The following is an opinion piece by an Ecuadorian, Joseph SP, viewing the events in their country. It was originally published on Oct. 8th, 2019 on Indymedia Ecuador. What follows is our translation. Note, throughout the writer makes use of the gender neutral -x.
CW: mentions of homophobia & domestic violence.
I almost never post on social networks, but today I cannot stop thinking about the turbulent social conditions which we live in today in [Ecuador] and the way they affect my life. Some on social networks have made calls for PEACE and calm, clamoring because of the paralyzation brought by mobilizations of the most dispossessed sectors of society: the indigenous, the peasants, women and students. With hashtags like #EcuadorPaísDePaz [tr. Ecuador country of peace] we would be made to believe that PEACE is something that was always present and that “some” have come to break and vandalize it. Nonetheless, it’s impossible for me to imagine if I have every really known PEACE and if others in the same boat have known PEACE before all these protests. Do I really know PEACE? Who knows PEACE? What is PEACE really?
The following is a translation of a text by Proletarios Revolucionarios, an ultra-left group out of Quito, Ecuador. Though the group dissolved in 2016, they offer us this analysis published on Oct. 2nd, 2019. The original Spanish-language text can be found here.
The recent economic measures by the Ecuadorian government are austerity measures used in times of capitalist crisis, which have been applied by right-wing, “neo-liberal,” left-wing and “21st c. socialist” governments the world over, because they are bound by the same logic of capitalist production, which lives on the exploitation of the working-class. In fact, in times of crisis, Capital always applies the same economic policy everywhere against our class: time to tighten belts or there will be greater impoverishment or an increase in exploitation.
CW: sexual assault, misogynistic slurs, descriptions of murder / assault
First published on Antagonismo, on Aug 17th 2019. An account by an anarchist feminist in Mexico City. Translator’s note: throughout feminine adjectives were used which cannot be replicated in English. The translation follows.
The following is a translation of an article that first appeared on the French-language radical website, Révolution Permanente on July 23rd, 2019. This website is an organ of a certain current within the French New Anticapitalist Party, and while this translation is not an endorsement of their party politics (or any party politics), we value this piece since we get to hear first hand from some of the Gilets Noirs (Black Vests, a nod to the recent Yellow Vests mov’t)1A direct action collective of undocumented immigrants in France, largely of African origin.
A blog post originally written Carbure & published on Médiapart on May 7th, 2019. We have translated other pieces by Carbure in the past and we share this translation since it echos sentiments we fell when it comes to our ideas, radical media & mass media.
Far-Left circles have recently been annoyed by criticisms of [Juan] Branco1“Close adviser to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, he has worked for the Criminal Special Court of Central Africa and the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.” (Source:Wikipedia), [Frédéric] Lordon2“He is an influential figure in France’s Nuit debout movement.” (Source:Wikipedia), [François] Ruffin3“He is the founder and editor-in-chief of the satirical quarterly Fakir; Ruffin is best-known for directing the film Merci patron! (2016), as well as for playing an instrumental role in the formation of the Nuit debout movement in France.” (Source:Wikipedia), and other media radicals, blaming those who critiqued them for a supposed elitism that is responsible for the fact that our ideas – mainly our communist and anarchist ideas – are not “present” throughout the population and are only discussed in restricted circles. But it must be clearly stated: if these people [Branco, Lordon, Ruffin, etc.] occupy the top billing on media posters it is precisely because they are not revolutionaries. Despite being not being very radical, they are also quite accessible and help “people” think, which should then help lead these “people” towards more radical ideas: though as soon as they are present the question of revolution is rejected from the get-go; being not-very-radical is the condition of access to public debate.
This text was originally published on Jan. 22nd 2019 on Carbure Blog, written by AC & LG in France. A translation was sent to us from Carel Wexler, we merely edited a few things. What follows is the translation.
This contribution can be read as a set of preliminary reflections, which we think are necessary to understand the movement in progress.In the heat of the moment, one cannot immediately settle the important questions that arise.However, to take the situation seriously, it seemed to us necessary to lay the groundwork by first qualifying these questions and the theoretical place in which they arise.This contribution will be followed by a second part, tackling certain limits of the theory of communization, which prevent us from dealing with this movement in its uniqueness and, more generally, which limit the understanding of the unfolding episode in which we find ourselves.It is therefore an introductory effort and we hope to be able to answer, as soon as possible, the questions we are trying to ask here.
Originally published in French on Paris-Luttes.info on Jan. 11th 2019. Translated by our collaborator in French, Otto Mattik and edited by us at Ediciones Inéditos. It is a glimpse at the looming capitalist crisis to come and how the writer in France figures the Yellow Vests movement within it and what antagonistic developments the movement can bring. What follows is the translation.
Originally published in French by Agitations on Jan. 6th 2019, this is an introduction to communization theory. What follows is our translation and suggested further reading at the end.
According to communization theory, born in the 1970s, the worker’s movement first knew how to positively affirm itself, but then little by little began to decompose during the 1960s, and that this whole cycle of struggle was known as “programmatism.1A term used to describe when the broader Left put forth political programs as part of their strategy where a definitive pathway to socialism would be listed.”