ANTIFA INFO-BULLETIN
News * Analysis * Research * Action
______________________________

RESEARCH SUPPLEMENT
- August 22, 2000 -
______________________________________________________________________________

"THE NATIONAL ISSUE IN THE YEAR 2000" & "ATTAC'S OPEN FLANK"
2 Articles from De Fabel van de Illegaal
______________________________________________________________________________

DE FABEL VAN DE ILLEGAAL
[The Myth of Illegality]
Koppenhinksteeg 2
2312 HX Leiden, Netherlands
Tel: +31-71-5127619 or 5144217
Fax: +31-71-5134907
E-mail: lokabaal@dsl.nl
Web: http://www.dsl.nl/lokabaal/english.htm
http://www.savanne.ch/right-left.en
- Monday, 21 August 2000 -

-----
____________________________________________________________________

THE NATIONAL ISSUE IN THE YEAR 2000
____________________________________________________________________

The Dutch version of his article was published in the Summer 2000 issue of
the anti-racist newspaper of De Fabel van de illegaal

By Koen van de Meulen

Around 1900 an international debate took place on "the national issue".
What should the Left-wing movement do with the fast-rising nationalism? Was
this strongly mobilising ideology a threat to the theory of socialism or
could it be a possibility to enhance the power base of the Left ideology?
Almost a century later this issue seems more of current interest than ever.
Developments like the nationalist wars in the Balkans and the growth of the
far Right ask for a Leftist answer. After the disappearance of the "real
existing socialism" (read: dictatorial state capitalism) with its
Marxist-Leninist ideology, which postulated the principle of "every nation
its own state", now there is a chance to sharpen radical Left ideology in
an anti-nationalist direction.

Over the past year the Dutch radical Left organisation De Fabel van de
illegaal paid much attention to (far) Right influences in Left-wing
campaigns. Criticism of nationalism played an important role in this. De
Fabel criticized for example Kurdish and Basque liberation nationalism.
Lately, a discussion has arisen with reference to nationalist elements in
the campaign for the imprisoned Basque activist Esteban Murillo. Murillo
has been accused of taking part in actions by the ETA, and despite a
support campaign, he was handed over by the Dutch state to Spain, although
it was proven that the Spanish state tortured Murillo. The discussion
centres on the question if anything like a "good" Leftist nationalism
really exists.

Nations and nationalism

"Nations do not make states and nationalism, but the other way round". Says
the British historian Eric Hobsbawm in his book "Nation and Nationalism
since 1780". In this book he describes the origin and development of the
notions of "nation" and nationalism. With this he builds on the work of
Gellner and Anderson who have written extensively about the myths of
"nation" and nationalism. "Nationalism is not the awakening of nations to
self-consciousness: it invents nations where they do not exist", writes
Gellner.

They assume that "nations" and also "peoples" are not natural, but that
they are created. As opposed to what nationalists want us to believe,
"nations" and "peoples" are not the pivots in the history of mankind. Until
200 years ago people could barely conceive the idea of a "nation". They
mostly felt connected to their own family, village or city, guild and
social rank, least of all to an abstract community like a "nation".
Therefore it is difficult to give a definition of the notion of "nation",
for the meaning of this word has changed through time. Where it meant
simply "people" at the time of the French Revolution, just in the meaning
of the inhabitants of a territory, "nation" was later defined in connection
to factors like "ethnicity", language and culture. This last meaning is
also the one that the concept of "nation" has in this article.

Patriotic nationalism

At the end of the eighteenth and during the nineteenth century the modern
state arose. This proved to be an extraordinary efficient form of governing
in the hands of the ruling class. However, its relatively sudden arising
involved a legitimacy problem. In the old days, religion and the social
hierarchy of the feudal system kept the people obedient. These institutions
didn't fit in with the new dominant ideology of liberalism and they could
even stand in the way of an efficient functioning of capitalism. The
ideology of nationalism appeared to be a good remedy to strengthen the
loyalty to the state even further, and so the power of the state too. A
communal tongue, spoken through the entire country, was developed to make
the state apparatus function more efficiently and to create an imagined
feeling of solidarity among the inhabitants of the state. Also, a communal
history and all sorts of traditions were created. The goal was that people
would perceive themselves as part of the "patria", the native country, and
not per se as members of a "nation" or "people". The best example of this
type of nationalism is the United States. With the help of this "patriotic"
nationalism, France and Great Britain became two mighty unified states. For
all cases applied: first there was a state, only then the "nation". This is
exactly the opposite of what rulers and nationalists want us to believe.

Xenophobic nationalism

By the end of the nineteenth century a more ethnic nationalism arose that
wasn't by definition connected to a state. Where at first language and
culture played central roles, "ethnicity" also became increasingly
important as a criterion for "being a nation". This xenophobic nationalism
derived its power mostly from defining "the other". A scapegoat outside the
own "nation" was appointed as the cause of all misery. That scapegoat could
be minorities in the own country, but also other "nations" or
"cosmopolitans". The working class should reconcile to the capitalists, for
supposedly everyone belonged to the same "nation". Economic problems would
be the fault of Jews or immigrant workers. Or, as in much Right-wing
anti-freetrade rhetoric, of workers in other countries that produce goods
cheaper.

States didn't shun the use of this xenophobic nationalism. The German state
was even partly based on this type of nationalism. In the twentieth century
it led also to two nationalist world wars and genocide on a dreadfully
large scale. This xenophobic nationalism was also always a threat to states
themselves. Separatism rose its head and flourished, and it still does.

"Left-wing nationalism"?

In the recent discussion on nationalism some Left-wing people are trying to
justify this ideology by distinguishing a special "Left-wing nationalism"
from the more xenophobic forms. This progressive nationalism is supposedly
characterised by Leftist values like tolerance, freedom and equality. For
that matter, many "liberal nationalists" also appeal to these values in an
effort to distinguish their ideology from "wrong" nationalism. History
shows us that such a "Leftist nationalism" is not very desirable and hardly
possible. One can roughly distinguish five historical phases in which
nationalism had different meanings and political colours. According to
Hobsbawm the notions of "nation" and nationalism originate from the time of
the French Revolution. In this first phase the notion of "nation" is used
in connection to the rising idea of democracy. "The sovereignity to the
people" or "to the nation" "was a progressive claim that opposed the feudal
system. Especially in the beginning "nation" stood for the interests of the
common women and men and there was little connection with language, culture
or "ethnicity".

In the second phase, after 1870, a nationalism based on "ethnicity" entered
the stage. In the end, this led to the first World War. At the end of the
war, the third phase started. For during the peace talks the "Wilson
doctrine" was employed as much as possible. According to that doctrine all
"peoples" had the right to self-determination and thus the right to form
their own state. For a long time this principle made the core of liberal
nationalism. In this phase, nationalism coupled with the rise of fascism,
wich ended in the Second World War and with the murder on millions of Jews,
Roma and Sinti, homosexuals, psychiatric patients and socialists. The
fourth phase after the Second World War was marked by a ideological
dominance of the Left. Because of that dominance nationalism was conceived
as a Left-wing concept, also because of the absence of a strong Right-wing
interpretation of the idea. In this fourth phase, we see many national
liberation struggles in Latin-America, Africa and Asia.

Anti-Americanism

At this moment we have arrived at the fifth phase. Following the fall of
the Berlin Wall (but actually already before that) the influence of
Left-wing ideology quickly eroded and the Right took the ideological lead.
The Left became confused about its basic ideas. Take for example the
confusion that is caused in Left-wing circles by the anti-Americanism of
the new Right and its interfering in Left-wing solidarity campaigns with
liberation movements.

What to do? One possibility is to distinguish more clearly between "good"
Leftist and "wrong" Rightist nationalism, like the solidarity committee for
Esteban Murillo is trying. However, De Fabel van de illegaal thinks that
the Left should take a firm anti-nationalist standpoint.

A construction by the elite

"It is also worthy to point at the fact that the institutions of slavery,
marriage, class and state, necessarily developed the first ideologies of
racism, sex-roles, class-elitism and nationalism to justify all these
institutions. These ideologies where indissolubly connected to the ideology
that stimulated a male competition for status and property, beside which
they originally arose and without which they probably had not been able to
continue to exist", Hoch wrote in his "White Hero, Black Beast". History
teaches us that the ruling class invented nationalism. The "national idea"
was born in the heads of a small elite of intellectuals and rulers only a
few centuries ago. Therefore, it isn't surprising that nationalism is an
ideology employed by this ruling class of white, heterosexual men. They
invented the "nation". The norms and values of the "nation" are the
patriarchal, heterosexual and capitalist norms and values of the elite.

The myth of national unity strengthened the power base of the leaders of
the state and their facilities to cash in taxes and to conduct war. It also
is a great weapon against class war, socialism and feminism. Mutual
differences and opposite interests are denied and replaced by stressing the
difference with "the other".

Rightist conceptions

The fact that "nations" are myths invented and applied by the ruling elite,
makes it very difficult to use nationalism as a liberation ideology against
its creator. By adopting the ideas connected to nationalism "Leftist
nationalists" start analysing the world in a Rightist way, in a way
invented by their opponents. By thinking in nationalist terms one is forced
to think along lines of national, "ethnic" or territorial defined
differences. Thus nowadays, fashionable notions such as culture and
identity are defined, even by the Left, along national and "racial" lines.
However, many Leftists in the Netherlands will feel more affiliation with
the Left in other countries than with the Dutch elite. One's political
conviction and social class should foremost define culture and identity.
But, the longer the Left operates within nationalist ways of thinking, the
more it affirms the myths that were invented against the Left and feminism.
According to nationalists women have a special role to fulfil within the
"nation". Take for example nationalist metaphorical language. The "nation"
is presented as something female, as "the fertile mother country", that has
to be protected by strong men because of her defencelessness. Thus soldiers
and soccer players would have to defend the virtue of their country. The
"nation" enables men to feel superior above women and outsiders by ruling
them. Women are expected to reproduce the "nation" biologically by means of
their posterity and symbolically by their supposed higher decency. Only
pure and modest women would be able to serve their "nation". This
"necessity" for purity mostly brings along an extremely traditional and
suppressing role pattern.

Unintentionally, the Left might support new Right strategies when it keeps
thinking and arguing in terms of "nations", "peoples" and nationalism, even
if it tries to do so from an emancipating perspective. The new Right
nowadays tries to make these nationalist conceptions legitimate and
acceptable again, as a basis for a new far Right-wing ideology. They now
use these notions in an, at a first glance, "liberal" and "enlightened"
way. But that will change as soon as they attain some influence. Would it
be a coincidence that the Europeans who had honest convictions about an
"enlightened" nationalism, both before the First and the Second World War,
witnessed a growing "Rightist nationalist" movement appearing right beside
them at the political stage? Perhaps racism, exclusion and even genocide
are inherent to the notion of nationalism.

Liberation struggle

Western nationalism is not the same as the Leftist "liberation nationalism"
or "emancipatory nationalism" in the made poor countries. But just as with
women's struggle, emancipation can not be the final goal. According to
feminist theory emancipation simply means obtaining a place in male
dominated society by using "male", patriarchal and macho ways. In the same
way colonies that have become independent can only obtain a place in the
capitalist world system by being as oppressive and exploiting as the
Western states themselves. Therefore national liberation can't be a goal in
itself.

It is important that the Left keeps asking itself why a particular
liberation struggle should deserve support. Is it just about nationalism,
or is the struggle for independence a first step in a more containing
social struggle? Perhaps it is because of a false class analyses that the
Western Left sometimes unconditionally supported the nationalism of the
southern liberation movements. In anti-imperialist theory the anti-thesis
North-South had replaced the old class contradiction of capital and labour.
The South had become the new revolutionary subject. Quite a few times
almost all the inhabitants of countries in the South were seen as the
revolutionary class, and therefore their nationalism had to be supported
unconditionally. However, this obscured the class- and sex-differences in
these southern countries and in addition silenced class struggle in the
North.

Koen van de Meulen is a member of the anti-racist organisation De Fabel van
de illegaal, Leiden (Holland). More articles like this can be found on the
English part our website: http://www.dsl.nl/lokabaal/english.htm

* * *
____________________________________________________________________

ATTAC'S OPEN FLANK
____________________________________________________________________

By Eric Krebbers
- Thursday, 17 August 2000 -

In November 1999 the Dutch branch of the French organisation ATTAC was
founded. Through the introduction of a "tobin-tax" they want to curtail
"the flow of speculative capital". In most Dutch Left-wing magazines (with
the exception of DusNieuws) the initiative was embraced without much
criticism. In other countries, however, discussions on the analyses and
goals of ATTAC are more common.

ATTAC is a French abbreviation for "action for a tax on financial
transactions for the aid to citizens". The organisation wants to impose a
"tobin-tax" of 0,5 percent on all international money trade transactions to
"curtail flows of speculative capital".1 ATTAC started in june 1998 in
reaction to the Asian economic crisis. By now there are sections in more
than 20 countries. The Dutch branch is set up at the office of the XminY
fund. ATTAC-Netherlands president Hans van Heijningen is also the
coordinator at XminY. Attending their first meeting was the French-American
political scientist Susan George, vice-president of ATTAC-international and
also assistant-director of the Transnational Institute (TNI), also located
at XminY.

Political economics

Economics are not a neutral science. It is always a political choice which
models one uses to understand economic processes. The relatively one-sided
interest in "speculative capital" of ATTAC and many other opponents of
"economic globalisation" goes together with the mostly quantitative
economic models that are so fashionable today. Importance is simply
attached to those sectors of the economy that host a lot of money.

The workers in the poor countries of the south, for instance, usually get a
very low pay and economists therefore estimate their contribution to the
world economy as very low. The same applies to the illegalised migrants and
refugees. In the Dutch jails they get paid less than half a dollar an hour.
However, their work is indispensable for a number of sectors of the Dutch
economy. For instance, horticulture would not have survived without
illegalised migrants.

Colonialism

Thinking along these same lines, Right-wing historians think they can prove
that 500 years of colonialism have had almost no influence on the wealth of
the colonizing countries. And indeed, the cost of the stolen raw materials
and labour, mostly through slavery, was almost nothing compared to the
prices that were paid in the colonial metropoles. But without centuries of
slave labour and material theft capitalism would not be here today. The
quantitative models simply deny all oppressed and exploited people a place
in history and everything that is accomplished is attributed to the rich
"western man".

In the same vein the unpaid or very low paid reproductive work done mostly
by women is usually hardly perceived. And also the "work" done by nature
and the destruction of it are no part of quantitative models. Modern
quantitative models are therefore almost by definition racist, patriarchal
and anti-ecological. They have no eye for the basis on which the whole
structure of capitalism rests.

The importance of "speculative capital", on the other hand, is usually
extremely overrated by these same quantitative models. Some estimated 1.500
billion dollar changes hands several times each day on the stock-exchanges
in the rich countries. A huge amount indeed, but German writers Thomas
Ebermann and Rainer Trampert, for instance, have showed that the share of
"speculative capital" does grow slightly, but that no less than 90 percent
of capital remains bound in the rich countries. According to them it is a
political choice to focus the attention exclusively on the other 10
percent.2

Where do crises originate?

The dominant Right-wing models are a major force in putting "speculative
capital" central at our analysis of economic crisis. According to
ATTAC-Netherlands the worsening of working conditions, like flexibility,
dismissal, social security are due to the free flow of capital.1

The British Earth First! think it is just the other way around. Due to the
struggle of the workers against the worsening of their conditions, capital
seeks refuge elsewhere. "Behind the talk of 'monetary instability', 'bad
loans and trading practices' and warnings by financiers such as Georg Soros
about the dangerous fragility of the financial system lies the reality that
the ultimate source of the present crisis is not transgressions and
mistakes by bankers and speculators but the reduction of profits by class
struggle." The Mexican crisis was brought about, according to Earth First!,
by the Zapatista revolt, and the Asian crisis, which led to the
establishment of ATTAC, by a series of general strikes from December 1996
to March 1997 by Korean workers who didn't allow a further intensification
of their exploitation.3

The model that ATTAC favors keeps our eyes focussed on the handing over of
money between the rich. The resistance from below one cannot see in this
way. ATTAC can therefore not offer the Left a real action-perspective,
however much its president Van Heijningen dreams of his organisation
growing into an "anti-capitalist people's movement".4 His model simply
cannot see that economic changes come about in the struggle between top and
bottom. It can, for instance, only interpret flexibilisation as something
that is in times of a crisis forced upon a powerless mass. But in reality
any "capitalist strategy can only succeed by picking up what is already in
the behaviour of the workers: the refusal to be suffocated from education
to pension in the certainty of a fulltime job is in this way being made
into the flexibilisation of work", according to the German group Wildcat.5

Fat cigar smokers

Due to the fixation on "speculative capital", "not any longer the processes
of production and of capital accumulation are at the centre of the
attention, but clubs of influencial men (and some women) who negotiate
among themselves the future of the world behind closed doors", wrote Alain
Kessi in the German weekly Jungle World.6

But, writes Earth First!, "the law of profit has nothing to do with the
actions of a few big capitalists or multinationals and getting the world we
want does not mean ridding ourselves of fat cigar smokers wearing top hats
at horse races. What matters is not the individual profits made by
capitalists, but the constraint, the orientation, imposed upon production
and society by this system which dictates how to work and what to consume.
The whole demagogy about rich and poor and 'big' and 'small' merely
confuses the issue. The abolition of capitalism does not mean taking money
from the rich, nor revolutionaries distributing it to the poor, but the
suppression of the totality of monetary relations."3

Capitalism is a social relation between all people, forcing the majority to
sell their labour to survive. The image of a small elite of speculators
against the rest of humanity pushes the awareness of all other (economic)
balances of power to the background. In reality far most of the inhabitants
of the rich west profit from the cheap labour of the people in the south.
And most men profit from the free reproductive labour of women. An
anti-capitalist analysis that focusses on "speculation capital" cannot see
patriarchy and racism, and will inevitably consolidate these balances of
power.

Le Monde diplomatique

Most of the people who took the initiative to establish ATTAC came from the
Trotzkyte and old Left scenes, and many of them are working for the French
monthly Le Monde diplomatique.6 Their plans to tax capital flows are
receiving broad support from political and economic elites. That started
with the deceased French president Mitterand. Soon joined by Jacques Delors
(ex-president European Commission), Boutros-Ghali (ex-UN secretary), Barber
Conable (ex-Worldbank president), Alan Greenspan (president Federal Bank
US), and speculator George Soros - to name but a few. They are all in favor
of such a tax.

All political parties in the Dutch parliament also support the plans, with
the exception of the conservative liberal party VVD. In October 1999 Dutch
prime minister Kok said: "People with capital speculate too much and are
not enough enterpreneur." According to him we are living on "a sort of
vulcan".7 Van Heijningen and his colleagues supported him, and emphasized
that he should do more than just warn us. "It is about time that our
government raises its voice for the constraint of the capital flows on
earth."8

Pro-state

A possible "tobin-tax" will be cashed in by states or groups of states
cooperating in the UN or the IMF. Many Left-wing groups in France are not
happy that ATTAC feels so drawn towards the state. According to Michel
Sahuc of the Groupe La Sociale, for instance, the "tobin tax" is especially
attractive to that part of the elite that is looking for a way to calm
social tensions. The tax is no more than a minimal change of the system and
they have only to hand over an infinite small part of the profits. "The tax
is pure capitalism. It means not only accepting financial speculation, but
also profits, exploitation and economic inequality. It means making a
gesture under the cloak of justice, which in reality is just a mechanism of
control in the service of capitalism."9

The Belgian Alternative Libertaire thinks alike: "ATTAC is not
anti-capitalist, but is for the regulation of capitalism. It believes that
states are created for the common good, and that they are now a victim of a
conspiracy of multinationals that robbed their power." In reality states
are not created for "the common good", but to create the best possible
conditions in their territory for capital to grow by exploitation. ATTAC
really seems to believe that the revenues of a possible "tobin-tax" wil
benefit the poor.

According to Alternative Libertaire ATTAC has basically two goals. It wants
to encourage governments to try to stay in power and to prevent social
explosions. "That means creating new instruments to regulate the barbaric
capitalist changes and to protect them against the radical disturbances by
the opposition that could be the result of these changes. And they say it
themselves: it's all about facing two problems: a social implosion and
political despair." Alternative Libertaire writes that ATTAC has never
challanged the principle of profit or the unequal distribution of wealth.
On the contrary, say the anarchists, "the "tobin-tax" stabilize the
exploitative relations that are being threatened by the global financial
adventures."10

Undemocratic? No problem!

ATTAC is not struggling for changes from below, on the contrary, they favor
"enlarging the powers of national or regional states to shape their own
financial and economic policies."1 Whether these states are in any way
"democratic", does not really seem to matter to ATTAC. ATTAC-co-operator
Jantien Meijer in the Dutch magazine Dusnieuws on the politics of a number
of Asian states to close the borders for foreign capital: "That policy is
of course not based on all kinds of beautiful democratic principles, it is
only to protect the elite... But I still find it inspiring when less
powerfull countries do things like this."11

ATTAC sharply differentiates between state and capital and says it wants to
employ states to harness capital. In reality both are totally intertwined.
The Groupe Nantes of the Federation Anarchiste from France considers it
"not only perverse, but also extremely dangerous" that ATTAC is
ideologically separating the state from capital. Michel Sahuc is not
surprised by ATTAC's strange views on state and capital, because the
"tobin-tax" is just another project of the traditionally state orientated
part of the Left. They are a current of technocrats and politicians that
are traditionally in the service of the national bourgeoisie. So "take
care", he warns us, "we are then on dangerous territory, because there is
no clear boundary between this sort of Leftism and fascism."9

European parliament

In Germany a large number of groups are against the type of analysis that
is at the basis of ATTAC's onesided actions against "speculative capital".
According to Gruppe Demontage this type of reasoning has "an open flank
against antisemite anti-capitalism, in the sense of a projection of the
strange, unbound capital on 'the Jews'"13 More on this open flank can be
read in the articles De Fabel van de illegaal wrote before on the issue of
the New Right and the international movement against "globalisation".14 It
comes as no surprise then that the Far Right has displayed interest in the
ideas of the "tobin-tax" movement. In January 2000 the proposal to put the
"tobin-tax" on the European Parliament's agenda got support not only of
socialist, communist and green parties, but also of the Far Right, such as
the fraction around Pasqua and De Villiers, the pompous brothers of Le Pen.
One small Left-wing party from France witheld their vote because the
proposal was in their eyes "a hymn of praise on the market economy". The
proposal didn't make it in the end because the majority of social
democratic and liberal conservative parties voted against it.15

It's now or never

Vice-president of ATTAC-international Susan George in 1999 wrote the book
"The Lugano report". It is a fake report, supposedly written by a secret
group of top-10 scientists who are meeting in the Swiss town of Lugano.
Working for the financial elite, that according to the book secretly rules
the world, the scientists give recommendations to end the crisis of
capitalism. They propose to strongly reduce the number of people in the
poor countries. George seems to foremost want to frighten her readers.
Although she herself stresses that she completely made up everything in the
book, she does seem to believe that the world is in fact ruled by such a
small elite. "Which I shall not name so as not to invite legal action", she
writes.16

Although coming from the Left and certainly well meant, the ideas in the
book will remind many anti-fascists of the "Protocols of the sages of
Zion". In that book one can also read a fake report of a secret meeting of
'wise' and rich men, in that case Jews, talking about getting hold of world
power. The Protocols were used by the German Nazi's to justify their march
to power. The Lugano Report is most certainly not antisemitic, and it does
not write against "the Jews" in any way. Far from it. But sadly, the
analysis of the world processes of power differs much less from that of the
Protocolls.

Now that the attention of the Left seems to be shifting from class struggle
and struggles against racism and patriarchy towards a struggle against such
a supposed small and elusive elite of speculators, collaboration with the
Far Right is getting more likely. And even more likely when apocalyptic
worldviews are getting more common, such as we see in the movement against
"globalisation". It's now or never. George: "As a friend of mine said when
watching two French agricultural confederations squabble over some
relatively minor issue. 'Right-wing peasants, Left-wing peasants, who
cares? There aren't going to be any peasants!'"

George acknowledges that collaboration with the Far Right is dangerous.
But, according to her, also necessary. "In the USA, it took the Right and
the Left joining forces to defeat the president's 'fast-track' authority
(to sign free trade agreements into law with no amendments from
congress)."16 Do such collaborations make us fascists too, George asked De
Fabel rhetorically, after she learned of our criticism.17 No, we wouldn't
say that, but it is also not very anti-fascist either. We cannot see how
collaboration with fascists can ever bring us any closer to a more free and
equal world.

Eric Krebbers is a member of the Dutch anti-racist organisation De Fabel
van de illegaal. All (mistakes in the) translations are his responsibility.
This article was first published in the magazine "De Fabel van de
illegaal", Summer 2000 issue.

Notes:

1. "Toelichting op het actieprogramma van de vereniging Attac-Nederland
voor haar eerste ledenvergadering op 15 januari 2000"
2. "Die Offenbarung der Propheten", Thomas Ebermann and Rainer Trampert.
3. "Globalisation", Earth First. In: Do or die nr. 8, autumn 1999.
4. "Aanval op het kapitaal", Freek Kallenberg. In: Ravage nr. 5, April 7, 2000.
5. "Vom klassenkampf zur 'socialen Frage'". In: Wildcat Zirkular nr. 40/41,
December 1997.
6. "Nicht sprachlos in Seattle", Alain Kessi. In: Jungle World nr. 48,
November 24, 1999.
7. "Kok pleit voor meer 'echte' ondernemers". In: Leidsch Dagblad, October
18, 1999.
8. "Het mag niet bij waarschuwing van Kok blijven", Hans van Heijningen,
Theo Ruyter and Marjan Zijlmans. In: De Volkskrant, November 12, 1999.
9. "La taxe Tobin: soin paliatif du capitalisme", Michel Sahuc - Groupe La
Sociale. In: Le Monde libertaire nr. 1145, December 17, 1998.
10. "Attac grain du sable ou huile dans les rouages?" In: Alternative
libertaire nr. 224, Januari 2000.
11. "Attac", Willem. In: Dusnieuws nr. 19, February 2000.
12. "OMC: le libéralisme veut dicter sa loi", Groupe FA Nantes. In: Le
Monde libertaire nr. 1182, November 25, 1999.
13. "Postfordistische Guerrilla", Gruppe Demontage. 14. See our website:
http://www.dsl.nl/lokabaal/english.htm
15. "Merkwürdige Allianzen". In: Jungle World, Januari 26, 2000.
16. "The Lugano report", Susan George.
17. E-mail from Susan George, September 17, 1999.

* * *

ANTIFA INFO-BULLETIN (AFIB)
750 La Playa # 730
San Francisco, California 94121
To subscribe: afib-subscribe@igc.topica.com
To unsubscribe: afib-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com
Inquiries: tburghardt@igc.org

On PeaceNet visit AFIB on pol.right.antifa
Via the Web --> http://burn.ucsd.edu/~aff/afib.html
Archive --> http://burn.ucsd.edu/~aff/afib-bulletins.html

ANTI-FASCIST FORUM (AFF)
Antifa Info-Bulletin is a member of the Anti-Fascist Forum network. AFF is
an info-group which collects and disseminates information, research and
analysis on fascist activity and anti-fascist resistance. More info:
E-mail: aff@burn.ucsd.edu; Web: http://burn.ucsd.edu/~aff

Order our journal, ANTIFA FORUM, cutting-edge anti-fascist research and
analysis! 4 issues, $20. Write AFF, P.O. Box 6326, Station A, Toronto,
Ontario, M5W 1P7 Canada

++++ stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal ++++
++++ if you agree copy these 3 sentences in your own sig ++++
++++ see: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm ++++