info/mirror-textfiles.com
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/opsxcq/mirror-textfiles.com.git synced 2025-08-07 01:16:32 +02:00
Code Issues Releases Wiki Activity

update

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
OPSXCQ
2018-02-16 12:53:26 -03:00
parent be5597fe3b
commit b5922e1197
311 changed files with 118621 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

284
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp000940.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,284 @@
GKY
Peter Cadogan
What follows is an edited version of some moments in the political career
of an important player in the shadowy world of para-politics until hi=
s
death in 1990. In itself it is only a fragment, containing the views of
Peter Cadogan, a longtime English Dissident, himself active in variou=
s
people power projects over the years.1 As a fragment, it has its limi=
ts
and (tantalisingly) the height of GKYs formal poli tical influence - his
failed attempt to take over the Tory Monday Club in the early 1970s -=
is
absent as the diary entries only start in 1974. What the document does
give, though, is a hint of the ferment and excitement amongst the ruling
class around 1974, when in some circles a coup was discussed, and a
demonstration of the close affinity between the state's security apparatus
and the commerci al ruling class. There is one point on which it is
possible to take issue slightly with Peter Cadogan that is worthy of
remark - the assertion that there are people trying to hunt the wizard=
of GKYand place him at the centre of a far Right conspiracy. In fact he
was onl y too happy to write his own obituary for Lobster. The extent=
to
which GKY was (or was not) a totalitarian is something which readers =
can
delve into elsewhere.2 However, Peter Cadogan is right when he observes
that GKY was "...incorrigibly interesting". - Larry O'Hara
GKY and me
personally got to know GKY in 1968 when, after reading his Finance and
World Power', I wrote to him. We had many working lunches over the next 16
years. The argument of that book and the central tenet of his political
thought, was that the Establishment (wrongly) preferred escalating debt to
investment in the economy and improvements in productivity. In 1970 I
became the general secretary of the South Place Ethical Society at the
Conway Hall, Red Lion square (a centre of English dissent since 1793). GKY
was very interested and gave a series of lectures there throughout the
1970s.
eorge K. Young (1911-90) was a man born out of his time and he raged
against it. He would have been happier as a zealous Scottish Covenanter in
the 17th century or like his fellow Scot, Livingstone, building the empire
in the bush, singlehanded. He was a journalist, a soldier, a senior civil
servant, a master-spy, a writer, a historian, a political conspirator, a
restless critic of weakness in high places, a ruthless man and a caring
man at the same time. He believed in ideas, values and loyalty and lived
by them. He never suffered fools gladly. He had a brilliant intellect. He
also had a blind spot. When he retired from Government service in 1961 he
was a Deputy Head of MI6. Within a year he had his first book out -
Masters of In-decision - a withering attack on the system he had serv=
ed
for so long, but written as much in sorrow as in anger. He saw
absolutely no alter-native to Conser-vatism and it therefore followed
that the Conservative cause had to be redeemed from within. He saw himself
as an arch-redeemer, a crusader more than a reformer. He is dead. These
lines are not written to hunt the wizard (there seems to be no shortage of
volunteers in that direction) but to try to tell the truth about him, or
at least that part of it that I saw for myself, knowing him personally and
enjoying his t rust, over the years 1968 to 1984. Being exceptionally
well-informed (he kept his hotline to Intelligence long after his
retirement) he had an angle on everything and everybody. He was,
therefore, incorrigibly interesting, regardless of whether he was right or
wrong, progressive or reactio nary. His interests centered on foreign
policy, defence and internal security. His book Who is my Liege? (197=
2)
was a textbook of Thatcherism par excellence but with values closer to
chivalry than Bentham: The collection and dispensing of revenue, the
running of courts of law, the equipment, direction and planning of the
armed forces - these three functions of central government are the only
ones for which a permanent corps of specialist officials is essen tial. So
the Conservative intention of hiving-off functions of state which they
consider are the responsibility of the private sector must be extended to
being a broad avenue of no-return... Unlike Mrs Thatcher though he
insisted on the moral under-pinning. Just as Mrs. Thatcher denied
society so he affirmed it. But that was the G.K.Young enigma - that h=
e
belived in truth, integrity, loyalty, action and he knew they came from
people, but wh en it came to the crunch he chose authority: The loyaltie=
s
of the people are there: they only await a new focus. No subsitute of
function, interest or contrived comm-unication can meet their need: the
restoration of emotional unity requires a new sense of communal action and
since our whole body of
ideas is involved, it is from above that new initiatives must come. And
who is to do it? Since Labours identity tags are tied to universalis=
t
ideas which have brought betrayal, and in our time treason bears a
Left-Wing label, only a Conservative Government can play this role. So
that is it. He felt he had no option but to make sense of the Conservative
Party. One gets the impression that he was feared, disliked, derided and
misunderstood by the common run of Tories; but he had hot lines to the
top. To him, that was what counte d. He had no sense of a new morality
and politics coming up from below. There were always two George Youngs -
the man of moral passion and the authoritarian. And the second had the
edge over the first. It just never occurred to him that people-power might
be
a possible option.
The Journal
From1974 I kept a journal, what follows is taken almost verbatim from
that journal. 25th July 1974. George K Young had lunch with me today in
the Library at Conway Hall. He tells me the Conservative Party has
collapsed in Scotland and Tories in general hardly know what they stand
for because they dont know what Heath stands for. He is working on
something I think he called plan B. Like me he expects the collapse of
central government, but we are working in utterly different ways from
opposite ends of the political spectrum. He, in company with about a dozen
others, has drawn up a
plan (and had it bound!) and discussed it with the Head of the Secret
Service and a top man in the Special Branch. It involves, or is intended
to involve Lord Lieutenants, Chief Constables and their kind. He is
looking for some kind of base in the Royal Society of St. George and the
Ratepayers Association to which, he says, some thirteen million people
have paid their 25p. Gerald Howarth, ex-Society of Individualists, is much
involved. He thinks the outcome of the present crisis will be violent but
we di dnt discuss it in detail. In my view the violence has only to be
marginal or we lose the day and end up with another authoritarian regime.
He takes the regional case but makes less of it than I do. He uses a
military formula for working things out: Objec ts, Factors, Courses, Plan.
He saw Enoch Powell last week for about an hour and a half but doesnt
think much of him. He ratted on his own party people and constituents in
the middle of an election build-up. He is making the mistake of getting
directly involved in Ulster politics (i n looking for a constituency
there), fatal in Georges view - and generally seems to have lost out. I
asked him about the Far Right. The Monday Club, he says, is virtually in a
state of self-destruction. What he said about Jonathan Guinness turned out
to be about right. But the Monday Club in the Midlands has developed a
life of its own and could be of consequence. Of the National Front it
seems that there is a chap called Roy3 who is a self-made millionaire and
who reckons to get rid of both John Tyndall and Martin Webster within two
years. George doubts if he will make it. It will take a good organiser to
beat Web ster to the draw! He is very frank with me and I am equally
straight with him. It is a strange relationship. He mentioned, in some
context or other, that he had previously been much involved in planning
the overthrow or the bolstering of Governments (presum-ably in the Mid dle
East) so that his present activity was not all that different! 29th July
1974. Todays Times carries quite a long report on the emergency
organisation that GKY described to me last week, but his name is kept out
of it. Now the climate will really begin to change... When the politicians
see others getting ready to do their job becaus e they have failed, there
will be some very interesting sequels from all directions! 5th December
1974. We had the working lunch for ten people today (at the Hall). My
guests were GKY, Michael Barnes, Alex Cox and Marion Boyars. James had
three guests including Tony Wilson of British Oxygen. Tomoko Sato acted as
co-host with me. The discussion was good but didnt seem to get very far;
but all felt it was worthwhile. At the very end George staggered them
(except me as privy to the news) by revealing that it was he who had drawn
up the plan that General Walker is now acting on. He told us that cadres
had been recruited, how an alternative communication system existed, how
contacts ranged from the Palace down! Shock all round the table! In 1975
it seemed that some kind of change was imperative. This was the year in
which Thatcherism was invented and Mrs. Thatcher ousted Ted Heath. She had
been holding her Sunday evening discussions with her friends in her house
in Chelsea. General Walker , Sterling and George K Young were making their
extraordinary para-military plans to meet the contingency of a total
political breakdown. 15th July 1976 Today I had lunch with GKY at
St.Stephens Club near St.James Park. He told me that when he first had the
idea that is UNISON he saw General Templar about it. Templar was
interested but too old and sick to act and he suggested General Walker.
George then s aw General Walker and he, having read Georges draft, agree=
d
to take on the job. The form the thing now takes is that of an instant
communications network capable of acting at the highest level if the
established machinery of government and comm-unications breaks down. Key
contacts to be with Lord Lieutenants, G.O.C.s [heads of armed services],
Police, key M.P.s and key people in a list of associations. At the top is
Lord X ( I was told his name but it did not mean anything to me and I
forgot it), but he too is a sick man. The key man in the Commons is Sir
Frederick Bennet and with hi m are some twenty other M.P.s. The
communications network will function through the ham radio system and
another special system of communications has been established with some
help from the Home Office. UNISON will go public later this year. There
used to be, he said, an emergency system in this country based on the
counties (presumably a reference to the Regional Seats of Government set
up in the 20s after the experience of the General Strike and reactivated
in the 50s in the face of the pos sibility of nuclear war) but Heath
dismantled it as a reflection on his capacity to govern and Wilson, with
five Communists in his Cabinet, was in no position to revive it - Geo=
rge
is a little free with the use of the word Communist. He sees a Genera=
l
Election producing a minority Thatcher Government and no progress. When it
breaks down or threatens to do so, there will be a need for a new
initiative. He had set up a group of about a hundred Tory M.P.s who are
alerted to the possibili ty and will take suitable action. What action is
yet to be determined. 26th March 1981. A two hour lunch with GKY at the
Caledonian Club in Halkin Street. He tells me that the emergency
organisation UNISON was formed in 1967 and Tory Action subsequently. He
has been the Secretary and the moving force in Tory Action since his 70th
birthday. H e sees Peter Walker as a tory with a future and writes
Carrington and Prior off. 10th August 1982 Another lunch with GKY at the
Caledonian Club. He told me a bit more about himself. In 1941 he was an
Army Captain in Kenya and when the British Forces cleared the Italians out
of the Horn of Africa he was asked to take on the Intelligence job at
Addis Ab baba. He carried on in Intelligence after the war, with MI6, and
did a tour of SE Asia in 1959. He told me that the Head of the CIA in
Saigon, Richardson, urged no direct US intervention in Vietnam. He was
over-ruled from Washington where Helms was the boss. He
also said that the CIA was firmly against the form taken by the Bay of
Pigs invasion. They wanted an operation that would start and build up a
complex of guerrilla groups, but the Pentagon prevailed and made it a full
frontal thing leading to disaster. H e thinks that the CIA has had a bad
press. Before 1955 the Foreign Office had no proper means of studying
Soviet power centers. Violet Connolly was their authority on the SU but
the emphasis of specialists was on things like Soviet grain production
etc. He successfully urged that what No.10 needed
was a special advisory group following closely what was happening in and
around the Kremlin - and which General or 'top person' was on the up or
down. The need for this became apparent with Stalin's death. Nobody in the
FO had ever heard of Malenkov! So mething had to be done. At Georges
instigation a special group was set up headed by Malcolm McIntosh with
Nove and Schapiro (of LSE). The group is still functioning today and
McIntosh is still there. The House of Lords has a special all-party
defence group which has produced a paper on special operations and other
matters (edited by George) that will be considered at a meeting on October
27th by the PM. A good deal turns on that meeting. It seems that
many politicians, officials and officers have no idea of the importance
of 'special operations' and psychological warfare and both have been
greatly neglected in recent years. George thinks that Carver is a dead
loss because he can't see this point eithe r. George K. Youngs last book
Subversion and the British Riposte appeared in 1984, some three years
after it had been written. I was not a little shocked by it. It opens:
If leading spokesmen of the Western world are to be believed we face in
the 80s, a threat of subversion as great as that of nuclear destruction.
It is a favourite theme of the Prime Minister. The fact is that for year=
s
he had tried, not without some limited success, to sell this belief to
leading spokesmen, Mrs. Thatcher in particular. GKY, now aged 74, (to the
best of my knowledge we had no subsequent contact) fell silent. So many
things he g ot right, but his essential thesis involved a fundamental
misreading of his times. Over 16 years I had seen him change. His
original critique of the Establishment was brilliant; but his gathering
obsession with an ill-defined internal menace had always seemed to me to
be absurd. Who were the people who were going to bring the system to its
knees? They didnt exist.
How does one explain George K. Young?
He was a man of ideas and vast experience on the Right. In the view of the
Left this was impossible - the Right had interests, it did not and could
not have ideas. Churchill had opened up a breach but it closed again.
George K. Young and Sir Keith Joseph did it once more, but all it yielded
was self-limiting Thatcherism and a misreading of subversion. GKY had no
home intellectually and politically, nowhere to go. He had to invent homes
like Tory Action, UNISON and various ad hoc associations or move into
the Monday Club or the Society of Individualists and SPES. It didnt
work. He met very few people of his own demanding kind. It drove him
downwards into conspiracy, even into inventing conspiracy by others, as in
his last book. Today it might be differen t; there are Conservatives about
like Norman Stone (who looks, talks and sounds like GKY) and Edward
Pearce. They were not about in the 1960s. It is a pity that in the end he
willed himself to self-destruction and we parted company although never
explicit ly or formally so. He was a good man fallen among autocrats...
Introduced and edited by Larry O'Hara, an independent researcher into the
far Right. Larry O'Hara has been the subject of vicious and unfounded
attacks in the pages of the anti-fascist magazine Searchlight after
criticising their research and their links
to the British 'secret state'.
For any readers who want to read in more detail how GKY interacted with
Cadogan's own political project the full text is available; 6 pages at
8p/page inc. postage. 1. Peter Cadogan's latest project is outlined in a
pamphlet "Values & Vision - Human Ecology and Community Politics";
Telephone 071 328 3709. 2. The obituary of himself is in Lobster 19, May
1990, p. 15-19. Dorril & Ramsay 'Smear' discusses: - GKY in Tory Party, Ch
XXXII. - GKY & Unison, Ch XXXIX. Searchlight, June 1987, p. 10-11 repeats
the standard information about GKY. Searchlight 187, Jan. 1991 p. 3
elaborates further, alleging he used the Searchlight 187, Jan. 1991 p. 3
elaborates further, alleging he used the mysterious (and quite possibly
fictional) paramilitary Column 88 "as a smokescreen... for more criminal
plans." David Leigh 'The Wilson Plot" (Heinemann, London, 1988) also
reviews Young's career & views - p. 13-16, 57, 158-9, 213-4, 217, 221-3,
225. 3. Roy Painter was a colourful Tory who defected to the NF and went
on to help form the shortlived 'National Party' in 1975. He is now back in
the Tory Party. A vivid picture of him is in Martin Walker's 'The NF'
(Fonatana, 1977).

191
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp000941.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,191 @@
CIA drug-running and Clinton
As the powerful Western countries grapple with the extradition of two
suspected bombers from Libya another extradition re-quest has gone almost
entirely without notice in the press. Costa Rica is attempting to bring
back a naturalised citizen of their cou ntry to face justice following a
governmental report into his activities. The man in question, John Hull,
is accused by Costa Rica of murder, drug trafficking and hostile acts
against Nicaragua in violation of their countrys neutrality. John Hull
was a major contra supporter during the U.S.s war against Nicaragua and
is believed to have engineered the bombing of the La Penca press
conference given by Eden Pastora, the only contra leader who had refused
to work under the C.I.A. Five were
killed in the explosion and twenty injured (though marginally higher and
lower figures have also been put for-ward). Hull was even accused by
Colombian drug kingpin Carlos Lehder on an ABC news program of pumping
about 30 tons of cocaine into the United
States a year from his ranch in Costa Rica. It included an airstrip:
just one link in the contra resupply network. Cocaine-funded covert
operations have a pedigree: the C.I.A. support for opium-growing Chinese
nationalists in the Golden Triangle set the scene for the 60s heroin
plague in the U.S. As far back as the 50s the C.I.A. had found it
expedient to ally with the Corsican syndicates smuggling drugs through
Marseilles who were able to break the power of the communist dockworkers
there. Further examples would include the Mujaheedin guerrillas, for
instance, and Manuel Noriega, who himself helped organise the rou ting of
drugs to the U.S. and guns to the contras. Since jumping bail in Costa
Rica, Hull has found sanctuary in the U.S., the country where he was born
and also a country professing zero tolerance for drug smugglers. And
even, we are told, a whole war on drugs along with its 'abhorrence of
terrorism' . Hull has told journalists that he will return to Costa Rica
to clear his name and has even been in touch with Amnesty Internation=
al
to protest about harassment. A number of U.S. Congressmen quickly got in
touch with the Costa Rican President to ask th at he handle Hull's case
"in a manner that will not complicate U.S.-Costa Rican relations." Can we
expect Hull to return to Costa Rica to prove his innocence soon? Not
according to Susie Morgan, a British journalist badly injured in the La
Penca blast: the C.I.A. cannot afford Hull taking the witness stand,
theyd have to kill him. She herself
gave up chasing Hull after four arduous years of investigation. Others
have tried too and faced blockages and death threats; one
insider-turned-informant was killed on Hulls ranch.=20
The Christic Institute: under attack
The one organisation which looked as if it might be able to put some
pressure on Hull was the Christic Institute - a liberal public interest
law firm which made Hull a defendant, along with twenty-eight others, in a
lawsuit brought by two of the American journalists injured in the La Penca
explosion. The lawsuit charges that a criminal racketeering enterprise
smuggled narcotics and arms through contra bases in Central America,
supplying much of the North American drug market. In the event the
Christic Institute was given the runaround by the judicial system, which
denied them a jury trial, and with the unprecedented -
politically-motivated - removal of their tax-exempt status looming as well
as awards of huge costs and fines totalling $1.7 million against them,
they may soon lie in financial ruins. Leonard Schroeter, chair of the
Association of Trial Lawyers of America, has called the various judicial
sanctions against the Christic Institute the single most unspeakable
attac k on dissent Ive ever seen... It was judicial tyranny. Schroete=
r,
like others, is terrified at the implications: Corporate America is
deter-mined to convert judges into ideo-logues, who follow the
corpor-ations agenda. And part of that agenda is minim ising peoples
capability to have access to justice. Corporate America wants to reduce
the number of lawsuits challenging their practices and abuses by the
federal government... If youre challenging something major, youre
subjecting yourself to severe r isk. The risk of personal bankruptcy. The
risk of being forced out of your profession. Thats the kind of terror
this case has created. Some sympathisers say that the Institute itself
may be partially to blame for casting its net too wide and bringing in so
much insufficiently well-prepared evidence along with superfluous and
sometimes unsourced conspiracy theory that their case became
too cumbersome. The Christic Institute has a praiseworthy record of
legal actions in the public interest: it helped with the successful Karen
Silkwood case against Kerr McGee Nuclear Corporation and with a number of
important civil rights cases in southern black communi ties. Now, however,
it may finally have bitten off more than it can chew: the White House, the
C.I.A. and even the Justice Department (who halted the F.B.I.
investigation of contra-linked heroin trafficking). It looks as if it may
fail to live up to the high hopes of its supporters - who include Jesse
Jackson and Bruce Springsteen - through a mixture of inexperience as well
as a generous dose of governmental maliciousness. Hull apparently remains
in hiding in the U.S. - still a free man. The Christic In stitute has
managed, until now at least, to survive after drastic cuts in staff and
activities and the selling-off of buildings, and even then only after a
large donation towards the $1.7 million in fines. There has still been no
direct refusal by the U.S. government to allow the extradition but neither
has there been any sign that Clinton favours extradition; his past
behaviour may give little cause for optimism.=20
Clinton's cocaine cover-up?=20
A small dirt airstrip at Mena, Arkansas, was a major North American focus
for the Contra drug and gun-running network, apparently handling a
night-flight every five minutes, without lights, at the height of the
activities. Democrat Congressman for Arkans as, Bill Alexander, has stated
that activities at Mena have been responsible for large volumes of drugs
coming into his state. In spite of mounting evidence, however, Clinton, as
Governor of the state, appears to have made no attempt to help with
investig ations by local prosecutors into the illegal activities there; he
may even have sat on important evidence which could have helped to bring
into the open these activities, as we shall see. In his defense Clinton
has claimed that he did in fact authorise $2 5,000 for an investigation,
but no trace of such a payment has yet been found. Clinton's behaviour has
led to suspicion in some quarters that he may even have been linked to the
C.I.A. in the past, perhaps receiving their help in obtaining his Rhodes
scholarship as has happened with others. One fellow scholar at the time,
Lt.Col. Ro bert Earl, curiously enough went on to become an assistant to
Oliver North. Clinton is well-known too for sending his state's National
Guard to Honduras for training in what amounted in effect to
Contra-supporting activities. He has honoured prominent con tras, like
Adolfo Calero and his brother as well as a notorious American supporter
Major-General John Singlaub, with "Arkansas Traveller" awards. Clinton had
also employed, in the Arkansas Development and Finance Administration, a
contra-supporter named L arry Nichols, who almost torpedoed his candidacy
later by exposing his affair with Gennifer Flowers during a court case
following Nichols' dismissal from his job. Clinton's brother - who has
been convicted of cocaine possession - is also involved, as a 'hanger-on'
of Barry Seal who was a major organiser of the contra resupply network and
one-time pilot for the Medellin cocaine cartel. An investigation in the
newsletter "Washington Report" concluded that "There is ample evidence
that Bush, Clinton, Pryo r (Senator David Pryor, Democrat-Arkansas),
Bumpers (Senator Dale Bumpers D-AR), Hammerschmidt, various U.S.
attorneys, Arkansas state officials and Arkansas financial institutions
knew plenty about the illegal activities at Mena but permitted these to pr
oceed."=20
The Deniable Link
One episode which ought to have brought the Mena activites to the
attention of the public involves Arkansas resident and C.I.A. 'asset'
Terry Reed who found himself framed by Arkansas state officials, including
Clinton's state security chief, Buddy Young,
when he tried to end his role in assisting covert operations from Mena.
He is currently suing these police officials. Reed had once worked for
the C.I.A.'s 'Air America' and later, as a family man, still happily
became involved in helping the contra resupply network: he refitted planes
and trained contra pilots at the Mena airstrip. Later he became involved
with Oliver N orth who asked Reed to allow a small plane he owned to be
taken in a faked "theft" so that it could be used by the contra resupply
network. This scam of North's - named "Operation Donation" - enabled him
to circumvent Congressional clampdowns on aid to th e contras whilst plane
and boat-owners would claim the insurance money and lose nothing
themselves. Reed was unhappy about lending the plane, perhaps permanently,
as it was needed for his work and he declined to help. A few weeks later
it was stolen anywa y. Reed says it was a couple of years later, in 1985,
that a friend from his days with Air America - C.I.A. pilot William Cooper
- told him that the plane had actually been taken for Oliver North and
"Project Donation". In mid-1986 Reed accepted the C.I.A.'s offer of a
business opportunity in Mexico in exchange for further help in providing
cover for a Mexican leg of the resupply operation. However, several months
later Reed began to get cold feet after his old friend Wi lliam Cooper was
shot down and killed over Nicaragua. The sole survivor, cargo-kicker
Eugene Hasenfus, was propelled into the media spotlight sparking off the
Iran-Contra investigation. "I told them that this was a grandiose, fun
scheme but I am not going
to do this anymore... we don't want to hurt you - we just want out. (But)
once you've seen it, you're in", as Reed puts it. It is suggested that he
also stumbled upon a tonne of cocaine in a hanger he used. His bosses,
then including hardline anti-Castro Cuban Felix Rodriguez, were not
pleased by his refusal to continue his work in Mexico. Before he knew what
had hit him Reed found that his "stolen" plane had been secretly returned
to its hanger and a passin g private investigator just happened to be
walking by this hanger as the wind blew the door open to show the plane.
He soon found himself in court, along with his wife, charged with
insurance fraud. His F.B.I. file now inexplicably described him as "arme d
and dangerous". The initially skeptical Public Defenders appointed to the
case soon changed their minds when they and the Reeds suffered what under
normal circumstances would have been an inexplicable series of violent
incidents including break-ins, fir e-bombing and an apparently deliberate
hit-and-run attack when one of the Defenders' cars was rammed. In the
event Reed was aquitted of insurance fraud perhaps because he had
expressed his wish to sub-poena North and Rodriguez. Reports on the case
by Buddy Young, Clin-ton's security chief, had been dictated in 1988 and
backdated by a year; the Judge conclud-ed that Young and the private
investigator both had a "reckless dis-regard for the truth". Vital
evidence supporting Reed's
claims remained in Clinton's mansion way after it should have been handed
over to the court. Reed is currently prosecuting the Arkansas officials
who he believes tried - unsuccessfully - to frame him.=20
Pictures courtesy of Christic Institute: 8733 Venice Boulevard, Los
Angeles, CA 90034 Tel. 010 1 310 287 1556 SELECTED SOURCES: Covert Action
37, The Realist 122, Unclassified Vol. IV No. I, Christic Institute -
Convergence, Summer/Fall/Winter 1991.=20

122
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp000942.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,122 @@
D-Notice
Moyra Grant
How free are the press and broadcasting media in Britain? The externa=
l
constraints are quite well known - though their range and scope may not
be. For example, the broadcasting laws allow the Home Secretary complete
control over all broadcasting content , which - without reference to
Parliament - has enabled the Home Office since 1988 to ban direct
reporting of Irish activists, including members of legal political parties
such as Sinn Fein. Other legislative constraints include the Official
Secrets Act, Prevention of Terrorism Act, Police and Criminal Evidence
Act, Contempt of Court Act, and laws relating to obscenity, libel, race
relations, sedition, incitement to disaffection and treason - amongst
others. To these can be added the many instances of direct Government
censorship - notably during the Falklands and Gulf conflicts - and the
informal but sometimes intense pressures of advertisers and distributors.
The most insidious form of political control on the media, however, is not
external constraint but self-censorship. I am not referring here to any
readiness by the media to check their own sometimes discreditable
behaviour, intrusions into privacy, missta tements of fact or
unwillingness to present diverse views and to foster democratic debate.
That (in the case of newspapers) is supposedly the job of the Press
Complaints Commission, which replaced the Press Council in 1990 as a
voluntary self-regulating b ody. The likes of Fergie and David Mellor
might be forgiven for regarding it as a watchdog without teeth. The most
institutionalised method of self-censorship is the D Notice system (short
for Defence Notices). They are a unique peacetime arrangement of voluntary
suppression of certain categories of information on the advice - not
orders - of the Government . The system was established in 1912 and
continues to this day. The justification for the system, as stated in the
official guidelines, is as follows: Hostile intelligence services draw o=
n
information from a variety of sources both overt and covert, and by
piecing it together can build up a composite picture of a sub ject. The
dissemination of sensitive information can make their task easier and put
national security at risk. It can also be of value to terrorist groups who
lack the resources to obtain it through their own efforts. For these
reasons there are dangers i nherent even in the publication of information
covered by D Notices which has already appeared elsewhere. It is strongly
requested that there should be no elaboration, nor confirmation or denial,
of the accuracy of items published elsewhere, without refer ence to the [D
Notice] Secretary. There are currently eight general D Notices (which,
incidentally, used to be secret information themselves, but were made
public in 1982): No.1:Defence plans, operational capability, state of
readiness and training No.2:Defence equipment No.3:Nuclear weapons and
equipment No.4:Radio and radar transmissions No.5:Cyphers and
comm-unications No.6: British security and intelligence services No.7:War
precautions and civil defence No.8:Photography etc. of defence
establishments and installations
There is no direct relationship between the D Notice system and the
Official Secrets Act; the latter has legal force, the former does not. As
the official guidelines say, The D Notice system is entirely voluntary
and has no legal authority; the final res ponsibility for the decision
whether or not to publish lies solely with the editor or publisher
concerned. However, the guidelines also state pointedly that the D Notic=
e
system is a useful reminder of the legal sanctions which may be brought to
bear if a n editor or producer oversteps the mark. Moreover, pressure to
comply can be overwhelming. When in the early 1980s Granada TV made a
documentary about the Official Secrets Act, the D Notice Committee asked
them to exclude the address of the Governments C ommunications
Headquarters (GCHQ) at Cheltenham. Granada objected, because the address
was in Whitakers Almanac and other registers and was therefore pub=
lic
knowledge. However, the IBA - the body which then allocated broadcasting
franchises and monitor ed commercial programmes - intervened and ordered
Granada to cut the reference out of the programme. (The Governments
subsequent ban on trade union membership at GCHQ and the resulting
publicity, strikes and court cases, ironically, ensured that the exis
tence and location of GCHQ rapidly became household knowledge.) The
Notices are issued and amended on the authority of the Defence Press and
Broadcasting committee (DPBC), which is made up of officials from relevant
government departments (e.g. Defence, Foreign and Home Offices) together
with representatives of the pr ess and broadcasting organisations. It is
chaired by a senior MoD civil servant. The D Notices are sent out to
national and provincial newspaper editors, radio and TV companies, and to
some publishers of books and periodicals. When editors know that certa in
information falls under a particular D Notice they simply exclude it; when
they are uncertain, they may seek advice. The Secretary of the D Notice
Committee, Rear Admiral Higgins, receives on average one phone call a week
from editors seeking guidance on potentially sensitive material; he gives
positive advice not to publish about a dozen times a year. More often=
,
editors err on the side of caution and omit dubious information without
consulting anyone. On a whim, I telephoned Whitehall in search of
information about the D Notice system. I was put through almost at once to
Bill Higgins himself. When I told him that I was a Politics teacher he
replied jocularly, Well, Im sure I can safely assume that no ne of yo=
ur
students are anarchist subversives. I thought of the two who had been
arrested just the previous week for staging a sit-down demo in the middle
of Oxford Street, and maintained a discreet silence. He was, incidentally,
very open and informativ e. A day later the post brought a list of the D
Notices currently in force, together with an explanatory handout. There is
an annual review of the D Notices, which took place in October and made
some minor adjustments in the light of John Majors professed commitment
to more open government: for example, they incorporated the public
acknowledgement of MI5 and MI6, th e names of their chiefs and location of
their headquarters. A discussion group of media representatives (chaired
by Guardian editor Peter Preston) was held just prior to that review, to
ponder the whole existence of the D Notice system. There were isolated
calls for the system to be abolished and replaced by separ ate lists of
sensitive items and areas to be issued by each government department.
However, it was generally felt that this would be, at least, a recipe for
chaos and, at worst, would result in more rather than less secrecy. The D
Notice system therefor e lives on, but is of declining importance - likely
to wither on the vine, as Higgins put it - in comparison to the whole
panoply of Britains secret state. For civil libertarians, the main
targets of attack must still be the Official Secrets Act on t he one hand
and, on the other, those editors and producers who supinely collude in the
withholding of information from the public even when national security=
is clearly not threatened. As Ernest Bevin once said in a Cabinet debate
on media censorship, " Why bother to muzzle sheep?"

153
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp000944.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,153 @@
Microwaves
During the Second World War radar operators who felt a bit chilly would
nip out and warm themselves up with the radar frequency (rf) microwave
energy transmitted by the radar. The cooking ability of microwaves,
thermal effects, are well known, but the ope rators also reported they
could hear the radar - yet according to the laws of physics you can=
t
hear microwaves.=20
The Frey Effect In 1962 Allen Frey at Cornell University, New York
State, published a paper entitled Human auditory system response to
modulated electromagnetic energy. By using an rf microwave transmitter h=
e
found that: With appropriate modulation, the perception of various sound=
s
can be induced in clinically deaf, as well as normal, human subjects...
By changing the transmitter parameters such as pulse repetition rate and
pulse width he could create a range of sounds such as buzzing, clicking,
hissing, knocking etc. He also found that various physical sensations such
as the perception of severe buffe ting of the head and a
pins-and-needles sensation could be induced. Frey found that if there
was little environmental noise, such as at night, people could hear sounds
at average power levels so low that microwave detection equipment could
barely detec t them, i.e. at thousands of times less power than current
recommended safety limits. More recently Professor James Lin at the
University of Illinois has published a number of papers on the subject,
his book Electromagnetic Interactions with Biological Systems [Plenum
Press, NY 1989] deals with auditory effects. Also in 1989 the MOD issue d
a Guide to the Practical Aspects of the use of Radio Frequency Energy=
.
This notes: It is possible to hear the modulation frequency of pulsed
microwave transmissions. The mechanism for this phenomena is a small
localised temperature rise in the head causing a pressure wave that
reaches the cochlea which... gives rise to a sound sensatio n. In some
individuals this effect may be perceptible below 100mW-2 mean power
levels Thus it is possible to hear microwave energy at thousands o=
f
times below the government accepted safety limit (which in itself is
equivalent to standing a few feet in front of a leaky microwave oven) if
the beam is pulsed or amplitude modulated like mos t comm-unications and
radar equipment are.=20
According to American scientist Bob Beck these sounds can be recorded on
ferrite tape. This possibly explains how Mr. Verney was able to record
non-sound sounds. Barry Fox at the New Scientist suggests that
background microwave pollution is to blame for the buzz/hum he and
thousands of people hear. Radio frequency microwave energy today pervades
our environment at levels that can create this hum - yet we, the publ ic,
know very little about the health effects it can cause. Why? =20
National Health or National Safety? American military security has been
built on a complex global system of C3I (Command, Control, Communications
and Intelligence) involving the widespread use of rf microwaves including,
missile tracking radar, surveillance radar (including radar to guard
against intruders at bases), secure communications links, and the huge
early warning radars. These are found at American bases around the world
(including the UK). The continuation of American military supremacy is
based upon the extensive use of radio fr equencies, and in particular,
microwave emitting equipment. A US Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA)
document obtained under a Freedom of Information request shows that for 18
years the US military have known how dangerous even low powered rf
microwaves are. This and other official documents prove that the American
military have conducted research into health effects and known for years
that even low levels of rf radiation can be harmful. Nobel Prize nominee
Dr. Robert Becker has scathingly attacked the way in which the military
control research into this area. The US exposure standard of 10 milliwatts
(10mW/cm2) was based on wartime research aimed at ensuring the risks to
radar operators were balanced against wartime necessity. In the post-war
period fear of the Soviet Union led to the creation of a global security
system based on polluting radars and microwave communication networks;
which in turn necessitated the continuation of the ext remely lax safety
standards for nonionising radiation. Becker believes that the military was
well aware that its safety standard was expedient and conducted research
which quickly determined that even very low levels were extremely harmful.
With this know ledge they were forced to actively prevent critical
research into the area. Becker notes: ...evidence for nonthermal effects
was viewed as a threat to national security... This led to the position of
denying any nonthermal effects from ANY electromagnetic usage, whether
military or civilian. Nonthermal effects are changes to cells which
cannot be explained by the argument that microwaves excite water molecules
to create heat. The American safety standard is solely based on avoiding
burning or boiling people. The Soviet Union set standards whi ch are 1,000
times more strict in recognition that nonionising radiation damages cells
in ways other than merely heating them, and at power levels which have no
heating effect. Understandably the American state has been keen to keep
these Russian standard s quiet, whilst noting in a DIA report [1976] for
example: Recently, US and other Western scientists have been quite
concerned with the vast difference between the two standards... Because
the scientific establishment depends for its funding on the state, the
military were able to exert their influence to ensure that only approved=
projects received funding. Rebel scientists who questioned the safety of
microwave radiation were dea lt with in the usual manner - either
ridiculed or forced to adopt standards of proof that were so high the
expense made it impossible to continue. An example of this was work on
microwave damage to the Blood-Brain Barrier. In 1977 two army researchers
published a paper showing that power levels thousands of times below
safety limits damaged the brain. According to Dr. Steneck of the
University of Mi chigan this research and the debate it stimulated was
stopped by the Department of Defence. Dr. Koslov at Johns Hopkins
University attempted to restart work into this in 1986, but was unable to
get funding. A striking example of the need to cover up came in 1981 when
Army pathologist Dr. Fried-man published some preliminary findings of a
study into the large number of radar operators referred to him with a rare
blood disease. The Army refused to publish his
full report.=20
The military were well aware of health effects and sought to cover up
deaths resulting from microwave exposure. The situation in the UK is no
different.=20
The Malvern 8 The British state operates a communications system that is
completely independent from the BT network. It ensures that the
government can control the country in the event of the collapse of its
authority by war (civil or other) or mass strike action. It is based on
the use of microwave communication links dotted around the country, with a
higher concentration in built-up areas. Naturally the government would not
want the existence of its lifeline questioned on health grounds. The
centre of research into developing a new super-secure microwave
communication network is the Defence Research Agency's Malvern branch
(formerly the Royal Signals & Radar Establishment). Since the mid-70s
eight scientists working there have died from b rain tumours. After the
death of one of the men, Dr. John Clark, his wife publicised the other
deaths and, according to the media, the program was halted in March 1989.
After experts from Universities had made bland statements about safety
limits being "b ased on present knowledge" public debate of the deaths
went away.=20
American Security - British Health Since, at the latest, 1976 the US
military have made a choice between national safety and health, and as
unanswerable champions of America's safety they prevented all public
debate about health. This they neatly summarise on page vii of a DIA
document: If the more advanced nations of the West are strict in the
enforcement of stringent exposure standards, there could be unfavourable
effects on industrial output and military functions. Especially in the
Post-Cold war era military expediency should no longer outweigh human
health. The populations of countries with American bases are suffering not
for their own security but for paranoias of the United States military.=20
Is there a Secret Weapon? It is clear from our research that the cover- up
of health effects also served to conceal a secret microwave weapons
development program. In Issue Three we look at these weapons and their
application in fighting Low Intensity Conflicts. One of our documen ts
notes that with these weapons: ... the ability of individuals to functio=
n
could be degraded to such a point that they would be rendered combat
ineffective In 1983-4 did someone try to render a retired couple comb=
at
ineffective?

307
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp000945.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,307 @@
Interview with Ken Livingstone
OE - Is it true that you would like to see a Europe-wide socialist party?
KL - Yes, because capitalism is now truly international. In the same way
that 200 years ago you actually had local trade unions and local
collections of radicals and so on who ended up forming national unions and
national political groupings, because that
was the only way to tackle British capitalism, now that capitalism is
international you've got to have much wider links with the Labour
movement. Now a step towards generally international working class
cooperation is in the first instance getting Europe an-wide trade union
and socialist parties to make certain we control what is the economic unit
of Europe. Capital is now operating on a European basis, labour must do so
as well. OE - And in the 3rd world? KL- Yes, I see it as a step towards
that but from where we're starting the first stage comes through Europe;
then making sure that the government of Europe, when we eventually have
it, is working properly with the Third World and not exploiting them. OE -
How do we avoid exploiting the Third World? KL - We should start by just
writing off Third World debt. That's the single most important thing, the=
n
you should actually allow the Third World to have free trade with the
West. At the moment we force Third World countries to buy our finished
goods on o ur terms and we don't allow them to sell the goods they can
produce on their terms, which is basically agriculture. We have huge
tariffs. So we have this nonsense that out of our taxes we pay vast sums
to farmers to produce food which we don't use which m eans we pay through
taxes to support farmers, we also pay for more expensive food and stop the
Third World from selling us that food. So we're actually paying to
increase starvation and destitution in the Third World. We shouldn't have
this barmy system.=20
I mean you could act; if you had an economic unit the size of Europe
throwing its weight around behind these issues you'd get somewhere.
Britain on its own can achieve nothing. In a united Europe you could
actually start arguing for international control s on the environment and
working conditions. That means you get workers in the Third World and
workers in the first world co-operating so that what we end up with is
Third World workers being lifted up to the standard of the West rather
than the Western w orkers being dragged down to Third World standards
which is the more realistic prospect that we face at the moment: an
offensive by Capital. OE - Would you urge any controls on multinational
companies? K - It's not something I've done a study or any detailed wor=
k
on. I assume in all of these areas what we've got to get is
internationally recognised labour protection and health and safety and
environmental protection so that all these companies operate within
constraints, rather than pick on individual ones. If you tackle say
European multinationals and prevent them exploiting the Third World most
probably the American or Japanese would exploit them.=20
OE - I recently read that one Latin American country had sold off the
future rights to its entire genetic material to an American company - do
you think this is a good or bad thing? Should they be worried?=20
K - They could be, because early in the next century bioengineering,
genetic manipulation, will most probably be the second largest source of
global profits after information technology. And it's going to be a
tremendous concentration of power amongst th e small number of MNCs that
control genetic engineering and it will be a major struggle to see some
sort of democratic accountability about what they're doing. OE - So
there's no way to stop this thing rolling forward - controls limiting thi=
s
kind of genetic manipulation? KL - No, I'm in favour of it because then
you could breed out from the human race the tendency to produce people
like Hitler and Tebbit and Thatcher. (Laughs) I think with plants what
you're going to get is, instead of having nitrates added to the soils and
pesticides, we'll genetically engineer plant seeds so that they fix their
own nitrogen as they're growing and they're more resistant to disease.
That's t he lesser evil, saturating the world with chemicals or
genetically engineering a portion of the livestock and plant life that you
use. And then when you come to looking at ourselves I think once you've
developed the technique sufficiently - and for that we're talking well
into the next century - you face the prospect of being able to eliminate
diabetes and any other genetically-inherited diseases or problems. Given
that one child in twenty is born with a genetic defect, people are going
to pay to make sure the kids they produce haven't got that. OE - You're=
in
favour of the development of genetic health technology? KL - Mm, there is
no difference between doing that and people like Pasteur doing work that
eventually led to antibiotics. It's too late to say we should leave
ourselves in our natural state, we aren't in our natural state. We've
changed this world out of all recognition already through selective
breeding of plants and animals and changing the environment. It's not eve=
n
recent, the Aborigines transformed Australia 10,000 years ago. OE - That'=
s
a bit like arguing for a technological fix to cure us of all the ills
we've created in this society rather than actually tackling the
fundamental problems of an industrial society - getting rid of pollution,
reducing the impact of industry. KL - If you get rid of all the pollution
people would still inherit diabetes. We should now be able to lift
ourselves above being simply the creation of random chance and natural
selection. In one sense we've already done that, most people who had any
gen etic weaknesses would've died out in pre-civilisation but we've
stopped evolution working; we no longer actually allow people who have got
diabetes and one leg shorter than another to just simply fail in the
hunting of food and all of that, and die out. Y ou've now got to develop
the mechanisms which eliminate those negative genes otherwise humankind
will become a bigger and bigger reservoir of genetic defects. OE -
Doesn't this lock us into a high-tech industrial society? KL - What we're
talking about is some people carrying one gene which is defective which
opens up the way to disease A, B or C - it's just correcting that so that
they and their children no longer pass it on. I don't see it as a great
moral issue at all, i t's just a more complicated version of taking an
aspirin for a headache. OE - A lot of people think biotechnology is the
new version of agriculture's Green Revolution, but look what happened=
,
it just exacerbated problems of overeliance on agrochemicals, increased
pollution, and the concentration of wealth and power. KL - And this gives
us a chance to actually reduce these pollutions. There'll be problems wit=
h
it that we can't foresee but there is with every stage in progress. Peopl=
e
had exactly the same qualms about antibiotics when they started, they had
exactly the
same qualms about breeding selectively 100s of years ago. OE - Aren't we
seeing increases in preventable diseases as a consequence of our
drug-ridden industrial lifestyle; these wouldn't exist in a more 'natural'
state? KL - No, that's a consequence of having five billion people on the
face of the planet instead of 100 million. If you have 100 million people
on the planet in happy harmony with nature doing hunter-gathering - they
don't move around, they mix with the adja cent tribe so diseases don't =
get
around. You can only go back to the idyllic world you clearly hanker after
if you're prepared to eliminate 99% of life among humans. OE - So you
don't think the planet can sustain a population of 5 billion in a
less-industrialised system? KL - Nope, I don't, and I think the more
advanced we get the more chance we have of clearing up our earlier
mistakes. OE - Would you like to see some kind of reduction in
population? KL - Mm, most people when they have a choice want one or two
children or none. A few people want to have twelve but the majority of
people once they have the choice dramatically reduce the number of kids
they've got. So, as soon as you can actually lift u p Third World people
to some decent living conditions and education and medical help, the
population will start to stabilise and perhaps even decline. OE - What did
you think of the German Green Party's split between 'realos' and 'fundis'
- with the fundis against those who wanted to make a career in politics?
KL - I would not have been a fundamentalist and I think the use of the
term career' is derogatory and inaccurate. The fundamentalists assume
there's some route on their own. I think the realistic wing of the Green
party recognise that the way forward is a Green-Red coalition in which you
actually synthesise socialism and ecological consciousness. If the Greens
seek to create their own political party, which one day wins the majority
of votes that's fine, but the world would've been polluted to death bef=
o
re we got to that happy state. It took the Labour Party forty-five years
to get a majority in Parliament. It depresses me greatly that the Greens
are standing against me in Brent East and not against the rightwing Tory
in Brent North. You target the most reactionary, anti-environmental forces
in all parties, so you don't challenge those people who have got a good
record on environmental issues and then you aim to build a wider
coalition, and what I detect amongst my friends in the Greens is that
they're t aught party chauvinism: this terrible disease that means you
believe your party is the only answer not a broad coalition of interests.
OE - Do you think the Green Party needed its efficiency drive pushed
through by Green 2000? KL - I think they'd be better as a campaigning
group because they've got the chance and stood for Parliament, won seats
here and there but they had their chance and they threw it away. It might
be ten, twenty or thirty years before they get a chance to br eak through
again like they did at the Euro-elections, when they just weren't ready
for it. If they had the efficient party machine there in 1989 and a Tory
M.P. had dropped dead somewhere in the West Country and they could've
broken through and got their
first green M.P. then you've got to say that they got the chance to brea=
k
through and build up and get somewhere and that hasn't been done. They ar=
e
building a party machine so that they can get two percent of the vote in
every constituency in Britain, p erhaps eventually four or five, I mean,
that's a terrible waste of their time whereas actually putting the squeez=
e
on all existing politicians means you can achieve something. Don't forget
the early socialists; a lot of them didn't think in terms of a Lab our
party that would bring them socialism. I think it was the Webbs that
argued in terms of actually winning the Tory party to socialism. A logic
of planning and intervention, you should be able to reach everyone. I
think it's a bit optimistic thinking i n terms of winning the Tory vote t=
o
socialism, but that idea that the ideas are what's important not holding
office is the key one. Like the Labour party, you have your councils, you
have your M.P.s, balance of power, get more M.P.s, one day break through.
They're talking about committing themselves to a generation or two of wor=
k
before they see any realistic advance. It's going to be
too late. OE - Did you like the German greens' idea of having rotating
leadership positions? KL - Well, you have a theoretical attraction. All
that I found in any large powerful organisation is you'll be bloody lucky
if you've got enough to be able to hold down the jobs and do them well;
rotating them so that an idiot gets their turn doesn't nece ssarily carry
any force. When I was leader of the G.L.C. if someone had come up with the
idea - let's have a rotating leadership every two years - I would not hav=
e
been in favour of it because I didn't trust any of the other sods there t=
o
be as progressi ve as I was going to be. Fine if you've got so many peopl=
e
of such calibre all can do the job, rotating posts, then I'm all in favou=
r
of it, but I can't really see such an idealist state of affairs being
around. OE - At a meeting in Edinburgh a year or two back you said that in
1968 you were a sort of anarchist... KL - I was in a group called
Solidarity. I'm not certain, they might even still exist. [Yes: 123
Lathom Road, London, E6] OE - You saw the movements more or less fail and
followed Rudi Dutschke's advice: "the long march through the
institutions". What do you say to the people at that meeting and elsewhere
that inevitably call this a sell out? KL - I say yah, boo, sucks, come
back and see me in twenty years when you're a merchant banker and I'm
still plugging away for socialism. This is the joy: I joined the Labour
party when I was twenty-two, I'm now forty-seven, half my life spent in
the Labo ur party, and in that time I've seen at least three waves of
young radicals appear on the scene, condemn me as a reactionary arsehole,
and then shoot out madly off to the right once they've got their degrees
and started working in the city and things li ke that you know. You get
great confidence in your ability not to be guilt-tripped by juvenile Trots
when you've sort of just seen wave after wave of this happen and you're
still there plugging away. I am a reformist and that's all you can achiev=
e
in these circumstances. I f these were pre-revolutionary times I'd most
probably be a revolutionary. You push through as much as you can get at
the present time. I'm not going to lie awake at night because some sloppy
Trot has condemned me when I know for a fact that in ten years I'll still
be fighting. Some Trots are pretty good, a lot of people in the S.W.P.
bang away and do what they can. OE - How much is the Labour party caught
between its traditional base and the newer more 'post-materialist'
concerns of the soft left such as the environment? KL - I think the Labour
party's a coalition between respectable working class conservatives with =
a
small c' and urban perverts like me and Labour wins when both these
groups are together. Now, much of the last fifteen years they've been at
loggerheads, b ut you can't win without both. A party that's just radic=
al
left, that doesn't understand workers fears, educate and carry them with
them ain't going to win. And equally a simple conservative working party
like John Smith's has a problem even holding a com manding lead in the
polls. In 1964/66 Wilson was the last leader to really galvanise both
strands well. The respectable working class believed he was going to make
changes. We haven't had a leader since then who's bridged both these
camps. John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy could do that in America. When
Robert Kennedy was assassinated the working class whites who'd been votin=
g
for him moved straight over and voted for Nixo n, they didn't go for the
other democrats, and so its not an easy thing to define and to articulate.
OE - The Labour party looks as if it is losing the less traditional votes
to the liberals, the Greens and people like that? KL - Yes, it's quite
interesting; there was an opinion poll in The Times the day I was kicked
off Labour's N.E.C. three years ago and they asked people who do you thin=
k
should be the leader of the Labour party and they went down a list and
there was somet hing like Kinnock, say thirty percent or forty percent,
perhaps even fifty, Hattersley about twenty percent, then Smith, Gould and
me with about ten and eight and seven percent. What was interesting was
when you look at the seven percent or whatever it wa s that wanted me to
be the leader of the Labour party, the majority of them weren't Labour
party voters. The majority of them were tories and liberals. I think there
is a desire for radical change which could easily vote for me in Brent
East or vote for P addy Ashdown in Yeovil or the Greens somewhere else.
These people, I feel, don't have a historic lifelong loyalty to one
political party; they look around. A lot of them made the mistake of
thinking Thatcher would bring change and what's interesting is th at when
the G.L.C. was at the height of its success the group which was most
dramatically swinging to Labour were the yuppies - the social class A, B,
C1. Young, white middle class people, well-off, who were attracted to the
G.L.C. I think as much to the style as anything because we seemed to be of
the future rather than old-fashioned and backward-looking and sadly
Kinnock took on board the glitz and the glamour, the advertising and the
polling methods of the G.L.C. but without the core policies which wer e
radical and forward-looking. OE - So Kinnock was the man for the
traditional groupings rather than the newer segments of support... KL - Or
urban perverts. I think that's the term that Mrs. Thatcher would perceive
us to be. We're the sort of people Mrs. Thatcher's parents warned her not
to talk to when she was a little girl; we enjoy ourselves and our bodies.
Mrs. Thatcher was brought
up in that great English tradition that happiness was a sin and we should
suffer in this life so that you could sit at God's right hand in the next
one and sing hymns - well I'd much rather be happy in this one thank you.
OE - Do you see anything positive in what she did? K - I liked her attack
on the barristers; I liked her attacks on the C.A.P. I have to say that
out of our twelve years in government I think those are the only two
things that I agreed with her on. Everything else - I think she was a
psychopath and needed
institutional care, not access to government. OE - Because you stand for
all these new and personal politics, would you like to see a new renamed
party, if one day you woke up and the Labour party wasn't there anymore?
KL - If you're going to ask me a hypothetical question why don't you sa=
y
wouldn't I like to create a new world - why stop at just creating a new
party? We are stuck with the world as it is, we start from here. The idea
of creating a new political party wh ich no doubt would be called the
'fruits and flakes', it's just not going to happen because you've actua=
lly
got to transform the Labour party and part of our task is educational. The
thing about Thatcher's style which was so impressive was that she never
stopped educating, she pushed her views down everyone's throats every
minute of the day and that's part of what politics is: pounding out your
message. So often Labour gets in government and dissappears behind the
chauffeur-driven cars and drinks cupboar ds. Someone like Wilson could've
had a great fight, it would've been far easier then than it is now, he'=
d
clearly understood what was wrong with the British economy - the
domination of the City of London and all that, the high military spending
- and he d id nothing about it. And he became like so many others -
committed to perambulating around like some international circus
pretending to be a statesperson, drinking his vintage brandies and not
actually tackling the dominant economic problems. Wilson went there to be
seduced by the machine. They forget they're only there because they've
actually made a case for change.=20

136
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp000946.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,136 @@
Natural Birth
Ideally childbirth should be one of life's most precious moments; a time
when instincts can take their course, when intense bonding with the
newborn occurs, or so we think. The reality for most women is rather
different: birth has become a medical event in need of effective
management by the professionals of obstetrics. Women are made to lie
passively on a table - the physiologically most difficult position in
which to give
birth - whilst the experts decide which medical inter-ventions are
needed. These can include every-thing from sed-atives, intra-venous drips
delivering syn-thetic hormones, epidurals and other anaes-thetics, right
up to caesareans. According to childbirth expert Sheila Kitzinger the
'active manage-ment' of hi-tech births means taking drugs which will
tranquillise, stupefy, disorient, cause hallucinations, produce amnesia,
change the woman's body chemistry, and also deprive the the foetus of
oxygen, turning the newborn baby into a limp, sleepy little bundle with a
headache, instead of a wide-eyed, searching, learning creature. This
leads to a 'snowball effect': interfering in one way makes it necessary=
to
interfere in others too; an epidural anaesthetic, for instance, makes it
likely that forceps will have to be used in the delivery. In U.S.
hospitals this has meant that up to
65% of mothers face the trauma of forceps delivery and risk the injury to
the baby which it occasionally results in. The typical delivery room in a
modern hospital is full of bright lights as well as the noise and bustle
of the obstetrician and a team of assistants. Electronic monitoring
machines and hospital antiseptic add to the oppressive atmosphere - little
wonder t hat many women find hospital birth depressing. Obstetricians have
by and large excluded mothers from their central role in childbirth, and
at the same time drained the experience of its sexuality. All this is done
in the misplaced hope that it will achiev e a painless effortless managed
birth, at a convenient time; fitted in with the obstetrician's game of
golf according to many critics!=20
The Birth of Obstetrics Historical studies tell a different story:
vertical positions for giving birth have been prevalent across the globe
for thousands of years. Aristotle was the first known advocate of a
recumbent - and passive - position. It was much later in 17th century
France where male doctors first assumed the midwives' role and required
their aristocratic women clients to lie on their backs so that the
recently-invented forceps could be used more easily. The fate of women was
sealed when Louis XIV had his mistress en dure this position so that he
could see the birth better from his hiding place behind a curtain on the
other side of the room. Later Queen Victoria was the first woman in
England to use a chloroform anaesthetic - which further en-trenched the
lying down p osition in defiance of the force of gravity. The practices of
confining a woman to bed for much of her labour and then the rise of the
obstetric table for deliveries soon followed and spread throughout the
Western world. Looking at the current situation in her latest book, "The
American Way of Birth", Jessica Mitford found that a powerful alliance of
medical societies, including the American Medical Association (A.M.A.),
and insurers had succeeded in making midwives into outlaws in many U.S.
states. She has even come across recent examples of midwives being
arrested at gunpoint and taken away handcuffed! The hospital births
favoured by the A.M.A. cost a minimum of ten times as much as home birth
with a midwife and can ea sily add up to far more.=20
Alternatives
The trend has not all been one way: since 1962 the in-hospital maternity
unit at Pithiviers in France has been a notable centre of experimentation.
As he gradually gained the courage to return control over childbirth to
women, its chief obstetrician Miche l Odent found that women themselves
would instinctively choose the upright position for birth, and would also
choose to move around during labour. The delivery room there was small and
quiet with subdued lights. Machines and drugs were kept only for the few
real emergencies and forceps banished. The midwife, and the husband too,
were able to play a greater role - such as in helping to support the mo
ther in the squatting position which is commonly chosen for birth. Odent
began to realise, against the common wisdom, that women during childbirth
act most 'rationally' when they 'forget' themselves and follow their
instincts - deliveries became faster and easier. Both he and Sheila
Kitzinger agree that The right enviro nment for birth is exactly the sam=
e
as the environment in which to make love. Most labours should be
uncomplicated and do not need special equipment. They need not be seen as
a kind of illness needing treatment in an intensive care setting. As the
Pithiviers staff became more sure in trusting women's own instincts they
broke more and more of the accepted conventions of obstetrics: they
stopped wearing rubber gloves, they stopped speeding up delivery by
breaking waters which surround the unbo rn, they stopped prescribing
bedrest for the mother during pregnancy and after, and they allowed the
newborn to be with the mother from the moment of birth. Odent brought in a
warm pool where women could relax during the painful contractions of
labour and, to everyone's surprise, found that many seemed to develop an
affinity with the water and some would remain immersed to give birth,
which is perfectly safe.=20
Some women who had previously claimed to dislike water even moved over
into the pool to give birth. As far as the clinical results are concerned
(mortality rates etc.), those at Pithiviers compare favourably with the
best in the world. The caesarean rate of 6-7% is far better than the 25%
in the U.S. ( a 400% increase in 20 years); postpartum depression
is also rare at Pithiviers. Those who come to Pithiviers to give birth
live mostly in the surrounding area and are not pre-screened in order to
avoid difficulties. Others who come from further afield - even from other
countries - have often had difficul t births or caesareans beforehand and
come in order to secure the best chance of having a rewarding vaginal
birth. Hammersmith hospital recently claimed credit for discovering that
close contact with both parents may be the best thing for a premature
baby, rather than an incubator. Instead of crossing the Channel to reach
Pithiviers, where this had long been common kn owledge, a research project
was carried out in Colombia to make these findings! Wishing for a similar
return of control over birth to the mothers, the 'Active Birth Movement=
'
was founded in Britain in April 1982 after one London hospital which had
initially encouraged upright positions changed its mind and banned them. A
small Birth rights Rally, planned as a 'squat-in' of the hospital=
foyer,
ended up as a rally of 6000 on Hampstead Heath; speakers including
Kitzinger and Odent helped reverse the decision. Odent has long questioned
his own role as a male obstetrician: The revolution so many of us are
seeking, he writes, will not be triggered by the professionals of
obstetrics, or even by the medical profession overall. He has since left
Pithiviers and n ow works in London with mothers giving birth at home
which he currently believes is the only place... where a woman has the
degree of privacy needed to allow maximal efficiency of the physiological
and hormonal responses. The strikingly good results at Pithiviers have
led to other maternity units being established along similar lines around
the world and other hospitals too have gradually been adjusting to women'=
s
demands to choose whatever position they find most comfortable throughout
labour and deliv ery: to change from passive patients to active
birth-givers.=20
Adapted from: Birth Reborn - What Birth Can and Should Be, Michel Odent
(London: Souvenir Press, 1984); New Active Birth: A Concise Guide to
Natural Childbirth by Janet Balaskas (Thorsons, 1991) who is co-founder of
The International Active Birth Centre, 55 Dartmouth Park Road, London, NW
5 1SL Tel. 071 267 5368; also relevant: The Continuum Concept, Jean
Liedlof (Arkana, 2nd. ed, 1987); The American Way of Birth, Jessica
Mitford, (Gollancz, 1992)

205
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp000947.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,205 @@
South Africa
Chris Merritt
President F W de Klerk is a man with an international media image as a
moderate democrat. However, while the world has reacted with the lifting
of boycotts and sanctions, violence aimed at disorganization of the
African National Congress (ANC), the South African Communist Party (SACP),
and their trade union ally, the Congress of South African Trade Unions
(COSATU) has reached such proportions that it has been described as a
pre-emptive coup. Since February 1990 South Africa has experienced an
apparent freedom of expression unknown since the 1950s. In the initial
euphoria the situation was accepted by many as a genuine change of heart
on the part of the National Party government. It has since become clear
that this was a skilful public relations job. There is plenty of evidence
that the authorities are still employing methods developed during the
emergency years to suppress opposition. On assuming office, President de
Klerk abolished the National Security Management System (NSMS), a security
force shadow government which had underpinned the State of Emergency. The
Harms Commission set up to investigate the covert military action arm of
the NSMS, the Civil Cooperation Bureau (CCB) revealed a programme of
arson, intimidation, murder and sabotage, often using criminals, amounting
to a covert war against anti-apartheid organizations in terms of Low
Intensity Conflict theory. This was develo ped by the US army as a method
of fighting wars abroad where political sensitivity ruled out the use of
large numbers of American ground troops. In Southern Africa this method of
warfare has been used so often against the surrounding states as to make
it instinctive for the South African army to turn it upon its own
population once threatened at home. The NSMS in fact had merely been
replaced by the National Coordinating Mechanism (NCM), a new, almost
informal, system with a simplified chain of command avoiding the need for
a large bureaucracy. The NCM is the mechanism linking the top levels of
governm ent to what Nico Basson, an ex-Military Intelligence officer,
calls a Third Force. The nature of this army, which can be seen as the son
of the CCB, is of a diverse and seemingly out of control array of =D4bad
apples=D5 within the security services, ex-state security personnel, extrem=
e
right wingers, Inkatha, criminal gangs and mercenaries. These diverse
elements allow the State to distance itself from actions carried out by
groups which the State refuses to disarm. The new flexible structure by
its nature al lows the State to deny responsibility for actions carried
out by these groups. Thus the occasional operation directly controlled by
the NCM becomes lost amongst the arbitrary violence committed by agents
implicitly linked to the State let lose on the civilian population. During
1991, hit squads were responsible for 60 deaths and 45 people injured;
vigilantes for 2011 killed and 2604 injured; and right wingers for 21
deaths and 178 injured (figures supplied by the Human Rights Comm-ission).
Politics can be manipulat-ed and enemies undermined behind a facade of
=D4democracy=D5 which replaced the more overt apparatus of the State of
Emergency. The state is weakening the ANC without being directly connected
with the agents who are fighting the war on its behalf. The atmosphere of
officially sanctioned lawlessness created by the 1985-90 Emergency has
become an integral part of the military's strategy in the new South
Africa. Naturally the agents the state uses in its dirty war are also
beneficiaries of the situation in their own right. Inkatha and the KwaZulu
government particularly so. Inkatha Inkatha has an ideology based on
ethnicity, reverence of and subservience to leaders, and collaboration
with the apartheid regime, although it has shrewdly held out against
'independent' status for KwaZulu. It has required oaths of loyalty from
public ser vants, employed a rhetoric of threatened violence, and
practised human rights abuses orchestrated by highly placed officials. Its
political objective is regional hegemony and recognition in the national
negotiation process. It is now clear that Inkatha has had a relationship
with Military Intelligence since the mid-1970s. During the
Pietermaritzburg civil war of March-April 1990 Inkatha was aided by acts
of commission and omission: large, well-armed bodies of men thousands
strong could hardly have operated without security force compliance. In
the South Coast region of Natal around Port Shepstone the security forces
in collusion with Inkatha have acted as if the ANC were still banned, and
routinely raided meetings or placed restrictions upon them. When the ANC
was launched in Northern Natal in February 1991 only the chairperson and
secretary were named: this is the slowest growing region in the country,
venues are hard to obtain, and activity is almost clandestine. In mid 1992
the ANC in the Bulwer area of the Natal Midlands was obstructed b y
persistent denial of township venues. Inkatha is being openly described as
a potential South African Renamo (the Rhodesian organised terror group
used to destablise Mozam-bique). Apart from its military trained
operatives, it has a security police organization (commanded by Jac
Buchner, who, when he headed the security police in Pietermaritzburg
during the emergency, was reputed to be one of the government's experts on
the ANC) and the support of the KwaZulu Police, virtually a military wing
of Inkatha. The latter's potential for banditry res ts on its
ethnocentrism, devotion to a strong leader, lack of internal democracy,
absence of clear ideology and an increasingly marginal national role. The
'Third Force' Nico Basson and other commentators placed Military
Intelligence at the centre of township violence, either through its own
operatives or via conservative black groups funded, trained and directed
by shadowy official agencies such as Creed. Human rights mo nitors have
noted a pattern of increased violence whenever a significant point is
reached in the negotiations process. Inside information such as that from
Basson and Mbongeni Khumalo, former leader of the Inkatha Youth Brigade,
as well as evidence on the
ground, show that the State of Emergency continues in a new form. The
methods of the 'Third Force' vary from random slaughter on trains, to
targeted assassination. Chief Mhlabunzima Maphumulo, leader of the
ANC-aligned Congress of Traditional Leaders of South Africa (CONTRALESA),
and a man who had showed admirable even- handedness to people of different
political persuasions in the Table Mountain area, was assassinated in the
middle of Pietermaritzburg on the 25th February 1991. A tape recording of
the confession of the chief's killer, implicating the security forces, wa
s confiscated by police from The Natal Witness, Pieter-maritzburg's daily
newspaper. In March 1992 an inquest court found that Maphumulo was killed
by 'persons unknown', a throwback to standard verdicts passed down by
magistrates in the days of hardline a partheid. By this time (8th
February) Skhumbuzo Mbatha Ngwenya, an Imbali ANC official and a pacifist,
had been gunned down outside a Pietermaritzburg restaurant. On the 27th
October he was followed by Reggie Hadebe, ANC Natal Midlands deputy
chairperson assassinated as he was driving from Ixopo to Richmond after
peace talks. There is a consistent pattern: elimination of influential
anti-apartheid figures (including some from Inkatha) heavily involved in
the peace process. The police and security forces, ruthless in tracking
down cadres of the liberation movement in the 1980s, have proved
suspiciously inept at basic detective work in these cases. The George
Goch hostel near Johannesburg was named as Inkatha's operational base on
the Reef, a depot for arms channelled by the SADF from Mozambique. Those
present at assaults on vigils and trains noted that attackers spoke with
Natal accents. When thirt een people died at a vigil at Alexandra
(Johannesburg) on the 27th March 1991, amaSinyoras (members of a criminal
gang) from Durban were blamed. It is well known that they have close links
with the military and immunity from the police: one member was see n
wearing a SADF uniform. Disinformation. A state agency called COMOPS
(Combined Operations) was set up to channel funding to phantom groups and
run disinformation projects. Some of its suspected activities are the
boosting of Inkatha's image in the same way as the Democratic Turnhalle
Alliance
(DTA) had been assisted in Namibia; creation of bantustan parties (such
as Oupa Gqozo's African Democratic Movement in Ciskei); encouragement of
tribalism; and the launch of a 'moderate', multiparty front named the
Christian Democratic Alliance (CDA). The SA Special Forces. This is made
up of four SADF reconnaissance units, 32 (Buffalo) battalion, 44 parachute
battalion, Military Intelligence, the Police 'Askari' unit (of turned
Umkhonto we Sizwe fighters), and the ex-CCB. They have absorbed Koevoet,
the most vicious of the destabilizing units in Namibia; use mercenaries,
including some forcibly conscripted after abduction from Mozambique; and
have strong ex-Rhodesian and Renamo connections. A defector from 5 Recce,
Felix Ndimene, described how his unit was involved in one o f the
Johannesburg train massacres. Other Agents There is also overlap with the
ubiquitous and trigger happy private security industry which is teeming
with ex-Rhodesians of special forces origins. Recent evidence shows that
KwaZulu paramilitary forces numbering about 200 men were trained by
Military In telligence in the Caprivi Strip, and also in Israel during
1986, before being based at Mkuze in Northern Zululand. Vigilantes in the
Eastern Cape calling themselves Ama-Afrika were similarly trained. With
their deep involvement in the ivory trade and gun running, such groups are
specially active in the Eastern Transvaal and Northern Natal in
collaboration with Renamo. Africa Confidential has pointed out that these
units, characterised by lack of accou ntability, immunity from
prosecution, and increasingly embittered by the trend of national
political events, could get out of control. Renamo, after all, is a
classic example of a Rhodesian fashioned pseudo-terrorist operation which
ran amok. The Mozambic an government found great difficulty negotiating
with it, simply because it is a bandit organization with no discernible
political objectives. Overview At present extra-legal methods of political
control are gaining the ascendancy. Other forms nevertheless remain
extremely powerful. Apartheid legislation, educational inequalities,
security legislation, publications control, official secrecy, limitations
on journalists, and defamation law are significant restraints. The
'independent' bantustans have their own security and emergency legislation
which is wielded with gusto, as seen in spectacular fashion in Ciskei and
Bophuthatswana. The censorship of silence, traditional in South Africa, is
implicit in the ambience of the 'new' South Africa as recognised by the
writer Breyten Breytenbach: "...authority [is] now attempting to stifle
the needed debate on public ethics by pretending tha t apartheid was not,
and is not, the crime against humanity as experienced by the majority of
South Africans". In Hugo Young's celebrated phrase, President de Klerk and
his supporters "... have seen the light, not of righteousness but of
survival". The ri ght media images are thus crucial to them. So too,
apparently, is protection from prosecution for human rights crimes,
judging from the speed and ruthlessness with which a Further Indemnity
Bill was forced through the legislative system in October 1992 ag ainst
furious opposition from all parties to the left of the Nationalists. It is
all too probable that indemnity is required for current and past members
of de Klerk's government. When security legislation was amended in 1991,
the Democratic Party put forward ludicrous claims that South Africa had
embraced the rule of law and individual freedom, joining the ranks of free
nations. This sort of misrepresentation has earned South Afri ca a totally
unjustified liberal image, reinforced by the result of the referendum
which has virtually deified De Klerk. The latter and his supporters in the
business community and across the centre-right political spectrum have
adopted a new orthodoxy in
the 'new' South Africa. This argues that apartheid is dead, South
Africans must forget the past and pull together towards a glorious new
future in which private enterprise will swiftly iron out the inequities in
society. Those who challenge this amoral a nd ahistoric approach are
increasingly marginalised. The NCM mechanism creates outrages to provoke
splits in the ANC which cannot be traced back to the state. The Chris Hani
assassination was the perfect example of this, it greatly weakened the
ANC=D5s authority in the townships and was blamed on the far Righ t. The
outside world receives this image of =D4dark forces=D5 creating chaos and a=
n
image of the increasingly acceptable, white, South African state. These
are the unedifying tactics used by the National Party as it strives for
renewed power within a conserv ative coalition. Behind a facade of
'normality' a covert war is being waged against the ANC. Its leaders can
behave like national politicians at negotiations, but at grassroots level
destabilisation is having a serious effect on the movement's ability to
organise as a political party, attract members after thirty years as a
banned organization, and win an election.
Christopher Merrett works at the University of Natal and has published on
a wide range of human rights issues; he was an activist with the local
Detainees Support Committee during the State of Emergency. He is presently
writing a book on the history of ce nsorship in South Africa.

88
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp000948.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
anarchist activity in Brazil
FREEDOM INTERNATIONAL SECTION 84B, WHITECHAPEL HIGH ST.
LONDON E1
Antimilitarists from eight countries in Latin America came
together for the Latin American Conference of Conscientious
Objectors from the 8th to 14th May in Paraguay. Brazil was
represented by SERPAJ. The meeting allowed participants to
exchange information and share experiences of the realities
in each country. It also allowed for the planning of joint
activities and concrete actions relating to the two major
themes of antimilitarism and conscientious objection. During
the five days various themes related to that of
conscientious objection were also discussed including
freedom, civil disobedience, social justice and solidarity.
Since June 94 the Brazilian Anarchist Movement has organised
a national campaign for the liberation and against the
execution of the anarchist Katsuhisa Omori who has been
condemned to death by the Japanese state. Omori has been in
jail for 18 years now for a crime he did not commit. During
the first week of August letters, telegrams and a petition
with more than 4,000 signatures calling for Omori's
liberation were sent to the Japanese embassy in Brazil. In
addition some cities saw public demonstrations against
Japanese state terrorism.
As the Brazilian elections came up various parts of the
country saw activities against politicians and the elections
in general. In Campinas (central Sao Paulo) some anarchists
burnt their ballot forms on the public square protesting
against the electoral farce and the system of compulsory
voting.
From the 8th to the 17th July the Festival of Art and
Culture without Frontiers and Libertarian Education was held
in Florianopolis. Lectures, exhibitions, performances, films
and a workshop on computer networking were some of the
attractions at this important event which brought together
comrades from Portugal, Spain and Brazil. In addition to
this the second southern conference of anarchist groups and
individuals was held. The comrades who attended this
conference decided to come together for propaganda purposes
relating to common struggles and with the future objective
of forming an anarchist federation.
To mark the 49th anniversary of the American bombing of
Hiroshima anarchist groups in Sao Paulo, Curitiba, Londrina
and Salvador came out onto the streets to protest against
military expenditure, war and the militarization of society.
The historian, film director and anarchist Valencio Xavier
recently produced his latest short film: Pao Negro - Um
Episodio da Colonia Cecilia. It was 40 minutes of emotion,
passion and anarchy. The film deals with the testimony of
descendants of the colony and the story of Rossi and two
colonies that were bought as pieces of land in Palmeira. A
book will soon also be published about Valencio and the
history of this anarchist experiment in Brazil.
The University of Ceara saw anacho-punks from the north and
north-east come together for a conference (15th/17th July)
The meeting brought together individuals and groups from
five separate states to discuss various themes.
The anarcha-feminist group in Sao Paulo (CAF) organised an
anti homophobia event in Espaco Vadiagem on 30th July. 10
anarcho-punk groups performed to young audiences. The event
was marred by the infiltration of Nazi Skinheads who were
exposed and removed by some young libertarians. Since that
time some members of CAF have been the target of
intimidation by these troublemakers.
At the university of Campinas - UNICAMP organised from 24th
to 26th August a seminar: 20 years of the Archives of Edgar
Leuenroth - one of the best libertarian archives in Latin
America. Workshops were organised on the history of the
left, the workers movement, industrialisation, human rights,
culture and politics. There was also an international
workshop discussing archives and social history. This was
accompanied by a photographic exhibition. The conference
closed with a talk by Professor Rudolf de Jong of the
International Institute of Social History in Amsterdam with
the title: The Spanish Civil War and the Anarchist
Revolution. Professor Martha Ackelsberg also gave a talk on
the women's liberation movement and the anarchist movement
in Spain.

142
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp000949.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,142 @@
OBITUARY: GUY DEBORD
FREEDOM INTERNATIONAL SECTION 84B, WHITECHAPEL HIGH ST.
LONDON E1
THE AUTHOR OF SOCIETY OF THE SPECTACLE HAS KILLED HIMSELF
Last Curtain Call for Guy Debord
We don't know how he died and still less why. We only know
that Guy Debord, around evening time on Wednesday 30th
November, took his life; the life that in the last few years
he himself - perhaps the last of the Situationists still
partly faithful to his own image of the resolute enemy of
the society of the spectacle - helped to make more
mysterious, more evanescent more elsewhere. Paradoxically
one could say that in reality death has brought him back to
life, in the sense that it has re-established the human
reality (death being our common destiny) of a character
whose notoriety and uncompromising stance of refusal would
make of existence a long theatrical piece, in which he would
improvise up until the end. But who was Guy Debord? There
are several answers, but at the same time such answers would
preclude the understanding of his identity as indefinable.
Writer? Film director? Situationalist? 'Doctor in
nothing...' as he liked to define himself in one of his
latest books? Of course all those things, but simply because
they are 'things' - which comes down to things he did - they
certainly do not reveal the whole man. It isn't for nothing
that the numerous French dailies which reported the news of
his suicide, not only didn't say how or why he died, neither
did they say anything about him, limiting themselves to an
inventory of the things he did, the things he said, how he
did them, how he said them but forgetting to say who, Guy
Debord, was. In reality it was the self-imposed mystery
which created the impenetrable and adventurist aura, barely
available to the media and prone to violent argument; Guy
Debord liked to hide his true self behind a blanket of
gossip, speculation and even spite in his dealings with
others, and to never let it see daylight. For the rest, for
someone who wrote a book: The Society of the Spectacle,
where the world is seen as a spectacle - which is to say a
false image which the economic system produces of itself in
order to dominate society - visibility was to be totally
denied. Thus the rare photos which he consciously planned so
that they should be published in his lifetime - were the
most hazy in the world and to a fair degree made him look
younger than his real age. Certainly, invisibility was
imperative!
It was not by chance that his first public work was a film
Hurlement en faveur de Sade (1952), in which there is no
picture and the spectator - truly stupefied by this purely
surrealist provocation - watched an alternated sequence of
white and then black screens, whilst listening to a mixture
of atonal dialogues involving numerous people leading up to
a silent, black screen for 24 minutes. This was the first
gauntlet against the spectacle thrown down by Guy Debord who
fought this battle throughout his life; a death sentence for
the cinema, at the time considered as the essence of the
artistic product of bourgeois society and for that reason
the extreme synthesis of its values in full decomposition,
since it expressed not the construction of a situation which
aimed to shed light on everyday life but rather a system of
falsification of reality in order to suppress it and
supplant it by means of a series of images aimed at cutting
the individual off from his daily existence and making of
him an illusory participant in the spectacle of consumer
society in his role as good/product of the spectacle.
The setting up in 1957 of the Situationist International was
partly the logical consequence of these artistic
presuppositions. Coming out of the European cultural milieu
as the convergence of several artistic experiences (COBRA,
the Lettrist International, the Movement for Bauhaus Cinema,
the London Psychogeographical Society) the SI from day one
aimed to represent - above all via Debord who was the editor
of its statement of principles - a critique of art brought
into being by the necessity of superseding it by creating
liberated situations in which life can effectively
experience its own possibilities and not become enclosed in
the repetitive role models that the society of the spectacle
constructs in order to dominate and exploit. But already in
those early years the different heads of the SI quarrelled
amongst themselves and Debord - who alone amongst them
represented the most coherent position with his objective of
achieving a total critique of art and a whole culture
skewered towards the production of values separated from
everyday life (and for that reason incapable of achieving
its own radical transformation) - came out better from
confrontations with those who presupposed the replacement of
art as simply a repeat of the architectural and urban
argument which aimed to make works of art no longer on
canvas but in the physical space of a city.
But the first years of the 60s saw a U turn in the politics
of the SI, and coincided with Debord's political phase,
which saw an achievement of sorts in making of the
organisation - now nearly purged of any artistic content -
the rallying point between the experience of the European
cultural avant guard and the experience of politico-
revolutionary groupings, in France represented by some
journals (Arguments and Socialisme et Barbarie) of a
revisionary Marxist leaning. These were the years when
Debord participated in the seminars of Lefebvre at Nanterre
and during which he developed his critique of daily life
which had already been expounded by this philosopher and
sociologist from Nanterre in the late 50s. The critique of
everyday life - the baby sister of theories of
alienation/separation produced by the spectacular society,
became the theoretical underpinnings of the SI and the theme
of his most famous book, already mentioned, in which the
theoretical and organisational experience of the workers
council ... represented the political and revolutionary
dnouement of the situationist theory. The Strasbourg scandal
and Paris 68 showed not so much that Debord and the SI were
gaining influence (as has always been claimed by the
historical hagiographer of the movement), but rather the
fortuitous meeting - and in many ways prospicious - between
the combative and revolutionary practice of the movement of
68 and the necessity to find an outlet for situationist
theory. If there had been no May 68 in France, would the SI
have become what it seemed to be after the event (that is
the high point of modern revolution)? And would the work of
Debord have come to seem clairvoyant and prophetic, as was
claimed by numerous commentators who proclaim his books on
the social spectacle to be the only texts able to give a
sense - sorry: a vision - to what happened in the East as
well as the West? All these considerations lead back to the
unanswered question of who Guy Debord was; a man who, at the
age of 62, decided to put an end to his life and to
foreclose his real life story asking forgiveness for his own
mistakes. But the truth of his story will still have to be
reconstructed by reference to his work which he has left to
posterity with the intention of becoming the first invisible
personality of the society of the spectacle. Will we ever
know the truth?
GIANFRANCO MARELLI FAI Milan Trans from Le Monde Libertaire
21 Dec. 94

249
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp000950.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,249 @@
EXPOSICION.... Translated version of Frank Harrison's
article on the Ex-USSR
FREEDOM INTERNATIONAL SECTION 84B, WHITECHAPEL HIGH ST.
LONDON E1
The Disintegration of the State - Russian Perspectives
(Frank Harrison)
In order to speak of politics in the modern era - an era
which began with the French Revolution - one must consider
the supremacy of the bureaucratic state. This era has seen
how all previous political unions have been replaced by the
state. The city dweller has become the base of all social
analysis. It is taken for granted that patriotism is a good
thing and the capacity of governments to mobilise their
citizens and resources has become the measure of their
efficiency, legitimacy and a form of self-justification.
Such a model is to be found equally in the East as in the
West. Soviet and North American patriotism have become the
choice of their respective political elites. Kropotkin
pointed out that the new economic forms of political
organisation would become associated with a new economic
order brought into being by the industrial revolution.
This Statist view has come to dominate the modern mind. This
naked and little questioned power - accepted as the norm -
is responsible for the crimes of colonialism, the domination
of the third world by the developed world. However, there is
some resistance to recognising this model of the State.
Inequality, class struggle, regional and linguistic
conflicts and indifference threaten the legitimacy of this
political sphere. Pluralism doesn't always function
smoothly, that is to say, when pluralism doesn't function
neither does the sate. The authority of the State is
rejected: Catholics in Northern Ireland, Kurds in Turkey,
Serbs in Bosnia etc. are starting to grasp for a new
political reality. This is the current crisis of the State.
The State is seen as the enemy in the ghettos of the USA, in
the Sik temples in India, on a Catholic street in Belfast
and when it appears in any place in the former Russian
Federation.
Each State requires certain conditions to be fulfilled in
order to sustain its authority, these are:
- a culture of obedience - a recognised source of authority
- Corporatism and a sense of commitment in the Civil and
Armed Services. - an ability to give privilege to the
interrelated elites (political, cultural, economic,
military...) - quasi governmental organisations who co-
ordinate necessities and expectations in such a way so that
the government can act as intermediary - an ability to
generate state interests which supersede local conflicts
(relating to, for example, religious/linguistic conflicts
and/or standard of living expectations)
All these mechanisms taken together lay the foundations of
the psychological and organisational adhesion of any given
State. In the former USSR it was the Communist Party which
formed the nucleus of these integrated mechanisms until it
collapsed (over the last three years).
The first question which arises for those who are pleased to
see the collapse of a State should be: Out of the Russian
Federation will there be formed a new federation of States
or is a new Russian imperialism a possibility? Will there be
a return to centralism in Russia or are there other options?
The collapse of the State should be a cause of celebration
since we have been 'brainwashed' with the concept of the
State to the point that Yeltsin, having declared himself the
new Russian dictator, the West applauds and is pleased that
Russia is back on the road towards reunification.
Fortunately they are mistaken.
Previous speakers have shown an interest/concern with
nationalism. I find myself in agreement with someone who in
the 1930s who was asked if he would betray the State or his
friend answered, 'I hope I would betray the State' because I
would never betray my friend. For me nationalism is the same
as tribalism. In my written work I claim that the modern
State is the product of the French Revolution. Kropotkin
wrote that the factor which characterised the dehumanisation
of society was the technical structure. However,. the State
dominates our consciousness, it is the 'norm' it is accepted
as the natural state of things. But the State exists by the
skin of its teeth. Wherever you will find a state you will
find it owing its existence to the lies of political
propaganda and the powers of its police. When the lying ends
the state collapses as it has done in Russia. It collapsed
in the former USSR but it has also collapsed in the Russia
of today; today Russia is neither a government nor a nation;
today it is made up of 89 governments. The capacity for
integration lies only in the Communist party. When the
Communist Party lost its legitimacy so did the State. Does
the Russian State have the power to reintegrate itself if it
doesn't exist? My answer is NO. The Russian State as the
Soviet State no longer exist and will not exist again.
However, the dominant factor is the remaining reunificatory
capacity within the old Soviet Union within contemporary
Russia. In this I feel we can see an example of the failure
of the modern State. I think and I hope that the elites of
all states are trembling.
This cannot be seen as a victory for anarchism but rather
the end of the capacity of such politics to promote
integration.
When we look towards Russia we see total institutional
confusion, Moscow and its politics are pure theatre; the
Supreme Court, the Presidency, Yeltsin etc... are mere
actors. They entertain us because they have no power. But
what of the future? I suggest five possibilities.
The first is 'Military Fascism'; the military could come to
represent an active force for reunification, I don't think
this will happen. Today there are more officers that
soldiers in the armed forces and the youth are voting with
their feet. They will not enlist. Moreover the military are
very divided. Nor does the economy give them money for
equipment. Today these forces have neither the personnel,
the material nor the unity/solidarity that they need. Today
Military Fascism is not possible.
Secondly 'Capitalism' as a system of recuperation didn't
work, doesn't work and will not work in Russia. It is not a
question of accepting or rejecting the capitalist ideology
which has indeed been culturally rejected. The 'free
enterprise economy' can only survive and grow if two
conditions are fulfilled: 1) Give the workers higher levels
of employment and remuneration 2) Have some comparative
advantage vis a vis the rest of the world - an advantage
used by the State to generate investment in the country and
sell outside of its frontiers within the framework of
monetary stability.
But when the state industries are being shut down,
unemployment is reaching 20 million and savings are
annihilated by hyper inflation running at 1 000% pa economic
dislocation is the outcome and we come to realise that
capitalism is not the means for bringing about Russian
reunification.
Thirdly 'Constitutional Federalism'; the fragmentation
caused in part by the economic decline has favoured the
appearance of an initiative aiming at a 'constitutional
solution' which consists in producing a document which
defines the sharing of power in equal parts between the
Centre and the Regions/Republics and also a Justice System
which would have the power to resolve the various disputes
between the factions and parties which make up the
organisation of the State. On the 12 July 93 the delegates
to the Constitutional Assembly gave their consent to such a
document and gave the President the power to dissolve
parliament and call elections. The Federal law took priority
over the laws of the various Republics and the vice-
presidency was abolished. However, the evidence suggests
that the Regions and the Republics have no intention to
subordinate themselves to Moscow; the leaders of the
Republics have rejected the priority of the federal law.
There was a tendency for the Republics to declare themselves
independent. Amur, Vologda, Sverdlovsk, St. Petersburg and
Primorsky Krai this summer.
But there is no tradition of independence of this kind in
Russia and the conflict between Yeltsin and the
Constitutional tribunal is a part of the 'theatre' which the
national Russian government is a part of today.
Russia has collapsed and the new documents will not bring
back the old system nor will they bring into being a new
one.
The political analysts indicate that Russia is in a pre-
party state. There do not exist national political groupings
and without these the state cannot resuscitate itself.
In order for Yeltsin to win enough power he will have to
draw on institutions and persons and move towards a form of
power that we can call 'Civil Fascism' which is the fourth
possibility. When I wrote this (July 93) I suggested that
Yeltsin might attempt a 'coup d'etat', a constitutional
seizure of power calling on the forces of democracy in
Russia, but that this also would fail because such a
constitutional fascism was based on the belief that only a
minority was democratic. I believe that this plan is also
destined to fail due to the fact that local organisations in
Russia are not keen to collaborate with the 'actors' in
Moscow. There will be no massive mobilisation of support for
Yeltsin who, moreover, has never enjoyed majority support.
In the April referendum only 6 out of 10 voted and of these
only 6 out of 10 voted for Yeltsin. We are speaking of a man
whose popularity in April was not that of the majority and
whose popularity is currently in decline.
The political logic of the old regime put the Communist
Party in a position of 'infallible doctrine' to justify
social and political authoritarianism. With the
disappearance of this not only is there a political vacuum
but also a distrust of secular ideologies. There is now the
possibility of a call to the myths of nationalism, race,
religion and blood especially if the situation deteriorates;
crime rises and life expectancy falls.
Fascism could come about in Russia due to the absence of
politics.
My conclusion as an anarchist is a positive one. I look
towards the fifth possibility which will be as envisaged by
Proudhon 'Decentralised Federalism'. Russia has this
capacity which could serve as an example to other states. I
am no expert on Spanish matters, but I understand that there
was a strong federal tradition in this country before the
dictatorship. The federalist capacity which exists in every
state also exists in Russia but there is no guarantee that
it will be successful.
When a central regime admits its inability to control local
authorities the development of a federalist system could
prove the best solution for Russia in these times. The
system is characterised by a multiplicity of local
authorities and constant change in the political sphere at a
local level. Vaclav Havel, president of the Czech Republic
concluded that in this post-Leninist situation there exists
the remains of an 'evil' in a moral sense reflected in
racism, nationalism, aggression and crime. Havel is
confident that once this 'evil' is eliminated a new social
integration will come into being, I concur. I conclusion
when I think of the possibilities which inspire me I think,
not of Havel but of Bakunin and Proudhon.
I suggest that we continue to focus on the ideals of the
French Revolution properly speaking that is to say liberty,
equality and fraternity.
Bakunin said that he would not consider himself to be free
as long as one single person did not enjoy liberty: 'if
there is one person who is not free I am not free'.
Perhaps we can say that the end of communism in Europe marks
the beginning of history.
There exists the possibility of outcomes other than those
which prevail in Bosnia: an indication of the renovation of
the anarchist solution understood in the Proudhonian sense
of 'order without authority'.

222
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp000954.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,222 @@
Child Rearing And Danger by David Briars
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The trial of two environmentalists sued by the McDonald's corporation
in order to silence them has highlighted McDonalds' truly sinister
advertising strategy to control the minds of young children. Last
summer I saw one of these after-school commercials. It made me shiver
at the time, and it made reading about their 2-8 year old targeting
strategy fit right into place. I look over to my own TV with a feeling
of horror but also sadness. Just throwing away the television or
blowing it up etc.etc. is not a satisfactory answer. The TV is an
important tool as well as a dangerous weapon like a gun. We need a way
to raise our children to be able to coexist with TV rationally and
safely, without being seduced by it. Like any dangerous thing, the
proper time to introduce it to a child is when that child is mature
enough to be able to handle it.
Child Rearing And TV
Raising a child is a process of teaching self control and good sense
in a wide variety of dangerous situations. Early childhood is when we
most need the wisdom of generations to raise our children, Yet
television is bleeding our culture of its child rearing heritage.
I recently saw a 6 month old baby placed directly in front of a 48
inch TV to keep him quiet. I went up to the baby and tried to get his
attention by gently squeezing his feet and smiling and talking to him.
The baby remained absolutely transfixed on the gigantic face of Winona
Judd singing a song about some Peyton Place melodrama. What will that
child know about child rearing except how to carry his own living
child, glassy eyed to the foot of the robot giver-of-stimulation.
Television has been slowly taking over the child rearing process for
at least 2 generations.
Child Rearing And Hysteria
Hysteria, or irrational panic, takes many forms. Most of us have
looked down over a steep cliff or tall building and felt ourselves
being pulled over the edge. I would like to propose that this feeling
is an archetypal, elemental example of hysteria. It springs from a
Pavlovian experience of being screamed at for going near precipices.
The scream assumes that the child has no instinct of self
preservation, no mind, no self. Only DANGER in relation to PRECIPICE.
Now this is a genuinely frightening part of child rearing. I don't
have all the answers, but I cannot forget the sight of a 3 year old
son of a rural Vermont saw mill owner being allowed to wander around
in the sawmill. Anyone who has seen the inside of a dark backwoods
sawmill with its giant deadly blade at floor level, sliding log
carrying table, deafening noise and greasy wet floor would be
astonished that even an adult would be allowed to wander there. But
this same child is now graduating from high-school. Somehow this child
was taught without panic to conduct himself rationally in a life
threatening environment. I'm not sure how, but it can be done.
Danger is everywhere in our lives. Very few children born today will
go through life without confronting many dangerous situations, not
only sawmills, but guns, alcohol, drugs, tobacco, and television. We
need calmness and care in teaching our children about these dangers--
not just by screaming !NO! but by sharing the real human difficulties
of dealing with each. Too soon, each child will be meeting brand new
unthought-of dangers that they could not have been made !BAD! by
Pavlovian conditioning. They must meet them with reason grounded in
self confidence.
Not long ago I came upon a flag-draped magazine designed by an
association of gun manufacturers to fight the anti-gun lobby in the
USA. It had a consistent, simple-minded, depressing theme: "Crime is
caused by not-enough-punishment and not-enough-guns". However, I was
not prepared for the last article: a very surprising and wonderful
essay called "A Parent's Guide To Children and Firearms". It has a
great deal to teach us about teaching children how to deal with
dangerous things. Substitute the terror of your choice for "firearms"
whether it is TV, drugs, tobacco, alcohol. The essay will still ring
true.
-David Briars
(dbriars@world.std.com)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A Parent's Guide To Children and Firearms by John Aquilno
If you recently purchased your first firearm, or already own a firearm
and have children in your home, you must realize that teaching your
child to be safe around guns begins with you, the parent. It is your
decision to have guns in your home. You also decide when and to what
extent to teach your child about guns and gun safety.
The trust your child has in you, and your advice will determine to a
great degree your success in raising your child to be safe with guns.
That trust is built through your ability to provide the things every
child needs: love, attention, discipline, values, respect, and ways to
deal with problems and emotions.
A Parent's Challenge
You help teach your child to make correct decisions. The guidelines
you set up will help your child lay out a path between right and
wrong.
Discipline is extremely important for your children to learn how to
control his or her behavior. It helps develop your child's trust in
you and your advice.
Loving, yet consistent application of rules and consequences makes it
likely that when you set the limits for your child's behavior around
guns, or anything, your child will know that "no" means "no", that you
mean exactly what you say.
Teaching your child to use words to express his or her feelings of
happiness or frustration or jealousy or anger can go a long way in
reducing the likelihood he or she will instead respond with physical
harm to others. A child who has been respected, encouraged, and
praised by parents learns confidence and is secure. That child is less
likely to see a gun as an artificial means of acquiring power or self
importance.
Growing up is every child's challenge. Through the example and limits
you set, your child will develop a sense of self-esteem, and his or
her love for you will grow.
When to Teach
Timing is extremely important to successful teaching. When your child
starts to ask questions or act out "gun play", the time is ripe. Use
your child's curiosity as an indicator. Seize the teachable moment. Be
prepared to discuss, demonstrate, and answer questions. Keep the
lesson simple. Emphasize the most important points and repeat, repeat,
repeat. Your child's attention may wander. Don't be discouraged. Be
Patient.
Teach Facts, Not Fear
Versed in the facts of gun safety, your child is more likely to make
sound decisions around guns. Be open and honest about guns. If you've
raised a child to be confident and secure, that child will be more
resistant to peer pressure to "show off" in an unsafe manner and will
most likely avoid wrong behavior and be safe around guns, whether you
are present or not.
Fantasy Vs. Reality
An active imagination can be a very healthy trait, but the ability to
distinguish between reality and fantasy is very important. Action
thrillers on television or in the movies are fantasy. They are
entertainment. it is very important that your child knows this
seemingly simple fact. Actors on television use play guns. They
pretend to be wounded and die. After the show, they get up and appear
on other films or on other TV stations. Don't assume your child knows
the difference between a toy gun and a real gun. Guns are used on
television are toys. Guns such as BB guns and firearms--pistols,
rifles, and shotguns are not toys. They are real guns. They must never
be confused with toy guns.
If you allow your child to play with toy guns, use them to demonstrate
safe and proper behavior with all guns.
Gun Safety (Drug Safety, Alcohol Safety, TV Safety, Tobacco Safety)
Parent, gun safety begins with you. Use common sense with your guns.
Keep your guns and ammunition inaccessible to your child. Don't leave
them lying around where a toddler can stumble on them. Think from your
child's point of view. What drawers are within reach? Can they be
opened by a little one pulling himself or herself up? If so, those
places are *not* inaccessible.
A point about ammunition should be noted: A cartridge or shotshell is
not something that should be played with by a child. Keep your
ammunition as safe as you would your gun.
If you do not have a child or if your child has moved from home, these
precautions still apply. A child may come to visit.
How best to secure your guns in your home and keep them from a child
is a question only you can answer. You know your home. You set the
"do's" and "don'ts" of your child's behavior.
Set those guidelines. Insist that they be honored at all times, when
you are home and when you are away from home.
The attitude toward guns and gun safety you instill in yourself and
your children is key. Don't make it a one-way street. Follow the same
rules you set for your child. Enlist your child as a scout for gun
safety to be on the alert whenever the rules are broken.
Three Rules of Safe Gun Handling
1. Once the decision is made, impress on your child to *always keep a
gun pointed in a safe direction*. Whether you are shooting or simply
handling your gun, never point the muzzle at yourself or others.
Common sense will dictate which is safest depending on your location
and various other conditions. Generally it is safest to point the gun
upward or at the ground.
2. Insist that your child *keep his or her finger off the trigger*.
There is a natural tendency to place your finger on a trigger when
holding a gun. Avoid it. That's what the trigger guard is made for--to
enable you to hold the gun comfortably with your finger off the
trigger.
3. Keep the action open and the gun unloaded until ready to use.
Whenever you pick up any gun, immediately open the action and check
(visually if possible) to see that the chamber is unloaded. If the gun
has a magazine, make sure it's empty. If you do not know how to open
the gun's action, leave it alone or get help from someone who does.
Remember, any time you handle a gun your child may be watching and
learning from your behavior.
Your Child Wants To Shoot
You may wish to extend your child's knowledge of gun safety to safe
handling and use. If so, and if your child expresses an interest in
learning to shoot, you, better than anyone, can determine when and if
your child is ready. There is no magic age. A child's attitude and
physical and emotional development are better indicators.

300
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp000955.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,300 @@
INTERNATIONAL MCLIBEL ROUND-UP JAN 1995
Since the McLibel Support Campaign was set up we have been hearing
reports from all around the globe about independent campaigns and
actions against McDonalds. The court case has attracted over 200
articles in the press, as well as international TV and radio
coverage, and Helen and Dave were nominated a Role of Honour by
readers of Britain's The Guardian newspaper "for taking on the
most litigious and biggest food supplier in the world and
defending themselves in what is expected to be the longest libel
case in Britain"
Here is a global round-up of some of the news and actions we have
heard about in the last year. Please send us news or press
cuttings for our next round-up.
FRANCE - On 9 July 1994 sixty seven workers at a local McDonald's
in Massy, a suburb of North Paris, pulled a surprise strike,
closing the store down during its busiest period. They were
demanding "respect of their rights to engage in union activity,
paid vacations, the right to choose their own delegates and
recognition of their personal needs." Less than 24 hours after the
strike an agreement was signed between management and the General
Confederation of Workers (CGT) union representing the workers. A
few days later McDonald's workers in the town of Ulis walked out.
In Nantes, west France, McDonald's workers prepared a week of
action with CGT trade unionists.
In France employees of companies of over 50 workers have the legal
right to elect "delegates" with various rights, such as checking
that overtime is paid and employment contracts are followed. But
in Lyons ten McDonald's managers were arrested, accused of
violating these rights by threatening that any employee voting for
union delegates would be sacked. Only 38 of 458 employees voted
in the first election. According to the union CFDT, employees
said they had been told that anyone voting for the union would be
sacked. Mr Hammache of the CFDT will be a witness for the defense
in the London McLibel trial in 1995.
Leafleting also took place around Grenoble with the ultimate aim
of getting a trade union set up in the city's McDonald's. Contact:
CNT-SSE Grenoble, BP 385, 38015 Grenoble, Cedex 1, France.
BELGIUM - Two gigs took place to raise money for the McLibel court
case in London. In previous years occupations and blockades have
taken place.
GERMANY - A group campaigning against McDonalds in Dusseldorf
have received threats from the company.
UK - In April 1994 the Kent branch of the trade union UNISON
unanimously passed a resolution saying "This branch recognizes the
poor working conditions at McDonald's and their hostility to Trade
Unionism, and supports: the right of their staff to organize and
take on industrial action; protests against the company's attempts
to suppress criticism, in particular the use of libel laws as
censorship, and resolves to back the McLibel Support Campaign in
its protests and the FREE SPEECH PLEDGE and to circulate
information about the case". We urge all union members to get
their branches to pass similar motions and to make a donation to
our campaign. During 1994 a McDonald's worker's support group was
set up by the Hackney Trade Union Support Group at 16a Bradbury
Street, London N16.
On 1 October 1994 McDonald's executives held a celebration along
with a jazz band and clown at their Woolwich store to mark 20
years since this first store opened in the UK. Twenty five London
Greenpeace and McLibel supporters gathered with a banner reading
"20 Years of McGarbage" and handed out 4000 "What's Wrong With
McDonald's" leaflets to passers-by.
On 8 October, at the third national day of action in 1994, scores
of McDonald's stores all around the country were leafleted
including at least 35 in the London area alone plus Swindon,
Bristol, Bath, Chippenham, Nottingam, Manchester and Edinburgh.
The month of protest continued with an action at the UK McDonald's
headquarters where sackfuls of the company's litter picked up off
the streets were returned to McDonald's. A week later 500 people
attended the National March Against McDonald's through central
London to protest against the company's exploitation of people,
animals and the environment.
In November 1994 at a Manchester Drive-In a pantomime cow and
clowns were removed forcibly and violently by police during a
demonstration organized by Manchester Earth First! On 17 December
1994 protesters outside Kingston McDonald's were threatened with
having their legs broken by a McDonald's manager - protests
continue. In some other towns such as Newcastle and Hastings
pickets are held fortnightly.
In November local residents from Wandsworth in London protested at
further cuts in the borough's public spending budget. Anti
McDonald's protesters highlighted the #15,000 which the council
has given McDonald's to build an in-store creche when it
continues to cut back on public spending.
A group of young people called Kids Against Big Mac have organized
pickets and are distributing their own leaflets. You can organize
a group in your town or contact: Kids Against BigMac, PO Box 287,
London NW6 5QU.
SPAIN: 200 people protested outside McDonald's in Valencia on
World Food Day. A picket of a McDonald's in Madrid took place the
same day.
Contact: McLibel Support Campaign, c/o Mike, El Lokal, C/ de la
Cera 1 Bis, 08001 Barcelona, Spain.
NORWAY: An anti-McDonald's group will be set up in the new year.
Correspondence will be forwarded by The Mclibel Support Campaign
in London.
NETHERLANDS - On 15 and 16 October Anti McDonald's Day was marked
with actions in Amsterdam, Groningen, Njmegen, Maastrict and
Vlissingen.
DENMARK - On New Year's Day 1995, according to The Guardian (2
January 1995) McDonald's in Copenhagen was broken into and smashed
up by hundreds of "left wing anarchists" because it "symbolizes
capitalism and money". Furniture was ripped out and burnt on a
bonfire.
PORTUGAL - Protesters were beaten up and arrested by police after
a demonstration outside a Lisbon McDonald's where 80 demonstrators
voiced their opposition to the BigMac. Leafleting continues
across the country.
IRELAND - This year there have been pickets of McDonald's stores
in Dublin, Belfast and other towns. Since March 1994 the Alliance
For Animal Rights [AFAR] in Galway have been harassed by the
police and threatened with arrest for displaying placards and
distributing information outside their local McDonald's. The
manager of McDonald's has taken photographs of protesters. Violent
threats and threats of libel action have been made to protesters
who believe that they have had quite an effect on McDonald's trade
in Galway. According to AFAR, Galway McDonald's is the only
branch in Europe which is losing money. Victory!
Contact: McLibel Support Campaign will forward mail to AFAR in
Galway.
ITALY
On 26 February 1994 about 40 animal rights activists protested
outside McDonald's in Torino. There was widespread public support
for the protesters.
ICELAND - Copies of the leaflet "What's wrong with McDonald's" are
circulating in Reykjavik. McDonald's moved into Iceland a year
ago amiss trade union protests.
CZECH REPUBLIC - A McLibel supporter in the Czech Republic writes
"All people here, after the fall of socialism thought everything
would be better, but I have to say that it is even worse. Rapid
increase of racism, no one cares about the environment, our
country is flooded with Western capitalism..."
There have been several actions against McDonald's in different
Czech cities. On 7 December 1993 in the Moravian city of Brno, a
McDonald's assistant manager sprayed tear gas in a photographer's
face during a protest at the opening of the county's seventh
McDonald's. After initially denying that the offender was a
McDonald's employee, the company issued a formal apology to the
Czech Press Agency photographer. The incident occurred when about
30 people, mainly from the environmental group Duha were pushed
and carried out of a McDonald's restaurant where they had been
eating vegetables in a peaceful protest. "Just taking up the space
is a form of violence" said McDonald's public relations manager
Drahomira Jirakova. The McDonald's employee was asked to pay a
small fine but is still working at McDonald's. At a demo in
Prague 200 people turned out and over $15000 of damage was caused
in battles with the police when bricks and paint were thrown.
McDonald's are so worried about their image in the Czech republic
that in October 1994 they pulled a publicity stunt inviting
journalists and activists including animal rights group Animal SOS
to inspect stores and meat processing plants.
Contact: Hnuti Duha Brno, Jakuska nam 7, 602 00 Brno, Czech
Republic and Hnuti Duha Plzen, Skolni 309, 330 08 Zruc, Czech
Republic.
POLAND - Architectural professor, Stanislav Juchnowitz is amongst
campaigners and residents trying to stop McDonald's opening a new
store in Cracow, Poland. He said "The activities of this firm are
symbolic of mass industrial civilization and a superficial
cosmopolitan way of life". McDonald's already has 13 stores in
Poland, but so far have been refused permission to open the store
in Cracow's historic main square. [New York Times International 23
May 1994]. Actions against McDonald's also took place in Warsaw,
Gdansk and Wroclaw on 4th July [US Independence Day]. McDonald's
are seen as a symbol and front runners for unwelcome Western
capitalism.
Contact: Green Brigade in Poland regarding nationwide protest.
HUNGARY - Anti McDonald's articles appear regularly in green
publications, forcing correspondence from the chief manager of
McDonalds in Hungary. In the town of Pecs a group of young
anarchists are protesting against the building of two McDonald's
stores.
CROATIA - A local group is being set up in Zagreb to organize
against three McDonald's which are opening in the city. McLibel
Support Campaign was told "You have really big support here
because people are against all multinational corporations, and
there are more and more vegetarians and vegans every day".
Contact: All mail will be forwarded to our contact in Croatia.
AUSTRALIA - At the Townsville Eco Fiesta, Queensland, in July 1994
singer Peter Garrett from rock band Midnight Oil gave an
anti-McDonald's speech and leaflets were handed out.
Benefit gigs to raise funds for the court case in London have been
held in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide - a recorded tape
will be available soon to raise further funds.
The Operation Send it Back campaign has been active in Australia
and there is a lively McLibel Support Campaign at PO Box 558,
South Birsbane, 4101, Australia.
AOTEAROA [NEW ZEALAND] - McDonald's environmental image was
revealed to be a sham, and customers being conned when it was
discovered that rubbish which customers were asked to put into
separated recycling bins throughout New Zealand stores was sent to
the tip. A McDonald's head office spokeswoman said all regional
restaurants would install notices informing people that recycling
has ended. [Wellington Evening Post, 24 November 1994].
In June 1994 a McLibel Support Campaign was set up to organize
protests and raise money for the London court case. Protests
received widespread publicity. On 16 October, protests against
McDonald's took place in Auckland, Hamilton, Wellington and
Christchurch.
Contact: McLibel Support Campaign, PO Box 14-156, Kilbirnie,
Wellington, Aotearoa/N.Z. They also have a contact in SINGAPORE
to whom they can forward mail.
HONG KONG - Protests included fly posting on 16 October.
ISRAEL - On 14 October leaflets in Hebrew were handed out by
animal rights organization Anonymous and the Anarchist Federation,
and twelve people were arrested for chaining themselves to the
entrance of McDonald's on the opening day of McDonald's in
Israel.
INDIA
The India branch of Beauty Without Cruelty have produced an anti
McDonald's leaflet and are trying to stop McDonald's entering
India.
Contact: Beauty Without Cruelty, 4 Prince of Wales' Drive,
Wanowrie, Poona 411 010, India.
CANADA - In Ontario during a long running trade union dispute,
McDonald's reacted using highly controversial methods including
getting employees to lie in the snow in the shape of the letters
"NO" (to trade unions). The main trade union activist working at
the store will be giving evidence at the London trial in 1995.
USA - On 4 March 1994 forty vegans held their 4th protest at the
Berkeley branch of McDonald's in San Francisco.
In Philadelphia the Wages for Housework Campaign held a picket
outside McDonald's to show their support for the McLibel Two, and
had a "teach-in" about McDonald's and the London trial.
There was leafleting in many cities on Anti McDonald's day including
New York City.
Contacts: McLibel Support Campaign, PO Box 120, East Calais, VT
05650.
Wages for Housework Campaign, PO Box 11795, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19101.
MEXICO - In Autumn 1994 in Mexico City 40 people, protesting at
California's new anti immigrant referendum caused considerable damage
to a McDonald's, seeing the company as a symbol of US imperialism.
PHILIPPINES - A delegation of community activists attended the
picket of the London court in September. Letters of support have
been received from people concerned at the effects of McDonald's
on local culture, diet and economy.
Campaign Statement: The McLibel Support Campaign was set up to
generate solidarity and financial backing for the McLibel
Defendants, who are not themselves responsible for Campaign
publicity. The Campaign is also supportive of, but independent
from, general, worldwide, grassroots anti-McDonalds activities and
protests.

165
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp000956.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,165 @@
McLIBEL SUPPORT CAMPAIGN
c/o 5 Caledonian Road, London, N1 9DX. Tel/Fax 0171 713 1269
January 1995 Supporters Mailout
Dear friends,
It's now 6 months since the trial began on June 28th last year.
It is now scheduled to continue until the end of 1995 (on course
for the longest libel trial in British history). It is proving to
be a detailed, complex, controversial case, and a highly
embarrassing experience for McDonald's.
TRIAL RESTARTS WED 11th JAN 2pm - Join the picket 1-3pm outside
the High Court, Strand WC2.
Part of the demonstration will be a caged battery chicken and a
chained McDonald's worker.
Putting The Corporation On Trial - So far the spotlight has been
on the junk food giant's business practices, in particular the
effects of packaging, diet and ill-health and advertising. Helen
and Dave have questioned 29 witnesses so far, 18 for McDonald's
(including 8 executives/dept heads) and 11 for the Defense (mainly
experts). Only 150 more witnesses to go! The next major issues
are food poisoning and animal welfare, followed by over 60
witnesses on McDonald's workers' rights and conditions.
McDonald's witnesses have tended to be evasive but many have made
admissions or ludicrous statements under questioning. The Defense
case seems to be going well.
Publicity Increases - This is an exhausting legal battle for Helen
and Dave, but it's an excellent opportunity to step up the
pressure and publicity against McDonald's at a time when the
public are interested and concerned about the issues in the case.
The first week of the trial was widely reported by the
establishment media, but coverage since has been patchy.
(However, the case was recently described in the Daily Telegraph
as 'the best free entertainment in London', and readers of The
Guardian last week nominated Helen and Dave for a 1994 'Role of
Honour'!) Many alternative and left-wing papers have covered the
trial, and there has been growing publicity abroad.
Support Spreads - A wide range of organizations and groups -
green, civil liberties, trades union, socialist, anarchist, animal
rights etc. - have agreed to back the campaign. But we mustn't
underestimate the power of McDonald's to swamp the country with
advertising and propaganda during and after the trial. For this
reason, it's essential TO CONTINUE TO CIRCULATE AND DISTRIBUTE THE
"What's Wrong With McDonald's" LEAFLETS WHATEVER THE VERDICT AT
THE END OF THE TRIAL (#12 per 1,000 from 0115 9585666) You can
help by getting it into group mailouts, conferences, marches and
meetings - as well as direct to the public on the streets.
Defying Corporate Censorship - As always, local protests continue,
including abroad. In October, following two successful Days of
Action earlier in the year, there was a month of protest - at
McDonald's HQ (returning a mountain of their litter), at their
first UK store (spoiling their 20th Anniversary celebrations), at
100 local stores nationally and in many countries worldwide (on
Anti-McDonald's Day/Oct 16th), as well as a 500-strong march
through London. There have been specific McLibel Support
Campaigns activities in Spain, Australia, USA, New Zealand,
Croatia and Italy.
Meanwhile, 3 major new initiatives were launched in 1994 (the
first two independently of the MSC):
- McDonald's Workers Support Group - a network providing advice
and encouraging solidarity among their workers - c/o 16a Bradbury
St, London N16 (Tel. 0171 249 8086).
- Kids Against Big Mac - all kids everywhere are encouraged to
set up their own local KABM groups - PO Box 287, London NW6.
- Operation 'Send-It-Back' - to collect and send back company
litter to their HQ or in protests at local stores - c/o 180
Mansfield Rd, Nottingham NG1 3HW (Tel. 0115 9585666).
McDonald's has not only failed to shut their critics up, they've
made everyone angrier still! This April is the Corporation's 40th
ANNIVERSARY. Let's make it a highly memorable occasion for them.
Please support and prepare for worldwide protests. PLEASE COPY
AND CIRCULATE THE FLYER OVERLEAF.
Every word in the available anti-McDonald's leaflet is true. We
must not tolerate the truth being silenced by censorship or legal
thuggery. In the face of mass defiance, McDonald's will be
helpless and their efforts will have totally backfired! Other
corporations will then get the message not to follow in their
footsteps, and it will be a victory for all movements for
justice.
Best wishes from all of us.
In solidarity,
McLibel Support Campaign
-------------------------------------------------------------------
APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL The Campaign is almost out of funds. The
Defendants need thousands of pounds to pay the fares of their
witnesses (many from abroad). On top of this there are basic
photocopying and admin costs etc. We ask for collections,
standing orders, sponsor-a-witness, affiliations, benefits,
donations etc. (checks to: 'McLibel Support Campaign'). Thanks!
Stop Press: 'Undercurrents' - alternative news video, including
special McLibel piece. #5.50 from us.
INTERNATIONAL DAY OF ACTION AGAINST McDONALD'S
on the day of their 40th ANNIVERSARY
PROTEST AGAINST 40 YEARS
of Junk Food, and the Exploitation of People, Animals and the
Environment.
EASTER SATURDAY
APRIL 15th 1995
CELEBRATE 10 YEARS
of Coordinated, International Protests, and Resistance by Workers,
Consumers, and Opposition Movements.
On 15th April 1955, McDonald's opened their first store in Des
Plaines, Illinois, USA. Now they operate in over 70 countries and
have approximately 15,000 stores worldwide. They are constantly
expanding, particularly at the moment into Eastern Europe and the
Baltic States. McDonald's recently announced that they are to
open 50 more stores in the UK. The exploitation of people,
animals and the environment, which they are responsible for,
increases. But at the same time, opposition to McDonald's grows.
There is criticism and protest in every country in which they
operate.
On 15th April 1995, their 40th anniversary, let's make it clear
that there are many people who are angry about the devastation of
the Earth, deaths of billions of animals, exploitation of workers,
and advertising and hype. At the same time, we will be
celebrating 10 years of international protests against McDonald's
and all they stand for.
For a society based on
health, ecology, human and animal liberation, real food and real
life.
PICKET LOCAL McDONALD'S STORES EVERYWHERE
Let's make this an Anniversary to remember.
McLibel Support Campaign, 5 Caledonian Road, London, N1 9DX.
Tel/Fax 0171 713 1269

466
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp000957.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,466 @@
US McLibel Support Campaign Press Office
c/o Vermonters Organized for Clean-up, Box 120, East Calais VT 05650
802-472-6996 or 802-586-9628, dbriars@world.std.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8th January, 1994
The Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Sixteenth & Seventeenth Weeks Of The Trial
(14th November - 9th December 1994).
CONTENTS:
The Mclibel Trial Continues
Background
Edward Oakley, For Mcdonald's, Purchasing Ractices And Policies
Fraudulent Recycling Scheme
'Excess Waste Is A Benefit'
'Nutrition Not Important'
Animals
Rainforest Beef And Soya
Political Influence?
Susan Dibb, For The Defendants, On Advertizing And Public Health
Requests Regulatory Action Against Child Ads
Pester Power
Toys And Gimicks
Use Of Characters In Ads
Government Attempts To Curb Child Advertizing
Terence Mallinson, For Mcdonalds, Use Of Forest Resources
Plantation Forestry
Casper Van Erp, For Mcdonalds, Packaging
Polystyrene And Paper
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8th January, 1994
The Mclibel Trial Continues
After several years of pre-trial hearings, the McDonalds libel case
against two environmentalists - who were allegedly involved in distribution
in 1989/1990 of the London Greenpeace leaflet "What's Wrong With McDonalds"
- began at the end of June 1994. It is set to run until DECEMBER 1995.
Background
A total of approximately 180 UK and international witnesses will give
evidence in court about the effects of the company's advertising and the
impact of its operating practices and food products on the environment, on
millions of farmed animals, on human health, on the Third World, and on
McDonalds' own staff. They will include environmental and nutritional
experts, trade unionists, McDonald's employees, animal welfare experts and
top executives.
McDonalds have claimed that wide-ranging criticisms of their operations, in
a leaflet produced by London Greenpeace, have defamed them, so they have
launched this libel action against two people (Dave Morris & Helen Steel)
involved with the group.
Prior to the start of the case, McDonald's issued leaflets nationwide
calling their critics liars. So Helen and Dave themselves took out a
counterclaim for libel against McDonald's which will run concurrently with
McDonald's libel action.
Helen and Dave were denied their right to a jury trial, at McDonalds'
request. And, with no right to Legal Aid in libel cases, they are forced
to conduct their own defense against McDonald's team of top libel lawyers.
The trial is open to members of the press and public (Court 35, Royal
Courts of Justice, The Strand, London WC2) and is set to run until DECEMBER
1995.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Sixteenth & Seventeenth Weeks Of The Trial (14th
November - 9th December 1994).
Edward Oakley, For Mcdonald's, Purchasing Ractices And Policies
Edward Oakley, Chief Purchasing Officer and Senior Vice-President of
McDonald's UK and Ireland, gave evidence about the company's purchasing
policies and practices. He is responsible for both the purchasing and
quality assurance departments, including for Northern Europe.
Mr Oakley claimed that McDonald's have a consciousness of environmental
considerations and referred to the company's 'environmental task force' and
a corporate environmental policy. He stated he did not know when this
policy was published, but he had seen it 'on a wall' at their head office.
He said the policy 'had not had any direct effect on the Purchasing
Department', but 'it certainly did on the Communications [PR] Department'.
Fraudulent Recycling Scheme
When questioned about the company's so called "Environmental initiatives",
Mr Oakley denied that these were in the main a propaganda exercise.
However, one of their nationally available 'McFact' cards publicized a
scheme to recycle polystyrene waste from Nottingham stores, where customers
were asked to put polystyrene packaging into a separate bin, "for recycling
into such things as plant pots, coat hangers and insulation material for
use in homes, even fillings for duvets". Mr Oakley admitted that despite
the scheme continuing for several years, the company did not recycle any of
the waste, and in fact the polystyrene was 'dumped'.
Mr Oakley denied that the production, transportation and disposal of
packaging was damaging to the environment. When asked why McDonald's
didn't make use of reusable plates and cutlery, Mr Oakley replied 'I do not
think it would be as safe' and asserted that disposable packaging was more
energy efficient and that 'you would certainly pollute the air through
cleaning and washing reusables. So, I think in balance take-away packaging
is better'. He admitted that the company had not seriously looked into
reusables in this country.
In recent years, the company had moved to increase their use of recycled
paper in packaging. When asked 'to what extent was the move toward
recycled content a consequence of McDonald's desire to create for itself a
user-friendly image in the public mind', Mr Oakley said 'It was a
consideration without a doubt, it was not the prime mover'. The prime
mover was a 'commercial consideration', 'the more virgin paper you use the
less is available generally, if we all only ever used virgin paper, the
price would rocket'.
Questioned about the environmental impact of paper versus polystyrene
packaging, Mr Oakley said it was six of one and half a dozen of the other.
He said McDonald's preferred to use polystyrene because they could recycle
it, but admitted that the only polystyrene being recycled was some of the
packaging from a scheme involving five stores in Manchester (the company
has over 550 stores in the UK). He claimed the company aimed to expand the
scheme, but agreed that the company 'had gone nowhere with that for the
last two years or so'.
He admitted that when McDonald's UK introduced CFCs in their polystyrene
packaging in 1986 they were aware of the ozone damage caused by CFCs in
aerosols. Press reports revealed that in 1987 Friends of the Earth had
called for a boycott of McDonald's products over the use of CFCs. The
following year, the company abandoned CFC usage, but Mr Oakley denied that
the boycott was a consideration.
'Excess Waste Is A Benefit'
In some countries, the company had abandoned or limited the use of
polystyrene packaging, in part because it was not biodegradable and took up
a lot of space in landfill sites. Mr Oakley stated that there was 'no
landfill problem in the UK'. When asked whether he believed that 'as long
as there is room in the dumps, there is no problem with dumping lots of
McDonald's waste in the ground?', Mr Oakley stated 'and everybody else's
waste, yes, that is true'. He said 'I can see [the dumping of waste] to be
a benefit, otherwise you will end up with lots of vast, empty gravel pits
all over the country'. Asked if he was 'asserting it is an environmental
benefit to dump waste in landfill sites', he stated 'It could be'.... 'yes,
it is certainly not a problem'.
Mr Oakley admitted that, with the exception of the five Manchester stores,
all post-consumer waste in the UK either ends up as litter or gets dumped
in landfill sites. Defending McDonald's use of large quantities of
packaging, he said that the use of colorful cartons with company logos was
'to put the brand across directly to the customer'....'for image, brand
image'.
'Nutrition Not Important'
McDonald's was on the record as saying it supported the dietary
recommendations (to improve the population's health) in the 'Health of the
Nation'. Mr Oakley said that the company was moving 'to lower levels of
usage' of fat and salt in the company's products. He added that reducing
salt and sugar content was 'a responsible thing to do' as it would be
'healthier for the customers'.
However, when quizzed about why McDonald's didn't oven bake its fruit pies
rather than deep frying them, Mr Oakley said that the cost of setting up
the ovens could not be justified as 'the baked apple pie does not sell any
more than the fried apple pie'.....'so why spend the money?'. When it was
suggested that the company install the ovens 'for concern for your
customers health', Mr Oakley said 'we do not see it as a concern'. He was
asked 'you do not see reducing the fat content as a concern?' and replied
'No. Why do we need to?'.
When asked if the company had considered selling fruit as an initiative to
support the 'Health of the Nation', Mr Oakley stated 'We found it was not
very practical. We are not quite sure how we would serve it. It does not
really fit in with the way we do business'..... 'If you put a fruit bowl in
there, there could be mayhem at the front counter, frankly'.
Mr Oakley said he had responsibility for the nutrition guides currently
available in McDonald's stores. When asked what 'nutritious' means in the
guide, he stated 'foods that contain nutrients'. Asked if there was any
food he knew of that is not nutritious, he said 'I do not know if you would
call it food or not, but you could put up an argument for black coffee or
black tea or mineral water'. Asked 'what about Coca Cola?', he said 'Coca
Cola has a good source of energy, no question of that'. He was then asked
if he thought it was nutritious, to which he replied 'yes, it can be'.
Mr Oakley said McDonald's did not have a department responsible solely for
nutrition. He stated that 'it is not felt to be an important enough issue
to have a separate nutritional department like the company have marketing
or communications departments'.
Animals
As part of the Quality Assurance remit, Mr Oakley said he had a
responsibility for animal welfare. He claimed that the company 'had a very
real feeling that animals should be kept and slaughtered in the most humane
way possible' and so had published an animal welfare statement two years
ago. When questioned about this so-called policy, Mr Oakley admitted that
the 'animal welfare policy is, in fact, just a policy to comply with the
laws of the various countries in which McDonald's operate', and added 'we
do not go beyond what the law stipulates'.
McDonald's eggs are supplied from battery units. Mr Oakley said the
company had thought about switching to free range eggs, but, not only were
battery eggs '50% cheaper', but, he claimed 'undoubtedly, hens kept in
batteries are better cared for, they are less open to predators, they
certainly are less open to rodents than on free range, and they are less
open to disease'. He said he thought battery cages were 'pretty
comfortable'.
Rainforest Beef And Soya
Mr Oakley said 10-20% of their UK beef supplies are from outside the UK.
He admitted that the company had purchased beef from Brazil (in 1983/4).
He claimed that it was for a relatively short period of time, but said he
was not sure how long exactly. A letter from the US Corporation to a
member of the public in the UK in 1982 stated "McDonald's has a long
standing policy of buying all of our products from suppliers in the host
country where we are doing business"......."as a result we can assure you
that the only Brazilian beef used by McDonald's is that purchased by the
six stores located in Brazil itself". Mr Oakley said he thought the letter
was referring to the finished products (hamburgers), it was not 'talking
about raw ingredients'. He denied that the purchase of Brazilian beef for
use in the UK was in breach of McDonald's policy saying 'No, it was not.
We still bought the hamburgers locally. We did not buy the ingredients
locally'.
The Defendants referred to the controversy over Brazilian sources of soya
feed for cattle. Mr Oakley admitted that cattle from the UK and elsewhere
are fed with soya, and he claimed that McDonald's had 'no policy' on soya
feed - however, this was contradicted by a 1991 Corporation policy document
which Mr Oakley claimed he had never seen.
Political Influence?
Mr Oakley stated he had had dinners with government ministers 'from time to
time', for 'informational' purposes or, for example, to get 'advice' if
they had 'planning problems for new sites'. He also accepted that Margaret
Thatcher had opened the company's Headquarters, that her former election
agent is now Head of the Communications Department, and that her former
press secretary, Bernard Ingham, is now a non-executive Director.
Susan Dibb, For The Defendants, On Advertizing And Public Health
Susan Dibb, researcher and author of reports on food advertising to
children, gave expert evidence for the Defendants on the nature and effect
of such advertising. On behalf of the National Food Alliance (NFA), which
campaigns to protect and improve the public's health, she had examined the
impact of advertising on children's food preferences and choices and had
made submissions to the Independent Television Commission (ITC) for
restrictions on food advertising to children. She had found 'that the
majority of food and drink advertisements screened during children's TV
programming are for foods/drinks that are high in fat and/or sugars - the
kind of foods which are unlikely to promote healthier eating'. There were
virtually no ads for 'fruits and vegetables and other foods which we are
being encouraged to eat more of to improve the nation's health'.
Requests Regulatory Action Against Child Ads
She believed that in the debate over the future of food advertising 'public
health should be given priority' over the wishes of advertisers. The
National Food Alliance, backed by 50 national organizations, had called for
action by regulatory bodies to restrict the content and frequency of food
advertising to children. She felt the ITC did not enforce its existing
codes effectively and it failed to consider the cumulative effects of
advertisements. To protect children's health, the NFA had called on the
ITC to ban advertising of sugary and fatty foods at times when large
numbers of children were likely to be watching television. In her view,
'the cumulative effect of much food advertising does result in harm to
children, in the sense that it encourages inappropriate nutritional
practices which will have implications for children's health and their
health in later life'.
Ms Dibb criticized McDonald's 'misleading' attempts to associate its
products with health, fitness and sport. She was also concerned about the
'underlying promotional message' in McDonald's links with schools,
dentists, etc, and in their increasing sponsorship activity, stating that
whilst it appeared to be altruistic it was 'advertising in a covert way'.
Evidence showed, she said, that 'children are highly influenced by
advertising' (some research showed them to be three times more responsive
than adults) and there was a 'causal link between advertising and food
selection... the higher the viewing for particular advertisements, the
greater the children's requests for these products'.
Pester Power
Children, described by one marketing company as an "advertisers' dream",
were effectively encouraged to wield 'pester power' over their parents. In
a recent survey nearly half of the parents of children aged over 5 said
they often gave in to buying foods they would not otherwise buy as a result
of that pester power. Almost two thirds of those questioned felt there
should be tougher restrictions on advertising of food and soft drinks to
children.
Toys And Gimicks
Ms Dibb had attended a seminar organized by and for those in the
advertising industry entitled "Pester Power - how to reach kids in 1994",
which discussed the most effective techniques for advertising to children.
McDonald's, she said, use all such techniques in their ads - seeking to
'draw children into the McDonald's world'. One such technique, featuring
collectable toys in ads rather than the food products themselves, could be
considered a 'more insidious form of advertising' (this technique is banned
in Denmark).
Use Of Characters In Ads
Concerns have been raised about whether it is right to advertise at all to
young children who cannot fully understand the purpose of ads, but in any
event she said, 'understanding advertising's purpose is no defense against
its influence'. Use of characters (such as Ronald McDonald) was a major
trend in children's food and drink marketing and could be said to 'play on
children's affection and loyalty' to those characters and 'exploit their
emotions' (despite this being against the Independent Television
Commission's advertising code). Sections of McDonald's own operations
manual, said Ms Dibb, 'appeared to be a direct exhortation to managers to
use children's emotions and particularly their love for Ronald McDonald to
bring them into the store'. Asked if she had any concerns about this Ms
Dibb said 'I do not think it is ethical'.
Government Attempts To Curb Child Advertizing
In 1977, the UK Government's 'ANNAN' Committee recommended a ban on
advertising during children's programs, and other restrictions on child-
targeted products, because they were "concerned that advertisements
increased children's desire for products which their parents could not
afford". However, the ban did not come into effect because the TV
companies' "loss of revenue" took precedence. Similarly in the USA in
1979, the Federal Trade Commission proposed a ban on TV advertising to
under 8 year olds, but was defeated by fierce opposition from the
advertising industry. However, other countries, for example Norway and
Sweden, have severe restrictions on advertising to children, and in some
instances, outright bans.
Finally, Ms Dibb stated that, if McDonald's claim to support public health
initiatives was to be believed, she would expect them to look at providing
'a more healthful range of products' and to 'positively promote good
nutrition'.
Terence Mallinson, For Mcdonalds, Use Of Forest Resources
Terence Mallinson gave evidence for McDonald's, as Chair of the 'Forests
Forever' campaign, an organization set up by the Timber Trade Federation
(of which Mr Mallinson was formerly President) to represent the interests
of the forestry and timber industries in environmental issues.
Mr Mallinson defended McDonald's annual use of millions of kilos of paper
for their packaging. He asserted that forests were sustainably managed,
but admitted that until recently this had only meant in terms of a
'sustained yield' of timber. Following pressure from environmentalists
during the 1980's, it was now widely accepted, for the first time, that
forests 'should be sustainably managed to meet the social, economic,
ecological, cultural and spiritual needs of present and future
generations'. This included protection of biodiversity. Mr Mallinson said
that 'ecological sustainability was seldom, if ever, on the agenda of
either government or industrial organizations before the period of 1988/9'.
Plantation Forestry
McDonald's packaging is derived from forests in many countries, including
the UK, Canada, USA, Scandinavia (especially Finland), Germany, Italy,
France and the Czech Republic, mostly from managed forest monoculture
plantations. In the UK, Mr Mallinson agreed that approximately half of all
our natural woodland had been felled since 1945, and the forests planted
since were mostly coniferous monocultures until recently, when
environmental concerns and pressures led to some changes. He said that the
late 80's were a 'crossroads' worldwide regarding changing forestry
practices, with most European and Scandinavian countries now recognizing
the need to diversify forest cover. However, he agreed that cultivated
plantations 'cannot contain all the biological qualities and variations
that are to be found in natural forests'.
Mr Mallinson admitted that there were particular problems with coniferous
trees, which could acidify water courses to 'a point where the fish can no
longer survive'. In the USA and Canada particularly, there had been
problems with soil erosion, in some cases leading to the silting up of
rivers
Mr Mallinson had visited two pulp mills supplying McDonald's, using trees
from forests in Scotland and Finland. He admitted that in Finland (a major
source of McDonald's paper supplies), there had been government concern
over the hundreds of animal and plant species threatened by forest
management practices. There had also been environmentalist concern during
the 1980's about plantations in the Flow Country in northern Scotland,
following which further plantations in this area were halted as, he
admitted, they had 'disturbed the balance of nature'.
In the UK, pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers are used during the
establishment phase, in around one third of the planted areas.
Environmentalists were concerned about the leaching of these chemicals into
water courses and rivers. Mr Mallinson admitted that a significant amount
of these chemicals end up in the water table. In some European countries,
use of such chemicals was banned or heavily restricted.
He said the forest industry recognized the environmental and political
pressure to increase the use of recycled paper. 'Environmental pressures',
he said, on companies like McDonald's had affected the industry and led to
a 'change in environmental attitudes'.
Casper Van Erp, For Mcdonalds, Packaging
Casper Van Erp, representing the European section of Perseco, which designs
and supplies most of McDonald's packaging worldwide, gave evidence. He
said that 'McDonald's had quite a bad name and image' in environmental
literature in the 1980's, but had 'succeeded... to move that around, that
image... to quite a positive one'. He described McDonald's concerns in
terms of a feel-good factor for customers.
Polystyrene And Paper
In comparing the production and disposal of the various types of McDonald's
packaging, he stated that both paper and polystyrene had a 'negative
impact' on the environment, requiring energy consumption to produce, and
creating, for example, water-borne waste, landfill problems, and
atmospheric emissions. In the case of paper clamshells, emissions of 'acid
gases which contribute to acid rain', and in the case of polystyrene,
hydrocarbons (which contribute to smog formation).
When asked about waste disposal problems, he said that, for example in
Germany, 'people do not want new waste disposal sites or incineration sites
close to their place..... so they are running out of landfill space'. In
Germany, McDonald's has abandoned its polystyrene clamshell packaging, as
in several other countries including the USA. In some countries, penalties
have been imposed on companies for use of disposable packaging, and there
have been threats to outlaw such packaging.
Overall, McDonald's paper packaging in Europe contained little recycled
content until the 1990's. Mr Van Erp said there was 'expected to be an
economic advantage' in continuing to increase the amount of recycled paper
used in the packaging. The recycled paper used was predominantly 'post-
industrial' paper waste rather than 'post-consumer'. In the USA, many
environmentalists opposed the use of the term 'recycled' to describe such
paper because it could deceive consumers. McDonald's in the USA now
recognized this. Due to its low 'post-consumer' content, most of the
European packaging would not qualify under McDonald's US guidelines as
'recycled'.
Mr Van Erp agreed that it was not against the law to use recycled paper in
contact with food, contradicting McDonald's UK claims that they were unable
to increase the recycled content of their packaging because it would be
illegal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All quotes are taken directly from the court transcripts. For further
details about any of the above, contact the McLibel Support Campaign.
Campaign Statement: The McLibel Support Campaign was set up to generate
solidarity and financial backing for the McLibel Defendants, who are not
themselves responsible for Campaign publicity. The Campaign is also
supportive of, but independent from, general, worldwide, grassroots anti-
McDonalds activities and protests.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. McLibel Support Campaign
Press Office c/o Vermonters Organized for Clean-up
Box 120, East Calais VT 05650 Phone 802-568-9628
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe to the "mclibel" listserve, send email
To:majordomo@world.std.com
Subject: <not needed>
Body: subscribe mclibel
To unsubscribe, change the body to "unsubscribe mclibel"

119
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp000958.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
DO YOU WORK FOR McDONALD'S?
ARE YOU SICK OF LOW WAGES?
Would you prefer a decent pay rise, guaranteed hours, overtime pay
and an end to humiliating "performance reviews"?
ARE YOU SICK OF SEEING PEOPLE INJURED?
Even McDonald's admit that burns, slips and falls etc are BIG
problems.
ARE YOU SICK OF BEING BOSSED AROUND?
Do you want RIGHTS, and freedom from being constantly watched and
treated like being in the Army? Do you want an end to harassment
and unfair dismissals?
ARE YOU SICK OF POOR WORKING CONDITIONS?
Do you want relief from continual pressures to work hard, to
'hustle', to cut corners with safety procedures? Do you want
decent breaks, and to smile when YOU feel like it?
ARE YOU SICK OF McDONALD'S?
Are you fed up with all the crawling to bigwigs from Head Office,
the company's inane propaganda, and their processed food?
DO YOU WANT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT ?
Did you know that McDonald's spends well over one billion dollars
worldwide every year on ads and promotions to boost their image -
yet they can't, for example, find a single penny to pay overtime.
The aim is: get profits UP, and wage costs DOWN.
No wonder so many chuck the job in. But those who stay can fight
to improve things....See over for details of what you can do.
Phone 0171 249 8086
to contact the McDonald's Workers Support Group.
STANDING UP TO McDONALD'S
There have been disputes and strikes in a number of countries, and
in some the company has been forced to accept trade unions and
workers' rights. In Canada last year a 16 year old crew member,
keeping it secret from management, single-handedly signed up over
half of the workers in her store into a trade union.
Managers Arrested - at this moment in France, 5 Store Managers
are awaiting trial for refusing to recognize crew members' rights
and trade union elections in their stores. A strike has also taken
place there.
McDonald's On Trial At The High Court - The company's business
practices are currently under the spotlight in a mammoth libel
trial at the High Court in London (set to continue till December
1995). Two supporters of London Greenpeace are defending leaflets
criticizing McDonald's, including a whole section criticizing crew
pay and conditions.
35 ex-workers have come forward to help them by giving evidence of
what really goes on inside the stores. This will benefit all
McDonald's workers by forcing the company onto the defensive. So
now's the time to organize!
"Its their right to join a Union if they so choose."
- Paul Preston, McDonald's UK President, in the High Court,
5.7.94
WHAT YOU CAN DO
Obviously you'll need to be careful. But you can:
- copy these leaflets to give secretly to your mates, including at
other stores
- find out and demand your legal rights, and use company grievance
procedures
- anonymously tip off local press and others about in-store
conditions (including food quality and hygiene)
- refuse to play the 'hustle' game
- build up solidarity amongst staff by getting together in the
crew room, or better still by socializing together or organizing
meetings outside the store to talk about problems
- secretly join a trade union and get others to do so as well.
HOW WE CAN HELP - We're trades unionists and low paid workers like
yourselves who've clubbed together to set up the McDonald's
Workers Support Group. We can provide information on your legal
rights - industrial tribunals, health and safety rights,
employment and anti-discrimination laws.
We can send you more of these leaflets (free), plus more detailed
ones. Also general advice on standing up to McDonald's - we've had
the same sort of experiences as you have! Most importantly we're
building up a nationwide support network to provide information
and to promote solidarity for all McDonald's workers wanting to
fight for their rights. We know that people gain confidence and
strength when they have back-up.
Some McDonald's workers have already contacted us about getting
involved. How about you and your workmates? For more details
contact us at the address/phone number below. Send us your ideas
or grievances! All info treated confidentially.
McDonald's Workers Support Group - Phone 0171 249 8086 (24hrs).
c/o Hackney Trade Union Support Unit, Colin Roach Centre, 10a
Bradbury St, London N16.

821
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp000959.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,821 @@
---------------------------------------------------------------------
US McLibel Support Campaign,
c/o Vermonters Organized for Cleanup, Box 120, E.Calais VT 05640
802-586-9628 dbriars@world.std.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
6 Months' Summary of the McLibel Trial January 1995
Nutrition
Expansion and Subversion
Just what do they mean by 'Nutritious' ?
Additives
Advertising
Destruction of Rainforests
Employees and Trade Unions
Packaging, Recycling, and Waste
Animals
Moving the Goalposts
---------------------------------------------------------------------
6 Months' Summary of the McLibel Trial January 1995
The High Court libel trial brought by the $24 billion a year McDonald's
Corporation against two unemployed London Greenpeace Supporters began in
June 1994 and is now expected to last until December 1995. It looks
certain to become one of the longest libel trials ever.
The libel is alleged to have occurred in 1989/90. Approximately 170
witnesses from the UK and around the world are giving evidence in court on
all the issues in the case, namely:
The connection between multinational companies like McDonald's, cash crops
and starvation in the third world.
The responsibility of corporations such as McDonald's for damage to the
environment, including destruction of rainforests.
The wasteful and harmful effects of the mountains of packaging used by
McDonald's and other companies.
McDonald's promotion and sale of food with a low fiber, high fat, saturated
fat, sodium and sugar content, and the links between a diet of this type
and the major degenerative diseases in western society, including heart
disease and cancer.
McDonald's exploitation of children by its use of advertisements and
gimmicks to sell unhealthy products.
The barbaric way that animals are reared and slaughtered to supply products
for McDonald's.
The lousy conditions that workers in the catering industry are forced to
work under, and the low wages paid by McDonald's.
McDonald's hostility towards trade unions.
Here follows a summary of some of the evidence from the first 6 months of
the trial:
NUTRITION
"Kiss of Death" - The Defendants asked Dr Sydney Arnott (McDonald's expert
on cancer) his opinion of the following statement: "A diet high in fat,
sugar, animal products and salt and low in fiber, vitamins and minerals is
linked with cancer of the breast and bowel and heart disease". He replied:
"If it is being directed to the public then I would say it is a very
reasonable thing to say." The court was then informed that the statement
was an extract from the London Greenpeace Factsheet. This section had been
characterized at pre-trial hearings as the central and most "defamatory"
allegation, which if proven would be the "kiss of death"* for a fast-food
company like McDonald's. On the strength of the supposed scientific
complexities surrounding this issue the Defendants had been denied their
right to a jury.
* Richard Rampton QC for McDonald's, Court of Appeal, 16th March 1994
McDonald's expert witness Professor Verner Wheelock, a consultant engaged
by the company since 1991, admitted that there is a considerable amount of
evidence that diseases such as obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure,
heart disease (which he said was the "number one health problem of the
nation"), stroke and some forms of cancer are related to a diet high in
fat, saturated fat salt and sugar and low in dietary fiber. He agreed that
"We have now reached the point where we can be very confident that diet is
the primary factor in the development of most of the degenerative diseases
in many industrialized countries" (including cancer). He also agreed with
government dietary recommendations based on such views. He admitted that a
typical McDonald's meal was high in fat, saturated fat and sodium content
(Paul Preston McDonald's UK President had earlier admitted that McDonald's
products were low in fiber) and would not come within dietary
recommendations and further that it was "not sensible" to encourage the
eating of foods high in fat, saturated fat, sugar and sodium (salt) and low
in fiber. He accepted that people were attracted to high levels of sugar
and salt and found it hard to give up the taste.
McDonald's claims to support official 'Health of the Nation' dietary
initiatives to improve the population's health but John Hawkes, Chief
Marketing Officer, admitted this had had no effect on their marketing
department. McDonald's does not have a department responsible solely for
nutrition. Edward Oakley, Senior Vice President of McDonald's UK, admitted
that "it is not felt to be an important enough issue to have a separate
nutritional department like McDonald's have marketing or communications
departments".
Geoffrey Cannon, Chairperson of the National Food Alliance of consumer
organizations, and scientific director of the World Cancer Research Fund,
was called by the Defendants as an expert on public health policy. He
stated that the US government, European Union, and World Health
Organization all recommended reducing consumption of fatty foods and
increasing consumption of fruit, vegetables and other foods containing
fiber in order to prevent a significant proportion of the large number of
deaths each year from heart disease (200,000 in the UK ) and cancer
(160,000 in the UK).
The 1990 World Health Organization (WHO) Report stated "dietary factors are
now known to influence the development of...heart disease, various cancers,
hypertension...and diabetes. These conditions are the commonnest cause of
premature death in developed countries. ...The 'affluent' type of diet
that often accompanies economic development is energy dense. People
consuming these diets characteristically have a high intake of fat
(especially saturated fat) and free sugars and a relatively low intake of
complex carbohydrates (from starchy, fiber-containing foods).
Mr Cannon agreed that for those seeking to improve the population's health
it was "not sensible or responsible to encourage people to eat foods
nutritionally worse than the dietary guidelines". Such food could "be
reasonably considered as being unhealthy" and a "negative contribution" to
the diet.
Dr Neal Barnard, President of the US Physicians' Committee for Responsible
Medicine and an expert on nutrition and health, said on behalf of the
Defendants "many products sold at McDonald's are high in fat and
cholesterol, and low in fiber and certain vitamins", and as a result these
products "contribute to heart disease, certain forms of cancer and other
diseases" (including obesity, diabetes, and hypertension). The links
between diet and these now epidemic diseases are, he said, "established
beyond any reasonable doubt", and were causal in nature. During Dr
Barnard's evidence, Richard Rampton QC (for McDonald's) conceded that "we
would all agree" that there is a link between a high fat, low fiber diet
and cancer of the breast and colon.
Dr Barnard pointed out that, in addition to the problem of consuming too
much fat and too little fiber in the diet, there is also increasing concern
in the US about the carcinogenic mutagens which form on the surface of
grilled and fried meat.
Dr Barnard stated that "McDonald's products clearly contain significantly
more fat than government guidelines and health authorities recommend".
Evidence had shown that "fatty foods tend to be habituating" and "increase
the likelihood of continued high fat intake". "McDonald's food remains
part of the problem, rather than part of the solution". He quoted the
director of a major study into heart disease, Dr William Castelli who said
"When you see the Golden Arches you're probably on the road to the pearly
gates."
Professor Michael Crawford, an expert on dietary fats and their relation to
human health, and a consultant to the World Health Organization gave
evidence for the Defendants. He emphasized the association between a high
fat diet and increased risk of cancers of the breast, colon and prostate
cancer. This is particularly evident from 'population studies' of
different countries with varied diets and disease rates, from 'migration'
studies (showing that immigrant populations soon adopted the diet and
disease rates of the country of settlement), and from the large increase of
heart disease and cancer in countries such as Japan where the modern
western diet is fast replacing traditional, healthier diets. He stated
that "not only are McDonald's encouraging the use of a style of food which
is closely associated with risk of cancer and heart disease whilst health
professionals are trying to reduce the risks to Western populations, but
they are actively promoting the same in cultures where at present these
diseases are not a problem".
Expansion and Subversion
Peter Cox, former marketing consultant, and also former Chief Executive of
the Vegetarian Society, gave evidence for the Defense as an expert on the
marketing of food. He quoted from 'Behind the Arches', a book authorized
by McDonald's in 1987, as evidence that McDonald's were engaged in 'a
strategy of subversion' by trying to alter the dietary preferences of whole
nations, 'very often for the worse'. Mr Cox read the following quotes from
'Behind the Arches':
In Japan, McDonald's faced "a fundamental challenge of establishing beef as
a common food". Their President, Den Fujita, stated "the reason Japanese
people are so short and have yellow skins is because they have eaten
nothing but fish and rice for two thousand years"; "if we eat McDonald's
hamburgers and potatoes for a thousand years we will become taller, our
skin become white and our hair blonde". The book says that Fujita "aimed
virtually all his advertising at children and young families", and that he
stated "we could teach the children that the hamburger was something good".
The company also changed eating habits in Australia. Peter Ritchie
(McDonald's Australian president) said he "attributes that change to the
influence McDonald's has on children". The book concludes that rather than
adapt to local tastes and preferences "McDonald's foreign partners made
major changes in marketing in order to sell the American system".
Professor Crawford explained how "modern beef production has become
distorted from the wild nature of food to which we are physiologically
adapted" in that modern cattle are intensively reared for fast weight gain,
resulting in unnaturally high levels of fat, particularly saturated fat.
Meat from modern domestic cattle was in excess of 25% carcass fat, compared
to 2-5% in wild animals.
Dr Tim Lobstein, co-director of the Food Commission, a consumer
organization, gave evidence for the Defense as an expert on food policy
issues. On studying eight suggested typical McDonald's 'meal combinations',
he concluded that they are "generally imbalanced with regard to their
nutrient content". He said they are "excessively fatty and salty", and
correspondingly low in "nutrient density" of several essential nutrients
such as vitamins and minerals. A Food Commission survey in 1987 had found
that 31% of people questioned at fast food stores in Peckham ate fast food
every day, and that 9% of the total sample ate burgers every day. Dr
Lobstein concluded that there were sections of the population eating an
very unbalanced diet - this view was backed by reference to other surveys.
He was particularly concerned by the diets of school children, and also by
the expansion of McDonald's promotions in schools and hospitals.
McDonald's line that their food can be eaten as part of a balanced diet
was, according to Dr Lobstein, "meaningless". He said "you could eat a
roll of cellophane tape as part of a balanced diet". Rather than using the
word 'balance', he would suggest greater consumption of healthy foods.
"McDonald's tends to take the basic food ingredients and add fat, salt and
sugar, so encouraging their customers to eat a worse diet."
Peter Cox referred to a company document from 1985 (not available in
stores) which made it absolutely clear that the company was aware even then
of the links between diet and diseases - it specified heart disease,
cancer, diabetes and obesity. It was his opinion therefore that the effect
of the company's efforts to promote their products as 'good, nutritious
food' over the years was "to debase the concept of 'healthy eating' to no
more than a cynical sales promotional ploy".
Mr Cox explained that the company's claim to be concerned about healthy
eating was not borne out by the products sold. Even their salads (still
only available in some stores) had a 'ludicrously high' fat content (over
50% calories from fat) He told how the company were now promoting their
newest menu item - the "Mega Mac" which comprises 4 meat patties and
contains huge amounts of fat and saturated fat. He said there was a huge
'credibility gap - the difference between the image portrayed...and the
reality of the food sold'. He believed that the few positive steps made
had been taken 'perhaps rather grudgingly' as a result of public pressure.
Advertising Deceit
Stephen Gardner, former Assistant Attorney General of Texas, gave evidence
for the Defense. He explained how in 1987 McDonald's began a major, but
deceptive, advertising campaign. The company claimed it was an
"informational" campaign about the content of their food. However, the
company's own internal magazine stated that the aim was " a long term
commitment beginning with a year long advertising schedule" .... "to
neutralize the junk food misconceptions about McDonald's good food." The
buzz words in almost all the ads were "nutrition", "balance" and
"McDonald's good food". After the series of ads hit the news-stands, the
Attorney General of Texas, in conjunction with the two other major states
wrote a letter to McDonald's on 24th April 1987 stating:
"The Attorneys General of Texas, California and New York have concluded our
joint review of McDonald's recent advertising campaign which claims that
McDonald's food is nutritious. Our mutual conclusion is that this
advertising campaign is deceptive. We therefore request that McDonald's
immediately cease and desist further use of this advertising campaign. The
reason for this is simple: McDonald's food is, as a whole, not nutritious.
The intent and result of the current campaign is to deceive customers into
believing the opposite. Fast food customers often choose to go to
McDonald's because it is inexpensive and convenient. They should not be
fooled into eating there because you have told them it is also nutritious.
...The new campaign appears intended to pull the wool over the public's
eyes."
The court heard that an internal company memo, reporting on a high level
meeting in March 1986 with public relations advisors prior to this
advertising campaign stated "McDonald's should attempt to deflect the basic
negative thrust of our critics.....How do we do this? By talking
'moderation and balance'. We can't really address or defend nutrition. We
don't sell nutrition and people don't come to McDonald's for nutrition".
Mr Gardener also referred the court to some of the specific examples of
inaccuracies and distortions in the 16 individual advertisements. He
related how, after the three States had threatened legal action if the ads
were repeated, McDonald's promised to stop the ads. At the current trial
McDonald's claim that the ads were not dropped and were later printed
again. However, none of the four ads they said had been run after the
threats were the specific ads referred to in the complaints and none
mentioned "nutrition", "balance" or "McDonald's good food".
Mr Gardner stated that to the average consumer the word nutritious "conveys
a sense of a healthy product that is not deleterious to one's physical
well-being. Specifically, a product that is nutritious is one that does
not contain excessive amounts of nutrients that should be avoided, such as
fats, sodium and the like"
Just what do they mean by 'Nutritious' ?
There seemed to be agreement amongst McDonald's representatives as to what
nutritious meant. Edward Oakley, Chief Purchasing Officer and Senior Vice-
President of McDonald's UK, is responsible for the nutrition guides
currently available in McDonald's stores. When asked what 'nutritious'
means in the guide he stated "foods that contain nutrients. Asked if there
was any food he knew of that is not nutritious he said "I do not know if
you would call it food or not, but you could put up an argument for black
coffee or black tea or mineral water". Asked "what about Coca Cola?", he
said "Coca Cola has a good source of energy, no question of that", he was
then asked if he thought it was nutritious, to which he stated "yes, it can
be". David Green, Senior Vice-President of Marketing (USA), had a similar
view on what nutritious meant. He also thought Coca Cola was nutritious,
he said that it was 'providing water, and I think that is part of a
balanced diet'.
Even Professor Wheelock, McDonald's, consultant on nutrition, defined the
word nutritious to mean "contains nutrients". He then accepted that all
foods have nutrients. When asked to define 'junk food' he said it was
'whatever a person doesn't like' (in his case semolina). With disbelief
mounting in the courtroom, Richard Rampton (McDonald's Q.C.) intervened to
say that McDonald's was not objecting to the description of their food as
'junk food'!
Additives
Dr Erik Millstone, an expert on food additives raised concerns about the
safety of nine additives used by McDonald's.
Sunset Yellow (E110) - a synthetic colorant, which can provoke allergic
reactions and hyperactivity; and increased incidence of tumors in animals;
banned in Norway.
Amaranth(E123) - a synthetic colorant, which can provoke asthma, eczema and
hyperactivity; it caused birth defects and foetal deaths in some animal
tests, possibly also cancer; banned in the USA, Russia and at least 5 other
countries.
Sodium Nitrite (E250) and Potassium Nitrate (E252) - preservatives and
color fixatives, which may provoke hyperactivity and other adverse
reactions; potentially carcinogenic; their use is severely restricted in
many countries.
BHA (E320) & BHT (E321) - synthetic antioxidants, which may trigger
hyperactivity and other intolerances; serious concerns over carcinogenity;
BHA is banned in Japan; in 1958 & 1963 official committees of experts
recommended that BHT be banned in the UK, however due to industry pressure
it was not banned; McDonald's eliminated BHT from their US products by
1986.
Carrageenan (E407) - stabilizer and thickening agent; linked to toxic
hazards, including ulcers and cancer; the most serious concerns relate to
degraded carrageenan, which is not a permitted additive. However, native
carrageenan, which is used, may become degraded in the gut.
Monosodium Glutamate (621) - flavor enhancer, which can cause intolerant
reactions and effect chemistry of the brain.
Potassium Bromate (924) - used as flour improver, banned in 1989 as a
dangerous carcinogen; previously widely used in bread products, including
McDonald's buns.
Dr Millstone said that as regulatory bodies judged the safety of additives,
and consequently their regulatory status largely by reference to tests on
animals, they should be consistent in interpreting results and any adverse
effects shown should be taken seriously. However in several cases where
additives had produced adverse effects (including cancer) in animals, the
additives were nonetheless permitted for use (including many of the 9
additives in issue). In contrast if an additive did not produce adverse
effects in animals it was officially assumed it would be harmless to
humans.
He believed that where there were doubts over the safety of additives the
benefit of the doubt should be given to the consumer, not to the compound
or the industry. He said "if the object of the exercise was the protection
of public health rather than helping companies negotiate their way through
regulatory hurdles" then the approach he advocated would be adopted.
Dr Millstone's view was that the additives listed should be banned because
of doubts over their safety, but in the meantime it was essential for
additives to be properly labeled. He said he could see 'no particular
difficulty at all for McDonald's in providing comprehensive ingredient
listing' on the packaging.
ADVERTISING
McDonald's Annual Report records that in 1993 worldwide expenditure for
advertising and promotions totalled $1.4 billion, about 6% of sales. $870m
is spent annually in the USA alone. McDonald's UK spend approx #35m per
year.
John Hawkes, McDonald's UK Chief Marketing Officer, said the purpose of
advertising is 'communication', and 'persuasion', to foster 'brand
awareness' and 'loyalty', in order to increase sales. 'You have to keep
your name in front of people's minds.' Without advertising, he said, 'you
might see the company decline completely'. He considered that advertising
was 'a key element of free speech in this country'.
He said that McDonald's concentrate on TV as 'the most powerful advertising
medium'. In the UK the company advertises on TV to children, in particular
2 to 8 year olds, most weeks of the year. Mr Hawkes, hoped that teaching
them McDonald's songs would "keep the memory of McDonald's at the forefront
of their minds so they can again ask their parents if they can come to
McDonald's". The company didn't target 8 to 15 year olds so much, Mr
Hawkes said. 'At that age they do not pester their parents to go to
McDonald's. It does not work in the same way'. He stated that when
McDonald's was launched in a new region or country (this included Scotland
a few years ago), the company would at first advertise exclusively to
children. He said "one of the tactics is to reach families through
children".
Incredibly, Paul Preston McDonald's UK President claimed that the character
Ronald McDonald was intended not to "sell food" to children, but to promote
the "McDonald's experience". However, he did agree that Ronald "is a
useful marketing tool". It was revealed in court that Geoffrey Guiliano,
the main Ronald McDonald actor in the 1980's had quit and publicly
apologized, stating "I brainwashed youngsters into doing wrong. I want to
say sorry to children everywhere for selling out to concerns who make
millions by murdering animals".
Extracts from the corporation's official and confidential 'Operations
Manual' were read out giving an insight into the company's strategy:
"Children are often the key decision-makers concerning where a family goes
to eat". Offering toys is "one of the best things..to make them loyal
supporters". Birthday parties are "an important way to generate added
sales and profits". Ronald McDonald "is a strong marketing tool". "Ronald
loves McDonald's and McDonald's food. And so do children, because they
love Ronald. Remember, children exert a phenomenal influence when it comes
to restaurant selection. This means that you should do everything you can
to appeal to children's love for Ronald and McDonald's."
McDonald's internal code for their ads states that an aim is to make people
feel 'a warm empathy towards the commercial' and therefore, he agreed,
'feel an empathy towards the company'. David Green, McDonald's Senior Vice
President of Marketing in the USA denied this was 'manipulating people's
emotions'. He also denied 'brainwashing children with Ronald McDonald' or
having a 'hidden agenda' in the use of Ronald. However, he recognized that
McDonald's 'could change people's eating habits' and that children were
'virgin ground as far as marketing is concerned'.
He agreed that community and charitable activity was 'a benefit to the
company' and 'good business' which gained 'free publicity', and he related
how 'educational' promotions in schools "generate better feelings" towards
McDonald's and lead to more 'patronage'.
Mr Green stated that McDonald's didn't propose that people could sensibly
eat the company's food 'as part of a diet composed largely of that kind of
food'. He said 85-95% of Americans visit McDonald's, although a quarter of
their customers ('heavy users') made 75% of all visits. 11% of visits were
from 'Super Heavy Users', who ate there 4 or more times per week. Mr Green
said their marketing strategy was to target heavy users to increase their
frequency of visits.
He denied there was a 'huge credibility gap' between the reality of
McDonald's food and the way they portrayed it.
Alistair Fairgrieve, McDonald's UK Marketing Services Manager, stated "it
is our objective to dominate the communications area...because we are
competing for a share of the customer's mind". He outlined some of the
research undertaken by the company to discover what customers were thinking
and the effects of advertising. He explained that questions were asked
about seventeen 'functional' and 'emotional' attributes which were 'ranked
in terms of importance' to McDonald's. "At the top there are the ones by
which we stand or fall." At the bottom were four categories: 'Food is
Filling', 'Good Value For Money', 'Use Top Quality Ingredients', and
finally 'Nutritious Food'.
During 1991, worried that customers were visiting less frequently, the
company conducted a survey. This revealed that such customers
characterized the company as being "loud, brash, American, successful,
complacent, uncaring, insensitive, disciplinarian, insincere, suspicious,
arrogant".
Juliet Gellatley, former Director of Youth Education and Campaigns of the
Vegetarian Society, currently Director of VIVA (an educational charity),
gave evidence for the Defense about the effects on young people of
McDonald's advertising. As Director for Youth Education she gave talks to
about 30,000 children of all ages at 500 classroom debates, and also to
thousands of adults as well on vegetarianism and related issues. Following
the talks children discussed changing their diets. On many occasions, of
those interested in "going vegetarian" some felt they couldn't because they
would be the "odd one out" or "be laughed at" if they couldn't go to
McDonald's. They often indicated that this was "because of the hype" and
when questioned further they talked about McDonald's advertisements which
they had seen. She stated she had been surprised that "McDonald's was the
only burger chain specifically mentioned" in any of the talks, and that it
came up "so often".
Ms Gellatley stated that McDonald's claim that they don't exploit children
because "children are never encouraged to ask their parents to bring them
to McDonald's" was "farcical". "Clearly the main purpose of advertising
aimed at 2 to 8 year olds is precisely to encourage children to ask their
parents to take them to McDonald's, otherwise what would be the point in
advertising directly to such young children". How could young children, she
said, "differentiate between what is real and what is not", "what is good
for them and what is bad", and "between being sold to and not being sold
to". "I think McDonald's play on that as much as they possibly can...this
is what I mean by exploiting children." She related how the younger kids
"kept mentioning...Ronald McDonald" who they "obviously looked up to" as
"just a pure and positive and fun character and something quite real to
them". She said, "younger children seem to think it did not matter how
much of McDonald's products they ate", it was "healthy and was good,
because Ronald McDonald told them that was so".
Many of the adults Ms Gellatley had talked with had also mentioned the
influence their children had in getting them to take them to what they
termed "a junk food place like McDonald's", which advertising had succeeded
in portraying as a "treat". "A lot of parents think their children eat too
much junk food", she said.
Sue Dibb, employed by the National Food Alliance to research the effects
of food advertising to children, gave expert evidence for the Defendants.
To protect children's health, the NFA had called for a ban on advertising
of sugary and fatty foods at times when large numbers of children were
likely to be watching television. (Other countries, for example Norway and
Sweden have severe restrictions on advertising to children and in some
instances, outright bans.) In her view, "the cumulative effect of much
food advertising does result in harm to children, in the sense that it
encourages inappropriate nutritional practices which will have implications
for children's health and their health in later life". She believed that
in the debate over the future of food advertising "public health should be
given priority" over the wishes of advertisers.
Children, described by one marketing company as an 'advertisers dream',
were effectively encouraged to wield 'pester power' over their parents. In
a recent survey nearly half of the parents of children aged over 5 said
they often gave in to buying foods they would not otherwise buy as a result
of that pester power. Almost two thirds of those questioned felt there
should be tougher restrictions on advertising of food and soft drinks to
children.
Ms Dibb had attended a seminar organized by and for those in the
advertising industry entitled "Pester Power - how to reach kids in 1994",
which discussed the most effective techniques for advertising to children.
McDonald's, she said, use all such techniques in their ads - seeking to
'draw children into the McDonald's world". Use of characters (such as
Ronald McDonald) was a major trend in children's food and drink marketing
and could be said to 'play on children's affection and loyalty' to those
characters and 'exploit their emotions' (despite this being against the
Independent Television Commission's (ITC) advertising code). Sections of
McDonald's own operations manual, said Ms Dibb, "appeared to be a direct
exhortation to managers to use children's emotions and particularly their
love for Ronald McDonald to bring them into the store". Asked if she had
concerns about this Ms Dibb said 'I do not think it is ethical'.
Ms Dibb criticized McDonald's 'misleading' attempts to associate its
products with health, fitness and sport. She was also concerned about the
"underlying promotional message" in McDonald's links with schools,
dentists, etc, and in their increasing sponsorship activity, stating that
whilst it appeared to be altruistic it was "advertising in a covert way".
DESTRUCTION OF RAINFORESTS
The Rainforests section of the Trial is due to begin in July. However,
during the Defendants opening speeches, internal company documents were
read to the court in which McDonald's admitted the purchase in the UK in
1983 of beef imported from Brazil, a rainforest country - something which
the company had always denied. When the Defendants attempted to question a
witness from McDonald's about these documents, Mr Rampton QC made an
objection claiming that the documents could not be used in court because
they had been 'disclosed by mistake'. Two weeks later, after the witness
had left court, just before there was to be a legal argument over this, Mr
Rampton withdrew his objection!'
Mr Oakley, Chief purchasing officer and Senior Vice President of McDonald's
UK and Ireland said he was aware that the company had purchased Brazilian
beef. He claimed it was for a relatively short period of time but said he
was not sure how long exactly. He said that McDonald's claimed policy of
not using beef which originated outside the EC Union was not brought in
until "around the mid-80's -- maybe 1986".
A letter from the US Corporation to a member of the public in the UK in
1982 stated 'McDonald's has a long standing policy of buying all of our
products from suppliers in the host country where we are doing
business'.......'as a result we can assure you that the only Brazilian beef
used by McDonald's is that purchased by the six stores located in Brazil
itself'. Mr Oakley said he thought the letter was referring to the
finished products (hamburgers), it was not "talking about raw ingredients"
He denied that the purchase of Brazilian beef for use in the UK was in
breach of McDonald's policy saying "No, it was not. We still bought the
hamburgers locally. We did not buy the ingredients locally".
Despite objections by the corporation's highly-paid barrister, during the
opening speeches an extract from the TV documentary 'Jungleburger' was
shown, in which McDonald's beef suppliers in Costa Rica, stated that they
also supplied beef for use by McDonald's in the USA. On top of this
McDonald's had admitted that in Costa Rica their stores used beef reared on
ex-rainforest land (deforested as recently as 10 years previously) contrary
to their own propaganda.
EMPLOYEES AND TRADE UNIONS
The Employment section of the Trial, probably the largest section, is due
to begin in March, but last July, Paul Preston, McDonald's UK President,
said he did not consider the current starting wage of #3.10 an hour for
crew members to be low pay. However, when asked, he refused to reveal his
own salary. When asked why the company couldn't pay higher wages to crew
members out of the $1 billion dollars profits it made last year, he claimed
that "people are paid a wage for the job they do", even though he had
earlier agreed that crew members worked hard and their job was more
physically demanding than his own. When asked if the company could use its
$1 billion advertising budget to pay higher wages he stated that without
advertising the company would have "no business".
A taster of the abundant evidence to come on McDonald's attitude to trade
unions was provided by Robert Beavers, Senior Vice-President of the
corporation in the USA. He agreed that in the early 70's, at a time when
trade unions were trying to organize in McDonald's in the US, the company
set up a "flying squad" of experienced managers who were despatched to a
restaurant the same day that word came in of an attempt by workers to
unionize it. Unions made no headway in the company.
Paul Preston said that if employees wanted to then "they should join" a
trade union. However, in two incidents in London in the 1980's when staff
had expressed an interest in joining trade unions, managers had called
McDonald's UK head of 'Human Resources' to the stores to "talk" to the
discontented staff.
PACKAGING, RECYCLING & WASTE
Paul Preston, McDonald's UK President, asserted that styrofoam packaging is
less environmentally damaging than using plates, knives and forks! He also
said that if one million customers each bought a soft drink, he would not
expect more than 150 cups to end up as litter. Photographs were then put
to Mr Preston, which showed 27 pieces of McDonald's litter in one stretch
of pavement alone (the company has over 550 stores in the UK and serves a
million customers each day).
Edward Oakley, Chief purchasing officer and Senior Vice-President of
McDonald's UK, claimed that McDonald's have a consciousness of
environmental considerations and referred to the company's 'environmental
task force' and a corporate environmental policy. He stated he did not know
when this policy was published, but had seen it 'on a wall' at their head
office He said the policy "had not had any direct effect on the
purchasing department", but "it certainly did on the Communications [PR]
department".
He denied that the company's so called "Environmental Initiatives" were, in
the main, a propaganda exercise. However, one of the company's nationally
available 'McFact' cards publicized a scheme to recycle polystyrene waste
from Nottingham stores, where customers were asked to put polystyrene
packaging into a separate bin, "for recycling into such things as plant
pots, coat hangers and insulation material for use in homes, even fillings
for duvets". Mr Oakley admitted that despite the scheme continuing for
several years, the company did not recycle any of the waste and in fact the
polystyrene was "dumped". (Note: Recent press reports from New Zealand
indicate that a similar scheme was in operation there, which was also
exposed as a sham).
Questioned about the environmental impact of paper versus polystyrene
packaging Mr Oakley said it was six of one and half a dozen of the other.
He said McDonald's preferred to use polystyrene because they could recycle
it, but admitted that the only polystyrene being recycled was some of the
packaging from a scheme involving five stores in Manchester (the company
has over 550 stores in the UK). He claimed the company aimed to expand the
scheme, but agreed that the company "had gone nowhere with that for the
last two years or so".
Dumping waste 'an environmental benefit'!
In some countries the company had abandoned or limited the use of
polystyrene packaging, in part because it was not biodegradable and took up
a lot of space in landfill sites. Mr Oakley stated that there was "no
landfill problem in the UK" Questioned as to whether he believed that "as
long as there is room in the dumps, there is no problem with dumping lots
of McDonald's waste in the ground?" Mr Oakley said "and everybody else's
waste, yes, that is true". He said "I can see [the dumping of waste] to be
a benefit, otherwise you will end up with lots of vast, empty gravel pits
all over the country." Asked if he was "asserting it is an environmental
benefit to dump waste in landfill sites" he stated "It could be".... "yes,
it is certainly not a problem".
Mr Oakley admitted that with the exception of the five Manchester stores
all post-consumer waste in the UK either ends up as litter or gets dumped
in landfill sites. He defended McDonald's use of large quantities of
packaging, and said that the use of colorful cartons with company logos was
"to put the brand across directly to the customer"...."for image, brand
image".
Robert Langert, Director of Environmental Affairs of the McDonald's
Corporation, USA, admitted that very little recycled paper was used in
McDonald's packaging before 1990 He also accepted that CFCs (used in
McDonald's polystyrene foam food packaging) were banned by the US Congress
as an aerosol propellant in 1978, but he said that McDonald's was not aware
of CFC/ozone depletion as an issue until the mid-80's. Following worldwide
concern over CFCs, McDonald's had phased out use of CFCs and HCFCs.
However, the 'Environmental Affairs' Manager of Perseco (the sole supplier
of McDonald's packaging in over 60 countries), admitted that in 1989 these
were still being used in 29 countries, and that even now HCFCs are used in
the Philippines and Turkey.
Professor Duxbury, expert witness for McDonald's, agreed that CFCs & HCFCs
caused damage to the ozone layer and that in 1988 McDonald's used
"significant" quantities of these chemicals. He further said that
McDonald's present UK blowing agent, pentane, contributes to smog formation
and the greenhouse effect.
Mr Oakley admitted that when UK McDonald's introduced CFCs in their
polystyrene packaging in 1986 they were aware of the ozone damage caused by
CFCs in aerosols. He claimed the company was not aware of similar concerns
over the use of CFCs in packaging until later that year. It then took
until 1988 for McDonald's to cease using CFCs in this country. Press
reports revealed that in 1987 Friends of the Earth had called for a boycott
of McDonald's products over this issue, but Mr Oakley denied that this was
a consideration in the decision to cease use of CFCs.
Defense expert witness from the USA, Brian Lipsett, explained how the
'McToxics' campaign galvanized thousands of protests and official bans and
forced McDonald's to withdraw their polystyrene foam food packaging in the
US. He identified the problems associated with styrofoam - toxic wastes,
damage to the ozone layer and smog pollution; the leaching of styrene from
the packaging into the foods packaged in the foam; and the serious disposal
problems - the sheer volume of the material and the lack of a suitable
method of disposal. McDonald's has continued to use styrofoam in many
countries, including the UK.
Professor Walker, McDonald's toxicology expert, agreed that styrene can
migrate from polystyrene packaging into food (especially fatty foods). He
said that the International Agency for the Research on Cancer had
classified styrene as possibly carcinogenic to humans. Also styrene can be
metabolized in the body into styrene oxide, which he said appeared to be
much more hazardous to human health.
ANIMALS
The Trial is currently listening to evidence on this topic (until late
February). Edward Oakley stated that he was also responsible for the
Quality Assurance Department at McDonald's. As part of his remit he said
he had a responsibility for animal welfare. He claimed that the company
"had a very real feeling that animals should be kept and slaughtered in the
most humane way possible" and so had published an animal welfare statement
two years ago. When questioned about this so-called policy Mr Oakley
admitted that the "animal welfare policy is, in fact, just a policy to
comply with the laws of the various countries in which McDonald's operate",
and added "we do not go beyond what the law stipulates".
Dr Neville Gregory, McDonald's expert witness on the rearing and slaughter
of animals, said that chickens used to make 'Chicken McNuggets' and
'McChicken sandwiches' were crammed into sheds, with less that the size of
an A4 sheet of paper per bird and no access to daylight. 44% of the
chickens had leg abnormalities and other health problems occurred. Chicks
rejected by the company were dumped into dustbin-sized containers and
gassed.
At age 6-7 weeks birds were transported to the slaughterhouse, where they
were hung upside down before being electrically stunned in water. Up to
14% of the chickens received pre-stun shocks, which cause distress and can
be painful. 1% of birds (around 1350 per day) were decapitated without
being stunned, which Dr Gregory agreed could cause suffering. A further 1%
were not dead on entering the scalding tank. He agreed that the stunning
and killing methods used did not comply with the government's Codes of
Practice, and might lead to distress and pain for the birds.
Mr Oakley claimed that the company "will not purchase from any supplier who
does not conform to the Codes of Practice of this Country". He said that
if it came to the company's attention that animals were not being properly
stunned before being slaughtered "we would discontinue purchasing from the
supplier".
Dr Gregory said McDonald's egg suppliers kept chickens in battery cages, 5
chickens to a cage with even less space per bird than the broiler chickens
and with no freedom of movement and no access to fresh air or sunshine. Mr
Oakley said McDonald's had thought about switching to free range eggs, but,
not only were battery eggs "50% cheaper", but, he claimed "hens kept in
batteries are better cared for". He said he thought battery cages were
"pretty comfortable".
Dr Gregory related that at least 40% of piglets reared for McDonald's
products were raised in indoor breeding units. All pigs had their teeth
clipped and one in four had their tails docked. When they reached 40kg the
pigs were transferred to fattening units, where for the last part of their
lives there was only half a square meter of floor space per pig.
Dr Gregory stated that abattoirs supplying McDonald's beef supplier used
mainly ex-dairy cows. He accepted that dairy cows were subjected to stress,
pain, exhaustion, and disease due to being forced to be almost constantly
pregnant and milked. When they became unproductive after only a few years
they were sent to be slaughtered for McDonald's burgers. Electric goads
were used to force the cows into stunning pens. Cattle were stunned with a
captive bolt pistol to the head. Dr Gregory stated that "the accuracy of
shooting was not particularly good". Half of the skulls examined showed an
inaccurate aim. Imperfect stunning was estimated at 3.7%.
Dr Gregory said that suppliers in general felt that using more effective
(higher) stunning currents would affect meat quality, and also that slower
killing lines (allowing increased accuracy) would affect profits. He
accepted that during inspections slaughter rates are often slowed down
because "people are more careful about what they are doing when they are
being scrutinized". (Helen & Dave have been unable to independently verify
conditions as their expert witnesses have been denied access to the
relevant establishments.)
MOVING THE GOALPOSTS
After the destruction of McDonald's case on the links between diet and
cancer (see "Kiss of Death" above), McDonald's applied and were given
permission to amend their Statement of Claim (issued in September 1990) in
this area, despite vigorous protests by the Defendants. The Statement of
Claim is the basis of the action, so McDonald's have been able to move the
goalposts after most of the evidence in this area has been heard. The
Defendants may now have to prove the statement (not contained in the London
Greenpeace Factsheet) that "McDonald's sell meals which cause cancer and
heart disease in their customers". Helen and Dave may be forced to recall
some witnesses to be cross-examined again. In addition to the issue of
diet and cancer, McDonald's have changed their case on the Animals issue.
They are no longer objecting to the terms 'torture' and 'murder' being used
to describe the rearing and slaughter of animals to make McDonald's
burgers, but have widened the issues in dispute in this area of the case.
Before the trial began, McDonald's did their utmost to avoid legal
obligations to disclose relevant company documents and answer the
Defendants' questions. This has been a continuing controversy during the
trial with McDonald's suddenly producing new documents half way through
their witnesses evidence, but also with numerous arguments to get further
documents which the company does not want to disclose. An important
document which, when disclosed, had been 95% blanked out by McDonald's QC,
was finally obtained complete after nearly a year of effort, but not until
after the relevant witnesses had given their evidence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Campaign Statement: The McLibel Support Campaign was set up to generate solidarity and financial backing for the McLibel Defendants, who are not themselves responsible for Campaign publicity. The Campaign is also supportive of, but independent from, general, worldwide, grassroots anti-McDonald's activities and protests.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. McLibel Support Campaign
Press Office c/o Vermonters Organized for Clean-up
Box 120, East Calais VT 05650 Phone 802-568-9628
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe to the "mclibel" listserve, send email
To:majordomo@world.std.com
Subject: <not needed>
Body: subscribe mclibel
To unsubscribe, change the body to "unsubscribe mclibel"

73
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp000960.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
**************** McDONALDS QUOTES *****************
Quotes are taken from trial updates and various other named
sources. If you have a contribution for the quote list
please mail me at <coniberr@cs.man.ac.uk>
"I brainwashed youngsters into doing wrong. I want to say sorry
to children everywhere for selling out to concerns who make
millions by murdering animals."
-Geoffrey Guiliano, the main Ronald McDonald actor in the
1980's who quit and publicly apologised
"A diet high in fat, sugar, animal products and salt, and low in
fibre, vitamins and minerals,is linked with cancer of the breast
and bowel and heart disease."
-McLibel defendants quoting London Greenpeace Factsheet
"If it is being directed to the public then I would say it is a
very reasonable thing to say."
-Dr Sidney Arnott, McDonalds expert witness on cancer
"it is our objective to dominate the communications area ...
because we are competing for a share of the customer's mind".
-Alistair Fairgrieve, McDonalds UK Marketing Services Manager
-during the McLibel trial
"you could eat a roll of sellotape as part of a balanced diet"
-Dr Tim Lobstein, co-director of the Food Commission consumer
-organisation, giving evidence for the Defence, considering
-McDonalds line that their food "can be eaten as part of a
-balanced diet"
"the reason Japanese people are so short and have yellow skins
is because they have eaten nothing but fish and rice for two
thousand years"; "if we eat McDonald's hamburgers and potatoes
for a thousand years we will become taller, our skin become
white and our hair blonde".
McDonalds Japanese President, Den Fujita from the book,
"Behind the Arches," sanctioned by McDonalds.
"It was not her sex appeal but the obvious relish with which she
devoured the hamburger that made my pulse begin to hammer with
excitement".
Ray Kroc, McDonalds founder in his autobiography.
( can anyone confirm this, I haven't read the book ? )
"On any given day, McDonalds serves less than one half of one
percent of the world's population. That's not enough. We're like
Oliver Twist, we want more"
Michael Quinlan, Chief Executive of McDonalds quoted in
'The Independent' on 27.4.94
--------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. McLibel Support Campaign
Press Office c/o Vermonters Organized for Clean-up
Box 120, East Calais VT 05650 Phone 802-568-9628
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe to the "mclibel" listserve, send email
To:majordomo@world.std.com
Subject: <not needed>
Body: subscribe mclibel
To unsubscribe, change the body to "unsubscribe mclibel"

88
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp000961.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
JFK and the popular mind
Robin Ramsay.
There are certain events in American history which serve as the focal
points of ideological struggle between left and right: the 1930s
depression, the entry of the USA into World War II, the guilt or innocence
of Alger Hiss - and the Kennedy assassination . Take the massive
Anglo-American media attention devoted to Edward J. Epstein's book Legend
in 1973. In that Epstein sought to re-establish the Warren Commission's
verdict that Lee Harvey Oswald alone did the dirty deed; but adding to it
the suggestion t hat he had been got at by the KGB. Oswald was still a
'lone nut' but somehow the KGB's 'lone nut'. In fact, despite spending a
great deal of Readers=D5 Digest research money, Epstein found no evidence
that Oswald was KGB, and his rehash of the Warren Comm-i ssion's version
of the shooting in Dallas was as inept as its progenitor. Why did he do
it? Epstein was by then the spokesman for James Jesus Angleton, the
paranoid former head of CIA Counter Intelligence who had been sacked in
1974. Angleton believed that Oswald was KGB because a KGB defector to the
CIA called Nosenko had sai d that he (Oswald) wasn=D5t KGB, and Angleton
believed that Nosenko was a false defector. Angleton had also been very
close to the Israeli government since the late 1940s and in 1978 the
Israeli government - and the Israeli lobby in the United States - were
enthusiastic supporters of the Second Cold War then being cranked up in
the United States. The logic of the position looked like this: Israel
needed continued U.S. support, and that support had been waning ever since
the OPEC oil price rise of 1973. Such support could best be ensured by
presenting Israel as the United States' most reliable, ant i-Soviet ally
in the Middle East. (There are the occasional hints that Israeli
intelligence had a hand in the Italian 'strategy of tension' simply to
help undermine U.S. confidence in Italy, Israel's main regional rival in
the Friends-of-the-USA contest.)
But the Israeli role was only plausible if there actually was a perceived
Soviet 'threat'. Epstein's repackaging of Oswald as KGB was a handy,
bite-sized piece of psychological warfare in that campaign. If we add the
final pieces; that the CIA seems to have had some kind of relationship
with the Reader's Digest - who funded Epstein's 'research' - since the
early years of the First Cold War; that Epstein's book appeared in time to
pre-empt the report of t he House Select Committee on Assassinations, then
you have the pieces in a puzzle to which only Epstein knows the solution.
Fourteen years and three disastrous terms of infantile rightwing
Republican government later, Oliver Stone reworks the shooting in Dallas
from a (vaguely) left perspective. And - to no-one's surprise - where
Epstein's version got oceans of sycophantic att ention in the
Anglo-American media, Stone gets hammered before the film has even been
shot. At the centre of the Stone movie are Jim Garrison, the New Orleans
DA, and Clay Shaw, the gay businessman Garrison charged with conspiracy to
kill the President. How things change. . . Two years ago issue 20 of
Lobster included a long analysis of the UK n ames in Clay Shaw's address
book. It evinced one letter, from a Daily Mirror journalist, who described
the piece as 'quintessential Lobster'- i.e. of interest to few,
fascinating nonetheless, and unlikely to find a publisher anywhere else.
When Stone's mo vie was released here he rang to ask if he could use the
Shaw material in a piece he thought he had sold to the Sunday Times. (The
story didn't appear, in the end.) But Shaw had gone from being
ultra-obscure to mainstream in about 3 months - thanks to JFK . When did a
cultural event change the climate so fast and so permanently in this
country? 'Cathy Come Home' in the mid sixties? I liked Stone's film,
despite its sentimentality, the soapy domestic scenes chez 'Garrison' and
the preposterous closing speech. It is a remarkable piece of mainstream
narrative cinema (with one dazzling cameo from Ed Asner as Guy Bannister).
My only mino r quibble would be that missing from Stone's narrative are
the people who published criticisms of the Warren Commission Report before
Jim Garrison began in 1967. Credit where credit is due: that the Warren
Commission didn't get away with their snow job ab out Oswald, is down to
the work of the assassination buffs. In 1964 virtually the entire U.S.
establishment - media, politicians, U.S. state authorities, CIA etc. -
agreed on the 'lone nut' solution. Against them were ranged a handful of
Americans - a goo dly proportion of them women, Mae Brussel and Sylvia
Meagher, for example - who knew they were being sold a pup and refused to
buy it. Facing massive hostility, ridicule and, in some cases, harassment
from the state authorities, the JFK assassination buff s persisted and
eventually overturned the official version of reality. This is a
remarkable achievement that Stone might just have nodded towards. Finally,
the impact of the film illustrates the problems for the security apparatus
of the nation state now represented by the global media. Twenty or thirty
years ago it was possible for the National Security apparatus to put out a
line to its agents of influence inside the mass media - as the CIA did
against Jim Garrison, Mark Lane and other critics of the Warren Commission
- and what was called 'the mighty Wurlitzer' of CIA propaganda would crank
into action. These days it is more difficult to rubbish a book or film out
of existence. The pre-release assaults on Stone in the U.S. media served
simply as global PR for the film. The U.S. government has not yet learned
the lesson the British state learned during its attempts to suppress Spy
Catcher.=20

270
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp000962.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,270 @@
Gilles Deleuze, "Postscript on the Societies of Control", from
_OCTOBER_ 59, Winter 1992, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp.
3-7.
OCTOBER (ISSN 0162-2870) (ISBN 0-262-75209-3) is published quarterly
(Summer, Fall, Winter, Spring) by the MIT Press, 55 Hayward Street,
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142 and London, England.
This essay, which first appeared in _L'Autre journal_, no. 1 (May
1990), is included in the forthcoming translation of _Pourparlers_
(Paris: Editions Minuit, 1990), to be published by Columbia
University Press.
---
"Postscript on the Societies of Control"
Gilles Deleuze
1. Historical
Foucault located the _disciplinary societies_ in the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries; they reach their height at the
outset of the twentieth. They initiate the organization of vast
spaces of enclosure. The individual never ceases passing from one
closed environment to another, each having its own laws: first the
family; then the school ("you are no longer in your family"); then
the barracks ("you are no longer at school"); then the factory;
from time to time the hospital; possibly the prison, the preeminent
instance of the enclosed environment. It's the prison that serves
as the analogical model: at the sight of some laborers, the heroine
of Rossellini's _Europa '51_ could exclaim, "I thought I was seeing
convicts."
Foucault has brilliantly analyzed the ideal project of these
environments of enclosure, particularly visible within the factory:
to concentrate; to distribute in space; to order in time; to
compose a productive force within the dimension of space-time whose
effect will be greater than the sum of its component forces. But
what Foucault recognized as well was the transience of this model:
it succeeded that of the _societies of sovereignty_, the goal and
functions of which were something quite different (to tax rather
than to organize production, to rule on death rather than to
administer life); the transition took place over time, and Napoleon
seemed to effect the large-scale conversion from one society to the
other. But in their turn the disciplines underwent a crisis to the
benefit of new forces that were gradually instituted and which
accelerated after World War II: a disciplinary society was what we
already no longer were, what we had ceased to be.
We are in a generalized crisis in relation to all the
environments of enclosure--prison, hospital, factory, school,
family. The family is an "interior," in crisis like all other
interiors--scholarly, professional, etc. The administrations in
charge never cease announcing supposedly necessary reforms: to
reform schools, to reform industries, hospitals, the armed forces,
prisons. But everyone knows that these institutions are finished,
whatever the length of their expiration periods. It's only a
matter of administering their last rites and of keeping people
employed until the installation of the new forces knocking at the
door. These are the _societies of control_, which are in the
process of replacing disciplinary societies. "Control" is the name
Burroughs proposes as a term for the new monster, one that Foucault
recognizes as our immediate future. Paul Virilio also is
continually analyzing the ultrarapid forms of free-floating control
that replaced the old disciplines operating in the time frame of a
closed system. There is no need to invoke the extraordinary
pharmaceutical productions, the molecular engineering, the genetic
manipulations, although these are slated to enter the new process.
There is no need to ask which is the toughest regime, for it's
within each of them that liberating and enslaving forces confront
one another. For example, in the crisis of the hospital as
environment of enclosure, neighborhood clinics, hospices, and day
care could at first express new freedom, but they could participate
as well in mechanisms of control that are equal to the harshest of
confinements. There is no need to fear or hope, but only to look
for new weapons.
2. Logic
The different internments of spaces of enclosure through which
the individual passes are independent variables: each time one us
supposed to start from zero, and although a common language for all
these places exists, it is _analogical_. One the other hand, the
different control mechanisms are inseparable variations, forming a
system of variable geometry the language of which is numerical
(which doesn't necessarily mean binary). Enclosures are _molds_,
distinct castings, but controls are a _modulation_, like a
self-deforming cast that will continuously change from one moment
to the other, or like a sieve whose mesh will transmute from point
to point.
This is obvious in the matter of salaries: the factory was a
body that contained its internal forces at the level of
equilibrium, the highest possible in terms of production, the
lowest possible in terms of wages; but in a society of control, the
corporation has replaced the factory, and the corporation is a
spirit, a gas. Of course the factory was already familiar with the
system of bonuses, but the corporation works more deeply to impose
a modulation of each salary, in states of perpetual metastability
that operate through challenges, contests, and highly comic group
sessions. If the most idiotic television game shows are so
successful, it's because they express the corporate situation with
great precision. The factory constituted individuals as a single
body to the double advantage of the boss who surveyed each element
within the mass and the unions who mobilized a mass resistance; but
the corporation constantly presents the brashest rivalry as a
healthy form of emulation, an excellent motivational force that
opposes individuals against one another and runs through each,
dividing each within. The modulating principle of "salary
according to merit" has not failed to tempt national education
itself. Indeed, just as the corporation replaces the factory,
_perpetual training_ tends to replace the _school_, and continuous
control to replace the examination. Which is the surest way of
delivering the school over to the corporation.
In the disciplinary societies one was always starting again
(from school to the barracks, from the barracks to the factory),
while in the societies of control one is never finished with
anything--the corporation, the educational system, the armed
services being metastable states coexisting in one and the same
modulation, like a universal system of deformation. In _The
Trial_, Kafka, who had already placed himself at the pivotal point
between two types of social formation, described the most fearsome
of judicial forms. The _apparent acquittal_ of the disciplinary
societies (between two incarcerations); and the _limitless
postponements_ of the societies of control (in continuous
variation) are two very different modes of juridicial life, and if
our law is hesitant, itself in crisis, it's because we are leaving
one in order to enter the other. The disciplinary societies have
two poles: the signature that designates the _individual_, and the
number or administrative numeration that indicates his or her
position within a _mass_. This is because the disciplines never
saw any incompatibility between these two, and because at the same
time power individualizes and masses together, that is, constitutes
those over whom it exercises power into a body and molds the
individuality of each member of that body. (Foucault saw the origin
of this double charge in the pastoral power of the priest--the
flock and each of its animals--but civil power moves in turn and by
other means to make itself lay "priest.") In the societies of
control, on the other hand, what is important is no longer either
a signature or a number, but a code: the code is a _password_,
while on the other hand disciplinary societies are regulated by
_watchwords_ (as much from the point of view of integration as from
that of resistance). The numerical language of control is made of
codes that mark access to information, or reject it. We no longer
find ourselves dealing with the mass/individual pair. Individuals
have become _"dividuals,"_ and masses, samples, data, markets, or
_"banks."_ Perhaps it is money that expresses the distinction
between the two societies best, since discipline always referred
back to minted money that locks gold as numerical standard, while
control relates to floating rates of exchange, modulated according
to a rate established by a set of standard currencies. The old
monetary mole is the animal of the space of enclosure, but the
serpent is that of the societies of control. We have passed from
one animal to the other, from the mole to the serpent, in the
system under which we live, but also in our manner of living and in
our relations with others. The disciplinary man was a
discontinuous producer of energy, but the man of control is
undulatory, in orbit, in a continuous network. Everywhere _surfing_
has already replaced the older _sports_.
Types of machines are easily matched with each type of
society--not that machines are determining, but because they
express those social forms capable of generating them and using
them. The old societies of sovereignty made use of simple
machines--levers, pulleys, clocks; but the recent disciplinary
societies equipped themselves with machines involving energy, with
the passive danger of entropy and the active danger of sabotage;
the societies of control operate with machines of a third type,
computers, whose passive danger is jamming and whose active one is
piracy or the introduction of viruses. This technological
evolution must be, even more profoundly, a mutation of capitalism,
an already well-known or familiar mutation that can be summed up as
follows: nineteenth-century capitalism is a capitalism of
concentration, for production and for property. It therefore
erects a factory as a space of enclosure, the capitalist being the
owner of the means of production but also, progressively, the owner
of other spaces conceived through analogy (the worker's familial
house, the school). As for markets, they are conquered sometimes
by specialization, sometimes by colonization, sometimes by lowering
the costs of production. But in the present situation, capitalism
is no longer involved in production, which it often relegates to
the Third World, even for the complex forms of textiles,
metallurgy, or oil production. It's a capitalism of higher-order
production. It no-longer buys raw materials and no longer sells the
finished products: it buys the finished products or assembles
parts. What it wants to sell is services but what it wants to buy
is stocks. This is no longer a capitalism for production but for
the product, which is to say, for being sold or marketed. Thus is
essentially dispersive, and the factory has given way to the
corporation. The family, the school, the army, the factory are no
longer the distinct analogical spaces that converge towards an
owner--state or private power--but coded figures--deformable and
transformable--of a single corporation that now has only
stockholders. Even art has left the spaces of enclosure in order to
enter into the open circuits of the bank. The conquests of the
market are made by grabbing control and no longer by disciplinary
training, by fixing the exchange rate much more than by lowering
costs, by transformation of the product more than by specialization
of production. Corruption thereby gains a new power. Marketing
has become the center or the "soul" of the corporation. We are
taught that corporations have a soul, which is the most terrifying
news in the world. The operation of markets is now the instrument
of social control and forms the impudent breed of our masters.
Control is short-term and of rapid rates of turnover, but also
continuous and without limit, while discipline was of long
duration, infinite and discontinuous. Man is no longer man
enclosed, but man in debt. It is true that capitalism has retained
as a constant the extreme poverty of three-quarters of humanity,
too poor for debt, too numerous for confinement: control will not
only have to deal with erosions of frontiers but with the
explosions within shanty towns or ghettos.
3. Program
The conception of a control mechanism, giving the position of
any element within an open environment at any given instant
(whether animal in a reserve or human in a corporation, as with an
electronic collar), is not necessarily one of science fiction.
F lix Guattari has imagined a city where one would be able to leave
one's apartment, one's street, one's neighborhood, thanks to one's
(dividual) electronic card that raises a given barrier; but the
card could just as easily be rejected on a given day or between
certain hours; what counts is not the barrier but the computer that
tracks each person's position--licit or illicit--and effects a
universal modulation.
The socio-technological study of the mechanisms of control,
grasped at their inception, would have to be categorical and to
describe what is already in the process of substitution for the
disciplinary sites of enclosure, whose crisis is everywhere
proclaimed. It may be that older methods, borrowed from the former
societies of sovereignty, will return to the fore, but with the
necessary modifications. What counts is that we are at the
beginning of something. In the _prison system_: the attempt to
find penalties of "substitution," at least for petty crimes, and
the use of electronic collars that force the convicted person to
stay at home during certain hours. For the _school system_:
continuous forms of control, and the effect on the school of
perpetual training, the corresponding abandonment of all university
research, the introduction of the "corporation" at all levels of
schooling. For the _hospital system_: the new medicine "without
doctor or patient" that singles out potential sick people and
subjects at risk, which in no way attests to individuation--as they
say--but substitutes for the individual or numerical body the code
of a "dividual" material to be controlled. In the _corporate
system_: new ways of handling money, profits, and humans that no
longer pass through the old factory form. These are very small
examples, but ones that will allow for better understanding of what
is meant by the crisis of the institutions, which is to say, the
progressive and dispersed installation of a new system of
domination. One of the most important questions will concern the
ineptitude of the unions: tied to the whole of their history of
struggle against the disciplines or within the spaces of enclosure,
will they be able to adapt themselves or will they give way to new
forms of resistance against the societies of control? Can we
already grasp the rough outlines of the coming forms, capable of
threatening the joys of marketing? Many young people strangely
boast of being "motivated"; they re-request apprenticeships and
permanent training. It's up to them to discover what they're being
made to serve, just as their elders discovered, not without
difficulty, the telos of the disciplines. The coils of a serpent
are even more complex that the burrows of a molehill.

429
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp000963.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,429 @@
non serviam #13
***************
Contents: Editor's Word
S.E. Parker: Preface
John C. Smith: Last and First Words
Frank Jordan: In Praise of Max
Paul Rowlandson: Stirner, Youth and Tradition
***********************************************************************
Editor's Word
_____________
This issue of Non Serviam is an end and a beginning. This issue
(#13), and issue 14, do together contain the last issue of Sid Parker's
"Ego", whose place in the world is now taken over by Non Serviam, and
it is also a proper demarcation of the establishing of Stirner in
Cyberspace. As you will see from Sid's preface below, this is the 150th
year that Der Einzige und Sein Eigentum has existed. It is also one of
the first years that the English version of the book is available
electronically [FTP etext.archive.umich.edu, and change directory to
/Pub/Politics/Non.Serviam].
The texts below are invited "appreciations" of Stirner's book,
written for the commemorative issue of "Ego". If it appeals to you,
you might be interested in knowing that Sid Parker will not lay off
totally, but continue with some 1-2 A4 page "viewsletters", and will
send these to interested persons writing to him at 19 St. Stephen's
Gardens, London W2 5QU.
Svein Olav
____________________________________________________________________
PREFACE
S.E. Parker
Although the first edition of the Ego and His Own (Der Einzige und
Sein Eigenthum) bore the date 1845, it in fact appeared towards the end
of October 1844. This year is therefore the 150th anniversary of its
publication.
Otto Wigand, its Leipzig Publisher, was well aware that such a work
might feel the weight of the disapproval of the Saxon Censorship Board
and resorted to a ruse which he hoped would enable the book to be
distributed even if the censors condemned it. As soon as the copy he
was legally obliged to deposit at the Government Office was receipted
Wigand set about delivering the remaining copies to booksellers so that
any confiscators would find his warehouse empty. To a large degree he
succeeded. Nonetheless, the censors still managed to seize 250 copies
of the 1000 printed. After a few days, however, the confiscation order
was withdrawn on the grounds that Stirner's book was "too absurd" to
warrant censorship. In other words, the censors could not understand
it! The Ego and His Own was also banned in Prussia, Kurkessen and
Mecklenburg Schwerin, but although these bans were never lifted, this
did not stop copies being obtained and read by anyone interested.
Since then The Ego and His Own has been reprinted many times and
has been translated into many languages. Throughout its existence it
has provoked outrage and won admiration. All too often, however, both
the outraged and the admiring have tried to fit Stirner's views into
the conceptual imperatives of this or that ideology. He has been
labelled many things, ranging from anarchist to fascist. No doubt
passages can be found in his book that appear to lend support to each
of these extremes, but the more one understands what it is that Stirner
is _actually_ saying, the less these labels can be fixed. The contributors
to this commemoration fortunately do not indulge in such a futile game.
They are content to record their own reactions to The Ego and His Own
and its value for them.
Contributors ...
WM. FLYGARE: "This 1/5.6 billionth: Swedish-American. Boston '17-'46.
Chicago '46-'51. Kyoto '51-the end. BA & MA (philosophy and buddhism)
plus attempts at music and theatre to learn my inabilities. Drafted into
English teaching '51-'90. Some minor publications along the way. Highly
independent ... and dependent, enjoy being alone without loneliness, my
being remarried ('65), with two daughters (25 and 28), two cats, a
love-bird, and a plum-tree. Eclectic: atheist in fact, animist in
fancy, affinity for persons, allergic to people. Own house ('69 at
last) with a window overlooking 'rooves' onto green hills and a variety
of skies. Retired to studying, versing, digesting my haps, and being
glad for my failures-n-good fortune."
FRANK JORDAN: "A life-loving, aesthetically minded outsider, passing
from a 'Nietzschean' into a fully conscious 'Stirnerite'."
SVEIN OLAV NYBERG: "Born 1966; PhD student in mathematics; editor of
Non Serviam; almost as selfish as the two cats that own him; has been
interested in Stirner for the ten years he has known about him."
S.E. PARKER: "Born 1929, Birmingham, England. Now retired after thirty
three years with British Rail. Has worked his way through the Young
Communist League (1944-1946), the British Federation of Young
Co-operators (1946-1947), and virtually all the different varieties of
anarchism (1947-1982), to emerge as his own man, the penny of conscious
egoism having finally dropped. Editor and publisher of Minus One/Ego/
The Egoist/Ego 1963-1994."
PAUL ROWLANDSON: "Currently earns a living as a lecturer in a pseudo-
academic subject at a University College on the North West Frontier of
the United Kingdom."
JOHN C. SMITH: "Needs no introduction."
____________________________________________________________________
LAST AND FIRST WORDS
John C. Smith
The Ego and His Own didn't exactly take the world by storm when it
first appeared in 1844 and hasn't since. But its publication certainly
caused a stir among the Young Hegelian circle in which the author
moved. Karl Marx, for one, was so provoked by Stirner's book that he,
together with Engels, devoted some two thirds of their book, The German
Ideology, to vilifying Stirner, seeing him as a dangerous challenge to
their creed of social salvation.
In this country it is hardly ever mentioned in polite society. Any
new edition is largely ignored by literary editors. Yet it is reprinted
regularly and never lacks readers. Some, like the anarchist Herbert
Read, for example, have to admit "One book in my youth I have never
wholly forgotten. To say that it had great influence on me would not be
correct, for influences are absorbed and become part of one's mind.
This book refused to be digested - to use our vivid English metaphor:
it stuck in the gizzard, and has been in that uncomfortable position
ever since. I refer to Max Stirner's Der Einzige und Sein Eigentum, The
Ego and His Own as it was called in the English translation, published
in 1913." (The Contrary Experience)
The main religio-political ideologies, Christianity and Marxism,
have failed to provide an answer to the world's ills. The human self-
ishness they were meant to triumph over has triumphed over them.
Christianity, which promised individual salvation (freedom from the
sin of selfishness) and brotherhood, has lost out to commerce. Shopping
has replaced going to church. New temples, indoor shopping malls which
are _usually_ ugly and unnecessary, have sprung up all over Britain.
The early Christian churches at least served a useful communal purpose
and were beautiful to look at.
In the Soviet Union the very understandable desire for personal
reward undermined and eventually overthrew the state socialist system.
There have been the inevitable attempts to explain this away by Marxist
purists asserting, as did G.K. Chesterton about Christianity, that
Marxism has not failed because it has never been tried. But, of course,
it _was_ tried, the theories that were espoused in Russia before the
1917 Revolution being more or less the same as what these apologists
would call "real socialism."
It need hardly be said that the lesser religions of anarchism and
national socialism have also failed to deliver the goods. Anarchism,
offering individual autonomy and group solidarity, is also concerned
with a perfect society free from the sin of selfishness. It is,
ostensibly, a morally purer religion than either Marxism or national
socialism since anarchists reject, in theory, involvement in existing
political and social structures. They also complicate matters by
insisting on self rule for the individual. This has ensured that
anarchism has never enjoyed a mass following.
Except for the fact that national socialism originated as a scheme
for the salvation of white Europeans it is, as Roger Scruton has
pointed out, very similar to Marxist socialism. Its famous promoter,
Adolph Hitler, was more than a bit bonkers. This, along with a similar
obsession with a selfishness-free society, ensured that it has suffered
the same fate as that of Marxism.
If the _collectivist_ panaceas have been tried and seriously found
wanting, what about the 'individualist' answers? Of these,
existentialism of the kind propounded by Jean-Paul Sartre in his
earlier, non-political phase appears to have the most in common with
Stirner's ideas. Sartre rejected the Christian God and the Hegelian
Absolute, his central doctrine being that man is what he makes of
himself and "an insistence on the actual _existence_ of the individual
as the basic and important fact instead of a reliance on theories and
abstractions." (Readers' Companion To World Literature)
As Stirner himself was more concerned with the projectionist rather
than what was projected he would not have found too much to disagree
with in this, but a closer examination of Sartre's position reveals
that he and Stirner are worlds apart. For instance, Stirner confidently
abandoned God whereas Sartre found it "extremely embarrassing that God
does not exist ... man is in consequence forlorn, for he cannot find
anything to depend on either within or outside himself."
(Existentialism and Humanism)
Sartre later sought to overcome this "embarrassing" forlornness by
committing himself to the collectivism of Marxism while still clinging
to the shell of his individualist existentialism. He hovered
uncertainly between the two for the rest of his life. Stirner never
made this mistake. He stubbornly, famously and usefully refused to be
anything other than himself.
The fact is, as Stirner himself could have pointed out, all of the
foregoing answers are based on a flawed analysis - the lack of
understanding of the difference between "egoistic" and "egotistic".
Recently, Brian Walden observed that the utopian mentality reveals a
faulty perception of individuality. And more recently Matt Ridley
commented that most utopians are hopelessly naive about human nature:
"I believe that ... human beings are and always have been driven by
three cardinal ambitions - for wealth, for reputation and for status -
and that you ignore such facts at your peril. Look no further than
Russia for proof. Marxism fails precisely because it indulges a fantasy
that human beings will abandon these three and replace them with the
greatest good of the greatest number."
Nevertheless, Ridley has left out something important. It is the
perennial appetite for self-delusion - to be other than what you are -
that mostly fuel these power drives. Most people, as Nigella Lawson
observes, "need to escape the resented meagreness of their own
existence ... They want magic and mysticism. They want to have others -
other worlds, other beings - dictate what is, what they are and not to
have any responsibility for themselves." Given these facts it is not
therefore surprising that Max Stirner's impassioned defence and
celebration of _his_ individuality is unique. Based as it is on the
revolutionary stance that self interest is the basis of _all_ human
endeavour The Ego and His Own may not be that last word on the subject
of human selfishness, but it contains some essential first words
without which we would be even more in the dark than we are.
____________________________________________________________________
IN PRAISE OF MAX
Frank Jordan
What is arguably the most iconoclastic work of philosophy ever
written was published in the year 1844. This work was entitled The Ego
and His Own (In original German: Der Einzige und Sein Eigenthum). The
author of this seminal work called himself Max Stirner, which was a
pseudonym of Johann Caspar Schmidt. Stirner was a member of the Young
Hegelians, but the ideas he put forward in Der Einzige, his one major
work, easily outstripped and went far beyond anything that his friends
and contemporaries had to say in their criticisms of the various
idealistic trends in society, as they understood it.
Whether the subject be God, Spirit, Family, Morality, The People,
The State, and so on, all of these Stirner ruthlessly and logically
breaks down and shows they are nothing more than idealistic 'spooks,'
falsely created in substitution for the true needs of the ego, and
usually interpreted in altruistic fashion. Only Nietzsche, in his many
writings, approaches anywhere near the same 'dizzying' extremes and
idol-smashing that is a constant theme in Stirner's book. The main
difference between the two thinkers, I believe, is that Stirner's book
is a complete statement, consistent within itself, whereas Nietzsche's
insights have to be dug out from beneath his overall works, and they
are usually aphoristic in style and content.
The impact of Stirner's book provoked a most virulent attack
against it by no less a thinker than Karl Marx, along with Engels. In
their massive work, The German Ideology, they devoted two thirds of it
to attacking line by line, and blow by blow, Stirner's book. They
constantly refer to him as 'Saint Max', 'Don Quixote', and other rather
absurd appellations, all to try to exorcise him and his book. But, in
the end, they fail miserably, after having tried every intellectual
trick they had in their mental store, hoping to promote Marxist
socialism and discredit Stirner's pure egoism.
Various theorists have proven, quite consistently, that Marxism as
it eventually developed would not have been possible without Marx and
Engels psychologically reacting against the egoistic philosophy of
Stirner in the way that they did. As recent history shows, Marxism can
now be seen as a failed attempt at trying to mould the individual
psyche into a social-procrustrean bed of ideology.
Beside the effect Stirner had on Marxism, various other thinkers
and theorists have tried to adapt the views expressed in Der Einzige to
bolster their own causes. For examples: anarchists, fascists
(especially the case of Mussolini), the situationists of the swinging
Sixties, surrealistic and dadaistic artists like Max Ernst,
psychologists like Erich Fromm. Even the very popular science fiction
trilogy of Wilson and Shea called Illuminatus acknowledges a great debt
to Stirner throughout the plot. And we must not forget the
existentialist tag Stirner has been given!
Ultimately, of course, despite the diverse thinkers who are
attracted to, and 'turned on', by Stirner, the uniqueness of The Ego
and His Own stands like a lone mountain which cannot be levelled down
to fulfil some else's rather shallow and hollow-sounding ideals.
As long as men can, and will, think and act for themselves there
will always be a place for Max Stirner's uplifting and stirring book.
His work speaks from the position of a _unique one_ to all other
receptive _unique ones_.
I thank you, Max Stirner.
____________________________________________________________________
STIRNER, YOUTH AND TRADITION
Paul Rowlandson
Young people are subject to the psychological malady of 'militant
enthusiasm'. It strikes between the ages of 16 and 25, the time of life
when we are most keen to sacrifice our all for a Cause, the particular
cause being determined by the fashionable enthusiasms of the day. That
is why young men are useful in armies - they are easily fired up to go
over the top. They are useful too, in religious organizations, because
they will go out and proselytize in the rain, or sign away their lives
to religious orders.
Stirner described this period, when the boy has become a youth:
"One must obey God rather than man ... from this high stand-point
everything 'earthly' recedes into contemptible remoteness; for the
stand-point is the heavenly."
As a youth in the late 60s and early 70s I was influenced by the
passions of the time.
As a child I was packed off to the fire and brimstone "washed in
the blood of the Lamb" Congregational church in Oak Vale, Liverpool, by
my parents, who themselves never went to a church except for weddings
and funerals.
I remember a visiting preacher throttling a live chicken in the
pulpit to make a point I had long forgotten. It was a church parade day
and I was a member of the church scout troop, which I hated. Some of
the Church elders must have thought that the preacher had overdone it
because I remember we were asked by some of them what we thought of the
chicken-throttling. I can't remember being upset by it, which is
surprising. It was shortly after this incident that I was sent off to
the local Anglican church for some civilized religion.
I wasted a lot of time during my school years by my involvement
with CND, the Young Communist League, the Syndicalist Workers
Federation, and other radical organisations. I took part in various
silly demonstrations, including the then obligatory Aldermaston marches
and some sort of anti-Vietnam war demo from Hyde Park to Trafalgar
Square.
Most of my reading was of the radical sort - Marx, Alexander
Berkman, Proudhon, Anarchy magazine, Direct Action, Solidarity, and
such. I left school with two 'O' levels as a result.
The young mind is bombarded by other people's thoughts. From
childhood to adolescence we absorb ideas and viewpoints from other
people, whether in person, through print, or through radio and
television. The selection of what goes in is more or less random,
within certain limits, varying according to time, culture and
geography.
Christianity was perhaps the major ingredient in my case, as it was
(and still is, though less so) with most English youths.
It is an easy thing for an uninformed mind to contrast the
"idealism" of Christianity with the "injustices" of the world. I
remember thinking how like Christianity Marxism was, and how
hypocritical of Christian society to deny us the benefits of communism.
However, there was a growing realisation of a divergence of
interests, an awareness that I had reservations and doubts about the
activities and enthusiasms with which I was then engaged. For example,
as a teenager I was a pirate radio enthusiast, which I found hard to
reconcile with my anarcho-communist beliefs. There were several other
discrepancies. I was a strange sort of anarchist for I always had a
high regard for the Police, and frequently found myself uncomfortable
with my comrades' description of them as 'pigs'.
I have always been an enthusiast for quirky or idiosyncratic
publications. As a youth I favoured the iconoclastic. As an older man I
now seek the reactionary, the traditional, the ultra conservative
publications. Revolutions pleased me then, Tradition pleases me now.
The most unusual journal I ever came across was Minus One (the
precursor of Ego - Ed). I subscribed immediately. Here was something
different.
I very soon thereafter acquired from Minus One a copy of the
Libertarian Book Club 1963 edition of The Ego and His Own. Even the
physical attributes of the book are extraordinary. It is a substantial
book, printed on high quality paper, bound in signatures, with a plain
thick green cover, and a plain typeface. It looks and feels a _serious_
book.
My reading of The Ego and His Own had a powerful and continuing
influence. Here was a mind I connected with straight away. Its effect
was that of a mental spring cleaning. The "wheels in the head", the
ideas and opinions which I had accumulated, lost their power, although,
as Stirner says, "Daily experience confirms the truth that the
understanding may have renounced a thing many years before the heart
has ceased to beat for it." Nevertheless, the effect was that I now
possessed the wheels in the head rather than them possessing me.
Stirner takes no hostages. The demolition is thorough: "the Good
cause, God's cause, the cause of mankind, of truth, of freedom, of
humanity, of justice, my people, my prince, my fatherland, even the
cause of Mind, and a thousand other causes."
For a time I was cause-less, but eventually started restocking. I
acquired some causes of my own, but this time they belonged to me. I
could run with them or discard them as I wished.
It is probably as difficult to go without causes as it is to do
without interests. A cause is, after all, simply a compelling interest
grown large. But one of the benefits derived from reading Stirner is
the ability to prevent their possession of their owner. My final
authority is myself.
There are occasions in life we think of as watersheds. Nothing is
ever quite the same again. My discovery of The Ego and His Own was such
an event. It became impossible to think again in the way I thought
before I read the book. There is no other book like it.
Pope John Paul II once commented that the faithful have a right not
to be disturbed by the speculations of the so-called radical
theologians. Should the man or woman in the street be exposed to Max
Stirner? I think not. People will go to almost any lengths to avoid
thinking for themselves. The Ego and His Own would no doubt unhinge
many of them, which might make life more difficult for the rest of us.
Fortunately there appears to be a small elite which can absorb and
benefit from Stirner without going off the rails - those who can see
through not just the Emperor's new clothes but the old ones as well.

326
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp000964.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,326 @@
non serviam #14
***************
Contents: Wm. Flygare: "To My Sweetheart"
Svein Olav Nyberg: The Choice of a New Generation
***********************************************************************
"TO MY SWEETHEART" - With an Addition to Bartlett
Wm. Flygare
On this 150th birthday of The Ego and His Own (1844, dated 1845),
what intrigues me is the dedication. What was Mary's contribution to
John-n-Mary's only issue - a book?
Stirner (42.2; p358) speaks of using life up like a burning candle.
In the John-n-Mary romance - a roman candle - their wedded life
(1843-1846) ended in her long-life life-long rancour against a "sly"
man whom she "neither loved nor respected." In affairs of the heart, as
well as in practical affairs, both were losers, the woman more than the
philosopher who had two worlds to live in.
It would seem, then, that the inspiring young Mary deserves a
gratitude that the older embittered one would be loath to accept, her
wound a secret she would not tell.
The Ego and Hos Own appears a vast commentary to the Goethe poem
alluded to at the beginning and end. Its absence in publications of The
Ego is unfortunate. In Stirner's time this poem was "a favourite with
everyone" (Schopenhauer's Councels and Maxim #5) but it is little known
now. Like Smith, Stirner is "in love," certainly with the "tyranny of
words" (43.3; p.389). Unlike elsewhere in his work, there are poetic
parallels and flights, external pattern, redundance, etymological
word-play, elations, and hyperbole, his pen often shouting as if
against the loud-voiced among "The Free Ones". These features have made
the work most variously read and can detract. _Parler sans accent_. But
as to the diagnostic content: Stance is circumscribed by circumstance.
In their desperate drive for impossible certainty and acceptance, and
hope to qualify, the driven drive the driven, mental straight-jackets
nicely laced. In adolescence, the rarely curable brain-smudge received
in childhood festers into visions and conversions that lead to "normal"
madness and its "stealthy malice" (7.2; p.46). Now instead of talk
_about_ the prophylaxis and solace offered by The Ego and His Own,
Stirner himself: I have tried to ferret out his key observations in
sober and concise form as "an addition to Bartlett" since Bartlett's
"Familiar Quotations" is one of a number of well-known reference works
which neglect this exorcist of "spooks", some of whose phrases deserve
to be "familiar." Reference is to a yet unpublished paragraph-numbering
system and to pages in Reclam 3957(6), the only currently stable
publication:
What have we gained, then, when for a variation we have transferred
into ourselves the divine outside us? Are we that which is in us? As
little as we are that which is outside us. I am as little my heart as I
am my sweetheart, this "other self" of mine. (4.20; p.34)
... out of confidence in our grandmothers' honesty we believe in
the existence of spirits.
But had we no grandfathers then, and did they not shrug their shoulders
every time our grandmothers told about their ghosts? (5.1&2; p.36)
... over each minute of your existence a fresh minute of the future
beckons to you, and, developing yourself, you get away "from yourself,"
that is, from the self that was at that moment. (5.13; p.39)
Man, your head is haunted ... You imagine ... a spirit-realm to
which you suppose yourself to be called, an ideal that beckons to you.
You have a fixed idea! (7.1; p.46)
... it is only through the "flesh" that I can break tyranny of
mind; for it is only when a man hears his flesh along with the rest of
him that he hears himself wholly, and it is only when he wholly hears
himself that he is a hearing (vernehmend) or rational (vernunftig)
being. (10.12; p.68)
Because the revolutionary priests or schoolmasters served Man, they
cut off the heads of men. (14.24; p.68)
Many a man renounces morals, but with great difficulty the
conception, "morality." (15.12; p.96)
... every effort arrives at reaction ... a _new master_ set in the
old one's place, and the overturning is a - building up. (17.32&35;
pp.120&121)
... if a "tie" clasps you, you are something only _with another_,
and twelve of you make a dozen, thousands of you a people, millions of
you humanity ... I answer, only when you are single can you have
intercourse with each other as what you are. (21.34&36; p.148)
I do not want to have or be anything especial above others, ... but
- I do not measure myself by others either, ... The equal, the same,
they can neither be nor have. (21.52; p.152)
It is not thinking, but my thoughtlessness (lit.,
thought-rid-ness), or I the unthinkable, incomprehensible, that frees
me from possession. (23.15; p.169)
What the craving for freedom has always come to has been the desire
for a _particular_ freedom ... The craving for a _particular_ freedom
always includes the purpose of a new _dominion_. (24.13&14; p.176)
But the habit of the religious way of thinking has biased our mind
so grievously that we are - terrified at _ourselves_ in our nakedness
and naturalness; it has degraded us so that we deem ourselves depraved
by nature, born devils. (24.21; p.178)
I am present. (24.22; p.180)
Thousands of years of civilization have obscured to you what you
are ... Shake that off! ... and let go your hypocritical endeavours,
your foolish mania to be something else than you are. (24.30; p.181)
You want to be "in the right" as against the rest. That you cannot;
as against them you remain forever "in the wrong". (26.12; p.207)
What is the ordinary criminal but one who has ... sought despicable
_alien_ goods? ... You do not know that an ego who is his own cannot
desist from being a criminal, that crime is his life. (28.6; p.221)
Everything sacred is a tie, a fetter. (31.24; p.239)
For only he who is alive is in the right. (31.24; p.239)
I never believed in myself; I never believed in my present, I saw
myself only in the future ... a proper I ... a "citizen," a "free or
true man" ... an alien I ... An I that is neither an I nor a you, a
_fancied_ I, a spook. (31.5; p.247)
But I love ... because love makes _me_ happy ... because loving is
natural to me, because it pleases me. I know no ''commandment of love."
(39.15; p.324)
I sing because - I am a singer. But I _use_ (gebrauche) you for it
because I - need (gebrauche) ears. (39.37; p.331)
That a society (such as the society of the State) diminishes my
_liberty_ offends me little. Why, I have to let my liberty be limited
by all sorts of powers and by every one who is stronger; nay, by every
fellow-man; and, were I the autocrat of all the R..... , I yet should
not enjoy absolute liberty. But _ownness_ I will not have taken from
me. And ownness is precisely what every society has designs on,
precisely what is to succumb to its power. (41.7; p.342f)
We are equal _only in thoughts_, only when "we" are _thought_, not
as we really and bodily are. I am ego, and you are ego: but I am not
this thought-of ego; this ego in which we are all equal is only my
_thought_. I am man, and you are man: but "man" is only a thought, a
generality; neither I nor you are speakable, we are _unutterable_,
because only _thoughts_ are speakable and consist in speaking. (41.15;
p.348)
Henceforth, the question runs, not how one can acquire life .. but
how one is to dissolve himself, to live himself out. (42.6; p.348)
Possibility and reality always coincide. (42.3; p.368f)
No sheep, no dog, exerts itself to become a "proper sheep, a proper
dog". (42.47; p.372)
I receive with thanks what the centuries of culture have acquired
for me; I am not willing to throw away and give up anything of it ...
But I want still more. (42.53; p.372)
All truth by itself is dead, a corpse; it is alive only in the same
way as my lungs are alive - to wit, in the measure of my own vitality.
[...] The truth is a - creature. (43.64; p.398-399)
No idea has existence, for none is capable of corporeity. [...]
What, am I in the world to realize ideas? (45.5&13; pp.408&411)
____________________________________________________________________
THE EGO AND ITS OWN - The Choice of a New Generation
Svein Olav Nyberg
"Knowledge must die, and rise again
as Will and create itself anew each
day as a free Person."
The False Principle of Our Education
Those of us who have reached adulthood during the eighties have
not avoided noticing all the literature and the ideas about self-
love that has been around. Even the nursery-eyed girls with the
concerned looks sometimes stutter that they think you should be
allowed to love yourself as much as you love your neighbour. Most of
this literature and most of these ideas come from psychology. Wayne
Dwyer reasons that since loving your neighbour as yourself will not
amount to much love of the neighbour unless you love yourself first,
you should therefore love yourself. Psychologically, the link is
claimed that other-love is impossible without self-love. So we
should think we are at a magic time in history; the omni-present
Society gives us permission to love ourselves.
But there are those of us who are not such well-bred rats
conditioned to do whatever we are told benefits our neighbour. We do
not love ourselves to please our abstract or concrete neighbours,
but just love ourselves, plain and simple. Our kind of people see
these trends as nothing other than the old hogwash in a new
disguise. Not only shall you sacrifice yourself to the good of your
neighbour, but you shall do so under the illusion that you do it for
yourself. We penetrate deeper, we go into philosophy.
Philosophically, also, it has been a decade of praising the self.
Why, has not the notorious Ayn Rand sold more books and increased
her organized following more than ever? Has not the libertarian
community accepted selfishness as a rule? Again, ever more illusion!
Randian self-love is the love of Man your Essence within you, and
the hate of the Evil un-Man in you, lurking at the boundaries of the
Omni-Good Rational Thought. Libertarian ideas, furthermore, are in
this respect nothing more than the ghost of departed Objectivists.
It is amidst all this confusion that a young man of today will
find himself as he picks up his first copy of The Ego and Its Own.
Usually, as in my case, he will have a background in libertarian
thought, and smile at the thought that "Here we have the guy who is
even more consistent than Rand. Wow, these ideas will be useful for
my libertarianism!" As the reading of the book proceeds, the young
libertarian will look at the pages in amazed horror; is not this
Stirner guy just picking libertarianism logically apart before his
very eyes? Oh horror! No, this must surely rest on a
misunderstanding. Stirner never knew modern libertarianism, did he?
So, he is really running loose on something else. Yes? But, no,
realisation dawns that libertarianism - after all a very logical and
aesthetic system which even works - given a faint "best of society"
premise - is without the foundation our young libertarian wants.
Rights are spooks, his head is haunted and his pride is hurt.
There are now two possible lessons to learn; either to learn from
Stirner to speak to others about selfishness - universalize that we
are all (and implicitly _ought to be_) selfish, and to use this as a
new basis for libertarian idealism, or - to delve into oneself to
find one's _own_ cause.
Now, what is not supposed to be my cause! From society we learn
that selfishness consists in filling your wallet and emptying your
balls as best as you can. From religion we learn that our _true_
interest lies in the contemplation of ideas and renunciation of the
body. But these are both very one-sided goals, and do violence to
_me_. They are both follies of one and the same type - formal egoism.
Formal egoism is what arises when you conceive of yourself as an
object, a sum of predicates, and not as beyond predicates - as an
Einzige. Modern man hypostatizes - makes objects of - everything,
including himself. For a modern man the choice is only _which_ object
among the objects is to be chosen as the ultimate value. So why not
the object he knows as "me"? But when you serve the interests of an
object, you need a recipe, a guideline - some rules. These might be
explicit, or they might be, as for most people, implicit. The formal
egoist then serves the himself-object as best he can according to
the predications of what selfishness means - and, mind you, he might
even have so much success as to attain some predicated goals that he
thinks a selfish man should attain - but he never gets to the bottom
of _his_ interests. He is formally indistinguishable from the selfish
man, but in reality never attains anything more than being a boy-
scout at satisfying the himself-object.
Stirner is a good teacher of lessons. In A Human Life he shows the
dialectical development towards a full understanding of one's own
cause. One starts out as a child who thinks that all that matters is
- matter. Thereafter the procession goes to the realm of the Mind -
ideas - where all importance and values are to be found in the
relation to the idea. Only thereafter does it dawn that there is
something beyond all the material and spiritual objects, yet more
immediate, namely _I_, myself.
It is easy to come to the protest "Now _what_ is the I?" As Stirner
answers, I am not a "what" but a "who". Grasping this distinction,
and why Stirner emphasises it, is essential to understanding
Stirner, and is why The Ego and Its Own is so different from any
other book about selfishness.
A question that seems to have puzzled both the older and the
younger generation is "If Stirner was such a self-loving man, why
did he bother to write a book that gave him so much trouble and so
little reward?" I do not propose to answer this question in
specifics, but instead look at how he has developed his theory of
relations to other people.
Stirner has been described as a man who has taken the full
consequence of being-alone in the world, and sometimes even a
solipsist. I take these descriptions as coming from people not fully
knowledgeable about Stirner. Stirner does not advocate the life of
the Sole Ego on the hill, out of contact with other people. Rather,
he seems to derive much enjoyment from the company of his peers, and
even babies with their competent smiles. But it is easy to be
intoxicated by a book such as Stirner's, and fail to read what is
written. What Stirner actually writes about, is that there are
basically two (opposite) forms of interaction, namely that of
standing as an _I_ against a _You_, versus meeting one another qua
predicate-filled objects. The understanding of this demands that one
understands the difference between the Einzige that one is, and the
objects we are conditioned by culture to see ourselves as.
The meeting of the I against the You actually comprises more than
half of Stirner's book. This, I propose, is the key to why he wrote
the book. All around him he saw, and met, people whose only mode of
interaction was qua object-to-object. He met "good citizens",
"Christians" and even "Humans", all playing out a social role
according to the predicate of the day. But meeting one another with
that veil of predicates removed was a scarcity, as it is today.
Meeting Einzig to Einzig is scary. The you stand there all for and
by yourself with no predicate to hide behind. That is why people
continually choose to interact via predicates - object-to-object.
But this is nothing different from the mad-man at the asylum who is
unable to face the world as anyone but "Napoleon". We live, as
Stirner put it, in a mad-house among mad-men.
This is why Stirner wrote his book: It is a therapy for all of us
who out of the fear of seeing ourselves as pure and nakedly
ourselves. A therapy so that he might speak and otherwise interact
with us as the Einzige we are, and not as a thousand "Napoleon"s.
Do you dare accept the therapy offered by Stirner?

332
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp000965.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,332 @@
non serviam #15
***************
Contents: Editor's Word
Dora Marsden: Thinking and Thought
S.E. Parker: Comment to Ken Knudson
***********************************************************************
Editor's Word
_____________
I am delighted to include an essay by a female champion of egoism in
this issue of Non Serviam, made available electronically by another
egoist woman, Sunniva Morstad. It first appeared in "The Freewoman",
No. 5, Vol. 1, August 15th 1913. Like Stirner, she builds a case for
egoism through a criticism of the absoluteness of language - a thought
which should not be unfamiliar for the many on Non Serviam who have
adopted Korzybski=B4s "General Semantics" as a guideline. I personally
think this approach to egoism via a criticism of language deserves
more attention, and would therefore be very happy to receive articles
written from different points of view on this relation.
Since Non Serviam is now also going to go on paper to the unprivileged
without email access, I will include some longer good discussion posts
which would otherwise have been most fitting for the discussion list
Nonserv, in Non Serviam. The first such post is a comment by Sid Parker
to Ken Knudson=B4s serial [2] here in Non Serviam.
Svein Olav
[1] Sidney Parker: "Archists, Anarchists and Egoists". Non Serviam #7
[2] Ken Knudson: "A Critique of Communism and The Individualist
Alternative". Non Serviam #1-12
____________________________________________________________________
Dora Marsden:
Thinking and Thought
--------------------
It is strange to find searchers coming here seeking thoughts, followers
after truth seeking new lamps for old, right ideas for wrong. It seems
fruitless to affirm that our business is to annihilate thought, to
shatter the new lamps no less than the old, to dissolve ideas, the
"right" as well as the "wrong". "It is a new play of artistry , some
new paradox," they reflect, not comprehending that artistry and paradox
are left as the defences of power not yet strong enough to comprehend.
If a man has the power that comprehends, what uses has he left for
paradox? If he sees a thing as it is, why must he needs describe it in
terms of that which is not? Paradox is the refuge of the adventurous
guesser: the shield of the oracle whose answer is not ready. Searchers
should not bring their thoughts to us: we have no scruple in destroying
their choicest, and giving them none in return. They would be well able
to repair the depredations elsewhere, however, for nowhere else, save
here, are thoughts not held sacred and in honour. Everywhere, from all
sides, they press in thick upon men, suffocating life. All is thought
and no thinking. _We_ do the thinking: the rest of the world spin
thoughts. If from the operation of thinking one rises up only with
thoughts, not only has the thinking-process gone wrong: it has not
begun. To believe that it has is as though one should imagine the work
of digesting food satisfactorily carried through when the mouth has
been stuffed with sand.
The process of thinking is meant to co-ordinate two things which are
real: the person who thinks and the rest of the phenomenal world, the
world of sense. Any part of the process which can be described in terms
unrelated to these two - and only two - real parties in the process is
redundant and pernicious, an unnecessary by-product which it would be
highly expedient to eliminate. Thoughts, the entire world of ideas and
concepts, are just these intruders and irrelevant excesses. Someone
says, apropos of some change without a difference in the social sphere,
"We are glad to note the triumph of progressive ideas." Another, "We
rejoice in the fact that we are again returning to the ideas of honour
and integrity of an earlier age." We say, leprosy or cholera for
choice. Idea, idea, always the idea. As though the supremacy of the
idea were not the subjection of men, slaves to the idea. Men need no
ideas. They have no use for them ( Unless indeed they are of the
literary breed - then they live upon them by their power to beguile the
simple). What men need is power of being, strength in themselves: and
intellect which in the thinking process goes out as a scout, comparing,
collating, putting like by like, or nearly like, is but the good
servant which the individual being sends afield that he may the better
protect, maintain and augment himself. Thinking, invaluable as it is in
the service of being, is, essentially a very intermittent process. It
works only between whiles. In the nadir and zenith of men's experience
it plays no part, when they are stupid and when they are passionate.
Descartes' maxim "Cogito ergo sum," carried the weight it did and does
merely because the longfelt influence of ideas had taken the virtue out
of men's souls. Stronger men would have met it, not with an argument,
but a laugh. It is philosophy turned turtle. The genesis of knowledge
is not in thinking but in being. Thinking widens the limits of
knowledge, but the base of the latter is in feeling. "I know" because
"I am." The first follows the second and not contrariwise. The base -
and highest reaches - of knowledge lie not in spurious thoughts,
fine-drawn, not yet in the humble and faithful collecting of
correspondences which is thinking, but in experienced emotion. What men
may be, their heights and depths, they can divine only in experienced
emotion. The vitally true things are all personally revealed, and they
are true primarily only for the one to whom they are revealed. For the
rest the revelation is hearsay. Each man is his own prophet. A man's
"god" ( a confusing term, since it has nothing to do with God, the
Absolute - a mere thought) is the utmost emotional reach of himself:
and is in common or rare use according to each individual nature. A
neighbour's "god" is of little use to any man. It represents a wrong
goal, a false direction.
We are accused of "finesse-ing with terms." No accusation could be
wider off the mark. We are analysing terms; we believe, indeed, that
the next work for the lovers of men is just this analysis of naming.
It will go completely against the grain of civilisation, cut straight
across culture: that is why the pseudo-logicians loathe logic - indeed,
it will be a matter for surprise that one should have the temerity to
name the word. So great a fear have the cultured of the probing of
their claims that they are counselling the abandonment of this
necessary instrument. They would prefer to retain inaccurate thinking
which breeds thoughts, to accurate thinking which reveals facts and in
its bright light annihilates the shadows bred of dimness, which are
thoughts. Analysis of the process of naming: inquiry into the impudent
word-trick which goes by the name of "abstraction of qualities":
re-estimation of the form-value of the syllogism; challenging of the
slipshod methods of both induction and deduction; the breaking down of
closed systems of "classification" into what they should be - graded
descriptions; _these_ things are more urgently needed than thinkable in
the intellectual life of today. The settlement of the dispute of the
nominalist and realist schoolmen of the Middle Ages in favour of the
former rather than the latter would have been of infinitely greater
value to the growth of men than the discoveries of Columbus, Galileo
and Kepler. It would have enabled them to shunt off into nothingness
the mountain of culture which in the world of the West they have been
assiduously piling up since the time of the gentle father of lies and
deceit, Plato. It is very easy, however, to understand why the
conceptualists triumphed, and are still triumphing, despite the ravages
they have worked on every hand. The concept begets the idea, and every
idea installs its concrete authority. All who wield authority do it in
the name of an idea: equality, justice, love, right, duty, humanity,
God, the Church, the State. Small wonder, therefore, if those who sit
in the seats of authority look askance at any tampering with names and
ideas. It is a different matter from questioning the of _one_ idea.
Those who, in the name of one idea do battle against the power of
another, can rely upon some support. Indeed, changing new lamps for old
is the favourite form of intellectual excitement inasmuch as while it
is not too risky, is not a forlorn hope, it yet ranges combatants on
opposing sides with all the zest of a fight. But to question _all_
ideas is to leave authoritarians without any foothold whatsoever. Even
opposing authorities will sink differences and combine to crush an
Ishmaelite who dares. Accordingly, after three quarters of a thousand
years, the nominalist position is where it was: nowhere, and all men
are in thrall to ideas - culture. They are still searching for the
Good, the Beautiful and the True. They are no nearer the realisation
that the Good in the actual never is a general term, but always a
specific, i.e. that which is "good for me" (or you, or anyone) varying
with time and person, in kind and substance; that the Beautiful is
likewise "beautiful for me" (or you, or anyone) varying with time and
person, in kind and substance, measured by a standard wholly
subjective; that the True is just that which corresponds: in
certainties, mere verified observation of fact; in doubt, opinion as to
fact and no more, a mere "I think it so" in place of "I find it so." As
specifics, they are real: as generalisations, they are thoughts,
spurious entities, verbiage representing nothing, and as such are
consequently in high repute. The work of purging language is likely to
be a slow one even after the battle of argument in its favour shall
have been won. It is observable that egoists, for instance, use
"should," "ought," and "must" quite regularly in the sense which bears
the implication of an existing underlying "Duty." Denying authority,
they use the language of authority. If the greatest possible
satisfaction of self ( which is a pleasure) is the motive in life, with
whose voice does "Duty" speak? Who or what for instance lays it down
that our actions must not be "invasive" of others? An effete god,
presumably, whose power has deserted him, since most of us would be
hard put to it to find action and attitudes which are not invasive.
Seizing land - the avenue of life - is invasive: loving is invasive,
and so is hating and most of the emotions. The emphasis accurately
belongs on "defence" and not on "invasion" and defence is
self-enjoined.
No, Duty, like the rest, is a thought, powerless in itself, efficient
only when men give it recognition for what it is not and doff their own
power in deference, to set at an advantage those who come armed with
the authority of its name. And likewise with "Right." What is "right"
is what I prefer and what you and the rest prefer. Where these "rights"
overlap men fight is out; their _power_ becomes umpire, their might is
their right. Why keep mere words sacred? Since right is ever swallowed
up in might why speak of right? Why seek to acquire rights when each
right has to be matched by the might which first secures and then
retains it? When men acquire the ability to make and co-ordinate
accurate descriptions, that is, when they learn to think, the empire of
mere words, "thoughts", will be broken, the sacred pedestals shattered,
and the seats of authority cast down. The contests and achievements of
owners of "powers" will remain.
____________________________________________________________________
S.E. Parker:
Comment to Ken Knudson
----------------------
K.K. prefers a "consumer' dicatorship" to a "producers' dictatorship"
on the grounds that "consumers are finicky people - they want the best
possible product at the lowest price. To achieve this end they will use
ruthless means."
I do not know what consumers he is writing about, but they are
certainly not the ones I know. A few, certainly, will use "ruthless
means" to obtain the cheapest and best product. The majority, however,
seem to be quite content not only to buy expensive trash, but even
unwilling to look for shops where theycan get identical products at
cheaper prices. For example, we have two supermarkets where I live.
One, on average, charges higher prices than the other. They are about
three minutes walking time apart. Yet the higher pried one continues to
prosper because most of its customers are not prepared to go round the
corner to what the cheaper priced one is like. Not only this, but a
smaller shop in the neighbourhood, run by a company that are rip-off
merchants of the first order, not only flourishes, but has extended
opening times! So much for the "ruthless customer"!
It is clear to me that K.K. has merely exchanged the idealized
"producer" for the idealized "customer", he has replaced the myth of
the socialist with the myth of the "free marketeer" - and is therefore
just as utopian as the anarcho-communist he criticizes so well.
"The only way to realize anarchy is for a sufficient number of people
to be convinced that their own interests demand it."
This statement does not show _why_ people will find anarchy in their
interests, it only shows that Ken Knudson _thinks_ they should find it
in their interests. (I am reminded of an observation about Ayn Rand
made by an American conservative to the effect that "Miss Rand believes
in people acting according to their self-interest so long as she can
define what that interest is.")
KK claims that people are pragmatists and that until they can be made
to realize that "anarchy actually works for their benefit, it will
remain...anidle pipe-dream." As I understand it, pragmatism is
concerned with what _works_. If anarchy is still a "pipe-dream" it is
plainly _not_ working. So how does one show that it will work? By
convincing people that it will! But, if people are pragmatists, and
will only be convinced by something that "works", then one is in the
invidious position of trying to convince them that what is not working
now will work at some indefinite time in the future if only they will
be convinced that it will, despite the fact that, as pragmatists, they
are only to be convinced by seeing something that actually works!
Methinks that here he has fallen right into the trap that Stirner
pointed out; the belief that because something is conceivable it is
therefore possible.
KK looks to the founding of the mutual banks as a way to achieve his
ideal society, but how many of these have been established and worked
succesfully since Proudhon advocated them over a hundred years ago? If
they were in the interest of a "sufficient number of people" who have
grasped their value as a means to realize anarchy why hasn't that
"sufficient number" been forthcoming? Could it be that most of those
who have had them explained to them did _not_ find them in their
interests? What basis does he have for assuming that even if a large
number of people became consciously self-interested they will find
their interests coincide with those of anarchism? His faith I do not
doubt, but where is the evidense?
The power of the tyrant, KK writes, "comes from the abdicated power
of his subjects". The supposition that at some time or another these
subjects decided to "abdicate" their power to a tyrant smacks
suspiciously of the myth of the "social contract". In any case, he is
assuming that if these subjects had the power to grant to a tyrant and
that they were to repossess it they would then be as powerful as those
whom they granted it. Again, an act of faith. It is plain to me that
since individuals are genetically unequal, so their power - their
competence as Stirner called it - is also unequal. Even were they
tyrant - or democratic governments - thus rendered "powerless" this
inequality of power would soon be expressed in a new hierarchy - of
_function_ if not _formal_status_ - and the division between ruler and
ruled re-established. The "dominant five-percent", like the poor, we
always have with us.
What Stirner wrote about idols is true. I know that, Ken Knudson knows
that, and so do a few others, but why does he believe that everyone
will cometo know that? This is the sort of belief called the "Everest
fallacy" - i.e. because _some_ people have climbed Everest, _all_
people can climb it.
"We egoists raise the banner of free competition." "We" egoists do
nothing of the kind. If I benefit from "unfree" competition why should
I renounce my egoistic satisfaction in that fact in favour of a system
from which I benefit less? Implicit in this kind of assertion is the
assumption that everyone's interest can be served by one way of going
on. If one accepts the Stirnerian concept of "the unique one" this is
manifest nonsense.
KK rejects "frontiers" as absurd. No doubt from a global _anarchist_
perspective they are. But why suppose that an_egoist_ will reject
frontiers out of hand? Making one's "fatherland", "motherland" or
"homeland" _holy_ is, of course, so much spookery. Nonetheless, an
egoist might find the existence of frontiers something of use to him.
I, for example, live on an overcrowded island called Britain. Do I want
this country swamped by hordes of immigrants as the result of doing
away with frontiers? I do not. And if my support, pragmatic support, of
a barrier against such a horde steps on the intellectual/moral toes of
some liberal, libertarian or anarchist dreamers, that is their lookout.
It is _my_ egoism that concerns _me_, not some abstract "egoism"
pressed in the service of some universalistic fantasy. There are more
ways of viewing one's egoistic interests than are dreamed of by
anarchists....
There is more I could write on these topics, but I think I have put the
cat among enough pigeons for the moment.
Sid Parker
____________________________________________________________________
***********************************************************************
* *
* "What is laid down, ordered, factual, is never *
* enough to embrace the whole truth: life always *
* spills over the rim of every cup." *
* *
* -- Boris Pasternak *
* *
***********************************************************************

74
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp000970.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
Open Eye, PO Box 3069, London, SW9 8LU.
or Open Eye, BM Open Eye, London, WC1N 3XX
Open Eye issue three is out now.
It includes
MI5 after cold war.
Noam Chomsky: Free Trade Myths
The treat from GATT: interviews with Tim Lang, author of 'The New
Protectionism', and Vandana Shiva, author of 'Staying Alive -Women,
Ecology and Development'
The bombing of Judi Bari: the US government campaign against Earth First!
What future for MI5?
Attila the Stockbroker's 'Zen Stalinist Manifesto'
In defence of Ecstasy
Reviews: ecosocialism, New Age and armageddon, ecology and industrialism
Winona LaDuke: American Indian activist interview
Columbus, American Indians and Progress
Mid Wales: green politics in power
Microwave weapons experiments
and much more.
Please send 1.70 pounds to Open Eye, PO Box 3069, London, SW9 8LU.
Cheques payable to Open Eye.
Open Eye can be contacted by phone on 0956 250 654
Articles from issue two can be found in Spunk Press archive.
Other Open Eye Publications include:
The Inevitable War; strategic and ideological factors ensuring that Iraq
and US would fight for control of the Persion/ Arabian Gulf (80p).
by Open Eye
Plunder and Blunder; the immediate ideological, economic and political
causes of war with Iraq (80p)
by Open Eye
The Situationist International: Its Art, its Theory, its 'Practice' (96p)
The Green movement: should it be human centred or nature centred? (56p)
by Open Eye
Refutation of all judgements whether in praise or hostile which have up
till now been brought on the film "The Society of the Spectacle", by Guy
Debord (1.20 pounds)
Secret Agenda of Falklands and Gulf Wars, by Joe Vialls (88p)
Nagaland, Tears behind the blindfold by David Ward (56p)
Riotous responses: The Media in Meadowell by Tom Jennings and Sue Brent(32p)
Politics of Plutonium in UK, Lecture in Japan, Nov 91, by Dr David Lowry
(1.28)
The Happy Retirement by Antony Verney. The full story of how an old
couple's idyllic retirement cottage was turned into a torture chamber,
and who might have been responsible (featured in Open Eye 2) (1.20)
Postage included but please send a self addresses envelope.
Open Eye, PO Box 3069, London, SW9 8LU.
or
Open Eye, BM Open Eye, London, WC1N 3XX

208
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp000971.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,208 @@
HANDS OFF OUR BABIES !!!
Ministers and hospital managers have finally came clean. For
the first time, they've admitted publicly that they want to
tag babies with barcodes the moment they're born. Every
newspaper in the country has said what a wonderful idea this
is. So have politicians from all the main parties. Selected
babies have already been barcoded in Edinburgh's Royal
Infirmary.
Both the Murdoch press and the few titles still owned by his
competitors have taken the same line. Some woman dressed as a
nurse stole a baby in Nottingham. Therefore all babies should
be tagged and coded. Otherwise it could happen again.
At least one paper published a picture of a mother kissing the
barcoded foot of her day-old baby. The implication is that
mothers who don't allow their babies to be tagged like items
in a supermarket aren't good mothers.
This kind of nonsense is, of course, the stock-in-trade of
advertisers, people trying to trick us into buying something
or voting for them.
Let's be clear about two things.
Firstly, tagging babies has been in the pipeline for months.
It's not a response to anything which has happened in the past
few days. To say otherwise is to tell a complete lie. It is
being introduced now because the media have made it acceptable
now.
The 'experiments' in Edinburgh (just who do these people think
they are, using our babies for experiments?) were planned some
time ago. Tagging babies was also mentioned in a conference in
Cambridge in April, where an American 'expert' also spoke of
keeping a register of babies' footprints.
Secondly, tagging babies is not about stopping baby snatchers.
If that were really the goal, it would make much more sense to
tag doctors, nurses, hospital porters, fathers, etc. Or they
could be given tags to carry in their pockets. Doors to
maternity wards and nurseries could be made to open only for
people carrying tags.
Many government buildings use a similar system already. Who'd
expect the Ministry of Defence, for example, to let strangers
into the building, resting assured that no-one could take
anything because all secret documents had tags sellotaped on?
Obviously any whistleblower or spy could just cut the tag off.
And any serious baby snatcher could do exactly the same.
You might argue that alarms could be set to sound as soon as
someone tried to cut off a tag. But if you still think these
people are doing it for our benefit, just ask yourself:
WHY BARCODES?
Surely snatching one baby is as bad as snatching any other
baby. Or is a nurse going to punch in the number of any baby
who's being taken home legitimately, so the alarm won't go off
when it's taken out by its real mother. Meanwhile a baby being
snatched, not having been checked through, would set all the
bells ringing. No, this isn't it: the nurse could just cut the
tag off herself when the baby's ready to go home, saving all
those costs on training, but with exactly the same effect.
In that case, all tags could be the same, and there'd be no
need for individual barcodes. It seems we're just not being
told the truth......
Quite a few politicians have said 'No expense should be
spared' in guaranteeing baby security. That's the kind of
thing politicians like to say. You'd hardly expect them to say
'Baby snatching must be got down to an acceptable level.'
On the other hand, a sceptic might think the whole point is
for the Tories to give some more money to their friends in the
private security industry. After all, they've given entire
prisons to firms like Group 4, in return for Italian-style
donations to party funds.
But for once this doesn't seem to be it. A baby-tag costs
about 10p. Introducing them in a big hospital like Edinburgh's
Royal Infirmary will cost "thousands of pounds". For a
maternity hospital, or a security company, that's peanuts.
And yet the authorities do seem very anxious to tag and
barcode our babies.
WHY?
Well let's just consider what else has been decided or
'considered' in the past year or so.
1) After being dropped three years ago, electronic tagging of
offenders is coming back. Whereas in previous 'experiments'
tags had to be plugged into the phone, now they can send
messages to private security guards over the airwaves.
In a move closely connected to rightwing Tory propaganda about
the 'underclass', The Sunday Times has called for the tagging
of "far fewer than 1% of the population" (i.e. less than half
a million people). A pilot scheme begins in Manchester in
January 1995. (In Tennessee, tags are already fitted to
truanting schoolchildren).
2) Home Secretary Michael Howard has considered having
fingerprints taken from everyone. Another plan is to
fingerprint Britain's 32 million motorists and to include
prints on driving licences. The database would be run by a
private company. Police chiefs are confident the plan will be
in place by 1996.
3) Transport Secretary John MacGregor has called for all cars
to be fitted with a 'black box.' Cars would be tracked by
satellite, and drivers would be charged according to which
roads they drive on and for how long. (A version of this
system is already in place in Oslo).
Companies like GEC are hoping to employ technologies first
used to track tanks during the Gulf War of 1991. To sweeten
the pill, and to make more profit, motorists will be sold info
services at the same time. The system will be tested next
spring, and is due to come into force in 1998.
4) Child benefit and pension books are due to be replaced by
swipe cards in 1997, and benefit books will disappear
altogether in 1999. Already pension books have been barcoded
in parts of London.
It seems likely that eventually all benefits will be paid into
bank accounts. Post offices will be run in the interests of
private banks, and many will just be shut down.
5) The police are increasingly using DNA testing and some
senior officers have called for the forcible testing of all
adult males. (No date on this one yet, but this year's
Criminal Justice Bill will allow DNA testing for all offenses
the police record).
6) City shopping centres are now routinely scanned by 24-hour
video cameras. This information was first released to a wide
audience at the time of the James Bulger murder. The
implication was that anyone who objected to the general trend
didn't care about toddlers being butchered.
7) Soon TV viewers may have to pay for each specific programme
they watch. They'll buy decoder cards for the Saturday match
during the week. Already people using cloned cards can have
their reception turned off individually by Sky.
8) Britain's chief film censor, who thinks childhood is an
'outdated concept', wants compulsory ID cards to be issued to
all children. The pretext is to 'control access' to videos,
fireworks, alcohol, cigarettes, etc.
Baby tagging fits very well into this list of developments. In
every case, the authorities tell us it's for our own good.
We all know that the government only protects people to the
extent that it's good for Business. Health Department
officials are little more than agents of the huge drug
companies; and their colleagues in the Ministry of Defence are
little more than agents of the arms manufacturers. Transport
bureaucrats give millions to construction companies and
increasingly to security and electronics companies too. In
short, it's there to keep us in 'acceptable levels' of poverty
and disease, and to force most of us to work for the rich.
They don't care about our babies being stolen any more than
they care about our houses being broken into, or deaths caused
by tobacco. They like it when working class people turn on
each other and we live in fear. Nor would things be different
if any other party were in power. Even if everything were
nationalised we'd just be exploited directly by state
bureaucrats rather than by the directors and bankers who
currently tell them what to do.
Recent calls to abolish benefits for single mothers show us
that the ruling parasites feel strong. They're on the march.
More and more information is being kept on more and more
people.
The mass media discourage us from looking beyond the next few
months. But if we do, we see lines of information being
established which are increasingly two-way or
'interactive.'Surveillance, or keeping track of people,leads
directly to control. The reason they want to tag babies is
because it's easiest to start with them. It's got nothing to
do with stopping them being snatched.
We'll say it straight.
Over the next 5 to 15 years, the rulers hope to keep tabs on
us all by electromagnetic means. Corresponding types of direct
surveillance would be horrific.The only thing that can stop
this is Revolution. Against this World Society of
Exploitation.
Published by Some Opponents of Technofascism, Central
Scotland, July, 1994

120
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp000972.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,120 @@
Computer Networks and Anarchy
Communication using computers is possible because information may
be transferred between two computers using a variety of methods:
a physical wire, the telephone, or even radio waves. To get from
a computer in Glasgow to one in California, a message is sent
from one computer to another, then to a third, and so on, until
it reaches its destination (to cross the Atlantic Ocean, two
computers communicate via a satellite, or possibly a fibre optic
cable). The next time the computer at the destination is used,
the message from Glasgow is waiting and can be saved on the
computer's disk, printed out, or a reply sent.
These "networks" of computers have proliferated in the past
twenty years; many of them are connected to form the biggest
network, called the Internet. The Internet connects at least ten
million people around the world. The growth and operation of
these networks act as one of the most significant examples of a
functioning anarchy. There is no centralised control; you join
the network by cooperating with the nearest computer site already
on it, which will forward all messages for you. Although
governments sponsor and indirectly run the parts of the Internet
which transfer a high volume of information, many networks are
completely independent. For instance, Fidonet is a worldwide
network of home computers run by computer hobbyists, and the
European Counter Network is a network of activists in Europe.
One of the most popular ways to use the networks is to send
messages to a particular person or organisation; this is called
"electronic mail". An important point is that it costs no more
than a phone call to the nearest computer to do this, even though
the message could be destined for California. Also, the message
is sent after you have finished typing it, typically at a rate of
page a second, so slow typing doesn't cost you more. On the
Internet, such a message could take as little as half an hour to
reach California, allowing a reply within an hour. The message
could contain an article from a magazine produced by computer,
which could be printed out and distributed locally. There is
great potential for keeping in touch and working together. Many
organisations can be contacted by electronic mail: the IWW, WSA,
Love and Rage, the Autonome Forum, Infoshops, the Anarchist
Communist Federation, the German FAU, the SAC, and anarchists in
the U.S.A., Europe, Russia, Japan and elsewhere.
Users of the computer networks maintain a strong tradition of the
free exchange of information. This can be traced to links
between the counterculture and those involved in the early
development of computers. There is a vast amount of information
available on a wide range of subjects - not only concerned with
computers. Much of this is generated by discussion groups
centred around "Bulletin Board Systems", or BBSes. With BBSes,
anyone who wishes can join a discussion group by sending messages
to a specific computer which sends the message to everyone else,
thus simulating a real discussion. The Internet currently has
several discussion groups on anarchism, anarchosyndicalism and
anarchist activism.
The information available is stored on particular computers'
disks and can be accessed by several methods. Nowadays, text,
pictures and even sound can be transferred. There are several
computer archives of anarchist material, including the Fast
Breeder BBS in London, Love and Rage, and Spunk Press. The last
two can be contacted on the Internet. Love and Rage distribute
their bulletin as electronic messages. The Spunk Press archive
currently has over 400 articles from publications such as Here
and Now, Libertarian Labor Review, Counter Information, Wind
Chill Factor, Warrior, Mother Anarchy, works by Emma Goldman,
Bakunin, Kropotkin, and articles from the Glasgow group and
others around the world. A current project is to add back issues
of 'Anarchy, a Journal of Desire Armed' to the archive. Any
magazine produced by computer desktop publishing (DTP) on a PC or
Apple computer can be added to the archive without the effort of
retyping the contents.
Spunk Press is run by a collective of members in the U.S., U.K.,
Sweden, Holland, Italy and elsewhere, using electronic mail to
discuss, coordinate and develop the archive.
Is all this secure? It isn't difficult for governments to
monitor messages, though there is a vast amount of traffic and
methods of encrypting messages have been developed which make it
almost impossible for eavesdroppers to read them.
There maybe someone in your group who has free access to the
Internet through work or study. In this case, they can act as
the Internet contact for the group. Otherwise, what do you need?
A computer, a modem - which is used to transmit messages via
telephone - and a 'service provider', an organisation that allows
you to connect to the Internet. The service provider usually
supplies you with the software for your computer and instructions
on how to connect and use the Internet. Computers are still not
as straightforward to use as they could be, though things are
improving, so it is best to find someone who has
already done this. How much does it cost? The service providers
should charge less than 10 pounds a month - shop around.
Telephone bills depend on how much you use the system, the speed
of your modem (the faster the cheaper) and whether your nearest
computer is local or long distance. You can continue to use your
computer for DTP and other purposes, too.
Good books on computer networking include "The Whole Internet
User's Guide & Catalog," by Ed Krol, published by O'Reilly &
Associates, and "EcoLinking: Everyone's guide to online
environmental information," by Don Ritter, from PeachPit Press,
2414 Sixth St., Berkeley, CA 94710. There is lots of free
information about the Internet itself, once you are connected. If
you have material for Spunk Press, contact them c/o the Glasgow
Anarchists. Once you get on the Internet, send a message to Spunk
Press and the Glasgow group at their electronic mail addresses:
spunk.@lysator.liu.se and cllv13@ccsun.strath.ac.uk
respectively.
Don't forget that computer communication is an addition to
meeting people, using the telephone and writing letters, not a
substitute!

181
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp000973.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,181 @@
Orwell's 1984. Glasgow's 1994?
Closed Circuit Television in Glasgow
What is it?
By the end of this summer four square miles of the city centre
will be under constant 24 hour surveillance. An area from
Glasgow Cross to Charing Cross will be dotted with 32 cameras.
These will produce over 5000 hours of footage each week of
Glaswegians going about their everyday lives. The cameras will
be monitored by specially trained disabled civilians from a
bank of screens at Steward Street Police Station.
What will it cost?
The estimated cost of the project for installation and the
first three years of running costs is 1 million pounds.
Who is funding it?
Half of the money is coming from private businesses in the
city centre through voluntary donations. The rest is coming
from the public sector - Strathclyde Regional Council and
Glasgow District Council.
What is it for?
"The Cameras have been installed to protect valuable
businesses"
Glasgow Chief SuperIntendent Gordon Carmicheal.
Daily Record 14/1/94
"The Cameras are not there to spy on people but to protect
people"
Strathclyde Regional Councillor James Jennings
Scotsman 16/7/93
"The Cameras do not just make sense. It makes business sense."
Caroline Durkan Glasgow Development Agency (GDA).
Herald 9/12/93
Although there is confusion whether the cameras are to protect
property or people, the main stated aim of the project is to
deter crime in the city centre and to make it "a safer place
for shoppers and shop owners, families, women and other law
abiding citizens" Strathclyde Chief Constable Leslie Sharp
Herald 22/10/93
It will also be used to deter soliciting and to film kerb
crawlers (Glaswegian 19/8/93).
It is clear that the police have complete power to use and
abuse the technology as they wish. The films could be used for
any purpose whatsoever, from filming public leafleting to
filming people on marches and demonstrations. Once the
technology is in place it can be used for whatever the police
want.
How long will video footage be kept?
According to Caroline Durkan of the Glasgow Development
Agency, "footage will be retained for one month then wiped
unless required for evidence of information" Herald 9/12/93
This is obviously vague and open to interpretation and abuse
by the police.
Who will have access to and control of video footage?
"Recorded tapes will be the property of the chief constable
and will be used only be Strathclyde Police to deter and
detect criminals"
Caroline Durkan (GDA) Herald 9/12/93
The above statement was enough to convince doubting
Strathclyde Regional Councillors that the video cameras would
not be an abuse of civil liberties. Such unlimited powers
should obviously because for concern, not confidence, in the
system. A U.S. Lawyer quoted in the Scotsman 31/8/93 states
"the person who controls the technology controls the use made
of it"
Background
Since the mid 1980's there has been a rapid growth in English
towns and cities installing closed circuit television systems.
In 1986 Bournemouth installed video cameras along its seafront
and claimed that in its first year of use the bill for
vandalism dropped from 220 000 to 36 000 pounds (Scotsman
31/8/93).
Newcastle installed a 400 000 system and claimed there was a
13% reduction in crime in the first two months of operation
(Guardian 13/5/93).
Hexham installed a video system and claimed there was a
"significant reduction in crime by 97% in areas covered by
cameras (Scotsman 30/11/93).
Kings Lynn in the Midlands (of England) installed cameras and
claimed that thefts from cars dropped by 97% and car crimes in
general by 91% (Guardian 31/8/93).
These statistics appear impressive and have led to many
Scottish towns installing or planning to install camera
systems. The most publicised case is Airdrie where it is
claimed crime fell by 75% in its first six months of operation
(Scotsman 31/8/93).
Other Scottish towns such as East Kilbride, Bathgate and
Kirkcaldy have installed cameras and more schemes are being
planned from Dumfries to Inverness. It is against this
backdrop of a growing "camera culture" that Glasgow is
planning the biggest, most sophisticated and most expensive
system yet to be put into operation in any "British" town or
city.
The British Security Industry Association (BSIA) say there are
around 200 000 closed circuit television systems in the
country and that the BSIA firms that supplied them did
business worth 57 million in 1992 (Guardian, 13/5/93). It is
now Big Business protecting Big Business in "Britain". It is
hardly surprising so much effort is being put into convincing
us video cameras are a cure all for crime. But are they
really?
Arguments for and against Closed Circuit Television
Deterrent
The major argument used in favour of the cameras is that they
deter crime. They may deter certain categories of crime but
they do not deter neither the drunken nor the determined
"criminal". The person who commits a crime when drunk is
likely to do it anyway. A person determined to commit a crime
will just go to greater lengths to avoid being caught. Carole
Euart, from the Scottish Council of Civil Liberties (SCCL),
stated "people have been watched by cameras for many years in
banks and building societies, but armed robberies haven't
declined. This proves cameras are not necessarily a deterrent
- they won't change peoples fundamental behaviour" (Glaswegian
13/1/94).
Detection
Another argument used is that even if people do commit a crime
they are far more likely to be caught and therefore found
"guilty" and "punished". This is probably true, although
people determined to commit a crime are likely to adopt more
sophisticated methods to hide their identity in an area they
know is covered by cameras. However, unless every street in
every town has a camera they are more likely to go to an area
not covered by cameras.
Displacement
Figures show that crime does not simply disappear into thin
air. Instead it reappears somewhere else. In Airdrie although
crime fell in the town centre "the number of serious crimes
for the division as a whole went up from 113 to 135" (Scotland
on Sunday,12/12/93). In Hexham, although crime in the area
covered by the cameras fell by 17% elsewhere in Hexham it rose
by 12% (Scotsman,30/11/93). In the Herald (11/8/93) an editor
of a Glasgow community newspaper asks
"Is it acceptable to the business community and municipal
mediocrities in George Square who have not built a house in 14
years that as long as robbery and violence are confined to the
schemes then all is well?"
The main argument against cameras whatever the statistics show
is that "people should not be observed by institutions of the
state as they go about their everyday business (Carole Euart,
SCCL, Glaswegian 13/1/94). This is the main objection that we
as anarchists should put across to other people.

160
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp000974.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,160 @@
Severely Dealt With:
Growing Up in Belfast and Glasgow.
After years of devoting his efforts to assisting the cause of Guy
Aldred, with his United Socialist Movement, and "The Word", and
latterly keeping the memory of the unorthodox communist alive*,
John Taylor Caldwell has been persuaded to record his own life
story.
This 'odyssey', an "intricate task of retracing intellectual
and philosophical development, as Bob Jones of Northern Herald
Books notes, met at first with a "typically self-effacing
response". Years of recording the lives of others had perhaps led
to an under-valuation of his own experience as testimony to f the
impact of the self in it's initial struggle to imprint it's will
on a hostile environment.
Cushioned by a certain standard of welfare state and post-
war upbringing, it can be a shock when the squalor of industrial
life in the early 20th century is the backdrop for a comrade with
such a sensitive demeanor as John. We have been exposed to
numerous literary descriptions of "down and out" inner city
slums, and the degree of poverty described in Belfast and Glasgow
is captured with an intensity that is impressive.
The book travels a route through the first stirrings of
consciousness, and gives a genuine account of the child's view of
the world. Punctuated by asides to explain the descent of the
family's fortunes, the historical period and it's esoteric
offshoots, the book records the consistent drive present within
his self from an early age to create his own philosophy.
"nowadays it would be said that I had a hyperactive mind. It was
never still. It burned inside my head
llike a great flame in a little candle. It illuminated a
stream of hazy visions, colourful dreams and profound thoughts. "
>From a "trancelike state in which insomniacs aver they are still
awake and observers declare that they have fallen asleep" he
"drifted into a visionary world beyond experience" in which he
now recognises that
"this was the urge to return (which) is in all of us; the
yearning for the womb, or the tomb....native to non-being: life
is an interruption, an aberration, a wrench from the ineffable
reality - a pain, a sickness from which we constantly try to
escape in pretending to be someone else, somewhere else, in some
other time. That ios why escapism is such a major industry. No-
one dares be himself. To seek self is to brave reality, and that
could not be endured. All Art and Religion are struggles to
escape, sometimes from the nightmare of being and sometimes from
the truth
of its extinction"
While embarked on such imagining, not all thought was so
philosophical but John refuses to divulge his "serialised
daydream...lest I set Freudians in a flurry"!
The chapter 'Severely Dealt With' records the experience of
schooling, and the sheer brutality and regimentation afflicted on
working class children, "outcasts...herded into classrooms, not
just to be educated, but to be disciplined, to be tamed. Hence
order, silence, unquestioned obedience.....made to fear
authority".
This was a time of change and potential upheavel, the end of
the first World War, the partition of Ulster and 'Bolshevism' and
the book records the subtle influences at work amongst the
different layers of the downtrodden class. His mother answered
his questions about riots spreading to his street in terms that
"respectable people..don't go in for that sort of thing".
However, such was the despotic influence of his own father, the
domestic violence, that such worldly events offerred a relief
from the hunger and beatings that pervaded everyday life. This
leads to the harrowing description of his own mother's death
through such violence and his older sister's estrangement from
the father who married to have sex, with ten unwanted chidren the
result: "the very thought of affection would have turned him
sour".
John. now 14, travelled on the steamer to Glasgow 'to
keep house', his father having moved to escape debt rather than
the growing sectarian violence. The 'good old days' depicted was
of a
"big city, where the people lived' up closes' which had stone
pipe-clayed stairs with a lavatory on each landing to do three or
four more houses. At night many of the closes were occupied by
the homeless, some of them addicted to a brew concocted of
methylated spirits and an injection of coal gas from the
stairhead lighting.
It was a tough city where many of the side-street dwellers wore
cloth caps with
razor blades sewn into the cap, and often carried cut-throat
razors in case tthe need arose tocut a few throats. The 'polis'
were to be feared: mostly big men who, like the Irish, spoke in
amusing malaprops (for instance 'Come on get off', 'If you want
to stand their you'd better move along') "
One of the first incidents that stuck in John's mind was of a
hanging at nearby Duke St. prison, a youth called brought up on a
culture of violence. He imagined,
"beneath the bell's great hammer, having the sentence of the
Court pounded
into his mind in a last stroke of retribution".
As it happened, he got a job as a page-boy in "The Picture
House", for 2 years and this allowed further scope for his racing
imagination. Although occasionally sidetracked by cinematic
adventure, historical rather than romantic, the mind struggled
with a philosophy that emerged firstly by dealing with God
("thereness"), and moving on by chance encounters with orators
from subjectivist and 'marxist' pedigrees. One of these orators,
'Quinn', ironically committed suicide in a river he maintained
'did not exist'. Even today, a surly family organised as the
Glasgow Humane Society fishes bodies out of the Clyde.
In the recent Book Launch for 'Severely Dealt With' organised
by the Glasgow Anarchists, the actor Kenny Grant read the chapter
"Never Again", in which 'Caldiie' recounts the anti-war mood
which typified Glasgow in the mid-20s.
"On walls and rosadways were thick pipe-clay chalkings:
WAR IS MURDER, WAR IS HELL, NEVER AGAIN"
The experience of the World War horror was an everyday reality.
Notoriety came the way of the family when the 'Cruelty' came
to learn about the neglect of the children and their frequent
beatings and the case achieved press attention. The book breaks
off with the prospect of 'going to sea', but not before John
recounts the impact of sexual awakening, which his philosophical
contemplation had not prepared himself for, despite the callous
womanising of his father. After a panic, belkieving he had
contracted VD, he vowed to "keep strict control...clear of loose
women...and solitary practices".
This is not a nostalgic trip through biography, but a
compelling journey of discovery achieved in the most difficult
circumstances. Recalling sectarian conflicts, and having lived a
lifetime of propagandising for communism, John let's slip that
" it took me another sixty years to realise that mankind is
quite mad".
But disappointment that capitalism continues, thriving on the
escape from self mass culture encourages, and the persistence of
anti-social tendencies, hasn't existinguished the author's hope
that the causes of war, exploitation and alienation are
identified and 'put to right' in a social revolution.
(Severely Dealt With: Growing Up in Belfast and Glasgow,
Northern Herald Books, 5 Close Lea, Rastrick, Brighouse HD6 3AR
for z5.95 pounds or like 'Come Dungeons Dark' , (his account of
Aldred's life including his conscientoius objection) Luath Press
6.95 pounds from AK Distrib).

104
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp000975.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,104 @@
Born to be Wild!
And so it begins....
Wimpey, finally, has started the rape of Pollok Estate in the
name of "progress" (read profits). But so has
the resistance!
As soon as the tree choppers arrived on the 14th of February,
people went into action. Over 100 people, from all across Glasgow,
soon faced Wimpey employers across a line of over 100 police. Obviously
"protecting" a bunch of tree killers against non-violent protesters
is more important than stopping crime. Abuse was hurled, people
tried to D-lock themselves to trees, but the thin blue line held firm, making sure
that profit not people was on the agenda.
Then, across the road bed, came help. Gathering like a storm, the
weans of Pollok exploded into the struggle, blowing the cops away and
the minds of the protesters. Soon the destruction halted as they
jumped on tree cutting equipment and reminded the workers of the
human costs of their work.
"Have you got asthma? I've got asthma!" went the cries. Some of
the workers realised the results of their action and quit. 26 left
that day, many joining the protesters. z3 an hour (and that's
double time!) cannot buy an individual's humanity and feelings, no
matter how much Wimpey hope. Lets hope the rest of their
employees realise that "just following orders" impresses no one.
The next day, Wimpey tried again. After initial success near Hagg's
Castle, protesters again brought work to a grinding halt. They
surrounded a landrover and stopped it in its tracks. The action
allowed protesters to talk with the workers, urging them to think
beyond money, to act against what they know is wrong,
destroying the environment and the health of people like
them. The cutting was stopped and they did not
reappear.
Again, victory.....
It says a lot for the Pollok Free State and Earth First!
that Wimpey is now running weeks behind schedule. They should
have started chopping trees at the start of January! They
finally got the bottle mid
February.
And no wonder. You can feel it as soon as you enter the Free
State. History is being made. The very process of struggle is
creating a new community, a new vision of what should be
and what can be. A practical anarchy is being formed within
the system. A community of resistance, a commonwealth of
cooperation within humanity and within nature.
This vision can be felt everywhere, from everyone. It is
liberating. You feel it, you know it. We can change
things by ourselves, we can win, we can create a better
society. We, by our actions, our decisions, our
feelings, our hopes, make history, create the future.
Its in our hands, its our lives....
This is why the Criminal Justice Act exists. It tries
to ban direct action, limit our freedom to protest and
party. Why? Partly because direct action is effective.
But direct action does more than get results. It
changes people. It produces communities, it creates a
new way of thinking and looking. What seemed
"normal" before becomes oppressive and unnecessary
after.
The CJA is the latest in a long line of attacks on our
class. The latest attempt by the state to keep us
isolated. Isolated people are no threat to power. Isolated
people cannot challenge their authority or their
system. Isolated people cannot make history.
That's what direct action changes. It breaks down
the barriers. It creates alternatives. That is why power
hates it.
Pollok Free State shows what is possible. We need to fight
the whole culture that has been built up around
delegating activities and power to others. Anarchism is
trying to oppose this culture of dependency and
build a new kind of culture that is based on mutual
aid, self-activity, self-organisation, self-help and self-
liberation, as individuals and as a class.
We must not think that the anti-M77 resistance is just
about motorways. No, its far more. Its about putting
life before profits. Its about how we live. Its about
why we live. We must create more examples of
practical anarchy, in our communities and workplaces.
Only by supporting and spreading this struggle can
we stop the motorway madness. The school revolt is just
one example. By working together we can enjoy
the freedom of protest and create a community of hope. By
resistance we can change the world.
We have a new world in our hearts, its time we created it!

70
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp000976.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
Fight The Power!
Party Hard!
The Criminal Justice Act is bad news. That's clear. The government
wants to make the rest of society as
boring as they are! It attacks our freedom to
party and protest. There's only one thing left for us to do. Kill
this act by partying and protesting! Its up
to us, no one else will do it for us.
While claiming the C.J.A. is to protect us, its
clear that all it does is protect rich landowners, bosses and the
state against the few "civil liberties" remaining for
us. Most of the Act is concerned with criminalising all
direct action and unauthorised demonstrations, particularly
against pickets, hunt sabs and road protesters -
even hillwalkers. Its main aim is to give the police
even more power - the right to stop and search anyone,
an end to the right of silence, the introduction
of plea bargaining, exclusion zones, "aggravated trespass"
and paranoid "anti-terrorist" laws. The only
freedom it protects is the freedom of power to do
exactly what it wants....
We must recognise the C.J.A. for what it is, a piece
of class based legislation for and by the rich and
powerful. It was never just about targeting squatters,
hunts sabs and ravers. It's a direct attack on all
working class people. Liberal protest ain't going
to work. Only direct action gets the goods. Why
else is the C.J.A. trying to ban it?
Remember this is just the latest in a long series
of attacks on our class. We need to link up all our
struggles and fight to win. By fighting isolated
struggles we can be picked off one by one. But by
uniting together we can win. Just look at the Poll Tax.
Our fight so far has some great features in it. Unofficial
mass demos where we took over the streets and
made them ours. D.I.Y. gigs, raves and parties which
have raised lots of money and awareness for the fight
as well as providing many a good night. Excellent
pickets and solidarity marches. Over the country a
network of mutual aid and support is spreading, a
network of angry people who know how to party!
We must organise and make all this stronger. By
doing this we can make this act unworkable. By mass
defiance, direct action and solidarity we can win.
So let's party and protest. We don't need boring speeches
to tell us what's wrong or what to do. Its OUR
lives, OUR liberties. We need to organise ourselves
to take the power back. No one else is going to do it.
No one else can. The only parties we need are the ones with
loud music. The ones we organise ourselves. The ones
that play OUR tunes.
Let us experience the freedom of protest and party hard
until the C.J.A. lies along side the Poll Tax in the
dustbin of history.
"If I can't dance then its not my revolution"
Emma Goldman, anarchist.

103
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp000978.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,103 @@
THE CLINTON VISION
Noam Chomsky
ISBN 1-873176-92-9
CD 56 minutes
$12.98
Orders to:
AK Press
POB 40682
San Francisco, CA 94140-0682
U.S.A.
Contact Patrick Hughes
(415) 923-1429
For those among you who have had the pleasure of hearing Noam
Chomsky fire one of his critiques at the rule of capital, this CD
will give you the opportunity to enjoy and learn once again. For
those who haven't heard this anarcho-syndicalist Doctor Who of
the Academy, here's your chance to listen to him as he blows the
media smoke away from the Clinton Presidency, while he holds the
mirror of logic to the face of lesser evil.
How does he do it?
Being a world renowned expert in the field of linguistics helps.
But don't let that scare you. Chomsky is as easy to understand
as a clear blue sky. He follows his usual method here. By taking
quotes from the most "respectable" of sources--the "Wall Street
Journal", the "New York Times", U.N. statistical documents and
Bill Clinton's own speeches--he is able to expose the smell of
burnt human flesh underlying the cost-efficiency ethics of the
ruling class chefs--in this case their Chief Executive Officer in
the State apparatus.
So, what is the Clinton Vision?
Listen to this CD as Chomsky makes it stand up on its three hind
legs--the globalization of capital, the replacement of bourgeois
democracy with corporate totalitarianism, and the gulagization of
unproductive (of profit) members of the proletariat.
The globalization of capital has and is being ratified in various
international trade agreements: NAFTA, GATT and the Asian
Pacific Agreement. Noam chooses to illustrate this by using
Clinton's visit to the Boeing complex to sign the APA. According
to the Clinton Vision, Boeing sets an example for the future of
U.S. capital in the New World Order. Boeing, a company whose
stockholders enjoy immense State subsidy in the form of research
and development costs via the military, is that hybrid of current
successful market competitiveness. Little did you know that when
you hopped that jet to Newark, you were riding in a modified
bomber design. The mingling of the State and capital is the
model of the Clinton Vision, whether it is Boeing, Cray Computer
or the nuclear power industry in the U.S.A.. That this model of
capital is being ratified in agreement after agreement on a world
scale shows that other ruling classes realize the same vision.
Needless to say, Chomsky makes it clear that their interests and
ours are not the same.
Linked to this notion for the need to ratify corporate/State
capital's dominion over the world market by "agreement" is the
corollary need to distance control over political decision making
from the unwashed masses. As if the distance were not already
great enough, agreements like NAFTA, the APA and so on tend to
have clauses embedded in them which prohibit national entities
from passing laws which conflict with their "agreed" on
positions. Thus the governing model of the Clinton Vision is
more and more closely aligned with the totalitarian operating
structure of the modern corporation and less and less with the
republican form of government initiated by the American
revolutionaries of the 18th Century.
Connected to both the international agreements and the increasing
attraction of the corporate power pyramid as a means of political
rule, is the answer to that age old capitalist question--"what to
do with the unemployed?". The Clinton Crime Bill and the billion
dollar prison construction plans are no accident of history.
We're not rebuilding the infrastructure here; we're constructing
the gulag of the future for those who, according to Chomsky, have
no value to the privileged elites of the U.S.A.. "Human beings
have value only in so far as they contribute to profit making."
Seems to be the prime directive of the modern bourgeois
"Enterprise".
This lecture provides us with both a lesson in contemporary
political economy and an example of how to cut through the crap
of media mystification. The "Clinton Vision" demonstrates
conclusively that relying on the lesser evil is not the solution.
The hard truth is that we can only depend on ourselves, organized
as One Big Union.
Mike Ballard
This review is from the pages of the "Industrial Worker", newspaper
of the Wobblies. Send $15 for a 1 year sub to:
Industrial Worker
PO Box 2056
Ann Arbor, MI 48106
U.S.A.

439
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp000982.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,439 @@
*****************************************************************
We've got an attitude! -Bad Brains
=================================================================
NEWS & VIEWS FROM (THE FORMER) SOVIETSKY SOYUZ
No.3 February 1995
=================================================================
Jahrbucher fur Psychoanalitik und Psychopatalogik
der Russischer Radikalbewegungs
*****************************************************************
GENERAL COMPLAINTS
Greetings from the weak link of the worldwide revolutionary
resistance!
In spite of the word 'news' in the name of this bulletin it has
always been views that dominated it. Just as any other
publication from the former USSR, ours is very opinionated, not
to say sectarian (we haven't got a sect). Since, due to our
irregularity, we fail to deliver news that doesn't stink, we
always make reviewing some tendencies in the anarchist scene here
our main preoccupation. This time too, we offer you the following
general complaints. (Well, there will be some news and events.)
The period since the previous issue of 'News & Views' (August
1993) was characterized by the more and more evident withering
away of the ideological federations (that is the Confederation of
Anarcho-Syndicalists (KAS) and the Federation of Revolutionary
Anarchists (FRAN).A third federation,the Association of Anarchist
Movements (ADA) never was an ideological federation and due to
its very informal character just can't die, because it was never
actually so much alive). This fact however shouldn't bother you
so much, since in places where there's enough will to continue
anarchist activities, they are still carried on - on a more
humane and non-sectarian basis. Unfortunately not everywhere it
is so and anarchist groups that actually do something can be
counted by numbers, plus, information exchange between different
groups is in fact falling apart due to the fact that almost all
the anarchist info-bulletins collapsed -the Petersburg-based "An-
Press" which was published by libertarian capitalists is now
defunct while its publishers finally did what they should have
done long ago - joined some liberal party. "KAS-Contact" that was
moved from Moscow to Tomsk 2 or 3 years ago finally collapsed,
too, and was moved to Irkutsk where it was being published very
irregularly due to lack of actual information and activities and
technical problems. The only bulletin that carried some
occasional news that was buried under heaps of gossip was Moscow
IREAN's "Novy Nestor", that many people were forced to read since
there was nothing else. (When I say the bulletin was filled with
gossip and not news, I present not my personal point of view, but
the position of the editors of the bulletin, who from the very
beginning looked at it as a joke. It's very ironic that they were
delivering crap ahead of schedule (about 30 or 40 issues were
published since the beginning of the last year), while they
failed to publish their paper with the same regularity - although
the latter only served the interests of anarchism in Russia since
the paper was filled with RAF communiques and salivating about
how IREAN loves them.)
UKRANIAN ANARCHISTS RE-GROUP (WHAT ELSE CAN THEY DO?)
In September-October last year some Ukranian anarchists, tired of
sectarian fights between KAS and FRAN and the absence of any
workable anarchist network in Ukraine itself, decided to launch
some kind of an all-Ukranian federation. Although not all the
Ukranian anarchist groups participated in the gathering, the
organizers (the Donetsk KAS group) got positive responses from
various groups and activists from Lvov, Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov,
Nikolayev and some smaller towns. As a result of discussion at
the conference they decided to put an end to sectarian debates
(that were mainly 'imported' from Russia anyway) and quit all
the federations they were part of - KAS, FRAN and ADA - and form
the Confederation of Revolutionary Anarcho-Syndicalists (KRAS).
(In fact the Donetsk KAS group proposed to create the
Confederation of Revolutionary Anarcho-Syndicalists with a more
traditional, IWA-type program at the last KAS gathering in
Moscow, but this proposal was declined partly because of the lack
of substantial reasoning behind it and some rather bureaucratic
proposals for how this new federation should be run.) The new
all-Ukranian federation adopted a traditional anarcho-syndicalist
program modelled on the one of the IWA. The latter seems to
arouse a lot of comradely interest for KRAS, although their
position on the possibilities of affiliation with the IWA is
different from that of the "Friends of the IWA" in Moscow - KRAS
feels that the question of affiliation is still not on the agenda
and it won't be in 1996 (the planned date of the next IWA
Congress) due to the obvious weakness of anarcho-syndicalists in
the former USSR and the absence of the "critical mass" for a
syndicalist union. And it's true - none of the syndicalist groups
in this country can be called a union, because of their miniscule
size.
Although the anarchists of Donetsk region who were the motor
behind the creation of KRAS are rather optimistic about the
future of this organization, they obviously will face some
serious problems - like the one they had last year when the
officials warned them that they can't be an "anarchist
federation" and publish a paper of this "federation" since it is
not legally registered with the state. In case they will try to
violate this, they were promised to be charged several hundred
dollars worth of fines. This was one of the reasons why the
second issue of their "Anarchy" paper wasn't published (the other
reason was the primitive stage of capitalism in Ukraine and
virtual inavalability of accessible printing places). Anyway,
Ukranian anarchists didn't abandon their desire to continue their
publication. So far they launched a small internal discussion
bulletin that aims at creating a discussion about the activities
and principles of their organization.
REVOLUTION OF THE SPECTACLE IN THE SOCIETY OF EVERYDAY LIFE
The lack of appeal of 'radical' ideas and actions to the general
population forces 'radicals' to think of new ways to seek popular
support. The latest frenzy in the anarchist, communist and proto-
fascist circles is the concept of being 'cool' and presenting
your ideas and activities in the most spectacular way. The first
to dive into this marketing strategy was Edward Limonov, a
scandally-famous Russian writer, founder of the spectacular-
extremist National-Bolshevik Party. That Limonov, this re-
incarnation of Malcolm MacLaren, decided to gain some popularity
and money on the scandals surrounding his 'political' activities
was quite predictable. What was hard to predict was the recent
obsession of pretty traditional Young Communists (RKSM) with
creating a new image of communism, which is to be marketed to the
youth.
I doubt that they would ever have arrived at such a 'modern'
concept, had they not been surrounded by some 'anarchists', who
were in fact the main orchestrants of this frenzy. Already a
while ago some people from IREAN headed to the Stalinist-lead
"Student Defence" "trade union", where some monarchists and other
miserable creatures were also involved. Anarchists wrote some
'cool' articles for the Young Communists' paper giving these
bores some brand new ideas and images - some class war, some
poorly-digested feminism, etc. "Student Defence" managed to
organize some 'cool' protest in April last year with some
occasional 'anti-capitalist actions', which were afterwards
disproportionally blown up in their papers. After that the
concept of 'spectacular revolution' was given final shape with
statements like "to make a revolution today... it is enough to
film the moment of rebellion and make a videoclip".
On January 17, 1995 Young Communists organized a "theoretico-
practical conference on "New Revolutionary Communism", where they
talked a lot about the need for a new ideology. Also they spoke a
lot about the 'similarity' between the new left and new right and
the necessity of acting together on some concrete issues. The
reason for that was found in the 'numerous historical examples of
Communists acting together with {left} fascists'. However, the
reasons for such activities and their possible outcomes were not
analyzed at all - it seemed that analysis of any kind is out of
their reach. These tendencies were rather well articulated in the
papers of IREAN, RKSM and the National-Bolshevik Party recently
and thus it became possible for the Russian Section of the Last
International and the Clandestine Committee for the Eradication
of Professional Revolutionaries, Militants and their Sympathizers
to go to considerable lengths denouncing all these stupidities of
these self-proclaimed 'radicals'. The communique of these
organisations called "A Good Cure for Obsolete Communism: An
Appeal to the Victims of the Theoretico-practical Conference..."
attacked the superficial claims about putting the spectacle to
the service of revolution, the discovery of the similarity
between the new left and the new right that we should somehow
'use' and the general stupidity of the above-mentioned
tendencies.
=================================================================
CHRONICLE
=================================================================
On December 7, 1994 about a dozen anarchists picketed the
Indonesian embassy in Moscow, protesting against the continuing
occupation of East Timor and the genocide of its population. A
couple of articles about the tragedy of East Timor was published
in some (almost mainstream) paper, thus putting an end to the 20-
year-old silence of Russian propaganda on this topic. Protesters
handed a letter to the ambassador. Unfortunately this time the
Moscow office of the BHP (a company extracting oil from East
Timor in spite of occupation and genocide there) wasn't
spraypainted and thrashed, but we'll sure do it next time.
Protests against the war in Chechnya sparked some life into the
anarchist scene in Moscow. Anarchists participated in most of the
demonstrations and pickets against the war. On December 12, which
saw the biggest demonstration against the war (several thousand
people, ranging from Communists to liberals and the Chechen
community of Moscow), they tried to organize a small 'radical'
march on the Defence Ministry together with some young
Communists, Trots and radical liberals, but were stopped by the
police. Several people were arrested later in the evening. On
December 19 five activists of radical Democratic Union and
anarchists painted the Defence Ministry with anti-war slogans and
even 'bombed' it with fireworks. Some of them were reported to
the police and arrested, but the court set them free without any
fines. There was also some leafleting in Moscow metro (which is
now filled with policemen and military, looking for "Chechen
terrorists"), with a couple of people arrested and fined, and
some spraypainting around the city. On January 30 some Moscow
anarchists and radical liberals from the Democratic Union (DS)
spraypainted 13 military call-up stations with anti-war and anti-
imperialist slogans. They are also planning an active campaign
against the military call-up this spring.
In Nizhny Novgorod (former Gorky) the local Anarchist Club,
Rainbow Keepers and the local Green Party launched a campaign
against the military institutions and the war in Chechnya. Local
call-up stations were spraypainted with slogans like "Russia
shouldn't be a gendarme!", "Turn your arms against those who send
you to kill!" and "Here are the headquarters of the fascist
army". This happened after the local authorities remained deaf to
the demands of protesters who were organizing pickets. Well, if
they still will be deaf, anarchists promised to go further than
words.
Khabarovsk in the Far East is also bubbling - some anarchists
make a radio show "While Mommy Watches Santa-Barbara", bringing
some music and attitude to a young audience. Khabarovsk
anarchists also launched a campaign against bus controllers,
agitating for going without paying, collective obstructing of
controllers and damaging some bus equipment. This campaign is an
answer to another increase in the cost of public transport. Among
the other activities of these joyful Far Easterners are
continuing attempts to organize a rock club and a 'free
university' (regular seminars and discussions on different
topics).
In Tver, a city located in the middle of the road between Moscow
and St.Petersburg, anarchists participate in a campaign against
the construction of a superhighway between the two capitals.
Construction of the superhighway, that will have a deep base is
likely to destroy the natural underground water system of the
region.
On February 11 activists from various anarchist, ecological and
radical liberal groups held a discussion in Moscow. Originally,
the topic of the discussion was rather broad - from the
traditional ways of organizing in this country (and why they
can't help us achieve anything) to the role of family in
undermining broader communities to what we can do this spring.
However, people who have gathered for the discussion preferred to
discuss how it happened that radicalism lost even the tiny
grounds that it had in the emerging social movements of the
perestroika era (this discussion has been around for several
years already), but didn't pay attention to what was really wrong
with the existing forms of organizing (i.e. ideological groups).
Anyway, since recently we witnessed the creation of some down-to-
earth groups oriented on specific issues (mainly ecological), the
radical movement is moving in the right direction. It's a pity
that this is done in some unconscious fashion. As the discussion
proceeded, issues of cooperation between different groups were
discussed, namely around the anti-war and anti-draft campaign. It
was more or less agreed to hold regular meetings and stop inter-
personal and inter-group infights that were going on for several
years. The groups that decided to participate in the future
meetings included the Confederation of Anarcho-syndicalists, the
Group of Radical Anarcho-syndicalists (GRAS), Rainbow Keepers
(anarcho-ecological group), "A" Cultural Centre, "Cherepovets-95"
ecological group,the Democratic Union (radical liberals), The
Emma Goldman Dancing Brigade and some other activists that are
active in other groups. (All of these groups are rather or very
tiny.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DON'T EAT YOUR REVOLUTION! MAKE IT!
On November 7 all the Stalinists gathered on Oktyabrskaya Square
in Moscow under the still-standing huge Lenin. Later they headed
to Red Square, followed by some small groups of Trotskyists and
even some anarchists who successfully created an illusion that
"young people" were with them. While the latters' red-n-black
banners and dull papers were surely unable to destroy the
traditional way of celebrating the October revolution day, the
assault came from where nobody expected it. As the demonstrators
were going down their route they inevitably confronted a small
group of some vocal revolutionaries who were standing on the side
of the road under the banner of 'primitive communism' (made of
fake red fur) who were fearlessly banging their big drum. As the
crowd passed by them and tried to find out what they wanted to
say, the atmosphere was getting more and more tense. "The Blind"
(that is the name of an artistic group) announced that people who
gathered at the demo had nothing to do with revolution, that they
'ate' their revolution and shitted it out, that the only thing
they can do is ask the government for more money. Their poster
announced "Proletarians of all lands, enough eating!" Instead of
asking the government for money, The Blind announced, we should
make another revolution and realise the real - primitive -
communism. We should care less about material things and instead
turn our attention to people around us. After the demo passed and
the shouts "They are Jews, Zionists! Go back to Israel!"
addressed to The Blind finally dissolved in the air, the
'primitive communists' headed back home and were stopped by
police, who asked for their IDs. In spite of that, the affair
ended peacefully.
STRANGE FRUIT
On September 5 some Moscow anarchists and punks were trying to
defend their 'property rights' to a basement that was for some
time used as a non-commercial club named first after the infamous
sell-out Jerry Rubin and later after Ho Chi Min (due to the fact
that the club was situated not far from a square named after him
and a surreal monument to Ho). On New Year's Eve anarchists had
a rather nice party there after which the club finally moved out
- into nowhere. Since both the Jerry Rubin/Ho Chi Min Club and
the "A" Club which was run by anarchists were homeless, they
decided to join their forces. There are some reasons to believe
that this union will bring about not only a cheap club where kids
can hang out, but some constant place for radical meetings and
activities. So far we found a basement that was given to us and
now we are looking forward to cleaning it up and using it for
meetings and some kind of infoshop and anarchist library.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THE ABC OF LIBERTARIAN LENINISM
(this will be a comix)
Characters:
Male announcer - a hero of some
comix, more or less like a Superman
Comrade Lenin - the leader of
proletarian revolution, founder
of Leninism
Male announcer: Contrary to what is usually believed, Leninism
too has strong libertarian potential. Unfortunately anarchists
tend to disregard it while they point out that only on one
occasion Lenin supposedly 'stole' their ideas when he wrote
"State and Revolution". If we dig a little deeper, we will
discover the unknown terrain of Leninism which is highlighted by
aphorisms, not less poetic than those of Bakunin, Marx and the
situationists. Please, comrade Lenin, give us just one example.
Comrade Lenin (sitting on a chair, his arms on his knees, seems a
little depressed, announces in mechanic voice): You can't live in
society and be free from society.
Male announcer: Brilliant, don't you think? For years and years
philisters exploited just one of the numerous creative methods
appropriated by Marx from Hegel, namely Marxist dialectical
double-speak. Here we find another creative tool for building a
critical social theory, the one that can be called critical
reductionism. Let us now take the same phrase, but this time
without the last word. Please, comrade Lenin!
Comrade Lenin: You can't live in society and be free...
Male announcer: Terrific! But we still haven't seen the rest of
the method. Let's take out some more words. Please, comrade
Lenin!
Comrade Lenin: You can't live in society and be...
Male announcer: Fantastic! Do you understand now what a great
potential libertarians missed when they claimed Leninism to be
inherently authoritarian? Contrary to this narrow opinion it is
as critical as, say, young Marx... Let's see, what will happen if
we take out some more.
Comrade Lenin: You can't live in society... You can't live...
(Clenching his fists, angrily.) You can't, you can't, you
can't!!!
Male announcer: Assistant, please! Can you take comrade Lenin and
provide him with another dose of morphine? His authoritarian
syndrome is back, we need to calm him down!..
=================================================================
some @narchist e-mail contacts in the former USSR:
cube@glas.apc.org :
a little cell of cyberspace occupied by Laure Akai and Mikhail
Tsovma. The name comes from Cube Press, a project that they hope
to lift off the ground sometime. So far one pamphlet was
published - on Bakunin's philosophy and social ideas. The plan
for 1995 includes Daniel Guerin's "Anarchism", George Bradford's
"Triumph of Capital", Fredy Perlman's "The Continuing Appeal of
Nationalism" and probably a small anthology which we so far plan
to name "Mickey Mouse, Fuck Off! An introduction to critical
theory" (it will contain some articles from "Anarchy: A Journal
of Desire Armed", some Bob Black, Fredy Perlman, etc.)
tretyput@glas.apc.org :
"Trety Put" (Third Way) anarcho-ecological magazine edited by
Sergei Fomichov, part of the rather loose network called Rainbow
Keepers that is organizing some ecological campaigns every year
since late 80's
ecodefense@glas.apc.org :
Vladimir Slivyak in Kaliningrad/Konigsberg on Baltic Sea, also an
anarcho-ecologist
nadia@glas.apc.org :
Nadezhda Shevchenko from Kiev, Ukraine, anarcho-ecologist
volga@glas.apc.org :
Olga Pitsunova, anarcho-ecologist in Saratov
rk@glas.apc.org :
Moscow group of Rainbow Keepers, still in the process of building
their technical base, that's why you might not get response if
you write to them
Also available for GlasNet (Russian APC network) is a conference
glas.radical. We intend to keep it mainly Russian-language and
thus it is not networked to other APC networks (there's also a
problem with transfering/decoding cyrillic letters.
=================================================================
COMING SOON:
In the next issue of News&Views I hope to give some materials
about:
- anarcho-ecological groups in Russia and their activities, both
in the recent years and the ones that they plan for the next
summer
- the activities and the current state of syndicalists groups in
projects
- "the wonderful world of ZAIBI", THE most interesting
(anti)music (anti)group and some of its ideas
=================================================================
Contact us:
via e-mail: cube@glas.apc.org
via regular mail: POB 500, 107061 Moscow, Russia
Compiled by Mikhail Tsovma.
Long live the ANC (Absolutely No Copyright)!
Materials published above reflect only the personal opinion(s) of
the author(s), but this doesn't mean they should be treated
differently from the positions of the so-called federations.
=================================================================
If I can't be a graphomaniac once a year, I'm not part of your
revolution! (Sorry for all the non-existent English words that I
put into this bulletin.)

88
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp000983.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
[The following appeared in Insurrection, an anarchist magazine
from Britain of the late 80's. This is one kind of discussion
which we do not find so often in North America. In the next
week Autonomedia hopes to make several of these articles
available electronically.]
INTERNATIONALISM
A restricted view of the struggle is doomed to failure.
If not in terms of immediate results (improved conditions,
growth of revolutionary consciousness, development of
the movement, etc) at least in the long term modifying of
power relations.
The revolutionary struggle is "total". It involves the
possibility of life for the exploited in all the diffeent
parts of the world, hence the need for the "total"
intervention of the revolutionary even when operating in
a circumscribed and therefore "immediate" struggle.
But this interest cannot limit itself to simply reading
the newspapers and keeping oneself informed on what is
happening in the world. It must go a little (or a lot)
further than that.
Proletarian internationalism is an active intervention,
a participation in the struggles of the exploited that
extends everywhere.
But there is a mistaken way of considering this basic
revolutionary perspective. It was applied by the
authoritarian parts of the movement in the seventies
with disastrous results. This mistake has mechanical
characteristics and consists of taking what one
considers to be the highest point of the clash
(ie the situation of the peoples in the third world)
where social and economic conflicts are more obvious,
and carrying them-as a strategic and methodological
propsal-to within the situation of the more advanced
countries (the so-called metropolitan situations). In
the past one heard of bringing Vietnam to Berlin or
London or Milan. The mistake was in sanctifying the
open armed clash unreservedly and in transferring these
aspects to situations which had, and still have very
different characteristics.
But in practice it was not a question of real
proletarian internationalism. The far-off situation was
seen as an occasion for pushing the local situation.
The transferral en bloc was done with a view of obtaining
sympathy and propaganda on the wave of results that the
struggles of those far-off peoples were achieving.
We feel that today more than ever real proletarian
internationalism can go towards one of two solutions.
Firstly, the classical one which is spoken about less and
less now and has come to be seen only through the
distorting lense of a now out-dated romanticism, is that
of direct participation through internationalist groups or
brigades. A lot could be said about the subject which we
shall put off until some future date where it can be gone
into in more detail among comrades.
Alternatively there is the other aspect, that of real
"support" to the internationalist struggle.
It should be said that this support cannot be reduced
to a simple subscription. Even if very useful, it is
certainly not the first thing that the exploited engaged
in a struggle expect. There is also the so-called
"political" support, ie counter-information, demonstrations,
picketing of consulates and embassies, letters of protest.
All very useful things.
And then there is the attack against those responsible
for exploitation. Both internally and externally. Without
wanting to give this aspect priveledge over all the
others, we must say-very clearly-that to do only the first
renders such activity ineffective. It means reducing the
manifestation of thought and and opinion to a banal
exercise of democratic dissent. It means the transformation
of financial support into an act of charity which is mainly
an alibi for oneself. To do the two things together has a
more serious signifigance and corresponds to what we
consider to be true proletarian internationalism.
a.m.b.

677
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp000985.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,677 @@
Consent or Coercion
An anarchist case for social transformation
and answers to questions about anarchism
"The State is a condition, a certain relationship between human beings, a
mode of human behavior; we destroy it by contracting other relationships,
by behaving differently."
Gustav Landauer
Anarchism is the belief that people can voluntarily cooperate to
meet everyone's needs, without bosses or rulers, and without sacrificing
individual liberties. A common misunderstanding is that anarchism is the
total absence of order; that it is chaos, or nihilism. There are even
people who call themselves "anarchists" who have this misperception.
Anarchists are opposed to order arbitrarily imposed and maintained through
armed force or other forms of coercion. They struggle for the order that
results from the consensual interaction of individuals, from voluntary
association. If there is a need, anarchists believe that people are
capable of organizing themselves to see that it is met.
J. A. Andrews used the example of a group of friends going on a
camping trip. They plan their trip, and each person brings useful skills
and tools to share. They work together to set up tents, fish, cook, clean
up, with no one in a position of authority over anyone else. The group
organizes itself, chores are done, and everyone passes the time as they
please, alone or in groups with others. People discuss their concerns and
possible solutions are proposed. No one is bound to go along with the
group, but choosing to spend time together implies a willingness to at
least try to work out constructive solutions to the problems and frictions
that will inevitably arise. If no resolution is possible, the dissenting
individuals can form another grouping or leave without fear of persecution
by the rest of the group.
Compare this to the way most organizations function. A few
individuals make the important decisions, with or without the approval or
input of the rest of the group. Rules and bylaws are passed in the hope of
preventing undesirable activities on the part of members. The leadership
starts out by addressing legitimate concerns, but is soon corrupted by
power. It begins doing what it thinks is best, for itself and the
organization, even if it involves concealing its activities from the other
members or using deception. The elite attempts to entrench itself by
making it difficult for the members to oust it, and constantly works to
increase its power. The elite may ban criticism of its leadership and
policies, or it may attribute superhuman qualities to itself, far
surpassing those of "mere" members. Eventually the elite is no longer
under the control of the members, and cannot be challenged. It can run
amok with all of the power and resources of the organization, punishing
those who dare to defy it. Membership is no longer voluntary, but is
imposed on whoever falls within whatever the organization decides is its
jurisdiction. Laws and authority which were originally aimed at preventing
harm are turned into tools for inflicting harm on whoever is targeted by
the elite.
Another problem with laws and rules is that if you do not have
voluntary compliance, the unlawful behavior will still take place, whether
or not there is a law against it. The outlawed activity will be driven
underground or will be protected by the imprecise wording of the laws.
Having failed to win people's voluntary cooperation, through education or
persuasion, the government passes volumes and volumes of laws, in a
hopeless attempt to address and control every possible situation.
Sometimes the law is observed as if it were carved in stone, even when the
results are clearly ridiculous. An example is the case of the female
motorist who was stopped for speeding, and lectured by a police officer at
length as she sat there suffering labor pains. The officer thought she was
faking the pain of childbirth to escape a traffic ticket! Sometimes the
police fabricate charges against people they wish to punish, or they simply
beat people as an "attitude adjustment" (if you are not sufficiently
terrorized by the police, they consider it an attitude problem). It is
also not uncommon for the laws to be overly vague, or to be misapplied. In
my town, in obvious violation of their own laws, the police set up
roadblocks to stop all motorists, check their sobriety, and search their
vehicles for contraband if there is suspicion of any illegal activity after
questioning them. This is done under the guise of checking for valid
driver's licenses, which is clearly a ruse since there is no indication of
any wrongdoing when the people are stopped. But if anyone would refuse to
submit to such a search, they would likely be charged with interfering with
the duties of a police officer, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest,
plus whatever other charges the district attorney could dream up. If you
were to challenge the roadblocks in court, the judge would probably say
that the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, does not really mean
what it obviously says when it forbids unreasonable searches and seizures,
but that it has been interpreted to mean something entirely different. It
now means that the government has the power to decide what is or is not
reasonable, entirely voiding the purpose of the law. The law means
whatever those in power say it means. The courts have ruled, for example,
that conscription is not involuntary servitude, and that the government can
force you to choose between a military uniform and a prison uniform. And
the laws gradually become more and more restrictive, so that people
gradually become accustomed to having less and less freedom. Children are
assigned identification numbers at birth. Photos on driver's licenses are
stored electronically in computers, where they can be accessed at will by
law enforcement personnel. Employees must present specified forms of
identification to be eligible for employment. Residents of public housing
can have their apartments searched without a search warrant. What seems
outrageously intrusive today is tomorrow's legislation.
Anarchists do not wish to see traffic fatalities, rapes, or
murders. Quite the contrary. They feel the current combination of tyranny
and social chaos are responsible for much of the suffering in the world.
What anarchists fear is the corrupting influence of power and the
inevitable abuse of power. An individual can only do so much damage, but
the same person in a position of authority, or worse yet, an organized,
systematic application of corrupted power, can wreak horrible damage.
Governments have sent millions upon millions of people to their deaths,
through wars and persecutions, and have taken away the freedoms of billions
of others. And note that the police only prevent crimes in rare
situations, such as when a police officer just happens to be at the scene
of a crime in progress. The police almost always show up after the crime
has been committed. Most crimes go unsolved. Attempting to punish
offenders after they have committed their crimes is not a very effective
way to protect people. This false "cure" is just an attack on the symptoms
without treating the underlying problem - a society that is losing its
social consciousness. In other words, the individuals who make up the
society have stopped thinking of themselves as being members of a society.
If your neighbors are all strangers, and you feel powerless to improve
anything, you are not likely to feel that you have a relationship with
those around you. The police are not very effective against criminals, but
they are extremely effective at controlling the general public. A lone
individual has little hope of resisting the depredations of these heavily
armed paramilitary organizations. Even if a benign and uncorrupted
government was possible, many of us would prefer our freedom, with all of
its responsibilities, to being forced to live according to volumes of well
intentioned dictates written by others. Care to wear a crash helmet when
you drive your car? How about banning bare feet on beaches so no one steps
on a sharp rock? And absolutely no walking in remote areas or doing work
outside of your profession.
Fred Woodworth has pointed out that the claims of legitimacy made
by governments, the justifications used by those in power as to why they
have the right to order us about, would be laughable if the results were
not so tragic. Any claims to power made by a monarchy, constitutional
democracy, theocracy, nationalist fatherland or people's republic are
totally bogus since they govern without the consent of the governed. Any
constitution, contract or agreement that claims to bind everyone living in
the same geographic area, unborn generations, or anyone other that the
actual parties to it, are despicable falsehoods. Some governments rule
through fear and brute force, while others, as a result of intense pressure
from their subjects, have become dependent on winning the support of large
sectors of the public in elections in order to stay in power. Bourgeois
democracy, democracy controlled by the elite, is preferable to
dictatorship, but these republics also rely on coercion to achieve their
goals. The political party which wins, with the help of big money,
restrictive ballot access, and winner-take-all election laws, does not have
the right to inflict its will on those who do not support it. The state
machinery uses coercion to compel obedience from its subjects, regardless
of which party is at the controls. Democracy is often equated with
tolerance, but Hitler was a product of democracy, and slavery and apartheid
existed in the U.S. under democracy. Even in an ideal democracy, unwarped
by elite control, the majority may actually support the persecution of
people with unorthodox ideas.
The public is constantly bombarded with propaganda justifying the
existence of the government and explaining the necessity of the current
social system, in the schools, the media, and in its own propaganda. But
less than half of the eligible voters participate in elections in the U.S.
The government loudly proclaims its mandate anyway.
Most of the objections people have to anarchism as a social system
are based on the assumption that people are unreasonable and irresponsible.
If this were the case, no amount of police, judges and jails could conjure
order out of chaos. People would be routinely killing and robbing one
another, and taking advantage of any perceived weakness on the part of
others. We would all be certain we were much too clever to be caught. But
truly anti-social behavior on the part of individuals is the exception,
rather than the rule. Most of us are very well behaved. Much of the
destructive behavior we suffer from is committed by individuals who have
been raised in the most dire conditions, and who face very limited personal
choices due to the material and cultural poverty they were raised in. This
occurs across all ethnic groups and in all countries, but some societies
are wise enough to attack the conditions that foster destructive behavior
instead of merely punishing offenders after the acts have been committed.
This is a social problem which needs to be dealt with, not a given fact of
human nature. Human beings, and even animals, which are raised in an
environment of love, respect and security tend to be good natured and well
adjusted. But any creature raised in an environment of fear, cruelty or
deprivation will tend to exhibit anti-social behavior. Each society spawns
its own predatory individuals. In general, the more atomized and alienated
individuals are from their society, the more likely they are to engage in
destructive behavior, against others and against themselves. And people
cannot be blamed for not identifying with an unsympathetic, and even
predatory, society. Some anarchists argue that it is precisely because
people have become so maladjusted that no one can be trusted with power
over others.
A distinction must be made between socially destructive behavior
and behavior which is not coercive, but which is banned by the government
for other reasons. Besides the obvious examples of tax and draft evasion,
governments, by passing laws, create entire classes of criminals by
outlawing certain victimless or vice crimes. Certain activities may be
distasteful to some of us, but if they are not predatory or coercive in
nature then they are only crimes because the government says they are. But
once an activity is outlawed, professional criminals become involved
because these activities become highly profitable. This is why criminals
were active in the alcohol and gambling trades when they were outlawed, and
why they are still active in drugs, prostitution and immigration today. If
guns are outlawed, organized crime will have another lucrative trade to
pursue. The taxation of alcohol, cigarettes and gasoline has spawned
entire bootleg industries.
The for-profit nature of capitalism encourages other forms of
anti-social behavior, such as taking advantage of the disorganization of
workers by hiring them for as little as possible, working them as hard as
possible (sometimes until they break, physically or mentally), and making
them pay as much as possible for what they consume. Another example is
"externalization of costs", which means getting society to pay the costs
while private businesses get the profits, such as the education of workers
at public expense; mining, fishing, grazing and lumbering on public land
for token payments; government bailouts; strike breaking; and toxic waste
clean up. This officially protected form of destructive behavior, known as
corporate capitalism, creates a competitive, dog-eat-dog mentality that is
extremely disruptive to human solidarity. Some anarchists believe
capitalism is malignant by its very nature. Others argue that it is
government interference which has made capitalism malignant, by favoring
larger, established businesses and creating barriers for small businesses
and self-employed people.
Anarchists believe that people should be free to organize
themselves as they see fit, but are divided as to which methods are the
most just or desirable. Some anarchists claim that everyone has a right to
an equal share of the wealth, since it has been produced primarily by
generations of wage slaves living under the threat of dire poverty. They
see the functioning of society as a team effort. How could a small
fraction of the population have honestly gained such disproportional
control of the existing assets while the majority has become so totally
dependent? They simply couldn't have. As the saying goes, "it takes money
to make money," and most of our families did not start us off with large
sums of money. What business owners had was money to invest, and/or a
willingness to go deeply into debt, while most of us make our living
selling our labor power. Employees are treated like just another input
into the production process: their labor is "bought" when needed, at the
market price, and no longer "purchased" when the need has passed. But
since employees need to provide for themselves and their families,
regardless of the condition of the labor market or the treatment they
receive at the hands of their employers, they live in constant insecurity.
This insecurity is why employees form labor unions, or turn to laws and
government for protection. So most socialist anarchists argue that the
most just way to organize an economy is to treat it like one huge
cooperative, shared and operated by all, in the interests of all.
Anarchists favor a confederal form of organization, so that each locality
or industry would be autonomous, but would be closely coordinated with the
other units which make up a society. They believe that each unit will act
responsibly in relation to the other units, because cooperation and good
faith are in everyone's interest.
The other general category includes anarchists who feel that people
should be able to be independent of any organization if they so choose,
including economic organizations. They fear socialization of the economy
for the same reason they fear the government, because it puts the
individual at the mercy of others. They also feel that some individuals
are willing to work harder to achieve a higher standard of living than
others might be willing to work, and that the more industrious should not
be dragged down to the same level as those who choose to work less
intensively and live at a more basic standard of living. They feel that
the use to which one puts one's earnings is not the business of the rest of
society, as long as it does not cause obvious harm to others, and that they
should be free to pass their wealth on to others if they so choose.
Individuals should be free to be self-employed, or to employ or be employed
by others, as long as the arrangement is voluntarily. These
anarcho-capitalists argue that the best way to organize the economy is
through voluntary economic transactions of whatever type that people choose
to make, with everyone taking responsibility for their own well-being.
They claim that in a truly free market system, consumers would be able to
control the socially destructive activities of business owners by
boycotting their products and by buying from more socially conscious
competitors.
As different as these views are, it is possible to have an economy
that includes both options, plus others not mentioned or even thought of,
and to leave people free to choose whichever type of organization they
prefer. The economy would function through the voluntary interaction of a
multitude of differently organized groupings, each working out for itself
the best methods of organization. The socialistically inclined groups
could produce goods for their own consumption, and avoid market
relationships to whatever extent they feel necessary. Gustav Landauer
wrote, "We can establish a great number of crafts and industries to produce
goods for our own consumption. We can go much further in this than the
cooperatives have gone until now, for they still cannot get rid of the idea
of competing with capitalist managed enterprise."1 What is important is
that people have a choice, which most of us currently do not have. The
various groupings could interact whenever they chose to do so. One serious
barrier to cooperation among anarchists is the issue of property rights.
At one extreme are those with an almost feudalistic attachment to private,
for-profit ownership of the necessities of life, while at the other extreme
even the ownership of personal property is seen to be anti-social and
elitist. There is quite a bit of room to maneuver between these two
extremes, but the question of expropriation of the workplace is the major
issue dividing the movement. A communitarian approach would sidestep this
issue entirely. These intentional, self-organized communities could not
replace the existing system overnight, but eventually they could greatly
reduce our dependence on it. Many of the goods currently produced are
either unnecessary or are produced in excessive quantities. The use of
automobiles, for example, could be greatly reduced through the use of mass
transit, bike paths and better urban planning (and this would be a partial
solution to the problem of traffic fatalities). And what would
anarcho-socialists do with an expropriated cash register factory or mink
ranch anyway? If we can't get people to choose to meet their needs
cooperatively, buy buying or using cooperatively produced goods, they are
probably not sufficiently interested in radical social change.
What about those who argue "abolish work"? Like a perpetual motion
machine, or cold fusion, there is no scheme currently known that can
provide everyone with what they need which does not require anyone to
perform tasks which they find unpleasant. If everyone does only what they
enjoy, we would have a huge oversupply of performing artists and athletes,
and a serious shortage of dental hygienists and plumbers. Through job
sharing and the elimination of unproductive activities, the amount of
unpleasant work can be fairly shared and reduced to a minimum. Those who
wish to abstain from the consumption of work enhanced products could not
reasonably be expected to work. But it seems just as reasonable for those
who do a share of the work to deny access to those who voluntarily choose
not to work, in the absence of barriers to productive activity such as
unemployment, or harsh or dangerous working conditions.
At the present time, since there is not widespread agreement that
anarchism is the best form of social organization, it is up to us to spread
these ideas and to implement them as best we can among ourselves. It would
be impossible to compel people to participate in an anarchist project,
since anarchism relies on voluntary cooperation and self discipline to make
it work. Once large numbers of people agree that this is the way things
should be organized, not even a tyrant can stop them from reorganizing
themselves. As Elisee Reclus wrote, "When the miserable and disinherited
of the earth shall unite in their own interest, trade with trade, nation
with nation, race with race; when they shall fully awake to their
sufferings and their purpose... powerful as may be the Master of those
days, he will be weak before the starving masses leagued against him." 2
Answers to frequently asked questions:
Q: How will people deal with crime, resolve disputes, reach agreements and
set standards if the government and laws are abolished?
A: The main purpose of governments and laws are to keep most of us under
control so that we can be efficiently milked, like a herd of cows. With
the exception of a small proportion of anti-social people, most of us are
able to avoid harming others and resolve our disputes without resorting to
the authorities. The legal system we have now puts the full force of the
state behind the party that manages to win its favor. Many disputes are
already resolved through arbitration and mediation, outside of the courts
and the legal system. The laws are written and enforced in such a way that
the poor are always held accountable for petty crimes such as writing bad
checks to pay for groceries, while the authorities can literally get away
with murder.
If allowed to, people will always act to protect themselves from
violent criminals. This is an involuntary reflex, like raising your hand
to deflect a blow. People may decide to form special, recallable groups
who are firmly under community control to perform that task as the need
arises, or they may choose to do it on a neighborhood by neighborhood
basis. But the police, courts and government we currently have are only
accountable to the people in the most roundabout way, and they have clearly
become a threat to our freedom. They are literally out of control. Self
perpetuating elites have appointed themselves to perform our civic duties
in our behalf. The amount of crime should drop sharply as soon as
productive activity becomes less difficult and oppressive, and people begin
to have a sense of belonging to a social unit. To protect the rights of
unpopular individuals who are guilty of no real crime, it would be
necessary for the community to agree that only acts that cause actual harm
to others are subject to the justice of the community. Each community can
debate the issue of "actual harm" for itself, and people can relocate
according to their preference. People would need to work out a fair and
open procedure for resolving disputes and for treating predatory
individuals. There is the danger of a community oppressing its members,
who would lack recourse to existing laws designed to protect them. We
would hope that communities would incorporate respect for the rights of
individuals into their processes; we do not expect this important value to
mysteriously vanish from social consciousness. On the contrary, personal
freedom should actually be respected even more than it presently is if we
are successful in spreading our ideas more widely. It is hard to imagine
an autonomous community expending the same level of resources on coercion
that current governments do. There is an unavoidable tension between the
good of the community and individual rights, but anarchists do not feel
that one must be sacrificed to increase the other.
If written contracts prevented fraud, we would not have "fine
print" or a legal profession. In a free society it is of the utmost
importance that people show real compassion and fairness in their dealings
with others, or else it won't last very long. Living together in peaceful
cooperation is a powerful form of protest against government and police.
Concerning technical standards, these are best agreed upon by the
people who do the work and who use the products involved, instead of being
decided by corporate officers or government bureaucrats. Many standards
are already set by professional associations. If you've ever tried to
repair an automobile or link computers you understand how necessary, and
how lacking, industry-wide standards are. If a product lacks a trusted
"seal of approval" from consumer organizations, consumers can avoid it.
Educated consumers can influence what is produced and how it is produced if
they act together in large numbers.
Q: How will we defend ourselves from invasion by foreign governments
without a government?
A: We could have a truly volunteer and community controlled military,
concerned strictly with defending our liberty and not with imposing our
will on people in foreign countries. If volunteers want to participate in
foreign wars, that would be up to them. We would soon find the world a
less dangerous place when other societies no longer fear being attacked by
our government and when we stop exporting arms for profit. The absence of
government does not mean the absence of organization. It means the absence
of coercion.
Q: The situations in places like Lebanon, Somalia, and the former
Yugoslavia have often been referred to as "anarchy". Is this accurate?
A: No, these are examples of competing elites struggling against one
another for power. The result is chaos. Anarchy is the absence of a
controlling elite. A government is the strongest gang of aggressors in a
particular area at a particular time. Civil war is what happens when the
dominant group is challenged. Anarchy has been a rare occurrence in recent
history, since there is usually an elite willing to impose itself whenever
it sees the opportunity. Emiliano Zapata, one of the major figures in the
Mexican Revolution of 1911-1918, was influenced by anarchist ideas,
especially those of the brothers Ricardo and Enrique Flores Magon. He
temporarily liberated large parts of Mexico with his army of indian
peasants. Following the Russian Revolution of 1917, a mostly peasant,
anarchist army led by Nestor Makhno temporarily liberated various parts of
what is now Ukraine in battles against several different armies; White,
Red, Nationalist and foreign. Korean anarchists established an autonomous
zone in Shimin province in northern Manchuria between 1929 and 1931, but
were crushed by the Japanese army and Chinese/Russian Communists. During
the Spanish Civil War and Revolution of 1936, anarchists liberated areas of
Aragon, Catalonia and other parts of Spain. They entered into an uneasy,
anti-Nationalist alliance with the Republican government, but were
pressured and then forced to abandon their gains. They were then
persecuted by both Republicans and Nationalists.
Q: Are people really so good that they can live without government?
A: Are people really so good that they can be trusted to direct a
government? Governments have killed far more people than all the
criminals, bandit gangs and mass murderers in history, who look like
hobbyists in comparison. Anarchists consider governments to be a very
powerful form of organized crime. Some governments are worse than others,
of course, but they all have the potential for committing atrocities.
Q: Don't anarchists advocate the violent overthrow of the existing authorities?
A: Some anarchists do advocate this, in the hope that people will
spontaneously organize themselves once the power of the elite has been
broken. However, the contradiction between revolutionary social change and
the anarchist ideal of voluntary social relations has always been troubling
to some anarchists. In the absence of unanimous opposition to the elite,
revolutions always involve coercion against the supporters and sympathizers
of the elite, which may be a large proportion of a society. The most
coercion is required when a minority attempts to implement radical social
change on an unconvinced public. Not only does the old regime need to be
defeated without the support of the population, but the new elite must also
impose its program on society. The least coercion is required when a
revolution is the result of demands made by large sectors of the general
public. If the old elite resists, after a brief skirmish it can be pushed
aside. Even the government's own troops cannot be relied upon to suppress
a popular revolution, since the soldiers themselves come from the same
public. Revolutionary violence occurs when demands for change are ignored
or suppressed. But many elites are crafty enough to make concessions which
split the public and weaken people's resolve. Demands for change within
the structure of the existing system lead to compromise and ultimately to
broader political support for the system. Demands that the state reform
itself in a fundamental way are hopeless, because the very nature of the
state is to forever expand its power and its autonomy from its subjects.
Revolutionary anarchists argue that violence against tyranny is a
duty and that coercion in the name of a better world is justified. They
argue that it is very unlikely that many people, if given the choice, would
choose to remain slaves. But after the emancipation of the slaves in the
U.S. and of the peasants in Russia, many did just that, and instead of
fleeing their masters, remained employed on the same estates. This is why
some anarchists prefer a strategy of working to transform society
gradually, through education and self organization, so that people will be
less and less dependent on employers and the government, and more and more
able to organize themselves in non-coercive ways. This point of view sees
the current social system continuing mainly due to the absence of practical
alternatives and to the comfort of inertia. Most of us are compelled to
sell our labor to capitalist employers since workers' and consumers'
cooperatives aren't widely established. Likewise, if people hear someone
breaking into a neighbor's house, they call the police, since there are no
neighborhood based organizations to deal with crime. With an evolutionary
strategy, "the new society is built within the shell of the old," which
makes for a slow, but smooth, transition. The revolutionary strategy,
which promises quicker results, would leave a dangerous vacuum during the
period immediately following the revolution, when most revolutions are
defeated or else lapse back into a modified version of the old system.
Unless a large majority of the population actively supports anarchism,
coercion will likely be necessary to abolish the old social order, since
people would not yet be convinced that this is desirable. The political
struggle, convincing people of the need for change in an anarchist
direction, must be won before the old order can be successfully abolished.
Revolutionaries will argue that any significant gradual efforts
will be violently suppressed. Perhaps, but if the gradual efforts involve
no violence or coercion, it would be politically risky for the government
to suppress them. They would have to crack down on people's liberties to
such an extent that they would be illustrating to the public exactly the
point we are trying to make. We risk less by trying persuasion, including
our ideals. There are also practical reasons to avoid the use of violence
(with the possible exception of self-defense). The party that resorts to
violence first is almost always blamed by the public for causing the
conflict. A violent attack on the government would give it another excuse
to justify its own existence, the excuse it would need to eliminate us.
Armed struggle encourages the formation of a conspiratorial directing
elite, which may not be controlled by its supporters (as Fidel Castro said
recently, "Revolutionaries do not resign"). Successful armed struggle
relies on the use of treachery and violence, and these strategies may carry
over even after the original enemy is defeated. And victory does not go to
the most worthy, but to the most powerful. Some anarchists simply believe
that violence and coercion are morally wrong, and would not use these
means, even if there were hope of achieving the desired end.
Historically, violent revolution has achieved modest results at a
staggering cost in death and suffering. France, Mexico, the U.S., Russia,
China and Cuba have all experienced "successful" revolutions, yet these
societies are not substantially freer nor is the working class
substantially better off than in Great Britain, Sweden or Canada. But, you
may protest, these were not true social revolutions. Conceded. But true
social revolutions require the conscious, enthusiastic support of the
general public. This support can only be won on the political or
educational front and not on the military front. Once there is popular
support for anarchist ideas, the only force required will be to disband any
government forces which refuse to disperse. You can't win the public's
support militarily. You can only frighten people into passivity or rouse
them to lash out in a confused, unorganized manner. The case for
revolution directed by a vanguard group or party on behalf of the oppressed
requires us to argue that the public has either been brainwashed, that they
are too ignorant to understand their own self interest, or that they have
been beaten into passivity. If any combination of these are true, what
good will it do to use armed struggle on their behalf, if they do not
consciously support social change? They will either fight against us or
passively watch us die. Complex, voluntary, and cooperative social
arrangements are unlikely to appear spontaneously. As the anarchists in
Spain discovered during the social revolution and civil war there in the
1930's, you cannot direct society and not direct society at the same time.
If people do not organize themselves, they will either flounder in chaos
and be unable to resist the forces of reaction, or they will allow
themselves to be led by politicians. Significant numbers of workers did
organize themselves in Spain, but the working class as a whole was not able
to achieve the level of self organization necessary for it to do away with
the leadership of the revolutionary parties. There can be no revolutionary
government that serves anarchist purposes or which can lead to anarchy.
The only way to avoid the creation of a new elite is if the mass of society
is consciously aware of what it is trying to accomplish.
As the anonymous authors of "You Can't Blow Up a Social
Relationship" pointed out, "The total collapse of this society would
provide no guarantee about what replaced it. Unless a majority of people
had the ideas and organization sufficient for the creation of an
alternative society, we would see the old world reassert itself because it
is what people would be used to, what they believed in, what existed
unchallenged in their own personalities."3 Alexander Berkman wrote, "As
[people's] minds broaden and develop, as they advance to new ideas and lose
faith in their former beliefs, institutions begin to change and are
ultimately done away with. The people grow to understand that their former
views were false, and that they were not truth, but prejudice and
superstition.... The social revolution, therefore, is not an accident, not
a sudden happening. There is nothing sudden about it, for ideas don't
change suddenly. They grow slowly, gradually, like the plant or flower....
It develops to the point when considerable numbers of people have embraced
the new ideas and are determined to put them into practice. When they
attempt to do so and meet with opposition, then the slow, quiet, and
peaceful social evolution becomes quick, militant, and violent. Evolution
becomes revolution. Bear in mind, then, that evolution and revolution are
not two separate and distinct things. Still less are they opposites as
some people wrongly believe. Revolution is merely the boiling point of
evolution. Because revolution is evolution at its boiling point you cannot
"make" a real revolution any more than you can hasten the boiling of a tea
kettle. It is the fire underneath that makes it boil: how quickly it will
come to the boiling point will depend on how strong the fire is. The
economic and political conditions of a country are the fire under the
evolutionary pot. The worse the oppression, the greater the
dissatisfaction of the people, the stronger the flame.... But pressure from
above, though hastening revolution, may also cause its failure, because
such a revolution is apt to break out before the evolutionary process has
been sufficiently advanced. Coming prematurely, as it were, it will fizzle
out in mere rebelling; that is, without clear, conscious aim and purpose."4
The recent riots in Los Angeles are an example of mere rebelling, without
a conscious aim beyond venting anger and looting. The uprising in Chiapas,
Mexico is an example of a much more developed, but still premature,
rebellion. Both of these rebellions were quickly isolated and contained in
the absence of widespread popular support. We must work to build the
functioning parts of a new society, while maintaining a clear vision of our
alternatives. We must not be co-opted by the State on the one hand, nor
recklessly overestimate our support on the other. Through education,
interaction, and example we can work to gradually rid humanity of statism,
nationalism, deprivation, racism, sexism, violence, child and animal abuse,
and all the other evils humanity is afflicted with. But we have to get our
own act together if we expect people to take us seriously.
In the event that the existing order collapses on its own, people
would be free to organize themselves into groups regardless of what the
majority is doing. As long as a group is large enough to be economically
viable and to defend its autonomy, even relatively small groups could set
up new social relations. The issue of violence only arises because of the
ruthless suppression of secessionist movements by the world's governments.
Q: What if some people really do prefer having a government?
A: As long as the relationships are strictly voluntary, and not enforced
by poverty or force, it would be hard for anarchists to justify suppressing
any voluntary association, just as it would be difficult to justify
suppressing religions, superstitions or vices. Under what conditions is
the use of force justified? Only in response to the prior use of force.
But governments, by definition, are institutions of coercion and control,
so only if a government supported itself through voluntary donations, or
enforced its will by merely asking for compliance, could it conceivably
function without coercion, in which case it would not really be a
government at all.
"Panarchy" is the name for a society made up of a multitude of
diverse but peacefully coexisting forms of social relations. The theory of
panarchy is that people have different ideas and preferences about how to
organize themselves. Instead of each group trying to achieve the power to
impose its ideas and preferences on everyone, each group organizes itself
and allows other groups to do likewise. One variant even has people
sharing the same geographic space, with each individual acting according to
his or her own conscience, in much the same way that different religions
coexist in societies that allow some religious freedom. The difference
would be the absence of a supreme authority setting rules that all must
obey. Of course this would require everyone to respect the choices of
others, and to refrain from using coercion or violence. Anarchists would
do their thing, and those who wanted to continue to voluntarily submit to a
particular type of government could do so. Why won't the statists allow us
this same freedom today? Panarchy should appeal to everyone, because as it
is now, no one really gets what they want. We all must live under a
mish-mash of strictly enforced rules that come out of battles fought on the
elite turf of the official political process. Panarchy is letting people
"do their own thing".
Q: How do you propose to achieve anarchist social relations?
A: We argue that the proper course for the anarchist movement is to
concentrate its efforts on two tasks: educating the public and organizing
our own social relations here and now as much as possible. Our objective
should not be to overthrow the existing social relations, because those
social relations are not viewed as intolerable by most of the public. We
need to inform people about our ideas and demonstrate to them that
anarchist social relations can actually function. Gustav Landauer
suggested that when people saw functioning villages based on voluntary
cooperation, the public's envy would result in more and more villages being
formed. These voluntary organizations will eventually render the old,
coercive institutions useless, and they will be done away with or rendered
powerless, like the monarchy and the Church have been in the past. By
combining our efforts with other non-statists in a panarchist federation,
we could greatly hasten the pace of non-coercive social change.
Q: Is anarchy a goal that can actually be reached, or is it only an ideal
to be approximated?
A: If you approximate your ideal well enough, eventually you reach your goal.
Footnotes
The quote on the cover is from "Paths in Utopia" by Martin Buber,
p.46, 1988 Collier Books reprint of a book written in 1945 and first
published in English in 1949 by Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.
1. "For Socialism" by Gustav Landauer, p. 140, Telos Press, St.
Louis, 1978 (English translation). Originally published in 1911.
2. "Evolution and Revolution" by Elisee Reclus, p. 16, Kropotkin's
Lighthouse Publications reprint of the 7th edition published by William
Reeves. No dates of publication or reprint given.
3. "You Can't Blow Up a Social Relationship", p. 20, 1989 See
Sharp Press reprint of a pamphlet originally published by anonymous
Australian anarchists in 1979.
4. "ABC of Anarchism" also known as "What is Communist Anarchism"
by Alexander Berkman, p. 36-38, 1977 Freedom Press reprint of a book first
published by the Vanguard Press in 1929.
This pamphlet was published in early 1995. It was drafted by Ed
Stamm, with substantial help from Carl Bettis, Brendan Conley, Ed D'Angelo,
Greg Hall, David King, and Dick Martin, whose excellent suggestions were
usually, but not always, adopted. We borrowed extensively from the ideas
and expressions of many other anarchists and philosophers, living and dead.
Ed Stamm is ultimately responsible for the content and style of this
pamphlet. He would like to thank John Zube for broadening his perspective
by introducing him to the concept of panarchy.
We request that this pamphlet not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
This pamphlet is a project of the Affinity Group of Evolutionary
Anarchists, but does not presume to represent the personal opinions of its
members. More information about AGEA can be obtained by sending a
self-addressed, stamped envelope to: Ed Stamm, PO Box 1402, Lawrence KS,
660448402 USA.

3757
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp000986.txt Normal file
View File

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load Diff

144
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp000987.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,144 @@
The following book review will appear in the April 1995 Industrial
Worker:
Rebellion from the Roots: Indian Uprising in Chiapas, by John
Ross. Common Courage Press, 1994, $14.95. "When. on the
international level," the mysterious Subcomandante Marcos tells
us, "everyone was saying 'no' to armed struggle, the indigenous
farmers of Chiapas were saying "Oh yes, oh yes, oh yes.'" But that
assent to armed struggle was not lightly given, as author John
Ross, an old Mexico hand, assures us. While the Zapatistas may
have burst on the American media scene like the proverbial thunder
clap when they seized San Cristobal de las Casas on New Year's
Day, 1994, this first Third World uprising since the end of the
Cold War had been in the planning stage for over a year, agreed
upon in village after village. Indeed, serious trouble had been
brewing in Chiapas for nearly a decade. Amnesty International,
dismayed by a state penal code that officially sanctions the use
of torture to obtain confessions, had issued its first bulletins
on human rights abuses there in 1985, and the situation was not
improving. But the secret of the rebellion had been well kept. An
old friend of mine and a long-time resident in the area knew
nothing of the gathering storm. In a broader sense, of course,
the trouble in Chiapas dates back to the Spanish conquest, which
saw the Indians deprived of their land and reduced to peonage, a
condition the Mexican revolution against Spain did little to
improve. Throughout the 19th century, periodic Indian uprisings
took place as the natives, driven beyond endurance by the casual
cruelty of their overlords, took up arms. These revolts were put
down with even greater cruelty, but the grievances that gave rise
to them were never properly addressed until the revolution of
1910, when Emiliano Zapata, himself a Nahua Indian, demanded the
return of communal lands taken from the Indians, first by t he
Spaniards and later by Mexico's own ruling elite. He fought one
central government after another for nine years, until he was
treacherously slain at Chinameca in 1919. But the land issue did
not go away. At the heart of this conflict lie two mutually
exclusive concepts of land and its ownership. To the cattle
ranchers and the agribusinessmen who control most of the useful
land, land is a thing P a commodity like any other, to be owned,
bought, sold and exploited by whoever can pay for it. Having at
some time paid somebody something for the land, these
latifundistas recognize no other claims and view any complaints as
a demand for the expropriation of their lawfully acquired goods.
But to the Indians land is community property, not owned or even
ownable by any one person, and it cannot be bought or sold P only
properly used. Any individual attempting to buy or sell this
community property is a dangerous fool, and anyone who asserts he
has acquired this land for himself is a criminal. Article 27 of
the Mexican Constitution of 1917, as Ross relates, made an attempt
to redress this balance, recognize inalienable community property,
and provide for some redistribution of obviously stolen lands. The
opposition of the great landowners was formidable and there were
frequent land takeovers by the exasperated Indians, sometimes
ending in bloody clashes with the police and military. But
progress, slow everywhere, was nearly invisible in Chiapas, where
the Indians were driven farther and farther into the Lacandon
jungle in a land that produces one half of Mexico's electricity
but has electric light in only one third of its homes. The 1989
collapse of the coffee market replaced grinding poverty with
abject misery. In 1992, Mexican President Salinas and his ruling
Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) pushed through a change in
Article 27 which provided for up to 40 years imprisonment for
anyone illegally occupying private land. 1994 was to bring NAFTA
and a flood of cheap American corn into Chiapas, spelling the end
for the small farmers and making their lands ripe for takeover by
the vast landed estates. The Indians of Chiapas decided they'd had
"Enough already!" or, as they inscribed on their banners, "ABasta
ya!" In describing the background and aftermath of the fighting a
year ago, Ross provides an invaluable guide through a veritable
alphabet soup of governmental and non-governmental agencies,
foreign and domestic, that became involved in Chiapas either in
conducting the war or trying to broker a peace. He does a fine job
of introducing the reader to a cast of characters ranging from the
Roman Catholic "red" Bishop Ruiz, still officially thought to be
the brains behind the uprising (as if the Indians were too stupid
to plan the rebellion themselves), to General Absalon Castellano
Dominguez, one of the more odious latifundistas, and on through
the masked Subcomandante Marcos against a political backdrop
resembling more than or Ancient Rome than a modern republic. To
his credit, Ross resists speculating at length on the identity of
the subcomandante but is quick to note the foolishness of the
government and the media in attempting to learn who is behind the
ski mask and manufacturing a modern myth in the process, making
the bandanna and the ski mask national symbols of dissent. If
there is any point at which Ross's narrative wanders, it is in the
chapter devoted tot he assassination of the PRI's Presidential
Candidate, Luis Colosio, in March of 1994. While the story is
fascinating, and Ross's investigative work is as good as could be
done in a country where freedom of the press is far from secure,
he is not able to connect the murder to the Chiapas situation by
any but the thinnest speculative threads. When he returns to the
jungle of Chiapas, however, Ross is obviously at home with his
subject and the concerns of those beyond its borders. He points
out that the Zapatistas are basically reformist in that they do
not seek to overthrow the government and take state power. Their
revolution is not modeled on Lenin's nor Mao's nor Ho Chi Minh's.
but on that of Zapata who sought not power but agricultural reform
and justice. "For everyone, everything," their motto proclaims,
"for us, nothing." Women, Ross informs us, make up about a third
of the guerrilla forces and many of the Zapatista senior officers,
and are treated with absolute equality. Among these young
warriors, romance is widespread, but contraception is virtually
mandatory since no one can be "indisposed" when there is fighting
to be done. Even the environment is to be spared in the Zapatista
program. Water pollution is to cease and deforested lands are to
be replanted. As this review is being written, the Mexican
government has opted once more for a military "solution" to what
is essentially a political problem. Mexican President Ernesto
Zedillo is now "standing tall," apparently having decided that the
latest collapse of the peso has made it financially impossible to
fulfill the commitments made to the rebels at the Cathedral
Conference in San Cristobal last year. The Zapatistas are once
again "transgressors" under the spell of the "red" bishop and
"outside agitators" from Guatemala and other mysterious lands
beyond the border. Now only punishment awaits them if they do not
give up their arms, surrender their leaders and throw themselves
on the mercy of the government. This posturing has played very
well with Mexico's rulers and with capitalist circles in the
United States, although those who still dream of democracy and
peace in that country have been less favorably impressed. But
President Zedillo would do well to read Ross's book before he
commits an army that has not fought a serious opponent in 75 years
and is made up largely of Indians to a protracted Vietnam-style
conflict with fairly well armed and very well-led fellow Indians
who have an excellent grasp of modern media and are fighting on
their own jungle turf for a cause they deeply believe in and are
ready to die for. The Mexican military has already barred the
press from the are and begun issuing triumphal bulletins. But the
real situation remains obscure at best, and the war, like the
insurgencies in Guatemala and El Salvador, could go on for years,
if not decades. There will undoubtedly be more news from Chiapas,
as casualties on both sides mount, and hapless civilians are slain
by the score. Rebellion from the Roots is ideal background for
understanding the reports coming from this desperate land. John
Gorman
DO NOT REPRINT WITHOUT PERMISSION
Subscriptions to the Industrial Worker are $15 per year. Write:
Industrial Workers of the World, 103 West Michigan Avenue,
Ypsilanti MI 48197 USA (313/483-3548). Industrial Worker bundles
are available at reasonable rates. Ask for details.

353
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp000988.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,353 @@
CRIMINAL INJUSTICE
CRIME BILL
CRACKS DOWN ON DISSENT IN THE U.K.
by Sarah Ferguson
Last December, the United Kingdom's
Tory government passed the
Criminal Justice Act,
one of the most repressive measures
in recent British history.
Besides cracking down on squatters,
New Age travellers and ravers,
the CJA bans most forms of protest
and strips away the defendant's right
to silence.
Now housewives and schoolchildren
are joining vegans and crusty punks at
the barricades to challenge the law.
LONDON -- "It's best to do it in pairs, or with cameras around. Otherwise
they'll torture you till they get you out," says Allison, a soft-spoken
22-year-old squatter with paint-splattered dreads. A veteran anti-roads
protestor, Allison was explaining the mechanics behind the "sleeping
dragon"--one of the many tactics that she and 350 other demonstrators used
to stave off police and wrecking crews during the 4 1/2-day siege on
Claremont Road in east London last December.
For weeks, protestors had strategized to defend the block of 35 squatted
houses--declared the Independent Free Area of Claremont-- that was slated
for demolition to make way for a 3 1/2 mile extension of the M-11 link road.
They filled the ground floors with rubble, concealing an underground network
of tunnels and bunkers, where some buried themselves to create a living
barrier against the bulldozers. They built fortified treehouses and erected
a 100-foot scaffolding tower, then welded themselves inside a metal cage at
the top. They flung themselves on cargo netting strung up between houses and
nearby trees, dangling 20 feet in the air to escape the reach of bailiffs
sent to the rooftops to arrest them.
And several, like Allison, cemented their arms into the road using "sleeping
dragons"--steel tubes embedded in concrete. Each tube has a metal rod in the
center so the protestor can slide her arm inside and clip on with a
carabiner (a hiking clip). "It's good to mix scrap metal in the concrete, so
they have to use both hacksaws and a jackhammer to cut you out," Allison
advises. Unless, of course, the cops resort to simple coercion. "They try to
wait till no one's looking then yank your arms. It can get pretty painful,"
she added standing in the cluttered front room of the squatted flat that was
temporary headquarters of the anti-road campaign. On the wall behind her,
amid a flurry of newspaper clipping and fliers, a slogan was scrawled in
green magic marker: "The State will Wither As Green Rage Emerges"
It took more than 700 riot police, 200 bailiffs, and hundred of private
security guards to evict the Claremont campaigners, at a cost of over 2
million--the most expensive and lengthy eviction of squatter in post-war
British history. There were 47 arrests and several injuries as police tore
into the netting and dumped piles of rubble and urine down the bunker holes.
And it wasn't just hardened crusties and eco-savvy hippies at the
frontlines. Local housewives, high school and college students, a record
producer, even 93-year-old Dolly Watson, born and raised in one of the
homes, all took part in the campaign--outraged at the government's plan to
tear up a community for the sake of shortening the commute time to London by
seven minutes.
The Battle of Claremont reflects the mounting opposition to the government's
20 billion road-building scheme, which would ultimately put a fifth of
Britain under tarmac. But it's also testament to the increasingly
militant--albeit non-violent--protest culture that has arisen with the
passage of the Criminal Justice Act last December. When it was first
proposed, Home Secretary Michael Howard touted the CJA as a "comprehensive
program of action against crime" that would restore social order to the
countryside. In fact, by taking on travellers, ravers, squatters, and
virtually all forms of protest, the government has unwittingly united a wide
range of single-issue groups into a growing movement of direct-action style
dissidents who feel increasingly emboldened to challenge the law.
"This is pretty much a revolution going on. A non-violent revolution," says
Stevidge, a member of the Freedom Network, a broad coalition of activist
groups which formed last year to combat the CJA. One of the chief proponents
of DIY (Do It Yourself) culture, the network encompasses squatters,
environmentalists, housing and animal rights groups, even soccer fans--all
united under the credo "Deeds Not Words." "Everyone is doing what they can
to push the law, bend the law," Stevidge says. "They're rebelling all over
the place. But they've learned, this time--they're doing it a la Martin
Luther King or Gandhi."
Last summer, as the law was being debated in Parliament, tens of thousands
of protesters took to the streets in a series of mass demos that rivalled
the popular uprisings against the Poll Tax in 1989. Protesters clashed with
police in Hyde Park, overtook Trafalgar Square with bicycle-powered sound
systems, and scaled the walls of Parliament. Since then, there have been a
series of mass trespasses at the homes of conservative ministers--including
the country estate of Prime Minister John Major.
These mass actions were aimed at challenging the "public order" provisions
of the law which give the police vast discretionary powers to thwart
protest. The CJA creates a whole new category of offense called "trespassory
assemblies," which allows police to ban gatherings on both public and
private land which they "reasonably believe" might cause serious disruption.
Anyone that the police "reasonably believe" might be heading to such an
assembly can be turned away under threat of a three-month jail term or a
2,500 pound fine. In addition, individuals who go on land with the perceived
intention of intimidating others or disrupting lawful activity can be
arrested for "aggravated trespass."
The government claims these provisions are aimed primarily at ravers who
take over empty property for all-night electro-pop bacchanals and hunt
saboteurs--animal rights crusaders who disrupt fox and hare hunting parties.
In fact, the CJA can be applied to a wide range of peaceful protests,
including trade union pickets, road actions, and anti-nuke demos. "In
effect, it criminalizes most forms of legitimate dissent," says Andrew
Puddephat, general secretary of Liberty, a civil rights lobby.
During the mid-80s, the Thatcher government used very similar public order
laws to cripple the massive miners' strike by setting up road blocks and
arresting labor leaders. Courts later ruled that the government had acted
illegally. But now, police are allowed to stop and search persons and
vehicles if they reasonably suspect that "incidents involving serious
violence may take place" in a certain area--regardless of whether they
believe the persons intend to take part in such incidents.
The CJA also explicitly targets raves, defined by the Act as 100 or more
people playing amplified music characterized by a "succession of repetitive
beats." If police suspect that as few as ten or more people are preparing to
set up a rave, they can be ordered to disperse and have their vehicles and
sound systems seized. Cars and individuals suspected of heading for a rave
can be turned back for up to five miles. Refusal to comply can bring up to
three months in prison or a 2,500--even if the event has full permission of
the landowner. As if to dampen the party mood even further, the CJA also
quintuples the fine for simple possession of marijuana and amphetamines,
from 500 pounds to 2,500 pounds.
The rave crackdown may reflect more than just noise complaints. A report
released last year by the Henley Centre, a private think tank, estimated
that 1.8 million of young peoples' drinking money was being diverted
annually to raves--presumably for more than just vitamin-jolted smart-food
drinks. And Britain's giant brewing companies have long been some of the
Conservative Party's most generous financial donors.
The restrictions on gathering and protest are part of an overall attack on
all forms of counterculture--anyone who bucks the nine-to-five role. Critics
say the CJA is tantamount to "cultural cleansing." Perhaps the most
dramatically affected by the law are gypsies and New Age Travellers, who
roam the country in vans and buses, working the land and setting up free
festivals. The CJA revokes the 1968 Caravan Sites Act, which required
localities to set aside sites with facilities to accommodate Romany gypsies
and Celtic tinkers. Now police can throw any gathering of six or more
vehicles off the land--even common or public land--and arrest the owners if
they don't comply. Smaller gatherings may also be evicted if "damage" (by
the cops' estimation) is done to the land. Police may also impound the
travellers' vehicles--confiscating or even destroying the travellers' homes
along with all their possessions and means of support.
"There's been a constant trend of eviction," says Steve Staines, founder of
the Friends, Families, and Travellers' Support Group. "We get routine
reports that certain police forces are using the powers extensively." Last
year, as the passage of the CJA approached, attacks on travellers by both
police and local vigilantes, sometimes acting in concert, increased.
Travellers have had their homes petrol-bombed and blasted with shotguns, and
had their dogs maimed or blinded by angry farmers. With free festivals all
but banned, this itinerant culture is losing its economic livelihood.
Thousands of travellers have already migrated to Ireland, southern France,
Spain, and Portugal. Others are seeking housing or moving back into
squats--although there's not much security there.
The CJA ends what had been a relatively tolerant policy towards the
estimated fifty thousand people living in abandoned and unauthorized
property in the UK. It's still actually legal in Britain to squat properties
not in use. But now, landlords may gain an eviction order without squatters
even knowing about the case; if the squatters don't disperse within 24
hours, they may be jailed for up to six months. In addition, the CJA
authorizes owners and bailiffs to use "violent entry" to displace squatters.
Housing advocates fear the law will be used by unscrupulous landlords
against legal tenants and subletters, noting that the tenants will not be
allowed to present their side in court until after they are evicted.
Taken as a whole, the CJA makes a profound attack on the notion of public
space. Stevidge of the Freedom Network compares it to the Enclosure Acts of
the 1760s, which forced the peasants off the common lands that they had
farmed for centuries, rendering them disenfranchised paupers. "From the
moment the bill became law, almost completely it became illegal to be
anywhere that you don't own or rent --even if you had permission to be
there."
Just how draconian the CJA will be depends on largely on how police choose
to enforce it. As the Shadow goes to press, police guidelines for enacting
some of the new provisions have yet to be put in place. As of June, there
have been 296 arrests, mostly of hunt saboteurs. (151 hunt sabs, 50
anti-roads protestors, 25 environmentalists, 11 travellers, 11
tree-defenders, 3 animal rights campaigners, and surprisingly, 45 soccer
fans nabbed under the new rave restrictions.) Still, at many protests,
authorities have seemed reluctant to implement the new regs for fear of
exciting further unrest. This year, over 1000 people have been arrested
during protests against the export of live calves. But instead of busting
demonstrators under the CJA regs, police have charged the animal rights
campaigners using an older public order act. "I think it's because so many
of the animal rights people are middle class. It would make the [CJA] too
controversial," comments George of Justice, an anti-CJA clearinghouse in
Brighton.
"A lot of the traveller sites and squats are starting to get evicted, but
the police are mostly going through the old laws--which just means they have
to go to court to get people out," George adds. In some parts of the
country, police forces have complained that they have neither the money nor
the manpower to take on such wide-ranging powers. Others have found its
easier to simply harass squatters and travellers than to actually arrest
them.
That's likely to change this summer, warns Camilla Berens, a former Fleet
Street journalist who's now editor of POD, a pro-active journal of DIY
culture. "Police forces are waiting for the summer months to organize big
mobilizations to stop travellers, stop parties, stop squatters," Berens
says. "It's going to get very nasty in some areas, but the good things will
outweigh the bad. The spirit is so strong."
Her prediction is echoed by Chief Constable David Wilmot of the Association
of Chief Police Officers, who warned in a recent article in the Police
Review Journal that "Unless the social problems which underpin the traveller
phenomena are tackled, the police and public could be caught yearly in a
summer pincer movement of urban and rural violence."
The expanded police powers are particularly ominous given the CJA's
concerted attack on the rights of the accused. Under the CJA, the
defendant's right to silence would essentially be eliminated, allowing
judges and juries to infer guilt if a suspect declines to talk. Previously,
arresting officers were required to warn suspects "you do not have to say
anything unless you wish to do so, but what you say may be given in
evidence"--much like the Miranda rules in the U.S. Now, officers would no
longer be required to inform suspects of their right to silence. instead,
they would be warned that their refusal to talk could be used against them
in court.
The CJA also extends police powers to forcibly take DNA samples from
suspects arrested for both violent and non-violent crimes, regardless of
whether the samples are needed to investigate the crime. Previously, police
were empowered to take so-called "intimate samples"-- blood, semen, urine,
pubic hair--only when investigating serious offenses such as murder or rape.
Now, persons charged with offenses as minor as shoplifting or resisting
arrest can have hairs plucked from their head or a swab of saliva taken from
their mouth, without consent. (The CJA also restricts a person's right to
have their fingerprints or samples destroyed, even if they are never charged
with or convicted of the offense.)
The stated aim behind the expansion in DNA sampling is the creation of the
world's first national database of DNA profiles. In November, the government
announced that it was allocating 1 billion for a new police computer system
that would cross-reference DNA samples with criminal records. Authorities
expect to take 140,000 samples over the next year alone.
Many will undoubtedly come from demonstrators. With the end of the Cold War
and the IRA ceasefire, British intelligence is increasingly using computer
surveillance to target domestic dissent. Last summer, the government
initiated Operation Snapshot to monitor and record the movements and
personal data of travellers and festival organizers. Since then, Scotland
Yard has directed the Special Branch--the agency responsible for gathering
intelligence on threats to nation security--to assemble computerized files
on activists--including animal rights groups, "environmental terrorists,"
and members of the Freedom Network.
The increase in surveillance and restrictions on right to silence have
provoked a storm of opposition from top magistrates and the leading law
societies. But like the Democrats in the U.S. with Clinton's Crime Bill, the
British Labor Party did not actively oppose the CJA for fear of seeming
"soft on crime." While a few progressive members campaigned against the
bill, the leadership chose to abstain.
Liberty's Puddephat believes the CJA marks a trend in "punishment culture,
spreading from the U.S. to Britain and propelled by what he calls a "market
approach to crime." "Increasingly the crime debate is being shaped by the
interests of those who have something to sell in that environment--police,
the security industry, the media, etc." He points out that in Britain, just
as in the U.S., the expansion of police and judicial powers is coupled with
a move to privatize prisons.
The CJA authorizes private firms to design and manage prisons, including new
"youth training centres" for juvenile offenders. The CJA also permits the
use of privately-run prison ships and allows the Home Secretary to declare
any building a prison if necessary.
This trend toward for-profit incarceration goes along with a growing
tendency by the government to employ private security guards to police
demonstrations--particularly anti-road demos. The government has also begun
contracting private detective to identify activists so that the state can
bring criminal charges or sue for damages. The Department of Transport spent
over 400,000 on private detectives at Claremont Road alone.
Underlying the CJA is a fundamental effort by the Tory Party to reassert
tradition values as a palliative to social unrest. Although the Tories like
to paint themselves as the party of law and order, they've presided over the
biggest increase in crime in this century. The addition of the CJA powers
has only polarized the public further. The clampdown on squatting and
travelling comes at a time of rising homelessness in Britain--particularly
among young people, who can no longer receive government assistance if
they're under 18 and leave home or drop out of school. The Tories are also
seeking to gut the Homeless Person's Act, which requires localities to
provide housing to homeless people. Worse still, new regs introduced by the
Department of Social Services would allow the government to deny public
assistance to anyone with "disheveled hair and clothing" or "the appearance
of an alternative lifestyle" (e.g. dreadlocks and piercings).
"The Tories have made such a mess of the economy, they're trying to find a
common enemy. So they're focusing on travellers, squatters, ravers--those
people who represent an alternative lifestyle, " says Mark Chadwick, lead
singer of the Levellers, a rock group that takes its name from the 17th
century rebels who advocated the abolition of all private property in
Britain.
But now, the government's scapegoats are biting back. Over the spring, the
country was rocked by increasingly violent protests by animal rights groups
intent on blocking the transport of live calves to Europe. Police are now
calling groups like the Animal Liberation Front the biggest threat to
security on the mainland since IRA laid down arms. And while the government
likes to portray the activists as "eco-terrorists" and "professional
agitators," many school governors and old age pensioners have also taken
part in the blockades.
Now, instead of big demos against the CJA, activists have spread out to a
multitude of causes. There's a growing land rights campaign--last April,
several hundred people took part in a week-long campout to protest the
privatization of public lands. In May, 300 occupied the sacred stones of
Stonehenge to challenge the public restrictions on the site. In addition,
bicyclists have mobilized a burgeoning "Reclaim the Streets" movement to
protest "car culture." Bikers in cities across the country are orchestrating
"critical mass" bike rides--despite the angry response of motorists, who
have already smashed several bikes. (One in 7 kids in the U.K. suffers from
asthma, yet most of the country's cars still run on lead fuel.)
"What we're really addressing is our social and environmental
decline--because they go hand in hand," says Berens. "There's no point in
pinning your hopes on any political party. Just focus on what's causing you
the most anger and take direct action, because that's the only way we're
going to get change. We've got nothing to lose."
It's almost as if the government set out to give Britain's disparate
subcultures a cause to unite behind. What's significant is how the young
protestors have been able to transform their disenfranchisement into a
defiant, yet surprisingly celebratory resistance movement. Ross is a 24-year
old Scot who's been squatting and living on the road since his parents
kicked him out of the house when he was 16. "A few years ago, everybody was
just hanging out getting out of their heads," he told me, warming his hands
by a fire at an abandoned dairy where he and the other Claremont Road
demonstrators had retreated after the eviction. "Now everybody's getting
together and fighting. It's good. We've become one big family."
A brawny kid with a tousle of ratty dreads sprouting from the top of his
shaved head, Ross seemed an unlikely convert to the ranks of non-violent
road protestors--or "fluffies," as the more militant punks like to call
them. While he defends those protestors who hurled bricks at police last
summer as acting in self-defense, he emphasizes something different. "We've
got to fight 'em," he says. "But it's got to be peaceful. Any other way and
you wind up with what they've got. And we don't want what they've got. They
want what we've got..." And what's that? I asked him. He paused, then
flashed me a gap-toothed smile. "Love."

265
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp000989.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,265 @@
McLibel Support Campaign
5 Caledonian Road
London N1 9DX UK
Tel/Fax +44-171-713 1269
A Year of Great McQuotes from the Witness Box
McDonald's witnesses have often said ridiculous things in the
witness box in a vain attempt to conceal the truth or justify the
way McDonald's operates and the effect those operations have in
this country and around the world. Here is just a small
selection:
NUTRITION AND ILL-HEALTH
The Defendants asked Dr Sydney Arnott (McDonald's expert on
cancer) his opinion of the following statement: "A diet high in
fat, sugar, animal products and salt and low in fibre, vitamins
and minerals is linked with cancer of the breast and bowel and
heart disease". He replied: "If it is being directed to the
public then I would say it is a very reasonable thing to say."
The court was then informed that the statement was an extract from
the London Greenpeace Factsheet. This section had been
characterised by McDonald's lawyer at pre-trial hearings as the
central and most "defamatory" allegation, which if proven would be
the "kiss of death" for a fast-food company like McDonald's. On
the strength of the supposed scientific complexities surrounding
this issue the Defendants had been denied their right to a jury.
David Green, Senior Vice-President of Marketing (USA), stated
'McDonald's food is nutritious' and 'healthy'. When asked what
the company meant by 'nutritious' he said: 'provides nutrients and
can be a part of a healthy balanced diet'. He admitted this could
also apply to a packet of sweets [candy]. When asked if Coca Cola
is 'nutritious' he replied that it is 'providing water, and I
think that is part of a balanced diet'. He agreed that by his
definition Coke is nutritious.
When asked to define 'junk food', Professor Wheelock (McDonald's
consultant on nutrition) said it was 'whatever a person doesn't
like' (in his case semolina). With disbelief mounting in the
courtroom, Richard Rampton (McDonald's QC) intervened to say that
McDonald's was not objecting to the description of their food as
'junk food'!
Peter Cox, (a Defence marketing expert) quoted from 'Behind the
Arches', a book authorised by McDonald's in 1987, as evidence that
McDonald's were engaged in 'a strategy of subversion' by trying to
alter the dietary preferences of whole nations, 'very often for
the worse'. The book states that, in Japan, McDonald's faced "a
fundamental challenge of establishing beef as a common food".
Their President, Den Fujita, said "the reason Japanese people are
so short and have yellow skins is because they have eaten nothing
but fish and rice for two thousand years"; "if we eat McDonald's
hamburgers and potatoes for a thousand years we will become
taller, our skin become white and our hair blonde".
McDonald's began a major advertising campaign in the USA in 1987
which aimed "to neutralise the junk food misconceptions about
McDonald's good food". An internal company memo, reporting on a
high level meeting in March 1986 with public relations advisors
prior to the advertising campaign, was read out in court. It
states "McDonald's should attempt to deflect the basic negative
thrust of our critics.....How do we do this? By talking
'moderation and balance'. We can't really address or defend
nutrition. We don't sell nutrition and people don't come to
McDonald's for nutrition".
The Effects of Advertising
Incredibly, Paul Preston (McDonald's UK President) claimed that
the character Ronald McDonald is intended not to "sell food" to
children, but to promote the "McDonald's experience". But an
extract from the corporation's official and confidential
'Operations Manual' was read out: "Ronald loves McDonald's and
McDonald's food. And so do children, because they love Ronald.
Remember, children exert a phenomenal influence when it comes to
restaurant selection. This means you should do everything you can
to appeal to children's love for Ronald and McDonald's."
McDonald's annual advertising and promotions budget is $1.4
billion. It was revealed in court that Geoffrey Guiliano, a
Ronald McDonald actor in the 1980's, had quit and publicly
apologised, stating "I brainwashed youngsters into doing wrong. I
want to say sorry to children everywhere for selling out to
concerns who make millions by murdering animals".
The Effects of Packaging on the Environment
McDonald's distributed 'McFact' cards nationwide for several years
publicising a scheme to recycle polystyrene waste from stores in
Nottingham, where customers were asked to put polystyrene
packaging into a separate bin, "for recycling into such things as
plant pots and coat hangers". Ed Oakley (Chief Purchasing Officer
for McDonald's UK) admitted that the company had not recycled any
of the waste and in fact the polystyrene was "dumped".
Paul Preston, McDonald's UK President, said that if one million
customers each bought a soft drink, he would not expect more than
150 cups to end up as litter. Photographs were then put to him,
showing 27 pieces of McDonald's litter in one stretch of pavement
alone (the company has over 600 stores in the UK and serves over a
million customers each day).
In some countries the company has abandoned or limited the use of
polystyrene packaging, in part because it is not biodegradable and
takes up a lot of space in landfill sites. Ed Oakley (McDonald's
UK) stated that there is "no landfill problem in the UK".
Questioned as to whether he believes that "as long as there is
room in the dumps, there is no problem with dumping lots of
McDonald's waste in the ground?" Mr Oakley said "and everybody
else's waste, yes, that is true". He said "I can see [the dumping
of waste] to be a benefit, otherwise you will end up with lots of
vast, empty gravel pits all over the country." Asked if he was
"asserting it is an environmental benefit to dump waste in
landfill sites" he stated "It could be"...."yes, it is certainly
not a problem".
Destruction of Rainforests
Internal company documents, mistakenly disclosed to the
Defendants, were read to the court in which McDonald's admitted
the purchase in the UK in 1983/4 of beef imported from Brazil, a
rainforest country. A letter from the McDonald's Corporation to a
member of the public in the UK in 1982 stated "we can assure you
that the only Brazilian beef used by McDonald's is that purchased
by the six stores located in Brazil itself". Ed Oakley (Chief
Purchasing Officer for McDonald's UK) denied that the purchase of
Brazilian beef for use in the UK was in breach of McDonald's
policy of not using beef which originated outside the European
Union, saying "No, it was not. We still bought the hamburgers
locally. We did not buy the ingredients locally".
David Walker (the Chairman of McKey Foods, the sole supplier of
McDonald's UK hamburgers) admitted that he had personally
organised the direct import of the consignments of Brazilian beef
for McDonald's UK stores in 1983/4. A letter from Mr Walker at
the time was quoted in court. It revealed that the imports were a
matter of great controversy. The letter stated that Prince
Philip, the President of the World Wildlife Fund, had recently met
George Cohon, President of McDonald's Canada, and had said: " 'So
you are the people who are tearing down the Brazilian rainforests
and breeding cattle' to which the reply was: 'I think you are
mistaken', whereupon HRH said 'Rubbish' and stormed away".
Following this, the letter stated that Fred Turner, the Chairman
of the McDonald's Corporation, "issued a worldwide edict that no
McDonald's plant was to use Brazilian beef". The same letter
revealed that McDonald's UK had given Walker permission to use the
Brazilian beef imports.
McDonald's claim that they do not use beef from cattle reared on
recently deforested land. However, in his statement (which has
been read out during the Trial, Ray Cesca (Director of Global
Purchasing of the McDonald's Corporation) admits that when they
opened stores in Costa Rica in 1970, they were using beef from
cattle raised on ex-rainforest land, deforested in the 1950's and
1960's. In other words, some of it had been cleared less than 10
years earlier. McDonald's own definition of 'recently deforested'
is unclear and seems to fluctuate between 10 and 25 years or "from
the time that we arrive...in a country" (Gomez Gonzales,
International Meat Purchasing Manager of the McDonald's
Corporation).
McDonald's claim that they only use US-produced beef in the USA.
However, during the Trial an extract from the TV documentary
'Jungleburger' was shown, in which McDonald's beef suppliers in
Costa Rica stated that they also supplied beef for use by
McDonald's in the USA.
Employees and Trade Unions
Robert Beavers (Senior Vice-President of the US Corporation)
agreed that in the early 70's, when trade unions were trying to
organise in McDonald's in the US, the company set up a "flying
squad" of experienced managers who were despatched to a store the
same day that word came in of an attempt by workers to unionise
it. Unions made no headway.
Sid Nicholson, McDonald's UK Vice President, admitted that
McDonald's set their starting rates for crew employees for most of
the country "consistently either exactly the same as the minimum
rates of pay set by the Wages Council or just a few pence over
them". He agreed that for crew aged 21 or over the company
"couldn't actually pay any lower wages without falling foul of the
law". However, he said "I do not accept that McDonald's crew are
low paid".
Mr Nicholson said the company was not anti-union and all staff had
a right to join one. Under questioning he admitted that any
McDonald's workers interested in union membership "would not be
allowed to collect subscriptions...put up notices...pass out any
leaflets...to organise a meeting for staff to discuss conditions
at the store on the premises...or to inform the union about
conditions inside the stores" (which would be deemed 'Gross
Misconduct' and as such a 'summary sackable offence'). In fact,
Mr Nicholson agreed, "they would not be allowed to carry out any
overt union activity on McDonald's premises".
Jill Barnes, McDonald's UK Hygiene and Safety Officer, was
challenged over a previously confidential internal report into the
death by electrocution of Mark Hopkins in a Manchester store on
October 12th 1992. It had catalogued a number of company failures
and problems, and had made the damning conclusion: "Safety is not
seen as being important at store level". In addition, a Health &
Safety Executive report of 1992 concluded: "the application of
McDonald's hustle policy [ie. getting staff to work at speed] in
many restaurants was, in effect, putting the service of the
customer before the safety of employees".
Animal Welfare
Dr Neville Gregory (McDonald's expert witness) said McDonald's egg
suppliers keep chickens in battery cages, 5 chickens to a cage
with less than the size of an A4 sheet of paper per bird and with
no freedom of movement and no access to fresh air or sunshine. Ed
Oakley of McDonald's said the company had thought about switching
to free range eggs, but, not only are battery eggs "50% cheaper",
but, he claimed "hens kept in batteries are better cared for". He
said he thinks battery cages are "pretty comfortable"!
Ed Oakley (Chief Purchasing Officer for McDonald's UK) claimed
that the company "had a very real feeling that animals should be
kept and slaughtered in the most humane way possible" and so had
published an animal welfare statement two years ago. When
questioned about this so-called policy Mr Oakley admitted that the
"animal welfare policy is, in fact, just a policy to comply with
the laws of the various countries in which McDonald's operate",
and added "we do not go beyond what the law stipulates".
Food Safety
A UK 'McFact' card states: "every consignment of beef arriving at
the [McKeys] meat plant is subject to a total of 36 quality
control checks, carried out by a team of qualified technologists.
If a consignment should fail on any one check, it will be rejected
by McDonald's." All the raw beef consignments are
microbiologically tested, and categorised as 'satisfactory',
'passable', and 'unsatisfactory'. David Walker (Chairman of
McKeys, the sole supplier of the company's UK hamburgers) stated
that 'unsatisfactory' relates to beef which has a total colony of
more than 10 million bacteria per gram. He then admitted that
such consignments are, in fact, not rejected and are used for
McDonald's burgers.
McDonald's have refused to call their own expert witness on food
poisoning, Colin Clarke, who prepared a detailed report following
a visit he made to three company stores. The court heard that,
regarding the cooking of hamburgers (which he had tested), Mr
Clark in his statement "recommends that 73 deg C be the internal
minimum temperature of the final product, and that their
temperatures were not reaching that in all cases. The minimum
was, in fact, 70 deg C."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. McLibel Support Campaign Press Office
PO Box 62 Phone/Fax 802-586-9628
Craftsbury VT 05826-0062 Email dbriars@world.std.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe to the "mclibel" listserve, send email
To: majordomo@world.std.com
Subject: <not needed>
Body: subscribe mclibel
To unsubscribe, change the body to "unsubscribe mclibel"

142
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp000991.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,142 @@
Extract from PGP documentation
------------------------------
Phil's Pretty Good Software
Presents
=======
PGP(tm)
=======
Pretty Good(tm) Privacy
Public Key Encryption for the Masses
--------------------------
PGP(tm) User's Guide
Volume I: Essential Topics
--------------------------
by Philip Zimmermann
Revised 11 October 94
PGP Version 2.6.2 - 11 Oct 94
Software by
Philip Zimmermann, and many others.
Synopsis: PGP(tm) uses public-key encryption to protect E-mail and
data files. Communicate securely with people you've never met, with
no secure channels needed for prior exchange of keys. PGP is well
featured and fast, with sophisticated key management, digital
signatures, data compression, and good ergonomic design.
Why Do You Need PGP?
====================
It's personal. It's private. And it's no one's business but yours.
You may be planning a political campaign, discussing your taxes, or
having an illicit affair. Or you may be doing something that you
feel shouldn't be illegal, but is. Whatever it is, you don't want
your private electronic mail (E-mail) or confidential documents read
by anyone else. There's nothing wrong with asserting your privacy.
Privacy is as apple-pie as the Constitution.
Perhaps you think your E-mail is legitimate enough that encryption is
unwarranted. If you really are a law-abiding citizen with nothing to
hide, then why don't you always send your paper mail on postcards?
Why not submit to drug testing on demand? Why require a warrant for
police searches of your house? Are you trying to hide something?
You must be a subversive or a drug dealer if you hide your mail
inside envelopes. Or maybe a paranoid nut. Do law-abiding citizens
have any need to encrypt their E-mail?
What if everyone believed that law-abiding citizens should use
postcards for their mail? If some brave soul tried to assert his
privacy by using an envelope for his mail, it would draw suspicion.
Perhaps the authorities would open his mail to see what he's hiding.
Fortunately, we don't live in that kind of world, because everyone
protects most of their mail with envelopes. So no one draws suspicion
by asserting their privacy with an envelope. There's safety in
numbers. Analogously, it would be nice if everyone routinely used
encryption for all their E-mail, innocent or not, so that no one drew
suspicion by asserting their E-mail privacy with encryption. Think
of it as a form of solidarity.
Today, if the Government wants to violate the privacy of ordinary
citizens, it has to expend a certain amount of expense and labor to
intercept and steam open and read paper mail, and listen to and
possibly transcribe spoken telephone conversation. This kind of
labor-intensive monitoring is not practical on a large scale. This
is only done in important cases when it seems worthwhile.
More and more of our private communications are being routed through
electronic channels. Electronic mail is gradually replacing
conventional paper mail. E-mail messages are just too easy to
intercept and scan for interesting keywords. This can be done
easily, routinely, automatically, and undetectably on a grand scale.
International cablegrams are already scanned this way on a large
scale by the NSA.
We are moving toward a future when the nation will be crisscrossed
with high capacity fiber optic data networks linking together all our
increasingly ubiquitous personal computers. E-mail will be the norm
for everyone, not the novelty it is today. The Government will
protect our E-mail with Government-designed encryption protocols.
Probably most people will acquiesce to that. But perhaps some people
will prefer their own protective measures.
Senate Bill 266, a 1991 omnibus anti-crime bill, had an unsettling
measure buried in it. If this non-binding resolution had become real
law, it would have forced manufacturers of secure communications
equipment to insert special "trap doors" in their products, so that
the Government can read anyone's encrypted messages. It reads: "It
is the sense of Congress that providers of electronic communications
services and manufacturers of electronic communications service
equipment shall insure that communications systems permit the
Government to obtain the plain text contents of voice, data, and
other communications when appropriately authorized by law." This
measure was defeated after rigorous protest from civil libertarians
and industry groups.
In 1992, the FBI Digital Telephony wiretap proposal was introduced to
Congress. It would require all manufacturers of communications
equipment to build in special remote wiretap ports that would enable
the FBI to remotely wiretap all forms of electronic communication
from FBI offices. Although it never attracted any sponsors in
Congress in 1992 because of citizen opposition, it was reintroduced in
1994.
Most alarming of all is the White House's bold new encryption policy
initiative, under development at NSA since the start of the Bush
administration, and unveiled April 16th, 1993. The centerpiece of
this initiative is a Government-built encryption device, called the
"Clipper" chip, containing a new classified NSA encryption
algorithm. The Government is encouraging private industry to design
it into all their secure communication products, like secure phones,
secure FAX, etc. AT&T is now putting the Clipper into their secure
voice products. The catch: At the time of manufacture, each Clipper
chip will be loaded with its own unique key, and the Government gets
to keep a copy, placed in escrow. Not to worry, though-- the
Government promises that they will use these keys to read your
traffic only when duly authorized by law. Of course, to make Clipper
completely effective, the next logical step would be to outlaw other
forms of cryptography.
If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy. Intelligence
agencies have access to good cryptographic technology. So do the big
arms and drug traffickers. So do defense contractors, oil companies,
and other corporate giants. But ordinary people and grassroots
political organizations mostly have not had access to affordable
"military grade" public-key cryptographic technology. Until now.
PGP empowers people to take their privacy into their own hands.
There's a growing social need for it. That's why I wrote it.

160
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp000994.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,160 @@
RADIO CONTRABANDA F.M. (BARCELONA)
The airwaves are to the free radio stations what paper is to
the journals. Without airwaves free radio couldn't broadcast
and of course, just by chance, this area has always been
completely monopolised by the State. The State has, in
every country of the world, seized exclusive control of this
area and has only just conceded, above all because of
private initiative within the business world, a part of this
exclusivity in the form of Users Licences. Not even the
governments of the left, who currently hold power, have
deigned to make of the radiophonic medium an area for
communication and not simply an area of information
dissemination and other things which has always typified its
very character. For this reasons the free stations apart from
demanding freedom of speech, something which we could
say to a degree we have achieved, also demand the freedom
to transmit, which entails of course prizing a few crumbs
from the exclusive control of the airwaves by the State. We
want a slice, a simple slice so that what the powers that be
call freedom of expression can become a real possibility.
The concept of free radio in itself, is already a blow against
this concept of sovereignty of the State over the air waves
and the free radios in fact have not demanded legalisation
but rather the simple recognition of a basic right: the release
of a section of space on the airwaves.
One might say that the free radios were born in Paris in
1978 when the International Federation of Free Radio
Stations was formed at a meeting of The Association for the
Liberation of the Airwaves (ALO) and the Federacione de
Radio Emitenti Democratiche (FRED) which ended up
being called ALFREDO 78. Many Spanish and Catalan
comrades were at the meeting which gave rise to the first
experiences of free Spanish radio in Catalunia in 1978 with
broadcasts by Ona Lliure first from Santa Maria de Corco
and since then in Barcelona currently from the Centre Civic
in the Calle de Blay en Poble Sec, Barcelona. Contrabanda,
the radio station I work with, has immersed itself in the
philosophy of free radio. Contrabanda is not a libertarian
radio station in the strictest sense of the term. At
Contrabanda there are libertarians but there are also others
who we might say are vaguely Marxist or people who
defend ideas of Catalan independence, ecology or feminism.
Personally I like it that way. I don't share the hangups of
others and it's a good thing that there should be a wide
variety of views on a free radio station like ours.
Contrabanda started running in September 1988 when in
the course of a meeting of people from differing ideological
backgrounds, professions and so on it was decided to set up
a legal Cultural Association with the express intention of
founding a free radio station. Our first move was to find
premises, get subscribers to help get some minimal income,
buy equipment and put into effect a variety of initiatives
from selling 'solidarity bonds' or outings with food that we
provided to help raise cash. Another problem from the word
go was the passing of legislation in December 1988 which
allowed the minister to go ahead with his plan for a
complete clean up of existing free stations and pirate
stations (which put out publicity). The last one to be closed
down was Radio Pica. After that it became extremely hard
to even contemplate trying to set something up despite the
fact that there had been calls from them not least from the
International Federations which were backing up calls for
free radio in Spain.. It was all in vain. The new legislation
simply ended up promoting the interests of the private
companies and the state sector including military
communications and so on. Contrabanda, or the group that
was trying to get it on the road at the time decided that
there was no point in trying to do things the hard way and
for that reason it started negotiating with the Generalitat
(Catalan local govt. trans) and groups within it that might
listen sympathetically to the demands for freedom to
broadcast. It was felt that without this softly, softly
approach it would be impossible to broadcast transmissions
with an acceptable degree of quality since the prohibition
was a kind of Damocles sword, ever threatening, and laying
down the risk of seizure of equipment as had happened to
Radio Pica and it would not be feasible to transmit at will.
These negotiations took a long time before giving rise to,
thanks to a collective petition put together by the radio
stations and the parliamentary group Esquerra Republicana,
the introduction in the Catalan parliament of a motion, not a
law, calling for the recognition of the existence or the right
to exist for the free stations and that as a result of this the
government of the Generalitat should set up legally this
right to exist. Curiously, or perhaps miraculously, this law
got through. And I say miraculously because in the Basque
Country a petition for a similar project which was put
before the Basque parliament by Euskadiko Ezquerra was
rejected. The Generalitat, seeing itself forced to legislate on
the matter decided to set up an experimental period for free
radios until the end of 1990 which was permissible within
the framework of existing legislation. This is not what the
free radio stations wanted but they decided to put up with it.
Anyway, the authorities identified three frequencies which
would be made available to and could be used by the free
stations. At the time there were six of us in the metropolitan
area we split up the allotted frequencies. In January 1991
Contrabanda FM began transmissions along with Radio Pica
on 91.0 FM for 24 hours a day. Contrabanda from 3pm to
3am and Radio Pica the rest. This continued until Radio
Pica moved to 91.8.
Contrabanda is a self-managed radio station. We work by
assembly; the means are collective. The people who make
the programmes pay to sustain the collective and all those
who make programmes have a voice and a vote on the
assembly. As I said earlier Contrabanda is legally speaking a
Cultural Association and amongst other initiatives we have
recently set up a Counterinformation Agency. Our
philosophy could be defined as the cultural melting pot. On
the one hand we should make it clear that we broadcast in
Catalan. We believe our language has been monopolised by
certain sectors of the bourgeoisie which has allowed the two
to be mistaken for each other. We aim to use the language
differently not so pure not so grammatically correct but
giving it other strengths. So our language is Catalan and our
philosophy that of the free stations that is to say to give a
voice to those who have no other platform. A number of
collectives put the programmes together. Some 36 to 40 go
out 21 of which are internally produced, 9 by outside
collectives and 6 by individuals. News takes up 31% of
airtime, culture 14.6%. music programmes 27% and the
other 26% is non-stop music. The collectives involved are
indeed varied for example there is a Serbo Croat broadcast
another called Demanem la Paraula, African Hour - a
programme put out by women from Guinea - and also the
Alternative News Agency which is yet another libertarian
group working in the information field producing two
weekly slots and with whom Contrabanda works closely on
an alternative news project. Then their is 'Immigrant
Viewpoint' made by Magrebine collectives, The MOC
Programme (Conscientious Objectors), The Red Missile
(Gay). This is what Contrabanda puts together in order to
allow for an open space for those collectives and individuals
who otherwise would have no way of making themselves
heard. The financing as I have said is partly dealt with by
'solidarity bonds' paid for by those who are not necessarily
connected with making programmes. They pay some
500ptas per month. May I say that the best way to support
the free radios is to tune in and listen to them in order to
ensure that there is another means of communication.
Contrabanda hasn't even been going for three years. The
first years have been taken up, as is always the case, with
fine tuning our technical skills and we now consider
ourselves in good shape both internally and externally.
We've come out well...
In another field we've put together special programmes as
for example during the last general strike from 5am to 10pm
covering the developments from the doorstep of a
departmental store! The Working Woman's Day on 8th
March is another tradition. To finish I would simply like to
say that we call on you to help us in the ways we have
described. If we get this support from the people there is no
reason for us to lose this space we have found as has been
shown by the experiences of Radio Klara in Valencia and
others in the Basque Country. We hope one day to
celebrate our tenth anniversary.

133
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp000997.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,133 @@
Free Radio in France
RADIO LIBERTAIRE
It was the 1981 congress of the French Anarchist
Federation which signed the deeds which set Radio
Libertaire on the road.. After long and heated debate the
congress accepted, unanimously, the idea of launching a
radio station which would be the voice for the FAF. At that
time it had no name, no wavelength, no real goal, no
presenters and for its launch a budget of (wait for it)
15000F (=A3150)! No member of congress, at that moment
could have predicted the events which weree about to
unfold other than that by the autumn anarchy would once
again be on the airwaves. As in 1921, when the insurgents
in Kronstadt sent out radio messages; as in 1936 with Radio
CNT-FAI in Spain, or again the participation of anarchists
in the Free Radio movement at the end of the 70s, with, in
particular, Radio Trottoir (Toulon) and Radio-Alarme
whose producers were members of the FAF.
It was on the 1st September 1981 (1) in a damp cellar on the
slopes of Montmartre that the radiophonic adventure began.
And in a very rudimentary fashion, in conditions that defied
the laws of broadcasting: a studio measuring 12 m2, with an
assortment of recuperated material and a mini-team of 6.
The first calls came in from our listeners, the first listeners
cards went out... and the jamming began!
Meanwhile old hands of the Free Radio movement were
putting together some very credible studios in order to go
for a slice of the cake represented by the FM band. The
spirit of the Free Radios was already beginning to agonise,
victims of the financial appetite of some of those who had
run the pirate stations. In August 1983 the socialists put an
end to 'the anarchy on the waves' by siezing a number of
transmitters including that of RL. On the 28th August at
5.45am the CRS appeared at the doors of RL. They broke
down the door and siezed all the equipment. The presenters
were beaten up and arrested, the antenna cable and pylon
were cut up into pieces. Neither the reinforced door, nor the
numerous listeners who were present, were able to prevent
our radio being siezed. The socialists, then in power with
their chums in the French Communist Party, had not
however reckoned with our determination and even less
with the solidarity which was shown to us by thousands of
listeners during the following two years. Two years during
which, day after day, links of friendship between RL and its
listeners were progressively strengthened. The reaction was
immediate. And Impressive. The most important part
translated itself on 3rd September 1983 into a
demonstration of 5000 and RL back on the waves.
Moments of warmth and intensity were so many and the
happenings so frequent that one article cannot do them
justice (2): galas, jamming by the 'Cop-Radios', scuffles with
the authorities, the obtaining of legal dispensation - the
demonstrations... by enumerating these events we are
setting down the essentials of the history of RL. However,
in reality the most important can hardly be reported. This
was the daily and collective history of RL, which all of us,
listeners and producers, hold a part of. It's a history of tens
of thousands of hours of transmission, telephone calls which
brought with it letters, exchanges and meetings. Radio
Libertaire was born with the passage of time. Everyone laid
their own stone with their voice, their expertise, their ability
or their energy. RL is also the listener who brought in a
microphone ('You should be able to find some use for it');
that other one who left their visiting card ('I'm an
electrician, if you need anything...') and the pensioner ('I'm
ill, and my pension isn't much... but come round for a bite
some day'), and the non-sighted person who, thanks to the
mutual aid small ads, managed to go off to the countryside
on a tandem with a young girl... and brought flowers back to
the radio station; it's all the letters that came in to 145, rue
Amelot to help, ask a question, encourage, suggest, inform,
criticise. It was when a zine, an association, an individual, a
union, the FAF had something to say, the telephone calls,
the meetings, the networks.
The stations cultural identity also came with time. The first
producers brought their own records into the studio and
introduced thousands to music by artists such as
Debronckart, Fanon, Servat, Gribouille, Jonas, Utg=E9-Royo,
Aurenche, Capart and many others. In 1982 another kind of
music arrived naturally on the airwaves, another music that
they were listening to in the squats, on the edges of the
system: Alternative Rock. Then other styles found their
place: jazz, blues, folk, industrial music, rap, reggae. And
other artists found the radio station open to other formms of
expression: cartoons, the plastic arts, theatre, literature,
cinema...
Though the radio of the FAF, RL nevertheless opened its
doors from the beginning to its friends: anarcho-syndicalists
from the CNT and other unions, Libre Pens=E9e, the Pacifist
Union, the Hopeful Ones, the League of the Rights of Man.
And it was there in this daily reality, in the struggles and the
meetings that forged itself, quite spontaneously, the links
between RL and the social movement: strikers, the
unemployed, shelterless, squatters, antiracists, ecologists,
conscientious objectors, refugees, ex-prisonners... Surviving
crises and the daily workload RL rose to the demands of the
times. It supported the student movement in 1986, and
became the radio of the street report movement, round table
discussion groups, an open station to report police brutality,
permanent agit-pop. When war broke out in the Gulf RL
was at the front announcing, hour by hour, demos,
meetings, regional committees whilst allowing for debates
and analysis. Just as naturally it was during these times of
crisis that RL really discovered its dimension as a 'radio for
struggle'. RL is also a thousand reasons for listeners to be
annoyed, rage and protest against the technical
imperfections or those aspects that were judged
incongruous, provocative, too reformist or too radical. But it
was above all, we hope, an opportunity to discover the
pleasures of debate, struggle and libertarian ideas. Shouting
matches... cries from the heart... all was there and all was
welcome! In a world of the market, the spectacle and
dehumanisation where triumphant capitalism crushes both
man and woman where thought, in the image of the
economy is uniform and globalised, RL, with its strenghths
and its weaknesses, its faults and its qualities does it not
seem to be simply human... quite simply human?
LAURENT FOUILLARD
(1) At the time RL was transmitting from 6pm to 10pm on
89.6Mhz
(2) See Radio Libertaire, la voix sans ma=EEtre by Yves
Peyraut published by Monde Libertaire (50F). Obtainable
from the Monde Libertaire bookshop.

655
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001000.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,655 @@
Cyberspace and "Ungovernability"
This posting has been forwarded to you as a service of the Austin Comite
de Solidaridad con Chiapas y Mexico.
NOTE BENE: The report that follows gives some of the ideas of a RAND
analyst who has been monitoring our work in cyberspace. This guy
contacted me last Spring after reading the piece I wrote on "The Chiapas
Uprising: The Future of Class Struggle in the New World Order". (Which
can be obtained via gopher eco.utexas.edu faculty/Cleaver/Cleaver
papers.) He pointed out the similarities between what I had written and
his own ideas. A collegue of his also contacted me and wanted to
collaborate in work on the activities of NGOs in Chiapas. I told him
that I didn't think the NGO's needed the information he wanted to gather,
that it would only be of use to people who might cause the NGOs trouble with
it. Needless to say I did NOT collaborate.
This is an example of the kind of monitoring and studying of our activity
that I was talking about in a message I posted some time back. In case
you missed that posting I will attach it to the end of this article.
That the other side is studying what we are doing, is only to be expected.
Let's make sure that WE study what we are doing and think about the
implications.(See my comments at the end of the three articles appended
below.)
At the same time, we can do what they are doing, i.e., study the
opposition. In the case of the following article, for instance, we can
ask ourselves about the meaning of the assertion that our work might make
Mexico "ungovernable". We know that this term was bandied about in Mexico in
the period before the last elections. Various groups used the term to
evoke fear and galvanize their own organizational efforts. The term also
has a history in American policy circles. Remember the THE CRISIS OF
DEMOCRACY: Report on the Governability of Democracies (1975) published by
the Trilateral Commission. In the essay on the US by Samuel P. Huntington
(one of three, two others were on Europe and Japan), Huntington presented
an analysis of the crisis in the US as a situation in which the "balance"
between democracy and "governability" had been tipped toward democracy
and needed to be re-tipped in the opposite direction. In other words, the
"crisis of democracy" was that there was too much democracy. (Not of the
formal kind of course but of the grassroots sort, in which everyday
people were interfering in the usual governing of America.)
So we know that for policy analysts the spector of "ungovernability" is a
nightmare, a possibility to be avoided at all costs. Many of us, on the
other hand, are fighting for just that: to make it impossible for those
who would "govern" to do so, and thus to open space for a recasting of
democracy in which there are not rulers and ruled, or governors and
governed, but rather self-governance of the people, by the people and for
the people. Hmmm have I heard that before somewhere???
The best examples I can think of from recent history in which countries
became "ungovernable" are all in Eastern/Central Europe during the
downfall of the Stalinist states of that area. In country after country a
massive movement of people made it impossible for the communist regimes
to "govern" and they collapsed, opening the way to new forms of politics
and new kinds of social relationships. Now, we may not like the way the
situation has evolved in those countries, but most would probably agree
that those revolutions were successful in removing undemocratic regimes
and opening the way to more fluid change. The usual spector raised by
policy makers, of course, is that ungovernerability quickly becomes
lawless chaos (of the sort depicted in Somalia and Ruwanda --or Road
Warrior for that matter). This has always been the ploy of rulers, to
present themselves as the only reasonable option, as the only way to
avoid the disintegration of civilized behavior. (I'm going to leave aside
for the moment the issue of the historical weight of the term
"civilization" and assume the usual commonplace meaning, i.e., the
ability of large numbers of people to live together with all their
differences and similarities without so much antagonism that
relationships dissolve into continuing violence and bloodshed.)
But what about Mexico? "Ungovernability" today can only mean the
breakdown in the ability of the "government" (i.e., the PRI party-state)
to "govern" (i.e., maintain its power). This is exactly what the
Zapatistas have called for, and what so many in Mexico desire (as well as
many of us outside Mexico).
Now, please note: the emphasis in the Rand analyst's work is on
"ungovernability" NOT on what might replace the PRI's ability to govern.
Yet in the situation he describes (and I have discussed elsewhere --the
article above and the introduction to ZAPATISTAS!DOCUMENTS OF THE NEW
MEXICAN REVOLUTION --at gopher lanic.utexas.edu Latin American/Mexico)
is something far more interesting: elements of
alternative ways of organizing Mexican political and social life. The
analyst sees that the grassroots movment that has been using cyberspace
as part of its self-organization "doesn't have the ability to take
power", but doesn't recognize how the new networks are increasingly made
up of people who do not WANT to "take power", of people who do not want
ANYBODY to "take power", of people who are working out conceptions of
politics where "power" is either abolished, or reconceptualized in new,
truly democractic ways.
That their "lack of centralized authority makes them less susceptible
to cooptation or repression" doesn't strike him as also providing a model
for a more democratic society in which "repression" and "cooptation" are
made much more difficult through the organization of the polity. Yet,
that is exactly what we should be striving for within the organizational
fabrics we weave. That is exactly what all those who have fought against the
"centralized authority" of rulers/governors/state-bureaucrats have long
sought. The fabrics we weave today are complex things. They resonate with
some old models --say the direct democracy of some indigenous villages--
but they are also woven within a completely new context: a global
capitalism in which communications makes it increasingly difficult for
the would-be rulers to divide (through ignorance) and conquer (via
repression or cooptation). Now those electronic communications are not
some neutral technology, even though it may seem that way at first
glance, as capitalists continue to maintain their very hierarchical power
structures using the same circuits that we use to undermine them and
construct alternative sets of relationships. Indeed, the original
network, ARPANET, was created by the Advanced Research Projects Agency to
facilitate the circulation of research for the Defense Department. But
out of that has grown not only the Internet but cyberspace in which
diverse and often conflicting goals are pursued, from commercial ventures
such as America Online or Compuserve to activist networks like PeaceNet
and EcoNet, from the reinforcement of capitalist power to systematic
attempts to undermine it. There is no longer a single "electronic
communication
technology" but rather the nets themselves with all their structures AND
contents constitute alternative technologies being elaborated within
diverse contexts for diverse purposes. Those of us who are using the nets
to fight for democracy are constructing the technology as we proceed, we
are not just "users" as the big companies would have us believe.
So, we have to be very self-conscious about what we are constructing as
we go along. What are the politics of what we are constructing, both in
cyberspace and within the larger space within which we live and fight. If
it serves no other purpose, perusal of this report on RAND research,
should stimulate our collective thinking about how what we are doing can
contribute "in the doing" to the construction of new, alternative ways of
social being in which "governability" is put behind us, permanently.
Harry
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 11:26:27 -0500 (EST)
To: hmcleave@arrow.eco.utexas.edu
Subject: netwars? (fwd)
Content-Length: 7158
COPYRIGHT PACIFIC NEWS SERVICE
450 Mission Street, Room 506
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-243-4364
NEWS ANALYSIS-665 WORDS
NETWAR COULD MAKE MEXICO UNGOVERNABLE
EDITOR'S NOTE: While media attention focuses on the turmoil
within Mexico's ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party, another
destabilizing force, which Rand Corp. national security expert David F.
Ronfeldt dubs "netwar," is spreading. Netwar enables widely dispersed
and highly marginalized opposition groups to coordinate strategies
utilizing new information technologies. While their lack of central
authority makes it unlikely they could take power, they could make
Mexico ungovernable. PNS contributing editor Joel Simon reports
regularly from Mexico.
BY JOEL SIMON, PACIFIC NEWS SERVICE
MEXICO CITY -- While Mexico reels from the worst financial and
political crisis in decades, a low intensity "netwar" is also spreading
across the country. That's the conclusion of social scientist David F.
Ronfeldt of the Santa Monica-based Rand think tank who studies the
impact of new information technologies on national security.
Ronfeldt and a colleague coined the term netwar to describe what
happens when loosely-affiliated networks -- social activists, terrorists,
or drug cartels -- use new information technologies to coordinate
action. Throughout the world, these networks are replacing
"hierarchies" as the primary form of political organization among
opponents of the state.
Whatever the outcome of the current turmoil in the ruling
Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), and the gains scored by the
conservative National Action Party (PAN), Ronfeldt argues that
netwar will ultimately change the country's political equation by
giving even the most marginalized leftist opposition new clout. "The
risk for Mexico is not an old-fashioned civil war or another social
revolution," he notes. "The risk is social netwar."
The impact of the netwarriors is already clear. In 1993, opponents of the
North American Free Trade Agreement used fax machines and the
Internet to coordinate strategy. During the August 1994 Presidential
elections, a watchdog group called Civic Alliance organized a network
of observers throughout the country who faxed reports on voting
irregularities back to Mexico City.
Even the Zapatista Army of National Liberation is fighting a form of
netwar. The August 1994 National Democratic Convention brought
together hundreds of diverse groups in the rebels' jungle stronghold to
fashion a de-centralized opposition. That they succeeded was evidenced
last month when thousands marched in Mexico City to protest the
Zedillo Administration's arrest warrant for Subcomander Marcos,
chanting "We Are All Marcos." Rebel supporters around the world
followed developments by reading Zapatista communiques on the
Internet.
Precisely because of their de-centralization, the netwarriors don't have
the ability to take national power. But, Ronfeldt predicts, they are a
growing political force which could make the country ungovernable.
And their lack of any central authority makes them far less vulnerable
to cooptation or repression.
Who are the netwarriors? They are the traditional leftist opponents of
the PRI, groups fighting for democratic change, as well as an array of
special interests, from peasant organizations to gay rights groups. At a
time when the political and economic crisis has created widespread
disaffection, Ronfeldt theorizes that network-style organizing will
enable the opposition to overcome its traditional factionalism. The
greatest threat to the government could be hundreds or thousands of
independent groups united in their opposition but "accepting of each
other's autonomy."
Ronfeldt argues the international non-government organizations
(NGOs) operating in Mexico provide a "multiplier effect" for
netwarriors. Electronic communication allows Mexican groups to stay
in touch with U.S. and Canadian organizations which share their goals
and can coordinate an international response in the event of a
government crackdown. These groups are media savvy in a way
Mexicans may not be; they also have access to the international media.
Global Exchange, a small humanitarian organization in San Francisco,
is one example. It began denouncing human rights abuses and
mobilizing protests in the U.S. only hours after government troops
dislodged Zapatista rebels from villages last December.
Netwar is not unique to political groups, however. Terrorist
organizations and drug cartels are also becoming less hierarchical and
thus harder to control, says Ronfeldt. The Sicilian Mafia is losing
ground to less centralized drug cartels.
Ronfeldt acknowledges that the potential for transnational netwar in
Mexico is limited by the deficiencies in the nation's phone system.
"Netwar doesn't work unless lots of different small groups can
coordinate...and that requires high band-width communication."
While fax machines have become ubiquitous in Mexico, electronic
communication is only starting to take hold.
Still, Ronfeldt cautions that "The country that produced the prototype
social revolution of the 20th century may now be giving rise to the
prototype social netwar of the 21st century." If so, the Mexican
government will have its hands full.
(03131995) **** END **** COPYRIGHT PNS
------- End of Article on Rand Research-------
What follows is a reposting of earlier reflections on other examples of
being watched.
>From hmcleave@mundoMon Mar 20 11:29:01 1995
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 11:09:51 -0600 (CST)
From: "Harry M. Cleaver" <hmcleave@mundo>
Subject: Media Recognition: Opportunities and Dangers Mar.5
To: Chiapas95 <chiapas95@mundo.eco.utexas.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9503050922.B17175-0100000@mundo>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Over the last 10 days or so, the mass media has begun to report on what
we are doing in and with cyberspace. The following 3 items are examples
of the kind of reporting on our work that is being done. Some comments
follow these three examples.
ITEM #1: Tod Robberson, "Mexican Rebels Using A High-Tech Weapon;
Internet Helps Rally Support" WASHINGTON POST, Feb. 20, 1995, pg. A1
(complete article)
SAN CRISTOBAL DE LAS CASAS, Mexico: They have waged war on the ground
with stick rifles and World War II vintage guns, but in fighting the
international propaganda war, the rebels of the
Zapatista National Liberation Army have invaded cyberspace.
With help from peace activists and rebel support groups here in southern
Chiapas state, the Zapatista message is spreading around the world, literally
at lightning speed, thanks to telephone links to the Internet computer
network.
Ever since the rebels, most of them peasant Indians, launched their uprising
here 13 months ago, Chiapas has become one of the hottest informational topics
on the Internet, with computer linkups enabling Zapatista leader Subcomandante
Marcos to circulate his communiques worldwide, at virtually the push of a
button, via Internet bulletin boards like PeaceNet, Chiapas-List, Mexpaz and
Mexico 94.
A week ago, President Ernesto Zedillo became acquainted with the power at
Marcos's fingertips through the Internet when the president announced the
start of a military offensive aimed at capturing the ski-masked Zapatista leader
and bringing the rebellion to a decisive close.
Within hours, "cyber-peaceniks" and human rights activists here and elsewhere
in Mexico had distributed the president's words verbatim via the Internet --
along with a call for "urgent action" to press Zedillo into reversing course.
Included in their computer messages was the direct fax number to Zedillo's
office, as well as the fax line to Interior Minister Esteban Moctezuma.
"I don't know how effective the campaign was, but I do know that Zedillo's
fax machine broke or was eventually turned off," said Mariclaire Acosta,
president of the Mexican Commission for the Defense and Promotion of Human
Rights. She estimated hundreds of faxes were sent to the president, who
eventually changed tack and ordered his troops to halt their advance.
[Ed.Note by the person who originally posted the story to the net:
Actually they did not halt their advance, but have continued deeper into
the jungle, and in a number of documented cases have been torturing and
killing locals to try and get more info.on the EZLN leaders.]
The Chiapas rebels are only the latest group embroiled in conflict or
afflicted by disaster to use the Internet to disseminate information and
opinion around the globe -- and given the huge volume, apparently the most
successful in mobilizing international support. Peru and Ecuador have
used it in their border claims. Warring factions in Bosnia, separatists
in Chechnya and relief organizations in quake-striken Kobe, Japan all
circulated reports --some of which reached news organizations
"The Internet is the best vehicle we have to spread information around.
Before, we used faxes and telephones, and it took forever," Acosta explained.
"Now the information arrives like this," she said, snapping her fingers. "The
feedback is instantaneous."
It remains a matter of speculation whether Marcos, recently identified by the
government as Rafael Sebastian Guillen, or any other top Zapatista leader has
hooked into the Internet directly, although acquaintances say the rebel
leaders are no strangers to computers and high technology. When federal police
raided alleged Zapatista safe houses in Mexico City and the southern state of
Veracruz last week, they found as many computer diskettes as bullets. Reporters
were allowed to examine the captured rebel computer equipment at a press
conference in Mexico City.
According to federal legislator Adolfo Aguilar Zinser, who met with Marcos at
a jungle hideout last year, the rebel leader typically would write his
voluminous communiques on a laptop computer, which he carried in a backpack and
plugged into the lighter socket of an old pickup truck he used when traveling
between the remote Zapatista strongholds of La Garrucha and Guadalupe Tepeyac.
Today, both villages are firmly under Mexican army control, while the
whereabouts of Marcos and his followers remains a mystery.
Nevertheless, Marcos's communiques continue to flow unimpeded through
cyberspace, usually reaching readers in countries as distant as Italy, Germany
and Russia faster than they can be published by most Mexican newspapers. When
the communiques do reach the local press, they appear to have been formatted and
printed on a computer.
If Marcos is equipped with a telephone modem and a cellular phone, it would
be possible for him to hook into the Internet even while on the run, as he
is now.
"People have talked about trying to get Marcos online . . . but so far it
hasn't happened, at least as far as we know," said Harry Cleaver, a University
of Texas economics professor and frequent supplier of Chiapas -related news on
the Internet.
Cleaver and other Internet users compiled a book last year, published in
the United States, drawn in part from information and essays about Chiapas
transmitted through the Internet. The translation and editing of the book,
"Zapatistas! Documents of the New Mexican Revolution," was coordinated through
the Internet, Cleaver said.
The information exchange has drawn the attention of the Mexican government.
Among the government's targets for search and arrest warrants here last week was
the office of Jorge Santiago Santiago, a social worker and recipient of grants
from numerous international aid organizations, including Britain's Oxfam, who
was a frequent contributor to the Internet dialogue on Chiapas. Zedillo
accused him of being a Zapatista commander. Santiago is currently under arrest
on charges of treason.
The Catholic Church's human rights office in San Cristobal, another heavy
contributor to Internet's Chiapas data, was so concerned about the possibility
of government interference that it refused to allow a reporter into its computer
room to observe employees working on line.
"Our mission is strictly informative," said the Rev. Pablo Romo, head of the
church's Fray Bartolome Human Rights Center. "We use the Internet to inform
people abroad of what is happening here, but mainly to counter the government's
disinformation."
For example, he said, "the government circulated a rumor through [the
official news agency] Notimex that I had been arrested. Without the Internet,
I would have had to spend days on the phone, . . . to tell everyone that it
wasn't true. Now, I just send a message to the bulletin board, and the word goes
out instantly."
Acosta and other Internet users belonging to a confederation of
nongovernmental human rights organizations say their offices have been ransacked
and phone lines tampered with because of their computer communications.
Critics charge that the Internet is being used by Zapatista
supporters to distort recent events. When the army began mobilizing, for
example, word went out on the Internet that San Cristobal was surrounded
by tanks and armored cars. While it was true that the army prsence had
increased throughout Chiapas, no tanks were to be found anywhere in the
state.
One user group here sent out a report that airborne bombardments were
underway in several named mountain villages and urged an international
protest. They passed on rebel assertions that women were being raped and
children killed. But reporters who visited those areas and interviewed
scores of witnesses said they were unable to confirm even one such
incident.
The self-declared rebel governor of Chiapas, Amado Avendano, used the
Internet to distribute an urgent plea to his North American supporters to
travel to Chiapas. "We know we can count on America's best men and women, who
will know how to . . . impede fratricide in our nation. There is an urgent need
for international observers to serve as witnesses to the events we are
denouncing," he wrote.
Some users with access to Chiapas related computer bulletin
boards have posted messags urging measures to weed out
untruthful entries. Others aregue, however, that such proposals smack
of censorship.
Nevertheless, the unsubstantiated assertions of army atrocities prompted
hundreds of Zapatista supporters to converge on San Cristobal from as far away
as San Francisco and Oregon in recent days.
----end of article---
ITEM #2: Russell Watson et al, "When Words are the Best Weapon.
Revolution: Information can undermine dictatorships, and the faster it
flows, the more trouble they're in. How Rebels use the Internet and
satellite TV." NEWSWEEK, February 27, 1995, pp. 36-40. (excerpts)
Here's how to wage a revolution in the Information Age: two weeks ago
Mexican government troops lunged into the rain forests of Chiapas state
in renewed pursuit of the Zapatista rebels. Wehn the federal soldiers
reached an insurgent stronghold at Guadalupe Tepeyac, the guerrillas
melted into the jungle, leaving behind a few trucks but taking with them
their most valuable equipment --fax machines and laptop computers. In
retreat, the Zapatistas faxed out a communique claiming that the army was
"killing children,beating and raping women . . . and bombing us." Soon
the government was taking another public relations beating. It stopped
the offensive and allowed reporters into the area. They found no signs
of atrocities or bombing. But the government attack had been thwarted,
and the rebels were free to fight on, with words as their best weapons.
The Zapatistas' chief spokesman, Subcommandante Marcos (the government
says his name is Rafael Guillen), knows that he will never obtain
political power from the barrel of a gun. "What governments should really
fear," he told a NEWSWEEK reporter last summer, "is a communications
expert". Information technology has always been seen as a potentially
revolutionary weapon. Almost as soon as the printing press was invented,
governments and churches tried to control it, and the Ottoman Empire
shunned the technology for almost 300 years. The Amercian Revolution
was spurred on by Benjamin Franklin, a printer; Thomas Paine, a
pamphleteer, and Samuel Adams, a propagandist. In the modern era,
vulnerable governments have been challenged by proliferating means of
communication. Long-distance telephone service, for example, helped to
undermine the Soviet Union, connecting dissidents to each other and to
supporters outside the country. Other Communist regimes have been
weakened by radio and television signals [. . .]
[. . . ]
On a much more modest scale, the Internet also has become a platform
for the Zapatistas. One of the services offering information about the
movement is run from Mexico City by Barbara Pillsbury, a 24-year old
American who works for a development organization. She transmits
bulletins about the Zapatistas and communiques from Subcommandante
Marcos to subscribers around the world. (Her internet address:
pueblo@laneta.apc.org) She says interest in the Zapatistas helped
introduce many Mexicans to cyberspace. [. . .]
[. . .]
Even in less rigid dictatorships, communications technology cannot
make a revolution by itself. [. . .] But the flow of information helps to
undermine such regimes, and the faster it flows, the more trouble they're
in. Few states can afford to opt out of teh Information Age; they have
to keep up with at least some of the latest scientific, technical and
commercial developments. [. . .] If dictatorships want to play any part
in the modern world, they have to risk exposing themselves to ideas and
information that could inspire reform or spark a revolution"
----end of article----
ITEM #3: TV Globo and CNN Sunday February 26, 1997
The New York producers of the Brazilian TV network TV Globo,
called me in my office as part of a story they were doing on the use of
cyberspace by the Zapatistas and those supporting the struggle for
democracy in Mexico. They wanted to know if the latest Zapatista
communiques were available on-line. While I e-mailed the communiques to
them, they filmed the texts on their computers sitting in their studio.
The report they put together combined images of Chiapas, pure audio,
images of the Zapatistas, images of computer screens scrolling through
the communiques, images of the White Guard attack on the cathedral and
its defenders in Chiapas. Over these images was an account of the way we
have been using cyberspace to spread information about what is happening
in Chiapas and to mobilize support to oppose the military crackdown. They
reported the overload of protest faxes to Zedillo and said as a result
"He ordered a retreat." --which overstated the case drastically. They
showed taping into the lanic files via gopher and noted the use of net by
human rights groups. The report ended with the reporter asking "I wonder
what would have happened if Karl Marx or Che Guevara had had access to
the Internet?"
The report interested CNN enough for them to run it on their weekend
World Report Sunday, February 26th.
Comments:
We are watched. We are read. There are a number of issues here that it
would be useful for people to pay attention to.
First, on the positive side, mass media reports
may facilitate our work by leading more people to be aware of what we are
doing and how we are doing it, such that they join in. As a result of
being named in the Washington Post article I have received several
letters asking for more information by people wanting to help.
Second, the same publicity certainly makes our enemies more aware of what
we are doing and of its effectiveness. We have evidence of three kinds of
responses. We know that military consultants are studying what we are
doing and treating it as a kind of low-level insurgency. I was contacted
last Spring by two researchers at RAND Corporation --a think tank that does
much work for the state, including the military-- who had read a paper I
wrote last February dealing with (in part) the use of cyberspace in the
struggle. They wanted to share ideas and collaborate! I followed up
enough to read some of their stuff and discovered their views on these
issues. We also know that outside the state, the exteme right wing is
also monitoring our activities --including the LaRouche people. Such
proto-fascists can be extremely dangerous. I know of activists (in the
anti-nuclear power movment) who were attacked physically as a result of
their activities being monitored and reported by the LaRouche organization.
We know that they are already talking about infiltrating the peace
brigades being organized for Chiapas. Lastly, we know that there are
well-intentioned types within such capitalist policy making institutions
such as the World Bank who are passing on our information to attempt to
influence policy in more humane directions.
Third, so far it is obvious that we are using the mass media as a source
of information far more than they are using our material. The information
we produce and circulate --what the Italians call "counterinformation"--
is designed precisely to get the real story out, the story the press and
TV are not reporting, or not reporting accurately. So far, from what I
have seen, the big media have used our activities for stories, but not
our information, while we, on the other hand, continually monitor what
they do report while assessing its usefulness and accuracy. In the story
above Tod Robberson impunes the accuracy of our information with unnamed
sources and fails to report what we all know: namely that misinformation
gets queried and challenged and corrected here infinitely faster than it
does in the mainstream media --which prints corrections on back pages if
at all.
Fourth, as a result of these phenomena I think we should make concerted
efforts to:
1. keep track of and document the back and forth between our
work here in cyberspace and elsewhere, i.e., the paths by which our
information reaches and influences those who are not in cyberspace, the
feedback loops by which the activities spurred by those influences are
reflected in and have an impact on what we do here. For example, I think
it is very important for our own energy levels to consistently report on
protest activities prompted by or fueled by information we have provided.
One of the important lessons of every major protest movement in recent
decades has been that individuals have more energy to fight when they can
see how their own, limited individual efforts are part of a much wider
movement.
2. We, or at least some of us, should keep a careful eye on the
activities and discussions of our enemies: HOW they are monitoring us,
WHO is monitoring us, what they are SAYING about what we are doing, what
COUNTERMEASURES they are taking against what we are doing. We need to do
these things because even if we do not want to view them as "enemies"
many of them DO view us as enemies and are proceeding accordingly.
Counterinsurgency professionals do this for a living and they believe it
it. Marcos got labeled a "professional of violence" by those who really
deserve the title! As far as those who are acting as intelligence
providers for institutions like the World Bank but do not think of
themselves as our enemies, perhaps even feel they are on our side, well,
we can certainly deal with them individually as well-intentioned persons,
but it is still important to recognize and watch how the institutions
they are trying to influence actually behaves in the light of the
information it is provided. The Bank in particular has demonstrated a
certain capacity for neutralizing some of its opponents by internalizing
them, i.e., giving them jobs as professional curmudgeons within the Bank.
We need to watch these things to understand what threatens us and how
best to deal with it.
3. We really should mobilize the "Lies of Our Times"-type critics of the
distortions of the mass media to document the misrepresentations and lack
of reporting that has been going on. The greatest "unreported story of
1995", at least so far, is the story of the continuing push by the Army
--despite the Mexican governments denials-- and their brutal treatment of
campesinos and grassroots activists in Chiapas.
4. At the same time, we need
to keep track of where and how we HAVE been successful at influencing
what the mass media has reported correctly. For example, when Ken
Silverstein and Alexander Cockburn published their story on the infamous
Chase Manhattan report calling for the elimination of the Zapatistas and
the stealing of the elections in Jalisco very few people read it in
COUNTERPUNCH simply because their newsletter has a very limited
readership. After we uploaded their story AND the report itself to the
nets, the situation changed dramatically. Not only were both items
reposted over and over again on a wide variety of lists and conferences,
but they were soon being discussed in the Mexican press and then the
American press and then in Europe etc. Partly, that success story was due
to the intrinsic drama of the report. But more important, I think, was
our ability to get that drama to so many places that it could not be
ignored and therefore wasn't. Now, it is also of interest to consider who
did what with it. I know that the Perot people, the Nader people and
other anti-NAFTA people used it for their purposes of condemning the
agreement they had been unable to block. Mexican nationalists used it to
object to Zedillo following the orders of Wall Street. Anti-capitalists
used it to demonstrate the perfidity of capitalism --once again.
Financial democracry types (those calling for the demoratization of the
Fed) used it to attack financial monopoly power. And so on. By
understanding the array of forces susceptible to use information we
provide, we are more likely to be effective.
5. After surveying the material we have been providing on the nets, I am
struck by another thing: we are doing a better job at circulating news
and analysing it than at providing more indepth material. Yet there is no
reason why we cannot do this. Certainly some material is best provided in
bookform, indeed can only be provided that way due the need of authors
for copyrighted publications. However, the book Zapatistas:Documents of
the New Mexican Revolution mentioned in the Robberson story above is a
good counterexample. Not only was that book generated through the nets,
but it was posted at lanic.utexas.edu BEFORE it was published by
Autonomedia in Brooklyn. A certain number of more indepth pieces have
circulated but a great many that might have, or still should have, have
not. Some of us scurry around to get what we need from whatever source,
hard copy, e-text, NPR, TV clips, etc. But a great many people cannot do
that and it would be better if more material was at their fingertips and
easily accessible. Therefore, I would encourage the uploading of useful
material, including articles published elsewhere in hard print. The
authors can usually do this by retaining copyrights. Others can get
permission. A rapidly growing percentage of authors are crafting their
material on computers and therefore their material exists in e-text form.
It is just a matter of knowing it is there, seeing its usefulness and
uploading it. The same goes, obviously, for a variety of media that can
be made available on the World Wide Web --photos, speeches, reports, etc.
Enough. All these comments are simply suggestions as to how we might do
what we are doing even better, and avoid some dangers. As we care on the
struggle to roll back the power of the Mexican state (and that of the US
government, the IMF, etc), we also need to develop the highest state of
self-awareness possible about what we are doing, how we are doing it,
what is most effective and what threatens that effectiveness. I would end
with a call for more frequent discussion of these issues as a part of
our ongoing work.
Harry
--Boundary (ID C9QCvUWRtCGfxrNe37WbDg)--

52
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001002.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
ON THE AIR (A) IN BRAZIL
Curitiba is the capital of the state of Parana,
in the south of Brazil, located at about 350
kms. to the South East of Sao Paulo with a
population of about one and a half million
and is thus the tenth largest city in
population terms in the country. There they
are living through a pioneering experience
for the Brazilian and Latin American
libertarian movement: the setting up of an
anarchist radio transmitor. It's called 'FM
107,9 Burro Brabo, Radio Libre Pirataria'
which came on air in the first half of 1995.
The launching and running of this iniciative
was taken care of by groups who have been
active in the area for some time:
GR.A.VID.A (Direct Action Anarchist
Group and editors of the information sheet
DIRECT ACTION) and the collective of the
paper JORNAL DO BACACHERI. With an
effort which can only be described as
extraordinary, given the difficulties which
will always attend such a project in Latin
America, they managed to concretise the
idea and began to transmit music, protest,
humour, poetry and anarchism to the
listeners in some areas of the city.
In correspondence we received in June these
enthusiastic friends tell us that shortly they
will be able to cover the whole of Curitiba
along with it's outskirts thanks to a new
aerial they have bought, this was an on-
going situation. They also sent us a call so
that sympathetic people from all over the
world send them support: publications, taped
music, poetry, info, suggestions and of
course any other form of help (if possible
economic). Since everything which arrives is
welcome and indespensable so that these
radical Don Quijotes can continue with their
marvellous project on their 'Burro Brabo'
You can contact them at: GR.A.VID.A,
Caixa Postal 3395, CEP 80001-970;
Curitiba - PR; Brasil.
(Colectivo Plum@ -Revista CORREO A; Venezuela)

225
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001005.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,225 @@
The Anarchist Computer Network - A Year Later -by Will Kemp
---------------------------------------------
A year ago, i wrote an article called "A Proposal To Set Up An Anarchist
Computer Network", which was originally published in the australian paper
"The Anarchist". I've recently discovered it was also reprinted by the
british paper "Freedom", the italian "Umanita Nova" and the french "Monde
Libertaire". As the net has now become a reality in Australia and my ideas
and knowledge have developed a long way beyond the point they were at a year
ago, i feel it's time to write a follow-up.
The @NET really began in Melbourne, Australia's second biggest city, with an
anarchist BBS called "The Xchange". This started in early 1993 as a dial-in
bulletin board system (BBS), which allowed people with their own computers
and modems to call in via the telephone system to swap messages and read text
files. For a couple of years, it ran this way, with no network connections -
and not very many users. Late in 1994, we connected it up the to Internet,
giving the users access to international email which allows them to send and
receive electronic mail to and from other Internet users all round the world.
At this point, the number of users grew dramatically.
A couple of months before The Xchange was connected to Internet, in about
November 1994, "Byteback" BBS began in Brisbane, two thousand kilometres to
the north of Melbourne, operating from Holus Bolus Anarchist Bookshop. It had
an Internet connection from the beginning and provided the same service as The
Xchange, allowing people to dial in from home with their own computers.
However, this bulletin board could also be used by coming into the shop and
this allowed people who didn't have computers to get access to the network.
Sadly, Holus Bolus closed down at the end of July this year, leaving Byteback
homeless and without its dial-in line. However, it's still running and is
available to the anarchist movement in Brisbane and hopefully one day it will
be fully operational again.
During this period, things were happening in Sydney too. "The Media Room"
was established by an anarchist collective who were working towards setting
up an open access multi-media resource centre. They established Internet
links around the end of 1994 and by mid 1995 had their own BBS running,
called "Catalyst". Originally the Media Room was based at Jura Books,
but is now operating from Black Rose bookshop. Jura are now working on
setting up their own media group.
In February 1995 an anarchist bookshop opened up in Melbourne, called
Barricade. Soon after opening, there was a public access computer terminal
in the shop, which was connected to Internet via The Xchange BBS. For the
few months between Barricade opening, and Holus Bolus closing, three of
the four anarchist bookshops in Australia had public access, internet-linked
computers.
However, although the anarchist communities of Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne
all have the possibility of constant cheap communication with each other,
this network doesn't seem to be used very much in that way yet. It's early
days in the development of such a resource and it obviously takes time for
people to find out how they can use it, as they've been so isolated from
each other for so long. But i feel sure that if i write a follow-up again
in another year, this situation will have changed completely.
Strangely enough, access to this network seems to have developed and improved
international links much more rapidly than domestic ones. The most notable
example of this is the link between European Counter Network (ECN) in Italy
and The Xchange BBS in Melbourne. The Xchange now receives a constant flow
of news from the ECN BBS in Padova. The two BBSs also jointly produce a
regular English-language electronic newsletter which summarises these
postings, along with a full translation of one or two longer documents from
Italy's 'self-organised' left.
There have also been links built with La Linea Lliure BBS in Barcelona in
Catalunya, Spunk Press - an international collective which maintains an
archive of anarchist literature on Internet - and several other anarchist
groups and individuals around the world.
* * *
At the time of the original article, i'd had no contact with Internet and
knew virtually nothing about it. Because of this, i made no mention of it
in that article. However, thanks to the guidance of a few anarchist friends
who knew more about these things than i did, i quickly came to realise that
the job of setting up an anarchist network would be made much easier and
cheaper - and more effective - if we used Internet as our means of
communication. Since that time too, general public knowledge and use of
Internet has grown at a fantastic pace.
The original technology (known as Fidonet Protocol) which we'd envisoned
using for the net would have limited us in a lot of ways, due to the
fact that it would have been more expensive to operate and we wouldn't
have had the instant international access we now have with Internet. However,
it would have given us some short term advantages that we didn't get from
Internet. Firstly, it would have restricted our internal network
communication to other BBSs on our own network, which would probably have
meant there would by now be a lot more communication between the australian
cities. It would also have meant we could have had closer links with ECN in
Italy, as this is the type of network they have. La Linea Lliure in Barcelona
also operates this system and ECN in Germany have a similar network.
However, Fido Protocol is not compatible with Internet and i believe that in
the long run, all these networks and BBSs will gradually change over to using
Internet as their communication medium. The reason for using Internet is
that it's become so much cheaper to operate than Fido (which has to be done
with long-distance phone calls) and that it gives you access to a vastly
wider network and one that's expanding at such a pace that the anarchist
movement can't afford not to have a voice there. Internet is undoubtedly
going to become one of the most important forms of media within a very short
time and i'd say it will eventually overtake television as the main form
of mass media in the world. Unlike television, however, we've got a chance
to have a significant voice in this medium, but we must get in there now
if we're going to get the chance to develop this influence.
I'd like to see more anarchist groups around the world setting up their
own network links, as this will certainly help us communicate with each
other more easily and effectively. And with better communication, we can
only build a bigger and stronger global anarchist movement. The groups
with existing network links can provide help and advice for people and
collectives who want to set up their own computer systems. I've written
a book called: "Message Sticks In Cyberspace - an anarchist guide to
computer communication" ("message sticks" are traditional communication
mediums used by australian aboriginal people.) This book aims to take
people who know virtually nothing about computers and, with simple
explanations, get them to the point where they can set up a Bulletin Board
and run a network. So far this book is only available from Australia, but
hopefully there will soon be copies for sale in Europe.
* * *
Contacts
--------
The Xchange BBS
---------------
P.O. Box 1052
Preston
Victoria 3072
Australia
Tel (BBS): 03-388 0018
Email: compcoll@xchange.apana.org.au
Catalyst BBS
------------
Black Rose Anarchist Bookshop
583a King St
Newtown
New South Wales 2042
Australia
Email: cat@lyst.apana.org.au
WWW: http://www.usyd.edu.au/~cjmount/cat/
Byteback BBS
------------
Email: root@byteback.apana.org.au
En Linea Lliure BBS
-------------------
C/ de la Cera, 1 bis
08001 Barcelona
Catalunya
Tel (BBS): ++34-3-3290783
Fax: ++34-3-3290858
Fidonet: 2:343/121.80
Email: joanma <ellokal@pangea.upc.es>
Indian BBS
----------
(Tarragona)
Tel (BBS): ++34-77-550485
Fidonet: 2:343/302.
Email: c/o joanma <ellokal@pangea.upc.es>
ECN Bologna (European Counter Network)
--------------------------------------
Tel (BBS): 051-520986
Email: fam0393@iperbole.bologna.it
WWW: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/ecn/ecnbo.htm
Italian Anarchist Computer Book
-------------------------------
Digital Guerrilla -- guida all'uso alternativo di computer, modem e reti
telematiche.
100 pages A5 (15 x 21 cm).
10.000 lire (that is, about 6 US $, plus 2 $ for shipping and
handling outside italy) -- in italy you can get it in many squats, social
centres and infoshops. interested people in foreign countries can email
lpaccagn@risc1.gelso.unitn.it
An electronic html version of the book will be available on the
internet in a month or so.
Spunk Press
-----------
Electronic Anarchist Archive
Email: spunk-info-request@lysator.liu.se
WWW: http://www.cwi.nl/cwi/people/Jack.Jansen/spunk/Spunk_Home.html
Ftp: ftp://etext.archive.umich.edu/pub/Politics/Spunk/
Message Sticks In Cyberspace
----------------------------
by post from:
Black Rose Books
563a King Street
Newtown
N.S.W. 2042
Australia
$10 (australian) including post and package
international money orders only please.
The author of this article
--------------------------
Email: will@desire.apana.org.au
END

42
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001011.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
The Criminal Justice Act
The Internet invasion of the UK continues, and we have some e-mail
addresses where you can register your protest reason: The Criminal
Justice & Public Order Act of Britain effectively BANS the holding of
Rave parties in the UK and has revoked British Citizens' right to
assemble. Method: Use the Internet to register your protest and to
cast a global vote against this suspension of basic human rights!
1. The web site www.open.gov.uk run by the UK governments computer
department has a feedback page. You can address a protest message
there.
2. Although the ruling Conservative Party has not given out a public
adress, we do have the address of one MP, David Shaw e-mail:
David@dlshaw.demon.co.uk
3. The UK opposition parties have done very little to stop the
Criminal Justice Act. Protest to their leaders. The Labour Party
leader's address is:
tony.blair@geo2.poptel.org.uk
The leader of the Liberal Party can be contacted at:
paddyashdown@cix.compulink.co.uk
4. Another way to help is send your protest message to British
companies.
5. Snail Mail: If you want to contact the British P.M and don't have
e-mail access then write a letter to Mr J Major, 10 Downing St,
London, SW1 2AA, United Kingdom
This Bill which was recently passed by the British gov't and is an
insidious way to stop more than 10 people gathering on public land,
and threatens the development of democracy and human rights. In
Australia, we too have problems with finding decent venues and having
all night dance parties. However, no law yet prohibits the gathering
of people in order to congregate nor does the law impose a ban on
repetitive beats., i.e techno music. Spyfood knows that most ravers
wanna have fun, and its important to think about the plight of others
who are fighting for their right to rave. If you need to find out more
info on the Criminal Justice Act and its intentions. Check out the
World Wide Web site at the following URL
http://www.bath.ac.uk/~bs2ajs/CJ.Act.html
_________________________________________________________________
geekgirl contents page

60
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001015.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
Welcome and introduction to SPS
While there is a great deal of positive activist work going on many fronts,
there's a real need for improved communications among groups and, more
importantly, with sympathizers and independent and radical/progressive
writers and media. i have a modest proposal for all activists and groups
struggling for justice, liberation and the hearts and minds of our brothers
and sisters everywhere.
Former Black Panther and political prisoner Lorenzo Kom'boa Ervin, in a
manifesto he wrote while entombed in one of the most brutal prisons in the
USA, envisioned the creation an information bureau to network with
activists and supportive media to get liberation messages out to the
people. Put bluntly, the "mainstream" media, for all the right-wing howling
of liberalism and political correctness, very seldom documents, struggles
with and supports the efforts of people of color, the urban and rural poor
and radicals/progressives in their efforts for freedom and justice.
Instead, we're constantly treated to rightist talking heads distorting
reality and neo-Nazis being given free reign in "mainstream" media to
propagandize their opinions. What i am presenting is media on our own terms
through an idea i hope gets your support and participation.
The Salazar-Parsons Service (christened after the late Chicano journalist
Rubeun Salazar, who was killed by the LA Police Department, and Black
anarchist Lucy Parsons) is designed as an electronic gathering point for
news and opinions of radical/progressive, liberationist and independent
viewpoints. The service stays alive through your support. Activists,
organizations and progressive writers should forward news, opinion, alerts
and anything you wish for publication to SPS at the electronic mail address
serve@hic.net. From here, SPS forwards material in weekly "packages" to
media who've expressed interest in publishing articles from the service as
well as a list of e-mail addresses for activists and groups who can spread
the word and offer aid. Various progressive and independent media are
always looking for help, articles and ideas too, and SPS will occasionally
send over an address of someone needing your input. SPS is brand-new and
electronically-based (and thus limited in some respects) but it can be a
good start to more networking and information exchange among activists and
with those writers and media sympathetic to our viewpoints and willing to
support us. This endeavor deserves your support.
All correspondences (articles -- news, opinion, alerts, ideas, comments,
requests, etc.) should be forwarded to serve@hic.net. If you received this
message directly mailed to you, you're already a part of the network list;
if you don't wish to be included or want to recommend people to be, please
write serve@hic.net with e-mail addresses and such. Write if you've gotten
this message forwarded and want to join up. Those whose contributions can
receive credit if they wish. Please keep in mind that there's a need for
all kinds of articles -- analysis, news, alerts, activist reports,
commentaries and anything in between -- so everything is helpful.
You'll see most articles prefixed with a word. Categories are as follows:
NEWS: news item or news feature on a given topic
OPINION: opinion piece or commentary on a given subject
ALERT: notice of a demonstration, street action or protests
ANNOUNCE: notice of a conference, social action or similar event
WORD: bit of information that fits no category
This could be the beginning of a very positive project. Get involved!

149
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001016.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,149 @@
Subject: CATTLE and RAINFORESTS
Here's a chance to send the same message to three of my
favorite listservers: ANTHRO-L (anthropology), SANET-MG
(sustainable agriculture), and CHIAPAS-L. Allow me to
recommend you all to each other. While I am at it, I will
also send it to my very favorite list, HARP. I am harping
here in the more usual sense, not in the musical sense which
would come first to mind with my harper friends.
I refer you to an article entitled "Animal Agriculture for the
Reforestation of Degraded Tropical Rainforests," by Ronald
Nigh. (CULTURE AND AGRICULTURE, the Bulletin of the Culture
and Agriculture Group of the American Anthropological
Association, Numbers 51-52, Spring-Summer 1995, pp. 2-6.)
Nigh's institutional affiliation is Centro de Investigaciones
y Estudios Superiores en Antropologia Social del Sureste, San
Cristobal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico.
Instead of summarizing, I will give some quotes.
"My view has moved from . . . seeing cattle as the principle
cause of tropical forest destruction . . . to the present
argument that livestock production is a key element in
tropical forest restoration!" (Author's own exclamation
point!)
On traditional animal management: "(The) Maya . . . managed
secondary vegetation . . . to increase wild animal density.
The temporary, artificial creation of early successional
vegetation associations - fields, grasslands, or forage
brushlands, - may . . . provide the overall strategy for
animal production."
On intensive grazing (citing Savory): " This method . . . has
allowed us to reduce the area of a ranch devoted to pasture to
one-third or even one-tenth of the area, while at the same
time increasing bioeconomic production in absolute terms.
This . . . has permitted the freeing up of lands, many of
which should never have been converted. . . ."
Early observations on degraded pastures sown with African
exotics: "pastures respond (under controlled grazing) by
diversifying; especially, we note a welcome increase in some
native legumes. . . . (under a recent mild drought) our
pastures held up and recovered much better than our neighbors
with uncontrolled grazing or no grazing at all."
On "enrichment planting" (citing Ramos and del Amo) and the
"natural ecosystem analogue approach" (citing Hart and
others): "It is possible both to speed the successional
process and to greatly increase the economic return at each
stage of succession, thus providing an important incentive for
forest regeneration. Production is achieved by substitution
of . . . more economically valuable species of the same
structure and behavior. . . ." Example: vanilla.
On aquatic resources: "The restoration of the tropical
ecosystem and the elimination of the use of agrotoxics allows
the recovery of important aquatic resource zones that formerly
supplied a rich harvest of fish, crustaceans, mollusks,
reptiles, amphibians, turtles and birds. Some of these were
managed intensively in the past."
Cattle production system: "Dual-purpose organic milk and meat
production is based on intensive, controlled grazing,
concentrated only on appropriate lands and combines the use of
cattle genetically selected for pasture-based tropical
systems." Specifically, the animal is "a Holstein Brahmin
(Sahiwal) F1 from New Zealand. . . adapted to a pure grazing
system . . . for organic milk production in the tropics."
Closing paragraph:
Tropical regions have been especially intractable to
modern technology. The complex ecology of the tropics
responds with particular vehemence to management methods
that view agriculture as an "industrial process" rather
than as a natural system. Organic methods, along with a
holistic approach to resource planning and marketing and
a respect for traditional knowledge provide a viable
strategy for the design of sustainable production systems
in tropical regions.
Some personal remarks:
Anthropologists: If you are not studying agriculture, you are
not leaving out the main thing. Contemporary culture IS
agriculture. Been that way for a long time.
"SUSTAGGIES" (as tagged by Michele Gale-Sinex): US and MEXICAN
farmers have a lot in common. Please PAY ATTENTION to what is
happening in Mexico.
To CHIAPAS-L: Thanks for being there, nursing the hopes of a
civil society.
The challenge in Chiapas and elsewhere is not just political,
economic and social. It is also cultural, and specifically,
it is AGRIcultural. All the goals listed in question 1 of the
CONSULTA will be useless without a sustainable agriculture.
THANKS TO RONALD NIGH, we have a fine piece of work which we
can discuss, dealing SPECIFICALLY with the agroecology of
Chiapas. Is there a Mexican or other agricultural scientist
who will come forward with an agroecological analysis of
extensive cattle production showing it to be technically
superior? Or an economist who will show that with all social
and environmental externalities taken into consideration,
intensive grazing is more costly (or less beneficial) than
extensive grazing? I'd like to see someone try.
HARPING ON to a conclusion:
The fabulous Latin American harper Alfredo Rolando Ortiz,
on his training cassette, plays two tunes, both very
charming, and then comments that the two tunes are
political symbols of two opposing parties. "So," he
says, "you must be careful to know who you are playing
for. So much for politics."
But Alfredo never tells us which means what.
So much for politics.
John Lozier
Adjunct Associate Professor of Agricultural Education
College of Agriculture and Forestry
West Virginia University
Morgantown, WV
AND
Assistant Professor of Anthropology
California University of Pennsylvania
California, Pennsylvania
lozier@waldo.cup.edu
AND
** _____________________________________
***// / Harping for Harmony
\/// / John Lozier
_____\/________________/______jlozier@wvnvm.wvnet.edu__________

668
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001017.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,668 @@
McLibel Support Campaign
c/o 5 Caledonian Road
London N1 9DX UK
Tel/Fax +44-171 713 1269
Trial Summary Jan 95 to Sept 95, Part 1
(Trial Summary up to January 95 is also available)
Contents:
Part 1
GENERAL
NUTRITION & ADVERTISING
DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT
PACKAGING -
LITTER -
FORESTS
RAINFORESTS
ANIMALS
CATTLE
CHICKENS
Part 2
FOOD SAFETY
EMPLOYEES AND TRADE UNIONS
---------------------------------------------------
The High Court libel trial brought by the $26 billion a year
McDonald's Corporation against two unwaged London Greenpeace
supporters began in June 1994 and is now expected to last until
Spring 1996. It is already the longest libel trial in British
history and looks likely to become the longest civil trial ever.
The libel is alleged to have occurred in 1989/90. Approximately
180 witnesses from the UK and around the world are giving evidence
in court on all the issues in the case, namely:
- The connection between multinational companies like McDonald's,
cash crops and starvation in the third world.
- The responsibility of corporations such as McDonald's for damage
to the environment, including destruction of rainforests.
- The wasteful and harmful effects of the mountains of packaging
used by McDonald's and other companies.
- McDonald's promotion and sale of food with a low fibre, high
fat, saturated fat, sodium and sugar content, and the links
between a diet of this type and the major degenerative diseases in
western society, including heart disease and cancer.
- McDonald's exploitation of children by its use of advertisements
and gimmicks to sell unhealthy products.
- The barbaric way that animals are reared and slaughtered to
supply products for McDonald's.
- The lousy conditions that workers in the catering industry are
forced to work under, and the low wages paid by McDonald's.
- McDonald's hostility towards trade unions.
Here follows a summary of some of the evidence from the trial
given between January & July 1995:
GENERAL
THE CASE - Despite being flown over as the Corporation's most
senior representative in order to give the background as to why
they brought this libel case, Robert Beavers did not know when the
action was begun or who made the decision or how it was made. He
believed that the UK President Paul Preston was responsible for
the initial decision. He claimed the factsheet "tarnished our
image, brand and reputation", but the Defendants asserted that
McDonald's "has a bad reputation in society". He accepted that
all the main 'defamatory' criticisms in the Factsheet had been
levelled at McDonald's by others in the past, in the USA and
elsewhere, and "are in the public domain in America to some
extent" but could not think of an example where they had sued
anyone for libel. The Defendants then stated that: "The reality
is the McDonald's Corporation could not sue anybody in the United
States for the text of this Factsheet. They are joining this
action in the UK because they want to use this court as a platform
all over the world."
NUTRITION & ADVERTISING
Robert Beavers, Senior Vice President and member of the Board of
Directors of the McDonald's Corporation since 1984, was challenged
with the London Greenpeace Factsheet extract which states that a
diet high in fat, sugar, animal products and salt, and low in
fibre, vitamins and minerals is linked with cancers of the breast
and bowel and heart disease (which has been characterised by
Richard Rampton QC as the most defamatory passage in the leaflet).
He was asked to compare it with an extract from McDonald's UK's
own pamphlet, written in 1984. He replied: "I can't spot any
difference". In fact, he later criticised their own extract,
mistaking it for the 'defamatory' London Greenpeace one!
Mr Beavers explained that McDonald's have pioneered production
methods and "created an industry" which has "helped to expand the
eating out sector". Half of all meals in the USA are now eaten
outside of the home, he said - an increase from 1 in every 3
around 15-20 years ago. He said this was a worldwide trend, that
"lifestyles are changing" and McDonald's have played a part in
that. In countries where there had previously been no hamburger
tradition, he said, advertising was 'part of the parcel' in
establishing company's influence on the diet. Their food was
advertised as 'nutritious' he said.
Mr Beavers stated that, back in the 1960's, McDonald's were "the
trendsetters in the food industry, in particular the fast food
service industry, in utilising national television"... "It was at
that time that we introduced Ronald McDonald". He accepted that
"no other marketing factor has been more important in
distinguishing McDonald's as a leader in fast food than its early
decision to appeal to children through advertising." He agreed
that "in the early days [the company] probably did" spend more of
its advertising budget on children's ads, and stated "within a
short period of time Ronald was one of the most well known,
popular characters in America".
DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT
PACKAGING
Robert Beavers (US Senior Vice-President) was
challenged on why McDonald's is still using ozone-damaging blowing
agents (HCFCs) in their packaging in the Philippines, Turkey and
Hong Kong, 15 years after the US Congress banned aerosol sprays
because of concerns about the ozone layer The Defendants referred
to a 1995 Corporation leaflet distributed in Hong Kong admitting
HCFC use by McDonald's H.K. under the heading "We Care About The
Ozone Layer"!
Although Mr Beavers recognised the benefits of in-store customer
recycling of their packaging, and that the working of it "does not
cause difficulty", Mr Langert (a previous McDonald's witness) had
said "less than 10" stores out of 10,000 are doing this.
LITTER
Usama Siddique and Stacey Stump, the former and current
managers of McDonald's, Kings Road, London, gave evidence about
the problems of company litter. They recognised there had been
residents' complaints about litter over a number of years -
complaints to the store, McDonald's Head Office and to the local
Council. This had continued despite Mr Siddique laying on a
'candle-lit dinner' at the store for local residents in order to
try to have a 'good rapport'. A file of dozens of residents
associations' letters of complaint was shown to the court. One
series of complaints culminated in a letter from Government
Minister Nicholas Scott (local MP) to McDonald's President Paul
Preston.
Approximately 1,500 sales a day were take-away custom - around 50%
of the store's business, rising to 60% in the summer. The store
was providing "something like 10,500 potential items of litter"
(such as bags, straws, cups and napkins etc) every day. Mr Stump
recognised that "there is a lot of McDonald's litter" and admitted
that there were "times when the volume of business is so great and
generates so much litter that [the store] cannot effectively deal
with it in the course of a day". He also said "I have seen
McDonald's litter in a lot of places, not just around my
restaurant". Both managers claimed that 'trash walks' (litter
patrols) to pick up all litter around a set route of nearby
streets were done approximately every 30 minutes. (They claimed
this had been done since the store opened, and happened at every
store). They agreed that much litter ended up far from the store,
or in local residents' basements, under cars or in bushes etc,
where it would not be picked up by a litter patrol. Mr Stump said
they were "trying to control the situation, not alleviate it 100%,
that would not be possible".
Colin McIntyre, Press Officer of a local residents association and
former executive member of the National Union of Journalists gave
evidence for the Defendants. He explained that at the beginning
of the nineties, when McDonald's planned to open a store in Kings
Road, London, local residents opposed the plan (unsuccessfully),
in part because they predicted it would create litter problems.
He said the problem of litter had come up regularly at residents
association meetings. He said that since the McDonald's had
opened, rubbish in his street had got 'incredibly worse' and
stated "I would say approximately 70% of litter is McDonald's".
He produced photos that he had taken as evidence, showing
McDonald's litter in his street and the surrounding area.
Initially the company carried out litter patrols two or three
times a day, but this did not last. As part of it's application
for a late opening licence, the company had assured the local
council that regular litter patrols were in operation. Mr
McIntyre said that "this was a blatant lie". He said that despite
continuous complaints to McDonald's, there had been no litter
patrol down his street for two and a half years. Apart from the
council, the only people he had seen picking up litter were his
neighbours. He added "I have seen one McDonald's litter cleaner,
it was enough of a joke we all made a note of it in our diaries".
Mr McIntyre told how local residents associations were also angry
about the store causing increased traffic, noise and cooking
smells and how they eventually set up an action group to consider
legal action. "I object to litter in front of my house and in my
basement" he said. "I do not really see why I should be condemned
to litter for the rest of my life".
Professor Graham Ashworth, Director-General of the Tidy Britain
Group ('TBG'), witness for McDonald's, said that the TBG is an
agency which is recognised and funded by the government, but also
is part funded by company sponsorship. He said that McDonald's
were members of the TBG and had sponsored some of its activities.
This amounted to around 200,000 pounds per annum. They then got
the company logo on TBG leaflets. Companies such as McDonald's
became members of the TBG by invitation. Coca Cola were also
members, along with Shell, who Professor Ashworth agreed had been
convicted and fined more than once for pollution incidents.
Professor Ashworth admitted that the Tidy Britain Group had
eventually changed its name from the Keep Britain Tidy Group after
"it had become apparent" in the late 1970's and early 80's that
Britain was no longer tidy. It was, he said "strange to have an
organisation talking about keeping a situation that did not
exist". He also admitted that "the rise of fast food business"
was "certainly a factor" (note: McDonald's UK was launched in
1974). He said that this was part of a "great increase in
packaging" in general.
Professor Ashworth accepted that "when there are planning
applications for new fast food stores (including McDonald's),
litter is regularly a concern of objectors". He agreed that
McDonald's was in the "top 1 or 2%" of all companies whose
products end up as litter. He agreed that there were other
problems with litter apart from the fact that people don't like
looking at it. For example packaging, including polystyrene, "has
been swallowed by animals in mistake for food", causing the
wildlife to starve to death. Litter also ended up being blown
from the streets into rivers and the sea.
Professor Ashworth agreed that "as much packaging waste as
possible" should be removed from the waste stream. He added that
it was "obvious common sense" that the order of priorities in
dealing with packaging and waste was (1) prevention, (2) re-use,
(3) recycling, (4) incineration (preferably with energy recovery),
and (5) landfill (note McDonald's consumer packaging ends up in
landfills or as litter). As a result of the Environmental
Protection Act 1990, local authorities were now able to issue
'Street Litter Control Notices' to force businesses to clean up
their litter within 'a reasonable distance' of their premises. In
Germany, local authorities have the power to levy a tax on
companies on the use of disposable packaging - Professor Ashworth
revealed that similar legislation is now being considered in the
UK.
FORESTS
Theo Hopkins, involved in forestry management and also
an independent researcher on the degradation and destruction of
temperate and boreal forests, gave evidence for the Defence on the
damaging effects of modern industrial forestry. This related to
McDonald's annual use of hundreds of thousands of tons of paper
packaging in Europe and the USA. In general, Mr Hopkins said,
large scale commercial forest exploitation has lead to the
progressive reduction of natural, 'old-growth' or ancient forests,
which are still being logged all over Europe, North America and
elsewhere. This has generally continued despite protests and
official 'protection' measures. He explained how monoculture
plantations have tended to replace natural forests, but could not
match such forests in their biodiversity, or in social,
ecological, cultural or spiritual value. Therefore, they could
not be described as 'sustainable' forests, even under official
international guidelines.
The use by McDonald's of products utilising paper sourced from
such forests was, Mr Hopkins said, "self-evidently damaging to the
environment". Only since the late 1980's has the forest industry
publicly had to recognise these problems, faced with publicity and
pressure from the public. In particular, in contrast to the
ecologically rich natural forests, plantations have very few tree
species and less variety of insects, fungi, animals, plants and
birds. This is due not only to the character of commercial
plantations, but also to damaging techniques of forest management
- the effects of planting non-native species, age uniformity,
clear cutting, machine use, removing decaying trees, etc. Mr
Hopkins said that "in 1989/90, at the time of the alleged libel,
there was virtually no concern by government and forest industry
for ecological sustainability". Whilst some problems are now
being recognised, this has only just started to have some effect
on the 'forest floor'.
Mr Hopkins outlined some particular environmental problems in
countries which provided the source for McDonald's packaging in
North America and Europe: USA & Canada - there is much logging
and clear cutting of natural forest; Czech Republic - forests are
being cut down faster than they can be regenerated; Finland &
Sweden - very little ancient forest remains; hundreds of species
dependent on forest ecosystems are endangered by modern forestry
methods; UK - since the Second World War, over 40% of what little
ancient woodland existed then has been felled, largely being
replaced by conifer plantations (which lead to acidification of
watercourses).
Mr Hopkins quoted expert concerns over the scale of world pulp
production (which had "increased by 5 times over the last 40
years", being "the major use of timber" from managed forests), and
the effects of pulp production "due to the highly polluting
milling processes". In order to protect forests, he said the
first priority is to reduce paper consumption, especially in rich
countries which consume vast quantities. He said that significant
quantities existed of alternative plant sources of paper fibre
(eg. kenaf, hemp, bagasse, cotton waste...), often of better
quality than wood pulp.
RAINFORESTS
David Walker, the Chairman and owner of McKey Foods,
gave evidence for McDonald's. McKeys, a former subsidiary of
McDonald's, has been the sole supplier since 1978 of the company's
UK hamburgers, now one million per day. Mr Walker admitted that
he had personally organised the direct import of 5 consignments of
Brazilian beef for McDonald's UK stores in 1983/4 - sold to them
by the Vestey's plant at Barretos, Brazil. A letter from Mr
Walker to the managing director of Weddels (a Vestey subsidiary)
was quoted in court. It revealed that the imports were a matter
of great controversy. Mr Walker confirmed that he had written the
letter, which stated that Prince Philip, the President of the
World Wildlife Fund, had recently met George Cohon, President of
McDonald's Canada, and had said (quoting from the Walker letter
17/5/83): " 'So you are the people who are tearing down the
Brazilian rainforests and breeding cattle' to which the reply was:
'I think you are mistaken', whereupon HRH said 'Rubbish' and
stormed away". Following this, the letter stated that Fred
Turner, the Chairman of the McDonald's Corporation, "issued a
worldwide edict that
no McDonald's plant was to use Brazilian beef". The same letter
revealed that Bob Rhea, then Managing Director of McDonald's UK,
had given Walker permission to use the Brazilian beef imports.
The imports went through, and were kept secret from Prince Philip,
from the World Wildlife Fund, from the BBC (who were sued the
following year) and from Friends of the Earth (in meetings in
1985). The whole scandal only came to light due to a handwritten
letter mistakenly disclosed by McDonald's solicitors in a bundle
of other documents to the McLibel Defendants last year.
ANIMALS
David Walker of McKey Foods admitted that "as a result of the meat
industry, the suffering of animals is inevitable".
PIGS - Ashley Bowes, Director of GD Bowes Ltd (McDonald's pig meat
supplier), said that Bowes owns roughly 100,000 pigs. 40,000 were
reared on their own farms; the others were reared on a contract
system. The company also buys about 300,000 pigs each year from
approximately 80-100 other suppliers, to be slaughtered at the
company's abattoir.
During his opening speech at the start of the trial, Mr Rampton QC
had claimed that the London Greenpeace Factsheet was libellous
because it stated that some of the animals reared for McDonald's
products - especially chickens and pigs - spend their lives in
factory farms with no access to the open air. He asserted that
"Whilst it is true that a lot of chickens live in large sheds, it
is not true of pigs. The pigs used for McDonald's food in this
country at least, live in the open air in fields."
Dr Gregory (expert witness for McDonald's) had visited Bowes in
order to prepare his expert report for the court, but had only
been shown the outdoor system. When questioned by Richard Rampton
QC, Mr Bowes' testimony concentrated on the outdoor system of
rearing that the company used, rather than the indoor. But under
cross-examination by the Defendants, Mr Bowes admitted that there
were "two separate buying channels for pigs" (indoor and outdoor)
and that McDonald's bought indoor pork and would only get outdoor
pork if there was some left over. Asked if it was the case that
McDonald's were not willing to pay as much as other customers to
purchase 'free range' meat, Mr Bowes replied "I wish they would".
Sows bought for indoor breeding stock would have been born and
reared indoors for the 8-10 months before the company got them, Mr
Bowes admitted. He said his own company farms had never used dry
sow stalls. He said "I shall welcome it when they are banned
totally in this country" (in 1998) and said he was against the use
of them because of "the restriction on the sow... I personally
think it is not a good method of animal production for an animal
to be shut in the stall for all that time"... "It is not
comfortable". However, he admitted that about 12% of their
suppliers still used the dry sow stalls, and that about 7 years
ago up to 50% would have been using them. Dry sow stalls are
narrow metal barred stalls (about 2.1 metres by 0.6 metres) in
which the sow cannot turn around, and can only stand up or lie
down. The floor is concrete or slats or can be both. After
mating the sow is taken to the dry sow stall and remains there
until she goes to the farrowing crate (nearly 4 months).
The company's own farm has 3 indoor breeding units. The sows are
kept in groups of 6 or 12 until two days before they are expected
to give birth, when they are moved to farrowing crates. The
crates are slightly wider than the sow and about 0.5 - 0.75 metres
longer. Mr Bowes admitted that it was impossible for the sows to
turn round. The sows endured 3= to 4 weeks in the crates, until
the piglets were weaned. Three days after weaning, the whole
breeding cycle was started again. Mr Bowes said the "sows have on
average 7 litters" before they were slaughtered at about 3-4
years.
Bowes weans piglets at 24 days. They are then reared in what he
called "indoor kennels", with roughly 20 weaners in each kennel,
until they reached 30kg. At least until a few years ago, Mr Bowes
was aware of some suppliers using the flat-deck system for rearing
weaners. The weaners would be kept "15 or 20" in an area "roughly
12 by 14 feet", normally on a metal or plastic mesh floor without
any bedding. At 30kg (around 9 or 10 weeks), the pigs were
transferred to indoor "finishing units", where for the last part
of their lives there was only 0.52 square metre of floor space per
pig, plus an enclosed and roofed dunging area. They remained in
the finishing units until they reached 90kg liveweight (at around
22 or 23 weeks old), when they were sent for slaughter.
Pigs were slaughtered at a rate of 220-240 an hour at the
company's own slaughterhouse. They were stunned using "head only
stunning". When Dr Gregory (expert witness for McDonald's) had
visited the plant, he calculated that the current used to stun the
pigs was 0.45 amps. The Government's Codes of Practice state that
for head only stunning the current should be a minimum of 1.3
amps, otherwise the pig "is unlikely to be stunned effectively".
Mr Bowes claimed that Dr Gregory's figure was wrong because he
hadn't taken into account the fact that Bowes sprayed the piglets
with water before stunning, which he said "improved the
conductivity". Dr Long, for the Defence stated that he had "a
great deal of concern" about this, because there was a danger that
"the current tracks round the conducting wet surface instead of
going through the more resistant part of the head", so the pig
"would not be properly stunned and would be stuck while it still
had a sense of feeling". Mr Bowes admitted that some pigs were
stunned with the tongs "on each side of the neck". The Codes of
Practice state "electrodes should not be applied behind the ears
or on each side of the neck, otherwise the animal may be paralysed
without being rendered unconscious and may suffer severe pain".
Mr Bowes said that his company had used growth promoters (such as
clenbuterol) until "about 5 years ago" when they were banned by
the EC. He admitted that until that time "it was fairly standard
practice in the industry".
CATTLE
Timothy Chambers, Quality Assurance Manager from Midland
Meat Packers Ltd (the largest of dozens of abattoirs supplying
beef for McDonald's hamburgers) said that 600 - 800 animals are
killed there daily. Cattle are transported there live "from all
over the country", sometimes hundreds of miles. His company, he
said, "care about the animals' welfare, for commercial reasons as
much as anything else", because if they are "subjected to stress"
prior to slaughter the meat can become dark and "aesthetically
unpleasing", and therefore "devalued quite considerably". They
supply ex-dairy cows for McDonald's use - the company's own expert
witness admitted in the witness box that such cows lived a life of
particular stress and hardship. The court had heard that McKey's
had calculated that McDonald's used beef from one in twelve (8%)
of all cattle slaughtered in the UK.
Mr Chambers admitted his company did use electric shock goads to
move cattle around, contrary to claims by McDonald's that this
practice was banned by their suppliers. Company documents stated
that one of their concerns is to prevent "animals escaping". Mr
Kenny (McDonald's Senior Quality Assurance Supervisor) asserted
that McDonald's had a policy against the use of electric goads to
move cattle, but was unaware that their largest supplying
slaughterhouse was still using such goads.
Dr Alan Long, an independent researcher for over 40 years, gave
evidence for the Defence. He had studied at first hand conditions
for cattle and pigs on farms, at markets, in transportation and
slaughterhouses. His evidence was that animals had been turned
into production 'machines', subject to stress and distress,
disease, abuse, and a short and totally unnatural life. Dairy
cattle (as used for McDonald's burgers) have a particularly
exploited existence based on continuous forced pregnancies and
almost constant lactation until exhausted, and then transported
under extreme stress to be 'burgered' at 5 or 6 years old. "Cows
kept without such stress have a life span of 25-35 years," he
said. Cows showed signs of great distress when their calves were
taken from them at a very young age, frequently mooing and
bellowing, sometimes for several days. A whole series of what are
termed 'production diseases' affected dairy cows - effectively
brought on by "excessive pressures of production". These included
mastitis (a painful udder condition) which affected about 35% of
dairy cows in Britain. Dr Long said output from a modern dairy
cow is approx. 5,500 litres a year, about twice what it was at the
end of the 1940's. Sometimes the strain on the udder caused it to
drop and then, in order to avoid kicking the udder, the cows would
walk in an unnatural way which caused lameness.
In Dr Long's opinion, intensively reared pigs (which McDonald's
use) generally suffer a similarly unpleasant fate. At the end of
the 1980's, over 50% of sows spent nearly all their lives in
stalls and crates, with no freedom of movement, unable even to
turn round. He criticised animal slaughter practices stating that
noise and handling methods (including use of goads) led to high
levels of stress and even terror. He was also highly critical of
inefficient stunning methods. 'Humane killing' is a 'lie' he
said. He believed that 'consumption of such cruelly derived foods
is unnecessary' and that whilst he would welcome any improvements
in conditions for the animals, they had a right to a life of
dignity and freedom - to relax and to root in the open air, to
play, to socialise, and to rear their young.
As an expert biochemist and nutritionist, Dr Long had further
concluded that "growth boosters and other 'performance enhancers'
may be masqueraded as animal health products". Diseases caused by
modern farming methods, and the drugs used to combat them not only
cause problems for the animals but also risks for human health too
(such as BSE). He shared concerns about the risks of eating meat
containing antibiotic, hormone, and pesticide residues. He also
said that modern livestock production causes much pollution (from
silage effluents and slurry), especially in the dairy, poultry and
pig industries.
CHICKENS
Mark Pattison, Group Technical Manager of Sun Valley
Poultry Ltd (a subsidiary of Cargill) ('SVP'), gave evidence for
McDonald's about the conditions under which chickens were reared
to produce the meat for chicken McNuggets and McChicken
sandwiches. 27 million chickens are reared every year in Europe
to supply meat to McDonald's. About 20% of SVP's turnover is
devoted to McDonald's custom.
Dr Pattison said that SVP hatches chicks 4 days a week "in the
order of 200,000 chicks each day". Eggs that do not hatch out are
put through the macerator, which he agreed might include chickens
still alive in the eggs. The company kills an additional 200-300
unwanted chicks each day, by gassing them with carbon dioxide.
Chicks are transported to the broiler units when they are a few
hours old. When they arrive, the chicks are routinely given
antibiotics in their feed for the first week of their lives in an
attempt to reduce infectious disease. Around 550 broiler sheds
are used by the company, approx. 110 were company owned and 440
were run by contractors. Dr Pattison said "For broilers we
normally have 20-25,000 [birds] in a modern shed" of "14,500
square feet". Broiler houses were generally stocked with roughly
twice as many males as females with a partition between them.
Females are taken out for slaughter at 42 days old, weighing
approx. 2kg. The males were slaughtered at 52 days, weighing
approx. 3kg. Throughout their lives there was never any
"opportunity to go outside" Dr Pattison admitted. He agreed that
'farmyard' chickens "can live up to 5 to 10 years".
Despite his being on the committee of the Farm Animal Welfare
Council which produced the Report on the Welfare of Broiler
Chickens (for the Government), Dr Pattison accepted that SVP are
not complying with its recommendation that the 34kg per square
metre stocking density "should not be exceeded at any time during
the growing period". The stocking density at SVP is "about 36.5kg
per square metre". He accepted that the birds "have less space
each than an A4 sheet of paper", but said "I do not believe it is
cruel". Dr Pattison said "economics are a very important factor,
of course" in why the company had not reduced stocking density.
Dr Pattison said SVP "normally run our sheds at a lighting level
between 10 and 20 lux", with 20-30 minutes of darkness in any 24
hour period. The FAWC report recommends a minimum of 20 lux with
at least 30 minutes of darkness every 24 hours.
The average mortality rate to 52 days is around 6-6.5% he said.
30-50 birds "would be one day's mortality" for a shed. Ascites
disease was "one of the major causes of mortality" in flocks Dr
Pattison said, accounting for "10-15% of the total deaths". He
agreed it was caused as a result of the rapid growth of broilers
with the result that they were "too big for their lung size". He
said "this only occurs in broiler chickens". Dr Pattison also
admitted that from 1989-92 Gumboro disease was a common problem.
He said between 1989-91, Sun Valley "were losing 2.5% of all our
birds every week" "over and above the normal mortality". He
agreed that "broiler houses provide the ideal conditions for the
rapid spread of viral diseases like Gumboro". Chickens suffered
from other health problems including leg weaknesses (which Dr
Pattison admitted were often a consequence of breeding birds for
weight, and also lack of exercise) and hockburns (10% of chickens
are currently affected). From their arrival to 5 days before
slaughter, the bird's food contained growth promoters, Dr Pattison
said. "The ones normally used are Zinc Bacitracin, Virginia Mycin
or Avo Parcin" which are "antibiotic compounds". He agreed that
"there is a greater chance of leg problems the faster the chickens
grow".
Birds were caught and loaded into crates in modules and
transported by lorry to the slaughter plant (an average distance
of 25-30 miles, sometimes up to 70 miles). Catchers were
instructed to carry up to 6 birds in one hand, holding them by one
leg. They were crammed 18-30 birds to a crate of approx. 3ft x
2ft x 10 inches. Dr Pattison said that the kinds of injuries
which birds may suffer in the process of catching included
dislocation of the hip joint (which may cause haemorrhage), broken
legs and crushed heads (if their head was caught between the crate
and the module when the drawers were being shut). Dr Pattison
claimed such injuries were not common. However, defence witness
John Bruton (a former catcher for Sun Valley) said that such
injuries were a regular occurrence as the catchers were not given
enough time to take care with the birds, despite voicing their
concerns to the company. This was particularly so after the
company reduced the number of catchers to cut costs. A team of 6
catchers was expected to load a lorry with between 4-6000 birds,
about every 45 minutes.
See Trial News 1 for report of Dr Gregory's evidence on the
problems he witnessed with slaughter methods at SVP. Dr Pattison
claimed SVP had since installed a new stun bath and had "virtually
eliminated the problem of pre-stunning shocks" which he said "used
to be a big problem in the old design of stunning baths".
Keith Kenny claimed McDonald's was concerned about animal welfare
and would 'discontinue' any supplier not complying with official
Codes of Practice. However, their supplier Sun Valley Poultry's
practice of keeping chickens over the official maximum stocking
density didn't worry him. He said "in my opinion, the birds in
Sun Valley do not suffer". Eggs used by McDonald's are supplied
by Oasters Ltd, who keep chickens in battery cages. Mr Kenny said
he considered keeping chickens in battery cages with much less
space than an A4 sheet of paper to be "humane". He said he had
visited Oasters and "the birds seemed to be very happy".
Clare Druce, researcher for the Farm Animal Welfare Network,
testified for the Defence that the "modern broiler chicken is a
genetic freak, the product of generations of selection for fast
growth. This selection has shown a marked lack of concern for the
birds' well-being." "Birds are frequently diseased, lifeless and
crippled," she added, and "suffer from painful and crippling leg
weaknesses" due to their unnatural weight, and also suffer from a
number of common diseases. Some of these diseases "may remain
sub-clinical yet cause serious diseases in humans eating
contaminated meat," especially in "the young, pregnant, old and
immuno-compromised".
Ms Druce stated that the broilers' "living conditions are
unacceptable, being unsuited to the birds' needs and insanitary"
with "overcrowding, dim lighting, inadequate ventilation, and
filthy litter". The broilers' parent stock are made to suffer "a
state of acute hunger for extended periods" to get them to
reproduce satisfactorily. Additionally, she questioned the
effectiveness of electric stunning and neck cutting during chicken
slaughter, as well as all aspects of the rearing, transportation
and slaughter process imposed upon hundreds of millions of
chickens every day in this country. In her opinion "welfare
problems" were due to "thinking only of profit and quick growth,
with no regard whatsoever for the behavioural patterns or needs or
the feelings of the birds".
As a result of her own research, including raising former battery
and broiler chickens, Ms Druce had concluded that chickens
"ancestral patterns are never, never outbred, never lost by
changes in habitat - they are still there, precisely the same".
This only served to underline the cruelty of modern systems and
the right of chickens to live a natural life.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. McLibel Support Campaign Press Office
PO Box 62 Phone/Fax 802-586-9628
Craftsbury VT 05826-0062 Email dbriars@world.std.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe to the "mclibel" listserve, send email
To: majordomo@world.std.com
Subject: <not needed>
Body: subscribe mclibel
To unsubscribe, change the body to "unsubscribe mclibel"

558
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001018.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,558 @@
From world.std.com!mclibel-approval Wed Sep 27 19:54:21 1995 remote from byteback
Received: by byteback.dircon.co.uk (1.65/waf)
via UUCP; Wed, 27 Sep 95 21:56:23 1
for will
Received: from europe.std.com (europe.std.com [192.74.137.10]) by newsgate.dircon.co.uk (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id TAA21115 for <will@byteback.dircon.co.uk>; Wed, 27 Sep 1995 19:54:21 +0100
Received: from world.std.com by europe.std.com (8.6.12/Spike-8-1.0)
id OAA01840; Wed, 27 Sep 1995 14:25:02 -0400
Received: by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0)
id AA01186; Wed, 27 Sep 1995 14:24:35 -0400
Received: by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0)
id AA01158; Wed, 27 Sep 1995 14:24:33 -0400
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 14:24:33 -0400
From: dbriars@world.std.com
Message-Id: <199509271824.AA01158@world.std.com>
To: mclibel@world.std.com
Subject: Trial Summary Jan 95 to Sept 95, Part 2
Sender: mclibel-approval@world.std.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: mclibel@world.std.com
Subject: Trial Summary Jan 95 to Sept 95, Part 2
Date: Sept 27, 1995
From: McLibel Support Campaign, London
McLibel Support Campaign
c/o 5 Caledonian Road
London N1 9DX UK
Tel/Fax +44-171 713 1269
Trial Summary Jan 95 to Sept 95, Part 2
(Trial Summary up to January 95 is also available)
Contents:
Part 1
GENERAL
NUTRITION & ADVERTISING
DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT
PACKAGING -
LITTER -
FORESTS
RAINFORESTS
ANIMALS
CATTLE
CHICKENS
Part 2
FOOD SAFETY
EMPLOYEES AND TRADE UNIONS
---------------------------------------------------------------
FOOD SAFETY
Food poisoning - John Atherton (responsible for food and employee
safety in McDonald's UK) admitted that McDonald's receives between
1500-2750 customer complaints of food poisoning a year, maybe more
than that. The company also received complaints of 'foreign
bodies' in food sold. Mr Walker had estimated 800 complaints
regarding hamburgers, mostly concerning bits of plastic. Mr
Atherton stated it was 'slightly more' for chicken, mostly
concerning pieces of bone.
The court heard that there had been several occasions when the
authorities had taken action against McDonald's for selling raw or
undercooked meat products including an incident in November 1994
when a 3 year old girl was served undercooked Chicken McNuggets
containing salmonella. The McNuggets were tested by local health
officials and declared unfit for human consumption.
The court also heard how the company now admitted responsibility
for a serious food poisoning outbreak in Preston in 1991, when
several customers were hospitalised as a result of eating
undercooked burgers contaminated by potentially deadly E.Coli
0157H bacteria. They also admitted responsibility for a similar
outbreak in 1982 caused by the same type of bacteria, which
affected 47 people in Oregon and Michigan, USA.
NB: McDonald's have refused to call their own expert witness on
food poisoning, Colin Clarke, who prepared a detailed report
following a visit he made to three company stores. The court
heard that, regarding the cooking of hamburgers (which he had
tested), Mr Clark "recommends that 73 degrees Celsius be the
internal minimum temperature of the final product, and that their
temperatures were not reaching that in all cases. The minimum
was, in fact, 70 degrees Celsius."
The Corporation's confidential Operations Manual for all stores
world-wide was quoted. It set a minimum internal temperature to
be reached of 64 degrees Celsius for a cooked burger. Robert
Beavers said the company was "maybe 99.8%" sure this temperature
was safe. But he believed it had been raised a degree or two
following the deaths of two customers of Jack-In-The-Box a couple
of years back, in a similar incident to the 1982 McDonald's one.
He admitted that this recent incident had "heightened the
awareness of everyone in the industry" and agreed that the US
Government "was concerned" about internal temperatures of cooked
burgers and was considering introducing regulations 'if
necessary'.
Dr Pattison said that so far as chicken products are concerned,
the principal hazards to human health are campylobacter and
salmonella food poisoning organisms. Campylobacter was generally
found on 70% of raw poultry. Whilst, he claimed, salmonella was
now only found in 1% of chickens coming into the plant, 25% of
samples of their deboned meat contained salmonella organisms. He
said that particularly for the very young and very old, "a very
low number of organisms can cause food poisoning". The company
did not test raw chicken for listeria, but Dr Pattison accepted
that 60% of raw chickens were contaminated with listeria
monocytogenes, which can also cause illness in people. He said
that the bacteria would be killed when cooked, if the meat itself
reached 70 degrees Celsius for 2 minutes.
Bacteriological Contamination of beef products - McDonald's are
supplied with beef from a large percentage of UK abattoirs.
Timothy Chambers (Quality Assurance Manager from Midland Meat
Packers Ltd) expressed his concern that the widespread use of
water sprays in abattoirs to 'clean' carcasses merely spread
bacterial contamination around. He said he would be concerned
about "health risks" from any batch of tested meat containing over
5 million bacteria per gram.
David Walker of McKeys explained how all raw beef supplies to
McKey process plants were sampled, microbiologically tested, and
categorised as 'satisfactory', 'passable', and 'unsatisfactory'.
He stated that 'unsatisfactory' related to beef which had a total
colony of more than 10 million bacteria per gram. He then
admitted that such consignments were, in fact, not rejected and
were used for McDonald's hamburgers. On top of this, he claimed
that any raw meat supplies arriving at over 4 degrees Celsius
would receive 'a cast iron rejection'. But on being challenged
with McKeys own forms showing acceptance of beef arriving over 4
degrees Celsius, he admitted this happened and explained that
instead "the quality control officer receiving the meat would make
a management decision which was right for the company".
In January 1995, following months of effort by the Defendants to
compel McDonald's to hand over vital 1994 documents regarding the
bacterial content of their hamburgers, the court was told that a
small snag had just come to light. Richard Rampton QC, for
McDonald's, said that the documents had been held for safekeeping
by Group 4 security but had inadvertently been destroyed by them
in error.
Growth promoters - McDonald's UK company documents state that
"McDonald's will not accept beef from cattle subjected growth
promoters or hormone treatment". Mr Kenny said it was "not
desirable" to have hormones or antibiotics in the food chain. He
believed that the concern with antibiotics was that "treatment
resistant strains of bacteria may develop in the human body". The
use of growth promoting hormones is illegal in the UK, but
McDonald's have acknowledged that they are widely used in the USA
and the company uses meat from animals subjected to growth
promoters. Mr Kenny also acknowledged 'public concerns' over
pesticide residues in food and stated that McDonald's "would not
want them in the food chain" because of health risks. The
Defendants referred to a 1987 US National Research Council major
report on pesticide residues which found that beef ranked second
of the list of foods with the greatest estimated 'oncogenic'
(carcinogenic) risk. Mr Kenny admitted that their lettuce
contained pesticide residues, although he believed the residue
levels were within government 'limits'.
EMPLOYEES AND TRADE UNIONS
Low Pay and No Guaranteed Hours - Sid Nicholson, McDonald's UK
Vice President, (who was Head of Personnel from 1984 - 1991,
combining this for most of the time with the job of Head of
Security) admitted that McDonald's set their starting rates for
crew employees for most of the country "consistently either
exactly the same as the minimum rates of pay set by the Wages
Council or just a few pence over them". He agreed that for crew
aged 21 or over the company "couldn't actually pay any lower wages
without falling foul of the law". He stated that when the Wages
Council abolished the legal protection of a minimum wage for
under-21s (in 1986) "I was quite content..because it simplified
things". However, he said "I do not accept that McDonald's crew
are low paid" and he denied that wages in the catering industry
were low compared to other industries. Robert Beavers (US Senior
Vice-President) admitted that McDonald's US workers started at the
legal minimum wage of $3.35 per hour. He agreed the company
"would not be allowed to pay less". "I do not consider it ($3 -
$4 p.h.) to be low pay. It is a fair wage for the work that is
expected" he stated. He refused to reveal his own salary. There
were "no hours guaranteed" and 80% of the jobs were part time.
Pay, Mr Nicholson admitted, "would be one of the things that is
often mentioned" when staff were asked what improvements they
would like at McDonald's, but, he said "you show me any working
man who feels he is getting enough pay"..."I do not feel I am
getting enough pay". He admitted that in 1993 McDonald's senior
management levels had salaries over 75,000 pounds p.a. plus
benefits and perks. At that time the starting rate for crew
members outside London was 3 pounds per hour for over 18's and
2.65 pounds per hour for 16 & 17 year olds. Mr Nicholson said
that these were the basic rates and that crew could increase their
pay rates by passing 'Performance Reviews'. Company documents
revealed that in order to obtain a 5p per hour rise the crew
member would have to score at least 76%, for a 10p per hour rise
87%, and for a 15p per hour rise 93.5%. The guideline for
attaining 87% or over was that employee "performance consistently
exceeds job requirements and expectations".
About 80% of crew people are 'part-time', averaging about 20 hours
per week. Mr Nicholson admitted that employees do not have any
guaranteed hours or pay at McDonald's. He agreed that managers
have the power, while any crew person is working their scheduled
shift, to compulsorily cut or extend the hours being worked (the
crew handbook states: "On occasions you may be asked to continue
working past your normal finishing time. You will be released as
soon as the need for your service has passed"). Even breaks could
be cut. In any event, crew are not paid for meal breaks.
McDonald's, Mr Nicholson admitted, has never paid overtime rates,
despite the Wages Council setting minimum overtime rates for all
hours worked over 39 hours in a week. He said overtime pay was
unnecessary because of company policy setting a maximum of 39
hours a week for all crew. But the Defendants showed from
disclosed Payroll reports that at least 5% of hourly-paid staff in
London & the South worked over 39 hours each week. This, Mr
Nicholson claimed, showed it was a 'rare' occurrence. Payroll
records for one store indicated that 9 out of 53 employees worked
over
78 hours in a fortnight (39 hrs p.w.). When asked if it would
concern him if 17% of employees were working more than 39 hours a
week, in breach of policy, he said "It would not concern me". He
also stated "it is only policy". Mr Beavers (McDonald's US)
agreed that in the US it would be illegal not to pay overtime to
employees working more than 40 hrs p.w. He said he thought this
was a "fair" law for the employees, but agreed that McDonald's
would only pay overtime if forced to by law.
Mr Beavers admitted that Ray Kroc, McDonald's founder and Chair,
had made a $250,000 donation to the controversial 1972
presidential campaign of Richard Nixon, a donation which was
'perhaps' a subject of investigation during the Watergate
corruption scandal. The Defendants referred to passages of the
'Behind The Arches' book (written with McDonald's backing and
assistance) which admitted that the donation came around the very
time that McDonald's franchisees were lobbying to prevent an
increase in the minimum wage, and to get legislation (dubbed 'The
McDonald's Bill') passed to be able to pay a sub-minimum wage to
some young workers.
Exploiting Young Workers - Approximately two thirds of McDonald's
crew are under 21, and nearly one third are under 18. But Mr
Nicholson denied McDonald's "chose to employ a high percentage of
young workers so that they could exploit them for lower wages and
make greater profits". McDonald's UK has admitted that it was
convicted of 73 offences in relation to the employment of young
people in the early 1980's. Mr Nicholson said that "since that
time I have no knowledge of any infringements of the regulations".
He was quizzed by the Defendants about the statement of a
forthcoming company witness who admitted that under-18s had worked
illegal hours at Swindon McDonald's, but 'only' on 'one or two'
occasions. Additionally, time sheets obtained by the Defendants
revealed five breaches of the law relating to the employment of
young people in one week at Orpington in 1987. Other documents
revealed that as recently as 1993, on average 2-3 under 18's were
showing up on company records as working in excess of 96 hours in
a fortnight (48 hours a week) which until 1990 was illegal, and
was still, according to Mr Nicholson, against company policy.
McDonald's, Mr Beavers accepted "depends for their profits (over
$1 billion p.a.) on the labour of young people." He agreed the
majority of people working for McDonald's in the USA were under 21
and admitted they positively recruit youth. He admitted that in
1988/9, Pennsylvania authorities cited 466 violations of child
labour laws at 8 Philadelphia McDonald's stores (run by a
franchisee), but the owner/manager was not sacked. The Defendants
accused the Corporation of 'double standards' when comparing this
with crew members who can face summary dismissal for a single
'offence' against company rules. In fact, despite claiming
earlier that higher standards of 'honesty' and 'ethics' applied to
those in the Company's hierarchy, he could not think of a single
example of any officials being sacked for violating Company
policy.
Pressure to Boost Profits - The Defendants showed a documentary
'One Every Mile', filmed with McDonald's permission inside two
London stores, which portrayed the reality of the high-pressure
working conditions for employees. Mr Nicholson agreed the
conditions shown were 'typical' of high volume stores. Crew were
filmed complaining about pay, of pay rises being delayed, about
'hours worked being under-recorded' and that the pressure of the
work 'does your brain in'. The documentary, made for Channel 4,
was never broadcast. Commenting on the fact that there was a
preponderance in the film of managers with an ex-military
background, the witness said that such people bring a "sense of
discipline" to McDonald's.
Mr Nicholson admitted that store managers were under pressure from
higher up to keep labour costs down. Company documents revealed
that a former manager in Newcastle (and witness for the
Defendants) had been ordered amongst other things to get his
labour costs down "within targeted labour guidelines" (of between
14-16% of sales) or face dismissal. Internal company documents
showing profit and loss projections for 1992 revealed that the
company had planned to reduce the overall crew labour costs
nationally as a percentage of turnover (at about 15% of sales)
whilst increasing the management percentage. Meanwhile, in 1992,
the manager of another Newcastle store was jailed for 6 months for
inducing a crew member to phone through a hoax bomb threat to
nearby Burger King in order to boost sales at McDonald's.
Each year a McDonald's 'Store of the Year' is chosen by the
company because of its "consistently high standards" in all areas,
including personnel matters. It is used as an example to others.
In 1987, Colchester was chosen. A statement of the company's own
witness - an Operations Manager at McDonald's with responsibility
for 20 stores - revealed that special clean-ups were ordered at
the Colchester store when senior management were due to visit,
some employees having to work through the night to complete the
clean-up. Further, breaks were sometimes shortened and hours
could be compulsorily cut or extended. The manager admitted that
crew sometimes worked up to 50 hours a week (which Mr Nicholson
said indicated the store was under-crewed), or did double shifts
(about which he commented "they would be exhausted"). When
challenged over these practices at their so-called 'exemplary'
store, Mr Nicholson stated that if they were happening in all
McDonald's stores in the country "it would not concern me".
Employee safety - On October 12th 1992, Mark Hopkins, a McDonald's
worker in Manchester, was electrocuted on touching a 'fat
filtering unit' machine in the 'wash-up' area of the store. A
McDonald's memo from the north west region dated 17/2/92, was
quoted which revealed that "there have been several recent
instances in our restaurants where members of staff have received
severe shocks from faulty items of electrical equipment".
Following an investigation of the death, the Manchester
Environmental Health Department issued a Prohibition Order forcing
McDonald's to install 'Residual Current Devices' on all electrical
equipment in wash-up areas. In their view, accepted by Mr
Atherton, without such devices there was 'a risk of serious
personal injury'. The devices were fitted nationally following Mr
Hopkins' death.
Jill Barnes (McDonald's UK Hygiene and Safety Officer) was
challenged over a previously confidential internal report into
Mark Hopkins' death. It had catalogued a number of company
failures and problems, and had made the damning conclusion:
"Safety is not seen as being important at store level". In
addition, a confidential Health & Safety Executive report of 1992
made 23 recommendations for improvements. One of its conclusions
was "The application of McDonald's hustle policy [ie. getting
staff to work at speed] in many restaurants was, in effect,
putting the service of the customer before the safety of
employees". The Defendants referred to McDonald's Crew Training
Programme which stated "When do you use hustle? (All the time)".
Mr Beavers stated that the 'hustle' policy of fast working
emanated from the US and applied to their (over a million) workers
all over the world. But he was unaware that the 'hustle' policy
had been lambasted by the UK Health & Safety Executive.
MANAGEMENT MANIPULATION
McDonald's produces a bi-monthly
magazine - 'McNews' - which, Mr Nicholson said, is "targeted at
restaurant crew" "to portray a kind of corporate identity to the
crew". On their first day, all new crew people are shown an
official McDonald's 'orientation' video to, he said, 'inject' a
'family feeling'. He denied this was 'brainwashing' and said "If
they do not like it they do not need to stay". As part of the
performance reviews (needed to obtain a pay rise) crew were marked
on their "attitude" "towards store success" and their "desire to
progress". Crew people failing to have the right attitude "could
probably be terminated" he stated.
Mr Beavers explained how management are trained to motivate staff
- "We introduced psychology in some of our personnel courses" he
said, (at their so-called Hamburger University). Asked if their
workers "are taught to identify with the goals of the company" he
replied "hopefully they do,". They are given an 'orientation' "so
that they understand how their work efforts fit into the big
picture". 'Discipline', he said, is one of their 'basic values'.
But he denied that McDonald's "wish to take advantage of a
vulnerable, inexperienced sector of society" or that what a young
worker is really taught "is to be a cog in a machine, to be
obedient, not to question the idiocy of the job which you are
doing, and to basically be a slave for the Company".
Mr Nicholson accepted that despite working in a fast moving and
hot environment, workers had to get permission to have a drink.
Whilst management can change crew hours of work at will, and the
Crew Handbook lists dozens of examples where management can
direct, restrict or ban employees activity and behaviour (under
threat of disciplinary action and summary dismissal) Mr Nicholson
couldn't, when asked, think of a single right that workers had
except where there was statutory protection. In the US "no notice
is required" to "terminate" an employee, Mr Beavers said, and the
Company would "reserve the right to change any term or condition
of the employment without prior consultation or agreement". "They
have no guaranteed employment rights. They do not have guaranteed
employment or guaranteed conditions of employment" Beavers
stated.
Company figures showed that in December 1989, annualised crew
turnover at McDonald's in both the UK and USA was approx 190%.
During 1986 it reached as high as 241% in the USA. Mr Beavers
admitted that "consistent and important" reasons given by
McDonald's workers for quitting their jobs included (as revealed
in the Company's Operations Manual): "poor treatment - lack of
recognition, poor people practices, dissatisfaction with pay, low
and/or infrequent raises", "no job enjoyment or satisfaction" and
"poor working conditions - faulty and missing equipment". Many
of these were
"the by-products of understaffing".
Anti-Union Practices - Mr Beavers agreed that in the early 1970's
McDonald's employed an official, John Cooke, who had a
responsibility "to keep the Unions out". The Defendants referred
to a quote by John Cooke in the book, 'Behind The Arches' (written
with McDonald's backing and assistance): "Unions are inimical to
what we stand for and how we operate. They peddle the line to
their members that the boss will be forevermore against their
interests." The book also stated that "of the 400 serious
organisation attempts in the early 1970's, none was successful",
and Mr Beavers admitted this was due to 'steps' taken by
McDonald's "to try to prevent trade union organisation...around
that time when it was actually a problem."
Mr Beavers admitted that, in the 1970's, he and company managers
around the USA had used "lie detectors" (half-hour polygraph
tests) on current or potential employees. The practice only
ceased "when it was obvious that the law was going to be passed
making it illegal". Prior to this John Cooke had sent a memo to
top executives stating "I think the union was effective in terms
of reaching the public with the information that we do use
polygraph tests in a gestapo type manner" and suggesting stopping
their use. Mr Beavers admitted that in some cases, refusal to
take such a test would have led to dismissal. He claimed not to
know about a 1974 San Francisco Labor Board hearing at which
McDonald's workers testified that lie-detectors had been used to
ask about union sympathies, following which the company was
threatened with legal action.
Stan Stein (McDonald's US Senior Vice-President, Head of Personnel
& Labour Relations) was questioned about the company's worldwide
hostility to trade unions (TUs). Mr Stein said that he had worked
for McDonald's since 1974 and during that time none of the
company's restaurants in the USA had been unionised. Whenever TUs
in any corner of the globe made serious attempts to organise
McDonald's workers, Mr Stein himself seems to have jetted into
town. The court heard about a number of disputes including:
Mexico 1985 - a union seized and occupied for 3 weeks the first
McDonald's store (which had opened with non-union labour).
McDonald's agreed to recognise a different union, and all
McDonald's stores are still unionised. Puerto Rico 1970's - up to
1974, McDonald's employees were unionised, but the company was
sold to a new franchisee. A dispute followed, closing all the
stores and McDonald's pulled out of Puerto Rico. They reopened in
1980 with non-union labour. Chicago 1978 - in one store, a
majority of McDonald's workers joined a union. The company then
took legal action to stop recognition for the union unless they
could get a majority in the 8 stores run by the franchisee.
Detroit 1980 - after workers in a store joined a union, the
company's organised a visit by a top baseball star, staff disco,
and 'McBingo' prior to elections for union representation
Arkansas, USA 1983 - the UFCW union, which was interested in
recruiting McDonald's workers, was involved in a union dispute at
a chicken processing plant supplying McDonald's. The union
launched a boycott of McDonald's 'McNuggets' and picketed many of
its stores. Mr Stein spent up to '80%' of a whole year fighting
the union's campaign. Ireland 1979 - a 7 month strike lead to
recognition of the ITGWU union. In 1985, two union activists won
a victory at a labour court after claiming victimisation and
unfair dismissal. Denmark 1980-90 - throughout the 1980's, unions
attempted to negotiate with McDonald's the standard 'collective
agreement' for food service companies. After protracted legal
disputes and boycotts, McDonald's recognised the union in 1989.
Germany 1979-90 - in 1979, a letter was sent from McDonald's
personnel office with instructions to store managers not to hire
any union sympathisers. In the 1980's, there were disputes with
the NGG union, and eventually the company signed a union agreement
in 1990. Philadelphia 1989 - McDonald's stores in Philadelphia
were independently surveyed and accused of having racist
differential wage rates between the inner-city stores (mostly
black workers) and the suburbs (mostly white workers). Mr Stein
had intervened and believed the campaign to be a front for a union
recruitment effort. Madrid 1986 - four workers who had called for
union elections were sacked by McDonald's. The company was forced
to reinstate the workers after the labour court ruled that the
dismissals were illegal. China 1993 - in Beijing, protest
leaflets were circulated about conditions Iceland 1993 - when
they opened their first store, McDonald's refused to negotiate
with TUs, but after a strike and boycott threat, the company
conceded. Canary Islands 1993 - McDonald's were fined 13 million
pesetas for falsely claiming state subsidies for 'staff training'.
Canada 1993/4 - workers in an Ontario store joined a union, but
the company managed to avoid recognition by ensuring victory in
Labour Board sponsored elections. Mr Stein was also questioned
about other disputes with Trade Unions in France, New Zealand,
Norway, Australia, and the Netherlands.
Mr Nicholson said the company was not anti-union and all staff had
a right to join one. However, he said that the company was "very,
very much in support of performance related pay. Those who work
well are paid well. For that reason we would rather not deal with
Trade Unions." Under questioning he admitted that any McDonald's
workers interested in union membership "would not be allowed to
collect subscriptions...put up notices...pass out any
leaflets...to organise a meeting for staff to discuss conditions
at the store on the premises"...or "to inform the union about
conditions inside the stores" (which would be deemed 'Gross
Misconduct' and as such a 'summary sackable offence'). In fact,
Mr Nicholson agreed, "they would not be allowed to carry out any
overt union activity on McDonald's premises".
Mr Nicholson appeared confused as to the what the company would do
if a majority of crew demanded union recognition, first stating
"If a majority of the staff of a restaurant had an election and
voted to be represented by a trade union, then they would be
represented by a trade union" but he later agreed that "if every
single member of crew in a particular restaurant joined a union
[McDonald's] would still not negotiate with the union". However,
he did recognise that "if of course there was a massive national
drive" and a "very large proportion of McDonald's employees joined
a union" and took industrial action, McDonald's "might be left
with no short alternative but to negotiate".
On 3 occasions, in Hackney 1985, East Ham 1986 and Liverpool 1988,
Mr Nicholson was informed by store management that employees were
interested in union representation. Mr Nicholson said he then
visited the stores accompanied by other management or Security
officials to talk to the crew "to explain our point of view to
them". He denied that people could have felt intimidated by his
presence or that of management/security. (He said that he took an
Area Security Manager to Hackney only to help him find a place to
park his car). He denied that the company's refusal to negotiate
with Trade Unions was because "they would be more effective at
arguing for better wages and conditions than individual workers".
He claimed that company 'rap sessions' (meetings for workers to
give their views to a manager or supervisor) meant there was no
need for unions, and he denied any crew felt 'exploited', 'pushed
around' or felt they got 'low pay', because "no-one has said to me
they do".
Mr Nicholson remembered banning a Union official from leafleting
or talking to staff inside a London store, even during their
breaks, but claimed he had 'no objection' to him leafleting or
recruiting outside - "We are quite used to people outside our
stores giving out leaflets". He stated "I want to know everything
that happens at a store. I want to know when members of London
Greenpeace stand outside of a store and distribute literature and
I want to know when they leave".
All quotes are taken directly from the court transcripts.
Campaign Statement: The McLibel Support Campaign was set up to
generate solidarity and financial backing for the McLibel
Defendants, who are not themselves responsible for Campaign
publicity. The Campaign is also supportive of, but independent
from, general, worldwide, grassroots anti-McDonald's activities
and protests.

112
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001019.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,112 @@
NEWS FROM MEXICO (Sept 95)
Last year, young anarchists members of a group called JAR
(Anti-authoritarian Revolutionary Youth) demonstrated in front of a
McDonalds, protesting against the anti-immigration campaign and in support
of hispanic
workers in the USA. The demo ended with the McDonalds grafittied and its
windows and machines broken. Some days later, some members of JAR were
arrested by
police.
Last April anaction by transport union Sindicato Unico de Autotransportes
R-100 (SUTAUR) was declared illegal by the courts. The union, which has
links with various popular organisations amongst which would be included the
Movimiento
Proletario Independiente and which is listed by the government as 'radical',
gives legal support to its members and contested the action. Many workers
have been threatened, beaten up and
imprisoned. Of the 12,000 unionised workers, less than 1,000 have accepted
an out of court
settlements, the rest are holding out for more.
In support of the workers at SUTAUR members of the 'radical' group within
the student union,
Consejo Estudiantil Universitario, siezed a number of lorries and kept them
under guard on
university campus. However, under pressure from the rector, police and other
student groupings
they were forced to return the vehicles a few days later.
This years May day independent unions march, fronted by members of
SUTAUR, saw dozens of workers and students throwing rocks and sticks
at the police, who came to defend some of their undercover agents. 19
people, some were minors, were imprisoned while trying to burn the
Govenment Building front door. Many of them were beaten up and some are still
in jail. Many anarchist organisations and colectives participated in the march.
Anarchists painted the walls and broke the windows of the organization
called Pro-vida
(Pro-life), which openly speaks out against abortion and the use of
condoms. Pro-vida in known for being formed by many right-wing and
conservative groups.
During June 17 campesinos were assasinated in Guerrero - they were members
of OCSS, an
organisation which was organising a peaceful protest in a nearby area.
According to the official
version at first it was claimed that the victims had been armed and had
attacked the police but
this was refuted by eye witnesses. The state govenor, Ruben Figueroa, held
talks both before
and after the massacre with a member of the opposition within the council.
These conversations,
according to the councilor, revealed that the govenor was fully aware of the
plans of the police.
The govenor told her: 'Some campesinos are going to demonstrate and will
have to be
stopped... they want war and they are going to get it'
The government in Mexico City has implemented a social security plan in
which it states openly
that 'people who appear suspicious' are to be detained and there will be
stop checks on cars
and random raids. Popular human rights organisations, political opposition
parties and civil
groups have demonstrated against the plans. On July 1st plain clothes
policemen beat up and
detained a number of young people and on July 6th people were searched in
the red light area
and arrested if in possession of a condom on a charge of 'soliciting'.
Throughout the month of
July there were numerous complaints against the police for violence, threts,
robbery etc. Finally
on the 28th the police got an 80% pay rise.
Friday 14th July saw the release of Gloria Benavides who had been acused of
membership of
the EZLN under the codename 'subcomandante Elisa'. Benavides was arrested on
February 8th
and thretened so that she might denounce various people and link them to the
Zapatistas. On
being released she called for the release of those other prisoners who were
being held accused
of membership of the EZLN.
On July 28 the fifth stage of the peace talks between the EZLN and the
mexican government ended. There was no agreement. The government rejected a
zapatista proposal dealing with militar withdrawal and threatened to withdraw
their own proposal if the zapatistas didn't accept it. The EZLN complains
about the strongarm tactics and the threats of the government. Meanwhile,
hundreds
of people are gathering to organize the National Poll called for by the
EZLN, it's supposed to happen on August 27. The International Poll is taking
place right now and many organizations from all around the world have voted
already.
Facts about the government of Zedillo:
In the first seven months of Zedillos' administration, 97 oposition members
have been killed; 1,663 citizens have been imprisoned for their
incomformity; 75 people have been kidnapped; 254 social leaders have
detention orders against them; there has been 932 people injured in many
represive actions; 36 journalists have suffered attacks and 138 members
of democratic organizations have been threatened.
Taken from: "Proceso" magazine, "La Jornada" newspaper, or seen with my own
eyes.

127
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001022.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,127 @@
Police Violence At Reclaim The Streets Demo
From: steve@demon.co.uk (Steve Cook - SPITE! Books)
The Legal Defence And Monitoring Group is a UK voluntary organisation who
provide legal monitors for demonstrations, actions and other events where
civil rights abuses may occur. Their job is to watch the police activity at
such events and try to gather information, witnesses and evidence to use in
defence of those arrested unnessecarily. This is their report of events at
Reclaim The Streets, a peaceful demo based in North London.
Legal Defence & Monitoring Group c/o B.M. Box Haven, London, WC1N 3XX.
Reclaim The Streets (II) - 23rd July 1995
Legal Defence & Monitoring Group Report On The Event - please
circulate as widely as
possible.
On Sunday 23rd July from 2pm approximately 2000 people occupied Upp Street in
Islington, North London, demonstrating against society's dependence on the
motor car and the fact that it causes pollution and death. The demo, which
closed Upper Street and part of Liverpool road to traffic for the whole
afternoon and early evening, was more of a party with both live and recorded
music, food, stalls and a great kids area.
At 8pm a number of uniformed police officers backed up by 10 riot v started
moving the demonstrators down Upper Street towards Angel tube station. At
this stage the demonstrators numbers had reduced to around 150. The officers
were spread across the road. Demonstrators were moving down towards the tube
station. The mood of the demonstrators (and the police) was still friendly.
At approximately 8:15pm, for reasons known only to the police, a number of
officers from the Territorial Support Group (TSG or riot police) in full riot
gear started assisting the uniformed police. They were supported by at least
10 other vehicles, police in helicopters and video crews positioned on
buildings. The mood of the demonstrators was still peaceful. At least 18
police vans full of TSG had been spotted some 50 minutes earlier in a back
street near Upper Street. It must be asked why so many officers in full riot
gear were on standby so early when the mood of the day had been so peaceful.
The deployment of police in riot gear made the atmosphere a great d more
aggressive. A small bottle (ONLY ONE) was lobbed towards these riot police.
It was NOT aimed at the uniformed police who were some way in front of the
riot police at this stage. Within seconds of this happening, the TSG drew
their batons, pushed past the uniformed officers and started assaulting
demonstrators with shield and batons. Over approximately the next 90 minutes
the TSG violently pushed and beat demonstrators towards and past Angel tube
station and down Pentonville Road. At this stage there were some 200 officers
in full riot gear backed up by at least a further 100 officers in uniform.
There were under 100 demonstrators.
The riot police pushed demonstrators down Pentonville Road. the wer asked on
numerous occasions by the LDMG where they were directing people and to 'calm
down'. Needless to say their answers were less than helpful. Eventually (at
approximately 9pm) demonstrators, whose numbers were now less than 50, were
moved into Northdown Street where all exits were blocked by police and riot
vans. Many people trying to leave this area were searched. The reason the
police gave when pressed was that there had been a public order incident,
missiles had been thrown and offensive weapons had been seen - so they were
checking if people had missiles or offensive weapons.
From the moment the riot police took over from the uniformed police they were
indiscriminately and very heavy handedly arresting protesters. In total they
arrested 17 people. At least one demonstrator needed hospital attention (head
split open by a police truncheon) and two more were knocked unconscious by
the police. Every time a legal observer tried to get details of an arrested
person we were either threatened with arrest, were physically moved from the
scene of the arrest, or were assaulted.
Although the actions of the riot police were totally out of control
throughout the whole episode, we feel a number of incidents deserve special
attention: * One particular officer in full riot gear was seen on at least
three occasions using his clenched fist to punch demonstrator in the head and
face - one of whom was knocked unconscious. * An articulated lorry was
moving through the crowd and the polic were violently pushing people past it
causing a number of them to lose balance. It was only luck that somebody did
not fall under the wheels of this vehicle. Police were asked to stop pushing
for a while by legal observers and told to "move or be nicked". * When one
demonstrator was knocked unconscious, legal observers protesters tried to see
if he was alright, but were viciously pushed and beaten by the police.
Although being advised by a person with medical knowledge that this person
should not be moved, the police continually tried to move him.
As soon as arrests were made, the LDMG tried, with difficulty, to g
solicitors to all of those arrested and to find out some information about
them. We staffed our office throughout the night and next day, receiving
numerous calls asking the whereabouts of missing protesters. By 5am, we had
details of all protesters arrested.
Charing Cross police station would only release 1 (who accepted a caution) of
the 10 arrestees. The rest were held overnight and appeared in Bow Street
Magistrates Court the following day, which we monitored. Two of those held
were refused bail and are presently on remand at Brixton Prison until 31st
July. We feel the decision to hold them overnight at the police station and
in prison was vindictive and excessive. Three of those arrested were for
possession of drugs and all three pleaded guilty.
We have set up a defence campaign for the 13 still facing charges. Another
indication of the states attempt to brutalise and criminalise us is the
severity of these charges. Most are being charged with section 2,3 or 4 of
the Public Order Act 1986. Our aim now is to; get the two out of Brixton
Prison; prove all 13 innocent; look into actions against the officer who
punched demonstrators and; assist people to sue the police for false arrest.
WE NEED LOADS OF HELP
* We have set up a 'bust fund' to pay for expenses etc (we have already
* visited and got cash to the two on remand). We need money so please send
* cheques/Postal Orders to us as soon as possible - made payable to LDMG
* and sent to the above address.
*
* We need you to publicise what happened as widely as possible (articles,
* posters, word of mouth, internet etc) especially asking for witnesses to
* arrests to contact us ASAP.
*
* We need people to help out in loads of other ways as we are onl small
* group with limited resources both in terms of money and people.
*
----------------------------
Free The Prisoner
----------------------------
prisoner@spitebk.demon.co.uk

327
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001025.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,327 @@
From article in Proceso, June 5, 1995.
OIL IS BEHIND SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION IN
CHIAPAS
[On May 24, 1995, the Jesuit Mardonio Morales, who has spent more
than 30 years working with the indigenous Tzeltal people, spoke at
a private study meeting on Mexican reality. His report dealt with
oil fields as a major factor in the current conflict in Chiapas.]
It is difficult to discuss the internal situation in
Chiapas due to the complex spectrum of interrelated action. Since
the second attempted dialogue in San Andres it has become clear
that the character of the battles being waged between the two
sides is one of low intensity conflict. Big interests are at
stake. On the one hand is the very survival of the indigenous
communities, not only in Chiapas, but throughout the country; on
the other, unrestricted control of raw materials, which are the
lifeblood of the economic neoliberalism that is choking us and
that has farreaching international ramifications.
My sole intention was to spend time with Tzeltal
communities in the municipalities of Sitala and parts of Ocosingo,
out of the San Bachajon Mission. In the process, I was able to
witness the growth and development of these forces that now
confront each other in a death struggle.
I will focus on an important factor which I think is a
guiding principle the state government and which can explain its
present behavior, which may seem to us very obtuse and
closed-minded. This factor is oil. I am going to talk about what
I have seen. This is testimony, not a technical study. I will
follow these steps: oil discoveries; timber exploitation;
settlement; "cattlization;" infrastructure (roads, water,
electricity); oil exploration and exploitation.
1. Discovery of oil
In the early months of 1964 I toured for the first time
the Bachajon lowlands, in the municipality of Chilon, which were
then completely wild and very sparsely populated. I arrived at
the Sacun ravine, and there at a stream of the Sacunil River, in
Cubwits, I found a bronze Pemex plaque set in cement, indicating
the year 1961. When I came down the ravine, I was informed in
Alan Sacun that there were Pemex markers there, too. That was the
first bit of information that struck me. As early as 1961, in the
most remote regions of the jungle, oil had clearly been located.
Moreover, along the main roads crossing the jungle from
the lowest area, towards Palenque, leading up to Ocosingo, I found
markings in red paint every 100 meters on the rocks and trunks of
tall trees along the roadway. They said EP and had a number. My
travel companions would tell me that occasionally "engineers"
would come by and make these measurements.
In the ensuing years, on my subsequent work tours, I saw
how these measurements were extended to all the roads and
footpaths. In the highest mountain range, near Coquilteel, above
Chichi, I saw tar seeping from the cracks in the rocks during the
hot season. My travel companions remarked that tar was easily
found in many places, and that in the old days they would use it
for certain medicines.
As the years went by I confirmed that the Pemex engineers
were stepping up their activities. They actually told me where
most of the oil deposits had been located, as in Jetha and along
the banks of the Paxilha River. During the Lopez Portillo
administration, at the time of the oil boom, these sites in Jetha
were reported on television.
2. Timber exploitation.
Concurrently with this exploratory work, ever since the
fifties there hd been an intensification of the exploitation of
mahogany and other hard and soft woods, all of them precious,
carried out by foreigners using the sawmill at Chancala and doing
business as companies that were Mexican in name only.
The government's concession was that they could take
whatever timber they found within 500 meters along any road or
path they opened up. Naturally, they took whatever they pleased.
The jungle had been awe-inspiring. At first, I could walk for
entire days in the shade, and could see neither sky nor landscape;
everything was green.
Once the timber exploitation was in full swing, the
settlement process began. Thus the timber company had to
establish a relationship with the new members of the ejidos, or
ejidatarios. As a result, a strange partnership was formed.
Since they were totally lacking in technical knowledge and
advisors, it was to the ejidatarios' advantage to have assistance
in clearing trees from the land the government was offering them
to plant corn. Moreover, the paths that the timber company made
were very helpful to the ejidatarios' internal communication.
With modern machinery and the huge sawmill at Chancala,
the destruction of the jungle took giant steps forward, compounded
by the traditional slash and burn system that finished off the
remaining nonharvestable trees on the ejidos.
I thus saw over ten years how the plunder progressed.
>From 1968 to 1978 the path was extended from Tulilha lands to the
Pico de Oro lands. It was some 200 kilometers long. Fifteen days
ago I got a ride from a huge trailer that was coming from Mazatlan
to get mahogany from Pico de Oro. Despite all the many formal
complaints were made by both institutions and individuals to
public opinion and government officials, this process of
destruction has continued on its course.
The explanation is simple: existing timber resources are
utilized, ande terrain is made ready for the next phase, oil
exploration and exploitation.
3. Settlement
In the early sixties the government opened the "national
lands" to campesino/indigenous groups from the highlands and even
to campesinos from other places like Veracruz, Puebla and
Guerrero. Specialists in the field harshly criticized this
opening of the jungle to agriculture. The jungle is not land for
planting, but for forests. No attention was ever paid to this
argument. Instead, this land which was ill-suited to agriculture
was irresponsibly handed over to hundreds of ejidos.
The strategic reason is now clear. On the one hand was
the need for cp labor; on the other, the need to finish preparing
the land for oil exploration and exploitation. Cheap labor was
required, meaning people who were controlled and controllable, who
would acquiesce to whatever was coming. That's why there was no
planning of how to organize the settlements that were forming. It
was a sociological time bomb.
Each settlement consists of indigenous people and
campesinos from various places, who arrived hungry and anxious for
land. At first they were united by a common need; then different
interests, customs and needs began to appear. It is extremely
difficult to organize them, and there is always someone who is
willing to serve the interests of the powerful. That is what the
government needs: disorganized, controllable people. In addition
to this came the arrival, starting in 1975, of successive waves of
groups from sects that have been a major obstacle to any attempt
at organization.
4. Cattlization
The next step in consummating the total and final
destruction of the jue was to get the ejidos that were devoted to
corn to turn to cattle-raising. To that end, in the mid-sixties
the official and unofficial banks offered easy credit and abundant
technical advice. In this regard, the Ministry of Agrarian
Reform, which for years had been mercilessly exploiting the
ejidatarios, did indeed offer generous advice so that the greatest
possible number of ejidatarios converted to cattle-raising.
Those who embarked on this business in the first four or
five years became wealthy cattle ranchers. This prompted those
who had not been drawn to cattle-raising to go to the banks in
droves seeking credit.
But the second phase was counterproductive for the
ejidatarios. The credit was a trap so that the past due debts
would leave thousands of unsuspecting people firmly in the bank's
grasp. Now the objective had been achieved: whoever wants to see
the Lacandon jungle will now find only the gigantic Lacandon
cattle pasture. You have only to look at recent aerial
photographs of the Mexican-Guatemalan border along the Usumacinta
River. The Guatemalan jungle contrasts with the arid line of
Mexico across the river.
5. Infrastructure
Oil exploitation obviously requires a large
infrastructure: roads, electricity, water, populations to provide
cheap labor, food supply centers, towns that can be converted into
places where technicians and skilled workers can be concentrated.
I have seen how the first roads were begun, and how in a matter of
a few years the communications network has multiplied.
One never ceases to be surprised at how incredible roads
are built while other regions that truly need to be connected
remain isolated. Wherever Petroleos Mexicanos waves its magic
wand, huge machines appear and make tortuous footpaths immediately
disappear. For example, everyone was surprised by the road that
was built at Chichi, near Bachajon, and by the construction of the
immense bridge that was built in order to cross the river and get
to the region where I saw tar on the very surface of the earth.
The most surprising thing was that this construction
abruptly stopped, once the bridge was complete, and was not
resumed. Why? Of course no one was given any explanation. Soon
thereafter we learned that the machinery had gone to the other end
of the jungle, to Pico de Oro, where they had started drilling
wells in the area bordering Guatemala.
No matter how much the government postures and tries to
portray this road-building as a social program, the reality of oil
provides us with a different explanation. Roads that are built
and left waiting for official use are left to deteriorate and be
destroyed until such time as the oil industry requires them.
Potable water was a battle that went on for years and
years in the communities. The first fifteen years of my residency
were a constant search for external financing for pipes; the
communities themselves would do the work, because the State would
not respond to our requests. Then the settlements were suddenly
endowed with potable water, as if by magic.
Conasupo's warehouses are strategically located to quickly
and efficiently supply the entire oil region. To find out whether
this phenomenon occurs in the Los Altos region, one has only to
see the reports of those who have gone to the conflict zone to
compare the government's social programs. Here in the jungle,
environmental destruction and manipulation of the local
population; there, neglect, hunger and disease.
Noteworthy is the electricity network that has covered the
entire region over the course of ten years. This is undoubtedly
the clearest indicator of the rush to put in place the
infrastructure that is essential to quick and efficient oil
exploitation.
All of us were surprised by the efficiency with which
telephone has been brought to the oil region. To those of us who
have struggled for years and years for the most essential
services, the government's strategy in the region is quite clear.
The very reform of Article 27 of the Constitution provides a
logical explanation that foreshadows what is in store for us in
the near term.
6. Oil exploration
About six years ago, along the sides of the highways of
the low region, we began to see temporary encampments of workers
of campesino origin. These encampments belonged to a foreign
company hired by Pemex to begin the oil exploration. The
encampments quickly multiplied, and I began to find them along the
roads.
It is admirable: they drew straight lines starting from a
settlement ine low region to the city of Ocosingo. A meter wide,
the path ran through mountains, ravines and valleys, stopping for
no obstacle. This caused fatal accidents among the workers,
mostly Indians, which of course no one ever heard about.
Every 20 meters they would dig a well, dynamite it, and
collect the information with devices that the workers carried on
their backs for days and months, until they reached Ocosingo.
That is how they marked off the jungle territory. Of course they
never asked for permission to enter ejidos or private property.
The explosions resulted in the loss of many water sources; at the
source of the Tulilha River, they killed all of the fish and
polluted the entire irrigation channel that ran some 80
kilometers, resulting in serious problems for the ejidos that the
river ran through. The protests, compaints and demands of these
Chol and Tzeltal ejidos were to no avail. Along the highways the
subsoil was being measured.
In the midst of this intense activity came January 1,
1994, and with it, the abrupt suspension of all exploratory
activity. Fifteen days ago, after the San Andres meeting, these
encampments began to reappear along the highway near Chancala.
7. Oil exploitation
In the region where I walk I have yet to see any wells
being drilled. But from the bus traveling on the road through San
Miguel to Ocosingo, I have seen drilling rigs and roads leading to
other rigs. And we know there has been a great deal of activity
in the Pico de Oro region. Of course everything has now come to a
halt. There's a reason why we have Army all over, even though we
are very far from the conflict zone.
I believe that this testimony I am now giving about what I
have seen from 1964 to the present, and the discovery of the
relationship between oil, timber, settlement, cattlization, and
infrastructure, explains the government's hard-line, overbearing
attitude.
If they are seeking oil and the riches that lie
underground, can an agreement ever be reached whereby the
indigenous people can have their autonomous territory? As long as
the indigenous are regarded as beasts of burden, can there be an
agreement to respect their dignity?
By way of conclusion, I would like to complete the picture
with two more thoughts.
First: we all want peace, and think it would be suicide
to go to war against the Army and government supported by imperial
foreign powers. We all know that the war against indigenous
people, environmental destruction, the subjugation of entire
peoples, hunger, disease and premature death are the lifeblood of
the wealth of the few, organized under neoliberal slogans backed
by armed force.
We know that this is nothing new, that it has always been
this way. Tht is why the !Ya basta! of January 1, 1994, resonated
among us all. This past year and a half has only strengthened our
conviction and has proven that this is not something local, but
rather part of the structure of the system that punishes us all
equally.
It is clearly a national matter. The demand for democracy
and for a structural change that will make real the slogan "all
for all" is penetrating the national consciousness.
Second: Why in Chiapas and not in Veracruz or Tabasco?
Oil exploitatin in Tamaulipas, Veracruz, Tabasco, Campeche has
destroyed jungles, torn apart towns, done away with the thriving
ecology of southeastern gulf rim. Why was it that we heard the
!Ya basta! in Chiapas?
The answer has to do with the system's deep resentment
against the San Cristobal Diocese and don Samuel: 35 years of
consciousness-raising evangelization; 35 years of commitment to
those who are exploited, ignored, despised, dispossessed; 35 years
of searching for ways forward without fear of making a mistake, in
a constant attitude of conversion of those who have been
marginalized by the system; 35 years of evangelical practice in
search of dignity and respect for these millenary peoples.
The best evidence of this faithfulness to oppressed people
is the violet reaction of slander and irrational abuse.
[Translation by David Mintz (dmintz@ix.netcom.com)]

294
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001026.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,294 @@
San Andres V- A "new" Solidarity
By Cecilia Rodriguez
National Center for Democracy, Liberty and Justice
"We seek a new peace, not one of hunger, misery, submission,
and humiliation, but one of dignity and justice..and we are
willing to give up our lives in order to find it"
Comandante David
Ejercito Zapatista de Liberacion Nacional
July 24, 1995
CHRONOLOGY
THE GOVERNMENT on the subject of reduction of military
tensions--REJECTS EZLN proposal to move troops to positions
held before the February 9th assault in order that the EZLN
would return to the position held before January 1, 1994.
It PROPOSES a plan for "routes" occupied by both armed
forces, a plan similar to the one used to end the Salvadoran
conflict. The EZLN would occupy areas within government
troop lines. This proposal was referred to as "the plan for
reservations".
THE EZLN RESPONDS-- Immediately it counterproposes a
route to Guadalupe Tepeyac, the site of the historic
"Aguascalientes", but the government instantly rejects it.
Upon its return to the July 6th negotiations it proposes a
route from Ocosingo to San Quintin as a "trial" effort.
THE GOVERNMENT-- Again rejects the counteroffer
claiming it is "extemporaneous" and WITHDRAWS its route
proposal. It accuses the EZLN of using the proposal for
"propaganda" purposes. NO proposal remains on the table.
THE GOVERNMENT on the subject of the timeline for the
peace talks-Through Jorge Del Valle the government suggests
"profound and intense" negotiations by holding 20 days of
discussions for each theme on the agenda. According to
simple calculations this would consume 4 years and 11
months, while the EZLN's proposal can have a potential
duration of 3 years and 1 month.
THE GOVERNMENT COMPLAINS--The EZLN is not serious about
the peace negotiations and is utilizing delay tactics. It
threatens to "move ahead to resolve the economic problems of
the area without the EZLN".
THE GOVERNMENT DECLARES in the words of Marco Antonio
Bernal, the coordinator of the government peace delegation,
"Why yes, we believe that the Zapatistas are liars who do
not want peace, but to buy time in order to continue to lie
and hide behind the mask and the mountains. WE also believe
they are insolent and foul-mouthed and other things after
what occurred this morning".
Comandante Tacho responds--"Your face is that of a good
person, but your heart is filled with hypocrisy." The
possibilities of substantive agreements were distant in this
5th encounter between the Mexican Government and the
Zapatista Army of National Liberacion.
II-TWO
The 900 military policemen who surround the site of the
pace talks have, over time, acquired accouterments. Now
they sport white braids hung from their right shoulder,
spotless white shoelaces on shiny black boots and white
gloves. They march into formation each time they post guard.
With eyes shifting under low-brimmed helmets, they observe
as civilian participants, campesinos, and the residents of
San Andres conduct their business in the small, cluttered
plaza. In addition to their spiffier appearance, the
military has also deployed a new look-out post on a building
catty-corner to the site of the peace talks, radio towers,
and sundry undercover agents who seem to do little more than
look like agents and pull on the antennas of their cellular
phones.
There is clear evidence of the hardening of the
government line everywhere. Like a cauldron sitting on
glowing coals, Mexico simmers with the growing resistance of
its people. Weakened by its corruption and internal purges,
the government is cautious before a growing national and
international civilian movement which only gains in strength
each time the government opts for armed force. Yet its
strategy of low-intensity warfare against the Zapatistas
creeps forward much as its troops do in the Lacandon jungle.
In addition to the recent deportation of three priests
in Chiapas, the publication of a recent book by Carlos Tello
Diaz (a great grandson of Porfirio Diaz) is an expansion of
the government's effort to publicly discredit the EZLN.
Based largely on government intelligence reports, the book
clearly attempts to legitimize the official government line.
According to the book the EZLN is nothing more than a
"rabid " handful of old-line leftists who use indigenous
people to forward a socialist agenda, the CCRI holds no real
power and bishop Samuel Ruiz and his church are a central
spoke of the Zapatista movement. Tello's book received
front page treatment in may national publications as well as
a significant splash in the electronic media. It was
conveniently made public days before the peace talks.
The cauldron simmers in Mexico. The Zapatistas promote
a mobilization of peaceful civilian movements, the
organization of international solidarity efforts. They wage
a battle of ideas and words, of innovative proposals, of
calls to conscience and of an integral effort to fined a
peaceful solution. The government meanwhile continues to use
intimidation, starvation by occupation, selective
assassination, illegal detention and the blatant
manipulation of propaganda.
It will soon be 19 months since the Zapatistas burst
into the public eye. The initial outpouring of romanticism,
spontaneity and curiosity has ended. The difficult and
important task of building a peaceful national liberation
movement and maintaining the viability of a peaceful
transition remains. In addition to that the Zapatistas face
the formidable task of advancing history in Latin America.
The Zapatistas and their supporters struggle to overcome the
cannibalistic habits of the left and the clear failures of
socialist theory. They struggle to integrate the grassroots
as no other group in history has done. After spending ten
years educating, training, and building communities; the
Zapatistas are intent on avoiding the mistakes of other
armed struggles. At great military and political expense,
they have held off the war in the hopes that national and
international consciousness would develop and that moderate
and progressive forces could forge a unity capable of
harvesting the kind of social change as yet unknown to
history.
To that end, the Zapatista's latest innovation is the
national and international plebiscite. Mexico has had only
one other plebiscite in one hundred years of its history.
This one however has been requested by an armed and
clandestine group; it is the first in world history. It is
being organized by a non-governmental organization and
promoted by the Democratic National Convention, a civic
group that is a brainchild of the EZLN. In addition to the
difficulties that arise naturally with such a novel task,
the Plebiscite confronts the challenge of a lack of
resources, and the establishment of working relationships
among such disparate groups. Yet the civilian movement has
undertaken the task with such enthusiasm that major
ideological differences have been set aside. In its
insistent search for a democratic practice, the EZLN offers
the people of Mexico a moment in which to exercise it, to
find a voice for the will of the populace, something that
the present government of Mexico has been unable to do.
While some may claim that the innovations of the EZLN
have not been completely successful, no one can say that
they have not changed Mexico and world history forever. Yet
the change a t this moment is intangible and fragile. It is
manifest in the tiny steps which ordinary citizens take in
an effort to re-awaken or even give birth to a new kind of
democracy, a representative democracy whose base is civic
involvement. It struggles to survive in a cynical world
more prepared for despair than possibility. It challenges
all previously held concepts about how change takes place.
The Zapatistas depart from traditional leftist theory,
precisely in what the government refuses to acknowledge---
their indigenous base. This is a clear departure from
traditional "guerrilla" theory, as is their open and frank
dialogue with the populace as well as their willingness to
allow others to take the lead, and to engage in debilitating
peace talks with a group of negotiators who appear to be
deaf. The Zapatistas do not negotiate from a machista
position of force--they use reason and the moral authority
that comes from the sacrifice of their lives to continue to
persuade people to seek a change in Mexico.
From the Mexicans and the Zapatistas we learn that the
ideals contained in the words "democracy, liberty and
justice" are expensive and difficult to achieve. They cost
lives, health egos and sacrifice. They require imagination,
flexibility, integrity, and the ability to take enormous
risks. "The plebiscite" said Comandante David "is very
important. It is a form by which to dialogue on a national
level, by which to break the silence and change the
attitudes of the government and of the powerful. It is a way
in which to give voice to the smallest ones, the voice of
the faceless, nameless ones without history, and a method of
work of those who want a just and dignified peace."
In the witless style of Chicken Little, the government
delegation commented that "the results of the plebiscite
would not be an obstacle" for the peace negotiations." It
then promptly concluded the 5th encounter arguing that the
EZLN was only buying time for the plebiscite. The EZLN
proposed the 6th peace talks be hold on August 20th. The
government prefers September 5th.
III- THREE
The civilians who post guard in the peace cordon at San
Andres Sacam'chen must stand for four hours each shift.
When they are lucky, the clouds crawl slowly down the green
mountains and the sun peeps out occasionally from behind
them. Then, the hours drift by in a silent dance of aching
feet. Most of the time though the rain pours and the
civilians carefully hold out the front of their ponchos, in
order to made a small circle of dry land at their feet. Or
the sun glares down mercilessly, and they shift their hats
in order to keep it from their eyes. Unable to hear or see
anything, they carefully study the enclosed building where
the Zapatistas and the government delegation are meeting.
Otherwise, one can sleep, read, converse with old
friends, wander from one end of the plaza to the other and
watch the children play. The unifying task is waiting. The
civilians stand at attention when the door suddenly opens ..
They clutter together at strategic points in order to catch
a glimpse of the unfolding events.
These are either brief narratives of agendas and the
always-moving communiqus of the Zapatistas. Long days
filled with waiting, and even longer damp nights filled with
silence and the unbearable desire to sit or gaze at
something new. The hundreds of people committed to the
vision of the Zapatistas at San Andres Sacam'chen however,
do not complain. They are proud and anxious to stand, happy
to give up the subsistence routine of their lives in order
to come to San Andres and wait, regardless of the hunger and
exhaustion. This is their grain of sand after all, to stand
through inclement weather, and use their bodies to protect
the Zapatistas.
And in the silent waiting of these indigenous
communities lays the most powerful lesson of all, more
powerful than all the weaponry assembled against the
Zapatistas, more powerful than the hundreds of television
hours now being used to discredit them. Resistance is the
ability to fight with whatever one has, in whatever way
possible. Resistance is collective. The campesinos together
meld in a long chain of humanity, indistinguishable one from
the other.
It will require significant financial, moral and
physical support in order for the national democracy
movement that the Zapatistas have helped to birth, to
succeed. Like everything else in its wake, its success will
require a "new solidarity". This solidarity can not be based
on a pedestal upon which we place a people struggling to
find a new way of doing things, and which we abandon when we
learn, that they are people just like us. It cannot be a
solidarity filled with rhetoric about "imperialism", "the
masses" or cluttered with perfectionism that will never
exist in the very human process of social change.
This new solidarity must take risks-- it must organize
in base communities. It must develop "unprecedented
proposals"--it must collaborate in ways it has not done
before and avoid becoming an expensive parasite which
absorbs all the resources and fails to accomplish its goals.
It must combine the financial donations which allow a people
to survive and struggle, with the political tenacity and
vision to complement the fierce determination of the Mexican
people. it must leave behind the armchair psychosis of the
left which glorifies armed struggle as the superior method
by which to resolve political conflict. It must leave behind
its self-righteous absorption with its own agenda, and be
willing to learn, to wait, and to engage.
Only then will this new solidarity be a fitting
companion to the new peace so eloquently expressed by
Comandante David. together they will overcome the
exhaustion of a world embittered by the failures of all
previous economic theory. Hand in hand, they will stand at
the threshold of a new international order based on
democracy, liberty and justice.
NUTS AND BOLTS
Given the critical nature of the struggle for a new
peace in Mexico, you can personally do the following almost
immediately;
1. Send a substantial contribution to the Mexican
Commission for the National Plebiscite. The commission must
raise $100,000 in order to make the plebiscite happen.
Contributions should be sent to the Banco Inverlat SA
(branch #038), account # 910695-2, in the name of Esperanza
Ayar Macias.
2. Support the humanitarian aid caravan being organized
by Pastors for Peace due to arrive in Chiapas on August
27th. For more information, please call Pastors for Peace
at (612) 378-0062 or <p4p@igc.apc.org> for specific
information. The campesinos have been severely impacted by
the militarization of southern Mexico. Unless there is a
significant increase in humanitarian aid, the widespread
hunger and illness which already grips the area will
intensify. Will we allow hunger to be the only compensation
for a people who dared to stand for their dignity?
3. Participate in the International Plebiscite by
personally filling out a ballot. Take a bunch to your
union, school, health club, church. Talk to people and
explain the importance of their participation. The
International Commission of the CND has authorized three
stages for the International Plebiscite to correspond with
national events. Participation in the International
Plebiscite is open to all peoples of the world. Please plan
other events and gather as many ballots as possible.
JULY 31 - Deadline for the completion of the first stage.
AUGUST 20 - Completion of the second stage to coincide with
the National Plebiscite.
SEPTEMBER 13 - Completion of the third stage to coincide
with the completion of the National Student Plebiscite.
4. Participate in the peace camps located in many of
the villages which have been militarized. your presence and
hard work in these communities are an enormous moral
support, and a deterrent to continued military harassment
and intimidation.
For more information about "new" solidarity contact the
Center for Democracy, Liberty and Justice at (915) 532-8382
or email at <moonlight@igc.apc.org>.

364
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001033.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,364 @@
Italian COUNTERINFO #12 (September 1995)
************
CONTENTS
* Instead of an editorial
* A summary of the recent debate within the ECN
* ECN bologna E-zine n.0 agosto 95
* ECN Padova - News upgrade, 18 agosto 95
* ECN bologna E-zine n.01 agosto 95
* ECN bologna E-zine n.02 agosto 95
* Corsera - by Leoncavallo (E-Zine ECN)
* Milano, 29 agosto 1995 - Comunicato stampa del centro sociale
Leoncavallo
* ECN bologna E-zine n.03 settembre 95
* leaflet on FIAT by CSOA el paso (Torino)
************
Italian COUNTERINFO, a summary of recent postings from the Cybernet
and European Counter Network in Italy, is a cooperative venture
between the xchange BBS (Melbourne, Australia) and the Padova node of
the ECN. You can contact us at pmargin@xchange.apana.org.au or
hobo@freenet.hut.fi
************
Check out the ECN's new home page at http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/ecn/
Zero! BBS, which is part of both the ECN and Cybernet, has a home page
at http://linux1.cisi.unito.it/zero!/bbs.html
************
<Instead of an editorial>
It's been a few months since our last issue - a situation which can be
explained partly by a trip to Italy during the northern summer, partly by
too much work upon our return, and partly by sheer *pigrizia*.
The Bologna and Padova ECN collectives, however, has been working
hard, producing no less than 4 issues of an e-zine in the last month, as
well as a number of news releases. These are summarised below.
In the past we have aimed - not always successfully - to mail the
original ECN news files to interested subscribers. We are very pleased
to announce that these files are now directly available by FTP, at the
following site: ftp://pcdigi.unibs.it/pub/ecn/
Finally, readers may be interested to know that there are plans afoot
for an electronic mailing list devoted specifically to the political
assessment of class composition and class struggle throughout the
global work-machine. We hope to make this a bi-lingual list accessible
to comrades who have some knowledge of either English or Italian.
Never having done anything like this before, we are more than open to
suggestions, offers of help etc. The organisers can be contacted care of
pmargin@xchange.apana.org.au
************
<A summary of the recent debate within the ECN> - Profit Margin
August 1995 saw an important debate within the Italian ECN
concerning the politics of computer networking. Much of the discussion
was actually between Marta Mackenzie of Torino and Sandrone of
Milano, although others did chime in now and then. I got to meet Marta
along with Luc Pac at the Radio Sherwood festa in Padova two months
ago, when I was staying there with Hobo. Luc and Marta have recently
produced a fine Italian language 'alternative guide' to computer
networking called *Digital Guerrilla* - inspired in part by the book
written by xchange BBS's own Will Kemp,(*Messagesticks in
Cyberspace*). Luc and Marta are also both involved in Italy's other
libertarian computer network, Cybernet. Sandrone is well known within
the Italian movement because of his association with the social centre
Leoncavallo, which has been very much in the Italian news these past
few years.
One of the most important points of contention concerned the
purpose of the ECN. In an article he had written for the left daily *il
manifesto*, and then reproduced as part of the debate, Sandrone had
made two central points about the ECN. The first of these was that it
expressed 'the desire to create a forum [piazza] open to all', unlike the
regulated atmosphere which pervades Fidonet and similar systems.
Much more than this, however, the role that he and others had sought to
develop in Milano was that of 'a human interface' between various
social subjects - he cited a range of examples, from AIDS activists to
militant workers - who themselves showed little interest in using the
network. This notion of the network as 'a crossroads between subjects'
that 'first of all, connects realities outside' itself, was one that he
would return to again and again over the course of the month.
Marta's position was rather different. More than a simple
interface between humans in the 'real' world, she stressed that
computer networks represent 'a new medium' fast becoming an
important place of 'struggle and resistance' in its own right. As a
consequence, attention had to be paid to 'the features peculiar to
[computer] networks - anonymity, the loss/construction of ascribed
relations and identity, socialisation, the possibilities of
experimentation', to see whether these might generate new ways of
destabilising power. In other words, it's not a matter of simply seeking
to use computer networks as a means to connect the struggles of social
subjects in the so-called real world, but rather of exploring the
subjects that are forming *within* the networks themselves.
For his part, Sandrone's assessment of such subjects was less
than flattering. Taking as one example the level of discussion within
cyberspace, he told Marta: 'What you call debate I generally would call
chitchat. There is hardly ever a decent debate in either Cybernet or ECN.
There is almost always chitchat - some of it even interesting -
between those who play with computers'. Talk of the net culture's
potential for destabilisation was better suited for science fiction
novels; so far he had seen nothing to confirm such a view. 'The
networks are one field of struggle - but only one, however'.
Part of the difference between these two positions seems to lie
with the legitimacy or otherwise bestowed upon communication
between individual as opposed to collective subjects. Again, in an
exchange with Ampex from ECN Brescia, Sandrone insisted
that discussing the politics of computer networks was something
separate from using the net as a means 'to feel good (a positive thing),
or to exchange ideas with friends (even more positive)... [or] to send
letters to a lover in Boston (better again)'. Marta's response to this
consisted of three parts. The first was that, by its nature, the network
had so far generated personal rather than collective users - 'so much so
that our brawling [scazziamo] is between you/sandrino/me/luc/ampex
rather than between groups of people...' Secondly, that while the level
of on-line discussion could be improved, it was better than that in
face-to-face meetings, such as those she remembered from the Murazzi
social centre in Torino, 'where the recognised "leader" spoke first and
last, a series of other people felt legimitated to intervene, and the
majority of the collective just sat and listened, or got bored, or else
rolled joints'. At least on the net, everyone could say their bit and
have
time to reflect when responding to others. Finally, in noting the failure
to date of periodic attempts to use computer networks as archives for
movement documents, she argued that the net concerns 'principally
communication' in the here and now.
Another question which kept popping up was the perennial
technical battle just to keep the system functioning. It may hearten
fellow members of the xchange BBS to hear that we are not the only
ones whose bulletin board malfunctions on a regular basis - this seems
equally to be a problem in Milano. How to tackle this, someone asked?
Surely there must be some computer nerds involved in the Leoncavallo
social centre who would enjoy tinkering with machinery and code? Well
yes, perhaps there are, but according to Sandrino, who is also part of
the Milano ECN, such comrades like to spend 'their' free time doing
things at the social centre itself. Perhaps if the BBS was housed there...
Two more themes that arose along the way. The first concerns who
actually uses these Italian BBS, and how. According to Marta, maybe
15-30 people call up the Torino board each day - 'not much traffic' by
her reckoning. They scan this and that, usually following their own
particular interest - software, spunk, news - but 'the majority don't
even look at the new files'. According to the Milanese comrades, a
certain amount of energy on any given day goes into clearing out
abusive messages from people hostile to the very project of the social
centres. Even when there was a radio program or station loosely
connected to the local ECN, there didn't seem to be much interplay
between the two. Finally, there was the question of sectarianism and
the network's 'purity'. Here Marta raised a couple of Turinese anecdotes
concerning certain intolerant autonomists and anarchists, who had
asked, amongst other things: how dare the ECN 'allow' people from the
'refoundation communist party' social centre to use their network?
[When I would have thought (Profit Margin concludes, editorialising
outrageously) that 'we' would be wanting to engage with, and even
contaminate people like that, rather than worry about protecting our
'pure' politics from them].
************
<ECN bologna E-zine n.0 agosto 95>
1) International Anarchist Demonstration - Sunday 6 August
A brief notice publicising a Hiroshima Day demo at the border town of
Ventimiglia.
2) Proposal for a National Mobilisation Against the Use of Tornado
Bombers and other Italian and NATO forces in the Balkan War -
Piacenza, luglio 1995
Today, as in the Gulf War, Italian jets are being used in a military
conflict. The Belfagor social centre calls both for debate and
organisational work within the social centres and the broader 'self-
organised' left, with the aim of a national mobilisation this September
or October. In particular, it calls for an opening to green and pacifist
circles as well as the traditional left, along with the development of
arguments to counter the growing interventionist mood within the
latter.
3) RADIO ONDA D'URTO Festa at Brescia (20 August - 3 September)
Food, drink, debates, film and plenty of 'antagonistic' information are
all promised at this year's festa.
4) Statement of the Roman social centres following the 85 charges
made against some of their representatives.
'The 85 charges for "delinquent association", stemming from incidents
provoked by the police opposing the occupation of the La Torre social
centre, represent the apex of an offensive - by the right, the fascists
of Alleanza Nazionale, sections of the courts and police - which aims
to isolate and criminalise Rome's social realities..."
************
<ECN Padova - News upgrade, 18 agosto 95>
Debate on the upcoming conference of Social Centres at Arezzo
One of the most important polemics within Italy's self-managed social
centres at present concerns their place within the evolving social
landscape. According to a number of comrades - for example, those
associated with the journal *Derive Approdi* - the social centres
represent a new form of productive organisation based upon
'immaterial', post-fordist labour. Thus Benedetto Vecchi has
characterised the CSOA as 'high points of capitalist development' based
upon 'knowledge, science and communicative action,... the most
contradictory phenomenon of a possible exodus of labour power from
capitalist society, through the constitution of a public sphere that
contemplates the synthesis between developed social cooperation and
political initiative' [B. Vecchi (1994) 'Frammenti di una diversa sfera
pubblica', in F. Adinolfi et al., *Comunit virtuali: I centri sociali in
Italia*. Manifestolibri, Rome, p.14]. Similar sentiments were recently
voiced in *il manifesto* by those promoting a conference on the social
centres to be held at Arezzo. The two postings summarised below beg
to differ.
1) Centro Sociale Autogestito ex Emerson di Firenze: "Non siamo
un'impresa"
In criticising the reading of the social centres as 'enterprises', this
piece rejects the assumption that market criteria are the most
appropriate terms through which to interpret the CSOA. Its authors also
reject a logic of social pacification which seeks to divide the 'good'
sections of the movement from those which the state deems to be
beyond the pale. Opposing all frameworks blind to power relations
within modern society, they point out that 'We have been within all
moments of class conflict... seeking to act [towards] its social
recomposition. This is our horizon. We are not prepared to accept, at
Arezzo or elsewhere, what sociologists, entrepreneurs or council
officials tell us we are and must become'.
2) Impresa centro sociale? No grazie! (C.S.A. Garibaldi di Milano)
A detailed critique of the premises informing the Arezzo conference,
the title of which is 'Metropolitan Social Space: Between the Risk of
Ghettoisation and a New Enterprise Horizon' [progettista imprenditore].
Setting these premises within a discussion of Italy's changing place
within the global economy, the crisis of welfare and the emergence of
new forms of production, the author emphasises the thematic of social
and political mediation which permeates the conference proposal.
************
<ECN bologna E-zine n.01 agosto 95>
1) Leoncavallo - Press release on the *Corriere della Sera* article
A response to a scurrilous article in a Milano newspaper of 25 August
suggesting that the Leoncavallo social centre is a site for drug
trafficking.
2) Leoncavallo - Press release on Riccione
A statement of support for those in Riccione who physically defended
themselves from the police when threatened with arrest. Today, the social
centre notes, around 40% of people detained in Italian prisons are there on
so-called 'drug-related' charges.
3) Brescia: Program of the Radio Onda d'Urto Festa
A detailed account of the music, debates, films and food available at
the festival of this 'self-managed and self-financed' radio station.
4) Parma: Solidaritay with the Taranto comrades
The social centre XXII APRILE condemns the eviction of the CSOA Citta'
Vekkia in the Southern city of Taranto, and calls for a demonstration on
10 September.
************
<ECN bologna E-zine n.02 agosto 95>
1) Leoncavallo - fax to Giorgio Bocca and the editors of *La
Repubblica*
A sarcastic response to a piece that Bocca had written concerning 'A
ghetto called Leoncavallo'.
2) Milano 27 August - BRILLIANT POLICE OPERATION AGAINST
LEONCAVALLO
On the carabinieri raid which netted some 'extra-comunitari' activists
and tiny quantities of dope. 'Once again social questions become
problems of public order...'
3) GABRIELLA IS FREE! The struggle continues!!
After 18 months detention the charge of 'terrorism' against Gabriella
Guarino has fallen apart, and she has been released from a Peruvian
prison.
************
<Corsera - by Leoncavallo (E-Zine ECN)>
A number of satirical articles sending up the Milanese daily *Corriere
della Sera*, following its campaign against the Leoncavallo social
centre and the latter's opposition to drug laws.
************
<Milano, 29 agosto 1995 - Comunicato stampa del centro sociale
Leoncavallo>
In response to the authorities' decision to forbid Leoncavallo from
demonstrating in front of the *Corriere della Sera*'s offices, this
press release 'reconfirms' the social centre's original schedule, and
invites all and sundry to three days of mobilisation against the existing
legislation on drugs - 8-10 September at their Via Watteau premises.
It also condemns the 'Chilean-style' police raids which have hit the
local neighbourhood in recent times.
************
<ECN bologna E-zine n.03 settembre 95>
1) TO ALL TELECOM WORKERS AND TO ALL UNION STRUCTURES
The telecommunications section of the alternative union FLMU invites
all those who oppose the 'shameful deal' just signed by the official
unions to meet and organise a campaign of opposition.
2) TORINO BRAVO E BRAVA : THE CITY OF COLOURS
In the face of the glitzy razzamatazz 'celebrating' the launch of FIAT's
two new product lines, the CSOA Murazzi calls for a demonstration on
10 September by 'all those: the unemployed, young workers, part-timers
and casuals' opposed to Agnelli's 'City of Colours'.
3) TOTALLY CONFUSED - OR JUST OUT-AND-OUT LIARS?
More from the FLMU on the role of the official Telecom unions.
4) ROSANDRA CROSSING: 5 days of self-financing for Radio Onda Libera
Program details for the festa organised by this Trieste free radio
station.
************
Leaflet from the CSOA el paso (Torino)
A flyer - rather different in tone to that issued by the CSOA Murazzi -
expressing opposition to FIAT's media hype. Calling for self-management and
the 'free association of individuals', it reminds us that there can be
'NO BOSSES WITHOUT SERVANTS'.
************
Italian COUNTERINFO, a summary of recent postings from the Cybernet
and European Counter Network in Italy, is a cooperative venture
between the xchange BBS (Melbourne, Australia) and the Padova node of
the ECN. You can contact us at pmargin@xchange.apana.org.au or
hobo@freenet.hut.fi
************

86
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001035.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,86 @@
SURVEILLANCE * by Dimity
How often do you look up while ambling around the city and see cameras
aimed at you? Walk on to a railway platform and become conscious of the
video pointing in your direction, go into a bank (often, unfortunately, an
unavoidable exercise) and be surrounded by the bloody things, happily
whirring away, getting a good look at your every profile, just in
case...Look up at certain high rise buildings throughout the city and smile
- there they are again. Why are we being watched and by whom?
"Security" cameras and other paraphenalia are designed to intimidate. With
camera's trained on your every movement, it is hard enough to relax let
alone do anything anti-social. And if you are opposed to this society, one
which is white skin and wealth dominated, one in which women are still
subject to so much sexual abuse, a patriarchal society with no room for
dissent, then yuo probably have some anti social antics that thses cameras
happily snap. The constant activity of the police helicopter, also taking
photographs, serves this intimidatory function. An American police manual
states "The helicopter possesses and omnipresence which no other police
vehicle ever had before." It has been said so many times that these things
are necessary.
"Security measures" is the offhand explanation and suprisingly the general
population accepts this. But I never feel comfortable when my every
movement is being watched and perhaps recorded by an unseen eye. To me
such measures have a sinister ring; the old "Big Brother is watching you"
fear leaps up every time. Imagine what the helicopter does to Vietnam
Vets.
I have been told that as a women, video's spying on every train station,
post office, bank etc, is meant to make me feel a little safer. A little
less likely to face attack, rape or harassment. However I know this is not
the case. If sexually harassed on a train platform even if someone is
watching behind the cameras there is no guarantee of help or assistance.
Considering the amount of pornography and the extent to which the
television has distorted peoples ability to react to a situation right in
front of them, we can't guarentee that the man behind the camera isnt
getting off on the 'action'. The eye is definately male, the protecting
strong bucket of hormones ready to save the lady in distress. Problem is,
the distress of women is a multi million dollar industry and that's just
the explicit stuff. If vido evidence was produced at a court hearing
there is still no more likelihood that the justice system will be any more
sympathetic to the abuse facing women in our society every day because the
systematic violence aganist women is an integral facet of justice in this
system. So those cameras are not really there to help and protect us. The
eye is perverse enough to look, we can only imagine what the imagination of
the eye could be.
A black American man is beaten to within an inch of his life by four white
cops "hitting a few home runs" on the streets of LA for a simple driving
offence. The entire event is filmed by another party and an American court
still can find these racist jerks "not guilty"
There is a belief that the camera never lies, but who can guarentee the
viewer's internal or beuracratic editing device?? At AIDEX in Canberra last
year, hours and hours of video footage was shot by protesters and media
which depicted excessive and unecessary police violence and yet to get any
one in "authority" willing to view it and take on the obvious inquiry into
police methods at such demonstration, has been a monumental and ongoing
unsuccessful task.
Surveillence is a power over other people. Early European prisons had
developed fairly unsophisticated methods of surveillence, but they still
allowed the prison officers to see into the prison quarters while not being
seen. Because they were never sure when they were being watched, the
prisoners did not have the freedom to carry out their most basic functions
in comfort. As films like Ghosts of the Civil Dead show, now we are the
prisoners, our every step observed, our words monitored, our freedom and
privacy encroached day in day out. And don't believe that it is only the
street level surveillence. Every telephone in the country is able to be
monitored. At the slightest suspicion of subersive activity, the police
can monitor your phone, record your conversations, stake out your
movements. The more subversive elements are documented the more
justification for increased money, powers and numbers the police have thus
it is in their interests to invite more to their bad taste party.
Kerry Browning knows the far reaching lengths the powers that be will go
to to keep their blood shot eye on citizens, especially those who are
politically active, usually under the auspices of drug investigation.
Hours of audio and filmed footage of her movements and those of her
household were presented at the court case, even recordings from inside her
bedroom. Other events that were clearly innocent household activities like
chopping wood were turned into baby massacres by the police in court.
Do not underestimate the paranoia of the "powerful".

94
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001036.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
International Socialist Organisation * by Dimity
Interventionist Revisionist Backsliders
The International Socialist Organisation - what is it? Certainly an
organisation - they are organised in crowd manipulation and disruptive
methods of fucking up potentially good demo's.
There is hardly a demonstration in recent months at which the ISO have not
been present. Due to the DSP falling out of many groups to concentrate on
the Green Left and other issues, the ISO seem to have a monopoly on the
hard line socialist front. Of course, there are exceptions: the most
recent one that comes to mind was Operation Big Mac, a protest against
McDonalds, whose environmental devastation, inhumane treatment of animals,
phenomenal amount of wast production, and its effect on the Third World
make it, year in, year out one of the Ten Worst Companies of the Year world
wide. A worthy protest certainly, so where were the ISO? Well it has been
said that the ISO believes McDonalds is a good thing because it is "working
class" - those comments came from several ISO members, straight from the
donkeys mouth. So, despite the havoc reaped upon the earth by McDonalds,
International Socialists (largely a group of middle class uni students bent
on glorifying and romantising history) seem comfortable justifying it by
saying "It's is for the good of the people - even the working class can
aford it ". Well frankly I hope they choke.
We see the ISO at protests like AIDEX, attempting a coup on the
sensibilities of 2,000 protesters by dominating every meeting and urging
people to fling themselves against a wall of violent, fiery police. And
yet they put out a booklet entitled "The Lessons of AIDEX", in which they
ridicule anarchism and women in the most crude analytical and factually
incorrect manner. The editors of their paper did, to their credit, print a
long letter regarding the errors of this document, the lessons they seem to
find it so hard to learn.
At the George Bush demo in Melbourne in January,l the ISO caused the most
incredible amount of irrational disruption. Protesters had claimed a road,
had succeeded in entirely blockading the area that the illustrious
president was meant to drive through until the ISO insisted (over the every
present mega phones) that the entire protest go for a march around the
city, thus losing the ground gained and clearing a drive way for the
president to saunter through, giving a two fingered salute and giggling at
how easy it is to pass by his admiring overseas public. The ISO voices
stated that anyone who stayed behind would be picked off by the police and
thus led people, motivated by fear, on the most embarassingly futile march
ever seen, rampaging through department stores and other city buildings in
the most ridiculous manner.
Each year at the Reclaim the Night march men are asked to march silently
behind the women marchers in solidarity, respecting womens voices in this
domineering male society. Each year men from various groups including the
ISO get up the front and scream over their mega phones.
Again, Dick Chaney comes to town, the ISO come to Collins street, loud
speakers in hand, rearing to make a mess of things again. If that is
indeed their object, they succeed with amazing prowess. While the ISO led
people on yet another futile march around the city, a nice big, black,
shiny limosine drove out from under the Hyatt, safely coureiring the elite
away. Was it Dick? Who knows.
It is important to think before you follow along - who are you following?
Any person who goes to a demonstration should ask themselves why. Is it
because some war mongering arsehole is in town shaking hands with brown
nosed politicians? Is it because you want to say to the government, hey
what the fuck are you doing with my AUSTUDY? Is it because there is an
arms fair happening and you want to close down the merchants of death? Or
is it to follow a bunch of megaphones, behind which are the philosophies of
socialism, but more that that, behind which there are very often undercover
cops and intelligence (sic) agents.
There is a rumour circulating that the ISO was instigated in Australia by a
certain intelligence (???) agency ( the one that has that nasty habit of
taking your photo at protests to add to their albums) a number of years ago
so as to attract a more radical element and keep a finger on the pulse.
Even if that is just a convenient and suprisingly understandable rumour, it
would be so easy, so very easy for such organisations to be infiltrated.
We are extremely naieve if we don't take this for granted considering the
amount of money and individuals plowed into surveillance in this country.
To laugh off the idea as the work of the paranoid mind is to not only
ignore the consistent history of such activity but also subjects your
child like politics to an eventual nasty surprise. Its so obvious. Think
about it. It's a great way for the state to keep its eye on the radical
"ratbags" in our society especially if the masses obey their every order
expressed at a demonstration.
If you need a catchy slogan to shout at the next protest you participate
in, try something relevant to any political action in our time something
like
"The ISO has got to go!
Hey hey, Ho ho!
ISO or ASIO?
Hey hey! Ho ho!"

127
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001062.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,127 @@
BOSNIA JUDY'S PUNCH * by Flick Ruby
Making the World Safe for Patriarchal Capitalism
The factors that inform and shape concepts of gender are; race, ethnicity,
locale, sexuality and nationality amongst others. As gender is not one
thing depending upon these variables, neither is war, so haw can we apply a
gender analysis to war and militarism? Cooke states in Gendering War Talk
that legitimised, psychotic violence depends upon a particular way of
constructing and maintaining gender identities. By placing gender at the
centre of an analysis of war, we begin to question the mythology : the
mystique of the masculinity of soldiering and of the essential femininity
of peace advocacy. After reproduction, war is perhaps the arena where
division of labour along gender lines has been the most obvious, and thus
where sexual difference has seemed the most absolute and natural.'
I believe that it is in the interests of the military and the state to
maintain notions of a warlike masculinity and a peace like femininity, for
what better force maintains the status quo in international, domestic and
private politics? War has traditionally been considered the quintessential
proving ground for masculinity and femininity has been constructed in
relation to this notion of masculinity. I believe that ideas about
masculinity are validated and reproduced by militarism, that war experience
is constructed according to culturally distinct gender expectation, that
war is profoundly gendered and its violence is sexualised. This is not to
say that there are inherent qualities in men or women because masculinity
and femininity are not natural but socially constructed and can therefore
be changed. Isn't theory beautiful?
Let me take you to a place where theories hit history, passion and pain
hits representations and politics and lives; the lounge room of my closest
friend who is Bosnian. The family sit every night watching the news in a
lounge room decorated with tapestries of bridges now bombed to smithereens.
They listen to the radio during the day and wait each night to watch the
ABC, the SBS, the CNN, the Derryn Hinch version of truth, the
disinformation, the news. In one room , in one family, sit Croation,
Bosnian, Catholic and Muslim, testament to the fallacy of the clear cut
splits between racial and religious groups advertised as the Bosnian
conflict. I sit with them sometimes, wincing pathetically, asking
questions that betray the luxury of ignorance, asking questions about the
Ottoman Empire and asking for theories to be answered through tears and
frustration. Slavenka Drakulic, a writer from Zagrab says 'When you are
forced to accept war as a fact, death becomes something you have to reckon
with, a harsh reality that mangles you life even if it leaves you
physically unharmed..war snaps your life in half, you you have to go on
living as if you are still a whole person.'
Drakulic goes on 'This war doesn't have only two warring sides. It is many
sided, nasty and complex.' another Bosnian feminist says 'It seems
impossible to over emphasise the complexity of the multi-ethnic,
multinationality composition of the country and the intricacies involved..'
It is precisely because this conflict has no obvious good and bad guys
that the Western Hollywood enculturated mind cant grasp the realities.
Instead, the 'it's too far away' mentality reigns under the banner of
'religious historical madness'. What is not mentioned is that two insane
world wars have a lot to answer for here, what is not mentioned is that
this is what happens in war, the terror, horror, gore and rape. What is not
mentioned is that some people are profiting from this.
Patriotic nationalism and militarism however are not far away at all.
Australia spends $26 Million PER DAY on the military and conducts and
participated in arms sales such as AIDEX and Aerospace. The complexity of
affluent 'first world' patriarchal-capitalist nations like Australia in
fuelling increasing global militarisation, in profiting from death and
destruction, implicates every one of us. It's not so far away after all,
when we realise that the relative freedom, the food and the secure well
being we suck through the straw of 'democracy' is refined from the juices
of the dying, the raped the tortured by profoundly gendered institutions -
the military and the government. Okay, so Bosnia is far away, you might
have to actually seek some information about the history, you might have to
have a shit detector on when you watch the news but this is simply another
event in the history of militarism. 'I used to think that war finally
reached you through fear, the terror that seizes your whole being; wild
heartbeats exploding, a wave of cold swear, when there is no longer any
division between mind and body, and no help. But war is more perverse. It
doesn't stop with the realisation of your victimisation, it goes deeper
than that. War pushes you to the painful point where you are forced to
realise and acknowledge the way you participate in it, become its
accomplice. It may be a seemingly ordinary situation that makes you aware
that you have become a collaborator.' from Bulkan Express, Drakulic.
So what happens to women in war? Bodies are rendered passive and
penetrable by a stronger force. The strict lines that create binary
oppositions like women/man, nature/culture, irrationality/rationality,
peace/war are extended to an us/them mentality. Certain ideas, concerns,
interests, information, feelings and meanings are marked in national
security language as feminine and are devalued, others are masculinised and
are valued. 'Leave the soft life behind, join the army and become a real
man.' As in all war, not just this war, women are raped systematically,
used as a battle ground and defiled as the enemies property. This could be
seen as simply an extension of the normal patriarchal peace-time war
against women. Propaganda shows patriotic mothers and wives knitting socks
by the fire, not the images of women in pieces, or of rape, torture and
hunger; neither participation nor resistance is shown, just images of good
women doing good deeds for the good men protecting the good state.
Women are used as labour and as symbolic objects that bolster the idea that
masculine, gallant men protect women from the enemy who are usually brutal
sexual. In propaganda you can see how war planners manipulate allegedly
private and sharply gendered relationships playing upon class interests,
racial fears and sexual norms in order to recruit women's bodies, services
and labour for military affairs. War and militarism distort the economy to
such an extent that social justice or welfare goals are almost impossible.
It is the services for women, if indeed they exist at all, that are the
first to go when governments spends more on weapons in peace or in war.
So war is not removed from women and children. If you are a 'third world'
woman you have a greater chance of dying because of war than any soldier
fighting in war machine. The 'soft targets' spoken of during the Gulf War
were the 200,000 civilians, women and children killed by technological
wizardry, the great wargasm. Military men give birth to wonderful
explosions. Klaus Theweliet in Male Fantasies states, 'Men are being
extended, transformed, reborn through the use of new technical media. The
bomb was a new medium, like T.V.; it has become the ultimate medium of
change through media - being (re) born without women.
As one Bosnian feminist says 'these new nation states function over women's
bodies. They need their national body and women to reproduce them. They
are fed with hate, and with the saparation of women. They are based on
violence against Others, but everyone is a potential Other, neither the
'sacred nationality' nor the 'sacred gender' is guaranteed any more.
Nationalistic policy brought in the war, the death, the war rapes, the
refugees, then the punishment of the ordinary people with an economic
embargo' Feminist writers who spoke out against rape as a war crime
against women, have been viciously accused of betraying their nation.
Raped, murdered women will never be considered brave, except by us.' says
Lepa Mladjenovic and Vera Litricin (Feminist Review Autumn 1993)

537
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001064.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,537 @@
GEMERAL FEMINISM * by Flick Ruby
The ultimate goal of feminism is to make feminism unnecessary. And that
makes feminism different from other political movements in this country.
1
Women consititute half the worlds population, perform nearly two thirds of
the world's work, receive one tenth of the world's income and own less than
one hundreth of the worlds wealth UN decade of women 1975-85 findings. 2
Male Identificaion means internalising the values of the colonizer and
actively participating the carrying our the colonization of oneself and
one's sex., Male identification is the way whereby women place men above
women including themselves, in credibility status, and importance in most
situations regardless of the comparitive quality the women may bring to the
situation. 3
"My own journey has been from unawareness to assigning responsibility for
my world," she concluded. "by understanding that the forces that oppress me
have that power only because I cooperate with them. These forces seem
impenetrable - the Pentagon, the Multinationals. They seem to hate the
world parceled out and under control. But I challenge them because they
don't create justice. I take my cooperation away, and I encourage others
to do the same. We can make change when large numbers of us act in unity.
4
"Male language allows males to participate fully in it, while females can
do so only be abstracting themselves from their concrete identities as
females. 5
"She wrote as a woman, but as a woman who has forgotten that she is a
woman, so that her pages were full of that curious sexual quality which
comes only when sex is unconscious of itself" 6
Men describe the world from their own point of view which they confuse with
absolute truth 7
Mechaniam, as a metaphysics and an epistimelogy not nly spread from physics
to chemistry and biology, but also to physicology, psychology, religion,
poetry, ethics, political theory and art. 8
Heidi Hartmann defines patriarchy as: a set of social relations between
men, which have a material base, and which, though hierarchial, establish
or create interdependence and solitaridy among men that enable them to
dominate women. Though patriarchy is hierarchial and men of different
places in the patriarchy they, are also united in their shared relationship
of dominance over thier women, they are dependent on eachother to maintain
that domination...in the hierarchy of patriarchy, all men, whatever their
rank in the partriarchy are bought off by being able to control at least
some women. 9
Feminism for me is the desire to remove the necessity for women to turn off
to survive, to accept the situation which is unbearable because 'everyone
else does'. Feminism is having a big shit detector which can make an
entire day utterely miserable because feminists cannot hang their politics
up on a hook before they go "out". 10
Feminist NOTICE. Being a feminist means NOTICING being aware of the
details, seeing as meaningful what most see as incidental. For this we are
accused of paranoia. The mind's behind ASIO, CIA etc play on the word
paranoia for one is easliy dismissed if one is paraniod and again in the
cloak of a joke the truth slips by, not taken in, registered or even
contemplated. All people who ponder the possiibilities who notice the
connections who are cracking the code of the powers that be are labeled
paranoid. And when people that you think you know start revealing that
they are the enemy, start threatening you, messing with you car, playing
power games that involve ancient words and symbols, when people keep popping
up to the point where coincidence seems inconcievable , you can get
paraniod or you can laugh. 11
Our humor turns our anger into a fire . 12
Power which can only be expressed deviously, secretly or through
manipulation is always suspected of being dangerous or evil." 13
As feminsts, we inhabit the world in a new way. We see the world in a new
way. We threaten to turn it upside down and inside out . We intend to
change it so totally that someday the text of masculinsts writers will be
anthropological curiosities. What was that Mailer talking about, our
descendants will ask, should they come upon his work in some obscure
archive. And they will wonder - bewildered, sad, at the masculinist
glorification of war, the masculinist mystifications around killing maiming
violence and pain; the tortured masks of phallic heroism; the main
arrogance of phallic supremacy, the impoverished renderings of mothers and
daughters, and so of life iteself. They will ask did those people really
believe in those gods? 14
When she does utter the unutterable and name this schism he has created, he
will blame the messenger and call her the seperatist. 15
They the masculinists, have told us that they write about the human
condition, that their themes are the great themes - love, death, heroism,
suffering, history itself, They have told us that our themes - love,
death, heroism, suffering history itself are trivial because we are by our
nature - trivial.
I renounce masculinist art. It is not art which illuminates the human
condition - it illuminates only and to men's final and ever lasting shame,
the masculinist world and as we look around us , that world is not one to
be proud of. Masculinist art, the art of centuries of men is not
universal, or the final explication of what being in the world is. It is,
in the end descriptive only of a world in which women are subjegated,
submissive, enslaved, robbed of full becoming, distinguished only by
carnality, demeaned. I say, my life is not trivial; my sensibility is nor
trivial, my struggle is not trivial. Nor was my mothers, or her mother's
before her. I renounce those who hate women, who have contempt for women
who ridicule and demean women, and when I do, I renounce most of the art,
masculinst are, ever made. 16
"But while the male half is termed all of culture, men have not forgotten
there is a female 'emotional half'. They live it on the sly., As the
result of their battle to reject the female in themselves, they are unable
to take love seriously as a cultural matter, but they can't do without it
altogether. Love is the underbelly of (male) culture just as love is the
weak spot of every man bent on proving his virility in that large male
world of travel and adventure. Women have always known that men need love,
and how they deny this need. Perhaps this explains the peculiar contempt
women so universally feel for men." 17
Talked to X yesterday and was slipping back into the old "well for a man he
has his thoughts together etc etc" and then you talk to the woman in his
life - Y- a bigger legend I'll go a long way to find and she said some
really hard things that bought me right back down to earth. 18
HE had no crippling doubts about his role nor about the function and value
of marriage. To him it was simply an economic arrangement to some selfish
benefit; one that would most easily satisfy his physical needs and
reproduce his heirs. His wife too, was clear about her duties and rewards:
ownership of herself and of her sexual psychological and housekeeping
services for a lifetime, in return for long term patronage and protection
by a member of the ruling class, and in her turn limited control over a
household and over her children until they reached a certain age. Today
this contract based on divided roles has been so disguised by sentiment
that it goes completely unrecognized by millions of newly weds, and even
most older married couples. 19
"Men are not oppressed as men, and hence not in a position to be liberated
as men. This dilema has prevented - thus far - the creation of a theory
(and a language) of liberation which speaks specifically to men. Everyday
language , with its false diachotomies of masculinity - feminity,
male-female, oscures the bonds of domnance of men over women, feminist
theory illuminated those bonds and the experience of women within
patriarchy but has little need to comprehend the experience of being male.
In the absence of such formulation, masculinity seems often to be a mere
negative quality, oppressive in its exercies to both men and women,
indistinguishable from oppression per se. What would a theory look like
which accounts for the many froms of being a man can take. An answer to
that question poses not a 'tragedy' by and opportunity" 20
"An aggrandisment in false apology is still an aggrandizement" 21
"The ruling classes of capitalist countries and their hired agents exault
bourgeois so called 'democracy' to the skies. But the fact remains that
under capitalism the great majority of women are inhumanly exploited and
they suffer from numerous disabilities, from restrictions of their rights in
public and political life, from degrading marriage and divorce laws, which
place women in humiliating and inferior position to men, from economic
dependence and household drudgery" 22
"To sell a brain is worse than to sell a body, for when the body seller has
sold her momentary pleasure, she takes good care that the matter shall end
there. But when a breainseller has sold her brain, its anaemic, vicious
and diseased progency, are let loose upon the world, to infect and corrupt
and sow the seed of disease in others" 23
The women say, you are really a slave if ever there was one. Men have make
what diferentiated them from you the sign of domination and possession.
They say, you will never be numerous enough to spit on their phallus, you
will never be suffieiencly determined to stop speaking their language, to
burn their currency theur effigied their works of art their symbols. They
say, men have foreseen everything, they have christened your revolt in
advance a slave revolt, a revolt against nature, they call it revolt when
you want to appropriate what tis their, the phallus. The women say, I
refuse henceforward to speak this language I refuse to mumble after them
the words lack of penis lack of money lack of insignia lack of name. I
refuse to pronounce the names of possession and non-possession, they say,
If I take over the world, let it be to dispossess myself of it
immediatesly, let it be to forge new links between myself and the world.
24
>From books films and experiences which afirmed that which we know from
books and films, we know what she/he wants . We act and react accordingly.
We react to his/her knowing what he/she wants. We count on that which we
know from books and films and experiences, indeed being accurate.
Samuel has make his way to my breasts. They remain lifeless. I still
don't love them. How dreadful that pleasure can arise even though I dont
love myself, even though love of self and love of another are detached from
one another, like talk and love, like work and love, like pleasure and
love.
He bows his head, at last he can rest it for a moment. I take him in.
Once again I look down on a man's head resting between my breasts. What is
he searching for.
I start running, Samuel disappears, the distance seperating us remains the
same. Is Samuel a mirage? Is my need to be nurtured a mirage? I would
like to put a stop to this at once, would like to move away from him, look
him in the eyes, talk to him, fall asleep with him. Is my vagina moist?
Is his penis hard? Have all the preperations been make for reuniting the
disunited? Vagina-Penis has become a surrogate unity, a substitute for all
severed relationships. 25
"Love requires a mutual vulnerability that is impossible to achieve in an
unequal power situation. Thus falling in love is no more that the process
of alteration of male vision - through idealisation, mystification,
glorification that renders void the womans class inferiority. 26
Men who want to support women in our struggle for freedom and justice
should undersand that it is not terrifically important to us that they
learn to cry; it is important to us that they stop the crimes of violence
against us . 27
The anger of the survivor is murderous. It is more dangerous to her than
to the one who hurt her. She does not believe in murder, even to save
herself. She does not believe in murder, even though it would be more
merciful punishment than he deserves. She wants him dead but will not kill
him. She never gives up wanting him dead.
The clarity of the survivor is chilling. Once she breaks out of the prison
of terror and violence in which she has been nearly destroyed, a process
that takes years, it is very difficult to lie to her or to manipulate her.
She sees through the social strategies that have controlled her as a woman,
the sexual strategites that have reduced her to a shadow of her own native
possibilities. She knows that her life depends on never being taken in by
romantic illusions or sexual hallucination......So what have I learned? I
have learned not to believe in suffering. It is a form of death. If it is
severe enough it is a poison; it kills the emotions." She knows that some
of her own emotions have been killed and she mistrusts those who are
infactuated with suffering, as if it were a source of life, not death. In
her heart she is a mourner for those who have not survived. In her soul
she is a warrior for those who are now as she was then. In her life she is
both celebrant and proof of women's capacity and will to survive, to
become, to act, to change self and sociey. And each year she is stronger
and there are more of her. 28
"Yes I too have been very afraid of my anger. But I think that if we can
begin to free ourselves of the lie we've accepted about what it is to be an
angry woman-a gorgon-if we can begin to believe in our anger as a healing
force, then our own belief in it as that will cause men to begin to
experience it in a different way. And our danger from them will decrease.
In fact, I think the reason that men are so very violent is that they know,
deep in themselves, that they're acting out a lie, and so they're furious.
You can't be happy living a lie, and so they're furious at being caught up
in the lie. But they don't know how to break out of it, so they just go
further into it. 29
Sandra Boston saw a scene in a move once that made a lasting impression.
A man was picketing the White House in the middle of the night, caring a
placard about stopping war. Nobody was there to see him except a night
watchman who walked over to the man and said, "You know, you aren't going
to change the world." The protester kept on marching but said, "I'm trying
to keep the world from changing me." 30
"Val gazed at her sympathetically. 'I know. That's what makes things so
hard. And of course, our sort of radicalizm is the most threatening sort
ever to come down the pike. Not because we have guns and money. They
tried to laugh us out of existence, now they're trying to tokenize us out
of existence, the way they've done with blacks, not very successfully, I
think - but their refusal to take us seriously at all is a measure of their
terror.
31
If pornography releases sexual frustration, why don't we send recipe books
to the starving? 32
The rebel sons wanted phallic power to be secular and "democratic" in the
male sense of the word; that is, they wanted to fuck at will, as a
birthright. With a princely arrogance that belied their egalitarian
pretensions, they wanted to wield penises, not guns, as emblems of manhood.
They did not repudiate the illegitimate power of the phallus: they
repudiated the authority of the father that put limits of law and
concention on their lust. They did not argue against the power of the
phallus; they argued for pleasure as the purest use to which it could to
put. 33
If I use contraceptives, I get sicker than I already am. In order to be
able to sleep with a man, I have to become a patient. 34
Nobody likes pain, anguish and fear; but Joanna Macy insits that we cant
act until we experience it. In her view, despair isn't craziness; it is an
appropriate respose to the daily news. It represents an understanding of
the unity of all life, and a sensitivity to the serious threat to that
life. When we drop our defenses and let grief and apprehension surface,
we are released from paralysis, and connected to all life. "Through our
despair," she writes "something more profound and pervasive comes to light.
It is our interconnectedness, our inter-existence. Beyond our pain and
because of our pain, we awaken into that ...Despair work, experienced in
this fashion, is consciousness-raising in the truest sense of that term.
It increases our awareness, not only of the perils that face us, but also
to the promise inherent in the human heart.." 35
The only way we can come out of hiding, break through our paralysing
defenses, is to know it all - the full extent of sexual violence and
domination of women. In knowing, in facing directly we can learn to chart
out course out of this oppression, by envisioning and creating a world
which will preclude female sexual slavery" 36
"Some days I feel dead, I feel like a robot, treading our time. Some days,
I feel terribly alive, with hair like wires and a knife in my hand. Once
in a while my mind slips and I think I am back in my dream and that I have
shut the door, the one without a handly on the inside. I imagine that
tommorrow I will be pounding and screaming to be let out, but no one will
hear, no one will come. Other times I think I have gone over the line,
like LiIly, like Val, and can no longer speak anything but truth...
Maybe I need a keeper. I don't want them to lock me up and give me
electric shock until I forget. Forget: lethe: the opposite of truth.
I have opened all the doors in my head.
I have opened all the pores in my body.
But only the tide rolls in.
Marylin French The Women's Room.
The smoke of the burned witches still hangs in our nostrils; most of all,
it reminds us to see ourselves as seperated, isolated units in copetition
with eachother, alienated, powerless, alone. 37
During the 16th and 17th centuries, Western society was undergoing massive
changes. THe witch hunts were an expression both of the weadening of
traditional restraints and of an increase in new pressures. It was a
relolutionary time, but the persecutions helped to undermine the possiblity
of a revolution that would benedit women. THe changes that occured
benefited the rising monied professional classes and made possible the
ruthless and extensive exploitation of women, working people and nature.
As paet of that change, the persecusiton of witches awas linked to 3
interconnected processes; the expropriation of land and natural resources,
the expropriation of knowledge; and the war against the consciousness of
immanence which was embodied in women, sexuality and magic. 38
Their customs were the expression - in actions songs, costumes,
celebrations - of the organic unity of the human community and the oneness
of the peasant with the land and its gifts. 39
And then he raised his eyes to her face and was sad. For sufficient
reasons he was very sensitive to the tragedies of women, and he knew it was
a tragedy that such a face should surmount such a body. For her body would
imprison her in soft places, she would be allowed no adventures other than
love, no achievements other than births. But her face was haggard, in
spite of its youth, with appetite for travel in the hard places of the
world, for the adventures and achievements that are the birth right of any
man. 40
"But it's hard for being punished just for what you are" 41
He stood, nodded, smiled, pointed to the seat, I sat, he gave me a
cigarette, I smoked, I drank coffee, he talked, I listened, he talked, I
built castles out of paper on table tops, he talked, oh I was so quiet, so
soft, all brazen thighs to the naked eye, to his dead and ugly eye, but
inside I wanted him to see inside I was all aquiver, all trembling and
dainty, all worried and afraid, nervy and a pale invalid, all pathetic
need contaminated by intellect that was like wild weeds, wild weeds,
massively killing the fragile gentle flower garden inside, those pruned and
fragile little flowers. This I conveyed by being quiet and tender and oh
so quiet, and I could see my insides all running with blood, all running
with knife cuts and big fuck bruises and he saw it too. 42
I am numb. I want to cry but I do not cry. I dont cry over rape anymore.
I burn but I don't cry. I shake but I don't cry. I get sick to my stomach
but I don't cry. I scream inside so that my silent shrieking drowns the
awful pounding of my heart but I don't cry. I am too weak to move but I
don't cry"
43
"I am underground, under water, eyes closed because of the bitter saltiness
of the water, wringing my hand in disbelief. X bashed Y up. My indierct
but very real pain hasn't screamed, just hummed quietly like the
electricity cables do. I feel like a big electircity monster and I want to
march up the highway, stalk my way leaving shrieks that haunt children into
their twenties and set fire to him. He said and did it all in just one
night. The betrayal, the hate, the shame stains my day RED. The red of
raw, the red of the blood that must have been shed. 44
Taoist China considered red a sacred color associated with women, blood,
sexual potency and creative power. White was the colour of men, semen,
negative influences, passsivity and death. This was the basic Tantric idea
of male and female essences. The male principle was seen as "passive" and
quiescent' the female principle as "active" and "creative" the reverse of
later patriarchial views." 45
"Do you promise me that behind that red curtain over ther the figure of Sir
Charles Biron is not concealed? We are all women you assure me? Then I may
tell you the very next words I read were these 'Chloe liked Olivia...' Do
not start. Do not blush. Let us admit in the privacy of our own society
that these things sometimes happen. Sometimes women do like women" 46
No movement has ever been more than an accumilaion of small motions of
people acting within their own sheres. In rearranging our lives, we
participate in rearranging the life of society. The qualities on which we
have depended for several millennia, which we have imagined kept us afloat
- power-in-the-world, possesssion, status, hierarchy, tradition - are in
fact sweeping us to ruin what is necessary to prevent that ruin are the
very qualities we have leared to trust - the flexible, fluid, transient
elements of affection and communality.
The past had its moment; we have ours. After a moment all life dies and is
transformed, transubstantiated. The end of life is the continuation of
life, the means we use to attain that end is the mode in which we live it .
All of us, victors and victims, and we are all both, are transitory. Like
the world, we are passing. We are like soldier ants, moving from a
depleted area to seek food beyond, in an unexplored terrain. We have
encountered a river that sepatates us from sight of the future; we have a
choice only to die where we stand or to enter it . The ants always enter
and drown. They drown by the millions, and in their death add their bodies
to a bridge on which the survivors can cross over to what they hope will be
richer grounds, as the devoured terrain behind them regenerated itself.
All of us, members of transitory generations, help to create the bridge by
which the past continues its the future. But if our lives are filled with
self denial, self punishment, empty rewards, illusory goals, and the
mutilations of power and obedience, then neither our lives nor our legacy
is worth the pain. Only pleasure in the journey can make thejourney
worthwhile, and our pleasure in our journey is also a legacy to those who
follow.
And if we fail? We fail: to turn the world of wicked Lady Macbeth to good
purpose. The goal - feminizing the world - is also the means - feminizing
our worlds. The end is the process: integrating ourselves and carrying
integration as far into the world as we can. There is no final end, there
is only the doing well, being what we want to be , doing what we want to
do, living in delight. The choice lies between a life lived through and a
life lived; between fragmentation and wholeness; between leaving behind us,
as generations before us have done, a legacy of bitterness, sacrafice, and
fear, and leaving behind us, if nothing more than this, a memory of our own
being and doing with pleasure, an image of a life our young will want to
emulate rather than avoid. The choice lied between servitude and freedom,
fragmentation and integration. The choice may be beween death and life. 47
New structures can emerge sucessfully only in resopnse to a new or
different set of ends. When we value pleasure - human well being - as much
as profit (power), new sturctures will seem to generate themselves. 48
It's taken women a long time to say why nuclear power is a women's issue.
We are the first affetcted by it, and that's why we have to take it real
personally. I speak a lot at anti-nuclear rallies - I get up ther eand I'm
(1) the only women and (2) the only non-white - they get two birds with one
stone! Women have got to demand that we speak, because men are dong all
the talking at the moment. We have a saying - Women are the backbone, and
men are the jawbone; and it's true in every society. I'm not saying that
we should be the jawbone, but that men be a little more of the backbone. 49
We must also demand that our politics serve our sexuality. To often, we
have asked secuality to serve politics instead. Ironically the same
movements that have criticised sexual repression and boring morality have
them selves too often tried to mould their sexual feelings to serve the
correct political theory. 50
Love, the strongest and deepsest element in all life, the harginger of hope
of joy, of ecstasy; love the defier of all laws, of all conventions; love
the freest, the most powerful moulder of human destiny; how can such an
all-compelling force be synonymous with that poor little State and Church
begotten weed, marriage?...
Some day, some day men and women will rise, they will reach the mountain
peak, they will meet big and strong and free, ready to receive, to partake
and to bask in the golden rays of love. What fancy, what imagination, what
poetic genius can foresee even approximately the potentialities of such a
force in the life of men and women. If the world is ever to give birth to
true companionship and oneness, not marriage, but love will be the parent.
51
Salvation lies in an energetic march onward towards a brighter and clearer
future. We are in need of unhampered growth out of old traditions and
habits. The movement for womens emancipation has so far made but the first
step in that direction. It is to be hoped that it will gather strength to
make another. The right to vote, or equal civil rights, may be good
demands but true emancipation begins neither at the polls nor in the
courts. It begins in woman's soul. History tells us that every oppressed
class gained true liberation from its masters through its own efforts. It
is necessary that woman learn that lesson, that she realize that her
freedom will reach as far as her power to achieve her freedom reaches. It
is therefor, far more important for her to begin with her inner
regeneration, to cut loose from the weight of prejudices, traditions, and
customs. The demand for equial rights in every vocation of life is just and
fair; but after all, the most vital right is the right to love and be
loved. Indeed, if partial emancipation is to become a complete and true
emancipation of woman, it will have to do away with the ridiculous notion
that to be loved, to be sweetheart and mother, is synonymous with being
slave or subordinate. It will have to do away with the absurd notion of
the dualism of the sexes, or that man an woman represent two antagonistic
worlds.
Pettiness seperates; breadth unites. Let us be broad and big. Let us not
overlook vital things because of the bulk of trifles confronting us. A
true conception of the relation of the sexes will not admit of conqueror
and conquerd. It knows of but one real thing. To give of one's self
boundlessly, in order to find ones self richer, deeper, better. That alone
can fill the emptiness, and transform the tragedy of womans emancipation
into joy, limitless joy." 52
1. Dworkin, Andrea Feminism an Agenda in Letters from the War Zone
2. UN Decade of Women findings
3. Adrienne Rich, Compulsory Heterosexuality and the Lesbian Experience
4. Powell &Cheatham This Way Daybreak Comes, New Soc. Press 1986
5. Spender, Dale Man Made Language
6. Woolf, Virginia A Room of Ones Own
7. de Beauvoir, Simone The Second Sex
8. Morgan Robin, The Demon Lover Norton 1987
9. This Way Daybreak COmes
10. Job Application, F. Ruby
11. ibid
12.
13.Olsen, Carl The Book of The Goddess
14. Dworkin, Andrea Our Blood
15. ibid
16. ibid
17. Firestone, SHulamith THe Dialectic of Sex
18. Diary
19. Firestone ibid
20. Sattle, Jack Men Inexpressiveness and Power
21. Spivak
22. Popora,N Women in Russia
23. Woolf V ibid
24. Wittig, Monique Les Guerillere
25. Stefan, Verena Shedding
26. Firestone ibid
27. Dworkin Andrea The Rape Atrocity and the BOy Next Door in Letters
from The War ZOne
28. Dworkin, Andrea A Battered Wife Survives in Letters From The War
Zone
29. Demming Barbara Reweaving the Web, New Soc. Press 1982
30. This Way Daybreak Comes ibid
31. French Marylinb, The WOmens Room
32. Dworkin
33. Dworkin Why So-called Radical men lovea nd need Porn
34. Stefan, V ibid
35. This Way Daybreak Comes
36. Rich, Aidrienne ibid
37. French, Maryln. The WOmen's Room ibid
38 Starhawk, Dreaming the Dark, Beacon Press 1982
39. ibid
40. West, Rebecca The Judge Virago
41. ibid
42. Dworkin Andrea, Fire and Ice
43. ibid
44. diary
45. Womens Book Of Myths and Secrets
46. Woolf ibid
47. French Marylin Beyond Power ibid
48. ibid
49. Interview with Winowa La Duke, Spare Rib Readerm Ruth Wallsgrove
50. Starhawk ibid
51. Goldman, Emma, Marriage and Love
52. Goldman, Emma Social Institutions

91
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001065.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
ANGER LOVE RAVE * by Flick Ruby
"Denied the airwaves, we trust in the wind to carry what we say
But sometimes we found ourselves shouting into the wind
When we should have been confiding in each other." CRASS
As political activists we are motivated, inspired, guilt ridden, angry,
achieving, despair filled, joyous, argumentative, passionate, suspicious,
involved, connected, disconnected, worried, hopeful, harassed,
confrontative, prophetic, burnt out, dancing. We live out our politics on
a variety of levels and I feel that we don't spend enough time validating
and supporting each other through the sanity compromising emotional process
of activism. The ways we work and the language we permit ourselves in many
groups only serves to drain and not sustain action, does not recognise that
the most important political resource is us. Often the response to this is
"Yeah, but there isn't enough time to deal with people's psychological
shit, this isn't therapy group y'know, this is political." I suppose it
isn't it political that the largest growing organisation besides the ISO is
the Charcoal Club, that we have to keep reinventing the wheel because
people keep burning out and falling out of the movement like overripe fruit
from a tree, or they end up joining a hierarchal organisation because we
haven't got our shit together with regard to a number of issues one of
which is the respect we have for our psychological health while being so
very concerned about social global health.
I agree with Robin Morgan when she says "Yet the basis of all ideology is
the experiential perspective. As a feminist, I know that the personal IS
political, and that an affirmation of subjectivity is the mark of an honest
and humane politics." One of the most successful movements that sprouted
from that politically out of it time of the late 60's and early 70's was
feminism and integral to the empowerment process was the shedding, with
others, of the psychological blankets we as women begin to acquire from
birth that suffocate us to death. Capo-patra imperialism really does get
in, inside us all, and not unlike sand paper, scrubs away at our soul. To
be aware is not necessarily to be immune and the contradictions we all
house clang around sometimes unbearable loudly. Our reactions under the
pressure of political work can sometimes serve to make activism most
unattractive to those `apathetic lazy bastards'.
My argument is that depressed, stressed and abusive guilt slinging
activists screaming a litany of apocalyptic scenarios is no inspiration.
But surely I am only talking about individuals here and about the lessons
of finding your own limits and expectations, perhaps myself? Yes (and sorry
to all snapped at and eye rolled at people in meetings I often rendered
paralysed by my toxic anxiety), but I'm also talking about a problematic
pattern, a mode of political activism which continues to separate the
personal from the political and is not creative in the ways it operates.
Too often the needs of the individuals that are created by the work of the
group need to be addressed in some way. Often the problem is not able to
be pointed at, it is about power relations that are intangible, or
impatience or you are not confident to speak because you feel like your
solar plexus has been surgically removed. At these times the words "I
feel" may need to come into a political forum. EEEK!! But when people are
busy with the who is killing themselves fastest and best list, or who is
citing the most reasons for cynical defeatism, who's got time for some
dork's ideas about needing some support with all these new thoughts about
them being a white middle class rapist and that perhaps some discussion
rather than guilt releasing lists and envelope stuffing for the dorks could
help the effectiveness of the groups political message. "Sorry dork, no
time, we're busy duplicating the very structures were opposing."
There needs to be some mechanism of self reflexivity in each and every
group. Feminism has taught that working through the shit of it all with
people is important. Too often those who can inspire and achieve change
have been separated via the mechanisms they need to know well in order to
smash; jealousy, fear of lack, violence, hate, rape, fear. The kind of
content I'm talking about is not necessarily heavy tissue boxes strapped to
the shoulder kind of stuff but is the courage to enter into the language of
the personal to the extent that is intersects with the political.
Specifically for men what I'm describing is terrifying. Being arrested at
an action is all very well and good but unless we are freed from the
permanent state of arrest in our own minds we are corruptible, cynical and
are obedient to the patriarchal father who couches heroism and politics in
terms of emotionlessness and revolution in terms of violence.
What we need to dare is some shameless idealism which comes for me after I
am able to break the vibration of negativity and paralysation with
laughter. As the `sun never sets on the brotherhood,' neither could it
career its path without the exhaling breath of those laughing in real joy
and love, urging it on. My belief in the existence of that somewhere I
realise now is essential to my political and personal survival, although
often things are not all that amusing. My belief in love and the need to
create the environment, physical, psychological and psychic, in which to
unfold and curl into a love purified of the dis-ease it currently harbours
and is the excuse for, is my most radical belief. It is for me the source
of both extreme hope and despair which I feel are the parameters of
existence for the political activist which I would like to see validated
and the process of sanity, I believe, could be made not easier but less
lonely if we see all people as agents of incredibly bruised potential that
need nurturing.

243
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001066.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,243 @@
ANARCHA-FEMINISM * by Flick Ruby
For too long anarchist feminists have been labeled as the ladies auxiliary
of male bomb throwers. The misconception and manipulation of both
feminists and anarchist principles and practice have resulted in the use of
sensationalist and ridiculing tactics by the state and its spokespeople.
This has not only polarised the general populace from potentially
liberation concepts but has also polarised anarchist from feminists. In
the past and more so recently there has been a uniting of these beliefs and
Peggy Korneggers article; 'Anarchism; the Feminist Connection' goes so far
as to say that the two genres of thought are inextricable tied although the
connection has not been consiously articulated by feminists very often.
Kornegger agrues that feminism "emphasis on the small group as a basic
organisational unit, on the personal and political, on anti-
authoritarianism and on spontanious direct action was essentially
anarchism. I believe that this puts women in a unique position of being
the bearers of a subsurface anarchist consiousness which if articulated and
concretised can take us further than any previous group toward the
achievement of total revolution.
While anarchism has provided a frameword for the transformation required,
for far too long even this revolutionary ideology has been largely male
identified; male articulated, male targeted and male exclusive in both its
language and participation. It has therefore been unfortunately lacking in
vital analysis especially with regard to the psychological and physical
realities of oppression experienced by the majority of the human
population: women. As Emma Goldman said of the Spanish Revolution of 1936
"Despite the impressive rhetoric, most frequently male anarchists retreated
to cultural orthodoxy in the personal relationships with women ...The vast
majority of Spanish comrades continued to expect their own "companions" to
provide the emotionally supportive and submissive relationships "necessary"
for the activism of the males". Anarchism has often duplicated the very
concpts of power it sought to obliterate . One of the basic tenants of
anarchist feminsm is that we are not prisoners of the past -
The past leads us if we force it to
Otherwise it contains us,
In its asylum with not gate
We make history or it makes us"
As anarchist feminist we are not asking men to attone for the sins of the
forefathers, we are asking them to take responsibility for the masculinity
of the future, we are not asking women to be perpetually aware of their
opression but to emerge from it. Mostly we are not locating conflict with
certain people rather than the kind of behaviour that takes place between
them.
Anarchist feminism addresses these notions of power, attempts to criticise,
envision and plan. Everything is involved in the question. However it is
from a consious understanding of the lessons of the past that presses us
into the future, however angry or embarrased. While it is not my intention
to analyse in depth the traditions of anarchism and feminism, discussion
of their union in the past and the barriers to this union may help to
inform both genres as I see them as both phenomenas of urgent relevance.
Definitions of both anarchism and feminism are totally anathma as "freedom
is not something to be decreed and protected by laws or states. It is
something you shape for yourself and share however both have insisted "on
spontenaiety, on theoretical flexibility, on simplicity of living, on love
and anger as complementary and necessary compoents of society as well as
individual action." Anarchist feminist see the state as an insitution of
patriarchy, and seek to find a way out of the alienation of the
contemporary world and the impersonal narture of the state and its rituals
of economic, physical and psychological violence.
The word anarchist comes from archon meaning a ruler and the addition of
the prefix "an" meaning "without" creates the terms for concieving not of
chaos not disorganisation, but of a situtaion in which there is
emancipation from authority. Ironically what consititutes anarchism is not
goal orientated post revolutionary bliss but is a set or organisational
principles which may redress the current obstacles to freedom. As Carlo
Pisacane, an Italian anarchist wrote "The propaganda of the idea is a
chimera. Ideas result from deeds, not the later from the former, and the
people will not be free when they are educated, but educated when they are
free."
Most of the focus of anarchist discussion has been "around the governmental
source of most of societies troubles and the viable alternative forms of
voluntary organisation possible", but has paid little attention to the
manifestations of the state in our intimate relationships nor with the
invidivual psychological thought processes which affect our every
relationship while living under the tyranny of a power-over ideology. The
above quote came from George Woodcocks anthology called The Anarchist
Reader who should be forever embarrased for citing only one woman briefly
(Emma Goldman in the role of critic of the Russian Revolution). The quote
continues "and by further definition, the anarchist is the man who sets out
to create a society without government."
Exactly.
How is it that revolutionary libertarian fervour can exist so harmoniously
with machismo? It is far too easy in this instance to say that "It is hard
to locate our tormentor. It's so pervasive, so familiar, We have known it
all our lives. It is our culture." because although it is true the
essences of liberty so illustrously espoused by these people have not
extended their definition of freedom to ther sisters. Why not?? It is
often a problem of language used by idealists in their use of the term man
as generic, but what is also clear in so much of the rhetoric is that the
envisioned 'proletariat' is the male worker, the revolutionary is a person
entering into the struggle that is the seeking of a "legitimating"
expression of 'masculinity' in the political forum staked out by the
dominant male paradigm. Feminists are suspicious of logic and its rituals
and the auidence addressed by a ritual language, with reason. Consider the
folloving examples and if you are not a woman try to imagine the conflict
created by such wonderful ideas that deliberately and needlessly exclude
you from relevance or existance.
"Our animal needs, it is well known, consist in food, clothing and shelter.
If justice means anything, nothing can be more unjust than that any man
lack them. But justice doesn't stop there."
"the objection which anarchists have always sustained to fixed and
authoritarian forms of organisation does not mean that they deny
organisation as such. The anarchist is not an individualist in the extreme
sense of the word. He believes passionately in individual freedom, but he
also recognises that such freedom can only be safeguarded by a willingness
to co-operate by the reality of community"
"An integral part of the collective existance, man feels his dignity at the
same time in himself and in others, and thus carries in his heart the
principle of morality superiour to himslef. This principle does not come
to him from outside, it is secreted within him, it is immanent. It
consititues his essence, the essence of society itself. It is the form of
the human spirit, a form which takes shape and grows towards perfection
only by the relationship that everyday gives birth to social life. Justice
in other works, exists in us like love, like notions of beauty of utility
of truth, like all our powers and faculties."
"Chomsky argues that the basis of Humbolt's social and political thought is
his vision "of the end of man"...the highest and most harmonious develpment
of his powers to a complete and consistent whole. Freedom is the first and
indispensable conditions which the posasibility of such a development
presupposes."
And as if bearing witness to the sucesses of the socialisaion process,
women too use this language as Voltairie de Clayre said "And when modern
revolution has thus been carried to the heart of the whole world if it ever
shall be, as I hope it will - then may we hope to see a ressurection of
that proud spirit of our fathers which put the simple dignity of Man above
the gauds of wealth and class and held that to be an American was greater
than to be a king. In that day there shall be neither kings nor Americans
- only men, over the whole earth MEN."
Well save me from tommorrow! Sometimes you have to edit your reading with
so many (sic) (sic) (sick's) it renders the text unreadable. And so to
what extent than has revolutionary ideology created and spoken to women
when the language, the focus and the freedom offered is so often clearly
for men? The fact is that women have only so very recently acquired access
to education and also do not often have the opportunity for political
involvement, consider both the physical and psychological barriers. There
have always been a womans voice in political forums and feminism builds
upon these tradition, theories and courage to create a body of thought that
specifically addresses womens empowerment.
As Robin Morgan points out in her book The Demon Lover, the left have been
dominated asnd led by a male system of violence which has created with
reactionary punctuality its "opposite" (duplicate) of action theory and
language. She argues that in the search for "legitimacy" that male
revolutionaries adopt the forums and language of violence and domination
that continue to oppress women but that because these fourms are seeminsly
the sole route for political transgression; that women are enticed and
engaged in the struggle that while purporting to be revolutionary it is
revolutionary on male terms and will use and betray her. So often feminist
have been abused by and asked by male revolutionaries to make ther claim
and focus subsurvient to "the wider struggle". From the women
Abolitionists jeered at when they gave a feminist understaning of the
problems of male drunkeness and its devestating effects on women, to the
suffragists accused of diverting attention from the war effort, to Zetkin,
Luxumbourg and Goldman all suffering the eye roll and brutality of both the
state that is and the state that would be. We see Alexandra Kollontai the
only women involved in the Russian cabinet after the 1917 Revolution being
exiled to Norway after all her references to the necessity of a feminist
component to revolution were edited and diluted. We are asked to stop
pursuing our cause and start defending it but to argue for the validity of
our cause that would imply we wanted "in". Even recently a once respected
friend said that "The womens meeting is on now, the real meeting will state
in half and hour." When questioned he added "the full meeting". The
fullness of the lack filling penile participation I supposed, lubricated
and made ready, as always in isolation. Ah but how can one quibble about
the sloppiness of language when it serves our purposes so well. Thankyou
Mirabeau for the following "Every party has its criminals and fools because
every party has its men."
Entering into political circles with men is an exercise in the risk of
compromising and being obedient to this attitude or in confronting it.
Ridicule is the worst, tokenism is little better and so gloriously rare and
acute is our joy when the issues are taken seriously that we could be
mistaken for groaning clapping seals unless we are already cringingly
braced in anticipation of the backlash of men genuinely perplexed but
inarticulate except in the socialised male response; defensiveness. But
there must be some way in which to address the political nature of our
polarisiaion as sexes in political forums which involve men. There must be
some way to point to the coercive power structures that display a hidden
elite, invariable of men but also of women. I believe like Peggy Krogger
that feminism could be the connection that links anarchism to the future,
both add to eachothers struggle not to seize but to abolish power, but both
go further than the socialists and assert that people are not free becuse
they are surviving, or even economically comfortable. They are only free
when they have power over their own lives. Anaerchist feminist say that
the goal is not to fabricate the new and artificial social forms but to
find ways or articulating people so that out of their groupings, the
insitutions appropriate to a free society might evolve."
Socialist organisations are popular with a lot of people who are flocking
to these groups because it is felt that one must be involved with a
revolutionary group,. Indeed. But their gender blind hierarchical
bludgenoning from the poduim organisations have a typical style of
interpreting feminist concerns and concrete grievances as irrelevant to or
symptomatic of the larger struggle. "They appeal to the women to suspend
their cause temporarily which inevitable leads to a dismissal of women's
issues as tangential, reducing them to subsidiary categories."
Anarcha-feminist have said that often the "definitive body of theory which
is so often the comforting cushion for male reclining, such theoretical
over articulation gives one the illusion of responding to a critical
situaion, without ever really coming to grips with ones perception of it.
With capitalism and patriarchy so safely reduced to an explination, we
distance ourselves from the problem and the necessity to immediately
interact with it or respond to other people." So often revolutionaries
deal with concepts and not people.
But while as anarcha-feminists we object to much of the politics of
socialist (as a friend of mine says "After your revolution we'll still be
us, but you'll be them, ) we also argue that liberation needs to happen in
small afinity groups so that people are not blugeoned into opinions and can
build up the personal relationshiop of trust that facilitates the grieving,
the sharing and the exorcisms of the psyhological though processes and
experiences that brought them to their politics.. This is often a sanity
compromising process or do we actually become sane through that difficult
time when we realise that the personal is political.
"Those of us who have learnt to survive by dominating others, as well as
those of us who have learned to survive by accepting domination need to
socialise ourselves into being strong without playing dominance submission
games, into controlling what happens to us without controlling others."
"To this end anarchism must start with a solid feminist consiousness and
practise it or it is doomed to just as much internal contradiction and
failure as anarchists traditionally foresaw for hierarchical Marxism."

73
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001067.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
HAUDENOSAUNEE
MOHAWK - ONEIDA - ONONDAGA - CAYUGA - SENECA - TUSCARORA
Mohawk Nation Kahnawake Branch
Kanien'kehaka A'onakerahsera
via Box 645
Kahnawake, PQ
Canada J0L 1B0
To: Jean Chretien, Prime Minister of Canada
Premier Mike Harcourt, British Columbia
Premier Mike Harris, Ontario
Be advised this date, September 7, 1995, that:
- Any further violence committed against our sovereign
Turtle Island Brothers and Sisters of the Shuswap
Nation, at Gustafsen Lake, British Columbia, or Stoney
Nation at Ipperwash Park, Ontario, will be answered in
kind.
- Those directly and indirectly responsible for the
murders of our brothers (one a fifteen year old boy) at
Ipperwash, Ontario, will be identified and held
accountable for their actions.
- Those directly and indirectly responsible for the
beatings of our women and children at Ipperwash,
Ontario, will be identified and held accountable for
their actions.
We have remained silent for some time now in the hope
that your governments could finally come to terms
honorably with our rights to sovereign control of our
lands and destiny. You have always said that all you
needed was just a little more time - as if 500 years is
not enough. And what have you given to our people with
that little more time? You have given to us more guns,
more bullets, more violence, more threats, more empty
fascist rhetoric about your law and order, all at the
expense of justice for our people.
Even your self-government packages and policing
agreements drip with the venomous intentions you have
towards our people and their sovereignty. They are not
silent on our rights. They scream out your intention to
extinguish us. They are Dr. Kevorkian's tools for assisted
suicide, that will kill us as surely as your guns and
bullets.
And so, we remain silent no more. And so, we advise
you that we will not stand idly by while you continue to
brutalize our people.
For the civilized record: First comes truth. Then comes
justice. Then comes the mutually nourishing strength
that leads to a living law and order. Only in a brutally
repressive fascist state does law and order stand alone -
like police state tanks and bullets.
The latest victims of your fascist state are:
Dudley George, shot in the back;
Nicholas Cottrell, 15, unarmed, executed with a
bullet to the head.
Rotiskenakateh
Mohawk Nation
Six Nation Confederacy
Kahnawake Territory

363
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001068.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,363 @@
Interview With Dhoruba Bin Wahad
Interview by Bill Weinberg
Veteran Black Panther and 19-year political prisoner Dhoruba
Bin Wahad (formerly Richard Moore) won his freedom in 1990
after a New York State judge found that the FBI had suppressed
evidence that could have helped clear him of his 1971 attempted
double-cop murder charge.
Since his release, he has returned to outspoken political
activism, and has been particularly vocal against the War on
Drugs. With his newly-organized "Black Coalition on Drugs", he
advocates decriminalization and "harm reduction" strategies.
After 19 years in prison - seven of them in solitary confinement
- Dhoruba Bin Wahad has no apologies and no regrets. He spoke
to us a week after speaking at the Cures Not Wars rally against the
Drug War in New York's Washington Square Park on May 6.
Photographer John Penley also participated in the interview.
BW: Have you seen the flick Panther? What do you think of it?
DBW: Yeah, I saw Panther. I mean, everybody hates the movie
who has some political consciousness. I see this movie in the
context of my own experience, rather than in the context of where
we're at now in 1995 in terms of the consciousness of African
American people and people in general about radical alternatives.
One of the things that people don't realize is how effectively
radical analysis has been removed from the debate around issues
that affect people's lives. There are very few radical or
revolutionary alternatives presented in debates around issues.
This is a direct consequence, of course, of the
Counter-Intelligence Program. The FBI's Counter-Intelligence
Program effectively changed the political landscape of this
society. It delegitimized militancy, it delegitimized
revolutionary consciousness. And the way it delegitimized that
was by criminalizing revolutionaries and criminalizing the
movement. And the criminalization process is continuing today in
the African American community.
For instance, you can talk about the War on Drugs. The face
of the War on Drugs in America is the face of African people, its
the face of Latinos. Its the face of people of color - that's the
face of the quote-unquote "criminals" who are the targets of this
War on Drugs. And this image, this illusion, is perpetrated by
the mass media, which plays upon people's emotions to gain
support for the War on Drugs. For instance, we have this new
term "narcoterrorist", which combines fear of a drug-ridden
society with the image of people who hate America and just want
to kill Americans. And the face of "terrorism" is usually Islamic
fundamentalists, or foreign revolutionaries. And of course the
ability of the state - and I think this is the bottom line - to
control the democratization of technology is directly contingent
upon its capacity to get the masses to subsidize and support
their own repression through the creation of foreign or domestic
enemies.
BW: What do you mean by the "democratization of technology"?
DBW: Because of the giant strides of technology, especially in
the realm of organizing information through computers and
electronic media, this technology is readily accessible to
anyone. You can buy a PC and CD ROM system and tune in to
some of the most sophisticated levels of organized information in
the world. You can tap into mainframe information banks. This
was unheard of as little as 20 years ago. As young people come up
in a society that's increasingly dependent upon information, if they
have this kind of access they could influence debates, they could
begin to think for themselves, they could begin to search out
other like-minded folks.
This you see in its most bizarre form in the right wing's
use of the Internet. They were building bombs on the Internet!
but this same technology means that people all over the world can
exchange information and have access to the same type of
information. Information is intelligence, the ability to make
intelligent decisions.
BW: What has all this to do with movie Panther?
DBW: The movie Panther - even though it is not an accurate
portrayal of the Black Panther Party - shows how the police were
very brutal and racist and functioned in a way that was above the
law because they had a mandate to terrorize the African American
community. And it shows that the way that we dealt with that was
to organize in our communities around those issues that related
to people's lives. And we showed that we were ready to stand fast
against that type of repression, and indeed, if necessary, kill
in our defense of these ideals. And three, that drugs - hard
drugs, heroin - were introduced into the African American
community for political reasons, to control, to misdirect and
ultimately to defuse the development of revolutionary
consciousness. These three messages come across clear in the
movie. And it is for those reasons that I appreciate the movie.
What it didn't show was that the consequence of developing a
revolutionary consciousness would inevitably mean that you were
going to become the targets of the state. And once you became the
targets of the state, there were no holds barred. And the way
they went about doing that, of course, was to first demonize the
Black Panther Party in the minds of white people, so the police
would be seen as having a difficult time at best, and therefore
you couldn't be too critical of how they act. And that plays, of
course, off of the racist mentality that underlies this society,
especially among white males, in relationship to black people and
black males.
For instance, when we something like Rodney King happen,
the jury can come back and acquit these individuals because they
rationalize, "Well, this was a big, black dude, you know, he just
wouldn't lay down, they had a hard job, so they had to do what
they did, how else were they gonna survive in that ghetto, so
what?" So once you realize that we are going to struggle against
these conditions by any means necessary, that means that there
are going to be those of you who are going to be framed, who are
going to be murdered, who are going to be forced into exile.
BW: That's what happened to you.
DBW: That's what happened to me, and that's what happened to
Mumia Abu Jamal. That's why Mumia Abu Jamal is on death row.
Which of course brings us to another issue - the death penalty in
this country. And if we really deal with the death penalty in
this country, and its administration and its purpose, we can only
conclude that the death penalty does not protect its citizens. In
fact, it legalizes the murder of citizens under the guise of
protection and law enforcement. In those states which have the
death penalty, homicide is not appreciably deteriorated. But the
new Omnibus Criminal statute significantly increases the crimes
that are punishable by death. And they make struggle by the
oppressed - when defined as terrorism - punishable by death as a
means of intimidating those who would stand up against tyranny.
This is what happens, you get electrocuted, you get a lethal
injection.
BW: You did 19 years in prison for attempted murder of two New
York City police. And in the interim, new evidence came to light
indicating that you had been framed. How did that new evidence
come to light, and what is your current legal status?
DBW: It came to light as a consequence of a long struggle to
prove my innocence. In 1975, four years after I was captured. I
filed a suit in federal court, in the Southern District in New
York. At that time they had the Church Committee hearings on
government excess as a consequence of Watergate and all that
stuff, and it was revealed that the FBI had carried out this
massive Counter-Intelligence Program in the African American
community and especially against the Black Panther Party. So
when I heard this - knowing that I was innocent, of course - I
knew that the FBI must have information about my case and I filed
my suit. They danced around for five years, and then in 1980, the
federal judge ordered the FBI to turn over all of their documents
that they had on me and the Black Panther Party in New York.
And they turned over 300,000 pages. And when we went over
these documents we found material that indicated that they were
working with the New York City Police Department every step of
the way and that at major junctures in the investigation into the
shooting, they had been present, and that they had taken in the
same information. But, unlike the New York City Police
Department, they didn't make like they had lost theirs. Because
they needed their information to be accurate. So I got some of
these documents. They were heavily excised, heavily deleted. But
after fighting over each deletion, we got enough evidence to go
back into state court and overturn my conviction. That was
another three-year process.
So in 1990, I was released as a consequence of this. I was
the first and only member of the Black Panther Party leadership
to overturn a conviction based on evidence received from the
Counter-Intelligence Program.
BW: Is there going to be a retrial?
DBW: No, they surrendered.
BW: How's your case going? Are you still suing the FBI and the
New York State prison service?
DBW: Well, yes. They're starting to surrender too.
BW: You think they're going to settle?
DBW: Yes, I do.
BW: How did you survive 19 years in prison?
DBW: Shawshank Redemption! [Laughs]
BW: I didn't see that one.
DBW: Its actually quite a good movie. How did I survive? Doing
chin-ups, man. "Drink plenty of water and walk slow" - that's
what they say inside. Don't let it get you. I survived by
focussing my attention on the struggle, on the outside.
BW: There's a scene in Panther where the Panthers raid a heroin
warehouse. You were involved in similar incidents.
DBW: Yeah, there was a place that the police let operate in
Harlem; it operated with their knowledge, and their pay-offs. We,
the Black Liberation Army, the underground in the black
community, had a policy of anti-heroin interdiction. A lot of
these guys who I grew up with in the South Bronx who were
selling heroin - they knew that what they were doing was having
a debilitating effect on the black community. They knew it wasn't
right, but they were just in it for the money. So the only way
that you could deal with these individuals was to deal with them
on a level that they could understand. They understood violence.
They understood intimidation. They understood controlling
territory. So we had to wage that type of struggle with them. Of
course, they had the police on their side.
So we would try to identify where they hung out, where their
processing places were, and we would knock them off. The most
heinous drug dealers, of course, we would have to try to make an
example out of. I can't go into that.
But the police used the drug dealers as their network
against the black underground. They would tell them, look, you're
not dealing any drugs here unless you give us what we want. So
they would use their network of drug dealers and informants in
order to get information on the Black Liberation Army.
This is not inconsistent with the government's relationship
to hard drugs and to heroin historically. We can look at the
Vietnam war, look at the secret wars in Cambodia and Laos,
where the U.S. subsidized the northern war lords, many of whom
were renegades from the Koumintang who were run out of China.
They brought their opium to the processing labs in Hong Kong and
trans-shipped that heroin to the United States and the African
community. And this was subsequent to the initial contacts with
Lucky Luciano and the Italian Mafia in World War II, in which
Luciano, in exchange for his freedom and carte blanche to
reorganize the Sicilian Mafia, promised the U.S. they would have
no labor problems with the longshoremen and that they would have
in place an underground network when they invaded Italy and
Sicily. And after the war, of course we all know that the mob got
lots of war surplus goods, they got fat off the Marshall Plan in
Italy, just like the old Nazi-collaborationist industrialists did
in Germany, the Krupps and the Farbens. So its not inconsistent
that the police worked hand-in-hand in the black community with
the heroin dealers.
BW: So these actions against heroin dealers were carried out in
1971 by the Black Liberation Army. Did the BLA develop from
elements within the Black Panther Party here in New York City?
DBW: This is true. It developed that way as a consequence of a
split within the Black Panther Party. It was an ideological
split, but it was also a split that was manufactured by the
Counter-Intelligence Program, and in certain respects by the
cocaine addiction of people like Huey Newton and David Hilliard.
The Counter-Intelligence Program was able to focus in on these
weaknesses in the leadership, and that led to a split in the
Party which, absent the government's involvement and absent a
certain amount of paranoia on the part of the leadership, could
have been resolved. But because these forces were there to make
sure these contradictions were never resolved, the Party was
split. And then the government really went after the most
militant faction, the so-called Eldridge Cleaver faction which
was mainly in the eastern United States. And this was the
beginning of the Black Liberation Army.
On the other hand, the West Coast faction of the party went
more into electoral politics and, not ironically, into
gangsterism. When they went into straight electoral politics
without the revolutionary nationalist perspective that we had on
the East Coast, they resorted to gangsterism. Bobby Seale and
Elaine Brown ran for office, and that really set the stage for
the first election of a black mayor in Oakland. I'm not saying
that their involvement in electoral politics in the Bay Area
didn't have a significant empowering impact on the black
community there. I don't think that was ever the criticism. But
its not coincidental that at the same time that they did that,
they were into gangsterism. The Party lost all relationship to
the organization that I had joined - politically, ideologically,
morally.
BW: Tell us about the work you're currently doing in Africa.
DBW: I'm trying to set up a Database Institute for the
Development of Pan-African Policy. Which basically hopes to
embody Kwame Nkrumah's axiom that before Africa could achieve
economic unity it first must achieve political unity. And I think
that one of the keys to organizing the African American
community here is to organize Africans everywhere,
internationally, around a common vision and a common perception
of the African condition. So I'm trying to set up an institute that
will develop policies, programs, and ideas, and bring together
people from the African diaspora around the world.
We have NGO status in Africa. We are trying to train
Africans in the diaspora and Africans on the continent into a
common language and a common organizational network, and
organizing information through the Internet. It'll be a database
institute much like the RAND Institute, much like any other
institution that studies problems and presents solutions and
analyses to heads of governments and people in positions to make
these policies into viable programs. For instance, we have a
center that studies the contemporary political, social and
geographical problems of Africa, and presents its findings to the
various governments in the Organization of African Unity.
BW: Tell us about your current work here in the U.S..
DBW: I work with the Campaign to Free Black and New Afrikan
Political Prisoners in the U.S.. One of the things we are doing
now is raising petitions for Mumia. Right now we have about
2,000 signatures. We're going to present those names not only to
the governor of Pennsylvania, but also to the president of South
Africa, Nelson Mandela, who we have a relationship with, and
hopefully encourage him to speak out against the death penalty in
general and against Mumia's execution in particular.
We also are currently starting to develop a mobilization of
young people around an independent political movement in this
city. Its still in its infant stages at this point. But there's a
considerable amount of potential. We think the time is right in
this city for an independent black political party. At the same
time, we feel the time is right for a coalition in this city that
transcends class and caste and gender. People in this city are
sorely oppressed, whether they're black, white, male, female,
gay, straight. We are all subjected to the Giuliani and Pataki
economic program, which is subsidies for the rich and subjection
for the poor. So I think that this city is ripe for a grassroots
political movement, ripe for an insurgency within rank-and-file
of organized labor. I think that all of these potentialities are
here, but many of us who claim to be activists are not willing to
come together and deal with them in any type of coherent fashion.
BW: What would be the stance of this party towards the left wing
of the Democratic machine, Dennis Rivera, Ruth Messinger, et
etcera?
DBW: Well, of course an independent political tendency in this
city would have to see the Democratic Party and the Republican
Party as part-and-parcel of the same thing. However, we realize
that there are progressive people in the Democratic Party who are
black, and who are white and who are Latino. And there may be
progressive people who have gotten into the Republican Party as
a means of organizing from within. That may well be. But we
think that if they are truly progressive, that they will support
within their own party the same kind of agenda that we support.
So the presence of an independent political party can only
strengthen their hand inside the Democratic or Republican party,
it can only enhance their position. So we don't see them as being
mutually exclusive.
I think that black folks and poor people want results. And
they can't get results inside an institution that's ultimately
controlled by people like Stanley Hill and other opportunists who
pull $100,000 salaries, who have no relationship to the masses of
people. I don't think that the communities want that kind of
political representation anymore.
(Source: "The Shadow" via Mediafilter's WWW pages:
<http://Mediafilter.escape.com>)

82
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001072.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
THE ANARCHIST MOVEMENT IN THE NETHERLANDS
There exists a national anarchist network in the Netherlands
who meetings are very poorly attended (about 15 people every
meeting). Its members don't do very much. They don't even
have a publication. This network is a kind of informal meeting
place for folk who call themselves anarchists and who don't
even have a political programme. The name of the network is
Landelijk Anarchistisch Samenwerkingsverband (National
Network of Anarchist Co-operation) or LAS.
In the North of the country, there is a regional organisation,
the Noordelijk Gewest van Vrije Socialisten (Northern Region
of Libertarian Socialists) or NGVS. It's members organise,
every year over Easter an informal demonstration. It is a
tradition which goes back to the 20s. In those days the anti-
militarist movement was quite strong. In 1933 it's members
bought a plot of land as the authorities had banned their
meetings. Although there had been a law in favour of
conscientious objection dating back to 1923, many refused to
take advantage of it and were sentenced to 2 years
imprisonment. There was therefore a strong mobilisation out
of which was born the NGVS, but now most of its members
are of the older generation.. Their quarterly, Recht Voor Allen
Van Onderop (Justice for the Underdogs) is of very poor
quality. There is also a rival grouping in the North, the
Noordelijk Genootschap van Vrije Socialisten (Northern
Association of Libertarian Socialists) who also put out a
quarterly publication Recht Voor Allen (Justice for All). To
explain the rivalry between the groups would take a lot of ink
and I imagine that even those most closely involved probably
are unaware of its causes. The majority of those who are
members of these groups are real ageing anarchist working
class militants
There are two other publications. These emanate from the
younger generation. There is the quarterly AS (anarcho-
socialist) which is published in Rotterdam. This is a
publication coming from an independent group of intellectuals.
Nearly all its editors are academics. The contents of this
publication are theoretical. Many of its editors are members of
a political party. Theirs is a fairly revisionist anarchism which
they call 'pragmatic'. They favour a... 'Libertarian State'!
Then there is Buiten de Orde (Out of Order) the publication of
a formerly anarcho-syndicalist group. The group is called Vrije
Bond (Free Union). It's not an anarchist publication in the
strictest sense of the term but it's adherents publish articles on
anarchism. One of its editors puts forward a 'post-modernist
anarchism' that is to say he makes a distinction between
anarchism and anarchy. In his view anarchism as an ideology
is dated. In Amsterdam there is De Raaf (The Raven). This is
the quarterly of the group called the Anarchist Federation of
Amsterdam (FAA). Recently, our group Vrije Socialist has
been collaborating with this group. De Raaf publishes articles
coming from a wide range of anarchist groups and individuals.
In Amsterdam there is also a weekly alternative paper which
sometimes publishes articles on anarchism, NN (this means
nomen nescio, unknown suspect). The contents of these
articles are also post-modernist.
PETER ZEGERS (Vrije Socialist - Amsterdam)
Contacts
* AS, BP 43, 2750 AA Moerkapelle.
* Buiten de Orde, BP 1338, 3500 BH Utrecht.
* De Raaf/FAA, BP 51217, 1007 EE Amsterdam.
* LAS, BP 189, 7800 AD Emmen.
* NGVS/Recht Voor Allen, BP 48, 8430 AA Oosterwolde.
* NGVS/Recht Voor Allen van Onderop, BP 37, 8426 ZM Appelscha.
* NN, Van Ostadestraat 233n, 1073 TN Amsterdam.
* Vrije Bond, BP 61523, 2606 AM Den Haag.
* Vrije Socialist, BP 713, 1000 AS Amsterdam.

164
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001074.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,164 @@
Tierra y Libertad - Film by Ken Loach
One of the many merits of Ken Loach's
latest film Tierra y Libertad is that it
prompts a re-reading of Homage lO Cata@onia.
Much of the film is, in fact, a recreation of
scenes in Orwell's book: the "parade-ground
drill of the most antiquated, stupid kind"
(chapter 1 ) at the Lenin Barracks in
Barcelona, the trenches on the Aragon front,
the rifle that backfires, the May fighting in
Barcelona.
John Cornford, a communist, fought briefly
with the POUM (Partido Obrero de
Unificacion Marxista) before transferring to
the International Brigade. Orwell joined
because of his ILP connections. In Tierra y
Libertad David, an out-of-work communist
from Liverpool, joins the POUM because they
are the first people he meets. Stafford
Cottman, Orwell's friend in the POUM on
whom the character of David is based, was a
member of the Young Communist League.
When David finally realises, after the May
Days in Barcelona, that the Stalinists are
betraying the revolution, he tears up his party
card. Flnally, when the POUM is outlawed
(there is a glimpse of the infamous headline
that appeared in the Daily Worker on l9th
June 1937: Spanish Trotskyists with Franco)
David's militia is forcibly disbanded and its
commander arrested - surely to face, like Nin,
torture and death.
Orwell (chapter 5) provides a timely
reminder of who the POUM were: @the
POUM militiamen were mostly CNT
members". He adds: "During the first two
months of the war it was the Anarchists, more
than anyone else, who saved the situation, and
much later than this the Anarchist militia ...
were notoriously the best fighters among the
purely Spanish forces. From about February
1937 onwards the Anarchists and the POUM
could to some extent be lumped together."
One of the film's finest s@quences is the
taking of an insurgent-held village. The
hand-held carnera conveys all the emotion of
the street-fighting and the panic caused by a
priest firing from the church belfry. When
capture the priest denies it but his shoulder
bears the recoil bruises. He is hustled off to a
summary execution for this and for betraying
(breaking the secret of the confessional) the
hideout of four young anarchists, among
whose corpses he is shot. The terrible
revolutionary beauty of the sequence is as
stirring as anything in Potemkin or Malraux's
Espoir.
The first thing the peasants do after seeing
off the fascists is to burn religious images and
paintings (when Durruti's men started doing
this in the village of Pina they were turned on).
Next, the villagers and the POUM militia hold
an asamblea to discuss collectivisation, the
heart of the Spanish Revolution. As Loach
himself puts it: "one of the few moments in
the history of mankind in which the people are
seen taking control of their own lives".
Tierra y Libertad, a Spanlsn-British
co-production and one of Spain's entries at
Cannes, opened in Madrid on 7th April. It had
some unexpected pre-launch publicity @om
Santiago Carrillo, the erstwhile Communist
leader. He gave his @pinion of the film in an
article entitled 'El fascisimo, olvidado'
(Fascism, Forgotten) published in El Pais on
6th April. He criticised Loach for reducing the
heroism of the Republican fight against
Franco, in Carrillo's words "one of the
greatest epics of the fight for freedom this
century", to the differences between the
POUM and the Communists. The next day
Loach retorted that Carrillo had been one of
those who had regarded the POUM as
working for Franco.
It should not be forgotten that after Franco's
death the Communist Party would again
betray the Spanish workers by agreeing to the
amnesiac transition that pretended the
dictatorship had never existed and which left
assassins in peace (notorious police torturers
would be promoted under the Socialists). One
current Popular Party Euro MP was a minister
in the Franco Cabinet that carried out five
judicial murders by firing squad in September
1975.
It is no accident, of course, that Tie@ra y
Libertad opens and closes in contemporary
England. Like Hidden Agenda, RiJ@Ra@ and
Ladybird Ladybird, it is an attack on the
values of Conservative Britain. Elderly David
has a heart attack in his council flat in
Liverpool and dies in the amhulance. His
granddaughter, clearing up, finds his letters
from Spain to his girlfriend, later wife. Her
reading of these letters ushers in the
flashbacks. The film ends with David's burial,
at which the granddaughter reads some
moving lines by William Morris. They
emphasise the point that David was an English
worker who never gave up the fight to build
what Auden in his poem 'Spain' called "the
Just City". As David himself says after the
forcible disbandment of his militia, only
weeks before Lister's 11th Division was sent
to destroy the collectives in Aragon: "If we
had succeeded here, and we could have done
we would have changed the world".
Orwell's account of the POUM militias is a
poignant record (chapter 8) of what it was like
to be in Aragon, in "the only community of
any size in Western Europe where political
consciousness and disbelief in capitalism
were more normal than their opposites ...
Many of the normal motives of civilised life -
snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the
boss, etc. - had simply ceased to exist. The
ordinary class-division of society h@d
disappeared ... a community where hope was
more normal than apathy or cynicism, where
the word 'comrade' stood for comradeship
and not, as in most countries, for humbug ...
to the vast majority of people Socialismmeans
a classless society, or it means nothing at all
... the Spanish militias, while they lasted, were
a sort of microcosm of a classless society."
The greatness of Tierra y Libertad is that it
articulates this, keeping hope alive. The film
echoes the enthusiasm of Orwell
convalescing in Barcelona, in his letter to
Cyril Connolly (8th June 1937): "I have seen
wonderful things & at last really believe ir
Socialism, which I never did before".
The day before Orwell enlisted in the POUM
militia he met an Italian at the Lenin Barracks.
He never saw him again but he became for
Orwell a symbol of "the flower of the
European working class, harried by the police
of all countries, the people who fill the mass
graves of the Spanish battlefields" (Looking
Back on the Spanish War). The poem Orwell
wrote about him near the end of the Civil War
ends:
"But the thing I saw in your face
No power can disinherit
No bomb that ever burst
Shatters the crystal spirit."
The "crystal spirit" of Loach' s film shines out.
FREEDOM 10TH JUNE 1995

209
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001076.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,209 @@
Stay Radikal!
"It was never about illegality as such, rather the promotion of
free communication and the conveyance of radical political
content."
- Interview With A Radikal Group, 1989
Statement From Radikal
On June 13, 1995, federal police in Germany carried out a
major coup against left-radical structures. At six in the
morning, around 50 homes and leftist projects all across Germany
were stormed. The mainstream media praised the action as a "blow
to terrorist groups", spewing forth the cops' line that the raids
were directed against the Anti-Imperialist Cell (AIZ), the group
K.O.M.I.T.E.E., and the illegal magazine 'Radikal'. The usual
stigma of "terrorist group" was attached, justified with
Paragraphs 129 and 129a. Standard pig procedure. It's a part of
German reality to have homes being stormed, children rousted from
their beds by masked cops with guns, weapons pointed at the heads
of individuals whose "only" crime was their work on a
left-radical newspaper. Even on the suspicion of simply
distributing Radikal, people were terrorized all over the
country, from Berlin to Hamburg to Cologne. This was the biggest
raid on the German left in years - the Kurds, of course, have
been subjected to such treatment on several occasions recently.
That night on the TV, there was little mention any more
about the AIZ or the K.O.M.I.T.E.E. Hell, we haven't enjoyed so
much publicity in a long time, as images were flashed of the
cops' Radikal archives, followed by a report of the arrest of 4
people for "membership in a criminal organization", Radikal.
Investigations are continuing against 21 other individuals on the
same charge. So we felt this was reason enough for people to hear
from us between issues. Sorry it took so long for this to happen,
but these things take time, as anyone familiar with
inter-regional structures knows.
We won't try to make the intensity of this repression or our
status in the left-radical scene seem any greater than it really
is. We always knew such a raid would happen at some point. But it
is surprising that such a hard action against a publishing
project could be carried out without so much as a peep from the
"left- liberal public". It's characteristic of the continuity of
the repression against leftist structures, even in times when the
radical-left is weak. The BAW [federal prosecutor's office] had
just finished in their failed attempt to criminalize Gottingen's
Autonome Antifa (M) under Paragraph 129, and let's not forget the
cop raids and the banning of the Kurdistan Information Bureau in
Cologne because it published "pro-PKK" paper 'Kurdistan
Rundbrief', so now they decided to go against other organized
structures of the radical-left in Germany - on the same day as a
Nazi letterbomb terror attack on an SPD politician in Lubeck.
It's clear that these raids weren't just aimed at us. We
were just a convenient excuse. "The action was an aimed
preventive measure designed to deter the left-radical scene",
said interior minister and deportation specialist Kanther that
same evening. While right-wing terror grows worse and the
consensus of social democrats/greens/conservatives in Great
Germany is ready to send the Bundeswehr on its first foreign
mission, it seems clear that the real threat is still the left.
The message being sent is clear, and by lumping together the AIZ,
K.O.M.I.T.E.E., and Radikal, it is that much easier to
criminalize the entire left.
Who We Are
We produce and distribute a magazine. A magazine which, in a
time of state control and self-censorship, is a forum for a
discussion of street militancy and armed struggle. Of course, we
aren't "neutral" in this discussion. We fundamentally reject the
notion that the state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of
force. The existing social conditions can only be changed if
left-radical groups and associations build up their abilities and
structures so as to be able to counter some of these effects even
today. This, of course, includes militant and armed intervention,
but these would be empty gestures if there wasn't also some sort
of linkage or means of conveying their message. Of course, we are
very happy when militant anti-fascist initiatives disrupt Nazi
meetings. So we also see one of our functions as exposing fascist
structures so as to make both old and new Nazis attackable, and
we think this is one very important aspect of anti-fascist work.
Of course, it would have been awesome if the cover of our
next issue had had a big picture of the new deportation prison in
Berlin-Grunau reduced to rubble. All people who seek to intervene
and oppose Germany's refugee policies would have been overjoyed
at this disruption of the state's deportation machinery. A
radical-left which takes the past 25 years of its history
seriously must discuss the successes and failures of the various
armed and militant groups, such as the RAF, the 2nd of June
Movement, the Revolutionary Cells, and militant autonomist
groups, and it must draw consequences for the future from this
discussion.
In order that we don't just keep looking back at our
history, but rather so that we keep up to date with actual
developments, it's important that we be active in current
anti-fascist initiatives or, for example, discuss the politics of
the AIZ, of whom we are very critical. We must continually fight
for the necessary space to carry out such discussions and defend
ourselves from state attacks. Radikal tries to do jut that, no
more, no less. We try to make it possible for various structures
to have a means of being heard on a regular basis. It's seem like
we're stating the obvious when we say that the cop attacks on
Radikal are, at the same time, a criminalization of other leftist
structures which provide this necessary space, like infoshops and
other magazines for example.
The present attacks on us, however, are qualitatively
different than past repressive campaigns for two fundamental
reasons. Firstly, we have now been declared a "criminal
organization", and secondly, it has now been stated that Radikal
has "entirely criminal content". A look back at the last few
issues, therefore, will reveal what criminal means: new
anti-racist street names in Braunschweig, articles on nationalism
and the liberation struggle in Kurdistan, an analysis of the
history of patriarchal gender divisions, an appeal from
non-commercial radio stations, debates about leftist campaigns
surrounding the May 8th commemorations...that's criminal content?
Before, the authorities used to point out specific articles which
"supported a terrorist organization" so as to criminalize them,.
Now the cops don't want to go through all that trouble so they
have just called the entire project a "criminal organization",
therefore the content must be criminal, too. But it's the mixture
of theory and actual attacks, discussion and practical tips,
which makes Radikal so interesting to read for so many people.
And we value this mixture. Radikal aims to mobilize people to
oppose Nazis and to stop the Castor nuclear waste shipments,
while at the same time giving information about debates on
anti-nationalism or the background of the origins of capitalist
and patriarchal social structures. What's more, it should offer
space for people from even the most remote corners of Germany to
discuss their actions or their difficulties, things which have
been ignored for far too long by a jaded left fixated on the
metropoles. The federal police have called this mixture criminal.
If you listen to what the cops say about all of this, it
sounds like some sort of cheesy novel. We are supposedly
organized in a "highly conspiratorial manner" with "fixed
organizational structures". It seems that really banal things are
actually dangerous. Anyone who produces a magazine needs "fixed
organizational structures", they need to sit down together and
talk about what should go into the next issue and how to
distribute the magazine, mail out subscriptions, write articles,
answer letters from readers, and so on and so forth. The only
difference between us and normal, legal magazines is the fact
that we have removed ourselves from state control, out of the
reach of the censorship authorities. Over the years, we have
built up an organizational structure which allows us to
distribute a relatively high number of magazines nation-wide, by
radical-left standards that is. As with other groups who seek to
build up open or hidden structures, we are subject to state
repression. From their point of view, the BAW had good reason to
act now, since all their previous actions against us had been
fruitless. Radikal kept being published, and there was nothing
they could do about it.
In 1982, about 20 homes, bookstores, and printing shops were
raided in an attempt to prosecute Radikal for "supporting a
terrorist organization". In 1984, 2 supposed editors of the paper
were sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison, but they avoided going
to the slammer by getting elected to the European Parliament for
the Greens. In 1991, the federal prosecutor exchanged the jail
terms for a fine. The next step came in 1986, when Radikal was
already organized underground. Now, 100 homes and shops were
raided by the cops. Nearly 200 court cases were opened, and in
the end 5 people were given suspended sentences of 4-10 months.
The wave of repression in 1986 - in addition to the obvious aims
of scaring people and just being repressive - had one major aim,
namely to drive Radikal out of the public realm and to lessen its
effectiveness. But that didn't succeed. Despite the fact that
several book stores, most of which dated back to Radikal's legal
days, backed out on us and left us with heavy debts, work on
Radikal and its distribution became much more decentralized. A
network of groups and individuals took up responsibility for the
magazine, based on their conditions. In 1989, the state
authorities went into action one more time after ID-Verlag in
Amsterdam published an interview with us as a brochure.
The latest moves by the BAW have again made it clear that
claims by the mainstream media and left-liberals concerning armed
groups - "Your attacks make it possible for the state to turn the
screws of repression even tighter!" - are total crap. Even the
cease-fire from the guerrilla did not open up any "new levels of
social debate". The defenders of law and order are continuing to
act against left-radical groups, who are all equally defined as
dangerous, and these are attacked at the same high level.
4 people are now in prison! We can't just forget that fact.
In any case, that's why we'd like to call for exchange and
communication with the solidarity groups. The charges against the
4 are as follows: They produced and distributed Radikal. But who
actually "produces" Radikal? Those people who send in reports of
antifa actions, or is it those people that take 10 copies and
give them to their friends to read, or maybe it's those people
that write a few articles and do some lay-out, or maybe it's the
people that see to it that a few copies get into the prisons? Or
maybe the BAW thinks it's those people that discuss for weeks on
end which articles should go in the next issue of Radikal? Or is
the ones who stand for long hours behind the printing presses?
We're not really sure who exactly the cops are referring to
when they talk about Radikal, but we know they really mean all of
us! All people who see the continued need for radical-left
structures for discussion and communication, away from state
control and the apparatus of repression. And all people who
recognize the need for women and men to become organized to avoid
being swallowed up by capitalist and patriarchal reality. That's
why it's the task for all of us to not accept this attack nor to
let it go unanswered.
We need an uncontrollable resistance media!
Read, use, distribute, and stay Radikal!
Powerful greetings to Rainer, Ralf, Werner, and Andreas!
Free the prisoners!
The teeth will show whose mouth is open!
some Radikal groups - Summer 1995

89
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001080.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
Bonaventure School - an experiment in libertarian education
Even though now it's been around for nearly two years,
the libertarian school Bonaventure d'Ol=E9ron had never
really reached the communes of the Northern Alps and
a fortiori nor did it reach Italy. So it seemed to us that
with a libertarian group in Maurienne, whose activities
stretched as far as Chamb=E9ry, a link to the FA
(Anarchist Federation of France) and a co-
organisational project with our comrades in Italy that
this was an area that should be dealt with.
The rounds were done between the 5th and the 11th
of March during which time we stopped off at the home
of some organic farmers in Ain, were the guests of the
FA group in Grenoble, and held public meetings in
Milan, Pinerollo, Turin, Chamb=E9ry and finally Saint-
Jean-de-Maurienne. A heavy week for the two
bonaventuriers, from whom we were able to verify the
energy of the anarchist movement and the Italian
revolutionaries who have, more quickly than here, seen
the abandonment and indeed the defeat of a mass
education system led and, up until recently, promoted
by the state. In effect, the government and big industry
foresee 'grave management difficulties' regarding the
administration of certain social services - one being
education - to justify their financial disengagement.=20
A first move will be to empower local authorities to
forgo their legal obligation to provide a maternity
education service - we won't have to wait long for this
one. Large local companies, heavily in the red, will not
hesitate to shut the school gates in order to relieve their
budgets.
Within such a framework alternatives don't seem very
possible. Only the Roman Catholic church has the
means to take over 95% of these scholarly
establishments, according to our comrades in Italy. And
one can't deny that things have indeed worked out well
for the bourgeoisie whose natural ally, in the homeland
of Roman Catholicism (as indeed it is in France) is the
state with its helping hand. This can be explained in
several different ways but that of which we can be
certain is that the states of Europe need a church that
has never really lost its political footing and which,
moreover, is willing to play the 'charitable role' of the
state which today simply has to play at social politics
whilst, at the same time, preferring that this disregard
for the conditions of the poor should not provoke their
revolt.
The underlings therefore will get their diet of 'what
they need' - an education of suppression and the
necessities to survive - no more. Under such conditions
it is tempting for the Italian anarchists to take advantage
of this space and try out the idea of a libertarian school
- self-management here and now, an education of
revolt, for autonomy and individual harmony..
Well of course the argument was heated between
those who argued that the state system offered the best
chance of offering space for the development of a
revolutionary libertarian education and those who
thought it impossible for any state institution to be
reformed and advantage gained from it.
The idea of the Bonaventure school came just in time
to rescue the latter's cause and our two bonaventuriers
were well questioned about educational matters and
also about the political experience they had had on the
Ile d'Ol=E9ron and it's region. In short we can say there's a
lot of interest on the other side of the Alps and we hope
to see one day (soon?) a libertarian education network
which wouldn't be a mean achievement.
On this side of the mountains the debate was
somewhat different (as are our situations) but we can
say that the interest generated in the single concrete
instance of libertarian education that we have was equal
to the Italian experience.
Considering together the twenty outsiders who came
to the Chamb=E9ry meeting (along with friends), when we
hadn't been to the town for three years, with a dozen
faces we came across in Sainte-Jeande-Maurienne and
a few lively debates - and finding a general consensus
view that social change is required one can say that
these initiatives in Savoy were successful. And a
success that was well covered by the local press. So we
will continue, for sure, with this project and others now
that we have proof that libertarian ideas and practices
can be popular.
Translated from Le Monde Libertaire

158
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001081.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,158 @@
Australian Trans-National Companies
Australians like to think that "their"
corporations are somehow different to
other transnational corporations. They
like to believe that somehow they have
different moral and ethical standards to
foreign transnationals. Well the present
legal debate about the plight of the
Papuan New Guinea villagers who live
down stream of the Ok Tedi and Fly
River has torn major holes into this little
fantasy. It looks like the "Big Australian"
the flagship of Australia's transnational
corporations has used every trick in the
book to generate a tidy profit for its
shareholders.
The "Big Australian" in conjunction with
the Papua New Guinea government (also
a shareholder in this joint venture) began
production at Ok Tedi in 1984. Initially
the company and the government had
planned to build a tailings dam (common
practice in any major mining venture in
Australia) to hold the by products of
mining. Unfortunately BHP and the
government seemed to have "forgotten"
that the Ok Tedi mine was situated in a
region that is prone to landslides and
earthquakes. In their wisdom they
decided that it was technic@lly impossible
to build a tailings dam. (In 1995 they still
keep saying they're working on it).
Instead of waiting to find a technological
solution to the problem they decided that
it was important that mining began as
soon as possible. Well you understand
they had invested lots of money in the
project and they needed to generate a
profft for their shareholders. So in their
unfailing wisdom they decided that the
local inhabitants were the disposable
factor in their plans (well they and the
government needed the money didn't
they) and they began mining. Since 1984
they have discharged over 80,000 tons of
tailings per day into the Ok Tedi and Fly
River. Over ten years down the track the
local inhabitants find that their gardens
and environment are devastated. People
who have lived in these areas for
generations now find that they are
strangers in their own land (an all too
familiar occurrence in many areas of the
world where mining occurs).
As far as the Papuan New Guinea
government was concerned, the
dispossession of the local inhabitants was
the price that the country needed to pay in
order to have access to that all important
cargo cult manna - foreign currency.
Unfortunately nobody had told the local
inhabitants that they were the disposable
cog in this little equation. By 1994 the
local inhabitants realised that they would
, receive no justice or for that matter
compensation from their own
government, so they, in conjunction with
Slater and Gordon a major Melbourne law
firm decided to launch a four billion
dollar compensation claim in the
Victorian Supreme Court. They chose to
launch their legal action in Melbourne
Australia because BHP the "friendly
transnational" has its headquarters in
Melbourne.
The launch of this legal action finally
prodded the "Big Australian" into taking
some action. In a move that highlights
the power transnational corporations have
over governments in developing nations,
B HP and the Papua New Guinea
government decided that the best way to ]
nip this little act of legal rebellion in the
bud was by the Papua New Guinea
government passing legislation that would
make it illegal to mount any court action
for compensation and make it illegal for
anyone to actually be involved in
investigations that could lead to a
compensation case. By this time the
proverbial shit had hit the fan because the
plight of the Ok Tedi and Fly River
people was not only known in Papua New
Guinea, but also in Australia and the
world.
The Victorian Supreme Court in
Melbourne has found the "Big Australian"
in criminal contempt of the courts and in
its wisdom has decided that the local
inhabitants have a case to mount. In
manoeuvring's behind the scenes the
Victorian Attorney General is about the
appeal the Victorian Supreme Courts
decision that found BHP in criminal
contempt of the Supreme Court. It looks
like the Attorney General feels that the
courts may have overstepped their
jurisdiction. If this appeal is not
successful BHP will begin its own appeal
process. We all know how these people
and corporations who have access to large
sums of money seem to be able to
manipulate the legal system to their own
lo@g ermadvantage.
As this saga continues, the OK Tedi mine
continues to pour 80,000 tons of tailings
into the OK Tedi and Fly River per day
and the local inhabitants have nowhere to
go (except possibly the sprawling urban
slums around Papua New Guinea towns).
It's amazing that BHP and the Papua
Guinea government have not learnt the
lesson of Bougainville. CRA and the
Papua New Guinea governments inability
to deal with the traditional landowners
grievances with the Bougainville mine led
to the closure of the mine, a rebellion
which is still going on and has led to the
deaths of over 3,000 people. It will be
interesting to note whether the local
people on the OK Tedi and Fly River will
receive any justice from the Australian
legal system. If they don't it's possible
that the Papua New Guinea governmen@
and BHP will be faced with another
armed rebellion. Those Australians who
have shares in BHP (the gentle corpoMte
giant) and many do, now have to make a
very important moral, ethical and
economic decision. Do they continue to
support BHP and squirrel away their
profits or do they pull their money out
and reinvest it in ethically sound projects?
ANARCHIST AGE WEEKLY REVIEW 168
PO BOX 20, PARKVILLE, VIC 3052
AUSTRALIA
Monetary contributions welcome!

216
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001082.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,216 @@
The Pacific and The Bomb
(orig: Focus on... The Pacific.)
The 'international community' has gone
into a frenzy of anti-French xenophobia
recently over M. Chirac's decision to go
ahead with 8 more nuclear tests at
Murora Atoll. But behind the noise is a
big stink of hypocrisy...
M. Chirac is the new bogey man of the
international community we are told. The
papers are full every day of the international
condemnations which are coming from the
EU, Australia, New Zealand and Japan.
French wine is being poured down the drains
outside hotels and the London Guardian is
running the usual French hate articles (15th
July 1995). Indeed no less than the Japanese
finance minister is leading the way calling for
petitions, demonstrations and campaigns as
'great things to do' and heroically calling on
us to, 'grandly get on board a ship and stand
in the way. As a politician, I promise to take
the lead.' Very kind of him of course and I'm
sure there will be tea and biscuits but Mr
Takemura has missed the point. They all have.
Even those liberal heart throbs Greenpeace
are happily jumping on the anti-French-one-
big-issue-bandwagon. The real issue is the
economic and military reality of the Pacific
region or, dare I say it, colonialism.
France used to carry out her nuclear tests in
the Sahara until those naughty Algerians
welshed on her. It was then that she diverted
her attentions down to Tahiti. But the region
is not just a nuclear playground. Susanna
Ounei, an activist in the Kanaky
independence movement (New Caledonia)
says, 'I am a little surprised that everyone is so
shocked about the French government's
decision to resume nuclear tests at Moruroa
atoll in Tahiti. Pacific islanders know there is
nothing new about French agencies doing
whatever they want, whenever they want. We
never asked the French to colonise our
countries. We never asked them to set up their
nuclear testing facilities. The main issue for
the people of the French colonies of the
Pacific remains independence'(1). Perhaps not
surprisingly also is the fact that the French
State is not too keen on the idea of
independence for its colonies in the region
knowing that for the islands in the region to
develop any degree of autonomy would be
the one sure way of ensuring the French state
can't do an Algerian and welsh in turn on any
climbdown Chancellor Kohl may extract from
them on this issue. The French State
recognises the importance of keeping the
locals in check by means of terror if
necessary. When, in May 1985, a small
demonstration against the visit of a French
nuclear submarine in the region went ahead in
Noumea the French military murdered in cold
blood an 18 year old protester.
THE AUSTRALIAN CONNECTION
The French capitalists know which side their
bread is buttered. The New Caledonia area is
the second largest exporter of nickel in the
world with about 33% of known reserves (the
sea may contain up to three times the mineral
wealth which has been found on land) not to
mention chrome and cobalt which are both
important for military purposes. And when
France wants uranium it's Australia who
obliges. As Ounei puts it, 'Australia is yelling
in front of everybody that the French nuclear
tests must stop, but behind the scenes they are
reinforcing the position of France by selling
them uranium. They are the best ally of and
the warranty for France, as the tests that will
poison the whole Pacific begin in Tahiti.'
Australian military officers also recently
attended French military exercises in the
region as 'observers' in a 'regional conflict
scenario'. She may now be shedding crocodile
tears over M. Chirac's decision but she's at
one with him on the independence issue as
shown by her track record in Bougainville
and her opposition to any form of autonomy
for the people of East Timor.
Australia with US backing - another major
player in the region - takes on the burden of
pursuing 'Western interests' in the region by
hosting US military bases and by her military
alliance with the US through the ANZUS
treaty. The US is of course an old hand in
things military. Here she maintains a
dangerous chemical weapons incinerator on
Johnston atoll in defiance of Pacific opinion.
US nuclear-powered and armed warships
cruise the Pacific. M. Chirac has played into
her hands on this issue as a short article in The
Age recently reveals saying that the US
military are considering the resumption of
nuclear testing in the light of M. Chirac's
move. It was explained by an official that
they have to make sure that they 'will work
properly on the day'. So forget about
deterrence and put it in your diary.
Even when Australia pushed for what was
laughingly called the South Pacific Nuclear-
Free Zone Treaty in 1985 she didn't try to
stop nuclear ship visits, the presence of US
bases in the region or her Uranium exports.
However, even this weak brew could not be
stomached by the UK, US and France who
declined to give their autographs.
THE OLD AMERICAN DISORDER HAS
ARRIVED
Of course the military set-up compliments the
economic exploitation of the region. The
region systematically has its economies prized
open to the usual stories of the 'free' trade and
privatisation rather than dealing with the
needs of the people. Here the Australian
government proudly boasts that Australian
companies have 'enormous influence on the
economies of the Pacific' which is shorthand
for the fact that she exports five times more,
mainly manufactured and processed
foodstuffs, to the region than she imports,
primarily minerals and raw materials.
The French also are in on the game with
7,000,000 square kilometres of the Pacific
inside her exclusive economic zones. Here
there are huge investments in the mining and
tourist industries. France has flooded its
Pacific possessions with migrants from France
to outnumber the local inhabitants. This
policy has been most thorough in Kanaky
(New Caledonia), where the proportion of
indigenous people in the island's population
has declined from 52% in 1951 to 44%
today. In Tahiti, 30,000 Europeans hold
down the best paying jobs, while the more
than 70,000 Maohi people are unemployed or
hold the lowest paying, unskilled jobs. In
Tahiti and Kanaky, there is an apartheid-like
gulf between the rich and poor.
THE LIBERATORS SELL OUT
It's not an unfamiliar story of course. Moves
by the local peoples to try to achieve some
degree of autonomy have largely failed due to
the fact that they went down the wrong route
on this issue. In Kanaky the Kanak Socialist
National Liberation Front (FLNKS) of the
1980s proved about as useful to the people as
it name suggests it would. After a particularly
unpleasant massacre of Kanaks by French
troops in the late 80s the FLNKS signed the
Matignon Accords with the French in 1988
which included various empty promises.
Although some opposed the move from within
the movement many were happy to be
coopted into the French master plan in return
for a few crumbs of power and were drawn
into the administration of FLNKS-run areas.
Since then France has continued to allow the
arrival of immigrants, and new investment has
overwhelmingly favoured the southern
province where Europeans are concentrated.
So much for the 'liberation' movement.
In the final analysis though some form of
independent development must be achieved
by the Pacific islanders if they are to avoid
what is otherwise an inevitable future.
Radicals in the West would do better to enjoy
their French wines (if they can afford them)
and listen carefully to M. Chirac when he
reiterates time and time again that the
international community cannot interfere with
what the French decide to do on their own
territory. Until the people in the Pacific
region manage to start setting up the
structures which may lead to some measure of
independent development they will not shake
off the colonial yoke. However, the future
looks bleak for them to say the least.
(1) Much of the information for this article comes
from Green Left Weekly #188 contactable at
212-979-0471 (USA number) or
nyt@blythe.org
-----------------
FREEDOM -Anarchist fortnightly Vol 56 No 15
84b, Whitechapel High St.,
London,
E1 7QX

217
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001086.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,217 @@
VENEZUELA - GOLD AND ECOCIDE
With the enthusiastic complicity of the State and the
participation of Canadian, US, British and S African
transnational mining companies, Venezuela is seeing
the setting up of a project promoting the immediate
exploitation of a rich gold reserve which, according
to its promoters and beneficiaries, will turn out to be
the discovery of the famous El Dorado - sought after
so remorselessly in the 16th century by Europeans in
these lands. We are talking of between 8 and 12
thousand tons of probable reserves which would
represent 10% of world stock with a current market
value of 140 thousand million dollars. And if that
were not all we are supposedly speaking of a high
quality mineral with extraction of 8, 12 or even 16
grams of gold for every ton of processed material,
which compares very favourably with the production
from S African seams which give an average of 4
grams per ton. So it is not strange that people have
noticed a certain 'gold fever' which has been fed with
the notion that the richness will prove a solution to
the grave economic difficulties that the country
experienced during the 1980s.
Before 1991 gold extraction on a wide scale was
under the jurisdiction of the State which showed
little interest since oil was more profitable and it
maintained only modest production from the old
seams of El Callao which never went over 12 tons
p.a. and allowed for small scale mining by crafts
people to extract a small tonnage of alluvium gold.
But since then, inspired by the neo-liberal economic
programme a process was set up to give out big
contracts for gold exploitation which, up until 1994
had contracted out 436 sites over a surface of
1,283,882 hectares, nearly 12,839 Kms2 with a
projected figure of 30,000 km2 (an area nearly the
size of Belgium or Catalunya and slightly bigger than
the Venezuelan Andean region). Official and private
voices speak of production figures for the year 2000
of between 40 and 60 tons, turning the country into
one of the major world producers and giving jobs to
some 120,000 people and a national revenue of 250
million dollars p.a. Activity at the first major mine
will begin in 1996 (Las Cristinas in the state of
Bolivar and run by the Canadian company Placer
Dome) and will yield 300,000 ounces of gold p.a.
i.e. 9,331 tons.
But this promised bonanza poses an enormous
ecological problem: gold mining is only possible to
the South of the Orinoco river in the vast region of
Guayana, which, like the rest of the Amazon river
basin has unique biodiversity characteristics whose
preservation is vital and where human intervention
must be measured against the highest standards in
order not to upset the balance of this the greatest
example of natural complexity in the world and
which makes Venezuela the fourth country in the
world with regard to bio diversity. Guayana is made
up of 44% of Venezuelan territory but with only
5.5% of its population which is mainly concentrated
in a small area near Orinocco, the rest of the area
having remained relatively free from the predatory
intervention of the State and capitalism. The mining
potential of Guayana (gold, diamonds, bauxite, iron,
radioactive materials, titanium etc.) has been known
about and exploited for some time but the areas
where these activities have taken place, the methods
used to pursue them and their impact on the
ecosystem has scarcely affected this vast area
(although the environmental disasters caused by
small mines, state technocrats and landowners has
already caused some damage in certain areas).
Now with the new dreams of gold the danger has
grown and what we are currently seeing confirms
this fear. We are now seeing the same process of
handing out contracts which, as one might expect of
the Venezuelan State has been accompanied by all
sorts of vice and corruption whose greatest
perpetrators have been the successive presidents of
the Venezuelan Corporation of Guayana and the
Energy ministers (especially the current Erwin
Arrieta, also general secretary of OPEC) accused of
being, either directly or through front men, the main
receivers of mining permits which they then sell on
to the TNCs in exchange for handsome commissions.
These corrupt handouts even include areas which
have been specifically excluded by legislation which
set up the Canaima National Park (where one can
see those extraordinary geographic formations
known as 'tepui' and the highest waterfall in the
world the Cherun Meru or Salto Angel) where 18
contracts have been signed giving away about 5,000
hectares in the North of the Park. Other natural
sanctuaries have been affected such as the Southern
Protected Zone of the State of Bolivar, from whence
spring the biggest rivers in the country and the Forest
Reserve of Imateca which suffers 40% of the mining
activities in the region despite the promises of the
bureaucracy which claims to protect it. With regard
to the Amazon State mining activity is proceeding
apace in order to render obsolete any attempt to put
a brake on its activities which in reality is becoming
more and more a *fait accompli*
* * *
The fatal impact represented by the mining 'boom' on
the indigenous population of Guayana is self-
evident. This group is made up of some 8,000 people
from Pemon, Yanomani, Piaroa, Guakibo, Yekwana
and another 17 ethnic groups (25% of the countries
aboriginal population and 80% of its auchtonomous
groups. For them, the occupants of history perfectly
integrated within this fragile environment, such
ecocide represents a direct genocidal attack which
dates back considerably but which has recently
become more acute due to the aggressive re-
emergence of those small mines (in Brazil called
'garimpeiros') who are the shock troops in the
territorial occupation and mineral exploitation
whose forthcoming benefactors will be more
powerful. It has been calculated that there are some
30,000 of these mines in the region and this
destructive activity ranges from the poisoning of
rivers and lands with mercury (in Curoni they are
mining 3,000 kg of this material p.a. which is highly
toxic and is used to separate gold from other
minerals) and including water contamination and
sediment disturbance (the river Curoni in 1982 had
an average content flow of 4,500 tons per day of
such water; in 1995 it has 10,500 per day) and
culminating in the murder and human rights
violations of large numbers of indigenous people.
With calculated hypocrisy the defenders of the TNC
mining establishment maintain they are unmasking
the crude damage caused by the 'garimpeiros' arguing
that they are promoting a 'more rational and
ecologically more sustainable' exploitation.
However, there has been no previous experience of
an open cast mining system in tropical areas where
its introduction has not produced irreparable damage
nor is there a single scientific work published which
confirms what the mining companies are saying. In
fact the technology that will be used by Cristalex,
Yellow Jack, Monarch or Placer Dome is the same
which is used outside the tropics and will not be
challenged by the complacent attitude towards
environmental protection which the State will
undoubtedly assume in order 'not to upset foreign
investors' which shows clearly, that which we have
no hesitation in qualifying as, the greatest threat to
the ecology of the region. That this is no
exaggeration was confirmed on the 19th August
when one and a half million litres of cyanide waste
were poured into the Omai and Esequibo rivers near
Guayana causing the worst ecological disaster in this
country as a result of the activities of a gold
subsidiary owned by TNCs in the US and Canada.
Moreover the demands for profit which would allow
these companies to operate put such pressure on the
State so that it not only cedes to demands for lower
taxes, export of profit but also all kinds of 'indirect
advantages' (cheap energy, communications, various
public works etc.) not to mention the secret demands
relating to the over exploitation of the workforce
where its history in S. Africa, Brazil or the
Dominican Republic is a grave portent of what can
be expected by the workforce. It will be in this way
that the supposed wonders of the golden illusion
will disappear in a puff of smoke without
compensation for the great economic, ecological,
social and cultural costs that it will inflict.
There has been a response to the situation,
emanating from ecological and pro Venezuelan
indigenous people's groups organised in 1995 and
forming the National Co-ordination against Mining
which by means of actions, documents and
declarations has attempted to bring attention to the
problem. Of course the lovers of power and the
wider media have attempted to minimise this voice of
dissent and imposed the agreement of the
'respectable' voice of the country which belongs to
the marvels of the mining companies and their
governmental cohorts. Despite this a level of
consciousness has been reached and some debate has
occurred relating to this issue between those who are
interested in the ecological and indigenous question
forcing Congress to deal with the issue which in turn
has frozen the process of contract signing since the
end of 1994 and so that the Procurator General ,
very recently, declared the whole process illegal. We
do not believe that this means that the government of
Rafael Caldera has decided to give up on the neo-
liberal policies for the gold mining industry but
rather that these are simply manoeuvres to distract
and pacify potential opponents and to simply moor a
business which promises to be so profitable for its
beneficiaries and so catastrophic for the Amazonian
Venezuelans. However, we must keep up our vigil
and not give up in our opposition to that which is
being prepared for us.
Note: To lend support to this campaign and to get
more up to date information write to:- Coordinadora
Nacional Contra la Mineria c/o GIDA; Apartado
Postal 47450; Caracas 1041-A; Venezuela.
(Colectivo Plum@ - Revista CORREO A;
Venezuela)

74
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001088.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
Hi Everyone,
Here`s a very quick report back of the Northern
anarchist Network conference, held in Leeds last weekend. Please note
this is a subjective viewpoint.
The conference started off with a short plenary which set the tone of
the conference as decided at the last get together, i.e. it would be based
more on skill sharing and practical work than on theory, although the two
are relatively inseperable.
The first workshop was on everday struggles and was introduced by
Albert Meltzer. The workshop covered the idea of solidarity centres which
anarchists should set up, where the community could have a place to
organise and get advice about their everday struggles in the workplace
and the community. The workshop then moved on to how to spread the
message of anarchism in the wider community. The need to link up single
issue struggles together to try and offer a more universal outlook was
covered as was the need to spread the anarchists message more widely and
to attempt to escape from the political ghetto.
The second workshop was based around Anarchist Black Cross, and
supporting political prisoners. This took the form of addressing the
practicalities for supporting prisoners for people who may not have
written before i.e. what to say to break the ice, how not to jeprodise a
prisoners liberty, and basically a reminder to put the prisoner first and
to ask for what _they_ want. The workshop then moved on to what could be
acheived by the network in terms of joint protests in the region of
Northern England. The workshop also looked at the possibility of
organising coaches and mobilizing for national demonstrations.
This workshop was then folowed by a short video of the women in the
EZLN, which provided a useful insight as to how political upheaval and
armed struggle has affected the women involved in the EZLN in Chiapas.
The women explained that if they had not joined the movement they would be
a lot less free, and would have much less equality to the amount they
have in the EZLN.
The video was followed by a short discussion introduced by a Workers
Solidarity Movment member from Dublin. The debate touched on the politcs
and organisation of the EZLN and recent developments in the struggle. It
also covered how this relates to anarchism, and whether people support the
EZLN or not.
In the evening there was a social and an excellent quiz organised by
people from Leeds Anarchist Group. This was really good in my opinion,
as it had an imaginitive presentation, including an electronic
scoreboard, name that tune, question categories, silly costumes and even
dancing at the end!!
The second day began with a discussion on developing the network. This
involved sorting out the details of future work, and discussed methods
that different anarchist groups in NAN could work together on. It was
also decided that the next conference would be held in January.
After lunch there was a speaker from a local solicitors who have been
involved in a number of defence campaigns, as well as suing the police
etc. This covered legal rights (or lack of them) on demonstrations, what
tricks the cops like to pull and how to operate in custody. It then
covered examples of when it is possible to sue the police and the
likliehood of winning the case.
The final session was a contraversial debate on Sexuality. Which looked
at sexuality and the role it plays in society, how the state restricts
and opresses it the state of sexual politics and the lack of rights that
stil exsist for a large number of people in society.
The role of the issue within the anarchist movement was then covered,
with a wide range of opinions.
Althought the turn out was lower than expected, the people that did come
were serious class struggle activists and a lot of concrete plans and
suggestions came form the weekend. It would appear that the network is
truly beginning to take shape, with this conference hopefully being a new
start for anarchists up North to work together, aiming higher for bigger and
better actions.
Doug.

903
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001089.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,903 @@
*** *** *** EL ACRATADOR *** *** ***
Counterinformative 'zine Issue 47 Sept '95
English excerpts, translated from Castillian by Luis Prat (thanx!)
Ateneo Libertario
Apdo. 3141
50080 ZARAGOZA
sPAIN
Centro Social Autogestionado Angel Chueca
Coso, 186, bajos
E-Mail: cual@maser.unizar.es
Tel: ++34-76-383673
Fax: ++34-76-255298
*** ACRATORIAL ***
For Jacques Chirac a question of patriotic honor, for other politicians an
embarrassing subject or some profitable declarations; for Greenpeace a
combination of self-advertisement and vindication; for the press a lode of
sensational news and for the planet, nuclear test number X. These short
phrases recap the whole set up surrounding the protests against the
resumption of nuklear tests in Mururoa.
Unfortunately, with the sole exception of ecological groups, and not all at
that, there has been a lack of global vision of the root of the problem, as
is the existance of an enormous potential, in weaponry as well as in
industrial base, linked to nuclear energy and controlled by very few hands.
Another great miscalculation has been to diminish the importance of the
antinuclear struggle after its boom during the sixties and seventies. It is
revealing that it's precisely after these years that the definitive
expansion of the nuclear industry has taken place and that the existance and
development of clandestine nuclear programs in the hands of such dangerous
elements as the iranian ayatollahs and Sadam Hussein, in a permanent pre-war
state, has become known.
It also seems that we try to forget that today in the USA and in the former
USSR there still exist areas banned to humans due to the nuclear testing
done 40 years ago and in spite of this the french government tries to sell
the idea that radioactivity is well under control. Ask, for example, the
Lapps who, living more than 2000 Kms away from Chernobyl, are beginning to
suffer alarming rates of cancer, or the Sioux tribes that live over the
terrain where "secure" nuclear tests, such as those of Mururoa, took place.
We don't want to undervalue the positive aspects of the actions and
mobilizations carried out all over the world in which we've been able to see
the compromises taken by the forces traditionally reluctant to oppose the
state even while attempting to obtain political advantage. In addition,
these mobilizations have served as a platform from which to remember that
even today several european countries maintain imperialistic residues such
as France with its South Pacific territories, which forgotten by the
international community suffer exploitation, if not hushed extermination by
the West.
All of this will be useless unless we do some serious reflections about the
reasons for the relaxation of the antinuclear fight these last few years,
when it's been more necessary. There's a lot to be done and it wouldn't be
bad, for starters, to stop the nuclear dump at Los Pintados, a little more
than 80 Kms from Zaragoza or not to forget that the spanish state keeps
eleven nuclear plants functioning and has a few more in the works.
*** LABOR ***
Boicott Tele-Pizza
(CNT) Tele-Pizza is a junk food multinational that bills 12,000 million in
Spain and is a leader in the pizza delivery sector, but to get these hefty
profits it gives its employees a third-world treatment. Among such niceties
it withholds pay for part of the hours worked, there aren't any union rights
and it permanently keeps under threat of firing those employees that claim
them, and often employees lack the proper equipment to do their jobs or it
is in the worst of conditions (motorcycles, uniforms).
To this we must add actions such as sex discrimination and junk contracts,
made possible by PSOE's labor reform, that withhold the right to collect
unemployment compensation. The CNT of Gijon, two of whose members have been
fired, has started a boicott.
The campaign has given results and representatives of CNT-Asturias met with
company's representatives that came from Madrid. They've got improvements.
CNT-Asturias asks, for the moment, for the suspension of the boicott. For
more information: CNT Aptdo. 289 // 33280 Gijon (Asturias)
phone/FAX (98)5350368
Asturian workers on trial
(Llar)Jorge Mun~iz, secretary of the CGT-Asturias was tried in Oviedo,
accused of erecting a barricade on the expressway in conjunction with the
struggle at Duro-Felguera. Later there were two other trials against 3 and 4
workers of this company accused of erecting barricades.
Eight miners from Pozu Candin (Hunosa) have been tried for false testimony
in the case of Jose Primitivo, syndicalist miner that continues in jail (see
Acrat.#46).
The district attorney asks for 18 months in prison for 6 workers fron
Ensidesa, accused of holding three executives of the company. The events
ocurred in April 1994 when one hundred workers helds the executives for 24
hours as protest for the "readjustment". The civil guard intervened and
arrested 19 workers.
Fishermen in the struggle.
Galician fishermen have been out of work for several months due to the
failure of the administration to reach agreements with third countries. They
receive a minimum salary and they continue with strong mobilizations (Acrat.#46)
In August they blocked a highway with barricades and jettisoned a junked car
from a bridge. In September hooded workers occupied two bank offices, in one
they got the postponement of payments, not so in the other which was
thrashed. On September 19 they continued with barricades, the burning of
abandoned cars and the car belonging to an indiscreet secret policeman.
*** OF HYPOCRITES AND LIARS ***
Those that criticize youth (mainly politicians and televangelists) for its
passivity, lack of ideals etc., are the same that criticize insumisos
(people who refuse to perform military service T.N.) for being insolidary,
the young people that go to antifascist demonstrations and squats for being
hooligans, provocateurs and I don't want to talk about what they say about
the radikal basque youth.
Their latest is to attack Cadiz's youth arrested for taking part in the
mobilizations of the shipyard workers, alleging that they're "outsiders to
the company". These individuals with fat paychecks at the end of the month
don't understand neither the crisis that affect whole towns nor the
unemployed youth nor the students that struggle side by side with the workers.
Paying attention to these blokes, if you don't work at AESA you can't go to
demonstrations in support of workers, if you eat everyday don't ask for the
0.7 for the poor, if you have two legs don't ask for the removal of
obstacles to the handicapped, if there's no war where you live don't ask for
peace, if you live with your parents or you rent don't go to squatters
demonstrations, if you're not an insumiso don't be antimilitary and if
you're not pregnant don't ask for the right of abortion.
Then there are the "ex-progress" in power that easily call everything
"fascist" when they're the ones creating fascism with their GAL, their
corruption and their permanent kidnapping of democracy. They equalize,
shielded by tele-preachers, the violence of the shipyard workers and the
basque youth with that of the nazi skins or the louts of Mostoles (who
assaulted the town hall because of the suppression of a bullfighting act). A
weekly called these groups "the new terrorists".
Whether this bunch of thugs likes it or not, we'll continue supporting all
the struggles that affect us directly or indirectly.
*** ANTIFASCISM ***
Assaults in Zaragoza
This summer the nazis haven't taken a vacation. In July, Jose Luis Baeta,
militant in the neonazi micro-group Thule, was arrested for attacking a
young chinese woman. On September 7 this jerk, together with his brother,
severely beat up a young man in San Pablo street. The man received 17
stitches on his face. The police, alerted by some neighbors, arrived and the
bone-head declared that he had been the victim. The injured youth filed
charges and the following day Baeta was arrested and interned in prison. Two
days later he was set free by the well known ultra judge Lasala. The nazi
thug, very well known by antifascists and police has been arrested in
numerous occassions and has various charges for assault pending. But he
walks around as if nothing happened and boasts of his actions in the press
with the impunity (complicity?) that the police and the justice system grant
him. This past December Baeta's house was attacked, with Grupos
Antifascistas claiming responsibility.
Besides this one, at least three other aggressions were made public.
Neonazi sect accuses
The neonazi sect "Nueva Acropolis" accused the "director" of the Ateneu
Llibertari" of Tarragona y Barris for painting graffitti against the sect
and for causing damages to the local's door. When nobody form the Ateneu
showed up (logically, this colective does not have a "director"), they were
found innocent since there wasn't any evidence against them.
Another nazi murder?
In 1993 a young woman, Susana Ruiz, was found dead in a field outside Madrid
and the case was closed for lack of evidence. An ex-nazi skin, whose
whereabouts have been unknown for months, left a recorded tape where he
tells of the assasination of Susana by nazi groups. The police gave low
credibility and spoke of "fantasies", but there was data on the deceased
that hadn't been made public and had been gathered in the autopsy. For now
the provincial court of Madrid has reopened the case.
Mysterious death
Civil Guard Eduardo F. Garcia was assasinated July 25 in Barcelona. At first
his death was attributed to nazi skins. Later it was found that he was a
member of a neonazi gang.An anonimous announcement from the alleged neonazi
group blamed "antifascist goups". There was also talk of weapons and/or
drugs traffick.
Close nazi press
The Civic Platform for Ana Frank Street asks for the closing of
press/bookstore Europa (of CEDADE) in Barcelona's Gracia neighborhood. This
press prints books and publications of national-socialist idealogy for the
whole of Europe. The Platform asks that that section of street be named Ana
Frank. In two months they have received the support of more than 6500 people
and 125 associations.
Nazi store burned
(Molotov) An anonimous communique took responsibility for setting on fire
the neonazi and military materiel store Soldiers of Fernan Gonzalez street
in Madrid , on July 16. As a result of the attack, part of the display and
the interior were destroyed. The store had to close, the owners have tried
to conceal the damage as "reforms". The end of the deed was "to attack this
chain store to, at the same time we cause them the greatest possible
damage, bring to the fore their close relationship with the most violent
circles of the extreme right (Bases Autonomas, nazi skins ...)". The
communications media, in spite of knowing about it, turned silent on the action.
Arrested for pintadas (political graffitti T.N.)
(Molotov) July 20 seven people that were painting antifascist and antiracist
graffitti, in Madrid's Salamanca neighborhood were arrested by the police.
Because of this simple deed they spent two days at the police station,
suffering the habitual treatment: insults, sleeping on the floor, five hours
not being able to urinate, they set the room's heat to the max,... They were
booked as "urban tribes" (Sharps, punkis and heavys). After being
transferred to the court's jurisdiccion they were set free.
Facist kkkop
(Molotov) This past July 22, in Madrid, a group of people that were trying
to get into the Pub Graffitti were attacked by ten fascists. Among the
agressors was the Pub's doorman that turned out to be municipal police. They
went to the hospital where the doctor turned out to be a wee-bit fascist and
reported only concussions. Two days later, two of the victims, one of them
lawyer Endika Zulueta had to be hospitalized and underwent surgery for
facial fractures. When they went to file charges they learned that the
fascist cop had already filed against them for insults and because "they
were going to denounce him unjustly for assault". The trial has been
suspiciously slow, although when it was made public it speeded up.
The trial against two squatters from Minuesa accused of assault and battery
(see Acrat.#46) was suspended as the attorney for the defense, Endika
Zulueta was hospitalized.
Short Antifas
-September 2 ten nazis were arrested after thrashing a metro wagon in Madrid.
-August 27 in Dixmunde (Belgium) police arrested and deported 200 neonazis
from France, Germany and Holland during an act of flemish nationalist
exaltation.
-September 7 a young man was attacked by five nazis in Gijon because he wore
a Che Guevara T-shirt.
-The nazi listing with 100 addresses of antifascists, red skins, anarchists,
punks, squatters, communists and independentists of various cities has
caused much attention in the mass media. Much of the data was inaccurate,
although we begin to see a coordination of nazi groups in different cities.
The antifascist movement also has its own secret information services, very
well trained by the KGB and the Stasi.
-June 29, a demonstration by ultra Alianza por la Unidad Nacional (AUN),
Ynestrillas formation, passed in front of a movie house where an event by
the "Plataforma por la Autodeterminacion y la Solidaridad entre los Pueblos
del Estado Espan~ol" (Platform for the Self-determination and Solidarity
among the Peoples of the Spanish State) was taking place.There were minor
confrontations that were cut short by the police. After a while, there was a
bomb threat in the movie house and the police evacuated the place and held
60 people in custody.
*** INSUMISION AND SO ON ***
(Insumision: (lit)Rebelliousness. The current usage refers to the act of
refusing to perform military service. Insumiso: a person who refuses to do
military service. N.T.)
Explanatory note
Perhaps this antimilitarism/insumision section is a bit short in The
Acratador, we are sorry but the volume of news on this subject is such that
it would be impossible to make room for all so we publish only those items
relating to Zaragoza. For more information you can listen to our radio
programs or you can read the bulletin of CAMPI-Aragon, Guella Negra.
More Detentions
Around mid-July Martin Abril was arrested at his work place. Under search
and capture for about a month this insumiso was interned in the prison at
Torrero. The arrest was surprising and unexpected since it doesn't make any
sense to overload the already overcrowded Open Section of Torrero. Martin
got out on third degree August 14.
In Gerona on September 9 Ronald, insumiso from CAMPI-Aragon in rebellion
several months for not showing up at his trial, was arrested. His trial will
take place October 18, we will keep you informed.
New stand
This past September 10 Manolo Naudin, Sergio Callau and Javi Clarimon,
prisoners in Torrero, broke the penitentiary third degree by not coming to
sleep that night at the jail. In solidarity with them and with the slogan
"Unhook yourself from the army" several acts took place, among them the
March for demilitarization on the 15th, well attended, a display of banners
from Puente de Hierro and a concert with Colditz and Mallacan the following day.
After a demonstration against nuclear tests at Mururoa and accompanied by
hundreds of people they gave themselves up at the Civil Government in front
of a large contingent of anti-riots, where they were detained.
Figures
Right now there are in Aragon 34 insumisos in jail. Alex Belasko is in
Daroca, dispersed in 2nd degree from Pamplona, there are 4 in 2nd degree and
29 in 3rd degree in Zaragoza. Two 3rd degree prisoners in Teruel were set
free in August and September. The state figures always hover around 250 and
300 insumisos in rebellion for not showing up at their trials or not showing
up to serve their sentences.
Caravan of insumision
All summer long in different european countries a campaign to propagate
insumision throughout Europe, primarily composed of antimilitarists from
several colectives from Euzkadi, took place.
Two buses took the insumisos through different european cities, beign thrown
out of many of them by the police. They staged concentrations at strategic
points of the EU such as the Brussels Parliament and The Hague Tribunal. The
most spectacular action was the okupation by 100 antimilitarists of the
central headquarters of NATO in Brussels, where they fooled the security
controls. The activity of the military center was paralized. Five trucks of
riot cops surrounded the building and arrested six basque insumisos that
were outside. They came to an agreement with the insumisos who left the NATO
headquarters when the six arrestees were set free. It is noteworthy that
several military personnel begged for ikurrin~as (basque flags N.T.)
alleging their simpathy for the "basque cause".
Regression of degree
On September 7 third degree insumiso Nacho Contel Lopez was returned to the
interior of the prison. The excuse was sanctions that at the time of his
regression had not even been confirmed. We highlight the dictatorial
attitude on the part of the government's team towards jailed insumisos that
has caused tens of arbitrary sanctions, illegal body searches and three
degree regressions. The people mainly responsible for this situation are
Daniel Samperiz, director, and the subdirectors, particularly Jose Noguera
Clavet as well as the treatment subdirector "Don" Emilio.
Insumision in Holland
In the country of the tulips there are also antimilitary campaigns of some
import and even insumisos that, like in the spanish state, refuse to perform
any type of substitute service. Because of this, since the beginning of July
insumiso A. Schreiner is in jail, sentenced to 7 months in prison. It so
happens that mandatory military service in Holland is scheduled to disappear
shortly, just like it's already history in Belgium, given its scant popularity.
Censored
The publication "Ese Insumiso", bulletin of the third degree insumisos
jailed at Torrero, has been censored by the jail's directors and its
distribution within the prison prohibited.
Long live the Mayor
The independent ex-mayor of Etxauri, Emilio Satrustegui was tried for
refusing to collaborate with the listing of young men for conscription
during his mandate. The D.A. asked for eight years of "inhabilitacion" (the
loss of certain rights such as not being able to work for the goverment) and
250,000 pts. fine. Luisa Fernanda, let's see if you learn!. The Superior
Court of Justice of the Basque Country annuled an agreement with the
municipality of Andoain by which he refused to collaborate with the spanish
armed forces, by not helping with the listing nor informing about objectors
and insumisos.
*** BRIEF NEWS ***
Anti Summit
This past july 18 a spanish-german summit took place in Compostela with the
attendance of Kohl, Felipe Gonzalez and Fraga as a guest. Several
self-management, independentist and libertarian groups carried out a
campaign to protest the progressive empoverishment and discrimination that
the European Union has imposed on Galizia. There were pintadas (political
graffitti T.N.) and hundreds of posters were put up. Over 500 cops
controlled Compostela, particularly the concentration on the 18th when there
were 5 arrests, among them a photographer from _El Mundo_.
Women Assaulted
The latest statistics show that even today only 10% of the women victims of
domestic violence in the Spanish State file charges, often when they get to
the extreme that the women's lives are in danger.
In Aragon, from January to May 1995 there had been filed 127 cases, though a
much higher number is suspected. There are specific information programs you
can access at the Casa de la Mujer.
Rapes with impunity
A feminist association from Pontevedra announced that in the galizian
locality of Tui there have been these past few years rapes which usually go
unpunished. Up to seven incidents have been filed to date, although several
more aggressions by a group of well identified local youths have been
confirmed. Major responsibility for the charges not being pressed falls on
the commander of the police, who has made it difficult for women that have
come forward with accusations by saying comments such as :"anyway this case
is not going very far ..."
International anarcho-syndicalism
From the 31st of August to the 4th of September the IV Anarcho-Syndicalist
East-West Encounters took place in Fuzesgiyarmat (Hungary) with the
attendance of anarcho-syndicalists of both Europes, that some say don't
exist. In the eastern countries the intense anarchist movement that the
russian revolution destroyed is being reborn and we've received news of the
creation of a new AIT section in Bielorussia, that joins those already
existing in the Ukraine, Russia and other states of the former USSR.
Repression in Tarrega
The Coordinator Against Abuses of Power of Barcelona undertook an
information campaign, together with many of those charged during the
incidents at the Theater Fair of Tarrega in 1991. Eighty-six people were
arrested, of which 21 spent time in jail and 62 are in judicial process.
During the arrests they suffered all sorts of aggressions, vexations and ill
treatment, and the arrests, hours after the incidents, were made in an
arbitrary way ( by their looks). The district attorney asks for sentences of
2 to 5 years. The support of all collectives is sought.
Aptdo. 872 08.080 BARCELONA.
Day of Kaos
From August 3 to 6 in Hanover (Germany) there were serious disturbances
during the so called days of kaos. Over 2500 youth, punks, autonomes and
anarchists fought hard with the police. The streets were taken over by
barricades, molotov cocktails, smoke cans and police charges. It all started
when police forces surrounded young squatters in an old factory, the
anarchopunks made strong fortifications in the building and responded to
police charges. Over 600 peoplewere arrested. The Greens and neighborhood
people accused the police of provoking the young people and of using
excessive force.
Descent of the Canal
On Sunday, september 17 the people of Torrero performed the traditional
descent of the canal. Numerous craft took part in the event. This year the
demand to build a linear park on the banks of the river was joined by the
protest against the third belt of Zaragoza which would destroy Pinares de
Venecia, the only green zone in the neighborhood.
Water battle
(Molotov) The popular Water Fair of Vallecas (Madrid), during which every 16
of August since 13 years ago the neighbors, armed with any sort of container
throw water at each other, was interrupted by charges of the anti-riots.
Hundreds of people suffered the police onslaught and five participants were
arrested.
Bastard priest
(Zaragoza) A chaplain and his sister have been sentenced to 31 days in jail
and fined 50,000 pts for trespassing on a home. The priest had rented an
apartment, with an illegal contract, to a gambian family that paid the rent
punctually. One month they were several days late in paying and the priest
entered their home swinging his cane. The inmigrants paid and left in view
of the threats, leaving their furniture and belongings. With priests one
can't be too careful.
Thug civil guards
This past 1st of August during the fair at Montan~ejos there was a fight
provoked by 4 civil guards that couldn't stand that several inhabitants of
the squatter-occupied Rodeche were having fun. The incident ended with the
squatters beat up, accused of assaulting the guards and imprisoned
unconditionally until the date of their trial.
Very brief
-The 2nd and 3rd of september in Elgoibar the IV Gayakampada took place,
organized by the Gay Liberation Movement of Euskal Herria (EHGAM)
-From the 7th to the 30th of July the interesting Jornadas Libertarias took
place in Alicante, organized by the Libertarian Youth (JJLL) of that city.
There were talks, movies, concerts and other activities.
-July 15 in Escatron y Sastago the traditional Tour of the regional CNT of
Valderrobles in exile took place, with the attendance of the oldest
grandaddys of anarcho-syndicalism.
-From June 20th to the 23rd in Sao Paulo (Brasil) the Anarcho-punk
Countercultural Days took place, inagurating the first archives of Punk
Culture, created in this city. It views punk as yet another way of fighting
for alternatives to this society.
-The Popular Library "Jose Ingenieros" of Buenos Aires (Argentina)
celebrated its 60th anniversary on july 1st. From the begining it has been
linked to the libertarian and anarcho-syndicalist movement. Hundreds of
reunions, conferences and initiatives started in its midst. At different
times it was closed down by different governments but continued operating
clandestinely. Let's go for another 60 years.
-The Ateneo Libertario of Cadiz organized Days of Animal Liberation in June,
with groups from everywhere in the Spanish State taking part.
-From July 21st through the 28th took place in Launac (France) the XI
International Camp of Young Revolutionaries, organized by the trostkyist IV
International. To be highlighted is the participation of militants of other
currents of the alternative left: autonomes, libertarians,
non-dogmatic-communists, etc. Close to 1000 young people from different
countries took part in a busy week of debates, talks and festivities. Thank
the people from Rebel for the invitation.
-August 6th CGT called a strike in Port Aventura, due to the draconian labor
conditions that workers put up with such as junk contracts to the max. In
spite of threats of firing and non-renewal, a third of the workers honored
the strike.
-A kurdish woman that was on hunger strike in Germany died after being
beaten by the police in a demonstration. She was protesting the genocide in
Kurdistan by Turkey and its support of the EU.
-The Gato Salvaje, an alternative distributor, has a new address: E.
Fernandez, Aptdo. 18.251 28.080 MADRID
-CIJA (Ilicitan Collective of Burdened Youth) finally has a postal box:
CIJA Aptdo. 1.508 03200 Elche (Alicante).
-We communicate that the P.O. Box (11.351 Mexico D.F.) of the Net and
publication Love and Rage (Amor y Rabia) in Mexico has been canceled in a
totally irregular manner, within the repressive campaign unleashed by the
mexican government. After the cancelation the mail arriving at the P.O. Box,
as well as that already there, has been confiscated by the police. Do not
send anything to that P.O. Box.
-The inspector rsponsible for the shooting that wounded three people during
the events of EXPO '92 has had a disciplinary hearing. This month there will
be a reconstruction of the events with police, witnesses, lawyers and
victims being summoned.
*** SQUATS ***
Squats in Zaragoza
Some time ago, several young zaragozan punks occupied a building on the left
bank of the Ebro property of RENFE (Spanish State railroad T.N.) and have
started to fix it up for living. For now they haven't been notified of
eviction. We've also received news that another group of young people
unsuccessfully occupied an abandoned school in the Oliver neighborhood from
which they were evicted because there was an order to buy the building.
Los Adoquines (The paving stones T.N.)
On August 5 the Social Center Los Adoquines, of Santa Coloma de Gramanet was
occupied. After a few days the municipal police came and tried to evict them
without orders. At this time they are awaiting eviction and ask that protest
letters be sent to the Ayuntamiento de Santa Coloma (Dpt. de Registro)//Pca
de la Vila 1//08.921 - Sta. Coloma de Gramanet (Barcelona).
New Squats
An old factory in Atarrabia was okkupied august 16. The Youth Assembly has
been asking city hall for a local for years.
For several months now in Cordoba the Kasa Libertaria de los Ban~os has been
functioning, managed by Kolectivo Kordoba Okupa (okupa = squatter T.N.), it
was okkupied after the eviction from another house.
The occupied house of Mallorca had its first birthday.
Since July 7th an old school in Aviles (Asturias) has been okkupied. The
squatters have created the Social Center Gaviluetu. There are shops, rooms
for collectives and housing.
The 2nd of June the Assembly of young okupas (AJO) of Valladolid okkupied an
abandoned villa to create a self-managed social center. At 6 AM the
following day the municipal police assaulted the building and arrested 20
okupas that had spent the night.
Campol cleared out
In August, without previous warning and taking advantage of the fact that
there was nobody in the village that day, Campol (village in the Huesca's
Pyrenees okkupied since November 1994) was cleared out. All belongings were
stolen and loaded onto trucks. All doors and windows were walled shut, all
structures, orchards and water tanks were destroyed. The rural okupas have
organized days of struggle in Campol for september 29,30 and october 1st.
They need your help, so inform yourself and be there.
Squatters' trial
On June 12, 14 okupas were tried in Vigo, accused of coercion and
destruction during a squat 2 years ago. The private charges asked for 3
months and 200,000 pts fine for each accused. The day of the trial the
private charges were retracted and finally they were sentenced to two days
of home arrest.
Giving back the union's heritage
As we informed in the previous issue, one of the two flats, that of the
administration, that the CNT occupies for many years in Ave. San Jose is
going to be condemned. Because of this the anarcho-syndicalist center has
initiated a campaign claiming worthy premises to perform its union
activities. The CNT claims as the union's heritage a site in use today by
the administration. On August 1st, members of CNT-Zaragoza gathered inside
of the provincial delegation of the Ministry of Labor and held an interview
with the director. Further meetings with the government's delegation of
Aragon are planned. In case of denial by the administration there will be
mibilizations until the CNT gets proper quarters.
In danger of eviction
Valencia's Kasal Popular is in danger of being evicted. In June they were
warned that on October 1st the construction of a health center would begin.
Does this sound familiar? For the moment they're still there, although they
could be evicted at any time. On June 16 800 people took part in a
demonstration in support of the squats protesting the eviction at Centelles
(movie housed okkupied to make a social center) and the threat to Kasal Popular.
*** INFORMATION MANIPULATION ***
Following the kidnapping of businessman Publio Cordon in Zaragoza by the
Grupos de Resistencia Antifascista Primero de Octubre (GRAPO), the press
lied again, and took advantage of the information given by the police to
heap garbage upon the libertarian movement.
So, in the days following the kidnapping it was prominently published that
"the kidnapping of this businessman surely would not have been possible
without the colaboration of members of the anarchist milieu of the city"
(sic), while several people were investigated. Nobody bothered to ask us the
members of said milieu our opinion of the news, neither whether it was true.
There didn't seem to be any interest in publishing the clarifications of the
CNT and the Ateneo Libertario. HERALDO was the main spreader of these
falsehoods.
This is a new campaign by the police, broadcast by the press, with the
intention of creating confusion and of criminalizing the libertarian
movement to be able to justify repressive campaigns, spreading lies. If
anarchist complicity in the events were true, the police would not have made
it public until after the solution of the case. Days later the police
discarded the hypothesis, but the damage had been done.
The sensibility of the anarchists towards prisoners and their living
conditions is great, we've never doubted in supporting, and we'll continue
to do so, the political prisoners in the hard and difficult situation in
which they live. There are many cases of people who, because of mere
colaboration with armed bands confessed under torture, fully serve hard
time, while ultra thugs or members of the security forces with decades of
years of sentence quickly obtain penitentiary benefits. A very different
thing would be our ideological identification with an armed organization
such as GRAPO or ETA, whose means and objectives as well as their
principles, tactics and ends openly differ from ours.
*** MUMIA LIVES ***
On August 7, ten days before the set date, the execution of the
afro-american newspaper reporter Mumia Abul Jamal (see Acratador #46) was
postponed. Judge Sabo, better known as "the hanging judge" who has the
sinister record of 31 death sentences, had to give in to the massive
inyternational campaign of denunciation and the thousands of letters sent
from the most remote corners of the planet. Demonstrations in several
cities, hunger strikes by political prisoners, the support of politicians,
hundreds of writers, movie stars, intellectuals, have saved, for now, the
life of Mumia. It must be decided whether Mumia has the right to a new trial
in more just conditions than the previous one, with rigged witnesses and
evidence. At the beginning of August he left the prison's death row and he
was told of the conmutation of his death sentence, planned for the 17th of
the month. Mumia declared through his attorneys "I am grateful to the tens
of thoussands of people, the majority of whom I don't even know that have
fought for me".
In Zaragoza, in spite of the difficult times, 80 people gathered on July 7th
at the Plaza de Espan~a with several explanatory placards and staged a mock
execution. We have also had news of actions throughout the state which we
don't mention for being too long.
*** ECOLOGY ***
Arrests in Somport
Thirteen people were arrested by french police on August 13 at an act of
protest against the Somport Tunnel works. The act had been called by the
Coordinadora de Grupos Autonomos against the Somport Tunnel. A group of
people leafletted cars and another chained themselves to the works. One of
the workers attacked an ecologist with a spade and a truck ran over two
people that were part of a human barricade. Some of the arrestees were from
the aragonese coordinating group O Zapo.
Against Nuclear Tests
On August 5th at the french consulate in Zaragoza there was a protest action
against nuclear tests. On August 27th a hundred people, summoned by
different ecological groups from Aragon, demonstrated at the boundary of the
Portalet against the tests at Mururoa.
On september 14 there was a gathering at the Plaza de Espan~a and on th 17
the main demonstartion to which more than 2000 people came, called by a
large platform of organizations (among them the Ateneo Libertario) which was
amply reported by the press. It ended at the french consulate and afterwards
it continued to the civil government where three insumisos that had violated
the penitentiary third degree gave themselves up.
More about nuclear
In a place known as Los Pintados, in Cinco Villas, several enterprises, with
the support of some state organisms, are planning to install a nuclear dump.
Therefore, the affected towns have formed a coordinating body to try to
prevent the installation of this dump.
The excuse given for such a henious project is the creation of jobs, even at
the expense of ruining a region which is predominantly agricultural.
Against Itoiz
The collective Solidarios con Itoiz continues to carry out spectacular
actions against the construction of the reservoir. In August they went up a
mountain in Txintxurrenea, located in the area affected by the explosions of
the quarry, interrupting the work at the quarry the provides materials for
the construction of the dam. The action was repeted throughout several days,
finally the civil guard stopped them. This summer there has been a camp-in
in the area that will be swamped.
On the other hand, two neighbors of the area have been sentenced to two and
three years in prison for taking part in the incidents, which it seems they
didn't even attend. The sentence, which has been appealed, is based
exclusively on the testimony of scabs and private mercenaries.
Chemical waste dump
Whereas before we talked about a nuclear dump, now it is a toxic industrial
waste dump that's going to be built in the area of Gallur or Tauste. The
towns of the region have been mobilized and have called for a demonstration
to denounce the construction of this dump, their protest was based on how
damaging it will be, for the agriculture as well as for the quality of life
of the region. It seems that superior organisms want to turn Aragon into a
contaminated desert. This very same project was rejected before by the
epople of Escucha (Teruel).
*** SHIPYARD STRUGGLE ***
The national shipyard's (AESA) reconversion plan involves the lay-off of
5200 out of 10,000 workers. This restructuring affects shipyards in Sestao,
Cantabria, Puerto Real, Cadiz and Sevilla.
Worker's mobilization has not waited long: strikes and 10,000 workers
demonstrating in several cities. In Cadiz and Sevilla, where shipyards are
scheduled to close, the actions have been hard hitting. Human chains in the
sea blocking access to harbors, destruction of company property, barricades
at the Junta de Andalucia, blockaded expressways. The most serious incidents
took place on september 14 and 15 in Cadiz where, after a demonstration,
PSOE's headquarters was assaulted and wrecked, with streetfights continuing
for two nights. The workers of Puerto Real blocked the bridge at Carranza
leading to Cadiz with burning barricades and confronted the police.
This time the Puerto Real shipyard is less affected. In this shipyard the
CNT enjoys great status. In 1987 a reconversion was attempted and the
struggle by the CNT accomplished the acceptance of workers' and the
population's [conditions]. There were two months of mobilizations and fights
in the streets and from homes against the anti-riot police, on top of whose
vans were thrown washer machines and butane gas tanks. Finally the ministry
of industry was forced to meet and negotiate with the CNT and the
reconversion was stopped.
*** NEW PENAL CODE ***
At the beginning of July it was submitted to the Senate for its definitive
implementation the new penal code that has already been named democracy's
penal code. For starters it is being sold to us as democratic and
progressive although, like all laws, it hides a multitude of loopholes and
many of its aspects make it a nominally "progressive" code, but reactionary
in its contents. Here go some of its goodies though we recommend a thorough
reading, it is very long and you'll surely find something to comment on.
It continues to give undue weight to "crimes" that question the established
order and the pillars of the state, the clearest example being one that
affects us people of the libertarian persuasion, that of insumision. It
continues to consider insumision as a crime, ignoring the opinion of the
majority and it attempts to put another band-aid (the fifth so far) to stop
the antimilitary opposition to the army and the state. It discriminates
insumisos based on their whether their refusal is to military service or to
substitute service, keeping jail sentences for the former and severe
inhabilitation sentences for the latter. It also penalizes squats, even if
it is for living quarters, with punishments consisting of daily fines and in
case of non payment jail sentences.
Otherwise it keeps intact laws such as the Corcuera law or the
anti-terrorist legislation that become the harshest in Europe, giving more
room for arbitrary detentions with law enforcement bodies whose performance
grows more unchecked, thanks to a Ministry of Interior and Justice that
houses both its own chiefs those that must judge them.
Although the apparent changes that would be undertaken in regards to
penitentiary politics would lead one to believe that the duration of
sentences could be less in certain cases the truth is that they are going to
become much longer. The concept of redemption of sentence dissapears, it
used to allow for the shortening of sentences for some convicts in return
for work done for the prison. Instead, it will be handed down in especial
cases, thus directly fostering total submission of the inmate to the imposed
regime, snitching and more tense relations among inmates. Inside the prisons
the fairy tale of a redemptive penal code that would free thousands of
prisoners is being sold, with the goal of getting a peaceful period at the
same time that the penal structure is completely renovated with more cells,
harsher prisons of great capacity (the macroprison at Zuera). The prisoner
better be good since the law holds in its hands the serving of the complete
sentence.
This hardening is in contrast to the benevolence granted to white collar
crimes such as corruption, trafficking of leverage etc. that have lower
penalties although it tries to give the impression that they're higher. As
an example, the amount that a high placed state worker has to steal to be
jailed increases. With this new law Mariano Rubio wouldn't have to go to jail.
Now that a large part of the members of government and high state officials
have pending cases or are under suspicion of having committed crimes it
looks like the new penal code, tailor made, comes at the right moment to
spare them from going to prison and, at the same time, to lock up and
eliminate with impunity all those who don't want to be part of the sheep's herd.
*** COMMERCIALS ***
Tune in to El Acratador
Radio Topo 102.5 FM * Thuersdays 20-21 hrs.
Radio La Granja 103.0 FM * Tuesdays 19-21 hrs * Phone 27-64-37
Subscribe yourself to El Acratador
10 issues = 500 pesetas
* Deposit to Caja Postal in the name of E. Gracia: c/c 00-19.860.916, send
receipt or copy thereof.
* Postage stamps 17 ptas denomination to Aptdo. 3141 / 50080 Zaragoza / sPAIN
Kike - C.S.A. Angel Chueca
----------------------------------------------------------------------
cual@maser.unizar.es
Provisional URL: http://www.cps.unizar.es/ISF/revistas/acratador/
----------------------------------------------------------------------

172
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001092.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,172 @@
INTERVIEW WITH NOAM CHOMSKY
This interview has been translated from the French Le Monde
Libertaire. In turn it is taken from the Portuguese anarchist
paper A Batahla. We are unaware of any other English version.
A Batalha: You are very critical of the American media and you
consider her European counterpart more democratic. What are the
essential differences - in democratic terms - between the American
and the European media?
Noam Chomsky: I don't think the European media are any more
democratic than the American, neither are they any more serious.
There's a greater variety, but in any case it is impossible to
make generalisations...
A Batalha: The Middle East is one of your main concerns. The US
and Israel have always opposed a diplomatic solution to the
problem. Why the recent change in attitude? Do you think they
are going to substitute military and political control of the
occupied lands with economic control?
Noam Chomsky: The US and Israel have always wanted a diplomatic
solution in the Middle East but under their terms. These weren't
accepted by the rest of the world. For nearly 20 years the US has
simply rejected any Palestinian right to self-determination. They
refused to accept UN resolution 242 in the terms chosen by International
opinion and - incidentally - the US between 1957 and 1971. The
resolution called for peace in response to a total evacuation with
minimal mutual adjustments. In order to achieve this the US had to
oppose Security Council decisions; vote, along with Israel, against
the resolutions of the General Assembly; block all diplomatic moves
after the Sadat initiative of February 1971 to reach an agreement
based on 242... Because of the power of US propaganda, the main import
of these facts were suppressed and the Europeans, so under US dominance
at the time, forgot to defend what they had defended in the past.
That situation continued until 1990. The last UN resolution (144-2)
which calls once again for a diplomatic solution was blocked by the US
in December 1990. After the war with Iraq, Europe handed the region over
to the US and took no independent position. The non-aligned nations found
themselves in a state of total confusion and Russia found itself more or
less in the US camp along with Great Britain. The US went into action in
the autumn of 1991, in Madrid, unilaterally imposing their plan for the
region.. This was accepted in 1993-94, this time with Norway's support.
The current agreement is based on the explicit presupposition that
Israel will not withdraw from the occupied territories until she wishes
to do so and under her own conditions.. Thus from the moment when the
Declaration of Principles was signed in September 93, the colonisation
and confiscation of land in the occupied area has increased with
financial support from the US. At the moment Israel controls nearly
75% of the Gaza strip, nearly 35% of the territory and probably all
its water.. In the Declaration of Principle not a word about
Palestinian self-determination because the US have never accepted
the idea...
I have written about this situation which has been going on for
25 years (see my recent book World Orders, Old and New)
A Batalha: What do you see as they main causes of the growth of
fundamentalist Islamic groups in the Arab world for example in
Algeria and Egypt? Do you think these movements have a local cause
or are due to religious fanaticism?
Noam Chomsky: I would be wary of the tern 'religious fanaticism' and '
fundamentalism'. I think that one of the most fundamentalist countries
in the world is the US, perhaps on an even footing with Iran. The most
extreme Muslim fundamentalist country in the world is Saudi Arabia, an
intimate ally of the US and which is not considered a problem because
it obeys orders. Also one of the most extreme of the Muslim
fundamentalists is Gulbiddin Hekmatyar, who received, in the
1980s, from the US and Saudi Arabia, nearly $6 million and large
quantities of arms whilst he was in the process of transforming
Afghanistan into a huge drug producing centre, and who today is
blowing up what is left of that devastated country. In general
terms the US and its satellites have nothing against fundamentalism
Islamic or other. What they fear is the possibility of people acting
independently. This rule applies to the Roman Catholic Church. The
US are neither for or against here. Those elements of the church who
'side with the poor' must be objectively eliminated, if necessary by
means of terror and violence. Those who 'side with the rich' are fine.
The reason for the development of fundamentalist movements in the Arab
world is simple. The secular movements were either destroyed or
self-destructed. Only the Islamic fundamentalists have anything to
offer the population. When you live in the slums of Cairo and your
child is dying you can take it to a clinic run by Islamic
fundamentalists. The governments are too corrupt to offer
anything. These people offer a certain vision which takes into
account the needs of the people...
That is a rather simplistic analysis given limitations of space
but I think it covers the essentials...
A Batalha: What do you see as the main causes of the war in the
former Yugoslavia and what are the possible solutions?
Noam Chomsky: The Balkan wars have many causes. The main ones are
of an internal nature, but the actions of the outside powers have
done little to help the situation, to put matters mildly.. The
international recognition of Croatia failed to take into account
the fact that there was a lot of opposition to the move coming
from an important Serb minority. Bosnia was recognised despite
the fact that it was made up of three distinct parts and that
even if it had had strong multi-ethnic aspects this had little
impact on the Serb mountain community who were fearful of Muslim
domination. It is probable that all these factors added to the
behaviour of the Serb government led to war. Before it would
perhaps have been possible to ameliorate the problem. But it
is hard know to conceive of a solution which is not unthinkable.
I haven't seen any sensible solutions to the problem...
A Batalha: Over the last few years we have seen the rise of
fascist, nationalist and racist ideologies. Today this is not
limited to the activities of small isolated groups and with the
popular support of Zhironovski and Berlusconi perhaps we are
seeing signs that we are faced with a problem of a large dimension.
Do you think that the economic and social crisis is conducive to the
development of anti-democratic movements as happened in Germany after
WW1?
Noam Chomsky: For the last 20 years the world has seen society
dividing itself into two camps along the lines of the Third World
model with islands of great richness and privilege in a sea of
misery, with a growing superfluous population which has no rights
and doesn't contribute to profit creation. The proportions in a
rich country like the US or a poor country like Mexico are different
but the structures are very similar. The reasons are quite clear:
since the 70s there has been a growing move towards globalisation
with the enormous accumulation of power in the hands of transnational
corporations, which are incredibly totalitarian institutions. There
has also been an explosion of capital and a change in its composition.
In 1970, 90% of the capital on the international exchanges came from
trade and investment, from the real economy, and 10% from speculation.
In 1990 these figures have to be turned upside down. By 1994 speculative
capital is estimated to stand at 95% and its growth rate is the highest
ever recorded. Such an evolution was already apparent in the 1970s. In
1978, James Tobin, Nobel Prize for Economics Laureate, suggested a tax
aimed at reducing capital speculation which would lead to a world based
on low growth, low salaries and high profits. This is what has happened,
with the possibility of transferring production abroad, a powerful
weapon to be used against workers. The end of the cold war which means
that the Eastern countries have returned to their traditional Third World
status offers the western bosses class new arms to use against the
national population. In such a situation it is natural that power
should wish to eliminate that which threatens it: human rights,
liberty and democracy which had been gained by popular struggles
over the last century. This is what is happening in a sharpened
fashion in the US and Great Britain. For the vast majority it is
a disaster. For example in the US salaries have gone down since
the Reagan era. At the same time the review Fortune speaks of
spectacular profit making. All of this has been organised by
propaganda barrages which are quite impressive and which have
left people extremely confused, hopeless, frustrated and rebellious.
The liberal intellectuals and the press and also the 'left' have
contributed to all of this. It is a very dangerous situation which
could explode and bring about various horrors unless we see the
creation of alternatives which answer to the needs and preoccupations
of the people.
A Batalha: Many people used to think that with the collapse of the
USSR and socialist regimes that there would be a fresh interest in
anarchism. This hasn't happened. Do you think it is the anarchists
fault for having failed to present themselves in a good light?
Noam Chomsky: Who are the anarchists who have failed to present
themselves as an alternative? It's true that there are a few. For
example a lot was hoped of the CNT in Spain. But one must remember
that there are nearly no anarchist intellectuals for the simple
reason that anarchism does not offer intellectuals any position
of power or privilege. Anarchists also are responsible, since
anarchist feelings are too scattered. However, there are ways
of articulating them in a constructive way, and in the tradition
of the popular movements to put forward a libertarian character to
make anarchists look appealing.
A Batalha: What should anarchists and the anarchist press be doing
right now.
Noam Chomsky: Same as always: help people gain control of their
lives, to understand the world in which they live and to organise
themselves in order to destroy illegitimate authority... As has
always been the case.
Le Monde Libertaire
145, Rue Amelot,
75011, Paris.

43
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001093.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
Richmond Secondary College * by Flick Ruby
* Bashings, Blunders and Bloody Socialists
Answering machines are pretty vile. I never have my rave all nice and
compact for them and end up getting cut off half way. During the Richmond
Secondary College campaign the telephone tree woke me up at 5.30 am so many
times I considered becoming a logger and setting up a protection society
against branch leaders. Whoever our branch leader was, they got to speak
to our newly inherited answering machine and heard Richard Nixon and a few
chicken squarking messages but they were not swayed. Unfortunately a few
friends up the road just kept ringing and singing so I would give them a
lift.
I'm glad I went down because I really believe that the form and content of
education is the most insidious way of creating a uniform mentality of
conformity and passive, mute, obedient citizens. Education is one of the
first state institutions that people find themselves in at age 5. It's
like the first meat mincer we are forced into and we come out a bland kind
of hamburger mince at the end. Basically, the mind is colonised in the
present school system by the ideology of patriarchal capitalism with its
scientific death fetishes and its great 'objective' knowledge. While I'm
critical of the present system, what it is set up to achieve and what it
produces, I'm sure that learning could be different, much different.
Dawkin's great quantum leaps backwards in 1988 are being continued by
Kennett by reducing accessibility to education, by cutting socially
critical subjects and by making education a degree granting assembly line.
About 160 schools across Victoria have been closed down by Kennett, a
disguisting display of governmental priorities. Lots of people down at
Richmond became actively involved for the first time which is good. Others
saw it as a great oppportunity to further their careers as pyramid
newspaper sellers, some got a real ego preening out of the whole affair and
the state got to test out new and exciting ways to bash and spy on people.
The campaign isn't over but it's over for me. I got pretty fucked off with
it all especially the repetitive ritual of being dragged away every morning
by cops who were politely allowed to cross the picket line en mass. I
think that's madness and part of the great "We can placate the police and
let's not alienate the public" line. I think some people woke up to this
one. At one stage I was standing linking arms with people in front of the
gates and a woman with a kindergarten teacher voice came up and said
'What's the key word? PASSIVE resistance'. She should have brought flash
cards.

26
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001094.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
Paranoia's Ok when they're really doing it to you. * by Flick Ruby
Waking up to sirens and hiding paper, heart sinks fingers rise, the
helicopter again, with satelites they can see into your room even with the
windows boarded up. Alone in the house, I am never safe from men, even the
ones I love, they know where I live, will I ever see the faces of the
listeners? There's a narc somewhere here, what will they report and to
whom?, 786 ASIO assesments last year prompted mainly by the Gulf Crisis,
12,000 fine or two years for naming an agent, more police in Victoria than
the number sent to Vietnam, 10,000 uniformed trained in bias and obedience
police, there's some now, fuck the car's unroadworthy, they came at 5.30am
with axes, whe was pinned down wearing only a T-shirt, Blue Phoenix the
program where they give you drugs to make you forget, Orwell knew, they've
got more photos of me than my mother.....
When do facts start to become paranoia? When does caution become
obsession? When does the word "paranioa" become an accusation that dilutes
your opinions to easily digestible human frailities? Who does that serve
and is it paranoia to notice? Suspicion eats away at you heart and mind at
times, yet as a tool of political survival, it is not to be dismissed.
The state spends more and more time and money thinking about expressions of
political dissent and how to dilute and moniter the "movement". It follows
that some of these resources would be spent infultrating the groups that
are active. Basically I think you're incredibly stupid if you don't take
this as an obvious fact, so I'm going to work on this premise.

106
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001095.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
The War on Women
A Feminist Perspective on Militarism * by Flick Ruby
Stop the War on Women, the slogan for International Women's day this year
is appropriate considering that every three minutes a woman is beaten by
her male partner - a man who often claims to love her. Every five minutes
a women is raped, and they call that "making love" too. and every ten
minutes a girl is molested, sometimes by a relative, perhaps her own
father. The violence mounts. "Every few seconds in America, a woman is
slapped, slugged, punched, chopped, slashed, choked, kicked, raped,
sodomised, mutilated or murdered. She loses an eye, a kidney, a baby, a
life. That's a fact." writes Ann Jones in Take Back the Night. "And if
the statistics are any where near right, at least one of every four women
reading this paragraph will feel that fact through first hand experience."
For women peace activists there is a paradox of seeing yourself at war, yet
calling yourself a peace woman.
The battle field in the war against women is in the workplace on the
streets, in our homes, in our most intimate relationships. It is physical
and psychological, visited upon us by others and internalised within
ourselves. It crosses class and racial boundaries, compounding other
oppressions. It is manifestsed in atomc power development and economic
destruction. The mentality that builds nuclear wepons is the same one that
rapes women and destroys the natural envoronment. No political philosophy
or strategy for peace can be complete without addressing sexual politics.
If the peace movement is to be successful in putting an end to war, it must
work to eliminate the sex role system which is killing us all by rewarding
dominating aggressive behavoiur in men.
If we are to be consistent in our opposition to violence, we must address
violence against women.
If we are truly committed to social justice, we must join the movement for
women's liberation.
If we wish to create social change and revolution we must commit ourselves
to overthrowing patriarchy.
The propaganda of war promotes national unity making it as priority which
can silence women critical of patriarchal practices and attitudes. Certain
'problems' (to do with the national interest ie economic and terratorial
concerns of the state) are given propority over all other concerns,
legitimising the use of violence and suppression of dissent to solve them.
What happens to women (indeed anyone not directly benefiting from these
aims) in the process is considered irrelevant by the war mongers. This
silencing of women needs to be stronlgy counteracted by the peace movement.
We need to intergrate a feminist perspective into all our anti-war
critiques and actions if we are not merely to duplicate the existing social
relation which lead to militarism in the first place.
Patriarchy is a set of social relations between men, which have a material
base, and through a hierarchy creates solidarity among men that enables
them to dominate women.
Feminism and the Peace Movement
Women have been of concern to the military as a threat to this male
solidarity an annoyance and intrusion (not suprisingly, the Defence forces
are still not sen as a women's place, although more recently women hace
been accomodated if they can fit in and act like men). More commonly,
women are a useful labour and sex resource for all men, particularly in the
military. War is seen by many men as even more of an exuse to rape and
kill women and children.
Women are also used as a symbol of justification foe war. Women need
protection as they are the nations most valuable possession, the principle
vehicle for transmitting the nations values, bearers of future generation
are most vulnerable to defilement and are most suceptible to assimilation.
The patriarchal military/industrial/bureaucratic/academic complex's need
for brain power, resources and authortiy so thoroughtly distorts the
economiy and the polity that no goals of social justice can ever really be
achieved. Women are most hurt when social programs are cut because they
are most reliable upon state welfare. In 1986 the world was spending
$A2.63 million on the military which means that about three or four years
of a persons working life is spent on war tax. The economic implications
of miltarisation are enormous but an economic analysis alone leaves
untouched some of the most powerful ideological and private processes that
perpetuate militarism.
The military play a large role in defining women as the concept of
masculinity promoted by the military only makes sense if supported by the
complementary concept of femininity. Feeling a menber of a superior group
is what men get from their treatment of women, what nation states get from
having an enemy. In the military, 24 hour masculine behaviour is expected.
Violence is not just a male practice but for men it is bound up with their
identity and the military is where this can be seen overtly. The military
is the government or it is a large section of the ruling class which lets
the government govern. The mliitary interprets "national security" in its
own interests to mean, not only protection of the state and its
hierarchies, but also the preservance of the existing male order.
Subjugaing someone becomes the necessary proof of manhood. The procatice
of rape is premeditated act during wartime as a way of humiliating the
enemy by violating his "property". Essentially women's bodies become a
battleground.
The historical links between feminism and pacifism are counterbalanced when
women have exbraced revolution with hope and war with enthusiasm. There
has not been a consistent women's response to war but I argue that their
response has largely been constructed for them by the patriarchy.
Overwhelmingly women do not want war.
Feminsim is a political position that accepts anger as part of its theory
and practice. By becoming angry we make ourselves equal to the persons we
judge and assert the validity of our own standards and views. For far too
long women have been forced to be submissive and supportive of men.
Indeeed it has in many ways been seen as awomen's role to stay at home
praying for peace, while the men go off to fight the 'important battles'.
Saying no to war should not be an act of sublimation. Our caring for life
on earth is not soft or sentimental. It is determined, realistic and
political. We are not just angry, but angry about...and the difference can
be crucial.
Women are angry about the patriarchal miltary complex and will be
demonstrating this at AIDEX.

94
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001096.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
operation rhubarb * by Flick Ruby
L: To me OR is more than just a street theatre group because its so
intertwined with being political and I think that the effect that street
theatre has during demonstrations is to give some sort of focus for people
because people are often confused and disempowered and wondering what to do
and walking around bored.
F: I started getting involved with OR during the Gulf War and for me OR was
a really empowering thing because I was able to unleash some of the drama
and terror that I felt internally in an external way and for me that was
the most appropriate response to what was happening. It was also a good
way to shock people and bring the message of blood home to the streets of
Melbourne.
G: I also joined OR during the Gulf War when it first started. I was sick
of boring protests where there was one leader who was seen as the be all
and end all. I though than many messages were missing, one of them was
war=death and as part of OR I think we achieved that message by splattering
blood on the pavement.
F: The thing for me that is most attractive about OR is its looseness of
definition. There is no meaning essentially to the term OR. We are not
screaming slogans or apocalyptic scenarios which is what is happening at a
lot of demos. We are begging questions, placing questions in people's
minds, we are not even asking a specific question, we are getting people to
ask their own questions, stimulating some kind of response in them. We
don't have a line or a message all the time. A lot of what we do is quite
obvious, at the George Bush demo, we carried around a coffin and had a
person personifying death and another personifying the corporate monsterism
and that is all easy to understand. At the same time there is scope there
for people to place their own meaning and that is an important act to me.
L: Another good thing about OR is that we have no definate membership,
therefore a lot of people are able to join in and get involved on specific
issues that they are interested in and they don't have to be involved in
everyting we are inolved in and that means we have a variety of input at
different stages.
F: Using mediums of humour is going to be more empowering to people at
demos than more empassioned speeches. I think you can say a lot more in
the cloak of a joke at the moment. I also think that laughter is what is
needed. We need to be at least appearing to be having fun while being
politically committed, feeling good about ourselves, being strong and
determined but not depressed and nagging all the time.
L: One of the good things about OR is that things seem to come together
really easily and we don't get bogged down. We are also committed very
strongly to feminism. Womens voices are often lost in the arena of
politics which is dominated by men. The gender relations in OR are really
good and we work to keep them that way.
G: I think one of the important things about OR is that we don't have a
definition so therefore it enables us to do a variety of things, one of
them was the stickers which we produced with slogans like 'stop racism',
'stop sexism', 'stop hetrosexism' and with our logo on it and the important
thing with that was to stick them up over offensive posters and stickers
and although the quality of the stickers was not that good the message was
there and hopefully the messatge got back to people like national action
with their revolting racist stickers.
F: Turning up the Heat, OR's magazine is about giving voice to the
different groups in Melbourne that are working politically and creatively.
It is also to further the feminst and anarchist analysis of things that are
going on right now. We feel as though we have our own political
perspectives and encourage people to express theirs It will be a forum for
anarchist and feminst news and reviews.
G: Turning up the Heat will replicate what OR is about, it is creative, it
is interesting, it is not a boring revolutionary magazine.
G; Another thing with OR is that we don't wait for invitations. We attend
things like the Myer Christmas parade and we produce a message that is not
produced there, that is denies there ,like "CONSUMERISM KILLS", like
"WAR=DEATH" like "AIDEX KILLS" and they are images that mainstream
carnivials and mainstream media have denied access to.
F: It is good media wise to be some sort of bridgeing gap between scuffles
and police lies to have images of people being creative in a symbolic sense
or talking about issues in a different way.
F: I think it is high time that activists got into affinity groups and
actually did things that impowered them. So many times people are saying
'oh we need to join a big revolutionary organisation' and their whole
energy gets absorbed into that and they don't form their own actions where
they exhcange their reading into idea tools that can be taken into actions.
That is what OR is all about. It is a group of like minded people not
waiting around for the revolution.
L:The good thing about OR is that it sparks off other peoples imaginations
when they see us doing simple and efffective street theatre. We don't have
to have a lot of props, we don't have to spend a lot of time and money
putting energy into it and it is a really effective way of getting messages
across and also it encourages other people to do the same thing, acting up
in new ways.

211
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001098.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,211 @@
LOUISE MICHELE * by Flick Ruby
Revolution; beloved mother who devours us
Giving equality, take our broken destinies
And make of them a dawning. Make liberty
Fly above our cherished dead. When the bells
of ominous May ring out again, wake us
To your luminescent clarity.
Louise Michele Feb 1882
"The revolution is terrifying, but its purpose is to win happiness for
humanity. It has intrepid combatants, pitiless fighters, and it needs
them. The Revolution is pulling humanity from an ocean of mud and blood,
and ocean in which thousands of unknown persons serve as feasts for a few
sharks, and if the revolution has to cause pain to achieve its victory, it
is necessary. To pull a drowning person from the water, you do not choose
whether you are pulling them by the hair or in some way they find more
comfortable." Louise Michele, Memoirs
As usual it is largely by accident, or by word of mouth that feminists
discover their heroines, barely mentioned in "real" political circles,
never mentioned in texts, they remain forgotten and their contribution to
events in history dies with them, leaving us without record of our
heritage, without inspiration and with the sensation of reinventing the
wheel. Feminists have spent a lot of time rewriting and rediscovering the
women that his-story has insulted, defiled and ommitted. George Sand a
screaming French feminst with some dubious ideas however she was prolific
fictional writer on the subject of women and was more popoular than Dickens
in her day, but as ever we study Hard Times at Bleak House in Two Cities.
Alexandra Kollontai, the only women involved in Lenin's cabinet who had the
radical feminist content of her writings edited out and was practically
exiled as embassador to Norway for the expression of her sexuality, is
unheard of and unread by the host of fucking macho gender blind socialists,
continuting in the great tradition of bumbling that she sought to address.
Along with the Spanish women during the 1936 revolution, there are many
French women who did absolutely nothing at all of any importance throughout
their incredibly rich history.
Louise Michele was a brilliant inspiring and notorious French anarchist
feminist, very involved with the Paris Commune of 1871, for which she was
sent to New Caledonia where she participated in the Kanak uprising of 1878.
During the Commune she was on the Committee of Vigilance, was secretary of
Improvement of Working Women through their Work and on the central committe
of the Union of Women. She wrote boldly and prolifically on the subject of
women and revolution but she was by no stretch of the imagination an
academic theorist although she was a qualified teacher. She said "The
privilege of knowledge is worse than the privilege of wealth" also "prose
and verse and music disappeared because we felt so near the drama coming
from the street, the true drama, the drama of humanity". "Knowledge makes
you think; it is a bar to action, for it prevents you from surrendering
yourself gladly to the unknown."
'The first thing we must change is the relations between the sexes....I
admit that man, too, suffers in this accursed society, but no sadness can
compare to a woman's. In the street she is merchandise. In the convents,
where she hides as if in a tomb, ignorance binds her, and rules take up in
their machine like gears and pulverise her heart and brain. In the world
she bends under mortification. In her home, her burdens crush her. And
men want to keep her that way. They do not want her to encroach upon
either their funcion or their titles." She noted this tendency also in the
movement; 'At the meetings of the Rights of Women group, and at other
meetings the most advanced men applauded the idea of equality. I noticed -
I had seen it before, and I saw it later - that men, their declartations
notwithstanding, although they appeared to help us, were always content
with just the appearance... convinved me that we women must simply take
our place without begging for it.' ' I salute all those brave women of the
vanguard who were drawn from group to group; The Committee of Vigilance,
the society for the Victims of the War, and later the League of Women. The
old world ought to fear the day when those women finally decide they have
had enough. Those women will not slack off. Strength finds refuge in
them. Beware of them...Beware of the women when they are sickened by all
that is around them and rise up against the old world. On that day a new
world will begin.'
Her emphasis and experience was the spontaneous uprising which kept her
from, like other anarchist demanding the use of terror; "Tyrannicide is
practical only when a tryanny has a single head, or at most a small number
of heads. When it is a hydra, only a Revolution can kill it." She did
contemplate the assasination of certain men and was involved in the
attempted blowing up of a statue as well as the fighting behind baracades
during the commune. In one of her trials which are testiment to her humour
and courage she admits to publically approving of assasinations to spur on
revolutionary zeal. She refuses to defend herself in the trials she is
involved in, accepting responsibilty for all her actions which she boldly
admitted, proudly discussing the goals of social revolution and her
motivations. To capture her after the fall of the Commune the authorities
imprisoned her mother until she came out and faced trial. 'Since it seems
that any heart which beats for liberty has the right only to a small lum of
lead, I demand my share..If you are not cowards, kill me.' She even wrote
while on remand to the trials authority, General Appert "If you don't want
to go through the legal formalities, you already know enough about me to
shoot me. I'm ready and the plain of Satory is nearby. You and all you
accomplices know very well that if I get out of here alive I will avange
the martyrs. Long live the Commune!" Transcrpits of her trials appear in
her memoirs The Red Virgin published by University of Alabama Press
available through Jura Books.
The Commune which lasted from March to May 1871 was voted in by 300,000
French citizens, 35,000 of whom were slaughtered defending it and by June
1872 the "justice" system had processed another 32,905 persons for
participating, and Louise notices that they didn't sentence the boldest
women to death to save face. The Commune had been declared on October 31,
1870 at the Hotel de Ville with the word commune being hushed up by the
authorties in their reporting of the rising movement. For five months
before the commune Paris was under siege by the German army and Kropotkin
states that this meant citizens "had to draw upon their own vital
resources, and moral strength which they possessed", after realising the
incompetence of governments and the complicity of the governments in
increasing their chains of bondage. This encouraged the start of a new
idea which did not originate from one brain, a theory, but of the springing
of the heart of the whole community into action. "It was made by the people
themselves, it sprang spontaneousely from the midst of the mass, and it was
the idea of social revolution, vague certainly, perhaps unconscious, but
still the effort to obtain at last, after the struggle of many centuries,
true freedom, true equality for all." The commune came at a time of
political transition, the split in the International WorkingMENS Associaion
between the idea of the popular state and anarchy was rife and again
Kropotkin states 'the anarchist theory did need some short clear mode of
expresson, some formula at once simple and practical, to show plainly its
point of departure, and embody its conception,s to indicate how it was
supported by an actually existing tendency among the people.' The Paris
Commune's popular character began a new series of revolutions and a whole
new element for contemplation.
The Paris Commune declared education free, abolished consription, abolished
the need and the proffitteer of prostitution, fixed the salaries of all
judicial and associated justice workers, freed all the prisoners on the
18th of March, suspended the payment of all rents for 6 months, destroyed
"monuments of barbarism, symbols of brute force and false glory,
affirmations of militarism, all negations of international right",
abolished professional and political oaths, severed any possible connection
to the church and converted all church property into national property,
excluded all religious symbols dogmas and prayers from schools, the
guillotine was publically burnt, factories were converted into co-opeative
societies, abolished night work, closed pawn shops, ordered the razing of
the Chapel of attonement built in expiation of the execution of Louis XVI.
The Commune did not execute one hostage, not one prisoner, not even spies -
they were simply arrested.
Marx, in his address to the International WorkingMENS Association two days
after the fall of the commune (May 30th), also in The Civil War in France
gives us details celebrating its success under incredibly difficult
circumstances. He tells of the carnage committed against the communards
and also provides the exasperated anarchist with such beaudies as "...it
was a revolution against the State itself, of this supernaturalist abortion
of society, a resumption by the people, for the people of its own social
life. It was not a revolution to transfer it from one fraction of the
ruling class to the other, but a revolution to break down this horrid
machinery of class domination itself.....All revolutions thus only
perfected the State machinery instead of throwing off this deadening
incubus..the state, the centrelized and organized governmental power
usurping to be the master instead of the servant of society...All France
would be organized into self-working and self-governing Communes, the
standing army replaced by popular militias, the army of State parasites
removed, the clerical heirarchy displaced b ythe schoolmaster, the State
judge transformed into Communal organs, the suffrage for the national
representation not a matter of sleight of hand for an all-powerful
government but the deliberate expression of organized Communes, the State
functions reduced to a few function for general national purposes."
At the time Louise Michele wrote 'Perhaps it would be better for the people
if all of us who lead the fight now should fall in battle, so that after
the victory there will be no more general staffs. Then the people could
understand that when everyone together shares power, then power is just and
splendid; but unshared it drives some people mad.' 'Who will record the
crimes that power commits, and the mostrous manner in which power
transforms men? Those crimes can be ended forever by spreading power out
to the entire human race. To spread the feeling of the homeland to the
entire world, to extend well being to all people..' In her memoirs she
states that the origins of her revolt was the tortures inflincted upon
animals. She longed for the animals revenge as she noted that 'the more
ferocious a man is toward animals, the more that man cringes before the
people who dominate him'. Her ideas of freedom therefore extend to all
beings.
After returning from New Caledonia, from which she had attempted escape a
couple of times, she returns to Paris to a new political scene altogether.
She said 'Now people are enchained through having been made to believe that
they are free' under the self proclaimed republic. She resumed her
political activities almost at once after being greeted by thousands of
people. She embarked on a speaking tour through France, Belgium and
England. After her involvement in a demonstration which entailed her
carrying the black flag across Paris, she was sentenced to 6 years of
solitary confinement. She was pardoned after her mothers funeral which was
unbelievably huge, uniting many revolutionary groups. Her work tirelessly
continues until her death in 1905, travelling around raising funds and
addressing revolutionary groups. She is arrested a number of times and is
threatened with the asylum which was one of her only fears, so she fled to
England.
"When we are crushed, it only removes the last obstacle to our being useful
in the revolutionary struggle. When we are beaten down, we become free.
When we are no longer suffering becuase of what happens to us , we are
invincable." "When the hour comes, which ferocious and stupid governments
are pushing forward, it will not be a boulevard that quivers under the
steps of a crowd. It will be the entire earth trembling under the March of
the Human race. In the meantime, the wider the river of blood flowing from
the scaffold where our people are being assasinated, the more crowded the
prisons, the greater the poverty, the more tyranical the governments, the
more quickly the hour will come and the more numerous the combatants will
be. How many wrathful people, young people, will be with us when the red
and black banners wave in the wind of anger.."
"When the revolution comes, you and I and all humanity will be transformed.
Everything will be changed and better times will have joys that the people
of today arn't able to understand. Feeling for the arts and for liberty
will surely beocme greater, and the harvest of that development will be
marvellous. Beyond this cursed time will come a day when humanity, free
and consicous of its powers will no longer torture either man or beast. The
hope is worth all the suffering we undergo as we more through the horrors
of life."

25
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001099.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
GOOD MORNING JAMES BOND * by Flick Ruby
The body tenses, freezes and looks up,
Something buzzes in the distance,
chopping the concentration,
interrupting the moment,
piercing the angle that intersects with the pitch unbearable,
like a mosquito in the night.
The desire to slap one's own face,
crosses the mind,
as it crosses the sky,
to break the vibration of my soul.
The message is fear, 'We're up here again'.
Are there really that many escapees in Melbourne?
Does somebody with they were back in Vietnam?
How many people visit there again
at the sound of surveillance?
How many hungry people look up
watching a four thousand dollar morning scream by?
Is there an instrument to record the wave
that moves the seed closer to the surface?
"We can see you, we interrupt your day,
your contemplation of the universe
to tell you...
We're in it."

82
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001100.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
MARY MAG * by Flick Ruby
I stood in a hall of judgment, where men were being tried for their crimes
against women. I was dressed in scarlet, and so were all the women in the
hall. All of them were judges, and all of them were advocates, and so took
turns to read out the charges and to plead for the prosecution and the
defence. A single male figure, representing the whole of mankind, stood
slumped in the dock, his face hidden in his hands. Well might he feel
ashamed and terrified for his sex, for the litany of crimes was long, and
terrible, and the chanted indictments repeated certain words over and over
again.
-You have raped us, countless times. You have raped strangers, in
peacetime and in war, to establish conquest of a territory whose nature you
fear, to continue your separation from the woman in yourself whom you have
lost and whom you hate. You have denied these rapes, saying that we have
deserved punishment, or you have called them acts of desire, saying that we
invited them.
-You have raped your daughters inside their homes, and you have established
a taboo forbidding them to speak of it, and when they have spoken of it you
have reviled them and called them liars, or you have blamed their mothers.
You have established a dominion over their bodies, calling it Father-right,
and when they have escaped from you, you have called them whores who will
be raped by the men outside in the street.
-You have raped your wives, and you have denied that there can be any such
crime as rape in marriage. Does not the woman's body belong to her
husband, and does not he have the right of access at all times? You call
this love, and you call us willing.
-You have sold us in the marketplace as slaves and concubines, to be used
and discarded at your whim. You have defiled our image, creating false
idols of us as your naked playthings, your dolls. You have stripped us of
our clothes in public and humiliated us, and you have denied us our own
desire.
- You have denied us souls. You call us brood mares and dangerous animals,
so much do you fear nature and seek to control it.
-You have denied us independence and the right to choose our own lives.
You have seperated us from each other, and when we have broken free into
loving each other you have mocked and punished us.
- You have denied us an education that includes our history. You have
written all the official and learned books, and you have barred us from
your scheme of knowledge, at the same time insisting that you have done no
such thing.
-You have lied to us over and over again. Your fear of difference, of the
dangerous Other you have invented, is so great that you mutilate us to fit
us to your pattern. You mutilate our bodies and cut out the part of us
which reminds you of yourself, or you mutilate our spirits, cutting out our
desire and our intelligence because you think those things are male. You
have taught our mothers to do this to us, as you have taught us to do this
to our daughters.
- You have punished us when we have tried to rise. You have scorned us, or
imprisoned us, or removed our means of livelihood, or stolen our children.
You have called us evil and foolish and dangerous, and you have warned us
against each other. You have burned us, or called us possessed, and you
have tried to stamp out our power, our love, our life.
-You have raped us.
-You have denied us.
-You have created God in your image alone, and you have spoken in the name
of God to name us Babylon, the harlot city who must be trampled and
overthrown. You have named us the false bride who betrays the commands of
God and who must be scourged and brought low in the dust. You have named
us the scarlet women who have blocked mens passage to salvation.
-You have raped us.
-You have denied us.
-We are the scarlet women, oh Man, of your deepest nightmares, and we have
risen at last, and we shall oversee your downfdall, for this is the last
reckoning, and this is the judgement place.
-Can you understand now what you are capable of? Can you lean now?
From Michele Robert's, The Wild Girl, the gospel according to
Mary Magdalen

167
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001101.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,167 @@
************ Class Struggle *************
from Workers Solidarity No 31
WHY IS THE concept of class so important to
anarchists? Why are we constantly talking about
classes and class struggle? Some of our opponents
accuse us of living in the past, they claim the
working class is dying out. After all you don't see
too many workers wandering around in donkey
jackets, cloth caps and heavy boots. So that settles
the question, doesn't it? No, it doesn't, so let us get
away from silly caricatures and get down to
basics.
The modern world, like the societies that preceded it,
does not consist of a single group of people who have
more in common than they have dividing them. Sadly
there is no single 'humanity', not yet. In every country
there is still a division of people into classes which have
conflicting interests.
Classes are defined by their relationship to the means of
production; their relationship to the factories, machinery,
natural resources, etc. with which the wealth of society is
created. Although there are groups such as the self-
employed and the small farmers, the main classes are
the workers and the bosses. It is the labour of the
working class that creates the wealth. The bosses,
through their ownership and control of the means of
production, have legal ownership of this wealth and
decide how it is to be distributed.
STOLEN WAGES
Only a part of this wealth is returned. Some is paid as
wages, some as the "social wage" (hospitals, schools,
public services, and so on). The rest is creamed off as
profit. But labour creates all wealth. An apple on a
tree is worth nothing until someone picks it, coal in the
ground has no use until someone mines it. What is
known as surplus value or profit is stolen wages.
The working class is the majority in Ireland today. All
who work for a wage, salary or commission are in its
ranks. It consists of all who have to sell their ability to
work to those in control. It makes no difference if you
work in a factory, office, school, hospital or shop. It
makes no difference if you work with your hands or your
brain, whether you wear overalls or a suit, whether you
earn 'good' or bad wages.
WHAT ABOUT THE UNEMPLOYED?
The unemployed also form part of the working class.
Social welfare payments are made to those who have
worked and those who may potentially provide some
employer with their labour power. It is a condition of
payment that a claimant is "available for and actively
seeking work". Needless to say, the partners and
children of workers are also part of the same class, as
are the retired.
The interests of the working class (wages, working
conditions, jobs, useful public spending, etc.) are in
constant and inevitable conflict with those of the boss
class. They seek to maximise their profits and gain an
advantage over their competitors at the expense of the
workers.
NONSENSE
Anyone who talks about 'social partnership', about
labour and capital working together for the benefit of all
is talking nonsense. What rights we have and gains we
have made have been the result of long and often bitter
struggles. The bosses only give such rights and
concessions as they are forced to. In times of recession,
such as now, they try to make workers pay through job
losses, cuts in real wages, cuts in public spending,
productivity deals, etc. for the crisis that is a periodic and
inevitable product of capitalism.
Although capitalism oppresses people on many different
levels, race and sex to name but two; it is the
exploitation of our labour that is fundamental to the
system. It is on this front that the fight for a new society
will be won or lost. If we can reclaim that aspect of our
lives, the system can be overturned and replaced with
something much better.
TAKING OVER
The working class are brought together in large towns
and cities. At work we co-operate with others. Each
person has to do their bit so that the person at the next
stage of production can do theirs. In the services it is the
same; in hospitals, schools and offices. This means that
the working class can be a force capable, not only of
rebelling against injustice but of taking over and
recreating society in its' own interests.
As a class we have to think and act collectively. In a
strike you need the support of your workmates and of the
workers in supplier firms. Individual action won't get
you very far. We have to co-operate. The same applies
to the mammoth task of creating a new society. We
cannot divide up an office or factory between all the
workers there. We act as a group or not at all. This
collective nature that is part and parcel of our class
provides the basis for the solidarity and mutual aid we
will need to scrap the old order and build a truly free and
egalitarian society.
POTENTIAL FOR CHANGE
However just because someone is a worker it does not
always follow that he or she will think of themself as a
worker, or realise the potential for change that the
working class collectively possesses. We all know of
workers who sometimes identify with their boss, or
unemployed people who become demoralised and totally
isolated from any sense of belonging to the working class.
And there are plenty of ignorant academics running
around talking rubbish about a new 'sub class' and a
'natural conflict' between those with jobs and those
without.
Class consciousness, an awareness of our common
interests and the potential we have for real change,
needs to be encouraged and strengthened. This is one of
the tasks of an anarchist organisation.
The struggle between the classes will only come to an
end when the boss class and the state which protects
their privileged position are overthrown. Nationalisation
or state control of the means of production would not
mean an end to class society. It would simply mean the
replacement of individual capitalists by a bureaucratic
state capitalism. Like their predecessors they would be
in control and would have the final say about what
happens to the wealth we create. Whether they like it or
not this would be the logical outcome of the statist
politics of the Workers Party, Sinn Fein and the Labour
Left.
THE WAY TO FREEDOM
Only the direct control and management of production by
the working class themselves can end the class division.
A classless society is not possible without this.
Everyone affected by a decision should have a say in
making that decision. Production in an anarchist society
would be managed by an elected workers' council in each
workplace. Planning on a higher level would be subject
to the agreement of delegates from the councils, delegates
who would be subject to a mandate from their members
and instantly recallable if they don't do the job they were
elected to do. In such a society the wealth would be
created and managed for the benefit of all. There would
be no elite of bosses or rulers. This is the vital
precondition for real freedom.
Alan MacSim<69>in

867
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001102.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,867 @@
2 articles
2nd is 'When the unemployed elected their own TD'
********** Why Anarchists don't vote in Elections *********
from Workers Solidarity No 32
IT'S LOCAL ELECTION time and as usual
politicians of all parties will be promising us
wonderful things. It's probable that this election
will also show an increased vote for the Labour
Party. Yet it is fair enough to ask "what difference
will it make".
We are used to being promised the sun, moon and stars
in elections only to receive cuts, cuts and cuts. Is this
just because all politicians are liars or are there deeper
reasons? Abstention from elections has been an
anarchist tactic from the time of Bakunin. In this article
we look at some of the reasons anarchists advocate
abstention/spoilt votes.
The right to the vote was part of the hard won struggles
of workers (and suffragettes!) over the last couple of
hundred years. Obviously it is preferable to live in a
parliamentary democracy rather than a dictatorship.
Even the most flawed democracies are forced to concede
rights that dictatorships do not, such as relative
independence for trade unions, the right to limited
demonstrations, a certain amount of free speech, etc.
However it is clear that none of these are absolutes, as
anti-trade union legislation, Section 31 and the refusal
to allow nationalist marches into Belfast city centre
adequately demonstrate. The amount of freedom is set
by how much the bosses need to give to keep the system
flowing, plus the amount that is forced from them
through the struggle of workers.
The real purpose of parliament is not to ensure the
country is run according to the wishes of all the people,
cherishing all their views equally. Parliament instead
provides a democratic facade beyond which the real
business of managing capitalism goes on.
The Goodman affair and the bailing out of Insurance
Corporation of Ireland a few years back demonstrate
how the real decisions are made in the boardrooms of
the large industrial concerns. In the unlikely event of a
government being elected which goes "too far" in the eyes
of the bosses they are quick to use any means necessary
to remove it.
BEHIND THE FACADE
The best known example of this is perhaps the removal
of the democratically elected Allende government in Chile
in 1972. They had attempted to bring in a limited
package of reforms and nationalise some of the larger
American industries. The result was a military coup
backed by the CIA.
The workers in Chile were politically disarmed by their
reliance on a small group of elected deputies to liberate
them. There was little organised resistance to the
military and in the immediate aftermath over 30,000
militants were executed and 1,000,000 fled into exile.
In practise however capitalism seldom finds need for
such methods, their complete control of the media and
the reliance of the political parties on big business for
funds is enough of a check. Organisations like the Irish
and British Labour Parties spend most of their time
trying to prove they can manage capitalism just as well
as the Tories or Fianna F<>il.
They argue their policies are a way of avoiding strikes
and any other form of class strife. They say their politics
of class collaboration are more efficient to capitalism
then a hard headed class strife approach of lock-outs
and union busting.
To the bosses this is often a good argument, sometimes
it is worth handing out a few crumbs in return for
industrial peace. At other times when a serious crisis
necessitates a driving down of wages or living standards
they can always either force this government to
implement the cuts, precipitate a general election or - in
extreme cases - turn to a police states.
P.E.S.P. LOGIC
This sort of logic has nothing to do with socialism.
Indeed the current Fianna F<>il/PD government has been
successfully pursuing the same logic through the
Programme for Economic and Social Progress and before
that the PNR. These deals mean the union bureaucrats
actively stopping and sabotaging strikes in return for
pay increases below the rate of inflation. So in a
comparative 'boom' period of the Irish economy when
company profits doubled Irish workers made real losses
with regards to wages and employment and lost ground
as regards the social wage (health care, education, etc).
The Labour and Workers Parties may have objected to
parts of the PESP but they supported the idea of 'social
partnership' as it is part of their strategy for government
as well.
There are times of course when more radical reformist
governments are elected (in other countries if not as yet
in Ireland). These included Spain in 1936 and the post
war British Labour government. The function of these
governments however was to lead the working class
away from the road to social revolution, to suggest the
same gains could be made through parliament.
When put to the test however in the Spanish case by the
fascist coup the government preferred negotiation with
the fascists to arming the working class. In Spain the
initial resistance to fascism was carried out by the
militant workers of the anarchist C.N.T. who seized
arms or attacked fascist barracks with dynamite and
shotguns.
A similar example is seen throughout Europe in the
immediate aftermath of the Russian revolution as the
reformists in one country after another stood on the
basis that electing them would prevent revolution. Vote
for us and save capitalism. Unfortunately at such times
such parties often gain mass support, this is why it is
vital anarchists take up the arguments around
reformism rather than assuming such ideas will just
fade away with the revolution.
GOOD LEADERS?
These arguments are common to most revolutionary
socialists, but anarchists have another and more
fundamental reason for opposing the parliamentary
process. This process involves the mass of the working
class relying on a few representatives to enter
parliament and do battle on their behalf. Their sole
involvement is one of voting every few years and perhaps
canvassing and supporting the party through paper
sales or whatever. A reliance on a physical leader or
leaders from Neil Kinnock to Mary Robinson to sort out
the situation for us.
Anarchists do not belive any real socialist / anarchist
society can come about through the good actions of a few
individuals. From the beginnings of the anarchist
movement around the International Working Mens' (sic)
Association (better known as the 'First International')
over a century ago, we have argued that the liberation of
the working class can only be achieved through the
action of the working class.
At the time this argument was with the Marxists, now
with the collapse of many major Marxist parties in the
wake of the collapse of Eastern Europe it is mainly with
reformists. The process of bringing about an anarchist
society will either be carried through by the mass of the
workers or it will not happen.
This idea is obviously the complete opposite to the
parliamentary idea. We do not seek a few leaders, good,
bad or indifferent to sort out the mess that is
capitalism. Indeed we argue constantly against any
ideas that make it seem such elites are necessary.
Parliamentary politics relies on voting for people because
they are going to do the job (or some of it) for you. Even
the best intentioned individual on receiving a position of
power finds a divergence of interests with those she/he
represents. This is as much true of revolutionaries and
union bureaucrats as it is of ministers and prime
ministers.
MAKING THE ARGUMENTS
This brings us to the question of how should anarchists
tackle the parliamentary system. How do we convince
everyone not to vote? Perhaps we should put all our
energy into anti-election campaigns.
In fact this is not seen as a major activity by most
anarchists at all. Our aim is not to have elections where
only 10% vote, for such a thing would be meaningless in
itself. In the U.S.A. only about 30% vote in most
elections and it is possible that up to 50% of the
population is not even registered to vote. Only a fool
however would claim this meant the U.S. was more
anarchist then Ireland. If that 10% or 30% is still
electing the government it might as well be 99%.
Our aim is to change society by winning the working
class to the ideas and tactics of anarchism. This will
involve the overthrow of the economic system
(capitalism) we live under and its replacement with
socialism under workers' self-management. Not voting
may just be a sign of despair ("What's the point"), we
want workers actively struggling for the alternative.
Our anti-electoralism is designed to say two things.
Firstly that parliament is not the real seat of power in
society. Secondly that the task of bringing in anarchism
is for the working class, not some small group of TD's.
We will gain support for anarchist ideas not just through
abstract propaganda but also by our involvement as
anarchists in workers' struggles and demonstrating
how anarchism provides the best tools for winning day
to day reforms.
REFORMIST WORKERS
Most of the active militants in the working class support
reformist parties, this is an obvious fact. This has led
many revolutionary groups to adopt slogans at election
times telling workers to "vote Labour with no illusions"
or "vote Labour but build a socialist alternative". We
don't.
The problems with both these slogans are they still
reflect the idea that change should be brought about be
the small elites. They are normally defended by saying
this is putting the reformist parties to the test so that
they can be exposed to their supporters. This is a
nonsense, as a brief look at any of the Irish left reformist
organisations shows.
The reformist organisations have failed the 'test' on
dozens of occasions. Workers vote for these
organisations not because they believe they will
introduce socialism but because they are seen to offer
the best of the bad deal that is capitalism.
This is also presented as an argument for voting for the
reformist parties. Is it not ultra-left to refuse to support
these parties while they may be slightly better than
Fianna Fail or Fine Gael? Two answers exist to this.
The first is that as the real decision making takes place
in industry and not in parliament these organisations
even in majority government can only do what
capitalism allows them. Their only argument is to
organise capitalism more "humanly". We want to
smash capitalism, not give it a human face. The sight of
a "socialist government" implementing cuts and
breaking strikes damages the credibility of socialism in
the eyes of workers, as did the existence of the "socialist"
police states of eastern Europe.
Secondly, it is a question of energy. The sort of effort
that is spent supporting (critically or otherwise)
reformist organisation is energy taken away from the
struggles for improved working conditions, better wages
etc. Elections do not take place in a vacuum in which
nothing else takes place in society for a number of
months.
A strike or demonstration of thousands of workers has
more chance of effecting real change then 20 Labour or
Workers party TD's. In times of mass unrest energy
pumped into reformist parties will be energy used to
undermine the revolution. As so many Chilean socialists
found, revolutionaries supporting such organisations are
likely to find the are literally digging their own grave.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE
There are occasions where anarchists might support
individuals standing in elections. This is when such
people stand on a single issue and abstensionist basis.
At times this may be an effective way of showing mass
support for something when faced with a massive hype
against it from the capitalist press. Other forms of
demonstrating support may be difficult due to large
scale intimidation, victimisation of activists, etc.
One example of such an occasion in the Irish context was
the H-Block hunger strikes of 1981 for political status.
The election of Bobby Sands as MP for
Fermanagh/South Tyrone and the election of two more
H-Block prisoners as TD's south of the border
demonstrated a mass support for the hunger strikers. It
undermined government and press claims that they had
the support of only a tiny minority.
Such support must be on the basis of giving workers the
confidence to openly come out and demonstrate, strike,
etc. It is a tactic towards such mobilisations not an end
in itself.
Problems exist with this, commonly the individual
elected may take up her/his seat despite pre-election
promises of abstention if elected. Even in the hunger
strike case where those on hunger strikes could not take
up their seats the danger of such tactics is obvious. The
vote was seen by Sinn Fein as proof that a turn towards
electoral politics was the correct direction for anti-
imperialism to take.
The potential of a mass campaign at the time of the
hunger strikes based on strikes North and South of the
border was thus lost. The decision to support a single
issue candidate would have to involve hard arguments
on the subsequent direction of the campaign and could
not be taken lightly.
Another instance where anarchists would not urge a
abstention from the bosses electoral process is in the
case of referendums. The WSM was involved (and
indeed still is) in the Divorce Action Group. Despite the
severe limitations of the 1986 referendum we still
canvassed for a YES vote.
In the 1983 anti-abortion referendum anarchists
advocated a NO vote. Of course we don't accept the
conclusions of either referendum as final. We still fight
for the right to divorce and a woman's right to control her
fertility up to and including free, safe abortion on
demand. Such things are democratic rights in
themselves, something no majority should have a veto
over.
What do we say to people in the reformist parties? They
can not (and should not) be ignored. We say look at the
record of your party in government or to the Workers
Party when you supported the 1981 minority Fianna
Fail government.
Look at what your party stands for. Look at the record
of your party in the trade union bureaucracy. Look at
the historical role reformist parties have played in other
countries. Reformism has had it's test and failed one
hundred times. Leave it, find out more about
anarchism and join the fight for working class self-
emancipation.
Andrew Flood
Andrew Flood
Conor McLoughlin
Andrew Blackmore
Alan MacSim<69>in
Joe Black
Joe King
Aileen O'Carroll
IT'S LOCAL ELECTION time and as usual politicians
of all parties will be promising us wonderful things.
It's probable that this election will also show an
increased vote for the Labour Party. Yet it is fair
enough to ask "what difference will it make".
We are used to being promised the sun, moon and stars in
elections only to receive cuts, cuts and cuts. Is this just
because all politicians are liars or are there deeper reasons?
Abstention from elections has been an anarchist tactic from
the time of Bakunin. In this article we look at some of the
reasons anarchists advocate abstention/spoilt votes.
The right to the vote was part of the hard won struggles of
workers (and suffragettes!) over the last couple of hundred
years. Obviously it is preferable to live in a parliamentary
democracy rather than a dictatorship. Even the most
flawed democracies are forced to concede rights that
dictatorships do not, such as relative independence for
trade unions, the right to limited demonstrations, a certain
amount of free speech, etc.
However it is clear that none of these are absolutes, as
anti-trade union legislation, Section 31 and the refusal to
allow nationalist marches into Belfast city centre
adequately demonstrate. The amount of freedom is set by
how much the bosses need to give to keep the system
flowing, plus the amount that is forced from them through
the struggle of workers.
The real purpose of parliament is not to ensure the country
is run according to the wishes of all the people, cherishing
all their views equally. Parliament instead provides a
democratic facade beyond which the real business of
managing capitalism goes on.
The Goodman affair and the bailing out of Insurance
Corporation of Ireland a few years back demonstrate how
the real decisions are made in the boardrooms of the large
industrial concerns. In the unlikely event of a government
being elected which goes "too far" in the eyes of the bosses
they are quick to use any means necessary to remove it.
BEHIND THE FACADE
The best known example of this is perhaps the removal of
the democratically elected Allende government in Chile in
1972. They had attempted to bring in a limited package of
reforms and nationalise some of the larger American
industries. The result was a military coup backed by the
CIA.
The workers in Chile were politically disarmed by their
reliance on a small group of elected deputies to liberate
them. There was little organised resistance to the military
and in the immediate aftermath over 30,000 militants were
executed and 1,000,000 fled into exile.
In practise however capitalism seldom finds need for such
methods, their complete control of the media and the
reliance of the political parties on big business for funds is
enough of a check. Organisations like the Irish and British
Labour Parties spend most of their time trying to prove
they can manage capitalism just as well as the Tories or
Fianna F<>il.
They argue their policies are a way of avoiding strikes and
any other form of class strife. They say their politics of
class collaboration are more efficient to capitalism then a
hard headed class strife approach of lock-outs and union
busting.
To the bosses this is often a good argument, sometimes it is
worth handing out a few crumbs in return for industrial
peace. At other times when a serious crisis necessitates a
driving down of wages or living standards they can always
either force this government to implement the cuts,
precipitate a general election or - in extreme cases - turn
to a police states.
P.E.S.P. LOGIC
This sort of logic has nothing to do with socialism. Indeed
the current Fianna F<>il/PD government has been
successfully pursuing the same logic through the
Programme for Economic and Social Progress and before
that the PNR. These deals mean the union bureaucrats
actively stopping and sabotaging strikes in return for pay
increases below the rate of inflation. So in a comparative
'boom' period of the Irish economy when company profits
doubled Irish workers made real losses with regards to
wages and employment and lost ground as regards the social
wage (health care, education, etc).
The Labour and Workers Parties may have objected to parts
of the PESP but they supported the idea of 'social
partnership' as it is part of their strategy for government as
well.
There are times of course when more radical reformist
governments are elected (in other countries if not as yet in
Ireland). These included Spain in 1936 and the post war
British Labour government. The function of these
governments however was to lead the working class away
from the road to social revolution, to suggest the same
gains could be made through parliament.
When put to the test however in the Spanish case by the
fascist coup the government preferred negotiation with the
fascists to arming the working class. In Spain the initial
resistance to fascism was carried out by the militant workers
of the anarchist C.N.T. who seized arms or attacked fascist
barracks with dynamite and shotguns.
A similar example is seen throughout Europe in the
immediate aftermath of the Russian revolution as the
reformists in one country after another stood on the basis
that electing them would prevent revolution. Vote for us
and save capitalism. Unfortunately at such times such
parties often gain mass support, this is why it is vital
anarchists take up the arguments around reformism rather
than assuming such ideas will just fade away with the
revolution.
GOOD LEADERS?
These arguments are common to most revolutionary
socialists, but anarchists have another and more
fundamental reason for opposing the parliamentary process.
This process involves the mass of the working class relying
on a few representatives to enter parliament and do battle
on their behalf. Their sole involvement is one of voting
every few years and perhaps canvassing and supporting the
party through paper sales or whatever. A reliance on a
physical leader or leaders from Neil Kinnock to Mary
Robinson to sort out the situation for us.
Anarchists do not belive any real socialist / anarchist
society can come about through the good actions of a few
individuals. From the beginnings of the anarchist
movement around the International Working Mens' (sic)
Association (better known as the 'First International') over
a century ago, we have argued that the liberation of the
working class can only be achieved through the action of
the working class.
At the time this argument was with the Marxists, now with
the collapse of many major Marxist parties in the wake of
the collapse of Eastern Europe it is mainly with reformists.
The process of bringing about an anarchist society will
either be carried through by the mass of the workers or it
will not happen.
This idea is obviously the complete opposite to the
parliamentary idea. We do not seek a few leaders, good, bad
or indifferent to sort out the mess that is capitalism.
Indeed we argue constantly against any ideas that make it
seem such elites are necessary.
Parliamentary politics relies on voting for people because
they are going to do the job (or some of it) for you. Even
the best intentioned individual on receiving a position of
power finds a divergence of interests with those she/he
represents. This is as much true of revolutionaries and
union bureaucrats as it is of ministers and prime ministers.
MAKING THE ARGUMENTS
This brings us to the question of how should anarchists
tackle the parliamentary system. How do we convince
everyone not to vote? Perhaps we should put all our
energy into anti-election campaigns.
In fact this is not seen as a major activity by most
anarchists at all. Our aim is not to have elections where
only 10% vote, for such a thing would be meaningless in
itself. In the U.S.A. only about 30% vote in most elections
and it is possible that up to 50% of the population is not
even registered to vote. Only a fool however would claim
this meant the U.S. was more anarchist then Ireland. If
that 10% or 30% is still electing the government it might as
well be 99%.
Our aim is to change society by winning the working class
to the ideas and tactics of anarchism. This will involve the
overthrow of the economic system (capitalism) we live under
and its replacement with socialism under workers' self-
management. Not voting may just be a sign of despair
("What's the point"), we want workers actively struggling
for the alternative.
Our anti-electoralism is designed to say two things. Firstly
that parliament is not the real seat of power in society.
Secondly that the task of bringing in anarchism is for the
working class, not some small group of TD's.
We will gain support for anarchist ideas not just through
abstract propaganda but also by our involvement as
anarchists in workers' struggles and demonstrating how
anarchism provides the best tools for winning day to day
reforms.
REFORMIST WORKERS
Most of the active militants in the working class support
reformist parties, this is an obvious fact. This has led many
revolutionary groups to adopt slogans at election times
telling workers to "vote Labour with no illusions" or "vote
Labour but build a socialist alternative". We don't.
The problems with both these slogans are they still reflect
the idea that change should be brought about be the small
elites. They are normally defended by saying this is putting
the reformist parties to the test so that they can be exposed
to their supporters. This is a nonsense, as a brief look at
any of the Irish left reformist organisations shows.
The reformist organisations have failed the 'test' on dozens
of occasions. Workers vote for these organisations not
because they believe they will introduce socialism but
because they are seen to offer the best of the bad deal that
is capitalism.
This is also presented as an argument for voting for the
reformist parties. Is it not ultra-left to refuse to support
these parties while they may be slightly better than Fianna
Fail or Fine Gael? Two answers exist to this.
The first is that as the real decision making takes place in
industry and not in parliament these organisations even in
majority government can only do what capitalism allows
them. Their only argument is to organise capitalism more
"humanly". We want to smash capitalism, not give it a
human face. The sight of a "socialist government"
implementing cuts and breaking strikes damages the
credibility of socialism in the eyes of workers, as did the
existence of the "socialist" police states of eastern Europe.
Secondly, it is a question of energy. The sort of effort that
is spent supporting (critically or otherwise) reformist
organisation is energy taken away from the struggles for
improved working conditions, better wages etc. Elections
do not take place in a vacuum in which nothing else takes
place in society for a number of months.
A strike or demonstration of thousands of workers has more
chance of effecting real change then 20 Labour or Workers
party TD's. In times of mass unrest energy pumped into
reformist parties will be energy used to undermine the
revolution. As so many Chilean socialists found,
revolutionaries supporting such organisations are likely to
find the are literally digging their own grave.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE
There are occasions where anarchists might support
individuals standing in elections. This is when such people
stand on a single issue and abstensionist basis. At times
this may be an effective way of showing mass support for
something when faced with a massive hype against it from
the capitalist press. Other forms of demonstrating support
may be difficult due to large scale intimidation,
victimisation of activists, etc.
One example of such an occasion in the Irish context was
the H-Block hunger strikes of 1981 for political status. The
election of Bobby Sands as MP for Fermanagh/South
Tyrone and the election of two more H-Block prisoners as
TD's south of the border demonstrated a mass support for
the hunger strikers. It undermined government and press
claims that they had the support of only a tiny minority.
Such support must be on the basis of giving workers the
confidence to openly come out and demonstrate, strike, etc.
It is a tactic towards such mobilisations not an end in itself.
Problems exist with this, commonly the individual elected
may take up her/his seat despite pre-election promises of
abstention if elected. Even in the hunger strike case
where those on hunger strikes could not take up their seats
the danger of such tactics is obvious. The vote was seen by
Sinn Fein as proof that a turn towards electoral politics was
the correct direction for anti-imperialism to take.
The potential of a mass campaign at the time of the hunger
strikes based on strikes North and South of the border was
thus lost. The decision to support a single issue candidate
would have to involve hard arguments on the subsequent
direction of the campaign and could not be taken lightly.
Another instance where anarchists would not urge a
abstention from the bosses electoral process is in the case of
referendums. The WSM was involved (and indeed still is) in
the Divorce Action Group. Despite the severe limitations of
the 1986 referendum we still canvassed for a YES vote.
In the 1983 anti-abortion referendum anarchists advocated
a NO vote. Of course we don't accept the conclusions of
either referendum as final. We still fight for the right to
divorce and a woman's right to control her fertility up to
and including free, safe abortion on demand. Such things
are democratic rights in themselves, something no majority
should have a veto over.
What do we say to people in the reformist parties? They
can not (and should not) be ignored. We say look at the
record of your party in government or to the Workers Party
when you supported the 1981 minority Fianna Fail
government.
Look at what your party stands for. Look at the record of
your party in the trade union bureaucracy. Look at the
historical role reformist parties have played in other
countries. Reformism has had it's test and failed one
hundred times. Leave it, find out more about anarchism
and join the fight for working class self-emancipation.
Andrew Flood
******* When the unemployed elected their own TD *******
from Workers Solidarity No 33
A SURVEY carried out by the Connolly
Unemployed Centre at three labour exchanges
in Dublin's South Inner City during the recent
local elections showed that 90% of respondents
would vote for an unemployed party if there
was one running. Is this a way forward in the
fight for decent jobs for all who want them? It
is worth taking a look at what happened in
1957 when an unemployed candidate made it
into the D<>il.
Ireland saw a massive rise in unemployment in the
1950s, ironically at a time when the rest of the
'western world' was booming. Emigration was to be
the safety valve. However not all those out of work
were prepared to uproot themselves and take the
boat. Some stayed to fight.
Unemployment meant poverty. A couple with two
children on Unemployment Assistance were entitled
to just <20>1.90 a week. This bought very little, e.g. a
pound of butter cost 21p. People often lived on little
more than bread, margarine and tea.
The Unemployed Protest Committee was launched
on January 12th 1957 when a chair was borrowed
from a local shop and a public meeting held outside
Dublin's Werburgh Street labour exchange. A
committee of about 16 men (no women were
involved nor does it appear that any serious attempt
was made to involve them) began to meet. Among
their number were Sam Nolan (today an official of
the builders' union UCATT and a member of the
Labour Party), Johnny Mooney, Jack Murphy and
William McGuinness.
Almost immediately McGuinness pulled out saying
that the committee was dominated by the
Communist Party (then named the Irish Workers
League) and set up a rival Catholic Unemployed
Association. With the seemingly obligatory split out
of the way the UPC got down to business.
Use of a room was provided by the Dublin Trades
Council and a march was arranged for January
16th. About one hundred men and a solitary woman
marched through the city under a banner inscribed
with "support us in our demand for work". It was a
tame beginning. Even the Catholic grouping was
looking for a 50% increase in social welfare
payments.
Agitation was stepped up and more joined the ranks
of the UPC. Up to this point most had looked to the
Labour TDs to fight on behalf of the unemployed.
Sam Nolan summed it up at a UPC meeting at the
end of January, "surely it was the responsibility of the
Labour leaders and deputies to work out some
organised plan. After all they were supposed to
represent the working class".
Most members quickly saw that the Labour Party
would contribute little more than empty platitudes.
When the government fell in February after S<>an
McBride's Clann na Poblachta withdrew their
support Jack Murphy proposed that the UPC run a
candidate in the coming general election. This was
seen as a way of putting the need for jobs onto the
political agenda.
Two names were put forward, Nolan and Murphy.
Both were unemployed building workers. Nolan was
a leading Communist. The Communists were divided
on running him. Some, including Nolan himself, were
unwilling to allow the UPC to be seen as a front for
their party.
Murphy was a left republican who had been interned
in the 1940s and had been a militant shop steward.
He was selected to contest the election in Dublin
South Central. The <20>100 deposit was raised from
unlikely sources. <20>25 each came from Toddy
O'Sullivan, manager of the Gresham Hotel; Fr.
Counihane, a Jesuit priest; a Fianna F<>il senator
called Mooney and Mr Digby, the owner of Pye Radio.
After a vigorous campaign Murphy gathered 3,036
votes and was elected. His seat was gained at the
expense of the Labour Party who had run James
Connolly's son Roddy. Murphy's success was
encouraging to unemployed activists and new
organisations were set up in Waterford and Cork.
If the unemployed thought that having one of their
own in the D<>il would force the government to take
their concerns more seriously they were in for a
shock. Murphy could not even get an answer to a
question about how much unemployment relief
money would be spent in Dublin.
There was no problem, however, in providing an
answer to Fine Gael's Belton when he asked about
the "hardship imposed on cricket clubs because of the
cost of cricket balls".
The new Fianna F<>il government's budget provided
for the ending of food subsidies. This was going to hit
the unemployed and low paid workers very hard.
The response of the trade union leaders was
pathetic. The Provisional United Trade Union
Organisation (forerunner to the ICTU) had a lot in
common with today's leaders - an overwhelming
concern for industrial peace and the bosses' profits.
It pointed out "that the removal of food subsidies was
neither necessary nor wise. While creating terrible
hardships for the unemployed it also created a
situation where claims for higher wages would be
made with the threat of widespread instability or
industrial strife".
Jack Murphy and two other UPC members, Tommy
Kavanagh and Jimmy Byrne, went on hunger strike.
This was not a UPC stunt, in fact they learned of the
hunger strike through the newspapers. Murphy, as
'the elected representative of the unemployed', didn't
see why he should have to consult with the
committee.
The hunger strike lasted for four days. Each evening
several thousand turned up to protest meetings at
the corner of Abbey Street and O'Connell Street.
Over 1,000 marched to Leinster House seeking a
meeting with the Minister for Industry and
Commerce, S<>an Lemass - who sneaked out the
back gate.
Resolutions began to come from trades councils and
union branches calling for a one day strike. There
was now a possibility of building the sort of
campaign that could force the government to back
down.
This possibility quickly evaporated when Murphy fell
sick and with Byrne and Kavanagh called off the
hunger strike on day four. To save face the UPC
arranged for trade union leaders to appeal for its end
in order to save lives. It was wrong to rush into a
hunger strike, and the way it was called off caused
much confusion and demoralisation among the
unemployed.
All that followed was a few delegations to plead with
Fianna F<>il TDs and a meeting between Murphy and
Catholic Archbishop McQuaid. McQuaid made it
clear he would not interfere in political decisions
(which had not stopped him dictating to the previous
government over the Mother and Child Scheme). He
further warned Murphy of the danger of associating
with Communists.
The last big demonstration was a 2,000 strong
march from S<>an McDermott Street to the D<>il.
Jack Murphy opposed the demonstration saying it
conflicted with his D<>il work. In August he broke
with the UPC and the next year he resigned his D<>il
seat.
The unemployed movement was dead. The biggest
mistake they made was getting involved in
parliamentary politics. Far from building active
support for the UPC it made its supporters passive.
Why bother marching, going to meetings and seeking
trade union action if you have a TD to 'represent'
you? The election of Murphy was seen by most as
an end in itself.
The key to winning on issues like extra jobs, higher
payments and lower food prices is a mass, active
movement. A movement that can and will fight
alongside those in work. This is incompatible with
electing figureheads to speak for us, to argue for us,
to make decisions for us.
Real democracy is necessary. This means those
affected by decisions having the power to make
them. It does not mean handing that power over to
a few individuals, that only makes people passive.
No boss or government feels under pressure to make
concessions to the passive.
Joe King

136
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001103.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,136 @@
******** What about human nature? *********
from Workers Solidarity No 33
A WORLD without war, famine, poverty,
racism? A world where there are no bosses
ordering us around and living off our work? A
world where competition is replaced by co-
operation and individual freedom?
Sounds nice. Who wouldn't like to see it? But it can
never happen, it runs against human nature. How
many times have you heard that line? How many
times have you been told that people are naturally
selfish, greedy, prone to violence and short-sighted?
We are constantly being told that there will always
be leaders and led, rulers and ruled. These ideas are
powerful because they seem to make sense. We do
live in a nasty, competitive society.
IT WOULD BE A MIRACLE
Capitalism is based on competition. Countries
compete, companies compete. At work you are
encouraged to compete for promotion (or to avoid
being let go), in school you compete against other
students to get the best exam results. With so
much competition around it would be miraculous if
people were not competitive.
The question is whether this is natural? The idea
that there is some eternally flawed human nature
that we can't do much about gets lots of support
from those with a stake in the existing set-up.
Anarchists reject this as self serving nonsense
churned out by those who are doing well out of
capitalism and don't want to see it got rid of.
WHO DOESN'T CARE?
Despite the odds stacked against it we can find just
as many examples of caring and co-operation as we
can of selfishness and competition. Solidarity
strikes are an obvious one. We even saw workers in
Dunnes Stores go on strike for months in support of
black workers in South Africa whom they had never
even met.
Look at any working class neighbourhood and you
will find people caring for each other. They are
organising football teams for the teenagers, summer
projects for the younger children. This doesn't make
sense if greed is part of our human nature.
WILLIE BERMINGHAM
Greed and selfishness don't motivate people to carry
kidney donor cards or make them want to donate
blood to the transfusion service. Greed did not
inspire the late Willie Bermingham to start up
ALONE to care for the elderly living on their own.
Selfishness does not lead people to give money to
charities. It does not explain why nurses volunteer
to work unpaid for Concern projects in the less
developed countries.
But, we are told, there are those better suited to
ruling, that inequality is natural and inevitable.
Before capitalism the ruling class used the
argument that God had chosen them, the 'divine
right of kings'. With capitalism came a new
justification. We are told that our bosses and rulers
owe their position to superior talent. They 'merit'
their position.
ARE THEY BETTER
THAN YOU?
We are told that with intelligence and hard work
anyone can make it. The other side of the coin is
that those at the bottom of society are there
because of their own laziness or because they are
not as bright as the likes of Haughey or Ben Dunne.
Are we really expected to accept that Dan Quayle is
an intellectual giant? Are we to believe that the
child of a millionaire has only the same chances as
the rest of us?
This is crap pushed at us to stop us questioning why
the many do all the work while the few make all the
important decisions and live off the fat of the land.
The true story is that we are products both of the
environment we live in and of the changes we make
on it. We have no control over what sort of society
we are born into but we can change it.
CHANGING VIEWS OF 'NATURAL'
To law-abiding parents stopping the heroin dealers
was a job for the gardai. When the gardai were not
moving against the Larry Dunnes and Ma Bakers
those same law-abiding parents thought it quite
natural to organise into the CPAD and put the
pushers out of their areas - even though doing that
was illegal.
To the conscripted American soldier in Vietnam
blindly obeying orders from officers seemed perfectly
natural. After years of slaughter and massacres,
desertion and even mutiny seemed natural.
To most workers getting in to work each Monday
morning and taking orders from the boss seems
natural until they are forced to strike. They may
even challenge the right of the boss to control their
workplace by occupying it.
WE CAN DO IT
We have the power to change the world. The ruling
class know this and try to divide us. They split us
into Protestant and Catholic, gay and straight,
black and white, working class and so-called middle
class (white collar workers).
But again and again the system throws us together
in struggle. It is in struggle that we we come to
depend on each other and co-operate for a common
goal. This is the first step towards building a society
where selfishness is replaced by co-operation, where
the dictate of the boss is replaced by freedom, where
we take control of our own lives and futures.
Alan MacSim<69>in

562
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001104.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,562 @@
2 articles
2nd is 'The campaign to seperate Church and state'
************ Thinking about Anarchism **********
Religion
from WS 45 (1995)
The popular stereotype of anarchists' relationship
to religion is that we are all priest-killers and
church-burners. This is, as is usually the case
with mainstream representations of anarchism,
almost completely false. It is useful in the wake
of the clerical paedophile scandals and the general
stranglehold that the church exerts on Irish
society to give a truer explanation of our
position.
Anarchists are materialists. We understand that
there is a real and concrete basis for the way
society is organised right now. Religion generally
sees society as god given and inevitable. Almost
all world religions claim that the poor will be
rewarded in the afterlife for passively accepting
their lot in this one.
Religion is by its nature authoritarian, whether to
a greater of lesser extent. It is based on 'faith'
and obedience. The reality we face is of churches
that are involved in the repression of women, of
gay people and all of those who seek to change the
face of the traditional (nuclear) family. It is no
coincidence that fundamentalists of all religions,
from Ireland to Iran, seek to push back the
progress made by women in the workplace and the
sexual revolution.
Church power in Ireland
As anarchists we oppose this authoritarianism. We
are fighting to break the power of the church in
Ireland. This power is immense. As well as it's
direct wealth, they control over 3,000 out of the
3,500 primary schools in the 26 counties, despite
the fact that all the staff wages and 90% of
building costs are paid by the State. They also
control 67% of secondary schools and own Maynooth
College. They have a majority on the boards of
about half the hospitals. This allows them to veto
even legal operations such as sterilisations.
However it is not enough just to oppose the
churches' power. As Anarchists we must offer a
real practical alternative analysis of society.
The stronghold that the church has is not simply a
result of historical circumstances, it offers
something that people want. It offers an
explanation of all sorts of natural and personal
disasters, by saying that they are "the will of
god". It offers hope in a world where misery,
poverty, ignorance, frustration and alienation are
endemic.
To break this stranglehold we need a strategy that
unites our vision of a better world in the here and
now with struggles that bring people into conflict
with clerical power and show up religion as a prop
for the status quo, that stands in the way of their
needs and desires. In Ireland this means fighting
against clerical control of schools, hospitals,
etc. It also means fighting for separation of
church and state.
Church and State
The question that often arises is "surely as
Anarchists you are against the state as well?" The
simple answer is that we are but we are also for
fighting for improvements to people's lives in the
here and now. Breaking the stranglehold of the
church would ease the way for divorce, reproductive
rights including abortion, along with stopping
church control of schools.
For us religion is a private matter. It should
enjoy no special privileges, tax reliefs etc. We
expect members to be involved in the struggle
against the power and control exercised by the
churches. Nonetheless members can hold religious
beliefs provided they fully accept this aspect.
In short we fight religion by fighting its root
causes. The Workers Solidarity Movement is
fighting for an anarchist society where people will
come to realise that they have no need for religion
or other mystical ideas. We challenge religion in
a practical way by showing where it obstructs
social progress and by leading the challenge to it
at every opportunity.
Louise Tierney
*****************
from Workers Solidarity No 32
paper of the Irish anarchist
Workers Solidarity Movement
Church and State
THE CAMPAIGN to Separate Church and State have
been busy. They've being taking a court case against
the govern-ment for employing Chaplains in Vocational
schools. The 26 county Constitution prohibits the state
from "endowing" reli-gion. Though we wouldn't place
much faith in the courts or De Valera's Constitution
our-selves we got to admit that they've got a point,
paying for these 30 priests and ministers is costing the
taxpayer <20>800,000-<2D>1,000,000. However this is only the
tip of the iceberg!
The Catholic church in Ireland has always been massively
supported by the State and allowed a huge say in the
running of the country. This article will attempt to cover
the facts of church power in Ireland and the long history of
State support beginning hundreds of years be-fore the
establishment of the 26 county state.
RELIGIOUS BELIEF
Firstly it must be made clear that we see religion as a
personal matter. Everyone should be free to worship as
they want and hold whatever beliefs they want. We
condemn totally any attacks on an individual's re-ligious
freedom.
Equally we are opposed to any-one telling us how to run our
lives, including religious leaders. This article will hopefully
show how organised religion works with State and bosses to
oppress all whatever their per-sonal religious beliefs.
Within the Irish 26 counties we are referring of course to
the Catholic church ...and now a brief his-tory lesson.
A BIT OF HISTORY
In 1951 Noel Browne, Minister for Health in the "inter-
party" coalition government, intro-duced his "Mother and
Child Scheme". This was a proposal for free gynaecological
care for pregnant women and a compre-hensive health
programme for children up to 16.
Following their Autumn meet-ing in Maynooth the Catholic
bishops sent a letter to the gov-ernment.
"The powers taken by the State in the proposed
Mother and Child health service are in direct
opposition to the rights of the family and of the
individual and are liable to very great abuse. Their
character is such that no assurance that they would be
used in moderation could justify their enactment. If
adopted they would constitute a ready-made instrument
for totalitarian aggression"(!)
Such was the power of the bishops (helped by other
conserva-tives and with the strong support of many wealthy
doctors fear-ing for their practices) that this tripe was
sufficient to send Labour and Clann na Poblachta tripping
over each other to catch up with Fine Gael in the "No"
lobby. Noel Browne was forced to resign.
THE CHURCH AS CAPITALISTS
The church's fear of "totalitarian aggression" (i.e.
communism) is of little surprise when you consider it's
material base in society. Recently (1987) the church's total
assets in Dublin alone amounted to <20>100 million, with an
estimated income of <20>7.5 million per year.
According to the Irish Independent (31/01/83) it owned 234
churches, 713 schools, 473 houses and 100 community
centres in Dublin. In 1979 in the midst of appalling poverty
they spent <20>2.5 million on the pope's visit.
Needless to say the ordinary members of this company (i.e.
the vast majority of Irish people) have no shares, and voting
rights lie in the hands of a non-elected board of
management: the Bishops.
As well as it's direct wealth, it has a massive amount of
control in State institutions. They control 3,300 out of the
country's 3,500 primary schools despite the fact that all the
staff wages and 90% of building costs are paid by the State.
They also control 67% of secondary schools and own
Maynooth College. They have a majority on the boards of
most orphanages, 'reform schools' and hospitals. This allows
them to veto even legal operations such as sterilisations in
most hospitals.
KEEPING IN WITH THE
IN-CROWD
The Catholic church has always known which side it's bread
was buttered on. It worked hand in glove with British
imperial-ism (while engaging in a little nationalist posturing
to main-tain it's credibility with the masses) and after 1921
worked to prop up the weak Irish ruling class. They opposed
the first stirring of radical democracy and egalitarian
republicanism of the United Irishmen at the end of the
Eighteenth century.
In 1795 the English authorities began to recognise their
useful-ness and helped build Maynooth seminary to replace
the one in Paris destroyed by "Godless French
revolutionaries". The cornerstone laid by the Lord
Lieutenant in 1795 was the rock on which the clerical elite
was to build it's power over the next 200 years.
In 1799 the bishops met at Maynooth to vote their support
for the Act of Union. In 1845 Robert Peel (the English
Prime Minister) trebled the annual grant for Maynooth and
gave them a large sum to expand the college. During the
famine Bishops hardly commented on the mass starvation
gripping the country while grain exports to England
continued to grow.
KITTY O'SHEA
They opposed the Fenians and even constitutional
nationalists like Parnell, whom they hounded out of politics
after his affair with Kitty O'Shea. The Catholic hierarchy
was in the front-line in condemning the locked-out workers
in 1913. Priests and lay Catholic activists physically
prevented children of the strik-ers being sent on holiday to
trade union families in "Godless" England during the
dispute.
The 1916 proclamation repre-sented the views of the more
radical wing of the Irish bourgeoisie & intellectuals and had
a vague aspiration to "cherish all the children of the nation
equally". After 1921 the Free State government and the
weak Irish ruling class fell back into the arms of the church.
The bishops con-demned the anti-treaty side in the civil war,
recognised the "legitimate government" and attacked
republicans for "causing criminal damage".
After the war both pro- (Cumann na Gael/Fine Gael) and
anti- (Fianna F<>il) treaty sides were in the palm of it's hand.
In 1923 the Censorship of Films Act was passed, 1924 saw
the Intoxicating Liquor Act, in 1925 divorce was out-lawed
and in 1929 the Censorship of Publications Board was
established.
In 1937 De Valera's Constitution was passed with the
bishops being consulted on every syllable. Among its
articles was:
"The State recognises the special position of the
Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church as the
guardian of the faith professed by the majority of
citizens". (This was not repealed until 1972).
Fine Gael did not allow them-selves to be outdone in abject
grovelling. In 1947 Costelloe, head of the new coalition
gov-ernment, wrote to the pope:
"on the occasion of our assumption of
office......my colleagues and myself desire to repose at
the feet of your holiness the assurance of our filial
loyalty and our devotion to your August person".
A NEW IRELAND?
The 1960s and 70s saw an upturn in the Irish economy with
international investment. This led to an increase in the
number of women working out-side the home, and combined
with the emergence of the Irish womens' movement, led to
a slight weakening of the church's position. In 1979 Fianna
F<EFBFBD>il actually went against the hierarchy to bring in limited
availability of condoms.
But the 1980s saw a series of defeats for liberal reforms. In
1980 Noel Browne, once again, got the thin end of the stick
when not one T.D. would support his divorce bill. In 1983
the Constitution was amended to "uphold the right to life of
the unborn". In 1985 a "Lenten Pastoral" forbade Catholic
hospitals carrying out sterilisa-tions. In 1986 an amendment
to the Constitution allowing divorce in very limited circum-
stances was defeated.
However there are some definite signs of a weakening of the
ideological power of the church in Ireland. There has been
a decrease in both church atten-dance and "vocations to the
priesthood" since the 1970s. For example there has been a
9% drop in Mass attendance between 1974 and 1989,
attendance at confession has declined from 47% to 18%
(according to a re-cent survey by Rev. Michael Mac Grail -
Irish Times 2/3/1991). The recent election of a "liberal"
woman President (Mary Robinson) and the Fianna F<>il
attempt to widen the availability of condoms would also
seem to confirm this.
IS THERE A WAY OUT?
Though we must acknowledge that liberals such as the
Campaign to Separate Church and State have the right
idea, we don't think that their methods will work. We stand
for the complete separation of Church and State. Yes, I
know some-body will point out that we oppose the State as
well. This is a tactical question, just as our opposition to
the wages system doesn't stop us looking for higher wages.
In the short-term we have to fight against clerical control of
hospitals, schools, community centres and youth clubs. We
also fight against the laws which place restrictions on
peoples' personal lives. The WSM is in favour of
campaigning for the best possible secular laws in the areas
of divorce, contracep-tion, abortion, sterilisation, adoption
and gay & lesbian rights.
We fully realise that there are limits to what can be
achieved under the present system, but that should stop
nobody seeking to win those limited goals that are
immediately possible.
A victory in any one of these struggles exposes the wide
powers of the church and shows whose side it is on. It
creates the possibility of involving more people in future
struggles. The long-term alternative we offer of a new free,
self-managed world where people control their own lives
will be one in which the mystical and authoritarian ideas of
most religions will probably attract little support.
Des McCarron
THE CAMPAIGN to Separate Church and State
have been busy. They've being taking a court case
against the govern-ment for employing Chaplains
in Vocational schools. The 26 county Constitution
prohibits the state from "endowing" reli-gion.
Though we wouldn't place much faith in the courts
or De Valera's Constitution our-selves we got to
admit that they've got a point, paying for these 30
priests and ministers is costing the taxpayer
<EFBFBD>800,000-<2D>1,000,000. However this is only the tip of
the iceberg!
The Catholic church in Ireland has always been
massively supported by the State and allowed a huge
say in the running of the country. This article will
attempt to cover the facts of church power in Ireland and
the long history of State support beginning hundreds of
years be-fore the establishment of the 26 county state.
RELIGIOUS BELIEF
Firstly it must be made clear that we see religion as a
personal matter. Everyone should be free to worship as
they want and hold whatever beliefs they want. We
condemn totally any attacks on an individual's re-ligious
freedom.
Equally we are opposed to any-one telling us how to run
our lives, including religious leaders. This article will
hopefully show how organised religion works with State
and bosses to oppress all whatever their per-sonal
religious beliefs. Within the Irish 26 counties we are
referring of course to the Catholic church ...and now a
brief his-tory lesson.
A BIT OF HISTORY
In 1951 Noel Browne, Minister for Health in the "inter-
party" coalition government, intro-duced his "Mother and
Child Scheme". This was a proposal for free
gynaecological care for pregnant women and a compre-
hensive health programme for children up to 16.
Following their Autumn meet-ing in Maynooth the
Catholic bishops sent a letter to the gov-ernment.
"The powers taken by the State in the
proposed Mother and Child health service are in
direct opposition to the rights of the family and of
the individual and are liable to very great abuse.
Their character is such that no assurance that
they would be used in moderation could justify
their enactment. If adopted they would constitute a
ready-made instrument for totalitarian
aggression"(!)
Such was the power of the bishops (helped by other
conserva-tives and with the strong support of many
wealthy doctors fear-ing for their practices) that this tripe
was sufficient to send Labour and Clann na Poblachta
tripping over each other to catch up with Fine Gael in the
"No" lobby. Noel Browne was forced to resign.
THE CHURCH AS CAPITALISTS
The church's fear of "totalitarian aggression" (i.e.
communism) is of little surprise when you consider it's
material base in society. Recently (1987) the church's
total assets in Dublin alone amounted to <20>100 million,
with an estimated income of <20>7.5 million per year.
According to the Irish Independent (31/01/83) it owned
234 churches, 713 schools, 473 houses and 100
community centres in Dublin. In 1979 in the midst of
appalling poverty they spent <20>2.5 million on the pope's
visit.
Needless to say the ordinary members of this company
(i.e. the vast majority of Irish people) have no shares,
and voting rights lie in the hands of a non-elected board
of management: the Bishops.
As well as it's direct wealth, it has a massive amount of
control in State institutions. They control 3,300 out of
the country's 3,500 primary schools despite the fact that
all the staff wages and 90% of building costs are paid by
the State. They also control 67% of secondary schools
and own Maynooth College. They have a majority on the
boards of most orphanages, 'reform schools' and
hospitals. This allows them to veto even legal
operations such as sterilisations in most hospitals.
KEEPING IN WITH THE
IN-CROWD
The Catholic church has always known which side it's
bread was buttered on. It worked hand in glove with
British imperial-ism (while engaging in a little nationalist
posturing to main-tain it's credibility with the masses)
and after 1921 worked to prop up the weak Irish ruling
class. They opposed the first stirring of radical
democracy and egalitarian republicanism of the United
Irishmen at the end of the Eighteenth century.
In 1795 the English authorities began to recognise their
useful-ness and helped build Maynooth seminary to
replace the one in Paris destroyed by "Godless French
revolutionaries". The cornerstone laid by the Lord
Lieutenant in 1795 was the rock on which the clerical
elite was to build it's power over the next 200 years.
In 1799 the bishops met at Maynooth to vote their
support for the Act of Union. In 1845 Robert Peel (the
English Prime Minister) trebled the annual grant for
Maynooth and gave them a large sum to expand the
college. During the famine Bishops hardly commented on
the mass starvation gripping the country while grain
exports to England continued to grow.
KITTY O'SHEA
They opposed the Fenians and even constitutional
nationalists like Parnell, whom they hounded out of
politics after his affair with Kitty O'Shea. The Catholic
hierarchy was in the front-line in condemning the locked-
out workers in 1913. Priests and lay Catholic activists
physically prevented children of the strik-ers being sent
on holiday to trade union families in "Godless" England
during the dispute.
The 1916 proclamation repre-sented the views of the
more radical wing of the Irish bourgeoisie & intellectuals
and had a vague aspiration to "cherish all the children of
the nation equally". After 1921 the Free State
government and the weak Irish ruling class fell back into
the arms of the church. The bishops con-demned the
anti-treaty side in the civil war, recognised the
"legitimate government" and attacked republicans for
"causing criminal damage".
After the war both pro- (Cumann na Gael/Fine Gael) and
anti- (Fianna F<>il) treaty sides were in the palm of it's
hand. In 1923 the Censorship of Films Act was passed,
1924 saw the Intoxicating Liquor Act, in 1925 divorce
was out-lawed and in 1929 the Censorship of
Publications Board was established.
In 1937 De Valera's Constitution was passed with the
bishops being consulted on every syllable. Among its
articles was:
"The State recognises the special position of
the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church as
the guardian of the faith professed by the majority
of citizens". (This was not repealed until 1972).
Fine Gael did not allow them-selves to be outdone in
abject grovelling. In 1947 Costelloe, head of the new
coalition gov-ernment, wrote to the pope:
"on the occasion of our assumption of
office......my colleagues and myself desire to repose
at the feet of your holiness the assurance of our
filial loyalty and our devotion to your August
person".
A NEW IRELAND?
The 1960s and 70s saw an upturn in the Irish economy
with international investment. This led to an increase in
the number of women working out-side the home, and
combined with the emergence of the Irish womens'
movement, led to a slight weakening of the church's
position. In 1979 Fianna F<>il actually went against the
hierarchy to bring in limited availability of condoms.
But the 1980s saw a series of defeats for liberal reforms.
In 1980 Noel Browne, once again, got the thin end of the
stick when not one T.D. would support his divorce bill.
In 1983 the Constitution was amended to "uphold the
right to life of the unborn". In 1985 a "Lenten Pastoral"
forbade Catholic hospitals carrying out sterilisa-tions. In
1986 an amendment to the Constitution allowing divorce
in very limited circum-stances was defeated.
However there are some definite signs of a weakening of
the ideological power of the church in Ireland. There has
been a decrease in both church atten-dance and
"vocations to the priesthood" since the 1970s. For
example there has been a 9% drop in Mass attendance
between 1974 and 1989, attendance at confession has
declined from 47% to 18% (according to a re-cent survey
by Rev. Michael Mac Grail - Irish Times 2/3/1991). The
recent election of a "liberal" woman President (Mary
Robinson) and the Fianna F<>il attempt to widen the
availability of condoms would also seem to confirm this.
IS THERE A WAY OUT?
Though we must acknowledge that liberals such as the
Campaign to Separate Church and State have the right
idea, we don't think that their methods will work. We
stand for the complete separation of Church and State.
Yes, I know some-body will point out that we oppose the
State as well. This is a tactical question, just as our
opposition to the wages system doesn't stop us looking
for higher wages.
In the short-term we have to fight against clerical control
of hospitals, schools, community centres and youth clubs.
We also fight against the laws which place restrictions
on peoples' personal lives. The WSM is in favour of
campaigning for the best possible secular laws in the
areas of divorce, contracep-tion, abortion, sterilisation,
adoption and gay & lesbian rights.
We fully realise that there are limits to what can be
achieved under the present system, but that should stop
nobody seeking to win those limited goals that are
immediately possible.
A victory in any one of these struggles exposes the wide
powers of the church and shows whose side it is on. It
creates the possibility of involving more people in future
struggles. The long-term alternative we offer of a new
free, self-managed world where people control their own
lives will be one in which the mystical and authoritarian
ideas of most religions will probably attract little
support.
Des McCarron

267
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001105.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,267 @@
*********** REVOLUTION ***********
from Workers Solidarity No 32
ANARCHISTS SAY that capitalism can not be
reformed away. We say it must be overthrown
through a revolution. Many people however believe
that the failure of the Russian revolution of 1917
shows revolutions just replace one set of rulers with
another. The failures of the revolutions in
Nicaragua, Iran and Cuba to fundamentally change
life for the workers of these countries seems to point
to the same thing. So why all this talk of revolution?
A revolution essentially is a sudden upheaval in society
which fundamentally alters the way that society operates
or who that society is run by. It occurs when the mass of
the people desire change that their rulers are unwilling
or unable to grant. It can not be the result of the action
of a small group of plotters.
History is full of revolutions. Capitalism gained
dominance over feudalism through revolutions,
particularly the French revolution of 1789. Revolutions
in countries like Cuba, Nicaragua and Iran since the
second world war have had major effects on a global scale.
Of course none of these were anarchist revolutions. They
all resulted in the substitution of one ruling class for
another. They failed to bring about classless societies.
MISSING FACTOR
What was missing was an independent working class
fighting for its own class interests. Instead working class
militancy was harnessed by radical nationalists in a fight
for 'national liberation'. In power these radical
nationalists crushed the working class at home while
seeking terms with imperialism abroad.
In the case of Nicaragua and Cuba at least the radical
nationalists in power used socialist jargon as a cover for
their policies. Cuba went so far as to nationalise the
economy. A successful socialist revolution however
involves more than nationalisation and left wing jargon.
In the course of a revolution the working class
spontaneously throws up organs through which it tries to
re-organise society. These organs however are normally
made subservient to the new state within a short period
of time. Normally there is some resistance to this but
such resistance is brutally crushed. In 1917 the
Bolshevik state apparatus crushed the Soviets and factory
committees, in Iran the radical nationalists around
Khomeini performed the same function.
SMASH THE STATE
This could only occur because the vast majority of the
workers accepted the necessity of state rule. This is why
anarchists emphasise the importance of smashing the
state rather then using it's apparatus to introduce
socialism. There is no more utopian idea then the idea of
a minority introducing socialism through the state
apparatus.
Anarchists believe that a successful revolution which
introduces socialism must for the first time in history
involve a huge subjective factor. This subjective factor is
a large proportion of the working class holding anarchist
politics. This does not mean the WSM must be the
largest faction or even that anarchist groups must be the
largest faction. It does mean that workers must see the
introduction of socialism as something that is their task,
and that the state has only a counter-revolutionary role
to play.
BATTLE OF IDEAS
This will not just happen spontaneously. Some
anarchists make the mistake of thinking politics will
become irrelevant once workers seize the factories. They
think that the various Leninist and reformist left
theories will become instantly irrelevant. In actual fact
this is the period when politics will become relevant as
never before. It is a period where millions of workers will
be looking for a political direction.
In the past revolutions have been led to disaster because
the ideas that led the working class were reformist or
authoritarian. Once in power such parties brutally
crushed working class activity. This is as true of the
reformists in the German revolution of 1919 as it is of the
Bolsheviks in 1917-21. Anarchist organisation must be
capable of debating and defeating such ideas as they
arise.
CRYSTAL BALL
Not being crystal ball gazers we can not predict when the
next opportunity for revolution will occur. In Ireland at
least it would appear to be many years away. We do know
such opportunities will arise however, they are a product
of the inability of capitalism to meet the needs of all the
people. Capitalism may have changed and developed over
the years but this has not changed.
This does not mean we do nothing until such an
opportunity arises. Now is the time for us to develop and
spread anarchist ideas. We need to build strong anarchist
organisation(s), not just in Ireland but internationally.
Indeed it is likely that revolution will arrive on the
agenda in Ireland due to the success of revolutions
elsewhere. We ensure the continued relevancy of our
ideas by involvement in the struggles of fellow workers
and demonstrating the usefulness of anarchist politics
and tactics.
This is the purpose of the WSM. We are in the process of
building an organisation capable of asserting anarchist
ideas. We are developing these ideas while being
involved in struggles at all levels of society. We are
building international links with anarchists in other
countries. If you too wish to see this rotten system
smashed and replaced with anarchism then get in contact
and get involved.
Joe Black
ANARCHISTS SAY that capitalism can not be
reformed away. We say it must be overthrown
through a revolution. Many people however
believe that the failure of the Russian revolution
of 1917 shows revolutions just replace one set of
rulers with another. The failures of the
revolutions in Nicaragua, Iran and Cuba to
fundamentally change life for the workers of
these countries seems to point to the same thing.
So why all this talk of revolution?
A revolution essentially is a sudden upheaval in
society which fundamentally alters the way that
society operates or who that society is run by. It
occurs when the mass of the people desire change that
their rulers are unwilling or unable to grant. It can
not be the result of the action of a small group of
plotters.
History is full of revolutions. Capitalism gained
dominance over feudalism through revolutions,
particularly the French revolution of 1789.
Revolutions in countries like Cuba, Nicaragua and
Iran since the second world war have had major effects
on a global scale.
Of course none of these were anarchist revolutions.
They all resulted in the substitution of one ruling class
for another. They failed to bring about classless
societies.
MISSING FACTOR
What was missing was an independent working class
fighting for its own class interests. Instead working
class militancy was harnessed by radical nationalists
in a fight for 'national liberation'. In power these
radical nationalists crushed the working class at home
while seeking terms with imperialism abroad.
In the case of Nicaragua and Cuba at least the radical
nationalists in power used socialist jargon as a cover
for their policies. Cuba went so far as to nationalise
the economy. A successful socialist revolution however
involves more than nationalisation and left wing
jargon.
In the course of a revolution the working class
spontaneously throws up organs through which it tries
to re-organise society. These organs however are
normally made subservient to the new state within a
short period of time. Normally there is some
resistance to this but such resistance is brutally
crushed. In 1917 the Bolshevik state apparatus
crushed the Soviets and factory committees, in Iran
the radical nationalists around Khomeini performed
the same function.
SMASH THE STATE
This could only occur because the vast majority of the
workers accepted the necessity of state rule. This is
why anarchists emphasise the importance of smashing
the state rather then using it's apparatus to introduce
socialism. There is no more utopian idea then the
idea of a minority introducing socialism through the
state apparatus.
Anarchists believe that a successful revolution which
introduces socialism must for the first time in history
involve a huge subjective factor. This subjective factor
is a large proportion of the working class holding
anarchist politics. This does not mean the WSM must
be the largest faction or even that anarchist groups
must be the largest faction. It does mean that
workers must see the introduction of socialism as
something that is their task, and that the state has
only a counter-revolutionary role to play.
BATTLE OF IDEAS
This will not just happen spontaneously. Some
anarchists make the mistake of thinking politics will
become irrelevant once workers seize the factories.
They think that the various Leninist and reformist left
theories will become instantly irrelevant. In actual
fact this is the period when politics will become
relevant as never before. It is a period where millions
of workers will be looking for a political direction.
In the past revolutions have been led to disaster
because the ideas that led the working class were
reformist or author-itarian. Once in power such
parties brutally crushed working class activity. This is
as true of the reformists in the German revolution of
1919 as it is of the Bolsheviks in 1917-21. Anarchist
organisation must be capable of debating and
defeating such ideas as they arise.
CRYSTAL BALL
Not being crystal ball gazers we can not predict when
the next opportunity for revolution will occur. In
Ireland at least it would appear to be many years
away. We do know such opportunities will arise
however, they are a product of the inability of
capitalism to meet the needs of all the people.
Capitalism may have changed and developed over the
years but this has not changed.
This does not mean we do nothing until such an
opportunity arises. Now is the time for us to develop
and spread anarchist ideas. We need to build strong
anarchist organisation(s), not just in Ireland but
internationally. Indeed it is likely that revolution will
arrive on the agenda in Ireland due to the success of
revolutions elsewhere. We ensure the continued
relevancy of our ideas by involvement in the struggles
of fellow workers and demonstrating the usefulness of
anarchist politics and tactics.
This is the purpose of the WSM. We are in the process
of building an organisation capable of asserting
anarchist ideas. We are developing these ideas while
being involved in struggles at all levels of society. We
are building international links with anarchists in
other countries. If you too wish to see this rotten
system smashed and replaced with anarchism then
get in contact and get involved.
Joe Black

159
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001106.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,159 @@
************** The State **************
from Workers Solidarity No 31
ONE OF THE best known catch phrases of
Anarchism has got to be "Smash the State". It's
also one that's easily open to misunderstanding.
Particularly in Ireland, where the 26 counties
once had the rather humorous title of "Free
State", many see state as meaning the
geographical area of a country. This slogan has
also been misrepresented by anarchism's
opponents as meaning opposition to all forms of
organisation and decision making. Obviously
neither of these is what anarchists mean, but
what exactly is the state and how do we smash
it?
Anarchists see the state as a mechanism by which a
minority imposes its will on the majority of the
population. To maintain its hold of power the state
forms whatever armed forces and judicial apparatus
are deemed necessary to keep the level of dissent
manageable. This is different from how most
Marxists define the state, concentrating on the
mechanism by which the state stays in power (bodies
of armed men) rather then the function of the state.
It is the characteristic of minority rule which defines
the state for anarchists, the 'bodies of armed men'
serve to protect this minority rather then defining the
state in itself. This distinction has some important
consequences.
The state apparatus cannot maintain a permanent
separation from the ruling economic power. In fact
most of the time its function is carrying out a crude
expression of the wishes of the ruling class. It
represents the limited ability of this class to control
and plan the economic life of a country. In advanced
capitalism the state is used to regulate the level of
exploitation of the workforce through various labour
laws.
THE 'CARING' STATE
At the outbreak of World War 1 Britain found that a
huge percentage of the working class had been so
exploited that they were unfit for military service.
Although the almost unhindered exploitation had
been good for individual bosses up to that time, in the
war when it came to using the working class to win
colonies and markets it turned out to be against their
collective interest. At the end of the war revolutions
and army mutinies swept across Europe.
To defuse the level of class struggle and prepare for
the next war the bosses used the state apparatus to
impose limitations on themselves and the level of
exploitation they could use. It also started to use it to
divert part of every workers' wage to form a new
social wage which would be used for the education of
workers and limited social security. In this it hoped
to head off future periods of struggle.
The state is the collective body through which the
bosses keep themselves in power. It's judiciary and
police force protect each boss from his own workers,
intervening where necessary to smash strikes,
criminalise activists and censor critics. This is its
most direct and obvious intervention but through its
control of the education system and its ability to
criminalise social behaviour which goes against the
bosses wishes it intervenes into every aspect of
workers lives.
SCAPEGOATS & SAFE CHANNELS
In it's scapegoating of single mothers, immigrants or
Travellers it directs the anger of workers away from
the real causes of their poverty. It ensures that much
of the care for the sick and the raising of new
generations of workers is kept cheap by keeping it in
the home. It therefore is hostile to non-family
relationships, or even family relations which might
challenge the prevalent ones and thus pose an
indirect threat. This is why the state is so opposed to
single parent families or families where both parents
are of the same sex.
The state in modern capitalism provides safe
channels for dissent. By funding unemployed centres
it achieves a political veto on their activities,
effectively ensuring a concentration on services like
the production of CV's - with campaigning limited to
minor tinkering with the system. Through the use of
elections it creates a veneer of ordinary people being
in control while the decisions are being made
elsewhere. By pretending neutrality it can set up
and arbitrate on disputes between workers and
bosses through the use of bodies like the Labour
Court. All these are methods to defuse and control
social unrest.
The state can also be the organ of transformation and
creation of a new ruling class. With positions in the
state hierarchy come powers over both people and
goods. Well placed individuals can make a fortune in
bribes. After the Russian revolution a minority, in
the shape of the Bolshevik party, came to control the
state.
'STATE SOCIALISM' - A CONTRADICTION
Their distrust in the ability of workers to run the
economy themselves was to result in armed force
being used against the very workers they claimed to
be liberating. From that point on the party attracted
power seekers, within a short period of time this
resulted in a new ruling elite. Socialism can not be
built through use of the state structure, the existence
of such a structure will lead to the development of a
new ruling elite.
The anarchist rejection of the state as an organ for
the transformation of society is often deliberately
misrepresented. Leninists, for instance, typically try
to confuse undemocratic and unaccountable state
regimes like those of the Bolsheviks with democratic
bodies like workers councils or 'soviets'. In general it
is implied that anarchism is against all forms of
organisation.
This says a lot about the people making such
arguments. Do they believe that the only form of
organisation that is feasible is one where the mass of
society are told what to do by a leadership?
Anarchists say socialism can only be created by mass
democracy, that why we define the state as being an
unaccountable leadership capable of forcing its will
on society. We explicitly reject any form of running
society that relies on such methods.
Against the statists we propose; decision making at
the lowest possible level: election of recallable,
mandated delegates for decisions that cannot be
made by mass assemblies, and for all delegates to
remain part of the workforce where possible. Where
this takes them away from their workplaces their
positions should be held for short periods only, and
without any special privileges. This, a society based
on mass democracy, is our alternative to the state.
Its not just our aim to achieve such a society after the
revolution but also to use such methods now in our
struggle for such a society. We argue for such
methods in our unions, associations and campaigning
groups.
Andrew Flood

740
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001107.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,740 @@
4 articles
2nd is The IRA and its armed struggle; A Bloody Long War [WS35]
3rd is 'Should we get rid of articles 2 & 3 [WS38]
4th is Peace 93' [WS39]
********* Collaboration & Imperialism ************
from Workers Solidarity No 34
[1990]
THE KILLING of the seven building workers in
January marks the most bloody episode in an IRA
campaign against those who work for the 'security
forces', a campaign which has been going on since
1985. There has been a massive wave of
condemnation from bishops, politicians and media
figures.
Most of it is hypocritical cant. In all wars people who assist
or work for the enemy are targetted. During the War of
Independence the 'old IRA' shot people it suspected of
collaboration. Today it is a criminal offence to collaborate
with the IRA. Anyone allowing them to use their house or
car, anyone minding weapons or giving information can be
sentenced to long terms in jail. In the North their name may
be leaked to a loyalist death squad.
The Workers Solidarity Movement, as an anarchist and anti-
imperialist organisation, agrees with the Provos that workers
should not collaborate with the forces of imperialism. It is not
in the interest of any worker to collaborate with imperialism,
in Ireland or anywhere else.
This does not mean we agree with killing buiding workers.
We don't. The IRA threats to workers who service or deliver
to Army bases and RUC & UDR barracks tell us much about
the Provos. For all their left-wing slogans, they remain an
authoritarian nationalist movement. They decide what is
good for us, they decide what methods to use. The role of
everyone else is to passively cheer them on and preserve some
sort of nationalist solidarity.
A genuinely socialist and revolutionary movement would have
appealed to workers to black these bases because it is in their
own interest to fight imperialism. It is undeniable that such
an appeal would have been ignored by most. However in
areas such as Newry, Derry and Strabane there was a very
good chance that it would have been heeded if worked for. A
campaign of this sort would consist of raising the issue within
the unions, holding meetings at depot gates, producing
leaflets, taking up the arguments and fighting for official
union backing for anyone disciplined or sacked for refusing to
help the state's war effort.
It would be a start in bringing workers - as workers - to the
head of the anti-imperialist struggle. It has been done before.
At the time of the War of Independence there was an anti-
conscription strike, the "Limerick Soviet", the refusal of train
drivers to carry British troops or war materials.
Activity like this can give workers a sense of the potential
power they possess. And by being based on the methods of
mass struggle it can give workers the confidence to start
getting involved in political activity themselves intead of
leaving it to a few rulers and would-be rulers. This is very
important if we are to build a real socialist society where
there is no division into rulers and ruled.
We must also look at the objective result of the threats and
killings. It does not matter a lot what the intentions of the
Provos are, the fact is that killing labourers and other
workers drives Protestants of our class further into the arms
of bigots like Paisley. It is not enough to denounce such
workers as supporters of imperialism - the question is how to
win them away from that. Death threats certainly cannot do
it. Whether we like it or not many Protestants believe that
such workers are shot because they are Protestants and that
the Provos' stated reasons are not the real ones. Therefore
we call for the threats to be lifted and replaced by a workplace
campaign based on arguments about working class self-
interest.
********** The IRA and its armed struggle ***********
A Bloody Long War
from Workers Solidarity No 35
(1992)
Gerry Adams is no longer an MP. The
politicians and media pundits are over the
moon with joy. In their eyes the
republicans have been denied the
international 'credibility' of having an
elected MP and denied their 'mandate for
violence' at home.
In the immediate aftermath we were subjected to a barrage
of questions and comments about how this will effect the
respective strengths of the 'hawks' and 'doves' in the IRA.
Will there be an escalation of the armed struggle? Will
they hit back with ferocity? Will they decide that the
armed struggle is an impediment to their political
progress? Will there be a ceasefire?
Much of what was said was unadulterated rubbish. Gerry
Adams and Sinn F<>in held their vote in West Belfast. The
SDLP did not eat into it. Adams 16,826 was only 36 down on
the 1987 result and was 447 up on the original 1983 poll.
The SDLP did not eat into it. What lost him the seat were
the 3,000 loyalists who heeded the UDA's call vote SDLP in
order to deny the seat to Adams. The Shankill's walls were
covered with "A vote for Cobain is a vote for Sinn F<>in"
refering to the fact that if loyalists continued to vote
for the Unionist, Sinn F<>in would hold the seat. This was
certainly not a pro-SDLP vote, it was explicitly an anti-
Sinn F<>in one. Supporters of the UDA/UFF hate the SDLP,
it's just that they hate Sinn F<>in a lot more.
Across the six counties, as a whole, Sinn F<>in's vote did
drop... but only from 11% to 10%. They aren't going
anywhere, but they are not about to disappear either.
However it is true that a tentative debate has been going
on inside the IRA and Sinn F<>in over the last two or three
years about the relative values of the armed struggle and
parliamentary politics.
In February Gerry Adams told the 'Irish Times' 'Two or
three years ago, I would have seen it necessary to
personally state publicly that yes, there was the right of
the IRA to engage in armed struggle, and perhaps even at
times that armed struggle was a necessary ingredient in the
struggle. I don't feel the need to do that now. In fact,
I think that my role now, and I've seen this increasingly
over the last 18 months, is one of increasingly and
persistently saying there's a need to end all acts of
violence." This is interesting, not so much for what is
being said, but for the fact that this shows a slightly
more open attitude towards politics. It used to be that
anyone questioning the value of the military campaign was
shown the door pretty quickly.
However it is not this debate that the establishment
politicians want to to take part in. Some of them almost
foam at the mouth when someone mentions republicans. They
have nothing but hatred for the Provos. North and South,
all the main parties have done their best to repress
republicanism. In the North it is shoot-to-kill
assassinations, beatings in RUC stations, censorship. In
the South it's extradition and more censorship. To be
thought a sympathiser of Sinn F<>in is to invite Special
Branch attention and maybe a beating in a Garda station.
According to Fianna F<>il, Fine Gael, Labour, Official
Unionist, DUP and all the rest this is justified by the
need to oppose violence. What a neck! The people who
supported the Gulf War (and those who allowed the use of
Shannon airport to US bombers) are telling us about the
need to oppose violence! What was the slaughter of
retreating Iraqi soldiers and civilians on the road from
Kuwait to Basra if it was not an act of violence, of
terrorism? The death toll in that terrible few hours when
the Americans gleefully labelled it a "turkey shoot" was
far more than all the deaths ever caused by the IRA... and
far more than the IRA is ever likely to cause.
The hypocrisy is evident. However the question remains:
should we call on the IRA to stop their campaign? To put
the question in such a way implies that the IRA are the
main problem, if only they would lay down their arms
everything would be o.k. We have to remember that the IRA
didn't start the 'troubles'. After the dismal failure of
their 1956-62 border campaign the guns were dumped. A new
force appeared, the Civil Rights Movement. Most of them
believed that peaceful reform within the six county state
was possible.
When they took to the streets loyalist gangs (including
politicians, policemen and the notorious B Specials)
attacked them. Streets were burned out, a pogrom began.
Since the founding of the six county state every time the
Catholic working class rose from their knees (or more
frightening for the bosses, every time Catholic and
Protestant workers united) sectarianism was whipped up and
a state-led pogrom was unleashed. The 'liberal' 1960's
were no exception.
The British Army were sent back in. At first they claimed
to be a 'disinterested' force standing between angry
Catholics and the Paisleyites and policemen who wanted to
invade Catholic areas and inflict a reign of terror.
Within a year it was clear to all that their real purpose
was to protect the Northern state and this would be done by
keeping down the Catholics. The Falls Road was placed
under a three day curfew in 1970 and three people shot dead
for venturing out of their homes. The IRA began to
reappear.
The next year saw internment without trial and the year
after that the murder of 14 Civil Rights marchers by
British troops on Bloody Sunday. The IRA grew in size and
escalated its recently commenced campaign. It was clear to
many young Catholics that the struggle for change had
become a struggle against the state itself and the British
Army that was protecting it.
Far from being the problem, the IRA is a product of it.
If the IRA declared a ceasefire the problem would remain.
If they completely vanished the problem would still be
glaringly obvious. And as long as that problem is there
there will be a response. Until imperialism is defeated
and sectarianism uprooted there will be resistance.
The question to be asked is what sort of resistance do we
need? The armed struggle of the IRA has no chance of
achieving victory. A small minority (the IRA) based within
a minority (Northern Catholics) cannot defeat the state.
They are unable to break out of the confines of the
Northern Catholic ghettoes. Southern Irish workers are not
influenced by claims that British imperialism is the main
enemy, North and South. Southern capitalism is no longer
tied to the apron strings of London. Workers in the 26
counties find themselves struggling against Irish and
multinational bosses.
IRA bombings and shootings are a thorn in the side of the
ruling class, an unpleasant pain but nothing likely to
prove fatal. Neither side can win a military victory.
There is no way that a small guerrilla army can defeat the
combined might of the RUC, UDR and British Army. Equally,
there is no way that the state forces can wipe out militant
republicanism. As long as partition, with its resultant
sectarianism and repression, has existed there have been
those who will take up arms against it.
While this continues there will be civilian casualties and
increased communalism and sectarian tension. Anarchists
oppose the republican armed struggle, it is not the way to
mobilise thousands upon thousands of working class people
against imperialism. It is not the way towards an anti-
sectarian working class unity.
The armed struggle is not something that republicans took
up because they have a fascination with violence or some
innate love of armalite rifles, despite what some media
commentators would have us believe. IRA volunteers are
brave men and women who want to hit back at the forces that
have been sticking the boot into their community. They
risk jailing, torture and death. If bravery was enough the
British Army would have been defeated years ago. Clearly
bravery is not enough.
To criticise the republicans' methods is not sufficient,
the methods flow from their politics. Nationalism sees the
main struggle as one between the 'Irish people' and British
imperialism. The class struggle within Ireland takes a
secondary place until the border is smashed. The mass of
ordinary people are kept passive. While a few hundred
courageous volunteers take up arms, the role of everyone
else doesn't add up to much more than joining the
occasional march or casting a vote for Sinn F<>in. The few
fight and the rest stay at home and watch it on TV.
Republicans see the working class only as victims of the
system and not as people with the potential power to
overthrow it. The bravery of the few becomes a substitute
for mass action. The IRA campaign becomes central.
We do not like the romanticisation of violence. We do
enjoy seeing fathers bury their sons. We do not like part
of our country being a war zone. But it is not for these
reasons that we oppose the armed struggle. We are not
pacifists. At times it is necessary to use violence to
defend gains won in struggle. However we reject the idea
that a small grouping, with guns and bombs, can set us all
free.
Only masses of people involved in struggle can
fundamentally change society. We have to want to be free.
Nobody can force freedom down our throats. Armed struggle
is a substitute (and a poor substitute at that) for mass
action. When was the ruling class most worried by events
in the last two decades? It was the big Civil Rights
marches and the no-go areas of Free Derry and Free Belfast
that set their teeth chattering. It was the huge protests
after the Bloody Sunday murders that saw the British
Embassy burnt in Dublin and Jack Lynch's government
declaring a national day of mourning after workers had made
it clear there was going to be a total closedown of
industry.
It was this sort of militant mass action that forced
concessions from the British government. The B Specials
were disbanded, Unionist powers in local government were
limited. In 1972, after the Bloody Sunday protests, the
Stormont government was abolished. Of course many of these
concessions were clawed back when the mass movement was
eclipsed by the emergence of the IRA campaign and its
promise that 1973 (and '74 and '75!) would be the "year of
victory". The best example was the replacement of the B
Specials by the UDR. But the lesson remains, it was mass
action that won the concessions.
So if the Workers Solidarity Movement are so opposed to the
armed struggle why don't we join the call for a ceasefire.
We won't line up with the right wing politicians and their
'Peace Train' supporters who seek to apportion all the
blame to the IRA for the 'troubles'. The IRA are a
response to a problem. The primary problem is partition,
sectarianism and the occupation by the British Army. We
refuse to join in the scapegoating of republicans.
Equally, we refuse to mute our criticism of republicanism
and its armed struggle. We are opposed to their politics
as well as their methods. We stand for anarchism, for an
independent working class position. We want to break
working class people from the gombeen nationalism of Fianna
F<EFBFBD>il, from the reactionary hatemongering of loyalism, from
the sub-reformism of Labour and Democratic Left, ...and
from the communalism of Sinn F<>in.
While opposing the presence of the British Army and the
continuing partition of the country, the working class must
also fight the Southern state. We have to oppose
imperialism and, at the same time, oppose the clerical
nationalist laws in the South which ban divorce and
abortion. We have to oppose Orange bigotry while at the
same time campaigning for the complete separation of Church
and State.
We do not fight for a united capitalist Ireland, neither as
a 'step in the right direction' or as an end in itself.
Joining the six to the twenty six counties offers nothing
to working class people in either state. We have no
interest in re-dividing poverty on a more 'equitable'
basis. The only Ireland worth fighting for is a Workers
Republic where every working class person stands to gain.
The way towards such a new Ireland is the way of class
struggle and mass action, taking control of our own
struggles and doing it in our own class interests. This is
the road to freedom.
Joe King
********** Should we get rid of articles 2 & 3 ********
from WS 38
[1993?]
Article 2: The National territory consists of the whole
island of Ireland, its' islands and its' territorial seas.
Article 3: Pending the re-integration of the national
territory and without prejudice to the right of Parliament
and Government established by this constitution to exercise
jurisdiction over the whole of that territory, the laws
enacted by Parliament shall have the like area and extent
of application as the laws of Saorstat Eireann [26
counties] and the like extra-territorial effect.
Mention the conflict in the North and many people
will turn off. Not because they do not care about
what is going on but because they do not feel that
they can make any difference. Who wants to hear
about another death or another bombing? Most
people in Ireland were glad to see the release of
the Birmingham 6 and the Guildford 4, but in Dublin
last Summer only 300 marched against the
extradition of Angelo Fusco. The answer to the
problem is made out to lie with the British and
Irish governments in collaboration with the
Unionist leaders. Workers in the South do not see
themselves as having a part to play in the
solution.
It is in this atmosphere of alienation that talks, and
talks about talks, can be portrayed as having an impact.
In fact they were just talks. The latest set wound up last
November with nothing decided. The banning of the UDA can
be portrayed as positive action against the loyalist death
squads. Even though they still exist, and are now killing
more people than the Provos. And this while it has come
out that Brian Nelson, a British mole actually took part in
over sixteen murders with official permission.
The Unionists are able to claim that it is the Republic of
Ireland's 'claim' to the North in Articles 2 and 3 that is
the cause of the 'troubles'. Meanwhile the British State
is getting away with occupying the place and few people see
this as a problem.
In an upcoming referendum anarchists will oppose the
deletion of Article 2. We do so, not because we support
the 26 county state over the 6 county one, but because we
are opposed to the partition of Ireland. The Article
recognises the partition of Ireland and we want to see a
united Ireland. For this we will oppose its deletion.
We, however, won't get too excited about Article 3. To
support the claim of the Dublin government is to support
the authority of one set of bosses over another. We, who
want to get rid of the division into bosses and bossed,
won't do this.
WHY IRELAND WAS DIVIDED
Ireland was partitioned because of the conflicting economic
interests between capitalists in the North-East and those
in the rest of Ireland. Generally speaking the South was
less developed and wanted independence to defend its infant
economy from cheap British imports.
The North-East was already relatively well developed with
thriving linen and shipbuilding industries, both of which
depended on Britain for export markets. The partition of
Ireland and the creation of the six county state was a
compromise between these conflicting interests.
In order to win support for partition the bosses in the
North-East stirred up sectarian hatred against Catholics.
They made sure there was a material basis for such hatred.
Slightly better housing and jobs were given to Protestants
over Catholics. It was made clear that these privileges
would go if Protestant workers supported Irish
independence.
On this basis the sectarian statelet of the six counties
was founded. It was built with Protestant working class
support on the grounds that they would remain better off
than Catholics. These conditions have existed right up to
the present day. Protestant workers may be more likely to
be unemployed and on lower wages than a worker in London or
Manchester. But they know that they are still only half as
likely to be unemployed as a Catholic living in the next
housing estate.
The loyalist terror groups have their recruiting grounds in
Unionist working class areas. They feed off the fear that
Protestants will loose their slight privileges over the
Catholics. They encourage sectarian hatred by saying that
Catholics are the main enemy of the Protestants. That is
why Loyalists such as the Ulster Defence Association will
target any Catholics. They have been tricked into
believing that it is Catholics that are the main enemy and
they are all 'legitimate targets'.
In reality the main enemy for both Catholic and Protestant
workers is the ruling class. They are the people who set
wages, hire and fire, and seek to control peoples' lives in
all areas. For socialists, the most important task is to
unite Catholic and Protestant workers and convince them to
fight together against the bosses.
This has happened before, for example the Outdoor Relief
Strike in 1932 when Catholics from the Falls Road and
Protestants from the Shankill Road of Belfast fought
together for better conditions for the unemployed. And
more recently in the health service strikes and DSS strikes
against sectarian intimidation throughout the 1980s.
Partition is not only bad because of the way that Northern
nationalists are treated. It also has an effect in the
South. As Connolly predicted partition led to "a carnival
of reaction, North and South".
For most of the history of the state, politics in the South
has been dominated by Fianna F<>il and Fine Gael. There is
hardly a political difference between the two. The
influence of the conservative Catholic Church has until
recently determined social legislation. In the South the
carnival is winding down, but in the North it is still
going at full belt.
It is because of this that anarchists are opposed to the
deletion of Article 2. A socialist perspective needs to be
heard. The question of partition, and sectarian state must
be dealt with properly by socialists or it will not be
solved.
NATIONALISTS
Anarchists do not support the nationalist point of view.
This will be put forward by Sinn F<>in, the Irish National
Congress, Neil Blaney and such like. They will be fighting
for a united capitalist Ireland. Socialists will not get
much chance to be heard. We will be told that, yet again,
'labour must wait'.
We are not struggling for a united capitalist Ireland. In
any campaign we will be putting forward the socialist
perspective that we are against partition because it fans
the flames of sectarianism. In its place we want a
socialist 32 county Republic uniting both Protestant and
Catholic workers.
Unfortunately at the moment anarchists cannot set the
political agenda. Our influence is far too small. Most of
the time we have to react to events as they occur. We
helped to win the referenda on travel and information last
year but we recognise that the main event that triggered
the referenda was government action. They injuncted the 14
year old girl and caused the "X" case. It was people's
reaction to this issue that forced the changes in the
constitution.
Likewise with a referendum to change Articles 2 and 3.
While we would prefer to be involved in widespread united
strike action of Protestants and Catholics, arguing for
socialism, we cannot do so at the moment. If there is to
be a referendum we will use it as an opportunity to argue a
socialist perspective. This is an opportunity to argue a
socialist answer and it should not be missed.
<EFBFBD><EFBFBD>
Andrew Blackmore
********** Peace '93 ********
from Workers Solidarity No39
[1993]
DUBLIN SUNDAY MARCH 28TH. On a rainy
afternoon about 20,000 people (Irish Times
estimate) crowd O'Connell Street to protest
at the deaths of two children, Jonathan
Ball and Tim Parry. At the fringes of the
rally a small group carry pictures of some
other victims of violence. Fergal
Carahers's widow holds a placard saying
"also, remember, British soldiers killed my
husband". Others hold pictures of Majela
O'Hare, Aiden McAnespie, Seamus Duffy,
Karen Reilly and other victims of security
force violence in the North.
A small section of the crowd reacts angrily and
begins to heckle them shouting "out, out, out!".
Gardai move in quickly to grab the offending
placards. In death as in life it seems that some
are more equal then others.
The Peace 1993 movement was set-up after the
Warrington bombings as people reacted angrily to
the killing of innocent children. Their efforts
to distance themselves from politics have not
been entirely successful. Attempting to mould
the peace movement in their own image were New
Consensus and the Peace Train Organisation.
These organisations are little more then fronts
for the Democratic Left, Workers Party and others
who see the IRA as the incarnation of all evil.
They are partly financed by the British
government, through the Northern Ireland Office
(see 'Peace train runs out of steam' Workers
Solidarity 33). The people involved in Peace
1993 events have the best of motives and are
sickened by the violence on all sides.
Unfortunately they are been used.
GANGSTERS AND PSYCHOPATHS?
Peace 1993 has started with the analysis we are
offered again and again by our rulers and the
media. Paramilitaries, especially republican
ones, are portrayed as gangsters and psychopaths
used and manipulated by cynical "godfather's of
crime". It is because of the IRA (we are told)
that "normal democratic politics" cannot proceed.
If they were to lay down their arms everything
would be Hunky-Dory. Unfortunately this is not
the case. Indeed the ceasefire of 1975 between
the British government and the IRA was broken
unilaterally by the British. They used the
opportunity to conduct raids and searches for
arms, and provoked the republicans in every way
possible. The ceasefire was not signed by the
loyalist gunmen who stepped up their sectarian
campaign.
Sinn F<>in's electoral support is 10% in total and
30% among Northern Ireland Catholics,
concentrated in the working class areas of West
Belfast and Derry and among small farmers in the
border counties. The IRA have no difficulty in
recruiting young Catholic workers and unemployed
and will continue to do so. They are not the
problem, they are a product of the real problem.
This is the Northern Ireland State. There can be
no "normal politics" in Northern Ireland. This
is a State founded on blatant sectarianism and
the repression of the minority. Catholics are
still twice as likely to be unemployed as their
Protestant neighbours (according to the
government's own Fair Employment Agency). This
is combined with day-to-day harassment by the
security forces and the recent acceleration of
sectarian attacks. These are the conditions that
make it very unlikely that the IRA will just
disappear.
POLITICS OR POND LIFE?
The IRA are a response to a State that was a
model in sectarianism. The British State
succeeded in buying off Protestant workers with
marginal privileges. They created the
reactionary ideology of unionism. Normal
politics in Northern Ireland is illustrated
graphically by the activities of the Belfast city
council which recently took another giant step
into the dark ages when it renewed it's ban on
over 18s films on Sundays. The normal politics
of this council chamber was described as "more
like pond-life then politics" by one recently
resigned SDLP councillor.
As long as the British occupation continues and
as long as unionism is propped up by them, so-
called normal politics in Northern Ireland
remains in the realm of sick humour. The IRA are
not to blame for the situation in the North. But
they will never be able to change it.
The armed struggle over the last 20 or so years
has done little more then irritate the British
and Irish governments. A small guerrilla army
will never defeat the combined resources of the
British and Southern Irish States. Like all
small guerilla armies they are elitist and
unanswerable to those they claim to represent.
The only role they offer Catholic workers is to
cheer on from the sidelines.
No group of this nature no matter, how brave or
well armed, will ever set us free. Ultimately
the armed struggle is no substitute for mass
action. The only way to fundamentally change
things is by uniting workers North and South of
all religions and none to defeat the bosses,
orange and green, and build a secular worker's
republic.
WINNING SUPPORT ...FOR MORE REPRESSION?
The so-called economic bombing campaign in
Britain is another reflection of the IRA's
political bankruptcy. Any serious socialist
anti-imperialist group would attempt to enlist
the support of British workers against their own
ruling class. The IRA's simplistic strategy is
that they can bomb them into submission by
causing massive economic damage. In fact it
alienates British workers and makes the
introduction of anti-Irish laws like The
Prevention of Terrorism Act that bit easier.
And it has to be said that the IRA know well that
the authorities will occasionally ignore or delay
a bomb warning in order to whip up anger at the
Provos. With this knowledge it has to be said
that the IRA take a very cavalier attitude
towards the lives of ordinary people every time
they plant a bomb in a shopping mall or railway
station. It would not be unreasonable to ask if
their bombing of Warrington amounts to
manslaughter.
The economic bombing campaign of the last 20
years from the Birmingham pub bombs, through the
attacks on Downing Street, the stock exchange and
the recent massive attack on the Nat West tower
have not shaken the British government's resolve.
Despite the cost (the Damage from the Nat West
bomb is estimated at <20>3-500 million or about 1/10
of the annual bill for running the North for a
year) they still hang on.
MORE PROGRESSIVE THAN THE LEGION OF MARY!
Anyone waiting eagerly to hear radical ideas from
the IRA's political wing, Sinn F<>in after the
slight relaxation of Section 31 (of the
Broadcasting Act) forced on RTE can stop holding
their breath. Take womens' rights for example.
At this year's Ard Fheis a motion was put forward
committing them to support a woman's right to
choose abortion. One delegate (Daisy Mules from
Derry) in support of the motion said that "the
struggle for human rights and democracy must
include womens' rights which includes the right
to choose".
The party's ruling Ard Chomhairle had different
ideas. Tom Hartley claimed that existing policy
was "the most progressive held by any political
party in the country" (Not true, of course, both
Democratic Left and the Worker's Party have gone
further in their limited support for abortion
rights). Gerry Adams claimed that to change
policy "would be the biggest mistake we could
make this weekend". The motion was defeated (An
Phoblacht/Republican News 25th February).
Sinn F<>in's politics continue to be based around
a desperate attempt to make friends with right
wing nationalist elements like Fianna F<>il TD
Michael Noonan and the SDLP 'grassroots'. This
strategy has failed totally and their vote in the
South remains minute.
The truth is that neither Peace 1993 nor the
republicans can change things. Their simplistic
solutions of "Lets all put down our guns and be
pals" (unless we happen to have uniforms) or that
of a united capitalist Ireland underline the lack
of ideas of both organisations. Not only have
they no solutions they haven't even begun to ask
the right questions.
WORKERS' ACTION
Our solution is not quite so simple. It is a
longer and more difficult route, but it is the
only one which will work. It involves uniting
workers in Ireland to fight for a united
anarchist republic.
In the short-term this means supporting and
building, where possible, united action against
the bosses. Also where united struggles do take
place trying to make connections showing how the
only way to real unity against the bosses is to
oppose partition which is used to keep Protestant
and Catholic workers apart. In the long-term it
means fighting both British imperialist
occupation of Northern Ireland and our own native
bosses and Southern clericalist laws. The only
way to do this is through massive united class
struggle. There are no short-cuts on the road to
freedom.
Des McCarron

635
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001108.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,635 @@
5 articles
** Prisoners Out: Troops out: Talk about what? **
from Workers Solidarity No 46
We welcome the cease-fire. The "peace process",
however, has little to recommend it. It represents
little more than arguments over who exactly will
administer capitalism in Ireland. On issues such as
the release of prisoners or the disbanding of the RUC
there is nothing to be discussed. Both these should
happen unconditionally. The debate over de-
commissioning of IRA weapons is meaningless. All that
the current negotiations are doing is establishing a
pecking order among the parties in the north.
In 1962 the unionists accepted the IRA's word that Operation
Harvest [the Border Campaign] was over and released prisoners
without requiring decommissioning of arms. The opposition of
the mainstream unionists to a prisoner release now is based
on their opposition to the "peace process", and it's limited
threat of power sharing. Sinn Fein says that the armed
campaign was a political struggle but the British government
classes the prisoners as common prisoners, and so will not
release them now as that would be an admission that they are
really prisoners of war.
Inhuman conditions
The refusal to transfer prisoners in Britain to the
north means that many of them remain in grossly inhumane
conditions, in particular in the isolation unit of Wakefield.
Ten of these prisoners have now spent 20 years in British
jails, 20 years of severe hardship not only for them but also
for their families. Six of these ten were convicted of
charges less serious than murder. All the prisoners should
be released immediately and unconditionally.
The continued unacceptability of the RUC - a sectarian
police force - was underlined by events around July 12th.
Earlier that week, in Belfast, a number of Catholics had
their houses petrol bombed after a loyalist march through the
Lower Ormeau Road was stopped. The RUC responded to this,
not by going after the loyalists responsible, but by putting
the Lower Ormeau under siege on the 12th to make sure the
loyalists (in the form of the Ballynafeigh District Orange
Lodge) would swagger through a nationalist area
uninterrupted.
They acted as the paid thugs of loyalism. The RUC sealed off
the Lower Ormeau at 5am, using a force of nearly 150 armoured
jeeps and over 1,000 officers in riot gear. Five hundred
nationalist protesters who tried to reach the Ormeau bridge
were attacked by the RUC, hospitalising four.
Victim's widow arrested
On the Lower Ormeau itself the RUC went so far as to
arrest Rosaline McManus, widow of Willie McManus who was one
of five men killed by the UDA/UFF at the Graham's bookies'
shop massacre on the Ormeau Road in 1992. Her 'crime' was to
ask the RUC to ensure that no bands would be playing as the
Orangemen passed the shop. The dead man's sister, who was in
a wheelchair, was pushed down a nearby side street by the
RUC. Camera crews were kept out of the area for three hours.
However the debate about creating an "acceptable" police
force is one anarchists have little interest in. The RUC
already has the harp on its cap badge. Creating a new police
force that contained many nationalists might get rid of some
of the sectarianism but this new force would still not be
acceptable.
The problem with the RUC is not just its composition but also
the primary role it shares with every other police force.
This role is the protection of the property of the rich and
the maintenance of order for the government. The southern
Garda<EFBFBD> or the British police are not dominated by religious
bigots but this has never stopped them being used against
demonstrators or strikers.
Ludicrous expectations
Sinn Fein's radical rhetoric has been dropped, joining
any pretence at 'socialist' politics in the dustbin. Their
main demand at present is not for 'Troops Out', or even for
the release of Republican prisoners. Instead we are
requested to protest for 'All Party Talks'. Who can believe
now that Sinn Fein are somehow 'different' from other
political parties? And who still believes that any group of
would-be leaders is interested in real change? Sinn Fein
is calling for Gerry Adams, John Hume, Ian Paisley, John
Alderdice and James Molyneaux, along with a few other "good
men", to sit down and decide the future for the rest of us.
It would be ludicrous to expect that anything capable of
dealing with the problems faced by ordinary people would
emerge from this cabal. In fact, no small bunch of leaders
can sort out our problems for us (and particularly not that
bunch!!). The problems shared by Catholic, Protestant and
atheist workers will only be solved when we come together,
recognise our common interests, and take over society
ourselves.
**********************************************************
** One year on: Evaluating the Ceasefire **
THE IRA CEASEFIRE is approaching its first
anniversary. That year has been striking for two
things, on the one hand the success of the 'peace
process' in turning Sinn Fein from demonised pariahs
to lauded peace makers. On the other hand, the
failure of the process to produce any substantial
gains for the nationalist community.
Although many British soldiers have been returned to
barracks, only about 800 have left Ireland. The RUC may have
exchanged their machine guns for pistols but they have also
moved into areas they previously feared to patrol.
Harassment of nationalists has continued. Sinn Fein's paper,
An Phoblacht/Republican News, now carries a Peace Monitor
instead of a War News column.
Every week it reports on beatings, threats &
intimidation directed at nationalists by various sections of
the British war machine. Although prisoners have been
released early in the Republic, no such releases have
occurred in the six counties and, indeed, the number of
prisoners allowed compassionate temporary release has been
reduced.
In this situation it's not surprising that a minority are
questioning the validity of the ceasefire strategy. Some
left republicans see the ceasefire as a sell-out of a
previous commitment to socialism and anti-imperialism. There
are other republicans who see the ceasefire as a cunning
strategy forced on the British government. They seem to
expect the Sinn Fein leadership to pull a united Ireland out
of the hat at a future stage despite obvious hints to the
contrary by the same leadership. This view fails to realise
that the peace process is a change in strategy rather then a
victory.
Some things were meant to be
When looked at in the context of the last twenty five
years the ceasefire not only makes sense but is inevitable.
All other strategies had been exhausted. Britain was not
militarily defeated in the 'years of victory' declared by the
IRA in early 1970s. Likewise, the economic bombing campaign
in Britain and the six counties failed to bring victory.
The post Hunger-Strike turn to electoral and community
politics represented by Danny Morrison's 'ballot box and
armalite' strategy ground to a halt in the mid-80's.
Although Sinn Fein had a lot of support in the nationalist
ghetto's it was unable to break out of these and attract
significant votes from Catholic working class voters
elsewhere or the Catholic middle class. In the south,
outside of a few council seats it never had any success.
Once this was realised it became not so much a question of
if, but when an IRA ceasefire would be declared. Talk of
fighting the British army to a standstill is all very well
but when translated into a yearly toll of harassment, deaths
and prisoners the need to move beyond the war of attrition
became dominant.
Military stalemate
This has been recognised by Danny Morrison (seen by many
as a hard-liner within the current republican leadership).
On his recent release from prison he told AP/RN "It was
obvious that something was going on, and it might appear
controversial, but it was tacitly understood by many people
that there was a military stalemate developing .... the IRA
had in 1992 exploded a bomb in the City of London followed by
the Bishopsgate bomb in 1993 and the Heathrow mortar attacks
early last year. Despite these prestigious attacks there was
a stalemate on the military front.
So I think people were mature enough to understand
developments even though the announcement of the cessation
came as a severe shock and ran contrary to all our
instincts."
The ceasefire was also inevitable in a broader setting. Wars
of 'national liberation' don't end with outright victory and
independence for the nationalist side. They involve a
negotiated settlement. In the Irish context this means one
acceptable to the British state. This has been the pattern
of the settlements in South Africa, El Salvador, Nicaragua
and Palestine in recent years.
All together now?
Sinn Fein's has long held a strategy of uniting the
nationalist family against Britain. In this context the
'peace process' has delivered more than any other strategy.
One year ago Sinn Fein were pariahs with virtually no
political allies nationally or internationally of any
stature. Today the man once known as John Unionist (Bruton)
is giving out about the British government stalling in
releasing prisoners. The much dreamed of pan-nationalist
alliance of Sinn Fein, SDLP, Fianna F<>il and the Catholic
Church not only exists but seems to include Fine Gael, Labour
and even a somewhat hesitant Democratic Left! Eamonn Dunphy
has argued in the 'Sunday Independent' that it is dangerous
to continue to demonise Sinn Fein! A world turned upside
down, unimaginable twelve months ago.
This national success has been matched internationally.
Gerry Adams has not only been allowed a visit to the US, but
with John Hume has sung a duet of "The town I knew so well"
for Bill Clinton. What's more both Bill Clinton and the icon
of sacrifice of the 1980's, Nelson Mandela, have publicly
given out to the British Government for dragging its heels.
All that's missing is a Noble peace prize for Adams (and he's
actually been awarded a lesser peace prize by Swiss
industrialists).
Pan-nationalist alliance
Unionism has become more fragmented and isolated. No
significant section of the Tories opposes the peace process
and no major loyalist mobilisations against the process have
been organised in the six counties. The British state has
not yet fulfilled Sinn Fein wishes, by becoming "persuading"
unionists to accept the inevitability of a united Ireland,
but they have pretty much said that as far as the peace
process goes the unionist veto is dead.
So the peace process has achieved what the armed
struggle failed to. The pan-nationalist alliance exists,
with Gerry Adams at the head of it. Britain is
internationally isolated and seen to be dragging its heels.
Unionism is isolated to the point where small sections are
willing to consider direct talks with Sinn Fein. But even in
the most optimistic forecast of its dividends there are many
republicans who are wondering, is this it, is this all? The
answer from the Sinn Fein leadership would seem to be 'yes'.
To quote Morrison's' interview again "one thing is certain we
are not going to end up with a pre-1969 Stormont solution. It
is going to be much more radical than that."
A mystic vision of a united Ireland is not what drives most
republican activists. They became activists because
circumstances which included constant harassment, high
unemployment and poor housing compel them to fight the
sectarian system that created these conditions. They are
activists because when at the end of the 60's they and others
took part in peaceful attempts to reform this system they
were first batoned and then shot off the streets.
All has changed, or has it?
But even if the peace process resulted in British
withdrawal tomorrow, few of these conditions would change.
Decent housing and decent jobs are no more likely in a 32
county Ireland with Gerry Adams as Taoiseach. The 'success'
story of South Africa illustrates this point. The most
ambitious scheme of the post-apartheid government is to
provide fresh water to a sizeable percentage of squatter
towns by the year 2000. The reason cited for the lack of
ambition is lack of money.
Yet in both South Africa and Ireland enough wealth
exists to make a massive difference to the way most of us
live. But it needs to be taken out of the hands of the
wealthy and put into the hands of the workers. Gerry Adams
may scoff at the Irish left but it is only a united working
class that can drive the British state out, and usher in a
better life for all. The all-singing, all dancing 'peace
process', sponsored by Donald Trump and Bill Clinton may look
good but at the end of the day what can it deliver?
Even the basic demand of British withdrawal cannot be met by
the peace process or any other nationalist based strategy.
This can only be won in one of two circumstances. Firstly if
the British state decides it no longer has any interest in
staying and is satisfied that it can withdraw and leave
stability behind. It is unlikely to do this in the short
term, as most northern Protestants want it to stay, and it is
wary of the destabilisation they could cause in the event of
withdrawal.
Telling lies
It is also wary of withdrawal undermining its
credibility in Britain. In the course of its 25 year war it
lied to the British working class about what was going on.
Republicans were portrayed as psycho-gangsters, terrorising
even their own communities. To admit that it lied about
Ireland means that it will be less able to convince its own
population that sections of British society that dare to
fight back are common criminals.
During the 1984 miners strikes Thatcher referred to the
striking miners as "the enemy within", and they received the
sort of media coverage familiar to Irish republicans. They
also received the attention of the SAS, often dressed in
police uniforms, although in this case they were content with
kicking the shit out of miners rather then killing them. The
anti-Poll Tax rioters were also portrayed as criminals by the
media. The rule of the British state in Britain as well as
Ireland is dependant on most of the population of Britain
trusting it. Admittance of the true facts of its Irish war
threaten this.
The only other way the British state will leave Ireland
is when it is forced out. The IRA could not achieve this, it
was incapable of defeating the British army. Withdrawal will
only happen in the face of a united working class in Ireland,
supported by vast sections of the British working class.
Creating this unity requires an entirely different strategy
than anything Sinn Fein could pursue, it requires a break
with nationalist politics.
Andrew Flood
*********************************************************
** What's happening with Unionism? **
THE 12th OF JULY, always a high point of tension, was
used this year by the 'respectable' unionist parties
to try to provoke the IRA into breaking the ceasefire.
Nothing made this clearer than the events surrounding
the attempts of Orangemen in Portadown to march
through the Garvaghy Road nationalist estate. The
ceasefire was already under strain from the release of
Lee Clegg, and unionist politicians were quick to
seize on the confrontation there as an opportunity to
push republican patience to breaking point.
Many people who tuned in to the news late on the evening of
July 10th to hear the wild rumours arising from of the
loyalist siege of Garvaghy Road must have thought they were
hearing the end of the ceasefire. It was said that a mob of
loyalists had broken through RUC lines and stormed the
estate. Unionist leaders were claiming that up to 200
republicans, some of them armed, had come from Belfast to
protect the estate. In the event neither story proved to be
true. But it was a situation very much like this that
directly sparked the current struggle.
Historical bigots
David Trimble and Ian Paisley were at the head of the
mob trying to storm the estate. They were the voices behind
the rumours. Paisley was well aware of the consequences, he
encouraged similar attacks at the end of the 1960's which
prompted some nationalists to move from civil rights marches
to armed struggle. Hugh McLean, a member of UVF who took
part in the random killing of a Catholic in 1966, said to the
RUC when he was charged "I am terribly sorry I ever heard of
that man Paisley or decided to follow him".
Paisley and Trimble are not alone, Ken Maginnis the once
'respectable' face of unionism has completely discredited
himself by predicting a definite end to the IRA ceasefire on
several occasions. The problem for the unionist politicians
is that, unlike the period of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, when
over a hundred thousand could be mobilised in demonstrations,
now they are unable to organise any significant opposition.
Even Sinn Fein's first visit to Stormont for talks with
British government representatives resulted in a protest of
only a dozen or so individuals.
Wishing for war
This failure is also seen in the North Down by-election
where "United Kingdom Unionist" Robert McCartney ran on the
basis of opposition to both the peace process and proposals
for closer ties with the South. He won (which means little
as it was a guaranteed unionist seat) but the turnout was
just 38.7 percent, the lowest in more than 20 years. When
the Unionist leaders talk of an imminent breakdown to the
ceasefire they are not expressing a fear, they are expressing
a wish.
Not only are the unionists failing to mobilise mass
opposition to the peace process but the loyalist
paramilitaries, for once, are refusing to play along. In the
week after the 12th the political wings of the loyalist
paramilitaries were put to the test by the threat of a body
calling itself the 'Protestant Defence Force' to strike
against Catholics it thought responsible for arson attacks on
Orange halls.
Far from playing along, both the PUP and UDP came out against
it. David Irving of the PUP warned against perpetuating the
cycle of sectarian violence, Gary McMicheal of the UDP
pointed out that the Combined Loyalist Military Command would
take a "dim view" of anyone breaking the ceasefire.
The tail that wags the dog
Parts of the left have got somewhat over excited by the
new prominence of the PUP and the UDP, seeing them either as
a cunning proto-fascist plot or a left-wing break with
unionism. Their emergence and willingness to talk with
nationalists and the left is significant. David Irving has
spoken at meetings with the Communist Party, Militant Labour,
and this year addressed the Dublin Council of Trade Unions.
However there is a long tradition of working class loyalists
complaining about being sold out by ruling class unionism
without breaking from sectarianism in the course of doing so.
Given, in particular, the horrific killings carried out by
some of the prominent figures in the PUP/UDP it is correct to
be cautious but their current complaints provide evidence of
the growing tensions within unionism.
Loyalty's reward
Among working class loyalists there is growing awareness
that loyalty to the British crown has delivered less, in some
cases, than the armed rebellion of the republicans. The
biggest thing the British state gave in return for their
loyalty was guns to kill Catholics with.
A Health Profile of the Greater Shankill Area, which was
published in June, showed
-> Only one third of men in the district described their
health as good compared with 60% in Belfast overall.
-> Male unemployment in the area is 40%, compared with a
Belfast average of 19%. The female rate is 35%, compared
with an average of 11% in the entire city.
-> Over 80% of pupils in the Shankill left school without
any qualifications, compared with two thirds in Belfast
overall.
-> Only 1 per cent were educated to degree level,
compared to 9% in the whole city.
-> Just one in 12 children attended a grammar school compared
with an average of one in four in Belfast.
Sinn Fein can't do it
Sinn Fein, because of their nationalist politics, will
always be unable to attract support from significant numbers
of Protestant workers. The most they can do is call on them
to "see sense". Again, to quote Morrison on his release from
prison: "...part of our analysis is that the unionist
community is more in advance of the unionist leadership which
hasn't produced a De Klerk, someone who is imaginative and
courageous enough to say, 'we're going to have to deal here,
we're going to have to settle and accept that everyone is
going to have to compromise'."
This pretty much paraphrases 1994 Ard Fheis speech by
Gerry Adams, in which he also called for a "Protestant De
Klerk". This represents the limits of republican thinking
towards the Protestant working class. They may be able to
recognise that Protestant workers have been tricked but they
are unable to appeal to them on the grounds of common
interest, as this would be a fundamental break with the
politics of nationalism. Such an appeal would also be
something that the nationalist bosses in Ireland and Bill
Clinton would not be keen on.
There can not be a loyalist socialism. Loyalism means
loyalty to the ruling class of Britain and Northern Ireland.
For this reason it is wrong to see the PUP or UDP as
socialist, or even close to socialism. A socialist movement
requires support from all sections of the working class and a
break with orange and green politics. The ceasefires have
made it a little easier to put forward this viewpoint, it is
up to all of us to make the best use of this opportunity.
Joe Black
*********************************************************
** An Anarchist strategy **
WHILE WELCOMING the ceasefire we don't expect the
"peace process" to lead to much. Sinn Fein's politics
offer little more to Northern workers, as a class,
than the politics of the fringe loyalist groups. Both
aspire to getting a better deal for the poor and
oppressed in their communities but neither are capable
of delivering, as they are limited to rhetorical
appeals to the workers of the other side to "see
sense". Neither can offer a way forward because
neither can unite workers across the sectarian divide
in a common struggle.
Anarchism, at the moment, is a very much smaller force
in Ireland then even the fringe loyalist groups, but it does
offer a way forward. We argue for working class self-
activity that appeals not to politicians or priests as allies
but to workers everywhere, in Ireland, in Britain and
internationally. But this unity cannot be based on just
'bread and butter issues'. In the past Catholic and
Protestant workers have united in common fights to get more
from the bosses. The largest and better known examples of
this are
->1919 Engineering strike when the mostly Protestant
workforce of Harland and Wolff elected a strike committee
that happened to be mostly Catholic.
->1932 Outdoor Relief strike when the unemployed of the
Falls and the Shankill rioted in support of each other, and
against the police.
Both these were broken by the unionist bosses convincing
Protestant workers that it was all a 'Fenian' trick and that
their real interests lay in loyalism. Look at the poverty
figures for the Shankill road today and you can see who was
really tricking who. But the bosses' trick worked and
economic unity crumbled, to be replaced by a vicious pogrom
and the expulsion of Catholics and left-wing Protestants from
the shipyards in 1919 and sectarian rioting in 1933.
For this reason, the idea we can wish the division of
the working class in the north away by simply talking about
wages and living conditions is a fantasy. More recently
there has been unity in support of the nurses' pay claim,
against health service cuts and against sectarian
intimidation in Housing Executive and Dept. of Social
Security offices. All of these instances are heartening.
Unfortunately little permanent unity has been built upon
these successes because of a failure to confront 'communal
politics'.
Protestant workers have to reject loyalism and unionism as
ruling class ideologies. They have to see their allies as
being workers who happen to be Catholic, north and south, and
their enemies as the loyalist bosses and the British state.
This is no easy break to make but the big benefit of the
ceasefire is that it is now easier then it was a year ago.
No to the bosses Orange or Green
Catholic workers have a similar break to make. The
politics of both the SDLP and Sinn Fein are essentially about
extending the southern state northwards. This would have the
benefit of ending rule by sectarian bigots (although the
southern Garda<64> are no more keen on the working class then
their northern counterparts) but that's about it. Many
workers in the South have spent a good part of the last
decade fighting the power of the Catholic church, from its
influence on the legal system to its covering up of child
abusing priests and enslavement of unmarried mothers in the
Magdalen laundries.
Apart from that, the recent Dunnes Stores strike
demonstrates that the gobshite Southern bosses are every bit
as mean as their northern equivalents. It also demonstrates
they can be beaten, if workers stand together.
Workers' unity against the bosses is required but the
form that unity takes is also vital. The unity must be
political as well as economic. The RUC, the border, clerical
control of schools and hospitals, and laws restricting
divorce, gay sex and access to abortion all need to be
opposed.
We cannot rely on a few "good men" to sort out the
situation for us. That is the mistake most of the socialist
movement made this century and is the reason why we had
'socialist' dictatorships like the USSR and China on the one
hand, and 'socialist' sell-outs like the Labour Party or
Democratic Left on the other. There is, however, a different
current in socialism, based not on good leaders but on the
self-organisation of the working class.
This self-organisation is what anarchism is all about.
We don't believe the way forward lies in finding the right
leader, whether it's Gerry Adams, Tony Blair or Lenin.
Instead we see the way forward lying with ordinary people;
taking control of our lives into our own hands, coming
together and starting to fight back. The role of anarchists
is not to assume the leadership of such a process but to
argue for self-activity, encourage it and seek to encourage
those fighting back to unite in an overall struggle against
capitalism and for a new society.
And that's where you come in. Unlike other left papers,
we won't end every article by telling you the only way
forward is to join the party. What we do say is find out
more about anarchism and look at ways of encouraging self-
activity in the struggles you are involved in. If you decide
you like what we say then please do get in touch and help us
in saying (and doing) it. Above all recognise that the
answer is not getting 'our' leaders into talks but in taking
back control ourselves.
****************************
CHARLIE AND BILL
"Begrudgers, throwbacks and die hards". That is what
the media called anyone objecting to the official state
visit by Prince Charles. Their consensus had decided that
anyone who would object must be "living in the past". You
would think that the British ruling class had done nothing
at all to stir up the troubles, that Prince Charles<65>
Parachute regiment had never murdered 14 civil rights
marchers on Bloody Sunday. And we were supposed to feel
privileged that a filthy rich parasite was condescending to
have a free holiday here at our expense.
Not everyone swallowed this forelock touching
embarrassment, orchestrated by the politicians and their
Dublin 4 media friends. 2,000 republicans, socialists,
anarchists and anti-royalists took to the streets of Dublin
on May 31st. The Workers Solidarity Movement played its
part by giving out 5,000 leaflets urging support for the
march, and organising a lively contingent on the night.
Demonstrations like this play a useful role. They
remind us that there are rich and poor, workers and bosses,
rulers and ruled. To recognise this and object to it is not
begrudgery but realism! We know how things are now and we
are declaring we want something better.
When Bill Clinton comes over on November 30th he should
not be able to live the high life without encountering a
protest or two. It will certainly give heart to dissident
Americans to know that in Ireland there are those who oppose
the US state<74>s intervention in other peoples<65> countries and
support for dictatorships in the third world. One question
is whether Sinn F<>in will be on the streets or at the
dinner? Will a handshake for Gerry Adams be more important
than taking a stand against injustice?

111
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001109.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,111 @@
********** The Easter rising of 1916 **********
from Workers Solidarity No 33?
[1991?]
THIS YEAR marks the 75th anniversary of the Easter
Rising. There will be all sorts of commemorations
throughout the country, organised by forces ranging from
Fianna F<>il to Sinn F<>in. We will hear a lot of talk about
the "spirit of 1916", what does it mean today?
The rising was heroic. Some would even say stupid. It had little
popular support. Most Irish people at the time believed that Irish men
should be off fighting the Germans. It was widely thought that in
return Home Rule would become a reality. The leaders of the rising
were not too worried about this. They believed that the blood sacrifice
was all that was needed to inspire future generations.
NATIONALISTS
The rising itself was led by middle class nationalists. Their one and only
objective was the liberation of the country from British rule. This has
not yet been achieved. Indeed all the major parties, including the
Workers Party, have given up on this. The Anglo-Irish Agreement was
only the most recent attempt to come to terms with partition. For all
the waffle about being the true inheritors of the Rising, not one
government of the Free State has implemented the limited demands of
the rebels.
The Proclamation declared the following "The Republic guarantees
religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities for all its
citizens and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the
whole nation and of all its parts, cherishing all the children of the nation
equally."
EQUALITY
Here we see a general liberal desire for equality. But far from equality,
all we see around us in the Irish Republic is inequality. Workers are
thrown on the dole and expected to live on a pittance while the bosses
make enormous profits and eat in outrageously expensive restaurants.
There are plush new private hospitals while workers get second rate
health care. Women are denied the right to participate fully in society.
Their role as wives and childminders is enshrined in the Constitution.
Far from cherishing all the children of the nation equally, working class
children are denied the right to attend third level education yet their
parents fork out a fortune in taxes to subsidise the children of the rich.
NOT SOCIALIST
Not that the leaders of the Rising were socialist or anything like it.
Their only concern was to get the British out. The new Ireland was
clearly going to be capitalist. The Proclamation calls on all Irish people
to unite, saying that all previous differences which "have divided a
minority from the majority" were "carefully fostered by an alien
government". So the only problem was British domination.
It obviously was a problem but this perspective totally overlooks the
fact that only three years previously the Irish bosses led by William
Martin Murphy had locked out and starved thousands of Irish
workers. Were the workers now to forget all this and unite with their
enemies?
JAMES CONNOLLY
The presence of Connolly did not give the Rising a socialist tinge.
Connolly had clearly decided that socialism should be put in cold
storage. He believed that the World War was a great opportunity to
strike at Britain. Also the defeat in the 1913 Lockout had left the
working class demoralised. Rather than get stuck in and rebuild union
organisation and militancy, Connolly chose to go with the nationalists.
He was not fighting for socialism when he went into the G.P.O.
The executions following the Rising (rather than the Rising itself) and
the British attempt to introduce conscription set the country alight.
British rule was totally undermined by 1919. The War of
Independence and the First D<>il not only showed that the majority of
the people opposed the British, but also highlighted what Sinn F<>in
was fighting for.
IRISH "SOVIETS"
In many parts of the country land was seized and "Soviets" were
established in many workplaces. These workers wanted more than a
united capitalist Ireland. They wanted the whole set-up changed.
They wanted real control over their lives. But this did not fit into the
policy of uniting all the Irish people. Sinn F<>in land courts were
established and the land was handed back to its former owners. The
Countess Markiewicz, one of the heroines of the rising, warned against
the "dangers of social revolution".
Today Sinn F<>in claim, louder than anybody, to be the inheritors of
1916. Without a doubt they are. They carry on the tradition of armed
struggle and the blood sacrifice. Despite all the left wing posturing
they are still nationalists whose aim is to unite all the Irish people
against the British. As in 1916 there are not just "Irish people". There
are Irish workers and Irish bosses, and they have nothing in common.
A WORKERS REPUBLIC
The task remains to free the country from British domination. For
Anarchists this can only be done by taking up the struggle as part of
the fight for a Workers Republic. Workers' control and the smashing of
capitalism is our aim. Anything less is not worth fighting for. The real
heros and heroines of Irish history are the workers who fought for this.
The state will not hold commemorations for them. That might only
encourage workers today.
Eddie Conlon

495
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001110.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,495 @@
4 articles
2nd is Irish struggle for abortion rights (1983 - 1992)
3rd is The Censorship of Abortion Information Act, 1995
4th is Freedom of choice
******** Abortion: A Woman's Right to Choose **********
from Workers Solidarity No 34
(1992)
Anarchists believe that every woman has the
right to choose an abortion when faced with a
crisis pregnancy irrespective of the reasons for
the abortion. At least 40,000 Irish women have
abortions in England every year at present.
Women worldwide have always sought to control
their fertility through abortion no matter how
difficult it is for them to get access to abortion
and they probably always will. This is because it
is essential for women to be able to control their
own fertility and not to be reduced to the level of
their biological function as child-bearers only if
they are to achieve true equality and liberation.
At present the Irish Constitution with the the Eight
Amendment reduces women to being equal only to a
completely dependent foetus and it tries to condemn women
to become unwilling incubators. To compare an adult
woman or teenage girl with responsibilities, social
relationships, personal plans, and so on to a completely
dependent foetus is unacceptable. The foetus has no
independent existence without the woman and the decision
about an abortion or a continuation of the pregnancy must
be the woman's decision and no one else's.
Women choose to have abortions for all kinds of reasons:
poverty, bad health, too many other children, because of
rape or incest or simply because they do not want to have a
child at that point in their lives. We believe that all these
reasons are valid. Women should not have to answer to
anyone, not the church,not the state or even to doctors for
their decision. This raises the question of abortion on
demand. We oppose any kind of decision making process
involving ethics committees or doctors or other variations
on this. A woman must have the right to abortion on
demand.
The question of free access is a very important one. At
present only those women who can afford both the travel
costs and the operation costs can get an abortion. Abortion
facilities must be made available here in Ireland and they
must be free as all medical services should be.
Censorship of information on abortion is a totally insulting
attack on womens' most basic rights as thinking human
beings to know what all the options are when they are
faced with a crisis pregnancy. To deny women information,
to take books out of libraries, censor magazines containing
telephone numbers, all these actions treat women as
irresponsible children whose moral decisions need to be
policed by small groups of right wing bigots.
The hypocrisy of allowing women to go to England for
abortions is no longer acceptable to many Irish people.
Apart from all other considerations, having to raise the
money for the travel and to go isolated and afraid to
another country adds untold trauma to what should be a
fairly simple medical procedure. Abortion facilities must be
made available in Ireland free and without restricted access.
Anarchists believe that a woman's right to choose also
means the right to choose to have a child and to have
decent housin, child care and welfare facilities available in
order to raise that child in a reasonable way and in order
that her life is not totally given over to child care. At
present with the current housing crisis the almost total
lack of free child care and the lousy welfare payments this is
not a real choice.
We are opposed to all forms of forced fertility control,
whether it is the state imposing limits on the number of
children a woman can have as in China or the denial of
proper contraceptive and abortion facilities as in this
country. The right to choose means the right to choose not
to have a child or to have a child in circumstances where
that means that neither mother nor child suffer materially
or socially for that decision.
Anti-abortionists say that abortion is murder. We reject
this argument. The foetus is a potential life only - it is
not comparable to the life of a person of any age or ability
who interacts socially and functions independently. We
don't deny that abortion takes the life of a potential human
being. The right to choose means that it is the woman's
right to choose whether to bring that potential life to full
term or not given the circumstances of her life. As
anarchists we demand that right and we will be active in
the campaign for abortion rights in this country over the
coming months.
Patricia McCarthy
*** Irish struggle for abortion rights (1983 - 1992) ***
from Workers Solidarity No 35
(1992)
IN 1983 anti-choice campaigners pushed the government
into holding a referendum on abortion. The Eight
Amendment was then passed by 33% of the electorate (the
turn out was 54.6%). Abortion was already prohibited
under the 1861 Offences Against the Persons Act. The
Eight Amendment copperfastened this ban preventing any
reforming legislation.
SPUC's next step was to take those clinics which
provided non-directive counseling to court. In the
Hamiliton Judgement of 1987 the High Court placed
injunctions on the Well Women Centre and on Open-Line
Counseling prohibiting them from operating non-directive
counseling services. The clinics failed in their appeal
to the Supreme Court.
The ruling by Justice Finlay extended the Hamiliton
interpretation by declaring the imparting of any
information relating to the procurement of abortion to
be unlawful. It was this ruling that was then used to
take the Student Unions to court. The Well Woman Centre
and the Open-Line Counseling service then took their
case to the European Court of Human Rights.
The Defend the Clinics Campaign attempted to get
liberal/left Irish politicians to raise the issue but
many like Emmet Stagg and Micheal D Higgins of the
Labour party refused to give even paper support,
frightened for their D<>il seats.
Student Unions
SPUC continued on the offensive, taking the Union of
Students in Ireland (USI), Trinity College and UCD
Student Union to court. SPUC lost the case initially on
very dubious grounds. There was a large amount of
publicity surrounding the case arising from student
demonstrations outside the courts. At the last moment
the Justice that was supposed to hear the case was
replaced by Irelands only female judge, Justice Mella
Carroll.
She ruled that all the evidence against the students was
hearsay and so could not be used. This is in spite of
the fact that the students had widely said in newspapers
and interviews that they would provide abortion
information and had included it in Student Union guide
books. The judgement seemed to be a cop out for the
Irish ruling class who did not want to be seen to be
sending students to jail for contempt of court.
This ruling was appealed by SPUC who won, a temporary
injunction being placed on the Student Unions. The
Students Unions are being brought back to court by SPUC
on July 19th this year in order to have this injunction
made permanent.
The student union campaign took two turns. The
leadership within the Unions toned down the level of
campaigning on the issue, concentrating solely on
appealing to Europe. Those activists that argued that
the law should be publicly broken were told that we
would be jeopardising the case by angering the judges.
In the end the European Court found that the Students
Unions could not give out abortion information.
It is still illegal to give out information on abortion.
Within the individual student unions, many anti-choice
groups held referenda aimed at overturning the Unions'
mandate to distribute information. These anti-choice
groups only succeeded in reversing a pro-information
policy in one of the universities, UCD. However they
were defeated in all but one of the Regional Technical
Colleges. Overall, more students voted for giving out
abortion information than against.
While the Student Union leaders waited for Europe, the
Abortion Information groups in most universities ceased
to exist. Meanwhile the Censorship of Publications Act
was used to ban books and sections of magazines which
contained information on where to get an abortion.
Cosmopolitan and other British magazines now carry a
blank page where ads. for British abortion clinics
should be. Recently the Guardian newspaper was not
distributed because of an advertisement for the Mary
Stopes Clinic.
In 1991 the Trinity College Right to Information Group
held a public meeting in order to launch a Dublin group.
Following from this the Dublin Abortion Information
Campaign (DAIC) began to meet regularly. Initially they
concentrated on defying the ban in in order to draw more
people into the campaign and to provide information.
More public meetings were held to highlight the issue
and information leaflets were distributed in O'Connell
Street.
Dublin County Council voted to remove two health books
from the library which contained abortion information.
Though DAIC attempted to replace the book the issue got
very little coverage. DAIC decided to slow down to one
activity a month in order to try and maintain some
interest over a very bleak period.
On Wednesday February 12th., some of the Irish papers
carried a short piece about an injunction being granted
against a 14 year old alleged rape victim to prevent her
traveling to Britain in order to obtain an abortion.
The case was not yet an issue. DAIC called a picket
for the following Monday and a rally the following
Saturday. Though furious about the case, given the
present climate and the lack of advertising many felt no
more than about 200 would turn up. However 1,000
people ended up marching to the attorney generals
office.
Many of those on the march had not been involved in the
campaigning since the 1983 referendum, and quickly
jostling took place as to who would 'in charge' of any
future campaigns. Secret meetings were called by
separate groups of feminists and liberals. Both groups
wanted to exclude the left as much as possible, when in
fact, it was mainly left wing activists who had being
attempting to keep the issue alive for the last 10
years.
Following the unexpectedly large turn out of the march,
the press and politicians started to speak out about the
case. One grouping held a silent vigil of the D<>il.
DAIC realised that the turnout for the Saturday rally
would be big enough for a march. We hoped for 4,000.
It was this march that put the case right on top of the
political agenda. At least 10,000, mainly young people,
marched and chanted 'Right to Choose'. It was
noticeable that there were only five banners present,
indicating that many people had spontaneously come out.
People were angry.
Pressure was kept on by almost continual protests the
following week. The first item on the news was reports
of scuffles at the D<>il. The Government was coming
under huge pressure. On ThursdayFebruary 20th. the 14
year old was granted her appeal. The injunction was
lifted and soon after she traveled to Britain in order
to get her abortion.
These days it's not often that you have such a good
example of how far and how quickly public opinion can
change. A delegate from the Cork Abortion Information
Campaign commented at a recent conferences, that before
the "X" case had arisen, the Cork group met to consider
seeking another referendum on abortion information in
University College Cork.
Two years earlier UCC, an extremely conservative
university had voted massively against giving out
information. The Cork group felt they would probably
loose but would attempt it anyhow. Then the 14 year old
case happened, and the UCC referendum was won with over
70% supporting abortion information. A week later,
Manooth, the university of the Irish Catholic Clergy
also overturned their policy and voted to distribute
abortion information.
Similarly, its not often as an socialist involved in
campaigns that you can see how your actions are changing
society for the better. This case is one of the few
exceptions. DAIC consisted of a small group of
activists, perhaps 30 in all. Yet when things started
happening, when the case arose, we were there, ready and
capable of responding. Without DAIC, it is unlikely
that the march would have been organised or that the
protests would have continued for so long. Without that
pressure, its unlikely that the 14 year old would have
been able to travel to Britain.
A section of the feminists called a conference in order
to launch the Repeal the Eight Amendment Campaign.
(R8AC). DAIC affiliated to it. The Conference itself
was jumbled and frustrating. Those calling it had a
fixed agenda and were very hostile to any democratic
attempt to amend it through motions. Many activists
found the actual conference demoralising and
antagonistic. It did however lead to the setting up of
a campaign, weakly based in the cities.
Most of the co-ordinating committee of REAC wanted to
run a media campaigning and set about getting sponsors
and important speakers. They however ran into troubles.
Besides Democratic Left, no other political party would
come near it, expressing caution and wanting to wait and
see.
Many of Ireland's womens organistations also refused to
get involved. Despite efforts the media refused to pick
up on press statements. At the moment the main weakness
of the campaign is that is still attempting to become an
'important' force at the expense of organising viable
local action groups.
REAC needs to stop looking to the politicians and the
media to fight the campaign for us. Stunts and
theatrical events do have a place in a campaign but they
should be a backup to establishing a mass basis on the
ground throughout the 26 counties. REAC has failed to
draw in new forces in Dublin to campaign against
Maastracht.
If we are to put repealing the 8th amendment on the
political agenda we need more then stunts. We need to
involve huge numbers of people through activity in the
unions and the community. We need to construct action
groups based around activities in all areas. This must
become the first priority of the campaign. We forced
the government to overturn the injunction when 10,000
marched in Dublin. We need to get out similar numbers
if we are to have any hope of forcing the government to
hold a referendum scrapping the 8th amendment.
***************
** The Censorship of Abortion Information Act, 1995 **
from WS 45 (1995)
In the autumn of 1992, the people of Ireland voted
to legalise abortion information. More than two
years later, the government has finally introduced
a Bill to 'regulate' this information. Ray
Cunningham examines it.
Even though an clear majority (60%) voted in favour
of abortion information, the legal position on the
distribution of this information remained confused.
Counselling services and information groups,
fearful of being taken to court, erred on the side
of caution when it came to abortion, and so the
news that a Bill was being introduced was welcomed
in many quarters. At last, the threat of
injunction would be lifted. As the Bill was
published, however, it became clear that it was
more restrictive than many could have imagined.
Conditions
Some of the conditions were expected, and had been
part of Brendan Howlin's widely leaked draft Bill
in 1994. Bans on the advertising of abortion
services, and the distribution of unsolicited
information (eg., through posters and leaflets)
were predictable. Though often covered by other
laws, like the Litter Act, no political party wants
to be seen as 'soft' on abortion, and these bans
gave them some cover from the anti-abortion groups.
The Noonan Bill, however, goes much further.
Doctors will be allowed to give women the addresses
and phone numbers of clinics in Britain, in the
context of counselling, but they will not be able
make an appointment or other arrangement for women
with these clinics. This means that important
medical information may not be directly passed on
from the doctor to the clinic, with possibly
dangerous consequences. This intrusion into the
doctor/patient relationship is backed up with
Garda<EFBFBD> powers of search and seizure and criminal
penalties for breaking the law (previously, only a
civil injunction could be used) in case any doctor
is foolish enough to think that the health and
welfare of his/her patients is more important than
Des Hanafin's Catholic morals.
Appeasement
The reasoning behind this legislative doublethink
is very simple - there aren't any votes in
abortion. Politicians know that, apart from the
relatively small groups at opposite ends of the
pro-choice/anti-abortion spectrum, few people
regard it as an important issue. Generally, all
that is required is that they be seen to be
neutral, and they will be praised for their
statesmanlike qualities. In reality, they are far
from neutral. The very publication of this Bill
was seen as a boost for the progressive agenda, but
its draconian measures received very little
coverage.
Noonan is set to further appease right-wing
Catholics. It was pointed out that, outside of
Dublin, there are very few pregnancy counselling
services, but this is to be remedied. With the
only counselling requirement in the Bill being that
abortion is not advocated, funding is likely to be
approved for Cura, a Catholic anti-abortion
counselling service, to train their counsellors and
provide a national service. At least they have
plenty of practice in not advocating abortion!
Democracy?
Noonan shouldn't be singled out, though. All
politicians have become very skilled at not dealing
with things. Not dealing with divorce, not dealing
with contraception, not dealing, in fact, with
anything that might offend those fabled
'grassroots'. It has reached the point where Maire
Geogehan-Quinn is praised for her "courage" in
legalising homosexuality - 5 years after the
European Court ordered it! The wait for abortion
in Ireland will be even longer, at least if we wait
passively for the government to do anything.
Since the 1992 Supreme Court ruling in the 'X' case
that, in certain circumstances, abortion was legal
in Ireland, the political parties have been praying
desperately that everyone will just forget about it
because they know that, on that issue at least,
they can't please everybody - either abortion is
legal, in whatever circumstances, or it isn't -
there is no middle ground to find. Of course, the
fact that in 1992, people voted against rolling
back the Supreme Court judgement, and said that the
threat of suicide was sufficient grounds to have an
abortion, gives us more than an inkling as to the
wishes of the people. Having a government that
respected the wishes of the people, though, is too
crazy a thought to be taken seriously.
***********************************************
Freedom of choice
IN 1992, the Supreme Court ruled that, in some
circumstances, women were allowed to have an
abortion in Ireland. Yet over 4,000 women a year
still have to travel to England for an abortion.
Again in 1992, we voted to allow freedom of
information about abortion, yet the D<>il passes
laws that are extremely restrictive and intrusive,
in defiance of our wishes. Where is our freedom?
Freedom
The Workers Solidarity Movement has always
supported a woman's right to control her own body,
and have campaigned for this right as part of the
pro-choice movement. We believe that control over
one's fertility is an essential part of individual
freedom.
Personal freedom is expressed in other ways - in
asserting your sexuality, heterosexual, bisexual,
lesbian, gay, whatever it may be - in asserting
your culture, when, like that of the Travellers, it
is ghettoised and stigmatised. The freedom to be
your own person, and take pride in yourself, is
often lacking in our society.
Equality
But freedom must have its limits. Freedom to have
sex doesn't mean freedom to rape - the freedom of
one must be balanced by the equal freedom of all.
Nowhere is this balance more obviously lacking than
in economics. Capitalism is based on the freedom
to acquire as much money as possible, but where
there is wealth there is also poverty. The
fortunes of the Smurfits, the Goodmans, the
Bransons, are balanced by the millions that go to
bed hungry each night, the millions more that die
every year as a direct result of poverty.
Even in Ireland, part of the industrialised,
developed West, with the highest rate of economic
growth in the European Union, there is poverty.
How many people sleep rough on the streets of our
cities, how many barely scrape by from week to
week, how many thousands are unemployed? Too many.
Anarchism
Anarchism offers a way forward. Society organised
from below, not from the top down by obscenely rich
industrialists, self-serving politicians, or the
'benevolent' dictatorship of the party. Power
cannot be used against us if we keep it in our own
hands, and use it to create a society based, not on
the freedom to exploit others, nor on a forced
equality that destroys individuality, but on real
freedom, real socialism, real anarchism.

668
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001111.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,668 @@
3 articles
2nd is 'Sex, Class & Womens oppression
3rd is 'Equality for some women'
*************** Why Women are Oppressed ***************
from Workers Solidarity No 36
WE ARE NOW eight years from the year 2,000.
Approximately 14,000 years ago the first
agricultural communities, and with them human
civilisation, were founded. Humanity is 600
generations old.
We hold the position of 'most successful species' because
unlike animals we have been able to modify our
environment to suit our needs. To early humans nature
was a powerful and frightening force, the bringer of
plagues, storms and droughts. Nowadays we control our
environment to such an extent that nature is no longer a
demon spirit or an instrument of the wrath of god. In
much of the world nature is way down on our list of
worries, it is more likely to fear us. As the capability to
control the world around us has increased from the first
primitive farmers to the high-technology multinationals,
the way we perceive the world around us has also
changed. So has the way we perceive each other.
One thing, however, that has remained constant
throughout this time is that in the majority of societies
half our species (women) has been held in an inferior
position to the other half (men). Why is this the case?
The answer to this question should explain two things.
It should explain why today with all our equal rights
legislation women are still second class citizens, and
secondly it should indicate the mechanisms and tactics we
have to use to achieve womens' liberation. If we know
what the problem is, we can find a solution.
CIVILISATION DAWNS
Early humans were hunter/gatherers living in nomadic
communities, living from hand to mouth. The discovery of
agriculture lead to huge changes in the organisation of
humanity. Agriculture was the point at which
civilisation began. This is because there are a number of
ways in which an agricultural community is different from
a hunter/gatherer clan. Communities remain in the same
spot. Agriculture can support more people than
hunting/gathering so communities get larger. Farming
leads to the development of new technology. New skills
lead to a greater division of labour. Individuals specialise
in certain types of work, be it tool making, leatherwork or
defence.
However the key difference is that farmed land becomes a
valuable resource. Land provides a surplus, that is land
provides more food than is necessary for day to day
survival. More importantly, land will provide this
resource in the future, for the next generation. None of
this is true of the herd of wild animals persued by the
hunter-gatherer. The concept of ownership developed.
So civilisation began when man began to acquire wealth
in the form of land, food and animals. If a rich man wants
to ensure that his offspring alone inherit his wealth, he
must be sure that his wife is only mating with him. Thus,
he has to be in a position of control over her. He needs
to portray this as part of the 'natural order'. To
accommodate this need society, through the use of
religion, developed a rationale to justify the inferior
position of woman.
GOD"S CHOSEN RULERS
Rulers have always been good at rationalising unfair
practices, take for example the idea of the 'divine right of
kings'. Popular for centuries, the church and state
argued that kings and queens were appointed by God.
The status quo was natural and good, any opposition to it
was evil and doomed to eternal hell. These days kings
don't have much power, which is why not many people
rush to describe Charles and Di as God's chosen rulers.
In much the same way, it was necessary to have women
inferior to men to ensure inheritance rights. In order to
keep women in this position a whole mythology of women
as second class humans was developed. It was the
accumulation of a surplus and the desire of a minority to
monopolise it that lead to the class division of society and
to the oppression of women.
Now we've established the motive and the cover story,
but of what relevance is the status of women in early
history to their status today. As capitalism evolved it
built on the existing model of the family, adapting it to
suit it's own interests. Assurance of inheritance rights
isn't as necessary today, however the family provides
other services which capitalism does require. Initially,
when the industrial revolution first began men, women
and children were drafted wholesale into the factories.
DEATH IS NOT ALWAYS ECONOMIC
Quickly, however, the bosses realised that this was not
the most economic way to run the system. The labour
force was weak and the children who were to be next
generation of workers were dying in the mills and mines.
The solution was was to be found in the family.
Before the rise of capitalism society was based around a
system of slaves/serfs and kings or lords. The problem
with slaves or serfs is that the owner must provide food,
basic health care and subsistence in old age, i.e. maintain
the slave at a cost for those times when he or she is not
productive. A much more cost efficient way to keep a
workforce is through the nuclear family. In this scenario,
it is up to the family to provide itself with food, shelter,
healthcare, look after the elderly and young (who will
provide the next crop of workers). Within this family unit
it is normally the woman who fulfils the functions of
housekeeper, nurse, childminder and cook.
There are two knock-on effects of women staying at home
minding the family. Firstly they are not financially
independent. They do not earn any money and are
dependant on income received from their partners.
Because nobody gets paid for rearing a family it's status
as an occupation is at the bottom of the ladder and
because women are financially dependant on their
husbands it means they, in the past, have had little input
into the major decisions affecting the family.
ISOLATION
This led to women having no input into the decisions
affecting society. A woman's place was in the home. A
second effect of women's position in the family is that
they are often isolated from each other and from society
in general. Unlike a paid worker they have little
opportunity of meeting and sharing experiences with
others in the same situation on a daily basis, and do
something about it. They, on their own, have little
power to change the conditions they find themselves in.
Today the family is a trap for women as much as it was for
women at the beginning of the industrial revolution.
Women are paid on average 2/3 of the wage that men are
paid, so within any partnership it obviously makes more
sense for the woman to undertake responsibility for the
care of children. It is for this reason, common sense
rather than sexism, that that the vast majority of part-
time workers are women, juggling two jobs at the same
time.
Having said that, why is it that women are among the
lower paid in society? Is it necessary for capitalism to
exploit women workers to this degree? The simple answer
to that is sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. The only
important difference between a male and female worker is
that the female has the potential to get pregnant, that is
the potential to want maternity leave and need creche
facilities. In other words they are slightly more
expensive to employ than men. So when women are
asked (illegally!) at job interviews if they intend to
marry, such discrimination has a material basis. An
employer isn't interested on the good of society at large
but in obtaining the cheapest most reliable workforce
possible.
DISPOSABLE WORKERS
Historically women have been encouraged to work and
have been accommodated when it suited capitalism.
When there was either a shortage of male labour due to
war as during the 1st and 2nd World Wars or an
expansion of industry as in the dawn of the industrial
revolution or the 1960s. When times are tough, when
recession sets in, women are encouraged back into the
family.
The conclusion for most socialists is that women's'
liberation can only be lastingly obtained with the
overthrow of capitalism. This is not to say that reforms
should not be fought for at the moment, but to recognise
that some of the gains may be short-term ones which can
be withdrawn.
This conclusion isn't accepted by everyone concerned with
womens' liberation, and certainly is rejected by large
sections of the feminist movement. A good example of the
alternative analysis can be seen in the following extract
from the British Survey of Social Attitudes (a survey
carried out regularly by an independent body).
WHO MINDS THE CHILDREN
It found that the provision of childcare was one of the
impediments preventing women from working. Their
conclusion was that "in the absence of changes in
mens' attitudes, or working hours outside the home
or in their contribution within the family it seems
unlikely that even a greater availability of childcare
outside the home would alter domestic arrangements
greatly. Without these changes, it is conceivable that
many useful forms of work flexibility - that might be
offered to women such as job sharing, career breaks,
special sick leave or term-time working - might
reinforce rather than mitigate the formidable level
of occupational segregation based on gender, to
women's longer-term disadvantage."
The authors of the survey note that as long as
responsibility for childcare rests with the women they will
remain trapped in the family. They also point out that
concessions to women in the world of work often result in
women being pidgeon-holed into less well paid job. This
already happens in regard to part-time workers who are
paid a lower hourly wage than full-time workers. They
point out that men have to square up to their
responsibility as fathers. The key they emphasise is a
change in mens' attitudes.
However what was not mentioned is that no matter how
attitudes change, men are as powerless as individuals in
regard to their working conditions as women are. With
all the good will in the world they cannot change their
employer/employee relationship, they cannot adjust their
working hours to suit childcare just as women cannot. A
more fundamental conclusion would be that society at the
moment, capitalism, does not want to accommodate any of
the problems of childcare preferring to leave it up to the
individual to make their own arrangements as best as
they can.
CONTROL OF OUR BODIES
It is for this reason that the issue of womens' ability to
control their own fertility is key in obtaining womens'
liberation. That is the fight for abortion rights, for freely
available contraceptives, for 24 hour quality childcare.
Women will remain as second class citizens as long as they
are relegated to an inferior position in the work force.
They are now in that position because to the bosses they
are an unstable workforce, likely to want pregnancy
leave, likely to come in late if a child is sick, likely to
require a creche or want to work part time. It is because
men in society are seen as the breadwinners that they
have slightly more secure, slightly more dependable jobs.
It's a vicious circle, because men are in reality better
paid, it makes more sense within the family to assign the
role of main earner to the male and the role of carer to
the female. The only way to permanently get out out of
this circle is to change the system. In a society organised
to make profits for a few, women loose out. In a society
organised to satisfy needs, womens' fertility would no
longer be a limiting factor.
INTO THE MAINSTREAM
Women can of course win gains at the moment. In
Ireland women are no longer forced to stop working upon
marriage (though lack of childcare can make it impossible
to continue). Attitudes have changed considerably in the
last thirty years. Most importantly, the position of
women is now an issue. Whereas before it was only
addressed by the few socialist or womens' groups, now it's
taken up in the mainstream media, in chat shows and
newspaper articles. However, any of our new freedoms
are very much dependant on the economic conditions of
the day. So, while in the booming sixties American
women won limited access to abortion, now in recession
those rights are being pushed back inch by inch.
When the reality is weighed up equal education & job
opportunities and equal pay are limited without free 24
hour nurseries and free contraception & abortion on
demand. While a small minority of women can buy control
of their own fertility, for the majority family and childcare
is still - as it has always been - the largest problem faced
by women workers. In this argument capitalism won't
concede, it must be defeated.
Aileen O'Carroll
********** Sex, class & Womens oppression **********
from Workers Solidarity No 36
Lavinia Kerwick showed great bravery when
she spoke out about being raped, thousands
took to the streets in support of "X" last
February. Violence and discrimination
against women are still very real. But for the
first time since the early 1980s large numbers
of women want to fight back. Aileen O'Carroll
looks at some of the issues that have arisen.
Can women of all classes share a common
goal? Should women organise separately? Is
there a connection between fighting sexism and
fighting capitalism?
IT WAS NOT until the French Revolution in 1798, that
it began to be accepted that all men are equal. Until
then the concept was dismissed as irreligious and and
against the 'natural order'. Many of the morals, rules
and rights that society assumes as constant are
actually quite fluid. It is only in the last few decades
that the idea of equality has been extended to include
women.
Although women still hold a secondary status, the idea of
women as second class citizens is beginning to lose ground.
Changing attitudes in itself are not going to lead to womens'
liberation (all men aren't in fact equal in today's society, though
there is no longer strong ideological opposition to the idea of
equality). However, the freeing of women from the chains of
sexism empowers us to fight for womens' liberation.
However having said all this, why is it that women aren't more
active in politics, in community groups, in campaigning? What is
it that is holding them back? Anarchists believe that the core
problem facing women is class society. However overlying that
core is a layer of sexist ideas. This ideology serves to reinforce
and justify womens' inferior status. How does this operate?
How does it manage to do this?
It's easy today to underestimate the effects of the conditioning
that takes place. Conditioning that tells us, that in the very
first place we doesn't have any right to compete on an equal
basis. There is ample proof that this occurs, for example the
findings of a recent survey on secondary school children
indicated that girls had a much lower self-image than boys of a
comparable age. Recent studies in American classrooms showed
that when girls answered out of turn they were more likely to
be told off, while boys were likely to be praised for showing
intelligence or initiative. Given this it was not surprising that
in later classes girls rarely spoke unless specifically asked a
question while boys often spoke out or chatted with the teacher.
RAPE AND 'GUILT'
Researchers into the area of sexual harassment have found that
people have difficulty in knowing what type of behaviour
amounts to harassment. Women feel unsure as to what are
their rights are, unsure as to how much hassle they are
expected by society to put up with. In a recent interview a
representative of Dublin Rape Crisis Centre indicated that in
her experiences all the women she saw felt guilt in some way,
right down to an old age pensioner raped in her own home.
Indeed, this is hardly surprising given the type of reporting of
trials such as the Kennedy rape trial this year.
One in three of crimes against women arise from domestic
violence. Yet these problems are given low priority. Rape Crisis
Centres are constantly under threat of closure due to lack of
funding. In the first four months of 1990, the Gardai received
1,568 calls for help in domestic violence situations (and all the
experts accept that only a small number of such crimes are ever
reported). The Womens' Aid refuges, run by volunteers, have
only 16% of the space that is needed.
Workers in a Dublin refuge reported that between four and
seven families are turned away on average, while approximately
another 60 women phone seeking advice each week. Our low
status in society is reflected not only by the level of violence
against us, but by the complete disregard that is shown for the
problem by the government and society at large.
A CURFEW ON WOMEN
Though most rapes are committed by somebody known by the
woman (92% of Irish rape victims knew their attackers), police
propaganda is still aimed at frightening women into maintaining
a self-imposed curfew at night. Even though the statistics
indicate she is probably in more danger at home! We are forced
to leave limited lives. We don't have freedom of movement even
within our own communities. We are denied control over our
own bodies. Worse of all, we are told how to look and how to
behave.
Women are constantly given cues that they are in some way
inferior. This conditioning is a symptom of the position of
women in society, not the cause but a symptom with far reaching
affects. We learn what is the norm through what is seen as
acceptable behaviour in the world around us. The media, be it
TV, film industry or pop music occupy a very vocal and dominant
position. Next time you watch MTV or go to the cinema try and
count how many times you see women portrayed as individuals
in their own right, rather than as appendages. You won't need
more fingers to count on than you have on your own two hands.
Most womens' magazines are still concerned with beauty, fashion
and home making. Articles about working women are almost
exclusively aimed at professionals and executives. They don't
reflect the the reality that most women experience. Company
magazine (June 1991) asks "Are you scared of success? Career
success can be dazzling and very exciting, yet it can go hand in
hand with tremendous fear". The article argues that if we just
didn't keep holding ourselves back, we could make it in the
career world. The truth for most of us is that it is lack of
childcare and job opportunities determines our position as low
paid workers, not our lack of confidence.
GLOBAL FORUM OF EGOISTS AND BOSSES
Unfortunately much of the womens' movement does exactly the
same thing. Dublin recently hosted the 1992 Global Forum of
Women. At <20>180 a head the forum was dedicated to "visions of
leadership". Those attending were all "political, artistic &
scientific leaders or prominent in the international leadership of
the womens' movement". The brochure advertising the
conference proclaimed "the president of Nicaragua is a women".
So what! So is the Queen of England and Margaret Thatcher. I
don't see things being much better for our 'sisters' over the
water or for those in Nicaragua. The election of Mary Robinson
didn't make any noticeable difference for the 'sisters' at home
either.
The conclusion of the conference, the message they are sending
to the low paid, the part-time workers and the unemployed is
that what is needed is 40% representation of women at all
levels. Overwhelmingly, the message to us was to get up on our
bikes, to seize the opportunities, that the only thing stopping us
was ourselves. Class didn't come into it.
A gap exists between what women are meant to be like and what
we are, between what we are supposed to achieve and what it is
possible for us to achieve. Failure on our part to live up to an
ideal is attributed to some fault within us, rather than to the
type of society we live in. It is for these reasons that women
often find it more difficult to speak in public. We are often are
less confident because by standing up we are reacting against a
conditioning that tells us we should sit down.
ORGANISING SEPARATELY?
Women are constantly conditioned to believe that we do not
have a right to an opinion, to be politically active, to speak out.
Sometimes the first step against this conditioning is to organise
separately from men. Partly this is because it is felt that men
being more confident and more self-assured tend to dominate
discussions. Or even more simply some women feel that when
men are present they are more likely to take a silent role and
leave the arguing up to them.
Under these conditions women organising together is an
exercise in empowerment. It's a positive response to the
conditioning of society. It's role should be to make it possible for
women to participate as equals with men. It should be seen as
a temporary but necesary step, not as an end in itself.
However problems arise when this is taken further and when
women begin to campaign separately. This identifies men as the
root of the problem, which they aren't. It also isolates men from
the struggle, when it is obvious that in order to change society
we must work alongside them.
Within many Unions and the British Labour Party there exist
women only conferences. A problem with this is that womens'
issues are often referred to these conferences as a as a way of
avoiding the issues and forgetting about them. Rape is a
womens' issue - refer it to the womens' conference,
contraception is a womens' issue - refer it to the womens'
conference, etc.
In these instances men are rarely confronted with these issues,
rarely have to deal with them and are let off the hook.
Therefore while we defend the right of women to meet
separately we also think it vital in any organisation, in any
campaign, that women present their arguments to the entire
body of people and win those arguments and fight as a whole.
Tactically, this is the only way to widen and then win the fight
for womens' liberation.
Things are better for us today. A lot of the institutionalised
oppression, such as marriage bars and property laws has been
removed. Often equal pay legislation and quota systems have
been put in their place. Yet while things may have changed on
paper, we are still left with class society. As long as this
remains, the majority of us will not have equal access to the
workplace or much else. As long as we are denyed economic
equality, society will continue making up morals and invent so
called 'natural laws', as a way of justifying it's treatment of us.
By tackling the symptom, sexism in society, we will be in a
better position to tackle the root cause. By tackling capitalism
we will be fighting for womens' liberation.
Aileen O'Carroll
************* Equality for some Women ***************
from Workers Solidarity No35
LAST SEPTEMBER the Bank of Ireland was, according
to the 'Irish Times', 'basking in an unadulterated glow
of approval' from the Employment Equality Agency, the
Council of Status for Women and the Joint Oireachteas
Committee on Womens Rights among others. What the
Bank of Ireland had so progressively managed to do was
to provide one creche which will cater for up to 45
children.
The Bank of Ireland employs 11,600 people. However, at <20>55
a week the centre is obviously aimed at helping only a very
small section of the workforce. As Bertie Ahern said, it did
not make sense having highly and expensively qualified
women leaving the workforce because of lack of childcare
facilities. However, it does make sense, to industry, to
employ over 50% of the entire workforce having either low
pay or no security of employment (or both).
It isn't sexism that holds us in the worse paid jobs but rather
the economic reality of the capitalism system. To survive in
the market place any company has to be competitive, to
maximise profits. With wages accounting for 80% of the
outgoings in most business, employing the cheapest labour
makes good sense. In todays society, creches and child-care
are a luxury that the profit motive can rarely afford. To
women who accept this system, the provision of expensive
inadequate child care is a victory, while the plight of ordinary
women workers isn't worth mentioning.
But there is a general feeling that we are now living in a
post-feminist world. Women may not be quite equal to men,
but the principle of equality has been widely accepted and
liberation is only a matter of waiting. We are allowed to vote,
to drink in pubs and to work outside marriage. Our right to
an equal education system and an equal workplace is
enshrined in law. We have a women president.
In Ireland there is now a wide acceptance that women have
the right to participate in society on an equal basis with men.
However, despite this change in hearts and minds, life on the
ground for most women today, is quite similar to those of forty
years ago. Though we may not, in general, have the same
sexist morality to put up with; economically we are still
second class citizens.
For the majority of us, our right to choose the way of life we
wish to lead is as limited as it has always been. Rather than
being liberated, we are still tied, by virtue of our poor wage
earning abilities, to the home and family. A study recently
published in Fortune magazine indicated that the leading
occupations for women in 1990 weren't so different from the
top jobs for 1940 (see table). The average hourly earnings of
woman are still 68% of those of men. In hard cash terms, men
earn on average, <20>1.83 more per hour than women do.
Fortune Magazine Table
1990 1940
1. Secretary 1. Servant
2. Cashier 2. Secretary
3. Bookkeeper 3. Teacher
4. Nurse 4. Clerical worker
5. Nursing aide 5. Sales worker
6. Teacher 6. Factory worker
7. Waitress 7. Bookkeeper
8. Sales Worker 8. Waitress
9. Child care 9. Housekeeper
10. Cook 10. Nurse
So, what are the problems facing women in the workforce?
The answer you'll get to that question, will depend very much
on who you are talking to. For the last six years, Social and
Community Planing Research, a non-profit making institute,
has been surveying British social attitudes to everything from
should revolutionaries be allowed to have public meetings
(only 48% said yes) to should the tax system be changed.
Looking at the recently published 1991 survey, it becomes
obvious that the key factor preventing women from working is
children; i.e. lack of nursery places, lack of creches at work
and "guilt at leaving the care of children to others".
It noted that while 51% of those surveyed would have
thought a work-place nursery suitable for the care of their
children, none of the sample surveyed had access to such a
service. Overwhelmingly, children were cared for by a close
relative.
On the other hand, the Financial Times, in a major article
on women managers cited the main problems for women going
into business as confidence, training and expertise, credibility
and networks. For women at these higher levels, childcare
provision is not a key problem, as they can afford to hire
other women to stay at home so they are freed to go out and
work. So when women managers seek to overcome sexism,
provision of free 24 hour childcare is not a priority. Women
may not be equal to men in today's society, but undoubtedly
some women are more equal than others.
It is certainly true that there are very few women managers,
however this is just a symptom of the general situation of
women as a whole, not a cause. The installation of women at
the top of a profession won't change the basic ground rules by
which society is run. Those women at the top may suffer
sexism from their colleagues. They may be ostracised from the
old boys network and may find it more difficult to succeed.
However, they also have an interest in seeing the system
continue. Their high incomes, standard of living and position
in society is dependant on them being on the top of the pile.
So while they may lobby on 'safe' issues that affect most
women, such as rape and domestic violence, when it comes to
issues that question the way society is run and thus threaten
their position, sisterhood quickly breaks down.
How many of the Irish women TD's, who support abortion
information are willing to publicly say so? On the one hand
they may be members of the womens movement while on the
other protecting their seat is more important. Mary Robinson
may be a women, but she didn't show much sisterhood or
solidarity when she signed into law the new social welfare
regulations on cohabiting couples. This provision limits
couples to 80% of the benefit that two single people receive
Normally the women is the partner who receives the lower
income.
Women will remain as second class citizens as long as they are
relegated to an inferior position in the work force. They are
now in that position because to the bosses they are an
unstable workforce, likely to want pregnancy leave, likely to
come in late if a child is sick, likely to require a creche or
want to work part time. It is because men in society are seen
as the breadwinner that they have more secure, more
dependable jobs.
It's a vicious circle, because men are in reality better paid, it
makes more sense within the family to assign the role of main
earner to the male and housework to the female. The only
way to permanently get out out of the circle is to change the
system. In a society run for profit women loose out, in a
society run for need, womens fertility is no longer a limiting
factor.
Women can of course win gains at the moment. In Ireland
women are no longer forced to stop working on marriage,
though lack of child care can make it impossible to continue.
Attitudes have changed considerably in the last thirty years.
Most importantly, the position of women is now an issue.
Where as before it was only addressed by the few socialist or
womens groups, now it's taken up by the mainstream media,
by chat shows and newspaper articles. However, any of our
new freedoms are very much dependant on the economic
conditions of the day. So, while in the affluent 1960's British
women won limited access to abortion (used by thousands of
Irish women), now in recession those rights are being pushed
back inch by inch.
When you come down to basics equal education and job
opportunities and equal pay amount to little without free 24
hour nurseries and free contraception and abortion on
demand. While a small minority of women can buy control of
their own fertility, for the majority, family and child care is
still as it has always been the largest problem faced by women
workers.
And as a small finishing thought, under capitalism most
managers are paid a hell of a lot more than most workers.
That's a situation women mangers won't want to change.
After all, Margaret Thatcher was the ultimate woman
manager, wasn't she?
Aileen O'Carroll

147
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001112.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,147 @@
************ We Need Rights - not Charity *********
Andrew Blackmore takes a look at our continuing
reliance on charities to do essential services.
IRELAND IS ONE of the thirty richest countries in
the world. At the same time, 20% of the population
live below the poverty line. The Combat Poverty
Agency says that "disparities are widening and will
continue to do so in the years ahead". Yet, instead
of providing money to deal adequately with the
problems of poverty, for example; drug addiction,
homelessness and unemployment, the State gives tax
amnesties to the rich, and puts up over <20>200
million for Larry Goodman.
The material desires of most people - for example a
job and a good standard of living, are not provided
for. We have no 'right' to these things. We are
given a welfare system which does not provide a
basic minimum for a decent lifestyle, and we have
to turn to charities to fill in the gaps.
Charities
And the gap between what people need and what they
get is big. There are over 3,700 charities in
Ireland, trying to deal with just about every
disadvantaged sector in society; from Health and
Education to Travellers, women, and children. They
all do essential and valuable work. But they are
only necessary because the state is not providing
these services itself.
The ordinary citizen volunteers the time and money.
Most adults in Ireland give to charity more than
once a month, amounting to roughly <20>246 million
donated each year. And people devote large amounts
of time as well.
Take carers, for example. According to the National
Carer's Association, there are roughly 100,000
carers, looking after people who are severely sick
and helpless, but who are not given hospital beds.
A typical carer is a housewife looking after one of
her relatives, "in many cases, on call 24 hours a
day, 7 days a week".
Insecurity and Competition
The work that carers have to do in Ireland, with a
high physical and emotional burden, highlights one
problem of leaving the voluntary sector responsible
for doing vital social work.
But aside from leaving individuals with large
responsibilities there are other problems. The
voluntary sector is by its nature insecure. It is
reliant on volunteers to put in the time and money.
If that time and money is not forthcoming, then the
charity folds.
Even voluntary services which receive State
donations are not safe. The "Rape Crisis Centre" in
Dublin, has nearly collapsed on several occasions
due to lack of government funds.
Competition is also a problem that charities have
to deal with. People have only so much to give, so
charities have to compete with each other for
donations.
National Lottery
Since the introduction of the National Lottery,
donations to charities have decreased. And the
National Lottery, which gives nearly <20>100 million
to various causes, has recently expressed fears
that the new British Lottery will take away some of
its customers in Northern Ireland.
To quote John Hynes, the Chairman of the National
Lottery, "It is still too soon to determine what
long term effect the UK games will have on our
sales". Loss of customers means less money to the
charities which are dependent on its handouts.
This has direct results. The National Lottery gives
one third of its takings to the Department of
Health and Welfare. It could mean fewer hospital
beds, less money to Women's Aid or less money to
the Irish Red Cross. Why should any of these causes
suffer at the whim of the consumer? The only way to
avoid it is by guaranteeing the right to funding
for these services.
And it is 'rights' which is the crux of the whole
problem with charities. The existence of a charity
to provide a service, means that it is not a
'right' to receive such a service. The service is
not guaranteed, it could end due to lack of funds,
lack of support, or it could be out competed by
another, equally deserving cause.
Rights not Charity
When we say that organisations such as the Irish
Wheelchair Association or St Vincent de Paul have a
voluntary status, it is another way of saying that
we do not have the guaranteed right for such
services to exist. We should be lucky that they
exist. When the National Lottery gives money for
hospital building or a grant for Libraries, we are
expected to be grateful instead of regarding it as
a right.
Is this the way the state should treat our
disadvantaged? Money should be spent on eliminating
poverty and providing decent jobs for all. The
reliance on the voluntary sector to provide
essential services should be eliminated. We deserve
rights not charity.
Capitalism, with its "free market" and division of
society into exploiters and exploited, can not
guarantee such 'rights'. A combination of charity
and campaigning for more funding, at the expense of
the rich, can bring some small but very real
improvements in the lives of the poor. The
elimination of poverty, however, requires the
replacement of the present system by one where
production is organised to satisfy the needs of the
many instead of the profit lust of the few. Then
mutual; aid will do away with the need for charity.
***********
The facts and nothing but the facts
In 1960 the richest 20% of the world's population
owned 30% of the wealth, today they own 60%. The
annual income of the bottom 50% of the world's
population totals <20>815 billion. That is exactly
equal to the amount spent each year on arms, 86% of
which are supplied by Britain, the USA, France,
Germany and Russia.

128
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001113.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,128 @@
**************** Review *****************
TERRORIZING THE NEIGHBOURHOOD
by Noam Chomsky,
(AK Press).
from Workers Solidarity No 36
NOAM CHOMSKY is known to many on the left
as a leading US dissident. Fewer people
are aware that he is an anarchist. A
major part of his writings deal with
American foreign policy and this work is
of some importance as anarchism is often
criticised as having no analysis of
imperialism.
Terrorizing the Neighbourhood is based around a speech
Chomsky made in January of 1990, shortly after the US
invasion of Panama. It seeks to map out what US foreign
policy meant in the Cold War and what its probable
direction will be in future. It also challenges some of
the established conceptions of what the Cold War meant
and as such should be read not just as an introduction to
US foreign policy but also by those on the left who find
now that their world view collapsed with the collapse of
the USSR.
COLD WAR
The general presentation of post-war history from Right
and Left alike was of a history dominated by clashes
between two superpowers. In fact the two superpowers
were never equal. The Soviet Union never approached the
US in terms of economic or military strength. The Cold
War was used by the rulers of both countries to maintain
a concensus at home, a concensus that kept them both in
power. For the most part the war meant war with its
satellites for the Soviet Union. For the US it meant war
on the third world. Both sides used the rhetoric of a
threat from the other to justify its actions and retain a
consensus at home in favour of intervention abroad.
The power of this consensus is demonstrated in the US by
the fact that all the factions of the ruling class were
united behind the 'right' of the US to intervene anywhere
it liked. From liberals to conservatives this was
unchallenged, the arguments that occurred were over
tactics. During the Contra war in Nicaragua the US media
freely argued over the tactics of pulling Nicaragua into
line with US interests. Many did not see the Contra war
as the best option yet the "right" of the US to dictate
to Nicaragua went for the most part unquestioned.
The end of the Cold War meant the end of the all-powerful
Soviet excuse. Panama was significant because it was the
first post war US invasion not defended by reference to a
Soviet 'threat'. Instead the drug war was invented as a
substitute. Since then a range of "would be Hitler's"
have been the excuse for US intervention. Perhaps the
most remarkable thing about these new threats has been
the willingness of the population to accept them as real.
The Soviet Union at least had real military power, ICBM's
and nuclear warheads. The new "threats" to world peace
seem to have little more than Uzi's and large quantities
of rusting, outdated Soviet tanks.
DISCIPLINING THE THIRD WORLD
Chomsky effectively exposes post-war US foreign policy.
It was not about countering the Soviet Union or even
halting the spread of "communism". Rather it was about
destroying any opposition to US interests throughout the
third world. US interests did not mean what was good for
people in the US but what was good for the $9 billion
invested by corporations in Latin America. Nationalist
governments like those of Nicaragua and Cuba which sought
to pursue an independent economic line threatened little
more than the profits of big business. The communists
the US was supposedly fighting included everything from
actual Communist parties to nationalists, priests and
community workers.
These are the strengths of Chomsky's pamphlet, its
analysis of what US policy was about. There is little
discussion however about the next step, the struggle
against imperialism of whatever variety. Chomsky ends
with the hope that the introduction of rival imperialist
powers in the shape of Japan and Europe will create a
confusion that the "indigenous popular forces" will be
able to take advantage of. He sees solidarity movements
in the imperialist heartlands helping these movements
through their own efforts and by influencing 'their'
governments.
Imperialism however is part and parcel of 20th century
capitalism. Its driving force is not so much in the
planning rooms of government offices but rather the
boards of thousands of corporations. Ruling classes may
decide their interests lie in a greater or lesser degree
of intervention but no long term gains can be made in
this way. Likewise nationalist regimes pursuing an
independent economic path will be dependant on whatever
policy the imperialists are providing at the time.
Improvements made one year will always be subject to
being carpet bombed the next.
FROM BOSNIA TO BELFAST
The defeat of imperialism on a permanent basis will
require a movement fighting not only in the fields and
towns of Latin America but also in the cities of the
United States. It must be a movement of workers,
controlled by workers. Our role as revolutionaries is
not only to understand the workings of imperialism but
also to start laying the foundations of such a movement.
This should not be an excuse for inactivity now. Our
role is to argue for the defeat of the imperialists
wherever they intervene from northern Ireland to Iraq to
Yugoslavia. In Ireland we oppose any involvement in UN
or EC policing operations on behalf of imperialism while
starting to build a movement north and south with the aim
of forcing British withdrawal from the north and the
introduction of an anarchist society based on need and
not on greed.
Andrew Flood

126
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001114.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,126 @@
*********** Columbus: whats behind the fuss? **********
from Workers Solidarity No 35
[1992]
THIS YEAR sees the celebrations of the
'discovery' of America in 1492 by Columbus.
The celebrations have generated some
debate about the rights and wrongs of the
events which followed the discovery. In
Spain itself, Seville has seen riots as
marches protesting at the celebration have
been broken up by the police.
America was not discovered, it was already populated
by many nations of people. Some of them were
composed of primitive communistic societies of hunter-
gathers. It was these peoples that the European
merchants first found and exploited to extermination.
In Mexico and Peru two military empires were in
existence, the Azetcs and the Inca's
A TIME AND A PLACE
America was 'discovered' at a time when Europe was
entering a period of rapid change. The merchants
were gaining more power and coming into conflict
with their feudal rulers. It would take 200 years for
the merchants to settle the conflict in the French
revolution of 1788 but the seeds were growing. Part
of this expansion of early capitalism was based on the
search for the source of the spices and metals that
international trade was based upon. The direct trade
roots having been cut by the Turkish empire. The
"discovery's" of this period were driven by this
historical process.
When Columbus reached the Caribbean in 1492 he
had little interest in the new plants and animals of
this land. Instead he was confident that the Spanish
crown could make the Arawaks and Caribs collect and
give "what was needed". He established a system by
which the Arawaks were required to produce a certain
quantity of gold every three months or have their
hands cut off. The survivors of this period were
worked to death on the sugar plantations.
The empires on the American mainland also fell before
the Spanish expansion. The Aztecs at the time ruled
over central Mexico but their empire was
overstreched and full of internal divisions. The
ruling class was divided along religious lines but in an
echo of the process occurring in Europe these was
also conflict between the Empire and the merchant
class. The Inca's ruled the length of the Andes, some
5000 kms but they too were internally divided. By
allying with the enemies of these two empires and
making use of these internal divisions the Spanish
were able to overthrow and enslave both nations with
comparatively few men.
Both these empires were class societies whose
development was halted by their destruction at the
hands of the Spanish. The suffered a similar fate to
the primitive communist societies of the Caribbean.
Within a single generation 80% of the Aztec
population had been worked to death in the mines or
on the land. They had died of torture and because of
the destruction of the infrastructure that had
supported them.
Throughout this period the Catholic church was
involved with the carnage, Colombus himself was
deeply religious and the slogan of the conquistadors
was "God, gold and glory". Forced conversions were a
policy of the time, commonly as a preliminary to
execution. One of the few to publicly argue against
the brutal treatment of the Americans was a priest
however he was rapidly shut up by the Vatican. The
church produced an ideology of conquest designed to
provide moral right to the brutal oppression of the
native people.
SPANISH GOLD
The wealth that was generated by the Spanish
conquests was enormous. This wealth and the trade
it generated within Europe was the backbone around
which capitalism was built. As the native populations
of the Americas were wiped out merchants made more
profits by kidnapping Africans and selling them to the
sugar plantations and mines of America as slaves.
This along with the earlier barbarities required
capitalism to develop a racist ideology as a
justification for its brutality.
The Colombus debate is important because it exposes
the brutal basis on which capitalism was built. There
is however another argument that sees the pre-
Colombus societies as perfect societies which would
have remained so were it not for European
interference. Could these societies have developed
without going through all the horrors imposed on
them by the European bosses?
History can not be re-played but we do know that
these societies were already going through a process
of change. Both the Azetcs and Inca's were military
empires based on conquest of other peoples. The
Aztecs also carried out ceremonial murders on a mass
scale, in 1486 for instance 20,000 captives had their
hearts cut out during a temple dedication. They were
societies with class and caste divisions. Those peoples
who still lived in primitive communist societies did so
because these societies were not capable of
generating any surplus for a minority to take.
The 500th anniversary serves as a remainder of how
barbaric capitalism as an economic system is. It is not
Colombus who should be celebrated but rather those
millions of native Americans on whose lives modern
society was built. There is no finer monument that
can be raised to them then the creation of a society
based on satisfying need, not greed.
Joe Black

237
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001115.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,237 @@
******* Earth Summit ************
from Workers Solidarity No 36
(1992)
THE EARTH SUMMIT took place in Rio last
June. In spite of the enormous cost
($123 million) and publicity (8,749
media people.) the final results were
two weak treaties and the agreement of
some "principles" on the environment.
Even this was too much for America who
refused to sign the Bio-Diversity
Treaty, fearing for their bio-technology
industry. In Rio itself an estimated
700 "street children" have been murdered
since January (according to the Centre
for the Mobilisation of Marginalised
Populations) in an attempt to beautify
the city.
Once again the capitalists proved unwilling to tackle
the problems of under-development and environmental
degradation. Given their past record this doesn't come
as much of a surprise. However there are serious
problems and it would be wrong for socialists and
anarchists to down-play them. For example, according to
the World Bank's World Development Report for 1992 well
over one billion people in the so-called developing
nations suffer from water-borne diseases and more then
3.5 million children a year die from diarrhoea alone.
Despite the collapse of Stalinism arms spending has
increased from $680 billion in 1972 to an estimated $800
billion this year, the rainforests are been cut down at
a rate of 170,000 square kilometres per year with an
estimated loss of 50-100 forest species every day.
THE EVE OF DESTRUCTION?
Things are clearly pretty bad. Many would point to
pollution, soil degradation, de-forestation and species
loss and say we are experiencing a devastating crisis.
Some even say that the end is nigh. Are things really
this bad?
Firstly, if you look back it is possible to see where
such doomsday pictures were painted in the past but we
survived. In the 1930s ten record warm years in a row
combined with increasing carbon-dioxide concentrations
led to fears of major global climate changes. Sound
familiar? The 1940s-1970s then proved on average to be
much cooler then expected. This is not to knock the
research of scientists like those on the Inter-
Governmental Panel on Climate Control who believe we are
experiencing a greenhouse effect. However it must be
borne in mind that climate and ecological systems are
extremely complex and to be wary of simple doomsday
scenarios.
In 1972 a book was published by scientists in the 'Club
of Rome' called "Limits to Growth". In this they argued
that key resources such as lead, copper and aluminium
were about to run out. Of course they didn't. In the
recently published sequel "Beyond the Limits" the
scientists admit they were totally wrong. They admit
they should never have used the "if present trends
continue" type argument. The only thing that is certain
about trends is that they rarely do! We weren't on the
eve of destruction then. We aren't now, though we do
face serious problems.
OVER-PRODUCTION?
However the question is still raised by a lot people
concerned with the environment: are we over-developed
and over-producing? For example, at the "alternative"
Earth Summit in Rio a demand was issued for "a cut in
the North's consumption of resources and an immediate
transformation of technology to create ecological
sustainability in the North". Is the problem one of
over-production and consumption in the industrialised
countries?
We would argue that there is a problem of over-
production in capitalism. But it is not real over-
production. Simply that it is an enormously wasteful
system of production geared purely towards competition
and profit. Huge amounts of goods are made to break as
soon as possible, rubbish is sold by advertising, new
inventions which threaten monopoly positions are bought
out as fast as possible to stop their production (the
oil companies are notorious for this). A lot of
production is geared purely to maintaining a competitive
advantage.
Often more is produced then there is a market demand
for. Then the price collapses and recession follows.
This might not mean that too much had been produced for
peoples' needs. Oh, no! All it means is that more has
been produced then can be bought.
So in America, one of the richest countries in the
world, 36 million people (15% of the population) were
living in poverty in 1991 according to Business Week.
Worldwide in 1991 there were 200 million tons of grain
hoarded to preserve prices. The charity Trocaire
estimated that 3 million tons could have eliminated
starvation in Africa for that year.
ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT
Imperialism is one of the ways the capitalists try to
eliminate some of the contradictions involved in
apparent over-production followed by recession. It is a
system were certain countries are kept at a very low
level of development by other well-developed capitalist
nations. During booms they can buy up labour and raw
materials cheaply. They can also off-load huge amounts
of generally inferior products onto these countries to
delay price collapse and recession.
Imperialism is not a thing of the past. The Gulf War
proved that the imperialists will go to any lengths,
including massive use of force, to maintain their
power. At the Summit the so-called developing nations
of the South asked for $40 billion to implement the Bio-
Diversity Treaty. They received just $1 billion. Even
$40 billion is but a small fraction of their
indebtedness to Western banks and governments.
These countries pay twice as much in debt re-payment as
they ever get from development 'aid'. Most so-called
'aid' usually has a cost: total compliance to the wishes
of the donor government. In fact most governmental
development aid is used as a tool to keep the
imperialised countries in line. 93% of the USA's aid
budget goes to Israel where it certainly isn't used for
humanitarian purposes!
CHEMICAL PROSPECTING IN COSTA RICA
When the West's rulers moan about the loss of bio-
diversity they are generally worried about potential
drugs and other new products they wish to extract,
refine and make a profit from. Costa Rica has already
signed "chemical-prospecting" agreements with Western
pharmaceutical companies. Malaysia tries to sell
hardwood products and, indeed, some renewable forest
products on the world market. The West charges massive
tariffs on finished products but virtually nothing on
raw materials which they can process themselves. Other
countries like Brazil are so massively burdened with
debt they are almost entirely committed to deforestation
and disastrous industrial and ranching projects to try
and earn foreign currency.
Another example of how imperialism works is in the
locating of polluting industry. 12% of the total cost
of building a chemical plant in the USA is made up of
pollution controls, 6% in Ireland and presumably even
less in the third world. So industry that wouldn't be
tolerated in the West moves into third world countries.
For this reason, when fighting to prevent location in
countries like Ireland it is important to try to move
beyond the "not in our back-yard" syndrome. You have to
try to make links internationally.
The basic point is that capitalism is not committed to
development. In fact it is based on arresting the
development of most of the world which in turn
contributes to environmental degradation.
POSSIBLE WORLDS
Progress and development are not the problem. Even
severely distorted and uneven (e.g. confined to the
West) as they are at present they still seem to point to
a better future. The possibility of freeing humanity
from poverty and drudgery exists. In the seventeenth
century average life expectancy in the West was 40
years, now it's 75. Access to education, leisure time
and a generally better standard of living has been made
possible.
Most people in the West like the improvement and
wouldn't wish their grandparents' or great grandparents'
lifestyle on anyone. Our aim must be to extend the
possibilities, to widen peoples' experiences and
expectations. Under capitalism we see the potential for
a better way of life but the system can't deliver. It
offers the promise of improvement with one hand but
snatches it away with the other.
THE ANARCHIST ALTERNATIVE: DROP THE PILOT
The problems aren't due to unbridled development. In
fact in most of the world development is urgently
needed. We can't afford to go back but it is
impossible to move forward under capitalism. Therefore
we argue for the overthrow of capitalism. We make the
case for anarchism and workers' management of industry.
We need growth which is finely tuned, highly developed
and responds to peoples' needs.
For now, we focus on immediate action by workers to
address the issue where it arises. Environmental
degradation is a class issue. The working class always
gets the worst effects, the bosses can retreat to the
air-conditioned penthouse or the golf-links. We support
action to reduce pollution from industrial plants or
even for their re-location while attempting to avoid
just making "not in our back-yard" arguments.
In Britain it took industrial action by the National
Union of Seamen to stop nuclear dumping at sea, they
just refused to do it even when threatened with legal
action. Similarly dockers in Liverpool stopped the
importation of toxic chemicals from Canada.
Workers can, in day-to-day struggle, make real gains in
forcing industry to clean up. They have also proved
capable of managing highly centralised and complex
industries in a democratic way. The experience of
Russia (1917-1921), Spain (1936-37), Hungary (1956) and
Portugal (1974) support this case.
Workers can make industry something which can ensure a
better world and begin the massive task of development
that is needed worldwide. This is the only way that
resources can be used sustainably and the problems of
poverty and under-development tackled. Industry has to
be made work for people not profits.
Conor McLoughlin

232
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001116.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,232 @@
4 articles
***************** For starters *********************
THE DUBLIN GOVERNMENT has finally agreed to pay
outstanding social welfare money owed to 70,000
married women. An average <20>3,900 is to be paid to
each woman, 75% to be paid in August & December
with the remainder over the following eighteen
months.
A European Community directive ordered that
discrimination in social welfare be ended by
December 1984. Up to then unemployed married women
got almost <20>5 less than men and their benefit ran
out out three months earlier. Married women were
also completely barred from claiming Unemployment
Assistance.
The Womens Dole Campaign was set up to oppose this
inequality. More recently 'Married Women for
Equality' and the Free Legal Advice Centres carried
on the fight. More than a decade later the
government says it is going to pay its debts.
[Imagine if you tried to put off paying the rent or
mortgage for over 10 years!]
*********
GOVERNMENT SCHEMES TO HAMMER UNEMPLOYED
Community Employment Schemes (CE) were introduced by the
Government last year and have replaced all the other
schemes, such as S.E.S. CE is better than the previous
schemes in some ways - you can keep your secondary
benefits, your rent allowance, medical card and fuel
allowance. It is much better for lone parents with
young children because a special child-minding allowance
was introduced. However, apart from these improvements
it is still a 'scheme', with all the problems associated
with that.
There are over 39,000 people on CE throughout the 26
counties. The scheme is only open to people over 21 who
are on the live register of unemployed or are lone
parents. There are now no schemes that take the 18-21
age group, a strange omission when we think of all that
is said about youth unemployment. However they are
probably the lucky ones when we consider what people on
schemes have to put up with.
Firstly, the extra money above the dole is very little
because the <20>79 a week for a single person is taxed. If
a couple are on welfare and one is on a scheme, they
only make about <20>10-<2D>15 a week more. CE is a work
scheme, not a training scheme, although lots of
community groups try to use it for training. There is a
<EFBFBD>200 per worker allowance for training and an extra <20>100
each for personal development. A minority of schemes
provide good training, most provide very little.
Taken in and tossed out again
The community sector is using CE in a big way to run all
kinds of projects and services. Many of these projects
are very worthwhile in themselves such as resource
centres, drugs projects, community development schemes,
youth groups and so on. The problem is that all of this
work is being done on short-term schemes where the
workers are being exploited and have very little chance
of getting work in the project, even though they have
the experience. When their year on CE is over a new
group of scheme workers is taken on and have to be
trained in the work.
The official purpose of these work schemes is to get the
long-term unemployed back into the workforce, give them
some skills and restore their confidence so that they
can then go out and get a job. The reality is very
different. A survey conducted by the Dublin Inner City
Partnership and the Scheme Workers Alliance this year
found that very few scheme graduates actually got jobs,
only about 17% according to F.A.S. itself. Of the rest,
5% became self-employed and 23% extended their schemes
while the remaining 55% had became unemployed, emigrated
or died.
No jobs but lots of work
These figures are hardly surprising. There simply are
not enough jobs out there even though there is plenty of
work to be done. This is the basic contradiction that
these schemes are showing up all the time. They exploit
peoples' desire to be working, especially in the
community sector where so much socially useful work
needs to be done.
Even though schemes are supposed to be approved by trade
unions so that they are not replacing "real jobs", in
practise that is exactly what they are doing, especially
in the local authority sector. Maintenance of parks and
community facilities such as swimming pools is almost
all done on CE now. The situation has reached such a
stage of acceptance that the unions in Dublin
Corporation, who are still holding out against the use
of CE, found themselves the subject of vicious abuse by
councillors of all parties recently when the issue was
debated by the Corporation.
CE workers are denied many of the legal rights and
entitlements which part-time workers have. There is no
entitlement to maternity leave on CE, for example, and
no holiday pay. The Scheme Workers Alliance is
demanding that scheme workers' conditions be improved.
The demands they list are:
*Proper certified on-the-job training
*Higher rates of pay, <20>100-<2D>150 a week
*Full-time places in bigger schemes
*All legal rights and entitlements of part-time workers.
*All scheme workers to have the right to join the trade
union of their choice.
Unionising the schemes
This last point is very important. Although this issue
has been raised within the unions for the past five
years, none of the unions has shown any great interest
in organising scheme workers. Working in schemes is
here to stay for the foreseeable future so it is
essential that the unions get their act together and
organise these workers to fight for better wages and
conditions.
The real reason for the growth in work schemes is the
Government's need to keep down the numbers on the live
register of unemployed. Hundreds, if not thousands, of
people have now been on several schemes and have done
several F.A.S. courses as well. Most of them are still
unemployed at the end of all that. Lots of schemes have
third level graduates working on them. There is often
competition to get a place. They have become a major
part of peoples' experience of low paid work. In fact
schemes really are no more than state organised low-paid
exploitative work. It is an indication of peoples'
desperation that so many end up working on them.
Work schemes are the forerunner of workfare, a system
where you have to work for your dole. This is the
logical outcome of the schemes. At a time when there
are major attacks on welfare in the USA and Britain it
would be logical to expect the same to happen here
sooner or later. The massive rate of unemployment here
makes it a bit harder to just go out and cut thousands
of people off welfare in one go, as has happened in the
States.
What next.. real jobs or workfare?
Some community groups such as the Connolly Unemployed
Centre in Dublin are now arguing that because CE is
realistically the Government's only job creation
strategy, that full-time permanent jobs should be
created where a scheme has proved to be successful. Not
only should this be the case but full-time permanent
jobs should be created everywhere socially useful work
is being done on schemes.
Work schemes such as CE need to be taken seriously by
the left. Organising campaigns around wages and
conditions is necessary. The involvement of the unions
is important. Up to now they have washed their hands of
these workers. 39,000 part-time workers should be
mobilised, not ignored. Apparently another new scheme
is in the pipeline. The chances are that it will take
us another step closer to workfare. Watch this space!
Patricia McCarthy
************
How Much Do You Earn?
THE LATEST figures for how much people earn are for 1993
and were released by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions
in March. Average male industrial earnings were <20>306
for 42.8 hours (<28>7.15 per hour), while women's wages
lag behind with <20>182 for 37.6 hours (<28>4.84 per hour).
*****************************
77 Million Cut
THE NEED FOR a real alternative was confirmed when
Labour and Democratic Left once again put the
bosses<EFBFBD> interests first. They have agreed to a
freeze on jobs in the public sector, a cut of <20>77
million in government spending and further cuts next
year.
This will mean longer hospital waiting lists, more
overcrowded classrooms, less jobs. This comes from the same
government which reduced the levy on massively profitable
banks by <20>36 million, reduced Corporation Tax by 2% at a
cost of about <20>57 million, and completely exempted some new
multinationals from paying any Corporation Tax at all.
Perhaps Employment Minister Richard Bruton best
conveyed the government<6E>s views when he welcomed the vote by
Packard workers to reluctantly accept 400 redundancies by
saying he was "delighted that our intervention has been
successfu"
Of course these cuts don<6F>t effect the ruling class and
their pals. Matt Russell was removed from the Attorney
General<EFBFBD>s office because of his behaviour during the Brendan
Smyth affair. Russell was either very lazy and inept, or he
was trying to cover up for a child abusing priest. Either
way, he got a golden handshake of <20>138,500 and a pension of
<EFBFBD>33,700 a year.
And then there is Hugh Coveney. He was fired from his
job as Minister for Defence after he was caught trying to
use his office to get business for his firm of quantity
surveyors. Where did he end up? The Fine Gael/Labour/DL
government appointed him as Junior Minister at the Office of
Public Works. Of all the state agencies, the OPW probably
most uses the services of quantity surveyors!

123
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001117.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,123 @@
********** Housing the homeless **********
from Workers Solidarity No 35
[1992?]
A year ago this February the Irish Times
headlined an article "Housing plan aims to
provide 5,000 more homes for the poor". If
your one of the thousands rushing for the
evening press at 12.00 and then to the phone
you might well be wondering where these homes
are. If your now, living in a damp little
brown room that costs more than you can
afford it's probably small consolation to
know that your not alone. In 1989 it was
estimated that over 19,000 people needed housing.
Another assessment of housing needs was carried out
this year, but this time the government has decided
not to publish the findings of the review board. In
February, the government said that large scale
building by local authorities "would not now be
appropriate". It would seem Padraigh Flynn (Minister
for the environment) doesn't think shelter is
appropriate for the homeless. The same report in the
Irish Times stated that there will be 1,500 housing
starts this year, yet so far only 173 have been
approved for Dublin, Cork and Waterford, with less
than 1000 expected to be built over all.
Instead of building houses?
So if the government isn't going to actually build
more houses, what is it offering instead. The plan
had four main points; Firstly, where people are
living in substandard private housing (and lets face
it most of us are) local authorities will be allowed
to refurbish and extend these houses. However, before
you all rush out your local county council, remember
that in 1990 Dublin Corporation refurbished only 189
of it's own properties never mind those in private
hands.
The second solution on offer it " a co-op ownership
scheme", the theory being that you buy 50% of a
private house and the Council buys the other 50%.
This plan would encourage the more lower income house
holders , well that's the theory, but it's never been
put into practice as not even one co-op schemes has
so far been authorised.
Thrown in for good measure is a $3,300 mortgage
subsidy to tenants of public housing if they buy a
private house, though at today's house prices buying a
lottery ticket might be a more realistic bet.
A caring government????
Ninety per cent of the cost of housing unit provided
by voluntary organisations will be met by the
Exchequer. So, why you might ask, if the government
can fund 90% of housing needs, will it not fund the
full 100%. If did this it would be admitting it
had some responsibility to the homeless people, to the
old and one-parent families. By funding up to 90%
it'll be reported (as it was in the Irish
Times)Voluntary housing and co-operative housing will
get a boost under the plan, the Government is seen to
help the voluntary organisations out with their
problems, so the problem of homeless is laid at the
feet of the voluntary agencies not being able to cope,
rather than at the feet of the Government which has no
intention of doing anything about it.
Padraig O'Flynn's idea of a joke
Additionally, in February we were also promised a new
Housing Bill. At the moment this doesn't look much
like it's going to appear, but if it does there's all
sorts of things to look forward to. For instance,
it'll be mandatory for landlords to give rent books
who will become entitled to four weeks notice to quit
( at the moment your legally entitled to one week).
This is pretty much like the way it's illegal for
flats at the moment to be fire traps, and landlord are
meant to give deposits back. These rent book will
have to by law (now isn't that useful)
include a substantially amount of information about
the letting and minimum standards of accommodation.
Your landlord meanwhile can set the cost of building
new dwellings against tax liabilities, so at least
somebody will gain concretely from the government
plan.
So what's it all about
So what we have in effect is a lot of talk to disguise
the fact that no new houses are going to be built. In
the mid 1984 state expenditure on housing was over
<EFBFBD>207 million per year. By 1990 it had fallen to <20>48
million. In February it was reported as if it was
some great concession that <20>28 million was going to
be spent on implementing the plan. 160 acres of city
centre land is derelict and could be used for public
housing. There are 5,000 actual homeless people
(living on the streets or in hostels) in the republic
of Ireland.
Obviously a major local authority building plan is
needed at once. Threshold estimate that at least
1,000 new homes are needed per annum to stabilise the
situation in the Dublin area alone. Much of the
existing housing stock is in need of refurbishment.
However government policy at the moment has lead to
primarily office and commercial development, with
limited private residential development at the upper
range of the market ( how many people can afford 2
bedroomed flats at $65,000?). In the final analysis
the "plan for Social Housing" is nothing more than an
attempt to side-step and avoid the problems of
homeless. Remember after food, shelter is one of the
most basic human needs, it's even guarantied by the UN
Human Rights Charter. But then when is comes to the
needs of the ordinary person that's capitalism, if
it's not going to turn a profit all you'll get is
talk.

211
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001118.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,211 @@
Suggested Title: Famine in Africa & Ireland
Two articles, 2nd is '150 years on: The Irish famine, why
one million died' [ws46].
******** Why are people starving in Africa ********
from Workers Solidarity No 33
[1991?]
It's hard to know how any one can consider
capitalism a viable system when looking at
the situation of the less developed countries.
After the millions raised by Live Aid, it seems
unreal that people are going hungry. A recent
UN report estimates that 30 million people
face starvation. Yet EC beef, butter and wine
mountains rot in European warehouses,
farmers are ploughing crops back into the
land, in US corn belt fields of wheat are
burnt.
There's a bit of a modern myth that the problems
of Africa are either there own fault (over
population, wars) or beyond anyones control
(drought, desertification). Though it's true these
are contributary factors, many other countries
cope with these same problems without the huge
loss of life suffered by Africa (for example China,
even England has been through war and drought).
The reasons cited by the UN for the deaths of
these people are as follows; lack of resources from
the international community, poor planning and
falling prices on the commodity markets
(especially for cocoa and coffee). Companies selling
to Africa have tightened up credit terms while
external debt levels continued to increase.
COCOA AND COFFEE
When Africa was first colonised, land was switched
from production of food to feed the local population
to the production of 'cash crops' such as cocoa, tea,
coffee and sugar. These crops were exported to
colonising countries at low prices. In a similar way
corn was grown in Ireland during the 1845 famine.
Today coffee and cocoa is still a major export of 15
African countries as they need the cash provided to
keep up with debt repayments. Cocoa prices have
fallen to there lowest level in 15 years while coffee
is at similarity low level.
DEBT
In the early 1970's many African governments
borrowed heavily. About 40% of debt is owed
directly to other governments. In almost all cases
this money was lent on the condition that it be
used to purchase arms from the donor country or
that subsides be granted to multinationals based in
the donor country. In this way the third world
country is made to pay twice over. 25% of the debt
is owed to the IMF and the World Bank. Today
Africa's debt is estimated at 270 billion dollars.
Repayments consume 30 per cent of export
earnings.
UNITED NATIONS
It's obvious that the governments of the U.S.,
China and Europe aren't really interested in
combating the crisis and these are the
governments that run the UN. The last program
of aid implemented by the United Nations
(according to their own report) in 1986 met with
little sucess. This was the plan the UN promised
would revive Africa's economies. Instead, in their
own words "By the end of 1990, it had become
evident that the African crisis had indeed
deepened...the average African continued to get
poorer and suffer a persistent fall in an already
meagre living standard". Now, five years later,
they add that even if their latest plan was fully
implemented (they call it ambitious) the average
income per head in sub-Saharan Africa would only
reach US$700 per annum in 25 years time.
Rather than offering the solution the governments
that make up the UN itself that are the problem.
THE FUTURE
So it doesn't look as if the situation will
fundamentally change. But then, why should the
Western governments want things any different?
Africa provides the bosses with markets for the
surplus goods we produce as well as cheap labour
and raw materials. Live Aid showed that workers
of the West are not willing to let Africa starve (as
some Greens would argue), however it also showed
that while the means of production and all the
resulting profits are in the hands of the bosses,
individual attempts at resolving the problems will
do little more than make a dent in the problem.
The type of massive development that Africa
requires will only come about when the resources of
this world are distributed according to need and not
according to profit.
Aileen O'Carroll
************ Putting the record straight ************
on the Irish Famine 1845-49
Why 1,000,000 died
from WS 46 [1995]
The Famine was not just a result of British
Government incompetence or the greed of a few
landlords. Andrew Blackmore explores what happens
when you have a system that puts profits for the
few above all else.
The conditions for Irish peasants leading up to the
famine accentuated what was to be the worst
disaster in Europe in the 19th century. Before the
famine struck nearly half of rural families lived
in windowless, mud cabins of one room. They were
the lucky ones. The unemployed roamed the country,
begging and sleeping in ditches.
With a population of 8 million, land was scarce,
and many families had to survive on half an acre of
land. They could only do this by growing potatoes
to feed them through the winter months.
When the potato blight (a type of fungus) struck in
1845, mass starvation was inevitable. Families who
relied on the potato to keep them alive were left
with nothing. Even those who grew grain or barley
were faced with a stark choice; sell the food in
order to pay the rent, or eat the food and be
evicted.
As the years went on, the blight continued.
Millions lost everything, their homes, their few
possessions, and of course, their lives.
The rich too had to tighten their belts. But not as
much. In 1847, while the famine reached a peak of
death and despair, the Dublin 'season' continued as
before in a lively fashion. With the exception of a
few notable cases, the rich felt their only
obligation was to make a donation to charity. After
that they were free to hunt and party, as they
always had done. Lord Bessborough, the Lord
Lieutenant of Ireland, who died in that year
complained that what had made him poorly was not
the famine but too much 'balls and drawing rooms'
These landlords continued to make valuable cash
through the export of foodstuffs such as grain, as
well as wool and flax. All through the famine they
were exporting food that could have kept people
alive. John Mitchell (who published the United
Irishman) claimed that for every ship that came to
Ireland with food, there were six ships sailing
out.
As far as landlords were concerned they had the
right to do so. The right of the rich few to sell
food to the highest bidder, came before the needs
of the majority for food for survival. And the
right of the rich to collect rent came before the
right to housing. The British government supported
that 'right' by bringing in the 'Coercion Act'
enabling it to declare martial law, and a curfew
between sunset and sunrise wherever they wanted.
The 'Coercion Act' and other previously existing
laws were used to evict tenants who could not pay
rent. The soldiers and constabulary were used to
protect food for export from the starving.
In order to avoid mass revolt the government set up
public works schemes. Impoverished peasants were
asked to build roads that went from nowhere to
nowhere, for such low wages that they could hardly
buy enough food to live on.
Even this work was not available for many people.
For example, in Mayo in 1846, 400,000 people
applied for 13,000 jobs.
Along with such a pathetic response, the government
pushed much of the responsibility to feed the poor
onto the shoulders of charities. Soup kitchens were
set up, by religious groups and charities
throughout Ireland. In some cases the soup was so
watery that doctors would advise people not to
drink it!
Even if the charities had been able to feed
everyone that was not the point. The right of
people to food and the right to life should have
come before everything else.
The famine caused roughly 1,000,000 deaths and
1,500,000 emigrants. In the aftermath, the
population of Ireland was to halve to 4,000,000. It
is an example of a terrible tragedy, but one that
is inevitable only when the profit motive comes
before people.

224
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001119.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,224 @@
********** Kuwait & Iraq : After the Gulf War **********
from Workers Solidarity No 34
[1991?]
It's a proud day for America and, by God, we kicked the
Vietnam syndrome for once and for all" declared Bush.
"In the hours after the ceasefire north of the
Iraqi border, it was impossible to drive on the
highway without running over parts of human
bodies. I watched wild dogs feasting on Iraqi
flesh and camera crews filmed all this. But
scarcely a frame reached television viewers.
Faced with the reality they supposedly craved,
nearly all television editors decided that 'good
taste' would restrict their reports now that
government officials were no longer there to
censor them. Having therefore offered viewers
war without responsibility, television ended the
Gulf conflict by giving them war without death."
Robert Fisk, Irish Times, January 19th.
The imperialists' victory over Iraq was no surprise given
their massive technical and military capacity. What is
more interesting is the ready help given them by the
"free press". This article focuses on how the media
provided a "licence to kill" in the Gulf.
LET'S EXAMINE a few of the myths that were
floating around in February 1991. Firstly was
this a war aimed only at liberating a small
independent country from a pitiless
aggressor?
A Kuwaiti "exile" told Maggie O'Kane in the Irish
Times of the hardships they had endured due to the
invasion, "In my normal life I would have servants to do
everything in the house now I am ironing my own
clothes and I have only one servant". "Before the
invasion Kuwaiti citizens had the highest standard of
living in the world and enjoyed free education, health
care and social services. Sounds o.k. but only 15% of
the workforce are citizens!
The remaining 85% are "guest workers" and enjoy the
most appalling conditions. Since the war ended 300,000
of the 400,000 Palestinian guest workers have been
expelled. Only 60,000 propertied Kuwaiti males have
the vote - not that theres been an election in quite a
while. The al-Sabah ruling family returned promising
democracy and immediately began assassinating Kuwaiti
opposition figures. Kuwait was and is little more then
a rentier state. The Al-Sabahs were installed by
Britain in 1961 and still depend totally on the
imperialists.
This doesn't justify Iraq's expansionism. Saddam,
despite playing "the Palestinian card", was no sort of
liberator. However the rush to "save" Kuwait while
ignoring Israel's grabbings over the years shows clearly
that the West "defends small nations" only when it
suits their geo-political schemes.
Secondly, was Saddam the new Hitler? Saddam
Hussein is not a nice guy. In fact he's a pretty vicious
nationalist dictator. He was responsible for the
agonising death by (West German made) Cyanide and
mustard gas of 5,000 Kurds at Halabja. He killed
thousands of Shias during the uprisings in March and
continues to rule Iraq with an iron fist.
However, much as he might relish the thought, Saddam
was not and certainly is not in the position of Adolf
Hitler in 1939. Nazi Germany was the second most
powerful industrial nation in the world, almost totally
self-sufficient with it's own massive arms industry. Iraq
is only self-sufficient in oil (which it can't fully process),
dates and some vegetables and was almost $ 80 billion
in debt at the start of the war. Despite the hype they
were actually years away from producing nuclear
weapons and had almost no native arms technology. Up
to August Saddam relied totally on the major powers.
Thirdly Iraqi forces in Kuwait were accused of being a
gang of murderers. No war is ever "clean". In this war,
as in all others, there were horrible atrocities on both
sides. However given the balance of forces it comes as
no surprise that the coalition forces were the ones that
reaped the biggest harvest of death and destruction.
Only 137 coalition troops were killed (many by "friendly
fire") compared to at least 100,000 Iraqi troops. At
least 200,000 Iraqi civilians died in the bombing or as a
result of the starvation and disease that followed.
While the press rabbited on about Western hostages,
millions of workers from third world countries were not
allowed to leave Saudi Arabia and other countries for
the duration of the war. Only 1 in 10 Palestinians in
the West Bank (were many of the Iraqi scuds
eventually landed) had gas masks in case of chemical or
biological attack.
The Western media both "tabloid" and "quality" were
prepared to exaggerate, lie, accept rumours or just
publish any old rubbish that aided the war effort. We
were told that babies in Kuwait city had been ripped
out of incubators and left to die. Hospital officials
dismissed these as absurd - they didn't have enough
incubators to even hold the number supposedly ripped
out.
An icerink in the city was said to hold thousands of
bodies - none were found. Up to 40,000 Kuwaitis were
alleged to be held hostage - they weren't. Airmen who
appeared in Iraqi TV were supposed to have been
beaten black and blue by the Iraqis but sustained their
injuries ejecting from their planes had high speeds.
COLLATORAL DAMAGE
The Iraqis couldn't, even if they wanted to, have come
close to the imperialist tallies. The Iraqi army of young
and mostly untrained recruits was annihilated in
Kuwait. Iraq itself was bombed back into the stone-
age. It wasn't so much a war as a turkey shoot.
Between Kuwait and Basra a fleeing and deserting
army in every conceivable vehicle was exterminated.
They were attacked by British and American tanks and
from the air with rocket and cluster bombs. Tens of
thousands were wiped out and it didn't merit a
headline in many papers. They called it "the mother of
all easy target areas".
A few journalists were revolted by what they saw.
Some did not to a lesser or greater extent take part in
the sanitised and censored coverage. They refused to
be involved in the censored military press briefings or
to be photographed in camouflage at the front "with
our boys". One British group, Media Workers Against
the War, had 800 people at their founding meeting.
They produced their own "War Report" which
contained much good factual reporting.
Breaking the consensus carried its risks which tended
to increase nearer the front. DJ Miles Patterson of
Jazz FM in London played a few mildly anti-war tracks
and was fired. Bob Fisk who tried to prevent Kuwaitis
beating up Palestinians in Kuwait city was told by an
American soldier "You have a big mouth, this is
marshall law boy. Fuck off!" All things considered he
probably got off fairly lightly.
KURDISH WORKERS' COUNCILS
One possible reason for the massacre between Kuwait
city and Basra could have been the rebellious feelings
of many of the fleeing conscripts. Though the West
wanted rid of Saddam it would much prefer a palace
coup within the Ba'athists then a popular uprising. It
was possibly, also, for this reason that his elite imperial
guards were left fairly intact. On the 29th of March
one of the first tanks back into Basra destroyed a
poster of Saddam. A generalised uprising soon gripped
the area.
The rising in the South was portrayed by the media as
exclusively Shia Muslim in character. However this
area of Iraq has always been strongly secular. Basra,
Nasariah and Hilah were traditional center of the Iraqi
Communist Party (effectively wiped out in the sixties).
Had the rebellion lasted longer there might have been
some appearance of socialist ideas on the agenda.
In the North according to some sources1 quoting
participants in the Kurdish uprising there may have
been up to 100 'shoras' or workers councils. These were
active in the fight against the Ba'athists. They also
came into conflict with the nationalists of the Kurdish
Front (KF) and the Stalinists of the 'March of
Communism' (RAWT) group.
The nationalist forces seem to have been extremely
unpopular in some areas. One witness said that Jalai
Talabani (who later signed a treaty with Saddam) was
not let into the town of Sulaymaniyah. Massoud
Barzani of the Kurdish Democratic Party had two body
guards killed by the people of Chamcharni.
Shoras called for self-determination, bread, work and
freedom including freedom to strike, for a "shoras
government", for womens' equality and that people
should control their own economic and political destiny.
It would appear that a revolution which began as a
nationalist one was being taken further by workers
fighting for a social revolution. According to one
activist "a large part of the shoras movement didn't
acknowledge the KF's social authority".
Of course the KF have since brokered an agreement
with Saddam which recognises his authority in return
for an autonomous region. The lessons of the Gulf
massacre and the Kurdish uprising seems to be that
nationalists have no answers. Neither Saddam, Yasser
Arafat, the KF or any bourgeois outfit have anything
to offer workers fighting imperialism in the Gulf region.
All nationalists eventually find themselves in
collaboration with the imperialists and only step out of
line to pursue their own interests (as in Saddam's case).
The working class must assert it's interests. They must
break with nationalism and boot out all the Emirs,
Sheiks, petty dictators and imperialist stooges.
Only in a revolutionary war against the imperialists
and their own rulers can the really defeat imperialism
as a force. Only through fighting for real socialism can
they take revenge for the crimes of the imperialists.
1 The Kurdish Uprising and Kurdistan's nationalist shopfront
and it's negotiations with the Ba'athist/Fascist regime"
BM Blob + BM Combustion London WC1N 3XX, and the Autumn
1991 issue of "Wildcat".

188
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001120.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,188 @@
*** Welcome to issue two of Red & Black Revolution. ***
The idea of revolution is central to anarchism. In this
issue we look at just what a successful revolution requires
and in what conditions it is likely to occur. We bring
news of work being done now to build a new anarchist
movement in Russia and of the links being forged between
anarchist organisations in Europe.
Anarchism however does not sit and wait for the revolution.
It fights today against all aspects of capitalist
oppression. This means working alongside people who do not
share our world view but who do wish to tackle some of the
worst aspects of capitalism. We look at the way broad
based projects, aimed at combating the worst elements of
capitalism can become part of the mechanism ensuring social
stability.
Unions, community groups and unemployment centres all
represent at least in part peoples' desire to fight back.
Capitalism in recognising this has adopted two strategies.
The earlier one was of direct attack, attempts to smash
these organisations. As capitalist control mechanisms have
developed and the need for stability increased new methods
have been devised, ones that aim to incorporate activists
into the control mechanisms of capitalism itself.
So we have unions that argue for competitiveness,
unemployed groups that argue for funding cuts and community
groups in partnerships with the same companies that are
devastating their communities. Anarchists involved in
fighting alongside fellow workers today have to be aware of
where these problems arise and how we can start to tackle
them.
********** Contents ***********
Incorporation
Why is it that many single issue campaigns and community
groups which start out with a radical program soon end up
as little more than service groups? Conor Mc Loughlin, an
activist of the now defunct Portobello Unemployed Action
Group investigates.
The road to revolution
A complete transformation of society, revolution, is the goal of anarchism.
Ray Cunningham looks at what is meant when anarchists talk about
revolution, and what can be done to bring it closer.
Rebels at Ruesta
In August 1995 an international gathering of libertarian
communists took place in Ruesta, Spain. A week of
discussions took place and at the end a declaration was
drawn up. We present here extracts from the WSM
delegates' report on the week and the agreed declaration.
Russian Anarchism: After the fal
Although many classical anarchist theorists and figures
came from Russia, the advent of the Soviet State
effectively crushed the movement. Now anarchism is reborn
in Russia. Laure Akai and Mikhail Tsovma write from Moscow
to tell us a little about the trials and tribulations of
the new Russian anarchist movement.
Travellers fighting back
Patricia McCarthy examines the history of Irish Travellers'
struggle for civil rights and ethnic recognition. Their
struggles have much in common with those of Indigenous
people worldwide and with the struggles of Native Americans
and Australian Aboriginals and also with the struggles of
Gypsies, Travellers and nomads against racism and
oppression.
Chomsky on Anarchism
Noam Chomsky is widely known for his critique of U.S.
foreign policy, and for his work as a linguist. In a
special interview with Red and Black Revolution, Chomsky
gives his views on anarchism and marxism, and the prospects
for socialism now.
The two souls of the trade unions
Union activists are facing new management attacks but the
trade union leadership speaks only of partnership with the
bosses. Des Derwin, member of the Executive of the Dublin
Council of Trade Unions and of the Dublin Private Sector
Regional Executive Committee of SIPTU gives his personal
view on the two souls of the unions.
The IRA cease-fire and republican politics.
The 'Irish peace process' is now well into its second year.
It has brought respectability for Sinn F<>in but little of
consequence for the Irish working class - North or South.
Gregor Kerr, a member of the National Committee of the
Irish Anti Extradition Committee in the late 1980s, looks
at events leading up to the cease-fire and Sinn F<>in's pan-
nationalist strategy.
*********** About the WSM ***********
The Workers Solidarity Movement was founded in Dublin,
Ireland in 1984 following discussions by a number of local
anarchist groups on the need for a national anarchist
organisation. At that time with unemployment and
inequality on the rise, there seemed every reason to argue
for anarchism and for a revolutionary change in Irish
society. This has not changed.
Like most socialists we share a fundamental belief that
capitalism is the problem. We believe that as a system it
must be ended, that the wealth of society should be
commonly owned and that its resources should be used to
serve the needs of humanity as a whole and not those of a
small greedy minority. But, just as importantly, we see
this struggle against capitalism as also being a struggle
for freedom. We believe that socialism and freedom must go
together, that we cannot have one without the other. As
Mikhail Bakunin, the Russian anarchist said, "Socialism
without freedom is tyranny and brutality".
Anarchism has always stood for individual freedom. But it
also stands for democracy. We believe in democratising the
workplace and in workers taking control of all industry.
We believe that this is the only real alternative to
capitalism with its on going reliance on hierarchy and
oppression and its depletion of the world's resources.
In the years since our formation, we've been involved in a
wide range of struggles - our members are involved in their
trade unions; we've fought for abortion rights and against
the presence of the British state in Northern Ireland;
we've also been involved in campaigns in support of workers
from countries as far apart as Nepal, Peru and South
Africa. Alongside this, we have produced nearly fifty
issues of our paper Workers Solidarity, and a wide range of
pamphlets. In 1986, we organised a speaking tour of
Ireland by an anarchist veteran of the Spanish Civil War,
Ernesto Nadal, to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the
revolution there.
As anarchists we see ourselves as part of a long tradition
that has fought against all forms of authoritarianism and
exploitation, a tradition that strongly influenced one of
the most successful and far reaching revolutions in this
century - in Spain in 1936 - 37. The value of this
tradition cannot be underestimated today. With the fall of
the Soviet Union there is renewed interest in our ideas and
in the tradition of libertarian socialism generally. We
hope to encourage this interest with Red & Black
Revolution. We believe that anarchists and libertarian
socialists should debate and discuss their ideas, that they
should popularise their history and struggle, and help
point to a new way forward. If you are interested in
finding out more about anarchism or the WSM, contact us at
PO Box 1528, Dublin 8, Ireland.
*********** Re-printing **********
Permission is given for revolutionary publications to
reprint any of the articles contained in this issue. But
please do two things
-> Tell us you are re-printing and send us a copy of the
publication it appears in.
-> If you are also translating an article please send us a
copy of the translation on computer disk so we can add it
to our electronic archive.A complete transformation of
society, revolution, is the goal of anarchism. Ray
Cunningham looks at what is meant when anarchists talk
about revolution, and what can be done to bring it closer.
*********** Submissions ***********
Red & Black Revolution is published by the Workers
Solidarity Movement. The deadline for the next issue is
June, 1996. Submissions are welcome and should be sent
either as 'text only' files on Mac or PC format computer
disks or typed on plain white paper. Disks are preferred.
Letters are also welcome. All correspondence should be
sent to Red & Black Revolution, PO Box 1528, Dublin 8,
Ireland.

351
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001121.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,351 @@
********** Incorporation ************
******* A Spoonful of Sugar *********
There are many ways in which governments can prevent opposition.
Some are more open and obvious than others. When police attack
protests, when pickets are broken up, when opposition is imprisoned it is
clear what the State is up to. However there are subtler tactics, one is the
way in which opposition movements are 'incorporated' and made part of
the system. This article looks at some examples, mostly from Ireland, but
the same process can be seen at work internationally.
So what is incorporation and how does it happen? It is the process by
which radical individuals or groups are integrated into the State structure
thus neutralising them as an effective opposition. Incorporation is integral
to the operation of most advanced Capitalist countries. It is a mechanism
by which, day to day, opposition can be diluted and disarmed.
Incorporation is mediated through an organisation's needs for funding.
Whoever pays the piper calls the tune. This old saying is well understood
by the State and the bosses who are prepared to pay a limited amount in
order to ensure social stability.
Basically an incorporated opposition group rather than fighting against the
State has become a quasi-independent arm of that State. They are the
spoonfuls of sugar which aid the medicine in its passage downwards.
Some are born incorporated, some become so. One example of an
organisation conceived and born as incorporated is the Irish National
Organisation of the Unemployed (INOU).
The INOU is a federation of anti-unemployment groups and union
funded advice centres. They also have individual membership for any
unemployed person who wants to join. The INOU claims that it
represents the unemployed in the 32 counties. Hence the by-line in all
their publications; "the unemployed-speaking for ourselves, fighting for
our rights". In practice they answer mainly to their funders rather than to
their members.
More directly the State may enter what the Irish government describe as
"social dialogue arrangements" in the PCW (Programme for
Competitiveness and Work.) This is the latest in a series of national wage
agreements signed between employers, unions and government in
Ireland that tie the unions into wage moderation and a promise of
industrial peace.1 These agreements have wider pretensions to bring
about a form of consensus politics selling the lie that we're all in the same
boat. It gives the bosses the stable conditions they need to keep raking in
the profits.
In April 1995, the Irish Minister for Enterprise and Employment Richard
Bruton, announced a 15% cutback in Community Employment Schemes2.
There was no opposition from the parliamentary 'socialists' of Labour and
Democratic Left as both were part of the government that was
implementing the cuts! There was, of course, some opposition from
unions, church groups and community groups. One small group, the
Scheme Workers Alliance, even attempted to organise a scheme workers'
strike to coincide with the European week of action against
unemployment.
Publicly the INOU were loud in their opposition to the cuts. But in their
April 1995 bulletin they published their more considered response. They
had carried out a survey among all their affiliates. The purpose of this was
to ask members how they thought the cutbacks should be implemented.
The report found that there was a high degree of consensus among the
affiliated groups that responded. There was a preference for selective
cutbacks. They were in favour of eliminating some projects at the end of
their 12 month period and "targeting specific projects for protection
against any cutbacks". The survey showed
"That there was a clear agreement that less effective projects should be
'weeded out', this method was seen to be in the interest of the participants
on the weak project and to the benefit of other projects".
It should be said, in fairness, that not all groups went along with this.
Some felt that the approach was "divisive" and wanted no role in setting
criteria for cuts.
As it happened, on this occasion, the government was just testing the
waters. As such they must have been delighted to see a group claiming to
represent the unemployed telling them how they should take their
medicine. The INOU and nearly all of its affiliates had proved to be classic
cases of incorporation in action.
Partners in Progress?
The Dublin Inner City Partnership is another such example. It is one result
of the PESP deal (see footnote 1) signed in 1991. It was established to "take
a fresh and radical approach to the issue of long-term unemployment"3 .
The stated aim was to bring together employers, government agencies and
community groups to co-operate on job creation. The real deal goes back
to the idea of social partnership and keeping areas of the inner city (where
generations of unemployment and deprivation could explode into anger)
stable and under control.
The 'partnership' is part of the whole government strategy of agreement
and alliance between bosses and workers. This is the idea of social
partnership put forward in successive national agreements since 1987. In
the past real struggles have emerged from Dublin inner city, e.g. the
Corporation rent strike in the 1970s. The powers that be are prepared to be
generous or so it would appear. The partnership's programme for action
1992-1993 was hoping for <20>10 million 4. But addressing the real problems
would cost a hell of a lot more. For example, a massive programme of
State housing and a Corporation rent freeze would go some way towards
solving Dublin's housing crisis but it would cost many times this figure.
The 'partnership' has incorporated potentially radical groups like the
Larkin Unemployed Centre, the Building Allied Trade Union and the
National Painters Union and companies like Guinness who have been
responsible for the loss of hundreds of jobs in the inner city. The State too
gets well represented with FAS, CERT (State training agency for catering)
and the Eastern Health Board on the board5. Everyone is supposed to
have a shared interest in helping the unemployed.
As a policing exercise it has worked. Unions, unemployed groups and
community groups keep the peace in some of the most deprived areas of
Dublin. In some cases this policing aim was quite specifically laid out. A
community leadership course has been set up. The aims are given as:
" To enhance the skills and expertise of local community activists and to
develop an effective response by local organisations to the growth of the
complex problems with which they are faced."
Reading between the lines the desire is to take out effective, active
community leadership and re-educate them in the new realities of
'partnership'. While everyone was busy making friends unemployment
in the inner city has increased by 30% between the launch in 1991 and July
1994.6
Other groups do not start off incorporated. Community groups, tenants'
organisations, women's groups and other such groups are often founded
with an agenda for change. These groups result from people organising to
better their lives. They wish to educate and organise but usually arise
from people agitating around a particular issue. Those who want change
find themselves opposed by those who wish to keep the status quo. They
are drawn into struggle with existing power groups, especially the State.
As these community based organisations grow and develop, their need for
funding often leads them away from their original goals. The funders, be
they the church, charities, the State or transnational funders like the
European Union begin to impose their ideas. The purse comes with
strings attached. This immediately leads to professionalisation. Funders
always like a manager, co-ordinator, administrator or some such leader
they can deal with.
The groups become less democratic, also they begin to water down their
original aims. While lip service is still paid to the founding goals in
reality they become a dead letter. Anyone raising the original policy is
seen as utopian, out of touch or even as a danger to funding! Such groups
lose sight of the idea of social change. They often lose any sense of having
a long-term aim or direction.
Incorporated groups become grant-addicted. Extra funding buys new
premises, computers, offices and workers. However then bills for rent,
electricity and wages and so on begin to mount up. A vicious spiral is
created where funding assumes top priority. This means, firstly, that more
time is wasted looking for funding. Secondly and most importantly the
funders get a veto over activity they don't like. Activity is dictated by
them and by what they will tolerate.
This process of becoming incorporated is described very well in the book
"Community, Art and The State" 7 by Owen Kelly. This book describes the
development of the community arts movement in Britain. In the late
1960s and early 1970s many wished to involve ordinary people in art with
a view to using it to help effect social change. Increasingly they became
obsessed with funding especially from the British Arts Council. He
describes how
"naively community artists thought they could take the money and run."
This led to:
"a progressive loss of control over the direction of the movement and its
ability to construct a programme to put its aims into practice."
Any debate on ideas or long-term direction was seen as utopian. Later,
incorporated groups begin to worry about any debate seeing the danger of
public splits. They become terrified of scaring funders.
Most funders (especially the state) are clever enough never to provide
anywhere near to the amount of funding asked for. The cash dosage is
kept deliberately low. This keeps the organisations constantly begging like
addicts who can't score enough to feed their habits. The funders drop and
take up groups according to the public profile of the group and the
trendiness of the issue. If it is international year of the disabled those
groups do well and so on.
Destructive fights for funds may break out. In order to keep a good vein
open for supply members get on to funding committees themselves and
so get in on the game of dividing the cake.
Incorporation in practice
The INOU shows clearly how the mechanism of incorporation functions.
It is funded by FAS, the unions, church and State.8 It has two members
sitting on government committees doling out E.U. cash.9 It is registered as
a limited company. The main voices in the organisation are its full-time
paid officers and the full-time "co-ordinators" of advice centres.
According to figures on page 15 of its own 1991 report (see footnote 8)
"Almost half the associations (within the INOU) reported that their
development had been limited by restrictions placed on them by funders".
The INOU is a good service provider. The advice supplied in the centres
is good and professional. As a campaigning organisation it is utterly
useless. It confines itself to ineffectual media stunts often bringing in
groups like Machnas (a professional arts group who put on shows for
campaigns like that for the release of the Birmingham 6) to put on a good
show "on behalf" of the unemployed. These are not seen as a group to be
mobilised in defence of their own rights but 'a deprived section of society'
to be helped by professional do-gooders.
The consequences are seen in cases such as the proposed CE cutbacks. The
INOU did little to mobilise scheme workers. But on hearing of the
Scheme Workers Alliance's (SWA) attempt to organise a strike and march
they sprang into action. They told their co-ordinators to close the INOU
centres and organised a march an hour earlier than the SWA march.
They refused to co-ordinate with SWA and managed to disrupt and split a
potentially good protest.
In another case a campaign was fought within the INOU in 1991 against
the then new national deal, the PESP (Programme for Economic and
Social Progress). According to an ex-member of its executive the INOU
were told, unofficially that if any anti-programme motions were passed
their centres would lose union funding. This is how incorporation
functions to police and stifles protest and dissent.
Fighting back
Incorporation by its nature is very difficult to fight. As anarchists we
know that it is not enough to be back seat drivers in the struggle for social
change. We know that we have to become involved in campaigns and
struggles; to test our anarchism in practice. This means becoming
involved in real campaigns and groups and pointing out and trying to
fight incorporation on the ground.
This is not easy. Those within a group that feel it must be fought will find
themselves isolated and without funds. So they may have to fight a
double fight both for their rights as women, unemployed, Travellers or
whatever and against the 'professional core' of the group.
There are some steps that new groups may take to fight or minimise
incorporation. It is important to be open, democratic and entirely
transparent (to members) in organisation. It is important that the group
reflect a real need and is set up and controlled by the people effected.
Nothing will come out of parachuting in activists to 'help' others.
It is also vital that members know and understand fully the shared aims
and long-term direction of the group. A group must be fully democratic
and be open to continuous debate and education so that all members have
a say in where it's going.
It is possible to distinguish two types of community organisation. One is
set up to provide services such as an unemployed centre or tenants' rights
advice centre. The other specifically to campaign to improve things.
Some groups claim to do both but there will be a clash and a choice must
be made. Any group which relies on money from institutions like the
State will, inevitably, be compromised in fighting against that State.
Genuine campaign groups cannot afford to accept this compromise.
Any community group will have to face compromises in its day to day
operations. It is important that these are made with the consent and
understanding of all the members. Decisions on funding, taking on
Community Employment workers and other potential compromises must
be made in an open way and on a case by case basis.
The main stumbling block will always be funding. One idea is a tithe.
This is a small voluntary subscription from members and supporters.
Basically this is how unions were originally built. Tithing means that the
money comes from within the group and is totally independent and it
gives members a sense of involvement. Campaign groups can sometimes
get money from unions. However it is important to appeal directly to
workers through their branches. Any approach to the bureaucracy would
be avoiding the chance to build genuine solidarity and probably doomed to
total failure anyway.
Other fund-raising events such as concerts, pub-quizes, race nights etc. also
have the advantages of involving members directly in raising money and
deciding how it is spent.
Usually and unfortunately, this won't raise enough money. For service
based groups external funding will have to be sought. This should not be
rushed into on a 'grab it where you can' basis. The funding with least
strings should be looked into first. Funding should be sought for
individual planned projects rather than becoming dependant on a regular
income. Where possible multiple funding for projects should be sought to
minimise the control of any one funder.
This only applies to voluntary service groups. Genuine political or
campaign groups should never accept State money.
Above all the group has to be clear in its aims and direction and know
when it is compromising and how far it can go. It must be prepared to
debate out compromises on a case by case basis. It must also be realised
that, short of a revolution, most long-term campaign and community
groups can only go so far and that isn't far enough.
Footnotes
1 The Programme for National Recovery (1987), Programme for Economic
and Social Progress (1991) and the Programme for Competitiveness and
Work(1993).
2 These schemes are government sponsored training where one works
for a sum roughly equivalent to the dole (similar schemes exist in England
and Northern Ireland and throughout Europe). Though they are
voluntary and not workfare as such the training is often quite limited and
they are usually a source of cheap labour and are often used to replace
full-time jobs .
3 Turning the Tide; A Review of Progress and Future Plans. (Dublin Inner
City Partnership 1994)
4 This included; <20>2,531,000 from the European Union (money from the
Global Grant, Community Reserve, Horizon, Euroform, N.O.W) and
<EFBFBD>6,922,000 through FAS and the VEC. Private Enterprise held its side of
the "partnership" with a measly <20>218,999.
SES = Social Employment Scheme (A former particular scheme now
grouped under the general Community Employment banner).
FAS = The Irish State Employment Service.
VEC = Vocational Education Committee.
NOW = New Opportunities for Women scheme.
It should be pointed out that these figures were expectations and proved
wildly optimistic. Also in fact a lot of this money was already committed
and would have gone in anyway regardless of the programme. At present
(according to a source within the partnership) they are budgeting for about
<EFBFBD>3.5 million over the next 4 years.
5 ibid. page 36.
6 ibid. page 1
7 Co-Media, London 1984
8 According to its own publication "Organising against Unemployment"
(Pat Mc Ginn and Michael Allen INOU Dublin 1991) the Projects of INOU
centres were funded as follows;
FAS/SES 29%
DED/ACE 3%
Trade unions 14%
Local authorities 9%
Irish American/Ireland funds 9%
Religious bodies 7%
Other government agencies 5%
Voluntary trusts 5%
European Community 3%
Combat Poverty Agency 3%
Other sources 12%
FAS is the Irish State Employment service. DED/ACE were the
employment schemes in the North when the report was published.
9 The total amount available through the EU is huge (though community
groups see very little of it). In 1993 the amount of social funds paid to
Ireland alone was <20>312 million along with Regional Development Funds
of <20>464 million. A grand total of <20>8 billion was promised between 1994
and 1998. Other funders include; the Ireland Fund (set up after the Anglo-
Irish Agreement on Northern Ireland and mainly funded through
Irish/American business and the US government), the European
Investment Bank, the World Bank, funds realised under the Programme
for Competitiveness and Work and other direct grants from government
departments.
Thanks to Aileen O'Carroll for help in writing this article.

665
textfiles.com/politics/SPUNK/sp001122.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,665 @@
******* The Dunnes Strike & Managing Change *******
-- the two souls of Irish trade unionism.
Guest Writer
For three weeks, in June-July, nearly 6,000 mostly
young and part-time workers struck against Ireland's
largest private sector employer, the firmly anti-union
Dunnes Stores, over Sunday trading, zero-hours
contracts, the proportion of full-time jobs and other
issues. But the principal, and unstated, issues were
probably union recognition and the organisation of the
newly emergent semi-casual, part-time, young (and
mainly female) section of the labour force. The
result, while disappointing on the concrete 'economic'
issues, was generally greeted as something of a
breakthrough on the latter 'political' issues.
Power in the darkness.
The Dunnes Stores strike came upon a sickly, scared and
handcuffed trade union movement with the healing touch
of restoration. It stood in sharp contrast to the grim
series of industrial disputes that preceded it.
Previous disputes at Packard, TEAM Aer Lingus, Irish
Steel, Pat the Baker, Nolans resulted in demoralising
defeats which seemed to deliver further body blows to a
downwardly debilitating movement.
Everybody in the labour movement seems to agree on the
positive significance of the Dunnes strike. The
Biennial Conference of the Irish Congress of Trade
Unions (ICTU) in Tralee, which overlapped last July
with the final week of the strike, was reportedly
overjoyed at the outcome. Peter Cassels, ICTU General
Secretary, congratulated the Labour Court on its
recommendation.
At the other end of the spectrum responses were even
more enthusiastic if with a different focus. "The
Dunnes strike was a turning point", said Socialist
Worker1. Militant declared: "The Dunnes strike can be
the start of a general fight back by the working class"
and "In many ways it has an historic significance."2
The Dunnes strike revealed to all that not alone was
there still fight left in the trade union movement, but
it was present where it was widely unexpected, among
young, unorganised, part-time workers. It provided
almost the first example in the last three years of a
sucessful strike. Furthermore the Dunnes workers
received the almost universal support of the general
public, the media, the political parties, the Church,
the state (which paid them the dole!), celebrities
(even Boyzone!) and the trade union leadership. What
refreshment, after the pillorying of the Irish Steel
and TEAM craftworkers, the isolation of the Pat the
Baker and Nolans Transport strikers, the (varying)
sympathy for, but apparent helplessness of the Packard
Electric workers.
Preceding elation was relief, on all sides of the
movement. The left dreaded another defeat.3 Even the
Congress leaders could see that a defeat for MANDATE4
in Dunnes would be a devastating blow to trade union
strength and what place have generals without an army?
On top of that Dunnes would have scored this triumph
outside of the carefully built-up industrial relations
machinery to which officialdom is so committed.5
Why the Dunnes strike won
Different sectors interpreted the victory in different
ways. Two remarkable features of the strike were the
professional public relations campaign of MANDATE and
the overwhelming support of shoppers in refusing to
enter the stores. Michael Foley, the Media
Corespondent of the Irish Times, under a sub-heading
stating, "the Dunnes Stores strike was fought and won
on television, radio and in the newspapers", wrote:
"The picket line in the Dunnes Stores dispute was not a
way of ensuring that the stores remained closed or a
method of convincing others not to trade with the
company, but a media event, a photo opportunity and an
opportunity for sound bites".6
On the same page it was reported, in relation to "the
success of the strike", that "senior members of the
ICTU took the opportunity of the organisation's
biennial conference in Tralee this week to hammer home
repeatedly to members the importance of using
industrial relations procedures to the maximum and the
necessity of mobilising public support, as well as
industrial muscle, if disputes were going to be fought
and won."7
Here the accidental is emphasised over the essential.
The Dunnes strike revolved around two issues. The
first is that MANDATE had the numbers and used them,
not least in legally dodgy mass pickets. The second is
that the refusal of the company to use the industrial
relations procedures underlined the irrelevance of any
mediating machinery to the workers without industrial
action.
A more satisfying analysis was given by Dermot Connolly
writing in Militant as follows: "In contrast (to the
half-hearted conduct of previous disputes by the
unions) the Dunnes strike was superbly organised. They
(MANDATE's officials and executive) knew that Dunnes
were out to break the union and worked non-stop for six
weeks to prepare the membership and counter every
attempt by management to sow confusion and split the
ranks. A national shop stewards committee was formed
along with strike committees in the shops, mass
picketing was encouraged. ICTU was pressurised into
calling for a boycott of Dunnes and urging workers with
their suppliers not to pass pickets. They didn't hide
behind the need to call ballots before doing this as
they have claimed to be the case in other disputes. A
glimpse of the real potential power of the trade union
movement was shown, and at the same time the fact that
all the weaknesses of the unions to-day, the so-called
decline in solidarity,8the inability to organise
serious struggles comes from the top." 9
The emphasis here is on shop floor organisation,
militancy, industrial solidarity and the mass activity
of the members themselves (rather than token
picketlines) as the key essentials to the success of
the strike.
Managing Change
If the Dunnes strike was a 'turning point', there was
also another turning point (or rather, another turn of
the screw) at the same time. The Biennial Conference
of the ICTU showed the second of the two souls of Irish
trade unionism. The ICTU planted yet another milestone
in the road of 'partnership' and 'consensus' with the
adoption of the document Managing Change and Motion 19.
Managing Change is the latest development of what Peter
Cassels, ICTU General Secretary, refers to as "the
trade union agenda for a new century".10 It follows a
long line of Congress documents including "New Forms of
Work Organisation" from the 1993 Conference.
The 1993 paper advised a new co-operative or
participatory approach to such things as human resource
management, world class manufacturing and total quality
control: precisely the kind of new management
techniques that lay-activists had hitherto been warned
about as undermining trade union organisation.
Commenting on the paper Peter Cassels said, "to
innovate effectively... requires a high trust
environment with workers and their unions accepted by
companies as partners in the enterprises."11
Local consensus was taken some steps further at this
year's conference, where 1995's theme paper was
Managing Change. The Irish Times pr<70>cised its contents
thus: "Accepting that global markets and the speed of
technological change now make company restructuring an
almost constant process, Congress wants member-unions
to become pro-active in this situation. Traditionally
unions have resisted change and have focused on
defending members' rights. ICTU wants to reverse that
role."12
Plainly Congress has no problem with the logic of
redundancies and worsened conditions. As the trade
union leadership entered into a joint economic, social
and (on many issues) political strategy with the
government and the employers through the National
Programmes, embracing austerity in the '80s, it has now
accepted a consensus approach to new management
techniques and 'rationalisation', in the individual
firm, embracing competitiveness in the '90s. At both
levels the same strategy is applied: accommodation
rather than resistance. At both levels the same
justification is given: let us get in on it, in order
to influence it!
Myth and Reality
The reality of the workplace is remote from the myth
of cosy partnership. Relentlessly employers have
continued to 'rationalise' and 'restructure' with
redundancies, natural wastage, conversion to contract
labour, new 'yellowpack' starting rates, flexibility
and new work practices often gained by threats of
closure. It's not just at Packard that things thought
long-buried, like straight wage cuts or longer working
weeks, have returned from labour history. The very
unions themselves are being undermined by their
'social partners' through the dismantling of shop floor
organisation, 'no-strike' clauses, generosity to non-
union people and, of course, 'human resource'
techniques.
Matt Merrigan, former President of Congress, says it in
his own inimitable style: "Trade unionists in the
workplace see no evidence of the shared duties,
responsibilities and decision-making that are inferred
in the texts of these programmes. Consensus and
partnership are not in the lexicon of individual
employers at plant level, rather it is: comply or
else."13 Perhaps the current President of Congress
might give us a lexicon of the companies with a "high
trust environment". Aer Lingus, Allied Irish
Banks....Zoe Developments?
This year's model, Managing Change develops workplace
partnership from the general operation and development
of the firm into the specific area of 'change'. Thus
Congress addresses a current concern of the pundits of
capital: the globalisation of capital and the
consequent 'need' for rationalisation and 'downsizing'
as general and constant features rather than just in
the odd ailing company. It also addresses the
continuing restructuring, part privatisation and
exposure to competition of the semi-state sector - as
seen in the past at An Post, Irish Steel, TEAM and in
the coming year at the ESB14 and Telecom Eireann.
A new world?
The motif of 'competitiveness' running through
workplace partnership and the current union-employer-
government agreement (the Programme for Competitiveness
and Work) does not make a good match with trade
unionism, which one was led to believe arose as an
antidote to competition between companies and between
workers themselves.15 It blends well though with a
revamped world-view placing the trade union eggs in the
basket of the EU, the Maastricht Treaty, a strong
currency and the European Social Charter. A world view
that sees itself getting behind the perceived dawn of
new technology. A world views that seeks to sail with
a restructuring capitalism and the ascendancy of new
right ideology. One which compensates for the decline
in labour militancy by seeking to place trade union
relevance elsewhere than in the class struggle. This
results in a half- belief in the end of the working
class as an entity and the transformation of its
members into consumers.
It is a political economy based on the OECD, the ESRI
and the NESC16. Once, and not so long ago, the
economic policies of trade union leaders was based
largely on state enterprise and the public sector.
This underlying doctrine has been replaced without
acknowledgement. A discredited statism has been
replaced by a fatalistic adoption of the market; a loss
of belief in any kind of 'socialist' alternative
replaced with a 'new realism' that contends there is no
basic alternative.
This creeping conversion has to some extent been
fuelled latterly by the collapse of the 'Soviet' bloc,
towards which many union leaders and backroom gurus
sidewardly looked. 17
Just how far into the business ethos things have gone
is illustrated in the ICTU 1995 Pre-Budget Submission,
which declares: "Improved competitiveness is crucial
for economic growth and job creation and must be
protected from upward pressure on pay and inflation."
Once it was the employers and government ministers who
said that wage rises cause inflation and unemployment.
John O'Dowd, General Secretary of the Civil and Public
Services Union (CPSU), writing in the Sunday Tribune in
August about the need for confidence in the "change
process" in Telecom Eireann (i.e. the cutting of
several thousand jobs) said, "competition is here to
stay and Telecom staff depend on achieving, and
sustaining competitive advantage within this new
environment."18
As with much of the unions' thinking over the past
decade Managing Change is a legislation of existing
practice. There is nothing new about union officials
arguing for an employer's proposals - or a compromise
version of them - on the job. Congress brought this to
a high point in 1994, the centenary of its foundation,
by becoming the 'persuader' in Irish Steel and TEAM Aer
Lingus alongside employers, politicians and the media.
Actually, Managing Change and Motion 19 arose directly
out of a review group established by Congress to
investigate 'what went wrong' in these two cases (where
some workers were hard to persuade).
Managing change - never had a policy a more apt title.
The system requires regular change, to ensure
competitiveness and profitability. There's a need for
an apparatus - complete with apparatchiks - for its
smooth operation. The rough edges of the employers'
proposals may have to be trimmed. The workforce will
be delivered up to accept the essence of the changes
all systematised through a prepared procedure. No more
cliff-side ballots, no more embarrassing blockades on
the Airport Road, no more 'workers vote for sucide'
newspaper articles, no (perish the thought) importation
of Air France-type direct action resistance.
In the new schema, of course, it is the rank and file
who live with the changes, while the leaders enter the
corridors of power and increase their salaries. (The
three General Officers of SIPTU receive <20>7O,OOO per
annum, according to the Sunday Independent. 19 That's
before car and expenses.)
Bureaucrats as policemen.
Managing Change extends the domain of the persuader and
of the police officer within the industrial relations
process. Peter Cassels, answering criticism20 that the
ICTU might "whip the trade unions into line", said:
"And if that requires us telling a trade union they're
off-side we'll say they're off-side. And if it requires
telling union members they're off-side, then we'll tell
them they're off-side." 21
In defending the proposal for 'a pro-active approach to
changes in work-practices' he said: "We have a choice,
we can leave it to the employers to set the agenda and
do what trade unionists have been doing in other
countries and react. Or we can try and shape the
future." The Irish Times report continues: "He cited
the fight to save jobs at Waterford Crystal and the
Cost and Competitiveness Review in the ESB and Telecom
Eireann as situations in which unions have seized the
initiative in shaping change".22
These citations were unfortunate and upon them any
'traditionalist' can rest his or her case. The
instance at Waterford Crystal was a signal defeat, the
breaking of arguably the strongest and most class
conscious group of Irish workers at the time. The ESB
and Telecom reviews are all about the loss of thousands
of the best (and best-unionised) jobs in the country
and the unions' happy cooperation with same!
Motion 19 puts Managing Change into specific points of
policy. And here alarm bells ring as Congress once
again ties the hands of its members. Motion 19
proposed "the conclusion of a Framework Document with
employer bodies on how change in the workplace should
be negotiated."23 Congress not only want to "lead the
charge for change" (Peter Cassels again) but it wants a
centralised agreement to govern how it is approached.
The local element as a feature of workplace partnership
didn't get very far, did it?
This codified procedure would, without doubt, lay down
how, when and where to negotiate and, above all, what
to negotiate. Any pre-cooked negotiation schedule would
have to give an assurance to the employers that the
unions would not rule out negotiation, at least, on any
proposal from local employers. Then the matter would go
to the Labour Relations Commission (as specified in
Motion 19) after which workers would be expected to
ballot (or the Editorials would want to know why not)
on a 'compromise' third-party recommendation.
As the National Programmes have, since 1987, removed
the (offensive) power of workers to put claims to their
own employers, this new centralised departure would
remove, or severely undermine, the (defensive) power of
workers to reject adverse changes in their own
employment. Any 'framework agreement' that emerges
should go to a ballot and be campaigned against.
Furthermore Motion 19 calls for a measure that you
might, if you were not up to speed with the charge to
the right of the ICTU, have expected union leaders to
denounce if IBEC, the employers' organisation, proposed
it. This is the introduction of mandatory use of third
party machinery in procedures and disputes24. The first
consideration is the fatal delay and sidetracking that
can be involved in processing urgently needed
industrial action through the labyrinth. The second is
the bias and the malleability of the Labour Relations
Commission and the Labour Court.
Compulsory conciliation is, of course, well established
in Irish industrial relations: in SIPTU (in practice),
in the public service and legally for 'individual'
disputes under the 1990 Industrial Relations Act. What
Motion 19 would do is to extend and copperfasten it
into (here it comes again) national arrangements with
government and employer organisations.
Finally, the Motion establishes aggregate ballots where
in certain situations Congress can insist on a single
vote on a change package. This is Congress' response
to the Irish Steel crisis in which the craftworkers
rejected the company's 'survival' plan which the
majority (mainly SIPTU) general workers accepted.
Congress and SIPTU supported the plan and will support
similar plans in future situations. So Managing Change
infers that the rejection of worsened conditions by an
independent section is perceived, not as an opportunity
upon which to build stronger opposition, but as a
problem to be overcome by the majority votes of the
already persuaded. This pseudodemocracy takes no
account of valid craft demarcations or cases where one
section are asked to take more odious changes than
another.
Two Souls
Overlapping as it was with the ICTU Conference, the
Dunnes Stores strike (and its resolution) provided a
special occasion to view the two souls of Irish trade
unionism together. Connections between the two were
real enough, and some others were made by Congress
leaders adopting the Dunnes experience and by
journalists juxtaposing two major industrial events.
The Dunnes dispute was used specifically by Phil Flynn
as an example of the need for "mandatory third-party
reference of disputes".25 Through Dunnes-and their
refusal to even attend the LRC - the 'innovators' have
been able to portray mandatory mediation as a
constraint upon the employers while overlooking its
suffocating effect on workers' action. This portrayal
is easily achieved because third-party referral is now
almost automatic on the union side, because of the
unions' own dispute procedures and because of the
prevalent lack of confidence among workers about having
a straight fight. It's the employers who are perceived
to be beyond this due process and who need to be tied
into it through a tripartheid commitment.
Commentators painted the strike as a watershed to which
the ICTU's Tralee agenda corresponded. Padraig Yeates,
Industry and Employment Correspondent of the Irish
Times first appeared to acknowledge the differences
between them: "ln many ways the Dunnes Stores strike is
a very traditional one, about defending basic workers'
rights rather than mediating change to meet the needs
of 'global' competition". This perception
notwithstanding he goes on, "yet delegates are keenly
aware that the Dunnes Stores dispute is just as
relevant to the ICTU's modern agenda." By way of
explanation for this relevance he continues: "It is the
first national strike involving a new generation of
part-time workers who are only just begining to join
unions." 26 This was precisely the strike's
significance, but not its relevance to the modern
agenda.
Perhaps Padraig Yeates was reflecting the connection
which Congress thinkers make to justify the modern
agenda, as an adaption to the emergent generation of
casualised and unorganised young workers - through
consensus rather than struggle! In Towards A New
Century, a veritable manifesto of new unionism, Peter
Cassels writes: "Labour market changes are also
producing a 'new' and growing workforce of part-time,
temporary, casual, contract and home workers...The
changing composition of the workforce is changing the
content of the trade union agenda which in turn is
changing how we process that agenda." 27
The Dunnes strike has demonstrated that the road ahead,
in trade union terms, for this new generation is not
the 'new agenda'. A good old fashioned strike has more
claim to that (more but not all - some real tactical
head-scratching is needed, for example, in relation to
struggle at mobile multinationals).
"The start of a general fightback" it could be, yet
even its own resolution was a steadying reminder that
the other soul (the consensus loving one) envelopes
even the great Dunnes strike with its deadening
presence. An outsider might conclude that MANDATE
halted the march just when they had Dunnes on the run.
One insider described it as, "Let's not lose, rather
than win".28
Of course the recommendation to call off the strike
after three weeks may have been prudent, rather than
weak-kneed, leadership: avoiding a long industrial
campaign with raw recruits. The same insider claims,
however, that "the general feeling of the activist
layer in MANDATE was against the Labour Court
recommendation"29 The Sunday Tribune quotes one shop
steward as saying, "we've been sold out."30 The
reccommendation was accepted by nearly four to one in
MANDATE.
One way or the other, a great triumph of the strike was
that a powerful and determinedly anti-union employer,
employing a 'new' and casualised workforce, was forced
to grant de facto recognition to the union. But the
settlements on the particular issues upon which the
strike was fought represent rather modest gains and, in
some cases, could set unfavourable precedents in the
retail industry.
The settlement
Compulsory Sunday working was accepted and extended to
the previously exempt pre-October 1994 workers. It
seems a kind of mockery that European law and practice
is continually used to get workers to take changes and
comply with the norm while Ireland is the only state in
the EU where Sunday trading is permitted without any
regulation.
The elimination of 'zero-hour' (on-call) contracts was
a major achievement. Under the settlement there's a
minimum of fifteen hours a week work for part-timers
and split shifts are abolished.
Although the Labour Court recommend time-and-a-half for
Sunday working (as against Dunnes' demand for flat-rate
working for new workers) this sets up two pay rates for
the same work (senior workers keep double time) and is
below rates enjoyed in some other union stores. On the
ratio of full-time to part-time posts the settlement
(two hundred extra full-time posts) makes no
qualitative difference in a workforce of 6,000.
Our 'insider' reflects as follows: "In drawing up a
balance sheet of the strike it would be wrong to say
that defeat was snatched from the jaws of victory, or
even that the outcome was a draw. From where this
dispute started, the gains won were greater than the
concessions made. Dunnes set out to break the union,
and achieved the opposite. The union is stronger than
at any time in the past. The members are more
confident and a new layer of militants will come into
activity."31
Perhaps the main achievement was the 'political' one of
the moderately successful arrival of this large sector
of atomised young workers - feared by some to be beyond
the pale of trade unionism - on the stage of organised
working class struggle. Plus, perhaps, the uplifting
impact of the strike on the consciousness of workers in
general.
It might have been expected that in the aftermath of
the strike the official trade union milieu arrived at
some new conclusions on how to organise industrial
struggle. This certainly didn't happen immediately.
At the end of the same month, at another retail giant,
the Marks and Spencer stores in Dublin, there was
another three-week strike, this time by SIPTU warehouse
workers centring on changes in shift patterns. On
approaching the (Mary St) store it was evident that
while the usual amount of shoppers was down there was
still a good number inside. Where had the remarkable
support of shoppers gone in three weeks? A large part
of the answer was surely that the vast majority of the
workers, including the shop assistants who are MANDATE
members, were still working away! It seemed that the
Dunnes strike had made little impact on the official
world of SIPTU (who were absurdly asking shoppers not
to patronise Marks and Spencer where their fellow trade
unionists were quite clearly waiting to serve them).
Neither had MANDATE been greatly effected as they
seemed to have developed a sudden attack of
forgetfulness, thereby enabling the very thing they'd
feared a month earlier - the public passing the picket
and a staff there to meet them.
A SIPTU picketer offered the information that they
didn't want to ask the MANDATE members to come out at
that stage. Some of the picketers did not maintain
this relaxed view of the picketline throughout,
expressing strong disagreement with large vehicles,
insisting on a relaxed approach of their own. Part of
the settlement of this strike was, incidentally, the
establishment of a joint participative review of the
warehouse operation which sounds awfully like an early
application of Managing Change.
Padraig Yeates finished his thoughtful Irish Times
commentary with: "The Dunnes Stores dispute highlights
the crisis facing the trade union movement. It will be
up to the delegates (to the ICTU Conference) this week
to decide if Congress is coming up with the right
solutions."32 At the end of that week it would seem to
be confirmed that the (at least) moderate success of
the Dunnes strike, and the methods it employed,
militant, organised and imaginative, met the crisis,
and highlighted that Congress is coming up not with
solutions but with problems.
Footnotes
1 Socialist Worker, 8-21 Jul. '95.
2 Militant, Jul.-Aug. '95.
3 Sporadic victories such as Blooms Hotel (Dublin), the
Eastern Health Board (IMPACT) and Knightingales (Dublin
store) had been stars too remote to lighten the
darkness.
4 MANDATE, the main striking union, representing most
Dunnes workers.
5 The ICTU's public intervention emphasised Dunnes'
refusal to co-operate with the Labour Relations
Commission.
6 Irish Times, 8-7-95.
7 Ibid.
8 The desert that was Dunnes answered, belatedly but
baldly, the comment of the General Secretary of SIPTU
(Ireland's largest union), Billy Attley, at a Union
conference, that the Pat the Baker strikers (1993) had
been beaten not by anything the unions did or didn't do
but by the "lack of solidarity" (by which he meant,
people bought the bread).
9 Militant, op.cit.
10 P. Cassels, Towards A New Century in Trade Union
Century, ed. D.Nevin (Mercier Press, 1994) p.427.
11 Sunday Tribune, 1-8-93 (my emphasis).
12 Padraig Yeates, Industrial and Employment
Corespondent, Irish Times, 3-7-95.
13 Matt Merrigan, Co-operation is a capitalist asset,
Irish Reporter No.17 (1995).
14 Electricity Supply Board.
15 Peter Cassels was this year appointed to the
Competitiveness Advisory Group of the European Union
(EU).
16 The last two are Irish economic think tanks.
17 Democratic Left are ex-stalinists currently in the
Irish governing coalition. An article in their
magazine Times Change (don't they just) on The Future
of Work by Sean Kelly ends: "In the global competitive
trade wars that are now being witnessed it appears that
the only source of job security for workers is
satisfied customers."
(Times Change, Autumn/Winter 1994.).
18 Sunday Tribune, 13-8-95.
19 Sunday Independent, 20-8-95. SIPTU (Services
Industrial Professional Technical Union)
20 from TEEU delegate Tim Lawless at Tralee
21 Irish Times 6-7-95.
22 Ibid. 6-7-95.
23 Ibid. 3-7-95.
24 The reporting of this clause as proposing
compulsory arbitration has sown confusion. Compulsory
arbitration is the compulsory acceptance of a third-
party decision while compulsory conciliation (the
Motion 19 proposal) is the compulsory referral to a
third party for recommendation. There's one hell of a
difference, and even I would not expect Congress to
suddenly call a complete ceasefire in the class war.
Apparently, it was 'clarified' at the Conference that
this section was not 'prescriptive' and there would be
'consultation' with unions further on.
25 Irish Times, 3-7-95. Phil Flynn, ICTU President, in
the same interview, says that Dunnes Stores "is not
anti-union, but non-union".
26 Ibid., 4-7-95
27 Towards a new Century, P.Cassels, op.cit. p.425.
28 A 'prominent Mandate activist' (anonymous), Militant
op.cit.
29 Ibid..
30 Sunday Tribune, 9-7-95.
31 Militant, op. cit.
32 Irish Times, 4-7-95.

Some files were not shown because too many files have changed in this diff Show More