A voice from Ukraine: “It’s time to organize”

Aug

03

2024

7comments

By anon (not verified)

From Takku
August 2, 2024

In the end of July 2024 an anarchist member of Ukrainian armed forces shared their thoughts with Takku as follows.

My name is Ljosha. I lived in Sweden before the war, but I came to Ukraine after Russia launched its full-scale invasion. Together with my comrades, I wanted to develop anarchist organizing and activities, to defend the Ukrainian people and nature, and to strengthen the anarchist movement in the revolutionary struggle. Originally I entered the extra-parliamentary leftist movement in 2004 by joining a Russian organization that included various left-wing opposition groups. In 2009 I moved to Ukraine. As an anarchist, I have adopted anarcho-communism as my approach and am in favor of an organized anarchist movement.

At the beginning of the war I was in contact with Dmitry Petrov. He was one of the organizers of the anti-authoritarian military unit and was looking for comrades all over the world who would be ready to participate in armed struggle against the Russian invasion, above all comrades who had revolutionary views and a desire for influencing the society as well. I left for Ukraine in March 2022. I was still on my way at the end of March, when the position of the anti-authoritarian unit in the Ukrainian Armed Forces changed due to the organizational reform of the army and it lost the opportunity to recruit new members.

I finally arrived in Ukraine only in June 2022, when the anti-authoritarian unit was already being completely terminated. The comrades in it were dispersing to different troop sections. However, Dima still held on to the idea of ​​forming a new anarchist unit. I tried to help him with the organizing work. We were looking for a part of the army that we could join to start forming our own unit in a new place of the army's organization. Finally, a group of comrades, including Dima and I, joined an assault unit, with which we fought from the end of summer to the end of winter. Our intention was still to form an anarchist unit and invite other comrades to join. We didn't succeed in that, however, because the commanders of our department opposed the joining of people identified as women as well as foreigners who didn't know the language. It became clear that establishing our own unit in this department would not be possible, and we began to investigate other options.

Criticism and self-criticism are always inseparable part of revolutionary activity and thinking. We have to constantly evaluate our environment, review our methods of action, and see what works and what doesn't. The revolutionary strategy must be constantly developed and its implementation must be reflected upon. In 2022, the strategy, mainly formulated by Dima, was based on the idea that Russia would suffer a defeat in the war, which would lead to a revolutionary situation there and in Belarus. If, under these conditions, we would have an organized anarchist movement and an anarchist military unit in Ukraine as part of it, we could seize the revolutionary situation and realize our social project. I wouldn't say this strategy is outdated even now. I think we can still organize our activities according to this strategy, but in the assessment of the situation according to criticism and self-criticism, of course we see that there has been no anarchist military unit in Ukraine for two years. In different places within the army, there are anarchist comrades in smaller groups and individually, who for various reasons have not been able to organize into a single force. Also, looking at the course of the war, there can no longer be any certainty that Russia would face such losses that would lead to a revolutionary situation. A revolutionary situation may emerge, but the process has significantly slowed down. Of course, the new situation requires new approaches, updating strategy and tactics. For example, it may prove reasonable to return to economic struggle, to draw attention again to the injustice created by the capitalist system, and to consider the current perspectives of strikes or other economic struggle. Criticism, self-criticism and the search for new ways must be constantly present.

At the beginning of 2023, we left the unit where we had been fighting as volunteers and thus free to leave at any time. I left for Sweden because our joint plan included that I would work on some things there for a while. Dima, on the other hand, as agreed, began to look for opportunities to re-establish an anarchist military unit. Such an opportunity opened up. Dima gathered a group of a few comrades, and they joined a military unit, where they had been offered the opportunity to form their own media, on the condition that they first participate in battle and, in doing so, demonstrate their readiness for military action. They were promised that after this they could establish their own unit with its own media, to which they could invite more comrades, and which would have its own media. Unfortunately, Dima and two other comrades died during their first mission, in the Battle of Bahmut on April 19, 2023.

If we are serious about the revolutionary struggle, I think we must continue the efforts that our fallen comrades could not complete. Therefore, I took it for granted that I had to return to Ukraine and try to continue Dima's efforts. I returned here in June 2023. We have developed networking between separated anarchist comrades, but we have not succeeded in creating a new unit of our own, because it is not possible at this time due to the army bureaucracy, among other reasons. I myself am currently in the Ukrainian army as a regular soldier, so no longer as a volunteer. I was injured in November last year and in March this year and I am going to Sweden for some time for treatment, because my injuries are quite serious. The wrist is badly broken and a bone had to be moved from the rib to the hand. Above all, healing requires time, and I aim to use it by participating in the international anarchist struggle in Europe.

As it is well known, after the war started, Finland and my country of residence, Sweden, with the communities of which I have strong connections, joined NATO. Of course, I consider this a negative development both for our movement and for the societies of these countries. Anarchists must oppose NATO, first of all, because it is of course an imperialist war organization. Secondly, it is a matter of solidarity. The joining process of Finland and Sweden included many kinds of agreements with the imperialist state of Turkey. Turkey is trying with all its might to suppress the most successful revolutionary project of our time: the Kurdish revolution and the self-governance in Rojava. If we accept joining NATO, we will betray our comrades in Kurdistan. As revolutionaries, we cannot be in favour of NATO, and certainly not in support of Ukraine or any other country joining it. Ukraine's rapprochment with the Western imperialist bloc also poses a threat to the working people of Ukraine, because with rapprochement the exploitation of workers will probably increase. The rapprochement of the Ukrainian political leadership with Turkey would be harmful in every way. The expansion of NATO is of course harmful for the global revolutionary movement. Although we now defend ourselves also with NATO weapons against Russian imperialism, we cannot under any circumstances sympathize with the Western imperialist bloc, which also includes the state led by Erdogan.

Regarding Russophobia in Ukraine, I would say that it is more of a cultural than a political phenomenon. Talks about the sameness of all Russians or that "a good Russian is the one who cannot be seen with a thermal camera" are cultivated by actors in the cultural sector who have material interests in this. Even after 2014, the Maidan and the start of the war, the products of the Russian culture and entertainment industry have played and still play a significant role in the Ukrainian market. From the point of view of Ukrainian cultural production, this is disadvantageous. Banning Russian language and culture is probably more the work of the cultural elite than the political elite, although it is also driven by politicians. Ukrainian mass entertainment and cultural production has not reached the level of Russian production in Ukraine in terms of popularity. For example, in the winter a new TV-series about a criminal gang in 1980s Kazan was shown in Russia. I think the whole of Ukraine was watching it. It was very popular. A few cultural leaders and also politicians in Ukraine publicly condemned its watching, pointing to the war and to the imperialist narratives in the series. Despite everything, it was watched. So it seems to me that hatred against Russian people, contempt for everything Russian and Russian-speaking is being incited specifically by the actors of the cultural industry, motivated by their own material interests. In society, the situation is different. Also, a significant part of the Ukrainian army is Russian-speaking. The former MP and philologist Iryna Farion, who was recently murdered in Lviv, was widely regarded as a freak due to her loud and ultra-nationalist activities against Russian language, and she was expelled from Lviv University because of public pressure.

On the other hand, in Ukraine the creation of a nation-state and the nation-building project are of course present. Ukraine was not a nation-state until 1991, when several countries that broke away from the Soviet Union began the process of building their own states. The creation of a nation-state continues in Ukraine, and we, as anarchists, have without doubt a negative attitude towards it. Another nation-state building project is also underway on the territory of Ukraine – Russia's colonialist project. Views according to which the Ukrainian language is not really a language and the Ukrainian people are not really a people, and according to which Ukraine should remain under Russian control, have been spread diligently and have had a great impact on society through business and a certain part of the Ukrainian political elite. A significant part of the political elite was strongly pro-Russia at least until 2013. A competition between the Ukrainian nation-building project and the Russian colonialist project is taking place in the territory of Ukraine. Both projects are harmful from anarchist perspective, as both an empire and a nation-state are instruments of subjugation, exploitation, repression and injustice. So of course we have to oppose both.

In Ukraine's history there are previous nation-building projects. During the Ukrainian civil war or war of independence, in which various left-wing and right-wing groups were involved, the People's Republic of Ukraine was founded, among others. However, as a result of the war in 1921, the territory of present-day Ukraine was divided between Poland and the Soviet Union, and the nation-building project ended for a time. In 1991, one of the conditions for forming a nation-state was fulfilled, i.e. the emergence of a national elite. In this case, it was created by the party machinery. In the last years of the Soviet Union, nation building projects were already underway in all Soviet republics. When Ukraine became independent, a ready-made local party-elite took the lead of the nation-state project. A bureaucracy had also been created, which could also be adopted as the national state bureaucracy of Ukraine. The establishment of the Soviet party leadership and local Soviet bureaucrats as rulers of an independent state took place in Ukraine in the same way as in many other former Soviet republics in 1991. The imperialist and colonialist project was replaced by the nation-state project. As said, anarchists of course oppose to both of these.

To the question of what I think comrades in Western Europe should do now, I would say that it depends on the local context. In Sweden, for example, there are only a few collectives that define themselves specifically as anarchists. The dynamics of the movement are variable there. At one time, there were strong left-wing groups in Sweden that worked impressively on anti-fascism, for example the Revolutionary Front, which dissolved under the pressure of the state. Also in the West, states suppress revolutionary activity. Many members of the Revolutionary Front got prison sentences, mainly for attacks on the far-right. In Sweden, there has also been a strong solidarity movement supporting the Rojava revolution. There, the strength of the left-wing movement in general varies considerably. Of course, in Sweden too, anarchists should strive, and are striving, for a situation where the movement is as strong as possible, organized and ready to take on historical challenges.

It is unlikely that the war would lead to the complete defeat of Ukraine. Earlier there were hopes that it would lead to a military victory for Ukraine. Now there is no longer the same certainty of victory, but it seems that Ukraine will not completely lose the war. It may be that the war acts as an enforcer of the Ukrainian nation-state and the artificial unification of its society’s upper layers.

As for the support of Western comrades for Ukraine, I think people should approach the issue considering that we have comrades here in difficult situations. As a movement, we should show solidarity to comrades in difficult situations. I think now is the time to put efforts on organizing work, both in the West and in Ukraine. Here, Solidarity Collectives is a good organization and volunteer network, whose activities, in addition to humanitarian aid, specifically aim at organizing the movement. Solidarity Collectives can be contacted directly to support such activities.

In addition to Ukrainians, Russians and Belarusians, the anti-authoritarian military unit also included Western comrades. Some had military experience in Kurdistan as well. There were comrades who did not know Russian or Ukrainian and could only communicate in English. The language problems were solved collectively and they were also overcome on the battlefield. Harris and Ciya, the comrades who fell at the same time as Dima, had been here already for a while. Ciya, who had also been in Kurdistan, was involved in the Solidarity Collectives, and Harris fought in the International Legion – which was not an anarchist or anti-authoritarian unit – before joining Dima's new endeavour. There is currently no anarchist military unit to join in Ukraine. If one is considering joining the armed defense of Ukraine, it is of course morally justified in the sense that the Ukrainian people must be defended against the aggressor. If one wants to join, it is good to contact the local comrades first. However, I personally would not invite comrades to join the Ukrainian army now that we do not have our own unit within which to strive towards our own goals. If one can be created, the situation will be different, and then of course it would be great if comrades from the West would join in as well. Now, however, I think it's really the time to put our efforts on forming a unified, organized anarchist movement everywhere.

 

Uncivilized Podcast Episode 54 -- Anarchism and Violence

Aug

04

2024

8comments

By ArtxmisGrahamThoreau

Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ileDacnHnN0&list=PLpvoYM-MGZqKCdVz8kMHor...

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/6eAS5kdCKeVK20CoQMarTe

Brady and Artxmis talk about anarchism and violence. They seek to begin to answer or bring forth discussion about the following questions: What is the relationship between anarchism and violence? Is violence an innate part of the anarchist milieu? Is it a corruption of anarchist ethics? Or is it more difficult than this? (As a reminder, we don’t support violence.)

Stay tuned for a more historical examination of the role of violence in and around anarchist struggles, which was the original aim of this episode until just before recording.

Artxmis’ recommended readings:
“Lessons of the Spanish Revolution” by Vernon Richards
Any writings by the CCF (Greece) and FAI (Italy)
“Prison Memoirs of an Anarchist” by Alexander Berkman
“Haymarket Tragedy” by Paul Avrich
“Days of Rage” by Bryan Burrough
“Anarchist Inquisition” by Mark Bray
“Facing Toward the Dawn” by Richard Lenzi (reviewed on Uncivilized)
“Anarchism and Violence” by Osvaldo Bayer
“Death to Bourgeois Society” Mitchell Abador (Strongest recommendation!)
“Anarchism and Violence” by Margert Killjoy (One I am really split on but speaks to where most anarchists probably fall concerning the issue)

Facts and circumstances of a fourth generation of anarchists in Cuba

Aug

07

2024

3comments

By anon (not verified)

From Federación Anarquista de México-IFA
July 20, 2024

An organization like this formed the backbone of a large group of young people of that time who managed to recover from the Stalinist kidnapping, with police support, of the National Workers' Confederation of Cuba (CNOC), a masterpiece of the Cuban anarcho-syndicalists, with Alfredo López as one of the most representative figures of the collective efforts of the second generation of anarchists in Cuba. The Youth Federation of the mid-1930s also managed to give new impetus to the legendary, but already declining, Federation of Anarchist Groups of Cuba (FGAC), leading in 1942 to the creation of the Libertarian Association of Cuba (ALC). relevant and today forgotten anarchist-inspired organizations such as the Federation of Peasant Associations, the Association of Anti-Fascist Combatants, the more discreet, but equally active, Local Defense Committees and a serious failed attempt to intervene in the world of Cuban work such as the Confederation General of Workers, to confront the Stalinist monopoly on the union world that had been established since January 28, 1939, with the creation of the Cuban Workers' Central (CTC).

This organizational framework of the third generation of Cuban libertarians also gave rise to lively sociability and a flourishing anarchist publishing movement, which renewed the long presence of anarchist press media and public activities in Cuba. Thus, three Libertarian Congresses were organized (1944, 1948, 1950), activities and practices with anti-authoritarian perspectives in peasant associations, neighborhood associations, and in regions of the country expanded throughout the rest of the geography and social fabric of the country. marginalized by other trends of ideas, some attempts in the Afro-descendant associative movement and in the artistic sphere, a whole legacy of experiences that the fourth generation of anarchists in Cuba are trying to reconstruct and rediscover in the Cuba of the last three decades, with the intermittent support from those veteran comrades of the ALC, especially Frank Fernández, who in the '90s founded the Cuban Libertarian Movement in Florida and published that valuable and warm book Anarchism in Cuba , beautifully edited by the Anselmo Lorenzo Foundation of Madrid.

In the absence of a detailed record of anarchist activity in Cuba between 1961 and the beginning of the 2000s and taking as reference our own personal experience, the fourth generation of anarchists in Cuba acquired an explicit organizational form with the creation on May 1, 2013 of the Workshop Libertarian Alfredo López, in homage to the leading figure of anarcho-syndicalism in Cuba and the Chicago Martyrs. “The workshop”, as we affectionately call it, in these ten years of existence, has tried to take care of all the long void of forgetfulness generated by the long Stalinist-Fidelist night that has handcuffed Cuban society, but also of all the disintegration social, authoritarianism scientifically naturalized in the mentality of several generations and the scant reflection on means and organizational forms, which flourished in Cuba before 1959, with the third anarchist generation in Cuba.

We have had to carry out all of the above in the midst of the gigantic and efficient apparatus of preventive social repression that has been organized by the political police in Cuba during the last six decades, where all minimally autonomous social expression of state institutions has almost always been disintegrated. and methodically repressed.

In this context, a small group of people with anti-authoritarian intentions created the Critical Observatory Network of Cuba in 2006, a space that became an assembly coordinator of self-managed projects, where almost a dozen initiatives collaborated in areas such as anti-authoritarian education (El Trencito Project ), self-didactism (La Escuelita), intellectual history of liberation thought (Cátedra Haydee Santamaría), environmental activism (Colectivo Guardabosques, the environmental initiative La Rueda), sexual dissidence (Colectivo Arcoiris), anti-racist activism and Afro-descendant memory (Cofradía of Negritude, the performative poetic brotherhood Chekendeke, the Anamuto Anti-Racist Alliance, the autonomous initiative Corner of the decolonization of Cuban popular historical memory November 27), the laboratory of proposals for socialist renewal in Cuba Participatory and Democratic Socialism (SPD group ), then the anarchist initiatives Taller Libertario Alfredo López, Locación Cristo Salvador and the Almario publishing initiative

The Alfredo López Libertarian Workshop, the Guardabosque Collective, Cristo Salvador Location were the ones who, in a context of decline of autonomous initiatives, developed the Libertarian Springs Days of Havana, which began in 2013, developing them almost without interruption until the recent June 2024, which In the end they had almost no activity. In that period of time we developed a large number of activities in family and public spaces (related and in dispute). We founded the small monthly Tierra Nueva. Space for interaction of anarchist people and ideas , the Guillotina Inútil publishing label , we contributed to launching the first autonomous environmental magazine in Cuba Guardabosque, the magazine Almario and under a common spirit Carne Negra. Fanzine about Visual Arts .

We reposition an anarchist perspective in the public debate of ideas in Cuba and repopulate with forgotten dates the calendars of historical events in Cuba dominated by Stalinists, liberals, Trotskyists and social democrats. After half a century we managed to regain presence in prestigious international anarchist spaces such as the Caracas Anarchist Video and Magazine Fair, the London Anarchist Book Fair, several IFA congresses, we received invitations or coordinated meetings with anarchist federations and initiatives in Venezuela, Dominican Republic, Colombia, Brazil, Mexico, Spain, France, Italy, Germany, Holland, Czech Republic, Slovakia . In 2018, thanks to the international visibility we achieved in the anarchist media around the world, we closed a successful crowdfunding campaign that allowed us to buy a space in Havana and we founded ABRA, the first anarchist social center in Cuba, after more than a century of absence in Cuba and in 2016 we launched to promote the creation of the Anarchist Federation of Central America and the Caribbean (FACC), which currently tries to survive minimally as a space for communication and intermittent coordination between comrades in the region.

2019 is the year of the beginning of the ongoing paralysis that leads to the crisis of the Libertarian Spring Days 2024 and the rest of the spaces that we started in 2013. This has occurred in the midst of a material situation marked by the global effects of the pandemic of COVID 2019, in which many of the coordination spaces for autonomous social initiatives were dismantled, but also for everything that has come with the post-pandemic in Cuba: the extinction of the public transportation system in the country, collective precariousness of salaries due to rampant and out of control inflation, the collapse of food supply systems, the national electrical system, the mass exodus of more than a million people in less than two years, the precarious aging of our parents, with poverty pensions and no medication coverage for our sick, with the government's liquidation of the public health system in Cuba, prioritizing real estate and hotel investments, which has condemned us to a life of reinforced hardship, where the central issue is survival. A survival under a more strengthened police surveillance and a more arbitrary legality, after the historic days of massive protests of July 11-13, 2021, against precariousness and government despotism, which have left a balance of more than 1,000 political prisoners , subjected to long sentences and terrible prison conditions, for the sole crime of exercising the right and duty of protest in the face of widespread misery, with no prospects for a government solution.

The small fourth generation of anarchists in Cuba are living, like the rest of Cuban society, the long agony of the so-called Cuban Revolution, devoured by the “Socialist State” born from it and which has given rise to a military-business oligarchy, entrenched in the powerful Cuban oligopoly GAESA (Grupo de Apoyo Empresarial SA), which manages million-dollar funds and investments in Cuba and outside Cuba, a mafia control of the dwindling state productive network, the hotel industry, the juicy export of medical services under conditions of semi-slavery to the workers and health professionals involved, the administration is also mafia-like about the use of the large remittances that Cuban emigrants send annually to their families, in conditions of kidnapping in Cuba and other dissimilar businesses, from which that oligarchy exploits to Cuban society itself and its capabilities, as an attached colonial territory and successfully finances an imposing repressive police and prison apparatus, with a gigantic and unquantified prison population, which allows them to manage the ongoing social collapse without large doses of explicit violence, as a true State within the Cuban State.

At the same time that they entrench themselves like parasites in the social body of the country, this oligarchy at the international level cries pitifully every year at the UN for its favorite mantra: “the immediate and unconditional lifting of the inhuman Yankee blockade of Cuba”, as “the problem most important thing that afflicts the Cuban Revolution", which is nothing other than the luxury exit to which these oligarchs aspire, which would allow them to stabilize for another decades, as a dominant group within Cuba, as the administrators and direct beneficiaries of the reestablishment of a neocolonial relationship with the United States, a relationship that they themselves broke in 1960-61 and now regret having founded “the first free territory in America,” under the thoughtless anti-Yankee impulses of the founder of the current Castro dynasty. Overcoming this moment of overflowing authoritarian and militaristic anti-imperialism of the Castro oligarchy would allow them to protect their domination of Cuba, under the Yankee protectorate, and sit at the table with them, before the Cuban bourgeoisie of Florida does so, as the pigs did. of Manor Farm with the humans they once expelled, with their victorious animal revolution, in George Orwell's masterpiece.

Regarding none of the questions raised above, we anarchists in Cuba have the slightest possibility of defining absolutely anything. In our hands we only have meager but essential tools: exercise and disseminate the desire for self-organization, mutual aid and free grassroots initiative in all issues of daily life, erode and denature internalized authoritarian logics, even among those we fight. governmental despotism, banish the need for new humanist commanders-in-chiefs from our lives and take charge among equals and like-minded people of our own precarious existence, in solidarity and, without doctrinal arrogance, attentive to the terrains, themes and spaces where the felt need arises of the grassroots organization and the assembly among equals, to contribute our proposals and our ideas. Anarchist tension runs through us all everywhere and is not the monopoly of those who define themselves as anarchists.

The collapse of the monumental Kafkaesque State that has been built in Cuba, supposedly to protect the Cuban Revolution, is part of an ongoing global crisis and we know that it will not be an automatically liberating event . It will depend on the wills, desires and organizational capacities of the communities and peoples that make up Cuba and the world. The three generations of anarchists in Cuba who have preceded us have been there and we will also be there.

Organized people, Matrias without States

Abelard

Anti*Capitalist Resistance (England & Cymru/Wales): Solidarity and unity now

By Anti*Capitalist Resistance

Published 7 August, 2024

First published at Anti*Capitalist Resistance.

1. The tragic murder of three young children by a 17 year old in Southport in July 2024 has been manipulated by opportunistic fascist forces to organise a series of riots across England. They have kick started a response from across the organised workers’ movement and threatened muslim communities.

2. The initial ‘reason’ for these protests was rapidly abandoned as they became excuses for violent racism targeting mosques, hotels housing asylum seekers and any individual Black people they could find. Whilst the counter protests often outnumbered the reactionaries, that wasn’t always the case, and, even where it was, communities were left vulnerable after the anti-racist protest had ended.

3. What we are seeing is the consequences of decades of neoliberalism; gutting our communities and turning us all into competitors in a global market, austerity stripping back our lives to the bare minimum, racist tabloids pumping out anti-immigrant hate to sell newspapers, politicians from both the Tories and even Labour stoking anti migrant sentiment to scoop up votes. The consequences of this are being played out now.

4. Whilst the riots themselves only involved a few thousand people in total, they point to a far right that is increasingly confident and believes that they have a much wider layer of support around them. The weekend before the tragic events in Southport, Tommy Robinson held a rally in Trafalgar Square of around 15,000 people, which he claimed was the ‘largest patriotic rally’ in history and also said it was close to 100,000 people.

5. These riots are another example of the growing threat of fascism to draw in wider numbers of far right, populist authoritarians. Conspiracy theories and online rumours, amplified by fascist social media accounts, encouraged people to take to the streets. They advocate for climate conspiracy theories as much as they perpetuate racist lies about immigrants. Many involved in or sympathetic to these riots deny the accusation that they are far right or fascists.

6. The far right no longer focus exclusively on race, instead they talk about multiculturalism being the problem, they target Muslims but claim this is not because of race but because ‘they are a different culture’, they claim not to target Black people but immigrants and refugees, which everyone knows is a code for Black people. They don’t complain about too many non-white people in movies or TV shows, they argue that modern film and TV is ‘too woke’. These codes, dog whistles, and inferences are the swamp in which reactionary ideas swim – plausible deniability whilst you throw a brick at a mosque. This framing even allows them to attract a handful of people from ethnic minority groups who support the Islamophobic agenda or want to protect their limited securities under capitalism by adding to the chorus of hate against newly arrived refugees – a “pulling up the ladder” approach.

7. This new alliance allows them to also make common cause with some Zionist groups protesting antisemitism. Rebranding their far right ideology away from explicit Nazism, they can claim to be the staunch defenders of the Zionist cause, but this is because the Zionist ideal of most Jewish people living in Israel coincides with their own wish to remove every Jewish person from Britain.

8. The same people also target trans people.Tommy Robinson’s demo was called on trans pride day, and a steward of the trans demo was attacked. Anyone on the margins, anyone who doesn’t conform to their rigid ideal of white, cis-heterosexual, right wing and ‘patriotic’ life, is a target.

9. The shift from presenting as classical Nazis (as the National Front once did) to a more amorphous ‘post-fascist’ far right populism is only an evolution of their strategy. They know they can reach larger numbers if they moderate their language, but behind the talk of multiculturalism it is clear that they want an all-out war against anyone who doesn’t fit their vision of a pure white Britain.

10. These violent nationalist racists are hoping to organise those people attracted to increasingly right wing ways of seeing the world, blaming refugees for a lack of housing, blaming immigrants for low wages, blaming trans people for undermining their concept of gender. For all their claim of protecting women and children, they are deeply misogynistic and oppose feminist demands for women’s bodily autonomy. The right want to force women into a traditional family life, and in some cases out of paid work

11. Their politics of grievance blames everyone except for those with power – all that anger targeted at some of the most marginalised and vulnerable in our society.

12. What the Labour government does to improve the quality of people’s lives and whether it calls out racism when it manifests is crucial. Labour Chancellor Rachel Reeves continuing the austerity agenda is only going to make the issue worse. Trade Unions and community campaigns need to fight for a reversal of these politics of scarcity that only drive more people into the arms of the far right.

13. While mobilising against the boot boys is important, we should not downplay the threat from the Faragist and Tory right whose policies and rhetoric have normalized feelings that could easily have led to the murder of asylum seekers this weekend

14. ACR stands in solidarity with communities being subjected to these violent riots and those who fear they might be next.

15. The far right must be opposed whilst their demonstrations are still small – given the decline of living standards and the growing crises within capitalism they are likely to continue to grow. Defence of our towns, hotels housing asylum seekers and immigration law offices through mass community mobilisation is central.

16. Self Defence is no offence for the communities that they are targeting with their violent race hate. We cannot rely on the police to protect us. The police force is institutionally racist and queerphobic itself, and calling for more police powers only continues the recent trend towards authoritarianism.

17. Trade unions and the workers’ movement must make the fight against the far right a greater priority. There must be an open debate in the workers’ movement about to how to defeat this reactionary wave. Trade unions need to discuss this issue at all levels and ensure it is debated at the TUC in September. Unions should take the initiative in organising unity meetings and rallies, which give a space for all those who want to speak out against the far-right to do so and be actively involved in organising counter-mobilisations to fascist demonstrations.They must also continue and increase their equality work, opposing all forms of oppression and discrimination

18. The large protests in Liverpool against the far right and the alliances being built between the left and the communities mobilised around Palestine show how we can build a mass movement to defeat these ideas and the fascist thugs. The sizeable trade union contingent on the Trans Liberation protest on 27 July shows a way forward too, linking the workers’ movement into wider social issues that can improve people’s lives in practical ways.

19. The protests also must be defeated politically. We need to advocate for the kind of politics that can undercut the grievances and despairs that are fuelling the far right. We defeat fascism by showing to people that socialism works and that the labour movement can fight to defend living standards.

20. We say:

• Build united resistance to the far-right and fascists
• Defend migrants, refugees and trans people
• Counter fascist threats, defend mosques.
• Self defence is no offence
• Organise resistance to Labour’s austerity policies
• Build a mass ecosocialist movement that fights for social ownership, participatory democracy and radical abundance as a way to counteract the despair and hatred of the far right.

 

Local communities and labor movements under threat in Sakartvelo: Interview with Georgian left activists

By Daria Saburova, Aleksandra Aroshvili & Mariam Shengelia

Published 7 August, 2024

First published at Commons.

In April-May 2024, tens of thousands of Georgians took to the streets to protest against the new "Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence," which was finally passed by the parliament on May 28th, overturning the presidential veto. This law requires NGOs that receive more than 20% of their funding from abroad to declare themselves as "foreign agents." Why did the proposal of this law cause such massive demonstrations? What are the social and political issues at stake behind the confrontation between the NGO sector and the Georgian state? How is the geopolitical competition between Russia and the West reflected in the local context, and are the Georgian protests somewhat comparable to the Ukrainian Maidan?

Commons spoke to two Georgian activists. Aleksandra Aroshvili is an independent researcher and activist based in Tbilisi. She is the author of multiple publications on social policy, political economy, various forms of inequality, informal and atypical work, women’s migration, extractivism, and ecology. Over the years, she participated in social movements and has founded various public campaigns. Mariam Shengelia is a PhD student in Philosophy and an activist living in France, who participates in multiple self-organized struggles, notably in no-borders and anti-imperialist movements.

For over a month, Georgia has been shaken by massive protests against the "foreign influence" law. Could you say a few words about the content of this law and the context of its adoption? Why did it provoke such a reaction in Georgian society?

Aleksandra: The law on "Transparency of Foreign Influence," previously known as the "Foreign Agent’s Law," is identical to the legislation introduced by the ruling party a year ago. It was subsequently retracted amidst significant protests. Despite assurances that the law would not resurface, it was reintroduced a year later and ultimately passed, despite nearly two months of widespread demonstrations in April and May 2024. It even overcame the President's veto.

According to the law, every form of non-profit association that receives more than 20% of its annual income from a foreign source—whether it is a foreign state, a foreign organization or collective, or a person who is a citizen of a foreign country—is obliged to register as an entity that conveys the interests of a foreign power in the country.

What to bear in mind is that Georgia is one of the most dependent countries on foreign finances in all areas - public sector, economy, political and social life. This can be seen, first of all, in the functioning of state structures: reforms and public initiatives are mostly financed by international institutions, while the economy heavily depends on foreign direct investment, which leads to an outflow of resources, low-paid and unstable jobs, and the destruction of the environment. Secondly, the survival of many families in Georgia depends on remittances from emigrants who have left the country to work. Furthermore, many public activities, be they educational, scientific, independent media, trade unions, civil society, artistic initiatives, healthcare initiatives, or other services for women and children, rely on associations that are forced to seek foreign grants. If organizations refuse to register as a “foreign agent” and submit an annual financial declaration (which is actually not only financial but is aimed to control the content of the activity), they face large fines and eventually the freezing of their accounts and assets, leading to full liquidation.

Some articles of the law are even more severe. For example, the Ministry of Justice, based on its decision or an anonymous statement, can initiate an investigation against any organization that, in its opinion, may have more than 20% foreign funding. During this investigation, the Ministry can request all types of information, including personal and confidential information, from any person, association, or organization. With the government's powerful propaganda tools already blackmailing people daily, it's not hard to see why they might need people's personal information. In the last two years, everyone who criticized the government, including those who struggled against disastrous economic and infrastructural projects, condemned the repression in the cultural sphere, or raised the issue of social inequality, was already declared a foreign “agent” by the government via its propaganda. This repression is now being institutionalized.

Another issue is that if there is a people's association whose finances come only from donations, mainly from migrants, this can already be considered foreign funding, as many Georgian migrants are already citizens of other countries. With this, the government blocks the only source of non-donor-dependent funding. For example, Saving The Rioni Valley, a local public movement, existed only on donations from people, mainly migrants. It was this movement that the government most often cited as the justification for passing the law.

This law is often compared to the Russian legislation on "foreign agents" and even labeled as "pro-Russian." Is this really the case? How can these accusations be reconciled with the government's engagement with the euro integration agenda?

Aleksandra: The introduction of this law coincides with the new geopolitical situation created by the launch of the Russia-Ukraine war and the conservative turn of the Georgian government. Previously, the government had been consolidating a pro-Western course and pursuing a liberal agenda for the past 12 years. It is noteworthy that this government is itself a technocratic one, grown from the liberal NGO class. Labeling the law as "Russian" is primarily related to the authoritarian content of the law. But it should also be noted that the connection with Russia has been a prominent topic on the political and mainstream media agenda of Georgia for decades, with various factions blaming each other for being pro-Russian. Given that our territories are occupied, this topic is particularly sensitive. Post-Soviet Georgia, largely under the governance of neoliberal, economy-driven governments, is a country where political debates and exposure rarely revolve around development issues but rather focus on affiliation with geopolitical actors. In the context of this bipolar geopolitical agenda — Russia versus the West — and the threat of Georgia losing its EU candidate status, received just a few months ago, people on the street tend to see the new law as a signal that Georgia is moving away from the EU and closer to Russia. This becomes a matter of existential importance, as independence is perhaps the only issue on which there is complete social consensus in this post-Soviet-burdened state.

But the situation is much more complex in reality. The government is actually looking for a rapprochement with Turkey, China, and Azerbaijan, with Georgia potentially serving as a future trade and transit corridor between these countries and the European Union. Significant infrastructural and energy projects are part of this plan and the law explicitly targets groups and individuals who "obstruct energy projects," such as local activists who oppose the construction of hydroelectric power plants (HPPs). Closer political integration with these countries is supposed to help implement the economic agreements. During a meeting with Turkey’s Prime Minister Erdoğan, Georgia's Prime Minister said that Turkey and Azerbaijan were exemplary forms of "sovereign governance." Given Turkey's repressive policies in recent years, including the construction of large hydroelectric power plants in Anatolia and the suppression of counter-movements, the new law is likely aimed, among other things, at silencing actors in Georgia who oppose these economic plans.

Simultaneously with the adoption of this law, there have been other significant legislative actions taken by the ruling party. These include the adoption of an offshore law, changes to the cumulative pension law, and the signing of energy and economic memorandums with Turkey and China.

For those of us who have been criticizing Georgia's development policies for years, the trajectory that Georgia is taking is very clear. It should be noted that this trajectory doesn’t imply any significant structural changes in the economy or international trade relations, but rather, suggests an expansion in the degree, intensity, and potential for neo-colonial plunder of Georgia and the extraction of its natural resources, as well as the exploitation of its people.

What is your analysis of the social and political composition of the protests?

Aleksandra: We are talking about the largest mobilization (approximately 100,000 or more people in the streets only in Tbilisi) in recent Georgian history, involving students, professionals, newly formed trade unions in the arts, teachers, and others. However, we cannot ignore that this protest is primarily urban, taking place in Tbilisi and other cities. This doesn’t mean that the protests are predominantly urban middle class, but can rather be explained by substantial internal migration within the country. Villages and small towns, for the most part, stand deserted, with the remaining inhabitants primarily employed in the civil service and their livelihoods heavily reliant on the government. Some of them believe that this law simply seeks more transparency, often accompanied by two more profound beliefs instilled by the propaganda. The first belief is that the law is aimed at preventing the Western powers from dragging us into a war with Russia, while the government is the guarantor of peace. The second belief is that Georgia's main problem is not the existing social crisis, but the culturally “sensitive” issues, such as “LGBT propaganda” and other issues. In both cases, as the government portrays it, the responsibility lies on the West-funded NGOs. It should also be noted that before its conservative shift, the same government had strong collaborations with the NGOs, enacted liberal laws, and stigmatized those who opposed them as backward. However, it has now begun to sow division among the people by constructing an image of the internal enemy, adopting an overtly authoritarian and repressive stance. This includes defamatory messages on people's homes, posters, physical assaults, injuries, the mobilization of violent groups, ambiguous criminal charges against ordinary rally participants, and more. While the law aims to destroy any possibility of associative life and solidarity, the portrayal of the protests as exclusively middle-class, ignoring the multitude of factors mentioned above, is an unfair and biased assessment.

What demands do protesters put forward beyond the withdrawal of the law (if any)? What is their strategy now that the law has been adopted?

Aleksandra: While opposition parties, largely linked to the previous government, attempted to shift the focus towards regime change, for the majority of protesters the primary demand remained the repeal of the law. Despite the widespread mobilization, the law was still passed. This disregard of mass protests makes peaceful organization on any issue increasingly difficult in the future.

Some people are now placing their hopes on the October 2024 elections. However, given that the existing political class lacks the people's sympathy, and that for many of us, there are practically no viable alternatives, the situation is dire.

What is the perspective of the Georgian left on these events? Is it involved in the movement? Are there debates or maybe even divisions within the left concerning the strategy to adopt towards the protests?

Aleksandra: The left in Georgia is indeed small, fragmented, and lacking integration, which hinders its ability to present a unified position or front in the protests with a cohesive agenda. Various individual movements, workers, leftists, and trade unionists have participated in the protests. At the same time, some segments of the left or former left seem to be aligning more closely with the state's conservative narrative and endorsing the government's actions.

Notably, Georgia has just one independent left-wing online media outlet with relatively small coverage. Similarly, left-wing groups involved in the protests have no power to influence the protest's narrative. But leftists who, in recent years, have actively engaged in physical confrontations with the police, defended the environment, participated in mass strikes, fought against evictions, or fought for progressive social initiatives, see the law as an institutionalization of violence. Despite the dominant narrow narrative, which focuses solely on the slogan "not to Russian law," they insisted on their presence in the streets.

Some on the Left suggest that the protests are driven and dominated by liberal NGOs responsible for promoting austerity policies and that the working class has therefore little interest in taking part in them. Do you agree with this view of the situation? How do you evaluate the progressive political potential of the protests?

Aleksandra: Yes, some leftists in the international press aligned with the government's rhetoric and attempted to reduce both the economic and democratic crisis in the country leading to this protest to a problem of liberal NGOs, failing to grasp the context and offer a genuinely critical perspective. But the primary responsibility for consolidating austerity policies and fostering an increasingly wilder neoliberal economy in Georgia lies on the Georgian government. They have not only perpetuated but also exaggerated the libertarian economic approach of the previous administration. A majority of influential NGOs in Georgia during this period supported these economic policies, but there were a few organizations that actively engaged in supporting strikes, ecological and environmental protests, critical scientists, and contributed to the emergence of a left-wing intellectual tradition. It's evident that the rhetoric on “"influential NGOs" seeks to silence these dissenting voices, including workers, movements against extraction and exploitation, eco-migrants, residents facing eviction, and others.

To continue the previous question: what does the adoption of this law mean for the progressive, and even more specifically working-class struggles in Georgia?

Aleksandra: Georgia does not have a strong working class. Its economy, except for a few industrial cities, is based on precarious jobs. Unemployment is still high, and a very large number of our citizens are employed abroad, legally or illegally. The strikes rarely gain any important victories for the workers. In recent years, progressive struggles have been more successful in their battles to preserve the living environment, against large hydropower plants and the privatization of forests. The fact that these movements managed to organize better than the workers is also a structural fact and is related to the regimes of economic accumulation dominant in Georgia. In the previous decade, accumulation was mostly based on privatization and deregulation, which completely disempowered the workers. Today, the mode of accumulation has shifted to logics of dispossession, pushing the exploitation of the natural environment, such as water, forests, and lands to its maximum. Deprived of their living environment, people have no choice but to resist.

It is not surprising that the government attempts to suppress organizations and movements working on social and environmental issues, and the existing solidarity between them. Drawing from my experience of being involved in the local struggles in recent years, I believe that today the progressive left in Georgia primarily grapples with anti-sovereign and anti-democratic economic and infrastructural projects. In this sense, this law signifies not only repression against NGOs but also against local peoples and workers in alliance with them, the scientists whose expertise these processes require, and the disintegration of their unity, leading to vital damage to their connections.

The historical destiny of Georgia has often been compared to that of Ukraine: in the 2000s, both countries experienced "color revolutions"; even before Ukraine, in 2008, Georgia faced war with Russia who supported and recognized the self-proclaimed Republic of Abkhazia. Similar comparisons are now being made between the current demonstrations in Georgia and the Ukrainian Maidan: pro-EU protests headed by a liberal-nationalist alliance vs. supposedly pro-Russian government. How accurate would you say these parallels are? Do they help or harm our understanding of the events in Georgia?

Mariam: Georgian society should be considered within its specific Caucasian historical context and geography, cultural and linguistic issues. However, many parallels could be drawn between the geopolitical and economic situations of post-Soviet Ukraine and Georgia. Firstly, for centuries Georgia and Ukraine have shared the same Russian imperial yoke: first Tsarist, then Soviet, and currently Putinist. Since the “color revolutions,” supported by the US, both countries have been subjected to a new form of domination, that of the soft power of Euro-Atlantic neoliberal hegemony. Although the Maidan and the current protests in Georgia cannot be reduced to the manipulative games of territorial Russian imperialism and Western neocolonial hegemony, one must also understand the underlying geopolitical interests at play.

In Georgia and Ukraine, the "revolutionary" governments of Saakashvili and Yushchenko introduced vassal regimes to the Euro-Atlantic bloc, governed by neoliberal principles. However, the pro-Russian turn at the state level occurred in Ukraine under the governance of Yanukovych, while in Georgia, Saakashvili's neoliberal and police state order was still in full swing, thanks to a repressive and bloody regime without equal. The current protest movement in Georgia recalls Maidan in the sense that it opposes subordination to the Russian imperial regime, while erupting from its own local economic, social, and cultural anchorage, as a radical expression of discontent, anger, and distrust of authoritarian state institutions by the youth and insurgent masses.

These insurrections, which display national and European flags like at Maidan, also feature traditional ethnographic dances and songs in public spaces, expressing a broader sense of being historically suppressed by colonial external forces. It is a form of commemoration, notably of the collective history of subjugation to Tsarism, the annexation of the Democratic Republic of Georgia by the Soviet army in 1921, and finally, the recent history of tumultuous struggles for independence from the USSR and senseless wars, where Russia, just like in Ukraine, presented itself as the "savior of oppressed ethnic minorities." Thus, the recognition of the self-proclaimed Republic of Abkhazia in 2008 only completes the strategy initiated since the beginning of the Abkhazian war (1991 - 1993), following the old divide et impera scheme, to consolidate its territorial grip.

Today, we are still digesting the collective war traumas — massacres of Ossetians and Abkhazians, ethnic cleansing of Georgians and forced displacements, breaking inter-ethnic and even familial ties — at the same time as we try to move forward, beyond the same murderous regime.

Ukraine and Georgia are both former Soviet republics that find themselves at the crossroads of opposing geopolitical interests. And while the Russian hard power represents a constant threat of armed conflict and descent into authoritarianism, the influence of Western soft power accelerates the disintegration of the social state and puts new pressures on migration policies. How should we interpret the demands for EU integration, largely driven by these protest movements, in this context?

Mariam: The request for integration into the EU must indeed be understood in the context of power distribution between multipolar blocks. For a part of the Georgian population, integration into the EU seems to be a miracle solution for the defense of our territories and integrity. Another part of the population, notably those in exile and migration who have experienced numerous illegal and racist procedures from European institutions, knows that these hopes are illusory.

In reality, the Euro-Atlantic bloc hardly seems willing to act upon its promise of integrating a peripheral, non-border country within Fortress Europe, though it does want to map Georgia under its zone of influence. However, the EU manages to maintain this illusion, thanks to the strategic granting of candidate status for membership (in November 2023), under pressure from protests in Georgia, following the Commission's initial refusal. Rather than becoming a full-fledged member, the EU would rather give us the status of watchdog and military auxiliary of Frontex. These are the EU's border externalization policies, a strategy that endorses control, push-back, detention, and repression measures of exiled populations, thanks to exorbitant military-police mechanisms deployed in third states (such as Balkan countries, Turkey, Tunisia, Morocco, etc.).

How does the left navigate in this context and what strategies can it develop in order to push forward progressive class politics?

Mariam: Faced with the consequences of the economic collapse triggered by the dissolution of the USSR, years of devastating wars, and rapacious neoliberal policies, it is particularly difficult for a handful of left-wing collectives to lead an offensive struggle beyond strategies of collective survival.

Unlike Georgia, in Ukraine, the non-institutional left is much more heterogeneous, with a strong presence of anti-authoritarian and anarchist groups. However, in the context of the polarization of imperialist blocs, both in Ukraine and Georgia, there is a lack of understanding of the neo-colonial, racist, and fascist issues of Euro-Atlantic powers. This is quite understandable, due to the experience of frontal and armed Russian imperialism.

Facing assaults of unleashed privatization, regional and rural popular mobilizations become more effective actors of resistance to both local and external oppression, than proper left-wing collectives. Movements like those in the Rioni valley, as well as many other mobilizations in peripheral regions and villages such as Tchiantura and Balda, defend their living spaces, natural resources, and livability conditions, defying policies of predatory exploitation and extractivism. The imperial domination of third powers, be it Russia, Turkey, or the West, is increasingly reconfigured into extractivist economic hegemony, benefiting foreign and local financial elites. Their new legislative instrument, the Offshore Law, will only accelerate ecological, economic, and cultural devastation. What these movements have highlighted with their forceful actions, and what left-wing movements often fail to do worldwide (with the exception of the Zapatistas and the Kurds), is to adopt a broader worldview and political vision that integrates cultural, religious, and community identity issues with spheres of politics, economics, and ecology, without compromising the ethical and political principles of self-organization.

If current protests destabilize the existing order through mass takeovers of public spaces, this eruption must be fueled by practices of self-organization and daily political organization rooted in time. For the movement to articulate what the people want beyond rejecting current policies, it is crucial to find ways to create strong bonds of solidarity and political alliances between protesters in urban areas, peripheral mobilizations, over-indebted popular classes, migrant workers, and queer communities.

How do you assess the reactions of the international left to the protests in Georgia? How can international solidarity be built in a multipolar world, where uprisings in the periphery are often marked by contradictory social dynamics and where class conflict tends to be disguised behind geopolitical struggles?

Mariam: With the exception of some internationalist collectives, the far left, especially in Western Europe, struggles to develop positions of anti-imperialist solidarity that do not reproduce the divisive dualism of campism. This weak presence of radical anti-imperialism is, of course, linked to Western colonial heritage, as well as the growing influence of the far-right and neofascist powers in the EU, which intensify border militarization, anti-immigration policies, and police violence, particularly against racialized people.

The issue is not so much a lack of understanding but rather an ideological position critiquing Western colonialism while overlooking the history and current experiences of other forms of peripheral imperialism and territorial colonization. This position is inherently Eurocentric, perpetuating the notion that the West is the only real actor of power distribution.

However, we can mention the no-borders movements, self-organized solidarity and anti-racist groups, as well as squat movements, which create dynamics of solidarity and mutual aid with exiled people, as examples of spaces that manage to overcome the sterility of ideological postures formulated from the standpoint of the center.

Above all, hope lies in constructing alliances and convergence among oppressed peoples and cultures across peripheral regions, from the Caucasus to Ukraine and Palestine. Such solidarities are evident in alliances between social movements and solidarity actions with Palestine, and the presence of Armenians and Azerbaijanis at Tbilisi demonstrations. Certain internationalist collectives in Europe foster spaces where experiences of popular uprisings and resistance from Syria, Kurdistan, or Mexico are shared.

But when facing imperial powers, which are like a hydra with a thousand heads, we need to engage in consistent and continuous action. By doing so, we can recognize that the Mapuche people and guardians of the Rioni valley fight against the same policies of natural resource grabbing, that the same Norwegian company, Clean Energy Group, was involved in major hydroelectric infrastructure projects in Georgia and Chile. That capitalist power, responsible for impoverishment and land dispossession, neocolonialism, and extractivism, is the common enemy we are struggling against. Such understanding forms the basis for building solidarities.