UZMI ili OSTAVI, Subota 24.3, 12h

Nikola Matafare 2a, Klub Acme 12:00h !

UZMI ILI OSTAVI
Uzmi što ti treba Ostavi što ti ne treba!

ŠTO ZNAČI "UZMI ILI OSTAVI" ?

Uzmi ili ostavi je inicijativa koja se temelji na razmjeni svih dobara, od predmeta, odjeće, obuće...opčenito stvari koje nam nisu više potrebne a upotrebljive su!
 
CILJ INICIJATIVE "UZMI ILI OSTAVI"

Želimo ljudima poručiti da svatko ima pravo na besplatnu odjeću i obuću. Želimo pokazati da možemo preuzeti odgovornost u svoje ruke i da možemo pomagati jedni drugima, te želimo i druge potaknuti na isto. Ekonomija dara kao alternativa kapitalistickom nacinu raspodijele dobara, alternativu konzumeristickoj kulturi kojoj se ne može pobjeci ali koja se može promjeniti!

ZAŠTO "UZMI ILI OSTAVI"

Problem novca najčešće ljudi navode kao osnovnim uzrokom loših uvjeta života, no problem leži i u tome što novac shvaćamo na krivi način. Iako novac često trebamo u ovakvom društvenom uređenju, inicijativa ´Uzmi ili ostavi´dokazuje da ga ne moramo nužno uvijek upotrebljavati. Ukoliko izbjegnemo upotrebu novca kada god je to moguće, pomoći ćemo sami sebi i drugima u zadovoljavanju svojih svakodnevnih životnih potreba. Upravo zato inicijativa ´Uzmi ili ostavi´ poziva na međusobnu solidarnost, solidarnost na društvenom nivou i na bojkot konzumerizma kojega nameće potrošačko društvo što je još jedan uzrok nepravilne raspodjele resursa u svijetu.

Bez novaca, bez trgovine. Sve je besplatno!

* Svako od nas u svojim ormarima, tavanima i podrumima ima stvari koje mu ne trebaju i koje bi upravo mogle biti upotrebljive nekome drugom. Stoga ih nemojte bacati!
* Kako organizirati dijeljenje?
Potrebno je jednostavno donijeti stvari na štand i vidjeti što su na istome ostavili drugi ljudi. Bitno je naglasiti da se radi o upotrebljivim stvarima.

Nikola Matafare 2a, Klub Acme 12:00h

Objavljen je jedanaesti broj Ispod pločnika!

Jedanaesti broj Ispod Pločnika nam svojom oštrinom, poput rascvjetalih divljih bajama, nastavlja ukazivati na procese i uloge koje se odigravaju u kontekstu društvenih zajednica i sredina u kojima preživljavamo, podsjećajući nas da nam nikakav politički program neće vratiti autonomiju života! Ni diktatura, ni demokracija, živjela anarhija! :-)

Može se pročitati online ili, u infoshopu ili klubu acme.

http://www.ispodplocnika.net/novosti/objavljen-je-jedanaesti-broj-ispod-plocnika 


Naravno, imamo i dosta knjiga-pamfleta-fanzina, tko god želi može navratiti ili nam se javiti, radikalno štivo uz tople vibracije proljeća :-)

CATALOG EDIZIONI CERBERO 2011-2012

Zanimljivih naslova, na talijanskom!

..."naše namjere su da propagiramo putem brošura, knjiga i djela poruku ovdje i sada, kao metodu borbe za totalno individualno i definitivno oslobođenje od bilo koje etičko-moralne nadogradnje i represije: države kao i religije"...


  http://325.nostate.net/?p=4218

Gde je Kropotkin kad nam stvarno treba?

Več i ptice na grani i ribe u moru znaju da je solidarnost odigrala značajniju ulogu u evoluciji naspram darvinističkih tvrdnji o „opstanku najsposobnijih“ i „zakona“ takmičenja koji se koriste za obranu društvenog stanja nejednakosti i koncentracije biznisa i moći u rukama nekolicine. Zanimljiv tekst! ok!

http://kontra-punkt.info/gde-je-kropotkin-kad-nam-stvarno-treba

Nevidljivi komitet: Nadolazeća pobuna

Djelo napisano 2007. godine od strane nevidljivog komiteta, anonimne grupe autora, povezanih od strane policije za slučaj Tarnac-ove desetorke, u vrijeme ne tako davnih socijalnih nemira u Francuskoj i Europi.

http://www.stocitas.org/nevidljivi-komitet-nadolazeca-pobuna.htm

Codes of Gender- Identity (2009) Dokumentarni film petak 30.1

Petak 30.1 . 20h  Knjigozemska, R.K Jeretova 5.

Druženje uz film.

Dokumentarac Suta Jhallyja kulturologa sa sveučilišta u Massachusettsu. 

Film na nizu izvrsno izabranih primjera istražuje kako reklama prikazuje muževnost, a kako ženstvenost. Osnovna premisa dokumentaca je općepoznata, da je rod (za razliku od biološki odredjenog spola) društveni konstrukt patrijarhalne autoritativne socijalizacije, ponašanje koje se mora naučiti da bi nas društvo doživljavalo „normalnima“. Od nas se očekuje da uspješno šaljemo nedvosmislene rodne signale, ali i da znamo dešifrirati one primljene. U suprotnom, okolina je zbunjena, često prekida komunikaciju, a nerijetko je i agresivna.

Više o filmu na:  http://voxfeminae.net/treba/pogledati/282-codes-of-gender  

Robert Posavec: Što je suvremeni anarhizam i zašto je bolji od 'novog' anarhizma

Prvo treba napomenuti da će sam tekst ići redoslijedom obrnutim od onog kojeg pretpostavlja naslov teksta. Razlog tome su čisto praktični razlozi: da bi govorili o 'suvremenom' i 'novom' anarhizmu prvo je potrebno pokušati odrediti značenja oba pojma.

Termini 'suvremeni' i 'novi' anarhizam određeni su istim sastavnicama i sadržajno ne postoji ništa što bih ih jasno razlikovalo jednog od drugog. I jedan i drugi termin obuhvaćaju teorije i praksu insurekcionizma, primitivizma, radikalnog eko-anarhizma, etičkog anarhizma Chomskog, destruktivne teorije anti-korporatizma i još mnogo toga... Dakle, ni jedan od tih dva termina ne označava koherentnu društveno-političku teoriju, već služe kao nazivnik trenutno najrasprostranjenijih anarhističkih misli. Ako i 'suvremeni' i 'novi' označavaju jedno te isto, zbog čega je onda potrebno napraviti razliku između ta dva pojma? Pa iz jednostavnog razloga što anarhizam ne predstavlja ništa novo, nije riječ o novonastaloj teoriji, već o stalno prisutnoj tendenciji koja samo preuzima oblike prikladne trenutnoj društvenoj situaciji. Drugim riječima, termin 'suvremeni' anarhizam je prikladniji od termina 'novi' anarhizma iz već spomenutog razloga - 'novi' pretpostavlja nešto novo. Suvremeni anarhizam označava anarhizam koji je prikladan današnjoj situaciji, prikladan društvenom, političkom, gospodarskom i kulturnom kontekstu datog povijesnog momenta.

Termin 'suvremeni' anarhizam ne označava samo mješavinu anarhističkih misli i djela, već i suvremen pristup u stvaranju otpora totalitarističkoj praksi megakorporacija, masovnih medija, elitnih obrazovnih institucija, ili kad je riječ o totalitarnim državama, u stvaranju otpora »terorističkim« vladama. U današnjoj je situaciji iznimno važan pristup problemima koji njeguje suvremeni anarhizam. Riječ je o jednom otvorenom, nedogmatskom pristupu. O pristupu koji određene ideje i pokrete ne isključuje unaprijed. Suvremeni anarhizam označava, da parafraziram svog prijatelja Andreja Grubačića, kombinaciju inteligentnih prijedloga koji dolaze s različitih strana i njihovo uobličavanje u najučinkovitiju formula otpora u datoj povijesnoj situaciji. Ovdje je važno naglasiti stav Noama Chomskog po kojem je nemoguće predvidjeti formulu socijalne organizacije; te je, upravo, zbog toga važno traganje za iskrenim i korisnim prijedlozima. Formula otpora nije univerzalna, nju uvelike konstruira dana situacija; da pojednostavim - otpor megakorporacijama ne znači uvijek isto, boriti se protiv Shella u Nigeriji i boriti se protiv Shella u nekoj američkoj državi nije jednako. Kontekst Nigerije nije jednak kontekstu bilo koje američke države te stoga ni način otpora ne može biti jednak.

Druga stvar koja karakterizira suvremeni anarhizam jest uključivanje anarhista među svakodnevne ljude. Tu su od iznimne važnosti stajališta Chomskog i Bonanna (iako se oni međusobno uvelike razlikuju) koji naglašavaju važnost suradnje s ljudima, s lokalnim stanovništvom. Bonanno govori o osnovnim grupama, o nukleosima koji kontaktiraju i »rade« s ljudima na problemima, dok Chomsky predlaže odlazak među ljude, organiziranje ljudi i zajedničku borbu protiv opresivnih institucija. Ljude ne treba učiti otporu, organizaciji i suradnji, već je potrebno u njima probuditi impuls, zainteresirati ih za probleme, probuditi im želju za životom. Propagandu je potrebno širiti i među lokalnim stanovništvom, potrebna je aktivna suradnja. Mnoge anarhističke teorije i ideje se zasnivaju na »običnim« ljudima, a opet je tako malo anarhista koji rade zajedno s tim istim »običnim« ljudima. Tako dugo dok namećemo sebi ulogu vođe i vodimo ljude u njihovoj borbi, točnije »pomažemo im«, umjesto da se zajedno s njima »borimo«, ništa značajno nećemo postići. Do određenih ciljeva, rezultata potrebno je doći samostalno, zbog vlastitih potreba i želja, a ne slijeđenjem prosvjetitelja. 

Suvremeni anarhizam, dakle, odbacuje »prosvjetiteljsku« ulogu, odbacuje univerzalne formule socijalne organizacije i otpora, te se stavlja u poziciju suvremenog sakupljača inteligentnih ideja, ili konkretnije - u poziciji sakupljača informacija. Anarhizam danas karakterizira šarenilo ideja, a suvremen pristup omogućava mu da iz tog šarenila izabere one ideje koje su najprikladnije datoj situaciji.

Prihvatiti se sakupljanja ideja znači prihvatiti i one ideje koje nisu strogo anarhističke; naravno, ako su ideje dobre. Ponekad su određene kritike određenih institucija, medija, industrije, komunikacije... bolje od anarhističkih, i to onda treba prihvati. Prihvati ideju ili informacije ne znači i prihvatiti ideologiju, religiju, sustav iz kojeg one proizlaze. Informacije su dostupnije nego ikad, no Orwellov problem i dalje ostaje neriješenim - kako to da ljudi tako malo znaju unatoč količini dostupnih informacija, dokaza?   

Izvor: http://www.stocitas.org/ 

The Russian Revolution in the Ukraine by Nestor Makhno (Elephant Editions)

The Russian Revolution in the Ukraine (March 1917 – April 1918) Nestor Makhno


Elephant Editions

Introduction by Alfredo M. Bonanno
Foreword by Daniel Guerin
Translated by Paul Sharkey


Newly released free PDF E-Book from Elephant Editions of the collected personal memoirs of Nestor Makhno, the legendary insurgent anarchist fighter, genius tactician, and general leader of the insurrectionary Makhnovist army in Ukraine. Features an introduction by Alfredo M. Bonanno and a foreword by Daniel Guerin.

From the introduction of Alfredo M. Bonanno:
“Although the Russian anarchists of the past are still alive in our hearts today, their actual historical and human experiences seem far off in the night of time. We are talking about only a few decades, yet it is as though the dust of centuries has piled up on these events, preventing us from understanding them. Always victorious in battle, Makhno appears as a fearless knight galloping invincible at the head of the Ukrainian insurgents, first against the white Russians of Denikin or Wrangel, then against Trotsky’s Red Army.

Given that the need for revolutionary myths still persists among comrades, things might just stop there. Any romanticised attempt which borders on or even duplicates historical interpretation helps us to live and sometimes to die. But is that really what we want in bringing out this volume?

I don’t know. When narrating events of the past, especially those that touch us deeply, it seems indispensable to bear the present day and the air breathed by those who still dream of revolution in mind. If this means anything, it means picking up the threads where they were broken off, taking them from comrades who rebelled so long ago and continuing to weave them under different conditions.

And some people are still fascinated by the big organisation today, just as Makhno—and even more so his closest comrade, Archinov— were in the past. A strong organisation doted with means and men, strategies and detailed programmes, with a high-sounding name and capable of making fierce proclamations and throwing the forces of repression into a panic simply breathing revenge or by merely threatening to shoot fascinates them. The more the movement is lacerated by a thousand internal misunderstandings and diatribes with each one accusing the other of respectability and a lowering of the guard, and words lose their meaning and take on the recondite, almost cryptographical ones dictated by suspicion, the more the organisation and its continual reinforcement becomes a panacea for all evils. The prosthesis extends its malefic shadow, making us feel strong; then, in this new-found strength suspicion is cast on the comrades who were bold enough to refuse and criticise the former as they saw it as nothing but an alibi and a further sign of weakness.

In this first volume of Makhno’s memoirs finally published here in English there is constant reference to the Russian anarchists’ lack of organisation and effectiveness, remarking that things would have been different (starting from May 1917) if a strong organisation had existed and functioned properly. Thus Makhno writes, ‘In the aforementioned coup d’état in Petrograd, Moscow and other industrial towns, anarchists played an exceptionally salient part in the van of the sailors, soldiers and workers. But, for want of structures, they were unable to bring to bear upon the country a revolutionary influence comparable with that of these two parties which had formed a political bloc under the direction of that same guileful Lenin and knew precisely what they had to set about above all else at that time, and the degree of strength and energy at their disposal.’ (Part two, Ch. 1)

In fact, as I have pointed out on various occasions, the question of the strong organisation is not only a false problem in the context of the Russian anarchists, but is so generally. I am not underestimating the organisational problem in saying that, merely pointing out that the question of the revolution cannot simply be solved with a clash between two organisations and a final victory for the revolutionary forces.

The more the years pass and capital develops new ways of modernising and restructuring in order to solve problems that seemed insurmountable in the past, the more one realises that it is not at the level of (military and productive) organisational strength that it is necessary to act, but in quite a different sphere. Both the strictly military efforts of the revolutionary struggle and the creation of new productive forms and their capacity to find different solutions, must come through the generalisation of the struggle, i.e. with the widest participation of the masses in the many ways that this is possible. …”

Contents list

Part One
1. Establishing contact with the comrades, and first attempts at organising revolutionary activity.
2. Organisation of the Peasant’s Union.
3. Police Archives rifled.
4. Fresh elections to the communal committee. The notion of control.
5. The teachers’ role. Our activity on the communal committee.
6. The first of May. The agrarian issue as viewed by the peasants.
7. The Workers’ strike.
8. Some results.
9. The campaign against tenant farming.
10. P.A. Kropotkin’s arrival in Russia. Encounter with anarchists of Ekaterinoslav.
11. Kornilov’s march on Petrograd.
12. Resistance to the counter-revolution spreads through the villages.

Part Two.
1. The October Coup d’état in Russia.
2. Elections to the Constituent Assembly: our attitude vis à vis the parties in contention.
3. The Departmental Congress.
4. The counter-revolution of the Central Rada.
5. With the leftist bloc against the counter-revolution.
6. The armed peasants rush to the aid of the urban workers. The
Aleksandrovisk Revolutionary Committee and the Commission of Inquiry.
7. The armed struggle against the Cossacks. Delegation, disarmament of the Cossacks and an understanding with them.
8. The Bolshevik-Left SR. bloc in Aleksandrovsk. My observations and the consequences of them.
9. Abolition of the zemstvo as a “territorial unit”. Foundation of a Revolutionary Committee by the members of the Soviet. Seeking funds to meet the needs of the Revolutionary Committee by the members of the Soviet. Seeking funds to meet the needs of the Revolution.
10. How barter was organised between town and countryside.
11. Our group’s new members.
12. The Agrarian communes. Their internal organisation. Their enemies.
13. The successes of the German and Austrian armies and of the troops of the Ukrainian and central Rada. Counter-revolutionary agents. The struggle against them.
14. Centralising the detachments. Formation of a united front with the Bolshevik-Left SR. bloc.
15. I am urgently summoned to Yegorov’s headquarters. Defeat for our fighting front.

Appendix:
Gulai-Polye’s antecedents – Nestor Makhno.
-
Download here: http://325.nostate.net/library/MAKHNO.pdf

Izvor:  http://325.nostate.net/

About “Anti-Judicial Anarchism”, Max Stirner, Luigi Galleani, CCF & More (Mexico)

Here is an English translation of an article from the journal Conspiracion Acrata from Mexico referring to the idea of “Antiguiridismo Anarchico”. We hope you like it.

“Antigiuridismo Anarchico” which translates to “Anti-Judicial Anarchism” is a concept which has been used throughout anarchist history to define the attitude of a radical and total rejection of the concept and practice of the “justice” of the State, or as otherwise said – the judicial methods of the State including defence through a lawyer. This attitude or concept is or should be something normal within the anarchist movement but there are few companer@s who have put it into practice for diverse reasons or strategies.

Antigiuridismo Anarchico is the rejection of declaring a position to the State in front of the court or contributing to the circus of the State. Often the declarations of those who position themselves in this attitude are only directed as a dialogue or explanation to the compañer@s of their movement. This attitude is the rejection of any legal resources through which one could obtain “freedom”.

For some, Antigiuridismo Anarchico’s basis can be found in the texts of Max Stirner such as “The Ego and its Own” as individualists have used this concept or method in the past, usually those who have used explosives or have been involved in diverse sabotages against the system, in other words those who have “nothing to lose”.

Historically, in Italy the “anti-organizzatori” (anti-organisationalists) close to the anarchist Luigi Galleani used the Antigiuridismo Anarchico method, although it’s worth noting that not all of the “antiorganizzatori” were individualists, however they did maintain themselves in a total contrast to the anarcho-syndicalists. We also know of anarchist individuals who have positioned themselves under this method without defining it as such, examples include Severino di Giovanni and Paulino Scarfo in Argentina, the anarchists known as the Galeanists in the USA, French Anarchists such as Ravachol or Emile Henry, or Italian-Americans like Gabrielle Segata Antolili.

At the moment this is the case with the compañer@s of the Conspiracy of Cells of Fire from Greece who have used Antigiuridismo Anarchico as an attitude of rupture with the judicial system as well as with the society of the masses, refusing to declare and as such collaborate with the police investigations. The Conspiracy of Cells of Fire has put out communiqués referring to their situation, but as a form of communication with the compañer@s in solidarity, rather than as an explanation or justification before the State.

We can see that Antigiuridismo Anarchico is a decision taken individually (or collectively as is the case of the CCF) that works as part of two sides. For one part there’s the individual conviction to refuse to take part in any dialogues or compromise with the State/Capital or the line of politics, ensuring that each individual, group or cell maintains itself in contrast to the current reality. The other part can be owed to a consistent movement and a strong capacity to stand with prisoners and not leave them alone and one that is capable of physically interrupting the development of repression, for example we could cite the first trail against those of the Brigate Rosse in Italy, in which the same organisation brought judges, lawyers, prosecutors etc, to justice.

Furthermore, without putting forward any judgement whatsoever, there are other compañer@s who, as a contrast to this position of complete rupture, decide to analyse their possibilities and take advantage of legal avenues as a “strategy” to get out of prison and continue the war on the outside, always questioning power and its laws and taking these same laws or resources as weapons that can be used to avoid prison based on what’s possible within the judicial system, taking into account that this only works as a strategy and not as a dialogue with power. Many compañer@s who have taken use of legal resources as a strategy have demonstrated that once back on the street, they continue the war and maintain themselves in conflict. Unfortunately, there are some “compañer@s” who justify the State medium of ‘social rehabilitation’, to attempt to contradict our compañer@s in war, affirming such things as “you haven’t learnt anything from your time in prison”.

Whichever way you look at it, the two attitudes are equally valuable, however during this article we have attempted to lay out the concept defining the particular standpoint of Antigiuridismo Anarchico. There are a few philosophical law studies about Antigiuridismo Anarchico by Max Stirner, but generally they are academic texts which refer to a more nihilist and existentialist Stirner.

Luigi Galleani was an Italian anarchist who lived in the USA and edited the publication Cronaca Sovversiva which was edited for the first time on the 6th of June, 1903. One of Cronaca Sovversiva’s characteristics was the listing of addresses and locations of businessmen, “capitalist spies”, strike-breakers and all those considered enemies of the people. Luigi Galleani also edited a bomb-making manual called “Health is in you”, which was later translated into various different languages by various people supposedly including Emma Goldman. The Anarchist circle that revolved around the Cronaca Sovversiva were called “The Galeanists” and in their time carried out numerous bomb attacks against institutions of the State and Capital, such as the first car-bomb in history carried out by Mario Buda. They also sent a great number of packet bombs to personalities of the Church, State and Capital and expropriated the businesses of capitalists. Luigi also published various articles, the most well known called “Faccia a faccia col nemico” in 1914, which Severino Di Giovanni later would use in his publication “Culmine”, as well as in his way of life.

The newspaper Cronaca was published throughout 15 years until it was banned under the Sedition law. It’s worth nothing that the anarchists Sacco and Vazetti were close to the publication’s circle.

Gabriella Segata Antonilli was an Italian anarchist who was arrested on the 17th of January 1918 at the age of 19 for transporting dynamite in a purse. When she was interrogated she gave a false name and refused to cooperate with the authorities or give them any information. She was sent to prison for 14 months. During her time in prison she got to know the notorious anarchist Emma Goldman with whom she formed a friendship. Gabrielle was from the Galeanist group from the Cronaca Sovversiva.

The Conspiracy of Cells of Fire is an anarchist nihilist urban guerilla group from Greece who have carried out direct actions ranging from arson attacks to powerful explosive attacks such as that carried out against the Athens Courthouse in solidarity with their imprisoned members. The CCF also sent a number of packet bombs to different ambassadors and world capitalist leaders including Silvio Berlusconi. Currently there are members of the CCF under trial.
The Brigate Rosse (Red Brigades) were a Marxist guerilla group from the 1970s who carried out various armed actions against those in power. Those years were called “the years of Lead” in Italy, a time in which many anarchists also carried out direct action, and some formed the anarchist action group Azione Rivoluzionaria.

Max Stirner was an anarco-individualist theorist who was born in 1806 and died in 1856, his most popular work was “The Ego and its Own” which caused innumerable discussions within the anarchist movement, including the anarchists of action.


 Izvor: http://325.nostate.net/