social mouvement


“Reconquista” at the Second European Congress in Paris

On November 14th, the day after a series of bloody terrorist attacks that shocked France and the whole world, a remarkable event was held near Paris. More than 500 nationalists and right-wing activists from all over Europe have come together to take part in the Second European Congress, organized by French comrades from GUD (Groupe Union Défence).

Among the many speakers, one could see representatives from Italy (Casa Pound), Greece (Golden Dawn), Spain (Hogar Social Mardid), France (Group Union Defence and Mouvement d'Action Sociale), as well as autonomous nationalists from Russia, who strongly condemned Putin’s anti-national politics. The conference was followed by a music concert where several French groups rocked the stage together with a Russian hatecore-band “Death Penalty”.

The AZOV movement and its international branch Reconquista were present at the congress as well. Our French comrades installed a separate stand to distribute AZOV pamphlets and flyers, translated both in English and in French. The stand has drawn much public attention and enjoyed great popularity. Nationalists from all over Europe showed a genuine interest in the AZOV movement and were willing to get to know it better. The AZOV materials successfully distributed at the event were targeted at countering the negative propaganda diffused by both Western liberal media and Kremlin’s puppets.

The importance of networking and collaboration among activists from all over Europe is hard to overestimate, for we are facing the same problems and are looking for similar solutions. Namely,

- How to protect European identity and national borders from the Islamic onslaught on one hand and the Eurasian threat on the other?

- How to overcome the demographic decline of the white population?

- How to preserve national culture and spiritual heritage in the face of aggressive globalization and multiculturalism?

- And last but not the least - how to challenge the omnipresent hegemony of liberalism?   

All of these issues were brought up during the conference, which was divided into the following parts: “Hot topics in the modern European politics”, “Crisis of the movement - from the rearguard to the vanguard”, "Methods of constructing horizontally-oriented social movements." 

As for the war in Ukraine, the topic was raised only once by the representative of autonomous nationalists from Russia. The speaker denounced Putin’s policies and actions of the pro-Kremlin separatists, urging European comrades to separate the Moscow’s public policy from the aspirations of Russian nationalists who are the first to suffer severe persecution by Putin’s regime. 

Despite emergency measures implemented by the French Government for the security reasons, the Second European Congress was successfully held without any intervention of punitive forces. On behalf of Reconquista, we would like to thank all those who contributed their time and efforts to making the Second European Congress possible. We are looking forward to seeing you next year!

anonymous asked:

what are you critiques on anarcho capitalists?

For real, ancaps are the worst (actually, I put them on par with neo-conservatives and anarcho post-leftists because they overlap a ton when it comes to bigoted views of PoC and the religious). Essentially, ancaps are rightwing libertarians, though there are stark differences between the more anti-State sorts, as much of a contradiction as that already is, and the minimalist sort, those advocating for the smallest government possible (think Tea Party).

The whole suffix anarcho when applied to capitalism is an oxymoron though. It is total appropriation from the word’s socialist roots. Here is a quick history lesson:

“Sadly, it is necessary to explain what we mean by “libertarian” as this term has been appropriated by the free-market capitalist right. Socialist use of libertarian dates from 1858 when it was first used by communist-anarchist Joseph Dejacque as a synonym for anarchist for his paper “La Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social.” This usage became more commonplace in the 1850’s and 1895 saw leading anarchists SeBastein Faure and Louise Michel publish La Libertaire in France. By the end of the 19th century libertarian was used as an alternative for anarchist internationally. The right-wing appropriation of the term dates from the 1950’s and, in wider society, from the 1970’s. Given that property is at its root, and, significantly, property always trumps liberty in that ideology, anarchists suggest a far more accurate term would be “propertarian.” We will use the term libertarian in its original, correct, usage as an alternative for anti-state socialist.”

— Iain McKay in his anthology of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s Property is Theft 

A while back I was asked about labels, and I think they are important to understand when teasing out the differences in the language we use to describe our political beliefs and the archaeology of history that gives those ideologies meaning. Here was the question and answer, I think it will be informative to you:

“I really despise political labels; but you call yourself a libertarian…so, can you show us a country that is governed by libertarian principles?”

— Asked by michaellangford

Labels are merely words that we may use to effectively communicate to other people a part of the value system we hold. The trouble with them is when others debase those labels into caricatures of what they are suppose to mean or take our use of them as the totality of what we are. Americans are frequently guilty of this. You said I call myself a libertarian, but you forgot that I said a libertarian socialist (anarcho-socialist). I have to preface my socialism with either the anti-authoritarian words libertarian or anarcho because of the Cold War propaganda campaigns so effectively waged against socialism as a statist institution, when in fact if you read socialism outside Marx (see Joseph-Pierre Proudhon & Peter Kropotkin), and indeed Marx himself, you know socialism is at its core anti-state and therefore anti-authoritarian. In his essay The Soviet Union versus Socialism (1986) Chomsky summarizes both the United States’ debasing and the USSR’s co-opting of the word: 

“When the world’s two great propaganda systems agree on some doctrine, it requires some intellectual effort to escape its shackles. One such doctrine is that the society created by Lenin and Trotsky and molded further by Stalin and his successors has some relation to socialism in some meaningful or historically accurate sense of this concept. In fact, if there is a relation, it is the relation of contradiction.

It is clear enough why both major propaganda systems insist upon this fantasy. Since its origins, the Soviet State has attempted to harness the energies of its own population and oppressed people elsewhere in the service of the men who took advantage of the popular ferment in Russia in 1917 to seize State power. One major ideological weapon employed to this end has been the claim that the State managers are leading their own society and the world towards the socialist ideal; an impossibility, as any socialist — surely any serious Marxist — should have understood at once (many did), and a lie of mammoth proportions as history has revealed since the earliest days of the Bolshevik regime. The taskmasters have attempted to gain legitimacy and support by exploiting the aura of socialist ideals and the respect that is rightly accorded them, to conceal their own ritual practice as they destroyed every vestige of socialism.

As for the world’s second major propaganda system, association of socialism with the Soviet Union and its clients serves as a powerful ideological weapon to enforce conformity and obedience to the State capitalist institutions, to ensure that the necessity to rent oneself to the owners and managers of these institutions will be regarded as virtually a natural law, the only alternative to the ‘socialist’ dungeon.

The Soviet leadership thus portrays itself as socialist to protect its right to wield the club, and Western ideologists adopt the same pretense in order to forestall the threat of a more free and just society. This joint attack on socialism has been highly effective in undermining it in the modern period.”

This same tendency is being used today to reinvent the history and substance of the word libertarian, which traditionally has been representative of workers’ self-emancipation. The hijacking of libertarianism by right-wing Tea Party Republicans is a gross Randian perversion of the word. Right-wingers in America claim they want small government yet in reality they are merely calling for a system of neo-feudalism where the state is the arbiter of force for corporate power. For them the state exists to enforce “free trade” and “contract law.” Again, this rewriting of meanings has already been examined in Lance Klafta’s essay Ayn Rand and the Perversion of Libertarianism (1993 ):

"When the Russian Revolution began few people clearly understood the gulf which separated the state socialists from the libertarians. Many dedicated libertarians like Alexander Berkman, rallied to the Bolshevik cause, willing to give them the benefit of the doubt in hopes that seizing state power would only be a transitional stage toward the development of the stateless/classless society.

Many sincere lovers of liberty now flock to the standard of the Libertarian Party, as they did the Bolsheviks, completely ignorant of the history of the last century. As Santayana said: “Those who forget the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them.”

What should be done? It should be obvious that government enforcement of private contracts is not libertarian any more than is taking state power to set people free. Libertarianism is and always will mean socialism - the self-emancipation of working people.

Libertarians must stop courting the Republican right and return to their intellectual roots. By standing outside of the political process we deny the state legitimacy, and like the state torturers in Atlas Shrugged, they will come and beg for libertarians to take over.

Remembering the experience of the Spanish libertarians, and heeding the advice of John Galt, libertarians must refuse state power even when begged. The state can never be a tool of liberation. Only its complete and utter collapse will allow for the emergence of non-statist institutions, libertarian co-ops, communes, and free markets, to flourish and displace the political state once and for all.”

So when you say I am a libertarian it needs to be clear that I am not a Tea Party Republican; and when I tell you I am a socialist so too must it be made clear that I am not an authoritarian. Muddling of our language is what has made people hate labels. 

So, if I answer your question as to what country is governed by libertarian principles, that is the principles of workers’ self-emancipation, then I can say there have been none I can think of and are likely to be none. To use the term country is to interchangeably use the phrasing nation-state. The nation-state is antithetical to the self-emancipation of workers and therefore until these oppressive governments of scale we call liberal democracies collapse, or those despotic authoritarian autocracies and regimes implode, or are dismantled, I can’t say libertarian socialist ideals are represented, much less governing.

Hope that helps.