home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive
- Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!mont!pencil.cs.missouri.edu!rich
- From: aforum@moose.uvm.edu (Autonome Forum)
- Subject: AF/ATS: interview with Red Army Fraction (RAF) prisoners
- Message-ID: <1992Aug27.195936.12846@mont.cs.missouri.edu>
- Followup-To: alt.activism.d
- Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
- Sender: news@mont.cs.missouri.edu
- Nntp-Posting-Host: pencil.cs.missouri.edu
- Organization: University of Vermont -- Division of EMBA Computer Facility
- Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:59:36 GMT
- Approved: map@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
- Lines: 569
-
- posted by: AF/ATS
- --
-
- "They Want To Destroy Us"
- An interview with Red Army Fraction political prisoners
-
- (The following is an interview with Karl-Heinz Dellwo, Knut
- Folkerts, and Lutz Taufer which was held in a prison in Celle in
- West Germany. Dellwo and Taufer have been in prison since April
- 1975, each sentenced to two life terms on charges of murder and
- kidnapping relating to a RAF commando's take-over of the German
- embassy in Stockholm. Folkerts has been in prison since September
- 1977, serving a life term for the RAF's attack on state
- prosecutor Buback. In this interview, the three RAF prisoners
- give their thoughts on the RAF's latest communiques, in which
- the RAF have announced a halt to their armed actions. This
- interview - the first these men have ever been allowed to give -
- was conducted by Thomas Ebermann, Rosita Timm, and Hermann
- Gremliza of the German left-radical paper "Konkret". We have
- translated it from issue 12 of the Dutch left-radical paper
- "Konfrontatie".)
-
- Gremliza: "If it's true that American imperialism is a paper-
- tiger, then that means that it can be defeated; and if the notion
- of the Chinese communists is correct, that American imperialism
- can be defeated if it is opposed in all the far corners of the
- world, so that imperialism's strength is spread out and weakened;
- if all this is true, then there's no reason why any country or
- region should be excluded from the anti-imperialist struggle,
- just because the revolutionary strength there is weak or the
- reactionary forces are strong. It is just as wrong to discourage
- revolutionary groups by underestimating them as it is to propose
- terrains of struggle which would just lead to their destruction."
- That is a quotation from the RAF paper "The Urban Guerrilla
- Concept" published in April 1971. The latest statement from the
- RAF, which we are discussing today, makes that closing conclusion
- some 21 years after the founding document was issued: because it
- seems imperialism is not a paper-tiger, it cannot be defeated, so
- there's no point in wasting energy on a hopeless struggle. Is
- this what is meant?
-
- Taufer: The world of the 70s was different than the world of the
- 90s. At that time, we lived, thought, and fought as part of the
- world-wide uprising against U.S. imperialist hegemony. The world
- was comprised of two blocks; the Soviet Union placed imperialism
- in a power situation where its intervention possibilities against
- liberation movements in the Three Continents were limited. In
- Latin America, each country had at least one armed resistance
- group; there were successful liberation movements in Africa,
- Asia, and the Middle East. In Vietnam, a nation of small farmers
- wearing sandals made of car tires placed the world's most
- powerful military machine in a no-win situation. And then there
- were the uprisings in the metropoles themselves. We now know that
- the protest movements against the Vietnam War, especially in the
- U.S., helped lead Nixon and Kissenger to conclude as early as
- 1968 that the war could not be won.
- The fact that West German politicians at that time decried
- the growing "contempt for authority"; the fact that one of the
- primary investigations of the Trilateral Commission (1) was the
- "crisis of democracy", because the metropoles were being swept up
- in a wave of base-democracy; and finally, the fact that then-
- chancellor Willy Brandt continually spoke as though West Berlin's
- freedom was at stake in Vietnam; these facts are typical of the
- dominant consciousness regarding the world-wide critical
- situation at that time.
- Then there was our insight, that imperialism found itself
- "on a strategic defensive". All over the world, there were
- simultaneous uprisings against U.S. imperialist domination; and
- against the background of Auschwitz and Vietnam, the politics and
- morals of an attempt at armed struggle in the center of
- imperialism gave us the strength to link ourselves to these
- uprisings. The dubious and unclear relationship between the
- political institutions, the industries, the justice system, and
- the army and Germany's fascist past, on the one and, and their
- clearly stated position regarding the genocide taking place in
- Vietnam, on the other, made it seem possible for fascism to once
- again rise in Germany. Armed resistance in Germany was, in a
- certain sense, an attempt to revive "The Resistance".
- Our prediction that U.S. imperialism was close to collapse
- seems to have been mistaken. Today we live in a completely
- different world. In the 60s and 70s, people sought to create
- "one, two, three, many Vietnams" so as to undermine the Western
- system of profit and exploitation. In line with this, the non-
- aligned nations called for a new economic world order. Now things
- seem exactly the reverse: imperialism has the upper hand and can
- easily write off entire populations. Their cheap labor and cheap
- natural resources are no longer needed, therefore they have lost
- their right to existence.
- The world is no longer held between two poles, Third World
- vs. Metropoles; the world is split between those who have and the
- poor who have-not. You find both of these worlds in Germany, the
- U.S., Brazil, Chile, Egypt, India, and Nigeria. They exist
- everywhere. In the U.S., the pretensions of a new world order and
- diffuse uprisings are mere blocks apart. When the marines came
- home from Grenada and Panama, they were sent to Los Angeles. The
- marginalized - the majority of the world's people, thus - find
- themselves in a Robinson Crusoe-like situation. They are being
- drowned by imperialism and the world market; their fate is
- uncertain. Their biological and social survival is dependent on
- them scraping together what they can from what's around them.
- The coming time will be one of social movements and economic
- and social discoveries. The precondition is that attempts are
- successful at winning space to make concrete utopias that have
- some global meaning. The other possibility is an increase in
- violence by and against people who are just fighting to survive.
- And then the RAF's input on the violence-question would be
- irrelevant in the face of this escalation. The latest RAF
- statement deals with this changed world situation. This is not
- capitulation, but a necessary re-orientation to a situation which
- lies in the way of armed action.
-
- Gremliza: Do you have anything to add to the latest RAF
- statement, or any criticisms of it?
-
- Dellwo: I think the statement is excellent. The essence of it
- is, we have reached certain limits, but we shouldn't give up. I
- wouldn't want to criticize things which others formulated and
- arrived at on their own.
- The RAF has reached a boundary, and we all have the feeling
- that we have been at this for 20 years, but that we can't get and
- further. For the RAF in it's founding period, the urban-guerrilla
- concept was a question of power. We were able to break through
- our powerlessness and to concretely oppose the politics of those
- in power. We wanted to create a space for the left, an
- illegality in which each person can be a subject - a political
- subject - that goes on the attack. The state, the politics of the
- ruling class, the question of the system - that was not up for
- negotiation, and those who were on the bottom had to just keep
- quiet. That also had to fought against, because a logical
- consequence of power is keeping people down. We shot back, and
- turned this top-down relationship inside-out.
- Now, something else is going on, and it can't be kept in
- check by the authorities. What is arising is a new social
- thought, a new historical and social aim for the society. I know
- that this has something to do with the need to regain the self-
- determination of people and nature. But our immediate obstacle is
- alienation within society.
- Of course, we had such things in the back of our minds, like
- the disenfranchisement of the means of production; that's a goal
- you can start with. But it remained very vague. Is was more
- about: you can't possibly live any longer in this world dominated
- by capital; you no longer wanted to just sit by and watch the
- crimes being committed across the globe. Your usefulness to the
- system is already calculated before you're old enough to tie your
- own shoes. Against this, you just had to tried to resist and hold
- your own. With the collapse of real-existing socialism, our frame
- of reference did not disappear. The structure of that society did
- not conform to our goal. But that society was a real-existing
- system of opposition to capitalism. And another idea - in terms
- of an entire system, that is - has not yet developed. We have
- continually stated: we have no history, we always start at square
- one. Now I think that that was more encompassing that we
- ourselves were aware of. At this time, we have no general
- perspective. Maybe we'll never arrive at one, but that doesn't
- constitute a break per se. The old perspective did keep its form,
- but it didn't help to give a new vision of the world and of life.
- This is something we need concretely to find. And that's part of
- coming to grips with the day-to-day affairs of society. We need
- to introduce a moment of change into this day-to-day. Only in
- this way can we develop a vision of society in its totality. I
- think that there are breaks from the system that exist within the
- day-to-day. We need to seek these out.
-
- Gremliza: When I compare the situation of 1970/71 to that of
- today, I find only one difference: that the real-existing
- socialist countries no longer exist, and many of the movements
- which sprung from these have disappeared.
-
- Taufer: It's still a question whether that's a positive or a
- negative change, because the support that existed was double,
- even during the Vietnam War. The foundation of a social
- perspective was supported by this. And as the discussions of the
- Tupamaros (2) have recently shown, the collapse of the real-
- existing socialist states has also had a liberating effect on the
- left and on political movements. They have been forced back upon
- their own resources, and they now have to develop a socially
- emancipatory perspective from out of their own conditions and
- history. And the left here needs to do the same thing.
-
- Gremliza: Here in Germany, the left - even parts of the left that
- always spoke out against real-existing socialism - does not seem
- relieved, does not feel any sort of liberation or emancipation,
- but rather has sworn off all resistance and joined up with the
- successful fatherland.
-
- Taufer: If we're talking about the love of the fatherland that
- many people have come to hold, this seems based on the fact that
- the spirit of fundamental opposition to capitalism of the 68-
- movement has been liquidated by the legend of total democracy
- that that self-same 68-movement gave rise to. I think that the
- discussions which the RAF have initiated should also reevaluate
- the entire past 25 years.
-
- Ebermann: When I read the latest RAF statement, I get the feeling
- that the consequences are correct, but that the argument jumps
- around. I feel as though it's description of how big the defeat
- is is not convincing.
-
- Dellwo: And if we don't have a feeling of defeat?
-
- Ebermann: Then there's a political difference here, and you can
- just cynically hope that you are more correct than those with a
- more somber opinion.
-
- Folkerts: Winning and losing are two relative terms. We have had
- to work with defeats and endure losses; both inside and outside
- jails, we have experienced some really tough situations. But even
- now, in this difficult transition period, we will never maintain
- that we have lost. In all those years we have wanted to become
- social partners, to come together with other experiences. That's
- why we are seeking contact with as many people as possible, on
- the left - what still remains - and with groups that have arisen
- out of the new contradictions. We have had a lot of experiences
- in this long confrontation, we have gained strength, but all
- without booking any major successes - maybe it's less visible and
- spectacular, but I'm convinced that we've gained something.
-
- Dellwo: I also don't get the feeling that we've been defeated.
- We've been in jail for 17 years, Knut for 15 years; all that
- time, we have experienced how the state tries to destroy you. But
- they haven't succeeded, quite the contrary: you have the feeling
- of having survived it all. As for the RAF, we have reached a
- boundary, and so I ask: have we achieved something, or not? Have
- we - like we wanted to - done something historic? What will
- happen with those experiences that would not have been if not for
- us?
-
- Taufer: Right now, the trend on the left is to dwell on all of
- the defeats. Personally, I haven't been able to get a good idea
- of what's going on from in prison. If any place in Western Europe
- has had a strong left since 1966, it's Germany, starting with the
- first sit-in at the Free University, all the way until the RAF's
- latest actions. Where else in Western Europe has the left been so
- regenerative?
- I am all for examining the past 25 years to find all the
- mistakes and weak-points. But our potential will largely be
- determined by whether we are led by a historical pessimism or if
- we're full of trust. In Germany, and in the whole world, the left
- seems to have hit a boundary and is in crisis; so now I think we
- have a unique opportunity to learn from the past, things we used
- to think we didn't need to learn.
- There have been numerous important experiences, including
- our own. We have been living under totalitarian conditions, for
- 10 years we were in the super-security wing, a sort of mini-Third
- Reich; but they couldn't get to us, even though they monitored
- every aspect of our lives with video cameras, microphones, brain-
- washing, and other such things. We have experienced things that
- could only possibly take place in the super-security wing. And we
- mean both regarding ourselves and the left, including the
- question of defeat, we have had a lot of experiences that are of
- good use to those on the outside.
-
- Ebermann: Of course you could say that you could only talk of
- defeat if they had been able to deny us our political thought and
- opposition. If that's what is meant by defeat, then certainly
- neither you nor I have been defeated. It hasn't reached that
- point, and it hopefully never will.
- But there's also the notion of defeat which simply implies
- that the stated goals have not been reached, and as for the
- experiences gained in the struggle, they are pushed off to the
- side: 'We won't talk about that, that was a flop. No one in the
- struggle can possibly learn from that; so let's just forget about
- it.' This stance is often taken with people who have failed to
- reach their stated goals. This also makes criticism of real-
- existing socialism distasteful; everyone seems to want to
- proclaim how they never believed in it in the first place. I
- personally have written dozens of pages criticizing real-existing
- socialism, but I always hoped that the DDR would hold its own in
- the face of West Germany; I had hoped that it would prevent
- certain plans from being realized, like armament, which allows
- people to be silently killed far away while we here never hear of
- it; I had hoped it would helped check the murderous armament
- policies and economic penetration. If I were to deny all that and
- claim that it was never a question of socialism, to deny any
- emancipation, to claim the alienation and commodity relations
- were the same, then I'd destroy anything which could be learned
- from.
- But this second definition of defeat isn't what I mean
- either. When I talk of defeat, then I mean in terms of social
- power relationships. First, the state hasn't broken you all and
- it hasn't broken me, and second, not everything that happened
- during that time was rubbish. But the social power relationships
- have placed us in a position of isolation unlike I have ever
- before experienced.
-
- Dellwo: You mean, the system is more stable now than 20 years
- ago?
-
- Ebermann: Yes, I think the system is more stable now. I don't
- want to just dismiss our hope - that the metropoles could not
- collapse without our help - as total fantasy. But I'm just trying
- to look at our history, and for a while it wasn't clear which
- powers would get the upper hand in the world. We shouted the
- slogan "Create one, two, three, many Vietnams!", not because it
- was hopeless, but because at that time it was realistic.
- At the present time, historical writings portray us as a
- bunch of idiotic fanatics; if we had just been a little more
- realistic, we could have better anticipated imperialism's fate.
- This is a gross manner of writing history, typical of self-
- satisfied fools who simply take pleasure in the fact that they
- never threw bricks 20 years ago. But today, our experiences
- remain outside the public debate. I experienced this as follows:
- if there was a struggle in society, there was always a spectrum,
- to which we were the radical wing, but which nonetheless had
- sufficient ties to certain left-reformist groups or some
- prominent social democrat or media figure. At present, there are
- plenty of debates - about the Soviet Union, shortages in the
- public sector, what is to happen with the former DDR, etc. - but
- we have no place in those debates.
-
- Folkerts: That just shows that the left's frame of reference has
- disappeared. The dividing line between East and West, the anti-
- colonialist struggle and the movements in the metropoles and all
- that went along with that with any revolutionary potential - the
- historical phase that began with the October Revolution is at an
- end, and a break needs to be made. We need a new uniting of
- emancipatory forces, because the old ones - like the APO (3) -
- were all determined by history. New social places, relationships,
- and ties will come into being, even at the international level.
- And as for our isolated position - we can't avoid this. In our
- illegality, we learned to swim against the current; in the
- loneliness of our isolation cells, we learned that it's still
- possible to stand despite being overwhelmed. This has given us
- lots of trust, a trust in ourselves and a trust in the potential
- of those people seeking change.
-
- Taufer: If the left is so weak at present, then maybe that's
- because it no longer offers a believable utopia.
-
- Ebermann: No, I don't think you're correct about that. There's no
- lack of utopia's, it's just that people don't want to hear about
- them. Take, for example, the criticism of production, which until
- a few years ago was still widely discussed, with its good and bad
- sides, with over-done idealizing of alternative factories and
- romantic notions of the old ways on the one hand, and absurd
- self-exploitation on the other. But still, there was a discussion
- of whether this manner of production, which chained people to the
- industrial process by means of machines and assembly-lines, was
- something to fight against or not.
- So about 5 or 10 percent of the population entertained the
- dream that things would be nicer if done in some other way. And
- that's a utopian notion. And that's exactly what's gone now.
- There is so little desire within society to overcome alienation
- that one almost has to conclude that the other side has indeed
- won: they've won, because they've gotten people to believe that
- the world we have now is the best we can hope for.
-
- Folkerts: Maybe that's because you're still going about things
- with the old model. You have to closely examine how the
- contradictions take on new forms and how they manifest themselves
- in society.
- Naturally, that's why a left-wing force is necessary, and
- the circle becomes whole again, because this left-wing force is
- absent today, and that's why the reactionaries have the upper
- hand.
-
- Timm: The main area of difference between Thomas (Ebermann)
- and you all seems to be the assessment of the imperialist
- system's stability. And I get the impression that Thomas is
- looking at the economic side: that economic stability and
- breadth, and the economic possibilities which have sprung from
- this, are playing an important role in the former socialist
- countries.
- I refer back to Vietnam, where all this came from: the
- economic and military superiority of the U.S. was pitted against
- a people with little more at hand than it's own will for
- independence, a will which could not be broken by superior
- military and economic strength.
- And today, this same economic power is at work, and no one
- pays heed to fundamental ideas or ideals, not even the ruling
- class. If someone starts talking about "the intensification of
- democracy", then everyone just laughs. Another problem is the
- question of where to begin. How can you analyze something if you
- just trust the published account of public's opinion? If
- everything that happens just stays in small circles and doesn't
- get written about - like the developments in the Hamburg
- neighborhood St.Georg, where cooperation has started between
- social-pedagogical initiatives, residents, and the Grey Panthers
- (4) against the city government's drug policies. And it isn't
- just the ideological question of providing free heroine; what's
- concretely stated is, we don't like what the police are doing. If
- they sweep the junkies out of the train station, they just shoot-
- up in front of peoples' houses. The result has been, people have
- organized and called for the police to get the hell out of the
- neighborhood. That's something concrete, and it's a good
- starting-point.
-
- Ebermann: I assume that people there are doing something useful.
- But that's not a way to discuss politics and society!
-
- Timm: Why not?
-
- Ebermann: I'll give a counter-example and a citation. First the
- example: In Schleswig-Holstein, all asylum-seekers would be lined
- up outside the doors of the social services department to
- illustrate their misuse of the welfare system. In all of
- Schleswig-Holstein, about 200 people protested against this. I am
- convinced that this shows the basis of the ruling powers'
- ideological hegemony; the fact that they have seemingly shown
- that, no matter how bad shit is in this world - and no one doubts
- that - the brutality of everyone against everyone is taken for
- granted. And that translates into a lack of opposition to the
- racism which is vented against refugees.
-
- Taufer: I also look at it that way. But you'll also find
- historical situations where movements for solidarity and freedom
- had been infiltrated by the state's ideological hegemony, and
- still you often found that resistance developed more often. At
- this moment in the U.S., the ruling powers have no solutions to
- offer for the social problems there. And these are no longer
- confined to the blacks in the ghettos, but also the middle-class
- is being affected, even though they initially slide to the right.
- The question is, how can we develop counter-powers, and that
- means assimilating the history of the last 25 years, to learn its
- strengths and weaknesses.
-
- Dellwo: Thomas (Ebermann) says that the system has become more
- stable over the last 20 years. I don't agree. We had to deal with
- a very specific process and go down many false paths, which we
- won't go down again, but which we had to go down at the time. But
- given our present lack of direction and the fact that we find
- ourselves in a vacuum at present, because we have no central
- perspective, and because of the fact that real-existing socialism
- was the first historical attempt at a solution, and it failed,
- and we need something new - all of these facts don't mean that
- the system has become more stable.
- We could give a whole list of things which show how the
- system is weaker now and more unstable than it once was. But this
- won't help us advance. Because the other side's decay does not
- increase our strength. There is no automatic link between
- suffering and liberation. And just because the system is stable,
- that's not the reason for our weakness. I can't think in this
- way. Whether the system is more stable or not - everyone that
- doesn't want to waste his/her life in this society needs to be
- rid of the dominant consensus and use his/her own mind and fight
- for life and develop a counter-reality in this society. That's
- how I interpret the statement from our comrades.
- We are seeing the situation from different backgrounds. We
- have accepted our isolation as our starting-point. Sometimes that
- was extremely difficult, but it hasn't broken us. In other words:
- we have continually faced up to times when making the break with
- the system was hard. Others were scared of this isolation and
- ended up there anyway, only unnoticed and not knowing why. I just
- think it's wrong to say that's because the system is so strong
- instead of self-critically realizing that you always give up
- something along the way. Many people have maintained that a break
- with the system has to be something tangible in our lives, and
- for myself, I don't care if I go it alone or not. In any case, a
- precondition for each successive development is taking a look
- around the next corner. But it should be much easier to solve
- now, since the question of competence is much clearer. How many
- chances to we need to give to capitalism to solve humanity's
- pressing problems? And isn't that in fact proof of the
- instability of the system?
-
- Taufer: Yes, if you define stability as the total of brutality,
- egoism, and unrestrained push towards profit that the mechanism
- can possibly socially sustain and still further develop. You
- could speak of stability in this way. But this egoism and
- brutality are also extremely destructive to the society.
-
- Ebermann: Maybe I can make it clearer what I mean, by citing the
- RAF statement: "It's an important question, how long the state
- will tolerate racism against refugees and treat them as 'sub-
- humans' so as to make both the state and industry not seem
- responsible for unemployment, housing shortages, poverty among
- the elderly, etc., and how long the state can continue to deport
- these people back to the impoverished conditions which the state
- helped create in the first place."
- I find this horrible. We live in a time in which almost
- everything in this sector could strike at the roots of society -
- the call for open borders, for example, was positively received
- in liberal/church circles - but instead is all wiped out by the
- consensus that refugees need to be treated harshly and
- mercilessly. And there's little relevant social resistance to
- this. If I compare this to the above citation, then I get to
- thinking that if the question of what to do next is being linked
- with the need to call off armed actions, then I think the authors
- of the statement are still working under the assumption that they
- have booked some successes and are now looking for the next
- practical step.
- Another point makes this more clear; they write that "there
- are fractions within the state apparatus that have come to
- understand that the resistance and the social contradictions
- cannot be controlled by police and military measures." First of
- all, the state has realized this for quite some time, that those
- aren't the only means they should employ; and secondly, adding
- structure to politics will always result in repression in the
- future.
- Both quotations seemed linked to one another, and they seem
- to say: Since things are going so well, it's time to step over to
- a new means of struggle.
-
- Dellwo: I see it differently. The fact that a guerrilla has
- come into being means that it cannot be excluded from history,
- even if it halts it actions. It can always come back into
- existence. That is what is meant here. In my mind, the RAF is
- saying: the outbreak of a murderous power dynamic by the
- authorities against minorities and the opposition. We know what
- happened to the DKP (German Communist Party -ed.) after 1945, we
- know how they dealt with the 68-movement, I know how our
- squatting action in Hamburg was halted by MEK storm-troopers with
- machine-pistols drawn - and they were ready to shoot! We put in
- place a structure to counter-act this, and it's still in place.
- The state has not crushed the RAF. The state has not broken the
- RAF prisoners.
- We have fought to create a potential, the possibility to
- utilize a certain form of resistance should the need arise. Until
- now, that has been limited to us, to all those in illegality or
- in jail, and a few others. And this position of being prepared to
- stand up for something is something I'd like to see become more
- generalized. I'm not talking about our means of struggle, because
- we'll have to decide anew about that. But just the willingness to
- stick with a certain task and the will to concretely solve a
- problem that you yourself have taken on and want to answer.
- This hasn't been the case with most leftists. They always
- seem to stay put at a certain point. The RAF address this point:
- you all also have to fight for your right to resist! Today I just
- realized: you all have been involved in left-wing circles for
- longer than me, and yet you've not ended up in jail. Why is that?
- Why have you all never fought so hard for something that you've
- had to pay a price for it? Most leftists are lacking something. I
- think it needs to reach that point.
-
- Gremliza: So we need to get leftists in jail?
-
- Dellwo: No, not in jail, but the left needs to become more
- committed. When we struggled in here for the regroupment of
- prisoners, we went to the end. There have been deaths among the
- prisoners, but we always knew this was a price that you had to
- pay if you wanted to survive. You have to fight. Imagine, you are
- sitting here in an isolation cell, and you realize that it all
- could lead to the complete destruction of your humanity. And you
- know that would be total defeat. So you resist this, and you
- survive. And then you know what it means to really fight for
- something.
- And if you all say that so incredibly much has been lost,
- then that's partly because you all didn't say: we won't accept
- that! You all could do with a bit of self-criticism yourselves.
-
- --
- 1 The Trilateral Commission was created by Rockefeller to stem
- the competition between between the major multi-nationals and to
- make price-fixing agreements. The 200 biggest corporations from
- Japan, Europe, and the U.S. are on the commission and are not
- answerable to any government authority. Meetings are held two or
- three times each year, where such topics as reasearch and moving
- operations to countries with cheap labor are discussed.
-
- 2 The Tupamaros were an urban guerrilla organization in
- Uruguay in the 60s and 70s and today function as a left-wing
- mass-movement.
-
- 3 APO = extra parliamentary opposition
-
- 4 a struggling organization of elderly persons
- --
-
- --
- Autonome Forum: aforum@moose.uvm.edu
- "Solidarity is a Weapon!"
- --
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-