There is no nefarious deed, no criminal passion that interested parties do not try to excuse, justify, and even glorify by means of noble reasons. This is, in essence, a source of comfort, for it shows that certain loftier ideals devised by humanity over the course of its evolution have by now seeped into the universal consciousness and linger and prevail even in times of the greatest aberration. But this does not make it any less necessary that the deception be exposed, and the sordid interests and atavistic brutality lurking under the cloak of noble sentiments be denounced.
Thus, lying assurances that the undertaking would be simple, and about the great benefits the Italian proletariat would reap from it were not enough to justify and persuade the people to embrace the loot-and-pillage war that the Italian government meant to wage on the people of Libya. It would be really too outrageous if a man, other than a complete brute, were to be incited to carry out a murder on the assurance that the intended victim is defenseless and has lots of money and that there is no risk of being discovered and punished. So other, loftier motives had to be marshalled, and the naïve persuaded that this was a rare opportunity when one might become rich while performing a selfless act of magnanimity. And they came up with the need to exercise “the nation’s energies” and show the world what “our folk” are worth, their right and duty to spread civilization and, first and foremost, love of country and the glory of Italy.
We shall not bother here with the supposed material benefits, first of all because, in our view, these could never justify aggression, and then because these days few people have any belief left in such benefits, unless we are talking about the profiteering by a tiny band of monopolists and military suppliers. But it is worth our while to take a closer look at the moral arguments that have been deployed to justify the war.
You are surprised that soldiers are taught that it is right to kill people in certain cases and in war, while in the books admitted to be holy by those who so teach. there is nothing like such a permission, but, on the contrary, not only is all murder forbidden but all insulting of others is forbidden also, and we are told not to do to others what we do not wish done to us. And you ask, Is there not some fraud in all this? And if so, then for whose sake is it committed?
Yes, there is a fraud, committed for the sake of those accustomed to live on the sweat and blood of other men, and who therefore have perverted, and still pervert, Christ’s teaching, given to man for his good, but which has now, in its perverted form, become a chief source of human misery.
In this hasty update, we review some of today’s efforts to resist the Russian invasion of Ukraine—from both Russians within the repressive conditions of Russian society and Ukrainians experiencing the full force of military attacks. There is a great deal more to be said about this subject than we can cover here. We will return to analysis shortly, but for now, we aim chiefly to put this information at your disposal rapidly. Those who require background may begin here for a Russian perspective or here for a Ukrainian perspective.
Putin, with his imperialist ambitions, threatens to invade Ukraine. Lukashenko is ready to support his Kremlin master by sending Belarusian soldiers to war in another country. The attempts to pump patriotism into the Belarusian society, though passing, are very modest. Soldiers will have to die for the Russian tsar.
But, as before, every soldier has a choice. Even if that choice here and now seems improbable. At critical moments, we all show great determination. Russia’s war for influence in Ukraine is not a war of Belarusian soldiers. Dictator Lukashenko and Emperor Putin are the true enemies of the peoples of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia.
They want to throw you as meat to the front lines, to show the power of a man who will never appear on this front. Courage and comradely spirit are unknown to him and his entourage.
Soldiers, in your hands is a weapon that can free you and your comrades from useless bloodshed and war. Revolt against the officers and the greedy politicians. If anyone should perish in all this conflict, it is the Belarussian dictatorship and the Russian empire!
For world without wars, dictators and empires! Anarchists of Belarus
A Statement from Russian Anarchists against Russian Aggression in Ukraine (Published in English by the CrimethInc. Collective and Libcom.org)
Yesterday, on February 21, an extraordinary meeting of the Russian Security Council was held. As part of this theatrical act, Putin forced his closest servants to publicly “ask” him to recognize the independence of the so-called “people’s republics” of the Luhansk People’s Republic [LPR] and Donetsk People’s Republic [DPR] in eastern Ukraine.
It is quite obvious that this is a step towards the further annexation of these territories by Russia—no matter how it is formalized (or not formalized) legally. In fact, the Kremlin ceases to consider the LPR and DPR part of Ukraine and finally makes them its protectorate. “First the recognition of independence, then annexation”: this sequence was already worked out in 2014 in Crimea. This is also clear from Naryshkin’s stupid reservations at the meeting of the Security Council (“Yes, I support the entry of these territories into the Russian Federation “).1 Since the meeting, as it turned out, was broadcast on tape [rather than live], and these “reservations” were not cut out, but left in—the hint is clear.
Over the past decade, the world experienced a notable increase in far-right movements. The ghosts of the 1930s seemed to be reawakening and a neo- or post-fascist wave extending its shadow over multiple continents. It reached its peak between 2016 and 2018, with the elections of Trump and Bolsonaro in the US and Brazil and, in the middle, the clash between Marine Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron in France. Many far-right parties entered EU governments and some “exceptions” came to an end, with the appearance of Alternative für Deutschland and Vox on the stage of German and Spanish politics. Authoritarian, nationalist and xenophobic governments emerged everywhere, from Putin’s Russia to Modi’s India and Erdogan’s Turkey. The world was turning dark: neo-fascism, post-fascism, right-wing populism? The debate over what to call it remained open, but everyone understood that fascism was now more than a realm of historical scholarship; it was one again a question on the contemporary agenda.
After the Russian occupation of Crimea and the deployment of troops on the territory of Donbass, part of the Belarusian opposition decided to give up trying to get rid of Lukashenko. The fear that Belarus might lose its independence became more important than the desire for freedom. At that time, many Belarusians began to ask what these Ukrainians had achieved – the loss of territories, the hybrid war with Putin, the economic ruin, and all for the sake of some abstract rights. And only now we are finally coming to the truth that the Lukashenko regime is not a protector of peace. It is rather the opposite: the dictatorship believes that there is some strong leader who knows better what is good for the people. And such a high ego is extremely dangerous for everyone.
Anarchists have never welcomed wars because they distract the population from the real problems that surround us on a constant basis. Instead of striving for freedom, the populace begins to discuss the successes of advancement on the front lines. The place of international solidarity is taken by nationalism, which has turned brothers, sisters and comrades into mortal enemies. There is nothing progressive about war. War is the triumph of a misanthropic ideology of power. Today, as always, war is the business of the rulers, except that ordinary people die in it. In a patriotic trance, or simply for the money.
The Covid 19 pandemic has impacted every aspect of human life. It has had a devastating effect on people’s physical and mental health, social relations and communities, our livelihoods, and freedom to move about. It has also significantly curtailed our ability to organise effective political protests and strengthened the hand of the State.
The Covid 19 pandemic has impacted every aspect of human life. It has had a dev-astating effect on people’s physical and mental health, social relations and communities, our livelihoods, and freedom to move about. It has also significantly curtailed our ability to organise effective political protests and strengthened the hand of the State.
It has highlighted the fundamental problems of global capitalism and its need for continued growth and profit. The State’s support for those goals, has been behind the origin, spread, and tragic consequences of the disease. The need for revolution has never been so apparent.
However, as we struggle to fight back, the weaknesses of the working-class movement have also been revealed. We have seen a mounting death toll, health services overwhelmed, key workers treated as expendable, and the economic costs borne by those least able to afford it, yet resistance has been negligible. Nevertheless, the pandemic has also brought out actions and sensibilities that are key to social transformation: solidarity, mutual aid, self-organisation, and internationalism.
Covid-19 and other zoonotic diseases that have emerged over the last few decades are caused by the spread of global capitalism. As capitalism takes over more and more land for logging, mining, and agribusiness, wild animals are losing their habitats and coming into contact with humans, creating the potential for diseases to ‘spillover’ from other species to humans. This situation is exacerbated by the demand for exotic animal meat by the growing middle and upper classes around the world.
Photograph by Philippe Lebruman published in Sud Ouest
With french presidential elections upon us (and with other european elections scheduled for this year), we share a short, but timely, piece by Jacques Rancière, on the less than surreptitious ways in which racism is played upon and promoted in contemporary “liberal democracies” (very recently re-published with Acta.Zone, 15/12/2021)
…
In this column published in Le Monde in 1997, Jacques Rancière ironically described how the media and politicians from various backgrounds contribute to the dissemination of racist ideas and offered them “seven rules” in order to continue to reinforce the theses of the extreme right.
His text, published more than 20 years ago, seems particularly relevant to us a few months before a presidential election which already promises to be saturated with racist ideas, by incessant polemics and obsessions with an extreme right assured of benevolent or pseudo-indignant media coverage.
Rancière’s text reminds us how much the far right owes to the French bourgeoisie and its political and media relays, objective allies that have always been there, which year after year allow it to extend its hegemony by validating its themes, its lexicon, its obsessions. It points to the hypocrisy of those who, every five years, present themselves as the last rampart against the coming fascism, while creating the conditions that allow it to prosper, and reinforces the idea that only popular, anti-racist and anti-capitalist self-organisation will make it possible to stop the current process of fascistisation.
The following text is part of the volume, Les Trente Inglorieuses to be published by La Fabrique in January 2022.
From Roarmag (13/01/2021), a reflection on the limits of the State as a vehicle for anti-racism, by William C. Anderson.
The life of a Black radical who fled state violence in the US only to find it under a different name in the Soviet Union shows the state is never the solution.
To be free, to walk in dignity—for these precious privileges some men will go anywhere, sacrifice anything.
Homer Smith
Black America is not guaranteed much, if anything, under the category of citizenship. It has never prevented us descendants of enslaved Africans from falling victim to repression, exclusion and constant infractions. Our supposed rights are rarely rights at all. They are bendable and disposable terms that are in constant need of defense. In the US court system, which is systematically structured against us, many have sought to strengthen — or at least maintain — protections which are supposed to be guaranteed to citizens. Rights around voting, food, housing and other necessities are always retractable because the white supremacist state has never completely legitimized Black citizenry.
This sort of alienation has been a radicalizing force for many Black people throughout the history of the US. It can inspire people to push for better conditions to varying degrees ranging from reformist to revolutionary. The life of Lovett Fort-Whiteman, an early Black communist who migrated to the Soviet Union, represents the latter and complicates the former in many ways. However, the underappreciated complexities of his life demand that we question much more than just the US state; it forces us to think more critically about race, place and statism more largely.
Against War: Errico Malatesta
The War and the Anarchists (1912)
There is no nefarious deed, no criminal passion that interested parties do not try to excuse, justify, and even glorify by means of noble reasons. This is, in essence, a source of comfort, for it shows that certain loftier ideals devised by humanity over the course of its evolution have by now seeped into the universal consciousness and linger and prevail even in times of the greatest aberration. But this does not make it any less necessary that the deception be exposed, and the sordid interests and atavistic brutality lurking under the cloak of noble sentiments be denounced.
Thus, lying assurances that the undertaking would be simple, and about the great benefits the Italian proletariat would reap from it were not enough to justify and persuade the people to embrace the loot-and-pillage war that the Italian government meant to wage on the people of Libya. It would be really too outrageous if a man, other than a complete brute, were to be incited to carry out a murder on the assurance that the intended victim is defenseless and has lots of money and that there is no risk of being discovered and punished. So other, loftier motives had to be marshalled, and the naïve persuaded that this was a rare opportunity when one might become rich while performing a selfless act of magnanimity. And they came up with the need to exercise “the nation’s energies” and show the world what “our folk” are worth, their right and duty to spread civilization and, first and foremost, love of country and the glory of Italy.
We shall not bother here with the supposed material benefits, first of all because, in our view, these could never justify aggression, and then because these days few people have any belief left in such benefits, unless we are talking about the profiteering by a tiny band of monopolists and military suppliers. But it is worth our while to take a closer look at the moral arguments that have been deployed to justify the war.
Continue reading →