Economic Aspects of "Love"

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Thu Oct 11, 2012 10:24 am

…[A]t heart, nationalism is an ideology of class collaboration. It functions to create an imagined community of shared interests and in doing so to hide the real, material interests of the classes which comprise the population. The ‘national interest’ is a weapon against the working class, and an attempt to rally the ruled behind the interests of their rulers.

— Anarchist Federation, Against Nationalism
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 Oct 11, 2012 10:31 am

Anarchism aims to strip labour of its deadening, dulling aspect, of its gloom and compulsion. It aims to make work an instrument of joy, of strength, of colour, of real harmony, so that the poorest sort of a man should find in work both recreation and hope.

— Emma Goldman
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 Oct 11, 2012 11:06 am

http://recomposition.info/2012/10/11/bu ... committee/

Building Relationships and Community in an IWW Workplace Committee

October 11, 2012

Image

A fellow IWW members sent us this article about the importance of relationship building in our organizing, and the importance of not limiting our relationships to being narrowly about work.

Towards a Wobbly Methodology: Building Relationships and Community in an IWW Workplace Committee

By X359217


When I first started out as an IWW a number of years ago my organizing was very detached with my co-workers and the thought of focusing on them never crossed my mind much. Because of that I kept the majority of my co-workers at a certain arms length and even with my fellow committee members I was emotionally unavailable.

As a young Wobbly, I was too inexperienced, uncomfortable, and uninformed about integrating the seemingly disparate spheres of my life (‘home,’ ‘friends,’ ‘work,’ ‘IWW,’ ‘family,’ etc.) to see between and beyond the ‘stages of a campaign.’ Instead I was fixated on a numbers game of growing the committee, and ultimately the union.

At the time, I didn’t realize that it is the process—developing dynamic individual relationships, sharing skills, experiences, lessons and laughter with co-workers—that will ultimately determines quality, character, and content. Instead my organizing was concentrated singularly on rushing to obtain an end product, which was going public with the campaign, but without focus on building tight relationships and strong militants.

Organizers Not Agitators

Reflecting on the historic Bread and Roses strike, early IWW organizer Elizabeth Gurley Flynn said “[they] were wonderful agitators, but poor union organizers” and despite the importance of the strike in the imagination of the US labor movement, its outcome was a reflection of short-term gains that didn’t build long term organization. The IWW enjoyed a radically democratic and inclusive structure with a revolutionary aim, but we were still ill equipped to systematically develop new organizers/leaders and weather the fluctuations of mass militancy in the class struggle.

While IWW’s were beginning to improve and mature their organizing going into WWI in agriculture and along the Philadelphia waterfront before facing massive repression, they were still making first steps towards overcoming the ‘hot shop’ approach of organizing; and in many ways we’re still overcoming this today. A ‘hot shop’ is a workplace or industry were workers may be fired up and ‘red hot’ over an immediate grievance (such as pay, policy changes, or treatment by management), but not committed to work of long time organizing and likely to ‘go cool’ as quickly as they went hot when the immediate issue is addressed.

Lesson Learned

What I’ve learned over the last several years is that, in order to build a revolutionary union movement we need to identify and implement more nuanced Wobbly practices that contribute to developing and strengthening organizers. The Organizer Training 101, along with the lessons and concepts laid out in IWW pamphlets like “Weakening the Dam” have provided us with excellent reference points by focusing on the individual organizer in the workplace.

But I’d like to magnify the discussion by homing in on the level of conversation and organizing that takes place amongst co-workers and between committee members. I believe we need to better understand how to form new individual relationships, particularly those that transcend the personal/political dichotomy that compartmentalizes our lives and limits our connection and contribution to our co-workers, our community, our class, and the struggle. We need to place greater emphasis on the process of building the kind of relationships necessary to developing a revolutionary organization.

The Committee as Community

The paradigm shift for me occurred when I began to organize alongside an IWW with years of on-the-job organizing experience. He quickly began mentoring me—introducing me to important IWW history and struggles, pointing out interesting parallels and lessons from different revolutionary union movements like the League of Revolutionary Black Workers and Italian auto workers in the 1970’s, and generally pushing me to think about the larger class context “beyond the campaign,” as we like to say. More importantly, we began to develop a more intimate relationship by getting to know each other as friends.

We hung out together often and got to know each other’s partners, close friends, and family. We talked about our backgrounds and experiences growing up, cooked food, went on camping trips, and generally made it a point to socialize and do things together outside of organizing. Over the course of several months we forged a strong friendship, one that transcended our initial connections as union organizers and co-workers.

It was during this time that we started to think more deeply about methodically building our Wobbly workplace committee, what that process should be like and how it should reflect and inform the revolutionary product we strive for.

Decompartmentalization: A framework for Developing Relationships

What developed out of our work was a concept that we added to our organizing philosophy which we began calling decompartmentalization, which is simply a many-syllabled way of actively integrating the different spheres of our lives into the class struggle. At its core, we see decompartmentalization as an approach to the type of relationships we want to develop as Wobbly organizers. The practice is a reciprocal one. Dynamic working class social relationships inform how and why we struggle and struggle informs, nurtures, and transforms our relationships to one another in a flexible process. Our lives are complex and our organizing should fit into all the aspects of our lives, as capitalism doesn’t end when we leave the workplace nor are we no longer human when we’re at work.

Working class intellectual Stan Weir coined the term ‘singlejack solidarity’ to describe the nature and significance of developing a close bond with co-workers and other working class organizers on your committee (the term is also the title of a great edited compilation of Weir’s essays). From this I would argue that ‘Singlejacking’ should be a principle method of Wobblyism because it draws out the underlying commonalities we have in class struggle by penetrating the personal and breaking through the ‘compartmentalization’ that tends to separate our lives into separate spheres of work, personal life, identity and politics. Babysitting, helping someone move, and going camping might not at first seem like things we would associate with workplace organizing, but they are essential to building a broader and mature sense of solidarity, comradeship, and community in our workplaces and within our committees.

In my mind this type of organizing implies a strong emotional component. For example, having just organized a successful workplace victory around a leave of absence policy involving a co-worker—a strategy in which the co-worker was a principle architect, and which moved management to change their position by allowing the co-worker time off to visit grandparents in Mexico before they passed away—the co-worker opened up to me in a way I will never forget. With tears pouring down their face, they expressed how much we (another committee member and I) had opened their eyes to the systematic injustices at work and how empowering it was to realize our collective strength as workers in a way that allowed them to take what they described as, one of the most important trips of their life.

If we can agree that building a powerful and sustainable workplace committee depends on organizing that practices and promotes a decompartmentalized approach to relationship building, we are able to release the pressure to rush quantitative growth in our campaigns. We are able to devote more attention to our own qualitative development and to ensure that new organizers receive the skills, capacity, and competence to be leaders. This approach required unfamiliar patience for me but the rewards were immediate.

After spending several months agitating and educating the aforementioned co-worker on issues at work and relating them to broader class relations, and spending time together socially and getting to know each other on a personal level (family, life outside of work, interests and aspirations, etc.), we developed an emotional connection, won a deeply significant workplace victory, and recently became fellow committee members!

To me this emotional component should be emblematic of Wobbly organizing. There is a reason why much of our rich history and other thoughtful accounts of class struggle are couched in spiritual language: Revolutionary organizing requires an understanding that working class solidarity must transcend the daily forms of isolation and alienation reproduced under capitalism. In crafting a spirit of revolutionary community with our co-workers and within our committees we are actively “building a new society” by forming new types of relationships “in the shell of the old.”

Social Experimenting from the Shop Floor

Some of the more methodical ways we’ve tried to develop these kinds of relationships and decompartmentalize our organizing is to devote time in our committee meetings to ‘go arounds,’ which allow organizers the opportunity to open up to the group about what’s going on in our lives, where we need support, what’s bumming us out, what’s really exciting us, where the party’s at, where the picket’s at, etc. We also intentionally plan social events or invite each other and co-workers to events our friends and comrades plan. More recently, we’ve created a structured mentoring program where more experienced organizers pair up with other organizers in the committee and with co-workers who are in the que as potential committee members.

One of the most technologically innovative ways we’ve decompartmentalized our organizing as a workplace committee is communication through a ‘text loop’, which works like an email list for texting. We use the loop to communicate on the shop floor about workplace issues, arrange lunch meetings, and coordinate 2-on-1’s with prospective committee members. We also use the loop to tell jokes, plan spur-of-the-moment parties, and offer words of encouragement if someone’s having a bad day. The ease and informality of this type of group communication has really strengthened our connection to each other by allowing us to have daily interactions in spite of unpredictable and conflicting work schedules.

Of course, there’s no substitute for face-to-face interaction. Ultimately we need to know our co-workers, not just know about them. Whether you’re a committee of one, or one member in a larger committee, the method of decompartmentalized organizing is universally applicable. Building one strong relationship is one of the most difficult things to do as an organizer. It is also the most important.
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 Oct 11, 2012 12:52 pm

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/10/11/ ... -fracking/

OCTOBER 11, 2012

How the Komen Board is Cashing in on Shale Gas
Pinkwashing Fracking?

by STEVE HORN


The Wizard of Oz was spot on when he said to “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.” That’s good life advice if you fall into the “Ignorance is bliss” camp. For a journalist though, it’s doing the exact opposite that’s a sin qua non for the job.

Kevin Begos of the Associated Press took the Wizard’s advice to heart in his July 22 story titled, “Experts: Some fracking critics use bad science.”

Citing “Gasland” director Josh Fox’s viral video “The Sky is Pink” as an example, Begos wrote, “Opponents of fracking say breast cancer rates have spiked exactly where intensive drilling is taking place — and nowhere else in the state…But researchers haven’t seen a spike in breast cancer rates in the area.”

As his main source of expertise on the breast cancer issue, Begos turned to Chandini Portteus, Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation’s Vice President of Research, Evaluation, and Scientific Programs. Of the connection between fracking and breast cancer she stated, “what we do know is a little bit, and what we don’t know is a lot.”

Sara Jerving of the Center for Media and Democracy came to diametrically different conclusions in her April 2012 probe for PR Watch, writing,

Benzene, which the U.S. EPA has classified as a Group A, human carcinogen, is released in the fracking process through air pollution and in the water contaminated by the drilling process. The Institute of Medicine released a report in December 2011 that links breast cancer to exposure to benzene.

Up to thirty-seven percent of chemicals in fracking fluids have been identified as endocrine-disruptors — chemicals that have potential adverse developmental and reproductive effects. According to the U.S. EPA, exposure to these types of chemicals has also been implicated in breast cancer.

Jerving also cites the piece of evidence that Fox used to tie fracking to breast cancer in “The Sky is Pink,” explaining, “In the six counties in Texas which have seen the most concentrated gas drilling, breast cancer rates have risen significantly, while over the same period the rates for this kind of cancer have declined elsewhere in the state.”

Who, then, are the “men behind Komen’s curtain”?

Many environmental activists are familiar with the “greenwashing” concept. Fewer, though, are familiar with “pinkwashing,” best documented by the book Pink Ribbons, Inc.: Breast Cancer and the Politics of Philanthropy by Samantha King. It’s a concept fully on display with regards to the ties that bind Komen to the shale gas industry.

Komen’s Ties to the Halliburton Loophole

Behind curtain one is Jane Abraham, named to the Komen Board of Directors in May 2012. She’s the “wife of former [U.S.] Senator and U.S. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham,” according to Komen’s website.

Upon leaving his posts as a Senator and Energy Secretary under the George W. Bush Administration, Spencer fled straight for the Board of Directors of Occidential Petroleum, where he still sits on the Board today. Occidential has fracking operations set up in both California- andNorth Dakota-based shale basins.

He also is one of the Principals of The Abraham Group, LLC, a consulting firm which, among other things, advises oil and gas industry clientele, headed by his wife Jane.

Spencer Abraham was the Bush Administration’s Secretary of Energy when Vice President Dick Cheney oversaw the Energy Task Force. The Task Force was composed of Cheney, as well as the Secretaries of State, Treasury, Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Transportation and Energy. It was instrumental in facilitating private meetings between oil and gas executives and upper-level Bush Administration Cabinet members.

In the fracking sphere, one of the crucial outcomes of the Task Force’s meetings was the “Halliburton Loophole.” This clause located within the Energy Policy Act of 2005 allows chemicals found in “fracking fluid” to be deemed a “trade secret,” exempting the shale gas industries from both the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act when they perform hydraulic fracturing for shale gas.

Other Komen Oil and Gas Industry Ties that Bind

Komen also maintains what it calls its “Million Dollar Council,” which receives funding from Koch Industries’ subsidiary, Georgia-Pacific, as well as General Electric (GE). Koch Industries and its many subsidiaries have a major financial stake in shale gas drilling. So too does GE.

Georgia-Pacific “produces resins used for chemicals used to prop open micro-fractures, an important process for fracking to occur,” explained Lee Fang of the Republic Report. Other Koch subsidiaries — including Koch Pipeline, Flint Hills Resources, Koch Supply & Trading and Koch Chemical Technology Group — all have a fiscal future intricately tied to shale gas production, according to Fang’s reporting.

GE, meanwhile, also describes itself as a “massive player” in shale gas production. As I wrote for AlterNet in September 2011:

GE created a device for recycling the water used during the controversial and toxic hydraulic fracturing (fracking) process. Furthermore, it maintains natural gas fueled power plants, and manufactures natural gas-powered turbines, having sold more than $1 billion worth of them in 2011 in the United States, according to Reuters. GE also recently made a deal with Russia to sell between $10 and $15 billion worth of turbines.

The Komen “Million Dollar Council” list also includes a key investor backing oil and gas industry interests, Bank of America, a corporation which boasts on its website of its investments in commodities like coal, oil and natural gas.

Furthermore one of the members of Komen’s Board of Directors, John D. Raffaelli, has spent many years working as an oil and gas industry lobbyist. Described by Komen “as one of the most effective lobbyists in Washington,” Raffaelli served as a hired gun for the American Petroleum Institute, Atlas Energy (which has since been sold to Chevron), General Electric and Edison Electric respectively between 2008-present.

Pink Ribbons, Inc.

In response to a long email query from CounterPunch to Begos questioning numerous aspects of his story, CounterPunch received a short email response from AP’s Director of Media Relations, Paul Colford stating, “The AP stands by his story.”

Fox wasn’t too thrilled with the AP story.

“It is clear to me, as it was from the first moment, that Kevin Begos was not out to give fracking critics a fair shake or look objectively at the facts,” Fox said. “He was deliberately seeking ways to try to discredit the anti-fracking movement and he was willing to twist facts and quotes to serve that purpose while disguising his work as impartial. It is worse than bad journalism, it is highly unethical, dangerous and irresponsible”

It’s unlikely Begos had a vendetta, as Fox suggests. Alternatively, by not doing his homework, Begos was likely unaware that he was serving as a stenographer for the shale gas industry’s stealthy public relations apparatus via Komen.

“Komen has, since its inception, prioritized corporate partnerships over environmental health,” King told CounterPunch. “They do so by providing companies such as General Electric, whose products and practices are linked to cancer, with a platform from which to declare a commitment to ending the disease. At the same time, Komen refuses to prioritize research on the environmental causes of breast cancer and on primary prevention — an unsurprising stance given their dependence on pinkwashing sponsors.”



Steve Horn is a Research Fellow at DeSmogBlog and a freelance investigative journalist based out of Madison, Wisconsin.
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 Oct 11, 2012 1:13 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 » Thu Oct 11, 2012 5:35 pm



Fair or Not?: The Snow White Complex

Directed by: M. Hasna M.

“Fair or Not?: The Snow White Complex” is a documentary about Eurocentric standards of female beauty that are held across most (post-Colonial) cultures.

Some of the topics covered: Skin color preferences in relation to class/culture, the media’s role in exacerbating internalized racism, skin bleaching products, exoticism of dark-skinned women, and the phenomenon of tanning amongst White women.
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 Oct 11, 2012 8:22 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 » Thu Oct 11, 2012 9:07 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 » Thu Oct 11, 2012 10:02 pm

“A mental disease has swept the planet: banalization. Everyone is hypnotized by production and conveniences - sewage systems, elevators, bathrooms, washing machines.

This state of affairs, arising out of a struggle against poverty, has overshot its ultimate goal - the liberation of humanity from material cares - and become an omnipresent obsessive image. Presented with the alternative of love or a garbage disposal unit, young people of all countries have chosen the garbage disposal unit. It has become essential to provoke a complete spiritual transformation by bringing to light forgotten desires and by creating entirely new ones. And by carrying out an intensive propaganda in favor of these desires.”


— Ivan Chtcheglov, from Formulary For a New Urbanism(1953)
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 Oct 11, 2012 10:10 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 » Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:40 am

http://www.bopsecrets.org/PH/hello.htm

September 1970. Comic balloon printed on stickum paper. Designed to be cut out and pasted onto ad posters of the sort where a beautiful woman is juxtaposed with a masculine-oriented product.


Image
*
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 » Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:56 am

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 Oct 12, 2012 1:30 pm

http://libcom.org/library/anarchism-vs- ... -old-theme

Anarchism vs. Marxism: A few notes on an old theme

Image

A piece taking on some misconceptions of Marxism commonly held by some anarchists.

More than one hundred years after the socialist movement split into warring Marxist and anarchist factions, there are signs, at least on a small scale, that people calling themselves anarchists and people calling themselves Marxists or "libertarian socialists" are finding ways of working together fruitfully. Questions immediately present themselves: To what extent are the old labels still valid? Have their meanings changed in the course of the last century? How solid is the new basis of unity? Have the old divisions been transcended?

But is it necessary to re-examine the old labels and divisions at all? Would it not be best to let sleeping polemics lie and simply concentrate on working together?

The problem is that a socialist movement - or libertarian movement: what terms can we validly use? - that hopes to develop has to confront historical, strategic, and theoretical questions. A socialist movement worthy of the name has to do more than get together for simple actions. It has to ask itself where it is trying to go, and how it proposes to get there: precisely the issues which sparked the fateful anarchist-Marxist split in the 1870's, and which kept the movements separated until today. Political question which are ignored do not vanish, they only reappear with all that much more destructive impact at a later date. They must be dealt with frankly.

But this does not mean that we are fated to barrenly re-fight old battles and re-live the splits and hostilities of the past. The world has changed a great deal since the 1870's, and the experience of the socialist movement during the past century has changed the problems we face immeasurably. Of no little importance is the re-vitalization of a Marxist current that is militantly anti-Leninist, and the re-emergence of an anarcho-communist movement which accepts (although not necessarily consciously) a good deal of Marxist analysis. There is a good deal of common ground on which we can come together.

It should also be acknowledge that while the differences between Marxists and anarchists have been real, it has been the case that too often in the past the disputes between them have generated more heat than light. A problem in many polemics is that each side tends to take partial tendencies of the other side and extrapolates them to be the whole, and in that sense misrepresents. A serious analysis has to go beyond the simplicities of black and white (black and red?) argumentation. At the same time, it is true that posing questions sharply generally implies a polemical tone, so we should not shrink back from polemic if this means that important questions will be glossed over or ignored.

My own position is pro-marxist, and is in many respects quite critical of anarchism. It is therefore imperative to note two things: One, that there are many positive things about anarchism which I leave unacknowledged, because I am attempting, in this, and the subsequent article ("Bakunin vs. Marx"), to criticize certain specific aspects of the total doctrine which I think greatly weaken it. I am not purporting to give a balanced evaluation of anarchism as a whole. Two: I am far more critical of the "Marxism" of most "Marxist-Leninists" than I am of anarchism. While I regard most anarchists as comrades in the libertarian movement, I consider the very expression "Marxist-Leninist" to be a contradiction in terms, and consider "Marxism-Leninism" to be an ideology that is diametrically opposed to the emancipation of the working classes.1

It is not possible to cover the whole anarchist/marxist debate adequately in one or two articles. What I propose to do here, and in the accompanying notes on Marx and Bakunin, is to concentrate on the most common and basic anarchist objections to Marxism, and to examine them briefly. These notes should be seen as just that - notes that make a few basic points. I hope that they will provoke a lively discussion that will make it possible to examine the questions raised, and others, in much greater detail.

The impetus for seeking a debate on Marxism and anarchism comes primarily from reading a number of recently published pieces on anarchism which all seem to display an astonishing misunderstanding and ignorance of Marx and what he wrote and did. (e.g. Bakunin on Anarchy, with the Preface by Paul Avrich and the Introduction by Sam Dolgoff; Mark Brothers' article on Anarchy in Open Road No. 4; the piece on Bakunin in Open Road No.2, and P. Murtaugh's article in this issue of The Red Menace.) All of these - and most anarchist writings - expend a great deal of effort in attacking something called "Marxism". In every case, the "Marxism" that is attacked has little or nothing to do with the theories of Karl Marx. Reading these polemics against a "Marxism" that exists mainly in the minds of those attacking it, one can only mutter the phrase Marx himself is said to have repeated often in his later years, only regarding the works of his 'followers': "If this is Marxism, than all I know is that I am not a Marxist."

If there is to be any dialogue between Marxists and anarchists, if the negative and positive aspects of the Marxian and anarchist projects are to be critically analyzed, then it is incumbent upon those who oppose Marxism, as well as those who support it or seek to revise or transcend it to at least know what they are talking about. Nothing is solved by setting up and attacking a straw-man Marxism.

And it is important to understand and know Marx not only because there are "libertarian Marxists" but because Marx is without dispute the central figure in the development of libertarianism and socialism. It is not possible to understand the development of any left-wing political movement or system of thought in the last century without knowing Marxism. It is not possible, in fact, to understand the development of any ideology in this century, or indeed, to understand the history of the last hundred years, without knowing something about Marxism. The political history of the twentieth century is to a very great extent a history of attempts to realize Marxism, attempts to defeat Marxism, attempts to go beyond or amend Marxism, attempts to develop alternatives to Marxism.

Anarchism is certainly no exception. It originally defined itself in opposition to Marxism, and continues to do so to the present day. Unfortunately, anarchists seem totally unaware - or unwilling to realize - that Marxism is not a monolith, that there are, and always have been, enormously different currents of thought calling themselves Marxist. Anarchist critiques invariably identify Marxism with Leninism, Leninism with Stalinism, Stalinism with Maoism, and all of them with Trotskyism as well. There is usually not a hint of guile in this remarkable bit of intellectual prestidigitation - your average anarchist simply thinks it is a universally accepted, established fact that all these political system are identical.2

This is not to say that it cannot be argued that all these political system are fundamentally the same, that their differences, no matter how violent, are secondary to certain essential features that all have in common. But the point is that it is necessary to argue the case, to marshal some evidence, to know a phenomenon before condemning it. One can't simply begin with the conclusion.

But the fact is that Marxism is not a monolith. Despite Murtaugh's uninformed assertion that "Libertarian Marxism is a rather recent development, as far as political theories and movements go", and despite the fact that the term "libertarian Marxism" is new - and unnecessary - the tradition goes back a long way. For example, Rosa Luxemburg - surely one of the central figures in any history of Marxism - was condemning Lenin's theories of the vanguard party and of centralized, hierarchical discipline three quarters of a century ago, in 1904. In 1918 - while many anarchists were rushing to join the Bolsheviks - she was criticizing the dictatorial methods of the Bolsheviks and warning of the miscarriage of the Russian Revolution. After her death there were other thinkers and movements that condemned Bolshevism as an authoritarian degeneration of Marxism: Anton Pannekoek, Karl Korsch, the Council Communists, the Frankfurt School, right up to the new left of the 1960's and 1970's. And even within the Leninist tradition there were thinkers who made contributions that challenged the hold of the dominant interpretation and helped to nourish a libertarian Marxism; for example, Georg Lukacs, Antonio Gramsci, and Wihelm Reich. A number of libertarian currents emerged from the Trotskyist movement in the 1940's and 1950's. Any liberation movement that proclaims itself the issue of a virgin birth in the 1970's, or that acknowledges only one thin anarchist strand as 'true' libertarianism through the ages, while cutting itself off - whether because of dogma or because of ignorance - from all other contributing currents, only impoverishes itself. Yet anarchists writing on Marxism seem to deliberately and almost perversely shut their eyes and ears to anything except the dominant Leninist tradition, and so manage always to reconfirm their own prejudices about Marxism.

All this does not prove of course that the libertarian interpretation of Marx is the correct one. But it should be possible to agree on a basic analytical point: if there is doubt about what Marx stood for, then it is necessary to read Marx, not to take the words of either his enemies, or those who claim, justifiably or not, to be his followers. Once this is accepted, and only then, is it possible to begin an anarchist/marxist dialogue on a serious level.

My own attitude to Marx is not unequivocally favourable. There are in my view serious questions to be raised about aspects of Marx's thought. Marxism, like everything else, must be subjected to criticism, criticism that may lead to transcending Marx, but not, I think, to rejecting him. "Marxism is a point of departure for us, not our pre-determined destination. We accept Marx's dictum that our criticism must fear nothing, including its own results. Our debt to Marxism will be no less if we find that we have to go beyond it." The essential point, however, is that the Marxian project must be the heart of any libertarian politics. It may possible and therefore necessary to transcend Marx, but to transcend him it is first necessary to absorb him. Without Marx and some of the best of the "Marxists", it is not possible to create a libertarian praxis and a libertarian world.

Finally in judging Marx's work, it is necessary to keep in mind that his writings and actions span some 40 years as a revolutionary, that he often wrote letters and made notes that represent partial insights which he was not able to return to and expand, that many of his works were polemics against particular doctrines and are one-sided because of that. It would be a mistake, therefore, to take each sentence and each quotation in the corpus of his work as finished holy writ, or to expect that his work is wholly consistent or that he thought the implications of all of his theories through to the end. Marx's work is an uncompleted, uneven, but enormously fruitful and brilliant contribution that must be approached as he himself approached everything: critically.

At this point, it is necessary to confront one of anarchism's tragic flaws, one that has made it incapable of becoming a serious historical alternative: its strong tendency toward anti-intellectualism. With a very few exceptions (e.g. Kropotkin, Rocker, Bookchin) anarchism has failed to produce proponents interested in developing a rigorous analysis of capitalism, the state, bureaucracy, or authoritarianism. Consequently its opposition to these phenomena has tended to remain instinctive and emotional; whatever analyses it has produced have been eclectic, largely borrowed from Marxism, liberalism, and other sources, and rarely of serious intellectual quality. This is not an accidental failing - there has been no lack of intelligent anarchists. But anarchists, perhaps repelled by the cold-bloodedness of some 'official' Marxist intellectuals, perhaps sensing instinctively the germ of totalitarianism in any intellectual system that seeks to explain everything, have been consciously and often militantly opposed to intellectual endeavour as such. Their opposition has been not simply to particular analyses and theories, but to analyses and theory as such. Bakunin, for example, argued - in a manner reminiscent of the medieval Pope Gregory - that teaching workers theories would undermine their inherent revolutionary qualities. What happens when a movement's leading theorist is explicitly anti-intellectual?

The result for the anarchist movement have been crippling. Anarchism as a theory remains a patchwork of often conflicting insights that remain frustrating especially to critical sympathizers because the most fruitful threads rarely seem to be pursued. Most anarchist publications avoid any discussion of strategy, or any analysis of society as it is today, like the plague. (Even one of the best anarchist publications, The Open Road, remains essentially a cheer-leader for anything vaguely leftist or libertarian. People organizing unions and people organizing against unions receive equally uncritical coverage; pie-throwing and bomb-throwing are seen as equally valid activities, and no attempt is made to discuss the relative strategic merits of the one or the other in a given context.) Most anarchist publishing houses seem interested in nothing except (a) re-fighting the Spanish Civil War, (b) re-fighting Kronstadt and (c) trashing Marxist-Leninists yet one more time. Even these preoccupations, which have become routine as to make anarchism for the most part simply boring, are not pursued in such a way as to develop new insights relating to the history of capitalism, the revolutionary process, or Bolshevism, for example.

Rather, the same arguments are simply liturgically repeated. Rarely is there any serious political debate within the anarchist movement, while polemics against the bugbear of "Marxism" (as essential to anarchism as Satan is to the Church) are generally crippled by a principled refusal to find out anything about what is being attacked. Arguments are mostly carried on in terms of the vaguest generalities; quotations are never used because the works of the supposed enemy have never been read.

As a consequence of its anti-intellectualism, anarchism has never been able to develop its potential. A movement that disdains theory and uncritically worships action, anarchism remains a shaky edifice consisting essentially of various chunks of Marxist analysis underpinning a few inflexible tactical precepts. It is held together mainly by libertarian impulses - the best kind of impulses to have, to be sure - and by a fear of organization that is so great that it is virtually impossible for anarchists to every organize effectively on a long-term basis. This is truly a tragedy, for the libertarian movement cannot afford to have its members refusing to use their intellects in the battle to create a new world. As long as anarchism continues to promote anti-intellectualism, it is going nowhere.



1. On the other hand, I do not see all "Marxists-Leninists" as counter-revolutionaries, as many anarchists seem to do. Many (particularly Trotskyists) are sincere revolutionaries who do not understand the implications of the ideology they adhere to. The fact that "Marxism-Leninism" as an ideology is counter-revolutionary does not mean that every "Marxist-Leninist" is a counter-revolutionary, any more than the fact that Christianity is reactionary makes every individual Christian a reactionary. Nor are the political differences that divide the left always as absolute as they are made out to be. There are of necessity always gray areas, where, for example, anarchism and Marxism begin to converge, or Marxism and Leninism, or - yes - anarchism and Leninism. Life does not always lend itself to analysis by the categories 'them' and 'us', if for no other reason than that all of us have internalized at least some of the repressive baggage of the dominant society. All of us have something of the 'counter-revolutionary' in us.

2. For example, Mark Brothers in his article "Anarchy is liberty, not disorder" in Issue 4 of The Open Road, uses the terms 'Marxism' and 'Marxism'Leninism' interchangeably, and is either unaware or doesn't think it worth mentioning that two of the three concepts he criticizes - the vanguard party and democratic centralism - are nowhere to be found in Marx, while the third, dictatorship of the proletariat, was given completely different meanings by Marx and the Leninists. Similarly, Murtaugh (The End of Dialectical Materialism: An Anarchist Reply to the Libertarian Marxists) knows so little about Marxism that he does not even know that neither Marx nor Engels ever even used the term "dialectical materialism,", which he blithely supposes "libertarian marxists" adhere to, and which he disposes of in four pages. (Dialectical materialism made its first appearance eight years after Marx died, courtesy of Plekanov.)
Last edited by American Dream on Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 Oct 12, 2012 4:07 pm

http://libcom.org/library/may-68-docume ... ernational

May 1968 Documents - Situationist International

Image

Documents produced by the Situationist International or groups the Situationists were involved with during the mass strike and revolt of the glorious May 1968 in France.

Slogans To Be Spread Now
by Every Means



(leaflets, announcements over microphones, comic strips, songs, graffiti, balloons on paintings in the Sorbonne, announcements in theaters during films or while disrupting them, balloons on subway billboards, before making love, after making love, in elevators, each time you raise your glass in a bar):

OCCUPY THE FACTORIES

POWER TO THE WORKERS COUNCILS

ABOLISH CLASS SOCIETY

DOWN WITH SPECTACLE-COMMODITY SOCIETY

ABOLISH ALIENATION

TERMINATE THE UNIVERSITY

HUMANITY WON'T BE HAPPY TILL THE LAST BUREAUCRAT IS HUNG WITH THE GUTS OF THE LAST CAPITALIST

DEATH TO THE COPS

FREE ALSO THE 4 GUYS CONVICTED FOR LOOTING DURING THE MAY 6TH RIOT


OCCUPATION COMMITTEE OF THE
PEOPLE'S FREE SORBONNE UNIVERSITY
16 May 1968, 7:00 pm


Telegrams


PROFESSOR IVAN SVITAK PRAGUE CZECHOSLOVAKIA THE OCCUPATION COMMITTEE OF THE PEOPLE'S FREE SORBONNE SENDS FRATERNAL GREETINGS TO COMRADE SVITAK AND OTHER CZECHOSLOVAKIAN REVOLUTIONARIES STOP LONG LIVE THE INTERNATIONAL POWER OF THE WORKERS COUNCILS STOP HUMANITY WON'T BE HAPPY TILL THE LAST CAPITALIST IS HUNG WITH THE GUTS OF THE LAST BUREAUCRAT STOP LONG LIVE REVOLUTIONARY MARXISM


ZENGAKUREN TOKYO JAPAN LONG LIVE THE STRUGGLE OF THE JAPANESE COMRADES WHO HAVE OPENED COMBAT SIMULTANEOUSLY ON THE FRONTS OF ANTI-STALINISM AND ANTI-IMPERIALISM STOP LONG LIVE FACTORY OCCUPATIONS STOP LONG LIVE THE GENERAL STRIKE STOP LONG LIVE THE INTERNATIONAL POWER OF THE WORKERS COUNCILS STOP HUMANITY WON'T BE HAPPY TILL THE LAST BUREAUCRAT IS HUNG WITH THE GUTS OF THE LAST CAPITALIST STOP OCCUPATION COMMITTEE OF THE PEOPLE'S FREE SORBONNE


POLITBURO OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE USSR THE KREMLIN MOSCOW SHAKE IN YOUR SHOES BUREAUCRATS STOP THE INTERNATIONAL POWER OF THE WORKERS COUNCILS WILL SOON WIPE YOU OUT STOP HUMANITY WON'T BE HAPPY TILL THE LAST BUREAUCRAT IS HUNG WITH THE GUTS OF THE LAST CAPITALIST STOP LONG LIVE THE STRUGGLE OF THE KRONSTADT SAILORS AND OF THE MAKHNOVSHCHINA AGAINST TROTSKY AND LENIN STOP LONG LIVE THE 1956 COUNCILIST INSURRECTION OF BUDAPEST STOP DOWN WITH THE STATE STOP LONG LIVE REVOLUTIONARY MARXISM STOP OCCUPATION COMMITTEE OF THE PEOPLE'S FREE SORBONNE


POLITBURO OF THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY GATE OF CELESTIAL PEACE PEKING SHAKE IN YOUR SHOES BUREAUCRATS STOP THE INTERNATIONAL POWER OF THE WORKERS COUNCILS WILL SOON WIPE YOU OUT STOP HUMANITY WON'T BE HAPPY TILL THE LAST BUREAUCRAT IS HUNG WITH THE GUTS OF THE LAST CAPITALIST STOP LONG LIVE FACTORY OCCUPATIONS STOP LONG LIVE THE GREAT CHINESE PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION OF 1927 BETRAYED BY THE STALINIST BUREAUCRATS STOP LONG LIVE THE PROLETARIANS OF CANTON AND ELSEWHERE WHO HAVE TAKEN UP ARMS AGAINST THE SO-CALLED PEOPLE'S ARMY STOP LONG LIVE THE CHINESE WORKERS AND STUDENTS WHO HAVE ATTACKED THE SO-CALLED CULTURAL REVOLUTION AND THE MAOIST BUREAUCRATIC ORDER STOP LONG LIVE REVOLUTIONARY MARXISM STOP DOWN WITH THE STATE STOP OCCUPATION COMMITTEE OF THE PEOPLE'S FREE SORBONNE


17 May 1968


Address to All Workers


Comrades,

What we have already done in France is haunting Europe and will soon threaten all the ruling classes of the world, from the bureaucrats of Moscow and Peking to the millionaires of Washington and Tokyo. Just as we have made Paris dance, the international proletariat will once again take up its assault on the capitals of all the states and all the citadels of alienation. The occupation of factories and public buildings throughout the country has not only brought a halt to the functioning of the economy, it has brought about a general questioning of the society. A deep-seated movement is leading almost every sector of the population to seek a real transformation of life. This is the beginning of a revolutionary movement, a movement which lacks nothing but the consciousness of what it has already done in order to triumph.

What forces will try to save capitalism? The regime will fall unless it threatens to resort to arms (accompanied by the promise of new elections, which could only take place after the capitulation of the movement) or even resorts to immediate armed repression. If the Left comes to power, it too will try to defend the old world through concessions and through force. The best defender of such a "popular government" would be the so-called "Communist" Party, the party of Stalinist bureaucrats, which has fought the movement from the very beginning and which began to envisage the fall of the de Gaulle regime only when it realized it was no longer capable of being that regime's main guardian. Such a transitional government would really be "Kerenskyist" only if the Stalinists were beaten. All this will ultimately depend on the workers' consciousness and capacities for autonomous organization. The workers who have already rejected the ridiculous agreement that the union leaders were so pleased with need only discover that they cannot "win" much more within the framework of the existing economy, but that they can take everything by transforming all the bases of the economy on their own behalf. The bosses can hardly pay more; but they can disappear.

The present movement did not become "politicized" by going beyond the miserable union demands regarding wages and pensions, demands which were falsely presented as "social questions." It is beyond politics: it is posing the social question in its simple truth. The revolution that has been in the making for over a century is returning. It can express itself only in its own forms. It's too late for a bureaucratic-revolutionary patching up. When a recently de-Stalinized bureaucrat like André Barjonet calls for the formation of a common organization that would bring together "all the authentic forces of revolution . . . whether they march under the banner of Trotsky or Mao, of anarchy or situationism," we need only recall that those who today follow Trotsky or Mao, to say nothing of the pitiful "Anarchist Federation," have nothing to do with the present revolution. The bureaucrats may now change their minds about what they call "authentically revolutionary"; authentic revolution will not change its condemnation of bureaucracy.

At the present moment, with the power they hold and with the parties and unions being what they are, the workers have no other choice but to organize themselves in unitary rank-and-file committees directly taking over the economy and all aspects of the reconstruction of social life, asserting their autonomy vis-a-vis any sort of political or unionist leadership, ensuring their self-defense and federating with each other regionally and nationally. In so doing they will become the sole real power in the country, the power of the workers councils. The only alternative is to return to their passivity and go back to watching television. The proletariat is "either revolutionary or nothing."

What are the essential features of council power?

* Dissolution of all external power * Direct and total democracy * Practical unification of decision and execution * Delegates who can be revoked at any moment by those who have mandated them

* Abolition of hierarchy and independent specializations * Conscious management and transformation of all the conditions of liberated life * Permanent creative mass participation * Internationalist extension and coordination


The present requirements are nothing less than this. Self-management is nothing less. Beware of all the modernist coopters -- including even priests -- who are beginning to talk of self-management or even of workers councils without acknowledging this minimum, because they want to save their bureaucratic functions, the privileges of their intellectual specializations or their future careers as petty bosses!

In reality, what is necessary now has been necessary since the beginning of the proletarian revolutionary project. It's always been a question of working-class autonomy. The struggle has always been for the abolition of wage labor, of commodity production, and of the state. The goal has always been to accede to conscious history, to suppress all separations and "everything that exists independently of individuals." Proletarian revolution has spontaneously sketched out its appropriate forms in the councils -- in St. Petersburg in 1905, in Turin in 1920, in Catalonia in 1936, in Budapest in 1956. The preservation of the old society, or the formation of new exploiting classes, has each time been over the dead body of the councils. The working class now knows its enemies and its own appropriate methods of action. "Revolutionary organization has had to learn that it can no longer fight alienation with alienated forms" (The Society of the Spectacle). Workers councils are clearly the only solution, since all the other forms of revolutionary struggle have led to the opposite of what was aimed at.

ENRAGES-SITUATIONIST INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE COUNCIL FOR MAINTAINING THE OCCUPATIONS
30 May 1968



Translated by Ken Knabb (slightly modified from the versions in the Situationist International Anthology).

No copyright.
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 Oct 13, 2012 10:29 am

http://www.iopsociety.org/blog/dear-anarchists

Dear Anarchists

Written by:
Marlo Pedroso, United States
18th May 2012



Dear Anarchists,

I love you. You are my brethren, my tribe, my people. Your incendiary prose and poetry, your razor-sharp critiques, your brazen, unrelenting defiance inspire and fuel me. Your ideas provoke and challenge me to go further, to not settle for half-hearted reforms and superficial analyses of the problems of modernity.

I am one of you. Ever since I stole that Sex Pistols tape from K-Mart, discovered Crass and got involved with the Do It Yourself ethos of punk rock. Ever since I read Emma Goldman's assertion that it's not my revolution if there is no dancing and joyfulness. Ever since I learned about the Wobblies and the Bread & Roses strikes that happened in the mill-towns of my youth. I sided with Bakunin at the International, and saw (in hindsight, of course) the folly of Marx’s belief that the ‘proletarian state’ would “wither away” after the intermediary transition from Capitalism to Communism.

Anarchists, you are wiser, your music is better, your artists and theorists are more riveting, and you are generally more courageous than others on the Left. I am proud to say I am an anarchist. I will not apologize.

All of this is why I am writing this to challenge us further. There has been a tendency in our ranks, which Bookchin correctly noted, to succumb to a superficial analysis, that mistakes spontaneous revolts with organized insurrection. Bookchin called it "life-style anarchism": dress the part, talk the talk, change some consumer habits. Well, if there is one thing Anarchists do predictably, it is to take ourselves too seriously. It’s both funny and sad that some of us believe that a post-capitalism society is imminent, and that the confrontational tactics of the Black Bloc are what will spark off the revolution.

How many times have we heard this before? Isn't it time to grow up and put this naïve notion to rest, however comforting it may be. I recognize the beauty and power inherent in the idea of revolution. It has a biblical weight, a mythical, poetic quality. It's a good story, as stories go: somehow people see the light, spontaneously rise up, and everything is utopian and dreamy thereafter. Somehow we shed all our conditioning in the process and learn to live cooperatively for each others benefit.

If we’ve learned nothing else, let us once and forever recognize that the "Revolution" is a myth, a tale, a prophecy not meant to be taken literally. Change is a process not an event. We never fully arrive. We continually evolve and transform; this is what living systems do and it is healthy and interesting. One of the universal truths everyone from the Buddha to science to philosophy has taught us is the truth of change, through impermanence, evolution, or the dialectic.

Perhaps instead of approaching change with a view of having the proper analysis or solutions, we can approach with a set of open questions that serve as guides. As Zen buddhist Shunryu Suzuki puts it, "In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities. In the expert's mind there are few." Cultivating a beginner's mind we may ask such important question as: what actions will lead to the most profound changes to our social structures for the benefit of the largest number of people? In doing so, we cultivate an analysis of our current conditions that is always evolving, and allows us learn from others, past and present, in order to understand how to best facilitate radical transformation.

Anarchists, however, subconsciously pride ourselves on being at the margins, on the fringes (or even outside of) the status quo. Perhaps because we've always felt excluded, we snub our noses at those in the center. But as Foucault and others made us aware, no one operates outside the power structures inherent in modern life. We may pride ourselves on our creation of subcultures that allow us to envision and practice new forms of social and political organization, but this often leads us to become self-satisfied and ineffective as a political force engaged broader transformation and impact.

When we do act, our so-called spontaneous rebellions (re: impulsive) often alienate us from the people we claim to act in solidarity with. We believe it’s because the masses aren’t radicalized and we must agitate them into action. This type of elitism reeks of privilege and arrogance. It also reeks of laziness. A look back to radical movements of the past shows that militancy and actions can (and must if it hopes to be truly revolutionary) have a broad base of support. For example the Black Panthers, garnered widespread community support while taking militant and confrontational actions. In fact, it was really once they started building this broad base that the CIA saw them as a real threat.

We spend an inordinate amount of energy and time in-fighting and blowing air, and too little organizing beyond our circles. It’s good to push the envelope of progressives analysis, but how many more pamphlets and tactical briefings are we going to put forth before we start actually talking to people and building connections? Our ancestors, whatever their faults, put to work Paulo Freire's notion of praxis, that is building theory in the act of organizing people, not in an abstract vacuum, like many of today's theorists. We've become attached and inflexible in our ideologies (those who even admit having one). We are dogmatic in our adherence to tactics and action, and spend little time developing and promoting any vision, strategy or goals. As Eve Libertine said: “What vision is left, and is anyone asking?” Why do we do this? "Because that's too limiting", we say. Bullshit! We are scared to take steps for which we would have to be accountable and responsible. When we place ideology before principles and ethics, we pave the quickest path towards a proto-fascist zealotry. Out parasitic behavior, jumping in at protests and marches we do not organize, using the crowds cover to go on confrontational escapades, while remaining indifferent of the larger goals or strategies of the movements.

Then we get pissed and throw tantrums when people don't approve of property destruction or police provocation. We say they are being divisive, that they are not respecting a diversity of tactics. In our minds and hearts, we believe that engaging in tactics that are more radical and courageous. If we are so radical and courageous, why insist on taking action under the cover of large protests and marches? If we really feel these are the most efficacious tactics why not develop groups to take this project on? At least anarchists of the past conducted acts of sabotage apart from protests. They understood strategy and timing, and choose not act as provocateurs or endanger the lives of others. My point is not whether such tactics are legitimate or illegitimate. My point is to question their effectiveness when done with no premeditated thought or strategy. Many anarchists have lost sight that for resistance to be effective it must move beyond spontaneity and become cohesive and strategic, however unsexy that may seem to the immature drive to simply act-out.

There is a war being waged on the planet, on life and liberty, by a dictatorship of the corporate states, by the cancerous ideology of capitalism. We are naïve if we think that adopting the strategies of militarism and warfare is the way out. I too feel rage in my cells, but I temper this with the knowledge that I am acting to preserve life and must temper rage with compassion and love, if I am not to create more violence and discord in the world. We must be skillful, mindful, act with true allegiance if we want to build a new world, a new body of relations, a real spirit of mutual aid. How we fight will dictate the culture of the world we are building. As anarchists we know this, and as such have always fought against the hierarchical and elitist tendencies of the Left. Let's not become the evil we abhor.

Anarchists, champions of liberty and freedom, herald of mutual aid and self-governance, I say to you: do not to settle for splashing about in small puddles, make waves in the great seas! We can and must do greater things; go forth and organize. Believe in a world beyond masters and slaves, beyond rich and poor! Bring it forth in communion with others, respecting the richness of our varied traditions, refusing to remain in self-imposed ghettos!

In solidarity,

Marlo Pedroso
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