Autonomy: Definition and Meaning

The word "autonomy" is a combination of the words "autos" and "nomos", derived from the ancient Greek language, which literally means "own law". "Autonomy" is the designation for a certain way of thinking, in which independence and individual freedom on the basis of social justice and -equality as well as solidarity are the main principles. However this individual freedom is not meant in the way neoliberals underpin this (licentiousness of autonomous and selfresponsible people, that is to say torn apart from the people), but the opposite of it; individual freedom by collectivity!

Being-autonomous, means being undependent. To be undependent means meeting ones own needs, organizing and governing yourself in order to survive. It means self-sufficiency; one takes what one can use to survive and to accomplish certain political goals. Self-organisation is necessary to collectively retain independence and individual freedoms. For this, resistance is the only path towards freedom and thus is self-organisation absolutely necessary. Self-organisation is needed to achieve collective goals, such as social justice and -equality. Independence is what autonomy is all about. We don´t want to be dependend on some kind of State, Party, Union or leader (Führer). Autonomists think for themselves, decide for themselves and act by themselves! They don´t need anybody who offers "help" from above or tells them what to do, they solve their own problems. They rely on their own force and decisiveness and couldn't care less about the laws imposed by the establishment. Autonomists practice self-government, that is to say self-organisation.      

Therefore this leads to fundamental implications, if being-autonomous is seen as merely a means of action. Being-autonomous requires a certain ideological way of thinking, which can be put into practice in different ways.

Being-autonomous means act for yourself, think for yourself and act independent. (and don´t wait for instructions, commands from above, from somekind of leader, pope, chairman, tribune, Union or Party boss, in short any authority whatsoever!) Being-autonomous means being averse to any form of authority, means being aversive of any State authority. Autonomists don´t wait for improvements or changes from above (elections), they take matters into their own hands (therefore "Direct Action"- action from the grassroots, by the masses without intervention of selfproclaimed leaders and mediators of Unions or Political Parties). The masses don´t need leaders from outside, they are their own leader. The masses themselves are the vanguard.

This way (anti-authoritarian, anti-Statist, anti-hierarchic) of thinking logically leads toward methods of action. One example is the concept of "Direct Action" (action without intervention of any authority whatsoever) against the State, against the authority and bosses - by the masses themselves. (Some examples are the Cultural revolution 1966-1969, The Mai revolt of workers in Paris, the student uprise of 1968 and the 1969-movement in Italy.) Another example is the "black block", not only an expression of collective anonymity, but also of collective uniformity; We are all equal, we are one collective unity! No leaders, no followers, no bullshit! There are no leaders, we are all leaders. We are our own vanguard. By means of uniform garb this is stressed; We are all equal (egalitarism). There are no leaders. If there is any case of "leadership" at all, then this is collective leadership by the collective Black Block. The Black Block as collective leader - as collective vanguard (for example in the struggle against the cops). (Such a way of thinking does of course provide issues for discussion, also and above all within the anarchoscene).

Being-autonomous does absolutely and before all else mean the rejection of any authority and all that which is sanctioned by the authorities (uniformed or not). Being-autonomous means opposing any form of hierarchy or authoritarian structures (State, army, church, Party, Union). Only the masses themselves are "pure", revolutionary, so only the actions of the masses themselves can be considered "pure" and revolutionary, all the other must be rejectes as; 

1: Bureacratic 2: Reactionary 3: Bourgeois 4: Hierarchic. 

Being-autonomous means opposing any form of personality cult, only the masses are the true heroes. Averse to any Fuhrer worshipping (Hitler, Stalin, Kim il Sung, etc.). Averse of any chauvinism (political boundaries are not recognized!). "Autonomous" Hitlerists are just as much an impossibility as "Autonomous" Strasserists are.  

"He who is not afraid of death by a thousand cuts dares to unhorse the emperor" - Mao Zedong 

Recapitulatory:

1: No leadership (from outside or above) 2: True revolutionary action only comes forth from the masses themselves 3: The masses themselves are the vanguard (without intervention from outside) 

No leaders, no followers! No bull-shit! 

The masses are the vanguard, they are the leaders!

Pavlos, Manolis and Giorgos: Rest in Peace

In the light of the events end of september and last friday we cite comrade Kostas M. who was able to describe the tragic situation in Greece with striking words; 

"We are facing for the second time in less than two months, a murder in ideological and political background. Firstly was Pavlos Fyssas, a left musician, then two members of Golden Dawn (Manolis Kapelonis and Giorgos Fountoulis), with obvious motives of retaliation. We now watch two sides slipping in armed violence with the character of reckoning like thugs, both murders distract from the real problems, secondly they divide the whole society, reviving their old - but existent as it seems - splits into right and left, fascist and antifascist, which without doubt is manageable from the centers of power in Greece and their authorized representatives.

People once again are called upon to play its role, not knowing where all this comes from, choosing the most painful type of death. Which murder is the most heinous? With knife or gun? From one meter, or ten? Complexes or not? Alone or with an accessory?

This is a tottaly sick situation, indicative of rottenness caused from both sides, with the wounds to be added everyday on the body of society. Golden Dawn and far left people have pushed with their fights the whole society into a microcosmos of dissent. At the same time greek government gains in popularity because it guarrantees safety based on peoples fear. Capitalists move on with their plan and Greece is immersed into chaos and decay.

Fortunately, there are now several people (anarchists and nationalists) who wake up and see clearly suspicious of the things. All this turns against us in the end. Violence is not something "bad" itself. Politics are associated with violence. Must be. Because we face democratic violence every day. But violence has its worth and is a part of the game when it is used straight to the target and not to harm an innocent. Unfortunately, both sides, including mass media and governments, act like gangs, while people in Greece should have long finish with their domestic oppressors."

Autonomy: What does it mean?

Every human has to have the individual freedom to do whatever he/she wants within the community. Every human must be able to shape his/her life like he/she wants, without some authority (leader; chairman; union boss), the party or the State having something to say about it. A "State" would only be a representative of the people and can be used as an instrument by the community itself to achieve certain things which serve the interests of the community. It is not intended, in any case, that if something like a "State" is pursued, it will be the same as the current one. (A socialist councilrepublic is what autonomists want.)

Struggle against each form of authority in general, especially against the State, is central in the autonomist thought. The State is the embodiment of the terrorist dictatorship of financecapital with as goal preserving the capitalist modus of production. The State is also responsible for the implementation of cultural genocide, in the form of the destruction of the folkspirit and the alienation of the original culture, in order to create mindless, amorphous, consumption masses (consumptionzombies).

The existing power relations, embodied by the State, are the ones that exploit and oppress their own communities. Between the capitalist elite, which has the power, and the working masses, who make the everyday living possible, is such a big gap that resistance is essential. According to the autonomists nobody and nothing has the right to tell others what they should do. An autonomist has an exceptionally high self-awareness and sense of responsibility.

As mentioned before, independence and individual freedom can be reached through social justice and -equality, by collectivism and solidarity within the community. Collectivism means a revolution will have to take place in the area of relations of production and ownership, so that the community will get ownership of the means of production and not, like it is nowadays under capitalism, in hands of several individuals. The profit which is made using the means of production (land, work, capital, resources, machines, etc.), belongs fully to those who own them according to capitalism. That means that those who produce (the workers) the profit (surplus) get nothing in return for it. This in contradiction to the capitalist owner of the means of production, who, without the provision of (physical) labor, may see the suprlus (profit) of a product as his belongings. Autonomism is aimed against this reactionary philosophical conception. It advocates the collectivisation of the means of production, so that those who produce surplus can pick the fruits of their labour or that it goes to the community.  

Collectivism means also that they jointly undertake something to realize a common goal. Different individuals organize themselves to achieve collective common goals. In this sense autonomism does not oppose "property". Everybody has to get what he/she deserves. But if this in practice would mean, like today, that a small group owns everything and the great majority nothing, then property is the most decadent thing one can own. In times, like today, of a unprecedented economic crisis, rising mass unemployment worldwide, poverty and famine, the internal repression gets stronger. This because the owners want to protect and secure their private-property. This is the problem, because the working masses who do not own anything but produce everything bear the ruin the capitalist owners, who produce nothing but own everything, have caused. We could not have come up with a better example of social equality and -injustice.      

Solidarity means being there for the community. Solidarity is necessary within the community to serve the interest of all. It´s no shame to give up some "luxury", if this means someone else´s life can improve. This ofcourse doesn´t mean, in every respect, that those who do not contribute can benefit at the expense of the community! Only those who (can) contribute, can count on solidarity, because they fight the same struggle, namely the struggle for social justice and - equality. The struggle for social justice and - equality can´t be achieved without bringing solidarity into practice! Those who harm the interests of the society (speculators, stockbrokers, locusts, etc.), will be expelled from the community and will be seen as enemies of the community. No solidarity can be brought to practice about them! With bringing solidarity into practice we mean an active contribution in the struggle for social justice and - equality.  

in the political struggle one is autonomously and independently organized . That means, on your own way, by your own motives, with your own viewingpoints. Autonomists do not follow a prescribed doctrine, they immerse themselves independently in random issues and compose their own conclusions on the basis of own insights and by their own arguments. This shapes an independend political awareness in the individual, after which he/she, together with other individuals, can organize him-herself in a collective to fight for certain common interests.  

To bring this into practice we first need to analyse the society we are living in today, so that we can determine which means of action should serve which goals. Which form of resistance is best for a certain situation? Which goals should be achieved? To determine this, an internal discussion must be held. The individuals within the collective should know what to expect and they have to know who wants to go how far to achieve these goals. Everybody within the collective needs to have a say in this. Basisdemocracy, also known as "councildemocracy", is uncomparible with the bought "democracy" of capitalism. This "parliamentary democracy" (representative democracy [contra basisdemocracy]) has already sold the interests of the people to the capital. Needless to say the autonomists reject the leadership-principle (Führerprinzip), which propagates unconditional obedience and loyalty to a certain individual. This kind of thought is in total contrast to the principles of autonomism. Being autonomous means freedom in and through the collective, your neighbour in the community is nothing less than you, you're not above someone else, no leader tells you what to do and what not to do, even more important: YOU THINK FOR YOURSELF! And probably the most important : YOU ACT BY YOURSELF!  

Regarding the means of actions that need to be used, individuals and collectives (= groups of individuals) must determine for themselves how far they are willing to go to achieve certain goals. They must determine this by themselves through consultation and consensus.

 "The urge to destroy is also a creative urge. - Bakunin"

"Without destruction there can be no revolutionary building" - Mao Zedong

The State needs to be DESTROYED in its totality! 

The Political Islam: Enemy or Ally? (2)

Although the article below is somewhat outdated, it still hasn´t lost its relevance in 2013. Therefore, also in the light of the recent situation in the Middle East, we have decided to publish this article once again on this blog.


IGNORING ISLAM - THE ORGANIZED LEFT AND ISLAMISM

Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2003, Libanon 2006, Gaza 2008 - the "free West" is at war. "You are either with us, or you're against us", as George W. Bush stated once. Still, the majority of the left is more busy ignoring these events as well as focussing on other things.

It's a fashion in almost all shades of the left wing to declare solidarity with the vicitims of the " War on Terror" - at least on the moment these victims are brought into hospital, shredded or bombed to pieces by Western bombers. It's a whole different case if they are able to succeed, like in Iraq, to be one step earlier and dodging the deadly American rain of bullets and/ or if they are able to go underground. It's also a different case if they, like in Gaza, give their vote to the "wrong" political party. In these cases the left relies on three principal arguments, with which they declare why political Islam would be "bad" (according to some even worse than American imperialism):      

1. Islamists are reactionary. They deny that religion serves as "the opium of the people" (Marx). Instead of preaching class struggle, they preach religious war and instead of calling for the liberation the women they are calling to veil the women.

2. There are in recent history no known positive examples of an alliance between the left and Islamists, nor a positive example of an Islamic state.

3. Anti-imperialism denies the class contradictions in the imperialist lands itself, as well as those in the countries attacked by imperialism. For example American soldiers would be "exploited workers", while many resistance groups only want to restore the domination of the "local exploiters" and therefore can only be supported with huge reservations.

The left and Imperialism

It's a positive development that finally such a discussion is started, because the left has entered the 21st century rather hopeless. They are against an invasion of Iraq, but also against Saddam Hussain as well as against the (non-Ba´athist) armed resistance in Iraq. In the case of the liberation war for Palestine the left has put its hope (in vain) on a "fraternizing working class" of both sides, this while one "working class" is bombarding the other "working class" with phosphorus bombs on their densely populated residential areas.

With this the uncertainty and wishful thinking of the left has become quite obvious. This in a time in which the old world order is replaced by a new one and a religious tainted movement fights the old and now even stronger enemy that is Western imperialism.

Some communists have consistently become Muslim (1). However most of them nowadays concentrate themselves rather on Latin-America; Here lies Cuba, here you´ll find the Zapatista´s and Hugo Chavez, all leftwing projects, with which they are able to indentify themselves. From here however subcommandante Marcos of the EZLN sends his fraternal greetings to the opressed people of Gaza (the so-called "antisemites" who have voted on Hamas), it's here where Chavez meets the secretary-general of the Hezbullah, Hassan Nasrallah, while the leftwing government of Bolivia expells the ambassador of the Israeli zionist state.

Furthermore there is no open war in the region. There is - not withstanding the inspiring initiatives - no project that directly threatens the survival of imperialism. In the Middle East this is however certainly the case. The US, with the military power standing behind her clenched interests, is involved in a direct showdown; in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Palestine. Already in 1967 Ché Guevara wrote, several months before his execution in Bolivia; "We need to be aware that imperialism is global, a global system, the last fase of capitalism. It can only be beaten in one big, global confrontation."

So also for our Cuba-friends and Venezuala-enthusiasts, the Middle East is of great importance: not only because their idols have given clear statements on the events and the situation there, but also and foremost because imperialism as a global system can emerge stronger from this confrontation, and by that it could also become a direct threat to the liberation projects of the left. Without exaggeration, we can claim that without the defeats in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Afghanistan the pressure of US imperialism on Latin America would be much stronger - including the related military agression and coups d´etat. Last but not least this point makes one thing very clear: The by old Stalinist groups up to the Trotskist youth groups spreaded and the in the introduction summarized argumentation examples are very problematic.

Lack of information and misunderstandings

What makes the left have such a dismissive attitude towards the strongest threat against world imperialism since the revolutionary tidal wave of 1968? There are several causes which partly overlap each other;

1. Incomprehension of the Arab culture and the Islamic religion, of which the differences between that culture and beliefs and their own are substantially greater than those between them and the countries in Latin America. 

2. The universal claim of the communist idea is questioned by Islamism, because it adopts traditionally "leftwing" issues (social justice, national independence, anti-repression and armed liberation struggle). 

3. Finally many are happy to cite the "classics" (Marx, Engels, Lenin), who in their day never knew such a movement, nor such a threat from the side of imperialism. Furthermore there are little serious information sources about the Islamist movements. The bourgois media is professionally working towards the new enemy image of Islam.  

Anti-imperialism and national + social liberation

These days imperialism is not only the foundation for the big multinational concerns and the financieroligarchy, but also nessacery for the profligate and mass-oriented lifestyle which is propagated in the West and which has ensured that the working class is mostly integrated in the existing system as well as stripped it of its revolutionary potential.     

Without the destruction of imperialism on a worldscale, no revolutionary break through is possible. Since 1945 the American imperialists carried out serious interventions in over 70 countries in the world. The reason for these interferences were mostly of an economic or strategic nature. The absolute condition for national and social liberation is therefore the defeat of the "Military Industrial Complex" (NATO imperialism) and the destruction of the myth of the invincibility of the last remaining superpower in the world (the USA). With this we have arrived at those who fight this battle; In the Middle East, the frontline of the current anti-imperialist liberation struggle, this is without a doubt a religious movement.   

The womens issues 

The many shades of the Islamist movement have just as many shades of role image about women. In Iraq women are a tight component of the armed resistance, in Palestine the Islamist resistance movement Hamas knows a firmly-rooted basis among the women, while the Lebanese Hezbullah carries out explicit programs to promote womens emancipation. 

At the same time some simple numbers from the BRD (Germany): The year sales of cosmetics amounts up to 11 billion euro´s, while in the same timeframe more than a million cosmetic surgeries are performed. It's at least doubtfull to which extent this glorification of a so-called "perfect" physical beauty, which apparently doesn´t make emancipated Western women happier, would be superiour to the Islamist view in which the woman accepts her body as a gift from god and in which physical temptations are deliberately not openly shown.     

Religious war and Jihad

Fanatical, vengeful and ruthless - this is how the war in the name of Islam is seen by many. Accordingly the unsympathetic, terrorists are sketched as a mirror of the Western Crusades.

However the Jihad is bound by concrete restrictions and goals. Among these rules we do not only find the commandment to make no innocent victims, but also the commandment to retaliate in moderation and to take up any peace offering. "The most important goal of Jihad (anti-imperialist defensive war) is offering help to those who are oppressed and ensuring a good future for them", thus the Islamic Army in Iraq. An "Islamist State" would also guarantee the protection of the (mostly religous) minorities as well as social justice, enviromental protection and stimulation of education and scholing. Ofcourse also here - just like with the communists - there is a gap between pretension and reality; still the broadly association of the Islamic society with the not so serious reports from the culturally very different and underdeveloped Afghanistan are of a very limited use if one wants to examine the concept of the Islamist resistance movement.        

The Islam as civilization

To get a better understandingof the Islam, especially for the left, one must see that Islam is not "just" a religion, but also asks for very concrete regulations and values for the organization of society. This is also an important difference with traditional Christianity: instead of comforting believers by referring to the afterlife, Islam unmistakenly calls up for active resistance against injustice, oppression and abuses. Also by the ban on usury and the obligation of every muslim to donate 2,5 % of his possesion to the poor and needy on a yearly basis (as well as the payment of Zakat - the faith accomplice tax which immediately flows back into the community) , the values of the Islam are in full conflict with those of the free market.   

"Religious people believe in the Prophet, Bush believes in Profit", as George Galloway, ex-Labour-parliamentary representative and current leader of Respect, put it once.  

This ofcourse doesn't mean political Islam hasn't got immense problems. Just like traditional European communism declared itself universal, but at the same time was deeply divided, we see the same in Islamist circles - not just between Sunni and Shi´a.   

The left and Muslims; Traditional Enemies

Finally arriving at this point, the left falls back on the last two arguments. One argument states that Muslims have never had a society as it's desired by the left. Apart from the fact that Muslims could make exactly the same argument with regard to the communists, ofcourse all models of society are subjected to internal (human failure) as well as external (enemy threat) factors and thus threats or destructions.  

The other argumentation sounds more logical. After the islamic revolution in Iran of 1979 many members of the communist Tudeh-(=workers) Party were prosecuted and executed as spies of the USSR by the Islamic revolutionary government. Similar incidents took place in Algeria, Palestine, Egypt, Sudan and Iraq, mostly deadly conflicts during the 70s and 80s. 

But we need to mind two things in this regard;

First; the hope of the mainstream-left during these days was put upon the USSR, which by Islamist forces was seen as simply the opposite side of the other superpower (the US imperialism). (By this theory which was in that time propagated by chairman Mao and vice-chairman Lin Piao, both superpowers - the USA and USSR - represented two sides of the same imperialist coin, who wanted to divide the world among each other. In this theory the USSR represented the superpower of social-imperialism; socialist in words, but imperialist in actions.)   

Second; The left has always resisted granting any religion whatsoever a positive role. A Moroccan Islamist, who studied the ideas of Mao Tse Tung during the '70's, asked the following question; "Do we renounce the communists because of the social justice they pursue, or because of the fact they mock the Profet" - the answer was ofcourse the latter. 

Nowadays besides the negative experiences with these kind of cooperations, also several positive experiences have took place; under this last category we count the cooperation between Hezbullah and the Communist Party Lebanon (in the context of the United National Front), the cooperation between the Islamist resistance movement Hamas with the marxist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) (in the context of the Popular Front) as well as several alliances in Europe, like the partnership Respect in Great-Brittain. In this regard it's mainly important which individuals from the Islamist scene work together with which persons from the leftwing scene and for which common goals.    

This is what matters; Keeping an eye on the common interests between the left aswell as muslims. The primary victims of US agression are found throughout the Islamic world, who in their anti-imperialist struggle for liberation fall back on the religion that has shaped their society for many centuries. These kind of phenomena have occurred troughout history and are not necessarily in contrast with the goal of a social and just society. Even if the situation of the Iraqi women would deteriorate on a short term under Islamism, as many in the left scene proclaim, then however on the long term the foundations are shaped by the national liberation war for her obviously legitimate struggle; Because an end is made to the bombings and tortures of the Americans, the Iraqi´s themselves get the opportunity to reshape their own society.     

Claiming in advance that the Arab woman in such a situation would not be able to fight for her rights is nothing more than pure racism and sexism. This even more, because the Prophet formulated human and womensrights over a thousand years before the European feminist movement formulated them.  

As long as an unjust and barbarian economic order (the globalist capitalism) exists, it will be attempted to bring alternative models of society into practice. As long as the armies of the US and NATO keep on occupying other countries, so that the great capitalist concerns can plunder their natural resources, armed resistance against this will keep on taking place.    

The cardinal issue here is on which side of the frontline the leftwing movement is. It comes to providing serious information about resistance movements, in regard of the Islam and the Arab culture. Furthermore, on the ability to be unprejudiced and to have self-criticism. A catholic Chavez is for few in the scene a problem; a shiíte Nasrallah on the other hand is. In reality it's not about retaining any "emancipatory values" whatsoever. It's about the success of the Islamphobic smear in the bourgeois media which arouses irrational fears. Those in the leftist spectrum who do not convincingly take their distance from this, are unequivocally disqualified as exponents of social change and allies to the rejected of the world. 

<<Create one, two - many Vietnams!>> (Ché)

Against global imperialism - the global Vietnam!

Anti-imperialist Resistance!

An answer to Eric Krebbers a.o. (as a reaction to 'Breakthrough against Muslimfundamentalism' - Jan/Feb 2009. Gebladerte series Nr. 32)

--------[1] Some examples of famous Communists who converted to Islam are: The Venezuelan international Communist Ilich Ramirez Sanchez (more known by his name de guerre 'Carlos'), the French Communist (and former member of the Political Bureau of the PCF in the sixties) Roger Garaudy and the, also, French Communist and internationalist Jacques Vergès (co founder of the Parti Communiste de Réunion in the fifties).

The second edition of Resist Magazine is out now!

The second edition of the ACN/AKN affiliated periodical "Resist Magazine" is out now!

The paper version is available through the usual channels.

The online version can be found here:   

Resist Magazine Online

The Political Islam: Enemy or Ally?

"The Islam doesn't intent to impose its faith upon people, but Islam is not solely "a faith". As we indicated before the Islam is a declaration of human freedom, of the service to other humans. Therefore from the outset the aim is to abolish all those systems and governments, that are based on the domination of one man over the other." -  Sayyid Qutb in Milestones

Nowadays we witness the development of an ever-growing anti-Islamic trend. This enemy image is mostly based on the theory of "the clash of civilizations", which is formulated by the American zionist and neoconservative Samuel Phillips Huntington. Huntington suggested that after the Cold war a new contradiction would arise; namely one between different cultures and in particular between the Islam and the Western civilization. In this idea the Islam represents the face of barbarism, which does not wish to accept the so called "progress" and "liberties" the Western civilization has to offer. Within these neoconservative retorics "civilization" is defined in the sense of Western liberal values such as "universal liberty" and "democracy". After the fall of Communism it kept the paradigm of the Western civilization against the rest of the world intact. Therefore the theory of Huntington is of a purely ideological nature and wants to portray the Western liberal-capitalist system as the only possible form of "civilization" which has some kind of universal legitimicy and to which all people on earth should submit themselves too.  

The so-called "war on terrorism" which serves the purpose of a public justification for the imperialist agenda of the Western powers, uses this simplistic enemy idea to its advantage. The attack on the WTC towers in New York on 9/11, as a retaliation for the US agression in the Islamic world, was quickly abused by the US gorvernment under President Bush as so-called "evidence" to support Huntington's theory, so that the US imperialists supported by the public opinion were able to live up to their imperialist ambitions in the Middle East. This provided a breeding ground for some of the most radical forms of Islamphobia as well as a broad smear campaign against Muslims in general and against "Islamism" (better known as political Islam).  

 

Within the nationalist movement, which is by now becoming one of the biggest executors of this anti-Islamic smear, a lot of confusion can be found. The "clash of civilizations" retorics made sure many nationalists let themselves be seduced by neoconservative rightwing-populism in exchange for legitimicy. By that they knowingly or unknowingly are doing the dirty work of the imperialist and zionist camp. In this article we will try to explain our position on Islam and Islamism from a national-revolutionary point of view.  

 

The Islam

 

No holy book is able to inspire people for many centuries, if it doesn't contains different messages that are open for individual interpretations and which can be applied under different circumstances. This is also the case with the Quran. In this sense the Islam does not differ from the other big monotheist world religions (such as Christianity). Just like other religions Islam adresses the poor and opressed as well as the rich and the opressors. Just like Christianity, Islam lends itself as a desire for a better life, but also as a tool to protect the priviledged position of the powerfull. Therefore religion is not a historic force on its own, because although religious institutions and ideas played an important role in world history, this role cannot be seen apart from the material reality it is in. People were always able to give their own interpretations to the religious ideas they had. Usually these interpretations relied on their particular material situation, their relations with other people and the conflicts in which they found themselves.       

 

In this context Islam arose in the Arabic society of the 7th century, which was mainly organized along tribal lines. The founder was the Prophet Muhammed, he belonged to the clan of the Quraysh, the Hashemite, who lived on the Arabic peninsula. The first revelations of the Quran took place in 610 on mount Hira near the city Mecca. The first Islamic document was the "treaty of Medina" in which the Profet secured the rights and duties that were drafted for the Umma (the Islamic community). With that the first Islamic state was born. But Islam only really florished after the development of several consecutive imperia (known as Caliphates). The survival of this religion was, just as with Christianity, mainly dependend on its ability to adapt to the different interests of the different classes. The Islam offered a balance between a certain degree of protection for the opressed and some protection for the opressing classes against an uprise of the opressed classes.   

 

Just like most other religions, Islam doesn't represent a homogenous system of ideas. After the Islam spread across large parts of the Eurasian continent and Africa, many of the peoples who became part of the Islamic society introduced their own old religious traditions, which led to the development of new tendencies and variations within the Islam. We can draw the conclusion that the Islam is not fundamentally different compared to its sister-religions (Christianity and Judaism). On the contrary it knows huge resemblances. Therefore as national-revolutionaries we do not grant the Islam another status with respect to other religions.

The Political Islam

In the 20th century an Islamic revival took place. This revival happened as a reaction to the imperialist expansion of the West, who used their military supremacy to conquer, oppress and exploit the Middle East. This was accompanied by a lot of bloodshed and the disastrous consequenses can be feld up till this day. Even now the natural recourses and oil supplies of the Middle East are being exploited in favor of several multinationals at the expence of the local peoples. The Arabic leaders squandered the interests of their people, who were forced to live in utter poverty. In this situation Islamism, also known as political Islam, developed itself. According to the Islamists the situation in the Middle East was the result of a corruption of the Islamic values. Only a return to the "true Islam" could lead towards a recovery of the Islamic community. In the post-colonial era, during the economic crisis of the ´80s, the attraction of Islamism grew even more under the influence of the ever-growing contradictions between the poor masses and the rich elites. The rich elites who owned most of the wealth had a decadent westernized style of living and soon became accused of "un-Islamic" behaviour by the poor masses.  

One of the founders of political Islam was Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966), who after experiencing the decadent Western lifestyle in the USA for two and a half years , returned to his fatherland Egypt to join the Muslimbrotherhood. In his works he critized the decadency of the modern "Western" culture. In his vision the Islamic world was ruled by corrupt and westernized dictators and princes, their spiritually careless and ignorant policy could only be compared with that of the Jahili Arabs (= the pagan Arabs before the revelation of the Islam). Sayyid pled to overthrow these corrupt regimes to reinstate the "true Islam".  He mostly based his ideas on the works of the Hanbalist* jurist and purist Ibn Taymiyyah (1268-1328). Sayyib his concept of political Islam must be seen in the context of an ideology which is aimed to unite the opressed of the Islamic world in their conquest for social-, economic- and political justice.   

By this, Islamism distincts itself as a tendency because it doesn't want to maintain the old order in a conservative manner, but wants to change modern society based on Islamic values. The strive for resurrecting a mythical past, does not mean keeping the current society in tact, nor a return to the Middle ages, but a radical transformation of the modern society. The renewal promoted by Islamists must be seen as a struggle against the state and against the political domination of imperialism. It developed itself in societies which cried for resistance as a result of the drastic consequences of capitalism. Thus, Islamism is the political expression of people who grew up in these societies with respect for the Islamic ideas and values, and who apply these ideas and values in an attempt to fight injustice. The biggest support of the Islamists is found among the poor peasants on the countryside and those who migrated to the big cities in a desperate search for work. However the most important element that maintains Islamism is the new middle class (the petit-bourgeoisie) that developed as a result of the modernization of the Arab world. They form the indispensable cadre of Islamists, who spread the teachings of political Islam among the poor masses. Many of these Islamic intellectuals are well educated and form a bridge towards the poor masses in the slums and on the countryside. They are convinced that Islam can achieve a huge social change and social justice.  

Final Conclusion

Because political Islam is carried by the middle class it has a petit-bourgeois class character which can be compared with that of the classic corporatist movements. Just like classic corporatism (Peronism, etc.) the political Islam was born in the streets as a petit-bourgeois movement, which was able to mobilize the poor masses. Just like classic corporatism Islamism knows a contradictory character which contains both reactionary and revolutionary elements. The problem with the petit-bourgeoisie is that, as a class, it's not able to find an independent and consistent direction. On the one hand the petit-bourgeoisie hopes to take advantage of a radical change, while on the other hand the security of conservatism continues to beckon. So - just like classic corporatism - political Islam fails to name the material exploitation, because it limits itself to cultural imperialism (westernization) as the source of all evil. Although the political Islam is perfectly able to mobilize the bitterness of the population, it paralyzes it at the same time because it is not able to provide a true anticapitalist solution. The project to change society on the basis of the Islamic values that were preached by the Profet Muhammed during the 7th century, is nothing more than an utopia that originates from the impoverished part of the petit-bourgeoisie and which gives hope to the opressed people in the Islamic world.  

  

Let us be clear; the political Islam as a petit-bourgeois movement is not our real enemy! The Islamists are not to blame for the globalist-capitalist system. They are not to blame for the subjection of peoples in a strive for more and more profit, and neither are they to blame for the imperialist wars of agression which are fought worldwide! In fact Islamism has a destabilizing effect on the interests of the monopoly capital in the Middle East and they are an important obstacle for the colonial enterprises of Zionism. Although Islamists are representatives of a petit-bourgeois class that tries to influence the proletariat, thus not making them allies, we can also not take an aloof position about them. In their Islamic communities they are the vanguard of huge social groups that suffer from neo-liberal and imperialist exploitation. Their spirit of revolt can be used to serve revolutionary goals as long as the upcoming workersstruggle can play a determining role. The political Islam is the product of a deep social crisis, but it's not capable of offering a real solution because they don't proviode an anticapitalist alternative. Although we disagree with Islamists on several very important issues, we will in many cases stand on the same side with the Islamists in the worldwide struggle against imperialism and zionism. Therefore their resistance deserves our critical solidarity on the basis of the right on national selfdetermination! 

*The Hanbali school (madhhab) is one the schools of Fiqh or religious law within Sunni Islam. The jurisprudence school traces back to Ahmad ibn Hanbal (855) but was institutionalized by his students. 

Source: Free Nationalists North Brabant / Network National Socialists

      

Factory Occupation: The history of a new form of Industrial action

The subject of this article is factory occupation as a form of action in industrial conflicts. More than hundred-twenty years ago, mines were occupied in Poland by the workers. From this moment workers have kept using this means of action.

It attracts attention that the use has been concentrated in a number of waves (the most imported are): 1917-1920 in Italy and 1936-1937 in France. In these periods a recurring question that arose was wherever the actions sparked off a social revolution, or at any rate meant a step towards an industrial democracy. Or was it only a case of a tactical alternative for a strike?

The Italian actions took place during a wage-dispute in the metal industry, in the first instance in the cities of Milan and Turin. Here it was the metal trade union F.I.O.M. that took the initiative for these active occupations, The uncertain political and economical situation in which Italy found itself in the first post-war years, the wait-and-see policy of the government, the revolutionary atmosphere that was also created by statements of the socialist party leaders, and the great distance between the trade union management and its members; these factors must be considered responsible for the escalation of the conflict.

In France, in 1936 and 1937, the first actions took place in the aircraft industry; a branch of industry which was in a fair good economic position as a result of large government orders. The occupations were of a different nature than the 'grèves-sur-le tas' (a “sit-in” strike), a means of action frequently used by especially the metal workers in the Paris region. The election-victory of the Populair Front parties had stimulated the workers to using more radical forms of action.

After the coming power of the Blum-government an explosion of actions, occupations as well as strikes, developed.

One of the most remarkable conclusions is that occupation as a means of action was most frequently chosen in areas where strike-proneness was relatively low in previous years, whereas occupation-proneness was low in regions with a high strike-frequently. Not until the end of 1936 did the old geographical pattern of militancy return. The quick successes of the first actions, the little experience in agitating and a form of behavioral contagion explain as it appears more their massive character then the degree of organization of the workers.

A comparison of these two waves shows both differences and similarities. In Italy 1920 and France 1936/37 they were short eruptions, the last wave was longer as compared to the other one. There were clear differences with respect to the stake of the struggle ranging from wage disputes 1920, to fight for trade union rights in the enterprises 1936-1937. The role of the Italian trade unions in 1920 was in sharp contrast to the other one.

Political speaking – arriving at the similarities – there was a situation in each of the two cases where the authorities thought it fit to adopt a wait-and-see policy and even sometimes a pro-workers attitude. Also with respect to the international development of theses two, one observes parallelism.
In these two situations similar actions preceded the occupations an the first factory occupations can mostly be explained by the indignation of the workers concerned about what they saw as unjust decision by the management. The quick successes of these actions and the attitude of the employers and authorities led via a form of behavioral contagion to imitation on a large scale.

The view as if the use of factory occupation were only to be considered as a tactic, rational use of an available means of action – in the sense of adequate adjustment of means to aim – must be rejected. The change in targets, the diminishing news value in the course of a wave and the fact that the use has not been restricted to times of economic depression, are important arguments for this.

Is factory occupation the a revolutionary phenomenon or at any rate a step towards industrial democracy?

The general acceptance of the means – even official trade unions placed it on their action repertoire – pleads against this. The fact that occupation has lost its revolutionary potency does not, however, imply that it has become a means like any other. The concentration in massive waves of industrial disputes to which in general a radical nature is ascribed and the fact that it was especially those workers who had little or no experience in taking action and who dared to overstep the borders of legality underline the radical nature of factory occupation.

It remains to be seen whether the ever increasing spread of the phenomenon of occupation in this century points to a growing industrial democracy. The development of the demands and the long-term results would give rise to an affirmative answer. On the other hand it has bee established that experiences in previous waves have not been made use of by workers and trade unions in later situations.

The occupations have apparently not achieved the task of a school for workers' self-management. So it was not without reason that factory occupations was again called a new form of industrial action in each period.

Exactly in the spirit of Gramsci's working-council movement in Turin (Italy) in 1919/20, the factory occupation MUST be a school for working class self-management. A learning school for a upcoming socialist society ruled by the working class!


DO NOT ONLY OCCUPY THE STREETS OR SQUARES – BUT DO OCCUPY FACTORIES EVEN MORE: OCCUPY THE HEART OF CAPITALISM!

Interview with the metalband Mind Terrorist

Please tell us how your band "Mind Terrorist" was founded?

At first thank you for your interest. Mind Terrorist started as a solo project, with the help of some friends, before two years. In fact I had in mind to create music for the many people that were generally interested in rock and metal music. The point is that I would like to speak to everyone, not only to the members of certain subcultures, and make it through a modern way that could give to the scene a certain importance. So, it was a personal decision to start, I felt like making a project because I wanted to give a different direction to the listeners, both in music and writings. This year, we are trying to change it from a personal project to a band with steady structure and members.

How would you describe your music? 

Well, no doubt that it is about metal. Although the guitars give some heavy riffs, you can also listen to some nu parts in guitars, the voice is influenced mostly from hardcore and metalcore, so it is a little bit mixed. The first person ever listened to Mind Terrorist spoke about “alternative metal”, so I kept it because I think that it is close to reality, especially for tracks like “Dictatorship of stars and stripes”, which is our newest one.

Do you guys belong to a particular subculture?

Not at all. Of course we give respect to groups who are trying to create parallel forms against state’s pressure, no matter their ideological or political background, but personally I believe that subcultures just act into certain borders. We are here to think and act “outside the box” and smash the political dogmas. To speak without stereotypes, express ourselves and influence ideally every single person. Our music is not a tool of subcultures, it is something dynamic, in our effort not to separate people according to substyles and behaviors, but affect things in togetherness and unity.  

Which bands are your sources of inspiration?

Many bands with heavy/thrash/hardcore metal background (Sepultura, Slayer, In Flames, Pantera, Machine Head, Moshpit etc.) but we try to filtrate our influences so as to give a personal music stigma, the way it is possible. For example, in our debut album “Once upon a heartbeat” you can hear songs like “Freedom for Death” that reminds you a Paradise Lost riffin’, although some solos are more classical. We think that this kind of combination gives to the final result a good balance and makes it more interesting to the listener. So, to return back to the question about the description of our music, In Metal Hammer’s review they wrote that “the music contains many elements from the spectrum of modern heavy metal, perhaps with a touch of industrial (which can be derived simply from production) here and there, while the vocals reach in some cases more the hardcore side (similar to Cavalera style, not in tone). There is something familiar and comforting in, sometimes minimalist approach configurations, with the result not to be tiring. Although Mind Terrorist is not “reinventing the wheel” musically, I feel that the cd will be a pleasant listening for anyone who bothered to listen to them”.

What are your political views?

Okay, although the band is not categorized as far as politics concerned, because each of the people who help has its own view, personally I support anti-statist groups and movements. I am Tribal Anarchist (no relation with Marxists or Antifa), but I keep a widely open mind to hear everything and discuss everything. I believe that the social, economical, ecological matters concern every creature on earth, every human or non-human being. This is the base from which I start. I am against categorization of people in political parties or the simple dogmas of left and right. I support all people who fight for their freedom against the oppression of the state.

What are your thoughts on the current situation in your fatherland Greece? 

Unfortunately, we face a dead end, and we are of course a part of an existing problem but also a strong part of the solution. We have to gain in consciousness and awareness that we are able to support the change. Any decision within the existing framework simply maintains what currently exists, so we have to make a further step. To speak about crisis, we must not emphasize to what is well known, the fact that many people have not enough money to survive. There are things that are more important. This is an era when people have no values and no respect for their lives. They tend to earn money and make life through it, and it is capitalism that takes their time. Most of our needs are not “real”, capitalism always creates new ones so as to consume. Other priorities are set aside. People now are getting so empty and greedy, wanting more and more, but they rarely give to the others sentiments like love, sympathy, solidarity, togetherness, and friendship. They don’t appreciate a voluntary action, because capitalism destroys a no-money society and makes people like thieves who steal from one another. It is not about a “greek problem”, but a whole crisis caused by the liberal dictatorship of capitalism. Take a look around the world regarding matters like human relations, code of values, racial solidarity, nature and environmental matters, social balance etc. 

Is the national - revolutionary/national-anarchist idea popular within Greece? 

Well, I think that these ideas gain in popularity day by day and I am very satisfied that we participate in such efforts. It is very promising that we are getting in contact with people from different political backgrounds and try to make a creative synthesis of concepts and ideas.

Any plans for the future?

At the moment we are recording new material for a full length album that is going to be released at the end of the year through One People One Struggle Records. This will be our second album, under the title “Fragments of human decay”, containing 10 tracks. You can get more information through our official website www.mindterrorist.gr or our facebook profile www.facebook.com/onceuponaheartbeat.

National-Revolutionary Manifesto

Our era is the era of the definitive deathblow for the capitalist system worldwide. The current economic crisis, the biggest crisis since 1929, is the living proof of this fact. Capitalism can stretch its existance at most for several decades, but the final collapse of this economic world order is only a matter of time. 

Revolutionary anti-system activists, collectives, structures and movements are forced to take some things in account and they must set themselves up for the upcoming hardening of the class struggle, the new forms of organisation of the working class resulting from that, as well as the intensification of various forms of 'direct action', to accelerate the destruction of capitalism. 

1. We stand on the fundamental basis of the class struggle. In a world where  approximately 98% of humanity lives in poverty and is exploited by  approximately 2 %, where a continuing smaller percentage of oligarchs accumulates more and more wealth, the rich get more and more richer and the poor ever more poor, it's class against class.

2. We are proponents of the worldwide destruction of capitalism as an economic system and the bourgeoisie as a political class. It's our international duty to support social-revolutionary movements elsewhere in the world with all the means and methods at our exposal.

3. We do not deny the importance of our own, national, revolution. We stand on the basis of liberating nationalism. Our standpoint is that the liberation of the working class and the launch of the social revolution begins on a national level. Hereby the sovereignty of the national working class is assured. We do not make a distinction on the basis of racial features and/or religious conviction.

4. We want the destruction of the state. The state is the political expression of the existing capitalist world order. The bourgeois-state finds its roots in parliamentarism, the political form of organisation of the capitalist class. The state is a hierarchical system, in which a strict obedience towards the establishment is necessary and an iron workersdiscipline in favor of the establishment is demanded. Who positions him- or herself in a non-conformist manner or refuses to contribute in the capitalist production process, undergoes repression by the state.

5. We are proponents of the revolutionary council rule (= the dictatorship of workers- and soldier councils). The council rule is the political form of organisation of the warring working class and as opposed to bourgeois parliamentarism certainly directly democratic (=basisdemocracy). Councils are the executive organs of the workers power that are directly elected by the basis. Representatives may at any time be called back or replaced, so that the interests of the collective will always be represented. This in contradiction to parliamentarism, where bribed representatives do the opposite of representing the interests of the working masses.

6. We are for the expropriation of all the owners of the means of production. We think it's only righteous that the means of productions belong to those who produce. Shareholders, investors, other financial hyena's and leeches exploit the proletariat  and usurp themselves the wealth (by means of surplus, profit) created by the proletariat. The surplus (profit) that is created during the production of goods under socialism, benefits the construction of the socialist society and thus the community, as well as international solidarity (= workers solidarity).

7. We reject the imperialist strive of the warmongering block of Western capitalist states (NATO, EU). The imperialist strive originates from the necessity of monopoly capitalism to export capital surplus to economically underdeveloped areas.

8.We are anti-authoritarians. We reject the "Führerprinzip" and each form of elitist vanguard pretension. We stand on the basis of radical workers autonomy and the proposition that real liberation can only be realized by the working class itself. The Union bosses and Party bosses of the so called "socialist" parties and the "socialist" party apparatus prove time and again that they are used as a weapon against the working class. The workers would make a huge mistake if they would uncritically endorse the reformist column of the Union bureaucracy and treacherous parliamentarians. Everyone who participates in the struggle for the liberation of the proletariat has a direct voice in the councils, after which this is discussed jointly and possibly put into practice.

9. We are proponents of the effecting of the revolutionary unity of the proletariat, that is to say the unity of the proletariat on a revolutionary basis. Only together the workers will be able to defeat capitalism. They have to join their experiences together, analyse them and put them into practice - striking capitalism where it is most effective. Proletarians have more in common with each other than with their class enemies, who originate from the same ethnic heritage or who share the same religion. Proletarian interests are transboundary and can only be achieved by violent, revolutionary political action.

(National & Socialist Action, August 2011)

FOR SOCIAL REVOLUTION AND NATIONAL LIBERATION!

FOR THE REVOLUTIONARY UNITY OF THE WORKING CLASS!

FOR THE WORLDWIDE DESTRUCTION OF STATE AND CAPITAL!

YES FOR THE REVOLUTIONARY CLASS WAR!

COMMENCE THE WAR AGAINST CAPITALISM IN THE HEART OF THE WESTERN METROPOLISES - NOW!       

Interview with Bulgaria Resistance

1) First of all; can you please introduce yourself and your collective to our readers?

Hello! For our collective at this time it is difficult to say because the ideas of revolutionary nationalism are not popular among nationalists in Bulgaria. We are still a few nationalists with revolutionary thoughts. Interspersed over complete Bulgaria and practical our common actions are difficult at this time. We hope that through our blog more and more people will learn about the revolutionary nationalism.

2) Can you tell us something about the circumstances your country is currently in, political, economical and social? And how does that effect your political views, types of actions and future vision?

The circumstances in our country are critical as it is in a political stalemate situation, and the social and economic crisis have brought most Bulgarians to fight for survival. Our country has been controlled for 23 years by criminal structures, oligarchic circles and secret games serving global capital and aiming the complete enslavement of the average worker through credits, inability to pay bills and not enough wage. Talented and educated people are forced to leave their homeland because of low wage and those remaining here are exploited as cheap hand labour. Unfortunately, we stand almost powerless against everything that happens. Occupation of power for many years and huge capital investments in various media and other means for manipulation of public opinion makes it very difficult for our ideas to access the general mass. Political repression in our country is also not uncommon. However, we keep on going to fight what we can and try to open the eyes of as many people as possible.

3) How does the EU and Turkey influence your country? Has the enrollment of Bulgaria in the EU and the influence of the above affected your types of action and the themes you address?

Bulgaria is in the EU since 2007 and real benefits of our presence there, are null and void, and the lives of people in general have not improved. Aside from the ability to travel freely and that Bulgarian citizens can seek justice before the European institutions in stead of the corrupt Bulgarian legal system, the positive aspects are limited. Corruption in our country is stronger than ever, crime rates are not lower, standards of living have not improved. Membership dues and obligations of our country to the EU are huge, while benefits there is practically none. Constant thrust for tolerance and disregarding of national identity, colonial enslavement by the global capital and the neoliberal system are a small part of the disadvantages that may be highlighted. Bulgaria is under the influence of Turkey which has its roots in the sponsorship of the Islamists in our country. It can be said that in our country there is a party that covers the actions of Turkey, namely the party MRF. Often ethnic tension occur in Bulgaria which is dictated by the above-mentioned elements but there are also many reactionaries and xenophobes in our country who also incite tension. So consciously or not they support the current system which makes use of them. Since Bulgaria is in the EU, many people think that it's good for our country but it is not because Bulgaria is dependent on its policies. The EU has a negative impact on us due to the repressive policies of Western European countries towards nationalism, different opinion and anti-capitalist attitudes.

4) Do you try to grasp the "normal public" in/into your politics? If so how do you do that? And what exactly are you trying to get across? If not, why not? 

This is a complex question. On the one hand the prevalence of our ideas as well as expanding the size of our movement would be good. On the other hand we are forced to guard ourselves against traitors and informers and therefore hav to limit our contacts to be able to continue to develop activities. It is important to understand our ideas for "normal public" and leaving the media image as vandals and agressors which was created about us. However, we have no access to mass communication and dissemination of our ideas is among more restricted circles.

5) Is there cooperation between (slightly) different political groups? If so how does that come to show?

Currently in Bulgaria there are no wholly comparable groups that think like us. We maintain some actions and events of some nationalist organizations with whom we partially share some ideas. In Bulgaria, most nationalists are duped into supporting party interests of various pseudo-nationalist parties which further complicates the situation as many sincere nationalists face off against each other in the name of personal conflicts and interests.

6) If you could highlight just one topic that you and your collective are most passionate about in your country which you would want to see changed, what would that be? And how would you rather see it?

The only thing we would like to change in our country is peoples indifference. When people change their minds we will be able to achieve our goals.

7) In the light of the current demonstrations and political uprising in Bulgaria, how is your position in all of this? 

The situation with the protests here is a little complicated. On the one hand participating in the protests are ordinary citizens who are fed up with incompetent government. Also among the protesters people are becoming more in support of the Anonymous movement, Occupy and so on whose positions on many problems overlap with ours. On the other hand most of the attendees there carry political orders and are taking money for their presence which does not exclude the possibility of full conducting of everything happening at the moment. However, we see many young and intelligent people who complain about the system and we hope they'll find the right way to correctly change.

8) Anything in particular you want our readers to know and/or to take with them from reading this interview?

We want to tell the readers of this interview that despite all the difficulties we are here and we will defend our ideas to last and will do everything possible to spread them among more people.

9) Any final toughts, remarks or notes?

Special thanks for this interview whereby you gave us the opportunity to express our thoughts. We want to congratulate all our comrades around the world and let them know that the fight continues until the final victory.

We'd like to thank our conmrades of Bulgaria Resistance for this interview.

Autonomous Nationalists: The AN movement in Germany

Within the nationalist scene these days most are well known with the concept of "autonomous nationalists". But what does the concept of "autonomy" really mean? In a series of articles we will try to explain this by getting a better insight in the origin, theory, practice and future of autonomism and its meaning for revolutionary nationalism. This third article will go into the phenomena autonomous nationalism and its German origin.

Around 1988 it seemed that the concept of autonomy also got following within the nationalist movement in Germany with the publishing of the magazine "Schwarze Fahne" (Black Flag) in 1988, which mentioned the term autonomous nationalists for the first time. In 1990 the "Autonom-Nationalistischen Zelle" (Autnomous-Nationalist Cell) published the "autonomous-nationalist manifest". This was the first attempt to introduce certain elements of the autonomous movement into the nationalist movement. During the '90's strong repression against nationalists from the German government resulted in organisational prohibitions and long jail sentences for leading figures. In 1994 certain nationalists groups in Germany came to the conclusion that autonomous organisation forms and the strategy of a mass-vanguard offered a solution against the ever increasing repression. Although at first this took the form of copying the strategy and tactics of the autonomous movement and it was not so much about a ideological elaboration, the basis of an autonomous nationalism was layed.      

However outside the appearance and strategical characteristics of autonomy, this also led to a re-orientation of the nationalist ideology. Anti-capitalist, anti-globalist and anti-imperialist themes became increasingly in the foreground within the autonomous nationalist movement. This ideological re-orientation soon led to several heated discussions within the nationalist movement. In most cases national-socialism remained the reference point and the discussion limited itself within the content of several tendencies (represented by the left- and rightwing of the NSDAP) within this historical movement. One of the precursors within this ideological discussion was the then nationalist Holger Hansen from Dortmund, who pleaded for the introduction of autonomy as a full concept. He proposed a current of sharp anti-capitalist criticism, complete decentralization and a consistent class struggle. This led to great outrage within the more traditional nationalist circles, which was the reason that Hansen was compelled to break with the nationalist movement to join the anti-imperialist movement  "Zusammen Kämpfen" in Berlin. In the national-revolutionary segment of the nationalist movement, that mainly grouped itself around the "Netzwerk Sozialistische Nation" (NWSN), "Fahneträger" and "Sache des Volkes" they were more consistent. The national-revolutionary groups already based themselves on the foundation of class struggle and proposed revolutionary anti-capitalist politics. Here the concept of autonomy as it once developed within the proletarian movement could find an easier access.

Mid 2012 after a prohibition on several autonomous structures it seemed autonomous nationalism in Germany had lost its momentum. Although autonomous nationalism gave a new revolutionary impulse to the nationalist movement and the German youth, it seems that at the moment it is torn apart by internal rivalry, ideological conflict and State-repression. With the loss of her autonomous structures an essential part of the autonomous nationalists seem to be trapped inside subculture and a course of party politics. With this the autonomous concept of clear and independent anti-system politics seem to play a less significant role within the German nationalist movement. After the ban on some of these important autonomous nationalist structures the nationalist movement declared; "Resistance is like the Hydra*". Therefore we are sure that the autonomous forms of action will undoubtedly resurface in Germany.  

* Hydra - The many-headed dragon which stands symbol for chaos and resistance. 

Autonomous Nationalism: The Autonomous movement in Germany

Within the nationalist scene these days most are well known with the concept of "autonomous nationalists". But what does the concept of "autonomy" really mean? In a series of articles we will try to explain this by getting a better insight in the origin, theory, practice and future of autonomism and its meaning for revolutionary nationalism. In this second article we will discuss the autonomous movement of Germany.  

At the end of the student revolts the unorganized anti-authoritarian current was next to Jusos (social-democrats of the SPD), the DKP (a Marxist-Leninist party) and the K-groups (several communist organisations), one of the most important tendencies within the leftwing movement of Germany. In the 1970's the Italian concept of "Autonomia Operia" started to influence this German current more and more. In West-Germany so-called  "Betriebsprojektgruppen" (Workplace project-groups) were created with the Italian model as an example. However, an important difference with the Italian autonomy was the fact that instead of the workers having a leading role, this role was fullfilled by student activists. Their intention was to introduce the anti-authoritarian activism of the student revolt into the factories. They saw direct action and militantism as ways to unite the anti-authoritarian revolt with the proletarian workers culture. However due to a lack of a solid basis within the German workingclass and the cultural barrier between worker and student, no broad autonomous workersmovement as in the Italian model developed itself in Germany. At the end of the 1970's this led to a sceptisism towards politics that focussed itself only on the workersstruggle. Many anti-authoritarians found entrance in the alternative movement, that wanted to create some kind of parallel counterculture, thereby trying to create a practical alternative within the dominant social order.     

In October 1975 the first edition of the journal "Autonomie" was published. This became the first theoretical platform for anti-authoritarian activists who tried to politically re-orientate themselves.  In 1979 this led to a break between the editors collectives of Hamburg and that of Frankfurt. The Hamburg group stuck to the traditional concept of operiatism and kept a clear Marxist-proletarian orientation. They accused the editorial collective of Frankfurt of abusing the term "autonomy" to revert from true revolutionary politics. The group from Frankfurt saw the anti-nuclear struggle as an alternative for a strong focus on the proletarian struggle and left the journal that kept being published by the Hamburg collective uptill 1985. The journal "Autonomie" created a historical bridge between the student revolts of May 1968 and the autonomous movement of the '80's.        

At the beginning of the 1980's unexpected new social movements developed from the alternative movement of the 1970's. Most of them developed from the many "one-issue" campaigns (anti-nuclear struggle, squattersmovement, peace movements, etc.) who started to broaden their perspectives. This social movements who shot from the social revolts of 1980 and 1981 were then products of a deep social and political discontent. In this a militant autonomous wing developed that consisted mostly of young activists. They went on to confront the bourgeois norms and values and put their own needs as the central political goal. They didn't propagate a resistance that was confined to the weekend or a certain location, but a resistance that included life as a whole. Therefore the autonomous movement didn't limit itself to a certain area of struggle or theme, but did broaden her struggle to fight against everything that would opress and destroy us. Within the new social movements of the 1980's the autonomy represented an indipendent political fraction. Within the autonomous movement of the 1980's there also developed a new discussion about the class struggle. In these times wagelabour was dominated by a core of politically integrated, specialized workers who were member of the trade unions. They had prospect on a relatively safe and long duration of work. Therefore the autonomous idea of a selfdetermined live and the struggle against capitalism did find much support within the factory. Although a lot of effort was done by the autonomous movement to form alliances with workers, not much succes was booked on this area and an emphasis was layed on the construction of a mass-movement and alternative culture.         

The German autonomous movement has published several thesis in which she tried to catch its most important characteristics. Some of these;

- We fight for ourselves and others fight for themselves. However by connecting our struggle we make ourselves stronger.

- We won't engage in any dialogue with those in power! We only formulate demands. Those in power can concede with them or not. 

- We all embrace some vague anarchism, but we're not anarchists in the traditional meaning of the word. 

- No power to no one!

- Our ideas are very different from those of the alternative movement, but we use the infrastructure of the alternative movement. 

- We are not certain if we want revolution or revolt. Some of us want a "permanent revolution", while others claim this is nothing else then a "permanent revolt". Those who don't trust the term "revolution" think it suggests a freedom that has to be realized at a certain point, whilst they think this is impossible. For them freedom is the short period of time between throwing the rock and the rock hitting its target. However we all agree that in first instance we want to dismantle and destroy - formulating affirming ideals is not our priority.  

- We are not by definition organized. Our forms of organisation are somewhat spontanious. There are squat meetings, telephone chains, autonomous assemblies and many many small groups. Short term groups form to perform an action or to attend a protest. Long term groups work on ongoing projects or very illigal actions. There are no structures more solid than this and there will be no hierarchy. Uptill today the movement has produced not one individual representative, spokesman or celebrity, that means no Negri, no Dutchke, no Cohn-Bendit, etc.  

Since the 1980's the German autonomous movement has lost its momentum. This movement however always remained a factor of political interest and its practice has inspired radical activists all over the world to use the militant practice and tactics of the autonomous movement for their own respective struggles.