#organizational communication society

[dailyanarchistposts]

The Specific Anarchist Organisation: The Anarchist Organisation

If [the revolutionary] lacks the guiding idea of their action, they will not be anything other than a ship without a compass. Ricardo Flores Magón

An anarchist organisation must be based, in my opinion, on full autonomy, on full independence, and, therefore, on the full responsibility of individuals and groups; free agreement between those who believe it to be useful to unite in order to co-operate with a common end; a moral duty to keep to the commitments accepted and not to do anything that contradicts the accepted programme. Errico Malatesta

In this text we have sometimes discussed the specific anarchist organisation and our expectations in relation to it. As we have earlier defined, its objective is “to build the popular organisation and influence it, giving it the desired character, and to reach libertarian socialism by means of the social revolution”. Further, we understand this as the political level of activity.

The specific anarchist organisation is the grouping of anarchist individuals who, through their own will and free agreement, work together with well-defined objectives. For this it uses forms and means in order that these objectives are achieved, or that, at least, it proceeds towards them. Thus, we can consider the anarchist organisation as "[...] the set of individuals who have a common objective and strive to achieve it; it is natural that they understand each other, join their forces, share the work and take all measures suitable for this task "[110]. Through the anarchist organisation anarchists articulate themselves at the political and ideological level, in order to put into practice revolutionary politics and to devise the means – the way of working – that should point to the final objectives: social revolution and libertarian socialism. This political practice, which seeks the final objectives, should be carried out

creating an organisation that can fulfil the tasks of anarchism, not only in times of preparing the social revolution, but also afterwards. Such an organisation must unite all the revolutionary forces of anarchism and immediately concern itself with the preparation of the masses for the social revolution and with the struggle for the realisation of the anarchist society. [111]

This organisation is founded on fraternal agreements, both for its internal functioning as for its external action – without having relations of domination, exploitation or alienation in its midst – which constitute a libertarian organisation. The function of the specific anarchist organisation is to co-ordinate, converge and permanently increase the social force of anarchist militant activities, providing a tool for solid and consistent struggle, which is a fundamental means for the pursuit of the final objectives. Therefore,

[...] it is necessary to unite and to organise: first to discuss, then to gather the means for the revolution, and finally, to form an organic whole that, armed with its means and strengthened by its union can, when the historical moment is sounded, sweep all the aberrations and all the tyrannies of the world away [...]. The organisation is a means to differentiate yourself, of detailing a programme of ideas and established methods, a type of uniting banner to embark in combat knowing those with whom you can count and having become aware of the force at one’s disposal. [112]

To constitute this tool of solid and consistent combat, it is essential that the anarchist organisation has well-determined strategic-tactical and political lines – which occur through theoretical and ideological unity, and the unity of strategy and tactics. This organisation of well-defined lines joins the anarchists at the political and ideological level, and develops their political practice at the social level – which characterises an organisation of active minority, seeing as though the social level is always much larger than the political level. This political practice takes shape when the anarchist organisation of active minority performs social work in the midst of the class struggle, seeking social insertion which takes shape from the moment that the anarchist organisation manages to influence the social movements with which it works. Properly organised as an active minority, the anarchists constitute a much larger social force in the realisation of social work and have a greater chance of having social insertion. Besides social work and insertion, the specific anarchist organisation performs other activities: the production and reproduction of theory, anarchist propaganda, political education, conception and implementation of strategy, political and social relations and resource management. So we can say that the activities of the specific anarchist organisation are:

- Social Work and Insertion

- Production and Reproduction of Theory

- Anarchist Propaganda

- Political Education

- Conception and Implementation of Strategy

- Social and Political Relations

Resource Management

These activities can be performed in a more or less public way, always taking into account the social context in which it [the organisation] operates. We say more or less public because we believe that "one should do publicly what it is agreed that everyone should know, and secretly that which it is agreed should be hidden" [113]. In times of less repression the anarchist organisation operates publicly, performing the greatest propaganda possible and trying to attract the largest number of people. In times of increased repression, if, "for example, a government forbids us to speak, to print, to meet, to associate, and we do not have the strength to rebel openly, we would try to speak, to print, to meet and to associate clandestinely "[114].

In this work, which varies according to the social context, the specific anarchist organisation must always defend the interests of the exploited classes, because we understand it as a political expression of these interests. For us, the ideas of anarchism

[...] are nothing if not the purest and most faithful expression of popular instincts. If they do not correspond with these instincts they are false; and, to the extent that they are false, will be rejected by the people. But if these ideas are an honest expression of the instincts, if they represent the true thought of the people, they will quickly penetrate the spirit of the revolting multitudes; and as long as these ideas encounter the way of the popular spirit, will advance quickly to their full realisation. [115]

The specific anarchist organisation, understood as a political expression of the interests of the exploited classes, does not act on their behalf and never places itself above them. It does not replace the organisation of the exploited classes, but gives anarchists the chance to put themselves at their service.

In this political practice of placing itself at the service of the exploited classes the anarchist organisation is guided by a Charter of Principles. The principles are the ethical propositions and notions, both non-negotiable, that guide all political practice, providing models for anarchist action. "The assumption of consistency with these principles is what determines ideological authenticity pertaining to anarchism." [116] In our case, the Charter of Principles of 2003 [117] defines nine principles: freedom, ethics and values, federalism, self-management, internationalism, direct action, class struggle, political practice and social insertion, and mutual aid.

In first place we assert the principle of freedom, affirming that "the struggle for freedom precedes anarchy." Like Bakunin thought, we hold that "individual freedom [...] can only find its ultimate expression in collective freedom", and we reject, therefore, the individualist proposals of anarchism. The pursuit of libertarian socialism is thus the incessant struggle for freedom. Another principle absolutely central for us is that of ethics and values which causes us to base all of our practice on the anarchist ethic, which is a "non-negotiable militant commitment." Through ethics, among other things, we advocate the consistency between means and ends and mutual respect.

We assert federalism and self-management as principles of non-hierarchical and decentralised organisation, sustained by mutual aid and free association, assuming the premise of the IWA that everyone has rights and duties. Beyond this, it is these principles that will guide the management of the future society at all levels: economic, political and social management, performed by the workers themselves. Emphasising the need for struggles to be self-managed we affirm that "even if living with the current outdated system, [self-management] gives potential to the transformations that point towards an egalitarian society."

By asserting internationalism we highlight the international character of struggles and the need for us to associate ourselves by class affinities and not those of nationality. The exploited of one country must see in the exploited of another a companion of the struggle, and not an enemy. Internationalism is opposed to nationalism and the exaltation of the state, as they represent a sense of superiority over other countries and peoples, and reinforce ethnocentrism and prejudice – the first steps towards xenophobia. Everyone, regardless of their nationality, is equal and should be free.

Direct action is posited as a principle founded on horizontalism and encourages the protagonism of workers, opposing representative democracy which, as we have already stated, alienates politically. Direct action puts the people in front of their own decisions and actions, "linking workers and the oppressed to the centre of political action."

In addition, we choose to base ourselves on class struggle, defining ourselves as a workers organisation of workers that defend the exploited, and fight for the extinction of class society and for the creation of a society in which slaves and masters no longer exist. Therefore, we recognise and give precedence to the class struggle. For us, there is a central need to combat the evils of capitalism head on, and for this it is essential to fight alongside the exploited, where the consequences of class society become more clear and evident.

The principle of political practice and social insertion reinforces the idea that it is only with the exploited classes that anarchism is able to flourish. Therefore, the anarchist organisation should seek to relate to all forms of popular struggle, regardless of where they may be taking place. We affirm that the interaction of the anarchist organisation with any manifestation "in the social, cultural, peasant, trade union, student, community, environmental camps etc., as long as inserted into the context of struggles for freedom," contemplates the concretisation of this principle.

As the last principle in the Charter mutual aid encourages solidarity in struggle, encouraging the maintenance of fraternal relations with all who truly work for a just and egalitarian world. It encourages effective solidarity among the exploited.

At the moment in which it performs social work the specific anarchist organisation seeks to influence the social movements in a constructive way, with proposals and, at the same time, keep away from them the negative influence of individuals and groups who – instead of defending the interests of the people, encouraging them to be the protagonists of their own emancipation – use them to achieve other objectives. We know that politicians, parties, unions and also other authoritarian organisations and individuals – like the church, drug trafficking etc. – constitute obstacles to the construction of the popular organisation since they penetrate social movements, in the vast majority of cases, seeking to take advantage of the number of people present there to: find support in elections, constitute the base for authoritarian power projects, get money, conquer faiths, open new markets and so on. Authoritarian organisations and individuals do not want to support social movements, but use them to achieve their (the authoritarian organisations’ and individuals’) own objectives, which are not consistent with the objectives of the militants of the social movements – that is, the authoritarians seek to establish a relationship of domination over the social movements.

Any anarchist who has organised or even seen how working in social movements works knows that, if there is not a consistent organisation, capable of giving the necessary strength to the anarchists in the ongoing dispute over political space, the authoritarians become hegemonic and the work of the anarchists is completely lost. The anarchists, by not constituting the necessary social force, offer two possibilities: either they will be used by the authoritarians as workhorses (aka "sleeves") in carrying out their authoritarian power projects, or they will simply be removed. In the first case we speak of anarchists that are not specifically organised and go in the wake of events. When they are not organised, they do not exert the necessary influence to have even a little social force. While they do not interfere much they are allowed in the social movements. In the second case we speak of isolated anarchists who begin to exert some influence, or, in authoritarian understanding, they begin to interfere. In this case they are expelled, removed or vilified. They are literally "bowled over" by the authoritarians. Without the necessary organisation they cannot maintain themselves in the social movements and much less exert the desired influence.

This happens because when there is not a proper organisation of anarchists, it is possible to establish authoritarian, or less libertarian organisations. In addressing the permanent dispute over political space we are not saying that anarchists should fight for the leadership, supervision, or any position of privilege in the social movements. We talk, on the contrary, of the internal struggle that takes place when we want to influence social movements to use libertarian practices.

We believe that there is never a political vacuum, anywhere. Therefore, from the moment we cause our positions to prevail it necessarily means a decrease in the influence of the authoritarians and vice versa. For example, on seeing that some anarchists are struggling for a movement to use direct action and direct democracy, politicians and party devices will be against it, and unless there is a strong organisation of anarchists, with social insertion and the ability to fight for these positions, the authoritarian positions will have greater chances to prosper. When we are properly organised as anarchists we will not lag behind events, but manage to mark our positions and exert our influence in the social movements, going on to have true insertion. It is through the specific anarchist organisation that we can manage to be properly organised for the work we want to perform in the most varying social movements.

The anarchist organisation should be the continuation of our efforts and our propaganda; it must be the libertarian adviser that guides us in our everyday combat action. We can base ourselves on its programme to spread our action in other camps, in all the special organisations of particular struggles into which we can penetrate and take our activity and action: for example, in the trade unions, in anti-militarist societies, in anti-religious and anti-clerical groupings etc. Our special organisation can serve equally as a ground for anarchist concentration (not centralised!), as a field of agreement, of understanding and of the most complete solidarity as possible between us. The more we are united, the smaller will be the danger that we be dragged into incoherence, or that we turn from our impetus for struggle to battles and skirmishes where others who are not at all in agreement with us could tie our hands. [118]

Thus, the anarchist organisation, besides being responsible for its political practice in different camps serves to increase the social force of the anarchists within them. Among the various forces present in these spaces anarchists should stand out and bring to fruition their positions.

This political practice in different camps requires that the anarchist organisation divides itself into fronts, which are the internal groups that carry out social work. Generally, organisations that work with this methodology suggests that three basic fronts are developed: trade union, community and student. Differently, we believe that the fronts should be divided, not according to these pre-stipulated spaces of insertion, but based on the practical work of the organisation. In our understanding there should not be an obligation to develop work in these three fronts and, in addition, there may be other interesting spaces that demand dedicated fronts.

Each organisation should seek spaces more conducive to the development of its social work, and from this practical necessity form its fronts. Thus, if there is work in the student sector, there may be a student front. If there is union work, there may be a trade union front. However, if other work is developed, for example, with rural movements or with urban movements etc., the fronts should follow this division. That is, instead of having only one community front that works with rural and urban social movements, you could create a front of rural movements and another front of urban movements. In this sense, we support a model of dynamic fronts that account for the internal division of the specific anarchist organisation for the practical realisation of social work in the best way possible.

The fronts are responsible, in their respective area of work, for the creation and development of social movements as well as for ensuring that anarchists occupy political space – space that is in permanent dispute – and to exercise due influence in these movements.

In the case of our organisation we initiated social work divided into two fronts. The "community front," which combines the work of management of the Fabio Luz Social Library (Biblioteca Social Fábio Luz - BSFL), of the Centre of Social Culture of Rio de Janeiro (Centro de Cultura Social - CCS-RJ) and its community work, the Marques da Costa Centre for Research (Núcleo de Pesquisa Marques da Costa - NPMC) and of the Ideal Peres Libertarian Study Circle (Círculo de Estudos Libertários Ideal Peres - CELIP). The other was the "occupations front", which was involved with urban occupations and the Internationalist Front of the Homeless (Frente Internacionalista dos Sem-Teto - FIST). With the change in the situation we left FIST, continuing to work with occupations and have gone on to bring together a few occupiers, and many other unemployed in the Movement of Unemployed Workers (Movimento dos Trabalhadores Desempregados - MTD). This movement took on great importance in this front. In this way the "occupations front" was renamed "urban social movements front." Likewise, because we deemed it necessary, we constituted a third front: the "agro-ecological front" (Anarchism and Nature) from practical work in rural social movements, of ecology and agriculture, which began to be developed by the organisation. In this way, we hold that the fronts are adapted to the practical context of work. We illustrate how this works in practice.

Diagram 1

SAO being the specific anarchist organisation (divided into fronts A, B and C) and SM the social movements, the SAO is divided internally into the fronts which act, each one, in a determined SM or SM sector. In this case, assuming that the SAO works with three SM, or with three SM sectors, it divides itself for the work in three fronts. Front A works with SMA or with sector A of a determined SM. Front B works with SMB or with sector B of a determined SM, and so on. Giving practical examples: the SAO can be divided into a syndicalist front (A), a community front (B) and a student front (C), and each one of them will act in a SM. Front A will act in the union, front B in the community and C in the student movement. In our case, our SAO is today divided into three fronts: urban social movements (A), community (B) and agro-ecology (Anarchism and Nature) (C). Each of these works in one or more social movements. Front A in the homeless movement and in the MTD, front B in the community movement and front C in the rural movements of ecology and agriculture.

Besides this internal division into fronts, which functions for social work, the specific anarchist organisations uses, both for its internal and external functioning, the logic of what we call "concentric circles" – strongly inspired by the Bakuninist organisational model. The main reason that we adopt this logic of functioning is because, for us, the anarchist organisation needs to preserve different instances of action. These different instances should strengthen its work while at the same time allowing it to bring together prepared militants with a high level of commitment and approximating people sympathetic to the theory or practice of the organisation – who could be more or less prepared and more or less committed. In short, the concentric circles seek to resolve an important paradox: the anarchist organisation needs to be closed enough to have prepared, committed and politically aligned militants, and open enough to draw in new militants.

A large part of the problems that occur in anarchist organisations are caused by them not functioning according to the logic of concentric circles and by not implementing these two instances of action. Should a person who says they are an anarchist and is interested in the work of the organisation be in the organisation, despite not knowing the political line in depth? Should a laymen interested in anarchist ideas be in the organisation? How do you relate to "libertarians" – in the broadest sense of the term – who do not consider themselves anarchists? Should they be in the organisation? And the older members who have already done important work but now want to be close, but not to engage in the permanent activities of the organisation? And those that can only rarely dedicate time for activism? There are many questions. Other problems occur because there are doubts about the implementation of social work. Must the organisation present itself as an anarchist organisation in the social movements? In its social work can it form alliances with other individuals, groups and organisations that are not anarchist? In such a case, what are the common points to advocate? How do you carry out social work in a field with people from different ideologies and maintain an anarchist identity? How do you ensure that anarchism does not lose its identity when in contact with social movements? On this point there are also many questions.

The concentric circles are intended to provide a clear place for each of the militants and sympathisers of the organisation. In addition, they seek to facilitate and strengthen the social work of the anarchist organisation, and finally, establish a channel for the capture of new militants.

In practice the logic of concentric circles is established as follows. Inside the specific anarchist organisation there are only anarchists that, to a greater or lesser extent, are able to elaborate, reproduce and apply the political line of the organisation internally, in the fronts and in public activity. Also, to a greater or lesser extent, militants should be able to assist in the elaboration of the strategic-tactical line of the organisation, as well as having full capacity to reproduce and apply it. Militants assume internal functions in the organisation – be they executive, deliberative or extraordinary – as well as external functions with regards to social work. The functions assumed by the militants within the organisation adhere to self-management and federalism, or to horizontal decisions where all the militants have the same power of voice and of vote and where, in specific cases, there is delegation with imperative mandates. The functions to be performed by the delegates must be very well defined so that they "cannot act on behalf of the association unless the members thereof have explicitly authorised them [to do so]; they should execute only what the members have decided and not dictate the way forward to the association" [119]. Moreover, the functions should be rotated in order to empower everyone and avoid crystallised positions or functions.

The specific anarchist organisation could have only one circle of militants, all of them being in the same instance, or it could have more than one circle – the criteria being collectively defined. For example, this may be the time that a person has been in the organisation or their ability to elaborate the political or tactical-strategic lines. Thus, the newer militants or those with a lesser ability to elaborate the lines may be in a more external (distant) circle, with the more experienced militants with a greater ability for elaborating the lines in another more internal (closer) one. There is not a hierarchy between the circles, but the idea is that the more "inside", or the closer the militant, the better are they able to formulate, understand, reproduce and apply the lines of the organisation. The more "inside" the militant, the greater is their level of commitment and activity. The more a militant offers the organisation, the more is demanded of them by it. It is the militants who decide on their level of commitment and they do or do not participate in the instances of deliberation based on this choice. Thus, the militants decide how much they want to commit and the more they commit, the more they will decide. The less they commit, the less they will decide.

This does not mean that the position of the more committed is of more value than that of the less committed. It means that they participate in different decision-making bodies. For example, those more committed participate with voice and vote in the Congresses, which define the political and strategic lines of the organisation; the less committed do not participate in the Congresses, or only participate as observers, and participate in the monthly assemblies where the tactics and practical applications of the lines are defined.

Thus, inside the specific anarchist organisation you may have one or more circles, which should always be defined by the level of commitment of the militants. In the case of more than one level this must be clear to everyone, and the criteria to change a level must be available to all militants. It is, therefore, the militant who chooses where they want to be.

The next circle, more external and distant from the core of the anarchist organisation, is no longer part of the organisation but has a fundamental importance: the level of supporters. This body, or instance, seeks to group together all people who have ideological affinities with the anarchist organisation. Supporters are responsible for assisting the organisation in its practical work, such as the publishing of pamphlets, periodicals or books; the dissemination of propaganda material; helping in the work of producing theory or of contextual analysis; in the organisation of practical activities for social work: community activities, help in training work, logistical activities, help in organising work, etc. This instance of support is where people who have affinities with the anarchist organisation and its work have contact with other militants, are able to deepen their knowledge of the political line of the organisation, better get to know its activities and deepen their vision of anarchism, etc.

Therefore, the category of support has an important role to help the anarchist organisation put into practice its activities, seeking to bring those interested closer to it. This approximation has as a future objective that some of these supporters will become militants of the organisation. The specific anarchist organisation draws in the greatest possible number of supporters and, through practical work, identifies those interested in joining the organisation and who have an appropriate profile for membership. The proposal for entry into the organisation may be made by the militants of the organisation to the supporter and vice-versa. Although each militant chooses their level of commitment to the organisation and where they want to be, the objective of the anarchist organisation is always to have the greatest number of militants in the more internal circles, with a greater level of commitment.

Let us give a practical example: lets suppose that an organisation has deliberated to work internally with two levels of commitment – or two circles. When the militants are new they enter at the level of "militant" and, when they have been there six months and are prepared and committed militants, move on to the level of "full militant". Let us suppose that this organisation has also resolved to have a level of supporters. The objective of the organisation will be to draw in the greatest possible number of supporters, based on the affinity of each one with the organisation, transferring them to the level of militant and, after six months – once prepared – to the level of full militant. We illustrate how this can work in practice.

Diagram 2

SU being the level of supporters, M of militants and FM of full militants, the objective is the flow indicated by the red arrow – to go from SU to M and from M to FM. Those who are interested can follow this flow, and those who are not can stay where they feel better. For example, if a person wants to give sporadic support, and no more than that, they may want to always stay at SU. The issue here is that all a person's will to work should be utilised by the organisation. This is not because a person has little time, or because they prefer to help at a time when it must be rejected, but because inside a specific anarchist organisation there must be room for all those who wish to contribute. "Accomplishments are the criteria for selection that never fail. The aptitude and efficiency of the militants are, fundamentally, measures for the enthusiasm and the application with which they perform their tasks". [120]

The logic of concentric circles requires that each militant and the organisation itself have very well defined rights and duties for each level of commitment. This is because it is not just for someone to make decisions about something with which they will not comply. A supporter who frequents activities once a month and makes sporadic contributions, for example, cannot decide on rules or activities that must be met or carried out daily, as they would be deciding something much more for the other militants than for themselves.

It is a very common practice in libertarian groups that people who make sporadic contributions decide on issues which end up being committed to or carried out by the more permanent members. It is very easy for a militant who appears from time to time to want to set the political line of the organisation, for example, since it is not they who will have to follow this line most of the time.

These are disproportionate forms of decision-making in which one ends up deciding something which others enact. In the model of concentric circles we seek a system of rights and duties in which everyone makes decisions about that which they could and should be committed to afterwards. In this way it is normal for supporters to decide only on that in which they will be involved. In the same way it is normal for militants of the organisation to decide on that which they will carry out. Thus we make decisions and their commitments proportionally and this implies that the organisation has clear criteria for entry, clearly defining who does and does not take part in it, and at what level of commitment the militants are.

An important criteria for entry is that all of the militants who enter the organisation must agree with its political line. For this the anarchist organisation must have theoretical material that expresses this line – in less depth for those who are not yet members of the organisation and in more depth for those who are. When someone is interested in the work of the anarchist organisation, showing interest in approximation, you should make this person a supporter and give them the necessary guidance. As a supporter, knowing the political line in a little more depth and having an affinity for the practical work of the organisation, the person may show interest in joining the organisation or the organisation can express its interest in the supporter becoming a militant. In both cases the supporter should receive permanent guidance from the anarchist organisation, giving to them theoretical material that will deepen their political line. One or more militants who know this line well will discuss doubts, debate and make clarifications with them. Having secured the agreement of the supporter with the political line of the organisation, and with agreement from both parties, the militant is integrated into the organisation. It is important that in the initial period every new militant has the guidance of another older one, who will orient and prepare them for work. In any event, the anarchist organisation always has to concern itself with the training and guidance of the supporters and militants so that this may allow them to change their level of commitment, if they so desire.

This same logic of concentric circles works in social work. Through it the anarchist organisation is articulated to perform social work in the most appropriate and effective way. As we have seen, the anarchist organisation is divided internally into fronts for the performance of practical work. For this there are organisations that prefer to establish direct relations with the social movements, and there are others that prefer to present themselves through an intermediary social organisation, which we could call a grouping of tendency.

Participation in the grouping of tendency implies acceptance of a set of definitions that can be shared by comrades of diverse ideological origins, but which share certain indispensable exclusions (to the reformists, for example) if seeking a minimum level of real operational coherence. (...) The groupings of tendency, co-ordinated with each other and rooted in the most combative of the people (...) are a higher level than the latter [the level of the masses]. [121]

The grouping of tendency puts itself between the social movements and the specific anarchist organisation, bringing together militants of distinct ideologies that have affinity in relation to certain practical questions.

As we have emphasised, there are anarchist organisations that prefer to present themselves directly in the social movements, without the need for the groupings of tendency, and others preferring to present themselves by means of these. In both cases there are positive and negative points and each organisation must determine the best way to act. As the views that we advocate in the social movements are much more practical than theoretical, it may be interesting to work with a grouping of tendency, incorporating people who agree with some or all of the positions that we advocate in the social movements (force, class struggle, autonomy, combativeness, direct action, direct democracy and revolutionary perspective) and that will help us to augment the social force in defence of these positions.

In the same way as in the diagram above, the idea is that the specific anarchist organisation seeks insertion in this intermediate level (grouping of tendency) and through it presents itself, conducting its work in social movements in search of social insertion. Again we illustrate how this works in practice.

Diagram 3

SAO being the specific anarchist organisation, GT the grouping of tendency and SM the social movement, there are two flows.

The first – that of the influence of the SAO – seeks to go through the GT and from there to the SM. Let us look at a few practical examples. The anarchist organisation that desires to act in a union may form a grouping of tendency with other activists from the union movement who defend some specific banners (revolutionary perspective, direct action, etc.) and by means of this tendency may influence the union movement, or the union in which it acts. Or the anarchist organisation may choose to work with the landless movement and, for this, brings people who defend similar positions (autonomy, direct democracy, etc.) in the social movement together in a grouping of tendency. By means of this grouping of tendency the specific anarchist organisation acts within the landless movement and, in this way, seeks to influence it.

This form of organisation aims to solve a very common problem that we find in activism. For example, when we know very dedicated activists; revolutionaries that advocate self-management, autonomy, grassroots democracy, direct democracy, etc. and with whom we do not act because they are not anarchists. These activists could work with the anarchists in the groupings of tendency and defend their positions in the social movements together.

The second arrow in the diagram shows the objective of the flow of militants. That is, in this scheme of work the goal is to bring people in the social movements that have practical affinity with the anarchists into the groupings of tendency and, from there, bring those that have ideological affinity closer to the anarchist organisation. In the same way as in the previous diagram, if a militant has great practical affinity with the anarchists, but is not an anarchist, they must be a member of the grouping of tendency and will be fundamental to the performance of social work. If they have ideological affinities they may be closer to or even join the organisation.

The objective of the anarchist organisation is not to turn all activists into anarchists, but to learn to work with each of these activists in the most appropriate way. While having mutual interests the militants may change their positions in the circles (from the social movement to the grouping of tendency or from the grouping of tendency to the anarchist organisation). Without these mutual interests, however, each one acts where they think it more pertinent.

The decision-making process used in the anarchist organisation is an attempt at consensus, using the vote when consensus is not possible. Unlike some libertarian groups and organisations we believe that consensus should not be mandatory. As we mentioned earlier, besides consensus being a very inefficient form of decision-making, becoming unfeasible the more the number of people involved in the decisions increases, it offers the serious problem of giving great power to isolated agents. In an organisation of 20 militants one could block consensus, or even if 19 were in favour of one position and one another, you would have to have a "middle ground" that would consider, in a very disproportionate way, the only dissenter. To give proper efficiency to the decision-making process and not to give too much power to isolated agents, we chose this model of an attempt at consensus, and when this is not possible, the vote. "If it were in the very bosom of the organisation that the disagreement arose, that the division between majority and minority appeared around minor issues, over practical modalities or over special cases [...], then it may occur more or less easily that the minority are inclined to do as the majority." [122] In the case of voting all the militants of the organisation, even those who are outvoted, have an obligation to follow the winning position. This decision-making process is used to establish theoretical and ideological unity and also for strategic and tactical unity. We will return to these later. At this point it is enough to emphasise that for the struggle we want to pursue, we must put an end to dispersion and disorganisation and "the way to overcome this is to create an organisation that [... is based] on the basis of specific theoretical and tactical positions, and that leads us to a firm understanding of how these should be applied in practice" [123].

It is important to add, too, that the militants must use common sense at the time of decisions by vote. They should carefully observe the positions of militants who are closest to the issues that are being voted on, as these positions are more important than those who are not close, even though they have the same weight in voting. When voting occurs it can be easy for militants not involved in the issue being voted on to determine what others will have to do. Such situations demand caution and those in which all the members that would carry out what was deliberated on lose the vote, and are obliged to apply what was resolved by others, should be avoided.

Also in relation to decisions, at the time in which they are being taken "there must be a lot of space for all discussions and all points of view must be analysed carefully" [124]. After deliberation, "responsibilities [are divided], the members being formally responsible for their execution," since "the organisation does nothing by itself." Then "all the activities that are deliberated and which are the responsibility of the organisation will have, in one way or another, to be executed by its members" and, for this execution, there is the "need to divide the activities between militants, always looking for a model that distributes these activities well and to avoid the concentration of tasks on the more active or capable members". "From the moment in which a militant assumes one or more tasks for the organisation, he has an obligation to perform them and a great responsibility to the group [...]. It is the relationship of commitment that the militant assumes with the organisation."

Furthermore, we believe it to be relevant and reaffirm, once again, that "self-discipline is the engine of the self-managed organisation" and this also applies to the specific anarchist organisation. Thus, "each one that assumes a responsibility must have sufficient discipline to execute it. Likewise, when the organisation determines a line to follow or something to accomplish, it is individual discipline that will cause what is collectively resolved to be realised." We note:

we also ask for discipline, because, without understanding, without co-ordinating the efforts of each one to a common and simultaneous action, victory is not physically possible. But discipline should not be a servile discipline, a blind devotion to leaders, an obedience to the one who always says not to interfere. Revolutionary discipline is consistent with the ideas accepted, fidelity to commitments assumed, it is to feel obliged to share the work and the risks with struggle comrades. [125]

"We believe that in order for our struggle to bear promising fruit it is fundamental that each of the militants of the organisation have a high degree of commitment, responsibility and self-discipline." [126] "It is will and militant commitment that will cause us to go, day after day, towards the development of the organisation’s activities such that we can overcome the obstacles and pave the way for our long-term objectives." [127] Finally, we should know that "responsibility and organisational discipline should not horrify: they are travel companions of the practice of social anarchism" [128].

This position introduces a relation of co-responsibility between the militants and the organisation, it being that the anarchist organisation "will be responsible for the revolutionary and political activity of each member, the same way as each member will be responsible for the revolutionary and political activity" [129] of the anarchist organisation.

[vaspider]

An important definition of terms:

As far as I'm concerned, an assimilationist is someone who believes that queer people must assimilate in order to advance the cause of queer rights. An assimilationist creates a dress code for marches like the Mattachine Society did, fights against queer self-expression at Pride because "it holds back the movement," and believes that the only way for us to move forward is for all queers to live as cishet people do, but with little rainbow flags taped on.

An assimilationist is not "someone who wants the functions and institutions of cishet society to be available to queer people." It's someone who believes the only way to live is assimilated into cishet society, and anything else "holds us back." It's someone who wants Sylvia and Marsha to march at the back, and who prizes cishet aesthetic over practical liberation.

A liberationist is someone who believes that queer liberation is not contingent upon public performance of identity.

Let me repeat that, so we're absolutely clear: a liberationist believes that queer liberation is not contingent upon public performance of identity. ANY IDENTITY.

That means a sufficiently cishet identity and a sufficiently "respectable" identity, but it also means a sufficiently radical identity. If you actually believe in queer liberation, you don't just believe in liberation for people who look, act, and believe like you. You believe in liberation for people who genuinely want to get married, have babies by IVF and live in the suburbs as well as for people who want to live childfree on an anarchist trans commune/Llama farm.

I hear people use the term "Assimilationist" and "Assimilationist Victories" to dismiss as meaningless those victories that are insufficiently radical for their tastes, and that to me is only proof that those people are not actually liberationists in any meaningful way. In liberation, there must be room for people who actually do just want to get married and live quiet, content lives going to their kid's baseball games.

The difference between Assimilationist thought and Liberationist thought cannot be simply replacing "we need to blend in" with "we need to stick out." It cannot simply replace "we must be integrated into cishet society" with "we cannot ever integrate into cishet society and anything which permits us to do that if we so choose is insufficiently liberationist." That's the organizational equivalent of yelling YOU'RE NOT MY REAL DAD, and I'm fucking over it, y'all.

My liberation doesn't have to be your liberation. Your liberation doesn't have to look like mine. What matters is that we are helping each other up the mountain and making long-term plans to get to where we can, and that we recognize that every choice we make is going to leave someone behind, and we account for that and plan for that so we don't leave them behind forever.

We cannot regard gay marriage or gays in the military or instituting a nationwide right to transition or any of our future goals as an endpoint. They are only goals part of the way up the mountain.

We don't get to the top until we are all free to live as we choose without government or societal interference or sanction, and without having to perform an identity for those rights and respect. The freedom to be ourselves must include the right to "blue hair and pronouns" but it also must include the right to "your kid's school plays and a duplex in a suburb." The latter is not an assimilationist lifestyle unless you try to enforce it on everyone.

I'm so, so tired of people acting like they're radical thinkers for poo-pooing the civil rights advances that the community has achieved through literally decades of work as "assimilationist victories." That's not clever, cute, or correct. Every. Single. One. Of those victories is written in tears and sweat and blood. Every single one is wrapped in the funeral shrouds of people who died fighting for it. Every single one was achieved not by assimilationists alone, but neither by people who think the only true victories are the ones sufficiently pure in their leftist credentials.

It is extremely possible and indeed likely that if you judge queers by their aesthetic, you will miss partnering with some of the most radical people and shackle your movement to people who cloak regressive politics in radical language. I've heard some truly noxious words come out of mouths framed by snakebites, and I've known extremely radical thinkers who look like your grandma. And I gotta tell you, in those local elections which keep school boards free from Moms For Liberty? The latter are useful people for liberationists to know and have in our camp, those people who think like liberationists but look like your grandma or your auntie.

Enforcement of aesthetic as a condition of liberation is assimilationist thought. It doesn't matter if the assimilation is to pink hair and tattoos or polo shirts and khakis - enforcement of aesthetic and philosophy as a condition of liberation is assimilationist thought. It's just replacing one kind of demanded conformity with another, and when we say "none of us are free until all of us are free," that also means free to be fucking boring if we want to, full stop.

We talk a lot about how much work goes into being disabled, how much work we have to put into making appointments, and fighting bureaucracy, but this is also true of queer life. Freedom comes with ease, with being easily able to update paperwork, with being easily able to find employment and housing, with being easily able to create the family structures we want to live in. When all of us can wake up in the morning assured of security in our beds, food in our bellies, meds in our med trays as needed, and a day ahead of us filled with chosen purpose and chosen meaning, which ends with us back in the bed of our choice at the end of the day, fulfilled in purpose and secure in our homes and chosen families, then we are free, and not before.

You may notice a seeming contradiction in this, in that my liberationist philosophy has room in it for the very people who are currently annoying the fuck out of me by demanding allegiance to a leftist aesthetic over practical liberation (that is, a movement based in harm reduction and long-term strategy over adherence to leftist purity of thought).

This is not a contradiction.

It is not a bug. It is a feature. My liberationist ideals mean that people have to have the right to be wrong without their liberty hinging on being right, that's all. :)

[cosmicpuzzle]

Mercury in Houses

Mercury in 1st House

You are an intellectual person and have a lot of questions. You are curious and restless. You may have difficulty slowing down your mind. You are quick witted and mercurial (especially in signs Gemini, Virgo, Aries). You learn a lot from experiences than textbooks. You can be proud intellectually or don't appreciate others viewpoints.

Mercury in 2nd House

Your mind is often focused on financial matters and wealth. You often think about increasing your income. You have a good mind for selling and commerce and may succeed in business. You can micromanage your finances. You may be a good speaker too.

Mercury in 3rd House

You have an active mind, and you are good at writing and communication. You are a quick learner and may be employed in customer care, IT and education sector. You love short travels on cycles, bikes, trains and cars. You can have a lot of contacts.

Mercury in 4th House

You can be bit introverted, and your feelings are strong. You are interested in psychology and the past. You are interested in human behavior. You are nostalgic and remember things from the past. You can change residences often.

Mercury in 5th House

You are interested in love and romance. You are communicative and flirty in love. Your thoughts are on romance and fun often. You can be a creative person and do well with storytelling. You like to read romantic novels and may publish storybooks for children. You can be good at stockmarket.

Mercury in 6th House

You can be nervous and interested in health, diet and hygiene. You are a hard worker and do well in fields related to numbers, accounting and documents. You are good in solving day to day problems practically and efficiently.

Mercury in 7th House

You are attracted to people who are intelligent, witty and communicative and seek these attributes in a partner. Intellectual rapport with others is important to you. You need to feel that you can discuss any aspect of your relationship with your partner. You are suited to public relations work, as you enjoy meeting people and dealing with the public in general.

Mercury in 8th House

You have a deep interest in occult and metaphysics. You can be uncommunicative and reserved. You are good at research and investigation. You may be good at managing other's assets and in corporate finance.

Mercury in 9th House

You are interested in higher knowledge, philosophy and spiritual matters. You are motivated to broaden your horizons. You can travel abroad for education and may be good at learning foreign languages.

Mercury in 10th House

Your mind is focused on professional achievement. You are suited to business, academic work, writing, journalism, politics and the communication industries. You have organizational skills, leadership capabilities and the ability to make executive decisions. You enjoy variety in your profession and may hold down more than one job or seek a career that constantly tests your skills.

Mercury in 11th House

Spending time with your friends is important to you. You belong to common interest groups or societies. A natural networker, you are able to bring people together for a purpose or cause.

Mercury in 12th House

You need to create a space in your life where you can retreat into your own private thoughts. You are quite happy in your own company and tend to prefer to work alone or behind-the-scenes. You may forget things easily.

For Readings DM

[soberpluto]

Astrology Notes: What Binds Opposite Signs Together

Hi everyone! I haven't been here for a while, so it's good to be back again.

Little announcement: visit my site for Tarot and Astrology readings with a 25% off throughout November!

Here's a little piece on general knowledge about the 12 signs as a way to understand them better without having to memorize all their specific qualities... you can think of this as having 6 coins, each sign describing one side and its counterpart the other.

Aries-Libra (axis of the self and others): both seek reassurance and worth through people and they are good at making things happen (these are Cardinal signs). Aries wants to lead, conquer and be recognized, while Libra wants to connect, harmonize and be cherished. Both need people to feel fulfilled, and both are equally entrepreneurial even though one engages from instinct and embodies the active principle, and the other engages from the brain and embodies the receptive principle to achieve their goals.

Taurus-Scorpio (axis of value and power): both seek power, are very sensual (and sexual), private and deep, even if one is not aware at first impression. They are quite relentless and stubborn in their ways because of their Fixed modality. Taurus seeks respect, comfort and safety in his own ability to make money and from physical pleasure, while Scorpio uses emotional depth, sexuality, other people's resources and spiritual transformation to achieve the same. Both can be pretty obsessive, greedy, vindictive, hedonistic and visceral if unevolved.

Gemini-Sagittarius (axis of the mind and information): both are adaptable, love learning and teaching, and they are inspired by knowledge and movement. Gemini needs stimulation from their close surroundings and feels transcendence from drilling down information and from their ability to network, while Sagittarius likes to look at the big picture and uses his insights to pursue his own truth. Both see travel, information and interactions as highly valuable, but can be a bit fickle and non-committal because of their need to be constantly on the move.

Cancer-Capricorn (axis of family and patrimony): both are highly dependable, trustworthy and traditional. They value stability, family and lasting relationships, even if they have only a few. Cancer focuses on protection, emotional depth and nurturing to feel fulfilled (female archetype) and Capricorn feels safe through structure, provision and industriousness (male archetype). Both have excellent financial, organizational and managerial skills, and are quite proactive when they are invested in something. Both are sensitive but dislike appearing vulnerable... emotions can be their undoing.

Leo-Aquarius (axis of entertainment and society): both signs are inventive and find a sense of meaning through creativity and uniqueness. None of them like to follow, as they feel entitled to (and proud of) their authenticity and own mindset. Leo loves the expression of its spirit and desires admiration as a form as validation, while Aquarius seeks for righteousness and belonging through the appraisal of its mind. Both communicate what's inside in brilliant ways but can be quite headstrong and proud at times.

Virgo-Pisces (axis of service and wellness): both are humble, modest, gentle and adore being of service and utility. Since they sit in the axis of health, both are healers, although Virgo does it through his brainpower and dexterity, while Pisces from a spiritual, imaginative and intuitive place. Both are selfless and subservient, and because of this, they can suffer from abuse or mistreatment often than other signs, but one of their greatest assets is their ability to help and empower others through service.

That's all! Hope this is helpful 🥰

Written by @soberpluto

[communist-manifesto-daily]

Socialism: Utopian and Scientific - Part 31

[ First | Prev | Table of Contents | Next ]

We have seen that the capitalistic mode of production thrust its way into a society of commodity-producers, of individual producers, whose social bond was the exchange of their products. But every society based upon the production of commodities has this peculiarity: that the producers have lost control over their own social inter-relations. Each man produces for himself with such means of production as he may happen to have, and for such exchange as he may require to satisfy his remaining wants. No one knows how much of his particular article is coming on the market, nor how much of it will be wanted. No one knows whether his individual product will meet an actual demand, whether he will be able to make good his costs of production or even to sell his commodity at all. Anarchy reigns in socialized production.

But the production of commodities, like every other form of production, has it peculiar, inherent laws inseparable from it; and these laws work, despite anarchy, in and through anarchy. They reveal themselves in the only persistent form of social inter-relations — i.e., in exchange — and here they affect the individual producers as compulsory laws of competition. They are, at first, unknown to these producers themselves, and have to be discovered by them gradually and as the result of experience. They work themselves out, therefore, independently of the producers, and in antagonism to them, as inexorable natural laws of their particular form of production. The product governs the producers.

In mediaeval society, especially in the earlier centuries, production was essentially directed toward satisfying the wants of the individual. It satisfied, in the main, only the wants of the producer and his family. Where relations of personal dependence existed, as in the country, it also helped to satisfy the wants of the feudal lord. In all this there was, therefore, no exchange; the products, consequently, did not assume the character of commodities. The family of the peasant produced almost everything they wanted: clothes and furniture, as well as the means of subsistence. Only when it began to produce more than was sufficient to supply its own wants and the payments in kind to the feudal lords, only then did it also produce commodities. This surplus, thrown into socialized exchange and offered for sale, became commodities.

The artisan in the towns, it is true, had from the first to produce for exchange. But they, also, themselves supplied the greatest part of their individual wants. They had gardens and plots of land. They turned their cattle out into the communal forest, which, also, yielded them timber and firing. The women spun flax, wool, and so forth. Production for the purpose of exchange, production of commodities, was only in its infancy. Hence, exchange was restricted, the market narrow, the methods of production stable; there was local exclusiveness without, local unity within; the mark in the country; in the town, the guild.

But with the extension of the production of commodities, and especially with the introduction of the capitalist mode of production, the laws of commodity-production, hitherto latent, came into action more openly and with greater force. The old bonds were loosened, the old exclusive limits broken through, the producers were more and more turned into independent, isolated producers of commodities. It became apparent that the production of society at large was ruled by absence of plan, by accident, by anarchy; and this anarchy grew to greater and greater height. But the chief means by aid of which the capitalist mode of production intensified this anarchy of socialized production was the exact opposite of anarchy. It was the increasing organization of production, upon a social basis, in every individual productive establishment. By this, the old, peaceful, stable condition of things was ended. Wherever this organization of production was introduced into a branch of industry, it brooked no other method of production by its side. The field of labor became a battle-ground. The great geographical discoveries, and the colonization following them, multiplied markets and quickened the transformation of handicraft into manufacture. The war did not simply break out between the individual producers of particular localities. The local struggles begat, in their turn, national conflicts, the commercial wars of the 17th and 18th centuries.

[ First | Prev | Table of Contents | Next ]

[racefortheironthrone]

OK, I'll bite - what's the deal with the United Farm Workers? What were their strengths and weaknesses compared to other labor unions?

It is not an easy thing to talk about the UFW, in part because it wasn't just a union. At the height of its influence in the 1960s and 1970s, it was also a civil rights movement that was directly inspired by the SCLC campaigns of Martin Luther King and owed its success as much to mass marches, hunger strikes, media attention, and the mass mobilization of the public in support of boycotts that stretched across the United States and as far as Europe as it did to traditional strikes and picket lines.

It was also a social movement that blended powerful strains of Catholic faith traditions with Chicano/Latino nationalism inspired by the black power movement, that reshaped the identity of millions away from asimilation into white society and towards a fierce identification with indigeneity, and challenged the racist social hierarchy of rural California.

It was also a political movement that transformed Latino voting behavior, established political coalitions with the Kennedys, Jerry Brown, and the state legislature, that pushed through legislation and ran statewide initiative campaigns, and that would eventually launch the careers of generations of Latino politicians who would rise to the very top of California politics.

However, it was also a movement that ultimately failed in its mission to remake the brutal lives of California farmworkers, which currently has only 7,000 members when it once had more than 80,000, and which today often merely trades on the memory of its celebrated founders Dolores Huerta and Cesar Chavez rather than doing any organizing work.

To explain the strengths and weaknesses of the UFW, we have to start with some organizational history, because the UFW was the result of the merger of several organizations each with their own strengths and weaknesses.

The Origins of the UFW:

To explain the strengths and weaknesses of the UFW, we have to start with some organizational history, because the UFW was the result of the merger of several organizations each with their own strengths and weaknesses.

In the 1950s, both Dolores Huerta and Cesar Chavez were community organizers working for a group called the Community Service Organization (an affiliate of Saul Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation) that sought to aid farmworkers living in poverty. Huerta and Chavez were trained in a novel strategy of grassroots, door-to-door organizing aimed not at getting workers to sign union cards, but to agree to host a house meeting where co-workers could gather privately to discuss their problems at work free from the surveillance of their bosses. This would prove to be very useful in organizing the fields, because unlike the traditional union model where organizers relied on the NRLB's rulings to directly access the factory floors, Central California farms were remote places where white farm owners and their white overseers would fire shotguns at brown "trespassers" (union-friendly workers, organizers, picketers).

In 1962, Chavez and Huerta quit CSO to found the National Farm Workers Association, which was really more of a worker center offering support services (chiefly, health care) to independent groups of largely Mexican farmworkers. In 1965, they received a request to provide support to workers dealing with a strike against grape growers in Delano, California.

In Delano, Chavez and Huerta met Larry Itliong of the Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee (AWOC), which was a more traditional labor union of migrant Filipino farmworkers who had begun the strike over sub-minimum wages. Itliong wanted Chavez and Huerta to organize Mexican farmworkers who had been brought in as potential strikebreakers and get them to honor the picket line.

The result of their collaboration was the formation of the United Farm Workers as a union of the AFL-CIO. The UFW would very much be marked by a combination of (and sometimes conflict between) AWOC's traditional union tactics - strikes, pickets, card drives, employer-based campaigns, and collective bargaining for union contracts - and NFWA's social movement strategy of marches, boycotts, hunger strikes, media campaigns, mobilization of liberal politicians, and legislative campaigns.

1965 to 1970: the Rise of the UFW:

While the strike starts with 2,000 Filipino workers and 1,200 Mexican families targeting Delano area growers, it quickly expanded to target more growers and bring more workers to the picket lines, eventually culminating in 10,000 workers striking against the whole of the table grape growers of California across the length and breadth of California.

Throughout 1966, the UFW faced extensive violence from the growers, from shotguns used as "warning shots" to hand-to-hand violence, to driving cars into pickets, to turning pesticide-spraying machines onto picketers. Local police responded to the violence by effectively siding with the growers, and would arrest UFW picketers for the crime of calling the police.

Chavez strongly emphasized a non-violent response to the growers' tactics - to the point of engaging in a Gandhian hunger strike against his own strikers in 1968 to quell discussions about retaliatory violence - but also began to employ a series of civil rights tactics that sought to break what had effectively become a stalemate on the picket line by side-stepping the picket lines altogether and attacking the growers on new fronts.

First, he sought the assistance of outside groups and individuals who would be sympathetic to the plight of the farmworker and could help bring media attention to the strike - UAW President Walter Reuther and Senator Robert Kennedy both visited Delano to express their solidarity, with Kennedy in particular holding hearings that shined a light on the issue of violence and police violations of the civil rights of UFW picketers.

Second, Chavez hit on the tactic of using boycotts as a way of exerting economic pressure on particular growers and leveraging the solidarity of other unions and consumers - the boycotts began when Chavez enlisted Dolores Huerta to follow a shipment of grapes from Schenley Industries (the first grower to be boycotted) to the Port of Oakland. There, Huerta reached out to the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union and persuaded them to honor the boycott and refuse to handle non-union grapes. Schenley's grapes started to rot on the docks, cutting them off from the market, and between the effects of union solidarity and growing consumer participation in the UFW's boycotts, the growers started to come under real economic pressure as their revenue dropped despite a record harvest.

Throughout the rest of the Delano grape strike, Dolores Huerta would be the main organizer of the national and internal boycotts, travelling across the country (and eventually all the way to the UK) to mobilize unions and faith groups to form boycott committees and boycott houses in major cities that in turn could educate and mobilize ordinary consumers through a campaign of leafleting and picketing at grocery stores.

Third, the UFW organized the first of its marches, a 300-mile trek from Delano to the state capital of Sacramento aimed at drawing national attention to the grape strike and attempting to enlist the state government to pass labor legislation that would give farmworkers the right to organize. Carefully organized by Cesar Chavez to draw on Mexican faith traditions, the march would be labelled a "pilgrimage," and would be timed to begin during Lent and culminate during Easter. In addition to American flags and the UFW banner, the march would be led by "pilgrims" carrying a banner of Our Lady of Guadelupe.

While this strategy was ultimately effective in its goal of influencing the broader Latino community in California to see the UFW as not just a union but a vehicle for the broader aspirations of the whole Latino community for equality and social justice, what became known in Chicano circles as La Causa, the emphasis on Mexican symbolism and Chicano identity contributed to a growing tension with the Filipino half of the UFW, who felt that they were being sidelined in a strike they had started.

Nevertheless, by the time that the UFW's pilgrimage arrived at Sacramento, news broke that they had won their first breakthrough in the strike as Schenley Industries (which had been suffering through a four-month national boycott of its products) agreed to sign the first UFW union contract, delivering a much-needed victory.

As the strike dragged on, growers were not passively standing by - in addition to doubling down on the violence by hiring strikebreakers to assault pro-UFW farmworkers, growers turned to the Teamsters Union as a way of pre-empting the UFW, either by pre-emptively signing contracts with the Teamsters or effectively backing the Teamsters in union elections.

Part of the darker legacy of the Teamsters is that, going all the back to the 1930s, they have a nasty habit of raiding other unions, and especially during their mobbed-up days would work with the bosses to sign sweetheart deals that allowed the Teamsters to siphon dues money from workers (who had not consented to be represented by the Teamsters, remember) while providing nothing in the way of wage increases or improved working conditions, usually in exchange for bribes and/or protection money from the employers. Moreover, the Teamsters had no compunction about using violence to intimidate rank-and-file workers and rival unions in order to defend their "paper locals" or win a union election. This would become even more of an issue later on, but it started up as early as 1966.

Moreover, the growers attempted to adapt to the UFW's boycott tactics by sharing labels, such that a boycotted company would sell their products under the guise of being from a different, non-boycotted company. This forced the UFW to change its boycott tactics in turn, so that instead of targeting individual growers for boycott, they now asked unions and consumers alike to boycott all table grapes from the state of California.

By 1970, however, the growing strength of the national grape boycott forced no fewer than 26 Delano grape growers to the bargaining table to sign the UFW's contracts. Practically overnight, the UFW grew from a membership of 10,000 strikers (none of whom had contracts, remember) to nearly 70,000 union members covered by collective bargaining agreements.

1970 to 1978: The UFW Confronts Internal and External Crises

Up until now, I've been telling the kind of simple narrative of gradual but inevitable social progress that U.S history textbooks like, the Hollywood story of an oppressed minority that wins a David and Goliath struggle against a violent, racist oligarchy through the kind of non-violent methods that make white allies feel comfortable and uplifted. (It's not an accident that the bulk of the 2014 film Cesar Chavez starring Michael Peña covers the Delano Grape Strike.)

It's also the period in which the UFW's strengths as an organization that came out of the community organizing/civil rights movement were most on display. In the eight years that followed, however, the union would start to experience a series of crises that would demonstrate some of the weaknesses of that same institutional legacy. As Matt Garcia describes in From the Jaws of Victory, in the wake of his historic victory in 1970, Cesar Chavez began to inflict a series of self-inflicted injuries on the UFW that crippled the functioning of the union, divided leadership and rank-and-file alike, and ultimately distracted from the union's external crises at a time when the UFW could not afford to be distracted.

That's not to say that this period was one of unbroken decline - as we'll discuss, the UFW would win many victories in this period - but the union's forward momentum was halted and it would spend much of the 1970s trying to get back to where it was at the very start of the decade.

To begin with, we should discuss the internal contradictions of the UFW: one of the major features of the UFW's new contracts was that they replaced the shape-up with the hiring hall. This gave the union an enormous amount of power in terms of hiring, firing and management of employees, but the quid-pro-quo of this system is that it puts a significant administrative burden on the union. Not only do you have to have to set up policies that fairly decide who gets work and when, but you then have to even-handedly enforce those policies on a day-to-day basis in often fraught circumstances - and all of this is skilled white-collar labor.

This ran into a major bone of contention within the movement. When the locus of the grape strike had shifted from the fields to the urban boycotts, this had made a new constituency within the union - white college-educated hippies who could do statistical research, operate boycott houses, and handle media campaigns. These hippies had done yeoman's work for the union and wanted to keep on doing that work, but they also needed to earn enough money to pay the rent and look after their growing families, and in general shift from being temporary volunteers to being professional union staffers.

This ran head-long into a buzzsaw of racial and cultural tension. Similar to the conflicts over the role of white volunteers in CORE/SNCC during the Civil Rights Movement, there were a lot of UFW leaders and members who had come out of the grassroots efforts in the field who felt that the white college kids were making a play for control over the UFW. This was especially driven by Cesar Chavez' religiously-inflected ideas of Catholic sacrifice and self-denial, embodied politically as the idea that a salary of $5 a week (roughly $30 a week in today's money) was a sign of the purity of one's "missionary work." This worked itself out in a series of internicene purges whereby vital college-educated staff were fired for various crimes of ideological disunity.

This all would have been survivable if Chavez had shown any interest in actually making the union and its hiring halls work. However, almost from the moment of victory in 1970, Chavez showed almost no interest in running the union as a union - instead, he thought that the most important thing was relocating the UFW's headquarters to a commune in La Paz, or creating the Poor People's Union as a way to organize poor whites in the San Joaquin Valley, or leaving the union altogether to become a Catholic priest, or joining up with the Synanon cult to run criticism sessions in La Paz. In the mean-time, a lot of the UFW's victories were withering on the vine as workers in the fields got fed up with hiring halls that couldn't do their basic job of making sure they got sufficient work at the right wages.

Externally, all of this was happening during the second major round of labor conflicts out in the fields. As before, the UFW faced serious conflicts with the Teamsters, first in the so-called "Salad Bowl Strike" that lasted from 1970-1971 and was at the time the largest and most violent agricultural strike in U.S history - only then to be eclipsed in 1973 with the second grape strike. Just as with the Salinas strike, the grape growers in 1973 shifted to a strategy of signing sweetheart deals with the Teamsters - and using Teamster muscle to fight off the UFW's new grape strike and boycott. UFW pickets were shot at and killed in drive-byes by Teamster trucks, who then escalated into firebombing pickets and UFW buildings alike.

After a year of violence, reduced support from the rank-and-file, and declining resources, Chavez and the UFW felt that their backs were up against a wall - and had to adjust their tactics accordingly. With the election of Jerry Brown as governor in 1974, the UFW pivoted to a strategy of pressuring the state government to enact a California Agricultural Labor Relations Act that would give agricultural workers the right to organize, and with that all the labor protections normally enjoyed by industrial workers under the Federal National Labor Relations Act - at the cost of giving up the freedom to boycott and conduct secondary strikes which they had had as outsiders to the system.

This led to the semi-miraculous Modesto March, itself a repeat of the Delano-to-Sacramento march from the 1960s. Starting as just a couple hundred marchers in San Francisco, the March swelled to as many as 15,000-strong by the time that it reached its objective at Modesto. This caused a sudden sea-change in the grape strike, bringing the growers and the Teamsters back to the table, and getting Jerry Brown and the state legislature to back passage of California Agricultural Labor Relations Act.

This proved to be the high-water mark for the UFW, which swelled to a peak of 80,000 members. The problem was that the old problems within the UFW did not go away - victory in 1975 didn't stop Chavez and his Chicano constituency feuding with more distinctively Mexican groups within the movement over undocumented immigration, nor feuding with Filipino constituencies over a meeting with Ferdinand Marcos, and nor escalating these internal conflicts into a series of leadership purges.

Conclusion: Decline and Fall

At the same time, the new alliance with the Agricultural Labor Relations Board proved to be a difficult one for the UFW. While establishment of the agency proved to be a major boon for the UFW, which won most of the free elections under CALRA (all the while continuing to neglect the critical hiring hall issue), the state legislature badly underfunded ALRB, forcing the agency to temporarily shut down. The UFW responded by sponsoring Prop 14 in the 1976 elections to try to empower ALRB, and then got very badly beaten in that election cycle - and then, when Republican George Deukmejian was elected in 1983, the ALRB was largely defunded and unable to achieve its original elective goals.

In the wake of Deukmejian, the UFW went into terminal decline. Most of its best organizers had left or been purged in internal struggles, their contracts failed to succeed over the long run due to the hiring hall problem, and the union basically stopped organizing new members after 1986.

[saylessastrology]

Saylessastrology Observations - Capricorn

1. Sun in Capricorn: Individuals with the Sun in Capricorn are known for their ambitious, practical, and disciplined nature. They have a strong sense of responsibility and a drive for success. They possess a patient and persevering attitude and are willing to work hard to achieve their goals. They value structure, organization, and long-term planning.

2. Moon in Capricorn: With the Moon in Capricorn, emotional stability and practicality are emphasized. These individuals approach their emotions with a sense of maturity and responsibility. They may appear reserved or stoic, but they possess a deep sense of loyalty and a strong work ethic. They seek security and stability in their personal and emotional lives.

3. Mercury in Capricorn: Mercury in Capricorn individuals have a focused and strategic mindset. They possess excellent organizational skills and a practical approach to communication. They are methodical in their thinking and prefer to analyze and plan before taking action. They value clear and concise communication and often excel in areas that require structure and precision.

4. Venus in Capricorn: With Venus in Capricorn, individuals approach love and relationships with a practical and pragmatic mindset. They value stability and commitment in their partnerships. They are attracted to individuals who exhibit ambition, responsibility, and a strong work ethic. They may have a reserved and cautious approach to expressing affection but are deeply loyal and devoted to their loved ones.

5. Mars in Capricorn: Mars in Capricorn individuals possess a focused and determined energy. They have strong self-discipline and the ability to work diligently toward their goals. They are willing to invest time and effort to achieve success and may have a natural talent for strategic planning. They possess a strong sense of responsibility and exhibit great patience in their actions.

6. Jupiter in Capricorn: Individuals with Jupiter in Capricorn experience expansion and growth through discipline and hard work. They have a practical and realistic approach to life. They value long-term achievements and possess a strong sense of responsibility and integrity. They have the ability to manifest their goals through persistence and careful planning.

7. Saturn in Capricorn: Those with Saturn in Capricorn have a deep sense of responsibility, self-discipline, and a strong work ethic. They possess a practical and cautious nature and are willing to put in the necessary effort to achieve success. They have a deep respect for tradition and structure and may possess leadership qualities. They often experience personal growth and maturity through challenges and hardships.

8. Uranus in Capricorn: Uranus in Capricorn individuals possess a progressive and unconventional mindset within the context of societal structures. They have a desire to bring change and innovation to established systems. They may challenge traditional authority and seek to revolutionize the areas of life governed by Capricorn’s influence.

9. Neptune in Capricorn: Individuals with Neptune in Capricorn possess a practical and grounded approach to spirituality and dreams. They may find inspiration and fulfillment through hard work and structured pursuits. They may have a talent for manifesting their visions in a tangible and practical way.

10. Pluto in Capricorn: Pluto in Capricorn individuals experience transformation and regeneration through the transformation of societal structures. They have a profound influence on the structures and systems of society, bringing about deep and lasting change. They possess the ability to rebuild and transform old systems into new and more efficient ones.

11. Capricorn Ascendant individuals possess a composed and dignified presence. They often have a lean and well-structured physique, with a reserved and serious demeanor. Their facial features may be chiseled and their posture is typically upright and poised. People with Capricorn Ascendant have a mature and responsible aura. They approach life with a strong sense of discipline, ambition, and a desire for achievement. They value hard work, perseverance, and long-term planning. They have a natural inclination to take on responsibilities and may be seen as reliable and trustworthy. Capricorn Ascendant individuals are known for their professionalism and their ability to project an air of authority. They have a strong work ethic and are often driven to succeed in their chosen endeavors. They possess a natural sense of responsibility and are willing to invest the necessary time and effort to achieve their goals. In social settings, Capricorn Ascendant individuals may appear reserved and cautious. They prefer meaningful and practical conversations over superficial small talk. They value quality over quantity when it comes to relationships and prefer a close circle of trusted friends. These individuals have a practical and grounded approach to life. They possess excellent organizational skills and are adept at managing their time and resources effectively. They have a natural ability to navigate the complexities of life and often excel in roles that require leadership, structure, and long-term planning.

[bimboficationblues]

I do have a general question about the liberalism-security thesis - the thing is, the actual mechanisms that seem to characterize liberalism for you (money, markets, positive law and related enforcement mechanisms, and specific mechanisms to reform said law) are also mechanisms you find in historical antecedents to modern states, the prime example being Rome during both the Republic and Empire periods (and China from the Qin dynasty forward, to some extent) that I think would be a stretch to characterize as "liberal," although certainly a lot of liberals took inspiration from idealized versions of them. And, of course, due to their flexible foundations these concepts have been successfully implemented by classically "illiberal" states of varying types.

So my question is - to what degree does it make sense to characterize these features as liberalism-in-practice, as opposed to just features of bureaucratic states in general? I know to some extent liberal thought dominates the ideological basis for what a modern state is supposed to be, but since (as you put it) these systems are basically agnostic in most cases towards different concepts of the social good, and they in several cases pre-date the development of what I'd consider capitalism per se, I'm not sure how much we can actually pin the blame on Locke, Mill and successors, as tempting as that is.

More to the point (and this is my own 'having a plan' bias showing), I'm skeptical as to whether this framing points toward said bureaucratic structures not being adaptable to a classless social order. If anything, to me this framing seems to point to modern state systems being much more ideologically and practically amenable to a classless society than my (and from what I can tell, your) gut instinct and experience would suggest.

Whether communism is actually doable and worth-it is of course a big question beyond the scope of what you're writing. But it seems like you are trying to say that the tendency of law to enforce predictable outcomes, or attempt to do so, is inevitably and inescapably tied to class society, and I think the hows and whys of that are not super clear to me, or at least not obvious inferences from what you've said so far.

Also, as you said, it's not totally unreasonable to want "security," or at least a relatively consistent social framework for some types of social problems - so to me, that leaves the onus on you to show why supporting this organizational ethic is either impossible or undesirable, which does seem like a tall order.

okay so one at a time

These things predate liberalism so what's up with that?: super helpful question - I think that there is a qualitative difference in kind between these things as they manifested in pre-capitalist societies and in capitalist society (particularly the combinations thereof). as to what that qualitative difference is I could just gesture at the early chapters of Capital and go "something like that" but I think that's part of the investigation to be undertaken to avoid resting on Marx's laurels and agreeing to his limits. and yes, to be clear, I do not think that Locke & co. are necessarily the dispositive force here - I think the history of political thought (HPT) is useful as a framing, as reflective of a time, but obviously being able to point to writers doesn't reveal anything about how people behave. what it does illustrate is how these kinds of considerations were at the forefronts of people's minds during these historical developments.

Is this something unique to liberalism or just a feature of bureaucratic statecraft?: this is one thing I was chewing on as I was writing that response - it's possible that "liberalism" is too load-bearing in my argument, or alternatively that I may be trying to synthesize too many separate arguments (i.e. my reading of liberalism in the HPT as a post-aristocratic and legalistic mode of thought, plus an in-progress theory regarding the modern state as embodiment of "security" in capitalism). it might be worth trying to strain out the different threads (and I think there's probably more than just those two) to see if/where they actually link. the risks of trying to answer a Tumblr ask and suddenly you're outlining a book project.

Wouldn't your analysis suggest that bureaucratic states could transition to a non-class society?: I'm not totally following the connection you're drawing, if you could clarify I'd appreciate it!

What are the mechanisms that link contemporary law to class society?: Right - this is I think going to be the major point of investigation and analysis so difficult to sum up here, rather than to take this question as a guiding one. But Foucault has an interesting discussion of what I'm gesturing at in D&P in the context of France; I want to tease that out more, or in a different/intersecting direction:

Furthermore, although a large part of the bourgeoisie had accepted, without too much trouble, the illegality of rights, it found it difficult to support illegality when it was a question of its own property rights. Nothing could be more typical of this than the problem of peasant delinquency at the end of the eighteenth century and especially after the Revolution. The transition to an intensive agriculture exercised, over the rights to use common lands, over various tolerated practices, over small accepted illegalities, a more and more restrictive pressure. Furthermore, as it was acquired in part by the bourgeoisie, now free of the feudal burdens that once weighed upon it, landed property became absolute property: all the tolerated 'rights' that the peasantry had acquired or preserved (the abandonment of old obligations or the consolidation of irregular practices: the right of free pasture, wood-collecting, etc.) were now rejected by the new owners who regarded them quite simply as theft (thus leading, among the people, to a series of chain reactions of an increasingly illegal, or, if one prefers the term, criminal kind: breaches of close, the theft or killing of cattle, fires, assaults, murders. The illegality of rights, which often meant the survival of the most deprived, tended, with the new status of property, to become an illegality of property. It then had to be punished.

5. What's wrong with security, anyway?: Well, I think the normative issue that I'm hinting at is the inescapability of poverty and deprivation under this kind of society, and thus (common theme of us critical Marx-influenced types), this fixation on the creation and maintenance of security becomes its opposite: the constant generation of insecurity. not to necessarily say we need a "true" security but that, if indeed this is a value we might hold (and on some level it is), this mode of thought and organization does not achieve it. and the "security" in question pursued by the modern state is not just like, general security - obviously there are lots and lots of people who do not live in a sate of "security" even under these conditions - but rather securing the rule of capital and the sanctity of private property, ideologically manifesting as the perpetuation of "civilization."

I hope I accurately and fairly represented your questions.

[mariacallous]

A database containing sensitive, sometimes personal information from the United Nations Trust Fund to End Violence Against Women was openly accessible on the internet, revealing more than 115,000 files related to organizations that partner with or receive funding from UN Women. The documents range from staffing information and contracts to letters and even detailed financial audits about organizations working with vulnerable communities around the world, including under repressive regimes.

Security researcher Jeremiah Fowler discovered the database, which was not password protected or otherwise access controlled, and disclosed the finding to the UN, which secured the database. Such incidents are not uncommon, and many researchers regularly find and disclose examples of exposures to help organizations correct data management mistakes. But Fowler emphasizes that this ubiquity is exactly why it is important to continue to raise awareness about the threat of such misconfigurations. The UN Women database is a prime example of a small error that could create additional risk for women, children, and LGBTQ people living in hostile situations worldwide.

“They're doing great work and helping real people on the ground, but the cybersecurity aspect is still critical,” Fowler tells WIRED. “I've found lots of data before, including from all sorts of government agencies, but these organizations are helping people who are at risk just for being who they are, where they are.”

A spokesperson for UN Women tells WIRED in a statement that the organization appreciates collaboration from cybersecurity researchers and combines any outside findings with its own telemetry and monitoring.

“As per our incident response procedure, containment measures were rapidly put in place and investigative actions are being taken,” the spokesperson said of the database Fowler discovered. “We are in the process of assessing how to communicate with the potential affected persons so that they are aware and alert as well as incorporating the lessons learned to prevent similar incidents in the future.”

The data could expose people in multiple ways. At the organizational level, some of the financial audits include bank account information, but more broadly, the disclosures provide granular detail on where each organization gets its funding and how it budgets. The information also includes breakdowns of operating costs, and details about employees that could be used to map the interconnections between civil society groups in a country or region. Such information is also ripe for abuse in scams since the UN is such a trusted organization, and the exposed data would provide details on internal operations and potentially serve as templates for malicious actors to create legitimate-looking communications that purport to come from the UN.

“You have a list of organizations and details about their staff and activities, and some of the projects I saw had budgets in the millions of dollars,” Fowler says. “If this data fell into the wrong hands or it reached the dark web, you could have scammers or an authoritarian government looking at which organizations are working where, and who they working with, to target them and even find out names of people they've been helping.”

This leads to the other crucial element of the finding: In addition to fueling scams and potentially exposing local organizations, the data could be exploited to directly target at-risk individuals with extortion attempts or even local law enforcement action.

“I saw letters from people who were victims of kidnapping, rape, abuse—people telling their stories probably believing that they will remain anonymous,” Fowler says. “There was a letter from someone who had gotten HIV who was helped out by a foundation, and they told their whole story of how their family and friends had turned on them.”

If the finding spurs infrastructure review and other detections, it could go a long way toward helping UN Women—and the sprawling ecosystem of UN organizations more broadly—to catch any other easy-to-fix errors and prevent potential data breaches.

[consanguinitatum]

DT and His Appendicitis Scar: So When Did That Happen, Anyway?

I think I've mentioned in previous posts that I come across quite a few personal tidbits about a young DT while doing research for my sloooowly developing podcast. I think - well, I certainly hope! - I've also mentioned those sorts of tidbits are not going to be in the podcast? Well, if I haven't mentioned it before, I'm mentioning it now.

I see no reason to include these sorts of things because the podcast won't be about David's personal life (either then or now) but about his professional life. But while I tend to consider most of the theatre work he did between the time he entered the RSAMD Junior School at age 11 (and then got his Equity card and went on to drama school) and prior to his move to London in 1994 part of his professional life, technically they're really not -- because up until he took his first job in the 7:84 in 1991 for The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui, he hadn't been earning a wage. And he's said in interviews Arturo was his first professional gig.

But I'm choosing to split hairs here. For the purposes of my podcast, I plan to treat his drama school years as if they were part of his professional career. I do this because I want to give them the same consideration and respect as the rest of his career, and feature them as the seminal experiences they were. They helped build the foundation of his professional life. Besides, he himself has said that attending drama school was essential for him to become the actor he wanted to be.

Because I consider them professional experiences (and because I'm acutely aware of his desire for privacy) the podcast will stay as much in the professional arena as I can possibly make it. He's talked quite a bit about this period of his life before, and I don't feel uncomfortable highlighting anything he's mentioned which happens to coincide with information I've discovered. Anything of a more personal nature which gets included in the podcast will have been measured against all of these factors before it gets added in. So all of that said, we come to an interesting bit of information about something David has definitely talked about and shared about it before - but which has no place in my podcast. So let's talk about it!

The lovely mizgnomer did a great little post a few years back which featured a photo set of David chatting about the near-death experience with appendicitis he had when he was a child (see below):

David's mentioned his appendix scar a few other times as well, and each time he speaks about it, the range of his age at the time of the attack varies by a few years - usually from age 8 to about 10. That's not surprising at all, of course, because for most of us, trying to narrow down some of the events in our childhood to specific time ranges can get a bit fuzzy. But I'm pretty sure I know when it happened.

Back in 1980, a society/organizational newspaper column entitled "Church News" appeared regularly in the Paisley Daily Express. This column often featured prominent figures in churches all over the community and were often framed as "One Week in the Working Life Of" these certain figures to debunk the myth that ministers only work on Sundays. One of these columns, published on 1 May 1980, featured a certain Rev. Sandy McDonald, the minister of St. Marks Oldhall.

That week, Sandy was busy recording a series of short services at his church which would later go out on STV. These were likely part of one of two religious television broadcasts he was a part of at the time: Late Call or That's The Spirit (both programs David has mentioned over the years).

The article goes on to document Sandy's busy week, speaking about his duties chairing festivals of praise and being principal speaker at church rallies and charity events. In between these duties, the article mentions, Sandy has to attend to all his pastoral duties, including meetings with his own church groups, and - and here is the important part - "visits to hospital patients (including his own son)."

The time at which this article was written implies one of Sandy's children was in the hospital in late April to early May of 1980. It's probably a safe bet to assume it was David: while it could have been either his elder brother or his elder sister, this does happen to fall pretty splendidly into the age range of "9 or 10" for his appendicitis scare which David has given in the past. David would have just turned 9 years old in mid-April of that year.

So there you have it. David was 9 years old when he suffered the bout of appendicitis - which burst, and brought him near death.

Thank goodness he made it!

[st-armand]

Hobie Brown & Anarchism: A Discussion Pt 1

Authors Note: This is my dissertation for the discourse about Hobie’s politics being misrepresented as your friendly community radical leftist

Warnings: Political Ideologies, mentions of violence and oppression

Hobie Brown is an anarchist, he would be considered a radical leftist, not just by the ideological title of anarchism but by his own actions, he has killed cops, fascists, not just one, probably many considering the Oscorp and V.E.N.O.M worldbuilding where the police and military are symbiotes.

One of the primary bases for a fascist regime is a overly abundant police force, and the police worldwide are authoritarian figures meant to protect wealth and property not people.

Anarchists can go 70/40 on the violent revolutionary means discussion, but Hobart Brown is definitely pro revolutionary violence (we will define this later on), he doesn’t like violence in his everyday life but sees it as a measure to protect people, he also understands that not everyone’s place in the revolution is through armed liberation, but that all roles in the revolution violent or otherwise are all valuable to the end goal.

That being said a very contested discourse around radical leftist politics is the divide between Marxists/Maoists/Leninist etc vs Anarchists because Anarchists believe in a non-centralized, organizational systems, some anarchists can be anarcho-primitivists; they believe in a post-revolutionary society without the heavy industrialized civilization we have now I don’t think Hobie is, he enjoys technology too much to do so but he does believe in a social organization that is communally centralized, but regardless of his ideas of the organization of people post revolution he happily shares space and works in solidarity with leftists of other thinking and practices in the struggle and fight.

What is armed revolution and revolutionary violence? Armed revolution is the act of taking arms through guerrilla warfare, community protection, clandestine operations. Revolutionary violence is pretty self-explanatory, but these two interconnects as an understanding that liberation won’t come from within the systems that oppress us, and to instead arm the people towards liberating themselves from fascism, and state sanctioned violence.

I head canon that Hobie as Spiderman works within a clandestine underground armed forces with mixed ideologies and skillset, they’re all civilians who act as an unassuming threat who focus on assassinations and bank robberies, through those victories they help Spiderman redistribute funds.

Hobie’s praxis doesn’t just extend to revolutionary violence, but he puts labor into community gardens, refurbishing abandoned lots and buildings to be used as clinics, or schools, or housing, his skills especially are shown through his engineering and technical capabilities, like siphoning electricity from higher class neighborhoods for their buildings for free, fixing heating systems, or adapting heating and water systems so that they’re controlled in the community rather than by heating and water conglomerates.

He's also a part of a group of boosters who donate and barter clothes, food and other necessities, they sell their spoils in the middle of the people’s market.

Hobie is also the best comrade during protests, he’s a human shield whether as Spiderman or as a civilian, he’s the kind of person to go head to head with five police officers to de-arrest people who get snatched during protests, he’s returned with so many broken bones and large purple bruises from being wailed on by cops, but however much they hurt him, he can return much worse, especially with his enhanced strength, its actually a pretty cool sight, he’s more likely to kills cops while masked as spiderman, he’s almost entirely focused on defensive and evasive methods as an alternative since he has many warrants out for his arrest as Hobart Brown, but Spiderman has a list of federal and international offensives that he can easily navigate with the obscured identity.

During protests he’s evacuating people to safe zones, distracting cops from looters, defending people from being arrested, creating evasive plans to destroy or disable V.E.N.O.M. technology and weapons, he’s especially adept at guerilla warfare, navigating the skyline, sewers, and alleys of New London to gain a territorial advantage because the cops can’t traverse the projects and slums as easily as someone who lives in the grime of New London.

Books I think Hobie would’ve read;

Anarchism and the Black Revolution – Lenzo Ervin

A Soldier’s Story – Kuwasi Balagoon

Black Jacobins – CLR James

Conquest and Bread – Kroptokin

Anarchy & At the Café – Malatesta

 More in the next parts! Platonic, Romance, Racial and Cultural

[dailyanarchistposts]

The first Congress of the FARJ was held with the principal objective of deepening our reflections on the question of organisation and formalising them into a programme. This debate has been happening within our organisation since 2003. We have produced theoretical materials, established our thinking, learned from the successes and mistakes of our political practice it was becoming increasingly necessary to further the debate and to formalise it, spreading this knowledge both internally and externally. The document “Social Anarchism and Organisation” formalises our positions after all these reflections. More than a purely theoretical document, it reflects the conclusions realised after five years of practical application of anarchism in the social struggles of our people. The document is divided into 16 parts. It has already been published in Portuguese in a book co-published between Faísca and the FARJ.

Document approved at the 1st Congress, held on 30th and 31st of August 2008

The first Congress of the Anarchist Federation of Rio de Janeiro pays tribute to its comrades:

Juan Perez Bouzas (1899-1958)

Featured anarchist cobbler of Galician origin that, with unusual talent and determination, highlighted the necessity of the deepening of the struggle. In 2008 we remember the fiftieth anniversary of his death (05/09/1958).

Ideal Peres (1925-1995)

That, with sensibility and ample vision of the political horizon, guaranteed the maintenance of the social axis of anarchism and the connection of generations of militants.

Plínio Augusto Coêlho (1956- )

Tireless in giving substance to our dreams, connecting them to the long thread that binds us to those who preceded us in the quiet or turbulent act of revolution.

If you remained isolated, if each one of you were obliged to act on their own, you would be powerless without a doubt; but getting together and organising your forces – no matter how weak they are at first – only for joint action, guided by common ideas and attitudes, and by working together for a common goal, you will become invincible. Mikhail Bakunin

[clearancecreedwatersurvival]

Okay so here’s my thoughts on the staffcon thing.

I still think collapsing reblogs so posts look more like other social media isn’t gonna work as a feature but they will probably roll them back a little and at least add a toggle off for it if they try it and enough people submit feedback. Edit: this is actually less of an issue, most of the discussion is based on a misrepresentation of what’s happening. They’re just making it easier to scroll past long posts. EDIT AGAIN: actually some people already have the initial roll out of the feature and it. Is bad.

I think submitting feedback is a takeaway. There was a pretty clear effort to just remind the user base that there are real humans on the other side of a paycheck having to read and respond to the inputs of every feedback method on the site, which is fair. It’s easy to be an asshole online in any semi anonymous platform and that is something that tumblr culture takes a certain bloodthirsty pleasure in.

And yes, of course, user complaints about issues such as accessibility and the many ongoing glitches and bots and the search function, etc. are valid and do need to be addressed. But at the very least it would be cool if we as users maybe try to cultivate a slightly less pitchforky social norm when submitting feedback about changes to the site. The ceo is not reading every @ to his blog. One of his employees is. The people reading all of the feedback are just people doing their jobs. All jobs suck under capitalism, maybe we could try not to make their jobs actively worse.

Would you be rude to an overworked server in a restaurant? No? Cool also try to not be a dick to the person getting paid to answer customer or user complaints.

Related to that, funding. Many current and former members of staff have been pretty frank about funding in the past. The company is trying to at the very least breakeven, which not a single company who has owned tumblr has managed because the hosting fees for this site are insane due to all of the stuff on it.

If they don’t get it to breakeven they’ll hopefully best case just open source the website which is a method they’ve done in the past. And it would probably work, and then the website would to my understanding be being maintained by users. Now this is where my understanding gets fuzzy so anyone with more knowledge of how this would shake out feel free to chime in. But my understanding is that the source code for the site would be opened up and maintained by the community likely through mostly volunteer work. I would guess largely uncompensated.

So personally I think maybe the vitriolic response to every change they make going forward to try and monetize the site and pay even some of the cost of operation is perhaps a bit overblown, because they’re still trying to find a way to keep paying those people to work on tumblr, and I think people continuing to be paid for the work they do is better than volunteers doing unpaid labor.

I do also think there’s a secret third option for automattic and every other company finding themselves with a worse outlook now the Silicon Valley bubble has started to really burst, and that is for all existing staff members to unionize and then turn the whole thing into a worker coop. Much more stable organizational structures. Worker coops are also one of my favorite short term solutions to many other systemic problems we are currently experiencing.

I do hope this site continues to exist for many years, especially as it is one of the only places on the internet where the culture makes it safer to talk about some of the more permanent and long term solutions to various systemic issues that function within societies. Also funny text posts.

[luckyshouse]

your post about did helped me a lot i may or may not be a system but i have some people show up in my head sometimes and ones been around for a while so it means a lot to me and validating as im still very confused about it so thank you

of course! im more than happy that it helped. i speak from experience, i've been diagnosed with severe ptsd since i was twelve, and psychiatrists/therapists have brought up DID in the past, but for years i rejected the idea because i simply just don't line up with the typical presentations of DID. ive never felt like i had more than one person in my body, i've never had obvious or noticable switches, and everything i've ever done, i've always held a "oh yeah that sounds like me i did that" mentality, even if i didn't remember directly doing it. a lot of my DID symptoms are more internal than external, but even when it is internal, my alters do not come to me in the figures of people or even "Characters" most of the time. Just a large rotating wheel of concepts and aesthetics and occasionally kins, but even the kinning part is less about the character and more about the metaconcepts of the character and the tropes.

we live in a society in america that encourages people to bisect their identity even without DID, and i think that has contributed a lot to peoples experiences as well. even if you get all the help you can for PTSD, or feel like your trauma isn't that bad, the way society is set up to encourage you to splinter your identity and keep them seperate. that mixed with trauma is absolutely how you end up developing DID, and i think it's something thats left out of DID conversations all the time. another thing i think isn't spoken about enough is that DID is never the same as someone elses, and is primarily based on your preferred forms of escapism while you were a developing child. i believe the idea of DID having multiple people in one body may actually come from the older sorts of systems that existed before the internet, and before larger forms of escapism became common. with the internet, i feel like that's broadened the way people could develop DID as well, since it's easier than ever to get into rp spaces, or make ocs, or pretend to be different people, or distance yourself from your body. i know people whos alters genuinely do not come to them as characters, they embody themselves as a large processing machine and their "alters" are different apps they run on the computer for different tasks. when i was told about their experience, it sort of clicked for me, that this isn't a disorder about having "more people" in your brain, but an organizational system for your trauma and reactions/beliefs. it will always and forever be based off of how you existed as a child, and it never will fall under the rules of what people will try to tell you.

i think a lot of "syscourse" on tumblr has lead to a really terrible awful idea of what DID is and how someone can experience it, and has convinced people that they need to seek out "fake" systems. but even if a system WAS faking, they are still undeniably a person with PTSD and identity issues, and i don't see why assuming they are fake would help anyone in that situation. they still need help, they still need to cope, and they'd likely still benefit from plurality spaces. people see it as a very black and white issue, when in reality its like no system will ever be the same as the other, none of them will communicate the same, none of them will ever experience the same exact things, and this is because dissociative systems literally are based off of the persons family and life dynamics. no one lives the same life twice. there for no system exists the same twice.

i hope you have a good day! and i hope the ppl that show up in your head have a good one too

[medusa-is-a-terf]

Alexandra Kollontai on ancient greek comedy about a socialist feminist society:

Significantly, women instinctively felt that the individual household, private property, and legal marriage were the main obstacles to women's liberation. In "Assemblywomen," a comedy by the famous Greek writer Aristophanes, women are ridiculed for wanting to establish a new order and take the destiny of the state into their own hands. What is interesting, however, is that the heroine of this comedy, Praxagora, the leader, proposes "common property": "I demand," said Praxagora, "that everything should be common, that everything should belong to everyone, that there should no longer be rich and poor. It must no longer be the case that certain people rule over vast fields, while the patch of earth owned by others is barely enough for a grave. Woman should be common property. Everyone has the right to procreate children with whom he wishes." This was the protest of women against private property, forced marriage and dependency about 400 years before our time, that is, 2,300 years ago. The dream of a communist organization that could liberate women from their powerlessness must have been so universally accepted that the gifted satirist Aristophanes could transform it into universally understandable and familiar comic figures. It is conceivable that the women sought liberation from their situation in a communist organizational ideal, because the happy past of women in primitive communism had been handed down through the vernacular. Be that as it may, the Greek women were quite right in their opinion that the changed role of women was impossible without a radical transformation of the Greek social conditions, which were based on class society and slave labor.

[forevergulag]

anarchist society does exist, just look at this african tribe community which has been prevented from developing by imperialist exploitation living happily in an environment that necessitates forced cooperation an anarcho-primitivist organizational style for thousands ofyears!