Saturday, 20 April 2019

Goodbye Mr G

This is probably been a long time coming, I'll try to keep this short. Back in the day me and my mates were pretty big fans of Galloway's radio show. Hell back when I started this blog a went so far as to create a tag for the Galloway related posts I would make. Given how I and Galloway have developed, I'm pleased the last time that tag was used (till now anyway) was in 2011.

Since Galloway is now mostly well known for his pretty awful antics I think it prudent to just briefly list some of the reason's people like myself used to find him quite appealing.

  • His promising career in the Labour party and its affiliates came to an because he maintained public opposition to the Iraq war. His comments on the war got him expelled on charges of bringing the party into disrepute.
  • In addition to a long career in parliament, George has been a very active charity organiser, being the General Secretary of War on Want which lead international aid efforts to Eritrea and Tigris during the civil war in Ethiopia. [1] And was a founder and promoter of the Viva Palestina convoys that took aid to Gaza in defiance of the Israeli blockade.
  • Out of all the Left but not Labour political projects in the UK, and there are dozens, his vehicle RESPECT actually succeeded in getting an MP. Personally I was never really enamoured with RESPECT but this achievement was very appealing to many self described Socialists in the UK[2].

To sum up, his appeal broadly speaking lay in his reputation for saying the right things and getting things done. A mix of practical and principle if you will. I t didn't hurt that he has skill as a talker, and he got mainstream attention by appearing on Big Brother, but I never liked Big Brother so I missed his appearance until after I knew who he was.

I think looking back it was a combination of being starved of political points of view beyond the mainstream, so Blair/Brown Labour, the Tories and the Libdems, and that at the time we had just started to turn 18 so had started drinking, but didn't have much money so instead of going to a pub we just went to each others houses sharing cheap lager. Galloway's three hour weekend radio show served quite well, it introduced us to a bit more political news and gossip, and since it was a radio show we have it as background noise and pay attention to it when things started to happen.

Also I think it helped that most of the people who bothered to keep calling or texting the show to argue with him were basically terrible people. Far right types calling him a Muslim sympathiser, neoliberals calling in to defend privatisations and boardroom bonuses, Scottish nationalists annoyed that he wasn't bothered about independence, Orange Order types etc.

But overtime the skeletons in the cupboard started to get out and Galloway seems to be intent on wasting all that goodwill he built up over the years on more gaffs and revelations. I soon parted ways with Galloway, my response was to ignore the fellow as he political platforms continued to implode and he became increasingly reactionary. I'd just go about my day and feel second hand embarrassment whenever a particularly egregious event put Galloway back on my radar.

So why am I doing this now? Well partly for some closure, but mainly because I'm hoping by publicly supporting Farage the most successful far right populist at present Galloway will finally burnt his final bridges, that the small lefty undercurrent that he still taps into will give him up. If your familiar with Galloway, you'll no doubt be thinking of one of dozens of things he's said and done that should have done that already. But alas it takes a long time to build up a reputation and it takes along time to demolish it.

Now of course even in the early days, there were warning signs. His anti-war credibility was undermined by just how grovelling a lot of his comments towards Saddam Hussein were, particularly the footage of his visit to Iraq

And while looking up that visit I also found this video where Galloway endorsed Iraq's claims on Kuwait.

I think its worth mentioning that Galloway doesn't appear to reject or condemn war wholesale, but only particular wars. During his career he's supported the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, bizarrely lamenting the loss of a "strong and stable government" [3] A government that relied on the Soviet army while fighting a civil war and persecuting and plotting against it self is strong and stable apparently. And I do remember him getting into an argument with some callers over the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956.

Now I was aware of some of this at the time, and I didn't really agree, but I was still learning and honestly the conversation would usually move on. But, well it started adding up, I'm not actually sure where there was a breaking point for me. I just remember there being a time where Galloway was someone whose opinions I would listen to with respect, to an embarrassing joke, to a pretty awful person in general.

I do remember once he was very rude to a friend of mine, who called the show when the topic of the day was autism. But at the time we were all just baffled at how unprovoked his rudeness was, I'm pretty sure we laughed it off as an awkward moment. I suppose him working for Iran's Press TV didn't help. He'd spent years portraying himself as a principled outsider which kind of runs counter to working for the Islamic Republic of Iran's media arm. It definitely didn't help that in response to criticism of his gig and the Iranian governments actions he made ridiculous comments downplaying human rights abuses, executions of homosexuals and lauding the Republic as a model democracy.

But I'll give some credit here, I believe his weak comments on Iran's political system helped me develop my ideas and criticism of representative government. If you just look for a few seconds Iran does look like a democracy not much different from say Western Europe. They have elections, several parties compete, they do have different policy platforms and who gets to be President does have some impact on what happens. But then you look a little longer and you notice how many political parties are underground or in exile, how the religious authorities have seats in government and a veto over the President and parliament via the Guardian Council, which is chosen by the Supreme Leader (Ayatollah Khamenei), who has the power to declare war and peace, the council chooses heads of the judiciary and other state institutions, including the head of Press TV.

Basically the façade quickly falls apart. But after coming to that conclusion I looked at other so called democratic states, and what do you know found that all of them keep a lot of the power in un elected institutions, the only functional difference is that unlike Iran the one(s) whom have legal access to those institutions (well most of them) get that access through elections, sometimes extremely indirectly.

So in a way despite Galloway's collapse I think he has taught me some lessons. Granted many of them were things not to say or do, but an education is to be valued.

Goodbye Mr G.


Well it looks like we might not see the back of Gorgeous George after all

Looks like theirs still a political backwater for him to swim in.

1: I can remember hearing him recollect how he witnessed bombings by the Ethiopian air force, and another time when he talked about his time doing solidarity work in the anti-apartheid movement, which lead to at least on detainment and assault by an officer Mackenzie.

2: It might be worth mentioning though that it was RESPECT's electoral presence that introduced me to the name George Galloway. During European Elections in 2004 the RESPECT party competed, but due to a ballot error all the RESPECT lists, read as RESPECT George Galloway has received X number of votes. It sounded like a command, which is oddly fitting.

3: On the Pleasure of Hating Galloway by Chris Hitchens

Wednesday, 17 April 2019

The Freelance Journalists Union Goes Public

The Industrial Workers of the World has just launched a new organisation for workers in the Journalism sector.

Recently a new initiative by members of the North American Industrial Workers of the World has gone public. The Freelance Journalists Union (FJU) is an organisation that aims to reach out to workers who are in or have experience with freelancing in the broad field of journalism, including bloggers and writers etc.

So far the FJU is eager to get in touch with as many freelancers as possible and is looking to build a network to share information and support internationally.

Public Statement of the FJU

The IWW FJU is a union for all freelance journalists, bloggers, and other writers in the news media. Contact us today! You have nothing to lose but your unpaid invoices!
We’re a group of freelance journalists, bloggers, and other writers in news media from all around the world, organizing to improve our working conditions and assert our rights.
In the tumultuous, insecure world of contemporary news media, more and more of us are forced to work on a freelance basis. While it’s difficult to put a precise estimate on the numbers, self-employed writers make up the majority of the profession in the United States and there are legions of us around the world.

Publicizing this union comes after a months-long organizing effort in which we’ve had one-on-one conversations with hundreds of freelance journalists and group meetings with dozens, discussing the struggles that members of our profession face and how we can collectively overcome them.
Many of us deal with long overdue payments, low rates, vast pay disparities, exploitative contracts and frustrating invoicing systems at publications throughout the industry. While nearly every news outlet relies on freelance labor, few are committed to treating workers with dignity and providing fair compensation.

In order to change these conditions, and to gain power through solidarity, we created the Freelance Journalists Union. The FJU is part of the Industrial Workers of the World, an international, member-run union for all workers, which was established in 1905.
To learn more, contact us today!


New Logo

Tuesday, 16 April 2019

Some Painful Lumps

There's a piece of lefty jargon that had largely dropped out of usage outside of quotation, but its starting to creep back into general usage. Which is unfortunate since its only purpose seems to be point scoring arbitrary schemes and creating more confusion. The phrase is Lumpenproletariat the Lump comes from an old German word for rogue or rabble, that kind of dismissive pedigree shows its a pretty ugly term.

Marx and Engels coined the phrase to refer to cover a group of people that don't neatly fit into their class struggle model, much petits-bourgeois and the two terms do overlap at times. I recently read an article by a group called Workers Offensive on this subject called 
The article is about the relationship of the BPP and the concept of Lumpens, I'm not personally that interested in that relationship here more in the attempt to revive an old and in my view flawed concept. 
Who are the Lumpens? well lets start with how WO defines it. Their definition comes from two quotations

If we look at the Manifesto of the Communist League we get an early reference to the Lumpens.

The “dangerous class”, [lumpenproletariat] the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.
Engels in the preface to the Peasants war in Germany goes even further.

 The lumpenproletariat, this scum of the decaying elements of all classes, which establishes headquarters in all the big cities, is the worst of all possible allies. It is an absolutely venal, an absolutely brazen crew. If the French workers, in the course of the Revolution, inscribed on the houses: Mort aux voleurs! (Death to the thieves!) and even shot down many, they did it, not out of enthusiasm for property, but because they rightly considered it necessary to hold that band at arm's length. Every leader of the workers who utilises these gutter-proletarians as guards or supports, proves himself by this action alone a traitor to the movement.
 When the article refers to Lumpens it does so in exclusively criminal terminology, pimps, gangs, drug traffickers etc. But is this an accurate description of Lumpens going by Marx and Engels? Well not really, the one time I'm aware of where Marx bothers to describe who actually makes up the ranks of the Lumpens is in the 18th Brumaie of Bonaparte.

 On the pretext of founding a benevolent society, the lumpen proletariat of Paris had been organized into secret sections, each section led by Bonapartist agents, with a Bonapartist general at the head of the whole. Alongside decayed roués with dubious means of subsistence and of dubious origin, alongside ruined and adventurous offshoots of the bourgeoisie, were vagabonds, discharged soldiers, discharged jailbirds, escaped galley slaves, swindlers, mountebanks, lazzaroni,1 pickpockets, tricksters, gamblers, maquereaux [pimps], brothel keepers, porters, literati, organ grinders, ragpickers, knife grinders, tinkers, beggars — in short, the whole indefinite, disintegrated mass, thrown hither and thither, which the French call la bohème; from this kindred element Bonaparte formed the core of the Society of December 10.
There are criminals and ex-criminals in there but there are also plenty of others, how are discharged soldiers, beggars and porters equivalent to pimps and drug pushers? The only connection they seem to have is that they don't easily fit into the categories of bourgeois (capitalists) and the industrial proletariat.

So does WO and many other groups and personalities reduce Lumpens to the criminal element? If a porter and a literati (Intellectual or Academic) count as Lumpens in the same way a Mob boss and a back alley mugger, it doesn't seem like a particularly clear or useful category.

Anyway definitional fuzziness aside, why the constant negativity? Well again WO provides some pretty clear explanations, in addition to the two quotations from Marx and Engels, its that at certain revolutionary events Lumpens seem to be heavily recruited to reactionary forces. For example in 1848 with the Mobile Guard,

She therefore concludes the lumpenproletariat can play a pivotal role in the revolutionary struggle against capitalism. What Davis extrapolated from that quote on the lumpenproletariat, the political conclusions, however, was a projection of her own politics and not an accurate assessment of Max’s views. First of all, Davis claims he was discussing the Paris Commune when he was in fact talking about the 1848 Revolution. In this part of Class Struggles in France, 1848-1850, Marx was explaining how
The author is correct Angela Davis did mix up her quotation of Marx there, but this is not really an effective counter to her argument. Its pointing out she was sloppy and then accurately quoting Marx and citing a conflicting example, true. But the pressing question should be not what did X say, but is X correct? And while the case of the Mobile guards in 1848 is important its far from conclusive.

We know roughly how large the force was around 24,000 men. But we don't know how many Lumpens there were in Paris, nor do we know how many of the Mobile Guard actually were Lumpens. Marx believed the majority of them were but he wasn't present, so we don't really know if the Mobile Guard were representative of how Lumpens really react.

For example, while Angela Davis got a bit muddled the experience of the Paris Commune does raise some question, there weren't really anything comparable in the anti Communard forces. According to Marx in Civil War in France the armies under the control of Thiers were what was left of the field army, the police and returned prisoners of war from Prussia. The phrase Lumpenproletariat doesn't appear. But in Gluckstein's book on the Paris Commune he notes that most of what we might call Lumpens or close to them at least seem to have been in favour of the Commune. In one case he notes a group of sex workers who offered to form a fighting unit for the Commune.

And it begs the question, when the National Salvation government was planning its campaign against the people of Paris, why didn't they turn to such a natural source of counter revolution like they did in 1848? One of the Generals leading the march on Montmartre had took part in the massacres of 1848 so he must of been aware of their effectiveness. And yet the National Guard which must of included Lumpens given its size in comparison to working population of Paris remained loyal to Commune.

And sticking with France, during the very famous French revolution throws up some food for thought. The revolt was famous or if you like infamous for the power and activity of the Parisian mob most well known of which were the Sans-culottes. The Sans-culottes and the urban population were for the most part not what we would consider proletarian there was very little in the way of industry after all. Some historians call them all Petits bourgeois, but I'm not really convinced that holds true for the whole. Shopkeepers a pillar of the petit bourgeoise for example were terrorised by the mobs and militia's, the law of Maximum destroyed their profits and they were routinely hounded and attacked on suspicion of hoarding. Reading descriptions of how they survived on charity, limited work, soldiering and patronage makes them seem a lot closer to descriptions of Lumpens.

There was a group in the French revolution very similar to the Mobile Guards, the Muscadines. The Muscadines though weren't lumpens they were drawn exclusively from the ranks of the wealthy, the surviving nobility and the early bourgeois would become the first generation of French capitalists.  If we go beyond the one example Marx gives us and actually look at history overall the situation becomes far less clear.

And after all since the 20th century most standing militaries have infamously been filled with the working population. To quote the Australian IWW "A bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends". So if we accept the Mobile guard as solid evidence that the Lumpens are inherently reactionary, we would also have to conclude the same was true of the proletariat since it has also served very reactionary ends at times.

To be fair WO doesn't just rely on 1848 and call it a day, they have other examples

Therefore, in the context of the riots in the United States, although lumpenproletarians may rebel against the police during the riots, they are not interested in the proletariat assuming control of the neighborhoods. What really matters to lumpenproletarians is their ability to continue their illegal businesses. Gangs, a terrible threat to the daily life of the workers and their activity, may adopt slogans like “Black Lives Matter” and reach temporary truces with among themselves, but they will never support the working class in the seizure of political power. Gangs further played an important role in the Watts riots by operating together and coordinating their actions during the riots. It is not an accident that black nationalist groups like the Nation of Islam and the Black Panther Party looked to recruit gang members around that point in time.
But alas this raises further questions, workers tend to rebel against police during riots, and examples of riots are many but attempts to assume control of neighbourhoods are few. Is this not judgement working backwards? Could we not point to a riot that fizzled out or was eventually beaten and say with equal validity that this proves that the proletariat with or without the lump is not interested in assuming control?

Now we can look at some examples of workers trying to take control but can we say the same of the Lumpens? Well to be honest I don't think we can answer that with any certainty, because insurrections and revolts aren't exactly famous for accurate census data. But in addition we can't really be sure who is and is not a Lumpen, WO and some others seem to split the difference by reducing it purely to sinister criminals, and if they wish to redefine the term then fair enough, but that's not Marx use of the term.

For example take the Russian revolution of 1917, its start was bread riots by crowds mostly made up of women. Some of those women were employed in factories as part of the war economy but a lot of them weren't. So were they Lumpens? Some of them probably broke some laws but the majority I assume would be wives and mothers, so not exactly industrial proletarians. Which also raises another issue, what class do the dependents of a wage worker fall under? They don't sell their labour, what work they do isn't paid and they rely on the wages of someone else to survive. That's pretty close to a parasitic relationship which is what Lumpens are usually accused of.

And the revolt involved many peasants whom are usually lumped under the Petits Bourgeois label, and mutinying sailors and soldiers. Now Marx does declare discharged soldiers to be part of the Lumpens, so they would qualify, and after all the Councils did distinguish between soldiers and workers. And what about the Literati? Well I can't think of a revolt that didn't have intellectuals in its mix both opportunistically and earnestly.

Again WO has an answer of a sort

the lumpenproletarians do not have the capacity to acquire a class consciousness.

This is not to say that it is impossible for individual lumpenproletarians to join in the fight against capitalism. But it is only by abandoning the ranks of the lumpenproletariat, by abandoning the activities that disorient the working class and harm the prospects for proletarian organization, such as looting and gang violence, that they can effectively fight against capitalism, as the proletariat — the revolutionary class — and create a world of freedom and abundance.
This doesn't really provide an adequate answer. There are two questions here, first if some can why not many or all? Second how many does it take to develop a class consciousness? These are just claims with no substantiation, they can't be backed up. Its just a way of anticipating critics finding contrary examples.

There's also another question that WO's unique usage of the term generates. If you can join the fight against capitalism without class consciousness, then that would imply that class consciousness isn't a necessary component in the fight against capitalism. And what exactly is a proletarian if you can join it simply by not being a Lumpen? I thought that a Proletarian was someone with a specific relationship with the means of production which wouldn't really follow with just stop being a gang member.

This is why the term is functionally useless, its too cluttered to be defined, and so conclusions and predictions based on it all create more confusion. WO is critical of the Black Panther Party and other mostly Black leftists attitudes towards the Lumpenproletariat, cites Marx and Engels and then reduces the definition further. But by doing so it creates many problems for the authors further commentary, its also disingenuous, essentially most of the criticism is attacking a position that wasn't actually held since its clear that none of the groups being criticised used the term in the same way. Virtually every time WO refers to Lumpens its made clear that they're talking about gang members and looters and drug pushers, but the people being criticised are clearly talking about the Lumpenproletariat in a much broader sense. 

To take one explicit example the article quotes Huey P. Newton's speech on the Black Panther's movement into what they called Revolutionary Intercommunalism. 

In this country the Black Panther Party, taking careful note of the dialectical method, taking careful note of the social trends and the ever‐changing nature of things, sees that while the lumpen proletarians are the minority and the proletarians are the majority, technology is developing at such a rapid rate that automation will progress to cybernation, and cybernation probably to technocracy. As I came into town I saw MIT over the way. If the ruling circle remains in power it seems to me that capitalists will continue to develop their technological machinery because they are not interested in the people. Therefore, I expect from them the logic that they have always followed: to make as much money as possible, and pay the people as little as possible ‐ until the people demand more, and finally demand their heads. If revolution does not occur almost immediately, and I say almost immediately because technology is making leaps (it made a leap all the way to the moon), and if the ruling circle remains in power the proletarian working class will definitely be on the decline because they will be unemployables and therefore swell the ranks of the lumpens, who are the present unemployables. Every worker is in jeopardy because of the ruling circle, which is why we say that the lumpen proletarians have the potential for revolution, will probably carry out the revolution, and in the near future will be the popular majority. Of course, I would not like to see more of my people unemployed or become unemployables, but being objective, because we’re dialectical materialists, we must acknowledge the facts.
Marx outlined a rough process of the development of society. He said that society goes from a slave class to a feudalistic class structure to a capitalistic class structure to a socialistic class structure and finally to communism. Or in other words, from capitalist state to socialist state to nonstate: communism. I think we can all agree that the slave class in the world has virtually been transformed into the wage slave. In other words, the slave class in the world no longer exists as a significant force, and if we agree to that we can agree that classes can be transformed literally out of existence. If this is so, if the slave class can disappear and become something else ‐ or not disappear but just be transformed ‐ and take on other characteristics, then it is also true that the proletarians or the industrial working class can possibly be transformed out of existence. Of course the people themselves would not disappear; they would only take on other attributes. The attribute that I am interested in is the fact that soon the ruling circle will not need the workers, and if the ruling circle is in control of the means of production the working class will become unemployables or lumpens. That is logical; that is dialectical. I think it would be wrong to say that only the slave class could disappear.

But in that speech and the part that's quoted its very clear that Newton is using the term Lumpenproletariat as a term mainly for the unemployed. So either WO thinks the unemployed are all dangerous crooks or they've missed the mark by being too reductive. This is a pretty typical feature of this Lumpen Yay or Nay argument, because its such a loosely coded term very few people mean the same thing in using it. 

A further example happens in the concluding paragraph

One of the major contentions between Marx and Bakunin dealt with the role of the lumpenproletariat. It is no wonder that Bakunin, who considered the lumpen to constitute “the flower of the proletariat” because of its supposedly more rebellious nature, also happened to advocate Slavic nationalism. The lumpenproletariat, like nationalism, is an enemy of the working class. The class could not mark out its independence as a class or seize political power if it depended so much on the support of the lumpenproletariat.
There's a lot going on here. Either the author hasn't read much Marx, Engels and Bakunin or they're deliberately distorting. First while its true that Bakunin did advocate Slavic nationalism, he moved away from that the more his ideas and beliefs developed in a socialist direction. Two while Bakunin did indeed hold a more positive view of the revolutionary potential of the Lumpenproletariat if you bother to lookup where he uses the term it quickly becomes clear that his concept of the lumpenproletariat also includes the proletariat. For example the passage were "the flower of the proletariat" comes from.

To me, however, the flower of the proletariat does not mean, as it does to the Marxians, the upper layer, the most civilized and comfortably off in the working world, that layer of semi-bourgeois workers, which is precisely the class the Marxians want to use to constitute their fourth governing class, and which is really capable of forming one if things are not set to rights in the interests of the great mass of the proletariat; for with its relative comfort and semi-bourgeois position, this upper layer of workers is unfortunately only too deeply penetrated with all the political and social prejudices and all the narrow aspirations and pretensions of the bourgeois. It can be truly said that this upper layer is the least socialist, the most individualist in all the proletariat.

Marxism, Freedom and the State 1872.

Also interesting to note is how closely that tallies with Marx and Engels later ideas about Labour Aristocracy and later Marxist and Anarchist criticism of Trade Unionism.

Furthermore by linking nationalism to support for a Lumpenproletariat the author makes a grave mistake by presenting their stance as in line with Marx and Engels. Both men were also quite open to nationalism, not only are their letters full of it, but the book Revolution and Counter Revolution in Germany written by Engels has several chapters dedicated to arguing for the necessity of a united and strong Germany whose borders must expand and "Germanise" its minorities.
 So it would appear that the stance on nationalism doesn't have any special relationship to ones views on Lumpens.

I could keep going with this but its already a confusing mess, which is of course is the point. At best the Lumpen category is just a catch all to tidy up other stances and lines, you can't clearly define it or the Lumpen/proletariat border. So I don't really see the point of continuing this bizarre discourse, it smacks of forced and ultimately false orthodoxy.

Monday, 8 April 2019

Sylvia Rivera "Y'all Better Quiet Down" ( 1973)

Video link

Digitalised recording of trans rights activist Sylvia Rivera's speech at New York City's Christopher Street Liberation Day Rally in 1973.

(Transcription follows:)
Sylvia Rivera: I may be—

Crowd: [booing]

Sylvia Rivera: Y'all better quiet down. I’ve been trying to get up here all day for your gay brothers and your gay sisters in jail that write me every motherfucking week and ask for your help and you all don’t do a goddamn thing for them.

Have you ever been beaten up and raped and jailed? Now think about it. They’ve been beaten up and raped after they’ve had to spend much of their money in jail to get their hormones, and try to get their sex changes. The women have tried to fight for their sex changes or to become women. On the women’s liberation and they write ‘STAR,’ not to the women’s groups, they do not write women, they do not write men, they write ‘STAR’ because we're trying to do something for them.

I have been to jail. I have been raped. And beaten. Many times! By men, heterosexual men that do not belong in the homosexual shelter. But, do you do anything for me? No. You tell me to go and hide my tail between my legs. I will not put up with this shit. I have been beaten. I have had my nose broken. I have been thrown in jail. I have lost my job. I have lost my apartment for gay liberation and you all treat me this way? What the fuck's wrong with you all? Think about that!

I do not believe in a revolution, but you all do. I believe in the gay power. I believe in us getting our rights, or else I would not be out there fighting for our rights. That’s all I wanted to say to you people. If you all want to know about the people in jail and do not forget Bambi L'amour, and Dora Mark, Kenny Metzner, and other gay people in jail, come and see the people at Star House on Twelfth Street on 640 East Twelfth Street between B and C apartment 14.

The people are trying to do something for all of us, and not men and women that belong to a white middle class white club. And that’s what you all belong to!

REVOLUTION NOW! Gimme a ‘G’! Gimme an ‘A’! Gimme a ‘Y’! Gimme a ‘P’! Gimme an ‘O’! Gimme a ‘W’! Gimme an ‘E! Gimme an ‘R’! [crying] Gay power! Louder! GAY POWER!

EDIT: on 03/06/2019 a group selling recordings of the speech issued take down notices on my upload and many others, apparently in an attempt to scrub it from the internet leaving them the only game in town. This is sadly a very common occurrence given how copyright law works. And its quite insulting that a speech made in defiance of people trying to silence her has now been silenced in the name of profit seeking.

Fortunately the transcript remains available. I also managed to find an audio recording of the speech.

Sunday, 7 April 2019

Are you an Anarchist? by David Graeber

Chances are you have already heard something about anarchists and what they are supposed to believe. Chances are almost everything you have heard is nonsense. Anarchists believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without being forced to. It is really a simple notion. But it’s one that the powerful have always found dangerous.

Search This Blog

#blog-pager { display: block !important; float: none!important; } .blog-pager-older-link, .home-link, .blog-pager-newer-link { background-color: #FFFFFF!important; }