Plenul Senatului a adoptat, marti, cu 44 de voturi “pentru” si 29 “impotriva’, o propunere legislativa privind modificarea Legii nr. 152/1998, prin care se prevede posibilitatea vanzarii locuintelor construite prin ANL la pret de inventar, informeaza agentia Mediafax.

Propunerea legislativa are ca obiect modificarea si completarea Legii nr. 152/1998, cu scopul de a facilita achizitionarea de locuinte construite prin ANL, prin vanzarea acestora la pretul de inventar, actualizat cu rata inflatiei, precum si de a schimba modul in care se face repartitia banilor rezultati din vanzararile de locuinte.

Astfel, se propune ca banii rezultati din vanzari sa fie folositi exclusive pentru constructia unor noi imobile in localitatile in care s-a realizat transferul dreptului de proprietate.

Potrivit propunerii legislative, prin sintagma “ valoare de inventar a locuintei” , in scopul determinarii pretului de vanzare, se intelege costul corespunzator constructiei.

Guvernul a adoptat, la sfarsitul lunii mai, o hotarare prin care s-a aprobat trecerea blocurilor de locuinte construite de ANL pentru tineri, din proprietatea publica a statului in proprietatea privata a statului, pentru a putea fi vandute chiriasilor.

Potrivit Raportului Comisiei de administratie publica, in prima faza au fost scoase la vanzare 6.831 de locuinte, urmand ca, esalonat, pe masura ce consiliile locale vor vota noi hotarari de trecere a locuintelor in proprietatea publica a statului, sa se initieze alte proiecte de HG pentru a se scoate la vanzarea inca 13.000 locuinte.

In prezent, potrivit declaratiilor directorului general al ANL, s-au inregistrat circa 700-800 de cereri, preturile pentru locuinte variind intre 14.000 si 100.000 de euro, in functie de localitatea in care se realizeaza vanzarea.

sursa: www.avocatnet.ro

La casa lor! După ce au locuit ani de zile cu părinţii sau cu chirie pe unde s-a putut, în condiţii pe care nimeni nu şi le-ar dori, 17 familii din Fălticeni au de câteva zile o casă numai a lor. Consilierii fălticineni au aprobat fără nici o reţinere lista repartiţiilor stabilită de comisia specială care a anlizat dosarele solicitanţilor de locuinţe. Aşa cum v-am mai spus, au fost repartizate trei trei locuinţe în blocul ANL din cartierul 2 Grăniceri şi 14 locuinţe în noul ANL de pe strada 9 Mai. În cursul lunii septembrie noii chiriaşi se vor muta în casă nouă.

PCB – Partido Comunista Brasileiro (21)

• História: Foi fundado em 1922, imediato pós-guerra, quando “convergiram os ideais libertários do nascente proletariado”. Logo no primeiro ano é colocado na ilegalidade e só se torna legal em janeiro de 1927. Em agosto do mesmo ano se torna ilegal novamente, e vive na clandestinidade incentivando o movimento sindical através da divulgação de ideais marxistas que conscientizem os operários em prol do anticapitalismo. Em 1937, marcando o início do Estado Novo, Vargas proibiu a existência de partidos políticos e reprimiu os movimentos opositores, o que dificultou a expressão do PCB até 1945. Nesse ano, o fim da Segunda Guerra e a deposição do Presidente Vargas (através de um golpe militar que elegeu Eurico Gaspar Dutra através do voto popular) permitiu a redemocratização do país e um novo suspiro ao partido. Isso até 47, quando a Guerra Fria e a bipolarização mundial (socialismo – URSS x capitalismo – EUA) atingiram o Brasil e o Presidente Dutra (apoiando o lado capitalista) colocou o PCB mais uma vez na ilegalidade. Esse isolamento e luta clandestina a que foram compelidos os pecebistas levaram a facção a conflitos internos, principalmente depois de traçar diretrizes mais específicas sobre sua ação – na Declaração Política de 1958. Em 1960, tendo entre suas metas a legalidade, se define como Partido Comunista Brasileiro, já que até agora tinha o nome de Partido Comunista do Brasil. Foi a ditadura militar de 1964 que tornou o partido ilegal novamente. Em 1979, na fase de abertura política do Brasil pelo então Presidente Figueiredo (“É pra abrir mesmo. Quem não quiser que abra, eu prendo e arrebento!”), o pluripartidarismo (“sistema no qual três ou mais partidos políticos podem assumir o controle de um governo, de maneira independente, ou numa coalizão“, ao contrário do que antes existia com o Movimento Democrático Brasileiro – MDB – partido de oposição ao ARENA – Aliança Renovadora Nacional - que estava no governo) retornou, assim como muitos presos e exilados políticos. Já em 1982, passado o chamado “milagre econômico” (excepcional crescimento do país durante os tais anos de chumbo, especialmente entre 1969 e 1973, no governo do General Emílio Garrastazu Médici), o PCB realizou o seu VII Congresso, para formular uma linha política para as novas condições da sociedade (ou seja, a crise). Houveram aí desencontros entre defensores das influências “eurocomunistas” no partido e os divergentes, liderados por Luiz Carlos Prestes, sendo estes últimos os que acabaram deixando o PCB. Finalmente, em 1985, o partido obteve legalidade, embora fragilizado internamente e sem tanto apoio dos movimentos sociais (principalmente o operário, que se opunham à política de conciliação de classes dos pecebistas). Ainda mais uma vez o partido enfrentou divergências, dessa vez entre um pólo mais radical, com intenções de reconstruí-lo de maneira revolucionária, e outro que buscava a adaptação ao “novo ciclo de hegemonia burguesa” (supostamente forjado por não filiados do PCB e membros de outros partidos) - e foi impedido de fazê-lo pela enorme resistência de alguns dirigentes e das bases partidárias, formando depois o Partido Popular Socialista – PPS. Somente em 1995 o PCB foi legalizado definitivamente pelo TSE, mesmo momento em que seu caráter lenin-marxista foi reafirmado.
• Ideologia: Baseando-se em teorias marxistas, construir o Partido e movimentar as massas visando a conscientização do proletariado e transformações no Brasil rumo ao socialismo, através de uma revolução social. “Na entrada do novo milênio e completando 85 anos de existência, o Partido Comunista Brasileiro, fortalecido nas tradições e na luta dos comunistas em todo o mundo, reafirma a necessidade histórica de superação do capitalismo, que se dará apenas pela libertação das classes trabalhadoras, na perspectiva do socialismo rumo à sociedade comunista”.
• Propostas: Criação de uma Frente Política Anticapitalista, transcendendo a disputa eleitoral e unindo partidos, organizações, movimentos e personalidades que se oponham à política do governo capitalista e compartilhem das aspirações dos trabalhadores brasileiros.
• Atuação: Tendo a Revolução de 30 levado Getúlio Vargas ao poder, dando fim à oligarquia da República Velha no Brasil (aquela na qual Minas Gerais e São Paulo se revezavam no poder na chamada política do café-com-leite, fazendo uso de métodos antidemocrático para garantir a governabilidade), instituiu-se um Estado populista (que procurava agradar a todas as camadas sociais e atuar como intermediário das vontades dos diversos setores populares, econômicos e políticos). Com a crise de 29 e as divergências quanto ao governo Vargas, surgiram duas grandes frentes de oposição (também opostas entre si): a Ação Integralista Brasileria – AIB (inspirada no nazi-fascismo) e a Aliança Nacional Libertadora – ANL (de influências marxistas, apoiada pelo PCB e seu dirigente – e líder do movimento – Luiz Carlos Prestes). As duas foram reprimidas e postas na ilegalidade até 1945, e depois de novo em 47. Em 1961, a crise de sucessão após a renúncia do Presidente Jânio Quadros foi composta pelos que se opunham à posse do vice João Goulart (vulgo Jango) e pelos que a apoiavam, entre eles o PCB. Suas alianças se ampliaram e foram consolidadas com diversas classes, o que enfraqueceu o partido como vanguarda política e impossibilitou uma resistência imediata ao golpe militar de 1964. Tal resistência se manifestou um pouco depois, de forma clandestina e através do pouco espaço que tinha o MDB. Após a situação instável do PCB quanto a lei e seus conflitos internos, o partido se firmou melhor ideologicamente. Nos últimos anos vem tentando se reinserir ativamente nos movimentos sociais. Em 2006, rompe sua participação nos fóruns da Central Única dos Trabalhadores – CUT, por considerá-los “um braço governamental e conciliador junto ao mundo do trabalho” e propõe um ENCLAT (Encontro Nacional das Classes Trabalhadoras), a fim de construir “uma nova e ampla entidade sindical, classista, democrática e independente para a condução das lutas do proletariado, em especial da classe operária brasileira”.
• Ícones: No âmago do PCB já se destacam grandes nomes, como Caio Prado Jr. e Graciliano Ramos (escritores). No período da ditadura, a tortura e execução de seu integrante Vladimir Herzog (jornalista) tiveram bastante repercussão – especialmente por sua morte ter sido porcamente disfarçadas de suicídio. De 1992 a 96 o arquiteto Oscar Niemeyer foi presidente do partido.

Informações: TSE

Mais em: TV PCB

Formação

De la 1 august 2009 se vor recalcula chiriile chiriaşilor ANL care au depăşit vârsta de 35 de ani. Recalcularea se face în baza legislaţiei în vigoare care vizează locuinţele ridicate din banii statului. Chiar şi în aceste condiţii, luând în calcul puterea financiară a chiriaşilor, primăria a propus aprobării consiliului local o valoare a chiriei din care a redus cu mai mult de jumătate unii indicatori iar pe alţii i-a eliminat în totalitate. Astfel sa ajuns la chirii undeva la jumătate de ceea ce permite legea. Pentru blocul ANL de pe strada 2 Grăniceri chiriile vor fi următoarele: 164 respectiv 173 de lei pentru cele două tipuri de garsoniere şi 224 de lei pentru apartamente. În cazul blocului de pe strada Topitoriei, chiriaşii vor plăti 118 lei pentru o garsonieră şi 170 de lei pentru un apartament. 

• Presidência Constitucional (1934 – 1937)
  • Equilíbrio político era precário;
  • Forças Opostas: contra Vargas;
  • Novos fatores políticos, econômicos e sociais: movimentos sociais e novos partidos políticos;
  • Fortalecimento do Estado com a ditadura: elite favorável. O governo dava amplo apoio ao café e à indústria;
  • Aumento do poder pessoal de Vargas, do Governo e do Estado;
• A Esquerda e a Direita vão à Luta:
  • Cenário Internacional: choques entre a esquerda e a direita;
  • Governos ditatoriais: Mussolini – Itália; Hitler – Alemanha; Salazar – Portugal; Franco – Espanha;
  • Formaram frentes antifascistas: Ex: Front Populaire, na França;
  • Cenário Nacional: organizações de caráter fascista surgiram:
  • Partido Fascista Brasileiro; Legião Cearense do Trabalho; Legião de Outubro; Partido Nacional Fascista entre outros: 1934 – todas se fundiram na Ação Integralista Brasileira (AIB), chefiada por Plínio Salgado;
• INTEGRALISMO:
  • Propunha um Estado forte, sem voto popular e com representação corporativa das várias classes sociais;
  • Defendia um governo autoritário, um único partido, uma sociedade militarizada;
  • Ordem e disciplina eram fundamentais;
  • Nacionalistas, conservadores e reacionários;
  • Tinham uniformes, realizava desfiles, criaram uma bandeira e emblemas.
• ALIANÇA NACIONAL LIBERTADORA: uma frente ampla de esquerda, uma reação contra o Integralismo:
  • Comunistas, socialistas, tenentistas, líderes trabalhistas, sindicalistas;
  • Propunham um governo popular;
  • Defendiam a garantia de ampla liberdade;
  • Proteção aos pequenos e médios proprietários;
  • Nacionalização;
  • Cancelamento da dívida externa brasileira;
• 1935: Aprovação da Lei de Segurança Nacional: Criação da P.E. (Polícia Especial);
• 5 de julho de 1935 – Comício de Luís Carlos Prestes (Partido Comunista) – “Todo Poder à ANL”;
• 23 a 27 de novembro de 1935: levante militar aliancista – Intentona Comunista (Natal, Recife, Rio de Janeiro).

O Equipo de Normalización e Dinamización Lingüística convídavos á charla “As linguas no sistema educativo”, que terá lugar na Biblioteca Municipal de Cuntis o vindeiro luns 15 de xuño ás 20:15. O profesor da Universidade de Vigo Henrique Costas, responsábel da Área de Normalización Lingüística, analizará a situación da lingua galega no ensino nun contexto no que a actual administración da Xunta de Galiza ameaza con desmantelar de maneira planificada e sen atender a criterios pedagóxicos e ao propio marco legal vixente as medidas que procuraban unha distribución equitativa das linguas oficiais como linguas de aprendizaxe e a promoción do galego na educación.

Así mesmo, e ante a distribución das famosas enquisas -carentes de rigorosidade e fiabilidade- ás familias por parte da Consellaría, esta charla completa a campaña de información que o ENDL do noso colexio emprendou o venres pasado co envío de cartas a todos os pais e nais do alumnado de Infantil e Primaria e coa distribución de material informativo entre o alumnado de secundaria ao remate das clases. Os profesores e profesoras vímonos obrigados a realizar as nosas funcións legais fóra do recinto escolar ante a censura da Consellaría de Educación, que de maneira totalmente improcedente instou á dirección do centro a tomar parte das posibles incidencias. Esta situación repetiuse nos centros da comarca onde a inspección amedrentou ao profesorado, chegando a casos directos de presión en centros de Caldas, Teo ou A Estrada.

Actos informativos noutras comarcas:

- Melide: hoxe, luns 15, terá lugar unha xuntanza aberta aos docentes, pais e nais e todos estamentos municipais ás 20:30 na biblioteca municipal.

- Vilagarcía: o colectivo CASAESCOLA convida a todos os pais e nais de Vilagarcía a participar nun acto informativo o luns 15 ás 20:00 no salón de conferencias do Auditorio de Vilagarcía para achegar información ás familias ao constatar a prohibición da inspección educativa a que o fixeran os docentes ou ANPAS nos propios centros.

Doua zile la rând, Ana Maria Patru (numita in Autoritatea Electorala Permanenta de Basescu) a fost executata pentru imprudenta de a fi participat la o petrecere cu lideri ai PDL si Traian, Maria si Elena Basescu, chiar dupa anuntarea exit-poll-urilor. Intr-adevar nu se prea cade. E de spus totusi si ca femeia nu e magistrat asa cum fusese prezentata în presa. A fost vicepresedinte PD la Vâlcea.

Subiectul privind “impartialitatea” este abordat unilateral. S-ar fi conturat mai bine daca ne uitam cine-s ceilalti reprezentanti ai AEP în Biroul Electoral Central:

Autoritatea Electorală Permanentă  
OCTAVIAN OPRIŞ Preşedinte
ANA MARIA PĂTRU Vicepreşedinte
MARIAN MUHULEŢ Vicepreşedinte

Ziarul Cotidianul a publicat o ancheta privind locuintele acordate preferential de ANL – “Cartierul secret al ANL se îngraşă cu alte neamuri“, care-l descrie  pe Muhulet astfel:

“membru PNL, care a fost numit anul trecut de către Guvern vicepreşedinte cu rang de secretar de stat al Autorităţii Electorale Permanente. Pînă la jumătatea anului 2007, Muhuleţ a fost director de cabinet al secretarului general al Guvernului şi apoi consilier personal al ministrului pentru relaţia cu Parlamentul. În ambele poziţii, Muhuleţ a fost mîna dreaptă a ministrului Mihai Voicu.” 

Nu spun ca Muhulet va fi facut ceva rau ca vicepresedinte al AEP. Din contra, mie mi-a facut o impresie foarte buna ca purtator de cuvânt al Biroului Electoral Central, stergând impresia lasata de prestatiile lamentabile ale comunicatorilor BEC din 2004. Dar, daca tot e sa acuzam timp de doua zile lipsa de impartialitate a unui membru al BEC, acuzand si faptul Patru ca a fost vicepresedinta a unei filiale a PD, o mentiune privind traseul lui Muhulet cred ca merita sa fie facuta. Mai ales ca ancheta din care aflam ca Muhulet a primit repartitie in “cartierul secret al ANL” alaturi de Marian Voicu (ANL ridica un cartier secre pentru demnitari, scria Cotidianul, si ANL-ul face casa buna cu PNL-ul, scria Doc), era proaspata, fusese publicata anul trecut.

In cea ce-l priveste pe presedintele AEP lucrurile sunt mai simple, dar de fapt mai complicate pentru ziaristii de astazi. Cu siguranta ca celor mai multi dintre jurnalistii tineri, numele Octavian Opris nu le spune nimic, mai ales ca fostul senator FSN, PDSR, PSD s-a scufundat cu submarinul dupa ce a fost numit in 2004 sef al AEP. Opris e unul din veteranii FSN-FDSN-PDSR-PSD, a fost senator din 1990 pâna în 2004, dupa care, ca presedinte al AEP, a devenit “impartial”. Asa, ca Sassu. O fi chefuit doar în familie, probabil.

The wave of hysteria in response to the election of two BNP MEP’s I predicted is already well underway. It may be too late to stop the immediate headless chicken style political response to OH NO THE RACIST NAZI BNP GOT ELECTED LET’S PANIC (yesterday Unite Against Fascism called for a protest in Oxford, a city which has never had any BNP activity)  but the following document is one of the best explanations of the rise of the BNP.

It’s outdated now, it was written 14 years ago, but it remains essential reading. In fact it has never been more relevant. In that time the Anti-Nazi League morphed into Unite Against Fascism while the main organisation behind Anti-Fascist Action became the Independent Working Class Assocation. It describes the limitations of straight-forward anti-fascism and why a political challenge to tackle the rise of the far right is necessary.

Filling the Vacuum

In November 1990, at a public meeting in east London, AFA declared that the “working class is the natural constituency of socialism, not fascism. Racism and socialism are incompatible. One only exists at the expense of the other. The success of the Far-Right is due to the fact that the Left are not seen as a credible option. AFA are committed to creating the space in which one (a credible alternative} can develop.”

Three years later, addressing a meeting in south-east London, an AFA spokesperson returned to the theme: “While the initial aim must be to root out the organised racists/fascists ­the motive force behind the attacks – and throw down a challenge to those that provide them with facilities, the long-term solution must be to create communities of resistance. By creating some space, perhaps in time a real working class alternative to the lying bullshit that now passes for politics in this country can emerge. The entire Left has failed the working class, black and white alike, though many prefer to believe that the working class has failed the Left. We are here today, not only because they (the Left) are bad socialists but more specifically because they are bad anti­fascists”.

In 1994 in a widely distributed expose of the Anti-Nazi League [Don't Believe the Hype], AFA was even more specific. “The BNP can be stopped and on many occasions up and down the country AFA has physically stopped them. However we are not blind to the fact that the fight is political, and accept that the resurgence of support for the Far-Right is a symptom of a deeper malaise. We do not see it as our job to campaign for Labour. It is not AFA’s role to argue that change is not needed. The function of anti-fascism is not to see the electoral threat from the Far-Right beaten back so that Labour and the middle-class Left can, as happened between 1982-92, turn their backs on both the social causes and their own collaboration in the political betrayal that gave rise to the NF and the BNP in the first place.”

The ambition of militant anti-fascism is not simply to see the Far-Right defeated and removed from working class areas: the ultimate solution is to see them replaced there. The BNP’s attack on Labour is from the Right and is racist, ultra-conservative and anti-working class, Our primary role is to guarantee that a successful challenge to Labour comes only from the Left. Furthermore, and’ purely from an anti-fascist point of view, as the best insurance against any nazi renaissance, it would be the duty of militants to offer protection and encouragement to any genuine [anti-­Labour] working class revolt.

When AFA was relaunched in London in September 1989 it was accepted that while AFA was still organised around the single issue of anti-fascism, “AFA propaganda must contain a class message” in order “to negate the efforts by the fascists to present AFA as a bunch of middle-class outsiders,, part and parcel of the Establishment, working in the long-term interests of the status quo”.

Much has changed since 1989, not least the fact that AFA is now a national organisation with over forty branches organised in four main regions each with the physical ability to forcefully implement AFA’s founding statement on the streets. In addition other organisations such as the ANL, ARA and YRE have jumped on – and off – the bandwagon. The early nineties also saw the return to electoral prominence of the Far-Right not just in Britain but throughout Europe. The success of AFA on the streets also led to the birth of the wannabe paramilitary grouping C18.

In another tribute to AFA’s militant strategy the BNP declared in April 1994 that there would be ” no more marches, meetings, punch-ups ” A year on, this declaration must now be regarded as a serious change of strategy, something other than a temporary electoral ploy or an effort to court respectability. There appear to be at least two crucial reasons for the change of strategy. One, undoubtedly, is that since their resur­gence to national prominence, AFA have fought the BNP to a standstill. In 1991 Scotland was regarded by the BNP leadership as its highest growth area and the area with possibly the greatest potential. Today the BNP no longer visibly exists. Literally beaten into the ground by anti-fascist militants.

In the North West the BNP organisation and morale has all but been destroyed. A similar pattern is emerging in the Midlands. In the South East the fascists have been constantly harassed. Apart from the east and possibly south east they are practically invisible in London.

In many of these areas the politics of the BNP undoubtedly have a resonance, but they are unable to take advantage of the latent support due to the logistical problems caused by the constant possibility of attack and their own profile as ‘a party of strength’. One way to resolve the problem would be to recruit, but they cannot have open recruitment for fear of infiltration. In addition the fear of physical violence means that they are unable to bring their more articulate middle class supporters onto the streets for fear of losing them entirely.

The situation in Europe would also have played an influence. Here the fascists, particularly in Austria and Italy, have recognised that with the demise of the support for the communist parties there is no need for a visibly menacing counter threat. If there is no physical danger, fascists do not need to hide behind a sinister private army. The battle for control of the streets need not be fought if control is not being contested. If the end can be achieved without the traditional means there is no need for the rough stuff. In Britain, with the absence of any tangible political threat to their adopted working class constituency the argument for a physical force movement to contest the streets becomes not only void but instead represents a serious impediment to their own political ambitions – only!

Since their meteoric climb in 1990 in not one area of the country, despite significant sympathy on the ground, have they for more than one day at a time been able to control the streets; Bermondsey, Bloody Sunday and the Isle of Dogs being the exceptions. More often than not in regard to the large set pieces they have been humiliated. And even when they have won, the victory has gained them nothing except a confirmation of what already sustains them; that Labour and the Left are increasingly alien to working class people. So in a sense for them simply to continue with the strategy of “marches, meetings, punch ups” only provides an enemy that has already lost the fundamental arguments -Labour/ANL/Trotskyism, etc. (or in the case of AFA which has failed to put an argument) – with a legitimate political excuse/focus, ie: anti-BNP. The BNP policy of open swaggering aggression also affords an organisation like AFA a legitimate opportunity to answer in kind, and in doing so physically destroy the BNP’s political prospects by crippling its infra-structure. With AFA having no polltical prospects of its own they are on a hiding to nothing.

It takes two to tango, so what of AFA’s reason for being if the BNP decide that they don’t want to play anymore? Certainly in London, AFA has only been able to seriously damage the Far-Right once recently. If this is a permanent change of plan there is a serious danger that AFA, without the physical challenge for which it was designed, will itself begin to lose direction and begin to atrophy.

The flip side of the coin is that C18, who have no electoral ambitions either, don’t do anything but ‘play’. The ideal solution for both the State and the Far-Right would be for AFA to get locked into a clandestine gang war with C18, thereby allowing the State to select candidates of their own choosing for periods of lengthy incarceration. That done, the now entirely legal BNP could go about their lawful business like their European counter­parts, articulating ‘genuine racial concerns’ unhindered.

Furthermore, if the BNP operation is made entirely legal and if AFA physically opposes them, then our operation is de facto illegal. The BNP then might reasonably expect, in return for their collaboration with the forces of law and order, that the tactic of summary arrest be employed against AFA on a consistent basis. Circumstances are changing and AFA needs to adapt.

Fascism is the vanguard of reaction. It is at once the manifestation, the contributory cause and principle beneficiary of society’s decomposition. Unlike the rest of the anti-racist Left, AFA’s emphasis has always been on the political danger represented by fascism, while others such as Searchlight and the ANL have laid the emphasis on their violent and criminal tendencies. In addition they refuse or are unwilling to recognise that anti-fascism is by definition a rearguard action and that fascism is the consequence, rather than the cause, of the Left’s failure. Inevitably the strategies adopted to combat fascism carry with them the germs of the strategies that caused fascism, invariably leading to compound failure. So while it cannot be denied that the ANL’s media campaign focused public attention on the problem, it also proved to be a distraction in regard to the solution.

One of AFA’s strengths in its formative years was its limited platform; the ’single issue’. This concentration weeded out or repelled the sectarians, the ‘tough talkers’ and the dilettantes. However, during the Isle of Dogs campaign, the ’single issue’ exposed AFA’s limitations. AFA had to nothing to say on the principle business.

AFA has long recognised that once the Far-Right is allowed to mobilise, is allowed to set the agenda, and has passed a certain point, they begin to control their own destinies – and their opponent’s. Once that point is reached it would be useless and possibly counter-productive to rely upon a purely anti-fascist stance, primarily because people look to politics for solutions. It might be clear what you stand against, though their understanding of what you stand for will effectively determine their overall response.

As the activities of the ANL on the Isle of Dogs demonstrated (despite blanket canvassing the BNP vote actually rose by 30%), an anti-fascist message on its own would find little favour with working class people, even those repelled by the BNP, if they suspected that it was simply a spoiling tactic, carried out by allies of the local Labour establishment in an effort to maintain the status quo. AFA has never fought to maintain the status quo, but, even at their most effective, anti­fascist militants can never hope to achieve anything more than to maintain that vacuum. There is little doubt that the vacuum has been successfully maintained but now, in the absence of any other suitable candidates, it is incumbent on the anti-fascist militants to help fill the vacuum themselves.

The working class is increasingly alienated from Labour, the BNP’s strategy is entirely reliant upon this alienation: ‘they really hate Labour’ etc. The total ineptitude and the tangible contempt that exists in some areas between Labour and its former constituency has locally and nationally begat the BNP. And fascism begat anti-fascism. In straight­forward language, it is the politics of the Labour Party that has created the BNP. So by acting as campaign managers for Labour, the ANL are are prostituting anti-fascism, and instead of being identified with a radical, pro-working class position, anti-fascism is seen to be defending the status quo, thereby practi­cally forcing people who want change to vote BNP, out of sheer desperation. They are literally driving people into the arms of the fascists. Up to now it is entirely due to the cutting edge of AFA that the passive support has remained just that. But it is unrealistic to expect that vacuum to be maintained indefinitely.

Nor as working class militant anti-fascists can we stand on the sidelines, wringing our hands hopelessly. We have to take a stand. And we have to take that stand against Labour. Not simply in a theoretical sense, but in an organisational sense. It is vital that the working class on the estates, seriously alienated from Labour, are provided with an alternative to the BNP. The election of a Labour government will be a massive shot in the arm for the Far-Right. It is also very possible that in the subsequent local elections the Isle of Dogs scenario could be repeated on a national scale, and all our good work in the last decade would be undone at a stroke.

What is needed is a new organisation. In all probability the impetus of the Clause Four controversy will cause a realignment on the Left that will give it birth. It is not being suggested that AFA disband and becomes this organisation. It is as vital as ever,. that AFA maintains its own structures ‘and agenda. Nor is it being suggested that AFA create this new organisation. This would hardly be possible in any case. What must be recognised is that it will happen with or without AFA. AFA contains the best working class militants in the country. It is absolutely vital that in order to shape the organisation in its own image, AFA is in from the very beginning. To shape it in AFA’s own image would mean stipulating from the outset a) a democratic structure, built from the bottom up rather than from the top down; b) rather than appeal to a mythical ‘labour movement’ the strategy requires an orientation to, and an accommodation of, the working class proper; c) non-sectarian. This does not mean being forced to work with everybody; it means working alongside others towards a common goal, but making no apology for a refusal to collaborate on any project for which you have no enthusiasm, or with those with whom you fundamentally disagree.

In any case it must be obvious that to stand aloof would be an unmitigated disaster. That would allow the middle classes once again to set the agenda. AFA has been dealing with the consequences of their agenda for over a decade. It would be criminally negligent to allow our adversaries to fill the space we have created and maintained in that time. This is an opportunity to add a string to AFA’s bow. It will be a complement to, rather than a deviation from, vigorous anti-fascist activity.

Even on a limited tactical basis the benefits of an independent working class organisation operating alongside AFA would be immediate and widespread. AFA could, for the first time, campaign for something instead of merely campaigning against something – and campaign legally.

AFA could be pro-active as well as reactive. There would be no breathing space for the likes of the BNP. And, for as much as an embryonic association might welcome AFA’s physical presence, the situation demands that AFA avails itself of a wider political platform than was hitherto considered either necessary or available. For the first time since the thirties militant anti-fascism would be associated with solutions rather than simply violent actions and threats.’ For the first time, too, involved with setting the agenda rather than clearing up the political mess left by someone else’s.

Ultimately the challenge for AFA is not only to destroy the BNP in working class areas but to replace them there. So the political message, to have resonance, will have to be deeper and more comprehensive. A straight forward anti­fascist parable, a simple refutation of the ‘radical’ in nationalism will, on its own, prove unsatisfactory.

If AFA’s efforts are to culminate in victory we must seek to replace them, but to replace them we must not only out­violence them, we must also out radicalise them.

Se pare ca in urma furtunii de acum cateva zile, un bloc nou ANL a ramas fara acoperis.
Stiti care a fost raspunsul directorului ANL (parca el era)in fata primarului Neculai Ontanu?
Raspunsul a fost ca langa bloc se afla fundatia unui mall aflat in constructie. Din aceasta cauza vantul care era deja puternic s-a transformat intr-un soi de vartej care a smuls acoperisul. A folosit se pare si tot felul de termeni sofisticati ca sa explice chestia asta. Problema e ca nu se aplica.

Cred ca adevaratul motiv pentru care au ramas fara acoperis este acela ca nu au facut ce trebuie, ca nu si-au dat interesul. S-or fi furat si materiale, nu stiu, cert este ca dupa ce ca fac atat de dificila obtinerea unei locuinte, nici macar nu au decenta de a o construi cum trebuie.

Nu ma mai agit. Ramane la stadiul de stire.

A Nazaré esteve na “boca do mundo” hoje.

Chiriaşii ANL vor putea să-şi cumpere locuinţele după ce săptămâna viitoare Guvernul va trece imobilele în proprietatea privată a statului.

Primele 3.321 de locuinţe ANL, care săptămâna viitoare vor face obiectul unor hotărâri de guvern pentru a fi trecute din proprietatea publică în cea privată a statului, vor putea fi vândute chiriaşilor.

“Prin nota aprobată în şedinţa de azi a Guvernului, noi am cerut ca pentru 12.843 de locuinţe care sunt finalizate între 1 ianuarie 2004 şi 30 aprilie 2008, SGG să facă demersurile pentru a le trece din domeniul public al Consiliilor Locale în cel public al statului, urmând ca noi să le trecem şi pe acestea în domeniul privat al statului şi să le putem vinde”, a spus Blaga.

El a precizat că, până în 27 aprilie 2009, Ministerul Dezvoltării a primit situaţia doar de la 45 de Consilii Locale din 32 de judeţe, pentru 3.321 de locuinţe care au fost transferate în proprietatea publică a statului şi care vor fi trecute în domeniul privat al statului, prin HG, săptămâna viitoare. Blaga a arătat că restul de 49 de Consilii Locale din 25 de judeţe, care au 3.792 de locuinţe, nu au transmis situaţia la centru.

Blaga a precizat că, după ce Guvernul a emis în decembrie 2008 o OUG prin care termenul minim de închiriere de 5 ani este redus la 3, numărul locuinţelor ce pot fi scoase la vânzare a crescut la 14.745.

“În acest moment putem discuta despre 14.745 de locuinţe care îndeplinesc condiţiile pentru a putea fi vândute dacă facem aceste demersuri”, a spus el.

Potrivit lui Blaga, preţul mediu de vânzare este de 40.000 de euro, iar prin vânzarea celor 14.745 s-ar colecta la bugetul Ministerului Dezvoltării 590 de milioane de euro, care vor fi utilizaţi tot pentru construirea de locuinţe ANL. Banii nu vor fi viraţi în bugetele locale pentru că, astfel, doar în localităţile în care s-a construit până în prezent ar mai putea fi construite alte imobile ANL.

“Astfel vom putea discuta de o distribuţie transparentă către toate unităţile administrativ-teritoriale din ţară, pentru ca toţi tinerii să poată beneficia de aceste facilităţi”, a spus Blaga.