Against Western decadence - The concept of Eurasia

Today the term 'Eurasia' seems to arise again. Although the movement has been familiar with this concept for a longer period of time, and has propagated it here and there, it was recently used by the Russian president Putin. Deservedly? 

An exploration through the past of this idea will make clear what this concept means and to what degree national-revolutionaries can benefit from it. 


The origin of the 'Eurasian' idea 

Russia always had trouble being recognized as a European country by the West. In his time Tsar Peter the Great (1672-1725) already fought for a place for Russia in Europe. However, time after time the West judged that Russia in basis would be 'Asian' and therefore could not be a part of Europe. The term 'Eurasia' would arise much later, around 1921.

When the October revolution of 1917 eradicated old feudal Russia, dozens of petit-bourgeois intellectuals (ethnologists, linguists, historians, theologians, philosophers, jurists, etc.) went in exile to foreign countries as a part of the Eurasian movement. (Their theoretical enchiridion was bundled under the title “Der Aufbruch nach Osten”). To understand the concept of Eurasia we first need to look to one of the pioneers of this movement.  Nikolaj Trubetzkoj, a linguist born in 1890, was one of its founders (read his many times cited work "Europa und die Menschheit").

If we pick up the links of the West to Peter the Great and his recognition of Russia, we grasp the spirit of the Eurasian idea. In his East-orientation, Trubetzkoj suggests it was not the Kyev-Russian which founded the Russian empire, but the Mongol empire of Dzjengis Khan, and the preceding period the Tartars ruled. It was they who defined the meaning of 'Russia'. Primal-father Khan would have realized the territorial unity for the sovereign territory "Eurasia".

The "civilized' West that considered itself superior and tried to dominate non-European peoples, had to be fought with its own developed cultural aspects, the own conscious backwardness had to develop itself forward. East and West needed to measure themselves to each other.    

The future of Russia was not meant as world leader, but that of a vanguard against Europe. This was only possible if Russia hooked on to the liberation movements of the colonial peoples, thus disconnecting itself from the European oppressor, with which Russia had nothing in common.

The conservative author Konstantin Leontjew (1831-1891) can be considered another founder of the Eurasian idea with his position in regard of the Slavs, who's Russian culture needed to be protected against Europe by a clear border (a real wall) between East and West.

The most important difference between the Eurasian ideas and those of Leontjew, is that the latter didn't really reject European culture, but merely its bourgeoisation and democratization, which followed after the French revolution. For Leontjew the old feudal aristocratic Europe was still the greatest example.

The later Eurasian movement saw the civil war, the revolution and the fall of the Tsar as positive developments. They did not entirely reject the Bolshevists, nor the ideas of the uprising Italian fascism. Both were seen as positive developments because of the anti-parliamentary and anti-democratic thoughts.

However, an important obstruction for the Eurasian movement remained the glorification of the own nation under fascism and the imitation of the Western bourgeois culture in the shape of the proletarian culture amongst the Bolshevists. Therefore the "Eurasianists" always wanted to exterminate the ruling Bolshevik Party in the Soviet Union; the hegemony of Marxism had to be replaced by that of Eurasia.

The dead of Trubetzkoj in 1938 led to the disintegration of the Eurasian movement. (He died after a fatal interrogatory by the Gestapo because of the putative criticism on the racial laws of the Nazi’s after the 'Anschluss' of Austria).



The development of the contemporary Eurasian idea

It would take more than 50 years before the Eurasian idea experienced a renaissance. The collapse of the Soviet Union during the Gorbatsjov-era heralded a new phase in the search for a new Russian identity. This identity was formulated by Alexander Dugin (born in 1962), a renewed Eurasian idea. These far right ideas seem to miss the mark with their 'Third Way' concept.  

The most important difference between the original concept and that of Dugin is once more a disagreement about the defining of East and West.

Where the original Eurasianists held an isolationist approach, the new Eurasianists have an expansionist agenda. Between West- and East-Europa "only hostility, hatred, ruthless struggle with or without rules, the struggle for the destruction until the last drop of blood, exists. Between them lie mountains of corpses... Who will have the last word? .... This the war will decide, the 'Father of all things', says Elementy, a magazine associated with Dugin.

The difference between the old and the new idea is that Dugin wants to start an offensive of conquest from the East towards the West, whereas the classic Eurasian idea wanted to liberate itself from the West to live independently next to it.

Today also Putin speaks of Eurasia, be it with an even bigger emphasis on the Great-Russian thought. Putin´s concept of Eurasia is a Russian nationalist idea, a greater Russia. It’s not about a united Asia of peoples and its shared (and Dugins) worldview. It’s only about a reaction of might, not a heterogeneous Eastern block against the EU and USA.  

Although we national-revolutionaries don't feel much relationship with the new Eurasian concept, we certainly must see the classical concept of Eurasia as an ally. This because:

1) It represents an anti-parliamentary and anti-Tsarist ideology;

2) It defends isolationism against the bourgeois West and wants to unite the peoples of Asia;

3) (Again) it supports Russia in a liberation struggle against European oppression

4) It wants a revolution which is not specifically party-bolshevist nor specifically fascist;

5) Of course next to this, the chauvinist ideas of Dugin and Putin in regard of a Russian imperia need to be rejected.

So if such a Eurasian movement is developing in Russia or abroad, it would do well by searching a close cooperation with the workers movement, to rid itself of its (petit-) bourgeois roots in order to become truly revolutionary.

Then the national-revolutionaries will join them in the Eastern camp and help them against the bourgeois democracy and the imperialist West as its brothers of arms!

Political analysis in regard to the Greek situation - What will happen after the peoples' referendum?

The Greek government of the national bourgeoisie, SYRIZA, is on the brink of being strangled by the Dictate of Brussels, with the BRD (Merkel and Schaüble) as the main conductor in trying to remove Tsipras and Varoufakis from the political arena, in order to install a new government of puppets that will quickly give way to the demands of Brussels.    

The imperialist forces have decided to no longer "negotiate" (we cannot say there have ever been real negotiations between Brussels and Athens) with the government of Tsipras until Sunday, and to await the outcome of the referendum SYRIZA has submitted to the people, regarding the reforms and loans of the EU. (A referendum everybody gives his own contents to. 'Yes' would mean an acceptance of the reforms, a stay in the EU and/or a resignation of the government. 'No' would mean new negotiations, out of the Euro or even out of the EU).    

However, the situation of SYRIZA has become so hopeless and has lost much credibility. Look at the former (failed) consent of Tsipras to reform the pension system for the purpose of Brussels, be it spread out over a longer period to ease the pain for the Greek population. Or the direct call for new loans after the Greeks failed to meet the repayment period to Brussels.    

Of course Tsipras and Varoufakis could not agree with all demands, even in the former government of Samaras there was no acceptance of certain points. If SYRIZA decided to honour these demands then this would mean the end of their reign (this was also the reason why Varoufakis recently walked away during the "negotiations").

But what if Varoufakis holds his word and resigns as Minister of Finance if the majority of the people votes 'yes' at the referendum?

And what if the government-Tsipras collapses?    

Then finally there will be revolutionary perspectives in sight: a fallen government, a desperate population, civil war conditions, the Dictate of Brussels which finds its equal in the (armed) Greek (=national) proletariat.

This is what we need to make happen! This is the path towards revolution!

But what will Golden Dawn, the police and the army do (in regards of the Junta history of the country)?  

Golden Dawn already gave the advice to vote 'no' during the referendum together with SYRIZA. Here again we witness a front of "left" and "right" against the hated Dictates of national oppression (just as in the Weimar period - When communists and Nazi’s both attacked the Dictate of Versailles for the liberation of the German people).

Can Golden Dawn present itself as the last alternative to liberate Greece? It still does have a clean slate if it comes to political governing.

Or do they take more radical measures (armature)? They still have contacts in police and military. What will the lower ranks do, which stand close to the people, against the higher ranks which are loyal to the State (see Portugal 1974)?

Even the US nervously stands at the sidelines: with an eventual Grexit the Western geopolitical position will be compromised by Eastern forces. Think about Putin’s energy-deal with Tsipras and the Chinese interests in the ports of Piraeus.  

However, one thing is certain. The government of Tsipras has forfeited its chances to pose a credible alternative for the Euro crisis. Greek capitalism can no longer be saved and more radical forces will fill up the vacuum (everything Varoufakis didn't hope).

Because, as we said before, the main tendency in this Greek tragedy still remains:

AFTER SYRIZA WE WILL COME!  

The Netherlands: A totalitarian Control-State?

"He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither and will eventually lose both" 
- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)

On a daily basis the Dutch people are confronted with disturbing stories in the system-media (in the newspapers, on the internet, the radio and television) about the threat of left- and right-extremism, Islamic fundamentalism and/or wars between motorcycle clubs. The people seem to live in a constant climate of fear. At the same time we witness a tendency in which our government evermore intrudes in the freedom and privacy of citizens. It becomes apparent that this security-police has taken Orwellian forms, from the recent NSA scandal, which revealed that 1,8 million Dutch citizens were tapped by the intelligence services of the USA. Apparently this is completely normal according to our government. The government no longer seems to trust its own citizens.   

   

The attacks of 9/11 had a great impact on the Western world. To combat 'terrorism' the then prevailing ideas about civil liberties were thrown overboard very quickly by the Western governments. Freedoms that were fought for by our ancestors for centuries, many of whom paid for it with their freedom or life, are completely demolished at a rapid pace. One such comprehensive control of civilians as it is today has never been seen before in the entire human history - not under Nero, Napoleon, Hitler or Stalin. Fundamental rights and privacy laws are massively reduced; police and secret services get an increasingly free rein and security cameras are placed next to each road. With this the feast of freedom seems to have definitively ended.

This development is getting worse because of the complete apathy of the Western peoples, who seem to accept this curtailment of their liberties as some kind of 'historical faith'. The people are scared. In ancient times 'terror' was already a State-practice, which was rendered legitimate by philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes. It served to keep the people afraid and thus submissive. Also during the French revolution 'terror' was used as a state-doctrine against the contra-revolutionaries. Later on the term was used mostly in a critical sense, for example in its references to Stalinism and Hitlerism. However, these days this seems to have turned around. Nowadays 'terror' (terrorism) is seen as a phenomenon which is based on the individual and which threatens the State. As a result, the State fights terror from some kind of legal self-defense and thus can never be guilty of terror itself. With this the 'War on terror' (terrorism), that was proclaimed by the Western world, got a kind of universal legitimacy that justifies almost any act, conflict or war the West commits. However these days our nation is not threatened by 'terrorism', but by the willingness of our people to let themselves be intimidated by 'terror', in an attempt of our governments to use this to impose authoritarian structures that will rob us from our freedom and privacy.      

"Safety" has become the new slogan in the political debate. The State suggests that the government needs to know as much as possible about its citizens to protect them as efficiently as possible. However, we seem to forget that 'safety' is not feasible because no risk can be excluded. It is more likely that you will die by a traffic accident than by a terrorist attack. However it’s in the human nature to be more afraid for the unlikely than for the likely. We are most afraid for the things that rarely or never happen. This is probably a good thing if we want to cope with life. So our feeling of insecurity is separate from real threats. Here in the West it is more likely to die by a plane crash, than to get killed as a result of a terrorist attack. This means the climate of fear in our country simply is not rational. The daily calls of terror stand in the way of a rational debate about the sense and nonsense of the proposed countermeasures, which should safeguard our 'security'.  

The question any sane person should ask themselves is: How valid are the tools of counter-terrorism? Are these measures suitable to achieve the desired objective? Are grid investigations (profiling of large groups of citizens), biometric passports, video surveillance, the massive use of wiretapping and other violations of fundamental rights that affect millions of innocent civilians, legitimate means against terrorism? Or does this defeat the purpose? It is totally unclear where these drastic infringements on privacy should result in. While the State applies more and more control options against its own civilians, the terrorist threat only seems to get bigger and bigger.

Until now no demonstrable terrorist attack is prevented on the basis of the heightened security laws. On the other hand many of the implemented measures have proved inadequate in preventing terrorism. So it seems the State is not defending itself against terrorist disaster, but against its own citizens. Previously one was innocent until the contrary was proven; now more and more we see a situation in which everybody is guilty until proven otherwise. From a so-called 'preventive' strategy the government treats all people as potentially dangerous and appropriates itself the right to act accordingly (control, observation, and general suspicion). While our constitution demands that individual citizens are as little damaged by State-interventions as possible, prevention-politics demands gathering as much abstract information on individual citizens as possible. Slowly but surely our rule of Law is changing into a true control-State, in which the doings of every citizen are controlled and monitored by the government.        


The image of a totalitarian control-State that George Orwell painted in his well-known book '1984' seems to have become a harsh reality. The control delusion of the State has long ago left the ground of the struggle against terrorism and now aims at all aspects of our daily lives; social relations, taxes, consumer behaviour and healthcare. Counter-terrorism has become a sharp sword in the hands of "model citizens" who want to submit the entire community to their conformity. Behind the security policy of the State we see an ever further blurring of the borders between politics, justice, police, military, private security and the security industry; it will not be long before the control-State will arise. We exchange our personal freedom for the doubtful and empty promise of 'security'. If we don't resist now it will be too late. Once the totalitarian state is completed any protest will be repressed. Fight now, while it’s still not too late!   

The Myth of the Caliphate

The glorification of violence, hunger, god and the anti-imperialist liberation struggle 

When the self-appointed Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, these days Caliph Ibrahimi, exclaimed the Caliphate on the 4th of June 2014 (during the first day of the Ramadan) in the Great (al-Nuri) Mosque in Mosul, he placed himself in the tradition of the Prophet and his three successors. 

The choice for the Great Mosque in Mosul for the exclamation of the Caliphate was not a random choice: in 1171 this mosque was built as commissioned by Nur ad-Din. This mujahedeen was the preceptor of the renowned Salad al-Din, who conquered Jerusalem back from the crusaders in 1192. The mosque still has calligraphy of Koranic verses on the wall, which indicate Jerusalem (in contradiction to Mecca) as the first direction of prayer. So one of the main objectives of IS becomes quite clear: at some point Jerusalem (al-Quds) will have to become the centre of the Caliphate once again. 

Another goal of IS is clearing their territory from in their eyes 'disbelieving' tribes. Although Assyrians, Samaritans, Yazidis and other religious minorities directly need to leave the territory of the Caliphate, because according to IS they are "devil worshippers", Christian and Jewish tribes, the people of the book,  have to choose between four options: 1) Take as many possessions as you can carry and leave the Caliphate. (In an early stadium minorities were even dropped off at the Syrian-Iraqi border). 2) Convert to (Sunni) Islam. Always a possibility and in their eyes even desirable. 3) Pay a firm tax (1/3 of your possessions) and retain your faith. Or option 4) If the former choices yield nothing, the 'sword' will follow: a certain death.      

However, for IS the apostates in their own ranks are even worse than 'people without book', the Shia Muslims. According to IS these apostates of the Prophets path need to be fought first on their own territory, before the Caliphate can fight against all the enemies that threaten the Muslim community (read: 'the crusaders' of the west, aka US imperialism, reactionary Islamic regimes, gulf monarchies, etc.). Therefore the al-Nuri mosque was chosen with a clear reason: in his age Nur ad-Din also fought the Shia. And although Nur ad-Din from time to time also allied himself with the Shia for strategic reasons, IS consequently refuses to reach out to this 'apostate' Shia tendency.    

The age-old hatred between Sunni’s and Shia is deeply rooted. The installation by the US troops, after the fall of Saddam Hussein, of the Iraqi president al-Maliki, led to an unknown repressive and oppressive reign towards the Sunni population. This sectarian struggle between the two biggest tendencies within Islam and which has been waged for more than 1400 years long has polarized to extreme levels since the US invasion in Iraq in 2003.   

The propaganda from Teheran, the conspiracy theories of conspiracy theorists, the suggestions from the far right (and sometimes the far left), that IS would be a destabilizations-project of the US, cannot be proven in any way. Any serious evidence for this assumption is missing. Recently it became known that the State-construction of IS is based on the old secret service of the Saddam-loyalists, mainly by the former colonel of intelligence Haji Bakr. This combination of military- and intelligence knowledge of old Baáth members on the background and religious fanatics of combative (mostly foreign) jihadists on the frontlines, is what makes IS so successful military.   

Al-Zarqawi, al-Qaeda ideologue since 2004, was the first to preach this sectarian Islamism (=political Islam). This to great annoyance of the al-Qaeda leadership, who stated that "Sinful Muslims should not be confused with apostate Muslims" (about the Shia) and that "these certainly should not be executed". For them the primary concern was the struggle against the US and their allied troops (the far enemy). IS however, aims its arrows primarily at the enemy up close: the apostate and sinful Muslims in their own ranks.    

Although Iran (as the most important Shia country) was a bulwark against imperialism for many years, it now seems the country has started an intense collaboration with US imperialism.  Since the beginning Iran welcomed the US invasion in Iraq. There was a certain cooperation between the US and Iran in their struggle against IS to recapture the town of Tikrit, which was coordinated between the US air force, Iraqi government troops (who are an extension of Teheran) and Shia militias (mostly mercenaries from Iran). Despite its fierce anti-American rhetoric, the regime of al-Assad (= Alavite sect, a Shia tendency) also does not offer any notable resistance to the (illegal) bombing in Syria against IS and al-Nusra.   

Next to these regimes IS also recognizes Sunni Islamic regimes as apostate. Besides the many agreements these regimes have with the west at the expense of their own Islamic population, there is no single place for monarchies or parliamentary-States in the world of IS. Both a monarchy based on succession as well as a bourgeois-democracy is rejected by the new Caliphate. Only a Caliphate based on the glorification of Allah, on the basis of the Umma (the Muslim community), is the right regime for them. This is the main reason why both reactionary Shia and Sunni governments fight IS with such conviction.            

                         

To get a clear insight in the ideological worldview of IS we must look at the manifesto of the Al-Khanssa Brigade, a female group in the Syrian city of Raqqa. The well-known references to the scientific achievements of the old Muslim world are clearly rejected by them: "In the days of the Prophet people did know nothing about physics, engineering or astronomy. They had hunger and they lived in cabins. Therefore Allah stood at the centre of their lives." Followed by stating that "those who try to make this world into a paradise, don't believe in the real paradise. They forget that worshipping Allah is their sole reason to exist."      

The Myth

This worship of the "Divine", so putting a higher ideal in the centre of life, is an ever returning phenomenon in different political ideologies. The only thing which differentiates is the myth itself. From China under Mao Zedong to Cambodia under Pol Pot, to the romance of the proletarian revolt of Georges Sorel and Ernst Niekisch, all were spirited by a great myth.  

In his national bolshevism, Ernst Niekisch sought "the total State, the plan economy, the Russian alliance, the anti-Romanic effect, the unconditional war-State, the poverty and the widespread hunger." 

Georges Sorel introduced the myth back into Marxism. According to him Marxism was surrendered to the petit-bourgeoisie and needed to return to its origin: "a war machine against the bourgeois democracy", an ideology for the proletariat that had to pursue "the violent mass-strike". So the proletariat had to find the myth back in itself, it had to be found in the violence, the bloodshed and the poverty. In a certain way it can be said that the militants of IS search the myth of god in the Islam and use the violence, bloodshed and poverty to reach their goals. (Without having ever heard about Sorel of course). In petit-bourgeois circles Sorel is usually seen as the forefather of Fascism, mainly due to his urge for violence and his spiritual search for a revolutionary syndicalism. And this makes sense of course. But to label IS also as "Fascists", or even "Nazi’s" (as the left so easy does) does not make sense of course. In many ways IS has more in common with the Khmer Rouge than with "Fascism".            

IS shares great similarities with these socialists, who in the past still were strongly defined by the post-war KPD (German Communist Party) and the Yugoslav communist States. Great parallels can be found between the US troops invading Cambodia in 1969 and the same occupation forces who invaded in Iraq in 2003. Also the mobilization of the rebellious peasants and workers masses as the armed branch of the Communist Party of Cambodia (the Khmer Rouge) and the insurgent Sunni tribes  united under the IS flag, against the collaborating and collapsing governments of Cambodia and Iraq are quite similar.  Both movements were acquainted with the "humanitarian" bombardments of the Americans. The longer these continued, the bigger the support for these kinds of militias became. Both countries knew a civil war in which these ideological militants could consolidate their power.           

However, not only the political climate of Cambodia resembles that of Syria and Iraq. Also the Khmer Rouge ideology knows great similarities with that of IS. After the Khmer Rouge took over Cambodia, Mao's Cultural Revolution was seen as a great example. "You have gained a brilliant victory. Another single blow and no more classes will exist", Pol Pot wrote to Mao Zedong. The Khmer Rouge got the urge to exceed Mao's revolution. From 1970 until '75 the Khmer Rouge executed their ideology in practice (by reactionaries mockingly branded "stone age communism") where they controlled the land (in '73 the Red Khmer took over almost 90% of the country on the government). Individualism, family, religion, education, free time and fashion were deemed as relics of the old feudal State and had to be destroyed. In the revolutionary territories private property was completely abolished. Everything was collectivized and divided into different columns workers, cooperatives, who had a collective duty. If the cooperative failed, collective punishment was the consequence.        

In the Khmer Rouge ideology, the complete takeover of power became 'the year zero': that of the 'Perfect Revolution'. This revolution had to make "the classes disappear" and "persuade landlords, brokers and loan sharks to stop their unproductive proceedings and to move them towards participation in the production" (the forced mass evacuations of the urban masses to the countryside). This was the product of the rural guerrilla Khmer Rouge. In the liberated territories they did have 'the political and military power, but not the economic power, which was still in the hands of the landlords and capitalists." Therefore the liberated territories needed to incorporate the "agricultural production and its control, redistribution, supply and barter between the cooperations and between the cooperations and the State" (interview with pot Pol, ROTE FAHNE 18/78). This way the Khmer Rouge introduced the idea of a cashless society. The economy was no longer about money. The national bank of Phnom Penh was directly destroyed after it was taken over; millions of banknotes covered the streets. Until '79 currency would remain abolished.           

To permanently break with the old feudal and capitalist society, the symbolic demolition of pre-revolutionary Cambodia was seen as a necessity. Especially in regard to the destruction of the symbols of the colonial era. In the same month Phnom Penh was conquered the Notre Dame cathedral was destroyed. Phnom Penh was regarded as the 'Paris of the East' and was a rallying for intellectuals and outsiders, which made it a symbolic target for the Khmer Rouge. Also Buddhist and Islamic sanctuaries became a target. Just like the Khmer Rouge, IS installs a similar regime. First the most important infrastructures are mended and the population is provided with (free) bread and social needs. A strict interpretation of the sharia is implemented as a legal system. Theft, booze and smoking are strictly prohibited. On the economic level the Caliphate also wants to abolish the money circulation and usury. 

Just like the Khmer Rouge, IS wages a symbolic struggle against all which remembers of the old pre-Islamic age (in much the same way the Calvinist Protestants did in Europe during the 16th century). IS demolished on a symbolic manner the border between Iraq and Syria, one of the last relics of the British and French imperialism in the regional; namely the geographic distribution of the Arab world after WW 1 by the Sykes-Picot Treaty. Also the destruction of the old Assyrian monuments and remains (and those of other civilizations that proceeded the age of the Prophet and which are seen as idolatry) must be seen in this context. Also Boko Haram ("western education is a sin") participates in this symbolic iconoclasm. This militant Islamism which saw the daylight in 2009 sees the politics of Nigeria as the symbol for the degeneration of the Muslim population in the country: they denounce the western educations of Nigerian elites, their friendships with the old colonial rulers, the corruption in parliament and secular thought.          

Also within the senior national-socialist cadres of before 1933, like Walther Darré, Gottfried Feder, Heinrich Himmler and Alfred Rosenberg, the agrarian society was the ideal which stood opposite to the 'Jewish and nomadic' city life. According to them this city life was the root of the alienation of the German people. In this national-socialist rural ideology the city represented "decadence, a herd of unrooted masses". It was a breeding ground for Marxism, while in the rural areas the people were still in contact with their "blood and soil". According to Gottfried Feder “the abolishment of interest slavery, would mean the return to the life of the countryside and small towns."     

From an ethical viewpoint we can engage in endless debates in how far the monopolies on violence and executions of the Khmer Rouge and IS are a justification to put an ideal into practice. This is not what this is about. However, the ideological c.q. religious struggle of IS can certainly be defended from a revolutionary point of view:  

As long as IS is bombarded with bullets and bombs from the barrels of Western imperialism and their allies, and as long as IS aims their guns on these imperialists, they deserve the support of each true revolutionary! 

>>AGAINST THE US AIRFORCE AND ITS REACTIONRY ALLIES! <<

>>EACH MILITARY VICTORY OF ISLAMIC STATE IS ONE ON IMPERIALISM! <<

>>SUPPORT THE ANTI-IMPERIALIST STRUGGLE!<< 

No borders, no nations? How vagabonds are abused by imperialism

Since the Italian intention to no longer register the huge influx of boat refugees, it seems the debate surrounding asylum- and immigration has become an important topic once again. However, the harsh reality is that within the imperialist institution, that is the European Union, no such thing as political asylum exists. This was recently emphasized once again when the European Union refused political asylum to the whistleblowers, human rights activist and former employee of the US secret service NSA; Edward Snowden, who was on the run for the US government. Still the corporate media glorifies the so-called European and Dutch hospitality on a daily basis.     

The European Union foresees millions of new immigrants for the coming years. Politicians claim this is a positive development, which will benefit the economy and will counter the negative effects of aging, which supposedly threatens our pensions. It seems evident to us that with the huge (youth) unemployment and misery in the European Union, there is already more than enough workforces present. Of course the organized international capital doesn't care for social politics for their own populations, nor for the wellbeing of the immigrants from Eastern-Europe, Asia, Africa, whose social needs are presented to us and instrumentalized as a 'humanitarian' case.      

The mass immigration and alienation of the European nations and cultural territories serves imperialism on different levels. On the short term the workforce from low wage countries is delivered right in front of the doors of the great capitalist concerns. This way the wages can be decreased by a saturation of the labourmarket. On the long term it secures a cultural, social and state disintegration, which breaks open the achievements of bourgeois democracy. Organized international capitalism and its globalist agenda do not recognize the territorial boundaries of international law, nor those of the right of national self-determination. 

Of course this underlying political-strategical goal of imperialism needs some media participation to let the European peoples and cultures participate in their own demise. To co-operate with this imperialist agenda they are emotionally conditioned. "Look", so they say, "these people, among them pregnant women and children, drowned in the sea because you didn't help them." Who doesn't know the tear-jerking reports about refugees such as Mauro Manuel, who ultimately led to the children's pardon for asylum seekers.  

Unfortunately, those who fell for this gullible disinformation did not understand that we are in the middle of an imperialist war. "No borders, no nations" has become the new marketing slogan of imperialism. Also the cosmopolitan left has made this their slogan. These agents of imperialism make no effort at all to refer in their protests and speeches to the cause of this all and offer no solutions at all.   

It is now more than three years ago that NATO bombs, paid from our tax money, sentenced tens of thousands of people to death in Libya. "No borders, no nations" became the bloody imperialist reality for the people over there. "No borders, no nations" is the slogan that goes hand in hand with war, mass murder, terror, torture, hunger and social misery worldwide. From Afghanistan to Iraq, from Libya, Syria, to Ukraine, with Iran in its gun sight. "No borders, no nations" has become synonymous for the war of imperialism against international law and the national right on self-determination.   

Vagabonds from Africa camped and protested in The Hague, in Amsterdam and beyond. These refugees, who according to themselves came from the Italian isle of Lampedusa and don't speak a word of Dutch, parade behind professionally made banners in perfectly written Dutch. Who brought them to the Netherlands? Who organizes them, who formulates their demands, who pays for their expensive PR material and launches their media-campaigns? Many thousands of dollars these vagabonds had to pay per person to human traffickers to get to the European Union. Who pays all these sums of money?     

The answers to these questions come from the officials of imperialism themselves. Since the European Union was founded, EU-politicians advocate a more flexible asylum policy and immigration. Now the multicultural rhetoric’s seem to be outdated, the "open society" has become the new credo. As if Europe was not open enough already. In the port-town of Rotterdam the native population is already largely a minority. In neighboring Germany according to the statistics already about twenty million immigrants live in a population of about 80 million people (so they represent almost a quarter of the entire German population).    

Everyone who dares to defend the right on self-determination for peoples is labeled 'racist'. But where are these antiracists when it is about international law and national self-determination? They play a filthy game and not in the least they do this behind the backs of their foreign extras.

As national-revolutionaries our international solidarity goes out to the struggling working class and their peoples. The imperialist sham is not our cause!

Blockupy 2015: Activists from entire Europe put the banking system back in its place

How a great start of the day ended in a fizzle

Report by the Anti-Capitalist Network (ACN/AKN) 

The brand new 183m high and 1,3 billion (!) costing building of the European Central Bank (ECB) had its grand opening on Wednesday the 18th of march. Around a hundred politicians and economists (like ECB-president Mario Draghi, the Hessische Minister of Economy Tarek al-Wazir and the mayor of Frankfurt Peter Feldmann [SPD - socialdemocrats!]) came to see Mario Draghi cut a blue ribbon for the opening ceremony.


Outside the megalomaniac building were since approximately 6 o'clock in the morning the streets of Frankfurt-East covered in thick black smoke. 350 arrested protestors, 200 wounded, 7 burned out police cars and 94 wounded officers (!), characterized this fourth Blockupy event this day.

Hundreds of autonomen from West- and South-Europe, went into the city in small groups of 50 to a 100 man, traditionally dressed as Black Bloc (or like around 350 Italian autonomen in blue as a part of the five finger tactic this day, dressed in Viva la Commune’ shirts - "bleu autonomen" who seemed at least just as dangerous as all other militants!). Glass from tram- and bus stops and other buildings (like banks) were shattered, roadblocks were raised, through this the signal was given that the violence of the banking system towards the peoples of Europe is no longer tolerated and that this violence can only be answered with violence. The State-apparatus, consisting of around 8000 cops, could count on a rain of stones, pyro's and bottles (filled with corrosive acid) and other projectiles. 

It was even managed by German autonomen to break free their eingekesselte Italian comrades by unleashing hard attacks on the cops. 

The fire department who wanted to extinguish and clear away the burning blockades could also count on heavy resistance from militants - Let the ECB feel the discontent about their work in their own homebase!

So the message was clear: Against the Austerity politics - Against the ECB, against the Troika!

Also a Dutch delegation of activists, who are part of the European Anti Capitalist Network (ACN/AKN), traveled to Frankfurt am Main to participate in this grandly announced protest to break down the infrastructure surrounding the ECB.     

The motivations of the ACN-delegation were: 

- The ECB - as part of the larger Troika - is a ruthless oppressor of the working class worldwide;

- Stop the loans of finance capital to governments in other countries to demand liberal economic reforms;      

- Stop these demands of freezing wages, pension magnifications, social breakdown, etc.;         

- Stop this form of 'Verelendung' of the proletariat, next to the daily exploitation of surplus!

It was rightly that, for instance hundreds of Greek activists traveled to release their social discontent against the ECB (as the symbol of German aggression against the Greek people).   

A sign that not everybody falls for the 'leftwing' political trick of the bourgeoisie -  

“Fuck Syriza!”

With this short introduction about the morning the most militant part of the Blockupy protest came to an end. The militant actions of autonomen that in a destructive manner came out of "nothing" in the morning, seem to have disappeared at the beginning of the midday as fast as they started. The city guerilla had done its job. The ECB was warned. Where some small groups of militant and support still ventured in the streets of Frankfurt, they were hunted down and driven away. This way the tide of militant resistance slowly faded away from the streets. 

However, in the centre of Frankfurt am Main around 8000 protestors still peacefully demonstrated under the warm sun. There seemed to be a good atmosphere - just like the organization of Blockupy, the City Council Frankfurt / M and the cops liked to see. With passivity the discontent against the contemporary European politics was shown.     

It was easy for the cops to surround the Kundgebung and controlling everything and anyone, according to the book/program. 

Therefore the whole motley mix of Blockupy protestors was reduced immediately to a notable petit-bourgeois phenomenon again. Also this time Blockupy seemed to be a mass event (around 8000 protestors came together in the centre, 10.000 on the whole day), which was accessible for broad layers of the society. Anarchists, communists, students, LGTB, vegans, Anti-Germans, Antifa, antiglobalists, anti-imperialists, alternative subcultures, etc. - all of these groups could uncritically intertwine. Completely different ideologies constantly overlapped each other. However, how can participants with EU- and Israel-flags be reconciled with other ideologies present, such as anti-EU politics and liberation-movements politics!?  

Which direction this movement should go? 

More interesting this day was the Union-demonstration of the DGB further into town. With around 3000 protestors (10 times as much as the DGB had expected), this demo gave a more 'working class politics' to the Blockupy concept. "For us Unions it is unacceptable that the Troika scrabbles in the CAO-politics", the DGB-boss of Frankfurt, Harald Fiedler, stated. "Therefore we are solidary with our fellow workers in Greece, Italy and Spain". His remark that because of the violence this message faded is ofcourse debatable. 

However, some things can be better analyzed and clarified about Blockupy:    

- Not only the finance capital (read; Troika) needs to be attacked by Blockupy. This is just a part of capitalism (just as industrial capital also is);

- Not the rebellion of a vague broad substratum in society needs to be propagated: a peoples revolution. This can only lead towards a bourgeois revolution;

- There must be clear militant workers mass presence, a clear working class politics standpoint needs to be taken.   

- Only the working class can overthrow the current capitalist social relations, towards socialism;

- Also the Unions and revolutionary cells need to be more anchored in the companies and working places. Transport and construction just went through in the rest of Frankfurt / M! No work was laid down!

- A bridge from a broad-based Movement as Blockupy towards a militant working class movement can be the only way towards revolution!

  

Conclusion: 

Nothing seems to be a problem at Blockupy, everything can be mixed together. Regardless whether it excludes each other or not. Except ofcourse the presence of anticapitalist 'neo-Nazi’s', which is turned into one big drama. 

In short: 

The militant clashes between autonomen and the cops must be applauded: Class against Class! However, a mass movement which is not directed by a 'Workers Vanguard'  is not revolutionary:

Towards the General Strike!

Break down the Capitalist infrastructure!

All power to the workers!

Militant Anticapitalist Resistance in Frankfurt

The new headquarters of the European Central Bank (ECB) was opened in Frankfurt am Main on the 18th of March. More than 1,3 billion euros were spend to create this new 185 meters high skyscraper with a huge fence and moat. This intimidating symbol of power emphasizes the far distance between the political, and economical elites and the people. The festivities were attended by several EU-leaders and European oligarchs.

Blockupy, an alliance of anticapitalist groups, called to disturb these festivities. In this time of crisis and unseen austerity policies there is nothing to celibrate! Therefore over 20.000 anticapitalists from the whole of Europe were present in the economic heart of Europe to turn it into a bastion of anticapitalist resistance. Activists from the Anticapitalist network (ACN/AKN) attended the protests in name of the national-revolutionary movement.

An extended actionreport about this will follow soon…