L’associazione Utopia Rossa lavora e lotta per l’unità dei movimenti rivoluzionari di tutto il mondo in una nuova internazionale: la Quinta. Al suo interno convivono felicemente – con un progetto internazionalista e princìpi di etica politica – persone di provenienza marxista e libertaria, anarcocomunista, situazionista, femminista, trotskista, guevarista, leninista, credente e atea, oltre a liberi pensatori. Non succedeva dai tempi della Prima internazionale.



lunedì 19 novembre 2012


I have written these letters directly in English to answer the questions of a well-known comrade, intellectual and left-wing militant in the USA. I beg the reader to consider that English is not my mother-tongue and no revision of my texts has been made by English speaking people: being personal letters that would have been impossible. But I think that it is exactly the personal character of these letters that can help in offering a better and deeper understanding of what it means today to be a member of Red Utopia. The publication of these texts is intended to explain, especially to young comrades, the real possibile meaning of the concept of «Red Utopianism». Of course it is the concept as I see it, since no member of RU is obliged to share these opinions of mine. For a further reading on the matter I suggest the interview Michele Azzerri made to me in April 2010, under the title of Red Utopia and a new idea of revolution.
R.M. (November 2012)

15-19 th of August 2012

Dear comrade,

[…] Let us start again from your letter of July the 30th, where you asked: «As to Red Utopia, I would be pleased to hear from you about your kind invitation to “be a point of reference for Red Utopians in [my] fucking imperialist country”».

The refusal of ideological homogeneity
In Red Utopia there is no precise ideological belonging, but that doesn't mean that all the ideologies are the same. My hope is that time will teach each of us to take all the best which may exist in every single different ideology. Some may have a lot and some may have little: but this has to be proved in front of historical action and not in congress papers. You know of course that 90% of the splits in the workers movement have taken place - in one century and half - officially for ideological reasons which were hiding, of course, political divisions or psychological distress.

Haga clic aquí con el botón secundario del mouse para descargar imágenes. Para ayudarle a proteger su confidencialidad, Outlook ha impedido la descarga automática de esta imagen desde Internet.
Red Utopia will try to make revolution (or at least preach it) out of any apparatus. Single members can remain where they are (if they belong to parties) but RU as such will be out of the parties and consider them as a negative heritage of the past. The democratic historical process which began with French Revolution, with parties and parliaments is long dead in some imperialist countries: for sure in Italy and for sure in the States.
To stay together in the form of a movement and not of a party hinder any possibility to have a common political program or the so-called common political line.
But that is a piece of pure luck! Because the common political program implies majorities and minorities: the first ones normally expel the second, and the second ones make split to the first - always, or at least when it is worthwhile - which can also happen in the eve of revolution (the split in the Russian Socialrevolutionary Party in October 1917). It implies divisions with all those who have another political program, it doesn't matter if right or wrong. It implies that at every serious change of the world situation (for instance in 1989) you have to suffer splits in different organizations since the analysis of what happens cannot be the same for everybody, while such an analysis is integral part of the program and of the political line (at least for serious revolutionaries).

The previous Internationals and the grouplets
If you look very rapidly at the history of the Internationals you see easily tha nature of the process.
The First international had only the name (International Association of Workers) but no political line, no common political program, no common ideology. It is the International who lasted the most (8 years) and had the biggest concrete results until the disaster of the Paris Commune. After that defeat it was destroyed (by Marx) with the split from the Anarchists.
From one single international organization were born two of them, each one with its own ideology (and not anymore the tens of different ideologies which were present in a unitarian and sometimes also fraternal way in the First Int.) and each one  had its presumed political program, which ended up for the Marxist Second International in the Socialdemocratic collaboration with every single bourgeois State.
From there the various splits, until the birth of the Third International, which at the beginning diffused the Russian Leninist ideology (and not a political program, except the defense of Soviet Union) and after few years was diffusing Stalinism all over the world, becoming a strong instrument of counterrevolution.
The Fourth International was the only one which had in the less of 2 years of existence a common (partly wrong) political program. But then it broke up in several different/similar political programs and that is why we have today 6-7 different Fourth Internationals, beside all the psychopatological national small groups which exist by the hundreds everywhere. You think on Los Angeles, but you should see in Italy or in Argentina!

We analyze this phenomenon of the grouplets, splits and Mini-internationals on the ground of political psychopatology, a new discipline which we hope to develop further with the help of professional psychologists and specialists of medical care. We all know that today (or at least much more today than in the past) it has become possible for a single individual to wake up in the morning and declare that he wants to build an international or a revolutionary party, disregarding his personal role in the workers movement, his previous experiences, his relationships with the history of that movement. He has only to create a split from another group or organization and he will find at once some (very few) followers, mostly among people affected by his same insecurity, minority complexes, mental illnesses. But the name the new group will bear (and a little of social activism as a cover) make (young) people believe that the grouplet represents the socialist future, a step on the way of liberating humanity.

The impossibility of imposing a single political line
Let's put it this way: all the political experiences after the end of the Second World War (not to go too much further) have shown that today it is impossible to stay together in a party and to have a common program (correct or wrong, but history has shown that it has been always wrong in the immediate situation and in front of history itself). Consciousness of the better part of humanity is already going beyond the idea that a single program or a single political line can be imposed to the others in order to fight together for a single issue or for a global issue. For instance, I personally have much more in common with a certain priest (who is no Marxist) in Northern Italy then with the leaders of the two so called «communist» parties in Italy which in Parliament have voted the Italian military missions in Afghanistan and elsewhere in 2006 only because they were present in the left-wing government. (Consider that the 2 senators of the Italian section of the Fourth at the time, also voted for this imperialist mission without provoking any protest in the other sections of the United Secretariat.)

Principle (or point) number one for joining Red Utopia
I hope you agree on the necessity of fighting against the apparatuses (also from within if it is necessary) and against the ridiculous presumption of imposing a single program, a single political line, a single analysis.
But still the revolutionary idea has to survive in some aspect. Otherwise there wouldn't be any differences with sport, religious or free-time associations. That's where the 6 points of Red Utopia (soon 7, I hope) come in. Why these points and not others?
It is a complex historical problem. I have written several works (articles, documents and books) of history, sociology and historical sociology to explain them and to trace their historical origins and necessity. I also tried in the past to explain how they have arrived to be the crucial points in today class struggle at the world level. In one country you may seem not to need a single (which is dubious): while in a global perspective you need all of them, from China to Argentina, and from Canada to SouthAfrica.
The only one I can present here is the first one, because I consider it the most important one (The goal doesn't justify the means, but in the means etc.) because it is the scientific one or the one which creates the possibility of a scientific discussion on political matters. It has become too normal to consider as irrelevant (or negative!) the fact that somebody proves to be right in front of historical development and somebody wrong. It is the rule. To be right has become a handycapp. In the Fourth International, we, the so called Third International Tendency were expelled for having been right vis-a-vis the charismatic leadership of Mandel, Maitan, Frank. And this way ended up the possibility of discussing our ideas (which, by the way, later have been proven as the correct ones)
In order to have a scientific discussion we have to arrive at a certain ethical deontology as it happens in some scientific professions.
Today we have lots of good theoreticians (which means people endowed with powerful theoretical instruments) but no valid theories, almost on nothing in the field of social theory.
And of course we have armies of single intellectuals who are thinking only on their own self, their personal books, above all their personal career. Never, never and never they think on how to use collectively those powerful theoretical instruments they dominate. Never. In Italy I am the only intellectual who "looses" time in editing and publishing others' books instead of writing my books or finishing to write them. But is a choice: I have a collective plan in my head, those other intellectuals are thinking on themselves, their personal success.

Will be UR to make the revolution? I hope not! It would be terrible.
I hope instead that the diffusion of the ideas of UR in the mass movements of several countries will make possibile the single one worldwide revolution (beginning if possibile from the United States - the country which has known the highest levels of class struggle in the world, the most longlasting strikes, with the biggest participation of workers and families and with the highest levels of violence on both sides). Yes, I think that today this is becoming the only possibility. I don't see anybody else working on the same or similar perspective in any other country. We may fail, our sons or nephews may fail, but I can grant you that nobody else is trying to create a collective movement for revolution, out of apparatuses, with few fundamental strong principles (the ethical one being the first and most important) and without ideological discriminations.

20th of August 2012

Since Red Utopia doesn't have a political line or a common program, but only the 6 principled standpoints, it is evident that not only you don't have to agree necessarily with me, but any member of RU could tell you a quite different story for his staying in the RU family. This is a point of weakness but in the long run it can prove to be a point of strength in the inner life of Red Utopia; since different political and social weltanschauungen may cohabitate, the internal theoretical richness of Red Utopia could reach levels which have no previous comparative examples in the history of the revolutionary movement.

31st of August 2012

Let's see your points one by one, comparing them with the text of the 6 principles.
About the first one (a) The end does not justify the means, but the means which we use must reflect the essence of the end. [Priority of ethics (Guevara) and the scientific truth above every other consideration] ): on the 21st of August you wrote:
a.        I agree.
For me this is the fundamental point, not only for ethical reasons but because it is the only possibile way to have a serious concrete political discussion. Of course everybody thinks to be honest or at least tries to appear as such, but then, when you come to the crucial points of the analysis and you show him or her that they are wrong, or that such and such grouplet is wrong, people switch at once to the official defense of their own group, party, charismatic leader etc. I hope that you don’t underevaluate the meaning of this point. The fact that we are discussing seriously shows that we really share it. The conclusions of our discussion will give us the measure of how much we share it.
In my mind this point is more and more complicate than I can express here or in a sentence. But this is my personal interpretation of the point, which nobody is obliged to accept.
Actually, what I am saying about the personal interpretation it is true for the interpretation of all the other points. And also this is something very different from the past in our new way of making (revolutionary) politics.

The second principle: on self-determination
The second point states: b) Support for the struggle of all peoples against imperialism and/or for their self-determination, independently of their political leaderships. [Beginning of the Third International]

b.        1. What is meant by «Support for the struggle of all peoples against imperialism and/or for their self-determination»? How can RU provide «support» for a struggle (even if just «moral support») «independently of its political leadership», if (counterfactually) there’d be no such struggle in the absence of that leadership?  2.] What happens if a specific struggle for independence or self-determination (Chechnyan, Eritrean + ELF, Irish + IRA, Basque + pre- 20 October 2011 ETA ceasefire, Palestinian + Hamas + Hesbollah) involves practices – observed and verified by, say, the UN Observers Mission, Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International -- that violate RU’s first principle?
Red Utopia is not able today of leading any mass struggle in any part of the world. His members can only fight individually or in small groups at a rank-an-file level. But we know also that except some trade-unions, some special national parties and some movements for national liberation, nobody is able to wage today mass struggles, that is to organize and direct them and not just simply being part of them: not the various Fourth Internationals, psychopathological grouplets etc., neither the solidarity movements with this or that national liberation front, with this or that struggle.
That we like it or not, the word «support» has for us, and will have it for I don’t know how long, a fundamental propagandistic meaning or, much better, an analytical meaning. So when we write «support» we mean first of all an analysis, una «presa di posizione» (taking a stand), a moral and intellectual involvement.
If this is clear, it is clear also that we may have such a position of «support» for the social or popular contents of a struggle for social liberation, also when the struggle is not existing (it exists the social problem but may not exist a real or possibile mass struggle for it – take the example of Tibet) or when some sort of a struggle exists, but under a leadership which a) is not capable of leading the movement to victory or b) is acting only in its own interest, to preserve itself as a caste, a bureacratic caste (tipical example the Palestinian Al Fatah). Shouldn’t we «support» the rights of Palestinians to self-determinate themselves, only because the leaderships they have had so far have been all of them very bad?
I could multiply these examples at world and historical level. For me, personally, it is very easy to make such a multiplication because I had familiarity with national liberation movements since I started politics and I always had very bad opinions of all the nationalist leaderships of the Sixties: in Africa, in Vietnam, in Middle East, in Europe, in Soviet countries etc. I can admit only a partial exception – my simpathy for the Algerian movement when it was leaded by Ben Bella – but not more than that. Speaking more widely I could say the same  - always on a personal base – about the Resistance (Maquis) movements in Europe. It was correct to fight against Nazism and Fascism, but not under those counterrevolutionary leaderships.
Anyway, I haven’t touched yet the main purpose of this point (at least in my head, in my personal thinking). And the problem is that today there are lots of tensions or struggles or legal claims for self-determination in all the Continents of the world (Australia included). And the «left-wing» organizations all over the world decide in general to support or not to support these movements according to their leaderships. So the ancient pro-Soviet parties or intellectuals consider as not valid the demands for self-determination in Yugoslavia or in Chechnya, as the pro-Chinese do in Tibet, the pro-Castroites in Africa or in Central America, according always to their own specific opinions and not the needs of the mass movements. Personally, if I should look at the leaderships of the national liberation movements in the last 50-60 years, I shouldn’t have «supported» any of them (with the partial exception, as I said, of Algeria at the time of Ben Bella).
But luckily, the peoples who feel the necessity to express their needs through self-determination wouldn’t have cared the least for my position. They wanted and still want self-determination regardless of the leadership and regardless the use to do with such a self-determnation. The proof is that very often they have changed leaderships (as in Congo or in Angola) or political line (as in Northern Ireland).

Self-determination is not necessarily separation
And here we come to another point, where I always find serious misunderstandings: the identification of self-determination with separation. It is a big mistake, it is very common and it is founded on very false premises, including the assumption that it is you who decides what use will the freed people do of their right to self-determination.
All the contrary: the respect for self-determination implies that you must trust a certain people (any people) to be able to find the best solution for itself and by itself. Maybe a certain people will be wrong in using independence, national autonomy or separation? It doesn’t matter: those mistakes are expression of the level of consciousness of the sections of that people who fought on the first line for self-determination. And those mistakes are historically more important than ready-made political formulas imposed by others, from outside or by bureaucratic leaderships.
I am sure that you agree that a self-determinated mistake is much better – historically – than a so called «politically correct solution» imposed from above.
If I had time (and I hope we’ll have it in the future) I could make tens and tens of examples of what I am saying.
Up to this point I have been speaking as a Marxist, respectfull of Lenin’s position.
(Self-determination is the only theme where Lenin never changed the thoretical position he had almost from the beginning, and it is the only ground where I think he was right, including his last battle on the question of Georgia against Stalin. From 1913 Lenin – whom I consider a classical centrist and not a left-wing revolutionary - didn’t change his fundamental stand on self-determination, while he changed on almost everything else: party, terrorism, State, soviet, revolutionary democracy, transitional economy etc.).

Self-determination as self-management
But now I want to add something very important as a Libertarian: you cannot propose self-management (which is a rank-and-file form of self-determination) at factory level, regional level, productive branch level, etc. and deny it at a global level. When certain communities of individuals, citizens, gender or sexually or linguistically identified people etc. claim the necessity for self-determinating themselves, they must be free (and must be able) to do it. It is not you or me or such a party or such a State which can decide who has the right or not to self-manage and to self-deteminate. The active, collective and involved subjects have to be the real political leaders of their own struggle, of their projects, of their way of taking part in the more general social project of humanity or of a portion of humanity.
This fundamental contribution of Libertarian thought belongs to me (is mine in a personal sense) and of course I cannot impose it to the comrades of Red Utopia. Which means that there is not a political line of Red Utopia on this or that struggle for self-determination. No: if it were, it would be a bad version of a general program. There is instead a general orientation in favour of self-determination, a general  distrust towards the previous and the existing leaderships of national liberation movements and there is a general connection of this principle number 2 with principle number 5 (about direct democracy and the fight against bureaucracies, apparatuses etc.)
A final important question: if a people or a religious, linguistic, ethnic group etc. thinks that its problems can be solved only through self-detemination (which is not necessarily separation), it means that somebody or something is oppressing them. If some areas of the world are splitting apart because of sectorial pushes to self-determination, I don’t consider responsible them – the self-determinators – but those political entities which were or are oppressing them: these are the ones who pushed them to fight for separation, autonomy and so forth. I am sure that in a different world, more egualitarian and peaceful, all this scattering around, all these regional splits etc. will be newly recomposed in a superior form of unity. In any case there is at the moment no alternative, except violent repression of the movements, which pushes these same movements on the side of counterviolence, terrorism, suicides as kamikaze, Twin Towers and all the horrors that we know.
Of course the acceptance of our second principle - the way we propose it - doesn’t throw on us any moral responsibility for these horrors, but leaves us at the same time a political chance to interact with people who think that the only possibility they have to solve – wrong or right – their social problems is through self- determination.

I think I have answered your questions about the second point. I could have talked less or more, or more clearly. But I tried my best in order to give you an overall picture of the problem. The concrete examples are so many, the geopolitical contexts are so different, that really it sounds almost impossibile to try to give an overall answer which can suits all the possibile existing or thinkable situations. But still, if we agree on the ground of principles (self-management and self-determination, self-determination as an answer to internal or external oppression, self-determination which doesn’t have to become necessarily separation, distinction between the real needs of people and caste interests  of their leaders) we can arrive together to a fully accurate analysis of every single struggle or claim for self-determination which exists in the world. We would only need the most complete information, if we agree on the principles.

3rd of September 2012

Total independence from capitalism

The third principle of Red Utopia states: c) For the autonomy and total independence from the political projects of capitalism. [The Left of Zimmerwald from the Second International].
And you write about this third point:
c.         How do we know if a specific «political project» is a  «political project of capitalism», regardless of what its architects, advocates, and activists say it is?

[...] I don’t understand the essence of your question. And at the same time I must admit that our sentence is too concise (almost as concise as your question). But the alternative option would be to write a small treatise on what we mean by capitalism, what sort of governments or political parties we have in mind and why should we oppose them in an independent way as a question of principle instead than as a result of political analysis. Too much for a declaration of intents. And not enough for a political program of struggle against capitalism. I’ll try therefore to make few comments and I apologize if I am not answering to your real worry.
First of all that sentence assumes that capitalism exists and that we have a rough idea of what it is. Once upon a time it was a common habit in the extreme left to say that «we lack an analysis of what capitalism really is». Therefore one was justified for not taking a clear political stand and for retiring in some (university) library to study capitalism and its «true» essence.
On the contrary I assume (yes, I, because I am giving my personal interpretation of that sentence) I assume that we both know what capitalism is. I could say that contemporary and past capitalism is the thing most studied in the world. It is studied so much that today no single scholar is able to give – as an individual - an overall picture of the way capitalism functions on a planetary scale. It is necessary a group of researcers, theoretical work by an equipe.
About its way of funcioning there are theories (various theories), tons of statistical data, interpretations, and billions of practical suggestions. We have very clever economists also in Red Utopia: I am referring particularly to 3 books on capitalist economics (written by Michele Nobile) which are among the best works written on the subject in the last twenty years. Unfortunately they are in Italian and the author doesn’t have the the public exposure other economists have at world level.
I might have personally a poor knowledge of what capitalism is, but humanity knows it or, at least, we can say that humanity has at its own disposal for the first time in history all the means and theoretical instruments to know it. But since capitalism is in a permanent state of evolution or decline, no picture of it is ever precise, no one can reasonably say to really know it. Capitalism is continuously changing and no party or research institute or governmental commision has ever succeded in giving a 100% exact picture of it. However, there are also some clever theorists who  have given at times a deeply erroneous image of it: for instance a genious like Trotsky was totally wrong in his description of the apparent rotten capitalism at the end of the Thirties.
All this to say that when a political group, party or association claims the necessity of previously studying capitalism in order to start afterwards a political action, is only cheating: humanity has a rough idea of what capitalism is because it is experimenting it on its flesh every day.

The political expressions of capitalism
More complicate, instead, it is to say what or which are the political expressions of such a social system (such a system of productive social relationships). You cannot define it on a global scale and you cannot define it once and for all. Normally you have to describe them country by country because they depend on the special relationship the bourgoisie has with its own State and they depend also from the correlation of forces in the country.
We skip the question of the State, because I imagine we both know what it is and we both consider it an enemy, everywhere it exists and holds power.
If the political expressions of the bourgeoisie differ from one another according to countries and traditions, it is evident that an international claim or appeal for independence from the State, or from the political parties who defend the State, has to be absolutely general in its formulation. Do you remember when there were Stalinist Communist parties underground in some dictatorial Latinamerican countries, at the same time when others, in other countries, were part of the State (e.g. the first government of Batista in Cuba, with 2 «communist» ministers)? And today, how could I take a general position vis-a-vis the Socialdemocratic parties who are situated in all the possibile positions towards their national States? And when in Italy 110 members of parliament coming from the «extreme left» (Rifondazione, Stalinist, Green, Fourthinternationalists etc.) were supporting the imperialist Prodi/D’Alema governments, including the military missions abroad? How could all this fit a general and international statement?
Can you imagine a statement which includes all these possibilities and the new ones which will certainly appear while the old ones are disappearing?
It would be simply impossibile. Therefore you have to state a principle of autonomy or independence from all the political projects who are willing to mantain in power the class who already holds it, who want to defend the State as the dominant regulator of social life, who want to reinforce (improving them of course!) the existing productive social relationships, who want the survival of capitalism as a general way of organizing society: they want it at a national level, and they want it at a planetary level – ready to make few exceptions, but only for «others’» countries (as in Cuba today, in China yesterday, in Soviet Union before yesterday).
It sounds logical that any political action or movement or project which is not independent from those who want to preserve the capitalist system, at the end, or in someway, is functional to the survival and the reproduction of that system.
At a general level it seems to me easy and clear the concept of independence from capitalism. At a national level it is’n t always. And the question is complicated by the so called «progressive currents» of modern capitalism, like those impulsed by Lula, Morales, Chávez, Correa, Kirchner, Raúl Castro etc. in Latin America. They are different from the procapitalist «left-wing» projects you had in the past in Europe  with the Union of the Left in France, but also the New Deal in the States, or today with the Centrosinistra in Italy. Or in Africa with the governments born from the struggles for national liberation etc.
That is exactly where Red Utopia stops. We don’t have a political line good for everybody and everywhere, we don’t have a political program. We only share some principles, some desires, some dreams. Of course «revolutionary» dreams, whatever is the meaning of that predicate.

What sort of revolution?
But are we for any sort of revolution?
No, absolutely not. Only for a revolutionary process which corresponds to point number one, which respects point number 2 and particularly points 5 (democracy and antibureaucracy) and 6 (save the Earth). And we think that the obtainment of these goals – necessarily after a victory of the revolutionary process – is made possibile by the respect of points number 3 (autonomy from capitalism) and 4 (unity and solidarity among human beings).
I must add that I personally don’t believe (anymore, but since many years…) that a political line or a political program can exists independently from the movements who create and apply it and outside of a determined historical context. The adoption of so called «political programs» by grouplets. mini.Internationals and so on, is in reality only a «shopping list», sort of a bluff, a demagogic way of keeping the rank-and-file militants occupied in doing something. In the most honest cases is a negative conception of utopia.
In the old meaning of the word, utopia was meant as something which you cannot accomplish, you cannot reach – and such are the political programs not embodied in mass movements or not created by them.
Instead for us or at least for me, utopia is something so marvelous to desire, to dream about, that you may accomplish it only through solidarity, unity and collective action of humanity: a small part of such a humanity at the beginning (as in the present situation) and almost all of it at the end.

Dear comrade, I beg you not to consider these six points as a decalog (an esalog), as a different naif way of proposing a political program or organizing a small group.
There is no possibile orthodoxy with these sentences. Consider them as general lines of theoretical elaboration, preparing the ground for organized and collective political action. These general lines can be changed, improved, augmented (we need, for instance a 7th point on the revolutionary role of art) but only by people who still desire the end of capitalism, who dream about social revolution and who are not yet persuaded that the extinction of human species is an inevitabile destiny of humanity because of the «laws» of capitalism, of its market, of its logics based on the principle of individual gain: people who mistrust the apparatuses, political parties, State institutions and anything which can create the ground for the development of a new bureaucratic power. People who believe in direct democracy, self-managemente and self-determination. And, above all, people who consider internationalism as the first step for the liberation of humanity.
If I didn’t convince you, but I succeded in transmitting you a different dimension of reasoning about political action and revolution, it was worthwhile to write all these tedious explanations (in a language which is not mine). If the «transmission» was successfull, I ask you to join us in this titanic and beautiful enterprise. If it wasn’t, let us be just friends…


In propagating and/or republishing this text you are kindly requested to quote the source: www.utopiarossa.blogspot.com

RED UTOPIA ROJA – Principles / Principios / Princìpi / Principes / Princípios

a) The end does not justify the means, but the means which we use must reflect the essence of the end.

b) Support for the struggle of all peoples against imperialism and/or for their self determination, independently of their political leaderships.

c) For the autonomy and total independence from the political projects of capitalism.

d) The unity of the workers of the world - intellectual and physical workers, without ideological discrimination of any kind (apart from the basics of anti-capitalism, anti-imperialism and of socialism).

e) Fight against political bureaucracies, for direct and councils democracy.

f) Save all life on the Planet, save humanity.

(January 2010)

* * *

a) El fin no justifica los medios, y en los medios que empleamos debe estar reflejada la esencia del fin.

b) Apoyo a las luchas de todos los pueblos contra el imperialismo y/o por su autodeterminación, independientemente de sus direcciones políticas.

c) Por la autonomía y la independencia total respecto a los proyectos políticos del capitalismo.

d) Unidad del mundo del trabajo intelectual y físico, sin discriminaciones ideológicas de ningún tipo, fuera de la identidad “anticapitalista, antiimperialista y por el socialismo”.

e) Lucha contra las burocracias políticas, por la democracia directa y consejista.

f) Salvar la vida sobre la Tierra, salvar a la humanidad.

(Enero de 2010)

* * *

a) Il fine non giustifica i mezzi, ma nei mezzi che impieghiamo dev’essere riflessa l’essenza del fine.

b) Sostegno alle lotte di tutti i popoli contro l’imperialismo e/o per la loro autodeterminazione, indipendentemente dalle loro direzioni politiche.

c) Per l’autonomia e l’indipendenza totale dai progetti politici del capitalismo.

d) Unità del mondo del lavoro mentale e materiale, senza discriminazioni ideologiche di alcun tipo (a parte le «basi anticapitaliste, antimperialiste e per il socialismo.

e) Lotta contro le burocrazie politiche, per la democrazia diretta e consigliare.

f) Salvare la vita sulla Terra, salvare l’umanità.

(Gennaio 2010)

* * *

a) La fin ne justifie pas les moyens, et dans les moyens que nous utilisons doit apparaître l'essence de la fin projetée.

b) Appui aux luttes de tous les peuples menées contre l'impérialisme et/ou pour leur autodétermination, indépendamment de leurs directions politiques.

c) Pour l'autonomie et la totale indépendance par rapport aux projets politiques du capitalisme.

d) Unité du monde du travail intellectuel et manuel, sans discriminations idéologiques d'aucun type, en dehors de l'identité "anticapitaliste, anti-impérialiste et pour le socialisme".

e) Lutte contre les bureaucraties politiques, et pour la démocratie directe et conseilliste.

f) Sauver la vie sur Terre, sauver l'Humanité.

(Janvier 2010)

* * *

a) O fim não justifica os médios, e os médios utilizados devem reflectir a essência do fim.

b) Apoio às lutas de todos os povos contra o imperialismo e/ou pela auto-determinação, independentemente das direcções políticas deles.

c) Pela autonomia e a independência respeito total para com os projectos políticos do capitalismo.

d) Unidade do mundo do trabalho intelectual e físico, sem discriminações ideológicas de nenhum tipo, fora da identidade “anti-capitalista, anti-imperialista e pelo socialismo”.

e) Luta contra as burocracias políticas, pela democracia directa e dos conselhos.

f) Salvar a vida na Terra, salvar a humanidade.

(Janeiro de 2010)