Algiers shanties erupt for 2nd day: "We will not stop the riot"

[bcbm]

Algiers shanties erupt for 2nd day: "We will not stop the riot" (http://maketotaldestroy.blogspot.com/2009/10/2nd-day-of-riots-in-algiers-slums.html)

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20091021/capt.443891bd8a0445898ace2dea0e4df456.aptopix_alge ria_riots_alg108.jpg?x=400&y=333&q=85&sig=fv5FN8AnLOYx1qff08D2FA--
http://d.yimg.com/a/p/rids/20091020/i/r3922635799.jpg?x=400&y=255&q=85&sig=iVYDhZF4Hs.UHAiYwePV3g--
http://d.yimg.com/a/p/rids/20091019/i/r941584332.jpg?x=400&y=266&q=85&sig=_cAy0udB8AHh_rN.9LzDAA--
http://d.yimg.com/a/p/rids/20091019/i/r387138140.jpg?x=400&y=274&q=85&sig=vvsqbS9wx2BVuJOXE8NLLg--



Residents of El Madania/Diar Echams, a working class suburb of Algiers, defended their neighborhood from police who came on orders from the city government to destroy their homes. The homes were built "illegally" and the city only planned to re-house some of the residents. (This is a very common cause of riots in 3rd world cities.)


At least nine officers were injured as protesters in the Diar Echams suburb threw stones and fire bombs at them....

Protesters on high ground above the suburb threw missiles on police in riot gear as they attempted to enter the area late on Tuesday....

"Most of the young people living here are in fact not living," a resident who identified himself as Ahmed told Reuters.

Many of the area's residents say they have no choice but to defend the shanty town since social housing is desperately oversubscribed.

"The way they give out housing is biased,” a protestor told FRANCE 24. “There are families of 14 people in two rooms, how can they sleep? One at a time? Some of the children spend all night outside taking drugs so their brothers and sisters can sleep. We will not stop the riot."




http://maketotaldestroy.blogspot.com/2009/10/2nd-day-of-riots-in-algiers-slums.html

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Very inspiring. Where is the Left here?

We need to take the lead in these social movements, instead of complaining about how Islamists take up issues which are ours!

[bcbm]

Where is the Left here?

i'm not sure about the current situation but during the 2001 insurrection in algeria, the left basically fulfilled their typical role during these sorts of events by trying to co-opt the struggle into votes for their parties and generally make peace with the establishment. i think they had some success with this strategy, though obviously not entirely as the struggle continues.


We need to take the lead in these social movements, instead of complaining about how Islamists take up issues which are ours!

actually i think it would be better for the left to fill a support role, at most, instead of trying to take the lead. at least, if taking the lead means what it has generally meant in these situations: making peace, managing the disaster, etc. i don't think the self-organization of the oppressed and marginalized is something to be overlooked.

[Niccolò Rossi]

actually i think it would be better for the left to fill a support role, at most, instead of trying to take the lead. at least, if taking the lead means what it has generally meant in these situations: making peace, managing the disaster, etc.

The role of leftism, as you note, is to co-opt and derail the struggle, but this is the case whether it takes a leading or a support role.

Also, I don't think the only form this process takes is collaborationist or legalistic. Another equally legitimate tendancy (though maybe not equally significant in size or scope) is (respresentative mostly of anarchism) towards the fetishisation of rioting and acts of violence and destruction by the amorphous 'masses' [The blog this story is sourced from is a typical example of this, referring to itself as 'shameless riot porn']


i don't think the self-organization of the oppressed and marginalized is something to be overlooked.

I agree, however, I wonder though how well these riots represent the capacity of working class self-organisation.

Riots of this character, whilst they have their roots in the barbarity and rotteness of capitalism and express an opposition to oppression, do not neccesarily provide an answer to it or any perspective for the future. For this the autonomy of the proletariat and the struggle on its own class terrain is absolutely vital. On this question I found this editorial printed in International Review (ICC) to be relevant: Riots or Revolution? (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/124_paris_argentina)

[bcbm]

The role of leftism, as you note, is to co-opt and derail the struggle, but this is the case whether it takes a leading or a support role.

hence the "at most" qualifier in my statement.


Also, I don't think the only form this process takes is collaborationist or legalistic. Another equally legitimate tendancy (though maybe not equally significant in size or scope) is (respresentative mostly of anarchism) towards the fetishisation of rioting and acts of violence and destruction by the amorphous 'masses'.

yes, but i don't think some insurrectionary anarchists posting about a riot in algeria will have much of an impact on what is actually happening in algeria, while the active maneuvering of the various "left" parties in that country to co-opt the movement and turn it towards pacification with the capitalist state and, ultimately, the conditions that sparked the rioting will.


I agree, however, I wonder though how well these riots represent the capacity of working class self-organisation.

i think the rioting fits into the larger social struggle that has been occurring in algeria since 2001. unfortunately there is not a lot of information about this in english that i have found, particularly in recent years. some old info can be found here (http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=02/12/30/5696349). obviously to be taken with a grain of salt, given the source.


Riots of this character, whilst they have their roots in the barbarity and rotteness of capitalism and express an opposition to oppression, do not neccesarily provide an answer to it or any perspective for the future.

i am not, and i don't think anyone is, suggesting that rioting of this sort alone is enough to bring the capitalist class to its knees. but i also don't agree with the position of rejecting these riots as somehow detrimental to the class struggle. what these sort of events show is a rupture in capitalist normalcy, similar to many of the events named positively in the piece you link, and these ruptures should be seized and expanded.

[Niccolò Rossi]

hence the "at most" qualifier in my statement.

Touche. Missed it the first time round.


yes, but i don't think some insurrectionary anarchists posting about a riot in algeria will have much of an impact on what is actually happening in algeria, while the active maneuvering of the various "left" parties in that country to co-opt the movement and turn it towards pacification with the capitalist state and, ultimately, the conditions that sparked the rioting will.Agreed, but then again I'm not merely talking here about a 'riot porn' blog by "some insurrectionary anarchists". The phenomenon does have a real existance within the (so-called) anarchist movement and is not just confined to individuals on the internet.

I'm not in any way aquainted with leftism (including the anarchists) in Algeria. Maybe someone could shed some light?


i think the rioting fits into the larger social struggle that has been occurring in algeria since 2001. unfortunately there is not a lot of information about this in english that i have found, particularly in recent years. some old info can be found here (http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=02/12/30/5696349). obviously to be taken with a grain of salt, given the source.

I don't think this answers the question though. What is the character of the 'social struggle' going on?

Also, Ttanks for the link. I'll take a couple of satchets while I'm at it, actually.


i am not, and i don't think anyone is, suggesting that rioting of this sort alone is enough to bring the capitalist class to its knees.

Certainly. I never made the accusation against yourself or anyone who has posted in thsi thread.


but i also don't agree with the position of rejecting these riots as somehow detrimental to the class struggle.

I am not, and I don't think anyone is, suggesting that rioting is, as a principle, detrimental to the class struggle.


what these sort of events show is a rupture in capitalist normalcy

Personally, I hate this kind of stuff. Superficially I can understand wat it means, but I don't understand the significance of it.


similar to many of the events named positively in the piece you link, and these ruptures should be seized and expanded.

I think it fairly clearly rejects the prospects of strategies of 'seizing' upon and 'expanding' these struggles:

"Unfortunately even some forces of the Communist Left, while able to see the 'limitations' of the social revolts, have been unable to resist the temptation to see something positive in them. The International Bureau for the Revolutionary Party for example has already been seduced by interclassist movements during December 2001 in Argentina, and in Bolivia shortly afterwards, seeing them as actual or potential expressions of the working class. In their statement on the French riots, the IBRP despite its criticisms of their futility, see the possibility of turning such revolts into a genuine class struggle through the agency of the revolutionary party...

"Of course one can always fantasise about the existence today of a class party and the miracles it could perform, according to the old Russian saying 'if there is no vodka, talk about vodka'. But today the revolutionary party does not yet exist precisely because the working class has still to develop its political independence and autonomy from all the other social forces in capitalist society. The conditions for the working class to create its own revolutionary party will be created, not by desperate social explosions but on the basis of the development of the proletariat’s class identity, above all through the development and extension of its struggles, and the intervention of revolutionaries within them. When we are in this historical situation then it will be possible for the proletariat, with its political party, to draw behind it the discontent of all the other oppressed strata in society but only on the basis that such strata recognise the leading and pivotal role of the working class.

"Today the task of revolutionaries is to insist on the necessity to create the political autonomy of the proletariat, not to help the bourgeoisie obscure it with delusions of grandeur about the role of the revolutionary party." (ICC, Editorial: Riots or Revolutions, International Review no. 124, 2006)

[Hiero]

Very inspiring. Where is the Left here?

We need to take the lead in these social movements, instead of complaining about how Islamists take up issues which are ours!

These types of social conflicts have become common recently. The problem with the old left is that it is outside their orthodox theories. These type of conflicts barely registers, the left parties just try to incorporate it into their allread outdated programs.

We need communists in the next 5 years to really generate new theories about these struggles before we can motivate political left to engage.

[bcbm]

Agreed, but then again I'm not merely talking here about a 'riot porn' blog by "some insurrectionary anarchists". The phenomenon does have a real existance within the (so-called) anarchist movement and is not just confined to individuals on the internet.

why the use of "so-called?" but yes, i'll agree that this tendency does exist, however it tends to exist (however contradictorily) with solid working class politics. in instances where it doesn't, well, those kind of anarchists generally aren't part of the movement as such and when they show up, they tend to be pretty easily persuaded towards more valid critiques. i would say the sort of pro-riot, anti-everything nonsense exists primarily in writing.


I'm not in any way aquainted with leftism (including the anarchists) in Algeria. Maybe someone could shed some light?

the best i can offer is what i already linked to, and that isn't much i'm afraid.


I don't think this answers the question though. What is the character of the 'social struggle' going on?

character, as in class character? as best i understand it, its based in the working class berber communities within algeria.


Personally, I hate this kind of stuff. Superficially I can understand wat it means, but I don't understand the significance of it.

i think the significance is that it opens a point from which the class struggle can be expanded on exponentially.


On the editorial; I think it very clearly rejects the prospects of strategies of 'seizing' upon and 'expanding' these struggles

which seems to be a mistake in my view. almost every social rupture of this sort has its origins in class issues and to portray them as "interclass" struggles misses the mark. certainly some bourgeois elements try to play off of them, but at their heart, these sort of uprisings come from the most exploited elements of society and i think the self-organization these groups undertake can be a starting point for something bigger.

i also think the perspectives on the french uprisings really miss the political character of those uprisings, as shown in texts like "grassroots political militants."

[Niccolò Rossi]

The problem with the old left is that it is outside their orthodox theories. These type of conflicts barely registers, the left parties just try to incorporate it into their allread outdated programs.

Does the CPA count? CPA-ML?


We need communists in the next 5 years to really generate new theories about these struggles before we can motivate political left to engage.

Why the next 5 years (as opposed to any other length of time)? In what way are these struggles outside 'orthodox theories' (whatever they are)? Where are these 'new theories' going to come from? Maybe you would care to contribute to this process by providing you insights in this thread.

[Niccolò Rossi]

why the use of "so-called?" but yes, i'll agree that this tendency does exist, however it tends to exist (however contradictorily) with solid working class politics. in instances where it doesn't, well, those kind of anarchists generally aren't part of the movement as such and when they show up, they tend to be pretty easily persuaded towards more valid critiques. i would say the sort of pro-riot, anti-everything nonsense exists primarily in writing.

I was actually going to explain my use of 'so-called' but didn't because I thought it would make my post more long winded and convoluted than it already was.

Pretty much I'm in agreement with you here. I use 'so-called' because I don't think we can speak of an 'anarchist movement' as a coherent and unified whole. All kinds of rubbish passes as 'anarchism' (this is also the case with Marxism and why I would never refer to a 'Marxist movement')


character, as in class character? as best i understand it, its based in the working class berber communities within algeria.

More or less, this is what I mean.

I don't think identifying the class composition of the movement is the same as identifying its class character though. To take an extreme and somewhat contriversial example, if the rank-and-file of a fascist party is overwhelmingly working class (which is often the case), does this make it a 'workers' party'? If an anti-immigrant movement finds support within the working class, does the movement become a workers' movement? Obviously I'm not trying to conflate the struggles going on in Algeria with fascism or racism or reaction, generally speaking, but I think the point still stands.

The essential question here is not who makes up the movement or what the perceptions of those who make it up are, but objectively what it is struggling for and how it is doing it.


i think the significance is that it opens a point from which the class struggle can be expanded on exponentially.

I don't see why ruptures in 'capitalist normalcy' necessarily represent the basis for an intensificantion of the class struggle. Riots of this sort are just as much open to drowing the autonomy of the working class, disorientating and immobilising it in the mire of inter-classism and wanton violence and destruction which holds no prospect for the development of the struggle and the creation of a communist society and lead to exhaustion and demoralisation. (See what I mean about long-winded and convoluted sentences!)


which seems to be a mistake in my view. almost every social rupture of this sort has its origins in class issues and to portray them as "interclass" struggles misses the mark. certainly some bourgeois elements try to play off of them, but at their heart, these sort of uprisings come from the most exploited elements of society and i think the self-organization these groups undertake can be a starting point for something bigger.

i also think the perspectives on the french uprisings really miss the political character of those uprisings, as shown in texts like "grassroots political militants."

Personally, I've not really considered this question at the length or depth necessary to take any firm position on the question and the division that it represents amongst the left communist milieu. Maybe representatives of the ICC or IBRP (if they are lurking around), or anyone else for that matter, could give their input in response to this.

[bcbm]

Pretty much I'm in agreement with you here. I use 'so-called' because I don't think we can speak of an 'anarchist movement' as a coherent and unified whole. All kinds of rubbish passes as 'anarchism' (this is also the case with Marxism and why I would never refer to a 'Marxist movement')

fair enough, though i think in this regard there is more of an anarchist movement than a marxist movement. for all the disagreements, anarchists generally seem to be more willing to let that shit slide when it comes to actual struggles in the real world.


Obviously I'm not trying to conflate the struggles going on in Algeria with fascism or racism or reaction, generally speaking, but I think the point still stands.

The essential question here is not who makes up the movement or what the perceptions of those who make it up are, but objectively what it is struggling for and how it is doing it.

that makes sense. i wish i had more to offer in this regard, but as we've discussed, there's only a few texts available in english and they aren't especially insightful when one wants to go for a more careful examination.


I don't see why ruptures in 'capitalist normalcy' necessarily represent the basis for an intensificantion of the class struggle. Riots of this sort are just as much open to drowing the autonomy of the working class, disorientating and immobilising it in the mire of inter-classism and wanton violence and destruction which holds no prospect for the development of the struggle and the creation of a communist society and lead to exhaustion and demoralisation.

i think a lot of struggles can be viewed this way, with the possibility of ultimately weakening the class or strengthening it. in any case, i don't think there is any reason to reject these sort of uprisings out of hand but, rather, determine in what ways they can build the class struggle.

[Devrim]

which seems to be a mistake in my view. almost every social rupture of this sort has its origins in class issues and to portray them as "interclass" struggles misses the mark. certainly some bourgeois elements try to play off of them, but at their heart, these sort of uprisings come from the most exploited elements of society and i think the self-organization these groups undertake can be a starting point for something bigger.

i also think the perspectives on the french uprisings really miss the political character of those uprisings, as shown in texts like "grassroots political militants."
Personally, I've not really considered this question at the length or depth necessary to take any firm position on the question and the division that it represents amongst the left communist milieu. Maybe representatives of the ICC or IBRP (if they are lurking around), or anyone else for that matter, could give their input in response to this.

Although we have a difference of opinion from the IBRP (now called the ICT (http://http//www.ibrp.org/en/articles/2009-10-26/the-international-bureau-for-the-revolutionary-party-becomes-the-internationalis)), I don't thing that it is a crucial political difference.

I am not aware of the text you refer to, bcbm. I think though that it is very easy for groups to produce texts about riots, and it doesn't necessarily mean that it reflects a development of consciouness amongst the participants.

I think in general that these riots are outburst of anger, and, yes, of course they reflect a dissatisfaction with working class conditions. It isn't the rich out there throwing bricks.

The question is whether they offer positive perspectives for communists to build on.

Devrim

[bcbm]

I am not aware of the text you refer to, bcbm. I think though that it is very easy for groups to produce texts about riots, and it doesn't necessarily mean that it reflects a development of consciouness amongst the participants.

are you referring to the text i mentioned about the banlieue? grassroots political militants (http://zinelibrary.info/grassroots-political-militants) is primarily composed of interviews conducted by an italian during and after the 2005 riots. while i agree that it is generally easy (trust me, i've read my share of stupid riot zines), i think the interviews in here give this piece a bit more perspective and its certainly a more interesting look at the situation than the general hysterics coming from most of the media and even much of the left which dismisses any intellgence in the rioters.


The question is whether they offer positive perspectives for communists to build on.


as i said, i don't think there is any reason to reject these sort of uprisings out of hand but, rather, determine in what ways they can build the class struggle. certainly we should at least keep an open mind?

[Devrim]

as i said, i don't think there is any reason to reject these sort of uprisings out of hand but, rather, determine in what ways they can build the class struggle. certainly we should at least keep an open mind?

I think we do keep an open mind. We didn't charecterise the hunger riots last year in many 'third world' countries in the same way that we talked about the riots in Paris:


The difference between hunger riots and the riots in the suburbs

It is the most impoverished masses of the "Third World" who are being hit by abject scarcity. The looting of shops is a perfectly legitimate reaction faced with an unbearable situation where the survival of yourself and your family is at stake. In this sense, the hunger riots, even when they provoke destruction and violence, should not be put at the same level as the urban riots (like that in Brixton in Britain in 1981 and those in the French suburbs in 2005) or race riots (like those in Los Angeles in 1992).[3]
Although they also trouble "public order" and result in material damage, the latter, in the final analysis, only serve the interests of the bourgeoisie, which is perfectly capable of turning them not only against the rioters themselves but also against the whole of the working class. In particular, these manifestations of desperate violence (in which elements of the lumpen-proletariat are often involved) always provide the ruling class with the opportunity to strengthen its apparatus of repression through increasing police patrols of the poorest areas where working class families live.
These types of riot are a pure product of the decomposition of the capitalist system. They are an expression of the despair and feelings of "no future" that it engenders and this is expressed in their totally absurd character. This was the case for example with the riots which blazed across the French suburbs in 2005 when the young people didn't unleash their actions in the rich neighbourhoods inhabited by their exploiters but in their own neighbourhoods which became even more difficult to live in as a result. The fact that it was their own families or neighbours who were the main victims of their depredations reveals the blind, desperate and suicidal character of these riots. It was the cars of workers living in the neighbourhoods that were burned, or the schools and colleges attended by their brothers and sisters or the children of their neighbours which were destroyed. And precisely because of the absurdity of these riots the bourgeoisie was able to make use of them and turn them against the working class. Their massive exposure in the media enabled the ruling class to make as many workers as possible see the young rioters not as victims of capitalism in crisis, but as "thugs". Apart from the fact that these riots made it possible to step up a witch hunt of immigrant youth, they undermined any possibility of solidarity among the working class towards these young people excluded from production, deprived of any perspective for the future and subjected to the permanent pressure of police harassment.
For their part, the hunger riots are first and foremost an expression of the bankruptcy of the capitalist economy and of the irrationality of its system of production. This is now taking the form of a food crisis which is hitting not only the most disenfranchised layers in the "poor" countries, but more and more wage workers, including those in the so-called "developed" countries. It's not by chance that the majority of workers' struggles developing today all over the planet put forward wage rises as their key demand. Galloping inflation, the spiral in the price of basic necessities, the fall in real wages and of retirement pensions eaten away by inflation, the precariousness of employment and the waves of redundancies - these are all manifestations of the crisis and contain all the ingredients for ensuring that the question of hunger, of the struggle for survival, is more and more being posed within the working class. Already several inquiries have shown that the supermarkets and high streets where workers do their shopping are less and less able to sell their products and are being forced to reduce their orders.
And it is precisely because the question of the food crisis is already hitting the workers of the "poor" countries (and will more and more affect those in the central countries) that the bourgeoisie will have the greatest difficulty in exploiting the hunger riots against the proletarian class struggle. Generalised want and famine - here is the future that capitalism has in store for the whole of humanity and this future is being highlighted by the hunger riots which have broken out recently in a number of countries.
Obviously, these riots are also reactions of despair by the most impoverished masses of the "poor" countries, and in themselves they do not contain any perspective for the overthrow of capitalism. But unlike the urban and racial riots, hunger riots are a concentrated form of all the absolute misery which capitalism is imposing on ever larger portions of humanity. They show the fate that awaits the whole working class if this mode of production is not overthrown. In this sense, they contribute to the process through which the proletariat becomes aware of the irredeemable bankruptcy of the capitalist economy. Finally, they show the cynicism and ferocity with which the ruling class responds to explosions of anger by those who loot shops to avoid dying of hunger: repression, tear gas, truncheons and machine guns.
What's more, unlike the riots in the suburbs, these riots are not a factor of division in the working class. On the contrary, despite the violence and destruction that may be involved in them, hunger riots tend to give rise to spontaneous feelings of solidarity on the part of the workers, given that they are among the first to be affected by the food crisis and are finding it harder and harder to feed their families. In this sense, the hunger riots are much more difficult for the bourgeoisie to exploit by setting workers against each other or creating divisions within the poorer neighbourhoods.


http://en.internationalism.org/ir/134/food-riots

Devrim

[Devrim]

I'm not in any way aquainted with leftism (including the anarchists) in Algeria. Maybe someone could shed some light?

I don't know much about it either, but there used to be a strong Bordigist group their until the ICP imploded.

Devrim

[Niccolò Rossi]

I don't know much about it either, but there used to be a strong Bordigist group their until the ICP imploded.

Yes, I think I have heard about this. Do you have any more information on this?

When I met with ICC comrades from Germany some months back, when discussing the IBRP, one mentioned some dubious links the IBRP had with some Algerian groups in the past as evidence of their opportunism. Would you have any information regarding this also? Have I interpreted the comrade correctly on this matter or am I misrepresenting the reality?

On the topic of the current riots, Devrim, how do you think the distinction made by the ICC in the article quoted relates to the current situation. I hadn't made a clear distinction in my mind and I think it may show through in my above posts. Would you have any more concrete comments to make on the situation itself?

[Devrim]

Yes, I think I have heard about this. Do you have any more information on this?

It all happened in 1982 before the Internet, so it is difficult to find sources on-line:


This was demonstrated very painfully by the collapse of the ‘Bor*digist’ International Communist Party (Communist Programme) in the early 80s. Although this current claims to be the genuine heir of the Italian left tradition, it rejected the notion of deca*dence which had been so crucial to the work of the Italian Frac*tion in the 30s. In particular, it rejected the idea that since the decadence of capitalism was a global phenomenon, there could no longer be any progressive role for ‘national libera*tion’ movements in the underdeveloped regions. Reiterating Bordiga’s sterile theory about the ‘invariance’ of marxism since 1848, the ICP saw a revolutionary significance in all kinds of national liberation wars - all of which were in fact proxy wars between the two imperialist blocs or between other local and regional imperialist sharks. By the beginning of the 80s the ICP’s support for Palestinian nationalism led a faction within if to pass over into the camp of leftism pure and simple, and this in turn resulted in the implosion of the whole international organisation.

As I remember it the Algerian section came out in support of Palestinian nationalism, and then the whole house, and they had a reasonably big organisation before this, came falling down. I don't know much more about it.


one mentioned some dubious links the IBRP had with some Algerian groups in the past as evidence of their opportunism. Would you have any information regarding this also? Have I interpreted the comrade correctly on this matter or am I misrepresenting the reality?

To me it sounds like you have mixed something up. The IBRP had some connections with an Iranian group SUCM, who were part of the Hekmatist current. The ICP (Communist Programme) had the group in Algeria.


On the topic of the current riots, Devrim, how do you think the distinction made by the ICC in the article quoted relates to the current situation. I hadn't made a clear distinction in my mind and I think it may show through in my above posts. Would you have any more concrete comments to make on the situation itself?

I will try to read a little more about them before commenting.

Devrim

[bricolage]

Very inspiring. Where is the Left here?

If it's anything like the Greece the Communist/Socialist Parties are probably going around condemning the people involved.