Economic Aspects of "Love"

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:41 pm

http://boingboing.net/2012/07/23/giant- ... kin-c.html

Giant baby avenges poor skin-care choices by abandoning mother in a basket

By Cory Doctorow

Image

In this 1945 Life ad, a giant baby exacts a vicious turnabout-is-fair-play revenge on his mother, who failed as a parent an a human being by using the wrong skin-care products on him.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Thu Jul 26, 2012 2:10 pm

There’s really no such thing as the ‘voiceless.’ There are only the deliberately silenced, or the preferably unheard.
— Arundhati Roy
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Fri Jul 27, 2012 12:48 pm



Joy Harjo - “I Give It Back: A Poem To Get Rid of Fear”


I release you,
my beautiful and terrible fear.
I release you.
You are my beloved and hated twin

but now I don’t know you
as myself.

I release you
with all the pain
I would know
at the death
of my children.

You are not my blood
anymore.

I give you back to the soldiers
who burned down my home
beheaded my children
raped and sodomized my brothers
and sisters.

I give you back to those
who stole the food from our plates
when we were starving.

I release you, fear,
because you were born,
and I was born, with eyes
that can never close.

I release you.
I release you.
I release you.

I am not afraid to be angry
I am not afraid to rejoice
I am not afraid to be hungry
I am not afraid to be full
I am not afraid to be black
I am not afraid to be white
I am not afraid to be hated
I am not afraid to be loved
To be loved
To be loved, fear,

oh, you have choked me
but I gave you the leash.

You have gutted me
but I gave you the knife.

You have devoured me
but I laid myself across the fire.

I take myself back, fear
You are not my shadow any longer.
I won’t hold you in my hands,
in my eyes, my ears, my voice, my belly
or in my heart, my heart, my heart, my heart, my heart…

Come here, fear,
I am alive!
and you are so afraid
of dying.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Fri Jul 27, 2012 1:25 pm

Image
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Wed Aug 01, 2012 1:32 pm

Study of the history of liberation struggles shows that they have generally been preceded by an upsurge of cultural manifestations, which progressively harden into an attempt, successful or not, to assert the cultural personality of the dominated people by an act of denial of the culture of the oppressor. Whatever the conditions of subjection of a people to foreign domination and the influence of economic, political and social factors in the exercise of this domination, it is generally within the cultural factor that we find the germ of challenge which leads to the structuring and development of the liberation movement.

~ Amílcar Cabral

Image
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Wed Aug 01, 2012 3:18 pm

The range of capitalist tactics in the labor process needs to be appreciated. It is here, in particular, that capitalists use the power of social differences to their own utmost advantage. Issues of gender often become paramount on the shop floors, as do issues of ethnicity, religion, race and even sexual preference. In the sweatshops of the so-called developing world it is women who bear the brunt of capitalist exploitation and whose talents and capacities are utilized to the extreme under conditions often akin to patriarchal domination. This is so because, in a desperate bid to exert and sustain control over the labor process, the capitalist has to mobilize any social relation difference, any distinction within the social division of labor, any special cultural preference or habit, both to prevent the inevitable commonality of position in the workplace being consolidated into a movement of social solidarity and to sustain a fragmented and divided workforce.

— David Harvey, The Enigma of Capital: And the Crises of Capitalism
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:42 am

Image
"If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything."
-Malcolm X
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Fri Aug 03, 2012 12:41 pm

Popular Power: “Fuck the Elections,” Montreal, Night 101 (re: Night 100)

August 3, 2012


Image

Everything about night demo 100 in Montreal felt enormous.

There were the numbers of people — so many that when we were on long hilly streets, all you could see were people all the way back and people all the way forward for blocks and blocks; so many that when we reached a late-night, outdoor fashion show festival and thus a busy area, and hence the riot cops appeared to disperse us, it seemed as if every which way you looked, up and down different intersections, we still tightly crowded the streets; so many that it was impossible to guess how many, which means thousands and thousands, or ten thousand or more. This in contrast to recent night demos, where on the last one, we were lucky if we reached the “magic” number of over 49 to put us squarely in the illegality of special law 78. It felt, as one of my friends said, “Like the old days,” by which he meant the night demos of week 1, 2, or 3, way back when it was still assuredly Maple Spring, not the red-hot August 1 of last night.

Image



Continues at: https://cbmilstein.wordpress.com/2012/0 ... night-101/
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Sat Aug 04, 2012 11:02 pm

http://libcom.org/history/articles/afa- ... ist-action

1985-2001: A short history of Anti-Fascist Action (AFA)

Image

A brief history of Anti-Fascist Action (AFA), which fought a secret war against the far right in Britain and drove them off the streets.


AFA was originally set up in 1985 as a broad front anti-fascist organisation. The main fascist organisation at this time, following the demise of the National Front after Thatcher took power in 1979, was the British National Party (BNP), a more extreme split from the NF. Militant physical force anti-fascism has a long tradition in Britain - going back to the 1930's, the 'Battle of Cable Street' and the 43 Group in London's East End, and it was in this tradition that AFA was formed.

The fascists
Wherever fascists were unopposed, they carried out campaigns of violence against ethnic minorities and working class organisations. Taking Liverpool as an example, the few attempts by the BNP or NF to hold public marches or meetings in the city centre during the 1980's had been smashed into the ground by a large turn out from locals - notably from the Liverpool black community [1]. This failure of big events, however, didn't stop the BNP selling papers openly in the town centre on a regular basis, unopposed. This also didn't stop them starting a campaign of violence against left wing targets - in particular against the bookshop 'News From Nowhere', run by a feminist collective. After a few almost-successful attempts to burn the bookshop down, the windows being smashed in on Saturday daytime attacks - probably after a paper sale - and fascists generally strutting into the bookshop to intimidate staff and customers as and when they pleased, it was obvious something had to be done. Other fascist attacks at the time included smashing the windows of the Wirral Trades Council (over the water from Liverpool). BNP local activity like this, coupled with racist and homophobic attacks, was typical in any area in Britain where they were left unchallenged.

AFA
AFA was launched in Liverpool in 1986. At that time, Militant (now the Socialist Party) was still the strongest working class group on the left. Neither they nor the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) were interested in being organisationally part of AFA, though both turned out in the event of fascist marches. From an early stage the main organisers of Liverpool AFA were associated with the local anarchist scene.

Liverpool AFA was mostly anarchist - but it was never an anarchist front or a recruiting tool, except by way of natural influence. Anyone who agreed with the 'physical and ideological opposition to fascism' could be involved, and many did. Links were made with trade unions, Jewish and other anti-racist groups, and meetings were held to attract wider participation. Anti-fascists at the two universities also set up AFA groups at this time - a process repeated several times as students came and went.

Within a year or so, the Liverpool BNP went from boasting about how the 'reds' were always beaten in Liverpool when they tried to force the BNP off the streets (according to confiscated copies of the 'British Nationalist'), to the effective collapse of the group. Years later, the BNP admitted in the Liverpool Echo that "they were driven underground by left wing extremists in the mid-80s" [Oct 1993]. This kind of effective shut-down of BNP groups - by any means necessary - was also typical of AFA in this period.

Re-organisation
Nationally, meanwhile, the original AFA had collapsed due to incompatible political differences. Local and Regional groups (like the Northern Network) however continued, and national call-outs still occurred using existing contacts. AFA was re- launched in London in 1989, and in 1992 a national meeting was held in London to sort out a new national structure. The re-launch of AFA was as a militant 'united front' - an alliance of different political tendencies - orientated towards the working class, to reclaim working class areas then claimed by fascists as their own. The class perspective was agreed because, first, fascists don't just play the race card - they address genuine fears of the white working class (unemployment, bad housing etc.) and their success was often based on disillusionment with so-called 'socialist' councils. This propaganda needed a class-based answer. Second, it wasn't enough to 'defend democracy' - if AFA didn't say the system needed to be smashed, that would leave fascism as the 'radical' alternative. Third, the aim of fascism is the utter destruction of working class power, and so only the working class have a stake in opposing it. AFA, it was agreed, wasn't interested in 'allies' that were part of the problem such as corrupt councillors. Links, it was agreed, would continue to be made with black and asian communities under attack, but AFA propaganda should be mainly aimed at the communities where fascists themselves aimed to recruit [2].

Organisationally, it was agreed that AFA would be a decentralised federation based on a regional structure - building from the existing regions of London AFA and the Northern Network. The only national structure was to be a national coordinating committee of two delegates per region, to meet as and when needed, with no powers to make policy (or certainly to impose policy - some minor national decisions did have to be made over these years, but these were non-controversial).

London AFA at that time was mostly run by the Marxist Red Action - in alliance with elements of the anarcho-syndicalist Direct Action Movement (DAM)[3], and the Trotskyist Workers Power. There were also non-aligned independents - anarchists and other socialists - involved.

The Northern Network (originally the Northern Anti-Fascist Network) was a looser federation of Northern AFA groups - Bolton, Liverpool, Manchester , Leeds, South Yorks, Tyne and Wear, Preston , and others. Tyne and Wear were actually a Council-funded body set up before AFA. Of the rest, Manchester were run mainly by Red Action (probably the strongest Red Action branch outside of London); a few groups - like York - would probably be best described as "non-aligned" independents. The rest were mainly organised by anarchists - sometimes in the DAM, sometimes not. The DAM didn't officially prioritise anti-fascism - many or most of the DAM were trade union activists or shop stewards - though some anarchist groups definitely prioritised the anti-fascist fight more than others.

Zenith
AFA at its height consisted of far more than its activist core, and far more than just its street fighters. AFA activism involved public speaking, magazine and pamphlet production, organising fund-raisers (gigs, carnivals), etc. A lot of people put time and effort into AFA-related activities who agreed with the aims, but weren't particularly involved organisationally or in going to meetings. At this time there was a working - and productive - relationship between the anti-fascist magazine 'Searchlight' and AFA, partly because AFA was the only game in town.

At a regional and national level, AFA actions were mainly based around countering known - or intelligence-indicated - fascist mobilisations. Remembrance Sunday in London was the first national focus point in 1986 - the National Front having made a point of marching to the Cenotaph on the day, then attacking left wing targets - notably the anti-Apartheid picket outside the South African Embassy. These militant AFA mobilisations had the desired effect - the fascists were stopped. In the North, meanwhile, the Northern Network mobilised against the BNP's Remembrance Sunday meetings at Clifford's Tower, York. The BNP chose Clifford's Tower as it was the site where many of York's Jewish community were burned to death in the middle ages. Some of these early AFA mobilisations to York were relatively open, and quite large. In 1988, for instance, Liverpool AFA took a full coach and minibus - over 80 people - to the event, though on that occasion they were stopped on the outskirts of York and escorted all the way back to Liverpool by the police (the same happened to a coach from Newcastle). Echoes of police tactics in the Miner's Strike of 1984-85… Later mobilisations tended to use just mini-buses. Again, after a few years, AFA tactics were successful.

Remembrance Sunday was only one day - many other AFA mobilisations occurred, in many parts of the country, over these years. This was especially so as new AFA groups were formed and new AFA Regions were organised[4]. Tactics evolved and were constantly under review. A typical 'event' in the North would involve a call-out after intelligence indicated fascist activity – e.g. a BNP election leafleting would be taking place (mobilisations weren't just about marches). AFA would meet, send out scouts, and act according to intelligence gathered on the day. Sometimes AFA leafleting of estates was not just to counter fascist propaganda, but also to provide a legal excuse for being there. As time went on, in the Northern Network (London AFA operated very differently), each local group elected a delegate during mobilisations. Delegates from each group got together on the day and coordinated events. Usually, but not always, the unofficial 'chief steward' was the one in whose backyard the nazi mobilisation had occurred. Coordination was more based on informal working relationships and trust rather than any official positions, and once the fascists were located, what happened next had more to do with personal initiative and 'bottle' than a 'commander'.

Image
AFA take on Blood and
Honour in Hyde Park, 1989


The main national public AFA events over these years are worth outlining:

In London, Blood and Honour - the nazi record label and music front - was beaten off the streets in 1989 when they tried to organise publicly. In 1991 an AFA Unity Carnival in London - attended by 10,000 in September - was followed on Remembrance Sunday by a 4,000 strong confrontational 'National Demonstration Against Racist Attacks' through the East End. From reacting to the fascists, AFA was seizing the initiative. This was the biggest anti-fascist demo in years - AFA seemed on the verge of some kind of breakthrough.

Instead, seeing the way the wind was blowing, within months the SWP had re-launched the Anti-Nazi League (a very different animal to the original militant ANL of the 1970's [5]), Militant launched Youth Against Racism in Europe, and Black Nationalists in the Labour Party launched the Anti-Racist Alliance 6]. The end result of this was that, while these new organisations brought in new faces, anti-fascist unity had suddenly become a competitive market place, with organisations which were better funded, and better-connected in terms of media publicity than AFA. AFA did continue to help organise and provide stewards for specific broader anti-racist marches - such as the 1992 'National Demonstration Against Racist Murders' [7] - but there were no more AFA marches. By 1993, in big national anti-fascist marches, like the marches to the BNP headquarters in Welling, organised by all the 'big names' - the biggest being of 40,000 in September 1993 - AFA activists either organised separately to track down any BNP groups ( e.g. London) or joined the march (e.g. Liverpool). AFA carnivals did still continue. A rained-on Unity Carnival in London in September 1992 provided a useful recruiting ground for the 'Battle of Waterloo' a week later - when Blood and Honour were smashed off the streets again, by over 1,000 anti-fascists organised around AFA. The last big AFA carnival was in Newcastle in June 1993, with 10,000 taking part. In London, in January 1994, an AFA national mobilisation humiliated another attempt by neo-nazis to go public - this time by paramilitary group Combat 18[8].

Other areas AFA was involved in included Cable Street Beat - inspired by the Rock Against Racism of the original (1970's) ANL, to promote anti-fascism through music. Freedom of Movement was set up later - based in Manchester - to further this idea in the clubbing scene. Other AFA campaigns were launched to promote anti-fascism at football grounds - starting with Leeds, and later Newcastle, Manchester, Glasgow , etc. A national AFA magazine - 'Fighting Talk' - was produced, and the AFA profile was also raised by a BBC 'Open Space' programme about the group.

Breakdown of the united front
The 'united front' where activists worked together started to break down as the 1990s progressed.

The relationship with Searchlight started to turn sour. Anarchists had not trusted Searchlight since at least the early 1980's - when articles in anarchist papers examined Searchlight's then editor Gerry Gable's links with Special Branch (alleging a 'something for something' relationship – i.e. Searchlight would give details to the State, and not just about fascists)[9]. In 1993 Searchlight ran a smear campaign against anarchists - in particular against specific DAM and Class War members - alleging they were really fascists. This probably wasn't a coincidence now there were alternatives to AFA to back. From the mid-1990's Red Action - who had previously had a very close relationship with Searchlight - began more and more to take the line that association with Searchlight was becoming a liability - with Searchlight increasingly providing misinformation and trying to manipulate AFA for its own agenda [10].

Relationships between Red Action and anarchists also began to break down. In London , state interest in Red Action at this time seemed more than just paranoia, and anarchists were obviously being kept out of the loop. Workers Power left for the ANL, many independents left, and, increasingly, London AFA was moving from an alliance run mainly by Red Action, to one consisting more or less exclusively of Red Action.

In Glasgow - around late 1992 - relationships between anarchists and Glasgow Red Action deteriorated to the extent that anarchists felt compelled to organise a separate meeting. At least two anarchists leaving the meeting were physically attacked by Red Action members. One of the organisers of the meeting - a committed anti-fascist of long standing - was later falsely smeared as a police grass in Red Action's paper 'Red Action' [11].

The main contribution to the united front breaking down, however, became the pushing of a new Red Action strategy: creating a new political party - the Independent Working Class Association (IWCA) - around 1995. The IWCA didn't come from nowhere. A turning point, as far as London Red Action goes, was the election of a BNP councillor - Derek Beacon - in the Isle of Dogs, London, in 1993. As was said at the time, London AFA felt they had nothing to offer people apart form 'don't vote BNP', which in the circumstances, Red Action felt, could only have meant vote Labour or Liberal Democrat - the very people who'd helped create the housing problems in the Isle of Dogs in the first place. Red Action had always been a strong supporter of the Irish Republican movement - and the move of Republicans from the armed struggle towards community organising, and the electoral success of Sinn Fein, may well have also played a role in the re-thinking of Red Action's strategy.

When Red Action started pushing forward the idea of the IWCA, articles were written, circulars sent out, and a meeting held in the North in late 1995 where London Red Action put forward their case. The argument was basically 'if not us, who?' was to fill the political vacuum created on the left by Labour abandoning the working class on the one hand, and AFA's success in beating the fascists on the right. The BNP were moving from the 'battle of the streets' (which they'd lost) to a EuroNationalist/community activist [12] strategy. AFA, it was stated, would have to adapt. This wasn't billed as a decision-making meeting. No vote was taken, but from then on Red Action argued that there was a 'mandate' - that there was a 'consensus' in AFA to officially back the IWCA - despite the Northern Network voting against official backing[13]. This position was backed by London's control of 'Fighting Talk' [14].

Image
AFA graphic of the celtic cross-
logo of Blood & Honour, being smashed


As was said at the time, many AFA activists already had wider political commitments and they argued that why should a united front organisation like AFA prioritise any particular working class party in an election? After all, AFA was open for SLP and other party supporters to join - and many AFA activists were against electoralism as a strategy anyway. The IWCA down-playing of the workplace as an area of struggle also came at the time when 500 Liverpool Dockers had been locked out and solidarity actions were occurring all over the world (most notably among USA longshoremen and in Australia) during a struggle lasting over 2 years.

The IWCA was being pushed as a way to stop AFA stagnating as the BNP abandoned the battle for the streets. In reality, the struggle for the party political line alienated much of the AFA core and periphery - in undermining the united front it became a factor in the decline it was stated to prevent.

Decline
After 1995, some anti-fascist mobilisations did still occur i e.g. against the NF in Dover in 1997 and 1998. Internally, a new AFA National Coordinating Committee was set up in 1997. From the way this was used it is clear that this Committee actually had powers - a far cry from the old national committee – an indication of how few anarchists were still involved organisationally, and how far the Northern Network had declined. In 1997 an AFA statement officially banned members from associating with Searchlight - and, in 1998, Leeds and Huddersfield AFA were expelled by the new Committee, officially for ignoring this policy. Expulsions didn't stop the decline. There were some local re-launches – e.g. Liverpool in 2000. But by 2001 - though probably a long time before - AFA as a national organisation hardly existed.

Some argued that unless AFA adapted to the new BNP strategy, AFA would 'atrophy' and wither. AFA was geared for confrontation. Without confrontation AFA - as it then was - would have no reason to exist. Some believe its demise was hastened by the creation of the IWCA which diverted some AFA time and resources. But there were definitely other factors. Key ones included:

- the police cottoning on to AFA tactics
- 'competition' from more high-profile anti-fascist groups
- the lack of intelligence following the break with Searchlight
- street fight, arrests and injuries from the war of attrition and a ageing activists with increasing family commitments taking their toll as the income of new members slowed.


Offshoots
Some former elements from AFA regrouped to form militant anti-fascist group No Platform in 2002 and others later in Antifa in 2004. Antifa, largely dominated by anarchists, has imitated AFA's stance of physical and ideological confrontation with fascists and has a policy of non-co-operation with Searchlight or any other state-linked agencies. The IWCA continues to run for election in certain areas and has a small number of councillors.


The bulk of this text was from an article, Anti-Fascist Action - an Anarchist perspective, by an ex-Liverpool and Northern Network AFA member written in February 2005 for Black Flag magazine. It mostly took a Northern angle and was run past other ex-AFA members - from Liverpool and elsewhere - to cross-check the facts and provide feedback. The text was heavily edited by libcom.org in 2006 to shorten it, remove the first-person writing style, remove some analysis and opinion and remove some footnotes. The Offshoots section was also added. The original article will soon be available in the libcom.org library.



Footnotes
1. Eg attempted fascist meetings in the Adelphi Hotel and St. George's Hotel.
2. Information taken from the Liverpool AFA minutes of the national meeting - these were a lot more detailed than the official minutes.
3. DAM abolished itself and launched the Solidarity Federation in 1994 - the aim being to build a class organisation based on anarcho-syndicalist principles - based on industrial and community networks - rather than being just a political grouping of anarcho-syndicalists (see http://www.direct-action.org.uk/ ). Not all DAM members - including some of the most active anti- fascists - joined the new organisation.

For a brief overview of some of the events in London AFA during these years, from a DAM member's perspective, see the pamphlet "Bash the Fash - Anti-Fascist Recollections 1984-93", K.Bullstreet. Published by Kate Sharpley Library, BM Hurricane London, WC1N 3XX.
4. Scotland existed as a Region probably since 1993. In 1994 the Midlands Region was launched and moves were begun to launch a Southern Region. The AFA public contact list in 1996 (as shown in Fighting Talk) had 12 groups listed in the North, 12 in the South (including London), 4 in the Midlands, 3 in Scotland, and 1 in Wales. There were quite a number of groups not in the list – e.g. Doncaster, Chesterfield, and Mansfield. Groups also varied in terms of numbers and resources, and were often contacts for a much wider area (i.e. you really need to know the background) but this still gives a rough idea about where AFA's strength lay at this time.
5. For a comparison of the old and new ANL, see "The Anti-Nazi League A Critical Examination 1977-81/2 and 1992-95". Originally published by the Colin Roach Centre in 1996, it can be read at http://www.red-star-research.org.uk/rpm/anl.html .
6. 'Black Nationalist' meaning that, according to ARA, racism could only be fought under Black leadership. Where this left Asian or Chinese members for example wasn't mentioned…
7. November 1992, Eltham, London. The march was held under the banner of the 'Rohit Duggal Family Campaign'. 16 year old Rohit Duggal was murdered in July 1992 in a racist attack.
8. Some people called this 'Waterloo 2' - though it wasn't anywhere near as public. Combat 18 (18 standing for AH i as in Adolf Hitler) was the short-lived organisation of nazi 'hard men' and would-be terrorists designed to take on AFA and others, and used to provide security for the BNP. C18 eventually disintegrated. The history of C18 is quite convoluted and bizarre, so will not be explained in detail here.
9. Various articles in anarchist papers and magazines. Also New Statesman, 15.02.1980.
10. See various articles on the Red Action web site http://www.redaction.org. Also various 'Fighting Talk's. Whatever the reasons, it's clear there was a breakdown in the Searchlight-Red Action relationship.
11. Information re-confirmed recently [2004] by a then member of Glasgow DAM, and by a contact in Liverpool. Looking back, the Glasgow Red Action attack on anarchists wasn't really dealt with properly - either within AFA or the wider anarchist movement. As it was, the incident caused a lot of bad blood nationally, but AFA held together.
12. "EuroNationalist" meaning a strategy similar to Le Pen's National Front in France - rather than a 'march and grow' storm trooper traditional nazi approach. 'March and grow' in Britain had by now become a lot closer to 'march and die'.
13. Liverpool AFA sent out a statement nationally - soon after London Red Action's meeting, arguing against AFA becoming the physical wing or part of any political party or organisation. This statement was provisionally adopted at the next Northern Network meeting, pending further debate.
14. Fighting Talk (Nov 1995) stated that the Northern Network supported the IWCA, and printed an IWCA recruitment article. This was never updated. AFA groups were sent IWCA leaflets with 'AFA' on as sponsors. To keep things brief - the way things happened could, perhaps, have been due to a genuine misunderstanding of how the Northern Network operated. It came across as railroading - to put it mildly. It could certainly have been handled better.
15. There's some background information on this in "The Labour Party, Marxism and Liverpool": http://prome.snu.ac.kr/~skkim/data/arti ... rpool.html

More information
No Retreat: The secret war between Britain's Anti-Fascists and the Far Right. Dave Hann and Steve Tilzey.Milo Books.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:07 am

CLASSIC “WHITE GIRL” MICROAGGRESSIONS
by Lisa Wade

Image

Microaggressions are “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative… slights and insults” (source). These are often subtle. So the recipient feels badly, but it can be difficult to explain exactly why, especially to someone who isn’t sympathetic to issues of bias. The Microaggressions Project has hundreds, maybe thousands, of examples.

In this video, Franchesca Leigh poses as a “White girl” and says many of the things that she and other “Black girls” hear routinely. To Leigh, these are microaggressions. They variously trivialize and show insensitivity towards race and racism, remind the listener that she is considered different and strange, homogenize and stereotype Black people, and more…





Also:


American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Sun Aug 05, 2012 10:06 am

http://endofcapitalism.com/2012/07/17/w ... c-society/

Who We Are, What We Are Building – Students for a Democratic Society
July 17, 2012

This document should not be forgotten. Although the New SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) is no longer what it was when this statement was written, the vision expressed herein provides a powerful framework for understanding what it means to organize for social change. Written primarily by Madeline Gardner, Joshua Kahn Russell, Kelly Lenora Lee and Michael Gould-Wartofsky, “Who We Are, What We Are Building” was approved by the direct democratic process of the SDS National Convention in Detroit, July 27th – 30th, 2007. It was subsequently ratified by a vote of SDS chapters. Five years later, it is still worth (re)reading! [alex]


As Students for a Democratic Society, we want to remake a movement – a young left where our struggles can build and sustain a society of justice-making, solidarity, equality, peace and freedom. This demands a broad-based, deep-rooted, and revolutionary transformation of our society. It demands that we build on movements that have come before, and alongside other people’s struggles and movements for liberation. http://endofcapitalism.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/n2525051_36352910_9039.jpg?w=309&h=231

Together, we affirm that another world is possible: A world beyond oppression, beyond domination, beyond war and empire. A world where people have power over their own lives. We believe we stand on the cusp of something new in our generation. We have the potential to take action, organize, and relate to other movements in ways that many of us have never seen before. Something new is also happening in our society: the organized Left, after decades of decline and crisis, is reinventing itself. People in many places and communities are building movements committed to long-haul, revolutionary change.

SDS can play a vital role by redefining the student and youth movement and how it relates to others. Yet we have a choice ahead of us: We can do what has been done before – reinvent the wheel with the same old cycles – or we can build something new together, something informed by our past and grounded in a vision of what the future might look like. We envision the new SDS in the light of the second alternative.

SDS will forge itself through its actions and speak for itself with its own collective voice. In this statement of organizational vision, we want to highlight the most hopeful ideas and practices in SDS, offering a sense of what our organization might be and what it can offer others. The concepts below are building blocks for our organization.

Here, we begin to evoke our visions for the movement we want to make, but that is not enough: As Students for a Democratic Society, we will work to actually bring it about.

Image
2007 SDS National Convention.

Who We Are

We are here to win.

We really believe we can create a more just society. It is possible, and we can do it – therefore we have a responsibility to do it. Our activism is not simply a matter of “fighting the good fight,” or of insularity or purity, but instead is grounded in the day-to-day reality of what it takes to build a movement that can win concrete objectives and ultimately transform society.

We are in it for the long haul.

Realizing that we can win, we think about what it means to be involved in long-haul struggle, and what it really means to do this for life. We believe there is more to a movement than taking to the streets for a day. We are building our power over the long haul. This helps give perspective on our goals and how we achieve them. We think about how we want the movement – and SDS – to look in five years, in ten years, in twenty years. We think about what we need to do now to get there. We will keep our eyes on the prize.

We are organizers.

As Students for a Democratic Society, we will dedicate ourselves not just to activism, but to organizing. Activists are people who take action to make change in society. Organizers are activists who also work to bring many other people into movements. They help build organizations and spaces that engage and activate new people.

As organizers, we try to meet people where they are, listen to their concerns, and help to amplify their voices. As organizers, we constantly reach out to new people and build alliances wherever we can. As organizers, we strive to see the big picture – not simply our own viewpoint and agenda. We collectively take responsibility for the direction of our organizations and groups. SDS will build a culture of organizing, in which we are always reaching out to people, working with them, building alliances, and creating empowering spaces to make change together.

Image
SDS Chapter report-backs.

We will be relevant.

Our actions will be relevant to a context, a community, a target, and a movement. We believe change will be made by many, many people working collectively, not by an elite “vanguard” or a crew of professional activists. Real change is made by mass movements, and we see Students for a Democratic Society as part of a mass movement for social change. We will therefore organize around issues that provide tangible, concrete gains to meet real needs in our campuses and communities.

In order to be relevant and build power, SDS must grow. We have to continually grow in numbers and chapters, as well as in our capacity and the depth and sophistication of our organizing. We will continually reach beyond existing circles, building our base and expanding our scope. We will not allow ourselves to become activist cliques, nor allow our movement to be limited to one culture or subculture.

We seek to be an organization that students and youth from all walks of life can see themselves joining. We seek to build an organization with which groups and communities in struggle can ally themselves. We will strive to be inclusive and accessible.

We will present ourselves and our ideas in a way that captivates the political mainstream, instead of alienating it and marginalizing ourselves. A large majority of young people in our society are ready for change. We will appeal to the positive values already commonly held in our society and demonstrate how they are antithetical to our current system.

To build the movement, it is crucial that we maintain humble and open-minded attitudes. Elitist attitudes discourage new voices and ideas. We take seriously the way activist language, attitudes, and subcultures have been alienating and intimidating and kept us marginal. We can be ourselves while being mindful and attentive to the needs of others in their communities, respectfully, without putting appearances above and beyond the goals of changing society.

We will be strategic.

Our actions will be strategic, fitted to a collective purpose, a direction, and a need. Strategy is a lens with which we will approach our organizing. We will have a clear sense of our goals, and evaluate how our actions move us toward them. We will always act with respect to the community and context in which we find ourselves. We will always think about how to build our organization, develop new allies, and support other movements.

Strategic action is not a “line” – not a mandated set of rules, but a shared orientation. Strategic action looks different in different places. Our strategy will guide our tactics – not the other way around. Tactics are like a toolbox. If you are building a house, you need different tools at different times – sometimes you need a hammer, other times you need a screwdriver. But you need those tools to be part of a strategy if you want to build the house. More than any tactic for its own sake, we are committed to strategic action to win our goals.

Image
The writers present the proposed document for approval.

We will all be leaders and mentors.

We want organizations and movements that create the space for new folks to learn how to organize and take action. Mentorship must occur intergenerationally between SDSers and movement elders and veterans, as well as internally among SDSers of various levels of experience. We especially value such relationships between people of diverse backgrounds and perspectives. We view every new member of our group as a peer-mentor, someone to learn from, as well as encourage and teach.

We believe in collective leadership. We reject leadership that centers on individuals whom others blindly follow. Instead, we will strive to create a space where everyone can develop the skills and analysis to be an empowered change maker. We will strive for leadership development that pushes everyone up. We can all be leaders in a way that the different talents, skills and experience we each bring will be used for the good of the group.

If we are all leaders, we must each take responsibility for our choices and think about the group as a whole, not just ourselves. It is on us to develop each other’s leadership – to see the potential in one another and encourage it. We will build one another up, and we will support each other in becoming leaders and taking on responsibilities.

We are learning from the past. We will reinvent our movement.

Younger generations, without realizing it, often re-invent ways of organizing and thinking about change that have been tried before. As SDS, we will ground ourselves in a real sense of our organizing history, valuing the lessons of the movements that have come before us.

We are committed to a process of asking questions about past social movements and organizations. We will ask why and how the movements of the past have succeeded or failed. We will study each situation so that we are ready to build a stronger movement than ever before. To this, we will add our creativity and our own insights. If we hope to win, our generation must engage in a process of reinvention, on its own terms.

We can mobilize the collective memory of generations of organizers, dissidents and revolutionaries, living and dead, “Old Left” and “New.” We will not try to imitate and relive the past, but we will learn from it, improvise and imagine new meanings for our time and place.

We will also give our movement a new creativity in its form and direction, in its adversity to oppression, and in its construction of another kind of politics that hastens a better and more beautiful world. We will reimagine a politics of liberation, liberating our own imagination from the constraints imposed on it by the present system and by the past. If we hope to win, our generation must engage in a process of reinvention, on its own terms.

Image
SDSers in line to speak, including yours truly.

What We Are Building

We affirm that our organization will be:

1. An Organization That Makes Connections

Students for a Democratic Society will make the connections between students and peoples’ struggles, and between “issues” and the bigger systems of which they are a part. We will ground our work in an understanding of how our issues intersect, how our struggles are connected, and how to actively question and creatively approach those things that separate us. We recognize the importance of fighting injustice on multiple fronts. We know that individual struggles are never won alone.

We are struggling to change a society which depends upon multiple and reciprocal systems of oppression and domination for its survival: racism and white supremacy, capitalism, patriarchy, heterosexism and transphobia, authoritarianism and imperialism, among others. In order to create enduring change in such a society, SDS will take on these systems by nourishing interconnected and mutually sustaining struggles of liberation. We will consciously and effectively target systems of oppression through collaborative struggle rooted in concrete organizing. We will expand our understanding of issues often viewed as singular to include a more complex analysis of how peoples’ struggles are related and interdependent.

As we fight to end the wars we see every day, we will also fight against the unseen wars of empire, power and profit against people, especially poor and working people. Our common life will only be reclaimed through organized resistance, through local struggles linked together. We will come to know our friends and allies, and make ourselves real friends and allies to the struggles of other peoples.

2. An Organization for Collective Liberation

Oppressed people are at the forefront of movements for liberation. We understand that our work must target structures of domination in order to build powerful diverse movements for change. We realize that lines of power cut deep in our society, and we must be grounded in the work of combating systems of white supremacy, patriarchy, capitalism, imperialism, heterosexism, transphobia, and the many other forms of oppression thoughtfully and strategically.

We realize that having a verbal commitment to this work is not enough. We must be doing this work. We are committed to learning how oppression operates and how we can transform it. We are committed to leveraging whatever resources we as students and individuals have, thoughtfully, respectfully, and transparently, for the benefit of larger communities and movements.

We believe the campus must be opened, and the character of both university and education in society fundamentally changed from its historical role as the “Ivory Tower” bastion of privilege. We commit to the fight for access to education and higher education, because they are not privileges but rights, and because reparations for bias in admissions owing to systems of oppression are long past due.

We commit to changing the character of education and to affirm the necessity of Ethnic, Women’s, Queer, and African/a studies departments as correctives to the historical bias of academia. We further affirm that curricula in general must be challenged as to both their means and their ends. Education must liberate society from, and not perpetuate, the condition of domination by a select few.

Image
Womyn’s Caucus meeting
.
We are committed to listening to, learning from, and amplifying the voices of oppressed communities and their allies. On our campuses, we will prioritize workers’ rights, gender justice, affirmative action other and issues relevant to oppressed members of our communities. We commit to changing the function of the university, to ensure that the university is not above the community but an accountable part of it, and to ensure respect for workers’ rights, for freedom of inquiry, and for the rights of students.

We are committed to listening to, learning from, and amplifying the voices of oppressed communities and their allies. On our campuses, we will prioritize workers’ rights, gender justice, affirmative action other and issues relevant to oppressed members of our communities.

We know that peoples not traditionally recognized as part of the student movement have always been and still are organizing, at the forefront. We recognize that activism and knowledge is not the sole province of a particular demographic; nor is the struggle left simply for the oppressed to take up. Everyone has a duty to listen; everyone has a duty to act.

We will challenge the standards and scripts of activism and action that do not account for the experiences of peoples engaged in struggle, and will give action power by recognizing the diverse and significant ways in which people resist and combat oppression daily. Ordinary people are continuously resisting in extraordinary ways. We will recognize and support acts of resistance that empower people, whether or not such acts fit nicely into an activist mold.

3. An Organization in Solidarity and With Accountability to Others

As Students for a Democratic Society, we see our work as grounded in strong human relationships. We seek to build relationships on solidarity and trust, standing together and recognizing others’ struggles as our own. SDS will not simply proclaim itself in solidarity, but actively practice solidarity with communities, workers, oppressed peoples, and all allied movements in struggle.

We will build strong movements where we live that can both combat oppression at home and offer meaningful support to other movements and communities, here and around the world. Our solidarity will be locally rooted and nationally/globally linked. It will be solidarity across borders, and solidarity against borders.

Our solidarity will be horizontal, shared below. It will subvert and transform the present relations of power. It will build mutual aid between movements, communities, and peoples in revolt, and freedom and autonomy from the powerful. In order to win, we have to be able to rely on each other’s solidarity.

As Students for a Democratic Society, we will also strive to be an accountable organization, one that recognizes, respects, and responds to the collective agency of those struggling for liberation. We affirm our commitment to making our organizing actively accountable to the communities it occurs in and to the people organizing from within these communities. We declare ourselves ready to respect the experience, recognize the leadership of, and actively support the struggles of those directly affected.

Image
Vote is counted.

4. A Democratic Organization for a Democratic Society

As Students for a Democratic Society, we believe that it has to be up to people themselves to decide what their common life and their society is going to look like, work like and act like. In a society where all power over people’s lives has been taken out of their hands and placed in the hands of the few, the rich and the powerful, this may seem like an impossible dream, but it can and must be made a reality.

As Students for a Democratic Society, we demand and practice nothing less than direct democracy in which everyone participates and nobody dominates. We reaffirm liberation movements’ historic call for “All power to the people.” We reclaim power, in the feminist sense, as “power with,” not “power over.” People must be free, and have the resources they need, to democratically determine the conditions and shape the possibilities of their lives.

We understand that we cannot really be free until all are free, until the means of a free life belong to everyone. We will therefore fight for autonomy and self-determination, alongside the communities most affected, for all of us who have been systematically denied it: For workers’ power in the workplace, for youth and student power in the schools, for empowerment of communities of color, of all genders and sexualities, and for peoples’ control over their own lands and the policies that affect them and their own lives.

5. An Organization That Practices Participatory Democracy

In SDS, participatory democracy is synonymous with direct democracy. We understand direct and participatory democracy to mean that all members of SDS have a right to meaningful participation in decision-making within their organization.

People have a right to participate in decisions proportionate to the degree they are affected by them. Everyone is encouraged to access channels to decision-making, and those who do access them will be held accountable to the rest of the organization.

We are committed to a process that ensures that all voices get heard. We are committed to setting up our organization in such a way that those with limited time and limited resources can all participate. If our organization is open only to those who can sit in endless meetings, it is not a participatory organization. If our spaces do not nurture diverse voices, they are not democratic spaces. Accountable, recallable delegation can be democratic. Roles and responsibilities can be democratic.

Participatory democracy must be horizontal, empowering, and organized.

6. An Organization that Values Autonomy and Accountability Among Ourselves

Autonomy and accountability go hand in hand. Local chapters know their needs and communities best, and they can best respond to their local conditions. We affirm a value of self-determination and self-governance. Autonomy is about building room for local experimentation and diversity.

Autonomy means little, however, without accountability. Without accountability, “autonomy” becomes reactionary. We are an organization because we are stronger together than individually. SDS chapters are accountable to one another and to SDS collectively. Being accountable means consulting with each other and offering positive, constructive critique, in a way that assumes the best about every SDSer. It means respect, and it means compromise for the good of the group. It means approaching one another as allies to build with.

In SDS, we will organize locally according to our own needs and the needs of our communities. At the same time, we will organize them in a way that is conscious of, and contributes to, the larger collective project we are engaged in together as Students for a Democratic Society. We will be accountable to our common goals, values, and commitments. We will be accountable to each other. Only through collective struggle will we win.

Image
Break-out discussion.

Conclusion

Beyond our shared visions and principles, we are striving to build a certain culture in SDS. A culture can’t be written down on paper and approved at a convention. It must be made every day, every time we interact with each other.

If we really do want to win a new society, and really are committed to long-haul struggle, our organizations and movements must support us as whole people. They must be fun, nurturing, accepting, and positive.

We commit to supporting each other in our work for personal and collective transformation. We will see one another as allies, even when we disagree, and we will work to find common ground. We understand that we are on the same team, one that welcomes debate and dissent, and one that’s responsible to itself and to others.

We commit to building mutual support and trust in one another. That can be difficult, but we are up to the task. We recognize that politicization is a process. We know we all come into this organization with different kinds of understanding and experience. We will support each other in this process. We will meet one another where we are, and move forward together.

As Students for a Democratic Society, we will launch a project of renewal and reinvention. We will renew the Left and reinvent the way we organize. We will make our organization useful, accessible and intersectional. We will make our organization relevant to people’s lived experiences, easily understood and widely applicable, and aware of the complexity and interconnectedness of peoples’ struggles.

We will practice solidarity and work towards freedom and self-determination for communities and peoples. We will strengthen a revolutionary form of unity, from below and to the left, that recognizes our differences and builds our collective power.

Every positive change that appears to come from the powers above actually comes from below, through the struggles of “ordinary” people, writing our own history. We will draw our ink and prepare to write a new history together. Our generation does not have the luxury of cynicism. We do not have a scarcity of imagination. Resisting and rebuilding, remembering and reinventing, we will help make the world anew.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Sun Aug 05, 2012 11:00 am

http://libcom.org/blog/occupy-vs-evicti ... n-22062012

Occupy vs eviction: radicals, reform, and dispossession

Image

Blog post about anti-foreclosure and eviction struggles, and reformism and radicals in mass movements more generally.


Occupy vs Eviction: Radicals, Reform, and Dispossession


In the first part of this post I discuss the anti-eviction work of Occupy Homes. In the second part I discuss some of the demographics of home ownership in the U.S.. In the third part, I discuss political reformism. In the fourth I take up radicals acting in reformist movements, and in the last part I discuss the current push by capitalists and their politicians to impose worse live on many people. Since I started working on this a lot has happened in relation to Occupy Homes, including an exciting day of action across the US over the Cruz house and against PNC Bank. I urge people to get involved if you can, and to pay attention to these developments, by checking http://occupyourhomes.org/ and Occupy Homes MN on facebook.

1. Stop Evictions: Occupy Homes
Across the United States police force people out of their homes as banks foreclose on home-owners. In response to the foreclosure attack, Occupy Homes has arisen. Occupy Homes has taken action in many cities, including New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Portland, Minneapolis, and Atlanta. Many of these actions have included violation of eviction orders, resisting police eviction efforts, moving people back in to homes emptied by police, and putting pressure on banks to negotiate. Right now there is a network of Occupy Homes groupings coming together around the country.

Occupy Homes is an exciting development in general. Anyone with a conscience wants people not to lose their homes, and it’s hard not to like anyone who is giving police and bankers a hard time. That said, there are some issues here for people with a communist perspective. I think there is a rising current of reformist forces within social movements today, as I’ve written about elsewhere much more briefly than I do in this post. I think these dynamics will be particularly intense after the first round or couple rounds of the Occupy movement, as Occupy rebuilds, reconfigures, or dissolves. Some reformists in social movements will encourage working within existing institutions through measures like elections, lobbying, lawsuits, referenda and recalls, and so on. These reformists will fail as much or more than they succeed at least for the short term. Other reformists will get more militant and these militant reformists will play increasingly important roles, providing funding and personnel to movement. Their militancy will minimize differences with them and radicals. The militant reformists will work together quietly behind the scenes with less militant reformists on some occasions. For example, the militant reformists will agree with other reformists that electoral reforms are needed, but will place less priority on pursuing that goal immediately in the near future, perhaps based on a different analysis of where institutions are at currently. The militancy of some reformists, and often their sincerity, will confuse good-hearted radicals who will not understand (or be able to act against) the militant reformist forces. In my view Occupy Homes is an example of these dynamics.

Occupy Homes involves a mixture of political perspectives, which is no surprise. More important is the tendency or trajectory of this mixture – “where is heading?” is more important than “where it is at?” There are some forces within Occupy Homes that will exert pressure to pull it in a more reformist direction. Among the forces involved in Occupy Homes are numerous neighborhood-level nonprofit organization, the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), and SEIU. Stephen Lerner, until recently an important strategist at SEIU, has written and spoken repeatedly about anti-eviction and foreclosure work. (See here and here. It’s notable that there’s a clear sense of SEIU’s involvement in Occupy Homes, but SEIU does not show up in the list of supporting or participating organizations here. Occupy Homes did participate in a local SEIU initiative, though.) This emphasis grows out of SEIU’s understanding of the importance of financial institutions in the current economic and political moment and an effort to push on financial institutions in order to shape outcomes in the present. The AFSC is a Quaker organization that pushes nonviolent civil disobedience as a tactic and has been involved with Occupy Homes in Atlanta. Occupy Homes has also applied for funding from a nonprofit grant-giving organization set up by wealthy progressives including one of the people from Ben and Jerry’s ice cream. (The applications are online here and anyone who is doing work within Occupy Homes or other foreclosure work probably should read them. I plan to do so eventually as I think they help get at important developments in the present with regard to NGOs and reformist pressures. There’s a lot more research that could be done here to figure out all the players and their interests and ideologies, including that funder, the Movement Resource Group.)

A number of individual radicals are involved and providing important work within Occupy Homes. It’s possible that their role plus the experience of struggle will radicalize reformist elements within Occupy Homes and it will become more radical over all. It’s also possible that radical elements will organize within the emerging Occupy Homes network to push out reformists. It’s also possible that reformist elements will set the agenda and draw on the energy and militancy of radicals to accomplish reformist aims.

One problem that Occupy Homes has in relation to the rest of Occupy is demographic. Occupy Homes is about home-owners; most Occupiers have been renters. On the other hand, Occupy Homes has been a step forward away from open-air camping and the power of general assemblies of whoever happens to show up and operating through long consensus-process meetings. Furthermore, Occupy Homes represents a push to organize and actively reach out to people not already disposed to camping and mobilizing around Occupy Wall Street. These are positive developments. But it’s not clear that they’re radical ones. I say this with a great deal of hesitation, for several reasons. For one, I do not have any real ideas as to alternative practices in the short term. For another, a lot of people tend to use ‘radical’ as a compliment, such that anything a radical does and cares a great deal about is thought of as radical and it’s an insult to say it’s not. I don’t mean it this way. Rather, I think it should always be an open question whether and how something is genuinely radical and how and in what ways, rather than something we assume is a closed matter with an obvious answer. I should also admit I’m using the term ‘radical’ here in a narrow and yet vague way; I have in mind Marx and Engels’ remark in the German Ideology that communism is the real movement which abolishes the present order.

In addition, while Occupy Homes has described its actions as direct action, what people in Occupy Homes seem to mean by this is quite close to nonviolent civil disobedience. I have no interest in arguing about what direct action really means; those conversations are rarely fruitful. Many people use terms in a variety of ways. Rather than argue about the One True Direct Action, I would prefer to talk about versions of direct action. The things that are important to me about the versions of direct action that I care about are a matter of who does the action and what its effects are on the people who do it. In my experience, people fighting on their own behalf over something with real effects for them can be deeply transformative. Occupy Homes is not carrying out direct action in the sense of people acting on their own behalf without intermediaries. To the degree that there are people having radicalizing collective experiences through Occupy Homes, I think home-owners are in the minority. Occupy Homes is primarily a matter of non-home-owner activists mobilizing on behalf of home-owners. Furthermore, defending a home against police eviction means having people there all the time or at least available all the time. This ability to mobilize is relatively limited by demographic. People who work in nonprofits and people who are partially-employed or unemployed will be able to mobilize for these defenses more than other people will. I expect that there will be tensions between these demographics over time in Occupy Homes; currently the nonprofit staff are largely the strategists, with the part-time and unemployed workers being largely a rent-a-mob of mobilizers or at best tacticians. This could change, however, if, for example, people involved were to push for general assemblies to determine tactics and strategy, or if some were to pick neighborhoods with high foreclosure rates and organize home-owner assemblies as representatives of Occupy Homes. This would force reformists into having to choose between discrediting Occupy Homes by swearing off the actions of some involved, or going along with the new developments.

Occupy Homes’ increasing openness to militant tactics is positive and the experiences of those tactics and of confrontations with the police will be important formative experiences for the people who pass through them. There will likely be tensions with Occupy Homes over these tactics. This will especially occur if there continue to be confrontations with police over evictions. Openness to militant tactics, however, is not necessarily openness to or spreading radicalism. In addition, the type of militant tactics used matters. Occupy Homes talks about direct action but in one sense, as I said, it’s not direct action so much as it is advocacy on behalf of homeowners. These direct actions also differ from other actions that people often associate with the term direct action as carried out by anarchists. Some types of activity that get called direct action are illegal in such a way that participants hide their identities and seek to avoid arrest. To put it another way, I suspect that currently reformist forces are setting the over all agenda for Occupy Homes and that radicals are involved at the level of tactics. If the tactics carried out involved, say, smashing bank windows and otherwise seeking to raise costs for banks in ways that are in no way legally defensible, and if the tactics involved smashing police car windows and unarresting the arrested and otherwise seeking to prevent the police’s repressive actions from working, the response from the reformist forces would be a much more polemical one. (This is distinct from the current response to police repression which is above all to try to publicize it and make it cost the existing official powers that be in such a way that will eventually limit use of police force in the first place. This is not to say that direct action tactics against police repression are actually the best ones in the current moment; I suspect that they’re not. My point is simply that this situation of reformist strategy with militant tactics carried out by radicals could have multiple combinations.) Currently, the tactics carried out are basically intense civil disobedience leading to arrest and somewhat sympathetic media coverage. I’m fairly sure this is a good set of tactics for Occupy Homes’ current aims and strategy. These tactics will have some transformative effects on participants. They may also suck up a lot of energy from radicals doing jail support and a lot of time and money. They may also reduce the room for talking about the politics of Occupy Homes and its direction, because people will be hesitant to disagree too much or criticize in light of the important stakes like jail-time and so on. This arrangement will help keep the reformist strategy-setters in charge and the radicals as tacticians.

Another aspect of Occupy Homes involves use of the local official political infrastructure in the attempt to keep the police in check or at least keep their use of force to a minimum and in the attempt to put further pressure on the banks. This use of the local official political structure is in tension with a positive part of Occupy Homes. Occupy Homes is in part linking eviction proceedings to those responsible, that is, pointing out evictions are political and that there is a chain of command involved and everyone in that chain is responsible for eviction. This politicizes eviction rather than seeing it as a natural course of events. All of that involves an attack on political officialdom, which is in tension with using the officialdom. This article from a trotskyist organization talks about working with local politicians to pressure the mayor about foreclosures and evictions. The article also claims that that SEIU used its clout within Occupy Homes to push anti-eviction efforts not to attack the mayor publicly, and instead to allow SEIU to pursue some behind the scenes negotiation. (It has clout because of donating time as well as the informal leadership role some of its staff are playing, including through some level of participation in direct action or creating the context for direct action.) The article attacks SEIU for this but it’s worth noting that these are two different strategies of using politicians to negotiate with the repressive arm of the state and with the banks. That’s another component, negotiation with the banks. Both of these aspects, use of the official political power structure and negotiation with banks, is the province of experts with some level of credentials and respectability, another aspect which reinforces the dominance of reformist forces within Occupy Homes.

As long as the Occupy Homes stuff takes place at the level of fighting over the terms of loans these dynamics will probably play out. The issues of the terms and consequences of mortgages and defaults makes them strongly predisposed toward legalistic forms of negotiation, with the action at the houses being essentially a pressure tactic to bring the banks to the negotiating table where the experts will handle it. There's also a strong ideological conceding of ground here. From some of the public calls by Occupy Homes, there’s a lot of “why are the cops acting against a family who are still in negotiation with the bank?!” That rhetoric is understandable and temporarily useful, as is the real outrage over the dealbreaking here but there’s a way in which this is not about evictions per se but about wrongful evictions. This is analogous to some news stories about wrongful deportations where legal immigrants and US citizens were accidentally deported, as if some deportations are okay). As long as this is a fight over ‘wrongful’ evictions and the terms of evictions, as opposed to a fight against eviction per se – as in, a fight for genuinely illegal continued residency – it will probably have greater limits. That is not to say that Occupy Homes can immediately leap to fighting off ‘rightful’ evictions by a sheer act of will. My hunch is that fighting ‘wrongful’ evictions may eventually be useful for building the base and experience and commitment needed to declare a full moratorium on evictions in an area. That would require the residents of a relatively large area to get involve, I think. (And wouldn’t it be great if it moved toward a moratorium on paying mortgages and rents…?)


2. Who owns homes and what is the role of home ownership in the U.S. economy?
A key part of white supremacy in the post-world war two U.S. was access to home ownership. (One important institution for shaping home ownership was the GI Bill, which predominantly helped white soldiers. There were other important factors as well; two good books that cover all of these dynamics are Thomas Sugrue’s Origins of the Urban Crisis and Lizabeth Cohen’s Consumer’s Republic.) Home ownership probably cost less than renting did in the long run and it allowed home owners access to credit. Racial stratification in home ownership maintained earlier inequalities and it meant that in the post-war economic boom that a much greater share of rising U.S. prosperity went to whites, over the long term.

Home ownership is quite racially stratified today as well. (In the year 2000, 71% of white households lived in a home owned by a member of the household. Only 46% of Black and Hispanic households lived in a home owned by a member of the household. This information comes from here.) It’s also gender and age stratified. Single mothers own homes less often single fathers. Few people under thirty own homes (between 1/5th and just over 1/3rd of people under 30 own a home) while 80% of people over 65 do so. (See here and see “Homeownership Rates by Age of Householder and Household Type” here.) This makes some sense. Men tend to make more money than women, and buying a house is more likely the longer that people have been working and able to save money to buy a house. There’s a good reason to think that the current economic crisis will disrupt these dynamics. A large portion of recent college graduates are unemployed – about 25% - and an equal portion are considered ‘underemployed’. (See here. College graduates are of course no more important than anyone else but this is a decent approximate measure of the restructuring that’s happening right now in the US economy.) It’s likely that the effects of this unemployment will be life-long. (See here.) People who go through this labor market experience, as just over half of college graduates are, will never bounce back fully, meaning that they will be consistently financially below people who had jobs and who weren’t ‘underemployed’. All this is racially stratified as well. All of which is to say, the likely trends in future home ownership are probably going to look worse. Fewer people will own homes, the gap between home owners and everyone else will widen in the long term, and the home owning population will be whiter.

At the same time, the foreclosure attack is hitting blacks and latinos harder than white homeowners. More than half of all foreclosed home owners are white, but black and latino home owners are much, much more likely to be foreclosed on. What this means for action is hard to say. On the one hand, the foreclosure crisis is in many respects a downward restructuring of many people in the working class and it’s hitting black and latino home owners harder. Those are good reasons to prioritize fighting foreclosurers. On the other hand, fewer black and latinos in the U.S. own houses than whites do. Foreclosure work doesn’t address the majority of blacks and latinos in the US. That suggests that anti-foreclosure work might be better pursued as one facet of a push around housing, and not in an abstract way (“we’re for housing for all even though our organization just focuses on foreclosures”) but in a practical way (“we fight banks and landlords in this area, whenever people have a problem with their housing.”)

It’s also worth noting that “home ownership” is a slippery term. A recent report by the New York Federal Reserve Bank distinguishes between effective home ownership and home owners who effectively do not really own their homes. In an important sense all people who paying a mortgage don’t fully own their homes, but the New York bank is talking about something slightly different. They note that a lot of home owners owe more on their home than the home is worth. The New York bank calls this “negative equity home ownership” which it does not count as effectively owning a home. The report is worth reading, it has a good overview of some of the benefits of home ownership. It also has a table listing official home ownership rates in major cities and then the effective home ownership rates. Areas where there’s a big gap, that is, where a lot of home owners owe more on their homes than the homes are worth, may be places that are prone to friction around home ownership. People doing housing organizing might want to check that out (I’m sure people in SEIU and similar strategy-setting organizations are doing so). The report’s online here.

The government and lenders are quite concerned with foreclosure rates and home ownership rates as well. Home owners who are underwater on their mortgages are going to try to pay off their mortgages rather than spend money elsewhere, restricting consumption and so slowing economic activity. I have to admit I don’t really understand the foreclosure crisis. I found this article helpful but I haven’t read much beyond that. That article suggests that part of the crisis came from financial institutions pursuing short term income in a way that built up to a crisis. That approach made sense as long as there was boom; once the collapse started, lenders didn’t want to get caught holding the bag, and the costs were, of course, unevenly distributed. In a sense this is a pretty classic story of capitalism – short term shortsighted behavior makes a lot of money for some people and ultimately results in a lot of misery for a great many people while many of the ones who got richer are basically fine.

So, fuck capitalism, let’s burn it down and get on to the better phase of human history. But that’s not the response of capitalists and the state; their response in these situations is to try to fix the particular short term problems to get the ball rolling again so a few people can keep getting richer… until the next time something big and awful happens to a lot of people, then there will be a minor corrective response again, and so on and so on and so on. A boot stomping on a face forever. Anyway, the government response here, and the response of lenders with vision, is to figure out how to organize the situation to alleviate the short term problems as much as possible in a way with minimal costs to call involved. And course the largest shares of the costs will be paid by those lowest on the food chain. Foreclosures hurt lenders to some extent in the short term; this article argues that they cost lenders and banks about $50,000 a pop. (See here and here.) This is the kind of situation that is fixable under capitalism, it just takes some figuring out to understand how it can be fixed in such a way that is more or less in keeping with everyone’s short term interests, then some pressure to bring various actors into line with their interests so they’ll be willing to compromise. (As an aside, I think it's worth pointing out that interests are at least much created by people politically and ideologically as they are the result of people's objective social position. I discuss this for working class people in a section of this document called "Shared Interests And Mass Organizations Make And Remake Each Other." More recently I've been thinking a lot about the state as part of the process of capitalists getting organized and constructing their interests, and disciplining individual capitalists to get in line with the capitalist class's over-all interests, or with the interests of the dominant fractions of the capitalist class.)

I think the signs point to a growing willingness to negotiate on the part of lenders and a growing interest on the part of the state in facilitating that negotiation, minimizing conflicts, and preventing this kind of fallout in the future. (This of course depends on who wins elections to some extent.) If I’m right about this, and it would be worth testing this a lot more, then I’m sure that the SEIU and similar people involved are aware of these dynamics too. That may be why they’re involved, because they think this is a winnable issue. I think this is another reason among many to pay attention to fights around housing because if it is possible for militant reformists in movements to find some traction with reformists in positions of official power this will probably be an area where that happens. That means that it may be an area that offers examples of dynamics that are likely to occur (within movements and within state and capitalist responses) during this time of crisis.

It’s also worth noting that some of the time capitalists and their politicians are willing to throw some of their own under the bus if it’s necessary or temporarily useful. Capitalism does this to some extent in its ordinary operations. “One capitalist always kills many,” as Marx put it. If need be, the banks or at least some banks may well take a real hit from their fellow capitalists. That’s important, but its political meaning will be ambiguous. One capitalist taking a fall is not necessarily anti-capitalist. The destruction of the present form of capitalism – the shaking up of actually existing capitalism – is how capitalism has changed over the time. Pro-systemic reforms require attacks on parts of the system as it’s currently constituted. This is not speak against attacks on the system, but rather to say that the response when not repression is attempted innovation and specifically attempts to harness attacks into helping carry out needed creative destruction and generation of new institutional arrangements.

3. Militant reform: Theoretical points and issues for further inquiry
At a theoretical level, it’s important to think of the contending forces in the present in a rich, multidimensional way. That is, culture and ideas matter; the actions of forces in the present are political and not economic in a narrow sense. Our understanding of people’s interests alone will not help us understand and predict their behavior. We also have to try to understand how they understand themselves and how they formulate their steps forward. Another point at a theoretical level, if I’m right that we are seeing a rising militant reformism, this confirms aspects of the analysis put out by Miami Autonomy and Solidarity that what they call ‘the intermediate level’ is the most active component right now in society, meaning relatively advanced and committed individuals outside of radical political organizations and without much of a mass base. Militant reformism is one version of action by intermediate level elements. I think it’s worth trying to further analyze the conditions that encourage or facilitate militant reformism and the conditions that discourage it. This is part of why it’s important to look closely at Occupy Homes; this is not going to be the only grouping of its type. It’s also worth trying to understand the characteristics of Occupy Homes in order to try to get a sense of the dynamics of militant reformism. Every example will be different, but there will be some common elements and we should begin to try to notice them in order to try and prepare for future developments. Improving, testing, finding the limits of, and making more concrete the analysis and critique of militant reformism seems to me an intellectual/theoretical task worth taking up.

It’s also worth asking how radicals can and should relate to militant reformist groupings. There is probably no single answer, it will all depend on the situation people find themselves in. At the same time, it’s likely that often militant reformist groupings will rely on the good will and hard work of radicals for their existence. This should give us some pause. At the very least, we could probably benefit from a conversation about how to best participate within these kinds of formations. I have a hunch that many radicals impulses, like doing administrative and tactical work, as well as being relatively to loyal to local political consensus, will help radicals get played by reformists in strategic roles, such that radicals come away having accomplished less for their activity than they might have otherwise.

Then again… we should also talk frankly about the degree to which it is possible to engage in a practice different from that of militant reformism in the present. That is, is there a viable communist practice in the present and if so what does it look like? If there is not, and there may well not be, then communists should talk about what it would like for a communist practice that is not only ideologically different from reformism, and not only a matter of spreading ideas, but different in the short term at the level of how struggle is carried out. If this is not currently viable then how will we know when it become viable, and how would we begin formulating that practice? This may be understood in two ways, as exceptional or exemplary momentary events like riots and appropriations, and as links in a chain of struggle or snowflakes building for an avalanche. That is, communizing instances vs communist contributions to cycles of struggle that build in a communist direction. My impression from a very cursory glance is that the communization current within French marxism gets at elements of these points, but primarily in a philosophical sense. This too is an area for further collective inquiry. All of these matters involve questions and challenges in practice and in theory, and answers will only come over time through collective struggle.

4. Better Get A Better Village
Here’s a joke. An English tourist gets lost on a drive in Ireland and ends up in countryside. He finds a small village and stops at pub. He asks the bartender, “Can you tell me the best way to get to Dublin?” The bartender replies, “Well, if you want the best way to get to Dublin you need to start somewhere else, not in this village.”

I think it’s easy for radicals to sometimes fall into a “don’t start from this village if you want to get to the city” attitude. Or, as my friend Phinneas Gage has put it, often radical talk about ‘strategy’ implies fantasizing about having an army when one doesn’t exist. The reality is that we live in a time when the capitalists and their governments have been on the offensive for a long time and working class and radical forces have been in retreat, defeat, and disarray. So if we’re going to converge on some city, we need to first use a compass and map and figure out where we are – and we’re all in different places – then figure out how to get to the highway, then find a ride. And we may not necessarily want to converge on that city, or do the same things once we get there. All of that is an extended metaphor in over to say, again, that none of this is to write off Occupy Homes or other similar groups and movements. We have no option but to start in the villages where we happen to be. At the same time, we do need to figure out short term and long terms goals and tasks. As I said earlier, I think there’s a dynamic in the present here there’s likely to be a rising current of militant reformists. I’m still thinking this through. What it does not mean is “fuck these groups.” People who are able to participate should do so, but should also decide what they want they want to accomplish through that participation.

In another blog post I suggested that historically organizations of social struggle face pressures from the state and other social actors, and that these pressures are passed on to the members or constituents of the organization. Put simply: organizations get pressured externally and they in turn internally pressure their constituency. I argued that radicals should try to build institutions that have minimal power to pass external pressures on to their constituents. (A concrete but very abbreviated example of this is avoiding contracts in workplace organizing.) In some conversation after this post, I realized I had not really clarified my views toward organizations that do have the capacity to pressure their members in response to external pressures. I certainly do not prefer those kinds of organizations. At the same time, they simply do exist. I would prefer that all organizations seek to avoid the dynamics I mentioned, of passing external pressures on to constituents, but that’s not the world we live in. I do not think that radicals should always and only abstain from participating in those kinds of organization. I think people have to make decisions based on the factors on the ground where they live and work and are able to be involved.

I believe the same basic point for organizations whose political perspective I disagree with, including groups where the main perspective and practice is what I’ve called militant reformism. I would prefer that all organizations be explicitly radical and try to reject reformism, but that’s not the world as it currently exists. Radicals should not reject participation in militant reformist projects on principle, they should make their decisions based on more fine-grained considerations. Radicals might participate in militant reformist efforts simply because it’s good to be part of people improving their lives, or because it’s satisfying to be part of a collective effort and social struggle. Radicals might also participate for the experiences and education that participation brings.

My general orientation for several years has been a somewhat inward-looking one, in that I think the main projects for radicals is to organize and improve ourselves. That’s not to say we should be insular, far from it. I just think that we tend to be few and far between and that we have a lot to learn in practice and in theory. I think being active and ambitious is an important way to get organized and to improve ourselves, individually and collectively and in my view for the time being the main goal should be building a meaningful, powerful, capable left, rather than trying to shape macro-level events. This doesn’t have to be an either/or, though. In any case, I think we can think about what radicals learn and gain from movements, what radicals contribute to movements, and how movements can shape macro-level events and tendencies (that is, how movements can shape the balance of class forces and how that balance plays out). Each of these aspects – focusing on radicals’ development, focusing on movements’ development, and focusing on large-scale power relationships – are related but different and we can have different goals depending on our emphasis.

In terms of some of the things that radicals gain from being in movements, I’ve written before about elements of struggles and the things we learn from them because of the way that participating in the struggle challenges to us. These are vision, goals, strategy, tactics, and logistics. Vision is the ideology and theory of the organization and our ability to assess current reality. Goals are where we want to get to. Strategy is the plan to get there. Tactics are the individual components of the plan. Logistics are the implementation and competency in carrying out tactics. Struggles and sequences of struggles require some of each of these components and that’s why they pose challenges to our abilities in each of these components. People can come away from struggles with improved abilities in each of these areas, including a greater sense of the type of social change needed, in their willingness to participate in militant struggle, and in their greater sense of collective belonging – being part of a larger collectivity like the working class. Each of these areas and how it plays out in action will likely be a site of friction within Occupy Homes. I suspect that radicals’ involvement in Occupy Homes will not teach much in terms of goals or strategy, because those are likely largely determined by reformists, but the other areas offer potential lessons, as well as potential issues to push internally within Occupy Homes.

Radicals might also participate in the hope that their efforts will, in the long term, create greater legitimacy for radical ideas and building relationships: participation in mixed groupings as base-building. In my view, how far this goes depends greatly on three things.

1) How are political forces arranged in the chain of decision making? If radicals carry out the logistics or at most set the tactics while reformists set the goals and formulate the strategy then the reformists have a lot of control.

2) What kind of interaction do radicals have, and with who? If radicals’ participation involves a lot of contact with people who aren’t radicals in ways that allows for serious long-term relationship building and the opportunity to have frank political discussions then there are opportunities there. Often, though, radicals participate in ways that involve dealing mostly with other radicals they already know or who already share their views (emphasis on militancy and direct action probably increases these dynamics, as that kind of activity will be mostly limited to people who are already up for that action and it tends to require a fair amount of trust). And when they don’t deal just with radicals, they often deal primarily with an existing political layer or infrastructure such as NGO and union staff, who are either politically advanced with different politics or are tied in to the reformist structure of the militant reformist grouping.

3) What kind of flow of information/communication is there? If radicals do awesome activity that makes an important contribution to a movement but no one knows about then it doesn't legitimate radicals or radical ideas. Often movements don't have independent channels for information flow other than informal communication (gossip, basically), and how that informal communication works depends on who has relationships with who. If there are multiple constituencies involved in a struggle (like in Occupy Homes, where there are at least three constituencies that overlap but are somewhat distinct: staff, non-staff activists, and the home-owners), communication tends to be limited within one constituency or to travel through key individuals with relationships that span constituencies.


Often what ends up happening is less base-building than radicals being confined to a rent-a-mob of tactical specialists that gets played by more conservative political forces who use radicals tactically for their own ends. This kind of participation can still be rewarding and educational, even if it’s not base-building, my point is simply that claims about radical participation as base-building should be scrutinized a lot. (As I discussed here in relation to calls for a renewal of massive strikes as a way forward for the working class, these dynamics happened in the CIO in the 1930s. John L. Lewis described the participation of radicals in the CIO's organizing by asking succinctly: “Who gets the bird, the hunter or the dog?”

I would describe everything I’ve said so far in this section as being largely about radicals self-education or long term legitimacy. This also assumes that radicals participate in movements or groups basically as individuals or collections of individuals without much independent coordination. They may get into conflict with the center of gravity and the prevailing strategy of the group or movement, but largely as individuals. If radicals get more organized into independent groupings to move any of the above agenda, there will be greater tensions in the group or movement. The more that radicals become a viable force for moving an agenda in a group or movement, the more friction there will be with nonradicals in the group or movement. The degree to which radicals aren’t experiencing this kind of friction in a group or movement is probably the degree to which their participation is largely about self-education or base-building. Some of the time, opting for these activities really is the best choice in the short term in a group or movement.

Radicals might also participate with the aim of shaping movements. I still think that the most important emphases are building up the left and our sorts of groupings. I would say that we want radical mass organizations, which is to say, fighting organizations that put forward radical principles and engage people on them to politicize relatively less politicized people or further radicalize relatively less radical people. To borrow terms from some comrades n the Solidarity Federation, we want radical political-economic organizations, as opposed to organizations that just fight to get the goods and don’t do much politics or only do and encourage reformist politics. (On political-economic organizations, see this discussion paper by Joseph Kay. Part one. Part two.) Radicals that act together in a larger group or movement in such a way as to build a radical mass organization or political-economic organization will experience greater friction to the degree that they carry out these activities. Sometimes it will be best to back down in order to scale back the friction and avoid a rupture with others involved, but sometimes pushing things to a breaking point is the best step. Generally, we should not pick fights we can’t win or which we can only ‘win’ in the form of mutually-assured-destruction but we also should not avoid fights just because fighting often sucks interpersonally and emotionally.

In terms of radicals shaping movements and larger groups’ over all perspective and activity, in an earlier post I tried to sketch three ways that struggles can be transformative experiences. I suggested that experience participating in struggles can increase people’s comfort with militancy, it can expand people’s moral horizons toward an idea of justice that includes more people, and it can increase people’s sense of the how much social change we need in order to have a good society.

I think these are also different general directions that radicals could orient their activities in movements. To put it another way, these are different direction in which radicals might do politics within movements or organizations. Radicals might seek to expand who is included in the ‘we’ of a movement or group (I like to call it ‘expanding the group’s moral horizon’), they might seek to make the group have a better analysis of structural dynamics in society and the need to change society fundamentally, and they might increase the militancy of a struggle. We might see this as making old slogans into lived realities for people, which radicals then discuss explicitly – struggles can help people live and really feel the ideas that ‘direct actions gets the goods,’ that ‘an injury to one is an injury to all’, and that we must ‘abolish the wage system’ in order to establish a society based on the principle ‘to each according to need’. In my opinion, direct action is often heavily emphasized today (as is direct democracy, in line with the old slogan ‘we are all leaders’) while other aspects of acting within movements tend to get less attention. (There is at least one other way that radicals participate in movements, which is simply plugging in to do administrative tasks and basic necessary work to keep a movement going. I’m for doing this; I think it builds respect and people should pull their weight, but it’s worth asking what the goal is and if people are doing so because they’re good caring conscientious people, or if it’s part of a plan and some goals as radicals.) As I said above, to the degree that radical carry out these kinds of activities in a coordinated way, they will have greater friction.

So far I’ve sketched some thoughts on what radicals might learn from participating in movements and organizations, and ways that radicals might do politics within the space of existing movements and organizations. Radicals might also try to shape the direction of movements and organizations within the larger movement. It seems to me that what to do here breaks down in a few ways. The points I discussed above could be scaled upward. So, for instance, an organization or movement might be pushed to act in the world around it as a group that expands others’ militancy, makes others have a more radical analysis, and/or expands others’ moral horizons. Radicals might also push how a movement or group acts in relation to prevailing power relationships and the balance and use of class power in society. The dynamics I mentioned for radicals in groups and movements go for groups and movements in society as well: to the degree that groups and movements effectively begin to move a radical agenda of whatever type, they will experience friction with the rest of society. Some of the time it’s best to limit this friction in the interest of feasibility and strategy, but not always. An individual group that tries to practice a highly localized total break from capitalism will fail, but if no one ever practices such a break then humanity will fail. As I discussed in another post, negotiation is a social relationship. Fundamentally, no one will get beyond some form of negotiation with the powers that be until the working class in the millions or or perhaps the tens of millions is breaking out of the social relationship of negotiating over the terms of capitalism and instead practicing a real rupture with capitalism. For the time being, we are going to be dealing with better and worse forms of practicing and institutionalizing negotiation. This is worth keeping in mind in talking about ways that radicals might shape movements and groupings. With that in mind, I’ll get back to Occupy Homes.

How might Occupy Homes fit within larger power struggles within the US? There are two basic directions the struggle can move in – it can intensify or it can generalize, or some combination of the two. I think the short term scenario will be that Occupy Homes helps some people have better lives but even if it becomes a serious political force, the strategic importance of reformists will limit the degree to which Occupy Homes is a threat to capitalism. In the short term, Occupy Homes will probably be limited to small scale gains on a case-by-case basis. Then again, this may change. The banks may come under more intense scrutiny and heat and result in more widespread mortgage reform. This will improve a lot of people’s lives, and I am of course for people’s lives improving, but it’s not clear that a problem resolved under capitalism helps build for the end of capitalism. (I should also say, while I fantasized in a parenthetical remark earlier about how cool it’d be if an area declared a local moratorium on paying mortgages and rents and managed to enforce it, this too would be quite limited if the struggle did not spread. Unfortunately, there is a measure of truth to Lenin’s remark that politics begins when millions of people are in motion.) Again, none of this is to attack the efforts of the people working on Occupy Homes, rather I think it’s worth thinking through how these struggles may unfold and what they may result in – those results will in turn shape the players in and the terrain of future struggles.

In a more long-term and large-scale perspective, Occupy Homes may provide a base for reformists who are willing to work within existing institutions if those institutions are willing to give a little. Currently those institutions are largely not willing to give much, but this may change. Over all, put schematically, the dynamics of a political moment are composed of pressures from below and forces from above. Right now the forces from above are not particularly conciliatory and are mostly responding to social movements with repression. If this changes, it will be mistaken by some on the left as an opening in the direction of revolutionary transformation instead of a system-conserving willingness to bend. The militant reformist refrain ‘we need to get serious, we need to talk about what it would really take to win’ and to measure the important of direct action in the goods it has gained will make it likely that renewed systemic flexibility appears as an unadulterated victory for the working class, instead of as a new strategy deployed against the working class. If more reformist elements come to real power within official institutions then that could serve to defuse some degree of popular anger and begin to help resolve the current crisis. That is: militant reformism is trying to build reformism from below; right now it’s meeting with repression from above, but if begins to meet a corresponding reformism from above then things could change rapidly in ways that radicals may not be ready for.

5. Dispossession: Theoretical points and speculations
I think an important category for thinking about the present is dispossession. I take this term from David Harvey, who writes about what he calls “accumulation by dispossession.” The term refers to the taking of previously held goods, money, and rights: land seizures, the selling off of public resources, pension thefts, these are all types of accumulation by dispossession. Judtih Whitehead describes accumulation by dispossession as a process "which simultaneously concentrates property in a few hands while reducing the access of many to (…) means of livelihood." (Development and Dispossession in the Narmada Valley.) Dispossession increases people's need for money and often increases the consequences of not having money. Generally, dispossession has a few elements. It may force people to pay for things they previously didn't and it may make some other people very rich or much richer. It always rapidly downgrades people's standard of living; it violates people's standards of what they previously thought they could expect, including customary and legal rights; and it often makes. (One facet of dispossession is accumulation by encroachment, involving the taking of public lands. Marx called a related process by the name 'enclosure.' In the history of the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and probably other countries, this encroachment was carried out via settlers who helped take land from native peoples. Incidentally, Harvey and others’ analysis of dispossession has roots in Marx’s analysis of what he thinks was the beginning of capitalism, in the end of volume 1 of Capital. These chapters are, in my opinion, the best parts of v1 of Capital and the best place to begin reading the book – starting at chapter 26 then reading to the end, before reading the rest of the book.)

Finance has tended to play a key role in dispossession. Debt, fraud, transfer of pensions into financial assets which are then stripped, foreclosure of homes, bankruptcy to get out of financial obligations, all of these are facets of accumulation by dispossession. The state plays a key role in all of this as well. Government sets the terms for what is acceptable and unacceptable forms of dispossession, and government provides the force behind dispossession.

Dispossession is different from what many of us think of as the normal operation of the economy. As the economy rolls along, workers produce goods and services which belong to employers. Employers sell those goods and services. Employers sell these products for more than it cost to make them, which means that employees produce products that are worth more than what the employees were paid to make them. Employers keep that profit. This process is exploitation. Exploitation generally takes place or at least is understood as taking place within a relatively stable framework in terms of who owns what and what people expect. Exploitation feeds terrible poverty, sexual harassment, discrimination, and violence. Capitalists and various social institutions try to mask exploitation as fair and just.

The flip side of exploitation is dispossession. With dispossession the terms of exploitation and the terms of people's access to the things they want and need are changed suddenly and in large scale. Dispossession intensifies exploitation for those who are still employed because employers speed up work. Employers uses the growing argue numbers of more desperate jobless people to put pressure on their employees. Employers also try to exploit their employees further in order to try to keep up with the great profits gotten by the dispossessors. Dispossession also makes the consequences of joblessness worse for many people.

Dispossession has risen more and more as something attempted by global capitalists and governments. This puts pressures on other capitalists to keep up. The rounds of struggles against neoliberalism, such as the Zapatista uprising of 1994, the struggles against NAFTA in the 90s, and struggles against IMF and World Bank structural adjustment policies have all been struggles against accumulation by dispossession. We've seen these struggles more recently in the US as well, as in the protests in Madison, Wisconsin, and to some extent both Occupy Homes and Occupy Wall Street. Accumulation by dispossession tends to spark large-scale resistance not simply because of the economic stakes, but primarily because of the moral stakes. People see big threats to the futures that they thought that they and their kids would have. More than that, though, people see previous agreements and expectations violated: the other side breaks their deals and violates their own laws and policies, or intrudes on institutions and practices that they have no place intruding upon.

When they rose up, the Zapatistas declared "We are the product of 500 years of struggle." This hearkened back to Eureopean colonization, a massive project of dispossession which gave a boost to European counties and the capitalist economy, and which greeted terrible hardship and loss of life for native and working peoples around the world. This dispossession never ended, but it entered into a sort of dance with exploitation. The global economy - or, the approaches taken by global capitalists and elites - has proceeded in waves, with a rise of dominance of exploitation followed by a rise in dominance in dispossession. We're currently in a phase where dispossession is prevalent and likely for various reasons. This tends to involve finance as politically dominant and as relatively profitable compared to companies that make goods and services. While some people have been subjected to dispossession throughout the history of capitalism, when the dominant strategy shifts the intensity and/or who gets subjected to dispossession shifts. With a shift from an emphasis on dispossession and financial dominance to an emphasis on exploitation and the dominance of productive capital, there tends to be more room for reforms to improve the lives of some people. With the opposite shift, from a larger emphasis on dispossession and the dominance of finance, even more people's lives get dramatically downgraded suddenly.

The important core component of the idea of dispossession in connection to militant reform is that dispossession involves stripping away past rights and legal claims - like flooding out people's homes as part of dam building, pushing indigenous people out of forested areas for the sake of clearcutting, but also things like stealing pensions, eminent domain of people's homes for highway construction. Dispossession usually involves elements which are not narrowly economic, in the sense that it is not simply the result of an impersonal transaction. Dispossession is backed up by force, and it often involves the other side changing the rules - as in Wisconsin and other states where legislators decided to try to get out of paying the previous pensions they had agreed to pay. (Actually, to put it more accurately: state employees had paid into their pensions; the state governments tried to take these funds, via legislation. At the same time, there is always a rhetorical conflict over dispossession: the dispossessors try to paint their actions as impersonal, as business as usual, or as deserved because the dispossessed are lazy or spoiled or inferior. What the dispossessors don't want is for their actions to be seen as a decision and as something which enriches a few at the expense of many.)

I think the prominence of accumulation by dispossession poses questions, both theoretically and practically, for this view, and for those of us who tend to emphasize waged work and exploitation. My outlook is always a work in progress but for now my basic preferred political practice can be summarized as follows. Organize on the job to build cadre (or whatever term people prefer if they don’t like that term. I mean committed, class conscious, capable people. We might abbreviate it as CCCP, which is what I mean by cadre…) Cadre seek to intervene in large scale events within a realistic assessment of our limited capacity. In this we seek to lay the basis for future workplace organizing after the cycle cools off. It’s not clear to me how this relates to the trend toward dispossession. There are important connections between dispossession and labor but the ways we fight the two are different. I would like us to think through more of how different struggles relate (or don’t relate) around these different facets of capital accumulation. Specifically, I would like to think through how the types of organizing that some of us advocate (under terms like ‘direct unionism’ and ‘political-economic’ organization) relate or could relate to accumulation by dispossession. I think a further complication in this will be that dispossession struggles will likely have a strong pull toward a militant reformist perspective.

I think we can reasonably expect further attempts at downward restructuring of living standards. I think most of these attempts will be successful. I think we’ll see a continued shift to the right politically within electoral politics and will see the electoral political layers continue to be heavily divided and polarized for the short term. We will also see working class uprisings, sometimes defensive in nature, successful only when they gather around them a larger constituency to where the struggle expresses their grievances even if in an inarticulate manner like in Madison.

Some forms of dispossession are much more brutal than others, but part of what they have in common is that they're not normal market operations, they appear less as natural/automatic economic consequences (though there's a big push to cloak them as being like that). They involve decisions by actors who are somewhat identifiable, usually state actors, so it removes a bit of the "it's capitalism in general, it's everywhere" feeling. Another key component is that it tends to feel to people like there's been a broken deal. It's a rapid breaking of some group of people's old normality and replacing it with a new, worse normality. That kind of deal-breaking tends to piss people off and they take it personally more than stuff that can be like "it's no one's fault, it's just the economy." The last key component is that it happens to large groups of people all at once. The boom in evictions is clearly a form of dispossession, part of a larger and global wave of dispossession.

I think the big mobilizations in Madison, in Quebec, and the stuff around foreclosure are all connected in that they’re at least partially struggles against dispossession. I think these kinds of struggles are prone to militancy and are prone to defensiveness and a type of pro-system conservatism because they're based on around defending rights/legal claims/property claims that capitalists and their governments are trying to eliminate. The big push from the movement side in these dispossession struggles initially is to try to figure out how to maintain the old normal in the face of changing circumstances, how to accommodate the old expectations within the new arrangement. Of course these struggles, like all struggles, have the possibility to go beyond that dynamic, I just think there's a pressure there that presses movements toward these directions, what some of us have been talking about as militant reformism. That can be overcome, because the directions of movements are political and a result of internal struggle and ideology within a movement and the experiences of conflict with the opponent etc. Looking at what things make it more and less likely that struggles break out of a militant reformist framework is something I think worth thinking more about. I also want to reiterate that 'this has a militant reformist framework' is not an argument against participating. I think in objective terms it may be the case that no one is going to produce a real social rupture in the short-to-medium term (a real break from capitalism) unless it's of the Paris Commune temporary-and-drowned-in-blood variety, regardless of ideology. I'm not sure about that, though.

Over all, I think struggles that break out over dispossession issues are likely to have a largely defensive and nostalgic character. That is, there are big pressures to pull struggles toward anti-austerity etc, basically toward opposition to a new, bleaker version of capitalism rather than prior slightly less bleak versions of capitalism. (I think pretty much all the big upheavals in recent times have had this character, though I'm told that the Quebec student struggles get the closest to breaking out of this.) I think it's also worth pointing out that for a lot of people things have been really bleak for a long time, and there are big differences between parts of the class in terms of what the deal used to be and what new deal is likely to be: some people are getting restructured a lot more, because they have further to fall. They may be getting their livelihoods reduced a lot more than some worse off strata, and they still are likely to remain better off than a lot of people under them in the pecking order of the working class.

There's also going to be a call for lower strata to rally around upper ones - that's a lot of what Madison was, in my opinion, and to some extent that's going on in Quebec I'm told (there's been some critical pieces about racial disparities in access to higher education in Quebec and how to some extent the Quebec student struggle is a struggle of white francophones and has a complicated relationship to Canadians of color and first nations people). I think we're likely to see similar dynamics in other anti-dispossession struggles. None of which is to say we shouldn't care, just that emerging movements will face problems that will have to be worked out in real time and there will be some real limits on what can happen in the short term and some pressures for the struggle to go in less than preferable places.

Part of what's going on right now is a collapsing future for a lot of people. A lot of people will have worse lives than they would have had under prior versions of capitalism. One piece of that is restructuring the private-and-public institutions of social reproduction and the people who work in them. I think that we can only explain and understand this stuff if we take the ideology of capitalists and their politicians seriously - economic (economisistic!) explanations alone will be very insufficient. (What happened in Wisconsin is not reducible to economic pressures and economic interests, it's about the ideologies of different parts of the capitalist class and their politicians. I think the same is true of immigration issues and places like Arizona and Georgia, I've recently been arguing with someone from Advance the Struggle a bit about this on a piece on their web site about immigration reform.)

If I’m right that we’re seeing on the one hand a push toward dispossession and on the other the development of a strongly reformist militant movement from below (one which may well be genuinely militant and democratic, motivated by sincere commitment to values of justice and fairness, and which radicalize people) then the response from above will be varied and contradictory. Over all, I think there are three basic possibilities. The current disorder and disagreement among the electoral political layers may continue, with the right being more dominant but with swings back and forth. Authoritarian responses will vie with civil libertarian responses, and austerity will vie with redistribution of wealth. If authority and austerity win out, we will be in trouble in terms of safety and standard of living, but the movement will be more combative and there will be more radical sparks. If redistributive measures win out, this will align with the emerging social-democracy from below and will demobilize the movement, especially if combined with civil libertarian responses.

**

Further inquiry
As usual I wrote this piece because I was trying to understand some things I’m unsure of (and I'm putting it now even though it feels unfinished and rough around the edges, because I've thought these thoughts as far as I can think them on my own without more conversation). I think several of the analytical points here could be sharpened and better substantiated (or challenged) conceptually and empirically – on militant reform as a category, and in detailed looks at militant reform efforts to the degree that they exist or are emerging, on dispossession to the degree that it’s happening, and on the connection between tendencies in the present regarding reform and dispossession. More pressing are practical questions of how to respond practically within or in response to militant reform groupings, attempts to dispossess working class people, and anti-dispossession struggles. Preferably, practical experimentation and writing and discussion about these dynamics could inform each other.

Finally, in case anyone’s interested, this piece grows in part out of a conversation about prospects for reform. That conversation is here and I’ve written a few other blog posts here at libcom about aspects of that. All of this is in part an attempt to think out the likely trajectories or the decisions and crossroads that may occur in the current crisis. I wrote a general reflection piece on some of this, engaging with Miami Autonomy and Solidarity’s “intermediate level” analysis, here.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Sun Aug 05, 2012 1:35 pm

Image
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Sun Aug 05, 2012 3:54 pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vamsee-ju ... 15237.html

Indophobia: The Real Elephant in the Living Room

Image
Vamsee Juluri
Author and Professor of Media Studies,
University of San Francisco


All prejudices are unpleasantly alike on some level, but the prejudice that India and Indians face on a global scale has proven to be exceptionally resistant to change.

In a week that saw innocent Indians being murdered and imaginary Indians being maligned on opposite ends of the Western world, Foreign Policy published an article that labels India a "global villain." It is time for a serious reality-check, and an even more serious attitude-check.

Let me start with the Foreign Policy article in question. Barbara Crossette, who authored the piece, formerly worked at the New York Times, a publication which has devoted entire editorials to its briskly exasperated civilizing mission vis-a-vis India. Now, Crossette writes about how annoying it is to deal with India on important global issues, such as trade and nuclear non-proliferation.

She begins with a pithy demolition of India's supposed good press in recent times (to which, one must note, a witty commentator has responded by asking the obvious: What good press?) only to go on to denounce India as a sanctimonious rogue among nations. The words that are used to describe India include "pious," "craving," "petulant," "intransigent," and "believes that the world's rules don't apply to it," all of which a student of postcolonial cultural studies would recognize as obnoxious cliches that have come to characterize Western discourse about the colonies for decades now. What else could be flashing in a writer's mind when the word "petulant" or "intransigent" is used but the belief that a a whole nation is infantile? What colonial image of a gaping-mouthed ragged supplicant must have inspired the use of a word like "craving" to describe India's goals?

The bold labeling of a sovereign, democratic nation as a "global evil" marks, I believe, a new low in what must be recognized as nothing less than Indophobia. If we have not heard that frequently enough before, it is not because it doesn't exist. Just like how the most effective propaganda is never called propaganda, but rather it is accepted as truth, the most insidious of prejudices seldom even get named as such (perhaps it is no coincidence that the phrase "elephant in the room," which means exactly that, is centered around the animal most closely identified with India). There are perhaps as many anecdotes about Indophobia at a personal level as there are Indians in foreign countries, but it is at a deeper cultural level that we need to face it first. The first sign of Indophobia many of us encounter is really its own ideological defenses; phrases which are used to preempt any discussion about it, like "Indian chauvinism," "Indian supremacism," "Indian exceptionalism," "Indian victimism," or just allegations of childish over-sensitiveness coupled with some sort of vague Eastern cultural fetishism pertaining to notions of honor (I have heard all of these sentiments informally or otherwise in my academic career from grad school until now). If we can get past these, perhaps we can see things more clearly.

India's role in the Western imagination has been a long and important one. Despite some reverential accounts of Indian civilization in the earliest days of the encounter between Europe and India, the image that has prevailed has not been a nice one, or even a truthful one. The present Indophobia has its origins in colonial Hinduphobia. Fuelled by the crazy stories of missionaries determined to rid the world of heathen Hindus and steeped in the ideologies of the colonizers' civilizing mission, Indophobia infiltrated popular, journalistic, political and academic thought. In the cold war period, some things improved, but in the great conversation of powers that Washington thought it was having, Pakistan would appear to it as a reliable favorite; tough, dependable, monotheistic, and anti-communist. India, on the other hand, was seen as too weak, too Hindu, too vegetarian, precariously past its Must Break Up By Date. At best, or worst, India was seen as "pious," with its Gandhian austerities and Nehruvian Non-Alignment dreams.

But it is the present, the post cold war, post 9/11, post outsourcing nature of Indophobia that we must return to, history in tow. The examples are many. Why is it that some Australians reacted to the beating and killing of Indian students with the odd retort that "this happens in Mumbai"? Why did NPR cheerily lend its audience to one man's claim that he saw an Indian get the Nigerian airline bomber on board? Why does Foreign Policy get to call India "evil" without a drop of concern for how it feels to Indian readers or how dangerous words like this were in the past for the colonized nations? Why does New York Times choose to show agonizing restraint when Pakistani terrorists massacre civilians in Mumbai and run screaming headlines naming the arrest of an "Indian" after Madrid? Why does Slumdog Millionaire, one of the most exhilarating movies of our time, depict the majority of Indian characters in it as irredeemably cruel and barbaric (not the nice Indian hero with the British accent though, of course not)? Why did the fictional slur "slumdog" and the image of poverty reportedly figure so often in the Australian attacks? Finally, why does Glenn Beck find the name of a life-giving sacred river similar to the name of a disease? I must admit though that the last case is less depressing because it is Glenn Beck after all and the problem must naturally lie not in the word 'Ganges' but really in his ears or what's (not) between them.

After a brief decade or so of somewhat unexpected "India Rising" stories, India-bashing is once again becoming fashionable. As a media studies teacher, I always wonder what it means when a particular way of looking at things suddenly becomes prevalent in history. What does it tell us about our times and who we are? In the past Indophobia was part of a colonial and then cold war mindset. Thinking of India as the very embodiment of wretchedness and poverty fit in with the western self-perception of the time. In recent times, things have improved at some levels. Racism is no longer legal and in many places no longer cool. With globalization and the economic success of India and Indians abroad, it is no longer possible to deny to India its talent, labor, and its contribution to the world. All should have been well, at least now. But Indophobia has found new reasons to resurface--and some of these reasons have less to do with India and more to do with where the United States sees itself in the world right now. The world's most powerful nation has been only minimally successful in its wars against its most formidable adversary. It is beset by doubts about the mortality of empires and such. It has swung from gung-ho bombs-away leadership to a low-bow bombs-away leadership. It has perhaps even painfully sensed the barb in the saying "with friends like these who needs enemies?" when it comes to the whole question of its cold war-era role in the creation of Frankenjihadis in South Asia. All of these have a bearing, directly or indirectly, on its present story on India.

The present wave of Indophobia, starting with the hate-call campaigns against Indian call centers a few years ago and culminating in the execrably immoral devaluing of Indian lives in recent times, may be at least in some parts the result of an overcompensation for a sense of imperial loss. The pinnacle of western power and prestige is no longer the only high rise in town (and I don't mean the Burj Dubai). Globalization has done to the world what it has done in India too--the days of single nation world dominance, like single party dominance in Indian politics, are over. Accepting this won't be easy for some because the culture has not found the will to change; at least not as far as India goes. The culture can grudgingly accept China as a rival. It can deem the whole of Islam as a civilizational rival. India's rise, though, is harder to accept. America is used to dealing with things on the grounds of toughness, force, power. Doing so on the grounds of smartness is new to it.

So the whole old repertoire of Indophobia returns; images of poverty and disease, allegations of corruption and piousness, insinuations about culture and religion. This time around though, there is less of the sort of restraint that existed in the past. Just as how some people think it is okay to be racist now because we have a black president, the new Indophobia deems it okay to spew nastiness because India has arrived too. But of course, post Mumbai and Slumdog the arrival story is also questioned. This is an old tired story too; of the romantic westerner eagerly turning to India despite their friends' counsel only to be tremendously disappointed that they didn't find nirvana, or even a nice airport terminal. That sort of backlash tends to get extra nasty, leaping into large scale generalizations. That is the pattern that seems to be playing out in the present India story. "You think you know India? You think India has got better/richer/nirvana?" The pitch inevitably starts (In Crossette's article this part runs with "internet entrepreneurs, hospitality industry pioneers and gurus"). "Nope," the anointed Western (and sometimes South Asian) expert gravely retorts. "Here's the real India and here are the real Indians. They are evil." At least Foreign Policy had the honesty to put that word up in lights.

As someone with an emotional stake in both India and the United States, I wonder whose loss will be greater in the end. The nastiness of Indophobia is of course bad for India in the first instance. It is young Indians who have been bearing the brunt, whether of American hate-callers or worse, of Australian murderers. But India is a survivor country; it has survived conquest, colonialism, and it survives its own chaotic self every day. America though is inexperienced on this count. It has just about started realizing, after much needless suffering of its own from blowback and backbite, that surviving the whirlwind of globalization takes smarts rather than brute force. I fear that the return of Indophobia may once again distract America from the right direction. When experts like Barbara Crossette heap sarcasm on "India's colorful, stubborn loquaciousness" they fail to see that the more we ignore this supposed "loquaciousness" the more we are signaling that the only language we recognize is that of brute force. There is no dearth of precedent on that. There is no dearth of possibilities that the future may be exactly that too, if old prejudices run unchecked.

But I cannot make myself leave on a pessimistic note. Indophobia can be fought, and I believe there is enough goodness in all communities to do so. First, I think the Indian community, in India and abroad, must get its own stories right. There has been a tendency to shy away from naming Indophobia as such because we think it affects our image of India Rising, which has been hard fought, no doubt. But there is a need to name bad stuff for what it is. To be fair, as always, we must continue our introspection into our own prejudices and shortcomings; after all, as Ramachandra Guha once wrote, 95% of blame for India's problems today lies with us and not the British. India needs a better India story too (Guha and Khilnani are the best place to start) and it won't be easy because of how diverse, divided, and indeed complicated we are. But that is our task, and indeed for those of us who have the privilege of living and writing in the Western world, indeed an important one. For our Western friends, especially those in positions of authority in the media, the task is more daunting. Your responsibility may not be towards Indian feelings, not at all. But you do have a responsibility in your profession towards Truth. As long as your Indophobia is acting up, you will remain clueless about it.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Sun Aug 05, 2012 4:32 pm

Image
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Data & Research Compilations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests