January 22, 2013
"

To Fidel Castro:


Fidel, Fidel, the people thank you
for your words in action and deeds that sing,
which is why I brought you from far off
a cup of my country’s wine:
it is the blood of a subterranean people
reaching from the darkness to your throat,
miners who have lived for centuries
extracting fire from the frozen earth.
They go down under the ocean for coal
and when they emerge they’re like ghosts-
they have adapted to eternal night,
the workday light was robbed from them.
Nevertheless here is this cup full of
so much suffering and so much distance:
the happiness of men imprisoned clinging to darkness and hope
who from deep in the mines know
when spring and its fragrances arrive
because they know man is struggling
to attain the most ample clarity.
And Cuba is seen by the miners in the far south,
solitary sons of the pampa,
shepherds of the cold in Patagonia,
fathers of tin and silver,
those who marry the cordillera,
extract copper from Chuquicamata,
anonymous men hunkered in buses
among populations of pure nostalgia,
women in the fields, in the workshops,
children who cried all through their childhood—
here, this is the cup, take it, Fidel.
It is full of so much hope
that upon drinking from it you will know
your victory is like my country’s aged wine
grown not by one man but by many men,
not from one grape but from many vines,
not one drop but many rivers,
not one captain but many battles.
They all support you because you embody
our dignity in the long struggle,
and if Cuba were to fall we would all fall,
and we would all come to lift her up,
and if Cuba flourishes with all her flowers,
she will flourish with our own nectar.
And if they dare lay a finger on Cuba’s
forehead, liberated by your own hands,
they will encounter the fists of the people,
we will raise our buried weapons,
and our blood and our pride will come
to the defense of our beloved Cuba.

"

— Pablo Neruda

January 16, 2013
WHY SOCIAL MEDIA ALONE WON’T SAVE USI found an article the other day, Insurgent Anarchism: the power of networked resistance, that (sadly) epitomises a major issue I’ve got.
I mean, a few ideas in it got my goat - that corporatism is ruining capitalism (as if it’d be fine without it), that representative democracy is efficient, that ideology isn’t a good thing, rape denial in the case of Julian Assange - but the specific one I’m talking about is how activists often talk about digital spaces.
The article takes one of the two common positions: that online organising beats offline organising (without qualifiers). Some big issues with that:
Problem 1: a lack of power analysis
There’s often no analysis of the corporate ownership of social media and its use in surveillance, or of state control of the internet for that matter. Our networks formed through such channels are entirely dependent on the whims of the channel owners.
Problem 2: assuming the internet is an egalitarian utopia
When talking about “viral” content, what’s often ignored is how who we listen to is grounded in the interlocking oppressions of our society, and how it’s often white dudes who dominate the “popular” online content space.
People often praise anonymity as a great equaliser, and how it removes people’s direct prejudices. What’s often unrecognised is how anonymity doesn’t necessarily have an effect on (a) how internal baggage can be carried over from living in an oppressive society (b) how those prejudices are often displayed overtly anyway and can be amplified by the perpetrators’ anonymity e.g. unchallenged sexism in  many online communities. Just look at the deluge of hate against Anita Sarkeesian.
Problem 3: overemphasising social media in global struggles
Social media didn’t kick-start the Arab Spring. Protests in the Western Sahara in late 2010 saw little social coverage. There had been years of tireless organising in Egypt - of workers, non-workers and students - and a number of strikes that helped create the momentum before Tahrir Square was occupied (more on that).
Part of this stems from Western activists thinking that we can achieve the goal without doing the long and dirty leg-work. Sorry, but probably not.
Problem 4: fetishising organic networks over organisation
A lack of organisation and a lack of ideology isn’t necessarily a good thing. Spontaneous and loose networks forming around issues works sometimes, but so does old-school face-to-face organising. They’re both valid tactics, they both have their uses in different situations, and they both have flaws e.g.  ”do what thou wilt” individualist anarchism can be uber-problematic.
Online work can often inflate individualist tendencies - after all, it’s often you sitting alone behind a computer, regardless of how many people you’re talking to. Loyalty and long-term connections are still valuable, even to digital-savvy anarchists (well, not if that article’s got anything to do with it).
Don’t get me wrong, I love technology. I love open source/FOSS movements (tackled more in the article before this one), I love the internet and see big potential for it as an educational/mobilising tool.
What I don’t love are knee-jerk “internet good, non-internet increasingly irrelevant” analyses.
I think I need to do a companion piece on the “fuck internet action” people too…
Addendum:- http://loneberry.tumblr.com/post/3427846413/egypt-technology-and-thoughts-on-how-to-organize-a- http://determinatenegation.tumblr.com/post/4743202022/facebook-and-possession

WHY SOCIAL MEDIA ALONE WON’T SAVE US

I found an article the other day, Insurgent Anarchism: the power of networked resistance, that (sadly) epitomises a major issue I’ve got.

I mean, a few ideas in it got my goat - that corporatism is ruining capitalism (as if it’d be fine without it), that representative democracy is efficient, that ideology isn’t a good thing, rape denial in the case of Julian Assange - but the specific one I’m talking about is how activists often talk about digital spaces.

The article takes one of the two common positions: that online organising beats offline organising (without qualifiers). Some big issues with that:

Problem 1: a lack of power analysis

There’s often no analysis of the corporate ownership of social media and its use in surveillance, or of state control of the internet for that matter. Our networks formed through such channels are entirely dependent on the whims of the channel owners.

Problem 2: assuming the internet is an egalitarian utopia

When talking about “viral” content, what’s often ignored is how who we listen to is grounded in the interlocking oppressions of our society, and how it’s often white dudes who dominate the “popular” online content space.

People often praise anonymity as a great equaliser, and how it removes people’s direct prejudices. What’s often unrecognised is how anonymity doesn’t necessarily have an effect on (a) how internal baggage can be carried over from living in an oppressive society (b) how those prejudices are often displayed overtly anyway and can be amplified by the perpetrators’ anonymity e.g. unchallenged sexism in  many online communities. Just look at the deluge of hate against Anita Sarkeesian.

Problem 3: overemphasising social media in global struggles

Social media didn’t kick-start the Arab Spring. Protests in the Western Sahara in late 2010 saw little social coverage. There had been years of tireless organising in Egypt - of workers, non-workers and students - and a number of strikes that helped create the momentum before Tahrir Square was occupied (more on that).

Part of this stems from Western activists thinking that we can achieve the goal without doing the long and dirty leg-work. Sorry, but probably not.

Problem 4: fetishising organic networks over organisation

A lack of organisation and a lack of ideology isn’t necessarily a good thing. Spontaneous and loose networks forming around issues works sometimes, but so does old-school face-to-face organising. They’re both valid tactics, they both have their uses in different situations, and they both have flaws e.g.  ”do what thou wilt” individualist anarchism can be uber-problematic.

Online work can often inflate individualist tendencies - after all, it’s often you sitting alone behind a computer, regardless of how many people you’re talking to. Loyalty and long-term connections are still valuable, even to digital-savvy anarchists (well, not if that article’s got anything to do with it).

Don’t get me wrong, I love technology. I love open source/FOSS movements (tackled more in the article before this one), I love the internet and see big potential for it as an educational/mobilising tool.

What I don’t love are knee-jerk “internet good, non-internet increasingly irrelevant” analyses.

I think I need to do a companion piece on the “fuck internet action” people too…

Addendum:
- http://loneberry.tumblr.com/post/3427846413/egypt-technology-and-thoughts-on-how-to-organize-a
- http://determinatenegation.tumblr.com/post/4743202022/facebook-and-possession

(via tipsforradicals)

January 2, 2013
"People of the world, unite and defeat the U.S. aggressors and all their running dogs! People of the world, be courageous, dare to fight, defy difficulties and advance wave upon wave. Then the whole world will belong to the people. Monsters of all kinds shall be destroyed."

— Mao Dare to Struggle, and Dare to Win.

January 2, 2013
"The social change brought about by the reforms of the spring and summer of 1946 were unprecedented in scope and speed, turning North Korean society upside-down virtually overnight. Sudden as these changes were, however, they were not merely imposed from the top, but— especially in the case of land reform— combined central dictates with local participation, implementation, and input. The top-down/bottom-up movement between central authorities, and popular constituencies was a continuous dialectic in the formation of the DPRK. (…) The results of the social reforms initiated in 1946 were far-reaching and profound. Even strongly critical sources, such as the U.S. military government in the South, could see that “sweeping changes have been wrought in the accepted social pattern of North Korea,” changes the constituted a “far-reaching social revolution”."

— Charles K. Armstrong

November 7, 2012
"We have already heard from some Anarchist theoreticians that at the time of such “exceptional” circumstances as war and revolution, it is necessary to renounce the principles of one’s own program. Such revolutionists bear a close resemblance to raincoats that leak only when it rains, i.e., in “exceptional” circumstances, but during dry weather they remain waterproof with complete success."

— Trotsky

November 7, 2012

Today while people are celebrating the election of the imperialist tyrant Opama, remember that on this same day in 1917 workers showed what what power and possibility workers have when they bypass bourgeois electoral politics, and seize power as a class. Long live the October Revolution!

October 15, 2012
October 15, 2012: 25th anniversary of the assassination of Comrade Thomas Sankara, revolutionary Marxist leader of Burkina Faso, who was killed during a French/U.S.-imperialist instigated counter-revolutionary coup.

October 15, 2012: 25th anniversary of the assassination of Comrade Thomas Sankara, revolutionary Marxist leader of Burkina Faso, who was killed during a French/U.S.-imperialist instigated counter-revolutionary coup.

(Source: fuckyeahmarxismleninism, via awesomejob)

October 7, 2012
“Let’s go Venezuelan people, with our revolutionary flags, to defeat the inhuman capitalist and neocolonial proposal of the empire and the Venezuelan right wing!”

“Let’s go Venezuelan people, with our revolutionary flags, to defeat the inhuman capitalist and neocolonial proposal of the empire and the Venezuelan right wing!”

(Source: fuckyeahmarxismleninism)

October 4, 2012

October 4, 2012
"The revolution does not look for short cuts and yet requires that we all march together, united in thought and in deed. This is why the revolution must be a perpetual teacher, a perpetual question mark. And if the masses do not yet understand, it is our fault. We must take the time to explain and convince them so that we can act with them and in their interests. If the masses do not understand correctly, it is still our fault. We have to correct errors, be more precise, and adapt ourselves to the masses and not try to adapt the masses to our own desires and dreams. Revolutionaries are not afraid of their own mistakes. They have the political courage to admit them publicly, because doing so means committing oneself to correcting them and to doing better. We should prefer one step forward with the masses to ten steps forward without them."

Thomas Sankara

(Source: projectdom, via followformoresp00kygulag-deacti)

Liked posts on Tumblr: More liked posts »