• Trump dépassé par le fascisme qu’il croit mettre à son service
    Alors que les discussions se concentrent de plus en plus sur les mouvements d’extrême droite qui se sont développés aux États-Unis sous l’administration Trump, David Renton se demande si l’étiquette de « fasciste » est utile pour décrire la politique de Trump.

    Is Donald Trump a fascist? Judging by some of the speeches at last week’s Democratic Convention, key figures of American liberalism seem to think so. The election, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said in the sixty seconds allowed to her, was about ‘stopping fascism in the United States. That is what Donald Trump represents.’

    Barack Obama was more coded, using the word democracy 18 times in his twenty-minute speech; he told listeners, ‘This administration has shown it will tear our democracy down if that’s what it takes to win,’ and urged them to resist authoritarianism: ‘Don’t let them take away your democracy.’

    Trump’s critics are right to see him as something new and different, a more nationalist and authoritarian form of Republican politics than that which dominated from the start of the Reagan era until 2016. But we need to distinguish between the parts of Trump’s politics which are like fascism – principally, the encouragement of a far-right street movement, for example by actively promoting and retweeting its activists – and the parts which aren’t.

    Between 1920 and 1922, fascism emerged in Italy through a campaign of violence against the left and its organisations. Michael Ebner, the historian of these attacks, writes that ‘Blackshirted squadristi beat, shot, ritually humiliated and destroyed the property of peasants, workers, politicians, journalists and labour organisers … Socialists and the working classes were the primary victims.’


    #USA #fascisme #Donald_Trump #Républicains #extrême-droite

  • Discrimination à l’égard des communautés de voyageurs au Royaume-Uni (criminalisation des campements, adoptions forcées)
    A qui appartient la terre ? Résister aux plans de politique anti-voyageurs des conservateurs

    One of the Tories’ less frequently talked about policy plans is to increase police powers to tackle ‘illegal’ encampments and to criminalise trespassing. Hanna Gál writes on why these must be resisted.
    The landslide victory of the Tories has enabled them to form a majority government and will let them further entrench systemic state racism. This danger was clear from during the campaign, but received considerably less attention than their Brexit plans. Their manifesto contains extensive passages on increasing police powers, surveillance and incarceration, often ‘preventatively’ applied to specific groups racialised to connect them with ‘terrorism’ or ‘knife crime’.
    Another key component of these aggressive criminalisation plans, however, received little attention bar some social media posts and a couple of articles. At the end of the three-page manifesto section about ‘Making our country safer’, we find the following passage:
    ‘We will tackle unauthorised traveller camps. We will give the police new powers to arrest and seize the property and vehicles of trespassers who set up unauthorised encampments, in order to protect our communities. We will make intentional trespass a criminal offence, and we will also give councils greater powers within the planning system.’
    Gypsy, Roma and Traveller (GRT) communities have been at the sharp end of police harassment and state repression for several decades in all European countries where they live. Even now that the genocide that decimated Roma and Sinti populations during the holocaust (known as Porajmos) has finally been recognised, the ethnic cleansing of GRT peoples continues under the guise of ‘integration’ programmes.


    #Royaume-Uni #communautés_de_voyageurs #discrimination

  • Un vrai communiste : Werner Scholem
    Le livre que lui a consacré le spécialiste de la révolution (allemande) de Novembre (1918/19), Ralf Hoffrogge, est disponible en anglais. Pour celles et ceux qui se sont toujours demandé ce que pouvait bien être cette révolution allemande et qui était le frère rebelle de Gershom Scholem.

    Ralf Hoffroge, A Jewish Communist in Weimar Germany: The Life of Werner Scholem (1895-1940)

    Merilyn Moos reviews a new biography of Werner Scholem: an implacable opponent of any accommodation with the far right, and an uncompromising critic of Soviet state capitalism.

    Werner Scholem is a figure rarely heard of in the UK. That he fell out with the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) in the direction of Trotskyism has not helped. This new biography uses Scholem’s life to reveal the long-term impact of the revolutionary days of 1918-19 in Munich and Berlin on both the left and hard right in Germany and the isolation of the Russian Revolution after the failure of the German revolution. It also exposes how early the KPD leadership saw its task as to appeal to members of the ultra-right, rather than to defeat them.

    This 600-page book requires a strong interest in revolutionary politics in Germany in the early 1920s. For those who persevere, the author presents much detail on the period 1919-1926, drawing on a remarkable number of original sources about Scholem’s personal and political life, although not always providing a full analysis of the material it presents.

    Despite the book’s title, the ‘Jewish’ aspect is brief. Scholem was originally a part of a Zionist youth group, Jung Juda. Zionism of the time was secular and had broken with traditional Judaism and with the prevalent assimilationist perspective. Although the book does not suggest this, maybe this involvement encouraged Scholem’s later resilience and refusal to bow to instruction. He soon fell out with Zionism, criticising its ‘war objectives’, which would end up with the occupation of Syria and parts of the Sinai Peninsula.



    #Werner_Scholem #révolution_de_novembre #révolution_allemande_de_1918 #république_de_Weimar #communisme #parti_communiste_allemand #KPD #Buchenwald

  • Mort de Mugabe : à propos du massacre de 2008 au champ de mines de Chiadzwa

    The death of Robert Mugabe (1924-2019) is being celebrated by Zimbabweans around the world. The 2008 massacre at the Chiadzwa minefield deserves to stand as a testament to his rule, writes Leo Zeilig.
    Around the world tens of thousands of Zimbabweans are celebrating the death of Robert Mugabe. The media has resounded to a chorus of clichés – that either condemns him in racist terms as an African ‘monster’, or laud his liberation of Zimbabwe. Neither comes close to the truth about the man. Mugabe neither liberated Zimbabwe, nor was he a ‘monster’.
    In 2008 the Chiadzwa mining area in the east of the country, was the scene of a massacre. Following the end of the London based De Beers mining licence in 2006, hundreds of informal workers who had come to the area were murdered by the state. Clearing the way for a ‘looting’ frenzy that took place between government bureaucrats, the Chinese and other foreign companies.

    Zimbabwean activist Raymond Sango, reported:

    unemployed youths descended on Chiadzwa in 2008 to pan for diamonds were brutally massacred by the military and police …approximately four hundred miners were killed in 2008 through indiscriminate volleys of gunshots fired by mounted police accompanied by dogs and helicopters.

    Once the bodies were cleared away seven private entities began operations at the site: all joint ventures between the state and foreign capital.

    Mugabe must be remembered for Chiadzwa – there can be no more devastating testament to what Mugabe’s rule really meant for Zimbabwe’s poor. In the last two decades of his life, thousands died, and millions fled as the country was systematically plundered by the state, mining capital and international business.

    #Zimbabwe #Robert_Mugabe #massacre #Chiadzwa #diamants

  • Sur la révolution britannique oubliée de 1919

    The Limerick Soviet (13 – 27 April 1919) was one manifestation of a series of revolutionary crises that confronted British imperialism in the aftermath of WWI. The events of 1919 offer powerful examples of the potential power of workers, as well as important warnings for future struggles, writes Mike Thompson.
    World War I, like so many wars, was built on lies told to those that fought, by the liars that stood to profit from the slaughter. The lies didn’t end with the armistice in November 1918 – and the British government didn’t want war to end either. It continued to wage war against movements for independence across its empire. The Black and Tans were recruited from returning troops to fight in Ireland; in India, the colonial army massacred civilians in Amritsar in April 1919, at the same time as British troops were suppressing a popular revolt in Egypt. Troops were also being sent to France and Russia. Any mention of ‘home fit for heroes’ has to be seen against the background of resistance, and the fear of the Russian Revolution.

    At the start of 1919 there was a wave of mutinies at Southwick, Folkestone, Dover, Osterley Park, Shortlands, Westerham Hill, Felixstowe, Grove Park, Shoreham, Briston, Aldershot, Kempton Park, Southampton, Maidstone, Blackpool, Park Royal, Chatham, Fairlop and Biggin Hill, as well as at several London railway stations where troops refused to embark for Russia and France. Troops already in Calais and Archangel formed Soviets and made links with local struggles.

    HMS Kilbride joined the revolt, raising a red flag and refused to set sail. The sailors demanded that they wouldn’t be sent to Russia, called for quicker demobilisation and higher pay, and challenged bullying officers. Many ex-service personnel were outraged when employers and authorities attempted to take advantage of the post-war depression to impose the old bonds of discipline upon returning soldiers.

    Against this background, when official celebrations took place after the signing of the peace treaty in 1919, many protested against the money spent on extravagant victory parades and banquets. In Luton, for example, thousands were involved in riots, which resulted in the burning down of the town hall, as the crowd sang ‘Keep the home fires burning’.

    The fightback wasn’t limited to the army and navy – workers across the country showed they wanted change too. Engineers, railway and transport workers, miners and cotton workers were all involved in waves of militant strikes.

    #révolution #1919 #conseils_ouvriers #grêves #syndicats #Royaume-Uni