Antifascism

There is a question the system never asks out loud: if capital had a real interest in ending drugs, why have they spent decades in the same neighbourhoods? The answer is uncomfortable but material: because it needs them there. The Spanish case of the 1980s is the most documented laboratory in Europe. The Transition — negotiated between the institutional left and the Francoist hierarchy reconverted into democrats — needed to pacify the streets. And the streets were not easy to pacify. Asturias, the Basque Country, Vallecas, the industrial neighbourhoods of Barcelona had decades of working-class culture, real conflict and a youth that came from the anti-Franco movement ready to fight. Direct repression was not enough. Heroin appeared. Not spontaneously. With a geographical precision that admits no coincidence: the areas with the most working-class conflict were the first to be flooded. Heroin circulated most heavily in working-class neighbourhoods and areas with a combative labour tradition — Asturias, Vallecas, the Basque Country. While the Socialist Party executed the industrial reconversion that left thousands of workers on the street, heroin anaesthetised those who could have resisted. When you followed the origin of heroin from the neighbourhoods, you always arrived at the same point of no return: the barracks. Documented by Carmen Díaz, president of the Association of Mothers United Against Drugs — working-class mothers who without institutional training but with class instinct understood before anyone else what was happening. The mechanism is brutal in its simplicity: deliberate deindustrialisation, mass unemployment, uprooting, loss of community fabric, loss of collective meaning. And into that void, drugs. Not as an accidental consequence but as a functional product. Heroin flowed with suspicious ease in the most conflictive areas, with shameful police complicity. An entire generation of young workers who could have fought back was neutralised. Neighbourhoods destroyed, families broken, working-class political culture erased in a decade. Capital did not need tanks. It needed smack. Today the mechanism has been refined. Heroin remains in the same neighbourhoods but layers have been added: sports betting targeted specifically at working-class youth, cheap alcohol, high-potency cannabis, normalised cocaine. And on top of everything, a culture that presents consumption as rebellion, as transgression, as countercultural identity. The same move as in the 80s when the heroin aesthetic was glamourised — shooting up was seen as being rebellious. Nothing further from the truth. Drug consumption is not a revolutionary act. It is not transgression. It is exactly what capital needs: a sedated, atomised worker, incapable of collective organisation, spending what little they have on the product that destroys them. Addiction does not liberate. It chains. And it does so in the same neighbourhoods, with the same class profiles, with the same precision as always. The working-class family destroyed by addiction is not collateral damage. It is the objective.

Addiction isnt a vice. Its a tool.

Capital has an ability it has never lost: recycling rebellion as a product. It did it with rock in the 50s, with hippism in the 60s, with punk in the 70s. It has done it again with wokism. Woke isn't class struggle with new categories. It is its substitute. It replaces the struggle between those who own the means of production and those who don't with the struggle between identity groups — race, gender, sexual orientation, functional diversity. The political subject stops being the worker who owns nothing and becomes the individual who belongs to an oppressed category. Oppression stops being material and becomes symbolic. And the symbolic, unlike the material, does not threaten capital. It feeds it. Philosopher Mark Fisher described it precisely: identity politics seeks to lock people into their identity camps, where they will forever be defined according to parameters established by dominant power, paralysed by self-consciousness, isolated by a logic of solipsism. This is not liberation. It is the most sophisticated form of control that late capitalism has produced. Clouscard had anticipated it decades earlier. The capitalism of seduction does not eliminate class conflict — it conceals it. It segments desire into niches: gay, eco, punk, hipster, trans, wellness. Each niche becomes an identity, each identity a market, each market a substitute for class consciousness. The worker who should recognise themselves as such recognises themselves instead as the consumer of a specific niche. Their politics are defined by the algorithm, not by their position in the relations of production. The result is visible in any major corporation: rainbow flags in June, inclusive language in corporate communications, diversity quotas on boards of directors. And poverty wages, precarious contracts and co-opted unions the rest of the year. Capital has learned that it is cheaper to change the language than to change the material conditions. And here is what nobody in the WOKE space wants to say out loud: the political subject cannot be a trans girl, a racialised person, or any other identity category that capital has validated and packaged for consumption. The political subject was, is, and will continue to be the worker — the one who does not own the means of production, who sells their labour to survive, who has no power except collective organisation. That is not an exclusion. It is a material fact. Every other identity can be co-opted, marketed, and neutralised. Class cannot. The working class does not need capital to recognise its identities. It needs to recover the means of production. Everything else is decoration.

Lenin was clear in 1920: "We are obliged to wage the struggle in Parliament in order to destroy Parliament." This is not a contradiction. It is a tactic. The bourgeois Parliament is not destroyed by ignoring it. It is destroyed by turning it against itself — exposing to the masses what it actually is: the place where capital administers its class interests in the language of universal democracy. The seat as a megaphone, not as a destination. The party as an instrument of class, not as a manager of the system. The moment a movement enters parliament to govern within the bourgeois framework it ceases to be a threat and becomes just another leg of the same table. The real constituent process — not the reform negotiated with financial powers — means rupture. That the accumulation of forces in the electoral, union and territorial terrain reaches the point where the bourgeois legal framework can no longer contain the pressure of class. The workers' movement does not launch electoralist proclamations. It uses elections for what they are: a tool that can be turned against the system when there is real organisation and a class programme behind it. Whoever enters to manage the system loses their sense of class, collective roots, the political culture that makes any real transformation possible. They become a voter. And the voter delegates. And whoever delegates builds nothing.

Take the Sky by Storm. For Real.

The Left: Capital's Leg The left has not failed. It has worked exactly as designed. It is not an emancipatory tool that went wrong along the way. It is a containment tool. Its historical function is not to transform the capitalist order but to guarantee its stability: to give the working class the illusion of representation, absorb social conflict before it becomes dangerous, and legitimise with popular vocabulary decisions that serve capital. Without an institutional left the system stands naked. With it, the worker has a party that speaks about their problems, a union that negotiates on their behalf and a progressive government that promises this time it will be different. The material result does not change. But the pressure does not explode. That is not a failure. That is the success of the mechanism. The left-right dichotomy does not describe two antagonistic projects. It describes two modes of administering the same system. The right does it with austerity and discipline. The left does it with the management of discontent and the co-optation of conflict. Both agree on the fundamentals: private ownership of the means of production, the bourgeois institutional framework and integration into the structures of transnational capital. The left is not the solution. It is part of the architecture of the problem.

Paris Burns. Again. This week Paris burned again. PSG won their second consecutive Champions League and the Champs-Élysées became once more a stage for looting, burning cars, and clashes with police. Over 400 arrested. An officer injured. A bakery destroyed. A restaurant ransacked. The question nobody wants to ask out loud is simple: who does this, and why? These are not workers. There is no labour grievance, no list of demands, no organisation whatsoever. This is the lumpen. What Marx called the lumpenproletariat: the disorganised mass, without class consciousness, without productive roots, without any collective project. People with no trade and no purpose, as it used to be said more plainly than it is today. And here Clouscard intervenes with a precision that makes the culturalist left deeply uncomfortable. For him, capitalism in its seduction phase does not integrate these masses — it needs them disintegrated. The spirit of '68 was the midwife of the new consumer society, incorporating the romantic mythology of rebellion and subversion into the strategies of capitalist expansion. What remained of that in the peripheries was not emancipation. It was a market of desire without access to desire: directionless violence, identity without territory, rage without class. Instead of integrating waves of immigrants into French society, the system chose to isolate them in peripheral neighbourhoods of major cities, creating pockets of unemployment and marginalisation. Second generation, third generation. No real roots in the country where they live, no real connection to the country their families came from. Capital needed them as cheap labour and then abandoned them in the banlieue. Note also where all of this happens. The riots are not in the 16th arrondissement of Paris, where those who actually own the city live. They happen in working-class neighbourhoods, in local shops, in the neighbour's bakery. The lumpen does not attack capital. It destroys what remains of working-class community. That is not class struggle. It is precisely the opposite.

May '68: The Revolution That Never Was There's a poem the contemporary left would rather forget. It was written by Pier Paolo Pasolini, a communist, in January 1968, after the clashes at Valle Giulia in Rome. While everyone was cheering the students, he wrote the opposite. In the poem, Pasolini stated bluntly: "In Valle Giulia, yesterday, we had a fragment of class struggle: and you, friends, though on the side of reason, were the rich, while the police, who were on the wrong side, were the poor." Pasolini pointed out that the children of workers were not among the comfortable, dissatisfied bourgeois university students — they were among the police. The ones throwing cobblestones had the faces of daddy's boys. The ones receiving them came from the outskirts. Clouscard goes further and delivers the structural diagnosis. Faced with the serious ideological drift born of '68, he proposed updating revolutionary theory by taking into account the mutation of the dominant system. His conclusion: '68 was not a revolution. It was a restructuring of capitalism with a rebel aesthetic. With the libertarianism born of May '68, liberalism fulfilled its own concept: the old bourgeois values of saving and sobriety were replaced by a hedonistic and permissive model — a society tailored to the dreams that consumption provides. Sexual liberation, anti-authoritarianism, radical individualism — everything '68 made fashionable did not threaten capital. It accelerated it. When the dust settles after the riots, nothing appears to have changed. The government remains, the ministers, the same officials, the same law, the same regime. But much changes in what comes after: it was a coup within the intellectual establishment, among the mandarins who would decide how we were going to live. That is May '68. Not a proletarian revolution. A bourgeois revolution with borrowed barricades.

🔴⚫ The channel is taking a break cause for personal reasons we don't have much time to devote to. You can continue enjoying the media and news as usual, on the related channels and comrades who do a great job. Of course we would like to thank the people who have been sharing material 🔴⚫ Thank you all, cheers, 161 ✊ t.me/antifaaktie

#acab

30/11/2024 Angers 🇫🇷 Réactivité Antifasciste Angevine après la rencontre d’un faf du RED/Cocarde qui refusa d’assumer ses opinions politiques. Après avoir perdu son iPhone, ses AirPods, sa commande BigM, Gwendal lapina. Angevine Antifascist reactivity after meeting a RED/Cocarde nazi who refused to assume his political opinions. After losing his iPhone, his AirPods and his BigM order, Gwendal ran like a rabbit #TuSeraisPasNaziParHasard #NewRockDansLCrane #TuPerdsTesAirpodsTonIPhoneTesBurgersTuPerdsTout #AngersAntifa #Antifa #Squads

Lesbos, Greece @antifastreet

🔔 #ACAB! #ACAB! 🔔 ⏰ Every day, at 13:12 CET... 🎉 The best moment of the day! 👉 Join the1312Time channel ! 👈 🤖 Share your ACAB memes! 🤖

Some of the Halloween themed posters seen around Sydney

Halloween ACAB pasteup in Santiago, Chile