<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?> 
		    <rss version="2.0"> 
			<channel> 
			    <title>Russia | ANTIFA.CA - ANTIFA Canada - Canadian Anti-Fascist movement!</title> 
				<link>http://www.antifa.ca/russia</link> 
				<description></description><item>
			<title>Appel a soutien pour les antifas Biélorusses</title>
			<link>http://www.antifa.ca/antifa-news/appel-a-soutien-pour-les-antifas-bielorusses</link>
			<description><![CDATA[APPEL A SOUTIEN AUX ANTIFA BIELORUSSES APRES DES AFFRONTEMENTS AVEC LES NAZIS EN MARGE DE LA CELEBRATION DE LA VICTOIRE RUSSE DU 8 MAI Dans la soirée du 8 Mai à Brest en Biélorussie, un groupe d&#039;antifascistes et un groupes de nazis se sont affrontés. DES PROVOCATIONS DE LA PART DES NAZIS Un des (...)
		-- Infos globales, Révoltes/grèves/luttes sociales, Enfermements/prisons/psychiatrie, Violences policières, Antifascisme, Prisonniers politiques]]></description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 17:30:01 CEST</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>[Indymedia Paris] Appel a soutien pour les antifas Biélorusses</title>
			<link>http://www.antifa.ca/antifa-news/indymedia-paris-appel-a-soutien-pour-les-antifas-bielorusses</link>
			<description><![CDATA[APPEL A SOUTIEN AUX ANTIFA BIELORUSSES APRES DES AFFRONTEMENTS AVEC LES NAZIS EN MARGE DE LA CELEBRATION DE LA VICTOIRE RUSSE DU 8 MAI Dans la soirée du 8 Mai à Brest en Biélorussie, un groupe d&#039;antifascistes et un groupes de nazis se sont affrontés. DES PROVOCATIONS DE LA PART DES NAZIS Un des (...)
		-- Infos globales, Révoltes/grèves/luttes sociales, Enfermements/prisons/psychiatrie, Violences policières, Antifascisme, Prisonniers politiques]]></description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 12:40:01 CEST</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>Radio Panik---ANTIBLOCKIERSYSTEM / ABS - Martial Bécheau</title>
			<link>http://www.antifa.ca/antifa-news/radio-panikantiblockiersystem-abs-martial-becheau</link>
			<description><![CDATA[jeudi 16/5 à 15h00 : Carte-blanche à BANG, alias Martial Bécheau. &quot;Panic Museum&quot; - 58&#039;00&#039;&#039; Avec la lenteur et le souplesse d&#039;un film russe, cette composition nous plonge dans une atmosphère hybride mêlant l&#039;hésitation d&#039;instruments à cordes, l&#039;éther industriel et la profondeur des terrain vagues. (...)]]></description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 06:00:01 CEST</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>[Indymedia Paris] Ce qui distingue le mouvement syndicaliste révolutionnaire</title>
			<link>http://www.antifa.ca/antifa-news/indymedia-paris-ce-qui-distingue-le-mouvement-syndicaliste-revolutionnaire</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Depuis 1968 et plus particulièrement depuis l&#039;effondrement du bloc de l&#039;Est, un nombre significatif d&#039;éléments désireux de militer pour la révolution ont tourné le dos à l&#039;expérience de la révolution russe et de la 3ème Internationale, pour chercher des enseignements pour la lutte et l&#039;organisation du (...)
		-- Infos globales, Révoltes/grèves/luttes sociales, Répression/contrôle social, Travailleurs/chômeurs/précaires, Histoire(s) des luttes, http://fr.internationalism.org]]></description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 13:30:01 CEST</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>[Marseille] discussion les 25 et 26 mai ; Je m&#039;occupe : J&#039;occupe</title>
			<link>http://www.antifa.ca/antifa-news/marseille-discussion-les-25-et-26-mai-je-moccupe-joccupe</link>
			<description><![CDATA[(...)  Réfléchir ensemble Nous constatons que l&#039;occupation (au sens large), s&#039;est affirmé comme moyen évident de répondre à une situation d&#039;urgence mais peut aussi s&#039;inscrire dans une lutte politique plus large. Différents collectifs ont choisi ce point d&#039;entrée comme moteur de l&#039;agir collectif : occupations de logements vides, grèves des loyers et luttes contre les expulsions à Toulouse, Grenoble, Lyon, Nantes, Marseille, Paris, sans oublier Turin, Barcelone, Berlin, etc. Occupation de terrains, de forêts, de champs et de maisons autour de Notre-Dame-Des-Landes, en Val de Susa, au Pays Basque, dans la forêt russe de Khimki, etc. Voilà donc en quoi consiste cette invitation : réfléchir ensemble en prenant du recul, avec différents collectifs et individus, à l&#039;occupation comme moyen de lutte politique. Cerner quelles contradictions peuvent être soulevées en confrontant les différentes expériences et réalités qui composent ces luttes. Faire déborder les occupations des murs entre lesquels elles sont souvent enfermées, pour penser politiquement le moyen-terme sans se cantonner au court-terme de l&#039;occupation en tant que telle. Réfléchir ensemble à ce qui relie les phénomènes de gentrification urbaine et d&#039;aménagement du territoire en zones rurales. Pour apprendre et inventer de nouveaux moyens de lutter. Nous ne superposons pas les occupants et les personnes participant à des luttes d&#039;occupation. Certains d&#039;entre nous vivent dans des lieux occupés, d&#039;autres non. La plupart des gens et des collectifs invités ici participent à des luttes qui dépassent le cadre des camarades, des compagnons ou des groupes affinitaires. C&#039;est-à-dire que nous entendons privilégier le caractère de fond dans la discussion. Nous souhaitons réfléchir à la lutte contre l&#039;aménagement du territoire en l&#039;inscrivant dans une perspective révolutionnaire. Le but de ces discussions n&#039;est pas de trouver quelle serait la bonne solution, ni de bâtir une théorie révolutionnaire unitaire et programmatique au sein de laquelle tout commencerait par des occupations.  
(...)]]></description>
			<pubDate>Sun, 12 May 2013 21:30:02 CEST</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>[Marseille] discution les 25 et 26 mai ; Je m&#039;occupe : J&#039;occupe</title>
			<link>http://www.antifa.ca/antifa-news/marseille-discution-les-25-et-26-mai-je-moccupe-joccupe</link>
			<description><![CDATA[(...)  Réfléchir ensemble Nous constatons que l&#039;occupation (au sens large), s&#039;est affirmé comme moyen évident de répondre à une situation d&#039;urgence mais peut aussi s&#039;inscrire dans une lutte politique plus large. Différents collectifs ont choisi ce point d&#039;entrée comme moteur de l&#039;agir collectif : occupations de logements vides, grèves des loyers et luttes contre les expulsions à Toulouse, Grenoble, Lyon, Nantes, Marseille, Paris, sans oublier Turin, Barcelone, Berlin, etc. Occupation de terrains, de forêts, de champs et de maisons autour de Notre-Dame-Des-Landes, en Val de Susa, au Pays Basque, dans la forêt russe de Khimki, etc. Voilà donc en quoi consiste cette invitation : réfléchir ensemble en prenant du recul, avec différents collectifs et individus, à l&#039;occupation comme moyen de lutte politique. Cerner quelles contradictions peuvent être soulevées en confrontant les différentes expériences et réalités qui composent ces luttes. Faire déborder les occupations des murs entre lesquels elles sont souvent enfermées, pour penser politiquement le moyen-terme sans se cantonner au court-terme de l&#039;occupation en tant que telle. Réfléchir ensemble à ce qui relie les phénomènes de gentrification urbaine et d&#039;aménagement du territoire en zones rurales. Pour apprendre et inventer de nouveaux moyens de lutter. Nous ne superposons pas les occupants et les personnes participant à des luttes d&#039;occupation. Certains d&#039;entre nous vivent dans des lieux occupés, d&#039;autres non. La plupart des gens et des collectifs invités ici participent à des luttes qui dépassent le cadre des camarades, des compagnons ou des groupes affinitaires. C&#039;est-à-dire que nous entendons privilégier le caractère de fond dans la discussion. Nous souhaitons réfléchir à la lutte contre l&#039;aménagement du territoire en l&#039;inscrivant dans une perspective révolutionnaire. Le but de ces discussions n&#039;est pas de trouver quelle serait la bonne solution, ni de bâtir une théorie révolutionnaire unitaire et programmatique au sein de laquelle tout commencerait par des occupations.  
(...)]]></description>
			<pubDate>Sun, 12 May 2013 15:10:01 CEST</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>Russie: Liberté pour Alexeï Gaskarov!</title>
			<link>http://www.antifa.ca/antifa-news/russie-liberte-pour-alexei-gaskarov</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Le 28 avril dernier, un antifasciste russe de renom, Alexeï Gaskarov, a été arrêté à Moscou. Il est membre du Conseil de Coordination de l&#039;opposition russe. La Commission d&#039;Enquête de la Fédération de Russie l&#039;a accusé d&#039;avoir participé aux émeutes et aux violences qui ont eu lieu il y a … Lire la suite (...)
		-- International, Russie, 6 mai, Khimki, solidarité antifasciste]]></description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 03:10:01 CEST</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>[La Horde] Russie: Liberté pour Alexeï Gaskarov!</title>
			<link>http://www.antifa.ca/antifa-news/la-horde-russie-liberte-pour-alexei-gaskarov</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Le 28 avril dernier, un antifasciste russe de renom, Alexeï Gaskarov, a été arrêté à Moscou. Il est membre du Conseil de Coordination de l&#039;opposition russe. La Commission d&#039;Enquête de la Fédération de Russie l&#039;a accusé d&#039;avoir participé aux émeutes et aux violences qui ont eu lieu il y a … Lire la suite (...)
		-- International, Russie, 6 mai, Khimki, solidarité antifasciste]]></description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 21:10:01 CEST</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>Demonstration in Helsinki for political prisoners in Russia (Finland)</title>
			<link>http://www.antifa.ca/antifa-news/demonstration-in-helsinki-for-political-prisoners-in-russia-finland</link>
			<description><![CDATA[On the anniversary of the 2012 protests prior to the inauguration of Putin in Moscow, a demonstration for Russian political prisoners was organised in Helsinki by Free Pussy Riot Helsinki and a local group of Anarchist Black Cross. From 4 to 6 PM an info-stall was held at the statue of the Three Smiths in the very center of the city. Main topic of the demonstration was the case against more than 20 people, accused of rioting 6th of May 2012, but information was also provided about the case of Pussy Riot and the cases of four persecuted Moscow antifascists (Alexey Olesinov, Alexey Sutuga, Alyon Volkov and Igor Kharchenko) At 6 PM, the demonstration headed to the Russian embassy, shouting “Free Russian political prisoners” and “Putin out”, as well as the names of around twenty political prisoners (“Free Aleksandra Dukhanina!”, “Free Stepan Zimin!”, “Free Alexey Polikhovich!”, “Free Alexey Gaskarov!” and so on). In front of the demonstration, there was a bilingual banner “Free political prisoners” in Finnish and Russian languages. Altogether, around 50 people joined the demonstration.
Photos: http://avtonom.org/fi/node/20593]]></description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 19:10:02 CEST</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>Physical excercise prevents you becoming gay, claims UK councillor candidate</title>
			<link>http://www.antifa.ca/antifa-news/physical-excercise-prevents-you-becoming-gay-claims-uk-councillor-candidate</link>
			<description><![CDATA[John Sullivan, a UKIP party candidate, up for election next week, has made a series of anti-gay Facebook comments, including congratulating Russia for banning gay Pride, and comparing gays to termites




 


John Sullivan, a UK councillor candidate congratulated Russia on banning gay Pride marches and claimed regular exercise in schools can prevent homosexuality.
In a series of Facebook posts, Sullivan, who is a member of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) likened gay activists to termites and stated that feminism is evil and being gay is even worse.
Sullivan is standing for local elections on 2 May, to win a seat as a councillor for the Forest of Dean area in Gloucestershire’s County Council, in western England, UK.
In a series of posts on the far right anti-gay Traditional Britain Group Facebook group Sullivan expressed anti-gay views, revealed Colin Cortbus, an anti-extremist campaigner and a Gay Star News reader.
In one post Sullivan suggested regular physical exercise prevents children from becoming gay.
He recommended Victorian style regular physical exercise be reinstated in schools as it apparently causes releases of tension which prevents homosexuality.
Gay Star News readers thought Sullivan’s ideas were hilariously bad: ‘Has he never seen a gaggle of gym-bunnies?’, read one comment.
One reader stated: ‘Regular exercise made me even gayer!!’
‘Not in my gym…’, said another.
Sullivan also congratulated Russia for banning gay Pride and saying: ‘Well done the Russians’.
Reacting to Sullivan’s recommendations, Nikolay Alexeyev, co-founder of Moscow Pride and Gay Russia, told GSN: ‘Unfortunately Sullivan was born in the wrong country (and century).
‘I’d advise him to ask Putin for a Russian citizenship, he would make an excellent member of United Russia and his views on promoting hatred would be far better received.
‘Putin would very likely personally take a liking to him and congratulate him on his views.’
Sullivan also went on to call gay marriage supporters ‘termites’ mockingly reacting to an article on Conservative party members supporting marriage equality.
His antagonism doesn’t stop there, he also claimed feminism is evil, suggesting that homosexuality is even worse (saying ‘it doesn’t go there’).
When it comes to education, Sullivan has some novel suggestions: the best way to rear children is to handle them in a similar way to dogs, who learn that with obedience comes trust.
Sullivan recommended this method (which he said he tried and tested on his own children) be adopted by UK educational establishments.
Gay Star News contacted UKIP’s Forest of Dean and West Gloucestershire Branch for comments but has received none to the date of the article’s publication.
UKIP has recently come under fire for some of its members expressing anti-gay views
Nigel Farage, UKIP’s leader, called upon Conservative party members to defect to his party over the government’s pro gay marriage stance. 
While, Olly Neville, the former chairman of UKIP’s Young Independent wing, was recently fired from his position for backing marriage equality.
Winston McKenzie, a UKIP unsuccessful MP candidate previously said gay adoption is like throwing kids to the ‘dogs’.
Former UKIP chair, Dr Julia Gasper, was forced to resign when said gays are more likely to abuse children, branding LGBT rights activists as a ‘lunatics’ and claimed some gays prefer sex with animals.
Cortbus, who exposed Gasper and led to her eventual resignation, told GSN: ‘party-members and candidates like Sullivan evidence the dangers of UKIP’s politics’.
From Gay Star News . Report by Dan Littauer 27.04.2013
Editorial. Poor old UKIP. Despite strenuous efforts to present themselves as not being of the far right – well, no further to the right than Maggie Thatcher was at any rate, they just can’t seem to shake off this image of being a collection of  ”fruitcakes, loonies, waifs and strays”. We at Liveraf wonder how long it will be before the electorate rumbles them; just like they rumbled the BNP and the National Front and that dinosaur from the 1930s, The British Union of Fascists?



   ]]></description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 03 May 2013 17:20:01 CEST</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>O Anarquismo, o Massacre de Haymarket e os Mártires de Chicago</title>
			<link>http://www.antifa.ca/antifa-news/o-anarquismo-o-massacre-de-haymarket-e-os-martires-de-chicago</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Panfleto publicado e distribuído pela OASL no ato do Primeiro de Maio na sede da APEOESP em Mogi das Cruzes. O panfleto completo pode ser baixado aqui: http://anarquismosp.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/primeir...o.pdf
O Primeiro de Maio, a sociedade de ontem e de hoje

Todos os anos nos deparamos com as tais festas do Primeiro de Maio, promovidas pelas grandes centrais sindicais e que enchem praças e avenidas com milhares de pessoas. Com o objetivo de atrair o público, em meio aos shows de artistas famosos, sorteiam até carros e apartamentos. Esquecemos, no entanto, das origens dessa data tão importante, que marca a luta dos trabalhadores e das trabalhadoras contra as mazelas do capitalismo e suas brutais consequências sobre homens e mulheres.

Como sempre, a história é contada pelos vencedores, e assim também aconteceu com a história do Primeiro de Maio, que até hoje não é muito conhecida. A mobilização dos operários e operárias de Chicago e de outros lugares do mundo aos fins do século XIX, reivindicando a jornada diária de oito horas de trabalho, refletia uma luta contra o sistema capitalista e as péssimas condições a que estavam submetidos trabalhadores e trabalhadoras. A relevância atual desse tema é que os motivos que levaram a essa mobilização não mudaram tanto de lá para cá.

Continuamos a viver em uma sociedade capitalista, apoiada na exploração do trabalho, nos baixos salários, nas precárias condições de trabalho, no desemprego. Continuamos a viver em uma sociedade em que impera a pobreza e a fome de muitos, para o benefício e a prosperidade de poucos. Não temos o controle sobre o trabalho que realizamos e nem sobre as decisões que nos afetam. Parte dos frutos de nosso trabalho continuam indo para as mãos das classes dominantes. Quando nos mobilizamos para reivindicar uma vida melhor, o Estado está sempre lá, para nos reprimir e mostrar o devido lugar das classes oprimidas no capitalismo. Essas são apenas algumas semelhanças dos fins do século XIX e dos dias de hoje.

O trabalho nos Estados Unidos dos anos 1880

Aos finais do século XIX, os Estados Unidos continuavam sua crescente onda de crescimento econômico, em grande medida impulsionados pelos efeitos da Guerra de Secessão. A possibilidade de empregos nas fábricas atraía estrangeiros e nativos. No entanto, as condições de trabalho eram precárias ao extremo. Em nome do lucro, os líderes capitalistas faziam com que homens e mulheres trabalhassem 12, 14 e até 17 horas por dia, em ambientes sem qualquer condição para o trabalho: muitos não tinham ventilação e iluminação adequada, eram extremamente sujos etc. Nem as crianças e mulheres grávidas eram poupadas. O desenvolvimento da crescente industrialização, das precárias condições de trabalho e das organizações operárias, criava um ambiente propício para a mobilização, com o objetivo de melhorar as condições de vida.

Oscar Neebe – conhecido militante anarquista e funileiro desse período – fez uma descrição do contexto da época em sua autobiografia: “Eu trabalhava numa fábrica que fazia latas de óleo e caixas para chá. Foi o primeiro lugar em que vi crianças de 8 a 12 anos trabalharem como escravas nas máquinas. Quase todos os dias acontecia de um dedo ser mutilado. Mas o que isso importa… Elas eram remuneradas e mandadas para casa, e outras tomariam seus lugares. Acredito que o trabalho infantil nas fábricas tenha feito, nos últimos vinte anos, mais vítimas do que a guerra com o sul, e que os dedos mutilados e os corpos destroçados trouxeram ouro aos monopólios e produtores.”

As mobilizações operárias e o Massacre de Haymarket

É dentro desse contexto que se dá o movimento reivindicativo que marcou na História essa importante data do Primeiro de Maio. Há anos, existia a ideia de que o dia dos trabalhadores e das trabalhadoras deveria ser dividido em três partes: oito horas para o trabalho, oito horas de sono e oito horas para o lazer e o estudo. No ano de 1884, a Federação dos Sindicatos Organizados dos Estados Unidos e do Canadá (precursora da Federação Americana do Trabalho – AFL) declarou que a partir do dia 1º de maio de 1886 a jornada de oito horas de trabalho passaria a vigorar, apesar dos capitalistas afirmarem que isso era impossível. Esse movimento, na realidade, refletia uma das reivindicações centrais dos movimentos operários da época, e continuava a mobilização já iniciada anteriormente em países como Inglaterra, França e Austrália. As adesões para o movimento foram muito grandes, já que a reivindicação central era comum a todos os trabalhadores. Um pouco antes do tão esperado Primeiro de Maio de 1886, milhares de trabalhadores e trabalhadoras haviam aderido à luta pela redução da jornada. “Brancos e negros, homens e mulheres, nativos e imigrantes, todos estavam envolvidos.”

Especificamente nos Estados Unidos, o anarquismo, força protagonista deste movimento, vinha crescendo desde o Congresso de Pittsburgh, em 1883, e com a fundação da International Working People’s Association (IWPA), expressão de massas anarquista que, em 1886, chegou a ter 2500 militantes e 10 mil colaboradores. Entre seus fundadores, podemos destacar Lucy Parsons – mulher, negra e ex-escrava –, que teve um papel decisivo na organização operária de Chicago, incorporando a pauta das mulheres e das negras e negros. Vale lembrar que a IWPA, entendendo as condições especificas de mulheres e negras/os na sociedade, defendeu a pauta das opressões, denunciando a forma como o mundo do trabalho se utiliza dessas condições para promover uma maior precarização e exploração do trabalho, lucrando ainda mais. Em um de seus inúmeros discursos ela atentava para que nossa crítica, enquanto trabalhadores, pudesse ir além da figura dos patrões, que refletíssemos também sobre o mundo do trabalho: “Então você não pode ver que entre a imagem do ‘bom chefe’ e a do ‘mau patrão’ tanto faz? E, que, você é a presa comum de ambos, e que a função dele é simplesmente explorar? Você não pode ver que é o sistema industrial e não o ‘chefe’ que deve ser mudado?”. Outros marcos significativos foram o jornal diário Chicagoer Arbeiter Zeitung e a fundação, em 1884, da Central Labor Union (CLU), que chegou a 28 mil trabalhadores, somente em Chicago, em 1886.

No dia 1º de maio de 1886, as ruas de Chicago foram tomadas pelo povo, em protestos e greves cujo objetivo central estava na redução da jornada de trabalho. Chicago, na época, era o principal centro de agitação política dos EUA e os anarquistas exerciam a maior influência no movimento. De acordo com o relato de um jornal da época, “não saía qualquer fumaça das altas chaminés das fábricas e dos engenhos, e as coisas assumiam uma aparência de sabá (o sábado judeu)”. Entre 80 e 90 mil pessoas saíram às ruas em apoio ao crescente movimento somente na cidade de Chicago. Grandes manifestações com mais de 10 mil pessoas também aconteceram em Nova York e Detroit. Aconteceram reuniões e comícios em Louisville, Kentucky, Baltimore e Maryland. Estima-se que por volta de meio milhão de pessoas tenha tomado parte nas manifestações do Primeiro de Maio nos EUA. Estima-se também que por volta de 1200 fábricas entraram em greve em todo o país em apoio ao movimento.

A posição dos líderes capitalistas era claramente refletida na imprensa da época que chamava os manifestantes de “cafajestes, preguiçosos, e canalhas que buscavam criar desordens”. Outro veículo da imprensa afirmava que “Esses brutos [os/as operários/as] só compreendem a força, uma força que possam recordar durante várias gerações”. Os capitalistas compravam armas de fogo para a polícia local. Esses são apenas alguns exemplos da “rede de apoio” que se formou entre patrões e a mídia, todos em defesa do Capital e da ordem estabelecida.

No dia 03 de maio as manifestações e greves continuavam. August Spies, um tipógrafo anarquista e editor do periódico Arbeiter-Zeitung, discursou para 6 mil trabalhadores e trabalhadoras. Ainda enquanto ele falava, os fura-greves da fábrica Mc Cormick Harvester estavam saindo, e parte dos manifestantes deslocou-se para a frente da fábrica, com o objetivo de incomodar os fura-greves. Isso aconteceu pois o local em que falava Spies ficava a um quarteirão da fábrica. Os manifestantes desceram a rua e fizeram com que os fura-greves voltassem para dentro da fábrica. Foi então que chegou a polícia. Eram aproximadamente 200 policiais que, ao reprimir os manifestantes, acabaram matando seis pessoas (outras fontes dizem quatro ou sete), ferindo e prendendo muitas outras. Spies, vendo o resultado brutal da repressão policial, dirigiu-se ao escritório do Arbeiter-Zeitung e fez uma circular, convocando os trabalhadores e as trabalhadoras para outra manifestação no início da noite do dia seguinte.

O protesto do dia 04 de maio aconteceu na Praça Haymarket, e nele discursaram, além de Spies, Albert Parsons, tipógrafo, militante anarquista e companheiro de Lucy Parsons, e Samuel Fielden, imigrante inglês, operário da indústria têxtil e também militante anarquista. Os discursos pediam unidade e continuidade no movimento. Havia aproximadamente 2500 pessoas no local, que até o momento faziam um protesto pacífico, tão pacífico que o prefeito Carter Harrison, presente no início dos discursos, afirmou que “nada do que acontecia dava a impressão de haver necessidade de intervenção da polícia”. Já no final da noite o mau tempo contribuía para que houvesse apenas cerca de 200 pessoas na praça. Com a ordem de dispersar a manifestação imediatamente, um grupo de 180 policiais chegou ao local. Apesar de Spies ter dito que os manifestantes eram pacíficos, a polícia iniciou o processo de dispersar o ato. Foi nesse momento que uma bomba explodiu em meio aos policiais, matando sete e ferindo aproximadamente 70, entre policiais e manifestantes. A polícia imediatamente abriu fogo contra a população, sendo responsável por incontáveis mortes. Alguns relatos falam em 100 mortos e dezenas de presos e feridos. Ninguém nunca soube se quem jogou a bomba foram os manifestantes ou a própria polícia, para incriminar o movimento.

Em sua autobiografia, Spies diria algum tempo mais tarde que “o anarquismo não era nem mesmo mencionado. Mas o anarquismo era bom o suficiente para servir como um bode expiatório para Bonfield [chefe de polícia de Chicago]. Esse demônio, com o objetivo de justificar seu ataque assassino à reunião, disse: ‘eram anarquistas’. – ‘Anarquistas! Oh, que horror!’ A estúpida massa imaginou que – anarquistas – deveria ser alguma coisa muito ruim, e incorporou o refrão junto com seus inimigos e espoliadores: ‘Crucifiquem-nos! Crucifiquem-nos!’”

O fato é que o acontecimento da bomba foi utilizado como motivo para a perseguição de todo o movimento radical de trabalhadores. A polícia invadiu casas e escritórios de suspeitos e houve muitas prisões. Muitas pessoas que nem sabiam o que era anarquismo ou socialismo foram presas e torturadas. Definitivamente, a polícia primeiro atacava e prendia, para depois averiguar se havia alguma “culpa” dos acusados.

A repressão e os Mártires de Chicago

O resultado desse processo foi a prisão temporária de Rudolph Schnaubelt, acusado de jogar a bomba. Ele foi solto depois de algum tempo sem acusações formais e há quem diga que ele era um agente pago pelas autoridades para cometer o atentado. Com Schnaubelt solto, a polícia prendeu Fielden e seis imigrantes anarquistas alemães: Spies, Neebe, Adolph Fischer, tipógrafo, Louis Lingg, carpinteiro, George Engel, tipógrafo e Michael Schwab, encadernador. A polícia também procurava Albert Parsons, já que ele era um importante líder da IWPA em Chicago, mas ele conseguiu se esconder e não ser capturado. Parsons acabou depois se apresentando no dia do julgamento. Apesar de apenas três deles terem estado presentes no dia da explosão da bomba, foram todos incriminados e responsabilizados por esse motivo.

O julgamento teve início em 21 de junho de 1886 com um júri nitidamente manipulado. Ele era composto de empresários, seus funcionários e um parente de um dos policiais mortos. Não houve provas apresentadas contra os anarquistas e nada que levasse a uma conexão clara dos acusados com a explosão da bomba. Não houve, também, quaisquer provas de que eles teriam incitado a violência ou algo do tipo em seus discursos. No entanto, o resultado do julgamento foi um claro reflexo do medo por parte da sociedade burguesa em relação aos operários organizados e combativos. Numa deliberada tentativa de conter o crescente movimento operário, sete dos acusados foram condenados à morte em 19 de agosto. Neebe foi condenado a 15 anos de prisão. Apesar de insistir não ser culpado, Neebe, em uma demonstração de solidariedade aos seus companheiros, falou ao juiz que sentia não ser enforcado com os outros. A punição aos anarquistas deveria servir como um exemplo à sociedade, mostrando o que aconteceria àqueles que desafiassem o poder das instituições do Estado e do Capital.

Spies pronunciou-se em sua última defesa falando sobre os enforcamentos: “Aqui terão apagado uma faísca, mas lá e acolá, atrás e na frente de vocês, em todas as partes, as chamas crescerão. É um fogo subterrâneo e vocês não podem apagá-lo”. Importante também a defesa proferida por Albert Parsons: “A propriedade das máquinas como privilégio de uns poucos é o que combatemos, o monopólio das mesmas, eis aquilo contra o que lutamos. Nós desejamos que todas as forças da natureza, que todas as forças sociais, que essa força gigantesca, produto do trabalho e da inteligência das gerações passadas, sejam postas à disposição do homem, submetidas ao homem para sempre. Este, e não outro, é o objetivo do socialismo.”

Schwab e Fielden tiveram suas penas comutadas para prisão perpétua, depois de uma grande campanha pela liberdade dos acusados. Lingg suicidou-se na prisão um dia antes de ser enforcado. Em 11 de novembro de 1887 Spies, Parsons, Fischer e Engel foram enforcados, e assim ficaram conhecidos como os Mártires de Chicago. Milhares de pessoas tomaram parte na procissão dos funerais e a campanha pela liberdade de Fielden, Schwab e Neebe continuou. Em 26 de junho de 1893 o governador Altgeld libertou-os, alegando que eram inocentes do crime pelo qual estavam sendo acusados.

O Primeiro de Maio se espalha pelo mundo

Em 1890 as manifestações de Primeiro de Maio se generalizaram nos EUA e Europa, assim como no Chile, Peru e Cuba. O movimento pela jornada diária de oito horas de trabalho ganhou tanto apoio, que acabou fazendo com que o Primeiro de Maio fosse uma data mundial de mobilização. Depois disso, generalizaram-se as manifestações no Brasil, na Rússia e Irlanda, e tomaram o mundo de maneira crescente. No Brasil, o Primeiro de Maio é comemorado desde 1894 e tornou-se um feriado nacional por um decreto do ex-presidente Arthur Bernardes em 1925. A jornada diária de oito horas de trabalho foi incorporada na legislação brasileira por Getúlio Vargas na década de 1930. Ainda em seu governo, regulamentou o direito às férias e à aposentadoria, promulgando a Consolidação das Leis do Trabalho (CLT). Essa atitude de Getúlio, muito mais do que benevolência, refletia aceitação, por parte do governo, às reivindicações que eram feitas pelo movimento operário desde os anos 1910. Além disso, muitas indústrias já davam esses benefícios a essa altura dos acontecimentos. Com a Constituição de 1988, incorporou-se às leis brasileiras as férias remuneradas, o 13º salário, a multa de 40% sobre o fundo de garantia em caso de demissão, licença maternidade, entre outros “benefícios” conhecidos hoje por nós.

Atualmente, com a adoção das políticas neoliberais por parte dos nossos últimos governos, e com as novas propostas de “flexibilização” das relações de trabalho, estamos perdendo os direitos que conquistamos depois de longas jornadas de mobilização e reivindicação. Os trabalhadores e as trabalhadoras que ainda têm carteira assinada podem considerar-se privilegiados/as, pois muitos/as não têm mais registros formais. Não têm direito a férias remuneradas, vale-transporte, multa em caso de demissão, 13º salário, entre outros benefícios que um trabalhador registrado formalmente tem. Além disso, ter um trabalho hoje, poder vender a sua força de trabalho e deixar-se explorar pelos patrões, tornou-se um benefício. Há milhões pelo mundo que nem isso conseguem. Podemos ver somente agora, quase 200 anos depois, entrando em vigor um projeto de lei que garante para as trabalhadoras domésticas a jornada máxima de 8 horas diárias, o pagamento de horas extras, o direito de se organizarem em um sindicato e todos os outros benefícios conquistados pelas lutas e mobilizações que marcaram o Dia dos Trabalhadores e das Trabalhadoras. E mesmo as centrais sindicais, em sua maioria, transformaram-se em redutos burocráticos e corruptos, com vistas apenas aos seus próprios interesses. O povo é tratado com a política do pão-e-circo, que agora, além de ser propagada pelo governo, tem a ajuda dos sindicatos com os “Primeiros de Maio” de festas e sorteios. Definitivamente as políticas institucionais mostraram-se ineficazes para conquistar, ou ao menos garantir, os poucos direitos que os Estado ainda nos concede. Já é hora de nos inspirarmos nos antigos militantes operários e, através da ação direta de massas, reivindicarmos o direito a uma vida de liberdade e igualdade.

Viva o Primeiro de Maio!
Viva o dia do Trabalhador e da Trabalhadora!
Viva o anarquismo e os movimentos populares!

Bibliografia Consultada:

August Spies. Autobiography.
Jorge E. Silva. As Origens Trágicas e Esquecidas do Primeiro de Maio.
L. Gaylord. O Primeiro de Maio.
Lázaro Curvêlo Chaves. Primeiro de Maio – Dia Mundial do Trabalho.
Lilian Caramel. A Origem do Dia do Trabalho.
Michael Thomas. May Day in the USA: A Forgotten History.
Oscar Neebe. Autobiography.
Tom Moates. Reclaiming Our History. May Day &amp; the Origins of International Workers Day.
W. T. Whitney, Jr. May Day and the Haymarket Martyrs.
Workers Solidarity Movement. The Anarchist Origins of May Day.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 02 May 2013 13:00:01 CEST</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>Well-known Russian anti-fascist, Alexey Gaskarov, arrested in Moscow</title>
			<link>http://www.antifa.ca/antifa-news/wellknown-russian-antifascist-alexey-gaskarov-arrested-in-moscow</link>
			<description><![CDATA[On Sunday, the 28th of April 2013, a well-known Russian anti-fascist, Alexey Gaskarov, was arrested in Moscow. He is a member of the Coordination Council of Russian opposition. The investigation committee of the Russian Federation has accused him of having pacticipated in riots and violence against representative of authorities on the 6th of May 2012, when OMON (Russian riot police) attacked a peaceful demonstration.
The 6th of May was one day prior to Putin’s inauguration, and a mass demonstration had been called by the opposition. The winter and spring of 2011-2012 saw the biggest wave of political demonstrations in Russia in almost 20 years, as tens of thousands of people went out on the streets to protest election fraud. The 6th of May was also the first time authorities moved to crush these protests. According to the opposition more than 600 people were arrested, and as of now 28 people have been charged, who have been remanded, been put under house arrest or have been forced to emigrate. 
On that day, Alexey Gaskarov was beaten up by OMON with batons and boots.
He filed a complaint against the officers who beat him up, but nobody was charged. Now, a year after, and just a few days before the anniversary of the 6th of May demonstration, as Alexey was about to be at the head of the column of the left-wing and anti-fascist bloc, he has had a set of absurd charges brought against him and has been arrested.
Alexey Gaskarov was born on the 18th of June 1985, and has been politically active since his school years.
Gaskarov gained fame in the summer and autumn of 2010, when during the protest campaign against the destruction of the Khimki forest, he was arrested along with Maxim Solopov and was accused of orchestrating an attack by 300-400 young anti-fascists, who supported the environmental struggle, against the administration of the city of Khimki.  In autumn 2010, Alexey Gaskarov and Maxim Solopov were released from prison, thanks to a massive international campaign for the “Khimki Hostages”. In the summer of 2011, Gaskarov was cleared of all charges.
Since the beginning of the mass demonstrations against the falsification of the elections in Russia in December of 2011, Alexey Gaskarov has been an active participant. He was one of the speakers in the biggest of the demonstrations, on the 24th of December 2011 in Sakharov street in Moscow, and was in charge of the security for that meeting, who fought back against the Neo-Nazi provocations.
He is being held in the police jail of Petrovka 38, awaiting his appointment in court at 11am on the 29th of April 2013 at the Basmanniy courthouse in Moscow.
Pending court decision, Gaskarov will be remanded or released.

Additional information:
gaskarov.info@gmail.com
https://twitter.com/gaskarov_info
Lawyer of Gaskarov, Svetlana Sidorkina: +7 (926) 557-90-16]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:00:01 CEST</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>Is It a State?</title>
			<link>http://www.antifa.ca/antifa-news/is-it-a-state</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Anarchists Are Really Against the State:  A Response to Marxists
Marxists argue that anarchists really do advocate a state, or something indistinguishable from one, but do not admit it. But what anarchists advocate is the overturning of the existing state and the creation of a new, nonstate, association of councils, assemblies, and a popular mililtia. There is no such thing as a &quot;workers&#039; state.&quot;
Is It a State?
Anarchists Are Really Against the State: A Response to Marxists

Most people believe that a society without a state, as advocated by anarchists, would be chaos (“anarchy”). Many think that anarchists want a society essentially as it is, but without police (which is, in fact, advocated by pro-capitalist anti-statists who miscall themselves “libertarians”). This would indeed result in chaos, until either the Mafia or the security guards hired by the rich (or both) become the new state. 

A more sophisticated criticism is to say that anarchists really do advocate a state, they just do not call it by that name. As Hal Draper, a Marxist, wrote, “…The state has been a societal necessity….As soon as antistatism…even raises the question of what is to replace the state…then it has always been obvious that the state, abolished in fancy, gets reintroduced in some other form….In anarchistic utopias…the pointed ears of a very undemocratic state poke out…” (Draper, 1990; p. 109).

Leninists argue that what anarchists argue for, is, at best, indistinguishable from the Marxist idea of a “workers’ state” (the “dictatorship of the proletariat”). To them, this would be “transitional” between the overturned capitalist state and an eventual stateless society. They refer anarchists to Marx’s Civil War in France (on the 1871 Paris Commune) and to Lenin’s State and Revolution, the most libertarian thing he wrote.

But what revolutionary, class-struggle, anarchists propose is not a state. It is a realistic alternative to the state.

After the Revolution

After a revolutionary transformation from capitalism to socialist-anarchism, there will be a need to coordinate various aspects of society, particularly self-managed industries and communes. There will need to be a way to settle disputes among different sectors of society as well as between individuals. There will be a need to develop an economic plan, democratically, from the bottom up. This will be especially true during and immediately after the revolution, given the inherent conflicts and difficulties of the period. 

There will be a need to oppose counter-revolutionary armed forces, sent by still-existing imperialist states or, in a civil war, by internal reactionary armies. Anti-social individuals, created by the loveless society of previous capitalism, will still need to be dealt with. Anarchists do not believe in punishment or revenge, but we do believe in protecting the people from conscienceless and emotionally wounded persons.

Anarchists have long advocated federations of workplace councils and neighborhood assemblies to carry out these tasks (detailed in Price, 2007). In revolution after revolution, workers and oppressed have created self-governing councils, committees, and assemblies, in workplaces and neighborhoods. During revolutions anarchists call on the people to form such associations and bring them together to coordinate the struggle. The concept of federated councils was raised by Bakunin and Kropotkin, and especially by the Friends of Durruti Group in Spain, 1938. Implicitly this includes the right of working people to freely organize themselves to fight for their ideas among the rest of the population (a pluralistic “multi-party” democracy—which is not the same as allowing any parties to take over and rule). 

There should be no more specialized bodies of armed people, such as the military or police. Instead there would be an organized, armed, population, a militia of working people and the formerly oppressed, under the direction of the council federation. These would exist until considered unnecessary. Popular armed forces (including guerilla and partisan armies) have worked quite well in the past and even now in parts of the world. Methods of public safety would be worked out mostly on a local level, in a society of freedom and plenty for all.

To this approach, Leninists and some others respond, “You anarchists are really advocating a state.” They point to the experience of the Paris Commune and the original Russian soviets (councils), and say that this is what they want too—but that they are being honest about calling it a state. They note that, in his State and Revolution, Lenin had interpreted Marx to say that this working class state would “immediately” begin to “wither away” or “die out”—immediately, from the first day. Working people would more and more become involved in directly managing society themselves, while pro-capitalist resistance would die down. A state—a specialized, centralized, and repressive institution--would be established but then the need for it would decrease and finally vanish. Is this really different from what anarchists want, they ask?

What is the State?

To deal with this question, we have to define what we mean by “the state.” Frederick Engels, Marx’s closest comrade, described societies before states, such as hunter-gatherer societies or early agriculturalists. There was a certain amount of community coercion and even “wars.” But this was carried out by an armed population, or at least the armed men of the community. When society became divided into classes, rulers and ruled, this was no longer possible. The state is distinguished by “the institution of a public force which is no longer immediately identical with the people’s own organization of themselves as an armed power….This public force exists in every state; it consists not merely of armed men but also of material appendages, prisons and coercive institutions of all kinds….Officials now present themselves as organs of society standing above society… representatives of a power which estranges them from society….” (1972; pp. 229—230). I think that anarchists would accept this description.

Like the anarchists of the time, Marx and Engels were very impressed by the ultra-democratic workers’ self-organization of the Paris Commune. Among other things, it replaced the standing permanent army by a popular militia, the National Guard. For such reasons, in 1875, Engels wrote a letter proposing changes in the party program: “The whole talk about the state should be dropped, especially since the Commune, which was no longer a state in the proper sense of the word…. We would therefore propose replacing ‘state’ everywhere by ‘Gemeinwesen’ [community], a good old German word which can very well take the place of the French word ‘commune’ “ (quoted in Lenin, 1970; p. 333). 

I do not intend to get into a fuller discussion of the Marxist concept of the state, the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” or related subjects (again, see my book, Price 2007). My point is only that, even by Marxist description, the state is a socially-alienated, bureaucratic, military-police machine above the rest of society. By this description, it is not something which the working class can use, neither to transform society into a classless, nonoppressive, system, nor to manage society after its transformation. There can be no such thing as a “workers’ state.” 

I am not quibbling about words. People may call things whatever they want; it’s a semi-free country. But we need to recognize that the council system is qualitatively different from all the states in history. All these states—even those set up by popular revolutions, such as the bourgeois-democratic French revolution or U.S. revolution—established the rule of a minority over an exploited majority. They had to be separate from the people, distinct institutions, no matter how democratic in form. But the federated councils of the workers’ commune, backed by the armed people, is the self-organized people itself, not a distinct institution. It may carry out certain tasks which states have done in the past, but it is not useful to describe it as a state. When everyone governs, there is no “government.”

Leninism and the State

Lenin argued that it was necessary to overturn the existing, capitalist, state, and to build a new state, a workers’ state—temporarily, transitionally--which would eventually “wither away.” What the revolutionaries will be doing, what they will be working at, is building the new state. The “withering away” of the state will be left to take care of itself. With such an approach, it should not be surprising that what the Leninists produced is….a state. 

“The very revolutionaries who claim that they are against the state, and for eliminating the state…see as their central task after a revolution to build up a state that is more solid, more centralized and more all-embracing than the old one. …The point is not that the workers and other oppressed people should not build up a strong set of organizations during and after a revolution to manage the economy and society, defend their gains and suppress the exploiters, etc. But they also need to take steps o prevent a new state from arising and oppressing them. That is, they need to figure out how they are going to build a stateless society” (Taber, 1988; pp. 56 &amp; 58). In other words, the centralized and repressive aspects of political organization should actively “be withered” by the working population. 

Trotskyism and the State

Trotskyists often say to anarchists that they want what we want, an association of councils tied to a workers’ militia. This is, they say, what they mean by a “workers’ state.” So far, so good.

But they also use “workers’ state” to described the Russian regime of Lenin and Trotsky up to about 1923. This was a one-party police state dictatorship, and not at all a radically democratic council system. At the time of the 1917 revolution there had been democratic soviets (councils), factory committees, independent unions, a range of socialist parties and anarchist groups (parties and groups which supported the revolution and fought on the side of the Bolsheviks during the Civil War), and dissenting caucuses inside the Bolshevik party. Between 1918 and 1921, this lively working class democracy was destroyed. I am not arguing why this happened (Trotskyists claim it was entirely due to objective conditions; anarchists claim that Lenin and Trotsky’s authoritarian politics had much to do with it). But it did happen. So the Trotskyists are left calling a state in which the workers had no power, a “workers’ state.” Given the chance, how do we know that they would not create the same kind of “workers’ state” again (if the “objective conditions” existed)?

It gets worse. One wing of the Trotskyist movement is called “orthodox Trotskyism” or “Soviet defensists.” They follow Trotsky’s stated view that the Soviet Union under Stalin was a totalitarian mass-murdering regime, but was also a “workers’ state” (a “degenerated workers’ state”). This was because it expanded nationalized property and for no other reason. Similarly, the regimes of Eastern Europe, China, and Cuba were also “workers’ states” without any worker control (“deformed workers’ states,” except Cuba which most regarded as a pretty good “workers’ state”).

There is a more democratic wing of Trotskyism, which rejected Trotsky’s view of Stalin’s USSR. They believe (with most anarchists) that the bureaucracy became a new ruling class and the economy became “state capitalist” or some new type of exploitative system. 

But they still believe that Lenin and Trotsky’s regime was a “workers’ state.” And they believe that Stalin’s rule remained a “workers’ state” up to some turning point (1929, when the industrialization drive began, or the late 1930s, in the time of the great purge trials when the party was remade). 

My point is that, for Trotskyists, the concept of a “workers’ state” is not only a label for a council system, slightly different from that of the anarchists. It is a concept they use to cover for drastically undemocratic institutions.

Other Leninists exist, such as Communists in the tradition of the old pro-Moscow parties, Maoists, and some others. They rarely refer to Marx’s goal of a stateless society. They support the monstrous one-party tyrannies of Stalin or Mao. But they often follow a reformist approach, that is, try to change society through the existing state rather than by seeking to overturn it and create something new. The Communist Parties are notorious for this approach. But even Maoists may follow it, as is exemplified by the Maoists in Nepal who are trying to take over a bourgeois state through parliamentary maneuvering. Even the Trotskyists have, in practice, abandoned their Leninist position of needing to overthrow the bourgeois state. This is seen by their support for Hugo Chavez’ effort to establish “socialism” through the Venezuelan capitalist state or their support for pro-capitalist politicians running for election, such as Ralph Nadar.

Another view was expressed by Paul Mattick, Sr., a council communist (libertarian Marxist). (I am not discussing who has the “correct” interpretation of Marx on the state. Nor am I discussing the issue raised earlier by Draper about authoritarian tendencies within anarchism). For “Marx and Engels…the victorious working class would neither institute a new state nor seize control of the existing state…. It is not through the state that socialism can be realized, as this would exclude the self-determination of the working class, which is the essence of socialism” (1983; pp160—161).

Revolutionary anarchists and other revolutionary libertarian socialists aim for the workers and all oppressed to break up the existing states and replace them with radically democratic, self-managed, societies.

Wayne Price
References

Draper, Hal (1990). Karl Marx’s Theory of Revolution; Vol. IV: Critique of Other Socialisms. NY: Monthly Review.
Engels, Frederick (1972). The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State. NY: International Publishers.
Lenin, V.I. (1970). Selected Works; vol. 2. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Mattick, Paul, Sr. (1983). Marxism: Last Refuge of the Bourgeoisie? Armonk NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Price, Wayne (2007). The Abolition of the State: Anarchist and Marxist Perspectives. Bloomington IN: AuthorHouse. 
Taber, Ron (1988). A Look at Leninism. NY: Aspect Foundation.

]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2013 13:00:01 CEST</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>Zoom Ecologie---3e jeudi - Russie, libertés et écologie</title>
			<link>http://www.antifa.ca/antifa-news/zoom-ecologie3e-jeudi-russie-libertes-et-ecologie</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Mikhail Beketov, journaliste et écologiste russe, qui se battait notamment contre la construction de l&#039;autoroute Moscou – Saint-Pétersbourg qui menace de détruire la forêt de Khimki près de Moscou- est mort ce mois d&#039;avril. Il avait été agressé en 2008 et vivait depuis en fauteuil roulant. L&#039;enquête sur (...)]]></description>
			<pubDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:30:01 CEST</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>[Perce-oreilles] Zoom Ecologie---3e jeudi - Russie, libertés et écologie</title>
			<link>http://www.antifa.ca/antifa-news/perceoreilles-zoom-ecologie3e-jeudi-russie-libertes-et-ecologie</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Mikhail Beketov, journaliste et écologiste russe, qui se battait notamment contre la construction de l&#039;autoroute Moscou – Saint-Pétersbourg qui menace de détruire la forêt de Khimki près de Moscou- est mort ce mois d&#039;avril. Il avait été agressé en 2008 et vivait depuis en fauteuil roulant. L&#039;enquête sur (...)]]></description>
			<pubDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2013 13:30:01 CEST</pubDate>
			</item></channel> 
	                </rss>