Call From Unknown Name And Number

Antikrigsrörelsen får inte blunda för Ryssland

While hundreds of thousands protest against U.S. plans for a military operation against Iraq, are actions against the war in Chechnya few and far between. There is no reason for this, no acceptable reason to call the potential U.S. aggression worse than the Russian aggression in Chechnya. If we ignore Chechnya, it is as if it is not as important to pay attention when Russia committing atrocities in the United States does.
Even worse are the voices who imagine that there are many Muslims there, so they do not want to protest against the war because it could be understood that they support Islam. In fact, there was virtually no radical Muslims in the Republic until a while after the war began and there has been a growth, it is probably largely a result of the war has continued with little or no reaction from other than Muslims.
Eight years into the conflict, it is perhaps too late to start an anti-war campaign - but it should be done anyway, if only to attack racism and attention the plight of hundreds of thousands of Chechen refugees who are harassed daily in Russia and deported from western countries who refuse to take the hardships of war seriously.
Racism in Russia has already passed a sickening level. No one will not deny that the dark-skinned people are routinely harassed by the police, who are encouraged to do so. Pogroms of varying magnitude occur regularly. Politicians are utter bitter outcome, sometimes they try to hide their racism, sometimes not.
antiwar movement in Russia also marked the beginning of an anti-racist movement, for it was equally important to protest against racist ideas, prejudices and practices.
Many people in the movement in Russia was looking forward to the Soviet Empire's dissolution, but that does not mean that someone was looking forward to see nationalism grow as a mechanism to inspire the national liberation movements. Our anarchist position has never supported Chechen statehood and nationalism, but we have been even more critical of the imposition of Russian hegemony and economic exploitation in the area.
We see a clear difference in the Baltic, Ukrainian and kazakhiska movements for national liberation was received abroad and how the Chechen independence movement has been understood. Generally, with the exception of Kazakhstan (which is a relatively rich country with 50 percent of Russians in the population), have independence movements in the Caucasus and Central Asia in the worst case skymfats and feared, at best, met with suspicion. We could not see any forced moral reason why Latvia should recognized as independent by Russia but not the Chechens - apart from a European "högkultursú-chauvinism that dominates much of the common perception.
Despite sporadic protests and letter campaigns (and apart from support from Muslim communities and activists) exists an anti-war movement only in a handful of countries, including Russia, Poland, Ukraine and Georgia. Many who are involved in which has no activist background, for example, comprises "the soldiers 'mothers' only by the common people who had to organize themselves to save lives. Generally, there are in these countries have social movements at the grassroots level who have the habit of going out on the streets, so it has not been very many more protests. But the work against the war has gone on for years.
The anarchist response to the war, although relatively small in scale, have also been significant for several reasons, mainly because it has been for the most broad anti-war protests in major Russian cities. For years, the anarchists across Russia held demonstrations every week (although in some cities has been a major disruption of this ritual). In Poland, dozens of protesters carried: six demonstrations were held last year on the anniversary of the first war initiation and support collections have been made. Even in terms of collecting and delivering humanitarian aid, anarchists have been active. A few years ago there were two anarchists among a group kidnapped in Chechnya. They were later released and is still active in the efforts against the war.
Many people point to specific problems in Chechnya as a reason not to support an anti-war movement, or even to support the Russian occupation of the country. Kidnappings are an example. Apparently, few people sympathy for those who take aid workers hostage. Yet victims are often the first to point out that they do not want to blame the entire Chechen population to what a few do. Not surprisingly, there are few normal Chechens remained in the country and those who are there have been hardened by war and to see the atrocities carried out without Nagore public outcry. We imagine not that such would happen if the normal, civilian population and the everyday life of the country had been completely destroyed. We understand that it is a problematic place, but the reason for this lies mainly in the later years of history, no one "barbaric nature" of its people. It seems that the problems in Chechnya often exaggerated as an excuse to discreetly support the war and maintaining a Eurocentric world view.
There is a tremendous shame that the world did not react earlier by condemning this war. Now, in a situation where a "war against terror" has been declared - a war that is largely a matter of finding excuses for various geopolitical issues, racism and the problems resulting from abuse from the western side of capital - claims Russia that its racist and imperialist war has been a vanguard in this war on terror. To let such claims stand unchallenged will have enormous consequences. The antiwar movement must realize this and react. We encourage people to spread as much information as possible about the course of the war and launch protests against the Russian embassies in various cities. One day, we hope, will the excuses for this war to be revealed, so that they become harder to use next time.

Queen Elizabeth Arranged Marriage

FRONTEX, de migrantenjagers van de Europese Unie

Article van Laure Akai in Hot Bulletin voor het liberaire Alternatief voor het Europees Sociaal Forum (ESF)

27 January 2009 - The planner voor een Europees leger, zoals die in the Europese grondwet indertijd werden voorgespiegeld one now in het verdragen van Lisbon uitgewerkt worden, staan \u200b\u200bniet op themselves. The police paramilitary units have powers. If we want to know what the European army should then give an example of FRONTEX. Her job is foreign and thus eliminate the Fortress Europe free from blemishes. [editorial]

FRONTEX, the "European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union". Frontex has been active since 2005 and headquartered in Warsaw. It not only trains the border police and other units (such as RABITS, Rapid Border Intervention Teams, and sea patrols), but coordinates operations to capture and charter deportations of immigrants, migrant communities and the patrol collects information about them.
It is now probably the most important institution that the border policy of Fortress Europe and the border states outside Europe argues further, especially with extensive operations at sea.

Organisations working with refugees from the West Coast of Africa have pointed out that with the advent of Frontex, more and more refugees in serious danger and even death. People who want to migrate, for example, by boat to the Canary Islands will be forced to take longer and more dangerous routes to avoid the Frontex patrols. Since the trip took two to five days at sea, now it may take 15-20 days. The result is that there are routes through the Sahara are chosen with the result that there deaths.

Like all institutions that prey on migrants Frontex claims that it operates efficiently, but the limited number of human casualties. There are no reliable figures for the total number of victims of the migration policy of the EU, but is thought thousands of people. This includes not only those at sea or in the desert to die, but also those who are shot in attempting to cross borders in Ceuta (an autonomous city of Spain, which is located on the Mediterranean, the North African side of the Strait of Gibraltar) to climb over fences, those who are killed during deportation or those who die in detention. This situation threatens to get worse because Frontex RABITS coordinate training exercises with which weapons are used.

the Frontex regulation was recently amended. Vuorensola, Legal Adviser of Frontex, said recently that the power to limit operations to bear arms and use can now be carried out under EU law. In a British study on the issue said that Frontex British border guards with them to RABIT operations are indeed endowed with "certain responsibilities and executive powers" in the UK they would not have. Frontex claims that the Frontex regulation over all national constitutions, legal experts from Member States of RABIT have no clear answer. More information about Frontex

:
Frontex.info.pl
Noborder.org

Gas Powers Trolling Motor

Spirala nienawiści, narastanie ideologii syjonistycznej i reakcje na nią

current situation in Gaza is often compared to apartheid, or to form an equal hatred of Nazism. While the comparison to apartheid may be more appropriate and on topic, the comparison to Nazism is often used as an example of institutionalized violence and hatred. For Israel, this comparison is used to express the idea that people who were once victims of hatred because of religion or nationality, became the perpetrators of hatred towards others.
course there are differences in ideology, and practices of these regimes and they are worth discussing, but we leave this issue aside. In this article, rather I wanted to write about another issue, namely how developed and gained strength and aggressive forms of racist Zionism. As the perpetrators of violence passed since the Zionist role of victim to the role of executioners.
History of Zionism and the creation of Israel and its development is of course too complicated to fully describe it in a short text, but we can discuss certain events in history.
Zionism as an idea to create a country for Jews existed since ancient times, more than three thousand. years. But the Nineteenth century was a rather romantic idea. As structured, serious political movement, driven by the aim to create a state in Palestine, formed in times of birth of nationalism in Europe (in the second half of the nineteenth century). Its development was directly correlated with the increase in violent anti-Semitism in Europe.
Zionism has performed and has different variations ideological.
idea of \u200b\u200ba state by settle on someone else's site required a racist vision, which ultimately could justify the expulsion of the local community, even by force (though some Zionists Arabs want to live next door.) But this was not something characteristic only for the Zionists. In the nineteenth century and early twentieth century, it was a kind of norm in some European and American countries. Zionism, as a colonial ideology, differed from them that it was referring to the historical past and the relationship of Jews to their ancient homeland. (The Zionists were close to some African nationalists of the Americas, who strongly supported the basis of Zionism.)
escalation of violence against Jews has strengthened the Zionist ideology. A large number of Jews feel more and more unwanted and persecuted seeing more sense in moving to a place where you can play the role of men and where together they will feel empowered.
For many years it was difficult to sell to people Zionism. People who have lived for generations in the shtetls, in the big cities of Europe, they refused to leave his true home and go to some "historical homeland." Palestine was far from home, from friends, family, farms, factories and shops where they worked. She was far away and belonged to someone else, in addition, had the difficult terrain and climate.
In the first years of promoting Zionism in Europe, many Jews were strongly opposed to this idea. The first Zionist Congress in 1897 could not be held in Munich, because the local Jews were strong opponents of Zionism.
process of Jewish immigration to Palestine, included various "waves" of emigration. The first began after the pogroms of 1881, the pretext for the pogroms was the assassination of the Tsar to be made this year - although the bomber was a Pole from the Russian revolutionary organization, not a Jew. People saw the attack as "a work of Jews." In an atmosphere of anti-Jewish hysteria pogroms took place under various pretexts and in different localities (Also in Warsaw).
The next wave was larger and was due to the pogrom in Kishinev. The reason for the pogrom in Kishinev was something, which is a good example of idiotic anti-Semitic hysteria. The boy was murdered by one of his relatives. But anti-Semitic newspaper wrote that he had murdered a Jew, because he needed blood for the preparation of matzah. Ok. 50 people were killed and many others were injured and many houses were destroyed. I should mention that the massacre had also contributed priests who have led some groups angry mob.
Between 1903-1906, More than two thousand. Jews were killed in similar pogroms.
problem existed not only in Eastern Europe. Dreyfus affair in France and anti-Semitic speeches in that country also has a direct influence on the history of Zionism. Herzl, a journalist who wrote about the scandal, it was so shocked that in 1896 he founded the World Zionist Organization.
Many of the first immigrants to Palestine can thus be defined as refugees, but not all, because the first immigrants were divided into different categories. They were ideologues, die-hard Zionists, immigrants from Yemen, collectivism supporters who wanted to create a communist. Some of the immigrants firmly believed in the cause of Zionism, others do not - simply had to flee.
After the First World War in Europe and the Middle East has created a new political situation. Plans Zionists gathered steam.
Bolshevik Revolution, civil war in Russia and other events in today's Russia, Ukraine, and Polish was also accompanied by a new wave of pogroms. Many Jews fled, some from the pogroms, some from civil war. So the next wave of people came to Palestine.
poisonous nationalism and anti-Semitism in Europe is still antibolshevism progressed. Emerged the ideology of National Socialism. The most ideologically minded Zionists were even able to communicate with the Nazis because they had something in common. The idea of \u200b\u200b"nation state", inhabited by people of one nationality, is something common to all nationalists. And those who wanted to create the state of Israel, believed that "the encouragement of emigration" or even "resettlement" of Jews from Europe could be beneficial for them because it could help build a new state.
These Zionist leaders could not immediately attract followers only through Zionist ideology - but they reached the people through self-defense organizations. Many of the most fervent Zionists came from Polish. Reactions in the atmosphere acted on the ideology of the National Democratic Party. The most moderate form of nationalism endeckiego based on the idea of \u200b\u200bcreating a country only for the Poles by forced assimilation of the Jews. But the more radical elements could be dangerous for Jews. Betar organization was led by ardent Zionists, who later played an important role in military operations in Israel (including the Begin and Shamir). This organization has gained popularity as an organization of self-defense against attacks by the ONR. The more ONR dramatically performed against the Jews, the more the growing importance of Betar. In Poland, this organization had 40 thousand. members.
Anti-Semitic and fascist views of the ONR were favorable to the Jewish nationalists, the extreme Zionists, who would otherwise be condemned to the margins.
Those who came to Palestine in the early years of the twentieth. century, entered into serious conflict with local people Arabic, which was then under British occupation. Despite the Faisal-Weizmann agreement of 1919 that seemed to promote peaceful coexistence between Jews and Arabs, Zionists seek to increase the settlement and establishment of the State resulted in a backlash against Jews living in Palestine.
panarabscy \u200b\u200bnationalists in Syria urged to strong anti-Zionist speeches to "liberate" Palestine. Weizmann tried to limit, therefore, the role of the Syrians in the administration. In Syria, held demonstrations demanding the restoration of Palestine (which reached beyond the borders of Palestine and Israel today) the Syrian and Arab powers. Small groups began to attack Jews fellahów in Galilee. Syria has announced the existence of the kingdom of Syria and Palestine. Similarly
minded Zionists from Eastern Europe, who later organized the militant Jewish organizations in Poland, organized self-defense organizations of the Jews in Palestine. In this way, Muslims, Jews (European and local), Christians, stuck between different nationalisms, the various forces that attempted to create a state, politicians, who sought to lead to the fact that some nations ruled over the others. If you previously were not nationalists, they become "self-defense" when everyone was caught in a vicious circle nationalist ideology, fear, hatred and violence.
The nationalist incidents in 1920, including attacks on Jews in Palestine, died not only Zionists. Even most of the victims in the famous attack in Jerusalem had no Zionist views. They were locals from the old Yishuv Jews who lived there since ancient times and were antysyjonistami. Yes, unfortunately, is when people attack someone because of his "nationality" or "religion" - even if they claim that the attack something else - in this case Zionism - it is often killed people who have nothing to do with the problem. Similarly, the present government Israel claims that Hamas attacked and killed civilians normal.
Such incidents led the self-defense organizations such as the Haganah, became more important in Palestine.
should also understand that the Zionists were also among the many socialists. Socialists saw Palestine as a place where you can build socialism, and many of them in turn, imagined a new society where everyone, regardless of nationality, will be together. Unfortunately, the growing influence reactionnism, caused fear and hate that this trend after the founding of the state of Israel was increasingly marginalized. (Although the research into new anti-Zionist organizations / socialist, even in the '60s, such as Matzpen. But such views could not have achieved such a level of social acceptance, as it once was.)
At the same time in Europe share a lasting and growing anti-Semitic anti-Semitic new policy. Jews who wanted to flee the encounter new barriers to emigration, as in America, which in the 20s limited the possibility of immigration. In the Nazi era has made the situation even worse for the Jews. Other European countries did not want to receive them, and British administrators of Palestine also have limited immigration. So I had to organize the guerrilla organizations share illegal immigration to Palestine.
Even after the war was not an easy situation for Jews in Europe. Many lived in refugee camps without the right to leave. After the pogrom in Kielce Jews succumbed to mass panic and the Zionists it was easy to convince people to emigrate. More than 20 thousand. Jews of Polish and a total of 100 thousand. Jews from Eastern Europe has decided to leave.
worth noting that the greater part of this migration during the war and immediately after the war was illegal and it looked like it looks today, immigration from Africa. People sailed on boats. In many cases, travelers have failed to sail to Palestine. Military forces tried to catch them. More than 50 thousand. Jews landed in such camps in Cyprus. On one of the refugee boats were captured by the British and sent back to Germany. Almost two thousand. people drowned. A few boats did not reach the place of the reasons for failure. There have been many wrecks. Sometimes the refugees were on the boats get caught and interned. Russian submarine fired a boat with refugees and 770 people were killed. This was the immigration "Zionists" in Israel in the days immediately before the establishment of the State of Israel.
After the war, the Arab-Israeli Jews in neighboring countries who were born there and lived from ancient times, were massively attacked. In Iraq, the confiscated property of Jews, Libyan Jews (who lived on these lands for over 2000 years old) were deprived of citizenship. Such sectarian attacks were not only immoral and useless, but totally did not help on those who did not wish the expansion of Israel. Through these attacks, almost a million Jews had to flee from Arab countries, and most of them just landed in Israel. Immigration Arab countries to Israel lasted for many years. So once again helped the Zionists hate. The offspring of these Jews today constitute 41% of the population of Israel.
But in a sense, these Jews - victims of hatred in the Arab countries - were also victims of the ideology of Zionism. Although from time to time, anti-Semitic attacks have occurred in the days and since the Zionists began to announce his plans on behalf of all Jews, when Jews began arriving en masse - their severity was.
In 1947, when he disclosed a plan division of Palestine into two states, moderate Arabs did not believe the Jews, because they thought "Revisionists are more sincere in their intentions." It turned out that revisionist-Zionist rhetoric, the most racist, nationalist and even fascist, was treated as a de facto ambitions of all the Jews in Palestine. On the other hand, many Islamists thought that these lands should remain under the rule of the Islamists, and so thought the Jews should have their own state, and many even thought that the Jews had any right to live there. There was a war. After the war, the Israeli government did not want to hear about the other country. A part of the former Palestine landed in Syria, Jordan and Egypt.
Here we see how the interests of groups fighting for power, nationalist and religious ideologies, much worse. After this, as I have been to war, each party could wind up "their people". Many people who otherwise would not weszliby the real conflicts between each other, become party to the conflict. We all feel threatened. After the war, one could assume that many refugees will not want to fight with the Arabs. However, arguments have convinced many fighting Zionists. Such arguments as "never again will we attack," or "We have a right to their homeland," to take effect. For some, this was the first moment when you feel strong.
organizations, such as Betar, once forming a self-defense organizations in Poland, became the organizations that wykreowały bloodiest Israeli politicians. Persons who used to recruit people among the victims of violence and hatred continue to benefit from the role of the victim ... so in all situations, always treated the Jews as victims. Their argument was: "in 1947 proposed the division, but the Arabs refused to accept, and they attacked us .. . .... We are the victims do not give us, the refugees calmly live here ".... This logic. And the more escalated conflicts, resistance, self-defense on both sides, the more primitive screw-nationalist emotions.
nationalist emotions and try to take over more and more territory to rise on both sides of the conflict. Each piece of land considered to be "his". Sometimes, too, benefited from nationalist parties and nationalist shares for other purposes. In Syria, guerrilla raids on Israel were very important for Bathystów since allowed them to channel the frustration and opposition to the party in another direction. People feel happy that they had the enemy - the Jew's enemy, which You can fight, and politicians felt relieved that they were not the main enemy. A lot Bathystów and their raids were sponsored by the Soviet Union, for which the struggle against imperialism was a great excuse to work together. But the Soviets also had their own economic and geopolitical interests in the region.
nationalist emotions serve as ago to hide the economic interests of elites in the Middle East in its simplest form. People occupied lands, but asserted that they did it because that would be "safer" because "we can not live together," because "it is a threat," as if no one gained at this materially.
Today you can see how the Israeli government murdering innocent children and acts as a bloody aggressor. Many historical facts contributed to this conflict, but nothing can justify such acts.
Palestinian resistance organization works with one hand, an organization of self-defense, in the interest of the people against the attacks, but on the other hand, it sometimes wreaks propaganda of the extreme nationalist and anti-Jewish, to motivate people to acts of violence, whether or not acts of suicide. All of this is to be in the interests of "nation", "liberation" or Allah. People full of anger for the violence and injustice faced by, also susceptible to extreme forms of nationalism. So in the documents of Hamas are not just words of resistance, but an open hatred of Jews. In the Islamic world is growing popularity of the book "Mein Kampf" and the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." A spiral of hatred grows and grows in strength islamofascism.
Situation in the Middle East is not easy, especially if people continue to insist on a solution based on the division of territory by governments, nations and religions. There are many people who say that once this place was just to them.
But people are people. We are all together in this world that we live together, work together, share everything. We do not need to have the state flag. Common language, shared "nationality" does not mean the common interests: the Arab elite, exploiting their "Arab brothers" and the Israeli elite is doing the same thing to the poor Jews. Interests of the elites is precisely that people are divided to the poor fighting the poor from neighboring countries ... if only not to fight with the local elite.

What Happens If You Lost Your Sims

Prawdziwe oblicza kapitalizmu

This article is inspired by the comments that appeared in the text, "Capitalism has destroyed the individual farmers' mine. As a fairly common is the same argument as in the above comments, we develop this theme.
first commentator believes that capitalism is not a bad thing, because "Capitalism is a system that enforces economic performance and reward it." Further states that people do not exist in their own economic interests that do not form co-operatives such as lack of entrepreneurship and this is their fault, their lack of entrepreneurial and creativity. " The fate of the less creative, the author says, "If agriculture is not profitable may change professions. This 'bad' capitalism lies in the fact that those who survive know how to adapt to the market. And this nierobom do not like. "
commentator considers that the article about the situation of farmers was ridiculous, but I can not believe such a ridiculous comment, when it reflects the ideology that is not able to relate to people in a different way than the committee who wants to justify all its injustices, dividing people into false categories such as "lazy" and "hardworking", "wise" and "stupid."
first Yes, capitalism forces the "efficiency" but the fact is that it rewards. The fact is that it is always the "most productive" workers, those who cost the least, if they have a knife at her throat. Workers in factories are not remunerated, as they should, but forces them to ever greater efficiency. Compensation for those who work efficiently? May lose their job if there is something more "efficient", or they can earn 0.01% of the value of the product, they produce.
This "performance" is not an advantage for the employee - only for the capitalist. There is so that if you sew 100 t-shirts in 5 hours instead of 10, you can go home and have 5 extra hours of free (although there are places of work, but rather rare and this is highly-qualified specialists, or free professions). Efficiency is the password that the machine does to people - except of course those who have a good job in rich countries.
second If someone has a bad job, it is only their fault that they do not learn well and not working well. Of course, every doctor knows that he learned well, so the only problem is that others may not normally have to pay them. Where there are not enough people who can pay a hundred dollars per visit in private surgeries, it means that there is no market, so why do we need these doctors - let them work as taxi drivers, or are to England, where he is right the market!
Unfortunately, such a statement is not only nonsense, but complete rationalization of the effects of a system which can not ensure or work for all, or good wages for certain categories of workers. It connects with the ordinary racism of the kind that obviously earn less in China or Africa, because they are dumber, lazier, etc. and not be able to create jobs for themselves.
If anyone has a "good job" is a fart, and not the result of any capacity. If someone wants to move to another country to change jobs, and it is not a white European,-waiting for him deported!
third We need to adapt to the market. Here we see the hypocrisy
capitalists. "Market" does not create human needs, but their financial capacity or the desire of profit of capitalists.
Where farmers in third world can send to Europe, its production, the capitalists are lobbying for subsidies in Europe. When the capitalists have to buy anything from third world countries, is lobbying for a policy of "open door" when they are the owners of food processing plants in those countries and need something to import. The Government and the capitalists decide how you want your market.
course true libertarian would say that it just is not capitalism - but the wealth, which now owns most of the bosses, this is a product or laws favorable to them, or property, which inherited, or complete exploitation of their employees. I do not know many libertarians who say that it is worth even a chance - for example, to the rich gave part of his possessions, so workers have the capital. Maybe it's because they know that most people with capital will be able to learn how their work without samoorganizować geniuses of the libertarian movement. They know it, but still trying to convince others that half the world is nothing, and only thanks to the generosity of employers, bosses who give them jobs, and only through injustice social welfare may still survive. And not quite the case that due to the global system of exploitation of a student - white boy sitting at the computer (through which no prospect of a Chinese factory has cancer, and a stingy, but "wise", the entrepreneur has a villa) in the hut (which you probably got parents from the state) and writes (thanks to free education, as we all were paying) the dogmas of the ideologues of capitalism and thinks it is more diligent than Chinese, and how bad is this "socialism", because without subsidies, could probably have more and those lazy farmers not be sitting all day at home on your ass, just arrived in Warsaw, where, and so would be no competition for him or his family - because lizodupy capitalist libertarians are smart capitalists and others appreciate it.

www.cia.bzzz.net

Cheat On Vba Messes Up Game

Privatisation by the back door: The health workers' strike and the future of medical care in Poland

ome Hospitals have given up the strike, some Concluding Hospitals are private deals with doctors. Nurses have Organized Separately from the doctors with a slightly different agenda. And it well That May turn out the results of the strike are strikingly different salaries for health care workers Throughout Poland and Increased Privatization of the health care industry.
The Strike and the Disturbing Approach of the Doctors
The health care workers’ strikes in Poland may prove to be the most problematic industrial actions I’ve ever witnessed. Doctors initially called the strike, which affected hundreds of hospitals. Thousands of doctors in over 70 hospitals in Poland actually gave in their notice. And while some hospitals have reached agreements with doctors, well over a hundred are still functioning only in case of emergency. Some time after the doctors’ strike commenced, nurses and other health care workers also went on strike and held a protest camp outside the Prime Minister’s office. But the different parties were just barely united in their demands and tended to hold both separate protests and negotiations.
It is hard to speak of “the doctors’ position” since one never knows whether the doctors’ main union, OZZL, actually reflects the position of all of its members. We can assume that in fact it reflects the opinion of at least a majority of them. OZZL is headed by Krzystof Bukiel, a former member of Union of the Right, currently involved with right-wing libertarian capitalists from the Union of Real Politics (UPR) headed by Janusz Korwin-Mikke.
A word about them: although they claim to be somehow inspired by libertarians, their politics are actually much more conservative and contain heavy doses of anti-semitism and national patriotism. They campaign heavily for the death penalty, want to criminalise communists and their leader is a raving sexist. Mr. Bukiel has, in the past, campaigned for the privatisation of health care in Poland; OZZL had a program and many texts drawn up by think-tanks such as the Adam Smith Institute.
Somehow, these issues were not discussed during the strike, and during it Mr. Bukiel never called for privatisation, and some texts were removed from the web site. It is not clear whether this reflected the wishes of the doctors, some reconsideration of the issues or whether Mr. Bukiel just decided to keep his agenda hidden. During the strike OZZL did come up with some typical right-wing proposals such as providing vouchers to patients instead of continuing the current system. These vouchers would be issued in equal amounts to all patients – regardless of their real medical need.
The OZZL however presented other more reasonable demands during most of the strike, including pay rises for doctors and raising the percentage of the budget spent on medical care to 6%. Currently Poland has the second lowest level of health-care expenditure among OECD countries. In this respect, they had similar demands as the nurses. Why then didn’t the doctors and nurses join together in a better-coordinated strike action?
The situation was more complicated than that. Many other unions are present in the health-care sector, most notably OPZZ and Solidarnosc. Since the majority of leaders of Solidarnosc support the government, it is politically difficult for them to support any strike which is labeled “a provocation against the government” by the leaders of the ruling Law and Justice party. The different approaches of some unions were one thing. The other was that quite simply, OZZL was looking out only for what it perceived as it’s interests and that these did not necessarily find a conjuncture with those of the nurses. For one thing, with the government’s constant claims of “having no money”, probably OZZL figured that demanding raises for just doctors might have more chances of success than if the whole industry were to ask for raises. But also, as it is now perfectly clear, many doctors are convinced that working on privately-negotiated contracts will be beneficial to them, whereas nurses are against it. Simply put, doctors can take more money for performing more operations or seeing more patients since many patients pay for services anyway. They have more room for negotiating with hospitals since their labour is valued differently than the nurses.
The fact is in Poland that many patients are forced to pay for medical services despite theoretical “free” health care. Doctors have long supplemented their incomes by taking extra money for “quicker” or “special” service. (This fact was used against the doctors during the strike as the police stepped up arrests of corrupt doctors.) Right now that government has decided to legalize this, allowing hospitals to offer “basic” and “special services” and setting up a list of state-covered medical treatment and treatment which should be paid out of pocket. So doctors who want to earn more are simply thinking of ways to see more “special patients” who will pay them extra. Or to make time for seeing more private patients, sometimes seeing them at state hospitals and using state-funded equipment.
Many doctors have been conducting deals with hospitals which circumvent government any official agreement and which may be even disadvantageous for other doctors. For example, in at least a couple of hospitals, the fact that the doctors gave their notice meant there was a decision to liquidate hospitals and to merge them with others to be more cost effective. Then some doctors were rehired – but the merged hospitals will have fewer doctors, so some people were not able to negotiate positions. In addition, many of those rehired were hired either through outsourcing companies or were hired back as independent contractors. They agreed to higher salaries but now have to pay social insurance costs themselves and are not entitled to paid vacation or other benefits.
The merging of hospitals can have a terrible effect on patients. For example, one local hospital here in Praga (in the center of Warsaw) is being merged with a hospital in Miedzylesie (on the outskirts) – which is probably about 15 kilometers away.
Even worse, there is now a question about overtime for doctors and moves to circumvent limits. Last year, in a landmark case, a doctor won a case and got back payment for overtime. In many hospitals, doctors can work 60 or 80 hours a week whereas EU law perscribes a maximum of 48 hours and sets out requirements for breaks and vacation given when doctors work long shifts. Since EU authorities found the practice in Poland to be in contradiction to EU laws, the authorities have been shitting in their pants about the amount of lawsuits they might face. They have been discouraging these lawsuits by any means possible, including illegal ones – for example recently they sent doctors who started lawsuits on long vacations in lieu of overtime payments with clear signals that they’ll have no jobs to come back to. There is currently legislation being adopted by parliament which would allow doctors to “waive their rights” to the 48 hour limits. The response of the OZZL to this is disturbing: while encouraging doctors not to sign such waivers, Bukiel says that these waivers should be used to negotiate higher salaries – in other words, it’s OK if you work 80 hours a week, provided you’re getting paid for it.
Talking to people from the nurse’s union, we heard a different story. They were against the privatization of hospitals and also criticized contract work. The agreed that some people working on contracts received more money – but they said that they tended to work harder and longer to get it. In the worst case scenarios, some nurses who worked on contracts ended up worse off than those regularly employed by hospitals.
Privatization by the Back Door
Although the populist government ostensibly is against privatization of health care, it is clearly continuing the policies of the former government to promote private health care solutions through a combined strategy of negligence and gradual legislative measures. Currently, about half of the population has private insurance and even more count on private medical services if something goes wrong. That is because the state has been so negligent of the health care system that one cannot rely on it in case of need. In many cases, the queues for treatment are so-long that care cannot be given on time leading to long-term or irrevocable health probelms. In some cases, treatment is simply not available in public hospitals or medicines and equipment, one is told, can only be procured by extra payment. In many more simple cases, working people simply cannot afford to take entire days off to wait in the queue at poorly organized clinics without even any guarantee of being seen. The tax system encourages people and businesses to buy private insurance by allowing deductions.
The other way of forcing people into private health care is by liquidating their hospitals or certain units in them.
Amazingly, the government still pretends it supports a functional health care system. During the strike, they even went to far as to blame greedy health care workers for threatening the system.
It looks like in the future that the people will have to deal with a poorer version of the American model – with many times less funding, worse technology and a smaller labour pool. Those who are lucky enough to have private insurance will use it but will be due for many rude awakenings when faced with more serious problems. (Somebody I know, who has a rather expensive policy had to have an operation and found out that a. there are no facilities in this city to do it – he’d have to go to Lodz – and b. that he’d have to make a large payment. Still he’s happy that at least he’ll get the operation. And he can afford it. He’s in the top 5% income bracket.)
Large portions of society will remain uninsured since they won’t be able to afford it. They’ll use health care only when faced with an emergency and will let some problems go undetected. (We’re already seeing rising incidence of this. For example, there is an alarming trend in post-natal problems which doctors ascribe to the liquidation of free pre-natal care in many hospitals.) Public health care will increasingly be the poorer-quality option for those with no choice.
The brain drain will continue with even larger portions of health care workers, trained with public funds, going abroad to work. Some health care workers will remain dangerously overworked as they work overtime to earn extra money and keep up with prices in a society which has increasing consumer expectations. The future for all of us doesn’t look very bright at all.

Building Bifold Doors

"anarchists and" leftists ": Experience the difference!"

Данная критика важна в свете the current situation in the left movement in Russia, and deserves more political debate. Leftists are faced with a particular social situation in Russia. It is characterized by social instability, market reforms and atomization of society with all its consequences. In this situation leftist movement, which, firstly, is an authoritarian, secondly, in favor of a command economy or state capitalism, and, finally, is nationalist and xenophobic. Here's why it is necessary to define the attitude of anarchists to the situation and show what anarchists differ from these authoritarian leftists.

Type your cut contents here. Certain trends in the Russian left and anarchist movement makes this criticism even more urgent and necessary. First, in the current social situation, we can see that the "Left" and "opposition" are both right, going toward authoritarianism, borrowing conservative, totalitarian, corporate, national-socialist ideas and images. We also see that the right-left stolen the symbolism and some (convenient them) left ideas. Different people and groups are trying to synthesize the left and right views. From this symbiosis in the past five years has developed a strong, new During that tries to pass himself off as a left, at least to attract those who are sympathetic to the left. At the same time to attract the opposite public, it depicts a right. Secondly, the increased number of people who consider themselves anarchists, but at the same time - and part of a broad yuolee "obschelevogo" movement. They speak the language of symbols and reject intellectualism, and therefore do not understand the intricacies of policy. It is amorphous, pseudo-"autonomous" layer is often forms a mass of contradictory, constantly trying to create his own synthesis of diverse anarchist, radical left and the pseudo-left wing ideas. In such a synthesis of anarchism and is altered in a distorted form, the dramatic differences between anarchism (libertarian communism) on the one hand, and leftism and authoritarianism, on the other, become blurred to such an extent that the basic concepts of anarchism lost in the thick of the images and symbolism of the "anti-pop" (kontrkulturschiny) and krutizma. The third new right of permanent use of anarchist and libertarian texts, language and symbols of the purposefully trying to gain a foothold at our expense. Comes to the fact that the editor of a purely fascist magazine "Elements" Alexander Dugin makes reports about anarchism, "as synthesized" propagandists like Tarasova called scavengers like Tsvetkov, former editor of the Nazi "pineapple", and AD Kostenko, a nationalist and a supporter of the Party, the anarchists, but people more anarchic, than those who do not want to cooperate with the Nazis and totalitarist.

In this situation, the concept of anarchism is transformed by his enemies, which act as a Trojan horse, into something quite nebulous. Finally, because of the paucity of these anarchists and clean (neleninskih) Marxists supporters of workers' councils, or even normal left many potential activists to turn to the larger (on the left's standards) organizations or their members for information or cooperation, involving them in their actions. It is not even on their quest to achieve "critical mass" - they hungry tide "fresh blood", the arrival of new people with Ktorov they could lay the groundwork for a new alternative scene. As a result, there is a cooperation between people with different political views (or sometimes without a clear political opinions), which merged in the main simply a denial of market and bourgeois culture. During why countercultural Wednesday has not yet become a hotbed of libertarian and anarchist action, and she easily generates the Nazis that now happening. because many of our friends want to create an anarchist counterculture as a form of elitism underclass, and try to get rid of from such elements. If they do not, it will turn into multipallets new right "synthesized" radicalism, rather than in the embryo elite radicalism as they would like.

anarchists and leftists - there is a difference!
clear that the need to explain the difference between anarchists and RNE. The difference is quite obvious. Barkashovtsy - "Tsivilev" and because of their style can not be misleading. Difficult for many to feel the difference between anarchism and other leftist and understand why they can not support them or join with them in the block. Why Che Guevara deserves posthumous bullet in the head, not pop symbolic of idolatry? Why, when we think about North Korea, we do not remember the last bulwark against the market, but the iron fist and iron bars? Why are we still critical of the Zapatistas, Chechen government and the Afghan National Congress, to all anti-imperialist left, but the national and state movements? Why do we do would like to give Trotsky ice pick? Why do we wipe their asses "Bumbarash" and want to send a pineapple "pineapple"? To answer these questions, we must see what they offer and see how their strategy destroys everything that we wanted to build.

First of all, anarchy means direct participation, direct decision-making. We do not want no state, no bosses, no Revolutionary Committee of us. We want people to be themselves cope with its aspects of social life. People can do it themselves, in small groups or alone, in communities or collectives. To achieve this freedom, we must believe that man, freed from the habit, encouraged by the system can actually operate by itself. (In fact, we still do everything, but mediation experts who are hired exploiters, but is run by the system. When anarchy experts themselves freely to share their knowledge instead of selling them at the best price). Therefore, it is obvious that we can not support political forces that would replace the current system his own authority.

clear that it is impossible to maintain the Communist Party, but against other communist for many somehow think differently. Part of series believe that we have with them the general problem - the elimination of capitalism. Supporters of the "common task" (destruction rather than construction of new) zybyvayut ask: what are want to "communists"? What they want to replace the existing system? Some believe that this can be thought then, as long as "everything goes according to plan." In the past, Many thought so, and that mistake cost them their lives.

Actually podavlyuyuschee bolschinstvo Left psevdolevyh / new-right groups in Russia are not discussed such "minor" issues such as principles of social organization. They would only confuse people, and many would not have joined them or just Be fled away. All this is very bad, because the leaders certainly know what they want, and on occasion will offer their own variants. Weight rebels, left without a program or plan action, simply follow them, even if before she had doubts. When these groups are talking about the welfare of people, all this cheap populism. Such was the language of Lenin, Hitler, Peron, Lukashenko, the language of hundreds of the "fathers of peoples in history who have managed to play in populism, rebellion and revolution. They rolled in the wake of rejection, until we came to power. And then they got rid of the opposition, including from the one that decides the general problem "with them. What treachery!

should be seen as political activists belong to the people. Elitism - that is what leads to fascism, revolutionary avngard can turn into a totalitarian dictators. Elitarist believes that society consists of a heap of morons who are not able to govern themselves. When he wants to pose as a humanist, He argues that people do not want to impose on ourselves such a burden. Perhaps now it is, but this is a temporary condition, due to the fact that the system deprives people of the opportunity to govern themselves and the people are not used to. Human nature is not mortgaged.

Anarchists seek to change this situation, want to encourage people to enable them to regain control over their own lives. Statesmen and "leaders" themselves want to control everything and everyone, they do not care participate in the people or not. In fact, they probably do not want people to participate in solving the fate of society, they fear the involvement of "grassroots".

In tick-called "left" movement in Russia can be found such elitaristov, often hiding under the guise of populism. There are also subconscious elitaristy. Usually it is "ordinary" revolutionaries who today have no clear position on this issue, or even seem to be against elitaristov, but at the crucial moment will be on their side. There are many people in the counterculture, as it serves as a hotbed of covert, subliminal elitism. The common thread that runs through it - it hatred of the existing culture, consumer, entertainment or household. I can understand this hatred. But elitarist and sends it to the ordinary people, that is, the "masses", perceiving themselves as opposed to them "the vanguard".

Recently we've seen this with the example of so-called radical Artists in Moscow, tusuyuschihsya around the journal "Radek". They created a "control commission" that claim is to determine state policy. They and thoughts do not admit that people are free to run their lives. They perceive themselves as experts and lawmakers (which, taking into account their total illiteracy in the economy in general is ridiculously!). The arrogance of these people is obvious. In the midst of miners' strike, ignoring all the problems of Russian society, they could not think of nothing better than to demand personal his salary in 1200 dollars per month, drug legalization and visa-free travel. (In principle, I do not have anything against these claims, but I do not think that drugs should be given priority at the moment when millions of workers have nothing to eat. Moreover, the consumption of heavy drugs - a result of social exclusion. Not have been better to make life a wonderful carnival, which involves all, rather than resign ourselves on self-destruction and materialism?).

we have in common with those who favor a broad popular participation in public life, for example, with supporters of the workers Councils. But we have little in common with the "revolutionary vanguard", and there is nothing to do with political parties.

We differ from the "leftists" on many important Settlements. Another one of them - it is internationalism. We are critical of the national liberation movements and illusions policy of anti-imperialism. Many "Leftists" describe Russia as a colony of foreign capital, practically claiming that it is sufficient to expel foreigners to solve all problems. Immediately comes to mind ads Bryntsalov, which calls for buying only Russian medicine so that the money stayed in Russia, precisely so he could buy more gold pens, and his wife - more leather pants. And we are against any use. If Russia was not included in the global economy, still operation would be preserved (the fact that the "Soviet" power share of workers in the gross domestic product was even when "public funds" 20%, while in the U.S. - 60%). This anti-imperialist rhetoric is more like a "Soviet" xenophobic propaganda. Anarchists, in contrast, advocated cooperation people, regardless of place of birth or residence.

Down with capitalism and wage labor!
begin with reservations: various anarchists have different ideas about what to look for the economy and material life of the anarchist society. But, basically, all agree that the means of production should be controlled by corporations, and that all should have equal opportunities to manage their own affairs. So speaking about the differences of views anarchists and communists, "I stated the position of the majority of anarchists.

State capitalism
Many of the so-called "communist" serve in fact for one or another form of state capitalism. With this model, the surplus value is assigned to the state and its workers produce by slave labor. Determining the rate of economic life, the state system to get as much surplus value, despite such harmful consequences for society and the planet as urbanization, depletion of resources, etc.

What proihodit in fact, under central planning economy? First, a layer of bureaucracy that's just, being engaged in the distribution of wealth, can ensure the allocation of money in their own interests and privileges for themselves. (The current crisis in the Russian economy has arisen partly due to the fact that the ruling circles are used to distribute benefits of their own will, without any accountability.) Second, developing a command economy, is not always satisfying the needs of consumers. Arose funny situations: people to produce food, which are then transported to other regions, and producers had to go there to buy them and bring them back. Such absurdity is possible only where the workers themselves have no rights, and speaks only solves the omnipotent state. Also Workers are split on ierhicheskie and corporate groups and their position at work prevent them from controlling the content of the production process. Finally, the law prohibits all private and cooperative initiatives that could threaten government control. Most workers live in poverty, they have no opportunity to accumulate money or to get them, they can not establish their own cooperatives to build a place to live or do anything else, is not permitted by the state.

Such totalitarianism with its Cheka, which should control the rebels or "petty" elements such as small-scale cooperatives, has nothing to do with anarchism. Instead, we favor the less automated society in which resources means of production and public goods would be shared and accessible to all those who use them (when resources are shared, you can reduce the consumption of power and resources to a minimum, and then not have to spend all their time to make things that then have to buy a ticket). People could protect the environment and the Earth, to organize the work, allowing all to participate in decision-making, it is easy to arrange things so that everyone had more free time to participate in public life and develop their abilities and interests. while the economy is controlled by the ruling class, priority will be not meeting the needs of mankind, and material accumulation. From the perspective of rulers, the people - this is only part large machinery. Only those who do not consider myself a part, can live and behave like humans.

Loan clear position!
We need the positive presentation about the future, which would show how people can communicate, organize and manage the production company. Anarchists have always offered an alternative patterns of society, most often they are based on the federation of communes and individuals. The only form of representation they are delegates, be revoked any time. To open such a possibility on a large scale, it is necessary, of course, vsergnut existing system.

Russian leftist movement is full of "Oppositionists" who are protesting against an evil thing: globalization, capitalism, fascism, militarism ... All this, of course, fine, but the fact is that being against anything is not enough to bring people together for positive change in society. If only to unite under the banner of protest, people at risk to get into one company with those whose politics he does not understand and do not share. sometimes unscrupulous activists and organizers even conceal their this position to attract to their group as much as possible for people to gain political capital and make yourself advertising. But this constructive action rarely results from such unions.

Recently, in Russia we see a monstrous abuse of political terms and ideas from any idiots, enjoy, on the contrary, very smart individuals who know how to deceive people. The most frequently vsrechayuschiysya phenomenon - an amalgam of authoritarian and anti-authoritarian ideas, which contradict each other, but somehow processed and combined. Perhaps worst of all would be if the elements fascist ideas to infiltrate the society, and nestle in political theory. There are many people willing to carry out synthesis of left and radical right. Most of the Left rejects such a synthesis, but sometimes they themselves, without understanding the subtleties, borrow some of the new right-wing or totalitarian ideas.

To understand why we need a clear positive program and why we must abandon the idea of \u200b\u200b"fusion", just look at history. Such attempts to combine right and left radicalism has been in the past. The most famous example - the fascism of Mussolini in Italy.

Many people consider the defining criteria for fascism racial hatred and totalitarianism. But racial hatred - not a mandatory feature of fascism. Fascist movements have always tried to fuse the right and left ideas. From this synthesis was to receive a radical "third way". An important role for the Nazis played "anti-bourgeois" - the same mindset, which is now attracts many people in Russia. The Nazis promised to workers and social safeguards to ensure life, put principle above, the ideal consumption of material benefits. They performed against a class society. This similarity in the negation of bourgeois society and would become the basis for the involvement of the left in general with Nazi coalition. (Leader of contemporary Italian neo-fascists Pinot Routh, a former organizer of the terrorist attacks on the Left, Tode declares its "Anti-capitalism" and offers newly communists, socialists and "green" to create a political bloc.) But while the Nazis have never renounced the idea of \u200b\u200bprivate property and, most importantly, have always rejected humanism and quite different than the left, refers to freedom. Anti-bourgeois politics can not of itself by itself provide the basis for a common political language. When people type Tarasova talk about the possibility of cooperation with limonovtsa "because those" anti-bourgeois ", they are simply apologists for fascism.

socio-economic crisis always sposobstvut rise of fascism, especially the drop in the growth of the average rights. Post-Soviet Russia has become a training ground for fascism, primarily due to socio-economic changes and responses to them. Rapid social change arouse people's sense of alienation from society. The Nazis also promised to revive the lost stability, restore order, return to man his place in society. They use a sense of nostalgia, which in today's Russia may join "communist" left with the Nazis and the New Right. Fascists say and the welfare of the people - another common program item to the totalitarian "communist." Anarchists also reject the theory of the strong state, which should protect the people. Strong states want the fascists and totalitarian "communist", but not us. In this sense kommunyagi and fascists are on the same side of the political barricades, which in this case shares are not right and left, and authoritarians, and supporters of freedom.

Populism and the idea of \u200b\u200brebirth of the nation have special advantages. Their Nebula and nepredelennost able to attract as traditionalists, conservatives and the radical "Renovationists. Plays an important role the notion of "nation". That it stands in the heart of their ideology, however much they talked about the synthesis of left, right, or any other ideas were. All post-Soviet national-patriotic tendencies, too, push this problem - to return to the people, "former glory". The idea of \u200b\u200bthe nation is not necessarily a racial nature, like Hitler. Mussolini, for example, asserted that the nation could include people living in different regions, belonging to different nations and speaking different languages. Such same theory was at the NBP (until recently split).

Fascists often spoke of the "proletarian brotherhood." For example, Mussolini declared that the Turkish and Arab prletarii - His brothers. Many of the new right, too, recognize the problems of other countries, but offer the nationalist solution. Fascist theorist Julius Evola was even big fan of the national liberation movements in the Third World, precisely because it wanted to separate existence of all nations. The U.S. has the right, opposed to U.S. economic imperialism and globalization as harmful to the working class. Anarchists, in contrast, are reluctant to admit ideas nation and national division, and they understand the nation as a product of the state. The idea of \u200b\u200bnational movements is always a tool of the new political power.

important to understand that Germans tend to borrow ideas from the left and right theories. They have adopted leftist ideas, which could coincide with their anti-bourgeois propaganda and preaching material prosperity. At the same time, they throw all the more radical socialist or anarchist ideas. Many Left have been deceived by the Nazis because they focus on general negative and the program does not take a clear anti-totalitarian position. One such people had a syndicalist Georges Sorel, who initially sympathized with Mussolini, and then criticized him because he has become less radical, more pragmatic corporatism, and gave the rich. Sorel was not a racist, and probably, if he understood the end, what is fascism, he would not have had with him. But unfortunately, he was drowned in unscrupulous political tactics. Sorrel was elitaristom intellectuals and underestimated the intelligence of the masses. His main contribution to the strategy Mussolini was the idea that the working masses can perceive the revolutionary consciousness only through myths. This idea is in sharp contrast to the anarchic, Socialist and libertarian-egalitarian-communist spirit of mutual education of people as there are enough reasonable to rationally solve their problems. Anarchists accept the mythology as an instrument of social control by the ruling elites. By the time World War Sorrel concluded that such a myth, able to mobilize people, nationalism can be, so he helped develop fascism.

Many of the Left and New Right in Russia also use the myths to attract people. One of those who openly praises zhtu strategy - a historical revisionist and apologist for the right Tarasov. Several times he penned a legend, and in general are actively engaged in mythmaking. People like AD Kostenko, P. Bylevskogo and A. Tsvetkov also widely use this tool. They are easy to deceive those who know nothing, and convince others that this is just a game and the Orange provocation. "

Radical "communist" press sometimes looks like a set of myths. The most disgusting vpechptlenie leaves "Bumbarash", where you can discover the myths about Mao, Stalin, "Seder lyuminiso" Pol Pot, with a "minor details" are omitted, all data on the repression, murder, all descriptions of what happened to the rebels pr such regimes. All this is true stuff. The same applies to no small number of autonomous psevdoanarhicheskih magazines, where reklamiretsya any first available guerilla. If more acceptable to assume that the radical left magazine could write about Che Guevara or the RAF, the Kim Il Sung and the Sendero lyuminoso "so far from anarchism that articles about them cause really serious questions. I'm worried about punk antiintelliktualizm because it is easy to see how the lack of information is used elites in order to introduce people to the head myths.

But to return to Italian fascism. Benito Mussolini was the first member of the Italian Socialist Party and tried to create a left wing bloc. He became editor of "Avanti!". He wandered around all sorts of radical artists and writers. It reminds me of the situation with "pineapple." Among these writers were celebrities such as Gabriele D'Annunzio, Enrico Corradino (author of the thesis of the "proletarian nations") and Giovanni Papini (While the most popular writer of the country). All of them entertained a strong hostility to bourgeois society. They gave the Nazis Youth avant-garde style, which allowed them to look new and interesting. Papini was an extreme elitaristom and loved not only myths, but also deliberately distorted. He talked a lot about international fraternity just because I wanted to give the movement moral facade. Papini deliberately tried to deceive and attract socialists feel uncomfortable because with a fascist nationalism. Corradino hated bourgeois state and was an original supporter of krutizma. He wanted to create an image of a hero for the masses (As the current "Limonov's party" or Kostenko). But even worse was D'Annunzio and Marinetti. The latter, a famous artist and futrist was most popular in the second place after Mussolini. He considered himself ultraradikalom. His idea of \u200b\u200bwar as the only way of healing the world has become very popular in the revolutionary counterculture and avant-garde.

Then Mussolini pushed the idea of \u200b\u200b"fashi de kombattimento - armed gangs. Their program connects different elements - from the requirements material well-being to sexual freedom, all godilos to attract young people, which he regarded as the vanguard of the revolution. The Nazis wanted to these "guerrillas" subject to strict discipline. Left-wing slogans of social well-being floated right-wing authoritarianism. After the victory of the revolution to keep its results should have been a strong state.

D'Annutsio as a cult figure was somewhat similar to Limonov (he also fought in Yugoslavia, but where successfully). He developed the idea of \u200b\u200bthe role of symbols. The current youth policy this symbolism is important.

In short, the history of Italian Fascism has much in common with its current Russian counterpart. As with the earlier German fascists. They borrowed a lot of German Romanticism and natsionalistichekogo Traffic felkishe "which deified nature, and all national. They preached the idea of \u200b\u200belite fighting forces of genius and indolence of the masses. Vanguard artists, who considered himself a force fighting against bourgeois society, reinforce this position. The declared concern for the welfare of the people was purely paternalistic : in the heart of these avant-garde hated masses, considering them as carriers of bourgeois culture.

most direct connection exists between the ideology NBP (before the split) and the views of J. Evola - a favorite fascist Alexander Dugin. Evola was born in 1898, became the youngest artist just in time peak of Italian Fascism. He became a futurist and Dadaist. Evola adored esoteric, was a Gentile and enjoying spirituality. K materialistic decadent "he experienced an acute hatred. After World War II, when fascism had become already a dirty word, he managed to find a common point with the left and denounced the Americanization of Europe. Evola argued against the multinationals, but argued from the perspective of nationalism. Same easy to detect in the Russian left movement.

Like all avant-garde, Evola put forward the idea of \u200b\u200b"political soldier" - the youth vanguard in the struggle against "capitalist decadence". This idea is like both right and left. But anarchists refer to it critically. On the one hand, the strategy seems logical: the youth is angry and wants to change. But this strategy has significant drawbacks. First of all, age does not necessarily define politichekuyu orientation, to think differently - the same nonsense as the idea of \u200b\u200bthe nation. New generation does not necessarily happen more radical than the old one. Divide people so badly, but in terms of manipulating their "leaders" - very convenient. Young people can look at myself as an avant-garde just because she's young. But we, the anarchists do not want people to feel avant-garde. We want them to understand exactly what to do. We do not want people to be just the soldiers in the wars of unscrupulous "leaders." We strive people to understand the ideas, trying to somehow make them, and became a catalyst for the revolution. We do not intend to play in symbolism, myth-making, etc. We want to stimulate the brains of people. We prefer constructive socialism cheap negativism. Let people see themselves as part of their society as a whole, not as belonging to the categories of "student", "punk", "worker" etc.

in the left movement is a set of unscrupulous leaders, who simply need "Mass". In fact they do not respect the people whom they recruit. Often it is difficult to understand because they lick the ass of youth and kontrkulturschikam. But Despite this anal love, subcultural youth for them - are just pawns in a political game. Their relationship becomes clear when you realize that they consciously misinform people hide their youth policy, or when you hear their claim that the young need only "bread and circuses."

Frankly, In the end we prefer that people who generally can not understand politics, stepped aside. It's better than trying to synthesize anarchism and Leninism. We already spend too much time correcting all but the delusions that cause us psevdolevye and new rules. We believe that we have blatantly stolen positive image of freedom to manipulate people. Take the famous incident at the concert, "Russian Breakthrough" several years ago. It appeared Lemons and Dugin. The first shouted: "Glory to Russia!" (Nationalist slogan), "We are the great white nation in Europe" (a racist and imperialist slogan), "With us God "(religious slogan)," With us, Sasha Barkashov (Fascist slogan), "With us, Victor Anpilov" ("communist slogan), and finally," Anarchy - order's mother! ". Punks were in ecstasy. But, of course, it's not the same. In the middle of a concert, took the floor Dugin. He said: "There is time to break down and a time to build!" Now is the time to destroy. ". Dugin has met a very strong reaction of protest from punks who shouted: "Fascism - by ...". This absurd situation is very revealing. On the one hand, Dugin - a fascist, and his cry was typical of the fascist. But it was not purely a fascist slogan. Lemons are also a fascist. And it was he who proclaimed fascist specific slogans. But he applauded. Probably, the punks perceive Limonov as countercultural figure, and Dugin - as "of civilized" intellectual. You can see that the most successful arms of the New Right - it's aesthetics and avant-garde fashion. In reality, Limonov, Dugin, and not so different, they just play different roles. It Dugin is the "brain", but he needs people like Limonov and flowering, to create a new style.

After the Nazis to fool people, they will pat them on the back, suck up to them, telling them that they - the most revolutionary elements. Then we come and tell them the truth. We understand that the tactics of the Nazis easier to recruit people, but we hope that the eternal beauty of our goals to win. True social revolution can be made only on ethical grounds.

Very Sore Lump On My Gum

few words about the well-fed and free capitalism

In the western, mostly American, anarchism is a right wing, known as "libertarian capitalism". The ideas of this school have as a response to monopoly capitalism, the essence of this philosophy is the notion that a truly market economy is healthy phenomenon, and that people work best when taking care of their own economic interests. The system of private enterprise, in terms of "libertarian capitalists, is the best option. The same ideas can now be heard in the former Soviet Union (Article written in 1992 - Ed.), Where there was a particularly harsh form of monopoly capitalism - state capitalism, and the command economy created a system of production, resulted in the dire consumer crisis.

Discussions supporters of the above philosophy, often make a reservation, that their vision of capitalism necessarily involves the provision of free capital to all those in this zamnteresovan. Here also lies the main contradiction of this philosophy.

In the case if capital was available to all who need it, could not exist a system of competition. However, the global market is increasingly controlled not by individual lmchnostyami engaged in business, and multinationals and other large monopolies, just and based on the fact that they have access to a disproportionately large capital. This allows them to develop the technology and exploit the uneven development of world market to produce cheaper and therefore a great success products.

multinational corporations and their auxiliary structures could to dominate the U.S. consumer market, mainly due to lower prices competitive. This, however, they have achieved primarily by exploiting the difference in exchange rates and levels of life. Today, as many products are manufactured outside the United States in order to profit increased simply by virtue of cheap labor in other countries. As a result, in America some of the productions were simply destroyed, led to a rise in unemployment, the general deterioration of ordinary Americans, the emergence of cities that no longer provide employment for its people, and stand as monuments to the era of decline. And when closing large production, such as automobile manufacturers company Chrysler, the bills must be paid ordinary taxpayers, ie workers.

At the time, as multinational and other large companies are trying to seize control of most part of the world's wealth, Eastern Europe represents for them an excellent opportunity ... For example, McDonald's, whose popularity in America is based on the fact that his food is cheaper than its competitors, can feel wonderful in Moscow despite the high costs, because it has no competitors. "How can you explain the man that McDonald's is bad, if it's so beautiful, wonderful service and the food so tasty? "- ask me here. The same problem exists in America, where quite a large number of people involved in an international boycott of McDonald's. Usually people do not care that McDonalds employees in America, one of the most brutally exploited, that the vast amount of paper required to eateries, leads to the felling of tropical rain forests in Brazil, thereby presenting a serious environmental threat to the planet. Overexploitation of forest forcing residents to flee their homes, thus creating a vicious circle of poverty and crime constituting a destructive force in this country.

That attitude like "what do I cares? "helps continue operation of the third world and to prolong the life of capitalism. Therefore, the international campaign of boycott McDonald's mainly focused on issues relating to each person, for example, that the food McDonald's contribute to the emergence of cancer and other diseases. Once this has been proven, many buyers have to bypass the "Mac" side. Realizing that so you can lose all the profits, McDonald's was forced to enter in the menu "healthy" meals. This means that the boycott should be based on the already global issues.

Someone may say that the global problems do not matter when you're hungry. National problems, like too lose their importance. This is especially evident in a country where many people trying to make money in speculation, which negatively affects the others, receiving only a few hundred per month. Even coming from the West "humanitarian aid" for sale in the commercial stalls for profit. Forget about humanism, a world ruled by money!

American leftists have today, many years of experience, came to the conclusion that in such a system is constructed much "wrong". Results of a large capital is felt worldwide. Under this system, any improvement to one side turns loss to another. The notion that all people are to some degree of benefit from this system, it is a myth. Due to the fact that a large percentage of Americans living well, many do not give trouble to reflect on the fact that the economy deprives a fairly large proportion of the population of this opportunity. (In New York, for example, about one hundred and fifty thousand homeless people from the same who have housing, one third receives financial assistance, that is living in poverty and, if not for these payments would have lived from hand to mouth. This winter again dozens of people die from the cold, scores of others, if not from hunger, from disease, malnutrition).

recently in America broke out depression, had a heavy impact on workers, which means that poverty, which American ideology is based on the Protestant ethic has traditionally been considered a consequence of laziness, was one of the most important problems. Today More and more people came to the conclusion that poverty - is a consequence of the current U.S. economic structure.

From the standpoint of the radical left and anarchists (In this case excluding libertarians), this system can not be reformed. In addition to the economic problems of capitalism and engendered of events (Poverty, leading to increased crime, anomie, sharp, physically tangible despair), a negative reaction to her wish, even those who have work and sufficiently stable financial position. Physical separation from life, the essence of which is the work of the entrepreneur, very upset many people. The atmosphere of suffocation leads to the fact that workers are experiencing great psychological problems. (If the Americans could live with the Soviet attitude to work, they would do so). As a result, thousands of people are trying to find spiritual meaning in life even at the cost of material comfort. Other seems to be trying to compensate for a sense of his unhappiness at the expense of increasing consumption.

The only truly healthy alternative devastating economic order can be found in the politics of global awareness - awareness of the implications of each of its steps. It is this worldview allows us to treat all people in their relationships with each other. And precisely because of this we care about the problems of people living near us and hundreds of miles from us.

Our search for a world in which human potential can be realized by each, are ultimately looking for a world where man's fate depends more on his actions, not on such arbitrary factors as place of birth, parents' financial status, sex, color, etc. This world is wrong called utopia can exist only where people are as equal to each other individuals who control the basic economic structure, where there is confidence that all man-tailored to his needs.

Imprint: «Emancipation of personality», № 2, 1992

Toilet Paper Gauge Penis

Анархия и феминизм АНТИ-МИЛЛЕНИУМ

Structure power and privilege in society takes many forms. Just as economic power can not be separated from politics, so can not be separated and the hierarchy in public relations from the economic and political hierarchy, since they are closely interrelated.

---

philosophy of anarchism is the philosophy Equality, which seeks the destruction of all social, political and economic institutions, creating conditions for the hierarchy and thereby depriving part of a society of opportunities for full self-realization. Therefore anarchism opposes all irrational belief systems, which through the mechanisms social, political and economic power in society creates inequality. Here we have in mind primarily the various forms of discrimination: racism, sexism, nationalism, homophobia, ageism (age chauvinism) and other forms of intolerance.

While in Russia's "radical" press a lot of attention given the economic hierarchy, women are usually relegated to the sidelines because they are seen as less important. But for women, these issues should have the same value as any other, because the quality of life does not depend only on the economy. Women living in rich countries, can prove it. They can also confirm that the progress in political and economic fields is essentially meaningless if there is no change in the overall situation of women. Traditionally

policy in Russia of the men. Therefore, some questions, no doubt, is simply ignored. The vast majority of men who themselves are on lower levels of political and economic ladder, are not aware of their position in relations of power, when it tapes everyday life. Moreover, women's movement is often mocked by men who are afraid or unwilling to change the social relations that put them in a privileged position.

experience of women's rights movement in the West shows that when men feel that women represent a real threat to them, they attempt to suppress these movements. For example, in 1970-80. American women have achieved considerable success. But in 1980 exacerbated the economic problems. Women continued struggle for equality in pay and access to high-paying jobs as men. Traditionally, women are worse than men positions and lower wages, although in most cases, this has nothing to do with their abilities and qualifications. Of course, men would have guarantees that they will get a better job, so all the achievements of women in this area is perceived with hostility, because men are still feel that they should get more and support his family. The same discrimination were blacks, Hispanics and immigrants. All of these social group suffered from the policies that determine white rich men. Of course, we want to destroy any system that generates competition and hostility between people, but it can be done only by destroying the system of hostility and discrimination that deprives people of control over their lives. Therefore, these of the oppressed must fight to overcome the challenges they face daily.

Women, of course, is different in different countries, but here are some of the generic problems:

1. Family

This is the basic structural unit of society. Its importance to anarchism can not be overestimated, because it is in the family (and later in school) future generations learn liberty or passivity faced with its subcontractors and the equal distribution of labor or with the hierarchy and humiliation. It is here that children learn the false role of "male" and "women".

As long as child care and responsibility for household farm lies on the woman's family is for her not a partnership, and a trap. If a woman is such a burden of responsibility, it can not fully participate economic and political life. That is why the fascist, totalitarian and conservative society and the church, defended the idea that a woman should stay home and raise children. Capitalist society is much more profitable not to hire women, who may require care benefits for the child, and instead force them to have more children, who will labor in the next generation. The more children are born, the greater will be competition for jobs, and will be correspondingly lower WACH
lats.

In many countries, especially in Third World countries, access to safe, reliable means of birth control is an important issue for women. Russia is also among these countries. Existing methods of contraception here unsafe, ineffective and often unavailable. It is therefore not surprising that in this country is a huge number of abortions. Abortion in itself reflect poor medical care, moreover, they pose a serious threat to women's health. But even if there were more effective contraception, it would not solve all the problems of the family.

Women are often themselves involved in his oppression, absorbing the culture of a society in which live. They have not much wider choice, because the hope that they can get their own apartment and live independently is very low. Same as however, applies to men. People fall into the trap of the family. It is no coincidence that the family plays a much bigger role in the lives of poor women in poor countries. She is one way of avoiding poverty and economic and political powerlessness. But this is only an illusion, in fact, problems are only exacerbated.

2. Concept

concept of sex are reperessivnymi tradition, church, capitalism, etc. The notion that a woman has always played only one role in society - the myth that is used for ideological purposes, which has been refuted by numerous anthropological studies. (This You certainly do not hear from your teachers, priests, etc.)

In Russia there is a strong unwritten laws relating to what a woman should and what she should not do. This is directly reflected in what women do, because if you are constantly faced with certain ideas and see that others act in a certain way, then you believe that the way it should be.

These ideas are often expressed in the form of prejudice against women. They also find their visual reflection. Look at magazines and advertising, and you will see what should be a woman - thin, beautiful, stupid doll. Thing that You can admire and that is a source of pleasure. Why beautiful people have to get more respect, admiration and material benefits than others? Why in this case, they receive them? What is the price of beauty for women? Take care of nonsense to spend money on something to look important and beautiful, to learn adapt to others' standards and expectations, otherwise the risk of not getting the love or become a victim of discrimination in hiring. (Long shown that employers in hiring, choosing a woman by how she looks.)

Concept is very large and important category. This is that feeds the various forms of oppression and phenomena like racism.

3. Economy

Mothers should have an opportunity to support a family. Women should seek greater access to high-paying jobs, they should enjoy the same rights as men, as a rule, not the exception. Sexist would argue that nothing prevents women from these positions, but they are blind and lie to themselves.

4. Politics

Ideally, the political life must be changed, as well as economic life. We must destroy the government and wage slavery. So when we say that women should have access to high-paying jobs and that they must belong to a certain part of political power, we do not mean that if we able to achieve this, then we can rest in peace. But while the men and women are at different levels of government, so any transition to anarchy talk impossible. The hierarchy still persists, it will arise from the new power structures, and women again have to join the fight. Social ills do not disappear redistribution of economic and political power. Redistribution of power only leads to the formation of new elites. It was one of the errors of Marx and confirm that we have repeatedly met in history. While it is too late, we must put an end to discrimination. Women should enjoy the same opportunities, as men, let alone how they manage, they decide for yourself. If some women as a result become politicians and the capitalist pigs, it does not necessarily well, because then women will be at the top of oppressing women who are at the bottom. It's a proven fact. But then the men and women who are already on equal footing, can fight with the ruling classes. The revolution must be made equally by both sexes, and its purpose should be to ensure the interests of both men and women, and hence they must play an equal role.

4. Isolation and women's involvement in community activities

If a woman's place at home, she could not provide sufficient strong influence on society. The more time women spend at home, the less time they have out to meet people, to observe, to establish contacts. It is not surprising that politicians want us to stay at home. Women should realize that their voice is just as significant in the society, to stop thinking about the nonsense and start organized. And not just women.

5. The need for a group of "Free Women" and some of the alleged activities

need to create a group of "Free Women" because men in the anarchist movement failed to include fundamental questions concerning women's issues into their fundamental program. (They forget not only about women, but that's another issue.)

"free women" should focus on universal issues, but not only. The Group shall be open to both women and men to share rationally discuss various issues. Those who want to advance to limit the target group, it is better to stay home.

I propose to create a group became part of an international network of "Loose Women" (Mujeres Libres). We must identify our specific interests, to analyze the situation of women in Russia, to share our thoughts with the sale in other countries.

group can meet once a month or less often (more often), as participants decide. Activities of the group must meet the interests of the parties, but I can offer following areas:

1) The group may conduct discussions, both among members of the group to determine positions, and public debate to influence on the public consciousness.

2) Write articles. Maybe publish a journal twice a year.

3) The need to organize demonstrations.

4) To organize courses samoobrony and learn the tactics of street fighting.

5) Share information on women's health, alternative medicine etc. Share experiences with each other and with society.

6) Organize other activities more broadly.

How Long To Timing Belts Last In Honda Pilots

NEW MILLENNIUM Will not pass!

Ripens new initiative, an international conspiracy with the chain of supply of all the ears and raise the banner of revolution to the end of this century. Stop waiting for the implementation of our utopia! We have a year to turn the world upside down, to stop him slipping into the abyss, to blow up the system into pieces and throw it away the charred remains of the landfill of history. Our goal is simple - to make the 2000 end of the world in the form we know it.
In each city, in all parts of light will pass raids (on jobs, company), cash will be withdrawn, the owners better disappear now, while they still have a chance. All the land, which before someone is held, will be used collectively by all comers. All credit cards will be slashed, shopping stops, money will be used for wiping Zadov and noses. We will no longer obliged to do anything other than their own lives. Rather than continue to to live as before, are we sorganizuemsya to ensure their needs - all of our time will be free, we will have a world to roam on it.
To take part in the destruction of the surrounding reality, everyone should find a dozen or more friends to the end of 1999 and promise to start the orgy of destruction as the clock strikes midnight century. No need to wait when the masses begin to act - the masses are waiting for what we start and join us as soon as they realize By the end of the day there shall be no one who could arrest them.
blind trust in fate, we aspire in the twenty-first century at a rate which laughs over the centuries.
Improving human domestication ready to finish for us. Become a beast of burden or a nice handmade dog, turn around, sit down on its hind legs, Freeze. All that is wild in us all, that strives for freedom, must be destroyed; mad dogs to euthanize by lethal injection (the most humane view of the death penalty) if the shacks are too crowded. Humbled to be humble and fear will become a permanent human condition. Security will seek its own.
Too many lives have been destroyed in a maze of slavery.
human body is completely exhausted, it is only a shadow of his former self awaiting the decision of their fate. It looks fun to cheat time and relieve the pain.
But in life there is so much fun! What the hell it all so hard? Why do we entertain? Who, after all, forced upon us all these pravila7
They say that life is beautiful that our share is getting better. Technology, control of the organization - all designed to ease our lives. Everything that happens - we benefit.
The simpler things seem, the more cautious they really are. We prefer not to make it so much and what and how much we really need not reflect on the actual processes of production, distribution and recycling what we use. Organization of life is a mystery to us. We no longer believe in what we can to organize their lives independently, without intermediaries, without having to have someone sitting behind the wheel of this car. Our lack of independence is so great that we have become slaves to the system, which is becoming stronger to the extent that, as we increasingly falter. We have become their worst enemies.
But there are those among us who hate their slaves, who wants to regain inviolability of their personal lives, their independence and autonomy, their lives. We say no! " the so-called progress of the computer age. We refuse to go further along the path of dehumanization and happily accept anything that promises a computer millennium.
We are stronger than the forces that put pressure on us. We can set its rules and declare the year following the year 1999 0, dawn of the new century. All will begin when we kill the beast, and will announce their world.
passion for destruction is a creative passion! Long live the passion!