maandag 28 mei 2012

28th of May - Solidarity action for Zippo

Monday the 28th of May a small delegation of autonomous nationalists from the Netherlands joined a solidarity action in Antwerp, organized by Flemish comrades. Through this action, attention was asked for the court case of Alberto Palladino. Alberto, also known as "Zippo", is one of the co-founders of the Italian Casa Pound movement and performed selflessly volunteer work for the Karen people in Birma. Without any form of evidence or trial he has already been detained for several months in a Roman jail by the system in collaboration with the Partito Democratico. Throughout the whole of Europe we can see increasing repression against nationalists and other alleged enemies of the system. By criminalizing the opposition the system tries to divert the attention away from itself. An attempt has been made to convince the population that nationalist and socialist politics is a threat that has to be fought by all means. With special laws, repression, smear campaigns and disproportionally high jail penalties, they try to divert the attention from the economic crisis and the essential social problems that currently plague our countries. While youth gangs are making our streets unsafe as well as the white collar criminals that exploit our people are dealt with using velvet gloves, nationalists face systematic criminalization, severe punishment and oppression because of their political views. The court case against Alberto, which today was delayed again until the 8th of June, is one of these poignant examples. Therefore:

Stop repression!
Freedom for all nationalists!  
Zippo libero!       

zaterdag 19 mei 2012

Querfront: A historical consideration

There is a lot of discussion about the term "Querfront". This discussion was inter alia started because the autonomous part of the movement appeared on demonstrations wearing Palestine scarfs, anticapitalist slogans and Ché Guevara shirts. From that time on the term is arbitrarily used. The attempts to take over certain revolutionary symbolism, style, language and clothing by autonomous activists of different political shades, often leads to uncertainty and doubt within the movement. Some people have problems to indicate these new "sub-cultural expressions" concerning theory and terminology. In this context it is often referred to as an alleged "Querfront strategy" of militant opposition against the system or "National Bolshevist" theorists.

It’s doubtful if the term "Querfront" indeed is suitable to accurately describe the current process of the increasingly fading boundaries between the "left" and the "right". First of all the term originates from a specific historical context that doesn't fit the current relationships. Second of all it suggests an inner coherence both in content and concept, which in this way doesn’t exist in the present nor in the past. 

The term "Querfront" - resp. "Querfront strategy" - arose for the first time during the political-ideological debate in the Weimar republic. This was at the beginning of the '30's against the background of the authoritarian “Präsidial regimes” (reactionary minority cabinets installed by the Reich president with the help of an emergency law – the Notstandgesetze). None of the Reich chancellors that ruled between March 1930 and January 1933 (Heinrich Brüning, Franz von Papen and Kurt von Schleicher) could count on a parliamentary majority or a broad social basis. Although many fractions - from the National-Conservatives till deep in the bourgeois camp - cheered the incalculable erosion of parliamentary institutions, these groups didn’t posses any consistent political concepts or strategies. In particular the extremely reactionary Junker-friendly course of Chancellor Von Papen was not capable of uniting the National-Conservative spectrum. Therefore the "cabinet of Barons" (the reactionary emergency cabinet Von Papen) shipwrecked within 5 months in November 1932 (the legendary BVG-strike gave it the last push).    

Therefore the successor of Von Papen as chancellor - Reichswehr general Kurt von Schleicher - found it very important to have a broad social and political support for his presidential regime. In this situation the idea of a "Quer" grew, lying transversely to the ideological dividing line of the traditional political parties. An alliance that consisted from the Reichswehr, Unions and the leftwing of the NSDAP. For a short period of time this alliance became a serious political option. Although the different ideas and expectations of the several propagandists in the "Querfront" concept lay considerably apart.  

On a theoretic-ideological level the "Querfront" was largely developed by the representatives of the National-Revolutionary TAT-circle and formulated in numerous publications such as the "TAT" and the “Tägliche Rundschau”. Through the reign of Von Schleicher the authors hoped to achieve the definite abolishment of the Weimar republic and the realization of an authoritarian State based on the popular will. 

The political positions of Von Schleicher indeed seemed to match many of the points from the TAT-circle. Already since the First World War the general had promoted the ideas that key industries had to be subjected to severe control of the State, that war profits should be highly taxed and that price stabilizations with certain forms of government coercion should be realized. Also as the Reich chancellor he stood for an emphatic defence of State interests against industry and considered to move towards partial nationalizations.    

But on the contrary to the TAT-circle, Von Schleicher’s ideas were not meant to create a new form of State and to bring about a form of National Socialism. The thinking and acting of the Reich chancellor was formed by pragmatic military categories. The most important thing for Von Schleicher was the creation of a social mass base for his presidential regime (which on the long term would have looked like a Bonapartist military dictatorship).   

Indeed in the autumn of 1932 more and more voices within the Allgemeine Deutsche Gewerkschaftsbund (ADGB) as well as inside the leftwing of the NSDAP did no longer exclude the participation in a possible "Querfront". Since the early '30's there had already been National-Corporatist tendencies inside the ADGB, while at the same time the internal debate within the union about the rapidly growing National Socialist movement was forthcoming.

In addition inside the ADGB associated separate unions - regarding the dramatic rise in unemployment - the call for a job creation program of the State became louder and louder. This led to significant conflicts with the SPD leadership. The traditionally tight bond between the labour movement and the Social-Democracy was so seriously weakened that in May 1932 Gregor Strasser - fraction chairman of the NSDAP in the Reichstag and embodiment of the anticapitalist leftwing within the Party -  unfolded an economic urgency program during a remarkable speech in the Reichstag. This was in many aspects very similar to the job creation program of the unions.           

During the summer and autumn of 1932 several exploratory talks took place between the ADGB leadership and the Reichsgoverment to chart all options for the realization of a "government with all popular powers". Meanwhile Gregor Strasser had official meetings with Von Schleicher as well as representatives of the (Social-Democratic) Reich banner. He was in direct contact with the leadership of the ADGB. Till these day on it is unclear if there also were any negotiations about the formation of a possible "Querfront" between Von Schleicher, union leaders and National Socialists economists. Since the end of August 1932 the formation of a cabinet consisting of Von Schleicher, Strasser and Leipart (ADGB-chairman) became a serious political opportunity. However when Von Schleicher was appointed Reich chancellor the concept of a "Querfront" was already overtaken by the events. Within the NSDAP Strasser couldn’t get enough support for his concept. On the 8th of December he drew his conclusions and resigned as chairman. He also resigned from all of his other functions within the Party.          

The labour movement also pulled out of taking such an unambiguous position to benefit Von Schleicher's presidential regime. Partially because of the immense pressure the SPD leadership exercised on the ADGB leadership. The ambivalent attitude against the National Socialist movement remained. The Von Schleicher cabinet, at that moment completely isolated, didn’t last for more than two months. On the 30th of January Adolph Hitler was appointed as Reich chancellor. First in a coalition cabinet with German Nationals, with Von Papen as vice-chancellor. Three months later on the 1st of May 1933 the ADGB supported the call out of the National Socialist regime for the "Tag der nationalen Arbeit" (day of national work) and marched alongside the National forces. They were convinced that in the new Germany the labour movement would become an organic part of the whole. The following day the ADGB seized to exist and was totally integrated in the newly formed Deutsche Arbeitsfront (DAF). This meant the ultimate consequence of National-Corporatism.

maandag 14 mei 2012

13 Mai - C9M Manifestation against Mondialisation (Paris)

In the weekend of 12-13 may a delegation of autonomous nationalists from the Netherlands went to Paris (France) to protest against mondialisation. On the 12th of May they gathered with French, Italian and German comrades of the ACN/AKN (Anti Capitalist Network). The unitary manifestation, which was a joint initiative of the "Comité du 9 mai (C9M)", "Nationalistes autonomes", "Troisième Voie", "la Nouvelle Droite populaire", "Terre et peuple", "les Jeunesses nationalistes" en "GUD", started in the centre of Paris, at the "La Madeleine" where around a thousand comrades gathered to protest for several economic and political themes. 

The ACN/AKN joined the black block of the French autonomous nationalists. Besides the usual anticapitalist and anti-authoritarian slogans, some segments within the French autonomous movement still let themselves be seduced into rightwing-populist and anti-Islamic slogans. We (Netwerk Nationale Socialisten) distance ourselves from this; for us autonomism represents not only a subculture, but a revolutionary practice. Several ACN/AKN manifests were spread among the activists within the black block. The manifestation moved to the direction of the Place de Pyramides, where by the statue of Jeanne d'Arc acoustic music was played after which a minute of silence for Sebastien Deyzieu was held- a militant nationalist who was killed by the police. Several speeches were held after this regarding the theme. 

Despite of some points of criticism, it certainly was a successful protest. We thank all our French, German and Italian comrades for a good and activist weekend!   

"Social-Fascism": The Fascism of the Leftwing

In contrast of socialism (no matter what tendency: national or international socialism) fascism without a political practice represents no real ideology, but an extreme form of uncivilized behaviour. The essential elements of fascism are the dictatorship of the status quo, the prosecution of dissenters, the ruthless exploitation of the own and other peoples, self enrichment of a small unscrupulous group, the spreading of lies and propaganda, imperialism, the overthrow of other peoples and nations, mass murder and more. 

In that regard one cannot classify fascism within a certain political direction (leftwing-rightwing-centre) nor within a certain social group, people or nation, without thoroughly investigating the facts and backgrounds. A good example of this is the historical Italian fascism:

Opportunist wanderings are not rare among fascists. The Italian "duce del fascismo" (leader of fascism) Benito Mussolini was a social democrat and a publisher of newspapers ("La lotta di classe" = "The class struggle"). He regarded Karl Marx as "the greatest theorist of socialism" and Marxism as the "scientific doctrine of the class revolution". In his publications he fought the republican majority in Italy as well as the moderates within his own ranks.     

After the unrest of World War I Mussolini’s ambitions and desire was encouraged. He used his political influence and founded his own fascist party in 1919. Together with the anarchists he succeeded to gain power in 1922. The further development of Italian fascism until its fall in 1944 is well documented in history books. 

Because fascism is not a separate ideology its no surprise that after 1945 the fascist party (MSI) of Italy was re-founded.  

Is there a difference between rightwing and leftwing (social-) fascism? 

Of course purely theoretically a clear distinction can be made between both fascist manifestations; however in the political reality the differences are negligible. Both depend on each other and both know the same reactionary origin. The only politician who recognized this danger and tried to combat it was the Chinese leader Mao Tse Tung, who's constant cultural revolution prevented social-fascism. Unfortunately his successors completely destroyed this popular movement.

In the Weimar republic (1919-1932) the term "social-fascism" was introduced by the KPD (Communist Party Germany). With social-fascist they meant those socialists and communists - in particular the union bosses and established politicians of the SPD - who acted against the interests of the people and abused their position to oppress and exploit the working class, as well as shameless enriched themselves at the expense of the proletariat. Anyone who has somewhat examined the situation at the time of the Weimar republic has to admit this classification applied on the leadership within the SPD. It would however be unjust to classify all who supported the SPD with this classification. Fascism is not an oddness of a certain political geography (left-right-centre). Everyone with a healthy and objective look upon history has to admit that during all times all kind of fascist outburst of different nature where present.         

Therefore social-fascism does not represent a certain political ideology or direction, but only the political practice of the unscrupulous exercise of power, oppression of the popular will, hopeless exploitation of the working class and shameless self enrichment. Social-fascist are only the willing puppets who are controlled from behind the scenes by the true rulers (the lobbyists). Social fascists can be all kind of leaders: feudalists, capitalists, dictators or bourgeois "democrats". Social fascism can rise in any country. At first it will rise as a small tumour (corruption, nepotism, greed, and lust for power) that can spread rapidly if it’s not destroyed in time. By an unbridled development it can infect the whole State and enslaves the whole people. This kind of social-fascist tendencies we can find in practically all feudalist countries throughout the 20th century (emperors, kings, princes), in the countries that suffered under the Napoleonic occupation (collaborators) and increasingly in North-America and Europe (caste system and capital).       

Social-fascism usually manifests itself in times of crisis, destabilization and after (civil) wars, in most cases under the shadow of foreign domination. The social-fascists will always try to ensure their existence in all directions. In the Netherlands it manifests itself as follows:

- The transfer of national sovereignty to the European Union.

- Less popular participation within political decision formations.

- Privatisations by which politicians can disguise their self enrichment and political irresponsibility by selling public property to reckless speculators and exploiters. 

- Demoralisation of the people by a systematic negative reversal of historic, cultural and ethnic values. 

- The organisation of a brutal class hate in which contradictions (for instance on a social level) are maintained to secure dominance.    

Also the broad networks of leftwing-fascists (like the so-called "antifa" and "antifascist action") with their bureaus, institutions, foundations, publishers, greedily funded by subsidies and funds by social-fascists belong to this group. These leftwing-fascists have nothing to do with the "classic leftwing". They mix their system conformism with some leftwing quotes and shallow use of leftwing symbolism, but their primitive activities are eloquent and revealing.   

After the collapse of the Iron curtain the modern left lost its political fatherland and ideological example. Because they where trained to parrot, to follow dogmatic and not to think for themselves the supporters of the modern leftwing rapidly lapsed in an "ideological vacuum". They couldn’t choose between real anarchy and leftwing-fascism, so they easily became prey for the social-fascists. You won’t find any policy objectives against acute social problems within the leftwing-fascist movement.   

These leftwing-fascists fulfil different functions for the social-fascists; they spy on political dissidents while evoking violence in a hypocritical game as self proclaimed "democratic moral guardians". They fill up the internet with rousing and other nonsense, produce meaningless publications and publish magazines on the conveyer belt that are probably only read by their opposition. To direct the accumulated public anger into a direction that can be controlled by the system, the useful idiots of the fascist-leftwing organize riots and protests against all groups that do not acculturate to the dictatorship of the mainstream and her political-correct dogma's. 

From this we can draw the conclusion that the fascists of the future, truly operate under the veil of antifascism!

Source: Vrije Nationalisten Noord-Brabant / Netwerk Nationale Socialisten

zondag 6 mei 2012

Autonomer nationalismus in den Niederlanden


Wir sind eine Gruppe autonomer Aktivisten in den Niederlanden, deren Bestreben es ist für radikale Arbeiterautonomie sowie für den Rätesozialismus zu kämpfen. Es soll an dieser Stelle versucht werden: 

1. Die Gründungsgeschichte des Projekts “NSA” zu erläutern.

2. Unsere Ansichten im Bezug auf dem Thema “Autonomie” darzustellen
(die sich unserer Meinung nach ganz klar unterscheiden von den im
angeblichen “Nationalen Widerstand” zu diesem Thema vorherrschenden
Vorstellungen) und

3. Euch ein kleiner Einblick zu verschaffen bezüglich der aktuelle
szeneinternen Debatte (sowohl innerhalb des Kollektivs NSA wie auch
innerhalb der Szene insgesamt).


Die NSA ist ein Widerstandskreis autonomer sozialrevolutionärer Nationalisten, der sich selber als “nationale Internationalisten” betrachtet (man könnte auch sage“internationalistische Nationalisten”). Als Sozialrevolutionäre (also Kämpfer für die soziale Revolution) stehen wir uneingeschränkt auf der Grundlage des Klassenkampfes. Daher haben in unserem gesamten Denken und Handeln die Klasseninteressen des 'nationalen' Proletariats oberster Priorität. Ohne wenn und aber stehen wir dabei auf der Seite der 'nationalen' Arbeitersklasse – unter Einsatz aller uns zur Verfügung stehenden Mitteln. Die Mehrheitsposition innerhalb des Kollektivs geht dabei davon aus, daß ein jeder, der sich seinen Lebensunterhalt durch Lohnarbeit verdient, zur Arbeiterklassse gehört, also dass die überwältigende Mehrheit des Volkes zum Proletariat gehört.

Die in der Vergangenheit in West- und Nordeuropa erfolgte Masseneinwanderung wird von uns abgelehnt. Unseres Erachtens ist es die Aufgabe der jeweiligen “eigenen” 'nationalen' Arbeiterklasse die Nation zu verteidigen und eine jeweils 'eigenständige' Form des Sozialismus zugeschnitten auf die spezifischen Bedürfnisse der jeweiligen 'nationalen' Arbeiterklasse zu erkämpfen.In diesem Sinne sind wir “national” sozialistisch (nicht zu verwechseln mit dem hitleristischen “Nationalsozialismus”!).

Weltanschaulich betrachtet stellt unser Kollektiv keine homogene Einheit dar: innerhalb des Kollektivs gibt es unterschiedliche politischen Ansichten. In den letzten Jahren (seit Ende 2008) haben jedoch der Rätesozialismus, insbesondere die so genannte “Hamburger Richtung” um die KAPD-Gründer Laufenberg und Wolffheim (1919-1920), aber auch die FAUD und der Rätetheoretiker Anton Pannekoek, der (Anarcho-) Syndikalismus (Sorel, Lagardelle, Pouget, Praxis der CNT/FAI in Spanien) sowie die Idee der radikalen Arbeiterautonomie (Autonomia Operaia, Italien 1969) eindeutig an Einfluß gewonnen. Man könnte das als das (vorläufige!) Endergebnis eines politischen Werdeganges betrachten, der bereits 2006 begonnen hatte. Im Laufe dieses politischen Klärungsprozeßes wurde der Versuch gemacht bestimmte revolutionäre Kernelemente unterschiedlicher politischer Strömungen in einem neuen Kontext miteinder zu verschmelzen, sozusagen zu “synthetisieren” (eine Synthese zustande zu bringen).  

Aktuell fokussiert sich die szeneinterne Debatte auf zwei wichtige Themenkomplexe:

1. Das Privateigentum an den Produktionmitteln: Wird von uns einhellig abgelehnt. Diesbezüglich existiert im Kollektiv Konsens.

2. Das sogenannte “Führerprinzip”: Wird ebenfalls ganz klar abgelehnt, da eindeutig im Widerspruch zu den Grundsätzen des autonomen Selbstverständniss. Auch in diesem Fall herrscht im Kollektiv Konsens. Wie zu erwarten, sorgte unsere Stellungnahme für Verwirrung und (teilweise) auch für Verärgerung in Teilen der Gesamtszene.


Als eine der wenigen Gruppen (vielleicht sogar als einzige) innerhalb des sog. “Nationalen Widerstands” sind wir uns im Klaren, daß “Autonomie” ganz klar mehr bedeutet als lediglich das Übernehmen (besser: Kopieren) einer bestimmten Aktionsform.

Richtige Autonomie ist unvereinbar mit bestimmten, in unserer Szene noch immer vorherrschenden und längst überholten traditionalistischen politischen Vorstellungen (z.B. “Führerprinzip”). “Autonomie”, “autonom sein”, “autonom kämpfen” usw. müssen zwangsläufig lediglich Floskeln bleiben, wenn man sich nicht endlich dazu entschließt, mit bestimmten politischen Ansichten und Denkweisen (von Gestern und Vorgestern) radikal zu brechen. Blindlings hinter irgendwelchen historischen Gestalten aus einer längst vergangenen Epoche herzulaufen bringt uns auch nicht weiter. Was wir brauchen, ist immer und unter allen Umständen die “konkrete Analyse der konkreten Lage”.

Zum Beispiel ist das Einzige, was wir im Bezug auf den Kapitalismus mit  100%iger Sicherheit wissen, das dieser sehr flexibel und sehr anpassungsfähig ist, und daß dieser sich immer wieder aufs Neue mit Erfolg an die sich änderenden Bedingungen anpaßt. Deshalb sollten auch unsere Kampfmethoden an die sich ändernden Bedingungen angepaßt werden, damit wir in der Lage sind, das System an seinen empfindlichen Stellen zu treffen.

Innerhalb unseres Kollektivs hat sich heute die Überzeugung durchgesetzt, dass einige Personen aus der Geschichte der Bewegung, die man vor einigen Jahren noch als “verdienstvolle Kämpfer” für die nationale Sache betrachtet hätte, eigentlich lediglich die Interessen des Großkapitals verfochten und im Dienste der Konterrevolution die soziale Revolution der Arbeitermassen nach 1918 niederschlugen.

Unserer Meinung nach sind nur die Massen wirklich “pur” und revolutionär; “Stellvertreterpolitik”, bei der die wirklichen Entscheidungen von irgendwelchen Bonzokraten, selbsternannten “Führern” oder auch einer selbsternannten “Avantgarde”, quasi “stellvertretend” für oder “im Namen” der Massen getroffen werden, lehnen wir entschieden ab. Die Massen sollen selber das Ruder in die Hand nehmen und bestimmen, wo es entlang geht, “autonom” (d.h. unabhängig) von jedweder Partei oder Gewerkschaft. Denn: Ob “links” oder “rechts” – alle möchten die bestehenden Macht- und Eigentumsverhältnisse erhalten und sind daher allesamt Feinde der Arbeiterklasse! Hier gilt einmal mehr der bekannte Satz von Ulrike Meinhof: <<Entweder man ist Teil der Lösung oder man ist Teil des Problems. Dazwischen gibt es nichts!>>


Es sollte einem jeden ab jetzt schon klar geworden sein, dass wir uns entschieden von den NS-Traditionalisten abgrenzen. Wir dürften uns allen darüber im Klaren sein, daß wirklicher nationaler Sozialismus nichts zu tun hat mit dem traditionellen historischen Nationalsozialismus, wie er auch heute noch von Teilen des “nationalen Widerstands” propagiert wird.

Innerhalb des Kollektivs gehen die Meinungen, wie man den Begriff “national” nun genau interpretieren soll, auseinander: Die Mehrheit plädiert für die “völkische" Interpretation, wonach in erster Linie lediglich Volksgenossen zur nationalen Arbeiterklasse gerechnet werden können. Im Übrigen geht man von dem Grundsatz des Ethnopluralismus aus. Eine Minderheit vertritt die Ansicht, dass man den Begriff “national” nicht etnisch einengen soll, sondern dass im Prinzip jeder innerhalb der staatlichen Grenzen der Niederlande wohnhafter Proletarier höllandischer Staatsangehörigkeit automatisch auch der 'nationalen' Arbeiterklasse angehört. Also, ironischerweise könnte man hier fast von typischen “links-rechts” Widersprüchen sprechen.

Klarer Konsens existiert jedoch dahingehend, dass die Nation an sich schon ein Ausdruck der Souveräniteit des Volkes darstellt – ohne das man dafür noch einen “Staat” braucht. Unsere Devise lautet daher: Mit der Nation gegen den Staat!

Die nationale und sozialistische Befreiung aller Arbeiter/innen gilt es zu erreichen durch die Räteherrschaft (also die totale Machtübernahme seitens der Arbeiterräte). Ansätze dafür liefern die russische bzw. die deutsche Revolution 1917 bzw 1918. Nur durch die Räteherrschaft ist das Proletariat in der Lage, seine Diktatur zu verwirklichen – notwendig um den konterrevolutionären Bestrebungen der gestürzten Bourgeoisie entgegentreten zu können. Die Diktatur des Proletariats, von der hier die Rede ist, also die wirkliche Klassendiktatur, hat überhaupt keine Gemeinsamkeit mit der Diktatur irgendeiner Avantgarde-Organisation (wie später in Sowjetrussland die bolschewistische Staatspartei).

Unser Kampf für die nationale Befreiung und gegen den weltweiten Imperialismus führen wir als Teil der weltweiten antiimperialistischen Bewegung. Denn es gilt ganz klar die These von Ché Guevara, dass der weltweite Imperialismus nur auf globaler Ebene angegriffen und vernichtet werden kann, d.h. daß er von den unterdrückten Völkern der Welt überall und gleichzeitig angegriffen werden soll. In diesem Sinne verstehen wir uns als “Internationalisten” (jedoch nicht zu verwechseln mit dem trotzkistischen Internationalismus).


Was dringend Not tut, ist der Aufbau international vernetzter Zusammenhänge, damit unser Kampf für nationale und sozialistische Befreiung besser koordiniert und auf eine qualitativ höhere Ebene geführt werden kann. Denn gerade jetzt, in der heutigen Systemkrise, müssen nicht irgendwelche Symptome, sondern der Staat direkt angegriffen werden. Dabei ist es gleichgültig, unter welcher Fahne und von wem genau dieser Angriff gegen den Staat geführt wird. Wichtig ist jetzt in erster Linie, daß das Schweinesystem überhaupt kompromißlos angegangen und angegriffen wird! An uns die Aufgabe, dafür zu sorgen, dass unsere Ansichten die vorherrschenden Ansichten unter den Massen werden!




Die Nationale Sozialistische Aktion

National Revolution!

dinsdag 1 mei 2012

1st of May - Get on the streets!


Everyone is familiar with the almost immeasurable wealth of a handful of billionaires and the daily struggle for survival of billions of people. Everybody knows that all over the world billions of people perish under misery and war, while the price of material goods increases. Thousands of children starve on a daily basis while at the same time the profits are rising. If these were the results of a completely different social system, this would already have been declared a complete failure as well as it would have been declared a total war. But in the bourgeois-capitalist order the poverty is only regretted, criticized and filmed, but not abolished. Through the forcible exclusion of wealth poverty is produced and then declared as a "natural law". 

Fatal compulsions 

Some years ago Brazil was forced by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to transfer billions of dollars to foreign countries. To fulfil the demands of the IMF Brazil had to cut the expenditures of the State in the social sector on a large scale. At the same time millions of people in this country where needy and starving because they couldn't get enough food on a daily basis. The director of the IMF these days, who introduced these laws of imperialist businesses, was Horst Köhler. Elsewhere these kind of individuals, who cause misery and death for countless people by their signature, would be called modern mass murderers. However afterwards, in the BRD, Köhler managed to become State president.      

May 1st

De 1st of May has been the international day of struggle against the capitalist slavery for years.  Since 1889 people get on the streets against exploitation and oppression: People who’s existence depend on the judgement of the capital, if it can squeeze some more profit out of them, yes or no; people who are tired because they are forced to work, so others will become better and their own situation gets worse; people who don't consider the by the government imposed competition of all against all, for money and material goods, as an expression of "human nature", but on the contrary as something insane. The 1st May means: struggle for a classless society without coercion from above.   

History of the revolutionary 1st May demonstrations

On the 1st of May 1887 in Kreuzberg (in those days West-Berlin) an organized block party of basis initiative committee’s was attacked by the cops and beaten apart by brute force. This led to the solidarisation from the side of the residents which led to a full out revolt. The cops were forced to retreat and for some time the district Kreuzberg remained a zone that was "free of police". The following 25 years - as a distinguishment for the compliant system Mai demonstrations of the reformist union bureaucratic (‘Deutsche Gewerkschaftsbund‘) - there was called out for a revolutionary demonstration on the 1st of May. This grew into a solid element of the revolutionary demonstration program with a nationwide or even "international" emission. Many times this led to street fights between angry protestors with heavily armed "Robocops".       

No starvation deaths in this country yet?

The last 20 years the living conditions for the majority of the population have been drastically deteriorated. On the one hand the high-tech-production machinery in the hands of the capitalists cause a steadily growing mass of "unnecessary", non-usable in capitalist sense, people. On the other hand the systems that previously existed and guaranteed a minimum of social welfare, the so-called "welfare State", are rapidly beaten to pieces. The reason for this is that after the collapse of the existing socialism (the socialist States around the Soviet Union) and the end of the "race of systems" that followed the BRD, Netherlands, etc. lost their role as anti-communist front-States. The result is social terror in optima forma: the so-called "reformation" of social security (in the BRD euphemistically named "Hartz IV") is in reality a by the government regulated poverty, which just offers protection against starvation. There is no reason to be satisfied with this State. Many people come to think that "outsiders", "immigrants" or "Muslims" are somehow responsible for their misery. At the same time by the press, radio and television a smear campaign unleashed against "Muslims" and "immigrants". The State stimulated and uses these patterns of thinking to obscure the real causes of the current troubled relationships. But: for us the dividing line don’t run between peoples and/or religions, but between above (the owners) and below (the non-owners)!

Privatisation and 'restructuring'

Sectors with regard to overall wellness, previous controlled by the State, like utility companies (water, electricity, public transportation), housing, healthcare, education and so on are released for minor costs to make profits (="privatization"). The consequences are rising rent, exploding prices and tariffs, and deteriorating working conditions for the industrious staff there. Centrally located in the old urban inner cities of large metropolises are "restructured", so the poor population (welfare recipients, minimum wage, migrants, under precarious working industrious etc.) is forced away by priceless rent. Chic and expensive downtown neighbourhoods and luxury apartments for people with accordingly incomes should take their place. This process (known as "gentrification") is still in full program. 

"Production Location Europe"

The cynicism and the overt manner in which policymakers - executors of the capital behave as the unlimited rulers of the living conditions of the mass of wage- and benefit recipients is unimaginable Because they have availability over the resources to produce all social wealth (= the means of production) they are capable to force the others into labour against a poor wage. Purpose of production is profit maximization and not the optimal satisfaction of social needs. There is not enough produced for what the financial capacity demands. The purpose of the mutual competing capitalists is to squeeze the maximum from the working class. Capitalist wealth can only exist if there is poverty. The State shall take on the management of the victims of capitalism - as cheaply as possible. More and more people becomes evident that such a "treatment" of the "production site" Netherlands only benefits the big concerns and hurts them, repression, control and forced labour are essential elements for this policy. This social order is enforced with reckless violence. Cuts in social benefits are daily business, however for police, army, State security service (AIVD) and new surveillance technology there is always enough money.

War against the imperialist war!

Because of the global access to the raw materials and securing strategic positions through transport routes and markets, millions of people in Asia, Africa and Latin-America long have been subject to permanent war, torture and repression. Iraq is largely destroyed by American imperialism together with her allies from the European Union and their mercenaries ("private contractors"). The Turkish army conducts an ongoing war against the people of Kurdistan and is now preparing to invade northern Syria under the pretext of setting up a "humanitarian corridor", "humanitarian intervention" (supposedly for 'refugee protection'), etc. The army of the Israeli Zionist-State pursues as part of its ongoing war against the Palestinian people continued terrorist attacks on the populations of the Gaza Strip and West Bank. In Latin America, the peasants and the indigenous peoples are continuously terrorized for the interests of capital. Armed groups and movements, representing the interests of the oppressed and outcasts are attacked by all means possible - as for an instance the example of the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) shows us. The CIA is not only active in Colombia as "adviser", also in Venezuela and Bolivia they are actively engaged in sabotaging the basic progressive and democratic process.

Europe - outward war, militarization inside

States who wrote "freedom and democracy" on their banner, are characterized by an exceptional aggression. Even after the deposit of arms by the ETA, the patriotic left in the Basque country stays prohibited and notwithstanding exposed to large-scale repression and torture on the part of the fascist central government in Madrid. Regionalist movements striving for autonomy (Brittany, Corsica, Catalonia) are persecuted throughout all states of the EU. The population of Afghanistan is subjected to a terror regime by the EU occupational forces, which outside the British and the French troops also contain the German Bundeswehr. Likewise Dutch soldiers, who have distinguished themselves in a special way during the murders in uniform, are going to be rewarded with a "Veteran medal".  

Verbal protest is not enough!

In no uncertain terms, the ruling class is increasingly made clear what the people think of their policies. Strikes against plant closures and mass layoffs, against wage restraint, revolts and uprisings of young people who don’t have any perspective on future, in the French banlieues and the English ghetto's show that the dissatisfaction rises and the rage increases. The reformist (system based) unions have suffered a steady decline in membership during recent years - not surprisingly given the stubborn refusal of the reactionary union bureaucrats to really start a struggle despite the well-stocked strike funds.  However, the months-long defensive struggle of the French workers, organized as well as unorganized, against raising the retirement age (autumn 2010) shows a different trend. Despite the smear campaign in the media it succeeded not in breaking the sympathy of the population for the strike movement. Many came aware that "your case is that of us all", despite the discomfort (especially in public transport) the strike caused for the general public.  

What to do? 

The only effective weapon against the capitalist exploitation and warmongering, against the State and capitalism, is the organized and conscience solidarity of all those who want to create an opposition from the grassroots.  

Come into resistance!
Organize yourself!
Intervene in the existing relations!

Let's fight together for the revolutionary overthrow of the existing social order! Let's put an end to the systematic destruction of man and nature!

For social revolution!

For socialism!

Nationale Socialistische Actie / Autonome Nationale Socialisten