Η εκλογή του Ντόναλντ Τραμπ δημιούργησε σε παγκόσμιο επίπεδο ένα φάσμα αισθημάτων: μούδιασμα, οργή, φόβο, ανασφάλεια. Με τον έναν ή τον άλλο τρόπο, υπάρχει μία γενικευμένη αίσθηση ότι συνέβη κάτι το οποίο μπορεί να έχει πολύ άσχημες επιπτώσεις για το μέλλον του κόσμου. Την ίδια στιγμή, η ορκωμοσία και οι πρώτες μέρες διακυβέρνησης του νέου προέδρου των ΗΠΑ συνοδεύονται από σημαντικές αντιδράσεις, τόσο στο επίπεδο των επίσημων θεσμών όσο και σε αυτό του δρόμου.  Χωρίς καμία υποτίμηση του συναισθηματικού επιπέδου εμπλοκής με τα γεγονότα είναι απαραίτητο να επιχειρηθεί μία θεωρητική κατανόηση όλων αυτών των συμβάντων – της εκλογής του Τραμπ και των αντιδράσεων ενάντια σε αυτή – στην ενότητα τους. Μόνο έτσι μπορούμε, αφενός, να εκτιμήσουμε τους κινδύνους και τις δυνατότητες που ελλοχεύουν στην παρούσα ιστορική συγκυρία και, αφετέρου, να συμμετέχουμε θετικά στον διεθνής κλίμακας αγώνα που διεξάγεται. Το κείμενο που ακολουθεί είναι μία μικρή συμβολή προς αυτήν την κατεύθυνση.

“Oh, my Trump! On the figures of the global civil conflict”
by Void Network

There is no reason goodness cannot prevail over evil, so long as the angels are organized as the mafia

                                                                                                                                – KurtVonnegut, Cat’sCradle

While protests and riots may not be unheard-of phenomena in the history of presidential inaugurations in the US, there is something distinct in the mass anti-Trump protests and the violent clashes that accompanied them (no matter how small the latter may have been). Surely, Trump’s personality has played its part, but there is much more at stake in the ongoing protests than the reaction to a person who deliberately chose to be vulgar and to provoke to get elected. Indeed, it is in thevery fact of the election of a person like Trump – which proves the success of his electoral campaign – that we get a glimpse of the significance of the anti-Trump protests. To put it briefly, the protests are not a response to who Trump is, but an expression of the division that Trump represents.

In the same way that Trump’s personality is insufficient as a cause, the importance of the protests cannot also be measured simply by analyzing the reasons motivating the mobilizations, although it is evident that no serious analysis can ignore this factor. Even if we add upthe individual intensions of all those who go to the streets to declare that Trump is “not my president”, or more recently to protest against his decrees, we would still not come up with the“message” or “meaning” of the demonstrations.Rather,it would be theirheterogeneity that would shine through, which, perhaps, may not be so easy to reconcile. The fact that some tendencies are dominant and others are marginal hardly changes this verdict.

Where is the significance of the anti-Trump protests if not (not primarily at least)in Madonna’s insults, in Charlize Theron’s tears,in Michael Moore’s self-righteous indignation or in the windows smashed by the Black Block? It is in the event, that is always more than the sum of its parts: in the fact that mass protests took place (and continue to occur) as a reaction to the election of the president of the United States of America.

If we conceive of democracy, or more specifically, of modern democracy, simply as the form of capitalist rule, as some Marxists do, or as a façade of domination, as some anarchists do, we will have missed something fundamental about it (it is no accident that Marxist and anarchist critiques, for all their merits, have a difficulty coming to terms with the capacity of modern democratic systems to absorb the tremors caused by crisis and unrest). The definition of democracy as “government by consent”, while very partial and inadequate if taken alone, grasps at least one essential element of modern democracies (perhaps of every type of democracy worthy of the name, but this is not an issue to enter in this article). Modern democracy has evolved as a pragmatic system of mediating social antagonisms and managing difference in a consensual way. For sure, the archives of liberal democracies, even in countries with a long democratic tradition like the United States, are littered with repression, violence, exclusion, discrimination, marginalization etc. Still, wherever functional representative democracies have been established, institutional inroads have been created which, for considerable periods of time and to a sufficient degree for the functionality of the system to be ensured, manage to channel collective interests and desires in non-violentforms of expression.Indeed, from a certain functional perspective, whether this aspect is“ideology” or “fact” is secondary; what matters is its presence which, even in its failures, allows democratic systems to function.

Associated to this consensual mediation of difference, although not identical to it, is another aspect of modern democracy, the generation through elections of legitimacy, or to be more precise of legitimate power and government. Once again, critiques of elections that concern the extent which they truly represent the will of the people, or their failure and inability to act as means of genuine democratic accountability, are beside the point (something of course that does not strip these critiques ofthevalue of being true).Through multiparty elections, modern democracies not only integrate and recognize political opposition, in a way that civil conflict is suspended; they also make representation “representative” and, thus,legitimate. In this sense, acceptance of the electoral process and of the majority principle on which it rests is essential to the stability of a democratic regime. This dimension of democracy as a process that generates legitimate government is what attaches it to the modern state, or to put it a bit more technically, this dimension concerns democracy as a state form (“democracy-state”).

These fundamental aspects of modern democracy are precisely what the anti-Trump protests challenge. To declare that Trump “is not my president”,although he has come to office through free elections, is much more than the expression of a personal sentiment about Trump (no matter how much he is resented as an individual); it is to subvert one of the essential principles and aspects of modern democracies. At the level of analysis that we are concerned, it is not crucial if this is a conscious act by those who protest, though, of course, it makes a huge difference if such subversion becomes a political agenda with hegemonic aspirations. In the case at hand, it is more than likely that most protesters do not want to challenge the American democratic state, much less democracy as a form of government or regime. They instead want to defend it from what they perceive to be a threat to it, Trump. On the other hand,it is no accident that Scarlet Johansson pleaded with Trump to prove worthy of his title so she can recognize him as “her president”. Neither is it out of idiosyncrasy that Moore felt compelled to stress that the protesters are the “real majority”. Of course, in this case the implication is that the electoral system may not be adequate to express the majority, which would simply imply the need for a better electoral system. In all cases, however, a certain anxiety is evident to defend the democratic credentials of the protests. Part consciously, part unconsciously, the act of challenging the President the day (after) he was inaugurated is taken for what it is: a subversion of an essential aspect of modern democracy. It is this subversive attitude that becomes manifest also in the pledge to become “ungovernable” that seems to be gaining ground.

One may question here whether the assertion above does not risk vindicating the supporters of Trump, who depict those who refuse to acknowledge him as antidemocratic elitists or, in the case of anarchists, antidemocratic vandals. The misgivings are legitimate. Having stated the thesis in a strong manner, it is imperative to modify it. After all, it would be unwise, both from a theoretical and from a political perspective, to ignore the widespread feeling among protesters that they defend democracy or, indeed, that they practice a more genuine democracy, a “real democracy” as the slogan of the squares-movement had it. If the protests and the calls to become ungovernable constitute a practical challenge to the capacity of democratic elections to generate legitimate government, they bring to the fore another dimension, which is attached to democracy not as a state form but as a movement from below: the critical capacity to generate rupture and dissent, what Jacque Rancièrehas called “dissensus”.[1] Democracy, in this historic configuration of the concept, expresses the social division that inheres in society, and more precisely, for class-society, the tensions and antagonisms that cannot be totalized in a harmonious order of representation, even a nominally democratic one.

From this angle, the protests are instances of a typical phenomenon, given that democracy as a movement of dissent is a frequent feature of modern societies. And yet, there is a crucial element that differentiates the anti-Trump protests and resistance movements from other recent democratic movements, like “Occupy!” and its European counterparts, the Indignados and the Aganaktismenoi. The ongoing protests and resistance respond, but also are a continuation, of the “dissensus” expressed already in the elections. That is to say, the pragmatic dimension of democracy, as a mediating principle of social difference,has been practically questioned in Trump’s victory. For sure, the latter at the same time manifests the power of modern democracy to absorb dissent and to promise change. But it must not be underestimated that Trump was elected by making the divisions that cut through American society into a programmatic principle. This is,ultimately, what Trump’s victory represents: a division and a tension that, as a result of the ongoing crisis, have reached sufficient intensity to assume the form of a political agenda capable of winning elections in the world’s (waning) superpower.

Conceptualizing Trump’s election in this manner also makes possible its contextualization. Staggering as it is for taking place in the “belly of the beast”, the United States of America, Trump’s victory is representative of a wider trend, of a crisis of political representation that spreads over many countries of the capitalist world-system, especially at its “center” (or at any rate its more developed parts). This crisis, in turn, is the current form that the more general crisis of capitalist relations has assumed, the previous expression being the wave of international struggles that reached a climax in the years 2010-2012.

For at least two decades, representative democracies in the more advanced capitalist states were functioning under a peculiar single-party system: no matter which was the specific electoral system, governmental power was shared and exchanged between two political parties that agreed on the essential direction that societies had to take, as epitomized in the system of neoliberalism, financialization and globalization. In the United States this role was played by the two parties which composed its traditional political class, while in Europe the two traditional political familiesof social-democracy andthe center-right (in its various subtypes, Christian-democracy, British conservatism etc.) played an equivalent role. From one election to the next, including the various referendums that have taken place recently, the waning influence of these parties and the correlative crisis of representation becomes manifest. For sure, in the United States, due to its deeply consolidated two-party system, the crisis could not take the form of a collapse of the Republicans and the Democrats but of the ascendancy within these two parties of underdogs coming from their margins, like Bernie Sanders and, of course, Trump. No matter its specific manifestations in each different state, the overall trend is clear and while, so far, it has not acquired the character of a crisis of the democratic state, the argument that voting as an act increasingly becomes an expression of crisis and a reaction to the present political system may prove to be all the more salient.

Along with the crisis of political representation, Trumps victory expresses the parallel phenomenon of the rise of far-right politics. Usually, the latter is designated under the banner of “populism”, a term that is deployed with the explicit intention to conceptualize together the far-right parties with leftwing powers that also arose to prominence because of the crisis, like Podemos and Syriza (until of course the latter assumed office, now Syriza belongs to the “responsible” political powers). The dominant use of the term and its political functions have severely limited the analytical value that populism once may have had. Yet, it may still be preferable than seeing Trump and his European equivalents in France, Austria etc. as a triumph of fascism. Not that they lack fascist elements. But these are tendencies that have still not taken the shape of an identifiable fascist politics, although this is one of the historical possibilities that open in front of us.

No matter how we call it, what is the essence of this ascendancy of the far-right and its “fascistic populism”? Judith Butler, in the article cited previously, correctly points out that there may not be a single reason, and that those who believe who have the answer, may be deluding themselves. For one, the victory of Trump does not mean that millions of Americans turned racist or even fascist. On the other hand, to identify in Trump simply a symptom of the economic crisis is to downplay that rightwing populism (or however else we wish to call it) is not simply an expression of the crisis but one of its political mediations. In simple words, American or French workers who vote for Trump and Marine Le Pen may not have become irremediably racist and fascist but they still invest in an explicitly nationalist and xenophobic vision, which entails a very aggressive policy towards the multinational proletariat of today’s world. This, to be sure, certainly does not justify the high-frowned and self-righteous dismissal that some leftists and anarchists commit. Still, from an internationalist, leftwing perspective, it can hardly be an occasion for jubilation.

What has historically defined leftwing politics of any kind, from the more radical to the more moderate, is that it promoted changes which were thought to be progressive (and perhaps part of the reason for the crisis that the Left finds itself is its failure to move beyond struggles of preservation, or indeed of restoration). In contrast, what distinguishes (far)right populism is that its critique of the elite, of corruption, etc.is not attached to a politics of transformation but a politics of restoration. That is to say, Trump and his likes do not promise to change the capitalist system, but to give to the present order it’s just, true, form. The fact that this form is identified with national sovereignty and glory gives to new far-right politics its full color: Trump’s version of isolationism is just one type of the many neo-archaisms that are in vogue, another example being of course the rise of ISIS (and with the “neo” being as crucial as the “archaic”, since we are concerned with truly [post]modern phenomena). In the face of a crisis which affects all aspects of their lives – their material wellbeing, their identity, their psychic balance – thousands of people invest on the restoration of familiar figures from the past. It is this essentially conservative psychosocial state that makes them receptive to the deeply reactionary rhetoric and political agenda of people like Trump.

It is on such a level of an economy of desire that we may also understand the forms that political antagonism assume nowadays and of the division that Trump stands for and aggravates. Those who oppose Trump, on the level of a mobilization from below, are the most forward looking and dynamic groups, who invest on progress, mobility and are ready to embrace change (at least to a certain degree). Not accidentally, most of them belong to the new middle class, which embodies all these qualities: educated and skilled, open minded in terms of social norms and human rights, mobile etc. To be sure, we most certainly do not deal with a unitary group, whether sociologically, politically, or ideologically. Some of the protesters are affluent and react to Trump mainly for identity issues, others have been hard pressed by the crisis, others belong to the youth who feels a lack of prospect, differences which can be traced also in the diverse political agendas and levels of radicalism. The picture becomes even more complicated when we broaden our scope to include in the anti-Trump camp members of the political and economic elite, who are fearful of the adverse economic consequences that Trump’s political agenda may have. Thus, parts of the progressive middle-class found themselves making a common cause – the election of Hilary Clinton – with parts of the political and economic establishment, whose essential aim and desire is to conserve the current neoliberal structures of governmentality and accumulation.

The substantial inference here is that the blocs which form political antagonism currently are not stable. They are fluid assemblages which may easily decompose and reassemble in a different configuration. It is certainly not wild imagination to conceive that parts of the working class who voted Trump could be drawn to an alternative left radical politics, just like it is far from being inconceivable to expect that an upsurge of radicalization and political instability could make parts of the middle-class who now oppose Trump to conceive him as the lesser evil and as a guarantee of stability. In this context, we cannot but note the absence, as a collective force, from the anti-Trump protests of the marginalized proletariat which has recently revolted in the ghettos of US. This social group cannot be accommodated in the liberal progressivism that stars of Hollywood embody, other than as an object of sympathy and welfare, instead of a subject of change. How could it be otherwise, given that its main modality of struggle is the riot,[2]which is almost by definition excluded from the liberal catalogue of legitimate political action?[3]

If we add all the pieces together: of the various (and antagonistic to each other) neo-archaisms that promote change through the aggressive restorationof an idealized past; of the movements that appear and disappear only to reappear again, in their struggle for a better future; of the riots that continue to erupt from one place to the other; of wars that, along with displacing millions of people, form an explosive global geopolitical configuration; of the new economic crisis that is lurking behind every new “bubble”; of the ever-growing inequality; all these make for a very volatile situation. It does not make much sense to evoke some unproblematic universal figure as a remedy to this extensive fragmentation, since the latter does not come in spite but because of theone only truly actualized universality, that of capital. To be sure,the fluid nature of political antagonismdoes not also imply political relativism; the antagonisms, the hopes, the anxieties, the fantasies of today continue to be haunted by familiar, age-oldspecters: justice, freedom,democracy, equality, popular power. Rather, however, than being a struggle for the realizationofperennial ideals, the ongoing globalcivil conflict is a struggle over their content.

In this context, Trump’s election is certainly a reason to worry. Not only he deploys notions like popular power in a way that drives them from their emancipatory content and potential; healso expresses and represents the truly fascist potential of turning division into the principle of an authoritarian and racist totality. For all that, we are not quite yet at the doorstep of doom. The recent elections are also the expression of a potential that is reflected negatively in the figure of Trump. It is this potential that becomes manifest in the streets, in the demonstrations, in becoming-ungovernable, in the little graffito of the torched black limo: “we the people”.

[1]J. Rancière, Dissensus: On Politics and Aesthetics, trans. S. Corcoran, London and New York: Continuum, 2010.

[2] J. Clover, Riot. Strike. Riot: The New Era of Uprisings, London and New York: Verso, 2016.

[3] Sadly, for the most part, neither the more radical political currents fare any better on this score, although they are more ready to recognize subaltern riots in a positive manner. Hard as it may be, the establishment of political forms, infrastructures and processes that can embrace the marginalized proletariat and its forms of struggle remains a crucial stake that the current conjuncture posits. For all its shortcomings, the anarchist movement in Greece provides here an interesting and promising experience.

text written by George Sotiropoulos from Void Network / athens group

VOID NETWORK [Theory, Utopia, Empathy, Ephemeral Arts] https://voidnetwork.gr

The post “Oh, my Trump! On the figures of the global civil conflict” by Void Network appeared first on Void Network.

More than 200 people who were mass-arrested at the Washington, D.C. protests against the inauguration of Donald Trump have been hit with felony riot charges that are punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Those picked up in the sweep—including legal observers and journalists—had their phones, cameras and other personal belongings confiscated as evidence, a lawyer confirmed to AlterNet.

Demonstrators warn that the crackdown signals a new wave of repression against the protesters, whose mass mobilization was met with riot police violence, National Guard and Department of Homeland Security deployments, heavy surveillance and law enforcement snipers positioned on rooftops.

“These charges are absolutely horrifying. They are just trying to stop any resistance to the Trump administration,” Samantha Miller, an organizer with the Disrupt J20 Collective, told AlterNet. “Many of these demonstrators were showing rage and fear of what’s coming. It’s going to take a lot more than asking nicely to create change and stop the threats from the Trump administration.”

The vast majority of the roughly 230 people who were kettled and mass-arrested at the anti-capitalist bloc during Friday’s protests have been charged under the felony riot act, said Mark Goldstone, a National Lawyers Guild-affiliated attorney who has defended protesters in Washington, D.C. for more than 30 years. Washington, D.C. authorities put this number at 217. Goldstone confirmed to AlterNet that legal observers and journalists were among those detained in the sweep, explaining that, throughout his career in Washington, D.C., he has never seen mass charges of this kind.

Jeffrey Light, a Washington, D.C.-based lawyer who provided legal support to the Disrupt J20 Collective, agreed with this assessment. “I have been representing protesters for 13 years now, and I have never seen felony rioting charges in Washington, D.C. It is not one of the standard laws that they tend to use. This is unusual. It is rare to use that charge.”

“Across the board, all phones and cameras are being held as evidence, and they are also detaining gloves and cell phone chargers as evidence,” said Light. “They are giving people their wallets back generally, but that’s it. It is extremely troubling.”

According to a class-action lawsuit filed by Light on Friday, those picked up in the sweep and hit with felony riot charges already endured abuse at the hands of the police. “Our class action lawsuit charges that the police were rounding up everyone on the street without warning and putting them under arrest and using excessive force,” said Light. “There were a number of weapons we haven’t seen Washington, D.C. police use in recent memory, flash bang grenades and tear gas. In addition to chemical irritants, they were assaulting people with batons. They were beating people.”

Those kettled by police were forced to wait for hours in the street and on school buses, many of them going untreated for injuries, say supporters. “They are trying to set a tone to chill further demos of this nature, and I don’t think it’s going to work,” Bob Hayes, a Washington, D.C. resident who is helping coordinate legal support, told AlterNet. “They are trying to put pressure on individuals to collaborate with the investigations.”

Light emphasized that, while the riot felony charges are new, the mass arrests are not. Acting DC Police Chief Peter Newsham, who oversaw this weekend’s crackdown, was the assistant police chief who presided over another mass arrest more than a decade ago. In the fall of 2002, the Metropolitan police department mass arrested hundreds of people at a World Bank protest in Washington, D.C.’s Pershing Park and hogtied them for up to 24 hours while in detention, before dropping all charges. In a 2015 settlement, the city was forced to pay $2.2 million to nearly 400 protesters.

Newsham, who ordered the mass arrests in 2002, oversaw the police crackdown against inauguration protesters.

Friday’s crackdown came as mass protests erupted across Washington, D.C. and the world, overshadowing the inauguration of Donald Trump, who rose to power on a tide of white nationalism and fascism. On Friday morning, social movements including the Movement for Black Lives and groups centering Muslim, Jewish and immigrant resistance, converged at 14 different “security” checkpoints, to shut down, slow and disrupt the presidential inauguration of Donald Trump. “We stand in solidarity with everyone who challenges oppression in all of its forms, everywhere around the world, in favor of dignity, self-determination, and defending our collective well-being,” reads a statement from the anti-capitalist, anti-fascist bloc circulated ahead of Friday’s protests.

Those arrested in Washington, D.C. faced an outpouring of public support. Ryan Harvey, an activist and musician with Firebrand Records, told AlterNet that hundreds gathered outside the jail on Saturday to show their support for those being released. “Every time people came out, the crowd would cheer and chant,” with the term “anticapitalista” an oft-repeated refrain. “For many, it was like a surprise birthday party, and their faces lit up. Street medics were on-scene, and many supporters brought food, clothes, coffee, tea and water.”

Harvey emphasized that the support is important because it “defends the rights of these people to fight against fascism” and “combats the narrative that there is something more problematic about their protest than their is about the inauguration.”

Washington, D.C. residents say that the state violence on display this weekend extends far beyond the individuals hit with felony riot charges.

“A mother carrying her toddler was pepper sprayed in the face,” said Miller. “An elder from Standing Rock was sprayed in her face. A woman with crutches tried to intervene, and she was sprayed.”

“We faced the Department of Homeland Security, the National Guard, riot police, surveillance, snipers on rooftops, and Trump supporters,” Darakshan Raja, founder of the Muslim American Women’s Policy Forum and co-director of the Washington Peace Center, told AlterNet. “Just to walk around and see that, have them watch you as a target.”

“For weeks, the ‘alt right’ has been attacking us,” Raja continued. “They have sent death threats to the protesters of J20, attacked our organizations, reported us for false things to the city government, harassed all our partners, including the spaces we are housed. Their violence against us can’t be lost in this moment.”

Sarah Lazare is a staff writer for AlterNet. A former staff writer for Common Dreams, she coedited the book About Face: Military Resisters Turn Against War. Follow her on Twitter at @sarahlazare.

source: AlterNet

Black Bloc Smashes Inauguration from subMedia.tv on Vimeo.

Black Bloc Trashing Bank Windows at 2017 Inauguration from brandon jourdan on Vimeo.

The post In Trump’s America, ‘Felony Riot’ Charges Against Inauguration Protesters Signal Dangerous Wave of Repression by Sarah Lazare appeared first on Void Network.

*A joint statement published on the occasion of Obama’s visit to Athens, Greece by Void Network (https://voidnetwork.gr/) and the CrimethInc. ex-Workers’ Collective (USA)

Today, November 14, outgoing US President Barack Obama arrives in Greece. Speaking from both the United States and Greece, we call on every partisan of freedom to participate in the night demonstration called for Athens on November 15 / starts from Athens Polytechnic at 17.30 .

It is symbolic that Obama is visiting Greece on his farewell tour. The Balkans have served as a laboratory for neoliberalism and US military interventions since the late 20th century; Greece in particular has undergone a global experiment of crisis management and repression. As war draws closer and closer—Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, Turkey—the Balkans are expected to serve Europe and the US as a buffer zone while suffering the same abuse as the periphery.

Now that the pipe dream of universal economic growth has come to an end, giving way to a vista of chaos and climate catastrophe, we can see that the new order will only be stabilized by the empty promises of politicians and the brute force of the police and military: by the ballot and the bullet. The buffer zone is getting smaller and smaller, and the United States is not exempt—the same National Guard sent to Iraq have already been deployed in Baltimore. Now is the time to fight, before the situation grows any worse.

In expressing shock and outrage about the election of Donald Trump, many on the Left have obscured the systemic nature of the problem. By taking action against the Democratic favorite of the US, we show that our opposition is not directed against any particular representative, but against the state and capitalism themselves. In the pleas Clinton and Obama have made for a “peaceful transition of power” to a man they declared unfit to rule, we see the collusion of liberals who would rather preserve the apparatus of the state even in the hands of outright fascists than permit real freedom to emerge.

Indeed, as the candidate of supposed “Hope” and “Change,” Obama not only preserved the structures of power, but persuaded many of the people who are most targeted by the system to invest more faith and resources in those structures—which will now be used to repress them more aggressively than ever. Just as we reject the false solutions of Syriza, we understand that Obama’s reputation as a “good” politician has only made him more dangerous to those he purports to protect. Those who promise a more “inclusive” neoliberalism today pave the way for tomorrow’s fascism.

Obama has deported two and a half million people, as many as all the US Presidents of the 20th century combined—turning Mexico and Central America into a detention center for the population capitalism has no use for. Just as we act in solidarity with those targeted by the so-called “migrant crisis,” a crisis imposed by the borders and wars that are endemic to capitalism, we act against Obama in solidarity with all the people of Mexico, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, and the world. If we don’t tear down the borders that fence other people out today, who will help us tear down the borders that fence us out tomorrow?

As the first Black President, Obama has served the agenda of those who want to convey the impression that white supremacy is a thing of the past. Yet under his reign, a million Black people have languished in prison while police have murdered Black people in the streets with impunity on a daily basis. Over the past months, we have seen indigenous warriors attacked by the same police for defending the water that gives life to their communities. Inspired by the courageous fighters of Ferguson, Baltimore, Oakland, and Standing Rock, we aim to strike blows against racism, prisons, and police everywhere.

These struggles will not be concluded when Obama leaves Greece, nor when he exits office. As President of the most hegemonic state power of our era, Obama represents the interlaced and mutually reinforcing hierarchies that divide humanity—property, citizenship, gender roles, and every other form of authority—yet he himself is merely a cog in a much greater machine. When he is replaced this coming January, the economic interests that have pulled the strings in his administration will move on to utilizing Donald Trump to the same ends, albeit via a more overtly brutal strategy suitable to these times.

We, too, must update our strategies. Today, fewer and fewer people retain the illusion that voting, party politics, or the state could solve the problems we face. The situation is the same the world over. When we take action against politicians, we must not understand ourselves as engaging in mere protest. We are not simply seeking to obtain leverage by militant means. We are developing forms of self-defense in order to open up liberated spaces in which we can experiment with ways to meet our own needs, directly, rather than being experimented upon.

We have to undertake immediate initiatives to create communities of struggle everywhere—opening spaces and social centers, organizing discussions and demonstrations, liberating public spaces, breaking through apathy and isolation, producing free food, shelter, and culture for all. We have to think freedom and enact emancipation.

The blows we strike in Greece will resonate across the world, from all the other peripheries to the very heart of the United States. Together, let us become ungovernable.

*For international coordination and solidarity in the struggle against global capitalism and the state*

*For anarchy, the perpetual reinvention of our relations in pursuit of freedom*

*For freedom, the collective capacity to fulfill our tremendous potential on our own terms*

Jointly composed and signed—
CrimethInc. ex-Workers’ Collective
Void Network [Theory, Outopia, Empathy, Ephemeral Arts]

Καλώς ήρθες στην Αθήνα Ομπάμα

Κοινή δημόσια ανακοίνωση που δημοσιεύθηκε με την ευκαιρία της επίσκεψης του Μπάρακ Ομπάμα στην Ελλάδα από το ΚΕΝΟ ΔΙΚΤΥΟ (Αθήνα) και την “Συλλογικότητα πρώην- Εργαζομένων” Crimethinc (ΗΠΑ)

Σήμερα 14 Νοεμβρίου, ο απερχόμενος πρόεδρος των ΗΠΑ Μπαράκ Ομπάμα φτάνει στην Ελλάδα. Οι συλλογικότητες μας καλούν τόσο από τις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες όσο και από την Ελλάδα κάθε άνθρωπο που αγωνίζεται  για την ελευθερία να συμμετάσχει στη διαδήλωση το βράδυ της Τρίτης 15 Νοεμβρίου 2016 στους δρόμους της Αθήνας με έναρξη το Πολυτεχνείο στις 5.30 μ.μ.μ.

Το γεγονός ότι ο Μπάρακ Ομπάμα επισκέπτεται την Ελλάδα στην αποχαιρετιστήρια περιοδεία του αποκτά έντονους συμβολισμούς. Τα Βαλκάνια έχουν υπηρετήσει ως εργαστήριο πειραμάτων για το νεοφιλελευθερισμό και τις στρατιωτικές επεμβάσεις των ΗΠΑ από τα τέλη του 20ου αιώνα. Η Ελλάδα ειδικότερα έχει υποστεί στις μέρες μας ένα παγκόσμιο πείραμα εφαρμογής μοντέλων διαχείρισης κρίσεων και κοινωνικής καταπίεσης. Καθώς ο πόλεμος πλησιάζει όλο και πιο κοντά, στο Αφγανιστάν, το Ιράκ, τη Συρία, την Ουκρανία και την Τουρκία, τα Βαλκάνια αναμένεται να εξυπηρετήσουν την Ευρώπη και τις ΗΠΑ ως ουδέτερη ζώνη, ενώ θα υπομένουν την ίδια κακοποίηση με όλη την υπόλοιπη περιφέρεια.

Τώρα που η ψευδαίσθηση της καθολικής οικονομικής ανάπτυξης έφτασε στο τέλος της μπορούμε να δούμε ξεκάθαρα ότι η νέα τάξη πραγμάτων θα σταθεροποιηθεί μόνο με τις κενές υποσχέσεις των πολιτικών και την ωμή βία της αστυνομίας και του στρατού: με τα ψηφοδέλτια και τις σφαίρες. Η ουδέτερη ζώνη γίνεται όλο και μικρότερη, και οι Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες δεν εξαιρούνται από αυτή την διαδικασία-η ίδια Εθνοφρουρά που περιπολεί απόψε στο Ιράκ έχει ήδη παραταχθεί και στους δρόμους της Βαλτιμόρης. Τώρα είναι η ώρα να πολεμήσουμε, πριν η κατάσταση γίνεται χειρότερη.

Εκφράζοντας σοκ και οργή για την εκλογή του Donald Trump, πολλοί στην Αριστερά έχουν αποκρύψει τη συστημική φύση του προβλήματος. Με την ανάληψη δράσης ενάντια στον Μπαράκ Ομπάμα, τον αγαπημένο πρόεδρο των Δημοκρατικών στις ΗΠΑ, δείχνουμε ότι η αντίθεσή μας δεν στρέφεται εναντίον κάποιου συγκεκριμένου εκπρόσωπου, αλλά εναντίον του κράτους και του ίδιου του καπιταλισμού. Στους πρόσφατους μετεκλογικούς λόγους τους, η Χιλαρι Κλίντον και ο Ομπάμα μίλησαν για μια “ειρηνική μετάβαση της εξουσίας» σε έναν άνθρωπο που έχουν οι ίδιοι χαρακτηρίσει ως ακατάλληλο να κυβερνήσει, αποκαλύπτοντας τη σύμπραξη των φιλελεύθερων, που με σκοπό να διατηρήσουν τη λειτουργία του κράτους είναι πρόθυμοι να παραδώσουν την εξουσία ακόμη και στα χέρια των απροκάλυπτων φασιστών από το να αποδεχθούν την ανάδυση της πραγματικής ελευθερίας.

Πράγματι, ως υποψήφιος της δήθεν “Ελπίδας” και της “Αλλαγής”, ο Ομπάμα όχι μόνο διέσωσε τις δομές εξουσίας, αλλά και έπεισε πάρα πολλούς ανθρώπους που υπομένουν την πιο στοχευμένη επίθεση από το σύστημα να επενδύσουν περισσότερη ακόμα πίστη και πόρους σε αυτές τις δομές- οι οποίες τώρα θα χρησιμοποιηθούν για να τους καταπιέσουν πιο επιθετικά από ποτέ. Με τον ίδιο τρόπο με τον οποίο έχουμε απορρίψει τις ψεύτικες λύσεις του ΣΥΡΙΖΑ, καταλαβαίνουμε ότι η φήμη του Ομπάμα ως “καλός” πολιτικός τον κάνει ακόμα πιο επικίνδυνο για αυτούς που φιλοδοξεί να προστατεύσει. Εκείνοι που υπόσχονται έναν νεοφιλελευθερισμό «χωρίς αποκλεισμούς» σήμερα, είναι αυτοί που ανοίγουν τον δρόμο για τον αυριανό φασισμό.

Ο Ομπάμα έχει απελάσει δυόμιση εκατομμύρια ανθρώπους, ίσο αριθμό με όσους έχουν απελάσει όλοι μαζί οι Πρόεδροι των ΗΠΑ ολόκληρο τον 20ο αιώνα, μετατρέποντας το Μεξικό και την Κεντρική Αμερική σε ένα απέραντο κέντρο κράτησης για τους πληθυσμούς που για τον καπιταλισμό δεν έχουν καμία χρήση. Ακριβώς όπως δρουμε σε αλληλεγγύη με εκείνους που στοχεύονται από τη λεγόμενη “προσφυγική κρίση”, μια κρίση που επιβάλλεται από την ύπαρξη των συνόρων και των πολέμων που είναι ενδημικοί στον καπιταλισμό, δρούμε εναντίον Ομπάμα σε αλληλεγγύη με όλους τους ανθρώπους του Μεξικού, της Νικαράγουας, της Ονδούρας, του Ελ Σαλβαδόρ και όλου του κόσμου. Αν δεν γκρεμίσουμε μαζί τα σύνορα που φυλακίζουν άλλους ανθρώπους σήμερα, ποίοι θα ενωθούν μαζί μας για να γκρεμίσουμε αύριο τα σύνορα και τους φράχτες που κρατάνε εμάς φυλακισμένους;

Ως ο πρώτος μαύρος πρόεδρος, ο Ομπάμα έχει υπηρετήσει την ατζέντα όσων θέλουν να δοθεί η εντύπωση ότι η ρατσιστική “λευκή υπεροχή” είναι ένα πράγμα του παρελθόντος. Ωστόσο, στο πλαίσιο της βασιλείας του, ένα εκατομμύριο μαύροι λιώνουν στις φυλακές, ενώ η αστυνομία δολοφονούσε ατιμώρητη έναν μαύρο στους δρόμους των Η.Π.Α. κάθε μέρα. Κατά τη διάρκεια των τελευταίων μηνών, έχουμε δει πολεμιστές αμερικανικών ιθαγενικών πληθυσμών να δέχονται επιθέσεις από την ίδια αστυνομία για την υπεράσπιση του νερού που δίνει ζωή στις κοινότητές τους. Εμπνευσμένοι από τους θαρραλέους μαχητές και τις μαχήτριες του Φέργκιουσον, της Βαλτιμόρης, του Oakland, και του Standing Rock, έχουμε ως στόχο να καταφέρουμε και εμείς ισχυρά χτυπήματα κατά του ρατσισμού, των φυλακών και της αστυνομίας παντού.

Φυσικά αυτοί οι αγώνες δεν θα ολοκληρωθούν όταν ο Ομπάμα φύγει από την Ελλάδα, ούτε όταν θα εγκαταλείψει το προεδρικό μέγαρο. Ως Πρόεδρος της πιο ηγεμονικής κρατικής εξουσίας της εποχής μας, ο Ομπάμα προσωποποιεί όλες τις διαπλεκόμενες και αμοιβαία ενισχυόμενες ιεραρχίες που διαχωρίζουν την ανθρωπότητα -την ιδιοκτησία, την ιθαγένεια, τους ρόλους των δύο φύλων, καθώς και κάθε άλλη μορφή εξουσίας- και όμως, ακόμη και ο ίδιος, δεν είναι τίποτα άλλο πάρα ένα γρανάζι σε μια πολύ μεγαλύτερη μηχανή. Όταν αντικατασταθεί τον ερχόμενο Ιανουάριο, τα οικονομικά συμφέροντα που κρατούσαν τα νήματα της διακυβέρνησης του και καθόριζαν τις επιλογές του θα προχωρήσουν αξιοποιώντας τον Donald Trump με τους ίδιους βασικούς στόχους, έστω και μέσω μιας πιο απροκάλυπτα βίαιης στρατηγικής, κατάλληλης για αυτούς τους χρόνους που μας περιμένουν.

Από μεριάς μας και εμείς επίσης, πρέπει να ανανεώσουμε τις στρατηγικές μας. Σήμερα, όλο και λιγότεροι άνθρωποι διατηρούν την ψευδαίσθηση ότι οι εκλογές, το κόμμα, ή το κράτος θα μπορούσαν να λύσουν τα προβλήματα που αντιμετωπίζουμε. Όταν παίρνουμε μέτρα εναντίον πολιτικών σαν τον Ομπάμα, δεν πρέπει να κατανοούμε τους εαυτούς μας ως συμμέτοχους σε μια απλή διαμαρτυρία. Δεν  επιδιώκουμε απλά να αποκτήσουμε δύναμη με μαχητικά μέσα. Αναπτύσσουμε μορφές αυτο-άμυνας, προκειμένου να δημιουργήσουμε απελευθερωμένους χώρους στους οποίους μπορούμε να πειραματιστούμε με τους δικούς μας τρόπους για να καλύψουμε τις δικές μας ανάγκες, άμεσα, αντί άλλοι να υποβάλλουν τις ζωές μας σε πειράματα.

ΝΑ ΠΑΡΟΥΜΕ ΤΗΝ ΜΟΙΡΑ ΜΑΣ ΣΤΑ ΧΕΡΙΑ ΜΑΣ. Να πάρουμε άμεσα πρωτοβουλίες, να δημιουργήσουμε κοινότητες αγώνα παντού, να ανοίξουμε χώρους, στέκια, καταλήψεις, σημεία συνάντησης, να καταλάβουμε και να απελευθερώσουμε τον δημόσιο χώρο, να ανοίξουμε συζητήσεις, να οργανώσουμε διαδηλώσεις, να παράγουμε ελεύθερη τροφή, στέγη και κουλτούρα για όλους, σκέψη χειραφέτησης και δράσεις απελευθέρωσης, να συμμετάσχουμε στις κοινωνικές δομές του κινήματος, να σπάσουμε την απάθεια και την ιδιώτευση.

Τα χτυπήματα που θα καταφέρουμε εδώ στην Ελλάδα θα ακουστούν σε όλο τον κόσμο, από τις υπόλοιπες περιφέρειες έως την καρδιά των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών.

Μαζί, από όλες τις πλευρές του πλανήτη, να γίνουμε ακυβέρνητοι.

Για τον διεθνή συντονισμό και την παγκόσμια Αλληλεγγύη στον αγώνα ενάντια στο κράτος και τον παγκόσμιο καπιταλισμό.

Για την Αναρχία, την αέναη επανεφεύρεση των σχέσεών μας με σκοπό την άσκηση της ελευθερίας

Για την Ελευθερία, τη συλλογική ικανότητα να εκπληρώσουμε τις τεράστιες δυνατότητές μας με τους δικούς μας όρους

Κοινή διεθνής ανακοίνωση
Κενό Δίκτυο [Θεωρία, Ουτοπία, Συναίσθηση, Εφήμερες Τέχνες] / Αθήνα
και Crimethinc Ex Workers Collective (USA)

The post Welcome to Athens, Obama / Kαλώς ήρθες στην Αθήνα Ομπάμα!: Κενό Δίκτυο & Crimethinc (USA) Common Announcement of Void Network (Athens) and Crimethinc (USA) appeared first on Void Network.

Nowadays, the world has nothing to do with the rigmarole on the “end of history” as this was formulated after the end of the cold war in an effort to construct a theoretical explanation of the global autocracy of the US. Amidst the capitalist crisis, antagonisms between imperialisms have turned vast areas of the planet in slaughterhouses, while, at the same time, the advancing capitalism is fiercely attacking the lives of the exploited and oppressed, even in countries where the world of labor has retained until now some of the rights it managed to win in the previous century by means of its own struggles and blood.

The agenda of Obama’s visit to Greece is diverse. First of all, we must not forget that the US is actively involved in the Greek crisis. Ever since the era of Pinochet, and through the IMF, North American capitalism promotes the complete deregulation of the labor market and the frontal attack on employment rights. Given the obvious intention of the SYRIZA / ANEL government to reopen the issue of work, aiming at the final cleanup of whatever is left as a memory of labor unionism, we can easily imagine the results of that discussion.

The main reason of Obama’s visit, however, is none other than the developments in the wider region of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East. The US, after promoting the transformation of the Arabic Spring in a process that suits their plans for the region, after priming the most reactionary jihadist sections like ISIS, have now been engaged in a hopeless competition with other imperialisms (such as the Russian), mainly in the Syrian and Iraqi fronts, as well as in Libya, Yemen, etc. In doing this, they have converted a large part of the Middle East into a field of open warfare with uncertain future. The Greek state, loyal to its commitments to NATO, is directly and indirectly involved in this conflict. The geopolitical balance makes it imperative for the US to stabilize this participation. And, of course, we must not forget the classic trade of weapons between the US and their two best clients in the area, the Greek and the Turkish state.

From our perspective, we don’t have any illusions. We are not against the US imperialism keeping in the back of our mind to ally with any other imperialism. We don’t fantasize “popular” or national fronts of class collaboration against the “external” enemy. What constitutes our enemy as a whole is the reality of global domination, the state, capitalism and imperialism in whatever form or facade it acquires. We are aware that those from the base, the proletarians and the oppressed of this world, have no financial interests in the domination by the state and the capital, regardless of any national or supra / transnational sign; they have no financial interest whatsoever in the escalation of the warfare caused by imperialist antagonisms. On the contrary, what should actually unite them is the struggle for a universal society of freedom and equality, the struggle for libertarian communism.

For this reason we support those struggling against oppression. We stand by the Kurds of Syria with whom the United States are playing a very dirty game, assisting them militarily against ISIS while supporting, simultaneously, the murderous regime of Erdogan who attacks them in every opportunity. We stand by the Palestinians who keep on fighting for their freedom for decades. We stand by all the people of the Middle East, Asia and Latin America who refuse to obey.
But resistances are also developed in the very heart of the beast, the USA. It is not long ago that the big nationwide strikes of the workers in the food supply demanded and won increases of the minimum wage in the sector. Also, The Black Lives Matter movement has been fighting for years against the violence and the murders by the police, and, more generally, against the racial and class oppression that never ceased to be the reality faced by the African Americans.
Also, a great movement has begun to grow in the US prisons, where combining many forms of struggle such as strikes, riots and hunger strikes the prisoners resist the unpaid labor they are forced to provide to private contractors, thereby resisting their transformation into modern slaves. In their turn, the indigenous Sioux have recently unearthed their hatchet of war, determined to resist the passage of a catastrophic oil pipeline through their land. These are only some examples of the struggles of the oppressed in the USA reminding us that the fight against imperialism and capitalism has no national colors, it is not determined by national borders, nor can it be achieved through alliances with the various bourgeoisies.

Today, on Tuesday, November 8, we intervened at the American Consulate in Thessaloniki. This action is an indication of our timely involvement in the protests against the arrival of the US President. We, therefore, invite you all to join us in the streets on the day of Obama’s visit, so as to demonstrate against war, the state, capitalism and imperialism.

LET US UNEARTH THE HATCHET OF THE INTERNATIONALIST SOCIAL AND CLASS WAR
SOLIDARITY IS THE WEAPON OF THE PEOPLES. WAR AGAINST THE WAR OF THE BOSSES

Libertarian Initiative of Thessaloniki
Anarchist Collective “Rouvikonas”

– Members of the ANARCHIST FEDERATION 

photo: Until the destruction of all kinds of prisons / death for the world of submission /
Freedom for all the Anarchist Prisoners all around the world

The post Protesting intervention at the American Consulate General in Thessaloniki- Anarchist Federation in Greece appeared first on Void Network.

The post Παρέμβαση στο Αμερικάνικο Προξενείο της Θεσσαλονίκης / ΑΝΑΡΧΙΚΗ ΟΜΟΣΠΟΝΔΙΑ appeared first on Void Network.

“Just remember, you are not a participant here,” the Fox News anchor reminded us. “At the end of the debate, you can applaud all you want, but in the meantime, silence, please—blessed silence.”

A cursory reading of Guy Debord’s Society of the Spectacle is enough to decipher this scene. Trump is the harbinger of the apocalypse, yes, but the apocalypse is not on the horizon. It’s here.

“Armageddon has been in effect,” as Public Enemy put it in 1988. “Go get a late pass.”

The Trump threat serves to distract us from what is already happening. “I don’t want to rip families apart,” Clinton insists, in reference to immigration policy, when the administration she serves under Obama has deported over 2.5 million people—as many as all the US presidents of the 20th century put together. Mothers of the Movement promote Clinton as the candidate to curb racist policing—when police murders of black and brown people have only escalated since she got into office, and the most liberal politicians and prosecutors have failed to challenge the impunity of the police. Trump is dubbed the first demagogue of the Anthropocene—but does any candidate in the election have a realistic proposal to halt catastrophic climate change?

The same good cop/bad cop routine is playing out all around the globe. Explicitly leftist parties like Syriza and Brazil’s Workers Party have implemented the same policies they accused their right-wing counterparts of pursuing. Today, the only remaining justification for continuing to support Syriza, the Workers Party, or Clinton goes something like this: “If the left doesn’t screw us, the right will!” If the left doesn’t privatize water—if the left doesn’t militarize the police—if the left doesn’t expand the prison-industrial complex—if the left doesn’t silence dissent…

This strategy has served to cover a steady bipartisan drift to the right for at least half a century. If Clinton now has a shot of winning even Texas, that just shows how Republican her platform is.

There’s a flip side to this, too: if the left doesn’t rise in revolt, the right will. Outraged at the prevailing political class, Donald Trump’s constituency seems primed to reject the legitimacy of the electoral process. Mind you, they’re not calling for a black bloc at the inauguration or marching around with a banner reading “WHOEVER THEY VOTE FOR, WE ARE UNGOVERNABLE” yet, but if things continue in this direction, renegade Republicans will be understood as the chief adversaries of the ruling order.

The Price of Defeat

When revolutionary movements fail, reactionaries adapt their tactical and rhetorical innovations. This should come as no surprise: practically every aspect of our lives, from the buildings we live in to the music we listen to, represents the appropriation of ordinary people’s efforts and innovations.

The social movements of 2011—the Arab Spring, the movement of the squares in Spain and Greece, Occupy, and subsequent uprisings from the Balkans to Hong Kong—ran aground as a consequence of violent state repression and their own built-in limits before they could pose a significant threat to globalized capitalism and the governments that oversee it. Since the end of 2013, we’ve seen right-wing efforts seizing the initiative where these movements failed, reframing the causes of popular suffering and the objectives of revolt in their own terms.

First, nationalists and fascists used the Occupy model to topple the Ukrainian government. Then, in Brazil, some of the momentum of an autonomist movement against a neoliberal leftist government carried over into reactionary unrest that brought millions to the streets. Rather than a left social movement like Occupy, Germany produced Pegida. Meanwhile, racists around Europe attempted to appropriate feminist themes to smear migrants and Muslims. Others are doing the same thing with gay rights, while atheist discourse has become a breeding ground for Islamophobia. Nationalists are hailing the Brexit vote as a triumph of direct democracy, with the German and Dutch far-right parties Alternative für Deutschland and Partij voor de Vrijheid promising regular referendums as a plank in their platforms.

This trend reached the United States with the runaway candidacy of Donald Trump. Trump’s campaign appropriated the language of the anti-globalization movement, right down to the rhetoric of “fair trade” rather than “free trade” and the allegation that a global financial elite is benefitting at the expense of working people.

It is instructive that the narratives of a movement founded by radicals and anarchists could serve a nationalist billionaire in his Presidential bid: at the least, it reveals the ways that those narratives were vulnerable to cooptation all along. Indeed, there has long been a far-right opposition to globalized capitalism, which Trump embraced more and more openly as his campaign proceeded. Fascism was originally modeled on left-wing movements: it was a way to channel rightful indignation about class inequalities into violence directed down the social hierarchy, rather than revolt that could threaten it. As in the 1920s, so today: the price of revolutionary failure is reactionary momentum.

photo: The neoliberal state versus populist nationalism at a Pegida rally.

The Reaction to Come

Clinton protests too much when she claims that Trump is besmirching the legacy of democracy in the United States by threatening to reject the results of the upcoming election. Didn’t the US actively orchestrate coups to overthrow democratically elected governments in Brazil, Chile, Guatemala, Iran, and the Congo, to name a few? The interplay between elections and states of exception in which ordinary political processes are suspended has always been central to democratic governance. It’s the exception that proves the rule.

In any case, Trump is not going to lead an insurrection. He’s more of a weathervane than a whirlwind; his genius, such as it is, consists of giving all the other bigoted narcissists in Middle America someone to identify with. He doesn’t have what it takes to seize power.

So Clinton will be President. And then what?

This is not a good time to stand at the helm of the state. It didn’t work out for Morsi or most of the other politicians who came to power in the revolutions of 2011. Syriza was exalted throughout Europe when they won the elections of 2015, but they burned up all their credibility as soon as they took the reins. Only apathy, despair, and the threat of even worse rulers—like Trump—currently shore up the positions of unpopular leaders like Clinton.

In a nutshell, the double bind facing governments in globalized capitalism is that open markets and austerity measures accelerate the processes by which the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, but closed markets and state spending drive away investors and drain resources. Consequently, people tend to blame individual governments for economic woes that state structures can do precious little to solve. In this context, the election cycle will likely produce alternating waves of hope and disillusionment as long as the anarchist proposal to abolish government and property remains unthinkable.

But if this is a bad time to hold power, it is a great time to be in the opposition. For a burgeoning far right nationalist movement, a Clinton presidency is good fortune: that’s four more years of the liberal left taking the heat for whatever happens, four more years during which the far right can claim to have a political program that would work if only they could implement it. After the initial post-election disappointment dissipates, this will be an ideal context for far-right recruiting.

Clinton looks unstoppable now, but that will change once Trump is out of the picture. Who knows what other scandalshave yet to break? The next wave of right-wing momentum is bound to look rational and well mannered by comparison with Donald Trump; while he has brought opprobrium on himself, his strong personality has offered cover for others who share his agenda. The next demagogues will have no trouble proclaiming all manner of reactionary ideas, because Trump has shifted the window of legitimate political discourse so far. Right-wing strategists are doubtless discussing how to cast a slightly wider net; if they have any sense, they will shift from old-fashioned white supremacist narratives towards a nationalist discourse of law and order that could mobilize a large number of people even in a demographically diverse US. And although Trump isn’t prepared to orchestrate an uprising, he certainly has helped set the stage for autonomous nationalist movements to come.

If all these pieces fall into place, then when Clinton inevitably fails to solve the problems that originally drove people to support Trump and Sanders, the far right will be in a much stronger position to build street-level power and perhaps even make a grab for the state.

Don’t believe it? Consider what happened to Dilma Rousseff and the Workers Party in Brazil.

Rousseff rode to office in 2011 on the coattails of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, one of the most popular politicians in Brazilian history—a left icon who spent his time in office advancing a neoliberal agenda, taking advantage of an influx of investment dollars to dampen the immediate consequences on poor Brazilians. Powerful autonomous protest movements erupted against Rousseff and the Workers Party in 2013, drawing mass participation and achieving some temporary victories. At the peak of these movements, many people with no previous protest experience or radical politics poured into them; when the Brazilian government outmaneuvered the autonomists by the usual combination of state repression and cooptation, many of these new participants moved on to right-wing mobilizations.

Like countless politicians, Rousseff was vulnerable to charges of corruption. At first, the right-wing populist movement calling for her impeachment—and in some cases the return of the military dictatorship—seemed laughable enough, as reactionaries from the middle class clumsily attempted to appropriate the organizational methods and tactics of the autonomous movements. Then the movement gained momentum in the streets, plunging Brazil into massive right-on-left violence. In the end, Rousseff was impeached. Today, Brazil’s government is controlled by the right wing.

For those who consider horizontal grassroots efforts the best hope for social change, the most dismaying part of this story is that the autonomous movements that seemed so strong in Brazil in 2013 have been completely marginalized. The participants have been forced to choose between sitting on the sidelines or mobilizing behind the Workers Party they opposed three years ago.

photo: The reactionary popular movement that toppled Dilma in Brazil.

To recap: a controversial female candidate inherits the Presidency from a popular left leader amid charges of corruption, as reactionary momentum gains steam in the wake of defeated autonomous movements. Sound familiar?

In the context of a Clinton victory, the most significant danger is that the entire political spectrum will be divided up between a statist neoliberal left and an opportunistically antigovernment nationalist right. Each of these adversaries needs the other; each will seek to absorb those who fall outside this dichotomy or else push them into the opposing camp.

If we don’t want to be marginalized the way our comrades in Brazil have been, we have to debunk the idea that either nationalism or the state could solve any of our problems, and organize to take on both the authorities and their reactionary opposition. This means breaking with the narratives of the left as well as the right. Otherwise, as the Clinton administration inevitably fails to resolve the economic crises of everyday life, more and more ordinary people will run into the arms of the reactionaries—and as these reactionary movements gain steam, the people who should be our comrades will respond in ways that shore up neoliberal democracy. There has to be another way.

If it becomes impossible to talk about how the system is rigged or how the corporate media is implicated without advancing the discourse of the far-right—if NSA surveillance, drones, international finance, corporate profiteering, and the subtle control exercised by social media algorithms become understood as right-wing issues—then all prospects of real liberation will be off the table for another generation or more. Today, even Wikileaks is bolstering right-wing narratives; grassroots outrage is assuming the form of reactionary populism. Anarchists and other partisans of liberation will be sidelined by the popular appropriation of our own tactics and slogans unless we get our bearings quickly.

We have our work cut out for us.

Further Reading

Trump and the Legacy of the Anti-Globalization Movement

The post After the Election, the Reaction- Analysis about USA Presidential elections 2016 by American anarchists Crimethinc appeared first on Void Network.