TITLE

A History of Youth activism at the crossroads by Joel Hrden
Alternatives to Capitalism by Paul Burrows
Anti-Capitalist Manifesto to be read in Demonstrations against fort European Union in 17 March 2002
Food Not Bombs Recipes
Krishnamurti on War
INDIANS
Good Indians Dead Indians
A Future Worth Living! by Chaz Bufe
Anti-globalization Activism Cannot Ignore Colonial Realities by Aziz Choudry
Global Movement: Interviewing Adamovsky by Andrej Grubacic and Ezequiel Adamovsky
PGA - Organisational Principles PEOPLES´ GLOBAL ACTION (PGA)
Arming Outer Space by Ruth Rosen
PGA -PEOPLES GLOBAL ACTION MANIFESTO
Where Have All the Flowers Gone?
   ( Reflections on the Spirit and Legacy of the Sixties) by Fritjof Capra
What Will Anarchism Mean Tommorow?
  ( A Difficult Question To Answer) by Colin Ward
Another world is possible... but what kind, and shaped by whom? by Cindy Milstein
RE-Envisioning Development
The Four Noble Truths of Dhammic Socialism
Overview of Social Ecology
no religion - Buddhadasa Bhikku
why we oppose the state

 Youth activism at the crossroads: where next for anti-capitalism?

By Joel Harden

Canadian Dimension
January/February 2002

 I came here to protest the killing of turtles. I am  going home
determined to turn the world upside down."
These were the words of a young environmentalist who took part in
the storied "Battle of Seattle." Her words are not unique: thousands
upon thousands of youth across the globe are waking up to activism
and taking their voices to the streets. As they challenge the
worldΥs injustices, they are beginning to learn what will be
necessary to end these injustices for good.

where next for anti-capitalism?
Contrary to popular fiction, youth revolts do not arise spontaneously. .
. . There is nothing inherently radical about this time in our lives.
.Youth activism, of course, is nothing new. In the annals of recent
history, from the heady days of 1968 to the present, young upstarts
have figured prominently in struggles for a better world. Indeed,
the exciting spirit of resistance in the past two years -
particularly the anti-capitalist mood within the broader
anti-globalization movement-has resonated loudest among the
politically newborn. Here calls for reforms to trade deals have won
less support than arguments surveying the ruins of capitalism
itself. Amidst the tear gas and riot police in Seattle, Melbourne,
Prague, Buenos Aires or Quebec City, there were few cries for
"corporate responsibility." The most popular slogans are
revolutionary claims: "This is what democracy looks like," "Our
world is not for sale," "Human need not corporate greed," "A better
world is possible."
But contrary to popular fiction, youth revolts do not arise
spontaneously. Be it from high prices in Indonesia, vicious
paramilitaries in Colombia, ruthless pharmaceutical companies in
South Africa, or a barricaded trade meeting in Quebec City, there
are material reasons why waves of student unrest take place. The
real question is how youth activism can be mobilized into an
unstoppable force to change society. To do that, solidarity must be
painstakingly forged between youth radicals and those who produce
the world's wealth, the working class (who are, we must remember,
not a uniform group, but segmented in numerous ways: young and old,
low-/middle-/high-wage, full-part-time, of different genders, races,
religions and sexualities). Many young activists have been heavily
involved in various identity-based struggles that still divide
workers. Through their involvement they can provide an agitational
force to inspire millions to act for progressive change. The images
of trade unionists and young radicals in recent mass protests led
many to claim an importance alliance had begun between youth
activists and organized labour. Often dubbed the "Teamster-Turtle
alliance," fresh hope was held for future solidaristic work that
could usher in an exciting renewal of left politics.
From Seattle to Seoul, from Belgrade to Jakarta, massive waves of
protest have arisen where workers and youth activists (among others)
have shown their collective strength. Of course, this solidarity
remains uneven and will not last forever. The upsurge in radicalism
thrust onto the world stage with the inspiring - and growing -
presence of a "globalisation from below" was sideswiped with the
terrible events of September 11, and the U.S.-led retaliation
ongoing in Afghanistan. There is ample trepidation among many who
had argued that youth radicalism was on the threshold of enormous
possibilities. Examples covered here will testify to the fact that
much more must be done to push youth activism in a direction that
will yield lasting rewards.
One caveat is useful here at the outset: age does not determine
one's propensity for left radicalism. The pubescent "whiz kids"
behind today's right-wing political parties make this obvious. Some
make the mistake of discussing "youth" in a broad, populist sense
that cuts across important political distinctions. Youth, as the
"whiz kids" have shown, is sometimes wasted on the young. There is
nothing inherently radical about this time in our lives.
About youth activism, however, one thing is for certain: the
anti-capitalist mood inside today's anti-globalization movement has
provoked a shift away from the single-issue campaigning and
parochialism that marked youth politics during much of the
seventies, eighties and nineties. In the West, as the reach of
today's insatiable markets has spread extensively on campus, an
ideological war is being waged by a growing minority of youth who
name capitalism as the source of their problems. Elsewhere, youth
are gaining the confidence to take on dictatorial regimes that
rightly fear the agitational role young radicals are playing. These
are the battles we look at in detail here.
Indonesia and Serbia: Youth in Revolution
"Indonesia is rich in raw materials yet the people live in misery.
The people can no longer afford to eat or buy medicine. This is all
the fault of the system - this is what we have to smash." - Cecep
Daryus, Indonesian student leader
"We did it on our own. Please do not help us again with your bombs."
- Serbian student
Both of these quotations come from student radicals who participated
in recent popular revolutions that ousted hated dictators. The
defiant spirit to resist leaps from the pages of those who wrote
about the events of May, 1998, in Indonesia and October, 2000, in
Serbia. In both instances, youth played a major role in urging
forward oppositional movements. At the same time, both revolutions
ultimately fell short of their aims, and hold important lessons for
young radicals trying to build a mass movement today to change
society.
U.S. President Richard Nixon once let the cat out of the bag when he
referred to Indonesia in the following way: "With its 100 million
people and 300 mile arc of islands containing the region's greatest
hoard of natural resources, Indonesia is the greatest prize in South
East Asia." For decades Indonesians - not to mention the East
Timorese and others in the periphery of Indonesia - have suffered
terribly as various imperial powers have backed one the world's most
notorious regimes. Enormous transfers of money have poured into
Indonesia for decades in hopes of maintaining ties to the prized
natural resources in the region. Military supplies and training have
been delivered to Indonesia from abroad in bountiful quantities.
Many who studied the regime felt President Thojib Suharto, who
ruthlessly attacked even the mildest forms of dissent, appeared as
an almost unstoppable force.
But rumours of the death of Indonesian resistance were greatly
exaggerated. Mass demonstrations broke out shortly after Suharto had
rigged yet another parliamentary election in 1997. Rioting was
rampant in the streets of Jakarta as upwards of one million people
held the streets. Strikes figured in this wave of dissent, which led
to a brutal crackdown on trade-union leaders. This crackdown did not
deter workers who in some instances went on to win major gains
through mass strikes.
Early 1998 also saw major waves of protest in Indonesia as rising
prices and high levels of unemployment battered the country.
Suharto's cynical response was to blame ethnic Chinese in Indonesia
for the downturn, and this racism was supported by many of the large
Muslim organizations. Military provocateurs posing as rioters then
waged a vicious campaign of brutality against ethnic Chinese that
sadly spread among some sections of Indonesia's immiserated
underclass. At the same time, the rioting also hit political targets
where the organized working class was strong.
As the protest wave built, the Indonesian military warned students
not to take their demonstrations off campus. The advice was roundly
ignored. The students gained more support as the military attacks on
them increased. When Suharto announced in May that democratic reform
would come only in 2003, the barometer of campus unrest shot through
the roof. It intensified twofold as the government announced it was
cancelling subsidies for fuel and electricity prices due to an IMF
directive. Workers everywhere began to move into action.
The ten days in mid-May that followed contained the moments most
will remember from the Indonesian revolution. As youth began to
drift into the streets, rioting and looting were now concentrated
much more on Suharto's elaborate network of crony capitalism. These
were the moments when military officers at times showed open
sympathy with the uprising, often urging looters "take turns" to
ensure a fair distribution of given warehouse's supplies. Whole
sections of Jakarta burned, costing many lives. At first most
students, in the name of non-violence, refused to join the riotous
events in the street. But on May 19, not long afterwards, over
30,000 began occupying the main parliament building in Jakarta.
Workers, who moved into action much more slowly, sent
representatives to support the initial occupation, and joined the
youths' call for Suharto to step down.
Most are aware of the most obvious result of the Indonesian
revolution: Suharto resigned on May 21, but was replaced by B. J.
Habibie, a close supporter of the old regime. Less well known is the
fact that a vigorous debate broke out inside the student occupation
of the parliament building about whether workers or peasant
supporters should be allowed in. Sadly, the leadership of the
occupation fought bitterly against the unity position, ordering that
pamphlets backing the idea be torn up and a cordon put in place to
block anyone from entering. The failure for a united voice between
students and workers meant that the largest demonstrations during
the Indonesian revolution were co-opted by liberal opportunists
desperate to restore order, even if that meant supporting Habibie.
The Serbian revolution in October, 2000, shares much in common the
Indonesian example. Once again, youth were the initial force to
challenge Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic's rigging of the
September 24 elections. Students had been a thorn in Milosevic's
side for some time, but in an organized fashion for only two years.
In 1998 a spirited wave of dissent was raised against the Serbian
government's proposed 1998 University Act. The new legislation
allowed the state the right to directly appoint Deans or Rectors,
who then would oversee all faculty hirings. The Act also compelled
professors to sign documents many recognized as declarations of
support for the Milosevic regime. Over 150 professors were fired
once the Act was introduced.
The Faculty of Philology in Belgrade (housing the literature and
foreign language departments) was a particular target. The
neofascist Serbian Radical Party - among the three parties in
Serbia's ruling coalition - appointed an ultranationalist dean to
the faculty, who quickly used his arbitrary powers to sack most of
the world-literature department. Students responded with months of
protests. Within these events emerged a small group of activists who
referred to themselves as Otpor! ("Resistance!" in English). Otpor!
and others managed to chase the appointed dean out of the faculty,
and force the reinstatement of the fired professors.
The confidence arising out of this experience was clearly
infectious. Otpor! began to mobilize in a serious way, often using
the weapons of satire and comic theatre to confuse their opponents.
Sometimes youth would amass in large numbers to play the board games
Monopoly or Risk in public venues, emphasizing how Milosevic was
toying with their future. When Milosevic once declared himself a
national hero, Otpor! printed stickers and badges in mass quantities
that read: "I am a national hero."
Otpor!'s goal was to build a broad coalition that sought to mobilize
the vast majority who detested Milosevic. As one activist put it:
"Milosevic controls the media, and he has 20 per cent of the people
in his pocket. The rest of the country hates his guts and knows he
is an evil tyrant. It's our job to motivate those 80 per cent." But
Optor! faced a problem: while most Serbians detested Milosevic,
there was little enthusiasm for the opposition parties who were
frequently just as corrupt, and often collaborated with the existing
regime. Hence the reason the primary demands concentrated on ousting
Milosevic, drawing less attention to support for any parliamentary
opposition (though such support remained their official position).
An Otpor! spokesperson is reported to have announced at one
opposition rally: "If you betray us again, next time we will bring
ten thousand of our people."
When Milosevic tampered with the September 24 elections, Otpor! took
the lead in many regions, filling the streets in protest.
High-school youth were seen everywhere. The Kolubara miners and
thousands of other workers joined the revolution, and thus began the
tumultuous days of October 5. The parliament building was set ablaze
and the national television station taken over, while police and
security forces countered with little or no resistance. Milosevic's
regime had been toppled, and many of his sympathizers were driven
out of their posts. The revolution remained a problem once Vojislav
Kostunica's liberal opposition took power, which quickly moved to
condemn the worker-management experiments that had become
commonplace during the revolutionary fervour. Youth activists and
workers accomplished what NATO's 78-day bombing campaign had failed
to deliver - ousting Milosevic from power. This was largely done in
three days, and not one bridge, school, or hospital was damaged.
Otpor! has begun to steadily unravel from within since the
revolution, due in large part to internal disagreements about the
way forward. Moreover, news that Otpor! may have received outside
support from U.S. government and non-government sources has
tarnished its image as an independent voice for democracy and
freedom of expression. Be that as it may, even if Otpor! was used -
willingly or not - as an arm of U.S. interests, more telling is the
fact that the masses of Serbians were deeply moved with their
courageous campaign in the face of the Milosevic regime. Using
tactics quite similar to the creativity seen in recent
anti-capitalist mobilizations, Otpor! struck a chord with a public
fed up with the huckstering gambit of Serbia's political parties.
The weakness for Otpor! - much like it was with the Indonesian youth
- was their failure to orient towards building unity with workers
and other allies. Youth proudly sought out workers in the heat of
the battle, but little effort was made beforehand to extend the
reach of Otpor! into the ranks of the working class. This
unnecessary polarization, coupled with the reports of U.S.
involvement, has left Otpor! isolated and incapable of being a
serious threat to the Kostinica government.
Plan Colombia: Building Solidarity in Perilous Circumstances
In contrast to the experiences of Indonesia and Serbia, in Colombia
student organizations are bravely attempting to build solidarity
with workers, peasants, racialized groups and insurgents in what may
be the world's most dangerous conditions. Currently, Colombia holds
the dubious distinction of having the world's highest rate of
assassinations of trade unionists and student activists. In 1999,
half the union leaders assassinated in the world were Colombians.
Since 1987, five presidential candidates have been assassinated, as
have 3,500 opposition activists. In 2000 over 130 student leaders
were killed. The latest reports indicate that 38 student activists
have been killed since early January 2001.
As is the case for Indonesia, the greatest problem facing Colombians
today is not only terrible poverty, but the wealth of resources in
their homeland. Colombia's oil reserves, ideal position for canal
construction, gold, platinum, silver, bauxite, manganese,
radioactive cobalt, zinc, chrome, nickel, copper, exotic wood and
large fishing resources are significant enough to gain attention
from investors the world over. For some, given the global concern
about the finite nature of currently tapped oil reserves, Colombia
represents an oyster in need of imperialist pliers.
Enter Plan Colombia. Touted as a high-financed "war on drugs," it is
a thinly veiled war on the ordinary Colombians who stand in the way
of profitable resources. Altogether, the plan amounts to a $7
billion (U.S.) arsenal for Colombian President Andres Pastrana's
regime to displace peasant farmers from their land, paving the way
to mega-profits for the world's ruling classes.
Seen in its true context, Plan Colombia is nothing more than an
attempt to finish off the havoc that trade liberalization started.
Today Colombia spends 700 per cent more on food imports than ten
years ago - even coffee beans native to the region are imported! The
massive introduction of new imports has driven peasants out of
farming and into the drug trade. The widespread spraying of coca and
heroin poppies involved in the plan has only forced peasants with no
other options to sell their property to large landowners or to find
new areas to grow coca or heroin poppies.
Making matters even worse, well over 8,000 paramilitaries are active
in Colombia engaging in sickeningly brutal attacks on anyone
organizing resistance, while the government does nothing (indeed
many insist, with convincing evidence, that the government is the
puppeteer behind the paramilitaries). Understandably, in such
conditions, guerrilla insurgency has been a feature in Colombia for
many years, and popular militias have fought bitterly to stave off
the aggression of imperialist forces.
The role youth are currently playing in this perilous environment is
nothing short of astounding - they are working to build solidarity
between the local communities under attack and the guerrillas. ANDES
(Andean High School Association), ACEU (Colombian Association of
University Youth), JUCO (Young Communists of Colombia) and OCLAE
(Continental Organization of Caribbean and Latin American Youth) are
groups that have actively fought to bring together the very people
in Colombia the state and paramilitaries are trying to tear apart.
Three days of action have been called for the summer of 2001, all of
which aim to bring together workers, youth, peasants and guerrillas
desperate to beat back Plan Colombia.
In late November, 2001, the OCLAE general secretariat meeting is to
be held in Colombia. The meeting will be followed by a field trip to
a guerrilla zone, to live and hold dialogue with guerrillas for
approximately a week. This activity is typical of the work already
underway by ANDES, JUCO, OCLAE and to a lesser extent ACEU. There is
a real push among student militants to organize national and
international forums, "colluqs," to build solidarity with guerrilla
groups, particularly the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of
Colombia). This is doubtless the reason they have been targeted by
paramilitaries and death squads. In the bravest of circumstances,
Colombian youth are providing a lead for their counterparts
elsewhere.
North America and Europe: Youth on the Move
The events of Seattle were an appropriate beginning to a new century
where an exciting optimism is taking hold. After Seattle, North
America and Europe were alive and well with the exuberant spirit of
anti-capitalist politics on the campuses. The internationalism
witnessed in student protest in Europe and North America are
providing a means to break down old divisions. On September 26, 2000
in Prague, Macedonians marched with Greeks, Basques with Spaniards,
Poles with Russians. On April 20 and 21, 2001, in Quebec City,
French and English militants united to tear down security
barricades.
There were important campaigns that set the stage for the onset of
today's anti-capitalist mood. By the mid-nineties, U.S. student
activism woke up over the issue of sweatshop labour. Youth were
shocked to learn of the conditions in which their school's garments
were being produced, they rejected the notion that their only
recourse against the brutality of sweatshops was individual consumer
power. They began to realize that, if they mobilized and united with
workers' organizations both North and South, other tactics were
possible. By July of 1998, activists from over 30 different schools
came together in New York to establish an organization that would
help co-ordinate anti-sweatshop campaigns from campus to campus: the
United Students Against Sweatshops was born.
Of course, the USAS movement would not be the only campaign to move
youth into action in the West. The international movement to save
imprisoned Black Panther Mumia Abu-Jamal from state execution was an
important pole of international solidarity. Ralph Nader's campaign
during the recent U.S. presidential elections provided a voice for
thousands of youth politicized in anti-capitalist activity. In
Canada and Quebec, youth figured in city-wide strikes and mass
protests against cuts to social programs. Over 100,000 participated
in a national day of students in 1995, and Quebec was rocked with a
tremendous student strike in 1996 (one of several in recent
history). In Europe, the anti-nuclear movement has seen sizeable
youth involvement, along with campaigns against genetically modified
organisms and soaring tuition fees. May Day of 2001 was as raucous
an affair as ever, with thousands of youth celebrating the
traditional workers' holiday in diverse fashion in Europe and
elsewhere.
After September 11, 2001: What next?
After the events of September 11, we face an anxious question: what
does the future hold for anti-capitalism? Young radicals who had
proudly used tactics of confrontation were thrust into a frightening
milieu of patriotic jingoism. A predictably sweeping definition of
"terrorism" intensif

 top

Is There An Alternative to Capitalism?

Rough transcript of a talk given by Paul Burrows (of Mondragσn Bookstore &
Coffee House) as part of the SMAC forum on “Alternatives to Capitalism”
(Wednesday, April 11th, 2001)

“Is there an alternative to capitalism?” The short answer to the question is
"yes." (Can we call it a night and hit the pub?!?) In fact, there are many
alternatives –– though not all of these are necessarily or equally desirable.
I suspect the room is full of Marxists, anarchists, Wobblies, greens, and
assorted rare strains of retro-socialists (whatever the fuck that means, I
just made it up), and so telling people that there are alternatives to
capitalism, telling people that competition/ exploitation/ imperialism/
ecological destruction/ and hierarchy are NOT inevitable, is at best
redundant, at worst insulting. At least for this crowd.

But beyond this general Left understanding that capitalism is inherently
unjust, and beyond this general hope and insistence that the alternative must
be some kind of socialism, some kind of worker-run society, some kind of real
(rather than bourgeois) democracy –– meaning, a democracy which extends to the
economic realm, not just the political realm –– beyond a quite passionate
belief in these compelling (but somewhat vague) principles, the Left, frankly,
doesn't know what it's talking about. Worse still, when it talks, it's usually
talking to itself. (Like I'm probably doing right now.) And worse STILL, it
often just talks…and talks…and talks –– as if the incessant turning of the
"forces of capitalist production" in and of itself, relieves us of the burden
of action.

Now, before anyone gets too upset and reaches for their ice-pick, let me just
say that I don't exempt myself from these criticisms. For starters, I enjoy
talking and debating politics as much as anyone. Don’t get me wrong; I think
talking is part of the process of self-education. I think theory can be a
guide to action. The problem arises when talking and theorizing becomes a
substitute for action. Younger activists are always saying “talk minus action
equals zero.” They’re right. There’s nothing to debate about that. But I do
think that we need to be less defensive, more honest and open to
self-criticism. What do I mean "the Left doesn't know what it's talking
about"? I certainly don't mean that Left values are bad, or that the abolition
of the market and its replacement by democratic planning is naοve. But I do
think that the Left is often incoherent, stupidly dogmatic, and almost
unintelligible to ordinary people. I don’t think, in practice, that we convey
effectively our vision of a desirable future, nor do we convey a strategy for
achieving it that seems … well, achievable. I don't think most self-described
socialists (Marxist or otherwise) could tell you, in straight, ordinary
language (and that's the key) what a market economy IS, what the essential
institutions and features and dynamics of capitalism are, and how a worker-run
economy might differ, be more fair, and still deliver the goods. I don't think
most self-described anarchists could tell you that either, or for that matter,
tell you about the essential institutions and function of the State, and more
importantly, how a non-hierarchical polity might differ from a capitalist or
State-socialist one.

That's pretty remarkable, if it's true. We're fighting against something but
we're only good at describing its symptoms. We're fighting for something but
it seems too far away to get bogged down with the details, so we fall back on
19th century slogans or vague notions of collective production and the "common
good." What we DO express is often internal to the movement (confined to our
own venues and media), or in a language and style that smacks of judgment and
elitism (no pun intended). When we're actually intelligible (and this is NOT a
given), we're not necessarily saying anything relevant. And finally, the
institutions, political parties, alternative businesses, and movements that we
do create, often replicate the hierarchies, divisions of labour, and
decision-making structures of both capitalism and patriarchy. In my opinion,
it's no wonder the socialist Left is marginal! We can't blame our entire
isolation on the sheer magnitude and power of global capital, on the
"persuasiveness" of its guns and propaganda, or worse, on the so-called "false
consciousness" of the so-called "masses." There is a good deal that the Left
has to own up to –– that is, if it actually wants to inspire, and motivate,
and grow…and win for Christsake! (I'm not convinced that a lot of Leftists
really want to win, that they don't prefer marginality, because marginality is
somehow by definition more "pure" than the mainstream. In my opinion, this is
nonsense; "purity as pathology." The Left should be ecstatic about its values
and goals becoming mainstream; it means a revolution is brewing!)

I'm not up here to outline and argue for my particular pet alternative to
capitalism. For those who need to define their allies and enemies according to
tidy labels, my own allegiances are well-known. I favour a "participatory
economic" vision influenced by the libertarian Marxist, anarchist, and
syndicalist traditions. But I think it would be redundant, a waste of
everyone's time to stand up here and regurgitate yet another stand-alone
variant of socialism. (Anyone who wants to can go read Albert & Hahnel's books
for themselves, which outline the participatory economic, or parecon, model in
depth, better than I could ever relay it. I highly recommend them; and
incidentally, they influenced the internal structure of Mondragσn's own
workers' collective.)

Nor am I up here to say that anarchism is better than Marxism, or
decentralization is better than central planning, or the State will never
wither away –– it can only be smashed! –– and I'm not going to talk about who
screwed over who in what revolution. In my opinion, these are irrelevant,
hair-splitting debates –– carried on for the last 150 years since Marx and
Bakunin flexed their considerable egos in the First International. They have
about as much relevance to the public as two churches fighting over the number
of angels dancing on the head of a pin. Don't get me wrong. It's NOT that
there's nothing of substance to talk about, or that it's intellectually
uninteresting. But I think that these kinds of debates are red herrings –– the
same way that the debate about cutting taxes is a red herring. "To tax or not
to tax?" The taxpayers' association (and every major political party) are
happy to have the public debate that for eternity –– precisely because it's
the wrong fucking question! The real question has always been one of
decision-making: "Who decides what the tax criteria are, who sets the budgets,
how is public money allocated, who benefits?"

The Left seems content to swim in a sea of red herrings, forever asking the
wrong questions, forever dredging up century-old debates, forever letting
personality conflicts and egos divide them from potential allies, forever
letting ideological allegiances and dogma keep them from recognizing good
ideas and changing. For ALL these reasons, I don't even want to talk about
participatory economics as an alternative to capitalism. Maybe that's a cop
out. But ultimately, if our goal is to build a broad-based anti-capitalist
movement, I think it would be (at best) politically irrelevant to insist that
my brand of socialism or anarchism is better than all the others,
all-the-while laughing at the silly "utopianism" of other models (which is
what the Marxists do to the anarchists), or expressing indignation over the
other camp's authoritarianism (which is what the anarchists do to the
Marxists). There's no respect in that, there's no dialogue, there's no hope
for new strategy, or growth as a movement, nobody actually gives a shit about
the Marxist-anarchist "split" (viewing it something like the Monty Python joke
about the "People's Front of Judea" –– you know, how it’s crucially different
from the “Judean People’s Front.”). Let's face it, the way this “debate” has
unfolded, and in many ways continues to unfold, is no threat to the ruling
class.

So where does this leave us? What are better questions to ask, better debates
to have, if we want to build an anti-capitalist movement? Let me borrow from
Robin Hahnel: "Would it be sectarian to let differences over economic vision
divide us, or are there important differences over economic program and
strategy today that logically derive from different ideas about where we want
to go?" Think about THAT. How do our different visions of a non-capitalist
future affect the strategies we adopt today, and vice versa? How do our
organizational forms and strategies today affect the people involved, the
content of our media, the direction we want to take, and so on? Another
question to consider: "What if differences over long-term vision are also
differences over what is wrong with capitalism?" Or: "What if different
economic and socialist visions are really differences over what is fair and
how people should work together?" Or: "What if different visions are also
differences over who –– besides capitalists –– constitutes the enemy, and who
are friends?" And finally: What if the privileges we enjoy today lead us
(without even being aware) to obscure class and structural problems in the
alternative models we propose, create, and work within?

I think that if we want to build a popular movement, and create an alternative
to capitalism, we need to start by asking such questions, and by articulating
them in a language that's real. (Not many people are interested in the
subtleties of the "dialectical relationship between base and superstructure."
Get real!) From an organizing perspective alone, we need to recognize that the
language we use, the mannerisms, style, and tone we adopt, is at least as
important as the substance of our message. We need to have a little humility
–– we need to be a little less attached to our conclusions, a little more
questioning of our assumptions, a little less quick with our judgements and
dismissals. Instead of saying everyone else isn't revolutionary enough (while
we sit on our ass waiting for the Revolution; "pure" but alone), we need to
look in the bloody mirror. We need to ask ourselves "What are we really doing
to create a welcoming movement, a culture of resistance; what are we really
doing to foster solidarity; when was the last time I reached out to someone
who didn't already share my politics; when was the last time I actually had an
impact on someone?"

Instead of saying "those young anarchists don't know how to build
institutions" (and then calling them "reformist" or "parochial" or "bourgeois"
when they do), the Old Left needs to recognize that all the same criticisms
apply equally to themselves. In addition to saying “talk minus action equals
zero,” younger activists need to simultaneously pay more attention to history,
theory, and the experiences of veteran activists. Talk minus action is zero,
but it’s also true that action minus well-thought-out ideas and principles can
be less than zero. It can be damaging to individual people, and it can hinder
the growth of a radical movement. Ultimately, we need to be less concerned
about the alleged failings and ignorance of others, and more concerned about
our own political relevance. The entire Left, progressive, activist community
(young and old, socialist or not) needs to build or expand upon its own
institutions, and more importantly, the alternatives we create must embody the
values we profess to hold.

Instead of saying "Anything short of complete 'Revolution' is reformist" (and
then going home to watch TV), we need to recognize that no revolution begins
with the overthrow of the State. The dismantling or seizure of the State is
usually a reflection of a deep revolution already occurring at the grassroots,
community and workplace level. The Spanish Revolution of 1936-39 didn't just
happen because the Spanish were more "radical" or "committed" than we are. It
was the culmination of almost 70 years of organizing, making mistakes,
building a popular base. Pre-existing structures and worker organizations made
possible a workers' takeover of much of the Spanish economy (especially in
Catalonia). Participation in radical unions, factory committees, and
collectives for decades, enabled Spanish workers to develop knowledge of their
enterprises, a sense of their own competence, and gave them direct experience
with collective organizational principles.

The struggle of the Spanish anarchists and communists offers many lessons ––
not the least of which is that revolution is a long-term agenda. Younger
activists especially need to take this seriously, because they tend to think
that militancy alone (regardless of popular support) will bring about a fast
demise of capitalism. Unrealistic expectations are a fast road to burnout and
despair. At the same time, however, observing that the state-capitalist system
is powerful, and believing that revolution is a long-term agenda, is not an
excuse to stuff our nests, or avoid direct action. As Gramsci pointed out we
need to maintain an optimism of will, even if we have a pessimism of mind. In
other words, we need to strike a balance between hope and reality –– something
that is absolutely necessary, if our efforts are to be sustained beyond
youthful idealism into the rest of our lives.

We need to think hard about the meaning of solidarity. Solidarity is NOT about
supporting those who share your precise politics. It's about supporting those
who struggle against injustice –– even if their assumptions, methods,
politics, and goals differ from our own. Any anarchist who says they won't
support Cuban solidarity efforts, or could care less about the U.S. embargo,
because the Cuban revolution is "Statist" and "authoritarian," is in my
opinion, full of shit. (But this doesn't imply that we should turn a blind eye
to human rights violations in Cuba, just because they're relatively
non-existent compared to the rest of Latin America (or Canada for that
matter). It doesn't imply that we should refrain from criticism of Cuba's
economic system from a socialist and working-class perspective, simply because
we're worried about the declining number of post-capitalist experiments to
support.)

The point is that criticism should come from WITHIN a framework of solidarity,
not outside it –– and this applies as much to the local context, as it does to
the global. Any activist who says they can't support indigenous struggles for
hunting and fishing rights, or they can't support striking hog plant workers,
because of animal liberation is full of shit. (But this doesn't negate for one
second the compelling moral imperative of animal liberation.) Any
environmentalist who doesn't buy their paper from Humboldt's Legacy, because
some of its prices actually include social and ecological costs, or because
the store's not registered as a non-profit, is full of shit. Any activist
who doesn’t buy their groceries from Neechi foods, or Organic Planet, or some
other place which is committed to community economic development on principle,
because Safeway is “unionized” or the Megastore has “X” … is full of shit. Any
Marxist who doesn’t buy their books … right here at Mondragσn, because the
chain stores are more convenient, or they found a better discount at Chapters,
or they think anarchists are "petty-bourgeois," is likewise…full of shit.

I'm not saying this stuff just to be provocative, or to make anyone feel bad.
I think people should be motivated to act by their positive convictions, not
their sense of guilt. Solidarity is about putting your money where your mouth
is. It’s meaningless if it’s simply theoretical. It has to be put into
practice, it has to be lived. I struggle with the need to overcome my own
blinders and personal grievances all the time. It takes serious effort to make
connections with people from diverse groups, and different generations, to
disagree in a respectful fashion, and to support other struggles without
compromising one's own principles. Solidarity is about transcending divisions
despite our political differences, and despite the inevitable personality
conflicts –– it's about transcending our divisions out of empathy and a sense
of shared struggle. If we can't do this in Winnipeg, we sure as hell can't
take on the world-capitalist system. That's just a fact.

Having said all this, I don't want to leave people with the impression that
the state of activism in Winnipeg is terrible, that everyone hates everyone,
or that back-stabbing is more prevalent than solidarity. (I’m not even saying
its prevalent.) I think we have our problems like every other community. We’ve
got our share of ideologues, purists, missionaries, and so on –– you know, the
kinds of people you don’t want to hang out with because their favourite
activity is judgment. But we’ve also made a lot of progress in the last five
or six years in terms of building broader movements and alliances. (I think
the work being done by a rang

top

 MANIFESTO TO BE READ AT TODAY'S DEMONSTRATION



· Europe / E. Espanol / Catalunya ( 16, 2002)
· Europe / E. Espanol / Catalunya / Barcel ( 16, 2002)

Europe / E. Espanol / Catalunya / Barcel:
MANIFESTO TO BE READ AT TODAY'S DEMONSTRATION
_POSTEDON 2002-03-16 08:52:05 per Campanya contra
L Europa del Capital


Campanya contra L Eu writes "This is manifesto will be read
at today's demonstration, 16th of March, at 6:00 p.m. by the
Campaign against the Corporate Europe.

Barcelona is a city occupied by the fake smiles of high-level
politicians. Protected in their steel and glass fortresses,
their impunity is assured.
Thousands of beings, fabricated in the laboratories of
repression prevent them from hearing our cries. But the world
is too small these days, history has spoken and has said that
things will change.

The decisions made in their summit will not stop the state and
life in general becoming more precarious. They will not stop
the huge exodus from rural areas, provoked by the business of
junk-food. They will not stop the process of enslaving
immigrants. The rivers' will continue drying up and the
sources of life vanishing. Women will continue carrying the
burden of poverty and violence on their shoulders. The Europe
of the people and their right to local rule will continue to
be only a dream.

But all this is okay because big business will work-out. The
GDP will grow for the benefit of the rich. While at the of the
year, we will ask ourselves, guiltily, what has Europe done to
save the lives of the 80 million children, women and men that
lost them this year due to the misery spread by the growth of
wealth.

We don't want to form a part of the business and for this we
say 'no' to capitalist Europe.
We denounce the lack of responsability and hypocrisy in the
political world.
We denounce the manipulation of people and the forces that
create collective brainwashing.
We denounce the values of neoliberalism; we don't want a world
built upon egotism, the hunger for wealth, exploitation and
violence.
We denounce the blocking of national borders, of the control
and restriction of fundamental rights that have
indiscriminately impeded the participation of many colleagues
of these movements.

We accuse them of manipulating democracy; we reject the ilegal
detension of activists and demand
their inmediate release.

we accuse them of manipulating justice, we accuse them of
manipulating the truth.

And, we accuse them of criminalising the freedom to oppose.

We call the people to overcome the attitudes that immobilise
them. We call them to take to the streets and speak out.

We are millions .... and this is not their planet.

Against a capitalist Europe and against war.

Another world is possible!
"

Entrada



top
 

  Food Not Bombs Recipes
 

Cooking for large numbers of people can be very intimidating. It is very
different to cook a dinner for six at home than for several hundred on the
street. But don't be overwhelmed. It can be done; and with the right equipment
and a few skills, it can be easier and more fun than you might think.
Equipment
The first task is getting together a few people who are willing to help with the
food preparation, transportation, and serving. This is not a job to be done
alone. The second task is the acquisition of the proper equipment. Most people
don't have 5 or 10 gallon pots or extra large mixing bowls in their kitchen.
However, most churches do, as do many community centers, food service programs,
and restaurants. Sometimes, one or more of these organizations will allow you to
borrow their equipment; other times, you might have to buy it. Used restaurant
equipment stores, going-out-of-business auctions, and rummage/yard sales are
excellent places to obtain the necessary tools.
In general, equipment you will need which you will not find in your average
kitchen includes:
2-3 very large pots
2-3 large cast iron skillets (or woks)
several large bowls for mixing and serving
large kitchen spoons and ladles
2-3 large vegetable knives for chopping
a couple of cutting boards
a number of plastic containers with lids of various sizes for storage,
transportation, and serving of food
a bread box with lid and attached pair of tongs for self-serve
a coffee urn with spout for serving liquids
a large ice chest for keeping certain perishables cold on hot days (such as
margarine, fruit salad, etc.)
a propane stove
a portable table or two
a Food Not Bombs banner
personal eating utensils (i.e., plate, bowl, cup, spoon, fork, napkin).
This last item is an ongoing debate around environmental appropriateness. New
groups will usually start off using paper plates and hot cups and plastic spoons
and forks. However, there is a good deal of concern about the waste involved
with this method. Using paper products made from post-consumer recycled paper,
avoiding styrofoam, collecting used plasticware for recycling, and encouraging
people to reuse their cups, plates, and plasticware addresses some of the
concerns around excessive waste and the consume-and-throwaway mentality. Some
Food Not Bombs groups have addressed the problem by collecting large numbers of
durable plastic plates and bowls and metal flatware from flea markets and yard
sales at very low prices. They are cheap enough that if you lose a few at each
event, it is not much of an economic loss. However, they will need to be washed
after each meal in a sanitary way, which is additional work. At some events, it
is possible to request that people bring their own plate, cup, utensil, and
cloth napkin. While there is no perfect solution to feeding large numbers of
people without creating paper and plastic waste, whatever you can do to cut down
on the volume is an opportunity to educate the public about the need to reduce,
reuse, and recycle.
Portable tables are another story. The folding tables you can buy at the
hardware store are usually not sturdy enough to hold large quantities of food. A
very portable table which is also sturdy consists of a plain, hollow-core
interior door (without the door knob) and a pair of sawhorses made from a metal
joiner and 2 X 4s. The door and the material for the saw horses can all be
bought at a hardware store or lumber shop for under $15. The hollow-core door is
very light and there are types of joiners which allow the sawhorse legs to be
assembled and disassembled easily, for easy transportation.
The recipes used can be from this book, another cookbook, a family tradition, or
made up experimentally on the spot. In general, strive to make food that is as
good tasting as you can. It is as important to respect the dignity of the people
we serve as it is to give them nutrition.
Tips On Cooking for Large Numbers of People
Generally speaking, cooking for 100 is not much different from cooking for 10,
except the quantities are 10 times greater. However, for a few things this is
not true. Spices and salt, in particular, should not just be multiplied when
increasing the quantity of a recipe. Much less is needed in most dishes; let
your taste buds be your guide. The same is true for the amount of preparation
time each dish requires. The larger the volume, the more efficient each task can
be done so the overall prep time is reduced. In fact, when a particular
ingredient is in several dishes on the menu, it is desirable to prep enough of
this ingredient for all the dishes at the same time. Sometimes, this can be done
for events over a couple of days, depending on your available storage space and
labor.
Always strive to be on time to every event where you serve food. Sometimes this
is difficult or impossible. When time is short, you can do the prep work for
easy, quick dishes in advance and do the actual prep and cooking on-site for the
longer, more complex dishes.
Soup is one dish which lends itself easily to cooking on site. Upon arrival, set
a pot of water to boiling. While it is heating, start chopping and adding
vegetables. Once the vegetables start to soften, remove half and serve. With the
remaining half, add more water and vegetables and keep cooking. This can go on
indefinitely to become a never ending pot of soup.
This same concept can be used in a kitchen setting when there is a short amount
of time to cook a large amount of soup or when the stove is too small for
several large soup pots. Follow the normal recipe for vegetable soup. When the
vegetables have been added and the broth just begins to boil, drain off most of
the broth and save in another container. Add more vegetables and a small amount
of water to the pot and continue cooking. This pot should now contain enough
vegetables and spices for two (or more) soups and little broth. When the
vegetables are cooked, mix the broth and stock together again in several
containers and transport to the serving site. This should make two (or more)
pots of soup using only one pot and only a little more time.
Shopping
Generally, try to obtain all the food you use through recovery or donations.
However, not all the ingredients for every recipe can be obtained in this way.
In particular, cooking oils, spices, and dry goods are often difficult to come
by. Therefore, some shopping will probably be necessary. Even though it might
cost a little more, shop at your local coop or health food store, buy
organically grown food when possible, and avoid packaging as much as possible.
Bring your own containers.
In the long run, try to shop as little as possible. Identify your regular food
needs and study the food industry for places where waste is created; go to these
places and arrange to recover it or to have it donated. There is no end to the
number of programs you can support with free food if you can successfully learn
this process. The vision of Food Not Bombs is that of abundance, not scarcity.
Food Handling and Storage
There are health and safety concerns related to food handling and storage. Try
to keep the length of time handling or storing food as short as possible. If you
do not handle any animal products and if the length of time between food pickup
and delivery is a matter of hours rather than days, there is almost no danger.
Keep the food in a cool, dry place out of the sun. Wash your hands when handling
food and always wash the vegetables before cooking with them. If you are out in
the field, this can be accomplished by having a 5 gallon bucket of water into
which you dip and scrub them before using. And obviously, anybody who has a cold
or the flu should not be preparing or serving food at any time.
After events, there is sometimes food left over. Try to donate this to a smaller
neighborhood shelter or group home rather than try to find ways to store and
refrigerate it. In general, stored food is less nutritional and more susceptible
to spoilage. It also requires additional energy to keep it refrigerated or
frozen. Meanwhile, the food industry continues to produce more surplus every
day. If you have no one to feed your prepared food to, divide it up amongst the
volunteers and take it home.
Recipes
Simple Recipes: Bread and Pastries, Raw Vegetables, Steamed Vegetables, Tomato
Sauce, Rice and Beans, Fruit Salad
Breakfast: Oatmeal, Granola, Scrambled Tofu, Homefries
Lunch and Dinner: Tofu Sandwich Spread, Rice and Beans, Tomato Sauce with
Vegetables, Trident Sub, Hummus, Macaroni and Cheeseless, Cauliflower Curry,
Brown Rice, Potate-Pea Curry, Tofu-Spinach Lasagna
Salads: Tossed Salad, Carrot-Raisin Sald, Coleslaw
Salad Dressings: Traditional Oil-and-Vinegar Dressing, Tahini-Lemon Dressing,
Tofu Dill Dip
Soups: Miso Soup, Yellow-Pea Soup, Vegetable Soup, Potato Soup
Desserts: Fruit Salad, Apple-Pear Crisp


top

Krishnamurti On War

Text from The First and Last Freedom

"War is the spectacular and bloody projection of our everyday life, is it
not? War is merely an outward expression of our inward state, an
enlargement of our daily action. It is more spectacular, more bloody, more
destructive, but it is the collective result of our individual activities.
Therefore, you and I are responsible for war and what can we do to stop
it? Obviously the ever-impending war cannot be stopped by you and me,
because it is already in movement; it is already taking place, though at
present chiefly on the psychological level. As it is already in movement,
it cannot be stopped - the issues are too many, too great, and are already
committed. But you and I, seeing that the house is on fire, can understand
the causes of that fire, can go away from it and build in a new place with
different materials that are not combustible, that will not produce other
wars. That is all that we can do. You and I can see what creates wars, and
if we are interested in stopping wars, then we can begin to transform
ourselves, who are the causes of war.
"An American lady came to see me a couple of years ago, during the war.
She said she had lost her son in Italy and that she had another son aged
sixteen whom she wanted to save; so we talked the thing over. I suggested
to her that to save her son she had to cease to be an American; she had to
cease to be greedy, cease piling up wealth, seeking power, domination, and
be morally simple - not merely simple in clothes, in outward things, but
simple in her thoughts and feelings, in her relationships. She said, "That
is too much.
"You are asking far too much. I cannot do it, because circumstances are
too powerful for me to alter". Therefore she was responsible for the
destruction of her son.
"Circumstances can be controlled by us, because we have created the
circumstances. Society is the product of relationship, of yours and mine
together. If we change in our relationship, society changes; merely to
rely on legislation, on compulsion, for the transformation of outward
society, while remaining inwardly corrupt, while continuing inwardly to
seek power, position, domination, is to destroy the outward, however
carefully and scientifically built. That which is inward is always
overcoming the outward. What causes war - religious, political or
economic? Obviously belief, either in nationalism, in an ideology, or in a
particular dogma. If we had no belief but goodwill, love and consideration
between us, then there would be no wars. But we are fed on beliefs, ideas
and dogmas and therefore we breed discontent. The present crisis is of an
exceptional nature and we as human beings must either pursue the path of
constant conflict and continuous wars, which are the result of our
everyday action, or else see the causes of war and turn our back upon
them.
"Obviously what causes war is the desire for power, position, prestige,
money; also the disease called nationalism, the worship of a flag; and the
disease of organized religion, the worship of a dogma. All these are the
causes of war; if you as an individual belong to any of the organized
religions, if you are greedy for power, if you are envious, you are bound
to produce a society which will result in destruction. So again it depends
upon you and not on the leaders - not on so-called statesmen and all the
rest of them. It depends upon you and me but we do not seem to realize
that. If once we really felt the responsibility of our own actions, how
quickly we could bring to an end all these wars, this appalling misery!
But you see, we are indifferent. We have three meals a day, we have our
jobs, we have our bank accounts, big or little, and we say, "For God's
sake, don't disturb us, leave us alone". The higher up we are, the more we
want security, permanency, tranquillity, the more we want to be left
alone, to maintain things fixed as they are; but they cannot be maintained
as they are, because there is nothing to maintain. Everything is
disintegrating. We do not want to face these things, we do not want to
face the fact that you and I are responsible for wars. You and I may talk
about peace, have conferences, sit round a table and discuss, but
inwardly, psychologically, we want power, posit1on, we are motivated by
greed. We intrigue, we are nationalistic, we are bound by beliefs, by
dogmas, for which we are willing to die and destroy each other. Do you
think such men, you and I, can have peace in the world? To have peace, we
must be peaceful; to live peacefully means not to create antagonism. Peace
is not an ideal. To me, an ideal is merely an escape, an avoidance of what
is, a contradiction of what is. An ideal prevents direct action upon what
is. To have peace, we will have to love, we will have to begin not to live
an ideal life but to see things as they are and act upon them, transform
them. As long as each one of us is seeking psychological security, the
physiological security we need - food, clothing and shelter - is
destroyed. We are seeking psychological security, which does not exist;
and we seek it, if we can, through power, through position, through
titles, names - all of which is destroying physical security. This is an
obvious fact, if you look at it.
"To bring about peace in the world, to stop all wars, there must be a
revolution in the individual, in you and me. Economic revolution without
this inward revolution is meaningless, for hunger is the result of the
maladjustment of economic conditions produced by our psychological states
- greed, envy, ill will and possessiveness. To put an end to sorrow, to
hunger, to war, there must be a psychological revolution and few of us are
willing to face that. We will discuss peace, plan legislation, create new
leagues, the United Nations and so on and on; but we will not win peace
because we will not give up our position, our authority, our money, our
properties, our stupid lives. To rely on others is utterly futile; others
cannot bring us peace. No leader is going to give us peace, no government,
no army, no country. What will bring peace is inward transformation which
will lead to outward action. Inward transformation is not isolation, is
not a withdrawal from outward action. On the contrary, there can be right
action only when there is right thinking and there is no right thinking
when there is no self-knowledge. Without knowing yourself, there is no
peace.
"To put an end to outward war, you must begin to put an end to war in
yourself. Some of you will nod your heads and say, "I agree", and go
outside and do exactly the same as you have been doing for the last ten or
twenty years. Your agreement is merely verbal and has no significance, for
the world's miseries and wars are not going to be stopped by your casual
assent. They will be stopped only when you realize the danger, when you
realize your responsibility, when you do not leave it to somebody else. If
you realize the suffering, if you see the urgency of immediate action and
do not postpone, then you will transform yourself; peace will come only
when you yourself are peaceful, when you yourself are at peace with your
neighbour."




© Copyright 2000 – KFA™; All Rights Reserved Krishnamurti Foundation of
America™.
Founded in 1969 by J. Krishnamurti
Privacy Policy

 top

INDIANS

The last three thousand years before the arrival of Columbus saw the rise of advanced, agriculturally based Indian civilizations, with true urban centers, monumental public works, and ruling classes. Many, like the civilizations of the Mayas in Mesoamerica and the Chacoan peoples in the present-day American Southwest, fell before the Europeans came. But some, including the empires of the Aztecs and Incas and a few towns of the resplendent temple mound-building Mississippians in the U.S. Southeast still existed in 1492.

Alvin M. Josephy, Jr., The Indian Heritage of America (1968); Russell Thornton, American Indian Holocaust and Survival (1987).

Although Native American cultures and societies underwent many changes after the period of initial European and American contact, most tribes retained at least some of the parts of their culture that they considered most important. Government-defined blood quotas aside, within the tribal communities "being Indian" is still defined in cultural terms. Each tribe remains unique, and the definition of tribal identity continues to reflect their diversity.

Jules B. Billiard, ed., The World of the American Indian (1974); Harold E. Driver, Indians of North America (1961).

Such developments in warfare came too late to have any substantial effects, although they played some part in the Indian victories in 1876 at the Rosebud and the Little Bighorn.

Angie Debo, A History of the Indians of the United States (1974); Thomas E. Mails, The Mystic Warriors of the Plains (1972); William C. Sturtevant, gen. ed., Handbook of North American Indians, 20 vols. (1977-).

Throughout the centuries of conflict, both sides had taken the wars to the enemy populace, and the conflicts had exacted a heavy toll among noncombatants. Whites had been particularly effective in exploiting tribal rivalries; indeed, Indian scouts and auxiliaries were often essential in defeating tribes deemed hostile by white governments. In the end, however, military force alone had not destroyed Indian resistance. Only in conjunction with railroad expansion, the destruction of the buffalo, increased numbers of non-Indian settlers, and the determination of successive governments to crush any challenge to their sovereignty had white armies overwhelmed the tribes.

Francis Paul Prucha, The Sword of the Republic: The United States Army on the Frontier, 1783-1846 (1969; reprint, 1977); Robert M. Utley, Frontier Regulars: The United States Army and the Indian, 1866-1891 (1973).