• Eine deutsche Tragödie - Ein aufschlussreiches Zeitdokument über das Weltbild eines aufstrebenden Politikers:
    https://www.nd-aktuell.de/artikel/1157640.robert-habeck-eine-deutsche-tragoedie.html

    15.10.2021 von Erik Zielke -Robert Habecks Theaterstück »Neunzehnachtzehn« über den Kieler Matrosenaufstand ist eine Verklärung von Gustav Noske.

    Aus dem Theaterstück »Neunzehnachtzehn« von dem grünen Pinscher Robert Habeck spricht große Sympathie für den sozialdemokratischen Bluthund Gustav Noske.
    Aus dem Theaterstück »Neunzehnachtzehn« von dem grünen Pinscher Robert Habeck spricht große Sympathie für den sozialdemokratischen Bluthund Gustav Noske.

    Sollte man die eine, bestimmende Eigenschaft des Grünen-Politikers Robert Habeck nennen, so könnte die Antwort nur lauten: Ehrgeiz. Diesen Wesenszug teilt er beispielsweise mit dem durchtriebenen Markus Söder, der wie er im Bundestagswahlkampf scheinbar in die zweite Reihe verschwunden war - allerdings in hoffnungsfroher Erwartung einer zentralen Stellung im Berliner Machtapparat. Habeck unterscheidet sich von Söder vor allem in Fragen des Stils. Söder ist ganz der bodenständige Politiker alten Schlags. Dass Habeck vor allem bei jungen Großstädtern punkten kann, verwundert nicht im Geringsten: Bei aller Unverbindlichkeit steht er irgendwie für das Gute, was auch immer das sein mag. Als Schriftsteller (das ist man wohl auf Lebenszeit) ist er Berufspolitiker, ohne so zu wirken wie einer. Seriös, aber nicht bieder.

    Unter seinen literarischen Schöpfungen, die er großteils gemeinsam mit seiner Frau Andrea Paluch verfasst hat, findet sich auch ein Theaterstück mit dem Titel »Neunzehnachtzehn«. Zum 90. Jubiläum des Kieler Matrosenaufstands verfasst, gibt es Aufschluss über das Welt- und Gesellschaftsbild des Robert Habeck. 2008 also, da war er bereits vier Jahre Vorsitzender des schleswig-holsteinischen Landesverbandes von Bündnis 90/Die Grünen und machte die ersten zielstrebigen Schritte nach oben.

    Im Vorwort zu dem Drama heißt es, ein Theaterstück vergegenwärtige Geschichte mit literarischen Mitteln. Und es gibt mitunter beredt Auskunft über die Geschichtsauffassung seines Autors, möchte man anfügen. Es sei eine »Parabel über Macht und Ideale«, ist weiter zu lesen. In seinem Kommentar zu dem Text hält Marcus Grube, der damalige Chefdramaturg am Theater Kiel, wo »Neunzehnachtzehn« uraufgeführt wurde, fest, man habe lange nach einem Drama gesucht, das die historischen Ereignisse in der Ostseestadt verhandele. Dabei sei man nur auf Ernst Tollers »Feuer aus den Kesseln« gestoßen, das sich als wenig geeignet herausgestellt habe, sei es doch stark geprägt von der politischen Einstellung seines Autors und stehe damit unter Ideologieverdacht. Das entbehrt insofern nicht einer gewissen Komik, als dass das bei Habeck in Auftrag gegebene Werk ein Musterbeispiel von regelrechter Tendenzliteratur darstellt.

    Die dramatische Situation ist schnell geschildert: Es ist das Jahr 1918, der Krieg ist verloren. Habeck findet keine szenische Entsprechung für Befehlsverweigerungen und Meuterei der Matrosen, sondern beginnt sein Stück fast unvermittelt inmitten der Kieler Unruhen. Matrosen und Arbeiter verbünden sich und treten hier in zwei Fraktionen auf: gemäßigte Kräfte und radikale Umstürzler. Als entschiedenes Gegengewicht lässt Habeck Vertreter der alten Macht und der Admiralität zu Wort kommen, die nicht in der Lage sind, die Zeichen der Zeit zu erkennen. Eingewoben wird eine etwas klischierte Liebesgeschichte, die an dieser Stelle keine weitere Rolle spielen soll. Für dieses literarische Gefüge braucht der Autor nun noch jemanden, der ihm zum Dramenhelden gereicht, einen geschickten, klugen Kopf, der ausgleichend wirkt und über den Dingen steht. Dafür ruft er ausgerechnet Gustav Noske auf den Plan, mit dem er wohl sympathisiert.

    Die politische Biografie von Noske mit dem Beinamen »Bluthund« - Habeck spielt ein paar Mal humorig darauf an - ist hinlänglich bekannt. Es bedurfte eines rechten Sozialdemokraten wie seiner zur Aufrechterhaltung der zweifelhaften Ordnung. Als konsequenter Antibolschewist - eine Haltung, die auch von seinem antisemitischen Ressentiment zehrte - hat er die Novemberrevolution begraben. Am liebsten aber hätte er das subversive Feuer schon im Keim, also in Kiel, erstickt.

    Es ist ein alter Konflikt: Jung gegen Alt, Vorsicht gegen Übermut. Verdeutlicht wird er anhand der etwas holzschnittartigen Figuren Fritz, ein junger Revolutionär, der - hört, hört! - sogar das Privateigentum für antastbar hält, und Thomas, ein alter, etwas müder Sozialdemokrat mit Sehnsucht nach einer bürgerlichen Monarchie ohne Monarchen. Da braucht es schon einen Noske, der beide auf ihren Platz verweist.

    »Die Gegenwart fordert all unsere Aufmerksamkeit. Etwas Altes geht zu Ende. Aber das Neue hat noch nicht begonnen. Wir befinden uns mitten in einer Zeit des Übergangs. Aber wir (…) gestalten den Übergang. Wir haben die Pflicht, ihn zu gestalten«, skandiert Gustav Noske im Stück - und trifft den vertrauten Ton eines routinierten Politikers zwischen Pathos und Allgemeinplatz. Erinnern diese Ausführungen nicht an Annalena Baerbocks Wahlkampf-Mantra, man könne abstimmen zwischen einem »Weiter-so« und »echtem Aufbruch«? So weit, so inhaltsleer.

    Spannender wird es dann, wenn Noske sein politisches Geschick zeigt, sich als verständnisvoller Freund aller Seiten zu verstehen gibt, der aber doch offenkundig eigene Absichten verfolgt. Und auch das wird deutlich: Veränderungen sind schön und gut, aber alles soll seine Ordnung haben. »Heißsporne auf beiden Seiten« sieht dieser Noske am Werk. Und als Thomas ihm bewundernd zuwirft: »Aber du kennst sie alle. Ebert, Scheidemann, Liebknecht, Luxemburg, sogar den Kaiser«, weiß dieser zu erwidern: »Die letzten drei sind kein Vergnügen.« Wir haben es hier mit der theatral aufbereiteten Hufeisentheorie zu tun. Es ist eine durchweg zynische Passage, bedenkt man die Rolle desjenigen, der sie in dem Stück spricht, bei der Ermordung von Rosa Luxemburg und Karl Liebknecht. Noske war so sehr Zentrist wie Habeck. Mit ihm war vieles zu machen, aber sicher keine Revolution. Habeck ist in verschiedensten politischen Konstellationen als Akteur denkbar - aber nur solange sie sich im bürgerlichen Komfortbereich zwischen Ampel- und Jamaika-Koalition bewegen.

    Geradezu komisch wirkt eine Textstelle, in der Noske räsoniert: »Ich bin jetzt fünfzig. Mir fehlt der Glaube, dass man einfach nur zwei, drei Hebel umlegen muss, um die Welt besser zu machen.« Der schreibende Politiker Habeck ist heute 52 Jahre alt, auch ihm wird wohl der Glaube abgehen. Immerhin, wir leben auch nicht in Zeiten, in denen er überhaupt den revolutionären Massen Einhalt gebieten müsste. Dass die aktuelle Klimabewegung aber durchaus das Attribut »Bewegung« verdient und auf vielzähligen Beinen steht, ist kaum zu leugnen.

    Interessant ist auch in dieser Hinsicht, wie Habeck die Figur Noske handeln und sprechen lässt. Sie weiß um die Anziehungskraft der Revolution, um die jugendliche Energie, aber auch, dass ihr eigener Platz in den Institutionen ist, wo man sich eventuell noch ideell verbunden fühlt, aber jeglicher Radikalität abschwören sollte. Das politische Geschick von Habeck-Noske besteht letztlich darin, sich immer noch als Teil der Bewegung zu inszenieren, der man durch politischen Reformismus den Tod zu bringen bereit ist.

    Eine Passage verdient allerdings gesonderte Beachtung: »Es ist merkwürdig, aber wenn man Verantwortung übernimmt, dann verändert das die Persönlichkeit. Ich hab das schon beim Kriegseintritt erlebt, als wir die Hand für die Gelder hoben. Es schien uns verantwortungsvoll. (…) Und selbst ein Krieg ist vorstellbar, um den Frieden zu retten. Wie würdest du denn entscheiden, wenn du ein paar Menschenleben opfern müsstest, um die vielen Unschuldigen zu schützen?«, heißt es da, und unwillkürlich sieht man - die Geschichte steckt voller Déjà-vus - mal wieder einen grünen Außenminister vor sich, der sich die Bundeswehr in den Balkan oder sonst wohin wünscht. Vorhang zu und alle Fragen offen.

    Robert Habeck, Andrea Paluch, Frank Trende: 1918. Revolution in Kiel. Boyens Buchverlag, 152 S., geb., vergriffen (als E-Book erhältlich, 11,99 €).

    #Allagne #histoire #révolution #théâtre #1918 #politique #verts

  • Pourquoi je continuerai de lutter même si tout est foutu
    https://ricochets.cc/Pourquoi-je-continuerai-de-lutter-meme-si-tout-est-foutu.html

    L’époque m’a soumis. Elle m’a forcé, oui, à me passionner pour l’écologie, à cailler dans des ZAD, à épouser Télégram, à angoisser les supermarchés, à migrainer le climat, à cramer mon éducation, à manifester mes vendredi et samedi, à perdre des amitiés. Le paradoxe ? Elle ne m’inspire plus. Réflexion d’un week-end sur ce que nous vivons. #Les_Articles

    / Révoltes, insurrections, débordements..., Révolution

    #Révoltes,_insurrections,_débordements... #Révolution_

  • Le bio peut-il nourrir la planète ? | www.natureandmore.com
    https://www.natureandmore.com/fr/all-about-organic/le-bio-peut-il-nourrir-la-planete

    - En Europe et Amérique du Nord : avec de bonnes conditions de culture, et un usage présumé élevé d’engrais et de pesticides, le rendement du bio est 60 à 100% celui du conventionnel, selon la culture.
    – Dans le second monde : avec des conditions de culture mitigées et un usage présumé plus irrégulier d’engrais et de pesticides, le rendement du bio est 92 à 100% celui du conventionnel, selon la culture.
    Dans le tiers-monde : avec des conditions de culture difficiles, des intrants faibles, dans les zones d’agriculture vivrière, le rendement du bio est 100 à 180% celui du conventionnel.

  • Rosa Luxemburg’s Berlin - EXBERLINER.com
    https://www.exberliner.com/features/history/rosa-luxemburg-s-berlin/#page=1


    Da hat der Exberliner gute Arbeit gemacht. Inhaltlich und persönlich kommt man Rosa Luxemburg durch seinen Artikel nicht näher, aber die Topgraphie und Zeitablauf sind gut beschrieben. Und dann könnte man kritisieren, dass der eine wunderbare Openstreetmap-Karte enthält, die Links zu den einzelnen Stationen aber zu Google Maps führen? WIeso? Was soll ser Scheiß? Bekommt der Exberliner dafür etwa Geld?

    “Berlin has made the most unfavourable impression on me.” It is 1898 and Rosa Luxemburg has just arrived in the capital of the German Empire. She describes it in a letter as: “cold, tasteless, massive – a real barracks; and the dear Prussians with their arrogance, as though every one of them had swallowed the cane with which one had once been beaten...” Fair to say it isn’t love at first sight, but Luxemburg stays here until the bitter end.

    Für unsere Stadtführung von Bedeutung sind ihre

    Wohnungen, zunächst in Berlin
    #Cuxhavener_Straße 2, im #Hansaviertel am Rande des Tiergartens nahe den Stadtbahn-Bahnhöfen #Bellevue und #Tiergarten

    ab 16. August 1899
    #Wilhelm-Hauff-Straße 41 (R.L. schreibt Hauffstr.41 ) in #Friedenau

    24. Oktober 1899
    #Wielandstraße 23, 2. Stockwerk, Balkon

    August 1902 bis 1911
    #Cranachstraße 53 oder 58, 2. Stockwerk
    http://www.friedenau-aktuell.de/stra%C3%9Fen-pl%C3%A4tze/cranachstra%C3%9Fe nennt die Hausnummer 53, das Eckhaus an der Beckerstraße, andere Quellen sprechen von der Hausnummer 58

    ab 1911
    #Biberacher_Weg (vor 1878 bis 1960 #Lindenstraße) 2 in #Südende – 5 Zimmer, Küche, Haushälterin Gertrud Zlottko und Katze

    Der Exberliner erwähnt noch das Frauengefängnis #Barnimstraße 10 (www.barnimstrasse.de) in #Friedrichshain welches RL ab dem 18.2.1915 ein Jahr lang „bewohnt“. Das Urteil lautet auf 14 Monate für „Aufforderung zum Ungehorsam gegen Gesetze und Anordnungen der Obrigkeit“ wegen ihrer Frankfurter Rede vom 26. September 1913, die später unter dem Titel Militarismus, Krieg und Arbeiterklasse gedruckt wird. Nach drei Monaten in Freiheit beginnt im Juli 1916 ihre „Sicherungsverwahrung“ aufgrund einer Verurteilung nach dem Schutzhaft-Gesetz. Erst am 9.11.1918 kommt sie in Breslau aus dem Gefängnis frei und erreicht einen Tag später Berlin.

    https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6982962072
    Sie arbeitet und schläft in der Druckerei der Zeitung Rote Fahne #Königgrätzer_Straße Ecke #Möckernstraße. Dieses Gebäude wurde durch die alliierten Bombenangriffe im Frühjahr 1945 zerstört.

    Am 11.1.1919 findet sie bei Dr. Alfred Bernstein in der #Blücherstraße 13 in #Kreuzberg Zuflucht.

    Am 12.1.1919 begibt sie sich gemeinsam mit Karl Liebknecht in ein Versteck in #Neukölln und später nach #Wilmersdorf in die #Mannheimer_Straße 43. Die Wikipedia spricht von einer Wohnung Mannheimer Straße 27 . Dort werden beide denunziert, am 15.1.1919 von Paramilitärs verhaftet.

    https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/564397058
    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%BCrnberger_Stra%C3%9Fe_(Berlin)#Eden-Hotel
    Sie werden in das Eden-Hotel an der Kreuzung #Budapester_Straße / #Kurfürstenstraße / #Nürnberger_Straße gebracht, gefoltert und ermordet.
    Budapester Straße 35, bis 21.4.1925 Kurfürstendamm 246/247
    https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/25539413

    Rosa Luxemburgs Leiche wird gegen Mitternacht in den #Landwehrkanal in der Nähe der heutigen #Lichtensteinbrücke und des #Rosa-Luxemburg-Steg geworfen.
    https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/579947221#map=19/52.50909/13.34315
    Karl Liebknecht wird als „unbekannter Toter“ den Behörden übergeben.

    #Berlin #Geschichte #Politik #Revolution #Kommunismus #Stadtführungen

  • Éducation révolutionnaire : comment Amílcar Cabral a inspiré la pédagogie de Paulo Freire
    https://www.contretemps.eu/cabral-anticolonialisme-pedagogie-opprimes-freire

    À l’occasion de la nouvelle traduction de la Pédagogie des opprimés de Paulo Freire, publiée en cette rentrée par les éditions Agone et préfacée par Irène Pereira, nous publions un texte de Curry Malott qui insiste sur l’inspiration qu’a trouvé l’éducateur brésilien chez Amílcar Cabral, l’intellectuel révolutionnaire de Guinée-Bissau et l’un des principaux dirigeants de la lutte contre le colonialisme portugais.

    #Histoire #Amílcar_Cabral #Paulo_Freire #Afrique #Guinée-Bissau #pédagogie #éducation #éducation_populaire #révolution

  • Tiers Monde, tiers-mondisme, démocratie
    https://collectiflieuxcommuns.fr/?1070-Tiers-Monde-tiers-mondisme

    Intervention au cours du colloque « Le tiers-mondisme en question » organisé par Liberté sans frontières, le 24 janvier 1985, repris dans « Domaines de l’homme. Les carrefours du labyrinthe Tome 2 », Seuil 1999 [1986], pp. 128 — 137. Je n’ai pas l’intention, contrairement à ce qu’a annoncé le président de séance, d’entrer dans un débat contradictoire avec M. Revel. Je présenterai seulement quelques réflexions, générales et brèves, sur la question du Tiers Monde et du tiers-mondisme. Mais je voudrais d’abord, (...) #Crises_économique,_sociale,_politique

    / Castoriadis C., #Politique, #Paléo-marxismes, #Libéralisme, #Géopolitique, #Progressisme, #Conférence, #Type_anthropologique, #Revolution, (...)

    #Castoriadis_C. #Pseudo-subversion

  • Portugal: The lessons of the 25th November
    (December 1975)
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1975/12/lessons.htm

    From Tony Cliff & Chris Harman, Lições do 25 de Novembro (pamphlet), SWP International Department, December 1975.
    Printed in English in Tony Cliff & Chris Harman, Portugal – Lessons of the 25th November, 1976.
    Reprinted in Tony Cliff, Neither Washington nor Moscow, London 1982, pp. 260–73.
    Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.

    The Portuguese revolution suffered its first major setback on 25 November 1975. After paratroopers had seized a number of airbases and the national radio and television station, the right wing staged a counter-coup. The outcome was the disarming and disbandment of those left-wing military units in the Lisbon area that had supported the struggles of workers.

    The main organisation of the workers movement in Portugal remain intact, but it can no longer look to support from the best armed sections of the army. Indeed, the monopoly of organised military power now lies with generals most of whom are well to the right of the present coalition government and who would relish the idea of turning Portugal into another Chile.
    Glossary of organisations

    COPCON: Continental Operations Command. Highly radicalised crack troops.
    RAL I: Lisbon barracks light artillery regiment. Very radical.
    CRTSM: Councils of Revolutionary Workers, Soldiers and Sailors. They were not Soviets since they organised only a minority of the most class conscious workers.
    PRP: Revolutionary Party of the Proletariat.
    MES: Left grouping which tended to act as a pressure group on the Communist Party.
    SUV: Soldiers United Will Win.
    RADIO RENASCENCA: Radio station owned by Catholic hierarchy, occupied by the workers. Reported sympathetically on workers struggles in Portugal and abroad. An important symbol of the revolution.

    THE PORTUGUESE revolutionary movement suffered its first major defeat on 25 November since the overthrow of fascism.

    Its base among the military units in the Lisbon area has been destroyed and scores of left-wing soldiers and officers are in jail. The ruling class has regained a more or less complete monopoly of armed force.

    Prime responsibility for the defeat lies with the Communist Party leadership, which initiated the rebellion and then abandoned it to its fate.

    Communist Party aligned officers agitated for the paratroops to seize airbases.

    The revolutionary organisations seem to have been quite taken by surprise.

    But once the paratroopers had taken action, they saw no choice but to support them. It was then that the PRP and MES issued a joint statement that “the hour had come to give a lesson to the bourgeoisie”.

    But within hours, the Communist Party leadership had copped out of the struggle. It called no strikes to back up the paratroopers – although it had been able to initiate a successful two-hour general strike the day before – but did issue a leaflet calling on the workers to stay calm. It left the revolutionaries, and even some of its own officers, isolated in the face of attacks from the right.

    The Communist Party campaigned against strike action by the workers at the very moment when such action was the only way to prevent the advance of reaction.

    In October, we wrote in the Portuguese edition of the pamphlet Portugal at the Crossroads – that the bourgeoisie would attempt to strangle the revolutionary left, “to provoke it to engage in battle before there existed either soviets or a mass revolutionary party. The right will do everything in its power to dupe the working-class vanguard.”

    It succeeded on 25 November through the Portuguese Communist Party.

    Now this treachery looks like being rewarded, as right-wing military figures such as Melo Antunes and Charais call for the Party to be kept in the government, while the left-wing officers are in jail.

    But the treachery of the Communist Party was to be expected. To explain the defeat, it is necessary to know why the revolutionary left could not counteract that treachery.

    Sections of the middle class, even those most favourable to the working class, will always vacillate when it comes to decisive confrontations. The job of a revolutionary organisation is to inculcate this lesson into the ranks of the workers and soldiers before the crunch comes.

    Lack of Organisation

    Above all what characterises the events of 25 November is the lack of any serious organisation of the revolutionary soldiers when it came to the crunch.

    Too much trust was put in revolutionary officers and no real structure of organisation of the rank and file existed able to lead at the testing time. As was stated in an interview in Lisbon on 27 November by a couple of revolutionary comrades:

    There was no co-ordination, no real co-ordination. The CP expected Copcon to do it. Copcon didn’t. It hesitated, wavered, and so on. The same thing happened with the so-called revolutionary units because they were caught in a totally defensive position, discussing and so forth. Inside the barracks they did not take a single initiative. Yet they were exposed to the extent that they never pledged themselves to the military commanders and did not follow this or that order.

    No-one offered resistance (to the commandos). There were only a few shots in the case of the military police. And even there the top commander of the military police opened the door to them. He surrendered himself after a little shooting – and not from the other side.

    What happened at RALIS? (at the time of the interview RALIS had not yet surrendered). Last night the soldiers were still there and wanted to do something but they lacked military direction (their commander, Denis da Almeida, had surrendered).

    One of the military police, a soldier, told me how annoying it was for these soldiers who were prepared and organised for an insurrection for the socialist revolution. As soon as the two commanders – Tome and Andrade disappeared – one surrendered, the other was captured – they didn’t know what to do. There wasn’t anyone to give orders. Although the soldiers were refusing military discipline, they didn’t know how to operate in any other way.

    The so-called revolutionary officers are finished.

    Weakness of the Revolutionary Left

    The decisive factor in the defeat of the 25 November was the weakness of the revolutionary left. When it came to the decisive test, the reformists were shown to have incomparably more weight within the working class than the revolutionaries. And even within the left-wing army units, the reformists were able to prevent a full mobilisation.

    A few weeks ago, the revolutionary left was able to mobilise for demonstrations through SUV many thousands of soldiers. Over the last year on a number of occasions the revolutionary left also mobilised tens of thousands of workers, despite the complete or partial opposition of the CP (on 7 February, on the CRTSM demonstration in the early summer, on 20 August, on the SUV demonstrations of 25 September, on the demonstration to liberate Radio Renascenca). But the failure of the working class to respond en masse to the calls from the paratroopers on 25 November show that over the class as a whole, even in the Lisbon area, the paralysing grip of the reformists is much stronger than the directing influence of the revolutionaries.

    It is a quite different thing for workers to demonstrate in defiance of reformist leaders than to enter upon the insurrectionary path. No worker will risk his livelihood, and even his life, in an insurrection without a feeling of the probability of success. If he feels that only a minority in the class back insurrection, he will foresee the defeat and abstain from the movement.

    On 25 November the weakness of the revolutionary left meant it was not even able to mobilise the workers for a defensive general strike. The reformists were still strong enough to sabotage mass resistance to the extreme right.

    On 25 November, even those soldiers who first moved – the paratroops – hesitated as soon as they saw that the mass of the class was not moving with them.

    It is this which explains why the soldiers’ committees and SUV, which seemed so powerful (even to the ruling class!) on 24 November, collapsed like a house of cards on the 25th.

    As we wrote in our paper Socialist Worker of 25 October:

    The greatest weakness of the revolutionary movement is the unevenness between the soldiers and the workers. The workers’ movement lags far behind the soldiers movement ...

    The unevenness cannot go on forever. If the workers do not rise to the level of the revolutionary soldiers, there is great danger that the soldiers’ level of consciousness and action will go down to the level of the workers ...

    If the workers do not catch up with the soldiers, the danger is that the soldiers’ spirit will be damned ... The soldiers will be wary of marching forward on their own to seize state power ...

    In fact, armed forces substituting for the proletariat will not even do for Lisbon in 1975 what the Blanquists did for Paris in 1839. Then a small minority of a few thousand could take power because the rest of the population was unorganised. This cannot be repeated in Lisbon. The Communist Party is too well implanted in the class to allow it.

    Shortly before 25 November some revolutionaries were saying that “the objective conditions for a successful insurrection” existed. Now certainly many of the conditions were present: the deep divisions within the armed forces, the splits within the ruling class on how to deal with these, the growing wave of struggle of the workers. But one crucial thing was missing – a mass party of revolutionaries, with members in every workshop, fighting for its policies in every workers’ committee, counterposing its policies to those of the reformist bureaucrats in the unions, everywhere able to put across to the broad mass of workers direct and immediate arguments to counter the treacherous twists and turns of the reformists.

    The revolutionary left did have influence in a few of the leading workers’ committees. But when it came to the class as a whole, its influence was much weaker than that of the Communist Party.

    Under such conditions it was easy for the CP first to disorientate the revolutionary left with the coup and then to isolate the revolutionary left by betraying the movement it had helped initiate.

    It was able to play on certain mistakes of the revolutionary left – above all on the confusion between propaganda and agitation. In the weeks before 25 November the best elements of the revolutionary left had quite rightly made propaganda among advanced layers of workers, stressing that only through an armed insurrection could the class prevent counter-revolution. But often the propaganda was presented in such a way as to give the impression to many workers that it was an agitational call for immediate insurrection. So although the leaders of the revolutionary organisation seem to have been clear that the coup of 25 November could not be the insurrection, those who followed them in the class were not always so clear.

    In a revolutionary period, the timing of slogans is crucial. The revolutionary organisation has to make absolutely clear the distinction between its propaganda for insurrection, its call to prepare the political conditions for insurrection, and its immediate agitational demands. Otherwise thousands, tens of thousands of workers who are new to political activity can be confused and demoralised unnecessarily.

    Reaction Wins a Battle – Not the War

    The capitalist class has regained a practical monopoly over armed power. One must not underestimate the defeat for the revolution. On the other hand one should not exaggerate it. Neither complacency nor panic are good guides to revolutionary action. Above anything else workers need the truth. The defeat for the revolution is not yet total. Army units have been dissolved, but not workers’ committees and the trade unions remain more or less intact. The right wing does not yet feel strong enough to take them on directly.

    The disaster is not as in Chile. Reaction has won a notable battle, but full-blooded counter-revolution is not triumphant.

    Reaction to counter-revolution is as reform to revolution. We may call victories of reaction those changes in the regime which bring it in the direction desired by the counter-revolution without altering radically the balance of forces, without smashing the organisation and confidence of the proletariat.

    After July Days when the Bolshevik Party was slandered as being German agents, when hundreds of Party members were thrown into prison, when Lenin and other Party leaders were in hiding. Lenin posed the question: was this a victory of counterrevolution or only a victory of reaction? The key question was whether the working class had lost its confidence and ability to fight. Some time after July Days Lenin explained how one incident clarified to him completely that counter-revolution had not been victorious, that although a battle was lost the war was far from being ended.

    After the July Days ... I was obliged to go underground... In a small working-class house in a remote working-class suburb of Petrograd, dinner is being served. The hostess puts the bread on the table. The host says: “Look what fine bread. They dare not give us bad bread now. And we had almost given up thinking that we’d ever get good bread in Petrograd again.”

    I was amazed at this class appraisal of the July Days. My thoughts had been revolving around the political significance of these events, analysing the situation that caused this zigzag in history and the situation it would create, and how we ought to change our slogans and later our Party apparatus to adapt it to the changed situation. As for bread, I who had not known want, did not give it a thought. I took bread for granted ...

    This member of the oppressed class, however ... takes the bull by the horns with that astonishing simplicity and straightforwardness, with that firm determination and amazing clarity of outlook from which we intellectuals are so remote as the stars in the sky. The whole world is divided into two camps: “us”, the working people, and “them”, the exploiters. Not a shadow of embarrassment over what had taken place; it was just one of the battles in the long struggle between labour and capital. When you fell trees, chips fly.

    “We” squeezed “them” a bit; “they” don’t dare to lord it over us as they did before. We’ll squeeze them again – and chuck them out altogether, that’s how the worker thinks and feels. (Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 26, p. 120)

    Historical experience shows that in revolutionary times a victory of reaction can be followed swiftly be revolutionary victories.

    To chart only the chronology of events in Germany in 1919-1920: in January 1919 Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht and hundreds of other revolutionaries were massacred – then January 1919 defeat of the German proletariat was incomparably more costly than the defeat of the Portuguese on 25 November. On 3 March a general strike broke out in Berlin; on 21 a general strike broke out in the Ruhr; a year later, on 13 March 1920 the Right organised a coup and took power; on 14 the Social Democratic leaders afraid for their own skins called a general strike that toppled the right-wing Kapp four days later; in October that same year 300,000 members of the USPD (Independent Social Democratic Party) joined en bloc the Communist Party and thus transformed it from a small organisation of a few tens of thousands into a mass party.

    These points all lead to one conclusion: the 25 November was not the final battle. It was not like the coup in Chile. If historical analogies are needed, it is better to look at the defeat suffered by the German revolution in January 1919 (at a much greater cost than the defeat of 25 November) which still left the German working class with the strength to fight in March 1919 and against the Kapp putsch in 1920.

    If the SUV demonstration of the 25 September or the building workers’ mass demonstration besieging the government officers for thirty-six hours on 13 November for example, were semi-insurrections or quarter insurrections then the victory of reaction on 25–26 November was a semi-victory of the counter-revolution.

    There is no doubt at all that the 300,000 workers who went on a demonstration in Lisbon on 16 November and 90 per cent of the workers in the Lisbon area who went on strike on 24 November could not have lost their soul, their confidence, their ability to fight, notwithstanding the cruel coup by the right on the 25th.

    Symptomatic of the weakness of the Government is its inability to impose a curfew in Lisbon. As a Lisbon comrade wrote on 27 November: “Lots of people have been ignoring the curfew. The military do not have the means of implementing it.”

    Win the workers to Revolution

    If up to 25 November revolutionaries put the emphasis on winning power, on the immediate winning of power by the proletariat, now the centre of all party agitation must be the winning of the majority of the proletariat. The march towards the dictatorship of the proletariat of necessity has become longer and will take a more roundabout path.

    Unable to take power – for lack of a mass revolutionary party – the proletariat will have to lay down the gauntlet in the economic and social field.

    The pressure of the international economic crisis continues to be felt by Portuguese capitalism. It cannot expect real relief from these until an upturn in the world economy. This will not come for 6–8 months at the minimum – and in any case will be shortlived, leading to renewed world inflation, and to a renewed world crisis within two years.

    The government and the council of the revolution will be compelled to proceed at top speed with their austerity’ plans – price increases, enforced sackings, factory closures, a clamp down on wage increases.

    Under these circumstances the economic struggle of workers will most likely very rapidly regather momentum. The great struggles of recent weeks (the metal workers, the builders) involving whole layers of previously passive workers will be followed by further struggles. The most important thing for the recuperation of the forces of the revolutionary left will be to be able to relate to these struggles.

    Because of the partial defeat for its forces, as well as those of the revolutionary left, the CP will be in a much weaker position for bargaining over the price it has to pay for remaining in the government.

    Those who were victorious on 25 November will only let the CP retain its positions if it does its utmost to dampen down the economic struggles of workers.

    Revolutionaries could well find themselves as in the first months after 25 April, being the only people to support the most elementary economic struggles of workers.

    That is why it is essential to understand the key role which the economic struggles of workers play in any revolution.

    As the great Polish-German revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg noted sixty years ago,

    Every new rising and new victory of the political struggle simultaneously changes itself into a powerful impetus for the economic struggle by expanding the external possibilities of the latter ... After each foaming wave of political struggle, a fructifying deposit remains behind from which a thousand strikes of economic struggle shoot forth ... The ceaseless state of economic war of the workers with capital keeps the fighting energy alive at each political pause. It forms, so to speak, the ever-fresh reservoir of strength of the proletarian class, out of which the political struggle continually renews its strength. (Mass strike)

    It was because she saw this that after the first defeat of the German revolution at the hands of reformism, in December 1918, she stressed that the fight by revolutionaries for leadership of the class meant moving, for a brief period, from direct political confrontation to economic confrontation:

    In the first period of the revolution, the revolution remained exclusively political. Only in the last two or three weeks have strikes broken out quite spontaneously. Let us be clear: it is the very essence of this revolution that strikes will become more and more extensive, that they must become more and more the central focus ... No-one will dispute that we alone are on the side of the striking and fighting workers.’ In this way, she argued, the hold of reformism would be shaken over even the most backward strata of workers and the base of the revolution would expand hugely.

    No-one in Portugal today can afford to ignore that lesson. After the political change of 25 April followed a period of intense economic struggle. Now, after a period in which political questions have dominated everything, the class will recoup its powers through economic struggle.

    In the past phase of continual political crisis, there has been a tendency for revolutionaries to dismiss the economic struggle as “out-dated”. But that is to make a dangerous confusion.

    It is true that Portuguese capitalism can no longer afford reforms to the benefit of the workers. It is true also that some of the most advanced workers find themselves in a situation where wage demands threaten the economic viability of enterprises controlled by their own workers’ committees, and therefore draw revolutionary political conclusions. But the vast mass of workers are not yet at this level of consciousness. The fact that they have followed the wage demands of the reformist unions shows it. Instead of the revolutionaries telling these workers that the economic struggle is surpassed, it is necessary to fight alongside them for the economic demands, to suggest forms of organisation appropriate to winning them, to fight within the workers’ committees and the unions against the inevitable tendency of the reformist leaden to bow to the needs of Portuguese capitalism and renege on the fight even for reforms. Revolutionaries must not merely comment on the fight for wage improvement: they must do their utmost to propel it forward, to unite the strength of the workers round partial economic demands, in order to raise the level of unity and combativity of the class, so that the political question of state power is posed to wider ranks of workers than ever before.

    The embryonic organs of Popular Power by and large showed themselves to be inadequate on 25 November. This is because many of their activities remained remote from the everyday activities of workers – from the daily struggle for better wages and conditions, for better housing, against unemployment and rising prices. Workers vaguely supported them, but did not feel intimately and organically involved in their actions. The building of real organs of Popular Power will depend upon overcoming this fault, upon making them central to the partial, economic struggles of workers, as well as seeing them as an embryo of working-class power.

    In the period immediately ahead, groups of revolutionaries in each factory will only be able to recuperate their strength and to overcome the weaknesses of 25 November if they do more than pose, abstractly, the question of state power, and make themselves the centre of the struggle against the austerity programme of the government. That means formulating demands for a fight back on the economic front, using regular factory bulletins and newspapers to counter the betrayals of the reformists on this front as well as on the political front.

    Revolutionaries will have to seize every opportunity to link themselves to workers’ struggle through legal “front” organisations.

    To repeat, the revolution has not yet suffered a decisive defeat. The revolutionary left can still rally support and turn the tide. The struggle now is a struggle to convince workers that all the gains of the revolution to date are at risk. The economic offensive which the rulers must launch, the offensive to break the industrial power of the working class, is now the centre of the battlefield. On this battlefield, working class unity around a militant programme can still be achieved.

    On that basis the revolutionaries can begin to build the party that was so clearly missing on 25 November. If they learn the lessons of that defeat, it will not be long before they rise again.

    Building the Mass Party

    Even with the best elements of the revolutionary left there is a failure to understand the need to organise politically those workers who are breaking with reformism. The notion is widespread that the job of the party is to deal with technical questions, like the organisation of the insurrection, while the functioning of organs of workers’ power can be left to the “non-party” bodies themselves. In practice this means that the Party is seen as being made up of small, highly trained (in military terms) cadres, which does not need to permeate every single section of the class.

    This aversion to a stress on building up the organisation of the Party and its periphery is perhaps a natural reaction to the crude, Stalinist notion of the Party peddled both by the Communist Party and the Maoist sects (which leads the Maoists to counterpose building the Party to the tasks of the mass movement). But it is extremely dangerous at present.

    In Russia in 1905 Lenin stressed again and again the need of the Party to draw to it tens of thousands of workers, to grab at every single worker who in any way was drawing close to revolutionary politics.

    He recognised that if the revolutionary party did not seize on them and win them to its full position by joint activity in a common organisation, they could all too easily be pulled back into the orbit of reformism or even reaction.

    We need young forces. I am for shooting on the spot any one who presumes that there are no people to be had. The people in Russia are legion; all we have to do is recruit young people more widely and boldly, more boldly and widely and again more widely and boldly, without fearing them (Lenin stress)... Get rid of all the old habits of immobility, of respect for rank, and so on. Form hundreds of circles of Vperyod-ists from among the youth and encourage them to work full blast... We must with desperate speed, unite people with revolutionary initiative and set them to work. Do not fear their lack of training, do not tremble at their inexperience and lack of development. In the first place, if you fail to organise them and spur them to action, they will follow the Mensheviks and the Gapons and this inexperience of them will cause five times more harm. In the second place, events themselves will teach them in our spirit ... This is a time of battle. Either you create new, young, fresh energetic battle organisations everywhere for revolutionary work of all varieties among all strata, or you will go under wearing the aureole of “committee bureaucrats”.

    His words apply absolutely in Portugal today. Everyone moving to the left who is not won to an organisation will be pulled into the orbit of reformism, centrism of sectarian Maoism, and will present insuperable problems for the revolutionaries in the future.

    The danger can be avoided but only if the revolutionary left sharply alters the priority which it gives to Party building.

    Above all, regular and popular press is needed. Without it there is no pressure on members of the revolutionary party to bring contacts to the organisation. They have no automatic organisational link with those who waver between them and the reformists, Maoists or centrists, not yet being willing to join the Party. They have no ready way of explaining the Party’s view of day to day events to the large number of workers attracted to revolutionary ideas. They have no easy way to open up a dialogue with the dissident Communist Party members or even those Maoists and centrists bemused by the behaviour of their organisations.

    Of course, the Party cannot be built merely by proclaiming it, or by counterposing it to the development of the mass struggle (as most of the Maoist groups believe). But it can be built by an organisation that shows in practice that it knows what needs to be done by the class and insists openly and clearly again and again to the rest of the class that it has only been able to do so because it exists as a party around a certain programme.

    To enter upon the road of insurrection and civil war without a mass Party is the most dangerous thing conceivable for revolutionaries.

    In Portugal, there is no possibility of evading for more than a few months (at most) sharp, armed clashes between the classes. That is why the most urgent task for the revolutionary left is to build the political organisational structure within the class. A failure to do so will not only condemn the Portuguese working class to defeat: it will also throw away the best opportunity for a revolutionary breakthrough in Europe since 1917.

    The road to power

    To aim to win power without first winning over the mass of the proletariat is ultra-left adventurism. To win the proletariat to the party as an aim is simply opportunism. To win the proletariat to the revolutionary party in order to win power is the only realistic revolutionary path open now in Portugal.

    A long time ago Lenin, who was destined to lead the only successful mass proletarian insurrection up till now, explained how the organisation of the revolutionary party dovetails with the preparation for an armed insurrection. He wrote in 1902:

    Picture to yourselves a popular uprising. Probably everyone will now agree that we must think of this and prepare for it. But how? Surely the Central Committee cannot appoint agents to all localities for the purpose of preparing the uprising! Even if we had a Central Committee it could achieve absolutely nothing by such appointments under present day Russian conditions. But a network of agents that would form in the course of establishing and distributing the common newspaper would not have to “sit about and wait” for the call for an uprising, but could carry on the regular activity that would strengthen our contacts with the broadest strata of the working masses and with all social strata that are discontented with the autocracy, which is of such importance for an uprising. Precisely such activity would serve to cultivate the ability to estimate correctly the general political situation, and consequently, the ability to select the proper moment for an uprising. Precisely such activity would train all local organisations to respond simultaneously to the same political question, incidents and events that agitate the whole of Russia and to react to such “incidents” in the most vigorous, uniform and expedient manner possible; for an uprising is in essence the most vigorous, most uniform and most expedient answer of the entire people to the government. Lastly, it is precisely such activity that would train all revolutionary organisations throughout Russia to maintain the most continuous, and at the same time most secret, contacts with one another, thus creating real party unity; for without such contacts it will be impossible collectively to discuss the plan for the uprising and to take the necessary preparatory measure on its eve, measures that must be kept in the strictest secrecy. (Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 5, pp. 525–6)

    Only when the mass revolutionary party is implanted deeply in the proletariat can it lead to a successful insurrection. A necessary condition for the victory of the proletarian insurrection is that the decisive sections of the proletariat will it. Lenin wrote in 1917:

    To be successful, insurrection must rely not upon a party, but upon the advanced class. That is the first point. Insurrection must rely upon a revolutionary upsurge of the people. That is the second point. Insurrection must rely upon that turning point in the history of the growing revolution when the activity of the advanced ranks of the people is at its height, and when the vacillations in the ranks of the enemy and in the ranks of the weak, halfhearted and irresolute friends of the revolution are strongest. That is the third point. (Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 26, pp.22–3.)

    Military conspiracy is Blanquism, if it is organised not by a party of a definite class, if its organisers have not analysed the political moment in general and the international situation in particular, if the party has not on its side the sympathy of the majority of the people, as proved by objective facts, if the development of revolutionary events has not brought about a practical refutation of the conciliatory illusions of the petty bourgeoisie, if the majority of the Soviet-type organs of revolutionary struggle that have been recognised as authoritative or have shown themselves to be such in practice have not been won over, if there has not matured a sentiment in the army ... against the government ... if the slogans of the uprising have not become widely known and popular, if the advanced workers are not sure of the desperate situation of the masses and the support of the countryside, a support proved by a serious peasant movement or by an uprising against the landowners and the government that defends the land-owners, if the country’s economic situation inspires earnest hopes for a favourable solution of the crisis by peaceable and parliamentary means. (Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 26, pp.212–3.)

    Some people have claimed that the example of the Cuban revolution shows that such conditions need not be fulfilled in Portugal. But the conditions under which the Cuban revolution occurred are quite different from those of Portugal today.

    The guerilla movement in Cuba was able to win because when it came to the decisive test, none of the major classes was prepared to support Batista against the rebel army. The local bourgeoisie in Cuba was weak and divided, to such an extent that some of its representatives joined Castro’s first government. Even sections of the US state department were prepared to show a benign neutrality to Castro at this stage. Remember, at the time of taking power and smashing the established army of Batista, Castro was still claiming that the revolution would not be an anti-capitalist revolution. He only proclaimed its socialist intentions on 16 April 1961.

    Conditions in Portugal today are quite different. The bourgeoisie are much stronger than they were in Cuba. They have a wide measure of support among the petty bourgeoisie and the northern peasants. The bourgeoisie are aware that their whole social position is threatened by any intensification of the revolution and are determined to fight to the end against it. The US government does not show “benign neutrality” but bitter hostility to the revolution.

    All this makes the hold of reformism much harder to deal with than was the case in Cuba. The reformists can impede an all-out struggle against the forces of the right: this was shown conclusively on 25 November. No insurrection can be successful until their hold in the factories is already challenged in a decisive fashion by the revolutionaries. It cannot be the case that, as in Cuba, the insurrection takes place and then the CP is forced to accept it. And it is worth remembering that even in Cuba the hold of the reformists continued to be crucial after the insurrection, forcing the leaders of the rebel army to make an alliance with them that explains many of the deformations in Cuba today.

    As a guide to revolutionaries in Portugal, as elsewhere in the world, not Castro but the Communist Manifesto should serve when it states: “All previous historical movements were movements of minorities or in the interests of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious independent movement of the immense majority.”

    The working class is ready for the armed seizure of power only when both objective and subjective conditions are ripe. Thus Lenin never raised the slogan for the insurrection prior to September 1917 – when the Bolsheviks won a majority in the soviets of Petrograd and Moscow. In April 1917 a leading Bolshevik in Petrograd, Bogdatev, secretary of the Putilov Bolshevik Committee issued a leaflet calling “Down with the provisional government”. Lenin attacked him as ultra-left and his action was condemned by the party, because of the danger that the workers would see this as a call to immediate action before the party had the support of the class.

    In a revolutionary situation tenses are more important than grammar.

    For revolutionaries, there cannot be a gap between words and deeds. Therefore when a party makes propaganda about the need for insurrection it must allow no confusion at all to exist in the eyes of the workers that this is an immediate call for action. Every statement, every leaflet must make this distinction clear. No call can be put to the workers in a way that will be seen as a call to action unless the party is fully prepared for the essential consequences that will follow.

    If revolutionaries work correctly in Portugal today, they can create the conditions for the organisation of a successful struggle for power. But that means recognising that in the forefront of those conditions is winning the working class for the revolution.

    The hold of reformism, so decisive on 25 November, can be shaken. But only if revolutionaries recognise that it is necessary to go backwards a little in order to go forward, to relate to the many economic struggles we can expect in the months ahead in order to prepare the ground for renewed political struggle.

    The attempt of the government to solve the economic problems of Portuguese capitalism will lead to many sharp dishes between it and sections of workers. If revolutionaries know how to relate to these economic struggles, it will be easy to push them to the point at which political issues are raised – the role of the police, the role of the purged army, the role of the government and all its components (including the CP) the need for class action against it and for corresponding organisations of struggle and power.

    The contradictions within the forces who were victorious on 25 November mean that the next major political conflict may not be far away. Already sections of the military want to go much further in their repression than do Antunes and sections of the Socialist Party leadership.

    Revolutionaries have very little to build the organisational strength in the class that did not exist on 25 November. But if the opportunities available are seized the revolution can still be saved.

    The defeat of 25 November should be used to teach every worker in Portugal and elsewhere the key lessons needed for the achievement of proletarian victory in the future. An army that has been licked is the better for it if it draws the lessons from its beating.

    #Portugal #révolution

  • 10.07.2021 : Anno ... 28. Woche (Tageszeitung junge Welt)
    https://www.jungewelt.de/artikel/405926.anno-28-woche.html

    1976, 14. Juli: António dos Santos Ramalho Eanes tritt das Amt als Präsident Portugals an. Zuvor hatte die Nelkenrevolution die faschistische Estado-Novo-Diktatur zu Fall gebracht. Der Offizier Eanes ist damit der erste demokratisch gewählte Präsident Portugals. Bürgerlich ausgerichtet, bleibt er zehn Jahre im Amt und ist seit 1986 Mitglied des Staatsrats.

    #Portugal #révolution

  • 1974: The Portuguese Revolution
    https://libcom.org/history/1974-1975-the-portuguese-revolution

    A short history of the revolution in Portugal in which an army rebellion overthrew the fascist dictatorship.

    The real revolution was in the urban workers took control of their workplaces and farm workers took control of their farms and organised production themselves while the parties of the left merely jockeyed for positions of power, eventually killing the revolution.

    On April 25th, 1974, a radical faction within the Portuguese Armed Forces, the MFA, revolted against the government. Until that day Portugal had been under a fascist dictatorship for over half a century. Whether the MFA was left or right wing inclined was unclear at the time. The military revolt created a space where people could effect change in their lives and the opportunity was grasped eagerly.

    Left-wing activists began returning from exile, and new political parties sprouted up. The parties all used the situation to gain political power in the government. Ordinary people, in contrast, used the situation to improve social conditions in their communities and workplaces through new autonomous organisations. It was here that the true revolution was fought and is of most interest to us.

    Workers’ struggles
    Portugal was the most underdeveloped country in Europe. At the time 400,000 people were unemployed. 150,000 people lived in shanty towns, one million had emigrated and infant mortality was nearly 8.5%. After the revolution workers immediately began struggling against the harsh economic conditions. Strikes had been met by brutal force under the fascist regime but lack of experience proved no deterrent to the Portuguese working class. During the summer of 1974 over 400 companies registered disputes.

    One of the most significant of the strikes was within TAP, the semi-state airline. It showed whose side the supposedly radical government was on. TAP workers had a history of militancy. In 1973 three workers had been murdered by the paramilitary police force during a strike.

    On May 2, 1974 an assembly of TAP workers demanded the purging of all fascists in the company and the election of union representatives to the administration council, which was in effect a council for the bosses. When it was discovered that some of the representatives had raised their salaries the union came under a lot of criticism. In August an assembly of maintenance workers reduced their 44-hour week to 40 hours by refusing to work the extra four hours.

    Another assembly, held without union officials, drew up a list of demands including the purging of staff who showed “anti-working class attitudes”, wage increases and the right to reconsider collective contracts whenever the workers pleased. The demands were not accepted by the government, so in response the workers declared a strike, elected a strike committee and posted pickets. All international flights were halted. The new Minister for Labour, a Communist Party member, called on the workers to resume work while CP rank and filers opposed the strike within TAP.

    The TAP workers stood fast and eventually the government sent the military to occupy the airport and arrest the strike committee. Two hundred workers were sacked but were reinstated after mass demonstrations and threats of further strikes. The 40-hour week was gradually introduced. The first provisional government introduced anti-strike laws around this time.

    This government was a coalition that included the Socialist Party and the Communist Party. The TAP strike was the first large-scale strike after April 25th and the government’s response was an indicator of how any of the ’post-fascist’ governments would treat workers’ struggles. The working class however was unperturbed by this. In October another 400 companies registered disturbances.

    The trade unions were relics of the fascist era and were considred treactionary by many. Workers found the need for more democratic and independent ways of organising. It had become common for assemblies of workers to elect delegates to the committees. These committees were normally elected annually and were subject to recall. Though most of them were not revolutionary they were an expression of people’s distrust of the ’left parties’, the government and the military. By the end of October 1974 there was about 2,000 of these committees.

    In the summer of 1975 the movement began to develop further. Frequently, when demands were ignored by management, workers would occupy their places of employment and in many cases set up systems of self-management. Anywhere from a dozen to several hundred workers would take to running the businesses themselves. In Unhais de Serra 1,100 textile workers rid themselves of the management and elected a workers’ committee to run the factory.

    It is estimated that about 380 factories self-managed and 500 co-ops were in operation by the summer of 1975. Like the workers’ councils, the co-ops were not revolutionary. They still had to contend with the constraints of capitalism. They had to make a profit and members received different wages. Despite many co-ops being able to reduce the prices for goods or services, this inevitably led to competition between different co-ops.

    Amidst the growing culture of self-management the Proletarian Revolutionary Party started a campaign to launch workers’ councils. Delegates from major industries, and soldiers’ and sailors’ committees, met with a large contingent of PRP members. The idea was to have councils based on workplace, boroughs and barracks; and from these local, regional and then a national council would be elected.

    It sounded good, sadly the PRP were more concerned with creating bodies they could dominate rather than councils capable of representing the working class. “Working class parties” were invited to join. This showed their very limited idea of what workers are capable of.

    Giving places to political parties as well as to directly elected workers’ delegates not only diluted democracy but also implied the ’need’ for some sort of elite to lead the masses. If the self-proclaimed ’revolutionary parties’ could not win enough support to get their members chosen as delegates by their workmates, they were to get seats as of right just because they called themselves “workers parties”. A strange notion of democracy!

    Housing struggles
    After April 25th people began occupying empty property, unwilling to wait for governmental action. The government, afraid of people’s anger, decreed a rent freeze and allocated money and tax exemptions to builders. The increase in homes built was inadequate and more and more people occupied empty buildings. 260 families from a shantytown in Lisbon moved into an empty apartment block near the city. The military ordered them out but were forced to back down when the families refused.

    In response to the housing crisis people began to organise collectively. In older working-class and lower-middle-class areas Autonomous Revolutionary Neighbourhood Committees were set up. The committees were elected from general assemblies of local residents. They arranged occupations of property for use as free crèches, workers’ centres and for other community services.

    In Lisbon one local Neighbourhood Committee organised for some 400 empty houses to be taken over. A “social rent” was paid that went towards improvements. Another organisation set up was the Federation of Shanty Town Committees. It was independent of political parties and came to represent 150,000 shanty town dwellers. It called for new housing estates to be built in place of the shantytowns, for expropriation of land and for rent controls.

    The housing organisations faced some of the same problems experienced by the workers’ organisations. Neighbourhood and shanty town committee meetings were seen as opportunities for party building by left parties. Party members, often times well practised at public speaking and debating, got elected to key positions on the committees and then used them as a platform for their own particular political propaganda.

    A lot of ordinary residents stopped attending meetings when they felt they were dominated by a particular group. All in all, the “workers parties” seemed to be more a hindrance than a help to these committees. By trying to run things in ways compatible with their ideologies they stifled the spontaneous organisational methods of ordinary folk.

    Land Occupations
    At the same time one third of Portugal’s population worked as agricultural labourers. They worked for half of the year and were unemployed for the rest of it. When the rural workers saw their opportunity for change they seized it wholeheartedly and began taking over farms, ranches and unused land. At the beginning the government rarely intervened.

    There was much positive co-operation between agricultural and industrial workers, and the various workers’ organisations. In Cabanas an abandoned farm was occupied with the help of a local neighbourhood committee. Machines were taken from a nearby factory to help clear the land. In Santarem a meeting of 354 farm workers declared that a massive amount of land was to be occupied. Other workers, armed with pickaxes, arrived in trucks to aid the agricultural labourers and at the end of it over ten major farms were collectivised.

    Socialism seemed natural to the labourers and there was never talk of dividing up the land. The land was worked collectively and owned by the village as a whole. By August 1975 official statistics reported that over 330 different land collectives were in operation.

    All these struggles happened against a backdrop of six provisional governments, a few coup attempts and rumours of NATO and right-wing conspiracies. Where the armed forces had created a space for radical social development by workers it quickly re-invaded the space with programs for government and the economy that had little to do with the revolution. Any independent initiatives were generally stifled by the left and centre “workers parties”.

    The capitalist system itself was never truly tackled en masse and co-ops, collectives and workers’ committees had to negotiate on capitalist terms for the price of their labour. Even the workers’ committees were little more than workers’ self-management of their own exploitation. One Trotskyist paper blamed the lack of revolutionary progress on the fact that there was not a “workers party”. In fact there were at least fifteen!

    Written by the Workers’ Solidarity Movement

    #Portugal #révolution

  • Portugal Saved by the Rosary (1974-1975) - The Fatima Center
    https://fatima.org/about/fatima-the-facts/portugal-saved-by-the-rosary-1974-1975

    Dimanche matin on va à l’église. Voilà un rêcit qu’on risque d’y entendre.

    There is yet another example of Portugal being especially blessed with the protection of Our Lady, this time because the laity united in petition to Her through the weapon of the Rosary.

    On April 25, 1974 the Communists came to power in Portugal. The same night, in Fatima a small group of devotees of Our Lady spent the night in prayer before Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.

    They sought Divine Guidance for deliverance from the great evil that had befallen their country. They concluded the following morning that like Austria, which was freed from Communism in 1955 by a Rosary Campaign – in which millions of Rosaries were prayed for that country – Portugal should turn to Our Lady’s Rosary for aid.

    The Bishop of Fatima listened to their suggestion that a Rosary campaign be launched for the nation from Fatima. The bishop sent them to the Fatima Shrine Rector, Father Guerra, who told them that he did not want to launch the campaign from Fatima. Therefore, the apostles of the National Rosary Crusade in Portugal went north to the most Catholic part of Portugal, near Braga, to the nearby city of Guimares, where King Denis set up the first capital of Portugal. There, on April 28, 1974, they launched the crusade.

    They discreetly set about asking their neighbors, one by one, to join the crusade to free their country. They feared to speak or publish too openly their request that individuals pledge to say at least five decades of the Rosary a day for their country, now held by the Communists.

    It was in November of 1975, almost eighteen months after the Rosary Crusade had started, that the Communists were removed from power.

    Dans l’histoire ce sont systématiquement les vainqueurs qui est relaté sur son déroulement.

    Coup of 25 November 1975 - Wikipedia
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_of_25_November_1975

    #Portugal #révolution #église

  • Non-violence with #Judith_Butler

    Judith Butler is one of the most important philosophers of our time. Their book “Gender trouble” left a long-lasting mark on queer and feminist theory, even though it took more than fifteen years to be translated into French. Its translation has indeed given rise to many misunderstandings, which Judith Butler finds amusing and interesting now, pushing them to explore the cultural resonances their theories find in various countries (05:20). In a global pandemic, these theories unfortunately have very concrete resonances: they had coined the concept of ‘grievable lives’ and are saddened to see it vividly illustrated by the current situation (13:13). Observing the governments using health safety to justify repressing their populations, they nonetheless believe in the force of non-violence and solidarity (25:34). Together with Lauren Bastide, Judith Butler is alarmed by the attacks on universities, especially on gender and postcolonial theory (35:40). For them, this backlash definitely is the embodiment of conservatives’ fear and their refusal to see the world change (32:00). They stay hopeful thanks to the feminist, queer and antiracist movements inventing new forms of mobilisations around the world (47:02) and the strength, always renewed, of their self-determination claims (39:30). If they acknowledge how important rest is in an activist’s life, they encourage to never abandon the idea, the utopia of radical equality until it is reached (51:52) and invite everyone to think about revolution as an ongoing movement to which it is possible to contribute everyday (57:17).

    https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/la-poudre/id1172772210?i=1000512502261
    #violence #non-violence #podcast #queer #grievable_lives #solidarité #Lauren_Bastide #université #résistance #mobilisation #activisme #égalité_radicale #révolution

    ping @isskein @karine4 @cede

  • Algérie. Le coup d’État de juin 1965, la révolution et l’Internationale situationniste | Walid Bouchakour
    https://orientxxi.info/lu-vu-entendu/coup-de-semonce-situationniste-en-algerie,4891

    Le 19 juin 1965, Houari Boumediene renverse le président algérien Ahmed Ben Bella et lance une répression contre la gauche. L’Internationaliste situationniste s’apprête alors à publier une sévère critique du régime avec son Adresse aux révolutionnaires d’Algérie et de tous les pays. Des archives dévoilent l’histoire de ce fameux tract et de sa diffusion sous le manteau dans un contexte désabusé. Source : Orient XXI

  • L’État moderne, de l’époque féodale à nos jours Un appareil d’oppression au service des classes dominantes, que les travailleurs devront renverser (texte intégral) | Conférence de Lutte Ouvrière (mai 2021)

    https://www.lutte-ouvriere.org/publications/brochures/letat-moderne-de-lepoque-feodale-nos-jours-un-appareil-doppression-a

    SOMMAIRE

    – Au #Moyen_Âge, naissance et essor de la #bourgeoisie
    – Les débuts du #capitalisme et le rôle de la #monarchie_absolue
    – Les révolutions bourgeoises en Angleterre et en France
    – Le rôle des États dans la #révolution_industrielle
    – L’échec des révolutions de #1848
    – Aux États-Unis et au Japon, les dernières révolutions industrielles
    – Le mouvement ouvrier et sa politique face à la bourgeoisie et ses États
    – À la fin du 19e siècle, le capitalisme atteint le stade impérialiste de son développement
    – Les États bourgeois, instruments de la dictature du #grand_capital #état_bourgeois
    – Quand les dirigeants réformistes deviennent ministres
    – Le #nazisme en Allemagne
    – Le #New_Deal aux États-Unis
    – Le #Front_populaire en France
    – L’hégémonie américaine après 1945
    – En France, une politique étatiste au service des grands groupes capitalistes
    – À partir des années 1970, le capitalisme en #crise #crise_économique
    – La #financiarisation de l’économie et ses conséquences
    – L’#État sous la coupe des financiers #état_moderne
    – Un État totalement au service de la bourgeoisie
    – Exproprier la bourgeoisie #révolution_sociale

  • Cartes et documents sur la Révolution française, 1789-1799
    https://visionscarto.net/revolution-francaise-cartes

    Sélection de cartes et figures sur la Révolution française

    extraites de l’ouvrage Chronique de la Révolution française, 1789-1799, publié en 1989 par les éditions Larousse Jacques Legrand. _________________________________________ Titre : Versailles, l’entrée du château et le chemin de la procession, 1789 Mots-clés : #archives #histoire #révolution_française #1789 #1988 Contexte : Cartes et graphiques publiés dans Chronique de la Révolution française, 1789-1799, Larousse et éditions Jacques (...) #Musée_et_archives

  • Le Janus de la science et de l’industrie

    Louis de Colmar

    https://lavoiedujaguar.net/Le-Janus-de-la-science-et-de-l-industrie

    Lorsque Greta Thunberg fustige les puissants de ce monde en les exhortant à « écouter les scientifiques » elle se situe au cœur des contradictions de ce temps. Elle idéalise la science en l’opposant aux basses œuvres de l’industrie, méconnaissant que cette industrie n’est que le bras armé de la science. Historiquement parlant, il est tout à fait impossible de les dissocier : science et industrie obéissent à une même vision du monde, à une même pratique effective du monde. Dans les deux cas, il s’agit d’être capable de reproduire à l’infini, sans pertes ou dégradations, des procédures expertes : la reproductibilité des expériences scientifiques est de même nature que la reproductibilité des mécanismes de fabrication industrielle ; bien plus, le propre de la reproductibilité industrielle est directement tributaire d’approches scientifiques particulières, la reproductibilité industrielle n’est qu’une généralisation et une massification de questionnements scientifiques élaborés à échelle réduite.

    Il est temps de sortir de la fausse opposition entre science-connaissance pure, et applications impures et détournées d’une même conception du monde.

    Le combat contre le réchauffement climatique ne peut qu’être corrélé avec le combat contre l’idéalisation de la science, contre sa mythologisation : le réchauffement climatique a bien pour origine la mise en pratique d’une représentation théorique du monde spécifiquement incarné par la science. L’expérimentation scientifique dans les laboratoires académiques ou privés n’est que le b.a.-ba de sa potentielle industrialisation, qui n’est jamais qu’un changement d’échelle. (...)

    #science #industrie #Greta_Thunberg #rationalité #crise #Guillaume_Carnino #Jérôme_Baschet #capitalisme #monde-robot #nature #idéologie #Marx #Pfizer #Moderna #révolution #économie #Paul_Ricœur

  • Vera Figner
    https://spartacus-educational.com/RUSfigner.htm

    Vera Figner, the child of prosperous parents, was born in Kazan, Russia, on 25th June, 1852. The oldest of six children, she was sent away to a private school in 1863. Her uncle had liberal views and encouraged her to be concerned about the poor.

    Vera wanted to go to university but this was not allowed in Russia at this time. In 1872, along with her sister, Lydia Figner, she decided to study medicine in Zurich. She told a friend: “In my opinion in order to be more useful one should know more, but where can you learn what you want to do? I think only the university is worth so much that a woman could sacrifice everything for it... But in Russia this way is closed to women. Therefore... I have decided to go to Zurich. We shall return to our country and organize life in a fine way... I shall organize a hospital and open a school or a handcraft institute... I shall stop at nothing because this whole plan is not the mere product of an idle fantasy but my whole flesh and blood, and my motivation will be the three needs or targets of my existence: economic independence, the formation of my intelligence, and usefulness to others.”

    While in Zurich she met a group of women who held radical political views. This included Sophia Bardina and Olga Liubatovich. The anarchist Peter Kropotkin met Figner and her friends during this period: “They lived as most students do, especially the women, that is on very little. Tea and bread, some milk and a thin slice of meat, amidst spirited discussions of the latest news from the socialist world and the last book read - that was their regular fate. Those who had more money than was needed for such a way of life donated it to the common cause ... As to dress, the most parsimonious economy reigned in that direction. Our girls in Zurich seemed defiantly to throw this question at the population there: can there be a simplicity of dress which does not become a girl if she is young, intelligent and full of energy?” Another observer, Franziska Tiburtius, provided a less complimentary picture of this group of radicals: The short-cut hair, the enormous blue spectacles, the short quite unadorned dress which resembled umbrella lining, the round glossy matelot, the cigarette, the dark and supercilious countenance all came to be considered as characteristic of the woman student."

    The activities of these young women began to concern the Russian authorities. The Russian Government Herald published an article on 21st May, 1872, claiming: “Several Russian girls set off abroad to attend lectures at Zurich University. At first there were only a very few of them, but now there are more than a hundred women there... Largely because of this increase in Russian women students, the ring-leaders of the Russian emigration have chosen this town as a centre for revolutionary propaganda, and have done all in their power to enlist into their ranks these young women students. Under their influence, women have abandoned their studies for fruitless political agitation. Young Russians of both sexes have formed political parties of extreme shades... In the Russian Library they hold lectures of an exclusively revolutionary nature... It has become common practice for the girls to attend workers’ meetings... Young and inexperienced minds are being led astray by political agitators, and set on the wrong course. And to cap it all, meetings and party struggles throw the girls into such confusion that they accept this fruitless and fraudulent propaganda as real life. Once drawn into politics the girls fall under the influence of the leaders of the emigration, and become compliant weapons in their hands. Some of them go from Zurich to Russia and back two or three times a year, carrying letters, instructions and proclamations and taking an active part in criminal propaganda. Others are led astray by communist theories about free love, and under pretext of fictitious marriages carry to the most extreme limits their rejection of the fundamental laws of morality and feminine virtue. The immoral conduct of Russian women has aroused the indignation of the local citizens against them, and landladies are even refusing to accept them as lodgers. Some of the girls have sunk so low as to practise that branch of obstetrics which is judged a criminal offence, and deserves the utter contempt of all honourable people.”

    Mikhail Bakunin meet this group of women when he visited Zurich. He urged them, to return to Russia and to carry out propaganda work. Vera Figner refused as she wanted to complete her degree but Sophia Bardina, Lydia Figner, Anna Toporkova, Berta Kaminskaya, Alexandra Khorzhevskaya, Evgenia Subbotina and Nadezhda Subbotina agreed and arrived in their homeland and found work in factories. In January 1875 the women began distributing the newspaper, Rabotnik (The Worker), that was being produced by Bakunin in Berne. It was the first Russian-language paper to focus serious attention on the urban proletariat. However, it had little impact on the largely illiterate workers. However, the Russian secret police was informed and in August 1875, Bardina, Lydia Figner and Anna Toporkova, were arrested. Soon afterwards, Olga Liubatovich and Gesia Gelfman were taken into custody.

    The trial took place on 14th March, 1877. Sophia Bardina stated in court: “All of these accusations against us would be terrible if they were true. But they are based on misunderstanding. I do not reject property if it is acquired by one’s own labour. Every person has a right to his own labour and its products. So why do our masters give us only one-third of our labour-value? As for the family, I also do not understand. Is it the social system that is destroying it, by forcing a woman to abandon her family and work for wretched wages in a factory, where she and her children are inevitably corrupted; a system that drives a woman into prostitution through sheer poverty, and which actually sanctions this prostitution as something legitimate and necessary in any well-ordered society? Or is it we who are undermining it, we, who are attempting to eliminate this poverty, which is the chief cause of all our social ills, including the destruction of the family? As to religion, I have always been true to the principles established by the founder of Christianity, and have never propagandized against these principles. I am equally innocent of attempting to undermine the State. I do not believe any one individual is capable of destroying the State by force. If it is to be destroyed, it will be because it bears within it the embryo of its own destruction, holding as it does the people in political, economic and intellectual bondage.” Bardina and Olga Liubatovich were sentenced to nine years hard labour in Siberia, whereas Gesia Gelfman and Lydia Figner got five years’s hard labour in factories.

    Vera Figner
    Vera Figner now returned to Russia and joined the Land and Liberty group. Most of the group shared Bakunin’s anarchist views and demanded that Russia’s land should be handed over to the peasants and the State should be destroyed. The historian, Adam Bruno Ulam, has argued: “This Party, which commemorated in its name the revolutionary grouping of the early sixties, was soon split up by quarrels about its attitude toward terror. The professed aim, the continued agitation among the peasants, grew more and more fruitless.”

    In October, 1879, the Land and Liberty split into two factions. The majority of members, who favoured a policy of terrorism, established the People’s Will (Narodnaya Volya). Others, such as George Plekhanov formed Black Repartition, a group that rejected terrorism and supported a socialist propaganda campaign among workers and peasants. Elizabeth Kovalskaia was one of those who rejected the ideas of the People’s Will: “Firmly convinced that only the people themselves could carry out a socialist revolution and that terror directed at the centre of the state (such as the People’s Will advocated) would bring - at best - only a wishy-washy constitution which would in turn strengthen the Russian bourgeoisie, I joined Black Repartition, which had retained the old Land and Liberty program.”

    Vera Figner, Anna Korba, Andrei Zhelyabov, Timofei Mikhailov, Lev Tikhomirov, Mikhail Frolenko, Grigory Isaev, Sophia Perovskaya, Nikolai Sablin, Ignatei Grinevitski, Nikolai Kibalchich, Nikolai Rysakov, Gesia Gelfman, Anna Yakimova, Sergei Kravchinskii, Tatiana Lebedeva and Alexander Kviatkovsky all joined the People’s Will. Figner later recalled: “We divided up the printing plant and the funds - which were in fact mostly in the form of mere promises and hopes... And as our primary aim was to substitute the will of the people for the will of one individual, we chose the name Narodnaya Volya for the new Party.”

    Michael Burleigh, the author of Blood & Rage: A Cultural History of Terrorism (2008), has argued that the main influence on this small group was Sergi Nechayev: “The terrorist nucleus of Land and Freedom had already adopted many of Nechayev’s dubious practices, including bank robberies and murdering informers. People’s Will also borrowed his tactic of suggesting to the credulous that it was the tip of a much larger revolutionary organisation - the Russian Social Revolutionary Party - which in reality was non-existent. There was an imposing-sounding Executive Committee all right, but this was coterminous with the entire membership of People’s Will... In fact, People’s Will never had more than thirty or forty members, who would then recruit agents for spectific tasks or to establish affiliate cells within sections of society deemed to have revolutionary potential.”

    Soon afterwards the People’s Will decided to assassinate Alexander II. According to the historian, Joel Carmichael: “Although this populist organization retained the same humane vocabulary - revolving around socialism, faith in the people, the overthrow of the autocracy, and democratic representation - its sole objective was, in fact, the murder of the tsar. The preparation for this demanded boundless zeal, painstaking diligence, and great personal daring. In fact, the idealism of these young assassins was perhaps the most impressive thing about the whole populist movement. Though a few populist leaders were of peasant origin, most were drawn from the intelligentsia of the upper and middle classes. The motives of the latter were quite impersonal ; one of the things that baffled the police in stamping out the movement - in which they never succeeded - was just this combination of zeal and selflessness. The actual membership of the populist societies was relatively small. But their ideas attracted wide support, even in the topmost circles of the bureaucracy and, for that matter, in the security police as well. The upper-class origins of many of the revolutionaries meant a source of funds; many idealists donated their entire fortunes to the movement.”

    A directive committee was formed consisting of Vera Figner, Andrei Zhelyabov, Timofei Mikhailov, Lev Tikhomirov, Mikhail Frolenko, Sophia Perovskaya and Anna Yakimova. Zhelyabov was considered the leader of the group. However, Figner considered him to be overbearing and lacking in depth: “He had not suffered enough. For him all was hope and light.” Zhelyabov had a magnetic personality and had a reputation for exerting a strong influence over women.

    Zhelyabov and Perovskaya attempted to use nitroglycerine to destroy the Tsar train. However, the terrorist miscalculated and it destroyed another train instead. An attempt the blow up the Kamenny Bridge in St. Petersburg as the Tsar was passing over it was also unsuccessful. Figner blamed Zhelyabov for these failures but others in the group felt he had been unlucky rather than incompetent.

    In November 1879 Stefan Khalturin managed to find work as a carpenter in the Winter Palace. According to Adam Bruno Ulam, the author of Prophets and Conspirators in Pre-Revolutionary Russia (1998): “There was, incomprehensible as it seems, no security check of workman employed at the palace. Stephan Khalturin, a joiner, long sought by the police as one of the organizers of the Northern Union of Russian workers, found no difficulty in applying for and getting a job there under a false name. Conditions at the palace, judging from his reports to revolutionary friends, epitomized those of Russia itself: the outward splendor of the emperor’s residence concealed utter chaos in its management: people wandered in and out, and imperial servants resplendent in livery were paid as little as fifteen rubles a month and were compelled to resort to pilfering. The working crew were allowed to sleep in a cellar apartment directly under the dining suite.”

    Khalturin approached George Plekhanov about the possibility of using this opportunity to kill Tsar Alexander II. He rejected the idea but did put him in touch with the People’s Will who were committed to a policy of assassination. It was agreed that Khalturin should try and kill the Tsar and each day he brought packets of dynamite, supplied by Anna Yakimova and Nikolai Kibalchich, into his room and concealed it in his bedding. Cathy Porter, the author of Fathers and Daughters: Russian Women in Revolution (1976), has argued: “His workmates regarded him as a clown and a simpleton and warned him against socialists, easily identifiable apparently for their wild eyes and provocative gestures. He worked patiently, familiarizing himself with the Tsar’s every movement, and by mid-January Yakimova and Kibalchich had provided him with a hundred pounds of dynamite, which he hid under his bed.”

    On 17th February, 1880, Stefan Khalturin constructed a mine in the basement of the building under the dinning-room. The mine went off at half-past six at the time that the People’s Will had calculated Alexander II would be having his dinner. However, his main guest, Prince Alexander of Battenburg, had arrived late and dinner was delayed and the dinning-room was empty. Alexander was unharmed but sixty-seven people were killed or badly wounded by the explosion.

    The People’s Will became increasingly angry at the failure of the Russian government to announce details of the new constitution. They therefore began to make plans for another assassination attempt. Those involved in the plot included Vera Figner, Sophia Perovskaya, Andrei Zhelyabov, Anna Yakimova, Grigory Isaev, Gesia Gelfman, Nikolai Sablin, Ignatei Grinevitski, Nikolai Kibalchich, Nikolai Rysakov, Mikhail Frolenko, Timofei Mikhailov, Tatiana Lebedeva and Alexander Kviatkovsky.

    Kibalchich, Isaev and Yakimova were commissioned to prepare the bombs that were needed to kill the Tsar. Isaev made some technical error and a bomb went off badly damaging his right hand. Yakimova took him to hospital, where she watched over his bed to prevent him from incriminating himself in his delirium. As soon as he regained consciousness he insisted on leaving, although he was now missing three fingers of his right hand. He was unable to continue working and Yakimova now had sole responsibility for preparing the bombs.

    It was discovered that every Sunday the Tsar took a drive along Malaya Sadovaya Street. It was decided that this was a suitable place to attack. Yakimova was given the task of renting a flat in the street. Gesia Gelfman had a flat on Telezhnaya Street and this became the headquarters of the assassins whereas the home of Vera Figner was used as an explosives workshop.

    Nikolai Kibalchich wanted to make a nitroglycerine bomb but Andrei Zhelyabov regarded it as “unreliable”. Sophia Perovskaya favoured mining. Eventually it was decided that the Tsar’s carriage should be mined, with hand grenades at the ready as a second strategy. If all else failed, one of the members of the assassination team should step forward and stab the Tsar with a dagger. It was Kibalchich’s job to provide the hand grenades.

    The Okhrana discovered that their was a plot to kill Alexander II. One of their leaders, Andrei Zhelyabov, was arrested on 28th February, 1881, but refused to provide any information on the conspiracy. He confidently told the police that nothing they could do would save the life of the Tsar. Alexander Kviatkovsky, another member of the assassination team, was arrested soon afterwards.

    The conspirators decided to make their attack on 1st March, 1881. Sophia Perovskaya was worried that the Tsar would now change his route for his Sunday drive. She therefore gave the orders for bombers to he placed along the Ekaterinsky Canal. Grigory Isaev had laid a mine on Malaya Sadovaya Street and Anna Yakimova was to watch from the window of her flat and when she saw the carriage approaching give the signal to Mikhail Frolenko.

    Tsar Alexander II decided to travel along the Ekaterinsky Canal. An armed Cossack sat with the coach-driver and another six Cossacks followed on horseback. Behind them came a group of police officers in sledges. Perovskaya, who was stationed at the intersection between the two routes, gave the signal to Nikolai Rysakov and Timofei Mikhailov to throw their bombs at the Tsar’s carriage. The bombs missed the carriage and instead landed amongst the Cossacks. The Tsar was unhurt but insisted on getting out of the carriage to check the condition of the injured men. While he was standing with the wounded Cossacks another terrorist, Ignatei Grinevitski, threw his bomb. Alexander was killed instantly and the explosion was so great that Grinevitski also died from the bomb blast.

    The terrorists quickly escaped from the scene and that evening assembled at the flat being rented by Vera Figner. She later recalled: “Everything was peaceful as I walked through the streets. But half an hour after I reached the apartment of some friends, a man appeared with the news that two crashes like cannon shots had rung out, that people were saying the sovereign had been killed, and that the oath was already being administered to the heir. I rushed outside. The streets were in turmoil: people were talking about the sovereign, about wounds, death, blood.... I rushed back to my companions. I was so overwrought that I could barely summon the strength to stammer out that the Tsar had been killed. I was sobbing; the nightmare that had weighed over Russia for so many years had been lifted. This moment was the recompense for all the brutalities and atrocities inflicted on hundreds and thousands of our people.... The dawn of the New Russia was at hand! At that solemn moment all we could think of was the happy future of our country.”

    The evening after the assassination the Executive Committee of the People’s Will sent an open letter announcing it was willing to negotiate with the authorities: “The inevitable alternatives are revolution or a voluntary transfer of power to the people. We turn to you as a citizen and a man of honour, and we demand: (i) amnesty for all political prisoners, (ii) the summoning of a representative assembly of the whole nation”. Karl Marx was one of many radicals who sent a message of support after the publication of the letter.

    Nikolai Rysakov, one of the bombers was arrested at the scene of the crime. Sophia Perovskaya told her comrades: “I know Rysakov and he will say nothing.” However, Rysakov was tortured by the Okhrana and was forced to give information on the other conspirators. The following day the police raided the flat being used by the terrorists. Gesia Gelfman was arrested but Nikolai Sablin committed suicide before he could be taken alive. Soon afterwards, Timofei Mikhailov, walked into the trap and was arrested.

    Thousands of Cossacks were sent into St. Petersburg and roadblocks were set up, and all routes out of the city were barred. An arrest warrant was issued for Sophia Perovskaya. Her bodyguard, Tyrkov, claimed that she seemed to have “lost her mind” and refused to try and escape from the city. According to Tyrkov, her main concern was to develop a plan to rescue Andrei Zhelyabov from prison. She became depressed when on the 3rd March, the newspapers reported that Zhelyabov had claimed full responsibility for the assassination and therefore signing his own death warrant.

    Perovskaya was arrested while walking along the Nevsky Prospect on 10th March. Later that month Nikolai Kibalchich, Grigory Isaev and Mikhail Frolenko were also arrested. However, other members of the conspiracy, including Vera Figner and Anna Yakimova, managed to escape from the city. Perovskaya was interrogated by Vyacheslav Plehve, the Director of the Police Department. She admitted her involvement in the assassination but refused to name any of her fellow conspirators.

    The trial of Zhelyabov, Perovskaya, Kibalchich, Rysakov, Gelfman and Mikhailov, opened on 25th March, 1881. Prosecutor Muraviev read his immensely long speech that included the passage: “Cast out by men, accursed of their country, may they answer for their crimes before Almighty God! But peace and calm will be restored. Russia, humbling herself before the Will of that Providence which has led her through so sore a burning faith in her glorious future.”

    Prosecutor Muraviev concentrated his attack on Sophia Perovskaya: “We can imagine a political conspiracy; we can imagine that this conspiracy uses the most cruel, amazing means; we can imagine that a woman should be part of this conspiracy. But that a woman should lead a conspiracy, that she should take on herself all the details of the murder, that she should with cynical coldness place the bomb-throwers, draw a plan and show them where to stand; that a woman should have become the life and soul of this conspiracy, should stand a few steps away from the place of the crime and admire the work of her own hands - any normal feelings of morality can have no understanding of such a role for women.” Perovskaya replied: “I do not deny the charges, but I and my friends are accused of brutality, immorality and contempt for public opinion. I wish to say that anyone who knows our lives and the circumstances in which we have had to work would not accuse us of either immorality or brutality.”

    Karl Marx followed the trial with great interest. He wrote to his daughter, Jenny Longuet: “Have you been following the trial of the assassins in St. Petersburg? They are sterling people through and through.... simple, businesslike, heroic. Shouting and doing are irreconcilable opposites... they try to teach Europe that their modus operandi is a specifically Russian and historically inevitable method about which there is no more reason to moralize - for or against - then there is about the earthquake in Chios.”

    Sophia Perovskaya, Andrei Zhelyabov, Nikolai Kibalchich, Nikolai Rysakov, Gesia Gelfman and Timofei Mikhailov were all sentenced to death. Gelfman announced she was four months pregnant and it was decided to postpone her execution. Perovskaya, as a member of the high nobility, she could appeal against her sentence, however, she refused to do this. It was claimed that Rysakov had gone insane during interrogation. Kibalchich also showed signs that he was mentally unbalanced and talked constantly about a flying machine he had invented.

    On 3rd April 1881, Zhelyabov, Perovskaya, Kibalchich, Rysakov and Mikhailov were given tea and handed their black execution clothes. A placard was hung round their necks with the word “Tsaricide” on it. Cathy Porter, the author of Fathers and Daughters: Russian Women in Revolution (1976), has pointed out: “Then the party set off. It was headed by the police carriage, followed by Zhelyabov and Rysakov. Sophia sat with Kibalchich and Mikhailov in the third tumbril. A pale wintry sun shone as the party moved slowly through the streets, already crowded with onlookers, most of them waving and shouting encouragement. High government officials and those wealthy enough to afford the tickets were sitting near to the scaffold that had been erected on Semenovsky Square. The irreplaceable Frolov, Russia’s one and only executioner, fiddled drunkenly with the nooses, and Sophia and Zhelyabov were able to say a few last words to one another. The square was surrounded by twelve thousand troops and muffled drum beats sounded. Sophia and Zhelyabov kissed for the last time, then Mikhailov and Kibalchich kissed Sophia. Kibalchich was led to the gallows and hanged. Then it was Mikhailov’s turn. Frolov was by now barely able to see straight and the rope broke three times under Mikhailov’s weight.” It was now Perovskaya’s turn. “It’s too tight” she told him as he struggled to tie the noose. She died straight away but Zhelyabov, whose noose had not been tight enough, died in agony.

    Gesia Gelfman remained in prison. According to her friend, Olga Liubatovich: “Gesia languished under the threat of execution for five months; finally her sentence was commuted, just before she was to deliver. At the hands of the authorities, the terrible act of childbirth became a case of torture unprecedented in human history. For the delivery, they transferred her to the House of Detention. The torments suffered by poor Gesia Gelfman exceeded those dreamed up by the executioners of the Middle Ages; but Gesia didn’t go mad - her constitution was too strong. The child was born live, and she was even able to nurse it.” Soon after she gave birth her daughter was taken from her. Gelfman died five days later on 12th October, 1882.

    Anna Yakimova, who was also pregnant, probably by Grigory Isaev, managed to escape to Kiev. She was soon arrested and she was tried alongside Isaev, Mikhail Frolenko, Tatiana Lebedeva and sixteen other party members. Although they were all found guilty, because of the international protests by Victor Hugo and other well-known figures, they were not sentenced to death. Instead they were sent to Trubetskov Dungeon. As Cathy Porter has pointed out: “Those sentenced in the Trial of the 20 were sent to the Trubetskov Dungeon, one of the most horrible of Russian prisons. Few survived the ordeal; torture and rape were everyday occurrences in the dungeons, through whose soundproofed walls little information reached the outside world.... After a year in Trubetskoy, during which most of the prisoners had died or committed suicide.”

    Vera Figner was the one remaining leader of the People’s Will who initially escaped capture. She claimed that the “harvest was plentiful, the reapers were few”. She tried to recruit “reapers” but with little success. Geoffrey Hosking, the author of A History of the Soviet Union (1985), wrote that ultimately the efforts of the People Will ended in failure: "In 1881 it actually succeeded in assassinating the Emperor Alexander II. But setting up a different regime, or even putting effective pressure on Alexander’s successor - that proved beyond their capacities. Their victory was a pyrrhic one: all it produced was more determined repression.

    Vera Figner was arrested on 10th February 1883. Tsar Alexander III commented, “Thank God that terrible woman has been caught.” The year she spent in pretrial imprisonment in the Peter and Paul Fortress was spent learning English and writing her memoirs. She was interrogated by Vyacheslav Plehve, Director of the Police Department and Dmitry Tolstoy, the Minister of the Interior. Tolstoy told her: “What a pity there is so little time or I would have been able to convince you of the uselessness of terror.” She replied “I am sorry sorry too. I expect I would have been able to turn you into a narodovolnik.”

    Figner’s trial began on 28th September, 1884. She was found guilty and sentenced to death. However, it was commuted at the last moment to life imprisonment in the Schlusselberg Fortress. According to one source the “solitary confinement and semi-starvation in airless unheated cells was the nearest conceivable approximation of death.” Figner wrote that: “The strain under which I had been living during my years of freedom, which had before been subdued and repressed, now left me; there was no task for my will, and the human being woke within me.”

    Figner was released in 1904 and joined the Socialist Revolutionaries but left after discovering that Evno Azef had been working as a double agent. Figner welcomed the Russian Revolution in 1917 and for a short time worked for the People’s Commissariat for Social Security under Alexandra Kollontai. She also joined the Writers’ Union when it was formed in 1924.

    In 1927 she published an autobiography, Memoirs of a Revolutionary. By this time she was highly critical of Joseph Stalin and Victor Serge later revealed that Figner was closely watched by the Communist Secret Police and for many years was in danger of being arrested.

    Vera Figner died in Moscow, aged 89, on 15th June, 1942.

    Vera Figner in 1927

    By John Simkin (john@spartacus-educational.com) © September 1997 (updated January 2020).

    ▲ Main Article ▲
    Primary Sources
    (1) In her memoirs Vera Figner explained why she became a revolutionary.
    There is poverty in the world; there is ignorance and disease. People who are educated and - like me - born to well-to-do families ought to share my natural desire to assist the poor. Under the influence of my mother and my uncle, as well as the journal articles I read, I made up a social program for myself; some day I was going to help peasants in Russia buy horses, or build new huts after their old ones had burnt down; as a doctor I hoped to cure people suffering from tuberculosis and typhoid, to perform operations and give advice on medicine and hygiene; and as a zemstvo activist I planned to set up schools, spread literacy, and provide grain elevators to help peasants save money.

    (2) In her memoirs Vera Figner explained how her political views developed while she was living in Geneva.
    Our circle in Zurich had arrived at the conviction that it was necessary to assume a position identical to that of people in order to earn their trust and conduct propaganda among them successfully. You had to “take to plain living” - to engage in physical labour, to drink, eat, and dress as the people did, renouncing all the habits and needs of the cultural classes. This was the only way to become close to the people and to get a response to propaganda; furthermore, only manual labour was pure and holy, only by surrendering yourself to it completely could you avoid being an exploiter.

    (3) In October, 1879, Vera Figner joined the People’s Will.
    I was invited to become an agent of the Executive Committee of the People’s Will. I agreed. My past experience had convinced me that the only way to change the existing order was by force. If any group in our society had shown me a path other than violence, perhaps I would have followed it; at the very least, I would have tried it out. But, as you know, we don’t have a free press in our country, and no ideas cannot be spread by the written word. And so I concluded that violence was the only solution. I could not follow the peaceful path.

    (4) Members of the People’s Will were constantly being arrested by the Okhrana. Although leader of the group, Vera Figner managed to avoid capture for many years.
    Occasionally, they stumbled on the trial of people who actually had been involved in the Moscow Organization’s work; in other instances, however, they contrived to tie in people who were not implicated at all. That’s how the “Trial of the Fifty” came about. It included eleven of the women who had studied in Zurich; a twelfth, Keminskaia, was not brought to trial, ostensibly because she became mentally disturbed during her preliminary detention. There was a rumour that the quiet melancholia from which she suffered would not have saved her from trial if her father hadn’t given the police 5,000 rubles. After her comrades were sentenced. Kaminskaia’s thwarted desire to share their fate led her to poison herself by swallowing matches.

    (5) Vera Figner was involved in the planning of the assassination of Alexander II.
    Everything was peaceful as I walked through the streets. But half an hour after I reached the apartment of some friends, a man appeared with the news that two crashes like cannon shots had rung out, that people were saying the sovereign had been killed, and that the oath was already being administered to the heir. I rushed outside. The streets were in turmoil: people were talking about the sovereign, about wounds, death, blood.

    On March 3, Kibalchich came to our apartment with the news that Gesia Gelfman’s apartment had been discovered, that she’d been arrested and Sabin had shot himself. Within two weeks, we lost Perovskaia, who was arrested on the street. Kibalchich and Frolenko were the next to go. Because of these heavy losses, the Committee proposed that most of us leave St. Petersburg myself included.

    (6) Victor Serge worked with Vera Figner in 1929 when he had the task of translating her memoirs into French. Serge revealed in his autobiography, Memoirs of a Revolutionary, that in her final years Figner came close to being arrested by the Soviet Secret Police.
    I was translating her memoirs, and she overwhelmed me with corrections framed in her fastidious tones. She was, at 77 years of age, a tiny old woman, wrapped in a shawl against the cold, her features still regular and preserving the impression of a classical beauty, a perfect intellectual clarity and a flawless nobility of soul. Doubtless she looked upon herself proudly as the living symbol of the revolutionary generations of the past, generations of purity and sacrifice.

    As a member of the Central Committee of the Narodnaya Volya (People’s Will Party) from 1879 to 1883, Vera Figner was responsible, together with her comrades, for the decision to take to terrorism as a last resort; she took part in organizing ten or so attempts against Tsar Alexander II, arranged the last and successful attack on 1st March 1881, and kept the Party’s activity going for nearly two years after the arrest and hanging of the other leaders.

    After this this she spent twenty years in the prison-fortress of Schlusselburg, and six years in Siberia. From all these struggles she emerged frail, hard and upright, as exacting towards herself as she was to others. In 1931, her great age and quite exceptional moral standing saved her from imprisonment, although she did not conceal her outbursts of rebellion. She died at liberty, though under surveillance, in 1942.

    (7) Cathy Porter, Fathers and Daughters: Russian Women in Revolution (1976)
    Leaflets were passed round and soon prisoners were reading avidly in their cells about chemistry, crystallography and astronomy. Spiders and rats were welcomed into cells as specimens to be examined, and fungi, moss and mould revealed their biological secrets to this expanding group of students. Over many years the prisoners were gradually allowed to meet and discuss their studies more frequently, and a forge and a carpenter’s workshop were introduced into the prison. By 1902 Vera had thoroughly integrated herself into prison life; she was deeply moved by the fate of Chekhov’s Three Sisters, aimlessly wandering through life expecting salvation in Moscow, where their lives would inevitably be as fruitless as in the provinces. A year later, when she heard that as a result of her mother’s petitioning her sentence had been commuted to twenty years, she felt only pain at having to leave her old friends and comrades.

    Her prison experiences made it inevitable that Vera Figner would commit herself instinctively to the 1917 revolution, although painfully aware of the lag between her now-outmoded revolutionary consciousness and that of the Bolshevik Party. In the eighteen months between the People’s Will Party’s decision to kill the Tsar and the actual assassination, a period of failed attempts, innumerable arrests and growing police terror, women had become increasingly confident in their roles. And these eighteen months saw a very positive change in the men’s attitude to their indomitable women comrades. Without the kind of internal democracy that existed within the People’s Will Party, its members (at most five hundred of them) would not have been able to reject so thoroughly the contemporary sexual power relationships and the dominant values of the society around them.

    Vera Figner — Nacht über Rußland : Vera Figner : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
    https://archive.org/details/VeraFigner--NachtUbberRussland

    Alle reden wieder von Revolution. Ja es braucht eine Revolution. Wieder eine Revolution, doch ist die Aufgabe zu grandios. Die Revolution wird zu ungewöhnlich, und wir werden uns seriös dafür vorbereiten müssen. Was macht es für einen Sinn, wenn sich wieder die Unterdrückten an die Stelle der ehemaligen Unterdrücker setzen? Sie werden selber zu Raubtieren, und wahrscheinlich sogar schlimmeren [...]. Wir müssen heute anfangen mit seriöser Erziehungsarbeit an uns selber, und andere dazu einladen [...]. Wenn der Mensch endlich erkennt, daß der Mensch eine Hoheitliche Individualität besitzt, daß er einen enormen Wert hat, daß er ebenso frei ist wie jeder andere, erst dann vollzieht sich die letzte, schillernde und geistige Revolution und für immer werden die „rostigen Ketten“ abfallen.

    #femmes #révolution

  • La puissance féministe - Ou le désir de tout changer

    L’#Amérique_du_Sud est un des coeurs battants du féminisme contemporain. Des millions de #femmes y prennent la rue contre les #féminicides, les #violences qui frappent les minorités de race et de genre, les lois qui répriment l’#avortement et le développement #néo-extractiviste. Figure majeure du féminisme latino-américain, #Verónica_Gago réinscrit ces bouleversements dans l’émergence d’une internationale féministe et propose, avec La #puissance_féministe, un antidote à tous les discours de #culpabilité et de #victimisation. En se réappropriant l’arme classique de la #grève, en construisant un #féminisme_populaire, radical et inclusif, les mouvements sud-américains ont initié une véritable #révolution. C’est à partir de l’expérience de ces luttes que Gago reconceptualise la question du #travail_domestique et de la #reproduction_sociale, expose les limites du #populisme de gauche et dialogue avec Spinoza, Marx, Luxemburg ou Federici. Parce qu’il unit la verve politique du manifeste aux ambitions conceptuelles de la théorie, La puissance féministe est un livre majeur pour saisir la portée internationale du féminisme aujourd’hui.

    https://www.editionsdivergences.com/livre/la-puissance-feministe-ou-le-desir-de-tout-changer
    #féminisme #livre #changement #résistance #extractivisme #intersectionnalité #Amérique_latine

    ping @cede @karine4

  • Il y a 240 ans était démembré Pierre-Nicolas Chenaux, tragique héros fribourgeois Serge Kurschat, historien

    Le 4 mai 1781, Pierre-Nicolas Chenaux, qui avait levé une armée de 2500 hommes contre le patriciat fribourgeois, est assassiné, puis démembré. L’historien Serge Kurschat rappelle 240 ans plus tard son parcours, et l’influence qu’il a eue jusqu’au Brésil 

    C’est à La Tour-de-Trême, le 26 février 1740, que Pierre-Nicolas Chenaux voit le jour, lors d’un hiver particulièrement rigoureux. D’abord aide-major au régiment de Gruyères, il se tourne ensuite vers le commerce. Il se lance dans différents projets économiques : importation de céréales, fabrication et commerce de fromage, tannerie, investissements fonciers, prospection minière, commerce des mulets. Confronté à des circonstances très défavorables et victime de contextes climatiques, épidémiques ou familiaux néfastes, Chenaux, éternel malchanceux, voit ses affaires péricliter.

    La période 1773-1776 en Gruyère reste dans l’histoire cantonale comme celle de « l’affaire de bois de Sautaux ». Il s’agit d’un mouvement qui s’oppose aux autorités locales sur l’attribution de coupes de bois. Alors que le patriciat gère, selon ses propres intérêts, l’attribution de ces coupes, Chenaux et certains de ses concitoyens se refusent à obtempérer aux autorités patriciennes, en procédant sans leur autorisation à un prélèvement dans des coupes de bois. L’objet du litige est situé dans la forêt de Sautaux, au sud-ouest de Bulle.

    C’est ainsi que s’instaure une lutte entre le pouvoir central d’une oligarchie conquérante, qui souhaite se moderniser et devenir plus efficace, et les paysans d’un ancien monde composé d’anciennes règles, dénommées généralement « us et coutumes », auxquelles ils sont fortement attachés et qui font office de lois fondamentales nécessaires à leur survie.

    Une armée de 2500 hommes
    En 1781, Pierre-Nicolas Chenaux, à la tête d’une armée de 2500 hommes, fait une tentative infructueuse de soulèvement contre le patriciat de Fribourg afin de démocratiser la gestion urbaine, appelé « soulèvement Chenaux ». La ville, effrayée, appelle à l’aide Berne, qui envoie illico sa garde, avec cavalerie et artillerie. Les assiégeants sont mis en déroute et Chenaux se retrouve seul. Dans la nuit du 4 mai 1781, il est assassiné d’un coup de baïonnette par François-Nicolas-Henri Rossier, appâté par la promesse d’une importante récompense. Les autorités décident la décapitation et le démembrement du cadavre de Chenaux le 5 mai 1781, en application du Code pénal de l’époque, la terrible Lex Carolina, selon laquelle la mort n’éteint pas l’action judiciaire.

    La tête de Chenaux est exposée durant deux années et demie sur le toit de la tour de la porte de Romont

    Le bourreau Hans-Wilhelm Heini, ivre, doit s’y prendre à plusieurs reprises afin de partager en quatre le corps de Chenaux après en avoir séparé la tête à grands coups de hache. La tête de Chenaux est exposée durant deux années et demie sur le toit de la tour de la porte de Romont, le visage tourné vers son lieu natal. Le soir de l’exécution, les membres de la Chambre secrète (la structure qui est au pouvoir et que les gens ne connaissent pas forcément) dansent avec leurs dames devant cette tête ensanglantée. Toutefois, le peuple voue un culte à Pierre-Nicolas Chenaux et des litanies sont chantées en son honneur. Tant et si bien que l’évêque de Lausanne se voit contraint d’intervenir par un mandement qu’il publie en novembre 1781 afin de faire cesser ces processions et condamner cet hommage pieux rendu à Chenaux.

    Réhabilitation solennelle en 1848
    A la suite de l’insurrection de mai 1781, des troubles éclatent dans la ville de Fribourg, qui accentuent d’une part la lutte de la bourgeoisie commune de Fribourg contre le patriciat, d’autre part les dissensions à l’intérieur de la classe dirigeante. Chenaux voit son influence perdurer parmi les insurgés en fuite en France à travers la création du Club helvétique¹ et l’affaire des Gardes suisses des tuileries² le 10 août 1792. Ces insurgés se montrent plus agressifs que les révolutionnaires français par leur pugnacité, et plus particulièrement un caporal Joseph Chenaux, entré au service de France depuis 1784, tenant le rôle d’informateur lors du massacre des officiers patriciens.

    Il faut attendre juillet 1848 pour que le Grand Conseil réhabilite solennellement Chenaux, et, le 24 septembre 1933, un monument est enfin érigé face au château à Bulle. En 1942, la ville de Fribourg, baptise « Nicolas Chenaux » une rue du quartier Beauregard. Le 25 mars 1980 est donné, en première mondiale à Utrecht en Hollande, un opéra en trois actes intitulé Chenaux d’un compositeur et chef d’orchestre allemand, Richard Müller-Lampertz. La même année, un film et une pièce de théâtre célèbrent le bicentenaire de sa mort.

    Symbole de la liberté
    Aujourd’hui, sa postérité réside en grande partie au Brésil où de nombreux Fribourgeois ont émigré au début du XIXe siècle pour fonder la communauté de Nova Friburgo. La nouveauté de l’interprétation débarrassée des vieux poncifs et la diversité des sources nous incitent à nuancer l’importance du portrait psychologique de Chenaux, que l’historiographie a décrit, jusqu’à nos jours, comme un raté.

    A l’instar de nombreux entrepreneurs traversant la crise actuelle du covid, Chenaux, malgré les échecs, a toujours fait preuve d’audace en se réinventant et en réexaminant ses activités en vue de les diversifier. Ne dit-on pas qu’un esprit a besoin de son contraire pour savoir qui il est et ainsi prendre la pleine mesure de sa force de vie ? Aussi, en dépit de ses fautes et d’une vie menée tambour battant, Pierre-Nicolas Chenaux fut en quelque sorte un coryphée digne d’une tragédie grecque symbolisant encore, dans la mémoire populaire, la « liberté » faisant face à toutes les oppressions.

    1) Le Club helvétique de Paris appelé aussi Club des patriotes suisses, né à l’initiative des rescapés fribourgeois de 1781, s’est réuni à Paris du 6 juin 1790 au 3 août 1791. Ennemi juré du pouvoir aristo-patricien en place à Fribourg, ce club révolutionnaire s’est donné pour mission d’instituer un régime démocratique.

    2) Le 10 août 1792, Louis XVI et sa famille sont aux Tuileries, entourés par leurs gardes suisses. Le peuple va envahir le lieu. Avec le massacre d’un régiment de gardes suisses dans le palais des Tuileries, ce jour met brutalement fin à 13 siècles de monarchie en France.

    Source : https://www.letemps.ch/opinions/y-240-ans-etait-demembre-pierrenicolas-chenaux-tragique-heros-fribourgeois

    #patriciat #bourgeoisie #Fribourg #classe_dirigeante #Brésil #Nova_Friburgo #Club_helvétique_de_Paris #Lex_Carolina #Révolution_Française

  • Mexique : Bloque Negro, la révolution féministe - ARTE Reportage -
    https://www.arte.tv/fr/videos/101555-000-A/mexique-bloque-negro-la-revolution-feministe

    Encagoulées, vêtues de noir de la tête aux pieds, organisées en groupuscules, une nouvelle génération de #féministes lève le poing en faveur d’une reconnaissance des droits des femmes.

    Loin du modèle de la génération précédente, celui de ces mères de familles qui défilaient en silence, ces activistes anarchistes qui manifestent avec violence dans les capitales européennes se réclament de la mouvance des "Black Blocs". 

    A leurs yeux, l’homme est un prédateur, un danger ultime. Leur slogan : “Ni pardon, ni oubli” pour tous les agresseurs sexuels. La radicalisation du mouvement féministe tourne parfois au combat de rue dans tout le pays. En 2019, près de 4.000 Mexicaines ont été assassinées. Le féminicide a été reconnu seulement pour 976 cas. 99% des meurtres de femmes restent impunis.

    Il y a quelques mois, une partie de ce groupe d’activistes a pris d’assaut le siège de la Commission Nationale des Droits de l’Homme à Mexico. L’édifice public est devenu le QG de leur mouvement, mais aussi un refuge pour des femmes victimes d’agression, venues de tout le Mexique. Un lieu totalement interdit aux hommes et surprotégé.
    Exceptionnellement, les Bloque Negro ont accepté la présence de la caméra de Manon Heurtel, en immersion dans le quotidien de ces femmes meurtries et combattantes.

    #féminicides #niunamenos #femmes #féminisme

  • Les trois mousquetaires du spartakisme
    https://www.en-attendant-nadeau.fr/2021/05/12/mousquetaires-spartakisme-badia

    À travers Rosa Luxemburg et Karl Liebknecht, c’est surtout à l’histoire du mouvement révolutionnaire allemand que l’historien Gilbert Badia (1916-2004) aura consacré une grande partie de ses recherches. Ainsi ce récit minutieux sur le spartakisme et la révolution allemande, publié en 1967, que les éditions Otium viennent de rééditer en y adjoignant vingt-quatre documents qui le complètent fort utilement.

    #Rosa_Luxemburg #Karl_Liebknecht #spartakisme #révolution_allemande #Gilbert_Badia

  • The power of private philanthropy in international development

    In 1959, the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations pledged seven million US$ to establish the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) at Los Baños in the Philippines. They planted technologies originating in the US into the Philippines landscape, along with new institutions, infrastructures, and attitudes. Yet this intervention was far from unique, nor was it spectacular relative to other philanthropic ‘missions’ from the 20th century.

    How did philanthropic foundations come to wield such influence over how we think about and do development, despite being so far removed from the poor and their poverty in the Global South?

    In a recent paper published in the journal Economy and Society, we suggest that metaphors – bridge, leapfrog, platform, satellite, interdigitate – are useful for thinking about the machinations of philanthropic foundations. In the Philippines, for example, the Ford and Rockefeller foundations were trying to bridge what they saw as a developmental lag. In endowing new scientific institutions such as IRRI that juxtaposed spaces of modernity and underdevelopment, they saw themselves bringing so-called third world countries into present–day modernity from elsewhere by leapfrogging historical time. In so doing, they purposively bypassed actors that might otherwise have been central: such as post–colonial governments, trade unions, and peasantry, along with their respective interests and demands, while providing platforms for other – preferred – ideas, institutions, and interests to dominate.

    We offer examples, below, from three developmental epochs.

    Scientific development (1940s – 70s)

    From the 1920s, the ‘big three’ US foundations (Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie) moved away from traditional notions of charity towards a more systematic approach to grant-making that involved diagnosing and attacking the ‘root causes’ of poverty. These foundations went on to prescribe the transfer of models of science and development that had evolved within a US context – but were nevertheless considered universally applicable – to solve problems in diverse and distant lands. In public health, for example, ‘success against hookworm in the United States helped inspire the belief that such programs could be replicated in other parts of the world, and were indeed expanded to include malaria and yellow fever, among others’. Similarly, the Tennessee Valley Authority’s model of river–basin integrated regional development was replicated in India, Laos, Vietnam, Egypt, Lebanon, Tanzania, and Brazil.

    The chosen strategy of institutional replication can be understood as the development of satellites––as new scientific institutions invested with a distinct local/regional identity remained, nonetheless, within the orbit of the ‘metropolis’. US foundations’ preference for satellite creation was exemplified by the ‘Green Revolution’—an ambitious programme of agricultural modernization in South and Southeast Asia spearheaded by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations and implemented through international institutions for whom IRRI was the template.

    Such large-scale funding was justified as essential in the fight against communism.

    The Green Revolution offered a technocratic solution to the problem of food shortage in South and Southeast Asia—the frontier of the Cold War. Meanwhile, for developmentalist regimes that, in the Philippines as elsewhere, had superseded post-independence socialist governments, these programmes provided a welcome diversion from redistributive politics. In this context, institutions like IRRI and their ‘miracle seeds’ were showcased as investments in and symbols of modernity and development. Meanwhile, an increasingly transnational agribusiness sector expanded into new markets for seeds, agrichemicals, machinery, and, ultimately, land.

    The turn to partnerships (1970s – 2000s)

    By the 1970s, the era of large–scale investment in technical assistance to developing country governments and public bureaucracies was coming to an end. The Ford Foundation led the way in pioneering a new approach through its population programmes in South Asia. This new ‘partnership’ mode of intervention was a more arms-length form of satellite creation which emphasised the value of local experience. Rather than obstacles to progress, local communities were reimagined as ‘potential reservoirs of entrepreneurship’ that could be mobilized for economic development.

    In Bangladesh, for example, the Ford Foundation partnered with NGOs such as the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC) and Concerned Women for Family Planning (CWFP) to mainstream ‘economic empowerment’ programmes that co-opted local NGOs into service provision to citizens-as-consumers. This approach was epitomised by the rise of microfinance, which merged women’s empowerment with hard-headed pragmatism that saw women as reliable borrowers and opened up new areas of social life to marketization.

    By the late-1990s private sector actors had begun to overshadow civil society organizations in the constitution of development partnerships, where state intervention was necessary to support the market if it was to deliver desirable outcomes. Foundations’ efforts were redirected towards brokering increasingly complex public-private partnerships (PPPs). This mode of philanthropy was exemplified by the Rockefeller Foundation’s role in establishing product development partnerships as the institutional blueprint for global vaccine development. Through a combination of interdigitating (embedding itself in the partnership) and platforming (ensuring its preferred model became the global standard), it enabled the Foundation to continue to wield ‘influence in the health sphere, despite its relative decline in assets’.

    Philanthrocapitalism (2000s – present)

    In the lead up to the 2015 UN Conference at which the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were agreed, a consensus formed that private development financing was both desirable and necessary if the ‘trillions’ needed to close the ‘financing gap’ were to be found. For DAC donor countries, the privatization of aid was a way to maintain commitments while implementing economic austerity at home in the wake of the global finance crisis. Philanthrocapitalism emerged to transform philanthropic giving into a ‘profit–oriented investment process’, as grant-making gave way to impact investing.

    The idea of impact investing was hardly new, however. The term had been coined as far back as 2007 at a meeting hosted by the Rockefeller Foundation at its Bellagio Centre. Since then, the mainstreaming of impact investing has occurred in stages, beginning with the aforementioned normalisation of PPPs along with their close relative, blended finance. These strategies served as transit platforms for the formation of networks shaped by financial logics. The final step came with the shift from blended finance as a strategy to impact investing ‘as an asset class’.

    A foundation that embodies the 21st c. transition to philanthrocapitalism is the Omidyar Network, created by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar in 2004. The Network is structured both as a non–profit organization and for–profit venture that ‘invests in entities with a broad social mission’. It has successfully interdigitated with ODA agencies to further align development financing with the financial sector. In 2013, for example, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and UK’s Department for International Development (DFID) launched Global Development Innovation Ventures (GDIV), ‘a global investment platform, with Omidyar Network as a founding member’.

    Conclusion

    US foundations have achieved their power by forging development technoscapes centred in purportedly scale–neutral technologies and techniques – from vaccines to ‘miracle seeds’ to management’s ‘one best way’. They have become increasingly sophisticated in their development of ideational and institutional platforms from which to influence, not only how their assets are deployed, but how, when and where public funds are channelled and towards what ends. This is accompanied by strategies for creating dense, interdigitate connections between key actors and imaginaries of the respective epoch. In the process, foundations have been able to influence debates about development financing itself; presenting its own ‘success stories’ as evidence for preferred financing mechanisms, allocating respective roles of public and private sector actors, and representing the most cost–effective way to resource development.

    Whether US foundations maintain their hegemony or are eclipsed by models of elite philanthropy in East Asia and Latin America, remains to be seen. Indications are that emerging philanthropists in these regions may be well placed to leapfrog over transitioning philanthropic sectors in Western countries by ‘aligning their philanthropic giving with the new financialized paradigm’ from the outset.

    Using ‘simple’ metaphors, we have explored their potential and power to map, analyse, theorize, and interpret philanthropic organizations’ disproportionate influence in development. These provide us with a conceptual language that connects with earlier and emergent critiques of philanthropy working both within and somehow above the ‘field’ of development. Use of metaphors in this way is revealing not just of developmental inclusions but also its exclusions: ideascast aside, routes not pursued, and actors excluded.

    https://developingeconomics.org/2021/05/10/the-power-of-private-philanthropy-in-international-development

    #philanthropie #philanthrocapitalisme #développement #coopération_au_développement #aide_au_développement #privatisation #influence #Ford #Rockefeller #Carnegie #soft_power #charité #root_causes #causes_profondes #pauvreté #science #tranfert #technologie #ressources_pédagogiques #réplique #modernisation #fondations #guerre_froide #green_revolution #révolution_verte #développementalisme #modernité #industrie_agro-alimentaire #partnerships #micro-finance #entrepreneuriat #entreprenariat #partenariat_public-privé (#PPP) #privatisation_de_l'aide #histoire #Omidyar_Network #Pierre_Omidyar

  • Karl Liebknecht - Was will der Spartakusbund?
    http://www.mlwerke.de/kl/kl_005.htm

    Rede in einer Versammlung in der Hasenheide in Berlin, 23. Dezember 1918

    Wir müssen uns in diesem Augenblick vor allem völlige Klarheit über die Ziele unserer Politik verschaffen. Wir bedürfen eines genauen Einblickes in den Gang der Revolution; wir haben zu erkennen, was sie bisher gewesen ist, um zu begreifen, worin ihre zukünftige Aufgabe bestehen wird.

    Bis jetzt ist die deutsche Revolution nichts anderes gewesen als ein Versuch zur Überwindung des Krieges und seiner Folgen. Ihr erster Schritt war daher der Abschluß eines Waffenstillstandes mit den feindlichen Mächten und der Sturz der Führer des alten Systems. Die nächste Aufgabe aller entschiedenen Revolutionäre besteht darin, diese Errungenschaften aufrechtzuerhalten und sie zu erweitern.

    Wir sehen, daß der Waffenstillstand, über den die gegenwärtige Regierung mit den feindlichen Mächten verhandelt, von diesen zur Erdrosselung Deutschlands benutzt wird. Das aber ist mit den Zielen des Proletariats unvereinbar; denn eine solche Erdrosselung würde weder mit dem Ideal eines dauernden noch eines menschenwürdigen Friedens übereinstimmen.

    Nicht ein Friede des Augenblicks, nicht ein Friede der Gewalt, sondern ein Friede der Dauer und des Rechts, das ist das Ziel des deutschen wie des internationalen Proletariats. Aber es ist nicht das Ziel der gegenwärtigen Regierung, die, ihrem ganzen Wesen entsprechend, mit den imperialistischen Regierungen der Entente lediglich einen Frieden des Augenblicks zu schließen vermag; und zwar deshalb, weil sie es verabsäumt, an die Fundamente des Kapitals zu rühren.

    Solange der Kapitalismus besteht, sind - das wissen alle Sozialisten sehr wohl - Kriege unvermeidlich. Welche Ursachen sind es gewesen, die zum Weltkriege getrieben haben? Die Herrschaft des Kapitalismus bedeutet die Ausbeutung des Proletariats; sie bedeutet eine ständige und ungehemmte Ausdehnung des Kapitalismus auf dem Weltmarkt. Hier stoßen in scharfem Kontrast die kapitalistischen Mächte der verschiedenen nationalen Gruppen zusammen. Und dieser wirtschaftliche Zusammenstoß führt mit Notwendigkeit zuletzt zu einem Zusammenstoß der politischen und militärischen Waffen - zum Kriege. Man will uns jetzt mit der Idee des Völkerbundes zu beruhigen suchen, der einen dauernden Frieden zwischen den verschiedenen Staaten herbeiführen soll. Als Sozialisten sind wir uns völlig klar darüber, daß ein solcher Völkerbund nichts anderes ist als ein Bündnis der herrschenden Klassen der verschiedenen Staaten untereinander - ein Bündnis, das seinen kapitalistischen Charakter nicht verleugnen kann, gegen das internationale Proletariat gerichtet ist und einen dauernden Frieden nie zu garantieren vermag.

    Die Konkurrenz, das Wesen der kapitalistischen Produktion, bedeutet für uns Sozialisten Brudermord; wir aber fordern im Gegensatz dazu die internationale Gemeinsamkeit der Menschen. Nur der Wille des Proletariats ist auf einen dauernden und menschenwürdigen Frieden gerichtet; nie und nimmer kann der Imperialismus der Entente dem deutschen Proletariat diesen Frieden geben; ihn wird es von seinen Arbeitsbrüdern in Frankreich, Amerika und Italien erhalten. Den Weltkrieg durch einen dauernden und menschenwürdigen Frieden abzuschließen, das also allein vermag die Tatbereitschaft des internationalen Proletariats. So lehrt es uns unsere sozialistische Grundauffassung.

    Jetzt, nach diesem ungeheuren Morden, gilt es fürwahr ein Werk aus einem einzigen Guß zu schaffen. Die ganze Menschheit ist in den glühenden Schmelztiegel des Weltkrieges geworfen worden. Das Proletariat hält den Hammer in der Hand, um daraus eine neue Welt zu formen.

    Nicht nur unter dem Kriege und seiner Verwüstung leidet das Proletariat, sondern im Prinzip an der kapitalistischen Gesellschaftsordnung, der wahren Ursache dieses Krieges. Die kapitalistische Gesellschaftsordnung zu beseitigen, das ist die einzige Rettung des Proletariats aus dem dunklen Verhängnis seines Schicksals.

    Wie aber kann dieses Ziel erreicht werden ? Zur Beantwortung dieser Frage ist es nötig, sich völlig klar darüber zu sein, daß nur das Proletariat selbst in eigener Tat sich aus seiner Knechtschaft erlösen kann. Man hat uns gesagt: Die Nationalversammlung ist der Weg zur Freiheit. Die Nationalversammlung bedeutet aber nichts anderes als eine formelle politische Demokratie. Sie bedeutet durchaus nicht diejenige Demokratie, die der Sozialismus stets gefordert hat. Der Wahlzettel ist sicherlich nicht der Hebel, mit dem die Macht der kapitalistischen Gesellschaftsordnung aus den Fugen gehoben werden kann. Wir wissen, daß eine Reihe von Staaten diese formale Demokratie der Nationalversammlung seit langem besitzt, Frankreich, Amerika, Schweiz. Aber gleichwohl herrscht auch in diesen Demokratien das Kapital.

    Es ist keine Frage, daß sich bei den Wahlen zur Nationalversammlung der Einfluß des Kapitals, seine wirtschaftlich organisierte Überlegenheit in höchstem Maße geltend machen wird. Große Massen der Bevölkerung werden sich unter dem Druck und Einfluß dieser Überlegenheit in Gegensatz zu sich selbst, in Gegensatz zu ihren eigenen und wahren Interessen setzen und ihre Stimmen ihren Feinden geben. Schon aus diesem Grunde wird die Nationalversammlung niemals ein Sieg des sozialistischen Willens sein. Es ist völlig verkehrt, zu glauben, daß in der formalen Demokratie des Parlaments die sichere Voraussetzung und Bedingung für die Verwirklichung des Sozialismus gegeben sei. Vielmehr ist gerade umgekehrt erst der verwirklichte Sozialismus die grundlegende Voraussetzung für eine wahre Demokratie. Das revolutionäre deutsche Proletariat kann von einer Wiedergeburt des alten Reichstages in der neuen Form der Nationalversammlung nichts für seine Ziele erwarten; denn diese Nationalversammlung wird den gleichen Charakter tragen wie die alte »Schwatzbude« am Königsplatz. Wir werden in ihr sicherlich alle die alten Herrschaften wiederfinden, die dort vor dem Kriege und während des Krieges die Geschicke des deutschen Volkes in so verhängnisvoller Weise zu bestimmen suchten. Und wahrscheinlich ist es auch, daß die bürgerlichen Parteien in dieser Nationalversammlung die Mehrheit haben werden. Aber selbst, wenn das nicht der Fall sein sollte, wenn die Nationalversammlung mit einer sozialistischen Mehrheit die Sozialisierung der deutschen Wirtschaft beschließen sollte, so wird ein solcher parlamentarischer Beschluß ein papiernes Dekret bleiben und an dem energischsten Widerstand der Kapitalisten scheitern. Nicht im Parlament, nicht mit seinen Methoden kann der Sozialismus verwirklicht werden; hier ist einzig und allein der außerparlamentarische, revolutionäre Kampf des Proletariats entscheidend. Nur durch ihn ist das Proletariat imstande, die Gesellschaft nach seinem Willen zu formen.

    Die kapitalistische Gesellschaft ist ihrem Wesen nach nichts anderes als die mehr oder minder verhüllte Herrschaft der Gewalt. Ihre Absicht geht jetzt dahin, zu den gesetzlichen Zuständen der früheren »Ordnung« zurückzukehren und die Revolution, die das Proletariat gemacht hat, als einen ungesetzlichen Vorgang, gleichsam als ein geschichtliches Mißverhältnis zu diskreditieren und zu beseitigen. Aber nicht umsonst hat das Proletariat die schwersten Opfer in dem blutigen Kriege gebracht; wir, die Vorkämpfer der Revolution, werden uns nicht von unserem Platz verdrängen lassen. Wir bleiben so lange am Leben, bis wir die Macht des Sozialismus fundiert haben.

    Die politische Macht, die sich das Proletariat am 9. November erobert hat, ist ihm zum Teil schon wieder entrissen worden; entrissen worden ist ihm vor allen Dingen die Macht, die entscheidenden Stellen in der Staatsverwaltung durch die Männer seines Vertrauens zu besetzen. Auch der Militarismus, gegen dessen Herrschaft wir uns erhoben, ist noch am Leben. Wir kennen sehr wohl die Ursachen, die dazu geführt haben, das Proletariat aus seinen Positionen zu verdrängen. Wir wissen, daß die Soldatenräte zu Beginn der revolutionären Entwicklung die Situation nicht immer klar gesehen haben. Es haben sich in ihre Reihe zahlreiche schlaue Rechner eingeschlichen, Konjunkturrevolutionäre, Feiglinge, die nach dem Niederbruch der alten Macht sich an die neue anschlossen, um hier ihre bedrohte Existenz zu salvieren. In zahlreichen Fällen übergaben die Soldatenräte solchen Leuten verantwortungsvolle Stellungen und machten dadurch den Bock zum Gärtner. Andererseits hat die gegenwärtige Regierung die alte Kommandogewalt wiederhergestellt und auf diese Weise den Offizieren die Macht zurückgegeben.

    Wenn jetzt allenthalben in Deutschland ein chaotisches Durcheinander herrscht, so trägt die Verantwortung dafür nicht die Revolution, die die Macht der herrschenden Klassen zu beseitigen suchte, sondern diese herrschenden Klassen selbst und der Brand des Krieges, der von den herrschenden Klassen entzündet worden ist. »Ordnung und Ruhe muß herrschen&rlquo;, so ruft uns die Bourgeoisie zu, und sie meint damit, daß das Proletariat vor ihr kapitulieren solle, um diese Ordnung und Ruhe wiederherzustellen; daß das Proletariat seine Macht in die Hände derjenigen zurückgeben solle, die jetzt unter der Maske der Revolution die Gegenrevolution vorbereiten. Gewiß, eine revolutionäre Bewegung läßt sich nicht auf glattem Parkettboden durchführen; es setzt Splitter und Späne in dem Kampfe um eine neue und höhere Ordnung der Gesellschaft und einen dauernden Frieden der Menschheit.

    Dadurch, daß die Regierung den alten Generälen und Offizieren die Kommandogewalt zu dem Zwecke der Demobilisation der Armee zurückgegeben hat, hat sie die Demobilisation erschwert und zerrüttet. Sicherlich hätte sich die Demobilisation weit ruhiger und ordnungsmäßiger gestaltet, wenn sie der freien Disziplin der Soldaten überlassen worden wäre. Dagegen haben die Generäle, mit der Autorität der Volksregierung ausgerüstet, auf alle Weise versucht, die Soldaten mit Haß gegen die Regierung zu erfüllen. Sie haben die Soldatenräte eigenmächtig abgesetzt, sie haben schon in den ersten Tagen der Revolution das Tragen von roten Fahnen verboten und die roten Fahnen von öffentlichen Gebäuden herunterreißen lassen. Alle diese Vorgänge kommen auf das Schuldkonto der Regierung, die, um die »Ordnung« der Bourgeoisie aufrechtzuerhalten, in Wahrheit die Revolution erstickt, wenn es sein muß, in Blut.

    Und da wagt man, uns anzuklagen, daß wir es seien, die den Terror, den Bürgerkrieg und das Blutvergießen wollen; da wagt man, uns zuzumuten, wir sollten auf unsere revolutionäre Aufgabe verzichten, damit die Ordnung unserer Gegner wiederaufgerichtet werde! Nicht wir sind es, die Blutvergießen wollen. Aber sicher ist es, daß die Reaktion, sobald sie die Macht dazu hat, sich keinen Augenblick besinnen wird, die Revolution im Blut zu ersticken. Erinnern wir uns doch ihrer grausamen und niederträchtigen Schandtaten, mit denen sie sich noch vor wenigen Wochen und Monaten besudelte. In der Ukraine hat sie Henkersarbeit verrichtet, in Finnland hat sie Tausende von Arbeitern gemordet - das sind die Blutspuren an den Händen des deutschen Imperialismus, dessen Wortführer uns revolutionäre Sozialisten jetzt der Propaganda des Terrors und des Bürgerkrieges in ihrer lügenhaften Presse verdächtigen.

    Nein! Wir wollen, daß sich der Umbau der Gesellschaft und der Wirtschaft ohne Unordnung und in aller Friedlichkeit vollziehe. Und wenn Unordnung und Bürgerkrieg entstehen sollten, so werden einzig und allein diejenigen die Schuld tragen, die ihre Herrschaft und ihren Profit stets mit Waffengewalt befestigt und erweitert haben und die auch jetzt wieder versuchen, das Proletariat unter ihr Joch zu beugen.

    Also nicht zur Gewalt und nicht zum Blutvergießen rufen wir das Proletariat auf; aber wir rufen es auf zu revolutionärer Tatbereitschaft und zur Entfaltung all seiner Energie, auf daß es den Neubau der Welt in seine Hände nehme. Wir rufen die Massen der Soldaten und Proletarier dazu auf, an dem Ausbau der Soldaten- und Arbeiterräte tatkräftig fortzuwirken. Wir rufen sie dazu auf, die herrschenden Klassen zu entwaffnen, sich selbst aber zu bewaffnen zum Schutze der Revolution und zur Sicherung des Sozialismus. Das allein gibt uns die Gewähr für die Erhaltung und für den Ausbau der Revolution im Sinne der unterdrückten Volksklassen. Das revolutionäre Proletariat darf keinen Augenblick mehr zögern, die bürgerlichen Elemente aus allen ihren politischen und sozialen Machtstellungen zu entfernen; es muß die ganze Macht selbst in seine Hände nehmen. Gewiß, wir werden zur Durchführung der Sozialisierung des Wirtschaftslebens die Mitwirkung auch der bürgerlichen Intelligenz, der Fachmänner, der Ingenieure brauchen; aber sie werden unter Kontrolle des Proletariats ihre Arbeit verrichten.

    Von allen diesen dringendsten Aufgaben der Revolution hat die gegenwärtige Regierung noch nicht eine einzige in Angriff genommen. Dagegen hat sie alles getan, um die Revolution zurückzubremsen. Jetzt hören wir, daß unter ihrer Mitwirkung draußen auf dem Lande Bauernräte gewählt werden, Räte derjenigen Bevölkerungsschicht, die stets zu den rückständigsten und erbittertsten Feinden des Proletariats gehört hat und die bis auf den heutigen Tag der heftigste Feind des ländlichen Proletariats geblieben ist. All diesen Machenschaften müssen die Revolutionäre fest und entschlossen entgegentreten. Sie müssen von ihrer Macht Gebrauch machen und vor allem mit der Sozialisierung energisch und sicher beginnen.

    Der erste Schritt wird darin bestehen, daß die Waffenlager und die gesamte Rüstungsindustrie vom Proletariat mit Beschlag belegt werden. Dann müssen die industriellen und landwirtschaftlichen Großbetriebe in den Besitz der Gesellschaft überführt werden. Es kann kein Zweifel bestehen, daß sich diese sozialistische Umschaltung der Produktion bei der hohen und stark zentralisierten Form dieser Wirtschaftsgebilde in Deutschland verhältnismäßig leicht und schnell vollziehen läßt. Wir besitzen ferner ein bereits hochentwickeltes Genossenschaftswesen, an dem vor allem auch der Mittelstand interessiert ist. Auch dies ist ein geeignetes Mittel zu einer wirksamen Durchführung des Sozialismus.

    Wir sind uns völlig klar darüber, daß es sich bei dieser Sozialisierung um einen langen und großen Prozeß handelt. Wir verhehlen uns keineswegs die Schwierigkeiten, die dieser Aufgabe entgegenstehen, zumal in der gefährlichen Situation, in der sich unser Volk jetzt befindet. Aber glaubt jemand allen Ernstes, daß sich die Menschen den geeigneten Zeitpunkt für eine Revolution und für die Verwirklichung des Sozialismus nach ihrem Gutdünken und Belieben auszusuchen vermögen? So ist der Gang der Weltgeschichte wahrlich nicht! Jetzt geht es nicht an zu erklären: Für heute und morgen paßt uns die sozialistische Revolution nicht in unseren sorgfältig ausgerechneten Plan; aber übermorgen, wenn wir besser dazu vorbereitet sind, wenn wir wieder Brot und Rohstoffe haben und unsere kapitalistische Produktionsweise sich wieder in vollem Gang befindet, dann wollen wir über die Sozialisierung der Gesellschaft mit uns reden lassen. Nein, das ist eine grundfalsche und lächerliche Auffassung von dem Wesen der geschichtlichen Entwicklung. Man kann sich weder den geeignet erscheinenden Zeitpunkt für eine Revolution aussuchen noch die Revolution nach eigenem Ermessen vertagen. Denn was sind Revolutionen ihrem Wesen nach anderes als große und elementare gesellschaftliche Krisen, deren Ausbruch und Entfaltung nicht von dem Willen einzelner abhängt und die sich, über die Köpfe einzelner hinweg, gleich gewaltigen Gewittern entladen ! Schon Karl Marx hat uns gelehrt, daß die soziale Revolution in eine Krise des Kapitalismus fallen muß. Nun wohl, dieser Krieg ist nichts anderes als eine solche Krise; und darum hat jetzt, wenn irgendwann, die Stunde des Sozialismus geschlagen.

    Am Vorabend der Revolution, in jener Nacht vom Freitag zum Samstag, da hatten die Führer der sozialdemokratischen Parteien noch keine Ahnung, daß die Revolution schon vor der Tür stand. Sie wollten nicht daran glauben, daß die revolutionäre Gärung in den Massen der Soldaten und Arbeiter bereits so weit fortgeschritten sei. Als sie aber dann erfuhren, daß die große Schlacht bereits begonnen habe, da liefen sie alle eilig herbei, weil sie sonst hätten befürchten müssen, daß die gewaltige Bewegung über sie hinwegfluten werde.

    Der entscheidende Augenblick ist gekommen. Töricht und schwächlich sind alle diejenigen, denen er als ungeeignet erscheint und die darüber jammern, daß er gerade jetzt erschienen ist. Auf unsere Tatbereitschaft, auf unseren revolutionären Ernst und Willen kommt es jetzt an. Die große Aufgabe, auf die wir uns so lange vorbereitet haben, drängt der Lösung entgegen. Die Revolution ist da. Sie muß sein! Es handelt sich nicht mehr darum ob, sondern nur noch wie! Die Frage ist gestellt; und aus der Schwierigkeit der Situation, in der wir uns befinden, darf nicht der Schluß gezogen werden, daß jetzt keine Revolution sein solle.

    Ich wiederhole, daß wir diese Schwierigkeit nicht verkennen. Vor allem sind wir uns jener Schwierigkeit bewußt, die darin besteht, daß das deutsche Volk noch keine revolutionäre Erfahrung und Überlieferung besitzt. Andererseits ist aber gerade dem deutschen Proletariat die Aufgabe der Sozialisierung durch mancherlei Umstände wesentlich erleichtert. Die Gegner unseres Programms geben uns zu bedenken, daß es in einer so bedrohlichen Lage, jetzt, wo Arbeitslosigkeit, Mangel an Nahrungsmitteln und Rohstoffen vor der Türe stehen, unmöglich sei, mit der Vergesellschaftung der Wirtschaft zu beginnen. Aber hat die Regierung der kapitalistischen Klasse nicht gerade im Verlauf des Krieges, also in einer mindestens ebenso schwierigen Lage, wirtschaftliche Maßnahmen der durchgreifendsten Art getroffen, Maßnahmen, welche Produktion und Konsumtion grundlegend umgestalteten? Und alle diese Maßnahmen geschahen damals im Dienste des Krieges, zum Zwecke des Durchhaltens, im Interesse des Militarismus und der herrschenden Klasse.

    Die Maßnahmen der Kriegswirtschaft konnten nur durch die Selbstdisziplin des deutschen Volkes durchgeführt werden. Damals stand diese Selbstdisziplin im Dienste des Völkermordens, sie war zum Schaden des Volkes wirksam. Jetzt aber, wo sie im Interesse des Volkes, zu seinem eigenen Nutzen wirken soll, wird sie imstande sein, noch weit größere Leistungen und Umwandlungen zu vollbringen als je zuvor. Im Dienste des Sozialismus wird sie das Werk der Sozialisierung schaffen. Waren es doch gerade die Sozialpatrioten, die jene tief einschneidenden kriegswirtschaftlichen Maßnahmen als Kriegssozialismus bezeichneten, und Scheidemann, dieser gefügige Diener der Militärdiktatur, trat voller Begeisterung dafür ein. Nun, wir dürfen jedenfalls diesen Kriegssozialismus als eine Umbildung unseres Wirtschaftslebens betrachten, die wohl geeignet ist, als Vorbereitung der echten, im Zeichen des Sozialismus stehenden Sozialisierung zu dienen.

    Die Verwirklichung des Sozialismus ist unvermeidlich; sie muß kommen, gerade weil wir die Unordnung, über die man sich jetzt so aufregt, endgültig überwinden müssen. Aber diese Unordnung ist unüberwindlich, solange die Machthaber von gestern, die wirtschaftlichen und politischen Gewalten des Kapitalismus, am Ruder bleiben; denn sie haben dieses Chaos verursacht.

    Die Pflicht der gegenwärtigen Regierung wäre es gewesen, zuzugreifen und schnell und entschieden zu handeln. Aber sie hat die Aufgabe der Sozialisierung nicht um einen Schritt gefördert. Was hat sie in der Ernährungsfrage geleistet? Sie spricht zum Volke: »Du mußt hübsch artig sein und Dich gesittet benehmen, dann wird uns Wilson Lebensmittel schicken.« Das gleiche ruft uns Tag für Tag die gesamte Bourgeoisie zu, und diejenigen, die sich noch vor wenigen Monaten nicht genug darin tun konnten, den Präsidenten von Amerika zu beschimpfen und mit Kot zu bewerfen, sie begeistern sich jetzt für ihn und fallen ihm voller Bewunderung zu Füßen - um Lebensmittel von ihm zu erhalten. Ja freilich! Wilson und seine Genossen werden uns vielleicht helfen, aber sicherlich nur in dem Maße und in der Form, als es den imperialistischen Interessen des Ententekapitalismus entspricht. Jetzt beeilen sich alle offenen und heimlichen Gegner der proletarischen Revolution, Wilson als den guten Freund des deutschen Volkes anzupreisen, aber gerade dieser menschenfreundliche Wilson ist es ja gewesen, der den grausamen Waffenstillstandsbedingungen Fochs seine Billigung erteilt und dadurch dazu beigetragen hat, die Not des Volkes ins unermeßliche zu steigern. Nein, wir revolutionären Sozialisten glauben keinen Augenblick lang an den Schwindel von der Menschenfreundlichkeit Wilsons, der nichts anderes tut und tun kann, als die Interessen des Ententekapitals in kluger Berechnung zu vertreten. Doch wozu dient jener Schwindel, mit dem die Bourgeoisie und die Sozialpatrioten jetzt hausieren gehen, in Wahrheit? Um das Proletariat zu überreden und zu verleiten, die Macht, die es sich durch die Revolution erobert hat, preiszugeben.

    Wir werden nicht darauf hereinfallen. Wir stellen unsere sozialistische Politik auf den granitenen Boden des deutschen Proletariats; wir stellen sie auf den granitenen Boden des internationalen Sozialismus. Wir halten es weder mit der Würde noch mit der revolutionären Aufgabe des Proletariats für vereinbar, daß wir, die wir mit der sozialen Revolution begonnen haben, an die Barmherzigkeit des Ententekapitals appellieren, sondern wir rechnen auf die revolutionäre Solidarität und die internationale Tatbereitschaft der Proletarier Frankreichs, Englands, Italiens und Amerikas. Die Kleinmütigen und Ungläubigen, die jedes sozialistischen Geistes bar sind, rufen uns zu, daß wir Toren seien, auf den Ausbruch einer sozialen Revolution in den Ländern zu hoffen, die siegreich aus diesem Weltkrieg hervorgegangen seien. Wie steht es mit diesem Einwurf? Selbstverständlich wäre es völlig verkehrt, zu glauben, daß schon im nächsten Augenblick, gleichsam auf ein Kommando, die Revolution in den Staaten der Entente ausbrechen wird. Die Weltrevolution, die unser Ziel und unsere Hoffnung ist, ist ein viel zu gewaltiger historischer Prozeß, als daß sie sich Schlag auf Schlag, in Tagen und Wochen entfalten könnte. Die russischen Sozialisten haben die deutsche Revolution vorausgesagt als notwendige Konsequenz der russischen. Aber noch ein volles Jahr nach dem Ausbruch der russischen Revolution war alles bei uns still, bis schließlich doch die Stunde schlug.

    Jetzt herrscht bei den Völkern der Entente begreiflicherweise ein mächtiger Siegestaumel, und die Freude über die Zertrümmerung des deutschen Militarismus, über die Befreiung Belgiens und Frankreichs ist so laut, daß wir ein revolutionäres Echo von seiten der Arbeiterschaft unserer bisherigen Feinde in diesem Augenblick nicht erwarten dürfen. Und außerdem wird die Zensur, die in den Ententeländern noch gebietet, jede Stimme, die zum revolutionären Anschluß an das revolutionäre Proletariat auffordert, gewaltsam unterdrücken. Auch ist nicht zu übersehen, daß die verräterische und verbrecherische Politik der Sozialpatrioten dazu geführt hat, während des Krieges den internationalen Zusammenhang des Proletariats zu zerreißen und zu zerstören.

    Und was für eine Revolution ist es denn eigentlich, die wir jetzt von den Sozialisten Frankreichs, Englands, Italiens und Amerikas erwarten? Welches Ziel und welchen Charakter soll diese Revolution haben? Die Revolution vom 9. November stellte sich in ihrem ersten Stadium die Aufrichtung einer demokratischen Republik zur Aufgabe, sie hatte ein bürgerliches Programm; und wir wissen sehr gut, daß sie diesen Standpunkt auch auf der Stufe ihrer gegenwärtigen Entwicklung in Wahrheit noch nicht überwunden hat. Aber eine Revolution von solcher Art erwarten wir keineswegs von dem Proletariat der Entente, und zwar deswegen nicht, weil Frankreich, England, Amerika und Italien sich seit Jahrzehnten und Jahrhunderten bereits im festen Besitz dieser bürgerlich demokratischen Freiheit befinden, um die wir hier am 9. November gerungen haben. Sie besitzen die republikanische Staatsverfassung, also gerade dasjenige, was uns die gepriesene Nationalversammlung erst bescheren soll; denn das Königtum in England und Italien ist nur eine belanglose Äußerlichkeit, eine Dekoration und eine Fassade. Also wir können von dem Proletariat der Ententestaaten mit Fug gar keine andere als eine soziale Revolution erwarten. Doch wie sind wir zu einer solchen Erwartung berechtigt, wie können wir an das Proletariat der anderen Länder die Forderung einer sozialen Revolution stellen, solange wir selbst sie noch nicht gemacht haben ! Wir müssen also den ersten Schritt dazu tun. Je schneller und entschiedener das deutsche Proletariat mit dem guten Beispiel vorangeht, je schneller und entschiedener wir unsere Revolution zum Sozialismus hin entwickeln, je schneller wird uns das Proletariat der Entente folgen.

    Damit uns aber der große Wurf des Sozialismus gelingt - dazu ist es unbedingt erforderlich, daß die politische Macht dem Proletariat erhalten bleibe. Denn jetzt gibt es kein Schwanken und Zögern mehr, sondern nur noch ein klares Entweder - Oder. Entweder der bürgerliche Kapitalismus fährt fort zu leben und die Erde und die gesamte menschliche Gesellschaft zu beglücken mit seiner Ausbeutung und Lohnsklaverei und der Verewigung der Kriegsgefahr, oder aber das Proletariat besinnt sich auf seine weltgeschichtliche Aufgabe und auf sein Klasseninteresse, das es dazu aufruft, alle Klassenherrschaft für immer aufzuheben.

    Jetzt versucht man von sozialpatriotischer und bürgerlicher Seite, das Volk von dieser seiner geschichtlichen Mission abspenstig zu machen, indem man ihm die Gefahren der Revolution schwarz und gruselig an die Wand malt; indem man in den blutigsten Farben die Not und Zerstörung, den Aufruhr und Schrecken schildert, von denen die Umwälzung der gesellschaftlichen Verhältnisse angeblich begleitet sein wird. Aber diese Schwarzmalerei ist vergebene Liebesmüh ! Denn die Verhältnisse selbst, die Unfähigkeit des Kapitals, das Wirtschaftsleben, das von ihm zerstört wurde, wiederaufzubauen, sie sind es, die das Volk mit eiserner Notwendigkeit auf den Weg der sozialen Revolution treiben werden. Wenn wir die großen Streikbewegungen der letzten Tage mit Aufmerksamkeit betrachten, so erkennen wir deutlich, daß selbst mitten in der Revolution der Konflikt zwischen dem Unternehmertum und der Lohnarbeiterschaft lebendig ist. Der proletarische Klassenkampf ruht nicht, solange sich die Bourgeoisie auf den Trümmern ihrer ehemaligen Herrlichkeit behauptet; er wird erst ruhen in dem Augenblick, wo die soziale Revolution zum siegreichen Ende gelangt ist.

    Das ist es, was der Spartakusbund will.

    Jetzt greift man die Spartakusleute mit allen erdenklichen Mitteln an. Die Presse der Bourgeoisie und der Sozialpatrioten, vom »Vorwärts« bis zur »Kreuz-Zeitung«, strotzt von den abenteuerlichsten Lügen, von den frechsten Verdrehungen, von Entstellungen und Verleumdungen. Was schimpft man uns nicht alles nach? Daß wir den Terror verkünden; daß wir den blutigsten Bürgerkrieg entfesseln wollten; daß wir uns mit Waffen und Munition ausrüsten und den bewaffneten Aufstand vorbereiten. Mit einem Wort: daß wir die gefährlichsten und gewissenlosesten Bluthunde der Welt seien. Diese Lügen sind leicht zu durchschauen. Als ich gleich im Beginn des Krieges ein kleines, mutiges, opferbereites Häuflein von revolutionären Genossen um mich scharte und es dem Krieg und dem Kriegstaumel entgegenwarf, da wurden wir von allen Seiten niedergebrüllt, verfolgt und in den Kerker geworfen. Und als ich es offen und laut aussprach, was damals niemand auszusprechen wagte und was damals noch die wenigsten erkennen wollten: daß Deutschland und seine politischen und militärischen Leiter am Kriege schuldig seien - da hieß es, ich sei ein gemeiner Verräter, ein bezahlter Agent der Entente, ein vaterlandsloser Geselle, der den Untergang Deutschlands wolle. Wir hätten es bequemer haben können, wenn wir geschwiegen oder in den allgemeinen Chor des Chauvinismus und Militarismus eingestimmt hätten. Aber wir zogen es vor, die Wahrheit zu sagen, ohne auf die Gefahr zu achten, in die wir uns dadurch begaben. Jetzt sehen alle, auch diejenigen, die damals gegen uns wüteten, ein, daß das Recht und die Wahrheit auf unserer Seite waren. Jetzt, nach der Niederlage und nach den ersten Tagen der Revolution, sind dem ganzen Volk die Augen geöffnet worden, so daß es erkennt, daß es von seinen Fürsten, seinen Alldeutschen, seinen Imperialisten und Sozialpatrioten in diesen Abgrund seines Unglücks hineingestoßen worden ist. Und gerade jetzt wieder, wo wir abermals unsere Stimme erheben, um dem deutschen Volke den einzigen Weg zu zeigen, der es aus diesem Unglück zur wahren Freiheit und zum dauernden Frieden zu führen vermag, in diesem Augenblick kommen dieselben Menschen, die damals uns und die Wahrheit niederschrien, und nehmen ihren alten Feldzug der Lüge und der Verleumdung gegen uns wieder auf. Mögen sie auch jetzt geifern und schreien, mögen sie wie bellende Hunde hinter uns herlaufen - wir werden unseren geraden Weg, den Weg der Revolution und des Sozialismus, unbekümmert verfolgen, indem wir uns sagen: Viel Feind, viel Ehr! Nur zu wohl wissen wir es, daß die gleichen Verbrecher und Verräter, die im Jahre 1914 das deutsche Proletariat mit der Phrase des Sieges und der Eroberung, mit der Aufforderung zum »Durchhalten« und mit dem niederträchtigen Abschluß des Burgfriedens zwischen Kapital und Arbeit betrogen, daß diejenigen, die auf solche Art den revolutionären Klassenkampf des Proletariats zu ersticken suchten und jeden Streik als wilden Streik während des Krieges mit Hilfe ihres Organisationsapparates und der Behörden niederknebelten - daß sie die gleichen sind, die jetzt, im Jahre 1918, abermals vom Nationalfrieden sprechen und die die Solidarität aller Parteien zum Zweck des Aufbaues unseres Staates proklamieren.

    Dieser neuen Einigung von Proletariat und Bourgeoisie, dieser verräterischen Fortsetzung der Lüge von 1914 soll die Nationalversammlung dienen. Das soll ihre wahre Aufgabe sein. Mit ihrer Hilfe soll der revolutionäre Klassenkampf des Proletariats zum zweiten Male erstickt werden. Aber wir erkennen, daß hinter dieser Nationalversammlung in Wahrheit der alte deutsche Imperialismus steht, der trotz der Niederlage Deutschlands nicht tot ist. Nein, er ist nicht tot; und bleibt er am Leben, so ist das deutsche Proletariat um die Früchte seiner Revolution geprellt.

    Niemals darf das geschehen. Noch ist das Eisen warm, jetzt müssen wir es schmieden. Jetzt oder nie! Entweder wir gleiten zurück in den alten Sumpf der Vergangenheit, aus dem wir in revolutionärem Anlauf versucht haben, uns zu erheben, oder wir setzen den Kampf fort bis zum Sieg und zur Erlösung, bis zur Erlösung der ganzen Menschheit von dem Fluche der Knechtschaft. Damit wir dieses große Werk, die größte und erhebendste Aufgabe, die der menschlichen Kultur je gestellt worden ist, siegreich vollenden, dazu muß das deutsche Proletariat zur Aufrichtung der Diktatur schreiten.

    #auf_deutsch #histoire #politique #révolution #Allemagne #communisme

  • De la rhétorique de la réaction à la rhétorique du progrès
    https://collectiflieuxcommuns.fr/?1005-De-la-rhetorique-de-la-reaction-a

    Chapitre 6 du livre de Albert O. Hirschman « Deux siècles de rhétorique réactionnaire », Fayard 1991, pp. 239 — 259. Les rappels des notions évoquées dans les chapitres précédents mis entre crochets sont de nous. En matière de rhétorique, les « réaction­naires » n’ont pas le monopole du simplisme, du ton tranchant et de l’intransigeance. Leurs homologues « progressistes » sont sans doute tout aussi doués à cet égard, et ce que ceux-là ont pu dire, depuis quelque deux siècles, à l’appui de leur cause – les (...) #Les_fausses_subversions

    / #Politique, #Revolution, #Avant-gardisme, #Progressisme, #Histoire, #Linguistique, Hirschman A. (...)

    #Hirschman_A._O.

  • #Liban, un pays dans la tourmente

    Comment le Liban, « la Suisse de l’Orient », a-t-il sombré dans le chaos ? Alors que la double explosion du 4 août dernier dans le port de Beyrouth a remis au jour la gabegie et la corruption de la classe politique qui gangrènent cet Etat d’Asie occidentale, ce documentaire remonte le cours tourmenté de l’histoire de cette jeune nation à l’identité forgée par 18 communautés religieuses. En donnant la parole à des membres des services de renseignement, à des journalistes et à des artistes, il montre comment ce pays, au cœur des enjeux géopolitiques depuis sa création, s’est retrouvé piégé dans la poudrière du Moyen-Orient.

    –-> documentaire que j’ai regardé sur arte, mais qui n’est plus disponible sur leur site web (et pas trouvé sur youtube non plus).
    Une présentation du documentaire ici :

    https://www.moustique.be/27227/liban-un-pays-dans-la-tourmente

    #documentaire #film_documentaire
    #guerre_civile #camps_de_réfugiés #réfugiés_palestiniens #Arafat #histoire #Empire_ottoman #OLP #Israël #détournement_d'avions #guerre_des_six_jours #Moyen-Orient #Union_soviétique #Syrie #religion #massacres #nettoyages_ethniques #nettoyage_ethnique #Beyrouth #Hafez_al-Assad #Falanges #Bachir_Gemayel #Menahem_Begin #fragmentation #milices #Armée_du_Liban_Sud (#ALS) #Ariel_Sharon #Galilée #Paix_en_Galilée #invasion_israélienne #Philip_Habib #Sabra_et_Chatila #massacre_de_Sabra_et_Chatila #armes #USA #Etats-Unis #attentats-suicides #Hezbollah #Iran #enlèvements #violence #Ronald_Reagan #accord_de_Taëf #Rafik_Hariri #Hassan_Nasrallah #Bachar_al-Assad #révolution_du_Cèdre #guerre_du_Liban