<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?> 
		    <rss version="2.0"> 
			<channel> 
			    <title>Chile | ANTIFA.CA - ANTIFA Canada - Canadian Anti-Fascist movement!</title> 
				<link>http://www.antifa.ca/chile</link> 
				<description></description><item>
			<title>[Indymedia Paris] Chili Soirée de Solidarité avec les Peuples en résistance</title>
			<link>http://www.antifa.ca/antifa-news/indymedia-paris-chili-soiree-de-solidarite-avec-les-peuples-en-resistance</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Chili - Mexique :Soirée de Solidarité avec les Peuples en résistance mercredi 29 mai 2013 à 19h Centre culturel, Cinéma La Clef 34, rue Daubenton / 21, rue de La Clef Métro Censier-Daubenton Dans le cadre de la soirée &quot;Chili - Mexique : Solidarité avec les Peuples en résistance&quot; organisée par (...)
		-- Infos locales, Révoltes/grèves/luttes sociales, Répression/contrôle social, Travailleurs/chômeurs/précaires, Projections/Débats/Concerts de soutien, mini-calendrier, Amérique du sud]]></description>
			<pubDate>Sun, 26 May 2013 09:00:01 CEST</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>Chili : lettre de José Miguel Sánchez aux guerriers de la lutte de rue</title>
			<link>http://www.antifa.ca/antifa-news/chili-lettre-de-jose-miguel-sanchez-aux-guerriers-de-la-lutte-de-rue</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ 
Que cet hiver soit chaud grâce au feu que nous allons semer avec nos molotovs, en faisant brûler chaque icône du pouvoir, dévastant ceux qui nous oppriment, libérant notre haine envers la classe dominante, prenant par surprise le territoire bourgeois, brûlant ses possessions et encourageant l’indécis à se rebeller. Vive ceux qui luttent !
Nos actions doivent attaquer toute forme d’autorité et de domination, tout gardien du pouvoir, sabotant la paix des riches, toujours agissant avec audace et surprise, ne laissant aucune trace pour ne pas faciliter le travail de l’ennemi. Nous luttons contre la domination oligarchique, nous faisons prévaloir la solidarité et l’égalité sur les privilèges, les égoïsmes et l’injustice. C’est pour cela que nous dirigeons nos actions avec des bras forts, conscience et conviction, et c’est de la responsabilité de chacun de nous de faire en sorte que chaque action atteigne son objectif. Nous sommes des guerriers d’une lutte inégale et pour cela nous devons être sûrs de nous et audacieux.
Nous n’avons aucun attachement au “confort” que le système nous offre, nous nous torchons avec leurs lois et normes, nous savons que c’est seulement en luttant efficacement et constamment que nous arriverons à nous débarrasser du joug crée par la classe privilégiée pour nous soumettre, de l’égoïsme et de l’avarice d’un richard prétentieux et de toute forme d’autorité. Nous luttons pour la libération totale et nous sommes prêts à tout pour l’émancipation.
Ceux qui choisissent ce chemin de lutte savent que la voie n’est pas facile, que souvent il y a un prix à payer, comme la clandestinité, la prison ou la mort, et pour cela nous sommes préparés mentalement. Ainsi nous comptons sur la solidarité de nos pairs si un de ces prix vient à se présenter. C’est d’une importance vitale qu’aucun guerrier ne se sente seul s’il atterri dans une prison. C’est là que doit exister le soutien réel pour que l’ennemi sache et voit que l’univers des guerriers se fait présent partout.
Une accolade complice et conspiratrice à chaque guerrier du Monde.
Détruisons ce qui est établi et la paix violente des riches !
Tant qu’il y aura de la misère il y aura de la rébellion !
Détruisons la société carcérale !
D’un insoumis
José Miguel Sánchez Jiménez
Prison d’extermination de Colina II. Module 4.
source]]></description>
			<pubDate>Sun, 26 May 2013 08:20:01 CEST</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>Up A Mighty River Without A Paddle? [2]</title>
			<link>http://www.antifa.ca/antifa-news/up-a-mighty-river-without-a-paddle-2</link>
			<description><![CDATA[During the last election the centre-right National Party lead by multi-millionaire John Key, said it would partly privatise certain state assets if re-elected. Its main losing rival was the Labour Party, at the time lead by the uncharismatic Phil Goff, who had been one of the architects of the privitisation push in the 1980s. National has now decided to press ahead with its threat. The power company Mighty River Power is the current focus of attention, with other goodies up for grabs in the future. What will the effects of greater privatisation be? What options exist for workers in Aotearoa/New Zealand? 
Up A Mighty River Without A Paddle?

During the last election the centre-right National Party lead by multi-millionaire John Key, said it would partly privatise certain state assets if re-elected. Its main losing rival was the Labour Party, at the time lead by the uncharismatic Phil Goff, who had been one of the architects of the privitisation push in the 1980s. National has now decided to press ahead with its threat. The power company Mighty River Power is the current focus of attention, with other goodies up for grabs in the future. What will the effects of greater privatisation be? What options exist for workers in Aotearoa/New Zealand? 

Aotearoa was one of the first countries where the neo-liberal brand of capitalism gained momentum during the 1980&#039;s and 90&#039;s. The Fourth Labour government began the process in 1984. In terms of finance, foreign exchange controls were removed, the dollar was floated, new banks allowed and keeping inflation low became an obsession. Regarding trade, import tariffs were severely reduced or eliminated and subsidies to farmers ended. The labour market was weighted increasingly in favour of employers, with legislation such as the Employment Contracts Act (1991),which enabled strong attacks on unions, in the name of &#039;flexibility&#039;. A regressive Goods And Services Tax (GST) was introduced, with a corresponding reduction in income and company tax. The State-Owned Enterprises Act in 1986 required remaining government run assets such as Telecom and Air NZ to operate on a &#039;for profit&#039; basis. All this so the market could be free to work its magic of bringing greater efficiency and prosperity to the country. (1)

Subsequent Labour and National administrations have sped up, slowed down or modified elements of this process, but none have reversed it. After three decades of these measures, there can be little doubt as to the effects of privatisation. Most workers have no union coverage and are left to bargain alone against employers. Many work long hours, subject to irregular shifts and job sharing in precarious positions on short-term contracts. Earlier attacks by previous governments have been extended by the present one, in the form of the 90 Day Act. This permits workers to be fired within that period without explanation and limits union access to worksites (2). Wages have not matched the higher levels of productivity squeezed out of workers (3). Welfare beneficiaries (4) are continuing to be attacked and stigmatised. One of the more recent measures for example, being the drug testing of beneficiaries. The individual beneficiary is being blamed for his/her situation rather than the failure of the system to provide meaningful jobs. GST has increased to 15% with no exemptions and basic food items are becoming hard for some working families to buy regularly. This has caused dependence on food banks (which have sometimes actually run out of stock due to high demand), private charities and extended whanau. Rents are high, especially in the main centres and many families have given up on the dream of ever owning their own homes. In short, there is very little prosperity to be seen out there, though a minority have of course benefited. A lot of people are getting by bill-to-bill, rather than living in the financial paradise held out by the neo-liberal theorists.

Asset sales also interrelate to the deeper history of this country in terms of colonialism and its consequences. The NZ nation state is intrinsically based on the confiscation of indigenous land and destruction of indigenous communities. From at least 1860 onwards, the crown broke its guarantees set out in the Treaty of Waitangi and even overrode the fact that many iwi had not signed it. The crown simply invaded and stole (6). Having the land, culture, people and knowledge decimated, has impacted tangata whenua for generations since. As in other countries with similar histories, the indigenous people continue to be over-represented in crucial social indicators such as poor health, gambling, homelessness and high conviction statistics. Most hapu have essentially lost all rangatiratanga - the ability to determine what happens to your land. Asset sales are just another way of transferring assets from one owner to another without Maori being able to even participate in the discussion of how that happens, let alone making any decisions.

As for the question of efficiency, recent governments have had to implicitly admit the failure of privatisation and SOEs&#039; by either buying back assets, selling off some or putting tax payers&#039; money into others. In 2001 the Labour-lead government bought an 80% stake in a nearly bankrupt Air NZ (8). Rail services were taken back into state control and renamed Kiwirail in 2008 after being run down for years. Telecom made multi-billion dollar profits but did very little to develop its infrastructure. Consequently it is now being hugely subsidised to upgrade its network. The Solid Energy coal company became nearly $400 million in debt due to a combination of bad investments and poor management and is now on the list of assets to be sold by this government (9). Mighty River Power is about to be 49% privatised, supposedly in order to reduce government debt, and others will follow.

The neo-liberal privatisation approach has failed in Aotearoa, even on its own terms. This country is far from unique in this regard. Socio-economic damage has consistently been the case globally wherever it was applied, from Chile to Britain. Opponents of neo-liberalism have searched for alternative approaches to asset sales and privatisation, with nationalisation (i.e. state ownership) being put on the agenda. Traditionally in the English-speaking world, nationalisation has been promoted by sections of the ruling class as a means of building infrastructure in sectors of the economy that are natural monopolies and therefore less open to easy profit making.

Current calls for selective nationalisation overseas, have come from some business-friendly members of the elite. Examples include Nigel Lawson ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer under Thatcher (10) and Ilse Aigner a cabinet member in the ruling conservative government of Angela Merkel in Germany (11). The Labour and Greens here are also promoting it as a better way to manage elements of the system. The Greens argue that &quot;Selling off our publicly owned companies would mean more foreign ownership and less accountability to whats best for New Zealanders&quot; (12). Their perspective is one mired in a petty nationalism that sees opposition to asset sales as helping &#039;us&#039;, meaning the nation of fellow kiwis, regardless of social class. It is no accident that these parties find themselves alongside the right-populists of NZ First, headed by the zombie egotist Winston Peters and his racist MP Richard Prosser and Co. The latter spout very much the same rhetoric, arguing &quot;New Zealand First firmly believes that any profits should stay at home&quot; (13). Strangely, even some of those claiming the label &#039;socialist&#039; see nationalisation as a useful tool. This is because to them it is a transitional mechanism on the road to eliminating the entire current economic system, rather than merely a defensive measure to maintain it (14).

The fact that nationalisation can be adopted by various wings of the contemporary establishment and has been used historically by all manner of regimes from the Nazis, to Stalinists and petty dictators in Africa, South America and the Middle East, should give people pause for thought. It cannot be viewed as an inherently progressive move that will secure resources for the majority of the population. Instead it simply entails the transfer of resources from control by private business to that by politicians and unelected bureaucrats. The Fourth Labour Government&#039;s actions showed that this process can be reversed too. The state has not played the role of kaitiaki and can&#039;t be relied on to do so in the future either.

Under state ownership workers can more easily be bullied into compliance with government policies. This can be done by a combination of laws and cops at the &#039;tough&#039; end of the spectrum (15). At the opposite end there are top-down union structures with &#039;friendly&#039; union bosses who act as soft cops. They warn members not to rock the boat and to put their faith in the idea that &#039;consultation&#039; with government will win a few scraps from the table. Its hardly surprising they would do this, given the number of union bosses who get rewarded with safe Labour Party seats in parliament and other perks once they retire. (16)

Under neither privatisation nor nationalisation do those who actually produce goods and services have control or ownership over them. In addition, the myopia of &#039;kiwi first&#039; nationalism that nationalisation would be based on, is a dead end. It fails to deal with the reality that this country is part of an interlocking international economic system. Therefore any solution to economic failure has to extend outwards to deal with it. In this regard John Key at least acknowledges that asset sales are tied to the need for the government to react to the global economic crisis. The attempt by the Labour Party/Greens/NZ First et al to mobilize workers against &#039;foreign investors&#039; and overseas companies is a cheap trick. Workers in this country are experiencing the effects of the global crisis in the same way as workers everywhere else. It isn&#039;t foreign speculators, foreign banks or foreign companies that are the problem. It is a global capitalism which knows no boundaries and the global ruling class with material interests in common (despite internal squabbles) that is responsible for the mess the world is in.

Anarchists don&#039;t accept the false dichotomy of private ownership or state ownership. We see our goal as a transnational economy where those who produce things, collectively and directly own and control those resources. We envisage a world where we actually determine the social and economic ways of organising ourselves in our workplaces and communities. Decisions would be made in a truly democratic way, with direct participation by all and accountability to the collective for those decisions. Given the complexity of operating any economy in the modern world, this would require co-ordination between the various organisations the communities establish. This can be achieved by federations that span wider and wider geographical areas. No doubt, there would be teething problems, especially if a democratic economy arose after a protracted revolutionary upheaval. However, given that the workers of the world currently produce everything anyway, efficiently controlling resources on our own behalf is not an impossible task if the opportunity arises. In addition, with the full possession of the factors of production, the material basis would exist for the whole of society to live comfortably, rather than the minority that do at present.

Collective and federative ways of organising are not new. Many aspects of our lives - from bands to community groups or marae - already include truly democratic and collective ways of operating. Plus, history is full of examples of people doing things together for the community as a whole and not for the betterment of a few individuals.

Moving from the political options available, to modes of struggle, what can be said about the latter in the present environment? Opposition to asset sales has taken a reformist and legalistic shape. For example the Maori Council appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the government&#039;s actions interfered with the Treaty of Waitangi process. This temporarily held up the prospective partial-privatisation of Mighty River Power but ultimately failed when they lost the case. The Greens and Labour along with the Mana Party (17), some unions and Marxist-inspired grouplets have formed an anti-assets-sales campaign. One tactic being applied is signature collecting for a petition to be submitted to parliament. This is intended to initiate a referendum on asset sales. The petition has nearly reached the minimum 300,000 names needed to produce a referendum. However, with a glossy government advertising blitz in favour of selling Mighty River Power shares, you would almost not know any petition existed at all! The very fact it does exist shows that there is a significant level of disagreement with the government&#039;s plans. It also adds credence to the idea that even during times of increased capitalist pressure, the population is rarely entirely passive (18).

Unfortunately for the signatories and the rest of the country, Key will ignore the petition. His argument being that the election, in which nearly a quarter of the population refused to participate, gave him a mandate to push through whatever he wants. The experience of the opposition movement so far proves once again that if a form of protest is permitted by the powers-that-be, its probably because they know it offers no more than a symbolic &#039;threat&#039; to them (ie. no threat at all). An accompanying tactic has been street demonstrations. These have managed to gain some attention and thereby raised awareness of the issue. Though fluctuating attendance has been a feature of them too. However, the nationalistic approach has also made neo-nazis and anti-semites comfortable participating in &#039;Aotearoa is Not for Sale&#039; marches (19). This demonstrates the slippery slope that this really is. Unless we are explicit that our campaign is anti-racists and racists are not welcome (from Rightwing Resistance&#039;s Kyle Chapman to NZ First leader Winston Peters), we legitimise racist and anti-semitic rhetoric. Overall the demonstrations and referendum hardly have the government quaking in its boots and are likely to degenerate further in the direction of electioneering in favour of the Greens and Labour in the next election.

While anarchists have participated in demonstrations and disseminated our message regarding asset sales, we have done so with no illusion that this is sufficient. Real change will require workers and communities across the country to take direct action for themselves. This can come in many forms including strikes and occupations that put resources under their immediate control and begin to threaten the stranglehold of the state and capitalists. This will have to be undertaken in co-ordination with similar actions in other places across the globe. On the face of it, this seems highly unlikely to happen soon in Aotearoa. However, something being unlikely doesn&#039;t make it wrong, just difficult and failure to act at all will guarantee defeat. The fightback though limited here, has begun and will hopefully continue to gain momentum as this ideologically (and in some cases literally) bankrupt system lurches from crisis to crisis.
Aotearoa Workers Solidarity Movement


Notes:


1. An accessible orthodox Left critique of neo-liberalism as applied in NZ in the &#039;80s and &#039;90s can be found in J. Kelsey, The New Zealand Experiment, (Auckland, 1996).

2. See AWSM, &quot;Solidarity&quot;, Issue 1:1 2009 for more on this legislation.

3. Bill Rosenberg, http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/5824465/New-Zealanders-get-low-wages.

4. See http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7496309/High-cost-for-drug-testing-beneficiaries-Health-ministry.

5. Sophie Rishworth, NZ Herald, Nov 3 2011.

6. Of course there were variations in experience within the colonisation and confiscation processes but the basic picture is clear. See R. Boast &amp; R. S. Hill (eds), Raupatu (Wellington, 2009).

7. For a wide-ranging view of the various social problems experienced by Maori today, see T. McIntosh &amp; M. Mullholland (eds), Maori and Social Issues (Wellington, 2011).

8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Air_New_Zealand#Rebirth_and_re-nationalisation.

9. For a summary of how this problem arose, see http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/business/8489664/Why-Solid-Energy-has-ended-up-on-the-slagheap.

10. http://www.investmentweek.co.uk/investment-week/news/2240785/exchancellor-lawson-calls-for-full-nationalisation-of-rbs.

11. http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/member-of-merkel-cabinet-calls-for-nationalization-of-german-power-grid-a-877576.html.

12. http://www.greens.org.nz/koa.

13. http://nzfirst.org.nz/what-we-stand-for/no-asset-sales.

14. For example, Socialist Aotearoa which is the NZ affiliate of the International Socialist Tendency.

15. Of course, it is the nature of the state to attempt to act this way, regardless of the exact proportion of government or private control over the economy. Something even right-wing libertarians appreciate. Nevertheless, it is easier when the state has more direct control. The classic example of draconian intervention by the NZ state in industrial warfare was the 1951 waterside dispute. See Dick Scott, 151 Days (1952).

16. For example, Andrew Little - a current Labour MP - spent his entire previous working life as a union bureaucrat and obtained his seat via a prime position on the party list, despite having been resoundingly rejected by voters in an electorate seat.

17. A small Left split from the Maori Party, which had chosen to enter into coalition with National.

18. See Toby Boraman, &quot;The Myth of Passivity&quot;, http://www.anarkismo.net/article/2277.

19. See https://notafraidofruins.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/stop-ignoring-anti-jewish-racism/

]]></description>
			<pubDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 18:30:01 CEST</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>Up A Mighty River Without A Paddle? [1]</title>
			<link>http://www.antifa.ca/antifa-news/up-a-mighty-river-without-a-paddle-1</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Privatisation in Aotearoa
During the last election the centre-right National Party lead by multi-millionaire John Key, said it would partly privatise certain state assets if re-elected. Its main losing rival was the Labour Party, at the time lead by the uncharismatic Phil Goff, who had been one of the architects of the privitisation push in the 1980s. National has now decided to press ahead with its threat. The power company Mighty River Power is the current focus of attention, with other goodies up for grabs in the future. What will the effects of greater privatisation be? What options exist for workers in Aotearoa/New Zealand?
Aotearoa was one of the first countries where the neo-liberal brand of capitalism gained momentum during the 1980′s and 90′s. The Fourth Labour government began the process in 1984. In terms of finance, foreign exchange controls were removed, the dollar was floated, new banks allowed and keeping inflation low became an obsession. Regarding trade, import tariffs were severely reduced or eliminated and subsidies to farmers ended. The labour market was weighted increasingly in favour of employers, with legislation such as the Employment Contracts Act (1991),which enabled strong attacks on unions, in the name of ‘flexibility’. A regressive Goods And Services Tax (GST) was introduced, with a corresponding reduction in income and company tax. The State-Owned Enterprises Act in 1986 required remaining government run assets such as Telecom and Air NZ to operate on a ‘for profit’ basis. All this so the market could be free to work its magic of bringing greater efficiency and prosperity to the country.1

Subsequent Labour and National administrations have sped up, slowed down or modified elements of this process, but none have reversed it. After three decades of these measures, there can be little doubt as to the effects of privatisation. Most workers have no union coverage and are left to bargain alone against employers. Many work long hours, subject to irregular shifts and job sharing in precarious positions on short-term contracts. Earlier attacks by previous governments have been extended by the present one, in the form of the 90 Day Act. This permits workers to be fired within that period without explanation and limits union access to worksites.2 Wages have not matched the higher levels of productivity squeezed out of workers.3 Welfare beneficiaries are continuing to be attacked and stigmatised. One of the more recent measures for example, being the drug testing of beneficiaries.4 The individual beneficiary is being blamed for his/her situation rather than the failure of the system to provide meaningful jobs. GST has increased to 15% with no exemptions and basic food items are becoming hard for some working families to buy regularly . This has caused dependence on food banks (which have sometimes actually run out of stock due to high demand5), private charities and extended whanau. Rents are high, especially in the main centres and many families have given up on the dream of ever owning their own homes. In short, there is very little prosperity to be seen out there, though a minority have of course benefited. A lot of people are getting by bill-to-bill, rather than living in the financial paradise held out by the neo-liberal theorists.

Asset sales also interrelate to the deeper history of this country in terms of colonialism and its consequences. The NZ nation state is intrinsically based on the confiscation of indigenous land and destruction of indigenous communities. From at least 1860 onwards, the crown broke its guarantees set out in the Treaty of Waitangi and even overrode the fact that many iwi had not signed it. The crown simply invaded and stole.6 Having the land, culture, people and knowledge decimated, has impacted tangata whenua for generations since. As in other countries with similar histories, the indigenous people continue to be over-represented in crucial social indicators such as poor health, gambling, homelessness and high conviction statistics.7 Most hapu have essentially lost all rangatiratanga - the ability to determine what happens to your land. Asset sales are just another way of transferring assets from one owner to another without Maori being able to even participate in the discussion of how that happens, let alone making any decisions.

As for the question of efficiency, recent governments have had to implicitly admit the failure of privatisation and SOEs’ by either buying back assets, selling off some or putting tax payers’ money into others. In 2001 the Labour-lead government bought an 80% stake in a nearly bankrupt Air NZ8. Rail services were taken back into state control and renamed Kiwirail in 2008 after being run down for years. Telecom made multi-billion dollar profits but did very little to develop its infrastructure. Consequently it is now being hugely subsidised to upgrade its network. The Solid Energy coal company became nearly $400 million in debt due to a combination of bad investments and poor management and is now on the list of assets to be sold by this government.9 Mighty River Power is about to be 49% privatised, supposedly in order to reduce government debt, and others will follow.

The neo-liberal privatisation approach has failed in Aotearoa, even on its own terms. This country is far from unique in this regard. Socio-economic damage has consistently been the case globally wherever it was applied, from Chile to Britain. Opponents of neo-liberalism have searched for alternative approaches to asset sales and privatisation, with nationalisation (ie. state ownership) being put on the agenda. Traditionally in the English-speaking world, nationalisation has been promoted by sections of the ruling class as a means of building infrastructure in sectors of the economy that are natural monopolies and therefore less open to easy profit making.

Current calls for selective nationalisation overseas, have come from some business-friendly members of the elite. Examples include Nigel Lawson ex-chancellor of the exchequer under Thatcher10 and Ilse Aigner a cabinet member in the ruling conservative government of Angela Merkel in Germany11. The Labour and Greens here are also promoting it as a better way to manage elements of the system. The Greens argue that ?elling off our publicly owned companies would mean more foreign ownership and less accountability to whats best for New Zealanders.”12 Their perspective is one mired in a petty nationalism that sees opposition to asset sales as helping ‘us’, meaning the nation of fellow kiwis, regardless of social class. It is no accident that these parties find themselves alongside the right-populists of NZ First, headed by the zombie egotist Winston Peters and his racist MP Richard Prosser and Co. The latter spout very much the same rhetoric, arguing ?ew Zealand First firmly believes that any profits should stay at home.”13 Strangely, even some of those claiming the label ‘socialist’ see nationalisation as a useful tool. This is because to them it is a transitional mechanism on the road to eliminating the entire current economic system, rather than merely a defensive measure to maintain it.14

The fact that nationalisation can be adopted by various wings of the contemporary establishment and has been used historically by all manner of regimes from the Nazis, to Stalinists and petty dictators in Africa, South America and the Middle East, should give people pause for thought. It cannot be viewed as an inherently progressive move that will secure resources for the majority of the population. Instead it simply entails the transfer of resources from control by private business to that by politicians and unelected bureaucrats. The Fourth Labour Government’s actions showed that this process can be reversed too. The state has not played the role of kaitiaki and can’t be relied on to do so in the future either.

Under state ownership workers can more easily be bullied into compliance with government policies. This can be done by a combination of laws and cops at the ‘tough’ end of the spectrum15. At the opposite end there are top-down union structures with ‘friendly’ union bosses who act as soft cops. They warn members not to rock the boat and to put their faith in the idea that ‘consultation’ with government will win a few scraps from the table. Its hardly surprising they would do this, given the number of union bosses who get rewarded with safe Labour Party seats in parliament and other perks once they retire.16

Under neither privatisation nor nationalisation do those who actually produce goods and services have control or ownership over them. In addition,the myopia of ‘kiwi first’ nationalism that nationalisation would be based on, is a dead end. It fails to deal with the reality that this country is part of an interlocking international economic system. Therefore any solution to economic failure has to extend outwards to deal with it. In this regard John Key at least acknowledges that asset sales are tied to the need for the government to react to the global economic crisis. The attempt by the Labour Party/Greens/NZ First et al to mobilize workers against ‘foreign investors’ and overseas companies is a cheap trick. Workers in this country are experiencing the effects of the global crisis in the same way as workers everywhere else. It isn’t foreign speculators, foreign banks or foreign companies that are the problem. It is a global capitalism which knows no boundaries and the global ruling class with material interests in common (despite internal squabbles) that is responsible for the mess the world is in.

Anarchists don’t accept the false dichotomy of private ownership or state ownership. We see our goal as a transnational economy where those who produce things, collectively and directly own and control those resources. We envisage a world where we actually determine the social and economic ways of organising ourselves in our workplaces and communities. Decisions would be made in a truly democratic way, with direct participation by all and accountability to the collective for those decisions. Given the complexity of operating any economy in the modern world, this would require co-ordination between the various organisations the communities establish. This can be achieved by federations that span wider and wider geographical areas. No doubt, there would be teething problems, especially if a democratic economy arose after a protracted revolutionary upheaval. However, given that the workers of the world currently produce everything anyway, efficiently controlling resources on our own behalf is not an impossible task if the opportunity arises. In addition, with the full possession of the factors of production, the material basis would exist for the whole of society to live comfortably, rather than the minority that do at present.

Collective and federative ways of organising are not new. Many aspects of our lives – from bands to community groups or marae – already include truly democratic and collective ways of operating. Plus, history is full of examples of people doing things together for the community as a whole and not for the betterment of a few individuals.

Moving from the political options available, to modes of struggle, what can be said about the latter in the present environment? Opposition to asset sales has taken a reformist and legalistic shape. For example the Maori Council appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the government’s actions interfered with the Treaty of Waitangi process. This temporarily held up the prospective partial-privatisation of Mighty River Power but ultimately failed when they lost the case. The Greens and Labour along with the Mana Party,17 some unions and Marxist-inspired grouplets have formed an anti-assets-sales campaign. One tactic being applied is signature collecting for a petition to be submitted to parliament. This is intended to initiate a referendum on asset sales. The petition has nearly reached the minimum 300,000 names needed to produce a referendum. However, with a glossy government advertising blitz in favour of selling Mighty River Power shares, you would almost not know any petition existed at all! The very fact it does exist, shows that there is a significant level of disagreement with the government’s plans. It also adds credence to the idea that even during times of increased capitalist pressure, the population is rarely entirely passive.18

Unfortunately for the signatories and the rest of the country, Key will ignore the petition. His argument being that the election, in which nearly a quarter of the population refused to participate, gave him a mandate to push through whatever he wants. The experience of the opposition movement so far proves once again that if a form of protest is permitted by the powers-that-be, its probably because they know it offers no more than a symbolic ‘threat’ to them (ie. no threat at all). An accompanying tactic has been street demonstrations. These have managed to gain some attention and thereby raised awareness of the issue. Though fluctuating attendance has been a feature of them too. However, the nationalistic approach has also made neo-nazis and anti-semites comfortable participating in ‘Aotearoa is Not for Sale’ marches.19 This demonstrates the slippery slope that this really is. Unless we are explicit that our campaign is anti-racists and racists are not welcome (from Rightwing Resistance’s Kyle Chapman to NZ First leader Winston Peters), we legitimise racist and anti-semitic rhetoric. Overall the demonstrations and referendum hardly have the government quaking in its boots and are likely to degenerate further in the direction of electioneering in favour of the Greens and Labour in the next election.

While anarchists have participated in demonstrations and disseminated our message regarding asset sales, we have done so with no illusion that this is sufficient. Real change will require workers and communities across the country to take direct action for themselves. This can come in many forms including strikes and occupations that put resources under their immediate control and begin to threaten the stranglehold of the state and capitalists. This will have to be undertaken in co-ordination with similar actions in other places across the globe. On the face of it, this seems highly unlikely to happen soon in Aotearoa. However, something being unlikely doesn’t make it wrong, just difficult and failure to act at all will guarantee defeat. The fightback though limited here, has begun and will hopefully continue to gain momentum as this ideologically (and in some cases literally) bankrupt system lurches from crisis to crisis.

1An accessible orthodox Left critique of neo-liberalism as applied in NZ in the 80s’ and 90s’ can be found in J Kelsey, The New Zealand Experiment, (Auckland, 1996)

2See AWSM, ‘Solidarity‘ Issue 1:1 2009 for more on this legislation.

3Bill Rosenberg, http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/5824465/Ne...wages

4See http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7496309/High-c...istry

5Sophie Rishworth, NZ Herald, Nov 3 2011

6Of course there were variations in experience within the colonisation and confiscation processes but the basic picture is clear. See R Boast &amp; RS Hill (eds) Raupatu (Wellington, 2009)

7For a wide-ranging view of the various social problems experienced by Maori today, see T McIntosh &amp; M Mullholland (eds) Maori and Social Issues (Wellington, 2011)

8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Air_New_Zealand...ation

9For a summary of how this problem arose see http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/business/8489664/W...gheap

10http://www.investmentweek.co.uk/investment-week/news/22...f-rbs

11http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/member-of-....html

12http://www.greens.org.nz/koa

13http://nzfirst.org.nz/what-we-stand-for/no-asset-sales

14For example, Socialist Aotearoa which is the NZ affiliate of the International Socialist Tendency.

15Of course, it is the nature of the state to attempt to act this way, regardless of the exact proportion of government or private control over the economy. Something even right-wing libertarians appreciate.Nevertheless it is easier when the state has more direct control. The classic example of draconian intervention by the NZ state in industrial warfare was the 1951 waterside dispute. See Dick Scott 151 Days (1952).

16For example, Andrew Little, a current Labour MP ,spent his entire previous working life as a union bureaucrat and obtained his seat via a prime position on the party list, despite having been resoundingly rejected by voters in an electorate seat.

17A small Left split from the Maori Party, which had chosen to enter into coalition with National.

18See Toby Boraman, ‘The Myth of Passivity’ www.anarkismo.net

19See https://notafraidofruins.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/stop-...cism/]]></description>
			<pubDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 18:30:01 CEST</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>Des brèves du n°110</title>
			<link>http://www.antifa.ca/antifa-news/des-breves-du-n</link>
			<description><![CDATA[En l&#039;État
Le président tunisien Moncef Marzouki est à la une du Monde diplomatique du mois d&#039;avril, bénéficiant d&#039;une publicité pour son livre, L&#039;Invention d&#039;une démocratie, aux éditions La Découverte, dans lequel il prétend « dépasser les clichés sur la révolution tunisienne ». Chez lui, une grande partie de ses compatriotes juge inepte sa conduite des affaires et une motion de défiance a été déposée au Parlement. Réputé grand défenseur des droits de l&#039;homme, Marzouki a suscité l&#039;émoi en promettant, en marge du Sommet arabe célébré fin mars au Qatar, d&#039;installer des potences pour les « extrémistes laïcs » mobilisés après l&#039;assassinat de Chokri Belaïd. Visiblement, il y a encore un effort à faire pour « dépasser les clichés » de l&#039;arrogance du pouvoir.
Zad partout
Depuis le 4 février, jour où des bûcherons, protégés par des cohortes de gendarmes, ont envahi les bois de la forêt de Troncay, dans le Morvan, plusieurs dizaines de villageois et d&#039;opposants tiennent des permanences dans un pré. Le site est pressenti pour y installer, sur cent vingt hectares, une scierie et une centrale électrothermique. Les réfractaires y ont construit, à l&#039;instar des opposants à l&#039;Ayraultport, maisons de paille et cabanes. Leur but : stopper l&#039;action de la société Erscia, maître d&#039;œuvre du projet. Concerts, rencontres, repas et chantiers collectifs : les résistants définissent ce territoire comme une autre Zone à défendre. Ils sont des milliers à avoir d&#039;ores et déjà déclaré leur soutien à ce mouvement. Le métier de prédateur devient de plus en plus précaire.
Extrême zozialiste
le mardi 9 avril, Marine Ghali, la sénatrice socialiste et maire des 15e et 16e arrondissements de Marseille, a récidivé : « Quand les Roms s&#039;installent, on a une recrudescence des cambriolages  ». Des propos qu&#039;elle avait déjà prononcés textuellement après l&#039;incendie volontaire par des riverains d&#039;un campement de Roms à la cité des Créneaux, en septembre 2012, en ajoutant à propos du sinistre : « Je ne le condamne pas, je ne le cautionne pas, mais je le comprends, quand les pouvoirs publics n&#039;interviennent plus » (Le Monde, 28/09/2012). Ha, attendez. La correctrice de CQFD nous fait savoir que la sénatrice ne se nomme point ainsi. En effet, vérifications faites, il s&#039;avère qu&#039;elle s&#039;appelle Samia. Samia Le Pen.
Envolée
En février 2009, Omar Top El Hadj et Christophe Khider se faisaient la belle de la centrale de Moulins, avant d&#039;être arrêtés quelques jours plus tard. Khider, condamné en 1999 à trente ans de prison pour braquage, y purgeait une peine de quinze ans d&#039;enfermement après une première tentative d&#039;évasion de la prison de Fresnes, en 2001, durant laquelle un surveillant n&#039;avait pas hésité à tirer sur l&#039;hélicoptère. Cet acharné de la liberté comparait à partir du 2 avril devant la cour d&#039;assises de Lyon, en compagnie de El Hadj et de deux femmes accusées de complicité dans l&#039;évasion de Moulins. Khider a l&#039;intention d&#039;y dénoncer les peines d&#039;élimination sociale prononcées dans les tribunaux, ainsi que la torture blanche subie par les longues peines. Verdict le 19 avril : 15 ans de prison chacun...
Maggie&#039;s dead !
« When Maggie Thatcher dies, we&#039;re all havin&#039; a party !! », chantaient les supporters de Liverpool depuis quelques mois. Leur joie prémonitoire aura explosé en ondes expensives à l&#039;annonce du décès de la Dame de fer. Joey Barton, milieu de terrain de l&#039;OM né dans le Nord industriel de l&#039;Angleterre, a tweeté : «  Si le paradis existe, il claquera la porte au nez de cette sale sorcière. » À travers le monde, on a sablé le champagne devant nombre d&#039;ambassades et de consulats britanniques, en particulier au Chili et en Argentine. Mais on pense surtout aux mineurs du Yorkshire, aux émeutiers de Tottenham, aux bidasses des Malouines, aux prisonniers irlandais, aux révoltés de la Poll Tax et aux millions de pauvres qui ont enduré le mépris de cette talibane de l&#039;ultra-libéralisme triomphant. Bon voyage en enfer, tête de mort !]]></description>
			<pubDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 06:20:01 CEST</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>Up A Mighty River Without A Paddle?</title>
			<link>http://www.antifa.ca/antifa-news/up-a-mighty-river-without-a-paddle</link>
			<description><![CDATA[During the last election the centre-right National Party lead by multi-millionaire John Key, said it would partly privatise certain state assets if re-elected. Its main losing rival was the Labour Party, at the time lead by the uncharismatic Phil Goff, who had been one of the architects of the privitisation push in the 1980s. National has now decided to press ahead with its threat. The power company Mighty River Power is the current focus of attention, with other goodies up for grabs in the future. What will the effects of greater privatisation be? What options exist for workers in Aotearoa/New Zealand? 
Up A Mighty River Without A Paddle?

During the last election the centre-right National Party lead by multi-millionaire John Key, said it would partly privatise certain state assets if re-elected. Its main losing rival was the Labour Party, at the time lead by the uncharismatic Phil Goff, who had been one of the architects of the privitisation push in the 1980s. National has now decided to press ahead with its threat. The power company Mighty River Power is the current focus of attention, with other goodies up for grabs in the future. What will the effects of greater privatisation be? What options exist for workers in Aotearoa/New Zealand? 

Aotearoa was one of the first countries where the neo-liberal brand of capitalism gained momentum during the 1980&#039;s and 90&#039;s. The Fourth Labour government began the process in 1984. In terms of finance, foreign exchange controls were removed, the dollar was floated, new banks allowed and keeping inflation low became an obsession. Regarding trade, import tariffs were severely reduced or eliminated and subsidies to farmers ended. The labour market was weighted increasingly in favour of employers, with legislation such as the Employment Contracts Act (1991),which enabled strong attacks on unions, in the name of &#039;flexibility&#039;. A regressive Goods And Services Tax (GST) was introduced, with a corresponding reduction in income and company tax. The State-Owned Enterprises Act in 1986 required remaining government run assets such as Telecom and Air NZ to operate on a &#039;for profit&#039; basis. All this so the market could be free to work its magic of bringing greater efficiency and prosperity to the country. (1)

Subsequent Labour and National administrations have sped up, slowed down or modified elements of this process, but none have reversed it. After three decades of these measures, there can be little doubt as to the effects of privatisation. Most workers have no union coverage and are left to bargain alone against employers. Many work long hours, subject to irregular shifts and job sharing in precarious positions on short-term contracts. Earlier attacks by previous governments have been extended by the present one, in the form of the 90 Day Act. This permits workers to be fired within that period without explanation and limits union access to worksites (2). Wages have not matched the higher levels of productivity squeezed out of workers (3). Welfare beneficiaries (4) are continuing to be attacked and stigmatised. One of the more recent measures for example, being the drug testing of beneficiaries. The individual beneficiary is being blamed for his/her situation rather than the failure of the system to provide meaningful jobs. GST has increased to 15% with no exemptions and basic food items are becoming hard for some working families to buy regularly. This has caused dependence on food banks (which have sometimes actually run out of stock due to high demand), private charities and extended whanau. Rents are high, especially in the main centres and many families have given up on the dream of ever owning their own homes. In short, there is very little prosperity to be seen out there, though a minority have of course benefited. A lot of people are getting by bill-to-bill, rather than living in the financial paradise held out by the neo-liberal theorists.

Asset sales also interrelate to the deeper history of this country in terms of colonialism and its consequences. The NZ nation state is intrinsically based on the confiscation of indigenous land and destruction of indigenous communities. From at least 1860 onwards, the crown broke its guarantees set out in the Treaty of Waitangi and even overrode the fact that many iwi had not signed it. The crown simply invaded and stole (6). Having the land, culture, people and knowledge decimated, has impacted tangata whenua for generations since. As in other countries with similar histories, the indigenous people continue to be over-represented in crucial social indicators such as poor health, gambling, homelessness and high conviction statistics. Most hapu have essentially lost all rangatiratanga - the ability to determine what happens to your land. Asset sales are just another way of transferring assets from one owner to another without Maori being able to even participate in the discussion of how that happens, let alone making any decisions.

As for the question of efficiency, recent governments have had to implicitly admit the failure of privatisation and SOEs&#039; by either buying back assets, selling off some or putting tax payers&#039; money into others. In 2001 the Labour-lead government bought an 80% stake in a nearly bankrupt Air NZ (8). Rail services were taken back into state control and renamed Kiwirail in 2008 after being run down for years. Telecom made multi-billion dollar profits but did very little to develop its infrastructure. Consequently it is now being hugely subsidised to upgrade its network. The Solid Energy coal company became nearly $400 million in debt due to a combination of bad investments and poor management and is now on the list of assets to be sold by this government (9). Mighty River Power is about to be 49% privatised, supposedly in order to reduce government debt, and others will follow.

The neo-liberal privatisation approach has failed in Aotearoa, even on its own terms. This country is far from unique in this regard. Socio-economic damage has consistently been the case globally wherever it was applied, from Chile to Britain. Opponents of neo-liberalism have searched for alternative approaches to asset sales and privatisation, with nationalisation (i.e. state ownership) being put on the agenda. Traditionally in the English-speaking world, nationalisation has been promoted by sections of the ruling class as a means of building infrastructure in sectors of the economy that are natural monopolies and therefore less open to easy profit making.

Current calls for selective nationalisation overseas, have come from some business-friendly members of the elite. Examples include Nigel Lawson ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer under Thatcher (10) and Ilse Aigner a cabinet member in the ruling conservative government of Angela Merkel in Germany (11). The Labour and Greens here are also promoting it as a better way to manage elements of the system. The Greens argue that &quot;Selling off our publicly owned companies would mean more foreign ownership and less accountability to whats best for New Zealanders&quot; (12). Their perspective is one mired in a petty nationalism that sees opposition to asset sales as helping &#039;us&#039;, meaning the nation of fellow kiwis, regardless of social class. It is no accident that these parties find themselves alongside the right-populists of NZ First, headed by the zombie egotist Winston Peters and his racist MP Richard Prosser and Co. The latter spout very much the same rhetoric, arguing &quot;New Zealand First firmly believes that any profits should stay at home&quot; (13). Strangely, even some of those claiming the label &#039;socialist&#039; see nationalisation as a useful tool. This is because to them it is a transitional mechanism on the road to eliminating the entire current economic system, rather than merely a defensive measure to maintain it (14).

The fact that nationalisation can be adopted by various wings of the contemporary establishment and has been used historically by all manner of regimes from the Nazis, to Stalinists and petty dictators in Africa, South America and the Middle East, should give people pause for thought. It cannot be viewed as an inherently progressive move that will secure resources for the majority of the population. Instead it simply entails the transfer of resources from control by private business to that by politicians and unelected bureaucrats. The Fourth Labour Government&#039;s actions showed that this process can be reversed too. The state has not played the role of kaitiaki and can&#039;t be relied on to do so in the future either.

Under state ownership workers can more easily be bullied into compliance with government policies. This can be done by a combination of laws and cops at the &#039;tough&#039; end of the spectrum (15). At the opposite end there are top-down union structures with &#039;friendly&#039; union bosses who act as soft cops. They warn members not to rock the boat and to put their faith in the idea that &#039;consultation&#039; with government will win a few scraps from the table. Its hardly surprising they would do this, given the number of union bosses who get rewarded with safe Labour Party seats in parliament and other perks once they retire. (16)

Under neither privatisation nor nationalisation do those who actually produce goods and services have control or ownership over them. In addition, the myopia of &#039;kiwi first&#039; nationalism that nationalisation would be based on, is a dead end. It fails to deal with the reality that this country is part of an interlocking international economic system. Therefore any solution to economic failure has to extend outwards to deal with it. In this regard John Key at least acknowledges that asset sales are tied to the need for the government to react to the global economic crisis. The attempt by the Labour Party/Greens/NZ First et al to mobilize workers against &#039;foreign investors&#039; and overseas companies is a cheap trick. Workers in this country are experiencing the effects of the global crisis in the same way as workers everywhere else. It isn&#039;t foreign speculators, foreign banks or foreign companies that are the problem. It is a global capitalism which knows no boundaries and the global ruling class with material interests in common (despite internal squabbles) that is responsible for the mess the world is in.

Anarchists don&#039;t accept the false dichotomy of private ownership or state ownership. We see our goal as a transnational economy where those who produce things, collectively and directly own and control those resources. We envisage a world where we actually determine the social and economic ways of organising ourselves in our workplaces and communities. Decisions would be made in a truly democratic way, with direct participation by all and accountability to the collective for those decisions. Given the complexity of operating any economy in the modern world, this would require co-ordination between the various organisations the communities establish. This can be achieved by federations that span wider and wider geographical areas. No doubt, there would be teething problems, especially if a democratic economy arose after a protracted revolutionary upheaval. However, given that the workers of the world currently produce everything anyway, efficiently controlling resources on our own behalf is not an impossible task if the opportunity arises. In addition, with the full possession of the factors of production, the material basis would exist for the whole of society to live comfortably, rather than the minority that do at present.

Collective and federative ways of organising are not new. Many aspects of our lives - from bands to community groups or marae - already include truly democratic and collective ways of operating. Plus, history is full of examples of people doing things together for the community as a whole and not for the betterment of a few individuals.

Moving from the political options available, to modes of struggle, what can be said about the latter in the present environment? Opposition to asset sales has taken a reformist and legalistic shape. For example the Maori Council appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the government&#039;s actions interfered with the Treaty of Waitangi process. This temporarily held up the prospective partial-privatisation of Mighty River Power but ultimately failed when they lost the case. The Greens and Labour along with the Mana Party (17), some unions and Marxist-inspired grouplets have formed an anti-assets-sales campaign. One tactic being applied is signature collecting for a petition to be submitted to parliament. This is intended to initiate a referendum on asset sales. The petition has nearly reached the minimum 300,000 names needed to produce a referendum. However, with a glossy government advertising blitz in favour of selling Mighty River Power shares, you would almost not know any petition existed at all! The very fact it does exist shows that there is a significant level of disagreement with the government&#039;s plans. It also adds credence to the idea that even during times of increased capitalist pressure, the population is rarely entirely passive (18).

Unfortunately for the signatories and the rest of the country, Key will ignore the petition. His argument being that the election, in which nearly a quarter of the population refused to participate, gave him a mandate to push through whatever he wants. The experience of the opposition movement so far proves once again that if a form of protest is permitted by the powers-that-be, its probably because they know it offers no more than a symbolic &#039;threat&#039; to them (ie. no threat at all). An accompanying tactic has been street demonstrations. These have managed to gain some attention and thereby raised awareness of the issue. Though fluctuating attendance has been a feature of them too. However, the nationalistic approach has also made neo-nazis and anti-semites comfortable participating in &#039;Aotearoa is Not for Sale&#039; marches (19). This demonstrates the slippery slope that this really is. Unless we are explicit that our campaign is anti-racists and racists are not welcome (from Rightwing Resistance&#039;s Kyle Chapman to NZ First leader Winston Peters), we legitimise racist and anti-semitic rhetoric. Overall the demonstrations and referendum hardly have the government quaking in its boots and are likely to degenerate further in the direction of electioneering in favour of the Greens and Labour in the next election.

While anarchists have participated in demonstrations and disseminated our message regarding asset sales, we have done so with no illusion that this is sufficient. Real change will require workers and communities across the country to take direct action for themselves. This can come in many forms including strikes and occupations that put resources under their immediate control and begin to threaten the stranglehold of the state and capitalists. This will have to be undertaken in co-ordination with similar actions in other places across the globe. On the face of it, this seems highly unlikely to happen soon in Aotearoa. However, something being unlikely doesn&#039;t make it wrong, just difficult and failure to act at all will guarantee defeat. The fightback though limited here, has begun and will hopefully continue to gain momentum as this ideologically (and in some cases literally) bankrupt system lurches from crisis to crisis.
Aotearoa Workers Solidarity Movement


Notes:


1. An accessible orthodox Left critique of neo-liberalism as applied in NZ in the &#039;80s and &#039;90s can be found in J. Kelsey, The New Zealand Experiment, (Auckland, 1996).

2. See AWSM, &quot;Solidarity&quot;, Issue 1:1 2009 for more on this legislation.

3. Bill Rosenberg, http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/5824465/New-Zealanders-get-low-wages.

4. See http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7496309/High-cost-for-drug-testing-beneficiaries-Health-ministry.

5. Sophie Rishworth, NZ Herald, Nov 3 2011.

6. Of course there were variations in experience within the colonisation and confiscation processes but the basic picture is clear. See R. Boast &amp; R. S. Hill (eds), Raupatu (Wellington, 2009).

7. For a wide-ranging view of the various social problems experienced by Maori today, see T. McIntosh &amp; M. Mullholland (eds), Maori and Social Issues (Wellington, 2011).

8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Air_New_Zealand#Rebirth_and_re-nationalisation.

9. For a summary of how this problem arose, see http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/business/8489664/Why-Solid-Energy-has-ended-up-on-the-slagheap.

10. http://www.investmentweek.co.uk/investment-week/news/2240785/exchancellor-lawson-calls-for-full-nationalisation-of-rbs.

11. http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/member-of-merkel-cabinet-calls-for-nationalization-of-german-power-grid-a-877576.html.

12. http://www.greens.org.nz/koa.

13. http://nzfirst.org.nz/what-we-stand-for/no-asset-sales.

14. For example, Socialist Aotearoa which is the NZ affiliate of the International Socialist Tendency.

15. Of course, it is the nature of the state to attempt to act this way, regardless of the exact proportion of government or private control over the economy. Something even right-wing libertarians appreciate. Nevertheless, it is easier when the state has more direct control. The classic example of draconian intervention by the NZ state in industrial warfare was the 1951 waterside dispute. See Dick Scott, 151 Days (1952).

16. For example, Andrew Little - a current Labour MP - spent his entire previous working life as a union bureaucrat and obtained his seat via a prime position on the party list, despite having been resoundingly rejected by voters in an electorate seat.

17. A small Left split from the Maori Party, which had chosen to enter into coalition with National.

18. See Toby Boraman, &quot;The Myth of Passivity&quot;, http://www.anarkismo.net/article/2277.

19. See https://notafraidofruins.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/stop-ignoring-anti-jewish-racism/

]]></description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 13:50:01 CEST</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>Chile: The Frente de Estudiantes Libertarios (FEL) is 10 years old</title>
			<link>http://www.antifa.ca/antifa-news/chile-the-frente-de-estudiantes-libertarios-fel-is-10-years-old</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Chilean libertarians are celebrating. It is 10 years since the birth - on 21 May 2003 in the city of Valparaíso - of one of the organizations of the libertarian political project that has achieved greatest national influence: the Libertarian Students&#039; Front (FEL). [Castellano]
Chile: The Frente de Estudiantes Libertarios (FEL) is 10 years old

Chilean libertarians are celebrating. It is 10 years since the birth - on 21 May 2003 in the city of Valparaíso - of one of the organizations of the libertarian political project that has achieved greatest national influence: the Libertarian Students&#039; Front (FEL).

The FEL grew out of the need felt by libertarians to acquire an effective tool on a national level to work within the student movement, one that was formed from a the convergence of various groups who were doing some day-by-day work on the ground in all the universities and high schools in Chile.

The political and social context in which the organization developed was marked by the legacy of the dictatorship led by General Pinochet, a dictatorship that involved an economic restructuring serving the interests of large multinational groups and businessmen linked to the regime, and the destruction of the rights which had been conquered by the people over decades of struggle, which saw the outlawing of their parties, trade unions and social organizations, and the persecution of its militants together with the building of new institutions made to measure.

In the field of education, the dictatorship promoted a series of laws that transformed it from a right into merchandise and gave way to a process of privatization and segmentation of education at all levels, creating one education for the rich and another for the poor.

The Concertación, the coalition of centre-right and centre-left that ruled Chile from the plebiscite that ended the dictatorship until 2010 (when its collapsed, giving way to a new right-wing government) not only essentially maintained the education model inherited from the dictatorship, but perfected and adapted it, adopting as unquestionable truth the neoliberal dogma that the market is the best provider of goods and services, even in areas such as education and that the State&#039;s role should be limited to legislating and regulating economic activity.

One result was that the increase in university fees in Chile as a result of their modernization resulted primarily in indebtedness of students and their families: the average cost of university education in Chile is the most expensive the world, higher than the minimum wage of a worker.

Another was the proliferation of higher education institutions, set up like service companies, with little or no concern for academic standards and the continuity of an educational project beyond the short-term economic benefit of its investors.

But this exclusivist situation began to fought against when the student movement began to raise their demands, expressed on the streets in huge numbers during successive annual waves, each one with more stakeholders involved and with greater demands: the mochilazo (&quot;schoolbag demo&quot;) in 2001 for changes to the student bus pass system and for access to higher education as the major claims of high school students, the &quot;penguin rebellion&quot; (named after Chilean school uniforms) in 2006, also held by high school students, reaching a zenith in 2011 during the &quot;Chilean Spring&quot; movement in which the joint movement of high school and university students forced itself into the centre of public debate on the fundamental issues of education: its property, its management, its orientation, its funding, its relationship with society... with such power and depth that it caused the whole model imposed during the dictatorship and still valid today to be put into question.

The result was that common opinion veered to the left and cracks appeared in the neoliberal consensus that had dominated Chilean politics, opening up debates that had long been avoided, such as the sovereignty over the country&#039;s natural resources, mainly copper mining which has been in the hands of private conglomerates for 40 years and who leave only a small part of their yield in the country. Or the lack of proper public services and social rights such as housing, healthcare or education, which could be financed, in fact, by the copper.

In that broad social and student movement that two years later was still continuing to shake Chile and trying to reach a higher level, from demands and social protest to the construction of a political alternative and the fight over power, the Frente de Estudiantes Libertarios, with its 10 years of experience behind it, is playing a role as a motor and in programmatic and strategic guidance through its daily work in the grassroots and in its leadership, either alone or in coalition with other leftist forces, and the numerous Federations of Students in the major education centres of the country.

Today, and in its own right, the FEL is not only a key force in the libertarian political project but also a major player on the national stage, part of the popular torrent that is looking for ways to break down the walls of institutions imposed by the dictatorship and open up roads and possible scenarios for a new Chile within a new Latin America.

Manu García

Translated by FdCA - International Relations Office]]></description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 15:10:01 CEST</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>France: It’s been four years since Zoé died</title>
			<link>http://www.antifa.ca/antifa-news/france-it’s-been-four-years-since-zoe-died</link>
			<description><![CDATA[from non-fides, translated by waronsociety:
Four years. Difficult to know if it’s four years already or just four years. Four years and a long mourning which has only just begun several years after her death, after those who justice found necessary to punish directly for the accident which cost Zoé her life finished the prison sentences which they had been assigned, after those who remained outside prison were no longer listened in on, tailed, photographed, filmed, intimidated. But anyway, that’s another story. After those who believe that seeing a friend die is not enough have satisfied themselves with our pain, have been sated enough by our sadness to leave again with a full belly and head held high, proud to have restored order and justice. This order and this justice which are after our friendships and our loves, and that seek to destroy them, because our friendships and loves are, among other things, born of our desires and our potential to create a space in which to grow and develop. Without passion, theory is but a dead letter. And cynicism is nothing revolutionary. 
Zoé is not a martyr of “the cause.” She did not die for an ideology, for the people, or for “the revolution.” Zoé died of being free, or of wanting to be. She died of being in love, of being a friend, being DIY, a feminist, a traveler, of being dynamic, intelligent, radical, generous…. Zoé died of being who she was. Someone who did not want to suffer further or to endure the greyness, and who acted accordingly, for herself and for others. Someone who did not want to adapt to a world that horrified her, and for whom to merely be indignant was not enough. Zoé was not a hero, just someone who made choices. The choice to refuse, to resist, to not be indifferent to that which surrounded her and to how it surrounded her, to not let herself become absorbed in the tranquil decomposition of everyday life, to not want to stay at the window, railing against those whose attempts to make the world radically better have unfortunately failed. These are some choices that she and others have paid for dearly, here as elsewhere, today as yesterday.
There was a storm of sadness and anger that swept the days and the weeks that followed Zoé’s death. The sadness of losing a friend, the anger over not being able to be sad, of not having the respite. An anger directed against those who make their business on our deaths and our suffering, against this necrophagia elevated to the status of a social model. Yes, this sadness and this anger also have their toll, but the disaster would be much worse if we were used to it, if the ghosts of the struggle erased the sincerity of the continuing fight, if the feelings and affects were relegated to the limbo of ideology. We have been profoundly affected because we are in touch with the world.
A part of us has been devoured, and the monster is always hungry, always wanting more. But it is necessary to pry the memory from its jaws, to pull it out, in order to not forget. Not to erect monuments, because death is nothing glorious, but in order to prevent these passions and this love for freedom that animated Zoé from being swallowed in turn.
Four years have passed, but little water has passed under the bridge. And this water should not flow, because it is our lives, our deaths, and our struggles which slip away with it.
For a world without prisons or borders.
For a free and difficult life, toward an existence without exploitation or domination.
Solidarity to everyone, imprisoned or not, who struggle every day by any means necessary against what destroys them.
A thought for Mauricio Morales, who died in Santiago, Chile, the same month of May, 2009, for those close to him and all those who had to endure the Bombs Case, and whose stories have resonated in a number of heads here.
To Zoé.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 13:10:01 CEST</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>Temuco, Chili. La Cour d&#039;Appel confirme la détention préventive de la compagnonne Yaritza</title>
			<link>http://www.antifa.ca/antifa-news/temuco-chili-la-cour-dappel-confirme-la-detention-preventive-de-la-compagnonne-yaritza</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Suite au refus du Tribunal Pénal de revenir sur la détention préventive de la camarade Yaritza Grandon le 26 avril, la défense a décidé de faire appel afin de sortir la camarade de prison. Le 2 mai 2013, la cour d&#039;appel a confirmé la détention préventive de la camarade Yaritza, obtenant une seul voix (...)
		-- Actualités, Prisons - Réclusion, Répression, chili, montage policier, Temuco, Yaritza]]></description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 12:40:01 CEST</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>[Contrainfo Fr] Temuco, Chili. La Cour d&#039;Appel confirme la détention préventive de la compagnonne Yaritza</title>
			<link>http://www.antifa.ca/antifa-news/contrainfo-fr-temuco-chili-la-cour-dappel-confirme-la-detention-preventive-de-la-compagnonne-yaritza</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Suite au refus du Tribunal Pénal de revenir sur la détention préventive de la camarade Yaritza Grandon le 26 avril, la défense a décidé de faire appel afin de sortir la camarade de prison. Le 2 mai 2013, la cour d&#039;appel a confirmé la détention préventive de la camarade Yaritza, obtenant une seul voix (...)
		-- Actualités, Prisons - Réclusion, Répression, chili, montage policier, Temuco, Yaritza]]></description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 00:40:01 CEST</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>[Contrainfo Fr] Chili : journées en souvenir de Punky Mauri</title>
			<link>http://www.antifa.ca/antifa-news/contrainfo-fr-chili-journees-en-souvenir-de-punky-mauri</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Journées en souvenir de Punky Mauri Jusqu&#039;à détruire le dernier bastion de leur société carcérale. Mauricio Morales mort en action le 22 mai 2009. 20 mai, à 19h : expressions artistiques diverses, textes de compagnon-ne-s, bouffe végane. *activité sans fumée et alcool, au CSO La Makina Libereco (...)
		-- Actualités, Affiches, 22 mai 2009, chili, Mauricio Morales]]></description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 00:40:01 CEST</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>Chile: El Frente de Estudiantes Libertarios (FEL) cumple 10 años</title>
			<link>http://www.antifa.ca/antifa-news/chile-el-frente-de-estudiantes-libertarios-fel-cumple-10-anos</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Los libertarios de Chile están de celebración. Se cumplen 10 años desde el nacimiento en la ciudad de Valparaíso, el 21 de mayo de 2003, de una de las organizaciones del proyecto político libertario que ha conseguido mayor influencia a nivel nacional: el Frente de Estudiantes Libertarios (FEL).
Los libertarios de Chile están de celebración. Se cumplen 10 años desde el nacimiento en la ciudad de Valparaíso, el 21 de mayo de 2003, de una de las organizaciones del proyecto político libertario que ha conseguido mayor influencia a nivel nacional: el Frente de Estudiantes Libertarios (FEL).

El FEL surge de la necesidad sentida por los libertarios de dotarse de una herramienta efectiva y con proyección nacional para trabajar en el movimiento estudiantil y se conforma mediante la confluencia de diversos grupos que venían haciendo un trabajo de base y cotidiano en universidades y liceos de todo Chile.

El contexto político y social en que se desarrolla la organización está marcado por la herencia de la dictadura encabezada por el general Pinochet, dictadura que conllevó un reordenamiento económico al servicio de grandes grupos transnacionales y de empresarios ligados con el régimen y el arrasamiento de los derechos conquistados por el pueblo en décadas de lucha, para lo cual proscribió a sus partidos y organizaciones sindicales y sociales, persiguió a sus militantes y construyó una nueva institucionalidad a su medida. 

En el terreno de la enseñanza la dictadura impulsó un conjunto de leyes que la convirtieron de un derecho en un bien de mercado y dieron paso a un proceso de privatización y segmentación de la educación a todos los niveles, configurando una educación para ricos y otra para pobres.

La Concertación, la coalición de centro-derecha y centro-izquierda que gobernó Chile desde el plebiscito que puso fin a la dictadura hasta 2010 (cuando ante su desgaste asume el gobierno nuevamente la derecha), no sólo mantuvo en lo sustancial el modelo educativo legado por la dictadura, sino que lo perfeccionó y adaptó, asumiendo como verdad incuestionable el dogma neoliberal de que el mercado es el mejor proveedor de bienes y servicios incluso en campos como la educación, y que el rol del Estado debía ser únicamente legislar y regular esa actividad económica. 

Uno de los resultados fue que el aumento en la matrícula universitaria en Chile como producto de su modernización dependiente se hizo fundamentalmente por la vía del endeudamiento de los estudiantes y de sus familias: el costo medio de la educación universitaria en Chile es de los más caros del mundo, siendo superior al monto del salario mínimo de un trabajador.

Otro fue la proliferación de centros de enseñanza superior armados a modo de empresa de servicios y con escasa o nula preocupación por los estándares académicos y por la continuidad de un proyecto educativo más allá del beneficio económico a corto plazo de sus inversores.

Contra esa realidad excluyente es que el movimiento estudiantil comienza a levantar sus demandas, que se expresan multitudinariamente en las calles en sucesivas oleadas anuales, cada una de ellas con más actores sociales involucrados y mayor profundidad en las demandas: el “mochilazo” en 2001 con modificaciones del pase escolar de transporte y al acceso a la educación superior como reivindicaciones principales de los estudiantes secundarios, la “rebelión pingüina” (llamada así por el uniforme escolar chileno) del 2006, también sostenida por los estudiantes de instituto, alcanzando su cénit en el 2011 durante la llamada “Primavera chilena”, en que el movimiento conjunto de secundarios y universitarios consiguió instalar en el centro del debate público los temas fundamentales de la educación: su propiedad, su gestión, su orientación, su financiación, su relación con la sociedad… con tal potencia y profundidad que puso en cuestión el conjunto del modelo impuesto durante la dictadura y vigente hasta el día de hoy. 

Consiguió que el sentido común virara a la izquierda y que se resquebrajara el consenso neoliberal que dominaba la política chilena, abriendo debates largamente postergados, como el de la soberanía sobre los recursos naturales del país, fundamentalmente de la minería del cobre, desde hace 40 años en manos de conglomerados privados que dejan en el país una mínima parte de su rendimiento. O la inexistencia de servicios públicos propiamente dichos y de derechos sociales como la vivienda, la salud o la educación, cuyo financiamiento, precisamente, podría pagar el cobre.

En ese amplio movimiento estudiantil y social que dos años después sigue sacudiendo Chile y que trata de pasar a una etapa superior, de lo reivindicativo y lo social a la construcción de alternativa política y la disputa de poder, el Frente de Estudiantes Libertarios, con 10 años de experiencia a sus espaldas, juega un rol de motor y de orientación programática y estratégica a través de su trabajo cotidiano y de base y de la dirección, en solitario o en coalición con otras fuerzas de izquierda, de numerosas Federaciones de Estudiantes en los principales centros de estudios del país. 

A día de hoy y por derecho propio el FEL es no sólo una fuerza clave del proyecto político libertario, sino también un actor relevante en el escenario nacional, parte del torrente popular que busca los modos de romper los diques de la institucionalidad impuesta por la dictadura para abrir los caminos y escenarios de posibilidad de un nuevo Chile dentro de una nueva América Latina.
Manu García]]></description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 00:30:01 CEST</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>Chili : journées en souvenir de Punky Mauri</title>
			<link>http://www.antifa.ca/antifa-news/chili-journees-en-souvenir-de-punky-mauri</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Journées en souvenir de Punky MauriJusqu’à détruire le dernier bastion de leur société carcérale.Mauricio Morales mort en action le 22 mai 2009.
Notre mémoire est noire ainsi que notre cœur.Jusqu’à détruire le dernier bastion de la société carcérale.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 19:20:03 CEST</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>Temuco, Chili. La Cour d’Appel confirme la détention préventive de la compagnonne Yaritza</title>
			<link>http://www.antifa.ca/antifa-news/temuco-chili-la-cour-d’appel-confirme-la-detention-preventive-de-la-compagnonne-yaritza</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Suite au refus du Tribunal Pénal de revenir sur la détention préventive de la camarade Yaritza Grandon le 26 avril, la défense a décidé de faire appel afin de sortir la camarade de prison.
Le 2 mai 2013, la cour d’appel a confirmé la détention préventive de la camarade Yaritza, obtenant une seul voix (le ministre Julio Cesar Grandon) contre trois pour sa libération.
Rappelons-nous que Yaritza a été placée en détention avec Roxana y Ariadna accusées de divers attentats à la bombe à Temuco, selon la Loi de contrôle des armes. Yaritza, en particulier, a des problèmes de motricité fine, qui l’ont amené à suivre un traitement à un institut du Téléthon et lui empêchent actuellement de manipuler des objets. La Cour, sans peur du ridicule, l’accuse de fabriquer et de poser des bombes.
Solidarité avec les camarades Yaritza et Ariadna !
Jusqu’à briser les fantasmes de l’État !
NdT : dans ce montage deux personnes se trouvent encore en prison, Yaritza et Ariadna. Les trois autres (Roxana, qui est enceinte, Silvana et Jota Pe) se trouvent actuellement assigné-e-s à résidence jusqu’au procès.
source
collaboration de La voz de la libertad]]></description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 19:00:01 CEST</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>En supplément : un Abécédaire exclusif de 8 pages</title>
			<link>http://www.antifa.ca/antifa-news/en-supplement-un-abecedaire-exclusif-de-8-pages</link>
			<description><![CDATA[En 2003, CQFD se proposait de publier un mensuel ouvert, non-confidentiel, sans drapeau ni slogan, traitant de sujets communs à ceux qui font ce journal et à ceux qui le lisent et y contribuent. Dix ans ! Dix ans de critiques et d&#039;expérimentations sociales tous azimuts à condenser avec les vingt-six lettres de l&#039;alphabet romain. Le jeu de l&#039;abécédaire, jouissif de prime abord, s&#039;est également révélé terriblement sélectif tant les tentations étaient grandes et les tentatives multiples.
		 Le A inaugural aurait aussi bien pu renvoyer à l&#039;ADN, enjeu de tous les prélèvements et de toutes les manipulations, qu&#039;à l&#039;auto-entrepreneur, nouvelle figure imposée d&#039;un ultra-capitalisme tout en flexibilité, précarité et responsabilité individuelle. La belle disparue de Georges Perec (E) nous aurait permis de revenir sur les mouvements étudiants, du Québec au Chili en passant par la France, contre la privatisation de l&#039;éducation. Les ouvertures timides mais régulières du journal sur les luttes homosexuelles, transsexuelles, féministes auraient pu trouver une forme d&#039;approche dans un article Queer. Quel bilan tirer de ce bref temps historique ? Qu&#039;est-ce qui a été perdu ? Qu&#039;est-ce qui a été gagné ? Hégémonie de la technologie, aggravation des conditions de vie, développements des contrôles et de la violence d&#039;Etat, mais aussi rupture d&#039;avec la fatalité, inventions de nouvelles pratiques, découvertes et redécouvertes de mouvements collectifs qui ont laissé des marques profondes, tels que la lutte contre le Contrat première embauche ou le soulèvement des banlieues. Voici donc quelques modestes réflexions d&#039;un « chien rouge » en pleine force de l&#039;âge sur l&#039;état de notre monde où, en dépit des promesses marxiennes ou martiennes, les pouvoirs n&#039;ont effacé ni les colères, ni les envies, ni les aspirations à vivre d&#039;une manière autre que celle qui est de mille manières imposées.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 10:10:01 CEST</pubDate>
			</item></channel> 
	                </rss>