Wednesday, September 28, 2011

COOPERATIVES AND SOCIALISM: THE BOOK

Hmm, gotta think it over a bit


The book Cooperatives and Socialism: A Cuban Perspective sounds interesting to me.  Unfortunately it is only available and Spanish and I am one of those dumb Americans who only speak English.  Alas, I'll have to wait and hope it comes out in English.  Meanwhile, I've only got about twenty books on my reading pile.  


The following comes from SOLIDARITYECONOMY.


COOPERATIVES AND SOCIALISM IN CUBA

SolidarityEconomy.net via Cuba’s Socialist Renewal

Cooperatives and Socialism: A Cuban Perspective is a new Cuban book published in Spanish earlier this year. A compilation of essays, it is divided into four parts. Part One introduces cooperatives; Part Two examines the views of Marxist theoreticians including Karl Marx, V. I. Lenin and Che Guevara on the role of cooperatives in a socialist-oriented society; Part Three looks at the experiences of cooperatives in other countries from Spain to Venezuela; while Part Four analyses the Cuban experience of cooperatives as part of its socialist project.

This important and timely compilation is edited by Camila Piñeiro Harnecker. Avid readers of my blog will recall that I translated and posted a commentary by Camila, titled "Cuba Needs Changes", back in January.

Camila, who lives in Cuba, holds a degree in sustainable development from the University of Berkeley, California. She is a professor at the Centre for Studies on the Cuban Economy at Havana University, and her works have been published both in Cuba and outside the island. She is also, incidently, the daughter of Chilean-Cuban journalist and author Marta Harnecker and her late husband, Manuel "Red Beard" Piñeiro, who headed revolutionary Cuba's state security and intelligence service for many years.

Camila hopes her book may be published in English soon. In the meantime, she has kindly agreed to allow me to translate and publish this extract (about a third) from her preface to Cooperatives and Socialism with permission from a prospective publisher. I hope that sharing this extract with readers of my blog will make you want to read the whole book. If it does become available in English I'll post the details here.
At the end of the text you'll find the footnotes, translated from the Spanish.
Cooperatives and Socialism: A Cuban Perspective
Camila Piñeiro Harnecker, Editor
* * *
Preface (extract)
By Camila Piñeiro Harnecker
Translation: Marce Cameron
This book arises from the urgent need for us to make a modest contribution to the healthy “birth” of the new Cuban cooperativism and its subsequent spread. Given that cooperatives are foreshadowed as one of the organisational forms of labour in the non-state sector in the Draft Economic and Social Policy Guidelines of the Sixth Cuban Communist Party Congress, the Dr. Martin Luther King Memorial Centre approached me to compile this book. The Centre has made an outstanding contribution to popular education aimed at nurturing and strengthening the emancipatory ethical values, critical thinking, political skills and organisational abilities indispensable for the conscious and effective participation of social subjects. The Centre considers it timely and necessary to support efforts to raise awareness about a type of self-managed economic entity whose principles, basic characteristics and potentialities are unknown in Cuba. There is every indication that such self-managed entities could play a significant role in our new economic model.
For this to happen we must grapple with the question at the heart of this compilation: Is the production cooperative an appropriate form of the organisation of labour for a society committed to building socialism? There is no doubt that this question cannot be answered in a simplistic or absolute fashion. Our aim here is to take only a first step towards answering this question from a Cuban perspective in these times of change and rethinking, guided by the anxieties and hopes that many Cubans have about our future.
When it is proposed that the production cooperative be one – though not the only – form of enterprise in Cuba, three concerns above all are frequently encountered: some consider it too “utopian” and therefore inefficient; others, on the basis of the cooperatives that have existed in Cuba, suspect that they will not have sufficient autonomy[1] or that they will be “too much like state enterprises”; while others still, accustomed to the control over enterprise activities exercised by a state that intervenes directly and excessively in enterprise management, reject cooperativism as too autonomous and therefore a “seed of capitalism”. This book tries to take account of all these concerns, though there is no doubt that more space would be required to address them adequately.
The first concern is addressed to some extent with the data provided in the first part of the book regarding the existence and economic activity of cooperatives worldwide today. This shows that the cooperative is not an unachievable fantasy that disregards the objective and subjective requirements of viable economic activity. Thus, the experiences of cooperatives in the Basque Country, Uruguay, Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela that are summarised in the third part of the book demonstrate that cooperatives can be more efficient than capitalist enterprises, even on the basis of the hegemonic capitalist conception of efficiency that ignores externalities, i.e. the impact of any enterprise activity on third parties.
The efficiency of cooperatives is greater still if we take into consideration all of the positive outcomes inherent in their management model, which can be summarised as the full human development[2] of its members and, potentially, of local communities. The democratic abilities and attitudes that cooperative members develop through their participation in its management can be utilised in other social spaces and organisations. Moreover, genuine cooperatives free us from some of the worst of the negative externalities (dismissals, environmental contamination, loss of ethical values) generated by enterprises oriented towards profit maximisation rather than the satisfaction of the needs of their workers.
It’s not possible to take up here the arguments of enterprise administration theorists who hold that cooperatives are inefficient. These criticisms are based, in general, on the fact that democratic decision-making takes time, ignoring the fact that this participation is also the principal source of the advantages of cooperatives over other, non-democratic enterprises. In addition, they condemn cooperatives for not resorting to dismissals, as well as for a supposed tendency to undertake little investment due to the maximisation of member incomes and their aversion to risk. However, such behaviour is not revealed in the practices of the cooperatives analysed in this book, practices which also demonstrate the advantages of democratically managed enterprises in terms of the positive motivation of cooperative members. While the negative incentive of the fear of dismissal is undoubtedly effective in eliciting certain behaviours, not even this is sufficient. The tendency of capitalist enterprises to incorporate methods of democratic management suggests that they understand that participation in decision-making is needed in order to achieve the levels of worker motivation necessary for competitive success in the capitalist market.
We hope that those who, on the basis of the Cuban experience, doubt that it is possible for a cooperative to be truly autonomous and democratic will find this concern adequately addressed in the first part of the compilation. Here, when we explain what a cooperative is, we point to the basic differences between a cooperative and a socialist state enterprise. In a genuine cooperative, the participation of the cooperative members in management does not depend on the enterprise management council deciding to involve them more in decision-making; such participation is a founding principle, concretised in the rights of members established in the internal rules of functioning and exercised through bodies and decision-making procedures that are drawn up and approved by the cooperative members themselves. Although the degree of autonomy of the new Cuban cooperatives will depend, of course, on the content of the anticipated legislation on cooperatives and on the implementation of the regulations it establishes, the Draft Economic and Social Policy Guidelines seem to indicate that they will be granted the powers of self-management that characterise cooperatives everywhere, and without which democratic self-management is impossible. We hope the legislation resolves the deficiencies of the current legal framework for Cuban agricultural cooperatives, which are analysed in the fourth part of this book.
The third concern, that which gives rise to the inclination to reject the cooperative as an option for socialist enterprise organisation because it is considered too autonomous and therefore incompatible with broader social interests, takes up the most space in this book. Beginning with the first essay in the compilation we attempt to demonstrate that genuine cooperatives function according to a logic that is diametrically opposed to that of capitalist enterprises. Instead of profit maximisation for the shareholders, the driving force of cooperatives is the satisfaction of the human development needs of their members, needs which are inevitably bound up with those of local communities and of the nation, and even of humanity as a whole. Throughout the book it is suggested that while it’s true that cooperatives cannot be incorporated into the national economic plan or regional or local development strategies though mechanisms of coercion or imposition, it is possible to harmonise and coordinate the orientation of their activities towards the fulfilment of social needs identified through the planning processes, above all if the latter are democratic and respond to the interests of the surrounding communities or those to which cooperative members belong.
However, to argue for the relevance of cooperatives as part of a socialist project we need to begin by clarifying what we mean when we refer to these socioeconomic entities. In the first part of this book, Jesus Cruz[3] and I try to define the cooperative as simply as possible. Here, it is important to stress that in the international context, cooperatives carry out a great diversity of economic activities, and that a not insignificant part of the global population either belongs to one of these organisations or directly benefits from their activities. This should not be surprising if we consider that the form of the organisation of labour that characterises a cooperative, self-management, has existed since the emergence of humanity. The cooperative has persisted as the most common organisational form chosen by groups of people that seek to resolve common problems through their own efforts.
What differentiates a production cooperative (referred to hereafter as “cooperative” since we emphasise this type[4]) from other forms of enterprise organisation is emphasised, based on an analysis of the cooperative principles[5] that have contributed to the success of these organisations since the emergence of the first modern cooperatives. These early modern cooperatives understood the imperative of achieving an effective enterprise management that would allow them to survive within the more savage and monopolistic capitalism of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. To the degree to which cooperatives have observed these principles in their daily practice, they have benefited from the intrinsic advantages of this form of enterprise. These advantages ultimately derive from a democratic management model that permits the harmonisation of individual interests with those of the collective (i.e. of the common interests of cooperative members) and even, though in a less axiomatic way, with the social interests of the local communities with which they interact the most.
The observance of these principles is also what allows cooperatives to reduce the inevitable corrupting effects of the capitalist surroundings in which the majority of them have developed. The capitalist environment privileges individual over collective solutions; makes it difficult to achieve equality by generating and reproducing differences in abilities and social status among cooperative members; denies them the time needed for democratic decision-making; punishes genuine acts of solidarity; and promotes the super-exploitation of human beings and nature. While this undoubtedly limits the horizon of human emancipation – the overcoming of the barriers that stand in the way of us fulfilling our human potentialities – an emancipatory dynamic has always been latent in genuine cooperatives. The capitalist environment is not an absolute barrier to cooperatives becoming spaces in which these principles are put into practice, and in which the values that such practices instill may develop. The experiences of successful cooperatives presented in this book demonstrate the economic and ethical-political potential of these organisational principals, above all when cooperatives that embody these principles are able to link up with other self-managed entities, and when they promote the approval of laws and regulations that undermine the prejudices that exist regarding cooperatives in the legal framework and in the practices of capitalist enterprises and state institutions.
As Julio Gambina and Gabriela Roffinelli argue, the cooperative should be seen as one of the many forms of the self-managed social organisation[6] that will allow us to transcend the capitalist logic of maximising narrow individual interests. Because it takes no account of human nature and its social and ecological constraints, such economic “rationality” is in fact irrational and suicidal. For as long as it pervades our daily practice, the logic of capitalism will not only distance us ever more from the socialist or communist ideal of complete social justice; it is also taking us to the brink of an irreversible rupture in the dynamic equilibrium of the biosphere.
The rationality that drives a cooperative, as with all forms of genuine self-management, is the necessity for a group of people to satisfy common needs and interests. It is based on the recognition that they share collective interests that correspond to some degree with their own individual interests, and that it is collective action that allows them to pursue these interests most effectively. This, together with the recognition that all its members are human beings with the equal right to participate in decision-making, results in democratic management in which the cooperative members decide not only who the leaders are and how revenues should be allocated, but also how to organise the process of production: what is produced, how and for whom.
The managerial autonomy of the collective that makes up the cooperative – the ability of this group of people to make decisions independently – is the key reason why the historical experiences of socialist construction have rejected their relevance to the building of socialism and have relegated them to agriculture or marginal economic spaces. Some see in autonomy a disconnection from, or a wanting to have nothing to do with, social interests and the strategic objectives embodied in the socialist economic plan, and ask the following questions: Is it possible to “hitch” an autonomous enterprise to a planned economy? Can a cooperative respond not only to the interests of its members but also to wider social interests? When one thinks in terms of absolute autonomy and authoritarian (i.e. undemocratic) planning, if the interests of collectives (groups) are considered a priori to be indifferent to social interests, then the answer is obviously negative. The authors of this book are motivated by the certainty that the answer is affirmative. We argue the case here, though we are unable to respond to all of the questions about how this can be achieved in practice.
Here, we must point out that we make no claim to have solved this practical problem which dates back to the times in which socialist theories were first elaborated. It is perhaps more of a conceptual problem than a practical one, since there are examples of collective and even private enterprises that satisfy social needs more effectively, and that have established decentralised horizontal relations that are more socially responsible, than some socialist state enterprises. Our focus here is on the form of organisation of labour within a productive unit and not in the economic system as a whole. The analysis of how a socialist-oriented society should guide the management of enterprises, or of the form in which the fruits of cooperative labour should be distributed in society, are thus topics that we do not attempt to grapple with in this initial approach to the problem. However, we do put forward some ideas in relation to these themes throughout the book.
The “fruits” of cooperative labour that interest us most here are the human beings themselves that are “produced” as a consequence of the particular form in which the productive process is organised in the enterprise: the social subjects that work together as members of a cooperative and who are motivated to give the best of themselves to the success of their enterprise and, potentially, to local communities.
What differentiates a cooperative member from an employee of either a capitalist or socialist state enterprise? In light of the experiences of cooperatives analysed in this compilation, the member of a genuine producer cooperative, or other form of self-managed entity, is the true owner of their enterprise and thus feels like it. He or she, together with the collective they belong to, participate in a conscious and active way in strategic and managerial decision-making, as well as in their implementation and in verifying that decisions are carried out. What characterises a cooperative is not legal ownership of the means of production (premises, land, machinery) by the collective or group of people that comprise it, but the fact that decisions regarding the use of means of production are made by the cooperative as a whole, either directly or by representatives that they elect, in such a way and with such powers as decided by the collective. Albeit limited to the cooperative enterprise and its activity, this is a concrete form of self-management, of the exercise of popular sovereignty.
Given this, for Gambina and Roffinelli the relevance of various forms of worker self-management, in particular cooperatives, to the building of socialism depends on the degree to which they serve as an “an apprenticeship in administration outside the control of capital”. Thus the value of the cooperative lies in the nature of its daily practice, in the social relations of production that are established among its members: relations between associated producers rather than between wage-workers and capitalists. Cooperative members are not obliged to renounce, in exchange for wages or salaries, their capacity to think, be creative and make decisions. They exercise these capacities via democratic mechanisms in conditions of equal rights and duties. There are no bosses and subordinates in a cooperative but an organisational structure and a technical division of labour that have been collectively drawn up and approved.
Thus cooperatives can be valuable weapons in the struggle to build socialism. They are not the only such weapons, they are insufficient by themselves and are not devoid of risks and challenges, but they are nevertheless tools – perfectible and adaptable – for socialist construction. They are tools that we should not allow to be abandoned due to either state-centric dogma or the misconception that only what is privately owned and managed, and operates according to capitalist logic, works. As Gambina and Roffinelli argue, “... there is a dialectical relationship between socialism and cooperativism that is either promoted or discouraged in specific socio-historical conditions.” The extent to which cooperatives contribute to the building of socialism depends on the context in which they arise and develop, and on the relationship they establish with this context.
Footnotes
[1] By “autonomy” we mean the ability to make decisions independently. As we shall see, no social organisation anywhere in the world is completely autonomous since its options are always conditioned in one way or another by its social context.
[2] The term full or integral “human development” is used to make clear our rejection of the progressivist and economistic mythology that reduces development to achieving an abundance of material goods, without taking into account that development also has intrinsic ethical and spiritual dimensions, in which people can achieve professional fulfilment and the realisation of their potentialities as social beings.
[3] A brief biography of each of the contributors to this compilation is included at the end of the book.
[4] Cooperatives can be classified as either production cooperatives, in which cooperative members unite in order to collectively produce goods or provide services; or consumer cooperatives, in which the members acquire goods or services collectively.
[5] Essentially, as is clarified in the first contribution to this compilation, a cooperative must be: (1) open to members joining and leaving and flexible with regard to its internal organisation; (2) run democratically; (3) based on the labour of its members; (4) managerially autonomous; (5) prioritise the education and training of its members and the general public; (6) establish mechanisms for cooperation with other cooperatives; and (7) committed to the community.
[6] Other forms of enterprise self-management are the various forms of co-management (in which the work collective participates in the management of the enterprise together with the legal owners of the means of production, or owns shares in the company); professional partnerships (professional associations in which members provide services on an individual basis, but pool a part of their incomes to acquire services and goods collectively; they are usually limited liability companies); associations, etc. There are also forms of self-management outside the economic enterprise sphere, such as self-management in regions, communities and local governments.

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

THE MAN WHO INVENTED NAZI MOBILE GAS CHAMBER AND WANTED TO SPY ON FIDEL

HIS INVENTION
After the defeat of the Nazis in WWII, the western allies set up the Federal Republic of Germany and handed it over to many of those "defeated" Nazis to run.  In turn, those Nazis provided jobs for their friends...who were also Nazis. I am, of course, excluding those Nazis who moved to the USA and in particular helped launch its ballistic missile program in Huntsville, Alabama.  Even knowing all this it is hard to figure out how the guy who invented the mobile gas chamber which murdered scores and scores of Jews (and I would suppose scores of Roma, some Ruskies, commies, maybe a few gay folks found wandering the countryside who they didn't feel like shipping to the big extermination factories) got involved in a spy plot directed at Fidel Castro.


This little blurb I picked up at nzherald.co.nz...


Post-war spy agency hired Nazi criminal



Standartenfuhrer Walter Rauff (left) in 1945. Photo / AP

Standartenfuhrer Walter Rauff (left) in 1945. Photo / AP

The Nazi war criminal who invented the mobile gas chamber and used it to murder thousands of Jews was recruited by West German intelligence after World War II and tried unsuccessfully to spy on Cuba's revolutionary leader, Fidel Castro, new documents have revealed.

The disclosures concern Walter Rauff, a senior SS official who headed a Nazi research group which developed mobile gas chambers run on car exhaust fumes that were used at concentration camps throughout Germany and Nazi-occupied Poland and Ukraine during the Holocaust.

Rauff, who was wanted for more than 90,000 murders, was hired by West Germany's newly created BND intelligence service in 1958, even though its officials were apparently aware of his war crimes.

"His recruitment was in no way politically or morally defensible," Bodo Hechelhammer, the head of the BND's history research group, told Der Spiegel magazine.

The revelations about Rauff are contained in hitherto unpublished BND archive documents, which the agency is researching with the help of historians in an attempt to provide an accurate assessment of its murky past.

After fleeing an Allied prisoner of war camp in Germany after the war, Rauff escaped to Chile, where he was recruited for the BND by Rudolf Oessger-Roeder, another ex-SS man. The BND's records show that Rauff was paid 70,000 marks (about $60,500).

One of Rauff's tasks was to infiltrate Castro's Cuba to supply German intelligence with information about the revolutionary leader.

However, the documents show that Rauff's pay was halved in 1962 because his mission had failed.
Despite the BND's readiness to recruit Nazi war criminals, Germany's justice authorities caught up with Rauff in the 1960s. By the end of 1962, Chile had arrested him and had initiated steps to extradite him to West Germany to stand trial.

However, as the crime of murder was subject to a 15-year statute of limitation in Chile at that time, he was freed after spending only a few months in custody. Rauff never answered for his crimes, dying in Chile in 1984 at the age of 77.

The revelations follow recent disclosures that the BND mysteriously "lost" a 500-page file on the 99-year-old Nazi war criminal Alois Brunner.

WHY IS THE STATE OF ALABAMA AND THE USA AFRAID TO LET MARK MELVIN READ THIS BOOK

It is easy to answer the question I asked in the title above.  America is afraid of it's past because it is also it's present. The State, and the state, are busy trying to bury that past and hide the present.  Wouldn't want anyone getting pissed off or anything.  Wouldn't want to let the word get out that prison brutality and racism are as American as apple pie (to paraphrase a certain Mr. Brown).  The trouble is that the secret is out and most of white America really couldn't care less.  Until they come for them, they will go on happily about their lives.  Well, maybe not so happily these days where the time of a growing number of even white folks, especially young white folks, is spent looking for a job and worrying about tomorrow.  Amazingly these not so well off white folks still can't get it through their head that their skin privilege and their white identification, which help them feel better knowing that others are worse off then they, is cause for a good laugh for their more affluent white brothers and sisters.  But I digress...


I found the following at the Equal Justice Initiative web site.


Alabama Prison Bans Pulitzer Prize-Winning Book That Examines U.S. Racial History

SUPPORT PELICAN BAY PRISON HUNGER STRIKERS, SHUT DOWN SUPERMAX PRISONS

SOME CALL THIS HOME
The hunger strike is back on in California's prisons.  Since the first strike ended the administration has done nothing real to meet negotiated demands and in some cases has even made things worse.  Meanwhile, we all need to be looking at Supermax Prisons which are torture just in their existence.  I recently read a book on the Red Army Faction in Germany (see bottom of page).  Many of the documents and writings were about the prison conditions faced by the RAF prisoners.  The isolation and sensory deprivations crap developed by the German State have become commonplace in the USA today.  They are inhuman and should be seen as nothing by evil incarnate.  Whatever, you may think of the RAF, you might want to read some of their writings from prison.  They will tell you a lot about today.


The article below is from the SF Bay View (a regular source of info around here).



Call for prisoners in solitary nationwide to strike in solidarity with Pelican Bay


by Jeremy Pinson
Jeremy Pinson is a federal prisoner in the Florence, Colo., Ad-Max (Administrative Maximum), known as the Guantanamo of the Rockies, said to be even more restrictive than the Pelican Bay SHU.

[1]
Florence Ad-Max SWAT officers are depicted in this painting by Tommy Silverstein, who is reported to have been held in solitary confinement longer than any other federal prisoner.


I am serving 21 years in federal prison – in solitary confinement – because I protested the Iraq War. I was a congressional aide and my speaking out against a fraudulent war and senseless killing of Arabs earned me my spot here. I will not be intimidated and silenced.
I am with the men of Pelican Bay and am calling for a federal strike to support the men in PBSP as well as all those held in such housing in all U.S. prisons. I am lucky to be helped by a superb legal team and I intend to attack this system of injustice until I am no longer living.


I hope you will report on these facts and spread the word that I and the men in the federal system are behind those in California. We support them and we will do our part to bring justice to an unjust system.
I want to let you know, as it relates to the California hunger strike, that I have put together a coalition to sue the feds on behalf of the 400 inmates housed here at the supermax in indefinite solitary confinement.


For more information, Jeremy provides his address and the names and numbers of his three lawyers: Jeremy Pinson, 16267-064, ADX Florence, P.O. Box 8500, Florence CO 81226; his attorneys are Ed Aro (303) 863-2380, Deborah Golden (202) 775-0323 and Elisabeth Owen (720) 295-9389.

Petition: Restore Justice in America’s Prisons

This petition, which can be signed at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/endsmu2011/ [2], is the work of Jeremy Pinson.


The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) houses 207,000 inmates, 2,000 of whom are housed in Special Management Units. These units were created in 2008 and are located at Talladega, Ala., Florence, Colo., Oakdale, La., Lewisburg, Pa., and Allenwood, Pa.


The “SMU Program” is the subject of over 150 federal lawsuits challenging the brutal, inhumane conditions of those units resulting in one murder, one suicide, and hundreds of assaults and suicide attempts occurring in the 25 months since the program’s inception.


Prisoners are routinely beaten, sprayed with mace, restrained in chains for days, and deprived of meals, legal and religious items by federal employees with virtually no oversight or investigations into rampant corruption, misconduct and brutality.


Jailhouse lawyer Jeremy Pinson has spearheaded the litigation effort to reform the BOP’s system and end the infamous lockdown programs. His advocacy has been met with violent reprisal, harassment and retaliation to no avail. Now, in the ultimate move to silence his dissent, the government seeks to house him in the most secure prison in the U.S., the U.S. Penitentiary Administrative Maximum (Ad-Max or ADX) in the mountains of Colorado where the government routinely suppresses free speech by cutting off mail, telephone and visitation access to the media and the public.


Sign the petition today, asking President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder and BOP Director Harley Lappin to respect the rule of law, protect civil rights and end the oppressive SMU programs.



-------------------------------------------------------

The Red Army Faction, A Documentary History
Projectiles for the People

by André Moncourt and J. Smith
Kersplebedeb Publishing and PM Press 2009

The first in a two-volume series, this is by far the most in-depth political history of the Red Army Faction ever made available in English.
Projectiles for the People starts its story in the days following World War II, showing how American imperialism worked hand in glove with the old pro-Nazi ruling class, shaping West Germany into an authoritarian anti-communist bulwark and launching pad for its aggression against Third World nations. The volume also recounts the opposition that emerged from intellectuals, communists, independent leftists, and then – explosively – the radical student movement and countercultural revolt of the 1960s.
It was from this revolt that the Red Army Faction emerged, an underground organization devoted to carrying out armed attacks within the Federal Republic of Germany, in the view of establishing a tradition of illegal, guerilla resistance to imperialism and state repression. Through its bombs and manifestos the RAF confronted the state with opposition at a level many activists today might find difficult to imagine.
For the first time ever in English, this volume presents all of the manifestos and communiqués issued by the RAF between 1970 and 1977, from Andreas Baader’s prison break, through the 1972 May Offensive and the 1975 hostage-taking in Stockholm, to the desperate, and tragic, events of the “German Autumn” of 1977. The RAF’s three main manifestos – The Urban Guerilla Concept, Serve the People, and Black September – are included, as are important interviews with Spiegel and le Monde Diplomatique, and a number of communiqués and court statements explaining their actions.
Providing the background information that readers will require to understand the context in which these events occurred, separate thematic sections deal with the 1976 murder of Ulrike Meinhof in prison, the 1977 Stammheim murders, the extensive use of psychological operations and false-flag attacks to discredit the guerilla, the state’s use of sensory deprivation torture and isolation wings, and the prisoners’ resistance to this, through which they inspired their own supporters and others on the left to take the plunge into revolutionary action.
Drawing on both mainstream and movement sources, this book is intended as a contribution to the comrades of today – and to the comrades of tomorrow – both as testimony to those who struggled before and as an explanation as to how they saw the world, why they made the choices they made, and the price they were made to pay for having done so.

Product Details:
Edited by J. Smith and André Moncourt
Forewords by Russell "Maroon" Shoats and Bill Dunne
Published by Kersplebedeb and PM Press
ISBN: 978-1-60486-029-0
Pub Date February 2009
Format: Paperback
Page Count: 736 pages
Size: 6 by 9
Subjects: Politics, Armed Struggle

The work that was begun on this website several years ago has largely been superceded by the publication of Projectiles for the People -- eventually we hope to upload all of this work to this site, but that may take a while. In the meantime, what follows are the older, less refined translations of a selection of the RAF's documents.

Monday, September 26, 2011

GENERAL VO NGUYEN GIAP ALIVE AND KICKING AT 100

LOOKING PRETTY DAMN GOOD AT 100
I admit not only did I miss the birthday of General Vo  Nguyen Giap, I didn't really know that he was still alive.  As they say, me bad.  


Gen. Giap not only defeated the Americans, he knocked off the French and battled the Japanese, too.  His defeat of the French at the battle of Dien Bien Phu was historic and demonstrated that the time of the colonial empires was coming to a rapid end.  His leadership role in ousting of the USA from Vietnam helped begin the long (and on going) decline of American imperialism.  


You know all this, but did you know that the old general has not rested on his laurels.  He has not been afraid to speak up when need be to help push his country to achieve the potential demonstrated by its history. 


General Giap has called his Party to task on occasion (and has made some enemies as a result). In 1982, to the shock of the nation, he was ousted from the Politburo, some say due to jealousy of his popularity, stature, intellect, and a bit concerned by his continued outspokenness.  Didn't shut up the old soldier. For example,  in 1986, he criticized the Party, saying of it,


‘"the prevailing bureaucracy, corruption and red tape reduce the party’s reputation and threaten its very existence.’

 (However, I have to add, for many war veterans, his criticism didn’t go far enough.)


Did you know that General Giap has also taken on environmental 
degradation in Vietnam.  Quoting from Asia Beat:



"By 2009, the Vietnamese government had signed a joint venture deal to exploit bauxite in the Central Highlands. But Giap was angry over the potential environmental impact and fired off an open letter to the Vietnamese prime minister warning that open-cut mining would destroy vast areas of forest and crops, leaving huge deposits of toxic sludge.

‘Giap was our first leader after the war to focus on environmental problems,’ says Nguyen Huu Ninh, who was part of a UN team awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for their work on climate change.

Upset that there was no response from the Vietnamese government to a second open letter, Giap made sure that his fiery salvo was published by the media. In the letter, he recalled that as deputy prime minister, he had blocked the same bauxite project in the Central Highlands from being developed by the Soviet Union, and noted the same environmental problems remained.

The campaign snowballed, with 135 intellectuals, scientists and communist cadres signing a petition to the Vietnamese National Assembly, a rare act of protest in this one party state."

Vo Nguyen Giap celebrated his 100th birthday in August.  


A great man for an entire century.


If only there were more.


The following is from VietNam News.


 Leaders visit master tactician Gen Giap on 100th birthday


General Vo Nguyen Giap (first right) discusses military operations with President Ho Chi Minh during the historic battle of Dien Bien Phu, in which Vietnamese forces defeated the French in May 1954. — VNS File Photo
General Vo Nguyen Giap (first right) discusses military operations with President Ho Chi Minh during the historic battle of Dien Bien Phu, in which Vietnamese forces defeated the French in May 1954. — VNS File Photo
HA NOI — The military mastermind behind victories against the French and American forces in Viet Nam, General Vo Nguyen Giap, yesterday received Party and State leaders on the occasion of his 100th birthday.


Party General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong, State President Truong Tan Sang, Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung and National Assembly Chairman Nguyen Sinh Hung, along with other high-ranking officials, brought the affection and reverence of the whole nation to congratulate Giap, who turns 100 today.

An exceptional military strategist, Giap lead the Viet Nam People's Army to defeat the French colonialists and the US imperialists. He was best known for his military leadership during the historic defeat of the French at the battle of Dien Bien Phu on May 7, 1954.
Visiting the former Commander in Chief, the leaders wished him good health and longevity, to continue his contribution to the revolutionary cause of the Party and the nation.
Trong said the whole Party, army and people would always appreciate and keep in mind Giap's great achievements.
The leaders said that in carrying on the glorious revolutionary cause of previous generations, they were determined to try their best to lead the country through difficulties to successfully implement the Resolution of the 11th National Party Congress, thus helping the nation and its people thrive and prosper.
Giap expressed his thanks to the leaders for their best wishes and said he believed they, along with the people, would continue to strive for new achievements. — VNS


MY FEET STINK AND I DON'T LOVE JESUS

LOVE ME OR GO TO JAIL
A small story from a small town gave me a big laugh, and then, well, you start to wonder.  They're gonna give small time offenders in this small town in Alabama the choice of jail or Jesus.  Say what?  Is this even legal?  I mean, what country do these people think they live in?  Oh, they know.  What country do I think I live in?  That's more the question, I suppose.  Whatever, I had to share this with you from the Raw Story.









Alabama town to offenders: Go to church or go to jail

The small town of Bay Minette, Alabama is telling people convicted of small crimes to choose Jesus or choose jail.
Starting this week, the city judge will implement Operation Restore Our Community (ROC), which gives misdemeanor offenders a choice between fines and jail or a year of Sunday church services.
"Operation ROC resulted from meetings with church leaders," Bay Minette Police Chief Mike Rowland told the Alabama Press-Register. "It was agreed by all the pastors that at the core of the crime problem was the erosion of family values and morals. We have children raising children and parents not instilling values in young people."
Critics charge that the program is unfair to some minority religious groups because of the 56 participating churches, none are mosques or synagogues. And Atheists have no choice but compromise their beliefs or go to jail.
Pastor Robert Gates told WRKG that the program was a win-win for everyone involved.
"You show me somebody who falls in love with Jesus, and I'll show you a person who won't be a problem to society," he said.
ACLU of Alabama director Olivia Turner called the policy "blatantly unconstitutional."
"It violates one basic tenet of the Constitution, namely that government can't force participation in religious activity," she said, adding that the ACLU is "considering options for response."
Think Progress' Ian Millhiser noted that the program would even be considered illegal under conservative Justice Antonin Scalia's view of the Constitution.
"In his dissenting opinion in Lee v. Weisman, Scalia wrote that the state may not use the 'threat of penalty' to 'coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise,'" Millhiser wrote. "Telling someone -- even someone convicted of a crime -- that they must participate in a religious service or go to jail clearly fails Justice Scalia's test."
Earlier this year, the Mississippi Supreme Court suspended Mississippi Justice Court Judge Theresa Brown Dearman for 30 days for forcing people charged with crimes to attend church as a condition of bail.