E. Heroux writes:

"The Fascist Church"

E. Heroux

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter." — Adolf Hitler, in a speech on April 12th, 1922.

It goes without saying that only some Christians are fascists; that not all Christians are fascists; that a few Christians went so far as to oppose fascism, for example under the Nazis in Germany. A few openly opposed Hitler's plans even when threatened with punishment of death, as in the tragic case of the Christian intellectual, Dietrich Bonhoeffer. But it doesn't go without saying that most Christians in Germany willingly followed Hitler and supported the rise of the Nazis. And it doesn't go without saying that a substantial number of American Christians are now crypto-fascists as I began to suggest in a previous blog.

It bears repeating this history lesson here as nobody was taught it, (and I do apologize for the seeming cliche of having to drag in tired old Hitler yet again!). Be we live in ahistorical times where the entire past is like some dark basement we've never wondered about, but rather papered over with childish myths and Hollywood fantasies; where "reality-based" is somehow wrongheaded; where people shake their heads in denial when confronted with facts; where ahistoric anachronism rules in vapid ignorance not only of the past but equally of our own present, about which few know anything at all worth knowing. So, off my pulpit and onto just the facts:

Marx and Makhno Meet McDonalds's:

Casualized Workers in Paris Win Several Strikes,
Honorably Lose Another with Combined
Union and Non-Union, Legal and Illegal Tactics

Loren Goldner (1), Break Their Haughty Power

Over the last several years, a revolving network of militants in Paris, France, have developed a strategy and tactics for winning strikes by marginal, low-paid, outsourced and immigrant workers against international chains, in situations where the strikers are often ignored by unions to which they nominally belong, or are actually obstructed by them.

While some of these methods benefit from aspects of French labor law that are more favorable to strikers than one finds in the backward U.S. of A, the overall strategy can certainly find its uses in other countries.

Jack X writes:

"The Ward Churchill Example
Media Profits and Manipulation as Pathology

Jack X

On September 11, 2001, immediately following the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, renowned author and academic Ward Churchill wrote a stream of consciousness essay in response to the events. The essay, titled, “Some People Push Back” on the Justice of Roosting Chickens, was written at a point in American history when emotions ran through the roof, and it seems that Churchill felt the need to put a logical argument on the table concerning a dangerous United States foreign policy. In the article, he very correctly pointed out that, as the inhabitants of the land occupied by the United States, we bear responsibility for the actions of the US government. As Churchill states in the piece, “All told, Iraq has a population of about 18 million. The 500,000 kids lost to date thus represent something on the order of 25 percent of their age group.” This statement was said over two years before the 2003 invasion of Iraq which has accounted for exponentially more civilian casualties.

s0metim3s writes:

"Movement"
Giorgio Agamben

Do we have to keep using the concept of movement? If it signals a threshold of politicisation of the unpolitical, can there be a movement that is different from civil war? or

In what direction can we rethink the concept of movement and its relation to biopolitics? [...]

[The rest of the translation, by Arianna Bove, is here: Generations Online ]

Original mp3 of discussions can be found here:
Global Project

Go to Nomad University.

s0metim3s writes:

"Critique of Formal Democracy and Representation"

Alessandro Pandolfi

War is what allows the populist sovereign to realise the identification between poeple and sovereignty. War is the use by sovereignty of communication, what I call poverty: the fact of not having the option to subtract oneself form a mechanism where the will of all is immediately the will of the sovereign.

Sovereignty and multitude break this Janus but insist on the same points, and constitute the real. Our teachers told us that this relation is an absolute dualism, between command and the multitude the same tensions arise. Both from the side of command and of multitude we have exited representation (for all the reasons we know already). But why has the multitude exited from representation? There are reasons to believe the multitude is a non representative subject.

First, the multitude must be kept in political passivity and in productive activism, active in production and consumption. It is the most active subject ever conceived in the history materialist production. Second, the latitude of the multitude is unlimited. There is no political codified status to it. The political is all in production, as Virno says, and this makes political representation intolerable. Thirdly, disobedience has no relation to representaiton because it contests the fundamental law of sovereignty: the princile of political obligation. Fourthly exodus, we try and build new grammars, so how can we go to parliament and dislocate the issues of a political argument? It can only mean not accepting the very parliamentary representaiton itself. Fifthly the relation between norm and life: in the multitude the norm is no longer transcendent but rather it is life norm, the path life gives itself as it goes along. So how is this representable?

[The rest of the translation, by Arianna Bove, is here: Generations Online ]

Al Jazeera 'For Sale' Is a Sad Sign For All

Linda S. Heard

It is been bombed, banned and lambasted. It is been accused of aiding
terrorists
and serving as a mouthpiece for Osama Bin Laden as well as Saddam Hussain.

It boasts huge audiences throughout the Arab world because it reflects
public opinion and yet advertisers treat it like the plague, fearful of
offending the governments it regularly attacks.

I'm referring, of course, to Al Jazeera, the satellite television station
that put tiny Qatar firmly on the international map.

Fantasies and Ultimatums: Turkey and the EU
Ali Tonak
January 31, 2005

On December 17, 2004 Turkey's long-awaited dream took a critical
turning point. After 41 years of tease, the European Union winked and
offered a date for initiating membership negotiations. This
relationship, and the Turkish ambition to join the European Union,
dates back to September 1963 when the European Common Market, the
pre-cursor to the European Union, and Turkey signed the Ankara
Agreement. Since then, Turkey has witnessed three military coups (two
proper ones in 1971 and 1980 and a "post-modern coup" in 1997), four
devaluations of its extremely unstable currency and a 15 year civil war
costing the Turkish Government more then $120 billion and claiming the
lives of more then 30,000 people (mostly Kurds).

The news of the increased possibility that Turkey might join the EU
made news around the world and raised predictable and mildly boring
questions such as: is this the antithesis of "the clash of
civilizations" or does this mean that Turkey will now recognize Cyprus?
But what are the real issues involved in Turkey's entry into the EU
that are being carefully tucked away?

Counter-What?

Is Europe a compassionate, multilateral and self-determining entity
that strategically sets itself against an aggressive, unilateral and
imperialist US? Not necessarily. Europe has participated in a number of
recent battles, ranging from the First Gulf War to the bombing of
Yugoslavia, not to mention its complicity in the UN sanctions on Iraq
that have killed upwards of 1.5 million Iraqis, now forgotten in
history. Italy, Poland and Spain have all contributed symbolically and
Britain significantly to the most recent invasion and occupation of
Iraq, reaffirming their commitment to US imperialism. While seemingly
anti-war, both France and Germany have refused to take a firm stance
against the invasion within the narrow confines of the UN.

Europe does take up a counter-position to the U.S. but it isn't one of
peace against war. Rather, European policymakers want to regain their
historic position of domination within the economic realm against the
United States. This strategy is ultimately one of neo-liberalism.

nEU-Liberalism

The European Union was conceived as a neo-liberal project and this has
framed the conditions of Turkey's entrance. Part of the Ankara
Agreement was geared towards entrance into the European Customs Union
(January 1, 1996) before entering into the Union proper. The Customs
Union, like other free trade zones, removes tariffs and other so-called
trade barriers, privatizes state run industries and makes labor markets
"flexible."

Economic prosperity, stemming from capital inflow, is one of the shams
designed to sell the EU to Turkish citizens. Any capital inflow takes
the form of portfolio investment for speculation rather than of direct
productive investment and as such intensifies the fragility of the
Turkish financial structure. Some supporters of the Customs Union and
the EU argue that -- unlike western hemispheric free trade agreements
(NAFTA, FTAA, CAFTA)-- the EU also guarantees free movement of
individuals and not just resources and commodities. Currently, this
principle is only talk.

"Freedom of movement" is the primary concern EU countries have over
accepting Turkey into the EU, since ultimately it means a greater
work-force for a limited number of desirable jobs. This concern is also
why a 7-year waiting period was imposed on the 10 countries who joined
the EU last May. The potential for complete "freedom of movement" is
bleaker for Turkey, due to a huge youth population ready for work (25
million under 15), the large number of Turkish immigrants already in
the EU (3.2 million), who would instantaneously become European
citizens, and also the rise of xenophobic nationalist politicians such
as Le Pen in France and Haider in Austria. With the hypothetical
entrance year of 2014 and a 7-year waiting period, the earliest date
for work-force movement would be 2021. (A previous date for "freedom of
movement" of December 1, 1986 was agreed upon in the Ankara Agreement).
Until at least 2021, and presumably later, capital will flow in and out
of Turkey while people will be kept behind borders.

The talk of the impending EU membership is already pushing more
neo-liberal policies on Turkey. On January 3, 2005 the EU announced its
disapproval of generic medicine produced in Turkey. A week later on
January 11, another ultimatum was issued: Turkey wasn't fulfilling its
promise to import 21.5 tons of meat per year from EU countries. Turkish
officials argue that this is due to the threat of Mad Cow disease, a
reasonable concern. Another, just as reasonable concern, is the
undermining of the significantly large animal husbandry in Turkey. Now
that Turkey stands on the threshold of full membership, the European
Commission has a much greater pull on Turkey's policy-making and the
ultimatums appear in rapid-fire succession.

Unfortunately, constraints imposed by globalized capitalism and
competition are slowly dismantling the European economics of social
democracy. In this respect, it can be said that the European Union is
becoming less European. This is happening from inside and outside of
Europe. World Trade Organization rulings, such as the one against the
preferential treatment European countries gave to former colonies,
exemplify the external influences.

Internally, European lobbies for capital, such as the European
Roundtable of Industrialists (ERT), form the European Commission's
major influence. In April 2000, at a meeting of the Trilateral
Commission in Tokyo, ERT member Baron Daniel Jannssen (head of Belgian
chemical firm Solvay) illuminated the interaction between the Round
Table and the Commission, stating: "The Commission plays the lead role
in many areas of economic importance and it is extremely open to the
business community, so that when businessmen like me face an issue that
needs political input, we have access to excellent Commissioners."

Military Might?

The key to why there is a European push towards including Turkey into
the EU is the military power that Turkey possesses. With 650,000
members, Turkey's military is the second largest armed force in NATO
after the US. The size of Turkey's army is a direct product of
long-lasting US military aid due to Turkey's shared border with the
former USSR. The geopolitical (mis)fortune has been continued in 21st
century in which Turkey is now seen as the gateway to Southwest Asia,
bordering Iraq. One thing that has remained constant in the past 50
years is the importance the Turkish geography has played for US
imperialism, from the chilling Cold War to the burning War on Terror.

A European Commission report concerning the advantages and
disadvantages of Turkey's inclusion into the club stated that "with its
expansive army it will be able to contribute to the EU's security and
defense policy." (Radikal, October 1, 2004). Last year, Spanish
Newspaper ABC asked the EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs,
Javier Solana: "Is there a place for Turkey in the EU?" Solana
responded: "We need Turkey for our security" (Cumhuriyet, October 18,
2004). Incidentally, Solana is NATO's former Secretary General.

While affirming that all military institutions are rooted in oppression
of both populations and their members, the Turkish military is not the
conventional army and could compete with Israel in its ferocity, dirty
tactics and complete disregard for human rights. It has gained a
significant expertise in organizing counter-insurgency groups,
torturing and eliminating resistance movements within the geography of
the Middle East. This experience is worth great value in the years to
come. And if one theory around the war on Iraq is true, that the
control over Middle Eastern resources is in fact about impacting the
European economy, then Turkey is the trophy nation state.

Richard Boucher, then spokesperson for the State Department, said on
october 9, 2002 "Because we're not a member, we have no formal role in
determining the European Union's relations with third countries. We've
long believed, however, that Turkey's future is in Europe; it's in the
strategic interest of the United States and the European Union, of
Turkey and the European Union, that Turkey and the European Union build
the closest possible relationship." The neo-cons in the US are
calculating another state to add to their obedient, well-behaved and
"new" Europe to contribute to the rift they have created. And the EU is
accepting another Trojan Horse because it has the foresight to see that
the control over Turkey will be an important battle in the years to
come.

Human Rights the Wrong Way

The Turkish left has two main prevailing analyses of the EU debate. The
first is an acceptance of Turkey's ambitions to gain EU membership with
fingers crossed, hoping for the best. This position posits the
existence of a Europe different than defined by the neo-liberals: that
while capital calls the shots there is a historical tradition of
socialism rooted in society, from revolutionary thinkers to trade
unions, and that solidarity within the European working class is the
strategy to pursue. It is hard not to agree with this line of thinking
but while there is more than one "Europe" there is only one EU; the one
outlined above. The Turkish left is at a strategic junction where it
will either choose to become obsolete or actively partake in European
constructs such as the European Social Forum (ESF) and others who are
actively working to define another Europe. The ESF and the Europe of
working class solidarity and struggle does not require the EU, in fact
requires the elimination of it.

The second is a flat out rejection of Turkey's ambitions.

Yet why is there such broad support for the EU within Turkey? According
both to private and to state-run surveys, support for entering the EU
is between 70% and 80%. One factor which I will not go into much detail
is an underlining longing and inferiority complex within Turkish
society to become more "European" i.e. "modern" and sophisticated. The
origins of this go to the formation of the Turkish Republic in 1923,
when the multi-culturality of the Republic's geography was rejected by
the revolutionary cadre and a white Europeanness was imposed. Another
reason for such strong support is that the same public that despises
the IMF and its policies has been delicately shielded from the EU's
neo-liberalism. Yet a much more concrete reason for broad support also
exists.

The first pro-EU rally was held in Diyarbakir, regarded as the capital
of Kurdistan. Thousands of Kurds converged from around southeastern
Turkey to say "Yes to Differences! No to Discrimination!" There is such
a deep longing for certain rights in Turkey, namely freedom of speech,
freedom from state terror, freedom to assert your ethnic identity, that
this longing has overshadowed all other aspects of the EU. And to give
credit to where it is due, pressure from EU authorities has resulted in
the abolishment of the death penalty, the freedom of Kurds to speak and
communicate in Kurdish, and a reformed and more humane criminal code.
These are all crucial for a democratic and free society, but they need
to be rooted in social struggle not in European bureaucratic
imposition.

A conceivable scenario is a complete backfire resulting from years of
partial acceptances, no freedom of travel and work in Europe and no
full membership leading to an impulsive anti-EU backlash, a complete
reversal of all reforms made and increased state repression in Turkey.
*Turkey has had a military presence in Northern Cyprus since 1974 when
it invaded the island in response to a military coup initiated by a
Greek military junta, effectively creating two separated populations.
Since Cyprus was initiated into the EU with nine other countries last
May, Turkey now faces the challenge of internationally recognizing the
southern portion of the island.

Ali Tonak can be reached at: ali@riseup.net

Main sources for this article were:

Emrah Göker, "How the we get into a different "Europe" Gelecek,
Worker's Struggle (http://www.iscimucadelesi.net/),

Susan George, Another World is Possible If...

Andy Storey "The European Project: Dismantling Social Democracy,
Globalising Neoliberalism"

Issues of Turkish newspapers Cumhuriyet, Birgun, and Radikal.

"Fantasies and Ultimatums: Turkey and the EU"
Ali Tonak

On December 17, 2004 Turkey's long-awaited dream took a critical turning point. After 41 years of tease, the European Union winked and offered a date for initiating membership negotiations. This relationship, and the Turkish ambition to join the European Union, dates back to September 1963 when the European Common Market, the pre-cursor to the European Union, and Turkey signed the Ankara Agreement. Since then, Turkey has witnessed three military coups (two proper ones in 1971 and 1980 and a "post-modern coup" in 1997), four devaluations of its extremely unstable currency and a 15 year civil war costing the Turkish Government more then $120 billion and claiming the lives of more then 30,000 people (mostly Kurds).

The news of the increased possibility that Turkey might join the EU made news around the world and raised predictable and mildly boring questions such as: is this the antithesis of "the clash of civilizations" or does this mean that Turkey will now recognize Cyprus? But what are the real issues involved in Turkey's entry into the EU that are being carefully tucked away?

Oread Daily writes:

"Global Warming and Inuit Human Rights"

Oread Daily

The United States is about to be charged with human rights
violations for contributing substantially to global warming. The Inuit, whose homeland stretches from the northeastern tip of
Russia across Alaska and northern Canada to parts of Greenland, plan
to seek a ruling from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
saying that the actions of the US are threatening their existence.

The Inuit plan is part of a broader shift in the debate over human-
caused climate change evident among participants in the 10th round
of international talks taking place in Buenos Aires aimed at
averting dangerous human interference with the climate system. Inuit
leaders said they planned to announce the effort at the climate
meeting today. Representatives of poor countries and communities —
from the Arctic fringes to the atolls of the tropics to the flanks
of the Himalayas — say they are imperiled by rising temperatures
and seas through no fault of their own. They are casting the issue
as no longer simply an environmental problem but as an assault on
their basic human rights.

Anonymous Comrade writes:

"Flexwork"

Precair Forum Provocation

This is a further "provocation" for the Precair Forum scheduled for 12 February in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. It was composed by the group preparing the workshop about flexibilised work, i.e. that performed under zero-hour contracts, with minimal contracts or labour statutes, or through job-agencies. It is intended to spark some debate at the forum about what role "flexworkers" could play in social movements in the Netherlands. Other provocations and texts are here.

"We are the only ones who can represent us."

The current trade union movement is still oriented on the ‘trade’, the profession. We flexworkers, on the other hand, no longer exercise a profession, we no longer have a trade. Last autumn’s trade union actions (i.e. in the Netherlands) have relied in great measure on traditional segments of the working class: dockworkers, public transport, construction… Flexworkers weren’t visible in any of these actions as a recognizable part of the working class. Which is logical because we don’t work in any fixed sector, we work in all of them, we hop from one to another. The union movement knows these changes of the labor market and of the working class. She does not, however, draw any conclusions from it which have consequences for the structure of its organization. The current trade union movement does not, as it were, consider us as ‘workers’ in the full sense of that word.