A - I n f o s
a multi-lingual news service by, for, and about anarchists **

News in all languages
Last 40 posts (Homepage) Last two weeks' posts

The last 100 posts, according to language
Greek_ 中文 Chinese_ Castellano_ Català_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Türkçe_ The.Supplement

The First Few Lines of The Last 10 posts in:
Greek_ 中文 Chinese_ Castellano_ Català_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Türkçe
First few lines of all posts of last 24 hours || of past 30 days | of 2002 | of 2003 | of 2004 | of 2005 | of 2006 | of 2007 | of 2008 | of 2009 | of 2010 | of 2011 | of 2012 | of 2013

Syndication Of A-Infos - including RDF | How to Syndicate A-Infos
Subscribe to the a-infos newsgroups
{Info on A-Infos}

(en) Uniao Popular Anarquista - UNIPA - Causa do Povo #68 - Long live the People's Levante: the combative youth and the rise of mass struggle in Brazil! (pt)[machine translation]

Date Sun, 24 Nov 2013 09:55:12 +0200


Popular protests in different regions (Rio Grande do Sul, Goiania, Sao Paulo and then Rio de Janeiro and Brasilia) who took on the theme of combating transport costs are presented as the main element of juncture of the last eight years. They represent a practical and theoretical challenge to the revolutionary movement. What are its causes? Which subjects? It is a "new" movement? It represents a "total" opposition to earlier movements? They are compatible with democracy? What is the real agenda of the movements? ---- Firstly we have to historically situate the protests. We can say that the Lula government had instruments containment of social movements. Both macroeconomic and political, of cooptation. From the inauguration of Dilma these instruments have entered into the process of deterioration. The struggles of the workers of the great works, the struggles of indigenous peoples. After the great strike of the civil service and universities in 2012. The strike of the universities and the participation of the student movement in the fight against Dilma Government partly prepared the ground for the fights that would hatch in 2013. Many militants today were formed during these days.

The bourgeois media and social Pseudoscientists try, astonished, to explain the emergence of the mobilizations. Only they thought society was stopped or contemplated in the Government PT. And try to nullify the collective subjects and create a mystification that movements arose by "social networking". Social networks are a fundamental means. But were not the main subject.

In this sense, we can say that two components are combined. On one hand, a change in the government's field director. UNE and UNE-FSO decided to break with its policy of tying the student movement and lead students into the streets. Another, a change in the bases, various militant and independent collectives and some linked to leftist parties, came together for mobilizations. Therefore, there is not a totally "new" movement, nor is it a mere replication of the student movement. The student movement is presenting advance an internal crisis between the government and the PT have tested their social bases in 2012. Last year saw the first clash between the party articulation / Federal Government and union joint Treasury. This year we see the clash between PCdoB and its mass organizations, UNE and the Dilma Government. Ie, the governing field begins to reflect the contradictions.

But the combination of these changes of direction and explain the foundations of the national character of the acts. Explains neither its size nor qualitative dynamics, which was completely unpredictable and depended on the arrival on the scene of a single factor: the working and university students and unorganized sectors (and therefore not protected by governismo and the for-governismo) . Social networks were the means of reaching these sectors. Were not the subject. It is difficult to define causes, but acts as participation grew in increased radicalization and repression.

The idea of ââcanceling the collective, multiple and plural subjects that there is not naive. It just reinforces the idea that workers are not organized, are incapable. Or capital (Internet technology) and individual (social networks), it is subject or want a centralized, formalized subject. The employee and their local and particular collective forms are erased from history. The technological fetish is part of the ideological campaign of the bourgeoisie to deny the existence of mass action.

But being spontaneous and organized both organized and spontaneous because spontaneous self-organized because the acts were not effectively addressed in its entirety by any political force. And that's exactly why they gradually assumed the dimension and combative after popular uprising in the 16th, 17th and 18th of June, in an attempt to protest in stadiums (RJ and DF) and the attempt to occupy Congress, the occupation of the Legislative Assembly of Rio de Janeiro (ALERJ) and then the mayor of SÃo Paulo. What does this mean? Vandalism against public property? Against historical heritage?

The acts were aimed at two main targets: mega-events, ie, the developmental model of the PT and against the core of state power. We should do an analysis of events and question the bourgeois campaign of criminalization of popular direct action. We situate the outbreak of violent protests in recent historical context.

The working and student youth has suffered from political persecution and violence of PM on the outskirts of Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo and Brasilia (remember, a student was killed in a raid Brasilia in 2013 and the brutal repression within USP). But in addition, the first attempt to build "peaceful" actions with the slogan "without violence" launched by the reformists was disastrous. The violence was the initiative of the police.

What was the strategy of the discourse of corporate media? Find an "initial attack" to justify repression and put the performance of the policy as a response to violence. But beyond the repression that we could use to question this discourse, there are several specific actions in recent months: 1) killings and arrests of youth and students in various parts of Brazil, 2) the violent eviction of the Village Maracanà in Rio de Janeiro in the first semester, 3) the actions of police abuse in the first days of protest. Ie, violence was given. What was missing was the resistance. And she came.

The sectors of the marginal mass organizations and the political system is organized in small groups and individually. Hundreds of small groups of students and workers formed in the act of Rio de Janeiro. Not only to face the streets, but the groups of lawyers and doctors that formed to support the fight. Political organizations such as UNIPA and others were a small universe within another force of which it is part, but that is not organized, or better, which is self-organizing for strength and for social and political demands. And it is clear that the movement is heterogeneous in its composition and ideological expression, which is not yet defined. But this is their biggest challenge and greatest virtue.

The Taking of ALERJ on June 18 expressed the desire of all struggle. Of all who suffer and die in public hospitals. The suffering public transport. Those who suffer at the hands of the police and the state. The "thugs", the "dangerous classes", undesirable always been there. They were whispering through the vote invalid, through passive resistance. And now began the action. And the action they are faced with state violence and symbolic violence of journalists and pseudo-scientists. And certainly this process, maturing and developing, will be the key factor for political conjuncture.


1 - The Fight against reaction: classism struggle between reform and revolution x

Popular protests provoked a quick reaction of the bourgeoisie: the criminalization. They taxed the movement of "turmoil" in the early days and called repression. Police brutality and public support led, first, to the contradictions and then a line. The bourgeoisie, the State and the corporate media have created a polarization between "x vandalism peaceful movement."

Overall, this polarization is accepted as the basis of own reformist parties. Hence the fact that rapidly PSTU the SoL, PT and PCdoB do chorus to the Globe and Federal Government network. Thus, the political agenda of the reformist parties is that the corporate media and the state, and this helps to increase the antipathy and antagonism between these autonomous demonstrations and party organizations. Why?

Because this is a false contradiction. Why this contradiction is empty? Propaganda is politics by other means. The policy expressed in these concepts is the policy of reaction. Who attacks, break is not just breaking objects. Symbols and concepts of bourgeois rule is attacking. Responds with symbolic violence and symbolic and real violence 500 years of oppression.

The speech against vandalism is a form of symbolic violence against the people, against the poor youth and precarious workers. Because the actions of the protesters were labeled as vandalism? Because they affect and challenge the core of reactionary power. Firstly, they are a spontaneous expression of a people deemed unable liabilities. Secondly, the acts have specific targets: banks, public properties that represent state power and operating history. Finally the uprisings were directed to the legislative and executive, ie, to the focus of every revolutionary movement power. The false contradiction, therefore, aims to depoliticize a movement that questions the foundations of reactionary power in acts of mass resistance.

Because we can speak of symbolic violence? Because it only reinforces the legitimacy of the state, governments and entrepreneurs and goes hand in hand with the police and military violence. When creating this false contradiction, if you want to create division in the mass movement among a sector that can be legitimately targeted repression and the other not. One sector that is legitimate political actor and the other not. The reaction is organizing to defend: 1) the absolute and unquestionable character of private property, 2) the absolute legitimacy of the state and their actions, and even the most violent and arbitrary. The reaction represented by monopoly capital, the state and the party ruling coalition needs to win then society for that speech. The campaign against vandalism is just fake. The defense also historical heritage.

Why capital can demolish the Maracana heritage? Why the Indian Museum can be demolished, displacing indigenous and not considered historical patrimÃnmio? Why the state can demolish the Hospital of Servers Rio de Janeiro, the IASERJ? Why the Amazon rainforest may be destroyed by the Belo Monte Dam in the name of the capital? Capital can destroy everything. Is destroying everything. The popular uprising is not destroying anything other obstacles your own creative action. Not only the good fight "public". We struggle to define the concept of public good. And do not respect the concepts of reaction. Because there is no combat without combat this reaction discourse and symbolic and physical violence.

What is the contradiction of mass movement? Ie, there is within the working class and youth is a difference between the concepts and strategies of struggle between revolutionaries and the reformists. However, when a sector that supposedly defends reforms aligns the reactionary bloc, the corporate media, it means you are surrendering the basic principle of the unity of action of the working class opposite reaction. And this is the challenge. The reformist parties must either renounce their behavior in line with the discourse of denouncing the vandalism and therefore unconditionally defend the popular protests or definitely spend the next reaction. The contradiction between reform and revolution is today the motion as follows: the reformists take the side of the people and make their defense within the legitimate organs of workers, or denounce the mass and pass the reaction.

Before the outbreak of the mass movement we call the unit at all. But we know that reformism is an increasingly promiscuous relationship with the reaction. The task of sincere activists and possibly revise that line is misleading. The enemy is the State and Capital, and the pillars of the reaction, the police force and the national governments. The discussion about the method and strategy should not break the unity of the general class to the reaction front. Betray this unity is to betray the people themselves. Thus, we must oppose and counter-revolutionary reaction method. The direct mass action and the general strike.

So do a salute to the combative youth of Brazil. We take all workers and students who face physical and symbolic violence a greeting. And we say that we are together in rows of barricades. But our task is to take a policy and slogan of revolutionary. The policy is: organizing to disrupt the reaction, the reaction disorganizing to organize the revolution. It is necessary to advance in the demonstrations and ensuring the autonomy and direct action class.

Anarchism is Fight!

UNIPA - Popular Union Anarchist
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://ainfos.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en
A-Infos Information Center