Georges Fontenis as its leading exponent. This FCL greatly influenced European anarchism in the 1950s and 1960s, with the French movement being one of the key movements for anarcho-communism today.

Especifismo, for its part, arose directly from the Uruguayan FAU in 1956. Paradoxically, they didn't discover The Plafaform until many years later. Their starting point was Errico Malatesta, whose emphasis on specific organization and refutation of individualism caught their attention. Another of their role models was Mikhail Bakunin, who was enormously important to our movement, promoting specific organizations such as the International Alliance for Socialist Democracy. And their other reference point was Uruguay's earlier specific organizations, organic constructions from the 1920s and 1930s. Thanks to those older militants, who had been in the fray for years, it became clear that the task of political organization wasn't philosophizing and holding meetings, but rather how to approach the tasks of the different work fronts: union, student, neighborhood, and internal.

Their first task was to create the Organic Charter, in which they situated their organization in the Latin American context of the 1950s and outlined short-, medium-, and long-term plans. The younger militants sought to avoid automatically transferring other plans and formulas that had been used in other historical situations. Their anarchism would have to be rooted in the country and its concrete reality.

This especificism (from “specific” organization) was put into practice alone for years by the FAU until it was also taken up by Argentine groups in the 70s. It must be said that they never contemplated anarchist synthesis because nobody really took this avenue of organization into consideration.[2] The FAU went through different stages and even strategic objectives that brought it closer to the Latin American popular national movement of the 70s, which was in its stage of greatest visibility and size, with numerous social fronts and even its own armed organization, the OPR-33.

In the 1990s, especifismo moved away from these perspectives and began to spread to other countries such as Brazil and Chile. From there, in the 2000s, it began to converge with the anarcho-communist movement typical of Europe and the Anglo-Saxon world, and today it is part of the same international movement.

In Latin America, these organizations do not publicly call themselves Especifistas, but rather "organized anarchism," which is also the name given to the International Coordinator of the organizations of our movement.

Although we like these models of anarchism, which we understand as the most capable of influencing reality through anarchism, we must clarify that we are neither a Russian, French, nor Latin American organization, so we will have to create a local anarchism, with the makeup of that local anarchism, to operate in the 21st century.

What is your assessment of the current state of the Iberian libertarian movement, and what challenges and needs do you see in your field?

A movement is a set of actions, ideas and efforts organized by a group of people who share common goals to influence society. Starting from this perspective, you will agree that there is no single homogeneous libertarian movement, given that there are no common objectives across this amalgam of individuals, collectives, initiatives, scenes, spaces, organizations, or unions that claim to be anarchists.

Based on this premise, we could first identify a libertarian movement that seeks to achieve libertarian communism. This would be composed of anarcho-syndicalism and some anarchist collectives and organizations, as well as their related social or cultural projects that help them reach a wider audience.

There are also other paradigms similar to libertarian communism but with different characteristics. I'm talking about communalism, democratic confederalism, the anti-capitalist side of cooperativism, a part of autonomy (whether Marxist or indigenist) and similar proposals, or the radical environmental and anti-development movement. These people tend to be fellow travelers of anarchism and, to some extent, even come from its ranks or have passed through its collectives or organizations, but, for whatever reason, they have disassociated themselves from the libertarian movement as we understand it. Therefore, these initiatives cannot be considered part of our movement; rather, they build and participate in others.

Therefore, speaking of the libertarian movement itself, we have a considerable union space—without achieving the strength of yesteryear, of course—made up of the CGT and CNT and all their offshoots (Solidaridad Obrera, CNT-AIT, SAS Madrid, STS-C, and other smaller union groups). This movement has a considerable presence throughout Spain. It's true that it's a divided and often inter-struggle union space, which diminishes its potential and contributes to its discredit. It's also true that for some unions, libertarian communism is such a far-reaching aspiration that it's not even considered in their current strategy.

If anarcho-syndicalism is the spearhead, there are also organizations or organic initiatives behind it that were founded to contribute to the goal I mentioned earlier. These would be the anarchist synthesis organizations and collectives (this includes what was once called "neighborhood anarchism"), the anarcho-communist ones (currently called "specific," which seems to be the most popular word right now), and the insurrectionist ones. Their strength is limited to their own members, and their influence extends to the broader spaces in which they operate. We're talking about some very specific neighborhoods where they operate. Their presence influences the anti-capitalist scene in the places where they operate, and they are generally based in the urban areas and cities of their metropolitan areas (Madrid, Barcelona, ​​Seville, Valencia, Zaragoza, Granada, A Coruña, etc.). And their real impact comes from their militant capacity and commitment. That's why they have influence.

Next, we have what we can understand as informal anarchism, autonomism, or, as Murray Bookchin would say, "lifestyle anarchism". We could almost consider it a subcultural scene rather than a political movement, but I don't deny the interest of many of the people who participate in it in transforming society at its roots. It inherited part of that subcultural component from the Iberian Peninsula punk scene, which so influenced the anarchism of the 1990s and 2000s.

This informal anarchism or autonomism organizes events that can occasionally become massive, such as protests, protest camps or anarchist book fairs, but they generally remain spaces for socializing and networking rather than for social intervention. As a criticism, they run the risk of falling into inbreeding by residing solely on the margins of the social mainstream. In this sector, we can find both people whose goal is libertarian communism and also those who are not interested and seek to live as freely as possible in today's society.

However, through informal organizations, various networks and coordinators of squatted social centers, libertarian athenaeums, media outlets and counter-information organizations have been launched, and they have participated in other social movements such as anti-militarism, environmentalism and the fight against the globalization of capital.

In Spain, during the 1990s and 2000s, a dualism prevailed: anarcho-syndicalism, understood as a political organization, and informal anarchism, generally anti-organization. This was almost hegemonic, and there was little room for organizational attempts that lasted rather short (the second Autonomous Struggle, Libertarian Alternative, Galician Anarchist Federation, local and regional libertarian assemblies, networks of libertarian athenaeums, and CSOs, etc.). During those years, a peninsular-wide libertarian space was never established, beyond the FIJL linked to insurrectionalism or the FAI, which by 2000 already seemed focused exclusively on libertarian culture.

However, the movement later gained momentum. The youth movement built organizations: the FIJA and the first FEL, as well as some local libertarian youth organizations. Anarcho-independence movements were strengthened with Negres Tempestes in Catalonia, which generated their own momentum. This was a time of heightened anti-development struggles, attracting hundreds of people. Anarchist book fairs proliferated. Anarchist websites such as Alasbarricadas and Klinamen, and other more diverse ones such as Indymedia, LaHaine and Kaosenlared, received thousands of visits; there were still various publications in the form of fanzines, magazines, and newspapers.

From 2010-12, anarchism began to unite, developing in neighborhood or municipal and regional assemblies. This coincided with the period following the 15M movement. In some cases, such as in Catalonia, federations were formed between these groups. But all this lasted only a short time, lasting two, three, or five years, with the exception of some groups that achieved generational change, as was the case with Heura Negra in Vallcarca (Barcelona). Those local libertarian assemblies were the political school for most activists of our time, because there were truly that many groups.

The lack of consolidation of these collectives paralleled the crisis of insurrectionalism as a result of the repressive measures it suffered between 2011 and 2016. But it wasn't just a repressive issue, it was also a political one. Whatever happened, all of this paralyzed their political project of the Coordinated Anarchist Groups. This crisis demobilized part of their militancy or caused it to drift toward other, more practical projects, and also prevented it from renewing itself generationally.

The most political anarchism, so to speak, was also articulated during that time. For example, Embat in Catalonia, Apoyo Mutuo in Madrid, Aragon, and Seville, Aunar in Aragon, and the Libertarian Student Federation (FEL). We're not going to lie to anyone: we're talking about a very small scene that didn't even manage to become a proper movement, despite our intentions.

Regarding Embat, our analysis of the period after the 15M was that many essentially libertarian ideas and practices had been seen, but they were barely articulated by the libertarian movement. Proposals were taken to town squares individually and embraced by a politically diverse audience. We were aware—we saw them—that in those same squares there were Marxist or social democratic political organizations that had the goal of increasing their own membership. So we understood that it was necessary to have our very own organization to channel that spontaneous libertarian spirit toward a revolutionary perspective. That's why Embat was born.

During this period, we were able to garner some sympathy, but we failed to attract those libertarian people who were embedded in the social and popular movements. Most of them preferred to continue without a specific organization. This proved fatal with the emergence of Podemos in 2014. Many people who should have been previously organized as anarchists ended up joining the circles and candidacies of Podemos, Ganemos, Sí Se Puede, Más Madrid, or the CUP in Catalonia. Without a strategic line of their own, they adopted social democratic lines until they burned out and went home or until they completely converted to those positions.

Meanwhile, people from libertarian assemblies, insurrectionalist movements or informal anarchism gradually entered anarcho-syndicalism. This time not to turn it into a political organization as in the 1990s, but rather because of labor issues or to help develop some social and cultural area within the unions. They also entered the housing struggle, this time without the intention of "radicalizing the struggle," but rather as just another actor. Something similar must have occurred in the 1980s with people emerging from libertarian athenaeums.

During those years, 2015-2020, we should highlight the influence of the Federation of Anarchists of Gran Canaria in the libertarian field. Their approach combined elements of social and insurrectionary anarchism under an identitarian anarchist discourse that championed "neighborhood anarchism." They were also the driving force behind the first Tenants' Union in the entire state and, at the time, advocated for a rent strike. They managed to bring anarchism to the most disadvantaged neighborhoods of Gran Canaria, reaching a range of people who hadn't been reached in decades. The FAGC attempted to replicate their neighborhood anarchism elsewhere in the state, giving dozens of talks and writing numerous texts. However, this didn't succeed and no one on the Peninsula copied his model, which was a shame, since we have always loved anarchism with such strong social roots.

After the 2020 pandemic, we experienced the rise of the GKS/Socialist Movement and its great impact among the youth of the revolutionary left. Anarchism was literally out of the picture at that time, as we have seen. The ambiguous discourse—half Leninist, half autonomous-libertarian—that this socialist movement had in its early days attracted groups of young militants to those areas. Even people who had previously been active in social or insurrectionalist anarchism, which put a good part of our movement on guard.

Consequently, the need to offer an anarchist organizational alternative became clear. Thus, Alternativa Libertaria and Liza were born in Madrid in 2023 (the former later joined the latter), now Hedra in Alicante, Impulso in Granada, the Seminario de Estudios Libertarios Galegos (Galician Libertarian Studies Seminar), and, within synthetic anarchism, the Horizontal network at the state level (although it hasn't made much headway so far) and some new groups. Libertarian Action of Zaragoza even joined the FAI, a group well established in its neighborhood. Currently, some anarchist assemblies are being re-established in various cities, such as Seville, with that plural or synthetic character that we previously saw in other similar ones. All of this occurs in a context of true growth of anarcho-syndicalism, which has also opened new study centers and cultural organizations.

In short, it has been necessary to offer strong organizations in response to the need of working-class youth to organize. Right now, our entire political space is under construction. Even so, many territories remain with virtually no libertarian entity beyond anarcho-syndicalism, a few propaganda orgs, okupied social centres or music bands.

We are concerned that no assessment has been made of the 2010-2020 decade and that collectives are emerging that uncritically copy the same models that entered into crisis in those years. Because there are not many spaces for interrelation between currents, no kind of collective teaching is being transmitted, a starting point that comrades starting out now can take as a reference. This could be the role of Ekintza Zuzena.

In the summer of 2024, the First Meeting of Especifist Anarchism was held in Catalonia. What need did this initiative respond to, and what is your assessment of it?

The Meeting was a response to previous contacts between the various organizations and groups that exist in Spain and claim to be part of the especifist movement. We intended to draw the attention of this unorganized, but still pro-organizational, libertarian community in the state. That is, those people who now feel the need to have someone supporting them to work politically as anarchists without fearing the other currents of the socialist left.

At that time, about 80 people gathered at the Calafou factory (Vallbona d'Anoia), exceeding our expectations. Many people came who did not belong to the organizing organizations (Batzac, Embat, FEL, Liza and Regeneración Libertaria), and we had some very fruitful discussions with like-minded people from Granada, Galicia, and elsewhere.

During the meeting, a greeting was recorded for Black Rose, our sister organization in the United States, on the occasion of its Convention (something like the annual congress they hold there).

A strong point was the quality of the debate, with very solid arguments. It was also clear that everyone was pulling in the same direction: the need for political organization and social integration—which is to be expected at a meeting of this tendency, but which is not a common occurrence in current anarchism, and that's why it pleasantly surprised us.

And a weak point was the lack of communicative capacity our movement still has, usually allergic to audiovisual media and with no desire to be the center of attention or make a spectacle of its own everyday life. Admittedly, this demonstrates a modicum of common sense, but I think it's also positive to make a little noise, to be known and seen.

What groups or initiatives are currently promoting this movement, and what are their goals?

The initiatives currently promoting this movement in Spain are as follows, in order of creation:

- Federación Estudiantil Libertaria (FEL). Emerging in 2008 from several student assemblies in Madrid, Catalonia and Aragon, it was rebuilt in 2014 after a, let's say, generational hiatus, and has lasted until this year. Its tendency was oriented toward "social and organized anarchism" until recently, when it began to define itself as specific. As student groups come and go quite quickly, it hasn't managed to consolidate in recent years and now only existed in Catalonia. At the end of last year, it joined Batzac, forming its student front.

- Regeneración Libertaria. A web portal created in 2012 as a space for current analysis, theoretical articles, social studies, and libertarian culture within social and organized anarchism. Last year, given that its current members adhere to the Especifista movement, they decided to put the medium at the service of a common project. So today it is the official portal of the Especifist movement or organized anarchism in the Spanish state. It serves as a link between the organizations that promote it and as a point of debate and exchange of ideas.

- Embat, Organització Llibertària de Catalunya. Founded in 2013 as Procés Embat[3] (like the previous ones, under the paradigm of "social and organized anarchism") and since 2015 under its current name. It is an organization that has gone through different stages: one of consolidation, acting as a network of activists (2013-15); another of social integration as an organization (2015-19); another very active during the Independence Procés (2017-18), the 2020 hiatus, which was used to create our Political Line[4], and the current era. We are currently active in the areas of housing, education, feminism, eco-social issues, and labor.

- Batzac, Libertarian Youth . Founded in 2017, it organizes young people who, in most cases, have not previously participated in activism. Until now, it had not declared itself a specialist organization, but rather a social anarchist organization. This is due to its interest in achieving specific social integration, as it does in housing, in the student sphere, and in the workplace. It has recently embraced the FEL (Libertarian Student Federation) in Catalonia.

-Liza, Plataforma Organizativa de Madrid. Founded in 2023, it brought together a group of people in need of organization who shared a strategic and tactical vision halfway between platformism and especifism. Its emergence was combined with good online communication and great activity, which enlivened the Iberian scene, resulting in the current semblance of coordination. Its integration is primarily in housing and neighborhoods. It's also worth highlighting their interest in debating with the rest of the anarchist movement, confronting autonomist and anti-organizational tendencies. Liza absorbed an organizational project called Alternativa Libertaria, which emerged from FEL Madrid.

- Impulso – Granada defines itself as a space for reflection on organized anarchism. Created at the end of 2024, for now, it's precisely that which defines them: a space for debate and training around the ideas of organized anarchism in Granada. Their intention is to move forward gradually, without skipping steps, until culminating in a political organization.

- Hedra, Organización Especifista de Alicante. This is a recent arrival, having been created in January 2025. It is the first to be created under the label of especifismo, as its theoretical foundations draw directly from the primary texts of this movement. Its integration is in housing and in the neighborhood through a group of associations.

I will also mention the publishing house Teima. Currently working on publishing a book by Felipe Correa, called Black Flag. The publisher will publish texts from our movement in Spanish. However, there are some publishers that publish books in our vein, such as Descontrol in Barcelona or Ardora y Bastiana in Galicia.

In addition to these organizations, which are public, there are other initiatives in other parts of the country that have not yet come to light, and which I won't mention so as not to jinx them. Some of them come from anarchist synthesis collectives or assemblies that are drifting toward our style of anarchism. By the way, none of them come from Euskal Herria, so let's see if anyone is interested!

Regarding the stated objectives, the priority is to create a broader anarchist movement with a greater impact on society, bringing anarchism back to the forefront of social struggle.

It's worth mentioning that we are also coordinating with other European organizations of our same current and with those from the rest of the world. The current international coordination brings together more than twenty organizations, and several more are in the process of joining. The best-known are the Union Communiste Libertaire (French-speaking European countries), Die Plattform (Germany), Anarchist Communist Group (UK), Black Rose Federation (USA), Federación Anarquista Uruguaya, Federación Anarquista de Rosario (Argentina), Coordinadora Anarquista de Brasil (Anarchist Coordinator of Brazil) and Tekoshina Anarsist (Rojava). We are also in contact with other new initiatives currently being created. In some ways, it seems to be a parallel process to that in Spain, which indicates that the anarchist movement is seeking to be better organized.

The concept of popular power has had its greatest diffusion in Latin America, where it has generated significant debate. What is your interpretation or definition of the issue of popular power? How would you differentiate it from left-wing populism?

It was in the 1960-70s that the FAU opted to borrow this concept from the Chilean MIR, the Tupamaros, and other movements of the time that combined various forms of Marxism (primarily Leninism and Guevarism), Liberation Theology, national liberation, and Latin Americanism (those who maintain that Latin America is one country). It should be added that anarchism also influenced this amalgamation, something that is often overlooked. In the 1960s, people's power replaced Leninist concept of "dual power."

The Latin American anarchists of the time understood this as logical, since this dual power (those soviets that coexist with the bourgeois state in an advanced phase of the class struggle, once the revolutionary stage has been reached) in turn drew on the ideas of Bakunin.

In the FAU of the 1950s and 1960s, there was a lively debate about the historical subjects who should carry out the revolution. Given the configuration of Uruguayan society at the time, it was necessary to create a subject that would unite all the oppressed sectors of society. The idea of ​​"the people" was used, but the people were understood as those "below". They had nothing to do with the bourgeoisie. It was somewhat like when the historical CNT-FAI spoke of "the working people" in their newspapers and manifestos. They didn't refer solely to the proletariat, since at that time, to ordinary people, it sounded like talk of factories and little else.

In this relationship between ideology and the production of historical subjects—a relationship that, if it didn't exist, would mean neither ideology nor subject—moments of ideological validity are formed. Historical subjects/agents expand and lead to the hegemony of social bodies, based on the validity of ideologies.[5]

As the class struggle unfolded in Latin America, alliances between the organized labor movement, the student movement, the first feminist associations, the peasantry, and grassroots collectives centered on identity, such as Afros, mestizo, and indigenous peoples, came into play. Furthermore, in the 1970s, the social war received support from the self-employed and small business owners expelled from industrial production. The class struggle often moved to neighborhoods or communities far from the city, and elements of counterpower were generated from below in the midst of the struggle. This was popular power: the people in motion, diffuse, anonymous, contradictory, creative, festive, and combative. Land seizures, industrial cordons, armed groups, occupation of universities—this was popular power in the eyes of ordinary people. In no way should it be confused with interclassism, with its conscious "from below" nature.

In the 2000s, the critique began. The especifist or organized anarchist organizations used popular power in their political language. But Marxist organizations did too. In Cuba and Venezuela, all ministries carried the tagline "popular power." So the term was also linked to the socialist state. Comrades critical of the concept of popular power also pointed out that anarchism was being abandoned within the especifist ranks toward Marxism or national populism. Some anarchists even went further, denying the adherence to anarchism of our entire movement, viewing it as a crypto-Marxism as a whole. This is the origin of the conflict.

With Embat, it was even comical to see that, during the first few years, certain people would always come to all our talks and say that popular power couldn't be anarchist in any way. Ironically, we held the opinion that, in reality, everyone understood us perfectly, except for the "most anarchist" ones. No one seemed to have the slightest problem with the Black Power movement of the American Black Panthers, a concept roughly equivalent to popular power.

However, the passing of the years has largely mitigated those debates. If some organizations or individuals drifted toward other ideological positions, the vast majority did not, contributing to the libertarian movement as a whole, and not just to our current in particular. Today, in Spain, this concept has been largely accepted, even by people who come from other currents, such as anarcho-syndicalism or by libertarians who are active in neighborhoods or housing projects without ever having been on our wavelength.

Regarding left-wing populism, we must say that it engages in interclassism, mixing working-class demands with more bourgeois middle-class ones. This would be the main difference. Specificism defends a "strong people" [Pueblo Fuerte] built as a front for the classes oppressed by capitalism and the state. Although we speak of both currents of popular power, there are substantial differences. Let's see what the specificist view is:

We proclaim the most complete socialization of all spheres of social activity. The socialization of the means of production exercised by the organs of real representation of society and not by the State; the socialization of education, the administration of justice, defense organizations, the sources of knowledge and information, and most especially the socialization of political power. In this last aspect, we advocate the abolition of the State and governmental forms of power as the only guarantee of eliminating all forms of domination. […]

We are fully convinced that this is effectively possible through direct democracy, exercised by grassroots popular organizations organized in a self-managed manner and linked within a federalist framework, where these same popular organizations are expressed in new institutional forms. Today we know more firmly than ever that the model of society we propose is not only possible but is practically, and in accordance with the historical and revolutionary experience of different peoples of the world, the only valid path to truly building socialism.[6]

It would be bold to say this isn't anarchism.

To what extent can the desire not to remain locked in the [activist/anarchist] ghetto and to participate (with a non-dogmatic discourse) in current social struggles or processes lead to political contradictions with anarchist or basic principles of the society for which you fight? Do you remember any occasions when you experienced this dilemma?

Social processes are complex by nature. There are many forces at play and many vested interests. The challenge is to build transformative collective interests in a democratic, transparent, and fraternal environment.

For Embat, the crucible was 2017. We had to position ourselves in a tremendously complex scenario. The Spanish state was in crisis and Catalan society demanded a response. This was the referendum. In just a few months, we experienced a large-scale process of collective empowerment. In just a few weeks, I'd say. The movement was already underway, but the events encouraged many more people to join the process. Counter-power structures were created, the committees for the defense of the Republic. They operated as assemblies, calling for actions and demonstrations. But they also had the opportunity to be spaces for territorial counter-power. Another initiative worth considering was the Constituent Procés, which proposed a constituent assembly for an independent Catalonia that would accommodate the most advanced social aspects. Social and union movements also joined the process in their own way. They joined and were responsible for the famous general strike of October 3rd, one of the most widely followed in Catalan history. The slogan of blocking transportation—trains, roads, and in 2019, the airport—naturally emerged. Something that had only been theorized about in anti-capitalist debate years before and was dismissed due to a lack of strength was put into practice.

Although we were perfectly aware that the leadership of this entire process was in the hands of the "traditional" Catalan political class, we also saw what was happening below. Our response was that we had to be there. We always felt that much more could have been done if all the social and union movements had acted unitedly and as a bloc. But this would have required a much greater organized anarchism, which is what we are trying to build.

Another complex and conflictive moment in which we had to take a stand was during the pandemic. Embat's position denounced the police state and the state's militarization of public spaces, while workers in "essential services" were forced to go to work without sufficient protective measures. We also highlighted the devastating effects of the privatization of healthcare and the management of nursing homes and clinics by private entities. At the same time, we welcomed the self-organized mutual support groups that emerged in many places, as well as the grassroots initiatives in which we participated, such as the Social Shock Plan or the attempted rent strike that was proposed during those months. I would add that we took advantage of the lockdown internally to develop our political line, which required much debate. And during that time, the International Coordination, in which we participated, was also strengthened.

The contradictions were clear within our libertarian movement: some focused on denouncing the police state and the infantilization of people, while others preferred to focus on denouncing privatization and self-organization. We didn't see a unified approach, and each of us fought a bit of our own battle. Perhaps what united us most was those proposed shock plans and similar ones.

NOTES

[1] This excerpt can be found in the Introduction to The Platform https://www.nestormakhno.info/spanish/platform/introduccion.htm

[2] For more information, see The Strategy of Especifismo. Interview by Felipe Correa with Juan Carlos Mechoso: http://federacionanarquistauruguaya.uy/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/La-Estrategia-del-Especifismo.pdf

[3] Embat in Catalan refers to the crash of a wave against a rock. It sounded powerful and poetic to us, and it seemed a better name than the typical acronyms of other libertarian organizations of our time.

[4] This was when Especifismo was adopted as one of the guiding principles. The Political Line can be consulted at: https://embat.info/programa-i-linia-politica/

[5] Popular Power from a Libertarian Perspective. https://federacionanarquistauruguaya.uy/poder-popular-desde-lo-libertario-fau/

[6]Ibid.

Foglio telematico di lotta Alternativa Libertaria sui Referendum dell’8-9 Giugno su lavoro e cittadinanza

Clicca qui sotto per scaricarlo:

https://alternativalibertaria.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/foglio-alternativa-libertaria-giugno-2025-scheda.pdf

Esce il numero 35 de Il Cantiere!

In questo numero:

Dal 25 Aprile al Primo Maggio- Alternativa Libertaria/FdCA – pag. 3

“La Guerra” – Le Formiche – Boris Vian- pag. 5

Le contraddizioni del sistema economico capitalistico sono un puzzle irrisolvibile – Cristiano Valente – pag. 7

Se otto ore vi sembran poche – Tommaso Santino – pag.11

Lo Statuto dei Lavoratori – Carmine Valente – pag.14

Lo scontro tra potenze capitaliste e l’accaparramento delle risorse minerarie del Congo – Virgilio Caletti e Lino Roveredo – pag.16

La caccia agli stranieri: la situazione in Francia – Plateforme Communiste Libertaire – pag.19

Un profilo storico dell’anarcosindacalismo in Germania a cura di David Bernardini – L’anarcosindacalismo in Germania – Gerhard Wartemberg – pag. 22

Il totalitarismo nella storia del novecento: la lettura di Gunther Anders – Roberto Manfredini – pag. 25

Barcellona, Maggio 1937: La borghesia e gli stalinisti uccidono la rivoluzione – Fontenis – Berneri- pag. 27

Poesia – L’Angolo delle Brigate – a cura di Rosa Colella – pag. 31

Puoi scaricare il pdf nella sezione “La nostra stampa” del sito!

A different reading of several concepts
By Zaher Baher
April 2025
1. Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism

This concept was introduced by Lenin, who wrote this book in 1916 during World War I (WW1) while he was in Switzerland, a year before the October Revolution. In writing this book, Lenin greatly benefited from Marx's economic analysis.
The research that Lenin conducted and presented in this book is based on several key points and events in the stages of imperialism, which have been given different titles by economists and historians. According to their definitions, a strong nation or rather, a powerful state expands its influence over weaker countries or regions through political, economic, or military control. This often involves colonization, exploitation, the plundering of resources, and the domination of local populations.
Imperialism has existed in various forms throughout history, but the term is most commonly associated with the period from the 15th to the 20th century. Earlier examples include empires such as the Roman, Persian, and Chinese empires, which expanded by conquering territories.
For Lenin, the term was broadened to explain the economic and political causes of imperialism and its role in triggering global conflicts such as WWI. He argued that imperialism was a natural evolution of capitalism, driven by monopoly and finance capital, which sought new markets through colonial expansion. Lenin defined imperialism as the ‘Highest stage of capitalism,’ in which large corporations and banks dominate economies and seek new markets and resources abroad.
He identifies five main characteristics of imperialism:
1. Capitalism leads to the concentration of production and the rise of monopoly capital, which dominates all industries.
2. The merger of banking and industrial capital results in the emergence of financial oligarchies.
3. The export of capital (investment in foreign markets) becomes more significant than the export of goods.
4. The formation of international capitalist monopolies that divide the world among themselves.
5. The territorial division of the world among the imperialist powers is completed, leading to conflict.
Drawing on Marx's writings on economics, Lenin understood that capitalism was evolving toward monopoly, with small businesses being exploited by large corporations. The issue of currency and monetary institutions was an inevitable response to the phenomenon of capitalism. At its core, capitalism is characterized by the conflict between companies and wealth, which leads to exploitation and ultimately to great wars. Lenin saw WWI as a direct consequence of imperialism’s competition for colonies, raw materials, and markets.

Was Lenin's concept right?

Before answering the question, I must emphasize that Marxists, like religious individuals, are ideologists. They continue to believe that definitions of modern capitalism, formulated in a specific historical context, remain valid even after all these years. Their biggest challenge much like that of religious individuals is their tendency to detach interpretation, discourse, and concepts from their original source, time, place, and reality.
If we examine the reality of modern capitalism, the progress and changes that it has undergone, it becomes clear that this concept is flawed and has become obsolete. Rejecting it is not difficult, as the justifications used to support it can now be objectively assessed as either true or false.
Lenin believed that capitalism would inevitably collapse and that socialism would emerge, leaving no further stage or development for capitalism beyond imperialism. However, we see that instead of collapsing, capitalism has largely sustained itself through various reforms, such as the implementation of different service policies, globalization, and the advancement of new technologies and innovations.
Another argument made by Lenin was that capitalism is inherently monopolistic. However, with the rise of neoliberalism, global trade, the digital economy, and the occurrence of various short- and long-term wars, capitalism has not only managed to modernize itself but has also expanded beyond mere monopolization. Large corporations engage in intense competition to create new markets and revitalize existing ones, ensuring their continued relevance and profitability.
Another key principle in Lenin's concept was that foreign investment and expansion often occurred through force and occupation. However, today, we see that many of these transactions are voluntary, and states do not always act under pressure from one another. Instead, numerous trade and industrial agreements exist between countries. Additionally, states employ economic strategies such as adjusting interest rates, managing inflation, and imposing tariffs. These measures influence both the value of their currency and the dynamics of production and trade.
Another important point to consider, despite the existence of exploitation and cheap labour, is that most investments and large-scale projects today are carried out through contracts between major corporations and the states that require these projects, or between states themselves. In the modern era, no country can complete all its projects solely with its own companies or government resources; instead, they rely on large corporations or other states to execute these projects.
For example, many African countries are undertaking major projects such as roads, large bridges, dams, and various other infrastructure developments through partnerships with China and Chinese companies. Additionally, many states finance these projects through loans from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, despite the fact that the contractual conditions can be extremely challenging and stringent. While some projects or loans may be necessary and unavoidable, they are largely undertaken voluntarily rather than being imposed through occupation, exploitation, or the forced extraction of resources.
In conclusion, some of Lenin’s assertions remain valid, particularly regarding the persistence of great power hegemony, war, and oppression, which continue to this day. However, while economic hegemony still exists, it has evolved into a more complex and resilient system than Lenin initially predicted.
In my opinion, imperialism is not the highest stage of capitalism. Capitalism has moved beyond that stage and has now reached the stage of globalization. Globalization and imperialism are two distinct phases with different definitions and paths of development. While imperialism was indeed a stage in capitalism’s evolution, it was not its peak. Imperialism existed in a time when globalization had not yet emerged, and with the rise of globalization, imperialism as it once existed has ceased to be relevant.

2 The Third World Theory

In my opinion, this theory is closely connected to the earlier discussion on imperialism, despite the years that separate them. According to Lenin, imperialism is not only the primary enemy of the working class but also the arch-enemy of colonized nations, as it involves occupying and plundering their natural and human resources while preventing them from achieving independence and progress. Although Lenin did not specifically use the concept of the ‘Third World’ his theory inherently applies to regions and countries that were once occupied and exploited by imperialist powers. It is essentially the basis of the theory of the third world theory.
In this context, Lenin believed that the struggle for national liberation should be initiated, with the workers of the country serving as the main force in this struggle alongside the national liberation movement. Lenin wrote several important texts on this issue, including ‘The Right of Nations to Self-Determination’ (1914–), where he argued that oppressed nations have the right to secede and form independent states. He emphasized that Marxists must support this right while simultaneously advocating for the unity of the proletariat. Lenin stressed the importance of addressing the issue of oppressed nations, particularly those in Asia, in their quest for independence from imperialist powers.
Lenin elaborates on the connection between the socialist revolution and the struggle for national liberation in his 1916 text, ‘The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination’ (1916). He emphasizes that the right to self-determination is a democratic right that fosters unity among workers across different nations. Written in February of that year, these writings extensively discuss national liberation movements, anti-imperialism, and the role of oppressed nations in the global revolutionary struggle. Lenin's works highlight the liberation struggles of nations in Asia, Africa, and other colonized regions.
When Lenin wrote ‘Imperialism is the Highest Stage of Capitalism in1917, he once again emphasized the role of revolutionary movements in Asia. His views on national liberation and national destiny aligned closely with many anti-colonial movements across Asia.
Later, in 1920, Lenin revisited this topic in his Theses on ‘National and Colonial Questions’, presented at the Second Congress of the Communist International. There, he reaffirmed his belief that communists should support anti-colonial and national liberation movements.
Obviously, Lenin relied on the positions of Marx and Engels, who wrote on the issue of Ireland and Poland in their time and supported the independence of both countries, which they believed would benefit the labor movement in both countries.
The above writings were part of a series in which Lenin addressed the national liberation movement. However, despite these contributions, the idea of the ‘Third World Theory’ did not immediately develop into a fully universal theory. Instead, Lenin’s work laid a strong foundation for the theory, which evolved through various stages and efforts before eventually developing into the ‘Third World Theory.’
Third World Theory later emerged as a political and economic concept during the pre and post-Cold War era, initially taking shape in the 1950s and 1960s. The theory focused on countries that were neither aligned with the Western Bloc (led by the U.S. and its NATO allies) nor the Eastern Bloc (led by the former Soviet Union and its allies). Instead, these nations mostly former colonies in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East sought to establish their own independent political and economic paths.
The concept or term Third World Theory was first introduced by French demographer Alfred Sauvy. He drew a comparison between the Third World and the Third Estate in pre-revolutionary 19th-century France. The term originally referred to the common people, who were marginalized and exploited, highlighting their need for revolution.
The political and ideological development of ‘Third World Theory’ then entered a new stage, closely linked to the leaders and thinkers of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and anti-imperialist struggles. To this end, Asian and African leaders gathered in 1955 at a conference in Indonesia to promote cooperation and oppose colonialism. In 1961, the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) was officially founded in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. The ‘Third World’ thus became a symbol of resistance, anti-imperialism, and the aspiration for a new world order.
The formation of the Chinese Communist Party and the movement led by Mao Zedong, culminating in their victory in 1949, played a crucial role in linking Mao’s theories on nationalism and anti-imperialism with Lenin’s theses. This connection significantly influenced other national movements and contributed to the further development of ‘Third World Theory’. As the theory evolved, it entered a new stage and, by the 1970s, became a manifesto for various movements that sought to challenge imperialism and assert national sovereignty.

The essence of the Third World Theory

Since the 1970s, the theory of the Third World has gained significant meaning in both form and content. Many communist parties, as well as other groups under different names but still adhering to communist ideologies, have expressed the world in this way and shaped their tactics and goals accordingly. Their vision of the world introduced a new purpose and redefined its structure.
The First World consisted of the Great Powers (the USA and the USSR), which the theory identified as two imperialist forces. The Second World included developed industrialized countries, such as European countries and several others, positioned between the powerful nations and the industrially backward countries. The Third World comprised nations in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, which were considered underdeveloped.
According to this theory, the main conflict for these parties, including the left and the communists, is the conflict between their country and the two countries that are considered imperialists (US and Russia). In this regard, they believed that the Third World was the primary force for revolutionary change.
The expansion and damage of the theory reached the point where it became the ultimate criterion for defining the revolutionary movement. Whoever fought against imperialism was a revolutionary. Even worse than this, the theory was ignoring the oppression role of the internal national bourgeoisie because it was considered a patriotic power. So therefore the fight against the bourgeoisie and the domestic capitalists, who were considered national capitalists or patriotic capitalists rejected overruled by these parties and organisation. The theory has seen considered domestic capitalists as a step toward the socialist revolution because supporting those means developing the country's economy in terms of industry, which means increasing the number of workers by industrializing it and taking the country towards capitalism. According to this theory it brings us closer to the socialist revolution.
The two worst aspects of this theory were that, in some countries, pro-Russian parties supported their governments due to their alignment with Russia, believing that this would lead the country towards socialism through capitalism and supporting the Russia under the so called policy of the non-capitalistic development towards socialism. In countries such as Iraq, it was different, the Communist Party convinced their members and the public that socialism could be achieved through a democratic state or a people's democracy state by developing a non-capitalist path.
Another disadvantage drawback of this theory is that even among leftists, social democrats, and parties such as the Socialist Workers Party in the UK, their stance on international conflicts has been shaped by this framework. For example, during the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s, they supported Iran. This position was particularly evident in the British Socialist Workers Party at the time.
In contemporary conflicts, such as the war between Russia and Ukraine, these leftists support Ukraine because they see Russia as the main imperialist force. Similarly, in conflicts involving Hezbollah, Hamas, and other groups against Israel, leftists take the side of these organizations against Israel, viewing it as a major U.S. military base. According to the 'Third World Theory,' they also support countries such as Venezuela, Cuba, and other Latin American nations governed by leftist parties that oppose the United States. Thus, the theory of the three worlds has become a criterion for these leftists to determine which powers align with or oppose the United States in global conflicts.
Applying this theory to any of the fields mentioned above serves the capitalist system by dividing workers, turning themselves against each other, and weakening their collective struggle. Furthermore, the misuse of the concept of imperialism is a critical mistake that could severely harm the workers' movement and the masses.
Today, the entire world operates under capitalism, though it is divided into developed and undeveloped industrialized countries. The conflicts between these states are essentially wars of oppression and attacks on the workers' movement, both directly and indirectly. The names of these states, the parties that govern them, and their claims are irrelevant. This serves as a justification for categorizing capitalism into two parts: imperialism, the “negative” aspect of capitalism, and the other, which is seen as the "good" part of capitalism.
Everyone’s struggle must focus on striking at the capitalists, local and national governments, and the system’s main pillar: the state. This is the only radical and comprehensive way to bring down the system itself. It is not about supporting the state in its wars but rather rebelling against it by any way possible, both individually and collectively. The core of the struggle is to address the conflict between the capitalist state and the workers, and the masses, with the goal of eliminating wage labour system and dismantling the greatest pillar of capitalism: the state.
Unfortunately, the ‘Third World Theory’ still exists today and continues to play a significant role in dividing and misleading us. It leads us to trust the national regime, the nation-state, and the idea of a legitimate war against "imperialism," which is seen by them as the great fortress of capitalism.
In my opinion, the concept of imperialism, as used by some anarchists, is incorrect. It divides capitalism and capitalist states into "good" and "bad," which in turn divides the working class, the masses, and their movements. This is a clear distortion of the idea that capitalism is a global system, and its opposing movement must also be global. This approach represents a return to the Third World theory, and it’s use serves to defend the war between capitalist states by justifying one side and demonizing the other. Whether done consciously or unconsciously, this approach is rooted in the Third World Theory, which has caused significant harm to our movement in the past.

3 The Nation-state

The common definition of a nation-state is a country where most of the population shares a common language, culture, ethnicity, or historical background. It has a defined territory with recognized borders and a government that holds sovereignty (control) over both the land and its people. A central authority enforces laws and is said to maintain order and security. Additionally, a nation-state is recognized as an independent entity by other states and international organizations, often maintaining diplomatic relations through envoys and diplomats.
In addition to the above, the nation-state is believed to have full control over its internal and external affairs, maintaining independence in this regard. It is also commonly described as a national achievement and a political entity defined by a shared cultural, linguistic, or national identity.
The nation-state is often described as having citizens who are relatively homogeneous in factors such as language, race, or ancestry. The idea is that the political boundaries of the state align with the cultural boundaries of the nation. It is believed that this sense of shared identity fosters a feeling of ownership over the country and its governance, allowing the nation-state to maintain stability, national unity, and social cohesion.
But is that true?
Today, when we examine any nation-state in the world, we must question whether this concept promoted by authorities, national parties, nationalists, social democrats, and even some leftists is right? Does a state truly exist under the name of a nation-state? How much longer will this idea continue to dominate our thinking simply because it is favoured by academics, economists, and intellectuals who serve the system?
In my opinion, there is substantial evidence to prove that the term is incorrect. However, I will focus on three key points that clearly demonstrate the flaws in this concept.
First, no state or country is truly independent, especially in terms of economic self-sufficiency, which is essential for political independence. Even major powers like the United States, Japan, Germany, and Britain rely on others to a varying degree, both economically and, at times, politically.
In this case, there is no need to rely on statistics, as it is evident that international trade, participation in trade institutions, economic agreements, and industrial treaties all demonstrate this dependence. Anyone who shops in a market or searches online will find that many versions of the same product come from different countries. Therefore, neither states nor countries are truly independent, nor can they remain so. This is a defining feature of capitalist progress and globalization. If any modern state or country attempts to withdraw from this system, it will gradually weaken and may even collapse.
Second, the nation-state, whose core institution is the government, primarily serves a particular class typically a small minority of elites and the upper class. In most of these states and countries, the general population and citizens do not necessarily belong to the dominant national identity as defined by the state. Furthermore, the nation-state prioritizes the interests of large corporations, capitalists, and the wealthy—regardless of race or gender rather than those of the majority, including mainly workers and the exploited. Therefore, it is misleading to label a state as a "nation-state" simply because its official language aligns with that of the dominant nation. Moreover, due to globalization, the indigenous cultures of many nations have weakened or even partially disappeared.

Third, the idea that nation-states are defined by a common language and culture is inaccurate. Nearly all states, aside from their dominant national group, include ethnic minorities, some of whom have lived there for generations. These minorities have their own distinct cultures, traditions, and religions, which are not shared with the dominant nation or other minority groups. While they may coexist and respect one another, their cultural identities remain separate.
That being said, there is no denying that English is the official language in Britain, French in France and German in Germany, just as other countries have their own official languages used by everyone. However, these official languages are not necessarily learned or adopted voluntarily by non-English or non-French or non-German communities. In fact, the living conditions in these countries often compel people to learn the official language English in the UK, French in France and German in Germany. Education, writing, public speaking, work, theatre, and market transactions are all conducted in the official language, rather than in the native languages of minority communities.
This is despite the fact that in many nation-states, such as Iran, Iraq, India, Sri Lanka, Turkey, China, Rwanda, Congo, and many others, the ruling class of the dominant nation often implements discriminatory policies. These include the repression of minority groups through violence, arrests, expulsions, and the banning of their languages, cultures, and religions.
It is clear that the nation-state does not embody the basic principles outlined above, and the concepts associated with it do not truly apply. The term "nation-state" turns out to be a misleading or meaningless label, rather than a reflection of reality. Capitalism has intentionally used this concept to its advantage, benefiting from it in numerous ways while also using it as an excuse for both leftist and nationalist movements to fight whether peacefully or with arms. In the context of armed movements, the system itself has been the primary winner and beneficiary. Therefore, through the use of this term, capitalism has benefited in every possible way.

4 White man

The concept of the white man regarding race, culture, and social relationships has, like many other concepts and phenomena, evolved to some extent over time and throughout the different stages of human history.
Ancient civilizations, such as the Greeks and Romans, did not classify people by 'race' in the modern sense. Instead, they differentiated individuals based on culture, language, and geography. While they did recognize physical differences, such as skin colour, these distinctions did not imply a social (categories) or systemic hierarchy as they would in later periods.
It is generally understood that the term 'white man' refers to an individual classified as belonging to the white racial group, typically associated with people of European descent. From a historical perspective, this concept is not solely biological, as its meaning is also shaped by historical developments and the individual's position within a social context.
Like the concept of race itself, the idea of the 'white man' has been modernized and adapted over time to reflect social status. For instance, during the colonization of nations and the transatlantic slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries, the concept of race began to take shape and was developed to justify the enslavement of Africans and the displacement of indigenous peoples. However, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, Irish, Italian, and Eastern European immigrants were not considered fully 'white' in the United States. The colony of Virginia (in what is now the United States) is often cited as one of the earliest places, in the late 1600s, where 'whiteness' was legally defined and used to create a social divide between poor Europeans and enslaved Africans.
Undoubtedly, the law has long served as an effective tool for ruling class and classes to enforce their interests. Throughout history, repression, slavery, and even discrimination against women have been legalized in many countries to benefit those in power. In the past, laws and policies in places like in the United States and European colonies granted legal privileges to 'white' people, often at the expense of excluding others. These laws and policies promoted racial hierarchies as a means of maintaining power and justifying inequality.
In short, the term 'white man,' when associated with racial issues, was primarily coined during the periods of colonialism and slavery. It served to establish a system of privilege and power for Europeans and their descendants. Race, as it is used in society, is a social construct rather than a concept grounded in biology.
Considering the above, can we still use the idea of whiteness or white skin, or the concept of the white person, in today's context?
Although in societies where the term has been used it is associated with social, political, and economic privileges, I find the use of the term 'white man' problematic for at least two reasons:
First, there are millions of 'white' women and men in predominantly 'white' societies whose living conditions and social status are no better than those of Black people and others of different skin colours. Like many others in these societies, they face oppression and marginalization, regardless of race, nationality, or citizenship. Their political and economic interests are suppressed by the same economic and political system that oppresses both white and non-white individuals. Their struggle unites them against the exploiters, the state, and the state’s laws.
Second, some Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic, (BAME) individuals have held high social and political positions, such as Rishi Sunak (The Prime Minister of the UK from 25/10/22 to 05/07/2024), Humza Yousaf (First Minister of Scotland and Leader of the Scottish National Party from March 2023 to May 2024), and Kemi Badenoch, the current leader of the Conservative Party in the UK and Nadhim Zahawi the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. In addition, there are dozens of non-white Members of Parliament in Westminster, Scotland, and Wales, who hold political power and play a role in shaping the policies of their parties and countries.
Of course, this is true not only for Britain but also for the entire region of Europe, the United States, and the Scandinavian countries.
Therefore, the issue of race should not be viewed as a biological phenomenon, but rather as a matter of superiority, domination, and political and economic status. We could even argue that they have no distinct race, nation, or country; their passports represent their wealth, which grants them that social status. This concept is completely rejected, especially when it carries historical weight or is used in the context of power dynamics or stereotypes.
That being said, it cannot be denied that racism remains a significant issue in these countries, driven by political, legal, and economic factors that the state both directly and indirectly fosters to divide its citizens for its own interests.

5 All wars are wars for power

The term “class war” was not commonly used before the 19th century, but the concept of conflict between social classes had existed for centuries. For example, in medieval Europe, peasant uprisings such as the English Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 and the German Peasants’ War of 1524–1525 were essentially struggles between social classes, even though the specific term “class war” was not explicitly used at the time.
In France, during the Revolution (1789–1799), veterans, intellectuals, and revolutionaries of the time used terminology that closely resembled the concept of “class war.”
The term “class war” was largely popularized by the French anarchist and socialist thinker Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in the mid-nineteenth century. He was among the first to explicitly refer to “class war,” rather than merely “class struggle.” In his writings, Proudhon described the economic and social conflict between workers and capitalists as a form of war.
However, the concept of “class war” as an explicit notion of violent or revolutionary class struggle was later developed further by Marxists and other socialists, particularly in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The idea was more thoroughly explored and debated, and over time, class warfare came to be increasingly associated with authoritarianism.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels primarily used the term "class struggle", Klassenkampf in German—rather than "class war," although they did refer to class warfare when discussing revolutionary confrontation. This language first appeared in ‘The Communist Manifesto’ (1848), where they famously wrote that "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle." They argued that this struggle would ultimately lead to the overthrow of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat. Engels, in particular, referred more explicitly to "class war" in some of his letters and speeches when discussing revolution.
Mikhail Bakunin, the Russian anarchist, frequently invoked the idea of class war to describe violent revolutionary action against the state and capitalists. During and after the Paris Commune of 1871, the use of the term “class war” became firmly established among revolutionaries, especially following the brutal suppression of the uprising by French authorities.
Marx and Engels, along with later Marxist thinkers, viewed class struggle as a real and driving force behind material conditions. They agreed that the bourgeoisie (the capitalist class) and the proletariat had fundamentally opposing interests, which formed the foundation of their social conflict. All of them connected the proletarian goal to the seizure of state power as a means to eliminate class differences and ultimately abolish classes altogether.
In many cases, the theory of class struggle was used as a tool to mobilize the masses and popularize revolutionary movements. However, the result was often the creation of a new ruling power rather than the actual dissolution of class divisions. Revolutionary leaders, in their pursuit of popular support, frequently invoked the idea of class war to inspire and rally workers and peasants.
In my opinion, many of the wars throughout history that have been labelled as class wars were not truly about class struggle, but rather about power and the seizure of power. These conflicts were often framed in terms of economic inequality and oppression, which served as means to rally support and legitimize the cause. While it is true that many individuals participated in these wars suffering, becoming disabled, or even sacrificing their lives and families—the core of these conflicts was ultimately about the struggle for power. Uprisings, revolutions, and struggles often resulted in the rise of new elites, rather than the creation of a truly classless society. Once in power, these leaders tended to prioritize maintaining their own authority over attaining genuine classless society and social equality.
Disguised wars have often been labelled as class wars, such as the French Revolution (1789–1799), in which the Jacobins overthrew the aristocracy, only to establish a new elite, followed by Napoleon's eventual rise to power.
The Russian Revolution of 1917, led by the Bolsheviks, is another example of a power struggle that was initially framed as a class struggle but, in reality, was a struggle for power. Over time, the scope of this power struggle became so concentrated that authority shifted from the broader revolutionary movement to the central committee of the Bolshevik Party. Similarly, the Chinese Communist Party's revolution, led by Mao Zedong, which culminated in victory in 1949, was also fundamentally a struggle for power.
Other examples include the wars between the Safavid and Ottoman Empires, the wars between some Arab countries and Israel in 1967 and 1973, the wars in Southeast Asia, the Falklands War, the Iran-Iraq War, the two Gulf Wars, and the ongoing conflict between Hamas, Hezbollah, and Israel, as well as the war between Russia and Ukraine. It is evident that all these conflicts whether class-based, religious, or ethnic are essentially struggles for power, including self-defence wars to prevent foreign powers from replacing domestic authority.
None of these wars can be considered class wars; rather, they are struggles to regain or seize power. Whether one side attacked and the other defended is irrelevant to the core issue these are wars driven by the desire for control and authority.
As I mentioned earlier, both Proudhon and Bakunin spoke of class war, class struggle, or class violence, but they never framed these as authoritarian wars or wars fought to seize power. Similarly, although anarchists acknowledge the existence of class struggle, it is not for the purpose of gaining political power. For them, political struggle is not a means or a bridge to achieve political power or the supremacy of one class over another. Instead, it is a means to destroy the supremacy of all classes and eradicate all forms of political power. Therefore, it can be said that, both theoretically and practically, anarchists were the only ones who did not use class struggle or class war as a tool to gain power.

I will conclude with a question: If all these wars were truly class wars and not struggles for power, why have none of them eliminated the distinctions between class and power? Why, instead, have they deepened the class divide and strengthened power as a form of state authority?

Zaherbaher.com

Content warning: This text involves talking about sexual violence and death.

In August 2023, we, anarchist organisations from five continents, launched an international solidarity campaign. Its aim was and is to support Sudanese anarchists fleeing war and repression in their country and to ensure that they arrive safely in a destination country of their choice. Six months have now passed since our first call for solidarity. In this short text, we would like to report on the current situation and the continuation of our campaign.

First things first: the majority of the small group of anarchist comrades with whom we have been in contact since 2022 and whom we have been supporting in their journey into exile since last year have now managed to leave Sudan. A small number of comrades is still in the country and is part of the resistance committees in Sudan. Among other things, they are working to support displaced people. The resistance committees help women in refugee camps to form their own committees to defend themselves. They also organize independent activities for children and young people because there is currently no school due to the war. But working under the military emergency law is dangerous. Our comrades on the ground need support to leave the country, because the political situation for activists and revolutionaries is increasingly uncertain and there are many arbitrary arrests. A terrible piece of news that recently reached us showed just how dangerous the situation is: In her attempt to flee the capital Khartoum, our comrade Sarah was raped and murdered by members of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). We share the deep pain of our comrades over this loss.

The fact that we have been able to carry out international solidarity work at all - albeit on an extremely limited scale - is thanks to the great support of many organizations and individuals from all parts of the world. With their help we have been able to significantly exceed the original donation goal of 2000 US dollars. We would like to take this opportunity to express our warmest thanks to all those people who have supported this campaign and put their solidarity into practice!

However, the costs of our project have also significantly exceeded expectations. The main reason for this is the extremely unstable and worsening situation in Sudan. The war between the Sudanese army and the RSF militia has been going on for almost a year now. The fighting intensifies with each passing month. Over 14,000 people have already been killed. More and more parts of the country are being drawn into the fighting, more and more blood is being shed, more and more people are being displaced. Mass exodus and war have led to an unbearable famine that is worsening every day. The lives of hundreds of thousands of people are acutely at stake. It is a game that is also being played by international actors. The weapons used by the RSF against the civilian population are partly funded by the European Union. The EU deployed the militia as a border force in the service of its migration defense for at least a few years, has been arming them for this purpose and is very likely still doing so (1,2). Currently, there are in increasing indications that the United Arab Emirates, for example, are supplying the RSF with sophisticated weapons systems to keep the war going (3).

In addition to the war in their own country, the repressive border regimes of the surrounding countries also make it difficult for our comrades to flee Sudan. The prices for VISAs to enter the northern neighboring country of Egypt, for example, have skyrocketed. The few remaining transportation routes have also become enormously more expensive. A large part of the money raised by the campaign has therefore already been spent. We need more money to enable our last comrades to flee Sudan and to finance the continuing journey of the other comrades. We will therefore be stepping up our efforts for the campaign once again in the coming months. In some regions, our organizations will spread the campaign, which has so far mainly had a digital presence, even more widely on the ground. We also want to draw attention to the general, catastrophic situation of the people from below in Sudan and help to break through the blanket of silence that the governments and their press have prepared over the events there.

We call on all trade unions, social and political organisations and all individuals in solidarity to stand with the Sudanese anarchists and continue to support the campaign. Spread the word in your organisations and movements. Use all public channels available to you. Donate to the campaign. Every form of help counts.

Unite against war and repression!
International solidarity with the Sudanese anarchists!

Sources:
1: https://migration-control.info/en/blog/how-the-european-union-finances-oppression/
2: https://www.sudanuprising.net/the-rapid-support-forces-and-the-european-unions-migration-control-policy-in-sudan.html
3: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/29/world/africa/sudan-war-united-arab-emirates-chad.html

Le monde occidental reste sidéré face à l’attaque surprise spectaculaire menée contre une superpuissance coloniale, et les colons autant que les spectateur/rice/s occidentaux/les réclament fanatiquement du sang, craignant que sinon iels « seront les prochain/e/s ». Pour venger cette humiliation mondiale, l’État colonial exige des centaines d’yeux pour un œil, des milliers de dents pour une dent et mène une campagne agressive d’extermination de la population palestinienne qu’il retient prisonnière.

Ce génocide se déroule sous nos yeux, tandis que les idéologues du monde colonial s’empressent de nous expliquer que la vie d’un/e Israélien/ne vaut autant que celles de centaines de Palestinien/ne/s, qu’un/e otage israélien/ne équivaut à des milliers de prisonnier/es/s palestinien/ne/s, et que 70 ans de nettoyage ethnique, 16 années de blocus militaire total sur Gaza, et les bombardements et opérations militaires constantes d’une superpuissance nucléaire ne sont rien face à une offensive à coup d’armes légères et de roquettes bricolées.

Certain/e/s anarchistes, encore pétri/e/s de l’humanisme des Lumières, pourraient être tenté/e/s d’hurler qu'on ne devrait pas soutenir cet acte et qu'on devrait condamner le Hamas et les atrocités qu’il commet ! Mais à l’attention de qui formulent-iels cette condamnation ? Les Gazaoui/e/s ne peuvent nous entendre à travers le blocus, assourdi/e/s qu’iels sont par le grondement de leurs estomacs vides, par les frappes aériennes constantes ou par les pleurs des parents sans enfants et des enfants sans parents. Et même s’iels le pouvaient ? Que leur importerait, puisqu'on ne peut leur envoyer ni cargaisons d’armes, ni nourriture, ni eau potable, ni médecins.

C’est vrai : le colonialisme produit des monstres. Cependant, si on veut vraiment condamner les monstres et leurs atrocités, pourquoi ne pas alors commencer par celles du colonisateur, car c’est bien le colonialisme qui engendre ces monstres, et les modèle à son image.

On ne peut pas se contenter de condamner. Quand les bombes pleuvent, les mots ne peuvent rien. On doit penser, on doit agir. C’est par l’action que se forgent de nouveaux liens. C’est par l’action que se concrétise la solidarité. C’est par l’action qu'on peut avoir un impact tangible sur l’occupation et faire advenir un pôle d’opposition anti-autoritaire conséquent.

Je souhaite partager humblement ces quelques mots avec les anarchistes de France, et peut-être d’Europe, pour qu’iels méditent, réfléchissent, critiquent, adaptent et agissent afin d'étendre la lutte pour la libération du peuple palestinien et s’engagent dans une forme de solidarité plus durable, plus concrète et plus menaçante.

Sensibiliser, Agiter, Attaquer – Multiplier les modes d'actions
La guerre n’est pas aussi lointaine qu’il n’y parait. Israël est précurseur dans le développement de techniques de contre-insurrection et de maintien de l’ordre qui s’exportent ensuite dans le reste du monde. Ce qu’Israël fait à la Palestine, notre police et notre gendarmerie nous le fera subir. Mais cet échange n’est pas à sens unique. D’une part, de grands groupes français et européens fournissent l’infrastructure qui contribue à l’apartheid et au génocide tandis que d’une autre, nos impôts financent le terrorisme d’État si directement que ça fait de nous, plus que de simples complices, de véritables coupables.

Si on veut considérer sérieusement la question de la solidarité, on doit abandonner notre attitude de soutien passif et faire nôtre leur lutte en s'y impliquant pleinement, avec tous les risques que ça entraîne. Je souhaiterais proposer un modèle d’analyse et d’action adapté à notre échelle géographique. Tirez de cet outil ce que vous trouvez pertinent et débarassez-vous du reste. La stratégie que je vous soumets repose sur trois piliers : Sensibiliser, Agiter, Attaquer. Ces trois aspects ne doivent pas forcément rester séparés ; la meilleure sensibilisation est parfois l’agitation et l’attaque peut contribuer à l’agitation tout autant qu’à la sensibilisation. Avec un peu de créativité, ces trois aspects peuvent être articulés de nombreuses manières fascinantes.

Il est important de noter que ces trois aspects ne sont pas les étapes distinctes d’une stratégie, mais des outils individuels qui se combinent aisément, ne doivent pas nécessairement être séparés, et gagneraient au contraire à être mobilisés simultanément. N’attendez pas pour passer à l’attaque et ne vous engluez pas dans la sensibilisation en étant persuadé/e/s qu’il faille, pour agir plus efficacement, atteindre un certain degré de quelque conscience abstraite.

Sensibilisation et Contre-Information
Je pense que de nombreux/ses anarchistes prennent pour acquis notre degré d’information sur les actualités mondiales et s’imaginent que tout/e un/e chacun/e est autant informé/e que nous. Non seulement est-ce tout bonnement faux mais ça revient à oublier que la majorité des informations auxquelles la population a accès sont soumises à des intérêts idéologiques privés (rappelons qu’en France, 90 % des médias sont détenus par de grands groupes privés dirigés par exemple par Bolloré, Niel, Lagardère…), des intérêts idéologiques étatiques, ou, plus fréquemment, à un déluge de fausses informations qui inondent les réseaux sociaux. S’il y a bien une chose sur laquelle les anarchistes ont 20 ans de retard, c’est sur la guerre de l’information, devenue pourtant un aspect incontournable de la lutte révolutionnaire.

Chaque jour, les canaux d’informations de l’ennemi débitent des absurdités, les idéologues en ligne rédigent leurs tweets et leurs petits blogs ridicules, et les officines militaires et autres agences de renseignement déploient leurs armées de bots pour inonder de conneries et polluer l’écosystème informatif. Le faux bon sens nous commanderait alors de faire la même chose, mais en mieux ! Ce serait cependant une impasse pour les anarchistes. On n'est pas là pour produire un flux constant de contenu pour un public passif, et on ne dispose pas non plus des capacités de financement pour entretenir l’infrastructure qu’exigerait un réseau national d’information en continu ou une armée de bots (quoique, pour celleux qui s’y connaissent en informatique, des armées de bots sont peut-être à notre portée, mais c’est une question qui mérite sa propre réflexion). Non, on doit être plus créatif/ve/s et favoriser les interventions visant à sensibiliser dans l’espace physique.

Ça inclut par exemple les traditionnels graffitis et collages (à faire régulièrement, environ tous les deux-trois jours, pour conserver une présence dans l’espace public, pas juste une fois de temps en temps), ou encore installer une table dans un parc, en pleine rue ou dans un autre lieu public et y disposer des zines ainsi que des tracts sur les évènements en cours et à venir pour tenter d’interpeler les passants. Sinon, on peut également passer à des modes d’action plus originaux quoique, c’est vrai, un peu plus embarrassants peut-être. Si vous voulez faire un collage, pourquoi ne pas le faire en pleine journée dans des costumes outranciers ou masqué/e/s et habillé/e/s tout en noir pour attirer ouvertement l’attention ? Pourquoi ne pas aller avec quelques ami/e/s et un mégaphone dans une zone très fréquentée (dans l’idéal en bloquant une route ou en perturbant un lieu, par exemple en tirant des feux d’artifice) pour parler de la situation ? Il peut alors être utile de distribuer des tracts aux gens ou même d'en lancer en l’air par centaines. Et pourquoi pas même du théâtre de rue ? Idéalement en perturbant autant que possible. Ou plus généralement, n’importe quoi qui sorte les gens un instant de leur routine et les interpelle.

Sinon, on peut aussi se lancer dans quelque chose d’un peu plus osé. Peut-être est-il temps que les radios pirates fassent leur grand retour ? Vous pourriez essayer de diffuser des informations sur les évènements actuels et sur où s’informer en piratant les ondes d’autres stations sur les heures de grande écoute. À l’occasion d’une manifestation massive, pourquoi ne pas scinder une partie de la manif vers une station de radio ou de télé et y forcer le passage jusqu’au plateau pour diffuser un message ? Ça peut sembler risqué et invraisemblable, mais merde, un génocide est en cours !

Cependant, la sensibilisation et la contre-information ont leurs limites. Idéalement, on devrait chercher à toucher directement la population, ou bien l’inviter à assister à une rencontre ou une assemblée offrant un point d’accroche concret. Il est essentiel de disposer de tracts avec de plus amples informations et des liens renvoyant à des sites permettant d’en apprendre plus et de se tenir au courant des prochains évènements.

Pour le dire clairement : il faut diffuser l’information et offrir un horizon tangible.

Agitation et perturbation
Mais on ne peut se contenter de sensibiliser. La liberté se conquiert, elle ne s’apprend pas, et on n’arrête pas un génocide seulement en informant de son déroulement. Il est vrai que, la plupart du temps, l’agitation et la perturbation n’y font pas grand-chose non plus mais c’est un début. Par agitation, j’entends mettre les gens en mouvement : motiver les personnes et leur donner une liste concrète de cibles et d’actions potentielles. Par perturbation, j’entends particulièrement la perturbation de la vie économique normale. C’est un élément essentiel, à la fois pour la lutte anarchiste en général, et parce que la France est si banalement et étroitement liée au financement et au soutien logistique du génocide en cours en Palestine.

Quand on se questionne sur la manière de perturber, on doit réfléchir à comment bloquer les échanges commerciaux : empêcher les transactions dans les magasins et les banques, perturber le fonctionnement quotidien des entreprises et des institutions qui soutiennent ou profitent de l’apartheid et du génocide, ou encore bloquer le transport des personnes et le fret. On doit également réfléchir à la manière de briser la routine de la normalité, le sentiment que tout va bien. Penser l’impact économique et psychologique. Toute perturbation est une opportunité de communiquer et de sensibiliser. Des banderoles et des tracts avec des mots d’ordre clairs, des slogans entraînants et de la bonne musique. Un discours peut parfois être utile pour enflammer les foules, mais attention, car il peut également rendre cette même foule passive. Voyez les choses en grand : comment pousser les gens à agir ? La clé est de propager et généraliser le conflit.

Certaines tactiques de perturbation ont fait leurs preuves depuis longtemps. Par exemple, les mobilisations visant à bloquer la circulation et les intersections, ou mieux encore, directement à l’intérieur des entreprises et des institutions pour les forcer à fermer le reste de la journée. Les grèves dans les entreprises et institutions qui soutiennent et s’enrichissent du génocide. Bloquer les autoroutes et les rues les plus empruntées peut se montrer une excellente idée, mais il est peut-être plus efficace encore d’installer une véritable barricade hérissée de drapeaux en ne laissant qu’une seule file ouverte de sorte à ralentir assez la circulation pour pouvoir distribuer des tracts aux conducteur/rice/s. Sinon, mettre en place des déviations, saboter les rails ou bloquer physiquement les trains sont autant de moyens d’entraver les transports ferroviaires afin de perturber efficacement les flux commerciaux.

Il existe encore d’autres moyens percutants, ceux-là exigeant bien plus de coordination et d’efforts, tels que les boycotts ou les blocages. On peut par exemple se rattacher à Boycott Divestment and Sanction (BDS), une campagne de boycott de longue date disposant de nombreuses ressources. Sinon, on peut tout bonnement perturber voire faire fermer continuellement les lieux ciblés par le boycott, voire voler leurs marchandises, idéalement via une action de masse, ou au moins les saboter.

Le point commun entre toutes ces initiatives est qu’elles permettent d’amener un conflit qui paraît lointain au contact direct de la population, de sorte qu’il ne soit plus possible de l’ignorer et de faire comme si de rien n’était ou comme si ça ne nous regardait pas. En outre, notre approche doit être mûrement réfléchie afin que nos actions et notre message incitent la population à s’engager par elle-même, sans attendre un jour bien précis de manifestation ou d’en recevoir l’ordre. Il nous faut constamment insister sur l’idée qu'on est toustes les protagonistes de ce conflit, qu'on ne peut pas attendre que les autres agissent à notre place, que de nombreuses cibles sont à notre portée et qu'on dispose d’un large éventail de tactiques pour s'y attaquer.

Passer à l’attaque !
Fondamentalement, être solidaire signifie attaquer ; détruire physiquement l’infrastructure oppressive et génocidaire. C’est ça qui inflige le plus de dégâts et est le plus à même d’entraver le bon fonctionnement de la machine génocidaire, mais c’est également la tactique la plus risquée. Il y a deux manières, complémentaires, d’approcher cette question : d’une part, en petits groupes, et d’autre part, avec la foule. Les actions en petits groupes ne nous sont pas inconnues puisque les anarchistes ont l’habitude de ce genre de pratiques. Du cassage de vitrine aux incendies volontaires, en passant par les effractions dans les laboratoires et les abattoirs pour en libérer les captif/ve/s ; des tactiques du même genre peuvent sans problème être appliquées dans la lutte pour la libération du peuple palestinien.

Cependant, il nous faut mûrement réfléchir à nos objectifs. Certes, un petit nombre d’entre nous pourrait aller mettre le feu à des infrastructures d’Amazon ou de Carrefour, mais le message envoyé ne serait-il pas bien plus impressionnant si on parvenait à entraîner un millier de personnes avec nous pour vandaliser et piller l’endroit ? On peut et devrait, chaque fois que c'est possible, entreprendre des actions en petits groupes, mais si on cherche à élargir le périmètre de lutte, c’est pour permettre à une masse de personnes de s’impliquer dans des actions enflammées et combattives. Or, forger des relations, organiser des actions et une communication audacieuses, et planifier méthodiquement de telles actions, tout ça est long et fastidieux.

Quelquefois, il pourrait s’agir de prévoir un détachement combattif du cortège de la prochaine manifestation, ou bien alors prendre le risque et faire l’effort de lancer nous-mêmes un appel à une action combattive de masse. Que ce soit à travers des petits groupes ou des actions de masse, toute action expose à des risques et exige des efforts immenses ; c’est néanmoins fondamentalement nécessaire pour ouvrir un nouveau front dans la lutte anticoloniale et prendre de court les colonisateurs.

Il est crucial qu'on cesse de croire à l’idée tenace qu'on ne serait pas capables d’être à l’initiative de grands soulèvements et révoltes, que notre unique rôle se cantonnerait au soutien et à l’intervention. Ce qu’il nous est possible de faire est en grande partie déterminé par l’effort et l’assiduité dont on est en mesure de faire preuve pour une cause déterminée sur une longue période. C’est là notre habituel point faible, mais on peut changer ça et, de toute façon, il faudra que ça change si on veut se montrer à la hauteur de l’immense tâche qui nous incombe au sein de la machine impérialiste.

Définir des cibles
Ce qui suit est une courte liste non exhaustive de cibles qui soutiennent, appuient et/ou profitent de l’apartheid et du génocide en cours depuis la France.

Premièrement, chaque ville de France abrite un certain nombre de personnes dans les administrations, les entreprises, les associations, les institutions, et autres, qui soutiennent l’État d’Israël et se font le relai de sa propagande. En cherchant un peu, on peut aisément les identifier et en faire des cibles prioritaires. On devrait faire de nos espaces des lieux, au moins socialement si ce n’est politiquement, hostiles aux sionistes. N’ayez nul doute qu’iels le font déjà envers celleux qui soutiennent la libération du peuple palestinien, en leur faisant par exemple perdre leur travail ou en les excluant de diverses industries et institutions.

Deuxièmement, de nombreuses institutions et entreprises européennes sont directement impliquées dans la colonisation des territoires palestiniens. Une quinzaine de banques européennes financent ainsi à hauteur de dizaines de milliards d’euros des groupes israéliens opérant dans les territoires colonisés illégalement par Israël. Des sociétés d’Europe exploitent les ressources minières de la Palestine et cherchent également à s'approprier ses ressources pétrolières sans que jamais le peuple palestinien n’en tire aucune retombée économique, tandis que d’autres vendent allègrement du matériel de gros travaux à des projets de démolition des maisons palestiniennes et de construction des infrastructures de la colonisation.

Troisièmement, plusieurs institutions financières françaises (donc davantage à notre portée) financent largement la colonisation, dont notamment AXA, BNP Paribas, Crédit Agricole, Société Générale ou encore BPCE. Les institutions françaises sont les troisièmes d’Europe qui coopèrent le plus avec les banques israéliennes, après celles du Royaume-Uni et d'Allemagne ; sachant que l’intégralité des banques israéliennes sont impliquées de près ou de loin dans des financements d’entreprises colonisatrices. Ce n’est cependant pas une fatalité : de nombreuses institutions européennes ont déjà mis sur liste noire les banques israéliennes après des campagnes de boycott.

Quatrièmement, on ne saurait omettre le sujet du tramway de Jérusalem, construit dans le but de relier Jérusalem-Ouest aux quartiers, illégalement contrôlés par Israël, de Jérusalem-Est et aux colonies alentours. En effet, ce projet a été largement financé par AXA - et d’autres institutions françaises et allemandes - et une importante partie des travaux a été effectuée par les entreprises françaises Alstom et Egis Rail. Plus généralement, Alstom est extrêmement impliqué dans le transport et les infrastructures en Israël et dans ses colonies, ayant par exemple construit des centrales devant les alimenter en énergie, un projet estimé à plus de 300 millions d’euros.

Cinquièmement, le groupe AXA n’est pas en reste puisque l’assureur français commerce régulièrement avec l’entreprise d’armement israélienne Elbit Systems, responsable de la production de drones de combat et de phosphore blanc pour le compte de l’armée israélienne et des colons. Il y a quelques années, AXA a sournoisement feinté de se retirer de cet investissement pour en réalité y réinvestir encore plus d’argent, mais au travers de ses filiales, de sorte que le nom AXA n’y soit plus associé. Elle participe donc toujours activement au meurtre des civil/e/s palestinien/ne/s.

Sixièmement, la campagne NoTechForApartheid explique que les multinationales Google et Amazon ont signé un contrat avec Tsahal d’une valeur de plus d’un milliard d’euros pour fournir à l’armée israélienne la technologie informatique et cloud nécessaires à leurs opérations dans les territoires palestiniens. Autant leurs sièges dans la Silicon Valley nous sont trop lointains, autant leurs sièges et leurs entrepôts en France nous sont plus accessibles.

Septièmement, le géant français Carrefour a fourni bien gratuitement des rations alimentaires aux soldat israéliens qui assaillent actuellement Gaza. Le groupe dispose également de trois magasins dans des colonies illégales en Cisjordanie. C’est à ce titre que la campagne BDS le fait figurer en bonne place dans sa liste d’entreprises à boycotter.

Enfin, le gouvernement français lui-même n’est pas exempt de tout reproche. En effet, la France d’Emmanuel Macron, en s’alignant de plus en plus sur les positions américaines, a rompu ses positions historiques vis-à-vis de la Palestine et en vient à soutenir quasi inconditionnellement l’armée israélienne. En septembre dernier encore, la France organisait un exercice militaire conjoint avec Tsahal et récemment, la France a même dépêché un de ses porte-hélicoptères près des côtes de la région, officiellement pour assister les hôpitaux débordés de Gaza. D’autre part, le ministère de la Défense a signé un contrat de cinq millions d’euros avec Elbit Systems, finançant ainsi la machine de guerre colonisatrice en se servant de matériel testé sur les civils. À travers nos diverses taxes et impôts, chaque fois qu'on achète un produit, qu'on paye notre loyer ou qu'on va au travail, on finance donc la colonisation menée par l’État d’Israël. D'autres pays européens, en particulier l'Allemagne, entretiennent également des liens privilégiés autour du commerce d'armes vers et depuis Israël.

Ces cibles listées ici ne constituent que la partie émergée de l’iceberg. Il nous est nécessaire d’approfondir nos recherches pour obtenir les noms et adresses des individus, entreprises ou autres qui sont également impliqué/e/s.

Être solidaire dans la durée
Ce que j’ai écrit ici s’applique pour le court et moyen-terme, mais la solidarité est un principe qui s’affirme dans la durée et le long-terme et malheureusement, les anarchistes se sont peu illustré/e/s en ce sens. Cela peut et doit changer. On devra continuer de s'impliquer dans le combat quand on n’en entendra plus parler aux informations, et ce jusqu’à la chute d’Israël et la libération du peuple palestinien.

La solidarité entraîne risques et périls, faire nôtre leur combat implique de se mettre soi-même en danger. Nous faut-il alors aller là où pleuvent les bombes pour forger des relations personnelles avec les communautés insurgées ? Les libéraux nous tiennent ici en échec ; il nous suffit de regarder l’exemple de Rachel Corrie qui s’est rendue en territoire occupé et qui a été assassinée par l’armée israélienne quand elle s’est interposée entre un bulldozer et la maison d’une famille palestinienne qui était sur le point d’être démolie. Elle n’aurait pas dû avoir à mourir et la lutte n’a pas besoin de nouveaux/lles martyr/e/s.

Débarquer dans un contexte flou sans avoir aucune connexion nous conduira très certainement à la mort. On doit nouer en amont des relations avec des individu/e/s, des groupes et des organisations qui luttent activement sur place. Le premier pas dans cette direction est d’apprendre leur langue, qui est pour moi l’étape fondamentale à la création d’une solidarité internationale. De là, on peut nouer des liens, parfois favorisés par le biais d’ami/e/s, de réseaux, d’organisations ou d’Internet. Il nous faut ensuite monter des structures, formelles ou informelles, pour faciliter et assumer les coûts de la venue de camarades pour qu'iels puissent nous faire part de leur lutte, et pour nous permettre à nous d’aller sur place pour constater la situation, établir des connexions, nous associer à leur lutte et affronter les mêmes dangers qu’elleux.

À partir de cette base relationnelle et affinitaire, on peut alors se pencher sur des aspects plus complexes de la lutte : Comment falsifier des documents ? Comment faire passer de l’argent, des personnes, du matériel, des informations, de la nourriture et des armes ? Ces propositions peuvent nous sembler lointaines et fantasques mais elles représentaient le b.a.-ba pour nos aînés et sont ce dont a besoin l’internationalisme. Autrefois, les mouvements révolutionnaires et anticoloniaux pouvaient se reposer sur un bloc mené par une superpuissance pour leur fournir l’aide nécessaire, non sans contrepartie cependant. Nous, anarchistes, ne pourrions jamais utiliser un tel ressort, qui de toute façon n’existe même pas. Ce qu'on fait dans notre pays et ce que d’autres font dans le leur (comment on lutte, comment on noue des liens, comment on communique) doit semer les graines d’une Internationale noire, capable d’articuler l’anarchisme comme une force d’opposition mondiale en mesure de fournir une assistance matérielle aux luttes d’émancipation afin que les peuples n’aient pas à choisir entre deux ou trois tyrans différents.

Ça représente un projet à long-terme, comprenez cinq, dix, peut-être vingt ans. Mais c’est ce qu’exigent une véritable solidarité et un internationalisme antinationaliste. La tâche qui nous incombe est immense ; il nous faudra donc être à la hauteur ou sombrer à nouveau dans les bas-fonds de l’Histoire. À nous de choisir.

The Israeli military has ordered the residents of the northern half of Gaza to evacuate within 24 hours. It is impossible for over one million people to do this in such a short time. The order can only be interpreted as a public relations formality and prelude to genocide. All workers and soldiers in a position to prevent this have a duty to act.

[Français]

The order to evacuate is a sign that the IDF is about to launch a ground invasion of Gaza that will make no distinction between civilians and combatants and from which there is no safe refuge. The result will be a massacre.

What is being prepared is not about bringing Hamas to justice. It is the collective punishment of an entire people, dominated by an apartheid system, which the far-right government in Israel wants to see eradicated. The legal prohibition against genocide erected in 1945 will be rendered utterly meaningless.

Enlisted soldiers of the IDF must defy their orders. They are being sent to kill innocent men, women, and children who only want to be free, and to live. To end this atrocity they need to mutiny. They must march on Jerusalem and arrest their criminal government.

Workers of Israel must strike and cut off supplies to the military and cripple Netanyahu’s war.

Sailors of the US Navy in the Eastern Meditarranean should also defy their orders. Otherwise, they will be complicit in the destruction of homes and the murder of families. If they sail their ships home to port they will be welcomed as true defenders of human rights and justice.

Workers of the US — Israel’s immunity from justice depends largely on your government’s aid and support. Take to the streets. Raise this with your co-workers and unions. Demand an end to American complicity in apartheid and genocide. Action can be taken in support by workers across the globe through solidarity protests. Local challenges to ruling class and media complicity with Israel’s crimes can begin to coalesce international pressure.

Wherever work is done which contributes to the Israeli war machine, the workers must strike, cut off trade, and close down any activity assisting the IDF in their massacre.

We recognise it is likely too late to prevent Israel’s massacre in Gaza. If it can be prevented, it must be. If it cannot be prevented, it must be stopped as early as humanly possible. And once the workers of the world have prevented the planned genocide, we can address the question of peace with justice for all.

“NEVER AGAIN” MEANS NEVER AGAIN – FOR ANYONE

L’ordre d’évacuation est un signe que les FDI sont sur le point de lancer une invasion terrestre de Gaza qui ne fera aucune distinction entre les civils et les combattants et contre laquelle il n’y aura pas de refuge sûr. Le résultat sera un massacre.

Ce qui se prépare n’a rien à voir avec le fait de traduire le Hamas en justice. Il s’agit de la punition collective d’un peuple entier, dominé par un système d’apartheid, que le gouvernement d’extrême droite en Israël veut voir éradiqué. L’interdiction légale du génocide érigée en 1945 sera vidée de son sens.

Les soldats enrôlés de Tsahal doivent défier leurs ordres. Ils sont envoyés pour tuer des hommes, des femmes et des enfants innocents qui ne demandent qu’à être libres et à vivre. Pour mettre fin à cette atrocité, ils doivent se mutiner. Ils doivent marcher sur Jérusalem et arrêter leur gouvernement criminel.

Les travailleurs d’Israël doivent se mettre en grève, couper les vivres à l’armée et paralyser la guerre de Netanyahou.

Les marins de la marine américaine en Méditerranée orientale doivent également défier leurs ordres. Sinon, ils seront complices de la destruction de maisons et du meurtre de familles. S’ils rentrent au port avec leur navire, ils seront accueillis comme de véritables défenseurs des droits de l’homme et de la justice.

Travailleurs des États-Unis - L’immunité d’Israël face à la justice dépend largement de l’aide et du soutien de votre gouvernement. Descendez dans la rue. Parlez-en à vos collègues et à vos syndicats. Exigez la fin de la complicité américaine dans l’apartheid et le génocide. Des actions de soutien peuvent être entreprises par les travailleurs du monde entier dans le cadre de manifestations de solidarité. Les contestations locales de la complicité de la classe dirigeante et des médias avec les crimes d’Israël peuvent commencer à faire converger la pression internationale.

Partout où un travail est effectué qui contribue à la machine de guerre israélienne, les travailleurs doivent faire grève, interrompre le commerce et mettre fin à toute activité qui aide les FDI dans leur massacre.

Nous reconnaissons qu’il est probablement trop tard pour empêcher le massacre d’Israël à Gaza. S’il est possible de l’empêcher, il faut le faire. Si l’on ne peut pas l’empêcher, il faut y mettre un terme dès que possible. Une fois que les travailleurs du monde entier auront empêché le génocide planifié, nous pourrons aborder la question de la paix et de la justice pour tous.

« PLUS JAMAIS » SIGNIFIE PLUS JAMAIS - POUR PERSONNE

---

News about the latest militaristic and repressive measures has been flowing in such a stream for weeks that it sometimes interrupts attention to events at the front. There is an increasing impression that the Kremlin and the Office of Zelensky are starting to fight not so much with each other, but with those who do not want to fulfill their “duty to their homeland.” The Ukrainian parliament will soon consider bill No. 10062 on a unified electronic register of conscripts and those liable for military service – modeled on the neighboring chamber, where summons will now be considered served from the moment they appear in it. The Ministry of Defense allowed to draft into the Armed Forces of Ukraine those who are of limited fitness due to hepatitis, cured tuberculosis, asymptomatic HIV, mental problems, etc. Bill No. 9672 proposes to cancel the deferment from the army for recipients of the second higher education, post-graduate students and those who first attended the university after 30 years. Doctors are being stormed with large-scale checks for trading in disability documents. Women from among medical staff and pharmacists will be registered with the military from October 1st, and those who have a military record will have to update their data; after the launch of the e-register, they can be screened out when trying to leave Ukraine. Threats of extradition and punishment to men who went abroad, deceiving the authorities (as the authorities themselves did to them all their lives). The Border Guard Service of Ukraine has already begun to publicly show “educational work” with violators of the western border, forcing them to listen to the anthem and the priest’s sermon, after which they are handed over to the enlistment officers. To detect such citizens in the bushes, the border patrols began using drones with thermal imaging cameras, supposedly so necessary for the front. Then, presumably, they will start to drop grenades or hunting nets on the migrants. In turn, the deputy head of the Russian Guard in Donetsk, former separatist field commander Alexander Khodakovsky called for the creation of barrier detachments for Russian soldiers – because “many are ready to wait from prison for their loved one, who threw away their weapons and refused to fight, just so as not to die.”

Against such an informational background, the story of a Kharkov resident at the military recruitment office of Staryi Sambir in the Lviv region received a huge resonance. This is not the first time that they tried to send into the army those captured trying to escape from the “country of dreams”, this time the mobilizers just did a little less work and video records were transferred to bloggers, instantly exploding social networks with anger. The inmate was kept there from September 12th to 19th, beaten on the head with a pistol, starved, not provided with medical care, threatened with death and that “the police would not look for him.” Even before this video, hardly many people doubted that the cops act in conjunction with the enlistment kidnappers, while the State Bureau of Investigation reported on the 19th that the deputy chief of one of the departments in the Sambir districtal recruitment center and its driver are detained. They face up to 10 years in prison under Part 3 of Art. 406 of the Ukrainian Criminal Code (violation of statutory rules, relationships by military personnel using weapons). The Bureau requested that both be taken into custody without bail; the court in Lviv sent them under round-the-clock house arrest for 2 months. The National Agency on Corruption Prevention has found suspicious property worth 4.4 million hryvnias owned by the chief of the same facility. Of course, even if they are found guilty and imprisoned, it will not change anything systemically – power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The investigation established that the suspects illegally detained at least two men – residents of Kharkov and Krivoy Rog. After being detained by border guards during unauthorized crossing the border with Poland, they were taken to the enlistment office, where the servicemen tried to force them to go through the medical examination. One of these refusers was kept for 10 days, another one for 7 days.

The resident of Krivoy Rog says that his name is Roman Kuzmenko, born November 12, 1985. Our compatriot is 43 years old and he was hospitalized with a concussion; he introduces himself as Vadim Spokoynyi (Ukrainian spelling – Vadym Spokiynyi). “Vadym is an animator. His stage name is Max. The first weeks Vadym was in Kharkiv – he volunteered a lot, helped people, tried to entertain children in bomb shelters so that they would not be so sad and scared. Later, he moved to Staryi Sambir with his acquaintance Dina. They didn't have a home here, so they temporarily lived in a van near the river. I helped them find accommodation. Later, his father also moved in with Vadym, he has a disability, does not walk much, is practically bedridden. His father somehow found the strength to come to the Military Commissariat. But they didn't let him in. They didn't even let me see each other. It's terrible. He is not a criminal and is not in a pre-trial detention center”, his local comrade Sofia Ryzhenko told the LMN newsletter. She does not know whether Vadim has official guardianship over his father. “Can you imagine what it's like to be an animator and work with children? He is very kind, harmless. Well, how can you force a person to sign that he will go to war, if he is afraid of it or cannot?”, the girl asks a rhetorical question. The fact that he, with such a peaceful character, showed an iron will and managed to withstand many days of attempts to break him is what is most shocking in this situation.

Those living in Staryi Sambir note that this is not the first case of such imprisonment of citizens by the enlistment officers. And, as a Kharkov resident named Ivan shared with us on September 20th, hell was going on there long before the full-scale Russian aggression:

“I got into this recruitment center in 2016. I almost got beaten there too. Barely escaped. They even wanted to send me then to the ATO [Anti-Terrorist Operation, the official name for hostilities in Donbass], despite the fact that I had a referral for a surgery in Kharkov. They said I didn't need surgery. I was registered there, went to sign up through the enlistment office, I had documents that I was undergoing surgery, and receipts for payment. Two drunk doctors came (like a medical commission). They said I didn't need surgery. They decided so without practically examining it. They said that the ATO would be just right for me, since I go to the gym and am in good physical shape. I said that I would probably refuse and am informed a little about my rights. They fucked my brain for a very long time and didn’t hand over the documents, and I also communicated in Russian. This really threw them up. Military commissars generally communicated as with cattle. Like you're pissing to go to the ATO, etc., etc. Although they themselves saw this ATO only on television. Something like this, in short.”

The Ukrainian public is more and more asking the question: how does this state with such everyday practices differ from the Russian one? In particular, Yevgenia, the wife of the Russian mobilized Yevgeniy P. from military unit 61899, turned to the Russian liberal pacifists ASTRA. For refusing to go to the assault with injuries, he and other soldiers were sent to the basement in Zaytsevo (a village controlled by the so-called “Lugansk People’s Republic” near the Kharkov region), where they are threatened and forced to continue fighting. The detainee told his wife about this on September 18th by phone, after which contact with him disappeared. In May, in Bakhmut, he received a fragment wound in the leg, due to which he was sent to the hospital. However, Yevgeniy was not given aid there; the fragment was not removed, his wife says. He was sent home for rehabilitation for a month. A month later, the commander changed, the new one sent a unit to Naro-Fominsk near Moscow. The entire company with wounds was locked in the barracks and kept there for a week. The surgeon then concluded that they could all continue to fight despite their injuries. They were taken in the direction of Svatovo and abandoned in the forest without any means of subsistence. “My relatives and I cut off all the hotlines, reached the head of the unit, but our requests and prayers for the salvation of the guys are simply ignored, citing the fact that, they say, there is a war, etc. This is just madness and absurdity, the boys with wounds were thrown just like cannon fodder!”, the woman told this media.

Ukraine is a prison of the people. Russia is a prison of the peoples. That's all the difference.

ORO CONVERSATORIO: A 50 AÑOS DEL GOLPE CÍVICO MILITAR
Los desafíos y tareas del anarquismo

Viernes 30 de septiembre // 18:00 hrs
Lugar: Vicuña Mackenna 636 - TRASOL

Viernes 6 de octubre // 18:00 hrs
Lugar: Calle Clave 437 - FLORA

Organizan:
Asamblea Anarquista Valparaíso
Federación Anarquista Santiago

Taller de Estudios Anarquistas:
La experiencia de los paros nacionales en Colombia

Del 14 de septiembre al 5 de octubre
Jueves 600 pm
La Redada Miscelánea Cultural (Calle 17 #2-51)
Bogotá

Primera sesión: Introducción y primeras experiencias (1944-1957) 14 de septiembre
Segunda sesión: Auge y crisis (1963-1990) 28 de septiembre
Tercera sesión: Recomposición y estallido (1999-2021) 5 de octubre

Entrada libre
Grupo Libertario Vía Libre

En estos días se conmemoran 50 años del golpe de Estado que dio rienda suelta al terrorismo estatal y patronal, significando años de persecución, tortura, violación y desaparición. Sin embargo, queremos iniciar este documento con un balance de la experiencia desarrollada en los años previos al inicio de la dictadura cívico-militar. Aquel periodo suele asociarse al gobierno de Salvador Allende y a su “vía chilena al socialismo”, no pretendemos extendernos en las claras distancias políticas e ideológicas que nos separan del gobierno de la Unidad Popular (UP), toda vez que lo consideramos un proyecto de modernización capitalista que impulsó la conciliación de clase y el fortalecimiento de los mecanismos estatales de dominación, terminando en el dramático escenario de la dictadura que supuso la pulverización del tejido comunitario, la destrucción de la organización social, el asesinato y tormentos de miles de militantes populares y una profundización en la precarización de nuestras vidas latente hasta el presente.

Por lo tanto, quisiéramos enfatizar en el proceso que se tejía por debajo de las direcciones partidarias, aquel fenómeno que no seguía las pautas de la institucionalidad burguesa y supuso una verdadera amenaza para el orden del Estado y el Capital; hablamos de lxs pobladorxs en las tomas de terrenos y en las Juntas de Abastecimiento Popular, nos referimos a lxs obrerxs en los Cordones Industriales, pensamos en lxs campesinxs en las tomas de fundos y en la alegría popular corriendo el cerco de lo posible, nos referirnos al Poder Popular. Esta capacidad desarrollada por diversos sectores de la clase oprimida, supuso un ejercicio de audacia tremendamente valioso, ya que, en el desarrollo de esta fuerza popular se gestaba una potencialidad capaz de sobrepasar al Estado y plantear un escenario abierto y favorable en la lucha de clases, de allí que el gobierno de Allende no escatimó recursos en iniciar un proceso de institucionalización, cooptación e incluso represión sobre estas expresiones, tratando de desactivar aquella potencia de ruptura revolucionaria.

Sin embargo, no son solo causas “externas” las que debilitaron esta rica experiencia, sino también errores y límites internos que no pudieron ser superados allí donde se apura la historia. El primer traspié fue el burocratismo que operaba sobre las bases populares a partir del comportamiento parasitario de las instituciones estatales y los partidos políticos de la UP, cuestión que se reflejó en la obediencia de las bases a los lineamientos gubernamentales, temiendo, incluso, pasar por encima de Allende aun cuando las fuerzas reaccionarias se preparaban para iniciar el exterminio. Si bien el desarrollo del Poder Popular no es impulsado por el gobierno de la UP, rápidamente, la burocracia institucional inicia un proceso para su cooptación y debilitamiento, por eso, la lección es que ninguna fuerza social puede someterse a un marco gubernamental: el Poder Popular es antiestatal o no será, por tanto, es ineludible rebasar aquellas propuestas políticas que pretenden subyugar el protagonismo de las bases a lineamientos institucionales, tal como hoy ocurre con muchísimos empeños sociales que están completamente sometidos al gobierno de Boric, iniciando procesos de desmovilización y silencio cómplice ante el avance de su agenda represiva, precarizadora y extractivista. La organización popular no debe jamás confiar en un gobierno cualquiera sea su color o signo político, ya que, en la sobrevivencia y fortalecimiento de los pilares de la dominación está nuestra derrota.

El segundo traspié fue la débil coordinación de las diversas experiencias del Poder Popular, dado fundamentalmente por el sectarismo y la política de trinchera de los partidos de izquierda. Estamos convencidxs de que los procesos revolucionarios no le pertenecen a ninguna ideología, partido o movimiento político, más bien, son de lxs oprimidxs que buscan dejar de serlo, por ello, es necesaria la coordinación de los diversos esfuerzos que pretenden trazar el camino de la emancipación, desde perspectivas antiestatales, anticapitalistas y despatriarcalizadoras. Dicha coordinación debe realizarse desde las organizaciones sociales a partir de sus experiencias de lucha, dejando de lado los discursos identitarios y paternalistas. Lo anterior, nos permitirá dotar de perspectiva las luchas del presente y desarrollar, en conjunto con las expresiones organizativas de la clase oprimida, una fuerza capaz de romper el actual tránsito histórico, desechando los atajos institucionales y los personalismos mesiánicos que se nos presentan como barreras en nuestro camino hacia la libertad.

Ya lo dijimos antes, más allá del proyecto de la UP y de la cara institucional de los procesos políticos vividos en los cuales se inscribe el espectacular bombardeo a la Moneda, pensamos que lo que finalmente movilizó el complot golpista cívico-militar fueron las capacidades que mostraron las capas populares y oprimidas de tomar el destino de sus vidas con sus propias manos. Estas capacidades fueron gestadas y desarrolladas en décadas de lucha, constituidas a partir de los aprendizajes colectivos de nuestra clase, desde, al menos, los albores del siglo XX en los centros urbanos y mucho antes por las comunidades en resistencia a las diversas dimensiones de la colonización. Esta capacidad hizo posible la generación de fuerza social organizada que puso a temblar a la clase dominante y a los intereses imperialistas, quienes desataron toda su crueldad contra este protagonismo popular que comenzaba a escribir una nueva historia.

El terror fue desatado sistemáticamente desde el Estado y cayó la noche sobre la alegría de los pueblos. La contra revolución capitalista se abrió paso brutalmente con una imparable avanzada de muerte, tortura, violencia sexual y desaparición forzada, a la vez que llevaba a cabo la misión estratégica de desarticular todas las expresiones comunitarias en donde la vida fuera resuelta de manera solidaria, colectiva y en autogestión. La dictadura cívico-militar se desplegó tácticamente en múltiples dimensiones para sembrar el miedo en la sociedad, con el fin de desmantelar la fuerza social organizada que había hecho posible la experiencia socialista en la región chilena. Estos procesos de desmantelamiento político, social y emocional de gran parte de la clase organizada han provocado una herida colectiva, profunda y traumática, herida que la impunidad y los pactos de silencio institucionales mantienen abierta hasta el día de hoy y que ha traído múltiples consecuencias en la experiencia vital colectiva de todxs quienes hemos crecido en estos territorios los últimos 50 años y más.

La reestructuración capitalista que instauró el golpe y posterior dictadura cívico-militar se tradujo en una serie de rearticulaciones económicas y políticas, las cuales se transformaron en los pilares del sistema económico que heredamos de la dictadura y que los gobiernos de los 30 años han consolidado. Todas ellas han tenido efectos directos en nuestras experiencias vitales compartidas: la reconfiguración de las ciudades a través de la expulsión de lxs pobladorxs de los centros hacia las periferias y el desarrollo de la ciudad neoliberal, el freno de la reforma agraria y la continuidad del antiguo latifundio a través de un modelo agroexportador y el fomento del negocio forestal, el abandono de la educación y la salud pública, la creación de las AFP, la privatización del agua y, en general, la instauración de un modelo neoliberal y extractivista anclado a los deseos de consumo del norte global y los intereses de la clase dominante.

Como planteábamos anteriormente, todos estos mecanismos de terror y precarización de la vida humana y no humana, sumados al acceso al mundo de las cosas, el consumo y el crédito, han permeado capas más profundas de las comunidades y las personas, atomizando e individualizando las experiencias comunes y reduciendo la socialización humana a espacios de consumo y mercado. Nos han educado en la competencia y la violencia para sobrevivir, bajo la premisa del desarrollo y superación personal en base al esfuerzo. Nos han aislado a lxs unxs de lxs otrxs para mantenernos en sensación de soledad y tristeza persiguiendo un modelo de éxito individual que poco conoce del goce de las alegrías y las penas compartidas.

Enfrentadxs a esta devastación ecológica y social de los 50 años de implementación de un programa de muerte y desarticulación de las comunidades, no nos basta con contemplar la derrota de un proyecto institucional ni con reconocer el profundo daño que cargamos como una maldición que pareciera irremediable, porque en medio del despojo, han resistido y germinado diversas experiencias de organización y solidaridad popular como la lucha por la vivienda, las ollas comunes, la colectivización de los cuidados de la niñez, los múltiples espacios comunitarios culturales y deportivos, las luchas anti patriarcales, la defensa y cuidado de los ecosistemas, la lucha mapuche, la resistencia de las comunidades migrantes, entre muchas otras que apuestan por vidas dignas. Estos espacios de acumulación de fuerza, experimentación de formas orgánicas y métodos de lucha son aprendizaje y sabiduría práctica para disputar el presente y construir el futuro.

​​​​​​​Hoy, a 50 años de aquel dramático martes 11 de septiembre, desde el anarquismo no solo tenemos mucho que reflexionar, también debemos comenzar a romper con la inacción y el inmovilismo. Frente a los sectores pusilánimes que nos gobiernan, incapaces de defender a sus propios muertxs ante el avance de los discursos y acciones negacionistas de la derecha reaccionara, es fundamental asumir un rol protagónico en la batalla ideológica que hoy se libra, con lenguajes, narrativas, metodologías y herramientas que nos permitan salir del “gueto”. Si nuestras ideas no se enraízan en nuestra clase, otras lo hacen y, con esto, no pretendemos que todxs lxs oprimidxs se reivindiquen como anarquistas, más bien, buscamos que valores como la solidaridad, el apoyo mutuo, la acción directa y el antiautoritarismo se constituyan en la base de las relaciones sociales de nuestras comunidades, por ello, es fundamental hacer retroceder las ideas y prácticas promovidas por la burguesía, ya sea en su modalidad fascista, liberal o progresista.

Por otro lado, concebimos al anarquismo social y organizado como una caja de herramientas y, como tal, se demanda su uso, por ello es que apostamos por superar las posturas identitarias y sectarias, abrazando la organización social y la construcción comunitaria de poder popular. De esta manera pretendemos desarrollar la fuerza necesaria para destruir la sociedad de clases y la mercantilización de la vida, desplegando una capacidad organizativa que ponga en el centro el protagonismo popular y se oponga a cualquier proyecto personalista, reformista y de conciliación de clases. El anarquismo debe y puede retornar a las luchas sociales y a la organización territorial, no somos ajenxs a las realidades del campo popular porque también somos pobladorxs y  trabajadorxs que luchan por vidas libres y dignas, por eso, seamos hoy parte del fortalecimiento organizativo y de la necesaria coordinación de aquellas luchas libradas por diversos sectores de nuestra clase.

Finalmente, reconocemos que es necesario romper con la falsa oposición entre Estado y Mercado, apostando por construir una alternativa popular con foco en la reproducción de la vida que, desde la gestión comunitaria, prefigure aquella nueva y buena vida que buscamos, a partir de la autonomía y de un programa antiestatal, anticapitalista y con una perspectiva despatriarcalizadora. Resistir no significa soportar los oscuros tiempos aferrándonos a nuestras convicciones, más bien es transformar nuestra realidad, organizarnos comunitariamente, sin retroceder ante las contradicciones y amarguras de la situación actual. Confiamos en que la memoria, la lucha y la organización popular nos acercan a la emancipación y a la construcción de comunidades más sanas, más alegres, más dignas.​​​​​​​

A pesar de los golpes y las heridas: ¡organizadxs y en comunidad luchamos por la vida!
Asamblea Anarquista de Valparaíso - Federación Anarquista de Santiago

When the Russian state invaded Ukraine, I was immediately on the side of the Ukrainian people. Mainly this was because, like most people, I hate oppression, exploitation, and bullying. I am on the side of the oppressed, the exploited, the beaten, the marginalized, and the dominated. Especially whenever they fight back. While my political opinions have evolved over the years, this attitude has continued to be at the heart of my worldview.

Also, I have long supported the freedom of an oppressed people to national self-determination. I learned this concept during the fight against the U.S.-Vietnamese war (dating myself). My comrades and I had no illusions in the North Vietnamese state nor the leaders of the south Vietnamese war (the “Viet Cong” or NLF). They were Stalinists and would establish a Communist-type state-capitalist dictatorship (as they did). They received military aid from the imperialist Soviet Union. But there was no question that the peasants and workers of Vietnam were supporting the war and its leadership. We gave no political support to the Stalinist leaders and rulers, we were their opponents. Yet we definitely were in solidarity with the Vietnamese people in their fight for independence and unity and whatever freedoms they might gain. We wanted the U.S. military forces to lose.

I thought these lessons of the Vietnamese-U.S. war applied to this war. They implied solidarity with the Ukrainian people (however much we opposed the Ukrainian state and its capitalist “oligarchs”) and full opposition to the Russian invaders. It implied that the oppressed people have the right to get arms from wherever they can, even from other imperialists who were competing with their immediate aggressor (then the Soviet Union, now the U.S. and NATO).

However, when I wrote this, I received much disagreement, often expressed with great personal hostility, expressed in name-calling, childish insults, and red-baiting. I was betraying anarchism! Some of my critics could not separate political disagreement from personal conflicts.

The first wave of arguments I faced held that “no anarchist” would support the war. This was because anarchists did not support wars, or anarchists did not support wars between capitalist states. This is to say that my critics rejected (or ignored) the importance of imperialism. They did not distinguish between wars between imperialist states and wars between an oppressed, colonized, nation and an imperialist state.

It was repeatedly pointed out to me that Peter Kropotkin had supported France and the Allies in World War I but that almost all anarchists at the time and later felt that he was badly mistaken. His comrade Errico Malatesta had written to condemn Kropotkin for taking sides in the Great War. But my critics did not know that Malatesta had also supported wars of national liberation by oppressed peoples (for example, in Libya against the Italian army, or in Cuba against the Spanish empire). (Price Nov. 2022)

I demonstrated that “classical anarchists” had supported popular struggles for national self-determination: including, but not limited to, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Makhno, and others. All (with the exception of Kropotkin) distinguished between wars among imperialists (of which they opposed all sides) and wars between imperialists and oppressed, non-imperialist, countries (of which they supported the oppressed peoples). (Price July 2022; 2023)

I also pointed out that many—perhaps most—of the Ukrainian anarchists supported—and participated in—the Ukrainian side of the war. Similarly, Russian and Belarusian anarchists were on the side of the Ukrainian people, and so were many other anarchists.
In a report on the 2023 International Anarchist Conference at St. Imier, Switzerland, a commentator wrote,

“Most events held on the war accepted the right of self-defence for Ukrainians as the minimum anarchist political basis….The event by anarchists from Russia, Ukraine and Belarus, who are actively resisting the invasion, was one of the most interesting of the meeting.” (Transnational Institute 2023)

All this does not prove that it is right to support the Ukrainian people, but it does disprove the claim that no anarchist would take such a stand.

In general, my opponents could not distinguish between “nationalism” and “national self-determination” or “liberation.” “National liberation” meant the freeing of a people from the oppression of the state of another nation. “National self-determination” meant that a people were able to decide for itself whether to be independent and what kind of political and economic system to have (which could be a capitalist state or libertarian socialism). But “nationalism” is one possible program meant to supposedly solve national oppression—by creating a new state and national capitalist economy (perhaps state capitalist). Anarchists should be for “national self-determination” and “national liberation” but are thoroughly opposed to “nationalism.” Instead we advocate international anarchist socialism to achieve freedom for all peoples everywhere.

Others argued that Ukraine did not deserve national defense because it was not really a nation! They claimed that Ukraine was a recent invention, that its people were indistinguishable from Russians, and so on. (While not supporting the Russian invasion, many anarchists repeat Putin’s propaganda and lies.) In my opinion, all these claims were irrelevant. Historically there had been a Ukraine for centuries, oppressed by the Czars and then by the Stalinists. During the 70 years of the Soviet Union, there had been a recognized Ukrainian Republic in the USSR. But this too was not really relevant.

What was important was that the Ukrainians regarded themselves as a nation. In 1991 the Ukrainian people voted overwhelming for national independence from Russia—by more than 92 per cent. This included about 80 per cent in the eastern, mainly Russian-speaking, Donbas and about 54 per cent in Crimea. (Mirra 2023; p. 126) It was their opinion which counts, not that of foreign anarchists nor of Putin and his army.

To which some replied, that therefore the people of the eastern Ukraine, the Donbas, were a nation or nations because they had voted for their own republics merged into Russia. I would agree, except that the drive for their “national separation” was so clearly a Russian put-up job (with Russian soldiers everywhere). Indeed the whole movement for Donbas secession was organized since 2014 by Russian and pro-Russian agents.

Another argument was that anarchists must not support a capitalist state. In fact, no Ukrainian anarchists gave any political support to the Zelensky government. They did not vote for it nor urge others to vote for it. They did not join the ruling party nor any other. They did not participate in the government in any way. They have opposed the neoliberal austerity and anti-union policies of the Zelensky government. There is no “Popular Front.”

Suppose there was a strike in the U.S. Anarchists would be on the side of the workers. Outside anarchists would do labor-support activities to help the strike. Anarchist workers at the workplace would join the strike and be active in its organizing. Yet the union would undoubtedly be run by a bureaucratic and possibly corrupt leadership. Should anarchists still participate? Or should they stand aside or perhaps cross the picket lines, because the union was undemocratic and centralized? Obviously, revolutionary anarchists would join the strike and be the most militant strikers, while fighting for a more democratic, federalist, and militant union. The same is true of anarchists in a just national war of self-determination, being part of the war while working for an eventual anarchist-socialist revolution.

Anarchists are participating in the war. Some distribute food and medicines. Others help refugees. But some formed Territorial Defense groups affiliated with the army. And some joined the army, fighting at the front.

It would have been optimal if Ukrainian anarchists had been able to organize militias or guerrilla groups independently of the state. Unfortunately they are far too weak to do that. They must either support the existing army in one way or another, or be passive. After all, while Ukrainian anarchists have much to criticize the army for, anarchists are not opposed to its fighting the Russian invaders!

Suppose anarchists were to say to the Ukrainian people, “We are against the Russian invasion, but we are also against the national army—we are even for sabotaging it—because it is the army of a state and capitalism.” Most workers would (correctly) regard this as treasonous de facto support of the invaders. On the other hand, anarchist participation in the war, in whatever capacity, can only increase positive views of anarchists among the population.

Much of the opposition to supporting Ukraine is due to its getting arms and aid from the U.S. and the rest of NATO. It is often called a “proxy war.” There is an assumption by many that only U.S. imperialism is evil. But while U.S. imperialism is terrible, it is not the only imperialism. There is Russian imperialism, as the Ukrainians know.

It is not unusual for one imperialist power to intervene when a colony rebels against its imperialist master. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union often aided, with guns or money, national struggles against Western imperialists—in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Meanwhile the U.S. was “on the side” of eastern European states against the Soviet Union. Even during World War II, Nazi Germany gave “support” to Arab rebels in Britain and France’s colonies, and even to Ireland, while Imperial Japan claimed to be “freeing” Asian colonies from Britain, France, and Holland. So it was not surprising that Soviet Russia gave aid to Vietnam against the U.S.—or that the U.S. and allies should give aid to Ukraine. The U.S. state is acting for its reasons, its imperial interests in weakening its imperial competitor, not out of the “idealism” of its cynical politicians.

But make no mistake. For the Ukrainians, this is no “proxy war.” It is their villages, towns, and cities which are bombed and destroyed, not those of the U.S., Germany, or Britain. It is their population which is being massacred on the ground and from the air. It is their soldiers who are fighting and being killed in massive numbers. They are fighting and dying for their country, their people, and no one else.

I would not offer tactical advice to Ukrainian anarchists. But strategically I would say that their goals are two-fold: to defeat the Russian invasion and to spread anarchist ideas among the people, especially the workers. As revolutionary anarchists, we continue to be in solidarity with the oppressed, especially when they fight for their freedom.

References

Mirra, Carl (2023). “The War in Ukraine.” New Politics. Summer 2023. Pp. 125—137.

Price, Wayne (July 2022). “Malatesta on War and National Self-Determination” https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32666

Price, Wayne (Nov. 2022). “Kropotkin and War—Today.”
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32683?search_text=Wayne+Price

Price, Wayne (2023). “Anarchists Support Self-Determination for Ukraine; What Did Bakunin Say About National Self-Determination?” https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32774?search_text=Wayne+Price

Transnational Institute of Social Ecology (2023). “Report From the International Anarchist Meeting in St. Imier, Switzerland”
https://anarchistnews.org/content/report-international-anarchist-meeting-st-imier-switzerland

* submitted to Workers Solidarity: A Green Syndicalist Webzine

Era otoño la última vez que entregábamos un posicionamiento público, allí advertíamos el duro invierno que se avecinaba, acentuado por la precarización de la vida que nos afecta como clase oprimida, hoy, en medio del periodo invernal, aquellas palabras han tomado un duro peso.

Recordemos el colapso hospitalario sufrido a comienzos de junio que afectó, especialmente, a bebés y niñxs contagiadxs con virus sincicial, situación que provocó la muerte de, al menos, 6 de ellxs, esta información es tremendamente cuestionable, ya que, una vez que las cámaras de televisión quitaron del foco la situación pediátrica, se dejaron de contar e informar los fallecimientos. Uno de los casos tuvo lugar en el puerto de San Antonio, donde una lactante falleció debido a la falta de camas críticas necesarias para la gravedad de su cuadro, sin embargo, tal disponibilidad de camas si existía y fue la nefasta gestión del Ministerio de Salud la que impidió el acceso a la misma, siendo cómplices del fallecimiento de la bebé y, como si lo anterior no fuese suficiente, el ministerio lanzaban afirmaciones macabras como que “era difícil (que la lactante) hubiese sobrevivido”, denotando una total falta de empatía con su familia y explicitando que la vida de lxs pobres a este gobierno no le interesa en lo más mínimo. Dentro de este marco, el gobierno que afirma tener un “compromiso por los cuidados” se ha negado a extender el posnatal de emergencia, protegiendo los intereses productivos y empresariales.

Pocas semanas después, tuvimos, en la zona centro-sur del territorio, vientos y lluvias que significaron inundaciones, deslizamientos de tierras, crecidas de ríos, muerte y destrucción de vidas humanas y no humanas. El drama vivido es consecuencia de la crisis ecológica que transita nuestro planeta, el cual, ha alcanzado temperaturas jamás registradas, produciendo escenarios que ponen en vilo la sostenibilidad de la vida. Como hemos señalado, la verdadera catástrofe es el capitalismo y el patriarcado, elementos estructurantes del sistema de dominación que mientras sigan en pie, sepultan nuestras posibilidades de construir una vida libre. Mientras tanto, en el territorio que habitamos, el patrón de acumulación vía extractivismo goza de buena salud y el gobierno progresista se ha encargado de que aquello continúe así. La revolución es el último freno de emergencia que tenemos para detener el avance de esta máquina enferma.

Por otro lado, la corrupción en el gobierno se ha hecho visible y estos adalides de las buenas prácticas, aquellos que serían “la tumba del neoliberalismo”, han utilizado el sistema subsidiario para enriquecerse de la manera más tramposa posible. El “caso Democracia Viva” es un claro ejemplo de cómo la oposición Estado y Mercado es artificial, es por ello que como organización política apostamos por superar ambos espacios de mercantilización y control de nuestras vidas y territorios. Ahora bien, no solo los partidos de gobierno están detrás de recursos públicos, también muchas organizaciones sociales que se han puesto en fila para recibir cargos administrativos, recursos y favores políticos a cambio de su total domesticación y la cancelación de la movilización. Esta orientación estatista y clientelar a lo que ha contribuido es a sostener las políticas represivas de la socialdemocracia, así como a extender la desorientación en el campo popular, dinamitando la autonomía de las organizaciones sociales y colocándolas en función de un gobierno que le abre las puertas al pinochetismo y a otras fuerzas reaccionarias.

La consolidación de la restauración conservadora avanza rampante, hace pocas semanas hemos sufrido, como clase oprimida, el lamentable fallecimiento de Jorge Salvo, quien durante la revuelta social sufrió la mutilación de uno de sus ojos, producto de la represión de la nefasta institución de los pacos. Jorge fue completamente abandonado por este gobierno que llegó a la Moneda prometiendo justicia, verdad, reparación y garantías de no repetición de las violaciones a los derechos humanos cometidas desde el 18 de octubre en adelante, sin embargo, Boric ha avanzado en un sentido completamente distinto: fortaleciendo la impunidad policial y promoviendo el olvido, cuestiones auspiciadas por la “Ley Naín-Retamal” y por la eliminación de la otrora “Plaza de la Dignidad”. Pero no solo en el gobierno se manifiestan estas pulsiones cavernarias, también en el Congreso, el cual, se encuentra legislando la “Ley Anti Toma” que no solo criminaliza a lxs habitantes de campamentos o a lxs peñis que ejercen control territorial en el Wallmapu, también faculta a los propietarios de tales terrenos a ejercer una “legítima defensa privilegiada”, posibilitando la formación de grupos paramilitares que atentan directamente contra estas legítimas luchas. El poder judicial no se queda atrás y pretende encarcelar por más de 150 años a Francisco del Solar y a más de 25 a Mónica Caballero, cuestión que da cuenta de una clara venganza judicial en castigo a sus posiciones y prácticas anarquistas. Finalmente, el nuevo Consejo Constitucional, dominado por la extrema derecha, pretende excarcelar a los agentes de Estado que han sido declarados culpables por los crímenes de lesa humanidad ocurridos durante la dictadura de Pinochet y también buscan restringir constitucionalmente el aborto en tres causales. Como vemos, el Estado en toda forma se posiciona en torno a la barbarie represiva. De la misma manera, las expresiones de xenofobia, racismo y nacionalismo abundan en nuestra clase, claro ejemplo de aquello es el asesinato de un migrante colombiano en situación de calle por parte de miembros de la Armada o el caso de esclavitud que afectó a ocho migrantes haitianos por parte del empresario Jaime Cabrera. Ambos hechos no concitaron mayor interés, no se desarrollaron manifestaciones espontáneas, ni “velatones”, dando cuenta del grado de descomposición que abunda en los sectores populares, es allí donde la disputa ideológica es apremiante.

Pero allí, en la cornisa, es donde aflora el conflicto y sus posibilidades. Es urgente la recomposición y rearticulación de la militancia política en luchas sociales, el trabajo político sin estar inserto en las luchas de nuestra clase carece de proyección y limita su posibilidad de antagonismo. La superación de la sociedad de clases, la abolición del Estado y la propiedad, la destrucción del capitalismo y del patriarcado comienza en el fortalecimiento de la organización popular, surge de la acción directa y anida en las comunidades organizadas. En este marco, nuestra organización política anarquista cumple cuatro años desde su fundación, nuestro compromiso con la lucha por la emancipación de la clase oprimida sigue intacto, nuestra tarea de enraizar el anarquismo en los sectores populares aún está pendiente, nuestra convicción en la organización y la acción directa es inclaudicable. A sacudirse la derrota, la desesperanza y la depresión post revuelta, hay un futuro que disputar.

If they happen to succeed, both the forest ecosystem with its thousands of living creatures, the villagers of İkizköy and the local people, and the whole world at this time when the climate crisis is a great threat, will suffer, as the capitalists and the state will enrich their wealth.

The people of İkizköy and ecologists from all over the geography have been resisting the state and capital for two years for their forests and nature. However, the severity of the attack on Akbelen forests increased significantly as of July 24. The gendarmerie, which has landed in the Akbelen forest with water cannon's and construction equipment, is attacking the resisting villagers and ecologists. The companies, on the other hand, are continuing to slaughter trees under state protection. The rapidly advancing tree massacre reached the guarding area of the people and the ecologists on the morning of 27 July.

Therefore, urgent action is required for Akbelen forests to survive. Every day, the people of Akbelen and the ecologists face detentions and violence by the police and gendarmerie in the area as they continue resisting. We call on everyone to support the Akbelen resistance alongside the ecosystems and peoples of the earth in order to save the Akbelen forests from the state-capital occupation.