The Metropolitan Police is beyond redemption” – Skynews interview with Kate Wilson on her court victory against the police.


“The Metropolitan Police is beyond redemption” – Skynews interview with Kate Wilson, of Police Spies Out of Lives, on her court victory against the police

Environmental activist Kate Wilson tells Sky’s Sarah-Jane Mee about winning a landmark tribunal against the Metropolitan Police for human rights breaches, after she was deceived into a relationship with an undercover officer. Ms Wilson was involved with a man she knew as ‘Mark Stone’ for almost two years, but years later found out that he was actually a married police officer called Mark Kennedy, who’d been sent to spy on environmental activists. She says the Metropolitan Police are ‘beyond redemption’ after a series of investigations into the force found it was institutionally racist and corrupt and there needs to be a rethinking of its powers


“شرطة العاصمة لا يمكن تعويضها” – مقابلة Skynews مع كيت ويلسون ، من الجواسيس الشرطيون خارج الحياة ، حول انتصار المحكمة ضد الشرطة.

الناشطة البيئية كيت ويلسون تخبر سارة-جين مي من سكاي عن فوزها بمحكمة تاريخية ضد شرطة العاصمة لانتهاكات حقوق الإنسان ، بعد أن تم خداعها في علاقة مع ضابط سري. كانت ويلسون متورطة مع رجل كانت تعرفه باسم “مارك ستون” لمدة عامين تقريبًا ، ولكن بعد سنوات اكتشفت أنه متزوج بالفعل  قام ضابط شرطة باستدعاء مارك كينيدي ، والذي تم إرساله للتجسس على نشطاء البيئة. وتقول إن شرطة العاصمة “لا يمكن تعويضها” بعد أن وجدت سلسلة من التحقيقات في القوة أنها عنصرية مؤسسية وفاسدة وأن هناك حاجة إلى إعادة التفكير في سلطاتها.

Is President Donald Trump a threat and danger?

Is President Donald Trump a threat and danger?

By: Zaher Baher

June 2020

Certainly he is, but who is he a threat to? Before answering this question, I believe that history has so far taught us a few things about the revolution that we cannot ignore.

Firstly, it has shown that political parties, such as-lefties and authoritarian socialists, cannot fundamentally change the current system. In fact, they create so many obstacles by maintaining and prolonging the system.

Secondly, revolution cannot happen through a military coup or a political plot.

Thirdly, we have a very long history of a parliamentary system that has failed to bring about real changes.

Fourthly, poverty alone is not a foundation that revolution can emerge from. History has shown that poverty has made people more dependent on the state and charities instead of relying on themselves to struggle for change.

In the UK, the history of the struggling working class shows that the number of demos, protests and strikes decreased dramatically while the Labour party was in power*. This is the case even though there is barely any difference in the conditions of the working class when the Conservative Party is in power.

I recognise that some of the reforms that are usually carried out by leftists and social democrats when they are in power can slightly improve the lives of the working class, but this only benefits them for a short time. In the long-term, it gives them false hope and makes them more dependent on the political parties to make change. In other words, it damages them, makes them lose their confidence in doing things for themselves, and also brainwashes them by giving them a false meaning of democracy. It gives people an impression that there is a different kind of power and, a different kind of government. It tells people, one state is a democracy and the other is a dictatorship. However, in reality having a democracy or a dictatorship is the same. Whatever name the state has for its political system, it is to control and subdue the people, by using the tool of democracy and dictatorship accordingly to suppress them. In other words, democracy or dictatorship are the same to whoever governs us.

When dictators and right wing political parties are in power, it is true that there is very little freedom, or no freedom at all. But in fact, the social relationship between the people is very strong, solidarity is there, and cooperation and support exist. The line is clearly drawn between the supporters of the government/state and those against it. There is unity and trust between the people, and almost everybody rejects the propaganda of the state and its media. I have experienced this under Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and other comrades share the same feeling in other countries.

Let’s look at the United States (US) under President Trump, as leader of the most powerful country in the world. I do not need to go through his record of the last three years as he has been very frank in what he believes in and what he says. In fact, he implements most of his domestic and foreign policies.

He has introduced us to the realities of the capitalist system. He is clear about his dislike for climate change science, and he is open about his love of rich people and his support for big corporations. He does not hide his hate of the poor, unions, leftists, socialists and anarchists. He is frank to tell us that his administration’s involvement in Syria and Iraq is for exploiting oil. He denounces human rights and equality. His position towards Israel, the Kings and Princes in the gulf countries, President Jair Bolsonaro, and the Philippines’ president is very obvious to all. He is not diplomatic like UK politicians and those of other European countries, who tell us one thing and do something else. He is against the hypocritical attitudes of Congress. He shows us that the state and its entire administrations are reflected and embedded within businesses. He tells us that business and politics cannot be separated; one serves the other. The list could go on and on.

So, the questions here are: Who is actually showing us the capitalist system, truly? Trump, or the leaders and the politicians of the UK and other western countries? Who is actually as honest as him, telling us that this system is not for us and does not benefit us, and only serves him and the others I mentioned above? Who is really a long-term threat to capitalism, serving the working class movement by pushing people to carry out strikes, protests, and even rise up against the system? Him, or the other leaders who always try to portray the system as a democracy, or keep people happy with reforms?

In fact, President Trump has created the best grounds for uprising in the US by implementing all of the policies which favour the rich. Under his leadership there has been more police brutality, more inequality, more injustice, more poverty and more hate towards Muslims and the LGBTQI+ community.

We have this existing climate in the US and people have had enough.  The killing of George Floyd, unfortunately, was only a trigger point.

President Trump might not create a revolution, but he has certainly created a movement, not only in the US, but in many European countries, especially here in the UK. The name of George Floyd is only a symbol of uprising. ‘Black Lives Matter’ is not just a movement of black people and for black people. It is a movement of millions of people around the world. It is a movement of everybody who has been suffering for so long at the hands of state brutality, austerity, inequality, social injustice, unemployment, wars, displacement, homelessness and much more.

This movement certainly cannot resolve everything, but can surely change many aspects of life. By using direct action, it can quickly achieve what lobbying, petitions, complaints, traditional protests and parliament debates couldn’t achieve in a few decades. It has changed the nature of protests, smashed the lockdown, has had no permission from the police and has not listened to politicians. It has taken matters into its own hands and has revived the movements which existed around the world prior to Covid-19.

In the UK, the protests look capable of changing more things: taking away the statues of racists and slave traders in public places is just a start. In addition, activists are forcing the state and media to begin to acknowledge the true reflection of a multicultural British society. Campaigners are calling for a change to school syllabuses and university curriculum, to include studies of the role of black history.  And finally, campaigners are calling for museums to document the UK’s role in the slave trade.

However, if people want to fundamentally change their own lives staying on the streets and fighting with the police is not enough.  We need to use this kind of tactic less often and put our weight, experience, knowledge and efforts into organising ourselves in the neighbourhood, on our own streets, in the universities, in the factories, in the offices, in the farms and in other places of work. We need to do this in non-hierarchical groups and organisations to prepare ourselves for the final push against state power, in order to manage our lives by ourselves and make the real changes. The first step is to struggle and fight to achieve a libertarian municipality at local level to replace the existing bureaucratic councils or local authorities.


The State and the Power of Business

By Zaher Baher
March 2021

Recently I was involved in a long discussion with a close friend of mine who is not an anarchist. He believes that the destination of human beings is a kind of socialism but not necessarily the one that anarchists want.
My friend thinks the needs of the state gradually decrease, to the point where it will no longer be necessary to run society by any separate authority, as its members will be fully aware, conscientious and responsible so that all care for each other and society too. Finally, he concluded by saying, “Since society would be run by its members, law makers will become unnecessary”.
Of course, anarchists talk about socialism but in a wider form as it will be a classless and non-hierarchical society. Anarchists do not design the map for future society and how it should be managed. We think and work to create a society that would be controlled by all, where there would be no one in charge to dominate and exploit us; no bosses, no landlords and no government from above. We do not elaborate on how it will be in the future. That would be the task of those who live in that society, how they would organise it and how they would manage themselves.
There are fundamental questions arising here. Will the role of the state diminish when capitalism gets stronger? Will the state disappear gradually or dismantle itself? Has neoliberal theory failed to reduce some or all functions of the state? If so, why do we see the state stronger than ever? There are many more questions to be asked on this subject.
To begin with, I must, very briefly, look at the recent history of the state, liberalism, and neoliberal theories. Many of us know that the state is very old, dating back some 10,000 years, maybe longer it developed through various stages and functioned differently in accordance with the society that the state had emerged from.
However, it took a long time for the modern state to emerge and reach its mature stage.
Whatever stage the state went through, historically or as it is now, there was always a vital struggle between the business sector and the state. Although neither could live without the other, each wanted to subdue the other for its own benefit.
At present the state looks to have completed its functions, its essence once embraced the liberal economy and then the neoliberal theories. While the state was not completely compatible with the business sector in general and with the big corporations in particular, the corporations always tried to find ways to reform the state for their benefit in meeting their aims.
One of the major attempts to reform the economic system, in the last century was neoliberalism. A group of liberals who helped to shape the social market economy put forward a program at a meeting in Paris in 1938. Among the delegates were two men who came to define the ideology, Ludwig von Mises, and Friedrich Hayek. They believed in the opportunity of individualism. They found government a major barrier as it prevented individualism. The neoliberal embraces individualism and is opposed to “the collective society,” as Margaret Thatcher put it. In 1944 Hayek, in The Road to Serfdom argued that, “Government planning, by crushing individualism, would lead inexorably to totalitarian control”
In 1947, Hayek founded the first organisation that would spread the doctrine of neoliberalism and it was supported financially by millionaires and their foundations.
Neoliberalism’s doctrine is very exclusive in aiming to liberate the major sections of the state and privatising them. In short, Hayek’s view is that governments should regulate competition to prevent monopolies. The ideology of neoliberalism brought financial meltdown, environmental disaster and even the slow collapse of public health and education. Clearly it was waging a war on every front against society; it not only created economic crises, but also caused political crises.
On the other hand, there is Keynesian economic policy, which was developed by the British economist John Maynard Keynes during the 1930s. His theories were a response to the Great Depression and he was highly critical of previous economic theories, which he referred to as “classical economics”. He stated that intervention is necessary to moderate the booms and busts in economic activity.
Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, Keynes’s influence was at its peak, as the developed and emerging capitalist economies enjoyed an exceptionally high rate of growth and low unemployment. Later this was echoed by the then U.S. President Richard Nixon, “We are all Keynesians now”
Keynesian policies did not last long. By the end of the 1960s there was a big change and، the balance began to shift towards the power of private interests. According to the journalists Larry Elliott and Dan Atkinson, “1968 was the pivotal year when power shifted in favour of private agents such as currency speculators”. Keynesian economic policies were officially abandoned by the British Government in 1979. So, gradually, Keynesian policies began to crumble, and economic crises deepened. At that time Milton Friedman remarked, “When the time came that you had to change … there was an alternative ready there to be picked up”.
Once Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan took power, the rest of the package soon followed: massive tax cuts for the rich, the crushing of trade unions, deregulation, privatisation, outsourcing and competition in public services were all supported or promoted by multilateral bodies and treaties, like the IMF, the World Bank, the Maastricht treaty and the World Trade Organisation, neoliberal policies were imposed – often without democratic consent. Remarkably these policies were adopted among parties that once belonged to the left, including the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats. This was expected. As John Major, when he was elected Prime Minister in 1992, famously said “1992 killed socialism in Britain.… Our win meant that between 1992 and 1997 Labour had to change.”
The Chicago School, also known as Chicago boys designed packages for several countries including Egypt and others in South America, particularly Chile. On a visit to Pinochet’s Chile – one of the first nations in which the programme was comprehensively applied, Hayek told a Chilean newspaper that it was possible for a “…dictator to govern in a liberal way…” and that he preferred a “…liberal dictator to a democratic government lacking liberalism. My personal preference leans toward a liberal dictatorship rather than toward a democratic government devoid of liberalism”.
We should not be shocked when Friedman and Hayek happily embraced neoliberal policies as documented by Naomi Klein in ‘The Shock Doctrine’. “Neoliberal theorists advocated the use of crises to impose unpopular policies while people were distracted: for example, in the aftermath of Pinochet’s coup, the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina, which Friedman described as “an opportunity to radically reform the educational system”
After almost forty years, the 2008 financial crash and the Great Recession derailed neoliberalism which lost its force and fell apart. Some governments and economists wanted to go back to Keynesian solutions to tackle the crises of the 21st century. They could not or did not want to understand or simply ignored the reality that last century’s solutions cannot resolve a crisis of the present century. The reason for this is quite clear; it is fundamental to the nature of capitalism itself that, whatever name or shape it takes, it will not work anymore.
Neoliberalism has gone too far and, wherever it was implemented, it brought total disaster. One of these countries was the US where data shows that, “During the neoliberal era, the racial wealth gap did not fare much better. In 1979, the average hourly wage for a black man in the U.S. was 22 percent lower than for a white man. By 2015, the wage gap had grown to 31 percent. For black women, the wage gap in 1979 was only 6 percent; by 2015, it had jumped to 19 percent. Homeownership is one of the central ways that families build wealth over time, yet homeownership rates among African Americans in 2017 were as low as they were before the civil rights revolution, when racial discrimination was legal”. The situation was so bad that leading political scientists declared that, “…the U.S. is no longer best characterized as a democracy or a republic but as an oligarchy—a government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich”.
Some economists, including Paul Krugman, also argued that economic conditions are like those that existed during the earlier part of the 20th century.
In light of the above, we can see that government and business institutions in any country, in many ways, are interrelated and interdependent. Their unity is much stronger than their division, their conflicts are nothing more than efforts to unite against society. They are inseparable. Corporate executives, political leaders and government officials are all of the same social class.
The state is the main pillar of the system and its economy. It works to facilitate the function of business and increased profits. It is government which shapes business activities, providing a suitable and workable environment for business. The aim of business is to make profit, while government’s goal is to ensure economic stability and growth. Business has a big influence on government when investing heavily in large-scale projects.
Government, directly and indirectly, implements rules and regulations which dictate what business organisations can and cannot do and tries to influence those organisations’ policies with taxation measures.
The main goal of business is to make a profit and the government provides everything for them. Government is even helping to establish companies’ production facilities by offering them tax incentives in less developed regions in the country.
As government and politicians want to return to power in coming elections, they need support from business. They want to satisfy corporations and corporations want to play a role in government and have a great influence.
Corporations and the rest of business know very well that the establishment that can protect and maintain them is the government, the state. They know that the police, the laws, the courts, the army, the spy networks, and the education system are all under the control of the state. They know that once they face bankruptcy, the state can bail them out or when they face threats by their own workforces, the state will protect them by whatever means.
They need one another desperately. In today’s global economy, businessmen and entrepreneurs are the driving forces of the economy states have long been the most powerful force in the economy.
Therefore, anarchists insist that the struggle against the system, the ownership of the economy, and the elites, to bring about a classless and non-hierarchical society cannot happen without a struggle against power, authority and the state.

Clarification of a group of Kurdish speaking anarchists to the announcement of the Anarchism Era Federation

To the worldwide Anarchist comrades. With greetings.

Some time ago the Anarchism Era Website published an announcement, in which the news of the formation of the Anarchism Era Federation was revealed. According to the title and the content of that announcement, this formation is necessary to enable all individual anarchists across the globe, regardless of race and place of birth, to join the federation.

As a group of Kurdish speaking Anarchists and Libertarians from Inside Iraq and abroad, we are always pleased to hear the news of revolutionary initiatives and activities across the globe. We are also happy to hear of the existence of any anti-state, anti-capitalism actions and we do not see ourselves as separated or outside any world movements or activities that are against the authority, against hierarchy, against the capitalist system and society. However, the announcement of the so-called Anarchism Era Federation, supposed to become an International Federation, raises more questions than provide answers.

Our purpose in this clarification is not to evaluate the announcement in detail or to highlight and develop all the points of our critics and disagreements. Here, we only indicate a few important and obvious points:

No revolutionary body of the class struggle would ever announce its existence before its actual birth in practice, especially a body that grants itself with a status as big as an International Federation. Regrettably, the announcement does not mention at all the process of its founding and does not provide any concrete information about all the fractions that are supposedly integral parts within that Federation.

The only thing that can be noticed in this announcement is the existence of previous preliminary versions attempts, as allusion for the announcement. Those previous versions look like the initial intention towards the final proclamation and indicate that the decision can be the act of one or several individuals.

The announcement does not clarify, in any aspects, its position about the International of Anarchist Federations, which was established in 1968 and incorporates most world-wide anarchist federations and it is still alive, active, and growing. We think that the reason for not mentioning IFA is either related to having different positions or to differentiate themselves, either to their ignorance of IFA’s existence, or to their rejection by IFA and other Federations of International Anarchist movements.

The decision of announcing an International Federation, through a bureaucratical, sectarist and unilateral mechanism indicating the adoption of militantism and voluntarist rules. This is completely in contradiction with the grounds of the historical approach of Anarchism that is based on total acknowledgement to the practical, spontaneous emergence of real actions and active elements within the social struggle, not on the principles of ideological wills and intentions. This position is clearer when this announcement does not at all make any reference to the inhuman, anti-life and anti-nature roots of the class domination, hierarchical structure of the capitalist system. It only briefly and vaguely mentions “the overthrowing of capitalist and religious governments!”, as though, the human need for emancipation is about a political revolution, not a social and global revolution.

In the previous versions of this announcement, there is a mention of army struggle, but it is removed in the final version, without any explanation or the reasons for its omission. Furthermore, the announcement’s lack of clarification about the rejection of “pacifism” tendency, as a common practice among militantist groups and currents, which, can be used as against “violence” and as conciliator “peacemaker”, sings of advocating the extremist ideology, far from a global class understanding of the fundamental basis and needs of the emancipatory revolution of the exploited class. Consequently, we must ask the authors of the announcement: by which measures, could the anarchists who stand against Violence, be called “Pacifists”?

It is worth mentioning that in the announcement, by putting accent on the armed struggle and armed uprising method, to claim their adherence to the practice of Makhnovist insurrectionary movement. This itself is a misunderstanding of the nature of the Makhnovist movement, which was essentially a social uprising of workers and peasants through co-operative communes. It is a lack of understanding, the fact was the grounds that forced that movement was self-defence which led to armed organisation against German, Austrian, White and Red Armies and their militias. This was not due to the will of transforming of the social contests to armed actions or military militantist groups.

There is a discriminatory issue of a unilateralist, generalising, centralist, and authoritarian practice that can be noted in their decision taking approach, as matters were decided without consulting and contacting other existing Anarchist individuals and groups. The authors of the announcement, plainly, by using the term of “ anarchists in Lebanon, Chili, Spain, Iraq and Kurdistan Region”, and as the geographical words mean, show that they talk and decide in the name of all and for all the anarchists who live in those countries. Here, all the anarchists who live in the countries that are mentioned in the announcement, face an answer to the question: Do all the anarchists of the countries mentioned agree and share the same positions that are expressed by the federation and the announcement?

We leave the answer to that question to the comrades who live in those countries. Considering the “Iraq and Kurdistan Region”, after a thorough examination, we do not know the existence of any individual who has a practical and socially active role, agree with that announcement. Therefore, we as anarchists and libertarians who Kurdish speakers, either as within the Forum of Kurdish-speaking anarchists and as well as the local Sulaymaniyah/Iraq Forum of anarchists, do not fall with any centralised, hierarchical, political, and armed actions. We believe in the social and autonomous organisation of social struggle, revolution, and self- running society.

For the reasons mentioned above, we as a group of Kurdish speaking anarchists and libertarians, either in the area of “Iraq and Kurdistan Region”, either outside, do not support that announcement and we are unaware of the process of declaring and the formation of that federation. As a result, without going into details and touch on our fundamental differences with them, we consider this type of initiatives as sectarist and in conflict with what is so far known as anarchist movement from an historical basis.

libertarians dialogue ( weekly internet dialogue )

Anarchist Forum in Sulaymaniyah/Iraq

Kurdish-speaking Anarchists Forum

28th of November 2020


the link : announcement of Anarchism Era website

Interviewing a comrade from the DAF (Devrimci Anarşist Faaliyet | Revolutionary Anarchist Action) / 1

Interview conducted by the KAF (Kurdish-speaking Anarchists Forum )

Please see the translation of the interview in French, Spanish and Esperanto in the attachment.
Translated by CNT-AIT France

Click to access 2020-01-12-interview-with-a-companion-from-the-daf.pdf

Translated in spanish by ( Alasbarricadas )

the Interview is regarding the state of Turkey’s invasion of Rojava, the reaction of the people in Turkey, the impact of the campaign of boycotting Turkish companies products, its markets and also the attitude of people in Turkey.

first part:

How is the situation in the cities of Turkey, especially Istanbul and Ankara during this war on Rojava? Are things carrying on as normal or are they living under the shadow of war?

There is (still) huge amount of nationalist propaganda. The war that the state in, is a beneficial tool of the government. They have changed the political structure of the state according to their wish by claiming to be in war. So, as you have mentioned everything is happening in the shadow of war. This shadow is fearful for normal people and the ones who got the political, economical and social power is using this to keep their position.

What was the reaction of people?

It is hard to say that there is a reaction. In every step of war politics, the state is banning to protest, demonstrate, criticise or even talk about the war in bad meaning. If anything appear (even a comment in social media), it is good reason for government to put people into jail. Many people have been sent to prison just criticise the war on Rojava.

In fact, the other half of the people are convinced this nationalist propaganda. The parties seemed like opposition they act together with AKP. If the issue is Kurdish issue, the liberals, kemalist even some socialist act in the same fascist line.

Are still able to go about your life as normal? If not how has your life changed?

As anarchists or libertarian people; the things are not going well. As I mentioned they have changed the structure of the state and the laws. So any law can be changed according to the wish of the “president”. The armed forces of the state act more courageously. You become open target not just by state but also civil fascists. If you write something on the issue in a newspaper, it is easy to put you in jail.

When the state starts a war, the war starts also inside the country. Big operations to revolutionary people, banning to newspapers and channels… Even while you are walking, you have been stopped by police for anykind of reeason and been taken undercostody as their wish.

Is there any resistant against the war on Rojava in form of protests or demonstration? Has people shown any solidarity to Rojava?

It is not just Rojava war, the social opposition in here cannot do anything because of “state of emergency” since 2015. So they said they finished the process of “state of emergency” but in reality it is not. Moreover, some parts of the opposition have their kemalist reflections in the “Kurdish issue”.

You may aware that there is a campaign of boycotting Turkish products, media and Tourism. We are a part of that campaign Have you noticed any effects as a result of this campaign to ordinary people in Turkey?

It is really hard to hear or be aware of such campaings. Because there is a policy of government in media, they do not allow anykind of information to be spread. But if you check the alternative media, it is the only option that you can be aware of. By the help of comrades of KAF informed us, we have been aware and tried to keep people aware about the campaign.

The economy in here is not going well for a while. Because of the economical programs, political process, malpractices of government etc. Probably these kind of campaigns have an affect on economy. But need to be analysed well.. So economy is bad for a while for everyone (of course not talking about the rich elites), that’s the only thing that everyone is sure. Even this reality is still ignored by state.

How is the situation inside the prisons? Have any comrades from your organisation or other anarchist groups been attacked, arrested by the state like it had happened in the past?

As I mentioned state of emergency in the answer before, since 2015 the conditions of the political prisoners are not going well. The situation for them is “state of emergency of state of emergency”.. The administration of the prisons have right to act according to their wish. And sometimes these wished are even against basic human rights. By the helps of a comrade who is in jail, we got the information of “inside”… They put 10-15 people to cells for 3-4 people. The conditions are agains anykind of moral or right. They even do not let political prisoners to see their lawyers which is a human right violation.

We got punishments like money or paroles luckily during this process. But we are living in such a land that anything can be good reason to be in prison.

Has the anarchist movement able to become a mass or social movement? Has it involved in the people’s daily struggles?

Anarchist movement in here has a short history. Modern anarchist movement had appeared at the end of 1980’s. Untill 2000s, the movement did not aim to socialize, more it has been seen as an intellectual effort. Today, the movement is becoming to be a social movement. You see anarchism more organised and social. From peoples liberation movement to ecology, from workers struggles to women liberation struggle there are anarchists.

In what areas the anarchist groups are active? For example: culture in general [theatre, literature, art, music] social movement, anti-militarism, children rights, education especially in bringing up the children, trade and cooperatives?

Actually, all topics we aim to have experiences. Now as a part of Revolutionary Anarchist Action; we have a 10-yeared-collective economy experience as 26A Cafe. Trying to expand the experience, we have 26A Workshop for 4 years (having presentations about anarchism to geography, archeology etc.). For 4 years we are running Young Workers Association which aims to organise young workers in different sectors. It is over 10 years, our women comrades are organising the Anarchist Women organisation to struggle the patriarchy. Again, it’s over 10 years, there is an anarchist tradition in highschools in the name of Highschool Anarchist Action. For 6 years, young comrades are organising the universities against fascists in the name of Anarchist Youth. Meydan Newspaper has 51 issue and working for the 52nd issue, it is the longest anarchist periodical publishing for this geography. Again it is over 10 years, we are in anti-militarist movement having the association of Consciensious Objection Association which is the anarchist solution to the war in Kurdistan. The organisation is calling people to be CO’s against war.

Revolutionary Anarchist Action (DAF)

Kurdish-speaking Anarchists Forum (KAF)

Flyer issued by CNT-AIT / Volante de la CNT-AIT / Flugfolio eldonita de CNT-AIT

Flyer issued by CNT-AIT / Volante de la CNT-AIT / Flugfolio eldonita de CNT-AIT

The New World is “moving along … or die”

Cédric Chouviat was one of those who get up early to earn a living in a world suffocated by unenforceable standards and where the exploitation of workers is growing behind a discourse that constantly praises the “uberization” of work.

He was a delivery man in one of these City Capitals where the bourgeoisie reigns supreme, where the dogsbody required by capitalism must only pass and not halt, where a “self-entrepreneur” can no longer find room to park his van.

The Branly avenue and the Suffren avenue belong to these beautiful places in Paris forbidden to proletariat, forbidden to Yellow Vests. In these avenues where money is sweating everywhere, workers are only tolerated. They are places in which the police are there to enforce every day the social segregation.

On January 3, in the corner of these two streets, Cédric Chouviat, as he was entitled, wanted to film the police officers who were monitoring his delivery activity.

The policemen did not like it, they imposed him a choke key and a deadly ventral tackle which fractured his larynx.

Cédric Chouviat died victim of all this social bestiality, he was the quiet father of five children and was forty-one years old.

The CNT-AIT Assembly in Toulouse, January 8, 2020


Cédric Chouviat fue uno de los que se levantaron temprano para ganarse la vida en un mundo sofocado por estándares no aplicables y donde la explotación de los trabajadores está creciendo detrás de un discurso que alaba constantemente la uberización del trabajo.

Él era un repartidor en una de estas Ciudades Capitales donde la burguesía reina suprema, donde las “pequeñas manos” del capitalismo, los explotados y precarios, solo deben pasar ; donde un “auto-emprendedor” ya no puede encontrar espacio para estacionar su camioneta.

La avenida de Branly y la avenida de Suffren pertenecen a estos hermosos lugares en París que tienen prohibido por los proletarios, prohibido pasar con chalecos amarillos, a esas avenidas que sudan dinero y donde solo se tolera a pena a los trabajadores, lugares en los que la policía está allí para imponer la segregación social perpetual.

El 3 de enero, en la esquina de estas dos calles, Cédric Chouviat, como tenía derecho, quería filmar a los agentes de policía que supervisaban su actividad de entrega.

No les gustó a los policias que impusieron una llave de estrangulamiento y una placa ventral mortal que le fracturó la laringe.

Cédric Chouviat murió víctima de toda esta bestialidad social. Era el tranquilo padre de cinco hijos y tenía cuarenta y un años.

La Asamblea CNT-AIT en Toulouse, 8 de enero de 2020

La Nova Mondo “cirkulas … aŭ mortas”

Cédric Chouviat estis unu el tiuj, kiuj ellitiĝas frue por gajni vivon en mondo sufokita de neplenumeblaj normoj kaj kie ekspluatado de laboristoj kreskas malantaŭ diskurso, kiu konstante laŭdas la uberigon de laboro.

Li estis liveranto en unu el ĉi tiuj ĉefurboj, kie la burĝaro regas supere, kie la malgrandaj manoj de kapitalismo devas nur pasi, kie “mem-entreprenisto” ne plu povas trovi ĉambron por parkumi sian kamioneton.

La avenuo Branly kaj la avenuo Suffren apartenas al ĉi tiuj belaj lokoj en Parizo, kiuj estas malpermesitaj al flavaj veŝtoj, al tiuj avenuoj, kiuj ŝvitas monon kaj kie laboristoj estas nur toleritaj, lokoj, kie la polico estas tie por devigi apartigon. ĉiutaga socia.

La 3an de januaro, en la angulo de ĉi tiuj du stratoj, Cédric Chouviat, kiel li rajtis, volis filmi la policistojn, kiuj kontrolis lian liveran agadon.

Ili ne ŝatis ĝin, ili trudis sufokan ŝlosilon kaj mortigan ventran plafonon, kiu frakasis lian laringon.

Cédric Chouviat mortis viktimo de ĉiu tiu socia besteco, li estis la trankvila patro de kvin infanoj kaj havis kvardek unu jarojn.

La Asembleo de CNT-AIT en Tuluzo, 8 januaro 2020

Police Brutally Attack to LAF (High School Anarchist Aciton)

The demonstration which was organised by the revolutionary high school organisations has been attcked brutally by police. High School Anarchist Action (LAF) is also one of the organisers of the protest. The demonstration is for protesting the university exams which is made for accepting the high school students who can pass the exam. The exam is one of the major problem in education issue.

For protesting this, every june there is demonstration about the exam. The protest has been planned to be in Kadıköy. The police has attacked to the protestors who tried to march. First attack to take the protestors have been occured brutally. The police have beated many protestors who are high school students. The violence of the police has continued during the police buses.

7 comrades from LAF, totally over 30 revolutionary has been taken into custody.

The vilonce of the police and the repression won’t keep us away from our struggle.