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 Our archives of old posts

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

The First Few Lines of The Last 10 posts in:
Castellano_ 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 | of 2014 | of 2015 | of 2016 | of 2017

Syndication Of A-Infos - including RDF - How to Syndicate A-Infos
Subscribe to the a-infos newsgroups

(en) Turkey, Kara Kızıl [Red And Black] Istanbul - No hesitation and loud # NO (tr) [machine translation]

Date Wed, 12 Apr 2017 13:32:26 +0300


We are on the edge of a precipice, a struggle determined by the oppression and chaos of society, whether it is called as istibdat, istlamdat, fascism, dictatorship or a combination of them. The next referendum will be shortly called "the actual situation" throughout this article, with the goal of legitimizing this situation with yes. This initiative is very open, contrary to all kinds of laws, rules and customs. The actual dressing of the legitimate suit is crucial for the permanentization of this situation, and moreover, it will play a crucial role in the transfer of the works of yes to the "forward actual situation" (such as an illegitimate child born from the actual situation and the mating of "advanced democracy"). In every initiative of centralizers, At least a significant part of the masses are searched for because it is difficult to manage them for long periods of time with absolute pressure.

If this was not the case, this referendum would not have been done any more, and the actual situation would be maintained. Therefore, under this change to be made at the superstructure, there is a very concrete power consolidation account that can lead to bitter consequences. The results of the continuous prolonged OHAL and KHKs and governance are as tangible as they are, if yes, the results of the "presidential government system" will be at least as concrete as possible, a permanent one in practice, It will be transformed into a management system with a Decree Law.

Some people object to this analysis, suggesting that everything is happening from one side to the other. Why do such ministers think that power does not settle for the actual situation and makes such a move? Maybe they think like this we are our ideological relatives carrying the Traveling spirit inside: There is a massive base movement and mobilization threatening the actual situation in a concrete and serious way, and this energy is wanted to be destroyed by withdrawal! Unfortunately, we have to remind these comrades that such an eruption moment has not existed since about the end of 2013. During the trip, there was a time for a referendum on the future of the park, of course we opposed it because it would be a great folly to risk it by drawing it to a position of voting that is concrete. If we consider this example to be larger, of course, This option could of course be preferred in circumstances where the social revolution is much more mature, on conditions of much more favorable conditions, at the moment of mobilization, for example, where the majority of the people boycott the referendum and the elections, thereby shaking the legitimacy of the actual situation. But it is clear that this is not the case, and we have to act in the world we are in, not in the world we want to be. The course of society is shaped not by the revolutionary minorities, but by the masses, which are usually not revolutionary, what they see as legitimate and what they consent to. Therefore, even though the most advanced and uncompromising views on the level of ideas should be propagated, the level of consciousness and motivation of the masses should be observed at the level of action (if it requires participation of the masses of action). At the moment of mobilization, for example, on conditions where the majority of the people would boycott the referendum and the elections and thus shake the legitimacy of the actual situation, of course this option could be preferred. But it is clear that this is not the case, and we have to act in the world we are in, not in the world we want to be. The course of society is shaped not by the revolutionary minorities, but by what the non-revolutionary masses usually see and do not legitimate. Therefore, even though the most advanced and uncompromising views on the level of the idea should be propagated, the level of consciousness and motivation of the masses should be observed at the level of action (if the action requires mass participation). At the moment of mobilization, for example, on conditions where the majority of the people would boycott the referendum and the elections and thus shake the legitimacy of the actual situation, of course this option could be preferred. But it is clear that this is not the case, and we have to act in the world we are in, not in the world we want to be. The course of society is shaped not by the revolutionary minorities, but by the masses, which are usually not revolutionary, what they see legitimate and what they consent to. Therefore, even though the most advanced and uncompromising views on the level of the idea should be propagated, the level of consciousness and motivation of the masses should be observed at the level of action (if the action requires mass participation). Of course this option could be preferred. But it is clear that this is not the case, and we have to act in the world we are in, not in the world we want to be. The course of society is shaped not by the revolutionary minorities, but by the masses, which are usually not revolutionary, what they see as legitimate and what they consent to. Therefore, even though the most advanced and uncompromising views on the level of the idea should be propagated, the level of consciousness and motivation of the masses should be observed at the level of action (if the action requires mass participation). Of course this option could be preferred. But it is clear that this is not the case, and we have to act in the world we are in, not in the world we want to be. The course of society is shaped not by the revolutionary minorities, but by the masses, which are usually not revolutionary, what they see as legitimate and what they consent to. Therefore, even though the most advanced and uncompromising views on the level of the idea should be propagated, the level of consciousness and motivation of the masses should be observed at the level of action (if the action requires mass participation). Is shaped by what it consents to. Therefore, even though the most advanced and uncompromising views on the level of the idea should be propagated, the level of consciousness and motivation of the masses should be observed at the level of action (if the action requires mass participation). Is shaped by what it consents to. Therefore, even though the most advanced and uncompromising views on the level of the idea should be propagated, the level of consciousness and motivation of the masses should be observed at the level of action (if the action requires mass participation).

We may think that boycott is the most meaningful attitude on the contrary: the present referendum today is not a "fair and free" but it is still a true vote, the actual results differ. Perhaps if yes, then those who are settled may become truly "theater", as in dictatorial regimes, where the dictatorship is 90% odd votes cast. Of course, when it comes to totally fake elections, the correct attitude will be boycotting, at least from the outside, it's a fraud. A hint about this can be tried; We will see if we find ourselves in such a situation that now they will make the boycott come from their hands to criminalize the boycott in addition to the no to this time. But the day is not that day, today,

And there are those who believe that the situation is desperate, no matter what we do, in a manner of cataclysm, provocations, and "yes". Here, from a political standpoint, is a remarkable weakness, traces of a pessimistic, defeated, unconscious mood that we can call "learned helplessness". Totally natural and understandable, but harmful. There are of course cheating, underbelly and danger of irregularity, but despite these, we seem to be worthy of winning, so it is better for us not to give up, but also to make a favor for them. Their ways are definite and should not be underestimated. As far as we are concerned, like the small teams who win the match against the big teams, we have to "beat the hakemi". Our social struggles have never been fair and will not happen,

The anarchists (and some Marxist revolutionaries) are the anti-parliamentary principle? First of all, let me remind you, this is not an election, it is a referendum. We do not elect a councilor or president. Nevertheless, I will advocate the use of forceful debate: The most important historical examination of the anarchist opposition to elections was given in the last election of 1936, before the Spanish Civil War. In this example, there is a moment of social revolution, and anarchists have influence over millions of members within the anarchocentric mass organization CNT. In this election, as always, great polemics were broken between tactical voting advocates and principal boycotts (even individual voters split between their own choices in their own heads), and finally CNT, In practice, liberated its members for voting and foresaw the majority of the popular Front, which consists of bourgeois liberals, socialists and Stalinists, allowing the Popular Front to defeat the right front with a 0.5% (half a percent) vote difference. Against this left-wing ruler, General Franco launched a counter-revolutionary military coup, and against it the Spanish Civil War and the Spanish Revolution were fired at the same time, partly through direct armament of the people, partly through the left-wing government. If the CNT had made a solid boycott campaign with millions of members, the Right Front would certainly win. Was this alternative scenario still an attempt at revolution, or was it that the fascists who came from the legal path did not immediately bombard the rising revolution, who finally won? This history is only analogous to promoting the context of the boycott debate and to show how little in common with our current situation (and yet in practice, the boycott has not dominated!). Among the Marxists between 1917 February and October 1917 the support of the Provisional Parliament and the Kerensky government on Russia was discussed in the context of one of the greatest revolutionary moments of history. Similarly, in the same years, the opposition between communists and social democrats in Germany was experienced in the context of the German Revolution, which was actually proclaimed socialist republics in a few regions but then suppressed. The anti-parliamentary attitudes that are true in these discussions (we do not engage in tactical or strategic distinctions) are all taken over the revolutionary massive upsurge, the danger of withdrawing the revolution, In the context of the danger of taking the revolution to an alliance with a wing of the bourgeoisie. We assume that most sharp attitudes on this subject arise from the fact that the lessons from these special periods are raised to the dogma status and tried to be applied in every situation. However, since these historical examples do not overlap with the conditions we have in us, we can not imitate them when determining our attitude in the next referendum. The antagonism of parliamentarism, in essence, a classless society, can not be established by first seizing the bourgeois state superstructure and then collecting directives. It is not an absurd idea that all the forms of government in which the bourgeoisie is dominant, that all politicians are the same, or what is happening on the level of government institutions and laws, makes no difference to us.

The establishment of a classless society with the discovery of charity, the revolution, destruction of nations and so on. Desires will certainly not happen. You do not even have to say these things, it's just a matter of knowing. By setting out that leaving no women will not liberate women, will not end the exploitation of wage labor, will not end ecological degradation, and so on. It is also unwise to try to neglect the no by presenting choices from the maximalist program. It would be a blunder to arrive at the need to boycott these arguments. Let the total revolution or the great progressive achievements become a necessary condition in the concrete conditions we are in, which is not enough, even to reverse the no-oppression regime. Yes, if it comes out, And even now, most of the challenges that are being made in the open-legitimate field are barely able to get underground. If it does not, there is a good chance that we will be able to open up a valuable range that will provide more favorable morale and conjuncture conditions for us not to get worse or to get better. We will not try to map this out and how to map the details over the branches that all prospects and no astrologer will predict, because it will not be a good thing as long as no one comes out. The effort is to open up the prospects for positive, that's all. There is no guarantee of victory in any fight. We will not try to map this out and how to map the details over the branches that all prospects and no astrologer will predict, because it will not be a good thing as long as no one comes out. The effort is to open up the prospects for positive, that's all. There is no guarantee of victory in any fight. We will not try to map this out and how to map the details over the branches that all prospects and no astrologer will predict, because it will not be a good thing as long as no one comes out. The effort is to open up the prospects for positive, that's all. There is no guarantee of victory in any fight.

We have recently elected to experience the June 2015 election. In this election, a parliamentary arithmetic emerged that the AKP could not establish a single-party power, and the RTE had been forced to think of the lost black ground for days. However, the coalition dance, followed by the bourgeois parties, was overtaken by the chaos of the chaos that has been overshadowed by the long, insincere peace process, and the November 2015 results of the chunky cloudy sun of the June elections were possible. For the revolutionary minorities, activists and intellectuals in this process, the greatest mistake for all of us is not mobilization for the emergence of a relatively positive picture of June, In the period between June and November, there was a passive approach (though the bombing terrorism on the prospects and the nature of the chaos that the direct targets of this attack on the attack were also effective) Has not been revealed. If this mistake is not to be repeated, the fighting should be raised after a no that can be removed from the referendum. Contrary to parliamentary opposition, no one of us will certainly not be in the position of final judgment on April 16th. We have an advantage over the election of June for the formation of a tactic from below, this is not a choice of government but a regime or rejection,

There is no guarantee that no will come out. The process is moving uphill, uneven, under censorship and pressure conditions. Those who argue that the main trap is to participate in the referendum and that the real fear of the ruling party is to be avoided from the policemen is that the massive pressures on the people making the no campaigns (threats such as bullets, bulletins, Paramilitary formations), and do not they see the berries (no terrorists, no planted trees, etc.)? Or when they see that all the possibilities of the state, the media, the troll army and a complex ideological biad and lynching apparatus are constantly mobilized by violating all the law for yes, "we call to say no to us, we do not eat" Are they really saying? Or, what do they think about the unprecedented pespa in the international dimension, which comes from Europe and is thought to increase the rate of yes, owing to the votes that will be mobilized with the nationalist agony inside?

The truth is obvious, plain. It is the first and closest task to raise the NO to prevent the actual state from becoming permanent and to prevent the forward actual state from passing the verbose, no effort should be made to win the game. Of course, no good will be enough for a positive transformation, nor will it come to mean the end of everything. It will be a struggle. But on what conditions? This is the question. What we have to do is not to think of our own narrow needs with faulty motives, sectarianism or identity anxiety, or to take refuge in thoughtfulness and memorization, but to apply the right thing in this period without hesitation and obligation. The final analysis is not the "what is the anarchist", but the question of what is right, the question of what is anarchist,

It is astonishing that some anarchists have laid out texts that appear to have been submitted in advance, even if it is a referendum to say yes or no, but not a parliamentary choice in which the ruling party of the future will be elected. The fact that so-called libertarian thinkers such as Noam Chomsky, Murray Bookchin or Gün Zileli have not been taken to the castle of their positions on the election and referendums, or even posting themselves out of anarchism in a clumsy way, is not questioned as to why they came to these postures using these symbol thinkers, free consciences, Sad point.

Anarchists also participated in referendums in which one option was clearly worse than the other (that is, the other was clearly better) (in such unclear referendums, for example the 2016 Brexit or Italian referendums, naturally there was no clear position or boycotted). For example, in Ireland, the anarchist Workers Solidarity Movement in 2015, the gay marriage made a yes vote campaign in the legalization proposal (the result was yes with 62%). In the 2002 referendum to extend the ban on abortion in Ireland, the same organization made a no-vote campaign, perhaps making a decisive contribution to the rejection of this barbaric offer by 50.4%. Needless to say, for these anarchists, the referendum in both cases was seen as neither the end nor the end of the struggle, but it continued afterwards. Our upcoming referendum is even more vital than the two referendums in Ireland, and perhaps the numbers will be knife-back as the 2002 referendum in Ireland. This sense of responsibility must be effective in our vigor.

Lost in the last period, many are paid, the price is not the end of the great and bad trends. In a world where we will not lose any more, we have to take care of the smallest possibility, the smallest move, to say that this is a stop. If this referendum is made, what you get from the polls, we promise you, a generation or a lifetime over you, your comrades and your children will proudly say "I said no" in the future. Say no if you choose not to, left, that has now turned into a stereotypical remorse 2010 referendum (she was criticized so naturally yae'ci since those days, but HDPE predecessors focused also had a much larger group abstentionist, after a few years a strong "will make you the head" You will likely feel a similar regret). Our blink is a definite, unwavering and loud voice no. Sometimes it is not a solution to mislead people and to steal hidden secret charity in action by saying a boycott in discourse, thinking that an anarchist can fall into anarchist (mostly individual) at times. We think that anarchist attitude is to say no and to give no votes. Well, let's get a big reaction from some memorizing anarchists. In answer to them we say: "We talked, and our soul was saved". We think that anarchist attitude is to say no and to give no votes. Well, let's get a big reaction from some memorizing anarchists. In answer to them we say: "We talked, and our soul was saved". We think that anarchist attitude is to say no and to give no votes. Well, let's get a big reaction from some memorizing anarchists. In answer to them we say: "We talked, and our soul was saved".

Black Red Istanbul

http://www.karakizilistanbul.org/bildiri.php?git=oku&id=26
_________________________________________
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/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en
A-Infos Information Center