War and Hell or Peace and Starvation

 

 

 

I came across this short article by Eugene V. Debs. It was written in 1915 but much of it, including the peace in the USA and war in Europe, is still very timely. I sometimes feel tired of saying that when going through historical records, especially since it only seems to apply to bad things, disease, poverty, war, corruption, bigotry etc. 

Debs was at the time the leader of the Socialist Party and was its pick for Presidential candidate, his opposition to American entry in the First World War and refusal to buckle to pressure led to his arrest, and he ran his last Presidential campaign from behind bars.

 

 Published in St. Louis Labor, whole no. 578 (Aug. 14, 1915),

 

 Because the workers have everything to lose, including their lives,
and absolutely nothing to gain in war, it does not follow under the
benevolent rule of capitalism that they have everything to gain and
nothing to lose in peace. In Europe just now the workers have war
and hell while in this country they are enjoying peace and starvation.
That there may be no mistake about the latter condition I quote from
the highest capitalistic authority, the Associated Press, which carries
the following dispatch:

COLUMBUS, Ohio, July 26th, 1915.— Reports received here
today from militia officers who have charge of the distribution of
food supplies among destitute families in the Southern Ohio coal
mining districts, prompted state officials to send out additional
appeals for contributions to aid in the relief work.

The reports showed that a large number of these 10,000
families in the Hocking and Sunday Creek Valleys are dependent
on outside aid for food. In describing conditions the word “piti-
able” appeared frequently in the reports. There is no strike in
these districts, but most of the miners are out of work owing to
the shutting down of the mines.

There is much more to the dispatch, but this is enough. There is
no war in this country and there is no strike in Ohio. Instead of war
and hell such as they have in Europe they have peace and starvation
in Ohio. The soldiers who are asphyxiated in the trenches have one
advantage in war over their fellow-workers who are starving in the
mining camps in peace — their agony is reduced to hours, perhaps
minutes, instead of being prolonged into a lifetime. Blessed are they
who are speedily reduced to wormfood, for they shall not see their
offspring starve in the midst of plenty.

 • • • • •
It is not the misfortune of the miners that condemns them to see
their wives and children starving before their eyes in a state bursting
with riches they themselves produced; it is their folly and crime in
common with the folly and crime of the people among whom they
live.

The men who shut down the mines and locked out the miners
and are now starving them and their families are not among those
crying for relief. They own the mines and control the jobs and can
shut out and starve the miners at will — by grace of the miners them-
selves, an overwhelming majority of whom belong to the same capi-
talist party their masters do and cast their votes with scrupulous fidel-
ity to perpetuate the boss ownership of the mine in which they work
and their own exclusion and starvation at their master’s will.

Blessed be the private ownership of the mines, for without it the
miners and their wives would lose their individuality, their homes
would be broken up, their morality destroyed, their religion wiped
out, and they would be denied forever the comfort and solace of pov-
erty and starvation!

When the miners themselves control the mines, once they have
learned how to control themselves, they will not lock themselves out
and starve themselves and their loved ones to death. The bosses are
very kindly doing this for them, but only because the miners them-
selves, by their votes and otherwise, have willed it.
The bosses lose their power and along with it their jobs when the
workers find theirs.

• • • • •

But I only meant to show that in peace as in war the workers are
the losers; if they are not killed in war they are starved in peace; if
they escape the trenches they are reserved for the slave pits.
The bosses are always the beneficiaries; the workers always the
victims. The Rockefellers never lose and the [John R.] Lawsons never
win. Such is capitalism and the workers who side with the bosses and
support capitalism politically and otherwise, and are therefore respon-
sible for capitalism, are also responsible for the hell they get in war
and the starvation they suffer in peace.

 

Using Mother Night to Understand Elon Musk

 

Thanks to Cold War Steve

 Some years ago, I reviewed Kurt Vonnegut's story Mother Night. I won't rehash what I said then, I'd just like to bring up that one of the points I was keen to emphasise is that the book is one of the few that deserves the cliché "More timely now than when it was written". I'm not sure if Mother Night is my favourite of Vonnegut's works, but it is the one I come back to most.

I don't think I need to introduce Elon Musk, even if this is the first blog post you've read. There have been much commentary on his Nazi salutes and boosting of Nazi sympathisers on his platform Twitter. The thesis of Mother Night is summed up in the phrase "You should be careful about what you pretend to be, because in the end you are what you pretend to be". 

I don't think Elon Musk is a Nazi in his heart and mind, his temperament isn't a good fit for the mindset. But, this is irrelevant compared to the material impact of his actions and his conscious attempts to emulate the Nazis as much as the circumstances and his own talents will allow. It doesn't matter that he's not a Nazi, because in the end of the day he is pretending to be one. 

He shares some things in common with Howard Campbell Jnr, the protagonist of Mother Night. Howard, like Musk was a bit of an outsider, Howard was an American but raised in Germany and spoke German as a first language, and like Musk Howard was a Nazi, that's why he's in a cell in Israel when the story starts. He was a prominent official working under Goebbels. He was also a spy for the Allied cause and is credited by his handler with bringing the Allied victory sooner than expected. 

  So, what's Howard's problem? Well, in a nutshell, Howard can't reconcile his idealised version of himself with the material reality of his existence. In order to become a good spy he had to win over the Nazi government, in order to do that he had to be useful to them. During the War Howard spent his time crafting propaganda for the Axis powers, radio broadcasts to the US Army denouncing Roosevelt, plays and other antisemitic propaganda. All of which he personally ridiculed as insane drivel. At no point in the narrative are we given any suggestion that Howard was remotely close to the Nazi ideology, he was just very good at both of his jobs.

This fact haunts him, time, and again he is confronted with the toxic impact and festering legacy of his work. His father-in-law a brutal Nazi police officer who enslaved dozens of Slav women to work on his estate thanks Howard personally for convincing him of the righteousness of the cause. In a horrifically beautiful passage, the father-in-law unknowingly twists a knife in Howard's insides by confiding that there was a time when he had doubts about this whole Greater Germania and master race thing, but it was Howard's propaganda that corrected him. 

In yet another example, after the War, Howard runs into the American Neo-Nazi fringe. This is a tiny movement led by decrepit cranks and a dozen or so angry, alienated young men. The whole "movement" is a sad bunch of losers, but their guns still work, and they've been using bootleg recordings of Howard's old racist ranting speeches for succour and to maintain morale. Even after the War has ended, the seeds he planted are still sprouting.

Still, Musk and Howard are not completely alike, Howard is torn apart about the evils he aided, whereas Musk seems positively giddy about them and frustrated that he can't go further. In the end if Musk teaches us anything, it's that Vonnegut was right. We are who we pretend to be.

 

News from Zengakuren

 

 

ZENGAKUREN, the All-Japan Federation of Autonomous Student Bodies is a mass revolutionary organisation, with a militant tradition of struggle against American Imperialism and the Japanese ruling class. In 1960, it organised strikes and continuous demonstrations, in which many were wounded, outside the Tokyo Diet, against the Ratification of the Japanese – US Security Treaty. These reached such an intensity that the US Government thought it advisable to cancel a proposed Eisenhower visit to Japan.

The Zengakuren have recently called for the establishment of an anti-war International. They are supported in this by the Committee of 100, the Student Peace Union in the US, the Socialist Students Organization of West Germany and many other organizations opposed to both American and Russian tests. On August 17, 1962, representatives of the Zengakuren, including Nemoto, their President, attended the Leningrad Conference of the International Union of Students. On their way, they had demonstrated in Red Square against all nuclear tests. They had been arrested, then released and `closely watched during the remainder of their stay`.

We publish below an extract from Zengakuren Information Bulletin No.3, describing their discussions with representatives of the Soviet Student Council (SSC):

Soviet Student Council (SSC): Are you fighting against the nuclear testing of any nation other than the USSR? Do you realize that the Soviet Union is not the first country to engage in nuclear tests?

Zengakuren: We are engaged in a militant mass struggle against American nuclear tests. Our slogan in this struggle is, `Against tests of USA and USSR`. We oppose any nuclear activity by any country, be it England, France or China. Of course, we are fighting against the nuclear armament of Japan. You who sponsor the I.U.S. Congress should have known such a well-known fact.

SSC: Granted, but what country began the first nuclear tests and how many times were such tests carried out before the Soviet Union began?

Zengakuren: That is of no consequence. We accuse all countries engaged in testing of promoting the arms race and of suppressing the working class and people.

SSC: We are glad to hear that you oppose the American nuclear tests and can appreciate your stand against these tests. We lost millions of lives in World War II. This tragedy was due to the fact that our military forces were weaker than those of the Fascists. We do not want to be the second Hiroshima. If during the war Japan had had nuclear weapons at their disposal, the tragedy of Hiroshima would not have occurred.

Zengakuren: We oppose your dangerous view. According to your logic, you encourage the Japanese Imperialists to arm themselves with nuclear weapons. Do you really think that this is an effective way to stop the nuclear race and to prevent nuclear war?

SSC: The best way to prevent war is obviously total disarmament, but the next best procedure is to continue Soviet nuclear tests.

Zengakuren: Your policy, based on such a philosophy, wields an immeasurably harmful influence on the anti-war struggle of the working class. Do you know the slogan that is being used in Tokyo, New York and London to fight N-tests? `Against tests by the US and USSR`. These students and workers attempt to obtain peace not with nuclear weapons but by their own struggles.

SSC: You believe that if the Soviet Union stopped its tests, the working class movement would increase in strength and the imperialists’ tests would stop. We cannot be sure of such an outcome.

Zengakuren: Are you suggesting that the workers of the world stop their struggles and support Soviet testing? By holding such a view, you cause dissension among the workers of the world and make them oppose each other. The workers must unite. Soviet nuclear testing does not support peace. It provides America with an excuse to continue their tests and intensify the arms race. Any nuclear testing suppresses the workers of the world and subjects them to the domination of the ruling class. Aren’t you yourselves the slaves of nuclear weapons?

SSC: We can appreciate your point of view, but we are of totally different opinions.

Zengakuren: The justice of our views will be borne out by the continuation of the world-wide struggle against N-tests.

SSC: Your opinion sounds quite sincere; continue your work as you like, but don’t forget that you are in the USSR now.

Catastrophic Gradualism by George Orwell

 

The following is a commentary by George Orwell on the intellectual backing for dictatorship and oppression. It is in reaction to the 1945 publication of Arthur Koestler's book The Yogi and the Cossack, which is a collection of essays.

  It first appeared in the September 1946 issue of Politics.

THERE is a theory which has not yet been accurately
formulated or given a name, but which is very widely
accepted and is brought forward whenever it is necessary
to justify some action which conflicts with the sense of
decency of the average human being. It might be called,
until some better name is found, the Theory of Catastrophic
Gradualism. According to this theory, nothing is ever
achieved without bloodshed, lies, tyranny and injustice, but
on the other hand no considerable change for the better is
to be expected as the result of even the greatest upheaval.
History necessarily proceeds by calamities, but each succeeding
age will be as bad, or nearly as bad, as the last.

One must not protest against purges, deportations, secret
police forces and so forth because this is the price that
has to be paid for progress: but on the other hand “human
nature” will always see to it that progress is slow or even
imperceptible. If you object to dictatorship you are a reactionary,
but if you expect dictatorship to produce good results you are a sentimentalist.


At present this theory is most often used to justify the
Stalin régime in the USSR, but it obviously could be— and,
given appropriate circumstances, would be— used to justify
other forms of totalitarianism. It has gained ground as
a result of the failure of the Russian Revolution— failure,
that is, in the sense that the Revolution has not fulfilled
the hopes that it aroused twenty-five years ago. In the name
of Socialism the Russian régime has committed almost every
crime that can be imagined, but at the same time its evolution is away from Socialism, unless one re-defines that word in terms that no Socialist of 1917 would have accepted. To
those who admit these facts, only two courses are open.
One is simply to repudiate the whole theory of totalitarian
ism, which few English intellectuals have the courage to do;
the other is to fall back on Catastrophic Gradualism. The
formula usually employed is “You can’t make an omelette
without breaking eggs.” And if one replies, “Yes, but
where is the omelette?”, the answer is likely to be: “Oh
well, you can’t expect everything to happen all in a
moment.”


Naturally this argument is pushed backward into history,
the design being to show that every advance was achieved
at the cost of atrocious crimes, and could not have been
achieved otherwise. The instance generally used is the over
throw of feudalism by the bourgeoisie, which is supposed
to foreshadow the overthrow of Capitalism by Socialism in
our own age. Capitalism, it is argued, was once a progressive force, and therefore its crimes were justified, or at least were unimportant. Thus, in a recent number of the New
Statesman, Mr. Kingsley Martin, reproaching Arthur Koestler for not possessing a true “historical perspective,” compared Stalin with Henry VIII. Stalin, he admitted, had
done terrible things, but on balance he had served the cause
of progress, and a few million “liquidations” must not be
allowed to obscure this fact. Similarly, Henry VIII’s
character left much to be desired, but after all he had made
possible the rise of Capitalism, and therefore on balance
could be regarded as a friend of humanity.

Now, Henry VIII has not a very close resemblance to
Stalin; Cromwell would provide a better analogy; but,
granting Henry VIII the importance given to him by Mr.
Martin, where does this argument lead? Henry VIII made
possible the rise of Capitalism, which led to the horrors of
the Industrial Revolution and thence to a cycle of enormous
wars, the next of which may well destroy civilization altogether. So, telescoping the process, we can put it like this:
“Everything is to be forgiven to Henry VIII, because it was
ultimately he who enabled us to blow ourselves to pieces
with atomic bombs.” You are led into similar absurdities
if you make Stalin responsible for our present condition
and the future which appears to lie before us, and at the
same time insist that his policies must be supported. The
motives of those English intellectuals who support the Russian dictatorship are, T think, different from what they publicly admit, but it is logical to condone tyranny and massacre if one assumes that progress is inevitable. If each
epoch is as a matter of course better than the last, then any
crime or any folly that pushes the historical process for
ward can be justified. Between, roughly, 1750 and 1930
one could be forgiven for imagining that progress of a
solid, measurable kind was taking place. Latterly, this has
become more and more difficult, whence the theory of Catastrophic Gradualism. Crime follows crime, one ruling class
replaces another, the Tower of Babel rises and falls, but
one mustn’t resist the process— indeed, one must be ready
to applaud any piece of scoundrelism that comes off— be
cause in some mystical way, in the sight of God, or perhaps
in the sight of Marx, this is Progress. The alternative would
be to stop and consider (a) to what extent as history pre
determined? and, (b) what is meant by progress? At this
point one has to call in the Yogi to correct the Commissar.

In his much-discussed essay, Koestler is generally assumed to have come down heavily on the side of the Yogi. Actually, if one assumes the Yogi and the Commissar to be
at opposite points of the scale, Koestler is somewhat nearer
to the Commissar’s end. He believes in action, in violence
where necessary, in government, and consequently in the
shifts and compromises that are inseparable from government. He supported the war, and the Popular Front before it. Since the appearance of Fascism he has struggled against
it to the best of his ability, and for many years he was
a member of the Communist Party. The long chapter in
his book in which he criticises the USSR is even vitiated by
a lingering loyalty to his old party and by a resulting tendency to make all bad developments date from the rise of Stalin: whereas one ought, I believe, to admit that all the
seeds of evil were there from the start and that things would
not have been substantially different if Lenin or Trotsky
had remained in control. No one is less likely than Koestler
to claim that we can put everything right by watching our
navels in California. Nor is he claiming, as religious
thinkers usually do, that a “change of heart” must come
before any genuine political improvement. To quote his
own words:

“Neither the saint nor the revolutionary can save us;
only the synthesis of the two. Whether we are capable
of achieving it I do not know. But if the answer is in
the negative, there seems to- be no reasonable hope of
preventing the destruction of European civilization, either
by total war’s successor Absolute War, or by Byzantine
conquest— within the next few decades.”

That is to say, the “change of heart” must happen, but
it is not really happening unless at each step it issues in
action. On the other hand, no change in the structure of
society can by itself effect a real improvement. Socialism
used to be defined as “common ownership of the means of
production,” but it is now seen that if common ownership
means no more than centralised control, it merely paves the
way for a new form of oligarchy. Centralised control is a
necessary pre-condition of Socialism, but it no more produces Socialism than my typewriter would of itself produce this article I am writing. Throughout history, one revolution after another— although usually producing a temporary relief, such as a sick man gets by turning over in bed—has
simply led to a change of masters, because no serious effort
has been made to eliminate the power instinct: or if such an effort has been made, it has been made only by the saint, the Yogi, the man who saves his own soul at the expense of
ignoring the community. In the minds of active revolutionaries, at any rate the ones who “got there,” the longing for a just society has always been fatally mixed up with the
intention to secure power for themselves.


Koestler says that we must learn once again the technique
of contemplation, which “remains the only source of guidance in ethical dilemmas where the rule-of-thumb criteria of social utility fail.” By “contemplation” he means “the
will not to will,” the conquest of the desire for power. The
practical men have led us to the edge of the abyss, and the
intellectuals in whom acceptance of power politics has killed
first the moral sense, and then the sense of reality, are urging us to march rapidly forward without changing direction.
Koestler maintains that history is not at all moments pre
determined, but that there are turning-points at which humanity is free to choose the better or the worse road. One such turning-point (which had not appeared when he wrote
the book), is the Atomic Bomb. Either we renounce it, or
it destroys us. But renouncing it is both a moral effort and
a political effort. Koestler calls for “a new fraternity in a
new spiritual climate, whose leaders are tied by a vow of
poverty to share the life of the masses, and debarred by
the laws of the fraternity from attaining unchecked power”;
he adds, “if this seems utopian, then Socialism is a utopia.”
It may not even be a utopia— its very name may in a couple
of generations have ceased to be a memory— unless we can
escape from the folly of “realism.” But that will not hap
pen without a change in the individual heart. To that ex
tent, though no further, the Yogi is right as against the
Commissar.

Al Amal First Edition

 

Friends in the CNT-AIT (France) have sent me the first edition of Al Amal (Hope) a bimonthly newsletter produced by Sudanese anarchists organised under the Sudan Anarchist Gathering. 

At their request I am reproducing its contents here, the pdf of the English version can be downloaded here.

In addition to English there is a section written in Arabic script, I will be copying that here as well but can't guarantee it'll be free of typographical errors, please see the pdf for the original.

If you'd like to know more, support their work or sign up for the next the instalment then read the following information.

This bimonthly is issued jointly by the Sudan Anarchist Gathering,
CNT-AIT France and their friends. If you want to receive the next
issues, please contact us : contact@cnt-ait.info
If you want to support financially the Sudan Anarchist Gathering,
you can use our paypal
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/cntait1
(please validate “Sending ‘money to an individual’ to pay less bank
charges) Send an email to contact@cnt-ait.info to inform us of the
donation and also so that we can keep you informed of its use.

Bimonthly (January-February 2025) , #1

Why Would You Become an Anarchist in Sudan?

 
This question has always haunted me at many moments in a
country of ideological, cultural, ethnic, tribal, and political
diversity—where countless choices exist, yet none can be
freely made. The moment you are born, your identity in Sudan
is determined by religion, while your tribe plays a crucial role
in shaping your culture and even your fate.
To become an anarchist in Sudan, you must have already
escaped all these imposed identities and the suffocating
constraints that push us into the furnace of the state.
Sudan is a country where war, crises, and disease have never
ceased. Its people, saturated with military, religious, and tribal
ideologies, serve as perfect fuel to ignite conflicts.
In such a country, I have always looked at my life with
amazement. Our struggles often resemble action films—
perhaps bizarre or unbelievable to outsiders—where survival
means constantly fleeing from warring factions, dodging a hail
of bullets fired directly at you. Bullets of the state, religion,
tribe, sect, and armed factions.

Choosing to be an anarchist is an expression of true awareness
of the failures of these systems. It is a consciousness that
pushes you to the limits of both practical struggle and the
deeply complex human experience. And this path leads to only
two possible outcomes: you either survive as a true
revolutionary resister, or you are consumed by the spiral of
power.
Just as authority in Sudan takes many forms, so does
opposition. There are political resistance movements, parties,
mercenary armed groups, so-called revolutionary and liberal
militias built on tribal structures, and cultural factions engaged
in deep propaganda-driven authoritarianism.
These intertwined hierarchies form the crises of Sudanese
peoples. Sudan is, in reality, a collection of small peoples
trapped within a state that wields brutal power, recognizing no
human rights beyond its own interests.
Furthermore, the ideology of extremist Islamists has been
another tool for deepening ignorance and backwardness in
Sudan.

Striving to confront all of this as a lone anarchist is like fighting
as a wolf among packs of hyenas. If they find a single weakness
in you, it will mean your inevitable destruction.
The path forward begins with seeking out those who share your
ideas, developing them, and offering them knowledge and
education. As an anarchist, you carry the feeling that wherever
you are, and whatever your capacity, your mission is to spread
freedom. The price of that freedom may be high—it may even
cost you your life. Yet, all of this is just a small contribution to
the scale of liberation that people need to live a dignified
human life.

 Freedom is the highest state of being, and anarchism shows us
how to achieve and practice it.
Freedom is not just a poetic word to express aspirations—it is
an effort, a commitment to being free with yourself and others,
and a struggle to make freedom a reality. To be an anarchist is
a blessing that cannot be monopolized or hidden. To be free is
to be an anarchist, and to be an anarchist is to be free.
— Fawaz Murtada

 

 Sudan: they are not satisfied with this
blood !

 
After nearly two years of war, the truths and objectives of
this war are becoming increasingly clear: the aim is simply
to crush the revolution. Bashir’s recent speech, in which he
referred to the revolutionaries as "scoundrels," reflects the
typical rhetoric of Islamists when describing young
revolutionaries. He further accused them of wanting to
return with violence and bloodshed, referring to the
beginning of retaliatory operations—something the cadres
of the Islamist terrorist movement have threatened since the
war began.

They do not see the Janjaweed as their enemy; in fact, they
have convinced themselves that this war has already been
decided in their favor. But how can they claim victory when
the Sudanese people are dead, wounded, displaced, or
missing? I wonder how such individuals can even be human
like us. These are the same people who killed the people
from the start, divided them, sold off the nation’s resources,
and then murdered them in cold blood.
I do not know the extent of the destruction they wish to
achieve, but I now realize that if new campaigns of
oppression emerge, we must rise up, renew our commitment
to our martyrs, and resist them until our very last breath.
#TheRevolutionLivesOn, you scoundrels.

 Standing against the Rapid Support
Forces (RSF) does not imply siding with
the state

Standing against the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) does not
imply siding with the state, especially for forces that foresaw
the trajectory of this war from the outset. However, today,
propaganda directed against revolutionary forces seeks to
distort and dilute their longstanding opposition to the
existence of this mafia since its inception. The divisive
policies for Sudan, which the RSF has been accelerating
more aggressively than the state itself, reveal the true
intentions this institution has tried to impose through force
and coups.

I want to highlight the nature of the discourse by leaders of
the armed forces, such as the rhetoric we've witnessed
regarding the newly formed militias under the pretext of
fighting the RSF. These narratives have paved the way for
the establishment of a peculiar belief in the military
weakness of the state’s armed forces. This, in turn, opens the
door wide for the emergence of more armies and armed
groups. This is the policy of the state's mafia, characterized
by revoltingly sentimental speeches that in no way reflect
the sacrifices of the Sudanese people.

Reconciliation with, and the honoring of, those who have
killed the people—effectively giving them a platform—
does not fall short of the crimes they committed. Instead, it
reinforces these crimes and motivates further genocides.
The popular forces must begin to build a counterforce to
combat the propaganda of both the RSF mafia and the
Islamist mafia, through direct confrontation of the lies that
accumulate and exacerbate crises, the consequences of
which fall solely on the people.

The struggle in Sudan transcends the conventional historical
forms of resistance, such as armed struggle in military
policies or civil activism through union-building, protests,
and political advocacy.

Sudan’s unique context has given rise to diverse forms of
struggle, shaped by the multifaceted nature of oppression.
This diversity reflects the country’s complexity, even in its
injustices. However, anarchists stand out in their deep
examination of a critical issue rooted in the fabric of
Sudanese society: tribalism—a force more regressive and
extreme than nationalism itself.

For decades, Sudanese anarchists have critically analyzed
the role of tribalism and its dominance, tracing its impact
from the early days of small warring tribal states, through
the colonial era’s reliance on tribal alliances, to its current
status as a driving force behind Sudan’s persistent conflicts.
While tribalism remains central to the ongoing war and its
continuation, Sudanese political forces often address this
issue with hesitance, constrained by either political ties to
tribes or fear of confronting tribal authority.

To shed light on this neglected issue, comrade Fawaz
Murtada will explore the anarchist perspective on the history
and impact of tribalism in Sudan through a series of articles.

 The Tribe and the State : An Attempt to
Analyze Authoritarian Conflict in
Sudan from an Anarchist Perspective

This is an attempt from my humble self to explain the
authoritarian conflict in Sudan from my point of view as an
anarchist born in Sudan, drawing from my knowledge of its
conflicts.

Before British colonialism, Sudan did not know a unified
state but rather consisted of small states and kingdoms
governed by tribal, ethnic, or clan systems, such as the
Kingdom of Wadai, the Nubians, the Nuba Mountains’
kingdoms, and many others.

Sudan itself is divided into regions that bear significant
cultural and social differences, making it difficult to
compare with any other state.

The north of Sudan, for example, is inhabited by the
remnants of Nubian kingdoms whose people share cultural
ties across the border with Egypt, extending to Aswan.
In eastern Sudan, you will find the Beja tribes, Beni Amer,
and Hadendowa, who have deep connections with Eritrea
and Ethiopia.

Darfur, too, is divided into north and south regions, with
significant cultural and ethnic differences. These areas also
have connections with Chad and the Central African
Republic.

The large kingdoms that the colonial powers tried to unite
in pursuit of wealth, given Sudan’s riches in gold and fertile
lands suitable for cotton cultivation at the time, remain at the
heart of international disputes over Sudanese resources
today. Colonial powers were unable to assimilate these
communities into a single entity; instead, they applied
policies that resulted in the separation of the north and south,
as is still evident today.

All of this shows that, despite the revolutions that sought to
expel the colonizers and unify the Sudanese kingdoms and
communities, the tribal control system has remained
dominant and in control to this day. This is one of the
anarchist perspectives we will try to apply to our reality,
aiming to deconstruct it through this lens.

Tribe and State

The tribe is a miniature form of social authority that
possesses its own authoritarian culture and is governed by
the authority of a tribal leader or chief, characterized by a
hereditary transfer of leadership in most cases. It has been
and continues to be the main obstacle in transforming the
Sudanese people from a center of tribal conflict, violence,
and immersion in ignorance and backwardness to a better
stage.

Colonialism contributed to shaping hostilities between
tribes by distinguishing some from others and arming them,
granting them state authority, which formed complex
coalitions of diverse human groups in even the simplest
communal matters.

 The transition from tribe to nationhood has
not occurred in Sudan, leaving us at a late
stage of self-organizational advancement.
Even in the form of the modern
state post-independence in Sudan, tribal
systems and local administrations still control
the state in one way or another, paving the
way for the spread of racism, tribal conflicts,
and civil wars.

The contemporary problem of Sudan, which
is exploited by imperialist forces to control its
strategic location and vast resources, is the
formation of armed movements and militias
based on ethnic and racial grounds in an
attempt to divide and fragment the country
for easier control.

Today, we find that Sudan has seven armed
armies that have started fighting among
themselves, and it is only a matter of time
before chaos engulfs the entire country or it
disintegrates. It is essential to combat the
tribal mindset within the people, just as it is
important to fight against nationalist ideas
that lead to ongoing civil wars.

To be continued …An anarchist from Sudan.

(AIT) ﺣﻥ ﺍﻻﺗﺣﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻧﻘﺎﺑﻲ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﻲ، ﺟﻣﻌﻳﺔﺍﻟﺷﻐﻳﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻣﻳﺔ 

ﻟﻘﺪ ﻛﻨﺎ ﺩﺍﺋﻤًﺎ ﺃﻭﻟﺌﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﻌﻤﻠﻮﻥ ﺑﺘﻀﺎﻣﻦ، ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺒﺎﺩﻟﺔ، ﻭﺗﻌﺰﻳﺰ
ﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ.
ﻧﺤﻦ ﺃﻭﻟﺌﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺗﻌﻠﻤﻮﺍ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﻄﻠﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺡ ﻟﻠﺤﺼﻮﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻄﻌﺔ ﺧﺒﺰ. ﺃﻭﻟﺌﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ
ﻟﻢ ﻳﺘﻤﻜﻨﻮﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍءﺓ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ، ﻟﻜﻨﻬﻢ ﻋﺮﻓﻮﺍ ﺑﻮﺿﻮﺡ ﻣﻦ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻭ.
ﻧﺤﻦ ﺃﻭﻟﺌﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﺘﺤﺪﻭﻥ ﻟﻴﻜﻮﻧﻮﺍ ﺃﻗﻮﻯ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻭﻟﺌﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﻀﺎﻳﻘﻮﻧﻨﺎ، ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ
ﻳﻔﺼﻠﻮﻧﻨﺎ، ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﻄﺮﺩﻭﻧﻨﺎ، ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﻄﻠﻘﻮﻥ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﺻﺎﺹ، ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﺴﺠﻨﻮﻧﻨﺎ
ﻭﻳﻌﺬﺑﻮﻧﻨﺎ.
ﻧﺤﻦ ﺃﻭﻟﺌﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﻌﻠﻤﻮﻥ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺎﺑﺔ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺍﺷﺘﺮﺍﻛًﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺴﺘﺸﺎﺭ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻲ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺰﻭﺩ
ﺑﻤﺤﺎﻣﻴﻦ ﺭﺧﻴﺼﻴﻦ، ﻭﺃﻥ ﺍﻻﺗﺤﺎﺩ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﺘﺢﺍﻣﺘﻴﺎﺯ ﺗﺠﺎﺭﻱ، ﻭﺃﻥ ﺍﻻﺗﻔﺎﻗﺎﺕ ﺑﻴﻦ
ﺍﻟﺮﻓﺎﻕ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺃﻭﺍﻣﺮ، ﻭﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺓ ﺗﻜﻤﻦ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺔ ﻭﺃﻥ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﺗﺄﺗﻲ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﺎﺭﺍﺕ
ﻭﺍﻟﺸﻌﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﺭﻳﺔ.
ﻧﺤﻦ ﻧﻌﻤﻞ ﻭﻧﻘﺮﺭ ﺑﺄﻧﻔﺴﻨﺎ، ﻭﻟﻬﺬﺍ ﻧﺤﻦ ﻻ ﻧﻜﻮﻥ ﺃﺑﺪًﺍ ﻭﺣﺪﻧﺎ، ﺑﻔﻀﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻂ ﻏﻴﺮ
ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﻟﻠﺘﺠﺰﺋﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻮﺣﺪ ﻧﻀﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻌﺎﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ ﺃﻧﺤﺎء ﺍﻟﻌﺎ.ﻟﻢ
ﻧﺤﻦ ﺃﻭﻟﺌﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﻀﻌﻮﻥ ﺍﻷﺧﻼﻕ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﺠﻤﺎﻟﻴﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﺎﻟﺢ.
ﻧﺤﻦ،
ﻧﺤﻦ ﺍﻻﺗﺤﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺎﺑﻲ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻲ،AIT

 ﺇﻟﻰ ﻁﻐﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ–ﺃﺑﻭ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺳﻡ ﺍﻟﺷﺎﺑﻰ
ﺃﻻ ﺃﻳﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻅﺎﻟﻡ ﺍﻟﻣﺳﺗﺑﺩ
ﺣﺑﻳﺏ ﺍﻟﻅﻼﻡ ﻋﺩﻭ ﺍﻟﺣﻳﺎﻩ
ﺳﺧﺭﺕ ﺑﺄﻧﺎﺕ ﺷﻌﺏ ﺿﻌﻳﻑ
ﻭ ﻛﻔﻙ ﻣﺧﺿﻭﺑﺔ ﻣﻥ ﺩﻣﺎﻩ
ﻭ ﺳﺭﺕﺗﺷﻭﻩ ﺳﺣﺭ ﺍﻟﻭﺟﻭﺩ
ﻭ ﺗﺑﺫﺭ ﺷﻭﻙ ﺍﻻﺳﻰ ﻓﻲ ﺭﺑﺎﻩ
ﺭﻭﻳﺩﻙ ﻻ ﻳﺧﺩﻋﻙ ﺍﻟﺭﺑﻳﻊ
ﻭ ﺻﺣﻭ ﺍﻟﻔﺿﺎء ﻭ ﺿﻭء ﺍﻟﺻﺑﺎﺡ
ﻓﻔﻲ ﺍﻻﻓﻖ ﺍﻟﺭﺣﺏ ﻫﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﻅﻼﻡ
ﻭ ﻗﺻﻑ ﺍﻟﺭﻋﻭﺩ ﻭ ﻋﺻﻑ ﺍﻟﺭﻳﺎﺡ
ﺣﺫﺍﺭ ﻓﺗﺣﺕ ﺍﻟﺭﻣﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻠﻬﻳﺏ
ﻭ ﻣﻥ ﻳﺑﺫﺭ ﺍﻟﺷﻭﻙ ﻳﺟﻥ ﺍﻟﺟﺭﺍﺡ
ﺗﺄﻣﻝ ﻫﻧﺎﻟﻙ ﺃﻧﻰ ﺣﺻﺩﺕ ﺭﺅﻭﺱ ﺍﻟﻭﺭﻯ ﻭ ﺯﻫﻭﺭ ﺍﻷﻣﻝ
ﻭ ﺭﻭﻳﺕﺑﺎﻟﺩﻡ ﻗﻠﺏ ﺍﻟﺗﺭﺍﺏ ﺃﺷﺭﺑﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﺩﻣﻊ ﺣﺗﻰ ﺛﻣﻝ
ﺳﻳﺟﺭﻓﻙ ﺳﻳﻝ ﺍﻟﺩﻣﺎء 
ﻭ ﻳﺄﻛﻠﻙ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺻﻑ ﺍﻟﻣﺷﺗﻌﻝ

 ﻣﻜﺘﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻮﺩﺍء: ﻣﻦ ﻧﺤﻦ؟
ﻣﻦ ﻧﺤﻦ ﻣﻜﺘﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻂ ﺍﻷﺳﻮﺩ ﺍﻻﻟﻜﺘﺮﻭﻧﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻜﺘﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺮﻭﻧﻴﺔ ﺟﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﺗﻬﺪﻑ ﺇﻟﻰ
ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺋﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﺩ ﻭﺗﻮﻓﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺮﻭﻧﻲ، ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﻮﺭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺮﺭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺐ ﻧﺸﺮ
ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺴﻤﻮﻋﺔ. ﺃﺳﺲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺔ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻧﺎﺭﻛﻴﻴﻦ )ﺍﻟﻼﺳﻠﻄﻮﻳﻴﻦ( ﺍﻳﻤﺎﻧﺎ
ﺑﻤﺎ ﻳﻬﺪﻓﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻴﻪ ﻟﺬﺍ ﺗﺘﻮﻓﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﺠﺎﻧﻲ. ﺍﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺔ ﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﺍﻷﺩﺏ
ﺍﻷﻧﺎﺭﻛﻲ ﻭﺗﻨﺘﻈﻢ ﻭﻓﻘﺎ ﻟﻠﻤﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﺍﻷﻧﺎﺭﻛﻴﺔ. ﺗﺘﺨﺬ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺔ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ
ﺩﻳﻤﻘﺮﺍﻁﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻛﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﺿﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻮﺯﻳﻊ ﻛﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺎﻝ. ﺇﻧﻨﺎ ﻻ ﻧﻬﺪﻑ
ﻟﻠﺮﺑﺢ ﺑﻞ ﺗﻮﻓﻴﺮ ﺍﻷﺩﺏ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺮﺭﻱ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺸﺒﻜﺔ ﺍﻻﻟﻜﺘﺮﻭﻧﻴﺔ. ﺇﻧﻨﺎ
ﻧﺄﻣﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻮﺳﻊ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﻭﻓﻘﺎ ﻟﻘﺪﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻄﻮﻋﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺔ ﻭﺃﻥ ﻧﺼﻞ ﺇﻟﻰ
ﺣﺪ ﻁﺒﺎﻋﺔ ﻭﺗﻮﺯﻳﻊ ﺍﻷﺩﺏ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺮﺭﻱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻧﻀﻌﻪ، ﻟﺬﺍ ﻭﺿﻌﻨﺎ ﻣﻮﺍﺩﻧﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺧﺪﻣﺔ
ﻛﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻷﻓﺮﺍﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﻤﻜﻨﻬﻢ ﻁﺒﺎﻋﺔ ﻭﺗﻮﺯﻳﻊ
ﻣﺎ ﻧﺼﺪﺭ ﻭﻓﻘﺎ ﻟﺸﺮﻭﻁ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﻉ ﺍﻻﺑﺪﺍﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺴﺎﻋﺪﻧﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻳﺼﺎﻝ ﻋﻤﻠﻨﺎ ﺇﻟﻰ
ﺃﻛﺒﺮ ﻋﺪﺩ ﻣﻤﻜﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ. ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺚ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ ﺍﻻﻟﻜﺘﺮﻭﻧﻲ ﻭﻓﻘﺎ ﻟﻠﺤﺎﺟﺔ ﻭﻭﻓﻘﺎ
ﻟﻠﺮﺅﻯ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻟﻠﻤﺘﻄﻮﻋﻴﻦ، ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻻ ﻳﻨﻔﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﺻﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﻣﻊ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ
ﺍﻟﺰﻭﺍﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍء ﻓﻲ ﺃﻱ ﻭﻗﺖ ﻛﺎﻥ. ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﻣﺘﺎﺑﻌﺔ ﻧﺸﺎﻁﺘﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺻﻔﺤﺘﻨﺎ
ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﺻﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺲ ﺑﻮﻙ، ﻭﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﺘﻢ ﻧﺸﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺮﺟﻤﺔ
ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻻ ﺗﻮﺿﻊ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻻﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻼﺳﻠﻄﻮﻱ
ﺍﻻﻟﻜﺘﺮﻭﻧﻲ، ﻭﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧﺎ ﻗﺪ ﻧﺠﻤﻊ ﻋﺪﺩ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻻﺕ ﻓﻲ ﻛﺘﻴﺒﺎﺕ ﻭﻛﺘﺐ ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺔ.
ﻓﻲ ﺣﺎﻝ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺃﻱ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ، ﺍﻗﺘﺮﺍﺡ، ﻁﻠﺐ، ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ، ﻣﺴﺎﻫﻤﺔ، ﺃﻭ ﻓﻲ ﺣﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﺒﺔ
ﻓﻲ ﺗﻄﻮﻉ ﻣﻌﻨﺎ ﺗﻮﺍﺻﻞ ﻣﻌﻨﺎ ﻋﺒﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻳﺪ ﺍﻻﻟﻜﺘﺮﻭﻧﻲ:

ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺒﻞ ﻳﺒﻨی ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻠﻨﺎ ﻧﺤﻦ ﺟﻤﻴﻌﺎ

ﺍﻷﺳﺋﻠﺔ ﻭﺍﻷﺟﻭﺑﺔ ﺣﻭﻝ ﺍﻷﻧﺎﺭکﻳﺔ

ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﻴﺐ ﺗﻢ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻤﻪ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔRebel City، ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﺃﻧﺎﺭکﻲ ﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺑﺮﻳﺘﺎﻧﻴﺎ ﻟﻨﺪﻥ.
ﻧﺤﻦ ﻧﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﻨﺸﺮ ﻛﺘﻴﺒﺎﺕ ﻭ ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺇﺧﺒﺎﺭﻳﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺗﻨﻈﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ ﻭ ﺍﻷﻧﺎﺭکﻴﺔﻭ ﻧﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﺰﻳﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﺍﺭﺱ
ﻭ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻫﺪ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻤﻴﻪ ﻟﻨﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻋﻦ ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭﻧﺎ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺸﺒﺎﺏ .
ﺃﺛﻨﺎء ﻣﻨﺎﻗﺸﺎﺗﻨﺎ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻄﻼﺏ ﺗﻄﻔﻮ ﻟﻠﺴﻄﺢ ﻛﺜﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺳﺌﻠﺔ، ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺑﺎﺩﺭﻧﺎ ﺑﻌﻤﻞ ﻛﺘﻴﺐ ﻟﻺﺟﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻦ
ﺑﻌﺾ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺳﺌﻠﺔ، ﺇﺟﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺗﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺼﻞ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﻭ ﻧﺄﻣﻞ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻮﻓﺮ ﺭﻛﻴﺰﻩ ﻭﺍﺿﺤﺔ
ﻋﻦ ﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﻤﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺼﻨﻊ ﻣﺠﺘﻤﻊ ﺃﻓﻀﻞ ﺑﺘﻨﻈﻴﻢ ﺍﻧﻔﺴﻨﺎ ﻭﻓﻘﺎ ﻟﻠﻤﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﺍﻷﻧﺎﺭکﻴﺔ .
ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﻴﺐ ﻣﺠﺰء ﺇﻟﻰ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﺃﻗﺴﺎﻡ. ﺍﻷﻭﻝ " ﻣﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻷﻧﺎﺭکﻴﺔ؟ " ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺠﺰء ﻳﺸﺮﺡ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻷﻧﺎﺭکﻴﺔ ﻭ
ﻓﻴﻢ ﺗﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺳﺎﺋﺮ ﺍﻷﻧﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ .
ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ“ﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ ﺍﻷﻧﺎﺭﻛﻲ؟”ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺠﺰء ﻳﺮﻳﻨﺎ ﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﻣﺒﺎﺩﻱء ﺍﻷﻧﺎﺭکﻴﺔ ﻓﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﻲ
ﺃﺟﺰﺍء ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ.
ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ”ﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﻤﻜﻨﻦ ﺍﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺫﻟﻚ؟”ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﻣﻄﺮﻭﺡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺠﻤﻴﻊ، ﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﻤﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﺪء ﺑﺘﻨﻈﻴﻢ
ﺃﻧﻔﺴﻨﺎ ﺣﺘﻰ ﻧﺼﻨﻊ ﻋﺎﻟﻤﺎ ﺃﻓﻀﻞ؟

AGAINST ALL BOMBS by Ken Weller

 

Text of a leaflet distributed in Moscow by supporters of the Committee of 100

AGAINST ALL BOMBS

The campaign in Britain against nuclear weapons is beginning to turn towards the working class. As it does so, it will create an increasing challenge to the capitalist state.

This marks a development both in the activities and in the consciousness of the Campaign. It is a genuine turn to the masses of ordinary workers, not the bureaucracies of the Labour and Trade Union movements. Already, as a result of this emphasis, we have seen the beginnings of industrial action against the bomb. Workers directly involved have refused to handle nuclear cargoes. Others have held token strikes.

THE BOMB IN CLASS SOCIETY

More and more people in the campaign are seeing the deeper implications of working class action against the bomb. The class which dominates production controls society. It decides policy and, despite the democratic facade, enforces it through its state apparatus. Until the ordinary people are free in production, they cannot have any effective say in the decisions of war and peace, life and death. Only a society with inhuman relations in production could produce these monstrous weapons.

But the USSR has the same monstrous weapons. Should this not be different if your society is fundamentally different from ours? We know the means of production are nationalised. But Marx himself insisted that it is the `relations of production` (the relations between men and men at work) which determine the class nature of society¹. The property relations might reflect these relations of production or might serve to mask them.

THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION

What has happened to your Revolution that your leaders should threaten the workers of other lands with these weapons? What has happened to the internationalist ideals of October?

The Revolution made sweeping changes in the property relations. But it did not solve the central contradiction of class society, that between rulers and ruled in production.

It was never the policy of the Bolsheviks to allow the workers to take over power in production itself. In 1921 Lenin wrote: `It is absolutely essential that all authority in the factories should be concentrated in the hands of management. Under these circumstances, any direct intervention by trade unions in the management of enterprises should be regarded as positively harmful and impermissible`. This typifies the whole ideology and practice of the Party in this period. Here were the roots of Stalinism.

From this viewpoint, the USSR has essentially the same relations of production as Britain or America. The Russian worker has to get up in the morning when the alarm clock rings. The time is not of his choosing. Someone else has decided what he shall produce, how much, and at what cost to himself. Has he chosen to have Sputniks rather than butter?

Both and East and West management makes all the plans, and seeks to reduce the worker to a standard unit in them. It consciously removes variety and decision making from his job, and subjects him to the ruthless tempo of machines. In Marxist terms, he is alienated. And any opposition to this system brings him up against the forces of the State, which, again, are beyond his control.

Is this a State that is `beginning to whither away from the moment of Revolution`? Or is it a kernel of the Socialist programme that has withered away?

INTERNATIONAL ACTION

In Britain our protests bring us up against our State forces too. When a mass demonstration tried to immobilise a NATO base at Wethersfield last December, six of our members were gaoled for long periods. Many others have been arrested on similar demonstrations.

We have also protested against the Russian H-tests, which threaten workers all over the world with `socialist` leukaemia. Our bourgeois police have protected your Embassy against us, and arrested hundreds of demonstrators.

Our struggle is the struggle for new relationships in production and in society. Both East and West, privileged protected by their State machines manage production and parcel out the social product. They try to protect these privileges against their greedy neighbours.

That is what the H-bomb defends. But workers gain nothing by assisting in protecting their own rulers against others. We must have faith only in ourselves, in our ability to transform society. We extend our hands in solidarity with the working people of Russia, over the heads of our rulers and yours. We have already taken up this struggle: it is yours too. Together we must ACT – OR WE SHALL PERISH TOGETHER.

WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE!

The Committee of 100 exists to organise mass civil disobedience and resistance against the production, testing and threatened use of nuclear weapons. Its basis is in rank-and-file action, not in politicians’ manoeuvres.

Its Industrial Sub-Committee seeks to develop these ideas among ordinary workers. Its first leaflet stated: `Workers make the weapons of mass destruction, transport them, handle them, install them. They supply and equip those who use them. When they no longer accept to do so, the politicians will have to fight their own wars`.

The Sub-Committee is composed of workers in the Docks, in road and rail transport, and in the Engineering, Building and Printing industries.

Published on behalf of the Industrial Sub-Committee of the London Committee of 100, by Ken Weller (Engineering Shop Steward), 37, Queens Mansions, North Road, London N.7

THAT LEAFLET

`Solidarity` feels the full text of the leaflet distributed (in Russian) at the recent World Disarmament Congress in Moscow, should go on record, in view of the widespread repercussions (and deliberate lies) it has evoked.

The following notes are based on a report by Dave Picton, one of the members of the London Committee of 100, who took the leaflets to Moscow.

On July 10, two of us gave out the first batch of leaflets in Gorky Street. They were taken eagerly and folded away in inside pockets…. Because of the litter laws. After we had distributed quite a number we were stopped by three `volunteer auxiliary militia`, who only became friendly after a passer-by that we were Congress delegates. The first (administrative) reflex had been to arrest us. The second (equally administrative) reflex had been to be friendly to an official foreign delegation. Obviously a dialectical contradiction. Neither reflex was related to the content of what we were distributing. That kind of response only took place later, at a higher level.

We also distributed the leaflet at a factory gate. It was an engineering works, in the suburbs. We distributed as the workers were returning from dinner break. The leaflets were again all taken and pocketed.

We also distributed the leaflet through letter boxes in a nearby block of workers’ flats. A second `block of flats` we entered turned out to be a police station. We decided not to stay.

Certain members of the British delegation became quite hostile after reading the leaflet. Late one night, one of the delegates found a woman in his room. His opinion of the Conference Arrangements Committee soared… till he found she was English – and that she was tearing up his leaflets. `Any method is justified against you people!`, she claimed. Unfortunately for her she had found the wrong leaflet.

The Chairman of the Soviet Peace Committee (Mr. Korneichuk) at one point asked for an assurance that the leaflets would no longer be distributed, despite an earlier agreement that we could put our case by any means we chose.

`The Guardian` gave the best coverage. A front-page article titled `Heresy in Moscow` by Victor Zorza (12.7.62) quoted nearly all of the text which it called `the most direct challenge to official Soviet policies and ideas to have been presented to the Soviet man in the street since freedom of speech died under Stalin`. The article referred with glee to the `blasphemy of blaming Lenin, the best refuge of the reformed Khruschevites, for ideas Stalin put into practice`.

In general the Press reports on the leafleting and on the demonstration in Red Square were remarkably sympathetic. Only Peter Simple, in the `Daily Telegraph` (13.7.62) objected to a `direct incitement to revolution in the Communist world`. He believed that `a campaign of illegal opposition to one government, on one issue, was being exploited by those who want to organise illegal opposition to all governments, on all issues. The anarchist face of the CND is beginning to show`.

This enthusiasm for the Committee’s activities in Moscow was only matched by the same newspapers’ hostility to the Committee’s activities in England. This discrepency was quickly pointed out by `The Daily Worker` (16.7.62), by Arnold Kettle in a letter to `The Guardian`(20.7.62), etc.,etc. There was however another side to this particular coin. Committee of 100 demonstrations in this country have been praised to the skies by the Soviet Press and Radio. The `The Daily Worker` had also offered encouragements, from a safe distance. But now `Pravda` (18.7.62) screamed at the `people who act like thieves`, the `smart Alecks` who discussed `offensive subjects` and `thrust provocative, slanderous, leaflets` at passers-by. And the `Daily Worker` had hysterics about the `insulting, anti-socialist diatribe` and `the distribution of such outrageous lies` by an `irresponsible group`. Readers of both papers had to contain their curiosity about the nature of the lies so violently denounced. Not a line, not a single word of the leaflet was quoted.

During the Congress the text of the leaflet was beamed into Russia in twelve different Soviet languages. Many journals of the socialist and peace movement quoted it extensively. The full text has been republished and circulated by various organisations, including an (intendedly!) private employers’ information service. It has been translated and distributed in France and circulated in Japanese by members of the Zengakuren². Copies have gone to Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Italy and other countries. At least 3 batches have been used in different parts of Yugoslavia. In Helsinki, at the `World Youth Congress`, there was a punch-up on the distributors of the leaflets by members of the Rumanian delegation. Zengakuren representatives, including their President, Itoshi Nemoto, later demonstrated in Red Square, on August 6. Their bulletin No.3 (September ‘62) states this was `inspired by the activities of the Committee 100` and was `our first attempt to appeal to and unite with the workers and people of the USSR`. They attempted to distribute leaflets and were `beaten and dragged behind the Lenin mausoleum, and detained there for an hour`.

1`The sum total of the relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation on which arise legal and political superstructures`. K. Marx and F. Engels, Collected Works, vol.13, p. 6-7, Moscow 1959.

2All-Japan Federation of Autonomous Student Bodies.

Schindler's List

 

Someone showed me a review of Schindler's List which left me struggling to comprehend what I was reading. I have a high opinion of the film, the reviewer did not, but that's okay, everyone interacts with media differently, the issue is in why they did not like it. Neoliberalism and a Zionist ending, apparently.

If you're not familiar with the movie, it's based on real events and documents how a factory owner saved the lives of some of his Jewish labourers and conspired in some industrial sabotage of the Nazi German war effort. The ending is the surviving Jewish labourers and their children placing stones on the real Schindler's grave, which is a Jewish sign of respect for the dead. The only way that's zionist is if you equate Jewishness with zionism, which is deeply antisemitic and plays into the hands of the actual zionist movement. There's a lot more to the film than this brief synopsis I think the film is worth seeing, and there are many other places to get a deeper look at it as a movie. It's not a cheerful movie, obviously, I think you need to be prepared to experience it. 

As for neoliberal? I guess we have got to the point where that term has no meaning any more so whatever.

Personally speaking, I think that the movie does a very good job of exposing a mainstream audience to the capitalist nature of the Nazi regime. The racist bigotry and the militaristic brutality of the Hitlerites is popularly understood which is why even with a global resurgence in far right movements and personalities the really popular ones still try to obscure their connections. Less understood is the capitalist nature of the Imperial expansion, I think the most popular recent document to hammer that home was Germa Bel's documentation of privatisation in Nazi Germany, Against the Mainstream, and that's still stuck in the capital P politics corners of the web. 

In History circles the role of big business in Nazi Germany is well understood, but I can't think of a more popular example of this process than the book and film about Oskar Schindler. Who is Oskar Schindler? Well in the film he is a user of slave labour and an opportunist. He is a member of the Nazi Party and businessman, he arrives in occupied Poland with the idea to open factories because labour is much cheaper has no legal standing, and he will have the backing of the occupying state to do what he wishes. His decision to take on Jewish workers instead of Polish ones is nakedly financial, Jewish workers cost less and are even more vulnerable to exploitation than Polish workers.

 STERN
The standard SS rate for Jewish
skilled labor is seven Marks a day,
five for unskilled and women. This
is what you pay the Reich Economic
Office, the laborers themselves
receive nothing. Poles you pay
wages. Generally, they get a little
more. Are you listening?

Schindler turns from the wall of glass to face his new
accountant/plant manager.

SCHINDLER
What was that about the SS, the
rate, the - ?

STERN
The Jewish worker's salary - you
pay it directly to the SS, not to

STERN(CONT'D)
the worker. He gets nothing.

SCHINDLER
But it's less. It's less than what
I would pay a Pole. That's the
point I'm trying to make. Poles
cost more.

Stern hesitates, then nods. The look on Schindler's face
says, Well, what's to debate, the answer's clear to any fool.

SCHINDLER
Why should I hire Poles?

Schindler is an outsourcer, the only difference between him and the CEO of Nike who shifted production to Indonesia in the 1990s is the contexts in which they both operate. The amoral, nakedly self-interested logic is the same, "doing this ____ will benefit me, and I am allowed by the powers in charge to do ____, so why should I do anything else?"

And of course Schindler exploits the vulnerabilities of the Jewish community in order to acquire the capital as well as the labour to open his new company, which was seized as from its Jewish owners. And he relies exclusively on his assistant Stern to do the actual work of running a business, which gives Stern the latitude to start intervening on the behalf of his fellow Jewish inmates. He's nice and charming about it, makes it all sound like a good deal for everyone involved, but he's exploiting the market to compete to his advantage.

 SCHINDLER
Jews, yeah. Investors.
(pause)
You must have contacts in the
Jewish business community, working
here.

STERN
What "community?" Jews can no
longer own businesses, sir, that's
why this one's in receivership.

SCHINDLER
Well, they wouldn't own it, I'd own
it. I'd pay them back in product.

STERN
(pause)
Pots and pans.

SCHINDLER
Something they can hold in their
hands. They can trade it on the
black market, do whatever they
want, everybody's happy.

He shrugs; it sounds more than fair to him. In fact, so taken
with the spirit of his own largesse, he offers even more:

And at first once he's shuckdown his Jewish investors and opened the factory with his compliant workforce he lives it up and leaves Stern to do all that boring work. That last part at least gives Stern some time to get a support system off the ground. If the story (both real and fictional) ended here Schindler would be remembered as a villain. But history marched on.

Schindler's turn or redemption stems from two intertwined factors. He finds it impossible to avoid being directly confronted with the bloody context in which he operates, and he as he spends time with these Jewish labourers he's been exploiting for maximum profits he starts relating to them as people outside the employer v employee/master v slave relationship. He knew about the war, and the slave labour system, the racism and the ethnic expulsions and the dictatorship, and made his peace with all of them since he found a way to profit and thrive from it and the bad things were happening to people he didn't know. Those experiences changed him. But they didn't change him that much, throughout the film he's still businessman, he's just shifted from laissez-faire to paternalist boss. His early episodes of friction with the Nazi regime have him arguing with officials over their interference in his factory, and abusing his workers.

And he also works to sabotage the German war effort by producing faulty shells. Sabotaging the war effort is a good thing, but the issue is that Schindler himself as decided that his factory will not produce shells and bullets for the war effort and thus his workers must comply, which puts them in an extremely dangerous position, if its discovered even if no active sabotage is suspected they will be sent to their deaths, the only reason they survive is thanks to their designations as essential workers. 

If I sound critically I'm not particularly, this is largely what happens in the film and in real life, I just thought it was worth noting.  

Beyond Schindler there is another well remembered part of the film that demonstrates the murderous capitalist logic of the Nazis, it is the infamous "hinge" scene.

During this scene, the commandant tests a slave-worker's productivity by timing how long he takes to make one hinge. He performs the job very quickly only to release the trap, he made a hinge in excellent time and yet his overall output is low. Goeth the commandant then drags him away for what is supposed to be an execution but faults in both of his pistols grants a temporary reprieve. This is cruelty at its unadulterated, and it's clearly motivated by extreme racism, but there is also a cold economic logic, the camp is receiving more inmates and more slaves for its workshops, so the test. Of course that was just an excuse to demonstrate power over an "inferior" hence the game and the method of execution. However, the commandant would have to murder someone in these circumstances, either some of his slaves or the new arrivals, he can't afford to keep them all, and they have to meet their targets. 

I'm not arguing that Schindler's List is an anti-capitalist movie designed to radicalise the masses, that's taking the argument too far. It condemns the Nazis in all their facets, including the economic drives of mass subjugation and mass murder.

OSHA, OSHI-

 

This new year has been quite hectic, hey? Tariffs this and DEI that. In addition to executive orders every day of the week a Republican Congressman Mr Biggs of Arizona submitted a bill with the intention to dismantle the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Submitted on the 3rd of January in the current year 2025, the bill will if passed abolish OSHA, and leave nothing in its wake.

I've never heard of Biggs, and I have no idea whether this bill has a chance at making it to law. But if I were a worker in the USA, the mere attempt would be cause for concern. Currently, I work in an office but in the past I work on industrial sites, refineries, docks, warehouses etc. To be allowed on the premises I had to pass several health and safety courses and every single site had their own safety inductions. And those all had to be renewed over time. They are extremely dull and 90% of the information you get is obvious and already known to you, unless it's your first day. But I'd rather be bored two or three days a year than have my head crushed between a jetty and an oil tanker1

. Or go death prematurely due to not demanding ear defenders.

They can also be quite grim, with photos and videos of accidents leading to deaths, some were staged, but most were not. The videos in the sections I call "Here's how painfully you will die if you half arse safety" all used examples from work in the USA. All of which were OSHA compliant. So, that might sound like I'm in favour of scrapping OSHA, and yes, if that scrapping process involves a radical restructuring of work in the USA that shifts focus onto the wellbeing and safety of employees over potential maximum profit, and expands safety in the workplace.

But none of that is in this bill, it is just getting rid of OSHA and leaving nothing.

The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 is repealed. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is abolished

I realise this point is difficult to get across without showing you some of those video clips of graphic deaths, so I'll be blunt. The current safety and protection system in effect in the USA is weak and insufficient to the point that a UK employer who followed its guidelines to the letter would be prosecuted for safety violations even if no accidents or near misses had occurred yet. That's not to be patriotic and make present the UK's health and safety systems are perfect2 , it isn't, we still have workplace accidents, injuries and deaths, we still have to work without any real say in how we do it. The UK is a modern capitalist economy its not some land of milk and honey. I have my own criticisms of how health and safety works in this country too.

I'm comparing the two to show how even for a capitalist economy, workers in the USA are especially vulnerable to death and injury. So, anytime a politician tries to scrap what limited safeguards that do exist should be taken seriously and met with determined opposition as the direct consequences will be more deaths, more injuries and fewer compensation payouts for the survivors. The only time a working person in the USA should welcome a bill to repeal OSHA is if it's part of an expansion and reform of workplace protections and safety procedures.

Mr Biggs may just be a one-off maverick extremist and will not get any support, but I wouldn't want to take the risk, and as a Congressman Biggs is part of the ruling strata of the nation, and clearly at least some of those people are fine with trading human lives if it means removing the slightest inconveniences and restrictions on maximum profit and control. Class war doesn't get more overt than that.

• 1This was not a hypothetical, I know someone who stuck his head in the gap between the two because he couldn't be bothered to wait. Fortunately, somehow his hard hat saved him
• 2we are also made to watch UK based dangers and accidents, but they're either old historic cases or used to show specific examples of failures to follow specific site requirements

En Afriko la ĝendarmo foriras - The Policeman of Africa Retires

 

French Military Instructors in Chad, photo sourced from the French Ministry of the Army, 25/01/2024

 

Translated from Le Monde Diplomatique

 While Emmanuel Macron's special envoy, former Minister Jean-Marie Bockel gave his report on the reorganisation of the French military disposition at the end of November, Paris was shocked to learn of Senegal and Chad's decision to end their security agreements with the former Colonial power. This new failure marks a turning point for France.

And so there were two less, leaving just three in total. By the 28th of November, in just a few hours France had lost two more positions on the African continent: Senegal, where France has been present for over 200 years, with a current garrison strength of 350 soldiers, and Chad a nation where France established a military presence more than 40 years ago and which stations a thousand soldiers and was until recently the base from which France launched the majority of its international interventions within Africa (six since 1968). Once those, 1350 soldiers withdraw from the region France will have just three bases in Africa - Djibouti, Ivory Coast and Gabon, with a combined force of fewer than 2000 personnel compared to 8500 in 2022.

This is a severe blow for France, whose military and political establishment has already been suffering over the past 3 years. This time the French were not expelled by mass protests, boos and the burning of the blue-white-red flags as happened in Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger in 2022 and 2023. The retreat was imposed from above. Paris learnt of the new reality in Senegal through newspaper interviews, President Bassirou Diomaye Faye gave to the French media. Although the matter of the withdrawal of the French army was one of the most important demands of his party, the party o African Patriots of Senegal for Work, Ethics and Fraternity (PASTEF), the French optimists hoped he would stall on the question. 

In Chad, the decision announced via an ordinary press statement caused a bombshell, because the French Minister for Foreign Affairs had just left N'Dajemena. At first no one could believe it, because this country was considered as the most important strategic location on the African Continent, a "perfect Aircraft carrier" as one high ranked officer described it, and it was also considered a trusted alliance partner, whose ruling Déby dynasty had many reasons to be grateful to France over the decades due to the support of the French secret services and air force in saving them from being overthrown by military mutinies on multiple occasions. 

For the French Army which has for decades viewed itself as the "Gendarme of Africa" and used the nation since independence in 1960 as a base of operations to launch nearly 40 foreign operations (OPEX) this loss is an historical turning point. It has lost the means and infrastructure to mobilise operations in the region within a few hours notice, as was the case during operation "Serval" in Mali in 2013, launched urgently to prevent an offensive by Jihadist groups.

France Intends to remain "In another form"

In February 2023 President Macron declared his intention not to end the national military presence in Africa but to fundamentally reorganise it. "The logic is that our model is that there should no longer be military bases there as they currently exist" he declared in a speech concerning "Franco-African relations". He announced a major reduction in the number of troops and increased participation with local partners. France had just been driven out of Mali and Burkina Faso by military coups which it had not foreseen. Demonstrations against French influence spread everywhere throughout West Africa. The military and political establishment were (finally!) understanding that a change in relationship was necessary concerning the populations and militaries of the nations concerned, who could no longer tolerate French intrusions. 

After Macron's speech, the military high command and the parliamentary deputies in Macron's camp promised greater "discretion" "a lighter tread" and even a "paradigm shift".... "Now, we have flipped the relationship on its head, now the one who calls the shots is the [African] partner". Said Thierry Buckhard, Army Chief of Staff, speaking to the French parliament in January 2024. Over the following months, the chief of staff worked on new provisions with two necessities; respond to the wishes of the local regimes presented as "partners" and conserve and maintain influence, a difficult balancing act. Under these plans every base except for Djibouti - which has a special status in French strategy and with its 1500 strong garrison is considered indispensable- will drastically reduce its personnel, between 150 and 300 soldiers depending on the base and instead of being given to the host nation will be co-administered by them. "These bases are key to guarding our capability to intervene militarily" explained Deputy Jean-Michael Jacques, Macron supporter and president of the commission for national defence. The remarks come from a report in May 2023. "The strategy presented by the head of state prevents the growing rift that would nullify our military presence in Africa and consequently our influence on the continent"1. 

In a report on French Defence policy by another Deputy, Thomas Gassilloud, repeats the thinking that reigns in Paris "Remain, in another form". According to Gassilloud who is close to the Presidential Palace and served in the army before entering politics, the destiny of France is linked to Africa. That is why it is vital to rebuild "strategic intimacy". "Without a strong reaction, we will face the risk of the degradation of our influence in French-speaking Africa". He underlines 2. When ill winds blow, continued Buckhard, it is necessary to know when to bend, but always with the aim of standing tall again. "We must be capable of quickly shrinking our presence and disappear from the landscape to then restore our presence as needed... [This last] must include the ability to liaise with local militaries and secure strategic access by sea and air".

France can continue to influence the destiny of Africa. It must not "let its hands drop" in the words of General Jerome Pellistrandi in a May 2023 edition of National Defence dedicated to "new relations" between France and Africa. "Quite the opposite" says this senior figure and seasoned debater who regularly appears on television, "more than ever it is necessary to act, but differently... An influence strategy is more necessary now than ever"3. In that same publication another eminent General, Bruno Clement-Bollee, asserted that "it is imperative to react and decide on an ambitious, robust and realistic strategy that will restore to France the status of great nation"4. This is where its international standing lies, above all in its permanent presence on the United Nations Security Council, partly justified by its influence in French-speaking Africa.

The subject of Africa is not solely a question of influence. The French military views the continent as ideal terrain to test its soldiers and equipment, especially in deserts and near desert like environments, offering fringe benefits, career advancement opportunities, shared experiences and adventure. "Our martial culture contains a strong African flavour, affecting our tastes and nostalgia. How will [the new provisions] change the appeal of a military career?" asked right wing Deputy Jean-Louis Thieriot (Republicans) during a discussion by Buckhard inside the National Assembly. It is therefore necessary to reshape the offer of military co-operation, so that what is lost on the one hand is regained through intensive collaboration. That is the indispensable "corollary" according to another of Macron's deputies (and former soldier) Ms. Laetitia Saint-Paul. 

Collaboration was the core of French strategy in the period immediately following independence of the African colonies. It was only from 1970 onwards that direct foreign intervention became the preffered tool of French rulers in resolving political crisis through military means. This period became known as "Jaguar diplomacy" named after the fighter jet that ended service in 1972. This latter period probably ended in 2022 after the disastrous Operation "Barkhane".

Reinvent collaboration or disappear

Now, we arrive at the subject of how to rebuild collaboration and conserving links between the French and local armies; instead of returning sovereignty over the military bases, the idea is to transform them into academies, national schools with a regional objective (ENVR) with the goal of being co-managed by France and the host nation. This project is not new, it dates back to the 1990s. At present nineteen such institutions exist throughout the continent in Senegal, the Ivory Coast, Benin, Gabon and in Cameroon. Combined they are capable of instructing 3000 Non-Commissioned Officers and Cadets annually, and thus foster "intimacy".

Now France plans to rapidly multiply them. That is the task of the Directorate of Security and Defence Co-operation (DCSD), a section under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, headed by an officer and dealing almost exclusively with Africa. Of the 313 collaborators sent abroad most went to Africa, and mainly to the former colonies. On the previous 9th of July the director of the DCSD General Colcombet visited Gabon to inaugarate the opening of School for the administration of Defence Forces in Libreville (EAFDL). This French base also hosts an Academy for environmental protection and natural resources. In his speech Colcombet aluded to "historical evolution" and an "important turning point" in the history of Franco-Gabonese relations. But the goal of these schools is not just to train African militaries; they also must "preserve logistical, human and equipment links to those nations." Jean-Marie Bockel stressed at a meeting with members of the Senate in May 2024. In short, to maintain a foothold abroad in case of need...

A former Minister under Nicholas Sarkozy, who famously declared his willingness "to sign the death warrant of French Africa"5 in 2007, which prompted his dismissal, Mr. Bockel has been interested in these matters for some time. His son, a soldier, was killed in Mali in 2019. In 2024 Macron appointed him "special envoy" tasked with study the reorganisation of the disposition of the French Army in Africa. His task was to liaise with the concerned heads of state and draft a list of proposals which he submitted just three days before the announcements of Senegal and Chad. The choice of appointment of Mr. Bockel followed a certain kind of logic; in 2013 while a Senator he and his colleague Jeanny Lorgeaux wrote a report "on France's presence in coveted Africa" which summarised the current priorities well. "It is our duty to be there" the report says, "because we are betting a part of our future growth in Africa" While they advised "giving an African meaning to the French presence in Africa" both Senators concluded that the remaining 8 military bases "should be maintained"6.

It was a different era then. France had just launched Operation "Serval" in Mali, with military success and the support of the majority of the African states, and was preparing to launch Operation "Sangaris" in Central Africa. France had a certain grand reputation then. Eleven years later and it looks like a relic of the past. By trying to "re-invent military partnerships instead of demilitarising Franco-Africa realtions" researcher Thierry Vircoloun explains, "the government attempted to carry out half measures which pleased no one"7. Its military presence may become an important issue during the Presidential elections in Gabon, where the Bongo family were ousted in a Coup in 2023, and in the Ivory Coast, both elections are schedule for 2025, it is possible that the French Army will be expelled from both countries as well.

Remi Carayol

___________________________________________________________

1: Jean-Michel Jacques, Report made on behalf of the committee on national defense and the armed forces on the draft law relating to the military budget for the years 2024 to 2030, and containing various decisions on national defense, n°1234, National Assembly, May 12, 2023.

 2: Thomas Gassilloud, Information report on the hearings of the committee on French defense policy in Africa, n°2461, National Assembly, April 10, 2024.

3: Jérôme Pellistrandi, «A falling tree makes more noise than a growing forest,” Revue Défense nationale, n° 860, Paris, May 2023.

 4: Bruno Clément-Bollée, “France, becoming a true balancing power again”, Revue Défense nationale, n° 860, Parizo, majo 2023.

 5: A term that defines France's neocolonial relations with Africa. (TT)

6: Jeanny Lorgeoux and Jean-marie Bockel, report made on behalf of the committee on foreign affairs, defense and the armed forces on France's presence in coveted Africa, n°104, French Senate, Paris, October 29, 2013.

 7: Thierry Vircoulon, "The dilemma of the Franco-African military relationship: reinvent or turn the page?", French Institute of International Relations (IFRI), November 18, 2024.