The Workers Union by Flora Tristan

 

The Workers Union is a book written by Flora Tristan a French Socialist and early feminist. It was published in 1843 after she managed to raise enough donations to pay for its first printing. It proved popular, so much so that it had two more printings in its first year of circulation. In a way Tristan was also a pioneer in crowdfunding. The book is an odd creation, or rather its become odd thanks to the passage of time. 

It was written during the last years of the July Monarchy, where radical voices were scrutinised and spied upon by the police, and gatherings of a political nature were limited to seven people at most. So it can be hard to put hindsight aside while reading it. But the effort is worth it. I believe Tristan's thought is a sort of mix and transition from the old co-operative and guild socialism of the early 1800s, the ideas of Fourier, Owen, St Simon etc, who are usually written off with the pejoratives Idealists, and Utopians, and the later socialist ideas. The translator of the book is keen to stress the connections and relevance her ideas have to the socialism of Marx and Engels, and I can see connections. But I was also strongly reminded of similarities with the Mutualist ideas of Proudhon who has a book La Celebration du dimanche, included in Tristan's recommended reading list for a hypothetical learning library for workers. And certain passages in the Workers Union could've been recycled into many a pamphlet on the merits of the One Big Union popularised by early syndicalists.

Tristan is open about her inspirations, St. Simon, Robert Owen and Fourier among others are acknowledged and praised, but also criticised for their shortcomings. The socialism of Flora Tristan represents a unique combination from a time of change and transformation. The American Anarchist Tom Wetzel believes Tristan to be a forerunner to International Workingmen's Association (IWMA) and this Workers Union is indeed an early proposal and rough blueprint for an international workers organisation. Its a flawed one mainly advocating that combination of all workers will empower and fund important projects including representation, welfare and educational enterprises (the workers palaces) and compel governments to grant the rights of work and organisation. 

I don't believe such a program was viable especially given that a key part of this Union was the appointment of a sole individual as its defender and champion in open copying of the Irish masses subscriptions for O'Connell in his work for constitutional reforms for Ireland. There is at least an acknowledgement that a dictatorial figure would be less than ideal and an attempt to control this hypothetical workers advocate with an idea of setting up a committee to examine their conduct and use of funds, and who can revoke their mandate if not satisfied. It's difficult for modern readers to understand the fixation on a singular great man but in the 1840s and long after even the socialist movement was dominated by powerful individuals. 

There is also a section dedicated to a series of draft appeals to the powerful in society, including the King and the Catholic church which are unthinkable in this day and age. But there is at least some method to this madness, the appeals were essentially politely worded charges of hypocrisy and in Tristan's own words would serve the dual purposes of soliciting support from the few progressives in society and the lack of response or critical rebukes to such appeals would serve as proof of general antagonism to the workers and their initiatives. 

So I don't think this work should be read seeking a practical strategy. It is an historic document. The longest appeal by far is addressed to women. Although called the Workers Union many pages are dedicated to the plight of women in 19th century society and advocating for improvements and inclusion within the working class. A modern feminist would have much to criticise, it leaves intact the family and a women's role within it, i.e. carer, but it does demand and advocate for education and condemns unequal pay practises in work. It also repeats Wollstonecraft's demand of a declaration of the rights of woman to be paired with the rights of man declared during the French revolution. 

It is an odd document that deserves to be read with open but critical minds. 

Belarus: A Tale of Two Flags

Belarus is an unfortunate country. Growing up it was often overshadowed sandwiched between Poland, Ukraine Russia and the Baltic states. It rarely made the news except for brief snippets about its heavy handed government and apart from the phrase "Europe's last dictatorship" I can't recall much about the nation I didn't stumble upon when looking up something else that turned out to have a connection to it. Until 2020, then at least Belarus for a few weeks became big news. The pressure had finally grown too much, one fraudulent election too many had sparked much larger protests than the usual suspects, mainly anarchists and football hooligans. 

These were massive demonstrations that kept growing, strikes paralysed the whole economy and Lukashenko the dictator since 1994 looked visibly rattled and shaky as he shuffled from one besieged stronghold to another in a helicopter while wearing body armour. It looked like he'd finally pushed his luck too far. But alas, his security enforcers remained loyal and the Russian Federation a nation with a very complex and bitter relationship with Belarus took advantage and sent vital support. And since then, while Lukashenko and the Belarusian government have lost their popularity and friends in Europe, they've gained a small following in the worst circles of the online "revolutionary" gossip network.

They have their work cut out for them as even amongst the dictators Lukashenko struggles to stand out. And he's also openly praised Hitler and condemned homosexual men in blunt terms, so its not hard to collapse attempts to make him look more than the cunning thug that he is. One key tactic has been to talk up the large state sector in the Belarusian economy, but even we concede that large state involvement in the economy is a good thing, its hard to overlook the fact that Lukashenko has been in power since 1995 and the economy has had a series of privatisations. Sell offs that benefit himself and his key cronies. 

Another tactic has been to go on the offensive, and its quite audacious. The argument boiled down to its essentials is to accuse the Belarusian opposition of being Nazis by association. The most symbol of the opposition to Lukashenko is the white, red and white tricolour. This flag is not new, it has a long history which I shall outline to the best of my ability. As to why this is key, well this image should explain much of it.

The image on the right is the main feature for now. Its a photograph of the collaborationist government established in Belarus between 1941-44 when the country was occupied by Nazi Germany. You may find it odd that the flag is in colour when the rest of the photo is in black and white, yes it has been edited, though the collaboration government did use the flag so it seems like the person who edited the image didn't trust the audience to make the connection without further elaboration. And further elaboration must be avoided at all costs.

I've seen the photograph on the right have a wide circulation, whenever anyone expresses criticism of the dictatorship which has oppressed millions for decades and is currently facilitating a brutal war of aggression against its neighbour Ukraine, someone will pop that photo into the mix. Its always a pathetic tactic to equate opposition to Nazis, but given how brutal the occupation of Belarus was with some estimates going as high as 25% of the population lost, and how committed its people were to partisan warfare its particularly vile.

Its also deliberately dishonest. It's true that the brief collaborationist government used that flag as its symbol but that's because it was already a common and recognisable symbol of Belarus and its people. The flag was designed in 1918 for the Belarusian People's Republic (also known as the Democratic Republic of Belarus). The designer was Klawdziy Duzh-Dushewski, who was a member of the Belarusian Socialist Assembly. When Poland and the Soviet Union invaded Belarus he left for Lithuania. He was arrested by the Soviet authorities when they invaded that nation in 1940, but was released and sent back to the Belarus Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR). A year later after operation Barbarossa the German army installs a puppet government. This government widely adopts his design for flags and patches among other symbols of the Belarusian national movement. However, Duzh-Dushewski refused to collaborate and hid a Jewish family in his home. When this was discovered Duzh-Dushewski was sent to the Pravieniškės concentration camp in Lithuania. He survived the war, but in 1952 he was arrested by Soviet authorities again for the crime of Belarusian nationalism, he was sent to a labour camp but was released in 1955, he died four years later in 1959. In 2004 the Jewish community of Lithuania successfully petitioned the President of Lithuania to honour him for his activism during the war.

Klawdziy Duzh-Dushewski (left)

This should be enough to knock this idiotic argument on its head, but there is even more historical evidence to consider. After the second world war the white,red, white flag became a common symbol amongst the Belarus diaspora and used by groups representing many political persuasions. It was censored in the Soviet Union until the 1980s when it became a symbol of opposition within the Belarus SSR. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 the independent Belarus revived the flag as its own, and it remained as such until 1995 when the recently elected Lukashenko changed it to the current official flag of Belarus. This again transformed the white,red,white tricolour into a flag of opposition and it has been used by many Belarusian groups ever since. And after 2020 has exploded in popularity.

But this still isn't the end of the story. See, if the Nazi's used it so it must be tainted forever, well the Lukashenko supporters have a major problem. The current flag of Belarus is this

Which is a copy of a Belarus SSR flag adopted in 1951

The only key difference is the removal of the hammer and sickle and star.

Why is this an issue? Well, like the white, red, white flag this one has a designer with an interesting history. Nikolai Husev is the designer of this flag. He was a supporter of the Communist party through his painting. When Belarus was occupied he collaborated, he painted portraits for German officers and Radoslav Ostrovsky the leader of the collaboration government, and even portraits of Hitler. 

A sample of Husev's work

Created in 1940 to celebrate Stalin

Portrait of Hitler commissioned in 1943 and displayed in Minsk

So, if a flag should be consindered beyond reclamation it would have to be the Lukashenko one, copied from the work of a collaborator, used by a tyrant whose openly praised Hitler, with no redeeming qualities.

The Russian Connection

Many if not all of the perpetrators of this terrible argument are weirdly supporters of the Russian Federation. This shows either they're extremely audacious or incredibly sloppy, the current flag of the Russian Federation is the white, blue and red tricolour. Like the Belarus opposition tricolour the Russian one didn't pop out of thin air in 1991. It has a long lineage and that lineage intersects with the Nazis.

Members of the Russian Liberation Army a pro Axis fighting force

The German army also occupy large parts of Russia during the Second World War, and during that period hundreds of thousands of Russians supported multiple collaboration organisations and fighting forces. Curiously  most of them had patches and emblems that seem very familiar.

Emblem of the First Russian National Army, estimated to have been 10,000 in size

Emblem of the Russian Protective Corps, a pro German anti-partisan unit

But that's in the past, what of today? Well, the Russian Armed Forces (RAF) have for a number of years been supplementing their forces with irregular private military forces, most of whom have very open and obvious far right links. 

Members of the Wagner Group a mercenary group owned and operated in Russia and deployed worldwide including supporting the RAF in Ukraine and Syria

Now, despite the heavy associations and links I don't automatically assume everyone displaying a Russian or Belarusian flag is a Nazi or a supporter of some Eurasian off shoot. But I don't see how someone could do the same to Belarusians using the white, red and white flag but not in these two other cases, but that assumes that their argument is genuinely and not just a lazy example of propaganda. 

Also, thanks to my friend, for informing about Nikolai Husev.

The anti-imperialism of Joe Biden

 "I'll have you know I'm from Dublin, that's right buddy, Dublin Illinois" 

-random Irish American

Joe Biden the President of the United States of America is famous for his strange speaking manner and frequent lapses in concentration. He's also gotten some fame for his unabashed Irishness. I've seen that clip of him mugging off a BBC reporter a dozen or so times to pick just one example. 

He's also not shy about bringing his heritage up during diplomatic affairs like a recent trip to East Jerusalem this month where he gave a speech which had this rather surprising fragment.

“…the background of my family is Irish American. And we have a long history not fundamentally unlike the Palestinian people, with Great Britain and their attitude toward Irish Catholics over the years for 400 years.”

I was quite shocked when I saw this interview, the fact that it was given in East Jerusalem, the part of the city that's still majority Palestinian despite repeated forced expulsions and home demolitions by the Israeli authorities seemed a strange venue for any American President but especially Joe Biden. But also the content of his words was very surprising and to be honest very difficult to parse, the actual clip is difficult to follow. Reading the transcript I've come to the conclusion he was trying to reach out to the Palestinian people by trying to build a connection by comparing the history of Ireland under Britain and Palestine under the Mandate government between the two World Wars.

Both periods involved a lot of violence and exploitation at the hands of the Imperial government, though curiously there were a lot of Irish soldiers serving in the mandate. That's the thing about Empires that gets obscured and in my view deliberately in national liberation discourse, the experience of subject peoples is not uniform, while it involves a lot of violence and exploitation for many, it also involves collaboration sometimes coerced, sometimes opportunistic and in a minority of cases genuinely. In effect the victims of the process become its enablers. The British military was a truly multi cultural institution during the Empire. Even after independence many Irishmen found employment and opportunities within it. Its not surprising to read about the Napoleonic Wars, the East India Company or the scramble for Africa and find Irish names, it should be surprising to find them in the Mandate as it was created in 1918, the same time Ireland was in the middle of a war for independence from the same Empire that was setting up shop in Jerusalem. This means aside from a few thousand recruited before 1918 and the Ulster contingents who are counted separately usually, those Irish soldiers made a free choice to enlist in that military. And the British Army to this day maintains Irish units which are open to citizens of the Republic.

Irish regiments of the British Army forming the frontline in British colonial counterinsurgencies in Palestine 1948, and Cyprus ten years later.#BritishEmpire pic.twitter.com/tNI1PUIYOi

— The Irish at War (@irelandbattles) July 9, 2022

So, its not wrong and the Mandate administration and its divide and rule tactics and bloody counterinsurgency campaigns against the Palestinians, and then later Israeli Jews has been overshadowed. But there something really strange and offensive about Biden making this comparison. President Biden is an American, he acts like an American and behaves like an American. More importantly he acts like an American President. Despite public statements of pride at his Irish heritage, its clear that the experiences of his ancestors has taught him very little beyond bluster. Instead of sympathising with the oppressed globally he's behaved like the head of an Imperial power. Famously the Irish in America came in their millions to the United States seeking refuge from oppression and crippling poverty, yet Joe has responded to other peoples attempting to do the same not with tolerance and understanding but with naked violence. ICE still exists, kids are still being put in cages and just recently the US gov has successfully pressured the Mexican government to pay for part of it. 

WASHINGTON, July 12 (Reuters) - Mexico on Tuesday pledged to spend $1.5 billion to beef up its northern border as its leader met with U.S. President Joe Biden, who faces attacks from Republicans over his handling of immigration on the United States' southern flank.

Casting immigration as a "hemispheric challenge", Biden met Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and top Mexican officials in the White House to address U.S. concerns over migration and Mexico's desire for more worker visas.

...

Biden has struggled with more than 2.8 million arrests at the U.S.-Mexico border since he took office at the beginning of 2021, a record-setting level.

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/presidents-us-mexico-meet-after-summit-tensions-2022-07-12/ 

Oh and this is far from the first time Biden has commented on the plight of the Palestinians. Biden is a self declared Zionist and supporter of Israel.  

“The Palestinians need to end incitement in the West Bank and rocket attacks in Gaza,” Biden said. “What they are teaching in their schools is still in the schoolbooks. No matter what legitimate disagreement they may have with Israel, it’s never a justification for terrorism, and no leader should fail to condemn as terrorists those who commit these brutalities.”

Biden said the Palestinian Authority should “acknowledge, flat-out, Israel’s right to exist — period – as an independent Jewish state and guarantee the borders.”

“I’m going to fully support the Taylor Force Act, which holds aid to the PA based on payments they make to terrorists in Israeli jails.” Biden also said he would restore funding to the Palestinian Authority for security cooperation with Israel.

“I’m going to reverse Trump’s administration steps [that] I think significantly undercut the prospects of peace and restore diplomatic relationships with the Palestinian Authority and assistance to support the Israeli Palestinian security cooperation and economic, humanitarian aid for Palestinian people.”

He said Israel should stop settlement activity, but “we also shouldn’t let the Palestinians off the hook” for issues like incitement and support for terrorism.

Biden assigned blame for the stalled peace process to Palestinian and Israeli leadership which are unwilling to take political risks through direct talks.

“I know Bibi well, for over 40 years,” Biden stated. “This moves [him] so far to the right.” Biden clarified, however, that it “does not justify cutting military assistance to the state of Israel.”

“My commitment to Israel is completely unshakable,” Biden said. “As president, I’m going to continue our security assistance under the historic memorandum of understanding that we signed together in 2016 and maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge. I’m not going to place conditions for the security assistance given the serious threats that Israel is facing, and this would be, I think, irresponsible.” (JewishInsider; Haaretz; Jerusalem Post, May 20, 2020) 

 more here https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/views-on-israel-of-u-s-presidential-candidates-2020-joe-biden 

To be honest I think Biden is an excellent example of the limits of nationalism as a motivator for liberty and progress. He seems passionate about a rebellious Ireland, but in terms of actions it evaporates, there's nothing you can point to that distinguishes him from any other major world leader. Much like how in Ireland the heroes of the Anglo-Irish War unleashed years of even more vicious violence and terror during the Irish Civil War. The victors in that conflict who would shape independent Ireland used Imperial guns and ammunition to do so.  The Irish Free State was born from Imperial artillery and guarantees. Joe Biden is just another Irish American revelling in a rebel mystique from a distance of time and space and money and power.