A-Infos (en) Italy, Ponte Ghisolfa: In war as everyday life by msette (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

If Erdogan's government raises its voice against the extermination of 
the Palestinians, will it become less tyrant? Is the severity of the 
ferocious repression in Turkey and the war against the Kurds and in 
Rojava diminished and does the cry that condemns him fade away since, 
thirty years ago, he was only the mayor of Istanbul? To many of our 
readers, fortunately, this will seem like a rhetorical question. Yet the 
logic that requires abundant doses of condescension towards the enemy of 
my enemy, the "main" one, has always been very present among militants - 
or, if you prefer, activists - and left-wing journalists, as well as in 
movements. It happens in a particular way, as Raúl Zibechi points out 
here, when wars become the dominant aspect of daily life as they do now. 
And then when we remain prisoners of tactics, geopolitics and disputes 
between empires and nation-states. Zibechi, who lives in South America, 
points out once again how the experience of many indigenous peoples of 
Latin America is a useful point of reference - not a model - for 
resisting the temptation to suspend criticism of the extractivism or 
plunder that it devastates territories, one's own or that of others, 
when they bear the signature of Brazil, China, South Africa or other 
countries with rapidly growing economies becoming competitors or 
dangerous adversaries of the worst because most powerful imperialism, 
that of the stars and stripes. Furthermore, since January 1st, new 
members have entered the "Brics" grouping, among which Saudi Arabia, 
Iran and Egypt stand out. The resistance groups that Raúl writes about 
never believed that the emergence of new world powers could improve 
their concrete situation. For those resistance groups there are no 
alternatives: either they will learn to defend themselves, as the 
Zapatistas have done for thirty years amidst a thousand problems and not 
without making mistakes, for example, or they will succumb to the 
"national" interests of the new elites linked to the so-called emerging 
powers.

When wars become the dominant aspect in daily life, when they raze the 
stability of bodies and lives, emancipation movements are forced to 
adopt a concrete policy. Otherwise they run the risk of ceasing to exist 
as such, that is, as organizations fighting for the liberation of their 
people and for a new world.

If organized movements and peoples do not adopt a concrete policy 
towards war, they will depend on the armed forces of the nation-state 
for their defense. They will not have the slightest independence to make 
their own decisions in their territories and there will be no other way 
than to submit to what the armed forces decide.

Unfortunately this is what is happening with some movements, even among 
the most powerful in South America: they remain within the statist logic 
and have no interest in emerging from it. Some of them have conformed to 
geopolitics and limit themselves to considering only the United States 
and Western countries, such as England and France, as imperialists.

By the same logic, they become supporters of countries in conflict with 
the United States, such as China, Russia or Iran, without taking into 
account the fact that those states oppress their own and also other 
peoples, as in the case of Russia in Ukraine . They even go so far as to 
support the Turkish government, despite the continuous violations of 
people's rights and human rights.

But there are other movements, and I think they are the majority, that 
are not aligned with their states, nor are they affiliated with a 
geopolitical logic, nor do they see salvation in China or Russia. 
However, they have not given themselves time to reflect on the war nor 
do they evaluate the importance it will have in the future. It is 
necessary to confront this second group and explain that wars will be 
the daily bread of the coming years, both in their inter-state version 
and in the "war on drugs" variant. Both promote militarism and the most 
diverse forms of violence.

In recent years, discussions in the organized part of our people have 
focused on very concrete and everyday issues, but it has not been 
possible to open them up to more global issues, with a few exceptions. 
There is a clear anti-repressive and sometimes anti-state tension, but 
it exists more as a reflection than as a consequence of a broad vision.

Finally, there is a third sector that has undertaken collective 
self-defense against extractivism and already has experience in training 
indigenous, black and peasant guards, especially in South America. 
Equipping yourself with self-defense guards is a decisive step because 
it means distancing yourself from the nation-state and its armed and 
police forces to protect your own spaces and life in common.

It is no coincidence that this third sector has taken the path of 
autonomy and no longer gets involved in electoral disputes.

The Zapatista experience is undoubtedly relevant, not only for the 
ability to defend its territories but also for the construction there of 
a world different from that of capitalism.

The Mapuche, Nasa, Misak and dozens of Amazonian peoples are going in 
the same direction. They have their own programs, far from those of the 
State and the parties, almost always linked to the recovery and defense 
of their territories and their ways of life. These groups may not have 
discussed current and future wars, but they have long experience in 
resisting the five-century-long war of conquest, which places them in a 
special position.

From what has been said, it appears clear that the indigenous peoples 
of Latin America are following a path of self-defense that other 
movements and organizations are following and will follow. Their 
long-term experience is vital, as we can see every day in the south of 
our continent, where all resistance to mining and extractivism refers - 
almost inexorably - to indigenous resistance.

These resistance groups never believed that the emergence of new world 
powers could improve their concrete situation. What's more: they 
experienced how the rise of British rule and the simultaneous decline of 
the Spanish empire not only did not improve their situation, but 
actually worsened it. Something similar happened with the Araucanía War 
in Chile and the Conquest of the Desert in Argentina, which began almost 
simultaneously between the 1860s and 1880s, which began the long 
expropriation of the peoples who inhabited those terrors before the 
formation of post-colonial states.

This is why those resistance groups know that there are no shortcuts: 
either they defend themselves or they will succumb at the hands of the 
new elites linked to the so-called emerging powers.

Translation for Municipality-info: Marco Calabria

https://ponte.noblogs.org/2024/3542/nella-guerra-come-vita-quotidiana/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en