Anarchic update news all over the world - 8.01.2017

Today's Topics:

   
1.  Czech, afed: Michal Kacha - anarchist, editor and publisher
     Michal Kacha (1874-1940) [machine translation] 
    (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
2.  Germany, ag do: Solidarity with the fighting in Iran from
      Dortmund (de) (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
3.  Britain Libertarian Socialist Federation LSF - Class
      Struggle Anarchist Statement on Bookfair Events and Aftermath by
      Former members of the Anarchist Federation (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
4.  Britain Libertarian Socialist Federation LSF - Fat Cat
      Thursday - morning of shame (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)


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

Message: 1






On January 6, we commemorate the anniversary of the birth of the anarchist, editor and 
publisher Michal Kacha (1874-1940). This time with his feuilleur and during January 
another pocket booklet with lyrics about him. ---- Was there a war ... and will it? ---- 
The war is over. The Daily Journal reader is postponing the magazine with the grim face of 
a giant who has been spoiled by the enjoyment of the last tray he has so much enjoyed. It 
will not be good for a long time to read amongst such equally valuable species by reading 
the logs of a "strategy" that he is prepared to crush thousands of Russians or Japanese in 
his teeth (he comes to sympathy). ---- Before the decisive battle he had already struggled 
with his kind of skirmishes, no such stupidity - spoiling his mood and surprise, not just 
a rising bastard, often a member of the party who, at anti-militaristic meetings, could 
ease the cries of "Away with the Army!" And then - Well, he went home and fought.

The level of wonderfully elastic and the compromise of always prone "goodies".

And the mournful mule swears, in the mockery of human passive dreamers, huge sums, robbing 
schools, absorbing the blood and brains of the crowd. Eternally equally hungry, but in 
massacre more sophisticated, using talented inventors who reward the eternal feedman of 
this monster and the eternal representative of violence - stand.

There was peace. The Drastic comic worked when a representative of the dragon power of the 
United States mediated peace. The journals wrote: The honest effort ... and the animal 
still feeling prey. The journals have written: Japanese grandeur ... and he has not yet 
had a grown-up ... The journals have written: Witte's diplomacy ... and that - the wrongdoing.

The masters entertained at the green table, and many people buried themselves in the pits, 
and later on it would be possible to read from the cavities of the eyeworms that terrible 
and astonished: Why? In the fallen fields the human flesh will tremble, and the blood of 
the blood will be joined to the sore chest. And strange granaries will be filled with what 
chokes and hunts in the queues and hunger. The old fairytale does not die, and it has a 
terrible grace in its point.

Stock exchanges will continue to prescribe the necessary supplies for a worker who has a 
grouse of parasites on the grouse. More expensive food. Um, the belt is pulling off. It 
must be saved when the master wants it. And those intelligent gentlemen know that it is 
necessary to revolutionize energy, and that does not originate in hunger. And you do not 
want hunger and ... just dare! And a good gentleman with a round belly swims morale, and a 
comrade in a decent pose shows a ballot. Uf, man saved. The morale has won, and a ballot 
passes Egyptian pots. Surplus goods at the nakedness of manufacturers. It is necessary to 
impose a neighbor's tariffs. Diplomatic plot. The logs furiously write: The land in 
danger! And the eternal debtor of monetary kings - the state - graciously acts as a kata. 
And a man stuffed with morality is going to kill. It's because they want those who 
overturn the meaning of life. Good bullshit pray for victory ... And pop blesses the crowd 
going to the slaughterhouse - - - Like the hell-eaters left and like the criminals are 
coming. A splendid bunch of bodies in the trenches, the death of a stiff grimace, a 
convulsively biting species in a second - proclaim civilization.

The journal writes, cynically feeding the reader with blood. Workers in arsenals? Well, 
they're working to make bullets, bombs, and other small things rush into a comrade who 
might be a competitor. Sentimental patrons are lying, and - they are those who are not 
allowed to die.

And journals defending the interests of the proletariat? They take blood from the 
battlefield for their readers from the other hand from the happier journals of the 
warlords. The deal is a deal. And there is a new idea about good carpaces with a red 
cockard and the future state - where freedom, equality, fraternity will be written on 
every gallows ...

What I'm writing is a flashy song with a chorus: "We will hold, we will hold!" ...

Work , People's Quadruple, Year. 1, No. 19, Prague-Žižkov, 28 September 1905, pp. 2-3

https://www.afed.cz/text/6773/michal-kacha

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

Message: 2





On a windy night, we hung a solidarity banner with the fighting in Iran on a busy street 
in the northern city of Dortmund. ---- Iran is currently shaken by the most violent 
disturbances since the 2009 Green Movement. The current demonstrations have not yet 
reached the size of 2009, but seem to go beyond radicality. Protests against price 
increases quickly became a general challenge to the regime under slogans such as "Death of 
the Islamic Republic" and "Death to the Dictator" (Ayatollah Khamenei). ---- The Iranian 
authorities rushed to portray the movement as a foreign-driven provocation, and numerous 
internet reels from around the world have nothing better to do than blabber this reading 
of events. Of course, other Iranian forces are closely watching disputes in Iran, and it 
is quite possible that Saudi Arabia or the US will secretly intervene to destabilize one 
of its geopolitical opponents. But the people of Iran have enough of their own reasons to 
go out on the streets, and in the past they have more than once expressed their will to 
freedom. Anyone who perceives the protests as a merely externally controlled conspiracy 
thus reveals his own authoritarian view of the world, in which it can not be that humans 
empower themselves to act,

We should not let ourselves be irritated by the poisoned praises given to the rebels by 
Trump or Netanyahu. Surely, these gentlemen are currently in the thick of it when the 
regime of a rival state is in trouble. But we can be sure that the rulers of all countries 
will quickly reunite in the fight against the revolting, as soon as they turn to open 
question the rule as such.

Unfortunately, given the experiences of the Arab rebellions, as well as the weakness of 
the revolutionary movement worldwide, it is to be feared that the current Iranian 
departure will end in another defeat.

Therefore, it seems to us all the more urgent to work on the construction of revolutionary 
structures and to oppose Islamism here as well - a task against which left-wing radicals 
and anarchists, including ourselves, have failed miserably so far.

Our best wishes go to all who are currently affected by repression in Iran.

Death of the Islamic Republic!

Death to all religions and states!

Long live the anarchy!

Anarchist Group Dortmund, January 2018

http://agdo.blogsport.eu/2018/01/05/solidaritaet-mit-den-kaempfen-im-iran-aus-dortmund/

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

Message: 3






It has been over a month since the London Anarchist Bookfair and as a movement we are 
still reeling, with deep divisions between people who had respect for each other and once 
worked well together. We are still shocked, horrified and saddened by events as are most 
people, no matter what perspective or interpretation they have on what happened and the 
role of the Bookfair collective. ---- We were, until recently, members of the AF who did 
not sign the initial statement that was issued by Edinburgh AF and signed by two other AF 
groups, nor did we support the statement issued by other campaigns and organisations. We 
did not want to respond immediately as there are so many issues involved and emotions are 
strong. We hoped that after some time we could give a political assessment of the 
situation rather than just a knee-jerk reaction based on our emotional response to events 
and statements from other groups. Whether this is in fact possible is another matter.

Firstly, it is important to outline the political tradition that we are part of. We call 
ourselves class struggle anarchists or anarchist communists. We are a distinct tradition 
within the anarchist movement and have always been critical of other currents in the 
anarchist 'movement', including liberalism, individualism and anarchism as a life style 
choice. Our aim is to create an anarchist communist society. This can only be done by the 
mass of the working class (broadly defined as all those who have to sell their labour 
power) developing an effective revolutionary movement that overthrows class society, the 
State and all forms of authoritarianism and oppression, where people take control of 
society and their lives and can live co-operatively, without inequality and injustice and 
with freedom to be who they want without coercion. It is not just a question of 
overthrowing capitalism as an economic system but also the other oppressive structures and 
ideologies that are an integral part of the current system.

This goal has proven to be remarkably difficult. Most people in the working class, though 
suffering under the system and often critical of it, are still reluctant to join us in 
building a revolutionary movement. And, within our own class, there are major divisions 
that are the result of centuries of social systems and ideologies such as patriarchy, 
racism and the colonial legacy, hostility towards those who go against the norm in terms 
of sexuality and gender. This is why we support oppressed groups to organise autonomously. 
However, we still need a united movement.  The big question is how do we actually build a 
united movement when such serious divisions exist and in which many are suffering at the 
hands of other working class people, including people within the anarchist movement itself?

Our answer to the first issue is that we need to make sure as anarchists we are directly 
involved in struggle, in the workplace and the community. Without being part of working 
class struggles we cannot hope to convince people that a revolution is both desirable and 
possible. In addition, we need to be explaining to people what anarchism is, giving 
possible ideas of what a future society might look like as well as give an anarchist 
analysis of what is going on at the moment. We cannot get anywhere by staying within our 
own ghettos, relating only to people who agree with us and writing for social media sites 
that are only read by the already ‘converted'. The tendency towards practices that are 
inward-looking, destructive, self-referential, etc is not revolutionary. You need an 
outward-looking, expansive, genuinely inclusive approach that accepts degrees of 
difference if you want to change the world - or simply save your local library or support 
a group of workers in struggle.

Our answer to the first question influences our answer to the second one. We need to be 
fighting against patriarchy, eg for reproductive justice and against domestic violence, 
and against bigotry of all kinds that leads to discrimination, bullying and violence, from 
within the working class. We need to challenge how capitalism and the State create, use 
and reinforce any oppressions that they can make use of. However, we need to do more than 
this- we also need to challenge these ideas and practices within our class. The key thing 
to stress here is that the people we are talking about are still our class. Yes, there 
will be some who go over to the other side and became major obstacles to social change, eg 
those who become fascists. Nevertheless, we still have to see the majority of people as 
basically potentially on our side or we will never have a revolution and create the kind 
of society we want to live in. This was the mistake of the Bolsheviks (amongst others!), 
thinking that they could impose a social system on people.

This task is enormously difficult as we are all, to some extent, prisoners of an 
all-embracing ideology that we are often not aware of which means everyone will bring with 
them into a working class movement, and more specifically an anarchist movement, a range 
of prejudices and practices that are incompatible with creating anarchist communism. So 
how do we address these issues without treating the people we are working with as enemies 
in the same way as the ruling class is our enemy?

In recent years, within the anarchist and general activist movement, there has been an 
increasing amount of people called to account for their actions and beliefs. This could be 
seen as a positive thing- oppressed groups are gaining confidence to speak out and not 
willing to put up with unacceptable behaviours from those they are working with. However, 
what could be seen as positive has now become a hindrance to positive engagement with 
people whose actions are unacceptable in some way.

Using the concept of safer spaces (again potentially a positive development) more and more 
people are ‘called out' and, rather than dealing with problems in a more informal and 
personal way, are put through accountability procedures that in the vast majority of cases 
don't lead to a desired outcome where the person is reintegrated into the group. Instead, 
much resentment is created. Often news is spread through social media- ‘outing' the person 
who has been accused. The social media gossip machine comes into play and the person is 
ostracised and treated as an ‘untouchable'. It is not a way we should be treating people 
who are our comrades and not the class enemy. If a movement or organisation is too inward 
looking, there can even be a tendency for people to look for examples of inappropriate 
behaviour that they can expose.

The intentions behind the various policies that have been put in place are usually based 
on a sincere desire to try and eradicate oppressive behaviours in the movement. But the 
end result has become an oppressive, authoritarian system in itself, resembling the 
Cultural Revolution in China in which Red Guards (guardians of the revolution) set out to 
expose ‘reactionary elements'. The way they went about it involved humiliation, emotional 
and physical abuse and even death for the accused. People were afraid to speak out and 
people denounced their neighbours and workmates and even their own family. This is 
certainly not something that is compatible with the way we envisage an anarchist communist 
society.

Events at the Bookfair

The women who came to the Bookfair to distribute leaflets against the Gender Recognition 
Act certainly came to provoke a debate and ended up negatively disrupting the Bookfair. 
Helen Steel in her support of their giving out the leaflet (though she herself did not 
write it or hand it out) has been criticised. However, the reaction of what can only be 
described as a mob is completely unacceptable. Keeping in line with what we argue above, 
no one of our comrades should be treated as the class enemy and be intimidated physically 
or emotionally. Helen has been a comrade and an active class struggle anarchist, involved 
in campaigns and struggles for decades. At the Bookfair itself she was involved in giving 
two meetings and personally has been under serious attack from the State. This does not 
mean that she was right but she should not be challenged by a mob. If people disagree with 
her views on transgender issues, then there are other ways of expressing them. And this 
leads on to the next question. What exactly is a correct line on transgender?

Increasing numbers of people are questioning their gender identity and seeking to 
re-identify as the other gender or to reject all gender labels and refer to themselves as 
non-binary or gender-fluid. However, the way the debate is often framed is, ‘there is no 
debate and it's not up for discussion'. In other words, there is only one ‘correct' 
position with no room for a nuanced understanding, and the trans activists and their 
‘allies' in the anarchist and other political scenes hold exactly that position. However, 
it's worth pointing out that not even all trans people agree with this ‘correct' position. 
Yet anyone who disagrees or attempts to take a nuanced view is labelled a transphobe or a 
TERF which means that they immediately move to a ‘beyond the pale' status where they are 
the enemy. Therefore it is perfectly acceptable to hurl abuse, physically evict them from 
spaces and send death threats.

We acknowledge that within the wider feminist movement, there are some deeply offensive 
views and comments with regards to trans women that can only be described as hate speech. 
At the same time, to disagree even slightly with the view that transwomen are women in the 
same way as those who were born female and have been socialised to be women is often seen 
as hate speech. Clearly, it isn't. Trans women and those born and socialised as female 
often face very different challenges which may need to be dealt with in different ways, 
even sometimes separately. To acknowledge this is not ‘transphobia' and doesn't make 
someone a 'TERF' (although we are aware that such 'difference' is made a point of emphasis 
and weaponised by some of the more unpleasant elements in the feminist scene).

The choice seems to be to accept, without question or nuance, the view that transwomen are 
women or be moved to the category of enemy that is normally reserved for the likes of 
fascists, rapists and capitalists.

It seems that most people prefer, therefore, to just keep quiet. This situation is toxic. 
We should not be in a situation where people who are all struggling for a better society 
are unable to have open and comradely discussions about their views. It may be difficult 
but it is essential if we are not going to tear ourselves apart.

The aftermath

The statement written by Edinburgh AF and also the Open Letter signed by a number of other 
groups not only supported the actions of those who sought to physically evict Helen. In 
fact, its main purpose seemed to attack the Bookfair organisers. There are many serious 
problems with these statements. Many points were already addressed in the reply from the 
Bookfair Collective. Here we will discuss the political issues with the statements.

Firstly, again we have a situation where individuals are ‘called out' or denounced in 
rather aggressive and abusive tones, treating real people, most of whom are well known 
personally by many in the movement, as if they were strangers- strangers who deserve no 
respect or consideration for their feelings. And, these criticisms are made by people who 
have had no involvement in organising the Bookfair. Many of those signing statements are 
not anarchists and did not have stalls or meetings. It is not acceptable to make such a 
negative statement from such a position. People certainly can criticise, but it should be 
constructive criticism, recognising all the positive aspects of the Bookfair and offering 
to help to improve things. Now some are saying they will organise bookfairs; they will 
soon realise how very difficult it is.

One area that was criticised was the issue of security. People running bookfairs have many 
difficult decisions to make about having an open, public bookfair and maintaining 
security. You can draft all the statements and policies that you want but it is impossible 
to prevent anyone who is intent on disruption doing so. Last year's disruption of the 
Syrian meeting was an example. The collective has tended to go for openness. They are a 
very small collective and would find it very difficult to ‘police' everything that goes on 
or to stop individuals coming in. In order to stop any disruption you would need a very 
big ‘security' force as well as know who you were going to stop going in. And before that 
you need to decide who can't come in. The implication of the statements critical of the 
Bookfair collective implied that the collective should be checking any publication that 
was being sold or distributed as well as having a long list of banned individuals that 
different people find offensive. This would make for a very different atmosphere- very 
authoritarian. So it is not so easy to get the balance right.

There is also a serious political contradiction in the statements. The Bookfair collective 
was accused of racism. This referred to their ‘allowing' slogans such as ‘religion is 
stupid' as this might be considered offensive to religious people, many of whom are Black 
or Asian, it is racist. There are several problems with this. Firstly, as anarchist 
communists, and we assume other anarchists, we are against religion. This is because all 
religions are irrational, based on authoritarian structures and are one of the main 
ideological supports for patriarchy and bigotry. One of the main anarchist slogans is ‘No 
Gods, No Masters'. Therefore, though ‘religion is stupid' is not the best of slogans, we 
would expect literature and meetings exposing the problems of religion. And, being against 
religion does not make you a racist or a supporter of colonialism. The entire colonialist 
enterprise was crucially supported by both the ideology of religion and its practitioners, 
eg missionaries. The Bible was used to justify the slave trade and the incredible 
exploitation and repression of those colonised. Also, what does the common accusation of 
Islamophobia actually mean? If we are against religion then we are against Islam. Islam 
also is a religion originally spread by war and aggression, forcibly converting people as 
its jihadists spread out from the Arabian peninsular. And no one would agree with ISIS and 
the regime of brutality and reaction. What is important is that we think about how to go 
about making our points about religion. We have to make sure that we expose the general 
problems with religion without picking on just one, such as Islam which many racists do. 
Also, we may be anti-religion but we are not anti the people who are religious. Most 
people who practice a religion do not share the beliefs of the more radical right form of 
religions. This is why we would of course show solidarity with religious groups that are 
being attacked and discriminated against. In the campaigns and struggles we are in we will 
often be working with people who are religious. It is not the place to engage in attacks 
on religion. But that doesn't mean we can't do general propaganda against religion and 
support those who are experiencing repression because of it.

Given the sentiments expressed in the statements, it is surprising that they are so 
supportive of religion. Certainly Christianity, Islam and Judaism would not be 
particularly supportive of men and women changing their gender. Patriarchy and distinct 
gender roles are a key part of all of these religions. However, they would not ‘call out' 
religious believers or they would then be accused of being anti-Semitic, racist or 
Islamophobic!

This contradiction is illustrated by the incident at Goldsmiths College a few years ago. 
There was a meeting organised by the secular society with a woman speaker from Iran. She 
has rejected Islam and was explaining the difficulties for women in Iran and the problems 
people have in rejecting religion. One would have thought this would be someone anarchists 
and all those fighting patriarchy would support. Instead of white European anarchists and 
feminists parachuting in and telling people what to do in a particular culture, the 
speaker was from the culture and was fighting religion and patriarchy from her own 
experience. This meeting was severely disrupted by the Islamic society, invoking the 
college's ‘safer spaces' policy. This is not surprising but what was surprising is the 
amount of support the Islamic society got from the Feminist and LBGTQ societies, as well 
as from other anarchists in the usual internet exchange. So we have anarchists supporting 
oppressive ideologies and practices in order not to be called ‘Islamophobic'!

Conclusion

The main point of this statement is to stress that we have to keep in mind what we are 
actually fighting for. In the current period, with the world threatened by 
capitalism-fuelled climate change, wars and conflict, repression, nationalism and 
religious bigotry, immense suffering for vast numbers etc etc,  we cannot afford to be 
fighting amongst ourselves. We would argue that creating a fundamentally different society 
is the only way out of an extremely serious situation: we would call this society 
anarchist or libertarian communism. Of course, we must stress all of these issues will 
affect certain groups more than others. That is why it is important to base a strategy and 
an analysis on an awareness of the way capitalism and the State amplify and reinforce 
systems such as patriarchy and racial oppression. We have to take into account the 
diversity of the working class and different experiences different groups and individuals 
have. Nevertheless, it is still necessary to come together effectively in order to have 
any chance of overthrowing the current system and creating a new society.

This means that it is vital that we work out ways of overcoming serious divisions within 
the working class. These divisions are not trivial or secondary to class. However, without 
an overall class analysis which sees us united as a class against a ruling class and a 
system based on exploitation and power, it is too easy to get isolated and immersed in 
one's own particular situation. The end result is a narrow political outlook, intense and 
bitter conflict (as we have seen) and a working class so divided that it is ineffectual.

We need to think about how we can create such a united working class that at the same 
times takes oppressions within society and the class seriously. We believe that this would 
involve a critical look at the current political culture which is increasingly 
authoritarian and inward-looking.

One key way of doing this is to get out of anarchist/activist ghettos and become involved 
in campaigns and struggles in both the workplace and community. Those of us who have been 
involved in community campaigns for example Residents Associations, fighting evictions or 
demolitions, saving markets etc find that we are working with a diverse range of people. 
We will not agree on a range of issues such as migrants and borders and the role of women 
in society and belief in religion. And, we would certainly find that many would have very 
conservative views on sexuality and gender. However, by working together with a common aim 
(and not on the internet!) there are opportunities to informally discuss many issues and 
explain our anarchist ideas on these subjects in a non-aggressive way. Also, many of the 
people involved in such campaigns and groups will not be the usual university-educated 
and/or white activists. Instead, we all get first-hand experience of different views and 
perspectives, offering first-hand experience of what we pay lip service to with the pious 
statements about building a movement that is more diverse, often couched in obscure, 
political language.

A second important point is that even when we are engaged in important struggles against 
particular oppressions we must keep in mind that there is a bigger picture. It is not just 
a question of fighting an individual's behaviour or attitude. Oppressions have their basis 
in a whole system, within structures and institutions. Adopting a wider perspective is 
important within the political movements themselves.  Your male comrade may be acting in a 
sexist way, the white activist may not appreciate the impact of colonialism and racism on 
struggles and feminists may not understand the issues facing trans people but ultimately 
they are struggling for the same thing you are. In this way we can perhaps find less 
aggressive and authoritarian ways of dealing with oppressive behaviour and ideas within 
the movement itself. Keep in mind how you would handle unacceptable behaviour amongst 
workmates or in a residents association. An aggressive, ‘call-out' approach, humiliating a 
person on Facebook or banning them from spaces, would not be acceptable and could 
completely destroy any chance of your struggles succeeding. (Obviously, there are times 
when actions may be so extreme that banning people may be necessary but we have to make 
sure that this action is carefully considered.)

We need to take a critical look at the language we use. The tendency has been to come up 
with a label for a viewpoint that we don't agree with. This is usually labels like 
‘racist',  fascist', ‘sexist' as well as ‘TERF', ‘Islamophobe', ‘middle class feminist', 
‘identity politics'. It is an easy way of dismissing the other viewpoint without actually 
engaging with the issues. This behaviour is found throughout political movements as well 
as in our daily lives. Even the practice of shouting abuse at the class enemy, eg scum or 
wanker, though immensely satisfying, does not actually help explain our views to the rest 
of the working class. What is needed is a very practical and thorough discussion of what 
the views and practices are and then if there is disagreement, the counter-argument can be 
explained clearly and logically.

We also need to think about the use of the internet. The tendency to be aggressive, to 
denounce, apply labels and be quite abusive has escalated with the use of the internet. 
Unfortunately, it seems a large percentage of anarchists and other activists spend a large 
part of their political activity on forums and Facebook. These mediums make it much easier 
to inflame conflict rather than resolve it. Again, we need to come out of ghettos, and the 
internet is a kind of ghetto as people are only communicating with certain people within 
the activist milieu. Instead we need to be working together on activities, having 
discussions and socials and in general getting to know people who we never see but only 
exchange abuse with.

It may sound melodramatic, but in many ways the fate of humanity depends on the ability of 
anarchists to get their act together and begin to build an effective revolutionary 
movement. We would like to work with others who want to do the same.

https://communistanarchism.blogspot.co.il/2018/01/class-struggle-anarchist-statement-on_1.html

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

Message: 4






The poorest sections of the working class continue to bear the brunt of capitalist 
austerity while the rate of exploitation increases and levels of poverty become ever more 
pronounced - especially with the catastrophic effects of Universal Credit here in the UK. 
---- Still, it's not bad for everyone. Research by the Chartered Institute of Personnel 
and Development (CIPD) and the High Pay Centre shows that, on average, chief executives of 
FTSE 100 companies are paid around £898 per hour - that's 256 times what apprentices earn 
on the minimum wage. If that's not sickening enough, how about the fact that last Thursday 
morning (now known as ‘Fat Cat Thursday') the UK's highest paid bosses actually ‘earned' 
more before lunchtime than the average UK worker earns in the whole year! In other words, 
the median wage for chief executives of FTSE 100 companies is around £3.45m a year... 
that's 120 times the UK average full-time wage of £28,758.

While this Guardian article contains further horrifying statistics for Fat Cat Thursday, 
as anarchist communists we have to say we are not really surprised by this kind of 
behaviour from the most exploitative sections of the boss class. After all, it's what the 
capitalist system's all about. What is more surprising, however, is how people can still 
continue to swallow myths like 'we're all in it together' and 'the national interest' 
when, in reality, the national interest is, by definition, what's of interest (and 
profitable) to the bosses. So it goes without saying that we, as a class, need to totally 
reject the myth that workers have anything in common with these parasitic leeches if we 
ever want to see any change for the better in this world.

https://communistanarchism.blogspot.co.il/

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